Talk:Indo-Greek Kingdom

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:[[1]]. 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 ([2], [3], [4]), 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 ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9]): 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:

([10], [11], [12], [13], [14]):

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 ::::::([15], [16], [17], [18], [19]): 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 ::::::([20], [21], [22], [23], [24]): this is vandalism. I am through with this exchange. PHG 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

You can't say you actually support this map which IS actually original research. You can at least cede that surely. ([[User:Giani g|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)

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 [25] (Full access)
• 2002: Investigation of the Greek ancestry of northern Pakistani ethnic groups using Y chromosomal DNA variation [26] (Abstract only)
• 2003-2004: Investigation of the Greek ancestry of populations from northern Pakistan [27] (Abstract only)
• 2007: Y-chromosomal evidence for a limited Greek contribution to the Pathan population of Pakistan [28] (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? ([[User:Giani g|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. ([[User:Giani g|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)

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

Map A WindyCityDude's map (1/11/2007)

File:Indo-GreekOxfordNarainWestermans.jpg Map B PHG's map (5/8/2007)

Map C PHG map, modified by Vastu 12/2006

Map D PHG, 12/2006

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: . 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:

• 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 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)

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

Territories and expansion of the Indo-Greeks.

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)

My edits of the History section

I have now begun a series of edits on the history section(please feel free to revert them) that make short shrift with many outdated suggestions. I fear that the story of the invasion has been reduced to a number of conflicting and in several cases obsolete statements which makes the text impossible to read.

Now I have edited the history sections down to "Later History". The changes include:

The history begins with the headline Bactrian expansion and foundation of the Indo-Greek kingdom This is perhaps a clumsy headline (please edit) but it reflects that Demetrius I was a Bactrian king. I have removed most conflicting older views, and gone for a reconstruction based on Bopearachchi's work. It is a brief narrative which includes no quotes. Hopeless ideas such as Tarn's (and to some extent Narain's) sub-king fantasies are gone: they are mere obsolete speculations without historical credibility. (Numismatical evidence aside, a Basileos was an independent king in the Hellenistic world, it's usually as simple as that, and in some cases the "sub-kings" have left behind more coins than their "masters".) They should not be presented to the casual reader of an encyclopaedia.

You've overlooked Demetrius Poliorcetes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a reasonable objection: in that case I also overlooked Antiochus I, who was co-regent with his father. But an heir and co-regent is not the same as a sub-king: the latter is a ruler of constantly inferior rank in a distinct dominion, sort of an appointed official. The Romans and their vasall-kings come to mind as a comparison.

Tarn suggests that Demetrius I appointed several men to rule various provinces with the title basileos. According to Tarn, he did at the same time appoint his sons Euthydemus II, Demetrius II, Pantaleon and Agathokles, as well as his brother Antimachus I and possibly another brother, Apollodotus I. Such an idea (the sheer number of contemporary kings could be as high as 5-6) is without any precedence and totally unproven.

There are actual examples of Bactrian sub-kings: the Eumenes and Antimachos mentioned with (very likely their father) Antimachus I Theos, who appear in the tax-receipt - which was unknown to Tarn and Narain. This document is alone enough to make short shrift of the entire sub-king theory: Antimachus I had given his heirs royal status and so had "sub-kings" of his own, which obviously was the action of an independent king.

It may be possible that some kings ruled more or less conjointly (in India and Bactria, presumably), but not in the way Tarn and Narain presents the matter. Sponsianus 09:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Menander is separated from Demetrius in time, though the closer discussion of for how long is not included here. He was not a general of Demetrius I: there are no sources behind this speculation, and even a brief look at his coins show that he was a young man when he began his reign. Anyway, Bopearachchi has also proved that there were earlier Indo-Greek kings than Menander, which is in accordance with what the sources say: Trogus mentions Apollodotos before Menander, so does the Periplus.

There is no Demetrius II mentioned here: there are no coins to justify his existence as a conqueror. Bopearachchi's Demetrius II (175-170 BCE) is a Bactrian king and should not be included here,and the bilingual coins of a king Demetrius (III) are utterly rare and evaluated as much later. Closer discussions can still be found under the respective kings but are too academic the main article.

There are four headlines: Initial conquests (of Demetrius), After Demetrius (where Apollodotus I is introduced, the first Indo-Greek king), Menander I and a discussion of the Extension of the kingdom, including a mentioning of the attack on Pataliputra.

In the next section, Ancient sources and alternative views on the Indo-Greek expansion, I have kept all the relevant sources (of course) and some of the more valuable controversies, such as the extent of outer territories and an alternative view of how long Demetrius I ruled, and if he could have attacked Pataliputra. I have kept the same four headlines. Indian and Western sources are no longer strictly separated. There is a source for the Hathigumpha inscription. The mentioning of the name A-mi-ta compared to Di-mi-ta is my own suggestion (or rather Mark Passehl's). What I do is that I compare three letters and say that two are the same. The letters can be found on Wikipedia images. If this is original research then for all sake re-write the passage.

In the next section the headline "Retreat from eastern territories" has been changed to "Indo-Greek wars with Bactria" which better reflects what happened. I have removed the dubious suggestion that Menander's rare Attic coins indicate that he conquered Bactria. Such an interpretation of the Attic coinage of the Indo-Greek kings is outdated: no less than 12 kings struck such coins, and no modern authors support this idea. I can provide references if you wish, to prove that the Attic coins do not indicate actual dominion over Bactria, but a simple look at their number will prove my point. There are just a few dozens of them, all in all. Menander's spear-throwing tetradrachm is reportedly still unique, the other variety includes a few coins, compared to thousands and thousands of his Indian issues.

Moving on to The fall of Bactria and death of Menander I have removed some remaining suggestions that Heliocles I and II were the same king, and that Eucratides II ruled south of Hindu Kush (all his coins are Attic and found in Bactria, so this is not true. If anybody wishes to discuss the so-called Antialcidas over Eucratides II overstrike please mail me and I'll give you references. The coins are most likely posthumous and do not concern the actual kings.) As for whether Straton I was the son of Menander, I have referred to the discussion under Menander.

The last part of the history seems relatively fine to me.

I hope you appreciate this initiative. This is what I had wanted to do since 2005 but never had had the energy.Sponsianus 18:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sponsianus. Thank you so much for your contribution! Best regards. PHG 19:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an improvement; it is better to be imbalanced and follow a current source than imbalanced and follow an old-fashioned source. Nevertheless, all of the arguments made above can be, and should be, answered; Bopearchchi is merely another conjecture, and the only real advantage he has over Tarn or Narain is that he goes into less detail, and so offers fortune a smaller stake.

Unfortunately, this is also not exactly how I read Bopearchchi: the Demetrius anicetus coinage, for the sake of which he postulates Demetrius III, is not rare.

I will have to see what Tarn actually says on anicetus. I suspect he's being quoted out of context again; it was a title of Alexander's. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps more importantly, I am not convinced that Bopearchchi is consensus of the moderns, although his system has been widely adopted. I trust the New Pauly of 2006 is sufficiently respectable and recent to be used as a control. But I don't want to go further in this direction than the edits to the paragraph about Demetrius would indicate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear PMAnderson, a) I am perfectly well aware (and so is certainly PHG)that Bopearachchi's system is not perfect, and that is why I have tried to complement his views with other modern sources.

The advantage that Boperachchi has over Tarn and Narain is that he is much later and has access to largely updated information on the Indo-Greek coinage. Several coin types, monograms and important coin finds were not known to Narain or Tarn when they presented their theses: they were known to Bopearachchi. If Tarn had not retired long before Agathocles' commemorative coins of Diodotos II and Pantaleon, the Attic coins of Apollodotus I and the lead coins of Straton II were found, (to name but a few advances) Tarn would doubtlessly have adapted his theses to such coin findings and admitted himself that his previous speculations did not give the whole picture.

There is no difference between this and other fields of science: later authors have access to more information and could make better informed judgements.

b) The "Demetrius Anicetus" coinage is very rare despite what you say. In Bopearachchi's Monnaies... (1991) there are two silver coins and two bronze (all bilingual) credited to Demetrius III Anicetus, all struck with a single monogram. In the ANS collection (1998) one of these bronze coins is repeated. I quote from Senior's "Decline of the Indo-Greeks" (2004) "Coins of Demetrios III are rare in any metal". Senior also dates Demetrius III Anicetus to 70 BCE, a century after Demetrius I. AFAIK, only one tetradrachm of Demetrius III Anicetus has been found ever.

Then there are the posthumous coins of Agathocles, commemorating Demetrius I as Demetrius Anicetus: a single specimen of these coins is found in Bopearachchi 1991 and none in ANS 1998. It would be interesting if you would motivate how you can interpret Bopearachchi to mean that the Demetrius Anicetus coins are not rare.

c) The word "aniketos" was indeed used in reference to Alexander some contexts, such as an Egyptian oracle saying something like "Alexander will be invincible" but this is not the same as a standing epithet. Moreover, epithets began appearing on Hellenistic coins only about 150 years after Alexander. Sponsianus 01:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Peter Green thinks otherwise (The Hellenstic Age, p. 7: Alexander adopted it as an epithet after the oracle used it); but he says nothing about coins. There do not appear to be very many statements on this minor matter either way, but I happened to run across Green just a few days ago.
• In any case, the present burst of rhetoric is pure Tarn, on one of his weaknesses, the grandeur of Demetrius I. If (as you imply) the facts largely consist of there being very few numismatic epithets of any kind before the Greeks went to India, we should say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Does Peter Green give any examples of this epithet being used in the Alexander cult? There are numerous examples of inscriptions preserving such epithets. Otherwise, Green could be the one elaborating. Tarn has a point that Aniketos was not used by any previous king; this and the subsequent "Dikaios" are more or less unique to Bactria and not found on other Hellenistic coinage.

Not in The Hellenistic Age, which is brief and addressed to the general reader. I presume the matter is discussed at more length elsewhere, but I do not see it in his biography of Alexander; Alexander to Actium begins in 323. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is also unclear when the epithet Aniketos was introduced. Apart from the commemorative coins of Agathocles and Antimachus I, there is an ultra-rare series of anonymous commemorative coins for Euthydemus I (as Euthydemus Megas, the Great), Antiochus Nikator, and Diodotus I Soter. Demetrios is missing - either no coins have survived,or he was not included. These were probably struck before Agathocles, but by whom is unknown. Sponsianus 20:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Diodotus called Anicetus, or Soter? If the former, Tarn's claim begins to look dated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources

This will have to be a section on its own. And yes:

• I do intend to cover the sources other than Justin
• I do intend to do so at less length.

Regards. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Note

Graeco-Bactrian and Indian coins from Afghanistan / edited and compiled by Olivier Guillaume ; translated from the French by Osmund Bopearachchi. p.17

• Argument that the monograms were not mint or minting marks:
  • Finds of coins with the same obverse and different monograms on the reverse.
  • Finds of the same monogram on Graeco-Bactrian coins, pr. from N of the Hindu Kush and bilinguals, pr. from S. of the Hindu Kush. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a most complicated matter. Monograms seem to have "migrated" from the Bactrian to the Indo-Greek kingdom, as seen for instance in Wilson, "Some Bactrian monogram successions", ONS189, 2006. Please see also Senior, "Decline of the Indo-Greeks", 2004, p.20: "Every monogram used on Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian coins could presumably be allocated a place of issue by the authorities of that time. In this sense each monogram is a mint monogram."

It should also be noted that there were several sets of posthumous coins. That there are "Finds of coins with the same obverse and different monograms on the reverse." is of course only an argument that the same coin types were struck at several mints. This argument is very difficult to understand and your compilation of quotes seems very over-simplified. Monograms may have meant either mints or mint officials, and I suppose Guillaume supports the latter view. Even so, there is still a relationship between the monogram and specific mints (where the mint official was active).

No, he expressly does not; IIRC (one reason I noted this was to let the book go back to the stacks) he regards the hypothesis that monograms show minting officials as "conceivable", but most improbable. No, I don't know what his theory he holds on what they are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no authors who seriously mean that monograms don't have a relationship to mints, but this question is far too complicated to be dealt with here. Sponsianus 01:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is primarily intended to be a citation justifying an eventual description of the argument that monograms always demonstrate the minter as generally, but not universally accepted, or some such language. If I were engaged on a book on the subject, outside WP's constraints, I would not find Guillame's argument particularly robust, but his dissent should be noted here. I see no need to describe his position, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

“Totally disputed” tag

Some users have been adding a “Totally disputed” tag at the top of the article, although it is unclear in what sense this article would be totally disputed. For those wishing to have this tag in, please justify. PHG 14:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

PHG, there is obviously a dispute. See the threads on this talk page (such as "Tag" above), and the over 100K of concerns at the FA Review. You've been participating there, it seems odd that you would say that you are "unclear" on how there is a dispute. --Elonka 15:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this tag is unfair because it is very vague. It refers to the whole article. Is the neutrality of the whole article in dispute? Or just sections? Similar questions for factual accuracy. The structure of the tag is also questionable. Why is it so absolute? Totally is a very absolute and unfair term. I'm sure this article is not disputed in its totality. Why do we want to make it appear so? First let's fix the description of the wiki dispute tag. Let's change it from totally disputed that sounds like something from Valley girl lingo into something more professional and exact. Second target only the sections under dispute, not the whole article. Maybe we can then go somewhere. Finally there will always be disputes since even the scholars disagree on this subject. We don't have to tag the whole article every time our favourite scholar appears undercited. Dr.K. 19:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr Kessaris appears to be complaining of the name {{totallydisputed}}, when the tag is actually merely a combination of {{pov}} and {{accuracy}}. If he wishes to replace the one tag with two, that's fine by me. But Devanampriya has been actively and consistently disputing both the neutrality and the accuracy of the article, and it is therefore tagged. For my part, I believe that it is indeed imbalanced throughout, and inaccurate and irresponsible in spots spread throughout the article. I did in fact tag parts I found questionable, and had them systematically removed, so I'm not sure his proposal is helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It's just semantics I guess and I do know you had no choice but to use it if your opinion of the article is as you stated above. But totally is too absolute. Maybe "seriously disputed" would serve the same purpose and give the tag a bit less of a scare factor. Replacing it with two tags would not be a solution. So if anyone cares to fix the template code maybe they'd wish to take this proposal into consideration. As far as your selective tagging of the article, if that didn't work either we have a real problem. It's a difficult subject with obscure and contested sources and editors on various sides of a perceived Eurocentric vs Othercentric or Nocentric division. At least, Mr. Anderson, you try to help. You need all the luck in the world, or at least this side of the perceived cultural divide. Bye for now. Dr.K. 23:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, in turn. From my point of view, what matters is the text of the tag: The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed, as they are, rather than the name it bears, which is internal to Wikipedia. I will consider downgrading it to a combination of {{accuracy}} and {{balance}}. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Most claims by User:Devanampriya have been proven wrong (either on factuality of POV grounds, see FARC discussion). This "Totally disputed" tag is inadequate, unless a fresh rationale is given. PHG 06:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the comments at the FA Review, it's clear that the article is not stable. It is appropriate to have some sort of a "disputed" tag on the article. If there's disagreement about exactly which tag to use, then try offering something different, but simply removing the tag is not the proper way to handle things. --Elonka 05:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to have a "Totally disputed" tag in, the burden is on you to explain why the article is "Totally disputed" and give a rationale for it. PHG 06:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Extensive rationale has been given both here on this talkpage, and at the FA review. If you don't accept that rationale, then you can try to build consensus at the talkpage about why the tag should be removed. But it's not appropriate for you to just remove the tag yourself. --Elonka 06:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Devanampriya's issues are not withdrawn. I don't agree with most of them, but that's another question.
• I have discussed the notes at the FA; until all of them are checked by a reliable editor, I dispute accuracy.
• PHG dogmatizes, erroneously, two sections below, about Latin and Greek, neither of which he speaks. He also dogmatizes about Justin, with no support from anyone.
• Where Sponsiansus has rewritten this article, it asserts Bopearchchi's conjectures as fact; where he hasn't, it asserts Tarn's. If he had finished the job, I would use {{balance}}, since my only problem with Bopearchchi's reconstruction is that it is conjecture, and has not persuaded everyone - and we should say so. Tarn is also conjecture, and one now open to serious doubt. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

PHG claims Original research paragraph by Pmanderson

I am very surprised by an entire original research paragraph recently inserted by User:Pmanderson. Entitled “Nature and quality of the sources” it amounts to a personal essay and critique aimed at challenging the use of ancient sources made by modern scholars. It really has no place in a summary of the History of the Indo-Greeks, neither on Wikipedia in general. Here is the paragraph in question:

“Some narrative history has survived for most of the Hellenistic world, at least of the kings and the wars;[18] this is lacking for India. At least one such existed in antiquity: the Roman author, Pompeius Trogus, used it in his history of the world. This is also lost, but we have a much shorter abridgement or anthology by Justin. Justin tells the parts of Trogus' history he finds particularly interesting at some length; he connects them by short and simplified summaries of the rest of the material. In the process he has left 85% to 90% of Trogus out; and his summaries are held together by phrases like "meanwhile" (eodem tempore) and "thereafter" (deinde), which he uses very loosely. Where Justin covers periods for which there are other and better sources, he has occasionally made provable mistakes.[19] Justin does find the customs and growth of the Parthians, which were covered in Trogus' 41st book, quite interesting; in the process, he mentions four of the kings of Bactria and one Greek king of India, getting the names of two of them wrong.[20] In addition to these dozen sentences, we have a few passing mentions of India in the geographer Strabo, and there is half a story about Bactria (only) in one of the books of Polybius which has not come down to us intact.[21]”
I have removed it for the time being. PHG 14:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that PHG has been honest enough to include the fact that there were no less than four footnotes supporting this text. Two of them cited Justin himself as the best authority for what Justin did in fact say; another cited a standard list of the classical testimonia on Greek India; the fourth cited the introduction to the current translation of Justin, whose analysis of the authority and accuracy of Justin I followed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is this sort of thing which suggests that the best marking for the article is a dispute tag on the whole. There is no other way I can see to indicate to the reader that sourced material has been, as here, simply suppressed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that was a rather accurate account. Whether this much discussion on the sources is necessary for the main article is an other question.Sponsianus 13:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly see no reason to discuss other authors on the same scale; and if you can condense this, please do. (I thought it would be shorter when I started, but I don't see how to make the peculiar nature of and problems with Justin clear in less space.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• I do think the tenuous nature of the sources is important, however, especially since the absolute chronology depends largely on Justin's synchronisms. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Chronology depends on what secondary sources says (such as Bopearachchi), not on ancient writers like Justin, who is just one primary source with its defects. I am afraid this 20 lines paragraph has nothing to do at the beginning of a summary on the History of the Indo-Greeks. I moved it where it belongs, as an intro to the "Ancient sources and alternative views on the Indo-Greek expansion" chapter. I have also streamlined it to remove some obvious OR and POV. PHG 05:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Bopearchchi's chronology depends on the primary evidence; if it did not, it would be a figment of his imagination. Therefore it cannot be stronger than the primary evidence will admit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, what PHG has done is to remove the statement that Justin uses the otherwise unattested Theodotus as the name of the first two kings of Bactria . Since Tarn, Narain, and Bopearchchi all correct to Diodotus, following the coins (so does Justin's translator, in a note), this is not OR, but one of the few genuinely consensus statements which can be made. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Pmanderson. Essentially an OR essay really, and an essay on Justin really has no place as the introduction to the history of the Indo-Greeks. I moved it back to where it belongs (in the paragraph which discusses sources). As far as I can see, a number of your statements are OR and cannot remain:

• "Justin tells the parts of Trogus' history he finds particularly interesting at some length; he connects them by short and simplified summaries of the rest of the material. In the process he has left 85% to 90% of Trogus out; and his summaries are held together by phrases like "meanwhile" (eodem tempore) and "thereafter" (deinde), which he uses very loosely."

• • Entirely from Develin's introduction to Yardley's translation of Justin, as cited. Tarn, as quoted on the FAR, would support more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• "Justin does find the customs and growth of the Parthians, which were covered in Trogus' 41st book, quite interesting;": sounds like a highschool essay.
  • and therefore includes Parthia at some length, as explained in the previous clause. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• "he mentions four of the kings of Bactria and one Greek king of India, getting the names of two of them wrong"... I don't think Theodotus is usually considered as "a mistake" for Diodotus: it is actually the same name, one is in Latin, one in Greek. PHG 05:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Wrong on two counts. Diodotus is as Greek as Theodotus. It is not from Latin deus, but from Greek Di-, the stem of Zeus in the indirect cases; compare Theodorus and Diodorus. (-dotus is of course purely Greek; the Latin, which does not occur in names, would be -datus.)
  • Tarn, Narain, and Bopearchchi all emend to Diodotus; and at least the first two do so with a remark on the error; Develin also remarks on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

FARC ongoing

This article is currently undergoing a vote whether to keep it as an FA or delist it. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indo-Greek Kingdom for discussion and vote. PHG 14:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ujjain

Does any source (other than Tarn and those totally reliant on him) postulate an Indo-Greek conquest of Ujjain? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For example: "A distinctive series of Indo-Greek coins has been found at several places in central India: including at Dewas, some 22 miles to the east of Ujjain. These therefore add further definite support to the likelihood of an Indo-Greek presence in Malwa" Mitchener, "The Yuga Purana", p.64 PHG 21:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, there is Mitchiner, note 44 in the article, who mentions a hoard find in Dewan close to Ujjain. I suppose you've read Tarn's indications for Greek presence in Ujjain: they are not very strong.

When I recommended the Atlas der Welt Geschichte map, where Ujjain is included, in response to the unsatisfactory "minimalist" maps provided by other users, I was aware of this potential exaggeration but still thought the map the best published source. The AdWG map is the only one to include Mathura in the north-east: this is Tarn's reconstruction as well but has been seriously vindicated by coin finds and inscriptions during latter years. Ujjain is more dubious and if it were possible without violating the original research policy, I would prefer an edited map where Mathura is included but Ujjain isn't: only a ring around Barygaza to signify its mentioning in the Periplus as a possible Greek trading center.Sponsianus 21:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)