Talk:Lion Capital of Ashoka: Difference between revisions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: History C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as High-importance). This article was last assessed in April 2012. Sculpture C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Visual arts C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This section of the article seems to regard the symbols in the capital of Sarnath as making allusion to Jain religion. I really don't understand where this is coming from. Even though a case could be made about Ashoka not being explicitly a buddhist, as he expressed support for religious tolerance, he is generally regarded as having been a pro-buddhist monarch, yet whoever wrote the article seems to think he was a Jain. Furthermore, this section of the article offers no citations, even though its content goes against consensus, thus I have no way of knowing where this odd take comes from. I hope this section an the data featured in it will be revised and that, in the case I am wrong about this, citations will be offered to sustain this odd interpretation of the symbolism of the lion capitals of Ashoka.

See the following texts for examples of authors who regard Ashoka as having been had a pro-buddhist attitude: Sen, A. Chandra (2020, December 10). Ashoka. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ashoka Thapar, R. (2002) The Emergence of Empire: Mauryan India C. 3 2 1 - 1 8 5 BC. In History of early India from the origins to AD 1300. Penguin Books. https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfEarlyIndiaFromTheOriginsToAD1300Thapar/page/n203/mode/2up See the following text for interpretations of the capitals as buddhist in their symbolism: Craven, R. C. (1976) A Concise History of Indian Art. Thames and Hudson. Fisher, R. (1993) Buddhist Art and Architecture. Thames and Hudson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.164.208.219 (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I removed it. It's totally unsourced anyway. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the text at http://indiaimage.nic.in/nationalemblem.htm

This isn't helpful if the link is broken.

In other words, 3 different spellings of the name of the emperor. Thanks. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 14:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lion Capital of Ashoka. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120531030219/http://www.indianembassy.org/dydemo/land.htm to http://www.indianembassy.org/dydemo/land.htm

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.

• 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) 04:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lion Capital of Ashoka. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040402034615/http://indiaimage.nic.in/nationalemblem.htm to http://indiaimage.nic.in/nationalemblem.htm

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.

• 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) 22:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

article states, lions are Achaemenid influence or mesopotamian/ assyrian, the feline mask of indus civilization gives an indication that the roaring lion imagery from Indus valley civilization was already part of indian art since its birth, infact the greek lions are also depicted in the very same manner in their classical period 115.135.130.182 (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The articl states: "

Buddha images are widely worshipped in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Myanmar etc where Theravada prevails. Malaiya (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Sanchi capital frontal view before-after reconstitution.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:Pat, You cannot keep adding general purpose OR based on third-rate sources. Oertel is one of the linchpins of the reconstructed Golden Age of India view of Indian history, pre-dating the Muslims that is. He was a known figure. He had done surveys of Buddhist and Hindu sites in Central India and Burma in the 1880s and 90s. He was hired by John Marshall. Given the importance of the Lion Capital in the post-colonial history of India, there are quite a few books about his excavations in Sarnath. I don't remember them all off the top of my head, but none as as dismissive as you've managed to cast him based on some popular source. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to user:Pat's (user:पाटलिपुत्र) motivations, but had I made the edits they have, I would have called my motivations, "Dishonest, shameful, unethical, and corrupt." user:Pat has not only turned this page into a little secret garden of original research (with not a hint of Hodgson Burnett's original), but their original research has reached a high water mark. They have taken the image in the infobox, added a wheel of 32 spokes above it by a digital smoke and mirrors trick and made that image the showpiece of a Description section below. But will admins and others who in the past have evinced an interest in this topic or such behavior, watch this horror in silence? Pinging @RegentsPark, Doug Weller, Johnbod, Drmies, Joe Roe, Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, Bishonen, and Abecedare: I have a long-awaited doctor's appointment later this morning, but I will quickly make a few edits (add some scholarly sources and real pictures) with the "in use" firmly in place. I expect user:Pat to respect that. I also expect them not to ping you all facetiously in response. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flat out of time for now. Will add more in the evening. I expect user:Pat to respect my edits. They are cited to impeccable sources, not youtube and children's history books. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstitution of the Sarnath capital of Ashoka

@Fowler&fowler:... Here are the graphical sources for this reconstitution ():

• Agrawala, Vasudeva Sharana (1965). Studies In Indian Art. p. 67.
• "Museum notice in the Sarnath Archaeological Museum".. (The notice also appears in this Youtube video [1])
  
• The remains of the actual wheel are visible in the Sarnath Museum too:
  • "Remains of the topmost wheel in the Sarnath Archaeological Museum"., where the wheel is also reconstituted with 32 spokes
  • also "another view"..
    
  • Huntington, John. Understanding the 5th century Buddhas of Sarnath (PDF). p. 90, Fig.8.
• Also, for a complete view of the reconstituted pillar: Irwin, John (1973). "'Aśokan' Pillars: A Reassessment of the Evidence". The Burlington Magazine. 115 (848): 706 and 720.
  ISSN 0007-6287
  .

Again, on the 32 spokes for the top wheel, there are plenty of reliable sources available (your claim that there were only 24 spokes seems to be based on defective assumptions: your so-called "copy of the Lion Capital in Chiang Mai (13th century) with 24 spokes" in the Edit Summary of your revert [2] actually seems to be a much more recent cement-and-concrete work [3]). For proper sources regarding the 32 spokes of the topmost wheel, please see:

• Vishnu, Asha (1993). Material Life of Northern India: Based on an Archaeological Study, 3rd Century B.C. to 1st Century B.C. Mittal Publications. p. 120.
  ISBN 978-81-7099-410-7. by Asha Vishnu
• Mookerji "four lions set back to back as in Sarnath Pillar and the big wheel of Dharma, with 32 spokes, placed on their shoulders." in Mookerji, Radhakumud (1961). Glimpses of Ancient India
  . Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. p. 63.
• Majumdar, R. C. (1 January 2016). Ancient India. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 224.
  ISBN 978-81-208-0435-7
  .
• or the Archaeological Survey of India, by F. O. Oertel himself: "It apparently had 32 spokes , while the four smaller wheels below the lions have only 24 spokes" in Archaeological Survey Of India Annual Report 1904-5. p. 69.
• Huntington, John (2009). Understanding the 5th century Buddhas of Sarnath (PDF). p. 90, Fig. 8.
• Mani, B. R. (2012). Sarnath : Archaeology, Art and Architecture. Archaeological Survey of India. p. 58. A crowning Dharmachakra with 32 spokes... etc...
• Sahni, Dayaram (1914). Catalogue of the Museum of Archaeology at Sarnath. p. 29.

The diameter of the top wheel is given as 1.07 metres (3.5 ft) by Huntington, John. Understanding the 5th century Buddhas of Sarnath (PDF). p. 90, Fig.8.

I trust this is a useful and high-quality depiction of what this capital of Ashoka actually looked like, faithfully reflecting referenced reconstitutions: this is in effect an exact duplication of the process followed by the Sarnath Museum in making their own photographic reconstitution ("Museum notice in the Sarnath Archaeological Museum". photograph of the base + digital simulation of the wheel), only Wikifying by using our own freely available but equivalent media. The caption properly explains "Reconstitution with Wheel of the Moral Law ("Dharmachakra")" with references. Comments are welcome. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am back. I will be adding the inuse template again and I request that you not interrupt. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the preliminary edits. I will come back and add more. I have removed all the edits you had made involving the serial abuse of fringe sources. Let me be perfectly clear: none of the sources above are modern scholarly sources. Colleen Taylor Sen is someone I used (and sparingly) in the cuisine section of India. If you put the garbage back in, I am warning you I will take you to AN as ask for a topic ban for you from Indian history broadly construed. It is that kind of damage you have already done to so many India-related pages. You have wasted an enormous amount of my time besides. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"None of the sources above are modern scholarly sources": just untrue, please read again. Also, at the very least, there are serious doubts about the historicity of your so-called "13th century copy of the Ashoka pillar at Chiang Mai" [4] (I don't think Colleen Taylor Sen invented the story of its recent creation in cement and concrete out of thin air [5], and Asher only writes "the pillar is said to date to the 13th century" [6], so he does not himself vouch for its antiquity. Even Wat Umong temple itself doesn't try to claim such antiquity [7], and already has numerous modern copies of ancient Indian Buddhist artefacts [8]), so you would need proper archaeological/historical sources to back up your 13th century claim. Stop the bullying and the abusive language Fowler&fowler ("horror", "garbage", "serial abuse of fringe sources" not to mention "Dishonest, shameful, unethical, and corrupt", just on this page): you are not alone here, and any contributor with proper sources has the right to contribute. And please stop brandishing AN anytime you want to force your way into an article: I believe AN is already pretty wise to your toxic editorial behaviour. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read about

due weight. Constant abuse of its counter point, undue weight, is a Wikipedia offense. Editors of India-related topics have been topic banned for it. The obsession with 32 spokes is undue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I made a mistake. In order to accommodate your obsession and had made a passing mention of 32. I have now removed it. Most modern sources do not mention it. Indeed they barely mention the larger wheel. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am now going away for the rest of the day. I recommend with seriousness that you not dicker about details of undue weight. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: First, you were wrong about the 24 spokes for the topmost wheel (references above), but now, rather than facing the facts, you are simply trying to hide them away, claiming that information about the topmost wheel is irrelevant anyway… What is your proof for the above assertions?

1) the topmost wheel is "barely mentioned": this assertion is quite false. Most of the sources that do go into some detail (like describing the content of the abacus), also do describe the existence and the supposed nature of the top wheel (I would say about 80% based on my experience and a perusal of online books). Some of the main ones (in addition to the above sources):

• "the sarnath capital was surmounted by a spoked wheel" in Singh, Upinder (2008). A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Pearson Education India. p. 359.
  ISBN 978-81-317-1120-0
  .
• "carried on their backs, to crown all, a stone wheel 2.9 inches in diameter" A Comprehensive History Of Ancient India (3 Vol. Set). Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. 1 December 2003. p. 86.
  ISBN 978-81-207-2503-4
  .
• "A large dharmachakra surmounting them" in Werner, Karel (30 September 2019). Symbols in Art and Religion: The Indian and the Comparative Perspectives. Routledge. p. 91.
  ISBN 978-1-136-10114-4
  .
• "four adorsed lions surmounted by a chakra wheel (originally symbolizing the solar wheel)" "The summit wheel (surviving only in fragments and reconstructed in Fig 4.a) is not just the Wheel of the Law of doctrinaire Buddhism, but also a symbol of the sun", with reconstitution on the following page in Werner, Karel (30 September 2019). Symbols in Art and Religion: The Indian and the Comparative Perspectives. Routledge. p. 96.
  ISBN 978-1-136-10114-4
  .
• "They carry on their heads a Dharmachakra caved twice as big as the smaller dharmachakra on the abacus".V.D, Mahajan (2016). Ancient India. S. Chand Publishing. p. 267.
  ISBN 978-93-5253-132-5
  .

2) "The obsession with 32 spokes is undue": this too is false, for a detailed article about the Lion Capital of Ashoka. The current "Description" paragraph goes into the highest level of detail for the lower and middle portions of the capital (compositional details, level of damage, dimensions...), so the least would be to give a decent account of what the topmost wheel is about, rather than delete content [9]. All the more so since the topmost wheel probably had a huge symbolic significance, probably the highest symbolic significance of the whole monument, given its huge size and crowning position. You make it sound like it is an almost insignificant adjunction, unworthy of facts, comments or interpretations, and focusing instead on the size and characteristics of the supporting shaft, which on the contrary is of very marginal interest. It is obviously basic and relevant encyclopedic information to explain what fragments of the topmost wheel remain, what the reconstition of the wheel is and where it is visible today, what its symbolism is thought to be. Of course these important details are available in Oertel (Archaeological Survey Of India Annual Report 1904-5. p. 69.), Sanhi (Sahni, Dayaram (1914). Catalogue of the Museum of Archaeology at Sarnath. p. 29., Huntington, John (2009). Understanding the 5th century Buddhas of Sarnath (PDF). p. 90, Fig. 8.), and in many of the sources given above. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, "You are a blatant serial abuser of fringe sources and of WP:UNDUE on Wikipedia. Have you written anything broad scale on WP? You have not. You are unable to write, to comprehend, and to paraphrase judiciously. It is not my job to fix broad scale articles in which you have attempted to work your wonders (and the list is long: the leads of

Indus Valley Civilization; your ill-fated excursion into the India page) If you want to create little alcoves of fringe worship in central Asian topics, or whatever it is you mostly do, be my guest. But if you wander into vital Indian-history related topics, I will be there to stop you. You seriously think making a list of more fringe sources or footnotes in 100-year old sources, will make your garbage more acceptable? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Fowler&fowler:: you made a drawing of "the Sarnath capital at Wat Umong" (attached) by copying a copyrighted image from a 2020 book (per your own admission "The lion capital of Sarnath at Wat Umong Chiang Mai Thailand hand drawn by Fowler&fowler based on the picture on page 76 of Asher, Frederick M. (2020), Sarnath: A critical history of the place where Buddhism began, Los Angeles, California: Getty Research Institute, pp. 2–3, ISBN 9781606066164, LCCN 2019019885" [10]). Your drawing is actually an exact copy of the outline of the pillar in the original published photograph [11], obviously made using tracing paper (!!!. Who said "Dishonest, shameful, unethical" [12]???). Your drawing of copyrighted material is considered as "derivative work" (even if it were not an exact copy), and thereby constitutes a clear copyright infringement (Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works, Commons:Derivative works), except if the photograph itself is free (Public Domain, Creative Commons etc...), which it is probably not as it was made by Frederick M. Asher (1941-2021) himself (Photographic credits, Fig 3.3 "Photos are by Frederick M. Asher when not otherwise credited") and is covered under the 2020 copyright of his book [13]. If so, please remove the drawing and ask for deletion on Commons with {{speedy delete|Copyright infringement (derivative work)}}. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Diannaa:@RegentsPark and Doug Weller: (copyright infringement) पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was not made with tracing paper! Please don't judge me by the standards you observe on WP. I don't own a hard copy of the book. I determined the proportions as they appeared in the e-book on my screen with a wooden ruler. For the capital itself. I measured to proportions as they appeared in other images on the web. I tried to be too faithful at first, drawing the banana leaves or palm leaves in the background, giving it perspective effects by adding the path leading away from the column, and the Buddha images that flanked it and whatnot. It was drawn with Microsoft Paint using three-click curves, not the pencil. Please examine the railing around the column. Please examine the wheel. Does they appear to be a faithful renditions? The only thing I did make sure was that the wheel have 24 spokes, which it does, not the vaunted 32 you have been obsessed with. Please examine the lions' heads. The have the appearance more of caricature than reality. When I finally put together the sketch. It was too busy and the lines too thin. I had to use the software Matlab to thicken the lines. But that turned a large number of painstaking details into glop. I then had to remove the entire background. I couldn't remove the railing for obvious reasons, so I spent more time fixing it. I referenced Rick Asher not because of the picture, for there are dozens similar ones available on the web, but for his statement. I have now seen enough images of the Chiang Mai capital that I can draw it from memory. (For the record, I did go to Wat Umong a long time ago, but don't remember the capital, for we went to a Meo village the same day on the outskirts of Chiang Mai and the deep ruts in the dirt mountain track being navigated by the expert Thai drivers which turned the day into a cliffhanger of sorts is what I most remember,but I could have simply said, "Drawn from memory.") Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two Wat Umongs in Chang Mai; on Commons you categorized this as the other - perhaps you visited that one. Johnbod (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that! But I discovered another Wat in Chiangmai the pictures whose lion capitals are already on WP. I've traded those for the sketch which I will ask the powers that be to remove. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler:: To remove the drawing from Commons just add the following code on the file page of your drawing on Commons: {{speedy delete|Copyright infringement (derivative work, uploader request)}}. It will be deleted within a few hours. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need to get some coffee first. I have just realized by clicking on your link there already is a picture of the capital

of Asher's mention on WP! I could have spent time wasted on the sketch in working on Darjeeling. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Johnbod Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your drawing superposes almost perfectly with the original, just check in case you don't know it already... but, I am not really interested about your travails in accomplishing it. The fact that you knowingly take some copyrighted material and brazingly copy it speaks volumes about your standards, and is quite ironic given your propensity to make endless accusations against other users. Your lack of ability to take responsiblity for your own mistakes or misdeeds, and your creation of a flurry of irrelevant excuses and personal attacks instead, are also quite revealing. Whatever the imperfections or approximations, your drawing completely fits the definition of a derivative work of copyrighted material nonetheless, and your admission above to copying from copyrighted material suffices. Please remove the drawing and ask for deletion on Commons with {{speedy delete|Copyright infringement (derivative work)}}. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a sketch. I acknowledges Asher's picture. I give the page number. I give the reference to the book. If WP considers it close visual paraphrasing, so be it. I'm happy to remove it. By the end of the day, I'll produce another sketch whose provenance no one in the world will figure out. What then? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your drawing is not just a vague "sketch" with a reference, but on the contrary a quite precise hand-drawn copy which almost perfectly derives from a copyrighted photograph [14]. Your very actions in copying it makes it an infringement of the photographer's and the publishing company's copyrights. That's the law. So, yes, please delete. Please go ahead with making a true creation of your own (such as a schematical frontal view for example), based on multiple references if you wish (but certainly not partial copies of multiple copyrighted materials, which would again be copyright infringement). पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Sarnath Capital was in much more damaged condition that later depictions in both photographs (taken at kind angles) and emblem-izing have projected. Perhaps the makers of modern India should have made the damaged capital the emblem. It was the reality, the grounded reality. Oertel, the outsider genius, for all his faults of mourning for Golden Ages, had none of these faults. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]