Jump to content

Talk:Indo-Parthian kingdom

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

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Rewriting and redirect

[edit]

If nobody disagrees, I will rewrite this according to Robert Senior's reconstruction (ISCH IV) from 2006. Senior refers to forcing chronological consequences - there is no Azes II, as Azes I overstruck one of the coins attributed to him.

The empire of Gondophares I was a loose framework where many smaller dynasties maintained their own coinage, and it immediately fell apart. Later Gondopharid kings and their associates ruled small principalities as far apart as eastern Iran and Sindh.

Senior does not use the term Indo-Parthian at all; the Gondopharids were related to the Apracarajas , and there is little Parthian about them except some stylistic inspiration from Parthian coinage. So the new redirect will be the Gondopharid dynasty, Senior's term.

The king Gundafar in the Acts of Thomas could not possibly be Gondophares I, who was active before the advent of Christianity, according to Senior. It should be a later bearer of the name, which soon became more of a title, like Arsakes for the Parthians. Sponsianus (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now adapted the chronology to Senior's modern research, which also included moving the references to the Saint Thomas gospel to refer to a later Gondophares (tentatively placed under Gondophares IV, see text), as Gondophares I probably precedes the advent of Christianity. I did however not change the article's title, as Senior refers to the term Indo-Parthian, though sparsely. Senior's chronology does not include the last king, Pacores, but I have nevertheless changed the dating to make his reign adjacent to the earlier rulers, which is no doubt the consensus view of all chronologies. The alternative to update the dates of all kings except Pacores, and suggest that he ruled long after the other Indo-Parthian kings, is not a happy one IMHO. Sponsianus (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temple or monastery ?

[edit]

It seams that you have made a mistake : the panoramic vue shows a monastery, not a temple ? "Panorama of ancient Buddhist monastery ruins at the Jaulian archaeological site;". It really looks like a buddhist monastery. ismoon on Wikipédia (France) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismoon (talk • contribs) 20:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indo-Parthian Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Indo-Parthian Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

[edit]

This article desperately needs sources. The dates seem wrong and don't match with related articles. The infobox has material not sourced in the article. It uses the words Kingdom and empire. It says disestablished around 240 when "Sakastan" (and why is that a redirect instead of linking to its own article at Sakastan?) was conquered by the Sassanian Empirel. But Sakastan says it was formed in 240. Doug Weller talk 18:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ya the article needs some major rewriting - I could only be bothered to somewhat change the lead. Regarding the Sakastan thing, that's a mistake by me. Sakastan was the historic name of Sistan, but also a Sasanian province. So I'm changing Sakastan to Sakastan (Sasanian Province), whilst Sakastan will be redirected to Sistan. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we have to to revert these last edit. Nobody knows if the Indo-Parthians were Surens - the suggestion that they were in fact Apracarajas is based on comparison of coinage. Nobody knows if they "officially declared themselves independent from the Parthians", as HistoryofIran has stated in the comments they have left no such records. This kingdom is not known by a contemporary name, and we do not even know if all the rulers (Gondophares I-IV and the others) were even related, as there are so few sources. We should revert to the changes in June 2018, and the new sources can then be added added as an alternative to the ones that have been erased. Sponsianus (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But... we do. The new sources state so. The intro was not the only information that needed change, but in fact the whole article does. The article is outtdated and dodgy. Please dont remove sourced information and re-add outdated stuff which wasn't even sourced to begin with. A lot of new light has been shed about the Indo-Parthians in academic sources these last few years, it's time we move with it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryofIran: The idea that Gondophares I was a Suren is not new; on the contrary, it is a very old idea, as can be seen on the Suren page: it was promoted by Ernst Herzfeld a hundred years ago. The problem is - to repeat myself - that there are no written sources confirming this. The Gondopharid kings, to my knowledge, never used the title Suren on their coins or in inscriptions (if this is wrong, I welcome references to that, not only to authors who use the word Suren Kingdom). Therefore, this idea should be treated as a hypothesis, not as an established fact. Here is a good, modern survey of the Indo-Parthians, using all modern numismatic literature. Indo-Parthian_descendants_in_the_Sasanian_era. It does not even mention the word Suren.

I, on the other hand, referred to a theory that is built on the modern research that you call for: numismatic evidence associates Gondophares I with the Apracarajas; it is therefore a suitable hypothesis that he was related to them. This is from a study by R.Senior published less than ten years ago. It is not in good style that you removed this referenced section without commenting, and your claim that it was outdated and not sourced is simply false. I intend to include it again in the opening text alongside the Surena hypothesis. This will cause me quite some extra work, so please do not delete it again. --Sponsianus (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because its not mentioned in their inscriptions/coins doesn't mean it's not likely that they were of Suren clan. There is a reason a great number of scholars state so. Also, I did not remove any 'referenced section', in fact I did the quite opposite. This was the article before my edit(s) [1], do you see any source? The article itself is barely sourced, let alone the lead. So much for my claim being 'false'. If the majority of scholars state they belonged to the Suren clan, then we obviously go with it as the most probable option, it's quite simple, so please put your ideas up here first before you change the article, as that would indeed not be in good style, contrary to my edit(s) which 'removed sourced information'... --HistoryofIran (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

[edit]

+ Apracharajas. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paratarajas. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 October 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Parthian Kingdom → Indo-Parthian kingdom – Appears to be pretty much uniformly lowercase kingdom in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Parthian_kingdom&oldid=1250418717"