Talk:Wusun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Connection Wusun with the Issedones

Two basic reference works: Sinor (Cambridge History of Inner Asia) and Unesco (History of Civilizations of Central Asia vol. III) do mention a possible connection of the Wusun with the Issedones, described by Herodotus in his Histories (book IV). But the most extensive studie has been made by Gardiner-Garden, J.R., Chang-Ch'ien and Central Asian Ethnography, Bloomington 1986 (Papers on Far Eastern History 33), especially pp. 28-240. Here you find a survey of theories on their identification and ethnic affiliations. If there is a possible connection between Issedones and Wusun then there may also be a connection between Wusun and Issedones. So I revert the delete by User:Eiorgiomugini and put back this possible connection. Guss2 08:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I replace the pharse at the bottom here, cos it does not belonged to the Anthropology and archeology sections. Eiorgiomugini 10:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Eiorgiomugini, I am sorry, I didn't notice that. As you can see I changed the article a bit, putting the Issedones in a section of their own, I hope that and the other changes have improved the article. Only there remains one lose end: The rather unsupported theory that they may have originated as a stranded unit of Romans. Do you think it should be removed? Guss2 10:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Anthropology and archeology - Shji didn't records that. Are you sure about this? I used Watson II, p 267. But the Chinese original might differ, unfortunately I can't read that. Guss2 11:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The relation between wusun and issedones has not been put forward by Gardiner-Garden only. They did not put up the theory, they made just an encyclopedial survey about the hypothese (and need 212 pages for it!). As you can see from it the theory is rather wide accepted, though it remains just a theory. So I would like to reverse your change from Gardiner-Garden to the more general 'there are theories'. Guss2 11:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Two last remarks. In the history section you can findAfter this event the Wusun continued to be mentioned until 11th-century I could not find any mentioning, so I would suggest to end that section with probably they just vanished from history. This would also mean there is no connection with the Pechenegs. The only references I could find about a connection between Pechenegs and tribes mentioned in chinese sources is in Pelliot Quelques noms Turcs d'hommes et de peuples finissant en 'ar' , Paris 1949, p. 226, n 1, where het cites the Sui-shu mentioning a tribe called Pei-ju, among the T'ieh-lê, neighbours of the En-ch'ü and A-lan. In Pei-ju Pelliot sees *Pək-ńźi-wok = Pečeneg. So no clear connection to wusun, is it?
The connection between Wusun and Romans seems just a wild guess to me. So I vote for leaving it out Guss2 12:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
There's quite pently of the theories for the Pechengs among the name of Tiele tribes, right now I just don't have the sources. Eiorgiomugini 12:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah you may be right about relations between tiele and pechenegs, but is there a connection between Tiele tribes and Wusun? Guss2 12:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I had not heard of a theory for that. Eiorgiomugini 13:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Your additional details on wusun history are great!!! Guss2 13:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] companionably?

Hi Eiorgiomugini! . You did make a lot of small changes this past hour. I saw your addition companionably in the first line. I do not know exactly what you feel when using that word, but to me companionably means that you like to be in their company, that you feel at ease when in their company, that you yearn for their company. Well, I know for certain I would NOT!. Guss2 12:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

They were not exactly savage. How about friendly? Btw, is there any English translation of the map? Eiorgiomugini 12:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. What do you mean not exactly savage? About the Wusun I read: The Wusun despoiled the population of Ta Hsia (Bactria) see: Shiji by Watson II 267-268, 271-72. I would not call them exactly my friends ;). But I am really curious, do you feel sympathy for them so much??
Wusun despoiled the population of Ta Hsia, I had not heard of any before in Shiji. They do however get defeated several times by Xiongnu. Eiorgiomugini 13:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
About the map. In future I hope to write some articles about central asia and its peoples for Dutch Wikipedia. Then I will create some new maps, so for the time being I do not have an English translation. Guss2 13:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] En route they drove away the Saka

I would omit this remark. This is part of Yuezhi history describing their way to Bactria. I would change into 'en route they overran the Wusun...' Guss2 12:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that part of Yuezhi history describing their way to Ili Valley. Eiorgiomugini 12:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Now you lost me. According to Hanshu (in translation by Hulsewé pp 104-105, 120-21) and Shiji (Watson II 264 ff): After being attacked by the Xiongnu, killing the Yuezhi king, making his skull into a drinking vessel, the Yuezhi went far away beyond Ta Yuan (Ferghana) and proceeding west to attack and subjugate Ta-Hsia (Bactria). The Yuezhi migration caused the 'King of the Sai'(Saka) to move to the south where he established himself in 'Chi-pin'(the location of which is uncertain). The Sai tribes split and seperated and repeatedly formed several states. Some time before the Xiongnu attack on them (as you changed correctly), the Yuezhi had attacked their neighbour, the Wusun. Correct me if I am wrong but I see no connection between Yuezhi causing to migrate Saka tribes and the history of the Wusun. Guss2 13:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Hanshu 96 mentioned the Wusun terrian was formerly occupied by Sai. It seems that you had gather two sources combined from Jibin and Yuezhi in 96th. Eiorgiomugini 13:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

mmmm I don't know yet. I make a short chronological survey in my own words. Correct me if I am wrong:
  1. Yuezhi attack on their neighbours Wusun (Hanshu 61) Wusun nearly destroyed
  2. Xiongnu attack on Yuezhi causing them to move to Ta Yüan and west to Ta-hsia
  3. This moving of Yuezhi causing Sai to move to the south (Hanshu 61)
  4. Yuezhi occupied the lands Sai had left

Where in the chronology do I put in the Wusun occupying of the territory formerly occupied by Sai??? Guss2 14:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the starting line had based accordingly to Zhang Qian (under 61), so let get this straight, Xiongnu attack on Yuezhi causing them to move to Ili Valley (which later occupied by the Wusun, 96), this moving of Yuezhi caused them to defeated the king of Sai and the Sais move far to the south, while Yuezhi occupied the area, they were defeated by the Wusun and the Yuezhi moved to the Daxia (Daxia only mentioned on this parts on 61, Xiongnu did not drove them far enough to Daxia, it was Wusun), and the Wusun occupied the area. Eiorgiomugini 14:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Now you cleared things up. Thanks. Guss2 14:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You are always welcome Eiorgiomugini 15:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthropology and archeology - actual unneeded)

Hi! It is me again. I think you do need the word actual just to understand these lines better:

The Wusun were described' by the Chinese historical annals as having green eyes and red beards with a macaque physical shape

This is clearly a description. Then follows:

i.e., of Caucasoid appearance, though no description of the Yuezhi was given.

Now there is a contradiction you see?. BTW, It is my personal opinion that abbreviations in encyclopeadic text should be avoided as much as possible. Guss2 15:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You cleared things up. Thanks Eiorgiomugini 15:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] last mentioning name Wusun

Hi Eiorgiomugini. You wrote: though their name was last mentioned on an offering to the court of Liao Dynasty on September 22, 938 (Liaoshi, ch.4). In 'History of Civilizations of Central Asia' part III by Unesco the Russion historian Zadneprovskiy on p. 461 writes: The last reference to the Wu-sun in the historical sources is in AD 436, when a Chinese diplomatic mission was dispatched to their country and the Wu-sun reciprocated. So according to that Russian mentioning ended 500 years earlier. To me 436 seems more acceptable, otherwise there are 500 years unaccounted for. What do you think about it?? Guss2 09:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"The last reference to the Wu-sun in the historical sources is in AD 436, when a Chinese diplomatic mission was dispatched to their country and the Wu-sun reciprocated" The Wusun reciprocated by sending periodical tributes to the court of Northern Wei after then (not known exactly when). Well, if he did dig deep enough he would found that the last mention of Wusun was actually 938. I think is better to keep it than remove it. Eiorgiomugini 15:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] companionably again

Hi Eiorgiomugini!. Just for your information. Last night I read a chapter in Otto Franke 'Geschichte des chinesischen Reiches' (= History of the Chinese empire). Franke was a famous german sinologist and one of the first Europeans who wrote between 1936 and 1946 a history of China completely from chinese sources. I admire him for this. Unfortunately because of Worldwar II his work remained unfinished and stopped at 1368AD. He writes in part 1 about the peoples from the steppe:

In the sources of their enemies for centuries the steppe peoples are pictured as brave warriors who esteem honour high and with a symphatic and eminent character. Europe is still too much influenced by the one-sied and sometimes even completely wrong Greek-Roman sources.

Maybe this explaines your companionably and my surprise about it? Guss2 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/u/s/Talk%7EWusun_8ce3.html"