Talk:Silk Road

Vandalism

I just cleaned up some other vandalism and looking at the history, people have been messing with it lately. --5lithy 04:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone put BIG BALLS ARE SWEATY as a paragraph title. Can someone change it back? I don't know how. Thanks. Pgrote 18:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Yeah, someone should change it. That definitely needs to be changed... --Asaroyal81 (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Recently, virtually all edits are vandalism and vansalism reverts. Shouldn't we ask the administrators to semi-protect the article, so that it can not be edited by non-registered users?--Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

nomination?

this is a fine article. someone should nominate it.

What about diseases being traded/transferred amongst traders on the silk road???

bills of lading, principal goods?

Aside from, presumably, silk, what particular material goods and/or services passed along the Silk Road? Items of commerce? Silk, spices, slaves? What else? ywuiu1==isk,pwuhje

after the Takla-Makan desert

Does any one know more about the stops made along the road after the taklamakan desert?

Some of the cities along that route are summed up in the artice under "From Anxi, China to Xi'an, China"

More info can be gathered on:

* http://www.cnto.org/silkroad-gansu.asp

* http://www.cnto.org/silkroad.asp

* http://www.travelingo.org/asia/china/tree/

ZZyXx 22:00, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

If you want know about the silk road I recomend http://www.ess.uci.edu/~oliver/silk.html and http://www.silk-road.com/toc/. If you want to know about a city look up Gansu, China on WikipediA.

Persian Empire & Chinese trade from Xiaking and the importance of Pakistan

The Archemenid Empire stretched into the lands which constitute modern day Pakistan. This article states northern india which is not factual. I dont know if this is due to vandalism. Also, trade from China's western provinces, passed through Central Asia, and directly through Pakistan's northern areas and Afghanistan where the major focal point for the commerce was the city of Taxilla, again in modern day Pakistan. Pakistan's role in the ancient silk route and as a major sea port of naval exchange as well as onward transport of goods was a vital link in the success of the Silk Route and this point needs to be stressed on more in the article. Thanks. Solomon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.208.153 (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

China considered most prosperous in 19thC?

The article said "As late as the beginning of the 19th century, China was still considered the most prosperous and sophisticated of any civilization on earth."

An Adam Smith quote from 1776 was presented as evidence, but I'm worried that the perception of China's wealth might have differed from person to person, from place to place. Since we already said that China was prosperous, why add such a categorical and controversial assertion?

For one thing, whether China actually was the richest country at such a late date is uncertain - Angus Maddison estimated that in 1760, the per capita incomes of Britain and France were $233 and $198, respectively, whereas that of India and China were only $123 and $118 (A. Maddison, A comparison of levels of GDP per capita in developed and developing countries, 1700-1980. Journal of Economic History 43(1): 27–41)

I realize we're dealing mostly with perceptions ("China was considered the most prosperous"), but still the reader might get the wrong idea. 61.221.30.167 9 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

The point is that China was a magnet of European expansionism, because of its perceived wealth and refinement, until the beginning of the 19th century. The 18th-19th century was a turning point: until then it was quite certainly more prosperous than the West, after then it was probably less prosperous. Also the West's perception changed dramatically after the Industrial Revolution, when the West came to be considered superior (politically and economically), although China remained valued as a huge market. Please add to the text if you wish, but do not reverse something which a perfectly true, rather well known, and key to the dynamic of East-West trade in history.

Another estimate of per capita GNP for 1800 by the economist Bairoch: "The per capita GNP for China in 1800 is (1960) US$228... France and England range from 150-200US$ in the 18th century." (Andre Gunter Frank, ReOrient, "Global Economy in the Asian Age", p173). Also Asia represented about 80% of World GNP in 1750 (Braudel, Bairoch).PHG 22:53, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I have read that china was much porer than the european contries since the XV century, for example, in england per capita production of iron in 1800 was 10 kg, and in china was only 1 kg. Adam Smith said that it was actually very poor in per capita income.

"The accounts of all travellers, inconsistent in many other respects, agree in the low wages of labour, and in the difficulty which a labourer finds in bringing up a family in China. If by digging the ground a whole day he can get what will purchase a small quantity of rice in the evening, he is contented. The condition of artificers is, if possible, still worse. Instead of waiting indolently in their work–houses, for the calls of their customers, as in Europe, they are continually running about the streets with the tools of their respective trades, offering their service, and as it were begging employment." Wealth of Nation Vol.I, pg 108

"The poverty of the lower ranks of people in China far surpasses that of the most beggarly nations in Europe. In the neighbourhood of Canton many hundred, it is commonly said, many thousand families have no habitation on the land, but live constantly in little fishing boats upon the rivers and canals. The subsistence which they find there is so scanty that they are eager to fish up the nastiest garbage thrown overboard from any European ship. Any carrion, the carcase of a dead dog or cat, for example, though half putrid and stinking, is as welcome to them as the most wholesome food to the people of other countries. Marriage is encouraged in China, not by the profitableness of children, but by the liberty of destroying them. In all great towns several are every night exposed in the street, or drowned like puppies in the water. The performance of this horrid office is even said to be the avowed business by which some people earn their subsistence." Wealth of Nation Vol.I, pg 109 --201.11.209.249 16:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Maritime Route

I'd argue strongly that the definition of the Silk Road excludes the maritime route between China and India. Not only is the maritime route traditionally defined as part of the Silk Road, but it carried different products, by different technologies, and was if anything a competitor to the Silk Road. The article provides little content on the maritime route, not even listing basic information such as the significance of Srivijaya or the impact of Chinese and Indian merchants in Southeast Asia. The maritime route needs its own article. Alan 15:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Roy Lee

From April 2005 on, this article has seen many edits from Roylee (talk · contribs), his 4.241.*.* IP range, or his most recent account Roy Lee's Junior (talk · contribs). Edits by this user often have introduced self-referential original research and speudo-scientific viewpoints into other articles. Examples of articles where this has been recognized and reverted include Sahara, Predynastic Egypt, Mende (tribe), and Ancient Egypt (some more examples). This user has mostly avoided discussion and just keeps adding his POV silently. The editing pattern of this user has been scrutinized by several editors at User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee. As it says there, "while some contributions are uncontroversial, editors are encouraged to examine edits by this user carefully." Now that Silk Road has been elevated to the status of 'good article' I am very curious to know whether al information has been fact-checked and has been confirmed to be notable, reliable, and verifiable. — mark ✎ 12:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Are their regular editors here, who have noticed the extensive edits of Roylee and 4.241.*.* IP's and who can comment on their verifiability and notability? — mark ✎ 09:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

For example, this one [1], and the entirety of Silk Road transmission of Art. Wizzy…☎ 21:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Bukhara

Bukhara is not mentioned in this article, and as I do not know whether it's on the main route or what, I don't think I am the one to add the reference. Would someone more studied than me be willing? Thanks. Bou 17:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Bou. To the best I can see by map in the Silk Road article, Bukhara was indeed on a spur of the Silk Road, but was not on a major route. While Bukhara definitely had regional importance, I haven't been able to find any information about Bukhara playing a major role in the history of the Silk Road as a whole. Justin Eiler 18:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because many statements are unreferenced and unverified. See also the section 'Roy Lee' above. I'm repeating my request above. Interested editors might want to consult Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roylee for more information on Roylee's edits and the problems they cause for Wikipedia's verifiability. — mark ✎ 14:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Origins

Interesting text about Ancient transport, Egyptian maritime trade and British tin, but does it really describe the Silk Road? The cedar of Lebanon, the copper of Sinai and the tin of Cornwall were hardly traded with China along the Silk Road.

There is evidence that Ancient Egyptian explorers may have originally cleared and protected some branches of the Silk Road. I strongly disbelieve the predynastic Egyptians built and protected the Silk Road, at least the "evidence" needs . I see why the article was removed from Wikipedia:Good article.--JFK 09:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the sentence above since the user´s lack of reliable sources was pointed out for me at another talk page. --JFK 15:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Just go back and undo his edits. If he's known to be a problem elsewhere, he's not going to change here. Don't let his filth ruin good articles.

Era Format

I've set the era format in this article to use BC where appropriate. I've removed references to CE and AD, neither of which are required to clarify a year from 1 onwards. Prior to these changes this article had a hotch-potch of styles, mainly BC/AD but with a significant element of CE/BCE. This looked ridiculous and was certainly unencyclopaedic. The first use of era terms in an edit preferred AD; reference to AD 1 was made. With that in mind, I've standardised to the use of BC (but not AD) throughout. This seems eminently sensible because it removes reference to AD, which some people don't like, and also removes CE which most people don't know about. BC should not be a problem because it is understandable and does not make a statement in the same way that AD arguably does. BC releates to a person who did exist and whose birth is the basis of the calendar used in this article. The reverts carried out by User:PHG make no sense - they revert to an inferior version, and also removed some minor, uncontentious, edits as well. Please note, this is not an article about religion. Arcturus 16:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag

With due respect to previous contributors, I've tagged this article for a grammar and syntax cleanup - large parts of it seem to have been written by a non-English speaker, and there is a degree of awkwarness. If I have time over the next day or two I may do the job myself - though perhaps it could be done by an expert in the subject at the same time as a comprehensive review of citations and sources? Bedesboy 20:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

as i know silkroad goes through turkey...this is not included

Religion and culture

This entry on the silk route does well for its concise nature. The majorital lack of reference to religion requires attention.

Tocharians and their influence on the silk road

The Tocharians are supposed to have been a major influence in China during the beginning of the Silk Road and obviously they established it, having come all the way from Europe. The thousands of Europeans found buried along the silk road (since 1977 - though the Chinese government put a stop to that in 1998) and Chinese documents which speak of the blond haired blue eyed leaders indicates strongly it was them. How come there is no mention in this article?

Also, I've heard of impressive abandoned structures still standing today by the Silk Road. It would be nice if someone could obtain a picture for Wikipedia. JettaMann 02:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just revisiting this article. I propose in the "Origins" section for the Silk Road that the Tocharians should play a more prominent role or at least be mentioned. Since they are the ones who initiated outside contact with China, travelling from West to East, the evidence seems very strong that they are the ones who established the Silk Road trade routes. Does everyone agree with this? JettaMann 19:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Tocharians were probably already living in Central Asia at the time that significant trade started (this concept of "coming from the West to establish trade" is ahistorical) -- but yes, the portion of the route connecting China and the Mediterranean was originally a Tocharian-Persian phenomenon. Also see Kushan Empire. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.6.235.83 (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Removed Foreign Translations

I removed the paragraph with foreign translations of the name "Silk Road".

I can see the logic of giving the name in the languages of countries along the route, but:

• it ends up ridiculously cumbersome and unreadable
• the modern languages of Central Asia aren't really pertinent to the ancient route
• lots of historically pertinent languages like Tocharian and Classical Greek weren't included
• the list included the irrelevant non-route languages Hungarian, Danish and Polish, and seems to be bait for any foreign language speaker to add their own language's version (one Wikipedist loves adding Ge'ez versions to any article)
• we don't, for example, in the India article list the version of the name "India" in every language that has legal status in that country
• and if we just include the fairly relevant Chinese versions, every other nationality will complain.

As removed:

In other languages, it is called  – Azerbaijani: Ipäk Yolu; Georgian: აბრეშუმის დიდი გზა; Turkish: İpekyolu; Russian: Великий Шёлковый Путь; simplified Chinese: 丝绸之路; traditional Chinese: 絲綢之路; pinyin: sīchóu zhī lù (Vělikij Šjolkovyj Put' ); Armenian: Մետաքսի ճանապարհ; Persian: راه ابریشم; Râh-e Abrisham; Kyrgyz: Жибек жолу ; Kazakh: Жібек жолы; Hungarian: Selyemút; Polish: Wielki Jedwabny Szlak; Danish: Silkevejen;

---

And BTW, if any foreign versions are to be included, what would actually be useful to the English reader is the literal meaning of the terms in the other languages, like "Great Camel Track"... or whatever it actually means.hi

Anti-Chinese remarks

This part caught my attention as POV and frankly unfair:

Chinese people helped build the Silk Road; they bought and sold with others, constructed their cultural beliefs, and tried to see themselves as not the center of the world. On one hand, the Chinese not only transported their distinguish goods but also bad things along the Silk Road, which also included some diseases. On the other hand, the complex relationships between the religion and the new culture were getting more clear.

And what does the last sentence mean, anyway? Dawidbernard 17:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed these statements in the "Central Asian commercial & cultural exchanges" section. They don't seem as extremely relevant contents in my opinion, and was possibly added randomly by a user. Anyway, they are pretty badly written, repetitive and unreferenced, so there is not much importance in keeping these informations.--Balthazarduju 07:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The name "Silk Road"

What is the history of the name "Silk Road"? I mean, it's clear how it originated semantically, but WHEN did this name originate? How far back can it be traced? --Iustinus 23:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

'The first person who used the term was the German geographer Ferdinand von Richthofen in 1877' Third paragraph of the article, just before the contents table. HalfShadow 23:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dammit! I had a feeling someone would tell me it was in the article and I'd somehow missed it. Thanks! --Iustinus 16:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Might be more useful to ask if the gimicky term has any validity amongst academics today. I hope it doesn't.Meowy 21:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Disuse during the period of Three Kingdoms

I read in the Early Kingdoms of the Indonesian Archipelago and the Malay Peninsula by Paul M. Munoz that the Silk Road fell into disused in the third century CE when the Chinese was caught in the period of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. That encouraged the development sea routes and contributed to the rise of Funan as well as other kingdoms like Pan Pan and Langkasuka. This Wikipedia article however does not mention does. Perhaps, we could put it in? __earth ^(Talk) 12:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Clean up the article

Article should be reorganized. Origin section is too long and has several duplications with history section. I think we can effectively shorten this section to 2-3 paragraphs. I have already shortened some parts such as Chinese exploration of Central Asia. It was too long and we have already good articles on these issues which I referred to them as the main article. No need to repeat every information which are available in the main articles. I also added some new references. However, the article still needs more improvement, especially in the sections of cultural and artistic exchanges.--behmod talk 14:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

But, Silk road is be world-famous road--123.16.69.18 (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete second map?

Seeing that we have two fine maps in the article, the third one "Silk road.jpg" in the paragraph "The great explorers: Europe reaching for Asia" seems kind of superfluous, especially since it is clearly of inferior quality (e.g. Shanghai is not worth mentioning for that period). So can we delete it? Taniquetil 14:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would second that deletion - two maps would seem sufficient and the third doesn't seem to add anything new. John Hill 23:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

this article has really improved

One way Buddhist spread was through the silk routes and oasis towns around Tarim Basin such as Miran (China) and Turfan, taken to avoid the Taklamakan Desert. These were an important east-meets-west locations and were bustling trading center. Lots of good archeological sites there. –Mattisse (Talk) 18:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of this article has nothing to do with the Silk Road

Now that I have read several good books on the Silk Road, I realize that most of this article has nothing to do with the Silk Road. The whole article needs to be reorganized and rewritten, in my opinion. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with the above; as a for instance: what the heck has the completion of the latest rail link replacing the old Silk Road to do with "Routes taken"??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.180.65 (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Map of 1st Century CE

The Map of silk road routes in the first century CE seems suspect. For example, it includes Constantinople, which wasn't founded till the 4th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.171.30 (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Move

Move as silk road only refers to the overland route

Old maritime silk route

One of the maritime silk routes is not precisely shown on either of the maps; this route runs from Basra, to Taheri (Siraf), Suhar, Khambhat, Kollam, Galle, Banda Atjeh, Singapore, Guanghzou ref= http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/06/tang-shipwreck/worrall-text/2