Talk:Dayuan

Name

There are some controversy in names:

• In most sources I was able to find in the internet, it's 大宛, not 大苑 (e.g. [1]).Also it's unclear from the article, does 宛 look the same in both Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese
• the spelling also varies in different sources: Ta-Yuan or Dawan or even Dayuan and not Dawan [2].

Could somebody clarify these issues? Also I think, that tones should be included for the name, e.g., in hanyu pinyin-style. Cmapm 13:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good catch. I replaced the ideograms. For the tones, somebody in the know will have to do it. PHG 12:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

I noticed this article because it just became a featured article, but I missed it while it was a candidate. I would have made these requests then had I seen it. I know nothing about the topic, so I think I can bring a valuable fresh set of eyes to the article. Specifically the intro is very hard to understand if you don't already know the subject. The biggest problem is the sentence structure in the first paragraph and the fact that I can't find anywhere in the lead or the article that states how long these people were independent or what successors if any they had. If there is simply no information on that that can be noted too. Not mentioning how long the people lasted as a group seems like a major oversight. As to the lead section here is how it reads to me:

The Ta-Yuan (distracting but important details I can skip, no big deal) were a people of Ferghana (What is this? a place, ethnic group, etc?) in Central Asia, described in the ..., following the travels of Zhang Qian in 130 BCE, and the numerous embassies that followed him into Central Asia thereafter.

The sentence structure starting "following the travels..." makes it really hard to tell what is going on. They are a people in Central Asia following the travels of Zhang Qian? Did they exist before 130BCE? After? Are there any sources about them besides the Chinese? There are a lot of great things in the article so don't get me wrong. The above issues just make it hard for a novice to access. - Taxman 20:26, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I find the notation of Ta-Yuan (English?) and Da Wan (han yu pin yin) very confusing. It's similar to the notation for Yun Tun (han yu pin yin) and Wanton (English: similar to chinese dumplings). Perhaps someone who is well read into this area of knowledge comment about the phrase "...suggested that...“Yuan” was simply a transliteration of the words “Yona”, or “Yavana”, used throughout antiquity in Asia to designate Greeks (“Ionians”), so that Ta-Yuan (lit. “Great Yuan”) would mean "Great Ionians"." This is because in Chinese, Da literally means big and it may be infered to be some what similar to great. Similarily, the wikipedia article about Tofu (Doufu) may also be refered by some as TouFu (Wade-Giles); as to Ta Yuan, Da Yuan, Da Wan. I'm confusing right? --Glisteringwaters 17:18, Nov 22, 2005

Ta Yuan does not seem to be pinyin. Given that this is not exactly a common word in English (unlike Tofu or Taoism), wouldn't it sit better with conventions to move to Da Yuan, or Da Wan, whatever is the correct pronunciation? --Sumple (Talk) 07:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yavana it is Javan

{{“2 The sons[a] of Japheth:

Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshek and Tiras.”|Genesis/ 10/2}} Kiss de Băbeni (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Kiss de Băbeni (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Kiss de Băbeni (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Kiss de Băbeni (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

What language did they speak?

Great article! But reading it I became curious about what language the people spoke. I guess it could have been Ancient Greek or some such, but maybe not. If the Ta-Yan language is known, I think the article should mention what it was. And if it isn't known, state so. Shanes 01:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

They (or at least their rulers) probably would have spoken a variation of Macedonian, although especially given their Buddhism I'm guessing that whatever language that was would have had a lot of absorption. Kuralyov 06:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

As Macedonians (a greek tribe - φύλο ), Greek would have been their native language. It was also the language of all other hellenistic kingdomsof the time so I wouldn't expect an exception here (notice the inscription on the coin picture also). Note however that the particular kind of Greek spoken is unlikely to have been the ancient Macedonian dialect (except perhaps for informal purposes). Especially among officials and for all official purposes it was generally Attic Greek which was favored. This practice eventually gave rise elsewhere to the formation of the Hellenistic Koine, the predecessor of Modern Greek.

A dialect of Hellenistic Koine(Greek). In the text it is mentioned that they were mutually intelligible with Greek speakers from abroad Gts-tg (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Indo-European

I am disturbed by the text "urbanized dwellers with Indo-European features" in the article.

"Indo-European" is a linguistic term, and is confusing and inappropriate in referring to people. Did they appear European, Indian, or something else?

The Wikipedia article on Indo-European notes that the term has been extended to cultures and religions, but does not (I'm glad to say) suggest an ethnic application.

"Proto Indo-European" could reasonably be used to designate a people, but is not relevant here by several millennia.

I recommend that the word be changed to either 'Caucasian', or if that term is felt to be dubious, 'European'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinFine (talk • contribs) 12:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree. "Indo-European features" seems to imply that the French and Spanish have those features but the Basques don't, which would be nonsense. I would change it myself, but I don't know what it's supposed to mean exactly. Features like Indians and Europeans? —JerryFriedman 16:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

My edit has been reverted from 'deep set eyes and thick dark beards' to 'Caucasian'. The latter is an anachronistic racial descriptor which is not used in modern scholarly literature, and in any case would not be understood by Zhang Qian, who would have no such collective terms of reference for groups of peoples he had never met. 'Caucasian' - or even 'European' - therefore stretches the interpretation of the source too far, and inappropriately frames it in modern racial concepts that have no ancient currency. I therefore suggest that any racial categorisation be avoided, and that a brief physical description from the Chinese source be used instead. -DT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.185.150 (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Better than me

Thanks to whoever reversed the changes from the porn prank. I didn't know how to do it and was in the middle of trying to just remove the picture Liastnir 14:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Wine

The article states that wine was introduced by the TaYuan after Zhang Qian's visit (in the Han dynasty). But wine has been in China since at least the Shang dynasty (and as far back as the early neolithic, if the recent analysis of those Jiahu vessels is correct). I propose deletion of the statement until a clarification is given. UPDATE: I have commented out that bit so it can be viewed in edit mode. It's in the "Caucasian traits" section.

--SohanDsouza 23:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I mentionned both views in the text. PHG 00:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait a sec. Firstly, it is historical fact, not a research topic, that wine has been in China since the Shang and a while before as well [3][4]. The idea that the neolithics of Jiahu had wine is a more recent contention [5].

Does the Shiji state that the grape or grape wine was brought to China, or that any kind of wine was brought to China? Wine can be made from materials other than grapes, you know. The quote you provided would seem to indicate that it was grapes or grape wine, not wine. That was the clarification I sought.

UPDATE: I have reorganized that area. The Shiji clearly states that grapes and alfalfa were the transmissions, not wine. Other sources corroborate that grapes were just introduced at the time.

This article requires major cleanup. YueZhi is sometimes spelt Yueh-Chih, sometimes Yuezhi, sometimes Yue-Chi. This is just one of the inconsistencies in the artice. --SohanDsouza 00:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for a reference about the possibility that Yuan < Yona

I have often wondered about the statement in the article that: "It has also been suggested that the name “Yuan” was simply a transliteration of the words “Yona”, or “Yavana”, used throughout antiquity in Asia to designate Greeks (“Ionians”), so that Dayuan (lit. “Great Yuan”) would mean "Great Ionians"."

Can anyone please give me a reference for this statement? Many thanks, John Hill 03:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi John. I answered a while ago on your talk page. It is still there. The issue was apparently debated by Willie p28 ("Notes on the Western regions", and de Groot p64 ("Chinesische Urkunden zur Geschichte Asiens"), quoted by Tarn. Best regards. PHG 12:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Tarn cites those references in connection with the mention of a Xiao Yuan in the Book of Han, rather than directly on the etymology of Dayuan. (The cited page of Wylie contains the translated paragraph on Xiao Yuan; I don't have access to de Groot.) It seems that the only reliable mention of this suggested etymology found so far is the dismissive statement of Tarn:

Naturally I agree with those who have said that Ta-yuan does not mean 'the great land of the Yavanas'; it is enough that the Ch'ien-han-shu knows of a 'little Yuan', Siao-yuan, in the Tarim basin, which had nothing to do with Greeks.

— W. W. Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and India (1938), p. 474

The passing reference in a book on entomology[6] is inadequate, especially as the paragraph in question has no references and postdates Wikipedia's dissemination of the idea. Kanguole 11:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@John Hill: The proposal that Yuan is a transliteration of Yavana 'Greeks' was first made by Edkins. It was taken up by

• Lacouperie, citing Edkins,
• Hirth, citing Edkins,
• Yetts, citing Hirth and Lacouperie.

It is mentioned as a possibility by Grousset, citing Yetts. It is rejected by

• Tarn ("no ground in fact whatever")
• Laufer ("eccentric")
• Pulleyblank ("hardly necessary to refute")

Kanguole 16:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dayuan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041227112640/http://www.upf.es:80/materials/huma/central/historia/xinamon/docums/zhangqi.htm to http://www.upf.es/materials/huma/central/historia/xinamon/docums/zhangqi.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Relationship between Dayuan and the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom

Over at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous we have been asked a question for which we don't have a ready answer. I have posted it below in the hope that somebody here can help... Alansplodge (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

According to the Dayuan article on an ancient urban kingdom based completely it seems on Chinese sources, it was a great power north of Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. But the article Greco-Bactrian Kingdom although mentioning Chinese sources and references to Dayuan does not acknowledge this other kingdom to its north and in the main map it appears that the area of Dayuan was part of the Greco-Bactrian empire. How to account for this seeming contradiction? Is the Greco Bactrian Kingdom article simply short on detail and Dayuan was a relatively independent vassal that could generally be counted as part of the Greco Bactrian holdings but also a power in its own right? Muzzleflash (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The Greeks and Chinese knew little of these distant lands. Their reports often contradict. When Zhang Qian was there the Yuezhi had already pushed the Greeks far to the south. Perhaps Dayuan became independent when the Greeks left and the Yuezhi left the 'king' in place or collected tribute. There is no indication that the 'kingdom of Dayuan' was ever a great power. Starr and Baumer do not help. Possibly Tarn or some other historian of the Greco-Bactrians might have something. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• OrdosAncientCeremonialBronzeFinialWithStandingHorse.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)