Talk:Daxia (disambiguation)

Untitled
I think it probably should be merged with the article on Bactria with some cautionary note to the effect that it probably referred to a region that may have changed in size at various periods. I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt that the references to Daxia in the Chinese sources (Shiji, Hanshu and Hou Hanshu) mean the previous Greco-Bactrian state of Bactria).

Also, very important, I think both articles should standardize on one form of romanization - preferably Pinyin. It is too confusing for most readers to use both Pinyin and Wade-Giles in the same article. Perhaps we need a policy on this for the whole of the Wikipedia???

Cheers,

John Hill


 * I'll agree to this. Sean WI 05:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Also the "Tajik comes from Daxia" comment should be shot. That's not the explanation given in either the Tajik article or anywhere else where Tajik is mentioned. Plus it's just plain unlikely; why would explanation for the English term for a group be that it came from the name a third party gave them when the English matches the group's own name in its own language? Is it more likely that "tajik" came from "daxia" which came from "tajik", or that it just came directly from "tajik"?--59.121.204.217 06:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

According to some prominant historian, Ta-Hia are migrated in china from India where they called Dahiya. I think It shound not merge with bacteria page. Dr. J.S.DAHIYA
 * 1) Which historian? 2) Ta-Hsia 3) Bactria, not bacteria.--59.121.204.217 06:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Being that there is such a close interest in both, as a user I'd love to see both articles merged with the appropriate notations to accomodate the differences in Mr. Hill's and Dr. Dahiya's perspectives.

__
 * Hello Mr. Hill! First I think your translations of the Chinese historical sources (i.c. Hou Han-shu) are superbe. About merging Daxia and Bactria. I am sure you are fully aware of the great difficulty in relating chinese name with names in greek/latin and arabic sources or even combining names within the same source. First let me give you a (rather long) quotation from a handbook not just written for the professional Central Asian historian but for the general public also: The Yüeh-chih and their migrations by K.Enoki, G.A.Koshelenko and Z.Haidary from History of civilizations of Central Asia volume II The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations 700 BC to AD 250, Unesco publishing Paris 1994 isbn 92-3-102846-4 p. 173:
 * It is, however, uncertain whether the country of Ta-hsia in Szu-ma Ch'ien means the Bactrian kingdom under the Greeks. According to Szu-ma Ch'ien, the country of Ta-hsia has no big or powerful king but only small chiefs in a number of cities. If the country of Ta-hsia was the Bactrian kingdom, it must have been under a king who controlled the whole of Bactria. Szu-ma Ch'ien also states that the people of Ta-hsia were skilled traders, but their soldiers were weak in warfare and disliked battle, and, for these reasons, Ta-hsia was conquered by the Yüeh-chih. These statements are not applicable to the Greek kingdom of Bactria, whose soldiers seem to have been skilful in fighting. As 'Ta-hsia' is an exact transcription of 'Tochara' (which was the central part of the Bactrian kingdom), if the Yüeh-chih were the Tocahrians, the conquest of Ta-hsia by the Yüeh-chih means the conquest of the country of Tochara by the Tocharians, which seems rather strange. The evidence of Szu-ma Ch'ien shows that Ta-hsia cannot be the Bactrian kingdom, but was the country of Tochara divided into several small political units at the time of the Yüeh-chih invasion.


 * So, first of all, what is meant with Bactria?. Should it be the Greek Kingdom. Your statement (I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt that the references to Daxia in the Chinese sources [...] mean the previous Greco-Bactrian state of Bactria) is disputed by at least one well known historian (Enoki although he presents a minority view). Or should the name Bactria be restricted to just a geographical area without connexion with the states formed on it? If choosing the latter then what is the difference between Bactria and Tocharia. And secondly the same goes for Daxia. Is it the Greek Bactrian Kingdom, just a geographical name or a transcription of Tochara?
 * I really do not know how to combine these views under one heading but I also realise keeping these headings seperate gives a great number of doublets. By the way, the same problem goes for a number of other headings like Wusun and Issedones, or Yuezhi and Tocharians. Besides, but this is trivial, what name should be used, Bactria or Daxia? I am sure each choice will offend readers, but again this is trivial. Regards Guss2 11:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A remark about Pinyin and Wade-Giles. I think article headings should be in pinyin only. But in each introduction, next to the name in chinese should be added once the transcription in Wade-Giles. This makes references to and from the older literature in western languages easier. Guss2 12:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

....................................................................

Dear All:

Isn't great that there is so much interest in this subject? I find that very encouraging. :)

First of all, I totally agree with the remark that the reference to the derivation of 'Tajik' from Daxia should be dropped. Tajik is, apparently, a Middle Persian word meaning 'Arab' (not 'Persian') and was first used in the Tang period to denote 'Arabs' and, specifically, 'Arab Empire.' I have no knowledge of 'Tajik' being used before the Tang era. For these reasons it seems most unlikely there is any real connection between the two names.

About the identification of Daxia with Bactria - there can be little or no doubt that Daxia in the Early Chinese records referred to the region previously controlled by Greco-Bactrians. Now, like most 'states' the territory included under that name varied at times and it was probably used sometimes in a political sense and sometimes in a territorial/geographical sense. I don't think we can be too precise here as things, of course, changed over time. The same holds true for both names - Daxia and Bactria.

It is similar to when we use the name India for the whole peninsula at one time and for just the nation-state of India at others. Similarly, when we talk of 'China' do we include Tibet? Well, sometimes we do, and sometimes we don't - it depends on the context and the period we are talking about.

The history of Bactria/Daxia is very sketchily known and, as the words seem to have been used for much the same region (variable as it was) at much the same period of history, I think it would be best to combine the two articles into one.

There are still many theories and a lot of disagreement between scholars over the derivation of the name Daxia and I think that this could be briefly discussed; but left open for the time being.

I agree with Guss2 that the heading should be in Pinyin to conform with usual practice in the Wikipedia as outlined in | Manual of Style for China Romanization and tones, but it would be very good to also include Wade-Giles forms that may be more recognisable to some readers.

These are my thoughts at the moment. Now, I am extremely busy so I am hoping one of you good people will be able to donate the time and effort (and have the courage) to rewrite the article. Best wishes for it and if I can be of any further help please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

John Hill 03:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)