|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gandhara article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 [Untitled]
- 2 First statue of buddha
- 3 gandhara in the mahabharat?
- 4 Cyrus I or Cyrus II
- 5 Etymology
- 6 Grammar and Citations
- 7 vandalism,
- 8 Christian dating or Common Era?
- 9 Gandhara from 600 BCE to 1000 CE
- 10 Gandhara Stone
- 11 Vandal deletion by 126.96.36.199 on 16:12, 25 June 2009
- 12 Deletion discussion
- 13 Gandhara and the Ramayana
- 14 Merge Gandhara Kingdom to here?
- 15 References
Please note the Valley of Kashmir and its vicinity has nothing to do with Ghandhara. While Ghandhara and Kashmir have interacted in the past both are distinct regions and Kashmir has never been referred to as a region of Ghandhara.
- Kharosthi script was a contemporary of Brahmi script (the root of the various Indic scripts). You can compare their respective glyphs at , . Kharosthi is not thought to derive from Brahmi, nor Brahmi from Kharosthi. Both appear to trace back to the Aramaic alphabet. technopilgrim 00:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
First statue of buddha
I watched a documentary on TV recently. It said that based on the relics unearthed in 2002, the scientists believe the oldest statues of buddha were invented due to Greek influence in the Gandhara area. Some earlier stone carvings even have Greek gods surrounding Buddha. Buddhists didn't use statue before that.
I also watched another documentary on TV about some legends in this area that may explained where Jesus was before age 30. The theory seems to imply that Jesus learned and preached Buddhism. Could Christianity have a Buddhist root?
It would be nice to have some external links to these new findings and theories. Kowloonese 00:52, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Yes actually thats very possible because it is recorded in Hindu texts that Jesus was in India. Christianity had a lot of Hindu/Buddhist influences.
gandhara in the mahabharat?
how come no mention of it hindu roots?
->The king of Gandhara was King Shakuni during the Mahabharat time.
- Or Gandharan cultural influence on Hinduism. I do beleive the Gandharans were not considered as Hindu but barbarians beyond the caste systems (mlechhas) during those days. At anyrate I think there is a significant amount that needs to be filled but it really lacks definitive historical information atleast till the persians show up. There seems to be little work by qualified historians as well as factual evidences for various hypotheses on this subject so it may be better to just leave it brief mentioning what is known rather than drawing any inferences to fill it up. (Wiki: Original Research)
--Tigeroo 07:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
No, the earlier Gandharis were Hindus later with the conquest of central asians population like the kushans (bactrians) the people of Gandhara became buddhists.
- No, they were considered hindu. read the mahabharat.--D-Boy 11:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
the king of Zabul was pagan and not hindu since he was a native of the sacaes who were nomads of northern central asia.
Cyrus I or Cyrus II
In the section 'Persian rule', Should the king Cyrus I be changed to Cyrus II the Great? I'm not sure about this point. Who can help me check this? thanks a lot!--188.8.131.52 09:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Is the name "Gandhara" derived from "Alexander"? Or is it textually attested to from before the Alexandrian conquests? CiteCop 13:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Grammar and Citations
This page (the Gandhara article) requires a thorough grammar clean up and also desperately needs citations for many of its claims.
it is not true saying Pashtuns were inhabitent of Gandhara since they are and were known as Afghans for 1000 of years. The term Pashtuns drives form the Persian word Posht-on which means those on the back(side). Unlike Gandharis Afghans name drives from Ashvakan and they were nomads while Gandharis were cultivater, folk of civilization. The name Gandhara was also not used for ever. It was developed very late. When Persian flooded Gandhara the name tunred into Parswar (Area of Persians) and today it is known as Peshawar. The people of Gandhara were first vedic speaking like the rest of northeastern aryan world. The Pakhas, Pakhats or Paktas (Herodot mention them as Pactyans) were vedic and their original name was Pakhas, Pakhat or Paktas that´s what we find in the Veda about them. Gandahra has nothing to do with pagan Ashvakans or their descneds, the Pashtuns (Aughans).
Please stop the anti-pashtun hate or you will be reported. The word Gandahara does not come from "Parswa" or the persians as you claim. It derives from the word "Purushupara" which is Sanskrit in origin. Also, the Pactyans were not vedic, they were a eastern iranic people confined to the east of Afghanistan and are no doubt believed to be the ancestors of modern day Pashtuns along with the Bactrians. Also the word "Afghan" only came into existence during the 2nd century AD which is very recent.
Christian dating or Common Era?
I have changed all the dates to the less contentious BCE and CE rather than BC and AD (except in the map - which is someone else's work, and in book titles - which should not be changed) as many non-Christians (including myself) find the use of AD (standing for "Year of our Lord") and BC ("before Christ") not only wrong (because most scholars, even Christian ones, now admit they don't relate accurately to the year of Jesus' birth) but they seem strange and even uncomfortable (or even religiously repugnant) for non-Christians to use - while nobody, surely, can have any serious objections to using the abbreviations for "Common Era" (CE) and "Before Common Era" (BCE) which have gained very wide international acceptance among scholars in recent years. Moreover, I object to the title of my book being changed in the references - as I chose BCE and CE to use in the title for exactly these reasons. Hope I am not stamping on anyones toes - but I do think this is the preferable and less contentious way to go. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Gandhara from 600 BCE to 1000 CE
The lead to this article states that "The Kingdom of Gandhara lasted from c. the 6th century BCE to the 11th century CE." Technically that's not correct; Sometimes Gandhara was independent of neighboring powers, sometimes it was under direct rule by Persia, the Mauryans, Bactrians, Turks, etc. True, it was often independent of those powers, like during Shahi times, or free but under vassalage, like during Kushansha times. But it seems misleading to say it the way the lead currently describes it. Anyone mind if I work on that? Thomas Lessman (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mind at all. I noticed the same discrepancy. You might consider its position under the Achaemenid Empire, Alexander the Great and the Indoscythians. --Bejnar (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know more about some stone that we have inherited. We used to live in Pakistan and visited the ruined cities in Mohenjodaro and Harrapa valley and Taxila. I have a Buddha head and also a leaping lion and parts of a frieze. They are 3000+- years old. can anyone tell me more? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC) email@example.com
Anonymous user 220.127.116.11 has deleted an entire referenced quote for unexplained reasons grom the End of Gandhara section of the Article.
|“||According to Al Beruni , the armies of Ghazni carried fire and sword in Gandhara . The persecution of Gandhara caused irrepairable damage to Indian religions in this region . The ruins of cities ,temples , manastries , etc bear witness to these acts of vandalism . After its conquest by the Ghaznavids , Gandhara , an overwhelming majority of its population embraced Islam ||”|
Discussion between John Hill and Intothefire aggregated from three pages to this one for clarity and flow .
- Dear Intothefire: I have replaced the above quote with one from Al Biruni himself - as it is best to quote primary sources. I hope you will approve. If not, please leave a note explaining what you think should be done on my Talk Page. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
John Hill replaces above quote from a secondary source with the following quote from a primary source viz Al Beruni
"Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims. This is the reason, too, why Hindu sciences have retired far away from those parts of the country conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Benares, and other places."
Intothefire response (1) to John Hill posted on John Hill talk page
Hi John Hill
- I thought that secondary sources were preferred on Wikipeddia , now you suggest primary sources are preferred .?
- Since I don’t delete (by and large) specially not referenced information , I don’t have any objection to your quote .
- Have you replaced the content in the capacity of a wikipedia admin...or as just another wikipedian ..because if your edit is in the capacity of an editor then I respect your choice ...otherwise your quote made by Alberuni while true ...I wonder if it was made in the context specifically of Gandhara .
John Hill response (1) to Intothefire post on John Hill take page as well as Intothefire talk page
I don't know whether there is a policy that primary or secondary sources are preferred in the Wikipedia, but, in very general terms, I believe it is preferable to go to the original source to be sure the information is accurate.
The quote you gave was:
- "According to Al Beruni , the armies of Ghazni carried fire and sword in Gandhara . The persecution of Gandhara caused irrepairable damage to Indian religions in this region . The ruins of cities ,temples , manastries , etc bear witness to these acts of vandalism . After its conquest by the Ghaznavids , Gandhara , an overwhelming majority of its population embraced Islam."
This quoted text is badly punctuated and difficult to follow and contains many grammatical and spelling errors, while the final sentence does not make sense. Further, in the previous sentence, the word monasteries is so badly misspelled ("manastries ") that a reader without a very good command of English might not even know what it was meant to represent (and would not be able to check it in a dictionary).
It was partly for these reasons that I replaced that quote with a much clearer quote from Al Biruni himself. While he does not mention Gandhara specifically, the statement was was made referring to Mahmud's invasion and conquest of northwestern India which, as we know, included Gandhara. I can see no difficulty here.
Finally, seeing as you ask, I am "just another wikipedian", not an editor - but if I were an editor why would you, on that basis alone, accept my changes if you thought they were wrong? Are we not trying to make this article as factual and clear as we can? Please let me know if you still disagree and, if so, why. Yours sincerely, John Hill (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
John Hill also posts this discussion on my talk page . I request that this discussion is held only on this page and aggregate all the parts here .Discussion carries hereon
Intothefire response (2)
Hi John Hill
- Wikipedia does prefer primary sources over secondary sources however I do admit to having used them as well on other articles
- The quote and punctuation is verbatim , the spelling mistakes on the two words are my mine . You could have have simply repaired the spelling ?
but as you have chosen to replace the quote with an entirely new one , then your reasons citing spelling mistakes are indefensible .
- With regard to not challenging an admin , I believe that in general wikipedia articles are benefited with users respecting Administrators (fairly) implementing wikipedia policy . If I found the intervention patently unfair or erroneous...I would challenge it ....following the wikipedia procedure to dissent .
- Yes offcourse I am trying (as I am sure you are) to make the wikipedia articles as factual as possible . However I do recognize that I do not have a monopoly on the facts ...and that others may post content that completely conflicts with my posts .
- Apparently you believe directly quoting Al beruni here enhances the factualness of the section on End of Gandhara .
- You have provided the following citation details Translated and annotated by Edward C. Sachau in two volumes. Kegana Paul, Trench, Trübner, London. (1910). Vol. I, p. 22
However while I could find Alberuni's quote you have added , in the preface of Sachau 's translation on page XV of the Preface , however here the quote is alluded to Al beruni commenting on Mahmud and not specifically the attack on Gandhara . Therefore can I request you to please tell me which is the exact chapter in the book that this quote is taken ?? Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Intothefire:
I am really happy to keep the discussion here - I do think it is a good idea to keep it all in one place. I also hope to keep it cordial and particularly hope that I have not upset you - as this is certainly not my intention at all. I notice that, going back in the process, some anonymous person had previously had just deleted your quote with no explanation at all - which is really unfair - and then I came along and deleted I again - so I can understand you might well feel under attack.
Anyway, to reply to your points:
- Thanks for the information on Wikipedia's policy in regard to original and secondary sources which I did not know about previously.
- I did not try to correct the spelling, grammatical or punctuation mistakes in the quote you made as I had no way of telling if they were in the book you were quoting from or made by you. I believe it is very important to keep quotes as exact as possible with any editing or changes added only when really necessary and clearly marked as such.
- Thanks for the explanation of your comments about Administrators' actions.
- Yes, I do believe quoting Al Biruni directly on the invasion of northern India (including Gandhara) by Mahmud is likely to to be factual as Al Biruni was reporting on what had happened only a few years before his time and he also has a good reputation as a reliable historian.
- The quote I made comes from Chapter I of his book. I will include more of the quote below so you can see it more in context. Please let me know if you think I should insert this whole quote from p. 22 of Sacau's translation to make it all clearer.
- "Now in the following times no Muslim conqueror passed beyond the frontier of Kâbul and the river Sindh until the days of the Turks, when they seized the power in Ghazna under the Sâmânî dynasty, and the supreme power fell to the lot of Nâṣir-addaula Sabuktagin. This prince chose the holy war as his calling, and therefore called himself Al-gâzî (i.e. warring on the road of Allah). In the interest of his successors he constructed, in order to weaken the Indian frontier, those roads on which afterwards his son Yamin-addaula Maḥmûd marched into India during a period of thirty years and more. God be merciful to both father and son ! Maḥmûd utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims. This is the reason, too, why Hindu sciences have retired far away from those parts of the country conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Benares, and other places. And there the antagonism between them and all foreigners receives more and more nourishment both from political and religious sources."
Intothefire response (3)
- OK I could locate your quote in the first chapter.
- Your choice then ,weather you wish to include a larger chunk or your earlier segment.
- Hi again!
- I think I will use the longer quote - it is all really of interest, but it a bit long, I think. Please have a look at what I have done and tell if you think I should shorten it. I am really not sure what to do here. Cheers and best wishes, John Hill (talk) 04:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have deleted the following unreferenced content
In 665 Kabul was besieged by the Arabs who did not cross the Hindu Kush. The Arabs took Kabul
- I have deleted the following unreferenced content
This is factually incorrect because
|“||The presence of Arabic settlements on the Iranian Tablelands dates back to the early seventh century AD , when Arab troops, after a lightening like conquest of Persia , proceeded to occupy Khorasan and Bactria. In the second half of the 9th century they extended their hegemony to the south of the Hindu Kush. Kabul to the east fell in 871 despite the heroic resistance of the Hindushahi . ||”|
Gandhara and the Ramayana
The section that mentions Gandhara's presence in epic literature includes a particularly dubious claim about Bharata settling in Gandhara until the time of Alexander's invasion. I have never come across a version of the epic that mentions this, and even if such a version exists, it would be difficult to qualify. This is because the Ramayana is considered to have a date of composition no later than the 4th century BCE, which would have either barely preceded or coincided with Alexander's invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Merge Gandhara Kingdom to here?
I noticed there's a rather poor article "Gandhara Kingdom" - basically unreffed, no illustrations - which seems not really worth keeping given the fine work here. Any reason not to redirect it here? If not, we can do a formal merge request. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Buddhism and Gandhāra art By Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Pranati Ghosal, Jñāna-Pravāha, Jñāna Pravāha (Organization : Vārānasi, Uttar Pradesh, India), Indian Institute of Advanced Study Page 49
- Alberuni's India. (c. 1030 CE). Translated and annotated by Edward C. Sachau in two volumes. Kegana Paul, Trench, Trübner, London. (1910). Vol. I, p. 22.
- Arabic as a minority language By Jonathan Owens Published by Walter de Gruyter, 2000 Page 181 ISBN 3110165783, 9783110165784
In the section of puranic tradition it is stated: "According to Vayu Purana (II.36.107), the Gandharas were destroyed by Pramiti, aka Kalika, at the end of Kaliyuga." This cannot be the case because we have not reached "the end of Kaliyuga" yet!
There arises also a question: Shouln't be mentioned, that this region was also stated to be the home of the Nagas (Dr. Naval Viyogi: "Nagas: The Ancient Rulers Of India" page 5)?--22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Un-sourced material removed
I have removed and changed this particular line " was an ancient kingdom in the Swat, Peshawar, Rawalpindi, Ghazni, Kandahar and Kabul river valleys and the Pothohar Plateau, in modern-day states of northern Pakistan and northeastern Afghanistan."
Since it is wrong, Gandahara was confined to North-Western Pakistan all the way to indus river valley therefore Ghazni, Kabul, Rawalpindi and Kandahar could not have been included in Gandahara. Kandahar was located in Schytia while Kabul was located in Pactya and Rawalpindi was in Taxilia. I also removed this part since the link for the source is very weak; http://www.heritage.gov.pk/html_Pages/gandhara.html
The website itself is very nationalstic and even uses the term "any proud Pakistani" indicating it is not a good source. It also does not say anything about Jalalabad or Gardez being linked to Gandahara.Akmal94 (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Difference between Purana (epic) and Ithihasa: Purana (Epic) are mostly fiction oriented stories created. Ithihasa means (this is how it happened) "History". Almost all ancient books and literary references refer to Ramayana and Mahabharata as Ithihasa until recently Western historians started using the word "Epic" (in line with Greek mythologies) without realizing the difference. Some food for thought ... (Vasu C.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
It looks like it hasn't been proposed formally but I think that Gandhara Kingdom (which probably should be Gandhard kingdom) should be merged to Gandhara. The contents there just discuss the references to the Gandhara kingdom within the Mahabharata (and aren't sourced) which, while interesting, isn't the same as actually historically sourced material (which Gandhara doesn't have a lot of anyways). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)