Talk:Indo-Greek Kingdom/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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now begun a series of edits on the history section(please feel free to revert them) that make short shrift with many outdated suggestions.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)

Tarn's view certainly was that the subkings were sons (and Menander, a son-in-law) of Demetrius I: not satrapies, but appanages. Narain, typically, does not commit himself so far beyond the evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 16 November 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)

• I don't think Devanampriya will ever withdraw anything. Most of his claims have been dealt with and shown to be erroneous.
• As far as I am aware, all the references in this article are exact. Please point to specifics. In your biggest claim to date, you only pointed out what you perceived as a discrepancy between an exact reference to the Hellenistic layout of a city (Taxila) with the phrase mentionning is was also a capital of the Indo-Greeks, and claimed that the reference was wrong because it did not speak about a capital.
• I do not "dogmitize" on Greek and Latin, and indeed I may make mistakes. Could you explain why Diodotus and Theodotus have the same root, in your own words, and at the same time consider that Justin "got the name wrong"? Is it an outright mistake by Justin, or is it just a slight deformation? PHG 06:23, 31 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)

• I do not "dogmitize" on Greek and Latin, and indeed I may make mistakes. Could you explain why Diodotus and Theodotus have the same root, in your own words, and at the same time consider that Justin "got the name wrong"? Is it an outright mistake by Justin, or is it just a slight deformation?Could you give page references for Tarn and Narain? Bopearachchi does correct without mentioning a mistake (Monnaies, p.41). Please be careful with your spelling of names: it's Bopearachchi, not Bopearchchi. I still think your paragraph has nothing to do in an introduction to the History of the Indo-Greeks, and it does, sorry to say, read like an essay. A dissertation on sources has nothing to do there, and would be better positioned later in the article, where, indeed, ancient sources are discussed. PHG 21:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Like many Indo-European names, Diodotus and Theodotus have two roots. They share the second root - so does Apollodotus- but that does not make them the same name, any more than they are identical with Apollodotus, Diophilus, or Theophilus (all of which share one root with one of them). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:48, 31 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)

Could we strip out the boundaries, and just have the cities (and perhaps find-spots as gold dots)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the dating of Tarn's book from 1984 to 1938, for reasons given before. Sponsianus 21:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• That is perfectly reasonable; but we should note the 1951 and 1985 (IIRC) reissues. Both include substantial addenda and corrigenda. Similarly, the 2003 edition of Narain must include much material not in the 1957 edition, if only because p. 81 (1957) corresponds to p. 237 (2003); in fact, the 1957 edition has only 201 pp., including the bibliography and index. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about those page references? How long is the supplemented version from 2003? Generally, re-issues after the author's death can only be re-prints. Otherwise other authors have contributed original research and then that research should be credited to them. Sponsianus 12:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Tarn 1951 contains a lengthy section of addenda and corrigenda, by him. (Added since the original was still in type.) I have seen neither the 1985 Tarn nor the 2003 Narain; I have not cited them. Catalogs show that the 1985 Tarn has a new Preface and Bibliography, by somebody else (as noted); is it a defense of Tarn's position, or a retraction? (probably bits of both). I see that PHG cites pages from Narain 2003 up to the 300's; some of his quotes are verbally identical to Narain 1957, and seem to be in much the same order. A preface of 150 pages of coin pictures would account for the discrepancy.

Is Narain dead? He edited a book on the date of the Buddha, which appeared in 2003; it's a transcript of a 1990 seminar, but he refers to the death of Upendra Thakur in the introduction. Remember that Narain 1957 expands his doctoral dissertation, so he's not that old. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Strabo

Strabo does not believe any Greek conquered further than Alexander. See Strabo 15.1.2: He... contradicts what was already known, by saying those kings conquered further than the Macedonians. I'm sure R.G.Senior knows that, and his expressions are meant to be understood as shorthand for:

As the ultimate sources attested in Strabo say, the Greeks attacked ...

but he is writing for classicists, and we are not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Septentritionalis,

the translation I have seen is that Apollodoros of Artemita claims that the Bactrian Greeks conquered more tribes than Alexander did, which is quite another thing than that they conquered further east (and an obvious exaggeration). Please see here

"The Greeks who caused Bactria to revolt grew so powerful on account of the fertility of the country that they became masters, not only of Ariana, but also of India, as Apollodorus of Artemita says: and more tribes were subdued by them than by Alexander"

This is probably what Strabon opposes, not the exact frontiers of Indo-Greek conquests. In another part of his work Strabo also proposes himself, without questioning, that the Indo-Greeks advanced farther east than Alexander:

"Of the eastern parts of India, then, there have become known to us all those parts which lie this side of the Hypanis, and also any parts beyond the Hypanis of which an account has been added by those who, after Alexander, advanced beyond the Hypanis, to the Ganges and Pataliputra." —Strabo, 15-1-27[66]

So what Strabo argues against - unless he is inconsistent with himself - is not that the Indo-Greeks went further east than Alexander, but that their conquests were larger all in all. Here is the quote in question:

Moreover, most of those who have written anything about this region in much later times, and those who sail there at the present time. do not present any accurate information either. At any rate, Apollodorus, who wrote The Parthica, when he mentions the Greeks who caused Bactriana to revolt from the Syrian kings who succeeded Seleucus Nicator, says that when those kings had grown in power they also attacked India, but he reveals nothing further than what was already known, and even contradicts what was known, saving that those kings subdued more of India than the Macedonians; that Eucratidas, at any rate, held a thousand cities as his subjects. Those other writers, however, say that merely the tribes between the Hydaspes and the Hypanis were nine in number, and that they had only five thousand cities, no one of which was smaller than the Meropian Cos, and that Alexander subdued the whole of this country and gave it over to Porus. (Strabo, XV:3)

Please note that in the previous paragraph, Strabo strongly criticises the earlier writers, i.e. "what was previously known" was not reliable either. Very likely, what Strabo sees as a logical contradiction is that Alexander conquered 5000 cities in India and Eukratides held a thousand cities all in all. From this, Strabon draws the obvious conclusion that Alexander's conquests were much larger than those of the Indo-Greeks. But clearly Alexander did not conquer 5000 cities in India, and anyway this information is worthless unless we know how a "city" was defined. And what Strabo did perhaps not know is that Eukratides was hardly an Indian king. He held some territory in Arachosia and the Kabul valley, absolutely nothing east of Indus, so the number of cities under his dominion say nothing of the size of the Indo-Greek conquests.

Thank you for quoting at more length. I disagree with this reading of Strabo, but will seek secondary sources. Strabo does believe Alexander was the furthest.

The argument that he knew less about Eucratides than we do, considering how little we know, seems most unlikely. Eratosthenes' source (who may well be Trogus' source, as the common reference to a "thousand cities" would imply) said he was Eratosthenes, king of Bactria. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think Strabo explicitly says that Alexander went the furthest. That question is brought up by Strabo as one of those where the Indian chroniclers are unreliable and contradict themselves. In the previous paragraph he is making mincemeat of those earlier authors who seemingly contradict Apollodorus of Artemita. Anyway, Apollodorus was a contemporary of the later Indo-Greek kingdom, and probably lived in Parthia, its neighbour. If Strabo does not misquote him, we have reason to believe he knows better than Strabo (though this is admittedly a complicated matter).

Strabo XV 2-3 The reader must receive the account of this country with indulgence, for it lies at a very great distance, and few persons of our nation have seen it; those also who have visited it have seen only some portions of it; the greater part of what they relate is from report, and even what they saw, they became acquainted with during their passage through the country with an army, and in great haste. For this reason they do not agree in their accounts of the same things, although they write about them as if they had examined them with the greatest care and attention. Some of these writers were fellow-soldiers and fellow-travellers, as those who belonged to the army which, under the command of Alexander, conquered Asia; yet they frequently contradict each other. If, then, they differ so much respecting things which they had seen, what must we think of what they relate from report? (3) Nor do the writers who, many ages since Alexander's time, have given an account of these countries, nor even those who at present make voyages thither, afford any precise information.

Strabo had never been to India, nor seen a map of it. As for Eukratides, neither Strabo nor Justin seem to be aware that there were two Eukratides. Plutarch claims that Menander ruled over the Bactrians, not the Indians, so the difference between those two was perhaps not pronounced in ancient times. Who was Erathosthenes' source? Seems to be a typo in your text.Sponsianus 22:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally, exactly how far Alexander penetrated or conquered is uncertain. He stopped before the Ganges, and it could indeed be said with some certainty that the Indo-Greeks did not permanently conquer any tribes who lived east of the Ganges. What more, Alexander fought with kings, and when an Indian king (such as Porus, Taxiles) submitted to Alexander, so did, formally, all the inhabitants of his kingdom, regardless of whether some of them lived far east or south from where Alexander actually went.

There are some accounts of Alexander going deep into India, which Tarn applies to Demetrius I; but I would appreciate reliable modern sources which deny the common account (Arrian's IIRC) that he built altars at his furthest east, on the Hypanis, and then travelled down the Indus to the sea.

What Strabo doubts is far more complicated than your short summary: Strabo notes that the sources on Indian conquests are contradictory, but he does not at all say that Apollodorus of Artemita is wrong. Anyway, Apollodorus of Artemita is the primary source, Strabo is a secondary source and I fear this part of the discussion is a bit too elaborate for an encyclopaedia.

Apollodorus would be a primary source, if we had his text. We do not; it is not clear Strabo did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Also, Brill's New Pauly is not an original resource. Classicists are notoriously weak on the Indo-Greek subject, and what more: they only repeat what others say. I see you have added a note where their author is enough sure of himself to date Demetrius' invasion exactly to 184 BCE. This is frankly just nonsense, and surely we all realise that serious modern sources would hardly propose such an exact date.
  • "Probably around 184" (which appears to be Woodruff's date). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Why not give the round number 185, then? Which year does Woodruff write (is he the editor?)? And does he give any specific reasons for this exceptionally late date, compared to for instance what McDowall says in the same note? I apologise if I am a nuisance here, but I think we should demand of our sources that they have actual arguments for their cases. If they do not, even modern scholars may be relying on older reconstructions. Sources which do not deal specifically with Indo-Greek matters often treat them as a fringe question of little importance, which perhaps is understandable but still a difficulty for us. Sponsianus 22:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Woodcock: The Greeks in India. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read another quote from Brill's which made heavily outdated suggestions about Hermaeus. I suppose that some classicist has sat down and read Tarn or at best Narain, and that would have sufficed. Can't we agree not to quote encyclopaedias, when we know how unreliable they are? Sponsianus 15:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the article about Hermaeus cites Bopearachchi equally with Narain and Tarn; I think this a perfectly reasonable approach, as you know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strange enough, there seem to be no quotes of these two authors under Hermaeus.

Actually, in the case of Hermaeus your suggested approach is certainly obsolete, since overstrikes (of Heliokles II over Hermaeus, Senior & McDowall 2004) has given absolute proof that Hermaeus was not at all one of the last Indo-Greek kings, which Tarn and Narain believed. And IMHO, we discredit the integrity of Tarn and Narain (if he's dead?) by repeating their old reconstructions which were made to the best of their knowledge then: had they known of the overstrike they would instantly have abandoned their theses on Hermaeus. Sponsianus 22:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• • No, we do not discredit them; we cite what they said. The reader is free to consider whether they did not have all the evidence we have now. I do not believe that "absolute proof" is attainable on this subject; but we should (I repeat) describe Tarn's system even if it were as dated as Ptolemy's - just as we do Ptolemy's. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

McEviley 2

At the moment, we are citing McEviley, a philosopher, for direct quotations from George Woodcock, and from Rawlinson (!). While a useful reminder that Tarn's school still thrives, McEviley is a tertiary source, and should be replaced by his secondary sources. (In the process, some salutary doubts will be restored; Woodcock was not as sure that Nagasena was a Greek, or that Sagala is Sialkot, as PHG seems to be.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Map suggestion and general comments

The following conversation is copied from User talk:Sponsianus. As is remarked at the end of the copy, it belongs here.

I think a boundary at Mathura and an arrow at Palinputra may cover everybody's position, even Narain's, but I don't have him before me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to butt in, but just wanted to respond to your note, Pmanderson|Septentrionalis. As I have his works in front of me, Narain actually doesn't support a boundary at Mathura. In fact, he is specifically against it having interpreted the Yuga Purana as emblematic of the vigorous political activity in the gangetic plains. He believes the Mathuras and the Panchalas (which he believes to be kingdoms in Modern Uttar Pradesh) led an independent raid down the Ganges to Pataliputra and that an Indo greek contingent merely joined. Narain fixes the Indo Greek boundary at its greatest extent at the river Ravi (In the Punjab).

Here is Narain on the topic: "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)

Also, the Sungas are credited with ruling Ujjain and there is no apparent break during the discussed Indo Greek periods. They lost the region to the Satavahanas who frequently warred over it with the Sakas.

I hope this addressed your concerns. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.

Regards,

Devanampriya 03:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Devanampriya is correct about Narain's view on Mathura, but to repeat myself: Narain constructed this view in the 1950s, under the now heavily outdated presumption that Menander ruled before Apollodotus I and Antimachus II (Narain does not acknowledge Apollodotus I) and thus started from a base far more to the west than we now know. Neither did Narain know about Menander's inscription south of New Delhi, or the Indo-Greek era dating of the well outside Mathura. But we've been over this. In which other topics are views from the 1950s still regarded as canon?Sponsianus 12:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I will quibble with "merely joined" (the Yavanas "occupied Madhyadesa" and "withdrew" from Pataliputra, which implies that, allies or not, Menander did hold the area for a time); but I grant Narain holds that the border was, except for one or two campaigns, in the Punjab. (What are his grounds for holding the Hypanis was the Ravi, and not the Beas?)
  • What other topic? See the extent to which we cite Kerenyi for classical mythology; and Tarn's Hellenism is still a good textbook.
  • Is there really no room for Narain's argument that coins are found in Mathura because it was a commercial center? We know coins circulated in Barygaza when no Greeks ruled there.
  • Is there an objection to cities with no boundaries? Unfortunately, I can't upload such a map myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Narain first constructed the view in the 50s but he retained it in his supplemented reprint in 2003. Here are some of his reasons:

"Moreover, Allan has shown that Mathura was in the hands of the local kings until its conquest by Rajuvula (the Saka king) who, like his son Sodasa, copied the local type on his coins; 'Had the Yavanas been already there, there would have been a break in the Hindu coinage earlier'. The fact that the Saka kings of Mathura imitated the local type is very significant, for wherever the Sakas and the Pahlavas succeeded the Indo-Greeks they borrowed the type of the latter for their coins." (p.115)

• Regarding PmAnderson's Question: Narain actually states that the Hypanis was the Beas (p.109). He just credits the Rajanyas (an indigenous power) with rulership over the trans-Beas tract.
• I am in agreement with PmAnderson's point about how we must be cautious about coin hoards.
• I am willing to accept PmAnderson's position about simply loading a map with no boundaries with the following notes: Mathura, Ujjain, and Barygaza are not to be colored in temporary or permanent indo greek colors.

The point about Mathura, which is clearly a possible (though unconfirmed) theory, should be discussed in the article because it remains a legitimate theory. Barygaza has yet to produce legitimate evidence and Ujjain, apparently, was not even suggested by Tarn as being in the Indo Greek Kingdom (please verify as I am simply citing Narain on Tarn below): "Ptolemy also mentions Ozene (Ujjain), which is not included in the Indo Greek kingdom by Tarn, and was ruled by Indian powers" (p.118)

• Regarding PmAnderson's quibble: Are you relying on Mitchiner's Yuga Purana? As I understand the context, (admittedly based on Narain's description), there still remains discrepancies around readings and there are several interpretations. Narain notes that Pancala should actually be favoured over Yavana in certain places.
  • No, I'm relying upon Narain's wording, which is what I quoted, and which seems to affirm that Menander himself held parts of eastern India, although briefly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Pancala ksapayisyanti nagaram ye ca parthiva. And this would give quite pertinently the meaning that the Pancalas and those other kings (who participated in the invasion) destroyed the city". (p.244)

As I understand it, there are four different manuscripts of the Yuga Purana (A,B,C, and P), and if all 4 are taken into consideration, exclusivity for the "occupation" would not be assigned to the Yavanas--at least according to Narain. In fact the leading role for invasion, destruction, and occupation would be assigned to the Pancalas and this would be corroborated by the numerous Pancala coins found in the eastern districts of Uttar Pradesh and Magadha (where there is a total absence of indo greek coins).

In sum, I am totally open to legitimate theories (as opposed to idle speculation by any scholar) to be discussed in the article (as opposed to the map where we cannot include the requisite caveats). These include the possibility of Mathura's capture and a campaign into the Gangetic plain as far as Pataliputra. But there must be the caveat noting that these are simply theories. Thanks.

Regards,

Devanampriya 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• And once more, Narain's theories about the extension of Menander's kingdom are highly speculative because Narain fails to place Menander properly in the chronology. Regarding the coin hoards, he actually says that that coins of Menander have been found in eastern Punjab is no proof for Menander ruling there, for coins of other kings have also been found in the same hoards, and these kings certainly did not rule in eastern Punjab.

This is circular reasoning at its worst.

Anyway, if we are to include Narain's doubts on the rule of Mathura, we would in consequence have to include his denial of the existence of Apollodotus I, for the two matters are intertwined. This is perhaps the worst error that Narain committed, and it is such that it clouds all his analysis of Indo-Greek chronology afterwards. Even more so because it requires Narain to make ignore Strabon as well as the Periplus, who both mention the kings "Apollodotos and Menander" in that order.

It would be far more constructive if you, Devanampriya, instead of referring to Narain over and over, commented on the proof for Menander's rule in eastern Punjab, such as this inscription, which was found 20 years after Narain's book was published:

Senior, Indo-Scythians coins, p.XIV. "The discovery in 1979 of an inscription at Reh, some 350 km southeast of Mathura (almost 1,500 km from Menander's western border) giving his name and titles, is confirmation of these conquests", Senior, Indo-Scythian coins, p.xlvi

Doesn't this outdate Narain's reservations quite severely (and then I haven't mentioned the Yavana kingdom well inscription outside Mathura)? Could anybody please look up in the newer editions of Narain's Indo-Greek if and how comments on this finding, which is a rather obvious first-hand source that Menander was king even to the east of Punjab? Sponsianus 11:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, most theories about the Indo Greeks remain speculative, not just Narain's. But before we start ripping him to shreds, I think it is important to understand what he is actually saying. He does not offer the coins as evidence of rule per se, but remarks as to why the preference toward pancala versus yavana must be given to the reading of the yuga purana--let's just be clear on that:

"It is worth noting that the Paris MS has Pancala in place of Yavana, and if we give any weight to the finds of Pancala Mitra coins in the eastern districts of Uttar Pradesh and Magadha as against a total absence of Yavana coins, there is no reason why the reading Pancala should not be preferred as against Yavana" (p.244).

As for the Reh inscription, which Sponsianus insists I respond to, it might be beneficial to provide the full context:

• The Reh inscription is so badly damaged (unsurprising considering hathigumpha et al) that a reading of the name Menander is actually ill-positioned(Gupta, P.L. "Kushana Coins and History". D.K. Printworld 1994).
• Gupta actually postulates that a Kushan king (as with the Rabatak inscription) was responsible for it.

I'm not saying the Kushan theory is valid (or not for that matter); what I am saying is that based on this, it is inappropriate to accept as gospel that Menander was responsible for this--since his name can't even be read clearly. So this hardly counts as iron clad. Same goes with Sponsianus' reference to the Maghera inscription (the well stone), which is dated so closely to the Scythian conquest of Mathura that it hardly serves as definitive proof--this on top of the questions regarding the usage of the word Yavana to begin with.

• Bottomline: My point is not that Mathura could not ever have been conquered by the indo greeks. My point is that there clearly is no definitive scholarly consensus around it at this stage, and that the evidence offered in favour of the theory is easily subject to holes being poked into it.

As stated above, we absolutely should discuss the theory in the article since several well-respected scholars have suggested it and there is no consensus to gainsay it, just as there is none to confirm it. But the map should contain confirmed territories, not speculative ones.

To summarize: I am not averse to discussing any serious theories in the article. My suggestion is that we keep it simple for non history buffs, with a section to air out the theoretical differences on expansion. Unless Pmanderson|Septentrionalis has any other questions for me, I will remove myself from the rest of the conversation. Also, do you gentlemen think that it might be fitting if we shifted the discussion back to the Indo Greek Kingdom?

Regards,

Devanampriya 23:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

end of copy.

Finally some modern feedback, Devanampriya. Point taken: the Reh inscription does indeed seem rather uncertain. My opinion is still that the evidence for Indo-Greek rule in Mathura is overwhelming, but it cannot be "absolutely" proved by referring to the Reh inscription.

As for the Maghera well inscription, early Scythian documents were usually issued with identifiable Scythian eras named after the kings in question (Maues, Azes, etc), often several eras in conjunction; to suggest that the Yavana era should in fact be a Scythian era or used by them is far less likely (though if there is a source for this objection, please present it). Especially since, as I mentioned before, the year of the Maghera stone suggests either the 70s or 60s BCE, which is long before Scythian incursions as far east as Mathura. Surely this could be objected to by quoting Tarn or Narain, but the modern dating of the last Indo-Greeks in eastern Punjab stands at the shift BC/AD.

Then again, there is arguably a grey zone between Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian. I suppose that Artemidorus may have used the Yavana era, and he was technically not an Indo-Greek king even though his apperance was Greek.

But the crucial point is that exclusion of probable Indo-Greek territories is just as misleading for a map as adding dubious inclusions. PHG's map tried to make leeway for this uncertainty, but it was not popular at all. I'd rather have no map at all (which is indeed the case of most modern works on the subjects) than a misleading minimalist map.Sponsianus 15:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but you see Sponsianus, that's just it. It is "probable" versus conclusive. No serious writer, no matter how inclined towards India, can gainsay the Indo greek occupation of much of the Punjab--it is verifiable. Per your own discussion above, strong holes for Mathura continue to remain. My point is that the map should include verifiable and not what you describe as probable territories. And I disagree, the inclusion of ridiculous speculative suggestions such as Peninsular India are far worse than the non-inclusion of possible territories. This is because the speculations fly in the face of established facts (i.e. Satavahana ruled over those regions). Probable, or what I would describe as possible, theories have such a high degree of uncertainty around them that it is far more responsible to remove them since no one can say for sure.

As for PHG, well, I would rather not comment on his intentions in the interests of good discussion, but the extensions into the peninsula by the german map were simply ridiculous--as you yourself conceded in different words. Those regions were verifiably under the satavahanas throughout that period. So frankly, that projection clearly had the aim of maximum expansion, facts be damned.

With respect to your position on having no map at all: that is perfectly fine with me, and probably for the best. But we should clearly delineate the varying degrees of certainty around indo greek claims in the article: 1. verified (s. afghanistan and pakistani punjab) 2. likely (entire transindus tract) 3. possible (mathura--I don't agree with your certainty) 4. speculated (parts of the gangetic, pataliputra, and gujarat).

Accordingly, in that section we should spell out some of the issues plaguing not just respective theories (whether narain, senior, or anyone else), but the entire study of the Indo Greeks. People have a right to know the degree of uncertainty surrounding this period of history and we should effectively communicate that. If these suggestions are agreeable to both Sponsianus and PmAnderson, then they work for me as well.

Regards,

Devanampriya 21:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• It is clear that the two of you will not be able to agree on one map (unless perhaps a no-boundaries one); your conditions on Mathura are incompatible. I would accept three maps (the Atlas der Weltgeschichte for Tarn, Narain's own, and one found or drawn for Bopearachchi). I would even agree to place Bopearachchi's by the lead, if it were properly captioned. Comments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems the sticking point is on Mathura since the others are either unknown (i.e. gujarat and the gangetic), or simply ridiculous (peninsular india). My contention is that stable borders are the typical conventions with confirmed expansions being depicted (i.e. no one can argue with Trajan's campaign to and conquest of Susa). Theoretical campaigns and possessions--let's face it, that's what Mathura and Pataliputra (the latter more so) remain--should be treated in the article not depicted on a map.

3 Map Solution Comments:

• I have grave concerns about the acceptibility of the Atlas der Weltgeschichte map because of the sheer incredulity of peninsular India (please comment on evidence, if any) as well as Ujjain. If we can find a projection without Ujjain and Peninsular India then that would be acceptable. In fact, I would recommend arrows reaching down to gujarat and arrows reaching to pataliputra to depict anything simply due to the sheer ambiguity surrounding the theorized campaign. In this projection, however, Mathura would be included within the borders of this (as it is the most expansionist)

• I would have to take a look at any possible Bopearachchi projection before I could comment on its positioning as the lead map, but if we go with the 3 map plan, it certainly should be included.

• Just to clarify, we are referring to Narain's map in "The Indo Greeks" that is in line with his actual stated positions? If so then, yes.

Ultimately, I don't believe that the 3 map plan would most accurately depict the controversy and uncertainty surrounding indo greek claims. I think a simple, no boundaries map listing place names (without political coloring or naming conventions) would be the most appropriate solutions if Sponsianus does not wish to accept that Mathura remains an unconfirmed claim. Here are my preferences:

1. Stable boundaries map (i.e. oxford map) with extensive discussion of other theories in article. 2. No Boundaries map 3. 3 map solution

While I appreciate PmAnderson's laudable efforts at objectivity, why can't we simply depict territories that no one contests with extensive treatment of any and all legitimate expansion constructs in the "Theories" section I mentioned? Comments?

Regards,

Devanampriya 17:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

PHG's take...

Map, with known campaigns and battles.

• Of course, there is a clear absence of consensus on what an Indo-Greek map should be. Even if there was a small consensus between the few of us, it would still have very little value against published material by reputable sources (a few Wiki editors deciding between themselves against sources is called wikiality...).
  • No one is proposing deciding against sources; we disagree between ourselves on which sources to follow. One difficulty is that no map has yet been uploaded representing Bopearachchi's geographical views, although it seems fairly clear what they are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• In the face of dispute, relying on published material is the only possibility: "Source 1 says..., source 2 says..., source 3 says...", and we just leave it at that without taking a POV position on one or the other. The current map synthesises very exactly available maps on the subject.
  • Again, this is the problem; it does not represent Narain's view transparently; it does not represent Bopearachchi at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• For Devanampriya's sake, I added on the map the known battles, encounters and sieges. They clearly show that neither the Narain book nor the Atlas are far of in terms of territorial reach. To this could be added coin hoards, of course, but they also point to the same results, as far as Ujjain is concerned. Regards PHG 12:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Name order

Id est the argument from "Apollodotus or Menander" above.

• I find the argument on name order quite weak. Strabo also (11.11.1) mentions Menander before Demetrius son of Euthydemus (and a search shows that Seldeslachts simplified this to "Menander and Demetrius"). Does either of them believe that Menander reigned before Demetrius I? No, of course not; so why make that deduction for Apollodotus? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sponsianus replies: Septentrionalis, this is an astute objection, but the context is very different. Strabo quotes the kings in order of importance (Menander conquered most tribes and went the farthest), whereas Trogus' headlines describe (at least within each chapter and in each territory) things in a chronological order.

Narain is the only one who argues against Apollodotus ruling before Menander, since Narain only believes in the later king now called Apollodotus II (perhaps 80-60 BCE). This is a catastrophical mistake, it really is. Modern scholars know for certain that Apollodotus I was an early king. He struck only square silver without portraits and without Olympic deities, whereas virtually all later kings struck round silver with portraits and identifiable Hellenistic/Olympic motifs. Apollodotus' coin standards are different, and so are his monograms, which a quick look through BNBact will show you.

Narain relies on a freak hoard to prove they are the same king: somebody, perhaps a person named Apollodotus himself, has collected only coins of the two Apollodoti. Their bronzes are also similar, but that is because Apollodotus II used the common type (as Periplus mentions) which was invented by Apollodotus I. Today, the Attic coins of Apollodotus I have been found; a specimen is on his page. They were struck with a monogram used by Antimachos I and Menander I, in early high-standard style.

Once Narain had deleted Apollodotus I (he also failed to realise that Antimachus II was an earlier king than Menander, but that error he inherited from Tarn), he was able to proclaim Menander as the first real Indo-Greek king. In consequence, he saw Menander as the ruler who made the earliest conquests in Punjab - so Narain can claim that Menander's famous conquests were only made west of the Hyphasis. In reality, there was already a substantial Indo-Greek kingdom in existence when Menander ascended to the throne, and the coins of the two earlier kings are found all over Punjab. Narain thought they were later and ruled in Menander's old kingdom.

But with the chronology corrected, there are simply no conquests left for Menander in Narain's reconstruction. And Narain does not argue that Menander was not a conqueror. He offered the minimalist explanation that Menander's conquests took place more or less within Pakistan Punjab; this explanation is now as soundly refuted as things get. And in the process, Narain had to dismiss two classical sources (Periplus and Strabo) because they did not fit in with his explanation. Narain's criticism is obsolete and should not be repeated, and it forms the basis of Devanampriyas' view that there is doubt even about "the Transindus tract".

It would still be interesting to see how much of this was mended in Narain's later editions.

As for Seldeschlachts' analysis, it is a mess. He thinks that the Indian conquests were made by Demetrius II, and that Strabo was explicitly wrong to suggest Demetrius, son of Euthydemus (that is perhaps why he erases parts of what Strabo says). It's only that his idea of the Indian king "Demetrius II" is an imaginary king, who does not at all correspond to any of the coin findings. Seldeschlachts is a philologist and should have checked with the basic numismatic works before he made these suggestions.

• I haven't read Seldeschlachts, yet; but he turned up on a search result. Please observe that I am citing him for an example of usage, at the moment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• I do note that he cites Bopearachchi (B's papers, rather than his book, but they presumably contain the supporting arguments). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I must say it is very interesting to have a critical discussion of the sources. The article will eventually benefit from this.

Anyway, on the maps I agree with Devanampriya's model (which, whatever he says, was not that unlike PHG's map). But I disagree on the territories under different categories. 1. verified (s. Afghanistan and Punjab to the river Sutlej) 2. likely (Mathura and Gedrosia, i.e. southern Pakistan, south-eastern Iran) 3. possible (Sindh, Gujarat) 4. speculated ( pataliputra and Ujjain etc). And the speculated parts should be left out of the map.

Finally, there are no Bopearachchi maps AFAIK, Devanampriya. He does however say that Menander and some of his descendants ruled "eastern Punjab" (BNBact). This means that he thought Mathura was lost by Straton I, whom he dates to 130-100 BCE. It's only that this dating is probably wrong and Straton I was later. Still, Bopearachchi's is probably the latest word on Mathura. Since he is Indian (well, Lankesian) he probably goes free of accusations of chauvinistic bias. Very likely he trusts the coin findings in the vicinity. If that is enough for the currently leading numismatical expert, it should be enough for Wikipedia.

Best regards, Sponsianus 22:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In the twelfth volume are contained the Bactrian and Indian wars of Alexander the Great down to the time of his death, with digressions on the activities of his prefect Antipater in Greece, and those of Archidamus, king of the Spartans, and Alexander the Molossian in Italy, where both were destroyed with their armies. Additional information is given on the origins in Italy of the Apulians, the Lucanians, the Samnites, and the Sabines, and on how Zopyrion perished with his army in Pontus.

This is not in chronological order; even the digression isn't. There are several other cases (most, but not all, of them described as digressions). It is true that this can be divided into sections in chronological order; but that is true of any ordering of events whatsoever, including reverse chronological order. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? Alexander and Antipatros were contemporary, those are the Macedonians. Then Italy, Archidamus and Alexander of Epirus in chronological order. Then Zopyrion in Pontus. There is never a reverse chronological order about events in the same kingdom, for instance: the conquests of Alexander and Philip. Anyway, since we know from coins that Apollodotus was before Menander, the matter is already settled.Sponsianus 11:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The question of which of the Indo-Greeks were the "same kingdom" is itself in dispute. Did Menander rule the same Kingdom as Demetrius, as Eucratides, or neither? Que scais-je?

The coverage of Antipater must (unless Trogus was simply incompetent, which nobody believes) have included the Spartan war. This is later than Archidamus, and probably later than Alexander of Molossus; it may well be later than Zopyrus. Then backward to Archidamus (where the same kingdom, Sparta, is presumably the connecting link) and Alexander; then backward again to introduce the history of the Lucanians (don't they count as a kingdom?), then Zopyrus. This is a logical order, in the same sense as Herodotus; but were there similar reasons to dodge around in presenting the (clearly complex) history of the eastern Greeks? How can we tell? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I must say that I've never seen Sponsianus so passionate, but I nevertheless think we are in a position to compromise. Just a few clarifications:

1. Mathura is not in the Punjab. This is an error that has come up frequently in other works and one which Sponsianus makes above.

This is not an error. Mathura was indeed within the borders of the province of British Punjab, the definition used during Tarn's days (until 1947, I suppose). Since info on many coin findings were assembled by English scholars during the English hegemony in India, I am afraid this definition of Punjab still appears, even though I admit that it is obsolete today. Sponsianus 11:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that is an error. Mathura was included in the United Provinces (modern day Uttar Pradesh). You will find it under the vulgar spelling "Muttra".

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Muttra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:United_Provinces_1903.gif Devanampriya 01:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Actually, Narain does credit Menander with being a significant conqueror Sponsianus (a rather surprising error on your part), just not with the unbridled encomiums of other authors.I think the problem may be that Sponsianus assumes he started from where Demetrius stopped. He goes on to state that Menander took Gandhara (which includes Taxila), Swat, Bajaur, Arachosia, Seistan, Udyana and Abhisara. This from the base in Southern Afghanistan (then considered a part of India which Demetrius had conquered).

This is not at all what I said, Devanampriya. For the fifth time: Narain is mistaken when he suggests that Menander captured Gandhara. This is impossible, for Gandhara was held in the very least by Apollodotus I and Antimachus II before him. These two important kings are among the easternmost Indo-Greek rulers, their coins are found in eastern Punjab and are of Indian standard. Narain believed they ruled in the same kingdom as Menander (there is consensus about this) but after Menander. The same goes for the Swat valley and Bajaur - Apollodotos I and Antimachos II ruled here as well. Arachosia is out of the question; this territory was taken by Demetrius or other Bactrian kings. See for instance MacDowall 2005. Seistan is in Iran: this is more or less on the other side of Bactria and was taken by the Bactrian kings as well. Udyana and Abhisara seem reasonable, but probably were included in Apollodotos' kingdom as well.

So almost all the territories which Narain suggests that Menander conquered were ruled by other Bactrian or Indo-Greek kings before Menander. This means that if Menander was a conqueror (which Narain does indeed admit) he conquered other territories than those Narain suggested. And the only territories available are south or east of Pakistan Punjab. Sponsianus 11:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As for Narain's position on the periplus and strabo, he calls legitimate attention to their uncertain sources. Moreover, he suggests that Menander raided into what is now modern India, he just notes that we have no definitive proof. So it is not as if he is attempting to guard Indian soil from foreign adulteration, which is the impression Sponsianus' attempts to give above. If one actually reads his work with an objective eye, one will notice that he celebrates the Indo greeks and expresses astonishment at their ability to survive so long in spite of so many challenges. So please, let us avoid hyperbole here.

I have not once referred to Narain as a nationalist scholar, which he was not. Narain made impressive contributions and was the one who introduced a sound critical aspect into the field. But his actual suggestions about the chronology of the Indo-Greek kings are largely incorrect, and conclusions based on them are outdated as I have shown above.

But Narain's attack on Strabo and Periplus are perhaps his nadir as a scholar. He attacks them to promote a flawed case, and the sources are strong: Apollodoros of Artemita was a 1st century BCE Greek living in Parthia, very likely a contemporary of the last Indo-Greeks in a neighbouring state. It is a disaster that his accounts are all but lost. The author of Periplus clearly had been to India himself or had reliable first hand witnesses - not surprisingly, since Greek-Indian trade was flourishing in his day. This is proven by a number of details. I was personally most impressed when the author mentioned clarified butter, i.e. ghee , which is an Indian specialty to this day.

Narain questions both these sources just to support his flawed idea that Apollodotus I did not exist and this is hardly flattering. A misbegotten theory from fifty years ago.

Sponsianus 11:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they were developed to make the point about the supposed conquest of Gujarat, which still remains an open point, including any acceptance of Apollodotus I. Even if we cast aside Narain's critique about the Periplus, Saraostus can be identified with Sarasvati--the famous river system now primarily represented by the Ghaggar-Hakra bed on the indo pakistani border. This is an even likelier case considering that there may be chronological issues with the use of saurashtra. Gujarat was referred to as the Lat country in that period. Moreover, scholars still have no clue about who or what sigerdis was actually referring to. We simply assume that sindh is what is being referenced. Accordingly, Udyana and Abhisara are very clearly on the table, as are the notions of Menander's raids beyond the Ravi, which would still be testament to his military prowess.

Devanampriya 01:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

3. That is a rather unfair swipe at Seldeslachts considering the irresponsible (and to put it mildly "idealistic" view) of the indo greeks that Tarn had. I would have used the standard vocabulary, which I believe is more representative, but I want to keep the discussion civil. Seldeslachts' goal in the paper is not to plug the gaps (which he originally set out to do), but to establish just why the Indo greek history cannot be treated with certainty and why claims of a conquest of pataliputra and the gangetic are irresponsible at this stage.

I repeat this once again: Seldeschlachts does not reference to any numismatic work after 1990, 14 years before his essay. No Senior, no Bopearachchi (after 1990, before his encyclopaedia), no MacDowall, no Wilson, no ONS journal, who all have updated the field Seldeschlachts is talking about in a major way during these 14 years. This is an unacceptable lapse. There is much uncertainty about Indo-Greek matters even for those of us who have read these modern works. But Seldeschlachts is uncertain because he hasn't read up on the subject. It's as simple as that.Sponsianus 11:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please add citations for these articles, preferably as Further Reading, and I will consider the matter. While I have been offline, I read Seldeschlacht's paper; it professes to be a survey paper on the usage of the (Western and Indian) literary sources, and he does that quite well.

• And please provide a correct and complete citation for Salomon; Seldeschlachts mentions his find, and I'd like to see more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the inherent limitations of numismatics, which are especially stringent here) I am skeptical that any conclusive or even consensus resolution can be reached on that basis, but I am prepared to be convinced. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Devanampriya's Model"

Here are some of the references in question, with the reservation that it is possible that Seldeschlachts' article was submitted in 2003. I agree that his linguistic studies are good, but when he meddles with attempts at chronology he fails utterly. He relies on Simonetta who wrote mainly in the 50s and quoted Tarn.

I should put it differently; he cites Simonetta; he relies on Guillame. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

L.M. Wilson, Demetrios II of Bactria and hoards from Ai Khanoum, Journal of the Oriental Numismatic Society 180 (2004)

R.C. Senior, ONS179 Supplement, Journal of the Oriental Numismatic Society 179 (2004)

R.C. Senior and D. MacDonald, The decline of the Indo-Greeks, Monographs of the Hellenic Numismatic Society, Athens (1998)

(This is where the second overstrike of Menander over Zoilos I is presented. Nevertheless, Seldeschlachts has the nerve to suggest that Zoilos I ruled after Menander and suggest a different date than Simonetta. Talk about moot point!)

J.R. Rea, R.C. Senior and A.S. Hollis, A tax receipt from Hellenistic Bactria, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 104 (1994)

A.S. Hollis, Laodice mother of Eucratides of Bactria, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 110 (1996)

O. Bopearachchi, Monnaies Gréco-Bactriennes et Indo-Grecques (Paris 1991)

O. Bopearachchi (ed), Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, The collection of the American Numismatic Society, part 9: Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek coins (New York 1998)

+ various articles from Oriental Numismatic Journal.

Your scepticism about numismatics is exaggerated. When studying vast numbers of hoard findings it is easy to single out the earliest and latest kings; this is a matter of statistics. Regarding the Indo-Greeks there are additional guidelines. The earliest kings (Pantaleon and Agathocles) experimented with Brahmi script, which was abandoned for Kharoshti. Neither did they use Olympic deities at this early stage.

Apollodotus I experimented with different coin standards, until he settled for one used by all later kings. He also struck square drachms, which was abandoned by Antimachus II and all later kings except Philoxenus who briefly reinstated square drachms. But Philoxenus struck round Indian tetradrachms; tetradrachms were introduced by Menander, and the previous kings only struck drachms. Portraits were also introduced by Menander, as were new legend arrangements. The last kings were clearly very poor: they struck debased silver and no tetradrachms. The last Stratons struck mostly leads instead of bronzes (and the style goes downhill from about 70 BCE in a way that is easily recognisable and belies the earlier analyses of Tarn and Narain). The monograms, about 300 symbols, could be studied for all of the kings and even though we are uncertain what they actually meant, their transfers give us good clues about the succession.

I am struck by "introduced by Menander". Treating India as a microcosm, uninfluenced by Seleucid and Ptolemaic practice before the Parthians, raises my eyebrows, I'm afraid. This is certainly a possible mode of analysis, but not particularly persuasive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally, in eastern Punjab there are a number of exclusively Indo-Greek hoards with kings from a long period of time. This makes it fairly certain that the coins were buried on Indo-Greek territory, for if the coins had been exported, they would have been mixed with local coins. Devanampriya refuses to even consider this. Sponsianus 19:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC) _______________________________________________________

Again, "define eastern punjab". As noted above, there is a significant error with your (and others') idenfication of Mathura with Punjab. Mathura, even during the british period, was governed as part of the gangetic region ( the United Provinces, now Modern UP). It is essentially that we not continue this confusion. That was Narain's point.

Devanampriya 01:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• By trans indus tract, I refer to Sindh and the entire punjab (Narain notes Sindh was included in the Indo Greek possessions--so an upgrade on Sponsianus' scale from possible to likely)
• Mathura, the gangetic, pataliputra and gujarat all should be left out of the map for the reasons noted above. However, they should be treated in the article. (by including Mathura and gujarat on a map, we certify them as confirmed indo greek possessions--that is inaccurate).

Regards,

Devanampriya 04:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

To Devanampriya: You wrote,

Actually, they were developed to make the point about the supposed conquest of Gujarat, which still remains an open point, including any acceptance of Apollodotus I. Even if we cast aside Narain's critique about the Periplus, Saraostus can be identified with Sarasvati--the famous river system now primarily represented by the Ghaggar-Hakra bed on the indo pakistani border. This is an even likelier case considering that there may be chronological issues with the use of saurashtra. Gujarat was referred to as the Lat country in that period. Moreover, scholars still have no clue about who or what sigerdis was actually referring to. We simply assume that sindh is what is being referenced. Accordingly, Udyana and Abhisara are very clearly on the table, as are the notions of Menander's raids beyond the Ravi, which would still be testament to his military prowess.

Devanampriya 01:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarasvati had its source in the Bandar Punch glacier on Uttarakhand-Himachal border, from there it took a south westerly course towards the plains flowing south of modern Chandigarh and then onto the holy city of Sthaneswar or modern Thanesar and then onto northen Rajasthan pretty much the same as Ghaggar today. After leaving ganganagar district it is known as Hakra in Bahawalpur where the dry bed follows the modern Indo-pak border from there on it used to flow into Northern Kutch near Dholavira via south-eastern Sind and the delta was prety much the whole of Kutch and northern-western Saurashtra. It is NOT just the Ghaggar-Hakra bed on indo-pak border. So, the point is, the speculation that Saraostus is sarasvati is problematic since sarasvati was drying up during the late epic age, long before the greeks came along. There is no mention of it as a major river during the Greek conquests or the Mauryan empire.

Also, Saurashtra(now known as Kathiawar) was never called Lat country at any time in history. Lat was the name of Southern/south-eastern gujarat, which was basically the region south and east of Ahmedabad upto Maharashtra and MP borders. This region constitutes the fertile Narmada and Tapti deltas and included areas like Vadodara and Surat etc.

Not a regular user here so my apologies for not signing

Also, archeological and numismatic evidence is very much in favour of the trans Yamuna tract at least upto Mathura(two inscriptions have been found in its vicinity) being included in the Indo-greek territory at some point. Uttarpath, the route taken by most conquerers coming from the nort-west of the subcontinent ran from Jhelum, Sialkot, gurdaspur, Jalandhar doab, Ambala along the foothills from there it followed the western banks of Yamuan via thanesar, Sonepat and onto Maathura, which by the way was only 30 or so kms from the boundary of British Punjab(now Haryana) to the north. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.199.122 (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Unsigned,

Yes, and the uttarapatha ran all the way through to Tamralipti, so naturally that must have been included in those domains as well... Unfortunately, it appears that you are speaking in generalities and not specifics and are focused more on giving cover to the other two gentlemen in the discussion rather than genuinely exchanging ideas. What consensus? What two inscriptions? We have previously discussed the reh and maghera inscriptions raised by Sponsianus and have highlighted how they can be attributed to other dynasties and are not confirmation of Indo-greek rule in Mathura.

Regarding Sarasvati, I would recommend you refer to Nilakantha Shastri and E. Seldeslachts on is application and possibilities associated with its connection to "Saraostus". Frankly, any concerns regarding this speculation most certainly are balanced by some of the more incredulous proposals showing indo greek rule reaching into the Konkan--which has absolutely no merit--and the questionable use of the puranas. The same applies to region you term as Lat,Surat/vadodara, for which there is no basis of indo greek rule as well; however, you only too gladly permit its inclusion on the map.

Finally, what is now Kathiawar was indeed referred to as the Lat country. I see no references provided by you proving otherwise.

The fact of the matter remains that there remains no certifiable evidence that establishes indo greek rule in mathura beyond a reasonable doubt, most certainly not enough to merit its inclusion on a map. The fact that it is situated 30kms away from the "British Punjab" border still does not mean it was in the punjab. So other than an attempt to defend your friends, your reference is not particularly meritorious.

Devanampriya (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I just corrected you on your decription of Kathiawar(ancient saurashtra) as Lat country and YES it(Saurashtra) was never ever named Lat. Lat was southern gujarat delta region. Anyone who has a little knowledge of the region's history knows that. If someone doesn't know that they can google it and find plenty of sources, here is one from gujarat tourism.

Gujarat is a unique melting pot of India's past traditions, customs and values, and presents a panorama of many Millennia with relies of one of the oldest civilizations on the earth. Regions forming its part were known in early literature as Anarta, Saurashtra, Lat and Aparanta. Gujarat has been a gateway of commerce and culture between the East and the West.

another one by Vibhuti Bhushan Mishra 1966 The Gurjara-Pratiharas and their times. New Delhi: S. Chand & Co.

the Chalukya ruler of LAT (S. Gujarat), Pulakesin Avani-Janasraya. The Navasari inscription (A.D. 738) records that Pulakesin defeated a Tajika (Arab) army which had defeated the kingdoms of Sindhu, Cutch, SAURASHTRA, Cavotaka and Gurjara and advanced as far south as Navasari where this prince was ruling at this time. The prince's heroic victory earned him the titles of ?solid Pillar of Dakshinapatha (Dakshinapatha-sadhata) and the Repeller of the Unrepellable (Anivarttaka-nivartayi)?.

So, my refrence was meritorious afterall, and who are these people you are calling my friends i don't know who they are??? so i'm not defending anyone. Just wanted to clear a few things up in the discussion that i knew needed to be corrected and provided some back ground explanation for readers who may not know the difference between Saurashtra, Lat or sraswati. Nilakantha Shastri and E. Seldeslachts just implied that it maybe saraswati but among the historian community it is well established now that saraswati was not sraostus, and there is no mention of the river saraswati of Punjab around that period. Again going by your own theory and method there isn't even a shred of numismatic, archeologial or literary evidence that greek saraostus was a river. Saraostus has been known as a territory.

Also, your doubts about Mathura apply much more to other events in Indian history for which even dates or archeological evidence is absent i.e the Mahabharata war, doesn't mean that they all should be discounted. History is not the criminal court where you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a given conclusion is or isn't right. Right now most pointers indicate to some sort of greek presence in Mathura for a period of time and north-west of Yamuna for much longer and that is the view of majority of historians in 2008. Of course there will be doubters but it has generally been accepted.

Now, i have serious problems with anyone mentioning Konkan or ganges valley as indo-greek territory, as even the accounts of the conquests of the ganges valley, state clearly that they retreated to Mathura. Same with south gujarat or central India. It is the same thing as claiming that Mathura never came under indo-greek rule(when inscriptions clearly indicate yavana presence or use yavana calendar and historical accounts also describe it). Anyone that makes such claims just because they are allowed to do that on wikipedia is trying to stir the pot. Please refrain from making unsubstantiated and false claims here just because wikipedia is free for all. You are not going to change established history and conclusions derived after numerous conferences on five continents over a period of decades after taking into account every relevant historical and archeological source available. There is a world outside wikipedia's edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.64.216 (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsigned,

I just noticed your comments above. Again, you unfortunately engage in generalities about all these topics, which is tragic. By remarking that something is "well established among the historian community" without providing the requisite base of facts, you don't establish the necessary support for the point. You also rely on generalities again about historical routes taken by conquerors, but everyone knows that that doesn't mean they went the whole way south. Finally, anyone with basic knowledge of history knows that facts must predominate over fiction, whether you view this as a court proceeding or not. While it is indeed within your rights to have opinions on these matters, as a matter of polite feedback, please at least attempt to reference specific authors and sources when you discuss these matters with other editors. In the future, this will help facilitate any dialogue in which you seek to engage. You are right, there is indeed a life outside wikipedia, but while we are here, it is important that we utilize facts and specificities rather than conjecture. Please let me know if I can help you with anything else.

Best Regards,

Devanampriya (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Disputed tag

I have removed the totally disputed tag as I feel that this is not accurate. My suggestion for the people who feel that there is a dispute, to add the relevant tag to the chapters where the actual dispute is. If, on the other hand someone insists, well, you are in wikipedia, you know what to do.--FocalPoint 19:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The section above is full of disputes about accuracy, which are fundamentally disputes about POV (chiefly, there, between Narain and Bopearachchi/Senior; but there are other positions also). That, in itself, would warrant general tags.

My own position remains:

• When this came to FAR, this article presented Tarn's POV, sometimes exaggerated to Woodcock's rather extreme views, or rather even further. (Woodcock expresses some hesitation in declaring the Buddhist sage Nagasena a Greek, working for proselytizing Greek Buddhist kings; this article doesn't.)
• Some of this has been fixed; some of it has been replaced by Sponsianus' edit expressing Bopearachchi's POV, which he holds to be absolute certainty, as the section above will show. It is not clear to me (largely a matter of tone in French, so I don't claim to be sure) that Bopearachchi would agree with him.
• PHG's footnotes are not reliable reports of his sources. Sometimes they ignore a question of tone, sometimes they reverse the actual meaning of the source. I doubt all of them; as I consider them in detail, I will not tag them, but rewrite them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Septentritionalis says: '"replaced by Sponsianus' edit expressing Bopearachchi's POV, which he holds to be absolute certainty"' I rarely use such strong words, but this is just rot and very unfair. I have tried for two years to complement Bopearachchi's views with the criticism of Robert Senior's and others. I was the one who introduced Senior's view about Straton, presented alternative views about "Demetrius of India" and on other subjects. Me and PHG have debated these questions and generally got along well. Sponsianus 19:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Rephrasing: I include minor variants with their main source (Senior with Bopearachchi; Woockcock with Tarn). Under that understanding, is this still rot? Sources which repeated Bopearachchi exactly would add nothing to our knowledge. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What I reacted to was not the structure of the history article, which is turning out rather fine, but your over-simplified description of me seing Bopearachchi as "absolute certainty". His re-construction serves as the starting point, but it is of course not perfect. I am a bit frustrated because the discussion has once again lapsed into old arguments about even older theses. Anyway, I shall try to look over the history section once more this weekend. Sponsianus 07:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

On homonymous kings

The structure of the history is probably improved by discussing the sources before the actual events, even though it may seem a bit roundabout. I like it.

I have one suggestion: the discussion of how many kings named Demetrius there are should be removed to the respective kings. All original research I have seen after 1991 (Senior in his 2004 ONS Supplement on Indo-Greek ruler sequences, Joe Cribb The Greek kingdom of Bactria, its coinage and its collapse 2005, in the Afghanistan Ancien Carrefour... volume, and also Wilson in ONS174 King Eucratides of Bactria and Demetrius of India) agree with Boperachchi about Demetrius II of Bactria being a later king. Senior also writes about Indian matters and supports Bopearachchi's Demetrius III, an even later Indian king. I hope these sources suffice to establish that there is a modern consensus on the numbers of Demetrius, even though there isn't on the precise dates. If Brill's new Pauly still believes in one Demetrius, that is probably because their editor relies on older sources. And nobody has attributed Agathocles' commemorative coins of Demetrius Aniketos to anyone else than Agathocles himself. The reverse inscription is unambigous: "In the reign of Agathocles the Fair".

The appearance of more homonymous kings is clearly a matter of progression in the field, that comes from meticulous analyses of coin findings. After Tarn numismatists have singled out two, perhaps three Heliokles, three Demetrius, two Menanders, two Zoilos and at least three Stratons who ruled alone (Senior in ONS186, New Indo-Greek coins, mentions a coin of a very late king Straton Dikaios with a different portrait than Straton II Soter. He could either be the former co-regent Straton III Philopator, or a fourth Straton. Very soon, my new article will attempt to single out Straton I as two separate kings. So there may be five Stratons.I will therefore change "Straton II" to "the last king, named Straton" and link to Straton II. ) There could also be two kings named Maues but that is unpublished. My previous article suggests that there were two Theophilos, but I obviously cannot write that myself.

Once a new king has been discovered, he is very rarely removed. Narain, who realised that some Eucratides coin types were later than Eucratides II, reluctantly (he actually said so!) suggested a Eucratides III. Nowadays, these coins are seen as posthumous issues. Some authors have doubted Antimachos II, but the tax-receipt confirmed his existence.

These changes may perhaps serve to highlight my view that older authors should be treated cautiously. Not because of some exaggerated ideological fight between them, but because they had much less facts to base their theses on. BTW, I just read Rawlinson, who chastises W.W. Tarn (he wasn't sir yet!) for doubting that the Indo-Greeks had an impact on Indian culture. The year was 1912, and Rawlinson rounds off the discussion by giving the exact same dates for Menander (165-130 BCE) that Bopearachchi suggested 85 years later. Sponsianus 20:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's clear from Tarn's phrasing that his dates for Menander are in opposition to several previous authors: he thanks someone for clearing up the previous confusion and introducing the early dates (I forget who, and don't have Tarn in front of me.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely recall this passage, and I have also figured out the reason why Tarn and the previous authors disagreed about Menander: those authors placed Menander later, since they realised that the coins now attributed to Menander II were issued after 100 BCE. Tarn on his side realised that the Menander (I) mentioned in the sources must have been an early Indo-Greek king and so disregarded the dating of the Menander II coins. A moot point today. Sponsianus 23:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The example of the Demetrii is intended as an example to demonstrate how much difference there has been. Sponsianus and I may well disagree on how thoroughly the very recent work has settled the question; but even granting arguendo that it has, we should make clear what the difficulties are. (I intend at this point in the article to claim no more than that these things have been said by reliable sources. If this is not now clear, please reword.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What interest is it to the reader of an encyclopaedia that earlier scholars had different opinions, once these are clearly surpassed? There are many controversies and much uncertainty among recently published works as it is, without us having to add to this uncertainty by informing the readers that before the experts agreed there were three kings named Demetrius, they thought there was only two or even one. If such views have a place, I suggest they can be placed under each king so that we can keep the narrative of the main article as straightforward as possible. Sponsianus 23:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag once again

Following the previous discussion, I understand that there are parts that interested people are working on. Nevertheless, I would like you to consider the following proposition: Could you please examine the twenty lines of the opening text? Is there a neutrality issue there? Is there a a dispute on this text? If there are, please try your best to remove them and move the neutrality and dispute tags after this opening text. --FocalPoint 08:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FocalPoint that the tags are too general in nature, especially as numerous editors have now been able to contribute to the article for several weeks now. It is quite obvious that some editors are using the tags to unfairly stigmatize the article at the same time as it is undergoing FAR: just let people decide for themselves please. Further, there is surely no consensus to keep these tags in. Please highlight specific issues and use more specific tags for specific parts of the article. PHG (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Indo-Greek kings

I have now standardised all articles from Apollodotus I toStrato II except Strato I and Agathokleia. The framework of the dating is still Bopearachchi's, in some cases two alternative datings, with Senior's suggestions as an alternative. In some cases Senior has not expressed an opinion. The main exception is Demetrius II and III, where there are various interpretations and Tarn and Narain's opinions may still be valuable. I have taken the liberty to point out the weaknesses in existing reconstructions for Demetrius III and left the dating open. For Demetrius II, I favour Senior's and others later date and repeat the arguments for that.

I have also changed the reference to the Prologues of Pompejus Trogus', who somebody had given as belonging to Justin's Epitome XLI:6. The Prologues are an original work of Trogus, although they have been preserved only through Justin. Sponsianus 17:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Replies to earlier discussions

Moving the replies down here, the layout is becoming incomprehensible.

To Septentritionalis:

• On Pompejus Trogus' chronology: You point out what I already said, that when Trogus moves to a new country the chronology is changed. Within the same country, he is chronological. Such leaps are found in many summarical history books.
  • Within Lucania, he fails to be chronological; the connecting link to Italy, in the first place, is a backward link within the history of Sparta. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Demetrius I and Eucratides I did not rule the same kingdom as Menander, because the former two were Bactrian kings who held territories east of the Hindu Kush. Apollodotus I and Menander both ruled in India only and may well have been father and son for all we know. The word Indo-Greek is not limited strictly to the proper Indo-Greek state, which is why Narain wrote a book called "The Indo-Greeks" that dealt much with kings in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan.

• The reference to Salomon is "The Indo-Greek era of 186/5 B.C. in a Buddhist reliquary inscription", in the Afghanistan, Ancien Carrefour volume. What he had found was a vase dated in three eras.
  • Afghanistan, Ancien Carrefour entre l'Est et l'Ouest ed. by Landes and Bopearachchi? Unfortunately, unavailable to me at the moment; was there a journal publication? Does he speculate about the epoch? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Septentritionalis says:

  I am struck by "introduced by Menander". Treating India as a microcosm, uninfluenced by Seleucid and Ptolemaic practice before the Parthians, raises my eyebrows, I'm afraid. This is certainly a possible mode of analysis, but not particularly persuasive.

I am afraid that is how it is. The coins of India before the Indo-Greeks were almost totally unrelated to the Hellenistic world. Devanampriya will probably take umbrage at this, but the Greeks were centuries ahead of other civilisations when it came to minting coins. Indian coins were struck with only simple symbols, never portraits, and their celators did seemingly not know how to strike round coins before the Greeks arrived:

Mauryan coin

The thumbnailed piece of Ashoka is one of the better pieces: much of the so-called Taxila coinageis little more than punch-marked scraps of metal. The first Indo-Greek pieces of Pantaleon and Agathocles are highly experimental and totally unrelated to coins struck by the Seleucids or Ptolemies. Please take a look at them to see what I mean.

There was little exchange between India and the Hellenistic world before the Indo-Greeks. Seleucid trade probably took place in the border province of Arachosia, which hardly qualifies as India even though it was under the Indo-Greek kingdom for a while. The Ptolemies had no trade contacts with India, those were mainly established in Roman times after the discovery of the monsoon.

And the early Indo-Greek kings struck only small denominations. This is a fact, even though it is somewhat puzzling.

To Devanampriya:

• You are right that the actual city of Mathura was outside British Punjab, though some of the surrounding region was within. I don't know exactly where the Mathura hoards of Straton I and Menander I were found. Anyway, in his overview table Boeparachchi mentions eastern Punjab as the easternmost province, but that table is only approximate. There are references to Mathura in the text, and Bopearachchi does as mentioned include Mathura from Menander - Straton I.

Other eastern hoards were found on the eastern fringes of British Punjab: Ambala and Sonipat north of Delhi. The Sonipat hoard is especially impressive, there are 883 coins, all belonging to Indo-Greek kings: 883 coins belong to the following 11 kings; Apollodotos I, Antimachos II, Menandros I, Lysias, Antialkidas, Philoxenos, Diomedes, Heliokles II, Amyntas, Hermaios and Straton I. The Ambala hoard also has a long-term distribution: Antimachus II, Menander I, Strato I, Artemidoros, Hermaios, Apollodotos II, Hippostratos.

Note that these hoards contain coinage from more than a century. Yet there is not a single non-Greek piece (this is the case in at least five hoards found this far east, though two contain only coins of one king). Here in Sweden we often find Viking-related hoards of Caliphate and Byzantine coins. But those hoards were cosmopolitan collections from important trade centers and contained a mix of different coins. No, these eastern-Punjab and beyond hoards were deposited within the Indo-Greek kingdom - that's why there are no foreign coins.

• Surely someone has appealled to Gresham's law: Good money will be hoarded, bad money will circulate. When choosing what to bury, do you bury Indian stamped metal of uncertain weight and quality, or do you bury silver coins of an Attic standard? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

* A good point, but can hardly be applied that strictly - and I am not at all certain whether there was not Indian coinage of good quality metal-wise. Also, good coins are imitated.There are "exile" hoards in Bactria post-130 BCE, and there the good Attic drachms of later Indo-Greek rulers is mixed with lots of imitations.

The fact that the Indians never imitated Indo-Greek coins like the Saka and Yuezhi did (first in Bactria, then in India) seem to imply that their coinage circulated mostly within the Indo-Greeks kingdom during its lifetime.Sponsianus 10:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)''

There are no coins of Eucratides I found in eastern Punjab, so his coins did not travel east. Neither are there any of "western" Indo-Greek kings like Zoilus I, Archebius or Nikias. This is an other indication that many of these coins were used locally. The only exception seems to be the farthest hoard of them all, the Bundelkhund hoard, found south of the Yamuna beyond the territory of Mathura. Of 97 pieces 95 were of Apollodotos I, Menandros, Antimachos II, but the last two were bilingual Eucratides pieces.

I attempt not to be unreasonable or biased, Devanampriya. I have largely agreed with your criticism that the conquests to the south are highly uncertain. But as for eastern Punjab and even the north-western fringes of Uttar Pradesh, I think there is good evidence, especially when the inscriptions - even if they could be doubted individually - are added to the weight of the coinage.Sponsianus 20:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly surpassed

This, I think, is the heart of the matter. Who is "clearly surpassed", and how do we tell?

There are four editors here, and we differ exactly on this:

• PHG willl cite all authors equally, even those who wrote a century ago; I do not think he quotes them reliably, but that is a separate issue.
• I agree in principle, but am uncomfortable citing Rapson or Rawlinson, without a note on their age.
• Devanampriya regards Tarn as dated, but not Narain.
• Sponsianus thinks Tarn, Narain, and anyone who cites them as current literature are clearly surpassed. I do not expect to persuade him to reconsider, since he is both personally and professionally committed to the present numismatic synthesis, but I must hope.

How then, do we decide the issue?

• By our own impressions of the cogency of the argument? This will take some time to judge; more seriously, it really is Original Research in WP;s sense.
• Or by seeing which views are still cited in the twenty-first century.
  • Bopearachchi and his successors qualify here.
  • So does Narain; his own republication would suffice, and Deva0nampriya has cited other Indian authors.
  • Woodcock's synthesis of Tarn and Narain is still cited by McEvilley.

Fundamentally, this is a question of genre. This is not a journal article. If one school writes articles ignoring another school to death, the other school can write other articles, and if necessary found another journal. But WP is not a journal; we have one article to cover the whole subject, in effect. We must include all schools still in existence; we should include Tarn, even if we decide he has not left one, because, when a reader sees some reference from 1953 to "Demetrius I, the new Alexander, Conqueror of India", we should explain what is meant, even if we also say that no-one now believes it.

It may be possible to resolve this by focusing on the evidence and the arguments; for example, on Menander, actually mentioning the Yavanapura, the Hathigumpa inscription, including the doubts, and the well at Mathura. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• We are back on our different judgements of what a reputable source is. You think that the fact that an encyclopaedia is well-renowned (Brill's New Pauly, f.i.) makes it trustworthy on Indo-Greek matters. I see the problems with non-specialised scholars who are familiar only the "safe" views, the major works in their own language which they know of, and therefore repeat what Tarn or Narain says. Or editors who reprint their works, thinking along the same line.

And you are right that I will not re-think my support of the "present numismathic synthesis" (good term). Science rarely goes backwards. Let's take your references to Brill's on Hermaeus being one of the last kings. Do you think that the overstrikes which have made present numismatists think otherwise will be refuted and Brill's old view once more be in fashion? Or is it correct to believe that the old view is obsolete and will remain so? That's what I think. Sponsianus 10:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• I simply observe that the synthesis has not in fact overborne all creditable observers. It may in ten years, or it may not; but Wikipedia should not anticipate the wave of the future, as one aspect of WP:CRYSTAL. When it does, the article can be rewritten; as it is, it is a slapdash mixture of the synthesis with older theories, instead of a careful one. I do have personal suspicions that there will be a new paradigm in time; no, this will not restore any older theory, any more than the numismatic synthesis has restored Tarn over Narain; but it will include views the present synthesis rejects, just as the present synthesis includes the conquest of Mathura Narain denies. This is partly because I read Thomas Kuhn many years ago, and is also based on specific doubts, but I will save those unless asked for them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

When you say:

"I simply observe that the synthesis has not in fact overborne all creditable observers."

that is just a fancy way to describe that editors of encyclopaedias are too lazy to catch up with original research and that same original research is not widely spread. This doesn't make it less valid and I repeat: you think sources are respectable if they are published by scholars from major publishing houses, I say that is irrelevant if such scholars ignore to contemporary research and repeat old sources.

If new paradigms are introduced, they will probably only concern a minute number of person who specialise in this subject, which is (perhaps unfairly) seen as rather obscure. Popular history has passed the Indo-Greeks by, and they do not have much of a place in classical ancient history either.

We are the most important resource for the Indo-Greeks. If the paradigm shift (a drastic term) doesn't come from Wikipedia, it may well not come at all.

And which are your specific doubts? Sponsianus 07:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I have removed these footnotes from the history section for reasons mentioned.

"Coins of Demetrius III also use the title "Invincible", and therefore are attributed by some to the same Demetrius (Whitehead, Senior)."

Senior dates Demetrius III the Invincible to 70 BCE (Senior, 1998). Silver of the type that Demetrius III struck (round, Indian standard, portrait, continuous legend arrangement) were introduced only by Menander I. (Bopearachchi 1991 and generally accepted). If Senior thought differently, he changed his min. It seems very unlikely that Demetrius I would introduce all these changes on a minor coin series, only to be completely ignored by his successors, and only later did the coinage evolve into exactly this standard again. Occam's razor, somebody? The coin development of Menander I is thoroughly described on his page.

"it //The title Aniketus// was also assumed by his successor Artemidorus". Said Artemidorus, a semi-Scythian ruler in Gandhara, was barely a successor of Demetrius I, a Greek king of Bactria. Even if that was so, there were two other kings, Lysias and Philoxenus, who were called Anicetus in-between. Why are they omitted and why is the title of Artemidorus relevant to the early history section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sponsianus (talk • contribs) 17:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Since when is Kabul Bactria? A line at the Hindu Kush is a reasonable division between this article and its sister; but Demetrius I left coins on both sides of it. I did not find Lysias or Philoxenus; it would be preferable to add them (with sources). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• No, Demetrius I has not left more coins than the stray finds east of the Hindu Kush (MacDowall 2005). It seems likely that he conquered these provinces, but he was not ruling from the Kabul valley - and anyway Artemidorus ruled mostly in Gandhara. Even if Demetrius I conquered Gandhara, that doesn't make Artemidorus more of a successor of Demetrius I than he was of Alexander the Great who conquered the same territories.

• Lysias and Philoxenus - like all Indo-Greek kings - are found in the article so there is no need to add them. In fact, PHG wrote a complete sequence of all rulers years ago, and I have complemented with the dates of RC Senior, which often differ from Bopearachchi. Please excuse my rudeness, but if you are unfamiliar with even the more important kings - as well as the basic layout of this article - what makes you think you can go in and edit in detail? Why did you think it significant that just Artemidorus and Demetrius I had the same title?

Sponsianus 09:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• • I see no reason to pardon, or indeed to tolerate, rudeness. WP:CIVIL means that if you feel you are being rude, that is a reason not to say something, rather than being boldly blunt about it. I trust this will be reconsidered.
  • Is Lysias "one of the more important kings"? And if so, on what grounds? But I did not say I'd never heard of him; I said I did not know, or find, that he was called Lysias Anicetus. (If it was a frequently used title, that in itself seems more interesting, and more informative, than the present extract from Tarn). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the least rude, Septentritionalis: "excuse my rudeness" is a well-known figure of speech, which is added before you say something that may seem a bit uncomfortable: in this case that you keep adding minutiae in the history section without having the proper background knowledge. If you did not find Lysias or Philoxenus (as you wrote)- that certainly means you are unfamiliar with the structure of this article, because they are on the Indo-Greek main page. And if you are not familiar the epithet Aniketos, well, then what you write won't always come out right, will it? On a more constructive note, please feel free to ask about such details. I do - even though I say so myself - know a bit or two about these matters.

Lysias (whose coins resemble those of Demetrius I in many aspects) and Philoxenus are among the most important later kings because they issued a large number of different coins with many monograms, found over a vast territory. The title Aniketos was of course also used by Demetrius III. I agree that we shouldn't repeat a lot of speculations about the title. Perhaps that it may have been connected with Alexander, was a new title for Hellenistic kings post-Alexander, and an aggressive one that suggests conquests and military victories.

However, the later kings all took their epithets at their ascension and therefore it probably only reflects dynastical connections (if even that), not actual achievements. I think there is little consensus on how to generally interpret these titles. "Soter" was used by almost all kings who used Menander's Athena reverse, and probably a hereditary title in his dynasty, but the pedigree coins are different: the "ancestors" of Agathocles are given various titles.

How can we possibly know what these kings did at their accession? We have no evidence whatever. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

All of those kings who used epithets after Agathokles (who struck coins with or without the epithet Dikaios) did so on all of their coins. Consequently, they assumed the epithets in question at their accession. There are a few variations, but none concerned here.-- Sponsianus (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Euthydemus

I also removed a footnote that seemed to imply that Euthydemus I was alive in 180 BCE - which I doubt that there are sources for (he began his reign perhaps in 230 BCE).Sponsianus 09:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that perhaps. I have had partial access to Frank Lee Holt's Thundering Zeus, who is quite clear that there is a division of views on the chronology of Bactria; he himself writes around the matter, believing both views unproven, but appears to feel that Euthydemus came to power not long before Antiochus' expedition of 208-6. I will be adding some notes to that effect, here and elsewhere. Perhaps it would help to distinguish the relative from the absolute chronology. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please give a specific date proposed by Holt? He may have a point; I personally prefer the dating 222-221 BCE for Euthydemus I coming to power (which I have added), and 200-195 BCE for his death. There is a reference in Strabon, which should be best interpreted as referring to that date.

I don't see one, but you can check as easily as I: our local copy is circulating, but Google Books has one. I believe he quotes one of the contending views as being succession around 210; the connexion with 222/1 is apparently also disputed. He does not, as far as I can see, discuss the death of Euthydemus or the crossing of the Hindu Kush at all: his subject is Bactria under the Diodoti. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't find much in the preview, but I have ordered the book and will return to the topic when it has arrived.-- Sponsianus (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But there is an absolute dating for Demetrius I being a young man in 205 BCE (the anabasis of Antiochus the Great, Polybius 11.34), and Demetrius I has not aged much on his earliest coins. The next absolute dating is Eucratides I who came to power in 170-165 BCE (dated by Justin XLI:6, but more certainly from the fact that the later coins of Eucratides I are imitated by the securely dated Seleucid usurper Timarchus in 162-160 BCE). So I very much doubt that Holt meant that Euthydemus I was alive in 180 BCE; that would mean squeezing in five kings (Demetrius I, Euthydemus II, Pantaleon, Agathokles, Antimachus I) in perhaps 10-15 years.

Anyway, the difficult question is not when Euthydemus I and Demetrius I died, but which conquests were their earliest. Did they attack Arachosia first, perhaps even before 205 BCE, and leave the Kabul valley for later, or was it the other way around: that Demetrius I took India first and waited until after the battle of Magnesia in 190 BCE to intrude upon formerly Seleucid dominions in Arachosia?-- Sponsianus (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Or did they go east, to "the Seres and the Phryni"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Strabon's references to the Seres and the Phryni, obscure though they may be, probably relate to Greek presence in Ferghana, the Tarim basin and perhaps Sogdiana to the west of Ferghana, probably a part of the satrapy of Bactria under the Seleucids. There is reason to believe that these territories were in fact lost by Euthydemus I when he was attacked by Antiochus the Great(a reference to this possibly in the words of Euthydemus' legate Teleas when he says that the only ones benefitting from the Greeks fighting amongst themselves were the nomads, already waiting at the borders, Polybius 11:34). This is discussed in Lerner, Impact of Seleucid decline on the eastern Iranian plateau (1999).

The rest of the evidence is - as usual - numismatic. The Yuezhi and other tribes imitated coins of the last Greek kings into whose territory they had expanded: in Bactria, the imitations are of Heliocles I, in the Kabul valley of Hermaeus, in eastern Punjab of the last Straton etc. In Sogdia, these imitations are of Euthydemus I's coins (and Seleucid issues).

Gold coins is another indication. Diodotos I & II struck gold, and so did Euthydemus I, but never with old portraits on them. The otherwise successful Demetrius I struck no gold (apparently, there was little gold in Bactria itself). Possibly reconquests in Sogdia were made early in the reign of Eukratides I, for he began to strike much gold around the same time he began calling himself "Great King", but only recently single gold coins have emerged of later Indo-Greek rulers as well, which is very interesting.

Anyway, nobody has AFAIK ever suggested that Euthydemus I or Demetrius I advanced towards the Seres and the Phryni.-- Sponsianus (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not my idea; Narain suggests it of Demetrius I, as an explanation for Strabo's phrase. (Since Eucratides defeated some Demetrius, King of India, he may have had access to Indian gold.)

OK, it has been suggested, but clearly only as a speculation and not a good one at that. Since none of the Demetrii struck gold coins, Eucratides would have gained little gold from defeating them. His 169 g gold medallion was found in northern Afghanistan, IIRC, and none of his gold coins are Indian.Sponsianus (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Holt

P:58: distinguishes be3tween a high (early) chronology for the secession of Bactria and Parthia, and a low one:

• high: Bartolmaei, Wilson, Lassen, Newell, Bellinger, Narain, Mitchiner, Bopearachchi, and historians Musti Altheim
• low: Wolski, Burstein Brodersen,
• neutral; Preaux, Kuhrt, Sherwin-White.
• Sources, CAH (2nd VII, 219-220); Musti: "Date of Secession of Bactria and Parthia"; Brodersen: Historia 35, 186 378ff; Burstein, reviewing CAH Class Phil 1982; and Wiesehoefer: "discordia et defectio.." in Funck, ed. Hellenismus: B4eitrage...
• Testimonia: Aelian, On animals 15:8; Periplus on Barygaza; Appian Syriaca 65, Parthica F30A, 31 FGH; Athenaeus: 15: 636A 652F; Herodian 6.2.7; Justin 41 as already present. Plutarch Moralia 499D (on burials in Bactria) 821D (On Menander's funeral; note that Pl. calls him king in Bactria, which I had not noticed.) Strabo 11.9 Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this. That's however a wholly different thing, the discussion of the dates where Bactria and Parthia seceded from the Seleucid empire in the mid-3rd century. That has little to do with the Indo-Greek kingdom, though I see the Bactrian page could do with a bit of updating there too. The correct date is almost certainly right after 246 BCE for the Bactrian kingdom and after 240 for the Parthians, regardless of the fact that the Parthian era began in 247 BCE. Eras are propaganda and rarely actually start on their first year.

Plutarch does not call Menander a king in Bactria, he said Menander ruled among the Bactrians, which is a wholly different thing. In the same way, the Seleucids are often referred to as "Macedonians" in ancient sources, even though they were never kings in Macedonia.

It is quite possible that the Indo-Greek kings called themselves "king of Bactria" and that Menander claimed to be Bactria's rightful ruler instead of Eucratides, but for all practical purposes "Bactrians" refers to those Bactrians who were the ruling class of the Indo-Greek kingdom.

When the first Attic coins of Menander were found, there were speculations that Menander had actually ruled in Bactria (f.i. Narain), but the coins that have since emerged are very scarce and do not differ from the Attic issues of other Indo-Greek kings. So he never did, though perhaps some of the weak last Bactrian kings were his vasalls. There is Demetrius II who like Menander used Athena as reverse and has no epithet, which is typical for subjugate rulers.Sponsianus (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; since that idffers from Tarn's and Narain's position (that no portrait shows subjugation) it should be noted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The "evidence" for the connection lack of epithet/subjugate status is that in the tax-receipt (found in 1994, so naturally Tarn and Narain do not mention this) only the leading king Antimachus I Theos has an epithet. Also, Eukratides II struck coins without epithet, and he is a suspect for being the son and co-ruler of Eucratides I that Justin mentions (XLI:6). Still, epithets were introduced rather late in Bactrian history and generalisations are admittedly difficult.

Portraits appear on all Indo-Greek silver issues except the earliest ones (Agathokles' scarce Indian drachms, Apollodotus I, Antimachus II and the first issues of Menander I) so there is no connection to subjugate status. AFAIK, Tarn and Narain do not generally make this claim, especially since Narain grouped Apollodotus I's coins with the portrait silver of Apollodotus II. A single late king, Telephus, never uses portraits, but the current view (Senior etc) is that this rather indicates that Telephus was a Saka king rather than an Indo-Greek.

I have now read Holt's Thundering Zeus. Holt does not to my knowledge suggest that Euthydemos I became king later than the usual period 230-220 BCE. When I have time, I will update the various theories on these early Bactrian kings. My second article on Indo-Greek chronology after Menander is out soon, so I fear I will be disqualified from writing much about that period in the future.

Sponsianus (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"Nature and quality of the sources"

I am afraid that the long and verbiose "Nature and quality of the sources" has nothing to do in a summary of the Indo-Greek kingdom, and even less so at the beginning of the "History of the Indo-Greeks" segment. It is also writen in essay style, with few references, and detracts from the overall quality of the article. PMAnderson's contribution does have some value however in relativizing the sources on the Indo-Greeks, but it does not deserve the location it is taking currently. I suggest we move this epistemological segment to the sub-article History of the Indo-Greek Kingdom. Comments welcome. PHG (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, probably this section (which is valuable given the many uncertainties) should be moved down a bit, as readers clearly would like to read about what happened before the discussion of what we know. That was how I originally arranged the section.Sponsianus (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The claims there are not "what actually happened", they are the currently fashionable conjectures which fill in the gaps in what we know. If the archives of the Indo-Greeks are ever found, this article will need to be rewritten ab initio

We could actually be of real service to scholarship (and who else cares about this article?) if we listed the evidence that this talk page has chewed over, and how Bopearachchi and Senior derive their conclusions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid this is not a reason to saturate the History paragraph with 2-3 pages of discussion on the sources. Your paragraph is valuable, but is not about the description of the Indo-Greek History, it is about the description of Sources used by scholars of this subject. Its place is not in the history paragraph. PHG (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary; it is precisely why to indicate what we do know; as opposed to what we conjecture. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree-- that is what my proposal was about. Let us develop the majority of the article around what we do know. In a separate section we can hash out the different theories and issues (i.e. conjecture, absence of concrete historical record, etc). This way the casual reader can learn about the indo greeks and their legacy (in a user friendly format) and the more historically-inclined can learn about the many issues with this body of study.

Regards,

Devanampriya (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about what we know about history, it is about what reputable secondary sources have to say about it. All history article have limited sources: it is not a reason to have 2 pages about the sources and their nature as an introduction to the history segment. I am not against having such a segment on the sources, it is just quite out-of-place as an intro to history. PHG (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is about what reputable secondary sources evidence about history and not about what they speculate. That has been the problem here and that is why we are having this debate. It is because many of these secondary sources have a bad habit about speculating about something for which there is no verifiable and concrete scientific evidence for. That is the qualification we have to make as responsible contributors. Accordingly, a segment on sources would provide the context necessary to provide an introduction on this very contentious topic of history.

Devanampriya (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Devanampriya. You misunderstand Wikipedia's editing rules: we are just here to present reputable secondary sources, we are not here to judge them. Historical research is always a combination of facts (evidence) and speculation (interpretations). PHG (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If secondary reputable sources are speculating about something and other reputable sources point this out, then wikipedia should take both under account and indicate the current status. If on the other hand any wikipedia editor is judging secondary reputable (and maybe even stupid speculations within these) sources, he or she is in a wrong place, conducting original research (a clear no-no-no in wikipedia or indeed for any serious encyclopedia). Original research should be published in scientific journals, assessed by peers, pass on in books if scientific community thinks there is any sense and then it will constitute a reputable (and possibly wiser) source to be quoted in wikipedia.--FocalPoint (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FocalPoint. Dr.K. (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Focal Point, you have indeed addressed a focal point. But the problem is that we disagree on what are reputable secondary sources. The most comprehensive works (Tarn, Narain) were published in the 1950s or earlier, and while not refuted in all parts, several of their statements are outdated - and many were speculative in the first place. So it is indeed a matter for the editor of Wikipedia to judge these. For instance, Tarn did in the 1930s construct a pedigree of most of the kings. Modern scholar have largely given up such attempts. Does this mean that the last known pedigree - Tarn's - is still a reputable secondary source?

Then there are many classicists who write about Indo-Greek matters en passant, with no special knowledge of the field. Only recently, a new inscription was treated by two Egyptologists who had never published anything Indogreek-related and whose conclusions did not at all take in any of the recent research in the area. Other classicists still rely on and refer to these old reconstructions of the 1950s - if you look back in the discussion there is a discussion about Eric Seldeschlachts, who published a paper of the Indo-Greek that made chronological suggestions that are completely refuted by numismatists (in some cases by coin overstrikes, which prove that one king was contemporary or later than another), numismatists which he had neither read nor referred to. Such articles can pass because numismatists and classicists publish their results largely in wholly different journals. To make matters worse, much of the research has been published only in French. Dictionaries are even worse - they usually publish old and outdated material, because the field is so obscure.

This leads us to a situation where a "credible" source can publish vague suggestions which the editors know are highly unlikely or even impossible. And as mentioned, many older suggestions remain unrefuted because modern scholars have moved on from the subject. Is the sorting out of such obsolete material "original research"? It is clearly a greyzone. My personal view is that if the Wikipedia guidelines suggest that we publish views which we know are wrong, these guidelines are not at all in the spirit of an encyclopaedia (and should therefore not be interpreted in that way). In any case, they are highly problematic for this subject. There are earlier posts where I elaborate on this. The discussion is in something of a deadlock and your input is highly appreciated. Best regards Sponsianus (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sponsianus. I see your text as a "welcome to the twilight zone" of Wikipedia, but some lines can be drawn. I will try my best:

• outdated views: "Tarn or Narain in his book supports xxxx but latest research (or latest books) indicate that ..." (in this way, papers are shown as research, while books have a different status....and yes, some books are really bad, but a published paper has by default a higher degree of uncertainty)
• speculative sections: point out in the text when information is speculative (from author's phrasing). If it appears to be speculative to you, this is your opinion and is as good as anybody's (therefore no good for Wikipedia, but good for something else - keep this as point 1)
• pedigree: Using only the information which you presented above, I would phrase it as follows: Tarn's timeline of kings is as follows:.... Latest scholars do not present timelines, apparently due to lack of certain information (this is an opinion but eventually some POV will creep in), therefore Tarn's version should not be viewed as definitive.
• classicists are writing history, like it or not, possibly based on the wrong info. This is history. Usually things are worse. Classicists are usually writing the story from the winners POV. Your - or mine or anybody else's- (possibly well or better informed) opinion belongs elsewhere (I shall come back to this, keep it as point 2).
• Eyptologists, numismatics: This is clearly information from original research should be treated as such. It should not be excluded from wikipedia, but it cannot be the basis of argumentation, as it would constitute original research. It can be used to indicate trends and to weaken arguments of secondary sources (in a way as I mention in outdated views section) (point 3).

Let us take now points 1, 2 and 3 together: What do we see? Material for wonderful review papers. My opinion is that you should team with the other excellent and persistent (oh yes...very persistent all of you) researchers arguing for this subject (PHG, Devanampriya, PMAnderson, taking names only from this section and excuse me if I forgot any others), write one or several review papers in a wiki environment and publish them in reputable journals. Without having any specialist knowledge on the subject, I can see a couple of subjects almost ready:

• The extend of the Indo-Greek kingdom: A critical review (here you put the maps)
• Misconceptions about the Indo-Greek kingdom

After that and if you like the outcome of collaboration, maybe the time will come for a book for this team, which I would be honored to quote in this article, putting things right. Does this seem science fiction? I think not. Your (I refer to all of you) collaborative effort is original, hard-tested, excellent and worthy of publication. Allow me to go one step further: If you really like your wikipedia name, you can publish under that name! Does all this seem like hard work? Well, it is and you are all doing it already. You have nothing to fear. Think about my suggestion and if you go ahead do not forget to invite me to your IndoGreek-wiki. I will be there.--FocalPoint (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these sensible points and kind words, Focal Point. I generally agree with your guidelines, but there are a few problematic points. I will give you two concrete examples of this to ponder upon. Who knows, in time these points could be used to improve the Wikipedia guidelines.

The first is on the dating of the Indo-Greek king Zoilus I. Here is what the article would look like if we treated "respected sources" with equal attention.

After the discovery that Menander I had overstruck coins of Zoilus I, in 1998 RC Senior suggested that Zoilos I ruled during Menander's lifetime, before 130 BC. Against this, in 2004 Eric Seldeschlachts suggested that Zoilus I ruled 120-115 BC, after the death of Menander I, as a modification of Simonetta's reconstruction from 1958.

This is a NPOV view, representing different current views, but it is nevertheless absurd. The reader will naturally wonder how Seldeschlachts could think so. The present version has made the original research to invalidate Seldeschlachts' suggestion and present only Senior's, because Seldeschlachts has not taken into account the numismatical evidence that prove - as certain as things get - that some of Menander's coins are later than some of Zoilus'. If this is original research, Wikipedia's policy against original research in this case leads to misleading results.

As you know coins are inductive evidence, increasing over time. Tarn based his pedigree largely on so-called commemorative coins; his theses was that they represented actual lineage. Later scholars have largely abandoned this idea; this corresponds to what you wrote. BUT: there have also been found new types of commemorative coins after Tarn's works were published.

My view is that these finds automatically invalidate Tarn's interpretation, for it would go against Tarn's own method to ignore pedigree coins as evidence for lineage. If he had been alive and active (he was born in the 1880s) when these last coins were found (probably in the 60s or later), he would no doubt have updated his old reconstruction in one way or another. To present the results of his analysis to a reader is therefore misleading. If Wikipedia had an article on the commemmorative coins as such, Tarn's approach to interpret them could still be presented as an older, alternative view, but the actual results of his method would be different today - and nobody has AFAIK published work to update his view.

IMHO this is a matter of respect for Tarn; his (and other scholars) views should be interpreted in good faith as the best reconstructions from the best available sources then, but not repeated like the dead words of a parrot after time has clearly passed them by. But the decision of which theses are obsolete is also close to original research. This page is admittedly in the twilight zone of Wikipedia guidelines.

But your appraisals of quality of this discussion is alas somewhat exaggerated. The discussion has often been vitriolic and ad hominem, and I have been forced to explain the basics all too many times, and dig up references only to see them ignored by my opponents. Other uses have experienced the same frustration, without giving names. The relegation of this article, though it admittedly had faults, will unfortunately always to me stand out as an example of the inherent weaknesses of a democratic encyclopaedia.

Best regards Sponsianus (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And I always thought that Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Go figure. Anyway why can't we just split this article into different scholar versions and let the reader decide which one is best, instead of trying to merge all in one cohesive unit? Dr.K. (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

When the fate of the status of this article was decided, votes were counted. This is clearly democratic, whatever the guidelines say. Different scholars cannot be turned against one another, because they are separated in time and in some cases knowledge. Did you not read my examples above? Should we have one section for scholars who have updated themselves and one for those who prefer not to? Sponsianus (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I read not only your comments on the scholars just above but also your other comment about being in the Twilight Zone as well all the other unpleasantries exchanged before. I also read the comments by FocalPoint. I then simply tried to integrate them by paradoxically proposing separation. The way I see it is, maintaining the present course will lead to more disputes, edit warring etc. Coupled with the unpleasantness of some of the exchanges this has all the hallmarks of a protracted and maybe intractable dispute. Sprinkle a little original research for good measure and we might as well propose this article for deletion. What we have here is the literary equivalent of a mathematical singularity point. To come out of it we must seriously shake up the current course and article writing methodology. Dr.K. (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate this, but yet you have no answers to the specific questions which I ask. And still my policy, as well as those who have contributed to the article, has simply been to refer to recent works in as large an extent as possible. Few Wikipedia articles are better founded in current research, while acknowledging the inherent uncertainties about the field. The disputes, while not wholly unfounded, are IMHO largely a case of personal disputes and in some cases nationalistic agendas. And that the status of a page was decided through a vote proves that Wikipedia is despite its guidelines a democracy, counting scholars and amateurs alike. There is IMHO not much wrong with the article in its current state. Those who are seriously interested in the field can easily see what is badly or well written, and distinguish what are the recent controversies. Many topics can be questioned by bringing up "alternate views" as far back as the fifties and claim equal space for them.Sponsianus

The whole point of wikipedia is to combine information to a Neutral-Point-of-View. If more disputes and edit warring are necessary, so be it.---FocalPoint (talk)

Hahaha, I did not say that you will be the best of friends... The quality of the work done is directly proportionate to the passion and love for the work. Being nice might help, but it is not a prerequisite. Being passionate is however a prerequisite and all people I mentioned are passionate indeed, to the degree that even "frustration" can be an understatement in describing feelings during the discussion since your description of it was quite accurate.

Back to your example: There is always a way out. Read my suggested version (I only added one sentence):

After the discovery that Menander I had overstruck coins of Zoilus I, in 1998 RC Senior suggested that Zoilos I ruled during Menander's lifetime, before 130 BC. Against this, in 2004 Eric Seldeschlachts suggested that Zoilus I ruled 120-115 BC, after the death of Menander I, as a modification of Simonetta's reconstruction from 1958. In the Seldeschlachts text, there is no indication that the numismatic evidence presented by RC Senior was taken into account.

I believe that this is a bit better, yet I agree that it is not easy to write NPOV text. --FocalPoint (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was indeed a far more elegant way of saying that there are wrong and right views :). However, the article's dating of kings is based mostly on those scholars who have proposed a general framework of all the kings. Currently, there are basically two such systems. So hopefully we can sidestep Seldeschlachts' more sporadic suggestions. (To be fair towards him, his article was mostly a linguistic analysis of better quality than his chronological suggestions, where he only seems to have dabbled a bit en passant. Still, that is often the case.)

As for "passion", that is the blessing as well as the curse of Wikipedia. Having thoroughly argued with the proponents of Fomenko's New Chronology, who are nothing if not passionate, as well as a number of fervent nationalists, I think that passion can just as well be inversely proportional to the quality of the work.Sponsianus (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your statement is as true as mine, but it refers to a very different intensity of passion. Indeed up to a point it is a blessing but if overdone it can be turned to a curse. ---FocalPoint (talk)

The map is not from a published source

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

This whole map debate as far as I can see boils down to one thing: Published maps support map A.

Last time I checked, it was wikipedia policy to only use things that are from published sources.

The scholary community has reached a consensus on the extent of the Indo-Greek kingdom, so why is there a debate?

Unless someone can provide a good reason why a piece of original research should be presented in this article, I believe map A should be used.

I believe certain individuals on this page are not behaving in an academically honest way. 86.149.122.165 (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Also last time I checked, maps were meant to show states, not troop movements. This 'Indo Greek Kingdom' presented in the article would seem to consist of the land upon which men marched, not that which was governed. I actually think the style of the current map looks better than map A, but those 'campaigns' need to be removed, as they are laughable.

Attached is a published map from Narain's "Coin types of the Indo-Greeks", which completely supports Map B [1]. Another source for Map B is also a published map from a renowned German atlas (Westermann Verlag), as specified in the notes, also attached hereafter [2]. Map B is thus actually fully supported by published material from reputable sources. It is NPOV because it faithfully represents the various material available on the subject. Map A only shows a particular point of view. PHG (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither of those two maps conform with map B. The topic seems to be contentious. In such circumstances, the minimum consensus of Indo_greek territory should be favoured.

??? These two maps, together with the more minimalistic map (Oxford), are faithfully used as sources to map B. There is no reason why a particular POV should be favoured over others. PHG (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

PHG, please don't waste your times on these anonymous attacks. It's just sock-puppetting. Sponsianus (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Alterations to "Nature and quality of the sources" section

I have modified the paragraph which said that overstrikes usually meant that kings were enemies. There are examples where this was likely the case, but the Indo-Greek overstrikes are highly discontinuous and in some cases (such as Strato I over his probable ancestor Menander I)the reason was simply lack of bullion. The Indo-Greek overstrikes are usually not thought of as damnatio memoriae - they are technical mistakes where a coin was not properly erased.

As for the lack of portraits and/or epithets as signs of subjugate status, I have removed this section. The portrait issue has been dealt with: the earliest Indo-Greek kings did not strike portraits, in all likelihood an adaptation to Indian customs. What more, most of the kings who Rawlinson and Tarn suggest were "sub-kings" did indeed issue portrait coins, so I doubt there are any sources backing up the connection.

As epithets go, there may be a case that some of the last Bactrian kings without epithets may have been subjugate rulers, though there is not much published to support this. And unlike the Bactrians, every single Indo-Greek ruler except Pantaleon and Agathokles have epithets. And Agathokles had an epithet on some of his Bactrian coins; these kings ruled just before or during the time when epithets were "invented" on Hellenistic coins (c.180-170 BCE).Sponsianus (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I see this has been succeeded by an abbreviation to

The sources used to reconstruct the history of the Indo-Greeks are few and disparate, leading to much uncertainty about the precise state of the Indo-Greek kingdom and its chronology. Sources related to the Indo-Greeks can be classified into various categories: ancient literary sources from both Classical Europe and the Indian world, archaeological sources from the general area of Northwestern India and numismatic sources which are abundant and well-preserved but often rather cryptic.

Really, even with a supplementary article, this is not adequate. Justin is cryptic; the coins are positively obscure; and the reader needs to be warned.

Now that's there is a specific article for the sources please make a Summary for the main page. You cannot just reinstate your original text: things should fit in about 5-6 lines. PHG (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Only if the summary can fit in that space without omitting relevant and helpful detail, as the paragraph above does omit. I will see what can be shortened. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have also rewritten the assertion ancient authors credit the expansion to Demetrius I (the son of Euthydemus),... which is not the case. Ancient authors do not distinguish between Demetrius I and Demetrius II, any more than the names on the coins do (the Greeks did not number their kings); and it is quite likely, although not certain, that both of them are "son of Euthydemus" (not the same Euthydemus). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Septentritionalis, we can be fairly certain that the Demetrius in Strabon's quote was Demetrius I the son of Euthydemus I and no modern authors have to my knowledge challenged this interpretation. So your doubt seems close to original research. That is however only one source. Euthydemus II was a boy-king who likely died young, and was unknown in the west - which is likely why Strabon did not see any need to specify which Euthydemus Demetrius was son of. That a king Demetrius II was a son of the young Euthydemus II has also AFAIK never been suggested by any scholar; Tarn thought that Demetrius II was a son of Demetrius I, a view which was challenged when it was realised that there were three kings named Demetrius; AFAIK there is now consensus on this among all numismatic work after Bopearachchi's BNBACT, except for Seldeschlachts, but his neglect of recent works has been pointed out. Sponsianus (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Which quote from Strabo? There are at least three, and they need not refer to the same Demetrius. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Indo-Greeks?

BTW, does anyone object to a move of this article to plain Indo-Greeks? There is no proof that this was a single kingdom; and considerable evidence, as this subject goes, that there were several at some times: a a Eucratidid and a Euthydemid kingdom at least. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would object, because "Indo-Greeks" only refers to the people, not the political organization (s). PHG (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

We know hardly anything about the political organizations, except that they existed, and minted coins. We presume that they resembled the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms, but we would be hard-pressed to prove it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Point is, all terms are ambigious and could be doubted. It is perhaps a remnant of the old "sub-king" theory (as early as Rawlinson, 1912) to see the Bactrian and Indo-Greek kingdoms as one single state, when as Septentritionalis points out this was certainly not the case all the time. However, the term has stuck. In addition Indo-Greeks is a general term, sometimes used for both Bactrians and Greeks south of Hindu Kush alike(as for instance Narain), whereas the Bactrian kingdom has AFAIK never been called Indo-Greek. Given that objection, and that almost all persons mentioned on the pages are kings, I think kingdom deserves it place.Sponsianus (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I will check the next time I read Narain; but my impression was that he used Indo-Greek for those in India. His book covered Bactria, of course, but it had to; almost all of the non-archaeological evidence involves Bactria. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)