This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Early Indian epigraphy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Early Indian epigraphy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 March 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Not sure what the article should be split into, as all the examples and references relate to India. The article itself stemmed from a need for links in several FA articles on the history and architecture of India. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The article used to be called "Indian inscriptions", which was a patently silly title. I can see an article on "early Indian epigraphy", although that's still a rather WP:SYN topic. I am not sure in what way you mean "all the examples and references relate to India". By this logic we might as soon move it to Eurasian epigraphy or Old World epigraphy. Actual encyclopedic topics in here are:
But it's fair enough to keep this as a WP:SS overview. --dab (𒁳) 07:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The writing on the Kanheri caves inscription is not Brāhmī but a later development - probably Gupta Script. mahaabaala (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Megasthenes' comment, viz.
was a reference to soldiers in camp and not to Indians in general. in any case, a very small percentage in any ancient population knew how to write. I have removed this point. If anyone wants to re-insert it kindly do so with explicit inline references.
Similarly, the reference to Panini's work making no sense in written form is a POV comment. All ancient sanskrit works were written to be memorized, whether they were to be put to paper or not. The fact that Panini's grammar is still used in written form says otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madmonk11 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
This is beside the point. When Megasthenes says "India", he obviously means North India, i.e. the Indus river. He isn't talking about, nor does he have any concept of, the Indian subcontinent. If there had been writing in Tamil Nadu in the 4th century BC, Megasthenes could not have known about it, his statement still holds true for the area he knew as "India".
Of course there was oral "literature" for a thousand years before the introduction of writing. But this has nothing to do with this article's topic, which is explicitly about epigraphy, not about Sanskrit oral tradition.
Afaik, Ashoka's are still the earliest known inscriptions in North India. There may or may not have been epigraphy in Tamil Nadu 200 years before Ashoka, it seems that the jury is still out on that one, so we'll just have to report the possibility. --dab (𒁳) 12:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The Shankarpur copper-plate inscription was a specific article on a specific record of importance for north India during the 5th and 6th centuries. This article is a general one about Indian Epigraphy; it seems to serve no useful purpose moving this article here. I suggest moving it back as an independent article. --Shirazibustan (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)shirazibustan
The dating of the south India potshards to pre-Asoka has now been discredited. Conningham has form with this sort of announcement. He also recently announced "the earliest Buddhist shrine" at Lumbini on extremely flimsy evidence that could not support such a conclusion. There was nothing at all to identify the finds as either a. a shrine, or b. Buddhist. Jayarava (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Early Indian epigraphy. 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)