Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your response, which I saw today, and the citation of your earlier post. It was indeed useful, and is appreciated.
On the other hand, I hope that you do not think that the use of pejoratives and trash talk, such as 'blahblah', and calling my post 'your joke', in any way strengthens your logic. This was unnecessary incivility and uncalled for. If you wish to clarify your position, or express your point of view, it is possible to do so without insulting words or personal attacks.
I am taking the liberty of proceeding on the basis that you are interested in a civil discussion, without these unnecessary embellishments.
Regarding your arguments, let me explain that my position is not identical to A1Kaid, although I am indebted to him for bringing to my attention information about the early history of the Turkic peoples and their probable development subsequently.
The background is this. I have spent a significant part of the last few decades reading about the developments in those parts of Asia currently described as Iran, Afghanistan, the CIS states, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrghyzstan, eastern Turkestan, currently known as Xinjiang, and Pakistan and India. My interest was in the interlinkages of these regions with Iranian and Indian history, defined broadly; this is without prejudice to recent claims that Indus Civilisation is to be studied in detail in distinction to mainstream Indian history. I neither accept nor deny that position, since there has been insufficient analysis of what is involved. Suffice it to say that my interest in Xinjiang extends to the region only to the extent that it has a bearing on the history of the regions mentioned earlier.
In summary, my understanding is well defined by you, but indirectly, in your three caveats, marked as three 'BTW's, an unusual usage but an acceptable equivalent of bullets. It is this: that in the period approximately from 1500 BC to roughly the inception of the Christian era, the following sequence of events occurred.
- Earliest records and mentions in history, or archaeological indications are that a mixed steppe people, speaking Indo-Iranian, thereafter eastern Iranian, ranged the steppes.
- These mixed nomads had many names, one name being Scythian. There are equivalents in Iranian, in ancient Indian references, and undoubtedly in Chinese historical annals as well.
- To the north and north-east of the Scythians, a people known as the Tocharians occupied the land space that is the western part of the region now called Xinjiang.
- These people are in fact identified with the mummies that you have mentioned in your cited post. Please note that I am not suggested Turkic occupation of this region at these very early stages.
- The Tocharians appear to have been tall, fair, bearded, and their mummies include blonde and red-haired physical specimens. The textile used by them is found staggeringly far away as well, in roughly contemporaneous funeral remains, to the west of the Black Sea.
- This is cited by some as a strong indication that trade in these early times was far more extensive than we had imagined so far.
- These Tocharians apparently spoke a language which was not Indo-Iranian leave alone east Iranian, but older in the tree of Indo-European languages. It is therefore speculated that they were the eastern-most branch of the Indo-European set of language users.
- Please note that ethnicity and race are dangerous and misleading categories, and it is preferable to deal with language usage as being more accurate a category. I subscribe to this point of view, and would not like to be thought to be emphasising the apparently proto-European physique of these Tocharians.
- You are aware that the aftermath of Alexander's expedition to the eastern parts of the Achaemenid Empire, until his death in Babylon, was around 340 BC.
- He was succeeded by a short period of rule in the region corresponding to Afghanistan and Ferghana (Tajikistan) by his successors and thereafter by Greek kingdoms. You may be wondering what this has to do with Xinjiang. Please bear with me. There is a connection.
- The Indo-Greek, or, if you prefer, the Bactrian Greek kingdoms were replaced by the domination of Scythian and Parthian tribes which swept into the region around 250 BC and subsequently.
- What is of interest to us in this discussion is that they were apparently driven out of their steppeland homes by the incursion of the Yueh Chi, or Moon Sect, one of the five ruling sects of the Tocharian.
- At this stage, when we look for an explanation into Chinese historican records, which are the only ones of any worth at that point of time, regardless of their scant coverage of western regions to the west of the areas under actual royal or imperial rule.
- It appears that the Xiong Nu (I am using this spelling consistently to be clear, but have no objection to any other that might be proposed, such as Hsiung Nu), after a period of hostility with contemporary Chinese states, had suffered a succession of defeats, split into two, the Southern branch becoming a direct appendage of the Chinese state or states, the northern one striving to preserve its integrity and independence.
- It appears that the northern branch pushed westward to avoid the overlordship of Chinese states, and clashed with the Tocharians. The Tocharians were defeated in a series of encounters, their king killed, and they were in turn driven west. They too split into two or more groups, one turning south and staying on the fringes of their former dominions, the other pushing west and putting pressure on the original steppe dwellers.
- These were the Yueh Chi, and they pushed the Scythians and their east Iranian allies south and then south east. These Scythian incursions finished off the Bactrian Greek kingdoms in a short while.
- The period from 260 or 250 BC to the beginning of the Christian millennium is marked by repeated waves of invasion of these formerly nomadic tribes from the steppes, first under the direct pressure of the Yueh Chi, themselves under successive waves of pressure from the Xiong Nu being compelled to move further and further away from their former homeland.
- Please note that this coincides exactly with the facts cited by you in your three BTW bullets.
- It appears to me, and this is a personal evaluation from putting together my account, which is limited to information regarding the expulsion of the Tocharian/Yueh Chi within these 200 or so years, with accounts of the rise of the Turkic people, already presented in detail, that till around 300 AD, the areas which are today western Xinjiang were occupied by the Xiong Nu. They are, as described by you, if I remember your cited post correctly, a mixed group with predominantly Mongolian ethnicity, but with elements of several other nomadic people from the north.
- Finally, it would appear that these occupants were gradually forced out or forced to submit to the emerging Turkic tribes entering from the north, and bearing south-east in their direction of incursion.
- My understanding is that major Han control of these regions commenced in the Ming dynasty.
My knowledge of the facts and information covered in the last three bullets above is secondary and derivative. However, I have with me accounts of the first Chinese expeditions to the west, and the conclusions of the leader, which was roughly contemporaneous with the events that I have described.
If you want, this same account can be referenced and wherever possible the Chinese resources dealing with them introduced and presented in an academically sounder manner than the bullet points I have used to summarise. However, as I have been asked to attend to some urgent tasks and have to travel out of location for the purpose, if you sincerely want this, please allow me till mid-September (it looks as if most of August will be taken up with fire-fighting!).
On the other hand, if you prefer to reject this with a slighting word or two, and insist that we adhere rigidly to your views, that is fine. I am available for a civil discourse, if you have the inclination for it.
Regards,
'Joe S.'
