Talk:Silk Road/Archives/2012

Vandalism
I just cleaned up some ugly vandalism and looking at the history, people have been messing with it lately. --5lithy 04:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone put BIG BALLS ARE SWEATY as a paragraph title. Can someone change it back? I don't know how. Thanks. Pgrote 18:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Yeah, someone should change it. That definitely needs to be changed... --Asaroyal81 (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Recently, virtually all edits are vandalism and vansalism reverts. Shouldn't we ask the administrators to semi-protect the article, so that it can not be edited by non-registered users?--Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

nomination?
this is a fine article. someone should nominate it.

What about diseases being traded/transferred amongst traders on the silk road???

bills of lading, principal goods?
Aside from, presumably, silk, what particular material goods and/or services passed along the Silk Road? Items of commerce? Silk, spices, slaves? What else?

after the Takla-Makan desert
Does any one know more about the stops made along the road after the taklamakan desert?


 * Some of the cities along that route are summed up in the artice under "From Anxi, China to Xi'an, China"
 * More info can be gathered on:
 * * http://www.cnto.org/silkroad-gansu.asp
 * * http://www.cnto.org/silkroad.asp
 * * http://www.travelingo.org/asia/china/tree/
 * ZZyXx 22:00, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

If you want know about the silk road I recomend http://www.ess.uci.edu/~oliver/silk.html and http://www.silk-road.com/toc/. If you want to know about a city look up Gansu, China on WikipediA.

Persian Empire & Chinese trade from Xiaking and the importance of Pakistan
The Archemenid Empire stretched into the lands which constitute modern day Pakistan. This article states northern india which is not factual. I dont know if this is due to vandalism. Also, trade from China's western provinces, passed through Central Asia, and directly through Pakistan's northern areas and Afghanistan where the major focal point for the commerce was the city of Taxilla, again in modern day Pakistan. Pakistan's role in the ancient silk route and as a major sea port of naval exchange as well as onward transport of goods was a vital link in the success of the Silk Route and this point needs to be stressed on more in the article. Thanks. Solomon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.208.153 (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Add Scyths
As the tall, trouser wearing, red haired, blue eyed Scythians rolled in their chariots approx 2,500 BC all the way to Mongolia, their carving out the Silk road frm the West to the East should be added (see their burials with horses and chariots and red hair, etc). And beginning 2,000 BC, they conquered from NW India to Ceylon by 1000 BC. And updating the beginning of Silk trade to the more accurate time frame of 800 BC when the Greeks began to wear flowing silk tunics and robes AND the Celts began to inscribe the skyering patterns on bronze mirror blanks brought along the silk road. Shaman O de Steppes (aka brake my knees so I fly) 69.121.221.97 (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

China considered most prosperous in 19thC?
The article said "As late as the beginning of the 19th century, China was still considered the most prosperous and sophisticated of any civilization on earth."

An Adam Smith quote from 1776 was presented as evidence, but I'm worried that the perception of China's wealth might have differed from person to person, from place to place. Since we already said that China was prosperous, why add such a categorical and controversial assertion?

For one thing, whether China actually was the richest country at such a late date is uncertain - Angus Maddison estimated that in 1760, the per capita incomes of Britain and France were $233 and $198, respectively, whereas that of India and China were only $123 and $118 (A. Maddison, A comparison of levels of GDP per capita in developed and developing countries, 1700-1980. Journal of Economic History 43(1): 27–41)

I realize we're dealing mostly with perceptions ("China was considered the most prosperous"), but still the reader might get the wrong idea. 61.221.30.167 9 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)


 * The point is that China was a magnet of European expansionism, because of its perceived wealth and refinement, until the beginning of the 19th century. The 18th-19th century was a turning point: until then it was quite certainly more prosperous than the West, after then it was probably less prosperous. Also the West's perception changed dramatically after the Industrial Revolution, when the West came to be considered superior (politically and economically), although China remained valued as a huge market. Please add to the text if you wish, but do not reverse something which a perfectly true, rather well known, and key to the dynamic of East-West trade in history.
 * Another estimate of per capita GNP for 1800 by the economist Bairoch: "The per capita GNP for China in 1800 is (1960) US$228... France and England range from 150-200US$ in the 18th century." (Andre Gunter Frank, ReOrient, "Global Economy in the Asian Age", p173). Also Asia represented about 80% of World GNP in 1750 (Braudel, Bairoch).PHG 22:53, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have read that china was much porer than the european contries since the XV century, for example, in england per capita production of iron in 1800 was 10 kg, and in china was only 1 kg. Adam Smith said that it was actually very poor in per capita income.

"The accounts of all travellers, inconsistent in many other respects, agree in the low wages of labour, and in the difficulty which a labourer finds in bringing up a family in China. If by digging the ground a whole day he can get what will purchase a small quantity of rice in the evening, he is contented. The condition of artificers is, if possible, still worse. Instead of waiting indolently in their work–houses, for the calls of their customers, as in Europe, they are continually running about the streets with the tools of their respective trades, offering their service, and as it were begging employment." Wealth of Nation Vol.I, pg 108

"The poverty of the lower ranks of people in China far surpasses that of the most beggarly nations in Europe. In the neighbourhood of Canton many hundred, it is commonly said, many thousand families have no habitation on the land, but live constantly in little fishing boats upon the rivers and canals. The subsistence which they find there is so scanty that they are eager to fish up the nastiest garbage thrown overboard from any European ship. Any carrion, the carcase of a dead dog or cat, for example, though half putrid and stinking, is as welcome to them as the most wholesome food to the people of other countries. Marriage is encouraged in China, not by the profitableness of children, but by the liberty of destroying them. In all great towns several are every night exposed in the street, or drowned like puppies in the water. The performance of this horrid office is even said to be the avowed business by which some people earn their subsistence." Wealth of Nation Vol.I, pg 109 --201.11.209.249 16:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * recent (2011) TV shows ab China wages revealed teen girls living 4 to a cell like room with shared toilet and doing their laundry in buckets in the hall, explaining that they worked 7 days a week 20 hours a day for 30 / month (or 1 dollar a day divided by that 20 hours day = nickel or 5 cents an hour) and that they received a single "bun" per day from their company. These extreme low wages are lower than anywhere except the 5-10 yr olds working for dime a day in India; and in both places, the profits from this essentially slave labor goes to the elite - in China to the Army and Party structure to be salted away in Switzerland (80 %) while 20 %, 2 trillion held in US securities is touted as evidence of a great advance in modern economics, instead of simply proof of a slave nation breaking the backs of its slaves to enrich a handful of generals and party apparatchikz at the top; while in India , the slaves "profits" enrich slave owners. the great khan's con 69.121.221.97 (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Maritime Route
I'd argue strongly that the definition of the Silk Road excludes the maritime route between China and India. Not only is the maritime route traditionally defined as part of the Silk Road, but it carried different products, by different technologies, and was if anything a competitor to the Silk Road. The article provides little content on the maritime route, not even listing basic information such as the significance of Srivijaya or the impact of Chinese and Indian merchants in Southeast Asia. The maritime route needs its own article. Alan 15:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Roy Lee
From April 2005 on, this article has seen many edits from, his 4.241.*.* IP range, or his most recent account. Edits by this user often have introduced self-referential original research and speudo-scientific viewpoints into other articles. Examples of articles where this has been recognized and reverted include Sahara, Predynastic Egypt, Mende (tribe), and Ancient Egypt (some more examples). This user has mostly avoided discussion and just keeps adding his POV silently. The editing pattern of this user has been scrutinized by several editors at User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee. As it says there, "while some contributions are uncontroversial, editors are encouraged to examine edits by this user carefully." Now that Silk Road has been elevated to the status of 'good article' I am very curious to know whether al information has been fact-checked and has been confirmed to be notable, reliable, and verifiable. &mdash; mark &#9998; 12:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Are their regular editors here, who have noticed the extensive edits of Roylee and 4.241.*.* IP's and who can comment on their verifiability and notability? &mdash; mark &#9998; 09:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * For example, this one, and the entirety of Silk Road transmission of Art. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   21:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Bukhara
Bukhara is not mentioned in this article, and as I do not know whether it's on the main route or what, I don't think I am the one to add the reference. Would someone more studied than me be willing? Thanks. Bou 17:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Bou. To the best I can see by map in the Silk Road article, Bukhara was indeed on a spur of the Silk Road, but was not on a major route. While Bukhara definitely had regional importance, I haven't been able to find any information about Bukhara playing a major role in the history of the Silk Road as a whole. Justin Eiler 18:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

there should be more about bronze weapons

Article removed from Good articles
This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because many statements are unreferenced and unverified. See also the section 'Roy Lee' above. I'm repeating my request above. Interested editors might want to consult Requests for comment/Roylee for more information on Roylee's edits and the problems they cause for Wikipedia's verifiability. &mdash; mark &#9998; 14:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Origins
Interesting text about Ancient transport, Egyptian maritime trade and British tin, but does it really describe the Silk Road? The cedar of Lebanon, the copper of Sinai and the tin of Cornwall were hardly traded with China along the Silk Road.

There is evidence that Ancient Egyptian explorers may have originally cleared and protected some branches of the Silk Road. I strongly disbelieve the predynastic Egyptians built and protected the Silk Road, at least the "evidence" needs. I see why the article was removed from Good article.--JFK 09:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence above since the user´s lack of reliable sources was pointed out for me at another talk page. --JFK 15:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Just go back and undo his edits. If he's known to be a problem elsewhere, he's not going to change here. Don't let his filth ruin good articles.

Era Format
I've set the era format in this article to use BC where appropriate. I've removed references to CE and AD, neither of which are required to clarify a year from 1 onwards. Prior to these changes this article had a hotch-potch of styles, mainly BC/AD but with a significant element of CE/BCE. This looked ridiculous and was certainly unencyclopaedic. The first use of era terms in an edit preferred AD; reference to AD 1 was made. With that in mind, I've standardised to the use of BC (but not AD) throughout. This seems eminently sensible because it removes reference to AD, which some people don't like, and also removes CE which most people don't know about. BC should not be a problem because it is understandable and does not make a statement in the same way that AD arguably does. BC releates to a person who did exist and whose birth is the basis of the calendar used in this article. The reverts carried out by User:PHG make no sense - they revert to an inferior version, and also removed some minor, uncontentious, edits as well. Please note, this is not an article about religion. Arcturus 16:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag
With due respect to previous contributors, I've tagged this article for a grammar and syntax cleanup - large parts of it seem to have been written by a non-English speaker, and there is a degree of awkwarness. If I have time over the next day or two I may do the job myself - though perhaps it could be done by an expert in the subject at the same time as a comprehensive review of citations and sources? Bedesboy 20:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

as i know silkroad goes through turkey...this is not included

Religion and culture
This entry on the silk route does well for its concise nature. The majorital lack of reference to religion requires attention.

Tocharians and their influence on the silk road
The Tocharians are supposed to have been a major influence in China during the beginning of the Silk Road and obviously they established it, having come all the way from Europe. The thousands of Europeans found buried along the silk road (since 1977 - though the Chinese government put a stop to that in 1998) and Chinese documents which speak of the blond haired blue eyed leaders indicates strongly it was them. How come there is no mention in this article?

Also, I've heard of impressive abandoned structures still standing today by the Silk Road. It would be nice if someone could obtain a picture for Wikipedia. JettaMann 02:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just revisiting this article. I propose in the "Origins" section for the Silk Road that the Tocharians should play a more prominent role or at least be mentioned. Since they are the ones who initiated outside contact with China, travelling from West to East, the evidence seems very strong that they are the ones who established the Silk Road trade routes. Does everyone agree with this? JettaMann 19:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Tocharians were probably already living in Central Asia at the time that significant trade started (this concept of "coming from the West to establish trade" is ahistorical) -- but yes, the portion of the route connecting China and the Mediterranean was originally a Tocharian-Persian phenomenon. Also see Kushan Empire. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.6.235.83 (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Removed Foreign Translations
I removed the paragraph with foreign translations of the name "Silk Road".

I can see the logic of giving the name in the languages of countries along the route, but:


 * it ends up ridiculously cumbersome and unreadable
 * the modern languages of Central Asia aren't really pertinent to the ancient route
 * lots of historically pertinent languages like Tocharian and Classical Greek weren't included
 * the list included the irrelevant non-route languages Hungarian, Danish and Polish, and seems to be bait for any foreign language speaker to add their own language's version (one Wikipedist loves adding Ge'ez versions to any article)
 * we don't, for example, in the India article list the version of the name "India" in every language that has legal status in that country
 * and if we just include the fairly relevant Chinese versions, every other nationality will complain.

As removed:

In other languages, it is called – Ipäk Yolu; Georgian: აბრეშუმის დიდი გზა; İpekyolu; Великий Шёлковый Путь;  (Vělikij Šjolkovyj Put' ); Մետաքսի ճանապարհ; ; Râh-e Abrisham; Жибек жолу ; Жібек жолы; Selyemút; Wielki Jedwabny Szlak; Danish: Silkevejen;

And BTW, if any foreign versions are to be included, what would actually be useful to the English reader is the literal meaning of the terms in the other languages, like "Great Camel Track"... or whatever it actually means.hi

Anti-Chinese remarks
This part caught my attention as POV and frankly unfair:

Chinese people helped build the Silk Road; they bought and sold with others, constructed their cultural beliefs, and tried to see themselves as not the center of the world. On one hand, the Chinese not only transported their distinguish goods but also bad things along the Silk Road, which also included some diseases. On the other hand, the complex relationships between the religion and the new culture were getting more clear.

And what does the last sentence mean, anyway? Dawidbernard 17:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed these statements in the "Central Asian commercial & cultural exchanges" section. They don't seem as extremely relevant contents in my opinion, and was possibly added randomly by a user. Anyway, they are pretty badly written, repetitive and unreferenced, so there is not much importance in keeping these informations.--Balthazarduju 07:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The name "Silk Road"
What is the history of the name "Silk Road"? I mean, it's clear how it originated semantically, but WHEN did this name originate? How far back can it be traced? --Iustinus 23:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 'The first person who used the term was the German geographer Ferdinand von Richthofen in 1877' Third paragraph of the article, just before the contents table. HalfShadow 23:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dammit! I had a feeling someone would tell me it was in the article and I'd somehow missed it. Thanks! --Iustinus 16:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Might be more useful to ask if the gimicky term has any validity amongst academics today. I hope it doesn't.Meowy 21:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Disuse during the period of Three Kingdoms
I read in the Early Kingdoms of the Indonesian Archipelago and the Malay Peninsula by Paul M. Munoz that the Silk Road fell into disused in the third century CE when the Chinese was caught in the period of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. That encouraged the development sea routes and contributed to the rise of Funan as well as other kingdoms like Pan Pan and Langkasuka. This Wikipedia article however does not mention does. Perhaps, we could put it in? __earth (Talk) 12:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Clean up the article
Article should be reorganized. Origin section is too long and has several duplications with history section. I think we can effectively shorten this section to 2-3 paragraphs. I have already shortened some parts such as Chinese exploration of Central Asia. It was too long and we have already good articles on these issues which I referred to them as the main article. No need to repeat every information which are available in the main articles. I also added some new references. However, the article still needs more improvement, especially in the sections of cultural and artistic exchanges.-- behmod  talk  14:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But, Silk road is be world-famous road--123.16.69.18 (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete second map?
Seeing that we have two fine maps in the article, the third one "Silk road.jpg" in the paragraph "The great explorers: Europe reaching for Asia" seems kind of superfluous, especially since it is clearly of inferior quality (e.g. Shanghai is not worth mentioning for that period). So can we delete it? Taniquetil 14:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would second that deletion - two maps would seem sufficient and the third doesn't seem to add anything new. John Hill 23:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

this article has really improved
One way Buddhist spread was through the silk routes and oasis towns   around  Tarim  Basin such as Miran (China) and Turfan, taken to avoid the Taklamakan Desert. These were an important east-meets-west locations and were bustling trading center. Lots of good archeological sites there. – Mattisse (Talk) 18:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of this article has nothing to do with the Silk Road
Now that I have read several good books on the Silk Road, I realize that most of this article has nothing to do with the Silk Road. The whole article needs to be reorganized and rewritten, in my opinion. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with the above; as a for instance: what the heck has the completion of the latest rail link replacing the old Silk Road to do with "Routes taken"??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.180.65 (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Map of 1st Century CE
The Map of silk road routes in the first century CE seems suspect. For example, it includes Constantinople, which wasn't founded till the 4th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.171.30 (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Constantinople was previously Byzantium, which was founded in 667 BC. Peacedance (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Silk Road → Silk routes &mdash; Move as silk road only refers to the overland route — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.13.181 (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is one concept, and phrase, and should have one article. If somebody writes an article on sea trade in silk, we should link, but I see no advantage to merging, especially with this article at 70K. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this is the common name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose IAW WP:COMMONNAME — V = I * R  (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Old maritime silk route
One of the maritime silk routes is not precisely shown on either of the maps; this route runs from Basra, to Taheri (Siraf), Suhar, Khambhat, Kollam, Galle, Banda Atjeh, Singapore, Guanghzou ref= http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/06/tang-shipwreck/worrall-text/2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.13.181 (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this article about general trade routes or silk trade routes
The lead doesn't make it clear. If it is about silk trade routes,then a lot of the material in the article which is not about silk trade routes needs to go. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy & original research
No one has responded to my question above, so I'm tagging the article -- is it accurate to say that the routes mentioned have all been called silk routes? Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the way this article is written now, it's more like "The History of trade and travel between the East Asia and West Asia/Europe", rather the just the history of the specific set of overland routes (say, from Iran to Kazakhstan/Xinjiang to Northern China) which, methinks, is what the term "the Silk Road" has traditionally referred to. Vmenkov (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been under the impression lately that the "Silk Road" was a name for multiple routes, and I happen to coincidentally be attending a lecture by Dr. Sarah Milledge Nelson called "Korea and the Silk Road" in which she specifically refers to them as 'multiple "Silk Roads"' though she points out the desert routes are more traditionally known as the Silk Road. Of course this isn't a valid source but it is a call to not be hasty in cutting back this article. :) Maybe you can find Dr. Millege Nelson's book? - BalthCat (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is still the case though that any route in the article should have been referred to as a silk road by a reliable source, or else we should retitle the article. Dougweller (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not about silk trade routes, it's about historic trade spanning from Europe to East Asia that prominently featured silk. Are there any specific points in the article that are highly suspect of being original research or balatantly inaccurate?Synchronism (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few sections which don't mention silk at all. Why should they be in the article if there is no evidence that the routes were used for the silk trade? And if this article is not about silk trade routes why does it mention silk in the title? Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "don't mention silk at all"= original research, or how removing discussion of contextually relevant non-silk trade would improve the accuracy of the coverage of this topic. I don't think the tags you have added to the whole article are accurate, it seems to me that you think this article should be renamed. Perhaps the best template for that is Template:Move .Synchronism (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "Silk Road" is a crass modern invention, a gimmick mostly used for simplistic touristic or political purposes. A better (because it is more accurate) title would be something like "International medieval trade routes". Meowy 20:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Silk Road(s) or Silk Route(s)?
I see that the old question about the appropriate name(s) for these routes has arisen again. User: Dougweller has correctly pointed out that the names used for them are not completely accurate. In my new book, Through the Jade Gate to Rome, pp. xiii-xiv I discuss the names and why I prefer to use "Silk Routes" to "Silk Road" - even though the latter is the most commonly used in English:

"The German terms “Seidenstraße” and “Seidenstraßen”- ‘the Silk Road(s)’ or ‘Silk Route(s) were first used in 1877 by Baron Ferdinand von Richthofen, who made seven expeditions to China from 1868 to 1872. Elisseeff (1998), pp. 1-2; Waugh (2007), p. 4.


 * “Baron Ferdinand von Richthofen may have lost his mountain range [the Qilian Range which he had named after himself], but the name he had coined still marked the trade routes from China to the West: the Silk Road. He had dubbed the old caravan routes with that title in 1877. Since then they had remained known, in all languages, as the Silk Road. The routes were several but their names had become one. Ssu Kung-lu, the Chinese said: the Silk Road. Across the desert regions where the camel caravans laid their courses, the Uighur people would point to all routes westward and say: Yipek Yoli ― the Silk Road. Only the routes themselves continued to offer diversity. The caravans travelling out from China had travelled in several directions, diverging and converging; moving across the desert from oasis to oasis seeking trade but also seeking the water and food, protection and shelter, the brief security afforded by the oasis city khanates, for a price. Such routes, despite such meanderings, had become three within the heartland: the Southern, the Middle and the Northern; aged in that order. Beyond the heartland’s steppes and deserts, across the high mountains that were the roof of the world, the trade routes converged and diverged again; but wherever their ancient land courses led, they remained the Silk Road.” Martyn (1987), p. 95.

As Martyn notes, much of the long journey between China and the West was made over rough tracks formed by the passage of camel caravans and were often quite unsuited for wheeled traffic, and can hardly be called “roads.” I prefer the term ‘Silk Routes’, as this allows for the inclusion of the extensive and simultaneous development of trans-oceanic trade in the 1st to 3rd centuries CE, which saw regular large-scale commercial activity right across the Indian Ocean for the first time.


 * “The use of the plural above, ‘Silk Routes’ rather than the more familiar ‘Silk Road’, is deliberate. We are not dealing with a single entity like Watling Street or the Appian Way, but with a complex network of roads and tracks reaching right across Eurasia. There are some permanent nodes in the network, such as Ch’ang-an where much of the silk was produced and Rome where much of it was consumed; but the line taken by a particular caravan depended on the weather, the economic situation and the political situation, any of which might change with surprising suddenness.” Sitwell (1984), p. 174.

Hope this helps bring some clarity to a murky subject. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This is indeed very helpful. I think we need to change the title, either to something like Silk routes which I prefer as it gives the article a focus (and remove the routes where there is no evidence of silk trade), or to something general that doesn't mention silk at all. John, when did the silk trade actually begin (if you can give a date)? Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Put away your scalpel. The point of the above explanation was that "the Silk Road" IS a term for a collection of trade routes across Asia, which happened to be some of the routes via which silk came to Europe.  Most people refer to these routes as "The Silk Road," a singular proper noun.  They may be wrong, but Wikipedia is not about correcting misconceptions via article titles.  The proper approach here would be the have a strong introductory section to the article which clarifies such issues.  To be honest, the article appears to do just that fairly well already.  (See "Overview," paragraph 1) I read/heard/absorbed stories about the Silk Road as a child and never ever assumed that "The Silk Road" was only a path for silk, but always took it to include the transfer of tea, spices, people and ideas, etc.  To start hacking at the article to make sure the word "silk" is mentioned in every last route or reference would be a mistake and a huge waste of time. - BalthCat (talk) 07:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But how much sense does it make to call something a Silk Road before there was a trade in silk? That's just confusing. Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not everyone on the Oregon Trail went to Oregon, the Pan American Highway doesn't connect the two Americas by road. People drive on parkways and park on driveways. There are Interstate Highways in Hawaii. Freeways can be tolled. Expressways may have stoplights. The San Diego Freeway is in Los Angeles.  Carriages are not permitted on some dual carriageways, (Motorways).


 * For whatever the many reasons, the lexicon of transportation is ripe with counterintuitive semantics, in English at least. I can see how it'd be confusing, but I think it's something many people are prepared for, especially given the capatalization, marking it as being a proper noun, and not a generic concept.Synchronism (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply
First, to answer User:Dougweller's question to me: silks began arriving in the Medierranean region in quantity during the latter half of the first century BCE. An industry quickly developed along the Lebanese coast and in Egypt unpicking the heavy Chinese brocades and weaving the threads into light, semi-transparent gauzes. These quickly became popularised after Cleopatra made them fashionable:


 * "Her white breasts shine through the Sidonian thread which tightly made by Seres’ comb, the Nile needle loosens, opening up the strands by stretching out the cloth.” Lucan (39-65 CE), p. 210."

As the 3rd century Weilüe records, some of these light silk cloths were re-exported to China where they had, apparently, not yet learned how to weave such fine fabrics.

While it is true that not all the goods carried on the "Silk Road" or "Silk Routes" were silk, this amazing fabric certainly made up the bulk of the cargo coming from China to the West (it was an almost perfect trade item - light, durable, rare, desirable, and able to be manufactured in an amzing array of forms and colours). And, as we have just seen - it even made up part of the cargo travelling in the other direction. No, I think it is fair enough to describe the routes under the name of the predominant trade item. I can't see this as being misleading. Surely no one would imagine that only amber was carried along the Amber routes, or Lapis lazuli along the Lapis lazuli routes, or spices along the "Spice Route? Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with this, just with the idea of routes not used to carry silk at all being called Silk road/routes. It's basically the 'Prehistory' section that I see as problematic (which I note is not actually just prehistory, it is pre-Hellenistic and uses some contemporary historical sources. Perhaps if we retitled this 'earlier trade routes' or something? Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds sensible to me. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Information Source
The American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan just started an exhibition on 'The Silk Road' which will last until August 2010. Their sources and artifacts may be useful.````

Masking India with 'South Asia' is wrong.
I am writing this to explain why I made the edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silk_Road&diff=326147453&oldid=326132065

1. Take this line in the original "dwellers from China, South Asia, Persia and Mediterranean countries for almost 3,000 years". It refers to historic regions. There is no such thing as an ancient historic region called "South Asia," as there was India, for 5000 years of recorded history, and highly prominently so for the 3000 year period where the other regions in this list were also prominent. I had changed it to "Indian Subcontinent" (which was the European term for the geographical region), but I think "Ancient India" is the most appropriate one. I will make that change in my next edit.

2. The same applies to "China, South Asia, Asia Minor and the Mediterranean"

3. Next let us look at "great civilizations of China, South Asia, Egypt, Persia, Arabia, and Rome." Again, there is no such thing as "South Asian" civilization as there was/is a (great) Indian civilization (which imparted many things to many of the other civilizations mentioned here, such as linguistics, the Buddhist religion, mathematics, not to mention India's economic dominance in the world, along with China, for the entire period of interest here, through 1700.)

PatGallacher wrote in undoing my edit the following: "South Asia is a less loaded term than the Indian subcontinent - rv". Pat, it isn't about some peoples' political sensitivities, as it should be about the integrity of the wikipedia as a place for accurate and non-politicized documentation. South Asia is a term invented to knock off the term "Indian Subcontinent" in an obvious attempt to deny India its identity and undermine its far-reaching contributions to the human civilization. If China isn't replaced everywhere with "East Asia", how is it justified to replaced "India/Indian/Indian Subcontinent" everywhere with "South Asia?" Especially in the context of ancient India, you simply have no choice but to refer to India as India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsz4 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Version diff after my new edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silk_Road&diff=326160199&oldid=326147453 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsz4 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

well all the routes in East Asia, are now in Peoples Republic of China, but not all routes of South Asia are in Republic of India. Ancient India referred to in the article is a region, but it gets confused with the modern day Republic of India. Using South Asia clarifies that confusion. regards --Hussain (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a sprawling mess
After listening to the current In Our Time (IOT) podcast (summarised here), I came here hoping to supply a few minor details to the article. But I have to give up on that. This article has such an expanded definition of the Silk Road that it is pointless to contribute. Two or three major issues need to be addressed:
 * Maritime trading routes should be described elsewhere (with the image at right replaced to reflect that).  The three academic experts on IOT didn't include the maritime routes except to mention that their growth played a role in ending the heyday of the Silk Road.
 * The article should be centered chronologically (but not limited) to the period of time when the Sogdians were major traders and a pidgin version of their language was dominant along the route.
 * The trading begun during the Han Dynasty due to the Han interest in the large horses of the nomads has been mentioned as a good starting point for the Silk Road.
 * While maritime routes should not be included, the trading of other things besides silk must be included, and other influences of the Silk Road beyond trading should also be addressed, as long as they occurred during the centuries that the Silk Road flourished. One such example is the Silk Road transmission of Buddhism.

I've probably omitted other key details but this article is such a mess that it would be better to start with the most narrow definition and expand it carefully with references than to left it as broad and murky as it is right now. 67.100.125.47 (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC).


 * By all means improve the article by expanding and correcting it where neccessary. To Reply to your points:


 * Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, in this case just because someone doesn't say x when talking about topic y, does not mean that x is not true about y.
 * Why that particular focus?
 * The article says that, you could add text to emphasize or go in to more detail.
 * I agree to an extent, but background information about the topic is essential for a comprehensive understanding.


 * I agree that the article needs general cleanup,Synchronism (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to work on it, but I can't contribute my small collection of referenced details until someone with a deeper background in the topic performs a significant cleanup. And when really basic aspects of the article don't align with the narrative the three academicians on IOT provided, it's hard to find places to sensibly add the interesting details they brought up.  67.100.222.224 (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello there, I created the updated version of the map. I just saw this discussion here. I am no expert on the Silk Route topic but from my understanding I agree that the maritime trade routes should be explained elsewhere. Anyway, if there is a consensus here to change the map in any way, leave me a not on my talk page and I'll update it.  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 12:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ancient India and South Asia
user:Hussain* is but the latest in the POV warriors who intermittently go about changing "ancient India" or "Indian subcontinent" to "South Asia." I understand that they bristle less with their replacement characterizations, but Wikipedia is not here to be least offensive to various groups of editors. Wikipedia is beholden only to the reliable sources. They prefer "ancient India" to "ancient South Asia" by an overwhelming margin (in the context of the Silk Road). Compare the 6 Google Books hits for "silk road" and "ancient South Asia" (half of which simply list two books with that title) with the 83 books for "ancient india" and "silk road".  What about "ancient Pakistan?" There are only 4 references that refer to ancient Pakistan in the context of the Silk Road.
 * Here is Encyclopaedia Britannica's history section on India: "The Indian subcontinent, the great landmass of South Asia, is the home of one of the world’s oldest and most influential civilizations. In this article, the subcontinent, which for historical purposes is usually called simply “India,” is understood to comprise the areas of not only the present-day Republic of India but also the republics of Pakistan (partitioned from India in 1947) and Bangladesh (which formed the eastern part of Pakistan until its independence in 1971). For the histories of these latter two countries since their creation, see Pakistan and Bangladesh." Except for a handful, of mostly Pakistani historians, pretty much every historian uses this terminology.  For example, it is called "British India," not "British South Asia."  The Britannica India article is written by some of the best-known historians of south asia.
 * As for your map question (in user:Hussain*'s edit summary), what does the main map in this very article, Silk Road, say? South Asia?  Ancient Pakistan?  No, it says "India."  There are thousands of such maps.  The DSAL atlas (Joe Schwatzenberg) has many "ancient India" maps (don't let the the "South Asia" in the name belie my point.)  Consider the ancient civilizations map, what do they mean by "northwest India" there?  They mean present-day Pakistan.  Believe me, I've been there, I know the sources.  Please don't waste yours and everyone else's time.  I guarantee you you won't go anywhere with this.  This is a tired argument, which turns up every few months on Wikipedia, with every new combatant firmly convinced that they've discovered the real underlying truth.  The bottom line is that "South Asia" is a contemporary political science term.  As I've indicated (in the Google search above), it is not a historical term.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Fowler how convenient it is for you to argue the case for Indian subcontinent on this page while citing that majority of the references support this, whereas going to warrior the cause of using Karakorum as the location of all eight thousanders instead of the countries the mountain peaks are while just citing one source for it and ignoring the hundred of sources which go against it.

DOuble standards .....???111.68.96.98 (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No thievery accounts? Can't believe that.
Well first I should start commenting why I'm interested in the article, I'm a big fan of the game Silk Road Online, basically I already heard about the Silk Roads back in history class, so I was interested in finding out more about what I like (I'm always interested in the historical, political and logical standpoints of stuff), anyway since there were so many high quality goods being transported over such large distances, I'm seriously amazed to find out that no one wrote any sections on thievery or illegal things being transported, there can't seriously be a shortage on information about that can it? I mean its relevant and interesting, so why is the article so fully developed already but there is still no such a thing in it? I think Its about time someone started researching this, and working that aspect of the Silk Road into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.80.51 (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Etymology Section is Redundant
It seems like the Etymology section is just a reprint of the stuff in the opening paragraph. Personally, I'd delete it, but I don't want to do that unilaterally. 75.73.125.128 (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Silkroad Online
I removed a section consisting of a poorly written short comment about Silkroad Online the game, rather than attempting to correct the grammar/caps etc..., because I don't think a section in the article is justified for that.

I didn't add a See Also link, because I'm not even sure that's justified, and the game can be found through the disambig link - but I'm leaving this note in case anyone feels differently and wants to discuss it  -  Begoon (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Zephyr?
Is it really necessary to mention Zephyr, the west wind? I have looked online, and i cannot find any mention of him, and it seems it is just a random comment. Maybe someone should consider removing it? 74.131.128.210 (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC) John

Will do. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What a mess!
Somehow this article has got all jumbled and I tried just now to make some corrections, add some quotation needed tags, etc., and then the computer did some weird things removing all that I had done ande a lot of other text as well, so, as I don't have time to fight with it now, I just rolled it back to its previous (very unsatisfactory state), and will try to get back to do some serious editing soon. Among many other problems is the fact that it now sounds like the only "Silk Road(s)" were those that ran from China to Rome and the whole article (to me at least) seems practically incomprehensible. Do others feel the same way? If so, can we try together to get this article "up to scratch" and readable? Any help would be most appreciated. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This sounds like an interesting project. I will take a look and get back. Some specific pointers on the most helpful modes of attack would be appreciated. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.77.91.133, 3 March 2011
I found some valuable info in my school book and u may add it if u wish, the silk road was originally supposed to be only within the forbidden city.

74.77.91.133 (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your suggestion. However, before we can add that sort of information to the article, you would need to provide a reliable source that verifies that the silk road was supposed to be only within the forbidden city. The book title, author, isbn, the page number, and an exact quote would be helpful. Thanks! --rgpk (comment) 21:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's likely that a school book would not meet WP:RS; high school textbooks are not reliable sources. However, if the book is a "normal" academic book, then we may be able to include it. I'm going to untransclude this, and if the IP has info, let us know in a new edit request.  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism removed
unsigned comment added by 81.132.24.158 (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)  - was vandalism - now removed but left user ip address as information on source of vandalism.Donner60 (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously someone was in a weird mood when they had "terms "Seidenstraße" and "Seidenstraßen" As being Albanian, I have corrected this to German, hope that is ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.1.231 (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Important issue with Current map
Designating the sea routes as "silk road" is original research - the term silk road denotes only the land routes and only those roads between the Med and China running in west-east direction, not those going from the west and east of India northwards. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. I've removed the maritime route section - there are a number of posts above saying that it doesn't belong in the article, including one from me some time ago. The map needs to be discussed at WP:NOR and removed from other articles. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to go to NOR about this now, I doubt anyone will challenge its removal, but it should be removed from all articles. Wikiality123 who originally created it is virtually retired. Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have the original file of my version of the map somewhere. Would it be useful for the article to upload another version of the map with only the land route?  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 13:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No challenges from me, though if we are removing it from the map, there is still a lot of text about maritime routes in the article that needs clarifying. There is also a whole pile of maps at the commons category page to pick from: Commons:Category:Category:Maps of the Silk Road. Also, while I am at it, would anyone object to me archiving the older parts of this talk page? It seems to be getting pretty long. Morgan Riley (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, uploading a map with the land routes only would be helpful. You can create another map with the "maritime routes" only as a minority view, but grouping the caravan routes (standard view) with the sea lanes (minority view) together would give the latter interpretation a prominence way beyond its actual standing in scholarly literature. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Maritime routes redux - OR is bad, sources are good
The maritime section, indeed the fundamental basis of the article, was written around 2005 when we didn't have the enforced no original policy we have today. It was on that basis I think that the objections above were made and that I removed material. However, I've looked more into this and found modern sources that discuss sea routes. is a Maritime Silk Road Museum in China. Ok, you might have objections. is a book which "presents new results of the studies on ancient glasses along the Southern and Sea Silk Roads". is called "Aspects of the Maritime Silk Road: From the Persian Gulf to the East China Sea". And is The Silk Road: A New History, a 2012 book which discusses sea routes. I think we need to use these to build a maritime section that isn't original research. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The New Pauly, a new leading encyclopedia on classical history, defines the Silk Road as the inner Asian caravan routes, so they go by a land-based definition. The term Silk Road itself can obviously only denote land roads, not sea routes. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's a bit pedantic. And Harrassowitz Verlag is an academic publishing house that meets our RS criteria, as does the Journal of Islamic Studies, so Aspects of the Maritime Silk Road: From the Persian Gulf to the East China Sea meets our criteria as a RS. You can see the introduction here. Note that Geoff Wade wrote 2 of the articles in it. And of course I gave other sources above that discuss maritime routes as part of the Silk Road. Dougweller (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the fact that a scientific term can be expected to be precise and that a road cannot be a sea route can be justifiably called pedantic. The reason why this route has been called the Silk Road from time the term was coined is because most scholars have been referring with it to the network of Asian long-distance caravan roads, not the sea lanes which were traversed by very different peoples (Greeks, Romans, Indians, etc,). Google books spills out in a split second a ton of reliable sources which define or describe the silk road as the land route. This is common knowledge. E.g.:
 * Frances Wood: The Silk Road: Two Thousand Years in the Heart of Asia, ISBN 9780520243408, p.9
 * Religions of the Silk Road: Overland Trade and Cultural Exchange from Antiquity to the Fifteenth Century, 2001, ISBN 9780520232143, p.2 and so on.
 * You can include the "maritime silk road" as a minority view as a sub section, certainly, but it should not be presented in the map as the standard view.Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Silk Road' is not a scientific term - ok, you can call history a social science, but it's not a scientific term in the normal use of "scientific term". I guess we could have a separate map on the maritime routes. And it isn't exactly a minority view - do any of your sources actually say that you can't refer to maritime routes under the rubric "Silk Road"? Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * From the book on glass above: " UNESCO identified four main routes of the Silk Road: (1) the Northern (Steppe) Route, (2) the Northwestern (Oasis) Route, (3) the Southern Maritime Route and (4) the Southwestern (Buddhist) Route." Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * How about source #1 of the article at hand, but properly cited as ? Sun is the director of the port and shipping institute at Dalian Maritime University.  You also refer to  in the body of the article without a proper citation.  Here one is.  Uncle G (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Talking about UNESCO
 * they have a map of the "silk route" on their main server. As you can see, the term only refers to the land routes, while the sea lanes are called spice routes.
 * and here they even define its entire course: The Silk Road is the ancient trade route that starts in the old capital of Chang'an, the present-day Xi'an city and the center of politics, economy, and culture in a long period of ancient China. It refers to the overland commercial route connecting Asia, Africa and Europe, which goes over the Longshan Mountain, follows Hexi Corridor, passes Yumenguan Pass and Yangguan Pass, reaches Xinjiang, stretches along the oasis and the Pamir Plateau, enters the Central Asia, crosses Central Asia, Western Asia and Southern Asia, and then leads to Africa and Europe.
 * The view of UNESCO is thus clear and in accordance with the standard scholarly view that the Silk Road only refers to the land routes. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)