Talk:Maryul

A fact from Maryul appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 October 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Ladakh was originally called Maryul (capital pictured), the "lowland" of West Tibet?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maryul.

Wikipedia

India: Jammu and Kashmir / History Low‑importance

	India portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article was last assessed in May 2012.

Map of polities

Copying the new map here for discussion: Kautilya3 (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HINDU
SHAHIS

GHAZNAVID
EMPIRE

GUJARA-
PRATIHARA

PALA EMPIRE

TRAKHANS

LADHAK KINGDOM

LOHARAS

Mathura

class=notpageimage|

Main South Asian polities in the early 1000s. (500px)

Pat, I don't know if you copied this map from somewhere, but as you can see all the labels are quite off. I suggest you find the exact coordinates where these labels are supposed to belong, and use those.

Also, we need some evidence that these polities are the ones that mattered to Maryul, which is incorrectly being called "Ladhak Kingdom" here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kautylia. I am not sure I understand you point. The map you prepared (with the white boxes) is indeed quite off, but mine (the smaller one hereunder) seems to be much closer to reality. Also the map can be edited by anybody, so you can adjust some of the positions or tweak names if you think they are not right. I often use this (Schwartzberg, Joseph E. (1978). A Historical atlas of South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 145, map XIV.1 (k). ISBN 0226742210.) and other atlases for reference. There's nothing innovative about this kind of maps (apart from having links and being modifiable by anyone): they are just representations of surrounding polities in a given time frame, like a visual navigation box. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MARYUL

Main South Asian polities in the early 1000s. (250px)

If you find the right coordinates for each label, by going to Google Maps or OSM, then the labels will stay where they are supposed to. Your coordinates for Hindu Shahis, 38°N 71°E / 38°N 71°E / 38; 71, is sitting on a glacier north of the Wakhan corridor! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Main South Asian polities in the early 1000s. (100px)

I don't think so. This is due to the way labels are handled by the software: a dot stays perfectly in place whatever the map size (here Mathura and your glacier), but the labels are not scalable: a label has an invariable size and is positionned at an invariable distance from this dot, which remains constant whatever the map size (extreme case at 100px to the right). This means that the size of the map in "px" cannot be modified greatly, or the geographical position of the labels will shift. Also, this means that the coordinates to use to position the labels are actually quite different from the place we want the labels to be, so they have to be adjusted. This map was adjusted at 250px and therefore has to remain so, unless each coordinate is tweaked. And of course if you want to adjust some of the positions of the labels, you are welcome to do so. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have set the ~~location~~ label positions back to what you had. All except TRAKHANS is positioned bottom. So it should only make a difference in the vertical direction. But your Ladakh is still way off somewhere in the Changthang desert.

Maybe, you can actually put a dot at the capitals of these kingdoms so that we know which location you have in mind. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea for the dots. I tweaked the map. Tell me what you think. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your dot for Maryul is at 35°30′N 80°00′E / 35.5°N 80°E, which is near the Kuenlun range. It needs to be somewhere near Leh 34°12′N 77°36′E / 34.2°N 77.6°E. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, it's currently 34.073182 N 77.639294 in the 250px. You may be looking at a different map. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images

We are going overboard with images again. What are these images illustrating? Why do we need so many? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They illustrate royal families in Maryul circa 1200 CE. We can have less of course. But why so many redundant maps? [1] पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The maps support the content.

This page is not a duplication of the History of Ladakh. It only deals with the origins of Maryul, as an outgrowth of Western Tibet, and whatever later interactions follow from it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the maps are quite a mess (beyond anything I've ever seen in a proper article), and you even have the same map two times (in the infobox and in the body of this small article [2]). We should have less maps, and probably less royal family illustrations as well. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. You can remove whatever maps don't relate to the content. And I will remove whatever images don't relate to the content. Deal? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this was the way the page looked originally, when it went to DYK. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Territory

SHAHIS

GHAZNAVID
EMPIRE

GUJARA-
PRATIHARAS

PALA EMPIRE

TRAKHANS

GUGE

MARYUL

LOHARAS

WESTERN CHALUKYA

KARA-KHANIDS

class=notpageimage|

Maryul, combined with the Kingdom of Guge, and Zanskar separately, with neighbouring polities in the early 1000s.

@Kautilya3: The territory in my map is exactly the same as the territory in your map, with the same caption "Maryul (c. 975 CE – 1000 CE) shown combined with the Kingdom of Guge". So can you tell me what is worth a revert here??? [3] पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "my" map. It is AH Francke's map. He showed the two togeher because he wasn't sure of the boundary between them. This is described in the article, which you apparently have no interest in reading. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it actually and I'm just following Francke. Why do you keep one map and revert the other when they show the same boundaries with the same caveat? That's not coherent. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because reproducing the map in our own technology appears to validate it. We can't do it. It is an attributed map, reprodced as is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This does not make sense. We use sources to create map, boundaries etc... We can of course mention that Francke is the reference. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francke did not say that it was the border of Maryul. Can you drop this please? Unless I see you reading and writing textual content, with some understanding, this is just a waste of everybody's time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have admired your great skill in reproducing the boundary! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Francke say that "the Kings of Leh continued to claim authority over the entire kingdom of Nyima gon", with the younger brothers probably being in a vassal relationship with their elder brother in Leh pp 62-63? Maybe you have more recent sources with a different understanding of the territories? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but that would only be good for an attributed opinion. Francke is pretty old as a source and he is not a historian (in the modern sense of the word). Petech doesn't corroborate any of it. We can assume that Ladakh would have exercised some kind of dominance over Guge, because it was larger (in terms of population and economy). But Guge also had its own predominance in the religious sphere. So we can't say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, attributing opinions is something we do everyday on Wikipedia. We'll just add to the caption: "per A. H. Francke" with a link to his book. When we find a more recent source providing a map of the boundaries, I'll draw a new orange ribbon and update. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Per A. H. Franke" can't go into the infobox. Only the material that has scholarly consensus. (You might complain that the old map was Francke's. Yeah, only because a POV pusher installed it there.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of such a rule against attributing a map in an infobox. For extensive attribution in an infobox see Maurya Empire for example, although I do agree consensus, when available, is best. As for territory, having in mind the uninitiated, showing an approximate extent (when sourced) is better than just a dot, as it at least gives a sense that it was an extensive territory (about the size of Romania?) rather than misleadingly suggest it was just a city state, or merely a city for that matter. Which also leads me to the name of the article.. why isn't it called "Maryul kingdom" for clarity, as in Wikidata [4] or per reliable sources [5]? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: I also note that the A. H. Francke map had been in the infobox for a full year and a half [6] until I started to edit this article a few days ago, so it is a bit unbelievable that you tell me now that A. H. Franke "can't go into the infobox. Only the material that has scholarly consensus.". पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You really really expect me to accept a wrong, pov-ridden map with wrong borders based on some argument about the hsitory of the article? Really? It is Christmas, buddy. Relax and celebrate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Can you show me a modern and reliable map that challenges and provides an alternative to the territory delineated by Francke? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't seen any modern map of the borders of Maryul. That just means that scholars are uncertain. So we can't be certain either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That in itself doesn't suffice. Are you aware of any major academic criticism of the boundaries given by the Francke map? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will be taking the side of K3: I hate any kind of map for ancient/medieval polities (apart from some rough demarcation), as a rule. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am more interested by what reliable sources say or provide in terms of map. Kautilya3 has been around longer than us on this page, so I'd like to clarify what references make him now reject a territorial delineation that has been on this page (in the infobox) for a year and a half... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What the reliable sources say is already described on this page. There is a precise description of Maryul given. You don't seem able to connect text and pictures. The problem you see is imaginary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the dots from the map, so that at least we don't have the misleading impression that these historical regions are cities, but really ill-defined expanses. Back to the beginning.... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Royal banquet scene

We have several reliable sources describing the "royal banquet scene" in the Alchi Monastery, "members of the aristocratic family who founded Alchi" (172-173). The scene is "likely depicting a Ladakhi royal couple" in Maryul [7]. There is "a king", "a queen" and their attendants (172-173). "The nobleman and his wife aims at underlining their function as guarantor of the prosperity of the kingdom as well as a protector of the Buddhist doctrine." (176).
Although there are is specific dynastic name given by this inscription, the academic consensus is that these royal scenes date to around the 12th century and illustrate royal sponsorship in Western Tibet (Alchi is 20 km west of Leh and falls squarely in Maryul). See also: Flood, Finbarr Barry (2017). A Turk in the Dukhang? Comparative Perspectives on Elite Dress in Medieval Ladakh and the Caucasus. Austrian Academy of Science Press. p. 228-229.
Francke considered that the ruler in the painting is probably Lha-chen-Byan-chub-sems-dpha, 4th king of Maryul, who also left an inscription in Alchi Monastery (p.95).
I don't see any good reason for denying this valuable illustration of contemporary local royalty from the article, with caveats and refs. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me read through the sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CFORK

Why are we covering the Namgyals at this page? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let this page be only about the "First dynasty (930–1460)". A reason why I prefer creating articles about historical dynasties than kingdoms. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are not covering either dynasty. We are covering the concept of "Maryul", which is an old name, but historically significant. That is partly why I objected to the image that you have reinstated. It has nothing to do with Maryul. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your claim, you need to show Maryul—absent these dynasties—pass GNG in itself. Why do we need yet another article over History of Ladakh? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't. You can merge it in there if you want. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Onto the merge. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry TrangaBellam, can you explain what you want to merge and how? Merges should normally be done through a Merge Request... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: You can check at WP:MERGE पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This entire page onto History of Ladakh. Do you object (and why)? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see... usually on Wikipedia we have separate pages for Kingdom/ Dynasties and for the whole History of a region, provided there is enough information on the Kingdom in question. "Kingdom of ..." articles and "History of the region of ..." articles are based on entirely different approaches, timescales etc... Actually, there is a lot of information on the Maryul kingdom (I am discovering this stuff) which could never go in a more generic "History of Ladakh". So yes, I think I am in favour of keeping the page for the kingdom, knowing that it can probably receive significant expansion in the times to come. And WP:MERGE is the standard procedure anyway if you wish to move forward (except for trivial merges, but this is not the case here). Cheers पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to us having a page on the "First Dynasty." But you cannot also include content on the Namgyals etc. and duplicate content across a bunch of (three, to be precise) pages. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would be OK with focusing on the "First Dynasty".... That does make sense. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would object converting this page into the "First dynasty" whatever that means. There is no content on the first dynasty on this page. I won't mind somebody writing a page on the First dynasty but I very much doubt they will succeed. There is practically no information available about it. I realize that that never stops Wikipedians from attempting the impossible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no "Maryul kingdom" separate from Ladakh. What we now call Ladakh is precisely Maryul. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's being very certain about Maryul's boundaries all of a sudden, and not bothered at all by conflating entirely different periodizations... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that there's nothing - I can develop one in the drafts if you wish. I agree with K3 that Ladakh was Maryul, for all practical purposes. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Saying Maryul and Ladakh are the same doesn't mean that the borders remained the same. It just means that the Kingdom of Maryul at some point began to be called Ladakh. We have no good idea why that happened. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's also why it makes sense to have an article about the Kingdom of Maryul, which covers a specific period of time, and, yes, different boundaries. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific period of time is that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Maryul on map

Location of Maryul cities (red) vs Srinagar (blue).

Hi @Kautilya3:. Regarding the position of Maryul on a global map.... I checked the location of the capital of Maryul, Shey, and the location of other cities of Maryul, such as Zoji La, Rudok (per this map), and Demchok (per this article), on a Location map. Shey, the capital, is exactly east of the Kashmir Valley, at 250 km due east of Srinagar. Rudok too is due east of the Kashmir Valley, at a distance of 450 km, as is Demchok. So it seems rather correct to position the Maryul kingdom due east of Srinagar (and the Loharas), and not north or northeast of it. The position of the cities of Maryul correspond quite perfectly to the position of "Maryul" on my map (I tweaked a bit further to have a perfect match). What do you think? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine, I think I find that terrain map hard to read.

What is wrong with the current map? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I kept the current map configuration in the article, but corrected the position of the labels per the above. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]