Talk:Kushan Empire/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Capitals

I'm not sure about the two capitals of the Kushan Empire. Were they Purushapura (Peshawar) and Bagram (Kabul), or Purushapura and Mathura? Other pages on Wikipedia seem to disagree with this one. {{subst:unsigneIP|4.188.172.17|03:42, 25 June 2005 (UTC)}}

Answer The reason is that the pages are written by different people, and they are all guessing. There is no evidence of any sort to tell us where the Kushan capital was (a few later Buddhist texts name Peshawar, but they are simply linking Kanishka to a famous site). The tendency is for various authors simply to assign a capital on the basis of which cities they think are most important. Even then the capital must have changed, because all of the suggested sites (Taxila, Begram, Peshawar, Mathura etc) were only added to the Empire at some point after Kajula came to power.

Ancient India

The Kushans were a multi cultural empire, but their main cultural sphere lies with the history of Ancient India. If the Kushans are outsiders to India then so are the Aryans, Mughals, and the Gujjars(desents of gujjars are gujarati= gandhi the father of India). So it should be accepted that it is a Bactrian state of Ancient India. Also its final and greatest capital Mathura is in Modern India. Their final religion was Buddhism which they were the greatest patrons as well as Hinduism. Dewan S. Ahsan 19:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

== Attention to researchers: The Kushans are very old tribes of India. I say 'tribes' as there are multiple castes of the Kushans, as stated above by Ahsan. It is very difficult to know now who is a Kushan and who is a Luvana. Both parties go back to famous king of Ayodhya, Sri Rama-chandra, son of Dashratha. Ramachandra had 2 sons. One was named Luva and other Kusha. After Rama-chandra left his mortal coil, he appointed his both sons to rule the west, in order to protect the land of the Bhaarata from western intruders. This much information can be found in Ramayana of both Vaalmiki and Tulsidas. A little more information is found in Dasam Granth of Guru Gobind Singh. Gobind Singh states that (due to some curse), descendants of both are never ruling the empire at one time. Through some mystical power, if people of Kusha come to power, then people of Luva become highly religious or ascetics, and vice-versa. Gobind Singh also states that people of Luva settled in the city of Luvara (or current day Lahore in Pakistan). The common Luvara kshatriya-clan descendants are Luvara, Luvaar, Luvana, Lubana, Lobana, among other names of mixtures. Gobind Singh does not say where descendant of Kusha settled, but he makes reference, indirectly, that Guru Nanak was a Kusha descent. It is likely that the Kusha came to Rishi Kashyap's land, Kashmir, where they practiced spirituality. --- This information may be helpful to any serious researcher. Jay Sha - Feb 19, 2011.

Addendum

Taking the above discussion on the names of the two Kushan capitals further, it is well known that they were Kapisa and Pushkalavati; but the mistake made here is that Pushkalavati was not the name for Peshawar; it refers to what is now known as Charsadda, an area 20 miles north of Peshawar. Peshawar in those days was a major city, but not capital. It was known as Purushpura or Pushpapura and later as Purushawar. It became capital of Gandhara much later.

Mountainsky (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Purushapura (present-day Peshawar) was a winter capital of Kanishika and other Kushan rulers. Kapisa (Bagram = meaning old city/castle in the north of Kabul = the capital of Kapisa around the 7th century C.E.) There are many places called Begram in Afghanistan)was the summer capital of the Kushan Empire,and Mathura also became the winter capital later on when the Kushan ruler (Vima?) conquered that part of India. The Kushan was a nomadic people and nomadic empires often had various places as their capitals. They just brought Royal tents with hundreds of others and set up a capital! (Such was the historical case for the Turkic nomadic conquerors of the region in the 5th century but earlier the Kushan emulated Greco-Roman as well as Iranian cultures so their capitals had more heavy-duty stone buildings such as the ruins we see in Sulkha Kotal - the Kanishika sanctuary of Kushan dynastic monuments in the north of Kabul). Hsüan-tsang (Xuanzang) and other traveling Chinese monks describe winter/summer capitals of the Kushan and other nomadic rulers of the region.

Origin of name

The article currently reads:

The name Kushan derives from the Chinese term Guishuang (Ch:貴霜)

Is there any reason to attribute primacy to the Chinese term? I grant that the Kushans are thought to have originated in the Xinjiang area, but surely Guishuang is no more their original name than Sanskrit Kušāṇa (or for that matter, Prakrit Kushana, Greek Κοþþανα, Bactrian Κοþανο and who knows what else?). I assume the name comes from their original language, whatever that may have been. --Iustinus 22:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sanskirt Kushana and Prakrit shabd are akin.^T*^E*^H Kingrom 23:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Greco-Roman Sources

Also in 138, according to Aurelius Victor (Epitome‚ XV, 4), and Appian (Praef., 7),
Antoninus Pius, successor to Hadrian, received some Indian, Bactrian (Kushan) and Hyrcanian 
ambassadors.

OK, I can easily find the relevant passages in Historia Augusta and Aurelius Victor, but thus far I have been unable to find the relevant passage in Appian. Does it actually exist? If it does, can someone help me find it? --Iustinus 19:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Map

The Map posted by PHG amounts to original research. He is not a scholar in the field to interpret primary sources (such as the Rabatak inscription) and to create a map based upon that. As such, the original map that was used from wikipedia commons is replacing it. PHG, this is really unacceptable. Devanampriya 00:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The map is clearly labelled for what it is (full line for the territories of the Kushan, dotted line for the limit of the empire according to the Rabatak inscription.) This is only a straightforward illustration of well-known published and historical material. It is also a well known way of representing the empire (see here for an example of an online map). This interpretation of Kushan territory is certainly not based on the primary source only, but also on ample secondary source, such as the (Indian) historian S.R. Goyal:

"The Rabatak inscription claims that in the year 1 Kanishka I's authority was proclaimed in India, in all the satrapies and in different cities like Koonadeano, Ozeno, Kozambo, Zagedo, Palabotro and Ziri-Tambo. These cities lay to the east and south of Mathura, upto which locality Wima had already carried his victorious arm. Therefore they must have been captured or subdued by Kanishka I himself." Ancient Indian Inscription, SR Goyal, p93

The alternative map you are putting forward is actually copyrighted material (from the Metropolitan Museum of Art here), which cannot be used on Wikipedia. PHG 04:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

PHG, I do not know what is worse, your inability to read maps or to create them. The link you provided shows the territory of the Kushan empire and the territory of the Western Kshatraps (in purple) as separate territories. You have combined the two--no scholar (you are not a scholar)has done that. Moreover, your map looks nothing like the met-museum map--which is an accurate portrayal of kushan territory. The inscription says nothing of the conquest of madhya pradesh, gujarat, and maharashtra. You are attempting to mislead the reader. Also, S.R. Goyal provided a translation and not an intepretation. Lastly, no interpretation shows the extensions you are showing. This is a heinous violation of wikipedia's standards. Shame on you.

Devanampriya 17:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop distorting facts. The Rabatak inscription, interpreted by Goyal, mentions that Ujjain (Ozeno), the capital of the Western Satraps was under the control of the Kanishka. Goyal is not only a translation but also an interpretation of the text. He is writing on his own when he writes: "Therefore they must have been captured or subdued by Kanishka I himself." PHG 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ujjain is not in Maharashtra. Just because you are geographically-challenged, does not mean that you get a free pass on these maps. Ctesiphon and Susa fell to the Romans under Trajan, but we don't show all of Iran under Roman rule. Why don't you try it and see what Iranians say. The fact remains you are arrogating the authority of a scholar, of which you clearly are unworthy. You are interpreting an authors intentions rather than reproducing his statement. This map is inaccurate and an exercise in original research.

Devanampriya 00:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is wrong, and please stop with such slurs. The largest extent of Kanishka's possessions is suggested by the Rabatak inscription and analysed and corroborated by Goyal, and labelled as such on an illustrative map. That's it. Maybe I could try better illustrating the uncertainty regarding the suzerainty of the Western Satrap, I will work in that direction. For the rest, your point of view does not stand against published material. PHG 04:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you're ignoring the questions again because you are lying about the facts. You are not using specifics from a published material. You are interpreting geographic extent as you see fit and using an author's translation as cover. The simple fact that you just changed the map to "better illustrate the uncertainty" only proves that you are acting as an authority. That is original research.. Leave the analysis to the scholars, you are not one. Now if you are so vain that all these India articles must have maps that are penned by you, at least have the decency to reproduce maps compiled by respectable sources, such as the Met. Don't simply impose your views because wikipedia does not have a copyright for an accurate one. What you are doing is a real travesty.

Devanampriya 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, you can find a highly equivalent map online here (my map is even more conservative). Again, the Indian historian Goyal does the analysis (and not "just a translation"), is properly quoted and referenced in the text, and the dotted line in the map is only an illustration of his analysis. I don't know what more I can say. PHG 04:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There you go again, ignoring the contention. First off, your "source" is called "A Rough Guide" to the kushan empire and the map is without reference--not exactly Encyclopedia Britannica. Again, wonderful job on the research, PHG.

Your map is wrong, and you've been caught red-handed committing original research. By your own words, you've intepreted the analysis of an author and illustrated it as you see fit. You've nothing else to say, because you have no facts upon which to premise your argument.

Devanampriya 03:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, graphically illustrating a primary source (the Rabatak inscription), and the modern analysis based on it (Goyal), is not original research. It would only be if the drawing were not properly referenced, which is really not the case. Stop deleting referenced material pertaining to foreign influences in India ([1], [2], [3], [4]): this is vandalism. PHG 06:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

PHG,

You cannot go about "Graphically illustrating a primary source". You are not a scholar, and that is against wikipedia policy: [[5]]. So no, you are not allowed to do so as it is written clearly under 'primary sources'.

Stop your usual attempts at smoke screens. You are as guilty there in all those links as you are guilty here of violating original research (users are welcome to read the discussion on those pages as well). You are to eurocentrism, what david duke attempted to be to white supremicism (not name-calling, just an analogy). You are simply attempting to give a legitimate face to something very, very wrong.

If you truly care about wikipedia, mend you behavior and stop tarnishing these pages.

Devanampriya 18:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

At first, despite his stubborn refusal to be civil or to assume good faith, I thought Devanampriya had something of a point: he did catch an inaccuracy on the map, and perhaps there are more. But it's becoming increasingly clear that he has some sort of axe to grind. Devanampriya, there are worthy sources in the world besides Encyclopaedia Britanica, and not everything containing the word "Greek" is irrelevant. Some of the points you have made seem to have merit, but you present them in such an acrid, hard-line fashion that quite honestly it's difficult to tell when you're right, and when you're just being reactionary. I would strongly recommend that you stop accusing people of "attempting to mislead the reader," of being "geographically-challenged" or "of lying" (let alone calling evidence that comes from pre-Britannica western sources a "fan-wank"): this sort of language does not convince anyone, and in fact is likely to turn possible allies against you. I realize that you have been butting heads with PHG on topics like this for nearly a year, but from where I stand it looks like whatever his flaws, PHG has done a lot of great work for Wikipedia, and if he is wrong he should be emended, not effaced and called names. --Iustinus 15:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Iustinus,

You may be well-intentioned, or you may be another one of PHG's cronies enlisted to give him some legitimacy--I do not know. But as always, I will assume good faith. Regarding phg, you should know this:

• He has contributed much, but inaccurately, and in some cases, maliciously
• He has all the hours in the world, but uses them add references to bias articles and portray extreme claims as the mainstream
• He has interest in Indian articles, but only from the racist orientalist perspective.
• He routinely commits original research, but lashes out at others when they do not agree with him.
• He violates agreements negotiated in good faith. Just ask users vastu and windy city dude.

"if he is wrong, he should be emended". But that's exactly it, my friend, he never accepts emendation. He merely attempts to discredit contributors by questioning their integrity and knowledge, all while he mischaracterizes authors and their intentions. Perhaps if you read PHG's posts questioning the integrity of others, such as Pavanapuram and Vastu, with no basis whatsoever, you will understand why these posts are the way they are. I would also recommend that you do some research on the topic to provide you with a better background on this discussion. That said, any objective commentator or third party is always welcome from my end.

My references to the Kushan empire consist not only of Britannica, but India: A history, History of India vol 1, and any number of legitimate sources out there (take a look at the Met map that was posted, and you will see what I mean). PHG's source, a poorly designed and illustrated website, with no references, is not a legitimate source. But he clings on to it, because his ideologies, conceits, and theories are more important than accuracy.

The point here is this fourfold:

1. Regarding the Kushan Map: It is not properly sourced. You cannot take any random website, bereft of citations or scholarly authorities, and use it as a reference--for the same reason wikipedia has been banned as an academic source.

2. As for foreign influences, I am not deleting everything under the sun with respect to foreign influences. But if I wrote about the Indian embassy to Augustus and took up half the article, that would be called fanwank. If I wrote "decimal system devised by the hindus" in every mathematics article that had modern numerals, that would be fanwank. That is what PHG is doing. He creates a narrative that he expects everyone else to bow down too, even though it is not credible (and indeed racist).

India absolutely took in plenty of foreign influences, as did the Greeks, the Romans, the Chinese, indeed, as virtually every civilization in humanity did. The difference is, phg is creating them when they do not exist (i.e. "Alauddin's calling him self "sikandar al sani" is evidence of greek numismatic influence". no it represents greek influence on the islamo-persian experience.), making inaccurate and discredited statements (i.e. "astronomy was given to the indians by the greeks"), and outright falsehoods (i.e "imitative of the Indo greeks through the sakas". The guptas were not imitating the indo greeks or the western kshatraps, but merely striking them in kshatrapa style to demonstrate their conquest of them--just as gautamiputra restruck nahapana's coins. The guptas were minting their own Suvarna style at the same time. PHG committed original research).

3. Wikipedia has a policy on original research, and that is exactly what I am condemning. PHG is knitting together sources that have no authority or credibility (i.e. his kushan website) or sources that are not on the topic and referring to the specific images or lines (i.e. rapson on the satavahanas), or in some cases, expecting people to accept statements, simply because he writes them.

Would you use a mayan art historian to comment on confucian classics? Would you like it if I took up half the Pythagoras article and wrote about how the Greeks got everything from the Hindus (and there are scholars who have noted that)? Would you like it if I took up half the Alexander of Macedon article and wrote about how Porus defeated him (there are scholars who have written that, however justifiable)? The answer is no.

It would not be appropriate for the western articles and they are certainly not appropriate for the indian ones. Read PHG's rationale for writing about seleucus (who did not go anywhere near the Yamuna River in India). He writes :

"Very simply, suppose I am reading an article on the Hellenistic world, and mention of the Yamuna turns up (something like "Alexander never reached the Yamuna"). Then I would click "Yamuna" to know more about it. Knowing how it was discovered by the Greeks, later, following the expeditions of Seleucus, is most interesting and relevant (we are in an encyclopedia, not a touristic guide, where these things indeed would have no place). PHG 06:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC) "[[6]].

So should we do the same for the Portuguese, the British, the French, the Dutch, and all other european peoples who mapped the Yamuna?. If I'm reading an article on the Bourbons, wouldn't I want to read about french exploration as well? Oh no, that would be eurocentric, we would also have to add the arabs, the turks, the mongols, and other people who discovered the river as well. You see my point?

4. PHG has time and again avoided responsibility for his mistakes and refuses to compromise. He also violates agreements and rules pages like personal fiefdoms. When he realizes he's wrong, he simply says "no, this is wikipedia, and your points have no relevance here".

The bottomline is this, Iustinus, if you want wikipedia to be an accurate source free of fanwank and original research, then please goad your friend to mend his ways. The fact remains that, while I may not write in sugar and spice and everything nice, your friend is wrong and stubborn and he is harming wikipedia's accuracy.

Look, you may be a well-intentioned person who is not used to dealing with PHG, but my comments are as justified as they are accurate. If you were dealing with him for two years, without logical dialogue from his end, you'd be tired of his antics too.

Devanampriya 18:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid everybody is getting tired with your diatribes Devanampriya. Please start by respecting Wikipedia rules: stop being uncivil and calling people names, and stop deleting referenced material pertaining to foreign influences in India ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11]): this is vandalism. PHG 06:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please take your games somewhere else, because serious contributors are not falling for your tricks. It is truly unfortunate that thanks to your antics, responsible contributors such as vastu, pavanapuram and windy city dude have all lost faith in the wikipedia system. Even mahitgar below pointed out the fallacies that you are pushing (be it political theories or linguistics). Stop lying PHG and start being honest with the wikipedia community.

You have: 1. repeatedly mischaracterized authors and lied about the facts (narain, etc) 2. committed original research (kushan empire map, gupta empire page, indo greek page, etc) 3. used obsolete, imperialist sources (tarn) to back up your ideologies 4. embraced racist colonial theories and interweaved them into the article's narratives 5. attacked the messenger (be it vastu or myself) and dramatized when you have no facts to back up your case. 6. engaged in fanwank (i.e. yamuna page) and diluted the quality of wikipedia articles. 7. pretended you are a scholar and aggrandized foreign influences on india (i.e. satavahana page, gupta page, indo greek page) 8. committed sneaky vandalism and destroyed the civility from community dialogue

Come back when you are a serious and objective contributor. Until then, I suggest that you refrain from editing wikipedia pages.

Devanampriya 19:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't count on me to keep responding to such empty diatribes and false accusations. Start by respecting Wikipedia rules: stop being uncivil and calling people names, and stop deleting referenced material pertaining to foreign influences in India ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16]): this is vandalism. I am through with this exchange. PHG 20:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, because your attempts to confuse readers and misrepresent facts have rung hollow. Your time would be better spent drawing those indo greek soldiers you keep posting instead of harming the quality of wikipedia articles.

Devanampriya 21:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I come in peace and in the name of Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, where User:Iustinus has posted an entry regarding this dispute. I believe User:Devanampriya has behaved with incivility and insults. He has also been incorrectly citing Wikipedia policy. I would like to inform User:Devanampriya that Wikipedia:No_original_research, the policy he cites to explain his actions, clearly states that original images are an exception to this policy and that "Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them." For your information, Wikipedia:No_original_research prohibits unpublished ideas or arguments, not images. I think both users were wrong to take part in this dispute; User:Devanampriya for being uncivil and User:PHG for continuing this dispute. If you think that the map is incorrect, you should try to achieve consensus by asking experts in this area to evaluate the map and see if it should be included. Please refrain from continuing this dispute, or I will be requesting mediation from other editors. Thank you. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 01:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear All:

My response to Boricuaeddie's comments are posted below. Although he seems sincere and mediating in good faith, he did not address certain key points which I believe need to be considered. Most importantly, Boricuaeddie miscited the original research policy or did not read it in its entirely. Please see my comments under Kushan Map Discussion Continued.

Best Regards,

Devanampriya 01:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Namaste. I also have arrived here as a result of the concerns posted at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. It does seem that a de-escalation of the edit war would be beneficial. Regarding the contested map, it would be helpful if very specific feedback could be given to help me understand exactly what is wrong with it, if anything. One approach to imperfect maps could be to discuss the known or alleged imperfections of the map in the article, with citations to WP:RS if specific imperfections can be documented. Simply removing a disputed map does not accomplish a higher goal, which is to inform the reader of the article about the geographical issues involved, noting controversial points if any exist. Buddhipriya 18:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the map

Hello all. Sorry to see all the unhappy exchanges in this dispute. I have just had a careful examination of the map and to my eye it looks quite accurate. Cerainly, the eastern boundaries of the Kushan empire are in accord with the information from the Rabatak inscription. My only query is whether the Kushans had direct control (rather than through intermediaries or tributary rulers) of Sindh, including the mouth of the Indus? They did not at the time of the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea - but this was almost certainly written between 40 and 70 CE - and therefore cannot exclude the possibility of Kushan control of the region by the time of Kanishka. Perhaps PHG could reply to this and state why he has included the Sindh region in the Kushan domains? Other than caveat that I think the map is a useful and attractive addition to the page, and cannot see that it represents "original research." Sincerely, John Hill 03:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello John. Thank you for the message. I agree with your comment on the mouth of the Indus, which somewhat stands against the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, which only describes "Scythians" in the area (although Kushans could very likely be labeled as Scythians by an ancient commentator). The core of the map is based on a map of the Metropolitan Museum of Art (here) as a reference. I took it as it is and redrew it into a free map, and added the territorial extent (dotted line) described in the Rabatak inscription and by Goyal. Best regards. PHG 04:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean that the Kushans are mentioned in the Periplus? --Iustinus 04:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Iustinus. No, the Kushan are not mentionned in the Periplus. Only mentionned are "Scythia" in the area of the Indus, and the Parthians ([17] paragraph 38 and beyond). The "Kingdom of Nambanus" is also mentionned, which is geneally thought to be the kingdom of the Western satrap Nahapana. Best regards. PHG 04:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks! That's very useful to me. But I was just wondering, becaus Mr. Hill says that the Kushans weren't at the mouth of the Indus at the time of the Periplus, and... well I'm shamefully unfamiliar with that text, but that made me wonder how he knew, if they weren't explicitly mentioned at all. --Iustinus 04:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Iustinus. I think some maps do not always show the Kushans in the Indus delta. Often the Western Satraps are thought to have ruled there, but the matter is complicated by the fact that the Western Satrap were most probably vassals of the Kushans, as suggested by the statue of Nahapana among Kushan statues at Mathura, and the mention of Ujjain, capital of the Western Satraps, being a possession of Kanishka, in the Rabatak inscription. PHG 04:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sanskrit names

I did a quick check in some of the references I have at hand on Indian history and noticed that the article does not currently include Sanskrit versions of some of the names involved, which is how they are listed in some of the sources. E.g., the Kushana would be Kuṣāṇa using the IAST method of romanization for Devanagari कुषाण. Since Chinese is used in the article, is the Sanskrit of any interest as well? Citation for this IAST is from p. 60, A. L. Basham, The Wonder That Was India: A Survey of the Culture of the Indian Sub-Continent Before the Coming of the Muslims (The Macmillan Co., New York, 1954). Buddhipriya 04:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion would be that it is. See my comments above (wehre, however, I transcribed the sanskrit rather... well for lack of a better word, incorrectly ;) ) --Iustinus 04:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw that posting, and thanks for having given it a good try. :) In looking over the sourcing for the article it seems to be strong from the point of view of the Chinese side, but some of the usual suspects in Indology have not yet been mined. I would suggest adding a few citations to Basham, who is a standard, as well as perhaps to a couple of other sources that would look at things specifically from the point of view of Indian history, as this seems to have been a point of recent contention. I have found some things in John Keay, India: A History (ISBN 0-8021-3797-0) which is a recent (2000) general history. Thomas McEvilley's The Shape of Ancient Thought (ISBN 1-58115-203-5) is a recent (2002) review of contact between Greece and India which has a few mentions from that point of view. Perhaps I can find a few things, but I do not wish to be disruptive if the article has had recent conflict. Buddhipriya 04:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead of course, this seems like some interesting new material which could be added to the current article. Best regards. PHG 05:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never systematically looked at this material before, and so I think it may be best if I just go through one source at a time and post a few things here on the talk page before editing the article directly. Since I know so little about this topic, I may misinterpret what I am reading or perhaps my sources are in conflict with other sources which you can use to help correct me. If that approach will be ok, I will add one or two items at a time so their relevance can be assessed. I think I would start with some of the items that are currently unsourced in the article. Please do not hesitate to point out errors of interpretation that I may introduce. Buddhipriya 05:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't wait to see what you come up with. --Iustinus 05:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Variant transliterations

I think I will start with John Keay India: A History Grove Press: New York, 2000 (ISBN 0-8021-3797-0) which is a general history of India by a Western historian. The first thing I notice is that the romanization of names varies. Some articles on Wikipedia provide alternative romanizations, so perhaps that should be done here. I have already mentioned one alternative romanization of Kuṣāṇa using the IAST method of romanization for Devanagari कुषाण, sourced by Basham. Keay just uses simple English romanization, not IAST, but note the romanization of Yueh-chi in the following passage which gives a general proviso on the period:

Once again the ready assumption that the Yueh-chi, or Kushana as they are known in Indian history, actually invaded India should be treated with caution. Little is known either of the circumstances which accounted for the movements of these peoples or of the reception they recieved in India. They may have come as allies or mercenaries, invited by disaffected Indians like Alexander's Ambhi; or they may have come as refugees fleeling invasion just like the Tibetans, Afgans and Bangladeshis of the twentieth century. India's ancient history was first reconstructed largely by British scholars in the nineteenth century who, schooled on the invasions of Aryans, Macedonians and Muslims, readily detected a pattern of incursions. Their own presence conformed to it; indeed this pattern of constant invasion conveniently excused their presence.

I cite this passage not because I think it should be in the article, but because I think it is an intellectual backdrop to some of the contentious editing which may have taken place in relation to the article. The only part that I think I would edit in the article is to add variant transliterations of the Chinese Yueh-chi and Sanskrit Kuṣāṇa. Buddhipriya 05:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No one has objected to inclusion of the alternative romanization, so I would like to add it to the article, sourced by Keay. Buddhipriya 04:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't object, but I'm still not sure I understand your point in adding them. There are many ways to Romanize Chinese, afterall, even if we just stick to one dialect in one time period. --Iustinus 04:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I make obvious errors here, as I am new to the article and have no background in Chinese sources. A similar problem with romanization of Sanskrit and other Indic languages comes up often on pages related to India and Hinduism, as there are also several alternative romanization methods for Devanagari. On those pages we tend to list the most common variant spellings the first time a word is used, and then adopt one of them as the standard spelling for the article in further uses of the word. I have seen on those articles that doing that seems to reduce the impulse of casual readers to "correct the spelling" when they see a spelling they are unfamiliar with. I just assumed that approach might make sense here, but it may not be appropriate, and the established editors may prefer a different approach. That is why I posted the issue here prior to making the edit. If I make a change that is not considered an improvement, do not hesitate to revert it, as I expect I will learn a great deal by following this article, which covers a subject I know little about. The article has not gotten much attention from other Indic editors so perhaps there will be some sharing of views on matters such as this. Buddhipriya 04:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of standard layout for sections

I adding the variant transliteration I noticed that the article currently does not use the standard order for sections that is specificed by Wikipedia:Guide to layout, which tries to normalize the order of standard sections. Basically all that needs to be done is to move the order of the end matter sections a bit. Would there be any objection to doing this change in order to conform to the layout guide? It would not affect any content. Buddhipriya 04:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason why that would be objectionable, and I doubt anyone else will ;) --Iustinus 04:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Since this is likely to be uncontroversial, I will made the adjustment per Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Buddhipriya 05:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. In making this change I noticed one other format issue, which is that according to the layout guide for the References section, the instruction is to "Put under this header, again in a bulleted list, any books, articles, web pages, et cetera that you used in constructing the article and have referenced (cited) in the article." That is, the References section is intended to be a list of works cited in Notes. Other works that you think the reader should look at, but which are not actually used in Notes, go into "Further reading". This classification helps the reader quickly check which sources are actually used in footnotes. This is a minor change and does not affect content other than by location on the page. I will make this change next as it would be something that may be required if the article moves forward to FAC. Buddhipriya 05:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation Question #1: In making this change, I noticed that SR Goyal, p93 is cited in a note, but I do not see the bibliographic data for this item. Did I miss it? If it is not in the article now, if it is a book, please add the detailed citation to the References section.

S.R. Goyal "Ancient Indian Inscriptions" Kusumanjali Book World, Jodhpur (India), 2005. Best regards. PHG 05:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation Question #2: One note ("The Rabatak inscription") is sourced by what appears to be a self-published web page: [18]. This information is apparently important to the article. However self-published web pages generally do not qualify as WP:RS or WP:EL (which includes among links to be avoided: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.") as they are not vetted by any independent source. Is there any additional WP:RS that can be used to strengthen the sourcing for this item? Or can the publisher of this web page be effectively proved to be a recognized authority on the subject? I regret that I am too ignorant of this topic to be able to tell.

Hmmm, well I assume Sims-Williams is a recognized, credentialed expert, so a transcript of a talk he gave would be citable in normal academic writing. But you're right that a strict reading of wikipedias rules might preclude its use. At least three obviously pertinant articles by this same author are listed on google scholar, of which I believe I can download the latter two (I don't have time to incorporate the material, but if someone else wants to do it and doesn't have access to get the articles, they can contact me). The articles I see are:

[CITATION] Further notes on the inscription of Rabatak, with an Appendix on the names of Kujula Kadphises and …

N Sims-Williams - Proceedings of the Third European Conference of Iranian …, 1995

Cited by 2 - Related Articles - Web Search

Notes and Communications - all 2 versions »

MJ Geller, N Sims-Williams, JC Wright - Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, …, 1997 - JSTOR

... him to be included in the list in the Rabatak inscription. ... NICHOLAS SIMS-WILLIAMS

School of Oriental and African Studies, London 13 See further Wackernagel ...

Migration and Settlement of the Yuezhi-Kushan: Interaction and Interdependence of Nomadic and … - all 2 versions »

X Liu - Journal of World History, 2001 - muse.jhu.edu

... The inscription was found at Rabatak, not far from Surkh Kotal. ... M. Nicholas

Sims-Williams, "Nouveaux documents sur l'histoire et la langue de la Bactriane" ( ...

--Iustinus 05:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia article for Sims-Williams? Wikipedia articles are not usable as sources, but they sometimes help to establish if someone has met the notability criteria for scholars. If the factual claims in the article are generally accepted, and he is one of many who holds the views, that is one type of issue, but on the other hand he may be making a novel claim or fringe theory which may require stronger sourcing. I do not know which this is. The reason why I am raising this issue is that for some of the Indology articles, there is a great deal of debate about specific academics. The expert from one side is often regarded as a crank by the other side. So showing that he has published a lot on this issue on the web is not really helpful in establishing what other academics think of him and his theories. Are his theories mentioned by anyone else? Are his works cited in the bibliographics of other academic works? These are some of the metrics used in the notability guidelines for academics. Buddhipriya 05:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Nicholas Sims-Williams (I just created an article for him) is a well-published authority on Central Asian history. Here is a sampling of his published works:

• "Some Bactrian seal-inscriptions" in "Afghanistan, ancien carrefour entre l'est et l'ouest" BREPOLS ISBN 2503516815
• "Sogdian and other Iranian inscriptions of the Upper Indus II, London (1992)
• "Bactrian ownership inscriptions" BAI 7, pp173-9 (1993)
• "New light on ancient Afghanistan: the decipherment of Bactrian", London (1997)
• "Bactrian documents from Northern Afghanistan I: Legal and economic documents" Oxford (2000)

Best regards PHG 06:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation Question #3: The same issue of use of self-published web pages arises regarding the two web pages by John Hill that are cited as sources. Can it be established that he is a recognized authority on the subject?

The work of John Hill is quoted as a reference in such authoritative works as those of the Central Asia historian Iaroslav Lebedynsky (cf "Les Saces", p146, p155 ISBN 2877723372). Best regards PHG 05:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation Question #4: One note regarding the Butkara stupa, Swat says: "Butkara I, Faccena". I am so new to this material that I must confess I have no idea what this means. Is it a citation to a book, or something else? If it is a reference to a source, we need to pin that down. If it is intended to be a commentorial footnote, can it be made more clear for the new reader such as myself? Buddhipriya 05:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The full reference is: Faccenna, Domenico (1980). Butkara I (Swāt, Pakistan) 1956-1962, Volume III 1 (in English). Rome: IsMEO (Istituto Italiano Per Il Medio Ed Estremo Oriente). I'll put it in the reference list.PHG 05:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing for territorial issues

Since the territorial issues have been a source of controvery before on this article, are there any additional sources that can be cited regarding territorial issues in addition to the self-published web site that I mentioned previously? E.g., this edit which relies on it: [19]. When sourcing controversial material, one way to address charges of bias is to use a wide range of sources which establish that the facts are generally known in multiple academic sources. There seems to me to be overreliance on this particular self-published web site as a source of information. Buddhipriya 20:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The description of the southernmost and eastermost extent of Kushan rule according to the Rabatak inscription is referenced through one major new primary source and the analysis of several current and well-published scolars based on it:

• The primary source, the Rabatak inscription, a rather straightforward and rather recently uncovered document (1993) created by Kanishka.
• The analysis of Sims-Williams and J.Cribb, specialists of the field, who had a central role in the decipherment. Sims-Williams is well published in general, in scholarly works and on internet as well. J.Crib is also an extensively published researcher on Central Asian and Indian history. They initially published their findings in "A new Bactrian inscription of Kanishka the Great", in "Silk Road Art and Archaeology" No4, 1995-1996.
• The analysis of S.R. Goyal, "one of the five best recent historians of ancient India" (David N. Lorenzen), head of the History department at Jodhpur University. He is the author of the recent "Ancient Indian Inscriptions" (2005)
• As far as I know, the analysis of Mukherjee B.N. "The Great Kushanan Testament", Indian Museum Bulletin, referenced by Goyal.

Again, this is rather straightforward, and as far as I know not considered as "fringe theory" (actually quite the contrary, as we are talking about some of the most central specialists of the subject, both Western and Indian). It is only rather recent knowledge, so that most pre-2000 works on the Kushans would obviously not be able to take this discovery into account, and thus reflect a more ancient and restricted view of Kushan dominions. The map is carefull in attributing the "dotted line" to the Rabatak inscription and acknowledges in a thick line and a darker color the more classical perspective. PHG 04:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Thank you for that helpful introduction. The article uses the phrase "Rabatak inscription" several times, and seems to assume that the reader will know what that is. I think that if you were to add a one- or two-sentence condensation of the information you just gave to the article at the place where the use of the term takes place it would be helpful to the non-specialist. Regarding sourcing for what it says, there is currently one footnote in the article that reads as follows:

"The Rabatak inscription claims that in the year 1 Kanishka I's authority was proclaimed in India, in all the satrapies and in different cities like Koonadeano (Kundina), Ozeno (Ujjain), Kozambo (Kausambi), Zagedo (Saketa), Palabotro (Pataliputra) and Ziri-Tambo (Janjgir-Champa). These cities lay to the east and south of Mathura, upto which locality Wima had already carried his victorious arm. Therefore they must have been captured or subdued by Kanishka I himself." "Ancient Indian Inscriptions", S. R. Goyal, p. 93. See also the analysis of Sims-Williams and J.Cribb, specialists of the field, who had a central role in the decipherment: "A new Bactrian inscription of Kanishka the Great", in "Silk Road Art and Archaeology" No4, 1995-1996. Also Mukherjee B.N. "The Great Kushanan Testament", Indian Museum Bulletin.

I found this note confusing because it packs a great deal of information from multiple sources in one note. I think the average reader might find it easier to do fact checking if the information in that note were split into three notes, each of which would point to a specific reference. I think this approach is more consistent with the spirit of Harvard referencing which is one of the strongest citation methods used on Wikipedia. In that system, the set of three notes could read:

• Note: For quotation: "The Rabatak inscription claims that in the year 1 Kanishka I's authority was proclaimed in India, in all the satrapies and in different cities like Koonadeano (Kundina), Ozeno (Ujjain), Kozambo (Kausambi), Zagedo (Saketa), Palabotro (Pataliputra) and Ziri-Tambo (Janjgir-Champa). These cities lay to the east and south of Mathura, upto which locality Wima had already carried his victorious arm. Therefore they must have been captured or subdued by Kanishka I himself."see: Goyal, p. 93.

• Note: For a translation of the full text of the Rabatak inscription see: Mukherjee, B.N., "The Great Kushana Testament", Indian Museum Bulletin, Calcutta, 1995. This translation is quoted in: S.R. Goyal "Ancient Indian Inscriptions" Kusumanjali Book World, Jodhpur (India), 2005.

• Note: See also the analysis of Sims-Williams and J.Cribb, specialists of the field, who had a central role in the decipherment: "A new Bactrian inscription of Kanishka the Great", in "Silk Road Art and Archaeology" No4, 1995-1996.

The mention of Silk Road Art and Archaeology, presumably another volume of Falk, would then result in an additional volume being noted in References. If this is a multivolume work all by him, it may be easier to cite it as a series, with dates given for each volume. I am suggesting these citation methods not because I am concerned about the sources, but because I am delighted they are there and think the article will look stronger if they are cited in this way. Buddhipriya 05:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to go ahead with this formatting. Best regards. PHG 05:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will apply them and you can correct any error I introduce. Buddhipriya 05:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have inserted the new references in the article at the first mention of the Rabatak inscription in the article text. I also have added the new references at Image_talk:Kushanmap.jpg as it is possible this image will be used on other articles, where you may not know what is done with sourcing information by other editors. Putting the sourcing with the image itself makes it easy for other editors to research the image for possible elsewhere. I recommend that you insert a sentence or two defining the "Rabatak inscription" in the body of the article at the point where the first use of the term occurs. I added Falk, Harry. 1995-1996. Silk Road Art and Archaeology IV to the references but did not find complete citation data in the original note, so please add it if you can. I think the citations for the territorial expansion section look tidier now. Buddhipriya 05:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of IAST standards for Indic text

I noticed that the title of the following item in the Reference list did not use the IAST standard methods for tranliteration of Indic text. Since IAST is the academic standard, and is widely used as the standard for romanization of Indic text on India and Hinduism articles on Wikipedia, I changed the romanization to use IAST and also applied Template:IAST, which is used to signal to the reader which of the various romanization methods is being used. Because different romanization methods for Indic text exist, adding Template:IAST can clarify ambiguities in semantic meaning of romanizations. Here is the title showing the use of Template:IAST: ''The yuga of Sphujiddhvaja and the era of the '''{{IAST|Kuṣāṇas}}''''. For details on the IAST issues, you can see my personal notes on this issue at User:Buddhipriya/IASTUsage. Buddhipriya 21:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Les Saces

Two references to Les Saces appear in notes but I cannot see it in References and have no idea what (or who?) it is. Can reference information for it be added to References? Perhaps I missed it. Buddhipriya 06:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Kushan Map Discussion Cont.

Fellow contributors,

Thank you for joining the Kushan debate. I am afraid that the discussion above has not addressed a clear case of original research. Users cannot directly interpret an inscription and the boundaries it may or may not prescribe. A map should be referenced from a scholarly work

Here was the original map on the page from a reputed authority.

[[20]].

• This is from the metropolitan museum of art. PHG was referencing an amateur website.
• No authority has pushed the boundaries of the Kushans so far south.
• I was merely making the point that none of us can directly interpret the Rabatak inscription as per wikipedia guidelines. Otherwise that is original research
• PHG was attempting to hide behind a source that did not specify clear boundaries.
• When I pressed phg on a point above, he changed the boundary. So he changed the map based upon what I said, not based upon what an expert said.

• Finally, in response to user Boricuaeddie regarding the original research policy, he only cited half of it. Here is the other half:

" A disadvantage of allowing original photographs to be uploaded is the possibility of editors using photo manipulation to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. If they are noted as manipulated, they should be posted to Wikipedia:Images for deletion if the manipulation materially affects the encyclopedic value of the image. Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader. "

[[21]]

So PHG's map has clearly violated the original research clause. If boricuaeddie cannot account for this, the matter is very much open to continued debate.

Lastly, boricuaeddie has not touched on phg's incivility as well. In other articles he has attacked users such as vastu and windy city dude and dismissed their opinions. in other cases he has used proxies such as giani g to attack users. So if we are going to discuss incivility, let's air out the whole story.

Please let me know if you need me to account for anything else. I suggest that a new mediator enter the discussion given the oversights above. I hope this will explain why PHG's map is inaccurate and in violation of wikipedia policy

Also, I am always open to friendly dialogue and sincerely desire it, as seen on my contributions on other pages (i.e. Sassanids, vijayanagar, french india, etc). It is only when users prevaricate in order to push their POVs (i.e. PHG) that I take a more firm line. Please do not be afraid to post on my talk page if you have any other questions as I will happily address them.

Best Regards,

Devanampriya 23:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The above statements "In other articles he has attacked users such as vastu and windy city dude and dismissed their opinions. in other cases he has used proxies such as giani g to attack users." are again untrue and defamatory. No "attacks" ever took place against Vastu or Windicity dude, and Giani g is an independent user.

Again this map is an illustration of perfectly sourced material, i.e. scholarly analysis by Goyal and al. of the recently discovered Rabatak inscription. PHG 07:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not ready to call for removal of the new map because I am not sure if the map represents WP:OR or not. If the claims are correct that it incoporates new information that is unlikely to be in academic sources prior to 2000, the difficulty will be in independently determining the facts. It is clear that the map boundaries differ from those shown in the (possibly older) Metropolitan Museum map, but the fact that the boundaries differ does not mean that one or the other map is wrong. The extreme southern boundary of the new map (used now in the article) defines the outer perimeter as "expansion" but it is not clear to me exactly what "expansion" means. It is clear that it is a lesser degree of control than the inner perimeter. I am not competent to evaluate the data directly, so I will not even attempt to do WP:OR of my own to determine the facts. The efforts I made to clarify how the map was sourced led me to feel that there has been an overreliance on a self-published web site for at least part of the data, but there is a claim of a second source also being used. Since these sources have been synthesized to create the map, it is quite possible that there is some degree of WP:OR taking place, but on the other hand if the data is a new academic finding, it may be appropriate to present a tentative map of this type.

Currently the map is located in the upper right corner of the article and presented as known fact. There is no comment with the map that it differs from other maps, such as the Met map (which could be cited as an external web link without actually putting the map into the article. As a good faith effort to disclose that the map may not reflect any published WP:RS directly, would a possible strategy be to move the map into the body of the article into a section on territorial boundaries, and present it for what it is, namely a new interpretation which is more expansive than previous maps? The alternative map can be linked to the discussion so readers could view both.

It is unfortunate that no other published map exists. Are we sure that there is no other source to turn to for the new data?

Another option to get more opinion would be to do an RfC specifically on the issue of the map, asking for input on how to handle this type of new data which may have difficult sourcing.

Buddhipriya 01:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Buddhipriya,

Thank you for factoring this information I mentioned. To respond to your points:

1. Here are a few more maps (another of which is from a published work) just to demonstrate how phg's is an outlier: [[22]]

2. The citations provided by the metmuseum post-date the discovery of the rabatak inscription (which was found in 1993). So this is hardly newly discovered information.

3. Since, as you mentioned you suspect, that original research has taken place on the part of phg, perhaps the fairest move would be to have a third party, neither myself nor phg, create a map that is modeled after the metmuseum map. This would circumvent the copyright concerns, but allow for us to cite the website as a reference.

Thank you for joining the debate. I value your opinion.

Regards,

Devanampriya 01:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The map you reference [23] is exactly 100 years old... Again the current map is an illustration of much more recent knowledge, based on perfectly sourced material, i.e. scholarly analysis by Goyal, Sims-Williams, J.Cribb, Mukherjee (all among the most prominent authorities of the field) of the recently discovered Rabatak inscription.

I've also added in the article extensive reference to the classical work of Rosenfield (originally published in 1967), who already lists Orissa, Malwa, Maharashtra etc... as probable areas of Kushan rule, long before the appearance of the Rabatak inscription. PHG 13:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the Metmuseum map isn't. As always, you ignore certain statements to advance and agenda. Again, you are taking assumptions and establishing them as facts, much like eurocentrists writers did with AIT. You have done this most egregiously here and on the indo greek page.

Devanampriya 22:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

External link policies

I feel that the following two web sites do not comply with the Wikipedia guidelines for external links (see: WP:EL) because they are self-published sites that do not have any specific authority and do not systematically cite WP:RS. I think these links should be removed, not because of any particular issue about what they say, but simply because I would like to see a general raising of the bar with regard to standards on sourcing. How do other editors feel about this? Here are the links:

• New documents help fix controversial Kushan dating
• Antique Indian Coins

Buddhipriya 08:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Buddhipriya. I am not sure if we would benefit much by eliminating these two links. They both bring valuable information and are fairly well-known sources. Grifterrec.com is a straighforward and quite good numismatic reference for ancient South Asian kingdoms. The second site, CoinIndia, is published by Pankaj Tandon, who is actually also a well-published numismat (see for example his Numismatic Chronicle article here). Best regards. PHG 20:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just do not agree on this. According to WP:EL, sites involving advertising, such as a coin sale site, are specifically suspect. Also, to comply with citation policies, a site must provide references to WP:RS for claims of fact, and these do not seem to do that. Also, the issue of coins seems tangential to the main article, and while there is some value in looking at specific coins as part of a historical review, the use of coin sites here seems to fall under the text of WP:EL as tangential: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject."

If we cannot agree, I would like the opinion of other editors on these matters. Normally I would just remove these types of sites when I see them in other articles, but given the history of difficult editing here I am just raising the issue on the talk page prior to any edit. My overall feeling is that source quality needs to be improved with the article, and this is part of that effort. I have posted a request for outside opinion on this issue at: Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Request_for_opinion_on_some_links Buddhipriya 21:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I do feel that these two sites are quite informative for the interested reader, but no big deal really. If they fall outside of Wikipedia regulations, let's erase them. I'd love to have a third opinion indeed. PHG 21:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no rush to deal with this, so lets see if we can attract any other editors. I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam and reflexively cut EL sections. It is a common practice to request outside opinion on these matters, so let's see if we get any nibbles. Buddhipriya 21:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A recently published map of the Kushans

Dear all,
I went to the British Museum this week-end, and took the opportunity to check the most recently published books on Indian History… which would also incorporate a territorial map of the Kushans. I could only find one such recent book: “India: The Ancient Past”, Routledge 2007, ISBN 0415356156. The book is by Burjor Avari, luckily not one of those “imperialistic Western historians”, but an Indian by birth, teacher at Manchester University. As a matter of fact the territorial extent of the Kushans described in the map of that book is essentially similar to that of the map currently in our article on the Kushans. Although he does not actually mention the Rabatak inscription, Burjor Avari nevertheless draws the meridional limits of Kushan territory along Ujjain in the southwest, beyond Kundina and almost to the Godavari river in the south, and next to Pataliputra in the east. Again, this recently published map shows a territorial extent essentially consistent with the one in the article. So much for all the uncourteous invectives by a certain user. The bottom line is that the understanding of Kushan territory has greatly evolved since the 1993 discovery of the Rabatak inscription, based on which foremost scholars such as Goyal, Mukherjee or Sims-Williams have redefined the limits of Kushan territory (the basis of the current map), and this knowledge is now also appearing steadily in the most recent graphical works on the question. I trust this puts the matter to rest. PHG 20:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this reference. I have ordered a copy of the book as it sounds like it will be a valuable and current reference work. Continuing to look for current published WP:RS on this matter is the best solution for disputes on the facts. Buddhipriya 21:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The new book by Avari just arrived and I have made a citation to it in the article so it will now appear in the References. I have begun dipping into it, and it is clearly a wonderful book that is going to be helpful for many of the articles on ancient Indian history. Thanks so much for making me aware of it. I hope that other editors will get it and begin citing from it, as it does an excellent job on Indian history from c. 7000 BCE to 1200 CE. Buddhipriya 18:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide full references

References may be cited in short form if full references appear in the References section. Can you please add full bibliographic citations for the following works that have been added in a note: H.Humback, 1975, p.402-408. K.Tanabe, 1997, p.277, M.Carter, 1995, p.152. J.Cribb, 1997, p.40. References cited in "De l'Indus à l'Oxus". The idea of the References section is that it is a "List of works cited", permitting the reader to obtain the sources for verification purposes. Furthermore, the best practice for inline citations is to tag each citation with some linkage to the specific text being sourced. Are all these being used to make one point, or multiple points? Buddhipriya 04:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. I have added full reference for "De l'Indus à l'Oxus". I will complete the details for Humback, Tanabe, Carter when I have again access to the book (in a few weeks). Regards. PHG 05:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You said "access to the book" which suggests that the references to the other authors are not things you have see in their works, but which are being quoted by someone else. This is a type of secondary reference and needs to be cited explicitly by saying something like: "For citations to Jones (1914), and Brown (1823), see: Doe (2005)". In other words, if you are really only citing one work, say that, and show a path to the other citations via that author. If you have verified the citations by getting the actual works, please cite each one as a separate reference. That way if one is challenged it can be defended as a distinct issue. Buddhipriya 05:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It is already cited that way: note 21: "H.Humback, 1975, p.402-408. K.Tanabe, 1997, p.277, M.Carter, 1995, p.152. J.Cribb, 1997, p.40. References cited in "De l'Indus à l'Oxus".". But please change wording if you have a better solution. PHG 05:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If the source for the statement in the article cited by note 21 is Bopearachchi (who is listed in the References), then all you need for the note is: "Bopearachchi, p. 999." You do not need to go into detail about how Bopearachchi came to the conclusion unless you think that the intellectual history of the issue is a matter of debate, in which case the debate could be articulated in more detail. Does this seem like the right approach for this reference? The practical issue is that if someone wants to do reference checking, they now know that they need to get a copy of Bopearachchi and turn to page (whatever). Buddhipriya 06:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of Greek script

Are there any standards for use of Greek script in articles related to this project? For the Hinduism project, which includes many Indic scripts, the convention is that the English romanization is given first, with the Devanagari or other Indic script given in parentheses. Examples of tags for this include the LANG tag for Sanskrit, which is coded as '''{{lang|sa|ॐ गं गणपतये नमः}}''' and which might be rendered along with a romanization in a format such as this: "... the mantra oṃ gaṃ gaṇapataye namaḥ (ॐ गं गणपतये नमः). This is an English wiki, and many readers will not understand the Greek characters, so a format like this may be helpful for this article. What do other editors think? Also refer to: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek) for a discussion of romanization methods. Should all of the Greek be rendered using the "Roman standard" spelled out in that naming convention documentation? FYI, some of the Greek characters do not display at all on my system, so I just get little boxes for some characters. This problem of rendering is so common on articles that contain Indic scripts that many pages include a link to a rendering help page: Help:Multilingual support (Indic). I am not able to find an equivalent Help:Multilingual support (Greek) but perhaps I am not looking in the right place. The article on Greek alphabet just has a warning notice that due to rendering support problems, some characters may not display correctly. Buddhipriya 05:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Shiva

I have added a few references to strengthen the Shiva connection, which is put forward as fact by Sivaramamurti. I have not cited it yet, but "Mahasena" is a standard name for Shiva as well, and appears in one of the inscriptions specifically cited by Sivaramamurti regarding the Shiva materials. If the connection to Shiva is disputed, I would like to see more detail on the foundation of the dispute. Buddhipriya 08:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Four-faced Oesho

The article says Oesho was once identified as Shiva but is today identified with the Iranian equivalent of Herkules (which is Verethragna). There is something busted somewhere.

Oesho is a "four-faced" divinity (so the article, no ref). Neither Shiva, nor Herkules nor Verethragna is four-faced. Brahma is, as is also Zurvan. Could someone please check/confirm the identification with Shiva/Herkules/Verethragna?

Is Oesho being perhaps misread/conflated with Oado? According to the article (no ref) Oado is Vayu-Vata, and while in Hinduism Vayu is an aspect of 5-faced Shiva, in a Zoroastrian context Vayu-Vata represents two of the four aspects of 4-faced Zurvan.

Merci for the lookup. -- Fullstop 04:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

nm. Oesho is not Herkules-Verethragna as the article suggested but the Vayu "half" of Vata-Vayu after all. -- Fullstop 03:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems, after closely looking at the oesho coins ,

1. the 3-headed diety, bears resemblance to shiv,vishnu & Brahma,as 'Dutt' 2.the other oesho coin clearly shows ,the weapons belonging to shiva. So It indeed seems Shiv is depicted on the coins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.243.110.48 (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Kushan Info Box

Should we put a brief section in the Kushan infobox about "Predecessors" and "Successors" of the Kushans? I believe it would include the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom and the Indo-Greeks in the Predecessors category, and the Sassanids, Kushanshahs, and Hepthalites in the successors category. I think that would give readers a better idea of the history of the Kushans and their Empire, to learn who they supplanted and who supplanted them. -- Thomas Lessman (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Early Kushans

It is my understanding that Hermaios did not actually exist, that his name was a misreading of a coin legend. Bopearachchi, Dobbins and Cribb have all made this point. Is there a current argument to the contrary?

Also, can you give any examples of skull deformation being a "practice well attested in Nomadic Central Asia" (e.g. specific cultures or time periods)?~~Ngomano April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngomano (talk • contribs) 15:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Linguistic and Religious Claims

Hi, I'm a casual reader who is a student of Iranian studies and historical linguistics, and I have to say that when it comes to the linguistic claims here, this article is a disaster! What evidence is there that the Kushans spoke Tocharian A or B? Although Tocharian is contemporary and attested in the Tarim Basin, there is no evidence put forth here that the Kushans were not another nomadic people who spoke a non-Tocharian language. Indeed, all Tocharian texts date from the 5th-9th Centuries (just look at the page on it). This is hundreds of years after the Kushans left the Tarim region. Therefore I think there should be sources found for the claims made about the link between the Kushans and Tocharian (though this should be a no-brainer).

Also, this may seem nit-picky, however I do not think there is any evidence that the Kushans had any relationship with the prophetic Zoroastrian religion. Much like the relationship between Buddhism and Hinduism in India, Zoroastrianism was a prophetic tradition which always (even within the Persian Empire) existed alongside a polytheistic tradition, the worship of the Yazatas. This tradition still exists in Iraq in the Yezidi community, who have no relationship with the Zoroastrian religion. Therefore, the Kushans could be worshippers of Iranian deities such as Mithra, yet have no relationship with the prophetic Zoroastrian religion. This is a mistake many intellectuals make about the subject, however, and you can probably find a multitude of sources which do not account for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.90.172 (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

This is the third sentence in the "Origins" section: It was originally ruled by the Hottentots, who were overthrown by Emperor Egg-Foo'Young from the Kasim basin. 114.161.79.57 (talk) 07:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Why I reversed the recent changes

This morning I found a large section of the opening section of this article had been rewritten. It seems clear to me that the changes were made in good faith and so I thought I should give some explanation as to why I reversed them.

First, there were no references or supporting evidence given for any of the many claims.

Secondly there were a number of errors of fact and suppositions presented as facts. These included the claim that the Yuezhi were "forced from their homes in the Inner Asian steppes of Mongolia" when the Chinese histories such as the Shiji and Hanshu make clear their homelands were between Dunhuang and the "Qilian Mountains" (which may refer to the Tian Shan rather than the modern Qilian Mountains) none of these regions being in what is now known as Mongolia.

Also, the assumption that the Kushans were identical to the Yuezhi is controversial - many scholars feel that the Kushans may have originated from a local group ruled by a local vassal prince (or xihou) who broke free of Yuezhi control. The truth is the connections between the Yuezhi and the Kushans are still unclear.

Likewise, the story of Kanishka's conversion to Buddhism is legendary and unproven, and the often-proposed connection between the Kushans and the founding of the Shaka era is also really just speculation with no historical foundation. Finally, the claim that the remnants of the Kushans were finally usurped by a vassal who established the Kidarite kingdom is very speculative. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense because I thought you were a vandal.(Dewan 23:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

The book Origins and history of Jats and other allied nomadic tribes of India: 900 B.C. - 1947 A.D. (2007) by B.S. Nijjar is an unreliable and misleading work which should not be used in the Wikipedia

I notice that in edits here and on quite a number of Wikipedia articles relating to Indian, Scythian (Saka) and related history, references are being made to B. S. Nijjars' book (see the title above). Unfortunately, I do not have a copy to hand so can only judge it on the pages I am able to access through Google Books, but even on these few pages I find so many outright mistakes, unsupported claims and outdated positions that the whole book must be considered an unreliable source for the history of this period. Here are just a few examples:

1. On p. 244, Nijjar claims the Kushans are "thought to have been of Yueh-chih stock with a strong admixture of Hephthalits, Saka and Tocharian." He makes no mention at all of who thinks this, or on what grounds. The truth is no one knows who the Kushans really were - there are many theories and little agreement in scholarly circles.

2. On p. 245, he makes the "Yueh-chih (Pinyin yuezhi) a branch of the Kushans, also called Indo-Scyth . . ." Again, he gives no reference or evidence for this amazing statement.

3. On p. 247, there are several errors: first Nijjar claims that the Kushan dynasty is descended from the Yuezhi, contradicting his earlier statements. While this may well be so, it is a contested point and, as usual, there is no proof or references given.

4. On the same page he repeats the long-standing but now discredited notion that Kanishka is connected with the advent of the Saka era of 78 CE. Most scholars now accept Falk's well-reasoned and well-supported argument for Kanishka's era starting c. 127 CE.

5. Again on page 247 he states that Kanishka's empire stretched "from Khotan in the north . . ." Now, a Kushan army did invade the Tarim Basin in 90 CE, but it was soon forced to retreat by the famous Chinese General Ban Chao. Later, in the teens of the second century, Kushan troops are said to have placed a Kashgari hostage prince, Chenpan, on the throne of Kashgar, but not long after this Chenpan came under control of the Chinese. We have no definite historical or archaeological evidence that the Kushans ever controlled Khotan and, even if they did, it must have been for a very brief period.

6. And again, on the same p. 247, Nijjar states: "In outlook, Kanishka was full-fledged Indian . . ." This is pure speculation and demonstrably very unlikely. Kanishka's two longest and most important inscriptions are from northern Afghanistan in the Bactrian language (which is more closely related to Persian than Sanskrit or Prakrits) and, although one of his rarer coins has a Buddha on it, most of his coins feature Iranian deities. So, on what grounds does Nijjar claim that "Kanishka was full-fledged Indian"?

7. Nijjar has a chapter (No. 7) headed "The Kushans (Ancestors of Jat, Ahirs, Rajputs, Baloches, and Pathans) in which he makes a whole series of completely unsupported and unorthodox claims (such as that the Ta Yuan or Dayuan were Tokharians on p. 245). Then, under the sub-heading, "THE EMPEROR KUJULA KADAPHASES", he starts off: "The Yueh-chih succeeded by his son Vima, after whom came Kanishka . . . " WE already have three errors here: the name is usually written Kujula Kadphises, and it is not at all certain that he was a Yueh-chih (Yuezhi), and it has been known for some years now from the Rabatak inscription that, while he did have a son named Vima Tak(tu), this Vima had a son known as Vima Kadphises who, in turn, was the father of Kanishka. So Kanishka was Kujula Kadphises' grandson, not his son as Nijjar claims.

8. Nijjar then goes on making a series of similar mistakes (plus numerous grammatical and spelling errors) - often showing his total ignorance of modern scholarship - I can't even begin to list them all here. I should mention though that, on p. 252, he makes a totally unsupported claim the Kushans were "of Saka stock" - a very contentious and unprovable claim. Indeed, if they were originally Yuezhi (as he earlier claimed), it is most unlikely that they were Sakas for the Chinese histories record that when the Yuezhi moved into the Ili region they defeated the Sakas there and they clearly represent them as two quite different peoples.

9. And so he goes on, making uncertain claims one after another until he reaches the end of his chapter, on page 259, without once saying why he believes that the Kushans were "Ancestors of Jat, Ahirs, Rajputs, Baloches, and Pathans", as stated in the title of the chapter! And his next chapter (Chapter 8) is headed "The Huns (Ancestors of Jat, Ahirs, Rajputs, Baloches, and Pathans)" which, one can only assume in the end, would be similarly inconclusive and full of unsupported claims.

It is for these reasons (and others far too numerous to include here) that I maintain that B. S. Nijjar's book is a seriously flawed and sloppy work, full of errors and unsupported claims. Moreover, Nijjar is clearly unaware of recent scholarship relating to the issues he so confidently presents to the reader as facts.

The book, as a result, is a very unreliable and misleading source for the history of the period and, so, references should not be made to it in the Wikipedia.

I will, therefore, start removing quotes from it, and references to it, wherever I come across them in the Wikipedia and refer people to this note for my justification. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Kushan Empire

Note to Readers: I initially combined a couple of discussions on my user page with User:Dewan357 over changes to this article and then thought that they should really be on this page as they refer to it and seem to be pertinent as to what shape the article should take in the future. So, I have taken the liberty of moving them here and adding a reply I have made to Dewan below. I look forward to others entering these discussions. I feel this article needs a lot of work now to bring it up to Wikipedia standards and I just don't have the time or the energy to try to do it all myself. - So, please help. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC) .............................................................

Why have you erased the texts in the Kushan Empire. I gave good reference and it was well researched.(Dewan 23:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

Ok my bad! That makes sense. I thought you were a vandal so I undid it!(Dewan 23:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

No problem bro! I think it is good how it is right now. (Dewan 01:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

What up man! I did some reasearch and see if these claims are good enough for the beginning of the article:

The Kushan Empire (c. 1st–3rd centuries) of Ancient India originally formed in Bactria on either side of the middle course of the Oxus River or Syr Darya in what is now northern Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The people were nomadic and slowly took over the Scythian lands and founded their own kingdom based from Afghanistan before considerably expanding into the gangetic plains. The Kushan warriors were assimilated into Indian society as Kshatriyas.

The Kushans controlled a critical part of the legendary Silk Road and was the crucible in trade between India, Persia, China, and Rome. The Kushanas were patrons of Gandharan art as well as Sanskrit literature. They initiated a new era called Shaka in 78 AD, and their calendar was formally recognized by India for civil purposes starting on March 22, 1957. They lost considerable amount of lands in central Asia in conflict with the Sassanid Empire who set up the Kushanshahs, and then in the gangetic plain to the rising Gupta Empire. (Dewan 02:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

Reply to User:Dewan357

Dear Dewan: I am sorry, but I hardly know where to begin discussing all the matters you have raised. I will do my best here and then add copies of this correspondence to the Discussion page for the article on the Kushan Empire where I think it belongs, as it may be of interest to others contributing to that article.

Now, you have given above a proposed revision of the first two paragraphs of the article and asked me to "see if these claims are good enough for the beginning of the article".

Unfortunately, I am not at all happy with either the existing opening paragraphs of the article, or your suggested changes. I believe the opening should be brief, factual and provide a concise overview of the subject.

Now, first of all, the Kushan Empire at its height not only controlled large areas of the northern regions of the Indian subcontinent, but also much of what is now Afghanistan, southern Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and, perhaps at times, even parts of the southern and western portions of the Tarim Basin. It should, therefore, NOT be referred to as "The Kushan Empire (c. 1st–3rd centuries) of Ancient India. . ." This is misleading and implies that it was an Indian empire rather than an empire that included part of the Indian subcontinent.

Next, you state that the Kushans were nomadic - this is not at all certain. The Da Yuezhi of the Chinese histories are said to have been originally nomadic, one must remember that by the time of the rise of the Kushans in the early 1st century CE, they had spent well over a century living in the highly urbanised area of ancient Bactria and were likely to no longer have been mainly nomadic. Moreover, as I believe I pointed out earlier, the nature of the connection between the Da Yuezhi and the Kushans is still hotly disputed between scholars.

Dewan, I have been studying the history of the Kushan Empire since 1979 and I still cannot say with any confidence who the Kushans really were. They MAY have been descendants of the Da Yuezhi, but equally they could have been a local tribe or group already present in the region before the arrival of the Da Yuezhi, or they could have been a remnant of the Greeks and Da Yuezhi mixed with local populations, or, indeed, some other group - we just don't know. I am about to publish a book soon, Through the Jade Gate to Rome which translates and examines the chapter in the Hou Hanshu dealing with the so-called "Western Regions" which included the Kushan Empire. It contains the most detailed historical account still extant on this subject. I originally had a long appendix in it on the possible origins, language(s) and connections of the Da Yuezhi and the Kushans, but removed it all at the last moment as, really, it was impossible to come to any definite conclusions, and new theories are being proposed all the time. So, in a general article such as this I think one should be very careful to not jump to (poorly founded) conclusions. Rather, I think it is important to point out the uncertainty that exists amongst scholars and, perhaps, to briefly outline one or two of the main theories (with proper qualifications and references, of course).

Next, you claim: "The Kushan warriors were assimilated into Indian society as Kshatriyas." As far as I know this is pure speculation. Of course, it is very possible, even likely, that some Kushan warriors were so assimilated - but we have no evidence for it. Also, we must remember that some of them probably stayed in the region of ancient Bactria, and were never accepted into Hindu society, while others again probably became Buddhist (and, therefore, did not join any caste). It is also likely that Kushan "warriors" mixed with women of various tribes and castes (as did later conquerors such as the British), and so their descendants would not have retained their initial acceptance as Kshatriayas. Moreover, you give three footnotes for this statement: 1. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Kshatriya which only makes one very brief reference to the Kushans with no evidence provided and, therefore, cannot be accepted as a reliable reference, 2. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Kshatriya - which is really just slightly edited "mirror" of the Wikipedia article on Kshatriyas, and therefore not accepted as a valid reference in Wikipedia, and 3. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6282655/Kshatriya which lists a downloadable pdf file but I cannot seem to register (every Username I enter is refused as "invalid"), so I cannot tell whether this file has any worthwhile information. These cannot be accepted as valid, authoritative references and, therefore, should be removed.

Dewan, I have already discussed at length why the Shaka era cannot be confidently attributed to the Kushans - I do not wish to repeat myself here. Also, the second paragraph of the article is hardly the place to discuss such a contentious subject and the Kushans' patronage of art and literature is briefly discussed later in the article and hardly needs repeating here. This section should probably be expanded and references to articles on Gandharan art, etc. made

Finally, the sentence: "The Kushans controlled a critical part of the legendary Silk Road and was the crucible in trade between India, Persia, China, and Rome" brings up a valid and important point - that the Kushan Empire sat astride the main overland trade routes, thus giving the Kushans considerable control (and, one assumes, the ability to enrich themselves by taxing the caravans). However, it is grammatically very poor and, I think, deserves to discussed more fully and clearly in a separate section of the article.

I am sorry to sound so negative, but that is how I feel about your suggestions and so I thought it better to speak plainly rather than to try just to be polite. In fact, I think this article needs major revision - particularly the opening paragraphs, and all the references should be checked to make sure they refer to reliable sources - not just websites containing dubious, secondhand information. Yours sincerely, John Hill (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I do agree with you on many things you have said. But the fact of the matter is that they are part of the History of India. I am not saying that they are an Indian Empire, but they did absorb the culture and religion of India and called the Indian Subcontinent their home. Thay is what I mean by putting Ancient India, I am not saying that it is an Indian empire but it is within Ancient India and point out that they did make major contributions to Indian society. My guess would be that you know that in India they are considered Indian. As well as the records show that they considered themselves ruler of northern India. Watch the documentary the "Story of India" by Michael Wood. So that is why I believe that Ancient India is correct and not misleading. User Talk:Dewan357

Dear Dewan: I find that again I must disagree with you. The Kushan Empire was not just an empire of Ancient India, but also an empire of ancient Bactria (roughly northern Afghanistan), and the empire was originally formed there when Kujula Kadphises united the 5 xihou in the early 1st century CE before he invaded the regions of Kabul, Puta, and Jibin (Kapisha and Gandhara). Later, his son invaded northern India, conquering regions to the east of the Indus River including Mathura. The greatest of the Kushan emperors, Kanishka, then extended their territory down the Ganges River Valley and subdued surrounding regions for a time. But, don't forget that Kanishka kept very close ties with Bactria - the homeland of his ancestors, and quite possibly himself. His two most important and detailed inscriptions come from northern Afghanistan, Surkh Kotal (near modern Baghlan) and the famous recently-discovered Rabatak inscription, not far to the northwest of Baghlan, which gives details of his ancestors as far back as Kajula Kadphises. There is no way one can consider these territories to be part of "Ancient India." So, it seems very clear to me that the Kushan Empire cannot be fairly described as being "of Ancient India" - it began elsewhere (in Bactria) and continued to control Bactria (and Kabul, Kapisha/Begram, etc.) all the time it was conquering larger and larger portions the northern subcontinent. This would be like saying "the Hun's Empire of Ancient Europe" or "the British Empire of India." The Kushan rulers were not Indians - they were foreign invaders.

Whether many modern Indian people consider the Kushan Empire an Indian Empire is surely irrelevant. The Kushan Empire began outside the borders of Ancient India and, after it became powerful enough, it invaded India. It was no more an Indian Empire than the Roman Empire was English. The Kushans were just one of a long line of foreigners who invaded and conquered parts of India - like the Persians and the Greeks did before them, and like the Huns and Afghans and British did later. So, with hopes that I am not upsetting you too much, I will have to reverse your recent edit of the opening paragraph (but will keep the internal link you added in the 2nd paragraph on the Indian subcontinent). Yours, John Hill (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The Kushan Empire was an empire NOT "one of the Middle kingdoms of India"

Someone keeps insisting that the Kushan Empire was "one of the Middle kingdoms of India". I am not sure what the problem is but perhaps they do not understand the difference between an "empire" and a "kingdom"? The Kushan empire was far larger than any of the kingdoms of Middle India - in fact it included several of them within its territory. So, therefore, it is totally wrong to refer to the Kushan empire as just "one of the Middle kingdoms of India". The great Kushan emperors such as Kanishka did not call themselves "Shaonanoshao" or "king of kings" for no reason. They took this title because they ruled over a number of kingdoms, including some in Middle India, but also others in what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan. So, please do not reverse my changes again. Thank you. John Hill (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi John Hill, in my edits I added [24]

• Peshawar to the list of the capitals
• Gandhara region
• northern Pakistan
• Buddhism as first religion
• Pali (a literary form of Prakrit) as the second language after Bactrian

because reliable verifiable sources were cited for the above, yet they were not mentioned in the article.
However after the silly edit war by 159.91.18.154, my edits in the lead were reverted [25]. And Gandhara was again removed from the lead. I request to consider restoring my version of the lead of the article. Good regards. 119.152.247.183 (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

........................................

Hi! Thanks for your note here and on my own Talk page. I appreciate you taking the time to write to me. I am sorry if your earlier edits were wiped during the "silly edit war" - that was a most unfortunate experience.

Now, these are my ideas on the current state of the article:

1. I would like to keep the first paragraph short and focused on the early formation of the Kushan Empire in what is now Afghan territory.

2. The second paragraph, I believe, is the place to briefly outline the rapid expansion to Kabul, across Gandhara and down the Ganges Valley. Certainly it will be fine to add Gandhara in here. Discussions of religion, language, etc., I believe, should be kept to the main part of the article further on - as they are too complex to briefly summarise in the opening paragraphs.

3. I note that Buddhism is already listed in the information box at the right hand side of the page as the first religion, and Peshawar and Pali are already there. However, much of the information box is a mess - I had not noticed until now what a mess it is - and it was changed a long time ago. I will try to get back to soon to make sure it relevant and accurate. I don't know if Buddhism should really be listed as the first religion of the Kushans - some of the co-called 'Great Kushans' certainly supported it - but their coins show a preponderance of Iranian and Bactrian deities.

4. I really want to keep away from nationalistic arguments, which should have no place in an article on ancient history. Therefore, I think we should avoid using terms like 'Pakistan', 'Afghanistan' and 'India' as much as possible (except, perhaps, to say things like, 'Begram, in what is now modern Afghanistan"). 'Ancient India' may be permissible - but even that is technically inaccurate as there was never a country called 'Ancient India', and its use does seem to annoy some people. It seems like we are stuck with either using the ancient names such as 'Gandhara', or geographical descriptors such as the 'Indus Valley' or the 'subcontinent'.

5. I will try to do some editing on this article over the next few days (if I can find time) and then, maybe, you would be kind enough to write and let me know if you agree with my changes or have any suggestions or criticisms?

Many thanks for your interest and taking the time to write to me, Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please investigate? Is this a sockpuppet?

Someone using the IP 159.91.18.154 keeps changing the opening paragraph of this article to make it sound as if the Kushan Empire was originally formed in ancient India. The changes are extremely similar to those made earlier by User:Dewan357 who has been blocked recently for "edit warring" on other articles. This IP:159.91.18.154 is apparently located at the Trenton State College in New Jersey which is of interest as Dewan:357 claims on his User page to be "a present or former student of The College of New Jersey". Now, "The College of New Jersey" was previously known as the "Trenton State College" - so they are the same place.

Soon after User:Dewan357 was blocked, edit changes from IP:159.91.18.154 started happening here. It seems more than coincidental that such similar edits seem to be coming from people connected with the same institution and continue via an anonymous IP after the original user has been blocked. I suspect that a sockpuppet is involved here but I don't know how to follow this up. Can anyone else please check this to see if I am right? Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for the week which Dewan is blocked. -- Avi (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your amazingly prompt action - I do appreciate it. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

removed greater iran tag

I have removed the Greater Iran tag from the article. I will refer you to User:Bejnar's post where he explains why it is irrelevant - Talk:History_of_Afghanistan#History_Template. (Ketabtoon (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC))

Removed unsupported claim that the Kushan Empire was ruled from "capitals" in ancient India

While it is assumed by some writers that the Kushan Empire was ruled from various cities in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent, such as Peshawar, Mathura and Saketa - there is no real evidence that this was the case. There is no evidence that any of these centres was more than a provincial administrative centre. In fact, there is evidence that Begram and Baghlan in modern Afghanistan (see the articles on Surkh Kotal and the Rabatak inscription, for example) continued to play a similar role well after the conquest of northwestern India.

In fact, the only real historical evidence on the Kushan administration we have is the following passage from the Hou Hanshu which indicates that the son of Kujula Kadphises installed generals in Indian centres to administer the empire. It is noteworthy that it does not say that the Kushan emperor actually ruled from any of them:

"His son, Yangaozhen [probably Vema Tahk(tu) or, possibly, his brother Sadaṣkaṇa], became king in his place. He defeated Tianzhu [North-western India] and installed Generals to supervise and lead it. The Yuezhi then became extremely rich."

Kushan power appears to have been very decentralised. It is quite possible that the Kushans moved their court from place to place, according to the weather and political situation - but I stress that this has not been proven. What is known is that the "Great Kushans" maintained several important centres in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as India. It is, therefore, improper to claim that the capital of the Kushan empire was situated in any particular modern country. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Who are ancestors of Jatts and Rajputs???

QadeemMusalman (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Who are the ancestors of Jatts and Rajputs? Are they Scythians or Kushans??? Very confused!