Talk:Gandhara

Gandhara and the Hindko-language

Hindko

@Stoorijan3 Gain consensus for your proposed paragraph diff here. Post quotes from your sources and show how it correlates with what has been written. Ixudi (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding "The language reflects deep historical continuity in the northwest, preserving the linguistic character of a region long associated with learning and cross-cultural exchange." Source: Violatti, Cristian. "Kharosthi Script Timeline". www.worldhistory.org. Retrieved 2025-06-28.

• What does this sentence actually trying to say?
• World History Encyclopedia is utterly unrelable
• It does not mention Hindko
• Even less 'reflects etc.', 'preserving etc.', or 'region long associated' etc.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 02:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The statement about linguistic continuity in the Gandhāra region remains accurate within the broader historical and linguistic context. The Kharosthī script discussed in the article is a direct link to the Middle Indo-Aryan languages spoken in that area, from which modern Northwestern Indo-Aryan languages like Hindko descend. So, even without naming Hindko specifically, the source reliably situates the linguistic heritage that informs it. Importantly, World History Encyclopedia is a peer reviewed platform, with articles written and reviewed by qualified scholars and experts in their fields. This makes it a credible and authoritative resource for historical and linguistic topics. It offers well-researched and accessible content that balances academic rigor with clarity, making it an excellent source for supporting claims about the region’s linguistic past. Stoorijan3 (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

One suspicious aspect of your account is that you recently joined Wikipedia however you're reinstating content word-for-word that was added before you joined the website:

Have you had a previous account on here? Ixudi (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, I did undo a revision because I believe the removed content was well-sourced and relevant. I understand the concern about it being similar to a previous version, but I acted independently and based my decision on the sources cited, not any prior editing history. Stoorijan3 (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The source does not support what you wrote, and no, WHE is not reliable. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The World History Encyclopedia is a reliable source because it is written and reviewed by professional historians, scholars, and educators with expertise in their fields. Each article undergoes an editorial review process to ensure historical accuracy and clarity, and includes citations to credible primary and secondary sources. The organization is a registered nonprofit with partnerships from respected institutions like UNESCO and Oxford University Press, which further supports its credibility. Can you explain what makes it unreliable? Stoorijan3 (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Please check my replies to lxudi. Hindko’s linguistic roots can be traced back to the ancient Gandhāra region, as confirmed by a peer-reviewed article in the Al-Mahdi Research Journal. The journal states that “Hindko is an ancient language with roots that trace back to the old Gandhara civilization and belongs to the Indo-Aryan language group.” It is a scholarly, peer-reviewed assertion that directly supports the linguistic continuity between Hindko and the Middle Indo-Aryan traditions of Gandhāra, reinforcing its historical and cultural depth. Stoorijan3 (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia’s policy of WP:RELIABILITY , i am allowed to use sources such as “Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.”. And this is a direct quote from WP:RELIABILITY page. User:Ixudi Stoorijan3 (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure, Gandhari prakrit is a middle Indo Aryan language influenced by early Prakrits, such as Gandhārī, which were written in the Kharosthī script. As Salomon notes, “3.1.2.3 The northwestern Aśokan dialect. The language of the rock edicts at Shahbazgarhi and Mansehra is essentially an early form of the MIA dialect which is nowadays known as Gandhārī... [and] these inscriptions are written in the Kharosthī script” (1998, p. 74). This classification provides a direct linguistic link between the Indo-Aryan language stages and the historical inscriptions of the Gandhāra region, establishing a firm scholarly basis for viewing Gandhārī as part of the Middle Indo-Aryan period and it being a northwestern language. Another academic source is Al Mahdi Research Journal where it is stated, " Hindko is an ancient language with roots that trace back to the old Gandhara civilization and belongs to the Indo-Aryan language group". Hindko is classified as a member of lahnda group, a northwestern Indo Aryan family which descended from Middle Indo Aryan. Another quote states, "several different dialects. The worst of the latter is "Hindko", a term (basically meaning the language of the Indians as contrasted with Pathans) applied not only to several forms of "Northern Lahnda" but also to the Siraiki dialects of Dera Ghazi Khan and Mianwali Districts" (Masica, 1991, pp. 18–19). Together, these linguistic and historical insights reinforce the view that Hindko, as a Northern Lahnda dialect, is a linguistic descendant of Middle Indo-Aryan languages like Gandhārī. Its deep-rooted connection to the Gandhāra region, both geographically and linguistically, positions it as a modern continuation of an ancient Indo-Aryan tradition. This continuity highlights Hindko’s importance in understanding the evolution of Northwestern Indo-Aryan languages and the enduring legacy of the Gandhāran cultural-linguistic sphere.

Sources:

Masica, C. P. (1991). The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Salomon, R. (1998). Indian epigraphy: A guide to the study of inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the other Indo-Aryan languages. New York: Oxford University Press.

Al-Mahdi Research Journal. (n.d.). Hindko Language: A Historical and Linguistic Study Stoorijan3 (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah no, its very clear that you're attempting to synthesise (WP:SYNTH) various unrelated texts to get Hindko mentioned in the article. None of the sources you have provided (many of which are unreliable) outright mention a connection between Gandhari and Hindko. So far the only languages linked to Gandhari by reliable sources are those of the Dardic language family. You have not achieved consensus here I am afraid. Ixudi (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

My second source from Al Mehdi research journal straight up mentions the the link between hindko and Gandhari. These sources are reliable due to their scholarly credibility and the expertise of their authors or publishers. Masica’s The Indo-Aryan Languages (1991), published by Cambridge University Press, is a comprehensive linguistic study written by Colin P. Masica, a respected linguist specializing in South Asian languages. Similarly, Richard Salomon’s Indian Epigraphy (1998), published by Oxford University Press, is a well-regarded academic resource that provides in-depth analysis of inscriptions in Sanskrit and other Indo-Aryan languages, reflecting the author’s authority as a leading scholar in South Asian epigraphy and philology. Lastly, the Al-Mahdi Research Journal article on the Hindko language contributes valuable historical and linguistic insights and, though it may not be as widely known as the previous two, it appears in a dedicated academic publication, indicating a level of peer-reviewed scholarship and regional expertise. Together, these sources offer a robust foundation for linguistic and historical research on Indo-Aryan languages. If not, can you explain how these sources are not reliable? Stoorijan3 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

This is not my interpretation or a combination of ideas from unrelated sources,it's a direct claim by the cited source. Therefore, per WP:SYNTH, this cannot be considered original synthesis, because no new conclusion is being drawn beyond what the source already states.

Second, the purpose of citing Masica (1991) and Salomon (1998) is to provide reliable, scholarly context for the linguistic classification of Hindko and Gandhārī within the broader Indo-Aryan family, especially the northwestern group which is modern day Hindko language of that region. Stoorijan3 (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

What you're basically stating is that modern Hindko developed from Gandharian, based on "Hindko is an ancient language with roots that trace back to the old Gandhara civilization and belongs to the Indo-Aryan language group." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Hindko is one of the modern Indo-Aryan languages spoken in the former region of Gandhāra, reflecting the area’s enduring linguistic heritage. According to the Al-Mahdi Research Journal, “Hindko is an ancient language with roots that trace back to the old Gandhara civilization and belongs to the Indo-Aryan language group.” Hindko developed within the same northwestern Indo-Aryan linguistic sphere, making it a contemporary representative of Gandhāra’s historical language continuum and one of the modern languages that emerged from Gandhara. Stoorijan3 (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

"Hindko developed within the same northwestern Indo-Aryan linguistic sphere, making it a contemporary representative of Gandhāra’s historical language continuum and one of the modern languages that emerged from Gandhara."

That is your own original research. This is where the problem lies. Ixudi (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Suspicious account

Hi, I’m concerned about the closure of this discussion on the talk page. I’d like a review to ensure that the consensus was accurately assessed. Thank you! Stoorijan3 (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Which closure? This is bordering on WP:DISRUPTIVE. And how does a newbie know this kind of template? I agree with Ixudi that this account is suspicious. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I’m researching and using credible sources on how Wikipedia works and have been reading through the guidelines and help pages to better understand appropriate processes. Stoorijan3 (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan (Non-administrator comment) It's not impossible for a newbie to know of some templates on Wikipedia. They could've previously edited under an IP address, doing a fresh start, or simply reading up the guidelines before beginning to edit. They could've read the linked guidelines on the welcome message posted that was posted on their talk page on June 27. the documentation page for {{Help me}} links this template. If you browse through my archives (especially Archive 1), When I joined Wikipedia, I've made use of the {{Help me}} template before asking loads of questions at the Teahouse (the Teahouse was semi-protected at the time). Before I edited, I liked to read a bunch of Wikipedia guidelines/policies/projectspace essays (interesting essays), and overall explore the non-reader side of Wikipedia. Of course I still had a lot of questions (as you can see in my talk page archives). I still do agree that the actions by @Stoorijan3 are a tiny bit questionable. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 04:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

World History Encyclopedia

Regarding The World History Encyclopedia is a reliable source because it is written and reviewed by professional historians, scholars, and educators with expertise in their fields. Each article undergoes an editorial review process to ensure historical accuracy and clarity, and includes citations to credible primary and secondary sources. The organization is a registered nonprofit with partnerships from respected institutions like UNESCO and Oxford University Press, which further supports its credibility. Can you explain what makes it unreliable?, take a look at Hinduism:

• Written by Joshua J. Mark (what's in a a name?...), MA English - Uh, need I to continue?...
• First sentence: "Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world, originating in Central Asia and the Indus Valley" - augh!
• "The purpose of life is to recognize the essential oneness of existence [...] the Atman joins with Brahman and one has returned home to the primordial oneness." - that's pop-Advaita Vedanta.

Anyway, the WHE-article on the Kharosthi Script does not mention Hindko [...] Even less 'reflects etc.', 'preserving etc.', or 'region long associated' etc. - I'm repeating myself here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The criticism that my sentence about Kharosthi goes beyond the source is unfounded. The source clearly states that the Kharosthi script developed in present-day northern Pakistan and was used to represent a regional form of Prakrit, an Indo-Aryan language. It also notes the script’s spread across northern Pakistan, eastern Afghanistan, northwest India, and Central Asian regions historically known for their linguistic diversity and cultural interactions. My statement that “the language reflects deep historical continuity in the northwest, preserving the linguistic character of a region long associated with learning and cross-cultural exchange” is a reasonable and accurate summary of these facts. The development and use of a distinct script for a regional language over several centuries inherently reflects historical and linguistic continuity. Moreover, the northwest region—including ancient Gandhara has long been recognized as a center of learning and cross-cultural contact, particularly through its role in Buddhist transmission and Indo-Greek exchange. Therefore, my sentence does not misrepresent the source but rather contextualizes its content in line with broader historical understanding. Stoorijan3 (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The claim that the World History Encyclopedia is unreliable based on an unrelated article is misleading and does not address the specific concerns I raised. Joshua J. Mark, also has a degree in philosophy which you left out and Philosophy provides essential analytical tools and conceptual frameworks that enable authors to critically examine, interpret, and explain complex religious ideas and doctrines with clarity and rigor, making it a valuable foundation for writing about religious philosophy and belief systems. The article’s assertion that Hinduism originated in “Central Asia and the Indus Valley” oversimplifies the nuanced scholarly consensus that the Aryans migrated from Central Asia into South Asia, bringing Vedic religion that later evolved into Hinduism. Furthermore, the geographic designation of Afghanistan as part of the Indus Valley region aligns with historical and cultural scholarship that links this area to Central Asia through ancient trade and cultural exchanges. Therefore, dismissing these points undermines a well-supported understanding of the historical and cultural context. Lastly, it’s important to evaluate each article on its own merit, rather than conflating issues from different pieces, to ensure a fair and accurate discussion. Moreover, my sources align with Wikipedia’s policy WP:RELIABILITY, please take a look at what is considered a reliable source based on this. Stoorijan3 (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I feel like this response was written by an LLM...

Anyone is able to contribute to World History Encylopaedia. A philosopher is not a historian, thats ultimately the problem but even then its all pointless discussing this in the first place because the article doesn't even mention a link between Hindko and Gandhari! Ixudi (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I have the same impression, with regard to LLM. I also note that the response is eloquent, yet completely misses the point. Which illustrates neatly that 'intelligence', or writing a text, entails much more than stringing together mere words. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Ixudi, 100% of the text above ("The claim that the World History Encyclopedia ... what is considered a reliable source based on this.") is likely AI generated per . JimRenge (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

August 2026 reverts

@Joshua Jonathan, how was this edit unexplained? Sutyarashi (talk) Sutyarashi (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Rv, achieve consensus for the changes at talk page - what does this "explain"? Why should they gain consensus? What are your objections? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Zenithxxx and you have to achieve consensus for these lines:

[1] During its invasion by Alexander the Great in 327–326 BCE, the region was controlled by numerous rulers such as Ambhi, the king of Taxila and tribes such as the Aśvaka who were based west of the Indus River.

[1A] How exactly is above due for lede? Even moreso, [1B] which sources exactly describe Ambhi as king of Gandhara and [ 1C] Aśvaka a tribe of Gandhara?

[2] though a regional Gandharan kingdom, known as the Apracharajas, retained governance during this period until the ascent of the Kushan Empire,

[2A] Please show sources calling Apracharajas as Gandharan.

[3] Gandhara succumbed to devastation during the Hunnic Invasions but experienced a resurgence under the Turk Shahis and Hindu Shahis before collapsing entirely due to the Ghaznavid campaigns in India.

Again, undue and frankly OR. [3A] Please provide sources for this statement as well. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification; I'll have a look. Ping User:Zenithxxx. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:54, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The Apracharajas, Ambhi and the Hindu Shahis are all mentioned and sourced in the history section. As per the wiki outline on manual style/lead section the lead being entirely sourced are not especially needed if they’re sourced and discussed later on in the article.

Also the lead is a brief outline of all the major topics and notable information that the wiki page contains. Ambhi and the Asvakas notability in regards to the resistence/parternship with Alexander is self explanatory so it should be apart of the lead.

pp.204-205 Reliquary inscription of the Apracharajas describing themselves as the rulers of Gandhara hence they are directly related to this page.

p.166 p.69-70 in regards to the destruction in Gandhara by the Alchon Huns.

p.59 in regards to Gandhara no longer being a geographic term after the fall of the Hindu Shahis. (However the wording in the current lead from collapses entirely should be better worded to ‘Gandhara as a geographical term fades into obscurity’).

pp.169-170 describes the Asvaka as being a tribe of Gandhara along with numerous others according to W.W.Tarn. Zenithxxx (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... the Ambhi are only mentoned in the lead and in a note; some elaboration on them in the body? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:16, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Ambhi had multiple names such as Omphis and Taxiles also. He’s discussed in the ‘Hellenistic-Gandhara’ subsection in the history section. Perhaps changing from Ambhi to Omphis is another change needed for the lead Zenithxxx (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I cannot access most of your shared links, what are the relevant statements from them? Sutyarashi (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

All of these sources are google books and internet archive which are open and available to read for free, I’ve double checked the links and they’ should be opening fine, they’re opening fine for me. @Joshua Jonathan were you able to access the links?

Some of the information span between 2 pages or are spread out throughout the page which would require you to view them yourself. Zenithxxx (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I was, without any problem. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

​ Can you confirm for me that these texts support the above statements? Sutyarashi (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Starting to take a closer look, but it's weird you can't access those sources; too many safety- measures at your computer?

• Why was this sentence removed?:

The Gandhara tribe, after which it is named, is attested in the Rigveda (c. 1500 – c. 1200 BCE), while the region is mentioned in the Zoroastrian Avesta as Vaēkərəta, the seventh most beautiful place on earth created by Ahura Mazda.

• This sentence is undue for the lead:

The founder of the dynasty, Chandragupta Maurya, according to legends about his youth, had received an education in Taxila and later assumed control.

I'll check the sources later. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The rigveda part was re-written as ‘ The Gandhara grave culture and Gandhara's mentions in Vedic period literature such as the Mahabharata and Rigveda is the historical start of Gandhara’

The Avestan part is OR as it’s not a sourced statement anywhere in the page including the history section.

Also agreed, I’ll remove that now. Zenithxxx (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Google Books allow limited preview, and where I am based I can't view the relevant pages. Can you verify that these sources do mention Apracharajas as Gandhāran dynasty, Ambhi/Omphis as ruler of Gandhara and that "Gandhara experienced resurgence" under Shahis? Sutyarashi (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The Asvaka among others are described in the source as of being part of the geographical region Gandhara.

Ambi/Omphis is not explicitly called king of Gandhara in primary sources (He is described as king of Taxila). However authors have expanded that Taxila was the capital of Eastern Gandhara pp.150-151 . However if this is likely to cause issues then we can change the lead to state he was king of Taxila. Edit. (It’s already been changed by Joshua)

p.135 + footnote describes Gandharas geography and the Apracharajas territory fall in this domain (alongside my previous source of their reliquary inscription calling themselves under Vijayamitra and Indravarma the Lord of Gandhara). Edit. Your criticism of the wording in regards to ‘Gandhara experienced a resurgence’ was changed to a less emphatic and factual version. Zenithxxx (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Gandhāra (kingdom)

Shouldn't Gandhāra (kingdom) be merged into this article? Same info. Worse: what exactly was "the" "Gandhara kingdom"? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree; it should be merged. All of the Vedic information, Pukkusati and the Achaemenid annexation is already on this wiki so there’s no real need to have it seperate. The Gandhara kingdom is the exact same as Gandhara (region) and there’s no specific topic on there that requires it being separate. Gandhara remained a kingdom even throughout the medieval period showing that both the region and the kingdom are synonymous with each other. Zenithxxx (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose; Gandhara (kingdom) was an Iron Age polity and not synonymous to Gandhara (region), which continued to exist in one form or other until late medieval period. Cf. also the case of Gandāra (an Achaemenid satrapy), Gandhara Kingdom (of Mahabharata fame), and Gandhara grave culture (the preceding protohistoric complex), etc. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Dates

All dates are taken from the body of the article; and dates like 1500-500 BCE for the Vedic period, and 1400-800 BCE for the Gandhara grave culture are obvious. Blanket reverts of these dates are not constructive. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

No, all of this is OR. You put hard dates for most (not even circa?) as if it marked definite termination of a period. You had put ending dates for Achaemenids in Gandhara at 327 BCE (despite being there no evidence that it was under Achaemenid rule at the time of Alexander's invasion), Mauryan at 232 BCE (from where did you even pull this date out?), Greco Bactrians at 150 BCE, and so on. You put Indo-Scythian age at 375 CE at one point and 400 CE at another. Existing evidence from Gandhara doesn't allow us to provide hard dates or such guesswork. Not to mention where else did you see dates being put in headings? The section bodies are enough to give readers the idea for the era concerned. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Regarding No, all of this is OR: you're throwing around this term too often. You did so before in response to Zenithxxxs edits; I went through the whole history-section to get a grip on the topic, meanwhile improving it, and adding the dates to make the section easier accessible. It turned out that Zenith's edits were valid, with you posting questions ("Please show sources calling Apracharajas as Gandharan") which seem to betray a lack of knowledge of the topic.

The same lack of knowledge shows with regard to the dating of the Gandhara Garve culture; this is sourced in the body to Narasimhan et al. (2019); any problem with that source?

• Regarding ending dates for Achaemenids in Gandhara at 327 BCE (despite being there no evidence that it was under Achaemenid rule at the time of Alexander's invasion: if this is so, then improve the article and correct it, instead of continuaously reverting the hard labour of others. But see Indian campaign of Alexander the Great:

The Achaemenid Empire of Persia had held suzerainty over the Indus valley in the previous decades, but there was no trace of Achaemenid rule beyond the Indus river when Alexander's army arrived in the region. Strabo, sourcing his information from the earlier writer Eratosthenes, states that the Achaemenid king controlled the area to the west of the Indus. This area (including the Kapisa-Gandhara region) was probably the territory of the Indians, who according to the Greek accounts, fought alongside their overlord Darius III at the Battle of Gaugamela.

• Regarding 232 BCE, the article says "According to Taranatha, following the death of Ashoka (died 232 BCE), the "north-western half of India" seceded from the Maurya Empire"; that's were I got it from.
• Regarding Greco-Bactrians: the text says "c. 180 BCE – c. 150 BCE", not "150 BCE".
• Regarding the Indo-Scythians: that's a messy part of Gandhara's history; 400 comes from Indo-Scythian Kingdom; 375 comes from Kushan Empire.
• Regarding where else did you see dates being put in headings?: History of Hinduism.

So, contrary to your allegations of WP:OR and "guesswork", these dates are based on the information available at Wikipedia, and based on sources. Corrections can be made, but the real point is: are these dates in the headers useful? Yes, definitely; they provide a quick overview, instead of having to go through all the text to get a grip on the dates. Instead of hitting the revert-button and frustrate the hard work of others (in response to your queries!), you could put some effort into improving the content, as I did. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

It turned out that Zenith's edits were valid, with you posting questions ("Please show sources calling Apracharajas as Gandharan") which seem to betray a lack of knowledge of the topic.

Where did they turn valid? Where did you or Zenithxxx provided sources for my objected claims? Rather you kept on rephrasing lines instead and now those are not in lede. I am still waiting for your sources calling Apracharajas a Gandhāran dynasty which have so far not been forthcoming.

The same lack of knowledge shows with regard to the dating of the Gandhara Garve culture

This is one date among other dozen, what about others? What about dates you inserted for Achaemenid or "Mauryan Gandhāra"? I'm not going to repeatedly go through your each and every edit to find what is OR and what is not. It's on you to take care for it. You didn't even specify circa in the dates which were in the source.

But see Indian campaign of Alexander the Great:

Yes, and passage goes against your claim of its termination date at 327 BCE, it says there was no trace Achaemenid rule at that time.

Regarding 232 BCE, the article says "According to Taranatha, following the death of Ashoka (died 232 BCE), the "north-western half of India"

This article is about Gandhara, not Ashoka. You need to provide source that Mauryan rule did end in Gandhara at this date.

Regarding where else did you see dates being put in headings?: History of Hinduism.

This is history of a region, not a religion. For comparison, none of other articles Bactria, Arachosia, Ariana etc employ dates in the heading precisely because there is uncertainty.

Instead of hitting the revert-button and frustrate the hard work of others (in response to your queries!), you could put some effort into improving the content, as I did.

I'm too a volunteer. I don't get paid to review work of others or do cleanup. If you're frustrated about hard work being reverted I'm too frustrated about insertion of OR into article.

So yes, what you just did was OR. Sources didn't mention termination dates for Gandhara, you extrapolated them from elsewhere. Please refrain from it. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Apracharajas: see here.
• 232 BCE:sourced in the article here. And Dasharatha Maurya: "The political unity of the Mauryan Empire did not long survive Ashoka's death.[2] One of Dasharatha's uncles, Jalauka, set up an independent kingdom in Kashmir. According to Taranatha, another Mauryan prince, Virasena declared himself king in Gandhara.[2]" Source: Sailendra Nath Sen; Ancient Indian History And Civilization. New Age International. 1999. ISBN 978-8122411980. pg 152-154.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

How does being probably centred in Bajaur and extended to Swat, Gandhara, Taxila and other parts of Eastern Afghanistan makes them Gandhāran?

Second is fine, but it still doesn't mention the date. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

They were centred in the geographical area of Gandhara and also described themselves as lords of gandhara in their reliquary inscription, alongside being culturally Buddhist Gandharan (language and religion wise). Simply check the sources I’ve sent you before. Zenithxxx (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Please give a read to WP:OR. You can't infer that yourself if no scholar does it. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:12, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Does any scholar call Apracharajas as Gandhāran? No. Does any scholar give end dates for Achaemenid or Mauryan rule in Gandhara? No. Why are you so hellbent on OR? And please, give a read to what you linked yourself and then decide who couldn't hear the other. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Does any scholar call Apracharajas as Gandhāran? No. vs Simply check the sources I’ve sent you before. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:49, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Quote me the line where it calls them Gandharan. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn’t infer that myself? pp. 204-205 talks about the reliquary inscription of satruleka which described the Apracharajas under Vijayamitra and Indravarma as the lords of Gandhara.

They ruled Gandhara and hence are classified as a Gandharan dynasty as that was there central territory and rule. Zenithxxx (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

"Indo-Aryan civilisation" or "historical region"

Regarding this revert , I think we better properly discuss this before we start another round of reverts: is it better to call Gandhara a [Indo-Aryan] civilisation" or a "historical region"? Civilisation is unsourced and not mentioned in the article, but refers to culture, which is an important element of this article, but Gandhara is also described as an historical region in the article. The latter is more apt, I think, as Gandhara primarily refers to the region, but includes numerous cultures/cultural influences. Also, not all of these were Indo-Aryan (Persian, Greek, Scyths). I don't mind mentioning Indo-Aryan, but it could be more specific.

• Pizarro 2025 (a master's thesis) p.32:

After 600 BCE, Gandhāra experienced several incursions; for example, in the 5 th century BCE, it became a satrapy of the Achaemenid Empire. From an archaeological perspective, this introduced Iranian elements and archaeological material; however, it did not disturb Indo-Aryan traditions and practices in Gandhāra. Gandhāra retained its Indo-Aryan identity and culture with additional Iranian elements (Petrie & Magee 2012: 18; after Bronkhorst 2024: 202. fn. 58 and fn. 59).

That's not "civilisation", nor "Indo-Aryan civilisation;

• Bryant p.138:

Indigenous Aryanists believe nothing in any of this evidence can deny the possibility that the Indo-Aryan and Iranian tribes might have been emigrating from a northwest South Asian/Afghanistan homeland toward the Northwest as opposed to immigrating from the Northwest to the Southeast.
As a side note, one reference in particular is repeatedly produced from the Puranas as evidence of a large emigration from Gandhara, Afghanistan, to the northern regions. The narrative is situated in the time of Mandhatr, who drove the Druhyu king Angara out of the Punjab. Pargiter ([1922] 1979) notes that the next Druhya king, Gandhara, retired to the Northwest and gave his name to the Gandhara country (which survives to the present day in the name Kandahar in Afghanistan). The last king in the Druhyu lineage is Pracetas, whose hundred sons take shelter in the regions north of Afghanistan 'udicitn disam as'ritah'and become mfecchas.37 The Puranas make no further reference to the Druhyu dynasty after this.38 The more enthusiastic see this as "evidence of the migration of Indo-Europeans from India to Europe via Central Asia" (Talageri 1993, 367).

I'm hard-pressed to see this as referring to a Gandharan 'Indo-Aryan civilisation'. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Gandhara civilisation is definitely not unsourced and is a widely used scholarly term. Also "civilisation" or "historical region" aren't contradictory, a historical region maintains its distinctive identity as long as its civilisation survives. Compare also the case of Bactria or Sogdiana, both of which are described as civilisations in the lead.

As for foreign influences, Bactria also absorbed non Iranian influences, notably Hellenistic (Greco-Bactrian kingdom), but it was still primarily an Iranian civilisation/region. In case of Gandhara, the spoken language was Gandhari Prakrit, an Indo-Aryan language, its culture was distinctly Buddhist (Gandharan Buddhism), Sanskrit remained primary literary language and foreign influences didn't replace its population atleast upto Muslim conquests. As source explains (Pizarro 2025, pp. 31–32): From an archaeological perspective, this introduced Iranian elements and archaeological material; however, it did not disturb Indo-Aryan traditions and practices in Gandhāra. Gandhāra retained its Indo-Aryan identity and culture and also: However, since the belt of the Gangetic plain became the foundation of Indo-Aryan culture during the mid-1st millennium BCE, Gandhāra never left the periphery of the Indian world (c. 600 BCE). This is evident in the earliest literary sources, such as the Post-Vedic texts, including the Purāṇas and the Rāmāyaṇa, which mention Gandhāra’s cities, Takṣaśilā and Puṣkalāvatī.

Also note that Britannica is neither a benchmark nor a standard, it itself has disputed reliability (WP:BRITANNICA) even if it's useful as a tertiary source. Sutyarashi (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

"Gandhara civilization" is only used in the lead, not defined, and definitely not sourced in our article. I also don't see it being "widely used" in scholalry publications. The term seems to refer specifically to the Gandharan Buddhist culture, whereas Gandhara as a region refers to the geographical region:

• Rafi U. Samad (2011), The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys, p1

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:56, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

It would be redundant to create separate articles for both. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Please don't edit your comments after being replied to (or atleast specify so). It makes following your argument harder. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Apologies; I hadn't noticed you'd already responded. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

No, Pizzaro does not use the term "Indo-Aryan civilization" diff; you're edit-warring. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

How exactly am I edit warring? In this case you need to refrain from making edits to disputed section until or unless talk page discussion concludes. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The source clearly calls it having Indo-Aryan culture, tradition and identity. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

If you still disagree replace civilisation with culture, but I don't see how it's a net improvement. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! See Culture and Civilization for 'the' difference. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Neither it being Indo-Aryan nor being civilisation, as known in scholarship, is disputed. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with culture replacing civilisation (but seriously, vast majority of sources do describe it as a civilisation, not a culture) but it should be in the lead sentence. I would suggest following phrasing:

Gandhara was an ancient Indo-Aryan culture and historical region located in what is now northwestern Pakistan and northeastern Afghanistan. Situated at the crossroads of Central and South Asia, it was known for its influential Buddhist culture and absorbed diverse influences from neighbouring areas. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Fine with me. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:02, 9 August 2026 (UTC)