Talk:Shahidulla

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shahidulla article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Zihe

The section called Early records identifies Shahidulla with the kingdom of Zihe. The source for this is a book by John Hill. However, the majority of the sources identify Zihe with Kargilik County (also called Yecheng County), north of the Kunlun mountains. See, e.g., , , , , , .

It is not believable that Shahidulla could have been the site of a kingdom because the region was practically uninhabited. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Translation of the Chinese word "guo" 國, and the Identification of Zihe 西夜 as Kargalik

There are actually two items which need to be addressed here: 1. my translation of the Chinese word 國 guo as “kingdom” and 2. my identification of Zihe 西夜 as the region of modern Tashkurghan:

1. User Kautliva3 has raised a good point. Zihe is described as a "guo" in early Chinese documents including the Hou Hanshu, and this word is used for a very wide range of political entities ranging in size from empires to villages. Some translators have used the English word "polity" for it - an equally vague term, but one that is not widely used or understood. In the Introduction to the 2015 edition of my book, Through the Jade Gate: China to Rome, Vol. I, p. xix, I describe why I settled on "kingdom" as my standard rendering for the Chinese word, “guo”:

“Some Chinese words have no exact equivalent in English. One such example is the word 城 cheng, which literally translates as "walled town," but it was also used for large towns that were not walled. It is sometimes rendered ‘city,’ but only a handful of the cheng mentioned in the Weilüe would be large enough to be called a ‘city’ in our age of megalopolises. Most of them were what we would think of as country towns or provincial centres. I have translated the word simply as ‘town’ and leave it to the reader to add the nuances according to the context.

Similarly, 國 guo is used to refer to entities ranging from tiny fiefdoms or even villages to entire empires and can be translated as ‘kingdom,’ ‘fief,’ ‘nation,’ ‘state,’ ‘country,’ or ‘empire.’ I have translated it as ‘kingdom,’ unless the context specifically indicates otherwise, as most of these territories seem to have had a hereditary system of rulers at this period.”

2. As User Kautliva3 notes, the Silk Road Encyclopedia identifies Zihe (子合; W-G: Tzu-ho) as Kargilik – not Xaidullah (Shahidullah)probably based on the identification by Edouard Chavannes (1907) who, according to A.F.P. Hulsewé in China in Central Asia, p. 100, n. 171, “tentatively situates Tzu-ho at Kargalik." However, this appears be incorrect as Aurel Stein pointed out:

“In view of the topographical conditions it may safely be asserted that Karghalik, with its ample supply of water from the Tiznaf River and its thick and fertile loess terraces, must always have been the most populous and important of the oases south of the Yārkand river. It is impossible to assume that it can have remained without mention in the Chinese survey of which the Han Annals have preserved us a record. . . .

: . . . we are necessarily led to identify Hsi-yeh [西夜] as Karghalik ; for only on the assumption that this great oasis is meant can we account for the striking difference in population which the notice of the Later Han Annals indicates by stating the number of households as 2,500 at Hsi-yeh and only 350 at Tzŭ-ho [子合]. The proportion is about the same as a modern census would be likely to reveal between the oasis of Karghalik proper and the Beg-ship comprising Kök-yar, Yül-arik and Ushak-bashi. The identification of Hsi-yeh with Karghalik is in striking agreement with the statement in the Ch’ien Han shu that Hsi-yeh joined P’i-shan on the east and So-ch’ê on the north ; for Gūma and Yārkand are the neighbours on these sides exactly as here represented.” Stein (1921), Vol. I, pp. 86-87.

As I have added in the 2015 edition of my book, (ibid., pp. 205-206, Note 5.1), according to the Hou Hanshu Zihe (W_G: Tzu-ho) was 1,000 li from Shule (Kashgar). Now, this caused some difficulties for Stein as he had been using a very rough estimate of the Han li which works out at about 0.322 km. However, he thought this must be overruled as the other evidence was so strong.

Indeed, if we use instead the modern accepted figure of 0.4158 km. to 1 li, Zihe was located about 416 km south of Shu-le (Kashgar) via Pishan, or in the region of modern Shahidullah/Xaidullah. To add to the confusion: the Hou Hanshu claims the Hanshu was wrong claiming that Zihe and Xiye were ruled by one king. Here is my note on this subject from page 211 of my 2015 edition:

5.4. Hanshu 96A (CICA, p. 100) says that the king of Xiye (Hsi-yeh) is entitled ‘King of Zihe (Tzu-ho).’ However, the Hou Hanshu (Section 5) records that:

“The Hanshu wrongly stated that Xiye [Karghalik] and Zihe [Shahidulla] formed one kingdom. Each now has its own king.”

This mistake is easily explained. It seems that at the time of the account in the Hanshu, the King of Xiye [Karghalik] also ruled over Zihe [Shahidulla] but, by the time of the Hou Hanshu, the kingdoms had separated and each had its own ruler." John Hill (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

John Hill, thanks for your detailed response. I didn't know that you had added this content yourself. You are editing under WP:SELFCITE.

However, we have to follow WP:NPOV on Wikipedia, and that means following scholarly consensus. Since multiple sources state that Zihe was Kargilik Town, in particular, this solid source

- Xinjiang, Rong (2018), "The Rouran Qaghanate and the Western Regions during the Second Half of the Fifth Century based on a Chinese Document Newly Found in Turfan", in Huaiyu Chen; Xinjiang Rong (eds.), Great Journeys across the Pamir Mountains: A Festschrift in Honor of Zhang Guangda on his Eighty-fifth Birthday, BRILL, pp. 74–75, ISBN 978-90-04-36225-3

I don't see how we can claim that it was instead Xaidulla. I have several arguments of my own as to why it could not be Xaidulla. But let us focus on the fact that the balance of sources say that Zihe was Kargilik.

Pinging admin RegentsPark for his input. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@John Hill and Kautilya3:. John Hill, unfortunately you cannot use your own book as a reference (see WP:SPS). While your analysis may be right (I have no idea!), you will need to find a scholarly source that supports it. If such a source cannot be found, we need to go with whatever other scholarly sources, such as the Brill one that Kautilya3 points to above. --regentspark (comment) 23:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all the comments - I am thrilled to see there is so much interest in the article. I apologise for self-referencing. I am sorry – I did this a long time ago when I didn’t realise self-referencing was a problem - I was mainly trying to highlight the work of others who I had quoted in my book. So, please bear with me - I will remove all the self referencing (which I did years ago before I realised the problem) and insert other references where possible. However, as I am not well, this may take a few days. Thanks for your patience. sincerely, John Hill (talk) 06:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@John Hill: please note that WP:SELFCITE and WP:SPS are entirely separate issues. RegentsPark has noted that your book is self-published. So it is not a reliable source. Unless there is another source that states that Zihe was Xaidulla, the entire section needs to be removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

New Zihe article

@Kautilya3:, @John Hill: and anyone else who may be interested:..

I have just created Zihe, as a separate stub of a few paragraphs.

That would seem to be an ideal space for canvassing of the different opinions about its identity?

Grant | Talk 03:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I linked it from this page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Silk Route

History before Geography

Hello @Kautilya3:. In all articles related to geography in China-controlled areas, the 'History' section comes before the 'Geography' section. Also, the category "Geography and trade" is very rare; I am very suspicious of that category. What I would like to ask from you is whether or not you can give another example of a 'Geography' before 'History' article. If you can find one, then I may have to concede to your recent revert, but if you can't, then I would like to ask you to consider allowing this article to conform to the norm of Wikipedia articles. I plan to do more work here and split up the "Geography and trade" section into legitimate topical sections around Wednesday/Thursday/Friday this week. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, there are no such norms. Reliable sources on places generally start with a description of the location before they talk about any history. And the location also needs to be known before any one can understand its history. On Wikipedia, on the other hand, POV-pushing editors often want to glorify places by writing extensive histories. For populated places, it might make some sense. But for this one, it absolutely doesn't. Its only claim to notability is of being a junction of trade routes. Having plenty of water and a little patch of cultivable land, Kirghiz nomads settled there to supply the traders. So, without a discussion of the location and the trade routes, its history doesn't make sense. Most of the "Chinese" history written in the History section is also quite dubious. No trade passed through here until about 12th or 13th centuries when Hunza became unruly and Ladakh was relatively peaceful. So the trade got diverted to Ladakh. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, please note that the present day Saitula/Sheydulla is quite a distance away from the original one (OpenStreetMap). Some people on net claim that it has missile sites. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

A biker's experiences. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

"30 Li Barrack"

Setura post

This web site has lots of interesting pictures of Saitula. It also has references to a "Setura post". It is not clear to me if Setura is just another spelling of Saitula or is a different place. It is said that a platoon of the nationalist Chinese was stuck here without contact with the outside world until the PLA went there in 1950 and relieved them.

This blog post has a long story that starts from the Setura post and goes till the 2020 Galwan valley standoff.

(Pinging Voidvector, Geographyinitiative and DiplomatTesterMan.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I speculate that Serrikirgiz may be equivalent to Serikeke'er. I will look at this more later. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 That looks like a machine-translated Chinese blog. "PLA relieving KMT soldiers" happened here before they moved barrack upstream by "30 Li", most of the Chinese sources mention this to show off KMT soldiers patriotism, cause a lot of KMT units in Xinjiang ended up settling down locally, some joined PLA. --Voidvector (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Investigating these things for the first time now. It appears that the British India left the northern border of Kashmir undefined, with a dashed line shown along the old border. (The 1899 offer to China was along the Karakoram range. But since China did not respond, nothing came out of it.) This border remained until India moved it closer to the Karakoram range some time in the 1950s.

The old border was along the Yarkand River valley in the west and the Kunlun range in the east. Since these two are essentially parallel to each other, the line had to straddle through the mountains to get from one to the other. The closest border point to Shahidulla/Saitula was, I believe, the Suget Pass, which I have recently marked on the OpenStreetMap (where you can see both the Yarkand River and the Kunlun Range). Here are both Suget Pass and Saitula marked.

So the "Setura Post" must be somewhere between the Suget Pass and Saitula. It was nowhere near Aksai Chin. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

An update on this discussion. The "Setura Post" has been located by an OSM editor. Its original name was Suget Karaul. It was built by the Chinese administration of Xinjiang around 1892, after demolishing the original Shahidullah Fort. Indian patrols that were captured by China in 1958 are said to have been imprisoned here (by their own account). It is unclear when the Shanli Barracks were built. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Reply to User:Kautilya3

User:Kautilya3 Stating that “Xaidulla”, or Sanju Pass or Hindutash are in “China” is not a neutral point of View. If according to Wikipedia, the whole of Kashmir in its entirety is a disputed area, then no country can draw a valid and legitimate international Boundary for Kashmir till the resolution of the Kashmir issue. So it does not matter if the present Indian regime does not claim Shahidullah or Sanju-la or Hindutash, because according to Wikipedia, Kashmir is a disputed area in its entirety and hence India cannot determine the northern International Boundary of Kashmir. The territorial extent of the State of Kashmir is the territory which comprised the princely state of Kashmir at the time of the accession of Kashmir to India and the commencement of the Constitution of India. What this map depicts is that Shahidullah, Hindu-tash and the whole of the Karakash River is part of Kashmir in 1900 pertaining to the period of the accession of Kashmir to the Union of India. Otherwise, Wikipedia should reject Pakistani stance that Kashmir is disputed and recognise Kashmir in its entirety as an integral part of India. Wikipedia cannot have it both ways. They cannot have the cake and eat it also.

If you are saying that stating that Shahidullah is a part of Kashmir is a point of view, then Wikipedia cannot state that Shahidullah, or Hindu-tash or Sanju Pass is a part of “China”.

I know how Wikipedia functions. They engage admins with Indian names just to do their dirty work of upholding the preferred Chinese versions and point of view pertaining to Chinese territorial claims over parts of India and to do the dirty job for Wikipedia and the rogue Pro-Chinese shameless admins like inter alia User:Toddst1, User:Fowler&fowler , Regent's Park (Rose Garden), User:YellowMonkey, Zanhe, who are notorious and want to publish the Chinese the preferred Chinese point of view and will arbitrarily block legitimate Indian editors like me to protect the Chinese territorial claims inside India. To ensure that, the sine qua non for qualification to be appointed as an Indian Wikipedia admin is that they should be subservient and servile to the Chinese Wikipedia admins and not oppose or contest their actions pertaining to Chinese territorial claims inside India and should liaise with them and be complicit in their actions. Whether, these admins are really Indians or not or whether they are actually Chinese having Indian names as a façade for their nefarious actions to trick Indians is an altogether different issue.

That you have such a low level of intellect is evident from your statement that the map is un-sourced when the complete details of the map have been furnished. It shows that you are mechanically doing the work you are required to follow in order to remain a Wikipedia admin i.e. Support Chinese territorial claims inside India and support the preferred point of view. The full and comprehensive details about the source of the map i.e. The Map of China & neighbouring countries published in 1900 by George Philip & Son Limited, London and published by the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division, Washington D. C. had been furnished but you nevertheless mechanically and summarily for the purpose of removing the map to sub-serve the preferring point of view of the Chinese give false reasons in order to remove the map.

So if you want to uphold neutral so-called point of view, then alter all the articles which state that inter alia Shahidullah, Sanju-la and Hindu-tash Passes in Kashmir are in “China” and unblock all articles which pertain to the territorial integrity and extent of India like Aksai Chin, Sanju Pass and Hindutash and make it available for Indian editors who want to edit articles pertaining to areas inside India. Also unblock all legitimate and bona fide Indian editors who were illegally and arbitrarily blocked like the renowned Hindutashravi who was blocked summarily in spurious and bogus proceedings without his involvement and knowledge during untoward hours after midnight. You vitiate such illegal actions by the Pro-Chinese racket.

Let me see whether you have the moral high ground and guts to do it. I have seen that over the time, Wikipedia Pro-Chinese editors have been steadily and gradually removing what little semblance of neutrality and academic and scholarly information was available in Articles pertaining to the territorial extent of India and have been substituting with the preferred Chinese point of view, not to mention about their notorious maps!203.192.253.54 (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

China administers it. No other country claims it. Ergo, it is in China. Please stop wasting people's time with red herrings. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Zihe

Translation of the Chinese word "guo" 國, and the Identification of Zihe 西夜 as Kargalik

New Zihe article

Silk Route

History before Geography

"30 Li Barrack"

Setura post

Reply to User:Kautilya3

Page move proposal

Broken Maps

Johnson's Khotan adventure

Related Articles