China’s Relics That Survived Qin Shihuangdi’s Book Burning – Debunking the Fodder That Was Fed to Sino-Plantonic Clique’s Nihilation of the Chinese Civilization

Debunking the Fodder That Was Fed to the Sino-Plantonic Clique’s Nihilation of the Chinese Civilization

A total denial of the first Chinese dynasty of Xia by Victor Mair could be seen at http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp238_xia_dynasty_china.pdf Mair’s basis was that the character ‘Xia’ was not found on the Oracle bone, and that China’s 20th century ‘doubt-ancient’ scholars (疑古派), such as Wang Guowei, also concurred with the mythification of Xia. (Refer to my rebutting the Xia-nihilists’ claims at http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?/topic/37126-which-books-survived-the-qin-burnings-and-which-did-not/ )

–Prior to his suicide death, Wang Guowei revised his thoughts on the archaeological discoveries to state that what was excavated would have confirmed the ancient textual descriptions and what had not been excavated yet would not necessarily mean that the ancient writings were not true.

Different readings of Oracle bone character “夒”(náo) ["" (金文); 《说文》:“夓,中国之人也”]

Thought I:

己巳卜,雀不其氐夒?己巳卜,雀氐夒?十二月。《合集》8984

赵诚在《甲骨文简明词典》里就指出:这两个字的区别在于,一个字是手爪向下,一个字是手爪向上,这是它们的最根本的区别。在卜辞中的使用上区别也很严格:田猎所获猎物的“夒”手爪均向下(见下图一);用为高祖名的“高祖夒”之“夒”手爪均向上(见下图二),区分甚为明显。 [[“憂”字,象夒以手掩面忧愁之形,本来忧愁乃人的情态,为什么从“夒”?因为这个字是个象形兼形声的字,为的是取“夒”的声也。金文中的“憂”字与甲骨文 略同(见图三),容庚《金文编》在下注云:“象以手掩面形”,说甚是,字均象夒以手掩面形,会其忧愁、忧惧之意,故其手爪均向上也。]]

The Oracle bone character “夒”(náo) was commonly interpreted to have two shapes and mean two things: 1) Shang’s founding ancestor and 2) a kind of monkey. The difference lied in what the direction of the so-called ‘claw’ shape pointed to in the character, with the upper claw meaning the former and the lower claw the latter. Now what the experts for the Oracle bone and the Zhou bronze untensil characters had said was that the Zhou bronze utensil character for “夒”(náo) had corrupted to the character ‘‘ (Xia).

Thought II: 曹定云(1995)

“夓”=“夏”篆文; 《说文》:“夓,中国之人也”

己巳卜,雀氐夏?十二月。 己巳卜,雀不其氐夏?

凡被“氐”者,都是些地位低下的平民和种族奴隶。上引卜辞“雀氐夏”之“夏”应是“夏人”。“雀”是殷代的重要诸侯国,其地望大约在今之豫西 [(43)]。豫西恰恰是夏代统治的中心区域。商汤灭夏之后,不可能将原居夏人统统迁走,总会留下相当一部分。这些留居下来的夏人,自然成为商代统治者的 种族奴隶,他们要尽多方面的义务。“雀氐夏”就是雀侯挈领这些夏人去殷都,或服劳役,或服兵役,甚至也不排除沦为人牲。这是“夏人”受奴役之苦的真实记 录,是极为珍贵的史料。相反,如果将此字释为“夔”,那就很不好理解:“夔”为商人之先祖(卜辞中常见高祖夔),雀侯怎能挈领夔去服劳役、兵役或沦为人牲 呢?故以卜辞辞意证之,该字也应当释为“夏”。

Scholar Cao Dingyun, who analyzed the ancient records and recent archaeological findings, concluded that the bronze-corrupted character ‘ (Xia), which was supposed to denote the Oracle bone character “夒”(náo), could only mean that that Shang chieftan ‘‘ (Que) sent in the [former] ‘ (Xia) people as objects for live sacrificial burial at the Shang capital. Indeed, the Shang people had a tradition of using various prisoners of war as funeral objects. The traditional explanation, that the ‘tributes’ surrendered [] by the Shang vassals were merely monkeys, indeed looks absurd to me. (Similar extrapolations could be applied to the Shang vassals’ surrendering other ethnic groups of people, such as the Qiangs, to the Shang capital.)

–This webmaster’s question for the sinologists of the whole past century: Did you find the monkey skeletons among the human sacrificial tombs of Shang Dynasty?

Still one person gave an interesting observation, saying that those characters could merely mean the bird-totem written in the shape of the three-leg birds (跋乌) that appeared to have different shape in different seasons of the year: 蘷、夒、夏.

Some Chinese guy who submitted some paper to the Sino-platonic website claimed that all China’s prehistory was forged after the era of the Yellow Overlord and that the Yellow Overlord was, as they said, an “Indo-European” invader, etc., etc. –Their logic was that China’s agriculture was like 6000-7000 years old, but Zhou Dynasty founder Hou-ji, for his role as the guardian-god of agriculture, was a later event. The fool’s logic used here was that the “invaders” did not acknowledge the pre-’invasion’ agricultural history of prehistoric China and that it had to mean that Hou-ji and the whole family of the Yellow Overlord must be some “INDO-EUROPEAN” non-agricultural invaders against China from let’s say Central Asia.

The folly was built on the ignorance of the job that Bu-zhu (descendant of Gong-liu) held in the Xia Dynasty court. The proper interpretation is that Bu-zhu (不窋), who was touted to have inherited the legacy of Hou-ji the agricultural ‘guardian god’ of the Zhou people, did not appear to the ancient Chinese to have any conflict with the knowledge that there was the Devine Farmer, Shennong (aka Yandi), in China’s prehistory.

The Sino-Platonic clique was anti-China in the sense that the people it rallied under its banner tried to nihilate China’s civilization. Unfortunately, China’s history books were recompiled in the Han Dynasty, hence providing fodder to those nihilsts, with many China’s so-called scholars buying into it, including Yu Taishan et al. Yu Taishan, who used soundex to make wild speculations, had mistakenly extended Zhou King Muwang’s travels beyond the Kumtag Desert. See http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp197_mu_tianzi_zhuan.pdf (The other fallacy Yu Taishan had was that he assumed that Mu-tai-zi was actually a contemporary book from around 1000 B.C.E.)

To rectify the true history of China, you first have to start from the Kumtag Desert. This webmaster’s point was that the Kumtag Desert was the OUTER LIMIT of Sinitic China, and there was no [continuous] liaison between the Indo-Europeans and the Sinitic Chinese, at least no such trace in the Zhou King Muwang’s travelogue which was buried in Wei King Xiangwang’s tomb together with the Bamboo Annals. (See http://www.imperialchina.org/Dynasties/?p=43 ) –Here, This webmaster put ‘continuous’ in bracket, which was to say that there were unlikely to have ensued any after-effect after the first noted encounter between the Indo-European and the Sino-Tibetans, an event that archaeological discovery had ascertained to be the 2000 B.C.E. admixtured mummies in Chinese Turkestan, which alternatively showed that the San-miao exiles, who were relocated to Northwest China from the eastern and central China in the 23rd century B.C.E., had accidentally penetrated into Chinese Turkestan, not the other way around by the Indo-Europeans.

.

Shang Oracle Bones Recording the Qi-guo People, Xia’s Successor

1.丁酉卜,殼贞,杞侯炬弗其祸,有疾。(《合集》13890)

2.癸巳卜,令登赉杞。(《合集》22214)

3.己卯卜行贞,王其田亡灾,在杞。庚辰卜行贞,王其步自杞,亡灾。(《合集》24473)

4.庚寅卜在女香贞,王步于杞,亡灾。壬辰卜,在杞贞,王步于意,亡灾。(《合集》36751)

The Oracle bones were from the mid and late Shang period, and the Xia was already superseded by its successor, the Qi [杞] statelet. So it is natural to see the Shang oracle bones talking about Qi, not Xia.

The Si-surnamed Xia people, per SHI JI, were conferred the fiefdoms as Xia-hou-shi, You-hu-shi, You-nan-shi, Zhenxun-shi, Dan-cheng-shi, Bao-shi, Fei-shi, Qi-shi, Zeng-shi, Xin-shi, Ming-shi, and Zhen’ge-shi. Later, the Xia Dynasty remnants survived as the Qi-guo statelet, located in today’s Qi-xian county of Henan Province. The Qi-guo lineage continued onward through the Shang and Zhou dynasties. An ancient proverb about a Qi-guo person worrying about the fall of skies would be related to this country. Still more Xia remnants survived as the Yu-guo, Ji-guo and Tang-guo statelets that survived in today’s Shenxi/Shanxi provinces till the Zhou Dynasty time period. In the original Sinitic homeland of southern Shanxi Province, there was enduring legends of Uncle Tang, with the Tang statelet at one time collaborating with the Shang dynasty remnants against the new Zhou rule. In the early Zhou dynastic time, Tang-guo was eliminated, with the people being forced to relocate to southwest of today’s Shenxi and the land yielded to a Zhou prince as the Jinn principality.Also, Zhou King Youwang died in the hands of an allied barbarian invasion, with the element of a Zeng-guo state, i.e., descendants of Lord Yu of the former Xia dynasty. More, Zhou King Youwang took in Bao-shi, a woman from the ‘Shi’ family, of the Xia heritage, who was adopted by a civilian couple of the Bao-guo fief. In ZUO ZHUAN’s Lu Lord Xigong 15th year, a statemenmt was made to the effect that the Xu state, which was commonly taken to be Xu-yi or the eastern Xu barbarian state [that produced numerous rebel kings against the Zhou rule], was what the ancient ‘zhu-xia’ [various Xia] was, meaning that the Xu had descended from the ancient Xia Dynasty states. More Xia people remnants could have fled to the northwestern border area..

China’s Relics That Survived Qin Shihuangdi’s Book Burning

At http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?/topic/37126-which-books-survived-the-qin-burnings-and-which-did-not/ I talked about China’s books that survived the book burning.  The book burning destroyed 99.9999% of the history books of China. The ignorance among some people, Chinese or non-Chinese, led to the claim that it was an exaggerated event.

Sima Qian had a comment which this webmaster cited at http://www.imperialchina.org/Qin_Dynasty.html
Sima Qian signed when he wrote about the ‘book burning’. Valuable records were lost forever. Why? Sima Qian said that Qin Shihuangdi ordered all histories and chronicles of the Zhou Kingdom and various principalities be burnt, that only the Qin chronicles were left intact, and that the worst thing about Qin’s chronicle was that Qin, unlike Zhou and other vassals, did not write the dates in their chronicle. Sima Qian also expressed relief that the ancient classics, like Shi Jing (classics of poems, 詩經) etc, had survived because they were hidden by the civilians outside of the court. But the history books and chronicles, which were only kept in the Zhou court or the courts of the vassals, were all destroyed.
So, the book burning is real. Sima Qian might have seen pieces of the Qin history records, hence making the comment. The Qin records had to be part of the library that survived General Xiang Yu’s arson. Note that before Xiang Yu set the fire to the Qin palaces, Xiao He, i.e., Liu Bang’s counselor, had ransacked through the Qin court and library and collected some of the books. The future Chinese historians claimed that it was Xiao He who found the book SHAN HAI JING (records of the mountains and seas), and hence it survived the double jeopardy and passed down to today.

Qin Emperor Shihuangdi accomplished the feat that Mao failed in the cultural revolution. Mao failed because Taiwan preserved the true history. Qin Shihuangdi succeeded because he did burn all history books of SIX STATELETS [plus the Zhou court records].

.

Tadpole Texts surrendered by the Qin-era notable

张仓(苍)《春秋左氏传》

Zhang Cang was in turn a desciple of Xun-zi (Xun Kuang), and worked under Wu-gong (magistrate for the Henan-jun Commandary). Per LULIN ZHUAN of HAN SHU, at the very beginning of the Han dynasty, there was a revival of studies of CHUN QIU ZUO-SHI ZHUAN. Zhang Cang, Jia Yi, Zhang Chang, and Liu Gong-zi (“taizhong dafu” {imperial admonition minister, which was subordinate to ‘lang-zhong-ling’}, with the name Liu Gong-zi literally meaning Prince Liu but not necessarily a Liu royal family prince who should be termed ‘wang” or a king, instead) all liked to study CHUN QIU ZUO-SHI ZHUAN. Though, the book was never given the imperial attention till the Xin dynasty time period. One version of CHUN QIU ZUO-SHI ZHUAN was said to be passed down from Zhang Cang (Marquis Beiping-hou), a former Qin-era “yu shi” (imperial censor), who was said to be a disciple of scholar Xun Qing. Zhang Cang was said to have passed CHUN QIU ZUO-SHI ZHUAN to Han Dynasty scholar Jia Yi (“tai fu” or tutor for the Liang state); Jia Yi passed to grandson Jia Jia; Jia Jia passed to Guan4 Gong (“bo shi” for King Hejian-xian-wang); Guan4 Gong passed to son Guan4 Changqing (“ling” or magistrate for Dangyin); Guan4 Changqing passed to Zhang Chang (“jing-zhao yin”, magistrate of the capital) & Zhang Yu (“yu shi” or a censor); Zhang Yu passed to Xiao Wangzhi (“yu shi” or a censor; and “tai fu” or tutor for the crown prince) and Yin Gengshi; Yin Gengshi passed to son Yin Xian, Di Fangjing, and Hu Chang; Hu Chang passed to Jia Hu; and Jia Hu passed to Chen Qin whose son Chen Qin passed to Xin Dynasty usurper emperor Wang Mang. It was said that Liu Xiang and Liu Xin had studied CHUN QIU ZUO-SHI ZHUAN from Yin Xian and Di Fangjing. 20th century scholar Qian Muhad doubts about the Xun Qing to Zhang Cang succession history. Sima Qian, who wrote SHI JI, might not have a copy of CHUN QIU ZUO-SHI ZHUAN as his book was proven to have numerous errors that could have been fixed should he had read CHUN QIU ZUO-SHI ZHUAN. Also, the Zuo family lineage book claimed that the Zuo family descendants fled the Wang Mang imperial recall by changing the surname and seeking anonymity in the related Qiu-surnamed hometown.

Tadpole Texts from the Double Walls in Confucius’ Residency

《汉书·艺文志》:《尚书古文经》四十六卷,《礼经》五十六卷(incuding those from 鲁淹中),《春秋经》十二篇,《论语》二十一篇,《孝经孔氏》一篇

.

Ancient Book that was retained by the Civilians

詩經Shi Jing (classics of poems, 詩經)

At the time of Emperor Xiaohuidi and dowager-empress Lv Hou, a few scholars were appointed some nominal posts, such as Yuan Gusheng and Haan Ying in the area of SHI JING, Zhang Sheng and Ou Yang in the area of SHANG SHU, Hu Wusheng and Dong Zhongshu in the area of CHUN QIU.

Emperor Wudi initially did not succeed in hiring the Confucians for managing the country. After Wudi replaced Wei Guan with Dou Ying (nephew of Dowager Empress Doutaihou), Dou Ying and Tian Fen located two Confucians for Wudi: Zhao Guan and Wang Zang, i.e., two of the thousand students of an eighty-year-old Shen-gong of the ex-Chu Principality. Shen-gong, renowned for his research into ancient Shi Jing [classics of poems], was invited to the capital by Wudi.

Haan-wang-xin, in the Hunnic Tui-dang-cheng fort, born a son called Haan Tuidang who returned with his mother to the Han territory during Lv-hou’s reign years and was conferred the old Haan-wang-xin’s title of Marquis Gonggao-hou. (Haan Tuidang born sons Haan Ru and Haan Ying. Haan Ying, a ‘bo shi’ [doctorate] in Emperor Wendi’s times, was to become the founding master of the Haan school of thought on SHI JING. Haan Ru was to have son Haan Yan who studied together with Han Emperor Wudi during the days of King Jiao-dong-wang.) .

Ancient Book that was Salvaged by Xiao He

Shan Hai Jing

SHAN HAI JING, in the relatively newer sections on the seas’ part, mentioned two rivers of Fei[2]-shui and Chuang-shui for this area, apparently echoing the TIAN WEN poem by Qu Yuan, 343-289 B.C., in which the poet used the word ‘fei zhi’ to ask how the [You-yi-shi] beauty was so buxom and used the word ‘ji chuang’ to infer a sudden attack [at the Shang ancestro-prince Wang-hai] on the bed. In this sense, SHAN HAI JING was apparently some book that was written without any scientific background or a book that randomly picked words or phrases from some ancient books to fabricate some sensical paragraphs – which led the future scholars on a path of no return. Also note the below dates for deduction of cause and effect: Shi-zi, 390-330 B.C.E., i.e., Shang Yang’s disciple, could be responsible for producing THE BAMBOO ANNALS that was buried in Wei King Xiangwang’s tomb in 296 B.C.E. This webmaster’s point was that SHAN HAI JING’s section on the seas could not be earlier than TIAN WEN, and TIAN WEN could not be earlier than THE BAMBOO ANNALS.

Ancient Book that survived General Xiang Yu’s Arson

The Qin chronicle (possibly part of it)

.

History books that survived the book burning were:
Zhu Shu Ji Nian (《竹书纪年》The Bamboo Annals)

It would be during the Western Jinn dynasty that a Wei Principality version of the history annals, i.e., THE BAMBOO ANNALS (ZHU SHU JI NIAN), was excavated. Jinn Dynasty scholars, after the discovery of THE BAMBOO ANNALS, claimed that it covered the period from the Xia dynasty to Zhou King Youwang. During the Western Jinn dynasty, Jinn Dynasty emperor Wudi’s 5th year of the Xianning Era, i.e., A.D. 279., a Wei Principality version of the history annals, i.e., THE BAMBOO ANNALS (ZHU SHU JI NIAN), was excavated, a byproduct of tomb digger Fou Biao. (THE BAMBOO ANNALS, which was possibly buried in Wei King Xiangwang’s tomb in 296 B.C.E, merely covered the period from the Xia dynasty to Zhou King Youwang. Did someone from the Wei state read the popular history book CHUN QIU ZUO-SHI ZHUAN, and then worked on the preceding history? In the prehistory section, this webmaster thought that Shi-zi (390-330 B.C.E.), i.e., Shang Yang’s disciple, could have produced THE BAMBOO ANNALS to be buried in Wei King Xiangwang’s tomb in 296 B.C.E. before he fled to the Sichuan basin in 338 B.C.E. and died there in 330 B.C.E. (Paralle to THE BAMBOO ANNALS was a book that Han Dynasty scholar Liu XIang edited, i.e., SHI BEN [the vassals' lineage] that carried a sentence containing the words of the present King Qian {of the Zhao state}, which made people speculate that someone from the Zhao state might have abridged the contents from ZHOU LI [the Zhou dynasty rituals] about half a century after the production of THE BAMBOO ANNALS.)

Zuo Qiuming’s Chunqiu (Spring & Autum Annals, known as《左氏春秋》in Western Han and 《春秋左氏传》by 班固 in Eastern Han Dynasty)
In ancient China, two chronicle officials of the left and right side were assigned, with one chronicler recording the words of rulers while the other chronicler recording the events. SHANG SHU was of the nature of recording of the statements made by the various rulers, while CHUN QIU was of the nature of recording of important events of a state. Latter day scholars, including Han Dynasty historian Ban Gu, inverted the roles of the two chronicles, saying that the ‘zuo’ [left] chronicler recorded the words of rulers while the ‘you’ [right] chronicler recording the events. Kong Yingda of the Tang dynasty corrected this mistake in interpretation. In fact, in THE BAMBOO ANNALS, it was recorded that back in the 24th year reign of Zhou King Muwang, the king ordered Zuo-shi [leftside history or court music minister, i.e., one of the three elderly dukes], to take charge of compiling the history of the king’s commandments and the past dynastic events.

Shen-shu-shi, far ahead of Confucius’ CHUN QIU, was noted in CHU YU of GUO YU for teaching the history of CHU QIU, without specifying what kind of history chronicle book it was. In the Chu Princiaplity, the history chronicle was called by ‘tao wu’, while Jinn named it ‘sheng4′ [a name that also referred to a 4-horse chariot] and Lu named it ‘chun qiu’ [a name that Sima Qian did not seem to concurr with as he was said to have called Confucius' action by abridging 'shi ji' [historical chronicle] to ‘chun qiu’].

Zuo Qiuming’s Guowu (《国语》, Analects of the Zhou court and the Zhou principalities).
Sima Qian was explicit in saying that Zuo-qiu Ming had completed the second book, 21-volume GUO YU [which covered the years from Zhou King Muwang 12th year to Zhou King Zhendingwang 16th year {453 B.C., which was the year the Zhi-shi clan was eliminated in Jinn}], while he had lost eyesight (i.e., character ‘ming’, which was a given name). KONG-ZI JIA-YU, i.e., Confuciu’s family mottos, also a Han dynasty book, carried a statement to the effect that Zuo-qiu Ming and Confucius at one time rode together to the Zhou capital for reading the imperial books. More, LUN YU (Analects) carried a Confucius statement that Confucius shared the same viewpoints about feeling shame on the non-gentlemen. There was a Qiu family lineage book in Feicheng, Shandong, which purportedly recorded the Zuo-qiu family history in year 30 A.D., a book that very much consolidated the ancient lineage stories about the possible origin of the Qiu surname. Though, the records prior to 30 A.D. could not be considered to be primitive data.

杨伯峻(1909~1992) believed that 《春秋》was originally 鲁史,that Confucius did not edit, not to mention authoring it. 杨伯峻 also claimed that the book 《左传》was written after 公元前四〇三年{{魏斯为侯}},and before 周安王十三年(公元前三八九年)。

Confucius’ edited book CHUN QIU might not have survived should there be absence of Zuo-qiu Ming’s work of interpretation. Both books started from Lu Lord Yin’gong, who succeeded Lu Lord Huigong (768-723 B.C.), which was not coincidental. Zuo-qiu Ming, commonly thought to be Zuo-surnamed or Qiu-surnamed or with the double-character Zuo-qiu surname, and revered as Zuo-zi in the later times, was taken to be from a hereditary Lu Principality leftside chronicler’s family. Zuo-qiu Ming, for his compiling of CHUN QIU ZUO-SHI ZHUAN [or Zuo-shi Chun-qiu Zhuan (i.e., ZUO ZHUAN)], was postulated to have lived some 1-2 generations behind Confucius. Sima Qian, in SHI JI, claimed that Zuo-qiu Ming, a Lu gemtleman, had made the book to standardize the essence of Confucius’ abridged CHUN QIU. Modern historian Yang Bojun analyzed the writings on the twelve Lu lords to deduce that Zuo-qiu Ming must have completed the book between 403 B.C. and 386 B.C., without taking into account the possibility that the later people, who used Zuo-qiu Ming’s book as textbooks, might have added the additional years, about 25 or 27 years beyond CHUN QIU[, or 26 years extra when counting the recording of the elimination of Jinn by three families]. Gu Yanwu, a scholar from the Ming-Qing transitionary time period, claimed that ZUO ZHUAN could not be written by one person, as the Xia-zheng [Xia Dynasty] calendar was occasionally used prior to Jinn Lord Huigong (?-637 B.C.), while most of the events related to Jinn had followed the Zhou Dynasty calendar..

Confucius’ feats

The records of ‘Chun Qiu’, the Springs and Autumns, started in the Lu Principality in 722 B.C. when Lord Lu Yin’gong (r. B.C. 722-712) got enthroned. The reason that Confucius started the abridgement of the history chronicles from Lord Lu Yin’gong could be related to the Lu lord’s virtues. Lord Lu Yin’gong, in fact, took over the rule as a regent, not an official lord, and observed the rituals as a regent. When the young Lu lord grew up, he got Lord Lu Yin’gong killed. (SHI JI was wrong about the year Lord Lu Yin’gong was killed.) The later interpretation books, like ZUO ZHUAN, made special emphasis on the nature of Lord Lu Yin’gong’s regency.

CHUN QIU, a concisely-worded book also known as LIN SHU [i.e., the 'qilin [giraffe] book’], was commonly taken to be an abridged version of the Lu Principality’s court chronicle, covering 242 years and 12 lords, from Lu Lord Yin’gong to Lu Lord Aigong. Confucius was said by Sima Qian to have abridged “shi ji” into CHUN QIU, with the SHI JI name adopted by Sima Qian himself for his history book [but was twisted by the latter-day scholars to refer the word "shi" to be historian Sima Qian], without specifying whether the Lu Principality actually called its royal chronicle by “shi ji” [historical records] or “chun qiu”. Mencius (372-289 B.C.) adopted the word “zuo” [manufacture, build] to refer to Confucius’ work on CHUN QIU, which alternatively speaking was completed in the autumn after it was started in the spring, i.e., the time “qilin” was killed. Menciu made the comment that Confucius’ CHUN QIU made “luan-chen [treacherous ministers] zeizi [usurper sons]” fear for themselves. There were three popular compendium-nature annotation books for CHUN QIU, namely, Zuo-qiu Ming’s 35-volume CHUN QIU ZUO-SHI ZHUAN, Gong-yang-gao’s 11-volume CHUN QIU GONG-YANG ZHUAN [a Han dynasty book covering 242 years of the Lu state], and Gu-liang-chi’s 11-volume CHUN QIU GU-LIANG ZHUAN [another Han dynasty book covering 242 years of the Lu state]. In CHUN QIU ZUO-SHI ZHUAN, Confucius was referred to as “sheng ren” or a saint. In CHUN QIU ZUO-SHI ZHUAN, Confucius was referred to as “jun zi” or a gentleman, and was said to have “xiu” or modified the Lu Principality history annals or the generic “shi ji” [historical records] of vassals. Some of the “jun zi” comments were attributed to writer Zuo-qiu Ming himself, while there was some speculation that Han Dynasty scholar Liu Xin added the comment section.) The prevalent version of CHUN QIU ZUO-SHI ZHUAN, however, covered 269 years, from Lu Lord Yin’gong 1st year (722 B.C.) to Lu Lord Daogong 14th year (454 B.C.), with one saying that QIU ZUO-SHI ZHUAN covered the years to the 44th year [476 B.C.] of Zhou King Jingwang, about 246 years. What was clear in the book is that it recorded the year Confucius passed away, which was two years after the CHUN QIU time span of 242 years. That was 244 years. Still one more version pointed to Lu Lord Aigong 27th year or 468 B.C., covering 254 years. It was commonly acknowledged that the last event recorded by CHUN QIU ZUO-SHI ZHUAN was the elimination of Jinn by three prominent families of Haan, Wei and Zhao. Other than the three versions, two other Han Dynasty CHUN QIU versions of ZOU-SHI and JIA-SHI were lost into oblivion.

The various principalities had compiled their royal chronicles entitled the “Spring & Autumn”. However, only the Lu Principality’s version had survived as a result of Confucius’ editing as well as Zuo-qiu Ming’s compiling of CHUN QIU ZUO-SHI ZHUAN [or Zuo-shi Chun-qiu Zhuan (i.e., ZUO ZHUAN)]. ZUO ZHUAN had covered a later time span, from the 49th year [722 B.C.] of Zhou King Pingwang to the 44th year [476 B.C.] of Zhou King Jingwang, about 246 years. It would be during the Western Jinn dynasty that a Wei Principality version of the history annals, i.e., THE BAMBOO ANNALS (ZHU SHU JI NIAN), was excavated. Jinn Dynasty scholars, after the discovery of THE BAMBOO ANNALS, claimed that it covered the period from the Xia dynasty to Zhou King Youwang.

司马迁《十二诸侯年表序》:是以孔子明王道,干七十余君莫能用,故西观周室,论史记旧闻,兴于鲁而次《春秋》。

《孟子滕文公下》:世衰道微,邪说暴行有(同又)作。臣弑其君者有之,子弑其父者有之。孔子惧,作《春秋》。《春秋》,天子之事也,是故孔子曰:“知我者其惟《春秋》乎!罪我者其惟《春秋》乎!”

孔丘 《论语述而》: “述而不作”

庄周《庄子齐物论》:六合之外,圣人存而不论;六合之内,圣人论而不议。《春秋》经世先王之志,圣人议而不辩。

《子罕》 “吾自卫反鲁,然后乐正,《雅》、《颂》各得其所。”

王充《论衡·佚文篇》:“孝武皇帝封弟为鲁恭王,恭王坏孔子室以为宫,得佚《尚书》百篇,《礼》三百,《春秋》三十篇,《论语》二十一篇。”《论衡·案书篇》:“《春秋左氏传》者,盖出孔子壁中。孝武皇帝时,鲁恭王坏孔子教授宫以为宫,得佚《春秋》三十篇,《左氏传》也。” (王国维“疑王仲任所云出孔壁中者,涉《春秋经》而误也”)

《汉书·艺文志》:“武帝末,鲁恭王坏孔子宅,欲以广其宫,而得古文《尚书》及《礼记》、《论语》、《孝经》凡数十篇。”

(宋)刘敞:“故《春秋》一也,鲁人记之则为史,仲尼修之则为经。经出于史,而史非经也,史可以为经,而经非史也。”

(清)袁谷芳《春秋书法论》:《春秋》者,鲁史也。鲁史氏书之,孔子录而藏之,以传信于后世者也。

Zuo-qiu-ming’ works
司马迁《史记·十二诸侯年表》:“鲁君子左丘明惧弟子人人异端,各安其意,失其真,故因孔子史记具论其语,成左氏春秋。”
司马迁《史记》,《吴世家》:“余读《春秋》古文,乃知中国之虞与荆蛮、句吴兄弟也。”
刘向《别录》:    左丘明授曾申;申授吴起;起授其子期;期授楚人铎椒,铎椒作《抄撮》八卷;授虞 卿,虞卿作《抄撮》九卷;授荀卿;荀卿授张苍。(注:孔颖达:《春秋左传正义》引 刘向《别录》。)

刘歆《让太常博士书》:    及鲁恭王坏孔子宅,欲以为宫,而得古文于坏壁之中,《逸礼》有三十九,《书》十 六篇。天汉之后,孔安国献之,遭巫蛊仓卒之难,未及施行。及《春秋左氏》,丘明所 修,皆古文旧书,多者二十余通,藏于秘府,伏而未发。

《汉书楚元王交传》刘歆《移让太常博士书》:及鲁恭王坏孔子宅,欲以为宫,而得古文于坏壁之中,《逸礼》有三十九,《书》十六篇——天汉之后,孔安国献之。遭巫蛊仓卒之难,未及施行——及《春秋左氏》——丘明所修——,皆古文旧书,多者二十余通,臧于秘府,伏而未发。……或怀妒嫉,不考情实,雷同相从,随声是非,抑此三学:以《尚书》为备,谓《左氏》不传《春秋》,岂不哀哉!

《汉书•儒林传》:   汉兴,北平侯张苍及梁太傅贾谊、京兆尹张敞、太中大夫刘公子皆修《春秋左氏传》 。谊为《左氏传》训故,授赵人贯公,为河间献王博士,子长卿为荡阴令,授清河张禹 长子。禹与萧望之同时为御史,数为望之言《左氏》,望之善之,上书数以称说„„( 禹)授尹更始,更始传子咸及翟方进、胡常。常授黎阳贾护季君,哀帝时待诏为郎,授 苍梧陈钦子佚,以《左氏》授王莽,至将军。而刘歆从尹咸及翟方进受。由是言《左氏 》者本之贾护、刘歆。

《汉书•刘歆传》:    ”及歆校秘书,见古文《春秋左氏传》,歆大好之。时丞相史尹咸以能治《左氏》,与 歆共校经传。歆略从咸及丞相翟方进受,质问大义。”

“左丘明好恶与圣人同,亲见夫子,而公羊、谷梁在七十子 后,传闻之与亲见之其详略不同”

《战国策楚策四》:虞卿谓春申君曰:“臣闻之《春秋》,‘于安思危,危则虑安’。”[[《春秋》=《左氏传》]]

《汉书艺文志》:“《春秋古经》十二篇。《经》十一卷。”班固于“《经》十一卷”下自注:“《公羊》、《谷梁》二家。” [[春秋古经》=《左氏传》]]

《史记十二诸侯年表序》:铎椒为楚威王傅,为王不能尽观《春秋》,采取成败,卒四十章,为《铎氏微》。赵孝成王时,其相虞卿上采《春秋》,下观近世,亦著八篇,为《虞氏春秋》。[[《春秋》=《左氏传》]]

(东汉)许慎《说文解字序》“壁中书者,鲁恭王坏孔子宅 ,而得《礼记》、《尚书》、《春秋》、《论语》、《孝经》,又北平侯张苍献《春秋 左氏传》”。

(北魏)江式:“北平 侯张仓(苍)献《春秋左氏传》,书体与孔氏相类,即前代之古文矣。”[5](《江式传》 )

崔述《洙泗考信余录》:战国之文姿横,而《左传》文平易简直,颇近《论语》及《戴记》之《曲礼》、《檀弓》诸篇,绝不类战国时文,何况于秦?襄、昭之际,文词繁芜,远过文、宣以前;而定、哀间反略,率多有事无词,哀公之末事亦不备,此必定、哀之时,纪载之书行于世者尚少故尔。然则作书之时,上距定、哀未远,亦不得以为战国后人也。

(日本)岛田翰《古文旧书考春秋经传集解》(卷子本):据《汉志》,“《春秋古经》十二篇”,“《左氏传》三十卷”。案:《古经》十二篇者,《左氏》之单《经》,盖因十二公为十二篇也。(自注云:《史记吴世家》“余读《春秋古经》”。《周官小宗伯注》云《古文春秋经》“公即位”为“公即立”……)而其三十卷者,《左氏》之单卷。(……以《左氏传》名者,北平侯-张苍献《春秋左氏传》是也。)顾所谓《春秋左氏传》者,当分别《春秋》与《左氏传》而观之。盖张苍所献,有《经》有《传》,而孔壁所得,有《传》无《经》也。……夫始除挟书之律,在惠帝四年;则苍之献书,当在此际。而恭王坏孔子壁,则景、武之间也。乃知《春秋经》之出,必在恭王坏孔壁前矣。张苍生于先秦,曾为秦御史,主柱下方书。则其所藏《左氏传》,即先秦旧书,当与孔壁所得无异矣。见《后魏书江式传》所言、北平侯-张苍献《春秋左氏传》,书体与孔子相类,即前代之古文矣,而可征也。
.
Reconciliation
《论语公冶长》:子曰:“巧言、令色、足恭,左丘明耻之,丘亦耻之。匿怨而友其人,左丘明耻之,丘亦耻之。”
司马迁《报任少卿书》“左丘失明,厥有《国语》”。应劭《风俗通》:“丘,姓,鲁-左丘明之后。”
严彭祖《严氏春秋》引《观周篇》(西汉本《孔子家语》):“孔子将修《春秋》,与左丘明乘,如周,观书于周史,归而修《春秋》之《经》,丘明为之《传》,共为表里。”
姚鼐《左传补注序》:“左氏之书非出一人所成。自左丘明作《传》以授曾申,申传吴起,起传其子期,期传楚人铎椒,椒传赵人虞卿,虞卿传荀卿。盖后人屡有附益。其为丘明说《经》之旧及为后人所益者,今不知孰为多寡矣。”
.
Guo-yu (《国语》)
《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》。”
王充: “《国语》,《左氏》之外传也。《左氏》传经,辞语尚略,故复选录《国语》之辞以实。然则《左氏》、《国语》,世儒之实书也”(《论衡•书案》)
(东汉)班彪:“定哀之间,鲁君子左丘明论集其文,作《左氏传》三十篇;又撰异同号日《国语》,二十一篇”(《后汉书·班彪传》)。
班固《汉书司马迁传赞》:孔子因鲁史记而作《春秋》,而左丘明论辑其本事以为之《传》,又纂异同为《国语》。
《论衡案书》:“《国语》,《左氏》之外传也。”
刘熙: “《国语》,记诸国君臣相与言语,谋议之得失也,又曰外传。《春秋》以鲁为内,以诸国为外,外国所传之书也。”(《释名•释典艺》)
崔述《洙泗考信余录》:“《左传》之文,年月井井,事多实录。而《国语》荒唐诬妄,自相矛盾者甚多。《左传》纪事简洁,措词亦多体要;而《国语》文词支蔓,冗弱无骨,断不出于一人之手明甚。”
“且《国语》周、鲁(即《周语》和《鲁语》)多平衍,晋、楚多尖颖,吴、越多恣放,即《国语》亦非一人之所为也。”
.

The Bamboo Annals 《竹书纪年》

《晋书束皙传》:“初,太康二年,汲郡人不准盗发魏襄王墓,或言安釐王冢,得竹书数十车。……《国语》三篇,言楚、晋事。”

汲冢竹书《师春》“全录《左传》卜、益事,无一字之异”

《晋书·卷五十一列传第二十一·束皙》:  初,太康二年,汲郡人不准盗发魏襄王墓,或言安釐王冢,得竹书数十车。其《纪年》十三篇,记夏以来至周幽王为犬戎所灭,以事接之,三家分,仍述魏事至安釐王之二十年。盖魏国之史书,大略与《春秋》皆多相应。其中经传大异,则云夏年多殷;益干启位,启杀之;太甲杀伊尹;文丁杀季历;自周受命,至穆王百年,非穆王寿百岁也;幽王既亡,有共伯和者摄行天子事,非二相共和也。其《易经》二篇,与《周易》上下经同。《易繇阴阳卦》二篇,与《周易》略同,《繇辞》则异。《卦下易经》一篇,似《说卦》而异。《公孙段》二篇,公孙段与邵陟论《易》。《国语》三篇,言楚、晋事。《名》三篇,似《礼记》,又似《尔雅》、《论语》。《师春》一篇,书《左传》诸卜筮,“师春”似是造书者姓名也。《琐语》十一篇,诸国卜梦妖怪相书也。《梁丘藏》一篇,先叙魏之世数,次言丘藏金玉事。《缴书》二篇,论弋射法。《生封》一篇,帝王所封。《大历》二篇,邹子谈天类也。《穆天子传》五篇,言周穆王游行四海,见帝台、西王母。《图诗》一篇,画赞之属也。又杂书十九篇:《周食田法》,《周书》,《论楚事》,《周穆王美人盛姬死事》。大凡七十五篇,七篇简书折坏,不识名题。冢中又得铜剑一枚,长二尺五寸。漆书皆科斗字。初发冢者烧策照取宝物,及官收之,多烬简断札,文既残缺,不复诠次。武帝以其书付秘书校缀次第,寻考指归,而以今文写之。皙在著作,得观竹书,随疑分释,皆有义证。迁尚书郎。

雷学淇《竹书纪年义证》卷三十一“八年晋文公卒”:《纪年》为晋、魏之史记,其原本录晋、魏之事必详。宋初传本止记其异于《左氏》《经》、《传》者,以备稽核;其同者则不录。而唐以前诸书征引又皆取《春秋》《经》、《传》,而不引《纪年》。故《纪年》之同于《经》、《传》者多不传于后。如文公之霸业,《纪年》岂有不详记者,而今皆不见,即此之故。若《史通惑经篇》、《唐书刘贶传》所引,皆其仅存者矣。

杜预《春秋左传集解后序》:会汲郡-汲县有发其界内旧冢者,大得古书。……其《纪年篇》……大似《春秋经》,推此足见古者国史策书之常法也。……略举数条,以明国史皆承告。

杜预《春秋经传集解后序》《纪年》“其著书文意,大似《春秋经》。”

刘知几《史通惑经篇》:观汲冢所记(即《竹书纪年》)皆与鲁史符同。

(清)朱右曾《汲冢纪年存真》:“学者锢于所习,以与《太史公书》及汉世经师传说乖牾,遂不复研寻,徒资异论。越六百余岁而是书复亡。”

陳夢家紀元後279~281秊之間在汲郡所出的《竹書紀秊》,乃紀元前297~296所作魏國的史記。汲塚竹簡的發現,和安陽甲骨的發現,就古史的材料而說,有著幾乎同等的重要性。

.

Non-history books that survived the book burning were:

《尚书古文经》

Confucius abridged the ancient book SHANG SHU [remotely ancient history], with the inception of recitals starting with Overlord Yao, a descendant of Huangdi. Both Confucius and Mencius expanded on the classical book of SHANG SHU and extolled the virtues of the three remotely-ancient lords ['saints'] Yao, Shun and Yu. ZHOU SHU (i.e., the [upper] Zhou Dynasty Records) was a book that Confucius [551-479 B.C.E.] had purportedly abridged from SHANG SHU [remotely ancient history] as the “wasted films”. In ancient China, two chronicle officials of the left and right side were assigned, with one chronicler recording the words of rulers while the other chronicler recording the events. SHANG SHU was of the nature of recording of the statements made by the various rulers, while CHUN QIU was of the nature of recording of important events of a state. Latter day scholars, including Han Dynasty historian Ban Gu, inverted the roles of the two chronicles, saying that the ‘zuo’ [left] chronicler recorded the words of rulers while the ‘you’ [right] chronicler recording the events. Kong Yingda of the Tang dynasty corrected this mistake in interpretation. In fact, in THE BAMBOO ANNALS, it was recorded that back in the 24th year reign of Zhou King Muwang, the king ordered Zuo-shi [leftside history or court music minister, i.e., one of the three elderly dukes], to take charge of compiling the history of the king’s commandments and the past dynastic events.

《礼经》

《论语

《孝经孔氏》

詩經Shi Jing (classics of poems, 詩經)

.

.

ANCIENT TEXTS ABOUT XIA

What the Bronze Utensils Said about ‘Xia’ [& 'Yu']?

《秦公钟》[秦景公(前576-537)]: “秦公曰:丕显朕皇祖受天命,{穴黾}又(有)下国。十又二公不坠在上,严龚夤天命,保[R002]厥秦,虩事蛮夏。”  (《毛诗 鲁颂 閟宫》“奄有下土,缵禹之绪”; 《毛诗 商颂 殷武》“天命多辟,没都于禹之绩”)

《秦公簋》[秦景公(前576-537)]: “秦公曰:丕显朕皇祖受天命,{冖鼎}宅禹迹。十又二公在帝之坏,严龚夤天命,保虩事蛮夏。 ”

《叔夷钟铭》[From the Excavated Utensil - Qi Lord Linggong]:“虩虩成唐,有严在帝所,敷受天命,剪伐夏嗣,败厥灵师。伊小臣惟辅,咸有九州,处禹之堵。”

(西周) 燹公盨 (豳公盨、燹公盨:“天命禹敷土,随山浚川”。{{??Forgery?? 天命禹敷土,随山浚川,乃差地设征,降民监德,乃自作配乡(享)民,成父母。生我王作臣,厥沬 贵)唯德,民好明德,寡 顾 在天下。用厥邵 绍 好,益干(? )懿德,康亡不懋。孝友,訏明经齐,好祀无 (废)。心好德,婚媾亦唯协。天厘用考,神复用祓禄,永御于宁。遂公曰:民唯克用兹德,亡诲(侮)。}}

微方伯墙盘铭:上帝后夏,尤保受天子绾令,厚福丰年,方蛮亡不见。青幽高祖,在微灵处。(《文物》78.3.11)

.

What Shang-shu 《尚书》said about ‘Xia’?

《书序·汤誓》:“伊尹相汤伐桀,升自陑,遂与桀战于鸣条之野。”

尚書 ·夏書 ·胤征:  伊尹去亳適夏,既丑有夏,復歸于亳。入自北門,乃遇汝鳩、汝方。作《汝鳩》、《汝方》。

《尚书 召诰》:  “我不可不监(鉴)于有夏,亦不可不监于有殷。”

What Guo-yu 《国语》said about ‘Xia’?

《国语·郑语》:“夏禹能单平水土,以品处庶类者也。”

《国语 鲁语上》鲁展禽:“昔烈山氏之有天下也,其子曰柱,能殖百谷百蔬。夏之兴也,周弃继之,故祀以为稷。”

《国语·鲁语》禽: “有虞氏禘黄帝而祖颛顼,郊尧而宗舜;夏后氏禘黄帝而祖颛顼,郊鲧而宗禹;商人禘舜而祖契,郊冥而宗汤;周人禘喾而郊稷,祖文王而宗武王。” (《左传·僖公十年》:狐突“神不歆非类,民不祀非族。” 《左传·禧公三十一年》宁武子“鬼神非其族类,不欲其祀”《左传·成公四年》:“非我族类,其心必异”。孔子: “非其鬼而祭祀,谄巾.。” 《礼记·曲礼》: “非其所祭而祭之,谓之淫祀。淫祀无福.” 《祭法》: “非此族也,不在祀典.”《国语。鲁语上》: “非是族也,不在祀典。” 《北史·周纪下·静帝》:“不歆非类,异骨肉而共蒸尝。” 《礼记·丧服小记》《大传》:“礼不王不禘。王者禘其祖之所自出,以其祖配之。”)

《国语·周语上》“昔伊洛竭而夏亡”,

《国语·鲁语》“杼能帅禹者也,夏后氏报焉,”

《国语·周语》禹“皇天嘉之,祚以天下,赐姓曰姒,氏曰有夏”。

《国语·周语》:“有夏虽衰,杞、鄫犹在。”

《国语·周语下》:“昔在有虞,有崇伯鲧,播其淫心,称遂共工之过,尧用殛于羽山。其后伯禹念前之非度,厘改制量,象物天地,比类百则,仪之于民,而度之于群生,共之从孙四岳佐之,高高下下,疏川导滞,锺水丰物,封崇九山,决汨九川,陂鄣九泽,丰殖九薮,汨越九原,宅居九隩,合通四海。故天无伏阴,地无散阳,水无沈气,火无灾燀,神无间行,民无淫心,时无逆数,物无害生。帅象禹之功,度之于轨仪,莫非嘉绩,克厌帝心。皇天嘉之,祚以天下,赐姓曰‘姒’、氏曰‘有夏’。”

.

What The Bamboo Annals 《竹书纪年》said about ‘Xia’?

《竹书纪年》:“后桀伐岷山,岷山女于桀二人,曰琬、曰琰。桀受二女,无子,刻其名于苕华之玉,苕是琬,华是琰。而弃其元妃于洛,曰末喜氏。末喜氏以与伊尹交,遂以间夏。”

《竹書紀年》

帝禹夏后氏
1 元年壬子,帝即位,居冀。頒夏時于邦國。
2 二年,咎陶薨。
3 五年,巡狩,會諸侯于塗山。
4 八年春,會諸侯于會稽,殺防風氏。夏六月,雨金于夏邑。秋八月,帝陟于會稽。禹立四十五年。
帝啟
1 元年癸亥,帝即位于夏邑。大饗諸侯于鈞臺。諸侯從帝歸于冀都。大饗諸侯于璿臺。
2 二年,費侯伯益出就國。王帥師伐有扈,大戰于甘。
3 六年,伯益薨,祠之。
4 八年,帝使孟涂如巴涖訟。
5 十年,帝巡狩,舞《九韶》于大穆之野。
6 十一年,放王季子武觀于西河。
7 十五年,武觀以西河叛。彭伯壽帥師征西河,武觀來歸。
8 十六年,陟。

What Shi-jing 詩經said about ‘Xia’?

《诗·商颂·长发》:“武王(汤)载旆,有虔秉钺,如火烈烈,则莫我敢曷。苞有三孽,莫遂莫达,九有有载。韦顾既伐,昆吾夏桀。”

《诗·商颂·长发》:“洪水茫茫,禹敷下土方。”

What Zuo-zhuan 《左传》said about ‘Xia’?

《左传》莊公三十二年…將亡,神又降之,觀其惡也,故有得神以興,亦有以亡,虞,夏,商,周,…

《左传·闵公元年》:“狄人伐邢,管敬仲言於齊侯曰,戎狄豺狼,不可厭也,諸夏親暱,不可棄也,宴安酖毒,不可懷也,詩云,豈不懷歸,畏此簡書,簡書,同惡相恤之謂也,請救邢以從簡書,齊人救邢。

《左传》僖公十五年…春,楚人伐徐,徐即諸夏故也,三月,盟于牡丘,尋葵丘之盟,且救徐也…

《左传•僖公三十二年》:“殽有二陵焉:其南陵,夏后皋之墓也;其北陵,文王之所辟风雨也,必死是間,余收爾骨焉,秦師遂東。”

《左传·僖公三十一年》:“(卫成)公命祀相,宁武子不可,曰,‘鬼神非其族类,不歆其祀,杞、鄫何事?’。”

《左传》僖公二十一年秋,諸侯會宋公于盂,子魚曰,禍其在此乎,君欲已甚,其何以堪之,於是楚執宋公以伐宋,冬,會于薄以釋之,子魚曰,禍猶未也,未足以懲君,任,宿,須句,顓臾,風姓也,實司大皞與有濟之祀,以服事諸夏,邾人滅須句,須句子來奔,因成風也,成風為之言於公曰,崇明祀,保小寡,周禮也,蠻夷猾夏,周禍也,若封須句,是崇皞濟而脩祀紓禍也。

《左传》宣公三年“對曰,在德不在鼎,昔夏之方有德也,遠方圖物,貢金九牧,鑄鼎象物,百物而為之備,使民知神姦,故民入川澤山林,不逢不若,螭魅罔兩,莫能逢之,用能協于上下,以承天休,桀有昏德,鼎遷于商,載祀六百,商紂暴虐,鼎遷于周,“

《左传》成公十三年..文公躬擐甲冑,跋履山川,踰越險阻,征東之諸侯,虞夏商周之胤,而朝諸秦,..

《左传》襄公四年…昔有夏之方衰也,后羿自鉏遷于窮石,因夏民以代夏政,恃其射也,不脩民事,而淫于原獸,棄武羅,伯困,熊髡,尨圉,而用寒浞,……昔周辛甲之為大史也,命百官,官箴王闕,於虞人之箴曰,芒芒禹跡,畫為九州,經啟九道,民有寢廟,獸有茂草,各有攸處,德用不擾,在帝夷羿,冒于原獸,忘其國恤,而思其麀牡,武不可重,用不恢于夏家,獸臣司原,取告僕夫,虞箴如是,可不懲乎,…

《左传》襄公二十二年…間二年,聞君將靖東夏,…
《左传》襄公二十六年…繞角之役,晉將遁矣,析公曰,楚師輕窕,易震蕩也,若多鼓鈞聲以夜軍之,楚師必遁晉人從之,楚師宵潰,晉遂侵蔡襲沈,獲其君,敗申息之師於桑隧,獲申麗而還,鄭於是不敢南面,楚失華夏,則析公之為也,
《左传》襄公二十九年晉侯使司馬女叔侯來治杞田,弗盡歸也,晉悼夫人慍曰,齊也取貨,先君若有知也,不
尚取之,公告叔侯,叔侯曰,虞,虢,焦,滑,霍,揚,韓,魏,皆姬姓也,晉是以大,若非侵小,將何所取,武獻以下,兼國多矣,誰得治之,杞,夏餘也,而即東夷,魯,周公之後也,而睦於晉,以杞封魯,猶可,而何有焉,魯之於晉也,職貢不乏,玩好時至,公卿大夫,相繼於朝,史不絕書,府無虛月,如是可矣,何必瘠魯以肥杞,且先君而有知也,毋寧夫人,而焉用老臣。吳公子札來聘,…為之歌豳,曰,美哉,蕩乎,樂而不淫,其周公之東乎,為之歌秦,曰,此之謂夏聲,夫能夏,則大,大之至乎其周之舊也,為之歌魏,曰,美哉,渢楓乎,大而婉,險而易,行以德輔,此則明主也見舞大夏者,曰,美哉,勤而不德,非禹其誰能脩之,見舞韶箾
者,曰,德至矣哉,大矣

《左传》襄公十三年…子囊曰,君命以共,若之何毀之,赫赫楚國,而君臨之,撫有蠻夷,奄征南海,以屬諸夏,而知其過,可不謂共乎,請謚之共,大夫從之。

《左传》襄公四年穆叔如晉,報知武子之聘也,晉侯享之,金奏肆夏之三,不拜,工歌文王之三,又不拜,歌鹿鳴之三,三拜,

《左传 昭公二十九年》晋太史蔡墨:“稷,田正也。在烈山氏之子曰柱,为稷,自夏以上祀之。周弃亦为稷,自商以来祀之。”

《左传》昭公元年:“昔高辛氏有二子,伯曰阏伯,季曰实沈,居于旷林,不相能也。日寻干戈,以相征讨。后帝不臧,迁阏伯于商丘,主辰。商人是因,故辰为商星。迁实沈于大夏,主参。唐人是因,以服事夏、商。其季世曰唐叔虞。当武王邑姜方震大叔,梦帝谓己:‘余命而子曰虞,将与之唐,属诸参。而蕃育其子孙。’……及成王灭唐而封大叔焉,故参为晋星。由是观之,则实沈,参神也。” (《左传》昭公十七年云:“宋,大辰之虚也;陈,大皞虚也;郑,祝融之虚也;皆火房也。……卫,颛顼之虚也,故为帝丘。其星为大水”。《周礼·春官·保章氏》:“保章氏掌天星,以志星辰日月之变动,以观天下之迁,辨其吉凶。以星土辨九州之地所封,封域皆有分星,以观妖祥。” )

《左传·昭公四年》:“夏桀为有仍之会,有缗叛之。”

《左传·昭公十一年》:“桀克有缗以丧其国。”

《左传·昭公六年》“夏有乱政,而作禹刑”。

《左传》昭公十九年邾人,郳人,徐人,會宋公,乙亥,同盟于蟲,楚子為舟師以伐濮,費無極言於楚子曰,晉之伯也,邇於諸夏,而楚辟陋,故弗能與爭,若大城城父,而寘大子焉,以通北方,王收南方,是得天下也,王說,從之,故太子建居于城父,令尹子瑕聘于秦,拜夫人也。

《左传》昭公二十六年…齊有彗星,齊侯使禳之,晏子曰,無益也,祇取誣焉,天道不諂不貳,其命若之何,禳之,且天之有彗也,以除穢也,君無穢德,又何禳焉,若德之穢,禳之何損,詩曰,惟此文王,小心翼翼,昭事上帝,聿懷多福,厥德不回,以受方國,君無違德,方國將至,何患於彗,詩曰,我無所監,夏后及商,用亂之故,民卒流亡,若德回亂,民將流亡,祝史之為,無能補也,公說,乃止,齊侯與晏子坐于路寢,公歎曰,美哉室,其誰有此乎,晏子曰,敢問何謂也,

《左传》昭公二十九年秋,龍見于絳郊,魏獻子問於蔡墨曰,吾聞之,蟲莫知於龍,以其不生得也,謂之知信乎,對曰,人實不知,非龍實知,古者畜龍,故國有豢龍氏,有御龍氏,獻子曰,是二氏者,吾亦聞之,而知其故,是何謂也,對曰,昔有飂叔安有裔子,曰董父實,甚好龍,能求其耆欲以飲食之,龍多歸之,乃擾畜龍以服事帝舜,帝賜之姓,曰董氏,曰豢龍,封諸鬷川,鬷夷氏其後也,故帝舜氏世有畜龍,及有夏孔甲,擾于有帝,帝賜之乘龍,河漢各二,各有雌雄,孔甲不能食,而未獲豢龍氏,有陶唐氏既衰,其後有劉累學擾龍于豢龍氏,以事孔甲,能飲食之,夏后嘉之,賜氏曰御龍,以更豕韋之後,龍一雌死,潛醢以食,夏后,夏后饗之,既而使求之,懼而遷于魯縣,范氏其後也,……共工氏有子曰句龍,為后土,此其二祀也,后土為社,稷,田正也,有烈山氏之子曰柱,為稷,自夏以上祀之,周棄亦為稷,自商以來祀之。

《左传》昭公元年…子相晉國,以為盟主,於今七年矣,再合諸侯,三合大夫,服齊狄,寧東夏,平秦亂,城淳于,於是乎虞有三苗,夏有觀扈,商有姺邳,周有徐奄,自無令王諸侯逐進,狎主齊盟,其又可壹乎,

《左传》昭公四年…在此會也,夏啟有鈞臺之享,商湯有景亳之命,周武有孟津之誓,成有岐陽之蒐,康有酆宮之朝,穆有塗山之會,齊桓有召陵之師,晉文有踐土之盟,君其何用,…禮也,諸侯所由用命也,夏桀為仍之會,有緡叛之,商紂為黎之蒐,東夷叛之,周幽為大室之盟,戎狄叛之,皆所以示諸侯,
《左传》昭公五年…冬,十月,楚子以諸侯及東夷伐吳,以報棘,櫟,麻,之役,薳射以繁揚之師,會於夏
汭,越大夫常壽過,帥師會楚子于瑣,
《左传》昭公六年…夏有亂政而作禹刑,商有亂政而作湯刑,周有亂政而作九刑,三辟之興,皆叔世也,
《左传》昭公九年…王使詹桓伯辭於晉曰,我自夏以后稷,魏,駘,芮,岐,畢,吾西土也,及武王克商,蒲姑,商奄,吾東土也,巴濮,楚鄧,吾南土也,肅慎,燕,亳,吾北土也,
《左传》昭公十三年王曰,大福不再,祇取辱焉,然丹乃歸于楚,王沿夏,將欲入鄢,芊尹無宇之子申亥曰,吾父再奸王命,王弗誅,惠孰大焉,君不可忍,惠不可棄,吾其從王,乃求王,遇諸棘圍,以歸,
《左传》昭公七年以君之明,子為大政,其何厲之有,昔堯殛鯀于羽山,其神化為黃熊,以入于羽淵,實為夏郊,三代祀之,晉為盟主,其或者未之祀也乎,韓子祀夏郊,晉侯有間,賜子產莒之二方鼎,昭公十五年…其後襄之二路,鏚鉞秬鬯,彤弓虎賁,文公受之,以有南陽之田,撫征東夏,非分而何,夫有勳而不廢,有績而載,奉之以土田,撫之以彝器,旌之以車服,明之以文章,子孫不忘,所謂福也,

《左传》昭公十七年冬,有星孛于大辰,西及漢,申須曰,彗所以除舊布新也,天事恆象,今除於火,火出必布焉,諸侯其有火災乎,梓慎曰,往年吾見之,是其徵也,火出而見,今茲火出而章,必火入而伏,其居火也久矣,其與不然乎,火出,於夏為三月於商為四月,於周為五月,夏數得天,若火作,其四國當之,在宋衛陳鄭乎,宋,大辰之虛也,陳,大皞之虛也,鄭,祝融之虛也,皆火房也,星孛天漢,漢,水祥也,衛,顓頊之虛也,故為帝丘,其星為大水,水火之牡也,

《左传·定公十年》:“中国有礼仪之大故称夏,有服章之美谓之华”。(《尚书正义》注:“冕服华章曰华,大国曰夏”。)

《左传·定公元年》云:“薛之皇祖奚仲居薛,以为夏车正。”

《左传》定公十年…孔丘以公退,曰,士兵之,兩君合好,而裔夷之俘,以兵亂之,非齊君所以命諸侯也,裔不謀夏,夷不亂華,俘不干盟,兵不偪好,於神為不祥,於德為愆義,於人為失禮,君必不然,齊侯聞之,遽辟之,將盟,齊人加於載書曰,齊師出竟,而不以甲車三百乘從我者,有如此盟,孔丘使茲無還揖對曰,而不反我汶陽之田,吾以共命者,亦如之,齊侯將享公,孔丘謂梁丘,據,襄公二十四年…宣子曰,昔丐之祖,自虞以上為陶唐氏,在夏為御龍氏,在商為豕韋氏,在周為唐杜氏,晉主夏盟為范氏,

《左传》定公元年…晉文公為踐土之盟曰,凡我同盟,各復舊職,若從踐土,若從宋亦唯命,仲幾曰,踐土固然,薛宰曰,薛之皇祖奚仲居薛,以為夏車正,奚仲遷于邳,仲虺居薛,以為湯左相,

《左传定公十年》:“裔不谋夏,夷不乱华”

《左传·定公四年》:“分唐叔以大路、密须之鼓、阙巩、沽洗,怀姓九宗,职官五正。命以《唐诰》,而封于夏虚。启以夏政,疆以戎索。”(杜预 注:“亦因 夏 风俗,开用其政。” 南朝 梁 陆倕 《石阙铭》:“昔在 舜 格文祖, 禹 至神宗, 周 变 商 俗, 汤 黜 夏 政。”)

《左传》哀公元年 伍员“少康”:“虞思于是妻之以二姚,而邑诸纶,有田一成,有欢一旅,能布其德,而兆其谋,以收夏众,抚其官职。”

《左传》哀公二十年…楚隆曰,三年之喪,親暱之極也,主又降之,無乃有故乎,趙孟曰,黃池之役,先主與吳王有質,曰,好惡同之,今越圍吳,嗣子不廢舊業,而敵之,非晉之所能及也,吾是以為降,楚隆曰,若使吳王知之,若何,趙孟曰,可乎,隆曰,請嘗之,乃往,先造于越軍曰,吳犯間上國多矣,聞君親討焉,諸夏之人,莫不欣喜,唯恐君志之不從,請入視之,許之,告于吳王曰,…

《左传》哀公元年…伍員曰,不可,臣聞之,樹德莫如滋,去疾莫如盡,昔有過澆,殺斟灌以伐斟鄩,滅夏后相,后緡方娠,逃出自竇,歸于有仍,生少康焉,為仍牧正,惎澆能戒之,澆使椒求之,逃奔有虞,為之庖正,以除其害,虞思於是妻之以二姚,而邑諸綸,有田一成,有眾一旅,能布其德,而兆其謀,以收夏眾,撫其官職,使女艾諜澆,使季杼誘豷,遂滅過戈,復禹之績,祀夏配天,不失舊物,今吳不如過,而越大於少康,

《左传》哀公十四年…司馬牛致其邑與珪焉,而適齊,向魋出於衛地,公文氏攻之,求夏后氏之璜焉,與之他玉,而奔齊,陳成子使為次卿,

夏書
莊公八年..夏書曰,皋陶邁種德,…
僖公二十四年…詩曰,自詒伊慼,其子臧之謂矣,夏書曰,地平天成,稱也。
僖公二十七年…夏書曰,賦納以言,明試以功,車服以庸…
文公七年…夏書曰,戒之用休,董之用威,勸之以九歌,…
成公十六年…夏書曰,怨豈在明,不見是圖,將慎其細也,今而明之,其可乎。
襄公五年…夏書曰,成允成功。
襄公十四年…故夏書曰,遒人以木鐸徇于路,官師相規,工執藝事以諫,
襄公二十一年…夏書曰,念茲在茲,釋茲在茲,名言茲在茲,允出茲在茲,
襄公二十三年…夏書曰,念茲在茲,順事恕施也。
襄公二十六年…故夏書曰,與其殺不辜,寧失不經,懼失善也,
昭公十四年…夏書曰,昏墨賊殺,皋陶之刑也,請從之,乃施邢侯,而尸雍子,與叔魚於市,仲尼曰,叔向,古之遺直也,
昭公十七年…故夏書曰,辰不集于房,瞽奏鼓,嗇夫馳,庶人走,此月朔之謂也,當夏四月,是謂孟夏,平子弗從,昭子退曰,夫子將有異志,不君君矣。
哀公六年…,孔子曰,楚昭王知大道矣,其不失國也宜哉,夏書曰,惟彼陶唐,帥彼天常,有此冀方,今失其行,亂其紀綱,乃滅而亡,又曰,允出茲在茲,由己率常可矣。
哀公十八年…君子曰,惠王知志,夏書曰,官占,唯能蔽志,昆命于元龜,其是之謂乎,志曰,聖人不煩卜筮,惠王其有焉。

What Confucius Analects《论语 》said about Xia?

《论语 · 八佾第三》子曰:“夏礼,吾能言之,杞不足征也。殷礼,吾能言之,宋不足征也。文献不足故也。足,则吾能征之矣。” (《史记·孔子世家》:“孔子之时,周室微而礼乐废,《诗》、《书》缺。追迹三代之礼,序《书》传,上纪唐虞之际,下至秦穆,编次其事,曰:‘夏礼,吾能言之,杞不足征也;殷礼,吾能言之,宋不足征也。足,则吾能征之矣。’”)

《礼记》礼记·表记 子曰:“夏道尊命,事鬼敬神而远之,近人而忠焉。先禄而后威,先赏而后罚。亲而不尊。其民之敝,惷而愚,乔而野,朴而不文。殷人尊神,率民以事神,先鬼而后礼,先罚而后赏。尊而不亲,其民之敝,荡而不静,胜而无耻。周人尊礼尚施,事鬼敬神而远之,近人而忠焉,其赏罚用爵列。亲而不尊,其民之敝,利而巧,文而不惭,贼而蔽。”

What Li-jii 《礼记》said about Xia?

《礼记 祭法》:“厉山氏之有天下也,其子曰农,能殖百谷。夏之衰也,周弃继之,故祀以为稷。”

《礼记·祭义》,“昔者,有虞氏贵德而尚齿,夏后氏贵爵而尚齿”

What Chu-ci 《楚辞》said about Xia?

《楚辞·天问》:“禹之力献功,降省下土方”

What Lv-shi-chun-qiu 《吕氏春秋》said about ‘Xia’ [& Yu]?

《吕氏春秋·简选》:“殷汤良车七十乘,必死六千人,以戊子战於郕,遂禽推移、大犠,登自鸣条,乃入巢门,遂有夏。”

《吕氏春秋·慎大》:“桀愈自贤,矜过善非,主道重塞,国人大崩。汤乃惕惧,忧天下之不宁,欲令伊尹往视旷夏,恐其不信,汤由亲自射伊尹。伊尹奔夏三年,反报于亳,曰:“桀迷惑於末嬉,好彼琬琰,不恤其众。众志不堪,上下相疾,民心积怨,皆曰:‘上天弗恤,夏命其卒。’”汤谓伊尹曰:“若告我旷夏尽如诗。”汤与伊尹盟,以示必灭夏。伊尹又复往视旷夏,听於末嬉。末嬉言曰:“今昔天子梦西方有日,东方有日,两日相与斗,西方日胜,东方日不胜。”伊尹以告汤。商涸旱,汤犹发师,以信伊尹之盟。故令师从东方出於国西以进。未接刃而桀走,逐之至大沙。身体离散,为天下戮。”

《吕氏春秋·古乐篇》载:禹立,勤劳天下,日夜不懈,通大川,决壅塞,凿龙门,降通漻水以导河,疏三江五湖,注之东海,以利黔首。于是命皋陶作《夏籥》九成,以昭其功。”

《吕氏春秋·用民篇》:“当禹之时,天下万国,至于汤而三千余国。”

What Mo-zi 《墨子》said about ‘Xia’?

《墨子·非攻下》:“汤焉敢奉率其众,是以向有夏之境。帝乃使阴暴毁有夏之城,少少有神来告曰:‘夏德大乱,往攻之,予必使汝大堪之。予既受命于天,天命融隆火于夏之城间西北隅。’汤奉桀众以克有夏,属诸侯于薄。”

What Shiji 《史記 》said about ‘Xia’? Sima Qian’s Shi-ji was based on two books: the Qing chronicle that survived Gen. Xiang Yu’s arson of the Qin palaces, and Zuo-qiu-ming’s Chunqiu.

《史記 五帝本紀》: 舜子商均亦不肖,舜乃豫薦禹於天。十七年而崩。三年喪畢,禹亦乃讓舜子,如舜讓堯子。諸侯歸之,然後禹踐天子位。

《史記 夏本紀》   帝舜薦禹於天,爲嗣。十七年而帝舜崩。三年喪畢,禹辭辟舜之子商均於陽城。天下諸侯皆去商均而朝禹。禹於是遂即天子位,南面朝天下,國號曰夏后,姓姒氏。

十年,帝禹東巡狩,至于會稽而崩。以天下授益。三年之喪畢,益讓帝禹之子啟,而辟居箕山之陽。禹子啟賢,天下屬意焉。及禹崩,雖授益,益之佐禹日淺,天下未洽。故諸侯皆去益而朝啟,曰:“吾君帝禹之子也”。於是啟遂即天子之位,是爲夏后帝啟。

《史记·夏本纪》:“汤遂率兵以伐夏桀,桀走鸣条,遂放而死。”《正义》:“《括地志》云:‘庐州巢县有巢湖,即《尚书》成汤伐桀,放于南巢者也。’《淮南子》云:‘汤败桀于历山,与妹喜同舟浮江,奔南巢之山而死。’《国语》云‘满于巢湖’。”

《史记·殷本纪》:“桀败于有娀之虚,桀犇于鸣条,夏师败绩。汤遂伐三鬷,俘厥宝玉。”《集解》:“孔安国曰:三鬷,国名,桀走保之,今定陶也。”

《史记·殷本纪》:“汤始居亳,从先王居。”《正义》:“按亳,偃师城也;商丘,宋州也。汤即位,都南亳,后徙西亳也。《括地志》云:‘亳邑故城在洛州偃师县西十四里,本帝喾之虚,商汤之都也。’”

《史记·陈杞世家》夏裔“殷时或封或绝”

《史记·楚世家》:“八年,伐陆浑戎,遂至洛,观兵于周郊。周定王使王孙满劳楚王。楚王问鼎之小大轻重,对曰:‘在德不在鼎。’庄王曰:子无阻九鼎!楚国折钩之喙,足以为九鼎。王子满曰:‘呜呼!君王其忘之乎?昔虞夏之盛,远方皆至,贡金九牧,铸鼎象物,百物而为之备,使民知神奸。桀有乱德,鼎迁于殷,载祀六百。殷纣暴虐,鼎迁于周。德之休明,虽小必重;其奸回昏乱,虽大必轻。昔成王定鼎于郏鄏,卜世三十,卜年七百,天所命也。周德虽衰,天命未改。鼎之轻重,未可问也。’楚王乃归。”

司马迁《史记·货殖列传》:昔唐人都河东,殷人都河内,周人都河南。夫三河在天下之中。若鼎足,王者所更居也,建国各数百千岁,土地小狭,民人觽,都国诸侯所聚会,故其俗纤俭习事” (《史记·封禅书》:昔三代之居,皆在河洛之间)

《史记,殷本纪》周武王曰:“自洛汭延于伊汭,居易毋固,其有夏之居。我南望三涂,北望岳鄙,顾詹有河,粤詹雒、伊,毋远天室。”营周居于雒邑而后去。

Other Books

《逸周书,度邑》:“武王问太公曰:吾将因有夏之居,南望过于三涂,北瞻望于有河”。

《孟子》“夏后氏五十而贡,殷人七十而助,周人百亩而彻,其实皆什一也”

《随巢子》:“天命夏禹于玄宫。”

《管子·大匡》记齐桓公语:“夫杞,明王之后也。”
《世本·王侯》:“殷汤封夏后于杞,周又封之。”
《大戴礼记·少间》:“成汤卒受大命……乃放夏桀,散亡其佐,乃迁姒姓于杞。”
《太平御览》引《吕氏春秋》:“桀将亡,太史令终古执其图书而奔于商。”

《周书·君奭》:惟文王尚克修德,和我有夏。 
《周书·立政》:其在受德, 为羞刑暴德之人,同于厥邦;乃惟庶习逸得之人,同于厥政,帝钦罚之,乃伻我有夏,奄甸万姓。
《周书·武成》:“华夏蛮貊,罔不率俾”。
《说文》:“华夏,中国之人也。”

.

What Wang Guo-wei said about ‘Xia’?

王国维1925《古史新证》: 右商之先公先王及先正见于卜辞者大率如此,而名字之不见于古书者不与焉。由此观之,则《史记》所述商一代世系,以卜辞证之,虽不免小有舛驳而大致不误。可知《史记》所据之《世本》全是实录。而由殷周世系之确实,因之推想夏后氏世系之确实,此又当然之事也。又虽谬悠缘饰之书如《山海经》、《楚辞·天问》,成于后世之书如《晏子春秋》、《墨子》、《吕氏春秋》,晚出之书如《竹书纪年》,其所言古事亦有一部分之确实性。然则经典所记上古之事,今日虽有未得二重证明者,固未可以完全抹杀也。

.

How to Interpret the Statement 《尚书·周书·多方》:“惟殷先人,有册有典。” ?

呼运廷 cited the Shang-shu statement to reconcile the fact that the Shang people had the possession of the history/royal classics because it was Lord Shun who empowered the Shang ancestor with the job to maintain the records.

《尚书·虞书·舜典》:“帝曰:‘契,百姓不亲,五品不逊。汝作司徒,敬敷五教,在宽。’”

《尚书·周书·多方》:“惟殷先人,有册有典。”

《太平御览》引《吕氏春秋》:“桀将亡,太史令终古执其图书而奔于商。”

The Evolution of Ancient Chinese Scripts

(唐)封演 《封氏闻见记》: 黄帝史官苍颉视鸟兽之迹以作文字。依类象形,故谓之文。形声相益,则谓 之字。著于竹帛谓之书,凡九千字,所谓古文者也。古有六体:一曰指事,上 下是也。二曰象形,日、月是也。三曰形声,江、河是也。四曰会意,武、信 是也。五曰转注,考、老是也。六曰假借,令、长是也。推此六体,文字大端可 得而见矣。《周礼》“保氏教国子以六书”,即其事焉。至周宣王时,太史史籀 更著大篆十五篇,与古文或异,然不外六书之指。大篆、小篆亦名籀书,与古文 并行。春秋之时,孔子之书六经,皆古文也。其后诸侯不统于王,车涂异轨,文 字异制。秦氏既兼天下,丞相李斯乃奏同之,罢其不与秦文合者。李斯又作《苍 颉篇》,中车府令赵高作《爰历篇》,太史令胡母敬作《博学篇》,皆依傍大篆, 或加省约,谓之小篆。于时狱官事繁,篆书不给。御史程邈有罪,系云阳狱中, 变篆为隶,以従简易,始皇善而用焉。故秦时书有八体:一曰大篆,史籀所作也。 二日小篆,李斯、赵高、胡母敬所作也。大小二篆,皆简策所用。三日刻符,施 于符传。四曰摹印,亦日缪篆,施于郁。五曰虫书,为虫鸟之形,施于幡信。六 曰署书,门题所用。七曰殳书,铭于戈戟。八曰隶书,施于公府。皆因事出变而 立名者也。善长注《水经》云:“临淄人发古冢,得桐棺,前和外隐起为隶字, 言‘齐太公六代孙胡公之棺’,惟三字是古,余同今书。故知隶书非始于秦世也。” 按此书隶在春秋之前,但诸国或用或不用。程邈观其省易,有便于时,故修改而 献,非创造。汉兴,多因秦制,通行隶书,古文由是散逸。

Cangjie scripts 倉頡文 that were invented in the shape of birds and beasts in the era of Huangdi (Yellow Lord, life B.C.E. 2697 – 2599 ?)

《易.系辞下》:”古结绳而治,后世圣人易之以书契。”(孔颖达疏:“结绳者,郑康成注云,事大大结其绳,事小小结其绳,义或然也。”)

许慎《说文解字·序》: “古者包羲氏之王天下也,仰则观象于天,俯则观法于地,视鸟兽之文与地之宜,近取诸身,于是始作《易》八卦,以垂宪象。及神农氏结绳为治而统其事,庶业其繁,饰伪萌生。黄帝之史仓颉,见鸟兽蹄迒之迹,知分理之可相别异也,初造书契。“百工以乂,万品以察,盖取诸夬”;“夬扬于王庭”。言文者宣教明化于王者朝廷,君子所以施禄及下,居德则忌也。仓颉之初作书,盖依类象形,故谓之文。其后形声相益,即谓之字。文者,物象之本;字者,言孳乳而浸多也。著于竹帛谓之书,书者如也。以迄五帝三王之世,改易殊体。封于泰山者七有二代,靡有同焉”

《论衡·对作》:“造端更为,前始未有,若仓颉作书,奚仲作车是也。”

[后]魏江式《论书表》:臣闻疱牺氏作,而八卦列其画;轩辕氏兴,而灵龟彰其彩。古史仓颉,览二象之文,观鸟兽之迹,别创文字,以代结绳,用书契以纪事。宣之王庭,则百工以叙;载之方册,则万品以明。迄于三代,厥体颇异。

(南朝)刘勰《文心雕龙》:自鸟迹代绳,文字始炳,炎皞遗事,纪在《三坟》,而年世渺邈,声采靡追。唐虞文章,则焕乎始盛。
Tadpole scripts 蝌蚪文=蝌蚪篆=夏篆 from the Xia dynasty (the 22-17th centuries BCE)
(元)郑杓、刘有定《衍极并注》:“曰复篆,亦籀所作,因大篆而重复之,其法类夏篆。。。”

Oracle bones during the Shang dynasty (the 17 centuries-1122 BCE), namely, degraded Tadpole scripts 蝌蚪文

Zhou Dynasty (1134 – 771 BCE, 770-256 BCE): BIG SEAL SCRIPT (大篆) characters or Zhou King 周宣王Xuanwang’s scripts that were reformed by Taishi-zhou 太史籀

Qin SMALL SEAL SCRIPT 小篆 + TADPOLE scripts from the SIX NATIONS 蝌蚪文

QIN reformed LEGAL [CLERICAL] SCRIPTS 隸書 [which became the standard that eliminated both the BIG Zhou, SMALL Qin and SIX NATIONS Tadpole scripts]

《全上古三代秦汉三国六朝文》[李斯《用笔法》]:“夫书之微妙,道合自然。篆籀以前不可得而闻矣。自上古作大篆,颇行于世,但为古远,人多不详。今斯删略繁者,取其合理,参为小篆。凡书,非但裹结流快,终籍笔力轻健。蒙将军恬《笔经》,犹自简略,斯更修改,望益于用矣。用笔法,先急回,后疾下,鹰望鹏逝,信之自然,不得重改,如游鱼得水,景山兴云,或卷或舒,乍轻乍重。善思之,此理可见矣。”

In the opinion of Feng Yan of Tang Dynasty, the Chinese characters were always the same from the Yellow Lord down, with difference only in the styles. That is, the difference was just like what the modern English writing style of Cursive versus Printscript writing. In another word, Zhou chronicler Taishi-zhou did not invent the BIG SEAL SCRIPT but chose it, which was one of the writing styles, as the Zhou court-sanctioned writing – which the SIX NATIONS of the later Eastern Zhou dynasty did not follow. To emphasize again, the SIX NATIONS of the later Eastern Zhou dynasty adopted the various forms of styles that they saw fit for their respective usage. Feng Yan pointed out that Confucius and the scholars from the SIX NATIONS used the ‘古文‘ tadpole characters. Furthermore, Feng Yan pointed out that Qin official Cheng Miao ‘程邈’ did not actually invent the Qin LEGAL style handwriting either but was responsible for renovating on an existing style. In conclusion, Feng Yan claimed that there were eight styles of writing in usage in the Qin times, including:
大篆 (Zhou BIG SEAL script for usage on bamboo strips);
小篆 (Qin SMALL SEAL script for usage on bamboo strips);
刻符 (INSCRIBE script for passes and certificates);
摹印 (SEAL IMITATE script);
虫书 (BIRD-WORM script for relaying government decrees);
署书 (PORCH script);
殳书 (WEAPON Inscribe script); and
隶书 (LEGAL [CLERICAL] script for government offices).
The above statement simply means that the BIRD-WORM script was merely one style of writing, not a different characterset. More, refer to 《汉书*艺文志》:“六体者,古文奇字篆书隶书缪篆虫书,皆所以通古今文字,摹印章,书幡信也。”

China’s Tradition of History Recording:

《史通·外篇·史官建置》:“盖史之建官,其来尚矣。昔轩辕氏受命,仓颉、沮诵实居其职。至于三代,其数渐繁。”《汉书·艺文志》:“古之王者,世有史官,君举必书,所以慎言行,昭法式也。”《国语·楚语》:“有事不书,是史失其职守。”《左传》:“夫诸侯之会,其德行礼仪,无国不记。”《礼记》:“史载笔,大事书之于策,小事简牍而已。”“动则左史书之,言则右史书之。”《史记-齐太公世家》:“齐太史(齐国世袭史官)书曰:‘崔杼(齐国实力人物)弑庄公(齐国国君)’,崔杼杀之。其弟复书,崔杼复杀之。少弟复书,崔杼乃舍之。”《新唐书·褚遂良传》:“贞观十五年,迁谏议大夫,兼知起居事。帝曰:‘卿记起居,大抵人君得观之否?’对曰:‘今之起居,古左右史也。善恶必记,戒人主不为非法,未闻天子自观史也。’帝曰:‘朕有不善,卿必记邪?’对曰:‘守道不如守官,臣职载笔,君子必书。’”

Posted in Ancient China, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Shan Hai Jing – The Book of Mountains and Seas

《山海經》- SHAN HAI JING (i.e, The Legends of Mountains and Seas)

SHAN HAI JING (i.e, The Legends of Mountains and Seas) was a book compiled by Liu Xiu (Liu Xin) of the Western Han Dynasty. According to the preface that was presented to the emperor by Liu Xiu (Liu Xin), the book was first being worked on by Lord Yu (r. BC 2204-2195 ?)  and his assistant Bo-yi during the era of flood-control, i.e., about 2200-2300 B.C.E. According to the Sui Dynasty’s records, it was Xiao He, Han Dynasty’s first prime minister, who assembled various Zhou-Qin era books, including the chapters that were to later become the foundation for SHAN HAI JING (i.e, The Legends of Mountains and Seas). Hundred years after Xiao He’s collection, Liu Xiang and Liu Xiu (Lin Xin), under a mandate to reorganize and compile the classics in the imperial library, re-discovered those chapters and made it into a book on the mountains and seas.

SHAN HAI JING (i.e, The Legends of Mountains and Seas) , totaling 18 chapters nowadays, had developed in the contents throughout history. It was deduced that Liu Xiu (Lin Xin) had combined the five chapters of the book on the “mountains” (Wu Zang San Jing) with the chapters on the “[within-]seas & [over-]seas” to become the consolidated book on both the “mountains” and the “[within-]seas and [over-]seas”. (This deduction could be wrong since Yu Gong, i.e., Lord Yu’s Tributes, talked about only one sea, i.e., the East China Sea, while SHAN HAI JING covered four seas.) Hundreds of years later, Guo Pu was said to have collected and added additional chapters of the “[overseas] wilderness” to become today’s 18-chapter book, SHAN HAI JING (i.e, The Legends of Mountains and Seas) .

–Whether Liu Xiu (Liu Xin) had the chapters on the “[overseas] wilderness” at the beginning depends on how you interpret the ancient scholars’ statement on the number of the chapters as existed in different dynasties, with some mathematical calculation to round up numbers to match the ancient statements by treating sub-chapters of some of the chapters of the said book as being counted separately. Both Guo Pu and Liu Xiu (Liu Xin), rare learned Chinese scholars in history, suffered similar fate, by the way, with Guo Pu dying of a rebellion related to Wang Dun of Eastern Jinn Dynasty while Liu Xiu (Liu Xin) died in the hands of usurper emperor Wang Mang of Xin [new] Dynasty.

山經(五藏山經)五卷; 海經十三卷 (海外四經、海內四經、大荒四經、海內經)

5 chapters on the mountains (《南山经》、《西山经》、《北山经》、《东山经》、《中山经》); 4 chapters on the [inner-]seas (《海内南经》、《海内西经》、《海内北经》、《海内东经》); 4 chapters on the [over-]seas (《海外南经》、《海外西经》、《海外北经》、《海外东经》); 4 chapters on the [overseas] wilderness; 1 chapter on the inner sea (《大荒东经》、《大荒南经》、《大荒西经》、《大荒北经》、《海内经》). –The [overseas] wilderness series had the order of east, south, west and north, while the rest in the order of south, west, north and east.

ORIGIN OF THE BOOK

What was the likely source for the book could be a production by different scholars spanning hundreds of years prior to the 4th century B.C.E., with additions by scholars from after the 4th century B.C.E. –as the names of counties and prefectures from the later Qin-Han eras were found as well. The fact that SHAN HAI JING (i.e, The Legends of Mountains and Seas) contained some similar description about the legendary tribes to what was described by THE BAMBOO ANNALS, as well as “MU TIAN ZI ZHUAN” (The Legends of Zhou King Muwang), namely, books that were excavated in October of 279 A.D., from the tomb of Wei King Xiangwang (?-296 B.C.E.) during the Jinn Dynasty, pointed to the possibility of an origin of all those books in the land of the Wei Principality from the 4th century B.C.E.

In this webmaster’s opinions, the book could have something to do with the inquisition regarding the nine cauldrons, in that after the loss of the cauldrons, people who were interested in the cauldrons began to write about what could be inscribed on the cauldrons. It was said that the cauldrons, en route of being shipped to the Qin capital, was lost in the rivers. Sima Qian’s SHI JI and Ban Gu’s HAN SHU stated that the cauldrons, like in nine totals, were lost in the Si-shui River, with the caveat that both historians did not get the chance to read THE BAMBOO ANNALS to know that the nine cauldrons were already lost in the Si-shui River at the time of Zhou King Xianwang 42nd year, or 327 B.C. The nine cauldrons, which were said to have been made by Overlord Yu in the 3rd millennium B.C.E., could have been repeatedly re-cast over the history, and might contain the actual maps for the book SHAN HAN JING [The Legends of Mountains and Seas]. HAN SHU pointed that the nine caudlrons had the ‘xiang’ or image of the nine prefectures. MO ZI, in a detailed account, stated that Xia Lord Kai [Qi] ordered Feilian to collect the metal [copper], cast the cauldrons at the foot of Mt. Jingshan, and drew the pictures at the Kunwu[-xu] Ruins.  SHI YI JI pointed out that among the nine in total, the five cauldrons denoted the ‘yang’ [male] side while four cauldrons the ‘yin’ [female] side of Mother Nature. (The original Kunwu[-xu] Ruins was said to be also Lord Zhuanxu’s Ruins in today’s Puyang, Henan Province, north of the Yellow River, whereas there was no dispute about the locality of Mt. Jingshan as situated to the south of the Yellow River. There is a possibility that Mo-zi, et als, could have mixed up something here as the Kunwu-shi people did not relocate to the south of the Yellow River till the late time period of the Xia dynasty. Or in another sense, Mo-zi, et als, could have mixed up the locality of Mt. Jingshan as the original Kunwu-shi people and the Chu ancestors, who were a relative clan of the Kunwu-shi people had been responsible for casting the cauldrons in the original habitat north of the Yellow River.)

During Emperor Xuandi’s reign, an interesting thing happened when the emperor received a report that some ancient foot-chained and hands-bound corpse was found behind a sealed granite cave in the Shang-jun Commandary. Liu Xiang (Liu Zizheng) answered the emperor with citation of an ancient text from SHAN HAI JING, saying this would be like the Er-fu corpse which was about Wei1, a person who was ordered by the overlord to be chained to some tree on the Shushu Mountain, with right foot chained and two hands bound to the back, for the killing of Yayu (a human face and snake body person), lord of the Er-fu country. This was a story carried in the HAI-NEI BEI JING section of the said book, which listed the Er-fu country as located to the northwest of Kaiti [which was in turn juxtaposed with the Hunnic and Lie-ren countries]. The emperor was shocked to find out about the matching description. After that, ministers flocked to locate the book in the imperial library for reading. Liu Xiu, in talking about his father’s dialogue with the emperor, further claimed that Dongfang Shuo, a minister of Emperor Wudi’s times, had recognized the ‘Chong [repetitive] chang [ordinary]‘ bird on basis of the same book. Wang Chong, in BIE TONG (alternative learning) of LUN HENG, mentioned the Er-fu corpse story as well as the ‘Chong [repetitive] chang [ordinary]‘ bird story; however, Wang Chong possibly erred in saying that Dong Zhongshu, another Emperor Wudi’s minister, made the claim. Guo Pu, a Jinn Dynasty historian, had a slightly different recital of the excavation story from Wang Chong’s. Guo Pu, in his preface to SHAN HAI JING, claimed that Dongfang Shuo knew the Bifang-niao’s bird name, also a name from SHAN HAI JING.

This webmaster believed that the mountain part of the book was very ancient, probably earlier than the 4th century B.C.E.; however, the sea part was from the later times, and that SHAN HAI JING’s section on the seas could not be earlier than TIAN WEN (asking heaven), i.e., poet Qu Yuan’s poem as collected in CHU CI (the Chu Principality prose and poems), and TIAN WEN could not be earlier than THE BAMBOO ANNALS. SHAN HAI JING, in the relatively newer sections on the seas’ part, mentioned two rivers of Fei[2]-shui and Chuang-shui for this area, apparently echoing the TIAN WEN poem by Qu Yuan [343-289 B.C.], in which the poet used the word ‘fei zhi’ to ask how come the [You-yi-shi] beauty was so buxom and used the word ‘ji chuang’ to infer a sudden attack [at the Shang ancestor-prince Wang-hai] on the bed. In 530 B.C., Jinn minister Xun Wu, in disguise of having an injunction with the Qi army, borrowed a path from the Xianyu-guo state to intrude into the capital city Xiyang (Jinxian, Hebei) of the Gu-guo state. The Jinn army eliminated the Fei[2]-guo state (Gaocheng, Hebei), and captured the Ji-surnamed Fei[2]-guo lord, i.e., viscount Mian-gao of the Dongshan-gaoluo-shi tribe. The land of the Fei[2]-guo people must have a Fei-shui River.

In this sense, SHAN HAI JING was apparently some book that was written without any scientific background or a book that randomly picked words or phrases from some ancient books to fabricate some sensensational paragraphs – which led the future scholars on a path of no return.

The suffix ‘Jing’ in SHAN HAI JING, which more likely meant for the traverse of mountain ranges in the mountains’ section of the said book, was extrapolated to be some kind of classics in the naming of the seas’ sections, a patented Han dynasty suffix, meaning classics or religious canons, which was appended to Lao-zi’s purportedly-written Taoist book DAO [the way] DE [virtues] JING and Confucius’ edited books of SHU[-JING], SHI[-JING], LI[-JING], YI[-JING], and CHUN-QIU-[JING].

(Note the below dates for deduction of cause and effect: Shi-zi, 390-330 B.C.E., i.e., Shang Yang’s disciple, could be responsible for producing THE BAMBOO ANNALS that was buried in Wei King Xiangwang’s tomb in 296 B.C.E. Hence, SHAN HAI JING’s section on the seas could not be earlier than TIAN WEN, and TIAN WEN could not be earlier than THE BAMBOO ANNALS.)

THE TRUE MEANING OF ‘JING’ IN SHAN HAI JING

While the book is commonly known as SHAN HAI JING (i.e, The Legends of Mountains and Seas), the original meaning of the word “jing”, that was similarly suffixed with the ancient true classics, such as [SHANG-]SHU and SHI[-JING], actually had an intrinsic denotation for the territorial boundary or the lines of demarcation.

According to 贾雯鹤, the “jing” word meant for the boundary as MENCIUS and HAN SHU (The Book of Western Han Dynasty) adopted.

章学诚《文史通义》卷一“经解中”: 《孟子》云:“行仁政必自经界始”,地界言经,取经界之意也。是以地理之书,多以经名。《汉志》有《山海经》,《隋志》乃有《水经》,后代州郡地理多称《图经》,义皆本于经界。书亦自存掌故,不与著述同科,其于六艺之文,固无嫌也。

《孟子·滕文公上》:“夫仁政必自经界始,经界不正,井地不均,谷禄不平。”赵岐注:“经,亦界也。必先正其经界,勿侵邻国,乃可均井田,平谷禄。”焦循疏云:“赵氏以此经界即各国之疆界。”

《汉书·食货志上》:“理民之道,地著为本。故必建步立晦,正其经界。”

According to scholar Yuan Ke, the “jing” word meant for “passing through” or “travelling through”.

珂案:山海經之「經」,乃「經歷」之「經」,意謂山海之所經,初非有「經典」之義。書君奭:「弗克經歷。」注:「不能經久歷遠。」此「經歷」連文之最早者也。孟子盡心下篇:「經德不回。」注:「經,行也。」猶與「經歷」之義為近。至於由「常」、「法」之「經」引申而為「經典」之「經」乃較晚矣。…觀乎此,則山海經尤以其中成書較早之五臧(藏)山經(約成于戰國時代)之稱「經」,其非「經典」而只是「經歷」之意,亦可以明矣。

SHI ZI’S POSSIBLE LINK TO SIMILAR WRITINGS IN NORTH CHINA (The Wei Principality) & SOUTH CHIHNA (Sichuan Province)

Below passage is an excerpt from http://imperialchina.org/Pre-history.html

Shi-zi, who had fled to today’s Sichuan after Shang-yang’s death in 338 B.C.E. via five horses splitting the body, could be the same person who wrote the legendary book SHAN HAI JING (i.e, The Legends of Mountains and Seas). Both the book SHI ZI and the book SHAN HAI JING, with the fingerprint of today’s Sichuan locality — the ancient land of exile for Qin Dynasty just like Siberia being the land of exile for Russia and Ningguta being the land of exile for the Manchus, carried some similar history accounts from the southern or southwestern Chinese perspectives in addition to the statements from the books excavated from Wei King Xiangwang’s tomb. The only other book that carried accounts of the real locality of the long-arm people would be “Zhou King Muwang’s Legends” (MU TIAN ZI), a fictional book that was excavated from the tomb of Wei Principality King Xiangwang (?-296 B.C.E.) during the Western Jinn Dynasty, together with the Bamboo Annals and Zhou Shu (i.e., the [upper] Zhou Dynasty Records, a book that Confucius [551-479 B.C.E.] had purportedly abridged from Shang(3) Shu as the “wasted films”.) When ancient historians dug in to find more about Shi-zi, they invariably claimed that Shi-zi was from the principality of Wei. The limited dots to connect between SHI ZI and Shan [mountain] Hai [sea] Jing [records] was that the book Shan [mountain] Hai [sea] Jing [records], other than the linkage to MU TIAN ZI, had the flavor of southern China (i.e., the mid-Yangtze land of the Chu Principality, including the Sichuan basin – where Shi-zi fled in 338 B.C.E. and died there in 330 B.C.E.) and Shi-zi (390-330 B.C.E.) had the time to produce the books to be buried in Wei King Xiangwang’s tomb in 296 B.C.E.

《竹书纪年》黄帝轩辕氏: “五十九年,贯胸氏来宾,长股氏来宾。” (《山海经·海外南经》引《尸子》曰:“四夷之民有贯胸者,有深目者,有长肱者,黄帝之德常致之。”)

《穆天子传》卷二: 壬午,天子北征,东还。甲申,至于黑水,西膜之所谓鸿鹭。于是降雨七日。天子留骨六师之属。天子乃封长肱于黑水之西河。是惟鸿鹭之上,以为周室主。是曰留国之邦。

《山海经 大荒南经》:大荒之中,有山名(歹ㄎ)涂之山,青水穷焉。有云雨之山,有木名曰栾。禹攻云雨,有赤石焉生栾,黄本,赤枝,青叶,群帝焉取药。有国曰颛顼,生伯服,食黍。有鼬姓之国。有苕山。又有宗山。又有姓山。又有壑山。又有陈州山。又有东州山。又有白水山,白水出焉,而生白渊,昆吾之师所浴也。有人曰张弘,在海上捕鱼。海中有张弘之国,食鱼,使四鸟。有人焉,鸟喙,有翼,方捕鱼于海。大荒之中,有人名曰欢头。鲧妻士敬,士敬子曰炎融,生欢头。欢头人面鸟喙,有翼,食海中鱼,杖翼而行。维宜芑苣,穋杨是食。有欢头之国。

《山海经第 海外南经》:长臂国 “双肱三尺,体如中人。彼曷为者,长臂之民。修脚是负,捕鱼海滨。”

《山海经第 海外南经》:贯匈国在其东,其为人匈有窍。

《山海经第 海外北经》:深目國在其東,為人舉一手一目,在共工臺東。無腸之國在深目東,其為人長而無腸。

Tang Shigui, who had good research into SHAN HAI JING, at one time claimed that Shi-zi, who had written books with twice the volume of SHAN HAI JING, might have played a role in the production of the Sinitic version of SHAN HAI JING if he was not the person who actually wrote SHAN HAI JING. (Tang’s view was that SHAN HAI JING was a product of the Sichuan basin which used to possess the Shu and Ba languages that differed from the Sinitic language. Tang’s viewpoint could be correct for the within-seas and overseas section of SHAN HAI JING, but not the mountain part of SHAN HAI JING, which should be properly termed the geography of the Sinitic people versus the Yi people in eastern China.)

This webmaster’s additional comments: SHI ZI could be a latter-day add-on as well since half of the original texts were lost in the Three Kingdom time period, and the majority of the re-compiled texts were lost again in the Soong Dynasty. (Sima Qian’s so-called “historian’s comments” themselves could be a later add-on, rather than Sima Qian’s original words, as we had extensively talked about the forgery statement about Qi Lord Huan’gong crossing the Kumtag Desert in GUAN ZI, wherein Sima Qian was purportedly cited to have commented on GUAN ZI which was in fact a forgery after Sima Qian.)

A good article articulating the Sichuan factor, i.e., the influence of the ancient Ba and Shu statelets, could be seen at http://www.360doc.com/content/07/0501/03/24133_476329.shtml, where Tang Shigui brilliantly linked the book SHAN HAI JING or components of the book SHAN HAI JING to the cited words or statement carried in the later book LV-SHI CHUN-QIU (《吕氏春秋·本味》, i.e., Lv Buwei’s Annals of Springs and Autums), a book compiled by Lv Buwei [?-235 B.C.E.] after being exiled to the Sichuan land by Qin Emperor Shihuangdi, as well as to the Han Dynasty book HUAI NAN ZI (《淮南子》, “The Book by King Huai-nan of Han Dynasty”). –Meng Wentong (蒙文通) and Wei Juxian pushed the southern origin further by speculating that the book could be written by Sui-cao-zi (随巢子), a purpotedly Indian-origin disciple of philosopher Mo-zi (墨翟), with an abused name of Mo which literally meant dark and hence was postulated to be a dark-faced person.

《尚书》: “禹平水土、主名山川”

《列子》:“大禹行而见之,伯益知而名之,夷坚闻而志之。” (Lie-zi, like Zhuang-zhi, should be treated as philosophical fables, not real history.)

《国语·郑语》说“少昊之后伯益” (《世说新语·言语》二十二云:“大禹生于东夷”) (《太平御览》第八十二卷引《帝王世纪》:“伯禹夏后氏,姒姓也。……故名文命,字高密。身九尺二寸,长于西羌夷人”。) (史记集解》引皇甫谧:《孟子》称禹生石纽,西夷之人也。) (《吴越春秋·越王无余外传》:鲧娶于有莘氏之女……生高密,家于西羌,地曰石纽,石纽在蜀西川也。 (西汉)扬雄《蜀王本纪》:禹本汶山郡广柔县人,生于石纽,其地名刳儿坪。 《三国志·蜀书》:禹生石纽,今之汶州郡是也。 《括地志》:茂州汶川县石纽山,在县西北十三里。)

司马迁《史记·大宛列传》:“至《禹本纪》、《山[海]经》所有怪物,余不敢言之也。”

刘歆《山海经表》:“已定《山海经》者,出于唐虞之际……禹别九州,任上作贡,而益等类物善恶,著《山海经》。 皆圣贤之遗事,古文之著明者也,其事质明有信。 ” (《山海经》者,出于唐虞之际。昔洪水洋溢,漫衍中国,民人失据, 于丘陵,巢于树林。鲧既无功,而帝尧使禹继之。禹乘四载,随山 (刊)木,定高山大川。益与伯翳主驱禽兽,命山川,类草木,别水土。四岳佐之,以周四方,逮人际之所希至,及舟典之所罕到。内别五方之山,外分八方之海,纪其珍宝奇物,异方之所生,水土草木禽兽昆虫麟凤之所止,祯祥之所隐,及四海之外,绝域之国,殊类之人。禹别九州,任土作贡,而益等类物善恶,著《山海经》。)

(东汉)王充《论衡·别通篇》:“禹主行水,益主记异物,海外山表,无所不至,以所记闻作《山海经》。” (禹、益并治洪水,禹主治水,益主记异物,海外山表,无远不至,以所闻见作《山海经》。非禹益不能行远,《山海经》不造。然则《山海经》之造,见物博也。董仲舒[197-104 B.C.E.]睹重常之鸟,刘子政晓贰负之尸,皆见《山海经》,故能立二事之说。使禹、益行地不远,不能作《山海经》;董、刘不读《山海经》,不能定二疑。)

张华《博物志》: “ 余视《山海经》及《禹贡》、《尔雅》、《说文》、地志, 虽曰悉备, 各有所不载者, 作略说。出所不见,粗言远方, 陈山川位象, 吉凶有微。诸国境界, 犬牙相人。春秋之后, 并相侵伐。其土地不可具详, 其山川地泽, 略而言之, 正国十二。博物之士, 览而鉴焉。”

郭璞《注山海经叙》: “蓋此書跨世七代,歷載三千,雖暫顯于漢,而尋亦寢廢,其山川名號,所在多有舛謬,與今不同,師訓莫傳,遂將湮泯,道之所存,俗之所喪,悲夫,余有懼焉,故為之創傳,疏其壅閡,辟其蕪,領其玄致,標其洞涉,庶几令逸文不坠于世,奇言不绝于今,夏后之迹,靡刑于将来,八荒之事,有闻于后裔,不亦可乎。,夫<艸翳>薈之翔,叵以論垂天之凌,蹄涔之游,無以知絳虬之騰,鈞天之庭,豈伶人之所躡,無航之津,豈蒼兕之所涉,非天下之至通,難與言山海之義矣,嗚呼,達觀博物之客,其鑒之哉!”

晋陶渊明《读〈山海经〉十三首》:“泛览《周王传》,流观《山海图》。”

(晋)王嘉《拾遗记》(梁) 萧绮《序》:《拾遗记》者,晋陇西安阳人王嘉字子年所撰,凡十九卷,二百二十篇,皆为残缺。当伪秦之季,王纲迁号,五都沦覆,河洛之地,没为戎墟,宫室榛芜,书藏堙毁。荆棘霜露,岂独悲于前王;鞠为禾黍,弥深嗟于兹代!故使典章散灭,黉馆焚埃,皇图帝册,殆无一存,故此书多有亡散。文起羲、炎已来,事讫西晋之末,五运因循,十有四代。王子年乃搜撰异同,而殊怪必举,纪事存朴,爱广尚奇。宪章稽古之文,绮综编杂之部。《山海经》所不载,夏鼎未之或存,乃集而记矣。辞趣过诞,意旨迂阔,推理陈迹,恨为繁冗。多涉祯祥之书,博采神仙之事,妙万物而为言,盖绝世而弘博矣!

颜之推 (531-?595 A.D.) 《颜氏家训》卷6《书证》所云:“或问:‘《山海经》,夏禹及益所记,而有长沙、零陵、桂阳、诸暨,如此郡县不少,以为何也?’答曰:‘中之阙文,为日久矣;加复秦人灭学,董卓焚书,典籍错乱,非止于此。……皆由后人所羼,非本文也。”

《隋书·经籍志》:“萧何得秦图书,……后又得《山海经》,相传以为夏禹所记。”

《太平御览》第八十二卷引《吴越春秋》:“禹,案《黄帝中经》见圣人所记曰:‘在九疑山。东南天柱,号曰宛委。承以文玉,覆以盘石。’其书简,青玉为字,编以白银。禹乃东巡狩……遂周行天下,使益疏记之,名曰:《山海经》”。

宋朱熹《楚辞辨证》(下):“大抵古今说《天问》者,皆本此二书(按

指《山海经》和《淮南子》),今以文意考之,疑此二书,本皆缘解此《问》而作。”

宋朱熹《楚辞辨证》(下):“大抵古今说《天问》者,皆本此二书(按指《山海经》和《淮南子》),今以文意考之,疑此二书,本皆缘解此《问》而作。”

宋尤袤《山海经跋》:“《山海经》夏禹为之,非也。其间或援启及有穷、后羿之事,汉儒或谓伯翳为之,非也。然屈原《离骚》多摘取其山川,则言帝喾葬于阴,帝尧葬于阳,且继以文王皆葬其所。又言夏耕之尸也,则曰汤伐夏桀于章山,克之。其论相顾之尸也,则曰伯夷父死四岳,先生龙。按此三事,则不及夏启、后羿而已,是周初亦尝及之,定为先秦书,信矣。”

(南宋)王应麟: “《山海经》记诸异物飞走之类,多云东向,或日东首,疑本因图画而述之。古有此学,如《九歌》、《天问》皆其类”。

明胡应麟:“余尝疑战国好奇之士,本《穆天子传》之文与事,而侈大博极之,杂传以(汲冢纪年》之异闻。”

《四库全书总目提要》:“观书中载夏后启、周文王及秦汉长沙、象郡、余暨、下隽宿地名,断不作于三代以上,殆周秦间人所述,而后来好异者又附益之。”

袁珂:“以今考之,实非出一时一人之手,当为战国至汉初时楚人所作。”并且提出:“除《海内经》四卷是作于汉代初年而外,其余均作于战国时代。”

SPECULATION ON ZOU YAN TO BE THE SOURCE OF THE WRITINGS RELATED TO THE GREATER NINE PREFECTIRES

There was speculation that Zou Yan of the Qi Principality, who was at one time counselor to Yan King Zhaowang, was the author of SHAN HAI JING. Zou Yan (? 340 – ? 260 B.C.E.), counselor to Yan King Zhaowang,  who proposed the school of thought as to the nine prefectures of China and the nine greater prefectures of the world, was noted to be someone who widely wrote about the mountains and rivers of China. However, this is a simplistic assumption. Conversely, Zou Yan could have been influenced by SHAN HAI JING, instead, when he proposed the theory of the Greater Nine Prefectures. (Zou Yan, a representative scholar of the Ji-xia Academy of the Qi Principality, was speculated to have been responsible for producing the sophistry books of the Warring States time period.)

《史记》卷七十四〈孟子荀卿列传〉

其次驺衍,后孟子。驺衍睹有国者益淫侈,不能尚德,若大雅整之于身,施及黎庶矣。乃深观阴阳消息而作怪迂之变,终始、大圣之篇十余万言。其语闳大不经,必先验小物,推而大之,至于无垠。先序今以上至黄帝,学者所共术,大并世盛衰,因载其禨祥度制,推而远之,至天地未生,窈冥不可考而原也。先列中国名山大川,通谷禽兽,水土所殖,物类所珍,因而推之,及海外人之所不能睹。称引天地剖判以来,五德转移,治各有宜,而符应若兹。以为儒者所谓中国者,于天下乃八十一分居其一分耳。中国名曰赤县神州。赤县神州内自有九州,禹之序九州是也,不得为州数。中国外如赤县神州者九,乃所谓九州也。于是有裨海环之,人民禽兽莫能相通者,如一区中者,乃为一州。如此者九,乃有大瀛海环其外,天地之际焉。其术皆此类也。然要其归,必止乎仁义节俭,君臣上下六亲之施,始也滥耳。王公大人初见其术,惧然顾化,其后不能行之。……荀卿,赵人。年五十始来游学于齐。驺衍之术迂大而闳辩;奭也文具难施;淳于髡久与处,时有得善言。故齐人颂曰:「谈天衍,雕龙奭,炙毂过髡。」南朝宋·裴骃《史记集解》引刘向《别录》曰:「驺衍之所言五德终始,天地广大,尽言天事,故曰『谈天』。驺奭脩衍之文,饰若雕镂龙文,故曰『雕龙』。」

《孟子荀卿列传》:“自驺衍与齐之稷下先生,如淳于髡、慎到、环渊、接予、田骈、驺奭之徒,各著书言治乱之事,以干世主,岂可胜道哉!”

《田敬仲完世家》说:“宣王喜文学游说之士,自如驺衍、淳于髡、田骈、接予、慎到、环渊之徒七十六人。皆赐列第,为上大夫,不治而议论。是以齐稷下学士复盛,且数百千人。”

《汉书·艺文志》《邹子》班固注:“名衍,齐人,为燕昭王师,居稷下,号谈天衍。”

WANG CHONG CALLING THE BOOK BY ‘MOUTAIN’ ONLY

The book Shan [mountain] Hai [sea] Jing [records], which was named Shan [mountain] Jing [records] by Han Dynasty scholar Wang Chong – a person who succinctly summarized the ancient Japanese Wa people’s contact with the Chinese in the Yangtze River area to have started from Zhou King Chengwang’s era, was said to be limited to only one part of the presently-known components, namely, the records on the mountains of China – which was termed Wu [five] Zang [viscera of mother Earth] Shan [mountain] Jing [records] from the Warring States time period of late Western Zhou Dynasty. What the people were saying was that scholar Wang Chong, in commenting on Sima Qian’s comments in Shi Ji as far as Lord Yu’s Tributes and Records of the Mountains were concerned, was writing the words Shan [mountain] Jing [records], not Shan [mountain] Hai [sea] Jing [records]. The inference was that Sima Qian did not actually write the comment on Shan [mountain] Hai [sea] Jing [records], but Shan [mountain] Jing [records], yielding to a conclusion that the credible Chinese geography book Shan [mountain] Jing [records] (from the Warring States time period) was later mixed up with the mythical chapters from “The Book on the Within-Seas & the Over-Seas” and “The Book on the [Overseas] Wilderness” to become a highly speculative book Shan [mountain] Hai [sea] Jing [records].

–On basis of Sima Qian’s comment in Shi Ji, people speculated that Liu Xiang and Lin Xin must have bundled the two books SHAN JING (Records of the Mountains ,《山经》) and YU BEN JI (History of Lord Yu, (《禹本纪》) into the commonly-known SHAN HAI JING, with the former said to be comprising of the five chapters on the mountains and the latter the chapters on the “[within-]seas & [over-]seas”.

Nevertheless, “The Book on the Over-Seas” contained chapters wherein later Jinn Dynasty historian Guo Pu had annotated to state to the effect that in the section on the “Records of the Southern Land Beyond the [Over-]Seas”, Shi-zi of the 4th century B.C.E. had the corroboration that there were countries of through-chest people, people with deeply-set eyes, and long brachial people beyond the Chinese border, while repeatedly numerous sections of Shan [mountain] Hai [sea] Jing [records] stated in the “Records of the Northern Land Beyond the [Over-]Seas” that there was to the northern direction the country with people with deeply-set eyes. In this sense, Shan [mountain] Hai [sea] Jing [records] would have contained both the parts on the mountains and the parts on the seas by the 4th century B.C.E., if not the 3rd part on the “Overseas Wilderness” that Guo Pu added during the Jinn Dynasty.

It was commonly acknowledged that father Liu Xiang and son Liu Xin had assembled the records on the mountains and seas to name it Shan [mountain] Hai [sea] Jing [records], while before that, i.e., Sima Qian’s times, it could be merely named Wu [five] Zang [viscera of mother Earth] Shan [mountain] Jing [records] or the “The Book on the Mountains”. It was Guo Pu from Jinn Dynasty, who added “The Book on the [Overseas] Wilderness” to the book Shan [mountain] Hai [sea] Jing [records]. As we discussed in the Koreans and Japanese sections, the geography records were quite accurate as to the Korean peninsula, while what the “Book of Mountains and Seas” covered beyond Korea and Japan appeared to be weird and wild. One more point about the origin of ancient classics from Sichuan or southern China could be seen in the comparatively correct details of the Middle Mountain Range from Wu [five] Zang [viscera of mother Earth] Shan [mountain] Jing [records], in comparison with the Southern, Northern, Eastern and Western Mountain Ranges of China.

THE IMPACT of the MOUNTAIN PART of SHAN HAI JING on LV-SHI CHUN-QIU (by 贾雯鹤)

(一)《吕氏春秋·本味》:“肉之美者:猩猩之唇,貛貛之炙。”

《山海经·南山经》:“又东三百里曰青丘之山,……有鸟焉,其状如鸡,其音如呵,名曰灌灌。”灌灌,郭注:“或作濩濩。”郝懿行疏:“《吕氏春秋·本味篇》云:‘肉之美者,貛貛之炙。’高诱注云:‘獾獾,鸟名,其形未闻。獾一作獲。’今案:獾与灌、獲与濩俱字形相近,即此鸟明矣。”可知《本味》之“獾獾”即《南山经》之“灌灌”。

(二)《本味》:“醴水之鱼,名曰朱鳖,六足,有珠百碧。”

《东山经》:“又南三百八十里,曰葛山之首,无草木。澧水出焉,东流注于余泽,其中多珠鳖鱼,其状如 而有目,六足有珠,其味酸甘,食之无疠。”郝疏:“《吕氏春秋》作‘朱鳖’,郭氏《江赋》作‘赪鳖’,是经文珠朱、蟞鳖并古字通用。”可知《本味》之“朱鳖”即《东山经》之“珠鳖”。

(三)《本味》:“雚水之鱼,名曰鳐,其状若鲤而有翼,常从西海夜飞,游于东海。”

《西山经》:“又西百八十里,曰泰器之山。观水出焉,西流注于流沙。是多文鳐鱼,状如鲤鱼,鱼身而鸟翼,苍文而白首赤喙,常行西海,游于东海,以夜飞。其音如鸾鸡,其味酸甘,食之已狂,见则天下大穰。”郝疏以“观水”、“文鳐鱼”即《本味》之“雚水”、“鳐”。

(四)《本味》:“菜之美者,昆仑之苹。”

《西山经》:“西南四百里,曰昆仑之丘……有草焉,名曰 草,其状如葵,其味如葱,食之已劳。”郭璞即引《本味》文以作注,可知郭氏以“ 草”即《本味》之“苹”。段玉裁《说文解字注》于“ ”字下云:“ 、苹古今字”,亦可知二者实一。

(五)《本味》:“和之美者:阳朴之姜,招摇之桂。”

《南山经》:“《南山经》之首曰 山。其首曰招摇之山,临于西海之上,多桂。”郭璞即引《本味》文以作注,可知二者为一。

(六)《本味》:“水之美者:……沮江之丘,名曰摇水。”

《西山经》:“又西三百二十里,曰槐江之山……爰有淫水,其清洛洛。”槐江之山,郝疏:“《吕氏春秋·本味篇》云:‘水之美者,沮江之丘,名曰摇水。’疑沮江即槐江。”爰有淫水,其清洛洛,郭注:“水留下之貌也。淫音遥也。”郝疏:“陶潜《读山海经诗》云‘落落清瑶流’,是洛洛本作落落,淫本作瑶,皆假借声类之字。陈寿祺曰:‘淫无遥音,经文淫字必传写之讹。’当是也。瑶水即瑶池,《史记·大宛传》赞云:‘《禹本纪》言昆仑上有醴泉、瑶池’,《穆天子传》云:‘西王母觞天子于瑶池’是也。《吕氏春秋·本味篇》又作‘摇水’,并古字通用。郭注‘留’当为溜或流字。”淫水,《四部丛刊》本、毕沅校本、《百子全书》本《山海经》并作滛水,淫当为滛字之形讹,犹如《方言》卷十:“媱、惕,游也。”戴震注:“媱多讹作婬,曹毅之本不误。”堪为之比。滛、瑶、摇并音近字通。可知“槐江之山”、“淫(滛)水”即《本味》之“沮江之丘”、“摇水”。

(七)《本味》:“水之美者:……高泉之山,其上有涌泉焉,冀州之原。”

《中山经》:“又东南五十里,曰高前之山。其上有水焉,甚寒而清,帝台之浆也,饮之者不心痛。”郝疏:“《吕氏春秋·本味篇》云:‘水之美者,高泉之山,其上有涌泉焉。’即此。泉、前声同也。”《左传·昭公二十二年》:“晋箕遗、乐征、右行诡济师,取前城。”《水经注·伊水》引服虔云:“前读为泉,周地也。”可为郝说之证。

(八)《本味》:“果之美者:沙棠之实。”高诱注:“沙棠,木名也。昆仑山有之。”

《西山经》:“西南四百里,曰昆仑之丘……有木焉,其状如棠,黄华赤实,其味如李而无核,名曰沙棠,可以御水,食之使人不溺。”郭璞亦引《本味》文作注,可知二者实一。

The Impact of the “[within-]seas & [over-]seas” and “[overseas] wilderness” parts of SHAN HAI JING on HUAI NAN ZI

《海内西经》:昆仑之虚,方八百里,高万仞。……赤水出东南隅,以行其东,北(衍文)西南流,注南海,厌火(光)东。河水出东北隅,以行其北,西南又(衍文)入勃海,又出海外,即西而北,入禹所导(衍文)积石(夺“之”)山。洋水、黑水出西北隅以东,东行又东北,(夺数句)南入海,羽民南。弱水、青水出西南隅以东,又北(衍二字,又夺“西行”)又西南,过毕方鸟东。

《海内西经》:流沙出钟山,西行又南行,昆仑之虚(四字衍)西南入海。

《大荒西经》:流沙之滨,赤水之后,黑水之前,有大山名曰昆仑之邱,……其下有弱水之渊(二字衍)环之。

《淮南子·地形》:河水出昆仑东北隅,贯勃海,入禹所导(衍文)积石(夺“之”)山。赤水出其东南陬,西南注南海,丹泽之东。赤水之东(四字衍)弱水出穷石,至于合黎,余波入于流沙,绝流沙,南至南海。洋水出其西北陬,(夺数句)入于南海,羽民之南。

SHAN HAI JING & Ancient Korea/Japan

《山海经·海內經》:“东海之内,北海之隅,有国名曰朝鲜;天毒,其人水居,偎人爱之。” ((晋,苻秦)王嘉《拾遗录》: [燕昭王]七年,沐胥之国来朝,则申毒国之一名也。道术人名尸?。问其年,云:“百三十岁。”荷锡持瓶,云:“发其国五年乃至燕都。)(太平广记》卷二八四《天毒国道人》“沐骨”)

–The attempt to attribute “Tian Du (天毒)” to a county near Pyongyang of Korea, instead of adopting the word-for-word denotation as “heavenly Indus” for India could be strenuous. In Wang Jia’s Shi-yi-ji (Records of Collected Extant Records), there was a reference to a visit by an Indian to Yan King Zhaowang [335-279 B.C.E.] during the king’s 7th reign, which could mean that buddhism had already spread to China in the 4th century B.C.E.)

《山海經·海內北經》: 盖国在钷燕南,倭北,倭属燕。朝鲜在列阳东,海北山南。列阳属燕。列姑射在海河州中。射姑国在海中,属列姑射,西南山环之。(晋郭璞注《山海经·海内北经》:“朝鮮,今乐浪县,箕子所封也。”)

Someone called A-bo [阿波] from Zigong, Sichuan Province, who believed everything in 《山海經》was about history of the refugees of the Xia Dynasty people, disputed the reference of “朝云”、“朝歌”、“朝鲜”as meaning what the ancient Qiangic people denoted the Xia refugee dynasty in today’s Sichuan, which was speculated to have founded the Sanxingdui Bronze Civilization. What A-bo said was that the two characters of chao-xian [朝鲜] should be reversed to be xian-chao [鲜朝] , while the character ‘xian’ [鲜] was a combination of fish and sheep, with fish a totem of the ancient Shu civilization. This claim was strenuous. As seen in the Wu [five] Zang [viscera of mother Earth] Shan [mountain] Jing [records], the detailed descriptions of geography on the “middle” mountain range was not limited to the mountains in today’s Sichuan basin, but the whole area of today’s Shenxi, Henan, Shanxi and Hebei provinces, and centered on the known rivers in history, i.e., the Yellow River, the Luo-shui River, and the Han-shui River etc.

《山海經·海外東經》說:“ 谷上有扶桑,十日所浴。”

As far as the records on Japan was concerned, the northern within-seas section (《山海經·海內北經》) stated that the ancient statelet of Gai-guo [which was speculated to be somewhere in southern Korea but more likely a word for word denotation of today's locality of the Gai-zhou prefecture on the Liaodong peninsula) was to the north of Wa [Japan] and to the south of [Great] Yan; and further stated that Wa [Japan] belonged to Yan. There was no reference to Wa [Japan] as the land of Fu-sang yet. In the eastern over-seas section (《山海經·海外東經經》) , a wild speculation was made to infer the existence of a tree called by Fu-sang at the place of Tang-gu [spring valley], where the ten suns rose. What this overseas section implied could still be a place on the Shandong peninsula, and would not be extended to the Americas till in the section on the overseas wilderness. See below for deduction on Confucius’ talk on the gentlemen’s country for more precise meaning of Fu-sang.

SHAN HAI JING & the Pacific Islands and the Americas

In SHAN HAI JING, there was a frequent citation of “fu-sang”,  a word to denote Japan or the Americas in the future. This webmaster believes that there were two or three denotings for this word. At the very beginning, like during the time of ancient overlords Yao-Shun-Yu and Xia Dynaty, Fu-sang was more likely a “physical” locality on the eastern tip of the Shandong peninsula. By the 4th century B.C.E., when SHAN HAI JING came into the shape as seen today, it was to designate some fuzzy land in the seas, at about the time Confucius and his disciples were wondering aloud about the whereabouts of the so-called “junzi-guo” (i.e., the Gentlemen’s Country) and the Nine Ancient Yi People. In the ensuing hundreds of years, the locality of “fu-sang” became more precise, namely, about 20,000 li to the east of “Da-han-guo” [which was 5000 li to the east of the tattoo country that in turn was 7000 li to the east of Wa Japan] or 30,000 li to the east of China. The Black-Teeth Country, which used to be located on the Shandong peninsula – as shown in SHAN HAI JING and HUAI NAN ZI, was similarly extended to point to a country somewhere in the Americas, that could be reached by travelling on boat for let’s say one year.

《山海经·海外东经》:  ”黑齿国在其北,为人黑(齿),食稻啖蛇,一赤一青,在其旁。一曰在坚亥北,为人黑(首)(手),食稻使蛇,其一蛇赤。下有汤谷,汤谷上有扶桑,十日所浴,在黑齿北。居水中,有大木,九日居下枝,一曰居上枝。

《山海经·大荒南经》: 大荒之中,有山名曰天台高山,海水入焉。东南海之外,甘水之闲,有羲和之国。有女子名曰羲和,方日浴于甘渊。羲和者,帝俊之妻,生十日。

《山海经·大荒》: “大荒之中有山,名曰孼摇頵羝,上有扶木,柱三百里,其叶如芥。有谷,日温源谷。汤谷上有扶木,一日主至,一日方出,皆载于乌。” “有黑齿之国。帝俊生黑齿,姜姓,黍食,使四鸟。

《吕氏春秋·求人篇》:禹东至搏木之地,日出九津,青羌之野,攒树之所,抿大之山,鸟谷、青丘之乡,黑齿之国。

(汉)东方朔《神异经东方经》:“盖扶桑山有玉鸡,玉鸡鸣则金鸡鸣,金鸡鸣则石鸡鸣,石鸡鸣则天下之鸡悉鸣,潮水应之矣”。

《淮南子·修务训》:“东至黑齿,北抚幽都”)

《淮南子·时则训》: “东方之极,自碣石山过,贯大人之国,东至日出之次, 榑木之地,青土树木之野”

《后汉书·东夷传》:“倭国东四千(按郝懿行注)有裸国。裸国东南有黑齿国。船行一年可到。”

(晋)皇甫谧《高士传》:“安期生者,琅琊人也,受学河上丈人,卖药海边,老而不仕,时人谓之千岁公。秦始皇东游,请与语三日三夜,赐金璧直数千万”。安期生:“后数年求我于蓬莱山”。 始皇“即遣使者徐市(音福)、卢生等数百人入海。未至蓬莱山,辄遇风波而还。立祠阜乡亭并海边十数处”。

(晋)王嘉《拾遗记》高辛 “有丹丘之国,献码瑙瓮,以盛甘露。帝德所洽,被于殊方,以露充于厨也。码瑙,石类也,南方者为之胜。…当黄帝时,码瑙瓮至,尧时犹存,甘露在其中,盈而不竭,谓之宝露,以班赐群臣。至舜时,露已渐减。随帝世之污隆,时淳则露满,时浇则露竭,及乎三代,减于陶唐之庭。舜迁宝瓮于衡山之上,故衡山之岳有宝露坛。舜于坛下起月馆,以望夕月。舜南巡至衡山,百辟群后皆得露泉之赐。时有云气生于露坛,又迁宝瓮于零陵之上。舜崩,瓮沦于地下。至秦始皇通汨?之流为小溪,径从长沙至零陵,掘地得赤玉瓮,可容八斗,以应八方之数,在舜庙之堂前。后人得之,不知年月。至后汉东方朔识之,朔乃作《宝瓮铭》曰“宝云生于露坛,祥风起于月馆,望三壶如盈尺,视八鸿如萦带。”三壶,则海中三山也。一曰方壶,则方丈也;二曰蓬壶,则蓬莱也;三曰瀛壶,则瀛洲也。”

(晋)王嘉《拾遗记》(梁) 萧绮 录曰:楚令尹子革有言曰:“昔穆王欲肆心周行,使天下皆有车辙马迹。”考以《竹书》蠹简,求诸石室,不绝金绳。《山经》、《尔雅》,及乎《大传》,虽世历悠远,而记说叶同。名山大川,肆登之极,殊乡异俗,莫不臆拜稽颡。东升巨人之台,西宴王母之堂,南渡鼋鼍之梁,北经积羽之地。觞瑶池而赋诗,期井泊而游博。勒石轩辕之丘,绝迹玄圃之上。自开辟以来,载籍所记,未有若斯神异者也。

《梁书》:”其俗旧无佛法,宋大明二年 (458),罽宾国尝有比丘五人游行至其国,流通佛法、经像,教令出家,风俗遂改。慧深又云:“扶桑东千余里有女国,…” “扶桑国,在昔未闻也。普通中(520-527年),有道人称自彼而至,其言元本尤悉,故并录焉”。

(唐)姚思廉《梁书•诸夷列传》:”晋安帝时,有倭王赞。赞死,立弟弥;弥死,立子济;济死,立子兴;兴死,立弟武。齐建元中,除武持节、督倭、新罗、任那、伽罗、秦韩、慕韩六国诸军事、镇东大将军。高祖即位,进武号征东将军。其南有侏儒国,人长三四尺。又南黑齿国、裸国,去倭四千余里,船行可一年至。又西南万里有海人,身黑眼白,裸而丑。其肉美,行者或射而食之。文身国,在倭国东北七千余里。人体有文如兽,其额上有三文,文直者贵,文小者贱。土俗欢乐,物丰而贱,行客不赍粮。有屋宇,无城郭。其王所居,饰以金银珍丽。绕屋为緌,广一丈,实以水银,雨则流于水银之上。市用珍宝。犯轻罪者则鞭杖;犯死罪则置猛兽食之,有枉则猛兽避而不食,经宿则赦之。大汉国,在文身国东五千余里。无兵戈,不攻战。风俗并与文身国同而言语异。“扶桑国者,齐永元元年(499年),其国有沙门慧深来至荆州,说云:‘扶桑国在大汉国东二万余里,地在中国之东。其土多扶桑木,故以为 名”

(梁)慧皎《高僧传》:“沙门慧深,亦基之弟子。深与同学法洪,并以戒素见重。”

通典邊防典 通典卷第一百八十五  邊防一   邊防序   東夷上      覆載之內,日月所臨,華夏居土中,生物受氣正。李淳風云,談天者八家,其七家,甘氏、石氏、渾天之類。以度數推之,則華夏居天地之中也。又歷代史,倭國一名日本,在中國直東;扶桑國復在倭國之東,約去中國三萬里,蓋近於日出處。

Tang Dynasty Fiction 《梁四公记》 (《四公记》) [《新唐书・艺文志》、《宋史・艺文志》、(宋)陈振孙《直斋书录解题》]: 梁天监中,有罣闯(上音携,下琛去)颥杰(上万,下杰)、麸黅(上蜀,下湍)、仉肾(上掌,下覩)四公谒武帝,帝见之甚悦,因命沈隐侯约作覆,将与百僚共射之。 ….杰公尝与诸儒语及方域云:“东至扶桑,扶桑之蚕长七尺,围七寸,色如金,四时不死。五月八日呕黄丝,布于条枝,而不为茧。脆如綖,烧扶桑木灰汁煮之,其丝坚韧,四丝为系,足胜一钧。蚕卵大如燕雀卵,产于扶桑下。赍卵至句丽国,蚕变小,如中国蚕耳。…。”朝廷闻其言,拊掌笑谑,以为诳妄,曰。邹衍九州、王嘉拾遗之谈耳。司徒左长史王筠难之曰:“书传所载,女国之东,蚕崖之西,狗国之南,羌夷之别种,一女为君,无夫蛇之理,与公说不同,何也?”公曰:“以今所知,女国有六,…。”俄而扶桑国使使贡方物,有黄丝三百斤,即扶桑蚕所吐,扶桑灰汁所煮之丝也。

.

The Validation of Existence of Monk Hui-shen (慧深) in Connection with the German Looting of Three Stone Monuments in 1899

According to the research of three students from the China Buddhism College, ( 日照天台悯寺与《梁书》慧深考证 (中国佛学院学员 弘法 妙真 向佛) ), Monk Hui-shen left northern China for the overseas (i.e., Americas) when Northern Wei Emperor Taiwudi, Tuoba Tao, cracked down on buddhism in A.D. 444, and returned to southern China in A.D. 499.

(中国佛学院) 弘法 妙真 向佛”日照天台悯寺与《梁书》慧深考证” “石鳯寺重建碑”:佛有三世,世世光明。寺有三劫,劫后复兴。先是,沙门慧深者,山下视饿殍而不见。殍曰:悯者,佛也。深大惊,知为佛祖点化。遂堆碎石为冢掩殍尸,化善缘建寺于冢侧,曰天台悯寺。后殍冢每显佛光,悯寺大兴。北魏肇始,佛门不幸,殃及悯寺,深愤而出海,此一劫也。北周武帝禁佛,毁寺塔,逐沙门,悯寺败落,此二劫也。唐初,有新罗僧智隐重建寺院,曰新罗寺,佛门再兴。然建文年間山火骤起,经书寺院毁于一旦,此三劫也。念我秦氏,自皈依佛门,世代相传。及至东海而海曲,回归赢氏故里,重续先祖香火,乃至子孙满堂,家业兴旺,实乃佛祖之佑也。今合族上下,募善款,置田产,重建寺院,再请高僧,弘扬佛法,普度众生。是役始于仲春,毕于孟夏,因山形而名,曰石鳳寺。又值我南无大慈大悲救苦救难广大灵感观世音菩萨成道圣日,立碑为证,乃记。

In 1899, in the aftermath of the “Clergymen Incident of Rizhao (sunshine shower) County“, the Germans looted China’s treasures prior to evacuation, including, among others, three ancient stone monuments at the coastal Mt Tiantaishan in Rizhao County:

  • i) the Ju-guo ancestral reverence monument at the Wangxianjian (fairy seeking) Creek (possibly erected by the sun-worshipping Ju-guo people from the Shang-Zhou dynasty time period),
  • ii) the reconstruction monument for the Shifeng-shi (stone phoenix) Monastery of Tanggu (spring valley), which was first built by Monk Huishen as Tiantai-min-shi [pity of the heavenly terrace] Monastery in the mid-5th century prior to his overseas trip to Fu-sang (?ancient Mexico), was rebuilt a second time by Silla monk Zhi-yin as the Silla Monastery in early Tang Dynasty, and was revamped by the Qin Dynasty descendants as Shi-feng-shi Monastery during Ming Dynasty; and
  • iii) the stone monument bearing three characters of “Ri Zhao Xian” (Rizhao County) that was erected by Korean confucian Zheng Mengzhou when visiting the Silla settlements on the Shandong coast in First Ming Dynasty Emperor Hongwu’s era. (In Tang Dynasty, there existed large-scale human smuggling operations in Korea, with Silla people sold to China as slaves. Hence the Korean settlements sprang up along the Shandong coast, where Li Shidao, a Korguryo descendant, colluded with Korean pirates in perpetrating the crime. Jang Bogo [790-846], who came to Tang China to serve in the Chinese imperial army, resigned to return to Korea in A.D. 824 to petition with the Silla king for the job to garrison the western Korean coast so as to ban the human trafficking.)

As Hong-fa, Miao-zhen and Xiang-fo, students from the Chinese Buidhist College, had validated, the reconstruction monument for the Shifeng-shi (stone phoenix) Monastery talked about three disasters the monastery suffered in the early history after the initial reconstruction by Monk Hui-shen. The specific reference was pointing to Monk Hui-shen’s construction of Tiantai-min-shi [pity of the heavenly terrace] at the foothill after collecting the corpses of starvation victims, followed by a) destruction to the monastery due to Northern Wei Dynasty emperor Taiwudi’s religious persecution in A.D. 444, b) destruction to the monastery due to Northern Zhou Dynasty emperor Wudi [reign 56-578]‘s prohibition of buddhism, and c) the destruction of the rebuilt Silla Monastery by fire during Ming Dynasty emperor Jianwendi’s era.

Citing Gao Seng Zhuan (Biographies of Distinguished Monks), written by Liang Dynasty monk Hui-jiao, the three Buddhist College students pointed out that Hui-shen was a disciple of renowned monk Hui-ji while Hui-ji was recorded to be born in A.D. 411, initiated into monkhood in A.D. 431, travelled to southern China to spread buiddhism and recruit disciples, and passed away in southern China in A.D. 496. It was hence speculated that Hui-shen, after becoming Hui-ji’s desciple, travelled to the Shandong peninsula where he built the soul-rescuing Tiantai-min-shi [pity of the heavenly terrace, i.e., the Terrace of "Ullambana" in Sanskrit] monastery at the foothill of Mt. Tiantanshan, where there still exist the remains of Wangxiantai [the terrace for spotting the fairy, i.e., An Qisheng, a legendary figure with whom Qin Emperor Shihuangdi had conversations about the elixirsin the seas, after which Qin Shihuangdi dispatched Xu Fu on an elixir-seeking trip in the East China Sea.]. And it was speculated that after Tuoba Wei Dynasty launched the budhhism extinction movement in A.D. 444, Monk Huishen departed China for the overseas trip to America.

.

Shan Hai Jing & the Iron Age

《山海经-山经》“禹曰:天下名山,经五千三百七十山,六万四千五十六里,居地也,言其五臧,盖其馀小山甚众,不足记云。天地之东西二万八千里,南北二万六千里,出水之山者八千里,受水者八千里,出铜之山四百六十七,出铁之山三千六百九十。此天地之所分壤树穀也,弋矛之所发也,刀鎩之所起也,能者有馀,拙者不足。封于泰山,禅于梁父,七十二家,得失之数皆在此内,是谓国用。”

Ancient China, since Shang Dynasty, had been using the iron from meteorites to make weapons and utensils smoldered onto bronze.  The earliest record about the usage of human-made iron was in year 513 B.C.E., when the Jinn Principality inscribed Fan Xuanzi’s penal code onto an iron cauldron.

《左传·昭公二十九年》:冬,晋赵鞅、荀寅帅师城汝滨,遂赋晋国一鼓铁,以铸刑鼎,著范宣子所为刑书焉。仲尼曰:“晋其亡乎!失其度矣。夫晋国将守唐叔之所受法度,以经纬其民,卿大夫以序守之。民是以能尊其贵,贵是以能守其业。贵贱不愆,所谓度也。文公是以作执秩之官,为被庐之法,以为盟主。今弃是度也,而为刑鼎,民在鼎矣,何以尊贵?贵何业之守?贵贱无序,何以为国?且夫宣子之刑,夷之蒐也,晋国之乱制也,若之何以为法?”蔡史墨曰:“范氏、中行氏其亡乎!中行寅为下卿,而干上令,擅做刑器,以为国法,是法奸也。又加范氏焉,易之,亡也。其及赵氏,赵孟与焉。然不得已,若德,可以免。”

The earliest record about steel-making in China was related to the two swords commissioned by King Heluu (reign 514-496 B.C.E.) of Wu Principality:

(汉)赵晔《吴越春秋.阖闾内传》:“阖闾请干将铸作名剑二枚。干将者吴人也,与欧冶子同师,俱能为剑,越前来献三枚,阖闾得而宝之。以故使剑匠作为二枚,一日干将,二日莫邪。……使童女童男三百人鼓囊装炭,金铁乃濡(ru),遂以成剑。”

Now, in one chapter of Shan Hai Jing alone, namely, the book on the middle mountain range, there were dozens of references to iron. What this means is that the book could have been written at about the time the iron was actually made in China, i.e., 600 B.C.E. around.

卷五 中山经

又东十五里,曰涹山,其上多赤铜,其阴多铁。

又东七十里,曰泰威之山,其中有谷曰枭谷,其中多铁。

又西七十二里,曰密山,其阳多玉,其阴多铁。豪水出焉,而南流注于洛,其中多旋龟,其状鸟首而鳖尾,其音如判木。无草木。

又西五十里,曰橐山,其木多樗,多木,其阳多金玉,其阴多铁,多萧。橐水出焉,而北流注于河。其中多修辟之鱼,状如黾而白喙,其音如鸱,食之已白癣。

又西九十里,曰夸父之山,其木多棕楠,多竹箭,其兽多牜乍牛羬羊,其鸟多鷩,其阳多玉,其阴多铁。其北有林焉,名曰桃林,是广员三百里,其中多马。湖水出焉,而北流注于河,其中多珚玉。

又东五十里,曰少室之山,百草木成囷。其上有木焉,其名曰帝休,叶状如杨,其枝五衢,黄华黑实,服者不怒。其上多玉,其下多铁。休水出焉,而北流注于洛,其中多<鱼帝>鱼,状如{执皿}蜼而长距,足白而对,食者无蛊疾,可以御兵。

又东二十五里,曰役山,上多白金,多铁。役水出焉,北流注于河。

又东三十里,曰大騩之山,其阴多铁、美玉、青垩。有草焉,其状如蓍而毛,青华而白实,其名曰{艹狼},服之不夭,可以为腹病。

东北百里,曰荆山,其阴多铁,其阳多赤金,其中多牦牛,多豹虎,其木多松柏,其草多竹,多橘櫾。漳水出焉,而东南流注于雎,其中多黄金,多鲛鱼,其兽多闾麋。

又东百三十里,曰铜山,其上多金银铁,其木多榖、柞、柤、栗、橘、櫾,其兽多犳。

又东南一百五十里,曰玉山,其上多金玉,其下多碧铁,其木多柏。

又东二百五十里,曰岐山,其上多白金,其下多铁。其木多梅梓,多杻楢。減水出焉,东南流注于江。

又东一百四十里,曰騩山,其阳多美玉赤金,其阴多铁,其木多桃枝荆芭。

又西五十里,曰虎尾之山,其木多椒椐,多封石,其阳多赤金,其阴多铁。

又西二十里,曰又原之山,其阳多青雘,其阴多铁,其鸟多雊鹆。

又东南二百里,曰帝囷之山,其阳多<王雩>琈之玉,其阴多铁。帝囷之水出于其上,潜于其下,多鸣蛇。

又东北八百里,曰兔床之山,其阳多铁,其木多藇其草多鸡谷,其本如鸡卵,其味酸甘,食者利于人。

又东三十里,曰鲜山,其木多楢杻苴,其草多{艹舋}冬,其阳多金,其阴多铁。有兽焉,其状如膜大,赤喙、赤目、白尾,见则其邑有火,名曰犭多即。

又东南一百里,曰求山。求水出于其上,潜于其下,中有美赭。其木多苴,多{媚}。其阳多金,其阴多铁。

又东七十里,曰丙山,多筀竹,多黄金铜铁,无木。

又东南五十里,曰风伯之山,其上多金玉,其下多痠石文石,多铁,其木多柳杻檀楮。其东有林焉,名曰莽浮之林,多美木鸟兽。

又东南一百十里,曰洞庭之山,其上多黄金,其下多银铁,其木多柤梨橘櫾,其草多葌、蘪芜芍药芎藭。帝之二女居之,是常游于江渊。澧沅之风,交潇湘之渊,是在九江之间,出入必以飘风暴雨。是多怪神,状如人而载蛇左右手操蛇。多怪鸟。

又东南一百八十里,曰暴山,其木多棕楠荆芑竹箭{媚}菌,其上多黄金玉,其下多文石铁,其兽多麋鹿{鹿旨}就。

禹曰:天下名山,经五千三百七十山,六万四千五十六里,居地也。言其五臧,盖其余小山甚众,不足记云。天地之东西二万八千里,南北二万六千里,出水之山者八千里,受水者八千里,出铜之山四百六十七,出铁之山三千六百九十。此天地之所分壤树谷也,戈矛之所发也,刀铩之所起也,能者有余,拙者不足。封于太山,禅于梁父,七十二家,得失之数,皆在此内,是谓国用。

(Guan-zi [《管子·地数》], similar to Shan Hai Jing, had numerous records as to iron. However, we could not use the history of Guan-zi to push the iron history to the 8th century B.C.E. since this book could be a latter-day add-on.)

.

Various Interpretation of the Locality Described by Shan Hai Jing, the Origin of the Book, and the Year the Book was Written

1. The Shandong Viewpoint

Heh Youqi (何幼琦), who concurred with the popular belief that Shan Hai Jing (《山海经》) was a combination of the book on the mountains  (《山经》) and History of Lord Yu (《禹本纪》) , first proposed that the “[inner-]seas & [over-]seas” section of Shan Hai Jing to be referring to the Shandong peninsula. This view completely overthrew the ancient Chinese extrapolation on the story of the origin of the Yellow River as water from an underground river that came all the way from possibly the Pamirs and then pierced the Kumtag Desert by travelling underground to reach Jishi. (Heh Youqi’s river perspective was a moo point as the ancient Chinese never properly figured out the origin of the Yellow River. YU GONG or Lord Yu’s Tributes inexplicably pinned the start of the Yellow River at the Kumtag Desert. As far as the theory about the Yellow River flowing through the underground tunnel from the Salty Lake of Chines Turkestan, it had to be a latter-day addon, like after the Hun-Yuezhi War and Zhang Qian’s trip to the Central Asia.)

Someone from Shandong, Wang Ning (王宁), going beyond Heh Youqi’s speculation on the “[within-]seas & [over-]seas” section, claimed that the mountains section of the book Shan Hai Jing was about the mountains, rivers, lakes and seas on the Shandong peninsula, with today’s Mount Taishan being the centric Mt. Kunlun as recorded in the book. Wang Ning’s claim was that the original Xia people were the same people as the Nine Ancient Yi (misnomer Eastern Yi) people, which was of course erroneous since the Bamboo Annals repeatedly carried the historical accounts of wars between the Xia Dynasty kings and the Nine Yi people. Wang Ning cited a few words in Shan Hai Jing, that were postulated to be from dialects of the ancient Qi and Wu statelets, as corroboration. (The dialect approach is simplistic in that ancient dialects might not have preserved themselves in other areas of China.)

This Shandong viewpoint is fallacious since the the mountains  (《山经》)  component carried dozens of place naming that were still used today, while the descriptions of the rivers and their flows very much matched with the mountain ranges described.

2. The Qiangic Viewpoint: A-bo [阿波] (from Zigong County cultural bureau, Sichuan Province) Claiming 《山海經》to be History of the Xia Dynasty Refugees

A-bo used the ancient Qiangic language to re-interpret the book Shan Hai Jing with a claim that it was the Xia refugees, after the overthrow of the Xia dynasty by the Shang people, who fled to today’s Sichuan, wrote the book using the ancient Qiangic language, and founded the Sanxingdui Bronze Civilization.

“奢比尸”、“夏耕之尸”、“女丑之尸”、“贰负之尸”、“肝榆之尸”
(Someone went further to claim that Xia [夏] was the word as the ancient word “kui [夔]” for Sichuan.)
This Sichuan viewpoint could only be valid should we push the time the book the mountains  (《山经》)  to the prehistoric time period when the ancestors of the Sino-Tibetans pushed out of the mountain area in today’s Hanzhong, i.e., the Sichuan-Shenxi-Hubei borderline, to dwell around the two sides of the Yellow River.
This could be a narrow-minded explanation of the origin of the Sino-Tibetan civilization, though. The prehistoric accounts, as recorded in ZUO ZHUAN, very much had the center of activities set at the Mt. Taishan area of today’s eastern Shandong, the Zhuan-xu Ruins in today’s Puyang of Henan Province, and the Fen-shui River area of today’s southern Shanxi. It was probably in the late Warring States time period, that the sophistry books and fable books began to go beyond the Yellow Emperor’s legends to talk about some speculated figures beyond the Yellow Overlord, like the Hua-xu-shi line nature, and stated that the Hua-xu-shi had migrated out of the Sichuan-Gansu-Shenxi borderline to move east.
The most accurate part of the mountain part of SHAN HAI JING would be about the middle mountain range. For the northern and western mountain range, it appears the most proximate part of the two ranges were still relatively correct, but erring out when going beyond, either to the west or to the north. This could be seen in the placement of the mythical Kunlun mountain to both the northern end and the western end of the northern and western mountain range, a fallacy. In contrast, the description on the Eastern Mountain Range and the Southern Mountain Range were the most inaccurate, further substantiating the point that the said book could not have been written by the people in today’s eastern China and that there was indeed two origins of the Chinese people, the Sino-Tibetan from the west and the Nine Yi people from the east, at minimum.

.

3. Wei Juxian (卫聚贤)’s Analysis of Words and Sentences Used in Shan Hai Jing

Wei Juxian believed that Shan Hai Jing was written after Mu Tian Zi (《穆天子传》, 408 B.C.E) and before Jin Yu (《晋语》, 336 B.C.E.).

(一) Lacking the “又” character used in the spring & autumn time period in 《五藏山经》

“凡十山,二千九百五十里。”(《南山经》)
“凡十九山,二千九百五十七里。”(《西山经》)
“凡二十五山,五千四百九十里,”(《北山经》)
“凡十二山,三千六百里。”(《东山经》)
“凡十五山,六千六百七十里。”(《中山经》)

(二)Using the “以” character

“自太行之山以至于无逢之山。”(((北次三经》)
“自樕 之山以至于竹山。”(《东山经》)

王建军《从存在句再论<山海经)的成书》: 《大荒经》 《海外》战国;《山经》战国;《海内》 秦汉。

4. Tang Shigui (唐世贵) extrapolating on top of Meng Wentong, and Yuan Ke

《华阳国志.巴志》:“武王既克殷,以其姬封于巴,爵之以子。”

《海内经》:“西南黑水之间,有都广之野,……百谷自生,冬夏播琴。”郭璞注:“播琴犹播殖,方俗言耳”。清毕沅:楚“播种”=>“播琴”。

Meng Wentong (蒙文通) proposed that the mountain part was written by the ancient Ba people while the “[inner-]seas & [over-]seas” part was written by the ancient Shu people. (蒙文通先生《中华文史论丛》:《大荒经》西周前期;《海内经》西周中叶;《五藏山经》和《海外经》四春秋战国。) Yuan Ke thought the whole book was written by people from the Chu Principality. (袁珂 战国中年)

The speculation was that the original book was written in the language of Ba and Shu people at the early time per Meng Wentong, and then transcribed into the Chinese language at about the time as ascertained by Yuan Ke.

Tang Shigui claimed that it was the Chu refugees or migrants to today’s Sichuan Province who worked on the translation of the Ba-Shu language to the Chinese language, which later influenced the Chu people, such as poet Qu Yuan and his disciples, in the poems that had similar legendary write-up as Shan Hai Jing.

蒙文通 《中华文史论丛》:《大荒经》西周前期;《海内经》西周中叶;《五藏山经》《海外经》春秋战国。

袁珂:《大荒经》《海内经》战国初年或中年;《五藏山经》《海外经》战国中年;《海内经》汉代初年。

5. Speculation on the Origin From the Zhou Dynasty’s Imperial Library
《周禮•地官•大司徒》:“以天下土地之圖,周知九州之地域廣輪之數。辨山林、川澤、丘陵、墳衍、原隰之名物。”
清郝懿行山海經箋疏: 大戴禮五帝德篇云:“使禹敷土,主名山川。”爾雅亦云:“從釋地已下至九河皆禹所名也。”觀禹貢一書,足覘梗概。因知五臧山經五篇,主於紀道里、說山川,真為禹書無疑矣。而中次三經說青要之山云:“南望墠渚,禹父之所化。”中次十二經說天下名山,首引“禹曰”。一則稱禹父,再則述禹言,亦知此語,必皆後人所羼矣。然以此類致疑本經,則非也。何以明之?周官大司徒以天下土地之圖,周知九州之地域,廣輪之數。土訓掌道地圖,道地慝。夏官職方亦掌天下地圖。山師、川師掌山林川澤,致其珍異。邍(原)師辨其丘陵墳衍邍□之名物,秋官復有冥氏、庶氏、穴氏、翨氏、柞氏、薙氏之屬,掌攻夭鳥猛獸蟲豸草木之怪蠥。左傳稱禹鑄鼎象物而為之備,使民知神姦,民入山林川澤,禁禦不若,螭魅□□,莫能逢旃。周官左氏所述即與此經義合。禹作司空,灑沈澹災,燒不暇撌,濡不給扢,身執虆垂,以為民先。爰有禹貢,復著此經。尋山脈川,周覽無垠,中述怪變,俾民不眩。美哉禹功,明德遠矣;自非神聖,孰能修之。而後之讀者,類以夷堅所志,方諸齊諧,不亦悲乎!古之為書,有圖有說,周官地圖,各有掌故,是其證已。後漢書王景傳云:“賜景山海經、河渠書、禹貢圖。”是漢世禹貢尚有圖也。郭注此經而云:“圖亦作牛形”,又云:“在畏獸畫中”;陶徵士讀是經詩亦云:“流觀山海圖”:是晉代此經尚有圖也。中興書目云:“山海經圖十卷,本梁張僧繇畫,咸平二年校理舒雅重繪為十卷,每卷中先類所畫名,凡二百四十七種。”是其圖畫已異郭陶所見。今所見圖復與繇雅有異,良不足据。然郭所見圖,即已非古,古圖當有山川道里。今考郭所標出,但有畏獸仙人,而於山川脈絡,即不能案圖會意,是知郭亦未見古圖也。今禹貢及山海圖遂絕跡不復可得。
.
Though, from the writing on the ‘Zhou’ people at 《大荒西经》, we could see that at least this section on the [overseas-] wilderness was not written by the Zhou Dynasty court.
《大荒西经》:“有西周之国,姬姓,食谷”。
.
Someone called Wang Hongqi proposed that this book was the result of the dissipation of Zhou Dynasty’s library archives as  a result of the war between Zhou Prince Zi-chao and Zhou King Jingwang.
.
《史记·周本记第四》:“景王十八年,后太子圣而蚤卒。二十年,景王爱子朝,欲立之,会崩,子丐之党与争立,国人立长子猛为王,子朝攻杀猛。猛为悼王。晋人攻子朝而立丐,是为敬王。”
.
《左传·昭公二十六年》: 二十有六年,春,王正月,葬宋元公。三月,公至自齊,居于鄆。夏,公圍成。秋,公會齊侯,莒子,邾子,杞伯,盟于鄟陵,公至自會,居于鄆。九月,庚申,楚子居卒。冬,十月,天王入于成周,尹氏,召伯,毛伯,以王子朝奔楚。
.
《吕氏春秋·先识》:“夏太史终古见桀迷惑,载其图法奔商;商内史向挚见纣迷惑,载其图法本周。”
《左传·定公五年》:“五年(505)春,王人杀子朝于楚。”
《庄子·天道篇》:“孔子西藏书于周室,子路谋曰:由闻周之征藏史有老聃者,免而归居,夫子欲藏书,则试往因焉。孔子曰:善。往见老聃,而老聃不许。”
.
Li Hongqi further claimed that the said book (《山海经》) was a combination of four different books from different time period:
《五藏山经》 禹
《海外四经》夏
《大荒四经》商
《海内五经》周.
. Namely, the mountain component was from Lord Yu, while the overseas section was from Xia Dynasty, the overseas wilderness section from Shang Dynasty, and the within-seas section from Zhou Dynasty.
.
6. The Validated Geography in Shan Hai Jing
.
7. The Disputed Geography in Shan Hai Jing

a. Chinese Turkestan & the Source of the Yellow River
《史记》《大宛列传》太史公曰:《禹本纪》言“河出昆仑。昆仑其高二千五百馀里,日月所相避隐为光明也。其上有醴泉、瑶池”。今自张骞使大夏之后也,穷河源,恶睹本纪所谓昆仑者乎?故言九州山川,《尚书》近之矣。至《禹本纪》、《山海经》所有怪物,余不敢言之也。

After China defeated the Huns and took over the Western Corridor territory, Emperor Wudi dispatched dozens of missions to the west, with up to ten missions in a year sometimes, and staffed by as many as several hundreds of people. Wudi’s another objective was to check out the source of the Yellow River, where the legendary Mt. Kunlun, i.e., the land of the immortals, was. Other than , ancient classics Er Ya stated that the Yellow River originated from the Kunlun-xu, i.e., the Ruins of Kunlun, and hinted Kunlun to be the land of jade, while classics Yu Ben Ji stated that the same, hinting that Kunlun could be as tall as 2,500 li. Historian Sima Qian ridiculed Han Emperor Wudi and emissary Zhang Qian for their seeking the mythical Kunlun that did not exist in his opinion. Emperor Wudi, in frustration, personally pinned the mountain south of today’s Khotan to be Mt. Kunlun.
.

《西山经》: 昆仑之丘,是实惟帝之下都,神陆吾司之,其神状虎身而九尾,人面而虎爪。
是神也,司天之九部及帝之囿时。
《海内西经》:  昆仑之墟方八百里,高万仞;上有木禾,长五寻,大五围;面有九井,以玉为
槛;面有九门,门有开明兽守之。百神之所在。在八隅之岩,赤水之际,非仁羿莫
能上。
《海内北经》: 西王母梯几而戴胜杖(案此字当衍),其南有三青鸟,为西王母取食,在昆仑
墟北。
《大荒西经》: 西海之南,流沙之滨,赤水之后,黑水之前,有大山,名曰昆仑之丘。有神人
面虎身有尾皆白处之。其下有弱水之渊环之。其外有炎火之山,投物辄然。有人戴
胜,虎齿豹尾,穴处,名曰西王母。此山万物尽有。

Possibly following the more reliable “mountains” component of The Legends of the Mountains and Seas, some later Chinese writing, as contained in the “western [within the over-]seas” section and the “western [overseas] wilderness” section, stated respectively that Kunlun-xu was located to the northwest of China and that Kunlun-qiu [hill] was between the Chi-shui [Red Water River] and Hei-shui [Black Water River]. When this webmaster said ‘possibly’, it was because quite some senior scholars classified the mythical “[within the over-]seas” and “[overseas] wilderness” sections to be written earlier than the mountain component.
.
Though, this webmaster doubted that the mythical “[within the over-]seas” and “[overseas] wilderness” sections to be written earlier than the mountain component.) It appears that Li Hongqi, back in 1987, had literally, word for word, explained the the mountain component to claim that the ancient Yellow River had the source in the Ordos plains which was a lake per Li Hongqi. This webmaster, before touching on Li Hongqi’s view, had spent quite some time to prove where the Ji-shi (piled-up rocks) Mountain was so as to ascertain the geography in Mu-tian-zi. See http://www.imperialchina.org/Dynasties/?p=43
Should we follow the development of history, then we could use the same analogy as to the locality of Fu-sang [i.e., on the Shandong peninsula versus the Americas) to state that the locality of Kunlun could have been expropriated over the history - namely, from the locality in today's northern Shanxi [as seen in the mountain component] to the locality along the Western Corridor [as explained earlier] to the final locality which was pinned by Han Dynasty Emperor Wudi as the mountain separating Tibet from Chinese Turkestan.
In the Bei Shan Jing (i.e., northern mountain range) of Wu Zang San Jing (i.e., the mountain part ofThe Legends of the Mountains and Seas, there was a statement to the effect that the water from the Dunhong mountain flew west to feed into the You-ze Lake (i.e., commonly taken as the Salty Lake or the Puchang-hai Sea), which was the source of the Yellow River. Numerous interpretations exist, with some claiming that the Dunhong water first flew west into today’s Bositeng Lake and then the overflowing water exited the Bositeng Lake (i.e., west sea) to go east to enter You-ze the Salty Lake or today’s Luobupo Lake – which was taken by the ancient Chinese to be the underground source of the Yellow River for the lake’s unchanged water level. The other claim would be to state that the Dunhong water could be the ancient Shule River, which is to the south of the Qilian Mountain, that once flew west into the Salty Lake, or the Blackwater River (i.e., Ruo-shui or weak water) on the northern slope of the Qilian Mountain flowing westward into the Kumtag Desert. In any case, the ancient Chinese, with the San-miao people exiled to the Western Corridor in the mid-3rd millennium BCE, had apparently penetrated into Chinese Turkestan to leave the mummies there around 2000 B.C.E., and could havere-gained the geological knowledge about Chinese Turkestan around the 4th century B.C.E. This paragraph is to make the point that the ancient Chinese in about the 4th century B.C.E., did have detailed information about the areas beyond the Kumtag Desert, as exhibited in the copious polemic discourse on the origin of the Yellow River that started at minimum from the book Shan Hai Jing (The Legends of the Mountains and Seas).
.

西次三经之首,曰崇吾之山,在河之南,北望冢遂,南望滛之泽,西望帝之捕兽之丘,东望虫焉渊。……
西北三百里,曰长沙之山。泚水出焉,北流注于泑水,……
又西北三百七十里,曰不周之山。北望诸毗……之山,临彼岳崇之山,东望泑泽,河水所潜也,其原浑浑泡泡。又西北四百二十里,曰密山,……。丹水出焉,西流注于稷泽,……其原沸沸汤汤,……。
又西百八十里,曰泰器之山。观水出焉,西流注于流沙。……
又西三百二十里,曰槐江之山。丘时之水出焉,而北流注于泑水。……。南望昆仑,……西望大泽,……。北望诸毗,……。东望恆山四成,……。爰有淫水,其清洛洛。……
西南四百里,曰昆仑之丘,……。河水出焉,而南流注于无达。赤水出焉,而东南流注于泛天之水。洋水出焉,而西南流注于丑涂之水。黑水出焉,而西流注于大杅。……
又西北三百五十里,曰玉山,……
又西三百里,曰积石之山,其下有石门,河水冒以西流,……
北山经
北山经之首,曰单狐之山,……,逢漨水出焉,而西流注于泑水。……
又北二百三十里,曰小咸之山。……
北二百八十里,曰大咸之山。……
又北三百二十里,曰敦薨之山,……,敦薨之水出焉,而西流注于泑泽。出于昆仑之东北隅,实惟河原。……
又北二百里,曰少咸之山,……,敦水出焉,东流注于雁门之水,……
《山海经·海内西经》》第十一“海内昆仑之虚在西北……河水出其东北……西南又入渤海……入禹所导积石山”。
《大荒西经》第十六:“西海之南,流沙之滨,赤水之后,黑水之前,有大山曰昆仑之丘。”

Related Topics the Barbarians to the North & West in relation to Geography



内东经(山海经第十三)
国在流沙中者埻端、玺奂,在昆仑虚东南。一曰海内之郡,不为郡县,在流沙中。国在流沙外者,大夏、竖沙、居繇、月支之国。
西胡白玉山在大夏东,苍梧在白玉山西南,皆在流沙西,昆仑虚东南。昆仑山在西胡西,皆在西北。雷泽中有雷神,龙身而人头,鼓其腹。在吴西。

Two more groups of people would be situated to the west of the Qin Chinese, namely, the Yuezhi and the Western Rong barbarians. Wang Zhonghan pointed out that Shang China might have mentioned the term ‘Yuezhi’ in a different pictograph, and subsequent Zhou Dynasty had contained similar names.
– Just similar names but not necessarily the same as Yuezhi. (Shang Dynasty’s records had to be the so-called Shang[-Dydasty] Shuwhich redundantly listed the barbarian tribes with names as known during Han Dynasty Emperor Wudi’s eras, and Zhou Dynasty’s record could be the misnomer Yu-zhi name which was listed as a place that Zhou King Muwang visited around the area to the east of today’s northeastern Yellow River inflexion point.)
Da-xia, not necessarily Bactria which was ruled by Bessus (?-329 BCE), a satrap under Persian King Darius III, and conquered by Alexander the Great around the 330s B.C.E., did have an entry in The Legends of the Mountains and Seas, in the section Hai Nei Dong Jing (i.e., Legends of the eastern area within the seas), to the effect that Da-xia, Jian-sha, Ju-yao and Yue-zhi were beyond the Kumtag Desert. Further, it also could confirm the point that the Yuezhi had not penetrated the northern Kumtag Deseart to reach the Juyan Lake – where the excavated Han Dynasty bamboo strips were found to have contained the nine Zhaowu clan names dating from around the 130s-120s B.C.E. era. Should we buy the above records in The Legends of the Mountains and Seas to be authentic, then we could say that in the 4th century B.C.E., i.e., the approximate date that the book was written, the ancient Chinese did possess the knowledge that beyond the Kumtag Desert, there were the statelets such as Da-xia, Jian-sha, Ju-yao and Yue-zhi [if this book from about the 4th century B.C.E. was not a latter-day forgery or the statement was not a latter-day insertion]. Note that this statement was inserted into the section on the “eastern” within-sea-border area, not the “western” direction, where the Kumtag Desert was located. Could this be a mis-placed statement by later scholars?
Though, the above knowledge about the Yuezhi et al. [as contained in the within-seas section of Shan Hai Jing], taking your heed, was probably just prior to the Yuezhi-Hun War of the 3rd century B.C.E., or the addition to the book after the Yuezhi-Hun War. Again, this webmaster believed that the mountain part of the book was very ancient, probably earlier than the 4th century B.C.E.; however, the sea part was from the later times, and that SHAN HAI JING’s section on the seas could not be earlier than TIAN WEN (poet Qu Yuan’s poem as collected in CHU CI), and TIAN WEN could not be earlier than THE BAMBOO ANNALS.
In conclusion, a correct reading of the geography could shed light on the actual historical development of human migrations. Otherwise, you would be led on a path of no return or a path of perpetuating loops that will lead to nowhere. A reason why this webmaster called by Gao Xingjian, the Year 2000 Nobel Prize winner, who wrote a dramatized version of the book, ‘pretender’. Shan Hai Jing, when properly read, could offer some surprising truth.


海内东经(山海经第十三)
国在流沙中者埻端、玺奂,在昆仑虚东南。一曰海内之郡,不为郡县,在流沙中。国在流沙外者,大夏、竖沙、居繇、月支之国。西胡白玉山在大夏东,苍梧在白玉山西南,皆在流沙西,昆仑虚东南。昆仑山在西胡西,皆在西北。雷泽中有雷神,龙身而人头,鼓其腹。在吴西。
Two more groups of people would be situated to the west of the Qin Chinese, namely, the Yuezhi and the Western Rong barbarians. Wang Zhonghan pointed out that Shang China might have mentioned the term ‘Yuezhi’ in a different pictograph, and subsequent Zhou Dynasty had contained similar names.
– Just similar names but not necessarily the same as Yuezhi. (Shang Dynasty’s records had to be the so-called Shang[-Dydasty] Shuwhich redundantly listed the barbarian tribes with names as known during Han Dynasty Emperor Wudi’s eras, and Zhou Dynasty’s record could be the misnomer Yu-zhi name which was listed as a place that Zhou King Muwang visited around the area to the east of today’s northeastern Yellow River inflexion point.)
Da-xia, not necessarily Bactria which was ruled by Bessus (?-329 BCE), a satrap under Persian King Darius III, and conquered by Alexander the Great around the 330s B.C.E., did have an entry in The Legends of the Mountains and Seas, in the section Hai Nei Dong Jing (i.e., Legends of the eastern area within the seas), to the effect that Da-xia, Jian-sha, Ju-yao and Yue-zhi were beyond the Kumtag Desert. Further, it also could confirm the point that the Yuezhi had not penetrated the northern Kumtag Deseart to reach the Juyan Lake – where the excavated Han Dynasty bamboo strips were found to have contained the nine Zhaowu clan names dating from around the 130s-120s B.C.E. era. Should we buy the above records in The Legends of the Mountains and Seas to be authentic, then we could say that in the 4th century B.C.E., i.e., the approximate date that the book was written, the ancient Chinese did possess the knowledge that beyond the Kumtag Desert, there were the statelets such as Da-xia, Jian-sha, Ju-yao and Yue-zhi [if this book from about the 4th century B.C.E. was not a latter-day forgery or the statement was not a latter-day insertion]. Note that this statement was inserted into the section on the “eastern” within-sea-border area, not the “western” direction, where the Kumtag Desert was located. Could this be a mis-placed statement by later scholars?

Though, the above knowledge about the Yuezhi et al. [as contained in the within-seas section of Shan Hai Jing], taking your heed, was probably just prior to the Yuezhi-Hun War of the 3rd century B.C.E., or the addition to the book after the Yuezhi-Hun War. Again, this webmaster believed that the mountain part of the book was very ancient, probably earlier than the 4th century B.C.E.; however, the sea part was from the later times, and that SHAN HAI JING’s section on the seas could not be earlier than TIAN WEN (poet Qu Yuan’s poem as collected in CHU CI), and TIAN WEN could not be earlier than THE BAMBOO ANNALS.
In conclusion, a correct reading of the geography could shed light on the actual historical development of human migrations. Otherwise, you would be led on a path of no return or a path of perpetuating loops that will lead to nowhere. A reason why this webmaster called by Gao Xingjian, the Year 2000 Nobel Prize winner, who wrote a dramatized version of the book, ‘pretender’. Shan Hai Jing, when properly read, could offer some surprising truth.

Posted in Ancient China, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Who Were The Eastern Yi People?

This webmaster’s view is that the original Nine Yi people, being not homogeneous, could have lived in the interface ground among the three main Mongoloid groups of O1-, O2- and O3-haplogroup people [plus the C-haplogroup Tungunsic people]. The Nine Yi people, whom the Chinese historical classics had ascertained to have lived along the eastern coast, could be the O2-haplogroup people whose descendants could be found from Manchuria to Vietnam. The southern branch of the Yi people, as the Chinese classics hinted, could be the same as the historical Hundred Yue people who were pushed to the southeastern Chinese coast where they further evicted the Austronesian-speaking people to Taiwan and Southeast Asia.  Genetical proof abounds to show that the Yi and Yue people belonged to the O2a and O2b branches of the same haplogroup. By adopting this approach, we could very well reconcile the historical Chinese records to interpret the prehistoric events, regarding the battles among Huangdi (the yellow lord), Yandi (the fiery lord) and Chi-you, as among the O3-haplogroup of people, whom we could linguistically identify as the Sino-Tibetan.

We could further deduce that as a result of the mixing-up of the Hmong-Mien people, the Nine Yi people, and the Tungunsic people in today’s Hebei Province and on the Shandong Peninsula, we then have the phenomenon of the later people in Manchuria, Korea and Japan sharing the same archaic traditions as recorded among the ancient Nine Yi people of the 3rd millennium B.C.E., but lacking the hallmark  ”phoenix” adoration as still exists among today’s minority people in Southwestern China –the true descendants of the Hmong-mien people. (The archaic traditions would include the historical practice of “dun ju” [squatting ("箕倨"), which mutated into the Manchu practice of one leg kneeling on the ground while another leg bending at the knee, which the Manchus used as the protocol for seeing the superiors; or spreading the two feet if we use an alternative historic definition of the term], slate coffins, and bearing down the newborn’s head with stone.)

Beyond the Prehistory

As historian Sima Qian confirmed, the ancestors for the Xia-Shang-Zhou dynasties were from the same family, i.e., descendants of the Yellow Lord while the Yellow Lord, as we could sense from the historic accounts, had defeated the Yandi (? aka Chi-you) people – who in turn could be inferred [from GUO-YU & THE BAMBOO ANNALS] to be an earlier group of migrants to the eastern coast from the central plans.

ZUO ZHUAN repeatedly cited the non-Xia rulers of antiquity to be the ‘Feng1′ (wind) surnamed Taihao people, the Jiang-surnamed Yandi family, and listed the figure of Taihao (said to be Feng[-wind]-surnamed) as the No. 1 person, with Shaohao (Ji[3]-surnamed) succeeding. Tai-hao-shi was said to be the ancestor of the ‘Feng[wind]-surnamed’ tribe [which might not be the same as the O2-haplogroup Yi [misnomer Dong-Yi or Eastern Yi] people].  Taihao, according to the ancient classics, possessed the ‘Feng1′ (wind) surname.  ZUO ZHUAN repeatedly stated that Tai-hao-shi, whose ruins ware at the later Chen-guo fief, had such family names as ‘Ren4′ and ‘Su4′ around the domain of today’s Henan-Shandong provinces. The Taihao Ruins was situated in the middle of the central plains, while the Feng-surnamed descendants, by the Zhou dynasty, had been marginalized to the southeastern Shandong peninsula. Similarly, the Shaohao-shi people, who had their presence in the Fen-shui River area of today’s southen Shanxi, were marginalized to the Huai-shui River area by the Zhou dynasty.

Before Sima Qian, we have ZUO ZHUAN making at least two claims about the existence of Taihao in Lu Lord Xigong and Lu Lord Zhaogong sections. Lu Lord Xigong’s 21st year stated that the clans of ‘Ren’, ‘Su’, ‘Xuqu {Xugou}’ and ‘Zhuanyu’ [i.e., ordained to guard Mt. Mengshan] were Feng-surnamed, i.e., the wind-surnamed statelets; that they worshipped the pilgrimage of Taihao and Youji [i.e., the river god of the ancient Ji-shui River, near today's Ji'nan, Shandong Province]; and that they served the various Xia lords in a subordinate position. Lu Lord Zhaogong 17th Year stated that the land of Chen was formerly the Taihao Ruins [, in parallel with the claims of the land of Soong being the Taichen [Shang Dynasty, with 'chen' being the Shang celestial star] Ruins and the land of Zheng the Zhurong Ruins].

That is, nobody talked about the name of Fuxi yet, but the remotely ancient founding fathers of eastern or southeastern/northeastern China, i.e., lineages from the ancient Jiang-surnamed Yandi [or the Fiery Lord] tribe and the Feng[-wind]-surnamed Taihao tribe, who were the various Xia/Shang Dynasty and Chu state’s progenitors, including Zhurong – that is, all being of the restrictive non-Xia or restrictive non-Sinitic lineages.

《山海经·大荒东经》:“大荒之中有山名曰合虚,日月所出。有中容之国,帝俊生中容,中容人食兽、木实,使四鸟:豹虎熊罴。”
“有司幽之国。帝俊生晏龙,晏龙生司幽。司幽生思士,不妻;思女,不夫。食黍食兽,是使四鸟。”
“有白民之国。帝俊生帝鸿,帝鸿生白民。白民销姓,黍食,使四鸟:虎豹熊罴。”
“有黑齿之国。帝俊生黑齿,姜姓,黍食,使四鸟。”
“有五采之鸟,相乡弃沙。惟帝俊下友,帝下两坛,采鸟是司。”
《山海经·大荒南经》:“大荒之中,有不庭之山,荣水穷焉。有人三身,帝俊妻娥皇,生此三身之国,姚姓,黍食,使四鸟。有渊四方,四隅皆送,北属黑水,南属大荒。北旁名曰少和之渊,南旁名曰从渊,舜之所浴也。”
《山海经·大荒南经》:“东南海之外,甘水之间,有羲和之国,有女子名曰羲和,方浴日于甘渊。羲和者,帝俊之妻,生十日。”
《山海经·海内经》:“帝俊生禺号,禺号生淫梁,淫梁生番禺,是始为舟。番禺生奚仲,奚仲生吉光,吉光是始以木为车。少皞生般,般是始为弓矢。帝俊赐羿彤弓素矰,以扶下国,羿是始去恤下地之百艰。帝俊生晏龙,晏龙是为琴瑟。帝俊有子八人,三身生义均,义均是始为巧倕,是始作下民百巧。后稷是播百谷。稷之孙曰叔均,是始作牛耕,大比赤阴,是始为国。禹、鲧是始布土,定九州。
《山海经·大荒西经》:“有女子方浴月。帝俊妻常羲,生月十有二,此始浴之。”
《山海经·大荒南经》:“有襄山。又有重阴之山。有人食兽,曰季厘。帝俊生季厘,故曰季厘之国。有缗渊。少昊生倍戈,降处缗渊。有水四方,名曰俊坛。”

The Nine Ancient Yi Groups

The ancient Yi people were known as hunters of birds and beasts carrying the customs of tattoo making on bodies and lacking hair coils.

Section on the Dong-yi in Ban Gu’s HOU HAN SHU stated that the Yi people included such subgroups as Quan-yi [doggy Yi], Yu-yi, Fang-yi, Huang-yi [yellow Yi], Chi-yi [red Yi], Bai-yi [white Yi], Xuan-yi [black Yi], Feng-yi [wind Yi], Zi-yi, and Yang-yi [sun Yi] etc, hence incorporating ‘Yi’ all around ancient China on an inclusive scale.

“THE BAMBOO ANNALS” included the additional Huai-yi [the Huai-shui River Yi] and Lan-yi [blue Yi]; and YU GONG (Lord Yu’s Tributes) of SHANG SHU mentioned Lai-yi [the Laizhou prefecture Yi].

YU GONG, in fact, was more precise in making the distinction among the Yi people, listing the Dao-yi (island Yi) in the ancient Ji-zhou prefecture [who came from today's Liaodong Peninsula by sea, using the Jie-shi mountain around today's Mountain and Sea Pass as the beacon tower equivalent, and sailed into the ancient Yellow River for surrendering tributes], the Yu-yi [sea corner Yi] and Lai-yi [the Laizhou prefecture Yi] in the ancient Qing-zhou prefecture, the Huai-yi [the Huai-shui River Yi] in the ancient Xu-zhou prefecture, the Niao-yi -bird totem Yi] in the ancient Yang-zhou prefecture, plus the He-yi in the ancient Liang-zhou prefecture of northwestern China.

(Note that the ancient book YU GONG made a difference between the Dao-yi and Niao-yi while the two characters later corrupted into each other to mean the wrong Yi group, i.e., the island Yi in today’s southeastern Manchuria being swapped to be the bird totem Yi in the Yangtze River area.)

《尚书·禹贡》: “岛夷皮服”

《禹贡》孔疏引郑玄说:“鸟夷,东方之民搏食鸟兽者也”,引王肃说:“鸟夷,东北夷国名也”,《汉书》颜师古注“此东北之夷”

《周礼·夏官·职方氏》:“辨其邦国、都鄙、四夷、八蛮、七闽、五戎、六锹之人民。”注:“东方曰夷。”

《礼记·王制》:“东方曰夷,被发文身,有不火食者矣。” (《庄子·逍遥游》:“越人断发文身。”《墨子·公孟》:“越王句践剪发文身,以治其国,其国治。”《战国策·赵策二》:“被发文身,错臂左衽,瓯越之民也”。鲍彪注引《索隐》云:“错臂,亦文身,谓以丹青错画其臂。”《淮南子·齐俗训》:“越王句践,发文身……南面而霸天下,泗上十二诸侯皆率九夷以朝。”《史记·越世家》:“越王句践……文身断发。”《汉书·严助传》:“越,方外之地,发文身之民也。”)

《国语·鲁语》:“昔武王克商,通道于九夷、百蛮。”韦昭注:“九夷,东夷九国也。”

《左传·昭公十一年叔向语》: ‘纣克东夷而殒其身’

《论衡·恢国篇》:“越在九夷。”

《说文解字·矢部》:“古者夷牟初作矢。”

《世本》(《世本八种》):
黄帝作旃冕,胡曹作冕,伯余作衣裳,于则作扉屦。
骸作服牛,共鼓、货狄作舟。
雍父作舂。
挥作弓,牟夷作矢。
牟夷,黄帝臣名。)

《说文通训定声》:“夷,东方之人也。东方夷人好战、好猎,故字从大持弓会意。”

《后汉书·东夷传》夫余“以弓矢刀矛为兵。” 挹娄“处山险,又善射,发能入人目。弓长四尺,力如弩。矢用楉,长一尺八寸,青石为镞,镞皆施毒,中人即死。小水貊 “ 貊弓” 秽 “乐浪檀弓出其地”。

《后汉书·东夷传》夫余“于东夷之域,最为平敝”…  高句丽“东夷相传以为夫余别种…  挹娄:“东夷夫余饮食类皆用俎豆,唯挹娄独无,法俗最无纲纪者也。”

《后汉书·东夷传》:“以殷正月祭天”

《乌桓鲜卑列传》乌桓“俗善骑射,弋猎禽兽为事。男子能作弓矢鞍勒,锻金铁为兵器。”

《三国志·魏书·东夷传》:“自虞至周,西戎有白环之献,东夷有肃慎之贡。……而公孙渊仍父祖三世有辽东,天子为其绝域,委以海外之事,遂隔断东夷,不得通于诸夏。”

《南齐书·东南夷传》:“东夷高丽国,西与魏虏接界。”

《魏书·勿吉传》:勿吉“其人劲悍于东夷最强。”《豆莫娄传》:“多山陵广泽,于东夷之域最为平敝。”

《南史·夷貊传》:“东夷之国,朝鲜为大,得箕子之化,其器物犹有礼乐云。”

《隋书·契丹传》:“其无礼顽嚣,于诸夷最甚。”

乐史《太平寰宇记·平洲》:“后汉末,公孙度自号平洲牧,擅据。及子康,康子渊,俱得辽东之地,东夷九种皆伏焉。”

《东夷总叙》:“东夷之地,自朐山而东,其北则乐浪、朝鲜、辽东、其南则越门、晋安之东,皆其域也。昔周武王封殷太师箕子于朝鲜,而辽东则战国时燕地,而带方、真番、玄菟皆汉之郡,皆为东夷之地矣。”

令狐德 (583—666)《周书》卷一 文帝上 “太祖文皇帝姓宇文氏,讳泰,字黑獭,代武川人也。其先出自炎帝神农氏,为黄帝所灭,子孙居朔野。”

.

The Ancient ‘Mo’ and ‘He’ People

The ancient ‘Mo’ and ‘He’ people originally lived to the north of the Sinitic Chinese. As recorded by Shi Jing, they moved east towards Manchuria under the pressure of “xianyun”, the predecessor of the later Huns. Very likely, they became the ancestors of the future Fuyu people in Manchuria, i.e., ancestors of both Koguryeo and Paekche, as well as part of the Paekche people who invaded Japan at the turn of the 4th-5th centuries A.D. –In this sense, and judging on basis of the fact that the Koreans had the predominance of O2-haplogroup genes rather the C-haplogroup barbarians of the Amur River area, this webmaster believed that the ancient ‘Mo’ and ‘He’ people could be in fact the O2-haplogroup Yi people who dwelled along the coast and in today’s Shanxi-Hebei-Liaoning area.

《诗经·大雅·韩奕》:“王锡韩侯;其追(秽),奄受北国,因以其伯”

《诗经·大雅·韩奕》郑笺:“其后追(秽)也、也为猃狁所逼,稍稍东迁”

《孟子·告子下》:“子之道,貉(貊)道也。欲轻之於尧舜之道者,大貉(貊)、小貉(貊)也。”(孟子卷12告子中华书局影印本《十三经注》)

《荀子·强国篇》秦 “北与胡为邻”;

《管子·小匡第二十》:“齐桓公,西征攘白狄之地,遂至于西河,逾太行,与卑耳之秦夏

《管子·小匡篇》:“(桓公)中救晋公,擒获王败胡貉、破屠何,而骑寇始服” (唐人尹知章注《管子》称:“屠何,东胡之先也。”)

《山海经·海内西经》:“国在汉水东北,地近于燕”

《山海经——海内西经》:“东胡在大泽东,夷人在东胡东。”

《史记·燕召公世家》:“燕外迫蛮貉(貊),内措齐晋。”

《史记》:“诸左王将居东方,直上谷,以东接秽貉、朝鲜。右王将居西方,直上郡,以西接氏、羌。而单于庭直代云中。

《淮南子》卷一一《齊俗訓》:“胡、、匈奴之國,縱體拖發,箕踞反言,而國不亡者,未必無禮也”

《汉书·高祖纪》颜师古注:“在东北方,三韩之属皆类也。”

《后汉书·东夷高句丽》:“句丽,一名耳,有别种依水为居,因名小水貊

《汉书·王莽传》:“先是,莽发高句丽兵,当伐胡,不欲行,郡强迫之,皆亡出塞,囚犯法为寇。辽西大尹田谭追击之,为所杀。州郡归咎于高句丽驺(邹牟)。严尤奏言:‘人犯法,不从驺起,正有它心,宜今州郡且尉(慰)安之。今猥被大罪,恐其遂叛,夫余之属比有和者。匈奴未灭,夫余、秽貉复起,此大尤也。’ 莽不尉安,秽貉遂反,诏尤击之。尤诱高句骊侯驺至而斩焉,传首长安。莽大悦,下书曰:‘……其更名高句骊为下句骊,布告天下,令咸知焉。’于是人愈犯边。”

《尚书·大传》》:“三者十税一,多於十税一谓之大桀、小桀;少於十税一谓之大貉(貊)、小貉(貊)(注《尚书·大传》卷六),周传多方)”

.

The Yi  People in the Bamboo Annals, and Other Earlier Records

Mo-zi, the Bamboo Annals, and Lun-yu (The Analects) repeatedly talked about the Nine Ancient Yi People. The Bamboo Annal had detailed records about the battles between the Xia people and the Nine Yi people.

《孟子·离娄下》云:“舜生于诸冯,迁于负夏,卒于鸣条,东夷人也。”

《墨子·非攻中》:‘九夷之国,莫不宾服。’孙诒让《墨子闲诂》卷五云:‘《尔雅·释地》云:“九夷、八狄、七戎、六蛮,谓之四海。”《王制》孔疏云:“九夷依《东夷传》九种,曰:畎夷、于夷、方夷、黄夷、白夷、赤夷、玄夷、风夷、阳夷。”……此九夷与吴楚相近,盖即淮夷,……《书叙》云:“成王伐淮夷,遂践奄。”《韩非子·说林上篇》云:“周公旦攻九夷而商盖伏。” “商盖”即“商奄”,则九夷亦即淮夷……。’

《论语·公冶长》:“子曰:‘道不行,乘桴于海,其从我者由也与?’”《子罕》:“子欲居九夷,或曰:‘陋,如之何?’子曰:‘君子居之,何陋之有!’”《正义》:“子欲居九夷,与乘桴浮海,皆谓朝鲜”;《梁书·东夷传》:“东夷之国,朝鲜为大,得箕子之化,其器物犹为礼乐云”。
.
《战国策》
卷二三 魏策二
黄帝战于涿鹿之野,而西戎之兵不至;禹攻三苗,而东夷之民不起。以燕伐秦,黄帝之所难也。
.《孟子·滕文公》:“周公相武王,诛纣、代奄,三年讨其君,灭国者五十。”.《孟子·滕文公下》说:“周公相武王诛纣,伐奄三年讨其君,驱飞廉于海隅而戮之。” (《史记·秦本纪》:「周武王之伐纣,并杀恶来。是时,蜚廉为纣使北方,还无所报,为坛霍太山,而报,得石棺,铭曰:『帝令处父(飛廉别号),不与殷乱,赐尔石棺以华氏。』死,遂葬于霍太山」”)

《竹书纪年》相

后相即位,居商丘。元年,征淮夷、畎夷。(《后汉书·西羌传》引“后相即位元年,乃征畎夷”。《太平御览》八十二引“元年征淮夷”。《路史·后纪》十三“征淮、畎”,注:“准夷、畎夷,《纪年》云元年。”)二年,征风夷及黄夷。(《太平御览》八十二。《路史·后纪》十三“二年征风、黄夷”,注:“并《纪年》。”《后汉书·东夷传》注及《通鉴外纪》二均引“二年征黄夷”。)七年,于夷来宾。(《后汉书·东夷传》注,《路史·后纪》十三注。《通鉴外纪》二引“于”作“干”。)

《竹书纪年》少康
少康即位,方夷来宾。(《后汉书·东夷传》注。《路史·后纪》十三注引此下有“献其乐舞”四字,疑涉帝发时事而误。)
《竹书纪年》芬
后芬即位,三年,九夷来御。(《后汉书·东夷传》注、《太平御览》七百八十、《通鉴外纪》二、《路史·后纪》十三。《御览》“芬”作“方”,又此下有“曰畎夷、于夷、方夷、黄夷、白夷、赤夷、玄夷、风夷、阳夷”十九字,郝兰皋曰:“疑本注文,误入正文也。”)

.

《竹书纪年》(芒)

后荒即位,元年,以玄珪宾于河,命九东狩于海,获大鸟。(《北堂书钞》八十九。《初学记》十三引“珪”作“璧”,“鸟”作“鱼”,无“命九东”三字。《太平御览》八十二引“荒”作“芒”,“鸟”作“鱼”,无“命九”二字。国维案:“九”字下或夺“夷”字,疑谓后芬时来御之九夷。)

.

《竹书纪年》

后泄二十一年,命畎夷、白夷、赤夷、玄夷、风夷、阳夷。(《后汉书·东夷传》注。《通鉴外纪》二引“帝泄二十一年如畎夷等爵命”。《路史·后纪》十三注引下有“繇是服从”四字。)

《竹书纪年

后发即位,元年,诸夷宾于王门再保庸会于上池,诸夷入舞。(《北堂书钞》八十二。《后汉书·东夷传》注、《御览》七百八十引均无“再保庸”以下七字,《通鉴外纪》二、《路史·后纪》十三引亦同。《外纪》末句作“献其乐舞”乃改本书句,《路史》仍之。)

.

《竹书纪年
(居斟鄩。)(《水经·巨洋水注》、《汉书·地理志》注、《史记·夏本纪》正义。)
(畎夷入居豳岐之间。)(《后汉书·西羌传》。案《西羌传》三代事多本《汲冢纪年》,而语有增损。)

.

《竹书纪年》殷商

太戊 名密。
元年丙戌 王即位居亳命卿士伊陟臣扈。
七年 有桑穀生于朝。
十一年 命巫咸禱于山川。
二十六年 西戎來賓王使王孟聘西戎。
三十一年 命費侯中衍為車正。
三十五年 作寅車。
四十六年 大有年。
五十八年 城蒲姑。
六十一年 東九夷來賓。
七十五年 陟。(《书?无逸》:「肆中宗之享国,七十有五年。」《御览》八十三引《史记》:「中宗在位七十有五年崩。」)

仲丁 名莊。
元年辛丑 王即位自亳遷干囂于河上。(《御览》八十三引《纪年》:「仲丁即位,元年,自亳迁于嚣。」)
六年 征藍夷。(《后汉书?东夷传》注引《纪年》:「仲丁即位,征于蓝夷。」)
九年 陟。

河亶甲 名整。
元年庚申 王即位自囂遷于相。
三年 彭伯克邳。
四年 征藍夷。
五年 侁人入于班方彭伯韋伯伐班方侁人來賓。
九年 陟。

.
《竹书纪年》
周武王: 十六年,箕子来朝。秋,王师灭蒲姑。

成王: 二年,奄人、徐人及淮夷入于邶以叛。秋,大雷电以风,王逆周文公于郊。遂伐殷。三年,王师灭殷,杀武庚禄父。迁殷民于卫。遂伐奄,灭蒲姑。四年春正月,初朝于庙。夏四月,初尝麦。王师伐淮夷,遂入奄。五年春正月,王在奄,迁其君于蒲姑。夏五月,王至自奄。迁殷民于洛邑,遂营成周。
二十四年,于越来宾。二十五年,王大会诸侯于东都,四夷来宾。冬十月,归自东都,有事于太庙。

穆王:十三年春,祭公帅师从王西征,次于阳纡。秋七月,西戎来宾。徐戎侵洛。冬十月,造父御王,入于宗周。十四年,王帅楚子伐徐戎,克之。夏四月,王畋于军丘。五月,作范宫。秋九月,翟人侵毕。冬,蒐于萍泽。作虎牢。

厉王: 三年,淮夷侵洛,王命虢公长父伐之,不克。齐献公山薨。

宣王: 六年,召穆公帅师伐淮夷。王帅师伐徐戎,皇父、休父从王伐徐戎,次于淮。王归自伐徐。锡召穆公命。西戎杀秦仲。楚子霜卒。.

《尚书·周书·蔡仲之命》: “成王东伐淮夷,遂践奄,作成王政。成王既践奄,将迁其君于蒲姑”

《尚书·费誓》说:“公曰:‘人无哗,听命,徂兹淮夷,徐戎并兴’”

《左传》:“商纣为黎之蔸,东夷叛之。”

《吕氏春秋.古乐》:“商人服象为虐东夷”。

《吕氏春秋》:“为虐东夷,周公遂以师逐之,至于江南”。
(汉)孔安国《尚书传》: “成王即政,淮夷、奄国又叛,王亲征之,遂灭奄而徙之,以其数反覆” (唐孔颖达《尚书正义》疏曰,”周公摄政之初,奄与淮夷从管、蔡作乱,周公征而定之。成王即政之初,淮夷与奄又叛,成王亲往征之。成王东伐淮夷,遂践灭奄国”。) (东汉袁康《越绝书·吴地传》:“毗陵县南城,故古淹君地也。东南大冢,淹君子女冢也,去县十八里,吴所葬。” 清《读史方舆纪要》:“淹城,在(常州)府东南二十里,其城三重,壕垫深宽,周广十五 里。”)

《后汉书·东夷传》载:“徐夷潜号,及率九夷以伐宗周,西至河上。穆王畏其方炽,乃分东方诸侯命徐偃王主之。”
《通志·氏族略》: 徐国“自若木至 偃王三十二世,为周所灭,复封其子宗为徐,子宗十一世章羽,昭三十年,为吴所灭,子孙 以国为氏。”
《古今姓氏书辨证•二十阮》: “颛帝裔孙女修生大业。大业孙曰皋陶,字庭坚,为舜大士,明五刑,有功,赐姓偃,封于河东为诸侯;贰、轸、州、绞、蓼、六、群舒皆其后。春秋时,楚尽灭偃氏之国,遂绝其后……”
《韩子·五蠹》:古者文王,处丰、镐之间,地方百里,行仁义而怀西戎,遂王天下。徐偃王,处汉东,地方五百里,行仁义,割地而朝者,三十有六国。荆文王恐其害己也,举兵伐徐,遂灭之。故文王行仁义而王天下,偃王行仁义而丧其国,是仁义用于古不用于今也。
()俞樾《韩昌黎〈徐偃王庙碑〉跋》:“衢州,故名会稽太末也,民多徐氏。友县龙丘有偃王遗庙,或曰偃王之逃战,不之彭城而之越城之隅,弃玉几研于会稽之水。” “徐不忍斗其民,北之彭城武原山下,百姓随而从之万有余家。偃王死,民号其山曰徐山,凿石为室,以祠偃王。”
《国语·越语上》(卷二十):勾践之地,南至于句无,北至于御儿,东至于鄞,西至于姑蔑。广运百里。
.

通典 邊防典 東夷上 序略 東夷白虎通云:「夷者蹲也,言無禮儀。」或云:「夷者抵也,言仁而好生,萬物抵地而出,故天性柔順,易以道禦。」有九種,曰畎夷、方夷、于夷、黃夷、白夷、赤夷、玄夷、風夷、陽夷,率皆土著,遲略反。喜飲酒、喜,許利反。歌舞,或冠弁衣錦,器用俎豆,所謂中國失禮,求之四夷者也。凡蠻、夷、戎、狄,總名四夷者,猶公、侯、伯、子、男,皆號諸侯。昔堯命羲仲宅嵎夷,曰暘谷,蓋日之所出也。夏后氏太康失德,夷人始叛,其後至后發即位,賓於王門,獻其樂舞。桀為暴虐,諸夷內侵。商湯革命,伐而定之。至於仲丁,藍夷作寇。自是或服或叛,三百餘年。武乙衰弊,東夷寖盛,遂分遷,漸居中土。周初封商太師國於朝鮮。太師為周陳洪範。其地,今安東府之東,悉為東夷所據。時管、蔡畔周,乃招誘淮夷作亂,周公征定之。其後徐夷僭號,穆王命楚滅之。徐偃王也。至楚靈王會申,亦來同盟。後越遷瑯琊,遂陵暴諸夏,侵滅小國。

秦并天下,其夷皆散為人戶。其朝鮮歷千餘年,至漢高帝時滅。武帝元狩中,開其地,置樂浪等郡。至後漢末,為公孫康所有。魏晉又得其地。其三韓之地在海島之上,朝鮮之東南百濟、新羅,魏晉以後分王韓地。新羅又在百濟之東南,倭又在東南,倭,烏和反。隔越大海。夫餘在高麗之北,挹婁之南。其倭及夫餘自後漢,百濟、新羅自魏,歷代並朝貢中國不絕。而百濟,大唐顯慶中,蘇定方滅之。高麗本朝鮮地,漢武置縣,屬樂浪郡,時甚微弱。後漢以後,累代皆受中國封爵,所都平壤城,則故朝鮮國王險城也。後魏、周、齊漸強盛。隋文帝時寇盜遼西,漢王諒帥兵討之,至遼水遭癘疫而返。煬帝三度親征:初渡遼水敗績;再行,次遼水,會楊玄感反,奔退;又往,將達涿郡,屬天下賊起及饑饉,旋師。貞觀中,太宗又親征,渡遼,破之。高宗總章初,英國公李勣遂滅其國。
古之肅慎,宜即魏時挹婁,自周初貢楛矢、石砮,楛音戶。至魏常道鄉公末、東晉元帝初及石季龍時始皆獻之。後魏以後曰勿吉國,今則曰靺鞨焉。
大抵東夷書文並同華夏。其閩越之地,秦平天下以為郡,及秦亂,其帥又自稱王於故地。武帝元封初,楊僕滅其國,遷其人於江淮,虛其地。自後雖人庶復集,遂為郡縣矣。
.
.
Yi = Yue (傅振照《试释“夷越同源”》: 夷越同源)

《古本竹书纪年》:
初,黄帝之世谶言曰:“西北为王,期在甲子,昌制命,发行诛,旦行道。”及公刘之后,十三世而生季历。季历之十年,飞龙盈于殷之牧野,此盖圣人在下位将起之符也。季历之妃曰太任,梦长人感己,溲于豕牢而生昌,是为周文王。龙颜虎肩,身长十尺,胸有四乳。太王曰:“吾世当有兴者,其在昌乎!”季历之兄曰太伯,知天命在昌,适越,终身不反,弟仲雍从之,故季历为嗣以及昌。昌为西伯,作邑于丰。
成王二十四年记:於越来宾。
穆王三十七年记:大起九师,东至于九江,架鼋鼍以为梁。遂伐越,至于纡。

元王四年记:於越灭吴。

贞定王元年记:癸酉,於越徙都琅琊。
烈王: 元年丙午,魏公子緩如邯鄲以作難。於越大夫寺區定越亂,立初無余,是為莽安。
.
《史记·东越列传》:“越虽蛮夷。”司马贞《索隐》:“越在蛮夷。”
《史记·楚世家》:楚成王“使人献天子,天子赐胙,曰:‘镇尔南方夷越之乱,无侵中国。’”《三国志·诸葛亮传》诸葛亮“西和诸戎,南抚夷越”
《汉书·货殖传》:“辟犹 戎 翟 之与 于越 不相入矣。” 颜师古 注:“ 孟康 曰:‘ 于越 ,南方 越 名也。’于,发语声也。戎蛮之语则然。 于越 犹 句吴 耳。”
《春秋·定公五年》:“ 於越 入 吴 。” 杜预 注:“於,发声也。”
祝廉先 《文选六臣注订譌》:“ 于越 为百越之一种,在今 浙江 。如 江西 为 扬越 , 福建 为 闽越 , 广东 为 南越 , 安南 为 骆越 之类。”

《越绝书·陈成恒》句践“此乃僻陋之邦,蛮夷之民也”。

不光(翳):“唯尸邦旨(稽)大”。

《华阳国志·南中志》:“南中在昔夷越之地。”

《三国志·许靖传》:“夷越蜂起。”
《三国志·朱治传》:“征讨夷越,佐定东南。”
.

Inheritor of the Phoenix Tribe

《左氏·昭十七年传》:‘我高祖少皞挚之立也。’
昭公一七年
秋,郯子来朝,公与之宴。昭子问焉,曰:“少氏鸟名官,何故也?”郯子曰:“吾祖也,我知之。昔者黄帝氏以云纪,故为云师而云名;炎帝氏以火纪,故为火师而火名……”

《左传·昭公十七年》秋,郯子来朝,公与之宴。昭子问焉,曰:“少皡氏鸟名官,何故也?”郯子曰:“吾祖也,我知之。昔者黄帝氏以云纪,故为云师而云名。炎帝氏以火纪,故为火师而火名。共工氏以水纪,故为水师而水名。太 氏以龙纪,故为龙师而龙名。我高祖少挚之立也,凤鸟适至,故纪于鸟,为鸟师而鸟名。凤鸟氏,历正也。玄鸟氏,司分者也。伯赵氏,司至者也。青鸟氏,司启者也。丹鸟氏,司闭者也。祝鸠氏,司徒也。雎鸠氏,司马也。鸤鸠氏,司空也。爽鸠氏,司寇也。鹘鸠氏,司事也。五鸠,鸠民者也。五雉,为五工正,利器用,正度量,夷民者也。九扈,为九农正,扈民无淫者也。自颛顼以来,不能纪远,乃纪于近。为民师而命以民事,则不能故也。”仲尼闻之,见郯子而学之。既而告人曰:“吾闻之,天子失官,学在四夷,犹信。”

.

Shang Dynasty’s Vassals in Today’s Southern Manchuria

《尔雅》:”觚竹、北户、西王母、日下,谓之四荒”。([西汉]史游《急就篇》卷一“急就奇觚与众异” 唐 颜师古 注:“觚者学书之牍,或以记事,削木为之,盖简属也……今俗犹呼小儿学书简为木觚章,盖古之遗语也。” 章炳麟 《訄书·儒法》:“箸之简牍,拭之木觚。”) (《汉书·地理志》辽西郡令支县孤竹城,《魏书·地形志》辽西郡肥如县孤竹山祠)

《史书、殷本纪》:契为子姓,其后分封有殷氏、来氏、宋氏、空桐氏、稚氏、北殷氏、目夷氏(墨胎氏、 墨夷氏、目夷氏)。

《周礼·职方》称:“东北曰幽州,其山镇曰医无闾。”

.

Shang Prince Ji-zi’s Move to the Yang-yi Land

《周易》明夷篇:“象曰:利艰贞,晦其明也,内难而能正其志,箕子以之”,“六五:箕子之明夷,利贞”,“象曰:箕子之贞,明不可息也”。
《论语》:“微子去之,箕子为之奴,比干谏而死。孔子曰:殷有三仁焉。”

《周易》明夷篇:“象曰:利艰贞,晦其明也,内难而能正其志,箕子以之”,“六五:箕子之明夷,利贞”,“象曰:箕子之贞,明不可息也”。

《论语》:“微子去之,箕子为之奴,比干谏而死。孔子曰:殷有三仁焉。”

.

Shang Prince Ji-zi’s Relocation to today’s Southern Manchuria and Northern Korea


《史記·宋世家》:“其后箕子朝周,过故殷墟。”

史记·宋微子世家》《索隐》:“朝鲜音潮仙。地因水为名。”《朝鲜列传》《集解》引张晏:“朝鲜有湿水、冽水、汕水,三水合为冽水,疑乐浪朝鲜取名于此也。”

《史记·朝鲜传》中记:“朝鲜王满者,故燕人也。自始全燕时,尝略属真番、朝鲜,为置吏,筑鄣塞。秦灭燕,属辽东外檄。汉兴,为其远难守,复修辽东故塞,至浿水为界,属燕。燕王卢绾反,入匈奴。满亡命,聚党千余人,魁结蛮夷服而东走出塞。渡浿水,居秦空地上下鄣,稍役属真番、朝鲜蛮夷及故燕、齐亡命者,王之。都王险。”

《史记·朝鲜传》:“自始全燕时尝略属真番、朝鲜,为置吏,筑障塞。秦灭燕属辽东外缴。汉兴,为其远难守,复修辽东故塞至浿水为界属燕”。(《隋书·东夷传·高丽》:‘都于平壤城,亦曰长安城,东西六里,随山屈曲,南临浿水’ [即今朝鲜大同江]。)

《东夷列传》辰韩“耆老自言秦之亡人,避苦役,适韩国,马韩割东界之地与之”

《淮南子·时则训》: “东方之极,自碣石山过朝鲜,贯大人之国,东至日出之次, 榑木之地,青土树木之野”

《盐铁论》篇三八《备胡》:“大夫曰:往者(秦末、汉初)四夷俱强,并为寇虐,朝鲜逾檄,劫燕之东地。”

《后汉书·东夷传》:“论曰:‘昔箕子违衰殷之运,避地朝鲜。” (《后汉书· 东夷传》:“夷者,柢也,言仁而好生……至有君子、不死之国焉。)

《后汉书·东夷传》:“箕子教以礼义田蚕,又制八条之教。其人终不相盗,无门户之闭。妇人贞信。饮食以笾豆。”

鱼豢《魏略》:“昔箕子之后朝鲜侯,见周衰,燕自尊为王,欲略地。朝鲜亦自称为王,欲兴兵逆击燕,以尊周室。”

《魏略》:“初,右渠未破时,朝鲜相历溪卿以谏右渠不用,东之辰国,时民随出居者二千余户,亦与朝鲜贡蕃不相往来。”

《三国志》卷三0《韩传》注引《魏略》:“时朝鲜王立,畏秦袭之,略服属秦,不肯朝会。否亡,其子立。二十余年而陈、项起,天下乱,燕、齐、赵民愁苦,稍稍亡往乃置之于西方。”

三国志.魏志.东夷传》注引三国 魏 鱼豢 《魏略》:“后子孙稍骄虐, 燕 乃遣将 秦开 攻其西方,取地二千餘里,至 满番汗 为界, 朝鲜 遂弱。”  (卢弼 集解引 赵一清 曰:“两《汉志》俱作 番汗 。”按,《汉书·地理志下》“ 番汗 ”原注:“ 沛水 出塞外,西南入海。”)

《三国志》卷三0《韩传》:“[朝鲜]侯准既  号称王,为燕亡人卫满所攻夺,将左右宫人走入海,居韩地,自号韩王。其后绝灭,今韩人犹有奉其祭祀者。”

王符:《潜夫论》,篇三五《志氏姓》:“昔周宣王时亦有韩侯,其国也近燕。其后,韩西亦姓韩,为卫满所伐,迁居海中。汪继培笺:案韩西盖朝鲜之误。”

周致中《异域志》卷上:“朝鲜国,古朝仙,一曰高丽,在东北海滨。周封箕子之国,以商人五千从之。其乙巫卜筮、百工技艺、礼乐诗书,皆从中国。”

晋郭璞注《山海经·海内北经》:“朝鮮,今乐浪县,箕子所封也。”

张华《博物志》卷九《杂说》:“箕子居朝鮮;其后,燕伐之,朝鲜亡,[王]入海为鲜{现}{国}师。” ([前秦]王嘉《拾遗记》: 张华字茂先,挺生聪慧之德,好观秘异图纬之部,捃采天下遗逸,自书契之始,考验神怪,及世间闾里所说,造《博物志》四百卷,奏于武帝。)

通典 邊防典 東夷上 序略
初,朝鮮王準為衛滿所破,乃將其餘眾數千人走入海,攻馬韓,破之,自立為韓王。準後滅絕,馬韓人復自立為辰王。後漢光武建武中,韓人廉斯人蘇馬諟等詣樂浪貢獻。諟音是。帝封蘇馬諟為漢廉斯邑君,使屬樂浪郡,四時朝謁。靈帝末,韓、濊並盛,郡縣不能制,百姓苦亂,多流亡入韓者。獻帝建安中,公孫康分屯有、有鹽縣屯有、有鹽並漢遼東屬縣,並今東夷之地。以南荒地為帶方郡,遣公孫模、張敞等收集遺民,興兵代韓、濊,舊民稍出。是後倭韓遂屬帶方。魏景初中,明帝密遣帶方太守劉昕、樂浪太守鮮于嗣越海定二郡,諸韓國臣智加賜邑君印綬,其次與邑長。其俗好衣幘,下戶詣郡朝謁,皆假衣幘,自服印綬衣幘千有餘人。部從事吳林以樂浪本統韓國,分割辰韓八國以與樂浪。晉武帝咸寧中,馬韓王來朝,自是無聞。三韓蓋為百濟、新羅所吞并。

.

The Japanese

《山海經·海內北經》: 蓋國在鉅燕南、倭北。倭屬燕。

王充《論衡·恢國篇》: 成王之時,越裳獻雉,倭人貢

《漢書·地理志》: 樂浪海中有倭人,分為百余國,以歲時來獻見雲。

《詩經·小雅·四牡》:“四牡 周道倭遲。”《說文》:“順貌,從人,委聲。”

通典邊防典 通典卷第一百八十五  邊防一   邊防序   東夷上

馬韓,後漢時通焉。有三種,一曰馬韓,二曰辰韓,三曰弁辰。馬韓在西,五十有四國,其北與樂浪、南與倭接。辰韓在東,十有二國,其北與濊貊接。弁辰在辰韓之南,亦十有二國,其南亦與倭接。凡七十八國。或云百濟是其一國焉。大者萬餘戶,小者數千家,各在山海閒,地合方四千餘里,東西以海為限,皆古之辰國也。馬韓最大,共立其種為辰王,都目支國,盡王三韓之地。其諸國王先皆是馬韓種人焉。

馬韓人…。其南界近倭,亦有文身者。

國朝典故卷之一百三  日本國考略(明)薛俊 撰 日本國考略補遺  國朝貢變略  洪武二年。遣使趙秩諭日本來貢。是年差臣趙秩使日本,泛海至析木崖, (「泛海至析木崖」,「析」原作「折」,據明史卷三二二外國三日本傳改。) 關者拒秩,以書達王良懷,始延入。諭以詔旨威德,責其不臣,王曰:「吾國雖夷,遐在扶桑,未嘗不慕中國之化。昔蒙古戎狄蒞華,而以小國視我,乃使趙良弼訹我以好語,初不知其覘國也。既而發水犀數十艘至,一時雷霆風波,漂覆幾無遺類,自是不與通者數十年。今使得非蒙古良弼之雲仍乎?亦將訹我以好語而襲我也?」將刃之。秩徐曰:「聖天子生華帝華,非蒙古比,我非良弼之胤。爾悖而殺我,禍不旋踵矣。」王氣沮,下堂延秩, (「下堂延秩」,原缺「堂」字,據明史卷三二二外國三日本傳補。) 禮遇有加。貢物,遣僧九人隨秩奉表稱臣入貢。

五年,遣僧祖闡、無逸往宣教,諭其來貢。太祖皇帝謂劉基曰:「東夷固非北胡心腹之患,猶蚊蚤驚寤。自覺不寧。議其俗尚佛教,宜選高僧說其歸順。」遂命明州天寧寺僧祖闡、 (仲猷) 南京瓦棺寺僧無逸 (克勤) 往彼,化其來貢。將行,天界住持四明宗泐 (季譚) 賦詩餞別。

通典邊防典 通典卷第一百八十五 邊防一  邊防序  東夷上  序略 朝鮮 濊 馬韓 辰韓 弁辰 百濟 新羅 倭 夫餘 蝦夷               覆載之內,日月所臨,華夏居土中,生物受氣正。李淳風云,談天者八家,其七家,甘氏、石氏、渾天之類。以度數推之,則華夏居天地之中也。又歷代史,倭國一名日本,在中國直東;扶桑國復在倭國之東,約去中國三萬里,蓋近於日出處

.

The Barbarians in Manchuria

This webmaster’s point was that the early Huns were most likely Qiangic proto-Tibetans or a possible separate Yun-surnamed Xianyun group which was exiled to Northwest China together with the San-miao people in the late 3rd millennium B.C.E.; the later Xianbei, Khitan, Jurchen, Mongol and Manchu people, who were proto-Manchurian or proto-Altaic, were the C haplogroup; and the “cooked” barbarians, i.e., those dwelling between the Sinitic Chinese and the “raw” barbarians, were the mixed O/C/N-haplogroup people.) Below this webmaster had lumped all barbarians in Manchuria, south or north, together without distinction. Should we zero in, then we might say that the records on the locality of the Huns versus the Xianbei could be a starting point from which we could deduce that the Huns and Xianbei were separated by the pine deserts of the Jehol mountains, near Kalgan, with the former belonging more likely to the cooked O/N mixed barbarians and the latter the relatively uncooked C-haplogroup from the Amur River to the north.

《诗经·大雅·韩奕》郑笺:“其后追也、貉也为猃狁所逼,稍稍东迁”

《国语·晋语》:“昔成王盟诸侯于岐阳,楚为荆蛮,置茅蕝,设望表,与鲜卑守燎,故不与盟。”韦昭注:“鲜卑,东夷国。”

《史记》(赵)李牧“大破匈奴十余万骑,灭襜褴,破东胡,降林胡,单于奔走”

《史记》卷一百二十九《货殖列传》:“夫燕亦勃、碣之间一都会也。南通齐、赵,东北边胡。上古至辽东,地踔远,人民稀,数被寇,大与赵、代俗相类,而民刁悍少虑,有鱼盐枣粟之饶。北邻乌桓、夫余,东绾秽貉、朝鲜、真番之力。”

《史记·平津侯主父列传》:“今欲招南夷,朝夜郎,……略秽州。”《索引》:“如淳曰:(秽),东夷也。”

《史记·朝鲜列传》:“真番、临屯皆来服属。”《索引》:“东夷小国,后以为郡。”

《史记·五帝本纪》:“北山戎、发、息慎。”《集解》:“郑玄曰:息慎,或谓之肃慎,东北夷。”

《史记匈奴列传》卷一一○,第2889页:时东胡强,闻冒顿立,使使谓冒顿曰:愿得先王之千里马。冒顿问群臣,群臣皆曰:此匈奴宝马,勿予。冒顿曰;奈何与领国爱一马乎?遂与之。倾之,东胡以为冒顿畏之,使使又谓之曰:欲得单于阏氏。冒顿复问左右,左右皆怒曰:东胡无道,乃求阏氏!请击之!冒顿曰:奈何与邻国爱一女子乎?遂取所爱阏氏予东胡。东胡王愈骄,西侵。与匈奴中间有弃地莫居千余里,各居其边为瓯脱,东胡使使谓冒顿曰:匈奴与我界瓯脱外弃地,吾欲有之。冒顿问群臣,或曰:此弃地,予之。于是冒顿大怒曰:地者,国之本也,奈何予人?诸言予者,皆斩之。冒顿上马令国中居后者斩,遂东袭东胡,东胡初轻冒顿不为备。及顿兵至,大破东胡,灭其国,虏其民人及畜产。

《汉书·高祖纪》颜师古注:“貉在东北方,三韩之属皆貊类也。”
《汉书,匈奴传》范明友 “兵不空出,即后匈奴,遂击乌桓”

《论衡·吉验》夫余:“北夷橐离国王侍婢有娠,王欲杀之。婢对曰:‘有气大如鸡子从天而下,我故有娠。后产子’”

(东汉)服虔《史记》注解本《集解》:“山戎,北狄,盖今鲜卑也”。

东汉服虔:“东胡,乌桓之先,后为鲜卑。”

(东汉)应奉:“鲜卑者,秦筑长城徒役之士亡出塞外,依鲜卑山,因以为号”

应劭: “秦始皇遣蒙恬筑长城,徒士犯罪亡依鲜卑山,后遂无息;今皆髡头衣赭,亡 徒之明效也”

《汉书·匈奴传》“汉既班四条后护乌桓使节告乌桓民,毋得复与匈奴皮布税。匈奴以故事遣使者责乌桓税,匈奴人民妇女欲贾贩者皆往焉”。

《汉书·地理志》:“上谷至辽东,地广民希,数被胡寇,俗与赵、代相类,有鱼盐、枣栗之饶。北隙乌丸、夫余,东贾真番之利。”

《后汉书》卷九十《乌桓鲜卑列传》:“鲜卑者,亦东胡之支也,别依鲜卑山,故因号焉。远窜辽东塞外,……与乌桓相接。” (《隋图经》:“鲜卑山在柳城县(今辽宁朝阳西南)。《读史方舆纪要》卷18‘柳城东二百里有鲜卑山,东胡因以为号。或曰鲜卑山及青山。”《太平寰宇记》:“鲜卑山在河北道营州柳城县(州治)东二百例。”  “棘城东塞外又有鲜卑山在辽西西北一百里。”《蒙古游牧记》卷一《科尔沁部右翼中旗》:“旗西三十里有鲜卑山。”《水经注》引《释氏西域记》记载敦煌东南也有一鲜卑山。)

《后汉书》《乌桓鲜卑列传》:鲜卑“其言语习俗与乌桓相同。”

《后汉书》卷九十《乌桓鲜卑列传》:“鲜卑”汉初(公元前206年),以为冒顿所破,窜辽东塞外,与乌桓相接,未尝通中国焉……建武二十五年(公元49年),鲜卑始通驿使。

《后汉书》《乌桓鲜卑东夷列传》乌桓“退薄雾环山,因以为号焉。”

《后汉书·高句丽传》记载:“武帝灭朝鲜,以高句丽为县,使属玄菟。”

《后汉书·乌桓传》:“邑落各有小帅,数百干落自为一部。”

《后汉书·高句丽传》记载:“武帝灭朝鲜,以高句丽为县,使属玄菟。”“赐鼓吹伎人”

后汉书·东夷列传·高句骊传》载:“建武八年(32年),高句骊遣使朝贡,光武复其王号。”

三國志卷三十/魏書三十

魏書曰。烏丸者、東胡也。漢初、匈奴冒頓滅其國、餘類保烏丸山、因以爲號焉。俗善騎射、隨水草放牧、居無常處、以穹廬爲宅、皆東向。日弋獵禽獸、食肉飲酪、以毛毳爲衣。貴少賤老、其性悍驁、怒則殺父兄、而終不害其母、以母有族類、父兄以己爲種、無復報者故也。常推募勇健能理決鬭訟相侵犯者爲大人、邑落各有小帥、不世繼也。數百千落自爲一部、大人有所召呼、刻木爲信、邑落傳行、無文字、而部衆莫敢違犯。氏姓無常、以大人健者名字爲姓。大人已下、各自畜牧治產、不相徭役。其嫁娶皆先私通、略將女去、或半歲百日、然後遣媒人送馬牛羊以爲聘娶之禮。壻隨妻歸、見妻家無尊卑、旦起皆拜、而不自拜其父母。爲妻家僕役二年、妻家乃厚遣送女、居處財物、一出妻家。故其俗從婦人計、至戰鬭時、乃自決之。父子男女、相對蹲踞、悉髠頭以爲輕便。婦人至嫁時乃養髮、分爲髻、著句決、飾以金碧、猶中國有冠步搖也。父兄死、妻後母執嫂。若無執嫂者、則己子以親之次妻伯叔焉、死則歸其故夫。俗識鳥獸孕乳、時以四節、耕種常用布穀鳴爲候。地宜青穄、東牆、東牆似蓬草、實如葵子、至十月熟。能作白酒、而不知作麴蘖。米常仰中國。大人能作弓矢鞍勒、鍛金鐵爲兵器、能刺韋作文繡、織縷氊

《三国志·明帝纪》:青龙四年(236年),“秋七月,高句骊王宫斩吴孙权使胡卫等首造,诣幽州。”

《三国志·公孙度传》:景初元年(236年),公孙渊“自立为燕王,置百官有司,遣使者持节,假鲜卑单于玺,封拜边民,诱呼鲜卑,侵扰北方。”二年(238年),太尉司马宣王“率众讨公孙渊,(高句丽王)宫遣主簿大加将数千人助军。”

《魏书·高丽传》“高丽者,出於夫余,自言先祖朱蒙。”

《周书·高丽传》“高丽者,其先出於夫余,自言始祖曰朱蒙,河伯女感日影所孕也。朱蒙长而有材略,夫余人恶而逐之,土于纥升骨城,自号曰高句丽,仍以高为氏。其孙莫来涿盛;击夫余而臣之。莫来裔孙琏,始通使於后魏”

《北史·高句丽传》“高句丽,其先所出夫余。王尝得河伯女,因闭於室内,为日所照,引身避之,日影又逐,既而有孕,生一卵,大如五升。”

《隋书·东夷·高丽传》“高丽之先,出自夫余。夫余王尝得河伯女,因闭於室内,为日光随而照之,感而遂孕,生一大卵,有一男子破壳而出,名曰朱蒙。”

朝鲜《三国遗事》引《古记》:“北夫余于前汉宣帝神舜三年壬戌四月八日立都称王,国号北夫余,自称名解慕漱,生子名曰夫娄,以解为氏焉;后因上帝之命,移都于东夫余。东明继北夫余而兴,立都于卒本川,为卒本夫余,为卒本夫余高句丽始祖”

《晋书·慕容云载记》:“慕容云字子雨,宝之子也。祖父和,高句丽之支庶,自云高阳氏之后裔,故以高为氏焉。”

《晋书·慕容隽载记》:(355年)“高句丽王钊遣使谢恩,贡其方物。隽以钊为营州诸军事、征军大将军、营州刺使、封乐浪公、王如故。”

《晋书· 慕容熙载记》:“高句丽寇燕郡,杀略百余人,熙伐高句丽,以符氏从,为冲车地道,以攻辽东。熙曰‘待铲平寇城,朕当与后乘辇而入。’不听将士先登。於是城内严备,攻之不能下。会大雨雪,士卒多死,乃引归。” (《资治通鉴·晋纪·安帝戊》:“元兴三年(404年),高句丽侵燕。”)

《梁书·诸夷·高句丽传》:(413年)“至孙高琏,晋安帝义熙中,始奉表痛贡职,历宋齐并授爵位,年百余岁死。”

《宋书·少帝纪》:“景平元年(423年)三月,是月,高句丽遣使朝贡。景平二年(424年)正月,高句丽遣使朝贡。”

《南齐书·高帝纪下》:“建元二年(480年)夏四月丙寅,进高丽王、乐浪公高琏,号骠骑大将军。”

《隋书·高祖纪上》:“开皇元年(581年)冬十月酉,百济王扶余昌遣使来贺,授昌上开府仪同三司、带方郡公。十二月壬寅,高句丽王高阳遣使朝贡,授阳大将军、辽东郡公。”

通典邊防典 通典卷第一百八十五 邊防一  邊防序  東夷上  序略         又有州胡,在馬韓之西海中大島上,其人差短小,言語不與韓同,皆髡頭如鮮卑,但衣韋衣,有上無下,略如裸勢。養牛豕,乘船往來貨市韓中。

《旧唐书·高祖本纪》:“武德七年(624年)春正月已酉,封高句丽王高武为辽东郡王,百济王扶余璋为带方郡王,新罗王金真平为乐浪郡王。”

《旧唐书·地理志·安东都护府》记载:“总章元年(668年)九月,司空李绩平高丽。高丽本五部,一百七十六城,户六十九万七千。其年是十二月,分高丽地为九都督府,四十二州,一百县,置安东都护府於平壤城,以统之。用其酋为都督、刺使、县令,令将军薛仁贵以兵二万镇安东府。”

《新唐书·高丽传》:“绩攻盖牟城,拔之,得户二万,粮十万石,以其地为盖州。” “获胜兵万,户四万,粮五十万石,以其地为辽州”。 “获男女凡万,兵二千。以其地为岩州”。

《旧唐书·高丽传·高宗纪下》总章二年(669年)五月庚子: “移高丽户二万八千二百……将入内地,莱(莱州)、营(朝阳)二州般次发遣,量配于江、淮以南及山南、并(山西)、凉(甘肃武威)以西诸州空闲处安置”。

《新唐书·高丽传》:“总章二年,徙高丽民三万余江淮、山南{道}。”

.

The Distinction between the Nine Ancient Yi Groups & the Hmong-Mien People

Scholar Xu Xusheng [徐旭生], in《中国古史的传说时代》, claimed that the ancient Chinese might have compacted two remotely-ancient persons of Fuxi [伏羲] and Taihao-shi [太皞] as one: “据我们研究,伏羲女娲实属这一集团,传说同南方传至北方。” “东夷集团……这一集团较早的氏族,我们知道的有太皞(或作太昊,实即大皞),有少皞(或作少昊,实即小皞)……太皞在后来与伏羲成了一个人,是齐鲁学者综合整理的结果”。

In the Han dynasty, the Chinese prehistory was mechanically pushed out to have become something that started with Paoxi-shi, aka Taihao. This was something that provided fodder to the 20th century doubt-ancient scholars who had a point in saying that the more recent it became, the more detailed the stories about the ancient sovereigns became. Paoxi-shi was said to have marked the beginning of the so-called ‘Human’ or ‘Mt Taishan’ Era of ‘huang’ (splendidness or magnificence) which was successive to the Heaven ‘huang’ and the Earth ‘huang’.

Per Sima Qian, who recorded China’s prehistory from the Yellow Overlord (emperor) onward, he heard the name of Taihao, literally meaning Hao the Great, from his forebearers, i.e., father and grandfather and so on, that Taihao was the utmost pure and generous, and was responsible for inventing the ’8 Gua’ [hexagrams]. Here, the later historians had mixed up the mythic figure of Fuxi with what Han Dynasty historian Sima Qian had recorded to be some real person called Taihao who invented the ’8 Gua’ [hexagrams].

Fuxi, a fable figure, was described by the Jinn/Tang dynasty historians to have first originated in the west of China. The prototype, in another sense, was being widely talked about in central/southern China, or the former land of the Chu Principality which shared the same Sinitic royal heritage.

Per the post-book-burning Wei-suffixed books of the Han dynasty time period, Fu Xi was said to have invented the nets for catching animals and fishes, instituted the protocol of marriage, created the theory of Yin-Yang (i.e., female-male), authored the works of I-Ching (i.e., the Book of Changes), and invented Ba-Gua (i.e., Trigrams). Zeng Guangdong, from the above-cited website, made the same commonly-acknowledged claim that “Fu Xi was the initiation of the Chinese written language”, which was contrary to the Sinitic-centered viewpoint that Huangdi or the Yellow Lord had his chronicle official, Cang-jie, invent the characters on basis of the marks left by the beasts and birds.

The Non-equivalency of Fuxi and Taihao

What happened here was that the ancient Chinese, since the Han dynasty time period, had mixed up the two personalities of Fuxi and Taihao, with Fuxi more a spirit while Taihao a possibly real figure, carrying the “Feng [wind]” surname.  Tai-hao-shi was said to be the ancestor of the ‘Feng[wind]-surnamed’ tribe [which might not be the same as the O2-haplogroup Yi [misnomer Dong-Yi or Eastern Yi] people].

The land of Taihao 大皞 at the Soong Principality locality

《左传》昭公十七年云:“宋,大辰之虚也;陈,大皞虚也;郑,祝融之虚也;皆火房也。……卫,颛顼之虚也,故为帝丘。其星为大水”。

Taihao living in the land of the east:

(晋)王嘉《拾遗录》:春皇者,庖牺之别号。…庖者,包也,言包含万象。以牺牲登荐于百神,民服其圣,故曰庖牺,亦谓伏羲。变混沌之质,文宓其教,故曰宓牺。布至德于天下,元元之类,莫不尊焉。以木德称王,故曰春皇。其明睿照于八区,是谓太昊。昊者,明也。位居东方,以含养蠢化,叶于木德,其音附角,号曰“木皇”。

Taihao carrying the surname of Feng or phoenix

《竹书纪年》:“太昊伏羲氏,以木德王,为风姓。”  (The Bamboo Annals could be wrong in mixing up Taihao and Fuxi. Or, anything in THE BAMBOO ANNALS that preceded the Xia dynasty could be the later day insertion –as there was no such concept as Fuxi till the Han dynasty or the appearance of the Warring States fables like ZHUANG ZI and LIE ZI.)

Qin’s ancestor 少昊 dwelling near today’s Qufu:

《国语·楚语》:“及少昊之衰也,九黎乱德”)。

《帝王世纪》:“少昊邑于穷桑,以登帝位。都曲阜。”

Ancient classics Zhan Guo Ce stated that when Lord Yu attacked San-miao, the Nine Yi people did not render assistance to the San-Miao alliance. This means the San-miao folks and the Nine Yi were in deed two separate groups.

“禹攻三苗而东夷之民不起”(《战国策·魏策二》)

More readings on San-miao could be seen at “三苗的源与流” regarding The Origin of San-miao and Their Descendants. What this article said was that the southern folks were the descendants of the ancient San-miao or the three ancestors of 二昊、蚩尤. This makes sense somewhat in resolving some controversy, especially the one involving the O3-gene Hmong-Mien people versus the O2-gene Nine Yi people on the coast.

This article tried to use the totems and tribal symbols to trace the origin of the O3 kinsmen called by San Miao or the THREE ANCESTORS. It claims that

1. Yao-zu 瑶族 – dragon tribe, descendants of Taihao-shi

Basis:《左传·昭十七年》:“大皞氏以龙纪,故为龙师而龙名。”

2. Lan-surnamed She-zu 畬族 – phoenix tribe, descendants of Shaohao-shi

Basis:《左传·昭十七年》:“少皞挚之立也,凤鸟适至,故纪于鸟,为鸟师而鸟名。”

3. Maio-zu 苗族 – ox tribe, descendants of Chi-you

Basis:《述异记》:“(蚩尤)人身牛蹄……头有角。”又载:“今冀州有乐名‘蚩尤戏’,其民两两三三,头戴牛角而相抵。汉造角抵戏,盖其遗制也。”

The above categorization is simplistic. Though, it serves the point that the ancient San-miao people, or their predecessor Jiu-li people, who had to be the O3-haplogroup people versus the O2-haplogroup Yi people along the coast, did move south and southwest to today’s southwestern China. Historical records abound to prove this point:

郭璞注《山海经·海外南经》:“昔尧以天下让舜,三苗之君非之,帝杀之。有苗之民,叛入南海,为三苗国。”

《史记卷一•五帝本纪第一》“欢兜进言共工,尧曰不可而试之公师,共工果淫辟。四岳举鲧治鸿水,尧以为不可,岳强请试之,试之而无功,故百姓不便。三苗在江淮、荆州数为乱,于是舜归而言于帝,请流共工于幽陵,以变北狄;放欢兜于崇山,以变南蛮;迁三苗于三危,以变西戎;殛鲧于羽山,四罪而天下咸服。”

《左传·文十八年》:“缙云氏有不才子,贪于饮食,冒于贷贿,侵欲崇侈,不可盈厌,聚敛积实,不知纪报,不分孤寡,不恤贫匮。天下之民以此三凶,谓之‘饕餮’。舜臣尧,宾于四门,流四凶族浑敦、穷奇、檮机、饕餮、投谐四裔,以[]魑魅”。

More recent events that saw the [O2-haplogroup] Yi people being pushed south would be Zhou Duke Zhougong’s campaign to the south of the Yangtze:

《吕氏春秋·古乐》:“成王立,殷民反,王命周公践伐之。商人服象,为虐于东夷,周公遂以师逐之江南 。”


Posted in Ancient China, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Preliminary Discussion on the Forgeries in Chinese Classics

The ancient Chinese classics from prehistory, per Xiao Qi’s comment on Wang Jia’s Shi-yi-ji (Records of Collected Extant Heritage), were written on the jades wrapped by the golden threads, and inscribed using the bird-scratch-style characters and worm-crawl-style characters, with characters’ shape and their underscoring pronunciation mutating along the way of dissipation as a result of the rise and fall of ancient ruling and dynasties.

(晋)王嘉《拾遗记》(梁 )[萧绮]录曰:书契之作,肇迹轩史,道朴风淳,文用尚质。降及唐、虞,爰迄三代,世祀遐绝,载历绵远。列圣通儒,忧乎道缺。故使玉牒金绳之书,虫章鸟篆之记,或秘诸岩薮,藏于屋壁;或逢丧乱,经籍事寝。前史旧章,或流散异域。故字体与俗讹移,其音旨随方互改。历商、周之世,又经嬴、汉,简帛焚裂,遗坟残泯。详其朽蠹之余,采捃传闻之说。是以“己亥”正于前疑,“三豕”析于后谬。子年所述,涉乎万古,与圣叶同,擿文求理,斯言如或可据。

1) Starting the Forgery Topic from  Guan-zi (管子轻重篇新诠 By 马非百) to Guo Yu(《国语》) to YI ZHOU ZHU 《逸周书》 etc

“New Interpretation of the ‘Light vs Heavy’ Chapter in Guan-zi” 管子轻重篇新诠 By 马非百

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

Check out the first 1-4 pages of the said book as to why Ma Feibai thought this book was pretentiously named after Guan-zi (《管子》) of the 7th century B.C. Ma Feibai’s conclusion was that this book was written by someone from Xin (new) Dynasty, in-between Western Han Dynasty and Eastern Han Dynasty, at the turn of B.C.-A.D., in another word. (Or more likely, Guan-zi was being modified during Xin Dynasty.)

On basis of Ma Feibai’s research, we could soundly discard the only sentence linking the misnomer Yu-shi (禺氏) to the jade trade, as well as the annotations by the later historians such as Yi Zhizhang in extrapolating on who the misnomer Yu-shi (禺氏), that the faked Guan-zi (《管子》) statement would have implied, would be.

《管子·揆度》尹知章 注:“ 禺氏 ,西北戎名,玉之所出。”

(Or Yuzhi ['愚知'] in Zhou King Muwang’s fictional travelogue, Mu-tian-zi: 己亥,至于焉居愚知之平。)

See  http://imperialchina.org/Barbarians.htm for this webmaster’s thorough debunking of the ancient myths.

Ancient Chinese scholars had tried for thousands of years to ascertain the real classics from the fake ones. Someone on http://www.chinahistoryforum.com (with various threads including 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(《国语》) , and when it was written. Other than the question about Guo Yu(《国语》) , there was the perpetual discussion on the contents of the hallmark Chinese classics SHANG SHU (尚书), all because of the book burning.

The ancient consensus was that it was done by Zuo Qiuming (Zuoqiu Ming). Some ancient scholars, who looked at the book through the lens of the same stories as carried in Zuo-shi Spring & Autumn (《左氏春秋》) versus Guo Yu(《国语》) ,  concluded that Guo Yu(《国语》) was wrong, and both books could not be authored by the same persons. The recent historians of the doubt ancient clique had disputes about Guo Yu(《国语》)  as well, but the main focus of the doubt ancient school was on the hallmark Chinese classics SHANG SHU (尚书), i.e., The Remote Ancient Book, not on Guo Yu(《国语》) –which was used by communist China’s Xia-Shang-Zhou Gap Reign Year Project for ascertaining the  year Zhou King Wuwang overthrew the Shang dynasty. The general consensus was that Zuo Qiming had basically bundled up the “wasted films” from Zuo-shi Spring & Autumn (《左氏春秋》) to make into a “reference” or encyclopedic book called “Guo-wu (《国语》) . From the ancient times, the two books were called by the opposite juxtaposition of an “inner” compendium versus an “outer” compendium, meaning Zuo-shi Spring & Autumn (《左氏春秋》) was pivoted from the Lu Principality inwardly, while Guo-wu (《国语》) was pivoted towards the rest of the principalities in an outward way. This was a simplistic compromise. This webmaster would say that Guo-wu (《国语》) was some kind of sophistry book from the Warring States time period, which was an attempt at copycatting the book Zuo-shi Spring & Autumn (《左氏春秋》). The copycatting efforts were something to be applauded, though, and is much better than the contexts in another book called Zhan Guo Ce(战国策) , namely, the Warring States Strategies  –a sophistry book that was compiled by Liu Xin and Liu Xiang in the late Western Han Dynasty. This webmaster would say the two books Guo-wu (《国语》) and Zhan Guo Ce(战国策)  had some common source of materials or authors. From Sima Qian, we could see some initial bundling of the similar Warring States sophistry materials that were equated to Guo-wu (《国语》) , and after one century of the Han dynasty’s book collection and recompiling efforts, more abundant materials were collected and bundled into Zhan Guo Ce(战国策) . This appeared to be the case about both Guo-wu (《国语》)  and Zhan Guo Ce(战国策) .

Zuo-shi Spring & Autumn (《左氏春秋》) was upheld as the standard history text, a book that was built on top of the Lu Principality historical chronicle called Spring & Autumn (《春秋》). There was of course dispute about the real author for the book Zuo-shi Spring & Autumn (《左氏春秋》), with different versions of authors as either Zuoqiu Ming or Zuo Qiuming. At the very beginning, the book was simply called by “Zuo” or “Zuo-shi”. There was a similar abridgment for the other double-character clan names, such as “Ji-shi” for “Ji-sun-shi” clan in the contents of Zuo-shi Spring & Autumn (《左氏春秋》) –which interestingly contained some double-character surnames for the Qi Principality ministers, like Liangqiu and Lvqiu etc. Qi minister Lvqiu Ming had the the almost same given name as Zuoqiu Ming, if “Zuoqiu” was a double character surname at all. The full name of Zuoqiu Ming, as a double character surname, was seen in the books compiled by Confucius’ disciples, mostly the Warring States time period writings, like hundreds of years after Confucius’ death. That is, the disciples, following the extravagant writing styles of the Warring States sophists, were developing their imagination to the utmost, with the most dubious writings to do with the purported Confucius’ role in the execution of a fake Lu minister called Shaozheng Mao, plus some made-up story about the Confucius entourage’ being under the joint siege of the Chen-guo and Cai-guo lords –at a time when the Cai-guo state had already relocated to Zhoulai to seek protection with the Wu state.

In comparison with YI ZHOU ZHU 《逸周书》, Guo-yu (《国语》) appeared to be more accurate than YI ZHOU ZHU 《逸周书》 which was said to be some leftover chapters from Shang-shu (《尚书》), or 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].  Before Qin Emperor Shihuangdi’s book burning, there was no real-sense forgery in the Chinese classics. The writings like Guo-wu (《国语》)  and Zhan Guo Ce(战国策 were just of the Warring States sophistry style, and perhaps some innocent mistake in taking the Warring States fable stories as granted, such as from Zhuang-zi (庄子) and Lie-zi (列子) [if both or one of the two books were not in the full book shape till the Han dynasty yet]. The forgeries came about in the middle or later Western Han Dynasty, with YI ZHOU SHU(《逸周书》) and SHANG1 SHU (《商书》) being the prime suspects . Throughout the history, some of the forgeries became the standard text, and hence was re-inserted back into the history books during subsequent re-compilation and re-substantiation whenever dynastic substitution led to the destruction of imperial libraries.

-Now, we do have a brilliant example to show how the Warring States sophists, sorcerers or philosophers made up the things from the thin air or the from the electron hole. That would be the book Mu-tian-zi (《穆天子》). As far as Zhou King Muwang’s fictional travelogue, Mu-tian-zi (《穆天子》) is concerned, we should said that it was written in perhaps the 4th century B.C.E. as a fiction in the first place, not as history, and that it was the later people who mistook it as real history and then spent lifetime efforts on debating its authenticity – about the book itself and about the contents of the book. The confusion derived from its incidental discovery together with THE BAMBOO ANNALS – the only non-tainted history book of ancient China. This webmaster’s point is that should Mu-tian-zi (《穆天子》) be a total fiction, what else could be in a similar boat?

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(s). 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 in the 16th century B.C. around, you had the incredible list of barbarian tribes and vassals (as seen in Han Emperor Wudi’s time, 140-87 B.C.E.) 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。)

–Whether or not Yi-zhou-shu or Zhou-shu 《逸周书》was forged by the same person as the forged Guan-zi (《管子》) is not important. What’s important is the demarcation of events prior to the Hun-Yuezhi War of the 3rd century B.C.E. or after the the Hun-Yuezhi War. (For the topic on Yuezhi, refer to http://imperialchina.org/indx.shtml#Yuezhi)

Another 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 failure to rebut the jade trade matter since he was living under Mao’s communist China, enduring persecutions during the cultural revolution and having limited information on the ‘Central Asia’ studies going on outside of China. (The Yuezhi people Wang Guowei was referring to would be probably the Lesser Yuezhi, not the Greater Yuezhi who moved to today’s Afghanistan through Ili.)

Ma Feibai, however, correctly pointed out on page 18 that Mt Kunlun, the Khotan jade, etc., did not get talked about in China till after the return of Zhang Qian’s trip to Central Asia. –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 very likely did trace the Tarim (Ye-er-qiang) and Khotan rivers. (The ancient Chinese, from the time the book Yu-gong [禹贡, Lord Yu's Tributes] was written, as well as in the timeframe of the 4th century B.C.E when they authored the book of Shan Hai Jing (山海经, Book of the Mountains and Seas), had shown extreme interest in the origin of the Yellow River but always had the false view that some river from the Pamirs had disappeared into the Kumtag Desert to flow invisibly under the ground and re-appeared as the source of water for the Yellow River. YU GONG, which was a book that preceded all the geography books, only talked about the desert and the Yellow River, with no linkage of a so-called Kunlun mountain and the the water of the Yellow River at all; and furthermore, the characters ‘kunlun’ appeared to be a tribal name, not a mountain name. ER YA, a later dictionary-nature book, had the mythical land of the Kunlun mountain.)

.

2) Yi-zhou-shu (《逸周书》)

The reason that Yi-zhou-shu or Zhou-shu 《逸周书》 could be a made-up by the later Chinese, probably at about the same time as the forged Guan-zi (《管子》), is that the contents in regards to the barbarian and alien tribes and states could not have existed earlier than Han Emperor Wudi’s campaigns. It was said to be the sub-components or the purported “wasted films” (i.e., 《逸周书》etc.) of Shang-shu《尚书》when Confucius (551-479 B.C.E.) left out those contents. See Liu Xiang’s comment below:

刘向:“周诰誓号令也,盖孔子所论百篇之余也。”

The book Zhou-shu 《周书》, however, did get cited by other pre-Qin works such as Zuo-zhuan《左传》, Guo-yu《国语》, Mo-zi《墨子》, and Zhanguo-ce《战国策》etc., either as Zhou-shu 《周书》or Zhou-zhi 《周志》.

《史记·苏秦传》: “苏秦乃闭室不出,出其书偏观之……于是得《周书》、《阴符》,伏而读之。”

《汉书·艺文志·书类》:“《周书》七十一篇,周史记。” (颜师古注说:“今之存者,四十五篇”。)

《新唐书·艺文志》:  “《汲冢周书》十卷。” (*disputed by Wang Yinglin*)

(唐)刘知几: “时有浅末恒说,滓濊相参,殆似后之好事者所增益”(《史通·六家》)。

《宋史·艺文志》: “《汲冢周书》十卷,晋太康中于汲冢得之。孔晁注。”

(宋)王应麟《困学纪闻》:“《周书》,《隋》、《唐志》系之汲冢,而《束晳传》及《左传正义》引王隐《晋书》所载竹书之目无《周书》,然则系于汲冢误矣。”

清《四库全书总目》:“《晋书·束晳传》载竹书75篇,具有篇名,无所谓《周书》。”

(清)朱右曾《逸周书集训校释序》: “此书虽未必果出文、武、周、召之手,要亦非战国秦汉人所能伪托。何者?庄生有言:圣人之法,以参为验,以稽为决,一二三四是也。周室之初,箕子陈畴,《周官》分职,皆以数记,大致与此书相似:其证一也。《克殷篇》所叙,非亲见者不能;《商誓》、《度邑》、《皇门》、《芮良夫》诸篇,大似今文《尚书》,非伪古文所能仿佛:其证二也。称引是书者,苟息、狼晖、魏绛,皆在孔子前:其证三也。”

In Han-shu (《汉书·艺文志·书类》), there was a reference to the existence of Zhou-shu 《周书》, but those chapters were later lost. Later, in the tomb excavation during the Jinn Dynasty, from that of Wei Principality King Xiangwang (?-296 B.C.E.), ten chapters of Zhou-shu 《周书》were found together with the Bamboo Annals (竹书纪年) and Zhou King Muwang’s Legends(《穆天子》), which came to be known as Yi-zhou-shu 《逸周书》, i.e., the extant version of Zhou-shu. Wang Yinglin, however, disputed the Ji-zhong tomb excavation to have contained any chapters of Zhou-shu among the 75 bamboo chapters from Wei King Xiangwang’s era (?-296 B.C.E.)

The most likely scenario could be what Yan Shigu stated during Tang Dynasty, namely, by Tang Dynasty, there existed 45 chapters of Zhou-shu, with possible recompiling on top of materials from the Ji-zhong tomb excavation. Liu Zhiji from Tang Dynasty succinctly pointed out that the later ‘trouble-maker’ scholars could have added to the original Zhou-shu book, yielding to what this webmaster said earlier as to the fallacy of Shang China or Zhou China’s contacts with the barbarian and alien tribes and statelets which were only known to China at the time of Han Emperor Wudi.

In the opinion of Lu Xun who cited Han Dynasty scholar Ying Shao, the “original” Zhou Shu was a pure fiction similar to what Han Dynasty writer Yu Chu did to the book Yu-chu (虞初》). However, Lu Xun, after checking into the “modern” Zhou Shu, which was from King Xiangwang’s Ji-zong tomb, said that  four chapters (《克殷》《世俘》《王会》《太子晋》) sounded like fiction whereas the rest of the chapters appeared non-fictional. That is, the widely-cited chapter “Wang Hui” (《王会》, i.e., King’s gathering of vassals) was a fiction, meaning whatever the talk on the horses of Yu-shi (禺氏), as well as the misnomer Yuezhi (月氏) as cited in Shang-[dynasty-]shu (《商书·伊尹朝献》), was fictional, as well.

Comment by Lu Xun:  ”汉应劭说,《周书》为虞初小说所本,而今本《逸周书》中惟《克殷》《世俘》《王会》《太子晋》四篇,记述颇多夸饰,类于传说,余文不然。至汲冢所出周时竹书中,本有《琐语》十一篇,为诸国卜梦妖怪相书,今佚,《太平御览》间引其文;又汲县有晋立《吕望表》,亦引《周志》,皆记梦验,甚似小说,或虞初所本者为此等,然别无显证,亦难以定之。”

In deed, in the latter part of Zhou Dynasty, there was a flurry of activities by scholars of the Hundred Schools of Thoughts in the authoring of various philosophical works. The typical philosophical book, such as Zhuang-zi (庄子) and Lie-zi (列子), appeared to be hypothetical but were later taken as historical truth.

The Ji-zong Tomb Excavation:

《晋书·武帝纪》:咸宁五年(279)冬十月“汲郡人不准掘魏襄王冢,得竹简小篆古书十余万言。”  《晋书·束皙传》:“其《纪年》十三篇,记夏以来至周幽王为犬戎所灭,以事接之,三家分,仍述魏事至安釐王之二十年。……《琐语》十一篇,诸国卜夢妖怪相书也。……《穆天子传》五篇,言周穆王游行四海,见帝台、西王母。……又杂书十九篇:《周食田法》、《周书》、《论楚事》、《周穆王美人盛姬死事》。”
.

3) 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 the Chinese classics to prove that Mt Kunlun, in ancient China, meant for Mt Qilianshan, with Kunlun meaning magnificent and heavenly, which the later Huns called by a similar name in their term, i.e., Qilian, a 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, an earlier book which shared similar style with Shan Hai Jing, 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 the Jade trade 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”。

So the conclusion is that the ancient Chinese, at the time of B.C.-A.D. 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.(For the topic on Yuezhi, refer to http://imperialchina.org/indx.shtml#Yuezhi)

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; http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?/topic/37329-evidence-of-jade-silk-road-4100-to-3500-years-old/page-4#entry5018849

(Yang Boda was apparently a non-scholar. More, he is a con artist who certified a Han Dynasty jade clothes that was used for swindling the banks 1000 million  RMB. He spent 4 years in communist colleges during the 1945-1950 civil wars, and was assigned to the forbidden city in 1956 as a party branch secretary. He acknowledged repeatedly himself that he was not someone who had a college degree in ‘jade’.)

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

4) 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, but someone prior to Liu Xiang’s review of the said book. 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 Shi-ji《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‘s juxtaposition of five ancient mountains, including Hengshan (pp. 812-816), which was validated to be a non-sacred mountain, between the Huai-shui River 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 [author of the Debate on Salt & Iron] (pp. 34-38).

First is about 《管子·五行篇》 .     (Haan-fei-zi《韩非子·十过篇》shared the same topics as Guan-zi《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 the 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 Shi-ji《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 the 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 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.

During the Han dynasty, scholars could have recompiled the book GUAN ZI to make a wild assertion to the effect that the Qi army having trepassed the Jinn Princiaplity’s land to reach the Yellow River inflexion area to conquer the barbarians in the ‘da-xia’ [grand Xia] land, coined with the phrases of crossing the ‘liu sha’ [quick sand] and climbing the ‘bei-er’ [?Zhongtiao] mountain. This webmaster believed that what the records stated about Qi Lord’s trekking ‘liu sha’ or the flowing sand could be nothing more than wading the sandy Sha-he River to climb the Mt. Bei-er-shan of today, not what ‘liu sha’ [moving sand/quick sand] historically referred to as the Kumtag Desert. Further, Qi Huan’gong might have never intruded into today’s central Shenxi at all, with the ‘liu sha’ [moving sand/quick sand] sentence being a latter-day forgery. Per QI YU of GUO YU, the Qi lord could have reached the Yellow River inflexion line, where the Bei-er Mountain was said to be located; however, the path to reach the inflexion point was not clear in QI YU of GUO YU, but was described by GUAN ZI as a sensational campaign of crossing the ‘liu sha’ [quick sand] and climbing the ‘bei-er’ [?Zhongtiao] mountain. That was in fact an aborted mission on the part of the Qi lord in the competition with the Qin lord for escorting some competing Jinn prince to the Jinn throne.

See section on Yandi for comments on the forged statement about Qi Lord Huang’gong trekking the Kumtag Desert to campaign against Da-xia (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。].

劉向《說苑·尊賢》:春秋之時,天子微弱,諸侯力政,皆叛不朝;眾暴寡,強劫弱,南夷與北狄交侵,中國之不絕若線。桓公於是用管仲、鮑叔、隰朋、賓胥無、甯戚,三存亡國,一繼絕世,救中國,攘戎狄,卒脅荊蠻,以尊周室,霸諸侯。《春秋公羊傳·僖公四年》: 夏,許男新臣卒。楚屈完來盟于師,盟于召陵。屈完者何?楚大夫也。何以不稱使?尊屈完也。曷為尊屈完?以當桓公也。其言盟于師、盟于召陵何?師在召陵也。師在召陵,則曷為再言盟?喜服楚也。何言乎喜服楚?楚有王者則後服,無王者則先叛。夷狄也,而亟病中國,南夷與北狄交。中國不絕若線,桓公救中國,而攘夷狄,卒帖荊,以此為王者之事也。其言來何?與桓為主也。前此者有事矣,後此者有事矣,則曷為獨於此焉?與桓公為主,序績也。 –Qi Lord Huan’gong, who did not cross the Kumtag Desert, did climb the Mt. Xiongershan, the place the Chinese Communists interrupted the Rectification Movement to second in the second-tier commanders, like Pi Dingjun, Haan Jun, Wang Shusheng and et al. [who were chasing women in Yenan and conducting the brainwashing for years], to occupy the Xionger-shan and Funiushan mountains by taking  advantage of the Japanese Ichigo Campaign of 1944, and campaigned against the land of ‘Jing’ or the future Chu Principality. [(左傳僖公四年桓公伐楚) 管仲:“爾貢苞茅不入,王祭不共,無以縮酒,寡人是徵。” 屈完:“貢之不入,寡君之罪也,敢不共給?”]

Similarly, historian Yuan Ke, in commenting on the book Shan Hai Jing, pointed out that later people had apparently added the word “hai” (sea) to Sima Qian’s entry about the original book Wu Zang Shan Jing, which was abbreviated as “shan” (mountain) “jing” (book).

5) The [纬] ‘Wei’-Suffixed Forgeries (Jing versus Wei was what we Chinese termed the Longitude and Latitude.)

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() ·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 [approx. 369-286 B.C.E.] (《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() ·命历序》. As said earlier,  Zhuang-zi (庄子) and Lie-zi (列子), mostly fables and proverbs similar to The Collection of Aesop’s Fables, appeared to be hypothetical but were later taken as historical truth. (There were indeed corroborations of Zhuang-zi and Lie-zi through the silk and bamboo excavations.)

The claim was that those ‘Wei’-Suffixed Forgeries books were written by someone like Confucius. 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·( 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》.)

Note that the ‘Wei’-Suffixed forgery books had no ill intention. Just that modern people need to know the timing of the books to know which one preceded which. Otherwise, there is a danger of going into a loop to find no answer.

6) 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 or commandments 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”)(《风俗通义校注》卷一〈皇霸〉~ 盖天地剖分,万物萌毓;非有典艺之文,坚基可据,推当今以览太古,自昭昭而本冥冥,乃欲审其事而建其论,董其是非而综其详略,言也实为难哉!故易纪三皇,书叙唐、虞,惟天为大,唯尧则之,巍巍其有成功,焕乎其有文章。自是以来,载籍昭晰。然而立谈者人异,缀文者家舛,斯乃杨朱哭于歧路,墨翟悲于练素者也。是以上述三皇,下记六国,备其终始曰皇霸。) (清(张照)《史记》:“夫删《书》断自唐、虞,孔子岂未见黄帝之书?谓其荒远难稽,不欲传疑于后世也。迁《史》始黄帝,已失孔子之指。贞复等而上之及于伏羲,益又甚矣。”)

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》.

7) 《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. The Fu-sheng’s version was said to have 29 chapters.

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 Liu Yu, son of Han Emperor Jingdi 鲁共王 刘馀 dismantled Confucius’ residency to build a palace.)

It appeared that during the Han Dynasty time period, scholars did have chance to draft the first version of Shang-shu (《尚书》) using the remnants of the said book produced by Fu-sheng. However, the tadpole text version or ancient text version book was not utilized due to the court palace upheavals.

Feng Yan, a Tang Dynasty scholar, claimed that the Latter Han Dynasty scholars obtained the imperial decree to have opened up the tomb of former Qin prime minister Lv Buwei for sake of procuring the ancient texts for comparison, which was to say that the Han court (under Emperor Han Mingdi, reign A.D. 58-75)  had apparently secured a trove of precious ancient texts, similar to the future THE BAMBOO ANNALS find of Jinn Dynasty. The unfortunate thing, however, was that when shipping the Lv Buwei tomb texts, the ship, en route to Ye from Luoyang, sank, with over half of the texts lost. Feng Yan did not specify when the accident had occurred, and further claimed that the demise of Sui Dynasty caused a loss of 90% of the Lv Buwei texts. In conclusion, the ancient scholars had more than one chance to compare the texts of Shang-shu (《尚书》) against the ancient tadpole texts. (From the movement between Ye and Luoyang, this webmaster deduce that Feng Yan actually meant that the text from Lv Buwei’s tomb was lost in shipping during the Tuoba Wei Dynasty time period, namely, approximately A.D. 537 when Eastern Tuoba Wei emperor Xiaojingdi relocated to Ye, with movement of the “Three Style Monuments” of Han Dynasty and Cao Wei Dynasty. See “537年(东魏孝静帝四年)八月,移洛阳汉魏石经于邺。579年(北周大象元年)二月,又自邺还涉洛阳。” This could give further deduction that Feng Yan could have erorr when referring to Eastern Han emperor Mingdi (后汉明帝) as it could be in fact an imperial decree from Eastern Tuoba Wei emperor Xiaojingdi [东魏孝静帝] to dig up Lv Buwei’s tomb.)

封氏闻见记 : 天宝初,敕改尚书古文悉为今本。十 年,有司上言:“经典不正,取舍难准”。诏儒官校定经本,送尚书省并国子司 业张参共相验考。参遂榻定五声字样书于太学讲堂之壁,学者或就取正焉。又颁 字样于天下,俾为永制。由是省司停约习本。后汉明帝时,公卿言五经驳异,请 开吕不韦冢,是未焚诗书前本。论者以为(有缺文)神武作相,自洛阳运之于邺, 至河阳,岸崩,没水,其得至邺者不盈其半。隋开皇六年,又自邺再入长安,置 于秘书内省,议欲补葺。隋乱,造立之司,用为柱础。贞观初,魏征为秘书监, 始收聚之,十不存一。

The confusion was that part of the Feng Yan’s text was lost. **Still some confusion here that I could not reconcile. My question is: If Lv Buwei’s tomb was excavated in the Eastern Han times, why nobody else touched on it?**** My thought that the loss of Shang-shu was the result of the Yongjia Cataclysm, and that the motive to open up the tomb was to rectify the texts due to the loss of ancient classics ensuing from the Yongjia Ctaclysm. (The movement of the Tuoba Wei capital to Ye was an act by Gao Huan whose son later deposed the Tuoba Wei emperor to found Northern Qi Dynasty. The background for the move to Ye from Luoyang was to do with the split of the Tuoba Wei Dynaty, with Emperor Xiaowudi fleeing to Chang’an to be with Yuwen Tai, while Gao Huan (i.e., later Northern Qi Emperor Shenwudi) supported Tuoba Shan (Yuan Shan) as the Eastern Tuoba Wei Emperor Xiaojingdi and acted as a prime minister (i.e., ‘作相‘).)

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 An’guo, called 《尚书传》. (趙銘豐 has a good discourse on the numbers of chapters or volumes. The point made was that the authentic book as of Han Dynasty had 46 chapters, including 29 from Fu-sheng, 16 from Kong An’guo and a preface. Namely, 《尚书》46 篇 =《今文尚书》29 篇 +《古文尚书》16 篇 + 孔安1 篇)

Now, before the Cataclysm of Yongjia, ancient Chinese from Eastern Han Dynasty, Cao Wei Dynasty, and Sima Family’s Jinn Dynasty had erected the “Three Style Monuments”, with ancient tadpole scripts of Shang-shu《尚书》inscribed. Namely, the ancient Chinese prior to the cataclysm, not counting the Qin Emperor Shihuangdi’s book burning, still had a chance to access the ancient texts.

《魏书·列传术艺》:“又建《三字石经》于汉碑之西,其文蔚炳,三体复宣。校之《说文》,篆隶大同,而古字少异。”

《列传·游明根·刘芳》:“昔汉世造三字石经于太学,学者文字不正,多往质焉。”

北魏江式《论书表》: [《三体石经》]“较之《说文》,篆、隶大同,而古字少异”。

北齐魏收《魏书》: [江式514年(延昌三年)]“陈留邯郸淳亦与(张)揖同时,博古开艺,特善《仓》、《雅》,许氏字指,八体六书精究闲理,有名于揖,以书教诸皇子。又建《三字石经》于汉碑之西,其文蔚炳,三体复宣。校之《说文》,篆、隶大同,而古字少异。”

唐房玄龄《晋书》引《四体书势》:“魏初传古文音,出于邯郸淳。恒祖敬侯(卫觊)写淳《尚书》,后以示淳,而淳不别。至正始中,立《三字石经》转失淳法,因科斗之名,遂效其形。”

Now, after the Cataclysm of Yongjia, we had the Eastern Jinn forgeries. 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》in regards to Qing scholar 程廷祚〈《尚書古文疏證》辨〉).”

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. This claim, however, could be fallacious as well.

Hence, what we have today as to Shang-shu, either the original text or the purported Kong An’guo 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 An’guo 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 likely happened, as speculated by lots of people, was that during the Three Kingdom time period 三国·魏 王肃 scholar Wang Shu could have forged the 《尚书传》 book. (It was said that Wang Shu also forged Confucius’ Family Motto孔子家语》 in the name of Kong An’guo 孔安国,and Confucius Descendants’ Motto《孔丛子》in the name of Kong Fu 孔鲋.) This was a categorical blame put on Wang Shu.

       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
1) Editing during the Tang Dynasty -《尚書正義》 唐  孔穎達 注

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 the 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

………… 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。”

唐代经学家孔颖达撰《五经正义》,连同王肃所伪造的《古文尚书》一起收入,合为五十八篇。其中除了伪《古文尚书》外,还有《书序》不出于孔子之手,清末康有为的《新学伪经考》中有《书序辩伪》一文,辨之甚明。因为孔颖达是特奉唐太宗之命作《五经正义》的,采用了王肃旧注本,便成了定本

4) Current editing by the 20th century China forgery specialist Li Xueqin (李学勤)  on top of the 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 the government than a serious academic research”. (See http://imperialchina.org/chronology.htm)

Posted in Ancient China, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Huangdi – the Yellow Overlord

Huangdi’s line appears to be still a branch of the Sino-Tibetan group.  However, he was implied to be the father of ‘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 more likely a book written in the 4th century B.C.E. around or after [depending on the mountain or sea parts of the book], with Shi-zi, i.e., teacher of Qin reformer Shang Yang, making comments therein, namely, 《尸子》:“四邦之民,有贯匈者,有深目者,有长肱者,黄帝之德尝致之。”. (In the spirits of restoring the lost Chinese classics that were destroyed by Qin Emperor Shihuangdi’s book-burning and Confucian-burying campaign, Han Dynasty scholars had done extensive work recompiling lost books. Historian Liu Xiang and Lin Xin were responsible for assembling the book Wu [five] Zang [viscera of mother Earth] Shan [mountain] Jing [records], i.e., historical writings on the mountains and seas of China, and related books on the seas, into the book Shan Hai Jing.)

《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”。

Here, ‘Bei-di’ (北狄) could be some mixed O3/N barbarians who were relatively cooked versus the uncooked C-haplogroup barbarians in the Amur River area to the north. This webmaster’s point was that the early Huns were most likely Qiangic proto-Tibetans or a possible separate Yun-surnamed Xianyun group which was exiled to Northwest China together with the San-miao people in the late 3rd millennium B.C.E.; the later Xianbei, Khitan, Jurchen, Mongol and Manchu people, who were proto-Manchurian or proto-Altaic, were the C haplogroup; and the “cooked” barbarians, i.e., those dwelling between the Sinitic Chinese and the “raw” barbarians, were the mixed O/C/N-haplogroup people.)

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。”)

This webmaster, after reflecting on the DNA findings, would tend to think that the O1, O2 and O3 haplogroups might have just geographically split from each other by that time. The confusion related to the ancient overlords could be a result of erroneous interpretation by the later scholars. Example: Huangdi the Yellow Lord was said to be born in Shouqiu of today’s Shandong Province. Here, scholars validated that it was Kong An’guo, a Confucius descendant, who made the remark that Huangdi was born in Shouqiu. The word “Shouqiu”, however, appeared in the context of Sima Qian’s writings on Lord Shun, with a claim that Lord Shun, who was born near Lishan or today’s southern Shanxi, had made potteries by the river [which was taken to be possibly the Fen-he River] and continued to manufacture utensils at Shouqiu, a place that had to be somewhere in southern Shanxi, not Shandong.

Ancient Chinese of the Han dynasty time period, who might have missed the Zhuolu locality made in SHI BEN, might be inclined for the Yellow Lord to be more a northerner who had something to do with the barbarians. The ‘northern’ origin of Huangdi could be seen in the existence of a Fang-lei-shi nation (? Gaoyi, Hebei), which was called by JINN YU Of GUO YU to be a maternal uncle of Qing-yang, one of Huangdi’s son. This equated Lei-zu, i.e., Huangdi’s wife, to some woman from this nation. Sima Qian called Huangdi’s fort by “Zhuolu-zhi-a”, namely, the flat land below Mt. Zhuolu. Though, Zhuolu, per ancient book SHI BEN, would be Pengcheng (Xuzhou, Jiangsu), also called by Tongshan (i.e., the copper mountain), which was to say that it was right in the central plains of China, not some northern borderland.

《索隐》citing 皇甫谧:“黄帝生于寿丘,长于姬水,因以为姓。居轩辕之丘,因以为名,又以为号。”

.

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).

However, JINN YU, a sophistry book from the Warring States time period, however, did not have details such as the names of the mothers of either Huangdi or Yandi. That is, the names like Fubao or Andeng, were made up by the latter-day people.

《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。”

《大戴礼》:“黄帝,少典之子也,居有熊,曰轩辕。”

《尚书·禹贡》:“导洛自熊耳,东北会廛涧,又东会于伊。”(《博物志》:洛出熊耳),

《汉书·地理志》:“熊耳山在东,伊水出,东北入洛。”

《洛浩》:我卜涧水东,瀍水西,惟洛食。我卜瀍水东,亦惟洛食。

《列子•黄帝篇》:“庖牺氏、女娲氏、神农氏、夏后氏,蛇身人面,牛头虎鼻。”

《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, 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 the details as well as add-on explanation, 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 (i.e., the middle kingdom)”.

Huangdi, per Jinn Yu of Guo Yu, was born and grew up along the Ji-shui River, a river that was never properly pinpointed, while Yandi was born and grew up along the Jiang-shui River – which was pinpointed to be some river south of today’s Xi’an. If we took  Jinn Yu of Guo Yu as more authoritative, we could hence agree with the ancient saints that Huangdi, or the Yellow Overlord, was indeed a brotherly tribe of Yandi and had the same origin from the Shaodian tribe on the paternal side. If so, both Huangdi and Yandi should have their homeland in today’s Nanshan area or the southern mountain range, and south of today’s Xi’an city of Shenxi Province. As to the Youqiao-shi tribe on the maternal side, which was said to be a honey bees or silkworm tribe, validated to be located in today’s central plains, it could be the latter-day addon. (Liu Jiujie, a Henan Province native, stated that the Juci-he River at the foot of Mt. Jucishan was known as Qingyih-he or Yih-shui River which wasthe original Ji-shui River. Then, the Battle of Zhuolu etc could be fought in the heartland of China or Mt. Jucishan, with the name Zhuolu appropriated to the Hebei-Kalgan border area later.)

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, or the arch mountain in northern Hebei was appropriated there first.)

《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, ignoring GUO YU’s statement that Huangdi and Yandi were brothers, 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》.

The Youxiong-shi land

Huangdi was a brother of Yandi and was a son of the Shaodian tribe.  Huangdi was 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.

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 was said to have 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.

Shennong-shi was apparently derived from the Lieshan-shi clan in ZUO ZHUAN. Fuxi, a name with the ‘xi’ or void or number one, was a fable figure –that was inexplicably linked to Tai-hao-shi in ZUO ZHUAN. Namely, all Han dynasty conjectured deities.

《大戴礼纪》:“黄帝居轩辕之丘,娶于西陵氏之子,谓之嫘祖氏。”

(晋)王嘉《拾遗记》: 轩辕出自有熊之国。母曰昊枢,以戊己之日生,故以土德称王也。

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。”

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.

国语, 晋语》载:“昔少典氏娶于有蟜氏,生黄帝、炎帝。”

《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.)

北魏郦道元《水经注》“或言县有熊氏之墟,黄帝之所都也,郑人徙居此,故曰‘新郑’。”

《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。”

(北魏)郦道元(466—527)《水经注》:“黄帝登具茨山,升于洪堤上,受神芝图于华盖童子。”

《史记·夏本记》载:禹摄政“十七年而帝舜崩。三年丧毕,禹辞避舜之子商均于阳城。天下诸侯皆去商均而朝禹,禹于是遂即天子位,南面朝天下,国号曰夏后,姓姒氏。”

《逸周书·度邑》明确记载:颍河上游,伊洛河两岸,自古是“有夏之居”。

《水经注》:“河南阳翟县有夏亭城,夏禹始封于此,为夏国。是禹以司空受封于夏,故至是改称为夏后也。”


Locality of Huangdi’s wife was said to be Xiling, while Xiling was historically extrapolated to be in today’s Sichuan Province or western Hubei Province, and hence the continuity of the legend about Lord Yu’s birthplace in western China and known as Rong-yu (I.e., Yu who was born in the western Rong land, carring the Xi-rong tag of the later times). The western locality of Xi-ling could be wrong as well. Previously, we talked about the ‘northern’ origin of Huangdi as seen in the existence of a Fang-lei-shi nation (? Gaoyi, Hebei), which was called by JINN YU Of GUO YU to be a maternal uncle of Qing-yang, one of Huangdi’s son. This equated Lei-zu, i.e., Huangdi’s wife, to some woman from this nation. GUO YU contained references to Youjiao-shi, Fanglei-shi and Tongyu-shi, etc, meaning Youjiao-shi and Fanglei-shi were two different tribes. Sima Qian’s SHI JI was of course later than GUO YU; however, GUO YU could be a Warring States sophistry book, and was proven to be wrong whenever having conflicting stories from the same stories as contained in ZUO ZHUAN.

In another word, the words on Huangdi were very limited and had like one to two entries in ZUO ZHUAN. While this webmaster did not deny the existence of a persona called Huangdi, there was simply no records other than what ZUO ZHUAN cited as a battle at Banquan between Huangdi and Yandi, and what GUO YU cited as the two being sons of the Shao-dian-shi tribe. As to THE BAMBOO ANNALS, anything beyond the Xia dynasty should be considered the insertions by scholars from the southern dynasties when they recompiled the books in the aftermath of the Yongjia Cataclysm of the Jinn dynasty.

Xiling, per Wei Si at http://www.wenbao.net/html/lunwen/weisi_03.html would be in today’s Xiping.

《史记,五帝本纪》:黄帝“时播百穀草木,淳化鸟兽蟲蛾”。

《史记,五帝本纪》说:“黄帝居轩辕之丘,而娶於西陵之女,是为嫘祖。”

《隋书•礼仪志》〈 路史》:”伏羲化蚕。西陵氏始养蚕。故《淮南蚕经》云‘西陵氏劝蚕稼,亲蚕始此’。”

《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 Link to Zhuolu -the purported Hongshan Culture in the Hebei-Shanxi-Chahar (Kalgan) area

Huangdi was said to have defeated Chiyou at the Battle of Zhuolu and defeated Yandi at the Battle of Banquan. The two places were today known to be near Kalgan. Complicating the situation would be some reasonable analysis stating that the ancient locality for Zhuolu [chasing deers] could in fact be right in the heartland of the central plains, namely, not far away from the two banks of the Yellow River, or the Yi-shui/Luo-shui Rivers on the south bank and the Mt. Zhongtiaoshan on the north bank. The point was that Zhuolu was later appropriated to today’s northern Hebei.
The important thing to note is that the Battle of Zhuolu might not be fought at today’s Zhuolu at all. Zhuolu, per ancient book SHI BEN, would be Pengcheng (Xuzhou, Jiangsu), also called by Tongshan (i.e., the copper mountain), which was to say that it was right in the central plains of China, not some northern borderland.The name Zhuolu was appropriated to the Hebei-Kalgan border area later.

西汉贾谊《新书·制不定》:“黄帝行道,神农不德,故战于涿鹿之野”
《史记·五帝本纪》:“黄帝与蚩尤战于涿鹿之野”
《史记·五帝本纪》:東至于海,登丸山,及岱宗。西至于空桐,登雞頭。南至于江,登熊、湘。北逐葷粥,合符釜山,而邑于涿鹿之阿。遷徙往來無常處,以師兵為營衛。(釜山-今河北怀来《水经注》引《魏土地记》:“潘城西北三里有历山” ;《括地志》:“釜山在妫州怀戎县北三里”;《后魏舆地图风土记》:“潘城西北三里有历山,形似覆釜,故以名之,其下有舜庙,瞽叟祠存焉”。旧唐书·地理志》妫州怀戎:“后汉潘县、属上谷郡,……妫水经其中,妫州所治也”。)
《史记·五帝本纪》:“黄帝崩,葬桥山。”
《魏土记》:“下洛城东南四十里有桥山,山下有温泉,泉上有祭堂,雕檐华字被于浦上。”
北魏郦道元《水经注·水篇》“水又东过涿鹿县北”,“涿水出涿鹿山,世谓之张公泉”,“黄帝与蚩尤战于涿鹿之野,留其民于涿鹿之阿,即于是也,泉水东北流,与蚩尤泉会水出蚩尤城”。
《水经注》: “温泉水注之,水上承温泉于桥山下”。
(《水绎注》卷三《水篇》)“温泉行宫”
《魏书》卷二、《北史》卷一司马德宗“幸涿鹿,遣使者以太牢祠帝尧、帝舜庙”。
《魏书》卷二、《北史》卷一  拓跋嗣“幸涿鹿,登桥山,观温泉,使使者以太牢祠黄帝庙”。
《魏书》卷三拓跋嗣 “遣使者祠黄帝、唐尧庙”。
Huangdi’s Domain
《尸子》:“四邦之民,有贯匈者,有深目者,有长肱者,黄帝之德尝致之。”
《史记·五帝本纪》:“(黄帝)东至于海,登丸山,及岱宗。” “黄帝之地,北至于幽陵,南至于交阯。” (《小戴礼·王制》:南方曰蛮,雕题、交趾。《礼记.王制》:”南方曰蛮,雕题交趾,有不火食者矣。” 郑注:”交趾,足相乡,浴则同川,卧则僢。” 正义:”蛮卧时头在外,足在内而相交,故曰交趾。”)(《史记正义》(唐张守节:丸音桓。括地志:“丸山即丹山,在青州临朐县界朱虚故县西北二十里,丹水出焉。”) (《史记集解》[南朝宋裴骃]:徐广曰:“丸,一作‘凡’。”骃案:地理志曰丸山在郎邪朱虚县。)
《淮南子》: “黄帝治天下,……诸北、儋耳之国,莫不献其贡职。”
《轩辕黄帝传》:“帝所理天下,南及交趾,北至幽陵,西至流沙,东及蟠木。”

《宋书·符瑞志》:“黄帝时,南夷乘白鹿来献?。”

.

Huangdi was alternatively recorded to have killed both Chi-you (who was alternatively postulated to be the same as Yandi the Fiery Overlord) and the two Hao-suffixed Dong-yi tribal leaders (i.e., the original Chinese dwelling in the central China and coastal China). Here we need to point out that Chiyou was a new concept, not seen in ZUOO ZHUAN. From the sophistry books of the warring states time period, it was apparent that what they meant Chi-you was the same person as Yandi. [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 . The two 'Hao' talk was a Han dynasty salt & iron debate political course. That is, another kind of dialectical talk, just like the earlier sophistry books.]

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”

In the Japanese section, this webmaster postulated that that the original Nine Yi people, being not homogeneous, could have lived in the interface ground among the three main Mongoloid groups of O1-, O2- and O3-haplogroup people [plus possibly the C-haplogroup Tungunsic people] whom we could linguistically identify as the Sino-Tibetan, the Hmong-Mien and the Yi-Yue people. We could further deduce that as a result of the mixing-up of the Hmong-Mien people and the Yi people in today’s Hebei Province and on the Shandong Peninsula, we then have the phenomenon of the later people in Manchuria, Korea and Japan sharing the same archaic traditions as recorded among the ancient Nine Yi people of the 3rd millennium B.C.E., but lacking the hallmark  ”phoenix” adoration as still exists among today’s minority people in Southwestern China –the true descendants of the Hmong-Mien people. (The archaic traditions would include the historical practice of “dun ju” [squatting, which mutated into the Manchu practice of one leg kneeling on the ground while another leg bending at the knee,, which the Manchus used as the protocol for seeing the superiors; or spreading the feet if we use an alternative definition in Chinese classics], slate coffins, and bearing down the newborn’s head with stone.)

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 the 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”。

王嘉《拾遗记》:高辛 “帝喾之妃,邹屠氏之女也。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。女行不践地,常履风云,游于伊、洛。帝乃期焉,纳以为妃。

《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.)

In the section on Yandi (i.e., the Fiery Lord), we would present evidence that the original people who created the Sinitic civilization were in fact the O3-haplogroup Hmong-mien people while the O3-haplogroup Sino-Tibetans might have hijacked the reign after defeating Chi-you and Yandi in the epic battles of Zhoulu and Banquan.

Posted in Ancient China, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Chi-you – China’s Ancient Overlord

At http://www.imperialchina.org/ImperialChina/?p=12 this webmaster inferred that Yandi was likely an admixture of the O3-haplogroup and O2/O1-haplogroup people, who originally dwelled in the heartland of ancient China. As to Chi-you, the ancient scholars, in commenting on the extant works, repeatedly stated that Chi-you was either a descendant of Yandi or a minister serving Yandi. Chi-you, who was revered by today’s southwestern minority Chinese as ancestor, was taken to be an ancestor of the Hmong-Mien and the Sinitic Chinese than the ancient Nine Yi people.

This could be wrong. The concept of Chiyou was relatively new. And when it was new, you have to look at it as either a Warring States sophistry product or a Han dynasty forgery product.

In the Han dynasty, there was wide citation of a figure called Shen-nong-shi, who was equated to Yandi the Fiery Lord, with a claim of some seniority over Huangdi the Yellow Lord. After what Sima Qian called by the Shen-nong-shi dynasty failed to reign in the vassals, Huangdi (the Yellow Overlord) came to assert his power.
GUO YU used the term Jiu-li, not Chi-you, for some group of rebels who caused disturbance [in the area of making no distinction between the mundane people and the gods/ghosts] during the late Shao-hao-shi’s reign but were put under control by Lord Zhuan-xu, with the Jiu-li’s descendants being the [Jiang-surnamed] San-miao people during Lord Yao’s reign. Chi-you was seen in SHI JI, LV-SHI CHUN-QIU, YI ZHOU SHU, GUAN ZI, SHAN HAI JING, and YUE JUE SHU etc. Sima Qian could have expanded on Chi-you on basis of the record in LV-XING of SHANG SHU. YI ZHOU SHU made a sensational story about Chi-you attacking west, Yan-di failing to stop Chi-you, and Huang-di appearing on the stage to defeat both.
ZUO ZHUAN, i.e., more ancient records, merely talked about the progenitor of both the Yandi and Huangdi as someone called Shao-dian, without any reference to a mystic figure called Shen-nong or the divine farmer –a figure that could have mutated from the record on the ancient Lie-shan-shi clan which produced a son called by Zhu, i.e., the first recorded agricultural guardian of prehistoric China.

What could be inferred was that the original Nine Yi people, being not homogeneous, could have lived in the interface ground among the three main Mongoloid groups of O1, O2-, and O3-haplogroup people [plus possibly C-haplogroup Tungunsic people] . We could further deduce that as a result of the mixing-up of the Hmong-Mien people and the Tungunsic people in today’s Hebei Province and on the Shandong Peninsula, we then have the phenomenon of the later people in Manchuria, Korea and Japan sharing the same archaic traditions as recorded among the ancient Nine Yi people of the 3rd millennium B.C.E., but lacking the hallmark  ”phoenix” adoration as still exists among today’s minority people in Southwestern China –the true descendants of the Hmong-mien people.

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。”

郭璞《山海经·海外南经》:“昔尧以天下让舜,三苗之君非之,帝杀之。有苗之民,叛入南海,为三苗国。”

《史记卷一•五帝本纪第一》“欢兜进言共工,尧曰不可而试之公师,共工果淫辟。四岳举鲧治鸿水,尧以为不可,岳强请试之,试之而无功,故百姓不便。三苗在江淮、荆州数为乱,于是舜归而言于帝,请流共工于幽陵,以变北狄;放欢兜于崇山,以变南蛮;迁三苗于三危,以变西戎;殛鲧于羽山,四罪而天下咸服。”

《左传·文十八年》:“缙云氏有不才子,贪于饮食,冒于贷贿,侵欲崇侈,不可盈厌,聚敛积实,不知纪报,不分孤寡,不恤贫匮。天下之民以此三凶,谓之‘饕餮’。舜臣尧,宾于四门,流四凶族浑敦、穷奇、檮机、饕餮、投谐四裔,以[]魑魅”。

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”。(Part of《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。” – Yue-jue-shu, a book written in early Latter Han Dynasty by possibly someone called Wu Ping or Wu Jungao (会稽吴君高:君高之《越纽录》in 王充《论衡·按书篇》)

《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》 [??-233 B.C.E.] 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 speculated to be 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”。

There is a chance that the Zhuolu [涿鹿] locality in Hebei coiuld be a later appropriation. The actual Zhuolu [涿鹿] could be situated in the very heartland of Sinitic China, namely, today’s Juci-shan Mountain near Yuzhou [Yuxian], Henan Province.

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”。

Posted in Ancient China, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Yandi’s Dynasty

Yandi, being the inventor of “farming on the burnt wilderness” and “herbal medicine”, was said to be the same as Shennong-shi (the Divine Farmer), carrying the Fiery Overlord title. Yandi was said to be a successor to the Shennong-shi reign. In the classics [《白虎通义》],  the Divine Farmer [神农] was considered one of the Three Sovereigns: “三皇者何谓也,伏羲、女娲、神农是也。” That is, either the ancient Chinese had compacted two figures of Yandi [i.e., the fiery lord] and Shen-nong [i.e., the divine farmer]  into one person, or the two persons were different. The forged records pointed out that there were eight Yandi dynasty rulers till the ascension of the Yellow lord.

In the Han dynasty, there was wide citation of a figure called Shen-nong-shi, who was equated to Yandi the Fiery Lord, with a claim of some seniority over Huangdi the Yellow Lord. After what Sima Qian called by the Shen-nong-shi dynasty failed to reign in the vassals, Huangdi (the Yellow Overlord) came to assert his power.
GUO YU used the term Jiu-li, not Chi-you, for some group of rebels who caused disturbance [in the area of making no distinction between the mundane people and the gods/ghosts] during the late Shao-hao-shi’s reign but were put under control by Lord Zhuan-xu, with the Jiu-li’s descendants being the [Jiang-surnamed] San-miao people during Lord Yao’s reign. Chi-you was seen in SHI JI, LV-SHI CHUN-QIU, YI ZHOU SHU, GUAN ZI, SHAN HAI JING, and YUE JUE SHU etc. Sima Qian could have expanded on Chi-you on basis of the record in LV-XING of SHANG SHU. YI ZHOU SHU made a sensational story about Chi-you attacking west, Yan-di failing to stop Chi-you, and Huang-di appearing on the stage to defeat both.
ZUO ZHUAN, i.e., more ancient records, merely talked about the progenitor of both the Yandi and Huangdi as someone called Shao-dian, without any reference to a mystic figure called Shen-nong or the divine farmer –a figure that could have mutated from the record on the ancient Lie-shan-shi clan which produced a son called by Zhu, i.e., the first recorded agricultural guardian of prehistoric China.

《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,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。”

《幼学琼林》:“炎帝居南方丙丁火,生为炎帝,死为祝融”。

《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 Divine Farmer) = ‘Huang’

&

Yandi = ‘Di’

Confucius was possibly faked by the recent scholars to have put out some writing in stating that the ancient Paoxi-shi invented the fishing net, studied geography and astronomy, and created the Eight Trigrams. Note that Confucius abridged classics to make into what was known later as the book SHANG SHU that started with Lord Yao, with no mentioning of any figure beyond Yao, which was to say that should anybody say Confucius had mentioned an earlier figure, it would be a forgery. Further, the forgery writers made a pretension to state that it was Kong An’guo who wrote the preface to SHANG SHU, namely, SHANG SHU XU, in which a statement was made to the effect that in the remote antiquity, Fuxi-shi took reign of the land, and began to invent the Eight Trigrams and create the wood-carved language characters. This would be Kong Yingda, a Tang dynasty historian and Confucius’ 32nd generation grandson, who authored the text SHANG SHU XU (preface to SHANG SHU). Hence, Chinese prehistory was mechanically pushed out to have become something that started with Paoxi-shi, aka Taihao. This was something that provided fodder to the 20th century doubt-ancient scholars who had a point in saying that the more recent it became, the more detailed the stories about the ancient sovereigns became. Paoxi-shi was said to have marked the beginning of the so-called ‘Human’ or ‘Mt Taishan’ Era of ‘huang’ (splendidness or magnificence) which was successive to the Heaven ‘huang’ and the Earth ‘huang’. The ‘huang’ story could be still a fuzzy concept at the time Qin Emperor Shihuangdi coined the title of ‘huang-di’ for emperor.

Note the important thing about the ancient lord Huangdi’s paying pilgrimage to Mt. Taishan, a manifestation that the earliest lords had their center of activities around this mountain, instead of the later Xia nation or the Da-xia land of today’s Shanxi Province. In this webmaster’s opinion, the third ‘Huang’ was taken as the Human ‘Huang’ possibly because Mt Taishan was the place where the ancient Chinese inscribed the names of overlords since antiquity. Hence, Human ‘Huang’ = Mt. Taishan ‘Huang’.

According to Wang Xiantang (王献唐), the ancient Chinese called Yandi by ‘huang2′, not ‘di4′, for a reason.  Wang Xiantang pointed out that we ancient Chinese used ‘huang’ for the Three Sovereigns and ‘di’ for the five ancient lords, with a different terminology which could be be inferred to be a change of lineage: “炎族为酋长部落时代,以皇尊君,为雄长,绝无奥义。黄帝称帝,已含神权意昧,与皇绝不相同。以名称之不同,知民族不同……伏羲、神农同称为皇,亦必同为一族,故名号无别。” Wang Xiantang’s point was that the prehistoric legends about Yandi using the ‘huang2′ title meant that the mandate or the ruling dynasty had changed when lord Huangdi, the Yellow overlord, succeeded the reign and called himself by ‘di4′.’ (The foundation on which Wang Xiantang made the claim was not solid, as there was no such concept at the time of Qin Emperor Shihuangdi other than the heaven huang, eath huang and Mt. Taishan huang.)

《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”。

Similarly, Scholar Xu Xusheng [徐旭生], in《中国古史的传说时代》, claimed that the ancient Chinese might have compacted two remotely-ancient persons of Fuxi [伏羲] and Taihao-shi [太皞] as one, not knowing that Fuxi, meaning voice or zero or ether in ZHUANG ZI’s fables, was made up from the thin air or electron hole: “据我们研究,伏羲女娲实属这一集团,传说同南方传至北方。” “东夷集团……这一集团较早的氏族,我们知道的有太皞(或作太昊,实即大皞),有少皞(或作少昊,实即小皞)……太皞在后来与伏羲成了一个人,是齐鲁学者综合整理的结果”。

This webmaster’s intuition here is that Yandi was an admixture of the O3-haplogroup and possibly O2/O1-haplogroup people. Yandi originally dwelled in the Yi-qi-shi land in the heartland of ancient China and then made the eastward push towards the coast where they had uprooted the O2 people, dispersing them to the seas and southern China. Using the modern DNA technology, we could tell that along the Chinese coast, from south to north, there were originally the O2 people who mutated into the two groups of O2a and O2b, whereas the ancient Yi people could be the same as the ancient Yue people for the relation of O2a=O2b.

In the section on the barbarians, this webmaster had expounded the ethnic nature of the various Rong-di people, cleared the dispute in regards to the ethnicity of the ‘Rong’ people, and proven that the Rong people, being the mainly Sino-Tibetan speaking Qiangic people, shared the same blood-line as the Xia Chinese but differred in ‘Culture’ such as cuisine, clothing, money and language.

The same origin validation could be seen in ZHENG YU of GUO YU, wherein Shi-bo, in a dialogue with Zheng Lord Huan’gong, expounded the distinction between the Sinitic principalities [related to the Zhou royals, the brothers of the Zhou royals' mothers, and the nephews and uncles on the mothers' side] from those related to the Maan, Jing, Rong and Di barbarians, not counting the Yi barbarians who were taken to be beyond the eastern statelets of Qi, Lu, Cao, Soong, Teng, Xue, Zou, and Ju. For the barbarians, Shi-bo apparently made a case of identifying the Sinitic cliques ruling the barbarians from the barbarians themselves. Shi-bo, in the passage on the ‘Jing’ or Chu barbarians [who were counted among the southern 'Maan' group], explicitly listed the lineage of the ‘Jing’ or Chu ancestors, stating that Chu lord Xiong Yan had born four sons Bo-shuang, Zhong-xue, Shu-xiong and Ji-xun, with names bearing the Sinitic brotherly order, among whom the 3rd son fled to be a ruler among the southern ‘Pu’ [i.e., the later Hundred Pu] people and the 4th son took over the lordship in the spirits of ancient ancestors Chong-li — also taken to be two brothers of Chong and Lih[2] — with the Lih line tacking on the hereditary fire guardian [minister] post known as ‘Zhu-rong’ [i.e., virtues shining like fire]. Shi-bo’s point was that in extrapolating on the achievements of descendants of Yu-mu [lord Shun's line], Xia-yu [lord Yu], Zhou-qi [Zhou ancestor Qi or Hou-ji], it was claimed that inevitably Zhu-rong’s descendants, who had produced Count Kunwu[-shi] in the Xia dynasty and Count Da-peng and Count Shi-wei[2] in the Shang dynasty, should see the Mi-surnamed Chu people asserting themselves in the Zhou dynasty time period. Altogether, Shi-bo pointed to the Jiang-surnamed people [i.e., descendants of Bo-yi{-fu} who assisted overlord Yao as protocol minister], Ying-surnamed people [i.e., descendants of Bo-yi who assisted overlord Shun as interior minister], and Jing-Mi-surnamed Chu people as possible contestants for the Zhou dynasty’s rule — another Sinitic theme of power rotation.

The 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 the ancient Chinese paid pilgrimage to the ancient lords on Mt. Taishan. However, Guan-zi’s forged statements in the chapter on the 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 Central Asia was wrong. The real Da-xia was in today's southern and central Shanxi Province, along the Fen-shui River.)

《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 i) had campaigned against Da-xia  and ii) 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. More, this webmaster believed that the 'liu sha' designation, which was commonly reserved for the quick sand Kumtag desert, could be in fact the sandy Sha-he River in today's central Shanxi Province while Beier-shan Mountain is the Taihang mountain range. )

During the Han dynasty, scholars could have recompiled the book GUAN ZI to make a wild assertion to the effect that the Qi army having trepassed the Jinn Princiaplity's land to reach the Yellow River inflexion area to conquer the barbarians in the 'da-xia' [grand Xia] land, coined with the phrases of crossing the ‘liu sha’ [quick sand] and climbing the ‘bei-er’ [?Zhongtiao] mountain. This webmaster believed that what the records stated about Qi Lord’s trekking ‘liu sha’ or the flowing sand could be nothing more than wading the sandy Sha-he River to climb the Mt. Bei-er-shan of today, not what ‘liu sha’ [moving sand/quick sand] historically referred to as the Kumtag Desert. Further, Qi Huan’gong might have never intruded into today’s central Shenxi at all, with the ‘liu sha’ [moving sand/quick sand] sentence being a latter-day forgery. Per QI YU of GUO YU, the Qi lord could have reached the Yellow River inflexion line, where the Bei-er Mountain was said to be located; however, the path to reach the inflexion point was not clear in QI YU of GUO YU, but was described by GUAN ZI as a sensational campaign of crossing the ‘liu sha’ [quick sand] and climbing the ‘bei-er’ [?Zhongtiao] mountain. That was in fact an aborted mission on the part of the Qi lord in the competition with the Qin lord for escorting some competing Jinn prince to the Jinn throne.

Yandi Dynasty lasted eight generations, a forgery

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》, [approx. 369-286 B.C.E.]) 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 the Chu Principality –a non-central-plains and a non-Huangdi line nation that supposedly had inherited the original agricultural 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 forgery writings on the 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 “Di4″ title – meaning justice, a nation’s imperial name or the person who combined the virtue with the Heaven.

《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。”
《白虎通义》:“德象天地称帝,仁义所生称王,帝者天号,王者,五行之称。”
《管子》:“明一者皇,察道者帝。”
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。”

《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 & Resolution

《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”)

For the intricacy as to the rivalry between Huangdi and Yandi, please see my postulation as to the land of the Nine Yi people being the interface ground among the main Mongoloid groups of O1-, O2- and O3-haplogroup people, plus possibly some C-haplogroup Tungunsic people.

To resolve the historical confusion as to the relationship between Huangdi and Yandi, we could glean some truth from two different data sets. The first was the book SHAN HAI JING, in which we could tell that there were in existence an ancient ‘Jiang’ surname statelet or multiple such Jiang-surnamed statelets in eastern China or specifically on the Shandong peninsula, with the legendary Lord Di-jun (i.e., ancestor of the Shang dynaty) possibly carrying the Jiang surname. –The later historians’ bundling the Qiangic people of northwest China with the Jiang surname often obscured the fact that the Jiang surname originated in the land of East China, not western China.

The second dataset would be the famous ZUO ZHUAN. The origin of the Shang Dynasty, which was a puzzle, could be used to find clues about its possible descending from the the Yangdi line. Two books, THE BAMBOO ANNALS & SHAN HAI JING, plus the Oracle bones, talked aout Wang-hai, son of Marquis Yin-hou, who was killed by You-yi-shi during the 12th year of Xia King Xie, which implied that the Shang people had the mandate to repair the Yellow River and dwelled along the course of the Yellow River which flowed northeastward towards the estuary near today’s Tientsin. In ZUO ZHUAN we could find the most direct hint as to the nature of the Shang people and the ‘Jiang3′, ‘Ren4′ and ‘Su4′ surnames:

国语. 晋语. 四》:吾闻晋之始封,岁在大火。阏伯之星也。实纪商人,商之飨国三十王,瞽史记之曰:唐叔之世,将如商数。
昭公十年斋
【经】十年春王正月。夏,齐栾施来奔。秋七月,季孙意如、叔弓、仲孙玃帅师伐莒。戊子,晋侯彪卒。九月,叔孙婼如晋,葬晋平公。十有二月甲子,宋公成卒。古
【传】十年春,王正月,有星出于婺女。郑裨灶言于子产曰:“七月戊子,晋君将死。今兹岁在颛顼之虚,姜氏、任氏实守其地。居其维首,而有妖星焉,告邑姜也。邑姜,晋之妣也。天以七纪。戊子,逢公以登,星斯于是乎出。吾是以讥之。”

This prophesy statement was made to the effect that Tang-shu or Uncle Tang, a fief conferred by Zhou King Chengwang onto Shu-yu or Uncle Yu in the early Zhou dynasty rule for the southern Shanxi land of Tang, would inherit the spirits of Shang Dynasty [after it was to be overthrown by what happened to be successor Zhou Dynasty] for the inherent reason that the Shang people could be of the same family as clans of the ‘Jiang3′, ‘Ren4′ and ‘Su4′ surnames.

How to interpret further to validate the point that the Shang people were of the same family as the Jiang surname people who descended from Yandi, the Fiery Lord?

In the ancient land of [central and eastern] China, i.e., it was called Lord Zhuanxu’s Ruins. This is because this part of the country that used to belong to Jiang-surnamed and Ren-surnamed people, were later administered by Lord Zhuanxu and descendants of lord Zhuanxu. The Qin people, and the Shang people, who dwelled on this land, were part of the “eastern” people, with the lineage related to Lord Zhuanxu.  The prophesy stating that the descendants of Uncle Tang, or ancient lord Tang-yao, [not Tang-shu or Shu-yu who would not appear in history till the Zhou overthrow of the Shang dynasty,] would one day inherit the spirits of Shang Dynasty [when Shang dynasty was to be overthrown one day, i.e., by the Zhou people]. So, after Zhou overthrew Shang, Uncle Shu-yu, i.e.,  a Jiang-surnamed brother of King CHengwang’s mother, [not a posthumous son of Zhou King Wuwang or King Chengwang's brother as the common interpretation was,] was to be conferred the land of Jinn to carry on the Shang spirits. Since the ancient classics stipulated clearly that only the same surname clan could inherit the spirits of their respective ancestors, it naturally follows that only the Jiang-surname Tang-shu or junior uncle Tang could have succeeded the ancient Jiang-surname lineage of Yandi, the Fiery Lord, as the Shang people or the eastern people were mainly of the Jiang surname, the Ren surname etc.

This webmaster’s minor reconciliation of Lord Zhuanxu and the eastern Chinese land: Lord Zhauanxu, whom the Shang people, the Qin people, the Chu people, and some other southern Chinese had treated as ancestor, was said to be born from the Yellow Lord’s line, something Sima Qian had talked about in the section on the Three Sovereigns and Five Lords, could be indeed a later day polishing to make the Chinese history to appear to be of the same family. Sima Qian, after the Qin book burning, had access to mainly the book Chun Qiu (i.e., the spring & autumn annals) and parts of the Qin chronicle, and hence might not have grasped the true essence of prehistory. Or, this webmaster would claim that Lord Zuanxu, though from the Sino-Tibetan Yellow Lord’s line, had become ‘naturalized’ into the eastern land of the Jiang-surname Hmong-mien people, and hence became a symbol of the eastern people.
Posted in Ancient China, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Re-write of China’s Prehistory

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 new angle would be to treat the ruling cliques of the various barbarians groups as belonging to the same origin and the same family.

Before Huangdi, there were eight rulers of Shennong-shi (i.e., the Divine Farmer), also known as the Fiery Overlord, who was the mainstream Chinese ruler. Though, both Yandi and successor Huangdi were said to be offspring of the apparently O3-haplogroup. (The ancient classics claimed that both Yandi and Huangdi shared a paternal Shaodian-shi people and a maternal Youqiao-shi tribe which was located in today’s Henan Province.) Both Yandi and Huangdi’s line was still a branch of the Sino-Tibetan group as opposed to the  group of people in Manchuria [i.e., ancestors of future Altaic-speaking Tungus people with possibly C-haplogroup DNA] or the groups of people on the Eastern and Southeastern Chinese coast [i.e., ancestors of the O2-haplogroup Yi-Yue people who migrated to Southwest China along the southern and southeastern coast, not counting ancestors of the Austronesian people who migrated to Taiwan and the Pacific Islands].

The same origin validation could be seen in ZHENG YU of GUO YU, wherein Shi-bo, in a dialogue with Zheng Lord Huan’gong, expounded the distinction between the Sinitic principalities [related to the Zhou royals, the brothers of the Zhou royals' mothers, and the nephews and uncles on the mothers' side] from those related to the Maan, Jing, Rong and Di barbarians, not counting the Yi barbarians who were taken to be beyond the eastern statelets of Qi, Lu, Cao, Soong, Teng, Xue, Zou, and Ju. For the barbarians, Shi-bo apparently made a case of identifying the Sinitic cliques ruling the barbarians from the barbarians themselves. Shi-bo, in the passage on the ‘Jing’ or Chu barbarians [who were counted among the southern 'Maan' group], explicitly listed the lineage of the ‘Jing’ or Chu ancestors, stating that Chu lord Xiong Yan had born four sons Bo-shuang, Zhong-xue, Shu-xiong and Ji-xun, with names bearing the Sinitic brotherly order, among whom the 3rd son fled to be a ruler among the southern ‘Pu’ [i.e., the later Hundred Pu] people and the 4th son took over the lordship in the spirits of ancient ancestors Chong-li — also taken to be two brothers of Chong and Lih[2] — with the Lih line tacking on the hereditary fire guardian [minister] post known as ‘Zhu-rong’ [i.e., virtues shining like fire]. Shi-bo’s point was that in extrapolating on the achievements of descendants of Yu-mu [lord Shun's line], Xia-yu [lord Yu], Zhou-qi [Zhou ancestor Qi or Hou-ji], it was claimed that inevitably Zhu-rong’s descendants, who had produced Count Kunwu[-shi] in the Xia dynasty and Count Da-peng and Count Shi-wei[2] in the Shang dynasty, should see the Mi-surnamed Chu people asserting themselves in the Zhou dynasty time period. Altogether, Shi-bo pointed to the Jiang-surnamed people [i.e., descendants of Bo-yi{-fu} who assisted overlord Yao as protocol minister], Ying-surnamed people [i.e., descendants of Bo-yi who assisted overlord Shun as interior minister], and Jing-Mi-surnamed Chu people as possible contestants for the Zhou dynasty’s rule — another Sinitic theme of power rotation.

At the very beginning, while still stopping at Vietnam, there had occurred earlier splits of people who moved along the coast to become ancestors of future Altaic-speaking Tungus people [C haplogroup], ancestors of the Hundred Yue people [O2a haplogroup], 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. -This webmaster, while acknowledging the genetic analysis of the O1, O2 and O3 people, thought the geographical split of those subclades could be recent and might have occurred in today’s Chinese continent rather than southeast Asia.

This webmaster’s postulation was that the Shandong peninsula and today’s Hebei Province, i.e., the land of the original Nine Yi people, being not homogeneous, could have been the interface ground among the three main Mongoloid groups of people. We could further deduce that as a result of the mixing-up of the Hmong-Mien people and the Tungunsic people in today’s Hebei Province and on the Shandong Peninsula, we then have the phenomenon of the later people in Manchuria, Korea and Japan sharing the same archaic traditions as recorded among the ancient Nine Yi people of the 3rd millennium B.C.E., but lacking the hallmark  ”phoenix” adoration as still exists among today’s minority people in Southwestern China –the true descendants of the Hmong-mien people.

–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.)

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 original ancestor of the Chinese people to the east of the Sino-Tibetans was Jiang-surnamed & Feng-surnamed
The ancestor of the Chinese people to the east of the Sino-Tibetans was Jiang-surnamed. The O3-halpogroup group of people, splitting into the three groups of the Sino-Tibetans, the Hmong-Mien, and the Mon-Khmers (i.e., the Hundred Pu people), after leaving today’s Vietnam-Burma about 10,000 years ago, moved into the Chinese continent in three clusters, and along the way, the Hmong-mien people moved first eastward towards the coast, followed by the Sino-Tibetans, while the Mon-Khmers took over the southwestern Chinese territory in the hind.

With clusters of peole moving south of , along and north of the Yellow River, either the Sino-Tibetans or the Hmong-mien people, i.e., their southern-belt moving cousins of the Sino-Tibetans, dominated 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, against the coastal culture on the Shandong Peninsula, that might be founded by the O-2 haplogroup Yi people.

Lu Lord Xigong’s 21st year stated that the clans of ‘Ren’, ‘Su’, ‘Xuqu {Xugou}’ and ‘Zhuanyu’ [i.e., ordained to guard Mt. Mengshan] were Feng-surnamed, i.e., the wind-surnamed statelets; that they worshipped the pilgrimage of Taihao and Youji [i.e., the river god of the ancient Ji-shui River, near today's Ji'nan, Shandong Province]; and that they served the various Xia lords in a subordinate position. Lu Lord Zhaogong 17th Year stated that the land of Chen was formerly the Taihao Ruins [, in parallel with the claims of the land of Soong being the Taichen [Shang Dynasty, with 'chen' being the Shang celestial star] Ruins and the land of Zheng the Zhurong Ruins]. That is, nobody talked about the name of Fuxi yet, but the remotely ancient founding fathers of eastern or southeastern/northeastern China, i.e., lineages from the ancient Jiang-surnamed Yandi [or the Fiery Lord] tribe and the Feng[-wind]-surnamed Taihao tribe, who were the various Xia/Shang Dynasty and Chu state’s progenitors, including Zhurong – that is, all being of the restrictive non-Xia or restrictive non-Sinitic lineages.

Note that the ancient wind-surnamed Tai-hao [wrongly equated to the mystic Fuxi character] tribe was said to have used dragon as title for the court ministers, while the Shao-hao tribe was said to have used ‘phoenix’ for the court ministers, in comparison with the Yellow Overlord’s tribe which used cloud as title for the court ministers. Furthermore, Chi-you, a leader of possibly the mixed Hmong-mien/Sino-Tibetans, was symbolized by ox in numerous writings of ancient China. Today, the minority people of southwestern China had adored dragon, phoenix and ox, respectively, with implication that those O3-haplogroup Hmong-mien descendants [O3a3b-M7] could be related to the ancient Taihao-shi, Shaohao-shi and Chi-you tribes. Further, Liu Xin, to lend support to usurper-emperor Wang Mang of Xin [new] Dynasty, could have mis-interpreted the order of succession among the above-named tribes to make an order of Taihao [dragon], Gonggong [water], Yandi [fire], Huangdi [cloud] and Shaohao [bird].

In Lu Lord Xigong’s 21st year, i.e., 639 B.C., the Viscount of the Xuqu {Xugou} state [which was eliminated by the Zhu-guo state under Viscount Zhu Lord Wen'gong {Cao Quchu}] fled to Lu. The Cao-surnamed Zhu-guo state was a fief conferred onto Cao Cie by Zhou King Wuwang in remembrance of Lord Zhuanxu. Cao Quchu relocated his state to Mt. Yishan (Zoucheng/Tengzhou, Shandong) from southwest of Qufu. Cheng-feng [i.e., dowager of Lu Lord Zhuanggong and mother of Lu Lord Xigong, carrying the wind surname of the Xuqu {Xugou} state] petitioned with the Lu lord for help in re-establishing the ancient Xuqu state. Cheng-feng made a claim that by doing so, the pilgrimage of Taihao and Youji [i.e., the river god of the ancient Ji-shui River, near today's Ji'nan, Shandong Province] could be continuing, which was in conformity with the Zhou dynasty’s rituals. After Cheng-feng died in 618 B.C., the Qin state sent over the ritual clothes as condolence. (Scholar Wu Limin, in rebutting Xu Xusheng’s eastern Yi/southern Maan theory, claimed that the Taihao reverence, or Shaohao, must be related to the Sinitic family; otherwise, why would Cheng-feng made the claim about the conformity with the Zhou rituals?)

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 Divine farmer, whose representative was Yandi which enjoyed eight successions.  See the Yi-jing citation below.

Though, Confucius was possibly faked by the recent scholars to have put out some writing in stating that the ancient Paoxi-shi invented the fishing net, studied geography and astronomy, and created the Eight Trigrams. Note that Confucius abridged classics to make into what was known later as the book SHANG SHU that started with Lord Yao, with no mentioning of any figure beyond Yao, which was to say that should anybody say Confucius had mentioned an earlier figure, it would be a forgery. Further, the forgery writers made a pretension to state that it was Kong An’guo who wrote the preface to SHANG SHU, namely, SHANG SHU XU, in which a statement was made to the effect that in the remote antiquity, Fuxi-shi took reign of the land, and began to invent the Eight Trigrams and create the wood-carved language characters. This would be Kong Yingda, a Tang dynasty historian and Confucius’ 32nd generation grandson, who authored the text SHANG SHU XU (preface to SHANG SHU). Hence, Chinese prehistory was mechanically pushed out to have become something that started with Paoxi-shi, aka Taihao. This was something that provided fodder to the 20th century doubt-ancient scholars who had a point in saying that the more recent it became, the more detailed the stories about the ancient sovereigns became. Paoxi-shi was said to have marked the beginning of the so-called ‘Human’ or ‘Mt Taishan’ Era of ‘huang’ (splendidness or magnificence) which was successive to the Heaven ‘huang’ and the Earth ‘huang’. The ‘huang’ story could be still a fuzzy concept at the time Qin Emperor Shihuangdi coined the title of ‘huang-di’ for emperor.

Note the important thing about the ancient lord Huangdi’s paying pilgrimage to Mt. Taishan, a manifestation that the earliest lords had their center of activities around this mountain, instead of the later Xia nation or the Da-xia land of today’s Shanxi Province. In this webmaster’s opinion, the third ‘Huang’ was taken as the Human ‘Huang’ possibly because Mt Taishan was the place where the ancient Chinese inscribed the names of overlords since antiquity. Hence, Human ‘Huang’ = Mt. Taishan ‘Huang’.

Sima Zhen stated that Confucius had skipped Nu-wa (Nu-xi-shi) who was the ruling dynasty between Paoxi-shi and Shennong-shi. The claim pointed to Nu-wa sharing the same surname as Paoxi-shi, namely, ‘Feng’ (i.e., wind). Sima Qian’s SHI JI had the pretentious discussion on the three legendary ‘Huang’; however, this section was lost in the later times, and Sima Zhen had to rewrite it during the Tang Dynasty time period. Sima Qian, possibly Sima Zhen’s words, claimed that the Three Legendary ‘Huang’ were the Heaven ‘Huang’, Earth ‘Huang’ and Mt. Taishan Huang. Sima Zhen was ambiguous, however. Counting the Fuxi “dynasties”, you would have at least 15 (per Sima Zhen) dynasties, including Wuhuai-shi, in-between the three ancient ‘Huang’ eras and the known historical time period. Sima Zhen conflicted with himself in stating that anything after the Three ‘Huang’ and before the Wuhuai-shi Dynasty was fuzzy. Was Wuhuai-shi before or after Fuxi? If after, then why do we know more about Fuxi-shi than the latter, i.e., Wuhuai-shi? Sima Zhen’s writings were based on i) the ‘Wei’-Suffixed forgery-prone interpretation of the natural disasters and astronomical observation as noted in the history annals, Spring & Autumn, and ii) fables such as those by Zhuang-zi and Lie-zi. Related to Fuxi would be a clan entitled Hexu-shi, a tribe that some people had equated to so-called Hua-xu-shi where the character ‘Hua’ for denoting Xia Chinese was to develop. As to He-xu-shi, ancient classics “Tang Wen” in “Lie-zi” claimed that Huangdi had at one time had a dream touring the legendary He-xu-shi kingdom, which was illustrative of the Shangri-la kind of remote world beyond the Huangdi reign. “Lie-zi” could be a later forgery, though, or pure fables.

《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。」”

Eight Trigrams (八卦 bāguà):

乾:天

兑:海

离:火

震:雷

巽:风

坎:河

艮:山

坤:地

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”。)

The “milfoil divination” before Yi-jing (《易经》)  are《连山易》、《归藏易》

桓谭《新论》:“《连山》八万言,《归藏》四千三百言。”

The oldest book was 《三坟》

(南朝)刘勰《文心雕龙:自鸟迹代绳,文字始炳,炎皞遗事,纪在《三坟》,而年世渺邈,声采靡追。唐虞文章,则焕乎始盛。

[后]魏江式《论书表》:臣闻疱牺氏作,而八卦列其画;轩辕氏兴,而灵龟彰其彩。古史仓颉,览二象之文,观鸟兽之迹,别创文字,以代结绳,用书契以纪事。宣之王庭,则百工以叙;载之方册,则万品以明。迄于三代,厥体颇异。

许慎《说文解字.序》:“著于竹帛谓之书,书者如也。以迄五帝三王之世,改易殊体。封于泰山者七十有二代,靡有同焉。”

.

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。”

‘San Huang’, termed the Three Sovereigns, were more likely mythical and non-human-entity titles at the time the first emperor of Qin coined his title ‘huang-di’ about 2200-2300 hundreds ago, were later mixed up with fables to become Fuxi, Yandi the Fiery Lord, and Huangdi the Yellow Emperor, or varying orders. The point was that in ancient China, we did have the saying of the ‘Heaven Huang’, the ‘Land Huang’, and the ‘Taishan Mountain Huang’ [which was mutated to the 'Human Huang' at some later time but before the Han dynasty scholars mixed it with the Zhuang-zi and Lie-zi fables to become the 'Human Huang'].

In varying orders, ‘San Huang’, or the Three Sovereigns, would be Fuxi, Yandi (Fiery Lord) and Huangdi (Yellow Lord, ? B.C.E. 2697 – 2599; reign 2402-2303 with rule of 100 years per Zhu Yongtang’s adjustment of BAMBOO). A Western Han Dynasty story claimed that Nü-wa, Fuxi and Shennong were the three ancient lords.

The Three Huangs denotation was embodying the ancient Chinese religious ideas and it could be compared to the trinity in Christianity. Concretely speaking, the relationship between heaven, land and the human beings would be an eternal topic of the ancient Chinese. The impact could be seen in the early dynasties like Shang which upheld polytheism and semi-human gods similar to the ancient Greeks. Below, I had followed the conventional history in attributing the idea of ‘Mandate of Heaven’ to Zhou Dynasty (instead of Shang Dynasty) because of distinction here between the polytheism reverence of the Shang people and the Heaven reverence of the Zhou people.

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。”

(晋)王嘉《拾遗录》:春皇者,庖牺之别号。…庖者,包也,言包含万象。以牺牲登荐于百神,民服其圣,故曰庖牺,亦谓伏羲。变混沌之质,文宓其教,故曰宓牺。布至德于天下,元元之类,莫不尊焉。以木德称王,故曰春皇。其明睿照于八区,是谓太昊。昊者,明也。位居东方,以含养蠢化,叶于木德,其音附角,号曰“木皇”。

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 interpret 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》。”

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 SHI JI 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’ ), shown with origin in the different tribal groups, was different for different historians such as for Huangfu Mi of Jinn Dynasty versus Sima Zhen of Tang Dynasty. Should we interpret 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’ ) rule could have continued for another 78 [?] overlords, which came from tribal groups of the same lineage as 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’ ) overlord. (Later, ancient Chinese at most gave the Human ‘Huang’ title to Fuxi, Nü-wa, Shennong and Huangdi, which was fallacious in light of the original denotation for this title.)

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 ‘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。

《诗·小雅·采芑》: 服其命服,朱芾斯皇。
《书·帝命》: 騐皇者,煌煌也。
《说文》: 皇,大也。从自。自始也。始王者,三皇大君也。
《诗·周颂·执竞》:  上帝是皇。
《广雅·释诂一》:   皇,美也。
《风俗通》:  皇霸。皇者天也。
《春秋·元命苞》:   伏羲、女娲、神农为三皇。 (The [纬] ‘wei’-suffixed books were mostly later forgeries as well.)
《释言》:   皇,正也。
《诗·豳风·破斧》:   四国是皇。
《尚书纬》曰:帝者天号,王者人称。天有五帝以立名,人有三王以正度。天子,爵称也。皇者,煌煌也。 (The [纬] ‘wei’-suffixed books were mostly later forgeries as well.)

【尚書·序疏】稱皇者,以皇是美大之名。言大於帝也。
【風俗通】三皇道德元泊,有似皇天,故稱曰皇。皇者,中也,光也,弘也。 又有天下者之通稱。

【爾雅·釋詁】君也。

【白虎通】號也。號之爲皇者,煌煌人莫違也。

【春秋·繁露】德侔天地者稱皇帝。
【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。

洛书》:皇道缺,故帝者兴。

《白虎通·号》引《礼记·谥法》:“……号之为皇者,煌煌人莫违也,烦一夫扰一士以劳天下,不为皇也。不扰匹夫匹妇故为皇……”

清 陈寿祺 辑《尚书大传》:“燧人为燧皇伏羲为羲皇,神农为农皇也。燧人以火纪,火,太阳也。阳尊,故托燧皇于天。” (Shang-shu Da-zhuan was a wei-suffixed forgery.)

《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.)

(More see http://www.chinavalue.net/General/Article/2009-4-3/168520.html http://www.guoxue.com/wenxian/leishu/0076.htm http://tool.httpcn.com/Html/KangXi/31/KOAZKOILKOMETBXVME.shtml)

‘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 prehistory as they were interchangeably used. Wang Jia of Jinn Dynasty defined the meaning of “hao” as brightness. (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 could be wrong in mixing up Taihao and Fuxi.)

(晋)王嘉《拾遗录》:春皇者,庖牺之别号。…庖者,包也,言包含万象。以牺牲登荐于百神,民服其圣,故曰庖牺,亦谓伏羲。变混沌之质,文宓其教,故曰宓牺。布至德于天下,元元之类,莫不尊焉。以木德称王,故曰春皇。其明睿照于八区,是谓太昊。昊者,明也。位居东方,以含养蠢化,叶于木德,其音附角,号曰“木皇”。

《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. (It was said that Zou Yan first proposed the Nine Prefecture theory.)

《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 -> [[Nuuwa-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 ascension 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[]·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)

Posted in Ancient China, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Imperial China – Palette for Miscellaenous Editing

Welcome to Imperial China Blogging!

Zhou Dynasty – Analyzing Mu-tian-zi (Zhou King Muwang)

http://www.imperialchina.org/Dynasties/?p=43






Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment