Talk:Kangju

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Sogdiana?

Isn't Ferghana located right in the middle of Sogdiana? Isn't Kangju to the Northwest of Ferghana then more likely to be Khwarezmia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.93.140.24 (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More geographical confusion

"Their kingdom was located directly north of Sogdiana and about 1,000 kilometers northwest of Dayuan (Ferghana)[1] and corresponding to the area of Sogdiana."

How's that again? North of, yet coextensive with, Sogdiana? · rodii · 23:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out this error and thank you John Hill for fixing it! Unfortunately this article needs some improvement (no dis-respect to previous authors intended!). The format is difficult to follow and there are several inconsistancies (like the one noted above). I've been looking for more concrete info to add (to this article and to my maps) but haven't had much luck. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thomas: Thank you for your note. I agree with you this article badly needs some work done on it. The Kangju were an important group in the history of the region and the development of the early Silk Routes and deserve much more attention in the Wikipedia. I was really just trying to fix the immediate problem today. I will try to get back to it soon - I do have quite a large number of references to hand which should help me flesh it out. The problem is that I am a bit sick at the moment - so I may be a few days. If you don't see anything done in a week or so - please don't hesitate to give me a reminder and a nudge on my Talk Page. Cheers and best wishes, John Hill (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their language cannot be Turkic

Interesting someone who claim those ancient people to be of "Turkic people", which is nonsense in my opinion. the Turkic prospered almost 400 years after Xiongnu empire(Huns empire but not confirmed) collapsed and 200 years after the great migration happened. How could some people living 600 years before the Turkic khanate's establishment be Turkic? There are also people to claim the Xiongnu people to be Turkic. Again this is nonsense, as we know clearly that there are several other khanate existed between Xiongnu empire and Turkic empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.218.105.101 (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not nonsense! Yes, there were Turkic tribes before the Turkic khanate's (Göktürks) establishment. The Göktürks fought against other Turkic tribes. Today we call all of them "Turks" because Göktürks defeated all of them. Böri (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly are Turkic tribes before Gokturkic empire, however the "Kanju" was not a part of it! The kanju people were a nomadic tribal federation formed at the time of 100 BCE, at the same time, Turkic tribes were pasturing in the northern part of today's mongolian plateau and its 2000 miles away from central Asia, not to mention the great mountains in between them! the fact was the Turks migrated into Central Asia "after" the Hephtalite and Rourans defeated the Wusun people and Kanju people, at about 370 CE, about 400 years since Kanju was there in Central Asia. therefore, to call the "Kanju" turkic was totally nonsense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apzat (talk • contribs) 04:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claims that Kanju aren't Turkic are based on speculations. Scholars like Shiratori Kurakichi concluded that they were Turkic based on the textual studies. There are some recent scholars that claim Iranian or Tocharian decent, but these "scholars" are probably motivated more by eurocentristic view and İndo-Aryan bias and less by factual studies. 136.169.203.139 (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Projecting your own nationalistic (Turkocentric, in your case) biases on others a bit, perhaps? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the balance, it is necessary to add references to the researchers who consider the language of the Kangju to be Turkic, if there are other opinions, add them as well. My opinion is that we do not know which language (languages) was used in the Kangju. The data from Chinese sources are insufficient, and the names of the two terms of power are not clear and could well be borrowed. As a result, all studies which uniquely defining the language of the Kangju are based on extremely weak assumptions. Unfortunately, many researchers are automatically defined as "Iranian-speaking" absolutely all peoples living in Central Asia, in the south of Eastern Europe and Siberia for 4 thousand years, if they did not leave behind written monuments. Therefore, for the balance, it is necessary to show that there are another opinions on this issue.Üzgäreş (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kangju = Kanglı?

This article says: The ethnicity of the K'ang-chü people is thought to be Turkic by Shiratori Kurakichi, based on textual studies. And there was a Turkic tribe called "Kanglı". see Kangly article. Kangju = Kanglı? Böri (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will say its just a coincidence. The name of the turkic tribe "Kangli" appeared very late in the history. without empirical evidences its very hard to say which group the Kanju people belongs to. The Chinese people called the city of Samarkhand as "Kang Guo", literally "the Kingdom of Kang". So may be the name of Kanju was a description of the land they lives on or just simple locations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apzat (talk • contribs) 04:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Padjans (Padjanaks, Pechenegs)

I suggest you read The Padjans (Padjanaks, Pechenegs) if you want to know who the Kangju were. In my opinion Joseph Amyot Padjan, the author of that book, has settled the matter of their identity and origin once and for all. Amongkol (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamga

This is unsourced. Where is the source for this "own work"? Where is a historical source which confirms that symbol as the Kangju's tamga? It must have a source just like flags, emblems, insignias and etc. --

talk) 12:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

@
Wario-Man: I do not have a source for that tamga; however, there is a source in Wikipedia. I'm not sure if this coin has a source, but if it does, is it not good enough for the the other image? It is in the Kangju article. I feel as though it's source is enough (whatever that may be). Darokrithia (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Never mind, coin says own work on it. Disapointing. Perhaps it needs to be removed from article as well then... Darokrithia (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing to look into this I found a few articles for the sogdian (who were related to if not the same as the kangju) tamga, which seems to be an upside down version of the alleged kangju tamga. Hope this is helpful http://sanat2013.orexca.com/eng/3-4-04/history_art3.shtml http://www.geocities.jp/hiranocolt/page034.html Darokrithia (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone speaks russian I may have found a good source for whatever tamga the Kangu may have used. Sadly it is in Russian, and I do not speak Russian. https://www.academia.edu/28827897/Yatsenko_S.A._Tamga-signs_of_Iranian-Speaking_Peoples_of_Antiquity_and_Early_Middle_Ages_Znaki-tamgi_iranoyazychnykh_narodov_drevnosti_i_rannego_srednevekovya_._Moscow_Vostochnaya_literatura_2001_190_pp._36_pls._ISBN_5-02-018212-5 Darokrithia (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 07:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Links about iranian language kangju

The first source contains an assumption about the connection of Kangju with Iranian tribes, and the similarity of their clothes with the clothes of the Alans (which Kangju temporarily subordinated), while in this passages it is said about the cultural proximity of Kangju to the Huns. The second source claims that the Chinese term generally denoted the name of a dynasty that ruled in Sogd. If this is so, Kangju was probably Iranian-speaking, but in this case it is a question of a different phenomenon, and not of “Kangju - ancient kingdom in Central Asia”. The third source is another passage of the same book, which is listed as the first source and does not contain the required statement at all. The fourth source does not contain the statements about iranian language. The fifth source is another page of the fourth, but I can’t check it (no in the public domain and in the libraries available to me). It would be great if someone checked this page too. In the sixth source, the hyperlink refers to the same book that the fourth and fifth link leads to (but specified the output fo the different book) ... This link was also not checked. Everything is very bad. I have no doubt that there is a sufficient amount of research with a similar statement, but the references I have verified turned out to be erroneous. Someone please check the remaining links.Üzgäreş (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't replace lots of sourced information with something that isn't remotely reliable, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to discuss the details here. But please don't revert back to your questionable version, as no consensus has been established. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening! I think our discussion can be divided into three parts. 1) The statement in the preamble about the Kangju Indo-European language does not quite correspond to the source given below. It literally says that “Asiani refer to the people of K'ang-chü”, also the author points to the close connection between Kangju and Alans. The Indo-European language of Asii and Alans is obvious to the author, but “Asiani refer to the people of K'ang-chü” does not mean “Kangju were an Asii”. Isn't it? It does not seem to me an obvious need to write in the preamble of this article that the Asii language was Indo-European, but if this seems necessary to you, just indicate it (Instead of adding a missing assertion in the source). 2) Of the six references cited under the Kangju Iranian-language assertion, five refer to different pages of two publications. I deleted duplicates, and only deleted where I was able to check the indicated pages and did not find the required statement there. I wrote about this above. I also refer to one source three times, but I refer to it under various statements, since it contains all three most common points of view. If you consider that it is necessary to refer several times to different pages of the same publication under same statement , then please explain why this is necessary. 3) I put three sources. Two of which are publications by professional researchers specializing in this subject. The third source is a link to online encyclopaedia created by a professional Sinologist. This is weaker than articles or monographs, but to characterize this source as “unreliable” is an exaggeration.Which of these sources and for what reason do you think «remotely reliable»? Hope for future dialogue, Üzgäreş (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) Regarding the Asii thing; it does from my understanding, you're just overthinking about it. Also, no one knows what the funk Asii is, so it's most than fine to have Indo-European written. 2) I'm only seeing one duplicate, which is Sinor. 3) You put three sources, one being some random Russian (Soviet) stuff, whilst the two others is from the same random bloke. Let me say it another way, the vast majority of academic sources agree that the Kangju were Indo-Europeans (whether its Tocharian or Iranian), not Turkic. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you started to response. 1) A source that "confirms" the Indo-European nature of the Kanju language does not contain this confirm, it is stated that the Kanju were closely associated with two peoples, which are identified as Indo-European. 2) Well, the first and third links can not be considered duplicates, since they lead to different volumes of the same edition, ok. But this does not negate the fact that the first link does not contain the desired statement (in the first message I confused the first and third sources). Let's leave the third - on Kyzlasov (although Iranian language of one of the population groups is being approved there, but this is already a statement). The sixth link may not be a duplicate, but the hyperlink on this page leads to the same Sinora - I did not delete it, I just wrote that something had to be done about it ... And yes, statements about a sameness of K'ang-chü and Sogdiana (for example, Benjamin, Craig) must somehow be separated from the statements where the distinction is made between Sogdiana and K'ang-chü (for example, L. R. Kyzlasov). 3) It is very nice - to characterized two researchers that have not liked you with the phrases “the same random bloke” . Why don't you call L.R. Kyzlasov "some random Russian (Soviet) stuff" too? Most of the Kanju archeology literature is written in Russian and not translated into English - this creates some difficulties. There are different points of view, the most common (and adequate in my opinion) seems to me the point of view according to which there is not enough data for statement about the language of Kanju. Among the researchers who are inclined to judge the Kanju language, the majority speaks in favor of Iranian speaking - I haven’t argued with it. But there are other points of view (which underscores the ambiguity of the question). Let me say it another way, in its present form, the article replaces the real uncertainty with the appearance of confidence and excludes all the alternative points of view, which exist in academic sources 4) I forgot about another important point: you deleted my additions about irrigation. They seem to be very important, since the questions of the division of water resources were the subject of political speculation in the region in 1969 and today. Although there I put down a link with a page error (270, not 261).Üzgäreş (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the love of god please make some spaces between your wall of text, I can't read that, it's like my inner dyslexia pops up. You're welcome to add the irrigation stuff back. Just don't add dodgy sources whilst removing academic sourced ones thanks. The article is not uncertain at all, it's pretty well written and sourced. The Kangju are agreed to be Indo-European, so please stop trying to shove a anachronistic Turkic identity in with questionable sources (you even admitted yourself that one of them may be unreliable), thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me my English. I wrote that the article creates the appearance of unambiguous clarity of the question. But it is not so for many researchers. Most researchers Kanju, as I understand it, do not write anything about their language. What the "dodgy sources" I put in your opinion? I really accidentally deleted one source that should not be deleted (mixed up two different volumes of the same series). Sorry. But this is not a reason to remove the academic sources given by me. I said about one source that it is not as good as a monograph or article. However, this source does not say anything about the "Turkic identity" about which you constantly write. It is appropriate to cite the opinion of the synologist on this issue. I hope that you will also answer the rest of the comments I made. While I remain at the opinion that almost all changes I made were valid.Üzgäreş (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kangju&oldid=1203192812"