Talk:Yuezhi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Yuezhi is part of the WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

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.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.

[edit] Title Change

I propose a title change from Yuezhi to Rouzhi. In modern Mandarin the character "月" is pronounced yuè, and "氏" as shì; but when it comes to the phrase "月氏", the two characters should be pronounced as roù zhī, its ancient pronunciation. In this kind of situations where one character has two or multiple pronunciations, they are called "破音字". It should be noted that a certain amount of ordinary Chinese speakers do often mistaken in these pronunciations. Hence a change in the title should be done, either from the linguistics point of view or the historical one.--G.S.K.Lee 08:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The aknowledged name in English is definetely "Yuezhi", or sometimes "Yueh-Chi", which therefore should remain for the article name, but you are pointing to an interesting point of ancient phonetic that would deserve mention in the article. PHG 11:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If someone is going to discuss ancient phonetics in the main entry, it needs to be done properly: "Rouzhi" IS the proper MODERN pronunciation, but it won't have necessarily been how the Han pronounced the characters: didn't fourth tone words still have consonantal stops in the Han? If anyone's got a copy of Karlgren, the Chinese pronunciation could be easily figured out. (I don't at the moment).

Nobody can really tell how Chinese words were pronounced 2000 years ago. "Rouzhi" is the proper modern pronunciation of this kingdom, while "Yuezhi" is definitely a mis-pronounciation. --Mongol 03:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Rouzhi only gets 582 hits on Google. Yuezhi gets 51,800. Although "Rouzhi" may be the modern prononciation of the word, its seems the English usage is to write "Yuezhi".PHG 22:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rouzhi = "Meat People"?

Why would anyone think that a phonetic change implies a semantic change? Just because "moon" used to be pronounced the way "meat" is now pronounced, doesn't mean that it used to signify "meat"! --Abou 22:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the Chinese Wikipedia page it is indicated that Rou Zhi is a mispronounciation. The Ancient pronouciation should be Yue Zhi.There is no meat connotation, but only phonetic translation.--Myf 23：51, 6 March 2006

Moon in Chinese means meat in ancient time also, and the Cantonese is closer to ancient Chinese language than Mandarin, pronunciation of meat and moon are pretty similar.

There are some alternate forms that appear in old sources: 月支 or 月氐. This shows, that it does not mean "meat people", but is rather a phonetic rendering of a foreign word with two Chinese characters. The old readings for "moon" and "meat" were also rather different (Baxter gives in his dictionary the Middle Chinese readings "ngjwot" and "nyuwk"). But the old sources, like the Hou Hanshu, already have the character "moon". To sum up, the correct reading must be Yuezhi. P345 20:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judging dead people by appearance is not alway accurate

mtDNA of Scytho-Siberian skeleton Human Biology 76.1 (2004) 109-125

Genetic Analysis of a Scytho-Siberian Skeleton and Its Implications for Ancient Central Asian Migrations

François-X. Ricaut et al.

Abstract The excavation of a frozen grave on the Kizil site (dated to be 2500 years old) in the Altai Republic (Central Asia) revealed a skeleton belonging to the Scytho-Siberian population. DNA was extracted from a bone sample and analyzed by autosomal STRs (short tandem repeats) and by sequencing the hypervariable region I (HV1) of the mitochondrial DNA. The resulting STR profile, mitochondrial haplotype, and haplogroup were compared with data from modern Eurasian and northern native American populations and were found only in European populations historically influenced by ancient nomadic tribes of Central Asia.

...

The mutations at nucleotide position 16147 C→A, 16172 T→C, 16223 C→T, 16248 C→T, and 16355 C→T correspond to substitutions characteristic of the Eurasian haplogroup N1a (Richards et al. 2000). The haplotype comparison with the mtDNA sequences of 8534 individuals showed that this sequence was not found in any other population.

...

The N1a haplogroup was not observed among the native American, east Asian, Siberian, Central Asian, and western European populations. The geographic distribution of haplogroup N1a is restricted to regions neighboring the Eurasian steppe zone. Its frequency is very low, less than 1.5% (Table 6), in the populations located in the western and southwestern areas of the Eurasian steppe. Haplogroup N1a is, however, more frequent in the populations of the southeastern region of the Eurasian steppe, as in Iran (but only 12 individuals were studied) and southeastern India (Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh territories). More precisely, in India haplogroup N1a is absent from the Dravidic-speaking population and is present in only five Indo-Aryan-speaking individuals, four of whom belonged to the Havik group, an upper Brahman caste (Mountain et al. 1995).

...

The absence of the Eurasian haplogroup N1a in the 490 modern individuals of Central Asia (Shields et al. 1993; Kolman et al. 1996; Comas et al. 1998; Derenko et al. 2000; Yao et al. 2000; Yao, Nie et al. 2002) suggests changes in the genetic structure of Central Asian populations, probably as a result of Asian population movements to the west during the past 2500 years.

AAPA 2004

East of Eden, west of Cathay: An investigation of Bronze Age interactions along the Great Silk Road.

B.E. Hemphill.

The Great Silk Road has long been known as a conduit for contacts between East and West. Until recently, these interactions were believed to date no earlier than the second century B.C. However, recent discoveries in the Tarim Basin of Xinjiang (western China) suggest that initial contact may have occurred during the first half of the second millennium B.C. The site of Yanbulaq has been offered as empirical evidence for direct physical contact between Eastern and Western populations, due to architectural, agricultural, and metallurgical practices like those from the West, ceramic vessels like those from the East, and human remains identified as encompassing both Europoid and Mongoloid physical types.

Eight cranial measurements from 30 Aeneolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age and modern samples, encompassing 1505 adults from the Russian steppe, China, Central Asia, Iran, Tibet, Nepal and the Indus Valley were compared to test whether those inhabitants of Yanbulaq identified as Europoid and Mongoloid exhibit closest phenetic affinities to Russian steppe and Chinese samples, respectively. Differences between samples were compared with Mahalanobis generalized distance (d2), and patterns of phenetic affinity were assessed with cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and principal coordinates analysis.

Results indicate that, despite identification as Europoid and Mongoloid, inhabitants of Yanbulaq exhibit closest affinities to one another. No one recovered from Yanbulaq exhibits affinity to Russian steppe samples. Rather, the people of Yanbulaq possess closest affinities to other Bronze Age Tarim Basin dwellers, intermediate affinities to residents of the Indus Valley, and only distant affinities to Chinese and Tibetan samples

[edit] Here we go again...

(Sigh) This page is starting to look like a repeat of Elam with warring over date formats... Again we see the same bogus claims from the crowd that favors the cumbersome BCE instead of the recognizable BC, that "BCE was the original format for this article"...

Folks, that's what article histories are for. Anyone who says BCE was the "original format" either hasn't done the research into the article history, or is just plain fabricating. From September '03 (when the article was created) to April '04, the only dates that appeared anywhere in "Yuezhi" were all BC. Following that, there was a "mixed" format, as someone added some BCE dates later on without changing the original. Since then there have been several flips back to the original BC format, lasting anywhere from an hour to two months before getting flopped back to BCE. You might come up with all kinds of interesting arguments for why you think BCE looks prettier, or is more "politically incorrect" than plain old BC, or whatever. But "We were here first" ain't one of them. Codex Sinaiticus 13:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

sigh indeed. I thought we were meant to be writing an international encyclopaedia for an international audience - most of whom are not already experts in what they are looking up. We really should adapt our language to suit that audience - and not just in choosing BC over BCE. Everytime someone voices the "let's go with the original editor" argument, it means they again are not thinking "how do we best convey this to our audience", and that's true regardless of whether they correctly identify what the original form was or not. In this case, from what Codex writes, at least they appear to have shot themselves firmly in the foot for this article and we can go back to the original (and globally understood) format, jguk 14:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Please look at the history indeed. This page was a meaningless stub until it went through a complete rewrite by Nat Krause in April 26th 2004, which became the basis to today's article. The rewrite was done in BCE/CE. Most contributions have accordingly been done in BCE/CE ever since. There is little point in arguing for an BC/AD standard now. As you know, many people agree that BCE/CE is the international standard for historical publications (this varies with countries, but very much so in the US), and hopefully Wikipedia history articles ought to be aiming at historical publication status. PHG 21:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow... take out this BCE crap, now! I had no idea what this article was talking about until I read this page. I've never even heard of these terms before. I'm no Christian, but really don't like these PC revisionist nazis. (Why didn't they just come up for new words for B.C. and A.D. to stand for?) Evan1975 01:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Because that would be too easy. The whole argument for BCE/CE vs BC/AD is ridiculous anyway. BC/AD was around first, for a great many years, and it's the format that most anybody will be familiar with now and for many decades to come. I'm not exactly an ardent Christian, but from what I can tell the BCE/CE idea was conceived and forced onto us by the usual small-but-very-vocal group of God-killing "progressive" troublemakers. This is my two cents. Myrddin_Wyllt7 (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the "Common Era"

Hi! Well, here is my personal spin on the old argument about whether to use the so-called "Christian Era" or the more neutrally-charged Common Era - please see the article on the subject before you set about changing things. It was not forced on people by "the usual small-but-very-vocal group of God-killing "progressive" troublemakers". Quite the reverse, in fact is the case. the use of the so-called "Christian Era" has been forced on non-Christians.

Why should anyone who is not a Christian be made to use an era in which dates are referred to as BC = "before Christ" and AD = Anno domini = "Year of our Lord"? Here are several reasons I prefer the use of BCE and CE:

1. It does not seem seem appropriate to use a Christian-based era to date events in a country which is almost totally non-Christian. This is rather similar to dating events in, for example, Roman history in the Hegira era - 622 CE (or AD) marking the first year of the Islamic calendar, or 1 AH (anno higirae)]. It would be surprising to me if Christian Italians (and probably other Christian groups) did not complain if someone started doing this.

2. Several Muslim, Jewish and Chinese scholars have complained to me about the use of the "Christian Era" for dating, and preferred the use of the "Common Era". some of them have suggested to me that I use it in my writings, especially as it has now become pretty standard in academic literature.

3. The use of the "Christian Era" was introduced around the world by European imperial powers who made a point of ignoring local eras (such as the Saka Era in India or the Hejira Era in Muslim countries) and substituting their own era and system of dating on their colonies and in the scientific and historical literature.

4. The so-called "Christian Era" is misleading anyway as almost all scholars - including Christian ones - now agree that it is most unlikely that Jesus was born in 1 AD. But, because the "Common Era" has been decided to start in 1 AD, and this is just a convenient decision, it does not imply any particlar accuracy in relation to historical events and does not carry with it religious or imperialistic overtones.

I hope that explains my decision. I don't, myself, feel very strongly about the use of one over the other (and it is very easy to get used to both - as they are so similar), but I do think it best not to unnecessarily annoy people of other cultures and faiths. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by 202.156.6.54

Various doubtfull edits have been made recently by User talk:202.156.6.54. Incidentally, this IP has been blocked for vandalism several times in the past. Also, actually registering as a contributor, and discuss changes on the Talk Page first would lend credibility ot the edits. Some of the issues with these edits:

[edit] Place of origin of the Yuezhi

User talk:202.156.6.54 insists on Gansu as the place of origin of the Yuezhi, to the exclusion of any other place, speciafically the Tarim Basin. The Gansu area is actually very extensive, and the only part where Yuezhi presence might be considered would be at the maximum northwestern Gansu. Furthermore, scholars generally consider the Eastern Tarim Basin as the place of origin of the Yuezhi:

"At various times subservient to the Xiongnu were two other important nomadic peoples, the Wusun and the Yuezhi... the latter were originally presented as masters of the eastern borderlands of the Tarim Basin, and then , when they were driven farther and farther west by the Xiongnu, they created one of the most dynamic empires of the ancient world, that of the Kushans" (The Tarim Mummies, Mallory and Mair ISBN 0500051011

It is therefore probably inexact to deny the Tarim and only favour Gansu. Both areas should probably be quoted.

[edit] Other issues

"The supply of jade from the Tarim Basin from ancient times is indeed well documented archeologically: " changed to "The supply of jade from the Tarim Basin from ancient times is also well excavated: ". I am afraid the latter expression is not proper.
"the interpretation of Qilian into Heavenly Mountain as a dwelling location is a much recent academic concept, still most believe that its referred to Qilian as state in ancient sources)": this would have to be referenced.
"however it is unclear that the pre-migration of nomadic Yuezhi could have share such features, since they could represent an image of Greek or Bactrian (such as the cases for Kushans)": this is would have to be sourced, and is generally contrary to numismatic analysis of the subject. The reference to the image of the Kushans being that of Bactrians or Greeks is plain wrong, and at least would have to be referenced.
"the Yuezhi organized the Greco-Bactrian into five major tribes": unheard of and contrary to sources.
"Bust of a Yuezhi chief with Greek royal headband." changed to "Bust of Greek royal headband", whatever that means

I am afraid none of these edits cannot be taken seriously and anyway reflect poor schorlarship. Thanks to User talk:202.156.6.54 to register himself, be more cautious in his edits, and use Talk Pages to express disagreements. PHG 11:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Since when did I exclusion other place, places such as Qinghai should be considered it too, why should we included just Tarim Basin? Below, do you have any sources that provide Yuezhi did dwell in Tarim Basin or as a center? If not I don't see any reasons that you could rv my edits, beacuse it is clear from Shiji and other references that, Yuezhi live from Qilian (South of Gansu, portion of Qinghai) to/and Dunhuang (maximum northwestern Gansu). Furthremore, the Yuezhi and Kushan should be separated, since they're not related to each other by genealogical, it is clear of that by stuides from mainland China, no records for the name of Yuezhi ruler are shown from any documentation, how could we suppose those coins referred to the Yuezhi ruler? It is at best considered as Presumed Yuezhi rulers, not historial thing. Eiorgiomugini

Hi Eiorgiomugini.
I am fine with Gansu (as already stated in the article), but Tarim Basin is also valid (Dunhuang is also part of the Tarim Basin), so Tarim Basin/ Gansu, and yes /Qilian is a valid description, not just Gansu exclusively as you've been editing. The original text properly reflects these multiple locations (although you may want to add Qilian indeed).
The barbarized coins of Heliocles are usually considered as Yuezhi imitations. Sapadbizes is usually considered Yuezhi, and Heraios calls himself the Tyran of the Kushans on his coins, making him a Yuezhi (as the Kushans were a part of the Yuezhi as described by the Shiji), with facial featured similar to those of the Sapadbizes.
Please Eiorgiomugini, no offense intended, but you have big problems with Engligh syntax and grammar (one example among many others: "A imitative, in crude style coins of a Greco-Bactrian king Heliocles" ???). You should maybe refrain from major edits and modifications on the English Wikipedia until you have solved that point.PHG 09:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with Gansu (as already stated in the article), but Tarim Basin is also valid (Dunhuang is also part of the Tarim Basin), so Tarim Basin/ Gansu, and yes /Qilian is a valid description, not just Gansu exclusively as you've been editing. The original text properly reflects these multiple locations (although you may want to add Qilian indeed). : I just don't get it, why should we included just Tarim Basin? If we are to insists Tarim Basin as the place of origin or center for Yuezhi, and to exclude of any other place, speciafically Gansu, perhaps places such as Qinghai should under consideration too. The Tarim Basin area is actually very extensive, and the only part where Yuezhi presence might considered would be at the maximum eastern portion, which is the part that Tarim River don't runs through.
The barbarized coins of Heliocles are usually considered as Yuezhi imitations. Sapadbizes is usually considered Yuezhi, and Heraios calls himself the Tyran of the Kushans on his coins, making him a Yuezhi (as the Kushans were a part of the Yuezhi as described by the Shiji), with facial featured similar to those of the Sapadbizes. : Like I said, the Kushan are not necessary to be Greeks or Bactrian, but definitely not Yuezhi, what makes ones so sure that they're Yuezhi, as Heraios calls himself the Tyran of the Kushans not Yuezhi. Eiorgiomugini

I am afraid I cannot be clearer: the original article said Tarim Basin and Gansu, so let's keep it this way.PHG 13:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The Kushans are usually considered one of the five tribes among the larger tribe of the Yuezhi (all sources I know of). Heraios was the head of the Kushans, and therefore part of the Yuezhi confederation. I don't know what more I can say. PHG 13:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No, its only the opening part of the original article said that way, there is a following part did not, its simply stated Tarim Basin.
Oh, sorry I was talking about its genealogical, of course Kushans was part of the Yuezhi confederation, silly. Eiorgiomugini

Great, so let's write Tarim Basin/Gansu area as a general rule. PHG 21:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Cool. So I suppose that you mean that the Yueshi and the Kushan were not genetically related. It's worth a mention, but only if referenced. It's clearly not an obvious and undisputed fact.PHG 21:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issues Provided

"the interpretation of Qilian into Heavenly Mountain as a dwelling location is a much recent academic concept, still most believe that its referred to Qilian as state in ancient sources)": There's a lot of references, but I'm afaid you can't read it, its in Chinese, do you want a link?.
"however it is unclear that the pre-migration of nomadic Yuezhi could have share such features, since they could represent an image of Greek or Bactrian (such as the cases for Kushans)": No records for the name of Yuezhi ruler are shown from any documentation, how could we suppose those coins referred to the Yuezhi ruler? It is at best considered as Presumed Yuezhi rulers.
"the Yuezhi organized the Greco-Bactrian into five major tribes": It is state on Shiji 123 at the part of Ta-Hsia, which provide the information that Kushan wasn't genealogical related to Yuezhi, most Chinese scholars would agreed with that, the Kushan are not necessary to be Greeks or Bactrian, but definitely not Yuezhi. Eiorgiomugini

Thank you to provide the Chinese link. Any printed scholarly references as well? As you seem to infer, most recent analysis suggests Tian Shan... so why not refer to it preferencially?PHG
Answered above. For the Kushans, nobody think they depiction on coins is that of Bactrians or Greeks (just see Kanishka and all the other rulers). Your claim is unsustainable. I would love to see references on that PHG 09:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Please quote the Shiji on "the information that Kushan wasn't genealogical related to Yuezhi". I am not aware of such a claim. As far as I know, the Chinese kept calling the Kushans "Yuezhi" until the 4th century CE.PHG 09:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to provide the Chinese link. Any printed scholarly references as well? As you seem to infer, most recent analysis suggests Tian Shan... so why not refer to it preferencially? : Here is the link for recent analysis of scholarly references which suggests that the Qilian of Yuezhi could be Tian Shan not Qilian [1] from CASS, by Wang Jian. What I suggests is that, to provide an alternative view on the edits, which is a better comprehend for the others and to you.
Answered above. For the Kushans, nobody think they depiction on coins is that of Bactrians or Greeks (just see Kanishka and all the other rulers). Your claim is unsustainable. I would love to see references on that : Well, I was talking about the Yuezhi, not Kushan, the facts is the earliest references for the name of Yuezhi (Kushan) ruler was Kujula Kadphises (given name: Qiujiu Que), but since Sapadbizes was the earliest Yuezhi ruler, why wasn't he was mentioned on the lists? How could we suppose to know that he was a Yuezhi instead of one of the yabgu? A better suggestion in the edits is that, a consideration for the name of Presumed Yuezhi ruler.
Please quote the Shiji on "the information that Kushan wasn't genealogical related to Yuezhi". I am not aware of such a claim. As far as I know, the Chinese kept calling the Kushans "Yuezhi" until the 4th century CE. : A recent analysis (by Xu Wenming) shows that the Kushan could be in fact de facto a tribe from the population of Ta-Hsia, and hence Kushan wasn't genealogical related to Yuezhi, Kushan = Yuezhi is just a nominal term [2], as for the primary source please take a look at Hanshu, 96. Eiorgiomugini

Thanks for the discussion.

I do not quite understand your point. If indeed Qilian is Tian Shan, than we are talking about the Tarim Basin, not Gansu. Why write exclusively in the article that the Yuezhi originated from Gansu? I think you should leave the first version as it was.PHG
I am not trying to prove anything on Sapadbizes, as it is not the object of Wikipedia. I am only relaying general scholarship and numismatic research according to which Sapadbizes is considered as a Yuezhi. I indeed wouldn't mind with a "presumed Yuechi ruler", if you insist.PHG 13:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I had never heard of Xu Wenming, but for him to write "迦腻色伽一世（公元前58年-前31年" (about 200 years off the mark) is quite incredible as far as Western scholarship is concerned. Is he published? Does he have some reputation in Historical research? I would conversely doubt the statement that the Kushans were actually Bactrian, although it would deserve mention as an alternative view if indeed Xu Wenming can be used as a scholarly reference (although that would be a very, very marginal position). Please kindly quote Hanshu, 96 if it is material to this discussion, as I do not have access to it. PHG 13:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you restore the articles as they were and only modify point 2. above if you wish. For the rest, I am afraid these edits cannot stay.PHG 13:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you missed the point, if indeed Qilian is Tian Shan, it is still a recent analysis suggests, which is why to provide an alternative view on the edits is necessarily, since Shiji never mentioned anything with regard to Tian Shan or Tarim Basin.
Sure.
He is a Prof. from Beijing Shifan Daxue [3], it is published in 1999 Dec, he did have a historical research on reputation. I seriously doubt that you even read the paper, he never claimed that Kaniska I reigned from 58-31, since he wrote: 迦腻色伽王一世（Kanishka）即位之年定为公元78年，有人定为128年，还有人定为144年等等，但这些说法都与中文史料特别是佛教中的记载相左。羽溪了谛在《大月氏之佛教》中将迦王一世定在丘就却之前，以之为公元前58年的毗讫罗摩（Vikrama）纪元的创立者，或近其实，但这一说法还缺乏比较充分的根据，尚须进一步的论证. And he never mentioned anything that the Kushan were actually Bactrian, but possibility Saka. "Please kindly quote Hanshu, 96", I don't have to, since the quote is already on the link I provided.

I don't see the reasons that these edits cannot be stay, maybe you should had explained with regarding your points. Eiorgiomugini

As far as I'm concerned the analysis that Qilian is Tian Shian is quite widespread. A mention of "or possibly Qilian" in the article for the original ground of the Yuezhi would be OK.PHG 21:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on Chinese (I read Japanese but my Chinese is only superficial). So the dates are OK. Yes indeed the Kushans may have been Sakas (so far you only mentionned Greeks and Bactrians). That's a totally different claim. Could you kindly quote the part of the Hanshu 96 which you are refering to, and explain what it says exactly? Thank you PHG 21:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you are quoting from Shiji, which is not the case for you to input Tian Shan, to provide an alternative view on the edits is necessarily, since Shiji never mentioned anything with regard to Tian Shan or Tarim Basin.
I had lost my interests, I would simply quote from my reference OF PRIMARY SOURCE (unless you are blind from the words), its said the Yuezhi divided the country into five yabgus: 月氏为匈奴所灭，遂迁于大夏，分其国为休密、双靡、贵霜、肸顿、都密，凡五部翕候。后百余岁，贵霜翕候丘就却攻灭四翕候，自立为王，国号贵霜王. Eiorgiomugini

Your point is unclear. Tian Shan is a modern analysis, which deserves mention as the result of scholarly work.PHG 02:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the original quote, which I integrated in the article. As far as I can see nothing is said about the Kushans being "Bactrian, Greek" or even Saka, so I guess your Hanshu reference is pointless on this specific matter. PHG 02:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No, my point is clear and straight. I never state that Tian Shan doesn't deserves to be mention. I talking about an alternative view on the edits. But since you had provided an alternative view on the edits, its fine then.
And did you see anything with regard of Kushan being Yuezhi (genealogical)? The fact that Kushan was a selected yabgus from the population of Ta-Hsia, and is clear that population of Ta-Hsia at that time was about 1millon or more, which is an outnumbering number for a newcomer like Yuezhi, Kushan = Yuezhi is just a nominal term Eiorgiomugini

2. Where do you get that "Kushan was a selected yabgus from the population of Ta-Hsia"??? PHG 05:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

2. And where do you get that Kushan being Yuezhi (genealogical)? You should have answered my question first. Eiorgiomugini

2. Generally the Kushans are considered as just one tribe of the Yuezhi (as described by the Hanshu), and therefore assumed to be "genealogically" connected. It is only an alternative, rather marginal, view that they may have been Saka instead, and is not directly supported by any primary source I know of (but I respect it as an opinion). Thanks to answer my question next. Regards. PHG 06:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Ok, since the Kushan genealogically (either Yuezhi or Ta-Hsia) was not directly supported by any primary source, one could also assumed the Kushan are not genealogically connected with Yuezhi, its nothing wrong then. Eiorgiomugini

2. So after all your claim that "Kushan was a selected yabgus from the population of Ta-Hsia" is totally unfounded? Please abstain from such claims if unreferenced. On the contrary, the prevailing scholarly opinion is that the Kushans were just one of the tribes of the Yuezhi: it is the general analysis of historians based on the most straightforward reading of the Hanshu and ulterior history, although another theory is that they were Sakas. Please do not remake history through your own Original research: you should be able to reference (either through Primary or Secondary sources) statements made on Wikipedia. Regards PHG 07:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

2. It is not totally unfounded, but a reference from the link which I provide earlier. Indeed, thanks for noticing that, there is still some mistakes on your edits though, for example: "The Yuezhi were organized into five major tribes, each led by a yabgu, or tribal chief, and known to the Chinese as Xiūmì ...". Hanshu state that the Yuezhi "divided the country into five yabgu", it doesn't seem to reflects anything else with regard of the organization of five major tribes, since "Kushan" appeared only after Yuezhi settled down at Ta-Hsia, and prior to that there's no such tribe or division called "Kushan" (Guishuang) "月氏为匈奴所灭，遂迁于大夏，分其国为休密、双靡、贵霜、肹顿、都密，凡五部翕侯。" Another part: "although the states from Dayuan west to Anxi (Parthia), speak rather different languages, their customs are generally similar and their languages mutually intelligible. The men have deep-set eyes and profuse beards and whiskers." A straightforward reading from Shiji, would be "west of Dayuan to Anxi" "自大宛以西至安息，国虽颇异言，然大同俗，相知言。其人皆深眼，多须珣，善市贾，争分铢。" in this case. Eiorgiomugini

[edit] Most of article is unsourced

According to WP:ATT unsourced material may be removed by any editor. The burden in on the editor inserting the material to provide references. It would greatly improve the credibility of this article if it were properly sourced. As it is the article seems quite messy and hard to read. Sincerely, Mattisse 13:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The addition of ^{[citation needed]} marks virtually everywhere throughout the article seems rather exagerated (vandalism?). I would recommend such symbols to be introduced with moderation at the really critical parts of the article needing reference. PHG 18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for approved ways of footnoting articles. Also, see Bart King, today's Feature Article as an example, although the subject is a sports figure so there are fewer areas where verification is required. Examples of a well documented historical articles are Hoysala architecture and History of Poland (1945–1989). It would benefit the article if the footnotes were more comprehensive and the format improved. Jimbo added a POV tag on an article recently because of a sentence that he disagreed with in the intro that was not sourced. As you probably know, Wikipedia has become much more strict on the issue of correct sourcing. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yuehzhi

You said your addition were referenced, where's the quote? Eiorgiomugini 00:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Eiorgiomugini, please discuss the pertaining contents of the article in the Talk page of the article, for the benefit of other participating editors of the article. To your question: quotation marks are inappropriate if the citation is not a verbatum quotation, but a rendering of the facts and ideas expressed by the quoted author. I can provide you, or anybody interested, with the original phrasing, from the referenced work by Zuev, on the pages 6 of his work, with all my pleasure. I will also address any other criticisms you may want to express. Barefact 01:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of help, Google is great, and last time I checked it, it also had "Yuechji". The inclusive article should show the terminology pertaining to the subject, not exclude it. Same would apply to Dasya, and if you have comments on how to improve the rendition of ancient Chinese phonetics, I can only be greatful for that.

The citation is from a scientific work of Prof. Zuev, and citation is referenced, thus conforming to the WP rules. Zuev (not only him, it is a subject of many studies) clearly states that migrating Yueji split into two parts, and a part of them remained in Central Asia and was traced there for centuries. One branch of them is listed jointly with the Kidan (Khitan) tribes, the other with the Oguz (Oghuz), etc. I hope this is helpful Barefact 19:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romanisations

Dear Barefact and Eiorgiomugini: As far as I can see, there is no need for an argument here at all. The quotes from Zuev contain Chinese words in a Russian system of transcription. There have been at least 16 different systems of transcriptions from Chinese into European languages that I am aware of. That was one of the main reasons why the Chinese, soon after the Communist takeover, tried to standardise the transcriptions with a new one known as Pinyin. This is the system the English Wikipedia now tries to make standard - although the Wade-Giles system (commonly in use in the English-speaking world until recently - and still in use in Taiwan, (actually it is less and less used there now) and quite similar to the defunct French EFEO system), is still acceptable.

However, I believe it is a good idea for the sake of clarity when translating passages into English for the Wikipedia to convert other systems of transcriptions of Chinese words into Pinyin.

None of these systems of transcriptions into Roman script are very accurate and none of them are much use at all in trying to understand ancient pronunciations.

There have been several attempts by eminent scholars (especially Karlgen and Pulleyblank) to recreate the sounds of ancient - mainly by comparing lists of ancient rhymes or checking what Chinese characters ancient scholars used to try to represent foreign sounds with (especially in the translations of Buddhist works from other languages).

However, none of the attempts to go back much before the Tang period can be considered very reliable (although they still can give valuable clues when trying to recreate the derivation of ancient foreign names). In all these cases of reconstructed ancient sounds it is probably easiest to use the symbols of the authority you are quoting from or symbols from the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA).

I hope this answers some of the valid concerns each of you seem to have. If I can help with any other related issues please let me know. Best wishes to you both, John Hill 07:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear John Hill and Eiorgiomugini: Sorry for a very slow response. I agree with objective of consistent language and a WP convention of using Pinyin for transcribing Chinese characters, and at the same time there is a need to communicate with the rest of the English-speaking world which uses differing spellings and, especially young people searching for references may know other terms and not know the WP convention. While Pinyin may be used in the title and body of the article, [4] suggests that the first sentence contain equivalent names, it is a legitimate way to include alternate names. Following the principle of inclusion, rather than exclusion, and adding equivalent names is consistent with the Pinyin convention and uniform language of the article. A reasonable and simple method to evaluate the use of a term is to google it. Inclusion would also bring the article to the attention of those who google for references. I hope we can reach a consensus on inclusion of alternate terms, in a WP spirit. Thanks, Barefact (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 20:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Place of origin of the Yuezhi

Dear editors, the following is a quotation from Yu.Zuev's (2002) "Early Türks: Outline of history and ideology", ISBN 9985-441-52-9, p.13. In the introductory section, that recounts what is well established, it reads:

Prior to the end of the 3rd century BC, the dominating force in the eastern part of Eurasia was the "state" confederation of nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes dominated by Uechji (Pinyin Yuezhi‎) tribe . The borders of this confederation can be outlined only conditionally. From the vague records of the later time, its southeast limits were at the left bank of the river Huang He from the headwaters before the northern bend to the south. The border further went to the north, covering western and eastern slopes of the Great Khingan. At the northern extremity it turned to the west, from Northern Mongolia and Southern Baikal area to the Sayano-Altai mountains. It included tribes of different origin, various languages and anthropological shape, and a non-uniform cultural and economic condition. The native territories of the Uechji were lands from the Nan Shans mountains in the south to the Altai in the north.

The memory of Uechjies (Pinyin Yuezhi‎) in the Altai survived as a group of Pazyryk kurgans with fabulous funeral inventory, which remains for decades a research subject for different scientific specialties. Chronologically, the first of them are dated by the 5th century BC (A Yu. Alekseev et al. C14 dating testifies to much earlier period - Translator's Note). The arrival of Uechjies in this region, according to linguists, belongs to the period not later than 7th-6th centuries BC. Other scientists, deeming them Tochars and from the archaism of the many elements in the monument language of the Tocharian writings (end the 1st millennium AD) in the Eastern Turkestan, are inclined to date the beginning of their movement from the Asia Minor to the east by the 2nd millennium BC. The presence of Tochars explains the sharp change in quality in the art of Bronze Epoch, and introduction of wheeled transport in China during the In epoch (13th-11th centuries BC). The presence of Tochars also explains the arrival in China of a foreign goddess cult "Mother-queen of the West" (Ch. Si-van-mu), who lived on the top of the Kuenlun mountains.

Anthropologically (Fig. 1), the Pazyrian Uechjies were a mix of predominantly Europoids with a minority of Central Asian Mongoloids. The Sünnu (Huns) tribes, thought of as Mongoloid racial type, started to consolidate and threaten the borders of China, being in political dependence from Uechji. How this dependence was expressed is not known. The annals only inform about a system of hostages from the dependent tribes at the horde of the Uechji ruler. Such hostage was Maodun, a son of the first Sünnu tribal ruler Touman."

Before I start inserting bits and pieces, I would like to hear your opinions. Thanks, Barefact (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Yuezhi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Title Change

[edit] Rouzhi = "Meat People"?

[edit] Judging dead people by appearance is not alway accurate

[edit] Here we go again...

[edit] Use of the "Common Era"

[edit] Edits by 202.156.6.54

[edit] Place of origin of the Yuezhi

[edit] Other issues

[edit] Issues Provided

[edit] Most of article is unsourced

[edit] "related groups" info removed from infobox

[edit] Yuehzhi

[edit] Romanisations

[edit] WikiProject class rating

[edit] Place of origin of the Yuezhi

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search