This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
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."
"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. "
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. "
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. "
" 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."
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Seems like this is debated among historians too, many claim Aria was ceded other don't, but the point still remains
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
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)[reply]
No, I think the maps the holes is fine.
All problem I had with was the errenous use of names of historians.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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.
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 tribesEdasf (talk)09:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Romila only mentions central eastern India and deep South,
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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.
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
@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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 on Pg. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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"
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.
“ 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. A map of Alexander the Great's empire at its largest extent c.323 BCE including details of key roads, location, and battles. 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.Tribute in the Achaemenid EmpireNxcryptoMessage11:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, Macedonian and Alexander barely had any influence in the city skirts and outer boundaries
Only major routes and cities were effectually ruled.
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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?
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)[reply]
You should close this RfC ASAP. The statement is entirely unintelligible, not to mention it is as entirely non-neutral. You will be wasting the time of competent editors. You should first discuss on this page with everyone how RfC should be formulated. Figure out in which Wikipedia projects to advertise it in, come to some kind of a consensus with everyone, and only then, begin the RfC. Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And please for heavens sake don't rush through this. Formulating the RfC will take a week. The RfC will take at least a month, that is if people don't have RfC fatigue as they know the last one was a flop. Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that if new editors appear out of the blue and support one version or other, their supports will be discounted by the closer. See the discussion in the RfC of September 2023. Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the references and links for the network-model map into a note, for a comprehensive overview; havinf gone through all the links and references I can only say that this map represents a solid scholarly view on how the Maurya Empire expanded and was controlled: not as a vast territoty, but as a network of strongly controlled cities, and dimly controlled regions which were commecially less relevant.
I think we should go for the RFC as I strongly feel all the sources provided for the network maps are pretty vague aside of one which I was not able to access. Rawn3012 (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edasf I am willing to be the nominator and advertising will be done too as what I think Mauryan Empire could be a network based polity operated through imperial cities instead of highly centralized one, but the influence these cities exerted outside their core can easily be put to debate. Rawn3012 (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan I would like to request that you remove the sources that do not have any direct link to the network map. Specifically the ones who are explaining the type of polity the Mauryan Empire was It includes the likes of historians Burton Stein, Arnold David, Stanley Tambiah, Tim Dyson, and David Luden. As putting it in a better way, I can say this: these sources are neither explaining the extent of the empire nor the territory controlled or not controlled, and even if they are, it is not in a specified manner, and this is also the reason why fingers are being put on the map. As it implies certain degree of WP:OR. By opting for these sources, you are not giving the network map a celebral opportunity to present it as reliable.
@Edasf I am willing to be the nominator and advertising will be done too as what I think Mauryan Empire could be a network based polity operated through imperial cities instead of highly centralized one, but the influence these cities exerted outside their core can easily be put to debate Rawn3012 (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can go through those sources one by one; this is too vague. It seems we're running the same circle again: these sources are neither explaining the extent of the empire nor the territory controlled or not controlled, that's not what the network-model is about - or maybe it is, in the opposite way. To quote Smith:
With broad lines and dark shading, the cartographic depictions of ancient states and empires convey the impression of comprehensive political entities having firm boundaries and uniform territorial control. These depictions oversimplify the complexities of early state growth, as well as overstating the capacity of central governments to control large territories. Archaeological and textual evidence suggests that ancient states are better understood through network models rather than bounded territory models.
The sources given as an explanation are relevant to this network-model, which is what the Network-model conceptualizes, not the exact extent or which territories exactly were controlled or not. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!14:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not much about holes one and still it seems impossible there would be no Mauryan influence over these regions. To be precise both maps be changed. Edasf«Talk»15:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Network-model map," not Swiss cheese. Regarding it seems impossible there would be no Mauryan influence over these regions, that's a simplification of what the sources talk about. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!16:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Ludden (2013): "Kautilya’s Arthasastra indicates that imperial power was concentrated in its original heartland, in old Magadha, where key institutions seem to have survived for about seven hundred years, down to the age of the Guptas." There's no compelling evidence to shade the tribal areas; actually, given Ludden, the shades areas outside Magadha should be shaded lighter. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!18:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For maximum extent, I would refer Mauryan Empire map by History Professor of Oxford University Harold Arthur Harris[6] or Mauryan Empire map published by Millennium House which is written by group of Historian, Archeologist and Historical Geographer[7]. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is my suggestion and I wouldn't like to involve myself further in this, But I think if you are representing 2 POVs then represent them accurately and rightfully. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Malik-Al-Hind @Edasf I would like to say that consensus on the above talk page was for the hole map, not for the maximum extent map; also, only Joshua has agreed. Aside from that, the creator of the map, Avantiputra7, is a very senior editor with hands-on experience in map mapping. Removing his map without even discussing it with him and then creating another based on his map only is not right. As it would be a kind of disgrace to his hard work, for which he deserves credit. Courtsey ping @Avantiputra7 @PadFoot2008Rawn3012 (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, let us begin the discussion. I would just start with giving a suggestion since I don't really want myself to get involved in it. Basically it is just for the maximum extent, I would genuinely refer Mauryan Empire map by History Professor of Oxford University Harold Arthur Harris[8] or Mauryan Empire map published by Millennium House which is written by group of Historian, Archeologist and Historical Geographer[9]. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I replied you twice giving my suggestions but I will reply here too. If you read the discussion which you cited, you will notice that there are indeed many errors in his map, he has made paropamisadae and gandhara into one (which it was not), The marking of Kuntala region and gedrosia region is slightly wrong as well. Moreover, given by the theme of the infobox, We were supposed to add the maps of two point of views i.e One with holes and one without holes, I believe the one without holes has been represented wrongly, Because all the historians it quotes in the citation bar, Namely Rc Majumdar, Vincent smith and Joseph E. Schwartzberg agree that "aria" was the part of Mauryan empire. So it must be included in the maximum extent map. Yes indeed there are historians who say aria was not the part of Mauryans, but we already have a holed version of mauryan map which doesn't have aria. So atleast it should be included in the map which is without holes, Because the maps should go with what the cited sources are saying, but if we carefully notice this, the current map isn't aligning with the sources it is citing.
So this is just a suggestion, that the map should be changed to the map @Edasf posted, you can give credits to Avantiputra, I don't have a problem with that. For maximum extent, I would prefer to also refer Mauryan Empire map by History Professor of Oxford University Harold Arthur Harris[10] or Mauryan Empire map published by Millennium House which is written by group of Historian, Archeologist and Historical Geographer[11]. Thank you.. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the revised map, the northern 'borders' are also expanded; I think I would object against that. Best thing to do would be to adjust Avantiputra's map a slight little bit, I think. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!11:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are ready to adjust that if there is an error there, but we will include entire gedrosia and obviously aria to align the map with the cited sources. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Someguywhosbored: You asked, so here's my take. The Ganges Plain was deforested in the first half of the first millennium BCE by the Indo-Aryan speaking migrants who had arrived in South Asia from the northwest ca. 1200 BCE. The first clan-based city states and the caste system to stratify or wall out the native peoples of the region (the forest dwelling hunter gatherers) came to being by the mid-first millennium BCE.
Technologically, what are the chances that one of those city states, later called Magadha, had become so big by 300 BCE, that it could really have a centralized empire reaching all the way to Western Baluchistan, that they could build real canals (with the attendant problem of sedimentation in the Himalayan rivers), or even subcontinent-wide highways, which took the British (who were in the midst of an industrial revolution) quite a bit of hard work to build?
The main problem for me is that except for Ashoka's pillars and edicts, there is no archaeological trace of the Mauryas in South Asia. Greece (ca 450 BCE) had the File:Classic view of Acropolis.jpg, let alone such as those of the Indus Valley Civilisation, Ancient Egypt or Babylon. And the Ashokan capitals and pillars are, in the view of the majority of archaeologists, the work of Iranian stonemasons who had fled the sacking Persopolis by Alexander in 323 BCE and hired by the Mauryans. See Lion capital of Ashoka: Influences.
For me, this entire topic area, is very problematic, especially since 2014 when the old regional sub-nationalism that boosted the Mauryas has been surmounted by an India-wide religious nationalism. If WPians do not want to first read and understand modern approaches to history and archaeology (such as the kind of sources cited in the FA India) and if they prefer instead to start with tall stories of cultural grandiosity and then use Google to find the sources that support them, there is not much I can do. I try to fix the lead now and them, but beyond that I don't have the energy nor the heart. Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again..the problem here is, If the Mauryans didn't rule gedrosia/aria as per some historians, that is totally fine, That is literally what the holed version of the map is for. But when we are talking about the standard Mauryan map (without holes) which is used almost everywhere from britanica to Oxford to Cambridge to Chicago University press, and the map which is also in Wikipedia, it should go with the sources it is citing and the sources it is based on specifically, the map is well sourced but it doesn't go with the citations/sources it is citing at all. I will explain what I mean here. It specifically cites 3 notable historians (although there are 100s more which support it but let us ignore that) who are Joseph Schwartzberg, RC majumdar and Vincent Arthur smith, let us go with what they say one by one.
Vincent Arthur Smith; R. C. Majumdar; and historical geographer Joseph E. Schwartzberg."
Pg.75 : Chandragupta Maurya, and the four satrapies of Aria, Arachosia, Gedrosia, and the Paropanisadai were ceded to him by Seleukos Nikator about B.C. 305. The Maurya frontier was thus extended as far as the Hindû Kush Mountains, and the greater part of the countries now called Afghanistan, Balûchistan and Makran, with the North-Western Frontier Province, became incorporated in the Indian Empire. That empire included the famous strongholds of Kabul, Zabul, Kandahar, and Herat, and so possessed the scientific frontier' for which Anglo-Indian statesmen have long sighed in vain. Asoka, the Buddhist emperor of India by Smith, Vincent Arthur [12]
Pg.105 : Net result of the expedition, however, clearly indicate that Seleucus met with a miserable failure. For he had not only to finally abandon the idea of reconquering the Panjab, but had to buy peace by ceding Paropanisadai, Arachosia, and Aria, three rich provinces with the cities now known as Kabul, Kandähär and Herät respectively as their capitals, and also Gedrosia (Baluchistan), or at least a part of it. The victorious Maurya king probably married the daughter of his Greek rival, and made a present of five hundred elephants to his royl father-in-law. Ancient India by R. C. Majumdar[13]
Pg. 170 : By 311 B.C. or somewhat later the Indus had become the frontier of the Magadhan Empire. Further westward expansion was largely the outcome of the successful military encounter with Seleucus Nicator (Seleukos Nikator), founder of the Seleucid dynasty and inheritor of Alexander's eastern empire from northern Syria to India Between 305 and 302 B.C. Seleucus ceded the satrapies of Gedrosia. Arachosia, Paropamisadai, and probably Aria , gave his adversary a Greek princess in marriage, and obtained in return 500 war elephants and permanent peace and friendship on his eastern frontier. About this time, perhaps earlier, western Gandhara and areas north to the Hindu Kush, Abhisara, and probably Kasmira were also annexed to the Mauryan dominions.
Historical Atlas of India by Joseph E. Schwartzberg [14]
All of the cited sources in the map indicate that the Mauryans Had Aria but the said map which is literally relied on that source doesn't include it, Indicating That it is not aligning with the very sources it is citing, So if you are putting 2 versions of the map, present them accurately and rightfully and let the readers to decide it.
Now coming to the holed map, I personally have no problem with that, Unless it is just WP:OR like @पाटलिपुत्र said, because even the sources in its support which supposedly claims for the "map with holes" do not support its 100% independence from central Mauryan power, which the graphical convention of 100% empty holes in the current map clearly suggests. Because of which it cannot be said that this "map with holes" is mainstream in any way or even academic in any way, you will find it nowhere except for in wikipedia, because of which it is WP:OR. In order to respect the sources, the empty regions should at best be represented by shaded areas, indicating lesser levels of control. That would be respected, although I have nothing to object about that, I am merely here to correct the standard Mauryan map.
@Someguywhosbored For now, see these maps [15][16], They are WP:RS, Yes the current map is sourced and The cited historians in the maximum extent map such as Vincent arthur, Joseph and RC majumdar, all agree with the said map by saying aria was the part of mauryans. Which the map doesn't include. Proving that The current map isn't even aligning with the sources it is citingMalik-Al-Hind (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Someguywhosbored And everyone agrees a little part of Iran and coastal Balochistan were under Mauryan control if you dont believe I can provide sources as well.Do you still oppose changing current map? Edasf«Talk»13:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Baluchistan, neolithic villages such as Mehrgarh dating to 7,000 BCE have survived in pristine state. The first use of cotton for cloth has survived in Mehrgarh. The first in-vivo drilling of teeth (with a bow drill) has survived in Mehrgarh (see the famous article in Nature announcing it.
Why is it that there is no, zero, nada, evidence of the Mauryas in Baluchistan. Only a vague mention of the treat in the account of Greek historians given to exaggeration. Doesn't add up. Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan I believe this isn't going right as it should go, We have "holed" map of Mauryans for a reason, there aria and gedrosia isn't included for this very reason. But this standard version should have gedrosia/aria since it has to align with the sources it is based on. Which it isn't allowing.
"Where is the archeological evidence" is a clearly different topic and i believe is WP:RS here. We were discussing to fix the standard Mauryan map with the help of the sources it is based on, The sources clearly state Mauryans had aria but the map doesn't have it. The map is Not aligning with the very sources it is based on. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler With all due to respect, you seem to have ignored my comment earlier. You do realise what you are doing is WP:RS right? We go with what the scholars and academia says in wikipedia. The map is based on those sources it isn't aligning with. The sources do specifically state they had aria and gedrosia therefore it must be included, Gedrosia is already there but Aria is not. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan It is not accurate enough, it doesn't have aria, and the sources it is relied on clearly says that Mauryans did have Aria. You are pretty much ignoring everything we said. Keep in mind the maps should be aligning with the sources they are based on, and the sources do state that Mauryans had Entire Aria and gedrosia. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler Do you have sources that dispute this and you mean only those areas be under Mauryas where inscriptions are? Iran is there in today part of section.Don't know how you even know Greeks did exaggeration maybe you secretly built time machine.@Malik-Al-Hind provided several sources.Complete nonsense from an experienced editor. Edasf«Talk»16:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
F&f does have a point; Avantiputra effectively made the same point: maximum extent according to the presence of inscriptions. I've reverted Avantiputra's map back to the previous state, awaiting consensus. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!16:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua JonathanIf it is about maximum extent according to the presence of inscriptions then every single ancient Empire including the Achaemenid empire and Macedonian empire would get minimize, this could apply to literally every single ancient empire existing.
Our discussion was to change the standard Mauryan map according to the sources it is based on. The sources do state that aria was a part of Mauryans as I have clearly provided above (which both you and fowler supposedly ignored). But the map doesn't have aria, indicating that it is not Aligning with the sources it is based on, Which it should.
Indeed there are few sources which state Aria wasn't the part of Mauryans, but that is literally what the holed version is for, which doesn't have gedrosia or Aria. But you have to let it remain in the Standard Mauryan map so it is aligned with the sources and is represented accurately. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no one thinks you are POV pushing. But the sources provided for map with holes is vague.
And The maximum extent of mauryan empire has to be its maximum extent not its "semi maximum" extent.
Map for mughal empire used in the article is from the same historical atlas from which we are sourcing. if that map is accurate, what makes this less accurate? same sources. JingJongPascal (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not missing the point. I was the first person to upload maps from Joppen, Vincent Smith, and Majumdar, Raychaudhuri and Datta, all of which I own. The medieval and early modern maps are more reliable as there were more primary sources on which they relied. For the Mauryas there was nothing but the mythologyzing and hagiographic Greeek historians. Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide me source that Greeks "mythologyzed" Maurya Empire's extent? They clearly state, that Seleucids lost the war, and ceded away Eastern Afghanistan and Entire baluchistan.
I don't know what is hard to understand here. The map is based on the sources it isn't aligning with, The sources cited clearly state Aria was the part of Mauryan empire, but the supposed map doesn't have it. Which needs to improve and change.
"But the extent is according to the mauryan inscriptions throughout South asia"
That would be literally WP:OR, we can't ourselves make up the boundaries of the mauryan empire based on our understanding of their inscriptions, We rely on historians, archeologists and other scholarly academic sources for that. And the academic sources this standard Mauryan map is based on clearly includes aria in it. Which the supposed map doesn't have. And with this, we can literally minimize every single ancient empire which ever existed, this can clearly apply on the Macedonian empire and the Achaemenid empire as well.
"but there are indeed sources which state Aria wasn't the part of Mauryans"
That is literally what the holed version is representing. But if you are representing two versions of the same map, You need to represent both of them rightfully and accurately, which you aren't doing in case with the Mauryan Empire's standard map. Because all the historians supporting this version do include aria in it, which you aren't doing. I recommend to check these too [17][18]Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to assume things but It just seems like they are avoiding the entire topic and don't want to make any changes..purposely trying to rely on POV-push. They asked us to seek a consensus and discuss, which they are refraining from. Only an RFC could sort things out but no one is willing to do that either. @पाटलिपुत्र what is your take on this? Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An RFC does not trump an Featured article review. The India page's WP front page appearance on 2nd October 2019, Gandhi's 150th, was closely watched by at least a dozen administrators. Its lead said then, and does now: "Early political consolidations gave rise to the loose-knit Maurya and Gupta Empires based in the Ganges Basin. Their collective era was suffused with wide-ranging creativity, but also marked by the declining status of women, and the incorporation of untouchability into an organised system of belief."
@Fowler&fowler You just ignored more than 90% of the stuff i said. I wouldn't repeat myself, we are clearly talking about the standard Mauryan map, and the sources that mauryan map is based on clearly says aria was the part of Mauryans, Infact all historians who believed in the standard Mauryan version agree that aria was the part of Mauryans indeed, which I quoted above and which you are collectively ignoring. We can't make the boundaries of the mauryan empire based on our understanding of the inscriptions. That is literally a povpush and WP:OR, we need to rely on what historians, archeologists and scholarly academia says.
We are representing 2 versions of the mauryan map, But the current map of the standard version is not being represented accurately at all. It misses a lot of places and
which the sources it is based on explicitly says was the part of Mauryan empire. The current map is not aligning with the sources it is based on, which is an insane Pov push and WP:OR since the holed version is already there to represent the controversy behind aria/gedrosia. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are going in a circular discussion which never seems to end. Both of them collectively ignored our entire main point and the sources I cited, both of them refrained from discussing on that. Though I will patiently wait for their response. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are old, dated. I can produce even older sources than Joppen and Vincent Smith. They state the provinces were east of the Indus and the elephants were 50, not 500, not to mention that the stories of Megasthenes of "the grandeur of Chandragupta, of his army, and his capital, are well-nigh incredible." (G. U. Pope's A Text-Book of Indian History, London WH Allen, 1880. I will add some pictures. Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does a source like [19] and Kosmin (2014) looks old to you? I am sure I cited numerous old and new scholarly WP:RS works. But again, the point is not about what is new or what is old.
The point here is about representing the viewpoint of vast group of historians correctly here instead of distorting it. Since this article is representing 2 types of viewpoint, the one who believe in holed version and the one who don't believe in a hole version, It is our duty to represent the map/viewpoint of both of these groups accurately, which we are NOT doing here. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no two viewpoints; otherwise, the India page, the flagship page on Indian history, would have it. There is only one modern map. The Mauryas had some regions of core control, but outside them the vast subcontinent was autonomous. Had they had the whole subcontinent, they would have left at least one artifact in Baluchistan. But there is nothing there. As Baluchistan has no trees, if the Mauryas has actually lived there, they would have built homes in stone. But nothing survives, no road, no canal, no settlement, no bones, ... Even in places such as Taxila, or Afghanistan, outside the Asokan pillar or edict, there is no Mauryan artifact anywhere. Fowler&fowler«Talk»18:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I will be responding here to most of the questions raised by you here. You said there is only 1 map. Well i dont think so that is true, there are indeed 2 viewponts, 1 viewpoint which encompasses that mauryans ruled the entire subcontinent, I have cited the sources of those historians/scholars, (I can cite several more but that would make this response extremely big), The other viewpoint that there were autonomous independent regions inside the Mauryan realm. So you are certainly wrong to say that "THERE is only one modern map" well i guess that is why the holed map can be found nowhere except for in wikipedia, Neither in Oxford nor in Cambridge nor in britanica, even the cited sources in the holed the map are insanely cherrypicked and can be easily disputed because many of those sources assert that mauryans had some amount of control over those tribes making them semi-independent.
Let us take look over them one by one.
1)-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". Here it is importan to reuse the line patterns of the source or shaded areas, rather than create an imaginary 100% empty hole, which will avoid WP:OR and will catter for the fact that the "autonomy" of the regions by definition still implies only "a degree of independence" from central Mauryan power [20]
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" are based on the term "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.
3-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 nowhere supports anything nor The book seems to be accessible online.
4-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 [21]]. In this book the text and [ https://books.google.com/books?id=yaJrCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA452%7C the map]] only emphasize the uneven centrality of the Mauryan realm. Visually translating it into 100% empty holes is probably exaggerated.
5)-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.
So yes, you can't at all say 'there is only 1 modern map" since your own map is a result of a WP:OR over some cherrypicked lines and can be found nowhere except for in wikipedia.
At this point you are clearly ignoring the vast chunk of historians/scholars who still push forward and believe that mauryans ruled over entire subcontinent, which still remains a consensus in this paradigm as proved by the scholars/historians i quoted from so many legitimate scholarly institutions like cambridge/oxford/Chicago etc.
Now, there are indeed 2 point of views, the ones who "supposedly" believe in autonomous free tribes inside of mauryan realm who were independent, but at the same time there is another group with another point of view that mauryans ruled over the entire subcontinent, this is why there are still 2 maps being used in this article since years.
Now it will be extremely dishonest of us to distort the viewpoint of historians who believe in the standard mauryan map (the one without holes), If we are representing that map, we have to represent them accurately, over what the very historians/scholars actually say on whose works the map is based, we have to carefully look at that, we just can't invent boundaries ourselves based on our own understanding of some inscriptions and artifacts because that will be WP:OR and then every ancient empire including the achaemenid empire and macedonian empire could get minimized. If we are having the standard map added which is based on some group of historians ,we need to align the map with the works of those historians the map is based on, which we are supposedly not doing nor we are representing their map/viewpoint accurately.
Like i said, The map doesn't align with the very references it is sourced from
As for the archeological evidences of mauryans in gedrosia/aria, this is a totally separate issue, even if we agree there is none (i am not agreeing but just for the sake of discussion) then the holed version is already there to represent this issue..which it is supposedly doing..but then why distorting the standard version? Let it align with the sources it is based on? And regardless, you do realise this could work on every single empire of ancient era including the macedonian and achaemenid empire. There are numerous places where there are no artifacts or inscripion of achaemenids, that is a separate issue anyway. I can discuss on that but it will make my reply too time consuming to read.
Anyways for archeological evidences, read this:
Pg. 417: Mauryan empire towards the satrapies of Gedrosia part of which were ceded by Seleucus to Chandragupta. The discovery of the remains of a large Buddhist sanctuary on "Koh-i-Khwaja" in Sistan suggests that this province also was perhaps included in the Mauryan empire, and the Buddhist influence reached there in the time of Asoka himself. Further south, that Jaz Morian Lake have marked this side the western boundary of the Mauryan empire. "
I will say this again. We are representing 2 versions of the Mauryan map. But the standard version i.e the version which is without holes is not being represented accurately at all.
First of all it relies upon bunch of sources which it doesn't align with, All of the sources the map is based on clearly state that Aria was the part of Mauryan empire as we have discussed this before, but the map nowhere seems to have it. Leave the cited sources of the map, since only 3 historians are cited there. Almost all the historians who push forward and believe in the standard Mauryan version include Aria in it and clearly state that Aria was the part of Mauryan empire.
The wiki article seems to represent the viewpoint of 2 groups of Historians and archeologists. First who supposedly believe there were independent autonomous tribes inside the Mauryan realm and Second are the One who push forward a standard Mauryan map which encompasses almost all of South Asia . In such a circumstance, it is our duty to represent their viewpoint accurately which we are not doing here. Because the standard Mauryan map (i.e the one without holes) is based on the viewpoint of historians who repeatedly have said this over and over again that Aria was the part of Mauryan empire, which isn't included in the current standard Mauryan map of this article at all. So it just seems like we are distorting the viewpoint of a vast group of historians because of our own POV bias here.
I request both of you, to improve the map by including all the supposed Seleucid ceded territories Including Aria in the Standard Mauryan map (the one without holes).
I hope this will be fruitful. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I actually think that F&f has a good point in questioning the presence/rule/impact on the eastern Seleucid territories. Problem is, though, that many maps do include them, including Schwarzberg. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!18:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Schwarzberg and others don't delve into whether or not the Mauryas had political, military, or administrative control of these regions, or even established tributary relationships. In other words, they are not historians of ancient India or archaeologists. Same with Kosmin, he is a classicist who studies old Greek historians. He is not a historian of ancient India. In the India page, there are only a handful of ancient India scholarly sources that we use: Thapar, Kulke and Rothermund, Ludden, and Burton Stein. They all, down to the last historian standing, state that the empire had gaping holes. Fowler&fowler«Talk»18:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "holes" are not under discussion anymore; what's being discussed is the maximum extent. You have a good point with regard to the ceded territories, I think, but the point is: most sources, including Schwarzberg, do include those territories in their maximum extent maps. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!19:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: there must be a way to make the links work in the notes; many other links do work. With ref|group=note there is a bypass, so I'm going to find out if there is one here too. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!19:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, @Joshua Jonathan:. Meanwhile, I will create a separate section with a permalink to the infobox with all five modern archaeology-based maps, so that if some editors in the future start the same old same-old, thinking we haven't thought about these issues, we have something instantly to point to. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk»00:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta agree with Fowler here. Seems a bit misleading to expand mauryan territory in the map when we don’t even have a good understanding of the level of control they had over those areas. These weren’t modern day nation states. Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think, for now, all I can really hope to do is to hobble some of the grandiloquence in the text with scholarly sources. Accordingly, I have changed the characterization of the Uttarapatha (from a "Grand Trunk Road" to a "winter road) as it was serviceable only in the winter months, when the water levels in the intersecting rivers were low and they could be forded. Unlike the Romans, the Mauryas did not have the technology of the masonry arch with which to build arch bridges, though rivers as wide as the Indus would pose a challenge even for them. Pontoon bridges and rope bridges were also unfeasible for bridging raging Himalayan rivers that pose challenges to modern nations. Fowler&fowler«Talk»02:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was summoned via FRS here. It's not my field of historical study, but even so I read most of the discussion. My two cents are that, had the Mauryans effectively administrated the ex-Seleucid satrapies, likely we would have more evidence of that, not only archeological but institutional. The later fragmentation and continuous disconnection of these areas with the rest of the subcontinent points otherwise. We can look at the history of the Parthians and Sasanians to see how these regions were seemingly always solidly into their sphere of influence, and not in the Indian dynasties'. Three other minor points: I dislike the two-map solution as it stands, it is probably confusing to an uninitiated reader. I prefer the map with holes or a shaded map like was hinted at before rather than the solidly colored one, fwiw (this is the same problem with those maps of the Ottoman Empire which give it the entire coast of the Black Sea). Last, F&F is far more patient than I would be given the circunstances; I would also commend the other side of the debate for their tenacity. Cheers, Coeusin (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler To not extend this discussion further, I will make it clear that I genuinely have no problem with the holed version here, the entire time I was just discussing on the standard Mauryan version which I think needs to improve. Because it needs to align with the sources it is based on, (Which it is not), Since the begining upto today, I am only asking you to extend the boundaries of Mauryans (in the standard non holed version) and add Aria in it as it is a standard belief, the very sources it is based on says the same. We can't just distort that map at all and we need to represent that accurately. Based on the sources I provided above. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the point here, that we are not "discussing" the holed map here at all. We are discussing about the standard Mauryan map which is not really being represented accurately here nor it is aligning with the sources it is based on Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously know what we are discussing. I'm essentially suggesting (as Coeusin does above) that there is no need for two maps. The map with holes is adequate to encapsulate all the historical evidence available for the Mauryas. Fowler&fowler«Talk»02:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a need for 2 maps since there are indeed 2 viewponts, 1 viewpoint which encompasses that mauryans ruled the entire subcontinent, I have cited the sources of those historians/scholars, (I can cite several more but that would make this response extremely big), The other viewpoint that there were autonomous independent regions inside the Mauryan realm. So you are certainly wrong to say that "THERE is only one modern map" well i guess that is why the holed map can be found nowhere except for in wikipedia, Neither in Oxford nor in Cambridge nor in britanica, even the cited sources in the holed the map are insanely cherrypicked and can be easily disputed because many of those sources assert that mauryans had some amount of control over those tribes making them semi-independent.
Let us take look over them one by one.
1)-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". Here it is importan to reuse the line patterns of the source or shaded areas, rather than create an imaginary 100% empty hole, which will avoid WP:OR and will catter for the fact that the "autonomy" of the regions by definition still implies only "a degree of independence" from central Mauryan power [22]
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" are based on the term "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.
3-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 nowhere supports anything nor The book seems to be accessible online.
4-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 [23]]. In this book the text and [ https://books.google.com/books?id=yaJrCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA452%7C the map]] only emphasize the uneven centrality of the Mauryan realm. Visually translating it into 100% empty holes is probably exaggerated.
5)-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.
So yes, you can't at all say 'there is only 1 modern map" since your own map is a result of a WP:OR over some cherrypicked lines and can be found nowhere except for in wikipedia.
At this point you are clearly ignoring the vast chunk of historians/scholars who still push forward and believe that mauryans ruled over entire subcontinent, which still remains a consensus in this paradigm as proved by the scholars/historians i quoted from so many legitimate scholarly institutions like cambridge/oxford/Chicago etc.
Now, there are indeed 2 point of views, the ones who "supposedly" believe in autonomous free tribes inside of mauryan realm who were independent, but at the same time there is another group with another point of view that mauryans ruled over the entire subcontinent, this is why there are still 2 maps being used in this article since years.
Now it will be extremely dishonest of us to distort the viewpoint of historians who believe in the standard mauryan map (the one without holes), If we are representing that map, we have to represent them accurately, over what the very historians/scholars actually say on whose works the map is based, we have to carefully look at that, we just can't invent boundaries ourselves based on our own understanding of some inscriptions and artifacts because that will be WP:OR and then every ancient empire including the achaemenid empire and macedonian empire could get minimized. If we are having the standard map added which is based on some group of historians ,we need to align the map with the works of those historians the map is based on, which we are supposedly not doing nor we are representing their map/viewpoint accurately.
Like i said, The map doesn't align with the very references it is sourced from
As for the archeological evidences of mauryans in gedrosia/aria, this is a totally separate issue, even if we agree there is none (i am not agreeing but just for the sake of discussion) then the holed version is already there to represent this issue..which it is supposedly doing..but then why distorting the standard version? Let it align with the sources it is based on? And regardless, you do realise this could work on every single empire of ancient era including the macedonian and achaemenid empire. There are numerous places where there are no artifacts or inscripion of achaemenids, that is a separate issue anyway. I can discuss on that but it will make my reply too time consuming to read.
Anyways for archeological evidences, read this:
Pg. 417: Mauryan empire towards the satrapies of Gedrosia part of which were ceded by Seleucus to Chandragupta. The discovery of the remains of a large Buddhist sanctuary on "Koh-i-Khwaja" in Sistan suggests that this province also was perhaps included in the Mauryan empire, and the Buddhist influence reached there in the time of Asoka himself. Further south, that Jaz Morian Lake have marked this side the western boundary of the Mauryan empire. "
@Fowler&fowler As said, there is indeed a need of 2 maps. To represent 2 mainstream scholarly beliefs. I can show you the modern map of Oxford, Britanica, Cambridge and of other legitimate scholarly institutions to assert that this is one of the fundamental scholarly beliefs too.
Ashoka Maurya Empire.png (Edasf update)
So since there is no clear consensus in the academia, we can't just use 1 map alone ourselves by deciding "This belief is probably more accurat" that would be WP:OR. We have to use 2 maps, and we have to represent them accurately so i request you to change the standard map to this, though I think it is extended a bit too far at North which we can adjust. But it is very nicely labelled and has all Seleucid ceded territories representing the Standard Mauryan map accurately. In our previous discussions with Avantiputra and @Joshua Jonathan, they agreed for this as well. You are the only one disputing it or else by now there would be no further discussions on this. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Malik, sometimes we can’t always get what we want. He’s saying there is really no need for adding a second map if one map already encapsulates the extent the Mauryans had actually expanded. And really, there isn’t any need for this. You understand that this is an ancient empire, not a modern nation state? A map doesn’t detail the levels of control an empire has over these territories. The map with holes details this matter far better than the one without it.
It is not about getting what we want here at all, Both are important maps of the mainstream academia and we cant neglect either one of them based on what we understand of it. We have to represent both of them in the map since there is no clear consensus on the holed map or the standard map alone , And the holed map itself is a result of WP:OR as I have clearly proved above in my response. You can't find this map anywhere except for in wikipedia. Also Nowhere in the said sources we can see 100% independence of the said tribes. But again regardless this is a seperate topic, though holed map can be disputed, I am not here to do that. I am here to improve the standard map. It would still be extremely ridiculous to just remove the standard map entirely from the page.
Now maybe you are disputing it but you aren't discussing here, fowler is the only person discussing about this since the begining. That is why I said that there. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said before, I am only here to improve the standard Mauryan map which is getting distorted here. I was asked to take this to the talk page but no one bothered to discuss about this. We have discussed this with Avantiputra and Joshua before and both of them accepted that there needs to be a change in the standard map here.
There are tonns of modern day historians who still believe in the said map. Like British Historian Geoffrey Parker[25], Historian Patrick Karl [O'Brienhttps://archive.org/details/philipsatlasofwo0000unse_u6t7/page/46/mode/1up], Craig Benjamin [26], Gerald Danzer [27], Historian Robert W. Strayer and Eric Nelson [28], Britanica [29], Millenium house [30], I can go on and on.
This is one of the two mainstream beliefs regarding the mauryan empire and it is our duty to represent both of them instead of ourselves deciding which of mainstream belief would be more accurate. It would be WP:OR As said, it would ridiculous to just remove the standard map entirely as if there is a scholarly paradigm on it (there is not). And funnily enough a fact is, The standard Mauryan map is covered more in the modern day legitimate scholarly institutions than the holed map, infact the holed map cant be seen anywhere except for in wikipedia. It is just a WP:OR over the interpretation of some words of the scholars it cites (who nowhere proclaim full independence) there is no clear map source of it. Just if you read the very sources the holed map is based on, none of those sources indicate to a complete independence of a specific tribe inside the Mauryan realm. Romila thapar (the quoted historian there) goes as far as saying that Mauryans used to "exploit" these tribes, which clearly implies a certain level of mauryan control over them. But again that is a seperate discussion, I am saying this for the 99th time I am not here to dispute the holed map. I am only here to improve the standard map as it should align with the modern day WP:RS maps and sources it is based on (which it is not Aligning).
What are your views on these? Fowler has just said to remove the standard map (one of the two mainstream maps of the mauryan empire) entirely and just keep a holed version in the article.
In the map description, the shades reagions are marked "autonomous or free tribes." Autonomous == of a country or region having the freedom to govern itself or control its own affairs. The largest shaded region, is labeled in the map itself as: "Unconquered tribes." What is that if not an empire with holes?
If you take the analogy of the British Raj, or the British Indian Empire, the counterpart of the Mauryan shaded regions would not be the Princely states, which had only nominal sovereignty, but independent countries such as Nepal or Bhutan, with which the Raj, might have had some security or diplomatic arrangements, but which were independent countries.
See this map of the British Raj in which the princely states of nominal sovereignty are colored yellow and the largely independent kingdoms such as Nepal and Bhutan in green. But nowhere is the British Indian Empire, colored in only one color and this is when the British were the leading superpower of the 19th century with much greater resources at their disposal (including those of subjugation) than the Mauryas would have had two millennia earlier. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»04:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
British Empire's map still has only 1 color in it's official wiki page nevertheless (for territories while lighter shaded for protectorates), same with the Achaemenid empire and Macedonian empire.
Coming to hermann kulke, You pretty much ignored everything I have said. I will just copy paste what patliputra had said.
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". Here it is important to reuse the line patterns of the source or shaded areas, rather than create an imaginary 100% empty hole, which will avoid WP:OR and will catter for the fact that the "autonomy" of the regions by definition still implies only "a degree of independence" from central Mauryan power.[31]
It is just not with kulke alone, Even the other sources of yours in the holed map besides for Kulke nowhere support the said map, they imply only a certain degree of independence. And clearly such a place should be atleast shaded lighter instead of leaving it blanked completely. Your sources even admit that Mauryans exploited these tribes. Which clearly indicate a certain degree of control over them making them perhaps semi-Independent if not dependent at all.
"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." Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But regardless I am here to modify the standard map of the mauryan empire and improve it so it aligns with the said sources (which it is not currently), I will discuss on the holed map once we are done with the standard version. Avantiputra and Joshua have obviously agreed with the said improvements which are needed to be done in the standard version, It is only you who is unnecessarily extending the conversation, moving in a circular reasoning. Though I will patiently wait until we are done with this.
I will quote some of the important sources (both new and old) for the standard map. Keep in mind I have a lot more but I wouldn't be making up an entire essay using them. So I am using some of the historians/archeologists for this. I am only doing this to prove a particular scholarly consensus of a 2 mainstream maps.
^"
Pg.5 : In relation to his predecessors, he was the first Indian king to rule over an empire embracing much of India and its western borderlands, from Afghanistan to Orissa and towards the south as far as Karnataka. In relation to the rulers who followed him, it was his example which influenced thought-philosophical, religious, cultural-in Asia more profoundly than that of any other political figure of antiquity." Lahiri, Nayanjot (2015-08-05). Ashoka in Ancient India. Harvard University Press. p. 5. ISBN978-0-674-05777-7.
^" Pg.42-43 : We thus obtain a fairly accurate idea of the extent of Asoka's dominions. They included the whole of India except the southern extremity of the peninsula held by the Choda, Pandya, Satiya- putra and Keralaputra kings. This southern boundary is marked roughly by a line drawn from Pulicat near Madras in the east, to Gooty and Chitaldrug in the north where the four copies of Aśoka's Minor Rock Edicts have been discovered right up to the northern point of the South Canara District on the west. Let us now see what Greek princes have been mentioned by Aśoka as his contemporaries, and try to identify them. They have all been named in Rock Edict XIII. Of course, Amtiyoka is the first to be named as he was a neighbour of Asoka. Beyond his kingdom, we are told, were ruling the four princes Turamaya, Amtekina or Amtikini, Maga and Alikasumdra. Amtiyoka is, of course, Antiochus II. Theos (B.C. 261-246), king of Syria, and Turamaya, Ptolemy II. Philadelphos of Egypt (285-247). Amtekina or Amtikini, as Bühler has remarked, corresponds to the Greek Antigenes rather than to Antigonus."Bhandarkar, D. R. Asoka. Central Archelogical Library. p. 42-43. ISBN978-93-837-2346-1.
^" Pg.67 - After Alexanderâs retreat from the Indus the Emperor Chandragupta Maurya established the first indigenous empire to exercise control over much of the subcontinent, and eventually, under his successors, this covered all but the tip of the peninsula. Asoka, the greatest of the Mauryan emperors, took power in 272 BC and extended the empire from Afghanistan to Assam and from the Himalayas to Mysore, leaving behind a series of inscriptions recording his edicts on pillars and rocks across the continent." Shackley, Myra L. (2006). Atlas of travel and tourism development. Internet Archive. Amsterdam ; Boston : Elsevier. p. 67. ISBN978-0-7506-6348-9.
^ Pg.740 : "Chandragupta and Seleucus Nikator, who had inherited the eastern provinces of Alexander empire. This may have occurred in about 301 BCE and was resolved by an agreement. Chandragupta obtained the territories of Arachosia (the Kandahar area of south-east Afghanistan), Gedrosia (south Baluchistan), and Paropomisadai (the area between Afghanistan and the Indian subcontinent) and handed over 500 elephants in return. "
Pg.748 : "The distribution of Ashoka's inscriptions suggests the extent of the Maurya empire. In the north-west, it extended up to Kandahar in Afghanistan, with the kingdom of Antiochus II of Syria lying to the west. Its eastern frontier extended to Orissa. It included almost the entire subcontinent, except the southernmost parts, which, according to rock edict 13, were inhabited by the Cholas and Pandyas, and according to rock edict 2, by the Keralaputras and Satiyaputras."
Upinder Singh (2008). History Of Ancient And Early Medeival India From The Stone Age To The 12th Century. p. 740,748.
^ " Pg.106 - Seleucid Kingdom Another Hellenistic monarchy was founded by the general Seleucus (suh-LOO-kuss), who established the Seleucid dynasty of Syria. This was the largest of the Hellenistic kingdoms and controlled much of the old Persian Empire from Turkey in the west to India in the east, although the Seleucids found it increasingly difficult to maintain control of the eastern territories. In fact, an Indian ruler named Chandragupta Maurya (chundruh-GOOP-tuh MOWR-yuh) (324-301 B.c.E.) created a new Indian state, the Mauryan Empire, and drove out the Seleucid forces. His grandson Asoka (uh-SOH-kuh) (269-232 b.c.e.) extended the empire to include most of India and is considered the greatest ruler in India's history Asoka, a pious Buddhist, sought to convert the remaining Greek communities in northwestern India to his religion and even sent Buddhist missionaries to Greek rulers. The Seleucid rulers maintained relations with the Mauryan Empire. Trade was fostered, especially in such luxuries as spices and jewels. Seleucus also sent Greek and Macedonian ambassadors to the Mauryan court. Best known of these was Megasthenes (muh-GAS-thuh-neez), whose report on the people of India remained one of the western best sources of information on India until the Middle Ages. " Spielvogel, Jackson J. (2012). Western civilization. Internet Archive. Boston, MA : Wadsworth Cengage Learning. p. 106. ISBN978-0-495-91329-0.
^ " Pg.122 : India's first approach towards becoming a unified state occurred under the first three kings of the Mauryan Empire. The founder of the dynasty, Chandragupta Maurya (c.310-286 BCE) , king of Magadha in Eastern India, unfied under his control the other kingdom of the Gangetic Plain. His grandson, Ashoka (c.270-234 BCE) , consolidated Mauryan imperial rule, extending it into eastern and southern "The Times ancient civilizations. Internet Archive. London : Times Books. 2002. p. 122. ISBN978-0-00-710859-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
^“ Pg.355 : English Translation of his statement - "The biggest fact of Maurya political history was the establishment of the Magadha Empire, which included the whole of India except the far south. This empire was established with the strength of the sword and it could be protected only with the strength of the sword. Strong military power was necessary for both external security and internal peace..The tribal people living inside the empire and on its borders were equally a cause of trouble. So for this, there was a huge permanent army and tight judicial system."Sharma, Ramsharan (1990). Prachin Bharat Me Rajneetik Vichar Avam Sansthae. p. 355.
^ " Pg.1 : Ashoka Maurya—or Ashoka the Great as he was later known—holds a special place in the history of Buddhism and India. At its height in around 250 BCE, his empire stretched across the Indian subcontinent to Kandahar in the east, and as far north as the Himalayas. Through his quest to govern by moral force alone, Ashoka transformed Buddhism from a minor sect into a major world religion, while simultaneously setting a new yardstick for government that had lasting implications for all of Asia. His bold experiment ended in tragedy, however, and in the tumult that followed the historical record was cleansed so effectively that his name was largely forgotten for almost two thousand years. Yet, a few mysterious stone monuments and inscriptions miraculously survived the purge.
" Pg. 60 : Pliny admits to the loss of Greek territory: "The Indians afterwards held a large part of Ariane [a satrapy of the Persian Empire encompassing what is now eastern Iran, south-western Afghanistan and Baluchistan] which they had received from the Macedonians, entering into marriage relations with him, and giving in return five hundred elephants, of which Sandrakottos had nine thousand." "Allen, Charles (2012-02-21). Ashoka: The Search for India's Lost Emperor. Little, Brown Book Group. p. 1 ,60 and his created map on pg. 12. ISBN978-1-4087-0388-5.
^" Pg.205 : Chandragupta, who had risen to the throne following a military campaign that created a huge empire reaching from Kandahar in modern Afghanistan in the west to Bangladesh in the east. This included the great majority of modern India, and was the largest empire in Indian history. In 268 BC Ashoka took his place on the throne but not without considerable struggle. Buddhist writings tell us that in order to do so he killed ‘ninety-nine of his brothers’ presumably metaphorical as well as actual brothers. The same writings create a legend of Ashoka’s pre-Buddhist days as filled with self-indulgent frivolity and cruelty. When he became emperor he set out to complete the occupation of the whole subcontinent and attacked the independent state of Kalinga modern-day Orissa on the east coast. " MacGregor, Neil (2011). A history of the world in 100 objects. Internet Archive. New York : Viking. p. 205. ISBN978-0-670-02270-0.
^“ Pg.33 : Ashoka (Asoka) was the third ruler of the MAURYAN Empire. Under his long rule the empire that he inherited reached its zenith territorially and culturally. Soon after his death the Mauryan Empire split up and ended. He is remembered as a great ruler in world history and the greatest ruler in India. Chandragupta Maurya founded the Mauryan dynasty in 326 B.C.E. Both he and his son Bindusara were successful warriors, unifying northern India and part of modern Afghanistan for the first time in history. Ashoka was not Bindusara's eldest son, and there is a gap of time between his father's death and his succession, due perhaps to war with his brothers. Ashoka continued to expand the empire by conquering southward. One war against Kalinga in the southeast was particularly bloody and filled him with remorse. As a result he converted to Buddhism (from Vedic Hinduism) and renounced war as an instrument of policy.”
“Pg.262 : Chandragupta Maurya founded the Mauryan Empire in 326 B.C.E. in northern India. His son Bindusara and grandson AsHOKA (Asoka) continued his conquest that unified the entire subcontinent, with the exception of the southern tip, and part of Afghanistan into India's first great empire. “
“Pg.270 :In 324 B.C.E. Chandragupta Maurya unified northern India by defeating his rivals. He went on to war against the successor of ALEXANDER THE GREAT in Asia, Seleucus Nicator, expelling his forces from the borderlands of India. In 305 B.C.E. the two men concluded a treaty in which the Greeks withdrew from the Punjab in northwestern India and which fixed the western boundary of the MAURYAN EMPIRE to the crest of the Hindu Kush. There was also exchange of ambassadors, gifts, and a vague mention of a marriage alliance. Megasthenes was Seleucus’s representative at Chandragupta’s court. “
&
“Check Mauryan Empire Map , Pg:590. “ENCYCLOPEDIA OF WORLD HISTORY 7 Volumes. p. 33,262,270,590.
^" Pg.12 : Asoka had the singular good fortune of being spared the ifficult task of founding and organising an inpare That ask was effectively executed by his grandfather, Chandragupta Maurya, who bequeathed to his successors an empire extending approximately from Afghanistan to Mysore Territories which are even now outside the Government of India were parts of the Indian Empire under Chandragupta, the four satrapies of Aria, Arochosia, Gedrosia, and the Paropanisadai, which Chanaragupta wrested in about 304 B C from the empire of Selukos as the penalty for his ill-advised aggression."
" Pg.13 :Yuan Chwang saw Asokan topes in Kapis (Kafiris- tan), Nagar (Jelalabad), and Udyana in the north-west. In Bengal, the authority of Asoka is proved by his stūpa at Tamralipti, the capital of Suhma, and the famous port of embarkation for voyages towards the south. According to Yuan Chwang, there was also a stupa of Asoka in the capital of Samatata or the Brahmaputra Delta, and others in different parts of Bengal and Bihar, viz., Punyavardhana (northern Bengal) and Karnasuvarna (modern Burdwan, Birbhum and Murshidabad districts) [Watters, ii 184 f]. Yuan Chwang refers to Asokan topes being erected at various places in the south, in Chola and Dravida, of which the capital, Kanchipura, has been sought to be identified with the Satiyaputra country of the Edict Indeed, the distribu- tion of the Asokan topes as mentioned by Yuan Chwang is almost co-terminous with that of the inscriptions, and is equally significant of the vastness of his empire.Lastly, the extent of his empire is also indicated by his own mention in the Edicts (R.E. II, V, and XIII] of the peoples on its borders In the south, these are mentioned as the Cholas, Pandyas, the Satiyaputra and Keralaputra, who were all within his sphere of influence Towards the north-west, his empire marched with that of the Synan monarch, Antiochos [R.E. II], and hence extended up to Persia and Syria which were held by Antiochos, while it is also known how Asoka's grandfather, Chandragupta, had wrested from Selukos the provinces of Aria, Arachosia, Paropanisadai and Gedrosia, which descended to Asoka as his inheritance.
Lastly, the extent of his empire is also indicated by his own mention in the Edicts (Rock Edict II, V, and XIII] of the peoples on its borders In the south, these are mentioned as the Cholas, Pandyas, the Satiyaputra and Keralaputra, who were all within his sphere of influence Towards the north-west, his empire marched with that of the Synan monarch, Antiochos [Rock Edict II], and hence extended up to Persia and Syria which were held by Antiochos, while it is also known how Asoka's grandfather, Chandragupta, had wrested from Selukos the provinces of Aria, Arachosia, Paropanisadai and Gedrosia, which descended to Asoka as his inheritance ."
" Pg.16 : The capital of the empire at Pataliputra [Rock Edict V. Girnar], and of outlying towns, such as Bodh-Gaya [Rock Edict VIII), Kosambi (Allahabad Pillar Edict], Ujjeni, Takkhasilä [K.R.Edict),Suvarnagiri, Isila [M.R.Edict], and Tosali and Samāpā in the province of Kalinga [K.R.Edict] Thus we have a fairly definite idea of the limits of Asoka's empire in different directions. We may even hazard the conjecture that the empire was so large that Asoka did not live to visit all its parts, and inspect the execution of his inscriptions in different localities."Mookerji, Radhakumud (1962). Asoka. Motilal Banarsidass Publishe. p. 12,13,16. ISBN978-81-208-0582-8.
Again, I have plenty more WP:RS sources with well labelled maps from them to prove this. I only quoted handful of them. Funfact is, There are a lot more maps for the standard Mauryan version in the legitimate scholarly academia than the holed one which is ridiculously a WP:OR and since barely any of the cited source in the holed map even points towards such a map except for kulke while even there only a "certain degree" of independence would be exegeted.[33] Infact I wouldn't even call this holed version a "mainstream" map at all. Because per the very sources it cite, the empty regions atleast should be light shaded instead of leaving them blank completely since none of them lead us to absolute independence of those tribes, they use words like "relatively autonomous", "partially autonomous" etc. But regardless nevermind, I am only ignoring that here for the sake of conversation and discussion as I am here only to modify the standard Mauryan map. Since it isn't aligning with the very sources it is based on.
Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop saying it’s only him who disagrees. I do too.
Jonathan has no issues with the holes map and yes I know your talking about the expanded map which I’ll get to soon. But the argument is whether we really need a second map or not and I just don’t see why. Especially considering the fact that the holes map is a far more accurate representation of the level of control the Mauryans actually had. This is an ancient empire. Even the territories shaded arent going to have the same level of control that a modern nation state holds, or even that of empires from a later age.
The question is why do we need a second map when one already accurately represents it better which Jonathan and various other editors have already agreed with?
it’s hard to even get a clear understanding of these comments. Because your arguing about two different things at once and than mixing the arguments together which doesn’t make any sense.
To me it just seems like a lot of assumptions your making.
“Infact I wouldn't even call this holed version a "mainstream" map at all. Because per the very sources it cite, the empty regions atleast should be light shaded instead of leaving them blank completely since none of them lead us to absolute independence of those tribes, they use words like "relatively autonomous", "partially autonomous" etc. But regardless nevermind, I am only ignoring that here for the sake of conversation and discussion as I am here only to modify the standard Mauryan map. Since it isn't aligning with the very sources it is based on”.
what do you think relatively autonomous means? And why would there need to be a lighter shade if it’s clear that they don’t have actual control over those tribes? I’ll wait until Fowler gives further comment but just remember that the holes map was already largely accepted and had been discussed many times in the past. And I know your focusing on the expanded map(even though you brought up the holes map), but it’s still an important part of the conversation because we are questioning if a second map is needed when the holes map better articulates the extent that the Mauryans had actually controlled. Someguywhosbored (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly seems like you don't understand the crux of our discussion at all. I have said this earlier and I will say this again, there are only 2 mainstream maps. Holed version and Standard map. These 2 maps are in the academia currently. There is no clear scholarly consensus on either one of them on which is more accurate, so using just "one" of them seems to be massively ridiculous since we will clearly ignore an entire chunk of the other party with a distinct view here. We are no one to to judge which is more accurate or which is not, that is literally WP:OR, There is no scholarly consensus on one map alone. And this is the sole reason why both holed version and Standard version were being used since years here.
"You are discussing 2 different things here"
I am not, it is fowler who brought the topic of holed map to which i replied to. Since the begining my argument was solely on to modify and improve the standard mauryan map.
"This is an ancient empire. Even the territories shaded arent going to have the same level of control that a modern nation state holds, or even that of empires from a later age."
I have said this over a million times and I will say this again, This can apply to every single ancient Empire including the Achaemenid empire, we should create holes in that too. How? I will get much on this later since this will make my reply big but I will elaborate on this if you want (I have above in one of my replies). Our maps will be accordance to what the scholarly sources depict, we can't "make up" the boundaries of our own based on our own understanding of the distribution of the inscriptions. That is literally WP:OR again.
The standard mauryan map is a mainstream map in academia and is used way more than the holed map (which is only in wikipedia taken from the miss interpretation of kulke's writings as I have proved above). Thus we can't remove the standard map at all. I cited you modern day sites of Oxford, britanica, Cambridge and Chicago University press which uses the standard map, not the holed one.
"what do you think relatively autonomous means? And why would there need to be a lighter shade if it’s clear that they don’t have actual control over those tribes? I’ll wait until Fowler gives further comment but just remember that the holes map was already largely accepted and had been discussed many times in the past. And I know your focusing on the expanded map(even though you brought up the holes map), but it’s still an important part of the conversation because we are questioning if a second map is needed when the holes map better articulates the extent that the Mauryans had actually controlled."
I think I have answered this twice before which you have collectively either ignored or couldn't read because of some issues (idk).
Let us just go with the scholarly sources the holed version sites one by one.
"1)-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". He is the only person out of other historians cited who talks about free tribes..but Here it is important to reuse the line patterns of the source or shaded areas, rather than create an imaginary 100% empty hole, which will avoid WP:OR and will catter for the fact that the "autonomy" of the regions by definition still implies only "a degree of independence" from central Mauryan power [34]
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" are based on the term "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.
3)-3-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 nowhere supports anything nor The book seems to be accessible online.
4-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 [35]]. In this book the text and [ https://books.google.com/books?id=yaJrCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA452%7C the map]] only emphasize the uneven centrality of the Mauryan realm. Visually translating it into 100% empty holes is probably exaggerated.
5)-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)."
Btw, if you read romila's works, she literally says Mauryans "exploited" these tribes, which indicate a certain degree of mauryan control over them. 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."
So none of the sources directly indicate anything as such. While the standard Mauryan map is backed up by ASI itself and a mainstream academic consensus backed up by Britanica, Oxford, Cambridge, chicago etc. This is the sole reason why 2 maps are being used. Although I would nowhere consider the holed version to be academic in any sense since it can't be found anywhere except for wikipedia..Do you think there was never a discussion over keeping the holed mauryan map alone? There were several as far as I know. I will cross search and give you.
"Various users agree with holed map", my point isn't even on that. You are saying to completely remove the standard Mauryan map which is just ridiculous to begin with. There are 2 maps being used in this article since years. The standard Mauryan map was being used in the article alone until 2020 or something if I remember. And that time the holed version clearly had light shades as You can see that here [36].
With all respect, I have reverted your edit. Because it is a long standing version and there is no consensus to remove the MEM from the infobox. Let it remain there since it is a mainstream map. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“ Btw, if you read romila's works, she literally says Mauryans "exploited" these tribes, which indicate a certain degree of mauryan control over them”
That absolutely does not mean the same thing and is based completely off your own interpretation. It could mean anything. We go by what the sources say, not by what we think they mean.
“ Various users agree with holed map", my point isn't even on that. You are saying to completely remove the standard Mauryan map which is just ridiculous to begin with. “
"That absolutely does not mean the same thing and is based completely off your own interpretation. It could mean anything. We go by what the sources say, not by what we think they mean."
Irony is it, that you are not applying the same thing on the sources used in the holed version. I showed you each and every source, none of them point towards a 100% independent polities except for kulke's works. The entire holed version is based on what you "think" the sources are saying. Kulke remains the only person who is using the independent term. Rest all of the scholars are only referring to "partial" independence or "semi" independence. Romila goes as far as saying on how the tribes were exploited by the Mauryan empire. Clearly indicating that they were not totally independent. Which goes against the narrative that Mauryans had no access to those tribes and they enjoyed their independence fully.
"Why don't we need a 2nd map when the first map does it better"
Says which source? All the sources except for kulke aren't even pointing that the tribes were independent, forget holes alone. Kulke is the only person to do so. Don't act like i didn't show you the quotation of every single historian cited above. None of them say the tribes were fully independent.
Standard Mauryan map is clearly more accurate since it is used 100x more in the academic paradigm and this is not even a debate to begin with, I can't believe someone is disagreeing with this. You wouldn't find the holed map anywhere except for in wikipedia. This isn't a "mainstream" map at all. It is WP:OR of the interpretations of some cherrypicked lines of historians who dont even say they were independent. This is the sole reason why 2 maps were being used since years and will be continued being used. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
im going to give your account a warning for now but it appears you’ve already received another edit warring notice very recently. I can revert one more time per 3RR(I may do it later unless some other user wants to do it first). I may take this to the edit warring noticeboard if this keeps up. Someguywhosbored (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I'd advice not to do so (edit-warring board). I moved the map per WP:BRD, to see how it looks; we've seen it, we see the effect, for now, leave it, and consider it to be an option. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!06:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan Regardless getting to the old discussion which everyone is refraining from having..what do you think of the standard map? Don't you think it should align with the sources it is based on? The sources do say Aria was the part of Mauryans but the map doesn't seem to have it. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Irony is it, that you are not applying the same thing on the sources used in the holed version. I showed you each and every source, none of them point towards a 100% independent polities except for kulke's works. The entire holed version is based on what you "think" the sources are saying. Kulke remains the only person who is using the independent term. Rest all of the scholars are only referring to "partial" independence or "semi" independence. Romila goes as far as saying on how the tribes were exploited by the Mauryan empire. Clearly indicating that they were not totally independent. Which goes against the narrative that Mauryans had no access to those tribes and they enjoyed their independence fully”.
Your doing it again. Exploitation can happen in a number of ways and the fact that your trying to assert that as proof that they weren’t independent is VERY flimsy evidence at best.
“The first one was to tell Fowler to get a consensus which he agreed with and didn't engage in edit war, same with joshua.
It is you engaging in an edit war without gaining any consensus whatsoever. You can't change a long standing revision like that”
"Your doing it again. Exploitation can happen in a number of ways and the fact that your trying to assert that as proof that they weren’t independent is VERY flimsy evidence at best."
The fact that you are interpreting a holed version out of those sources where none of them say that tribes were fully independent is a very filmsy evidence at best, Because the same sources indicate things which are contradictory to the said "independence" of those tribes such as them being "exploited" by the Imperial Mauryans, Which cant occur unless Mauryans had a certain degree of control over them. Which they did, this is literally why this holed version didn't exist before and it was rather lightly shaded as you can see here [41], this was a dominant version until an year ago or so.
"how am I the one edit warring? Even if you think your right, you made 4 reverts in 24 hours. I’ve made 2. Im far from edit warring."
2 of my reverts were to different people for them to seek consensus, to which both of them agreed. Which is far from edit warring. I stopped you because you were making changes to a long standing version without gaining a consensus, specially when your change is being contested by 4+ editors. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 07:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay all things aside, you need to stop saying that you weren’t edit warring. 3RR is pretty clear. Your just making exceptions for yourself based on the circumstance but that’s not how it works.
My change? It wasn’t even contested. Joshua made the edit originally. You reverted him. He’s just okay with discussing this further because of BOLD and BRD.
I am not making exceptions, I am explaining the reasons behind why I did that, I do admit I shouldn't have broken the 3 revert rule. But you have to admit that you shouldn't be changing a long standing version without consensus too, specially when it is being contested by countless editors who are just offline right now. I am sure neither patliputra nor crypto nor Edasf would agree with the change. And Joshua by the way was just testing to see if the notes are working, this just wasn't a right place to test. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan In case if you missed my ping, Getting to the old discussion which everyone is refraining from having..what do you think of the standard map? Don't you think it should align with the sources it is based on? The sources do say Aria was the part of Mauryans but the map doesn't seem to have it. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would accept this explanation if it was just some one off mistake that you made but this isn’t the only time it has happened. You also received an edit warring label less than 24 hours ago. And in the many times I’ve interacted with you, you have edit warred multiple times in the past. Such as in the Mughal empire page. That’s why I think this may require some administrative action because this has already gotten too far. But I’ll take more time to ponder on it in the mean time. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Padfoot edit warred too and he got a warning for that, His entire page got nominated for deletion apparently. The Mughal empire incident was 6 months ago I think? But yeah I will try to not repeat this. Just don't make any changes without gaining consensus next time. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Padfoot edit warred too and he got a warning for that, His entire page got nominated for deletion apparently”
That doesn’t give you the right to edit war back. I’ve always stepped back from edit warring and yet you accused me of doing that when you had already made 4 edits. It’s just odd, you tell me not to edit war, but than actively will do it yourself. It just seems to me that you only spout a rule if it benefits you but you tend to break them when they don’t. Anyway I’m not trying to stray from the original conversation but I may consider removing the map in the future if Fowler agrees or presents a strong case against it(I’m going to let discussions continue for some time on that). Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, i didn't say it justifies me edit warring, I already accepted it was a wrong move, i could do other things to prevent you from doing vandalism. Anyways i merely mean that he gave me a warning despite edit warring himself, I accused you of edit warring because you were changing a long standing revision WITH No consensus whatsoever, which you are conclusively ignoring. You often make changes without a consensus being reached and edit war yourself like in the case of [42] and [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Someguywhosbored&oldid=1173687224] so.. it is ironic to hear it from you, It just seems to me that you only spout a rule if it benefits you but you tend to break them when they don’t. Considering you still haven't acknowledged on how you tried to make a change twice despite getting warned with no consensus to begin with.
"but I may consider removing the map in the future if Fowler agrees or presents a strong case against it(I’m going to let discussions continue for some time on that)."
No, you can't do that until there is a strong consensus, this map has been here since the beginning of this article. Such a long standing version can't change unless there is a strong consensus which can only occur with the help of an RFC here, which wouldn't honestly solve or sort anything considering there have been multiple RFCs on removing the said map in the past but the map remained here, And it will be remaining here.
You can remove the map but then you can prepare yourself to get reverted then, Because I don't think so other editors will let you make any changes on the map until the discussion has been concluded or ended.Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Someguywhosbored remember how i said none of the cited sources of the holed map specifically point towards autonomous tribes enjoying independence fully 100% except for Kulke? I even cited you quotations of all those very historians on whose works the map is based on proving it's majorly WP:OR except for Kulke.
Guess what I found..even kulke doesn't seem to 100% support the holed map,Because he literally agreed Balochistan was the part of Mauryan empire. Apart from the Herman Kulke's map, in the same book, Kulke quite literally 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 [43]
So the holed map isn't aligning with a single source it is citing, As per the sources it is based on, it should clearly atleast put Balochistan in a lighter shade and inner tribal areas in India since other historians clearly tell us that they were exploited by the Mauryans indicating a certain degree of control, and they do admit Balochistan was the part of Mauryan empire, which the map isn't showing.
It seems to be an insane POV push and WP:OR. I hope you realise why there were 2 maps being used since the begining of this article.
At first, I was thinking that It is okay if the (hole) map isn't aligning with any of the sources it is based on..Because atleast..Just "atleast" it is aligning with Kulke. Guess I was wrong..On reading his works I just realised the map isn't aligning with kulke either. Kulke clearly mentions Balochistan was the part of Mauryan empire which atleast should be lighter shaded but it is completely blank. [44] was the best version of this map, it light shaded the tribal regions and Balochistan as Mauryans had some degree of control over them as per the very sources this holed map is based on.
But again, We will discuss this once we are done with discussing the Standard map. It apparently needs many modifications and it isn't aligning with the sources it is based on either, since the sources the map is based on clearly state Mauryans had aria, but the map nowhere seems to have it.
Also are there archaeological evidence of Macedon control of Northwest India? Forget it there's not even a pure literary evidence no Indian source mentions a person called Alexander or any Greek invasion or battle of Jhelum nor a king called Porus a name which has no meaning in Indian languages the Taxila University was at next door.Wouldn't Greeks exaggerate about their own king.@Malik-Al-Hind@JingJongPascalEdasf«Talk»10:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, As far as I am concerned and aware of Most of the coins/artifacts or whatever we have to depict Greek rule in North West is from the Indo-Greek period. There is no coin or inscription of Alexander the great in many lands such as sindh, gedrosia, etc. Yet we are having it in the map without a single hole by the way.
A map of Alexander the Great's empire at its largest extent c.323 BCE including details of key roads, location, and battles.
Like I said, In ancient times, it wasn't feasible for armies to access every part of an empire, as seen in empire of Alexander. His campaigns followed some specific routes where populations were concentrated.
This suggests the possibility of large, autonomous tribes existing within these empires.
Yeah, such a thing can be applied on every single map of any empire of the Ancient age. I wonder why none of them insert a hole in Achaemenid or Macedonian empire..Maybe because the sources say it. But when the same Mauryan map is backed with such WP:RS sources, they start throwing the scholarly consensus under a bus by applying their own logic and criticism, Yeah definetly not WP:OR and definitely not Pov-pushing.
Funnily enough, this original researched hole map can be only seen on wiki. Almost all legitimate scholarly institution on earth is having a normal standard mauryan map. As I have quoted above from sources like Britanica, Millenium house, Oxford, Cambridge etc. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with both of the maps being here. Because they are mainstream and are a long standing version, Also hundreds of reasons which I have given in the above MEM section. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am discussing on that, don't worry. Jonathan and Avantiputra don't have a problem with modifying it. Only fowler seems to have a disagreement here and maybe someguywhoisbored. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 08:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Someguywhosboredthe standardized form of maps has been present on this page since this article creation in 2004, and it is supported by various historians[45][46]. So our discussion must focuses on the holed map representation rather than the standardized map. Regarding the extent of the standardized map, everything I have observed here remains inconclusive, with no clear consensus. NxcryptoMessage10:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Avantiputra and Joshua agree to modify the standard version. Only fowler is having a problem with it, but it isn't as if he is willing to discuss it either. I was told to take this to the talk page but no one is even discussing the extent of the standard map here. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan You have said "Approximate extent of the Mauryan empire including Seleucid ceded territories" in the note of MEM. Can you add "excluding" instead of "including?" Because the map doesn't show all of the Seleucid ceded territories.
It cites three Historians, Majumdar, Vincent arthur smith and Joseph Schwartzberg. All of them include Aria, gedrosia, paropamisadae and arachosia as a list of territories given to Mauryans.
Pg.75 : Chandragupta Maurya, and the four satrapies of Aria, Arachosia, Gedrosia, and the Paropanisadai were ceded to him by Seleukos Nikator about B.C. 305. The Maurya frontier was thus extended as far as the Hindû Kush Mountains, and the greater part of the countries now called Afghanistan, Balûchistan and Makran, with the North-Western Frontier Province, became incorporated in the Indian Empire. That empire included the famous strongholds of Kabul, Zabul, Kandahar, and Herat, and so possessed the scientific frontier' for which Anglo-Indian statesmen have long sighed in vain. Asoka, the Buddhist emperor of India by Smith, Vincent Arthur [47]
Pg.105 : Net result of the expedition, however, clearly indicate that Seleucus met with a miserable failure. For he had not only to finally abandon the idea of reconquering the Panjab, but had to buy peace by ceding Paropanisadai, Arachosia, and Aria, three rich provinces with the cities now known as Kabul, Kandähär and Herät respectively as their capitals, and also Gedrosia (Baluchistan), or at least a part of it. The victorious Maurya king probably married the daughter of his Greek rival, and made a present of five hundred elephants to his royl father-in-law. Ancient India by R. C. Majumdar[48]
Pg. 170 : By 311 B.C. or somewhat later the Indus had become the frontier of the Magadhan Empire. Further westward expansion was largely the outcome of the successful military encounter with Seleucus Nicator (Seleukos Nikator), founder of the Seleucid dynasty and inheritor of Alexander's eastern empire from northern Syria to India Between 305 and 302 B.C. Seleucus ceded the satrapies of Gedrosia. Arachosia, Paropamisadai, and probably Aria , gave his adversary a Greek princess in marriage, and obtained in return 500 war elephants and permanent peace and friendship on his eastern frontier. About this time, perhaps earlier, western Gandhara and areas north to the Hindu Kush, Abhisara, and probably Kasmira were also annexed to the Mauryan dominions.
Historical Atlas of India by Joseph E. Schwartzberg [49]::::}}
So either replace "including Seleucid ceded territories" with "excluding Seleucid ceded territories" or Fix the map accordance to the sources it is based so it aligns with it. Because the map clearly doesn't seem to have Aria.
Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can't have that. Because those territories are NOT considered to be 100% independent by any of the sources it is based on, The standard mauryan map (without hole one) still is a mainstream map. 2 map is a better solution since it represents the 2 pre dominant mainstream maps. Showing the historians who believe in standard map and the "supposed" historians who believe in the hole version (although can be extremely debatable and disputed but that is a different case.) Also stop making new section everytime for every new idea/suggestion. You can give that in the above sections too. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same, I will focus on the hole map once the discussion with the standard map is finished and the map is modified. RFC is the best to be honest, people are refraining from having it.Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edasf@JingJongPascal @Malik-Al-Hind @Joshua Jonathan I don't think the current revision is fine, as when someone opens the page, he or she would only be able to see the hole map without touching the second option, which would create a type of soft mark in the reader's mind that the first one is more relaible, and why only the maximum extent map is simplified, not the network one, which has been put to dispute by many editors here. I strictly demand the status quo until and unless a consensus has not been reached.
As @Malik-Al-Hind pinged me and asked about my opinion on @Fowler&fowler's proposal of removing the maximum extent map. I would like to ask him about all the sources provided by me and other editors about the maximum extent map and he is proposing this when his own supported map has been accused of being made on cherry picking of some sources and indirect statements of authors.
Exactly. None of the sources on which the hole map is based upon support any sort of independent tribes except for kulke, who specifically does mention some free tribes in his mauryan map, But then even kulke later remains inconsistent when he clearly later says that Balochistan was the part of Mauryan empire, which the hole map supposedly doesn't have.
The hole map is insanely built upon WP:OR and is a heavy povpush, it doesn't align with a single source it cites or is based upon. It just seems like the editors made their own boundaries of the map by cherrypicking some of the quotes which they like and which they "think" it supports them while ignoring the rest of the lines which clearly speaks against them. Nor the map is even mainstream by any way, Almost all legitimate scholarly institutions have a Standard Mauryan map. You can see the hole version only on wikipedia. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also could @Someguywhosbored stop with "experienced editors have rejected map",
Wikipedia doesn't have any social hierarchy where the vote or opinions of "veteran" editors mean more than mine or anyone else.
Their opinion isn't the double of our opinion.
No Wikipedia guideline states that old editors have a more say in edits and that they are above us in a caste system, I have noticed this several times, claiming yourself or being a experienced editors does not mean you will degrade or dismantle a opinion of anyone else no matter whether they created their account yesterday or a billion years ago.
And this is false though, no experience editor by far has rejected the map. Only fowler came with a different suggestion. And many other experienced editors like @Patliputra don't agree with such a change either. The standard map is being used eversince 2004 and is a long standing revision. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.. but Apart from the Herman Kulke's map, in his same book, Kulke seems to agree that Baluchistan (Gedrosia) indeed was under Chandragupta’s rule, though his map shows a gap, possibly indicating limited control rather than complete independence because 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 [50]
But the supposed holed map nowhere seems to have balochistan. Using the source of the same Kulke, Balochistan atleast should be lighter shaded in the holed map. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to notify; I am preparing to start the RFC by Wednesday or Thursday (IST), as it would take some time to have a proper picture on what proper consensus we have to reach on, although I am pretty clear, but still one or two days won't do much harm. Also, as the nominator, I can do better after Tuesday as I am free.
Sure, Ping me when it is going on. Although I suggest to start an RFC of modification of the Standard map before having an RFC on holed map. Because even the standard map which we are having right now isn't really aligning with the sources it is based on, Since it doesn't have Aria, a notable region which was given to Chandragupta Maurya as per the very sources the map is based on. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan I would like to request you to restore this artcle to the last stable version of both the maps(see discussion above) I would have done it myself but in doing so I saw that you made some changes in the citiations of the maps after which my action would not be appropriate as it could foil your work.
Smith, and Conningham & Young, explicitly depict these networks. It presents the concept of network quite clear. Again, that map is not on maximum extent, but on the way this 'empire' was stitched together. It's very insightfull. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!11:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Joshua Jonathan I think Edasf misjudged me. What I am saying is to remove switcher function between map and restore it to as it was for many years untill a new consensus has been reached. Rawn3012 (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: I congratulate you on both the efn note and the single default map with a switcher function for the traditional but exaggerated map of the Mauryas in subordinate place. Hopefully, we can now focus on improving the article instead of wasting community time on maps. Fowler&fowler«Talk»21:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rawn3012 I agree with you that the Coeusin attempt to apply the switcher[51] without any prior discussion is not appropriate. Previously, Kirschtaria attempted to introduce a switcher, but it was reverted by Joshua Jonathan[52]. It would be better to remove the switcher. Pinging @Joshua Jonathan: for this action. NxcryptoMessage09:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the same too. If the discussion about the right map or which map should be included is not taking us anywhere then we should stick to the last safe version. Although I still want a have third opinion from @Edasf@JingJongPascal. Rawn3012 (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I previously commented[53] in support of the @पाटलिपुत्र synthetic map proposal[54], which was also supported by @Rawn3012[55]. Unfortunately, this input was overlooked, and the RFC and ongoing discussions have remained inconclusive. I do not see any consensus for any type of map change. I will request to all the editors involved here in discussion to leave the map as it is and put end to these inconclusive discussions. NxcryptoMessage11:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a suggestion for an RfC. It was a remark seeped in irony, which impled that the last one, held exactly a year ago was an abysmal flop, and that you don't really think you would be doing any better given the level of historiographical support you have thus far ferreted out for your POV. You don't read scholarly sources, only make Google searches for a fixed POV. You are fixated on the map. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Many apologies for this unwarranted outburst. Fowler&fowler«Talk»00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler "You don't read scholarly sources; you only make Google searches for a fixed POV." I have read enough, and who told you that I have done a Google search on the topic, and aside from that, did I say something like this for you? I challenged your map, not you. Also, "You are fixated on the map." You too are supporting another map and also proposed to remove another one. What would I be calling this?? A step for universal betterment instead of you pushing a POV. Talking about RFC, we here are reading texts, not your emotions that you dropped this reply in irony, that in agony and another one in happiness.
Might be best that you let it go as NXcrypto states. This conversation clearly isn’t going to lead to any notable changes. And the holes map ain’t going anywhere. Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize @Rawn3012: for my outburst. I was getting frustrated with the sheer volume of repetition (to which I myself might have contributed. :)) I will soon scratch my comments. No hard feelings, I hope. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, writing "It is not the maximum extent" in notes will be helpful, We will also add "For the maximum extent, click here" with a link to the previous map we were asking to add in the standard version. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan I am seeking to end this as soon as possiblle, I have already added the map [56], feel free to revert if you disagree with the supposed changes. We can then add it in Chandragupta maurya's page.
None of us are adding another map, we are going with status quo and the infobox will remain as it was, We are adding only the Seleucid ceded territories which isn't in the infobox's map as Jonathan and Edasf proposed to add it either in Chandragupta maurya's subsection or in Ashoka's subsection/article. Fowler too seems to have no problem with it unless it is in the infobox. If you disagree, then kindly discuss it with me instead of manually reverting the edit and then constantly pinging/disturbing other users in the talk page to deal with it, Specially when the situation is finally cooling down. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn’t gain consensus for this change. This still needs more discussion. Per BRD, it’s Bold, revert, discuss, not bold, revert, revert. You weren’t supposed to revert it back per ONUS. You needed to discuss it first. You even said you were okay with it being reverted but then reverted my edit. And in our previous talk you promised to avoid edit warring in the future, and you’re still doing it. Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan may I ask you to remove Malik’s previous edit/the maximum map for now? I’m not saying this because I have a general disagreement but because he made that edit without attaining consensus. Per ONUS, that’s on him. And yet he decided to revert anyway before discussions on that matter could conclude. Which means that the map shouldn’t even be there per ONUS until consensus is attained. I would
revert it myself but I’m trying to avoid edit warring.
Stop forcing people to revert the changes just because you don't like it. The change was made after an agreement by joshua, me, and editors like @Edasf and others who were involved in the previous discussion in MEM. I will ping @Nxcrypto and @Rawn3012 too to make an opinion on this.
The map in the infobox is not about "maximum extent" as agreed by All editors here. So we do certainly need a map which includes Seleucid ceded territories. Which we did add in the subsection. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not forcing anybody to do anything. You’re adding a map despite not gaining consensus. Fowler didn’t even think a second map was necessary, let alone a third one. You need to wait until the discussion ends before you make changes like that. That’s something you’ve never understood. Even now instead of self reverting which would probably rectify some of the trouble you got yourself into, you’re standing by your edit. Opinions on this matter aside, we follow policy. And policy states that ONUS is on the users adding disputed content. Which means you never should have reverted in the first place. Someguywhosbored (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Someguywhosbored To remind you again you removed the MEM map based only on Fowler's arguments not even consulting those opposing it waiting if you can just come up remove such a map which was here for since Articles creation. That time you didn't thought onus and now you are Lecturing others about it. Edasf«Talk»14:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes..and fowler in the end had no problem with including the second map. Check the reply he gave you, he clearly wants to refrain himself from this discussion itself but you are forcing him to intervene by pinging him and disturbing him again and again, He clearly says he has to make a lot better changes except for just fighting and arguing over maps.
Now, Joshua, I myself, Edasf, Rawn, and almost all the several editors who participated in the previous discussion (MEM) did agree with the said change, I am sure even Crypto and Jingjong would if I ping them here. So how can you say there was no agreement? It was Edasf who clearly posted the map after the agreement, which you reverted without even discussing in the talk page. I simply reverted back to the change Edasf made. There is no disruption here. The only disruption I did commit was yesterday, for which i apologised, which you yourself and other editors accepted.
I like the current "switcher model." Two maps are very confusing to the common reader. The primary sources for the Mauryas are fragmented and unreliable. That is why I have moved the sentence about the sources to the first paragraph of the lead so that a common reader knows this.
As I've explained before, the mid-Ganges valley was deforested by the arriving Indo-Aryans in the period 900 BCE to 600 BCE with the help of iron implements and fire, and the caste system was extended as a means of controlling the native hunter-gatherer inhabitants of the region; Buddhism and Jainism arose during the subsequent period of lineage-based, agriculture-sustained, small states; by 400 BCE, they in turn had given way to larger more complex states. One of these led by the Nandas in Magadha managed to extend their control to most of the Ganges plain, which in turn, after the Mauryas had defeated the Nandas, became the base of the Mauryas. This was the Mauryas base and the vaunted "centralization" existed here, but less firmly beyond. We say this in the first paragraph.
The second paragraph of the lead is fluff and should be removed in its entirety. There are many more important things about the Mauryas than whether or not their rule extended to Baluchistan or Western Afghanistan, especially when based on lost histories of Megasthenes available in fragments in Roman writings of many centuries later. Ashoka, for example, was a key figure in Buddhism becoming a world religion. The Imperial Gazetteer of India said in 1909:
"By his efforts Buddhism, which had hitherto been merely local sects in the valley of the Ganges, was transformed into one of the great religions of the world. ... This is Asoka's claim to be remembered; this is which makes his reign an epoch, not only in the history of India, but in that of the world."
We barely note this in the lead. Instead much like post-colonial governments around the world, we have spent much energy fighting about disputed land, paying little heed to the cultures, traditions, histories, or achievements of the people within. Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Edasf: We don't have coat of arms in the infoboxes of the more recent empires (though from time to time, people do try to add them). See Mughal Empire, Company rule in India, or British Raj. Wikipedia, in my view, remains a utility in which the text is paramount. An illustration of the text could be added, if it has due weight in the reliable sources written at the scale of the text (i.e. from broad scale to narrow), especially, especially scholarly sources, For those more recent empires, it was decided that such sources did not really exist. Similarly, from time to time, editors insert alleged Persian or Turkic names of the Mughal empire, but those too have not survived. Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the Achaemenid Empire. I saying this from my experience at WP:FAC and WP:FAR. The Achaemenids, besides, are much more documented than are the Mauryas. The Greek sources go back to 600 BCE. There are vases with depictions, sculpture, seals, and so forth. Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I generally follow WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:TERTIARY that together imply that scholarly introductory textbooks (such as the ones used in colleges world-wide) are a useful indicator of due weight. There aren't that many such books.
Stein and Arnold, for example, make no mention of Jambudweepa. Fisher, in Environmental History of India, does, but it is a much more general term the Indo-Aryans had used as they adapted to their newly controlled land's geography and biodiversity. I haven't gone through every one, but I don't think Jambudwipa (in all variant spellings) has due weight in the literature. Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you here. We have a lot of good changes to make in the article except for map, I appreciate your neutrality here since you are refraining from this overload disputee, I would do the same. But yes, We are not doing anything like that. The infobox will remain in the switcher mode as it was before just as you wish.
@Fowler&fowler do you think there is a need for a third map in the article as there is currently? I personally don’t think we need it if we already have 2 other maps. The maximum extent map is seemingly listed out of nowhere over the body paragraphs.Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Someguywhosbored Another map already existed there for a long time its same just includes important cities so ONUS is on you for removing and for earths shake stop this Map War I am fed up with this. Edasf«Talk»15:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would onus be on me for removing? Actually that’s the exact opposite. Malik added this map without gaining consensus first. The map just got added as well.
Fowler mentioned that he didn’t see a point in adding the maximum map here, so I think it would be nice to get his opinion on the matter, especially since you guys added it without consensus. Like right now, it’s supposed to be removed until you gain consensus which hasn’t been done here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the Ashoka section, @Someguywhosbored:? If so, I wouldn't worry about it right now. The goal is the secure a reliable, compact, lead of due weight. Once that is finished we can use that as a template to rework the rest of the article. You might find that third map fall by the way side. Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I’d still support its removal but I’m willing to wait for the page to get reworked. Still if another user reverts it, I’d probably support it. Let’s wait a few days before consensus settles.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe you stated that a third map(or was it the second map?)isn’t really necessary and I agree. We already have links in the info box that leads to those maximum size maps, so a third map in the body out of nowhere doesn’t seem needed. But that’s just me. I’ll give a few days to ponder. If nobody other than me agrees with removing it by then, then I’ll accept leaving it in here for now. Thank you for giving the time to respond though. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We already have links in the info box that leads to those maximum size maps"
You need to understand here that both of the maps aren't really representing the maximum extent of the mauryan empire as Joshua himself says here. [57], also for the holed map.[58]
The map which we added in the subsection is just a map representing all of the Seleucid ceded territories (which the infobox maps don't seem to represent, but it is alright, we agreed for a status quo there.) which was agreed by All the editors who previously participated in MEM discussion.Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd added the Joppen (1907) map to the Ashoka subsection as a compromise on metwork-model versus solid-mass map; I used Joppen because his map forms the basis for several other maps, and because he's a token of this old-fashioned approach of presenting the Maurya Emprire as a solid mass of controlled territory. To present, again, the Maurya Empire as a solid mass with a modern-looking map would not be my preference; Joppen serves this function better. But that's my opinion. So, two questions:
Do we add a maximum-extent map to the Ashoka-subsection?
If so, do we use Joppen, or do we use modern-looking map?
Hello all, I'm only just now getting a chance to look over all the recent discussions. I generally agree with the points made by Joshua and Fowler, and strongly support their new improvements to this article. With regard to this map issue, my preference would be to use the Joppen map. In fact, for the same reasons above Joshua has given, I suggest it might be best to simply put the Joppen map as the second map in the infobox, as a token of the traditional approach, in place of my own "solid mass" map (and all the endless controversy about its boundaries). If the other expanded map File:Ashoka Maurya Empire.png is being used at all, setting aside many other concerns which I have, one indisputable change simply must be made: to fix the labelling of Aria, which was at the modern-day Herat, not the Sistan basin of the Helmand River. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joppen, India in 250 BC, in ivory borders etcJoppen, India in 250 BC, in white, with latitude scale on both sides
OK, I found it. Apparently, I uploaded it. I've uploaded another one, which is whiter and to which I've added the lattitude scale on the right side as well. There is a third but its colors have a yellowish hue. Tell me if people like Joppen and if so which one. Fowler&fowler«Talk»01:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am agree with your opinion @Joshua Jonathan, the Joppen map would be better option. I would suggest a minor modification to the Joppen map to mark [ ] the edicts. There is no need to label the locations, as this would make it unnecessarily complex; simply marking the edicts would suffice. Pinging @पाटलिपुत्र: also. NxcryptoMessage10:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Founding" subsection of the History section, (see here) is about
Alexander, the Nandas, and Chandragupta's lineage etc. Why is there a map of the Maurya empire in 200 BCE, 32 years after Asoka had died, and 15 years before the empire's end when it surely wasn't as large? Also, when you click on it (with a view to seeing the details) it goes up in smoke and only a blank, unlabeled map of South Asia is left. Perplexed. Fowler&fowler«Talk»02:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008 So, I have to discuss again or else a 3RR block so, joppens map was there for a long time this map just shows important cities and is good can't understand.Fowler and Someguy agreed to not remove now at least but I am adding same joppens map and now a revert means Onus on you. Edasf«Talk»10:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not adding the Joppens map though, I've still self reverted. Neither Someguywhosbored nor Fowler agreed to add your map. However, I think we can retain your map if we present all four maps there, two network model maps representing derivations of the works of Sinopoli, Kulke & Ruthermord, and the two vast-space maps, the one by Avantiputra as well as the one made by you (or alternatively Joppens if you'd prefer). PadFoot (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: - Your edit summary[59] is misleading, for years this article did not have any switcher. See this sample of random revisions I picked from last 4 years [60][61][62][63], Not one of them has a switcher, it was only recently introduced[64] and its inclusion has been opposed by at least a few editors, therefore consensus is required. NxcryptoMessage17:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, JJ has removed the solid map. Scholarly introductory textbooks read around the world do not describe the Mauryan realm to be one solid mass. (WP:TERTIARY describes their role in determining due weight. It is Wikipedia policy) Six or seven such books are cited in the article and the lead. These are the same sources used in other broadscale articles such as India, Wikipedia's oldest country featured article, now 20 years old. Fowler&fowler«Talk»23:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin I agree with you, the standardized form of maps has been present on this page since this article creation in 2004, and it is supported by various historians[65][66]. And switcher was introduced without any consensus. NxcryptoMessage05:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tarn (1922), The Greeks In Bactria And India, p.100, refering to Eratosthenes, who states (in Tarn words) that :
Alexander [...] took away from Iran the parts of these three satrapies which lay along the Indus and made of them separate [...] governments or province; it was these which Seleucus ceded, being districts predominantly Indian in blood. In Gedrosia the boundary is known: the country ceded was that between the Median Hydaspes (probably the Purali) and the Indus.
So, regarding Gedrosia, nothing west of those mountains; a very strong argument to remove the "solid-mass map' altogether from the lead, as it is obviously based on a misinterpretation of one or several ancient sources, and an outdated understanding of the actual extent of control of the Mauryan state. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!19:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tarn's statement is disputed by other historians of his time:
The ceded country comprised a large portion of Ariana itself, a fact ignored by Tarn. In exchange the Maurya a monarch gave the "comparatively small recompense of 500 elephants. It is believed that the territory ceded by the Syrian king included the four satrapies: Aria, Arachosia, Gedrosia and the Paropanisadai, i.e., Herat, Kandahar, Makran and Kabul. Doubts have been entertained about this by several scholars including Tarn. The inclusion of the Kabul valley within the Maurya Empire is, however, proved by the inscriptions of Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta, which speak of the Yonas and Gandharas as vassals of the Empire. And the evidence of Strabo probably points to the cession by Seleukos of a large part of the Iranian tableland besides the riparian provinces on the Indus.—Hemchandra Raaychaudhari, Political history of ancient India, Pg.273[67]
Additionally, there is supporting archaeological evidence:
Pg. 417: Mauryan empire towards the satrapies of Gedrosia part of which were ceded by Seleucus to Chandragupta. The discovery of the remains of a large Buddhist sanctuary on "Koh-i-Khwaja" in Sistan suggests that this province also was perhaps included in the Mauryan empire, and the Buddhist influence reached there in the time of Asoka himself. Further south, that Jaz Morian Lake have marked this side the western boundary of the Mauryan empire."—Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol-13, Issue no.-1-4[68]
Moreover, it is widely accepted by various historians:
By 311 B.C. or somewhat later the Indus had become the frontier of the Magadhan Empire. Further westward expansion was largely the outcome of the successful military encounter with Seleucus Nicator (Seleukos Nikator), founder of the Seleucid dynasty and inheritor of Alexander's eastern empire from northern Syria to India Between 305 and 302 B.C. Seleucus ceded the satrapies of Gedrosia, Arachosia, Paropamisadai, and probably Aria, gave his adversary a Greek princess in marriage, and obtained in return 500 war elephants and permanent peace and friendship on his eastern frontier. About this time, perhaps earlier, western Gandhara and areas north to the Hindu Kush, Abhisara, and probably Kasmira were also annexed to the Mauryan dominions. —Schwartzberg, Schwartzberg Atlas, Pg.170[69]
Towards the north-west, his empire marched with that of the Syrian monarch, Antiochos [Rock Edict II], and hence extended up to Persia and Syria which were held by Antiochos, while it is also known how Asoka's grandfather, Chandragupta, had wrested from Selukos the provinces of Aria, Arachosia, Paropanisadai and Gedrosia which descended to Asoka as his inheritance.—Radhakumud Mukharjee, Asoka, Pg.15[70]
:Threatened by Chandragupta’s growing power, Seleucid of Syria, Alexander’s successor, challenged him by invading northern India in 305 BC but suffered a devastating defeat. A treaty ending the conflict gave Chandragupta all lands north to the Hindu Kush, including Baluchistan and Afghanistan. Chandragupta used an extensive and elaborate civil service, an army, and a secret service to rule.—Ian Barnes , Robert Hudson and Bhikhu Parekh , The history atlas of Asia, Pg.42[71]
Seleucus had to purchase peace by ceding to Chandragupta territories then known as Aria, Arachosia, and Paropanisadae (the capitals of which were respectively the cities now known as Herat, Kandahar and Kabul), and probably also a part of Gedrosia (Baluchistan). In return Chandragupta presented him with 500 war elephants. The terms of the peace leave no doubt that the Greek ruler fared badly at the hands of Chandragupta. His defeat and discomfiture at the hands of an Indian ruler would naturally be passed over by Greek writers, and their silence goes decidedly against Seleucus. The peace was ratified by a matrimonial alliance between the rival parties.—K.M. Munishi, The Age Of Imperial Unity Volume II, Pg.60[72]
Asoka inherited an extensive empire from his father Bindusara and his grandfather Chandragupta. On the north-west his frontier roughly corresponded to the so-called scientific frontier of the nineteenth century, the Kabul-Ghazni Kandahar line. These territories had been ceded to Chandragupta Maurya by Seleucus Nikator and comprised the satrapies of Paropanisadai, Aria, Arachosia, and part of Gedrosia.—Davies C. Collin, An Historical Atlas Of The Indian Peninsula, Pg.12[73]
Seleucus Nikator who was in charge of the Greek kingdoms in the Indian frontier relinquished his rights to that portion of the country belonging to the Indian Empire, the satrapies of the Paropanisadai, Aria. Arachosia, and Gedrosia, and he was presented in return with 500 elephants. Seleucus felt the strength of the arms of Candragupta and arranged for peace through negotiations. This peace was effected with success by Megasthenes, the Greek ambassador of Seleucus in 303 B.C.—R.V. Dikshitar, The Mauryan Polity, Pg.183[74]
Greek sources tell us that Seleucus found the enterprise too hazardous and preferred to form an alliance with Chandragupta. He ceded to Chandragupta the territories of Arachosia (Kandahar), and Paropanisadae (Kabul), as well as certain parts of Aria (Herat), and Gedrosia (Baluchistan). Seleucus also established an embassy at Pataliputra and signed a treaty of friendship that was to remain in force for many generations. In exchange for abandoning his claims to Alexander's satrapies, Seleucus received five hundred elephants, a meager recompense, implying, however, acknowledgement of his suzerainty over the northern provinces. Furthermore, the elephants were to prove very useful to him in pursuing his war against Antigonus.—Alain Daniélou, A brief history of India, Pg.86[75]
Furthermore, those whose citations were used to support the hole map have also endorsed it:
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[76]
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.—Paul J Kosmin, The Land of the Elephant Kings, Pg.33[77]
Certain areas in the north-west were acquired through the treaty with Seleucus... It has been suggested that the territory ceded consisted of Gedrosia, Arachosia, Aria, and the Paropamisadae.—Romila Thapar, Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, Pg.16[78]
None of these explore how or how much of Baluchistan was administered by the Mauryas. I don't think such a source could exist, either, due to the lack of archaelogical evidence, and the continued history of the region; as I said before, after the Seleucids, it was continuously either directly administered by the Persian empires or in their sphere of influence rather than that of the Indian empires. This, then, doesn't really challenge Tarn's (and consequently JJ's) claim.
After the switcher model I thought there would be peace in here regarding the maps, but what I see from the edit history is JJ and F&f improving the page, and squabbling over the maps from mostly everyone else. A shame, honestly, because if everyone converted their energies into adding sourced content, improving its readability and spinning out parts of it, I'm sure this would be a much better page. Cheers, Coeusin (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edasf It does. If JJ's claim is correct, and it hasn't been properly disputed by anyone here, then the map is factually incorrect and has no place on the article. Coeusin (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Coeusin, we have already provided a dozen sources for the map without holes.
Joshua ignoring all of them, decided to delete the map because "he thought he did right think". Maybe stop turning blind eye to our sources and actually take a look at them.
More sources cover the map without holes than the one with holes. No right to remove that map by any wiki guidelines.
@JingJongPascal, can you link JJ's edit where he said that?
Nevertheless, of course there are more sources for the map without holes. That's the traditional view of a State, and historiography has subverted that from the 1950s onwards only. Nowadays most historians will talk about the varying levels of authority of the ancient States, but most works about ancient India are from the 19th century or the early 20th, from what I've seen. What matters isn't quantity but quality, where the debate is at now, and that is on the side of the "map with holes". Coeusin (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so according to you, Reliable sources like Romila aren't quality according to you? Can you state which wiki guidelines states what is the measurement of quality? Your arguments is orginal research and POV pushing, you can't just outright disqualify our sources as "less quality more quantity" for no absolutely reason. @CoeusinJingJongPascal (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Coeusin Then OK no sources state this what does relatively autonomous means so I think we should also remove holes map again map can be corrected and again you can't just come removing a map which was here from articles creation and it's mainstream map wikipedia is only site using holes map. I surely think Romila Thapar and others are far reliable than Tarn who's statement is disputed. If there are sources for without holes map it should be there. About holes one I haven't seen a single source saying all autonomous rehions as independent so I won't mind removing holes map. Edasf«Talk»13:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Coeusin With full respect. Do you know the simple rule of map-making? It is best to follow the visual sources first, not the tertiary, as what you are going to create is visual too. Also, the writing sources of Burton Stein, Stanley Tambiah, Romila, Thapar, etc. are nothing but WP: OR, as they neither state the controlled territory nor the not controlled for the empire's all territory covered. Aside from one map by Kulke and Ruthermund, you guys have literally nothing to support your claim and on what grounds you had considered professional cartographers like Josh E. Schwartzberg, John Hayden, and Patrick O. Brein as nothing? Do you mean that these cartographers had placed their research on a particular perspective? Rawn3012 (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also are there archaeological evidence of Macedon control of Northwest India? Forget it there's not even a pure literary evidence no Indian source mentions a person called Alexander or any Greek invasion or battle of Jhelum nor a king called Porus a name which has no meaning in Indian languages the Taxila University was at next door.Wouldn't Greeks exaggerate about their own king. Then why there's no whole in Alexanders map? @JingJongPascal@CoeusinEdasf«Talk»13:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Coeusin You are simply refraining from the things which are incorrect by your POV Achaemenids and Macedon never ever controlled City outskirts then why are you consistently ok with same for Mauryas but meanwhile I have a proposal which may finally end this map war and might be Neutral as well. Edasf«Talk»13:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rawn3012, of course these cartographers did. I was talking about this to PadFoot the other day, and I'll quote: "The fun thing about social sciences is how they are built, from disagreements between scholars and the constant income of new methods and evidence. Of course, sometimes new arguments come with political/economic/we motivation behind them, but that's just part of the game. Weber, 120 years ago, established how nothing that's written in the social sciences is fully objective, and that's fine." (from here). Coeusin (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may aswell apply to sources of Joshua and Fowler, but ofcourse you wouldnt, instead you have been putting our sources lower than us, claiming our sources are unreliable JingJongPascal (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement of "of course they did" in respect to my statement of "you had considered professional cartographers like Josh E. Schwartzberg, John Hayden, and Patrick O. Brein as nothing? Do you mean that these cartographers had placed their research on a particular perspective?" restricts me not to have further debate with you, as this statement of yours clearly matches with the idea of following WP:OR just like the network model map does. You literally disregarded the likes of good cartographers in respect to dealing with history, which includes Josh E. Schwartzberg, John Hayden, and Patrick O. Brein.
I invite the opposers of this correct map to come up with written sources which actually present arguments with regard to the interpretation of the extent of the ceded part of Gedrosia, instead of piling up maps which all show the same exaggerated extent without engaging in a debate about this extent. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!20:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: I'm not sure there is any point in extending this pointless argument. You did the right thing by removing the solid mass map. As I state above, WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:TERTIARY describe the role widely-used introductory textbooks used in major universities around the world play in determining due weight. It is Wikipedia policy. We have cited six or seven such textbooks in the lead. These are the same that have been used in the FA India for some 15 years now. In the past poor sources, randomly selected by editors of the moment, had created inflated descriptions of the Mauryas. Fowler&fowler«Talk»23:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And speaking of Charles Joppen SJ, here is what he says in the notes accompanying his atlas: "The sourthern Tamil kingdoms of Chola, Pandya, Satiya, and Chera remained independent. The hill tribes within the limits of the empire seem also to have enjoyed a certain amount of independence." The removes not only the proper hills, but also many plateaus. Fowler&fowler«Talk»23:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And here is what Vincent Smith says in Oxford History of India, volume 1, Ancient India, 1920, page 74:
His (Chandragupta's) dominions certainly included the country now called Afghanistan, the ancient Ariana, as far as the Hindu Kush range; the Panjab; the territories now known as the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, Bihar, and the peninsula of Kathiawar in the far west. Probably they also comprised Bengal. It is safe to affirm that Chandragupt, when his reign terminated about 298 B.C. was master of all India north of the Narbada as well as Afghanistan.
@Joshua Jonathan@Fowler&fowler Well, Joshua removed the map (maximum extent map), saying that it is the misinterpretation of ancient sources, only to be reverted by NXcrypto. Again, but why you two just can't stick to a neutral version, not leading to the further debate? It has been a well-established fact that both maps have their own sources to support, and aside from that, the maximum extent one also has modern sources upon which it is based. Removing it without any consensus is not right. If you want sources, I am ready to present them. But the thing is, what was the importance of those debates above if Joshua Jonathan is the one and all mighty who will take the decision? I would request you guys not to engage me or other editors further into this conflict, especially when it does not lead us to any consensus at all.
Regards
Tertiary Sources:-
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).
@Rawn3012: you're completely missing the point. I asked for sources which discuss, analyze, argue about the ancient sources on which the maximum interpretation of the ceded territories is based. I explicitly mentioned not to pile-up more sources which take this maximum interpretation for granted, without any such analysis. Worse, none of them even mentions the western part of Gedrosia; they only mention "Afghanistan." As fas I know, Afghanistan does not extend to the sea. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!04:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tertiary sources that are a part of Wikipedia policy are not random encyclopedias, but modern, scholarly introductory textbooks used in universities around the world. See WP:TERTIARY. None of the modern, introductory textbooks, used for example in the FA India, such as:
support the solid mass map. All support the existence of regions beyond the sovereignty of the Mauryas. (Note: Joppen, Vincent Smith, Radha Kumud Mukherjee, RC Majumdar, are not modern. Kaey or Dalrymple are not scholarly. Kosmin is not an introductory textbook. Fowler&fowler«Talk»05:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't seen that; I mean I don't know who Tarn is, but VA Smith's description of Chandragupta's realms is Northern India + Afghanistan, and nothing else. (See the quote in green; and also Smith's map.) Have to go to bed now. Fowler&fowler«Talk»05:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan:@Fowler&fowler: The Classicist William Woodthorpe Tarn's book had longstanding importance as one of the standard reference works pertaining to the Indo-Greeks, although many aspects of his analysis are now being challenged in the more recent scholarship (and he was writing before the discovery of Ashoka's edicts in Afghanistan), still can be a useful trove of data. That quotation which Joshua found is very interesting and useful. I think the "Median Hydaspes" river is not the Jhelum here. I had not heard of the Purali/Porali river, but from some searching on Google it seems to be this river of the Lasbela District, which is prone to devasting floods in the rainy season but running almost dry at other times of the year: [79]. If that is correct, Tarn/Eratosthenes are telling us that the extent of the land ceded by the Seleucids to the Mauryas went barely farther west than Karachi, obviously nowhere near Iran. (I am also removing mention of Iran from the infobox.) -Avantiputra7 (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the book cited above (by Rawn) as Dikshitar (1993) appears to be actually only a reprint of the 1932 original book, whose author was influential in his day, but it can't be counted now among the up-to-date sources. It seems clear to me that, as Joshua and Fowler have been saying, the best quality sources to be used here—recent teritary sources by leading specialist historians of India/South Asia, which provide analysis of the evidence—do not come down in favor of the more expansive maps. The only modern scholars' quotations being given as support for the maximum map are not as authoritative in the specific field of Indian/South Asia history, and all merely are taking the old interpretations for granted without any such critical analysis. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan You can't remove a map merely based on a single region and again Malik had quoted a dozen sources about this thing. Again you need sources that dispite this a much of sources don't this with Gedrosia. To remove a map which was used since articles creation you need a wide consensus not some 4-5 editors that too not everyone agreed. Edasf«Talk»09:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan I believe this map was a long standing Mauryan map, therefore you can clearly not remove it without getting consensus specially when it is disputed by several editors who were even talking about removing the holed map as whole, Even if we agree the holed map is more accurate (which it is not, it is not alligning with the very sources it is based on, the very sources cited like kulke clearly say balochistan was the part of mauryan empire which the holed map does not seem to have), there is no reason to remove the Standard Mauryan map which is still the mainstream map used by various institutes and encylopedias like Oxford, britanicca, Cambridge etc, We are no one to decide which is more accurate when both of the maps are mainstream maps, But genuinely if we study the very sources the holed map is based upon, it clearly does not go by the very sources it is based on, I even doubt if it is mainstream at all,, But with all the disagreements i have with the holed map, i don't really seek to remove it right now, better would be to just end this never ending dispute/discussion by going for status quo, Let the infobox as it was, Because This will never end, We should just seek to improve the article besides for just fighting about the maps, there are a lot of better things to cover and add. NxcryptoMessage09:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NXcrypto The solid mass map is the mainstream representation. Wikipedia is the first place where I have seen a holed map like this, full of original research, personal opinions, and unfounded fantasies. The network map depiction is extremely rare, but I agree that maps like these have gained some traction among revisionist historians who emphasize the practical challenges of governing such a vast and diverse area. Both representations can coexist, but removing one (especially the one widely used by mainstream academia) is madness. JJ and FF have also teamed up multiple times before to push Pakistani and Chinese points of view while undermining Indian or even mainstream perspectives. Both are also actively engaged in changing "Indian subcontinent" to "South Asia" throughout Wikipedia. They deliberately blur the distinction between India and the subcontinent. One recent example, which doesn’t even make sense, is changing a very specific "northern Indian subcontinent" to just vague "South Asia."- here [80]. I hope someone will be able to control the damage these editors are doing to Indian as well as south asian history as a whole. In this sentence, "it was these which Seleucus ceded, being districts predominantly Indian in blood," I am amazed that they didn’t change the quote to "South Asian in blood." Crazy people. 2409:40E3:102B:B853:8D80:5624:97E4:D505 (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ignore the IP's nationalism; regarding the sources provided by NXcrypto, a number of them just repeat the list of four provinces, just mentioning "Gedrosia"; several others mention part of Gedrosia, or 'the estern part of Gedrosia. So, these sources conflict with each other, nd none of them gives a sustained argument on how to read those ancient sources. Only two sources are relevant:
Hemchandra Raaychaudhari, who writes "the evidence of Strabo probably points to the cession by Seleukos of a large part of the Iranian tableland besides the riparian provinces on the Indus." - what is this "evidence"?
Kulke and Rothermund(1998), writing "Seleukos ceded to Chandragupta all territories to the east of Kabul as well as Baluchistan." That's quite inconvenient for my argument; note, though, that they also write "The frontier of the Maurya empire was thus more or less the same as that of the Mughal empire at the height of its power about 2,000 years later." - and that didn't include Baluchistan.
@Joshua Jonathan You have overlooked Thapar and many other historians.[81] It is generally accepted by all historians, except Tarn, that Gedrosia was either fully or half ceded to Chandragupta. Even the historians/archeologist cited in support of the hole map also acknowledge that Gedrosia was ceded to Chandragupta. If required, I can provide those references as well. NxcryptoMessage11:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan Why you are simply sticked to Tarn and again you can fix some Gedrosia if you have that problem and propose map couldn't understand what you meant by eatern probably eastern but still this doesn't gives conclusion that Gedrosia was half ceded and again Gedrosia is also east of Indus only not west if I learnt correctly in my Geography class. Edasf«Talk»11:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan I have reviewed various historians accounts regarding Gedrosia. Most agree that Gedrosia was ceded to the Mauryan Empire, but some mention that only some parts of it were ceded. Currently, Avantiputra7 standard maps of the Maurya Empire[82] depict the half region of Gedrosia(Baluchistan) within Maurya empire. Therefore, there is no issue. However, for accuracy in writing on a wiki, it would be better to state: "Either some part of Gedrosia or the whole Gedrosia was ceded to Chandragupta."NxcryptoMessage14:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The exact statement would be: "A number of sources mention Gedrosia in the list of ceded territories; another number of sources mention 'part of Gedrosia' or 'the eastern part'". None of these sources gives an explanation for either 'Gedrosia' or part of it." Only V.A. Smith, Tarn, and Raaychaudhari provide such an analysis or argument, and then, still, Raaychaudhari seems to misinterpret Strabo Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!17:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are no longer considered to be very reliable sources. The are a bit dated, many written by historians born in the 19th-century. No South-Asia department worth its salt, uses those books in introductory college-level history courses. The role of these introductory, textbooks, in determining due weight is laid out in WP:TERTIARY, which is WP policy.
You all are welcome take your sources to reliable sources noticeboard (RS/N) and let the editors there examine them. Please tell me when you do so. Please also list the sources accurately, i.e. show the edition number and the original year of the first edition,
and the OCLC number in addition to the ISBN. So, for example, the source (from this article's current bibliography):
@JingJongPascal: For a contentious subject area, anything that is not an internationally used modern college-level introductory textbook published by academic publishers is not an adequate source for determining due weight. Again, I point to the flagship Wikipedia guideline: WP:SOURCETYPES, a Wikipedia guideline which states:
When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.
Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.
Similarly, when you quote an author do so in extended detail so the editors at RS/N can see right away what is meant. For example, @NXcrypto: when you cite Romila Thapar, please don't hide her qualifications, reservations, or caveats in ellipses (...). In other words, instead of:
Certain areas in the north-west were acquired through the treaty with Seleucus... It has been suggested that the territory ceded consisted of Gedrosia, Arachosia, Aria, and the Paropamisadae.
you should say:
Classical sources tell of the emphasis laid by Candragupta on the army, and mention staggering figures for the total strength of the Mauryan army. However, considering the purpose of that army, it is possible that it was a very large one. Certain areas in the north-west were acquired through the treaty with Seleucus. There is no absolute certainty as to which areas these were and it has been suggested that the territory ceded consisted of Gedrosia, Arachosia, Aria, and the Paropamisadae.
Your quote puts the burden of finding the full quote with its caveats on the reader. They should not have to. As such, I consider the addition of ellipses (...) to not be fully transparent. Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I too disagree totally with removing the maximum extent map; there have been many atlases cited and also tertiary sources, and doing it without any consensus is totally wrong. I also think I made a mistake in the first place by not going for RFC to remove the network map. As I thought that it would lead to more waste of time without getting any consensus, but now JJ's action has clearly demonstrated it is needed. Rawn3012 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are all still missing the point, except for NXcrypto (and F&f and Avaniputra7, obviously): where are the written sources which explicitly explain, argue, etc. which territories exactly were ceded, based on which ancient sources?
Regarding Raaychaudhari and ""the evidence of Strabo," he quotes Starbo (italics Raaychaudhari) at p.272 as stating "the Indians occupy (in part) some of the countries situated along the Indus," and writes (p.273) "The Indian Emperor obtained some of the provinces situated along the Indus which formerly belonged to the Persians. The ceded country comprised a large portion of Ariana itself, a fact ignored by Tarn." We're not arguing here about Ariana, we're arguing about Baluchistan. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!11:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay to have two maps in the Ashoka-subsection, but the lead summarizes the article and should present the best; the article explains the network-model approach, and states that a limited part of gedrosia was ceded; it does not state that the Mauryas controlled each and every inland territory, nor does it explain how to interpret Pliny and Strabo. The inclusion of western Baluchistan is clearly disputed by scholars, and therefor should not be in the lead. In contrast, I haven't seen any scholarly source which disputes the ideas of Smith or Coningham and Young with regard to the network-model. So, again: please provide written sources, not repitious maps and mere statements, which explain how Pliny and Strabo should be interpreted. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!11:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan Tell me sources who say Baluchistan wasn't explicitly and map also does not include whole of it you can't remove a map on a single source.And even Kulke included it yes there's only 1 map the max extent map. Edasf«Talk»11:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already did: Tarn. And a number of sources provided above speak of 'eastern Baluchistan' and 'part of Baluchistan'. Please pay attention, and respond to what's being stated; I did not state that none of Baluchistan was ceded. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!11:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some more by V.A. Smith (1914), Early History of India, p.151: "The satrapy of Gedrosia (or Gadrosia) extended far to the west, and probably only the eastern part of it was annexed by Chandragupta. The Malin range of mountains, which Alexander experienced such difficulty in crossing, would have furnished a natural boundary." So, V.A. Smith also agrees that only the eastern part was annexed, but what the "Malin mountains" are?... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!17:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with a two-map solution in the Ashoka section. The infobox is better off with just the holes-map. The vast space map is wildly inaccurate, rather simplistic and dated. It appears per @Joshua Jonathan's arguments that only (eastern) parts of the Balochistan were controlled, not the entirety and certainly not Iran. PadFoot (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We(@Edasf@JingJongPascal@NXcrypto) have provided many sources against Joshua's claim and you need consensus for removing the maximum extent map. In this way I can argument that we should replace the network map as I, NXcrypto and Edasf had provided good arguments.
'Many', 'more': quantity over quality? Which source explains why they state that the whole of Gedrosia should be included, or what exactly is meant with 'part of Gedrosia' or 'eastern Gedrosia'? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!19:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Thapar. Full quote: "Thapar has now suggested that the empire comprised relationships of control between three very different spheres, the metropolitan state, the core areas of previously established Janapadas and Mahajanapadas and, finally, the peripheral regions of "lineage-based societies" which "would be relatively liberated from the control of the metropolitan state."" So, you ant a source that interprets what Thapar writes? She's qyoted by Conningham and Young, so that would be a source that interprets "relatively liberated [from the control of the metropolitan state]." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!17:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan You called me a nationalist. I'll take it as a compliment—better than being an anarchist who just likes to watch the world burn for seemingly no reason. I am as much a nationalist as you are an anti-India (and anti-Hindu) bigot. Upon analyzing your edit history, it seems you also have European supremacist tendencies. Your personal opinions are irrelevant here. Additionally, this page is not your pilot project to launch and promote an original network model map based on the imagination and understanding of one or two irrelevant Wikipedia editors, while simultaneously removing the mainstream version. 2409:40E3:102B:B853:8D80:5624:97E4:D505 (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan@Coeusin@Rawn3012@JingJongPascal So, I am putting up proposal to simply use a map which shades different autonomous areas differently and write in caption that shaded areas in X colour are over whose Mauryan sovreignity is disputed or more Neutrally The areas in X color are those who are conceptualised to have been relatively or some level of autonomy from the Imperial Mauryan government in Pataliputra.Think this would be OK. Edasf«Talk»13:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @Abhishek0831996 because long-standing infobox of the article has for the last four years consistently included both maps recognized by mainstream academia. I believe that even debating this matter is a waste of time. My stance remains the same as before: to maintain the status quo and leave the infobox as it is.[85] Several editors have expressed concerns about the "holed" map including me, but I am refraining from further argument because there are numerous other aspects of the article that need improvement and expansion beyond just maps. We have already had extensive discussions and debates on map related various topics without reaching a clear consensus. Introducing new suggestions and sections at this point only complicates the matter further. NxcryptoMessage16:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again @NXcrypto: It is not a question of reliability; it is one of due weight. The role of modern introductory college-level textbooks—used around the world and published by academic publishers—in identifying due weight (especially in broadscale articles in a contentious subject area) and as laid out in WP:TERTIARY is WP policy. It trumps discussions and consensuses. Thus far all such textbooks, many also used in the featured articleIndia for 15 years, prefer the map with independent, autonomous, regions. Please take your sources to WP:RS/N. Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ancient history section of India has said for 15 years:
The empire was once thought to have controlled most of the subcontinent except the far south, but its core regions are now thought to have been separated by large autonomous areas. The Mauryan kings are known as much for their empire-building and determined management of public life as for Ashoka's renunciation of militarism and far-flung advocacy of the Buddhist dhamma.
@Joshua Jonathan Don't misinterpret, standardized types of maps has been present on this page since this article creation but present type of infobox with hole map with lots of references is present from last four years continuously.[86][87]. NxcryptoMessage00:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Friends, this was fun while it lasted. I hope you can find a compromise somehow. I'll head back to my little corner of the wiki now. Best regards, Coeusin (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would open us to more WP:OR charges. I think we should have a single map, but instead of "network model" in the caption, which is opaque to the ordinary reader, we should have the sentence from the India page referred to above (and Wikilinked to the solid-mass map), i.e. in nowiki format the caption would look like:
The Maurya Empire's geographical extent. The empire was once thought to have controlled [[:File:Maurya Empire, c.250 BCE 2.png|most of the subcontinent except for the far south]], but its core regions are now thought to have been separated by large autonomous areas.]] Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
In other words, this is what the picture and caption in the infobox would look like:
The Maurya Empire's geographical extent. The empire was once thought to have controlled most of the subcontinent except for the far south, but its core regions are now thought to have been separated by large autonomous areas.
I agree. There’s been so much argument in the past, it might be best to bury the hatchet. Holes map appears to be more of an accurate representation of what the Mauryans controlled anyway. Someguywhosbored (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't get it: which sources explain how "Gedrosia" is to be interpreted? According to Tarn, only the Indian part of Gedrosia was Ceded. V.A. Smith lays the limit at the 'Malin range of mountains"; what are those mountains? All the other sources are no more than laundry-lists, and they give two irreconcilable statements: "Gedrosia," or 'the eastern part of Gedrosia'. So, what is it? How to interpret "Strabo XV 2,9"? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!05:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan If V.Smith and Joppen both show Baluchistan under Mauryas in their map and even Kulke accepted it so conclusion is clear. I can remove holes map on this.Such can be simply on note rather than removing map. Edasf«Talk»05:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan Why are you stick to textual explanation?Even they accept that whatsoever part Gedrosia was under Mauryas and Joppens map gives conclusion of what.For me this Gedrosia argument seems meaningless. Edasf«Talk»06:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Malin mountain range seems to be Malan mountain range, a little bit to the west of Hingol National Park. Take a look there, and you'll see that your preferred map grossly exaggerates the extent of Gedrosia ceded to Chandragupta. Combine it with V.A. Smith, whose Hydaspes ("(probably the Purali") seems to be this river in the Lasbela District, and then you'll know why you have to check written sources, which explain the ancient sources which describe the peace treaty, to find out more exactly what we're talking about. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!06:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan And Kulke states "all of land east of Kabul and as well as Baluchistan" Its clear that Kulke accepts all Baluchistan was under Mauryas and if he didn't he would simply state some of or else same with all others like HC Rayachaudhri and RK Mookerji etc. Edasf«Talk»06:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
V.A. Smith gives the Malan mountain range, between the Hingol river and Ormara, as the limit; Tarn gives the Porali river, a tributary of the Hingol river, as the limit. They agree: the Hingol river is more or less the border of the Gedrosia-territory ceded to Chandragupta. None of the sources and maps stating and depicting "Gedrosia" gives a rationale; and they are contradicted by the sources which state "part of Gedrosia" or '(easter) part of Gedrosia. You can pile-up a thousand maps, but they don't align with these sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!08:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Liberated" implies that one is first kind of imprisoned, so that may indeed be 'vague'. But looking at the context, fhat is, Thapar's explanation, she argues that there were variations in the extent of control the Mauryas applied. That makes sense, doesn't it? Why would you want to control forest-tribes with stone-age weapons who have nothing worthfull to trade? As long as thet stayed where they were, everyone was okay, I think. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!10:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does makes sense, but the mainstream representation of the mauryan map is still without holes, as seen by various atlas and etc.
@Joshua Jonathan I do have problem with holes map but seems you either misjudged my comment? I suggested to improve Gedrosia part in max extent map.About holes map so lets take on sources about Romila Thapar she states that Mauryan administration was divided in three spheres of administration where the periphal areas were relatively librated from Metropolitan state what do you think it means? Romila is not excluding those areas from Mauryan administration rather she states that those regions had some level of independence from imperial Mauryan governmment in Pataliputra and talking of David Ludden he also does similar that Maurya Empire resembled a spider with autonomous regions being its legs his not denying that these autonomous regions werent a part of Mauryas (If you think legsa arent a part of body than its else) and worth noting that Mauryas arent firstempire in which concept of this autonomous regions appear their predecessors Nanda Empire also had frontier areas which had some autonomy but I dont see any holes in Nanda map. Edasf«Talk»08:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can't get those holes 'exactly' correct; there's no way to know where 'exactly' the 'borders' were. But maybe we can draw a comparison with the Netherlands. In the High Middle Ages, say 1100-1300 CE, Frysia extended from what West-Frisia (now North-Holland) to Denmark. At some point, the Counts of Holland wanted to extend their control to West-Frysia. Almost unbelievable now, but a band of farmers resisted them for decades, armed with no more than farming-tools.
We're talking here about a small area, with few people. Now compare this to India, with, at the time of the Mauryas, forested innerland stretching for hundreds of kilometers. Imagine Chandragupta's armies entering those forests, depleted of food, going by foot. What's the chance they could 'defeat' those forest-tribes? They first had to find them, 'defeat' them, and stay there to keep them in control. For what? Hardwood-trees?
What would you do? Sacrifice your armies for a bunch of forest-tribes which don't cause trouble, or use your army to control the cities and their trade-routes, to gather taxes and wealth? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!10:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay; how? Regarding the MEM, I wouldn't correct it for the Malin mountain range; if we use it as a representation of these 'maximalist' maps, then we have to be faithfull to those maps. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!10:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding a one-map solution, I think we're stuck with two maps. Neither side likes that, but as a compromise for one of the two seems to be unreachable, we may as well agree on that, and move on. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!10:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 'minimalist map' actually needs another correction, I think; the swap of 'controlled area' south-east of Kandhahar consists of mountains; naturally, it's quite unlikely that this was 'controlled' by the Mauryas. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!10:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the persistent edit-warring and reversions by experienced editors who should know better, the page has been fully-protected for a month. I suggest you all use the time wisely, possibly through an RfC to gain opinions from more than just those who have congregated here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of sources for hole map and their criticism by me, if i am wrong, feel free to correct.
Smith 2005 : The map linked provides a Network model of the map, smith argues that ancient empires should be viewed as a network model map and not as boundary maps as their boundaries changed regularly
They however do not mention anything about the imperial rule over the territories.
Instead they also depict a map of the Maurya empire **without holes** (pg-842),
This cannot be taken as a source as they only depict a network model and do not look discuss about the degree of autonomy of these areas.
Archaeology of South Asia (Romila, Coningham, Young, Ludden, Stein, Arnold) : What is said in the notes as 'they present the empire (visually) as network map' is completely wrong. Instead they show a map without holes.
Although they do discuss about the degree of autonomy of these regions, but fail to provide exactly which regions were independent.
They use words like "relatively liberated", "less or more autonomous" and other than that they do not present any regions exactly and but state vague things like "discontinued chain of empire".
Luden speaks about something completely different, they talk about the decentralized aspect of the empire, and how local princes still ruled areas , although under the overlordship of mauryas.
Dyson : All dyson mentions is that it was a loose-knit empire and controlled major areas of the indian subcontinent.
Now what were these 'Major areas' is not mentioned.
So except of Kulke & Rothermond, no one presents a direct response on this map and do not also represent it visually.
These major areas are based on these editor's POVs.
All these sources (except Kulke and Rothermond) do not show a hole map but rather a map without holes.
Also to note that Joshua and Fowler have been extensively editing other articles regarding mauryans and 'dexxagerating' several things. For example, in Seleucid Mauryan War, they changed a couple things about ceded territories (while we were discussing about it in the main article) they removed the former sources (or atleast changed them) and added theirs.
Glad you at least noticed the pattern with these editors. When they kept editing this article while the discussion was ongoing, why do you think they wouldn’t alter related pages to promote their agenda? And it’s not limited to just one or two topics—it’s widespread. At least you’re not an idiot and have some thinking capability. Also, the misrepresentation of sources by these editors is very common. They might get rattled if you start reading the sources and checking the page numbers. Asserting random speculations as fact is also common with these editors. 2409:40E3:62:4777:183E:D90:49DD:75D6 (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JingJongPascal Would agree with you and it wasnt like that Mauryas are first empire which have this concept of autonomous regions their predecessor Nandas also had frontier regions which had autonomy thats why it was easy for Chandragupta to conquer those regions first.I dont see any holes in Nanda map and about Macedon control of Northwest theres no evidence except the Greek sources. Edasf«Talk»11:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JingJongPascal Also worth noting that Ashokas inscriptions mention a fine on hunting animals now if those forests were not under Mauryan control how was Ashoka able to put up taxes in those areas and where people hunt animals did they Maurya Kings built a zoo for that? And I am not denying that tribes did had internal autonomy but still under some level of suzernity to Mauryas anyways I am OK to kept this holes map but not on removing up without holes map. Edasf«Talk»12:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan Huh I dont want further debate because in the end we will keep going to this circular discussion we should just end this Map War maintain status quo and end this I am fed up with this and I think so you are Edasf«Talk»14:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources which prove that the Mauryas actually controlled every inch of India? You don't. What we have is the inscriptions and rock-edicts; based on that, several authors have argued that the idea of a solid mass of controlled territory is untenable. There's no way to know exactly how far thejr influence stretched, but it is possible to discern patters. If you think this is incorrect, you should look for sources which discuss Smith, Conningham and Young, etc. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!14:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan So what I am saying is that if thats unclear whether they did or not controlled till where we should still use both maps using just one will like promoting one POV and for now just end this war keep both maps thats best
Alexander's empire (from Charles Joppen SJ, Historical Atlas of India: For the use of High Schools, Colleges, and Private Students, London: Longman, Green & Co., 1907
regarding Gedrosia is already a hole in holes map dont push it through max extent map, I already wrote that we shouldn't change the maximum extent map, as it shows how the maximum extent is often portrayed. Regarding the netwotj-model map, as I wrote before, noby knows exactly how far the control of the Mauryas extended, but the exactness that you desire is not the point of these authors - or it is, as they argue that maops with neat borders etc. are a mispresentation. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!14:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan Still this map is mainstream map its good to use both and end this war.
@JingJongPascal I would say that our main goal should not removing mem map I think an year long debate can go but this holes map one seems to enter no conclusion because sources are indeed vague and I want to know @Fowler&fowler@Joshua Jonathan Why we are using those as reference for maps they dont say which areas were autonomous nor use this map in their works how can you use that as a reference for Map? Edasf«Talk»14:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no point in arguing with them. They will ignore and start using common assumptions to accelerate their POV Pushing, like they have been doing in other articles aswell. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox, this is in the line for government-type. I can't access the single cited source for this, but clearly such a characterization is an anachronism, not compatible with the core-periphery model of loose-knit polity as explained in the approaches of historians Thapar, Tambiah, Burton Stein, etc. Is there a concise and commonly-understood term that would be more appropriate to replace "absolute monarchy"? (e.g., "suzerainty"?) Or replace it with simply "monarchy"? -Avantiputra7 (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Avantiputra7 Unable to understand your point a loose knit polity? Are you including Autonomous regions but your maps arent including it if you want then change map,And Absolute Monarchy means King or Emperor has highest power and its same Mauryan Emperor was highest authority no one was greater than him if you are replacing map and including Autonomous regions in different shade then ya this discussion is worth it. Edasf«Talk»13:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant isn't a question of whether there was any higher power than the emperor, nor about holes/shading in maps. Absolutism, which has a specific definition in historical scholarship, was developed in the historical context of the early-modern states when ideology, technology, and infrastructure empowered the monarch to have complete unconstrained power to enforce his will throughout his realm. It's not applicable, in my understanding, to the pre-modern Indian states, not to other ancient empires generally speaking: check the wiki info boxes, for instance, of Gupta Empire, Achaemenid Empire, Seleucid Empire, Parthian Empire, Sasanian Empire, Han Dynasty, etc. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't said anything @Edasf and JingJongPascal:, but a Wikipedia talk page is not a chat group in which you say the first thing that comes into your head. I recommend for your own sake and for your fledgling career on Wikipedia, that you look before you leap. I know that this might sound harsh, but I've been around on Wikipedia a long time and I've thought about historical topics for even longer. I've seen editors such as you come and go. Far better if you are more thoughtful and less knee-jerk in your replies. Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iori, Elisa (2023). "Releasing Urban Religion beyond the City Wall: The Spatial Capital of Early Buddhist Monasticism in NW South Asia". Numen. 70 (2–3): 184–219. doi:10.1163/15685276-20231691. At the end of the farming year when the land was free of crops (end of October–April) and the water level low, it was the time for maintenance activities (e.g., clearing of wells and water infrastructure) and the time when manpower could be invested in other production and building activities both in rural and urban contexts. But above all, this was the time for movement and trade. The uttarāpatha, that is the main road linking eastern Afghanistan to India through the cities of Kabul, Charsadda, and Taxila down to Patna, is indeed a winter road typically used when local rivers (Kabul, Indus, and the rivers of Punjab) are at their lowest levels, so that they can be easily forded (Olivieri 2020: 645–646).
@Fowler&fowler Sorry but I am already quit busy since I have my Exams in first week of December I am unlikely active in next days.So,after seeing Absolutism article I know what @Avantiputra7 is talking so yeah I would support adding monarchy but will do some research before I take a stance here.Especially finding Avantiputras source which he was unable to access. Edasf«Talk»15:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although WP does give primacy to reliable sources, reliable sources themselves are not always fully aware of every little detail of what they choose to expound on. One has to mull over a lot of things and then use judicious language. Here are two videos I made while flying over the Taxila region and on into eastern Afghanistan. The first shows the upper Indus River (made when the plane was 60-odd miles NW of Taxila) and very far in the back, above the clouds, the Nanga Parbat around which the river bends, if one were traveling upstream, all the way to its origins in the Tibet Trans-Himalaya. The second is of the eastern Hindu Kush (when the plane was above the Lowari Pass) just before Pakistan's border with Afghanistan. In the "solid mass map," whereas the Nanga Parbat itself is not in the Mauryan realm, the upper Indus and the eastern Hindu Kush are. Authors will sometimes unthinkingly use maps, and throw around numbers (e.g. the Maurya army was 500,000 strong) from fragments of lost Greek histories. One has to be very careful in paraphrasing sources and in using the right level of detail in language when a source doesn't jibe with what is credible today. In other words, how did a region "Magadha," around which the Ganges plain, had barely been fully deforested by 500 BCE, in another 200 years, not only become a settled post-agricultural society, but also find the means of governing areas as forbidding as the eastern Hindu Kush, when all we have are infirm sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not about the map as the map only reflects what some sources say; it is about the history of the Mauryan Empire, which except for Asoka's edicts (if they are history) arose in a generally ahistorical ancient culture.
And another thing is just the distance from Patliputra to Taxila. Today, it would be a 35-hour drive (according to Google maps) if it were possible to drive across the India-Pakistan border. How did they communicate in Mauryan times? As late as 1820, before the invention of electric telegraph, the British were seriously considering an India-wide "telegraph" (which then meant semaphore hand-signalling) network. They even built some towers. See File:Semaphore telegraph bihar1823.jpg and the notes therein. In other words, was the "ideology, technology, and infra-structure" that user:Avantiputra7 alludes to, credibly there for a "centralized" empire in Mauryan times, when the three descriptors barely applied to the British in India in the 1820s? See also: Company_rule_in_India#TelegraphyFowler&fowler«Talk»17:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We just don't know, but one would imagine that the Mauryans, like all subsequent rulers of India up to 1947, made heavy use of Princely states, whatever their inscription-composers said. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Johnbod: Yes. I generally agree, but with a few caveats, and you probably already know about them. So apologies.
"Princely states" proper, by which I mean, regions of nominal sovereignty whose communications, defense, and foreign relations were controlled by the suzerain, really only belongs to a late early-modern world in South Asia. Although the Mughals did balance diverse regional elites in their empire, and to a lesser extent did the Delhi Sultanate, before the East India Company, which first formed the subsidiary alliances, I doubt the the requisite technological gap and the diplomatic experience had existed for effectively sustaining such a rule. For the British not only formed the subsidiary alliances with many Indian rulers, but thereafter also groomed the rulers and protected their states (the "breakwaters in the storm" in Lord Canning's words).
The Arthashastra, on the other hand, which was discovered in the early 20th-century—and which gave heart to generations of Indian nationalists and nationalist historians—spoke of a centralized empire, with a large army and police, and ridden with spies who reported on the slightest ripple of discontent. I think it is Patrick Olivelle, the most recent translator of the AS who says, that it was first thought to have been the work of Chandragupta's advisor/mentor/courtier Chanakya ca 310 BCE, but beyond the lexical and syntactical inconsistencies, the advice offered advice in it could only have made sense in the world of a small kingdom. One of the reasons, he goes on to say, modern historians and linguists, consider it to a later work—of the early centuries of the common era—is that by then, i.e. the "inter-imperial age" after the Mauryas, South Asia had devolved to a collection of small kingdoms.
So, did the Mauryas really manage diversity? I'm not sure despite Ashoka's edits. More likely their "empire" was a kind of network model of Monica L. Smith, in which there was a main core region, Magadha, where they might have had straight-jacketed control, some lesser core regions (Taxila, Kalinga, Avanti, and Karnataka) connected by well-defended trade routes. Outside of these, the vast South Asian space, much of it yet to be deforested, was beyond the pale of the recently urbanized, whether the Mauryas or others.
Kulke and Rothermund state, as sumarized by me in the body, that Magadha, with the imperial capital at Pataliputra, and several former mahajanapadas next to it formed the center, which was directly ruled by the emperor's administration. The other territories were divided into four provinces, ruled by princes who served as governors.
Regarding the extend of the ceded territories, and the interpretation of the (rare) ancient sources, Sushma Jansari (2023), Chandragupta Maurya: The creation of a national hero in India, delves into the contrasting images of Chandragupta in the west and India; in chapter one she argues that the few sources on this treaty between chandragupta and Seleucid contain so little, and contrasting, information, that no sensible or 'exact' conclusions can be drawn from it. Relating this to the span of control: I can't imagine Mauryan control in west-Baluchistan, let alone Iran, via the Afghanistan trade-routes - Chandragupta didn't even control Kalinga.
This difference in perception is also reflected at this talkpage, I think; the IP actually pointed this out to me, at my talkpage. Questioning the extent of control feels like an attack on India. For 'us', sceptical westerners, in turn, that feels like an attack on enlightenment rationality. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!06:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan@Fowler&fowler, we have already argued on status quo, didn't we? Also please stop with your fringe ideas about the distance from magadha to taxila.
Alexander continuously changed his routes, sometime in perisa, sometime in india.
Perhaps mention that too?
And again I can understdn your "common sense", but that can be said for practically any empire that ruled over those regions, including Persian Empire. JingJongPascal (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let us for a moment ignore the charismatic human megafauna (as it were) of these empires. Suppose then we had no evidence of Alexander, Darius, Xerxes, Cyrus, Chandragupta or Asoka, only of empires run by anonymous human drones (working human bees). Archaeological evidence certainly shows that from 320 BCE to 200 BCE there is a characteristic type of fortification in the regions of what have come to called Graeco-Bactrian kingdoms: Mairs, Rachel (2014). The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia. University of California Press. p. 163. ISBN978-0-520-28127-1. Although socioeconomic symbiosis prevailed within the Surkhan-darya and Sherabad-darya valleys, however, the Graeco-Bactrian state monitored and regulated movement on northern routes from the cities of the Oxus Valley, such as Bactra, to Samarkand and Sogdiana in the north. We find defensive structures aimed at protecting these territories and routes even within the Surkhan-darya Valley, at sites such as Kurganzol, a fortress with massive walls and semicircular towers whose period of occupation coincides with the era of Alexander's conquests through to the first half of the second century B.c.£. and the final years of the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom.* The remains at Kurganzol display several features that recur in many of the major fortified sites of the regions to the north of the Oxus that I shall go on to discuss.
In other words, let us for a moment forget the infirm histories. All these empires were created by military prowess. They had fortified encampments, whether you call them cities or forts. There is archaeological evidence of such forts in the century or two following Alexander's invasion as evidenced by the quote of Rachel Mairs. Where is the analagous evidence for the Mauryas? There is a great paucity of evidence. This is in part because the archaeological chronologies of today, which are grounded in (no pun intended) the use of longer-lived ceramic wares for dating, are not precise enough to place the evidence in the relatively short-lived empire of the Mauryas.[1]
^Trautmann, Thomas; Sinopoli, Carla (2002). "In the beginning was the word: Excavating the relations between history and archaeology in South Asia". Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient. 45 (4): 492–523, 505. doi:10.1163/156852002320939339. In the study of the Mauryan empire, the physical remains have been overshadowed by the texts, which remain the principal focus of attention. This is partly because remains that can be definitively dated to the Mauryan period are few, except for the rock faces and stone pillars on which the Ashokan inscriptions are written. The pillars themselves attract study; massive monoliths, over fifty tons in weight, with elaborately carved capitals and a mirror-like polish to their surface, moved great distances with immense labor from the quarry sites (recently documented by Jayaswal 1998) to their present locations, they proclaim themselves as monuments of empire. Excavations in Patna in the early twentieth century revealed the wooden palisade of the Mauryan capital, Pataliputra, but the greater part of it is inaccessible because there is a crowded modern city built on top of it (Waddell 1903; Spooner 1913). That excavation apart, the Mauryan Empire is notable for the virtual absence of an archaeology of settlements, and few material remains can be definitively dated to the Mauryan period. This is not because such remains do not exist, but because current archaeological chronologies, based on long-lived ceramic wares, do not yet provide the resolution necessary to pinpoint the relatively brief (by archaeological standards) one-and-a-half century Mauryan period in sites with much longer occupational histories. Apart from the very palpable and durable rock faces and pillars of Ashoka's inscriptions, the huge, powerful Mauryan empire, which had diplomatic relations with the Hellenistic successor-states of Alexander, the Seleucids of Syria and the Ptolemies of Egypt, left a physical imprint that is surprisingly slight so far as we know, and the enterprise of recovering its history has been nearly wholly a matter of studying texts
Hello JJ, the discussion on this talk page during which people have cited only published scholarly sources has been complicated enough. Let's not lose are focus or dissipate our effort by citing youtube videos, and similar sources, interesting though they might be. Fowler&fowler«Talk»11:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i dont think its far-fetched, considering Mauryas had most of the subcontinent by 300 BCE. (300 BCE or around that time is usually marked as the end of chandragupta's conquests) JingJongPascal (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is; "most of the subcontinent" is disputed, as they controlled cities and trade routes, not jungles and deserts, nor the largest part of Gedrosia, or Aria - as explained ad infinitum. Note by the way p.122:
The start of Phase 2 [that includes the Mauryans] may have resulted from a breakthrough in the art of delegating power in a withdrawable way, primarily through bureaucratic hierarchy of roles filled by people, rather than through purely personal relationships. The successful introduction of satrapies may have been the secret weapon which suddenly enabled the Medes and the Persians to build an empire of 5 Mm2 in a world that up to that time had seen no empire surpass 1.3 Mm2.
your quotes in Page 112', literally mention that at this period of time, large empires were being able to form and it isnt 'in line' with your network-model. JingJongPascal (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JingJongPascal: The areas of India + Pakistan + Bangladesh + Nepal + Bhutan + Afghanistan + Iran today = 2,593,652. Please tell us how you would like to subtract 93,652 miles and from which country to arrive at the 2,500,000 estimate you have proposed. Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i have not arrived at this estimate, an scholar has, and areas of is not 2593652. perhaps we are using different unit systems and u have got confused JingJongPascal (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source presented above is part of a series of academic articles about the territorial extents of historical empires by Estonian political scientist Rein Taagepera published between 1978 and 1997:
The latter three articles in part supersede the first one, and indeed our article already cites the 1979 one for the low-end estimate of the peak area. On the rather niche subject of quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities, Taagepera is the central scholar and this series of articles is (probably) the most comprehensive research on that topic ever published. TompaDompa (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a broadscale article. For the most part its sentences are cited to introductory undergraduate or first-year graduate textbooks—in other words, not just any old, source, but those published by major academic publishers and used in classes around the world. To understand the role of introductory textbooks or courses in determining due weight, please read WP:TERTIARY, which is WP Policy.
None of the sources you have listed are Tertiary, and thus none can be employed to say anything general about the Mauryas. A surfeit of narrow-scale source may attest to the reliability of a statement, but not to its need in an encyclopedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in that case, could you explain why it is already used in the article for low end estimate? The sources is same as mine.
I have only paid attention to the text of the lead. I have now looked at the high and low you mention. In my view, neither should be there unless they are cited to a tertiary source such as Kulke and Rothermund; David Ludden; Burton Stein; Romila Thapar; Robin Coningham and Ruth Young; Tim Dyson's Population History of India, OUP, 2018; Michael Fisher's Environmental History of India, CUP, 2018, or some other broadscale textbook. If none of them mention the area, then we can't list anything in the area argument. Note that in the lead we cite Dyson to make a rough statement about population; we mention only the population of South Asia during the Mauryan period, not the population of the Maurya empire. Best regards,
@Fowler&fowler: I think you may have misunderstood my point. I'm not suggesting any of these sources be used for anything other than a numerical estimate for the peak area. We currently cite the 1979 one in the infobox. Replacing it with the one suggested in the edit request would not be appropriate, since the currently-cited source supersedes the suggested one in that particular regard (the estimate was revised between the publication of the earlier and the later article). Now we don't have to provide any numerical estimate for the peak area at all—it's not required information—but if we do, we need to use the WP:BESTSOURCE, which would be the one we are already using. TompaDompa (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean due weight in the specific sense of WP:PROPORTION, or in other words what aspects get covered in the first place, then sure. If you mean it in the sense of whose estimates we should go by, then I cannot agree—using an estimate from a lower-quality (i.e. less reliable) source instead of one from a source that is more reliable for that particular information is a non-starter. WP:BESTSOURCES is specific policy in issues of neutrality. Or to put it another way: I don't object to using tertiary sources to determine whether we should present an area estimate, but I would object to using tertiary sources to determine which area estimate to present here. TompaDompa (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to your first point. To the second, I would say "only general estimates." In other words, if the tertiary sources are unanimous in an estimate like the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan below the Hindu Kush, etc then we go with it. But if only one tertiary source does, then we don't. Also, if the tertiary sources say unanimously the area of the Maurya empire was 2,593,623 square miles, then we also don't. Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's end this discussion. The total land area of an empire whose region of dominion is uncertain cannot be estimated with the kind of due weight an encyclopedia warrants having. I have engaged you well enough. I don't see anything new here. Sorry, but that is my view. If you continue to press the point, I won't be responding Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
] the edicts. There is no need to label the locations, as this would make it unnecessarily complex; simply marking the edicts would suffice.
.jpg)
![[9]](https://www.worldhistory.org/uploads/images/15895.png?v=1695617886){kind=link}
![[82]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Maurya_Empire%2C_c.250_BCE_2.png){kind=link}
