The Chinese Romans redux

[ScipioAsina]

It's a great site, but I don't think he's done justice to the subject. There is no doubt that the Chinese knew of the existence of Rome, even if their knowledge was all from second-hand information. Because I'm writing for a Chinese history class, however, my main interest is not how accurate the Chinese sources are, but rather how the Chinese perceived the West.

[Robert Vermaat]

There is no doubt that the Chinese knew of the existence of Rome, even if their knowledge was all from second-hand information.

If there is no doubt, could you tell us what information it's based on?

[ScipioAsina]

A few excerpts from the "Chronicle of the Western Regions" in the Hou Hanshu, translated by John E. Hill and with his geographical notes:

"Leaving Sibin [Susa] and travelling south you cross a river, then going southwest, you reach the kingdom of Yuluo [Charax Spasinou] after 960 li [399 km]. This is the extreme western frontier of Anxi [Parthia]. Leaving there, and heading south, you embark on the sea and then reach Da Qin [Roman territory]. In these territories, there are many precious and marvellous things from Haixi ['West of the Sea' = Egypt]."

Hill discusses why Roman Egypt is the best candidate for Haixi in Through The Jade Gate to Rome.

"The kingdom of Da Qin [lit. 'Great China' = the Roman empire] is also called Lijian. As it is found to the west of the sea, it is also called the kingdom of Haixi [lit. 'West of the Sea' = Egypt]. Its territory extends for several thousands of li. It has more than four hundred walled towns. There are several tens of smaller dependent kingdoms. The walls of the towns are made of stone..."

Hill writes that "the use of such a name (lit. 'Great Qin' = Great China) for a foreign state probably reflects the common process of romanticizing distant and unfamiliar cultures, while indicating that the Chinese were aware that it was a great, powerful, and advanced civilization." (254) I'll just add there's no other entity west of Parthia that would fit the description of Da Qin found in the Chinese sources.

"[A group of] thirty-six leaders [or generals] has been established to meet together to deliberate on affairs of state. Their kings are not permanent. They select and appoint the most worthy man. If there are unexpected calamities in the kingdom... he is unceremoniously rejected and replaced."

This seems to be referring to the Roman senate. Hill explains that the thirty-six leaders were probably ex-consuls, and that it was unlikely that there was more than 40 'Consulares' at any given time.

"The king of this country always wanted to send envoys to Han, but Anxi [Parthia] wishing to control the trade in multi-coloured Chinese silks, blocked the route to prevent [the Romans] getting through [to China]."

Again, there was no empire west of Parthia that was purchasing large quantities of Chinese silk.

[Robert Vermaat]

"Leaving Sibin [Susa] and travelling south you cross a river, then going southwest, you reach the kingdom of Yuluo [Charax Spasinou] after 960 li [399 km]. This is the extreme western frontier of Anxi [Parthia]. Leaving there, and heading south, you embark on the sea and then reach Da Qin [Roman territory]. In these territories, there are many precious and marvellous things from Haixi ['West of the Sea' = Egypt]."

If you go south from the western borders of Parthia and reach a sea, that's the Persian Gulf, not the Meditteranean (which would have been West). I doubt that 'West of the Sea' can be translated as 'egypt', because Egypt is more like 'south' of a sea Med). True, there's the Red Sea, but that does not serve as a 100% guarantee. There were more lads 'west' f a sea, depends on which sea you start from. Do we even know that the Chinese kew of the Med or the Red Sea, instead of just the Persian Gulf?

Why is Anxi supposed to be Parthia? It's today referenced as the older name of Gansu province, in central China. If this is correct, then maybe the 'land to the West' was not the Roman Empire at all, but a kingdom west of the Caspian Sea, or maybe Greece or something more southerly?
If you look at the description:

"Anxi is situated several thousand li west of the region of the Great Yuezhi. The people are settled on the land, cultivating the fields and growing rice and wheat. They also make wine out of grapes. They have walled cities like the people of Dayuan (Ferghana), the region contains several hundred cities of various sizes. The coins of the country are made of silver and bear the face of the king. When the king dies, the currency is immediately changed and new coins issued with the face of his successor. The people keep records by writing on horizontal strips of leather. To the west lies Tiaozhi (Mesopotamia) and to the north Yancai and Lixuan (Hyrcania)."

I would not immediately recognise the horse-based culture of the Parthians, nor the vast nomadic areas belonging to their empire. I mean, if anyone would describe this as the Roman Empire, I'd be more inclined to agree.

"The kingdom of Da Qin [lit. 'Great China' = the Roman empire] is also called Lijian. As it is found to the west of the sea, it is also called the kingdom of Haixi [lit. 'West of the Sea' = Egypt]. Its territory extends for several thousands of li. It has more than four hundred walled towns. There are several tens of smaller dependent kingdoms. The walls of the towns are made of stone..."

We've discussed 'Great China' before, and I agree with others that this does not need to be the Roman Empire at all. Exactly that "West of the Sea=Egypt" identification as a synonym for Egypt=Roman Empire I find totally unconvincing. Plus, in which period did the Romans have that number of smaller kingdoms within the Empire? Many towns did not receive stone walls until the later 3rd century - from what time does the Hou Hanshu date?
Of course, if An-xi was the Roman Empire, Da Qin would be the Americas...

"[A group of] thirty-six leaders [or generals] has been established to meet together to deliberate on affairs of state. Their kings are not permanent. They select and appoint the most worthy man. If there are unexpected calamities in the kingdom... he is unceremoniously rejected and replaced."

Roman senate? Or not. Generals in the senate? Is this mere folklore, based on dim memories or half-baked information (compare Procopius on Britain)? The Romans did not have kings - what are we supposed to take seriously and what not? I understand that Hill took seriously what he could explain, and discarded the wrong information. But that's not very scientific, is it?

"The king of this country always wanted to send envoys to Han, but Anxi [Parthia] wishing to control the trade in multi-coloured Chinese silks, blocked the route to prevent [the Romans] getting through [to China]."

Again, there was no empire west of Parthia that was purchasing large quantities of Chinese silk.[/quote]
yes, and Plato described Atlantis. Wait! he described a perfect state which he wanted to serve as a model. How 'real' was this description, if taken literally?

[Matthew Amt]

yes, and Plato described Atlantis. Wait! he described a perfect state which he wanted to serve as a model. How 'real' was this description, if taken literally?

Hey, that means the blonde Chinese people are descended from ATLANTEANS! Hah, mystery solved!

Matthew

[richsc]

A few excerpts from the "Chronicle of the Western Regions" in the Hou Hanshu, translated by John E. Hill and with his geographical notes:

Is that from the book "Through The Jade Gate to Rome"?

[ScipioAsina]

Yes, it's from Through the Jade Gate to Rome. It looks like a self-published work, but Hill's translation and commentary are both excellent.

I apologize for my previous post; I did not develop it as fully as I wanted to, as I was busy finishing a review of Victor Davis Hanson's Western Way of War. However, I am also somewhat reluctant to write more, as I have yet to turn in my paper and do not want to be accused of plagiarism when it is submitted to Turnitin.com.

That said, I am inclined to agree with the current consensus among scholars regarding the identities of Da Qin, Anxi, Haixi, and so on. I think it's totally fine that some of you guys have questioned these conclusions, but it means that I have to work from the bottom up.

Now let's follow our sources. If I'm not mistaken, the Hou Hanshu was published sometime in the 5th century but drew upon earlier sources, such as the late 1st century testimony of Gan Ying. Before we reach Anxi, the Hou Hanshu names the kingdoms of Jumi, Yutian, Xiye, Zihe, Dere, Wuyishanli, and Tiaozhi. The most relevant of these is Tiaozhi, which Hill identifies as Characene and Susiana. Pulleyblank and other scholars have even determined that "Tiaozhi" is a transcription of "Seleukia". The record states that it "borders on the Western Sea" (perhaps the Persian Gulf) and that "if you turn north, and then towards the east, riding by horse for more than 60 days, you reach [the old capital of] Anxi." Hill notes that this corresponds with the time that it would have taken to reach Old Nisa if traveling at a rate of 20.5 km each day. The author then adds that "later on, [Anxi] conquered, and subjugated Tiaozhi." It seems quite clear that the Hou Hanshu is indeed referring to Susiana/Seleukia, and that Anxi is none other than Parthia. I'll just point out that the earlier Weilue plainly states that Tiaozhi is between Da Qin and Anxi.

As for Anxi itself, the Shiji, written in the 1st century B.C., records that "when the first embassy was sent from China to Anxi, the king of Anxi ordered twenty thousand cavalry to meet them on the eastern frontier" (from Hirth's China and the Roman Orient). So there's your "horse-based culture." The Hou Hanshu, borrowing from the Shiji, states that Anxi is "several thousand li across" with "several hundred small towns. The households, people, and men able to bear arms are extremely numerous." We then hear

"In the ninth Yongyuan year [97 CE], during the reign of Emperor He, the Protector General Ban Chao sent Gan Ying to Da Qin. He reached Tiaozhi next to a large sea. He wanted to cross it, but the sailors of the western frontier of Anxi said to him:

The ocean is huge. Those making the round trip can do it in three months if the winds are favourable. However, if you encounter winds that delay you, it can take two years. That is why all the men who go by sea take stores for three years. The vast ocean urges men to think of their country, and get homesick, and some of them die.

"When [Gan] Ying heard this, he discontinued (his trip)."

But... now I have to go. I'll try to finish this later, but I hope you see where I'm going with this.

[D B Campbell]

Chinese sources throughout the centuries consistently refer to Rome as Da Qin, or "Great Qin", ...

Do they? How do we know?

"Leaving Sibin [Susa] and travelling south you cross a river, then going southwest, you reach the kingdom of Yuluo [Charax Spasinou] after 960 li [399 km]. This is the extreme western frontier of Anxi [Parthia]. Leaving there, and heading south, you embark on the sea and then reach Da Qin [Roman territory]. In these territories, there are many precious and marvellous things from Haixi ['West of the Sea' = Egypt]."

If any one of these identifications is wrong, the entire house of cards falls. Why is Sibin the name for Susa? If it is, and you travel south, there's no river to cross. Travelling southwest, you miss Characene (which would simply be continuing "south") and hit Arabia. This is not the western frontier of Parthia. (If you wanted the western frontier of Parthia, you'd have travelled west from Susa.) And then, if we turn south, we're heading down into the Arabian peninsula. Still heading south (there's no change of direction noted), you reach the Gulf of Aden!

I think the whole thing is wishful thinking. (We don't even know of we're setting off from the correct point, with "Sibin" = Susa.)

Hill writes that "the use of such a name (lit. 'Great Qin' = Great China) for a foreign state probably reflects the common process of romanticizing distant and unfamiliar cultures, while indicating that the Chinese were aware that it was a great, powerful, and advanced civilization." (254).

He should probably have written "maybe". :wink:

"[A group of] thirty-six leaders [or generals] has been established to meet together to deliberate on affairs of state.

This seems to be referring to the Roman senate. Hill explains that the thirty-six leaders were probably ex-consuls, and that it was unlikely that there was more than 40 'Consulares' at any given time.

Nonsense. Hill is having his cake and eating it. He finds a reference to a deliberative body, and decides that it must be the Senate. But the number 36 falls far short of Senate membership, so he makes up an entirely specious rule involving consulars. It's simply nonsense to say that there were "no more than 40" consulars at any one time. The Senate would have been impossibly bottom-heavy, in that case. (Of course, he would simply move to the next desperate solution, and say that the emperor's consilium had 36 members, when it really had as many, or as few, as the reigning emperor wished.)

"The king of this country always wanted to send envoys to Han, but Anxi [Parthia] wishing to control the trade in multi-coloured Chinese silks, blocked the route to prevent [the Romans] getting through [to China]."

Again, there was no empire west of Parthia that was purchasing large quantities of Chinese silk.

Hill must first demonstrate that Anxi is Parthia, before building further theories on such a shaky foundation.

[Edit: I must have been typing when you made your last post. I'm a slow typist.]

[ScipioAsina]

Back! I probably should have mentioned this earlier, but the Hou Hanshu and the Weilue can be found via the Silk Road Seattle site at the University of Washington. I'll also add that Hill mostly quotes from other sources for his commentary; for example, he identifies Anxi as Parthia in the same way that Hirth, Pulleyblank, and others have. He builds his explanations on over a century of scholarship, not "shaky foundations."

I mentioned the bit about the consuls (and this is what I'm trying to get at) in order to emphasize how little the Chinese understood of Da Qin. The information they received from Anxi and (presumably) travelers along the Silk Routes could be exaggerated, fanciful, or even downright misleading. Again, what I think is most interesting about all this is the idea of a "counter-China" in the west in the form of Da Qin.

But back to the identity of Anxi. This is bit of a headache to sort through, and you must look at the geographic details from the perspective of Gan Ying. But I'm going to try simplifying things. Chinese interest in Anxi and Da Qin was economic; Chinese silk passed through Anxi, which was known to the Chinese as a large empire west of Bactria, to markets in Da Qin, which the Chinese heard was even larger than Anxi. I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that Anxi must be Parthia and that Da Qin is Rome, given that the Romans were indeed purchasing large quantities of silk that first had to pass through Parthia. And I have yet to hear these two names, Anxi and Da Qin, being associated with any other empires at the time.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Jeff,

Compliments for your persistence and well-built case. However, I'm a historian and therefore I doubt every source to some extent. I agree with the 'headache'! It's what you get when some of the pillars on your house remain shaky - and I hope that we all can agree that the foundation of these identifications cannot be 100% sure.
I've referred to Procipius for a reason: he heard of Britain, but he clearly did not know Britain. So whatever our conclusions (and I'm not saying that your conclusions are wrong), is that it hangs too much on modern interpretations to be sure whether we can conclude that the Chinese knew of Rome instead of just heard about Rome.

If I'm not mistaken, the Hou Hanshu was published sometime in the 5th century but drew upon earlier sources, such as the late 1st century testimony of Gan Ying.

Well, that's something. The Parthian empire was in existence during that time, so at least it's possible.
However: can't we find any other name for this territory? I understand that 'the theory' proposes that 'Anxi' was derived from 'Arsacid', the ruling Parthian dynasty. I accept that this is possible, but as the territory was ruled before them by the Persians (Achaemenids) and Greeks (Seleucids), as well as again Persian from the 3rd c. onwards (Sassanids), I wonder why the Chinese stuck with the Parthians. Is it not possible that other names exited for this territory, which indeed was important because it controlled the silk road into the West?
This is also part of the problem: the information presented in this geography actually describes a period which never existed at one point. When the Parthians conquered the seleucids, Rome was by no means yet a 'Great China'.

Similarly (and unanswered yet), is it not possible that Anxi indeed referred to Gansu? And that the other names refer to other kingdoms? And yes, I realize how names can 'wander of' (like Asia).

Before we reach Anxi, the Hou Hanshu names the kingdoms of Jumi, Yutian, Xiye, Zihe, Dere, Wuyishanli, and Tiaozhi. The most relevant of these is Tiaozhi, which Hill identifies as Characene and Susiana. Pulleyblank and other scholars have even determined that "Tiaozhi" is a transcription of "Seleukia".

well, exactly. What do the other names refer to? And a real problem: BEFORE you reach Parthia, you cross through Seleucia? That's just incorrect. The Parthian heartlands were Central-Asia, and Seleucia was pretty much the western part of their empire. :!: So it would have to be the other way around, would it not?

I'll just point out that the earlier Weilue plainly states that Tiaozhi is between Da Qin and Anxi.

Hold your horses, last thing you said is that before you reach Anxi, you pass through Tiaozhi? And now it's the other way around. And that's just it, that's the wrong order: Anxi should have been East of Tiaozhi, IF Anxi was Parthia and Tiaozhi was Seleucia. If you first pass through Seleucia to reach Parthia, you are going by a very strange southerly route, NOT the Silk road which should be leading in this geographical house of cards.

We then hear
"In the ninth Yongyuan year [97 CE], during the reign of Emperor He, the Protector General Ban Chao sent Gan Ying to Da Qin. He reached Tiaozhi next to a large sea. He wanted to cross it, but the sailors of the western frontier of Anxi said to him:

The ocean is huge. Those making the round trip can do it in three months if the winds are favourable. However, if you encounter winds that delay you, it can take two years. That is why all the men who go by sea take stores for three years. The vast ocean urges men to think of their country, and get homesick, and some of them die.

"When [Gan] Ying heard this, he discontinued (his trip)."

Well, the Western Sea seems to be the Persian Gulf rather than the Med. Regardless what Anxi was. Maybe it could even be the Indian ocean?

Anyway, I would like to repeat the apparent difficulties with identifying Egypt with Haixi, as a synonym for the Roman Empire, which similarly would be Da Qin. Haixi could equally be Ethiopia? And the same sources say that Da-Qin was also known as Li-jian (or Li-kan, or Lixuan). Which is identified as Hyrcania-Turkmenistan?

[D B Campbell]

... for example, he identifies Anxi as Parthia in the same way that Hirth, Pulleyblank, and others have. He builds his explanations on over a century of scholarship, not "shaky foundations."

I know that it's seductive to simply toe the party-line -- go with the flow -- but if the flow is fundamentally wrong, sooner or later somebody has to question it. I wonder what the actual evidence is. (Linguistic, I know -- and I don't read Chinese!)

I mentioned the bit about the consuls (and this is what I'm trying to get at) in order to emphasize how little the Chinese understood of Da Qin.

This is the ideal theory. It doesn't really fit the evidence, so the element of "poor understanding" is introduced. You can prove just about anything, if you're willing to accept that your sources didn't really understand what they were describing.

I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that Anxi must be Parthia and that Da Qin is Rome, given that the Romans were indeed purchasing large quantities of silk that first had to pass through Parthia. And I have yet to hear these two names, Anxi and Da Qin, being associated with any other empires at the time.

Well, I believe there's a theory that the earlier Chinese sources were talking about the Seleucid empire. Off the top of my head, I cannot remember the details. But your sources beg rather a lot of questions; e.g. "Romans were purchasing large quantities of silk" -- were they?

Obviously, for a college paper -- I'm not sure what stage you're at -- you wouldn't be expected to critique a century of Chinese-Roman studies, but I hope your history teachers are encouraging you to question the "century of scholarship". As new evidence arrives and old theories are tested, some of them will be found wanting. (And this means no disrespect to Hirth, Tarn, Pulleyblank, Loewe ... it's just a fact of life.)

[Epictetus]

Well, I know nothing about this topic, but I do like to read the philosophers. What do you make of this? (Emphasis mine.)

I see there raiments of silk - if that can be called raiment, which provides nothing that could possibly afford protection for the body, or indeed modesty, so that, when a woman wears it, she can scarcely, with a clear conscience, swear that she is not naked. These are imported at vast expense from nations unknown even to trade, in order that our married women may not be able to show more of their persons, even to their paramours, in a bedroom than they do on the street.

Seneca, Essays, VII, ix.

Of course, this is only one person’s view, but Seneca was no idiot (at least in my opinion ). If an advisor to an Emperor didn’t know where silk originated, who did?

[ScipioAsina]

Greetings all!

I apologize for the misquoting the Weilue in regards to Tiaozhi. It does not state that Tiaozhi is between Da Qin and Anxi, just that Tiaozhi is east of Da Qin. My brain was kind of fried yesterday. :oops: I guess I'll also apologize for any hunger-induced mistakes I make in this post.

Let's start somewhere different this time. In the account of the Kingdom of Da Yuezhi, we learn that the Yuezhi, having been displaced by the Xiongnu, made their home in Daxia. Daxia is generally believed to be Bactria, and this bit of information about the Yuezhi migration corresponds with our limited knowledge of Greco-Bactrian history. Anxi is said to border the Yuezhi on the west, and they are known to others as the "Guishuang," obviously relating to the "Kushan" Empire.

"Several thousand li southeast of the Yuezhi," the Hou Hanshu tells us, is the kingdom of Tianzhu. This almost certainly some place in India (Hill says Northwest India); we hear that "this kingdom is beside a great river (the Indus?)," its people "ride elephants into battle," and that "they practice the Buddhist Way." The author mentions that a certain Emperor Ming "sent envoys to Tianzhu to inquire about the Buddha's doctrine, after which paintings and statues [of the Buddha] appeared in the Middle Kingdom."

Between Anxi, Tianzhu, and the Yuezhi is Gaofu, which is probably a transcription of Kabul (Pelliot suggests "*Kaw-bw'u" and Pulleyblank "*kauh-boh").

Please bear with me. West of all this is Anxi, which, according to the Chinese, is "several thousand li across. There are several hundred small towns. The households, people, and men able to bear arms extremely numerous." We also find out that Anxi wanted "to control the trade in multi-coloured Chinese silks" that was going to Da Qin, a great power in the far west. The Chinese don't know much about Da Qin, but they do know that they are producing all sorts of valuable products, such as "coral" and "opaque glass." Now, there is a city in Anxi called Sibin (or maybe Sisai according to Hill), south of which is a place called Yuluo; as far as the Chinese are concerned, this is "the extreme western frontier Anxi." South of Yuluo is Tiaozhi, and then a large body of water. Gan Ying was convinced that this sea led to Da Qin, but became discouraged when some sailors told him the trip would take a long time.

Here, Yuluo might be a transcription of "Charax". I know it sounds strange, but it would have apparently been pronounced as "*ka-ra" at the time. This has led some to identify this as Charax Spasinou. As for Tiaozhi, I mentioned in earlier posts that is commonly associated with Seleukia/Susiana. If you accept these interpretations (but I assume y'all probably won't ), then Gan Ying probably would have been at the Persian Gulf and within Parthian lands. Thus Da Qin, west of Anxi, must have been Rome.

Yes, the Romans were purchasing silk. This article at LacusCurtius is a nice overview.

[Ron Andrea]

China sent lots of silk westward and got paid for it. While an earlier poster mentioned that individual segments of the Silk Road would have been traveled by the same people--rather than caravans covering the whole distance--surely they were all aware of the sources of supply and demand at the ends--even if they had few details. Unfortunately, then as now, anecdotal evidence was probably the least reliable.

Marco Polo is significant not because he was the first/only person to make the journey (his father and uncle had done so before him) but because he wrote a book. A relatively detailed, accurate book.

What we need are documents or artifacts.

[Marcus Octavian]

I have a toy Roman Soldier that clearly says "Made in China" on the bottom of it's foot.