ImperialChina.Org in Blog Format

1) Starting the Forgery Topic from  Guan-zi (管子轻重篇新诠 By 马非百)

管子轻重篇新诠 By 马非百

 Ma Feibai’s rebuttal as to the authenticity of Guan Zhong’s book, “Guan-zi” ( 管子轻重篇新诠 By 马非百).

Check out the first 1-4 pages as to why Ma Feibai thought this book was pretentiously named after Guan-zi of the 7th century B.C. Ma Feibai’s conclusion was that this book was written by someone from the Xin (new) Dynasty, in-between the Western Han and Eastern Han Dynasty, at the turn of BC-AD, in another word.

On basis of Ma Feibai’s research, we could soundly discard the only sentences linking the misnomer Yu-shi (禺氏) to the jade trade, as well as the annotations by later historians such as Yi Zhizhang in extrapolating who the misnomer Yu-shi (禺氏) that the faked Guan-zi statement would have implied.
《管子·揆度》尹知章 注：“ 禺氏 ，西北戎名，玉之所出。”

 See  http://imperialchina.org/Barbarians.htm

Ancient Chinese scholars had tried for thousands of years to ascertain real classics from the fake ones. Someone on this board http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?/topic/13682-tarim-mummies-and-the-introduction-of-chariots/page__st__45 brought up the topic as to who wrote “Guo Yu”, and when it was written. The ancient consensus was that it was done by Zuo Qiuming, but recent historians had disputes about it. Though, the general consensus was that Zuo Qiming had basically bundled up the “wasted films” to make into a “reference” book called Guo-wu while his commentary annal “Zuo-shi Spring & Autumn” was to be upheld as a standard.  My point was that i) Guo-yu (《国语》) is more authoritative and accurate than Shang-shu (《尚书》), and more authoritative and accurate than the sub-components or the purported “wasted films” (i.e., 《逸周书》etc.) of Shang-shu《尚书》 [since Shang-shu《尚书》, as discussed below, had been lost and went through forgery when recompiled]; and ii) that before Qin Emperor Shihuangdi’s book burning, there was no real sense forgery in Chinese classics. The forgeries came about in the middle or later Western Han Dynasty. Throughout the history, some of the forgeries became standard text, and hence was re-inserted back into the history books whenever dynastic substitution led to the destruction of imperial libraries and the subsequent re-compilation and re-substantiation.

Similar to Ma Feibai’s rebuttal of Guan-zi, we could say that Yi-zhou-shu or Zhou-shu 《逸周书》 was a made-up by the later Chinese writer, probably at about the same time as Guan-zi (《管子》). I found the style of writing as well as the citation to be extremely similar. We could safely discard the statement in Yi-zhou-shu or Zhou-shu 《逸周书》 as to claims of specialty product like the horses from Yu-shi, i.e.,  屠州黑豹，禺氏騊駼, as well as its citation of another forged book, Shang-[dynasty-]shu (《商书·伊尹朝献》), which claimed that 16th century B.C. around, you had the incredible list of barbarian tribes and vassals (as seen in Han Emperor Wudi’s time) coming to Shang China’s capital to pay tributes. See the statement for an exhaustive list of alien and barbarian tribes including Yuezhi: 正北空同、大夏、莎车、姑他、旦略、豹胡、代翟，匈奴、楼烦、月氏、韯犁、其龙、东胡，请令以橐驼、白玉、野马、騊駼、駃騠、良弓为献。.(We could certainly discard the notation on Yi-zhou-shu by later historian such as Kong Chao since the base on which the notation was made was a forgery in the first place: 《逸周书·王会》孔晁 注：“ 禺氏 ，西北戎夷。)

Last word about Ma Feibai ( 管子轻重篇新诠 By 马非百). Apparently Ma Feibai was not interested in ascertaining the truth about the jade trade, and hence he merely rebutted the authenticity of the book Guan-zi without rebutting the ‘Yu-shi jade’ statements made in the said book. He concurred with Wang Guowei, on pages 11-18, that Yuezhi, before moving on to today’s Afghanistan, must have dwelled near Qiemo and Yutian (Khotan). We could not blame him for that since he was living under Mao’s communist China and enduring persecutions during the cultural revolution and having limited information on the ‘Central Asia’ studies going on outside of China.

Ma Feibai, however, correctly pointed out on page 18 that Mt Kunlun, Khotan jade, etc did not get talked about in China till after the return of Zhang Qian’s trip. –I could not discern whether Zhang Qian had the imperial order to trace the origin of the Yellow River, but what Zhang Qian did on his return trip, was to have taken the Khotan route and he did trace the Tarim (Ye-er-qiang) and Khotan rivers.

2) More on the Fallacy of the Yuezhi Jade Trade & the Aryan Bearer of the Chinese Civilization

Now comes the interesting writing by someone from Mt Qilianshan area, with no name shown.
http://www.cc.ccoo.cn/webdiy/558-77179-17983/newsshow.asp?id=77179&cateid=663802&nid=805696
What this author did was to use the comprehensive evidence from Chinese classics to prove that Mt Kunlun, in ancient China, meant for the Mt Qilianshan, with Kunlun meaning magnificent and heavenly, which the later Huns called by a similar name in their term, i.e., Qilian, word meaning ‘Heaven’. Everything we had talked about in regards to the Queen Mother of the West could be found at the Qilian Mountain.

This author further pointed out that Qilian did not get recorded in China till Sima Qian’s Shi-ji, and Huan-nan-zi had no such term. Yan Shigu of Tang Dynasty pointed out that Qilian=Heaven.
“祁连”一词最早见于司马迁《史记》中，而稍早于《史记》的刘安的《淮南子》中尚无此词。颜师古云“匈奴谓天为祁连”，匈奴语“祁连”和汉语“昆仑”语义相同。

Of course, this author did not read Ma Feibai’s rebuttal, and hence continued the statement about Yu-shi and Jade in citing the forged records of Guan-zi and Shang-[dynasty-]shu:

《管子•轻重乙》“玉出于禺氏之旁山”。《伊尹朝献商书》.

So the conclusion is that the ancient Chinese, at the time of BC-AD turn, made up some books using the terminology as available to them after Han Dynasty defeated the Huns and extended influence to the western territories. The records about Yu-shi (禺氏) and the jade was made up. The traditional Chinese records talked about the Queen Mother of the West and her jade tributes to the Sinitic China. More, physics/chemistry research already shown, as detailed at http://www.cc.ccoo.cn/webdiy/558-77179-17983/newsshow.asp?id=77179&cateid=663802&nid=805696, that the Shang Dynasty jades were related to the jade mine at Mt Qilianshan, i.e., the ancient Kunlun Mountain.

The actual statement about Shang Dynasty jade is:
中原殷商妇好墓等夏商周三代古墓中曾出土大量玉制礼器。经化验，这些玉非辽宁岫岩玉、南阳独山玉等内地玉，据其地质成分，学者们认定应产自西北。看法是对了，但后来找玉的方法却大错特错了，结论可想而知。中央电视台联同中国社科院，组织几位考古和地质学者，直奔新疆和田与出和田玉的那座昆仑山，浮光掠影看了一回，拍了一部大型纪录片《玉石之路》。学者和记者们在塔里木沙漠找到几枚玉片，在甘肃马鬃山戈壁也找到一些，在电视中就说从和田经塔里木、居延海、雁门关到内地（“内地”大约指北京）有一条“玉石之路”。这种判断的根源在于，记者和学者们想当然地认为妇好墓中的玉是和田玉。记者、学者们不知道古籍中的“昆山玉”、“昆冈玉”、“昆仑玉”均指的是祁连玉。

More at http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?/topic/13682-tarim-mummies-and-the-introduction-of-chariots/page__st__45

Summary at http://imperialchina.org/Barbarians.htm

3) Possible forgeries in other chapters of  Guan-zi: 《管子·五行篇》& 《管子·封禅篇》

Ma Feibai rebutted 《管子·轻重篇》. Parts of Guan-zi 《管子》, which was edited by Liu Xiang [刘向], could be forgeries, as we said, and it did not have to be that Liu Xiang was the initial forgery writer. Historian Ma Feibai rebutted the 16 chapters of 《管子轻重》 as forgeries made in Xin Dynasty. He spent his lifetime studying the 16 chapter of this Guan-zi book on the so-called “weighing the light and the heavy” to find the truth. Now, Ma Feibai did not get to rebut the other chapters. That does not mean Ma Feibai believed the other chapters were real.

Sima Qian’s Shi-ji (i.e., Historian’s Records)  had the comment on the following books in Guan-zi:

《史记》 “读管氏《牧民》、《山高》、《乘马》、《轻重》、《九府》，……其书世多有之”。Could someone after Sima Qian had modified the originals ?  Or could someone had inserted the said statements into Sima Qian’s 《史记》?

Ma Feibai did point out that there could be forgeries inserted into Sima Qian’s Shi-ji in later dynasties to make Guan-zi appear to be corroborated by historian Sima Qian. Isn’t that incredible?

Ma Feibai found out the loophole in the purported Guan-zi juxtaposition of five ancient mountains, including Hengshan (pp. 812-816), which was validated to be a non-sacred mountain, between Huai-shui and the Yangtze, that was postulated to be one of the sacred mountains to the south of the Yangtze  in the most recent 2000 years. More, Ma Feibai pointed out that it was Guan-zi who copied Sima Qian and Heng Kuan (pp. 34-38).

First is about 《管子·五行篇》 .     《韩非子·十过篇》shared the same topics as 《管子·五行篇》.  Was that coincidental? Did not appear so to me.

Now about Guan-zi’s other book, conferral, sainthood and sacrifice on Mt Taishan (《管子·封禅》)

Sima Qian felt fuzzy about things beyond Huangdi, and touched upon the ancient overlord Fu-xi briefly. Sima Qian was said to have cited Guan-zi as to how ancient Chinese paid pilgrimage to ancient lords on Mt. Taishan. The wording was almost exact the same as the statement in Guan-zi. Could someone after Sima Qian had modified the originals ?  Or could someone had inserted the said statements into Sima Qian’s 《史记》? For details, check out 《史记·卷二十八·封禅书第六》.

Guan-zi’s forged statements in the chapter on Mt. Taishan pilgrimage [《管子·封禅篇》] were very self-apparent. In the same passage, the geography in regards to Da-xia [or Bactria as claimed after Zhang Qian's trip to the Central Asia] was wrong. The real Da-xia was in today’s central Shanxi Province. While we could not tell whether Guan-zi had personally written the chapter on “conferral, sainthood and sacrifice on Mt Taishan” –even if we gave him the benefit of doubt that Guan-zi actually possessed some lost classics that nobody else had –we, people of the 21st century A.D., could tell from geography that Guan-zi’s statement on Qi Lord Huan’gong westward campaign against Da-xia by trekking the Kumtag Desert was a fancy-land tale. Hence, the credibility of the whole chapter is at stake, in my opinion.

See section on Yandi for comments on the forged statement about Qi Lord Huang’gong trekking the Kumtag Desert to campaign against Bactria. [《管子·封禅篇》:桓公：“寡人北伐山戎，过孤竹；西伐大夏，涉流沙，束马悬车， 上卑耳之山；南伐至召陵，登熊耳山以望江汉。].

4) The [纬] ‘Wei’-Suffixed Forgeries

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11960312/%E6%98%A5%E7%A7%8B%E7%BA%AC

Among the list of ‘Wei’-Suffixed Forgery books, there were about seven categories, with the “spring & autumn” category numbering about thirteen books. One such book, [《春秋(纬) ·命历序》], talking about the ancient overlords, could have become the base for Huangfu Mi of Jinn Dynasty and Sima Zhen of Tang Dynasty to write their books –should Zhuang-zi (《庄子》) be actually be ascertained to be a partial forgery as well –unless Zhuang-zi (《庄子》) did precede all others in the writings on the ancient overlords and was to become the input for the forged 《春秋(纬) ·命历序》.

The claim was that those ‘Wei’-Suffixed Forgeries books were written by someone like Confucius. Jing versus Wei was what we Chinese termed the Longitude and Latitude. People in late Western Han wrote the Wei’-Suffixed books to purportedly explain the cause and effect of the natural disasters and astronomical/geological upheavals as carried in Confucius’s annals “Spring & Autumn”.  For a history of forgeries done by scholars in late Han Dynasty, Xin (New) Dynasty and Eastern Han Dynasty, check the linked article above to see the postulation that the forgery started from Han Emperor Aidi and Pingdi’s eras.

The famous forged ‘Wei’-Suffixed books included He-tu (“河图”: the map from the Yellow River dragon-horse) and Luo-shu (“洛书”: the book from the Luo-he River turtle).

《水經注》卷十五引《竹書紀年》說:“黃帝東巡河過洛，修壇沉璧，受龍圖于河，龜書于洛”。

《周易·系辞上》：”河出图，洛出书，圣人则之”。

扬雄《核灵赋》:“大《易》之时,河序龙马,洛贡龟书。”

《汉书·五行传》:“刘歆以为虙戏氏继天而王,则而画之,八卦是也。禹治洪水,赐洛书,法而陈之,《洪范》是也。”

Indeed, there is proof that Sima Zhen also bought the forgery, as shown below.

司马贞《史记·(补)三皇本纪》: 自人皇已后，有五龙氏、〔一〕燧人氏、〔二〕大庭氏、柏皇氏、中央氏、卷须氏、栗陆氏、骊连氏、赫胥氏、尊卢氏、浑沌氏、昊英氏、有巢氏、朱襄氏、葛天氏、阴康氏、无怀氏。斯盖三皇以来有天下者之号。〔三〕但载籍不纪，莫知姓王年代，所都之处。而《韩诗》以为自古封太山、禅梁甫者，万有余家，仲尼观之，不能尽识。《管子》亦曰，古封太山七十二家，夷吾所识十有二焉，首有无怀氏。然则无怀之前，天皇已后，年纪悠邈，皇王何升而告？但古书亡矣，不可备论，岂得谓无帝王耶？故《春秋纬》称自开闢至于获麟，凡三百二十七万六千岁，分为十纪，凡世七万六百年。一曰九头纪，二曰五龙纪，三曰摄提纪，四曰合雒纪，五曰连通纪，六曰序命纪，七曰修飞纪，八曰回提纪，九曰禅通纪，十曰流迄纪。盖流迄当黄帝时，制九纪之间，是以录于此，补纪之也。(You see Sima Zhen citing the forgery book 《春秋纬》.)

5) Forgeries related to the “Complete Shang-shu Compilation” of Qing Dynasty (清  陈寿祺 辑《尚书大传》)

Confucius was said to have compiled Shang-shu (《尚书》) to make it about 100 chapters out of the original records of 1000 chapters. The Confucian disciples had carried on the interpretation of Shang-shu to Han Dynasty. Abbreviated as Shu (《书》), Shang-shu, together with 《诗》、《礼》、《易》、《春秋》, were bundled as the Five Classics (“五经”), whereas 《大学》、《中庸》、《论语》、《孟子》were termed the Four Books (“四书”).

Mo-zi ascertained the contents of Shang-shu as belonging to the royal courts that consisted of statesmen’s or king’s talks dating from Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties and even earlier. (《墨子·明鬼下》：“故尚书夏书，其次商周之书。”) Sima Qian commented that Confucius edited the book and gave the preface. (《史记·孔子世家》“序《书传》，上纪唐虞之际，下至秦缪，编次其事”…“故《书传》、《礼记》自孔子”。) Wang Shu claimed that ‘shang’ meant for the ancient lords to be at the top. (王肃《尚书序》: “君上”) Wang Chong defined the definition of “shang” as remotely ancient. (王充《论衡·正说篇》：“《尚书》者，上古帝王之书。或以为上所为，下所书，故谓之《尚书》。”) Haan Yv of Tang Dynasty claimed that the ancient Chinese characters in Shang-shu were difficult to read. (韩愈《进学解》:“周诰殷盘，佶屈聱牙”）

Among several schools (伏生=>欧阳,大、小夏侯, i.e., 欧阳（和伯）、大小夏侯（夏侯胜、夏侯建）三博士),  only the text of Fu-sheng’s version of Shang-shu (《尚书》) ,  survived, which was termed the “Contemporary [i.e., Han Dynasty] Shang-shu” (《今文尚书》). It had 28 chapters plus a preface, totaling 29.

In Western Han Dynasty, there was an entry claiming that Fu-sheng, who was an old man surviving the Qin-Han dynastic substitution, had written a ‘commentary’ book on Shang-shu, totaling 41 chapters. In Jinn Dynasty, there was a comment that Fu-sheng was the person who wrote the commentary book. Since the book was long lost, scholars in Qing Dynasty believed whatever fragments available were forgeries, and further believed that it was actually the students of Fu-sheng who made the later-lost book, not Fu-sheng himself.

《尚书大传》汉·伏胜 （《史记集解》称“伏生名胜，伏氏碑云”; 《汉书·艺文志》“《尚书》《传》四十一篇” ; 《晋书·五行志》“文帝时，伏生创纪《大传》”。

《四库全书总目提要》：“《玉海》載《中興館閣書目》，引鄭康成〈尚書大傳序〉曰：‘蓋自伏生也。伏生爲秦博士，至孝文時年且百歳。張生、歐陽生從其學而受之。音聲猶有譌誤，先後猶有舛差，重以篆隸之殊，不能無失。生終後，數字各論所聞，以己意彌縫其闕，別作章句。又特撰大義，因經屬指，名之曰傳。劉向校書，得而上之。凡四十一篇，銓次爲八十一篇云云。’”)

It was classified as a Wei [纬] forgery in Qing Dynasty encyclopedia 《四库全书》.

6) 《伪古文尚书》and《尚书伪孔传》

Fu-sheng’s book was termed the “Contemporary [i.e., Han Dynasty] Shang-shu” (《今文尚书》) since it was re-written by ‘doctors’ sent by the Han Dynasty emperor to ‘stenograph’ and record what Fu-sheng orally recited with a notorious accent.

Kong An’guo, a descendant of Confucius, surrendered a hidden version of Shang-shu that was discovered during Han Emperor Wudi’s timeframe, which came to be called the tadpole-shaped “Old Text [i.e., Zhou Dynasty] Shang-shu” (《古文尚书》),   –16 chapters more than Fu-sheng’s version. (Alternatively, this book was discovered when son of Han Emperor Jingdi 鲁共王 刘馀 dismantled Confucius residency to build a palace.)

However, both 《尚书》versions were lost to the war at the end of the Jinn Dynasty when five barbarian Hu groups ravaged North China. During Eastern Jin Dynasty, 梅赜 (“梅颐”﹑“枚颐”) produced 《尚书传》and《古文尚书》, about 58 chapters，with additional 25 chapters on top of 《今文尚书》, plus extra 4 chapters split from 《今文尚书》 , claiming in the name of Kong Anguo, called 《尚书传》. Further editing and substantiation during the Tang Dynasty yielded to today’s known fake Shang-shu, namely,   “Kong Anguo’s Old Text [i.e., Han Dynasty] Shang-shu” (《孔传古文尚书》).” While Tang Dynasty scholars failed to ascertain the authenticity, the Qing Dynasty scholars figured out that Mei Yi’s 《尚书传》 plus the extra chapters of Mei Yi’s《古文尚书》were fake.

Hence, what we have today as to Shang-shu, either the original text or the purported Kong Anguo editing, were all fakes, that the later scholars knew to be forged books that were claimed to be written by Kong An’guo, termed  《古文尚书》and 《尚书传》, alternatively named 《伪古文尚书》and《尚书伪孔传》. What was claimed that Kong Anguo had combined the two versions of Shang-shu into a compilation with 58 chapters [58篇、46卷] then became a myth.

Since scholars spent thousands of years substantiating the texts, the value of Shang-shu is still there. It was discovered that the chapters on the relatively late time period were comparatively authentic while those pertaining to the ancient time periods, like Shang Dynasty, contained a large portion of forgeries.

What happened was that 三国·魏 王肃 forged the 《尚书传》 book. (He also forged 《孔子家语》 in the name of 孔安国，and 《孔丛子》in the name of 孔鲋.)

       总篇数	伪古文a1    真古文ao    真今文c
虞书
夏书
商书
周书	

合计	     29+25c+4ao	      45        28+1=>33

Scholars, including 孔颖达、王德韶、李子云，reviewed by 朱长才、苏德融、隋德素、王士雄、赵弘智，and approved by 长孙无忌、李勣、于志宁、张行成,  combined remnants from 《今文尚书》,《古文尚书》and 《伪孔安国 尚书传》to produce 《尚書正義》 as  part of the officially sanctioned 《五经正义》.

http://club.xilu.com/wave99/replyview-950484-11786.html

2)  Annotation and Comments

东汉 马融 《尚书传》 (lost)

郑玄，《尚书注》 (lost) [鄭康成〈尚書大傳序〉]

南宋 吴棫 《书裨传》(lost)

元代 吴澄 《尚书纂言》

明 梅竟 (梅鷟zhuó 1483-1553)《尚书考异》

清 阎若璩 [?清 阎若理(1636—1704)] 《古文尚书疏证》 (con)

惠栋《古文尚书考》

丁晏 《尚书馀论》

毛奇龄《古文尚书冤词》(pro)

清 段玉裁、孙星衍、孙治

3)  Printed during Qing Dynasty -《十三经注疏》清 阮元

Ruan Yuan reviewed all available records to include: 《尚书注疏》（唐）孔颖达疏; 魏·王肃伪孔安国传; 毛诗正义; 汉·毛亨传、郑玄笺正义; etc.

(《十三经注疏》注，对经书字句的注解，又称传、笺、解、章句等；疏，对注的注解，又称义疏、正义、疏义等。) (“十三经”:《易》、《诗》、《书》、《周礼》、《礼记》、《仪礼》、《公羊传》、《谷梁传》、《左传》、《孝经》、《论语》、《尔雅》、《孟子》)

《尚书》五十八篇 =《今文尚书》二十八篇(=> 二十三篇)+伪《古文尚书》二十五篇 + 孔安国 序

………… 总篇数   伪古文     真古文
虞书         5       1          4
夏书         4       2          2
商书        17      10          7
周书        32      12         20

合计            58          25              33

《四库全书总目》：“白吴械始右异议，朱子亦稍稍疑之；吴澄诸人本朱子之说，相继抉摘，其伪益彰，然亦未能条分缕析，以炔其够漏，明海运始参考诸书，证其副别，而见闻较狭，苑采未周，至若原乃引经据古，一一陈其矛盾之故，古文之伪乃大明。所列一百二十八条，毛奇龄作《古文尚书冤词》，百计相轧，终不能以强词夺正理，则有据之言，先立十不可败也。”

4) Current editing by 20th century China forgery specialist Li Xueqin (李学勤)  on top of bamboo excavations 《清华大学藏战国竹简（壹）》 –Since year 2000, I was calling the forgery Xia-Shang-Zhou project to be something “heavily influenced by politics and government than a serious academic research“. See http://imperialchina.org/chronology.htm)

The main revision of this webmaster is to take out the historical claim that Huangdi, the Yellow Emperor (not emperor in the modern sense but overlord), was the natural inheritor of the Sino-Tibetan legacy.

A recomposed image from a site digging near Zhuolu County of Hebei – as linked here.

Huangdi’s line appears to be still a branch of the the Sino-Tibetan group.  However, he was implied to be a ‘Bei-di’ (北狄) or the ‘barbarian’ from the north in ‘The Legends of Mountains and Seas’, which was said to be a book written after Lord Yu sent expeditions to the four corners of the world to survey the earth, but was in fact a book written at the turn of the B.C.-A.D. eras in the spirits of restoring the lost Chinese classics that were destroyed by Qin Emperor Shihuangdi’s book-burning and Confucian-burying campaign.

《山海經》:“黃帝之孫日始均，始均生北狄”。“黃帝生苗龍，苗龍生融吾，融吾生弄明，弄明生白犬……是為犬戎”。 “顓頊生驩頭，驩頭生苗民”。“季禺之國，顓頊之子”。“有國，名曰叔士，顓頊之子”。“有國曰中輪，顓頊之子”。

Separately, Sima Qian, whose writing represented the orthodoxy Huangdi line, inadvertently stated that Huangdi moved across the nation without a fixed dwelling place (or palace). (See 《史记·五帝本纪》“披山通道，未尝宁居。东至于海，登丸山，及岱宗。西至于空桐，登鸡头。南至于江，登熊、湘。北逐荤粥，合符釜山，而以于涿鹿之阿。迁徙往来无常处，以师兵为营卫。”)

Difference and similarity in regards to the birth of Yandi and Huangdi

The ancient historians tried to reconcile the records, and hence pointed out that Huangdi’s mother, Fubao ( 附宝), came from a tribe whose ancestors belonged to the same Youqiao-shi (有蟜氏) tribe as Yandi’s mother. As to Yandi, the claim was that his mother came from the Youqiao-shi (有蟜氏) tribe, carrying the name of Andeng (安登). Fubao or Andeng could not be the same woman even though the tribe could be traced to the same one, Youqiao-shi (有蟜氏).

《国语·晋语四》：“昔少典氏娶于有蟜氏，生黄帝、炎帝。黄帝以姬水成；炎帝以姜水成。成而异德，故黄帝为姬姓，炎帝为姜姓。韦昭注：姜，水名；成，谓所生长以成功也。”（《史记·太史公自序》《报任安书》“左丘失明厥有《国语》”。《史记·十二诸侯年表》“表见《春秋》《国语》。”)

《竹书纪年》：“炎帝神农氏，其初国伊，继国耆，合称，又曰伊耆氏。”

《水经注》：“岐水，又东迳姜氏城南，为姜水。”

西周“轲尊”周武王都洛邑：“唯王初迁宅于成周，则廷告于天曰：余其宅此中国”

《帝王世纪》：“炎帝神农氏，姜姓也。母曰任姒，有蟜氏女登为少典妃，游华山之阳，有神龙首，感女登于常羊，生炎帝。人身牛首，长于姜水。有圣德，以火德王，故号炎帝。初都陈，又徙鲁。又曰魁隗氏，又曰连山氏，又曰烈山氏。”

《帝王世纪》：“黄帝有熊氏，少典之子，姬姓也，母曰附宝，其先即炎帝母家有蟜氏，世与少典氏婚。”

《春秋纬·元命苞》：“少典妃安登游于华阳，有神龙首，感之于常羊，生神农。人面龙颜，好耕，是谓神农，始为天子。” (The wei [纬] series were mostly forgeries by scholars from the late Western Han Dynasty.)

What “Guo-yu” stated was an earlier version at the time of Zuo Qiuming, stating that Yandi and Huangdi were brothers, the conflict of which was not reconciled. What Huangfu Mi of Western Jinn Dynasty did was to give details as well as explanations, stating that Yandi’s original birthplace was at “Changyangshan” Mountain, near the Yi-shui and Luo-shui Rivers and Huashan Mountain. According to Zhou Dynasty’s bronze inscription, this place was the original place for the “middle land (kingdom)”.

Huangdi’s Birthplace and Burial Place

Huangdi’s birthplace was historically pinned to be at the Youxiong-shi land, namely, today’s Xinzheng of Henan Province. However, the conflict I am seeing here is that Huangdi had in fact set his domain (capital) of ruling at Youxiong, not his birthplace. The time Huangdi had set its capital at Youxiong would have to be after his defeating Chi-you (or Yandi) at Zhuolu or Banquan, which was beyond the Yellow River and at the border with the Inner Mongolian steppe.

《史记•五帝纪》：“黄帝者，少典之子，姓公孙，名曰轩辕”…“黄帝崩，葬桥山。”

《帝王世纪》：“黄帝有熊氏，少典之子，姬姓也，母曰附宝，其先即炎帝母家有蟜氏，世与少典氏婚。”

《 帝王世纪》：“黄帝有熊氏，少典之子，姬姓也。母曰附宝，其先即炎帝。母家有娇氏之女，也与少 典氏婚，故《国语》兼称焉。得神农氏之末，少典氏又娶附宝”，…“生黄帝于寿丘，长于姬水，因以为姓 。以土承火，位在中央，故曰黄帝。有圣德，受国于有熊，居轩辕之丘，故因以为名，又以为号。”…“在 位百年而崩，年一百一十岁……，葬于上郡阳周之桥山”。(Huangfu Mi  already mixed up the Arch Mountain in Shangjun [上郡] as the real Arch mountain in northern Hebei)

《史记 李斯列传》: “使者即以属吏，系于阳周。” 《蒙恬列 传》: “又遣使者之 阳周”，… 《项羽本纪》:“蒙恬竟斩阳周”。

Eastern Han Dynasty also mistook the Arch Mountain in today’s Shenxi as the real one.

《括地志》：” 黄帝陵 在 寧州 罗川县 东八十里 子午山 。” 《汉书·地理志》:“阳周，桥山在南，有黄帝 家，莽曰上陵?。” 《尔雅》：“山鋭而高曰桥也。”

The Arch Mountain in Shenxi is today known as Ziwuling[ 子午岭 ], the place Liu Zhidan’s Red Amy banditry took as the safe haven.

Jinn Dynasty historian Huangfu Mi expanded on Sima Qian’s book in stating that Huangdi was born near the end of the Yandi Dynasty at a place called Shouqiu, which is to the east of today’s Qufu, Shandong Province. Huangfu Mi continued to state that Huangdi established his rule by setting his capital at the Youxiong-shi land (i.e., today’s Xinzheng of Henan Province). [There was a same name pottery site in today's Shanxi Province. See 《史记》“陶河滨，作什器于寿丘，就时于负夏”)] However, Huangfu Mi could be misled by the forgeries written prior to Jinn Dynasty. The forgery started with Kong Anguo’s editing and comments, which the later scholars claimed to be written by Kong Anguo, termed  《古文尚书》and 《尚书传》, alternatively named 《伪古文尚书》and《尚书伪孔传》.

Youxiong-shi land

Should we examine Sima Qian’s Shi Ji line by line, we could find major conflicts whenever Huangdi’s origin was concerned. Sima Qian claimed that Huangdi and Yandi were brothers, albeit stating in a different section to point out that Yandi was one of the last overlords of the Shennong-shi reign. The Yandi Dynasty had apparently continued for a long history, not to mention the preceding overlords between the first overlord Fuxi-shi and the last royal house of Shenong-shi from which the Yandi Dynasty originated.

The conflict lied in the claim that Huangdi was a brother of Yandi and was a son of the Shaodian tribe.   The rest was fine, such as Huangdi being given the ‘Ji’ surname, having the conferral of  [? or setting the capital at (per Huangfu Mi and later scholars)]  the land of ‘xiong’ (i.e., bear),  came to be called by the Youxiong-shi, dwelled near a hill which came to be known as the Xuanyuan-qiu Hill, and married with a woman from Xiling. The locality was historically pinned to be today’s Xinzheng of Henan Province.

皇甫谧《帝王世纪》：“黄帝，少典之子，姬姓也……有圣德，受国有熊，居轩辕之丘。”

《大戴礼纪》：“黄帝居轩辕之丘，娶于西陵氏之子，谓之嫘祖氏。”

皇甫谧《帝王世纪》：“新郑，古有熊国，黄帝之所都。受国于有熊，居轩辕之丘，故因以为名，又以为号”。

晋《胜志》：“新郑县城内有轩辕丘。”

明陆应阳《广舆记》：“轩辕丘，新郑古有熊氏之国，黄帝生此故名。”

《大明一统志》卷二十六：“轩辕丘，在新郑县境，古有熊氏之国，轩辕黄帝生于此故名。”

《大清一统志》卷五十二：“轩辕丘在新郑县西北。”

清顺治十六年《新郑县志》：“轩辕丘，在县境，黄帝生于斯。”

清乾隆二十九年：“古传，郑邑为轩辕氏旧墟，行在北有轩辕丘遗址。”

Where is the locality of the Youqiao-shi tribe?

The Youqiao-shi tribe, meaning the bee or honey collection tribe [or the silkworm tribe??],  appeared to be located near the Yi-shui and Luo-shui River areas, the same area as Yandi’s tribe.

《山海经·中次六经》：“缟羝山之首，曰平逢之山，南望伊洛，东望谷城之山，……有神焉，其状如人而二首，名曰蟜虫，是为螯虫，实惟蜜蜂之庐。”

郝懿行《疏》：“平逢山即北邙山，郏山之异名也。”

《左传·定公八年》：“单子伐谷城”。杜预注：“谷城在河南县西”。

《后汉书·郡国志》：“谷城，瀍水出”。

《逸周书·作雒解》：周公“作大邑成周于土中，城方千七百二十丈……南系于洛水，北因于郏山”。(《逸周书》was a forgery, just like parts of Guan-zi.)

《太平寰宇记》：“邙山在河南县北十里、洛阳县北二里，一名平逢山，亦郏山之别名也”。

段玉裁《说文解字注·邑部》“郏”：“按《周书》所谓郏山者，北邙山也”。

庄周《黄帝将见大隗》: “黄帝将见大隗乎具茨之山，方明为御，昌寓骖乘，张若、謵朋前马，昆阍、滑稽后车。至于襄城之野”

《汉书·地理志》：“河南郡有大隗山，盖压禹、密、新三县也。”

《水经注》：“大隗即具茨山也。”

Locality of Huangdi’s wife was said to be Xiling, while Xiling was historically extrapolated to be in today’s Sichuan Province, and hence the continuity of the legend about Lord Yu’s birthplace in western China and known as Rong-yu. Xiling, per Wei Si at http://www.wenbao.net/html/lunwen/weisi_03.html would be in today’s Xiping at the Sichuan-Hubei border.

《路史·国名纪六》：“西陵，黄帝元妃，嫘姓国”。

张守节《史记正义》：“西陵，国名。”

郦道元《水经注·潕水》：潕水“又东过西平县北。县，故柏国也。《春秋左传》所谓江、黄、道、柏，方睦于齐也。汉曰西平。其西吕墟，即西陵亭也。西陵平夷，故曰西平。”

杨守敬《水经注疏》：“（西陵）亭当在今西平县西。”

杨守敬《水经注图.潕水篇》: “吕墟，即西陵亭”

甘肃武威王杖简：“河平元年汝南西陵县昌里，先，年七十，受王杖”。“汝南郡西陵县”。

Huangdi’s origin from the Hongshan Culture in the Hebei-Shanxi-Chahar (Kalgan) area

Huangdi was alternatively recorded to have killed both Chi-you (who was alternatively postulated to be the same as Yandi) and the two Hao-suffixed Dong-yi tribal leaders (i.e., the original Chinese dwelling in the central China and coastal China). [Liu Junnan (刘俊男), in his article on "tracing the origin of five ancient 'Di' overlords", pointed out that “两昊” = “魉昊”, which was tenuous even though he could be right about the distinction between the 'heavenly' god for 太昊 and the 'dynastic' overlord 太昊 .]

桓宽《鹽鐵論·結和》：“軒轅戰涿鹿，殺兩皞、蚩尤而為帝，湯、武伐夏、商，誅桀、紂而為王。黃帝以戰成功，湯、武以伐成孝。”

《山海经·海外西经》注《玉函山房辑佚书》：“蚩尤者，炎帝之后。”
南宋·罗泌.《路史·后纪四》：“蚩尤姜姓，炎帝后裔也。”

南宋·罗泌《路史·蚩尤传》：“蚩尤姜姓，炎帝之裔也”。

《黄氏逸书考》辑《遁甲开山图》：“蚩尤者，炎帝之后，与少昊治西方之金。”

裴骃《史记集解》引应劭：“蚩尤，古天子”

Should we speculate on the historical pattern of nomadic invasions against the central plains, then we could safely discard the Huangdi’s lineage and at most treat Huangdi as belonging to the same category as Tuoba who conquered the Huns and Xianbei to establish the Northern Wei Dynasty in northern China in the 5th century A.D.

Huangdi reaching the Han-shui River and the Yangtze River

Drawing the two parallels, we could also say that both Huangdi and Tuoba had extended their rule to the area no further than the Han-shui River and the Yangtze River.  In another word, there was no implication of an alien conquest of the whole China as the Mongols and the Manchus succeeded in China’s history. The southern excursion by Huangdi could be a continuity of the conquest ensuing from defeating Yandi/Chi-you.

《史记·五帝本纪》: “披山通道，未尝宁居。东至于海，登丸山，及岱宗。西至于空桐，登鸡头。南至于江，登熊、湘。北逐荤粥，合符釜山，而以于涿鹿之阿。迁徙往来无常处，以师兵为营卫。”

南宋祝穆 《方舆胜揽》:”山川熊山，己昔黄帝登熊山，意其此也”。

《秦始皇本纪》：“始皇二十八年，浮江至湘山祠，逢大风，几不得渡。上问博士曰：湘君何神？博士对曰：闻之尧女舜之妻，而葬此。于是始皇大怒，使刑徒三千，皆伐湘山树，赭其山。”

《水经注·湘水》: “是山，湘君之所游处。故曰君山矣”。

Yandi and Huangdi had separate descendants living in barbarian lands

《诗·小雅·巷伯》也颖达疏：“北方太阴之气寒凉而无土毛，不生草木，寒冻不可居处”。

《国语·晋语八》：“昔成王盟诸侯与岐阳，楚为荆蛮，置茅蕝，设望表，与鲜卑守燎，故不与盟。”

《史記·匈奴列傳》:“匈奴，其先祖夏后氏之苗裔也”。

《山海經》:“黃帝之孫日始均，始均生北狄”。“黃帝生苗龍，苗龍生融吾，融吾生弄明，弄明生白犬……是為犬戎”。 “顓頊生驩頭，驩頭生苗民”。“季禺之國，顓頊之子”。“有國，名曰叔士，顓頊之子”。“有國曰中輪，顓頊之子”。

北齐魏收《魏书》：“昌意少子受封北土，国有大鲜卑山，因以为号。其后世为君长，统幽都之北、广莫之野。……黃帝以土德，北俗谓土为托，谓后为拔，故以为氏。”

《十六国春秋·前燕录》：“昔高辛氏游于海滨，留少子厌越居于北夷，邑于紫蒙之野”。

王嘉《拾遗记》：“轩辕去蚩尤之凶，迁其民善者于邹屠之地，迁恶者于有北之乡。其先以地命族，后分为邹氏屠氏”。

《周书·帝纪第一》：“太祖文皇帝守文氏，讳泰，字黑獭，代武川人也。其先出自炎帝神农氏，为黄帝所灭，子孙遁居朔野”。

《新唐书·宰相世系表》：“宇文氏出自匈奴南单于之裔”。

司马贞《史记索隐》荤粥：“匈奴之别名也，唐虞以上曰山戎，亦曰熏粥，夏曰淳维，殷曰鬼方，周曰俨狁，汉曰匈奴”

明 杨慎《升庵诗话·紫濛》: “慕容氏自云轩辕之后,从于紫蒙之野。”

(To help understand this new perspective, you may want to check into recent archaeological discoveries in the Kalgan area, as shown in two videos below:

http://space.tv.cctv.com/act/video.jsp?videoId=VIDE1201529582717232 series 4

http://bugu.cntv.cn/documentary/explore/tansuofaxian/classpage/video/20091220/100860.shtml series 5

A caveat here: you may want to discard the claims of the so-called Chiyou tombstone, as shown in the video “Discovering the First City in Chinese History: Huangdi City – Zhuolu”, which appears to me to be some kind of make-up of the 20th century China to make some quick bucks.)

Chi-you was a descendant of Yandi, carrying the Jiang name.

《山海经·海外西经》注《玉函山房辑佚书》：“蚩尤者，炎帝之后。”
南宋·罗泌.《路史·后纪四》：“蚩尤姜姓，炎帝后裔也。” (南宋·罗泌《路史·蚩尤传》：“蚩尤姜姓，炎帝之裔也”。)

《世本》宋衷注：“蚩尤，神农臣也。”

《黄氏逸书考》辑《遁甲开山图》：“蚩尤者，炎帝之后，与少昊治西方之金。”

裴骃《史记集解》引应劭：“蚩尤，古天子”；引《汉书音义》臣瓒引《孔子三朝记》：“蚩尤，庶人之贪者”。

Chi-you as equivalent to farming

《吕氏春秋·勿躬》：“管子复于桓公曰：垦田大邑，辟土艺粟，尽地力之利，臣不若宁遬，请置以为大田”。注：“大由，大农也”。

《韩诗外传》：“东西耕曰横，南北耕曰由”。
《管子·省官》说：“相高下，视肥墝，观地宜，明詔期，前后农夫，以时均修焉；使五谷桑麻，皆安其处，由田之事也”。(由田即农田)

杨慎《丹铅录》：“由与农通”。

Chiyou – Jiuli’s overlord

《国语·楚语》注：“九黎，蚩尤之徒。”

《左传· 定公四年》: “命以伯禽而封于少昊之墟”。 [杜预注：“少昊墟，曲阜也，在鲁城内”。]

《史記·卷001·五帝本紀》“正义”引孔安国：“九黎君号蚩尤是也。”
《战国策·秦策一》高诱注：“蚩尤，九黎民之君子也。”
《逸周書·嘗麥》：“命蚩尤於宇少昊，以臨四方。” 《逸周书·尝麦解》:“命蚩尤于宇少昊”。(《逸周书》was a forgery, just like parts of Guan-zi 《管子》 that was edited by Liu Xiang [刘向],  i.e., 16 chapters of 《管子轻重》.)

孔颖达《尚书正义》：“昔炎帝之末，有九黎之国君号蚩尤者，惟造始作乱”“九黎之君号曰蚩尤，当有旧说云然。不知出何书也。”

{郑玄云：“学蚩尤为此者，九黎之君在少昊之代也。其意以蚩尤当炎帝之末，九黎当少昊之末。九黎学蚩尤，九黎非蚩尤也。”}

Chiyou: Sanmiao being the descendants of Jiuli

《国语·楚语下》：“及少昊氏之衰也，九黎乱德。家为巫史，民神同坐，祸灾荐臻。颛顼受之，乃命南正重司天以属神，命火正黎司地以属民。使复旧常，无相侵渎，是谓绝地天通。其后三苖复九黎之德，尧复育重黎之后，不忘旧者。使复典之。”韦注：“少皡，黄帝之子金天氏也。九黎，黎氏九人，蚩尤之徒也。”“其后，高辛氏之季年。三苗，九黎之后。”

.
《史记·五帝本纪》郑玄注：“有苗，九黎之后，颛顼代少昊诛九黎，分流其子孙为三苗国。高辛之衰又复九黎之德，尧兴又诛之，尧未在朝，舜臣又窜之。后禹嗣位，又在洞庭逆合，禹又诛之。”

Chi-you’s confrontation against Huangdi

《庄子·盗跖篇》：“且吾聞之，古者禽獸多而人少，於是民皆巢居以避之，晝拾橡栗，暮棲木上，故命之曰有巢氏之民。古者民不知衣服，夏多積薪，冬則煬之，故命之曰知生之民。神農之世，臥則居居，起則於於。民知其母，不知其父，與麋鹿共處，耕而食，織而衣，無有相害之心，此至德之隆也。然而黃帝不能致德，與蚩尤戰於涿鹿之野，流血百里。堯舜作，立羣臣，湯放其主，武王殺紂。自是之後，以強陵弱，以衆暴寡。湯武以來，皆亂人之徒也。”

《史记•五帝本纪》：“轩轩辕之时，神农氏世衰。诸侯相侵伐，暴虐百姓，而冲农氏弗能征。于是轩猿乃习用干戈，以征不享，诸侯咸来宾从。而蚩尤最为暴，莫能伐。”“蚩尤作乱，不用帝命。于是黄帝乃征师诸侯，与蚩尤战于涿鹿之野，遂擒杀蚩尤。”

桓宽《鹽鐵論·結和》：“軒轅戰涿鹿，殺兩皞、蚩尤而為帝，湯、武伐夏、商，誅桀、紂而為王。黃帝以戰成功，湯、武以伐成孝。”

南宋 罗泌《路史。蚩尤传》载：“蚩尤好兵而喜乱，逐帝而居于浊鹿。”

《通典》：“三年九战而城不下。”

张守节《史记正义》，引《龙鱼图》：“黄帝摄政，有蚩尤兄弟八十一人，并兽身人语，铜头铁额，食沙石子，造立兵仗刀戟大弩，威振天下，诛杀无道，不慈仁。万民欲令黄帝行天子事。黄帝以仁义不能禁止蚩尤，乃仰天而叹。天遣玄女下授黄帝兵信神符，制伏蚩尤。帝因使之主兵，以制八方。蚩尤没后，天下复优乱。黄帝遂画蚩尤形象以威天下。天下威谓蚩尤不死，八方万邦皆为弭服”。

《逸周书》注“蚩尤徒居于浊鹿，诸侯叛之，阪泉以亡”。(《逸周书》was a forgery, just like parts of Guan-zi 《管子》 that was edited by Liu Xiang [刘向],  i.e., 16 chapters of 《管子轻重》.)

Alternative claims in regards to the Huangdi-Chiyou conflict, which gave a picture of a lenient victor hiring the defeated as a minister. (Note Han-fei-zi, Guan-zi etc were mostly likely forged books or books modified by the 1st century A.D. scholars)

《越绝书》：“炎帝有天下以传黄帝，黄帝于是上事天；下治地，故少昊治西方，蚩尤佐之，使主金。”

《管子·五行篇》：“昔者黄帝得蚩尤而明于天道，得大常而察于地利，得奢龙而辩于东方，得祝融而辩于南方，得大封而辩于西方，得后土而辩于北方。黄帝得六相而天地治、神明至。蚩尤明乎天道，故为使当时，大常察于地利，故使为禀者……” (Parts of Guan-zi 《管子》, which was edited by Liu Xiang [刘向], could be forgeries. Historian Ma Feibai rebutted the 16 chapters of 《管子轻重》 as forgeries made in Xin Dynasty.  Similarly,《 逸周书》, part of 《韩非子》 could be forgeries as well. Hence, 《韩非子·十过篇》shared the same topics as 《管子·五行篇》.  Sima Qian had the comment on the following chapters: 《史记》 “读管氏《牧民》、《山高》、《乘马》、《轻重》、《九府》，……其书世多有之”。Could someone after Sima Qian had modified the originals ?  Or could someone had inserted the said statements into Sima Qian’s 《史记》? )

《韩非子·十过篇》：“昔者黄帝使鬼于西泰山之上，驾象车而六蛟龙，毕方并辖，蚩尤居前，风伯进扫，雨师洒道，虎狼在前，鬼神在后，腾蛇伏地，凤皇覆上，大合鬼神，作为《清角》。” (See above for my claim that 《韩非子·十过篇》and 《管子·五行篇》shared the same topics.)

Comment: In Ma Feibai’s opinion, Guan-zi stole the copious contents from the “Discourse on Salt and Iron” (《鹽鐵論》) as well as stole the concise statement from Sima Qian’s Shi-ji (《史记》). I will add that Guan-zi (《管子》), part of Haanfei-zi (《韩非子·十过篇》) and Yue-jue-shu (《越绝书》) had the footprint of the same person(s) .

Chi-you’s frontier in Zhuolu, Hebei

《水经注·卷十三》：“涿水出涿鹿山，世谓之张公泉，东北流经涿鹿县故城南……〈魏土地记〉: 涿鹿城东南六里有蚩尤城。泉水渊而不流，霖雨并侧流注阪泉”。

《水經注》：“涿水出涿鹿山，东北流经涿鹿县故城南……黄帝与蚩尤战于涿鹿之野，留其民于涿鹿之阿，即于是也。其水又东北与阪泉合。……魏土地记曰：下洛泉东南六十里有涿鹿城，城东一里有阪泉……晋太康地理记曰：阪泉，亦地名也，泉水东北流与蚩尤泉会，水出蚩尤城，城无东面，魏土地记称涿鹿城东南六里有蚩尤城，泉水渊而不流，霖雨则流注阪泉……”
《晋太康地理记》：“阪泉亦地名也。泉水东北流，与蚩尤泉会，水出蚩尤城，城无东面”。

Chi-you as inventor of metallurgy in today’s Shanxi

《梦溪笔谈》卷三：“解州盐泽，方面二十里。久雨，四山之水，悉注其中，未尝溢；大旱未尝涸。氵卤色正赤，在版泉之下，俚俗谓之蚩尤血”。(解州:今山西运城市解州镇)

《梦溪笔谈》卷三：“解州盐泽，卤色正赤，俚俗谓之‘蚩尤血’。”

《世本·作篇》“蚩尤以金作兵。”或云：“蚩尤作五兵：戈、矛、戟、酋矛、夷予。”
《太平寰宇记·卷四六》：“蚩尤天在县南一十八里”。

《太平寰宇记·河东道七》：“蚩尤城在县南一十八里……其城今摧毁”。[故安邑 今山西运城市安邑镇]
《管子·地数篇》：“葛庐之山发而出水，金从之，蚩尤受而制之，以为剑铠矛戟，是岁相兼者诸侯九。雍狐之山发而出水，金从之，蚩尤受而制之，以为雍狐之戟芮戈，是岁相兼者诸侯二十”。

《归藏》：“蚩尤出自羊水，八肱八趾疏首。”

任昉《述异记》：“有蚩尤神，俗云：人自牛蹄，四目六手。今冀州人提掘地得髑髅如铜铁者，即蚩尤之骨也。今有蚩尤齿，长二寸，坚不可碎。秦汉间说蚩尤氏耳鬓如剑戟，头有角，与轩辕斗，以角觝人，人不能向……”

Chi-you’s tombs in Shandong

张澍 辑《十三州志》：“蚩尤肩髀冢重聚，大小与阚冢等。传言黄帝与蚩尤战，克之于涿鹿之野，身体异处，故别葬焉。”

《皇览·冢墓记》：“蚩尤冢，在东平郡寿张县阚乡城中，高七丈，民常十月祀之”。

《皇览·墓冢记》：“蚩尤冢，在东平寿张县阚乡城中，高七丈，民常十月祀之。有赤气出如匹绛帛，民名为蚩尤旗。肩髀冢在山阳郡钜野县重聚，大小与阚冢等”。[三国时之东平寿张 今山东阳谷县寿张镇。山阳钜野 今山东巨野县。 ]

《巨野县志》：“蚩尤墓，在巨野县城东北八里。”

Chiyou worshipped as a god

《史记·封禅书》: “三曰兵主，祠蚩尤。蚩尤在东平陆监乡，齐之西境也”。

《史記·卷028·封禪書》：“于是始皇遂东游海上，行礼祠名山大川及八神，求仙人羨门之属。八神将自古而有之，或曰太公以来作之。齐所以为齐，以天齐也。其祀绝莫知起时。八神：一曰天主，祠天齐。天齐渊水，居临菑南郊山下者。二曰地主，祠泰山梁父。盖天好阴，祠之必于高山之下，小山之上，命曰“畤”；地贵阳，祭之必于泽中圜丘云。三曰兵主，祠蚩尤。蚩尤在东平陆监乡，齐之西境也。……”
《史记》: 刘邦“祠黄帝，祭蚩尤于沛庭”。 (秦时沛县，今江苏徐州市沛县。)

《史記·卷028·封禪書》：“高祖初起，祷丰枌榆社。徇沛，为沛公，则祠蚩尤，衅鼓旗。遂以十月至灞上，与诸侯平咸阳，立为汉王。因以十月为年首，而色上赤。”

《汉书·地理志》东郡寿良：“蚩尤祠在西北（涑）上，有朐城”。

《後漢書·馬延傳》：“延將兵衛護南單于，敕延過武庫，祭蚩尤，帝親御阿閣，觀其士眾。”

《宋史·禮制》：“軍前大旗曰牙，師出必祭，謂之禡。後魏出師，又建纛頭旗上。太宗徵河東，出京前一日，遣右贊善大夫潘慎修出郊，用少牢一祭蚩尤，禡祭。”

梁·任昉《述异志》：“蚩尤能作云雾。涿鹿今在冀州，有蚩尤神……秦汉间说：蚩尤氏耳鬓如剑戟，头有角，与轩辕氏斗，以角抵人，人不能向。今冀州有乐名《蚩尤戏》，其民两两三三，头戴牛角而相抵。”“太原村落间，祭蚩尤神。”“汉武时，太原有蚩尤神昼见……逐为立祠。”

《述异记·卷上》云：“太原村落间祭蚩尤神，不用牛头”。“汉武时，太原有蚩尤神昼见……其俗遂为立祠”。“今冀州有乐名蚩尤戏，其民两两三三，头载牛角而相。汉造角戏，盖其遗制也”。[秦汉置太原郡，属并州，首县晋阳，今山西太原市。]

Chi-you’s direct descendants

《史记·本周纪》周武王“追思先圣王，乃褒封神农之后于焦”。
裴骃《史记集解》：“《地理志》弘农陕县有焦城，故焦国也”。(《汉书·地理志》弘农郡，今河南灵宝。
《地理志》弘农郡“有铁官，在黾池” (池今渑池县)

邓名世《古今姓氏辩证》（卷十九）：“谨按《壬子年拾遗记》曰：‘帝喾妃邹屠氏之地’。轩辕去蚩尤之凶，迁其民善者于邹屠之地，恶者于有北之乡。其先以地命族，后分邹氏、屠氏。”

郑樵《通志略》卷二《氏族二》：“黎氏，字亦作犁，子姓侯爵，商时诸侯。《风俗通》云：‘九黎之后’。《尚书》：‘西伯戡黎’。亦见《毛诗》。今潞州黎城县有黎侯故城，是其地……今岭南多此姓。”

《古今姓氏辩证》引《元和姓篡》：“蚩”姓，“蚩尤之后，以国为氏”。

罗泌《路史·蚩尤传》：中原地区“后有蚩尤”。

王嘉《拾遗记》：“轩辕去蚩尤之凶，迁其民善者于邹屠之地，迁恶者于有北之乡。其先以地命族，后分为邹氏屠氏”。

Yandi, being the inventor of “farming on the burnt wilderness” and “herbal medicine”, was a successor to the Shennong-shi or the Devine Farmer , carrying the Fiery Overlord title.

《易·系辞》：“包牺氏没，神农氏作。斫木为耜，揉木为耒，耒耜之利，以教天下，盖取诸益。”

《易·系辞》：“神农氏作，斫木为耜，揉木为耒。耒耨之利，以教天下”。

《竹书纪年》：“炎帝神农氏，其初国伊，继国耆，合称，又曰伊耆氏。”

《庄子·盗跖》：“神农之世，卧则居居，起则于于，民知其母，不知其父，与麋鹿共处，耕而食，织而衣，无有相害之心”。

《史记·补三皇本纪》：“炎帝神农氏……斩木为耜，揉木为耒，耒耨之用以教万人。始教耕，故号神农氏。”

《汉书.古今人表》,《易·系辞》: “炎帝神农氏”。

《三皇本纪》：“神农尝百草，始有医药；又作五弦之瑟；教人日中为市，交易而退，各得其所乃归。.遂重八卦为六十四爻，立一百二十年崩，葬长沙”。

《淮南子·修务训》：“神农乃始教民，尝百草之滋味，识水泉之甘苦，……当此之时．一日而遇七十毒，由是医方兴焉”。

《淮南子·修务训》：“古者民茹草饮水，采草木之实，食螺蚌之肉，时多疾病毒伤之害。于是神农乃始教民播种五谷”。

《帝王世纪》：“神农氏作，是为炎帝”

《帝王世纪》：“炎帝神农氏，姜姓也。母曰任姒，有蟜氏女登为少典妃，游华山之阳，有神龙首，感女登于常羊，生炎帝。人身牛首，长于姜水。有圣德，以火德王，故号炎帝。初都陈，又徙鲁。又曰魁隗氏，又曰连山氏，又曰烈山氏。”

《宋书·符瑞志》：“有神龙首感女登于常羊山，生炎帝神农。”

《路史·后纪三》：“炎帝神农氏，姓伊耆，名轨，一曰石年，母安登感神于常羊，生神农于烈山之石室。”

《纲鉴·三皇纪》：“少典之君娶有蟜氏女，曰安登，少典妃感神龙而生炎帝。”

《说文解字》释：“炎，火光上也”。
《玉篇》：“炎，热也，焚也”。
《汉书·卷七十四》：“南方之神炎帝”。

《帝王世纪》：“炎帝神农氏，……，尝味草木，宣药疗疾，救夭伤人命，百姓日用而不知，著本草四卷”。

《白虎通义》：“古之人民皆食禽兽之肉。至于神农，人民众多，禽兽不足，于是神农因天之时，分地之利，制耒耜，教民农耕。神而化之，使民宜之，故谓之神农氏”。

(《水经注·伊水》: “南望墠渚，陂方十里，佳绕鱼苇，禹父之所化。昔有莘氏女采桑于伊川，得婴儿于空桑，长而有贤德，即伊尹也。伊水又北过新城县南”。

《淮南子》：“鲧作三仞之城，城之始也。”)

Shennong-shi (the Devine Farmer) = ‘Huang’ & Yandi = ‘Di’

《尚书大传·卷第四》：“神农为农皇也…神农以地纪，悉地力种谷疏，故托农皇于地”。(Shang-shu Da-zhuan was a Wei-category forgery.)

《史记·封禅书》,《史记·五帝本纪》,《帝王世纪》：“神农氏作，是为炎帝”。

Guan-zi Controversy

Sima Qian felt fuzzy about things beyond Huangdi, and touched upon the ancient overlord Fu-xi briefly. Sima Qian was said to have cited Guan-zi as to how ancient Chinese paid pilgrimage to ancient lords on Mt. Taishan. However, Guan-zi’s forged statements in the chapter on Mt. Taishan pilgrimage [《管子·封禅篇》] were very self-apparent. The geography in regards to Da-xia [or Bactria as claimed after Zhang Qian's trip to the Central Asia was wrong. The real Da-xia was in today's central Shanxi Province.)

《太史公自序》：“余闻之先人曰：‘伏羲至纯厚，作《易》八卦’。”

《史记·卷二十八·封禅书第六》: “《尚书》曰，舜在璇玑玉衡，以齐七政。遂类于上帝，禋于六宗，望山川，遍群神。辑五瑞，择吉月日，见四岳诸牧，还瑞。岁二月，东巡狩，至于岱宗。岱宗，泰山也。柴，望秩于山川。遂觐东后。东后者，诸侯也。合时月正日，同律度量衡， 修五礼，五玉三帛二生一死贽。五月，巡狩至南岳。南岳，衡山也。八月，巡狩至 西岳。西岳，华山也。十一月，巡狩至北岳。北岳，恒山也。皆如岱宗之礼。中岳，嵩高也。五载一巡狩。” ...  “秦缪公即位九年，齐桓公既霸，会诸侯于葵丘，而欲封禅。管仲曰：“古者封 泰山禅梁父者七十二家，而夷吾所记者十有二焉。昔无怀氏封泰山，禅云云；虑羲 封泰山，禅云云；神农封泰山，禅云云；炎帝封泰山，禅云云；黄帝封泰山，禅亭亭；颛顼封泰山，禅云云；帝俈封泰山，禅云云；尧封泰山，禅云云；舜封泰山， 禅云云；禹封泰山，禅会稽；汤封泰山，禅云云；周成王封泰山，禅社首。皆受命 然后得封禅。”桓公曰：“寡人北伐山戎，过孤竹；西伐大夏，涉流沙，束马悬车， 上卑耳之山；南伐至召陵，登熊耳山以望江汉。兵车之会三，而乘车之会六，九合诸侯，一匡天下，诸侯莫违我。昔三代受命，亦何以异乎？”于是管仲睹桓公不可 穷以辞，因设之以事，曰：“古之封禅，鄗上之黍，北里之禾，所以为盛；江淮之 间，一茅三脊，所以为藉也。东海致比目之鱼。西海致比翼之鸟，，然后物有不召而自至者十有五焉。今凤凰麒麟不来，嘉谷不生，而蓬蒿藜莠茂，鸱枭数至，而欲 封禅，毋乃不可乎？”于是桓公乃止。”(Could someone after Sima Qian had inserted the "Guan-zi" statements into Sima Qian’s 《史记》? )

《史记·封禅书》：“泰山东北址有古时明堂处，齐有泰山之明堂也。”

东汉 王充《论衡·书虚篇》：“百王太平，升封泰山。泰山之上，封可见者七十有二，纷纶湮灭者不可胜数。”

While the book 'Yi' (《易·系辞》), written in the name of Confucius, could be real, Guan-zi could be very much a forgery written in Han Dynasty or in another sense a book with numerous forged chapters on top of the original chapters. (Example to show How Sima Qian could not have been said to have cited Guan-zi in claiming that Qi Lord Huan'gong a) had campaigned against Da-xia  and b) stepped onto the Kumtag Desert -- which appeared to me to be a latter day add-on:《管子·封禅篇》:桓公：“寡人北伐山戎，过孤竹；西伐大夏，涉流沙，束马悬车， 上卑耳之山；南伐至召陵，登熊耳山以望江汉。” Did someone insert Guan-zi's forged statement into Sima Qian's Shiji? I have to reserve my judgment. There is no chance for Qi Lord Huan'gong to ever travel beyond the central land of today's Shanxi-Shenxi provinces. Alternatively, Qi Emperor Shihuangdi ordered stone inscription to be erected, stating that he had reached as far as the land of Da-xia to the north, which was ascertained to be in today's central Shanxi Province. It would be after Zhang Qian's trip to the Central Asia that Chinese records began to designate today's Afghanistan as Da-xia, which alternatively substantiated my claim that Guan-zi was a forgery, and similar statements in Sima Qian's Shi-ji could be later insertion.)

Yandi Dynasty lasted eight generations

Citation from Yi' (《易·系辞》):

《易·系辞》“古者包牺氏之王天下也，仰则观象于天，俯则观法于地。观鸟兽之文与地之宜，近取诸身，远取诸物，于是始作八卦，以通神明之德，以类万物之情。作结绳而为网罟，以佃以渔，盖取诸离。包牺氏没，神农氏作，……神农氏没，黄帝尧舜氏作，通其变，使民不倦，神而化之，使民宜之。”

《易·系辞》疏引《帝王世纪》:“炎帝”之号，凡传八世：帝临魁、帝承、帝明、帝直、帝嫠、帝哀、帝榆罔。

Following citations from Zhuang-zi (《庄子》) have to be taken with grain of salt as part of Zhuang-zi could be forgeries from the Han Dynasty. Zhuang-zi, if 100% real originals, could have confirmed the writings from the excavated silk/bamboo books from Chu Principality --a non-central-plains and a non-Huangdi line nation that supposedly had inherited the original agri Chinese heritage since prehistory.

《庄子·胠箧》：“子独不知至德之世乎？昔者容成氏、大庭氏、伯皇氏、中央氏、栗陆氏、骊畜氏、轩辕氏、赫胥氏、尊卢氏、祝融氏、伏犠氏、神农氏，当是时也，民结绳而用之，甘其食，美其服，乐其俗，安其居，邻国相望，鸡狗之音相闻，民至老死而不相往来。”

《庄子·缮性》：“逮德下衰，及燧人、伏羲始为天下，是故顺而不一；德又下衰，及神农、黄帝始为天下，是故安而不顺。”

《庄子·田子方》：“古之真人，知者不得说，美人不得滥，盗人不得窃，伏戏、黄帝不得友。”

Later historians had more detailed writings on antiquity.

《汉书·律历志》引刘歆《世经》：“庖牺继天而王，为百王先。首德始于木，故帝为太昊。”

《白虎通义》：“三皇者何谓也，伏羲、女娲、神农是也。”

晋代皇甫谧《帝王世纪》:“女娲氏……承庖牺制度。……及女娲氏没，次有大庭氏、柏皇氏、中央氏、栗陆氏、骊连氏、赫胥氏、尊卢氏、浑混氏、昊英氏、有巢氏、朱襄氏、葛天氏、阴康氏、无怀氏，凡十五世，皆袭庖牺之号。”

For details on the forgeries, see http://www.zangshu.com/2011/0209/21878.html

The meaning of the ancient "Di" title - meaning justice, a nation's imperial name or the person who combined the virtue with the Heaven.

《说文解字》：“帝，谛也，王天下之号也”。(“谛”指“审谛”。)

《白虎通义》:“德合天者称帝”。

Historical conflict concerning Yandi's relationship with Huangdi

《国语·晋语四》：“昔少典氏娶于有蟜氏，生黄帝、炎帝。黄帝以姬水成；炎帝以姜水成。成而异德，故黄帝为姬姓，炎帝为姜姓。韦昭注：姜，水名；成，谓所生长以成功也。”（《水经》渭水注入歧水，又东经姜氏城，南为姜水。按《辞源》，姜水即歧水，今歧山县西。）

《水经注》：“岐水，又东迳姜氏城南，为姜水。”

《帝王世纪》：“黄帝有熊氏，少典之子，姬姓也，母曰附宝，其先即炎帝母家有蟜氏，世与少典氏婚。”

《春秋纬·元命苞》：“少典妃安登游于华阳，有神龙首，感之于常羊，生神农。人面龙颜，好耕，是谓神农，始为天子。”  (The [纬] ‘wei’-suffixed books were mostly later forgeries as well.)

(西周“轲尊”铭文周武王定都洛邑：“唯王初迁宅于成周，则廷告于天曰：余其宅此中国”)

This is a total re-write of China’s prehistory (http://www.imperialchina.org/Pre-history.html) which was previously jotted down in an impartial way but more or less following the orthodox Huangdi or the Yellow Emperor (overlord) line.

The main revision is to take out the historical claim that Huangdi, the Yellow Overlord, was the natural inheritor of the Sino-Tibetan legacy and instead pointed out that the Fiery Overlord was the mainstream Chinese ruler covering the vast territories extending from the Kumtag Desert to the East China Sea and from the Yangtze to the Great Wall line of today. Though, Huangdi’s line was still a branch of the the Sino-Tibetan group as opposed to the group of people in Manchuria [i.e., ancestors of future Altaic-speaking Tungus people] or the groups of people on the Eastern and Southeastern Chinese coast [i.e., ancestors of the Hmong-Mien people who migrated to Southwest China, ancestors of the Hundred Yue people who migrated to the southern and southeastern coast, and ancestors of the Austronesian people who migrated to Taiwan and the Pacific Islands].

At the very beginning, while still stopping at Vietnam, there had occured earlier splits of people who moved along the coast to become ancestors of future Altaic-speaking Tungus people, ancestors of the Hundred Yue people, and ancestors of the Austronesian people. Either moving together with the Sino-Tibetan people or following the Sino-Tibetan people would be ancestors of the Hmong-Mien people who split half way during the northern bound trip to move down the Yangtze River.

–For DNA studies on the southern origin of Mongoloid, refer to

Y-Chromosome Evidence of Southern Origin of the East Asian–Specific Haplogroup O3-M122;

Genetic Structure of Hmong-Mien Speaking Populations in East Asia as Revealed by mtDNA Lineages.

(Also refer to some crappy analyst who stirred up the hornet’s nest about the purported Shandong DNA: The reanalysis of two previously published ancient mtDNA population data sets from Linzi (same province) then indicates that the ancient populations had features in common with the modern populations from south China rather than any specific affinity to the European mtDNA pool.)

The new archaelogical findings from the Kalgan area, which were postulated to belong to the Hongshan Culture covering Hebei-Chahar-Jehol territories, was implied to be a ‘Bei-di’ (北狄) or the ‘barbarian’ from the north  and could have ascertained the Sima Qian claim Huangdi moved across the nation without a fixed dwelling place (or palace), namely, a non-agri person. (The Legends of Mountains and Seas, which was said to be a book written after Lord Yu sent expeditions to the four corners of the world to survey the earth, was in fact a book written at the turn of the B.C.-A.D. eras in the spirits of restoring the lost Chinese classics that were destroyed by Qin Emperor Shihuangdi during the book-burning and Confucian-burying campaign.)

Discarding Huangdi’s orthodoxy, we could reconcile the conflicts in regards to the claim as to Yandi and Huangdi being brothers, and go back to the very ancestors of the Chinese nation and sort out the history’s paradoxes.

1) The ancestor of the Sino-Tibetan group of people was and is one
The ancestor of the Sino-Tibetan group of people was Jiang-surnamed from the very beginning. This group of people, after arriving at the Yellow River area from today’s Vietnam about 10,000 years ago, moved east towards the coast, with clusters of peole moving south of , along and north of the Yellow River. (The group of Sinot-Tibetan people who moved north of the Yellow River could be speculated to be the future Huangdi group which was to found the Hongshan Culture, while their southern-belt moving cousins were to dominate the entire area in today’s central China, where they first founded the Peiligang [裴李岗文化] in the Yi-shui River and Luo-he River area, and then reached the coastal Shandong where they founded the Dawenkou Culture and the Longshan Culture on the Shandong Peninsula.)

2) The Chinese civilization started with Paoxi-shi and relayed by Shennong-shi

Confucius put out the most authoritative writing in stating that the ancient Paoxi-shi invented the fishing net, studied geography and astronomy, and created the Eight Trigrams (八卦 bāguà). Following the Paoxi-shi would be the legendary Shennong-shi, i.e., the Devine farmer, whose representative was Yandi which enjoyed eight successions.  See the Yi-jing citation below.

《周易.系辞下》“八卦成列，像在其中矣；因而重之，爻在其中矣；刚柔相推，变在其中焉；系辞焉而命之，动在其中矣。吉凶悔吝者，生乎动者也；刚柔者，立本者也；变通者，趣时者也。吉凶者，贞胜者也；天地之道，贞观者也；日月之道，贞明者也；天下之动，贞夫一者也。夫乾，确然示人易矣；夫坤，确然示人简矣。爻也者，效此者也。象也者，像此者也；爻象动乎内，吉凶见乎外，功业见乎变，圣人之情见乎辞。天地之大德曰生，圣人之大宝曰位。何以守位？曰仁。何以聚人？曰财。理财正辞、禁民为非曰义。 古者包牺氏之王天下也，仰则观象于天，俯则观法于地，观鸟兽之文与地之宜，近取诸身，远取诸物，于是始作八卦，以通神明之德，以类万物之情。作结绳而为网罟，以佃以渔，盖取诸《离》。包牺氏没，神农氏作，斫木为耜，揉木为耒，耒耨之利，以教天下，盖取诸《益》。日中为市，致天下之民，聚天下之货，交易而退，各得其所，盖取诸《噬嗑》。神农氏没，黄帝、尧、舜氏作，通其变，使民不倦，神而化之，使民宜之。《易》穷则变，变则通，通则久。是以「自天佑之，吉无不利」。黄帝、尧、舜垂衣裳而天下治，盖取诸《乾》、《坤》。刳木为舟，剡木为楫，舟楫之利，以济不通，致远以利天下，盖取诸《涣》。服牛乘马，引重致远，以利天下，盖取诸《随》。重门击柝，以待暴客，盖取诸《豫》。断木为杵，掘地为臼，杵臼之利，万民以济，盖取诸《小过》。弦木为弧，剡木为矢，弧矢之利，以威天下，盖取诸《睽》。上古穴居而野处，后世圣人易之以宫室，上栋下宇，以待风雨，盖取诸《大壮》。古之葬者，厚衣之以薪，葬之中野，不封不树，丧期无数。后世圣人易之以棺椁，盖取诸《大过》。上古结绳而治，后世圣人易之以书契，百官以治，万民以察，盖取诸《夬》。 是故《易》者，像也；象也者，像也。彖者，材也；爻也者，效天下之动者也。是故吉凶生而悔吝着也。 阳卦多阴，阴卦多阳，其故何也？阳卦奇，阴卦耦。其德行何也？阳一君而二民，君子之道也。阴二君而一民，小人之道也。 《易》曰「憧憧往来，朋从尔思。」子曰：「天下何思何虑？天下同归而殊途，一致而百虑。天下何思何虑？日往则月来，月往则日来，日月相推而明生焉。寒往则暑来，暑往则寒来，寒暑相推而岁成焉。往者屈也，来者信也，屈信相感而利生焉。尺蠖之屈，以求信也；龙蛇之蛰，以存身也。精义入神，以致用也；利用安身，以崇德也。过此以往，未之或知也；穷神知化，德之盛也。」”

Per 范曾 at http://baike.soso.com/v7558625.htm?ch=ch.bk.innerlink Confucius lectured on Yi-jing (《易经》) and his disciples compiled the interpretations to pass on to the Han Dynasty without the interruption from Qin Emperor Shihuangdi’s book burning owning to the ‘non-political’ nature of the said book whereas the history books from Zhou Dynasty and various principalities as well as various philosophical schools were burnt down.

《史记·孔子世家》曰：“孔子晚而喜《易》，序《彖》《系》《象》《说卦》《文言》。”

《汉书·艺文志》：“及秦燔书，而《易》为筮卜之事，传者不绝。汉兴，田何传之。”

《汉书·儒林传》：“汉兴，田何以齐田徙杜陵，号杜田生，授东武王同子中、洛阳周王孙、丁宽、齐服生，皆著《易传》数篇。”[颜师古注：“高祖用娄敬之言徙关东大族，故何以旧齐田氏见徙也。初徙时未为杜陵，盖史家本其地追言之也。”]

(《易传》７种１０篇: 《彖传》上下篇、《象传》上下篇、《文言传》、《系辞传》上下角、《说卦传》、《序卦传》和《杂卦传》。汉:“十翼”。)

3) Three Legendary ‘Huang’ and Eight Legendary ‘Di’

补史记 小司马氏撰并注: “[索隐]小司马氏云：太史公作《史记》，古今君臣宜应上自开闢，下迄当代，以为一家之首尾。今阙三皇而以五帝为首者，正以《大戴礼》有《五帝德》篇，又《帝世》皆叙自黄帝以下，故因以五帝本纪为首。其实三皇以还，载籍罕备，然君臣之始，教化之先，既论古史，不合全阙。近代皇甫谧作《帝王代纪》，徐整作《三五历》，皆论三皇已来事，斯亦近古之一证。今并采而集之，作《三皇本纪》。虽复浅近，聊补阙云。”

Three Legendary ‘Huang’

Sima Qian’s Shiji had discussions on the three legendary ‘Huang’; however, this section was lost in the later times, and Sima Zhen had to rewrite in Tang Dynasty. Sima Qian claimed that the Three Legendary ‘Huang’ were the Heaven ‘Huang’, Earth ‘Huang’ and Mt. Taishan Huang. In my opinion, the third ‘Huang’ was taken as the Human ‘Huang’ possibly because Mt Taishan was the place that ancient Chinese inscribed the names of overlords since antiquity. Hence, Human ‘Huang’ = Mt. Taishan ‘Huang’.

As to the other designations for the three legendary ‘Huang’ using different order of deified human overlords, we could say they were all erroneous interpretations by ancient Chinese scholars who failed to properly understand the meaning of Mt Taishan inscriptions to be in the category of the ‘human’ gods after the heaven and the earth –which I called by a Chinese trinity at the previous writing on prehistory  (http://www.imperialchina.org/Pre-history.html) .

《史记·秦始皇本纪》：“古有天皇，有地皇，有泰皇。”

皇甫谧《帝王世紀》: “孔子称古者三皇五帝设防而不犯，故无陷刑之民，是以或结绳而治，或象 画而化。自庖羲至于尧、舜，神道设教，可谓至政无所用刑矣。夫三载考绩，黜陟幽明，善无微不著，恶 无隐不章，任自然以诛赏，委群心以就制，故能造御乎无为，运道于至和，百姓日用而不知，含德若自有 者也。”

晋 皇甫谧 《帝王世纪》：“ 伏羲 、 神农 、 黄帝 为三皇， 少昊 、 高阳 、 高辛 、 唐 、 虞 为五帝。” (Huangfu Mi mixed up the Three Sovereigns to include the ‘human’ overlords, i.e., Huangdi the Yellow Overlord.)

《艺文类聚》卷一引徐整《三五历记》：“天数极高，地数极深，盘古极长。后乃有三皇。”

《太平御览》卷七八引《春秋纬》：“天皇、地皇、人皇，兄弟九人，分为九州长天下也。”

《古今注》：程雅‘自古何谓称三皇五帝？’ 董仲舒曰：‘三皇三才也，五帝，五常也，三王，三明也，五霸，五岳也。’”

唐司马贞《史记·补三皇本纪》: “一說三皇，天皇、地皇、人皇為三皇。” “自人皇已後，有五龍氏、燧人氏、大庭氏、柏皇氏、中央氏、卷須氏、栗陸氏、驪連氏、赫胥氏、尊盧氏、渾沌氏、昊英氏、有巢氏、朱襄氏、葛天氏、陰康氏、無懷氏。斯葢三皇以來，有天地者之號，但載籍不紀，莫知姓、王、年代、所都之處。而《韓詩》以為自古封太山、禪梁甫者，萬有餘家，仲尼觀之不能盡識。《管子》亦曰：「古封太山七十二家，夷吾所識十有五焉。」首有無懷氏，然則無懷之前天皇已後，年紀悠邈，皇王何升而告？但古書亡矣，不可備論，豈得謂無帝王耶？故《春秋緯》稱，自開闢，至於獲麟，凡三百二十七萬六千歲，分為十紀，凡世七萬六百年。一曰九頭紀，二曰五龍紀，三曰攝提紀，四曰合雒紀，五曰連通紀，六曰序命紀，七曰循飛紀，八曰因提紀，九曰禪通紀，十曰疏迄紀。當黃帝時，制九紀之間，是以錄於此補紀之也。”

Sima Zhen lamented that “the ancient books long lost; however, how could you deny that the ancient lords never existed?” Sima Zhen believed that there were ten epochs extending all the way to Huangdi’s era; that all names related to the earliest Heaven ‘Huang’ and Earth ‘Huang’ were unrecoverable; that ancient saint Yiwu could identify 15 out of 72 deities inscribed on Mt. Taishan [per Sima Qian's Shiji which in turn cited Guan-zi which was possibly a forged or modified book by latter scholars] and Confucius failed to figure out the inscriptions of over 10,000 deities inscribed on Mt. Taishan.

The order of ancient human ‘godly’ overlords (Human ‘Huang’ [人皇]), shown with origin in different tribal groups, was different for different historians such as for Huangfu Mi of Jinn Dynasty versus Sima Zhen of Tang Dynasty. Should we interprete Sima Zhen’s statement as to say that the  overlords from different tribal groups, as shown below, all shared the same “Feng” family name as Fuxi? If so, then the (Human ‘Huang’ [人皇]) rule could have continued for another 78 [?] overlords, which came from tribal groups of the same lineage – Fuxi?

Or, alternatively speaking, the majority of the  Fuxi ‘dynasties’, about 15 [per Sima Zhen and pasted below], failed to earn the title to be called the (Human ‘Huang’ [人皇]) overlord. (Later ancient Chinese at most gave the Human ‘Huang’ [人皇] title to Fuxi, Nüwa, Shennong and Huangdi, which was fallacious in light of the original denotation for this title.)

晋•皇甫溢《帝王世纪》、《遁甲开山图》、《通鉴外记》:

女娲氏、大庭氏、柏皇氏、中央氏、卷须氏(《通鉴外记》)、栗陆氏、骊连氏、赫胥氏、尊卢氏、混沌氏、昊英氏、有巢氏、朱襄氏、葛天氏、阴康氏、无怀氏。

唐司马贞《史记·补三皇本纪》: 自人皇已後，有“五龍氏、燧人氏、大庭氏、柏皇氏、中央氏、卷須氏、栗陸氏、驪連氏、赫胥氏、尊盧氏、渾沌氏、昊英氏、有巢氏、朱襄氏、葛天氏、陰康氏、無懷氏”

《庄子·胠箧》：“子独不知至德之世乎？昔者容成氏、大庭氏、伯皇氏、中央氏、栗陆氏、骊畜氏、轩辕氏、赫胥氏、尊卢氏、祝融氏、伏犠氏、神农氏，当是时也，民结绳而用之，甘其食，美其服，乐其俗，安其居，邻国相望，鸡狗之音相闻，民至老死而不相往来。” (Adding Zhuang-zi’s list, there would have existed some additional dynasties between Fuxi-shi and Shennong-shi, with more southern China inclination, such as Zhurong-shi [祝融氏]. It appears that the addition of or the reference to the dozens of dynasties in-between Fuxi-shi and Shennong-shi had the same origin in the books of the Warring States time period, such as Zhuang-zi (《庄子》) and Lie-zi (《列子》). )

One statement from Sima Zhen was ambiguous. Counting the Fuxi “dynasties”, you would have at least 15 (per Sima Zhen) [人皇] dynasties, including Wuhuai-shi  [无怀氏] ,  in-between the three ancient ‘Huang’ eras and the known historical time period. My question is: Should we interpret the  15 (per Sima Zhen) [人皇] dynasties to be ahead of Fuxi or after Fuxi? Sima Zhen said that those 15 dynasties ensued from Nüwa-shi, starting with Dating-shi through Wuhuai-shi; however, Zhuang-zi had a slight difference in order and naming. (See 晋代皇甫谧《帝王世纪》:“女娲氏……承庖牺制度。……及女娲氏没，次有大庭氏、柏皇氏、中央氏、栗陆氏、骊连氏、赫胥氏、尊卢氏、浑混氏、昊英氏、有巢氏、朱襄氏、葛天氏、阴康氏、无怀氏，凡十五世，皆袭庖牺之号。”). Now Sima Zhen conflicted with himself in stating that anything after the Three ‘Huang’ and before the Wuhuai-shi [无怀氏]) Dynasty was fuzzy. Was Wuhuai-shi  [无怀氏] before or after Fuxi? If after, then why do we know more about Fuxi-shi than the latter, i.e., Wuhuai-shi? It does not make sense to me. See the same doubt from ancient scholar in comment below.

司马贞《史记·(补)三皇本纪》: 自人皇已后，有五龙氏、〔一〕燧人氏、〔二〕大庭氏、柏皇氏、中央氏、卷须氏、栗陆氏、骊连氏、赫胥氏、尊卢氏、浑沌氏、昊英氏、有巢氏、朱襄氏、葛天氏、阴康氏、无怀氏。斯盖三皇以来有天下者之号。〔三〕但载籍不纪，莫知姓王年代，所都之处。而《韩诗》以为自古封太山、禅梁甫者，万有余家，仲尼观之，不能尽识。《管子》亦曰，古封太山七十二家，夷吾所识十有二焉，首有无怀氏。然则无怀之前，天皇已后，年纪悠邈，皇王何升而告？但古书亡矣，不可备论，岂得谓无帝王耶？故《春秋纬》称自开闢至于获麟，凡三百二十七万六千岁，分为十纪，凡世七万六百年。一曰九头纪，二曰五龙纪，三曰摄提纪，四曰合雒纪，五曰连通纪，六曰序命纪，七曰修飞纪，八曰回提纪，九曰禅通纪，十曰流迄纪。盖流迄当黄帝时，制九纪之间，是以录于此，补纪之也。(You see Sima Zhen citing the forgery book 《春秋纬》.)

〔一〕 [索隐]五龙氏兄弟五人，并乘龙上下，故曰五龙氏也。

〔二〕 [索隐]按：其君钻燧出火，教人熟食，在伏牺前，谯周以为三皇之首也。

〔三〕 [索隐]按：皇甫谧以为大庭已下一十五君，皆袭庖牺之号，事不经见，难可依从。然按古封太山者，首有无怀氏，乃在太昊之前，岂得如谧所说？

唐  司马贞 《<史记索隐>序》：“今止探求异闻，采摭典故，解其所未解，申其所未申者，释文演注，又为述赞，凡三十卷，号曰《史记索隐》。”

Should we continue to cite the excavations from Chu Principality, i.e., the silk/bamboo books, as shown below, then we do have some valid records about the existence of Fuxi that was from the non-central-plains or non-Huangdi line, that is, more credible.

Five Legendary ‘Di’

Liu Junnan (刘俊男), in his article on “tracing the origin of five ancient ‘Di’ overlords“, pointed out that the five ancient ‘Di’ meant for the ‘heavenly’ gods or the gods designating the five metaphysical directions, and that the ruling dynasties attached their wise ‘human’ leaders (gods) to the heavenly gods, in varying orders or with different naming placement in different dynasties.

This correct reading of the difference between the the ‘heavenly’ gods and the human overlords should dispel lots of confusion in ancient classics concerning the origin and migration of tribes and nations, as well as refute the fallacies of ancient Chinese scholars in upgrading the human overlords to the category of the Three Legendary ‘Huang’ so as to create space for their preferred  human overlords in the list of the Five Legendary ‘Di’.

《孔子家语》: “季康子问于孔子，曰：‘旧闻五帝之名，而不知其实，请问何为五帝？’孔子曰：‘古之王者，易代而改号，取法五行，是以太皋配木，炎帝配火，黄帝配土，少昊配金，颛顼配水。’康子曰：‘太皋始于木，何也？’孔子曰：‘五行用事，先起于木。木东方也，万物之初，皆出焉。是故王者则之，而首以木德王天下。其次则以所生之行转相承也’”

《礼记·月令》: 太昊 ( 伏羲 )、 炎帝 ( 神农 )、 黄帝 、 少昊 ( 挚 )、颛顼。

《〈书〉序》：“ 少昊 、 颛顼 、 高辛 、 唐 、 虞 之书，谓之五典，言常道也。” 孔颖达 疏：“言五帝之道，可以百代常行。”

《周礼·春官·小宗伯》：“兆五帝於四郊。” 郑玄 注：“五帝，苍曰 灵威仰 ， 太昊 食焉；赤曰 赤熛怒 ， 炎帝 食焉；黄曰 含枢纽 ， 黄帝 食焉；白曰 白招拒 ， 少昊 食焉；黑曰 汁光纪 ， 颛顼 食焉。”

《史记·五帝本纪》 唐  张守节 正义：“ 太史公 依《世本》、《大戴礼》，以 黄帝 、 颛顼 、 帝喾 、 唐尧 、 虞舜 为五帝。 谯周 、 应劭 、 宋均 皆同。”

汉  班固 《白虎通·号》：“五帝者，何谓也？《礼》曰：‘ 黄帝 、 颛顼 、 帝喾 、 帝尧 、 帝舜 也。’”

《后汉书·显宗孝明帝纪》：“今令月吉日，宗祀 光武皇帝 於明堂，以配五帝。”

4) The meaning of the ancient “Huang” title - meaning lordly, beautiful and magnificent [not what the parts meant by 'white' and 'king'. See http://baike.baidu.com/view/270023.htm 形声。字从白从王，王亦声。“白”本义指“空白”。“王”指王者。“白”与“王”=>“空前的王者”、“以前没有过的王者”。本义：始王天下者。说明：“皇”字从白从王，首见于秦始皇会稽刻石。《说文》的皇字，从自从王，本义亦为“始王天下者”。至于“皇，大也”，有所谓“大九州”之说。]

《尔雅》：“林、烝、天、帝、皇、王、后、辟、公、侯，君也。”

《说文》：“皇，大也，自从。自，始也。始皇这，三皇太君也。”

《风俗通》：“三皇：道德玄泊，有似皇天，故称曰皇。”

《独断》：“上古天子：庖牲氏、神农氏称皇，尧、舜称帝，夏、商、周称王。”

西汉孝武皇帝《诗谱》：“德合北辰者皆称皇，感五帝坐星者皆称帝。”

《史记 秦始皇本纪》：“采上古帝位号，号曰皇帝。”

《独断》：“皇帝至尊之称。皇者，煌也。盛德煌煌，无所不照也。帝者，谛也。能行天道，事天审谛，故称皇帝。”

《白虎通》：皇，君也，美也，大也。天人之总，美大之称也。时质总称之。

应劭《汉官仪》：皇者，大也，言其煌煌盛美。帝者，德象天地，言其能行天道，举措审谛，父天母地，为天下主。

‘Huang’ original meaning – the female phoenix

《山海经.大荒西经》：“有五彩鸟三名，一曰皇鸟，一曰鸾鸟，一曰凤鸟”

《尔雅·释鸟》: “凤，其雌皇”

《诗·大雅·卷阿》: “凤皇于飞”

《书·益稷》：“ 箫韶九成，凤皇来仪”

《离骚》：“鸾皇为余先戒兮，雷师告余以未具”。

《礼记·王制》：“有虞氏皇而祭”，郑注：“皇，冕属，画羽饰焉”。

《诗经.毛诗故训传》：“鳳皇，靈鳥仁瑞也，雄曰 鳳，雌曰皇。”

5) Paoxi-shi (Fuxi-shi) & Shennong-shi

The  name for the Sino-Tibetan’ ancestors was Fuxi伏羲, with surname Feng风, that derived from his mother’s tribe Fengyan 风兖 {华胥氏}. Fuxi could have been possibly mixed up with Taihao in Chinese history as they were interchangeably used. (The most comprehensive modern interpretation I ever read would be what someone wrote as to “炎帝世系图谱“, linked here: http://scwei.bokee.com/viewdiary.22256312.html )

《竹书纪年》：“太昊伏羲氏，以木德王，为风姓。” (Bamboo Annals was wrong in mixing up Taihao and Fuxi.)

《帝王世纪》：“伏羲氏，风姓也。”

The above claim in regards to Fuxi could be ascertained by the excavated ‘silk book’ and ‘bamboo book’ (战国帛书; 楚简) from the Chu Principality time period, during the Warring States of Eastern Zhou Dynasty, a place that relatively retained the trace of the original Sino-Tibetan Chinese who might include the migrants from the Shandong Penisular and North China due to the conquest by the Ji-surnamed Huangdi tribe between approximately 2500 BC and 3000 BC. What the ’silk book’ and and ‘bamboo book’ said was that Fuxi (or Baoxi [ i.e., (包)(戏)] ) of the Fengyan [风兖] tribe was born in the Leize-shi nation (雷泽氏), but grew up in the land of mother Huaxu-shi (华胥氏), namely, Juzhou [雎州], and later relocated to the land of today’s Qin’an [甘肃秦安] which was called Chengji (成纪) . The ‘silk book’ (战国帛书) and and ‘bamboo book’ (楚简) , in describing  Nüwa (女娲), wrote it in the form of Nüxi-shi  [施，读作“析”、“希”] and alternatively termed it by Nü-ju ( 女虘) where the latter word was a combination of Hu (虎 tiger) and Ju (且)  and hence the name of Nüju (女虘）, a country that continued till Shang Dynasty.

Should we buy the above statement, then Nüwa (Nüxi-shi)  was not something that was invented by Xu Zheng of the Three Kingdom time period.

The domain of the ancient rule prior to Shennong was said to have covered the Greater Nine Prefectures. Note the Jiang-rong barbarians, i.e., ancestors of the Huns, had their own Nine Prefectures in western China which was in contrast with Huangdi’s united China of the Lesser Nine Prefectures.

《帝王世纪》：“神农以上有大九州，柱州、迎州、神州之等。黄帝以来，德不及远，惟于神州之内分为九州。”

According to Prince Tan-zi from Tan-guo Principality, the order of ancient overlords after Fuxi-shi (i.e., Taihao) would be:

Taihao-shi -> [[skipped]] -> Gonggong-shi -> Yandi-shi -> Huangdi-shi (The added “skipped” bracket was mine, which I am to add here to be Nüwa-shi. This simplified order of succession could point to a possibility that at Zhou Dynasty’s time, Tan-zi and et al, had already failed to master the true essence of the ancient Chinese legacy. In another word, there is reason to suspect that ancient Chinese had mixed up Fuxi with Taihao while basically knowing null and void about what happened beyond Taihao and after Fuxi.)

《左传·昭公十七年》 记载：“秋，郯子来朝，昭子问焉，曰：‘少皋氏鸟名官，何故也？’郯子曰：‘吾祖也，吾知之矣。昔者黄帝氏以云纪，故曰云师而云名。炎帝氏以火纪，故以火师而火名。共工氏以水纪，故以水师而水名。太皋氏以龙纪，故以龙师而龙名。我高祖少皋挚之立也，凤鸟适至，故纪于鸟师而鸟名’”

6) The Birth of Shennong-shi (i.e., Yandi)

The ancient historians tried to reconcile the records, and hence pointed out that Huangdi’s mother, Fubao ( 附宝), came from a tribe whose ancestors belonged to the same Youqiao-shi (有蟜氏) tribe as Yandi’s mother. As to Yandi, the claim was that his mother came from the Youqiao-shi (有蟜氏) tribe, carrying the name of Andeng (安登). Fubao or Andeng could not be the same woman even though the tribe could be traced to the same one, Youqiao-shi (有蟜氏).

《易·系辞》：“包牺氏没，神农氏作，斫木为耜，揉木为耒，耒耨之利，以教天下，盖取诸《益》。”

唐 司马贞《史记·补三皇本纪》: “太皞，庖犧氏，風姓，代燧人氏繼天而王。母曰華胥，履大人跡於雷澤，而生庖犧於成紀。虵身人首，有聖德。仰則觀象於天，俯則觀法於地，旁觀鳥獸之文與地之宜。近取諸身，遠取諸物，始畫八卦，以通神明之德，以類萬物之情。造書契，以代結繩之政。於是始制嫁娶，以儷皮為禮。結網罟，以教佃漁，故曰宓羲氏。養犧牲以庖犧，有龍瑞，以龍紀官，號曰龍師。作二十五絃之瑟。木德王，注春令。故《易》稱帝出于震，《月令》孟春：「其帝太皞」是也。都於陳，東封太山。立一百一十一年崩。其後裔當春秋時有任、宿、須句、顓臾，皆風姓之胤也。” “女媧氏亦風姓，虵身人首，有神聖之德。代宓犧立，號曰女希氏。無革造，惟作笙簧。故《易》不載，不承五運。一曰水媧亦木德王，葢宓犧之後已經數世。” “女媧氏沒，神農氏作。炎帝，神農氏，姜姓。母曰女登，有蟜氏之女，為少典妃感神龍而生。炎帝人身牛首，長於姜水，因以為姓。火德王，故曰炎帝，以火名官，斲木為耜，揉木為耒，耒耨之用，以教萬人。始教耕，故號神農氏。於是作蠟祭，以赭鞭鞭草木，始嘗百草，始有毉藥。又作五絃之瑟，教人日中為市，交易而退，各得其所。遂重八卦，為六十四爻。初都陳，後居曲阜。立一百二十年崩，葬長沙。神農本起烈山，故左氏稱烈山氏之子曰柱，亦曰厲山氏。《禮》曰：「厲山氏之有天下」是也。神農納奔水氏之女，曰聽訞為妃，生帝魋。魋生帝承，承生帝明，明生帝直，直生帝氂，氂生帝哀，哀生帝克，克生帝榆罔。凡八代，五百三十年而軒轅氏興焉。其後有州、甫、甘、許、戲、露、齊、紀、怡、向、申、吕，皆姜姓之後胤。竝為諸侯，或分掌四岳。當周室甫侯、申伯為王，賢相齊、許列為諸侯，霸於中國。葢聖人德澤廣大，故其祚胤繁，昌久長云。”

《春秋纬·元命苞》：“少典妃安登游于华阳，有神龙首，感之于常羊，生神农。人面龙颜，好耕，是谓神农，始为天子。” (The [纬] ‘wei’-suffixed books were mostly later forgeries as well.)

Sima Zhen, stating that Confucius had skipped Nüwa (Nüxi-shi) who was the ruling dynasty between Paoxi-shi and Shennong-shi. The ancient claim pointed to Nüwa sharing the same surname as Paoxi-shi, namely, ‘Feng’. Sima Zhen continued to state that Shennong-shi married with daughter from Benshui-shi Tribe and born son Tui. Tui born son Cheng. Cheng born son Ming. Ming born son Zhi. Zhi born son Mao. Mao born son Ai. Ai born son Ke. Ke born son Yumang. Altogether eight generations, lasting five hundred and thirty years, till Huangdi’s ascention to power.

《淮南子．览冥训》：「娲，古之神圣女，化万物者也。从女、呙声。」「女娲，阴帝，佐宓牺治者也。」「往古之时，四极癈，九州岛裂。天不周载，火爁炎而不减，……于是女娲炼五色石以补苍天，断鳌足以立四极，杀黑龙以济冀州，积芦灰以止淫水。……乘雷车，服应龙，……导鬼神，登九天，朝帝于灵门。」

唐 陈子昂 《大周受命颂》：“符鸟之肇，开辟元台， 女希 氏姓，神功大哉！”

《帝王世纪辑存》：「女娲风，承伏羲制度，亦人头蛇身，一日七十化。」

Shennongshi  was known as  the ‘Agri-huang’. (神农氏“农皇”。)

《白虎通义》：“古之人民皆食禽兽之肉。至于神农，人民众多，禽兽不足，于是神农因天之时，分地之利，制耒耜，教民农耕。神而化之，使民宜之，故谓之神农氏”。

.
《淮南子·修务训》：“古者民茹草饮水，采草木之实，食螺蚌之肉，时多疾病毒伤之害。于是神农乃始教民播种五谷”。

《庄子·盗跖》：“神农之世，卧则居居，起则于于，民知其母，不知其父，与麋鹿共处，耕而食，织而衣，无有相害之心”。

清 陈寿祺 辑《尚书大传·卷第四》 ：“神农为农皇也。……神农以地纪，悉地力种谷疏，故托农皇于地”。(Shang-shu Da-zhuan was a wei-suffixed forgery.)

【蔡邕·獨斷】皇帝，至尊之稱也。上古天子庖犧氏，神農氏稱皇。堯，舜稱帝。夏，殷，周稱王。秦幷以爲號，漢因之不改。

《春秋[纬]·元命苞》: 　伏羲、女娲、神农为三皇。 (The [纬] ‘wei’-suffixed books were mostly later forgeries as well.)

P.S.: Among the list of books cited above, quite some were either straight forgeries, i.e., written by someone who claimed that some ancient scholar, like Confucius, had written it, while some other books were modifications or editing by later scholars. For a history of forgeries done by scholars in late Han Dynasty, Xin (New) Dynasty and Eastern Han Dynasty, see http://www.scribd.com/doc/11960312/%E6%98%A5%E7%A7%8B%E7%BA%AC (As to some of the forgeries that were just interpretation, I did not specifically refute them.  However, should the passages in forgeries be of the nature that impacts the topic of bearing of the civilization, such as the purported jade trade by Guan-zi’s claim of the tribe of Yu-shi (misappropriated to be Yuezhi), then I will definitely rebut it. In this section on China’s prehistory, the timing of the forged works is something I pay special attention to so as to discard the claim of some of the prehistory that was built on the ‘drift sand’. An example of forged prehistory is seen at http://shoucang.dahe.cn/sczx/jczs/t20100913_1830159.html)