Talk:Indo-Greek Kingdom/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Maps: an epitaph 2 MAPS: THE RESURRECTION 3 Neutrality dispute 4 Please do check lingustic influences again for its correctness

Maps: an epitaph

Yesterday, I happened to glance through Narain's work "Coins of the Indo-Greek kings", and this volume includes a map. Now, Narain has been said to have been far more critical of Greek expansion than Tarn. This map was however identical to PHGs current effort, even with Pataliputra included as a province! The recent map (not the Indo-Greek) is therefore perhaps more restrictive than both Narain and Tarn pictured.Sponsianus 14:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

O the irony considering that Narain was what this whole debate practically hinged on (surprising as he was only a single author despite the other sources), so what is to be made of the current map then? Could you upload Narain's map by chance? ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 07:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

Dear all,

I am glad to introduce a final map of the Indo-Greeks, sourced from Narain "Coins of the Indo-Greeks" (I just got the book today), as well as from Westermans "Atlas der Welt". Sourced as it is, I do not think any dispute can remain, and I am putting it on the front page. PHG 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

MAPS: THE RESURRECTION

Dear All,

The map posted by PHG is not only inaccurate, it is also improperly cited. First, the map that appears in the "Coin Types of the Indo Greek Kings" by Narain, does not show any expansion into the Deccan and Ujjain. Accordingly, Narain specifically disputes the expansion into the Gangetic and Gujarat by the indo greeks in his definitive work "The Indo-Greeks". In fact, that is exactly what Narain is known for--disputing Tarn's theory about an Indo Greek advance to Pataliputra. Moreoever, I own both works, as well as "The Indo-Greeks: Revisited and Supplemented" a recent work dating to 2003. In it, the map he alots for the Yavanas Greeks does not include any part of the gangetic, let alone Ujjain and Bharhut. So irrespective of why the publisher of "Coin types" used the pro-Tarn map, Narain's map from his in-depth study "Indo Greeks", and his own published works claim otherwise (they only show the greeks in the Punjab).

Also, the german map which PHG refers to, as mentioned by the user Sponsianus who sent it to both of us, lists regions which were contested (by user Sponsianus' own admission) and not necessarily greek conquests--although even that is dubious, it certainly is not justification for this depiction. Those regions were clearly ruled by the Satavahanas at the time. PHG is again manipulating sources and maps to present a version of history which simply cannot be advanced. His aim is to create a maximalist indo-greek map irrespective of any available consensus (of which none exists) and in spite of recent criticisms of such depictions (He took the map that appears in "coin types", which shows the gangetic but not ujjain, and the german map which doesn't show the entire gangetic but the Ujjain and the western deccan and simply added all the territories to his benefit). As such, I have reverted to the previous consensus map.

Therefore, dispute does remain, and I urge administrators to admonish the spurious claims that are being advanced and questionable scholarship and original research that is being practiced by PHG.

Sincerely,

Devanampriya 05:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• I do own the 2003 "Indo-Greeks, Revisited Supplemented", hard jacket version, and there is no map in it. Could you precise your claim?
• The Westermans map does not at all say that what it represents is contested.
• I clearly labeled on the map the published sources behind each representation. I have just added the eastern frontier to Mathura, from Westermans, which I had ommited for graphic reasons, but it's OK. Refresh your browser if you can't see it yet.
• The map you are putting forward is not a "concensus map", and is not properly sourced.
• As you tried to put that map forward, you also deleted a month of editing.
• I am OK to add to this map a third interpretation, provided it is properly sourced.

PHG 05:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have the same edition. Read it before your cite it.
• As Sponsianus, aka Jens Jakobsen noted in his e-mail to me (which I can gladly forward to you), in the book that westermans map appears in, it notes that the dashed/interspersed regions are "contested". his words, not mine. he said he should have informed you of that before he sent it to you since you interpreted them to be otherwise.
• The map that was presented was a consensus map and was sourced by user Windy City Dude
• Your map should display regions that are undeniable and that all parties have agreed to (Gandhara and Punjab as far as the Ravi River) anything beyond that, as noted by western and indian scholars alike, is speculation, and not inline with the rigorous analysis that should be applied to history.
• As I have said before in an attempt to broker a fair--perhaps even a favorable consensus to you--I am not averse to having a map along the lines of the Oxford map referenced by Windy City Dude that virtually all parties can agree too at the top followed by different theories and versions at the bottom of the article. Since you are in favor of posting everything under the sun about a given topic, this is a fair compromise since you get to post your ahistorical maps and readers get to see an accurate map at the top and make their own decisions about the different theories.

Devanampriya 06:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you send me the map you claim is in the 2003 "Indo-Greeks, Revisited Supplemented", because there is none in my edition. Would you even have a page number???

Please kindly check the last modifications to the map: it represents the 3 known published sources we have: Oxford/ Narain/ Westermans (although I do not have personal access to the Oxford one, I assume WindicityDude's reference was correct). I don't know how we can have a more fair representation. We are on Wikipedia: only referenced sources can appear, and POV deletion of referenced sources go against the rules of this site. PHG 06:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense PHG,

How in the world is this a fair representation. Your map is an abomination. There is not even an attempt at compromise. Frankly given your abuse of the Westermans map, which you 1. misrepresent 2. fail to recognize as being flawed (there is no evidence that the indo greeks were anywhere near ujjain or in western maharashtra)., we can't trust you with anything else.

Exactly POV representations go against this site, and that is precisely what yours is. You use a map that publisher included, in spite of the fact that the author disagrees with said reprentation and indeed, vehemently opposes it. You use a map that identified possible or contested territories, in spite of the utter lack of historicity (the cave inscriptions from western maharashtra date several centuries after the indo greeks, and the names were not even identified to be greek) in ujjain, there are no hoards any where near. In bharhut, nothing. Your is a pov representation. You have been provided a litany of reasons, yet you choose to ignore all of them because reason now escapes your efforts. You didn't even address my compromise suggestion. What a shame for wikipedia. Thanks to people like you, citizendium had to come into existence.

Devanampriya 05:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Devanampriya, but your "litany of reasons" (to use your own words) and POVs are irrelevant to this site. Only published sources are, and now even though we now have three published map as references (Oxford, Narain, Westermans), covering a wide range of historical claims, you still try to find reasons to deny them (even the one from a book published under the control of your cherished Narain! What a contradiction!). There is absolutely no reason why your own personal view should be privileged over others (what you call your "compromise solution"). PHG 18:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There you go again, PHG. You are attempting to confuse the reader. You are not using three published maps as references, you are picking and choosing from all three maps so as to maximize indo greek territory on the subcontinent. That is unacceptable. The contradiction here is that you claim to actual read the stuff you cite. My "cherished Narain" argued against your portrayal of greek territory, argued against your depiction of demetrius, and argued against misinterpretation of texts. You are guilty of all three.

Why don't you actually read Narain's "Indo Greeks: Supplemented and revisted" instead of your normal biased sources. His map in there reflects the map I've been supporting and not the abomination you've created. This is not my personal view, but fact. Your claims to fairness are the equivalent of including nazi eugenics theories in modern biology. This is neo-colonialism at its worst. Shame on you and your enablers.

Devanampriya 19:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Dear Wikipedia Administration,

I have nominated this article for neutrality disputation and neutrality check as user PHG has biased heavily towards the Indo Greeks. I have spent 2 years attempting to explain to him why it is biased, why the map is incorrect, and why this article is not in line with NPOV. He has never attempted to consider my proposals (even when he realizes the slim case), and when user Vastu brokered a fair one, PHG pulled out a month later (unilaterally) because he decided that he had changed his mind. Since then, he has grown more flagrant and has combined 3 different maps into one not to give different perspectives, but so that the reader will be confused into thinking that all that territory in India was under greek rule.

1. The westermans map that is referenced showed "contested" territory, not territory under greek rule. Moreover, it is inaccurate and poorly researched since the Sungas ruled central india and the Satavahanas ruled western India (there is no evidence whatsoever demonstrating otherwise).

2. Narain's map in the seminal work "Indo Greeks" limits the indo greeks to the Punjab. This is backed up by his book, where he states that Tarn's colonial theory about the greeks conquering the gangetic is false (I can provide the supporting quotations). But user phg portrays otherwise. Moreover, PHG's current map shows both Sunga capitals (Vidisha--being between Ujjain and Bharhut--and Pataliputra) under the Indo Greeks, so where did they rule uninterruptedly from? Hence, the map is utterly false.

3. The article is not an objective treatise of the topic but is an hagiography:

• It claims that the indo greeks came as liberators and protectors (which is false--sources can be provided).
• It abuses sources (at one point claiming that Indians called Demetrius Dharmamitra--also false).
• Makes false claims "Greek influence on coinage can be seen in Delhi sultanate coins of Alaudin Khilji claiming himself Sikander Al Sani (alexander the second)". Apart from the fact that that is false, since that phrase demonstrates greek impact on persian culture (the delhi sultante was ruled by persianized turks), it is original research (no sources were provided). Moreover, that does not show actual influence on coinage. In fact, this entire article consists of much original research, to the detriment of India, thereby provoking deletions and edits.

I am not seeking a pro india nationalist article here on anywhere, which cannot be said for this user who injects unrelated greek content on virtually every ancient Indian page. I respect greek civilization and history, but not at the detriment of accuracy. As on other pages, I only want objectivity. This article is the equivalent of claiming that "slavery was for the own good of those subjected to it" and that the "british conquered one fourth of the world for the good of the natives".

I beseech wikipedia to admonish user phg and his enabler, administrator aldux, and to entreaty them to embrace objectivity, dialogue, and compromise. I believe in wikipedia, but sneaky edits and biased narratives by users like phg are the reasons for Citizendium's birth. We have a responsibility of making sure that the very first google hit on this topic treats the subject matter objectively. Please consider this case.

Sincerely,

Devanampriya 03:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Devanamriya, although you may dislike some of its content, this is a highly referenced and balanced article. All claims are based on published sources. The article has been recognized by the Wikipedia community as one of its best.

For the facts:

1)The Westermans map stands in its own right. Indo-Greek territory is depicted in the original map the same way as the territory of the Huns or the Alans: surely there are some uncertainties in these territories, but the Atlas makes its best reconstruction nonetheless. No reason to discount it as a source.

2) What you call Narain's map in "The Indo-Greek" is not a territorial map, just names spread out over a geographical map of India. It is worthless to give a clear representation of the different territories. The only existing map with boundaries approved by Narain ("Coins of the Indo-Greeks") has been represented prominently in this article.

Narain does recognize expansion of the Greeks to Pataliputra. Among other things he writes: "There is certainly some truth in Apollodotus and Strabo when they attribute to Menander the advance made by the Greeks of Bactria beyond the Hypanis and even as far as the Ganges and Pataliputra." (p267 "The Indo-Greeks").

3)*In the article, the Indo-Greeks are representated as liberators by some (Tarn, Bussagli), as predators by others (Narain). Both opinions are represented.

• The claim that "that Indians called Demetrius Dharmamitra" is from Tarn and others.
• The claim that "Greek influence on coinage can be seen in Delhi sultanate coins of Alaudin Khilji claiming himself Sikander Al Sani (alexander the second)". is from Tarn.

Please stick to published material, accept the variety of views on a given subject, and to not delete sourced material as you are doing everywhere.

PHG 06:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello PHG:

Although experience has, unfortunately, established that there is no point in reasoning with you due to your narrow-mindedness, I will rebut your untenable, and indeed false, claims:

1.Narain in no way shape or form supports Indo Greek “territorial gains” in the Ganges-Yamuna Valley.

You falsely cite a fragment from the “Indo Greeks”. Here is the block of text (within that same paragraph) that follows your mischaracterized quote:

“Kalidasa alluded to the defeat of an advancing Yavana unit at the hands of Vasumitra, the grandson of Pushyamitra who had overthrown the Mauryas, on the banks of the River Kali Sindhu in north-central India…But the Yavanas were not able to make territorial gains in the Ganges-Jamuna Valley. Whitehead [Narain’s British adviser in London cited] believes that the Indo-Greeks could have done no more than conduct cold-weather campaigns or make long-distance raids. While this may be so, we must look for deeper causes for the failure of the Indo-Greeks to find a foothold in the Ganges-Jamuna valley.” P.267-268

So you see, you’ve taken a quote out of context and lied about the author’s true intention. Shame on you.

This is exactly the problem with you. You cherry pick quotes that mischaracterize, or in this case, blatantly lie about what scholars really think and wrote. This has seriously damaged both the credibility of your work and that of wikipedia. How can a reader trust what he or she is reading here when you have so brazenly misused a block of text?

2.Narain’s only map on Indo Greek territory is completely in line with his positions. Moreover, it shows the very boundaries he describes below in “The Indo Greeks”. Here is Narain on “The Climax of Indo-Greek power”:

“Menander’s kingdom shows Indo-Greek power at its height. He ruled from the Kabul Valley in the west to the Ravi (river) in the East , and from the Swat valley in the North to the Northern Arachosia in the south.” P.122

This is accurately depicted on the map included in "The Indo Greeks”.

Disclaimer: Indo Greeks is a comprehensive, 585 page treatise on the eponymous topic and supplemented and republished in 2003 by A.K. Narain. “The Coin Types of the Indo-Greek Kings” is a 58 page listing of coins and hierarchies, with little if no discussion (14 pages not by Narain but by Co-Author H.K. Deb), published in 1976.

3. You color historians in a manichean branding of good and evil. While Tarn, and your questionable Italian art historian Busagli, may lavish encomiums upon the Indo Greeks as “liberators”, Narain did not characaterize them as “predators”. Narain is enamored with the Indo-Greeks, which is why he did his thesis on them. Your use of those words clearly betray your biases and poor understanding of this subject.

3. The claim of Dharmamitra is as antiquated as the flat world theory. Tarn was wrong, as evidenced by modern scholars, so let it go.

4. The claim about Sikander al Sani is again evidential of Tarn’s poor scholarship because there is a distinction between numismatic technique and the imprint of Alexander on Islamo-Persian history and culture. Alauddin Khalji, who minted the Sikander al Sani coin, was comparing himself to Alexander and not demonstrating his appreciation for indo-greek coin technique. So stop misusing that quote.

The bottom line is that this is not a well-balanced or well-written article. 1.You stitched together 3 different projections (2 of which are indefensible) and created one supermap laying claim to as much territory in india as possible. This is not balance, this is bias.

2.As on other pages, you interrupt the article with misplaced and often irrelevant blocks of text to bolster marginal or misguided points. This affects the readability of the article. In doing so, you place more emphasis on defending obsolete theories than on creating an article that is readerfriendly

3.You reorient the narrative to suit your positions, and then claim that they are balanced

4.You routinely conduct original research by inserting paragraphs pertaining to the greeks that are both irrelevant and false both here and on other pages (i.e. Greek dynasts succeeding the Satavahanas after their downfall (almost 200 years after the greeks disappeared from the political scene).

In this discussion, you have displayed your misuse of quotes, mischaracterization of authors, and effort to bias articles pertaining to India. You have embraced and outdated worldview and have woven its prejudices into this page. But hey, there’s really no point since you’ll ignore everything I’ve just written or only address fractions so you can escape the full weight of your mistakes. You’re welcome to go back to drawing the indo-greek warriors that you routinely post on these pages.

Devanampriya 23:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

What I wrote to Devanampriya was that the mapbook "Atlas der Welt Geschichte" often used striped colours to refer to contested territories. However, on the map of Asia in 174 BCE, the entire Indo-Greek kingdom including Pushkalavati and Gandhara is striped: the only reasonable interpretation is that the striped areas in this matter refer to the extension of Graeco-Bactria. It is possible that the mapmaker was uncertain how much of this which had really happened in 174 BCE and therefore striped the territory. What I would have told PHG - I never did so - was probably that the Atlas was inconsequent about the meaning of striped colours.

Narain's views and outlooks, upon which Devanamriya relies so heavily, are indeed much sounder than Tarn's, but are often outdated by obsolete premisses that make many of his conclusions worthless.

The worst example concerns the very point this discussion is about: the extension of Menander's conquests. Narain does not believe in Apollodotos I, the very important Indo-Greek king that ruled before Menander I. He also believes that Antimachos II ruled after Menander. Modern numismatists are dead certain about the relative sequence Apollodotos I - Antimachos II - Menander I, for instance the ANS9 collection, Boperachchi's encyclopaedia, and Robert Senior in Journal of Oriental Numismatic Society 179.

Having thus placed Menander wrongly before the earlier rulers in Gandhara and Punjab, Narain feels free to speculate that Menander's effort consisted in making conquests within Gandhara and Punjab and never expanded without a narrow territory. This is just irrelevant, for the territories that Narain claim Menander took where obviously conquered before. So if Menander was a conqueror - and Narain does not dispute that - he must have expanded outside of the Indo-Greek kingdom before him. I have been trying to press this point so many times now.

As for the coins, indirect traces of Greek numismatics can be found long after they were gone, Greek being the main language on the Parthian coinage. The Dharmamithra reference may well be wrong, but it is still an interesting suggestion, given that the eastern Greeks absorbed the cult of Mithra and admittedly supported it in the Indo-Greek kingdom.

But that is not the main issue here.

Devanampriya: Your outbursts against PHG, like the following

Your claims to fairness are the equivalent of including nazi eugenics theories in modern biology.

are quite untolerable, and makes it more difficult to have a constructive discussion even on the topics when your criticism of outdated sources has some truth to it. PHG has tried to update such sources to his best intentions and is clearly aware of the different views of important historians. The article hardly deserves such acrid criticism as yours, but if it comes to an arbitration, so be it. Sponsianus 18:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to Sponsianus:

Your diatribe against me is 1. inaccurate, 2. misplaced, and 3. counterproductive. I have attempted to reason with you and PHG for almost 2 years now. In that time frame, the two of you have stubbornly refused to negotiate (by clever stonewalling, misdirection, or outright and contemptuous refusal). You have both arrogated the status of scholars which none of us, especially phg, are in a position to claim. The end result has been a travesty of a map and a biased, unreadable article

1. The westermanns map is clearly poorly compiled and inaccurate map that does not belong on wikipedia.

•It shows Ujjain and Coastal Maharashtra under indo greek, or “contested rule”, or however you may classify it. As questionable as the expansions to Gujarat, Mathura, and Pataliputra may be, Ujjain and Coastal Maharashtra are completely unjustified. Ujjain was ruled by the Sungas and Satavahanas before it was captured by the Sakas. Moreover, your philhellenic compatriot elected to remove “Ujjain from the Sunga boundaries” and cleverly colored that city in the colors attributed to other Indo Greek cities. This is clearly a weasel edit.

•You yourself are unable to clearly assign a status to Striped and unstriped territory, and are now conveniently interpreting it in a fashion that is inaccurate. Here’s what you wrote to me:

“However, this Atlas frequently uses the striped lines to represent disputed territory. Perhaps I should have told PHG this, for the representation is perhaps somewhat ambiguous. The southern parts are certainly meant to represent the kingdoms of Saraostus, and Sigerdis.

The part which I think you may be correct to doubt is the territory around Udschein (Ujjain). However,Ozene should be the same city like Tarn says, since Periplus states that Ozene lies "inland and east" of Barygaza just like Ujjain does.

Nevertheless, the Periplus does not mention Greek influence there, only in Barygaza where coins with symbols of Menander and Apollodotus (or rather the Apollotodi, I & II) were abundant. I do not even recall Tarn mentioning Ozene as a Greek city, but there seems to be few indications that this was ever the case.

But in any case, this leaves us with a relatively small fraction of the map being dubious – the part northeast of Barygaza”

Other than the fact that Saraostus and sigerdis have not been identified with Maharashtra, even you recognize the issues plaguing this map (however much you may attempt to minimize them). It is obsolete and should not be referenced.

I would advise you to fully read and digest Narain’s writings before you comment on them. He makes the point that the lands that were conquered by Menander ran from Afghanistan to the modern Ravi river in Punjab. He specifically notes that Demetrius the first did not expand past the hindu kush, the first expansion should be assigned to Demetrius II and that merely consisted of Afghanistan and the Peshawar region, Taxila wasn’t captured under Agathocles and Pantaleon (who he says died just before), and that Menander did indeed expand greek holdings, but only to the Jammu region of Kashmir and upto the Ravi river past Sialkot. This is a reliable and fair conclusion given the dearth of evidence on the subject. So before you attempt to posit yourself as an accredited scholar on the topic, it would be advisable that you properly read and accurately present Narain’s positions. The only thing that is really “worthless” is your biased attempt to dismiss his valid and well-respected work.

Narain’s study of Apollodotus brings up relevant questions regarding this name from page (78-87) of Indo Greeks. That he did not arrive at the same conclusion you did does not impeach his scientific approach to the topic—especially considering your embrace of Tarn and his neo-kiplingian fantasies.

Your point about Dharmamitra is preposterous, as established by serious scholars. You claim that it merits suggestion. All of PHG’s contributions are rested upon such “interesting suggestions”, i.e. “Greeks aided Chandragupta, Greeks followed the Satavahanas, Greeks gave India astronomy, Ashoka had Greek blood in him”. All of these are out-of-place, obsolete suggestions that are cleverly knitted together by PHG to color the reader’s opinion of what happened. Wikipedia history is not about considering all the possibilities of what could have been, but providing a scientific analysis and recounting of the events that transpired.

Ultimately, I really tried with the both of you (as evidenced by two years of exhaustive dialogue). Vastu and I have repeatedly made offers or proposals for compromise only to have them reneged upon or ignored. I thought I could appeal to your sense of fairness and civic responsibility for this site, but you really took advantage of that and have abetted this map which duplicitously overlays all those maps to show these false boundaries. That is why this now necessitates arbitration. You clearly have no intention of engaging in serious dialogue leading to compromise, which is why a third party is required.

Devanampriya 23:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Devanampriya,

I maintain that your acrid outbursts, including the above-mentionend comparison with nazi eugenics, are not in good taste. What is more, I am disappointed with your distortion of minor details. As for the map, I merely expressed some uncertainty whether this work (which is in German) was consequent between maps - and I have checked that it isn't, other maps in the same work are structured in a different matter - but that has nothing to do with this map! And I maintain that PHG's old map that you protested against is better than the new one - because I agree that Ujjain (and probably Barygaza) should not be included.

I have read Narain. His main work is fifty years old, and though a considerable improvement from Tarn, many parts are hopelessly obsolete, to the point that it is almost a waste of time to use it as a base of discussion.(You should note that I have not once embraced Tarn's "neo-Kipling" fantasies, I have questioned them here in the least since 2005.)

However, Narain's failure to recognise the important Apollodotus I (modern numismatists are 100% certain about this) as a separate king is such that it clouds further analysis on the successor's of Apollodotus. You certainly realise that Menander's situation would be totally different if he was the first important Indo-Greek king, like Narain believes, instead of the third, as we now know. Narain simply worked before the proper analysis of monograms and coin types had developed, so I don't blame him.

Narain's ideas of Demetrius II - whom he mistakes for two kings - are even more outdated. Demetrius II was a later Bactrian king, of Demetrius III we know only single coins. None of them made any conquests whatsoever, they were ephemereal and insignificant kings. His speculations on Agathocles and Pantaleon are no better than Tarn's, and his division of the later Indo-Greek kings is hopeless as well, misplacing kings with as much as half a century in several cases. I think this discussion would perhaps benefit if we stopped referring so much to any of these old scholars.

I can sympathise with parts of your criticisms against outdated sources, and would much like to co-operate to dismiss them from these pages, but when I have added modern evidence for standpoints which emphasise the extension of Indo-Greek rule into India, you have simply disregarded them as well.

Sponsianus 14:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum:

I must say that I find your attempt to chastise me by referring to the long refuted misunderstandings of a fifty year old work is quite insulting. I see now that I have stated the abovementioned points several times in our debate (none of them are my own "worthless" inventions but established views - I dare you to find a single 21st century scholar who denies the existence of Apollodotos I), and yet you return to Narain's refuted ideas.

The fact is, Devanampriya, that if you neither are interested to keep up with modern scholars (like Bopearachchi, Cribb, Senior, Wilson) yourself, nor listen to those who quote them to you, then your contributions to debates about the Indo-Greeks unfortunately serve no constructive purpose. Sponsianus 21:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do check lingustic influences again for its correctness

A few common Greek words were adopted in Sanskrit, such as words related to writing and warfare:[94]

• "ink" (Sankrit: melā, Greek: μέλαν "melan")

Sanskrit does have words 'mal' meaning dirt and 'melan' meaning fair(getting together) but none of these mean ink ! Please veryfy it properly.

• "pen" (Sanskrit:kalamo, Greek:κάλαμος "kalamos"):Please do check word kalamo is sanskrit at all , my impression uptil now has been word 'Kalam' widely used in Hindi comes from farsi language but not sanskrit,Please do cofirm from proper linguist.

• "book" (Sanskrit: pustaka, Greek: πύξινον "puksinon")

I doubt word "Pustak" also to be of farsi orgin just check with proper linguist.

a "horse's bit" (Sanskrit: khalina, Greek: χαλινός "khalinos") "center" (Sanskrit: kendram, Greek: κενδρον "kendron") a "siege mine" (used to undermine the wall of a fortress): (Sanskrit: surungā, Greek: σύριγγα "suringa") Mahitgar 16:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mahitgar!

There is a proper reference for these works, even if it is somewhat old (the historian Tarn, who quotes linguists on this topic, is still available at university libraries). If you wish to update this, you should get a more modern scientific reference on the topic. Perhaps you could write that a modern Sanskrit dictionary does not give this specific word, but then we have to be certain that these are not merely different transcriptions of Sanskrit words to the Latin alphabet - those may have changed since Tarn's days.Sponsianus 12:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)