Talk:Maurya Empire
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maurya Empire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2024
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Iran should be added to the "today part of" subsection. Parts of modern-day Iran (Sistan and Baluchistan Province and Khorasan Province) were in the Mauryan empire.[1] JGallagher83 (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done Please wait for your request to be processed instead of making an another request with the exact same content in a different IP/account. This is considered disruptive. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/mauryan-empire/.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Iran should be added to the "Today part of" subsection.[1] 174.62.255.4 (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: Duplicate request. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/mauryan-empire/.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2024
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Iran should be added to the "Today part of" section.[1] Suhas18891995 (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not done:Duplicate request. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/mauryan-empire/.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)
First Indian Empire
[edit]it is also reffered to as the first indian empire
just like how First persian empire
should i add it along with the mauryan empire?
first persian empire has many names and all of them are in the first paragraph why not put this also in the first paragraph
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/mauryan-empire/ WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- No. The source you've provided says it was the first pan-Indian empire, not that it is referred to as "The First Indian Empire". RegentsPark (comment) 19:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- so should we add that it was the first pan-indian empire? WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- https://archive.org/details/indianempire0000roxb_o3e6what about this WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- We don't emulate material for grades 5-8 (material which instantly contradicts itself anyway) or primary school textbooks. NebY (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- https://archive.org/details/indianempire0000roxb_o3e6what about this WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- so should we add that it was the first pan-indian empire? WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
dynasty?
[edit]wasnt it a dynasty of the Magadha kingdom and not an empire? like the qing dynasty JingJongPascal (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Wrong MAP
[edit]The above map (with holes) should be of 261 BCE , Which is their low end estimate JingJongPascal (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Better Map
[edit]Part I
[edit]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_Mauryan_Empire.png
This is the standard "textbook" map of the Maurya Empire which is used globally in studies. It is accepted by globally by nearly all the Historians.
Author of Map and Description : @Buddhamitra sangha
The current map with holes is not universally accepted.
Some maps references:
- ASI (Archeological Survey Of India) referenced rough map of Mauryan Empire : [1]
- British Historian Geoffrey Parker created map on Mauryan Empire : [2]
- British historian Patrick K. O'Brien created Mauryan Empire Map : [3]
- American historian Gerald Danzer created Mauryan Empire Map : [4]
- British Historian Charles Allen created Mauryan Empire Map : [5]
- Historian Robert W. Strayer and Eric Nelson created Mauryan Empire Map : [6]
- Irish Historian and Indologist Vincent Arthur Smith created Mauryan Empire Map : [7]
- Anthropologist and Bioarcheologist Professor Ian Barnes created Mauryan Empire Map : [8]
- By World History Encyclopaedia : [9]
- Historical Geographer Charles Joppen created Mauryan Empire Map : [10]
Greek Historian on Empire extent(regarding Chandragupta) :
- Greek historians mentioned the result of Seleucid–Mauryan war where Seleucid Empire's eastern satrapies( Gedrosia,Arachosia, Aria, and Paropamisadae) ceded to Mauryan Empire :
- " Seleucus crossed the Indus and waged war with Sandrocottus [Maurya], king of he Indians, who dwelt on the banks of that stream, until they came to an understanding with each other and contracted a marriage relationship. Some of these exploits were performed before the death of Antigonus and some afterward."
— Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars 55[11]
- "The geographical position of the tribes is as follows: along the Indus are the Paropamisadae, above whom lies the Paropamisus mountain: then, towards the south, the Arachoti: then next, towards the south, the Gedroseni, with the other tribes that occupy the seaboard; and the Indus lies, latitudinally, alongside all these places; and of these places, in part, some that lie along the Indus are held by Indians, although they formerly belonged to the Persians. Alexander [III 'the Great' of Macedon] took these away from the Arians and established settlements of his own, but Seleucus Nicator gave them to Sandrocottus [Chandragupta], upon terms of intermarriage and of receiving in exchange five hundred elephants. "
— Strabo 15.2.9[12]
- Greecian historian Pliny also quoted a passage from Megasthanes work about Chandragupta Empire boundaries:
- " Most geographers, in fact, do not look upon India as bounded by the river Indus, but add to it the four satrapies of the Gedrose, the Arachotë, the Aria, and the Paropamisadë, the River Cophes thus forming the extreme boundary of India. According to other writers, however, all these territories, are reckoned as belonging to the country of the Aria. "
— Pliny, Natural History VI, 23[13]
- Megasthenes defined the region that Chandragupta won from Seleucus as likely western side Gedrosia which shares boundaries with the Euphrates River, and eastern side Arachosia shares boundaries with the Indus. The northern frontier boundary formed by Hindukush mountain range:
- " India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its 'western side bounded by the great sea, but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemôdos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus. "
- Book I Fragment I , Indica, Megasthanes[14]
- " Sandrokottos (Chandragupta) the king of the Indians, India forms the largest of the four parts into which Southern Asia is divided, while the smallest part is that region which is included between the Euphrates and our own sea. The two remaining parts, which are separated from the others by the Euphrates and the Indus, and lie between these rivers... India is bounded on its eastern side, right onwards to the south, by the great ocean; that its northern frontier is formed by the Kaukasos range(Hindukush Range) as far as the junction of that range with Tauros; and that the boundary."
- Book I Fragment II , Indica, Megasthanes[15]
JingJongPascal (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- clearly it is the 'standard' extent of the Mauryan Empire.
- Each empire specially ancient ones, have multiple debates and extents by different historians, the one universally accepted should be taken into consideration. JingJongPascal (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Discussed before; see talkpage history. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- By saying that your ignoring all the sources written by the author of the map JingJongPascal (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
This is the standard "textbook" map of the Maurya Empire which is used globally in studies. It is accepted by globally by nearly all the Historians.
-says which source? Confirmation-bias WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)- the author has listed around 10 sources just below it JingJongPascal (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- By saying that your ignoring all the sources written by the author of the map JingJongPascal (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Discussed before; see talkpage history. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
And which says that it is "the standard "textbook" map of the Maurya Empire," or "accepted by globally by nearly all the Historians"? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- these sources, all of them represent the same extent, meaning it is the one which more accepted by historians JingJongPascal (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Meaning" is your conclusion, not of those authors. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- still it shows that it is the most widely used map by historians, not the one in the wiki article itself. JingJongPascal (talk) 09:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think both maps are in infobox so we arent supporting any interpretation. Edasf (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- still it shows that it is the most widely used map by historians, not the one in the wiki article itself. JingJongPascal (talk) 09:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Meaning" is your conclusion, not of those authors. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Part II
[edit]Except the first two of Herman Kulke and Burton Stein
All other sources for the sources for the page redirect to here - https://books.google.co.in/books?id=yaJrCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA451&redir_esc=y
5 historians name are mentioned and all of them redirect to this book. which is not even written by these historians.
and the demographer Tim Dyson mentions nothing about the "holes" or "autonomous areas" and only mentions about the deep south.
Pinging @Joshua Jonathan @RegentsPark @Edasf
JingJongPascal (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- How come no one noticed this before? JingJongPascal (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Discussed before, as also noted before. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- So what your going to ignore it?
- It's literally false information, those historians arent even the authors of the book JingJongPascal (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- The names of the historians should be removed. JingJongPascal (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- That Dyson do mention read correctly it says Loose knit Maurya Empire Edasf (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but it doesn't mentions which areas or regions were autonomous using it as a source is not accurate
- And all the other sources except the first two are not even written by the historians mentioned yet Joshua keeps telling me to "read archives" JingJongPascal (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think you are right here Jingjong and it should be duty of @Joshua Jonathan to give links to archives.I would say that even if that sourced one isnt written by historians they like Romila Thapar in one of her lecture stated that "Maurya Empire was a empire of metropolis,... and periphal (autonomous) areas".Though,she also doesnt mention which areas. Edasf (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Still it shouldn't be mentioned here, as the link of her "citation" redirects to some other book written by some other person, the citations are either made wrrong accidentally or intentionally to increase the no. of historians , this is Wrong Sources and Original Research aswell.
- I am not talking about Map, the map itself seems pretty fine (as of now) but about the sources. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Periphal doesn't necessarily mean autonomous but can also means vassals and frontier kingdoms, which the mauryas had. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am gonna ping @PadFoot2008,@Fylindfotberserk Edasf (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- We tend to not include vassals since it clearly states Core regions Edasf (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- the map without "holes" is wrong too
- It states Sir Joseph's historical atlas as a source which states a bit different map
- So I have added another map representing the map that Sir Joseph represented in his historical atlas. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- The Map of Roman Empire includes Vassals
- Maybe we could use different shading to represent the "debated regions"
- Like ;
- Maurya Empire synthetic map 250 BCE.png
- Or
- First Magadha Empire 250 BC.png JingJongPascal (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Jingjong the newer map was just wild.It vanished Maurya control from South and incorrectly showed Aria under Mauryas.You better create a newer map I agree with your second one. Edasf (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt Sir Joseph atlas was actually that. Edasf (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- The historical atlas is even more exxagerated. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- The map I had added , shows the maximum extent (Seleucid ceded all those territories to Mauryas, as mentioned in many sources and even the one already present in the article). JingJongPascal (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Quote:"Selucus must have held Aria his son was active there years later" From Grainger 2014 Edasf (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Quote : Seleucid Empire's eastern satrapies such as Aria, Arachosia, Gedrosia and Paropamisadae ceded to the Maurya Empire. As per https://archive.org/details/asokadeclineofma0000romi
- Pg-16 JingJongPascal (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:India_250_BC.jpg
- Ceded territoried as per this map, by Joppen JingJongPascal (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ceded territories as per
- https://www.worldhistory.org/Mauryan_Empire/ JingJongPascal (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- The claim that Aria/Herat was one of the provinces (alongside Arachosia, Gedrosia, and Paropamisadae) ceded by Seleucus to Chandragupta Maurya is often repeated, but Aria (modern Herat) "has been wrongly included in the list of ceded satrapies by some scholars [...] on the basis of wrong assessments of the passage of Strabo [...] and a statement by Pliny." (Raychaudhuri & Mukherjee 1996, p. 594). Seleucus "must [...] have held Aria", and furthermore, his "son Antiochos was active there fifteen years later." (Grainger 2014, p. 109) Edasf (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like this is debated among historians too, many claim Aria was ceded other don't, but the point still remains
- The sources mentioned for the map is not how the map is, it still misses other ceded territories of North West JingJongPascal (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thats why I have from long time want a new map you better create a. Edasf (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- The claim that Aria/Herat was one of the provinces (alongside Arachosia, Gedrosia, and Paropamisadae) ceded by Seleucus to Chandragupta Maurya is often repeated, but Aria (modern Herat) "has been wrongly included in the list of ceded satrapies by some scholars [...] on the basis of wrong assessments of the passage of Strabo [...] and a statement by Pliny." (Raychaudhuri & Mukherjee 1996, p. 594). Seleucus "must [...] have held Aria", and furthermore, his "son Antiochos was active there fifteen years later." (Grainger 2014, p. 109) Edasf (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Quote:"Selucus must have held Aria his son was active there years later" From Grainger 2014 Edasf (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- The map I had added , shows the maximum extent (Seleucid ceded all those territories to Mauryas, as mentioned in many sources and even the one already present in the article). JingJongPascal (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- The historical atlas is even more exxagerated. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt Sir Joseph atlas was actually that. Edasf (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Jingjong the newer map was just wild.It vanished Maurya control from South and incorrectly showed Aria under Mauryas.You better create a newer map I agree with your second one. Edasf (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think you are right here Jingjong and it should be duty of @Joshua Jonathan to give links to archives.I would say that even if that sourced one isnt written by historians they like Romila Thapar in one of her lecture stated that "Maurya Empire was a empire of metropolis,... and periphal (autonomous) areas".Though,she also doesnt mention which areas. Edasf (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Discussed before, as also noted before. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Part III
[edit]- Talk:Maurya Empire/Archive 1#Using the correct map
- Talk:Maurya Empire/Archive 2#Request for Deletion of Inaccurate Mauryan Empire Map on Wikipedia
- Talk:Maurya Empire/Archive 2#Proposal for a synthetic map of the Maurya Empire in the infobox
- Talk:Maurya Empire/Archive 2#New Proposal
- Talk:Maurya Empire/Archive 2#New way to solve map issue. Just by authentic interpretation of Ashoka Inscription.I think this may be helpful.
- Talk:Maurya Empire/Archive 2#Need to update the references for the map "without holes"
- Talk:Maurya Empire/Archive 2#A solution? Proposal of an updated, syncretic map
- Talk:Maurya Empire/Archive 2#RfC about the lead map of the Maurya Empire article
- Talk:Maurya Empire/Archive 2#The two maps in the infobox
- Talk:Maurya Empire/Archive 3#Map Update
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- The historians in the refrences list , most of them do not mention this "map"
- The map given in refrences is actually the one which is the maximum extent (in Archaeology of South Asian, the book on source provided by the hole map)
- I don't have any problem with the map itself but the erroneous use of "Romila Thappar" and other historians who don't provide a solid representation of how a Mauryan empire without autonomous region would look like
- Romila states "relativly liberated" "eastern Central India and deep South" she doesn't mentions any of the other "holes" in the map
- Only 1, i.e parts of Kalinga and deep South. JingJongPascal (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Map I dont have to debate now.Jingjong in this article public historian Anirrudh Kaniseti beautifully explains which parts. https://theprint.in/opinion/did-the-mauryas-really-unite-india-archaeology-says-no/1275078/ Edasf (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Still many historical atlas show the "maximum extent" of Mauryan empire different, not the one in the wiki JingJongPascal (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Am taking about map without holes JingJongPascal (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Can you give what problem you exactly have? Edasf (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Here are my problems summaried :
- 1)Name of the historians in the Maps with holes should be removed except the first two as they are very vague.
- The sources provided for them , actually has a map without the "holes".
- No problem with the map itself.
- 2) Maximum extent of the empire is to be the.... maximum.
- The one currently displayed as the maximum extent is not the maximum Extent, as refer to
- Standard Mauryan Empire.png
- and it's sources
- And
- Charles Joppen , Ashoka Empire.jpg
- Map by Charles Joppen JingJongPascal (talk) 10:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fine, I am removing historian names.I think I should make a new map since, those maps have errors and arent very detailed. Edasf (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, I think the maps the holes is fine.
- All problem I had with was the errenous use of names of historians.
- But about the maximum extent map,
- The
- Standard Mauryan Empire.png should be used
- As per the sources list on the description of the images itself. And by me in the start of this thread. JingJongPascal (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ok thanks but as told earlier that map has errors and imperfect detailing. Edasf (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fine, I am removing historian names.I think I should make a new map since, those maps have errors and arent very detailed. Edasf (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Still many historical atlas show the "maximum extent" of Mauryan empire different, not the one in the wiki JingJongPascal (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Map I dont have to debate now.Jingjong in this article public historian Anirrudh Kaniseti beautifully explains which parts. https://theprint.in/opinion/did-the-mauryas-really-unite-india-archaeology-says-no/1275078/ Edasf (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Part IV
[edit]Pinging @JingJongPascal @Joshua Jonathan @Fowler&fowler @PadFoot2008 The first map, which shows the core areas separated by large independent areas, is poorly sourced, as none of the sources, except one, directly states the area that was not controlled; in addition to that, they neither state the area controlled(first two). Let's look at all the sources provided.:-
- Stein, Burton (2010), A History of India, John Wiley & Sons, p. 74, ISBN 978-1-4443-2351-1, "In the past it was not uncommon for historians to conflate the vast space thus outlined with the oppressive realm described in the Arthashastra and to posit one of the earliest and certainly one of the largest totalitarian regimes in all of history. Such a picture is no longer considered believable; at present what is taken to be the realm of Ashoka is a discontinuous set of several core regions separated by very large areas occupied by relatively autonomous peoples" Clear case of WP:OR does it even states the areas controlled forget about areas not being controlled.
- Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, pp. 16–17, ISBN 978-0-19-882905-8, "Magadha power came to extend over the main cities and communication routes of the Ganges basin. Then, under Chandragupta Maurya (c.321–297 bce), and subsequently Ashoka his grandson, Pataliputra became the centre of the loose-knit Mauryan 'Empire' which during Ashoka's reign (c.268–232 bce) briefly had a presence throughout the main urban centres and arteries of the subcontinent, except for the extreme south." Would reason the same as first.
- It is of Herman Kulke which shows the clear extent but it is the only one which does not fall in WP:OR.
- It is of Robin Coningham . I was not able to access it.
If we look, two of the four sources are WP: OR and the third, which shows the extent can be cross-questioned by the likes of historians: Vincent Arthur Smith, Joppen, Satish Chandra, R. C. Majumdar, historical geographer Joseph E. Schwartzberg, and many more. Hence the map should be removed and placed in a whole new section of Maximum extent or it should be put second in place.
Rawn3012 (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- How is a source WP:OR? Are the authors not reliable? It's obvious that the 'vast space-map' is misleading', as clearly indicated by these sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also the historians whose names are mentioned except the first two don't even specifically specify anything about "autonomous region" they do mention that some tribes were "relatively" liberated. But don't specify anything about their actual imperial authoritisation and rule.
- Hence I find it very vague,
- and the third source ,"Archaeology of South Asia" actually shows a map without holes, it does not contain a map with holes or clearly specifies which regions were liberated from imperial rule.
- According to me
- Either the , names of historians should be removed (except the first two) and the "autonomous regions" should be clearly specified
- As Romila Specifies these regions as "Eastern Central India" and "Deep South"
- She doesn't mention any other autonomous region except these two.
- So some of these sources are contradicting themselves. JingJongPascal (talk) 07:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Authors are reliable but the simple rule of map making is to have the source for each and every area shaded and same for the area not shaded which in this case is not clearly specified. As two of the first authors just give an outlook not mentioning the exact areas. Hence it is WP: OR as just on the basis of outlook and that to not supported by other historians the map has been made to include areas not having imperial authority. Rawn3012 (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I am sympathetic to these doubts about the "map with holes", and am myself of the opinion (already advocated here) that representing all these regions by 100% empty holes is certainly not mainstream and quite WP:OR, as it is not supported in the literature, even from the sources currently cited in the caption for the "map with holes" [1]. These sources generaly describe "relatively autonomous peoples", with "various levels of independence" from Mauryan power, and various levels of connection, but nothing that would justify total obliteration from the map through 100% empty holes. Such nuance of the sources could be best be represented by shaded areas, indicating lesser levels of control, as in this map.
- Hermann Kulke; Dietmar Rothermund (2004). A History of India (4th ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-15481-2. 69-70. It is a map with many large areas with line pattern labelled "autonomous and free tribes". My preference would be to reuse the line patterns of the source or shaded areas, rather than create 100% empty holes, to avoid WP:OR and to catter for the fact that the "autonomy" of the regions by definition still implies only "a degree of independence" from central Mauryan power [2].
- Stein, Burton (2010), A History of India, John Wiley & Sons, p. 74, ISBN 978-1-4443-2351-1, "In the past it was not uncommon for historians to conflate the vast space thus outlined with the oppressive realm described in the Arthashastra and to posit one of the earliest and certainly one of the largest totalitarian regimes in all of history. Such a picture is no longer considered believable; at present what is taken to be the realm of Ashoka is a discontinuous set of several core regions separated by very large areas occupied by relatively autonomous peoples." => Here the "holes" correspond to "relatively autonomous peoples", a term which does imply too only a degree of independence from central Mauryan power. Here again 100% empty holes are not justified as an illustration.
- Ludden, David (2013), India and South Asia: A Short History, Oneworld Publications, pp. 28–29, ISBN 978-1-78074-108-6 Quote: "A creative explosion in all the arts was a most remarkable feature of this ancient transformation, a permanent cultural legacy. Mauryan territory was created in its day by awesome armies and dreadful war, but future generations would cherish its beautiful pillars, inscriptions, coins, sculptures, buildings, ceremonies, and texts, particularly later Buddhist writers." => The quote does not support the map in any way. The book is not accessible online.
- Romila Thapar, anthropologists Monica L. Smith and Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah, archaeologist Robin Coningham are indeed simply authors quoted in the same book, which is referenced 4 times in the same sentence of the caption: Coningham, Robin; Young, Ruth (2015), The Archaeology of South Asia: From the Indus to Asoka, c.6500 BCE – 200 CE, Cambridge University Press, pp. 451–466, ISBN 978-1-316-41898-7 p.452. In this book the text and the map only emphasize the uneven centrality of the Mauryan realm. Visually translating it into 100% empty holes is probably exaggerated.
- Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, pp. 16–17, ISBN 978-0-19-882905-8, "Magadha power came to extend over the main cities and communication routes of the Ganges basin. Then, under Chandragupta Maurya (c.321–297 bce), and subsequently Ashoka his grandson, Pataliputra became the centre of the loose-knit Mauryan 'Empire' which during Ashoka's reign (c.268–232 bce) briefly had a presence throughout the main urban centres and arteries of the subcontinent, except for the extreme south." This quote leaves aside the final note to the sentence (note 49): "49. The Mauryan Empire incorporated several kingdoms that had arisen outside of the Ganges basin. They included Kamboja and Gandhara in the north-west, Avanti and Cedi in central India, and Asmaka in the south. See Erdosy (1995b: 115)."
In sum, even the sources claimed for the "map with holes" do not support 100% independence from central Mauryan power, which the graphical convention of 100% empty holes in the current map clearly suggests nonetheless. As such, it cannot be said that this "map with holes" is mainstream in any way, and it is quite certainly WP:OR. In order to respect the sources, the empty regions should at best be represented by shaded areas, indicating lesser levels of control. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @पाटलिपुत्र@Rawn3012 I am supporting a this type of map for here. Any opinions? Edasf (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the idea. Or, better, this map with geographical features and cities. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- The shading of that map maybe a bit troublesome hence IMO this map is better. Edasf (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @पाटलिपुत्र I said 'type of' meaning definitely I would add details if map is accepted by consensus here. Edasf (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Though I created this map a long, long time back, I certainly don't advocate for such a representation now. I think that the 'map with holes' is much more accurate than the outdated one, per @Fowler&fowler's arguments (and maps and quotations) which he presented in the RfC a while back. Showing the 'unconquered tribes' of east-central India, and the 'autonomous and free tribes' elsewhere as a part of the Mauryan realm, even in a lighter shade, would be inaccurate if they weren't conquered at all. PadFoot (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @PadFoot2008 None of sources mention that tribes were completely independent and even if they majority of scholars use "relatively autonomous" which doesnt mean unconqured. Edasf (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have sources that mention that the tribes were conquered in the first place? The sources don't mention these tribes to be a part of the Mauryan territory. PadFoot (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- I never said they were conquered but Rawn has clearly specified that being relatively autonomous mean they did had a level independence but also had some suzernity for Mauryas.Ashokas inscritions also mention some vassal tribes Edasf (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- To support your claim, you need sources to explicitly say that they were conquered or were a part of the Mauryan empire, which the none of the sources say. PadFoot (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- You are confused.I never said they were conqured.Read correctly Edasf (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase it. None of the sources say that they formed a part of the Mauryan empire. The singular source Rawn refers to also doesn't mention that these "relatively autonomous peoples" were a part of the Mauryan empire. The word "relatively" cannot be simply taken to mean that were under suzerainty of anyone. Kulke & Rothermund say autonomous and free tribes, clearly saying that these were free and autonomous and not a part of the empire. They also refer to the east-central tribes as 'unconquered'. The map by Sinopoli showing the territorial boundaries of the Mauryan empire also supports the given map. PadFoot (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Your argument itself supports removal of given map and that only eastcentral tribes were unconquered then how is others independent.Relatively autonomous means some degree of independence not full this proves that there was atleast some sort of influence.I definitely doesnt dispute that they werent part of Maurya Empire but current map shows them completely unconquered which isnt correct rather map proposed by @पाटलिपुत्र is much better.Since it specifies a reader a much.Think about it? Edasf (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- The source doesn't say that these tribes were a part of the Mauryan empire. Autonomous doesn't imply that they were a part of the Mauryan empire, which would be OR, rather autonomous means that the tribes ruled themselves. (Also note that it also says 'free tribes'.) No connection of these to Mauryas is mentioned. The author simply indicates to us the location of autonomous and free tribes in South Asia at that time, and also includes the Cholas, Cheras and Pandyas in this category, who undisputedly were not a part of the Mauryan realm. You also ignored the map by Sinopoli which clearly indicates the Mauryan territories. PadFoot (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- I still doubt using it on infobox based on a single source. Edasf (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Nevertheless,the extent is mention in only a source and how those territories are given autonomous which were ceded by Seleucus. Edasf (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- The source doesn't say that these tribes were a part of the Mauryan empire. Autonomous doesn't imply that they were a part of the Mauryan empire, which would be OR, rather autonomous means that the tribes ruled themselves. (Also note that it also says 'free tribes'.) No connection of these to Mauryas is mentioned. The author simply indicates to us the location of autonomous and free tribes in South Asia at that time, and also includes the Cholas, Cheras and Pandyas in this category, who undisputedly were not a part of the Mauryan realm. You also ignored the map by Sinopoli which clearly indicates the Mauryan territories. PadFoot (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Your argument itself supports removal of given map and that only eastcentral tribes were unconquered then how is others independent.Relatively autonomous means some degree of independence not full this proves that there was atleast some sort of influence.I definitely doesnt dispute that they werent part of Maurya Empire but current map shows them completely unconquered which isnt correct rather map proposed by @पाटलिपुत्र is much better.Since it specifies a reader a much.Think about it? Edasf (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase it. None of the sources say that they formed a part of the Mauryan empire. The singular source Rawn refers to also doesn't mention that these "relatively autonomous peoples" were a part of the Mauryan empire. The word "relatively" cannot be simply taken to mean that were under suzerainty of anyone. Kulke & Rothermund say autonomous and free tribes, clearly saying that these were free and autonomous and not a part of the empire. They also refer to the east-central tribes as 'unconquered'. The map by Sinopoli showing the territorial boundaries of the Mauryan empire also supports the given map. PadFoot (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- You are confused.I never said they were conqured.Read correctly Edasf (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- To support your claim, you need sources to explicitly say that they were conquered or were a part of the Mauryan empire, which the none of the sources say. PadFoot (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Romila only mentions central eastern India and deep South,
- She doesn't mention any other region, which the current map has holes in too. JingJongPascal (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Then this map is definitely WP:OR Edasf (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- I never said they were conquered but Rawn has clearly specified that being relatively autonomous mean they did had a level independence but also had some suzernity for Mauryas.Ashokas inscritions also mention some vassal tribes Edasf (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have sources that mention that the tribes were conquered in the first place? The sources don't mention these tribes to be a part of the Mauryan territory. PadFoot (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @PadFoot2008 None of sources mention that tribes were completely independent and even if they majority of scholars use "relatively autonomous" which doesnt mean unconqured. Edasf (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the idea. Or, better, this map with geographical features and cities. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @पाटलिपुत्र I would support the map proposed by you as it is better in graphical terms, also @Edasf It would be very difficult to judge your map without the final version presented. Also continuing on the Pataliputra's argument, only one historian among all the historians cited for the map with holes has clearly stated the boundary. Taking about others, they just mention it in the statement falling into the category of possibility.Rawn3012 (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Rawn3012 I am OK with it but the current map shows that Tribes were fully autonomous and unconqured based on some sources.It would be impossible that there will be no influence or suzernity by them for their larger neighbour the Maurya Empire. Edasf (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @PadFoot2008 I have read the past discussions, and by going through them, I can say that Fowler & Fowler has made some very good arguments, but his arguments are not clearly supported by his cited sources, as none of them state total independence from the Mauryan Empire, but in place of that, they use terms like "relatively autonomous" and "various degrees of independence," which fall into the category of possibility.
- Regards
- @Rawn3012 I am OK with it but the current map shows that Tribes were fully autonomous and unconqured based on some sources.It would be impossible that there will be no influence or suzernity by them for their larger neighbour the Maurya Empire. Edasf (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Rawn3012 (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- The caption to the map says "autonomous," not "independent." "Autonomous" can easily be changed to "relatively autonomous." It's clear from the sources were nothing like modern state-controlled areas with permanent military presence - or police-stations, to make a modern comparison. Compare it to the 19th century Aerican frontier, I guess. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan Quote:"The Maurya Empire was a loose-knite with large autonomous regions within its limits" (From Ludden,David 2013).This source clearly states Maurya influence or suzernity on these territories. Edasf (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Replacing current map since there isnt a need for since these were relatively autonomous and didnt separated in accordance to caption. Edasf (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- i think we should just shade them differently as per source provided by @Edasf , which states that they were autonomous but still under the influence/limits of the imperial authority.
- Roman Empire's cities were autonomous too but still under the influence of the imperial authority. JingJongPascal (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- It is like that in the new map I added Edasf (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the green map is ugly - a green blob. The 'holes-map' looks better, and has more nuance. Note, by the way, the explanation "conceptualized as"; it does not pretend to be 'exactly' correct. Note also that the caption of the 'solid map' says "maximum extent," not 'areas controlled by the Magadha Empire', or something similar; the two maps present two different pieces of info. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- It is like that in the new map I added Edasf (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Replacing current map since there isnt a need for since these were relatively autonomous and didnt separated in accordance to caption. Edasf (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan Quote:"The Maurya Empire was a loose-knite with large autonomous regions within its limits" (From Ludden,David 2013).This source clearly states Maurya influence or suzernity on these territories. Edasf (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- The caption to the map says "autonomous," not "independent." "Autonomous" can easily be changed to "relatively autonomous." It's clear from the sources were nothing like modern state-controlled areas with permanent military presence - or police-stations, to make a modern comparison. Compare it to the 19th century Aerican frontier, I guess. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Rawn3012 (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
@PadFoot2008: I thrust your revert is procedural, and not a rejection of the Luddens-quote? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan, I had only meant to remove the green blob map; I hadn't noticed you had already removed it. PadFoot (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fine then I will propose a new map which will be better and in accordance with caption.Wait sometime I will return. Edasf (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @PadFoot2008@Joshua Jonathan Edasf (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest you take the present map and simply change the colours of the holes? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- How about a completely new map from scratch and a topic box where we can discuss about it?
- I feel like we can discuss more about its boundaries, I have sources for their northwest extent which can be discuss further. JingJongPascal (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest you take the present map and simply change the colours of the holes? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @PadFoot2008@Joshua Jonathan Edasf (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan@PadFoot2008 @Edasf @JingJongPascal I suggest you guys should see this map(proposed by Pataliputra earlier)made by Avantiputra7. It shows the holes in lighter green colour which is more understandable and keeps all the major and minor details of the earlier two version. Only update it would take is in its legend where it should be mentioned that light green areas shows relatively autonomous areas.
- Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- I still say , a new map from scratch
- And discussion on their northwestern area.
- From my sources After Mauryan-Selucid War, The Greeks ceded alot more than what is shown. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- They ceded three satrapies to the Mauryans, of which Gedrosia, the Mauryans never came to rule. "
Desert of Gedrosia [...] was left an unclaimed wilderness.
" — Kosmin (2014). Also per Luten,"The geography of the Mauryan Empire resembled a spider with a small dense body and long spindly legs"
, thus not including the tribal regions in the Mauryan empire. PadFoot (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)- Thats my made map I know this is very bad and looks like dustbin but I will correct it if everyone wants it.@PadFoot2008@Joshua Jonathan@JingJongPascal Edasf (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Again I have said it countless times
- According to Romila , only Central Eastern India (Kalinga Region) and Deep South were "relatively autonomous" JingJongPascal (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- per @Rawn3012 opinion above map was created for @JingJongPascal opinion.Tell which should be used if above one then I am improving that if below then I am adding it.@PadFoot2008@Joshua Jonathan@Rawn3012 Edasf (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Then I will create another map Edasf (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Seleucids did ced away Gedrosia, so it was de jure territory of the Mauryans. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @JingJongPascal Per your Romila's one We need to write Maurya over it. Edasf (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- By central eastern I don't mean that part of Kalinga (it was conquered by Ashoka)
- I mean the blue area just adjacent to the grey area
- Watch this video for better representation :
- A new history of India by Ollie Bye JingJongPascal (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- You guys need consensus prior to adding any new maps. Personally I prefer the map with holes and don’t see much of a reason to be adding a new map. But even if you disagree, the ONUS is on you to reach consensus because you want to add new content which hasn’t been done here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Someguywhosbored: I'm not adding it and above users also agreed for changing map. Read. All three are just proposal. Edasf (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well there are plenty of users who have voiced their disapproval for this change. Including Joshua, padfoot, and me. What I’m saying is, in the future, if you want to make this change, you first need to reach consensus, which hasn’t been done here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Someguywhosbored Read recent comments they have also agreed Edasf (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @PadFoot2008 @Joshua Jonathan is that true? Judging from the previous conversation, it doesn’t seem like it although there might be a comment I’m missing/haven’t read. Looks like padfoot reverted you. But if im wrong, than I’m wrong. Someguywhosbored (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Someguywhosbored, I prefer the map with holes, which is in use right now. I do not think a new map is required. PadFoot (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @PadFoot2008 @Joshua Jonathan is that true? Judging from the previous conversation, it doesn’t seem like it although there might be a comment I’m missing/haven’t read. Looks like padfoot reverted you. But if im wrong, than I’m wrong. Someguywhosbored (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Someguywhosbored Read recent comments they have also agreed Edasf (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- All right so @Edasf, evidently they didn’t agree with you. Both padfoot and Joshua voiced their disapproval with the changes you have suggested, same with me. That’s means you haven’t reached consensus on this matter yet. Someguywhosbored (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a vote. The replies lacks logic; as Padfoot himself stated, it’s just his personal preference. The world doesn’t run on anyone’s preferences—especially not those of someone known for idealizing the Mughals and canvassing across Wikipedia to portray the Mughal Empire as the greatest in history. This includes attempts to diminish other major, older Indian empires, either by creating gaps in their territories or portraying contemporary powerful entities as under Mughal suzerainty for their entire existence (even when those entities themselves proved to be the biggest bane and nemesis of the Mughals). Padfoot might try from time to time to support other povs and act more neutral in some other topic areas but their intensity and consistency to bullshit for certain topic areas exposes their inherent orignal bias and this is one of them( i would say top priority)
- A map with gaps is not only misleading and OR but also borders on POV-pushing. What’s the difference between fully independent and semi-autonomous regions if you use similar markings, gaps, or colors for both?
- @Edasf @Rawn3012 @JingJongPascal @पाटलिपुत्र have a better argument and are not basing it on personal feelings or preferences. Their argument, logic, and evidence are superior. Help them create an attractive, well-designed map that is accepted by everyone. The current one is nonsensical. 2409:40E3:103D:8274:D44E:6101:52AA:3A95 (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think you need to understand that this has been discussed many times in the past before. Like a lot. And consensus to change the map was never reached in any conversation.
- plus this new discussion just started so let’s wait until other users voice their opinion as well. Either way if you want to make a change, gain consensus first. Someguywhosbored (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, please direct everyone to the conversation link where a consensus was reached that 'semi-, partially, or relatively autonomous' is equivalent to 'completely independent.' Unless such a consensus exists, using 'holes' is simply pushing a biased and original perspective and can be considered incorrect, misleading, original research, disinformation, or deliberate misinformation.
- I’ve provided my input, but given the average IQ level worldwide ( which is decreasing every passing year), it’s understandable if my reasoning went over some people's heads and no action is taken on this page. Have a nice day! 2409:40E3:103D:8274:D44E:6101:52AA:3A95 (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well there are plenty of users who have voiced their disapproval for this change. Including Joshua, padfoot, and me. What I’m saying is, in the future, if you want to make this change, you first need to reach consensus, which hasn’t been done here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Someguywhosbored: I'm not adding it and above users also agreed for changing map. Read. All three are just proposal. Edasf (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- You guys need consensus prior to adding any new maps. Personally I prefer the map with holes and don’t see much of a reason to be adding a new map. But even if you disagree, the ONUS is on you to reach consensus because you want to add new content which hasn’t been done here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @JingJongPascal Per your Romila's one We need to write Maurya over it. Edasf (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Kosmin's statements on the Gedrosia region appear inconsistent as he contradicts his own statement. First, he states on
Pg. 16: "The satrapies of Gandhara, Aria, and Arachosia, in part or whole, were early on ceded to the Mauryan kingdom of India. The unrelieved desert of Gedrosia, today's Baluchistan on the shores of the Indian Ocean, was left an unclaimed' wilderness."
[3]. But, later he states onPg. 33: "Seleucus transferred to Chandragupta's kingdom the easternmost satrapies of his empire, certainly Gandhara, Parapamisadae, and the eastern parts of Gedrosia, and possibly also Arachosia and Aria as far as Herat."
[4]. It may be best to avoid mentioning such contradictions directly. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thats my made map I know this is very bad and looks like dustbin but I will correct it if everyone wants it.@PadFoot2008@Joshua Jonathan@JingJongPascal Edasf (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- They ceded three satrapies to the Mauryans, of which Gedrosia, the Mauryans never came to rule. "
User:JingJongPascal Maybe It's fine for you now Edasf (talk)
Part V
[edit]I also prefer the present map with holes. It's clear what the holes mean, and the conclusion that the Mauryas controlled the main cities, and not all of the tribal areas, makes sense. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but what tribal areas?
- Romila (I have stated this thousand times) only mentions a vague reply
- Of "Eastern Central India" and Deep South
- And the sources also states they were "relativly liberated" it does not mention whether they were still under the influence of the Imperial authority via vassal or anything else.
- Also the name of the historians is very very vague too, these historians don't "specify the extent"
- Only the first two do.
- All other historians after first two shouldn't even be mentioned. JingJongPascal (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's probably better to just shade them differently
- And also about the Northwestern Mauryan Empire.
- As per my sources, Seleucid ceded away large territories near and beyond the Indus valley.
- Which are neither included in holes map nor in maximum extent. JingJongPascal (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have found no reasoning to oppose new map @Joshua Jonathan the new map is helping avoid confusion.I gave source also it looks you are simply making stuff now. Edasf (talk) 08:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- The third source even shows a map of Mauryas without holes.
- It talks very vaguely about it
- The index of the book has the page no. For Mauryas map. JingJongPascal (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- They arent for most (majority don't even know about this different shades clear confusion even Kulke used this as well.)@PadFoot2008@JingJongPascal Edasf (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Rawn3012 Edasf (talk) 08:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- You need consensus per WP:ONUS. So regardless of your opinion you probably shouldn’t say he’s just making stuff up now, especially since he’s already provided many references to other conversations regarding the same topic with the links he sent.
- “Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion”
- “ The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”
- since your the one who wants to add disputed content, the ONUS is on you. If consensus is not reached, than previous content is retained per “WP:NOCONSENSUS”. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Someguywhosbored I understand but Its true I saw nothing reasonable for not including.Nevertheless I am not making pressure on anyone don't include it.But my stance remains. Edasf (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Either the present map, or the alternate (shaded) map by Avantiputra. Arguments about "autonomous," "liberated," etc., or the exact extent of Mauryan power, miss the point of this map: that the Mauryan Empire was not a nation state in the modern meaning. Fowler&fowler picked-up that insight, and brilliantly conveyed it in this map. I found it eye-opening; a very meaningfull insight communicated in one, simple visual aid. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan I am OK with anything now. But my stance remains unchanged. Edasf (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Your diverting the topic.
- Your sources don't clearly specify about the autonomous regions and what they really were and is solely based on descriptive analysis. JingJongPascal (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- I and Pataliputra, in our above replies, have clearly stated that the sources provided do not clearly state that those holes are in all terms independent. The map with a light green shade should be used instead of these two, as it will present a better picture to the viewers about the polity. Rawn3012 (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with @Rawn3012 and @पाटलिपुत्र ; some sources appear to fulfill only minor requirements and do not clearly explain the Herman Kulke map. Better to use Patliputra synthetic map. Apart from the Herman Kulke map, in the same book, Kulke seems to agree that Baluchistan (Gedrosia) was under Chandragupta’s rule, though his map shows a gap, possibly indicating limited control rather than complete independence. On page 59, he states:
"In 305 BC, Seleukos Nikator... Chandragupta met him at the head of a large army in the Panjab and stopped his march east. In the subsequent peace treaty, Seleukos ceded to Chandragupta all territories to the east of Kabul as well as Baluchistan." --Herman Kulke & Dietmar Rothermund
[5] Since ancient times, it was not feasible for armies to access every part of an empire, as seen in Alexander's empire. His campaigns followed specific routes where populations were concentrated. This suggests the possibility of large, autonomous tribes existing within these empires. Similarly, in Darius' empire, significant regions and tribes remained that did not pay tribute, indicating a level of independence. Nxcrypto Message 11:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)- True, Macedonian and Alexander barely had any influence in the city skirts and outer boundaries
- Only major routes and cities were effectually ruled.
- Actually this can apply to each and every ancient empire. JingJongPascal (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- The synthetic map by Patliputra still does not have Northwestern regions right,
- Didnt seleucids ced all the way to entire Baluchistan?
- They also ceded Aria and Entire Gedrosia as per my source. JingJongPascal (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_Mauryan_Empire.p
- How about this map? It gets the Northwestern regions right and has multiple sources supporting it.
- The description of the page has multiple sources explaining it's legitimacy
- However if you feel like it may exxagerate , feel free to share. JingJongPascal (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_Mauryan_Empire.png JingJongPascal (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @JingJongPascal Yes it can be but we need to shade all the areas in one shade.I also have problem with Aria though we can leave it. Edasf (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @JingJongPascal You are correct about Gedorosia it was ceded by Greeks and was a recognised Mauryan territory.
- No source dispute this. Edasf (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_Mauryan_Empire.png JingJongPascal (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @JingJongPascal This can be corrected Rawn3012 (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Can you please tell me what's wrong, as per my sources it's pretty correct?
- And now I am thinking whether shading should be done at all, as we don't see it in other Ancient Empires which too had "autonomous regions"
- Can you tell me what's to be corrected? JingJongPascal (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am talking of shading about different territories of gained by emperors all should be shaded in one only.Nevertheless I dont have much issue and I am ready to accept this only. Edasf (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- So actually shading them differrently is also questionable Edasf (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @JingJongPascal Talking about other Empires would be not fine as what happens in this page is totally different from what is happening on other pages. I think the map by Pataliputra would be fine with some minor corrections.
- Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes hey can you think about map I proposed @Rawn3012 if that is not good then I will add updated legends on this synthetic map only. Edasf (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Specially the northwestern region needs to be fixed. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Rawn3012 Heres synthrtic map updated with legends. Edasf (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @NXcrypto I agree with you and I proposed map which was simply that only I just added some legends. Edasf (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- For better understanding Edasf (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- How do you read "(relatively) autonomous" as "independent"? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan What?? I didn't understood Edasf (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- It was a response to Rawn3012, who wrote
the sources provided do not clearly state that those holes are in all terms independent
. The reply-function has some disadvantages... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- It was a response to Rawn3012, who wrote
- @Joshua Jonathan What?? I didn't understood Edasf (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with @Rawn3012 and @पाटलिपुत्र ; some sources appear to fulfill only minor requirements and do not clearly explain the Herman Kulke map. Better to use Patliputra synthetic map. Apart from the Herman Kulke map, in the same book, Kulke seems to agree that Baluchistan (Gedrosia) was under Chandragupta’s rule, though his map shows a gap, possibly indicating limited control rather than complete independence. On page 59, he states:
- @Rawn3012 I am saying this countless times but looks like but looks everyone has weird love for current map. Edasf (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Joshua Jonathan:, for your note on my talk page. I'm a little busy for the next couple of days, but will reply on Thursday, Nov 14. It will be an "auspicious" day to reply, if I'm allowed to digress, as it is the 135th birthday of Nehru, the man who proposed in July 1947 that the Lion capital of Ashoka in the Sarnath museum but without the bell-shaped lotus be the emblem of the
newlysoon to be
independent Dominion of India and the Wheel of Dharma in the abacus be the central feature in the dominion's tricolor flag, which otherwise was modeled in its choice of color by the Irish flag and the role the Irish Home rule leaguers had played in India's anti-colonial movement. - I have written a few articles in my 18 years on WP, but Lion capital of Ashoka was one I enjoyed writing immensely. Will post something here by Thursday. Thanks for posting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- PS Pinging some admins and/or seasoned South Asia editors, so that this discussion has not become even more unmanageable by the time I return on Thursday. It already has five subsections. @Joe Roe, RegentsPark, Abecedare, Kautilya3, and TrangaBellam: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Allow me to summarise the problems
- 1) Name of the Historians mentioned in "Archeology of South Asia" (which is used a source for hole map) is very vague.
- The historians don't actually say the areas where holes were.
- They do mention deep South and Central Eastern India (Kalinga) but nothing else.
- While the hole map has holes other places too.
- 2)Northwestern regions, as per my sources , Gedrosia and Aria (entirty) was ceded to mauryans, which is not included in the hole map or maximum extent map
- 3) The "Autonomous regions" can be misleading. It clearly tries to pin point them being "Independent" I know autonomous doesn't means Independent, but I can be misleading
- The Archaeology of South Asia which is used as a source states they were "relativly autonomous" so they were still under "imperial" rule in one way or another.
- 4) Standard Mauryan Empire.png has various sources in its description. JingJongPascal (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Aria wasn't a part of Mauryas Edasf (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- PS Pinging some admins and/or seasoned South Asia editors, so that this discussion has not become even more unmanageable by the time I return on Thursday. It already has five subsections. @Joe Roe, RegentsPark, Abecedare, Kautilya3, and TrangaBellam: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Rawn3012 Edasf (talk) 08:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I've added the updated sources to the infobox. Among those cited are: historians Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund, Burton Stein, David Arnold, David Ludden, and Romila Thapar; anthropologists Stanley Tambiah and Monica L. Smith; archaeologists Raymond Allchin, Carla Sinopoli, Robin Coningham and Ruth Young; and historical demographer Tim Dyson. There are quotes and five maps that support the top map in the infobox. The map at the bottom can be found in Joppen's High School Atlas, from whose 1907 edition I have uploaded some maps on Wikipedia; Vincent Arthur Smith who died in 1920, and from whose 1923 posthumous editon of Oxford History of India I have uploaded maps as well. Then there is Majumdar, Raychauduri and Datta's An Advanced History of India, Macmillan, from whose 1960 edition I was not able to upload on WP on account of copyright violations. But the sources marshalled in support of the bottom map are dated, in my view If after reading the sources and examining their maps, you feel strongly that the bottom map has more currency in the literature, you are welcome to have an RFC, but be warned that one was held a year ago and did not move fast nor go well for the nominator. Said RFC will need to be widely advertised, for example in WT:INDIA, WT:PAKISTAN, WT:BANGLADESH, WT:HISTORY, WT:ARCHAEO, WT:MOS, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Historical maps, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Near East, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, among others. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Romila only mentions Eastern Central India and Deep South
- She doesn't mention any other region to be "relativly independent.
- Again she is very vague as "relativly independen" can have different meanings.
- Tim dyson only provides a descriptive perspective and not an actual perspective about the extent.
- He only mainly mentions about deep South. JingJongPascal (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Both of Monica Smith's map dont show the "holes" , how are you even taking them as source? JingJongPascal (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @JingJongPascal Looks like a Rfc is a need here. Edasf (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to divide my reply in two parts, first about the tertiary sources of the Hole map and second about the visual sources of the latter.
- 1.) Hi @Fowler&fowler You are a very senior editor to me, and hence I would easily be able to draw the conclusion that you have a very strong understanding of WP:OR, even for map making. The written source, if someone is using them, should state the territory controlled in a very clear manner, or more likely in X to Y format.
- For ex:-
- Chandragupta founded the Mauryan Empire. His empire encompassed the whole of northern India and Afghanistan." -- Alfred S. Bradford, Pamela M. Bradford (2001). With Arrow, Sword, and Spear: A History of Warfare in the Ancient World. Praeger. p. 125
- "The vastness of the Mauryan empire, from Afghanistan in the north to Karnataka in the south and from Kathiawad in the west to Kalinga in the east (if not as far as north Bengal), is considered on the basis of the spots where Asoka's edicts were (...)" -- Bharati Ray, ed. Different Types of History: Project of History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization (Vol. XIV, part 4). Pearson Longman. p. 24
- "The Maurya Empire extended from Afghanistan in the north to the deep south in India except for the southern tip of (...)" -- Stanton, Andrea L., ed. (2012) Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa: An Encyclopedia p. 41
- "By 300, Chandragupta ruled over an India that extended from modern Afghanistan to Burma and from the Himalayas to nearly the southern tip of the subcontinent." -- David W. Del Testa, ed. (2014) Government Leaders, Military Rulers and Political Activists p. 30
- It has been already shown (Ch. II) that the empire of Candragupta extended from Afghanistan to Mysore and that of Ashoka was far greater in extent including all the Dekhan and South India upto the frontiers of the Tamil Kingdoms." -- V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar (1993) Motilal Banarsidass Publ., The Mauryan Polity. p. 197
- "He [Ashoka] controlled an empire (the largest until British rule) that ranged from Bangladesh in the east to Afghanistan in the north and included much of the southern part of the subcontinent." -- Denise Patry Leidy (2008) The Art of Buddhism: An Introduction to Its History & Meaning p. 9
- Saul, David (2009). The Mauryan Empire. In Sturgeon, Alison, ed. War: From Ancient Egypt to Iraq. Dorling Kindersley. ISBN 9781405341332) pp. 54-55. (basically confirms the story mentioned by sources listed above).
- The sources provided by you are vague and do not explicitly state that this area was controlled or was not. It includes the likes of historians Burton Stein, Arnold David, Stanley Tambiah, Tim Dyson, and David Luden.
- 2.) Talking about the maps provided, again as an experienced editor. You know that we are talking about the greatest extent of the empire. Hence, you should be providing the source in that journa.
- For Ex:-
- Among your all cited sources none except Herman Kulke and Ruthermund state the empire's territory at its zenith and the territory being controlled or not. F.R. Allchin talks about the Empire's major provinces, another one Monica L. Smith argues that Mauryan authority was a network rather than centralized. Remmaing two, I was not able to acces.
- Hence, I would request all the editors to look upon all the arguments provided and then base your decision.
- Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Rawn3012 You better move this to Rfc below. Edasf (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- i have added some sources for the maximum extent map too. JingJongPascal (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Discuss below Edasf (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Decide
[edit]Before this there was a long discussion but concluded with starting a Rfc .So first I will say about map without holes it needs since in today part of section Iran is mentioned while this map shows none of Iran as Mauryan even it excludes parts of Pakistan So should this be changed?.Then, map with holes is looks confusing how did territories ceded by Seleucus became autonomous? Then none of sources mention complete independence for tribes so to help a reader understand context So should we use a map with different shades?Edasf (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Procedural close - Per WP:RFCBEFORE , I also doubt the neutrality of this proposal. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Read above section first. Edasf (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's your responsibility to prove how all the discussions have been exhausted before starting an rfc, you cannot expect uninvolved editors to go look for them and your rfc statement is not neutral. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Ratnahastin Changed Edasf (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Ratnahastin I wanted to ask you, as I assume that this RFC is closed(per your comment above) and another a year ago with no consent. Do we have to opt for RFC or should we stick to the discussion above?
- Regards. Rawn3012 (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Rawn3012 Rfc hasn't closed Edasf (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Ratnahastin Changed Edasf (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's your responsibility to prove how all the discussions have been exhausted before starting an rfc, you cannot expect uninvolved editors to go look for them and your rfc statement is not neutral. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Read above section first. Edasf (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's three RfC's?
- 1. Maximum extent
- 2. Which areas exactly were (semi-)autonomous
- 3. How to depict this
- You may as well redraw this RfC right now; it will go nowhere. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan Fine thanks. Edasf (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Rfc on the Map
[edit]
|
The current maximum extent map shows none of Iran (Even excludes some Pakistan) while,Iran is on today part of section.Should this map be changed to new map?This Rfc is redrawn per above section. Edasf (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in History
- B-Class vital articles in History
- B-Class India articles
- High-importance India articles
- B-Class India articles of High-importance
- B-Class Indian history articles
- Mid-importance Indian history articles
- B-Class Indian history articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject Indian history articles
- WikiProject India articles
- B-Class former country articles
- WikiProject Former countries articles
- B-Class Nepal articles
- Mid-importance Nepal articles
- WikiProject Nepal articles
- Wikipedia requests for comment