Roman history from non-Roman sources

Feb 2011
6,379
#41
-That it is hot and humid <---- Plenty of other places on earth have that characteristic
-That it's a peninsula <----Plenty of other places on earth have that characteristic
-That it has zebu cattle <----- Plenty of other places on earth had that characteristic
hackneye: ok but how is plenty?How many peninsula has both 3 characteristic : humid,real peninsula(border by sea in 3 sides) and produce zebu as Rameswaram?
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/203737
You are pretending not to know about the most defining characterstic described in the text: That TiaoZhi was West of the YueZhi. How many places in India have all four characteristics? Zero places, because India is Southeast of the Yuezhi. Ergo Tiaozhi is not in India. Only Tianzhu was described to be Southeast of the Yuezhi. Tianzhu was also described to be hot and humid, like Tiaozhi. And unlike Tiaozhi, Tianzhu was described to have war elephants and Buddhists. Not to mention, Tianzhu was also described to be subjugated by the Yuezhi, which was true for Northeastern India. Whereas Tiaozhi was described to be subjugated by Anxi (Parthia), a state that is West of the Yuezhi. Ergo Tiaozhi is not in India, Tianzhu is in India.

Most define TiaoZhi as Charax Spasinu


It's hot and humid, in the Middle East which have zebus, and is a peninsula that is surrounded be sea to the North, East, and South. It's on an artificial elevation as described by Pliny. So it fits all the categories that you use to falsely justify TiaoZhi being in India. But most importantly TiaoZhi was never conquered by Parthia (Anxi), a state described to be West of the Yuezhi, but Charax Spasinu was conquered by Parthia (Anxi).

Zebu was produced out of Indian continent and surrounding area only from 700 AD.
That is incorrect.

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

Sounds like your date is thousands of years off. Your link only shows the arrival of Zebu cattle breeds in Africa, which is only a subsection of the rest of the world.

I said that Chola would be a part of Anxi,so with descriptions of Hou Hanshu,we could place Hedu(capital of Anxi) in region of ancient Chedi kingdom(for example: Rewa district).
...If you turn north, and then towards the east, riding by horse for more than 60 days, you reach [the old capital of] Anxi ...
It's very suitable with road from Pamban to Rewa district: go up to north and toward the east.From Pamban to Rewa district around 1710 km in straight line(2400 - 2500 km in road for horse = 60 horse day).Moreover,one state of Anxi has name :"于罗".70 - 80% name has character 罗 in Chinese relate to India name or place.From 2th century BC to 3th century AD,there was a very powerful kingdom in India called Kalinga Chedi dynasty or Mahameghavahana .They captured many other kingdom from Punjab to ancient Chola.Rameswaram and surrounding areas was a part of ancient Chola,so it was seized by Kalinga Chedi.Yuezhi can locate in eastern Punjab or border of Xinjiang to Nepal.
Again,names from India sound more comfortable than names from Parthia and Roman:
Hedu from Chedi,not Hecatompylos.How a 5 syllable name(Hecatompylos) change to 2 syllable name(Hedu).Besides,Hecatompylos wasn't capital of Parthia.True capital of them is Ctesiphon.(But Watson pretended that he didn't know that).
Yuluo or Yula from Puhar(Sothern India)
Kexin from Chera(one of three Tamil kingdom) not Syria.
Again,About capital of Da Qin.If you see Kochi - capital of ancient Pandya,you will feel it is amazing.Great habour in a large river and near sea,really like in Hou Hanshu.
Again, Chola is not anywhere near Anxi (Parthia). You are nitpicking snippets and forcing the passage into your narrative. You say that Anxi is something it's not, by disregarding the essential passages that don't fit with your narrative, then you use that ridiculous narrative to enforce other narratives, all the while disregarding all the other passages that don't fit. You forget the following passage:

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.

Anxi is West of the YueZhi. Everyplace you labeled as Anxi puts it Southeast of Yuezhi in India. But southeast of Yuezhi is not Anxi, it is Tianzhu.

Tianzhu is India because it was described as southeast of the Yuezhi: The kingdom of Tianzhu (Northwestern) India is also called Juandu (India).1 It is several thousand li southeast of the Yuezhi (Kushans)
TianZhu was also described to be Buddhist, hot and humid, where people ride war elephants, and was subjugated by the Yuezhi. All these descriptions match at least Northeastern India

TiaoZhi was conquered by Anxi, and this alternative location in India you mentioned do not fit the geography described in the passage: 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). They have, in fact, installed a Senior General there to supervise all the small towns.

Le Hoang said:
Yuezhi can locate in eastern Punjab or border of Xinjiang to Nepal.
Even if you define Yuezhi as their easternmost borders, Anxi being placed west of the Yuezhi still places Anxi outside of India, especially Southern India and Sri Lanka. Just this by itself makes your narrative fall flat.

In summary, this is the location of the Great YueZh (Kushan Empire):



And once they conquered Tianzhu (Northeastern India) they became the Kushan empire:


Anxi is Parthia, not in India as Le Hoang claims, because the Hou Han Shu passage states: 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.

Anxi is to the West of Yuezhi, not the Southeast which is where India's at.

TiaoZhi is not some Eastern Indian peninsula because it was described as thus: 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). They have, in fact, installed a Senior General there to supervise all the small towns.

TiaoZhi hence cannot be the Pandyan kingdom of India as Le Hoang claims, because Tiaozhi is in the westernmost border of Anxi (Parthia), which puts it well away from anywhere in India.

That also means DaQin could not be Sri Lanka as Le Hoang said, because the Pandyan kingdoms was kicked out of Sri Lanka 200 years after Gan Ying's exploratory journey. More importantly, DaQin is described to be West of Parthia as Anxi (Parthia) was between China and Da Qin:

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, but the sailors of the western frontier of Anxi (Parthia) said to him:
“The ocean is huge. Those making the round trip can do it in three months if the winds are favourable. However, if you encounter winds that delay you, it can take two years. That is why all the men who go by sea take stores for three years. The vast ocean urges men to think of their country, and get homesick, and some of them die.
When (Gan) Ying heard this, he gave up his plan.


Ergo the passage clearly describes it as thus: Traveling from China to the West you reach Yuezhi, traveling further West you reach Anxi, traveling further West you reach Tiaozhi, traveling further West you reach DaQin.

Anxi could not be anywhere in India because it's west of Yuezhi. DaQin could not be anywhere in India because it is even further West of the Yuezhi than even Anxi.
 
Last edited:
May 2012
302
Heaven
#42
...Two sites from southeastern Iran - Tepe Yahya and Shahr-i Sokhta-have provided evidence for zebu and for taurine cattle as well...
Shahr-e Sukhteh - Wikipedia
Tepe Yahya - Wikipedia

You are pretending don't know my question.Where is anothe peninsula which is hot,humid and produce zebu?
Shahr-i Sokhta and Tepe Tahya are near India.Your link said that zebu appeared at sites,not produce them(like in Hou Hanshu).Ancient Iran could import from ancient India where scientists claimed they producted them.Morever,both 2 places are so far Characen where never produced zebu.
Moreover,who really claimed Lanshi is Balkh or Bactria,execpt Watson.Because terrible logic,he had a wrong result.
What characteristic can define Lanshi with Balkh instead of other places.For example: Lukung(India).
You are accusing Pliny,where in Middle East he claimed that humid? while many parts of it is covered by desert and mountains?Besides,Pliny never called any site in Characen in paeninsula.You used a fake Roman map to claim Charax Spasinou is peninsula only.Peutinger map was collected by Konrad Peutinger who lived in 16th century many years after fall of Roman.Even"..The surviving map itself was created by a monk in Colmar in modern-day eastern France in 1265...".It is produce of Medieval author who rarely went to Middle East and very limited about information.On other hand,Roman author like Cassius Dio said that Charax Spasinu was an island,not peninsula and none of them claimed it was surrounded by sea in three sides.
 
Feb 2011
6,379
#43
Le Hoang, you know zebus self-produce by giving birth to other zebus, right? But by your logic, I don't see where in your source that specificlly said Rameswaram produces zebus, ergo it's also not Tiaozhi by your logic.

Plus, you 'pretend to not know my question': Tiaozhi/DaQin/Anxi are all described West of the Yuezhi in Central Asia. This has been thoroughly proven in post 41. Why do you insist all of them are in India when India is East of the Yuezhi? Because India have zebus? (As if there are no zebus West of the Yuezhi). Because India is hot and humid? (As if there are no zebus living in hot/humid environments West of India). Tianzhu was actually what the Han used to describe India, not only was it also described to be hot/humid, it was described to be subjugated by the Yuezhi, have war elephants, and have Buddhists, none of these characteristics was used to describe Tiaozhi/DaQin/Anxi. Yet you think Tiaozhi is in India but Tianzhu is not? What a weak, weak argument, not just because the argument you used to disqualify Charax as Tiaozhi would also disqualify Rameswaram as Tiaozhi, which means your own logic would disprove your case.

On the other hand,
-You try to discredit the Peutinger map because Cassius Dio supposedly knows more than a "Medieval author who rarely went to the Middle East". You do know Cassius Dio never went to Charax Spasinu, so how is Cassius Dio a better source? On the other hand, Peutinger don't need to know about Charax Spasino because he was copying a copy of an antique Roman map.
-Pliny described Charax as the place where "two rivers meet", which naturally creates a place that is surrounded by water on all but one side. Pliny is a Roman too.
-Charax is at the Persian Gulf which is known for its hotness and humidity. It's not secret information, look it up.

And I'll end with this question for Le Hoang: Do you have a single academic article saying that DaQin/Anxi/Tiaozhi as recorded in the Hou Han Shu, is describing India?
 
Last edited:
May 2012
302
Heaven
#44
hackneye: You are trying to distort Pliny according to your purpose.Here is description of Plinius about Charax .In my opinion,it's very exact:
...Charaz, oppidum Persici sinus intimum, a quo Arabia Eudaemon cognominata excurrit, habitatur in colle manu facto inter confluentes dextra Tigrim, laeva Eulaeum, II p laxitate...
Translation:
Charax is a isolated town in Persian gulf where extend to the place call Eudaemon in Arabia,(dwellers) live in a man-made hill between Tigris river on the right and Eulaeus
river(Kahun)
on the left with the width 2 miles( near 3 km)
.
It is very clear that 2 sides of town are 2 rivers,not sea like Tiaozhi.It's undeniable.In any level of observation,it can be peninsula,even can't be a promontory(half peninsula).In other paragraph,he said about a real peninsula,according to his definition:
...ipsa vero paeninsula Arabia, inter duo maria Rubrum Persicumque procurrens...
Translation:
...Arabia itself is a true peninsula,it juts out and is between two sea : Persia(Persian gulf) and Red Sea.
It's very close with modern definition and he claimed that one peninsula had to have 2 sides face to sea(between 2 sea).Again,which part of Charax justed out,which part of it is between 2 sea?
Cassius Dio never went to Middle East?Really?He was absent for at Rome so long to wrote about events in this city and had to use other documents.Anyway,we can't deny that he is a real Roman while no one could claim that Peutinger had true Roman texts or pseudo-Roman which appeared in later like in Carolingian dynasty.
Tabula Peutingeriana - Wikipedia
Many researchers like Emily Abu claimed that it is a Carolingian map,not Roman map.
Zebu is a so strong argument to deny,so you find any way to flee it.This animal is main cattle of Indian countries.Another proofs are monks(who shaved their hair) and tiger.Hou Hanshu said that there are so many tiger and lion on roads of Da Qin.Where can we see that in Roman?Or you say that India is one of Roman subjects.
 
Feb 2011
6,379
#45
Le Hoang, again I ask you do you have a single academic article saying that DaQin/Anxi/Tiaozhi as recorded in the Hou Han Shu, is describing India?
Le Hoang. Post 41 shows that Anxi (Parthia) was described to be west of Yuezhi (Central Asia), and Tiaozhi was described to be West of Anxi. You say TiaoZhi is in India, Le Hoang thinks India is West of Central Asia?

Yes, Pliny said that one of the rivers of Charax is the Tigris, which is why it's thought to be the Tiaozhi, thanks for pointing that out:

“It seems far more likely that T’iao-chih is simply an attempt to transcribe the word “Tigris” (Assyrian-Babylonian Idiglat; Old Persian Tigra). Support for this view can be found in the rendering of the Ganges river valley as Huang-chih in CHS [Hanshu] (ch. 188/32ab), suggesting that the character chih in the name T’iao-chih was pronounced ga in the Han period. T’iao-chih can then be considered as the Chinese transcription for the Persian form of the name for the Tigris. Just as the Chinese name for the Ganges designated the kingdom on the Indian seacoast, so T’iao-chih represents the kingdom on the Tigris near the coasts of the Persian Gulf. In fact, in the later Chinese account of Persia by Ma Tuan-lin (Po-ssū ch. 339/6), the region south of Su-li on the banks of the Ta-ho-shui (i.e. Seleucia on the Tigris) is equated with the territory of ancient T’iao-chih. All of this territory may have earlier been under the administration of Charax Spasinou, the central city of the Lower Tigris.”

“Tiaozhi appears to me to correspond to the Arab kingdom of Characene which was founded between 130 and 127 BCE in Mesene, at the mouths of the Tigris. Mesene is called Dest Misau in a fragment of Ibn Qutaybah [828-829], and Amru, quoted by [Joseph] Assemani [1687-1768], simply calls Desht the country of Desht Misan; this name of “Desht”, is the Persian word desht which signifies “plain”. Perhaps it is this word which is hidden in the Chinese transcription of Tiaozhi 條支. The Characenes were subject to the Parthians during the reign of Trajan (98-117 CE), for we see this emperor waging war against the Parthians and the Arabs at the same time. The Chinese historian tells us in fact several lines later on that Tiaozhi (Desht Misan) was subject to Parthia.” Translated and adapted from Chavannes (1907), p. 176, n. 3.

We are inclined to follow the view of Chavannes and Shiratori in particular that T’iao-chih must be Characene (or Mesene), with capital Charax, in the delta of the Tigris and Euphrates. This requires the concomitant identification of the Western Sea (sometimes the Great Sea) which it overlooks as the Persian Gulf leading to the Indian Ocean.” Leslie and Gardiner (1996), p. 260.

All your arguments are incredibly weak, especially your zebu theory as you demand evidence of production (not just existence) of zebus in Charax, but fail to show evidence of zebu production for your own case. Tiaozhi also produced rhinos and ostriches, but you don't use those animals because Rameswaram don't have them, ergo it don't fit your narrative that Tiaozhi was Rameswaram. Your argument is based on ignoring the evidence that you can't counter, using flimsy reasoning with a foundation so ethereal that it makes quicksand look like concrete in comparison, and treating your personal theories as fact in order to prove your other questionable theories.
 
Last edited:
May 2012
302
Heaven
#46
Here is argument of hackneye.Who can explain logic of them for me?
- Rameswaram is a peninsula which has limited by sea like Tiaozhi but Charax don't have ->Charax must be Tiaozhi
- Rameswaram has zebu like Tiaozhi but Charax don't have ->Charax must be Tiaozhi.
- Rameswaram is hot and humid lik Tiaozhi but Charax is dry ->Charax must be Tiaozhi.
So Charax must be Tiaozhi because it hasn't any characteristics of Tiaozhi.
However,I need thank her because she helped me found out undeniable proofs of Tiaozhi.
About Inian rhinoceros,it certainly appeared in areas near Pamban of Rameswaram peninsula in past because fossils of rhinoceros were discovered both in South India and Sri Lanka.
Fossils of R. unicornis appear in the Middle Pleistocene. In the Pleistocene, the genus Rhinoceros ranged throughout South and Southeast Asia, with specimens located on Sri Lanka. Into the Holocene, some rhinoceros lived as far west as Gujarat and Pakistan until as recently as 3,200 years ago.[9]
Ostrich is a mistake of Watson.Here is original text:
..出师子、犀牛、封牛、孔雀、大雀。大雀其卵如甕...
Translation: It produces lion,rhinoceros,zebu,peacock(孔雀) and giant peacock(大雀).Watson thought that giant peacock was ostrich,so he repaired original meaning.
Lion,rhinoceros,peacock and zebu were popular animals in ancient South India,include Rameswaram peninsula.
 
Feb 2011
6,379
#47
I said none of those things, Le Hoang, and you know it.
For example, where did I say Charax was dry, I said it was hot and humid. Quote just where I said it was dry.
For example, where did I say Charax didn't have zebus? I said it had zebus. Quote just where I said it didn't have zebus.
I also gave quotes from multiple academic authors that they believe that Tigris beside the Tiaozhi was a transliteration of Tiaozhi itself, and later Chinese accounts equated Seleucia on the Tigris as the ancient territory of Tiaozhi. The Tigris is nowhere near India.
Now it's possible that the ancient diplomats were mistaken about a country's wildlife, or that a city next to the sea was enclosed by a river rather than the sea. What's NOT possible, is if they say that the country was FAR WEST of the Yuezhi (Central Asia) when it was in fact Far East of the Yuezhi, ESPECIALLY if the diplomat has been there. Le Hoang focuses on the little parts that diplomats might have gotten wrong, ignore the little parts which don't agree with him, and most importantly ignore the massive hole in his argument in which his theory is off, in which his theory puts Tiaozhi East of the Yuezhi when it was specifically said that Tiaozhi was very far West of the Yuezhi.

On the other hand, you say Rameswaram of India is Tiaozhi because Tiaozhi was described to produce rhinos, and there's some extinct species of rhino in South India but was extinct 1000 years before the passage was written. As usual that's an incredibly weak argument. Tiaozhi having rhinos that didn't exist for a 1000 years when the passage was written, is not the same as Tiaozhi producing rhinos. If they were producing that species of rhinos then it wouldn't be extinct at that time.

Tianzhu is India, Tiaozhi/DaQin/Anxi is not.
Tianzhu was described as hot and humid, like Tiaozhi but not DaQin/Anxi.
Tianzhu was described to be Buddhist, Tiaozhi/DaQin/Anxi wasn't.
Tianzhu was describe to have war elephants, Tiaozhi/DaQin/Anxi was not. Tiaozhi was described to have rhinos and ostriches which don't exist in Rameswaram as you claim.
Tianzhu was described to be SouthEast of the YueZhi (Central Asia), Tiaozhi/DaQin/Anxi was described to be West of YueZhi (Central Asia). Rameswaram of India is East of Central Asia, ergo TiaoZhi is not India.
Tianzhu was described to be subjugated by the Yuezhi, which Northeastern India was at the time.

Le Hoang, I asked you three times of the below question but you were never able to answer:
Le Hoang, again I ask you do you have a single academic article saying that DaQin/Anxi/Tiaozhi as recorded in the Hou Han Shu, is describing India?

Le Hoang, I asked you three times of the below question but you were never able to answer:
Le Hoang. Post 41 shows that Anxi (Parthia) was described to be west of Yuezhi (Central Asia), and Tiaozhi was described to be West of Anxi. You say TiaoZhi is Rameswaram in India. Le Hoang thinks India is West of Central Asia?
 
Last edited:
May 2012
302
Heaven
#48
Tianzhu was described as hot and humid, like Tiaozhi but not DaQin/Anxi.
Really.Here is description about climate of Da Qin:
...If there are unexpected calamities in the kingdom, such as frequent extraordinary winds or rains...
It's clear that Da Qin had many winds and rains.So it certainly was humid.
I believed that rhinoceros fossils in South India and Sri Lanka came from 3200 BP(1200 BC).However,no scientist could give exact time for rhinoceros at there in the past.Normally,one species could exist more than 2000 years without overhunting of human.So 1200BC to 800AD could be suitable for rhinoceros in South India.Besides,you posted zebu in Iran which lived only from 6th millenium to 4 th millenium BC.It's mean this species was extincted in Iran even 4000 years before the text.
 
Feb 2011
6,379
#49
So according to Le Hoang: DaQin has "unexpected calamities " such as "frequent Wind and rain", so that's the same as Daqin's climate typically being "Hot and humid"? Again, that's just another weak argument.

So let me get this straight, you think Tianzhu isn't India despite it being described as "hot and humid" (amongst many other things, ie Buddhism). Yet you think DaQin is India because you interpret "unexpected calamities " of "frequent wind and rain", to indicate a "hot and humid" climate. Uh-huh. Plus these winds and rains were described to be "unexpected calamities", meaning that "frequent winds and rains" don't happen often, because each time they did DaQin would need to switch rulers.

According to Le Hoang: Rhinos became extinct in South India by 1000 BC = Rhinos still exist in South India during 800 AD?
That type of argument is basically saying what he wants to believe without any logical basis. He believes it because it fits his narrative that Tiaozhi is in South India, but there's no evidence to support the belief beyond wishful thinking.

According to Le Hoang: Zebus became extinct in Iran at 6000-4000 years BCE?
Again, he's just making stuff up now. This is a 4-5th century Sassanid plate showing Zebu cattle, as seen by their humped backs:

From the "Beef Cattle Production Systems": Following these were the humped cattle [zebus], which appeared in the Iran region around 3000 BC.

Let that sink in for a moment. Le Hoang says Iranian zebus were extinct by 6000-4000 BC, yet Iranian zebus first appeared in 3000 BC. He's just saying whatever fits his narrative, irregardless of whether it's true or not, irregardless of whether there's evidence for it or not.

Tianzhu is India, Tiaozhi/DaQin/Anxi is not.
Tianzhu was described as hot and humid, like Tiaozhi but not DaQin/Anxi.
Tianzhu was described to be Buddhist, Tiaozhi/DaQin/Anxi wasn't.
Tianzhu was describe to have war elephants, Tiaozhi/DaQin/Anxi was not. Tiaozhi was described to have rhinos and ostriches which don't exist in Rameswaram as you claim.
Tianzhu was described to be SouthEast of the YueZhi (Central Asia), Tiaozhi/DaQin/Anxi was described to be West of YueZhi (Central Asia). Rameswaram of India is East of Central Asia, ergo TiaoZhi is not India.
Tianzhu was described to be subjugated by the Yuezhi, which Northeastern India was at the time.

Le Hoang, I asked you four times of the below question but you were never able to answer:
Le Hoang, again I ask you: do you have a single academic source saying that DaQin/Anxi/Tiaozhi as recorded in the Hou Han Shu, is describing India?

Le Hoang, I asked you four times of the below question but you were never able to answer:
Le Hoang. Post 41 shows that Anxi (Parthia) was described to be west of Yuezhi (Central Asia), and Tiaozhi was described to be West of Anxi. You say TiaoZhi is Rameswaram in India. Le Hoang, why do you say India is West of Central Asia?
 
Last edited:
May 2012
302
Heaven
#50
Here is rainfall map of Earth.We can see rainfall of ancient Characen region from 101 - 250 mm per year while rainfall near Rameswaram peninsula from 750 - 1000 mm per year.In Middle East and Northen Egypt(Eastern of Roman empire),rainfall are between 0 to 250 mm,except sites that surrounded Mediterranean Sea of Israel,Liban and Syria could reach to 750 - 1000 mm whereas Kochi and Pandyan areas reached to 2000 to 5000 mm annual.So it is very strong argument that Roman can't be Da Qin,Hou Hanshu described climate of ancient Pandya.
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1&layers=0698165058384852b23f31b26ae7cace
 

Similar History Discussions