Chinese description of Rome

May 2012
321
Heaven
No,you haven't yet answered any my questions.Moreover,you tried to create a fake different between my translation and Shaw's translation although no one see that.You are fleeing only.I answered all your question in other topic,but i will repeat:
1.
In the ninth yongyuan year [97 CE], during the reign of Emperor He, the Protector General Ban Chao sent Gan Ying to Da Qin (the Roman Empire).6 He reached Tiaozhi (Characene and Susiana) next to a large sea. He wanted to cross it...
Tiaozhi couldn't be Characene.It was Rameswaram because 3 sides of Tiaozhi were sea while 1 side of Characene were sea only.Morover,Tiaozhi had zebu - special herd of India.
2,3,4.Because you put Tiaozhi in wrong place,you misunderstood other places,too.Tianzhu was in Ganges Basin(Eastern India and Nepal).Anxi,Yuezhi were in India.
Hackneye herself provided other proofs which could define Da Qin in India:
2.
Precious things from Da Qin can be found there, as well as fine cotton cloths,5 excellent wool carpets,6 perfumes of all sorts, sugar loaves,7 pepper, ginger, and black salt.
pepper,black salt,ginger were main products for exporting of India,not Roman empire but hackneye don't understand that.
 

HackneyedScribe

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
6,494
No,you haven't yet answered any my questions.
Quote the question you asked that I haven't answered. On the other hand, you haven't answered addressed any of the following that has been told to you repeatedly:
-Where did I say the HHS's description of Daqin was closer to India, or are you putting words in my mouth?
-Also you haven't addressed that Hou Han Shu could easily get the cardinal directions of different polities right, but you instead dismiss them and chose to cherrypick descriptions such as local wildlife which the HHS could easily get wrong.
-If you think the Hou Han Shu is so impressive that it could accurately describe the number of walled towns in Daqin, then surely you would think that the Hou Han Shu could determine whether the region of Daqin was West or East of places like Anxi (Parthia) or Tianzhu (Northwestern India). Daqin was repeatedly described to be West of Anxi (Parthia), and Anxi itself was described to be West of Kashgar (Western China). Ergo your interpretation that Daqin was situated in India simply don't fit the geographic description.
-You used Brent D. Shaw to justify your translation even though Brent D Shaw would not have agreed with your translation, yet you have the shamelessness to ask me "you think you are more clever than Brent D.Shaw?" On the other hand, when I asked you to provide just one serious academic source which thought Daqin was in India as you claimed, how did you respond? Did you say, "I can't find even one single academic source which agrees with my claim, ergo my claim is wrong?" No you did not, you said: "History research is the work all people can do.How can we claim that one idea from a student or anyone who loves histrory must be wrong and idea of famous researchers are always right ". Ergo you certainly did think you are more clever than all the academic sourcing thrown at you.

Moreover,you tried to create a fake different between my translation and Shaw's translation although no one see that.You are fleeing only.
Brent D Shaw translated Pliny's phrase "populos DXVI " as 516 nationes or tribes ", yes or no?
You translated that same phrase as "towns or tribes" or "cities or tribes" in order to use that phrase to calculate your preferred number of urban centers in Roman Africa, yes or no?

Furthermore, you left out these things stated by Brent D Shaw:
the author Brent D. Shaw stated in pg 434 "Pliny appended to it an official survey containing references to various town statuses (principally coloniae, oppida libera, and oppida civium Romanorum) and related information pertaining to various land-tax administrative units important to the Roman government, including nationes or 'tribes'. In pg 455 he also defined nationes as "tribal groups", in post 451 he defined nationes as "ethnic groups", I don't see where he ever described it as a town. So you shouldn't quote from the author on parts that he don't even agree with you on.

You couldn't use Brent D Shaw's translation of "516 nationes(ethic groups) or tribes" to calculate the number of urban centers in Roman Africa, now could you? But you could if you used your personal translation of "516 towns or tribes" and you did just that, didn't you?
I asked you which translator translated Pliny's phrase "populos DXVI " as according to your translation of "516 towns or tribes", and you gave me authors who certainly did NOT translate "populos DXVI " as ""516 towns or tribes", and if we use their translation then you couldn't use that phrase to calculate the number of African urban centers in the Roman empire, but you did it anyway.

Le Hoang said:
I answered all your question in other topic,but i will repeat:
1.

Tiaozhi couldn't be Characene.It was Rameswaram because 3 sides of Tiaozhi were sea while 1 side of Characene were sea only.
Tiaozhi was also described to be subjugated by their Eastern neighbor Anxi (Parthia in the Middle East), Anxi being described to be West of the Yuezhi(in Central Asia) and the Yuezhi being West of Kashgar. The Rameswaram peninsula is located in India which is not anywhere close to the geographic location of Tiaozhi.

There is a debate amongst the academic circle of where Tiaozhi truly is, but none of them says it's the Rameswaram peninsula: Notes to the Wei lue

Le Hoang said:
Morover,Tiaozhi had zebu - special herd of India.
Again you are incorrect, this has been addressed to you before:
Two sites from southeastern Iran - Tepe Yahya and Shahr-i Sokhta-have provided evidence for zebu and for taurine cattle as well.....Of these, one has a zebu-like morphology, one is taurine in its morphology and the other ten have morphologies that fall between the two. All date between the mid-sixth and end of the fourth millennium cal BC......In addition, bifid thoracic vertebrae and humped-cattle figurines have been recovered from the site. -The Oxford Handbook of Zooarchaeology

Also, if you put the HouHanShu's description of local animals as the Bible (even though it could have easily gotten it wrong), the HouHanShu did describe Tiaozhi as having lions and ostriches, which the Rameswaram peninsula of India lacked at the time.

Le Hoang said:
2,3,4.Because you put Tiaozhi in wrong place,you misunderstood other places,too.Tianzhu was in Ganges Basin(Eastern India and Nepal).
You are incorrect, Tianzhu was said to be conquered by the Yuezhi, the Ganges Basin was not conquered by the Yuezhi.
But let's say Tianzhu was the Ganges Basin. Then the Yuezhi was described to be West of the Ganges Basin, Anxi was described to be West of the Yuezhi which puts Anxi as outside of India, Tiaozhi was described to be West of Anxi which again puts it outside of India. Hence Tiaozhi couldn't be the Rameswaram Peninsula as you claim as that peninsula is in South India. Moreover, Daqin was described to be West of all these places.

But you ignore these descriptions which the Hou Han Shu could easily get right, and focused on the passages about local wildlife or local production which the Hou Han Shu could easily get wrong. Moreover, you ignore those descriptions of wildlife/production which don't fit your narrative.

Le Hoang said:
Anxi,Yuezhi were in India.
Hackneye herself provided other proofs which could define Da Qin in India:
Nope, Tianzhu is not the Ganges Basin as you claim, for that would mean there's no room for the Kingdom of Dongli (described to be Southeast of Tianzhu but still in India) to go. Tianzhu was described to be conquered by the Yuezhi, which makes it Northerwestern India, not NorthEastern India (Ganges Basin) as you claim


^The above is the Ganges Basin in green. If the green part was indeed the kingdom of Tianzhu, then the kingdom of Dongli wouldn't even fit, as this was described to be the kingdom of Dongli:
The main centre of the kingdom of Dongli (‘Eastern Division’)1 is the town of Shaqi (Śāketa).2 It is more than 3,000 li (1,247 km) southeast of Tianzhu (Northwestern India). It is a big kingdom. Its products are similar to those of Tianzhu (Northwestern India). There are several dozen major towns whose rulers take the title of king. The Da Yuezhi attacked and subdued it. The men and women are all eight chi tall (about 1.85 metres or 6 feet), but are cowardly. They ride elephants and camels when travelling to neighbouring kingdoms. When invaded, they ride elephants to wage war.

By saying that Tianzhu is the Ganges Basin, Le Hoang is putting the kingdom of Dongli into Southeast Asia, but the Da Yuezhi never attacked into Southeast Asia.
But let's say Le Hoang was right, and Tianzhu really was that Green area on the map. Well Yuezhi was described to be West of Tianzhu, which puts the Yuezhi in Western India at Best. Anxi was described to be West of Yuezhi, which puts them OUTSIDE of India. Tiaozhi was described to be West of Anxi, which puts them even FURTHER West of India. And Daqin was described to be West of Tiaozhi, which puts it very far West of India. So by claiming that Tianzhu was the Ganges Basin, Le Hoang contradicted himself by putting Daqin/Anxi/Tiaozhi in India even though they are clearly not.


Le Hoang said:
Anxi,Yuezhi were in India.
Again that is incorrect, Anxi and Yuezhi were both to be described as West of Kashgar. At most the Yuezhi was partially in NorthWestern India, and since Anxi was described to be West of the Yuezhi, Anxi would be solidly outside of India. Yuezhi was a nomadic tribe that fled West from the Xiongnu and took over the Greco-Bactrians.

From the Hou Han Shu: The state of Tianzhu: Also, named Yuandu, it lies several thousand li southeast of Yuezhi.
You claimed that Tianzhu was the Ganges Basin, but that means the Yuezhi would be "several thousand li" NorthWest of the Ganges Basin, which puts the Yuezhi as outside India.

Le Hoang said:
pepper,black salt,ginger were main products for exporting of India,not Roman empire but hackneye don't understand that.
Daqin was described to be West of Anxi(Middle East), Anxi(Parthia) was described to be West of Yuezhi(Central Asia), Yuezhi was described to be West of TianZhu (Northwestern India). I don't think you understand that you are cherrypicking unimportant details that the HouHanShu could have easily gotten wrong, and placing that above the details that the Hou Han Shu would have easily gotten right.
 
Last edited:

HackneyedScribe

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
6,494
Anyway, as according from the Hou Han Shu, traveling from West to East, the states are:
Daqin, Tiaozhi, Anxi, Da Yuezhi, Tianzhu, Dongli.

Proof from the Hou HanShu:

1. Showing that Tiaozhi was to the East of Daqin:
In the ninth yongyuan year [97 CE], during the reign of Emperor He, the Protector General Ban Chao sent Gan Ying to Da Qin (the Roman Empire).6 He reached Tiaozhi (Characene and Susiana) next to a large sea. He wanted to cross it...
2. Showing Anxi was to the East of Tiaozhi
If you turn north [from Tiaozhi], and then towards the east, riding by horse for more than 60 days, you reach [the old capital of] Anxi (Parthia).5 Later on, (Anxi) conquered, and subjugated Tiaozhi (Characene and Susiana).
3. Showing Da Yuezhi was to the East of Anxi
The main centre of the Da Yuezhi (Kushan) kingdom1 is the town of Lanshi (Bactra/Balkh).2 To the west it borders Anxi (Parthia), which is 49 days march away.
4. Showing Tianzhu was to the East of Da Yuezhi
The kingdom of Tianzhu (Northwestern) India is also called Juandu (India).1 It is several thousand li southeast of the Yuezhi (Kushans).
5. Showing Dongli was East of Tianzhu
The main centre of the kingdom of Dongli (‘Eastern Division’)1 is the town of Shaqi (Śāketa).2 It is more than 3,000 li (1,247 km) southeast of Tianzhu (Northwestern India).

This is backed by the Weilue:
Leaving there (Kashgar), and going west, you reach Dayuan (Ferghana),22 Anxi (Parthia),23 Tiaozhi (Characene and Susiana),24 and Wuyi (Arachosia and Drangiana – capital, Kandahar).

So Daqin was put furthest to the West whereas Dongli was put furthest to the East in the list of five states listed above. However, Le Hoang insists that Daqin/Tiaozhi/Anxi is in Southern India, which don't fit with what the Hou Han Shu said at all because that would put all three states East, not West, of the Yuezhi.

the location of Kashgar:




The DaYuezhi was recorded to be West of Kashgar, Anxi was recorded to be west of Da Yuezhi, Tianzhu/Daqin was recorded to be West of Anxi (proof in post 72). If the direction between these states were as ambivalent as Le Hoang paints, then why did Han chroniclers paint them as un-ambivalent? So when Le Hoang claimed DaYuezhi was in Nepal, he was wrong because Nepal is not West of Kashgar. When Le Hoang claimed Daqin/Anxi/Tianzhu are in South India, he was wrong in because they are not West of Kashgar, but South. Instead of admitting it, he is throwing smokebombs asking whether Armenia is West of Georgia, amongst others, but none of those places are Kashgar. In fact he is tossing a list of countries, whereas Kashgar is a city. Ergo his smokebombs are irrelevant to the ancient texts and irrelevant to the discussion.

Le Hoang, you still haven't found one single academic source which puts Daqin or Anxi or Tiaozhi in modern day India. It's you against the world, why is it that every author who interpreted that passage would disagree with you? Find an academic source to back you up because right now all you're doing is cherrypicking, to put it mildly.
 
Last edited:
May 2012
321
Heaven
Brent D Shaw translated Pliny's phrase "populos DXVI " as 516 nationes or tribes ", yes or no?
You translated that same phrase as "towns or tribes" or "cities or tribes" in order to use that phrase to calculate your preferred number of urban centers in Roman Africa, yes or no?
How is foolish?
I saw that you misunderstood!Stop think in unlogic way.I translated as "cities or tribes" but it couldn't increase the number of walled towns as you accused.By contrast,if we use "516 nationes or tribes" of Shaw,the number of walled town could double.Why?Roman author always used "natio/nationes" which is translated to "nation" in English to note about states that had a capitol(walled town) and some surrounding places to distinguish with "tribes" which didn't have walled town.So one nation has at least one walled town and they could have 2 or 3.If half of "populi" is nationes,it means there were at least 258 walled town in 2 Africa provinces.
Your post showed that zebu extincted in Iran from fourth millennium cal BC,4500 year before Fan Ye wrote HHS.So Characene couldn't produce zebu in ancient time.
 

HackneyedScribe

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
6,494
You logic is flawed because you are multiplying factual numbers by your personal made up numbers. You are using your own personal translations without any proof. The Roman author (Pliny) used the word "populi", not "nationes". Ben D Shaw was the one who used the word "nationes" to translate "populi", ergo your made-up translation of what "Roman authors" meant by "nationes" is irrelevant because Pliny didn't even use that word in this scenario. Nor do every group/tribe necessarily mean they have at least one city, nomads could have zero, nor do we know the degree of allegiance these 516 peoples/tribes had was enough to consider them legitimately Roman subjects. In summary, you mistranslated the word populi in order to force the passage to fit your narrative. When asked which translation you got it from, you provided a translation which said something DIFFERENT. And when revealed that it is different, you loosely interpreted the translation from Ben D Shaw to fit your own personal interpretation. Even if you believed in your very loose interpretation, you should have given his translation word for word, and THEN provided your loose interpretation of said translation. You shouldn't have changed the word of his translation because it would fool people into thinking that's what Pliny actually said, when in fact it's just YOUR interpretation of what Pliny implied.
I don't know why you keep thinking you could get away with these constant mistranslations that have been occurring for years. I caught you mistranslating, heylouis caught you mistranslating, fangqingming caught you mistranslating, and recently Vaderfan caught you mstranslating. Mistranslating every now and then is an honest mistake, mistranslating nearly each and every time means you're doing it on purpose. Most forummers here who knows Chinese have caught you mistranslating Chinese sources, yet you still don't learn that you can't get away with it.

Also you are wrong about my source on Middle Eastern zebus, it did NOT show that they became extinct in Iran in the 4th millenium BC as you claim. It only says some figurines found in the Middle East dates from date A to date B, this is not the date they went extinct, nor does it mean that all figurines are dated to that period. Yet you forcibly interpreted those dates as the "date of extinction", which means you are forcing the passage to say something it's not. Where in the passage did it say zebu cattle went extinct in the 4th millenium BC? If anything the passage implies that zebus were existent in the Middle East since at least the 6th-4th millenium BC. I read where it says that SOME zebu art dates to the 4th millenium BC, where did the passage say it went extinct? No where, that's your own loose interpretation that you stated as if it was a fact.

Again, Le Hoang, you are focusing on piffles. Ancient sources could easily be wrong about the local wildlife of locations thousands of kilometers away, and even if they were right, mentions of lions and ostriches means you are wrong about those localities being in India. But you ignored them and focused solely on zebus because that's the animal which fits your narrative of Daqin being in India, even though there were plenty of zebus outside of India.
Le Hoang, you say that Tianzhu is the Ganges Basin. Yet the Yuezhi was mentioned to be several thousand li WEST of Tianzhu, yet you claim Yuezhi was in India. Anxi was mentioned to be West of the Yuezhi, yet you still claim Anxi to be in India. Daqin was claimed to be WEST of Anxi, yet you claim Daqin is in India. Why do you keep ignoring this?

"Several thousand li" West of the Ganges Basin (in Green) puts Yuezhi outside of India, and definitely puts Anxi/Daqin outside of India because they are even further West than the Yuezhi. Why keep ignoring it?:


And again, I have yet to see you quote from even one academic source which thinks Daqin/Anxi was in India.
 
Last edited: