Talk:Wusun

message: I would omit this remark. This is part of Yuezhi history describing their way to Bactria. I would change into 'en route they overran the Wusun...' Guss2 12:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you lost me. According to Hanshu (in translation by Hulsewé pp 104-105, 120-21) and Shiji (Watson II 264 ff): After being attacked by the Xiongnu, killing the Yuezhi king, making his skull into a drinking vessel, the Yuezhi went far away beyond Ta Yuan (Ferghana) and proceeding west to attack and subjugate Ta-Hsia (Bactria). The Yuezhi migration caused the 'King of the Sai'(Saka) to move to the south where he established himself in 'Chi-pin'(the location of which is uncertain). The Sai tribes split and seperated and repeatedly formed several states. Some time before the Xiongnu attack on them (as you changed correctly), the Yuezhi had attacked their neighbour, the Wusun. Correct me if I am wrong but I see no connection  between Yuezhi causing to migrate Saka tribes and the history of the Wusun. Guss2 13:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  mmmm I don't know yet. I make a short chronological survey in my own words. Correct me if I am wrong:
# Yuezhi attack on their neighbours Wusun (Hanshu 61) Wusun nearly destroyed
# Xiongnu attack on Yuezhi causing them to move to Ta Yüan and west to Ta-hsia
#This moving of Yuezhi causing Sai to move to the south (Hanshu 61)
# Yuezhi occupied the lands Sai had left
Where in the chronology do I put in the Wusun occupying of the territory formerly occupied by Sai???  Guss2 14:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Now you cleared things up. Thanks. Guss2 14:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  En route they drove away the Saka 

message: Hi! It is me again. I think you do need the word actual just to understand these lines better:
::The Wusun were described' by the Chinese historical annals as having green eyes and red beards with a macaque physical shape 
This is clearly a description. Then follows:
::i.e., of Caucasoid appearance, though no description of the Yuezhi was given. 
Now there is a contradiction you see?.
BTW, It is my personal opinion  that abbreviations in encyclopeadic text should be avoided as much as possible. Guss2 15:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthropology and archeology - actual unneeded) 

message: Hi Eiorgiomugini. You wrote: though their name was last mentioned on an offering to the court of Liao Dynasty on September 22, 938 (Liaoshi, ch.4). In 'History of Civilizations of Central Asia' part III by Unesco the Russion historian Zadneprovskiy on p. 461 writes: The last reference to the Wu-sun in the historical sources is in AD 436, when a Chinese diplomatic mission was dispatched to their country and the Wu-sun reciprocated. So according to that Russian mentioning ended 500 years earlier. To me 436 seems more acceptable, otherwise there are 500 years unaccounted for. What do you think about it?? Guss2 09:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  last mentioning name Wusun  

message: Hi Eiorgiomugini!. Just for your information. Last night I read a chapter in Otto Franke 'Geschichte des chinesischen Reiches' (= History of the Chinese empire). Franke was a famous german sinologist and one of the first Europeans who wrote between 1936 and 1946 a history of China completely from chinese sources. I admire him for this. Unfortunately because of Worldwar II his work remained unfinished and stopped at 1368AD. He writes in part 1 about the peoples from the steppe:
::In the sources of their enemies for centuries the steppe peoples are pictured as brave warriors who esteem honour high and with a symphatic and eminent character. Europe is still too much influenced by the one-sied and sometimes even completely wrong Greek-Roman sources. 
Maybe this explaines your companionably and my surprise about it? Guss2 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  companionably again  

message: The language of the Wu-sun is totally unknown and subject of speculation. Leading theories are that they spoke Turkic, that they were speakers of Iranian languages and thus related to Scythians and Issedones. Most scholastic sources (The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, The Cambridge History of Iran, etc) do not mention any language, but only explain that they were nomadic and - in terms of lifestyle - similar to other steppe peoples. 
Thus, I have removed the reference to the alleged Turkic language from the intro. Although the information is sourced, it is a misleading claim, and selective quoting does not imporove the article. It would take only a minute to find sources claiming that the Wu-sun spoke Iranian, Tibetan, or some other language. Tājik (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: & they were an Indo-European people says Christopher I. Beckwith. (but I don't believe it. They were a Turkic people.) Böri (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wusun = Asvin ??? 

message: IP 89.204.139.68 removed a reference and referenced information under the false edit summary, "Indo-european theory is not in the source". Yet, the source clearly states, "Seven years later he was sent on another mission, this time to the Wusun, another Indo-European people living in the Ili River valley north of the Tarim Basin". I would like an explanation from IP 89.204.139.68 why he clearly removed referenced information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  False edit summary 

message: This theory is high possibly minorities'(or fringe?) opinions. There is a two referance in the article but they do not give a so much clue except a few words. 1st source ("Asian mythologies" compiled by Yves Bonnefoy) just said: "...The oldest proto-mongolian people seem to have appeared in the first century A.D. among them are Wusun, though some believe that these were Indo-europeans..." and the second one (The Khazaks by Martha Brill Olcott) is more unclear: "In the period 300-200 B.C., the Sacae were gradually overrun by the Usun, a group of allied tribes of pastoral nomads who were Turkic speaking but of Mongolian stock.(?)" what is that mean exactly? If there any certain sources supporting this theory, must be add . Otherwise it should be removed.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Mongolian Theory 

message: Currently the article starts like this:
The Wusun are generally believed to have been an Indo-Aryan-speaking people.[48][49][50][51] They are thought to be Iranian-speaking by the archaeologist Elena Kuzmina,[52] linguist János Harmatta,[53] Joseph Kitagawa,[54] David Durand-Guédy,[55] Turkologist Peter B. Golden[56][57] and Central Asian scholar Denis Sinor.[21][58] That the Wusun were Iranian-speakers is supported by archaeological evidence.[59]
First: Has nobody noticed that the first sentence flat-out contradicts the next two?
Second, the Russian article starts out by calling the Wusun people "of Indo-Iranian [6 references] or Turkic [12 references] origin". Somebody who has time to spare should take a look at those references.
David Marjanović (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language again