Talk:Maurya Empire/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rename; Mauryan to Maurya

I propose the article be renamed to Maurya empire for consistency with the other 'empire' articles; e.g. Chola, et.c. Imc 18:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow,

This page is about the Mauryan Empire and not Alexander; however, the version you continue to revert to finds it necessary to make Alexander the focal point of this article. There are almost as many if not more mentions of him in this article than Chanakya. The Background section is redundant and Alexander's campaigns in the rest of the article are already discussed later. Moreover, not all the kingdoms in India were small, as evidenced by Magadha. This section is purposefully meant to give the wrong impression. Lastly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the macedonian phalanx and other greek fighting techniques/formations were adopted. If you arrogate the rights of a page guardian, then please ensure that such mistakes are avoided.

How did the Mauryan Empire form? What was going on in India before it? I'm sorry, but you cannot remove the entire "Background" section. And how do you not find Chanakya's campaign to unite kingdoms against the Greeks relevant? How did Chandragupta Maurya come to have to contend with a Greek general Nicator? Rama's Arrow 02:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That's right Rama's Arrow, ask yourself that question: How did the Mauryan Empire form? Moreover, Chanakya's campaign to unite the kingdoms is relevant, and is mentioned in the following passage, just as Alexander is. Nicator is mentioned in the following passages anyways, and is truly relevant in the two decades following the empire's founding. These are redundancies that need to be removed. The contention here is on the over-emphasis on Alexander's campaigns. Rather than ignoring my points, please take care to respond to them.

The guy has a point. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to give the reader as good an understanding of a topic in question. As such, any mention of historical figures needs to be commensurate with their actual impact on the history. It is a bit misleading to talk about the Mauryan Empire and refer to Alexander more than Chanakya. It is also misleading to mischaracterize the nature of Indian civilization at the time of Alexander's conquests. While the kingdoms in the Punjab were not quite as militarily powerful, the ones further inside India, such as Magadha, were the most powerful kingdoms of the era. His edits have merit. While it may not necessitate erasing the entire background section, it is definitely worth editing it heavily to more accurately represent the geo-political environment of the time. Moreover, all the information in the "background" section is mentioned in other parts of the article. It doesn't really need to be there. ~Pavs

Mauryan Empire v. Mauryan Dynasty

Mauryan Empire - "lasted from 321 to 185 BCE " Mauryan_dynasty - "from 322 BCE to 183 BCE " Contradiction?

I was navigating these pages and found something very confusing and perplexing. There is a contradiction with the pages of Magadha, the template History of South Asia and the template Middle Kingdoms of India. If i go by this article then the Mauryan Empire is a standalone entity otherwise it is merely an appellation of a famous or more successful dynasty of the Magadha Kingdom. There is a similar problem with the Sunga dynasty/ Empire articles and pages. I just wanted to know which is it? Are these two dynasties or empires because it implies a continued and persistent rulership vs. an interrupted rulership and so should be brought in line. Should Mauryan Empire be redirect to Maurya Dynasty of Magadha? or should the references be removed from the article magadha and the Sunga and Mauryans be treated as seperate kingdoms.

Whatever we decide we need to upgrade the templates Middle Kingdoms of India and History of South Asia accordingly to reflect this consistency as well. At any rate we need to merge the two articles mentioned as they replicate information. One can be a redirect to the other once we work out what goes where.

--Tigeroo 13:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Also a query why did you remove the Merge tag, I think the other page can be easily fit into this page, it is only a list but it carries links to detailed article pages for all the rulers.--Tigeroo 08:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is quite usual on Wikipedia to separate Dynasty lists from Empire of Kingdom articles. I personally do not mind either way. PHG 23:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't beleive there is a link that even leads from this page to that, it almost seems like both were started independently and on just froze out, thats the impression created by the other article and the links it makes.--Tigeroo 10:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion and lack of

Carvaka was also a major force in this period - I get the impression it was at least as powerfull as the Jain community. Ajivika was an early sect not unlike Buddhism and Jainism. Some theorise that Bindusara was a member of it. Upanishadic philosophy and Hindu reform should also be mentioned. It is interesting that out of all the classical civilizations, India is the only one where an atheistic/agnostic system had such influence - even in Greece, the major religious community opressed atheistic philosophers. Vastu 10:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Maps

I quicky added a couple of maps - Chandragupta's conquests, Bindusaras conquests, and Ashokas conquests, plus Magadha under the Shungas - they may need formatting or editing though. Vastu 19:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vastu. Great maps. Additionallly, I think it would be nice to have a view of the territorial situation just before the advent of the Shunga. At present, the last map seems to show the terrotory of the Sungas themselves, which somewhat falls beyond the scope of the article. Regards PHG 05:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My thinking behind that was that the map of Magadha before the Mauryas seemed to show the extent of the Nanda or Shishunga dynasty (although I have seen some maps of the Nanda dynasty that give their size at almost that of the Shungas) - however I have removed the Shunga one for the reasons you mentioned - i.e. the Shungas actually slightly expanded their rule after the collapse of the last Mauryan king. I think it will be difficult finding an accurate depiction of the extent of post-Ashoka rulership, as historical records deteriorated after his phase, so I dont think I will be able to create a map for that time period - so its probably best to stick with the current four. Good luck on the rest of the article :-) Vastu 10:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerns about undue weight

I don't support the excising of the information, but I feel we should get more info from Buddhist oriented sources or Jain sources to make it bigger. Because it does seem as though there is not much detail about Ashoka and Buddhism and Ashoka the conqueror, and the same in the Maurya Empire - at the moment there is lots of information about the Greek connection, which inherently there is nothing wrong, but it may give the impression that Ashoka was a Greek reprentative or something - it just feels a bit too oriented on his bloodline and not what he nor the Mauryans achieved. In any case it was interesting that I got Mahinda (his son, who brought Buddhism to Sri Lanka) and Moggaliputta-Tissa (his spiritual adviser) to DYK in the week leading up to the locking - could we put more stuff about Buddhism into the articles to balance it out as well as his stuff about the Kalinga conquest etc. The Greek stuff is still interesting of course and I don't see a reason to cull it unless there is POV or weaselly stuff compromising it. Anything this old, of course cannot be certain, so as long as we give both a fair hearing then it should work out OK. This could be an interesting case as I am interested in learning more about Asoka. Perhaps I can find more about his Indian activity (religion and miltary) to balance it out. Tell me what you think. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not like culling would constitute censorship. There is a lot of redundancy between the information here and elsewhere, like the Ashoka page and the Indo-Greeks page.

That and having these sections of Hellenistic relations taking up half the article just seems kind of silly. The way it's written one would think the Indo-Greeks constituted the major regional superpower and all other kingdoms in the area were defined by their relationships to them. This is far from the reality.

This would be analogous to an encyclopedia article about the United States going into ponderous detail about our diplomatic ties with Canada. Sure Canada is a nice country, but in all honesty, it is not all that important to understanding what America is all about.

It would make a lot more sense to put all this information in a seperate article on "Hellenistic relations with Indian states" and just link to it from elsewhere when appropriate.

Pavanapuram 19:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Languages Section

I just noticed underneath the map it lists Greek and Aramaic as languages of the empire. What's that about? I'm just curious as to whether we can deign to figure out some sort of standard to distinguish between a language of the empire from a language spoken in the empire. It wouldn't just be for this article, but for pretty much every empire in the ancient world seeing as how these empires generally spanned a large variety of languages and cultures. Pavanapuram 02:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Hellenistic Relations section

Is it just me or is an inordinate amount of time spent on relations with hellenistic world. It seems that more than a third of the article is dedicated to that--more space than even the origin, achievements, or rulers of the empire. In the interest of community discussion, I wanted to raise this issue before deleting the bulk of the section. My understanding of the original purpose of the stub was that it was to highlight the main points of interaction between the hellenistic and Mauryan empires and not to dominate the entire article as done here. These facts are definitely worthy of mention on this page, but not to the extent that hellenistic relations becomes almost the single largest section. The contributor curiously finds it necessary to repeat points that were stated earlier in the article and incorporate an array of crackpot theories without an iota of proof. This injures the quality of the article. First and foremost, where is the proof that this was a dynastic alliance? Frankly, since it is epigamia and not kenos that is mentioned (as noted by Dr.Nilakantha Shastri "The Age of Nandas and Mauryas", Banaras, 1952.) it is almost certainly referring to Intermarriage between Indians and Greeks. Second of all, even if a dynastic alliance took place, it is a stretch to believe that automatically a greek princess must have been the chief queen of an Indian Emperor. Third, at the time this treaty was sealed, Bindusara was already a grown man and Ashoka was already born, in 304 BCE (the settlement took place in 303BCE). Accordingly, Indian records account for Ashoka's parentage while Greek sources do not. These indigenous sources clearly note that Ashoka was born of Bindusara and a minor queen of the brahmin caste (the caste point is raised to highlight the fact that the queen was an indian and not otherwise). Essentially, this contributor develops these far-fetched notions in order to lend credence to his positions. The propagation of such "theories" are to the detriment of the quality of the article. They are being used by a contributor to lay the groundwork for his treasured notion that bactrian greeks invaded India out of a sense of justice, nobility, and dynastic connection rather than the more obvious and natural desire for conquest and expansion (as noted on the Indo Greeks page). History must be based on evidence from archaeological and accurate/dependable documentation. It should not be subject to musings of people who "like to to think that such and such a thing happened". If fantasy is injected into the many gaps of history, we are doing a disservice to both history and wikipedia's readers. Please do not commandeer this page to advance political purposes.

Regards,

Devanampriya

Hi Devanampriya. It simply happens that there is a large amount of Hellenistic ressource on the Maurya Empire, and this clearly builds our understanding of the empire. If the other parts of the article can be strengthened a bit, the Hellenistic portion will naturally decrease in weight... but the fact that it is large and highly documented is no reason to cut it down.

Regarding the discussions on marital alliance, this is just relaying here some published analysis by Tarn, Marshall etc... It is clearly just one theory, and alternative views are very welcome.

I have no "political agenda" whatsoever, but only am interested in the interactions of cultures. Regards PHG 07:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello PHG,

My friend, it also happens that there is a wealth of information on the art and architecture of the period, relations between other indian states (i.e. the andhras), the nature of the government, etc, etc. These can and will definitely be included in time. However, the concern here is that the hellenistic portion consists primarily of points that are almost all previously repeated. In essence, establishing it as the dominant theme throughout the article. That section would be better placed to discuss Bindusara's correspondence with Antiochus I, Ashoka's mentions of the various hellenistic rulers and his conquest through righteousness, and Subhagasena's friendship with Antiochus III.

Regarding the marital alliance, it is far-fetched fiction that neither author provided a shred of actual proof for. For points all previously mentioned, these musings are rendered moot, and indeed have been rendered moot, as there has been no evidence in their favor. All the points trying to link greeks with the ruling mauryan line have been negated. These same tactics were previously applied towards crediting greeks for the introduction of astronomy, drama, and a laundry list of other things because the british wanted to believe it. If we continue to use such tactics, Indians could then lay claim to the development of all western philosophy and learning since Pythagoras and his followers were all vegetarians and that theorem was first developed in India.

I am glad that you declare that you do not have a political purpose. In the interest of observing this, let us stick to the facts. What you cite is no longer valid proof much like the previous claims of Greek linkages.

Regards,

Devanampriya

I think rather than Greek sources that may have been written in Europe, it would be best to focus on Buddhist and Jain accounts of the era (keeping in mind they may have been biased against Vedic authority, etc). A good book on Chandragupta's rule by P L Bhargava is available. It suggests that rather than Greeks, it was Persians who had a greater influence on Magadhan rule - for instance in political administration of a large empire - it is perhaps no coincidence that Chandragupta and Qin Shi Huang, the respective 'first emperors' of India and China, rose shortly after the speard of Achaemenid doctrines on governance of large territories. Persia was clearly the most influencial power of this era, yet modern scholars are only now acknolwedging this. Much early British scholarship on India consisted of Euro-centric speculation - I suggest that they should be taken with a pinch of salt, given that nobody would dream of using 60 year old Nazi sources to back up modern scholarship on the racial makeup of Europe - the Hellenic world was clearly not the only major sphere of influence in this era, yet is often treated as such - there is afterall no talk of the 'Persian world', etc. Ashoka Maurya likely had a greater influence on world hitory than Alexander of Macedon, given his proliferation of Buddhism, etc (could Christianity have existed without this influence?) - yet when thinking of how one is known as a household name, and one isnt, you can clearly see the magnitude of bias, and how it arose. Wikipedia isnt just open source so that history textbooks can be repeated, but it a project designed to overcome the flaws in these areas, like this very kind of bias - lets not repeat the mistakes or deliberate errors of the past for a whole new generation to experience via the ultimate medium of the internet. Vastu 10:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can assimilate Tarn's or John Marshall's work to "Nazi sources". They are noted historians of the Hellenistic period, who, although arguably enthousiastic about Greek influence, are still highly respected, and still quoted extensively, regarding the ancient story of India. I don't see either why ancient Indian sources should be "privileged" versus ancient Greek sources. Arguably, Greek sources have a record of being generally more accurate, and anyway, both have the right to stand as primary sources. Negating ancient Greek sources, and negating what they suggest, is akin to censorship. All sides of the story have the right to stand, for the sake of a more comprehensive understanding of history. I personnally incorporate both ancient Greek as well as ancient Indian sources whenever I can, and expect anyone to respect both. Regards PHG 11:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, greek sources have been so accurate that they note that "ethiopian semen is black", "Giant ants dig gold dust", and "men with one leg bounce around throughout india". First of all, you're the one who is attempting to commandeer the page for your own purposes. You have done so before and continue to do so now. You don't read up on the topics properly before commenting (i.e. Indian Astronomy and philosophy), and you make insinuations without merit. Using all of these you concoct the furthest possible fantasies to justify your conceits.

Tarn is quoted extensively by you, and you have used him as your basis for the statement. Regarding India, you have used Tarn's clear opinion (and not construction of facts) to drive this statement to appropriate Ashoka's legacy. Ashoka was born before your settlement, and indian sources clearly note otherwise. You have now both reason and a direct counter in the Ashokavadana. I don't see why your hero, Tarn, should be regarded as more privileged than reason and indigenous sources. Your insinuations amount to sneaky vandalism. You have done this before on other articles.

Lastly, please don't send your thug aldux to intimidate me. His charged comments and uncivil behavior stand against the community orientation of wikipedia, and pale only in comparison to his ignorance. Let us debate like people instead of using others to intimidate each other.

Regards,

Devanampriya

Thanks for the reply PHG. I dont believe I at any point talked about disregarding Greek sources - I did however note that Jain and Buddhist sources are closer to the subject matter, and infact rather reliable, seeing as they each saw portrayal of the truth to be consistent with their agnostic philosophies. I dont see how favoring them resembles censorship of Greek sources.

'"They are noted historians of the Hellenistic period, who, although arguably enthousiastic about Greek influence, are still highly respected, and still quoted extensively, regarding the ancient story of India."' - it is this sort of enthusiasm that until recently hid the nature of the Persian contribution to early history.

Colonial era British sources, and their immediate followers, tend to be biased, hence the comparison with the Nazi regime - i.e. its not in the interest of ruling parties to promote the culture of those they occupy, it is infact in their interest to disfavor the originality and influence of the culture they occupy - the example of Sir Mortimer Wheeler's immediate assumption about an 'Aryan invasion', based upon bodies that were not even located within the same strata of the Harappan ruins, (that has plagued Indian scholarship for 70 years), is a prudent example.

Im not that interested in where this article goes - its just that things should be made more clear for people who treat wikipedia as their primary source of information - else they take these accounts at face value. Unfortunatly, while the standard wiki response is 'do it yourself' - since I dont plan on contributing to this article in any way, I have to ask that those who are, take these sensitivities into account.

When writing about an important Indian dynasty, it is best to be familiar with Indian scholarship on the matter - I wouldnt dream of going into a Greek dynasty with ancient Indian and imperial Turkish accounts as my main backing. Im not saying 'dont do it' because I want to see this article be featured - and you are a skilled contributor PHG.

The Mauryans are my faovrite pre-Christ dynasty - ill enjoy seeing what you two, as well as others, do to improve the article - good luck! Vastu 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear PHG,

I noticed your comment regarding the marital alliance section and was a little disconcerted when you said. "Regarding the discussions on marital alliance, this is just relaying here some published analysis by Tarn, Marshall etc... It is clearly just one theory, and alternative views are very welcome." My understanding is that the purpose of an encyclopedia article is not to espouse every "theory" under the sun. The purpose is to allow a reader to develop a general understanding of the predominant academic consensus on an issue. Mentioning fringe theories does not enrich the article, it only elevates the credibility of various crackpot theories beyond their merit. And if you choose to discredit these fringe ideas later on in the article, what is the point of mentioning them in the first place? As far as I know, Ashoka's parentage as being of a Bhramin queen is not in any credible disupte. Claims to the contrary are, currently, little more than idle musings and unsubstantiated "what if" scenarios that can hardly be considered to merit mention. Cluttering up the article with all these random references to relatively unimportant theories only serves to make the article ponderous and unreadable. Keep it pithy and to the point.

By the way, just because some point you wish to say has a source does not mean it deserves to be mentioned in an article. I could cite Stephen Colbert as my source for all sorts of crazy claims, but just because I refute them later in the article does not mean it deserved to be in there in the first place. Such a practice of insinuation will only serve to enhance the credibility of biased viewpoints. It will not improve the integrity and informativeness of an article.

-Regards, Pavs Pavanapuram 01:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pavs, thanks for the post. The fact that there was Epigamia is recognized by I think everybody, meaning either a dynastic alliance, or the recognition of marriage between Indians and Greeks. If it is a dynastic alliance, then there was intermarriage between the two dynasties, and of course Ashoka is a natural candidate as a result of such a union (first suggested by Tarn and Marshall). This is no crackpot theory, just a very straightforward inference from what Western sources say. Of course there is also the Ashokavadana tradition that Ashoka was born from a Brahmin woman, but not everything in the Ashokavadana can be taken at face value. There is no certainty here, and I think both accounts deserve representation. Regards PHG 20:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. Just because Tarn and Marshall mused about something does not mean it is the broad academic consensus on a topic, nor does it mean it deserves mention. There is nothing "natural" about Ashoka's candidacy. There is nothing there but blind speculation to even hint at it, just because you have a citation for the speculation doesn't mean it is anything less than speculation. Bindasura had a lot of children. (As many as 99 by some counts.) And the story goes that Ashoka had to go on quite a killing spree of his siblings in order to secure the throne. To say Ashoka was a "natural" candidate without any evidence to point to Ashoka above all his other siblings is patently absurd. Especially in light of the fact that contradictory sources, which actually specify his parentage, discredit it. To suggest otherwise with any measure of certainty is simply Grecophilia.

"Of course there is also the Ashokavadana tradition that Ashoka was born from a Brahmin woman, but not everything in the Ashokavadana can be taken at face value."

Oh please. I have seen you egregiously cherry pick obscure references from sources like the Gargi Samitha and Yuga Purana when it suits you. You didn't seem to have any qualms about taking sources at face value then. And even in those cases, your penchant for drawing conclusions based on independant research in this article, and others, is rather disconcerting.

Pavanapuram 23:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pav. Please note I try to present both sides on the story as much as I can. On the Maurya-related page, I wrote both about the Ashokavadana (which did not even exist as an article and I created) and the Hellenistic tradition. I also created the articles for the Edicts of Ashoka, the Yuga Purana, the Hathigumpha inscription etc..., I created most of the graphic material on Indian art and artificats on these pages. I cannot understand your wish to select only one side of the story and eliminate the other. This is sad. History is a matter of debate with various theories. There is not "one truth". Your doubts about Ashoka's origins are legitimate, but the suggestion that he may have some Greek ascendency is also legitimate and has been published by major historians (didn't Ashoka even write edicts in Greek?). See also, "The Cambridge Shorter History of India", by J.Allan, p33: "If the usual oriental practice was followed and if we regard Chandragupta as the victor, then it would mean that a daughter or other female relative of Seleucus was given to the Indian ruler or to one of his sons, so that Asoka may have had Greek blood in his veins." Bottom line: this is referenced, published material by major historians, it has the right to be presented as per the Wikipedia philosophy. And if you don't like what these sources say, well, I can only be sorry for you, but please try to respect them at least. Regards. PHG 05:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

PHG; Select one side of the story and eliminate the other? Good God man you sound like a creationist! It's not a matter of selecting sides. It's a matter of mentioning theories that are broadly accepted and backed up with credible evidence. That means something from a direct source. The fact is, the only primary source that mentions Ashoka's mother says she was a Bhramin. The only claim that Ashoka's parentage is anything but that come from idle musings from historians. Even they do not bother to back up their claim with anything substantial. First of all, Chandragupta had many many sons as did Bindusara. To make such a claim requires relying on a whole bunch of half-baked assumptions. First you have to assume she was married to Bindusara and not Chandragupta or any of his other sons. Then you have to assume Ashoka was the product of that union and not of any of Bindasura's other kids. If I had concrete numbers as to how many uncles and siblings Ashoka had I'd calculate the odds out for you. But as it stands, they are simply not in your favour. I am sorry you find yourself unable to accept the only credible source with anything to say on the issue, but I am afraid you will just have to.

Pavanapuram 01:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

An edit war that leads to a locked article is in nobody's best interest - better to have a featured article than a locked one.

It is a shame that there is such stigma about 'bloodlines' in the world - something I doubt very much people in Ashoka's day would have cared about - but when a culture anywhere introduces the the fallic idea of purity, the cat is out of the bag, with everyone wanting to claim they were 'untouched'. The reality of course is very different - recognition of India's contribution to world culture is quite safe, but even if it wasnt, it is the open cultures, who do not believe in childish ideals like purity that have always been the most sucessfull, as they assimilate ideas from across the world. The idea of isolation is utterly fallic.

The British in the colonial era believed in long dead ideas of European racial superiority, and not so dead ideas of European intellectual superiority - this has left a permenent scar on the Indian psyche - we try to right the wrongs of the past with an equal and opposite nationalistic reaction. Same goes for other societies that have similar psychological scars, like China. Even people who know very well that the idea of purity is a complete child's dream, feel they must defend the originality of their culture simply because other people who do believe in these ideas will take a simple quote like 'he may have been partly Greek', and derive as much nationalistic fuel from it as they can.

I dont really see what is so bad about mentioning this possibility explicitly as a theory. Besides, Chandragupta was the greatest of the Mauryan Emperors - he was the Qin Shi Huang of India, and Chanakya was his Sun Tzu. Vastu 07:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Vastu; I agree completely. That is precisely why this little tidbit smells so sour to me. It seems to be plainly motivated by an attempt to appropriate Ashoka's parentage to aggrandize a particular race of people rather than letting the man's acheivements speak for themselves and the society he grew up in. So much so that the perpetrators would say such a thing in direct contradiction to all the primary sources on the topic.

Pavanapuram 01:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Vastu for your openness. I personnally think these instances of close interaction between the two faraway worlds of Greece and India (even on the religious and marital plans) are some of the most beautiful and in a sense "modern" events of Ancient History (don't we talk about the interaction of world cultures in the 20th century as a new phenomenon!). And it goes both ways: the contribution of India to the rest of the world is of course amazing (I wish we had more understanding of the impact of the "Buddhist missions" sent by Ashoka to the Mediterranean world). Regards PHG 12:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I presume Vastu's post was addressed to me, I am responding. I understand your concerns about page protection, but that was not requested by me. The concern here is that fringe theories are being presented as the mainstream one, instead of the alternate version. While our philhellenic contributor above notes that Ashoka wrote in greek, an absence of understanding is demonstrated here as greek and aramaic were the languages used to reach out to foreigners--who were common in that region--and neighboring states who utilized those languages. Darius wrote in babylonian (behistun rock), in spite of that fact that he was an ethnic persian. Regardless, the point is that we keep this as an unbiased page rather than an instrument to "give greeks their due in India". These articles should not be megaphones for individuals who wish to trumpet a culture everywhere. Since the stated goal here is to ensure the most accurate record of history possible, and this entry was not in line with that, I was forced to counter edit.

Clearly, no civilization is untouched (as the greeks owe much to the egyptians and persians, chinese to the indians, and really, everyone to almost everyone). But it is one thing to rely on mainstream accepted theories and another to rely on throwbacks to the colonial era.

When an exchange is being proposed, the burden of proof is on the proposing party. It is because there is a dearth of this, that mainstream scholarship rejects the Greek heritage of Ashoka as the main one (esp since Bindusara's wives and concubines were in no shortage, and the dates of marriage and birth do not match up). In the wake of these overwhelming reasons, why has the vast majority of the modern Indological community not accepted this? Because, the odds are not in its favor. So why is an insistence placed upon using this as main version?

The very credulity of the ashokavadana is being questioned by the contributor while at the same time, the divyavadana is relied on to no end in order to condemn the Sungas. It is this willingness to cherrypick that has concerned me and other contributors about the intent of this edit.

Vastu, I understand your desire to make this an FA through additional material and editing, but with such POV-laced material, our common goal remains unreached. Efforts, to improve this article and others like it (indo-geek map, etc) have been stifled without debate before.

The biggest concern here is that this theory is used to further the cause of an even more preposterous one--namely that Demetrius invaded on account of his being the only heir on hand (with Ashoka's hypothesized Seleucid bloodlines being the foundation for that). The incredulity of this further developed on account of the fact that he attacked the Indian King Subhagasena who himself was a mauryan heir. Just as the rig vedas were abused for AIT, the puranas are being abused for Greek Savior theories.

As a similar debate occurred for the origin of Chandragupta Maurya, and the solution that was accepted was a separate page to discuss such ideas, I have proposed just such a compromise. the philhellenic contributor above refuses to even address it let alone accept it. If all parties are interested in a compromise for accuracy's sake, than I am more than satisfied.

Regards,

Devanampriya

I am afraid this polemic is off the point. Please read again the paragraph about "Marital alliances" that you have been repeatedly deleting: it is only a discussion of the nature of the Epigamia treaty, as an example of the relations between the Greeks and the Mauryas. You will note that the described conjecture that a Seleucid princess was bethrothed to the Mauryas, either to Chandragupta or Bindusara is indeed mainstream and made by almost any historian I know of, and as far as I know it is also favoured by the India historical community. There is absolutely no reason to delete this.

Rather than the whole paragraph, I suppose that the phrase which offends you is "Ashoka, the son of Bindusara, also happens to have been born around the time this matrimonial alliance was sealed." This is just one phrase, which alludes to a supposition made by some scholars of Antiquity (Tarn, Marshall), in "The Cambridge Shorter History of India", and by several modern scholars (McEvilley, "The shape of ancient thought", 2002, p367, ISBN 1581152035: "Asoka may have been either one-half or one-quarter Greek"). Right after, it mentions the version of the Ashokavadana, which I think is quite balanced as an account, and that's it.

To answer your point, I do not think it is worth creating a new page just to address this one-phrase point. And I cannot believe just mentioning this one-phrase hypothesis is wrong.

Rather than erasing this whole paragraph, maybe a slight rephrasing could be done. Maybe you could qualify the Ashokavadana version as the "mainstream theory"? (with reference please, because I am not even sure this is true)... how about: "There is a possibility that Ashoka, who was born around the time this matrimonial alliance was sealed, was a fruit of this union (Tarn, Marshall, The Cambridge Shorter History of India p33), although the 2nd century account of the Ashokavadana (the only remaining ancient account of Ashoka's ancestry), describing Ashoka as the son of Bindusara with the daughter of a brahmin, is generally followed" PHG 22:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I havent been following this too closely, but it seems to me the solution is simple; wherever this threory is presented about Ashok's parentage, mention that the only source that even mentions his mother says Brahmin or whatever. This seems balanced. Pav is right about the primary source being the most important, but eliminating this theory is wrong. As Vastu put it, there isnt such a thing as purity in an inherently diverse world.

In reponse to PHG's note above:

   Please read again the paragraph you have repeatedly been including in Ashoka. It rediscusses the entire point regarding Epigamia verbatim, and is a whole section in an already inordinate account of hellenistic relations. That is the reason for its deletion there. 
   Moreover, you note that every major historian has discussed this point about epigamia in the Maurya Empire article. Who is debating that point? And who deleted the entire paragraph? I specifically left the paragraphs which denotes that either intermarriage OR a dynastic alliance occurred and the corresponding primary text reference. What I deleted was the following speculation. We are debating about the Ashoka parentage theory: something which is not accepted by every major historian. And if it's only the ones you have read that note this, perhaps you should expand your reading list. 
   Maybe you should start off with Dr. Nilakantha Sastri who wrote the seminal work on the Mauryas in his The Age of the Nandas and Mauryas ed. Motilal Banarsidass. He notes how there is the inherent discrepancy between epigamia and kenos. Epigamia refers to the recognition of intermarriage where as kenos refers to the actual dynastic alliance. Nevertheless, I was not even contesting the interpretation of epigamia versus kenos. What I did note, was that one of the most respected and widely read and accepted scholars of Indian History pointed that out in the debate about dynastic alliance and how historians should not be irresponsible in how they interpret that, specifically, in speculating that the rulers of the empire were part greek. So Tarn's theory is clearly not the mainstream perspective. And is not even echoed by succeeding Indian historians.
  The point we were debating was regarding whether Bindusara and Ashoka were products of such a union. And that is something that no historian is in a position to do(Ages of Bindusara and Ashoka not corresponding, plentiful wives and concubines for both, etc). As such, the Ashokavadana, in spite of your protests, is the mainstream theory, as it is the only account of Ashoka's birth that we have (and even provides the origin of his name). In fact, a balanced representation is not mentioning Tarn's theory every time and following up with the Ashokavadana, but rather, noting that the primary source is the accepted account, while not the existence of colonial and neocolonial theories. 

    My biggest concern is that wikipedia is the primary source for many individuals and a truly accurate account is necessary. People have constantly misinterpreted and misread history with unfortunate consequence (i.e. naked indian female archers in Creative Assembly's Rome Total War follow up "Alexander"). Female bodyguards of harems and kings were interpreted to be battlefield units, with unfortunate consequences in the game. It appears that the same type of misinterpretation appears here again. That is the reason for my insistence on caution, and why it would be in the interest of avoiding such misinterpretation in the future by creating a separate page on theories of dynastic alliances. Such a page would be more appropriate for such speculation and not the main page of an article that millions read and learn from.

   Dr. Dinesh Agrawal published a paper on why there is reason to believe that Alexander was defeated at the Battle of the Hydaspes. However, it does not appear on the main page of the Alexander article, and I would not insist on it myself in spite of the fact that it is a citable source. This is for the simple reason that it is not widely accepted as a theory, and I would not want to misinform the reader into thinking it was (Note: This is not a comment on the scholarly value and veracity of Dr. Agrawal's work). That is the reason why precedence should not be given to the Tarn theory and why speculation should not occur on the main page.

Lastly, no one here is arguing for purity, so there is no need to debate that point. India is a racially, ethnically, religiously, culturally, and linguistically diverse country. All I seek is an accurate representation of its history.

Regards,

Devanampriya

I am afraid it is meaningless and unethical to insist on eliminating the mention of a significant historical theory (described in Tarn, Marshall, Mc Evilley or "The Cambridge Shorter History of India") on the nature of the alliance that occured. We would all learn a lot more if you put you mention of Dr. Nilakantha Sastri as a balance, with references, so that we can read his quotes and books. The mention is part of the "Relation with the Hellenistic world" section, where it has a very legitimate place indeed. By the way, I am not sure M.Mc Evilley, author of the 2003 "The Shape of Ancient Thought", would appreciate being called a "neocolonial theorist", whatever that means.

I would never qualify the Ashokavadana as "an accurate representation of history". It is just a great secondary source (written 5 centuries after the fact), that brings admittedly a strong presumption in favor of the "brahmin mother" theory, but certainly no unassailable proof. As far as I know, we are writing an encyclopedia, not a textbook for children, and an encyclopedia is only made richer by the addition of referenced sources, not by focusing on just one hypothetical thruth.

I suggest we finish the discussion here, I have proposed a compromise wording, and I don't see why there should be a big issue with this: "There is a possibility that Ashoka, who was born around the time this matrimonial alliance was sealed, was a fruit of this union (Tarn, Marshall, The Cambridge Shorter History of India p33, Mc Evilly), although the 2nd century account of the Ashokavadana (the only remaining ancient account of Ashoka's ancestry), describing Ashoka as the son of Bindusara with the daughter of a brahmin, is generally followed". Let's move to something more productive now. PHG 05:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.

Seems reasonable to me also; what counts is that both theories are presented, and since the Ashokavadana's narration appears to be the most popular, this preeminence should be mentioned.--Aldux 22:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I support this also. Vastu 02:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

PHG's material is biased and gives the wrong impression to readers about the ancestry of ashoka. Indigenous sources should not be tossed aside to suit colonial theories.

PHG,

I would never qualify the Ashokavadana as "an accurate representation of history". It is just a great secondary source (written 5 centuries after the fact)

Keep in mind that Strabo, Polybus, and Justin all wrote centuries after Alexander was pushing up daisies. If you're going to insist on twisting indigenous mentions of the Greeks to aggrandize them, you cannot, in good conscience, brush aside indigenous sources whenever they fail to comply with your Grecophilia. If every historian you've read dwells on this idle speculation, I humbly suggest you broaden your reading-list.

This may not be a children's book, but neither is it a platform for blowing minor fringe theories and the contributions of historical actors completely out of proportion when it suits you. The article is supposed to give readers an accurate understanding of the Mauryan Empire. It is not your soapbox to "give the greeks their due" or whatever.

Pavanapuram 20:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is brushing aside indigenous sources. On the contrary, I am the one who added the mention of the Ashokavadana here, and created the Ashokavadana article to back it up. As for indigeneous sources, I also created the Edicts of Ashoka article, the Hathigumpha inscription article, the Mahavamsa article, the Heliodorus pillar article, or the Yuga Purana article. And yes, all secondary sources have to be handled with some care and are generally not sufficient to reject alternative interpretations. Have you ever read the Ashokavadana? Its story of Pusyamitra Sunga's killing of Buddhist monks is an indication it might have been the case, but alternative theories according to which he sponsored Buddhism instead are current nevertheless. I am as "Graecophil" as I am Francophile, Japanophile or Indianophile. Let's stop this paranoia about Greek sources and the historical thought derived from them: history is made of multiple sources and theories, and Greek sources are some of the richest we have on the Maurya Empire. PHG 05:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

PHG,

It doesn't matter who mentioned the Ashokavadana, the point is the issue itself is not important enough to be mentioned at all. All it does is brings up a questionable theory and then debunks it with a more sound one a few sentences later. It is not an issue that is so hotly debated that any understanding of the Mauryan Empire would be incomplete without knowing it. We are not trying to recreate every debate about Indian history in these articles. We are trying to give people a quick and dirty, yet comprehensive understanding of the subjects they research here.

All this mention does though, is inflates the influence of fringe theories beyond their merit and fails to enrich the reader's understanding of the Mauryan Empire in any significant way. It would be analogous to me going into an article about Charles Darwin to say that

"Pastafarians believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created life as we know it. But leading scientists contend that. . .

I still say your use of sources in such a way is highly questionable. Why do we get to mention a fringe theory about Ashoka's parentage when it gets to boost the rep of the Greeks, but dismiss Dinesh Agrawal's reading of classical texts concluding that Alexander was defeated at the Hydaspes? I don't think Dinesh Agarwal's reading should be in the Alexander article precisely because it is not a significant or hotly debated issue. Likewise, this should not be here.

Pavanapuram 03:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, no need to get excited there, PHG. I think the previous contributor was just pointing out that if you can't take it, don't dish it out; after all, the whole bias accusation bit did begin with you. Also, it does seem like you do praise indigenous sources such as the yuga purana and mahabharata when it suits (in spite of the fact that their intrepretation of greeks to mean yavanas has been disputed--as noted by scholars such as klaus karttunen), and deprecate them when it does not. Your point about the Ashokavadana is noted, bearing in mind that the possible exaggeration about Pushyamitra was a mechanism intended to note the decline of buddhist patronage, and not as a fable of Ashoka's birth. Lastly, just so that we're clear, the mainstream view is the brahmin mother theory and not the seleucid ancestry bit. As the other contributors have noted, preeminence should be given to that.

Don’t worry, Nilakantha Sastri and other respectable sources are on there way. By the way, you are not a citeworthy scholar, so your opinion about the Ashokavadana is irrelevant. It is a primary source, and should not be brushed aside because it does not suit you.

As the sysop below noted, the Hellenistic relations section is inordinate. Your point is mistaken. The Ashoka and Mauryan articles are not a playground for your Hellenic interests. Represent history properly and proportionally.

As for the importance of this edit, it has been disputed by some that this is a relatively minor point; however, it is important to recognize that there have been repeated attempts by PHG to deify the indo-greeks as saviors of India from Indians. He has attempted to construct an image of the greeks only engaging in military action for altruistic purposes (such as saving Buddhism), when in reality, greeks, like all other peoples, we driven by expanding territory, increasing wealth, etc. This gives a false and detrimental impression of history. This point about Ashoka’s ancestry is one more nail in that platform, meant to show how Demetrius must have only invaded because he had a claim to the mauryan throne (preposterous since Subhagasena, the Indian king of the Kabul Valley whom Demetrius defeated, was actually of the royal line, and a more legitimate claimant anyway). That is called sneaky vandalism as the most far-fetched theory is conjured up to create a false impression of history.

Anyhow, in the interest of resolving this dispute so that other contributors can add on to the page, the following rephrase is recommended:

"While the marriage arrangement has led some to speculate that Ashoka may have been a product of this, the scholarly consensus is that Ashoka was born from a Brahmin mother who was a minor queen of Bindusara” (cite Ashokavadana)

Regards,

Devanampriya

I certainly do not share these rhetorics (most of all, we are not here to pick which theory should be presented or not in Wikipedia, as long as we are talking about published material from reputable sources, as per as WP:V), but I am absolutely fine with a compromise statement (my own proposal above as well). I suggest slight modifications for neutrality of language and referencing:

"The marriage arrangement has led some to suggest that Ashoka may have been a product of this union (cite Cambridge Shorter History of India, Mc Evilley), although the general view is that Ashoka was born from a Brahmin mother who was a minor queen of Bindusara, based on the account of the Ashokavadana (quote Ashokavadana)."

By the way, it is not Demetrius who encountered Subhagsena but Antiochos III, about 30 years before (and there is no record of a fight, only a "renewal of friendship", and the reception of elephants and presents (Polybius 11.39)).

Regards PHG 08:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of Subhagasena and Antiochus, as I do believe I pointed out Polybius' words to you when you referred to a Military Campaign by him. See John Keay regarding Demetrius's encounter, after all, your bactrian friend did conquer the Kabul Valley. I believe this is also echoed by bopearachchi.

Devanampriya

British

The link in the third paragraph goes to a disambiguation page, it should be relinked to the british empire. See British if you think it should relink somewhere else.Sam Hayes 13:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ancient India

The link to Ancient India in the first line leads to a disambiguation page. I tried to fix this earlier before noticing the protected status. Might I reccomend to the powers that be that the link lead to History of India instead? = KaoBear^(talk) 13:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight to Chanakya and detailed biographies of Chandragupta's usurpation

This article gives undue weight to a character rarely even mentioned in any reliable historical sources on India.

are there any Greeks even talking about the great wiley Chanakya going around trying to start wars and advising Chandragupta Maurya? No. They do mention Nandas indirectly, and Sandracotus by name. We don't even know who Chandragupta was, except that since he was a competant general, he must've already been a military man. Beyond that it is pure speculation...--216.254.121.169 16:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC) --216.254.121.169 16:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Organization

The article stubs seem to be rather raw; it bounces from "India's first empire" to "bindusara" and seems rather disjunctive. I suggest streamlining the intro paragraph (which should contain key points), moving on to "Preceding Magadhan dynasties" (ie Shisunagas and Nandas), "India's first Empire", and restrained paragraphs on Chandragupta, Bindusara, and Ashoka. If you are a regular contributor or interested reader, let me know what you think. I will hold off for a week before making changes.

Regards,

Devanampriya —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Devanampriya (talk • contribs) 07:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Historical Comparison?

This section is bristling with inaccuracies- For one, the Qin were not the first empire of China, but alos it strikes me as some sort of attempt by an Indian patriot to embiggen his history by China-bashing... For Shame...

The first rulers to cover the majority of the geographical area of the two countries were Qin and Chandragupta respectively. Your immediate assumption of bad faith tells me you are a nationalist, so, in your own words - for shame.

I've removed this section because it's blatantly POV and unnecessary. I'm not even Chinese and I find it offensive! The general tone of the piece reads as India>China.

([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 05:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Deletions

It seems the mention from the Mudrarakshasa is being deleted by one user on the ground that the Huns are mentionned in the quote, and that "expert historians have discredeted it as a source". I'd love to see where the Huns are actually mentionned in the passage, and have references for the "expert historians" in question. Even if it were true, it is not a justification to erase this account, but rather to balance it with differing opinions. PHG 16:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Excessive use of images

The article is becoming unreadable due to the large number of images. This problem is currently being discussed at Kushan Empire, which has the same problem. The statement that "In general, galleries are discouraged in main article namespace" is in WP:IUP#Photo_galleries. And here are the MOS guidelines, which address some of the problems I have been raising with inability to read the text due to having so many images overlapping: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images. One of the MOS guidelines is to not sandwich text between images on the left and right. There seems to be no way to avoid that if there is more than one image in a short section. So one approach would be to limit the number of images to one per section, and avoid short sections with images in series, which creates display problems for the short sections. Buddhipriya 18:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

An additional section

Natural history in the times of the Mauryas

The protection of animals in India became serious business by the time of the Maurya dynasty; being the first empire to provide a unified political entity in India, the attitude of the Mauryas towards forests, its denizens and fauna in general is of interest.

The Mauryas firstly looked at forests as a resource. For them, the most important forest product was the elephant. Military might in those times depended not only upon horses and men but also battle-elephants; these played a role in the defeat of Seleucus, Alexander's governor of the Punjab. The Mauryas sought to preserve supplies of elephants since it was more cost and time-effective to catch, tame and train wild elephants than raise them. Kautilya's Arthashastra contains not only maxims on ancient statecraft, but also unambiguously specifies the responsibilities of officials such as the Protector of the Elephant Forests:

On the border of the forest, he should establish a forest for elephants guarded by foresters. The Superintendent should with the help of guards...protect the elephants whether along on the mountain, along a river, along lakes or in marshy tracts...They should kill anyone slaying an elephant.

— Arthashastra

The Mauryas also designated separate forests to protect supplies of timber, as well as lions and tigers, for skins. Elsewhere the Protector of Animals also worked to eliminate thieves, tigers and other predators to render the woods safe for grazing cattle.

The Mauryas valued certain forest tracts in strategic or economic terms and instituted curbs and control measures over them. They regarded all forest tribes with distrust and controlled them with bribery and political subjugation. They employed some of them, the food-gatherers or aranyaca to guard borders and trap animals. The sometimes tense and conflict-ridden relationship nevertheless enabled the Mauryas to guard their vast empire.

When Ashoka embraced Buddhism in the latter part of his reign, he brought about significant changes in his style of governance, which included providing protection to fauna, and even relinquished the royal hunt. He was perhaps the first ruler in history to advocate conservation measures for wildlife and even had rules inscribed in stone edicts. The edicts proclaim that many followed the king's example in giving up the slaughter of animals; one of them proudly states:

Our king killed very few animals.

— Edict on Fifth Pillar

However, the edicts of Ashoka reflect more the desire of rulers than actual events; the mention of a 100 'panas' (coins) fine for poaching deer in royal hunting preserves shows that rule-breakers did exist. The legal restrictions conflicted with the practices freely exercised by the common people in hunting, felling, fishing and setting fires in forests.

AshLin (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Map

According to the map, the territories of the Mauryas in the northwest seem to cover the region of Bactria, i.e. the left and right banks of the Amu Darya, which is historically innacurate :the zone north of the Hindu-Kush has always been occupied by the Seleucids and then the Greco-Bactrians. Could the creator of the map correct accordingly? Regards. PHG 23:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[1] is where the map comes from, its not user made.--Tigeroo 08:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this map free (Public Domain etc...)? PHG 23:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not idea at all, but the Mughal Empire uses a similar map as well.--Tigeroo 10:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The map is creator by a user-generated site:

http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=about_ae

What is www.allempires.com? AE is a non-profit site and forum community for world history founded in 2002. Its site administrators, editors and forum staff members consist entirely of hobbyists and volunteers.

From where does AE get its articles? All articles on our site comes from contributors, who are mainly members from our online forum community.

The map is not reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.225.198.227 (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Why redirect Ancient India here?

Would someone care to explain this? It would be far more sensible to link that page to History of India or Ancient India (disambiguation). Yet we have someone who decided to unilaterally redefine the English word "ancient" to mean a 200 year period from 300 BCE to 100 BCE. Shall we ignore 3300 BCE to 300 BCE and 100 BCE to 500 CE? What do we call that? Or did human civilization not exist in India during these periods? Give me a respectable source that considers the Mauryan Empire to constitute the whole of "Ancient India". Wikipedia probably has many, many culture and history articles that refer to "Ancient India". All of these would get redirected here, when the topic in question may be relevant to an entirely different period of Indian history before or after this meager 200 year period. The disambiguation page already specifically mentions Mauryan empire anyway. -- Matuenih (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Old comment moved from head of page

ou might consider putting in a link with the Wiki article on Sisupalgarh. Sisupalgarh or Sishupalgarh are a ruined fortification in Khurda District in Orissa, India. It is the largest and best preserved early historic fortification in India. Pyule —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.132.127.134 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Indian Empire

The redirect Indian Empire has redirected to British Raj page for a long time. Recently it was redirected to Maurya Empire. I have reverted that edit and suggest that those interested in this page, decide where it should redirect or if it should become a dab page. See talk:Indian Empire. If the parties can not agree on what the majority of reliable sources mean when they say "Indian Empire" I suggest an RfC. --PBS (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite the huge size of this article, little is really known about Maurya and certainly nothing justifies it taking the redirect for Indian Empire, it just isn't as clearly pivotal as that. Therefore I would suggest no change or RFC is needed. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Lakhs of Jain Temples & Jain Stupas were erected during their reign..

Please don't use in the English Wikipedia numbers, which are not understood outside India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rihoalla (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Extent of Mauryan empire over-stated

I have not seen any source but wikipedia claim that the Mauryan empire extended into Iran.

The map referred to and used as a justification for the claim is created by a user-generated site:

http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=about_ae

What is www.allempires.com? AE is a non-profit site and forum community for world history founded in 2002. Its site administrators, editors and forum staff members consist entirely of hobbyists and volunteers.

From where does AE get its articles? All articles on our site comes from contributors, who are mainly members from our online forum community.

The map is not reliable

Whilst that source is very unreliable i.e. no bibliography whatsoever (shame as it seemed as though a lot of effort was taken), you do realise you are using the term "Iran" anachronistically, and in any case the Maurya Empire shared a border with the Seleucid Empire, this is definitely certain, so who are you arguing was in control of the area you contest? [[User:Giani g|Giani g]] (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who controlled that region -I'm assuming the Seleucid Empire- but the claim that the Mauryan empire extended to Iran is a claim unique to wikipedia and not supported by any thing as far as I've seen. --218.225.198.227 (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should be edited to more closely resemble the consensus on the extent of Mauryan rule, by taking out the reference to Iran, which does not appear in any articles on the subject. --222.225.57.82 (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The books I've looked at say it extended as far as Kandahar. Actually I believe all the evidence for the precise geographical extent of Maurya (and even for everything about Maurya) is very sketchy - there is hardly any archaeological evidence for example. The evidence amounts to a few artefacts and what it says in one or two ancient sources. This article is very long and repetitive; takes mythological sources as literal truth; has a 5-para intro, when the agreed norm is 4-paras and contains a lot of POV. Work needed! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

yes it has extended upto Iran, the area mentioned as baluchestan and sistan in many of the famous author books and baluchestan and sistan is a province of Modern day Iran. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=y7IHmyKcPtYC&pg=PA951&dq=mauryan+empire+in+sistan&hl=en&ei=qRILTomsEdGtrAfotJ2fDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Here is the link, the buddhist site found in sistan of iran dates back to mauryan age and its likely that Mauryan conquered this portion as well and further Selucid Empire was autonomous but under Mauryan empire. Mauryan defeated greeks and Chandragupta Married Helen the daughter of selecuid princess hence its exact to say that they conquer the extreme south eastern part of iran.ROONEYGIBBS6 (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Further greeks were defeated again by Bindusara the son of chandragupta, western historians try to hide these facts otherwise the heroic image of greeks will be ruined. If mauryans wanted they could have completely overrun all the cities of persepolis,susa(both were under selecuid empire). The only solace was the marriage of Helen with Chandragupta Maurya which made it possible for greeks to survive.ROONEYGIBBS6 (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Toned down extravagent population claims

I have just toned down extravagent population claims that the Mauryan empire was the most populous empire in the world in the pre-Christian era and that it was "home to over one third of humanity". It is important to note that this is just based on estimates and conjecture, not established facts. And, indeed, when compared with census figures from the Western Han Dynasty, these conjectures look pretty lame. See the WP article which reports: "In China's first known nationwide census taken in 2 CE, the population was registered as having 57,671,400 individuals in 12,366,470 households." The suggestion that there were less than 50-60 million people in the world outside of the Han and Mauryan empires is pure speculation. John Hill (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed probably misleading "guestimates"

I don't usually repond to personal attacks (see: "your anti-india ravings" [2]) - but I think I should clarify some issues here about the population estimates that ROONEYGIBBS6 is making. First, almost all the figures (except the 57-58 million figures from the Chinese census of 2 CE) are not facts, they are simply estimates or "assumptions", nothing more. Moreover, these estimates (or, preferably, "guesstimates") have been made by different people at different times and cannot be relied on for accuracy. What we need to know is what these estimates are based on.

I don't believe it is possible to make an accurate estimate of the population of the Mauryan empire at its height, much less estimate the total population of the world at that time. For this reason I am reversing his recent claims - all based on other people's estimates - hardly a sound basis for making statements like the "Mauryan empire was home to over one third of world humanity."

If his figures are to be believed, and there were only 150 million people in the whole world c. 250 BCE and the Mauryan Empire had about 60 million people, and assuming the Chinese Empire had roughly the same number, that would only leave 30 million people in all of the rest of Asia (Japan, Sri Lanka, SE Asia, Korea, etc.), the Middle East, Persia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas, asnd so on. Do you really feel this is credible?

So, until someone can come up for some real evidence, rather than loose estimates of the population of the Maurya Empire (which in his own words vary wildly from 50 to 100 million), this section has no place in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. I will, therefore, remove his claims again. I certainly have no desire to enter into an edit war - so if Rodney still disagrees with me I request he asks one of the WP administrators to make a decision. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

His name seems to be Rooney. In any case, population figures at this time are very much guestimates. I did find for instance this: "The data for India arc taken from Ajii Das Gupta (1972), except for the pre-16th century era. where he merely argues that the population of India could have reached 100 million at the zenith of the Maurva empire (between 321 and 185 BCE), during the Gupta empire (320 to 470 CE), and under the reign of Marsha (612 to 627 CE). This very round figure of 100 million obviously requires qualification. It must be remem- bered that in all these periods vast tracts of the interior were still tribal lands, governed by a very antiquated economic system (some still a Nlesolithic culture almost until modern times), certainly with very losv population densities. It was therefore thought preferable to estimate populations of 50 to 60 million for these periods, which are still within the bracket accepted by John D. Dursnd (197-1), who argues for 75 million, but they could have been put 10 or 20 million higher without affecting the results. " [3] p.14 Demography: Analysis and Synthesis, Four Volume Set, Volume 1-4: A Treatise in Population by Graziella Caselli, Jacques Vallin and Guillaume Wunsch (Oct 1, 2005) - there are of course similar problems with world population figures. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies to ROONEYGIBBS6 for getting his or her name wrong - my only excuse is that I am travelling, rushed and tired at tthe moment. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't apologise, they were a sockpuppet and are now indefinitely blocked. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Vrajanap, 21 July 2011

Hi,

I want to point out that the sentence "Asoka was a kind or Buddhist Constantine declearing himself against paganism is a complete misreading of India conditions. " is repeated twice.

vrajanap (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: I only found it once in the article though its possible that someone already had noticed it and removed it. Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sri lanka was tribuatary

i agree sri lanka was indirectly a part of Mauryan empire(ashoka son and daughter were recieved as emperors during their visit to sri lanka) but at the same time it will be better to write or mention it as tributary similarly it has been proven that the souther tip of india was not independent but recognize the authority of MAURYAN. Bindusara forced all the dravidian kings to surrender however allow them to keep extreme south of the india hence mauryan remains the only few of the empire to control such a huge terrotiry in that age. Atleast one province of Iran(sistan and baluchestan) was under Mauryan which was confirmed by buddhist monaestry in Iran or was atleast indirectly under Mauryan as selucids were also friends of Mauryans.Shail kalp (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense Tamilnadu was always an independent country. You guys no reason believe you northern barbarians ruled tamilnadu.

You are right, us "Northern barbarians" never ruled "TamilNadu", as most of us were born after the year 1900. I shall choose not to take offense at the barbarians comment my brother or sister (or other), there has been much racism on both sides and still today both sides seem to hate the other somewhat. I hope we can at least be civil :)

File:Maurya.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Maurya.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a sentence that makes no sense

The Empire was divided into four provinces, which one of the four, look like a giant crescents.

This sentence, at the beginning of administration makes absolutely no sense. Can somebody fix it? Sorenm5757 (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Image

Mauryan Statuette, 2nd Century BCE.

An additional image for when this page becomes unprotected.PHG 14:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Needs to have the sources for the pictures/sculptures in the main page itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuppattar (talk • contribs) 16:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC) The image of the sculpture entitled "Yakshini" is wrong. The sculpture is actually that of a "Chauri bearer" or "Fly whisk bearer", which was found at Didarganj, Patliputra and is presently kept in the Patna Museum. Please confirm. Thanks. (Sandeep, 4 May 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.144.184.61 (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

today a part of countries list is too short

this empire strecthed deep into central asia all of afganistan was in the empire plus bordering nations like turkmenistan ,uzbekistan ,and taljikistan 76.244.145.253 (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done. The northern boundary of the empire was Bactria (Balkh) which is today's northern section of Afghanistan. Balkh was not ceded to the Mauryans in 305 though most of what is today's Afghanistan as far as Herat was. --216.15.12.233 (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This was not supposed to be done but someone still added Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Please try to portray history objectively. I removed those countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.20.154 (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Tributaries of Mauryan Empire

Ashoka's military campaigns ended with his war in Kalinga. His armies never landed in Chola territory. Also, Ashoka has at various instances mentioned the Cholas and Pandyas along with non-tributary regions like those ruled by the Greeks (this page has the relevant quotes). Why would he mention tributaries with non-tributaries? How come the Cholas and Pandyas accepted the supremacy of Mauryas without even fighting? Isn't something fishy?

I would like to see proof for the claim that the South Indian Kingdoms of Cholas, Pandyas, etc. were tributaries of Ashoka's Mauryan Empire. The map shown by wikipedia says they are tributaries, but neither do I find genuineness in the website from where it has come, nor have I been able to find evidence for the claim that Cholas and Pandyas were tributaries of Ashoka.

59.184.187.95 (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Raghav Sharman

"Iron age empire"

Why is this included? The article about the Persian Empire, Seleucid Empire and Roman Empire forexample does not mention it. --Arsaces (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Possibly backed by some source, if it is not, just remove. But kindly check all related content before you do. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you all think of the new map?

I remade the old blue map with a much higher quality orange-colored map:

• 
  Mauryan Empire ca. 265 BCE

What do you all think? Pretty awesome isn't it? Kirby (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice, but the extent and tributary status for some regions are still wrong like the previous picture. Most of the Dravidian kingdoms were never tributaries to the Mauryas. Northern regions of Andhra and Karnataka were infact tributaries, not core regions of the Mauryas. book link --213.47.76.227 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Got it! I'll fix it up right now! :D Kirby (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

"One of the most populous empires of all time"

The introduction claims: "The population of the empire has been estimated to be about 50 - 60 million making the Mauryan Empire one of the most populous empires of all time.[4][5]"

I'm not sure what is meant here. There are a myriad of modern countries larger than this, and I would think there have existed quite a few states of similar or larger size throughout history (the Roman, Mongolian and Chinese empires...). Maybe "of the ancient world" or "before the birth of Christ" or "until that time"?106.188.105.234 (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Map, geographical extent, NPOV & cleanup

The current map and the "today part of" list both seem to have a few inaccuracies. First, it is generally accepted that Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Sri Lanka were not "vassals" or part of the empire in any way (Schwartzberg p. 18: "tribal kingdoms and chieftainships independent" despite diplomacy and cultural influence). The situation of Assam is less clear, but it "seems to have lain outside the empire" (Raychaudhuri p. 275). The claim that Aria/Herat was one of the provinces ceded by Seleucus to Chandragupta Maurya is often repeated, but Mukherjee (p. 594) and Grainger (p. 109) have shown that this was not so. No significant part of Iran was part of the empire, and the Central Asian countries listed are not shown in my sources, either. Perhaps the listing of the latter, and China, was based on Schwartzberg's speculation about the Buddhist culture and Kharosthi inscriptions/manuscripts found in Khotan, but these texts from Khotan, Turfan, and Tajikstan have all been shown to be later than the 1st century BCE (Puri, p. 185). Furthermore, according to both Kulke & Rothermund (p. 68-71), as well as Stein (p. 74), large areas, especially in the Deccan peninsula, were probably occupied by fairly autonomous or even unconquered tribes (this is also discussed at India#Ancient_India).

I have made an updated map to reflect this evidence, and I will go ahead and fix the list as well.

My other concern is about the neutrality of the tone in some parts of the article, where it sometimes seems to overstate the case for how great/large/well-administered/harmonious/etc this empire was, while glossing over other perspectives - for instance, that Mauryan administration may have been generally much weaker than depicted. (E.g., Kulke & Rothermund, p. 68-69: the "highly centralised direct administration [...] prevailed only in the central part of the empire [the central Gangetic region]", while "provinces had a greater degree of administrative autonomy", but I'm sure there are other sources. I remember reading somewhere else that Mauryan governance was relatively weak in comparison with the Romans and the Han, for instance.) Also, Keay suggests (p.103-104) that the ensuing period between the Mauryas and Guptas was at least as great a period of cultural flowering, if not greater. I don't know if some sort of article-wide cleanup tag is appropriate, but this aspect of the article seems like it has good potential for improvement, especially if others want to look into it.

Sources:

• Grainger, John D. (1990, 2014). Seleukos Nikator: Constructing a Hellenistic Kingdom. Routledge.
• Keay, John (2000). India, a History. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
• Kulke, H.; Rothermund, D. (2004). A History of India, 4th, Routledge.
• Puri, Baji Nath (1996). Buddhism in Central Asia. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
• Raychaudhuri, H. C.; Mukherjee, B. N. (1996). Political History of Ancient India: From the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty. Oxford University Press.
• Schwartzberg, J. E. (1992). A Historical Atlas of South Asia. University of Oxford Press.
• Stein, Burton (1998). A History of India (1st ed.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Avantiputra7 (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The "inconclusive","doubtful" and "self-contradictory" theories of Rapson-H.C.Roychowdhury- Dr.Bhandarkar can not be a replacement to the monumental research of all eminent historians from Smith to RC Majumdar to Romila Thapar. Not a single historian with certainty has confirmed the "autonomous areas" in Maurya Empire."Vassal tribe" does not mean "vassal state or area".Ghatus (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but my main criticism about the old map is that it shows Tamil Nadu & Sri Lanka as vassals and Bactria as part of the empire, which is clearly wrong. I made a revised version of my map, with the "vassal tribes" taken out and Assam added back in, since this appears to be more controversial than I realized. Does this look better? Also, if you dispute the idea of autonomous regions in the Deccan region, you may want to consider editing India#History (part of a featured article), since it also makes this claim. Avantiputra7 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Good job. Keep it up. And, if you get time, prepare the two maps. Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The size of Maurya Empire vs Mughal Empire

From the map of the Maurya Empire (File:Maurya_Empire,_c.250_BCE_2.png) and the map of the Mughal Empire (File:Mughal_Historical_Map.png) in the infobox, it seems that the Mughal Empire was larger than the Maurya Empire at their maximum extent, since their northern borders as shown in the maps are very similar, and the Mughal Empire also reached further south than the Maurya Empire in their southern borders. But how come this article says the Maurya Empire was "the largest ever in the Indian subcontinent", and the area listed in the infobox is also significant larger than the area listed in the Mughal Empire article? I think either at least one of the maps are somehow incorrect, or at least one of the areas listed for the empires are incorrect. --Evecurid (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you on this one. To be honest, looking through books and taking World History classes in schools as of current myself. I have to say that the two empires were actually pretty equal in size.

Whoever typed "the largest ever in the Indian subcontinent" is either ignorant or being biased toward the Maurya Empire! This line is absurd. it should be "one of the largest to exist on the Indian subcontinent.". In fact, since editors here will not bother to correct it. I am afraid I have no choice, but to correct this mistake with one bold stroke!! Kirby (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Selecuid Mauryan War

There appears to be certain contradictions in the article surrounding the confrontations between the Selecus and Chandragupta. And over all saying Selecus lost or did not fare well in battle seems problematic.

Article states the Mauryan empire began expanding NE across the Indus in 317/316 BC. Also states Selecus went east and crossed the Indus to 'wage war' after in 305 BC and apparently gave back territories he took back from Chandragupta. Sp he apparently had enough to gain some territory from Chandragupta he eventually gave back in treaty.

Second marrying his daughter to Chandragupta was inline with the agreements of the treaty that also outlined the intermarriage and integration between greek colonists and indians. This seems more like a treaty between equals than any kind of victor-loser relationship.

The article admits there is no account of a battle but assumes selecus lost because he agreed to a treaty. But that is ignorant of the contextual situation of Selecus who was fighting a two front war against Antigons and Chandragupta on both sides of his newly established empire.

This is leading to considerable confusion and debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glrico476 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Maurya Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130319070226/http://www.sfabx.com:80/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Mauryan_Empire.6185944.pdf to http://www.sfabx.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Mauryan_Empire.6185944.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maurya Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfabx.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Mauryan_Empire.6185944.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Mauryasamrajam

@Cpt.a.haddock: It's not about what the Mauryan Empire called themselves as much as it is a direct Sanskrit or Prakrit translation of 'Mauryan Empire'. In the Zhou dynasty, for example, Zhōu cháo is the modern Mandarin translation of it, and may have not been the endonym for the dynasty in Old Chinese - but the modern Chinese translation is still included regardless.

On a separate note, I find it really unnecessary that a lot of back-and-forth warring over language issues happen on India-related articles. It makes it hard to assume good faith, and often feels agenda-driven, because I don't see this issue on non India-related articles. Tiger7253 (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

What is "Mauryasāmrājyam" useful for, if it wasn't used as a self-designation? If IAST transliteration of the word "Maurya" was different from the normal English spelling, adding it would help people understand the correct pronunciation. But adding Mauryasāmrājyam doesn't serve any purpose, because it is neither an official name, nor a common name. Zhōu cháo actually appears in a few books, Mauryasāmrājyam doesn't.

Sanskrit Wikipedia is pretty bad, when it comes to history articles. They often use anachronistic and/or inaccurate Sanskritized terms. E.g. their article on Prithviraj Chauhan (Prithviraja III) is titled भारतेश्वरः पृथ्वीराजः ("Lord of India Prithviraja"), although that was not the king's regnal title -- it just appears in a eulogistic text. Their article on the king's dynasty (चौहानवंशः) includes a fictional map from the Alt history wiki. Oh, and for that article they don't use the accurate Sanskrit name of the dynasty (Chahamana), instead using the medieval vernacular term "Chauhan" with the Sanskrit suffix "vaṃśa" -- the term "Cauhana-vaṃśha" (चौहानवंशः) doesn't appear anywhere except Sanskrit Wikipedia (or websites copying it), leave alone the dynasty's inscriptions or scholarly sources. Let's not copy such things over to English Wikipedia.

As for your second point: India, unlike China and many other countries, has several prominent languages. Adding only one language leads to lame edit wars, or people keep adding multiple languages, resulting in useless lead clutter. Tomorrow, someone will insist that we also add the Magadhi Prakrit and Pali transcriptions to this article. None of these are remotely useful to the vast majority the readers. This is why we have the WP:INDICSCRIPT convention. utcursch | talk 20:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tiger7253: I second Utcursch's points. And as an aside, Chinese articles are known to suffer from lead clutter which is why WP:MOS-ZH recommends relegating Chinese characters and transliterations to an infobox. As Zhou dynasty uses said infobox, the Chinese characters and transliterations should actually be removed from the lead. See the featured article, Ming dynasty, for a clean lead. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Maurya Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140716182652/http://www.hinduism.co.za/chanakya.htm to http://www.hinduism.co.za/chanakya.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Plin.%20Nat.%206.21
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afghanan.net/afghanistan/mauryans.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140328144411/http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html to http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

First ruler to advocate conservation measures

"He was the first ruler in history to advocate conservation measures for wildlife and even had rules inscribed in stone edicts. The edicts proclaim that many followed the king's example in giving up the slaughter of animals; one of them proudly states"

Isnt he quite late after Hittite king of kings? There are tablets of laws which prohibit even releasing water from baths openly in fear of birds may drink them.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.29.124 (talk • contribs)

The "first ruler" bit is not supported by the citation provided at the end of the sentence. I've added {{not in citation given}} to the relevant sentence -- it can be removed after some time, unless someone provides a source for this claim. utcursch | talk 03:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Map

@Bajirao1007: What is your source for the claim that the map File:Maurya Empire, c.250 BCE.png is "largely unaccepted theory"? The extent of the Mauryan empire shown in traditional maps has been challenged by multiple scholars in recent years. See for example:

Early scholarship and more recent political claims concerning the Mauryas have portrayed the empire as a highly centralized and homogeneous polity that unified a vast region into a single monolithic imperial state. However, some more recent scholarship has emphasized the discontinuous geography of the empire and the internal variability in its administration (Fig. 6.2; e.g., Thapar 1987, 1997; Fussman 1988; though see Chakrabarti 1997: 203-6 for an opposing view). In particular, Mauryan territories in the Deccan and south India appear to have been quite limited, restricted to areas near important mineral resources, especially gold sources along the Tungabhadra River and in the Kolar region of south India. Asokan inscriptions are rare in the western and eastern Deccan areas where the Satavahana polity emerged (see below, though Satavahana and Maurya inscriptions co-occur at Sanchi, Amaravati, and Sannathi). Other than Asokan inscriptions and some rare trade wares, these areas contain little direct evidence of the Mauryan presence, and no evidence of the form that presence may have taken. Thus, while the Mauryan empire was certainly far more extensive and complexly organized than any previous South Asian state, claims for its universal status and highly centralized political structure appear to have been overstated.

utcursch | talk 02:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

References

It doesn't matter if some certain recent scholarship has questioned the norm, theres doubts from scholars on a lot of historical boundaries, not just the Mauryans but its still a theory and is not generally accepted by most scholars. Not to mention, the map is original content created by a wiki user and is not exactly from an actual source. Bajirao1007 (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bajirao1007: Actually, the map is based on an actual map in the source cited at the end of the caption. It is not original research. Please see the Ashoka talk page for an existing discussion on this with the map's author. FWIW, the map is already present in the Territorial evolution of the Mauryan Empire gallery of this article.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Bajirao1007, As mentioned above, the map is not "original content created by a wiki user" - it is from an actual book written by historians. Also, you have not proivded any source for your claim that it is "not generally accepted by most scholars". Do you have any other arguments? utcursch | talk 16:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I remember I made the same exact argument on the "Largest countries by population in 1800" page that I made an edit based off of a book and its claims but because it didn't state the figure exactly you said it counted as original research. Same goes for the map, if a map is not shown exactly in the book, it is original research. Nonetheless the vast majority of scholarly books on the Maurya Empire show the current map therefore that is what is generally accepted among academics. I am sure certain books mention all sorts of different theories as to the actual boundaries of any ancient empire, but we don't go around putting theorietical maps for the Roman Empire on the Roman Empire wiki page, we use the most commonly referred to and accepted map of the Roman Empire.Bajirao1007 (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The map is not original research: the boundaries are shown exactly as in the cited book. And the map that you're talking about is also a 'theoretical' one. If recent scholarship disputes an older map of the Roman Empire, and presents a new map, it'll obviously be included in the Wikipedia article. utcursch | talk 08:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)