Talk:Paratarajas

Eliminated unsourced assertion

Deleted the sentences saying that the Paratas are thought to be an offshoot of the Apracas. I have never seen such an argument and it seems like pure speculation. No source was provided. Rani nurmai (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Undoing previous edits on Jan 22, 2012

I undid the edits by an unidentified editor in November 2011. The person seemed uninformed, identifying the reverse swastika as a fire altar and claiming a source argued the Paratas were enemies of the Indians when the source said no such thing. The idea was to restore the text to its previous state. Rani nurmai (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ArjunaParataraja.jpg

Image:ArjunaParataraja.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

References

@TrangaBellam: Thanks for your nice additions to the article! Currently there are almost no references though (you deleted mine and you are not adding new ones): could you add your sources at the same time as you introduce new content? And, sorry, why did you delete most of the previous refs? Thanks पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

To convert them to sfn; the same reference is called using multiple citation-styles. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Fwiw, some of them falls under improper usage: the classical literature section is sourced to Tandon (2006) but Tandon had declared outright that he is copying off Mukherjee (1972) without bothering to verify them. I do not suggest removing the information but citing Mukherjee (1972) is probably more optimum. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

cc:पाटलिपुत्र TrangaBellam (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Any improvement is welcome, but it is better to replace refs progressively if you wish to transform them to sfn format, rather than delete them. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Btw, who do you need three authors to cite a simple inscription? Please remove any two unless the reading is very controversial etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: It's common practice on Wikipedia. There is no value in reducing to just one reference. On the contrary, having several authors renforces the referencing, and gives more knowledge and background: many of the references can be read in extenso on Google Books, Archive.org or other sites, which brings much value to those wishing to further research, expand knowledge beyond the Wikipedia article, or ascertain the extent of academic coverage or support. Over-referencing however (let's say beyond 4 or 5) is usually undesirable, mostly because of the heaviness and redundancy, but in that case they can be coalesced into just one note if necessary. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• (responding to TrangaBellam's query on my my talkpage I am not aware of hard and fast rules for how many sources to cite with perhaps WP:BLUE and WP:REFBOMB discussing the two extremes. In general, the issue is settled through discussion between editors based on how controversial the underlying statement is; the quality of sources and how broad and diverse their coverage is (ie, whether they are of independent value to the reader beyond just verifying that one statement); impact on article length and readability; and, sometimes/arguably accessibility. I guess all this is familiar to you both so I'll stop the general philosophiz-ing there.

Coming to this specific article and particularly the block-quote in the current Inscriptions section. I looked up all the three cited sources and the (translated) inscription text doesn't match up with any of the three. It comes closest to the one in Wiesehöfer 2001 but with distinct differences. Where is the actual quote from or am I missing something? Abecedare (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, there are no "hard and fast rules for how many sources to cite" except for the extreme cases. Giving three sources on a specific point has never been WP:REFBOMB, and in a few years time I have never seen a Wikipedian argue against giving 2 or 3 sources to support a given point... Actually, giving just one source is often seen as suspicious, as it could suggest isolated scholarship or fringe. I'll try to see if there is something like a standard translation of the segment. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I adjusted the quote to match Daryaee, Touraj (2018). "Res Gestae Divi Saporis (transcription of full text with English translation)" (PDF). In Nicholson, Oliver (ed.). The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-866277-8.. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: Something weird is going on. When I look up my (print) edition of The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity (vol 2; pp. 1282-83) the (roughly half-page) entry for Res Gestae Divi Saporis does not contain a complete transcription or translation of the SKZ inscription, but only a paraphrase of some parts. Also the document you link to above is hosted on the personal website of Raham Asha. Are you sure the latter is related to the Oxford Dictionary being cited? Abecedare (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Thanks. My mistake if it's not the right "Res Gestae Divi Saporis"... I was fooled by the title. Raham Asha is apparently a professor at the Academy of Sciences, Dushanbe, Tajikestan [1]. I am not an expert of the Shapur inscription, but Warren Soward, teaching assistant for Touraj Daryaee [2], also gives a similar translation here ("am ruler of Iranshahr, [and I hold ?] the lands: (...) Seistan, Turan, Makuran, Paradene, Hindustan [India = Sind], the Kushanshahr up to Peshawar, and up to Kashgar, Sogdiana and to the mountains of Tashkent, and on the other side of the sea, Oman.") and a summary of sources:

"The first edition of the text in three languages (Parthian, Middle Persian and Greek) was by M. Sprengling, "Shahpuhr I, the Great on the Kaabah of Zoroaster (KZ)," AJSI, 57 (1940), 341-420, followed by his Third Century Iran, Sapor and Kartir (Chicago, 1953), with photographs. The Greek text formed the basis of the translation by A. Maricq, "Res Gestae Divi Saporis," Syria, 35 (1958), 295-360, with his detailed study together with E. Honigmann, Recherches sur les Res Gestae Divi Saporis (Brussels, 1953)".

— THE INSCRIPTION OF SHAPUR I AT NAQSH-E RUSTAM IN FARS Warren Soward

The text by Maricq is in French [3] but give the same content on pages 304-305. Sprengling gives a detailed analysis here [4]. The complete transcription from Raham Asha seems legit, but then I don't know if it has been published. A translation in English of that exact segment appears in Kia, Mehrdad (27 June 2016). The Persian Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 volumes]: A Historical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 67. ISBN 978-1-61069-391-2. and the full translation in extenso, apparently a reference work, appears here Frye, Richard Nelson (1984). The History of Ancient Iran. C.H.Beck. p. 371. ISBN 978-3-406-09397-5.. All of these are consistent. Overall, I guess it would be better to reference from Frye as a primary source (direct translation), and maybe Kia (Professor of History and Director of the University of Montana's Central and Southwest Asian Studies Center) as a secondary source (analysis with historical context). पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving the confusion. For your convenience, here is how Wiesehöfer translates and glosses the start of SKZ:

And I [Shapur I] possess the lands [provinces; Greek ethne]: Fars [Persis], Pahlav [Parthia], Huzestan [Khuzistan], Meshan [Maishan, Mesene], Asorestan [Mesopotamia], Nod-Ardakhshiragan [Adiabene], Arbayestan [Arabia], Adurbadagan [Atropatene], Armen [Armenia], Virozan [Iberia], Segan [Machelonia], Arran [Albania], Balasagan up to the Caucasus and to the ‘gate of the Alans’ and all of Padishkhvar[gar] [the entire Elburz chain = Tabaristan and Gelan (?)], Mad [Media], Gurgan [Hyrcania], Marv [Margiana], Harey [Aria], and all of Abarshahr [all the upper (= eastern, Parthian) provinces], Kerman [Kirman], Sakastan, Turgistan, Makuran, Pardan [Paradene], Hind [Sind] and Kushanshahr all the way to Pashkibur [Peshavar?] and to the borders of Kashgaria, Sogdia and Chach [Tashkent] and of that sea-coast Mazonshahr [‘Oman’].

— Wiesehöfer, Josef (1996). Ancient Persia : from 550 BC to 650 AD. London: I.B. Tauris. p. 184. ISBN 978-1860646751.

I am fine with whichever scholarly translation you (and others) prefer to use, as long as there is (exact!) consistency between the quote and citation. As you say, the sources largely agree on the translation and the minor differences are not relevant to this article, where (as I understand it) the only relevant part is that SKZ includes a mention to Paradan. I'll leave it to you to update the article with the (appropriately excised and wikilinked) translation of your choice but let me know if you'd prefer me to do it. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I used your translation for the part which interests us, but changed the square brackets with round brackets, as these are not compatible with wikilinks, and removed the "=" sign as it is not compatible with the Blockquote format, but left the complete untouched quote in the reference. I added Frye for another authoritative translation which can be seen directly online, and added Kia as a secondary source. Please tweak as necessary. Thank you for your help! 03:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection to citing two sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I will be changing the source to Sprengling (1940). This is a trilingual inscription and we will use the respective words, for each of the province in the line concerning us. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: I have no objection to citing two sources.... why be so picky on having 2 rather than 3 sources? [5] Never seen something like that... The third reference is useful: it is visible online, therefore it is important for verification purposes, and for Wikipedians who may want to explore further. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Date

We are not bound to reproduce anything and everything written by a scholar. The assigning of dates has no rational basis; please cease. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

We follow the sources, not personal views or personal opinions. Your views that the "dates have no rational basis" are irrelevant, since academics do venture to make educated guesses about these dates. The rational reason why academics do this is probably because broad dates for the Paratarajas are known, as well as their precise relationship between one another, which allows for rather close guestimates of individual reigns. This is exactly what is done for many ancient rulers when exact dates are not necessarily known. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I looked up the cited source and the impression it gives about the contents of the table, including the dates, is very different from the one I got from reading the current version of the wikipedia article. Tandon repeatedly calls the family-tree and the chronology he proposes, "speculation", "highly speculative", "an educated guess at best", "contain[ing] two speculative leaps", "highly speculative and very tentative", "tentative absolute chronology" etc and yet the table in this article simply presents the lineage and date-ranges as supposedly accepted, albeit "rough", facts. And for what its worth, even the dates are transcribed incorrectly from (either of the two ranges) Tandon provides on page 155. This is bordering on misrepresentation.

I propose that iff other scholars have cited Tandon's proposed lineage and dates positively, we retain the current table in some form while properly attributing it to Tandon along with the qualifiers he himself emphasizes (as in, say, "Numismatist Pankoj Tandon has proposed the following highly speculative lineage and chronology of the Parataraja rules based on educated guesswork"). And if others have not (yet) commented upon Tandon's proposals, then this part of his work doesn't belong in a tertiary source like wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Good point. "Numismatist Pankoj Tandon has proposed the following highly speculative lineage and chronology of the Parataraja rules based on educated guesswork" may be a bit over the top, but, yes, definitely, we can explain that the dates are an estimation based on known but approximate general dates about the dynasty and reconstructions of the lineage. The area being so narrow, I do not know if there are specific comments or endorsements of that specific point from Tandon... will try to check. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I sourced my additions to the table from Tandon (2021) [citations added] where he is highly confident of his chronology. This was aided in part by new finds buttressing his hypothesis as laid out in Tandon (2019).

Tandon, despite being from the discipline of economics, is highly regarded in these areas. For example, R. Bracey (Curator of the Kushan Coins Project at the British Museum) commends Tandon for bringing all evidence about Paratarajas to fore and producing an enviously coherent account of the dynasty in ONS (2010; editorial). Falk (2020) agrees with Tandon's ordering of Kings. Schindel (2016; p. 125) agrees with Tandon's ordering of Kings and date assigned to the last King but cautions that the absolute dates for the entire dynasty must be treated as hypothesis.

What Pat said about guesstimates is usually the rule but not here; for our subject, we do not know any broad date except perhaps a solitary evidence from the overstrike and some paleographic estimates. This is why I had removed the date column - that is highly speculative, as is evident from a cursory reading of Tandon's scholarship over the years and his reception by others. I have no opposition to including it in a note. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a 2021 paper from Tandon. Great! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Ditto. Will read and add my 2c on whether a caveat lector note is still needed. Abecedare (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Where do you stand on the date column? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The date column is fine, as long as we have the caveats in place, as is the case now. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Baluchi

@TrangaBellam: The part on Baluchi seems interesting and it is properly sourced from Tandon [6]. Why insist on removing it? And please avoid systematically reverting the content of others [7], it is rude: this is long-standing content, and you should be the one explaining yourself on the Talk Page if your content deletion is reverted, not the other way around, see W:BRD.पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Tandon is idly speculating—that too, in a footnote—whether Baluchis descend from Paratarajas. Such speculation is undue for coverage in our article until other scholars take his musings seriously.

In another (quite colonial-tinted) quip, Tandon wonders whether the Baluchis' famed refusal to submit to any centralizing authority stems from [their ancestor] Paratarajas' fierce independence during a towering Sassanian presence. Maybe, add that too? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

Pataliputra, can you cite the page where Tandon (2006) notes of coin-finds in S. Lanka? For someone who accused me of not providing page-numbers, you have cited the entire page-range of the article! TrangaBellam (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Tbh, I cannot even recall Tandon (2006) stating Loralai as the capital. That won't be an unreasonable guess but there also lies the prospect of it being the mint-town. Anyway, please provide the page-number for this claim. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

This is embarrassing but I am also requesting the page number for the claim about identicalness with Parthians. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam:
1) I did add the "trade with Sri Lanka" part in April 2022 [8]. Strangely it does not appear in "New Light from the Paratarajas" but in another document by Tandon: THE COINS OF THE PᾹRATARᾹJAS (excerpt: "Coins are found mostly in Balochistan but a small group was found as far as Sri Lanka, indicating a robust trade"...) , so I probably mixed up the sources. Now, although this is clearly an analysis by Tandon, the PdF is probably not officially published (it was presented in the XV International Numismatic Convention in Taormina, Sicily (September 21-25, 2015) per [9]), so I am not sure that we can use it... I have no objection to removing that part then, it's minor anyway.
2) The content about "Loralai being the capital" was added by an anon user from Duluth, Georgia back in 2013 [10]. I guess Loralai was probably the capital of the Paratarajas, but we can only say that it was the main area where their coins were found.
3) It seems the Parthian identification (with the wrong reference) was also provided by the anon user from Duluth, Georgia in 2013 [11]. Clearly deserves cleanup.
...Being an open encyclopedia is "a gift but also a curse" and no contributor is perfect... Still, even if mistakes or approximations can be found from time to time, and need to be cleaned up, I wish you would not systematically delete all the refs of other users [12] before you start your own editing (that's unheard of), or replace the refs of others by your own, without even actually better referencing the sentence in question [13]. We build this encyclopedia by cooperating with each other, not by wiping out the work of others before we start our own. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

In other words, you was edit-warring with me to retain a string of factoids, none of which can be sourced to the appending citation. While removing my citation to a more recent paper, where Tandon discusses the location of Paratarajas in detail.

When you restore content, you take ownership of the content — so whether it was originally added by someone else from Georgia is immaterial.

I nuked the refs because the article was filled with misuse of citations — like the one we are discussing here or in the section on classical sources below. When I check five refs and find four of them to be improper, why shall I bother screening all of them? It is better to start afresh.

After all this wastage of time and bytes, you have self-reverted to what I had suggested from the outset. Thanks for that. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

As a matter of fact the near totality of these refs were perfectly correct, even if you can find one mistake or two. "Nuking" all the refs of an articles is not the way to do it. Please work with others, rather than against them. No need for drama here: I appreciate your work, just also respect mine. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Classical Sources

Tandon (2006) states outright that he is copying the section on mentions of Parata/Parada/similar words in classical literature off Mukherjee (1972) without bothering to verify them. Regrettably, Mukherjee (1972) is not a reliable source and I will appreciate if editors can take the initiative to verify the accuracy using secondary sources. Else, the section needs to be removed. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Herodotus

Okay. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Resolved. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Periplus

Tandon (2006; p. 202) mentions Periplus of the Erythraean Sea to locate one "Paradon" beyond Oman, i.e. "on the coast of modern Baluchistan."

However, Lionel Casson's 1989 monograph (p. 73) on the text—mostly reproducing Hjalmar Frisk's crit. edition—notes the area to be "Παρσιδὦν", which is accurately transliterated to "Parsidai." The manuscript features (p. 259) "Παρ[]óδòν", which was (reasonably) emended by Muller to fit Ptolemy's Parsidai. Not really seeing how can one end up at "Paradon"; maybe, Schoff's faulty edition was responsible?

Anyway, Tandon's conclusions stand. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Resolved TrangaBellam (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Arrian

Messed up. Need to be nuked. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Resolved. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Ptolemy

Poor source: Intermediate region of Gedrosia is "Paradene"; the Parsir(d)ae dwell near the frontiers with Carmania.

Consult Ptolemaios Handbuch der Geographie (2006) for details. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Pliny

1 and 2.

1 - Resolved. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Strabo x3

Radt, Stefan (translator) Strabons Geographika. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Coin forgeries

Interesting - not the first author to accuse Peshwar of housing such a workshop. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

2 TrangaBellam (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: I have this book linked in your last post (Seals, Sealings, and Tokens from Bactria to Gandhara (4th to 8th century CE)), in case you are interested. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Standalone Pages

I am a bit curious about whether you, Pataliputra, feel yet that Yolamara needs his own page. Why or why not? I think the historical evidence is far better than the Nezak King! (PLEASE, this is not an invitation to create the page.) TrangaBellam (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

In any case, we need redirects for each ruler except Arjuna. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales famously said: “Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge”. With this encyclopedic ideal in mind, I tend to think that any significant subject for which knowledge is available should have its own entry on Wikipedia. Individual rulers are generally significant subjects, and if scholars have bothered to study and discuss them, then it is clearly worthwhile and legitimate to have an entry for them in the encyclopedia. In the world of Internet, there is no real value in trying to reduce page numbers and centralize rulers on a single dynastic page (Of course, I am not advocating the creation of myriads of stubs either: content has to be relatively significant). Arguably, on the contrary, having individual pages actually facilitates navigation (in-page links are cumbersome and completely unreliable over time), and opens up the potential of adding more detailed information when new discoveries or new analysis become available. That said, I am not so interested in the Paratarajas as to make individual pages of their kings at this point. Thank you for the invitation though :) पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Coin legend

Is an average reader expected to know Brahmi? Do you mean to do this for each ruler? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

It is fairly customary to give transcriptions of the coin legends in the original language when possible (see Latin, Greek etc...). And many people who are interested in this subject actually will have a level of understanding of Brahmi. I think one example is probably enough though, as it is sufficient to give a sense of the readability of the legend, its structure, and how it is transcribed and translated. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the Brahmi coin legend in question is directly sourced from: Tandon, Pankaj (2021). "The Paratarajas" (PDF). In Piper, Wilfried (ed.). Ancient Indian Coins: A Comprehensive Catalogue. Nasik, India: IIRNS Publications. pp. 2–3. ISBN 9789392280016. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not think that our articles shall be drafted with specialists as the intended audience but since there is no governing rule, it boils down to editorial discretion. What do Abecedare and HistoryofIran say? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

If it was on a simple image I might have been against it. But I'm not too sure when it's like that tbh. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Tor Dherai

Loralai map

Kautilya3, can you geolocate the site of "Tor Dherai"? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The closest place we can locate is Duki, which is its district headquarters. This hillock seems to be marked as "Tor Ghar" in the survey map. Everything in that area is marked "Ghar" and there is no "Dherai" in sight. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! TrangaBellam (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Link to a reference

How to link Schopen (1996) in endnote e with the reference in the bibliography? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

{{harvp|Schopen|1996}}. I have done it now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

To do

• Write a decent lead.
• Read Tandon (2009).
• Upload more coin-images. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The fate of the Tor Dherai potsherds

• Since this information was presented to the Conference, I have come across some potsherds found by Aurel Stein at Tor-Dherai in northern Baluchistan [2], and now lodged in the Central Antiquities Collection, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi.
  — Lal, B.B. The Direction of Writing in the Harappan Script. (1966). Antiquity, 40(157), p. 55. doi:10.1017/S0003598X0010804X

• The best specimens [from Stein's excavation] were been deposited in the McMahon Museum, Quetta, as a loan from the Director General of Archaeology. The McMahon Museum, Quetta, was destroyed in the 1935 earthquake. The Museum’s material from Tor Dherai was then buried in trenches in order to safeguard it for future study. However, since then the whereabouts of the decorated material, of the Buddhist relic deposit pot, of the material it contained, and of the fifty potsherds inscribed in Kharoshti and Brahmi could not be traced in the records by the authors of this article.
  — "The Buddhist Stupa Remains and Inscribed Ceramics from Tor Dherai, District Duki, Balochistan (Revisited)". Kakar, Fazal Dad; Ghafoor Lone, Arshadullah Abdul; Mehmood-ul-Hassan. Journal of Asian Civilizations. pub. Taxila Institute of Asian Civilizations. vol. 40 (2) - 2017, p. 50.

• However, in 1935 when a high-intensity earthquake jolted Quetta and its adjoining areas on May 31, resulting in at least 30,000 casualties, the museum too was destroyed.

  The government of the time shifted all the artefacts of Balochistan to the Kolkata and British museums. After the creation of Pakistan, different governments continuously ignored the issue of bringing back Balochistan’s ancient and priceless archaeological treasures. At present, there is no record of the artefacts which were shifted from McMahon Museum after the earthquake. Almost the entire collection of the McMahon Museum is now missing.
  — Khan, Hizbullah (2017-11-05). "Heritage: The Lost Treasures Of Balochistan". Dawn.

• It appears to me that Lal is correct. Any opinions? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)