Login

01-23-2002, 07:12 PM

I came across this recently, I thought you all might find it interesting: 
 
DIGGING FOR ROMANS IN CHINA 
Address:www.pip.com.au/~paceman/R...CHINA.html 
 
Sounds rather tenuous. Dubs, though, is a major scholar on Han Dynasty China, with an impeccable reputation. ("I know my ancestors were Romans!") I'd like to find some reliable analysis, though. 
 
Best, 
 
John

01-23-2002, 07:17 PM

Based on the discovery of caucasian mummies in that area dating from ca. 5000 years ago, I'd say that a Roman presence that far afield isn't out of the question. (That's not to say that the caucasian mummies were Romans, only that if westerners were there 5000 years ago, why not 2000?) 
_________________________________ 
CASCA TARQVINIVS GEMINVS 
<a href=http://www.legio-ix-hispana.org> LEG IX HSPA COH V CEN VIII CON III 
_________________________________

Matthew Amt · 01-24-2002, 08:25 PM

Avete! 
Gads, not the Chinese Romans again... Sorry, guys, makes a nice historical fiction story, but the theory as a whole, well, its "ratio of substance to holes compares unfavorably with the head of a tennis racket" (to quote my favorite review of the original Dungeons and Dragons game!). Dubs may be a Han Dynasty expert, but his military background is obviously sparse and he leaps to some amazing conclusions. He builds theories on guesswork and more theories. 
 
Yes, there are Caucasian mummies in China that predate the Romans, and their descendants are still there (despite the great lengths the Chinese government has gone to to try to cover up and discredit the entire story!). Doesn't make them Roman! The Romans were NOT the only people to learn how to hold their shields up in front of them, or to fortify a position with pointy sticks! Old ruins that MIGHT be Han Dynasty in an area that MIGHT have a name that the Chinese used for "Romans" don't mean that they were built by or for Romans. Saying that a pot is "Roman style" is no description at all, considering the wide and wild range of pottery they used, especially when you are only describing someone else's description and the piece in question is nowhere to be seen... The article mentions some foreigners brought to court, then the writer theorizes that they were sent out to just the right place as border guards--Why not assume they were instead kept as crack bodyguards? Or castrated and sent to monastaries? Or chopped up on the spot? Or blinded and kicked out to be beggars? You see the problems? 
 
This story comes floating back up again and again, and no matter how "convinced" the writers are, it still sounds to me like, "Hey, Peking is rectangular--IT MUST HAVE BEEN BUILT BY ROMANS!!" I'm not saying it's impossible, but it really needs a little more evidence to make it float as history or science. And even if it all turns out to be completely true, it will NOT "rewrite the entire history" of Rome--get real! The history of China might need an appendix, but somehow I don't see our socialist toy-making friends swallowing any of this, even if they dig up a whole cohort with Crassus's coins in their armpurses. 
 
Sorry, don't mean to sound like I'm attacking any of you guys! This and the "America BC" thing are just some of my personal pet peeves. EVIDENCE!! That's all I ask. 
 
Valete, 
Matthew/Quintus (Chinese for "The Frothing One")

01-24-2002, 08:33 PM

I reiterate, 
 
Quote:<hr> (That's not to say that the caucasian mummies were Romans,<hr> 
 
I simply don't think it's impossible. 
_________________________________ 
CASCA TARQVINIVS GEMINVS 
<a href=http://www.legio-ix-hispana.org> LEG IX HSPA COH V CEN VIII CON III 
_________________________________

01-25-2002, 04:58 PM

I've had a very interesting conversation with a sinologist once on the net about that. What is certain is that the Chinese knew the Roman Empire. They had a name for it, which I don't remember. 
Chinese chronicles also talk of ambassadors from an emperor "An'toun" (Antoninus Pius or Caracalla?) at the court of the Emperor of China. 
But conclusive evidence -- if there is any-- about the presence of former roman soldiers at the marches of the Kingdom of the Middle remains to be found. 
If this presence was proven it wouldn't be very significant historically speaking anyways, and it certainly wouldn't have been sufficient to trigger significant cultural change in the area. 
A bunch of legionaries lost in the middle of nowhere, at the edge of the central asian desert wouldn't have any impact at all on the Kingdom of the Middle. A tear in the ocean. 
It would just prove once again that people knew how to travel far and wide, even before the advent of economy class and the lost baggage counter.

mcbishop · 01-25-2002, 07:17 PM

"We're amassing a mound of circumstantial evidence, but there's no clincher" 
 
Mound? More like a steaming heap... This is the same sort of flabby reasoning that concludes (for example) the Egyptians could never have built the pyramids and needed aliens to help them. 
 
This particular little folk myth, like the *legio IX* marching into the mists of northern Britain, just will not die. If he wants something fascinating to pursue he could try the Roman army in the Crimea (it's lousy with them), but really, this is nonsense. I bet we get a Channel 4 documentary on it some time soon... :-( 
 
I admit I am suspicious of sinologists, ever since one wrote to me after I published an article reconstructing the armour of the terracotta warriors telling me that I had stolen his idea.. he just hadn't got round to writing anything about it yet. However, I should add *no more* suspicious than I am of Romanists... ;-) 
 
Mike Bishop

01-25-2002, 07:20 PM

The "ambassadors" from An-tun (probably Marcus Aurelius Antoninus) were certainly unofficial -- & most likely just some enterprising merchants from Alexandria (which the Chinese thought was the capital of the Roman Empire). [Note that a small hoard of aurei (gold coins) of Marcus have been found in Viet Nam.] Also, about the year 100, a Chinese general was sent exploring the far west, he reached the Caspian sea, and dispatched an emissary to make contact with Rome. The man made it to Ctesiphon, but the King of Parthia talked him out of going further -- the last thing the Parthians wanted was friendly relations between the powerful hostile empire on their western borders and the powerful, as yet unfamiliar empire approaching from the East. All this is documented in some detail in Chinese sources (Chinese historiograohy is incredible -- there are literally thousands of surviving volumes of history written before 1000 AD -- though very little is available in translation. Chinese archives contain tens of thousands of ancient manuscripts that have never been translated into modern Chinese -- noone today even knows what they contain! It boggles the mind! -- well, enough OT stuff). 
 
And, I must agree that the Chinese/legionary story is rather dubious at best. 
 
Regards, 
John

Catiline · 01-25-2002, 07:22 PM

Here's what OCD has to say, at least the relevant bits. 
 
The Chinese name for the Roman empire wasTa-ts'in. 
 
There were embassies of a sort going both ways, Kan Ying appparently sent one west, at least as far as the Persian gulf. Rome sent embassies East in 166 and 284. Chinese accounts of the Romans apparently list silk production as one of their resources (the date of these is not given, but it is infered that they are earlier than 550 AD when silk eggs are recorded as getting to cConstantinople.) 
 
Silk was produced in the Med by the Greeks, particularly on Cos, but is not referenced after the time of Augustus. These seem to be fdifferent silk mohts to the ones in China.

01-27-2002, 09:38 AM

Check this out from the East Asian History Sourcebook: 
 
Chinese Accounts of Rome, Byzantium and the Middle East, c. 91 B.C.E. - 1643 C.E. 
Address:www.fordham.edu/halsall/e...chin1.html 
 
Regards, 
 
John

01-27-2002, 05:37 PM

Quote:<hr> The Hsi-yu-chuan of the Hou-han-shu contains for the first time a description, consisting of 589 characters, of the westernmost amongst the countries described in Han literature previous to the Ming dynasty, the country of Ta-ts'in. In this description we find quite a number of facts regarding the situation of the country, its boundaries, capital, people, products, and industries, which would, apart from any collateral information derived from later histories, have furnished a sufficient basis for the identification of the country, had not an unfortunate prejudice at once taken possession of those European sinologues who investigated the subject, for they held to the opinion that Ta-ts'in, being the most powerful country described in the Far West, must necessarily be the Roman Etnpire in its full extent, with Rome as its capital. This theory has been especially defended by Visdelou and de Guignes, and recently by Bretschneider, Edkins, and von Richthofen. I must confess that I once shared that prejudice, and that when, two years ago, I commenced to collect the passages relating to this question, I did so for the purpose of supporting the arguments in favor of Rome and Italy. I soon found, however, that a close examination of the Han accounts, instead of substantiating my original views, induced me to abandon them altogether. In these records mention is made of the manufacture of storax, which has been shown by Hanbury to have been at all times confined to the Levant; of the use of crystal (glass) and precious stones as architectural ornaments; of foreign ambassadors being driven by post from the frontier to the capital; of the military system of the country, which was based on the division of ten and three; of the dangerous travelling, the roads being infested with tigers and lions, thus compelling wayfarers to resort to caravans. A consideration of this among other testimony forcibly suggested the idea that Ta-ts'in was not Rome itself, but one of its eastern provinces.<hr> 
_________________________________ 
CASCA TARQVINIVS GEMINVS 
<a href=http://www.legio-ix-hispana.org> LEG IX HSPA COH V CEN VIII CON III 
_________________________________

02-02-2002, 10:21 AM

Very interesting. I guess one could be confidently inclined to believe that there was more communication in ancient times than what we are taught to believe. With all of the cover-up's going on, time will tell. Just like the theory that America was a colony of the Phoenicians, particularly Carthage, including North America, South America, the tips of Africa, the mediterranean, Asia, etc. If true, it shows that they were more accomplished colonists than the Romans ever were.

Goffredo · 02-03-2002, 05:23 PM

ssshhh, we are running risks here. 
Falsifications, cover ups, secrets, major conspiracies. 
Armstrong never landed on the moon and the Mayans and Aztecs were Pheonicians. Proof? They stopped using one of their greatest inventions, namely phonetic writing! The answer to the riddle to this and other cover up stories can be found under the hood (if you know what I mean) at 
www.hogwash.com Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 2/3/02 6:27:59 pm

02-03-2002, 06:41 PM

I don't get it. 
_______________________________ 
MILES CASCA TARQVINIVS GEMINVS 
<a href=http://www.legio-ix-hispana.org> LEG IX HSPA COH V CEN VIII CON III 

VIRES ET VALOR PRO GLORIA ROMAE 
_______________________________

02-03-2002, 09:41 PM

What? Didn't you know the world suddenly became round in 1492?! 
 
But no, there are no 'cover-ups'; only a persistent demand for well reasoned conclusions based on substantial evidence (which just isn't there -- though there's no lacking in whacko speculation and crank obsessives). Durn those scholars! asking for PROOF, no less! 
 
Hilaritas! 
 
John

02-05-2002, 04:00 AM

Ave Goffredo! 
 
 
I haven't a clue about what automotive products have to do with conspiracies of this nature. 
please enlighten me!

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me