Talk:Khanbaliq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject China (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon
Portal icon China portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
 This article is supported by the Chinese history workgroup (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Middle Ages  
WikiProject icon
Portal icon Middle Ages portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

I am wondering if the characterisation of Khanbaliq as the ancient Mongol name for Beijing is totally correct. I am not a historian, but I have been told that the Ming did not only 'rebuild' the city, they virtually 'buried' the capital of the hated Mongols under their new city. (This was in contrast to the Manchus, who simply took over the Ming city without much change.)

I personally feel that a description along the lines of 'Khanbaliq was the capital of the ancient Mongol Empire and stood on the site of the modern city of Beijing. ...... ...... The city was completely rebuilt by the Ming and moved several kilometres south in the process.'

I suggest that there may be POV problems involved. To say that Khanbaliq is Beijing emphasises the continuity of the city's existence, which is a view that modern Beijing would like to promote (the 悠久的历史 line) and is also slightly Sinocentric, in that it follows the Chinese historiographical tradition of forcing history into an orderly succession of dynasties.

Are there any historians who could comment on this?


Bathrobe 23:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

There has always been a city there throughout recorded history. It may have been destroyed several times, but it was always rebuilt immediately, or failing that, part of the city survived the attack and lived on. In that sense, yes, Khanbaliq is Beijing. Tenochtitlan is Mexico City (and the city actually says it was founded in 1325). Rome was destroyed and depopulated in the 560s, but it's still Rome. Conversely, the city the Romans built at Carthage and was later the capital of King Gaiseric isn't the same as the Carthage of Hannibal, because the site sat unoccupied for about 100 years after the Third Punic War.

Just my opinion...take it for what it's worth. Jsc1973 23:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Jsc1973 is correct. It had happened frequently throughout the history of China (and of the world). Actually, saying Ming burned Khanbaliq (Dadu) is also incorrect, because Ming in fact burned only the imperial palaces in Khanbaliq, not the whole city. The city was actually never destroyed since Mongol-founded Yuan Dynasty up to now.--209.90.144.38 (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is problematic. "Khubilai Khan: His Life and Times" mentions that the Mongol name for this city is "Daidu" (p131).--207.112.71.179 (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Naming proposal [edit]

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The article should be renamed to "Dadu" or "Dadu (Yuan Dynasty)", since it was the official name ("Daidu" to the Mongols, which was a direct transliteration from Chinese), and it is also more common than "Khanbaliq".--Choulin (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any source to prove that "Dadu" was the official name? Also, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, Khanbaliq was not a Turkic name, but rather the Mongol name for the city.--TheLeopard (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
To begin with, the "Encyclopedia Britannica" link given earlier in the article is not available as desired. There are actually a number of sources mentioning "Khanbaliq" is a Turkic name, not a Mongol name. For your convenience to verify, I'll just link to some online books. For example, here and here. Yuan Shi (History of Yuan) mentions that "国初，为燕京路，总管大兴府。中统五年，称中都路。至元九年，改号大都", which points out that the city was renamed from Zhongdu to Dadu in 1272. Of course Yuan Shi is a Chinese source (officially completed by the Ming Dynasty in 1370); however, both Rossabi's "Khubilai Khan: His Life and Times" and "Cambridge History of China: Alien Regimes and Border States" mention that Daidu was the Mongol name (transliteration from Chinese), not Khanbaliq. These sources (plus the online books as given above) are clearly more reliable than "Encyclopedia Britannica". --Choulin (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Different sources stated different view on this name origin, it does make it more perplexing. You proposed to move this article to Dadu instead of the Khanbaliq, what is your basis and reason for it (aside from it is the offical name)? What do you mean by that it is more common than Khanbaliq?--TheLeopard (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Before I state it is more common than Khanbaliq, I have actually done some tests to confirm this. To begin with, "Dadu" returns with 1,060,000 results in Google, while "Khanbaliq" returns with 13,100 returns. Of course one may argue that "Dadu" in this simple search may not necessarily refer to the capital of Yuan, so we can show the comparisons better by adding other terms such as "capital" and "Beijing" to the names in the search. Here is it:
  • "Dadu"+"capital" returns 54,000 results in Google Search.
  • "Dadu"+"Beijing" returns 37,400 results in Google Search.
  • "Dadu"+"Peking" returns 13,800 results in Google Search.
  • "Dadu"+"Yuan" returns 20,200 results in Google Search.
  • "Khanbaliq"+"capital" returns 3,160 results in Google Search.
  • "Khanbaliq"+"Beijing" returns 3,630 results in Google Search.
  • "Khanbaliq"+"Peking" returns 2,090 results in Google Search.
  • "Khanbaliq"+"Yuan" returns 2,910 results in Google Search.
And Google Scholar tests:
  • "Dadu"+"capital" returns 635 results in Google Scholar Search.
  • "Dadu"+"Beijing" returns 665 results in Google Scholar Search.
  • "Dadu"+"Peking" returns 125 results in Google Scholar Search.
  • "Dadu"+"Yuan" returns 603 results in Google Scholar Search.
  • "Khanbaliq"+"capital" returns 41 results in Google Scholar Search.
  • "Khanbaliq"+"Beijing" returns 36 results in Google Scholar Search.
  • "Khanbaliq"+"Peking" returns 27 results in Google Scholar Search.
  • "Khanbaliq"+"Yuan" returns 39 results in Google Scholar Search.
The same tendency also occurs in Google Book Search, Yahoo Search, etc. By comparing the results, it is clear that "Dadu" is significantly more common than "Khanbaliq" when referring to this city.--Choulin (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm still a bit puzzled by your previous statement of it was the official name. Asides from the answer of the Mongol name for the capital "Daidu" was a transliteration from the Chinese "Dadu", but what makes it official?--TheLeopard (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As pointed out in Yuan Shi, Dadu became its official Chinese name instead of Zhongdu since 1272. "Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi" (p31) also mentions that "The city's old name Ch'ung-tu (i.e. Zhongdu), adopted in 1264, was changed to Ta-tu (i.e. Dadu) on 4 March 1272". According to several Chinese sources I have read, it was Kublai Khan's edict in March 1272 marked the official renaming, which is also mentioned in the English source "The Mongols", p123: "The same year, 1272, saw an edict of Qubilai's which renamed the imperial capital (on the site of Peking) Ta-tu, the 'great capital'".--Choulin (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the disambiguation page of Dadu, and found vast majority of links to it actually refer to this article. So just renaming it to "Dadu" should be fine. It's similar to Shangdu (Xanadu), whereas all other usages are relatively uncommon.--Choulin (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. We don't do WP:Official names; we don't rely on raw google searches; for one thing, it is most unlikely that hits on Dadu and Yuan are finding English text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
"we don't rely on raw google searches" -- Of course we don't rely on raw google searches, that is why Google Scholar Search results are already given above. If you do some careful searches in Google Scholars, Google Books, etc, you will find that Dadu is indeed used by a lot of English texts.--Choulin (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Links please; let's see these alleged results. Dadu is a short and generic name; I expect we shall find many false positives, both from other Chinese Imperial capitals and from, say, the Tibetan valley and the Hindu court poet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Didn't I already state above "of course one may argue that "Dadu" in this simple search (i.e. raw Google search) may not necessarily refer to the capital of Yuan, so we can show the comparisons better by adding other terms such as "capital" and "Beijing" to the names in the search."? You are exactly the one who argues this. Here is a Google Scholar link with the results "Dadu"+"Beijing"+"capital": [1], which returns 264 results; on the other hand, "Khanbaliq"+"Beijing"+"capital" only returns 27 results: [2], and "Khanbaliq" alone only returns 77 results. [3], obviously much less common than "Dadu".--Choulin (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Links are already given. Still any reason to oppose? As both the official name and the more common name, "Dadu" should be preferred over "Khanbaliq".--Choulin (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes. We are edited for lay readers, not for specialists; we should use the term familiar in English for centuries. If I were Jimbo, we would call this Cambaluc, as Coleridge did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
        • So you have changed the reason now? Of course "we are edited for lay readers, not for specialists". Google Scholar reveals the usage of specialists, but raw Google searches do reveal the usage of lay readers. Both Google Scholar and raw Google Search don't have many hits for "Cambaluc" or "Khanbaliq", compared with "Dadu" (or combined with other terms as shown above). What's your reasoning that it is more common? Or just ignored other usages in English?--Choulin (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Even though I'm unsure about the move of title to another name, I do think the Chinese name (Ta-Tu or Dadu, depends on which romanization) and the Mongol name (Daidu) presides over the Turkic name for this city, the capital of Yuan Dynasty.--TheLeopard (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, to Septentrionalis, you puted back the Britannica source, which is fine by me, however the Britannica states that Khanbaliq is a Mongol name, not Turkic, so here comes all the confusion with it. If you guys do use the Britannica source, makes sure to specify that Khanbaliq is a Mongolian name.--TheLeopard (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The Britannica source is better not used, because "Genghis Khan and Mongol Rule" (p198), and other sources state "Khanbaliq" is a Turkic name, just like Khanbalikh.--Choulin (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Wikipedia:Reliable source examples states that "General encyclopedias, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta, sometimes have authoritative signed articles written by specialists and including references. However, unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers and must be used with caution.". And the Ta-tu entry is obviously unsigned and must be used with caution.--Choulin (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The Encyclopædia Britannica is a very authorative encyclopedia, even those articles unsigned are generally done by full-time Britannica editors, which are a selected group. But the trouble comes when the article is contradictory, which the Britannica article and the sources (good sources btw) you showed are saying quite different things, thus I can see where the problem is.--TheLeopard (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Assume it's correct that even the unsigned articles of the Encyclopædia Britannica are generally done by a selected group and relatively authoritative, the Encyclopædia itself only had a Ta-tu (Dadu) entry (with quite short contents), but not a Khanbaliq entry; and it WAS this short entry previously used as a reference suggesting the latter is a Mongol name (contradictory to other sources).--Choulin (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica also mentions that "In 1272 he (Kublai) named the new capital Ta-tu (Great Capital)".--Choulin (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Any explanation to why the name Khanbaliq, Khanbalikh (if it were a Turkic name and not Mongolian) is quite a well known name for this city in the West? Even though, according to sources it is neither a Mongol or Chinese name, despite it is referring to a city of the Mongol-ruling dynasty of China? It should probably be explained. My primary assumption is that medieval traders brought back this name from Central Asia or Western Asia, thus the Turkic name stays (i.e. Marco Polo uses the Cambaluc, as the route he supposedly traveled is largely through regions of Turkestan).--TheLeopard (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Because Marco Polo used it; for centuries, up til about 1850, Herodotus and Marco Polo were the standard literary sources on Central Asia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, compare "Cathay" with "China". The usage of "Cathay" became quite well-known in the west, also largely because Marco used it.--Choulin (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
"Because Marco Polo used it; for centuries, up til about 1850, Herodotus and Marco Polo were the standard literary sources on Central Asia"
I failed to see the validity behind this claim, not to mention it is kind of vague. And does that account for anything though? It doesn't mean their works are viewed as accurate in this present-day, and most of what Marco Polo and Herodotus wrote are seen quite differently in the modern academic world. Sorry, but Herodotus's record on Asia (Asia minor) doesn't even mention much at all about the vast present-day Asia that we know of (in this case central Asia), and Marco Polo, like Herodotus may or may not have actually traveled to the east. Their accounts are interesting and entertaining, and of tremendous value, but by no means modern scholars would take them as facts.--TheLeopard (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Herodotus is the principal source on Tomyris, for example, who was not from Asia Minor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Considering that Cathay is a separate article discussing with the term "Cathay" itself, but not any details of the country of China, now I have a new, perhaps compromised proposal. That is, the article "Khanbaliq" (or "Cambaluc") be kept, but it should focus on the term "Khanbaliq" (or "Cambaluc") itself, just like the "Cathay" article, instead of discussing with the details of city named Dadu, which will be discussed in the "Dadu" article.--Choulin (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that shouldn't be done and probably wouldn't work. Most of the sources you presented about Dadu, Ta-tu, Daidu or Khanbaliq, are talking about the same thing, the same entity, the same city; whereas Cathay has evolved into an older Western literary term, referring to a fanaticized China, and carry a different meaning. I think Khanbaliq and Dadu, Daidu will mostly share the same sources of information, thus there is no point in creating bunch of different articles.--TheLeopard (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This was based on the point made by PMAnderson. If it was "because Marco Polo used it; for centuries, up til about 1850", then Dadu and Khanbaliq will also carry subtly different meaning, similar to Cathay and China. Whether it is true or not may still need some investigation.--Choulin (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Not really; the romantic tone of Cathay is retained by Cambaluc, not Khanbaliq - the only real reason to not move this article back to Cambaluc, as the traditional English name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
If your point is true, then a separate article named "Cambaluc" (not "Khanbaliq") which discusses the term itself (as it comes from "Khanbaliq") would be desired, just like "Cathay", a literary term. Not a move of this article to "Cambaluc", but a separation. The real city would be discussed in "Dadu", the official name and the more common name in present-day sense.--Choulin (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a separate article, parallel with Cathay, might well be useful. This is an entirely separate question from the proposal to move this article from Khanbaliq, which is at least familiar to anglophones, to a name with which they are not familiar. Does any editor actually fluent in English support the present proposal? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Didn't I already state above that this is sort of a new proposal? A separate article paralleling with Cathay is certainly part of this new (and larger) proposal, which is clearly linked to the original one. I believe you need to follow the ongoing discussions more closely. Regarding familiarity, considering Dadu/Khanbaliq is the name for the city of Beijing in a certain period, if you just want the most familiar name for this city, then why not just merge this article to Beijing? --Choulin (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Because Beijing is 92K and doesn't need anything else merged into it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I highly doubt the validity of this claim. This article is only 4K in size, and there are actually quite a few overlaps in both articles. By merging them, the resulting article will probably increase by only 1-2K, not significant at all, and will also avoid duplicate contents for the city.--Choulin (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose a merger of this article with any other (cf. New Amsterdam, Constantinople). — AjaxSmack 21:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I would actually agree with your point. The "merge" idea was just supposed to be used as a counterexample to show that Pmanderson's aforementioned claim would not work. But I personally oppose a merge as well. cf. Chang'an, an even better example.--Choulin (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposed move until more quality evidence is provided for the preponderance of Dadu. Google hits, contemporary "official languages" (I doubt such existed as we now think of them), or languages spoken currently in the vicinity should not carry the weight they do in this nomination. Instead, for a more obscure subject such as this, look at scholarly output on the subject and other similar material to determine what is used in English. For example, historical atlases:
    • Shepherd → "Taydo, Khabaliq", et al.
    • Herrmann → "Tatu, Khanbalik" and "Yu, Khanbalik"
    • R.R. Palmer (Rand McNally) → "Khanbaligh (Tatu)"
  • Or history books:
    • Fairbank, Reishcauer, Craig. East Asia. → "Khanbaligh" (p. 171)
    • Dun. J. Li. The Ageless Chinese: A History. → "Khanbalik (Peking)" (p. 262)
    • Duiker, Spielvogel. World History: Volume I. → "Khanbaliq" (p. 284)
    • Dillon. China: A Historical and Cultural Dictionary. → "Dadu (Beijing)" (p. 391)
  • I would welcome more evidence from such sources before a title change is made. — AjaxSmack 21:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to differentiate between the two categories of names (specifically the ones without romantic tone) referring to this city during the Yuan-era. Here they are:
Category 1: Dadu, Tatu, Ta-tu, Daidu, ... (all derived from the Chinese name "大都")
Category 2: Khanbaliq, Khanbalik, Khanbalikh, Khanbaligh, ... (all derived from the Turkic name)
In history books, the Wade-Giles spelling of the Category 1 name, "Tatu" or "Ta-tu" is very common. For example, Encyclopaedia Britannica and Vol 6 of Cambridge History of China (within which the Yuan Dynasty is discussed) both use "Ta-tu". On the other hand, the pinyin spelling "Dadu" is more commonly used by more recent works, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) also states that "established systematic transliterations (e.g. Hanyu Pinyin) are preferred". As for Category 2 names, there are also many varieties (as already shown), and none of which actually significantly outnumbers all the others. However, If you compare Category 1 names and Category 2 names as a whole, then one would probably find that Category 1 names are actually more commonly used by history books and other works (the historical atlases you mentioned also often placed Category 1 names before the Category 2 names, e.g. "Tatu, Khanbalik"). "Google Books" and "Google Scholar" searches may be used as a starting point for getting this conclusion, though more careful study of the results is required. --Choulin (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Below are some examples of usages in historic works, which clearly shows a divided usage in both categories of names. However, the pinyin spelling "Dadu" is more commonly used than the Wade-Giles spelling "Tatu" or "Ta-tu" in more recent works.
    • Julia Lovell, The Great Wall: China Against the World, 1000 BC - AD 2000, 2007 → "Dadu" (p185)
    • Stephen G. Haw, Marco Polo's China: A Venetian in the Realm of Khubilai Khan, 2006 → "Dadu" (p69)
    • Dilip K. Das, Asian Economy and Finance: A Post-crisis Perspective, 2005 → "Dadu" (p5)
    • Gavin Menzies, 1421: The Year China Discovered America, 2003 → "Ta-tu" (p20)
    • Francis Richard Stephenson, Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation, 1997 → "Ta-tu" (p294)
    • Nigel Cameron, Brian Brake, Peking: A Tale of Three Cities, 1965 → "Ta-tu" (p76)
    • Khoon Choy Lee, Pioneers of Modern China: Understanding the Inscrutable Chinese, 2005 → "Khanbaliq" (p387)
    • John Stokes, John Philip Stokes, Gwenneth Stokes, The People's Republic of China, 1975 → "Khanbaliq" (p43)
    • Graeme Smith, Frommer's Beijing, 2006 → "Khanbalik" (p211)
    • Alfred Schinz, The Magic Square: Cities in Ancient China, 1996 → "Dadu" / "Khanbalik" (p288)
    • Peter Jackson, The Mongols and the West, 2005 → "Khanbaligh" (p297)
--Choulin (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khanbaliq&oldid=249681742"