Jump to content

Talk:Maurya Empire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Status quo #2

[edit]

@Fowler&fowler: what consensus are you referring to with your statement diff I am sorry, but there is a consensus on the talk page not to tamper with the WP:STATUSQUO of the lead beyond rephrasing, but not changing the meaning or adding bells and whistles in the infobox.? The only status quo proposed so far is to stick to two maps. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I assume slightly modifying the network model by presenting a more accurate picture by representing vassals as well, without changing the borders in the slightest should not affect the status quo as well. I am open to suggestions on further improvements. PadFoot (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008 No need of depicting vassals in different shade atleast in infobox Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 05:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008 Needless change.[1] The modification you did is needless and doubius and original research. The references you given for location identification of those provinces is very uncertain.

Here in the king's domain among the Greeks, the Kambojas, the Nabhakas, the Nabhapamkits, the Bhoja, the Pitinikas, the Andhras and the Palidas, everywhere people are following Beloved-of-the-Gods' instructions in Dhamma. Rock Edict No.13 (S. Dhammika)

Which geographical map mention these provinces location so accurately. You even failed to provide proper identification of these locations. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't even bother to see the three scholarly sources, I expect. he locations are completely sourced per the sources provided. The sources provide sufficient description of the geographical locations including the capital cities themselves. PadFoot (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not comfortable with too much dickering with the lead. I wrote my sentences carefully cited to the best sources. You've changed them, for example the one about Arthashastra. Instead of leaving it as a work now thought to date to the early centuries CE, you've added the extraneous comment about it no longer being reliable because of .... Scholars don't make such black and white judgments. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Regarding the Arthashastra, Olivelle and McClish do state that the Srthashastra can't be used as a source for the Maurya Empire, as it post-dates the ME. I'll look-up the pagenumbers. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you have the page numbers, there is no academic consensus about its lack of reliability as some scholars consider it to be based on contemporaneous material, which later compilers built on. Ancient Indian scholarship is full of such works. Indian mathematics is a good example. Aryabhatta's work on astronomy, in the lost work Aryabhattiyasidhant, is pieced together from the later commentaries of Bhaskara, Varamahira and others. There is academic consensus that the Arthashastra is a later work, of many centuries later. Let us leave it at that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, implying that it may not be usefull as a source for Mauryan times, without explicitly stating so? Let me think about it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Arthashastra, a work first discovered in the early 20th century and highly regarded as a source for Mauryan times, is traditionally attributed to Kautilya, but now thought to be composed by multiple authors in the first centuries of the common era, providing "a shaky foundation for the edifice built on it."

Quote from Basham's foreword to Trautmann (1971), as cited in the note. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you should leave it at: The Arthashastra, a work first discovered in the early 20th century, and previously attributed to Kautilya, but now thought to be composed by multiple authors in the first centuries of the common era
Trautmann's work is 55 years old. This Christmas morning I won't do anything, but please for the article's sake, do not dicker with the previous text in dozens of small edits. It begins to border on OR. You're a good guy and I've had a good relationship with you, but please do not do this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no other empire in a loose knot fashion on this entire website. Why is Mauryan Empire an exception. This is pure bias 2409:40F4:8:70C4:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements of new updates

[edit]

There has been some new development in terms of timelines of Different Rulers of this dynasty. And, some new Findings about Beliefs & Architecture during Mauryans. Moreover, Some cities aren't added in the map. Shouldn't we Add a Map of Peak extension of the Empire in Down South & East? Skalvanov (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skalvanov Can you briefly explain what those updates are? Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 16:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iran and the Mauryan Empire

[edit]

Hello! Parts of modern-day Iran, like Nepal, were under Mauryan rule. They were ceded by the Seleucids to the Mauryans following the Mauryan-Seleucid war. This is supported by historical records. Should it not be included in the “today part of” section? This edit seems quite uncontroversial. Athukamvamsi (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go through the talkpage-history, and you'll see it's not "uncontroversial," nor "supported by historical records." It's an exaggerated interpretation of an ambiguous remark from a source written 300 years after the supposed event. Worse, the notion of "Maury rule" is questionable, even for India itself. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reputed publications like the National Geographic, World History Encyclopedia and the OER project include Iran. I can see how it’s contentious but I’d argue it’s more controversial to leave Iran out for the Wikipedia page. Athukamvamsi (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
National Geographic? They exist to earn money, not to publish critical scholarship. The World History Encyclopedia is deeply unreliable. Please read the recent discussions; even the southern Indus Valley is questionable... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
World History Encyclopedia is a peer reviewed scholarly source that is regularly updated to reflect the current scholarly general consensus. It’s used by schools and universities including Oxford and University of Wisconsin - Madison. The OER project is a reputable source. University of Chicago researcher Eman Elshaikh wrote a piece on the Mauryan Empire for OER in 2023 and included Iran in its territory. Athukamvamsi (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WHE, Mauryan Empire, published at 6 october 2016, written by Anindita Basu:

I earn my bread as a technical writer and editor but in my free time, I like to pore over history books.

Where exactly do Oxford and University of Wisconsin - Madison use this article?
Regarding Eman Elshaikh, The Mauryan Empire, OER Project: the OER Project is an educational program, not an academic research project; no academic title is given for Eman Elshaikh; and no sources are provided for her map, let alone an explanation for the inclusion of eastern Iran. Not WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

[edit]

@Joshua Jonathan Can you tell me why theres no legacy section? Legacy of Mauryas are really important isn't it? We have this for Ashoka and Chandragupta but not for their empire?? Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 05:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. Is it usefull - I mean, why call it "legacy"? What is "their" legacy? Buddhism? An inspiring example for pan-Indian nationalism? With "their" I mean: is it the men at the top who shape history, or is it the geographic- economic matrix which does so? (Sounds 'Marxist', doesn't it? My mind is shaped by Michel Foucault and the Frankfurter Schule). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ashoka played a role in spread of buddhism, he was first king in world history to ban animal sacrifice ,death sentence and his Pillars are first representation of power in India.We can copy from Ashoka and CHandra articles..Also their role in ROI's national symbols. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 08:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also architectural remains should be a subsection within new legacy section.@Joshua Jonathan Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 08:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the present header is perfectly fine. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kulke mentions that the empire was centralized during rule of Ashoka. SharmaKarmaDharma (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the british raj has a legacy section, why not Maurya?
They were influencial in spreading Buddhism practically everywhere.
If they wouldn't have spread it in south, then the southern Indians wouldnt have spread it to South East Asia. SharmaKarmaDharma (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, about Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a typo in region as regios in the holes map @Joshua Jonathan
Also shouldn't be the solid mass map be above for the thumbnail? Greatest extent is always on the thumbnail for most articles 2409:4041:CE9A:ECEF:A888:DA84:15D5:7849 (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's the typo, exactly? Regarding the suggestion to put the solid mass map on top, maybe we should adjust those other articles. Incorrect representations for the sake of simplicity are still incorrect representations. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

As per the discussion here, I have removed the map which is evidently inflated. I have removed the area count too since it only narrated the inflated map.

Those who wish to restore this map should address the questions raised on the linked discussion. Capitals00 (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edasf "one map solution" was previously disputed. Also see STATUSQUO to stick to two maps[2][3]. NXcrypto Message 17:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't remember where I stood in that debate. Still, three or four months later, the inflated, archaic, overblown, ultra-nationalist, not to mention fanciful map has no place on Wikipedia. Just as Indian craftsmanship could not have jump-started itself from 2,500 years of sleep after Mohenjo-Daro into producing finished sandstone pillars supporting large sculpted capitals, that is, without the aid of Iranian stonemasons who had fled Alexander the Great's sacking of Persepolis and Susa (see the Achaemenid pillars, addorsed lions in those cities made during 500 years before 323 BCE), so also the notion of the Mauryas romping through vast densely forested regions of the subcontinent, when their corner of the Ganges plain had only recently begun to be deforested, is not credible. One map, the one that is currently in place, is all we need. WP is not an equal opportunity attributor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hole map is sourced and normal map too. Most of the Indian Empire pages on Wikipedia use the Schwartzberg map and his Mauryan Empire map is similar to a normal map [4]. It is not fanciful and is supported by sources:
    They are either old sources, or World History sources, that a historian of South Asia (as opposed to of the "World") will be hard-pressed to find without Google, and its many allowances for cherry picking. How can it be that I have never heard of these authors except, of course, Schwartzburg, who was a geographer? His atlas—or should I say, the University of Minnesota's, Historical Atlas, which is based on Burton Stein's scholarship—is now old, for it predates Stein's many reservations about the extent of Mauryan sovereignty expressed in his posthumous History of India, OUP, 1998, updated by David Arnold in 2012. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I don't think, work of Craig Benjamin(2015), Jackson J. Spielvogel(2010), Geoffrey Parker(2008) and Patrick Karl O'Brien(1999) is a old source. Mr.Hanes Talk 20:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a single one is a historian of India. Please read WP:TERTIARY, especially introductory college- or graduate school textbooks on history for their role in matters of due weight. It is Wikipedia policy. Countering them are textbooks on Indian history published by academic publishers authors by recent or current historians of India, such as
    Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fruitless to repeat the discussions. The 'holes map' is solidly sourced; the 'solid mass' map forms an informative contrast, and is factual correct: 'traditional presentation of the Maurya Empire'. Maximum information. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a bad point, JJ. Just as we say in the lead, using words, "The Arthashastra, a work first discovered in the early 20th century, and previously attributed to Chanakya, but now thought to be composed by multiple authors in the first centuries of the common era." in a manner, we also say, using the two pictures:

    "The Maurya Empire was traditionally considered to be a vast empire that stretched from western Afghanistan to the border with Burma, but it is now thought to have gone no farther than the Indus to the west or the Brahmaputra to the east. Moreover, its rule in between was interspersed with large regions whose inhabitants very likely did not acknowledge Mauryan suzerainty."

    Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed these souces are good, and they're cited in hole map and above Hanes also cited good sources. Joshua did a good job in citting both maps and well arranging sources. But if you're asking for close related reference then it may be so many for example,
    and so on. If anyone do a single search on the Internet Archive, they find numerous sources. NXcrypto Message 04:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last time I supported keeping both maps but now I am supporting the one map solution because only the "hole map" is defensible. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds like a changing consensus. Nevertheless, no, precisely because of that, I'd like to repeat my argument: the two maps together are a very strong 'infographic'. The first time I realised what User:Avantiputra7 and F&f were arguing for, which was (and is) further illustrated by the contrast between the two maps, I was really impressed. And a lot of readers and editors are,given the responses and discussion. 'A picture (or two) says more than a thousand words'. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. NXcrypto Message 04:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Shrinking Maurya Empire on Wikipedia (Now), a recent discussion at Reddit which shows a lot of sympathy with 'our' two-map-solution. I think we're striking a chord with a lot of people here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Last time, many users joined the debate, and after two months of discussion, everything remained disputed, ultimately leading to a statusquo. I don't want the same thing to happen again. I don’t think we should waste more of their time here. After all, we know that in the end, many editors will join, and the discussion will become contentious with no clear consensus. NXcrypto Message 05:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maurya_Empire&oldid=1277028312"