Talk:Indo-Greek Kingdom/Archive 3

Maps: an epitaph
Yesterday, I happened to glance through Narain's work "Coins of the Indo-Greek kings", and this volume includes a map. Now, Narain has been said to have been far more critical of Greek expansion than Tarn. This map was however identical to PHGs current effort, even with Pataliputra included as a province! The recent map (not the Indo-Greek) is therefore perhaps more restrictive than both Narain and Tarn pictured.Sponsianus 14:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * O the irony considering that Narain was what this whole debate practically hinged on (surprising as he was only a single author despite the other sources), so what is to be made of the current map then? Could you upload Narain's map by chance? (&#91;&#91;User:Giani g&#124;Giani g]] 07:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Dear all,
 * I am glad to introduce a final map of the Indo-Greeks, sourced from Narain "Coins of the Indo-Greeks" (I just got the book today), as well as from Westermans "Atlas der Welt". Sourced as it is, I do not think any dispute can remain, and I am putting it on the front page. PHG 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

MAPS: THE RESURRECTION
Dear All,

The map posted by PHG is not only inaccurate, it is also improperly cited. First, the map that appears in the "Coin Types of the Indo Greek Kings" by Narain, does not show any expansion into the Deccan and Ujjain. Accordingly, Narain specifically disputes the expansion into the Gangetic and Gujarat by the indo greeks in his definitive work "The Indo-Greeks". In fact, that is exactly what Narain is known for--disputing Tarn's theory about an Indo Greek advance to Pataliputra. Moreoever, I own both works, as well as "The Indo-Greeks: Revisited and Supplemented" a recent work dating to 2003. In it, the map he alots for the Yavanas Greeks does not include any part of the gangetic, let alone Ujjain and Bharhut. So irrespective of why the publisher of "Coin types" used the pro-Tarn map, Narain's map from his in-depth study "Indo Greeks", and his own published works claim otherwise (they only show the greeks in the Punjab).

Also, the german map which PHG refers to, as mentioned by the user Sponsianus who sent it to both of us, lists regions which were contested (by user Sponsianus' own admission) and not necessarily greek conquests--although even that is dubious, it certainly is not justification for this depiction. Those regions were clearly ruled by the Satavahanas at the time. PHG is again manipulating sources and maps to present a version of history which simply cannot be advanced. His aim is to create a maximalist indo-greek map irrespective of any available consensus (of which none exists) and in spite of recent criticisms of such depictions (He took the map that appears in "coin types", which shows the gangetic but not ujjain, and the german map which doesn't show the entire gangetic but the Ujjain and the western deccan and simply added all the territories to his benefit). As such, I have reverted to the previous consensus map.

Therefore, dispute does remain, and I urge administrators to admonish the spurious claims that are being advanced and questionable scholarship and original research that is being practiced by PHG.

Sincerely,

Devanampriya 05:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I do own the 2003 "Indo-Greeks, Revisited Supplemented", hard jacket version, and there is no map in it. Could you precise your claim?
 * The Westermans map does not at all say that what it represents is contested.
 * I clearly labeled on the map the published sources behind each representation. I have just added the eastern frontier to Mathura, from Westermans, which I had ommited for graphic reasons, but it's OK. Refresh your browser if you can't see it yet.
 * The map you are putting forward is not a "concensus map", and is not properly sourced.
 * As you tried to put that map forward, you also deleted a month of editing.
 * I am OK to add to this map a third interpretation, provided it is properly sourced.
 * PHG 05:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have the same edition. Read it before your cite it.
 * As Sponsianus, aka Jens Jakobsen noted in his e-mail to me (which I can gladly forward to you), in the book that westermans map appears in, it notes that the dashed/interspersed regions are "contested". his words, not mine. he said he should have informed you of that before he sent it to you since you interpreted them to be otherwise.
 * The map that was presented was a consensus map and was sourced by user Windy City Dude
 * Your map should display regions that are undeniable and that all parties have agreed to (Gandhara and Punjab as far as the Ravi River) anything beyond that, as noted by western and indian scholars alike, is speculation, and not inline with the rigorous analysis that should be applied to history.
 * As I have said before in an attempt to broker a fair--perhaps even a favorable consensus to you--I am not averse to having a map along the lines of the Oxford map referenced by Windy City Dude that virtually all parties can agree too at the top followed by different theories and versions at the bottom of the article. Since you are in favor of posting everything under the sun about a given topic, this is a fair compromise since you get to post your ahistorical maps and readers get to see an accurate map at the top and make their own decisions about the different theories.


 * Devanampriya 06:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you send me the map you claim is in the 2003 "Indo-Greeks, Revisited Supplemented", because there is none in my edition. Would you even have a page number???
 * Please kindly check the last modifications to the map: it represents the 3 known published sources we have: Oxford/ Narain/ Westermans (although I do not have personal access to the Oxford one, I assume WindicityDude's reference was correct). I don't know how we can have a more fair representation. We are on Wikipedia: only referenced sources can appear, and POV deletion of referenced sources go against the rules of this site. PHG 06:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What nonsense PHG,


 * How in the world is this a fair representation. Your map is an abomination. There is not even an attempt at compromise. Frankly given your abuse of the Westermans map, which you 1. misrepresent 2. fail to recognize as being flawed (there is no evidence that the indo greeks were anywhere near ujjain or in western maharashtra)., we can't trust you with anything else.


 * Exactly POV representations go against this site, and that is precisely what yours is. You use a map that publisher included, in spite of the fact that the author disagrees with said reprentation and indeed, vehemently opposes it. You use a map that identified possible or contested territories, in spite of the utter lack of historicity (the cave inscriptions from western maharashtra date several centuries after the indo greeks, and the names were not even identified to be greek) in ujjain, there are no hoards any where near. In bharhut, nothing. Your is a pov representation. You have been provided a litany of reasons, yet you choose to ignore all of them because reason now escapes your efforts. You didn't even address my compromise suggestion. What a shame for wikipedia. Thanks to people like you, citizendium had to come into existence.


 * Devanampriya 05:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry Devanampriya, but your "litany of reasons" (to use your own words) and POVs are irrelevant to this site. Only published sources are, and now even though we now have three published map as references (Oxford, Narain, Westermans), covering a wide range of historical claims, you still try to find reasons to deny them (even the one from a book published under the control of your cherished Narain! What a contradiction!). There is absolutely no reason why your own personal view should be privileged over others (what you call your "compromise solution"). PHG 18:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There you go again, PHG. You are attempting to confuse the reader. You are not using three published maps as references, you are picking and choosing from all three maps so as to maximize indo greek territory on the subcontinent. That is unacceptable. The contradiction here is that you claim to actual read the stuff you cite. My "cherished Narain" argued against your portrayal of greek territory, argued against your depiction of demetrius, and argued against misinterpretation of texts. You are guilty of all three.


 * Why don't you actually read Narain's "Indo Greeks: Supplemented and revisted" instead of your normal biased sources. His map in there reflects the map I've been supporting and not the abomination you've created. This is not my personal view, but fact. Your claims to fairness are the equivalent of including nazi eugenics theories in modern biology. This is neo-colonialism at its worst. Shame on you and your enablers.


 * Devanampriya 19:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute
Dear Wikipedia Administration,

I have nominated this article for neutrality disputation and neutrality check as user PHG has biased heavily towards the Indo Greeks. I have spent 2 years attempting to explain to him why it is biased, why the map is incorrect, and why this article is not in line with NPOV. He has never attempted to consider my proposals (even when he realizes the slim case), and when user Vastu brokered a fair one, PHG pulled out a month later (unilaterally) because he decided that he had changed his mind. Since then, he has grown more flagrant and has combined 3 different maps into one not to give different perspectives, but so that the reader will be confused into thinking that all that territory in India was under greek rule.

1. The westermans map that is referenced showed "contested" territory, not territory under greek rule. Moreover, it is inaccurate and poorly researched since the Sungas ruled central india and the Satavahanas ruled western India (there is no evidence whatsoever demonstrating otherwise).

2. Narain's map in the seminal work "Indo Greeks" limits the indo greeks to the Punjab. This is backed up by his book, where he states that Tarn's colonial theory about the greeks conquering the gangetic is false (I can provide the supporting quotations). But user phg portrays otherwise. Moreover, PHG's current map shows both Sunga capitals (Vidisha--being between Ujjain and Bharhut--and Pataliputra) under the Indo Greeks, so where did they rule uninterruptedly from? Hence, the map is utterly false.

3. The article is not an objective treatise of the topic but is an hagiography:


 * It claims that the indo greeks came as liberators and protectors (which is false--sources can be provided).
 * It abuses sources (at one point claiming that Indians called Demetrius Dharmamitra--also false).
 * Makes false claims "Greek influence on coinage can be seen in Delhi sultanate coins of Alaudin Khilji claiming himself Sikander Al Sani (alexander the second)". Apart from the fact that that is false, since that phrase demonstrates greek impact on persian culture (the delhi sultante was ruled by persianized turks), it is original research (no sources were provided). Moreover, that does not show actual influence on coinage. In fact, this entire article consists of much original research, to the detriment of India, thereby provoking deletions and edits.

I am not seeking a pro india nationalist article here on anywhere, which cannot be said for this user who injects unrelated greek content on virtually every ancient Indian page. I respect greek civilization and history, but not at the detriment of accuracy. As on other pages, I only want objectivity. This article is the equivalent of claiming that "slavery was for the own good of those subjected to it" and that the "british conquered one fourth of the world for the good of the natives".

I beseech wikipedia to admonish user phg and his enabler, administrator aldux, and to entreaty them to embrace objectivity, dialogue, and compromise. I believe in wikipedia, but sneaky edits and biased narratives by users like phg are the reasons for Citizendium's birth. We have a responsibility of making sure that the very first google hit on this topic treats the subject matter objectively. Please consider this case.

Sincerely,

Devanampriya 03:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Devanamriya, although you may dislike some of its content, this is a highly referenced and balanced article. All claims are based on published sources. The article has been recognized by the Wikipedia community as one of its best.
 * For the facts:
 * 1)The Westermans map stands in its own right. Indo-Greek territory is depicted in the original map the same way as the territory of the Huns or the Alans: surely there are some uncertainties in these territories, but the Atlas makes its best reconstruction nonetheless. No reason to discount it as a source.
 * 2) What you call Narain's map in "The Indo-Greek" is not a territorial map, just names spread out over a geographical map of India. It is worthless to give a clear representation of the different territories. The only existing map with boundaries approved by Narain ("Coins of the Indo-Greeks") has been represented prominently in this article.
 * Narain does recognize expansion of the Greeks to Pataliputra. Among other things he writes: "There is certainly some truth in Apollodotus and Strabo when they attribute to Menander the advance made by the Greeks of Bactria beyond the Hypanis and even as far as the Ganges and Pataliputra." (p267 "The Indo-Greeks").
 * 3)*In the article, the Indo-Greeks are representated as liberators by some (Tarn, Bussagli), as predators by others (Narain). Both opinions are represented.
 * The claim that "that Indians called Demetrius Dharmamitra" is from Tarn and others.
 * The claim that "Greek influence on coinage can be seen in Delhi sultanate coins of Alaudin Khilji claiming himself Sikander Al Sani (alexander the second)". is from Tarn.
 * Please stick to published material, accept the variety of views on a given subject, and to not delete sourced material as you are doing everywhere.
 * PHG 06:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello PHG:

Although experience has, unfortunately, established that there is no point in reasoning with you due to your narrow-mindedness, I will rebut your untenable, and indeed false, claims:

1.Narain in no way shape or form supports Indo Greek “territorial gains” in the Ganges-Yamuna Valley.

You falsely cite a fragment from the “Indo Greeks”. Here is the block of text (within that same paragraph) that follows your mischaracterized quote:

“Kalidasa alluded to the defeat of an advancing Yavana unit at the hands of Vasumitra, the grandson of Pushyamitra who had overthrown the Mauryas, on the banks of the River Kali Sindhu in north-central India…But the Yavanas were not able to make territorial gains in the Ganges-Jamuna Valley. Whitehead [Narain’s British adviser in London cited] believes that the Indo-Greeks could have done no more than conduct cold-weather campaigns or make long-distance raids. While this may be so, we must look for deeper causes for the failure of the Indo-Greeks to find a foothold in the Ganges-Jamuna valley.” P.267-268

So you see, you’ve taken a quote out of context and lied about the author’s true intention. Shame on you.

This is exactly the problem with you. You cherry pick quotes that mischaracterize, or in this case, blatantly lie about what scholars really think and wrote. This has seriously damaged both the credibility of your work and that of wikipedia. How can a reader trust what he or she is reading here when you have so brazenly misused a block of text?

2.Narain’s only map on Indo Greek territory is completely in line with his positions. Moreover, it shows the very boundaries he describes below in “The Indo Greeks”. Here is Narain on “The Climax of Indo-Greek power”:

“Menander’s kingdom shows Indo-Greek power at its height. He ruled from the Kabul Valley in the west to the Ravi (river) in the East, and from the Swat valley in the North to the Northern Arachosia in the south.” P.122

This is accurately depicted on the map included in "The Indo Greeks”.

Disclaimer: Indo Greeks is a comprehensive, 585 page treatise on the eponymous topic and supplemented and republished in 2003 by A.K. Narain. “The Coin Types of the Indo-Greek Kings” is a 58 page listing of coins and hierarchies, with little if no discussion (14 pages not by Narain but by Co-Author H.K. Deb), published in 1976.

3. You color historians in a manichean branding of good and evil. While Tarn, and your questionable Italian art historian Busagli, may lavish encomiums upon the Indo Greeks as “liberators”, Narain did not characaterize them as “predators”. Narain is enamored with the Indo-Greeks, which is why he did his thesis on them. Your use of those words clearly betray your biases and poor understanding of this subject.

3. The claim of Dharmamitra is as antiquated as the flat world theory. Tarn was wrong, as evidenced by modern scholars, so let it go.

4. The claim about Sikander al Sani is again evidential of Tarn’s poor scholarship because there is a distinction between numismatic technique and the imprint of Alexander on Islamo-Persian history and culture. Alauddin Khalji, who minted the Sikander al Sani coin, was comparing himself to Alexander and not demonstrating his appreciation for indo-greek coin technique. So stop misusing that quote.

The bottom line is that this is not a well-balanced or well-written article. 1.You stitched together 3 different projections (2 of which are indefensible) and created one supermap laying claim to as much territory in india as possible. This is not balance, this is bias.

2.As on other pages, you interrupt the article with misplaced and often irrelevant blocks of text to bolster marginal or misguided points. This affects the readability of the article. In doing so, you place more emphasis on defending obsolete theories than on creating an article that is readerfriendly

3.You reorient the narrative to suit your positions, and then claim that they are balanced

4.You routinely conduct original research by inserting paragraphs pertaining to the greeks that are both irrelevant and false both here and on other pages (i.e. Greek dynasts succeeding the Satavahanas after their downfall (almost 200 years after the greeks disappeared from the political scene).

In this discussion, you have displayed your misuse of quotes, mischaracterization of authors, and effort to bias articles pertaining to India. You have embraced and outdated worldview and have woven its prejudices into this page. But hey, there’s really no point since you’ll ignore everything I’ve just written or only address fractions so you can escape the full weight of your mistakes. You’re welcome to go back to drawing the indo-greek warriors that you routinely post on these pages.

Devanampriya 23:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi!


 * What I wrote to Devanampriya was that the mapbook "Atlas der Welt Geschichte" often used striped colours to refer to contested territories. However, on the map of Asia in 174 BCE, the entire Indo-Greek kingdom including Pushkalavati and Gandhara is striped: the only reasonable interpretation is that the striped areas in this matter refer to the extension of Graeco-Bactria. It is possible that the mapmaker was uncertain how much of this which had really happened in 174 BCE and therefore striped the territory. What I would have told PHG - I never did so - was probably that the Atlas was inconsequent about the meaning of striped colours.


 * Narain's views and outlooks, upon which Devanamriya relies so heavily, are indeed much sounder than Tarn's, but are often outdated by obsolete premisses that make many of his conclusions worthless.


 * The worst example concerns the very point this discussion is about: the extension of Menander's conquests. Narain does not believe in Apollodotos I, the very important Indo-Greek king that ruled before Menander I. He also believes that Antimachos II ruled after Menander. Modern numismatists are dead certain about the relative sequence Apollodotos I - Antimachos II - Menander I, for instance the ANS9 collection, Boperachchi's encyclopaedia, and Robert Senior in Journal of Oriental Numismatic Society 179.


 * Having thus placed Menander wrongly before the earlier rulers in Gandhara and Punjab, Narain feels free to speculate that Menander's effort consisted in making conquests within Gandhara and Punjab and never expanded without a narrow territory. This is just irrelevant, for the territories that Narain claim Menander took where obviously conquered before. So if Menander was a conqueror - and Narain does not dispute that - he must have expanded outside of the Indo-Greek kingdom before him. I have been trying to press this point so many times now.


 * As for the coins, indirect traces of Greek numismatics can be found long after they were gone, Greek being the main language on the Parthian coinage. The Dharmamithra reference may well be wrong, but it is still an interesting suggestion, given that the eastern Greeks absorbed the cult of Mithra and admittedly supported it in the Indo-Greek kingdom.


 * But that is not the main issue here.


 * Devanampriya: Your outbursts against PHG, like the following


 * Your claims to fairness are the equivalent of including nazi eugenics theories in modern biology.


 * are quite untolerable, and makes it more difficult to have a constructive discussion even on the topics when your criticism of outdated sources has some truth to it. PHG has tried to update such sources to his best intentions and is clearly aware of the different views of important historians. The article hardly deserves such acrid criticism as yours, but if it comes to an arbitration, so be it. Sponsianus 18:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to Sponsianus:


 * Your diatribe against me is 1. inaccurate, 2. misplaced, and 3. counterproductive. I have attempted to reason with you and PHG for almost 2 years now. In that time frame, the two of you have stubbornly refused to negotiate (by clever stonewalling, misdirection, or outright and contemptuous refusal). You have both arrogated the status of scholars which none of us, especially phg, are in a position to claim. The end result has been a travesty of a map and a biased, unreadable article


 * 1. The westermanns map is clearly poorly compiled and inaccurate map that does not belong on wikipedia.


 * •It shows Ujjain and Coastal Maharashtra under indo greek, or “contested rule”, or however you may classify it. As questionable as the expansions to Gujarat, Mathura, and Pataliputra may be, Ujjain and Coastal Maharashtra are completely unjustified. Ujjain was ruled by the Sungas and Satavahanas before it was captured by the Sakas. Moreover, your philhellenic compatriot elected to remove “Ujjain from the Sunga boundaries” and cleverly colored that city in the colors attributed to other Indo Greek cities. This is clearly a weasel edit.


 * •You yourself are unable to clearly assign a status to Striped and unstriped territory, and are now conveniently interpreting it in a fashion that is inaccurate. Here’s what you wrote to me:


 * “However, this Atlas frequently uses the striped lines to represent disputed territory. Perhaps I should have told PHG this, for the representation is perhaps somewhat ambiguous. The southern parts are certainly meant to represent the kingdoms of Saraostus, and Sigerdis.
 * The part which I think you may be correct to doubt is the territory around Udschein (Ujjain). However,Ozene should be the same city like Tarn says, since Periplus states that Ozene lies "inland and east" of Barygaza just like Ujjain does.
 * Nevertheless, the Periplus does not mention Greek influence there, only in Barygaza where coins with symbols of Menander and Apollodotus (or rather the Apollotodi, I & II) were abundant. I do not even recall Tarn mentioning Ozene as a Greek city, but there seems to be few indications that this was ever the case.
 * But in any case, this leaves us with a relatively small fraction of the map being dubious – the part northeast of Barygaza”


 * Other than the fact that Saraostus and sigerdis have not been identified with Maharashtra, even you recognize the issues plaguing this map (however much you may attempt to minimize them). It is obsolete and should not be referenced.


 * I would advise you to fully read and digest Narain’s writings before you comment on them. He makes the point that the lands that were conquered by Menander ran from Afghanistan to the modern Ravi river in Punjab. He specifically notes that Demetrius the first did not expand past the hindu kush, the first expansion should be assigned to Demetrius II and that merely consisted of Afghanistan and the Peshawar region, Taxila wasn’t captured under Agathocles and Pantaleon (who he says died just before), and that Menander did indeed expand greek holdings, but only to the Jammu region of Kashmir and upto the Ravi river past Sialkot. This is a reliable and fair conclusion given the dearth of evidence on the subject. So before you attempt to posit yourself as an accredited scholar on the topic, it would be advisable that you properly read and accurately present Narain’s positions. The only thing that is really “worthless” is your biased attempt to dismiss his valid and well-respected work.


 * Narain’s study of Apollodotus brings up relevant questions regarding this name from page (78-87) of Indo Greeks. That he did not arrive at the same conclusion you did does not impeach his scientific approach to the topic—especially considering your embrace of Tarn and his neo-kiplingian fantasies.


 * Your point about Dharmamitra is preposterous, as established by serious scholars. You claim that it merits suggestion. All of PHG’s contributions are rested upon such “interesting suggestions”, i.e. “Greeks aided Chandragupta, Greeks followed the Satavahanas, Greeks gave India astronomy, Ashoka had Greek blood in him”. All of these are out-of-place, obsolete suggestions that are cleverly knitted together by PHG to color the reader’s opinion of what happened. Wikipedia history is not about considering all the possibilities of what could have been, but providing a scientific analysis and recounting of the events that transpired.


 * Ultimately, I really tried with the both of you (as evidenced by two years of exhaustive dialogue). Vastu and I have repeatedly made offers or proposals for compromise only to have them reneged upon or ignored. I thought I could appeal to your sense of fairness and civic responsibility for this site, but you really took advantage of that and have abetted this map which duplicitously overlays all those maps to show these false boundaries. That is why this now necessitates arbitration. You clearly have no intention of engaging in serious dialogue leading to compromise, which is why a third party is required.


 * Devanampriya 23:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Devanampriya,
 * I maintain that your acrid outbursts, including the above-mentionend comparison with nazi eugenics, are not in good taste. What is more, I am disappointed with your distortion of minor details. As for the map, I merely expressed some uncertainty whether this work (which is in German) was consequent between maps - and I have checked that it isn't, other maps in the same work are structured in a different matter - but that has nothing to do with this map! And I maintain that PHG's old map that you protested against is better than the new one - because I agree that Ujjain (and probably Barygaza) should not be included.


 * I have read Narain. His main work is fifty years old, and though a considerable improvement from Tarn, many parts are hopelessly obsolete, to the point that it is almost a waste of time to use it as a base of discussion.(You should note that I have not once embraced Tarn's "neo-Kipling" fantasies, I have questioned them here in the least since 2005.)


 * However, Narain's failure to recognise the important Apollodotus I (modern numismatists are 100% certain about this) as a separate king is such that it clouds further analysis on the successor's of Apollodotus. You certainly realise that Menander's situation would be totally different if he was the first important Indo-Greek king, like Narain believes, instead of the third, as we now know. Narain simply worked before the proper analysis of monograms and coin types had developed, so I don't blame him.


 * Narain's ideas of Demetrius II - whom he mistakes for two kings - are even more outdated. Demetrius II was a later Bactrian king, of Demetrius III we know only single coins. None of them made any conquests whatsoever, they were ephemereal and insignificant kings. His speculations on Agathocles and Pantaleon are no better than Tarn's, and his division of the later Indo-Greek kings is hopeless as well, misplacing kings with as much as half a century in several cases. I think this discussion would perhaps benefit if we stopped referring so much to any of these old scholars.


 * I can sympathise with parts of your criticisms against outdated sources, and would much like to co-operate to dismiss them from these pages, but when I have added modern evidence for standpoints which emphasise the extension of Indo-Greek rule into India, you have simply disregarded them as well.
 * Sponsianus 14:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Addendum:
 * I must say that I find your attempt to chastise me by referring to the long refuted misunderstandings of a fifty year old work is quite insulting. I see now that I have stated the abovementioned points several times in our debate (none of them are my own "worthless" inventions but established views - I dare you to find a single 21st century scholar who denies the existence of Apollodotos I), and yet you return to Narain's refuted ideas.


 * The fact is, Devanampriya, that if you neither are interested to keep up with modern scholars (like Bopearachchi, Cribb, Senior, Wilson) yourself, nor listen to those who quote them to you, then your contributions to debates about the Indo-Greeks unfortunately serve no constructive purpose. Sponsianus 21:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do check lingustic influences again for its correctness
A few common Greek words were adopted in Sanskrit, such as words related to writing and warfare:[94]


 * "ink" (Sankrit: melā, Greek: μέλαν "melan")
 * Sanskrit does have words 'mal' meaning dirt and 'melan' meaning fair(getting together) but none of these mean ink ! Please veryfy it properly.


 * "pen" (Sanskrit:kalamo, Greek:κάλαμος "kalamos"):Please do check word kalamo is sanskrit at all, my impression uptil now has been word 'Kalam' widely used in Hindi comes from farsi language but not sanskrit,Please do cofirm from proper linguist.
 * "book" (Sanskrit: pustaka, Greek: πύξινον "puksinon")
 * I doubt word "Pustak" also to be of farsi orgin just check with proper linguist.

a "horse's bit" (Sanskrit: khalina, Greek: χαλινός "khalinos") "center" (Sanskrit: kendram, Greek: κενδρον "kendron") a "siege mine" (used to undermine the wall of a fortress): (Sanskrit: surungā, Greek: σύριγγα "suringa") Mahitgar 16:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mahitgar!

There is a proper reference for these works, even if it is somewhat old (the historian Tarn, who quotes linguists on this topic, is still available at university libraries). If you wish to update this, you should get a more modern scientific reference on the topic. Perhaps you could write that a modern Sanskrit dictionary does not give this specific word, but then we have to be certain that these are not merely different transcriptions of Sanskrit words to the Latin alphabet - those may have changed since Tarn's days.Sponsianus 12:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Complaint
To The Administation:

Here is the crux of my complaint. In spite of all these positions or attempts to construct a clear history of India in the post-Mauryan period, we have no verifiable record of that time. As scholar Erik Seldeslachts notes in The End of the Road for the Indo-Greeks?:

“The written sources on the Indo-Greeks, Greek, Latin, Indian, and Chi-nese, have been repeatedly examined in the past. Still, almost everything remains controversial, because the few relevant texts and inscriptions contain little or enigmatic information, are partly corrupted, or more literary than historical nature. In spite of, or rather because of these shortcomings, it seemed to me to be useful to reevaluate some of the conclusions drawn on the basis of Greek and Indian written evidence. I set about this task with the aspiration to solve some of the problems by giving particular attention to onomastic information, as this is crucial for a proper understanding of the texts. It turned out, however, that hardly any conclusion can be established with some amount of certainty, even when the information of written sources is combines with that of numismatics and archaeology”. Seldeslachts, Erik. End of the Road for the Indo-Greeks. Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXIX, 2004 That is the reason for my petitioning to create a more conservative map and to restrain the language and the groundless theories that are being propagated by PHG and Sponsianus. We have a responsibility to present the facts that are verifiable, and not those that are baseless. Indo Greek expansion beyond the Punjab is simply not verifiable or tenable. That is why I have requested assistance from the administration to present an accurate construction of the facts.

In tandem with this is my complaint regarding user PHG. He has continuously violated wikipedia standards by committing original research on the Indo Greek page, the Mauryan empire page, the Satavahana page, the Chandragupta Maurya page, the Sunga page, the Indo-Scythian and western kshatrapa page, and the Kushana page. The kushana page map best represents this as seen here:[]. PHG clearly breaks wiki guidelines by interpreting the Rabatak inscription (a primary source) directly and projects his viewpoint on a map that was not devised by a scholar (and more than doubled the size--incorrectly--of the Kushans). That is why I am requesting a wikipedia arbitration.

Devanampriya 23:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is on the Indo-Greeks, and as such tries to put forward most known and published material and theories related to them. That some of these theories and interpretations are somewhat uncertain is irrelevant: history is a highly uncertain matter in general. All material is referenced from proper published material, in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Please refrain from deleting the referenced material you seem to dislike, from so many pages, this is contrary to Wikipedia rules and akin to vandalism.
 * For the Kushan map, please chek my answer on that Talk Page. PHG 04:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The subject matter that was deleted consisted of original research and fanwank, and was therefore justified. Seleucus' crossing of the Punjab has nothing to do with the Yamuna. You change the existing captions on the Gupta coins from those sources and added your own spin. The kushan map is grossly inaccurate and you have committed original research there (you cannot play the role of scholar and interpret a primary inscription as you see fit). What's worse is that you have purposely misinterpreted the map and enlarged the kushan empire far beyond the borders that scholars assign to them, just as you have done here and on the indo-scythian page.  You are, therefore, guilty of sneaky vandalism and original research. You cannot go about interpreting primary sources to suit your own beliefs. This is a serious problem and you are harming the reliability and readability of these articles.


 * Also, not all history is highly uncertain. We know that the Nazis were defeated, that the T'ang dynasty presided over a golden age in China, and that Alexander of Macedon defeated the Persian Empire. What remains highly uncertain is Indian history, because records are scarce and British Imperialists manipulated indian history to justify their rule. Your usage of William Tarn is emblematic of that bias. Even european scholars (as noted above) admit that we cannot support grand theories about Indo Greek conquests past the Punjab as the evidence does not exist. These are not my words, but the words of other scholars who recognize these issues. That is why your work on this article and that map has been detrimental to wikipedia's readership.


 * Devanampriya 16:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, you are completely distorting the truth to try to push your point. All the material you are deleting is referenced from proper published material. Again, these deletions are akin to vandalism.
 * Your claim to uncertainty in Indian history is not a justification to supress the various elements and published theories which are available regarding the history of the Indo-Greeks, even if you personally dislike what they say. PHG 19:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * PHG, having examined the debate that happened in my absense, I think you should re-examine your views with a fresh perspective. Devanampriya has pointed out that no reliable sources for the period exist (an understatement), and that modern scholars are divided (or simply lack an opinion).  When in such dubious historical territory, it is prudent to either describe the contending theories in equal detail and without bias, or to omit the contentious material altogether.  Vastu 19:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Vastu, and welcome back. This article puts together more than 20 references on the Indo-Greeks, and as far as I know represents all the major contenders on the subject. Best regards. PHG 19:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But, alas, the map dosent. Vastu 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The map represents the views of 3 published sources (Oxford, Narain, Westermans)... I don't know how we could do better at representating the various views available on the subject. PHG 05:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. The map represents one view and one view alone: yours. You insist on creating a supermap so that you can maximize indo greek territory even though the Westermans map has clearly and unequivocally been established as inaccurate. You do not respond to specific points because you know you are abusing the facts.


 * The only person pushing his perspective is you. Vastu and I have suggested umpteen different compromises, but you stonewall because you arrogantly wish to impose your perspectives, world-views and fantasies. Thanks to you, responsible and respectful contributors are losing faith in the wikipedia system.


 * Lastly, time and again you have prevaricated. You cannot take a source, out of context, pretend you're a scholar, and apply it to another situation--that is Original Research. You did that with the Rabatak inscription on the Kushan Empire map (where you inaccurately doubled Kushan territory) and you are doing that here. Worst of all, you go into every india-related page and attempt to create excuses to discuss greek history when they have nothing to do with the page in question (i.e. the Yamuna page). Your actions on this site are condemnable. Your brand of vandalism has thoroughly contaminated the accuracy and readability of these articles and images.


 * Devanampriya 23:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Devanampriya. I can only restate that this map is a faithful representation of 3 published sources (Oxford, Narain, Westermans). Unfortunately your heated diatribes, point of views and deformation of facts are totally ineffective against properly published and referenced material. Raising the tone and using harsh words will lead you nowhere. There is absolutely no justification for your accusations and your deleting of referenced material. PHG 04:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello PHG,


 * No it is not. It is a "fusion" of questionable maps (one of which is in direct conflict with an author's position) and another which is neither accurate nor interpretable. It's funny that someone such as yourself who has arrogantly dismissed people's legitimate questions and violated consensus agreements simply because you think so, would accuse me of such things. You and your enablers have repeatedly taken jibes and threatened respectful users, such as vastu. These type of intimidation tactics are unconscionable, especially considering your absence of a case. I would suggest that you go back to drawing the indo greeks heroes you post on wikipedia, and let serious and objective contributors properly shape these articles.


 * Devanampriya 00:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that there is a great deal of inconsistency in so far as these complaints are grounded in opposition to an article which presents a fusion of the most reliable studies on the subject, while it argues in favor of accepting the works of a single author as definitive in some regards. Having personally dealt with a number of the academicians who have studied the subject and having done so myself, PHG's material appears to be a genuine representation of said "fusion" presented in good faith. Antialcidas 11:01, 15 May 2007


 * Antialcidas,


 * For all I know you are yet another sock puppet of PHG's used to bolster the thinnest of cases. But unlike him, I will respond to you in good faith:


 * 1. The article does not rely on a "fusion" of respectable works, but primarily 1 unreliable study: that of W.W. Tarn, whose theories and fantasies regarding the greeks (i.e. Alexander's altruistic quest for the unity of mankind) have since been discredited. An art historian, who accepts Tarn's disproven views, is then used to speculate an 8 year occupation on the gangetic, when the existence of any such expansion.


 * 2. If you've read any of our points at all (instead of just PHG's talking points), we have not argued in favor of a single author. What we have stated is that authors, such as O.Guillaume and Seldeslachts, have clearly established that it is irresponsible to engage in conjecture regarding the history of the Indo Greeks. With the utter and complete absence of concrete evidence to prove the extent of their rule past the Punjab, it is neither scholarly nor fair to depict their kingdom as so expansive.


 * 3. We recommended Narain's position precisely because he raised the very questions about Tarn's theories that were never asked. He trenchantly points out that the campaign in the Yuga purana was attributed to the Mathuras, and that the indo greeks only assisted them. Most importantly, he does not have an agenda. He genuinely admires the indo-greeks. Tarn, a lawyer by trade, had an agenda and interwove the racist views of imperial britain so that they could claim themselves as "the legitimate successors of the indo greeks".


 * 4.PHG's materials are an agglomeration of 1 perspective: That the indo greeks ruled the northern half of the subcontinent, period. Moreover, he skips the necessary due diligence and scrutiny that need to be applied to maps. There is no evidence of expansion into Ujjain and coastal maharashtra--NONE. If it exists, I'm sure you and your "academics" would be able to furnish it. Lastly, the simple fact that he sees things in black and white, (i.e. predators and liberators) demonstrates his inability or refusal to view things objectively.


 * In sum, PHG takes idle speculation as gospel. History is not literature, it is science. And this map and this article do not pass scientific muster. Surely, your "academics" would make you aware of that--unless you are phg himself and you will avoid reading and responding to my points.


 * Regards,


 * Devanampriya 00:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Devanampriya. I am afraid your position is getting quite repetitive and isolated. Antialcidas (who writes from a different continent than mine), rightly points out that you argue "in favor of accepting the works of a single author as definitive in some regards". You cannot use Narain to deny the views of the (many) other scholars on the subject, as simple as that. Regards. PHG 04:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm, no PHG, so far 4 other contributors have complained and questioned the accuracy of material on this article--hardly an isolated position. You've lied about everything else, I supposed I shouldn't expect you to accurately portray this situation, especially considering your "friend" who speaks in vague terms elected to avoid signing in.


 * As I already noted, there are two scholars, O.Guillaume and Erik Seldeslachts, who question the ability of any author to make clear statements about the history of the Indo-Greeks. So that's three authors (including Narain) who point out that beyond the Punjab, one cannot claim land in India for the Indo-Greeks, "as simple as that". There are many more who are Indian historians not specializing in the indo greeks that accept that. But that's ok, your embrace of a discredited lawyer and an art historian automatically trumps everything.


 * What is repetitive, is your blanket avoidance of any of these points. That's why there's never a compromise. You simply reject any opinion that contradict yours and damn the legitimacy of them. Of course, with you feeding talking points to your friend across the globe, I'm sure he never would have considered that.


 * Devanampriya 03:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Trying to favour some sources to suppress others is simply contrary to the spirit of an encyclopedia and any scholarly work. It is simply impossible to follow you on this ground. Stop deleting referenced material pertaining to foreign influences in India : this is vandalism. PHG 06:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just went through E.Seldeslachts. As a matter of fact, at the same time as he advocates cautiousness, he precisely catalogues the amount of available data in a way similar to this article (and actually much beyond), and concludes that claiming "that these Indo-Greeks had nothing to do with the history of Pataliputra is an overstatement", and clearly states that there are indications that "the Greeks may have pushed further eastward to Ayodhya and ultimatelyto Patna, engulfing most of the Ganges Valley". He even acknowledges the possibility that "Bharuch and Ujjain may have been taken from the mounth of the Indus". So much for your sources. O.Guillaume on the other hand only claims that in his opinion Indian sources are more litterary than historical. Bottom line: cautiousness is necessary in drawing conclusion on the Indo-Greeks, theories are multiple and are based on shaky ground, which is pretty much the way this article has been handling the story. PHG 17:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, splendid job on your research PHG. Way to lie to wikipedia administration yet again. E. Seldeslachts, wrote the following in that piece in his concluding thoughts: "All but the most generally formulated hypotheses are lacking in proof, including my own" and O.Guillaume was referring to reasoning based on numismatic evidence, and not just the indian sources you mentioned (p.290, "The End of the Road for the Indo Greeks?".  You clearly missed the point, or refused to accept it, of "The End of the Road for the Indo Greeks". You are misportraying everything, like a journalist taking quotes out of context. You are attempting to veil eurocentrism and couching it in pleasing terms. But the fact remains that you have espoused some of the most racist and biased theories of that period. If those are your opinions, that is your business, but do not thrust them upon wikipedia.


 * As for foreign influences, you are lying about them and misapplying them:
 * 1. You commit original research:
 * :
 * 2. See mahitgar's comments below. You do not use a lawyer as a source on linguistics.
 * 3. Seleucus' campaigns did not take him to the yamuna, and thus, have nothing to do with it
 * 4. You are falsely and inaccurately protraying them (as noted throughout our discussions--evidence can be provided for third-parties).


 * That is vandalism. The bottomline is, you are suppressing the facts and imposing your views (NPOV violation). Your map show the entire northern subcontinent under the greeks. It does not show three different projects (you merely claim it does since you stitch together 3 maps). The verbiage in the article proper is straight out of Tarn, period. You use art historians who accept his theories as a buttress (bussagli). The fact remains, this is a biased article with only one point of view: your own. That is a violation of wikipedia's standards and mission statement.


 * Devanampriya 19:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am afraid everybody is getting tired with your diatribes Devanampriya. Please start by respecting Wikipedia rules: stop being uncivil and calling people names, and stop deleting referenced material pertaining to foreign influences in India ::::::: this is vandalism. PHG 06:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please take your games somewhere else, because serious contributors are not falling for your tricks. It is truly unfortunate that thanks to your antics, responsible contributors such as vastu, pavanapuram and windy city dude have all lost faith in the wikipedia system. Even mahitgar below pointed out the fallacies that you are pushing (be it political theories or linguistics). Stop lying PHG and start being honest with the wikipedia community.


 * You have:
 * 1. repeatedly mischaracterized authors and lied about the facts (narain, etc)
 * 2. committed original research (kushan empire map, gupta empire page, indo greek page, etc)
 * 3. used obsolete, imperialist sources (tarn) to back up your ideologies
 * 4. embraced racist colonial theories and interweaved them into the article's narratives
 * 5. attacked the messenger (be it vastu or myself) and dramatized when you have no facts to back up your case.
 * 6. engaged in fanwank (i.e. yamuna page) and diluted the quality of wikipedia articles.
 * 7. pretended you are a scholar and aggrandized foreign influences on india (i.e. satavahana page, gupta page, indo greek page)
 * 8. committed sneaky vandalism and destroyed the civility from community dialogue


 * Come back when you are a serious and objective contributor. Until then, I suggest that you refrain from editing wikipedia pages.


 * Devanampriya 19:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Untrue
 * 2. Untrue. All my contributions are properly referenced.
 * 3. Untrue. More than 20 modern and less modern sources are used in this article. Tarn is not an "Imperialist" anyway.
 * 4. Untrue. Why do you characterize some references as "racist colonial theories"? Where is the racism is theorizing Hellenistic incursions in India. On the contrary, I think it is a great story of cultural interaction.
 * 5. Laughable. Just look at the amount of abuse you have been throwing at me and others on this page.
 * 6. Untrue. This is relevant and referenced information. Stop the abusive language (why are you depending so much on the word "fanwank"?).
 * 7 Untrue (i.e. never, anywhere pretended to be a scholar). All mentions of foreign influences on India are properly referenced.
 * 8. Laughable. You are the one destroying referenced content, and everybody can judge by your language who is "destroying the civility from community dialogue".
 * Now, don't count on me to keep responding to such empty diatribes and false accusations. Start by respecting Wikipedia rules: stop being uncivil and calling people names, and stop deleting referenced material pertaining to foreign influences in India ::::::: this is vandalism. I am through with this exchange. PHG [[Image:Original Barnstar.png|20px]][[Image:Original Barnstar.png|20px]] [[Image:Original Barnstar.png|20px]] 20:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not. I wrote a post to the wikipedia administration, when you decided to respond by lying about the content of the article and by attempting to discredit users, such as myself and vastu. Also, you have continued to misrepresent your self and the authors.

1.Here is narain on the extent of the indo greek kingdom:

"Menander's kingdom shows Indo-Greek power at its height. He ruled from the Kabul valley in the west to the Ravi (river in Pakistan) in the east, and from the Swat valley in north to northern arachosia in the south" (Narain, A.K. The Indo Greeks. BR Publishing Corp: Delhi. 2003.p.122)

Gujarat: "The fact remains that there is no evidence that either Alexander or the Indo Greeks conquered Gujarat: the account in the Periplus is just a sailor's story". ((Narain, A.K. The Indo Greeks. BR Publishing Corp: Delhi. 2003. Page 118)

2. Narain on the campaign to pataliputra (which was an indian campaign with greek allies):

"Surely the evidence of the Yuga Purana shows that at one time the Pancalas and the Mathuras made a bid to occupy Pataliputra and in their attempt, they took the help of the Indo Greeks" (Narain, A.K. The Indo Greeks. BR Publishing Corp: Delhi. 2003. Page 113)

3. As for your repeated usage of coins, respected British authors have also noted that it is not an indication of conquest:

"Both Whitehead and Allan are strongly of the opinion that such finds of Indo Greek coins are evidence not of their rule in these districts but of the popularity of their money..." (p.114)

So as you can see, PHG, in spite of your condescending responses above, you have not accounted for yourself and your actions.

Even if you disagree with Narain's views, why do you refuse to incorporate them into the article? Surely they deserve equal treatment alongside your precious Tarn. The fact remains, you want this site to be monopolized by your perspective. If that were not the case, why didn't you accept my proposal to show different maps instead of combining them into your frankenmap? Surely that's a fair deal.

Ultimately, you have harmed the accuracy of the article and the reputation of wikipedia with this actions. You can throw up a smokescreen of accusations against me, but the fact remains that Windy City Dude, Pavanapuram, Vastu, and other serious contributors agree with me that you have engaged in original research both here and elsewhere and have poisoned the quality of the discussion with your polemics and insults ( I mean, it's one thing to attack me as you are wont to do, but vastu?). Hopefully those who are more interested in dialogue than doctrine will take you place to negotiate a fair and objective settlement. Devanampriya 21:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I known nobody ever stopped you from incorporating Narain's quotes or perspectives into the article, on the contrary. More contributions are always welcome. You've only been reverted when you delete other's referenced material, which is a very different case, and quite unacceptable under Wikipedia rules. PHG 07:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * O come on Devan, Vastu discredited himself when he produced this [[Image:Indo-GreekKingdomMap9.jpg|thumb|250px|Vastu's map as can be seen earlier in the discussion page.]]
 * You can't say you actually support this map which IS actually original research. You can at least cede that surely. (&#91;&#91;User:Giani g&#124;Giani g]] 22:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC))


 * Giani G,


 * I was addressing the administration, but since you wish to act as proxy for phg, I will respond.


 * Don't attack vastu's credibility. He more than anyone else attempted to broker a fair agreement, and negotiated one in good faith before phg violated it after vastu left.


 * As for you, I believe you lost your credibility when you stated that eurocentrism doesn't exist and that tarn had no reason to aggrandize the indo greeks, when any scholar worth his salt knows that the british saw themselves as the inheritors of the greek legacy. They justified their occupation of india by promulgating false theories, and Tarn clearly took up the white man's burden. As a self-proclaimed speaker of punjabi, you shoudl be in tune with the experiences of that region. Original research is what PHG has been guilty of in all of his maps, especially the kushan empire map (where he unilaterally changes borders given feelings at the moment).


 * '''If you believe phg's cause to be just, and that all three maps deserve to be posted, then why not have three different maps? Why does phg insist on combining all three?


 * The only reason for combining them is so that readers can get the impression that the indo greeks ruled in all of those areas.'''


 * Even sponsianus recognized (as noted above), that the german map was inaccurate ( he conceded that the southern regions were inaccurately portrayed).


 * One final point is that, I own a copy of Tarn's work. PHG is essentially pushing Tarn's discredited theories verbatim, from the campaigns of Demetrius (who was restricted to the Indus valley) through the motivations (this is not a matter of good or bad. or to use phg's words, predator or liberator. we are not casting judgement. the greeks invaded because they saw potential for conquest and they were pressured by central asian tribes. we have no other evidence indicating otherwise. tarn's baseless theories are not justification). This does not take from a variety of sources, but is essentially based on one.


 * Lastly, POV remains disputed. Whoever removed the caption above the article has done a disservice to the debate.


 * Sincerely,


 * Devanampriya 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Above statement "He more than anyone else attempted to broker a fair agreement, and negotiated one in good faith before phg violated it after vastu left." is untrue and defamatory as already explained.
 * The map you keep contesting cannot be more fair, as it is the faithfull representation of 3 published maps, drawn by highly respectable sources (Oxford, Narai, Atlas der Welt), and clearly illustrates the breadth of interpretations on the extent of Indo-Greek dominions. PHG 07:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you know what the word defamatory means, so stop bandying it about. The untruths have been coming from yours and sponsy's end. shame on you for trying to slander vastu--he was far more polite, understanding, and willing to negotiate than you ever were (see above). Your map is a frankenstein concoction, as abominable as mary shelley's character. You combined 3 maps to push your biased vision of the greeks in India with foolish speculation about the chalukyas being the seleucids and other such nonsense. read narain, he never supported your perspective, and the oxford map is completely different from the drivel you've concocted (an much smaller). stop prevaricating and answer the question: why not have 3 different maps with 3 different perspectives to ensure objectivity instead of pushing your own racist, eurotriumphalist chaff?


 * Devanampriya 02:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I seem to be jumping into a nest of vipers but, Devanampriya, your position appears to be hyper-nationalist. And, no, I'm not a sock puppet. Nickjost (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Genetic contribution
It strikes me as odd the reference to the (Slav) Macedonians (ethnic group). Are you sure that Semino et al (2000) are not referring to the Macedonians (Greek)? Genetically and anthropologically speaking it is to be expected that Slav Macedonians are somewhat related to Greeks (including Greek Macedonians) and other ' Mediterranean' people (e.g. Turks, Albanians) as well as, of curse, other south Slavic people (e.g. Serbs and particularly Bulgarians.)

There is an ongoing research about the Greek genetic contribution in this part of the world (as studied in the Kalash article) that might help here:
 * 2001-2002: Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan (Full access)
 * 2002: Investigation of the Greek ancestry of northern Pakistani ethnic groups using Y chromosomal DNA variation (Abstract only)
 * 2003-2004: Investigation of the Greek ancestry of populations from northern Pakistan (Abstract only)
 * 2007: Y-chromosomal evidence for a limited Greek contribution to the Pathan population of Pakistan (Full paper)

In the last one for example all European/Balkan samples (n=77) were collected in Macedonia (Greece) and other parts of Greece. -- QuantumVibe 14:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this has been discussed earlier in the archives, where an edit was reversed because the quote actually reads like it does - the data in the study was compared to people living in modern Macedonia as a reference. What you say about modern Macedonians not being the same as the ancient ones is of course perfectly true, and Semino et al have not maintained such a revisionist standpoint.


 * We know very little of the ethnic composition of the Bactrian Greeks: the percentages of "real" Greeks, ancient Macedonians and hellenised allies could only be guessed at.
 * Sponsianus 09:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly that section needs to be deleted. It is one of the many misleading and poorly researched contributions made to this article.


 * Devanampriya 00:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Feel free to refer to these references yourself if you feel it needs updating. I know some interesting papers have been published only last year but I haven't got the time right now. Sponsianus 21:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The only thing nonsensical is your affected claims of objectivity, sponsy. just because an article has references, doesn't make it objective, correct, or appropriate. but hey, that's fine. you're all about specious arguments and eurocentrism anyways.


 * Devanampriya 02:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Poorly researched", it's a peer reviewed paper on molecular genetics, what are you suggesting? (&#91;&#91;User:Giani g&#124;Giani g]] 12:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC))


 * I am suggesting that, as you noted on the wikipedia incident board, you are ignorant about this topic. You have no knowledge about the subject matter but simply parrot PHG's positions and unleash invective upon me. This behavior may be accepted in the pind, but for those of us interested in serious discourse, your contributions are laughable. This paper states itself that there is no firm basis for its hypothesis. Why don't you read what you talk about for a change.


 * Devanampriya 05:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that for best results, this talkpage should be used for discussion about the article, and not about the editors? I recommend that everyone review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA --Elonka 08:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Very funny Devan, you made an "Indian joke" against me but anyway the paper isn't about finding any Greek descent, read the abstract! The title gives a hint The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations And actually I am a medical geneticist and I know a fair deal of information regarding DNA sequencing. (&#91;&#91;User:Giani g&#124;Giani g]] 13:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Evidence of Greek rule in Mathura
Here is a piece of evidence about Greek influence in Mathura, a stone from a nearby village with an inscription of the Greek era. The time should be 71 BC if this is indeed the same era. I quote from Mark Passehl on Hellenistic Yahoo Group:

The Maghera stone is published (inter alia) in Gérard Fussman's masterly study of Menandros and the _Milindapanha_; "L'Indo-grec Ménandre ou Paul Demiéville revisité", _Journal Asiatique_ 281.1-2 (1993), 61-138. At pp.111-117, with a photograph on p.112 and transcription with (French) translation opposite (p.113). These were made from an inspection of the stone at the Mathura Museum by Fussman himself in Feb 1991. It was unearthed by workmen in 1988 in the village of Maghera, 17 km. from Mathura. So one of the few important inscriptions of the period with a definite (and authentic) provenance. The inscription is cut in three long lines with only a couple of insignificant lacunae due to wear and tear. It is a brahmi script text commemorating the sinking of a well by a family of Brahman traders belonging to the gotra Mitrayu. The stone is from the wall of the well itself. The first line consists mainly of a precise dating formula. No ruler of any sort is mentioned, and in the usual Indic practice of the time the year date is written in words and repeated in numerals immediately after. The formula reads:

"In the one hundred and sixteenth, 100 10 6, year of Greek Kingdom, in the 4th month of winter, on the 30th day". Sponsianus 13:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Greek Influence is not the same as Greek rule. Scythian rule in Mathura has been clearly evidenced, and it they most certainly adopted aspects of greek culture on their way into India.


 * Devanampriya 02:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Known Scythian inscriptions usually give other eras as well, such as the Maues or Azes era. This inscription gives only the Greek era, which is a strong indication that the engravers lived in the Indo-Greek kingdom.


 * The year 71 BCE is also far too early for Scythian rule into Mathura. This was likely during the rule of Apollodotos II, the most important of the later Indo-Greek rulers. Only later rulers such as Azes I and the satrap Rajuvula ruled east of Indus, and they are convincingly dated to later than 71 BCE. Azes I (perhaps 60-35 BCE) did not defeat the important Indo-Greek king Hippostratos, who only ruled in western Punjab, until c.55 BCE, and then he had still a long way to Mathura. Finally the text is written in Brahmi, and AFAIK the Scythians preferred Greek or Kharoshti script.


 * This leaves the option that an indigenous Indian ruler held Mathura and used the Indo-Greek era, which is not very convincing and anyway wholly speculative. This seems to be a case of an Indian craftsman using a well-established era, the Indo-Greek, which obviously would not have been the case if the Indo-Greeks had not ruled there, just as the Parthians used the Seleucid era because they ruled formerly Seleucid territories. It does not explicitly prove that the Indo-Greeks still ruled in Mathura in 71 BCE, only that their reign there had been sufficiently long to establish their chronology.
 * Sponsianus 08:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As per your own post, there remains a high degree of uncertainty around the actual era to begin with, which of course makes the date of 71 bce itself suspect. Accordingly, as mentioned repeatedly above, there is no consensus among actual scholars (so I'm afraid you are discounted here) about the actual advance. All you fellows are doing is engaging in your own speculative original research.


 * Devanampriya 22:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Even though there are admittedly scholars like Joe Cribb who prefer a ten year later dating, no scholar has suggested that the inscription was not made on Indo-Greek territory. There are in fact very few examples of eras being exported outside of their original territory, before modern times. Such an observation is hardly original research, much less speculative.

If the inscription had been made under Azes, we should have expected the Azes era to appear, etc. It is of course an easy position to routinely dismiss any indications of Indo-Greek rule this far east, by simply pointing out that any indication is not absolute proof in itself. However, there are a number of indications which taken together carry great weight.

Incidentally, I am indeed an actual scholar insomuch that I have been published in a peer-reviewed numismatic journal (ONS). But that is beside the point, since I would hardly refer to my own research on this page.Sponsianus 10:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The point on which all the scholars agree is that the mention of indo-greek era and reign ONLY(and no other)in the Mathura inscription is a much stronger evidence of the indo-greek rule never mind the doubts that might be raised for one reason or the other(usually far fetched and not very convincing at all) about indo-greek rule in Mathura. Scythian presence in Mathura came much later, long after the end of indo-greek rule and only after the Scythians conquered Punjab which also happened much later, numismatic evidence around the western banks of Yamuna, where Mathura is located, consists of only indo-greek coins around the time of the inscription. There are no scythian or indigenous coins until that point or even many decades after that, when they finally start appearing and the indo-greek coins seize to. All these together with the Mathura inscription, and the mention in the Hathigumha inscription of the indo-greek army retreating back to Mathura from the vicinity of Pataliputra after suffering a defeat, leave little doubt of Indo-greek rule in Mathura. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.81.86 (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the occurence of another attack later on, on Saketa and Pataliputra by indo-greeks which is mentioned in the ancient text Yugapurana which also clearly states that the indo-greek army retreated to Mathura later. Mathura in all these instances, again and again, is the eastern most outpost of the indo-greeks.

Page protected
This page has been protected due to edit warring. I have also taken this opportunity to start a Featured article review which is here. I am not up to speed with working out whether this article is biased or not, but since I know something of the criteria about writing style, I feel that there are aubstantial problems with it already. Since there is already a substantial argument about the POV, it may as well be dealt with here because if the POV is not balanced, then it should not be a featured article.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with both the protection, and taking the article to FAR. Hopefully there things can be sorted out.  Thanks Blnguyen.  :) --Elonka 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Maps
It seems that part of the dispute here is about which map to use at the top of the article. Map A here seems to be preferred by one side of the dispute. Map B is preferred by the other side, and they've been edit-warring back and forth about which one to use. I've checked a couple of my own historical atlases, such as The Atlas of the Ancient World, by Margaret Oliphant, and though they're not an exact match, they're pretty clear that Map A is closer to the general consensus for this topic. Looking at the maps that Wikipedia is using at Alexander the Great, again, Map A seems to be the better descriptor. Does anyone have access to other sources, and if so could you please weigh in here and say which one you prefer, for the top of the article on "Indo-Greek Kingdom"? Thanks, --Elonka 21:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Elonka, it's nice to see you dropping bye :-) As you've probably understood, I personally prefer Map B, 1) aesthetical reasons 2) the combination of three different maps seems interesting: it offers three different views, of which one, BTW, corresponds almost exactly to Map A. I've always been unsatisfied with historical maps in wikipedia because they tend to offer a single solution as absolute: a multiple possibility presented on the same image has in my view the advantage of avoiding the risk of absolutizing a map, and makes clear there are multiple historical interpretations--Aldux 01:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC).
 * I agree with Aldux about the aesthetics. I would also add that the dotted lines on map B provide a visual clue to the average reader and make it clear that the boundaries are not absolute and that some alternative boundaries are present. I'm sure that in such a complex topic there are no single solutions since records of the time vary and multiple interpretations are possible. As such the multiplicity of possible solutions and their superposition on a single map is attractive to me. Dr.K. 01:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your idea of borders being fluid. In fact, I personally wouldn't have highlighted territory at all, just color coded the cities. The truth is, out in the countryside central governmental presence was more or less nil in those days. But how well do you think that would have gone over here?
 * 76.26.132.123 05:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC) -WindyCityDude
 * This is a general problem even in more recent times. The Wild West comes to mind. Before the establishment of a central authority in the United States the various towns and cities had little Federal Law reps around. But the United States had borders nonetheless. Dr.K. 15:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added two more maps, just for discussion purposes, so we can see them all in one place. --Elonka 02:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look at the note (and the map legend), you will see that Map B is sourced from three reputable published map: "Historical Atlas of Peninsular India" Oxford University Press (dark blue, continuous line), A.K. Narain "The coins of the Indo-Greek kings" (dark blue, dotted line), Westermans "Atlas der Welt Gesishte" (light blue, dotted line). I think it balances quite faithfully the variety of scholarly opinions on the subject, and avoids taking a specific POV position. I'm glad people like the esthetics too. PHG 05:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, that's entirely inappropriate for a cover map. It would make more sense to put those differing ideas on a separate article if you're going to insist on peddling fringe theories or under a different heading under the main article. We discussed this before and you doggedly insisted on putting everything on the main map at the head of the article. This does not conform to any other cartographical convention on Wikipedia that I know of.
 * 76.26.132.123 05:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC) -WindyCityDude


 * I think that's actually the contrary. You do not want to follow a single POV for a cover map. The best we can do is incorporate the map you favour, together with alternative territories presented by scholarly sources. PHG 05:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All well and good PHG, but that flies in the face of every encyclopedic convention ever. Look at any map in any history book or encyclopedia and they will always show maps that either stick to established, settled borders around which there is a scholarly consensus or they will show the path of expansion of an empire. If you want to go into a discussion of other ideas floating around about where exactly the Indo-Greek territories were, it would make more sense to discuss them in a separate part of the article where you could do said theories justice instead of showing people a small and misleading nutshell. Elonka said herself that she was misled by the way the map is laid out. I doubt her suggestion to recolor it would fix the confusion really. People don't typically read captions and legends when they are skimming an article after all.
 * The point of an encyclopedia article is to give people a good overview of the subject matter. Wikipedia, being free from the limitations of printing costs, can go into more detail. But even then the intro text and lead images should still focus on the general overview. (You shouldn't lose sight of the K.I.S.S. principle at any point actually. This isn't about catching someone up to speed on the entirety of the scholarship on a topic, but we'll worry about that later.
 * In fact, that's really the problem with this article in general. It's insanely bloated. I think it was mentioned at some point up in the talk page that it really ought to be split up into various smaller articles but nothing got done about it. But besides the fact that it is huge, it's loaded with all kinds of #REDIRECT FanCruft that honestly isn't all that important. -WindyCityDude
 * This is the crux of the matter. If these theories are proven to be fringe this is another matter. But if this is legitimate scholarship, incorporating them as PHG suggests would do no harm. It would actually be helpful. Another problem seems to be that when a map gets reverted wholesale sections of the text, properly cited, are edited out at the same time. This needs further clarification. The map dispute is one thing. Concurrent removal of cited text is another. Dr.K. 15:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is another problem. I doubt that question is going to be answered to anybody's satisfaction since this is such an obscure topic. Unless A.K. Narain himself shows up with the reanimated corpse of W.W. Tarn (and even that won't satisfy some), I don't think any wiki admin has the necessary knowledge or disinterestedness to get into it. Part of the problem is the article's length and bloatedness that necessitates Devan and PHG getting into these tiffs over every little bit of minutae. So where does that leave us? Someone is going to have to slog through all those arguments up there AND do the necessary research to verify/invalidate the claims. On the plus side, once you skim past whining and the invective it's probably only half as long! -WindyCityDude
 * Thanks. That clears a few things up. Dr.K. 03:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, Elonka: the map used under the article of Alexander the Great has no relevance for the Indo-Greek kingdom. The empire of Alexander the Great and the Indo-Greek kingdom are two wholly different states, separated by at least a century. Modern works do seldom give maps over the Indo-Greek kingdom. Please read my post as of 24 January 2007 (in archive 2) for a brief background of why Wikipedia's guide lines are actually rather awkward for this subject. I would actually prefer two maps, one with the core territories (type A) and one with the suggested maximum extension of the Indo-Greek kingdom, (type B, but without any nuances, only a copy from the map "Atlas der Welt Geschichte"). However, the first map should have the Indo-Greek kingdom centered. As for now, it's cramped in the left corner and partially outside the picture! Best regards Sponsianus 17:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point about centering the Indo-Greek territory. I used a map of India as a template and they, understandably, focus on India. The Indo-Greeks came down from Bactria and probably centered themselves more on that region than they did on the south, especially when they were in their prime, so it would make sense to draw a map centered in Afghanistan. I can do that if you like once I find myself an open-sourced template. -WindyCityDude


 * I agree with that evaluation of the subject, but I also feel that condensing the variety of independent states and dynasties that loosely fall under the heading, somewhat misleadingly, of the "Indo-Greek Kingdom," into a single map is a weighty task. Labeling Taxila as the capital of this state is also questionable in my mind, as it was only imagined to have been such at times. This article should, in my opinion, be titled the "Indo-Greek Kingdoms" and delineate the various territorial bases for different dynasties, since it's clear there were at least a handful ruling in different areas at the same time. That massive reworking withstanding, it is highly appropriate, for our purposes, for the selected map to reflect the largest extent of the Indo-Greek kingdom. Given the great debate over the length of time that the Indo-Greeks spent in control of their conquests to the South-East, it is also best that the supposed extent of these acquisitions be represented as best we can conceive of them. That in mind, Map B is clearly the more versatile of the two (to say nothing of visual quality) and presents a more balanced perspective, even if in the context of these arguments it is being characterized as radical.
 * Antialcidas 7:09, 3 October 2007 (EST)
 * Path dependence is going to make that hard. If we were going to change the entire conceptual framework behind the article there is a lot of article to be fixing. Not to say you're wrong. You're absolutely right. I'm just saying your suggestion is no easy task at this point.
 * As for your point on the maps, you'd have to read on how he sourced and put together that map. It's exaggerated and some of those sources are rather obscure. I still haven't gotten a look at the German atlas they're talking about. A.K. Narain is improperly sourced since his book actively argues against the maximalist bent of map B. The only map everyone at this table has actually seen with their own eyes is the oxford map that I based mine on. It is copyrighted as of 1949 IIRC which is the most recent one I could get. A.K. Narain's book is copyrighted sometime in the '60s I believe, but the map in it is taken directly from Tarn's. So it's not exactly recent. The Atlas derWeltGeschichte was published in 1979, but being as how it's a compilation, we don't know how old their information in the map information is or where they're getting it from. Since it's an atlas it ought to be cited somewhere in the text. Tomorrow I might get access to the JSTOR archive and see what I can find. Maybe settle it for good?-WindyCityDude


 * (To Sponsianus) Ah, I stand corrected, thanks. I freely admit that I don't know that much about the subject. I have never edited this article, and just came in as an outside opinion.  Speaking as a layperson, my first impression when I looked at Map B, was that it showed the expansion path of a kingdom, sort of like this one about the Mongol Empire: [[Image:Mongol_Empire_map.gif|50px]].  In other words, it wasn't clear on a first look that it was saying, "These are different opinions of the extent".  Instead, it looked to me like they were showing different sizes of the Kingdom at different phases in its history.  I understand that a careful read of the legend shows that this is not the case -- I'm just giving you my "first impression" opinion.  What would probably have made it more clear to me, would be to have a single map at the top of the article that showed the "Everyone agrees on this part" size of the Kingdom, and then another section further down in the article that said, "Differing opinions on size of Kingdom", that would talk a bit about different historians having different views, and provide the differing maps there.  Alternatively, perhaps a map that showed a "colored in" section for the agreed part of the Kingdom, and then a dotted line in a different color that showed the possible other extents of the kingdom. Just offering my $0.02, Elonka 23:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I agree with most of what has been said here. The fact is there are no current, unambigious maps. I have a few modern works in my library and none of them give maps with any types of borders. The "Atlas der Welt Geschichte" map is the most ambitious attempt to take all sources into account, but it is rather old and some of the sources could indeed be interpreted with less certainty.

I have personally argued for a map including the city of Mathura (some miles outside New Delhi) as the eastern border, for modern studies seem to suggest that this city was the easternmost outpost for quite a while, with inscriptions and hoard findings of the coins of long sequences of Indo-Greek rulers found in the vicinity. The south-east extensions (south of Gujarat) are less supported by such modern findings and are perhaps not that realistic. But to create a new map borders on original research, alas. And while arguing these points Devanampriya has become just as infuriated with me as he is with PHG.

So I think the best idea would be to have two maps, and a separate headline discussing the extension of the kingdom where we could add modern indications (or lack of such) for rule in Mathura, Barygaza etc.Sponsianus 07:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Map sources
If it's helpful, I spent some time in a college library today looking for other maps of the Indo-Greek Kingdom, and found these: I also found some maps that listed the Bactrian Empire, and one that listed the "Graeco-Bactrian State" in 185 B.C., though I don't know how helpful that is (like I said, I'm not that familiar with the subject (yet)). If you'd like more details, let me know. I could probably also scan them and toss them up on a webpage if the mapmakers here would like to see them. FYI, Elonka 05:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Early India from the Origins to AD 1300. It has a section in the "Politics and Trade" chapter on "Indo-Greeks and Shakas", starting on p. 213.  And there's a map in the back of the book, "Map 6" of "North Indian and West Asia", c. 200 BC to AD 300" that lists the Indo-Greek section.  The way they do it, they're not drawing a border, they're just printing the name "INDO GREEKS" across a section of the continent (which might be another way to do it, if there are so many border disputes!)
 * Atlas of South Asia (Dutt/Gibb), p. 19, "Hindu Period", has a map which shows "Indo-Greeks: 256-180 B.C." (roughly the same area as our "Map A")
 * Oxford Atlas of World History, p. 46, has two maps. One that shows the general location of "Indo-Greeks, 325-50 BC", and another that shows invasion patterns, as "Movement of Indo-Greeks, c. 330-180 BC"
 * I would suggest a map with just the placenames, insofar as they are locatable. Any borders drawn on this evidence are guesswork, even if they are the guesswork of reliable sources. The FARC is beginning to discuss content, if anyone is interested in joining us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

New map
Just a comment (I'm back from two days out). Most maps do show boundaries for the Indo-Greeks (and personally know only one map with names only), so a map with boundaries is I think the obvious scholarly choice, even if there are uncertainties (like many ancient maps anyway). Hence the depiction of the various interpretations in map B. This is the closest to what is usually shown about the Indo-Greek, and does cover the variety of interpretations. Best regards. PHG 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There is however a nice map I did in the past, which I think should solve most of the issues being discussed here (see on the right). It shows the "Core territories" in dark blue, the "Conquests" of the Indo-Greeks according to Westermans and Narain, and the campaign lines to Pataliputra and to the south. Instead of just three superimposed versions of the Indo-Greek map (which, by the way, was intended to be the most NPOV of all maps), I think it shows clearly the kingdom and its conquest dynamics without betraying the sources, or favouring a POV over the others. Best regards. PHG 22:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This map is neither neutral nor accurate Euthydemia is an error, according to Tarn and Narain, and Barigaza a simple blunder. The entire pincer movement is Tarn's theory (only); other aurhors ascribe similar holdings to the later kings, but not as part of a single campaign. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This map is rigourously based on three major sources: "Historical Atlas of Peninsular India" Oxford University Press (dark blue, continuous line), A.K. Narain "The coins of the Indo-Greek kings" (dark blue, dotted line), Westermans "Atlas der Welt Gesishte" (light blue, dotted line). It does not claim a single "pincer mouvement" or even conquests as part of a single campaign. Sagala/Euthydemia is mentionned by numerous author quoting Ptolemy, I am not aware that it is supposed to be a mistake. What do you mean by "Barigaza" being a blunder? Regards. PHG 20:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On Euthymedia, read Tarn's Appendix 13, which Narain endorses: "Tarn has very ably shown that this [emendation to Euthydemia] is impossible and the correction is unwarrantable." (Narain, 1957, p. 81).
 * On Barygaza, see the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, as cited by authors from Bunbury to the present. This Google Scholar search shows two hits for Barigaza, as over a hundred for the correct form.   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see PHG got this from Bussagli. Barigaza is the correct form in Italian; so is Gluck's Orfeo ed Euridice; but in both cases the English for upsilon is y. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Taxila
The assertion that Taxila is Demetrius' capital is Tarn's conjecture. He asserts archaeological evidence that Demetrius rebuilt Taxila in a different place, but as a purely Indian city, with neither the Hippodamian polis-layout, nor a palace. He gives no evidence whatever that it was a capital. This theory is widely contested; to state it as fact in the lead in undue weight. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, most authors do consider Taxila as one of the Indo-Greek capitals. As late as 100 BCE, it is mentionned as an Indo-Greek residence in the Heliodorus pillar, during the reign of Antialcidas. Actually, I think it is the city most usually credited with being the capital of the Indo-Greeks. Best regards PHG 20:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Citation, please. I know of no-one but Tarn who calls it a capital; and he gives no evidence. Heliodorus demonstrates that it was a city, which is not the same thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It is true we do not know that Taxila was a capital, but it was a major city, and one of the few cities in India built partially like like a Greek polis. Important coin monograms are attributed to Taxila by such numismatists as R.C. Senior (Decline of the Indo-Greeks) and given that there were several kings centered in the area of Gandhara, it seems likely that Taxila was residence to some of them.Sponsianus 19:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC) 11:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely; to say it was a capital is to accept Tarn's reconstruction, only, in Wikipedia's voice; except that Tarn says that it was not built like a Hellenistic polis. (And derives therefrom his view of the Graeco-Indian harmony: Demetrius (I) adopted the Indian style and had no palace or cantonment, because the Indians accepted Demetrius as King of Justice.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

One needn't accept all of Tarn's elaborate suggestions to propose that an important city was a capital. Here is a recent reference from R.C. Senior, Decline of the Indo-Greeks, 2004, p 39

"Amyntas was restricted to just a few mints with Taxila probably as his capital." There are several hints in the same book that other late kings had their base in Taxila, such as Menander II, and struck their best coins there. The fall of Taxila to Maues coincides with a dramatic drop in coin qualities of the Indo-Greek kings, and likely the best mints were in the capital. Note the "probably", such reservations are more common in modern works. Tarn, on his side, knew for sure. Sponsianus 20:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Tag
I have tagged this article because Devanampriya et al. do in fact dispute the accuracy and neutrality of this article.

As it happens, I do not agree either with the present text, or with the text they would like. I propose a compromise, which follows WP:V by saying, where scholars disagree, Tarn says X, Narain says Y, Bopearchchi says Z. I am prepared to do this, slowly; but I will not attempt to rewrite this article and (at the same time) edit-war with both sides. I am prepared to argue with either side, or both, about Tarn and his credentials; but I hold in brief that we should neither follow him nor exlude him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally accept the WP:V approach. Regards. PHG 20:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But I am not sure I do, as I've mentioned on Septentritionalis' home page. We cannot repeat obsolete views on each and every subject, especially not in the case of the later kings. The modern studies take off with Bopearachchi in 1991: there are a number of shorter studies published afterwards. The problem is that while some of these works are clearly of lower standard, others correct Bopearachchi on important points.


 * There has never been a proper scientific debate, because works are published in different fields, even in different languages. It is quite easy to find references (for instance in Seldeschlachts, 2004) to obsolete views, like when Seldeschlachts quotes Simonetta and proposes to change his chronology of Zoilus I and the subsequent kings to a starting date of c.120 BCE. Totally unaware that overstrikes (which are as absolute as things get) have placed Zoilus I before the death of Menander I, i.e. very likely before 130 BCE. And Seldeschlachts hasn't been refuted, for that's not the way things work. Numismatists publish their own coin findings, they do not spend their time refuting obsolete views.


 * In this case, we have two alternatives: either to dismiss Seldeschlacht's view as errant, which is close to original research, or to present his view on Zoilus I (it's AFAIK the latest one published) even though it's painfully clear that he has not taken recent research in account.


 * As for Tarn and Narain, IMHO they should be quoted only when they do not contradict more modern authors. Their chronology of later kings is obsolete, by several decades in many cases, and that makes every single suggestion they make about the relationships between these kings pointless.


 * Another example: every author who writes about the Milindapanha before it was realised that there are two Menanders (this happened in the 1980s?), do so convinced that Menander struck several Buddhist coins to prove his conversion to that faith. Today, all of these coins but a single bronze series are attributed to Menander II. This means that much of the previous certainty has gone - who was the Buddhist king Milinda, Menander I or Menander II, or an amalgamation of both?


 * Yet, it is difficult to find sources that explicitly say that all earlier works are obsolete, because religious history and numismatics are two very different fields which rarely communicate. You'd have to realise this yourself: yet again, this is close to original research.


 * I am trying to convey how utterly problematic it is to pursue a consequent policy on the Indo-Greeks. This problem cannot be solved by repeating old authorities. We'll have to select the most modern (and relevant) works in each separate case or else the article will be nothing but a mess of conflicting views. Sponsianus 20:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's important to be conscious of whether or not a view is "obsolete". Historians are constantly revising and rewriting history.  A view that may have been widespread in the 1950s, may simply be dropped from works today.  What I find best is to look for the most comprehensive modern sources, and try to reflect a summary of that modern scholarship on Wikipedia.  It can't hurt to also include some information from older sources, but where there is conflict about a view, we should definitely stick with the consensus of modern historians, rather than trying to include every opposing view that has ever been written down in the past, unless it is clear that modern historians are still raising questions about that view. --Elonka 16:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

New Ref
I added a lot of new refs and many direct quotes today, increasing the ref count to 125. Regards PHG 20:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Whitehead
Full name of the book needs to be put in the book list section. Also, please alpha sort the book section. and please make sure to use one consistent style of footnote. There are a few and I don't mind which one as long as they are a same. Some have spaces, dots after the p, pp for multiple pages, dots after numbers, spaces, and a combination of the above. Please pick one and use consistently.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe this to be Catalogue of coins in the Panjab Museum, Lahore, by R. B. Whitehead. Vol I (and apparently only) is from 1914, and is indeed on Indo-Greek coins. Do we really need to document the state of scholarship before Tarn? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Article size: 47Kb
After History of the Indo-Greek Kingdom and Religions of the Indo-Greeks, I also created Legacy of the Indo-Greeks to outsource more material. The body of the article now stands at 47 Kb!! PHG 07:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

McEviley
This is a textbook on a different subject; therefore a less reliable source than the contending authorities. It is still less reliable when one finds that the quotations in the notes are themselves exact quotes from Mortimer Wheeler's 1968 popularization Flames over Persepolis, as McEvilley, properly, acknowledges — and the present text does not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mortimer Wheeler is, furthermore, unusually clear, for a popularization, on the nature and extent of his authority. All his statements on Taxila derive from Sir John Marshall's excavations of the 1940's, and Marshall was uncertain whether the "Hellenistic street plan" derives from the Greeks or the "Scytho-Parthians" (i.e., the Kushans) who learnt it in Bactria. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Misleading quotation

 * Narain, paraphrasing Whitehead: "It has been noted that this famous city, this great center of trade, a capital of Menander and Mihirakula, should have left mounds and coins on a scale comparable to those of Taxila" Narain, The Indo-Greeks'' p.237

This will not do; Narain is outlining the view which he is about to disprove. This note suggests that he agrees with it. Please stop! Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)