spacestationtrustfund's review against another edition

Go to review page

3.0

The fact that this book was originally published in the nineties is periodically evident throughout, particularly regarding the romanisation (Wade-Giles instead of hanyu pinyin, so Hsiung-nu instead of Xiongnu) and some of the theories (which, to be fair, Dr. Di Cosmo does typically lampshade whenever he delves into conjecture). The ethnography, historiography, and innovative treatment of extant sources—particularly, in my opinion, his historiographical treatment of the monograph Sima Qian wrote about the Xiongnu, one of the most complete and reliable contemporary sources available to modern scholars—were all excellent, although certain of his theories and indeed conclusions will undoubtedly be expounded upon, reframed, corrected, and/or outright debunked, if they haven't been already.
More...