*** Translation, Tradducion, Ubersetzung , Chinese ***
HomePage Huns Turks & Uygurs Tibetans Koreans Khitans Manchus Mongols Taiwanese Ryukyu Japanese Vietnamese  
Pre-History Xia-Shang Zhou Qin Han 3 States Jinn 16 Nations South-North Sui-Tang 5 Plus 10 States Song Liao Xi Xia Jurchen Yuan Ming Qing  
Tragedy Of Chinese Revolution Terrors Wars China: Caste Society Anti-Rightists Cultural Revolution 6-4 Massacre Land Enclosure FaLunGong  
Videos about China's Resistance War: The Battle of Shanghai & Nanking; Bombing of Chungking; The Burma Road (in English)
Videos about China's Resistance War: China's Dunkirk Retreat (in English); 42 Video Series (in Chinese)
Nanchang Mutiny; Canton Commune; Korean/Chinese Communists & the Japanese Invasion of Manchuria; Communist-instigated Fujian Chinese Republic
Communist-instigated Marco Polo Bridge Incident
The Enemy From Within; Huangqiao Battle; N4C Incident
1945-1949 Civil War
Liao-Shen, Xu-Beng, Ping-Jin Yangtze Campaigns
Siege of Taiyuan - w/1000+ Soviet Artillery Pieces (Video)
The Korean War The Vietnam War

*** Related Readings ***:
The Amerasia Case & Cover-up By the U.S. Government
The Legend of Mark Gayn
The Reality of Red Subversion: The Recent Confirmation of Soviet Espionage in America
Notes on Owen Lattimore
Lauchlin Currie / Biography
Nathan Silvermaster Group of 28 American communists in 6 Federal agencies
Solomon Adler the Russian mole "Sachs" & Chi-com's henchman; Frank Coe; Ales
Mme Chiang Kai-shek's Role in the War (Video)
Japanese Ichigo Campaign & Stilwell Incident
Lend-Lease; Yalta Betrayal: At China's Expense
Acheson 2 Billion Crap; Cover-up Of Birch Murder
Marshall's Dupe Mission To China, & Arms Embargo
Chiang Kai-shek's Money Trail
The Wuhan Gang, including Joseph Stilwell, Agnes Smedley, Evans Carlson, Frank Dorn, Jack Belden, S.T. Steele, John Davies, David Barrett and more, were the core of the Americans who were to influence the American decision-making on behalf of the Chinese communists. 
It was not something that could be easily explained by Hurley's accusation in late 1945 that American government had been hijacked by 
i) the imperialists (i.e., the British colonialists whom Roosevelt always suspected to have hijacked the U.S. State Department)  
and ii) the communists.  At play was not a single-thread Russian or Comintern conspiracy against the Republic of China but an additional channel 
that was delicately knit by the sophisticated Chinese communist saboteurs to employ the above-mentioned Americans for their cause The Wuhan Gang & The Chungking Gang, i.e., the offsprings of the American missionaries, diplomats, military officers, 'revolutionaries' & Red Saboteurs and "Old China Hands" of 1920s and the herald-runners of the Dixie Mission of 1940s.
Wang Bingnan's German wife, Anneliese Martens, physically won over the hearts of  Americans by providing the wartime 'bachelors' with special one-on-one service per Zeng Xubai's writings.  Though, Anna Wang [Anneliese Martens], in her memoirs, expressed jealousy over Gong Peng by stating that the Anglo-American reporters had flattered the Chinese communists and the communist movement as a result of being entranced with the goldfish-eye'ed personal assistant of Zhou Enlai
Stephen R. Mackinnon & John Fairbank invariably failed to separate fondness for the Chinese communist revolution from fondness for Gong Peng, the Asian fetish who worked together with Anneliese Martens to infatuate American wartime reporters. (More, refer to Communist Platonic Club at wartime capital Chungking and American Involvement in China: Soviet Operation Snow, IPR Conspiracy, Dixie Mission, Stilwell Incident, OSS Scheme, Coalition Government Crap, the Amerasia Case, & the China White Paper.)
Antiquity The Prehistory
Fiery Lord
Yellow Lord
Xia Dynasty 1991-1959 BC 1
2070-1600 BC 2
2207-1766 BC 3
Shang Dynasty 1559-1050 BC 1
1600-1046 BC 2
1765-1122 BC 3
Western Zhou 1050 - 771 BC 1
1046 - 771 BC 2
1121 - 771 BC 3
Eastern Zhou 770-256 BC
770-249 BC 3
Sping & Autumn 722-481 BC
770-476 BC 3
Warring States 403-221 BC
476-221 BC 3
Qin Statelet 900s?-221 BC
Qin Dynasty 221-206 BC
248-207 BC 3
Western Han 206 BC-23 AD
Xin (New) 9-23 AD
Western Han 23-25 AD
Eastern Han 25-220
Three Kingdoms Wei 220-265
Three Kingdoms Shu 221-263
Three Kingdoms Wu 222-280
Western Jinn 265-316
Eastern Jinn 317-420
16 Nations 304-420
Cheng Han Di 301-347
Hun Han (Zhao) Hun 304-329 ss
Anterior Liang Chinese 317-376
Posterior Zhao Jiehu 319-352 ss
Anterior Qin Di 351-394 ss
Anterior Yan Xianbei 337-370
Posterior Yan Xianbei 384-409
Posterior Qin Qiang 384-417 ss
Western Qin ss Xianbei 385-431
Posterior Liang Di 386-403
Southern Liang Xianbei 397-414
Northern Liang Hun 397-439
Southern Yan Xianbei 398-410
Western Liang Chinese 400-421
Hunnic Xia Hun 407-431 ss
Northern Yan Chinese 409-436
North Dynasties 386-581
Northern Wei 386-534
Eastern Wei 534-550
Western Wei 535-557
Northern Qi 550-577
Northern Zhou 557-581
South Dynasties 420-589
Liu Song 420-479
Southern Qi 479-502
Liang 502-557
Chen 557-589
Sui Dynasty 581-618
Tang Dynasty 618-690
Wu Zhou 690-705
Tang Dynasty 705-907
Five Dynasties 907-960
Posterior Liang 907-923
Posterior Tang 923-936
Posterior Jinn 936-946
Posterior Han 947-950
Posterior Zhou 951-960
10 Kingdoms 902-979
Wu 902-937 Nanking
Shu 907-925 Sichuan
Nan-Ping 907-963 Hubei
Wu-Yue 907-978 Zhejiang
Min 907-946 Fukien
Southern Han 907-971 Canton
Chu 927-956 Hunan
Later Shu 934-965 Sichuan
Southern Tang 937-975 Nanking
Northern Han 951-979 Shanxi
Khitan Liao 907-1125
Northern Song 960-1127
Southern Song 1127-1279
Western Xia 1032-1227
Jurchen Jin (Gold) 1115-1234
Mongol Yuan 1279-1368
Ming Dynasty 1368-1644
Manchu Qing 1644-1912
R.O.C. 1912-1949
R.O.C. Taiwan 1949-present
P.R.C. 1949-present




For details on when the east met with the west, see my recent discussions on the Huns, the Yuezhi, the Tarim Mummies, the Yuezhi-Yushi misnomer, the Mongoloid-Caucasoid admixture at 2000 B.C.E., the fallacy of the Aryan bearing of the Chinese civilization, the fallacy of the Yuezhi jade trade, the Yuezhi migration timeline, as well as the location of the Kunlun Mountain, Queen Mother of the West the proto-Tibetan Qiangic jade trade with the Sinitic Chinese, and the Qiang's possible routes of passages into Chinese Turkestan at http://www.imperialchina.org/Barbarians.htm which was embedded within the Huns.html and Turks_Uygurs.html pages. (Also see my discussion on the ethnic nature of ancient Huns belonging to part of the epic Jiang-rong human migration of the Jiang-surnamed San-miao people and Yun-surnamed Xianyun people.)
To expound the myth of the Koreans and the Altaic-speaking people, most recent DNA analyses need to be taken into account. Doctorate Li Hui from Fudan University of China had analyzed the DNA of the Asians to derive a conclusion that the ancestors of the Mongoloid Asians possessed a distinctive Mark M89 by the time they arrived in Southeast Asia. About 30,000 years ago, from the launching pad of Southeast Asia, the early Mongoloids went through a genetic mutation to Marker M122. Li Hui claimed that the early migrants to the Chinese continent took three routes via two entries of today's Yunnan and Guangxi-Guangdong provinces. The interesting theory adopted by Li Hui would be the migration of one more branch of people who, at about 20,000 years or earlier, continued to travel non-stop along the Chinese coastline to reach the Liao-he River area of Manchuria where they developed into what this webmaster called by the Altaic-speaking people, i.e., ancestors of the Turks and the Mongols.
Combining Li Hui's study with the pottery excavation, we could see a clear path going north extending from around 15,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago. Refer to Yaroslav V. Kuzmin's discourse on potteries to see the path of migration of proto-Mongoloids from southwestern China (approx. 15,120±500 BP) to Northeast Asia (Manchuria [13,000 BP, or c. 14,000 - 13,600 cal BC] and Japan [c. 11,800–10,500 cal BC (c. 13,800 - 12,500 cal BP)]) to Siberia (11,000 BP, or 11,200 - 10,900 cal BC).
In the timeframe of about 10,000 years or earlier, developing a genetic mutation to marker M134, one more branch of people who went direct north, per Li Hui, would penetrate the snowy Hengduan Mountains of the Tibetan-Qinghai Plateau to arrive at the area next to the Yellow River bends. This group of people would be ancestors of the Sino-Tibetans. Splitting out of this northbound migrants would be those who went to the east with a new genetic marker M117, i.e., ancestors of the modern Han [a misnomer as the proper term should be Sino-Tibetan, nor the later Sinitic] Chinese. We could say that our Sino-Tibetan ancestors forgot that they had penetrated northward the Hengduan Mountains from the Indo-China "CORRIDOR" in today's Burma-Vietnam. "Walking down Mt Kunlun", i.e., the "collective memory of the ethnic Han Chinese" throughout China and the Southeast Asian Chinese communities, that was echoed in Guo Xiaochuan's philharmonic-agitated epic, would become the starting point of the eastward migration which our Chinese ancestors remembered. (Li Hui grouped the 3000-year-old Chu and Qi people in the same category as the Han Chinese, albeit meeting the ancient classics' records as to the Qi statelet's lineage from the Qiangic-Tibetan Fiery Lord.) This seems to corroborate with Scholar Luo Xianglin's claim that early Sino-Tibetan people originated from the Mt Minshan and upper-stream River Min-jiang areas of today's Sichuan-Gansu provincial borderline and then split into two groups, with one going north to reach the Wei-shui River and upperstream Han-shui River of Shenxi Prov and then eastward to Shanxi Prov by crossing the Yellow River.
One more branch of the early Mongoloids, about 10,000 years ago, were commented to have entered China's southeastern coastline with genetic marker M119. Li Hui, claiming the same ancestry as the Dai-zu and Shui-zu minorities of Southwestern China, firmly believed that his ancestors had dwelled in the Hangzhou Bay and the Yangtze Delta for 7-8 thousand years. The people with M119 marker would be the historical "Hundred Yue People". Li Hui then pointed out that the ancient Wu people, with M7 genetic marker, came to the lower Yangtze area about 3000 years ago. While Li Hui claimed that the M7 Wu people had split away from the northbound M134 Sino-Tibetan people, the historical Chinese classics pointed out that the Wu Statelet was established by two uncles of Zhou Dynasty King Wenwang, i.e., migrants from the Yellow River area.
As to today's Koreans, this webmaster believed that at most they had a tiny ingredient of this group of early proto-Mongoloid who moved north from 20,000 years ago, just as the Homo sapiens had taken in a portion of the DNA from the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Li Hui's claim that today's Koreans were the mixtures of the early migrants to Manchuria and the later Yi migrants from Eastern China, did corroborate with this webmaster's historical analysis of the Huns, the Turks and the Mongols -- which yielded the conclusion i) that there was no chance for an east-west cross-traffic through the Gobi (Dazi, Tengri & Liusha [Kumtag]) in prehistory; ii) that the Mongoloid had a pattern of raiding to the west, not the other way around by the Indo-Europeans. The Korean nationalists' claim of a "Siberian origin", in light of the fact that the Koreans had predominantly the O2-haplogroup gene of the Yi/Yue people along the Chinese coast, was unfounded, as well as the Tangun myth --which in my opinion was a 13th century A.D. forgery on basis of the ancient Chinese scholars' statement that the Sushen-shi people at the Japan Sea submitted the tributes (i.e., stone arrows) to China at the time of Lords Yao-Shun-Yu. (See Assertions By Wang Zhonghan for clues as to the relationship between/among the Qiangic Proto-Tibetan, the Sino-Tibetan Jiang-rong (Proto-Hun), and the Altaic Xianbei/Mongols: "the northern barbarians and the western barbarians were similar [i.e., Qiangs] at the Spring-Autumn time period, but by the time of the late Warring States time period, the Chinese began to see the northern barbarians as different from the western barbarians". Namely, the ancient Huns were offsprings of the ancient Sino-Tibetan Jiang-rong people at the Yellow River bends while the Xianbei, the Khitan, the Mongol, the Jurchen and the Manchu people were all related to the Tungusic people from today's Northeastern China.)

* In Commemoration of China's Fall under the Alien Conquests in A.D. 1279, A.D. 1644 & A.D. 1949 *
At the time [when China fell under the alien rule],
Korean/Chinese Communists & the 1931 Japanese Invasion of Manchuria
* Stay tuned for "Republican China 1911-1955: A Complete Untold History" *

The Chinese Nation is the existing longest continuous nation in the human history. While the Chinese are proud of calling their history by "up and down five thousand years", the start of recorded history acknowledged by the academic world start with the Shang Dynasty (1765 B.C.E. - 1122 BC {Liu XIn's mistake in adding an extra 60 years or one sexagenary cycle on top of 1062 B.C.E}; or 1559 - 1050 per THE BAMBOO ANNALS) as a result of the discovery of oracle bones. Because of the oracle bones, China's recorded history from Shang Dynasty was authenticated. Repeating citation of the ancient stories and legends in the Chinese classics certainly implied a much longer evolution history than Shang Dynasty, and the Cangjie characters from the Huangdi Era of the 26th century B.C.E. could not be discounted, either. Lord Huangdi (i.e., the Yellow Overlord, ? 2697 - 2599 BC; reign 2402-2303 with rule of 100 years per Zhu Yongtang's adjustment of BAMBOO) was said to have possessed a chronicle official [Cangjie] who had first created the Chinese characters. Like many Xia stories, the Cangjie characters remained a legend. Though, Li Si, prime minister for the Qin empire, had a definite discourse on the ancient Cangjie characters, with a statement to the effect that he had designed the Qin seal script on basis of the Cangjie script. The first dynasty of Xia (2207 B.C.E. - 1766 BC; 1978-1559 from Qi to Jie per raw data from THE BAMBOO ANNALS; 1991-1559 per Zhu Yongtang), claiming a domain of nine ancient prefectures and leaving its lineage in both the ancient Yue people on the southeastern Chinese coast and the Uygurs in today's Western China, is certainly a real entity.
A Chinese research project which started in 1995 had been reported to have pushed the exact date to the year 2070 B.C.E. as the point of start for Xia Dynasty. Stanford University scholar, David Nivision, had derived the date of 2026 B.C.E., instead, as a result of his own independent studies. The new research project should be considered a politics-influenced work. On the dynasty panel, this webmaster had included dates for the Xia-Shang-Zhou dynasties from the new research project, with superscript of 2. Prof David Nivision reportedly had spent enormous time in tracing the Chinese Xia Dynasty to 2026 B.C.E. by re-calculating each emperor's years of reign, minus and plus the unrecorded years such as for the 3-year imperial mourning - a tradition of ancient China that was built on the belief that the children should make requital for the parents who held the babies to their chests for three years before the babies could detach to live on their own. Also in dispute would be the counting method in regards to the years of reign for the ancient lords, and short counting / long counting may produce vastly different dates. This is because the dates for the ancient lords were usually for the first full year of the reign and could be skipped should the lords fail to survive for one full year. (The so-called "Xia-Shang-Zhou Dynasties' Project" of the late 20th century was a Communist China forgery just like the fake consumer products that China manufactured in the last few decades. The raw data from THE BAMBOO ANNALS pointed to the date of 1978 B.C.E. as the start reign of first Xia king Qi. Professor Zhu Yongchang ([Yongtang]; John Y.D. Tse]), who matched the BAMBOO astronomical events with NASA data, adjusted the Xia lord Qi's date to 1991 B.C.E. and Lord Yu's reign to 2002-1995 B.C.E with rule of 8 years and life of 100 years.)
China's earliest substantiated year would be the fourteen year "interregnum" (commonly known as 'gong he' or the modern-sense republican administrative period but alternatively known as the collective leadership by the royal court uncles) of Western Zhou Dynasty, beginning from year 841 B.C.E. (This could be a mis-construed point since scholars pointed out that the two words for 'gong he [republican]' could be two uncles of the King or more likely uncle Gong-shu by the name of 'he'.)   There is a reason for the ambiguity of the early Chinese dates. China's cultural heritage suffered a severe setback as a result of Qin Emperor Shihuangdi's book burning in the 3rd century B.C.E. 150 years after book burning, ancient scholars were still having difficulties re-compiling the lost classics. It was recorded that some books hidden by Kong Zixiang, the 8th grandson of Confucius, inside of the walls in Confucius' former house were discovered during Han Emperor Wudi's reign in the 1st century B.C.E., when Han royal house King [Prince] Lugong-wang was demolishing Confucius' former residence for sake of expanding his palace. This tranche of rediscovered texts enabled scholars to make comparison between the authentic rotten bamboo books and those books which were re-compiled via oral recitation from memories of the aged scholars. Because of the damage from Qin Shihuangdi's book burning and General Xiang Yu's arson of the Qin imperial palaces [and imperial library], important history books were forever destroyed. Kong An'guo, the 11th generation grandson of Confucius, who used senior scholar Fu-sheng's recital texts to compare againt the tadpole Chinese fonts, recorded in parallel as much the ancient tadpole-font texts as he could interpret in transcribing the texts found in Kong Zixiang's residence. After the death of Kong An'guo, the ancient Chinese lost the sense of properly interpreting the tadpole languages -- such as inscribed on the Gou-lou-bei Monument -- which was today commonly perceived to be the original language used by the Xia Dynasty people. (Per Kong An'guo, those books with texts [that could not be deciphered by him] were surrendered to the government for safe-keeping so that some future capable person could study them. It was Qin Emperor Shihuangdi's order to standardize the shape of Chinese characters as well as the book burning that caused the Chinese a loss of interpretation of the ancient tadpole characters.)
China's civilization is dated later than the Sumer Civilization of 3500 B.C.E., the Ancient Egyptian Civilization of 3100 B.C.E., the Minoan Civilization of 2000 B.C.E., and the Indus Civilization of 2500 B.C.E.  The excavation, however, had produced refined potteries going back as much as 5000 B.C.E. Six bone flutes dating from 7000-5700 B.C at the site of Jiahu in central Henan Province certainly pointed to the existence of an advanced human civilization. In the same area, tortoise shells with the pictograms were found buried with human remains in 24 graves unearthed at Jiahu. The rice kernels excavated also pointed to the evolution of the ancient Chinese civilization with a history of at least 7000-8000 years, with established agriculture sites along the mid-Yangtze River and extending to the lower Yangtze and the coast line. The notable thing about the Chinese Civilization is that it is not disrupted ever since, even under the barbarian rule in between. Both the Mongols and the Manchus, who had ruled an integral China, had adopted the Chinese language for its governance, for example. (Also see Robert Murowchick's grumbling about the Jiahu discovery from the 7th to 6th millennia B.C.; however, the problem with the Chinese side is that people like Li Xueqin of the Xia-Shang-Zhou dynasty project, to make archaeology a political task, had very likely mixed in forgeries with true artifacts, making the world archaeology community suspicious of even genuine excavations from China.)
There are people who had tried to link China to the ancient Egyptian pictographic language to prove the common origin of human beings. Scholar Luo Xianglin pointed out that Frenchman Terrien la Lacouperie was the first to propose the fallacious claim of Babylon as the "Western Origin Of The Early Chinese Civilization" in 1894. Do note that Luo Xianglin served as the contradiction to Wei Chu-hsien who attempted to validate an opposite movement of the Yangtze River Chinese towards the north and northwest by deciphering the literal meaning of the town of Wuxi [literally meaning "no tin"]: Wei claimed that the tin of the Shang Chinese came from a hill near Wuxi in the Yangtze River mouth [where the tin mine was exhausted in the 3rd century BC], not from Southwestern China. Wei, who had contribution to the excavation of the Liangzhu Culture in the 1930s, did not get to know the Sanxingdui bronze culture in Sichuan Province which apparently served as a venue for the tin of Southwest China to reach the Yellow River. Interaction between civilization inevitable, one interesting thing would be the 12 Chinese Earthly Stems which coincided with the Zodiac. Lacking solid evidence, this webmaster will uphold the independence of Chinese civilization in discussion here.
Beginning from Shang Dynasty, the underground records like the oracle bones, i.e., tortoise shells and flat cattle bones with inscribed characters of the ancient Chinese language, had provided solid collaboration of events noted in the written records above-ground. Archaeological excavation of artifacts dating from about 1384 B.C.E., from the last capital city of Shang Dynasty at today's Anyang, i.e., 'Yin Xu' [the Shang Wastes or Ruins], attested to the historical records found in the later historical chronicles. The oracle bone characters were quite mature, pointing to a very long lasting evolution stage for thousands of years prior to Shang. Ancient Chinese records were quite reliable, and some archaeologists traced the ancient records of comets and found they did coincide with the cycle of comets that frequent earth today still. Excavation from Xia Dynasty, i.e., 'Xia Xu' or the Xia Wastes [Ruins], had been under research to authenticate the stories and legends of its times or those legends about the Three Huang ("lords or emperors") and Five Di ("lords or emperors") preceding Xia. In 1987, the Beijing Univ publishing house printed an anthology of articles in a book entitled "THE HUA-XIA CIVILIZATION", with quite some academic-quality writings, including a few articles by Zhang Guangzhi. There are reports of archaeological findings of the Chinese pictographic characters older than Shang's tortoise shell characters. In the 1960s and 1970s, archaeologists have uncovered urban sites, bronze implements, and tombs that point to the existence of the Xia civilization. Until definite results could be derived, we won't be able to explore further at this time. See Stunning capital [Erlitou] of Xia Dynasty unearthed for details on the ongoing excavation since 1959.
Excavation Of the Totem Cultures
The origin of the Mongoloid people may or may not be related to the sinanthropus shoukoutien (300-500 thousand years old), the homo erectus pekinensis found in today's Zhoukoudian, near Beijing (Peking). As archaeologists and anthropologists pointed out, modern men did not come from homo erectus, nor homo sapiens (80-200 thousand years ago), but homo sapiens sapiens (20-70 thousand years ago), instead. Recent DNA tests had provided clues that the Chinese males' genes do share one similar feature with the Africans, proving that mankind did come out of Africa. Mankind became active on the globe only after the dissipation in 9000 BC of the last Ice Age, last one of the 17-19 glaciation extending from 3 million years ago. This timeframe would be labeled the Upper Palaeolithic. 15-30 thousand years ago, the Mongoloid people [i.e., actually the Q-haplogroup people who were a mixture with the Mongoloid of Northeast Asia] had started to cross the Bering Straits. (Some purported DNA analysis led to a conclusion that about 10 hunters, with 3-4 males, followed reindeers across the Bering land-bridge to the American continent by taking advantage of the window of opportunity between the last two glaciers.) The Mongoloid would come into tribal shapes, and they then went though the Neolithic Age and the Bronze & Iron Age. Historians, before the emergence of the DNA technology, had claimed that the human genome had taken shape about 10,000 years ago. The limited varieties in the human races could also point to the intense competiton and hostility between those early human beings during the long years of evolution. Mainly in the Asian and American continents, the Mongoloids established their lasting home bases. To better understand the origin of Mongoloid, a study of the DNA topics as to the southern origin of Mongoloid is a must: Y-Chromosome Evidence of Southern Origin of the East Asian-Specific Haplogroup O3-M122; Genetic Structure of Hmong-Mien Speaking Populations in East Asia as Revealed by mtDNA Lineages; The Three O3-Haplogroup Brotherly Tribes of Mon-Khmers, Hmong-Mien and Sino-Tibetans; Inferring human history in East Asia from Y chromosomes.
Potteries Showing the Path of Early Mongoloids' Movement towards Japan, Manchuria and Siberia
Note that there was a book called "Records of the past, Volume 1" by Records of the Past Exploration Society in the early 20th century. They noted that in Minusinsk, an area to the north of Outer Mongolia, there was trace of dolicho-cephalic skulls, which was to say that at one time the Indo-Europeans had pushed direct north to the Arctic direction, but later those [Caucasoid] Samoyades (Samoyedes) were replaced by the Mongoloid Samoyades who shared the same traits as those who had populated the Americas, Manchuria and Japan. The book claimed that they were pushed to "... the bleak region about the mouths of the Ob and the Yenisei Rivers, extending westward nearly to the White Sea... they have been driven by the Mongol races, which pressed upon them from the south." (The time of contact for this conflict to the north of today's Outer Mongolia, in the opinion of this webmaster, would be about the 4th century B.C.E. or the 3rd century B.C.E. ( i.e., the time when the Huns attacked the Yuezhi to the west), as well as the time when Shi-zi jotted down the records with wild speculation that there were deep-socket-eye people living to the north of the Yellow Overlord about 2000 years ahead of him.)
Now how early did the Mongoloid reach the northern sphere and where were they spotted? Yaroslav V. Kuzmin of Pacific Institute of Geography, Vladivostok, Russia, had written an article called "East and Siberia: review of chronology for the oldest Neolithic cultures" in which he painted a smooth northward trace of potteries starting from Guangxi and Hunan provinces of southwestern and southern China to Manchuria/Japan. The dates are:
Guangxi Province: the Miaoyan site, layer 5: 15 220± 260 BP (BA94137b) and 15120±500 BP (BA94137a) (Zhao and Wu 2000);
Hunan Province: the earliest pottery-associated charcoal 14C date 13 680±270 BP (BA95058);
Japan: the earliest site with pottery is Odai Yamamoto in northern Honshu (Aomori Prefecture), the 14C age for layer 4 was estimated as 13 050± 108 BP, and the 14C age for layer 3 as 13 170±56 BP;
Manchuria: pottery appeared in the Amur River basin at c. 13 000 BP, or c. 14 000– 13 600 cal BC;
and Siberia: the earliest pottery is dated to about 11 000 BP, or 11 200– 10 900 cal B.C.E.
The above dates pointed to the migration of a proto-Mongoloid group, who possibly peceded the M122 Sino-Tibetans or were the actual the M122 Sino-Tibetans, to Northeast Asia in a timeframe between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago. Today's Koreans, however, at most had a tiny ingredient of this group of early proto-Mongoloid, just as the Homo sapiens had taken in a portion of the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. This group of pottery people could be after the travellers who moved on to the American continent at about 15,000 years ago, i.e., the intermittent time period of two galaciations. The path of migration is still northbound, and there was no chance for an east-west cross traffic in prehistory.

3 Economic Zones & 6 Cultural Zones
An examination of the Chinese continent will yield two main rivers, the Yellow River (i.e., Huang-he) and the Yangtze River (i.e., Chang-jiang). Recent excavation had produced numerous sites showing that the early Chinese had multiple domains, including the Sanxingdui Excavations in Sichuan Province, the Hongshan Culture in the Jehol-Chahar-Hebei area, the Jiangxi Province excavations, and the rice cultures of Hemudu and Liangzhu in Zhejiang / Jiangsu provinces. (The Sanxingdui Excavation had produced bronze statutes exhibiting people with protruding eyes. Yunnan Province excavations proved that it was the source of tin ore used for Shang Dynasty's bronze utensils. A good website of archaeological findings would be ankhoaagency.com/prehistory%20of%20mankind.htm.)
Scholar Liu Zhixiong & Yang Jingrong, in "Dragon & The Chinese Culture" [People's Publishing House, Peking, China, 1996], cited Yan Wenming in pointing out that ancient China could have a division of 3 economic zones [husbandry to the west, millet agriculture to the north, and rice agriculture to the south] and 6 cultural zones where six major forms of proto "dragon" patterns had developed independently. (Ancient Chinese records, however, extensively talked about 'Feng', i.e., phoenix, and further claimed that when 'Feng[4]' entered the water, it would become a dragon, which was to say that the ongoing dragon-phoenix debate could go to the same source. Also, the Chinese records claimed that a carp could mutate to a dragon once it swam upperstream to jump over the dragon gate gorge of the Yellow River at the inflexion point.)
The Jade Age & Archaeological Phases
Recent archaelogical discoveries proposed the "Jade Age" as a transitionary stage between the Stone Age and the Bronze Age. See http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200402/25/eng20040225_135852.shtml for the discussion on "Hongshan Culture".
Scholar Luo Xianglin cited ancient book "Yue [Yue principality] Jue [splendid] Shu [book]" [more likely meaning "Yue [Yue principality] Jue [extinct records] Shu [book]" per Wei Chu-hsien] in stating that in the ancient times, Xuan-yuan-shi, Shen-nong-shi & He-xu-shi utilized stone as weapon; Lord Huangdi utilized Jade as weapon; and in the Xia times, Lord Yu utilized copper as weapon, hence piercing the Longmen [dragon gate] Gorge of the Yellow River. The hint from ancient classics was clear that a "Jade Age" was a matter of fact. (The "YUE JUE SHU" distinction between Xuan-yuan-shi and Lord Huangdi also verified that the two were not the same. Historian Luu Simian stated that different groups of ancient Chinese could have adopted the same "-shi" name in different stages. YUE JUE SHU, a book after the book burning, could have borrowed the Shangari-la ideas about the He-xu-shi existence from southern-origin books like ZHUANG-ZI, which this webmaster believed to be more of the Aesop fable nature. More to follow on how to make a distinction between books written prior to and post the book burning.)
Archaeology will yield several distinct phases, invariably exhibiting a sun-bird culture that preceded the phoenix and dragon totem cultures of the later times:
  • 5000 B.C.E.?: The Hemudu Culture established a presence along the lower Yangtze River delta. There is evidence of the rice cultivation, fishing, and wood frame houses etc. The Hemudu Culture was validated to have produced the excavated articles bearing the bird-sun totem, a heritage observed in the later Yangshao Culture and Longshan Culture;
  • 4000 - 3000 B.C.E.: The Yangshao Culture in the Yellow River area. There is evidence of round structures built from the mud-bricks with a thatched roof and a central peak, and agriculture adopting the method of clearing the land to plant the crops of millet, wheat, barley, and some rice. Excavation from the Quanhu-chun Village, Liuzi-zhen Town, Hua-xian County, Shenxi Province had produced the colored potteries depicting a bird totem with the sun in the wing.
    Tian Changwu stated that around 4000 B.C.E., the Yangshao Culture began to exhibit the sign of clan communes which would progress to the 'patria potestas' clan from the 'matria potestas' clan by 3500 B.C.E. approx.
    Tian Changwu also stated that the Dawenkou Culture, near the Wen-shui River of Shandong Province, had entered the phase of clan commune and then split to develop into the non-promiscuity marriage relationship and 'patria potestas' clan earlier than the Yangshao Culture.
    Corresponding stages of cultures in other parts of China would include: the Songze Culture and the Qingliangang Culture in the lower Yangtze River, the Qujialing Culture in the middle Yangtze River, and the Majiayao Culture in the upper Yellow River.
  • 2500-1900 B.C.E.: The Longshan Culture across the North China Plain and the hills of the Shandong Peninsula. The early Chinese of this stage cultivated millet and rice, raised pigs, sheep, goats, cattle and water buffalo, possessed the permanent villages surrounded by mud walls, and utlized wells for irrigating the fields. (The Chinese character for home was a cap on top of a pig.)
    The Longshan Culture possessed i) the potteries and chinaware, ii) the bronze articles, iii) the lacquered wood utensils (which were also in popular usage in the ancient American continents), iv) the hardened mud and plaster, and v) the jade, bone and musical articles. The Longshan Culture excavation had produced potteries with the similar bird totems as the Yangshao Culture. The dragon totem was also found in the same area: Scholar Gao Wei pointed out that the colored Pottery from the Taosi Excavation of the Longshan Culture in Xiangfen of Shanxi Province had shown a winding dragon [on basis of the snake-prototype per Liu Zhixiong & Yang Jingrong] - which was in fact two golden-ring Bungarus snakes, with one snake containing the medicinal herbs for the treatment of a wounded snake, i.e., the grass knot which was wrongly taken as the Shucha-shaped tongue per Wei Wencheng, or the snake-mouth-fed-herbal-medicine.
Tian Changwu stated that the Longshan Culture was validated to have built on top of both the Da-wen-kou Culture of Shandong Province and the Yangshao Culture (around 3000 B.C.E. approx) and that the Longshan Culture could be sub-classified into: east Henan Province, west Henan Province, south Shanxi Province, and south of the Wei-shui River in Shenxi Province. Excavation exhibited a co-existence of a) a non-promiscuity small family with husband and wife and b) the 'patria potestas' clan. Tian Changwu, editor of the anthology "THE HUA-XIA CIVILIZATION", equated the 'patria potestas' to servitus and pointed to the funeral slaves, pork bones and different burial articles from the Taosi excavation in Xiangfen of Shanxi Province as evidence of a caste strata.

                                          Yangshao Culture (4000-3000 BC)

                     Banpo Type --> Dongzhuangcun Type --> Miaodigou Type --...--> Xiwangcun Type

       --------------------------------------------------------             --------------------------------------------------------------
        Miaodigou Culture II (3000-2500 BC)                 Longshan Culture Taosi Type (2500-1900 BC)
       --------------------------------------------------------             -------------------------------------------------------------

           Early Stage --> Middle Stage --> Late Stage                          Early Stage --> Middle Stage --> Late Stage

                                                                                           Taosi (2400-1800 BC)                     Dongxiafeng Type (2200-1700 BC)     

                                                         Erlitou Culture

                    Dongxiafeng Type Of Erlitou Culture (2200-1700 BC)         Yanshi Type of Erlitou Culture (1900-1500 BC)

Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua) stated, on basis of the craftsmanship on potteries, that the Xia people's development could be embodied by three stages of evolution, i.e., Taosi of southwestern Shanxi Province, Dongxiafeng of southeastern Shanxi Province, and the Erlitou Culture in Yanshi of Henan Province. Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua) also noted that copper utensils were both discovered in Dongxiafeng and Yanshi Erlitou, and he concurred with Zou Heng/Sun Hua in validating an extrapolation that the Longshan culture of Henan Province, together with the Dongxiafeng culture in Shanxi Province, would be the two inputs into the Erlitou Culture in Yanshi of Henan Prov. The phases I & II of Erlitou being definitely of the Longshan culture time period, this webmaster could not ascertain whether it was under the Xia people or the Shang people by simply reading opposing viewpoints from various experts; however, this webmaster is more inclined for Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua)'s opinion that the Erlitou Culture that received inputs from the culture that was excavated from today's Shanxi-Henan provinces, dated the 3rd phase of Erlitou (Yanshi, Henan Prov), must have been under the Xia people. Note that the Xia people, as embodied by both Lord Yao and Lord Shun, were recorded to have started their activities in today's Shanxi-Hebei provinces or the Great Xia land, to the north of the Feng[wind]-surnamed tribes.
Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua) speculated that phases I & II of Erlitou was still a succession of Dongxiafeng in Shanxi Province, but it might have been influenced by the Longshan Culture (Henan Province) as shown in similar patterns on the potteries. Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua) further pointed out that by the 4th phase, the Yanshi excavation pointed to the dilapidation of the Xia Dynasty palaces in the area. (Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua) always upheld the theory that Qi, Lord Yu's son, had his capital city established at Xunyi, i.e., today's Yanshi of Henan Province and seat of the Erlitou Culture. Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua), to rebut the viewpoint that phases III & IV of Erlitou might belong to the early Shang people, stated that it was the opposite way around, that is, the Xia people of III & IV of Erlitou influenced the Erligang 'shengwen' [i.e., Jormon] potteries that were excavated in Zhengzhou of Henan Province.)
Note that the early Shang people, as shown on THE BAMBOO ANNALS, had their original activites further to the north of the Xia people, like near today's Peking-Tientsin area. Per THE BAMBOO ANNALS, the Shang [1559-1050 B.C.E] people apparently dwelled to the north of the Xia [1978-1559 B.C.E from lord Qi to lord Jie per raw data from THE BAMBOO ANNALS; 1991-1559 per Zhu Yongtang] people, i.e., in today's northern Shanx-Hebei provinces; continuing the interpretation of THE BAMBOO ANNALS, in year 11, Xia king Shao-kang ordered Marquis Shang-hou Ming to fix the flooding of the Yellow River, with a hint that the Shang people had a mandate to reign in the land of the Yellow River flow course; during the 12th year of Xia King Xie, Wang-hai, who was a son of Marquis Yin-hou, was killed by You-yi-shi while herding buffalo [on which scholar Guo Pu had a different explanation: the character with 'niu' or the buffalo meaning, was actually a woman, and the killing was related to the woman]; and that Marqui Yin-hou, i.e., Wei, also known as Shang-jia [carrying the 'jia' stem, a hallmark of the Shang people], launched a campaign against You-yi-shi during the 16th year reign of Xia King Xie by borrowing the troops from He-bo or Count of the Yellow River - a same name vassal as was known in Zhou King Muwang's travelogue Mu-tian-zi, and reported the victory to the Xia court after killing King Mianchen of You-yi-shi. (The 'yi' character was equated to the 'Di[2] character which was later used for the northern barbarians.)
No "Dragon" Before Shang Dynasty
Scholar Liu Zhixiong & Yang Jingrong, in "Dragon & The Chinese Culture" [People's Publishing House, Peking, China, 1996], pointed out that ancient China did not possess a dragon-totem culture [or a single dragon-totem culture, in my opinion]; furthermore, Liu & Yang stated that there was no "dragon" in a modern sense before Shang Dynasty. Liu & Yang, on basis of Yan Wenming's division of 3 economic zones and 6 cultural zones, pointed out that about six major forms of proto "dragon" patterns had developed independently among four such cultural centers, with the pig-prototype dragon pattern to the northeast, salamander-prototype dragon pattern to the northwest, tiger-prototype dragon pattern to the southeast, and fish-crocodile-snake prototype patterns among the Xia people around the Wei-shui River in the middle.
The Xia People & the Dragon Totem
In the upperstream Yellow River area, the Xia Chinese civilization, which exhibited the fish-crocodile-snake prototype dragon patterns, had flourished. In this area, agricultural settlers would co-exist with nomadic tribes till today, a peculiar phenomenon not seen in other earlier civilization. With the settlement came the domestication of animals, farming of millet, pottery and art, ceremonies, and cultures. There is sound speculation about the fundamental cause that city-states had developed among sedentary Chinese, i.e., the co-existence of sedentary people with the nomadic people of the steppe who constantly preyed upon the lower plains.
Scholar Liu Zhixiong & Yang Jingrong could be partially right in stating that the ancient China did not possess a dragon-totem culture [or a single dragon-totem culture, in my opinion], and did not possess the "dragon" in a modern sense before Shang Dynasty. However, the snake-prototype dragon pattern from the Xia people around the Wei-shui River, together with the crocodile-prototype dragon pattern [from the Shang people per Liu Zhixiong & Yang Jingrong], could be reflected in the transformation of the 'dragon' character in the oracle bone excavation. Liu Zhixiong & Yang Jingrong cited the ancient classics in stating that with the emergence of Shang Dynasty, the different animal-totem dragon prototypes had converged.
Reading through the ancient legends, however, we could derive a valid speculation that the earliest ancient Chinese had appeared to be upholding at first the sun-birds, and then phoenix-birds as their totem. This could be seen in excavation from the sites of Hermudu, Yangshao and Longshan cultures. The proper interpretation as to a more ancient sun-bird/phoenix culture than a dragon culture would be to acknowledge the fact that the O3-haplogroup Sino-Tibetans (O3a3c1-M117) might have overtaken another O3-haplogroup group of people called the Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao, O3a3b-M7) who apparently dwelled in the heartland of China and the eastern China territory of the Nine Ancient Yi people [who were ascertained to be the O2-haplogroup Yi and/or Yue people]. (Note that the ancient wind-surnamed Tai-hao [wrongly equated to the mystic Fuxi character] tribe was said to have used dragon as title for the court ministers, while the Shao-hao tribe was said to have used 'phoenix' for the court ministers, in comparison with the Yellow Overlord's tribe which used cloud as title for the court ministers. Furthermore, Chi-you, a leader of possibly the mixed Hmong-mien/Sino-Tibetans, was symbolized by ox in numerous writings of ancient China. Today, the minority people of southwestern China had adored dragon, phoenix and ox, respectively, with implication that those O3-haplogroup Hmong-mien descendants [O3a3b-M7] could be related to the ancient Taihao-shi, Shaohao-shi and Chi-you tribes. Further, Liu Xin, to lend support to usurper-emperor Wang Mang of Xin [new] Dynasty, could have mis-interpreted the order of succession among the above-named tribes to make an order of Taihao [dragon], Gonggong [water], Yandi [fire], Huangdi [cloud] and Shaohao [bird].)
Should we have refuted the dispute in regards to the equivalency of the Xia People's Culture and the Longshan Culture, then we need to point out excavation of the dragon-totem colored pottery in almost every tomb discovered in southern Shanxi Province, i.e., excavation dated to be the Taosi Type Culture (2400-1800 BC). (The dragon-totem colored potteries, per Gu Xiegang [Gu Jiegang, i.e, Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua)'s teacher], pointed to the Xia people as the original inhabitants of today's southern Shanxi Province. Gu, who was noted for the notorious 'doubt-ancient school of thought', wrongly claimed that both Lord Yao and Lord Shun were appropriated to the land of 'Xia' after the Xia people's eastward expansion into the bird-totem Yi land. Gu Xiegang cited the ancient classics ZUO ZHUAN in stating that nowhere in ZUO ZHUAN could be found references to state that Lord Shun was surnamed 'Yu' or Lord Yao surnamed 'Tang[2]' and that ZUO ZHUAN did not have any reference about the Yu-shi clan of the Xia people being the descendant of Lord Shun or the Tao-tang-shi clan of the Xia people being the descendant of Lord Yao. Gu could be totally wrong here as the ancient classics repeatedly corroborated each other in stating that Lord Yao and Lord Shun were the true Sinitic Chinese ancestors who dwelled in today's land of Shanxi-Hebei provinces, not the Yi people along the coastline.)
One more interesting point about the totem would be Prof Wei Juxian's wild claim that the early Chinese of the lower Yangtze River area adored 'black fish' [snakeheaded fish] as a god or totem. Prof Wei could be totally wrong in speculating a Negroid origin for the people who adored the black-colored fish, since Gun [i.e., the father of Yu who headed the Xia people to the northwest direction] had been called 'Gun' which literally meant for 'black fish'. In the Chinese chronicles, dozens of entries carried the following notion: Should a fish [carp] jump beyond the 'Dragon Gate Gorge' [near the inflexion point of the Yellow River], then the fish would turn into a dragon. The kind of perfectionist idea embedded in ancient Chinese could be inferred for a good understanding of the origin of dragon totem.

Legends Of the Ancient Tribes
Historian Sima Qian did not trace the antiquity beyond Huangdi, the Yellow Emperor. Confucius abridged the ancient book SHANG SHU [remotely ancient history], with the inception of recitals starting with Overlord Yao, a descendant of Huangdi. More, ZUO ZHUAN repeatedly cited the non-Xia rulers of antiquity to be 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. As stated previously, some interesting records in ZUO ZHUAN's section on the 17th year of the Lu Principality Lord Zhaogong carried a dialogue between Tan-zi and the Lu lord in regards to the Shaohao-shi's practice of using the bird suffix for the titles of court ministers. Per Tan-zi, among the ancient rulers would be Taihao [dragon], Gonggong [water], Yandi [fire], Huangdi [cloud] and Shaohao [bird]. Though, Tan-zi, who acknowledged Shaohao as his ancestor, did not explicitly stated that Taihao was the first ancestor in the remote antiquity. Shaohao was commonly known as having his ruins in the An-guo land, or Qufu, Shandong.
It would be within the last 2000 years that the Chinese invented the different order as well as the different tribal/clan beings, with inputs from no other source than fables like ZHUANG-ZI and LIE-ZI. There appeared such clans as Fu-xi-shi, Nü-wa-shi, Gong-gong-shi, Zhu-rong-shi and Lei-ze-shi etc. All those terminologies shared some similar features as what this webmaster called by the fable books of ZHUANG-ZI and Lie-ZI. Here, the real figures [i.e., Gong-gong-shi, Zhu-rong-shi etc] as carried in ZUO ZHUAN were mixed up with the mystic figures [Fu-xi-shi, Nü-wa-shi, and Lei-ze-shi etc], not to mention the fatal blunders of those fables, namely, mixing up a persona called Zhu-rong with a clan. And not to mention the disputed claims such as Gong-gong-shi being said to be the same person as Gun, the father of Lord Yu. LU YU of GUO YU stated that Gong-gong-shi, who was a descendant of Shen-nong-shi, had multiple sons, with son Hou-tu settling the mud of the nine prefectures, and ZUO ZHUAN further stated that the mud official was titled Hou-tu whose name was Gou-long {or Ju-long}, carrying the 'Gou' sound of the later Hundred Yue people of the coast, such as King Gou-jian of the Yue Principality. The book JI FA flatly pointed out that the prefix 'hou' meant a noble king. Gong-gong-shi, who was noted for his 'water' virtue, also possessed a son who settled the water of rivers. Of course, Gong-gong-shi's descendants included Si-yue [four tall mountains of the land]. In ZUO ZHUAN, in the context of discussions between Jiang-rong barbarian chieftain Ju-zi and the Jinn lord and ministers in 559 B.C., Ju-zi recalled how the Jinn lord, claiming that the Jiang-rong barbarians were descendants of Si-yue, had resettled them in the center of Sinitic China. Si-yue [four mountains] was a minister serving under Lord Yao and was conferred the Fiery Lord's Jiang surname for the contribution. ZHOU YU of GUO YU said that Si-yue was assigned the Si-yue-guo fief and the title as 'hou-bo', i.e., marquis.
"HUAI NAN ZI", a more recent book of the last 2000 years, talked about Nü-wa (a female) mending the collapsed skies as a result of the fightings between Gonggong (the god of fire) and Zhurong (the god of water). Nü-wa was said to have created the mankind out of mud figurines. A Western Han Dynasty story claimed that Nü-wa was the younger sister of Fuxi. Gao Xingjian, the Year 2000 Nobel Prize winner, wrote a dramatized version of "SHAN HAI JING" ('The Classics of Mountains and Seas') in which he documented the ancient account stating that Fu-xi and Nu-wa, both in the shape of serpentine body but human face, had born the mankind. Gao, of course, knows nothing about the said book, "SHAN HAI JING", and could be said to be a pretender if he was to say he understood about this book. There won't be any live person in this world, who truly understood this book, except for the ancient historians such as Liu Xin, Guo Pu and Lih Daoyuan.
The Chinese civilization, in mythology, begins with 'Pan Gu Kai Tian', namely, Pan'gu creating the universe, and there are a succession of legendary sages, overlords and ancient emperors. Pan'gu, however, was a relatively new legend. Recently, some historian had speculated that Pan'gu was the same person as Panhu, i.e., ancestor of the southern barbarians. Before Pan'gu, China used to possess the Chong-li (Zhong-li) story of separation of sky from earth. (Zeng Guangdong, at regenerating-universe.org/Chinesebelief, concluded that "China's civilization is totally home grown ... The fact that the early Chinese did not believe in Gods and also did not leave us beliefs or legends of any kind of divine creation will remain always a mystery. Anyhow, it was only in the Three Kingdom epoch about the 3rd Century AD that a writer named Shu Zheng [Xu Zheng] did tell the only story of creation that has existed in Chinese history ever since.")
Senior Scholar Wei Juxian stated that the Pan-gu-shi story from the Qin-Han time periods had derived from the story of Chong-li in Western Zhou Dynasty, 1000 years earlier than the invention story of Pan'gu. Wei Juxian cited the CHU YU section of ancient classics GUO YU in stating that Chu King Zhaowang asked Guan-she-fu a question: "What did ancient classics ZHOU SHU mean by the sentence that Chong-li caused the heaven and earth to disconnect from each other?" Chu King Zhaowang's question was in regards to Luu Xing's statement about the heaven and earth disconnection by Chong-li during a conversation with Zhou King Muwang (r. 1001-946 BC; ; 962-908 per THE BAMBOO ANNALS). This was interpreted to be referring to the separation of religion from politics in the prehistoric China. Guan-she-fu stated that in the very originally ancient times, people and gods were not mixed up, with the sorcerer ('xi' and sorceress ('wu') distinguishing the five levels of function to administer the affairs related to heaven, earth, gods, people and objects; that by the end of the Shao-hao-shi's reign, the Jiu-li (nine Li) people destroyed the virtues and moral system, and hence Lord Zhuanxu rectified the chaotic situation by having Chong ('nan-zheng', i.e., the southern or sunnyside guardian) take charge of administering the affairs related to heaven and Li ('huo zheng', i.e., the fire guardian, also known as the nothern guardian) take charge of administering the affairs related to earth; Lord Yao continued to empower the descendants of Chong and Li for the job of separating the heaven from earth; and that the Chong and Li families continued the job responsibilities till Zhou King Xuanwang's time. The Chong-Li story, by the way, is a brilliant Chinese legend mapping the "big bang" theory.
Gourd, i.e., a plant similar to the shape of a woman's body, was often cited as the source of human creation by the minority people like Wa-zu. Wa-zu claimed that they were born from the gourd earlier than the other ethnic groups. The minority people in southern China appeared to be the input of many myths of the universe creation and the human creation. This phenomenon could have been the result of those minority people being the true descendants of the original Chinese in the central plains and in eastern China - prior to the push of the Sino-Tibetans to the eastern coast from the west. In Yunnan Province, 3000-year-old stone carvings and cliff drawings had been discovered, with totem-like pictures including snakes and lizards (i.e., dragon totem), birds (i.e., phoenix totem) and gourd. The Cangyuan area of Yunnan Province was called Hulu-guo or the Gourd Country in the ancient times.
It was Xu Zheng who specifically stated in SAN WU LI Ji that the heaven and earth was chaotic like an egg; that Pan'gu was in born inside of the egg; that after 18,000 years, the heaven and earth were created, with the heaven shiny and clear and the earth dimmy and muddy; that Pan'gu, in the middle, had nine mutations within a day, making holiness of the heaven and the saintliness of the earth; that the heaven rising by one Chinese yard, the earth thickened by a yard and Pan'gu grew taller by a yard; that after such 18,000 years, the heaven was extremely high, the earth becoming extremely deep and Pan'gu extremely tall; and that thereafter ensued the three "huang". Before Xu Zheng, Ying Shao, during the Latter Han Dynasty, mentioned the Pan'gu legend in FENG SHU TONG YI. Similarly, a book by the name of SHU YI JI [records of the strange stories] mentioned Pan'gu. Meantime, or earlier than the Latter Han dynastic period, there was already the widespread phenomenon of the Fuxi-Nvwa serpentine coupling figure on the Han Dynasty bricks. This shows that the creation of mankind or universe was not a unified or standard wording at that time. HUAI NAN ZHI, a Former Han dynasty book, in the section on JING SHEN [spirits], stated that there existed two gods who managed the heaven and earth after the chaotic epoch, and that the two gods made distinction between the yin [female] and yang [male] and separated the chaos to eight polar oriention, hence making possible the shape of matter. Han Dynasty scholar Wang Chong, an atheist in the modern standard, used the word "one" to describe chaos prior to the creation [i.e., the big bang] in the section Discourse on Heaven of LUN HENG [discourse on equilibrium]. This further shows that there were at least three distinct theories on the very creation.
Some historians disputed the equivalence of Panhu and Pan'gu. Modern historian Wen Yidu, the advocate of the Chinese statist YANGTZE RIVER SOCIETY, made a brilliant research, stating that the gourd was equivalent to Pan'gu, which was to say that the 'gu' [ancient] character was the same as 'hu' [gourd], with the ancient gourd pointing to the 'chaos' of the remote antiquity. In the more remotely ancient times, SHI JING [classics of the poems], had the 'MIAN' poem to the effect that "mianmian [un-interrupted ivy lines of] gua [large gourd or melon] die [small gourd or melon], min zhi chusheng [the initial birth of mankind]". This poem was an eulogy of the Zhou dynasty founder Gugong's relocation to Mt. Qishan.
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]. Shao-hao-shi was said to be a junior clan which have derived from Tai-hao-shi the senior clan. Both Tai-hao-shi and Sha-hao-shi continued for thousand years, till the time of Xia Dynasty. Some scholar interpreted the ancient wordings to point out that Qi[3], the first overlord of the dragon-totem Xia dynasty and son of Lord Yu, later defeated the remnants of two Hao [both Tai-hao-shi and Shao-hao-shi] tribes in Henan-Shandong provinces and solidify the Xia people's rule.
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. (Note that in ZUO ZHUAN, Shaohao-shi was said to had adopted the bird symbol, the same way as Huangdi-shi's using the cloud suffix, Yandi-shi's using the fire suffix, Gonggong-shi's using the water suffix and Taihao-shi's using the dragon suffix. Namely, the ancient people did not really make a distinction between the bird totem people and the Sinitic people other than treating the symbols as metaphysical embodiment of a dynastical rule.)
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], a divinity method called 'milfoil divination' as recorded in YI JING, Book of Changes, which Zhou King Wenwang expanded to '64 Gua'. At about the time of Sima Qian, HUAI NAN ZI, which had similar writings as SHAN HAI JING, made inference to the land of today's Shandong Province as the domain administered by Taihao and Goumang. 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. See the restrictive definition of Xia below for further details, with this restriction possibly related to the repeating pattern of the proto-Sino-Tibetan human migration to the east from the west over the millennia.
The Embodiment of Fuxi
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. 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].
Per the post-book-burning Wei-suffixed books, after the death of Fuxi, Nü-wa-shi would succeed as the leader of the Feng[wind]-surnamed tribes. Over a dozen clans (i.e., **-**-shi) had carried on the tradition of bird-totem. This was of course continuing the line of merging the mythic Fuxi figure with the real person Taihao, i.e., the paramount founding father of the Feng[wind]-surnamed tribe.
Confucius was possibly faked by the recent scholars to have put out some writing in stating that the ancient Paoxi-shi invented the fishing net, studied geography and astronomy, and created the Eight Trigrams. Note that Confucius abridged classics to make into what was known later as the book SHANG SHU that started with Lord Yao, with no mentioning of any figure beyond Yao, which was to say that should anybody say Confucius had mentioned an earlier figure, it would be a forgery. Further, the forgery writers made a pretension to state that it was Kong An'guo who wrote the preface to SHANG SHU, namely, SHANG SHU XU, in which a statement was made to the effect that in the remote antiquity, Fuxi-shi took reign of the land, and began to invent the Eight Trigrams and create the wood-carved language characters. This would be Kong Yingda, a Tang dynasty historian and Confucius' 32nd generation grandson, who authored the text SHANG SHU XU (preface to SHANG SHU). Hence, Chinese prehistory was mechanically pushed out to have become something that started with Paoxi-shi, a.k.a. Taihao. This was something that provided fodder to the 20th century doubt-ancient scholars who had a point in saying that the more recent it became, the more detailed the stories about the ancient sovereigns became. Paoxi-shi was said to have marked the beginning of the so-called 'Human' or 'Mt Taishan' Era of 'huang' (splendidness or magnificence) which was successive to the Heaven 'huang' and the Earth 'huang'. The 'huang' story could be still a fuzzy concept at the time Qin Emperor Shihuangdi coined the title of 'huang-di' for emperor. (Later, during the Han dynasty, Sima Qian participated in Han Emperor Wudi's trip to Mt. Taishan, where oblation for heaven and earth was conducted, with discussion of a mythical personified 'Tai-di' or Mt. Taishan Overlord possessing one cauldron, the Yellow Overlord possessing three cauldrons and Lord Yu possessing nine cauldrons --a product of post-book-burning forgery. Note that there was no personification of a so-called Overlord Tai-di prior to Qin Emperor Shihuangdi's coining his title 'huang-di' from the Mt. Taishan Huang and the five prehistoric sovereign lords. Soong Dynasty scholar Shao Bo, in SHAO-SHI WEN-JIAN HOU-LU, stated that a Sui Dynasty erudite, by the name of Wang Tong [who was a descendant of Wang Xuanmo of the Liu-Soong Dynasty] concluded that 'feng chan' was an "extravagant heart" derivative product of the Qin-Han dynasties, which was to validate the book GUAN ZI as a book from no earlier than the Qin-Han time period. Shao Bo, in citing a wise person like Wang Tong, had kept a record for the people of today as to how and when the ancient China's theological and mythical gods had started. While the confusing theories of theologicalization and mystification started from the Han dynasty, the theoretical framework was laid out and perfected by [Liu-]Soong-Qi-[Xiao-]Liang dynasty historian Shen Yue in the FU RUI ZHI section of [LIU-]SOONG SHU history chronicle. The climax of forgery was achieved during the [Northern] Soong dynasty when someone called Mao Jian claimed to have located the legendary book SAN FEN [i.e., the three mausoleums] in A.D. 1084, a book mentioned in ZUO ZHUAN but was never seen by anyone, and a book that Han Dynasty scholar Kong An'guo claimed to be about Xi-shi [i.e., Fu-xi], Shen-nong [i.e., Yandi] and Huangdi --which was definitely the start of all the forged ancient sovereign books.)
In the below sections, we will continue to explore the source of the first writings on Paoxi-shi (Fuxi-shi). To be included would be the excavated 'silk book' and 'bamboo book' from the Chu Principality time period, in which there was saying to the effect that Fuxi (or Baoxi) of the Fengyan tribe was born in the Lei-ze-shi nation, but grew up in the land of mother Huaxu-shi, namely, Juzhou, and later relocated to the land of today's Qin'an which was called Chengji. (The notion of a Lei-ze-shi nation is important as there would appear numerous references and inferences to the same-named Lake Lei-ze, where the "lei" [thunder] character was equated to the "zhen" [solidifying force], in different parts of China, plus a Lei-xia lake in YU GONG [Lord Yu's Tributes], which the future books SHAN HAI JING and HUAI NA ZI inferred to be a thunder god living inherently in the lake[s]. This webmaster, though, believed that the Lei-xia lake in YU GONG was a different concept from the Lei-ze-shi nation, as is to be expounded below.)
Sima Zhen stated that Confucius had skipped Nu-wa (Nu-xi-shi) who was the ruling dynasty between Paoxi-shi and Shennong-shi. The claim pointed to Nu-wa sharing the same surname as Paoxi-shi, namely, 'Feng' (i.e., wind). Sima Qian's SHI JI had the pretentious discussion on the three legendary 'Huang'; however, this section was lost in the later times, and Sima Zhen had to rewrite it during the Tang Dynasty time period. Sima Qian, possibly Sima Zhen's words, claimed that the Three Legendary 'Huang' were the Heaven 'Huang', Earth 'Huang' and Mt. Taishan Huang. (Note the important thing about the ancient lord Huangdi's paying pilgrimage to Mt. Taishan, a manifestation that the earliest lords had their center of activities around this mountain, instead of the later Xia nation or the Da-xia land of today's Shanxi Province. In this webmaster's opinion, the third 'Huang' was taken as the Human 'Huang' possibly because Mt Taishan was the place where the ancient Chinese inscribed the names of overlords since antiquity. Hence, Human 'Huang' = Mt. Taishan 'Huang'.)
Sima Zhen was ambiguous, however. Counting the Fuxi "dynasties", you would have at least 15 (per Sima Zhen) dynasties, including Wuhuai-shi, in-between the three ancient 'Huang' eras and the known historical time period. Sima Zhen conflicted with himself in stating that anything after the Three 'Huang' and before the Wuhuai-shi Dynasty was fuzzy. Was Wuhuai-shi before or after Fuxi? If after, then why do we know more about Fuxi-shi than the latter, i.e., Wuhuai-shi? Sima Zhen's writings were based on i) the 'Wei'-Suffixed forgery-prone interpretation of the natural disasters and astronomical observation as noted in the history annals, Spring & Autumn, and ii) fables such as those by Zhuang-zi and Lie-zi. Related to Fuxi would be a clan entitled Hexu-shi, a tribe that some people had equated to so-called Hua-xu-shi where the character 'Hua' for denoting Xia Chinese was to develop. As to He-xu-shi, ancient classics "Tang Wen" in "Lie-zi" claimed that Huangdi had at one time had a dream touring the legendary He-xu-shi kingdom, which was illustrative of the Shangri-la kind of remote world beyond the Huangdi reign. "Lie-zi" could be a later forgery, though. See http://www.imperialchina.org/ImperialChina/ for details.
Jiang-surnamed Sino-Tibetan People
Here, this webmaster wants to make the point that the above-named sages, i.e., progenitors of the Sinitic civilization, were not the pure Sinitic people or the Xia people from the west [i.e., west of the Yellow River inflexion point or the Weishui/Luohe Rivers] or the north [i.e., the Grand Xia land of today's southern Shanxi]. They could in fact be the mixed O3-haplogroup Sinitic and the O3-haplogroup Hmong-mien (Miao-Yao, O3a3b-M7) people [who were not the same as the O2-haplogroup Yi people at the coast]. The most direct hint as to the nature of the 'Jiang3', 'Ren4' and 'Su4' surnames lied in ZUO ZHUAN, wherein a prophesy statement was made to the effect that Tang-shu or Uncle Tang, a fief conferred by Zhou King Chengwang onto Shu-yu or Uncle Yu in the early Zhou dynasty rule for the southern Shanxi land of Tang, would inherit the spirits of Shang Dynasty [after it was to be overthrown by what happened to be successor Zhou dynasty] for the inherent reason that the Shang people could be of the same family as clans of the 'Jiang3', 'Ren4' and 'Su4' surnames. (This contradicted a bit with what this webmaster's claim that the Shang people might be related to He-bo for the story of the Shang ancestor borrowing an army from He-bo , i.e., the elder uncle or count for the Yellow River, to defeat the You-shi-shi people near today's Yongdinghe River in Peking-Tientsin area. Why so? This webmaster, inferring from Mu-tian-zi, believed that He-bo, as guardian of the North Yellow River Bend, could be of the O2-haplogroup and might be related to the later Bo people who migrated to Manchuria to become the ancestors of the Fuyu people who subsequently invaded Korea.)
The ancestor of the ancient Chinese people [not necessarily the Sino-Tibetan group] was hence Jiang-surnamed from the very beginning. This claim was again noted in JINN YU of GUO YU, namely, writings prior to the book-burning and the later recompilation that could be influenced by the political-correctness. As we are to expound below, the Yandi group of people, with origin around the 'Yi-Qi' land around today's Kaifeng-Luoyang area [which was adjacent to the Mon-kmer and Hmong-mien people to the south], migrated towards the coast and ruled the ancient China. Using the later possibly-forged records, Yandi or the Shenong-shi reign ruled the ancient land for eight generations till Huangdi, i.e., the Yellow Overlord, was to ascend to take over the reign. The number of "eight" generations was, of course, suspicious. With the rise of the Ji[1]-surnamed Huangdi group of people, you then had the historical battles between the "new" wave of the O3a3c1-M117 Sino-Tibetan people and the 'settled-down' Yandi [or Chi-you] people [i.e., the mixed O3a3c1-M117/O3a3b-M7 people] around Zuolu [taken to be today's northern Hebei and with battles extending towards today's Shandong in eastern China - a claim that could be wrong as the battles between Huangdi and Chiyou could be right at the heartland of China [or near Mt. Jucishan or today's Yuzhou of Henan Province] or somewhere around Mt. Taishan, ending in the epic human migration of i) the Sam-miao people [said to be descendants of the Jiu-li or Nine Li people under Chi-you] and ii) the Yun-surnamed Xianyun people [said to be ancestors of the Huns] to northwestern China from central and eastern China. After the epic migration to Northwest China in the late 3rd millennium B.C.E., then you had today's Tibetan lineage of the Sino-Tibetan people from the Western Qiangic branch of the Qiangs who were in turn descendants of the San-miao exiles. Namely, the epic migration to the northwest was the trigger that caused the original Sinitic people to transform into the Sino-Tibetan people branching into present-day Sinitic Chinese and proto-Tibetans. (Per Mu-tian-zi, the San-miao descendants were still living to the west of the Western Yellow River Bend at the time Zhou King Muwang visited the area, which incidentally implied that the San-miao descendants did not join the Xianyun barbarians' rampage against the Sinitic Zhou people. The deep levels of confliction about the ancient barbarians in the west here would be to resolve the nature and relationshop of two different batches of exiles: i) Jiang-rong [i.e., the Jiang-surnamed Rong barbarians], who were related to the San-miao exiles of the 3rd millennium B.C.E., and ii) the post-Shang exiles who consisted of the Qin ancestors [carrying the generic Rong-xuxuan designation] and Marquis Shen-hou's people. Both groups were apparently being exiled to western China from eastern China, though like 800-1000 years apart; both could have carried on the customs of the future Eastern Yi people of the coast, with the Qiangs "bei4? pi1?[dangling] fa1 [hair] zuo3 [left] REN4 [overlapping part of Chinese gown]" and the Qin people exhibiting bend fee burial customs. Were those people the O3a3c1-M117 Sino-Tibetan people, or the O3a3b-M7 Hmong-mien people or the mixed O3a3c1-M117/O3a3b-M7 people or the true coastal Yi people who were of the O2-haplogroup? Or the original San-miao exiles were indeed the same family as the rest of the Ji-surnamed or Jiang-surnamed Sino-Tibetan family, with the 'miao' [descendant] denotion inadvertendly carried by the Hmong-mien [Miao-Yao] natives after part of the San-miao people migrated to southern China?)
Likely, the original Sinitic group of people, after arriving at the upper Yellow River area from today's Burma-Indochina about 10,000 years ago, moved east towards the coast, with clusters of people moving south of, along the Yellow River, and north of the Yellow River. The group of the Sino-Tibetan people who moved in the northern latitude could be speculated to be the future Huangdi group - a group very much linked to the Yandi group per the ancient texts, while their southern-belt moving cousins, who interacted with the O3-haplogroup Mon-khmer people and Hmong-mien people, were to dominate the entire area in today's central China, where they first founded the Peiligang Culture in the Yi-shui River and Luo-he River area, and then reached the coastal Shandong where they founded the Dawenkou Culture and the Longshan Culture on the Shandong Peninsula. Or as archaeologists pointed out, the Dawenkou Culture and the Longshan Culture on the Shandong Peninsula, as well as the excavated evidence of ancient culture and settlements along the coast were ascertained to be different, pointing to the separate origin of the people in eastern China as the Yi people along the coast were indeed O2-haplogroup people - the land that this webmaster speculated to be the interface point or the injunction point of all prehistoric Mongoloid groups of people, including the ancestors of the future Tungus [C haplogroup] to the north, the Sino-Tibetan [O3 haplogroup] from the west, the original Yi[-Yue] people [O2 haplogroup] along the coast, and the Miao-Yao [Hmong Mien] people [O3 haplogroup] from the south. (The future Tungus [C haplogroup] to the north could have evicted the N-haplogroup people to northwestern Siberia from today's Manchuria.)
Refer to discussion below about the origin of the Jiang-surnamed Yandi dynasty at the land of Yi and Qi in THE BAMBOO ANNALS (ZHU SHU JI NIAN), a book that was written by the inheritor of the Jinn Principality. THE BAMBOO ANNALS stated that Yandi, being of the Shennong-shi tribe, first set the nation's capital at 'Yi', then moved the capital to 'Qi', and hence was called by the Yi-qi-shi. Sima Guang of the Soong dynasty, on basis of the above record, made a claim that there was the Yi-hou-guo (i.e., Marquis Yi-hou) state in the Yi-chuan River area, which was ascertained by an Oracle bones' record of the existence of Marquis Yi-hou in the Shang dynasty. In Lu Lord Zhaogong's 7th year records of ZUO ZHUAN, the feather mountain and the feather pond where Gun's spirits mutated into a brown bear would be actually the 'Xia jiao' or the Xia capital city's outskirts where the oblation temple was, some pilgrimage that the lords of the three dynasties visited in reverence. Sima Qian of the Han dynasty started the annotation of history with the Yellow Lord, casually mentioning the name of Shen-nong or the divine farmer in the passage on Bo-yi and Shu-qi who were starved to death on Mt. Shouyang-shan for refusing to eat the grains under the Zhou dynasty rule. The two brothers, before death, were cited to have sung the 'cai [collect] wei [berries or wild grains] ge [song]', stating, " Shen-nong (i.e., the divine farmer), Yu (Lord Shun) and Xia (Lord Yu) already into the oblivion, what destination should we seek?" In this sense, the divine farmer was comparable to some real persona like Lord Shun and Lord Yu.
See http://www.imperialchina.org/ImperialChina/ for details.
The Ancient Chinese' Attempt at Explaining the Antiquity
Among the list of 'Wei'-Suffixed Forgery books, there were about seven categories, with the "spring & autumn" category numbering about thirteen books. One such book, "Discourse on the Spring & Autumn" [Chunqiu-wei], talking about the ancient overlords, had become the base for Huangfu Mi of Jinn Dynasty and Sima Zhen of Tang Dynasty to write their books. Before the 'Wei'-Suffixed Forgery books, this webmaster noticed that Zhuang-zi and Lie-zi (more of the Aesop type fables) had similar talks. Should Zhuang-zi be actually be ascertained to be a partial forgery as well, then the whole foundation of the later writings on the "Human" or "Mt. Taishan" HUANG-overlords would collapse unless Zhuang-zi did precede all others in the writings on the ancient overlords and was to become the input for the forged 'Wei'-Suffixed Forgery books. (The claim was that those 'Wei'-Suffixed Forgeries books were written by someone like Confucius. Jing versus Wei was what we Chinese termed the Longitude and Latitude. Sima Qian, in the section on the Confucius' Lineage of SHI JI, did comment that Confucius, in his later life, liked the ancient book I-Ching, i.e., the Book of Changes, and made preface to a series of books including ZHUAN, HAI, XIANG, SHUO-GUA and WEN-YAN. Note that Confucius had quit writing after the killing of a legendary "qilin" [giraffe] animal, which was equated to the unicorn in the West. Per LI JI - LI YUN, "qilin" [giraffe], phoenix, tortoise, and dragon were four intelligent spirits.)
Should we continue to cite the excavation from the Chu Principality, i.e., the silk/bamboo books, then we do have some valid records about the existence of Fuxi that was from the non-central-plains, that is, more credible as the underpinnings preceded the known era of the Yellow Overlord. In another word, our best chance of substantiating the Chinese prehistory lies in ascertaining the authenticity of the bamboo and silk writings from the Chu Principality. (A caveat: Confucius, a saint of the Spring & Autumn time period, could have his writings modified by scholars in the Warring States time period; though, any forgery during the warring states time period of Zhou Dynasty had no consequence of 'political correctness' as seen in Han Dynasty or later, when China was rebuilding the lost classics due to Qin Emperor Shihuangdi's book burning. This webmaster's concern was that the so-called bamboo and silk writings from the former Chu Principality did not actually date to the Warring States time period, but the Han dynasty time period. And this webmaster had to pinpoint Kong An'guo as the first person who made the specualtion about Xi-shi [i.e., Fu-xi], Shen-nong [i.e., Yandi] and Huangdi being the subject of the legendary book SAN FEN [i.e., the three mausoleums], a book mentioned in ZUO ZHUAN but was never seen by anyone. See Preliminary Discussions on Forgeries in Chinese Classics for my rebuttal on the most likely forged books of GUAN-ZI.)
The much clearer records would pertain to Shennong or Yandi the Fiery Lord. Huangfu Mi (Jinn Dynasty) commented that Shen-nong-shi replaced another tribe called Pao-xi-shi (Pao Xi Shi), i.e., the hunting tribe, with Pao-xi-shi also known as Fuxu-shi or Fu-xi-shi, aka the Taihao clan; before that, Pao-xi-shi had replaced You-chao-shi (You Chao Shi), the people who made home on the trees, while You-chao-shi had replaced Sui-ren-shi (Sui Ren Shi), i.e., the people who lived by making fire from the stones or wood. Ancient legends stated that Sui-ren had contrived the idea of making fire by observing the woodpecker behavior. Those details about the ancient people beyond Yandi, in this webmaster's opinion, were forgeries. Most references about Sui-ren-shi or Pao-xi-shi etc were found in either the fables such as LIE-Zi and ZHUANG-Zi, or possibly-modified books such as GUAN-Zi, HAAN-FEI-Zi and MENG-Zi. According to the authentic books such as YU of GUO YU, agricultural/prehistoric China did possess someone called Zhu4, a son of the Lie-shan-shi clan [i.e., equivalent to Shen-nong-yi {the Divine Farmer} or Yandi {the Fiery Lord}], who was renowned for planting hundreds of grains and hundreds of vegetables. That was to say that 'ji-guan' or the grains official did not start with Hou-ji, i.e., Zhou Dynasty's ancestor, but someone much earlier - someone not necessarily Shen-nong-yi {the Divine Farmer} or Yandi {the Fiery Lord}] but a son of this Lie-shan-shi clan.
Note that Shen-nong-shi was postulated to have the shape of an ox, not bird. Shennong [Yandi] was born by a You-qiao-shi woman after visiting Hua-yang (south of Mt Huashan ?) where she was impregnated by a dragon-faced spirit. Yandi, having a human body and an ox face, was noted for his agricultural accomplishments and revered as the overlord with the virtue of fire. Sima Zhen, possibly using the fables, stated that Shennong-shi married with a daughter from the Benshui-shi Tribe and born son Tui; Tui born son Cheng. Cheng born son Ming; Ming born son Zhi; Zhi born son Mao; Mao born son Ai; Ai born son Ke; and Ke born son Yumang. Altogether the Shennong-shi Dynasty had eight generations of rule, lasting five hundred and thirty years, till Huangdi's ascension to power. Those minute details, such as the name of a woman called You-qiao-shi and the place naming of Hua-yang, etc, were apparent latter-day make-ups.
Here, the title of Yandi should be treated as a dynastic name. ZUO ZHUAN claimed that Yandi's ministers adopted the fire suffix. The existence of a Yandi Dynasty should not be disputed. ZHU SHU JI NIAN (The Bamboo Annals), which was written by the inheritor of the Jinn Principality (namely, the authoritative dual lineage of the Ji-surnamed Zhou Dynasty noble family), stated that Yandi, being of the Shennong-shi tribe, first set the nation's capital at 'Yi', then moved the capital to 'Qi', and hence was called by the Yi-qi-shi. The places like 'Yi' pointed to the central plains, i.e., the land around today's Kaifeng-Luoyang, south of the Yellow River [while 'Qi2' was later a designation of a Shang Dynasty vassal called by Ji/Li2/Qi2, somewhere in today's Shanxi Province and north of the Yellow River]. The 'Yi' designation meant that the origin of Yandi was the Sinitic family from the west, and after eight generations, the Yandi people had pushed to east where they mutated into a semi-Sinitic/semi-Hmong-mien and semi-Yi group of people, in the opinion of this webmaster. That would lead to the future claim that Yandi (or one of the last reigning lord of Yandi Dynasty) and Chi-you (overlord of the Nine Li [Jiu-li] people) were one and the same. Inferring from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3164178/, the O3-haplogroup HM (Hmong-Mien), whom the ST (Sino-Tibetans) had fought against, were in fact brotherly tribes. That is, Yandi or Chi-you's group could in fact be the mixed O3-haplogroup ST(Sino-Tibetan)/HM (Hmong-Mien) in comparison with the O2-haplogroup of the Yi-Yue people along the coast.
After Shen-nong-shi failed to reign in the vassals, Huangdi (the Yellow Overlord) came to assert his power. The Yellow Lord and the Fiery Lord are the most famous among those legendary figures. The legends would develop into the polytheism, ancestor worship and a worship of gods including Shang-Tian (the Heaven on High or Lord Highness). Should we examine Sima Qian's SHI JI line by line, we could find major conflicts whenever Huangdi's origin was concerned. Sima Qian claimed that Huangdi and Yandi were brothers, albeit stating in a different section to point out that Yandi was one of the last overlords of the Shennong-shi reign. The Yandi Dynasty had apparently continued on for a long history, not to mention the preceding overlords between the first overlord of Taihao-shi and the last royal house of Shennong-shi from which the Yandi sub-Dynasty originated.
Huangdi would be where we are to trace the lineage of the later Sinitic overlords as well as the kings & emperors of the three dynasties of Xia-Shang-Zhou as well as Qin .

     Pao-xi-shi (Fu-xi-shi)
    (a dozen of bird-totem clans)
       Shen-nong-shi (Yandi)
       You-xiong-shi (Huangdi, aka Xuanyuan-shi or Xuan-yuan-shi)

Historian Luu Simian, having pointed out that the same title could be upheld by the different groups of people at different times, stated that Zhuang-zi had listed the following titles before the legendary "Three Sovereigns": Rong-cheng-shi, Da-ting-shi, Bo-huang-shi, Zhong-yang-shi, Li-lu-shi, Li-lian-shi, Xuan-yuan-shi, He-xu-shi, Zun-lu-shi and Zhu-rong-shi. (In the view of this webmaster, both "Lie-zi" and "Lie-zi" were more likely fables to start with, which the future Chinese historians took for granted as historical facts. Also note tha fallacy of mixing up or extending a persona called Zhu-rong with and to a non-existent clan's nomenclature called Zhu-rong-shi.)
There was a history of forgeries done by scholars in late Han Dynasty, Xin (New) Dynasty and Eastern Han Dynasty. The reference to the ancient lords in those purported forgeries might be ascertained by the real books such as the excavated 'silk book' and 'bamboo book' from the Chu Principality time period, during the Warring States of Eastern Zhou Dynasty, a place that relatively retained the trace of the original Sino-Tibetan Chinese. What the 'silk book' and 'bamboo book' said could have become the feed for the wei-suffixed books that made the wild statements to the effect that Fuxi (or Baoxi) of the Fengyan tribe was born in the Leize-shi nation, but grew up in the land of mother Huaxu-shi, namely, Juzhou, and later relocated to the land of today's Qin'an which was called Chengji. Hence the Hexu or Huaxu land of antiquity was a history that the ancient Chinese 2000 years ago longed for. Here, the legendary Fuxi (or Baoxi), should he be the same person as Paoxi-shi, was a person born in the west of China, not the Feng[wind]-surnamed Fuxi who lived in eastern China, something that this webmaster would need to further corroborate in the future. See http://www.imperialchina.org/ImperialChina/ for details.)
Comment In Regards To 'Xing' (Surname) & Shi (clan name)
Ancient Chinese overlords possessed 'Xing4' (Surname), a word meaning 'born by a woman'. Huangdi's Ji1 surname and Yandi's Jiang3 surname are good examples. More examples would be Yao, Gui1, Si4, Ying2, Ren, Ji2 (Nv-ji), Yun2, Chou1, E4,Fou3, and Lao4. Per a later book, BAI HU TONG [white tiger compendium], the ancient lords had no known fathers, and hence carried the female character names. BAI HU TONG went on to state that Lord Yu obtained the 'Si' name as a result of the character sharing a similar meaning as the sprouts [kernels] of a rice or wheat plant, and the Shang Dynasty ancestor obtaining the 'Zi' [egg] character as a result of their maternal ancestor swallowing the egg of a bird. Similarly, Hou-ji, the Zhou ancestor, was born after his sheep-totem Qiangic mother stepped onto the footprints of a giant - a possible euphemistic way of hinting at a huge brown bear, and was hence called by You-ji-shi, with 'ji' carrying a possible soundex similar to the character 'ji' for footprints.
The Chinese surnames used to carry the female character part to denote the maternal tribal affiliation. The descendants or vassals enjoyed the so-called 'family name' of Shi4 (clan name), i.e., patrilineal tribal titular names. It would be during the Han Dynasty that the Chinese mixed up surnames and clan names for designating the 'last name' in a modern sense. One good example about this intricacy would be the name of Jiang Taigong, the counsellor for Zhou King Wenwang. Jiang Taigong was called Lv Shang of the Lv-shi clan or Jiang Ziya with the Jiang surname.
The SHUN DIAN section of SHANG SHU stated the overlord first decreed the difference of surnames for distinguishing the tribes and people. ZUO ZHUAN, in Lu Lord Yin'gong 8th year, pointed out that there were five ways the surnames were derived, by the cause of birth as happened to the Xia and Shang ancestors; by the place naming of imperial fiefs (crownland), by the name of a grandfather of vassals, by the name of titles of officialdom, and by the place namings of assigned manors. (During the Spring & Autumn time period of Zhou Dynasty, women carried the surnames; men carried the clan names; lords carried the statelets' names; civilians carried the given names but no clan names; and women, after the marriage, had the statelet or the clan's suffix to their surnames.)
The Shi4 (clan name) word was seen in the excavated bronze utensils of both the Shang and Zhou dynasties. There were multiple underpinning meanings for this character, including the paternal clan, the individual person, the sloping land, the small mound in the middle of the water or the highland where the ancient people built the castles, the same word as 'zhi' for branches, and the ancient sovereigns' designation.
Using Viscount Tan-zi's example, we could see that the Shaohao-shi people had adopted the phoenix as a totem, with three layers of tribes and clans. While we know that the ancient Taihao-shi people were Feng-surnamed or wind-surnamed, the Shaohao-shi people carried the 'ji' (3) surname. We do have an exhaustive list of the 'shi'-suffix tribes and clans, with the first layer being the Phoenix totem, the second layer being the tribes of Fengniao-shi (phoenix), Xuanniao-shi (black bird, i.e., swallow), Bozhao-shi [or Bolao-shi; dujuan {cuckoo}], Qingniao-shi (green bird), and Danniao-shi (red bird), the third layers being the eagle-suffixed, and the chicken-suffixed or the peacock-suffixed clans. The first tier birds were in charge of calendar and seasons, while the eagle tier in charge of administration of people, and the peacock tier in charge of the engineering, plus "jiu-hu" who were the nine agricultural officials. In contrast with the above-mentioned original dwellers of the central and eastern land of China, we have the matching Sinitic designation of 'guo' (principality), 'yi' (fief) and 'shi4' (clan). One example would be the Ji-surnamed Zhou vassal state of the Lu Principality, which had one of its ministers assigned to the Luan-yi (i.e., the Luan fief) land to carry the Luan-shi or Luan family name. Before that, Duke Zhougong, other than assigning the elder son to the Lu Principality, had conferred the non-elder-sons the land of Fan, Jiang, Xing, and Mao etc to tack on the place namings as their new family names.
According to LI JI (rituals), the Chinese characters for ancestors, "zu-zong", actually meant for the splitting of lineages for every five generations, with the elder son to become the 'zu' or the ancestor of his lineage, while the non-elder-sons to become the 'zong' or the ancestors of their respective lineages. And, after every five generations, the non-elder-sons could qualify for being the 'zu' or the ancestor of his lineage, and so on. Hence, the 5th generation grandson of the non-elder-son line would merely pay respect to the 5th generation grandpa as 'xiao-zong' [i.e., the junior 'zong' ancestor]. Only the straight elder son line would carry the original surname. Alternatively speaking, the orthodoxy surname was the so-called "shi-zu" (i.e., the inception ancestor) or "da zong" (i.e., the senior 'zong' ancestor), while the non-elder-sons' family names were of the 'xiao-zong' [i.e., the junior 'zong' ancestor] nature.
Legends about San [three] Huang Wu [five] Di
Some discussion of 'San Huang Wu Di' (namely, three emperors and five lords) is worthwhile here. Both 'Di' and 'Huang' imply the same denotation as someone who was an overlord, not necessarily an emperor. Historians believe the ancient 'San Huang Wu Di' did not call themselves so, and it would be the later people who attached the titles to them posthumously. The Xia-Shang lords, however, did continue to call themselves 'Di' posthumously, but the Zhou kings had adopted the title of 'wang' or king for themselves to show their humbleness in front of the ancient 'San Huang Wu Di'. In Chinese, there is no comparable words for emperor or empire. In Chinese, the terminology for the empire came from an imported word, 'Teikoku', which the Japanese derived by lining up the two Chinese characters for lord and state. As to 'huangdi' or emperor, it was a term coined by the first emperor of Qin Dynasty by combining the words of 'Huang' and 'Di'.
'San Huang', termed the Three Sovereigns, were more likely mythical and non-human-entity titles at the time the first emperor of Qin coined his title 'huang-di' about 2200-2300 hundreds ago, were later mixed up with fables to become Fuxi, Yandi the Fiery Lord, and Huangdi the Yellow Emperor, or varying orders. The point was that in ancient China, we did have the saying of the 'Heaven Huang', the 'Land Huang', and the 'Taishan Mountain Huang' [which was mutated to the 'Human Huang' at some later time but before the Han dynasty scholars mixed it with the Zhuang-zi and Lie-zi fables to become the 'Human Huang'].
In varying orders, 'San Huang', or the Three Sovereigns, would be Fuxi, Yandi (Fiery Lord) and Huangdi (Yellow Lord, ? B.C.E. 2697 - 2599; reign 2402-2303 with rule of 100 years per Zhu Yongtang's adjustment of BAMBOO). A Western Han Dynasty story claimed that Nü-wa, Fuxi and Shennong were the three ancient lords.
The Three Huangs denotation was embodying the ancient Chinese religious ideas and it could be compared to the trinity in Christianity. Concretely speaking, the relationship between heaven, land and the human beings would be an eternal topic of the ancient Chinese. The impact could be seen in the early dynasties like Shang which upheld polytheism and semi-human gods similar to the ancient Greeks. Below, this webmaster had followed the conventional history in attributing the idea of 'Mandate of Heaven' to Zhou Dynasty (instead of Shang Dynasty) because of distinction here between the polytheism reverence of the Shang people and the Heaven reverence of the Zhou people.
The order of the ancient eight overlords was varied. According to Kong An'guo (Han Dynasty) and Huangfu Mi (Jinn Dynasty), 'Three Huang' or 'San Huang' would be:
    Fu Xi, Shen-nong, Huangdi
while 'Wu Di' or Five Di would be
    Shaohao, Gaoyang (Lord Zhuanxu), Gaoxin (Diku), Tangyao (Lord Yao) and Yushun (Lord Shun).
Sima Qian, Qiao Zhou (Wei Dynasty of Three Kingdoms), Ying Shao, Song Jun et al. placed 'Wu Di' in the following order:
    Huangdi (Yellow Lord), Gaoyang (Lord Zhuanxu), Gaoxin (Diku), Tangyao (Lord Yao) and Yushun (Lord Shun).
Though different order, the essence is basically the same. They all belonged to the same old family and the same lineage. (Huangfu Mi mixed up the Three Sovereigns to include the 'human' overlords, i.e., Huangdi the Yellow Overlord.)

Sima Zhen lamented that "the ancient books long lost; however, how could you deny that the ancient lords never existed?" Sima Zhen believed that there were ten epochs extending all the way to Huangdi's era; that all names related to the earliest Heaven 'Huang' and Earth 'Huang' were unrecoverable; that ancient saint Yiwu could identify 15 out of 72 deities inscribed on Mt. Taishan [per Sima Qian's SHI JI which in turn cited GUAN-ZI which was possibly a forged or modified book by latter scholars]; and Confucius failed to figure out the inscriptions of over 10,000 deities inscribed on Mt. Taishan. The order of ancient human 'godly' overlords (Human 'Huang' ), shown with origin in the different tribal groups, was different for different historians such as for Huangfu Mi of Jinn Dynasty versus Sima Zhen of Tang Dynasty. Should we interpret Sima Zhen's statement as to say that the overlords from different tribal groups, as shown below, all shared the same "Feng" family name as Fuxi? If so, then the (Human 'Huang' ) rule could have continued for another 78 [?] overlords, which came from tribal groups of the same lineage as Fuxi? Or, alternatively speaking, the majority of the Fuxi 'dynasties', about 15 [per Sima Zhen and pasted below], failed to earn the title to be called the (Human 'Huang' ) overlord. (Later, ancient Chinese at most gave the Human 'Huang' title to Fuxi, Nü-wa, Shennong and Huangdi, which was fallacious in light of the original denotation for this title.)
Liu Junnan, in his article on "tracing the origin of five ancient 'Di' overlords", pointed out that the five ancient 'Di' meant for the 'heavenly' gods or the gods designating the five metaphysical directions, and that the ruling dynasties attached their wise 'human' leaders (gods) to the heavenly gods, in varying orders or with different naming placement in different dynasties. This correct reading of the difference between the 'heavenly' gods and the human overlords should dispel lots of confusion in the ancient classics concerning the origin and migration of tribes and nations, as well as refute the fallacies of ancient Chinese scholars in upgrading the human overlords to the category of the Three Legendary 'Huang' so as to create space for their preferred human overlords in the list of the Five Legendary 'Di'.
The Speculation As To the Proto Groups
Two proto groups of people, the Hua People (also denoted Huaxia or Xia where the character 'hua' was said to have derived from the Huashan Mountain near Xi'an city, a name that was more likely to have been appropriated from across the Yellow River, or derived from the name of the He-xu/Hua-xu tribe) vs the Yi People, would come into play in this prehistoric time period. Scholar Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua) pointed out that 'hua' and 'xia', pronounced the same way as [hwer] in today's Yangtze Delta dialects, would mean for the original land of the Xia people under Lord Huangdi and later Lord Yu, a place validated to be southern Shanxi Province, with three ancient bends of the Yellow River forming a U-shape loop. (In the ancient times, the Western Bend would be today's Eastern Bend.) Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua) located the ancient Hua-shui River in southern Shanxi Province and claimed that Huashan Mountain of Shenxi Province was a name that was later appropriated.
At the very beginning, there was no 'east' connotation to the Yi people as the people living in the eastern Chinese coast, i.e., the offsprings from the two clans of Tai-hao-shi and Shao-hao-shi, were categorically called by 'Yi', a word that semantically meant the people carrying bows, not to do with the later denotation as the 'Eastern Barbarians". During Zhou Dynasty, as a result of confrontation between the Zhou people who were from the west [but might have migrated to the west from the east as the Qin people did --as corroborated by the Hunnic usurper Liu Yuan who made the claim during the time period of Five Nomadic Groups Ravaging China], and the remnant Shang people who were the natives dwelling in the middle China and along the eastern coast, the records began to carry passages after passages of fighting between the pretentious 'Central Kingdom' Zhou people and the so-called barbarians (i.e., rebels) in the originally Shang Dynasty land to the east.

The classification of the early Chinese into two groups would be an over-simplication. Since issues still exist as to the sub-components that had comprised the two major groups of people, it would be a good generalization for the time being. The issues would be: i) how to explain the relationship of the Chiyou vs Huangdi vs Yandi tribal groups; ii) how to explain the fact that the dragon-totem Huangdi tribal group shared the same bird-totem as all those a) various people from the former cultures, b) the original Yi people, and b) the latter Dong-yi [Eastern Yi] people; iii) how to explain the fact that Chiyou's Jiu-li (Nine Li2) tribal group could have shared the ox-embodiment as the Yandi tribal group; iv) how to dispute the claim that the Huangdi tribal group might have origin in the [nomadic] Kalgan area (i.e., the Hongshan Culture land in today's Inner Mongolia, versus the wild claim as to the link with the Altaic-speaking people on the possibly non-existent ancient steppe of today's Outer Mongolia; v) how to refute Scholar Wang Guowei's claim that the dragon-totem Xia people dispersed to the north and the west as two respective branches of the Huns and the Yuezhi (i.e., an apparent fallacious extrapolation of the ancient Yu-shi tribe to the Yuezhi using soundex) after Shang Dynasty overthrew the Xia rule in today's Shanxi/Henan Province; and vi) how to explain the southern barbarians' adoption of dogs as a possible totem.
There had been speculation by someone unknown and called by Qin Yanzhou in regards to Yandi, Huangdi and Chiyou. Qin Yanzhou claimed that the ox-totem Yandi tribal group had evolved from the proto-Xi-Rong people in northwestern China and that the bird-totem (? simultaneously dragon-totem) Huangdi tribal group had evolved from the proto-Bei-Di people in northern China. This is wrong as we said the concept of the "Western Rongs" was relatively new. Qin Yanzhou also claimed that after the mix-up of Yandi/Huangdi tribal groups, they adopted 'dragon' as the totem (??? very speculative). This is wrong as well since the ancient Chinese stated that a phoenix, upon entry into the water, would become a dragon. Qin Yanzhou's wild speculation also claimed a direct relationship of those proto people to the excavated homo erectus in different areas of China, a physiological fallacy in light of the common knowledge that human beings came from the homo sapien sapien instead. Qin Yanzhou had another flaw as far as reconciling the timing and history of the San-Miao relocation to today's Gansu Province during Lord Shun's reign is concerned.
Common-sense historians agreed that the Proto-Xi-Rong people in northwestern China would be later Qiang[1] and Di[1] (i.e., ancestors of the Tibetan people) while the proto-Bei-Di people in northern China would be the later steppe people like the Huns and Turks, which was another fallacy in light of the discovery by Wang Zhonghan, showing that the northern barbarians and the western barbarians appeared to be the same during the early part of Zhou Dynasty, i.e., the ancient Jiang-rong people. The Proto-Bei-Di people had been linked to the later Altaic-language speaking people like the Huns and the Turks, and inclusively, the Tungunzic people of today's northeastern Mongolia and western Manchuria, while the proto-Xi-Rong people would be Qiangic ancestors of today's Tibetans. The important thing to bear in mind is that at the very early stage of the human development, the human migration was diverging to the perimeters, not converging to the center. Hence, the proto barbarians at the perimeter could have only evolved from some origin at the center. Wang Zhonghan's point was that the northern barbarians and the western barbarians appeared to be different during the later part of Zhou Dynasty: namely, while the western barbarians remained to be the ancient Jiang-rong people, the northern barbarians had the traits of the Tungusic-speaking people from today's Manchuria, or the Xianbei people. (This coincided with Lv Simian's research to show that the later known Huns and the Donghu people, at the time of Mote the first Hunnic chanyu, lived just 1000-li distance apart on the two opposite edge of a vacant land somewhere north of today's Kalgan. Or specifically the so-called Pine Desert area.)
Should we buy Wang Zhonghan's research showing the early Huns were the Sino-Tibetan Jiang-rong, then the Hunnic language [or its successor Turkic language] could not be Altaic as was that of the later Mongols and the Jurchens/Manchus, i.e., all later predatory tribes [C haplogroup] from today's northern Xing'an Ridge and the Amur River area. In separate sections, we touched on the hair style of the barbarians, including the pigtail style of the Tuoba, the cut hair style of the Xianbei and Wuhuan, and the cut hair and pigtail style of the Jurchens and Manchus, to state that both the Huns and the later Turks had in fact shared a similar hair style as the Sinitic Chinese, namely, no hair cut plus the bundling of hair. The difference between the Huns and the Sinitic Chinese was "hu2 [Huns] fu2 [clothing] ZHUI1 [back of the head] jie2 [bundling the hair]", while the Sinitic Chinese bundled the hair at the top of the head. As commented by historian Huang Wenbi, the Qiangic people in western China, who had been exiled there from the east as this webmaster had repeatedly said, shared the same customs as the ancient Yi people along the eastern Chinese coast, namely, they did not bundle hair and further had an opposite direction as far as wrapping the clothing was concerned, namely, "bei4? pi1?[dangling] fa1 [hair] zuo3 [left] REN4 [overlapping part of Chinese gown]". --This webmaster's point was that the Qiangs were of the San-miao lineage and carried some customs of the Eastern Yi nature while dwelling in central and eastern China; the Huns were related to the Sinitic Chinese [O3 haplogroup]; and the Tungus [C haplogroup] from the northeast were different from the Huns. More, the Tungus [C haplogroup], who were likely evicted from North China and the eastern Chinese coast by the O-haplogroup people, could have evicted the N haplogroup to northwestern Siberia from western Manchuria. [The C haplogroup might had pushed the Q haplogroup or the ancestors of AmerIndians to the Americas about 15,000 years ago.] (Note that this webmaster, to reconcile the fact that the Sino-Tibetans were all O3 haplogroup, need to make a statement that the bird-totem Yi people along the coast, whose squatting and flat forehead customs were shared by the C-haplogroup Tungus, belonged to the O2 haplogroup. As to the N haplogroup who were evicted to northwestern Siberia, they [together with C-haplogroup people] might have pushed south to Chinese Turkestan from today's TUVA area to have eliminated the R haplogroup people whose 2000 B.C.E. mummies were excavated together with the Khams type proto-Tibetan mummies in the deserts.)
Scholar Luo Xianglin's Assertion
Scholar Luo Xianglin, in "History of the Chinese Nationalities" (Chinese Culture Publishing Enterprise Co, Taipei, Taiwan, May 1953 edition), stated that ancient China possessed five tribal groups: Xia, Qiang, Di[1], Yi, and Man[2]. Per Luo Xianglin, the Xia people first originated in Mt Minshan and upperstream River Min-jiang areas of today's Sichuan-Gansu provincial borderline. The Xia people then split into two groups, with one going north to reach the Wei-shui River and upperstream Han-shui River of Shenxi Province and then east to Shanxi Province by crossing the Yellow River.
The second group, per Luo Xianglin, went south to populate the southern Chinese provinces as the 'Yue' people. Luo Xianglin's linking the Yue people to the Xia people was based on the common lexicon 'yue' which meant for excavated ancient "stone axe". Luo's simplication of the origin of the Yue people, of course, was understandable since the ancient texts repeatedly said that some Lord Yu's descendant was assigned to the Kuaiji land for guarding the tomb of Lord Yu; historian Sima Qian stated that the Yue people had carried on Lord Yu's spirits; and that the ancient Yue statelet had the same legends about their ancestors' marrying the nine-tail fox-shaped woman as Lord Yu's marriage with the legendary nine-fox-tail Tu-shan-shi woman. Though, the part that could not be reconciled was that the Hundred Pu people, another O-3 haplogroup people, were directly behind the Sino-Tibetans, as a wedge, not to mention that the ancient Qiang and Di[1] people who would eventually push south towards the southwestern China's border with Burma and India.
Luo Xianglin stated that the five tribal groups of Xia, Qiang, Di[1], Yi, and Man[2] shared the same origin. This could be taken as correct only if we are to say that the dissipating groups were to mix up with the natives, such as the C-haplogroup and D-haplogroup people who arrived in Asia some 40,000 years and 50,000 years, respectively, ahead of the Sino-Tibetans.
The same origin validation could be seen in ZHENG YU of GUO YU, wherein Shi-bo, in a dialogue with Zheng Lord Huan'gong, expounded the distinction between the Sinitic principalities [related to the Zhou royals, the brothers of the Zhou royals' mothers, and the nephews and uncles on the mothers' side] from those related to the Maan, Jing, Rong and Di barbarians, not counting the Yi barbarians who were taken to be beyond the eastern statelets of Qi, Lu, Cao, Soong, Teng, Xue, Zou, and Ju. For the barbarians, Shi-bo apparently made a case of identifying the Sinitic cliques ruling the barbarians from the barbarians themselves. Shi-bo, in the passage on the 'Jing' or Chu barbarians [who were counted among the southern 'Maan' group], explicitly listed the lineage of the 'Jing' or Chu ancestors, stating that Chu lord Xiong Yan had born four sons Bo-shuang, Zhong-xue, Shu-xiong and Ji-xun, with names bearing the Sinitic brotherly order, among whom the 3rd son fled to be a ruler among the southern 'Pu' [i.e., the later Hundred Pu] people and the 4th son took over the lordship in the spirits of ancient ancestors Chong-li -- also taken to be two brothers of Chong and Lih[2] -- with the Lih line tacking on the hereditary fire guardian [minister] post known as 'Zhu-rong' [i.e., virtues shining like fire]. Shi-bo's point was that in extrapolating on the achievements of descendants of Yu-mu [lord Shun's line], Xia-yu [lord Yu], Zhou-qi [Zhou ancestor Qi or Hou-ji], it was claimed that inevitably Zhu-rong's descendants, who had produced Count Kunwu[-shi] in the Xia dynasty and Count Da-peng and Count Shi-wei[2] in the Shang dynasty, should see the Mi-surnamed Chu people asserting themselves in the Zhou dynasty time period. Altogether, Shi-bo pointed to the Jiang-surnamed people [i.e., descendants of Bo-yi{-fu} who assisted overlord Yao as protocol minister], Ying-surnamed people [i.e., descendants of Bo-yi who assisted overlord Shun as interior minister], and Jing-Mi-surnamed Chu people as possible contestants for the Zhou dynasty's rule -- another Sinitic theme of power rotation.
Discussion In the Anthology "THE HUA-XIA CIVILIZATION"
Scholar Gao Wei pointed out that the colored Pottery from the Taosi Excavation of the Longshan Culture in Xiangfen of Shanxi Province, dated 2400-2500 B.C.E. approximately, had shown a winding dragon[, which was in fact two snakes]. Should we use the dragon totem as guide, then this place of excavation (i.e., southern Shanxi Province) would be the original site of the early Xia people. (Chinese classics had mentioned two dragon-related clans, i.e., the Huan-long-shi clan during Lord Shun's reign and the Yu-long-shi clan during the Xia dynasty. Here, 'huan' meant for raising or husbandry, 'yu4' meant for driving or controlling, while 'long' meant for the dragon.)
As explained earlier, the Longshan Culture excavations, like the preceding Yangshao Culture, had produced potteries with mostly the bird totems, including a bird totem with the sun in the wing. The Longshan Culture, having interaction with the bird-totem [Dong-]yi people to the southeast, could pose an academic challenge as to the nature of ethnicity. Consensus would be to treat the Longshan Culture as equivalent to the Xia Dynasty timeframe and to equate the Longshan Culture people to the dragon-totem tribe under i) formerly Huangdi the Yellow Lord and ii) consecutively Lord Yu. Should we deem the dragon-totem component as an outsider, then we could still claim the nativity of the bird-totem component as the first-stage and accept the emergence of the dragon-totem as the second-stage of the culture in this area. The safest bet would be to treat both the bird-totem people, belonging possibly to the original Yi-yue people who populated the coastline before the mixed Sino-Tibetan/Hmong-mien people pushed to the east, with the mix-up Sino-Tibetan/Hmong-mien people migrating to the east one step ahead of the pure Sino-Tibetan people. The Xia people, per Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua), later moved from today's Shanxi to Henan Province to establish the dynasty of Xia, and Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua) validated the demise of Xia in Henan Province by citing the ancient statement that the 'Xia dynasty ended when the Yi-shui and Luo-shui rivers ran dry'. The Xia people certainly brought with them the important dragon totem, a mark that was later observed among the Huns of Mongolia and the Tungus of Manchuria for the thousands of years to come. This important totem also denote their continuous blood or tribal relationship.
Ancient records claimed that the early legendary lords of Yao [Yao-di], Shun [Shun-di] and Yu [Yu-di] had prospered in different locations of China at different stages: first, Lord Yao (Tao-tang-shi) in today's southern Shanxi Province, then Lord Shun (You-yu-shi) in today's Henan-Shandong provinces, and lastly Lord Yu (Xia-hou-shi) in today's western Henan Province. [This rough division could be wrong as a simplistic method was used to equate Lord Shun to the misnomer Yi people on basis of the Shang people's oblation while the Shang people claimed a descent from the 'xuan niao' or the black bird, which was inferred to be one of the dozen bird totem people in eastern China.] Hence, Tian Changwu compromised the different views by stating that the Xia people might have two tribes, with 1) father Gun developing in southern Shanxi Province where they were previously subordinate to Lord Yao and 2) son Lord Yu developing in western Henan Province by means of an alliance with descendants of Lord Zhuanxu's tribe. Lord Yu, per Tian Changwu, adopted 'xuan yu' (i.e., black fish) as the totem while his father Gun continued with the dragon totem and Lord Yu's tribe would later absorb his father's native Xia people in southern Shanxi Province. (The character 'Gun' was a combination of two words: black and fish. Senior scholar Wei Chu-Hsien pointed out that the ancient Gun legends in "SHAN HAI JING" implied a possible migration of Gun's people to the American continents since Gun's body turned into 'huang xiong' [American Brown Bear] in the water. This was again simplistic as the so-called 'huang xiong' [American Brown Bear] might not mean 'bear' at all but a different kind of animal. Furthermore, SHUI JING ZHU, a book annotated by Lih Daoyuan, made a statement on the Yi-shui River, stating that "looking south towards the Shan-zhu waterfront, which extended for 10-li distance, with fish reeds entangling, you saw the place that was transformed through the body of Lord Yu's father.)
The Burial Difference Among the Dragon-totem People & the Bird-totem People
What could be confidently validated would be the burial difference in the dragon-totem and bird-totem people. Studies of tomb burials from the Yangshao and Longshan excavations, per Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua), had disclosed two drastically different cultures, with the eastern China containing male-female joint burials while those in western China merely single male burials. Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua) pointed out that the Xia people to the west had adopted the ancient 'concubine inheritance system', i.e., the successors of nobles or lords would take over the concubines and wives of their fathers and brothers instead of forcing those women to be buried alive with their late husbands. Here, one more linkage, i.e., the 'concubine inheritance system', exists to point to the Huns and Turks as the descendants of the Xia people. Or, in the view of this webmaster, the nobles of the later nomadic Huns and Turks could be the Xia Chinese refugees.
Reconciliation for the Different Totems
Qin Yanzhou speculated that proto-Dong-Yi shared a similar ancestry as proto-Bei-Di, while proto-Nan-Man shared a similar ancestry as proto-Xi-Rong. Qin Yanzhou claimed that proto-Dong-Yi had come to eastern China from the steppe earlier than Huangdi's proto-Bei-Di people's relocation to northern China from the steppe (??? highly speculative !!! Read Shi-zi's statement in regards to the deep eyesocket barbarians to the north of Huangdi for clarification). Qin Yanzhou's claim in regards to the proto-Nan-Man's relationship to proto-Xi-Rong is close to the related studies in regards to the relationship between Nü-wa (Nü-wa-shi) and Fu-xi (Fu-xi-shi), but both approaches had violated the historical claim that Nü-wa and Fu-xi had adopted the bird-totem the same way as the Yi (misnomer Eastern Yi) people, i.e., the original inhabitants of China in the central plains and along the Shandong coast.
As a result of conversion and diversion of the said five tribal groups, any allusion to a pure totem distinction would be futile. Should any tribal group possess a totem from another tribal group, it would doubtless be the result of conversion. http://www.xslx.com/htm/shgc/zgls/2004-02-17-16092.htm, in discussion of the ancient overlords Huangdi, Yandi & Chiyou and their wars, had attempted to sort out the tribal groups to no effect. (The merit of this discussion, in my viewpoint, would be the tracing of the origin of a common erroneous claim in regards to "nomadic" or "mobile" nature of Huangdi the Yellow Overlord, hence refuting a derivative claim that Huangdi's people had link to the Altaic steppe people. Author Wang Xiansheng, in pointing out that Shang Dynasty's ancestor, i.e., King Wang-hai, was killed in the You-yi-guo territory while herding sheep and buffalo, with no mention of "horse raising" or "horseback warrior" whatsoever, concluded that Huangdi, who was hundred years earlier than Shang King Wang-hai, would not have anything to do with "horse raising" or "horseback warrior" of the steppe people.)
By citing the sentence of "relocating the various groups of people and zoning the territories of the nation" inside the "Section On Xia Lord Yu" in Sima Qian's "SHI JI [Historian's Records]", Scholar Luo Xianglin attributed the i) flooding at the end of the Stone Age and ii) the Xia people's "quelling floods" activities to the initial migration and diaspora of the five ancient tribal groups. That is how the ancient designations like "zhong [central] xia", "hua [flowery] xia", "zhu [various] xia" and "qu [different?] xia" came about. (This webmaster, using this same line thought, would further say that the characters Lei-xia in YU GONG originally meant for some solid land which unfortunately transforms into a lake after Lord Yu's flood control work.) In Luo Xianglin's viewpoint, four other tribal groups of Qiang, Di[1], Yi, and Man[2] went through a process of conversion and diversion with the Xia people. In the west, the Qiangic people spread across today's Tibet-Qinghai-Sichuan-Gansu-Shenxi provinces to become Xi-Rong & Xi-Qiang; in the east, Yi [meaning the people with bows semantically] spread across Jiangsu-Anhui-Shandong-Henan-Hebei-Manchuria to become Dong-Yi; in the south, Man[2] spread across Hubei-Hunan-Jiangxi-Guizhou-Guangxi-Fujian-Zhejiang to become Nan-Man; and in the north, Di[1] spread across Xinjiang-Ningxia-Mongolia-Shanxi-Hebei provinces to become Bei-Di. Xi-Rong or the Western Rong meant for the later Rong people (Sino-Tibetan speaking Qiangic people) in northwestern China, Bei-Di or the Northern Di meant for the later northern Di[2] people, Dong-Yi or the Eastern Yi people meant for the later Yi people in the east, and Nan-Man or the Southern Man2 meant for the southern barbarians. Luo's simplistic statements did not conform with the genetic studies of the late 20th century, which showed a different origin and movements of the O1, O2 and O3 haplogroup people.
More the directional tags were a later phenomenon. Note that Scholar Wang Zhonghan cited "GUAN-ZI" in stating that it would be around the middle of the Warring States time period that the Qi Principality editors adopted the terms of four barbarians as might have existed at the time of GUAN-ZI [Guan Zhong] of the Spring & Autumn time period. Any four directional designations earlier than the Warring States time period of Eastern Zhou Dynasty would be merely for sake of differentiating among the proto barbarians, here, with no such existence of naming in the prehistory.
Legends Of the Yellow Lord vs the Fiery Lord
Chinese classics, per Sima Qian's "SHI JI", claimed that the early Chinese overlords were of the same heritage. Yandi (the Fiery Lord) was said to have been born in Lixiang, northeast of the Yellow River inflexion point, and he was known as Li-shan-shi by the name of Lixiang, which was very much corroborated by the ancient classics to be the land of today's Mt Zhongtiaoshan on the north bank of the Yellow River. (Alternatively speaking, Yandi was said to have been born or had grown up on the riverbank of the ancient Jiang-shui River, while Jiang-shui, should it be treated the same as the Qiang-shui River, would be commonly known as Bai-he [white river, i.e., the ancient Bailongjiang or White Dragon River] in today's Qinghai Province to the west. The ancient classics, though, claimed that the Jiang-shui River was the same as the Yi-shui River in the truly central heartland of Sinitic China, i.e., today's Luoyang of Henan Province. Further, the alternative claims pointed to a river to the southwest of Xi'an to be the ancient Jiangshui River.) The legend of "Yandi's mother being impregnated by a dragon-faced spirit in Hua-yang [south of Mt Huashan ?], however, pointed to a slightly different locality for conception. All in all, JINN YU of GUO YU made the defining statement to point out that Yandi set the nation's capital at 'Yi' and 'Qi', namely, around the same area as the Yi-shui River or today's Kaifeng-Luoyang of Henan Province. The simplified history records were later expanded to mean that the Yandi dynatic rule continued for 7-8 generations, till Yu-mang was defeated by the Huangdi [the yellow lord] lineage.
Huangdi, per JINN YU of GUO YU, was born and grew up along the Ji[1]-shui River, a river that was never properly pinpointed. (Liu Jiujie, a Henan Province native, stated that the Juci-he River at the foot of Mt. Jucishan was known as Qingyih-he or Yih-shui River which was the original Ji-shui River.) As JINN YU of GUO YU was more authoritative, we could give this thought the credit, and hence agree with the ancient saints that Huangdi, or the Yellow Overlord, was indeed a brotherly tribe of Yandi and had the same origin from the Shaodian tribe on the paternal side and the Youqiao-shi tribe on the maternal side, while the Youqiao-shi tribe, i.e., a honey bees or silkworm tribe, was validated to be located in today's central plains. Alternatively, Huangdi (the Yellow Overlord) were said to be born in eastern China, somewhere close to Qufu of the Shandong Peninsula. However, Huangdi's tribe might very well had originated from the west and migrated to the east because the Yangshao Culture of the Yellow River was dated older than the Longshan Culture in Shandong Peninsula. Huangdi the Yellow Lord was said to be born in Shouqiu of today's Shandong Province. Here, scholars validated that it was Kong An'guo, a Confucius descendant, who made the remark that Huangdi was born in Shouqiu. The word "Shouqiu", however, appeared in the context of Sima Qian's writings on Lord Shun, with a claim that Lord Shun, who was born near Lishan or today's southern Shanxi, had made potteries by the River [which was taken to be possibly the Fen-he River] and continued to manufacture utensils at Shouqiu, a place that had to be somewhere in southern Shanxi, not Shandong.
It would be in Zhuoluo area [which was now postulated to be in today's northern Hebei Prov] that Huangdi's tribe had engaged in wars against Chiyou's tribe, albeit omitting any possible encounter with the Tai-hao-shi and Shao-hao-shi people who were said to be the orthodox original people of the east, i.e., inhabitants preceding the arrival of the eight-generation-rule Yandi people. In a later book such as the Salt & Iron Debate of Han Dynasty, you had the statement that Huangdi killed both Chi-you and two Hao-suffixed lords, which could mean the descendants of Tai-hao-shi and Shao-hao-shi. (In conflicting explanation, Yandi, Huangdi, and Lord Zhuanxu were recorded to have treated Qufu of Shandong as the capital. Qufu was considered to be the statelet of the Da-ting-shi clan. Lord Zhuanxu later relocated to Shangqiu of today's Henan Province. The important thing to note is that the Battle of Zhuolu could be fought in the heartland of China or Mt. Jucishan, with the name Zhuolu appropriated to the Hebei-Kalgan border area later. This webmaster, after reflecting on the DNA findings, would tend to think that the O1, O2 and O3 haplogroups might have not geographically split from each other at the time of Yandi [Chiyou] and Huangdi or might have just splitted from each other by that time.)
--Furthermore, complicating the situation would be some reasonable analysis stating that the ancient locality for Zhuolu [chasing deers] could in fact be right in the heartland of the central plains, namely, not far away from the two banks of the Yellow River, or the Yi-shui/Luo-shui Rivers on the south bank and the Mt. Zhongtiaoshan on the north bank. The point was that Zhuolu was later appropriated to today's northern Hebei.
Ban Gu commented that Yandi (the Fiery Lord) was entitled Shen-nong-shi (Shen Nong Shi) for his teachings of agriculture to the people: Shen-Nong was said to have invented the plough and mastered the Chinese herbal medicines. Yandi was said to be born near the ancient Jiang-shui River and hence named Jiang. (The surname of 'jiang', similar to Huangdi's surname of 'ji', carries the female denotation in the character parts, which originally meant for the matrilineal or matriarchal tribal affiliations.) Yandi was also known as Lieshan-shi, which was a name with patrilineal or patriarchal tribal affiliation. The birthplace was in later Li-guo fief [somewhere in today's Mt. Zhongtiaoshan]. Yandi relocated to the later Chen-guo fief and Lu-guo fief (Qufu, Shandong, on the Shandong Peninsula), consecutively. Yandi possessed the head in the shape of an ox and could be considered semi-god & semi-human. Yandi was embodiment of the virtue of 'fire' in Chinese metaphysics. "GUO YU" stated that both Yandi and Huangdi were sons of the Shaodian Tribe. The reconciliation here will be to treat Shen-nong as a titular title, not a specific person, and to treat Shaodian as a tribal group. This is because the matrilineal affiliated name of Yandi ('jiang') and the matrilineal affiliated name of Huangdi ('ji') could also hint two separate women as their both mothers. The Shang people, starting from Shang-ancestor-Xie4, had adopted the patrilineal lineages, as validated by Shang's oracle bones. (The Huns and the Turks had retained the custom of matrilineal affiliated surnames much longer: The Founder of Hunnic Han Dynasty, Liu Yuan, was a good example of having retained the family name of 'Liu' from the Han Dynasty princesses, and the Ashina Turk had obtained the surname from their mother as well.)
Yandi and Huangdi, said to be sons of the Shaodian tribe, should be considered the brotherly tribes or tribes with a close bloodline tie. Yandi, who was treated as the ancestor of the later Qiangic and Tibetan people, had their offshoots reaching as far south as today's Yunnan Province of Southwestern China, i.e., the seat of Nan-zhao and Da-li statelets. Today's Yi-zhu and Bai-zhu minorities in the Southwest could be traced to the ancient Di[1]-Qiang[2] people who migrated southward along the Hengduan Mountain Range. The ancient Di[1]-Qiang[2] people had much greater influence in ancient China than people could imagine: They were commented to have also shared the genetical similarity with the ancient Jomon people in Japan, i.e., ancestors of the Ainu, which could be over-stretched here as a result of going too far beyond the recent human migration and development, like the scale of Adam and Eve. This of course could be reconciled should we use this webmaster's theory of the epic human migration of the San-miao and Yun-surnamed Xianyun people to Northwest China from eastern China to state that Yandi's descendants, surnamed the Qiangs, originally dwelled along the eastern Chinese coast [for about eight generations on basis of Sima Zhen's fabricated lineage book], then were exiled to Northwest China where they developed into the later Qiangic and Tibetan people - after absorbing the high-plateau natives of the D-haplogroup people, a group of people who were marginalized into the Ainu people on the Hokaido Island of Japan. (SHAN HAI JING, in the HAI-NEI JING section, stated that Bo-yi-fu born Xi-yue [Si-yue], Xi-yue born Xian-long, Xian-long born Di-Qiang. Per GUO YU, Bo-yi{-fu}, i.e., ancestor of the the Jiang-surnamed people, assisted overlord Yao as protocol minister.)
--This Di[1]-Qiang[2] connection, however, could be compared with the modern DNA technological analysis which showed that among the early Mongoloid gene pools of Q, N, C, and O, there was a D haplogroup that was related to some dark-skinned early migrants to Asia, with their trace left in today's Tibet and the Pacific Rim islands. Among the ancient Chinese records, there existed reference to some kind of dark-skinned people, with the Di[1] people possily dark-skinned, as well as some dark-skinned trader who was recorded by the Han Dynasty's Lake Juyan outpost in the 2nd century B.C.E.
According to Sima Qian, Lord Huangdi (i.e., the Yellow Lord, ? 2697 - 2599 B.C.E. [2738-2598 B.C.E. per Chu Bosi; reign 2402-2303 with rule of 100 years per Zhu Yongtang's adjustment of BAMBOO]) was the son of the Shaodian tribe. The ancient sovereigns carried the character 'di4' as equivalent to overlords. (Note that the prevalent designation of 'Yellow Emperor' is semantically errorenous since the title 'emperor' did not get coined till Qin's First Emperor Shihuangdi.) Huangdi or Yellow Lord was born at Shouqiu [which could be wrongly taken to be the northeast of today's Qufu, Shandong Province (i.e., ancient Yanzhou Prefecture)]. Huangdi's last name is Gongsun, and it was renamed to Ji(1) while growing up on the bank of the ancient Ji[1]-shui River. He was also known as Xuanyuan by the name of Xuanyuan Mountain. (Xuanyuan-shi, also interpreted as the radius grooves or shafts of the carts [which was erroneously taken to be an Indo-European invention], would be a patrilineal tribal affiliation to mean that Huangdi had invented the compass and chariots etc. Guo Moruo, however, claimed that 'xuanyuan' could denote some kind of three-leg turtle, 'mian 3 yuan2', a.k.a. tian [heavenly] yuan2, that would mutate into the later lizard and dragon totems.)
Lord Yandi (the Fiery Lord) was in charge of China prior to the emergence of Huangdi (the Yellow Lord). Since Yandi's descendants (i.e., 8th generation grandson Yu-wang [? Ru-Wan]) could not control the tribes and the central plains, Lord Huangdi organized his army and took the place of Shennong-shi after fighting three wars against the Yandi Tribe. Lord Huangdi defeated Lord Yandi's tribe in a place called Banquan [some wood plank spring well], and hence replaced Shen-nong-shi as the overlord of then China. Huangdi was the embodiment of the virtue of 'earth' in Chinese metaphysics, and the character 'huang' meant for the yellow color of the earth, not the color of hair. ("Racial approach" experts - Don't get wrong ! Arnold J. Toynbee, in the 1910s, already refuted the racial approach to the origin of civilizations. Also note that Huangdi, per ZUO ZHUAN adopted the cloud suffix for the titles of his ministers.)
Since Huangdi was the embodiment of earth, the later Tuoba (Toba or Topa) people, who claimed descent from one of the Huangdi's sons, adopted the 'tu' (i.e., 'tuo' for mud or earth) and 'ba' (a northern dialect meaning descendant') as their clan name. The Tuoba people's claim could be built on some records from SHAN HAI JING, where it was claimed tha Huangdi's grandson was called Shijun, and Shijun born Bei-di or the northern barbarians.
Huangdi's country was entitled You-xiong-shi, i.e., the bear country (a place near today's Xinzheng of Henan Province), a name also interpreted as Huangdi's husbandry endeavors. (ZUO ZHUAN stated that Huangdi was also named Di-hong-shi. You-xiong-shi, Di-hong-shi or Xuanyuan-shi were some alternative paternal tribal titular names, while the name of 'Ji' meant the matrilineal tribal affiliation. Huangdi's birthplace was historically pinned to be at the Youxiong-shi land, namely, today's Xinzheng of Henan Province. However, the conflict this webmaster is seeing here is that Huangdi had in fact set his domain (capital) of ruling at Youxiong, not his birthplace. The time when Huangdi had set its capital at Youxiong would have to be after his defeating Chi-you (or Yandi) at Zhuolu or Banquan [Zhuolu], which was possibly postulated to be beyond the Yellow River and at the border with the Inner Mongolian steppe, if Banquan [Zhuolu] was not an appropriated place.) Here, the ancient character for 'xiong', meaning bear in the modern sense, was again shrouded in history. This is similar to the mysterious Gun's body transformation.
Lord Huangdi had 25 sons, among whom 14 had established their own family names. Two elder sons, Changyi and Xuanxiao, were both conferred the land to the west, i.e., today's Sichuan Province. One of the sons born with Huangdi's Wife Leizu was called Changyi. Changyi was conferred the land in today's Sichuan Province, by the ancient Ruo-shui River, and Changyi's son, named Gaoyang, was Lord Zhuanxu (? B.C.E. 2514 - 2437: reign 2399-2222 with rule of 78 years per Zhu Yongtang's adjustment of BAMBOO). As the ancient geographical book on the mountains of central China showed, the Sinitic people had a keen knowledge of the mountains and rivers in today's northern Schuan Province, beyond the southern edge of which would be the land of later Ba and Shu kingdoms as well as the Sanxingdui Bronze Culture Excavation.
Huangdi's Wars With Chiyou & Yandi, Respectively
When Huangdi was in regency, he had 83 Chiyou brothers in his court per the legends. Since the Chiyou brothers were very cruel to the people, Xuanyuan or Huangdi (the Yellow Lord) fought 73 successive battles against Chi-u (Ciyou), a leader of the Jiuli tribe. Jiuli, i.e., the nine 'li' people, were considered a group of the Yi people, but could be in fact the larger O3-haplogroup mixed Sino-Tibetan/Hmong-mien people, not the O2-haplogroup Yi people of the eastern Chinese coast.
Some advocates for the southern aboriginals claimed that Chiyou (Chi-u) belonged to the southern Chinese who descended from the Liangzhu Culture and that the southerners had expanded into today's Hebei Province areas of northern China, instead. This could be wrong as the agricultural people of early China included three groups of people, i.e., people in the mid-Yangtze rice plantation area [who could be the ancestors of the Hmong-mien people as the ancestors of the Sino-Tibetans took the route of going north towards the Wei River and the Yellow River], the O1-haplogroup people whose remains were found from the mid-Yangtze to lower-Yangtze area [with some excavation found in northern China as well], and the O2-haplogroup people along the coast.
Qin Yanzhou speculated: that Jiuli was an alliance of the ox-totem southern proto-Nan-Man people and bird-totem eastern proto-Dong-Yi people; that after Jiuli's defeat, the proto-Nan-Man people evolved into the San-Miao people; that the proto-Dong-Yi inter-married with Lord Zhuanxu's tribe to transform into the later ancestors of the Chu-Qin-Zhao statelets; and that the proto-Dong-Yi inter-married with Lord Diku's tribe to transform into the later Shang people. Wild speculation without grounds. Qin Yanzhou further divided the San-Miao into the Dong-yue (Eastern Yue or She-tribe) in the Southeast, the Yao-tribe in the South and the Wuling-man barbarians (Miao tribe) in the Southwest. Qin Yanxhou classified Nan-yue (Southern Yue people) and today's Zhuang-tribe of Guangxi/Yunnan provinces as a mixture between the Mongoloids and the Malays. Note Qin Yanzhou's speculation is not supported by either the written classics or archaeology. In Vietnamese & Southerners, this webmaster had expounded the composition of the Hundred Pu People and the Hundred Yue People.
As noted at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3164178/, "A clear hierarchical structure (annual ring shape) emerged in the network of O3a3b-M7 (Fig. 2B), in which MK (Mon-Khmers) haplotypes lay at the center of the network (immediately next to the origin), HM (Hmong-Mien) haplotypes were distributed at the periphery to the MK haplotypes, and the ST (here the subfamily Tibeto-Burman) haplotypes were only found further away from the origin." This really means that Chi-you, whom the HM (Hmong-Mien) people or the Miao-Yao people treated as their ancestor, belonged to the O3-hoplagroup kinsmen or the mixed Sino-Tibetan/Hmong-mien people. Note in the above-linked article was also the point that "The frequency of O3a3b is quite low in TK populations, and these individuals appeared sporadically in the network, sharing haplotypes with MK and HM. As the TK ethnic groups are located adjacent to MK and HM populations, the recent gene flow amongst the populations might have carried the O3a3b into TK populations." The Hundred Yue people appeared to be recent migrants to the Pearl River area from the Yangtze River area. In the Chinese history, passages were recorded about the number of the Yue people in today's Fujian and Guangdong prior to Han Emperor Wudi's campaigns against the south, with several thousands of people in today's Fujian plus a few tens of thousands [including the Qin military migration of 500,000 with soldiers and convicts included] in today's Guangdong.
Chiyou As Cultivator Of the Original Chinese Civilization
http://www.hmongcenter.org/inonkinchipa.html had a good account of Chiyou's contributions to the original Chinese civilization. It cited Historian Fan Wenlan's research in saying that "Huang-Di's tribes were living an unsteady nomadic (??? historically erroneous deduction) life in the Zhuolu [i.e., an abused and appropriated place naming with a deer suffix] area when Chi You realized the unification of the agricultural tribes and founded the Nine-Li State" along the Yangtze River and Huai-shui River. It stated that "Chi You was the first to create weapons, penal laws and a religion, which not just played an important role in the development of the Chinese culture and technology, but ushered in a new epoch for the Chinese nation to enter a civilized era." It validated the influence of Chiyou as an overlord of then China by citing the fact (as recorded by Sima Qian's SHI JI) that "Huang Di and the following monarchs respected Chi You as [the] Fight God after his death. ... Huang Di used Chi You's image to threaten those who wouldn't obey him. Thus Huang Di and his people took Chi You for a god to protecting themselves and had respect for him." (Per Fan Wenlan, Chiyou possessed 9 tribes, with nine sub-tribes each, totalling 81 tribes, and that is how the 81 Chiyou brothers came to be known in Sima Qian's SHI JI.) Apparently, Chiyou, being an overlord of then China, was an adversary of Huangdi, not a vassal serving Huangdi. History could have been just revised by the victor.
Huangdi's Rise To Power
The Yellow Lord was said to have cut off Chiyou's head in a battle in which the Yellow Lord used six kinds of animals (possibly some six tribes using the animals as totems) and most importantly, compass. The battleground was called Zhuolu, near today's Zhuozhou of Hebei Province. The Zhuolu Mountain would be where Huangdi's new capital was before he moved to the west. (In today's Zhuozhou, three statutes of Huangdi, Yandi and Chiyou could be seen, which is part of the commercialization going on in modern China. Per Chu Bosi's citation of Yan Su's report to Soong Dynasty Emperor Renzong in A.D. 1027, the compass technology still existed at the time of Zhou Dynasty King Chengwang as evidenced by Duke Zhougong's bestowal of the instrument onto an emissary of the Yue-chang-shi people; later, Zhang Heng & Wei Majun of Han Dynasty re-engineered the instrucment; Liu Song Dynasty Emperor Wudi attempted on making it after the recovery of Chang'an from the barbarians; scientist Zu Chongzhi re-invented it during the south-north dynasty time period; and Toba Wei Dynasty Emperor Taiwudi decreed that Guo Shanming and Ma Yue manufacture it but the technology was lost when Guo Shanming poisoned Ma Yue.)
Huangdi further drove off the ancient 'Xunyu' barbarians in the north, reached today's Gansu Province in the west, and climbed Mount Xiongshan on the Yangtze River bank in the south. The domain of his grandson, Lord Zhuanxu, reached Jiaozhi, today's Guangdong-Guangxi bordering Vietnam.
Both the Yellow Lord and the Fiery Lord are in fact some titular names of the two tribal leaders since nobody could live for hundreds of years and fought 73 successive battles. When Confucius' student, Zai, asked whether Huangdi was a human or a god, Confucius replied, "Huangdi was considered 300 years old because Huangdi lived for one hundred years (111 years to be exact), Huangdi's death was revered by the people for one hundred years, and Huangdi's teachings were utilized by the people for one hundred years." This was carried in the book DA DAI LI, which could be a postulated conversation. (Zeng Guangdong, at regenerating-universe.org/Chain_of_DNA.htm, wildly speculated that "the so called years might have been the cycles of moon ... It was during the rein of Di Yau [Lord Yao] that the calendar was adjusted to 365 days for one year and the times of seasons were fixed for agricultural purposes." - Ancient classics repeatedly recorded lots of people of age 80-90 serving as ministers and counsellors, while the nomadic people often celebrated the death of their elders once a certain age was exceeded. Hence, we should not have doubt that the ancient lord did live for 100 years.)
Studying the ancient history in a new angle, this webmaster believes there is a good chance that Yandi and Chiyou could be the same person, carrying the "Jiang" name. Should we examine Sima Qian's SHI JI line by line, we could find major conflicts whenever Huangdi's origin was concerned. Sima Qian claimed that Huangdi and Yandi were brothers, albeit stating in a different section to point out that Yandi was one of the last overlords of the Shennong-shi reign. The Yandi Dynasty had apparently continued for a long history, not to mention the preceding overlords between the first overlord Fuxi-shi and the last royal house of Shennong-shi from which the Yandi Sub-Dynasty originated. See Re-write of China's Prehistory.
The pilgrimage or oblation temples for Huangdi and Yandi were often set up in different parts of the country, which had obscured the real origin of both Yandi and Huangdi. In Hubei Province, a forest area bearing the name of the Fiery Lord, i.e., Shen-nong-jia, exists today. The ox-embodied Yandi tribal group embodied the transformation of husbandry to agriculture. The ancient classics stated that Yandi originated in the Yi-qi land, which was in fact today's Henan Province, or the central plains of China. In Shaanxi Province, the Huangdi's pilgrimage has been in existence since the ancient times. http://www.hmongcenter.org/inonkinchipa.html stated: i) that Mt Qiong-shan, i.e., the Arch Mountain, named to Mt. Qiao-shan by Sima Qian in SHI JI, was where Huangdi's real tomb located; ii) that in A.D. 936, Emperor SHI JIntang [SHI JIngtang] of Posterior Jinn Dynasty "gave sixteen counties [prefectures] in the north to Qidan Kingdom, and the Bridge Mountain in Zhuolu was included... Qidan ... Liao ... Emperor Shang Zong had Huang Di temple built for worship in A.D. 995; and iii) that ... the emperor of the North Song Dynasty ... angry, ... he ordered to build another Huang Di temple in Shenxi thousands of li away form the Bridge Mountain. Tuoba Wei Dynasty, which claimed a direct descent from Huangdi, apparently paid more respect to Huangdi at the Arch Mountain than any other ruler in history. (Note that only at the converging point of the three tribal groups, i.e., Zhuolu or Zhuozhou of Hebei Province, the "Huang Di City, Yan Di City and Chi You City" could all be found in the same place, which people might conjure to be products of modern tourism and commercialization)
Huangdi's Ethnicity
Among ill-intended claims as to a non-Mongoloid origin of the Chinese civilization, apparently deviation of the "racial approach" in regards to the origin of civilizations, there were claims about the Linzi DNA analysis. This webmaster have already observed some wild claims, including 1) the Qi Principality on the Shandong Peninsula must be non-Chinese since DNA studies of the Shandong remains had implication of maybe 'Caucasoid', 2) Confucius must be a Caucasian as a result of his birthplace in Shandong, and 3) Huangdi the Yellow Overlord must be a Caucasian because of the yellow tag designation. http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/20/2/214 carried an article about the new research paper by Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution, claiming that "The reanalysis of two previously published ancient mtDNA population data sets from Linzi (same province) then indicates that the ancient populations had features in common with the modern populations from south China rather than any specific affinity to the European mtDNA pool". (Prof Wei Chu-Hsien, in "China & America", had research into 'bat cave' drawings on Taiwan Island and concluded that ancient Taiwan aboriginals had migrated there from coastal China.)
Prof Wei Chu-Hsien cited the ancient classics "Shi-zi" (an approximately 338 B.C. works) in authenticating the ethnicity about the ancient barbarians in four directions: Guan-xiong-guo to the south, Chang-gu-guo (Chang-gong? long arm [later rewritten as long leg]) to the west, Shen-mu-guo (deep eye socket) to the north, and Yuhu and Yujing [east-sea and north-sea seagods in "SHAN HAI JING"] to the east and to the northeast. In the 4th century B.C.E., Shi-zi (Shi Zi, 390-330 B.C.E.) first wrote down the sentence speculating that 2000 years earlier, at the time of the Yellow Overlord [Huangdi (? B.C.E. 2697 - 2599; reign 2402-2303 with rule of 100 years per Zhu Yongtang's adjustment of BAMBOO)], there were the deep-eyesocket people, and the virtues of the Yellow Overlord often spread far away to the through-chest people, the deep-eyesocket people, and the long-arm people. (In SHAN HAI JING and HUAI NAN ZI, we then had the locality of the deep-eyesocket people who were pinned towards the north.) This brilliant piece of work by Shi-zi apparently adopted some then-current information available as of the 4th century B.C.E., in a similar fashion to the later forged book GUAN-ZI which, relying on the then-current information available as of the 1st century A.D., claimed that Qi Principality Hegemony Lord Huan'gong had crossed the Liu-sha [i.e., the Kumtag Desert, or the sandy river of today's Shanxi Province as this webmaster repeatedly said] to conquer the Yu-shi [or misnomer Yuezhi] people.
Here, this webmaster will, once and for all, settle the issues in regards to Huangdi or the Yellow Overlord, i.e., i) a semantic error in translating the overlord for 'di4' into emperor; ii) appropriation in attaching the Caucasian tag to Huangdi. This webmaster will use Shi-zi's record of the deep eye socket people to the north of Huangdi as corrobaration that the Huangdi people were not of deep-socket eyes at all. (Wei Chu-hsien did commit a fatal mistake in extrapolating on the 'tin decipher for the city of Wuxi ["no tin"] and polarized the Xia-Shang dynastic substitution as a fight between the Mongoloids [the Negroids to be in Wei's apparently blown-away alternative writing] and the Caucasoids, i.e., a fallacy that scholar Luo Xianglin opposed. Do note that Wei was a student of Wang Guowei who fallaciously proposed the notion of linking 'Hua' to the Avars and 'Xia' to the Tu-huo-luo kingdom in Central Asia.)
Furthermore, this webmaster had expounded the ethnic nature of the various Rong people in the section on the Huns and cleared the dispute in regards to the ethnicity of the 'Rong' people as merely the Sino-Tibetan Qiangic people, who split from the Sinitic people about 4000-5000 years ago and further diverged into the Western Qiangic people about 2500 years ago to become the ancestors of the Tibetans [after absording the high-plateau gene of the D-haplogroup natives, of course].
Now some expounding on the foundation on basis of which Shi-zi made the above observation. Namely, how did Shi-zi know that there were the deep-socket eye people [who were inferred to be living to the north of Huangdi or the Yellow Overlord who lived about 2000 years before the 4th century B.C.E.]? Unless Shi-zi had access to the ancient Chinese classics dating from the early 3rd millennium B.C.E., there was no way to prove the point. Shi-zi apparently adopted some then-current information available as of the 4th century B.C.E., in a similar fashion to the later forged book GUAN-ZI which, relying on the then-current information available as of the 1st century AD, claimed that Qi Hegemony Lord Huan'gong had crossed the Liu-sha or the Quick-sand Desert to conquer the Yu-shi [or misnomer Yuezhi] people. The speculation that this webmaster could provide would be that at about the 4th century B.C.E., i.e, the age of Shi-zi [i.e., teacher of Qin reformer Shang-yang, approx. 390-338 B.C.E.], there began the contacts of the Indo-Europeans with the Chinese to the northern or northwestern direction, i.e., about the time the Huns were to first send in Modu to the Yuezhi as hostage and then attacked the Yuezhi in the attempt of having the Yuezhi kill Modu so that the junior son of the Hunnic chanyu could ascend to the Hunnic crown prince's throne. (The Yuezhi people, however, might not be the misnomer Indo-European as they could be part of the barbarians whom Zhou King Muwang resettled at the origin of the Jingshui River in the 10th century B.C.E., among them, Yiqu, Yuzhi, Wuzhi, Xuyan and Penglu, namely, the five Rongs as noted in history -- which could be the origin for the misnomer 'Indo-European' Yuezhi. The recent DNA analysis of the remains of the ancient tombs had purportedly found the trace of the Q-haplogroup people along the routes that the Yuezhi people had dwelled. Do note that 2500 years ago, Confucius had recorded the phenomenon of back-flying birds, i.e., hummingbirds, which could mean that the Q-haplogroup AmerIndians might have a back flow towards Asia from the American continents.)
--This webmaster's alternative explanation of what 'liusha' [i.e., the flowing sand or the quick sand or the Kumtag Desert] could have meant would be to discard the link of 'liusha' to the Kumtag altogether. This webmaster speculated that the ancient people, if they had NOT forged the record to mean that Qi Lord Huan'gong had penetrated the Kumtag Desert, actually meant the word 'liusha' to be a 'sandy' river, like today's Sha-he River in central Shanxi Province. If so, then we have a coherent story to say that Qi Lord Huan'gong, in the campaigns against Da-xia and Xi-yu, crossed the Sha-he sandy river, climbed the Taihangshan mountain range and further crossed the Yellow River. In any case, this webmaster completely threw out Yu Taishan's soundex theory, and declare here that Qi Huan'gong did not leave the Sinitic China's domain at all, not even ever crossing the north-south-bound Yellow River bend at all, with his campaigns having nothing to do with the Kumtag Desert that was the Outer Limit of Sinitic China. (Or, the Kumtag story in the FENG CHAN PIAN section of GUAN ZI, was a made-up from the Qin-Han time period. Soong Dynasty scholar Shao Bo, in SHAO-SHI WEN-JIAN HOU-LU, stated that a Sui Dynasty erudite, by the name of Wang Tong [who was a descndant of Wang Xuanmo of the Liu-Soong Dynasty] concluded that 'feng chan' was an "extravagant heart" derivative product of the Qin-Han dynasties, which was to validate the book GUAN ZI as a book from no earlier than the Qin-Han time period.)
Shi-zi, who had fled to today's Sichuan basin 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 similar historical records from the southern or southwestern Chinese perspective. The only other book that carried the records of the real locality of the long-arm people would be "Zhou King Muwang's Trevelogue [Legends]", a 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 (ZHU SHU JI NIAN) and ZHOU SHU (i.e., the [upper] Zhou Dynasty Records, a book that Confucius [551-479 B.C.E.] had purportedly abridged from SHANG SHU [remotely ancient history] as the "wasted films".) When the 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] had the flavor of southern China (i.e., the mid-Yangtze land of the Chu Principality, plus the upperstream 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.
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 ancient people were saying was that scholar Wang Chong, in commenting on Sima Qian's comments in SHI JI as far as the Lord Yu's Tributes and the Records of the Mountains were concerned, was writing the words Shan [mountain] Jing [records], not Shan [mountain] Hai [sea] Jing [records]. The inference was that Sima Qian did not actually write the comment on Shan [mountain] Hai [sea] Jing [records], but Shan [mountain] Jing [records], yielding to a conclusion that the credible Chinese geography book of Shan [mountain] Jing [records] (from the Warring States time period) was later mixed up with the mythical chapters from "The Book on the Inner-Seas and the Book on the Over-Seas" and "The Book on the [Overseas] Wilderness" to become a highly speculative book Shan [mountain] Hai [sea] Jing [records]. Nevertheless, "The Book on the Inner-Seas and 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 OverSeas", Shi-zi of the 4th century B.C.E. had the corroboration that there were countries of the through-chest people, people with deeply-set eyes, and long brachial people beyond the Chinese border, while repeatedly the numerous sections of Shan [mountain] Hai [sea] Jing [records] stated in the "Records of the Northern Land Beyond the OverSeas" that there was to the northern direction a country of the deeply-set eyes people. (Also note that Guo Pu claimed that Chang-gu-guo (Chang-gong? long arm) often paid tribute to Huangdi.)
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. (In another sense, books on the Inner-Seas, on the Over-Seas, and on the Over-seas Wilderness, could be merely variations of the same book.)

(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. 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.)
More about SHAN HAI JING is available at http://www.imperialchina.org/ImperialChina/?p=331
The Orthodoxy Huangdi Lineage
The orthodox order in Sima Qian's Shi-ji gave us a big family picture. Late Professor Mou Runsun also found this tenuous. Before the doubt-ancient school scholars of the 20th century, we have Qin Mi, a scholar from the Three Kingdoms time period, expressing doubts in the article WU-DI RAN-FOU LUN, and followed by scholar Ouyang Xiu of the Soong dynasty pointing out that the five sovereigns could not have been of the same big family. (Late Professor Mou Runsun optimistically believed that should THE BAMBOO ANNALS have carried dates of the Xia and Shang lords, the other Zhou principalities must have their respective records of the dates --which were of course burnt by Qin Emperor Shihuangdi, something that could not be ascertained any more. Prof Mou, separately, cited ZUO ZHUAN and GUO YU's records to say that the ancient lords, in their discourse on antiquity, had merely the access to the rosters [i.e., 'gui zhong'] of dead ancestral spirits and the superstitious-purpose die-young boys' pottery coffin [i.e., 'shang gong'] kept by astrologists, namely, the blind-sighted 'gu' sorcerer and the minister 'shi[-lao]' or the elderly history chronicler. Should this be true, then the raw data could be merely some names lacking any dates.)

   |             (ZHUANXU)|
   |                              |
   |                              |------------------------Gun-------------------YU
    (SHAOHAO)           (DIKU)

Huangdi (? B.C.E. 2697 - 2599; reign 2402-2303 with rule of 100 years per Zhu Yongtang's adjustment of BAMBOO) married a woman from the Xiling (western mountain) Statelet who bore two sons, Xuanxiao and Changyi. His grandson, Lord Zhuanxu (? B.C.E. 2514 - 2437; reign 2399-2222 with rule of 78 years per Zhu Yongtang's adjustment of BAMBOO) succeeded him. Zhuangxu died at age 98. There was a dispute as to whether Xuanxiao (i.e., Shaohao) was ever enthroned. Ancient historians commented that Shaohao possessed the virture of 'gold' or 'metal', one of five metaphysical materials of China. (The five forms include wood, mud, water, metal and fire.) Alternative accounts would treat Shaohao [Jintian-shi, ? B.C.E. 2598 - 2515] as a ruler with a reign of 84 years, between Lord Huangdi (Xuanyuan-shi) and Lord Zhuanxu (Gaoyang-shi). Lord Zhuanxu's nephew, Diku or Di Ku (Gaoxin-shi, ? B.C.E. 2436 - 2367; reign 2218-2156 with rule of 63 years per Zhu Yongtang's adjustment of BAMBOO), was next. Diku had his capital in Bo, the later Shang capital and postulated to be today's Yanshi, Henan Province. Diku, at age 15, began to assist Lord Zhuanxu. Diku got enthroned at age 30 and died at age 105. Diku married a woman from Chen-feng-shi and born Fangxun, i.e., later Lord Yao (? B.C.E. 2357 - 2258; reign 2144-2048 with rule of 97 years and life of 118 years per Zhu Yongtang's adjustment of BAMBOO).
The Feng-niao-shi (phoenix) wording could have corrupted into one of the Nine Yi people, namely, the Feng(1)-yi or the Wind Yi, that carried the ancient Taihao wind-surname. Since ZUO ZHUAN carried an account of the Shaohao-shi dynasty's usage of the bird suffix for the court ministers, the reign could not be disputed, which would call into question the scant record carried in THE BAMBOO ANNALS -- which recorded the repeating Xia Dynasty kings' campaigns against the different suffix 'Yi' people -- unless we treated the remotely-ancient character of 'yi' as meaning merely the same as the Shang people's usage of 'fang' [domain] and Zhou people's usage of 'guo' [state]. Or THE BAMBOO ANNALS, which could be called the Jinn Principality's chronicles, did not treat the bird-totem Shaohao-shi dynasty as being of the same family as Sinitic China. Shao-hao-shi (i.e., the junior 'Hao' clan), said to be offsprings of earlier Tai-hao-shi (i.e., the senior 'Hao' clan), had included various bird-totem sub-clans such as Feng-niao-shi (phoenix), Xuan-niao-shi (black bird, i.e., the Shang people), Qing-niao-shi (green bird), Zhu-jiu-shi, and Shuang-jiu-shi etc, with all those bird-related naming being part of the eastern natives' tradition. While this webmaster adopted the simplistic equivalency of the bird totem to the [eastern] Yi natives living along the eastern Chinese coast, the most scientific explanation of the nature of Shao-hao could still be the theory of a Sinitic Shao-hao clique ruling the [eastern] Yi natives of ancient China. (Scholar Wu Limin, in rebutting Xu Xusheng, cited Lu Lord Xigong's 21st year (i.e., 639 B.C.) in ZUO ZHUAN to state that when the Viscount of the Xuqu {Xugou} state [which was eliminated by the Zhu-guo state] fled to Lu, Cheng-feng [i.e., dowager of Lu Lord Zhuanggong and mother of Lu Lord Xigong, carrying the wind surname of the Xuqu {Xugou} state] petitioned with the Lu lord for help in re-establishing the ancient Xuqu {Xugou} state: Cheng-feng made a claim that by doing so, the pilgrimage of Taihao and Youji [i.e., the river god of the ancient Ji-shui River, near today's Ji'nan, Shandong Province] could be continuing, which was in conformity with the Zhou dynasty's rituals. After Cheng-feng died in 618 B.C., the Qin state sent over the ritual clothes as condolence. What Wu Limin meant was that the Taihao reverence, or Shaohao, must be related to the Sinitic family; otherwise, why would Cheng-feng made the claim about the conformity with the Zhou rituals?)
Lord Yao
After the death of Diku, his elder son, Zhi (Gaoxin-shi), got enthroned, but Lord Yao took over the post after 9 years' weak rule by Zhi (reign ? 2366-2358 B.C.E.; Lord Di-zhi reign 2152-2144 with rule of 9 years per Zhu Yongtang's adjustment of BAMBOO). Zhi earlier conferred the title of Marquis Tang-hou on Yao. Hence Yao(3) was called Tang-yao (reign ? 2357-2258 B.C.E.; reign 2144-2048 with rule of 97 years and life of 118 years per Zhu Yongtang's adjustment of BAMBOO) or Tao-tang-shi [Tao-tang]. Alternatively speaking, Yao, per SHI JI, was originally conferred the land of Tang. The Tang locality was taken to be today's Tangxian county of Hebei Province in the east, which could be wrongly postulated. Lord Yao's birthplace should be corroborated in his mother's locality, which was somewhere near Wangdu, Zhengding, between today's Shijiazhuang and Baoding. Moreover, Yao, per the alternative interpretation in Han Shu, was buried in Jiyin-jun commandary (i.e., Dingdao of Shandong Prov) in the east. Han Shu mentioned a place called Tao-qiu in Dingtao of Shandong. --Here the appropriation of Yao's burial places could all be erroneous. Only the book that survived Qin Shihuangdi's book burning might have contained the truth. SHAN HAI JING, or the Legends of Mountains and Seas, talked about Lord Yao and his son Lord Danzhu's burial place, stating that Yao, Danzhu and Diku were all buried in some similar places called either by Dishan or Cangwu, the namings that were later appropriated to places outside of the central Sinitic China. The original Dishan or Cangwu had to be right in the heartland of Sinitic China, though.
Skipping all the above confusion, the history classics invariably carried the record of Tang-shu or Uncle Tang, and stated that Uncle Tang's domain was in today's southern Shanxi Province. Though lacking dots to connect, this webmaster took Uncle Tang as a hereditary title, simialr to the Queen Mother of the West and the Count (literally Elder Uncle) of the Yellow River, believed that those titles were carried by some real persona, and that Lord Tang-yao's descendants actually carried the title of Uncle Tang in the land of the original Sinitic China or today's southern Shanxi Province. If this is not enough, ZUO ZHUAN, in section on the 1st year of Lu Lord Zhaogong, carried a record about the four sons of Gaoxin-shi, saying the elder son (E-bo) and the 4th son (Shi-chen), for their constant fightings against each other, were forced to separate, with the elder son relocating to Shangqiu to become the ancestors of Shang while the fourth son relocating to Daxia [the grand Xia land] to become the ancestors of Tang. Since Gaoxin-shi (Di-ku) actuall was the father of Yao, the source of Uncle Tang could be said to be the same. The alternative saying was that lord Yao was a junior son who first assisted elder brother Zhi; that Lord Yao was conferred the land of Tang and called himself Tao-tang-shi, and that Lord Yao substituted the elder brother as the overlord. ZUO ZHUAN, however, further stated that elder son (E-bo) acted as the fire guardian for Tao-tang-shi. Give and take here, someone from the Gaoxin-shi lineage carried on the Uncle Tang hereditary title till Zhou King Chengwang dispatched Yu (Shu-yu) to the Tang land to be the new ruler, after quelling the rebellion of the Shang dynasty remnants - who shared the brotherly or blood relationship with the Shang dynasty royal house apparently.
Scholar Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua), citing his teacher Gu Xiegang [Gu Jiegang], stated that both Lord Yao and Lord Shun were appropriated to the land of 'Xia' after the Xia people's eastward expansion into the bird-totem Eastern Yi barbarian land. Liu Quyu had probably mis-interpreted the ancient records on the nature of lords Yao-Shun-Yu and the Yao-Shun-Yu people. (Gu Xiegang cited the ancient classics ZUO ZHUAN in stating that nowhere in ZUO ZHUAN could find reference that Lord Shun was surnamed 'Yao' or Lord Yao surnamed 'Tang' and that ZUO ZHUAN did not have any reference about the Yu-shi clan of the Xia people being the descendant of Lord Shun or Tao-tang-shi of the Xia people being the descendant of Lord Yao. Note that ZUO ZHUAN actually adopted the format of ***.shi for the overlords' names.)
Lord Shun
Lord Shun (reign 2257-2208 B.C.E. ?), aka Yu-shun, was called Chonghua or Yao Chonghua for his double apples in his eyes. As said before, alternative history records stated that Lord Shun was more of 'Yi' nature, which would be to say that Lord Shun, of Yao(2) surname, was born near Mount Yaoqiu, near Yuyao of today's Zhejiang Province in the Yangtze Delta. Ancient records of Kuaiji Commandary stated that Lord Shun was from Shangyu county and that Yaoqiu was 30 Chinese li away from Shangyu; Zhou Chu's Feng Tu Ji [Records of Winds and Soils] stated that Lord Shun was a Dongyi. Zhou Chu could be wrong in extrapolating the locality of Yao-xu to Zhejiang Province.) --This was proven to be wrong in the earlier passages as both Yuyao and Shangqiu were said to be the later conferred fiefdoms for Lord Shun's descendants.
Alternatively speaking, MENG-ZI stated that Shun was born in Zhufeng (wrongly taken to be Zhufeng of today's Shandong Province), relocated to Fuxia (wrongly taken to be Puyang of northeastern Henan Prov) and died in Miaotiao (wrongly taken to be near Kaifeng of Henan Prov); and MO-ZI stated that Shun had tilled the fields in Lishan (wrongly taken to be Heze county of Shandong Prov) and fished in Leize (wrongly taken as Lake Juye [or misnomer Lake Leixia-ze], Lake Heze or the Weishanhu Lake area of Shandong).
--Here, MENG-ZI or Mencius did not make erroneous statements, and it was the later people who mis-interpreted the namings. Zhufeng or Fuxia being lost in history, Lishan was ascertained to be today's Zhongtiaoshan Mountain on the northern bank of the Yellow River. That is, the original land of Sinitic China. Though, there were two claims at least for this southern Shanxi land the places where Lord Shun most likely lived, with one pointing to today's Yongji, and the other pointing to today's Yuanqu. Near Yongji, there was the Lei-shui River, as well as Lake Leize, to which the Lei-shui River flows; and there is the Lei-shou-shan Mountain, which was taken to be Mt. Lishan, where Lord Shun lived. More, there existed the ancient Gui-rui River that flowed westward into the Yellow River, for which Lord Shun derived his Gui surname and enjoyed the future denotion as the Gui-xu Ruins, which was counted as one of the five Gui-rui names, or Yao, Yu, Chen, Hu and Tian. This was substantiated by the YAO-DIAN section of SHANG SHU, in which Lord Yao was said to have married his two daughters to Lord Shun. This webmaster tended to interpret the Yongji [or Puzhou] place as where Lord Shun had relocated in his later life, not where he was originally born and grew up. Specifically, SHUI JING ZHU stated that [near today's Lishan-zhen Town of Yuanqu, Shanxi; and between Gucheng and Yangcheng,] there was the Jiao-shui River flowing south into a canyon, and about 40-li distance could be found Lord Shun's well, to the east of which was Guzhong [tomb of old 'blind' man Gu or Shun's father on top of today's Mingtiao-ling Ridge at Tongshan of Yuanqu], south of which was Zhufeng, the north of which was Mt. Lishan, southeast of which was Leize lake, and the northeast of which was the tilling fields. At the Yaoxu-cun Village on Mt. Zhufeng-shan, there exists today the so-called Shun-shikan or the stone shrine of Lord Shun.
In today's Shandong Province, YU GONG [Lord Yu's Tributes] did carry an account to the effect that there was a Lei-xia[-ze], with Han Dynasty's DI LI ZHI annotating it to be to the northwest of Chengyang County, a county name that was adopted during the Han dynasty, and Tang Dynasty's GUA DI ZHI annotating the lake to be to the northwest of Leize County, a county name that was adopted merely during the Sui dynasty. Before that, historian Sima Qian merely carried the ancient statement that Lord Shun had fished at the Leize Lake. The importance is that the Lei-ze Lake might not be the same as the Lei-xia[-ze] Lake, with YU GONG ambiguous about the name of Lei-xia while the future books such as SHAN HAI JING and HUAI NAN ZI claimed that Lei-xia was the name of a thunder god. SHAN HAI JING explicitly linked the existence of a Lei-xia thunder god to the Leize Lake. However, the same-name Lei-ze lake in SHAN HAN JING was interpreted by Wu Chengzhi to be the Lake Zhen-ze, which is Lake Taihu at the Yangtze Delta. Similarly, HUAI NAN ZI, another relatively old book, also talked about a thunder god in the Lake Leize. ZHOU YI (I-Ching, i.e., the Book of Changes) also talked extensively about some thunder god on the lake, equating the character "Zhen" to "Lei". (This webmaster believes that YU GONG did not meant Lei-xia to be a 'ze' or lake, but stated that the land of Lei-xia, which carried the same xia-suffix as "Fuxia" or "Fu-xia" [i.e., the land where Lord Shun relocated], was a Xia people settlement that ultimately transformed into a lake when the water of two nearby rivers was diverted there by Lord Yu.)
For five generations before Shun, his family members were civilians. Lord Shun was the 6th generation grandson of Lord Zhuanxu. At the age of 20, he was recommended to Lord Yao for his filiality to parents and love for his evil-nature brother. Lord Yao married two daughters, Nu-ying (who bore Shangjun) and Erhuang (E'huang), to Shun. Shun succeeded Yao as the overlord three years after mourning Yao's death. Legalist Han-fei-zi and ancient classics "THE BAMBOO ANNALS (ZHU SHU JI NIAN)" (i.e., a book that was excavated from Wei King Xiangwang's tomb) claimed that Lord Shun banished Lord Yao to the south and imprisoned Danzhu (Lord Yao's son). Shun would later quell Danzhu's rebellion. Shun would select many saints for managing the country, and this would include Yu (father of the Xia Dynasty's founder), Shang-ancestor-Xie4 (Shang Dynasty's ancestor), Houji (Zhou Dynasty's ancestor), Bo-Yi (Qin Dynasty's ancestor) et al. - a big family historical make-up, apparatently. At the suggestion of Yu, Lord Shun further divided the northeastern prefectures to make a total of 12 prefectures. Lord Shun died in the vicinity of Cangwu, and he was said later to be buried in latter-day Lingling Commandary [possibly wrongly speculated to be Mount Qiuyishan, Ningyuan County of Hunan Province, the same place where tens of thousands of landlords and their family members were murdered during the first phase of the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s]. (As to the death of Lord Shun, THE BAMBOO ANNALS claimed that it was Lord Yu who usurped the power and exiled Lord Shun to Canwu [? wrongly speculated to be southern China]. MENG-ZI, however, stated that Lord Shun died in Mingtiao {which should be in today's Yuanqu, Shanxi Province}, albeit making a wrong claim that Lord Shun was a Dong-yi. Alternatively speaking, Chu Bosi pointed out that Lord Shun had died in a southern expedition against the 'Miao' barbarians. Who said Chu Bosi knew more than the ancient people who made the only surviving history book THE BAMBOO ANNALS? SHAN HAI JING, in calling Lord Yao's son by Di-Danzhu or Lord Danzhu, also corroborated the fact that Lord Shun usurped Lord Yao/Lord Danzhu's overlord post.)
Lord Shun (? 2257 - 2208 B.C.E.; reign 2044-2006 with rule of 39 years and life of 100 years per Zhu Yongtang's adjustment of BAMBOO) was said to be a Dong-yi, but he also could be traced to the same family as Huangdi. The big family lineage was difficult to challenge. Lord Shun was mistakenly considered to be more of 'Yi' because he was said to be born near Mount Yaoqiu, near Yuyao of Zhejiang Province, or near the Hangzhou Bay or in the Yangtze Delta. Zhou Chu's Feng Tu Ji (Records of Winds and Soils), further commented that Lord Shun was a Dongyi. This could be a fallacy, though. At least at the early days of Zhou, Lord Shun was recognized to be an ancestor of the Gui-shi [or Kui-shi or no other person than Marquis Jiuhou, i.e., one of the three {vassal} marquis serving the last Shang dynasty lord], whose traditional dwelling land was just a bit to the south of the Grand Xia land, or the land of Chen (Wanqiu County), or the Taihao Ruins. Zhou King Wuwang, to lend legitimacy to the dynastic change to Zhou from Shang, revived the fiefs of discontinued lineages as well as revived fiefs of some of the legendary clans. Wuwang made further conferrals, and made the descendant of Shen-nong-shi (Lord Yandi, Fiery Lord, or the Devine Farmer) inherit the land of Jiao (Shanxian County, Shenxi), the descendant of Lord Huangdi [Yellow Lord] inherit the land of Zhu4, the descendant of Lord Yao inherit the land of Ji (a statelet to the southwest of today's Beijing, Hebei which was taken over by Yan later), the Gui-surnamed descendant of Lord Shun inherit the land of Chen (Wanqiu County), and the Si-surnamed descendant of Lord Yu inherit [i.e., continue the rule of] the land of Qih (Yongqiu, Bianzhou, near Kaifeng of Henan) with the title of Donglougong (whose 21st generation grandson was exterminated by the Chu Principality).
Some doctoral student in China thoroughly analyzed the ancient records, and determined that both the place of Yuyao and the place of Shangqiu [where Lord Shun conferred the fiefdom onto one of his descendants], i.e., the place namings that were linked to the Yi or Dong-yi people, were actually the later appropriation. That is, Lord Shun was actually an authentic Sinitic ancestor who was just like predecessor Yao [whose mother born him somewhere near today's Wangdu, Zhengding, between today's Baoding and Shijiazhuang] and successor Yu [who was born in the later land of Xi-qiang or today's Fufeng area, southwest of Xi'an. As the history records stated, Lord Shun was in fact born in Li-xiang or today's Mt. Zhongtiaoshan, the heartland of the Sinitic civilization, the ancient Tang-shu (Uncle Tang) domain, and the capital city area of the Xia dynasty. In the context of Sima Qian's writings on Lord Shun, there is the claim that Lord Shun, who was born near Lishan or today's southern Shanxi, had made potteries by the River [which was taken to be possibly the Fen-he River] and continued to manufacture utensils at Shouqiu, a place that had to be somewhere in southern Shanxi, not Shandong.
The Shang Dynasty people took pride in Lord Shun being their ancestors. Note that the Shang people did not say they were of the Yi nature, nor did they say that Lord Shun was a Dong-yi. According to Sima Qian's SHI JI, the ancestor of the Shang people was named Shang-ancestor-Xie4, a son of Lord Diku (? B.C.E. 2436 - 2367; reign 2218-2156 with rule of 63 years per Zhu Yongtang's adjustment of BAMBOO). Legends said that Shang-ancestor-Xie4 was born after his mother, Jiandi (Yousong-shi woman, a statelet said to be located in Yuncheng of today's Shanxi Province), swallowed the egg of a black bird (swallow). Fourteen generation descendant would be Tang (Shang-Tang), the founder of Shang Dynasty.
Lord Yu
Yu (r. B.C.E. 2204-2195 ?) would master the flooding which his father failed to control. Yu rezoned the country into nine prefectures and made the nine bronze 'ding' or cauldrons as embodiment of the nine prefectures called by 'jiu zhou'. HAN SHU pointed that the nine cauldrons 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. Yu had his footsteps reaching Dunhuang in the west and Jiaozhi in the south. Lord Yu was recommended to Lord Shun for succession, and he was conferred the title of Count Xia, with land at Yangdi. Ban Gu of Latter Han Dynasty disputed the generation gap between Lord Zhuanxu and Lord Yu, claiming that if Gun was the fifth generation grandson of Lord Zhuanxu, then Lord Yu would be six generations away from Lord Zhuanxu.
Lord Yu was the grandson of Lord Zhuanxu. There was a dispute here as to Lord Yu. Sima Qian thought that Lord Yu was born in today's Yuxian County, Henan Province, but other people had claimed that Lord Yu came from the "Western Rong" tribe as Lord Yu was also named 'Rong-yu'. Huangfu Mi said that Mencius also believed that Lord Yu was born in Shiniu (stony button), a land where the "Western Qiangs" lived. Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua) validated the location of 'xi' or west as nothing other than the areas to the west of today's Tongguan Pass of eastern Shenxi Province. Now, this webmaster believed that those were wrong interpretation. There were no such concept as the "Western Rong" or the "Western Qiangs" during Overlord Yu's reign. It was the later people who attached the tag of the land of the "Western Rong" or the "Western Qiangs" because the original land, where Lord Yu was born, had become the dwelling place of the newer groups of people called by the "Western Rong" or the "Western Qiangs". Mt. Shiniu-shan was commonly taken to be inside of Shiquan (stony spring) County, somewhere in Wenchuan of today's northern Sichuan, namely, near Mt. Minshan, where Lord Yu repaired the river that was taken to be the origin of the Yangtze and Han-shui River in the ancient times. (The origin of the Yangtze was wrongly taken to be at Mt. Minshan of today's Sichuan, with YU GONG stating that Lord Yu started the repair of the Yangtze from Mt. Minshan, with the flow to turn into the Tuo-shui River to the east. KONGZI JIAYU, i.e., Confucius' Mottos, purportedly carried a statment from Confucius to the effect that the Yangtze originated from Mt. Minshan, where the water was like the drip from a wine cup.)
Scholar Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua), citing his teacher Gu Xiegang, stated that in both the Xia people and Chu people's legends, the common gods happened to be Gun and Yu, not Yao and Shun. Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua) stated that both Lord Yao and Lord Shun were appropriated to the land of 'Xia' after the Xia people's eastward expansion into the bird-totem Eastern Yi barbarian land. (In the opinion of this webmaster, the Chu people's royal heritage came from the actual Xia Sinitic people, but they went on to rule the cousin-O3-haplogroup people who were called by the Hmong-miens.)
Most likely, the Xia people, as represented by Gun [Count Chong-bo], Yu [Count Xia] and Qi, belonged to a western shoot of the Sinitic people who took today's northwestern Hubei, northeastern Sichuan and southern Shenxi/Henan as their homeland before they expanded northward and eastward. Whereas Lord Yao and Lord Shun were the earlier Sinitic people who moved eastward to rule over the mixed Sino-Tibetan/Hmong-mien people [who apparently arrived in the eastern Chinese coast ahead of the mixed Sino-Tibetan/Hmong-mien people and the Sinitic Xia people] and the Yi people.
Lord Yu, in mastering the floods, had travelled across the country. In today's Zhejiang Province, near the east coast, people could still find his monument at which site Qin Emperor Shi Huangdi had once revered 2200 years ago. Though the Xia people led by Lord Yu had originated in northwestern and central China, the Xia descendants had apparently been linked to the rice culture in the Yangtze Delta. Recent excavation had provided further support to this claim. Chen Shou's San Guo Zhi, written almost 1800 years ago, had even linked the similarity of tattoos on the fishermen in Zhejiang to the rice culture people living on the western coast of Japan around the 2nd-3rd centuries. The Wa people of Japan were recorded to have tattoos all over their body, in a similar fashion to the people in the Yangtze Delta where the descendants of King Shaokang of Xia Dynasty (21-16th c. BC; ? 2207 B.C.E. - 1766 BC; 1978-1559 from lord Qi to lord Jie per raw data from THE BAMBOO ANNALS or 1991-1559 per Zhu Yongtang) had lived. The ancient Japanese, though, claimed that they were descendants of Tai-bo of the Wu kingdom. Wang Chong succintly wrote that the ancient Japanese had sent in the stems to Zhou King Chengwang. No matter descendants of the Xia people or the Wu people, the ancient Japanese, other than the main components of the coastal Yi people, had components of the ancient Wu or ancient Yue people of the Yangtze delta.
Historian Luu Simian cited Li Ji: Jifa Zhengyi's preface from Chunqiu Minli in stating that Lord Yandi [Da-ting-shi] had 8 generations or 520 years; Lord Huangdi [Xuan-yuan-shi] had 10 generations; Lord Di-xuan [Shaohao or Jin-tian-shi] had 8 generations or 500 years; Lord Zhuanxu [Gao-yang-shi] had 20 generations or 350 years; and Lord Di-ku [Gao-xin-shi] had 10 generations or 400 years. Luu Simian also gave multiple statements from the different classics, and concluded that one don't have to thread the years or generations of ancient lords to make it contiguous but roughly understood how the ancient Chinese rule had continued. This is a good point. Though, this webmaster had suspicion that many of those ancient lords were possibly the words of Aesop-type fables as seen in ZHUANG ZI and Lie-zi - unless Zhuang-zi and Lie-zi did possess some lost classics on basis of which they made their statements. This webmaster has doubt, though. For example, LIE-Zi, in the section on ZHONG-NI (Confucius), raised questions about the three kings (i.e., Lord Yu, Shang-tang, and Zhou King Wuwang), the five sovereigns (Huangdi, Zhuanxu, Diku, Lord Yao and Lord Shun) and three 'huang' overlords (Suiren-shi, Fuxi-shi and Shennong-shi, impressing this webmaster as a latter-day addon or forgery as at the time of Confucius, there was no traceable progenitors beyond the ancient Feng[-wind]-surnamed Taihao tribe/Jiang-surnamed Yandi tribe and the Ji-surnamed Huangdi tribe.
The Restrictive Definition of Hua (Huaxia) vs Yi
Confusion abounds here in that many legendary figures carry multiple names and that multiple identifies could be made onto one single person. While Sima Qian had analyzed the ancient classics to make sense of legends, there existed books like "SHAN HAI JING" which further mystified the ancient Chinese overlords. Myths and legends varied. For example, Yumang (Yuwang), a descendent of Shennong (Shin-nong), was said to be the twin brother of Huangdi (Xuanyuan) the Yellow Lord. The Korean nationalist point of view claimed that Shao Dian (So-jeon) was said to be same as Shen-nong the Divine Farmer, a sinicized Yi, which was of course wrong. The Korean viewpoint certainly had its bias in that it tried to polarize the Hua vs Yi for sake of asserting the predominance of the Yi over the Hua people. http://www.clas.berkeley.edu/~korea/Nat%27nalist_Chronology.html further claimed that in 3528 B.C.E., "the Dongyi people annexed territory held by Hua chieftain Zhuiren". During the Dongyi reign of 2707 BC-2598 B.C.E., Yumang (Yuwang), descendent of Shin-nong (apparently Hua-mingled or 'sinicized'), "tried to reach the coast by military means", but the Dongyi army "crushed them and occupied their capital, Gongsang (Kongsang, in present Shandong)". --The Korean claim, in the opinion of this webmaster, was a recent attempt to reinterpret the ancient classics such as SHAN HAI JING and HUAI NAN ZI. The Koreans, of course, did not know that their identities have at last two layers, i.e., i) those ancient coastal people who crossed the seas to cultivate rice on the Korean peninsula and Japan, and ii) those invaders from today's Inner-Mongolia belt and Manchuria, who went on to found the two kingdoms of the three kingdoms of Korea about 2,000 years ago.
Though, Sima Qian wrote his history from Huangdi onward; SHANG SHU began with Lord Yao; and ZUO ZHUAN, however, repeatedly talked about i) Taihao (i.e., Feng[-wind]-surnamed), ii) Shaodian, as well as iii) Yandi (i.e., Jiang-surnamed) the Fiery Lord. On basis of the ancient Chinese classics, there should exist Tai-dian the Grand Dian, an unknown forerunner progenitor, ahead of Shao-dian the Junior Dian. Unfortunately, no records were found to substantiate a figure who could be called Tai-dian or Taidian, other than Tai-hao the Grand Hao which did precede Shao-hao the Junior Hao. According to ZUO ZHUAN, Tai-hao (Taihao) adored the dragon, while Shao-hao (Shaohao) adored the birds, with phoenix being merely one of the varieties of bird-titled tribes and clans. JINN YU of GUO YU further stated that both Huang-di and Yan-di were born by the Shao-dian-shi tribe which had a tradition of marrying with the You-qiao-shi tribe. Shaodian was disputed to be the name of a state or tribe rather than an person.
On basis of ZUO ZHUAN, the 17th year of Lu Principality Lord Zhaogong, there were the succession of ruling by Taihao-shi's using the dragon suffix for court ministers, Yandi-shi's using the fire suffix, Huangdi-shi's using the cloud suffix, Gonggong-shi's using the water suffix, and Shaohao-shi adopting the phoenix symbol for court ministers, which then mutated into a few dozens of tribes and clans with different colors and different birds as totems. In about the last 2000 years, ancient scholars began to write about the mythic figure Fuxi and equated him to the legendary progenitor Taihao as recorded in ZUO ZHUAN. No matter this conjure-up had validity or not, the records prior to the book burning did present us some credible successive rulings that started with Taihao and ended with Shaohao, albeit figures with different surnames. Here, Taihao was wind-surnamed but adored dragon, while Shaohao was said to be named Xuanxiao, an elder son of Huangdi the Yellow Lord and having grandson Lord Diku (Gaoxin-shi) who was the ultimate ancestor of lord Zhi/lord Yao as well as all the future imperial families of Shang and Zhou dynasties. Separate lines of Shaohao would yield the ancestors of the Qin, Zhao and Chu statelets etc.
All in all, the Xia people under Lord Yu fell under the lineage of Changyi, a junior son of Huangdi the Yellow Lord, notwithstanding the record that Lord Shun, prior to Lord Yu, had already built a city called Fu-xia, withe 'xia' suffix embedded.
The Origin of Xia
Today's Chinese would believe that the Hua People will be those agricultural settlers in the Yellow River area, with a claim that Yandi (the Fiery Lord) or Shen-nong the Divine Farmer (approx. 3168 BC) was their ancestor. Though 'Hua', 'Huaxia' or 'Xia' had been generalized as the embodiment of the orthodox Chinese who had descended from the Yandi-Huangdi lineages, the actual terminilogy did not come about till Lord Yu's time, that is, several hundred years after Huangdi's times.
The name 'Xia' came from the title of Count Xia that Lord Yu received from Lord Yao as conferral, i.e., the fief in Yangdi (a place in dispute as to Henan or Shanxi Province). Though, the name should have existed before that, as seen in Daxia (the grand Xia land) where Gaoxin-shi (Di-ku) assigned the 4th son (Shi-chen) as a fief, who came to represent the star of 'shen-xing' {three stars of Alnitak, Alnilam and Mintaka}, known as white tiger in Chinese or the Orion in the west. (Scholar Fu Sinian studied the bronze inscriptions, i.e., jin wen, from the Zhou times and concluded that the ancient five rankings of duke, marquis, count, viscount, and baron did not conform with the bronze inscription or classics such as SHANG SHU or SHI JING. Fu Sinian stated that duke [gong], count [bo], viscount [zi], and baron [nan] were originally used within a royal family as rankings; governmentally, 'bo' or count was the leader of a conferred fief while 'hou' or marquis was for denoting the vassal guarding the border posts.)
Furthermore, at the beginning, prior to Lord Yu's conferral, there was the so-called Fuxia city that was built by Lord Shun, with the 'xia' suffix meaning a settlement in the opinion of this webmaster. This was earlier than Lord Yu's enjoying the conferral as Count Xia. In Lord Yu's Tributes, YU GONG, we further have the land of Lei-xia turning into a lake. There, the character 'xia' apparently meant for the Xia settlements. With the establishment of Xia Dynasty, the Xia settlements multiplied in the central plains, forming into the "Zhu-xia" or various Xia entities. (The 'Zhu-xia' characters, other than GUAN-ZI and ZUO ZHUAN, were also seen in GUO YU, LV-SHI-CHUN-QIU, XUN-ZI, while the HUA-XIA characters were seen in SHANG SHU and ZUO ZHUAN.)
Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua) pointed out that after the demise of Xia, whoever stayed in Shanxi/Shenxi provinces continued to call themselves by the 'Xia' people. The first Zhou king, King Wenwang, eulogized the eastward flow of the Feng-shui River as Lord Yu's accomplishment, and numerous Zhou Dynasty records stated that they were descendants of Xia Dynasty's founder Lord Yu. The Wei Principality, which inherited the southermost Jinn land of today's southern Shanxi Province, described themselves as riding in the Xia-chariots and claiming to be a Xia King. A Qin Principality official also denoted himself as Xia-zi or a son of the Xia people because his mother was a Qin-ren (i.e., the Qin people) from the Yellow River inflexion area. In the ancient classics, during the south-north dynasties, occasional usage of the word 'Xia-ren' (i.e., the Xia people), had been adopted for differentiating the Chinese of Sichuan Province from the barbarians there.
Ancient classics, like "Zhan Guo Ce", "Shuo Wen", "Han Shu", paraphrased 'Xia' as meaning the central statelet. "ZHUANG ZI", in the section on Tian Di Bian (i.e., heaven and earth), mentioned a dialogue between Zhunmang and Yuanfeng in regards to Zhuangmang's sailing into the East Sea and polarized "zhongguo" (the central statelet) and 'si hai' (the four seas). Xu Hao, in comments on "Shuo Wen", stated that the Yi-di barbarians began to invade China at the times of the Xia people and that then Chinese were hence named Xia-ren or the Xia people. Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua) listed similar parallel antagonism of 'ji-zhou' and 'si hai' in "Chu Ci" (The Chu Principality Poems) and "HUAI NAN ZI" to validate the exact location of the land of 'Xia' as equivalent to the ancient 'ji-zhou' prefecture, i.e., today's southern Shanxi Province. Similarly, Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua) cited similar parallel antagonism of 'zhongguo' (the central statelet) versus 'si yi' (four groups of the barbarians) in "ZUO ZHUAN" for a same-sense interpretation.
Who Were the Yi People
Yi, a word meaning the people with bows semantically, had spread across Jiangsu-Anhui-Shandong-Henan-Hebei-Manchuria to become Dong-Yi per Luo Xianglin. This could be a simplified viewpoint. The Yi-people were noted for their bird-totem which had its imprints in excavations from the Liangzhu Culture 7000 years ago, and the Yangshao/Longshan Cultures 4000-5000 years ago. The Yi people's totem should be considered the mainstream of Chinese civilization should we examine the domain of the Yi people to find out that it was much larger than the southern Shanxi Province where the Xia people originally dwelled. Though, the bird totem people might not be of a single origin. In today's Shandong peninsula alone, archaeologists had discerned the difference of two Longshan cultures, the inland versus the coastal. In the later times of Zhou Dynasty, a Qi-guo king, who was a descendant of the Xia dynasty, was said to be a Qi-yi, carrying the 'Yi' suffix for his adoption of the Yi people's customs. The ancient records invariably pointed to the equivalence of the ancient Yi people and the ancient Yue people. This shows the drastic difference between the Xia/Zhou people and the Yi people, with ambiguity here to the effect that the Shang people could be having elements of the Yi people. The only possible reconciliation, in the view of this webmaster, would be to treat the Shang people [who claimed a same origin as the Xia people or from the Yellow Lord] as being of a less orthodox Xia nature but of the mixed Sino-Tibetan/Hmong-mien lineage, a remotely-related O3-haplogroup people who had moved to the east before the Sinitic O3-haplogroup to have mixed up with the O2-haplogroup Yi-Yue along the coast.
The 'Dong-yi' designation came into the stage much later than the 'Five Di' time period. Scholar Wang Zhonghan cited "GUAN-ZI" in stating that it would be around the middle of the Warring States time period that Qi Principality's chronicle editors adopted the terms of four barbarians as might have existed at the time of GUAN-ZI [Guan Zhong] of the Spring & Autumn time period of the Eastern Zhou Dynasty.
The [misnomer] Yi people, i.e., descendants of Tai-hao-shi & Shao-hao-shi, did not identify themselves during the fighting between Huangdi and Chiyou. It is possible that Chiyou's 9 tribal groups or 81 tribes had included the [misnomer] 'Yi' people. In fact, the Chinese classics repeatedly stated or hinted that Yandi was Chiyou, which led to this webmaster's rewrite of the prehistory at http://www.imperialchina.org/ImperialChina/?p=6 to point out that Huangdi was a late newcomer. More, interesting records in ZUO ZHUAN section on the 17th year of Lu Principality Lord Zhaogong carried a dialogue between Tan-zi and the Lu lord in regards to the Shaohao-shi's practice of using the bird suffix for the titles of court ministers. Tan-zi's reply was that Shaohao-shi, who was his ancestor, had adopted the symbol the same way as Huangdi-shi's using the cloud suffix, Yandi-shi's using the fire suffix, Gonggong-shi's using the water suffix and Taihao-shi's using the dragon suffix. The point here is that the ancient people did not really make a distinction between the bird totem people and the Sinitic people. The ancient people merely treated the symbols as metaphysical embodiment of a dynasty. Modern DNA technology did prove that the Sino-Tibetans, i.e., the true Sino-Tibetan [O3 haplogroup] were from the west, the original Yi[-Yue] people [O2 haplogroup] along the coast, and the Miao-Man [Hmong Mien] people [O3 haplogroup] from the south. They had branched off from possibly today's southwestern China, and moved to converge towards the central plains and the coast - where dwelled the historic feud C-haplogroup Tungus people before they were evicted to Manchuria by the Sinitic people.
The Sinitic ruling class did not identify with the Yi people. Generations later, Lord Shun suggested to Lord Yao to have Gun (Lord Yu's father) executed on Mount Yu-shan (i.e., the feather mountain, said to be in today's Linyi County, Shandong Province) for creating detente onto the 'Yi' barbarians. Here, Lord Shun, who was mistakenly appropriated to be a 'Dong-yi' (i.e., the Eastern Yi), had in fact taken quite some measures against the Yi people. Per Lu Lord Zhaogong's 7th year records of ZUO ZHUAN, the feather mountain and the feather pond where Gun's spirits mutated into a brown bear would be actually the 'Xia jiao' or the Xia capital city's outskirts where the oblation temple was, some pilgrimage that the lords of the three dynasties visited in reverence. Previously, SHUI JING ZHU hinted that some segment of the Yi-shui River was from the transformation of Gun's body, which meant that Gun and the earliest Xia people had their actual domain in the very place of 'zhong guo', i.e., the center nation. After Lord Shun would be Lord Yu. As pointed out by scholar Zhang Fan in his article, "Reserach Into the Shang Totems and Confucius' Ancestry", Lord Yu, per "MO-ZI", had spread teachings to the nine Yi people in the east. See the Xia-Shang Dynasties for details on the numerous Eastern Yi groups, including: 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. Prof Wei, alternatively, made a wild claim that Mount Yu-shan, i.e., feather mountain, could be islands in the Pacific Northeast where the ancient Chinese sea travellers had observed huge layers of feather from the migrating birds, hence linking up the legend of Gun's body transforming into a brown bear, a word that could be mis-interpreted. The Feng[4]-niao-shi (phoenix) wording could have corrupted into one of the Nine Yi people, namely, the Feng(1)-yi or the Wind Yi, that carried the ancient Taihao wind-surname. (Though, some scholars claimed that the 'yi' terminology used in the Xia dynasty could mean nothing more than what the Shang dynasty meant by the 'fang' [domain] suffix and the Zhou dynasty meant by the 'guo' [state] suffix.)
Scholar Wang Zhonghan pointed out that the character 'Yi', having appeared as the Shi-fang statelet in Shang Dynasty's oracle bones, would still exist in today's Shangdong-Jiangsu provinces and around the Huai-shui River by the late Spring & Autumn time period of Eastern Zhou Dynasty. Wang Zhonghan, after analyzing the wars between the Zhou people and the numerous Yi people, had concluded that the "Eastern Yi" [in the Shandong Peninsula] had declined as a result of expeditions conducted by Duke Zhou-gong and King Cheng-wang in the early Western Zhou time period; that "Huai-yi" [around the Huai-shui River] emerged from the middle to late time periods of Western Zhou Dynasty; that "Nan-yi" [in the southern or southeastern direction] rose up in influence at time of Zhou King Liwang; and that by the time of the Qin-Han Dynasties, 'Dong-yi' would be merely designation for the people in northeastern China, including Korea and Japan.
More about the "Eastern Yi People" is available at http://www.imperialchina.org/ImperialChina/?p=311
Restricted Definition Of the Hua-xia People
As scholar Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua) pointed out, 'hua' and 'xia', pronounced the same way as [hwer] in the Yangtze Delta dialects, would mean for the group of people dwelling to the north of the ancient South Yellow River Bend and to the east of the ancient West Yellow River Bend. (The ancient West Yellow River Bend is the same as today's East Yellow River Bend. The ancient Yellow River Bend did not equate to today's inverse U-shaped course with the North Bend lying inside Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, but the U-shaped Bend with the South Bend in southern Shanxi Province and then a south-to-north turn in Hebei Province for exit into the sea.)
Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua)'s dissertation proposed an opposite movement of the Xia people, i.e., that the Xia people, the direct descendants of Huangdi with the dragon totem, originally dwelled in southern Shanxi Province and then expanded eastward and southward, across the South Bend, to today's Henan Province. The Xia people, under Qi (Lord Yu's son), defeated the You-hu-shi [the misnomer Dong-yi] people, built cities and a capital city in Henan Province, endured power struggles with the [misnomer] Dong-yi people under Hou-yi and Han-zhuo, and stayed in today's Henan Province for hundreds of years till Shang-tang's group defeated them. After Shang Dynasty overthrew Xia, the remnant Xia people, per Wang Guowei, fled northward and westward, and majority of them were said to have returned to their ancestral home in southern Shanxi Province. However, history said that Shang-tang had allowed the Xia people to continue their heritage as the Qi-guo statelet. More, THE BAMBOO ANNALS clearly delineated a situation that the Shang people came from the north side of the Xia people, conquered numerous statelets around the Xia center, including the area to the southwest of the Yellow River inflexion, and then defeated the Xia king along the northern bank of the Yellow River. Some of those Xia people who fled northward and westward, per Wang Guowei, would become the Yuezhi (i.e., a soundex to the Yu-shi tribe) in the west and the Huns in the north. Note that Wang Guowei's speculation as to Yuezhi would throw the discussion into an ethnicity dispute unless we discount the excavated Indo-European mummies of Xinjiang [New Dominion] as belonging to the Yuezhi. See Wang Guowei's theory of invaders coming from the East while traders from the West for understanding the nature of the nine Zhaowu clans of the Yuezhi.
In the paragraph on Rong's Possible Link To the Qiangic People, this webmaster detailed the composition of the Rong people to derive a good conclusion that some of the Rongs at the time of Zhou Dynasty could be of the Qiangic nature and the Rong people in the west shared the same blood-line with the Xia Chinese but differred in the 'Culture' such as cuisine, clothing, money [actually gifts of value bestowed on each other] and language. The distinction between the Sinitic and proto-Tibetan/Qiangic ancestors lied in the culture and politics, which was basically some rituals and a system to observe as well as an ancient court-to-court courier system to keep the ruling cliques in touch, through pilgrimage and assemblies. Also see my rebuttal on the GUAN-ZI's Yuezhi jade trade forgery in Preliminary Discussions on Forgeries in Chinese Classics, as well as refer to my discussions of the geography related to the 3rd century B.C.E. Hunnic-Yuezhi War. This webmaster made a hypothetical claim here that the Huns could have encountered the Yuezhi at the "Great Lake" ("da ze"), namely, the Juyan Lake. In the Juyan-ze Lake area, bamboo strips were discovered, with evidence of existence of the names of the same nine Zhaowu clans 80 years or 3-4 generations after the first Hunnic attack against the Yuezhi: K'ang (Samarkand), An (Bukhara), Shih (Tashkent, i.e., Kishsh [Kashana]), Mi (Maymurgh [Penjikent]), Ts'ao (Kaputana), Ho (Kushanik [Kusanya]), Mu (Murv, ? Huoxun [Khwarezmia]), and Su (Sudi, Bilinmemektedir).
Lord Yu (r. B.C.E. 2204-2195 ?; raw reign years B.C.E. 2002-1992 with three years' mourning per THE BAMBOO ANNALS) or Da Yu, a descendant of Huangdi, was said to be a so-called 'Xi-yi Ren' (a western alien) because he had origin or birth in the land of the [future] Xirong (Western Rong) and/or [future] Xi Qiang people. From this perspective, we could say that the 'Hua' or 'Xia' designation would be more of barbarian nature in the west than the later Shang Chinese who were taken as the misnomer Yi people for their legendary descent from the 'xuan niao' or the black bird.
Scholar Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua) further tackled the issue of 'xi' or west. His validation pointed to the land of 'he qu' (i.e., the inflexion point of the Yellow River bends) as the 'land of the west', i.e, the later land between the Qin and Jinn principalities. He also validated the ancient Chinese prefecture of 'ji-zhou' as equivalent to the ancient term 'zhong-guo' for China, and listed multiple ancient classics to lock down the land of original China as being the domain of today's southern Shanxi Province. (Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua) pointed out that original places for Taiyuan and Jinyang etc would be in southern Shanxi Province and that they did not get appropriated to central and northern Shanxi Province until after Jinn Lord Daogong quelled the various 'Di2' statelets to the north. Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua) further stated that after the split of Jinn into the Haan-Zhao-Wei principalities, the southernmost Wei statelet got the privilege to be called Jinn due to the fact that Jinn historically inherited the ancient Xia land that was termed 'ji-zhou' the Ji4 prefecture or 'zhong-guo' the central statelet.)
On the West Yellow River Bend, there was the ancient Xiazhou Prefecture which still bears the ancient name of 'Xia'. Today, it is called the 'Ning-xia Autonomous Region, with the character 'xia' embedded inside. Similar to the Hua-shan Mountain appropriation, the name Xia would have been appropriated by the later people due to the historical linkage of the Huns to the Xia people. The Huns at once set up a kingdom called 'Xia' (AD 407-431), and the Tanguts proclaimed their own Da Xia [i.e., grand Xia], i.e. Xixia or the Western Xia Dynasty (AD 1032-1227) in the same place. In history, the Hunnic Xia was termed the Western Xia. Hence, in the excavated book Zhou King Muwang's travelogue, we had the confusing sentence stating the length of travel from and to the western Xia people's land, which could only be interpreted to be a footnote inserted by the later scholars to point to the land west of the Western Yellow River Bend as being occupied by the Hunnic Xia statelet of the 5th century. (Xia was also the Chinese name for Bactria. Wang Guowei speculated that the Yuezhi people, after their defeat in the hands of the Huns, fled to Bactria to found a similar 'xia' kingdom and that even the later 'Tu-huo-luo' kingdom of today's Afghanistan could be a mutation of the ancient pronunciation for 'da xia'. This webmaster expounded on Wang Guowei's blunder in the Huns' section. Note that Bactria existed at the time of Alexandre's invasion which was before the Yuezhi migrated to the west.)
Now, we need to point out that the Xia character had changed in its meaning. At the very beginning, there was the so-called Fuxia city that was built by Lord Shun, prior to Lord Yu's enjoying the conferral as Count Xia. In Lord Yu's Tributes, YU GONG, we further have the land of Lei-xia turning into a lake. There, the character 'xia' apparently meant for the Xia settlements. With the establishment of Xia Dynasty, the Xia settlements multiplied in the central plains, forming into the "Zhu-xia" or various Xia entities, which continued on throughout the Xia-Shang dynasty eras. Per Shen Shanzeng, there were no real sense fiefdoms in either the Xia era or the Shang era. The country of China was a loose confederation of the "Zhu-xia" or various Xia entities and the non-Xia entities. Further, per Shen Shanzeng, the non-Xia entities, during the Xia timeframe, should be properly termed 'Yi-Di' and likely a designation for the emerging Shang power, with 'Yi2' meaning the non-Xia tribes/countries to the east and the 'Di2' element pointing to the north. This was how Shen Shanzeng interpreted the Confucius statement in regards to the demise of the Xia people's lords being worse than the lack of rulers among the barbarian 'Yi-Di' people. And, per Shen Shanzeng, the 'Xia' definition was restricted in the Zhou dynasty time period, with the Zhou court terming the Ji-surnamed statelets by "Zhu-hua" while the non-Ji-surnamed vassals termed "Zhu-xia". This was seen in a statement from Lu Lord Xianggong 4th year, to the effect that Jinn Lord Daogong, a marquis, was disuaded by minister Wei Jiang (Wei Zhuang-zi) from attacking Baron Jiafu (Zi-jiafu) of the Wuzhong statelet with a claim that the Jinn state would lose the Zhu-hua statelets to the Chu Principality to the south while attacking the barbarian statelet to the north. In the authentic section XIAO-KUANG of GUAN-Zi, there was a statement to the effect that Qi Lord Huan'gong had built the south-to-north [Cai-Yanling-Peixia{?Fuxia}-Lingfuqiu{Lingfu Hill; ?Lingqiu}], and west-to-east [Wulu{five deer;Qingfeng of Hebei}-Zhongmou-Ye-Gaiyu{Heshun of Shanxi}-Muqiu{peony hill:Zhuangping of Shandong}] defense lines to guard the Zhu-xia statelets against the Rong-di barbarians (Rong to the west and Di2 to the north) and the non-Sinitic Chu statelet to the south. The 'Zhu-xia' characters, other than GUAN-Zi and ZUO ZHUAN, were also seen in GUO YU, LV-SHI-CHUN-QIU, XUN-ZI, while the HUA-XIA characters were seen in SHANG SHU and ZUO ZHUAN.
The playgrounds for the Yi and Hua-[xia] people were quite extensive. In contrast with the map which usually depicted the Yellow River and the Shandong Peninsula as the domain for the ancient Xia Chinese, there are convincing stories that the ancient Chinese had expanded towards both south and west. Today's Chinese, without distinction, would usually call themselves the descendants of Yan-Huang, namely, the Fiery Lord and Yellow Lord, while not acknowledging that the Yi people, the Hmongmien people, the mixed Sino-Tibetan/Hmong-mien people, and the mixed Xia-Yi-Hmongmien people might have comprised a much larger percentage of the original non-Sinitic Chinese.
Huangdi [i.e., the Yellow Overlord] married a woman from the west (i.e., Xi Ling Nv'); Huangdi climbed Mount Xiongshan; Huangdi married his sons with women from today's Sichuan Province. Huangdi's grandson, Lord Zhuanxu, had his influence reaching Jiaozhi, today's Guangdong-Guangxi provinces bordering Vietnam. Yu the Great quelled the flooding as far as the Yangtze Delta, and in today's Zhejiang Province there still existed a monument in honor of him. Lord Yu was recorded to have opened the Longmen [dragon gate] Gorge for the Yellow River to flow downstream, and he was also responsible for repairing the nine rivers in the lower plains where the Yellow River converged to flow into the sea. There was an ancient claim that during the Soong dynasty, the Kuaiji people, when rebuilding the Yu Pilgrimage, dug up some one hundred pieces of jade articles ('Gui') that were considered the ancient instruments of the power conferral for the vassals. The Kuaijishan Mountain would be where Lord Yu convened the vassals. Lord Yu was buried on the Kuaijishan Mountain, said to be in today's Shaoxing, Zhejiang Province, after he toured the area and passed away.
Also evident would be the peaks of Lady Xiang-jun on the Yangtze River in today's Hunan Province, said to be embodiment of the wife of Lord Shun. Lord Shun died in the land of Cangwu, a place postulated to be in today's Guangxi, near the Gungdong border, and was buried on Mount Jiuyishan, postulated to be in today's Ningyuan County of Hunan Province. (This could be an appropriation as SHAN HAI JING gave us an archaic account of the burial places of the ancient overlords as being located still somewhere in the heartland of Sinitic China.)
The ancestors of the later Qin Empire had migrated to today's Shaanxi-Gansu from the traditional [misnomer Dong] Yi ground of Shandong Province.
Comment In Regards To 'Dong-yi' & 'Xi-yi'
The history annals claim that Lord Shun was a Dong-yi and that Lord Yu was a Xi-yi. This could be a later wrong appropriation. The ancient Chinese tried to interpret things in the ancient conventional way of 'birthplace naming'. For thousands of years, the Chinese used to claim the ancestry place as their point of origin. This applies to the Hakka people who, having dwelled in southern China for over one thousand years, still claimed the northern Chinese prefectures as their point of origin. As a result of the ancient Chinese ancestor worshipping, the Chinese clans present a unique way of identification of surnames and the Gene-tree Y-chromosome. Should we interpret the 'Dong-yi' & 'Xi-yi' in this perspective, then there would be no dispute as to Lord Shun and Lord Yu sharing the same lineage and heritage as Huangdi the Yellow Lord.
Zeng Guangdong, at regenerating-universe.org/Chain_of_DNA.htm, traced his Zeng heritage to Lord Huangdi by stating that "The name of our clan, Zeng, may be traced to the time when Emperor Shao Kang of Xia Dynasty created his second son Prince Qu Lie [as] the ruler of the State of Zeng ... about 1850 B.C.E. ... In the 6th year of Duke Siang [lord or Marquis Siang: common mistake in attributing clan title of gong to duke instead of grandpa] of the State of Lu, ... 567 B.C.E... the Zeng State was plundered and destroyed by the State of Ju. The Prince of Zeng named Wu fled to the State of Lu and remained there in the service of Lu. He dropped the [ear] part (which denotes the domain) from our surname Zeng. This was the beginning of our surname becoming Zeng without the domain in the script, and it remains ever since. Four generations from Wu came Xi alias Dian ... and the 5th was the "Sage of Source", namely Zengcius or Zeng San. Both father and son were students of Confucius, thus our family shines ever since ... "
As said previously, we could interpret the 'Dong-yi' & 'Xi-yi' designation as a latter-day convenience. That is, the ancient lords' activities were located in the land and regions which were taken over the western or eastern barbarians, thousands of years after the time of the ancient lords.
The Big Korea Nation School of Thought
           The Yi people of the early times would occupy a much wider space extending to the Korean Peninsula in the east and Lake Baykal in the west, and the Amur in the north and the Yangtze in the south, according to a "grand" viewpoint from the Big Korea Nation school of thought, http://www.clas.berkeley.edu/~korea/Nat%27nalist_Chronology.html.  The "grand" Korean viewpoint (against a so-called stereotyped image of "meekness, subjugation, and servility" associated with the Koreans) would single out the Koreans and other Altaic-speaking people, like the Jurchens (Manchus) and the Mongols etc, as the representative of Yi People. This was wrong in light of the fact that the present Koreans possess no genes of the C-haplogroup Mongols at all.  
This is only one contesting school of thought and we will examine the identities of the Koreans in a different section.  The language family "Altaic" is a much later concept, devised by some Russian colonialists in the 20th century; in history, we have today's French, descendants of the barbarian Franks, speaking the Latin family while Rome was already gone with Lingua Latina, an example that language does not determine origin and ethnicity.  The Koreans themselves would be retreating towards Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula in later Zhou Dynasty to become the orthodox representatives of the Dongyi people.  Their affinity with continental Yi people would probably be shown in the fact that the ancient Koreans knew the water route and the back door to the Shandong peninsula, across the Bohai Bay, similar to the Japanese pirates who knew the secrets of navigating along the Chinese coasts. The Korean language, which was wrongly classified to be of the Altaic language family against the Sino-Tibetan language family of the Chinese, however, could be a later phenomenon. Ancient Korea was invaded by the Puyo and Koguryo people, i.e., nomadic tribes from today's Inner Mongolia and Manchuria. Koguryo claimed descent from ancient Lord Zhuanxu (Gao-yang-shi, ? 2514 - 2437; reign 2399-2222 with rule of 78 years per Zhu Yongtang's adjustment of BAMBOO) and adopted the surname of 'Gao' (i.e., 'Ko') as their clan name. Though, Ji-zi's Choson and Wei Man's Korea could very well be different from later Koguryo as far as language / speech is concerned. The archaic Korean language had already disappeared in Korea, but it was said to have retained some elements in the Japanese language. Charcoal remains of 2000-year-old rice in western Japan pointed to China's Yangtze Delta as the origin. DNA studies conducted on the human remains excavated on the Shandong Peninsula ( http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v64n1/980634/980634.html ) suggested southern and northern points of origin for the Jomon and Yayoi Japanese. On basis of various historical records and modern technology analysis, this webmaster would speculate i) that early Korean culture was very much connected with eastern China as a result of the nascent human migration from south to north and ii) that the Tungusic invasions from Manchuria gradually overtook the early Continental traits.
In Shang, we discussed the ancient Chinese record stating that Shang Prince Ji-zi was dispatched to southern Manchuria as a ruler of old Choson.
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~korea/Old_1.html, states that "in 1122 B.C.E. (note a different calendar was used here, which was Liu XIn's mistake in adding an extra 60 years or one sexagenary cycle on top of 1062 B.C.E.; 1050 B.C.E. per THE BAMBOO ANNALS, Shang reign years 1559 - 1050 B.C.E.), there was an alleged arrival of Kija from Shang China." The Chinese chronicles recorded that the Archduke of Zhou Dynasty sent prince Ji-zi of ex-Shang Dynasty to the Korean Peninsula as a ruler, in a sense that Zhou tried to have ancient Korea contained in the larger Chinese sphere.  Prince Ji-zi's kingdom was said to have continued for 41 generations, till Korean King Ji Zhun was usurped by an invader from the Yan Principality during the turmoil years of the Qin Empire's demise. Ji-zi was the uncle of last Shang ruler, Shang King Zhouwang. http://www.koreanhistoryproject.org proposed a different story, namely, the Ji-zi exodus happened during the first campaign of Zhou King Wuwang, sometime before Zhou overthrew the Shang rule. It said that the group of people who migrated to Korea would be about 5000 in total. Ancient records show that Ji-zi was imprisoned by last Shang King Zhouwang and would not be set free till Zhou King Wuwang took over the Shang capital. Ji-zi exodus must have occurred after Shang's demise. (Please refer to discussions of the original destination of Ji-zi being none other than the 'Yang-yi' [brightness Yi2] people's land on the Shandong peninsula before a further sea-crossing to today's southern Manchuria or Pyongyang on the Korean peninsula.)
More about Ji-zi and the Yi People is available at http://www.imperialchina.org/ImperialChina/?p=311
The Korean school of thought used a different calendar than what the Chinese had adopted. Their timeframe for Zhou Dynasty would be 1122 B.C.E. - 256 B.C.E. [1050 - 256 per THE BAMBOO ANNALS]. The Korean school of thought discusses the prehistory of the "Dongyi" people, i.e., the ancestors of the Koreans between 7193 BC-2333 B.C.E. My impression is that it is a copy-cat recitation of the same legends as the Chinese. The calendar year 1122 was purely a mistake by the ancient historian Liu XIn, who made a mistake in pushing back the 60-year "Heavenly Stems and Earthly Branches" cycle when notating on THE BAMBOO ANNALS. That is, Liu Xin added an extra 60 years or one sexagenary cycle on top of 1062 B.C.E. As to be discussed below, THE BAMBOO ANNALS was unlikely to have the 60-year stem cycle calendar in its original writings. Incidentally, Seng Yixing, in "The New History of Tang Dynasty", derived 1111 BC {mistake in adding an extra 60 years or one sexagenary cycle on top of 1051 B.C.E} instead. Prof Zhu Yongtang of Purdue pointed out that the Heavenly Stems and Earthly Branches in BAMBOO could be latter-day add-ons - just as Sima Qian's SHI JI might have similar add-ons of the Heavenly Stems and Earthly Branches. This 60-year sexagenary cycle calendar could have started from the 2nd year of the Yuanhe Era in Eastern Han Dynasty, when the Si-fen-li calendar was adopted in place of the Tai-chu-li calendar.
The Korean copycat writing touches upon such familiar names as
  • Fuxi the Ox Tamer - approx. 3528 BC
  • Shen-nong the Divine Farmer - approx. 3168 BC
  • Xuanyuan the Yellow Overlord - in between 2707 BC-2598 BC
  • who are among the Three Huang ("lords") and Five Di ("lords") prior to Xia Dynasty. http://www.chinapage.com/dyna4.html had compiled the dates slightly differently, with the years of reign for Huangdi or the Yellow Lord as B.C.E. 2697 - 2599. No matter 2697-2599 or l. 2707 BC-2598 B.C.E., the dates did coincide with the historical saying of 113 years though. Per Zhu Yongtang's adjustment of BAMBOO, Lord Huangdi's reign years were 2402-2303, with rule of 100 years per Zhu Yongtang's adjustment of BAMBOO.
    "Grand Korean View" said that the Dongyi people established "Bak-dal Nara" (Korean words), the first Dongyi state, with territories covering:
  • North: Lake Baykal vicinity. Stanovoy Mountains
  • South: Yangtze River (includes present Jiangsu, Shanghai, and Anhui) 
  • East: Russian Maritime provinces
  • West: Dunhuang, near the Gobi Desert 
  • The concept of 'Yi' should be interpreted more as a place of origin than a political or social entity. In the above perspective, the Yi people would be a super majority in contrast with the Hua/Xia people in and around the Yellow River. As emphasized earlier, Lord Shun, treated as an ancestor by the Shang Dynasty people, was called by some historians as a Yi [not misnomer Dong-yi] leader, which was fallacious; the Shang people were considered to be the misnomer Yi in contrast with the later Zhou people. The later Zhou people could have migrated to the west from the east [i.e., the original Grand Xia land of today's southern Shanxi], as the Qin people was said to have done so, migrating to the west from the east]. The Zhou ancestors served as the agriculture ministers for the Xia dynasty, and fled to the west after Shang overthrew Xia. Whereas, the Qin's ancestors were said to have migrated to the west from eastern China where they acted as the Shang imperial guards the same way as the Kunwu-shi people acting as imperial guards for Xia Dynasty. That is, the Qin ancestors fled to the west after Zhou overthew Shang.
    The grain of salt was that the Koreans' prehistory writing was a forgery of the early 20th century --which was based on a single citation of an ancient ruler Tan'gun, lord of the rosewood tree Wang [king] Jian, as referenced in the 13th century, a name that apparently derived from the capital city name of "wang [king's] Xian [precarious pass] cheng [fort]" or Wang'gom-song from Ji-zi Chaoxian (Korea), or today's Pyongyang. This webmaster's opinion was that while the ancient Chinese scholars were attempting to authenticate the prehistory, they stated something to the effect that the Sushen-shi people at the Japan Sea submitted the tributes (i.e., stone arrows [which shared the same tradition as North American Indians' arrows]) to China at the time of Lords Yao-Shun-Yu. Hence, the Koreans did not invent TANGUN in the 13th century from the thin air. They created a name called Wang Jian, i.e., Tan'gun, the lord of the Tan tree, and synched it with the reign of Chinese ancient lord Yao.
    More about Ji-zi and the Yi People is available at http://www.imperialchina.org/ImperialChina/?p=311
    The Chinese vs the Barbarians - the Mongols vs the Non-Mongols
    Largely due to the double destruction to the ancient Chinese literature at the time of First Qin Emperor Shihuangdi's book burning and consecutive arson in the hands of General Xiang Yu, the prehistoric contexts of the Chinese are very much blurred. The references to the ancient non-Chinese nomadic groups of people are limited and scarce.
    Two ancient categorical designation of barbarians would be 'Rong(2)' and 'Di(2)'. The word 'Rong' was used mostly with the word 'Xi' for west, while 'Di' with the word 'Bei' for north. According to Sima Qian, among the northern nomads would be 'Shanrong' (Mountain Rong) or Xunyu or Xianyun at times of Lord Yao and Lord Shun, Chunwei tribe at times of Xia Dynasty, Guifang (ghost domain) at times of Shang Dynasty, again Xianyun at times of Zhou Dynasty, and Xiongnu (Huns) at times of Han Dynasty. Also on record would be several nomadic states in the very heart of China, Henan and Shaanxi-Shanxi provinces, with such names as Di[]2 and Rong. Inter-marriages between the Rong/Di & the Chinese were common. The Rong-di Rongs (ancestors of later Huns) had their daughter married to Zhou King Xiangwang. Prince Chong'Er of the Jinn Principality, during his long years of exile, had travelled across the whole China domain of the time. He lived for many years in the state of Di[2] where his mother-in-law was from and later married with a woman of Chi Di (Red Di) State, a woman captured by the lord of the Di[2] State. According to Xin Tang Shi, the junior son of Changyi (son of Huangdi the Yellow Lord), by the name of An, had relocated to the Western Rong area and designated his state as 'Anxi', a name that later would be used for Persia or Parthia. The later Xianbei nomads also cited that their ancestor was another son of Changyi. SHAN HAI JING, as we stated earlier, directly stated that the Yellow Lord had born some descendant who was the ancestor of the later Northern Di people.
    The Non-Mongolian Physique
    To clarify the Chinese ethnic continuity, this webmaster had cited Prof Wei Chu-Hsien's interpretation of ancient classics "Shi-zi" in authenticating the record of the deep eye socket people to the north of Huangdi as corroboration that Huangdi's people were not of deep-socket eyes at all. In the paragraph on the origin of the Huns, this webmaster had also expounded the ethnic nature of various Rong people as mainly Sino-Tibetan speaking Qiangic people. Today's Chinese are direct descendants of the ancient Chinese. To dispell any speculation, this webmaster will list the following sentence as proof that the ancient Chinese took pride in hair's density and blackness as beauty and health: In classics ZUO ZHUAN, during the 28th year reign of Lu Lord Zhaogong, a statement was made to infer that in the old times, a You-reng-shi woman bored a beautiful daughter, with 'zhen[3] hei[1]' (i.e., dense and black) hair.
    Conventional history claimed that the Chinese were monotonous ethnically. A perusal of China's 24 Histories (25 or 26 Histories using a different account), however, showed that the ancient Chinese might not be that monotonous at all. The non-Mongolian physique did exist among the Chinese as a result of the Chinese interaction with the Hunnish, Turkic and Mongol people during the course of history. In combination with the Loulan mummies, we could not dismiss the possible exchanges between the ancient Chinese and the Euroasian. As history had recorded, various steppe people, at certain points, had been recorded to be some people carrying different features as to hair, nose, eye and skin. The Hunnish [Hunnic], Turkic and Mongol people, however, should be considered more Mongoloid than else, and they had acted as a kind of buffer in between the Mongoloid and Caucasoid people since prehistory. To get a glimpse of the ancient Mongoloid, we just need to take a look at the terracotta soldiers dug out of Qin Emperor Shihuangdi's mausoleum.
    My unchanged belief is that the Sino-Tibetan-speaking Qiangic San-Miao people first reached the He-xi (west of the Yellow River) Corridor of today's Gansu Province 4000 years ago and onward to the Khotan area of southern Chinese Turkistan [as well as crossed the Kumtag Desert to arrive at the Tianshan Mountain Range via today's Loulan]. More, the C and N haplogroup people could have also come to Chinese Turkestan through the direction of the Mongol Altai Mountains. The Indo-European mummies, possibly related to the Indo-Scythians, reached the areas of the Lake Koko Nor later or at the same time as the Khams proto-Tibetan Qiangs about 2000 B.C.E. [and might had never reached the Tunhuang Grotto at all]. In the Hun section, this webmaster had cited description of the Non-Mongolian Physique among the various groups of nomadic people who had co-existed and commingled with Chinese. The Huns, who controlled the northern steppe, extending from the Altai Mountains/Lake Balkash to Manchuria, had defeated the Yueh-chih (Yuezhi) and drove them towards Central Asia. In the 2nd century B.C.E., the Hun Chanyu ordered that his "rightside virtuous king" attack the Yuezhi as punishment for the king's disturbing peace along the Chinese border. In 175-174 B.C.E., the Hunnic Chanyu's letter to the Chinese emperor mentioned that they defeated the Yueh-chih (Yuezhi) people by conquering Loulan, Wusun and Hujie etc, altogether 26 statelets in Chinese Turkistan. The majority Yuezhi people fled west to the region of the Amu Daria river, and some [i.e., the Lesser Yuezhi, consisting of the sick, elderly and young] fled across the [Qianlian] mountains [later-named Qianlian Mountain of Gansu or more likely the Tianshan or Heavenly Mountain of Chinese Turkestan --also known as the Bei-shan or the Northern Mountain in contrast with the Nan-shan or Southern Mountain that separated Tibet from Chinese Turkestan] to live among the Qiangic people in the south [i.e., the Khotan area per Yu Taishan rather than the central Qiangic nation's land south of the Qilian-shan of Gansu - which could be fallacious as the Han Dynasty records repeatedly carried the accounts of the Yuezhi Minor fighters joining the Han Chinese army in the campaigns along the Western Corridor]. There were the Silk Road trade during the hundreds of years of the Han dynastic rule, as well as the sea travel along the coast. Hence, we had a strange phenomenon of Sun Quan carrying some different colored eyes and hair in the Three Kingdom time period which was after the demise of the Han dynasty.
    The Huns, after raiding to the West, had tacked on the non-Mongolian physique. . The successors of the Huns, led by Helian Bobo of the Tie-fu Huns, established a Hunnic Xia Dynasty lasting through A.D. 407-431. Helian Bobo's acknowledgement and tracing of his ancestry in a common origin as the Chinese clearly spelled out the fact that it was the Mongoloid who had first raided to the west rather than the other way around. After the decline of the Huns, the Xianbei moved back to northern China, took over the Hunnic land as far west as the Western Corridor and the Wu-sun Statelet, and possibly tacked on the same non-Mongolian features as well. Five nomadic groups ravaged China in the 4th century A.D. When an Eastern Jinn minister (Wang Dun) rebelled against Emperor Mingdi in A.D. 322-325, he called the emperor by a derogatory name of "Huangxu-nu of the Xianbei", meaning a "yellow-haired slave of the Xianbei". (See Non-Mongolian Physique for more details on explanations on the minority tribe of the Huangtou Xianbei, the Huangtou Shiwei and the Huangtou Jurchen among the steppe nomadic federation. This webmaster believes that you could not bundle the two epithets of 'huang xu' [yellow hair] and 'bai lu' [white enemy] to make a case, but to interprete the two epithets separately; otherwise, a wrong conclusion could be reached to make it a case of one plus one equals two. Also see my research into non-existent sacking of the Jinn capital city of Luoyang by Huangtou Xianbei that was carried by Tang Dynasty poet Zhang Ji [or by Song Dynasty poet Su Shi] hundreds of years later in regards to the misguided speculation on the nature of the Xianbei.) Shi Min, an adopted son of Jiehu's Posterior Zhao (AD 319-352), had at one time killed about 200,000 Jie-hu. History said that Shi Min's armies killed those people who looked like the Jie-hu because of the high nose bridge and the hairiness. The Jiehu, according to Monk Fotucheng's admonition to Shi Hu, had the past of the Jie-hu king [? Shi Hu or his ancestors] being a merchant who previously attended a gathering in today's Afghanistan, on which occasion some priest claimed that the Jie-hu merchant would one day rule the land of Jinn China. The Jie-hu appeared to possess the "Hu Tian [heaven]" temple, which was speculated to be a Zoroastrian temple.
    The other conclusion that could be construed from the following records about the Khirgiz would be that the Huns, who first raided today's Chinese Turkistan and Jiankun (i.e., today's Tuva area) to the west and northwest, respectively, had tacked on the non-Mongolian feature. Partial ingredients of the Turks had merely carried on this physique. The Turks, who were recorded to have dwelled to the south of Mt. Jinshan (i.e., the Altaic Mountain) and by the side of Xi-hai (the West Sea or Lake Juyan), apparently mixed up with the Central Asians after expanding to the west, carrying the Zoroastrian religion in the burial customs.
    The story of General Li Ling would be another corroboration of the racial interaction. In 100 B.C.E., Han Emperor Wudi sent a mission of Su Wu and over 100 people to the Huns, but the mission was detained by the Huns. Emperor Wudi dispatched an army to punish the Huns. One contingent of 5,000 archers (arrow soldiers) from southern China, led by General Li Ling (grandson of Li Guang), was encircled by the Huns numbering 30,000. General Li Ling surrendered to the Huns after engaging half a dozen rounds of retreating fights and exhausting all the arrows. Li Ling was assigned by the Huns to the ancient Jiankun statelet in northwest Siberia. Later, during Tang Emperor Suzong's reign of A.D. 758-760, the Huihu (Uygur) conquered the Jiankun Statelet of the Kirghiz [Kyrgyz]. The Kirghis allied themselves with the Tibetans, the Arabs and the Karlaks. The Kirghiz expelled the Huihu (Uygur) from Mongolia and killed the Huihu khan around A.D. 840s. Tang records stated that the Kirghiz claimed that they shared the same last name as Tang emperors's 'Li' name. Why? Because Han General Li Ling was assigned to the ancient Jiankun statelet by the Huns in the west after he surrendered to the Huns 800 years before. The Tang records stated that the Kirghiz disliked the BLACK hair and took it as BAD OMEN. The Tang records said those Kirghiz who carried the black hair must be the descendants of Li Ling.

    For further discussions on the Barbarians & the Chinese, please refer to
    The Barbarians vs the Chinese Exiles
    There long appeared four kinds of designation of the barbarian groups, namely, Man-of-the-South, Di-of-the-North, Yi-of-the-East (i.e., misnomer --since the Yi people living at the coast were the original inhabitants and carried no directional denotation till the confrontation at the time of the Zhou Dynasty conquest of the Shang remnants) and Rong-of-the-West.  Man, Di(2), Yi & Rong, in fact, all mean one word, barbarians. The Man-of-the-South will be the natives called San-Miao (i.e., the Three Miao Tribes), Man(2) and Lao barbarians, and the Zangke, Qiongdu, Yelang and Tian-Yue people in southern and southwestern China. Rong-of-the-West are the nomadic people in China's northwest and west, including Xirong, Quanrong, Rongdi and Jiangrong. In southern Manchuria, there existed the so-called Shanrong or Mountain Rong (aka: Beirong or Northern Rong and one more name called 'Wu Zhong' to mean Wuzhongshan Mountain in southern Manchuria, with its capital at Yuyang County, Beijing).   Di-of-the-North would be specifically denoting the Huns and Turks. Their forerunners would include Rongdi which split into Chidi and Baidi, and Jiangrong around Taiyuan in Shenxi [not Shanxi]. Baidi (White Di) dwelled in ancient Yanzhou (today's Yan'an), Suizhou (today's Suide) and Yinzhou (today's Ningxia on west Yellow River Bend). Zuo Shi Chunjiu stated Jinn defeated Baidi and remnants were know as Bai-bu-hu later. Chidi (Red Di) dwelled in a place called Lu(4), near today's Shangdang. Zuo Shi Chunjiu stated that Jinn Principality destroyed the Lu(4) tribe of the Chidi, and the remnants were know as Chi-she-hu nomads later.
    Yi-of-the-East later included the people living in today's Manchuria, Korea and Japan. In the early times, the Yi was associated with the word 'niao' for bird. There were eight to nine different 'niao-yi' people in the east. The Shang Dynasty people were recorded to have treated 'Xuan Niao' (i.e., a black bird, possibly sparrow) as a possible totem. The Jurchen and Manchu legends as to the birth of their founder had something to do with swallowing the red fruit dropped by a bird. Both the character 'niao' and 'dao' looked quite close and might have corrupted consecutively during the course of history. With this mix-up, the Yi designation would be associated with a word 'dao' for island, pointing to the barbarian people in the seas. 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. (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. 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].)
    Yi is more an inclusive word to mean aliens. 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 Qiangs and Di(1) people could be called Xi Yi, i.e., Yi in the west, while some southern barbarians would be called Xi-Nan Yi, namely, southwestern Yi. Quan-rong or Doggy Rong of the west were also named Quan-yi-shi (Doggy alien tribe) or Hunyi / Kunyi (Kunlun Mountain aliens?, but was commented to be the same as character 'hun4' for the meaning of mixing-up). SHAN HAI JING stated that Huangdi bore Miao-long, Miaolong bore Nong-ming, Nongming bore Bai-quan (White dog) which was the ancestors of Quanrong. SHAN HAI JING also stated that Quan-yi had a human face but the beast-like body. An ancient scholar called Jia Kui stated that Quan-yi was one of the varieties of Rong people. In the West Yellow River Bend area could also be found Yuezhi people. The relationship of the Yuezhi to Rong people is not clear. Gua Di Zhi stated that Yuezhi country included ancient Liangzhou, Ganzhou, Suzhou, Yanzhou and Shazhou, i.e., today's Gansu and Shenxi Provinces. (The Yi people mentioned here could have first lived at the coast and then in the west, which could be the result of the epic migration of the original inhabitants of China from the coast, and the San-Miao exile towards the west during the wars of the Yellow Overlord and the Fiery Lord/Chiyou and the wars of Lord Shun and Lord Yao against the San Miao people. Don't believe in the exile story? Qin Emperor Shihuangdi, after unification of China, forcefully relocated all the royal families of the conquered principalities to live in Xian'yang the Qin capital city, and Han Emperor Gaozu, after defeating Xiang Yu and reuniting China, also forcefully relocated the big families to southwest of today's Xi'an from the land east of the Han'guguan Pass.)
    It is difficult to differentiate between the true barbarians and those ancient Chinese who were exiled to the borders. Lord Shun suggested to Lord Yao to have four evil tribes exiled to the borders. This would include Hundun, Gonggong (Qiongqi), Gun and San-Miao. (SHAN HAI JING had good description of the myths about Gonggong breaking the pillar of the skies and causing floods, Gun stealing 'Yi Rang' or the Growing Soil from heaven to stop the waters, and Yu being born from the dead body of Gun etc.) The reason for exiling the four tribes would be their mistakes: Hundun's fault was his recommendation of Gonggong for the flood-control job; Gun's fault was his failure to control the flooding. (Gun was the father of Yu the Great. Gun, like an engineering minister, was empowered with repairing the Yellow River during the 61st year of Lord Yao per THE BAMBOO ANNALS; however, he failed in his job, for which he was executed by Lord Yao. Ancient books "Luu Shi Chun Qiu", "Tai Ping Yu Lan", "Huai Nan Zi" & "Wu Yue Chun Qiu" in stating that Gun, i.e., Lord Yu's father, first built a castle with a wall as high as nine 'ren' [1 'ren' being equivalent to 7 or 8 Chinese feet].) Gonggong was exiled to the northern post of today's Beijing to counter the northern Di(2) nomads; Hundun was exiled to southern mountains to counter the southern barbarians; the San-Miao people were exiled to the San-Wei-Shan Mountain in Gansu's Dunhuang to counter the Xirong or Western Rong people; and Gun was killed on [or exiled to?] the Mountain Yushan (Feather mountain) to cause detente onto the Eastern Yi people. Those directional description could be the latter-day add-on as there could not have existed this differentiation in the prehistory.
    Kong An'guo of the Han Dynasty claimed that Hundun was an unfilial descendant of Huangdi the Yellow Lord. Gun was an unfilial son of Lord Zhuanxu. The 'San-Miao' people were said to be unfilial descendants of Yandi the Fiery Lord. (Wu Qi claimed that the San Miao country was located between Lake Dongtinghu and Lake Pengli.) Hence, those four tribes should be considered members of the big family. The book 'Xu Hou Han Shu', i.e., 'Continuum To Hou Han Shu', stated that the Qiangs were an alternative race of the Jiang surname tribes of San Miao. Hence, it should be safe to claim that the 'San-Miao' people were the descendants of the big family of Yandi and Huangdi. In the Hun section, a tentative exploration into the nature of Rong & Di people, Qiang, San-Miao & Yuezhi was given. Borrowing SHAN HAI JING, Quan-yi or Quan-rong, one of the varieties of the Rong people, could have derived from Huangdi (Yellow Lord) since Huangdi bore Miao-long, Miaolong bore Nong-ming, Nongming bore Bai-quan (White dog) which was the ancestor of Quanrong.
    In accordance with Luu Simian's dissertation, San-Miao, with 'miao' meaning descendants, could point to three ancient clans and tribes of Dihong-shi, Jinyun-shi, Shaohao-shi as their ancestors. The Miao-zu people, numbering 5 million per 1982 census, are said to be descendants of ancient Lord Chiyou who headed the Nine Li[2] tribes, i.e., ancestors of the San-Miao people. Miao-zu's epic talked about a "westward migration", which pointed to the fact that they had probably dwelled more to the center and east of China in ancient times. (In today's China, numerous DNA analysis clearly showed that the male genes were predominantly that from North China, i.e., the Sino-Tibetan people from the Yellow River line, while the female genes were varied or contained elements of ancient females from both North Chin and South China.)
    Speculation As To the Timeframe of the San-Miao Exile vs the Yuezhi Migration
    Lord Yao or Tangyao (reign 2357-2258 B.C.E. ?) took over the overlord post after 9 year's weak rule by Zhi (reign 2366-2358 B.C.E. ?). Zhi was the son of Lord Diku, and Lord Zhi earlier conferred the title of Marquis Tanghou on Yao. According to Sima Qian, the 'San-Miao' people, who resided in the land where the later Chu Statelet was, were mostly relocated to western China to guard against the western nomads. Lord Shun relocated them to western China as a punishment for their aiding the son of Lord Yao (Dan Zhu) in rebellion. To the west of today's Dunhuang of Gansu Province was a mountain named 'San Wei Shan' where the Three Miao people were exiled. Zhou King's Travelogue further pinpointed the Chong-shi natives living to the west of the Western Yellow River Band as being the descendants of the San Miao people, i.e., a southern branch people who adored the ancient saint Chong-li [also a Chu statelet icon] as their guardian god. Note that Chong-li had caused the heaven and earth to disconnect from each other, which was the separation of religion from politics in the prehistoric China.
    This could lead to a sound speculation that the Sino-Tibetan speaking San Miao people had dwelled in Gansu much earlier than the later misnomer 'Indo-European' Yuezhi people. The approximate date would be about 2258 B.C.E. for the San-miao relocation, and this webmaster's belief was that the Yuezhi was part of the five Rongs as noted in history -- which could be the origin for the misnomer 'Indo-European' Yuezhi. This webmaster tried to reconcile Sima Qian's statement in regards to the migration of the Lesser Yuezhi, in the aftermath of the Huns' attack in the last years of the 3rd century B.C.E., to give the Yuezhi people some credit of living a bit further to the east, i.e., staying somewhere near the Blackwater Lake [i.e., the Ejina Lake]. By making this assumption, this webmaster assumed that the Lesser Yuezhi people, namely, the sick, the elderly and the young, climbed the Qilian-shan Mountain [today's Qilian-shan, not what Yu Taishan et al had postulated to be the Tianshan or the Heavenly Mountain Range in Turkestan] to live among the Qiangs --unless Sima Qian actually meant that the Huns had raided deep into the Chinese Turkestan in the first place, driving the Greater Yuezhi into a flee towards the Ili area to the west and the Lesser Yuezhi into a move across today's Tianshan or the Heavenly Mountain Range to live with the Qiangs in Khotan, at the southeastern rim of the Taklamakan Desert, a historical dwelling place of the Qiangs since the late 3rd millennium B.C.E.. (Also refer to the 3rd century B.C.E. Hunnic-Yuezhi War for the possible locality of the Yuezhi.)
    Nova, in its TV series,   
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/chinamum/taklamakan.html shows the excavations of mysterious 3000-year-old mummies in China's western desert, inside today's New Dominions Province. This shows that Indo-European people in Chinese Turkestan came much later than the San Miao people at the Western Corridor, about 800 years. (http://homepages.utoledo.edu/nlight/uyghhst.htm had a good exposition of the "remarkably racialized ideas" and approaches built on basis of the mummies. See my recent discussions on the Yuezhi migration timeline for details on the possible routes of the Jiang-rong migration into Chinese Turkistan.) More, further diggings in Loulan area, i.e., the ancient Salty Lake and Salty River (Peacock Rover), led to a site called by Xiaohe or the Little River, next to the Salty River (Peacock Rover), where Mongoloid Mummies were discovered. It appears to me there was indeed good carbon dating on the Xiaohe [small river] excavation, saying "The entire necropolis can be divided, based on the archeological materials, into earlier and later layers. Radiocarbon measurement (14C) dates the lowest layer of occupation to around 3980 ± 40 BP (personal communications; calibrated and measured by Wu Xiaohong, Head of the Laboratory of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, Peking University), which is older than that of the Gumugou cemetery (dated to 3800)." The article claimed that the 'Mongoloid' mtDNA had similarity to some present South Siberian population. (For details, check http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15 for the full article "Evidence that a West-East admixed population lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the early Bronze Age".) The linking of this certain mtDNA in Xiaohe/Loulan area to a modern Siberian population could be said to be circumvential at best since a lot of things had happened in the past 2-3000 years. It kind of had the same timing as the Mongoloid mummies that were discovered to the north and east of the Tianshan Mountain. More than what was found about the mtDNA at Xiaohe/Loulan, there were mummies of the Khams Tibetan type found to the further north, at the Tianshan-Altaic mountain areas, which presented a much more convincing point that the proto-Tibetan Qiangs had indeed crossed over the strip of the sand desert near Loulan to reach the north side of Tianshan. Possibly, the Khams [proto-]Tibetan, after reaching Tianshan Mountain Range, moved towards Hami (Qumul) to the east as well, where there were the Hami (Qumul) Mongoloid mummies excavated.
    The Xia Chinese vs the Huns, and the Qiangic Tibetans vs the 'Tokharai' Yuezhi: http://www.taklamakan.org/allied_comm/commonv-1-8.html carried an article by Takla entitled "The Origins of Relations Between Tibet and Other Countries in Central Asia", stating that "according to the researches of Sir Aurel Stein [i.e., the arch thief of China's Dunhuang Grotto treasures] on the origins of the people of Khotan, most were the descendants of the Aryans. They also had in them Turkic and Tibetan blood, though the Tibetan blood was more pronounced. He discovered ancient documents at a place called Nye-yar in Khotan and he has stated that the script of these documents contained no Pali, Arabic (Muslim) or Turkic terminology. All were Tibetan terms and phrases."
    The Tibetans, clearly descendants of the Sino-Tibetan-speaking Qiangic San-Miao people, had their influences reaching the southern Chinese Turkistan in addition to the He-xi Corridor. P.T. Takla stated further that "according to Wu Hriu(2), the facial features of the people of Khotan were dissimilar to those of the rest of the Horpa nomads of Drugu (Uighurs belonging to the Turkic people) and similar, to an extent, to the Chinese. Khotan in the north-west was called Li-yul by the ancient Tibetans. Since Khotan was territorially contiguous with Tibet, there are reasons to believe that the inhabitants of Khotan had originated from Tibet."
    Concluding this episode, my unchanged belief is still that the San-Miao people first reached the He-xi Corridor of Gansu Province 4000 years ago and onward to Khotan area of southern Chinese Turkistan. It is never an accident that the early Chinese legends were full of events about the west, including Mt Kunlun, Queen Mother of the West, Khotan jade, and Mt Kunwu Diamond Ore etc. Tokharai, possibly related to the Indo-Scythians, reached Lake Koko Nor thereafter. In the 3rd century B.C.E., the Hun Chanyu ordered that his king attack the Yuezhi as a punishment for disturbing peace at the Chinese border. Majority of the Yuezhi fled to the region of Amu Daria river, and some fled across the mountains to live among Qiangic people in the south. Successors of the Huns, led by Helian Bobo of the Tie-fu Huns, established a Xia Dynasty lasting through A.D. 407-431. Helian Bobo's acknowledgement and tracing of ancestry in a common origin as Chinese clearly spelled out the fact that it was the Mongoloid who had first raided to the west rather than the other way around.
    Tibetans - The Fiery Lord Tribe
    In this webmaster's opinion, the people who shared the same origin and history as today's Chinese will be the Tibetans. As stated earlier, the Sino-Tibetan Qiangic people, who split from the Sinitic people about 4000-5000 years ago, further diverged into the Western Qiangic people about 2500 years ago to become the ancestors of the Tibetans [after absording the high-plateau gene of the D-haplogroup natives, of course]. The Qiangs [i.e., ancestors of the Tibetans] and the Sinitic Chinese might have just split about 5000-6000 years ago. The Qiangs then split into the Western Qiangs and the Eastern Qiangs just 2500 years ago. The Qin army's campaign in the west could also have something to do with the Qiangs who dwelled to the south of Mt. Qilianshan, which led to the split of the Western Qiangs and the ultimate migration of the ancestors of the Tibetans to the Roof of the Earth --where they acquired the high plateau genes of the D-haplogroup natives.
    During Qin Lord Li4-gong's reign, the Qin army campaigned westward against the Qiangs around the Yellow River Nine Winding area. Wuyi[slave]-Yuanjian[chieftain], who escaped from the Qin captivity, later led his clansmen in a relocation to the Xizhi-he River area, in today's Tibet-Qinghai borderline, to become the Tibetan ancestors. HOU HAN SHU continued to stated that there were 150 varieties of the Yuanjian descendants, with nine branches dwelling at the upperstream Xizhi-he River. Qin lord Xian'gong turned west to attack the Yuan-rong barbarians at the upperstream Weishui-River, driving Shu-fu-mao's tribe towards the Xizhi-he River area, near Tibet. This land would be the gateway between Sinitic China and the Sichuan basin. (The Yuan-rong barbarians carried the name of an ancient river called by Yuan-shui, that was noted as the He-yi barbarians in YU GONG. This was a river that was noted in history to be near the legendary Mt. Panzhong-shan and the bird-rat-same-cave [i.e., bat cave] mountain, with the He-yi barbarians travelling along the Yuan-shui River {Xiqing ying Yuan(Huan) er lai}, then floated on the Qian-shui River {fu yu Qian}, then cross-hopped into the Mian-shui River {yu yu Mian}, then entered the Wei-shui River {ru yu Wei}, and finally sailed in the Yellow River {luan yu He} --something that the scholars of the past thousand years scratched their heads to find a linkage among the waterways, something more like a midland relay that was omitted in YU GONG.)
    The Tibetans, according to a Chinese linguist, would be the descendants of the Xi [western] Qiang people active as mercenaries of emperors in Latter Han Dynasty
    (25 A.D. - 220 A.D) and Three States (220 A.D. - 280 AD). Beginning from late 1st century, the Qiangs began to rebel against Chinese frequently. As a result of the urgency to cope with the Qiangic threats, the Han Court had very much given up early efforts in controlling Chinese Turkistan. The Qiangs would have wars with Han China for dozens of years. At one time, the Qiangs split into two groups, Xi Qiang (the Western Qiang) and Dong Qiang (the Eastern Qiang). By the end of the Han Dynasty, Qiangs were controlled by warlord governors in the northwestern part of China. Dong Zuo, who hand-picked last Han Emperor Xiandi, might have some heritage of the nomads in this Qiangic area. During the Three Kingdom time period, the Qiangs had participated in the wars as mercenaries. After the fall of Western Jin China, the Qiangs as well as the Di nomads would play their part in the later landslide campaigns in northern China, 'Five Nomadic Groups Ravaging China' of 4-5th centuries. Posterior Qin Dynasty (AD 384-417), established in today's Shenxi Province, was of Qiangic nature.
    The Qiangs, in turn, would be the descendants of the Yandi (Fiery Lord or Fiery Emperor) tribal group carrying the tribal name "Jiang". Xin Tang Shu (New History Of Tang Dynasty) said the Tibetans belonged to the Xi Qiang, namely, the western Qiangic people. There were 150 different groups of Qiangic people, widely dispersed among Sichuan, Ganshu, Qinhai and Shenxi Provinces. Ancient classics stated that the word 'qiang' means the shepherds in the west. The book 'Continuum To Hou Han Shu' stated that the Qiangs were alternative race of the Jiang surname tribes of San Miao. Yu the Great was said to have been born in the land of the Xi Qiang. This is of course a latter-day appropriation.
    One opinion also said that the ancient Tibetans possibly derived from the San-Miao (Three Miao) tribes which, being in constant battles with the Hua and Yi tribes, had once occupied today's Han-shui, Huai-he and Yangtze River areas. At the times of Lords Yao-Shun-Yu, the 'San-Miao' (Three Miao) people had taken Lake Dongting as their very homeland. According to Sima Qian, the 'San-Miao' people, who resided in the land where the later Chu State was, were mostly relocated to western China to guard against the western nomads. Lord Shun relocated them to western China as a punishment for their aiding the son of Lord Yao (Dan Zhu) in rebellion. To the west of today's Dunhuang was a mountain named 'San Wei Shan' where the Three Miao people were exiled.
    Here, we have the undisputable link between the Lord Yao's people and the San-miao people, with the latter in a similar position as i) the Kunwu-shi people defending the Xia rule as the garrison army and ii) the Qin people defending the Shang rule as the garrison army. (Note that there exists some good passways between the Sichuan basin and the area south of the Western Corridor. So to say that the exiles could very well have linked up with the Sichuan basin in the ancient times. There was some further claim that the Sanxingdui Bronze Excavation in today's Sichan basin could have been the works of the Xia dynasty refugees.)
    As further explained in the Tibetans section, the name Tibet could be from the Xianbei element. New History Of Tang Dynasty cited a mutation of pronunciation for the name of founder of Southern Liang (Xianbei Statelet, A.D. 397-414), Tufa Lilugu. What it said is that the Southern Liang's last name, Tufa, had mutated into Tubo in Chinese pronunciation or English Tibet.
    The Yangtze area would remain marshlands and lakes till the time of the Chu State during the Warring States period (403-221 BC). The State of Chu, 1500 years after Xia Dynasty was first established, would still belong to an alien ethnical group, and they were the first group of people to reject the overlordship of the Zhou Dynasty and called themselves Chu kings. The San-Miao people were not considered 'Chinese' at the times of Yao-Shun-Yu, and they belonged to the barbarian groups in the ancient Chinese classics.
    The San-Miao, Qiangs, Xianbei, Tuoba, & Tanguts
    The San-Miao people, the Qiang people and the Di[1] nomads etc long dwelled in the Gansu-Qinghai and northwestern Sichuan areas. (The Di[1] nomads had been suspected to be responsible for the so-called 'Sanxingdui Excavations' in today's Sichuan Province. In the section on the Sixteen Nations, we had traced the Di statelets.) This webmaster will speculate as one linguist did about the possibility of the Qiangic people being pressured into a movement towards Tibet (called 'Zhang' in Mandarin, a mutation of Qiang). Existing Chinese history did not make a distinction between Qiangs and San-Miao at all, and the only reference to San-Miao would be the San Wei Shan Mountain, a mountain to the west of Dunhuang, Gansu Province. In one account, there was a saying that the Qiangs were descended from San-Miao people. What this webmaster found difficult was the timeframe inconsistency: The Qiangs, if having origin from Yandi the Fiery Lord, should precede the San-Miao people because Lord Shun's relocation of San-Miao came later - unless you are to adopt this webmaster's epic human migration theory to state that the San Miao people, part of the two groups of exiles together with the Yun-surnamed Xianyun people, had originally dwelled along the eastern coast and then migrated to Northwest China around the late 3rd millennium B.C.E.
    In the late Han dynatic times, the Qiangs had been mercenaries of the Han emperors in numerous wars, and one family of generals had joined the Shu Han against the Wei kingom during the Three Kingdoms Period (AD 220-280). The Qiangs as well as the Di nomad would play their part in the later land-slide campaigns in northern China, 'Five Nomadic Groups Ravaging China' during the 4th century. They joined hands with a branch of Xianbei and created a lasting kindom called 'Tuyuhun', and 'Tuyuhun' competed against the Tibetans proper well into the 7th century. 'Tuyuhun' had lasted for about 350 years in history, from the end of the Yongjia years (AD 310s) of Jinn Dynasty to the 3rd year of the Longsuo era (AD 663) of Tang Dynasty. The Qiang people are the same people who set up the Posterior Qin Dynasty
    (AD 384-417) during the South-North Dynasties, prior to the founding of the Tibetan Kingdom during China's Tang Dynasty (AD 618-907).
    'Tuyuhun', with the Xianbei nomadic elements, would mix up with the Qiangic people (which possessed at one time eight tribes, with one tribe carrying the Toba last name) and evolve into the later Xixia Kingdom (AD 1038-1227) of the Tanguts (i.e., Dangxiang).

    Ethnogenesis of the Early Stages
    With the defeat of the Yi and more likely the mixed Sino-Tibetan/Hmong-mien People under Chi-you, we could speculate that the Yellow Lord Tribe finally dominated the Shandong peninsula, the central plans, and the Yellow River area. Should we reinterpret the ancient classics to conclude that it was true that Chi-you and Yandi (i.e., the Fiery Lord) were the same person, then we could say that the people from the lineage of Huangdi (i.e., the Yellow Overlord) had re-established an order among the more agricultural people of ancient China. In any case, the change of order with Huangdi's rise to power was a significant event that re-shaped China's prehistory for thousands of years to come, as all future dynasties hence cited Huangdi, not Yandi or Chi-you, as the progenitor of the Chinese nation.
    The second important recognizable Chinese ethnogenesis would occur at the time of the Xia-Shang dynastic substitution, around 1766 B.C.E. The struggle between the Xia people and the Yi people always persisted during the Xia Dynasty. While the Xia Dynasty, under Lord Yu's son, was founded in the central plains of China, the Yi tribes would still occupy the eastern parts of today's China, notably today's Shandong Province and Jiangsu Province.  Houyi, a tribal leader of the Yi tribes, would force the second Xia king into exile, and it would be the fifth Xia king, Shaokang, who re-asserted power over the Xia kingdom.
    Though the Chinese today called themselves by the descendants of Yandi and Huangdi, there was always a delimiter as to who was exactly the true descendant of Yandi, with a strict definition using the "jiang" surname and its offspring clans. After the Yandi-Huangdi War (or the Chiyou-Huangdi War), you have the history repeating the statements that some of the defeated were exiled to the countryland of the north, with an inference to mean those exiles to be ancestors of future barbarians, such as the Khitans et al --which could be erroneous as recent genetical studies had concluded that both the Mongols and the Manchus carried the C-haplogroup genes, a feature belonging to the second wave of migrants to Asia like 30,000 year earlier, after the move of the D-haplogroup people. While part of those people who were defeated could have migrated towards the Manchurian and Korean areas, in a similar parallel to Shang Prince Ji-zi's relocation after the Zhou-Shang dynastic war, more [native or agricultural] people, after successive conflicts with the successors from the Huangdi lineage, were exiled to southern and western China, such as the migration of the San-miao people to today's Gansu-Qinhai Provinces (called Inner Tibet [against Frontal Tibet or Outer Tibet] in contrast with Tibet Proper, the "Hind Tibet"). SHAN HAI JING stated that some of the San-miao people escaped to Nan-hai, i.e., the south sea, which was today's Poyang Lake. The ancestors of today's Koreans would remain in the area of today's southern Manchuria and the areas around the Beijing city till the Warring States period of Zhou Dynasty, as the borderline statelets, such as Guzhu (lonely bamboo), a Shang vassal, continued existence next to the Yan Principality of Zhou Dynasty till the Qi Principality Lord Huan'gong led an expedition to the Yan Principality to defeat the Mountain Rong and Guzhu in the 7th century B.C. The conflicts with the barbarians in southern Manchuria would resurface time and again during the Han Dynasty and Sui-Tang Dynasties.
    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~korea/Old_1.html states that, in 311 B.C.E., invasion of Qin-kai of Yen Principality (Warring States Period, 403-221 BC ) caused ancient Korea a loss of 2000-li territory; 108 B.C.E. invasion by Emperor Wudi of Han Dynasty established four commandaries in today's Liaoning Province and northern Korea. In Sui Dynasty, the Chinese were defeated by the Koreans and Sui Emperor Yangdi hence lost his empire due to internal revolts, and in Tang Dynasty, the Chinese intervened in the Korean civil wars and helped one Korean kingdom (Silla) defend against the Japanese who were invited by a rival state of the three statelets of Korea.
    1 li = 435 meters. See http://www.os.xaxon.ne.jp/~sinkodai/efuruta/esss.html where the author stated that 'San-kuo-shih or Three Country Record does not use the distance unit of "li" to be 435 meters as used during the Chin or Han dynasty Period. but rather it uses the unit adopted by the Wei and Western Chin dynasties, which is that one "li" is approximately 77 meters.'
    The establishment of the first dynasty of Xia would be the first important recognizable Chinese ethnogenesis, i.e., the formation of an ethnic group.  (According to Obayashi Taryo, 'The Crucial Time in the Formation of the Japanese People,' Minzokugaku Kenkyu , Vol 48, No 4, 1984, pp. 401-405, linked by John Rach at http://www2.gol.com/users/johnrach/, ethnic formation "is a process which extends over a long time, often over centuries". In John Rach's words, "at a certain point in time, migration decreased, and both populations went through a period of settled evolution".) For the Chinese, at some point in time one group emerged to identify themselves as the Huaxia people and the first stage in this process, 'ethnogenesis', is now complete. The Xia people maintained the dominance through another medium, i.e., Ya-yan or the ancient 'mandarin' spoken tongue of the Xia people, which Confucius had adopted for teachings, lectures and rituals. This ancient Ya-yan dialect could today be found among the Si-yi [four dwelling prefectures] area of southwestern Guangdong Province, a result of the massive forced resettlement of the ancient northern Chinese in the consequence of Qin Emperor Shihuangdi's 218 B.C.E. military campaign to the south.
    The struggle between the dragon-totem Xia people and the bird-totem people [including the Yi people] never settled for the next 1400 years, till Zhou Dynasty's Duke Zhougong campaigned against Ren-fang-guo on the Shandong Peninsula and quelled the remaining Shang people there. Duke Zhougong could have further crossed the Lower Yangtze. More, Zhou King Muwang launched several campaigns to the south, including the Jiu-jiang [nine rivers] area.

    Diversion vs Conversion
    I will list some illustrative numbers for explaining the concept of diversion vs conversion. Ancient tribes existed in units of hundreds of people perhaps. A group of 100 tents could evolve into a separate race in a matter of 200 years. For example, when ancient Vietnam rebelled in 48 AD, Han Dynasty General Ma Yuan mounted a full campaign in Champa, today's central to southern Vietnam. New History Of Tang Dynasty recorded that there were ten households in the name of Ma dwelling in the Champa area, and those people refused to return to China with General Ma. 500 years later, by Sui Dynasty, the ten families had multiplied into 300 households.
    The early human beings numbered by less than one thousandth of today's population. When some tribe wondered out of their traditional pasture, they might not meet another soul for one hundred miles or more. After reflecting on various theories, this webmaster's conclusion is that the ancient people tended to diverge from rathern than converge on each other. Early human population was nothing in comparison with the number of animals and beasts around them. Early human beings had to fight against the animals and beasts for survival than against the fellow human beings. Relatively speaking, in past 10,000 years, the first part should be quite peaceful, and only in the second part of 5000 years did we notice the signs of civilization and the multiplicity of human beings. Before the invention of weapons, no matter stone axe, copper dagger or iron sword, the early people had no choice but to wrestle against each other with bare hands. In this sense, Marxist perspectives on the "slave society" had its merits because the killings between the human beings had only been observed among the burial "mass' graves during this time period. In contrary to the common sense, the early human migration took the shape of diversion, NOT conversion. The early human migration would tend to move away, towards the four directions, not converging to the same hot spot. At most, they co-dwelled in the same area after diverging from their mode of life, as happened in the scenario of the co-existence of both nomadic and sedentary ways of life in the Ordos and the Yellow River Bend. In thsi area, the different groups still maintained their separate identities at least till 3000 years ago, when Zhou King Wuwang specifically rallied an alliance of people from the west, north and south against the Shang kingdom.
    Ancient people, to diversify their gene pool, would have to go hundreds of miles in search of their brides. The legends of Huangdi and his sons should be good proof of this point. Huangdi married a woman from the Xiling (western mountain) Statelet who bore two sons, Xuanxiao and Changyi. Among Lord Huangdi's 25 sons (with 12 surnames of Ji1, You3, Qi2, Ji3, Teng2, Zhen1, Ren4, Xun2, Xi1, Ji2, Xuan1, and Yi1), two elder sons, Changyi and Xuanxiao, were both conferred the land in the west, today's Sichuan basin, and the two sons married the so-called 'Shu-shan nv', i.e., women from the Sichuan mountains. Per GUO YU, Xu-chen, a minister serving Jinn Prince Chong'er, stated that only two of the Yellow Lord's sons, Qingyang and Yigu, shared the same surname of Ji3, which was about sharing the same surname and the same virtues. (This was, per GUO YU, an explanation of the Yellow Lord's sons Qingyang and Yigu sharing the same surname of Ji3 and the same virtues against the rest of sons with different surnames or no surnames.)
    Fallacies Of the Tribal Leadership Succession: Yao-Sun-Yu
    Earlier, we cited Scholar Liu Qihan (Liu Qihua) and his teacher Gu Xiegang in stating that both Lord Yao and Lord Shun could have been appropriated to the land of 'Xia' after the Xia people's eastward expansion into the bird-totem [Eastern] Yi barbarian land. Gu Xiegang cited ancient classics ZUO ZHUAN in stating that nowhere in ZUO ZHUAN could find reference that Lord Shun was surnamed 'Yao' or Lord Yao surnamed 'Tang' and that ZUO ZHUAN did not have any reference about the Yu-shi clan of the Xia people being the descendant of Lord Shun or Tao-tang-shi of the Xia people being the descendant of Lord Yao. Note that ZUO ZHUAN actually adopted the format of ***.shi for the overlords' names
    Aside from the dispute in regards to appropriation, there were two opposing viewpoints in regards to the succession of Yao-Shun-Yu. Hanfei-zi, a legalist from the Warring States Period
    (403-221 BC) of Eastern Zhou Dynasty, had rebutted the validity of the 'abdication system', i.e., the bloodless and democratic succession of tribal power among the tribal leaders of Yao-Sun-Yu, prior to the monopolization of power by the Xia-hou-shi clan which launched the Xia Dynasty.
    The Yao-Sun-Yu legends had been praised by the Chinese communists as the paradise in the primitive Chinese society as well as an ideal society eulogized by Confucius (511-479 BC). It basically says that Lord Yao, thinking his son was not qualified for the job as a tribal leader, searched the land for a good candidate. Shun was recommended to Yao for his filiality to his parents. Later, Lord Shun, at high age, tried to locate a successor. Yu (whose father, Gun, failed to control floods and was hence executed by Lord Shun) succeeded his father's job and successfully controlled the floods (i.e., repairing nine rivers in the lower Yellow River line), and Yu was recommended to Shun for his bypassing home three times in between the thirteen years of flood control work. Later, Confucius and Mencius expanded on the classical book of SHANG SHU and made the three lords 'saints'. Confucius, an idealist living in the Spring-Autum period of Eastern Zhou Dynasty, had always upheld the ideals of the early saints and the deeds of Archduke of Zhou Dynasty. Later in Han Dynasty, Confucius became the state's teachings and hence the Trio-Saints became a legend never to be disputed again. Confucius, for his abridging of the ancient chronicles and writings, had made a comment on himself, saying that in the future, people could both pile praise on him and blame him for abridging such books. That is, Confucius was aware of the selection he made for compilation into SHANG SHU, deleting the materials that were deemed undesirable in his viewpoint.
    Hanfei-zi wrote in his book that the Yao-Shun-Yu deeds were fabricated stories. The alternative history, which was also carried partially in THE BAMBOO ANNALS, stated that Shun killed the whole family of Yao's son, Dan-zhu, on the pretext that he did so to give people an admonition so that people would not learn from Danzhu's indulgence in pleasure, exemplified by Danzhu's asking the people to push him in a boat in the shallow waters etc. (On record would be a rebellion by Dan Zhu. Lord Shun was said to have relocated the San-Miao people to Gansu Province in western China as punishment for their aiding Dan Zhu in this rebellion.) Yao, earlier, had married his two daughters to Shun, but in return Shun imprisoned Yao and killed Danzhu and his whole family. Lord Shun himself did not get a better fate, either. Shun originally planned to have his son, Shang-jun, succeed him. But Yu staged a coup and later banished Shun to Cangwu, a place that could be right in the heartland of central China but was wrongly speculated to be near Lingling of today's Hunan Province in southern China which would be still marshlands and mountains in the Warring States period of Zhou Dynasty two thousand years after Shun's times. Lord Shun died in the land of Cangwu. Somewhere in the upper Yangtze River, there was a peak named after Lady Xiang who happened to be one of Lord Yao's two daughters accompanying Shun on to the 'southern' exile. This southern point of 'Cangwu', however, could be an appropriation. SHAN HAI JING implied Cangwu tobe somewhere next to the Sinitic heartland and was at most near today's Hanzhong area or the land where the San-miao people dwelled before they were exiled to Northwest China. (Alternative accounts claimed that Lord Shun died on a southern campaign against the barbarians, which could be a conjure-up to iron out Lord Shun's fate in the purported southern land of Cangwu.)
    Hanfei-zi further claimed that the usurpation was the norm, not the exception, and the mandate of heaven was construed to legalize the usurpation by the later rulers. ZHU SHU JI NIAN, i.e., THE BAMBOO ANNALS, written in or before 296 B.C.E., 75 volumes in total, excavated from Wei Principality King Xiangwang's tomb in A.D. 279 (alternatively said to be discovered in year A.D. 280 or later, i.e., Jinn Wudi's reign), had corroborated Han-fei-zi's claim. (Li Xueqin, in his dissertation on "ZHU SHU JI NIAN and the Xia Dynasty", claimed that THE BAMBOO ANNALS was biased in description of usurpation & tyrants and might have fabricated the historical events to serve the purpose of the belligerent Warring States time period, with anti-history stories like Shang Dynasty prime minister Yi Yin's adultery with last Xia Lord Jie's queen Mei-xi or like Yi Yin's exiling Shang King Taijia for 7 years and subsequent Taijia's execution of Yi Yin in revenge. Li Xueqin stated that the Shang oracle bones had high compliments for Yi Yin and THE BAMBOO ANNALS was deliberately mutating history to serve the purpose of usurpation. Li believed that THE BAMBOO ANNALS's accounts of Xia King Qi's killing Yi or the usurpation of Shun vs Yao & Yu vs Shun should be questioned for its authenticity. By skipping THE BAMBOO ANNALS, Li Xueqin had forfeited the chance to straighten out China's prehistory with this rare history book that survived Qin Shihuangdi's book burning. (Li could be right in an alternative sense, if we took the Jinn Dynasty scholars' words literally to say that THE BAMBOO ANNALS merely covered the period from the Xia dynasty to Zhou King Youwang. Also note that the prevalent version of CHUN QIU ZUO-SHI ZHUAN, however, covered the time span from Lu Lord Yin'gong 1st year or Zhou King Pingwang 49th year [722 B.C.] to Lu Lord Daogong 14th year [454 B.C.], 269 years, with another version said to have covered the years to the 44th year [476 B.C.] of Zhou King Jingwang, about 246 years. What was clear in the book is that it recorded the year Confucius passed away, which was two years after the CHUN QIU time span of 242 years. That was 244 years. Still one more version pointed to Lu Lord Aigong 27th year or 468 B.C., covering 254 years. It was commonly acknowledged that the last event recorded was the elimination of Jinn by three prominent families of Haan, Wei and Zhao.)
    Alternatively speaking, THE BAMBOO ANNALS, i.e., "ZHU SHU JI NIAN" (excavated during the Jinn Dynasty emperor Wudi's 5th year of the Xianning Era, i.e., A.D. 279.), a Wei Principality version of the history annals, was excavated, a byproduct of tomb digger Fou Biao., which appeared to have the most authentic historic account of the three dynasties of Xia, Shang, and Zhou, as well as the pre-Xia history[, with the pre-Xia part being possibly some latter-day add-on as the Jinn dynasty historians, after excavation, specifically wrote that THE BAMBOO ANNALS started with the Xia dynasty onward] and it ended with the demise of Zhou King Youwang, and could be said to be the only book with accurate accounts of the eras of the ancient Xia-Shang-Zhou rulers. THE BAMBOO ANNALS, though, was unlikely to have the 60-year stem cycle calendar in its original writings, which is to say that the calendar was added by the later scholars.
    With the founding of Xia by Yu's son, Qi(3), China was said to have entered the era of the family-controlled dynasties. (Though, the reign of the Yan-di [i.e., the Fiery Lord] Dynasty, prior to the takeover by Huangdi the Yellow Overlord, also appeared to be a family dynasty up till Lord Yu-mang, the eighth and last ruler of the Yan-di dynasty, if those names did not actually come from fables like ZHUANG-ZI and LIE-ZI.) The continuous ancient civilization of Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasties, which were said to be of the Huangdi lineage, shared the common theme of the mandate from heaven. When King Wuwang of Zhou toppled the Shang Dynasty, he cited the 'Mandate of Heaven' in his campaigns against Shang, and Zhou King Wuwang would call himself king in respect for the lords or emperors ahead of him. We will now continue the discussions on Xia, Shang and Zhou.

    Written by Ah Xiang

    Copyright 1998-2012:
    This website expresses the personal opinions of the webmaster (webmaster@republicanchina.org, webmaster@imperialchina.org, webmaster@uglychinese.org). In addition to the webmaster's comments, extensive citations and quotes of ancient Chinese classics (available at http://www.sinica.edu.tw/ftms-bin/ftmsw3) were presented via transcribing and paraphrasing the Classical Chinese language into the English language. Whenever possible, links and URLs are provided to give credit and reference to ideas borrowed elsewhere. This website may be used or reproduced in any form or by any means, with or without the prior written permission, on the pre-condition that an acknowledgement or a reciprocal link is expressively provided. All rights reserved.
    WARNING: Some of the pictures, charts and graphs posted on this website came from copyrighted materials. Citation or usage in the print format or for the financial gain could be subject to fine, penalties or sanctions without the original owner's consent.

    This is an internet version of my writings on "Historical China" (2004 version assembled by http://www.third-millennium-library.com/index.html), "Republican China", and "Communist China". There is no set deadline as to the date of completion for "Communist China" (Someone had saved a copy of my writing on the June 4th [1989] Massacre at http://www.scribd.com/doc/2538142/June-4th-Tiananmen-Massacre-in-Beijing-China). The work on "Historical China" will be after "Republican China". The current emphasis is on "Republican China", now being re-outlined to be inclusive of 1911 to 1955 and divided into volumes covering the periods of pre-1911 to 1919, 1919 to 1928, 1929 to 1937, 1937 to 1945, and 1945-1955. This webmaster plans to make the contents of "Republican China 1929-1937, A Complete Untold History" into a publication soon. The original plan for completion in year 2007 was delayed as a result of broadening of the timeline to be inclusive of 1911-1955. For up-to-date updates, check the RepublicanChina-pdf.htm page. The objectives of my writings would be i) to re-ignite the patriotic passion of ethnic Chinese overseas; ii) to rectify the modern Chinese history to its original truth; and iii) to expound the Chinese traditions, humanity, culture and legacy to the world community. Significance of the historical work on this website could probably be made into a parallel to the cognizance of the Chinese revolutionary forerunners of the 1890s: After 250 years of Manchu forgery and repression, the revolutionaries in the late 19th century re-discovered the Manchu slaughters and literary inquisition against the ethnic-Han Chinese via books like "Three Rounds Of Slaughter At Jiading In 1645", "Ten Day Massacre At Yangzhou" and Jiang Lianqi's "Dong Hua Lu" [i.e., "Lineage Extermination Against Luu Liuliang Family"]. It is this Webmaster's hope that some future generations of the Chinese patriots, including to-be-awoken sons and grandsons of arch-thieve Chinese Communist rulers [who had sought material pursuits in the West], after reflecting on the history of China, would return to China to do something for the goodness of the country.

    Berkshire Profit 64% on Petrochina- Chicom Ultimately to Hold Empty Bag, Plus 200+ Billion Subprime Loss!
    ECON 101: US Interest Rate Down = China Exchange Rate Up !

    Beliefs Are Tested in Saga Of Sacrifice and Betrayal

    REAL STORY: A Study Group Is Crushed in China's Grip
    Beliefs Are Tested in Saga Of Sacrifice and Betrayal
    Chinese ver

    China The Beautiful

    Huanghuagang Magazine

    Republican China in Blog Format
    Republican China in Blog Format
    Li Hongzhang's poem after signing the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki:
    In Commemoration of China's Fall under the Alien Conquests in A.D. 1279, A.D. 1644 & A.D. 1949
    At the time [when China fell under the alien rule],