《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 first some writing which was an extrapolation of Yu Gong, namely, the mountain part, which was mostly about the mountains and hills and their sacrifice, and subsequently some re-interpretation of the strange animals or gods to mean some “overseas” countries during the Han dynasty, which was the result of the Han empire’s expansion towards the four perimeters of Sinitic world. This recompilation, spanning hundreds of years, resulted in the chapters that contained the names of counties and prefectures from the later Qin-Han eras.
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 and “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, as well as in poet Qu Yuan’s Tian Wen etc, pointed to the possibility of a flurry of similar writings in the late Warring States time period, both in the land of the Wei Principality of the 4th century B.C.E. and the Chu Principality to the south. Some illustrative examples from Qu Yuan’s poems could prove that some similar rudimentary description of the legends, with the common extrapolation source of Yu Gong (Lord Yu’s Tributes), were in existence across Sinitic China. (Note that Liu Xie (? 465-520 A.D.), in Bian Sao (collating Li Sao poem) of Wen-xing Diao-long (Literary Mind and Carved Dragons), a book of literary aesthetics, numerology and divination, claimed that Kunlun and Xuanpu (hanging gardens) were not carried by ‘Jing [five Confucian classics] {&} Yi [Zhou Yi/I Ching, i.e., or Book of Changes]’.)
In Jiu Ge (nine songs), which was a lost chapter in Xia Shu of Shang-shu and en eulogy of nine accomplishments of the Xia dynasty, poet Qu Yuan talked about the mythical mulberry tree land of Fu-sang in DONG-JUN (easter lord) as well as the western mythical mountain Mt. Kunlun in (count of the Yellow River). As 20th century historian Qian Mu pointed out, multiple poems in Jiu Ge, such as CHOU-SI [twitching sorrow], XIANG-JUN [lord Xiang] and XIANG-FU-REN [lady Xiang, taken to be the Han-shui River goddess by Qian Mu], HE-BO [count of the Yellow River], YU-FU [fisherman], SI MEI-REN [missing the gentleman or the beauty], and BEI HUI-FENG [feeling sad about the percolating wind], and etc, were all about the original Chu territory north of the Han-shui River, where the poet was exiled. In poem Li Sao (farewell sorrow), the poet mentioned the land of Cangwu (which was mistakenly extrapolated to south of the Yangtze by the later people), Xian-pu (i.e., ‘xuan-pu’ or the hanging-in-the-sky garden), Yanci (westernmost mountain in the fourth western mountain range, i.e., close to the sunset place), Jiuyi (which was mistakenly extrapolated to south of the Yangtze, where Lord Shun was buried), Liusha (quick sand, i.e., the Kumtag), and Chi-shui (red river).
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 Hai 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 al. 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 al., 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). 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 the fable figure Lao-zi’s pseudepigrapha 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.)
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 Zhuan), 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 Zhuan, 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’s Lie Zi, like Zhuang-zhi’s Zhuang Zi, 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 PREFECTURES
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 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 in Book 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 books on “the Within-Seas & the Over-Seas, and 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·大荒东经》: “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 Liang Si Gong Ji 《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.
Henriette Mertz, who had erroenously appropriated the mountains and valleys in Shan Hai Jing to North America, had some validity as to the link of monk Hui-shen to Quetzalcoatl. (The four eastern mountain ranges were mistakenly appropriated to North America by Henriette Mertz in the 1958 book Pale Ink, which was the author’s overzealous pursuit of the topic of Asiatic fathers of the Amerindians. Henriette Mertz also had the wild imagination about the deep gully beyond the east sea, staing that it was the Grand Canyon of Arizona.)
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 theory about the Yellow River flowing through the underground tunnel from the Salty Lake of Chinese 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 mountains (《山经》) component carried dozens of place naming that were still used today, namely, the middle mountain ranges centered around the Qin-ling Ridge, 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”
http://hi.baidu.com/njhyjl/item/8e3138ed7461e0d1ea34c9e1
(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 Zhuan(《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 that, 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 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 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 Zhuan. Ji-shi could be actually an ancient burial practice. 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 appropriated 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 Shan Jing (i.e., the mountain part of The Legends of 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 Mountains and Seas).
See http://www.imperialchina.org/Dynasties/?p=43
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[-Dynasty] Shu which 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 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 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).
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[-Dynasty] Shu which 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 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 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).
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.
Han Emperor Wudi, the Kunlun Mountain & the Book Shan Hai Jing
Han Emperor Wudi’s search to the west, rather than Qin Emperor Shihuangdi’s search in the seas to the east, could shed light on the age of the book Shan Hai Jing, both the mountain section and the seas section, in that the immortals in Shan Hai Jing could not have been written before Qin Emperor Shihuangdi’s times.
The difference between Shan Jing (the mountain part) and the seas or overseas’ components of Shan Hai Jing was that the former was about sacrifice of wines, grains, fish and animals to either animal gods, or human-faced animal gods, strange-looking people, the heavenly lord and the high lord on the major mountains and hills. The seas or overseas’ components of Shan Hai Jing was a motley of pictographic transcribing of animal gods, human-faced animal gods and strange-looking people which were in turn transformed into the names of countries or tribes.
Huai Nan Zi, a Han dynasty book, which still failed to trace the Yangtze’s origin and its southern flow into the Sichuan basin, made a summary tally of thirty-five “overseas” countries, like one-arm country, three-body country, through-chest country, etc. For example, the heelless and tiptoe-walking country could have its origin in the owl-like ‘qi-zhong’ bird on Mt. Fuzhou-zhi-shan, with one leg and pig tail, as described the Zhong Shan Jing section.
The yardstick would be to treat whatever books that talked about the ‘guo’ or state-suffixed names with the unearthly names, like in the seas’ component of Shan Hai Jing, or in the Wang-hui Jie of Yi Zhou Shu, or in Huai Nan Zi, to be a Han dynasty forgery.
The seas or overseas’ components of Shan Hai Jing, i.e., The Legends Mountain and Sea Legends, though carrying the names of countries like in today’s Korea, Chinese Turkestan and India, etc., were not about geography at all but divination. The divination materials, similar to those in Shi1 Fa, Gui-cang Yi, the Wangjiatai divination script, and the divination in Mu-tian-zi Zhuan, served the same augury purpose of the late Warring States time period, albeit possessing their separate freelance or freewheeling traits. For example, The one eyed son of Lord Shaohao in the “great northern wilderness” (Da Huang Bei Jing) section of Shan Hai Jing, like the one-hand and one-eye ‘shen-mu-guo’ (the deep eye socket) state in the “Northern Outer Seas” section, which was speculated to be the legendary one-eyed state Arimaspi that was described by Herodotus in Histories as located north of Scythia and east of Issedones and linked to the three-eye stone statutes of the Okunev Culture in Minusinsk, could have its source in some one-eye bird in the northern mountain range of Shan Hai Jing, and the one-eye and three-tail ‘huan’ foxlike animal on Mt. Yiwang-zhi-shan in the western mountain range.
This betrayed the seas’ part of Shan Hai Jing as a Han dynasty book to the disappointment of people, both ancient and today, that Shan Hai Jing was from the remote antiquity like the times of Lord Yao and his assistant Bo-yi4. There was no exception to applying the yardstick to the Wang-hui Jie section of Yi Zhou Shu. The mountain part of the book was actually the ancient Shi-fa stalk divination. The seas or overseas’ components, which could be further separated into two groups, i.e., the “inner seas” and the “outer seas” sections that were compiled by Liu Xin and the “within-seas” and the “overseas wilderness” sections that were possibly collected by Guo Pu (A.D. 276-324), were purely divinatory, with the former two sections possibly synchronizing with the Han empire’s military expansion, and the latter two sharing similar contents as Lian-shan Yi (divination on concatenated [undulating] mountain ranges), Gui-cang Yi (returning-to-earth hoarding divination), A.D. 279 Ji-zhong tomb divination texts, and the 1993 Wangjiatai excavated divination texts. For details, see this webmaster’s 1500-page books on THE SINITIC CIVILATION Book I & Book II.