Talk:Kabul hoard

Infobox image

I suggest putting the royal Achaemenid siglos in the infobox instead of the barbarian imitation coin. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid the siglos is a bit worn and not very understandable for people who are not fairly familiar with Achaemenid numismatics. It is good for documentary purposes, but not very adequate as the general image for the article.पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 10:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The question is which image is the most characteristic of the hoard to warrant putting it in the infobox. One single fake imitation found in the hoard doesn't make it characteristic of the whole hoard. If no image is particularly characteristic, then there shouldn't be any image in the infobox. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

In my understanding the "fake coin", as you like to call it, is actually a coin of the Achaemenid Empire, which was just not minted in the official mints. It is precisely a combination of the Greek and the Achaemenid, and as such is fairly representative of the multi-faceted and cosmopolitan character of the Kabul hoard. It is also beautiful. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it is wrong to label anything as "Achaemenid Empire" unless we have information that the empire or its officials were involved. In contrast, you seem to want to label everything that happened in the territory controlled by the empire as "Achaemenid Empire" stuff. That seems to be crux of our disagreement. Do you agree?

I call this coin a "fake" because a misleading identity has been put on it. It is made to look like a Greek coin, even though it isn't. If it is a coin of the "Achaemenid Empire" I would expect to see the Achaemenid identity imprinted on it. But that is not so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I changed my mind about this. The "fake coin" is a key component of the hoard which allows us to date it. So, from an archaeological point of view, it is the most important coin. So I am happy to keep it in the infobox. I also notice that Joe Cribb calls it an "Iranian imitation". So we can omit the "barbarian" part. If you can find any information about the coin, where, why etc., it would be useful to add a section on it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Great! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

So now, after all this debate, I am told that this is not a coin from the Kabul hoard. I am sorry. This is highly improper. Only a Kabul hoard coin can go in the infobox.

Also, the Greek coin images are overbearing and distract from the text. There should be no more than one line of a gallery, like there was yesterday. Please pick and choose which you want to keep and which to remove. There is no need for a separate line of images for archaic coins and yet another for classical coins. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I am glad you finally understand why I insisted on using "coin type of...", whereas you repeatedly reverted me [1] to make it seem like it was actually a coin of the hoard. I think it is a good illustration, but it is not the coin itself. They do the same thing in Errington for illustrative purposes ("coins of this type were found in the Chaman Hazouri hoard..." p56), as the coin itself has disapeared in the lootings and the known photographs are copyrighted. The actual coin can be seen here (no.64), with the "meaningless" inscription "AIΓ". पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

You are the one who requested for an expansion of the "Greek coins" paragraph. I think we have it now, and it would be a shame to trim back the work that has been done in response to this request. Don't worry, the rest will also have some expansion (I am waiting for images). As you said somewhere rightly, Greek coins were probably a very large part of the hoard. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, blame gaming might make you feel good. But you need to address the issues:

• Only a Kabul hoard image can go in the infobox.
• The Greek coin images should fit into a single row to avoid distracting from the text.

Can you respond to those issues please? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Who do you think you are to order people around like this? Please take a collaborative approach and be tolerant of the contributions of other editors... and relax a bit... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Reverting

Pataliputra, please discuss the disagreements instead of reverting back to your preferred version. "Barbarian imitation" was well-sourced to Bopearachchi. The distinctive "Gandharan" stamping is also well-known and mentioned in tons of sources. If these labels are not acceptable, please explain why. The same goes for all other changes you have reverted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

This is not reverting Kautilya (not at all actually), this is correcting per the sources. Quite a few of your contributions, when correct, have been taken into account. And there's been a lot of expansion as well. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The term "Barbarian imitation" is quite deprecatory and a bit offensive, don't you think? So I am not sure we want to use that directly at the top of a page on Wikipedia... might be OK in the text with "quote marks" and possibly an explanation about what Barbarian actually means in numismatics (I think it just means that it was not made by an official mint). I prefer simply "copy" or "imitation". Isn't that better? If you absolutely want to keep "Barbarian" there, I suggest we use "quote marks", and I will make a note to explain the context and also the various interpretations around that coin. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:Ownership of content. What you are doing is this: "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article." पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The editor who wrote the content, i.e., you, is to whom "ownership" issue applies. But I didn't bring up the "ownership" as an issue, even though I could have. It is ironic that you should accuse me of "ownership".

"Barbarian imitation" is what Bopearchchi called it. I guess he did so because the identity of its manufacturers couldn't be narrowed down. So I don't see what choice we have. Saying nothing would imply that the Kabulis produced it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand Wikipedia:Ownership of content: "While ownership behavior is often understood to involve the original creator of the article, it can also involve other editors who have conflicting interests in promoting or opposing the subject, hijacking the original article's direction and emphasis, changing the title to reflect such changes..." पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, you are not going to get anywher by throwing stones at me. Better get down to business and discuss content. All content added to Wikipedia is subject to WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The Errington volume

The Errington volume is a catalogue of an exhibition. Even if Cribb and Bopearachchi wrote those descriptions/commentaries, this source is not peer-reviewed WP:HISTRS. Peer-reviewed sources take priority over what is said in this volume. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3. I don't see anything that would not qualify "The Crossroads of Asia" as a WP:HISTRS. It is the official descriptive catalogue of an exhibition in a world-famous museum (the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge), published for the Fitzwilliam Museum by an organization of high standing (The Ancient Iran and India Trust in Cambridge), with an Organizing and Editorial committee composed by some of the world's foremost authorities in the area: Raymond Allchin, John Boardman, Joe Cribb, J.C. Harle, N. Kreitman, Edited by Elizabeth Errington and Joe Cribb, with additional contributors such as Osmund Bopearachchi. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, well, exhibitions don't establish history. The fact that so many people were involved in writing the contents (of whom, I have no idea who wrote what) is precisely why we can't treat it as a WP:HISTRS. I have a reasonable amount of confidence in Bopearachchi. But he calls the coin a "barbarian imitation" whereas the Errington volume calls it a "local imitation". This is just one example. If this stuff is really solid, you should be able to find other sources, peer-reviewed sources. Please don't keep pushing the same POV all over the place. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

All the material from Errington quoted in this article is signed jointly by Osmund Bopearachchi and Joe Cribb, some of the highest authorities in eastern numismatics. Your "Barbarian imitation" comment is interesting, because this is actually the same author giving two interpretations: this is because the understanding of the coin has evolved with time. I am glad if you add "other sources, peer-reviewed sources", no problem with that, just do not corrupt or misrepresent the sources we already have, which, I believe, are among the best available. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your expansions by the way.पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what is meant by "signed jointly". If it is an article, there would be a title, authors, page numbers and citations at the end. You haven't provided any of these. If there is any contentious material, they need to be able to provide the background source material where the issues are analysed in depth. All I have been seeing so far are pithy captions for pictures. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

??? Errington's "The Crossroads of Asia" [2] is a 306 pages collaborative work, where a dozen of leading academics, under an editorial committee of leading academics, wrote articles in relation to the artifacts that were on display at the Fitzwilliam Museum exhibition "The Crossroads of Asia". The Errington articles referenced in this "Kabul Hoard" Wikipedia article are both two pages long and both signed by Osmund Bopearachchi and Joe Cribb... i.e. they put their names at the end of the articles they wrote. There are also 10 coin pictures in all, with their own descriptive labels (your "pithy captions"...). The first article is entitled "Before Alexander the Great's Invasion" (pp.56-57) in a Chapter entitled "Coins illustrating the History of the Crossroads of Asia", whereas the second article is entitled "Alexander the Great and the Seleucid Empire" (pp.58-59), in the same chapter. Both articles, again, signed jointly by Joe Cribb/Osmund Bopearachchi. Both article have several footnotes with references and citations as well. I don't know how to be clearer... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"I don't know how to be clearer." You can be clearer by providing full citations, which is what you should have done in the first place. Full citation means, giving the authors, the title of the work, where it appears and page numbers (of the work, as well as the specific page being cited). Secondly, when a contentious arises, e.g., about "local Achaemenid administration", you can provide the source citation used in the article to justify the terminology. Since these researchers are only looking at the coins, what evidence did they provide to decide who created the coins. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

Finally, you need to explain why the same authors use, in peer-reviewed articles, different terminology from that in the Errington volume. WP:NPOV requires that we cull all the relevant sources and summarise them to the best of our ability. Not doing so is called WP:POV pushing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for adding the chapter title. Coins illustrating... clearly indicates that this is a catalogue of coins. The review says:

The Catalogue is divided into various sections, the first of which includes the coins, arranged according to the issuing authorities (no. 1-53) and the images of gods (nos. 54-94) — brief and pithy notes by J. Cribb and O. Bopearachchi make this section extremely useful.

Based on these, I see no need to change my assessment of this source. You need to find alternative peer-reviewed articles that corroborate the contentious terms like "local Achaemenid administration" and such like. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

This removes nothing to the fact that these articles about the coins of the Kabul hoard are signed by some of the two foremost experts in the area (Joe Cribb and Osmund Bopearachchi) in a publication of high standards, under an editorial committee of top academics. These articles also appear in the standard lists of personal publications published by both authors (OB p.3, JC p.1), so they constitute a normal part of their academic and publishing work. Their work in "Crossroads of Asia" has also been reviewed by A.-M. Quagliotti, and M.L. Bates. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Description vs. Impact

Pataliputra, this kind of insertion is also not acceptable. You have divided the article into "Description" and "Impact" sections for good reason. Please stick to that. Joe Cribb's ideas represent a theory. It is not a settled fact and his theory is not the only in the book. All theories need to be covered as per WP:NPOV and we can't give his theory WP:UNDUE prominence. Most of all, you need to stick to your own section titles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't quite see your point. It would be very unnatural to completely dissociate the coins from the direct implications derived from their analysis. Some proximate conclusions are attached to the paragraphs related to the coins, whereas the "Impact on the dating of Indian punched-marked coins" gives a broader summary. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

These are one scholar's conclusions and they are not universally agreed upon. It is better to put them in a separate section where all viewpoints can be discussed. Do you want me to do an RfC on this? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Fine with attributing these conclusions specifically to Osmund Bopearachchi and Joe Cribb if you wish. Your "It is better to put them in a separate section where all viewpoints can be discussed" is really just your opinion, and it seems a bit trivial to have an argument just about layout. Nobody would bother with such a boring RfC. Also remember we are here spending an awfull amount of time and typewriting. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Gandhara or not Gandhara?

Short Kabul bars

Long Gandhara/ Taxila bars

Hi Kautilya. You keep reverting me, claiming that the bent bars found in the Kabul hoard are "Gandharan". I suggest you re-read Bopearachchi (p.311) who clearly states that the bent bars found in the Kabul hoard are shorter (28x15mm) than the bent-bars found further east in Gandhara/Taxila (42x10mm). In the catalogue, he further attributes clearly the short ones (the same Kabul bent-bars, 14-15-16) to the Paropamisadae, and the long ones to Gandhara in his listing of the coins (p.271). I have presented two photographs to make the difference easier to understand. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Bopearachchi seems to have revised this opinion after the discovery of Shaikan Dheri hoard, where silver ingots were found and they were able to determine that the silver in the coins was of the same consistency as the ingots. He is not very clear about whether the short bent-bar was also tested.

Anyway, for the time being, I don't mind the short bent-bars being attributed to local coinage. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Citations/sfn

Pataliputra, You have added more material from Kagan today, but you haven't used the Bibliography entry for the paper already present in the article. Using it with {{sfn|AUTHOR, TITLE|YEAR|p=...}} allows you to add the precise page numbers, which is important and necessary information. If the sfnref's I have specified are too hard for you to use, I can omit the TITLEs. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Pataliputra, can you explain how you decide whether "Archaic" and "Classical" should be capitalised? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Capitalized when referring to a specific historical period [3]. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Greeks of Lydia vs Lydians

@Kautilya3: Could you clarify this sentence? I got confused after reading it; do you imply that the ancient Lydians were of Greek origin, or do you mean that coinage was invented by the ethnic Greeks who lived in Lydia?

• "Coinage was invented by the Greeks of the Asia Minor, starting with the Lydian coinage in the 7th century BCE. Over the next two centuries, the use of coins spread throughout the Mediterranean area."

Thanks alot, - LouisAragon (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I amended the text to follow the source more closely. It is never particularly clear who in Asia Minor were Greek and who weren't. Alyattes isn't described as Greek, but his son Croesus is written about as practically Greek. Complicated history! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)