China : Is it the stone’s turn to make history?

Since 2010, the Chinese government has invested heavily in the development of special museums, memorial halls, and parks to present sites, artifacts, and written works believed to be related to Chinese history in the Uyghur region. At the same time, China is erecting magnificent statues of historical figures and heroes, weaving new legends and stories about them, and promoting political propaganda that the Uyghur region is “a part of China’s territory from time immemorial.”

In order to further strengthen this promotion, the National Cultural Administration of China released the list of famous stone documents and monuments of Category 1 preserved in China last July. In this list, from 475 BC to 1761 AD, 1,656 stone documents of various contents are believed to have been built or installed. It contains more than 20 stone inscriptions and monuments, including the inscriptions from the Imin Wang Ghoja Mosque in Turpan. Among them, 12 stone inscriptions or tombstones were found in the Uyghur region.

Among these 12 stone documents or tombstones, there are 4 stone documents that are believed to have been completed within 65 years, the earliest from 93 AD and the last from 158 AD. That is to say, the time when these stone documents were established confirms that during the 400-year period of the Western and Eastern Han dynasties, the Uyghur land was not “a part of the Chinese territory” as they wanted. The unprinted notes on the list of stone documents show us that the Chinese researchers who compiled it did not have a clear understanding of this matter, and were accused of creating fake history.

According to the Chinese authorities, 3 tombstones and a stone inscription said to belong to the Tang Dynasty were erected between 620 and 640 AD. Even if the Chinese count the years in these stone records that have served their propaganda that “Xinjiang has always been a part of China”, the total period of Uyghur rule in the previous stone records and these stone records that they put on the market is less than 100 years. This result proves that the Chinese claimed to have “ruled” the Uyghur region during the Western and Eastern Han and Tang Dynasties for a shorter period of time. Again, the fact that no reliable historical facts or stone documents can be shown to prove that China ruled the Uyghur region in other historical periods also clearly proves that the Uyghur region was separate and independent from China at that time.

According to a report on January 5, 2024 by the Chinese-run “Tangritag Network”, one of the 4 stone documents from the Eastern Han Dynasty mentioned above is on display at the Museum of the Uyghur Autonomous Region, titled “The Eternal Stone of Dunhuang Valley Pei Sen’s Contribution”. . In the stone inscriptions, it is recorded that Pei Sen, the governor of Dunhuang, killed the king of the Huian tribe with 3,000 soldiers of the Northern Huns and beheaded many of his people. It also said that “he completely defeated the enemies, ended the disaster in the western region, and eliminated the danger in the four counties such as Zhu.”

The report also stated that this stone document was not recorded in the famous Chinese “Later Hanamazeh”, so it is more valuable because it fills a big gap in Chinese history.

This mysterious stone with a height of 139 cm and a width of 61 cm, which was not mentioned in any other historical sources, was not mentioned in the “Hannamese” of China. Until 1729, it was discovered by the Qing Dynasty general Yu Zhongchi from Hamul Barikol to Tepiwelin.

 Based on the relevant records and biographies in the Later Han Chronicles, as well as the events described in the General Patterns for Han Rule, the events that took place during the 100 years before and after the introduction of the Stone can be summarized as follows: The year began to produce results. By this time, the Hun tribes stopped fighting against their enemies and began to fight among themselves. As a result, in AD 49, the Huns were divided into two parts, the Southern and Northern Huns. The Southern Huns became close to the Han Dynasty, and the Northern Huns moved to the north of the desert to reestablish themselves. Waiting for such an opportunity, the Eastern Han Dynasty invaded Eastern Turkistan in 73 AD. But he could not stay long and went back to his country. Returning to their own land, the Northern Huns continued to strengthen and began to attack the four counties there in order to reclaim their former land Heshi Corridor. In 135, the Emperor of the Eastern Han ordered the Duke of Dunhuang to gather troops from the surrounding counties to attack the Huns. The Han army that reached Turpan with 6,300 cavalry did not win a victory. In 151, the Khan of the Hu Yan tribe of the Northern Huns captured Barikol with 3,000 horsemen, and then attacked Evergol. The Eastern Han general Ma Maokei, who was stationed in Evergold, sent an army to Barikol and was unfortunately destroyed by Hu Yan’s army. In the autumn of the same year, the governor of the Eastern Han Dynasty in Dunhuang led more than 4,000 soldiers gathered from the surrounding counties to attack Barikol. The Han army retreated to Dunhuang without success, as the Hu Yan tribe was informed of the Han army’s attack and retreated elsewhere.

Chinese historians point to the stone inscriptions on display and add to their history the story of Dunhuang Governor Pei Sen’s attack on Barikool in 137 AD and massacre of Khan and his men of the Hu Yan tribe, one of the main tribes of the Northern Huns.

If we are to believe that the information on the petroglyphs is accurate, we need to answer a few questions:

If the Han army completely defeated the Hu Yan tribe in 137 and killed its king, are the records written by Chinese historians about the Hu Yan tribe and their victory in the war that continue to be mentioned after that?

The Eastern Han Dynasty did not forget the several expeditions of the people against the Huns, the names of the princesses they sent to court the Huns, and the Chinese historians who gave so much detail to the big and small events, a special victory won against the Northern Huns, who had always been their enemies, or the name of a famous hero who served and Why didn’t he record his actions?

Why was Pei Sen’s incredible victory not recorded in the “Later Hannameh”? Could it be that Pei Sen or his men, who wanted to engrave their victory in stone, forgot to report this result to their emperor?

The exhibition of these stone documents and the myths and legends that have been circulating about the stone documents for so many years are a practical example for the theories of how the Chinese court political historians write their history and create their historical figures. Otto Franke, a well-known German Chinese scholar and historian, commented on the “Pei Sin Stone Document” and said: “China wanted to protect itself from the Huns. However, no matter how much they wanted to, they still did not do well in the wars against the Huns. Punishment marches were less than before. Pei Sen, the governor of Dunhuang, won the only victory during this period. But the Chinese historians did not mention this result. This phrase was actually used in mockery of the creation of Chinese stone writings.

The Chinese government has recently been trying to show that they have controlled the entire Uyghur region throughout history, including the two Han dynasties, and that these areas are included on the Chinese map. Even in the new white book on the history of China’s Uyghur region, this point is explained, and the Chinese language has been the official language of the place since the Han period, and the Chinese were the inhabitants of the place at that time. However, the Chinese government’s strategy of creating and making history has never been supported by world scholars and historians.

James Millward, a well-known American historian and Uygur scholar, summarizes the history of the Han Dynasty related to Eastern Turkistan in his book “Euro-Asia Crossroads” as follows: Distortion caused by duplicating parts of interleaved records. This situation proves that historians are stronger than the military at that time.

In short, this time, the Chinese government has once again suffered an unimaginable failure in concocting the legend of the creation and discovery of the stone documents marketed to prove that the Uyghur region was “a part of the Chinese territory from time immemorial.” It is ironic that the Chinese claim that the victory of a Han emperor who killed a Han emperor during the centuries-long war between the Han and the Huns is not recorded in historical sources. Even the discovery of this stone in 1729, 1592 years later, by the General of the Manching Dynasty who invaded the land of the Uyghurs, who are considered to be the descendants of the Huns, and again, nearly 300 years later, this stone was placed in a museum and declared that “Xinjiang has always been a part of China” politically. Its use for propaganda shows the extent to which history is made and distorted in China.

February 1st, they are doing silent strike activities in some big cities including Yangon.

In Yangon, a resident of Shwe Pytha, Yangon Region, told RFA that since 10:00 a.m. today, there have been fewer pedestrians on the streets and military council troops have tightened security more than the previous days.

“There is a security patrol by the Military Council. Are shops open? They are watching whether it opens or not. And today, people are gathering in the neighborhoods for the military support event.”

In Mandalay today, since 10:00 a.m., there have been fewer people on the streets and residents have been participating in a silent strike.

Similarly, in Salinggyi town of Sagaing province, as part of the three-year anniversary of the coup d’état, a group of small prisons in Ayangpiti province held a silent strike early this morning.

Locals said that the military council is preparing to gather in neighborhoods in some big cities including Yangon to counter the silent strike today.

The Association for the Support of Political Prisoners AAPP announced today that during the three years of the military coup, 4,474 civilians and democracy activists were killed and nearly 20,000 people were arrested.