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 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. There was overwhelming written evidence that the ruins or origin of majority of the ancient thearchs from the pre-Xia dynasty eras, such as the Zhu-rong Ruins (in the Zheng state), the Tai-hao Ruins (in the Chen-guo state), the Taichen {Shang Dynasty} Ruins (in the Soong state), the Zhuanxu Ruins (in the Wey state), You-shen (in the Wey state), the Kunwu Ruins (in the Wey state), the Chu-qiu Ruins (in the Wey state), and the Shao-hao Ruins (in the Lu state), were located along the middle Yellow River line.
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。”
骸作服牛，共鼓、货狄作舟。
雍父作舂。
挥作弓，牟夷作矢。
《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，后皆为东夷之地矣。”
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）其貊，奄受北国，因以其伯”
《诗经·大雅·韩奕》郑笺：“其后追（秽）也、貉也为猃狁所逼，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 “北与胡貉为邻”；
《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，与卑耳之貉拘秦夏”
《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》：“貊国在汉水东北，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、貉、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：“貉在东北方，三韩之属皆貊类也。”
《后汉书·东夷高句丽》：“句丽，一名貊耳，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：‘貉人犯法，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。’于是貉人愈犯边。”
《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. Here, it could be the forgery bamboo annals copycatting the sophistry writings of the late Warring States and the Han dynasty. Note that . Lord Shun’s brother, by the name of ‘xiang’ (elephant), mutated into a story about Lord Shun’s subduing the elephants in the sophistry-nature Confucian book Mencius. The elephant taming was taken to be a profession of the Eastern Yi barbarians, i.e., the cause that Mencius called Lord Shun a ‘Dong-yi’. The unfounded elephant story further evolved into a fable in sophistry Lv-shi Chun-qiu that the Shang tribe had tamed elephants and used them as weapon against the Eastern Yi people. Lv-shi Chun-qiu claimed that the Shang tribe had tamed elephants and used them as weapons against the Eastern Yi people along the coast, which would link up the Shang people with the tropical area of today’s southwestern China. The unfounded elephant story could have the same source as Mencius’ claim in regards to Lord Shun’s subduing the elephants, a profession of the Eastern Yi barbarians, for which Lord Shun was called a ‘Dong-yi’. (The word elephant was said to be seen in North China in the ancient times, such as the lexicon for the word of the Yuzhou prefecture –that had the elephant signific embedded but actually meant for the “greatness” as seen in the ‘Yu’ hexagram. However, the elephant stories in Lv-shi Chun-qiu were merely sophistry writings that extrapolated on the word ‘Xiang’, namely, Lord Shun’s brother who happened to carry the elephant’s name. Not to mention Di-wang Shi4-ji‘s wild claim of an “elephant trunk ruins” as son Shang-jun’s fief.)
《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……。’
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。
《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》荒(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》泄
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》发
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》殷商
《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。”
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，遂分遷淮、岱，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。
《越绝书·陈成恒》句践“此乃僻陋之邦，蛮夷之民也”。
《华阳国志·南中志》：“南中在昔夷越之地。”
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。”
《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。”
《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，居秦故空地上下鄣，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,欲东略地。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》：“时朝鲜王否立，畏秦袭之，略服属秦，不肯朝会。否亡，其子准立。二十余年而陈、项起，天下乱，燕、齐、赵民愁苦，稍稍亡往准，准乃置之于西方。”
《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。)
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，倭人貢暢。
《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. Note that there existed the fundamental difference in cranial length, width and height among the East Asian population and the paleo-Siberia/paleo-Mongolian-Plateau population, that could be 181 millimeter versus 175, 138 versus 144, and 134 versus 127, respectively. The physical anthropology studies of the Khitan tomb remains showed that the Khitans belonged to the “North Asia” or the “Siberia-Baikal” type with a low cranial forehead and a higher facial appearance, i.e., people who had no similarity to the East Asia type people. According to Chen Jing of Jirin University, the physical anthropological studies showed the Zhalairuoer people were a mix of paleo-Siberia, paleo-Arctic and paleo-East-Asia people.
The N haplogroup people, i.e., the Sinitic people’s cousins, relocated to North Asia and then to Scandinavia, bringing along the Sinitic language to the Proto-North-Caucasian who in turn gave it to the Proto-Indo-European. http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp115_chinese_proto_indo_european.pdf provides another perspective of looking at things of the past from the perspective of language cognates. Rather believing that the Indo-Europeans ever invaded China and gave the Sinitic people the language, we could actually deduce that “Old Chinese”, for its 43% correlation with the Proto-North-Caucasian, rather 23% with the Proto-Indo-European, was the source for both the cognates of the Proto-North-Caucasian and the Proto-Indo-European.
Note that in western Siberia, genetic studies on the remains of the tombs from the bronze culture sites showed the evolution and admixture of the eastern and western haplogroups of the Y chromosomes of R1b, Q, C and N. The mitochondrial haplogroups through those phases of the Bronze Age were also shared between the western and eastern lineages for the remains of the populations tested. The dominant groups exhibited themselves as the Q1a2a1-L54 and R1a1a1b2-Z93 types. It appeared that the Orientals gradually overtook the western groups of people. Direction-wise, the Q-haplogroup people, i.e., cousins of the Caucasoid R-haplogroup people, likely arrived in today’s Siberia heartland before the Last Glacial Maximum, while within the last 10,000 years, a branch pushed south to live among the Sinitic people, hence giving infusion of a common ancestry for like 5000 years with the Sinitic people. The paleo-North-Asia type people might be of the N-haplogroup, not the Q-haplogroup. Chen Jing of Jirin University, after conducting physical anthropological studies on the skulls of the Huns, Xianbei and Khitans, concluded that the three barbarian groups shared the common paleo-Siberia feature of low crania, other than the admixtured Huns (i.e., the the Q1a1-M120 haplotype) in the Transbaikal area or in the western regions like Tuva, Kyrgyz, Altai and Turkestan.
《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。
《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，远窜辽东塞外，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 word ‘xi’ in Xi-he2 and his four-season under-ministers in Yao Dian could have derived from the same source as the ‘xi1’ wind god on the oracle bones of the Shang dynasty. Heh Xin believed that China’s creation gods of Fu-xi and Nv-wa that were seen in the Zidanku Bo-shu silk manuscript could have come from the ‘xi1’ east wind god of the Shang dynasty. Though carrying a tag of the Chu Principality attribute, the Zidanku Bo-shu silk manuscript could be very much a Han dynasty product, with the Fu-xi and Nv-wa names being invented much later than the four wind gods as seen in Shan Hai Jing. The four wind gods of the Shang dynasty were fully covered in the “great overseas wilderness” section of Shan Hai Jing, wherein could be seen the names of the four winds and their gods: ‘jun4[-feng]’ (i.e., strong wind) and the ‘zhe2[-dan]’ [morphologically ‘xi1’ or ‘xi1-dan’] person [god] for the east; ‘min2[-feng]’ and the ‘yin1[-hu]’ god for the south; ‘wei2[-feng]’ and the ‘[shi-]yi2’ person [god] for the west; and ‘yan3[-feng]’ and the ‘wan3’ [morphologically ‘yuan1’] person [god] for the north.
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. Miao-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 ‘Jiang’ River –which was not the Yangtze but the Han-shui River –and likely a fabricated matter as the ‘elephant’ premise was a mis-read of the same soundex given name of Lord Shun’s brother as Jia Juanzhi clearly and correctly interpreted the classics to state that the sage kings ruled the remote land with ‘sheng-jiao’ (i.e., the voice and creeds); and the Shang-Zhou dynasties did not extend their influence beyond ‘Mann-Jing’ to the south [and 'Jiang-Huang' {the Jiang-guo and Huang-guo states} to the east]:
《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 。”