Indian References about the IndoGreeks.

[Pharnakes]

Excelent.

Feel like joining the AtB team?

[keravnos]

Why, thank you.
Honored. If you want me as an advisor I would love to help. Full member though, that would be a no. I just wouldn't have the time for that. RL and other mods I am currently involved in would necessitate that I decline.

Still, this wasn't why I posted.

http://www.askasia.org/teachers/imag...83fb45b32134e2

Description

Pakistan, Gandhara area; 2nd - 3rd century C.E.
Schist
H. 6 in. (15.2 cm)
Estate of Blanchette Hooker Rockefeller
1993.001

Once part of a full statue, this small head of a man illustrates an interest in portraiture in the art of Gandhara. The Kushan rulers of Gandhara often had themselves depicted on coins while other individuals had themselves depicted as donors or attendants in scenes representing worship of the Buddha. It seems likely that this head was once part of such a scene. The fleshiness and maturity of the face and the depiction of the close-cropped hairstyle reflect the Roman interest in nonidealized portraiture and attest to the influence of Western traditions on the art of Gandhara.

This was the main reason. This is a beautiful Kushan statue. In there, the people commenting on it, (it is part of the Gandhara school made in 2nd -3rd century CE), fail to mention that Gandhara was part of the IG kingdom for a couple of centuries and that this is Hellenistic influence coming from Hellenes and descendants of Hellenes and in this case INDOGREEKS, NOT ROMANI, who were two continents away, and had absolutely NO influence whatsoever to those makers.

I don't blame them however. Other supposedly learned historians have made this assumption before. One has even gone to say that Romani sent artisans over at Gandhara to help them make those statues...

It is one of those things that made me mad about historical agendas and stuff. It isn't the reason though. People just DON'T KNOW about the Indogreeks. If they see a 1st CE, 2nd or 3rd CE statue they just assume it is Romani.

For people who don't know history, I can have no expectation that they understand what exactly it is they are watching or who might have made it. For Historians though, there MUST be a higher standard. Not just "Good looking statue, Romani must have made it". There can be another alternative, as in this case. Nobody is dismissing Romani. They overcame everyone. They won. Winners take it all indeed, but History must NEVER be demoted to winers propaganda.

[russia almighty]

Kern I kinda know how you feel . You'd be surprised how many people don't know who Axum is . They ask why did Meroe get trashed in the timeframe when Axum marched there black asses up there and sacked the place clean . Somehow they conveniently forget about Axum during that period .