Talk:Achaemenid conquest of the Indus Valley

Rafi U. Samad source
, I have reverted a whole bunch of your edits. I don't believe the Rafi U. Samad book is a reliable source. There are too many dubious statements without any citations'. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

For example,
 * Gandhara was supposedly made up of a "large number of small farming communities". Where did he get that from? From Sanskrit sources, we know that it was a Mahajanapada. It might have some sort of a political system to be clubbed as a mahajanapada? Not just "farming communities"?
 * Darius's "Sindh" (Hindush) was supposedly between the Indus and Jhelum rivers, because "Sindhu" means the Indus. What kind of OR is that? There are numerous Sanskrit sources calling Sindh by the name Sindhu. He is contradicting well-accepted facts. For example, see:
 * Pierfrancesco Callieri, India iii. Relations: Achaemenid Period, Encyclopaedia Iranica, 14 December 2004

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Kautilya3. Maybe you're right about Rafi U. Samad, I'm not sure. Thanks for Pierfrancesco Callieri. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

7th Satrapy
I also find an incredible amount of OR in this article about satrapies and capitals. Gandhara was part of the 7th satrapy, not a satrapy on its own. We have no idea if the satrapy had an all-encompassing name.

Its capital was mostly likely Kapisa; not Taxila, not Pushkalavati. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually Gandhara finds its proper, independent, place in the traditional list of satrapies of the Achaemenids for example. Herodotus seems to diverge in that he only lists two Provinces (just for purpose of taxation??) in his account on tributes, the 20th Province (India), and the 7th Province (Sattagydae, Gandarii, Dadicae, and Aparytae). I tried to reflect that divergence in the article in a paragraph "List of Provinces". पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to keep in mind that web sites are not reliable sources, especially not for history. See:
 * for a full analysis. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To summarise, the 7th province was called Paruparaesanna (as noted in the Babylonian and Elamite versions of the inscription). It means "beyond the Hindu Kush". In Greek, it was called Parapamisadae. All of this was conquered by Alexander when he came around, but Seleucus gave it all up to Chandragupta Maurya, a fact witnessed by an Asokan inscription in Kandahar!
 * The region was bounded by the Indus. Apparently, Darius apparently saw the Indus river as the boundary between Iran and India. So the great majority of Punjab was not included. The region to the south of Gandara till about Multan (but only to the west of Indus) was called Sattagydia/Thattagush. Then Sindhu/Hindush covered the area from Multan to the sea. So, there were no gaps between the 7th province and the 20th province.
 * An interesting question is whether Hindush was also bounded on the east by the Indus. I don't know the answer to that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The_Achaemenid_Empire_at_its_Greatest_Extent.jpg is your point Kautilya3 in deleting the map, with the following edit summary "The maps need to be modified to show the boundary at the Indus river" ? Are you trying to say that Taxila for example was not a part of the Achaemenid Empire??? If so, I am afraid that's another unfounded theory of yours (after your false theory that  Ἰνδός was pronounced Hindos, discussed below under "Greek transliteration", for which you clearly corrupted Mukherjee, something which is hardly acceptable on Wikipedia. You could get blocked for this kind of behaviour). I think most academics consider that Taxila was indeed Achaemenid (because of the ruins of Bhir Mound etc...) and in my understanding, because of this archaeological evidence, they conservatively see Achaemenid territory extending to the Jhelum River, after the conquests of Darius I that is. I attach the map from the [[Achaemenid Empire]] article, from which the one you deleted is derived. Your quote above only refers to Gandhara, probably at the time of Cyrus when "Hidus" was not conquered yet. Please respect the sources, don't currupt them as you've done repeatedly (Mukherjee, DNa inscription ), and everything will be fine... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Pataliputra, over the last few weeks, you have doubled or trebled the size of this article and added a lot of material and images. All the new content is subject to review, just as all edits to Wikipedia are. I have provided my source, an authentic one with in-depth analysis, about five days ago. You haven't said whether you have read it, and harmonised everything else you have read or assumed. Please do that now. And, please provide sources that make contrary claims so that we can evaluate them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The_Achaemenid_Empire_at_its_Greatest_Extent.jpg is your point Kautilya3 in deleting the map, with the following edit summary "The maps need to be modified to show the boundary at the Indus river" ? Are you trying to say that Taxila for example was not a part of the Achaemenid Empire??? If so, I am afraid that's another unfounded theory of yours (after your false theory that  Ἰνδός was pronounced Hindos, discussed below under "Greek transliteration", for which you clearly corrupted Mukherjee, something which is hardly acceptable on Wikipedia. You could get blocked for this kind of behaviour). I think most academics consider that Taxila was indeed Achaemenid (because of the ruins of Bhir Mound etc...) and in my understanding, because of this archaeological evidence, they conservatively see Achaemenid territory extending to the Jhelum River, after the conquests of Darius I that is. I attach the map from the [[Achaemenid Empire]] article, from which the one you deleted is derived. Your quote above only refers to Gandhara, probably at the time of Cyrus when "Hidus" was not conquered yet. Please respect the sources, don't currupt them as you've done repeatedly (Mukherjee, DNa inscription ), and everything will be fine... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Pataliputra, over the last few weeks, you have doubled or trebled the size of this article and added a lot of material and images. All the new content is subject to review, just as all edits to Wikipedia are. I have provided my source, an authentic one with in-depth analysis, about five days ago. You haven't said whether you have read it, and harmonised everything else you have read or assumed. Please do that now. And, please provide sources that make contrary claims so that we can evaluate them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Your source above (Eggermont) is only a discussion limited to the Paropamisadae area, roughly corresponding to Gandhara (p.177), and bordered by the Indus to the east, and in the author's own words "identical" with the 7th district listed by Herodotus (p.177 and 181). There is no discussion of the 20th district of Hidus (ie the Indus valley) conquered by Darius I, hence no attempt to define the general boundaries of the Achaemenid Empire. The sentence mentioning "their easternmost province Gandhara ... opposite to the independent territory of the Taxila" seems to refer to the first conquest of the Achaemenids under Cyrus (who is mentioned in the same breath) and their first naming of the region at that time, before the expansion of Darius I.
 * The question of the occupation of the Taxila region is complex, since the Achaemenids haven't left many undisputable archaeological remains (besides their claims in inscriptions). According to Pierfrancesco Callieri though (Indo-Achaemenid relations), the Achaemenid presence is clearly attested by "aspects of the material culture which are directly associated with the exercise of political power": 1)The diffusion in Taxila of coinage techniques which are widely considered as Achaemenid in character 2)The spread of the Aramaic language (including the development of the Kharoshthi script) to the region of Taxila 3) The presence of characteristic Greco-Persian seals.


 * I guess these are the reasons why many maps show an Achaemenid expansion slightly beyond the Indus in the north, including Taxila, roughly to the area of the Jhelum river (or often much beyond, ). The maps you deleted (attached) are not my own invention: they are just based on the standard maps which have been used in the Achaemenid Empire article (attached in the previous post, sourced in: Brill's New Pauly Historical Atlas of the Ancient World (2010). p. 87 Atlas of the Ancient Near East (2016). pp. 228-229). Similar modern published maps abound:
 * Philip's Atlas of World History (1999)
 * Oxford Atlas of World History p.43 (2002)
 * The Times Atlas of World History, p.79 (1989)
 * Many sources confirm this analysis, or even go significantly beyond:
 * "More probably, Hindu lay east of Gandhara, perhaps as a wedge of territory between it, the Jana-padas of Eastern Punjab, and the deserts of Rajasthan. It thus occupied much of what is now the Panjab province of Pakistan".
 * "Beyond the Indus, in the district between this river and the Jhelum (the ancient Vitasta, Greek Hydaspes), was Takshasila (Greek Taxila). Under Darius I and his first successors the district of Taxila was probably incorporated in the satrapy of Gandhara-Parapamisadae (...) Nevertheless the Jhelum (Hydaspes) was evidently always considered the easternmost boundary of the Persian empire".
 * "Hidus could be the areas of Sindh, or Taxila and West Punjab."
 * Atlas of World Empires (2018)
 * I'm not sure why it would be particularly legitimate to replace them with maps which are strictly following the Indus. And per Callieri above, excluding Taxila from the Achaemenid sphere would be particularly problematic. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for a detailed response. I will make some general remarks and sign off, because I have other things to attend to.

You should not give random web sites as sources for controversial issues. Even museum web sites are no good because they seem to want to tell a story to the public, and don't employ language like "perhaps", "probably", "could be" and so on. Many scholars are not convinced about the evidence at Taxila. For example, Karttunen says:

If the scholars are uncertain, we should also employ uncertain language and avoid story language, like "Darius crossed the Indus" etc. The usage of Aramaic and the Persian coinage don't clinch the issue. They could as well imply trade with Persia, not necessarily a conquest. To claim that Taxila was a part of Hindush is a big stretch, because nobody has claimed Aramaic and Persian coinage were found in Sindh. If the two were part of the same province, one needs to explain why they were found in one part but not the other.

You should also not depend on the other web pages, because as is well-known WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This page is on the Achamenid conquest of the Indus valley. It should provide authentic information about the subject, including its shades of certainty and uncertainty. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

There is also the very real possibility which nobody seems to talk of, viz., that Taxila could have voluntarily submitted to Persia, just like Ambhi submitted to Alexander later. Taxila's prosperity depended on trade with Bactria and the Tarim Basin. So it made sense for Taxila to have good relations with its neighbours. At the same time, Taxila was warring with the far-off Avanti (which seems to have been a trading centre at the other end of the north Indian zone). So, Taxila was by no means a "small farming community". But it knew where its interests lay. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Sindh was "India"
Let me also park here a nice quote, which needs to be remembered:

I also discovered later that it was not "Indoi" but rather "Hindoi". The H sound did not disappear until about 200 AD. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Pataliputra, it is well and good that you have engaged in a fine analysis of Greek transliterations below, but it appears that you have missed the main point of the above post, viz., what is called "India" in the Greek sources of that time is Sindh. I have made numerous corrections to your text now, where you have used "India" without any acknowledgement of this fact. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Gandhara and Sindh.jpg How do we make sense of all this? Mukherjee himself first clearly says that "India" (Ἰνδία) 1) is separate from Gandhara 2) lay on the Indus 3) stretched up to the sea (Arabian sea) 4) had the Thar desert on its east. To me this sounds like a fair description of the Indus valley, probably the middle and lower portions of it. Please note he does not strictly equate that area with modern Sindh, he just says "corresponds largely", which leaves room for a "Greater Sindh" which could indeed correspond to the Indus valley, and to the original meaning of Sindh (Sindhus), and better correspond to his own precise topographical description above. Indeed narrowly equating "India" (Ἰνδία) with modern Sindh seems problematic: 1) the Thar desert is not east of Sindh (it is North/ Northeast), which contradicts Mukherjee's topographical description of the area for "India" (Ἰνδία). 2) A simple map shows how far Gandhara and modern Sindh are spread appart (close to 1000 km...). How do we account for the space in between? Is it all Sattagydia? Or was it unoccupied?... it doesn't make much sense and contradicts standard maps showing the eastern possessions of the Achaemenid Empire. My impression is that "India" (Ἰνδία) was a "larger Sindh", still coherent with Mukherjee's description, which could be more appropriately described as Indus valley for example, or just Indus. The definitions are fuzzy, and here India, of course, means India as the ancients understood it, ie the Indus Valley, so there is no need to try to eradicate any mention of the word "India". Academics don't either. Finally a note on methodology: you cannot modify quotes from sources, as you did for example for the translation of Darius I's Dna inscription, in which you changed "India" to "Sindh" : that's unacceptable on Wikipedia. Please respect quotes and sources as they are.पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a good question. If you follow proper historian sources instead of the primary sources, as you have been doing, you will know the answer. Mukherjee himself describes Hindush as the "lower Indus basin" and does not fix any boundaries. Remember that the modern boundary of Sindh essentially comes from the Maharaja Ranjit Singh's conquests. That is not the ancient boundary. Even at the time of Muhammad bin Qasim, Sindh stretched up to "Kashmir".
 * The idea of Sauvira being the "middle Indus basin" is also quite dubious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I kind of agree actually... I was simply reacting to your introduction of modern Sindh everywhere in the article . In that case we both agree that it is clearly meaningless to link the Achaemenid Hidus with modern Sindh anymore. But linking Hidus to History of Sindh everywhere is also awfully strange . Why don't we simply translate and link Hidus to Indus (its fundamental meaning) when we can, which sometimes will also have to be India (in the ancient Greek and Achaemenid sense) or possibly Sindhu or Sindh in the largest sense, depending on the context and the sources we are relying on? पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am glad we agree on something. There was a historical Sindhu country. We just don't have a good page that talks about it. Sindhu Kingdom could have been it, but it is in bad shape. I think that, for the time being, History of Sindh is adequate, just as we use History of India to refer to ancient India.
 * You used a quote Amelie Kuhrt (Susan Alcock volume) for the DNa inscription, where she translates Hindush as "India". But the source she cites (Kent, 1953, p.138) actually translates it as "Sind". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Greek transliterations
Apparently Darius used Hidūš (𐏃𐎡𐎯𐎢𐏁, H-I-DU-U-Š in Old Persian cuneiform 25th line of the DNa, but apparently sometimes transliterated as hindūš for a reason I don't understand, but possibly in light of the Sanskrit origin of the word) in his inscriptions, and Herodotus used Indos (Nominative: Ἰνδός Indos, genitive: Ἰνδῶν Indoi), which is his general term otherwise used for India. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was spelt that way, but pronounced as Hindush. Likewise, "Indos" was pronounced Hindos. The tick mark in front of "I" denotes the H sound. See Names of India for a full explanation.
 * By the way Hindoi was not India, but rather "Indians". It was a plural form of Hindos. Hinduan was another. Greeks were apparently not comfortable with using the same term for the land and its people. The land was occasionally called Hindikos, but more often Hindike Khore (the "Indian land" or, more accurately, the "Sindhian land"). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought there were two possibilities in Greek for the "tick mark" before a vowel: Ἱ with a forward tick mark does mean there is a /h/ (Rough breathing), but Ἰ with a backward tickmark means there is no /h/ (Smooth breathing, or Psili). It seems it is the second sort we have here in Ἰνδός, hence the pronounciation Indos only, even back to the 5th century BCE as seen in the article Ἰνδός. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We are talking about Greek as spoken in Herodotus's time, not how it is spoken today. You are welcome to dig into the Vox Graeca book cited below and see if you find any such distinctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the distinction appears clearly at the bottom of page 52 of Vox Graeca: "The complementary ┤ (later ʾ) was also introduced to indicate non-aspiration". पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the keyword is "later". The page 52 doesn't say that these distinctions were pesent in Herodotus's time. This is not unusual for us English speakers: we say honest but high (just to pick two random words that occur to me at this moment). No difference in spelling. If you see old English texts, you will find that many of these /h/ sounds were pronounced. Many Indian historians say that there was an aspiratum in Herodotus's time:
 * Logic dictates that there must have been an aspiratum. If it was a borrowed term from Persian, there is no reason why the aspiratum would immediately disappear. Over time, it can, because the language evolves. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The "later" in the sentence from Graeca Vox above only means that the design of the symbol evolved in time, hence the reason it is usually written Ἰνδός, whereas it was written ┤ Ινδός archaically. But the fact that these two are the symbol for Smooth breathing, or Psili ("no /h/") remains entirely. As far as I know, Ἰνδός was or is never pronounced with an /h/, at least for readers of Greek. Have you checked the combinations " Ἰνδός Hindos " or " Ἰνδοῦ Hindoi ", or even the words "Hindos" or "Hindoi" on Google Books? The relevant results are zero. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, Vox Graeca is telling you that in 'pre-Euclidean times', the full letter 'H' was used. There was presumably no Smooth breathing then. I gave you a reliable source that says that Hindos had an aspiratum initially. It got lost later. I don't see Vox Graeca contradicting it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Where is your "reliable source that says that Hindos had an aspiratum initially"? Your quote above from Mukherjee only states that in Greek the sound /h/ was represented by "a sign of aspiration above the first vowel", which is nothing new and doesn't enlighten us. Would you have the full quote? (it's not visible on Google Books) पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Mukherjee probably didn't know that the letter 'H' was written fully in Herodotus's time. We only have manuscripts from later times. As a historian, he assessed the most likely scenario. You are trying to back-project the later evolution of the Classical Greek in post-Euclidean times to Herodotus. That is WP:SYNTHESIS. Shall we call a halt to this pointless debate until you actually find a source that talks about Herodotus's rendering the word? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you actually give me the complete quote (the full sentence) from your "reliable source" please? पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you actually give me the complete quote (the full sentence) from your "reliable source" please? पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is the whole paragraph:

Actually, I realized that even Herotodus's time is not early enough. It was Skylax that brought the Persian term over to Greek, and we don't have any texts from Skylax, let alone manuscripts. Greek was evolving at roughly the same time as these events, and we can't tell exactly when the transition occurred. But we know that the letter 'H' was written fully at that time. There is no way to tell how the Greeks would have pronounced it, except to go by what the historians assess. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quote! As you correctly said above "Mukherjee probably didn't know that the letter 'H' was written fully in Herodotus's time" . Actually, as is clear from your complete quote, Mukherjee never says that the Greeks pronounced the /h/, on the contrary, he says that they "dropped" it from the Persian pronunciation, out of convenience. We now know (as per Vox Graeca) that H actually existed, which was later abbreviated in ├ and then in forward tick (῾) (Rough breathing), so Herodotus actually could have written a /h/ sound anytime, had he wished to. On the contrary, the lack of /h/ was either shown by the absence of any sign, or ┤, or the backward tick (᾿) (Smooth breathing). Transliterations of Herodotus's Indus are always Ἰνδός, with a backward tick (even in Mukherjee's books as a scan shows ), hence no /h/ sound, and is always given as Indos and never as Hindos in the sources. As a conclusion I think we should generally transliterate  Ἰνδός as Indos, as all sources do, and give up the claim that an /h/ was pronounced, a claim which even Mukherjee doesn't make. Is that OK with you? पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Herodotus actually could have written a /h/ sound anytime". How do you conclude that he didn't? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Because there are no such known occurences from Herodotus. As far as I know, all transliterations from his work, including those made by Mukherjee, are reported as Ἰνδός, with a backward tick (Smooth breathing), which is only Indos and properly presented as such. Somebody could fantasize that Herodotus sometimes used a /h/ to make it Hindos and that all such instances conveniently disappeared from history records, but I don't know of any academic making such an improbable claim. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that this is the same kind of argument that the naysayers used to claim that Indians fantasized about having had a zero before 900 AD? The absence of direct evidence doesn't necessarily make something false. You just have to interpret the available evidence correctly.
 * In any case, here is a contemporary source that mentions Hindos rather directly:
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, claiming something in the absence of evidence could be a "theory" or an "hypothesis", and it can be mentioned on Wikipedia as long as it is expressed by a reputable source. Thanks for your link, but I am afraid we cannot use it: the author doesn't explain at all what his supposed hindoi known by the Greeks comes from: no mention of Herodotus, no mention of Ἰνδός, no mention of India, and he is apparently only speaking of "an ancient version of the word" Hindus (of Hinduism). He probably has in mind comparatively recent Greek authors (3rd-4th century CE I would say, such as Philostorgius who used the term in a religious context in Historia ecclesiastica 4.1-4.2a Paragraph 57, 1st line). Shall we put this to rest and make the necessary correction Ἰνδός = Indos in Names for India, and possibly other articles, with proper referencing (including your complete quote from Mukherjee above)? पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently the reason why the Greeks "dropped the h" from the Persian word Hindus is because the Ionian (i.e. easternmost) dialect of Greek does not use aspirated "h" s . Quote: "Professor Morgenstierne writes,  "From the Persians the East Ionians (who dropped their aitches) got the form Indus"" in Greece and Rome. No good sources yet, but this is a lead... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, they didn't drop it from the name "Herodotus".
 * There were dozens of Greek dialects. Some dropped /h/ and some didn't. But because the Ionic dialect and alphabet became the dominant one (which had dropped /h/ "early"), the /h/ got lost in the majority of the words. But the Italian Greeks (Magna Grecia) persisted with /h/ and passed it into the Roman alphabet. If not for them, the whole western civilization would ave been h-less. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There were dozens of Greek dialects. Some dropped /h/ and some didn't. But because the Ionic dialect and alphabet became the dominant one (which had dropped /h/ "early"), the /h/ got lost in the majority of the words. But the Italian Greeks (Magna Grecia) persisted with /h/ and passed it into the Roman alphabet. If not for them, the whole western civilization would ave been h-less. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Coinage section
Pataliputra, After reviewing, I find the section titled Greek and Achaemenid coinage entirely confused.
 * First of all there is a large subsection on Kabul hoard. Since Kabul is not in the Indus valley, I don't see the point of this section.
 * You seem to have completely missed the point of the Schlumburger quote, which is saying that the bent bars were locally minted in Gandhara. Bopearachchi is saying, in addition, that these bent bars were preceded by local coins "of a new kind" (presumably not found elsewhere in the Achaemenid empire). From the sound of it, it seems like Pushkalavati wasn't allowed to mint its own coins. So it switched to bars. Why they were bent, I have no idea. Apparently Gandhara is the only place where these bent bars are found. The rest of India was using punch-marked coins.
 * The Pushkalavati hoard is covered in much more detail in this paper. Contrary to your idea of strong Achaemenid imperial control, all this points to weak imperial control/significant local autonomy, which Bopearachchi clearly acknowledges.
 * I can't find in Elizabeth Errington any of the information you mention. Please provide quotations.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Kautilya...
 * Kabul is clearly part of the same general area as far as the Achaemenid Empire and numismatics are concerned. Numismatic research of the area generally discusses the various hoards from Kabul to the southern Indus valley as a way to understand the monetary situation in this geographical area. (“Coin Production and Circulation in Central Asia and North-West India (Before and after Alexander’s Conquest)”, The Crossroads of Asia etc...). Actually, the Kabul hoard is highly relevant to the history of coinage in the whole of northwestern India.
 * Schlumburger says what he says, and the quote is very clear (I don't dismember critical portions of sentences to push personal theories as you did above in "Greek transliterations").
 * The local coins "of a new kind" were Achaemenid coins minted locally. "In the same hoard there were also discovered two series of local silver coins which appear to be the product of local Achaemenid administration. One series (...) was made in a new way, which relates it to the punch-marked silver coins of India. It appears that it was these local coins, using technology adapted from Greek coins, which provided the prototypes for punch-marked coins made in India." Errington p.57
 * I don't see what you are saying about Pushkalavati.
 * The bent bars start from the Kabul hoard see an image for example.
 * Your sentence "The rest of India was using punch-marked coins" is advocated by some, but denied by others (often numismats or archaeologists, in face of the evidence, such as Schlumberger or Bopearachchi). If I remember well, none of the Indian bents bars are securely dated to before the 4th century, although there are regular hypothetical claims to the 6th-7th centuries. The Kabul hoard, which is dated, gives a secure anchor regarding the early circulation of bent bars in the northwest.
 * I rather do tend to agree that it looks like "weak imperial control/significant local autonomy", but that's conjecture. The only "strong" I am using is in "the strong Achaemenid dynasty then took an interest into the region"...
 * You say "I can't find in Elizabeth Errington any of the information you mention." You should probably rather say "I do not have access to Elizabeth Errington". You make it sound like you searched but did not find the information in the book, whereas the reality is just that you did not read the book in the first place. Elizabeth Errington is the editor, the articles in question are jointly written by Joe Cribb and Osmund Bopearachchi, two of the most prominent authorities on coinage in the area. Here are a few of the quotes, which you can confirm on Goggle Books (although the full pages are not visible there):
 * "The discovery of fifth- and fourth-century BC Greek coins in Afghanistan and Pakistan demonstrates in a tangible way the depth of Greek penetration in the century before Alexander the Great's conquest of the Achaemenid satrapies..." p.57
 * "..coin hoards from Afghanistan show clearly that, through the Achaemenid administration and the commercial life it oversaw, the use of Greek coins had penetrated as far as the Indus." p.57
 * About the Kabul hoard "In the same hoard there were also discovered two series of local silver coins which appear to be the product of local Achaemenid administration. One series (...) was made in a new way, which relates it to the punch-marked silver coins of India. It appears that it was these local coins, using technology adapted from Greek coins, which provided the prototypes for punch-marked coins made in India." p.57
 * "In the territories to the south of the Hindu Kush the punch-marked coins, descendants of the local coins of the Achaemenid administration in the same area, were issued by the Mauryan kings of India for local circulation." p.59
 * पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I've updated the information and the references in the paragraph to include mentions of Bhir Mound, since most of the Archaemenid coins and bent-bar punch-marked coins found in the Kabul Hoard were also found, sometimes in large quantities in the Bhir Mound hoard in Taxila. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For the cup-shaped coin, you have labelled "Achaemenid Empire coin minted in the Kabul Valley. Circa 500-380 BCE" and cited the Errington book pages 57-59 for it. What is the caption that is in the book? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The Errington label for the coin is: "Local silver coin of Kabul region under the Achaemenid Empire, c.350 BC" p.57. The wider date 500-380 BCE is from the CNG website referenced on the coin page . I'll put the CNG reference directly into the caption as well. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How exactly does "local silver coin" become an "Achaemenid Empire coin"? And, "Kabul region" become "Kabul valley"?
 * You have also misrepresented the source by calling it an "Article" whereas it is just a gallery with pithy captions.
 * The coin production article says We have seen that the local coins of the Achaemenid era named “of a new kind” were the precursors of the bent and punch-marked bars. So, they were from the "Achaemenid era". They were not from the "Achaemenid Empire". Those of the Empire were Darics and Siglos, and we know what they look like.
 * The Achaemenids and Mauryans article says The presence of virgin flans and of silver ingots in this hoard is proof that these coins were struck on the spot, i.e. in the ancient town of Pushkalavati (Shaikhan Dehri), an important crossroads of the ancient network of trade. The Pushkalavati coins and perhaps Taxila coins too, would have been used "locally" to trade with the regions that Gandhara needed to trade with. The meaning of "local" is perfectly clear. And it has nothing to do with the Achaemenid Empire. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Kabul Valley" is the term used on the coin site at CNG Coins, but I don't mind using either "Kabul Valley" or "Kabul region". The "local silver coins" are "Achaemenid silver coins" because it is what Errington says: the coins were "the product of local Achaemenid administration" per Errington p.57, or "local coins of the Achaemenid administration" p.59. Cannot be clearer. Now we can phrase it differently of course, we can even use Errington verbatim if you wish, but beware of plagiarism and copyright.
 * Your "just a gallery with pithy captions". Very strange and unwarranted. The book is actually a succession of fairly long articles by reputable authors around various artifacts. The article on the cup-shaped coin just happens to be quite short (the quote I gave you is the title of the article), and includes essentially technical information.
 * The articles I quoted above clearly present these coins as "the product of local Achaemenid administration", "local coins of the Achaemenid administration", so it is very straightforward. Osmund Bopearachchi says essentially the same thing in his Coin production article (p.311), and, remember, he is also joint author with Joe Cribb of the articles quoted above, so the conclusions are his as well.
 * I am not sure what you are saying about Pushkalavati. I guess there were also coins minted locally in Pushkalavati, why not? I don't see how your Pushkalavati comment relates to the above discussion...
 * पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * By what criteria does CNG Coins become a reliable source? If that was your source for the caption, why didn't you cite it? Where did "minted in Kabul Valley" come from? It is quite inexplicable that you continue to argue without recognizing the WP:SYNTHESIS and distortions you have added. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The Coin production article says: the regions to the north of the Hindu Kush did not start striking coins before the last decade of the 4th century bc, that is at least twenty years after the death of Alexander, despite that fact that there was a well developed monetary system in the regions to the south of the Hindu Kush even before the arrival of Alexander.
 * So, this idea of minting in Kabul Valley is contradicted by your own source! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The notices of CNG Coins are referenced from scholarly sources, and their organization is mostly composed of numismats of high standing , but I agree it's better to get to the actual sources themselves, when possible (the attribution of this specific coin is referenced by them from Bopearachchi & Rahman). The Commons page for the coin does give the source for the attribution. The "minted in Kabul Valley" comes from their mention "Uncertain mint in the Kabul Valley." It is also rather confirmed by Errington (p.57) who writes "local silver coin of Kabul valley region". The two references are now used in the caption for the coin in the article.
 * You are misunderstanding your own quote from Coin production. First Kabul is NOT north of the Hindu Kush, it is south of it . So there is zero contradiction. Bopearachchi indeed explains that the monetary system was well developed in the south of the Hindu Kush: your quote is actually his transition sentence to the full chapter on "Coin Production in Northwest India under the Achaemenids" p.309. Again, this cannot be clearer.
 * पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What cannot be clearer? In this paper, the Kabul hoard is discussed quite thoroughly. Is there any mention of anything being minted in Kabul? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, he mentions coins "attributed to Paropamisadae" and in a map published in another paper, he puts the Paropamisadae west of Jalalabad. So, this would include "Kabul valley".
 * But, it is funny that he never mentions that "double weight" (2 siglos) means Satamana for the Indians (100 ratis). So the Gandharans picked a weight that made sense to both the Achaemenians and the Indians.
 * If I google for Satamana there are tons of hits, including this one. Since this is from Taxila, it may be a better image to use than the ones you have uploaded for Kabul. These are fractional weights, but the bent bar is a full satamana. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good. For info, the coins in question, showing the evolution from simple strike to multiple punches (1-13) and increased symbolism, are also listed under the title "Local silver coins of Kabul region under the Achaemenid Empire" in this plate of In Crossroads of Asia p.57, Bopearachchi further specifies that these same local coins discovered in Kabul were "the product of local Achaemenid administration". पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but "local coin" does not necessarily mean locally minted, much less "minted in Kabul valley". It is the fact that he says "attributed to", which settles the issue.
 * I don't see "the product of local Achaemenid administration" bit. Where is that? Nobody knows what kind of Achaemenid administration there was. If it was really Achaemenid, we wouldn't they mint royal Achaemenid sigloi, instead of these crude punched-sheets of metal? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

This is in the Errington article about the Kabul hoard, after discussing the presence of Greek and Achaemenid royal coinage: "In the same hoard there were also discovered two series of local silver coins which appear to be the product of the local Achaemenid administration. One series (no.8) was made in the same way as the Greek coins in the hoard, but with novel designs of local origin, and the other (no.9) had similar local design but made in a new way, which relates it to the silver punch-marked coins of India. It appears that it was these local coins, using technology adapted from Greek coins, which provided the prototypes for punch-marked coins, the earliest coins made in India." (Errington, p. 57). Group No.8 refers to the cup-shaped coins, group no.9 refers to the bent-bar punch-marked coins we have presented in the Kabul hoard article. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Bopearachchi, Marshall et al.
Regarding this revert, we have seen that Enclyclopedia Iranica is not accepting Marshall's conclusions. WP:HISTRS requires historians as sources, and archaeologists and numismats aren't historians. They are rather the WP:PRIMARY sources, whose evidence is considered and evaluated by historians in constructing history, who also use various other sources: literary, political, economic, religious etc. Please remember that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You do not seem to understand that various historians can have various interpretations of one subject. On Wikipedia, the way to do deal with this is by writing something like: "this author says ....., while this one says....". We do not delete one reputable author simply because another said something different somewhere, we present the various reputable views. By the way Osmund Bopearachchi is a numismat and a historian. Anyway, I trust that reputable numismats are valuable sources, especially for articles related to numismatics. They are certainly not Primary Sources. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * People that you call "historians" (as might any man on the street) are not "historians" in the sense of WP:HISTRS. You need to read that page thoroughly to understand what it says. An average journalist might equate Romila Thapar and B. B. Lal and say that they differ in their opinions. But only one of them is a "historian" and the other is an archaelogist.
 * Even if we were to accept Marshall's opinion, filtered via Bopearachchi, we would attribute it as an opinion. And, we would also list the contrary opinions as per WP:NPOV. We can't go around writing "Achamenid city Taxila", "capital of Achaemenid province" etc.
 * Pinging for another opinion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If respect for differing opinions of historians is your real concern, why did you corrupt this statement about Sophytes sourced to the Cambridge History of India without citing anything? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Very happy to describe various opinions as pertaining to specific historians. No problem with that, quite the contrary. For Sophytes, I only added standard modern knowledge that the Sophytes of the coins is generally not considered the same as the Sophytes met by Alexander (see p.96-97 p.127 p.163), whereas you were trying to say that it was the same person. You actually replaced a fairly balanced intro with this single outdated one-sided view that they are the same person (written a hundred years ago (1922) by Rapson, a numismat who died in 1937), despite the various references in the article. I've now developped the intro a bit in order to present properly the two stories, with references.पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 12:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Late to the party, but I would have to agree with Kautilya3 regarding WP:HISTRS and WP:NPOV. Dealing with archaeologists (and numismats) can be tricky, so please be cautious. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

A historian's assessment
From Romila Thapar:

In other words, she doesn't see anything inconsistent with the "coins" starting from the north-west, but it wasn't a totally new idea. Pieces of metal were used as a medium of exchange earlier.

If I understand Panini right, he is saying that rupa becomes rupyam when it is stamped. And, rupa is not a generic word for metal, rather for a formed piece of metal. So, the transition from rupa to rupyam is what the north-west could have engendered.

Moreover, I don't see India producing enough silver of its own. Most of the silver would have been what you call "imported". But you don't "import" precious metal. You would have to give real stuff in exchange. If we extrapolate from what we know from historical times, Indians would have been running "trade surplus" all the time, and the international buyers would have been forced to cough up precious metal in exchange for the goods. Some of the metal would have been rupa and some of it rupyam. So, coins would have been known, even if their significance wasn't fully recognized.

The Greek coins were the majority of the coins in the Kabul hoard as well as Pushkalavati. The Achaemenid component was insignificant, even though it was supposedly the imperial authority. The conclusion is that the Greeks were buying stuff from India and paying for it with precious metal. The 170 talents of gold that the Achaemenids were earning from Paruparaesanna/Gandhara was their share of the tax on this trade.

If we believe that Buddha lived before the time of Darius I, then we learn that Magadha's Bimbisara and Taxila's Pukkusati were warring with Avanti's Pradyota, and Bimbisara and Pukkusati became allies. Now Magadha, Taxila and Avanti are at the three corners of the north Indian economic zone. Why were they bothered about each other? Trade is the only answer. Magadha had a monopoly on the Bay of Bengal trade, Taxila that on the Central Asian trade and Avanti on the Arabian Sea trade. And, Avanti was the stronger of the bunch, i.e., the Arabian Sea trade was more profitable than the others. So the start of the Achaemenid empire under Cyrus the Great already stimulated India's international trade and generated internal rivalries. Silver was flowing into India from three directions and it would have been increasingly used for exchange. The Achaemenids had this impact on India even without occupying anything. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Schaps makes the important point that "money" is distinct from coins (reminiscent of Panini's rupa and rupyam). Ancient Babylonia had money without coinage, and experienced all the phenomena associated with a monetary economy, such as inflation and deflation. There is a lot of study of the Babylonian economy because they left us written records.
 * Vogelsang makes another important point that there were four routes into India from the west. In addition to the Gandhara route, there was one through Bannu, another via Sindh, and finally the sea-route. He cautions against interpreting all western influences as coming via Gandhara. In particular notes, India developed two distinct scripts, Karoshti and Brahmi, only one of which came via Gandhara. We still don't know the antecedants of Brahmi, but it is clear that they weren't the same as those of Karoshti. Money too could have arrived via two routes. International trade is the one most in need of money. Barter is only good for local economy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"We still don't know the antecedants of Brahmi, but it is clear that they weren't the same as those of Karoshti."

The main article on the Brahmi script lists it as a derivative of the Aramaic alphabet. "Most scholars believe that Brahmi was likely derived from or influenced by a Semitic script model, with Aramaic being a leading candidate. However, the issue is not settled due to the lack of direct evidence and unexplained differences between Aramaic, Kharoṣṭhī, and Brahmi. Though Brahmi and the Kharoṣṭhī script share some general features, but the differences between the Kharosthi and Brahmi scripts are "much greater than their similarities," and "the overall differences between the two render a direct linear development connection unlikely", states Richard Salomon." Dimadick (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hidush or Hindush?
Hi It seems you have now decided to change all the transliterations of the Old Persian 𐏃𐎡𐎯𐎢𐏁 from "Hidūš" to "Hindush", and 𐎥𐎭𐎠𐎼 from "Gadâra" to "Gandhara". This is problematic, because Old Persian sources only use "Hidush" or "Hiduya" in their inscriptions, "Hindush" never appears as you can see easily with this lexicon: Old Persian: Dictionary, Glossary and Concordance, or, if you wish, by going to the sources themselves: Titus Livius. So the transliteration of Old Persian cuneiform: 𐏃𐎡𐎯𐎢𐏁 has to be Hidūš (it spells H𐏃-i𐎡-du𐎯-u𐎢-š𐏁), because it is what it is, just as the transliteration of 𐎥𐎭𐎠𐎼, has to be Gadāra (it spells Ga𐎥-da𐎭-a𐎠-ra𐎼), for the same reason. Doing otherwise would mean corrupting the sources, and would be very un-encyclopedic. If still in doubt, you can check the syllabary at Old Persian cuneiform: the script is actually very easy to read. If you're interested, "Hindush" only appears in Elamite or Avestan or Egyptian, but the spelling is always "Hidush" with Old Persian inscriptions, as you can see with this source describing the variations across languages: Lexicon, variations and occurences. So let's keep transliterations exact please, that's really not something we should play with. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopedia Iranica writes the names as Hinduš and Gandāra, which are the forms I am using. When writing without diacritics, I am using Hindush and Gandara, as per Olmstead . (Note that d is not aspirated in both cases.) These are the right level of sources to be used for Wikipedia.
 * How to transliterate the Old Persian inscriptions is not a concern for this page. I expect that all the coverage of those inscriptions will get deleted eventually anyway. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You also seem to be missing the key information that many of these inscriptions are written in multiple languages. They are written differently in these languages, and the scholars discern what was actually meant. Please use reliable WP:SECONDARY sources for interpretation, not transliterations of one inscription or the other. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's fine to use "Hindush" or "Gandara" in the text as many sources do, but when giving the precise transliteration of an Old Persian word we do not have any right to mispell it. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

But what was Hidush after all?
Hi Various sources have various interpretations about what was meant by the Old Persian "Hidush". Most probably, it simply meant "Indus" or "Indus valley", from the Proto-Indo-Iranian síndʰuš meaning "river" and "the Indus". Here it is described as "Sindh, a Province of the Persian Empire on the northern Indus valley" (the opposite of modern Sindh!!) Here it is simply a "region near the Indus". Here it is the "center and lower part of the Indus valley". Here it is "the whole of the Province of Sindh and a considerable portion of the Punjab". Here it is just "Sindh". Here it is "People of the Sindhu, or Indus valley". So only choosing "Sindh" (or Sindhu) as the exclusive way to translate "Hidus" or "Hindus" as you do is very problematic, especially knowing that the modern understanding of Sindh alone doesn't reflect properly the territory held by the Achaemenids (previous discussion above). Overall, in light of the various sources, I think we should either settle for a vague enough term like "Indus valley", or maybe just "Indus" (the most elegant solution in my opinion, since we avoid interpretation), or use a compound integrating the variations of the main scholarly views (like "Indus valley/Sindh", or "Punjab/Indus valley/Sindh"). But using "Sindh" only, definitely is unsatisfactory, misleading, and is a misrepresentation of the various sources. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sindhu in ancient Sanskrit sources means the lower Indus valley. Not the entire "Indus Valley", which goes all the way to Tibet.
 * Eggermont also makes an attempt to define it precisely based on the Greek sources:
 * Eggermont's chapter is the effort to pinpoint the geography of the various regions, and it should be considered authoritative. Once again, the Encyclopedia Iranica accepts this interpretation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Eggermont's chapter is the effort to pinpoint the geography of the various regions, and it should be considered authoritative. Once again, the Encyclopedia Iranica accepts this interpretation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Eggermont's chapter is the effort to pinpoint the geography of the various regions, and it should be considered authoritative. Once again, the Encyclopedia Iranica accepts this interpretation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You are cherry-picking sources, and choosing the ones that suit you while rejecting the others. This is rude to the other editors, and this is not what Wikipedia does: Wikipedia either chooses wording that is broad enough to cover all the main authoritative sources, or presents the various versions according to the sources. You are also misrepresenting Ergermont. He is actually never saying that Achaemenid Hindus is Sindh, he is only explaining what the Sanskrit word Sindhu means: Indus river in the general sense, and sometimes denotes Sind p.145, referring to the Monnier Sanskrit-English dictionary definition: p.1217. When explaining what Hindus actually stands for as a territory, he is not referring to Sindh at all, he just says clearly that it is "the lower Indus valley from the conjunction of the Indus and the Chenab down to the coast-line of the Indus delta", which is not at all equivalent with Sindh p.146. I think we should distinguish two very different things here: on the one hand, there is question of what the word Hindush/Hidush means, and I think all the sources agree that Hindush/Hidush means "Indus" (the river), just as Gadara means Gandhara and Thataguš means Sattagydia. "Indus" is therefore what we should use as a direct translation. On the other hand, there is the territory that Hindush/Hidush covered, and that's a lot trickier because nobody agrees:
 * Definition of the problem:
 * Sources on the territory of the Hindush:
 * According to Egermont it was "the lower Indus valley from the conjunction of the Indus and the Chenab down to the coast-line of the Indus delta" p.146
 * According to Ernst Badian, it was "East and southeast of Gandhara" p.665
 * According to Christon Archer, it was just "the Indus valley" p.34
 * According to Olmstead it was "the Punjab east of the Indus".
 * According to Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi it was "Hindush, i.e., the Indus valley" p.84
 * According to Roland Grubb Kent it was "Sindh, a Province of the Persian Empire on the northern Indus valley" (the opposite of modern Sindh!!) Here
 * According to M. Dandamayev it was the "center and lower part of the Indus valley" Here
 * According to Sailendra Nath Sen, it was "the whole of the Province of Sindh and a considerable portion of the Punjab" Here
 * According to Pierfrancesco Callieri, it was just "Sindh" Here
 * According to Sagar, it was the "People of the Sindhu, or Indus valley" Here

There is no way we can choose one or two interpretations and deem them "authoritative" and consider the rest of academic views as crap. In summary, I believe we should say Hindush 'means "Indus" (the river), but regarding the territory it covers, we should say, in typical Wikipedia fashion, that there are various academic views and describe them with attribution. It is actually an interesting subject and would deserve a few lines in the article. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * (Sorry for the delay in responding. I have gotten rather busy in RL.)
 * I don't accept your "definition" of the problem. There is practically no source that says that Hindush was the "Indus river". Many sources say it was the "Indus valley", i.e., the land, not the river. I think you need retract this claim.
 * The scholars that stop at calling it the "Indus valley" without narrowing it further are being non-committal. Either they aren't interested it narrowing it down or perhaps they think it is not a settled issue. You cannot interpret them as positively asserting that Hindush should necessarily cover the entire Indus valley. (If that is what they meant, there would need to be a further discussion of the issue in the source).
 * WP:CONSENSUS does not mean counting sources. And, you cannot imply placing the same weight on all sources. The Encyclopedia Iranica article is an Encyclopedic article. It is expected to tell us what the current scholarly consensus is! You can't treat it on the same footing as the books written by retired IAS officers (like Sagar). Sagar should be entirely removed from the equation here.
 * You also need to discount old sources, because they would have taken Marshall's testimony at face value, to the effect that there was plenty of Achaemenid presence in Bhir Mound. But that assessment is now thoroughly discredited. Knowledge progresses with time, especially so in contentious issues like this one.
 * Even the scholars who place Hindush at one location or the other admit that there is no way to tell from the Achaemenid sources as to where it was. They also admit that Herodotus implies that it was the lower Indus basin, adjoining the sea. The scholars who firmly place it on the lower Indus basin, especially the Indian scholars, relate it to Indian Sindhu Kingdom, which has countless references in the Indian sources. Eggermont is also relating it to Alexander's later province, which gives him a firm definition.
 * The only sources to be taken seriously among your list is Ernst Badian. The paper is from 1998 and it discusses the issue with enough detail. Yet when we read the text, it clearly comes across as conjectural. Badian dismisses Herodotus' testimony that Hindush was along the sea, and maintains that Maka (satrapy) stretched up to what we know as Sindh. And, therefore, he believes Hindush must have been to the north of it. He believes that Gandara and Hindush must have been next to each other, as inferred from the tribute lists. But other scholars have analysed the tribute lists and concluded that they were based on the distance from the Iranian heartland. On that basis, Gandara and Hindush would necessarily appear together because they were they were the only provinces at comparable distance from capital of the empire. The only ones that were farther out were the Central Asian Sakas. Practially nobody today accepts Maka covering Sindh. Badian himself recognizes that he hasn't made a decisive analysis, old Hindush (wherever it was) (p.680). So, I don't see what we can say based on this source, against clear scholarly consensus.
 * An up to date Indian history text, Upinder Singh, covers it as follows:
 * and
 * So, she is unsure about what Herodotus meant by "India". But she seems certain that Hindush meant the lower Indus valley. I maintain that this is the current scholarly consensus, and this should be our main interpretation. There is no harm in mentioning that other scholars place it up north. But that is clearly a minority view at this point. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. So, how about we simply give the direct translation of "Hindush" as "Indus valley" which is the cognate term and used by almost all sources, and explain that the actual extent of Hindush is uncertain, often considered as the "middle to lower Indus valley", but with some authors placing it further north, to the east or southeast of Gandhara? पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with mentioning the literal meaning of Hindush as "the land of Indus or the Indus valley". But the extent of Hindush is no more uncertain than the extent of the Sindhu Kingdom. The settled civilization of the Sindhu Kingdom was the Sindh. That is always the core area. The rest of it northwards would have been upto the vagaries of the history. The present day Punjab would have been pastoral and tribal at that time. Those tribes fought hard when Alexander invaded. But the Sindhis didn't fight. They knew the rules, viz., once Alexander defeated Darius III, they automatically became his subjects. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See the Fig. 2 of this paper by Parpola for the Indian nomenclature. In his new book, you will find this passage:
 * Scholars that know the Indian literature have long identified Hindush with Indian Sindhu (not the river, the land). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's not do OR and stick with what our sources are saying. I think the following sentence is a fair reflection of what we've seen (I've removed the word "uncertain"): "the actual extent of Hindush is often considered as the "middle to lower Indus valley", but with some authors placing it further north, to the east or southeast of Gandhara" . पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you cannot label this "OR". This is part of WP:NPOV, to examine the sources closely to determine how much WP:WEIGHT to give to each one. Asko Parpola is a leading scholar of Indo-European Studies, who knows intimately the linguistics, literature as well as archaeology of the entire region, including India, Afghanistan, Iran and the Central Asian regions around them. Ernst Badian has not referred to any of these factors. And, here is Vogelsang, an expert in Achaemenid history, especially concerning its eastern provinces:
 * Vogelsang has actually proposed that Multan could have been the capital of Sattagydia, which indicates that he does not even favour Hindush extending to the "central Indus valley". Badian apparently accepts this conclusion. He believes that Hindush was to the north of Sattagydia. This viewpoint has no takers in modern times, making it WP:FRINGE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is much certainty regarding the precise territory of Hindus, so claiming certainty by cherry-picking sources and claiming that other sources, like Ernst Badian, are "Fringe" is quite weird and unwarranted: his position deserves as much respect as that of the others, we just have to present these views in a balanced way. You said above that you valued encyclopedias most highly: "The Encyclopedia Iranica article is an Encyclopedic article. It is expected to tell us what the current scholarly consensus is! You can't treat it on the same footing as the books written by retired IAS officers (like Sagar)..." . Fine, so, why don't we look at what one of the most reputable of all Encyclopedias has to say on the matter (The Cambridge Ancient History. Cambridge University Press (2002 edition) p. 203-204):
 * I think The Cambridge Ancient History seems quite reasonnable in balancing opinions and perfectly summarizes knowledge on the subject. This is exactly what we should do here. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The book is not an encyclopedia and it is not a "2002 edition". It is a history book with survey articles, published in 1988. But I am happy to accept that it is a survey article, similar in nature to an encyclopedic article. ADH Bivar is well-known and can be accepted as a reliable source. However, you haven't noticed the WP:WEIGHT he himself placed on it. After an extensive discussion of Sind as Hindush, he adds:
 * The wording indicates to me that he is stating the old theory, whose mention is mandatory in a survey article since the issue is not settled yet. He offers no evidence and no argumentation in favour of the theory.
 * David Fleming, his former student, seems to have expanded Bivar's position, which you can read here. Once again, there is no argumentation in favour of the theory. He just points out that it is still a plausible theory. I am quite happy to add that it is a plausible theory. But I have to note that the numerous counterpoints that the proponents of the Sind theory have raised have not been answered. All this discussion probably go into the Hindush article, not here. So, let us work on that, and once we have the content polished, we can summarise it here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. You are seriously misreading the The Cambridge Ancient History . If the article has a long discussion about Sindh, it is mainly in order to reject it: first by saying that there are no known traces of Achaemenid occupation whatsoever in Sindh, and second by explaining that no gold can be found there, in contradiction with Herodotus' explanation that vast amounts of gold were provided by India as tribute. Cambridge also presents the "Sindh" theory as an old view since the time of Foucher, the exact contrary of what you are claiming. In contrast the article states that the alternative location is naturally Taxila and in the West Punjab, and back its up with the arguments that, in total contrast to Sindh, "there are indications that a Persian satrapy may have existed" there, and that gold has been found in significant quantities around the northern areas of the Indus. You are also gravely misrepresenting Fleming, claiming the contrary of what he is saying: Fleming, in his "Where was Achaemenid India?", does not write even once about Sindh, or even the southern Indus region, as a possible candidate for the "India" of the Achaemenids. The only option he considers at length after reviewing the evidence, is an area which has Taxila as its capital, which he says in conclusion is "the most plausible candidate for the capital of Achaemenid India". I maintain that The Cambridge Ancient History seems quite reasonnable in balancing opinions and perfectly summarizes knowledge on the subject. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If the two of us come back with two different conclusions from the text, I suppose that proves that it is not an encyclopaedic article. I suppose we can infer from the text that Bivar prefers Taxila as his choice, his main argument being that it had access to "gold dust". Most reasonable scholars would take Herodotus's gold dust with a large grain of salt or even the idea that the 'Indians' alone paid tribute with gold dust, whereas everybody paid with silver. Herodotus was clearly falling for myths. If this is what the Taxila theory stands on, it is rather weak indeed.
 * I pointed to Fleming as a way to figure out what Bivar thinks, not to say that his conclusions are ready for an encyclopedia. (It is a quintessential WP:PRIMARY source.) I haven't seen anything from Bivar himself expanding out his Taxila theory. Fleming is not claiming that Hindush was Taxila, only that Taxila was its likely capital. Locating the entire Hindush at Taxila would squarely contradict Herodotus's statement that it was the most populous province of all. It would also contradict his statement that India was the easternmost territory of the known world, beyond which there was only desert. (Remember that Herodotus imagined Indus flowing "east" or at least southeast). The Taxila theorists haven't answered any of these questions. Merely labelling it a "natural choice" doesn't cut it.
 * Anyway, as I said, all these deliberations have to go in the Hindush article, where we can present both the sides of the story. I am pinging to mediate. He is good with balancing such contentious theories. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, there are very good reasons why no archaeological remains have been found in Sindh. Basically, the archaeologists don't even know where to look. Bivar knows this well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * David Fleming, his former student, seems to have expanded Bivar's position, which you can read here. Once again, there is no argumentation in favour of the theory. He just points out that it is still a plausible theory. I am quite happy to add that it is a plausible theory. But I have to note that the numerous counterpoints that the proponents of the Sind theory have raised have not been answered. All this discussion probably go into the Hindush article, not here. So, let us work on that, and once we have the content polished, we can summarise it here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. You are seriously misreading the The Cambridge Ancient History . If the article has a long discussion about Sindh, it is mainly in order to reject it: first by saying that there are no known traces of Achaemenid occupation whatsoever in Sindh, and second by explaining that no gold can be found there, in contradiction with Herodotus' explanation that vast amounts of gold were provided by India as tribute. Cambridge also presents the "Sindh" theory as an old view since the time of Foucher, the exact contrary of what you are claiming. In contrast the article states that the alternative location is naturally Taxila and in the West Punjab, and back its up with the arguments that, in total contrast to Sindh, "there are indications that a Persian satrapy may have existed" there, and that gold has been found in significant quantities around the northern areas of the Indus. You are also gravely misrepresenting Fleming, claiming the contrary of what he is saying: Fleming, in his "Where was Achaemenid India?", does not write even once about Sindh, or even the southern Indus region, as a possible candidate for the "India" of the Achaemenids. The only option he considers at length after reviewing the evidence, is an area which has Taxila as its capital, which he says in conclusion is "the most plausible candidate for the capital of Achaemenid India". I maintain that The Cambridge Ancient History seems quite reasonnable in balancing opinions and perfectly summarizes knowledge on the subject. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If the two of us come back with two different conclusions from the text, I suppose that proves that it is not an encyclopaedic article. I suppose we can infer from the text that Bivar prefers Taxila as his choice, his main argument being that it had access to "gold dust". Most reasonable scholars would take Herodotus's gold dust with a large grain of salt or even the idea that the 'Indians' alone paid tribute with gold dust, whereas everybody paid with silver. Herodotus was clearly falling for myths. If this is what the Taxila theory stands on, it is rather weak indeed.
 * I pointed to Fleming as a way to figure out what Bivar thinks, not to say that his conclusions are ready for an encyclopedia. (It is a quintessential WP:PRIMARY source.) I haven't seen anything from Bivar himself expanding out his Taxila theory. Fleming is not claiming that Hindush was Taxila, only that Taxila was its likely capital. Locating the entire Hindush at Taxila would squarely contradict Herodotus's statement that it was the most populous province of all. It would also contradict his statement that India was the easternmost territory of the known world, beyond which there was only desert. (Remember that Herodotus imagined Indus flowing "east" or at least southeast). The Taxila theorists haven't answered any of these questions. Merely labelling it a "natural choice" doesn't cut it.
 * Anyway, as I said, all these deliberations have to go in the Hindush article, where we can present both the sides of the story. I am pinging to mediate. He is good with balancing such contentious theories. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, there are very good reasons why no archaeological remains have been found in Sindh. Basically, the archaeologists don't even know where to look. Bivar knows this well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Note this caution from Magee et al.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * in response to you points:
 * 1) David Fleming: you are contradicting yourself, and it is ironic that I now have to defend a source which you yourself proposed. Fleming is a PhD in Oriental Studies and is well-published in the area of Achaemenid studies, so I don't see why you are now trying to discard him and claim that he is "a quintessential WP:PRIMARY source", just because he turns out to be a clear supporter of Taxila as the capital of Achaemenid India (p.70). That really does not make sense.
 * 2) "If the two of us come back with two different conclusions from the text, I suppose that proves that it is not an encyclopaedic article."... well, this has nothing to do with the definition of an encyclopedic article, and as far as I am concerned it only means that there are issues with the way you read sources (a phenomenon I've already seen in several cases before, such as your adamant "Greeks pronounced Ἰνδός "Hindos"" theory above )
 * 3) Personal theories are not relevant to Wikipedia, and I don't favour any point of view (ie Sindh, or western Punjab), we just need a good synthesis of academic viewpoints on the subject. I maintain that The Cambridge Ancient History (2002) seems quite reasonnable in balancing opinions and nicely summarizes knowledge on the subject: pp 203-204:
 * I wish we could just move on and do some more constructive stuff: पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wherever a new fact is presented or a new thesis proposed, the place is regarded as a primary source. I can't find the exact place where this is explained, but see WP:ALLPRIMARY. I have given the Fleming source to you as a way of explaining what Bivar could have meant (since this paper is dedicated to Bivar). But the statement you included in the article now: Taxila's Bhir Mound remains the most plausible candidate for the capital of Achaemenid India appeared here for the first time and goes further than anything Bivar said. (You have also ignored the escape clause "until and unless another contender is found"). The citations for the paper indicate no takers. So, there are no SECONDARY sources for this thesis. It is not ready for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
 * I am constantly giving you sources that argue the opposite point of view. But you are choosing to ignore them and include only the view points that you prefer. In other words, you show no interest in WP:NPOV. If this persists, I intend to report you to the admins. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Many authors have discussed the possibility of Bhir Mound/Taxila as an Achaemenid city or even capital. This is not new, this is trivial stuff, even Bivar is basically saying that: "The alternative location to Sind for an Achaemenid province of Hindūš is naturally at Taxila and in the West Punjab" . Your source, Fleming, is just giving his academic view about this. But this is not the core of the matter: the point is that there are various views on the subject of the actual location of Hindush, and with The Cambridge Ancient History (2002) pp203-204, we have both an excellent, highly reputable source and an excellent review and synthesis of the question, as well as an excellent model for making our own NPOV summary of academic views on Wikipedia. You are the one who is pushing a one-sided POV that only Sindh should be taken as a candidate. Honestly, I don't care much about the Achaemenids or Hindush, and I'm fine with both Sindh and west Punjab as candidates, but I do care when a user tries to promote only one side of a story, pushing his own personal theories or bias . We don't even have to choose sides: let's present both views as per the The Cambridge Ancient History, and move on... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Many authors have discussed the possibility of Bhir Mound/Taxila as an Achaemenid city or even capital. This is not new, this is trivial stuff, even Bivar is basically saying that: "The alternative location to Sind for an Achaemenid province of Hindūš is naturally at Taxila and in the West Punjab" . Your source, Fleming, is just giving his academic view about this. But this is not the core of the matter: the point is that there are various views on the subject of the actual location of Hindush, and with The Cambridge Ancient History (2002) pp203-204, we have both an excellent, highly reputable source and an excellent review and synthesis of the question, as well as an excellent model for making our own NPOV summary of academic views on Wikipedia. You are the one who is pushing a one-sided POV that only Sindh should be taken as a candidate. Honestly, I don't care much about the Achaemenids or Hindush, and I'm fine with both Sindh and west Punjab as candidates, but I do care when a user tries to promote only one side of a story, pushing his own personal theories or bias . We don't even have to choose sides: let's present both views as per the The Cambridge Ancient History, and move on... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I am glad to learn that you want to cover all the sources in an WP:NPOV way and that it doesn't matter to you where the Achaemenid Hindush is. However, these contentious are belied by the prominent bubble chart you made, where you tagged Taxila as Hindush, your insertion of a doctored quote from Fleming in a prominent place as an image caption, and your effort to edit war over these edits.
 * If you genuinely regard Fleming as "my source", then you can leave it to me to deal with it as appropriate. I did not ask for your help in covering it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Sadly, all your assertions in this last post are false:
 * 1) Hindush is not mentioned in the map you are attaching.
 * 2) The quote from Fleming is perfectly exact and verbatim: "Bhir Mound remains the most plausible candidate for the capital of Achaemenid India" p.70 also freely visible here.
 * 3) This edit is not edit warring, it is simply reinstating referenced material which you deleted in an indiscrimate fashion. You can balance referenced material if you wish, not just delete it.
 * 4) How a source is handled is not your personal choice on Wikipedia.
 * May I suggest you cool down a bit, and remain respectful of the contributions of others. This is not a question of personal opinion, Wikipedia doesn't care, it's just about presenting reputable sources in a balanced manner: you cannot go around that. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3 is right. Pataliputra you cannot claim for a NPOV summary of current scholarship on the one hand while ostensibly advocating the minor academic POV that Taxila is Hindush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachitasuri (talk • contribs) 15:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Gandhara or Gandara?
Why do you now change the spelling of all instances of "Gandhara" to "Gandara" ? This is getting weird. The only proper spelling for the region is "Gandhara" in English as well as in the standard transliteration of Sanskrit. "Gandara" is NOT a proper noun in English: it is only used very rarely, to express the prononciation in some foreign languages, NOT in a general sentence such as "The Achaemenids invaded the general region of Gandhara". However, you could write "The Achaemenids invaded the general region of Gandhara, which they called Gandara or Gadara", and in that case you should use italics. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, you keep removing the n in Hindush, claiming that it isn't there in the Persian inscriptions, but, on the other hand, you want to add h to Gandara, despite it not being in any Persian, Greek or Roman transcription. Aren't you being a tad bit inconsistent?
 * As your favourite web site explains it, Gandara is how the Persian province is written. We use Gandhara to talk about the Indian conception of Gandhara, which is not necessarily the same. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We have to give the exact transcriptions when dealing with the inscriptions: Hidūš or Hindūš, simplified as "Hindush", and Gadāra or Gandāra, simplified as "Gandara" (the nasal "n" before consonants was omitted in the Old Persian script), but use the English terms Indus and Gandhara when translating or making a general statement about these regions, just like most sources do. For example writing "Gandara" as the translation of "Gadāra" in the article is meaningless, because "Gandara" is not an English translation of "Gadāra": these are just two variants of transliterations of the Old Persian. If we want to refer to an actual geographical area, we can only use a standard term such as Gandhara, possibly with qualifiers when necessary: "greater Gandhara", an area "encompassing Gandhara" etc... since "Gandara" as such has no meaning whatsoever in English. Same thing for Hindush: we should use a term such as Indus, with qualifiers if necessary, like "Indus valley", "middle and lower Indus" "Indus region" etc... as again Hindush or the Sanskrit Sindhu have no meaning in standard English. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is rather too much use of inscriptions in this article, which shouldn't be there. (But I don't want to get into that just at this time.) The article should be based on secondary sources, not the inscriptions. And, these sources invariably write Gandara for the Persian name. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "These sources invariably write Gandara for the Persian name".... Of course, but we are on the English Wikipedia, not Persian Wikipedia: when designating the same general area in English, the word proper spelling is Gandhara. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Neither Gandhara nor Gandara is an English word. So, please stop pushing this.
 * The reasons for the Gandara spelling are as follows:
 * This is a page on the Achaemenid Empire. So, as far as possible, we should use the Achaemenid names and the specific meanings they attached to them.
 * The Achaemenid meaning of Gandara and the Indian meaning of Gandhara are different. Eggermont has explained that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Gandhara is the standard English spelling for the region. I'm really in favour of using Gandara, or Gadāra, when describing the Persian sources, or when explaining that the Persian Gandara was not necessarily strictly identical with our understanding of Gandhara (probably a bit larger), but when translating the Persian word or speaking about the region in modern terms, the only appropriate term is the standard geographical name Gandhara, possibly with qualifiers such as "greater" etc..., to which anybody with some culture can refer to. What you are trying to do is comparable to forcing the usage of the Persian word Hindush throughout the article, without ever allowing the use of the words "Indus" or "Sindh" or "Punjab" to explain to which known regions it corresponds, on the ground that "This is a page on the Achaemenid Empire, so we should use the Achaemenid names"... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Standard spelling for what region? Surely, you are speaking nonsense, and you know it. Please read your own edit summary here to see why. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ???? I don't see your point at all. The diff you're giving was about correcting your wrong attribution of the short bent bars to Gandhara, whereas they belong to the Kabul region. I don't see how it is related to this discussion. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered the question: what region are you speaking of? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your question doesn't make sense. What are you trying to say? पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am asking you to expand your sentence, "but Gandhara is the standard English spelling for the region", into a full description. What "region" are you referring to? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The answer is here. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Masarh lion alleged persian inspiration, indus valley civilization octopus star


octopus tentacles

indus valley civilization octopus star, shortugai

thracian plate octopus star

masarh lion, displaying indus civilization art, is not persian inspiration.

115.135.130.182 (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)