Talk:Tuyuhun

Lengthy discussion from User_talk:Nlu on whether Tuyuhun should be characterized of having occupied parts of Gansu, parts of Sichuan, both, or neither

Pasted from User talk:Nlu; since further discussion appears to be unproductive, RfC has been filed and the discussion is pasted here for history and for comment by others. It should be noted that RfC may be conducted before an edit war erupts -- and is likely to be more productive in this case, I think, than continued discussion on user page.

I hope I don't have to tell you that Tuyuhun occupied more area of Sichuan than Gansu at its peak. Eiorgiomugini 00:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't have to either, since it's wrong. Cite me a single primary source that showed Tuyuhun occupying any part of Sichuan, even at its peak. All the sites that Tuyuhun was recorded to have occupied were in either Qinghai or Gansu. --Nlu (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Tuyuhun did occupied area of Sichuan, even more so than parts of Gansu. Here is the source I found in Weishu, 吐谷浑遂徙上陇，止于枹罕暨甘松，南界昂城(今四川阿坝)、龙涸(今四川松潘)。Eiorgiomugini 01:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And apparently, you didn't realize that each of the first three cities/regions (上隴 is a region, the other two were cities) you mentioned were in Gansu. And I am not finding any sources that actually puts the latter two in Sichuan, which were then Southern Dynasties territory. In any case, even if those two cities were in extreme northwestern Sichuan, they describe the southern edge of Tuyuhun territory, not the majority of Tuyuhun territory. When Tuyuhun was at its prime, nearly all of southern Gansu was held by it. There is no reasonable reading of the map of Sichuan that would allow you to say that it held more of Sichuan than Gansu. --Nlu (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

But to be on the safe side, I am going through this right now and looking at other primary sources as well. Will get back here as soon as I finished looking at them. --Nlu (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The two location can be searched through google if you like, they were placed at nortwestern Sichuan. The area of 枹罕 was later occupied by the Liang states, I don't recall that the Southern dynasties actually occupied northwestern Sichuan, those area belonged to a groups of Chouchi, whose vassalage status was recognised by both Northern and Southern Dynasties. Eiorgiomugini 02:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I see the issue that you were having; you were taking the description of the range that Tuyuhun's founder, Murong Tuyuhun, roved, when his people were still a tribe, not a (semi-)centralized state. That range was not territory that Tuyuhun held, but a grazing/roaming range, and that was only true during Murong Tuyuhun's lifetime, anyway, not his descendants. Both Wei Shu and Song Shu gave nearly identical descriptions:

Song Shu:

渾既上隴，出罕幵、西零。西零，今之西平郡，罕幵，今枹罕縣。自枹罕以東千餘里，暨甘松，西至河南，南界昴城、龍涸。自洮水西南，極白蘭，數千里中，逐水草，廬帳居，以肉酪為糧。西北諸雜種謂之為阿柴虜。 [1]

This passage, I'd translate as: "As Murong Tuyuhun entered the Long region [eastern Gansu], he went to Hanbing and Xiling. Xiling is what is now Xiping Commandery. [Xiping is now Xining, Qinghai.] Hanbing is what is now Fuhan County. [Fuhan is now Linxia, Gansu.] He roamed more than 1,000 li [500 kilometers] from Fuhan east, including Gansong, going as far south as Henan [part of modern Gansu that is directly south of the Yellow River], going as far south as Angcheng and Longgu. [Let's assume for the moment that Angcheng and Longgu are in northwestern Sichuan.] He also went southwest on Tao River [flowing from southeastern Gansu into the Yellow River at Lanzhou], reaching as far as Bailan [southwestern Qinghai]. As he went through these thousands of lli of territory, he followed the waters and the grass, lived in tents, and used meat and cheese as his food. The Northwestern mixed barbarians referred to his people as the Achai Barbarians."

This is not a description of Tuyuhun's territory. For that, you have to look at the various records of Tuyuhun's military activities and see what cities they were actually attacking and actually holding. None was in Sichuan. --Nlu (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I just looked up the Bei Shi description. (The Wei Shu chapter dealing with Tuyuhun was already missing by the time of Song Dynasty and was readded from Bei Shi, which was, after I looked at it, clearly taken from Song Shu.) The Bei Shi description is nearly identical. It's still a description of Murong Tuyuhun's grazing range, not the territory that his descendants held. --Nlu (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, if you keep on reading in the Bei Shi ([2]), the context should be clear to you that later on, most of Tuyuhun's activities were in modern Qinghai. They occupied various parts of Gansu from time to time (for example, at the time of Western Qin's destruction), but were not in Sichuan. --Nlu (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you don't have to translate the whole bunch of it, Angcheng and Longgu are in northwestern Sichuan, I don't see why you said none was in Sichuan even by assuming. My main argument is Tuyuhun did occupied more area of northwestern Sichuan, at one time they also occupied southeastern Xinjiang. Linxia was a part of the Liang states, and the Tuyuhun stood not for long, they did however attacked some prefectures on Gansu held by Liang, but they never occupied it, I believe you can search through the map by Tan Qixiang. And we're talking about its territories at its peak not its prime. Eiorgiomugini 02:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And my point is that they never actually held any part of modern Sichuan. They held parts of Gansu. --Nlu (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes they do, in fact his son Tuyan was killed by Qiang chief from Angcheng, which further confirm that both Angcheng and Longgu were located at Sichuan, even in most of the google sites I found refered this two places at Sichuan. Gansu wasn't really occupied much long by the Tuyuhun, due to the constantly military activities around the regions. As for Songshu being more reliable, I guess you had forgotten that some of the volumes in Songshu like Weishu were lost too during the Song Dynasty, and many of them are not in the original version, so its pretty much the same. Eiorgiomugini 09:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You did not address my point; it was still as part of the description of what was happening when Murong Tuyuhun was still a roming nomadic chief. One cannot make a serious argument that his entire roaming range could properly be considered the domain of the later Tuyuhun state after it settled down.

Further, I never said that Song Shu was more reliable; I said that, in this case, the textual comparison makes it clear that this particular text originated in the Song Shu, was borrowed into the Bei Shi, and then was reinserted into the reconstructed Wei Shu. The text immediately before and after the passage you quoted (which i gave a more complete quotation of) shows that it was about Murong Tuyuhun and Murong Tuyuhun only, not the subsequent rulers of Tuyuhun.

I find it, again, exasperating that you're not bothering to go back to the sources to see where Tuyuhun activities actually were. Other than this description of Murong Tuyuhun's roaming range, there was not a single battle involving Tuyuhun that was anywhere remotely close to modern Sichuan. The closest is southeastern Qinghai, when Tuyuhun battled Western Qin, but even there the main confrontations were in Gansu. --Nlu (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that, by argument analogous to yours, one can claim that Southern Liang was centered around north central Gansu, since Tufa Wugu's father Tufa Sifujian had once based himself around modern Wuwei -- which, of course, would be a ridiculous claim. --Nlu (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what do you meant by the example of centered around north central Gansu. I'm not talking about where they centered, what I meant was parts of the Sichuan were very much a vassal to the Tuyuhun realm, just beacuse there was no military activities doesn't meant no occuption to the region. And where's your evidence that this particular text was borrowed into the Beishu from Songshu. Infact Songshu borrowed a few texts from Nanshi and Gaoshi Xiaoshi too.Eiorgiomugini 09:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Song Shu, having been written during the Southern Qi, could not have borrowed from the Nan Shi.

You seem to be unaware of the chronolgy in which these histories were written; Song Shu was written first (by Shen Yue), then Wei Shu (by Wei Shou, during Northern Qi) and then Bei Shi and Nan Shi (both in Tang Dynasty). Therefore, in this case, when you get a nearly word-by-word correspondence between the Song Shu passage and the Bei Shi, the Bei Shi must have taken from the Song Shu. Since commentators also made it clear that this section of the Wei Shu was lost and reconstructed from the Bei Shi, that's how we get our chain.

In any case, writing "Sichuan" is highly misleading in the lead paragraph, because even if arguendo all of Murong Tuyuhun's roaming range was under his control (a highly dubious claim, as I've argued above), it would only constitute an extremely small part of Sichuan. Let me try a different example -- it would be like claiming that historical Illyricum included what is now Venetia, whereas, at most, Illyricum included a tiny portion of what is now Venetia. I don't know why you are choosing to fixate on Sichuan while ignoring the fact that Tuyuhun controlled fairly substantial parts of modern Gansu for a long period. Check out, for example, volumes 119 to 125 of Zizhi Tongjian, which gives a fairly good account of the messy fighting between Tuyuhun, Western Qin, Xia, Northern Wei, and Northern Liang during those years. That should hopefully show you where Tuyuhun's activities actually were. --Nlu (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a different understanding to my post. What I meant was the Songshu did borrowed texts from other sources during the later period as noted by commentators. The Songshu was once reconstructed during the Northern Song Dynasty, very much the same as Weishu. "when you get a nearly word-by-word correspondence between the Song Shu passage and the Bei Shi, the Bei Shi must have taken from the Song Shu." You seem to be unaware that the only word-by-word correspondence for this passage are the Beishi and Weishu, the fact that this passage from Songshu are very much different from both two of them, the textual comparison makes it further clear, since Beishi get as much information during its times, Songshu wasn't the only choice of demand during of that time. As for Sichuan, I said Tuyuhun only included a tiny portion of modern Gansu, while due to the less military activities in Sichuan they could had occupied longer to the region. Eiorgiomugini 09:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"Check out, for example, volumes 119 to 125 of Zizhi Tongjian, which gives a fairly good account of the messy fighting between Tuyuhun, Western Qin, Xia, Northern Wei, and Northern Liang during those years." No, military activities does not necessarily meant take possession of the region, infact it show further more difficulty for the Tuyuhun to occupy the region. Eiorgiomugini 09:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is getting pointless. You're refusing to go back and look at Tuyuhun's activities. I am not sure what else I can say, other than that your interpretation is thoroughly inconsistent with the records of Tuyuhun's activities. --Nlu (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I repeat myself again those activities are by no means a possession to those regions for a long period.Eiorgiomugini 09:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is surreal. Yes, those activites "are by no means a posssession to those regions for a long period," but they certainly show more than the lack of any activities. For example, when Northern Wei invaded Tuyuhun in 444-445, Murong Muliyan temporarily abandoned his territory and fled west, temporarily seizing the territory of Yutian, in modern western Xinjiang -- now, if Murong Muliyan held western Sichuan as his territory, it made absolutely no logical sense that he would flee west and not south, nor would it have been possible for him to continue to hold onto western Sichuan during this ordeal, due to the extreme distance. Your logic is like claiming that Southern Qi held modern Tibet because there's a lack of activities of Southern Qi armies in Tibet, which, under your logic, must mean that it was so securely held that no battles involved Tibet.

What is even more troubling is that you are refusing to review the passage that you quoted for support -- because looking at the context of the passage clearly shows that, again, it talks about Murong Tuyuhun's roaming range only, not any of his descendants. Without this passage, there is no connection between Tuyuhun and any part of Sichuan at all. You took that passage out of context and don't admit it -- apparently, even to yourself. --Nlu (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't why you have so much questions if you actually read the source as you claimed, because once again the the book only mentioned one military activites at modern Sichuan, not just roaming parts. Eiorgiomugini 03:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Your logic is like claiming that Southern Qi held modern Tibet because there's a lack of activities of Southern Qi armies in Tibet, which, under your logic, must mean that it was so securely held that no battles involved Tibet." You've absolutely nothing other than pointing out that they fought more battles in Gansu. Considered the facts that Qiang and Di were the vassal and subjugated by the Tuyuhun and non of them had rose to revolt against them, beside just one I read. And you still haven't answered to this, after if you categorize my claims. Show me your source that Tuyuhun occupied longer in Gansu, a full timeline. Eiorgiomugini 03:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"What is even more troubling is that you are refusing to review the passage that you quoted for support -- because looking at the context of the passage clearly shows that, again, it talks about Murong Tuyuhun's roaming range only, not any of his descendants. Without this passage, there is no connection between Tuyuhun and any part of Sichuan at all. You took that passage out of context and don't admit it -- apparently, even to yourself." No, there wasn't plenty of enemies in Sichuan, what the hell are you talking about? I did not mentioned just the roaming of the founder of this kingdom, but if someone else rose aginast to revolt his son, there must had some vassalage between them to the regions. Eiorgiomugini 03:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the entire chapter. That's all I'll say further. Since, apparently, you won't do that, and without doing that, you won't be able to see how wrong your position is. --Nlu (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said there's was only one. I did read a lot on this part already thank you, its you who should read them. Eiorgiomugini 03:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

More about RfC

RfC has been filed with regard to Gansu/Sichuan issue. Eiorgiomungini, this is a request for comment, not a request for any other action, and so please don't get hypersensitive about it. If we can't agree, then hopefully let's get some other voices into the issue. -- Nlu

Just to add my comment on your actions. There not even a edits war to began with and if they did you could had reuqest for me banned, I don't know why the hell you had filled a RfC and tranfered whole of the disscusion here, if you really appear to have the illusion that we are actually having a discussion. There is no place to even begin on the frist places. Eiorgiomugini 04:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

For others who might be interested in looking at this, I feel that here are some relevant sources to look at:

• Wei Shu, the official history of Northern Wei (although, as discussed above, the relevant part of Wei Shu and Song Shu was reconstructed since it was lost by time of Song Dynasty)
• Song Shu, the official history of Liu Song
• Bei Shi, the history of Northern Dynasties
• Nan Shi, the history of Southern Dynasties
• Zizhi Tongjian, the chronicle of Chinese history written by Song Dynasty historian Sima Guang -- Nlu

The former four sources are available in traditional Chinese at [3]. The last source is available in both traditional and simplified Chinese on Chinese Wikisource. Chinese Wikisource also has Wei Shu, but not the other official histories, I think. -- Nlu

And I think I've found a source that fairly conclusively indicated that even northwestern/western Sichuan was not Tuyuhun territory. According to Zizhi Tongjian volume 125, in 450 Murong Muliyan was being unable to withstanding Northern Wei military pressure, so he requested permission from Emperor Wen of Liu Song to relocate to Yuexi (越巂), which is now modern Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture, in western Sichuan, and Emperor Wen agreed -- but Murong Muliyan then decided not to relocate. If western/northwestern Sichuan were Tuyuhun territory and not Liu Song territory, then it would make no sense for Murong Muliyan to make such request or for Emperor Wen to approve it. --Nlu (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I would not make any disputes over this dead issue, but since not only you had waste your times but mine and the other, I would comment a few; the Sichuan regions we're disputing with situated near to the upper reaches of Huanghe, and Yuexi was no where close to it. The maps which I mentioned before categorised the regions under the realm of Tuyuhun, unfortunately it doesn't seem to indicate any towns or cites to this areas. Like I said there's only one possible source that fairly connected to the area from the entire chapter. Just to let you know that I'm not appreciated to what you had done here, and I don't think a RfC is essentially needed here either, you are requesting other to make comments over a dispute which had never occurred to this article, by calling this a dispute over edits is just laughable. Eiorgiomugini 15:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

TUFAN

Since "Tufan" is only referred to the entry on TIBET, should it be used as the primary referent in this article or should another term more appropriately be substituted? This is a question not a suggestion. Doc Rock 12:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyedited

There is much discussion here, but the page was in a dreadful state, and appears to reflect a modern sinocentric reading. Future editors would do well to cross check the content with the corresponding Japanese page to get a comparative, more neutral, and in some regards more detailed account.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your work; it looks a lot better! --Gimme danger (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bailan 白蘭

The Bailan are Tibeto-Burman whereas the Tuyuhun are Turkic, they cannot possibly be the same people. Also the Bailan are from a much earlier period. Tibetologist (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)