Talk:Pillars of Ashoka

Old

Ahhoka Column picture removed. This picture was removed because of possible copyright violation. The copyright notice on Wikipedia incorrectly stated that the picture is from buddha101.com and used with the permission of the author of that site. The picture is not on buddha101.com and no permission was given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.46.177 (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Delhi iron pillar

It seems this pillar has absolutely nothing to do with Ashoka (it date to the Gupta period, 3-5th century). Shouldn't it be the object of a different article? PHG 12:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree: I just found it has its own section at Qutb complex, so the material here could be merged. Tearlach 19:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This pillar does relate to Ashoka, as it was comissioned to be built by him. Ashoka was a ruler who adopted the laws of Buddhism as the laws of his land, and so the pillars were built by him to spread the word and the teachings.

Any source for this attribution of the Delhi iron pillar to Ashoka? PHG 00:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

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 19:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

history

The swastica wouldn't have had anything to do with Nazism of course but it may have been the source that Hitler copied. There is no guarrantee that Ahoka was peaceful unless it served his purposes but he certainly wasn't like Hitler. Furthermore it is not unusual for tyrants like Hitler to claim peace symbols for their own.

On another note the pillar at Vaishali is suposedly 17 to 18.3 meters high and at the base 2 meters diameter narrower at top. This would be about 30 cubic meters of sandstone. The average density of sanstone is 2.7 tons per cubic meter which would come to about 80 tons, 30 tons heavier than official estimates. This is larger than the rest of the pillars that I know of and the dimensions have not all been confirmed so I'm not citing it without confirmation but this one is clearly larger than the officail estimates.

Zacherystaylor (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Editor is not well-informed

For some strange reason the editor has deleted the information regarding Ranajit Pal's recent suggestion that the Pillar of Ashoka which was brought to Delhi from Topra near Chandigarh may, in fact, have been an altar of Alexander which was re-inscribed by Ashoka. This has been published in a peer reviewed Journal (Scholia, vol. 15) but the editor claims to know more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda (talk • contribs) 01:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I request you to kindly read the following review of Ranajit Pal's Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander, also published in the Scholia:

• http://www.classics.ukzn.ac.za/reviews/05-19pal.htm

Any way, I already reverted my edit as there is no consensus and like to continue my argument on this topic in this page. Thanks. Joy1963 ^Talk 09:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia not for missionary activity

And if IP editors insist on reinserting unrelated christian commentary it's easy enough to get the page semi-protected. Simonm223 (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Replicas elsewhere

This article seems to be restricted to the historical pillars on the Indian subcontinent only. Replicas were also created - and some have even been built in modern times - elsewhere. For example, there is a very prominent Ashoka Pillar in central Shanghai (see Jing'an Temple). I think the breadth of the influence of this structure should be documented somewhere, but is this article the right place for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.73.197 (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please feel free to create a new section on historical replicas, and provide reliable sources for any new material you add. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

(copied from my talk page Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)) hi,

there has been more work done one a handful of ashokan pillars to exhibit greek and persian influence in this article compared to countless persian and greek pillar taking influences from greek and egyptian respectively in other articles. there seem to be a specific agenda and bias being followed here.

the design and motifs are circulated over vast distances, greek have followed egyptain infleunces but not one word is written in greek column article. whereas the ashokan handful of pillars being elaborately and minutely discussed on its foreign influences and even called 'adaptation' of perhaps original versions.

im only arguing with authentic sources that ashokan pillars are not adaptations and are uniquely indian which is not being tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rameezraja001 (talk • contribs)

Because the sources don't say that - even the ones you claim to be citing. It is pretty clear where the "specific agenda and bias" is. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

what are you eve talking about? im am not even paraphrasing the tet, copying word by word from the source and yet you are editing it out. there are only 7 ashokan capitals in existence, compared to countless greek pillars which are technically copy paste versions of egyptain ones (not one basic change), please do research and write about egyptain adaptation on greek pillars. not one word is written in the greek column article about it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rameezraja001 (talk • contribs)

I'm moving this to Talk:Pillars of Ashoka. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rameezraja001: I see that you did copy word for word, which I'll revision/delete as a copyright violation. But the Indian historian you are copying from says "If the Ashokan pillars cannot in their entirety be attributed to Persian influence, they must have had an undocumented prehistory within the subcontinent, perhaps a tradition of wooden carving. But the transition from stone to wood was made in one magnificent leap, no doubt spurred by the imperial tastes and ambitions of the Maurya emperors." That's a denial, by a respected Indian historian, that they are uniquely Indian. How do you manage to read your source and decide that it says they are uniquely Indian? Doug Weller talk 15:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

i think im repeating so much that i might write my own thesis on it

You aren't even responding to my comment about what the Indian historian said. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

i have already stated why they are uniquely indian

1) indian columns are the first to carve monolithis giant columns unlike greek/persian/egyptain columns which are segmented. thank god they are not described as influenced by the roman as they predate roman ones (a british colonial officers saw them and called them roman pillars! unlike greek or persian) 2) indian columns dont stand on a stone base unlike greek/persian/egyptain columns there base is burried in the ground 3) indian columns are not fluted unlike greek/persian/egyptain columns 4) indian columns carry inscriptions greek/persian/egyptain columns dont. 5) indian columns are not intended as support structure for a structural beams for a large hall unlike greek/persian/egyptain columns 6) indian columns have four animals surmounting unlike persian columns 7) indian columns carry round disc like abacus mounted by four animals compared to greek/egyptain columns where as persian doesnt carry one

these are the 'fundamental' differences compared to adaptations of greek and persian versions of egyptain columns, i must say greek and persian columns are more similar to egyptain columns compared to indian ones which are more unique but no where this has been discussed in their respective articles.

the babylonian/assyrian lion is being compared to ashokan lions and then calling it persian while persians have nothing to do with these babylonian lions given these reliefs were made before persians conquered babylon and no where these same styles appear in persian persepolis lions capitals.

i think there is a certain bias being displayed here but its okay it has been the western norm to link everything in the world to greek and roman, i have played my part here and would waste no more time, you guys can do whatever you want.

regards

I had incorporated several of these points, where good references supported them. But I'm pretty sure many Egyptian columns were monolithic, for example; certainly their obelisks were, and if the column is not supporting and held in place by a big weight there is sense in using a monolith. Some may also be inscribed; certainly Ashoka did not invent rock inscriptions, which the Persians and others used a lot. Only two "indian columns have four animals surmounting unlike persian columns" - the rest have one, against the Persian two. The pillars can be described as "uniquely indian" if you like, but the bulk of scholars, including Indian ones, accept that they were influenced in several respects by other traditions, while introducing their own elements. They just do. Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

nope dont agree one bit, i would rather focus on egyptain influence on greek and persian pillars, they look very similar to egyptain ones, i would not remotely relate ashokan pillars to greeks, persians as greeks, persians to egypt (and im surprised why such parallels never drawn in these cases). if anything, egypt and babylon may have little bit of art influence on indian pillars if at all and they seem pretty indigenous creations. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rameezraja001 (talk • contribs)

Column gives the Egyptians very good coverage, also the Persians. Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

commonalities not influences

there are commonalities between indian, greek, persian and babylonian because this region was as a whole connected in ancient times from sumerian and indus valley civilization.

The commonalities are being given the colour of borrowings, the article fails to show any example which can be attributed as a direct borrowing from one single piece from ancient west.

the lion of ashoka is thought to imitate babylonian/ meopotamian, while lion mask of indus civilization shows a very similar feature being discussed like eyes, nose, mouth, fur etc, observe the wavy conical lines on the beard of the lion. The mauryan polish is discussed as being brought from iran, but polished stone carved vessels from piprahwa stupa from buddha's time have been excavated according to ASI and many glass beads, crystal polished glass reliquary etc not to forget Northern black polished ware which appeared in seventh cen BC. The greek lions also show similarity with the mesopotamian lions as do their spinx as far as greek pillar spinx is concerned, the greek spinx are not depicted in ashokan pillars, only lions are depicted the pillars infront of temple are also depicted in a saurashtra coin before the macedonian invasions. The double headed roaring lion bust is also depicted in indus civilization art, while there are no contemporary mesopotamia artitic styles which show ashoka sarnath capital style four lions. greek sitting spinx artwork can be traced to second mil BC in levant. The greek pillar is made of wood, while asokan pillar is made of single block of sandstone, greek pillars are also segmented so ashokan pillars can be more related to roman pillars which come later because they employ same techniques used in ashoka period. 115.135.130.182 (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)