|
Post by sharrukin on Feb 8, 2007 4:05:08 GMT 3
This has always been my habit to respond to posts.
And this is not proof because....?
Well it could or it could'nt. To say that it is not is just as presumptious as saying that it is, but, okay, let's assume that it could be something else - it becomes a minor point.
Maes description of the Silk Road route was good enough for Roman traders to make it to China. In terms of dimensions, one can see plenty of errors, but in generalities the descriptions were good enough to create modern maps.
If you do not believe in the explicitness of Hou Han-shu or the Han-shu which describe the Ta-Yuehzhi kingdom being divided by the five hsi-hou of Hsiu-mi, Shuang-mi, Kuei-shuang, Hsi-tun, and Kao-fu, in which "all belong to the Ta-Yuehzhi" (Han-shu 96A:14B) then what are specifically your objections?
If we are to take the opposite angle and assume that the Kushans were native to the Sogdian/Bactrian region, we don't have one shred of evidence to suggest a more ancient heritage, there. Our first evidence of the term "Kushan" only dates from the coinage of a certain Heraos, of the early 1st century AD who ruled in eastern Bactria. The language of their first inscriptions was in Greek, which obviously was not their native language, and they didn't switch to Bactrian until the early 2nd century AD.
Why not? If Chinese sources referred to the Shan-shan as Yuezhi (region of Lob Nor) then, we can speak of a Thagura presence. Also, Ptolemy's description of the geography and ethnology is so detailed, that it cannot simply be dismissed.
You mean Motun's campaign? Nothing suggests a migration at that point. The Yuehzhi remain and even Laoshan described them as being under his rule. The Chinese speak of only one migration, and thus the timeline is much more narrower than what you think. If you disagree, then, please describe these "variations".
|
|
|
Post by wefone90 on Feb 8, 2007 11:35:50 GMT 3
Yes they do, I don't even have to think anything, but just look up for the sources, there was a migration between 201-200 written in Shiji and Zhizi tongjian, you should read it yourself, If I remmeber corrently there were three migrations waves, and no, I don't have to describe these "variations" to you, I hate to do anything for other. Those sources did not referred Shan-shan as Yuezhi, I don't know where did you get that from. Again since Ptolemy did not give dimensions is pretty hard to know which location he might had given, and his descriptions about the locations are pretty much based on wildest fables and myths which smiliar to the work Shanhaijing, do you believe every fables you read or do you just based on fables tales. Ok, so what if the name of "Kushan" only appear in early 1st century on coinage, and since their first inscriptions was in Greek, then they were probably Greek, but that still does not prove that they were part of Ta-yuezhi tribes, which you had not shown me one source for it, there's no explicitness on any part of your assumptions that's all. "all belong to the Ta-Yuehzhi", what's the problem with that, since those five princes were part of their state under the name Ta-yuezhi, what makes you think that this part refered Kushan as one of the Yuezhi tribes. Yes I do believe in Hou-hanshu, it did speak of their language which resembled to the Qiang. "Maes description of the Silk Road route was good enough for Roman traders to make it to China" Yet no description of Roman traders through silk road to China was mentioned, besides sea, but I'm sure that you have all sort of wide theories in your mind, which can suite pretty much yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Feb 8, 2007 19:19:23 GMT 3
who says Roman traders made it to China? trade on the Silk road was conducted by the local mobile Nomads, Chinese and Romans just produced the goods, it were the Nomads who took over transportation.
|
|
|
Post by sharrukin on Feb 13, 2007 6:49:26 GMT 3
The usual way of doing things is this: YOU claim multiple migrations. I challenge the claim. YOU then must prove them. It has nothing to do with "doing anything for other". Since I'm skeptical I don't have to prove your ideas, but, I will provide the core of my skepticism. There is nothing in the west corresponding to these supposed earlier migrations. The earliest indication that something was up was the defeat and deaths of two Parthian kings in 128 and 124 BC, respectively, by the Tocharians. These dates go very well with the date of the presence of Chang Ch'ien, 128 BC among the Ta-Yuehzhi. Any more ancient migration, and we probably would have a very alternate history of Bactria and Parthia. I've tried in vain to rediscover that source. This is going to take a while to find...... Have you even read Ptolemy? We are not talking about monsters and other odd-creatures, here, we are talking about geography, and ethnology, you know - mountains, rivers, cities, tribes? That is all he was concerned with. No scholar denies the existence of Serica, and they are able to make correspondences with "real" geography. I've already mentioned that the Silk Road was known in the West. It would be prejudicial to deny that knowledge, just because your skepticism does not allow you to believe that the west did have some knowledge of eastern geography. I've already made the connection between the Ta-Yuezhi and the Kushans. If this is still not clear for you, then, there will be nothing more to convince you. Scholarship, at large certainly accepts that connection. All I can say is that your skepticism is pretty extreme, as to certain things as "fables" even when scholarship at large at least accepts something in those certain things. For them, they are not "fables", but information which have some truth in them. Sarcasm, notwithstanding, - even Chinese sources describe such visitations - but I must qualify my statement by stating that these visitors were not necessarily "Romans" (like, directly from Rome) but either eastern subjects of the Roman Empire, or perhaps eastern subjects which had gained Roman citizenship. This link supplies some descriptions of these visitations: www.fordham.edu/halsall/eastasia/romchin1.html
|
|
|
Post by wefone90 on Feb 13, 2007 14:54:53 GMT 3
"You claim multiple migrations. I challenge the claim." I did not claim those migrations, scholars does. I don't have to do anything for you, I already proven the first migration between the year 201 to 200, I had provided the name for my sources, and you should had look into it, and if that is too hard for you, then probably you shouldn't challenge other beisdes your field. "There is nothing in the west corresponding to these supposed earlier migrations. " Why should they have to, we're talking about Yueshi and the report of Chang Ch'ien in presence in 136, not about the two dead king killed by Tocharians, mentioned by whatoever in roman times. "Any more ancient migration, and we probably would have a very alternate history of Bactria and Parthia. " So what if we have alternate history of those regions, those region were already pretty much messed up, why would we need a particular history for that part, since evry historian worte words for what they see differently, and it seem no way to straighten it. "Have you even read Ptolemy" We're talking about his descriptions on a whole, not just mountains, rivers, cities, tribes, and fables is part of them. "they are able to make correspondences with "real" geography" How would they able to make real geography without dimensions, silk road was known in almost everywhere, its just a trade route. "I've already made the connection between the Ta-Yuezhi and the Kushans" And I already stated very clearly there's no connection between Ta-Yuezhi and the Kushans besides politically, you're the one who deem so sure that scholarship, at large certainly accepts that conneection, while other scholars outside the west didn't even bother about it. "I must qualify my statement by stating that these visitors were not necessarily "Romans" So, where are those Roman that hold citizenship visitations described in the Chinese sources? convinced me, tell me every last details, quote it out for me, sorry I'm not interested in that inutility link. "some knowledge of eastern geography" While the fact that they don't have other than myth and fables. "The usual way of doing things is this" You can rant whatever how you want it to, all I'm sure I had spent no more than 2mins on these.
|
|
|
Post by sharrukin on Feb 16, 2007 8:43:21 GMT 3
You still "made the claim", for this thread, even as you say, "other scholars" have stated such. I've already stated my skepticism, and you did not state your sources specific enough. I at least took great pains to quote specifically my sources, like "chapter and verse", so, please don't tell me anything about being lazy. If you cannot back up your points, then, you are the one who is lazy.
Precisely, and Chang Ch'ien talks about only one migration in two parts, the first part ending in the Lake Balkhash/Issyk Kul region where he thought he might encounter them, and the second part which took them to Bactria. He describes no earlier migration.
Not so different as you imagine my friend. You got to remember that the Greeks, being prolific writers, actually had something to say about their countrymen in remote Bactria in the period from about 330 to 130 BC. In that period there was nothing indicating an earlier arrival of Ta Yuezhi. Bactria was strong and even was able to invest Sogdiana in the north and parts of India in the south. Prior to about 140 BC, nothing indicated an invasion, except wars with both the Parthians and Seleucids.
Please read Ptolemy regarding his description of Serica. All he is talking about is mountains, rivers, cities, and tribes. (Book 6, Chapter 16)
You said it: "silk road was known in almost everywhere". Hence, how can we not know its geography? Like all other trade routes, physical landscape is duely noted to keep the trader from getting lost, hence, mountains, rivers, cities, and tribes are all noted. Cities especially are noted as places where the trader can find shelter in time of need, and as you know, the Silk Road did pass through the oasis cities of the Tarim.
That could be because of the insular nature of their thought. They don't bother with it because it is not relevant to their concerns.
You were given an opportunity just to read. More evidence of your own laziness......
It is sad that your insular way of thinking puts you into the position of making such judgements. You constantly underestimate the value of the material provided, but that's okay, "scholarship at large", knows the value of such.
Hmmph!!! You can rant whatever how you want to as well, without so much as contributing anything yourself. I'm now convinced that you don't even care about this subject, because, like the scholars you purportedly represent, the subject of the Kushans is not even a concern, it is far too "western". When confronted with information, you just take "2 minutes" to judge it as "fable", without even so much as looking at its merits. What kind of scholarship is that? That's laziness based upon preconceived notions. Unless you start contributing something, I think that I'll just take "2 minutes" to read your rants, smile, perhaps write something witty, and not bother with this charade any longer.
|
|
|
Post by wefone90 on Feb 16, 2007 12:24:50 GMT 3
"You still "made the claim", for this thread, even as you say, "other scholars" have stated such" I made alot of claims on threads, which I can't remembered when, overall its all depend on your skepticism. "specifically my sources, like "chapter and verse" I had stated the date for my sources, which is easy to look up for the sources I provided in cases of soucres like Zizhi tongjian if you do read one, is not about lazy but how you should had look up for your sources and makes your contributing. "actually had something to say about their countrymen in remote Bactria in the period from about 330 to 130 BC" Which was why it was different, what's wrong with my statenment "Chang Ch'ien talks about only one migration in two parts" I am not sure about the migrations as I had just read through somewhere else, I'm sure Chang Ch'ien wasn't the solely sources for these migrations, unforunatly for you had seem too mucb skeptical about it. "Please read Ptolemy regarding his description of Serica" I did read his description, and since most of his sources beyond from the west were unreliable, why should it be considered as something merits. "Like all other trade routes, physical landscape is duely noted to keep the trader from getting lost" And what does that had gonna do with the topic "You were given an opportunity just to read" Which I did and replied, aside from Andun nothing else implies what you had stated. ""scholarship at large", knows the value of such." And what's the value here. "without so much as contributing anything yourself" Similiar goes to you, so far I asked for your sources about Kushan being a tribe of Ta-Yuezhi which you had not provided one, so you can keep ranting as you want. "Kushans is not even a concern" The topic open here is about the origin of Yuezhi "More evidence of your own laziness" evidence upon your hypothesis. "I'm now convinced that you don't even care about this subject" Or maybe you're the one. "What kind of scholarship is that" Why do you need a scholarship for that, are you writing an essay for something. "That's laziness based upon preconceived notions." Laziness for you maybe. "Unless you start contributing something" Which should be time for you to do so. "perhaps write something witty" You can write whatever you want it, bother it or not is not my concern. "and not bother with this charade any longer." Great, probably you should ignored it, and start leaving the subject alone. "When confronted with information, you just take "2 minutes" to judge it " Since you're unable to come out with the information, here is another 2 mins for you.
|
|
|
Post by sharrukin on Feb 18, 2007 4:49:37 GMT 3
At least you agree that "you made the claim". Giving a "date" is nothing. Giving "chapter and verse" is of substance. You are just too lazy to take responsibility in substantiating your claims. You postulate multiple migrations. If there were earlier migrations than that caused by Lao-Shang's attack we would have known about them in the period specified, but no we don't, we only know about the single migration ending in Bactria by about 130 BC Here is the account of Chang Ch'ien: depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/hantxt1.html#zhangHe only talks about one migration. The question is, are they "unreliable"? Why? to show that western knowledge was insightful and reliable enough for the geography of the Tarim. You simply cannot rule out common sense - travellors needed a knowledge of their surroundings to get to where they needed to go. That geographic knowledge is then passed on. So, for you, knowledge of China, from the King of Armenia (who was a vassal of Rome) and whose envoys included eastern Roman subjects does not count, either? that it is generally reliable, despite some errors. Really, just about all historic documents and narrative histories have a certain degree of "unreliability" in them. If we just focus on these, then nothing can truly be said about all historica subjects, period. The question regarding "your judgement" about western geographical descriptions, is, what makes them completely "fable".? I did provide quotes from the Han-shu and Hou Han-shu, and specified the verses, but, you did not believe them. You, on the other hand, had not even produced such detail - in other words, nothing. But, it was you who claimed that the Kushans were not Yuezhi. The Han histories connect the two. No, evidence of your claims. You're not even qualified to make that judgement. Well, I should. Maybe I shall call it "The Scholarship that isn't: How laziness replaces true discourse - case studies". You would be my prime example. Sarcasm aside, it is not scholarly to make snap judgements on material you have no insight or background on. "That's laziness based upon preconceived notions." Laziness for you maybe.[/quote] That's it? I'll just take that as your definitive answer. I don't even have to comment on that!!! For someone who doesn't know how to provide information, much less judge information, this is for you: "The only thing wrong with doing nothing is that you never know when you're finished. " - author unknown Cut and Paste time - (five seconds).
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Aug 9, 2008 13:29:13 GMT 3
What do you include as the many reasons of the massive immigration of the Great Yuezhi?
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Aug 9, 2008 23:37:10 GMT 3
Attacks of the Asian Huns (Xiōngnú / Hsiung-nu 匈奴).
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Aug 11, 2008 12:25:20 GMT 3
these are two major reasons: Attacks of Xiongnu and climatic changes perhaps. But have you happened to read somewhere some other reasons?
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Aug 11, 2008 20:45:57 GMT 3
Uhm, not at all Do you have any details?
|
|