|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
Videos about China's Resistance War: China's Dunkirk Retreat (in English); 42 Video Series (in Chinese)
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) as a result of the discovery of oracle bones. Because of the oracle bones, China's recorded history from Shang Dynasty is authenticated. Repeating citations of ancient stories and legends in Chinese classics certainly implied a much longer evolution history than Shang Dynasty, and Cangjie characters from the Huangdi Era of 26th century B.C.E. could not be discounted, either. The first dynasty of Xia (2207 B.C.E. - 1766 BC), claiming a domain of nine ancient prefectures and leaving its lineage in both the ancient Yue people on southeastern Chinese coasts 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, I had included dates for 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 imperial mourning. Also in dispute would be the counting method in regards to the years of reign for ancient lords, and short counting / long counting may produce vastly different dates. This is because the dates for ancient lords are usually for the first full year of the reign and could be skipped should the lords fail to survive for one full year. (This section mostly written around the year 2000, I am more and more convinced that the so-called "Xia-Shang-Zhou Dynasties' Project" of the late 20th century was a Chinese forgery just like the fake consumer products that China manufactured in the last few decades.)
China's earliest substantiated year would be the fourteen year "interregnum" (commonly known as 'gong he' or modern-sense republican administrative period but alternatively known as the collective leadership by 'gong' and 'he' 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 'republican' could be two uncles of the King.) There is a reason for the ambiguity of 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, scholars were still having difficulties re-compiling the lost classics. It was recorded that some surviving books hidden by the 8th grandson of Confucius (Kong Zixiang) inside of the walls in Confucius' house were discovered during Han Emperor Wudi's reign in the 1st century B.C.E., when King Lugong-wang was demolishing Confucius' former residence for expanding his palace. This tranche of rediscovered texts enabled scholars to make comparisons between the authentic rotten bamboo books and those books which were re-compiled via oral recitation from memories of old scholars. Because of the damages 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. More, Kong An'guo, the 11th generation grandson of Confucius, who used senior scholar Fu-sheng's recital texts to compare againt the tadpole 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 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 were 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 were surrendered to the government for safe-keeping so that some future capable person could study them.)
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 excavations, however, had produced refined potteries going back as much as 5000 B.C.E. Six bone flutes dating from 7000-5700 B.C at 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 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, to make archaeology a political task, had very likely mixed in forgeries with true artifacts, making the world archaeology community suspicious of even genuine excavation 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 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 [lietrally meaning "no tin"]: Wei claimed that the tin of Shang Chinese came from a hill near Wuxi in Yangtze River mouth [where the tin mine was exhausted in the 3rd century BC], not from Southwestern China. Wei, who had contributions to the excavation of the Liangzhu Culture in 1930s, did not get to know the Sanxingdui bronze culture in Sichuan Prov 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, I will uphold the independence of Chinese civilization in discussions here.
Beginning from Shang Dynasty, underground records like oracle bones, i.e., tortoise shells and flat cattle bones with inscribed characters of ancient Chinese, had provided solid collaborations of events noted in written records above-ground. Archaeological excavations of artifacts dating from about 1384 B.C.E., from the last capital city of Shang Dynasty at Anyang, i.e., 'Yin Xu' [Shang Wastes], attested to the historical records found in later chronicles. The oracle bone characters are quite mature, pointing to a very long lasting evolution stage for thousands of years prior to Shang. Ancient Chinese records are quite reliable, and some archaeologists traced the ancient records of comets and found they did coincide with the cycles of comets that frequent earth today still. Excavations from Xia Dynasty, i.e., 'Xia Xu' or Xia Wastes, had been under studies 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, Beijing Univ publishing house printed the anthology of articles in a book entitled "Hua Xia Civilization", with quite some academic-quality writings, including writing by Zhang Guangzhi. There are reports of archaeological findings of 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 excavations since 1959.
Excavations Of 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 glaciations extending from 3 million years ago. This timeframe would be labeled the Upper Palaeolithic. 15-30 thousand years ago, the Mongoloid people 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 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 Asian and American continents, the Mongoloids established their lasting home bases. To better understand the origin of Mongoloid, a study of the topic 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.
An examination of the Chinese continent will yield two main rivers, the Yellow River (i.e., Huang-he River) and the Yangtze River (i.e., Chang-jiang River). Recent excavations had produced numerous sites showing that the early Chinese had multiple domains, including the Sanxingdui Excavations in Sichuan Province, the Hongshan Culture in Jehol-Chahar-Hebei area, the Jiangxi Province excavations, and the rice cultures of Hemudu and Liangzhu in Zhejiang / Jiangsu provinces. (Sanxingdui Excavations had produced bronze statutes exhibiting people with protruding eyes. Yunnan Prov 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' entered the water, it would become a dragon, which was to say that the ongoing dragon-phoenix debate could go to the same source.)
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 ancient times, Xuan-yuan-shi, Shen-nong-shi & He-xu-shi utilized stone as weapon; Lord Huangdi utilized Jade as weapon; and in 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. ("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.)
Archaeology will yield several distinct phases:
--------------------------------------------------------- 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 Qiyu stated, on basis of the craftsmanship on potteries, that the Xia people's developments could be embodied by three stages of evolution, i.e., Taosi of southwestern Shanxi Prov, Dongxiafeng of southeastern Shanxi Prov, and the Erlitou Culture in Yanshi of Henan Prov. Liu Qiyu 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 Prov, together with the Dongxiafeng culture in Shanxi Prov, 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, I could not ascertain whether it was under Xia people or Yi (misnomer Dong-yi) people by simply reading opposing viewpoints from various experts; however, I am more inclined for Liu Qiyu's opinion that the Erlitou Culture that received inputs from Shanxi-Henan provinces, dated the 3rd phase of Erlitou (Yanshi, Henan Prov), must have been under the Xia people. Liu Qiyu speculated that phases I & II of Erlitou was still a succession of Dongxiafeng in Shanxi Prov, but it might have been influenced by the Longshan Culture (Henan Province) as shown in similar patterns on potteries. Liu Qiyu further pointed out that by the 4th phase, the Yanshi excavations pointed to the dilapidation of Xia Dynasty palaces in the area. (Liu Qiyu always upheld the theory that Qi, Lord Yu's son, had his capital established at Xunyi, i.e., today's Yanshi of Henan Prov and seat of the Erlitou Culture. Liu Qiyu, to rebut the viewpoint that phases III & IV of Erlitou might belong to 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 Prov.)
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 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 Wei-shui River in the middle.
The Xia People & the Dragon Totem
In the Yellow River area, the Xia Chinese civilizations, with inputs from 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 civilizations. 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.
Reading through ancient legends, however, we could derive a valid speculation that earliest ancient Chinese, represented by both Tai-hao and Shao-hao tribes, had appeared to be upholding birds as their totem. This could be seen in excavations from Hermudu, Yangshao and Longshan cultures. Scholar Liu Zhixiong & Yang Jingrong could be partially right in stating that 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 Wei-shui River, together with the crocodile-prototype dragon pattern [from the Shang people per Liu Zhixiong & Yang Jingrong], could be reflected in the transformations of the 'dragon' character in oracle bone excavations. Liu Zhixiong & Yang Jingrong cited ancient classics in stating that with the emergence of Shang Dynasty, the different animal-totem dragon prototypes had converged.
Should we have refuted the disputes in regards to the equivalency of Xia People's Culture and the Longshan Culture, then we need to point out excavations of dragon-totem colored pottery in almost every tomb discovered in southern Shanxi Prov, i.e., excavations that were dated to be Taosi Type Culture (2400-1800 BC). Dragon-totem colored potteries, per Gu Xiegang (Gu Jiegang, i.e, Liu Qiyu's teacher), pointed to the Xia people as the original inhabitants of southern Shanxi Prov while both Lord Yao and Lord Shun were appropriated to the land of 'Xia' after Xia people's eastward expansion into the bird-totem Yi land. (Gu Xiegang cited ancient classics Zuo Zhuan in stating that nowhere in Zu Zhuan could be found references to state i) that Lord Shun was surnamed 'Yu' or Lord Yao surnamed 'Tang' and ii) 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.)
One more interesting point about the totem would be Prof Wei Juxian's claim that 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 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
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. [Historians disputed the equivalence of Panhu and Pangu.] 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 Guansefu 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 heaven and earth disconnection by Chong-li during a conversation with Zhou King Muwang (r. 1001-946 BC). The Chongli story, by the way, is a brilliant Chinese legend mapping the "big bang" theory.
The minority peoples 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. 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 peoples like Wa-zu. Wa-zu claimed that they were born from the gourd earlier than other ethnic groups. In Yunnan Prov, 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 Prov was called Hulu-guo or the Gourd Country in the ancient times.
Jiang-surnamed Sino-Tibetan People
In remote antiquity, there appeared such clans as Nü-wa-shi, Gong-gong-shi, Zhu-rong-shi and Fu-xi-shi etc. "Huai Nan Zi" talked about Nü-wa (a female) mending the collapsed skies as a result of the fightings between Gonggong (god of fire) and Zhurong (god of water). Nü-wa was said to have created the people 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. Fuxi, aka Tai-hao-shi, was said to be the ancestor of the phoenix tribe, i.e., the Yi [misnomer Dong-Yi or Eastern Yi] people; however, Fuxi was also recorded to have first originated in the west of China. Fuxi, according to the ancient classics, possessed the 'Feng4' (phoenix) surname. "Zuo Zhuan" repeatedly stated that Tai-hao-shi, whose ruins ware at later Chen-guo fief, had such family names as 'Ren4' and 'Su4' around the domain of today's Henan-Shandong provinces. 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".
After the death of Fuxi, Nü-wa-shi would replace Tai-hao-shi as the leader of the phoenix or bird-totem tribes. Over dozen clans (i.e., **-**-shi) had carried on the tradition of bird-totem. 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, the first overlord of dragon-totem Xia Dynasty and son of Lord Yu, would later defeat the remnants of both Tai-hao-shi and Shao-hao-shi tribes in Henan-Shandong provinces and solidify the Xia people's rule over the Yi people.
The ancestor of the Sino-Tibetan group of people was Jiang-surnamed from the very beginning. This claim was noted as early as in Jinn Yu of Guo Yu, namely, writings prior to the book-burning and the later recompilation that could be influenced by the political-correctiveness. As we are to expound below, the Yandi group of people, with origin around the 'Yi-Qi' land around today's Kaifeng-Luoyang area, migrated towards the coast and ruled the ancient China for eight generations till Huangdi, i.e., the Yellow Overlord, was to ascend to take over the reign. With the rise of Ji-surnamed Huangdi group of people, you then had the historical battles between the "new" wave of Sinitic people and the 'settled-down' Yandi [or Chi-you] people around Zuolu of today's northern Hebei and in today's Shandong in eastern China, 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 eastern China. After the epic migration to Northwestern China in the 23rd century B.C.E., then you had today's Tibetan lineage of the Sino-Tibetan people. 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 Tibetan Chinese.
Likely, the original Sinitic group of people, after arriving at the upper Yellow River area from today's Vietnam 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 north of the Yellow River could be speculated to be the future Huangdi group which was to found the Hongshan Culture, while their southern-belt moving cousins were to dominate the entire area in today's central China, where they first founded the Peiligang 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 difference, pointing to the separate oririn of the people in eastern China - 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 to the north, the Sino-Tibetan from the west, the original Yi people along the coast, and the Miao-Man people from the south.
Confucius put out the most authoritative writing in stating that the ancient Paoxi-shi invented the fishing net, studied geography and astronomy, and created the Eight Trigrams. Hence, Chinese prehistory started with Paoxi-shi, aka Taihao. Paoxi-shi (Fuxi-shi) would mark 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'. Sima Zhen stated that Confucius had skipped Nu-wa (Nu-xi-shi) who was the ruling dynasty between Paoxi-shi and Shennong-shi. The ancient claim pointed to Nu-wa sharing the same surname as Paoxi-shi, namely, 'Feng'. Sima Qian's Shiji had discussions on the three legendary 'Huang'; however, this section was lost in the later times, and Sima Zhen had to rewrite it in Tang Dynasty. Sima Qian claimed that the Three Legendary 'Huang' were the Heaven 'Huang', Earth 'Huang' and Mt. Taishan Huang. In my opinion, the third 'Huang' was taken as the Human 'Huang' possibly because Mt Taishan was the place 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? See http://www.imperialchina.org/ImperialChina/ for details.
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, I 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.) Should we continue to cite the excavations 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 or non-Huangdi line, 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. See Preliminary Discussions on Forgeries in Chinese Classics for my rebuttals 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. (Pao-xi-shi was 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.)
Note that Shen-nong-shi was postulated to have a totem of 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. This impreganation could mean a conversion of the dragon-totem and ox-totem tribes. 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 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. Ke born son Yumang. Altogether Shennong-shi Dynasty had eight generations of rule, lasting five hundred and thirty years, till Huangdi's ascention to power. Here, the title of Yandi should be treated as a dynastic name. The existence of Yandi Dynasty should not be disputed. The Bamboo Annals Zhu Shu Ji Nian, 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 Shenong-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' amd 'Qi' pointed to the central plains, i.e., the land around today's Kaifeng-Luoyang, south of the Yellow River. This meant that the origin of Yandi was the Sinitic family from the west, and after eight generations, the Yandi people had pushed to the eastern coast where they mutated into a semi-Siniti 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.
After Shen-nong-shi failed to reign in the vassals, Huangdi (the Yellow Overlord) came to assert his power. The Yellow Lord and 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 Fuxi-shi and the last royal house of Shenong-shi from which the Yandi 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 .
Sui-ren-shi | | You-chao-shi | | 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 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. Often neglected 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. There was a history of forgeries done by scholars in late Han Dynasty, Xin (New) Dynasty and Eastern Han Dynasty. However, the references to ancient lords in those purported forgeries could be ascertained by 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 was 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. See http://www.imperialchina.org/ImperialChina/ for details.)
Legends about San [three] Huang Wu [five] Di
Some discussions of 'San Huang Wu Di' (namely, three emperors and five lords) are worthwhile here. Both Di and Huang imply the same denotation as someone who is an overlord, not necessarily 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. Xia-Shang lords, however, did continue to call themselves 'Di' posthumously, but 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 first emperor of Qin Dynasty by combining the words of 'Huang' and 'Di'.
'San Huang', also termed the Three Sovereigns, would be Fuxi, Yandi (Fiery Lord) and Huangdi (Yellow Lord, l. B.C.E. 2697 - 2599 ?). A Western Han Dynasty story claimed that Nü-wa, Fuxi and Shennong were the three ancient lords. Another saying would be 'Heaven Huang', 'Land Huang', and 'Human Huang' or 'Taishan Mountain Huang'. The Three Huangs denotation was embodying the ancient Chinese religious ideas and it could be compared to the trinity in Chritianity. Concretely speaking, the relationship between heaven, land and humans would be the eternal topics of ancient Chinese. The impact could be seen in early dynasties like Shang which upheld polytheism and semi-human gods just like the ancient Greeks. Below, I had followed conventional history in attributing the idea of 'Mandate of Heaven' to Zhou Dynasty (instead of Shang Dynasty) because of distinction here between the polytheism reverance of the Shang people and the Heaven reverance 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:
Sima Zhen lamented that "the ancient books long lost; however, how could you deny that the ancient lords never existed?" Sima Zhen believed that there were ten epochs extending all the way to Huangdi's era; that all names related to the earliest Heaven 'Huang' and Earth 'Huang' were unrecoverable; that ancient saint Yiwu could identify 15 out of 72 deities inscribed on Mt. Taishan [per Sima Qian's Shiji which in turn cited Guan-zi which was possibly a forged or modified book by latter scholars] and Confucius failed to figure out the inscriptions of over 10,000 deities inscribed on Mt. Taishan. The order of ancient human 'godly' overlords (Human 'Huang' ), shown with origin in different tribal groups, was different for different historians such as for Huangfu Mi of Jinn Dynasty versus Sima Zhen of Tang Dynasty. Should we interpret Sima Zhen's statement as to say that the overlords from different tribal groups, as shown below, all shared the same "Feng" family name as Fuxi? If so, then the (Human 'Huang' ) 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 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 Proto Groups
Two proto groups of peoples, 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 Qiyu 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 Prov, with three ancient bends of the Yellow River forming a U-shape loop. (In ancient times, the Western Bend would be today's Eastern Bend.) Liu Qiyu located the ancient Hua-shui River in southern Shanxi Prov and claimed that Huashan Mountain of Shenxi Prov 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 fightings 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 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 Chiyou vs Huangdi vs Yandi tribal groups; ii) how to explain the fact that dragon-totem Huangdi tribal group shared the same bird-totem as all those a) 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 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 Henan Prov; and vi) how to explain southern barbarians' adoption of dogs as a possible totem.
There had been speculation by someone called 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. Qin Yanzhou also claimed that after the mix-up of Yandi/Huangdi tribal groups, they adopted 'dragon' as the totem (??? very speculative). Qin Yanzhou's wild speculation also claimed a direct relationship of those proto peoples 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 and Di (i.e., ancestors of the Tibetan people) while the proto-Bei-Di people in northern China would be 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 Tungunsic 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 one 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 conincided 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.)
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 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 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]".
Scholar Luo Xianglin's Assertions
Scholar Luo Xianglin, in "History of Chinese Nationalities" (Chinese Culture Publishing Enterprise Co, Taipei, Taiwan, May 1953 edition), stated that ancient China possessed five tribal groups: Xia, Qiang, Di, Yi, and Man. Per Luo Xianglin, Xia people first originated in Mt Minshan and upperstream River Min-jiang areas of Sichuan-Gansu provincial borderline. Xia people then split into two groups, with one going north to reach Wei-shui River and upperstream Han-shui River of Shenxi Prov and then east to Shanxi Prov by crossing the Yellow River.
The second group, per Luo Xianglin, went south to populate southern Chinese provinces as the 'Yue' people. Luo Xianglin's linking Yue people to Xia people was based on the common lexicon 'yue' which meant for excavated ancient "stone axe".
Luo Xianglin stated that five tribal groups of Xia, Qiang, Di, Yi, and Man shared the same origin.
Discussions In Anthology "Hua Xia Civilization"
Scholar Gao Wei pointed out that the colored Pottery from Taosi Excavations of Longshan Culture in Xiangfen of Shanxi Prov, dated 2400-2500 B.C.E. approx, had shown a winding dragon. Should we use the dragon totem as a guide, then this place of excavation (i.e., southern Shanxi Prov) 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 Xia Dynasty. Here, 'huan' meant for raising or husbandry, 'yu4' meant for driving or controlling, while 'long' meant for dragon.) As explained earlier, Longshan Culture excavations, like the preceding Yangshao Culture, had produced potteries with mostly bird totems, including a bird totem with the sun in the wing.
The Longshan Culture, having interactions with 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 Xia Dynasty and to equate the Longshan Culture people to the dragon-totem tribe under former Huangdi the Yellow Lord and consecutively Lord Yu. Should we deem the dragon-totem component as an outsider, then we could still claim the nativity of bird-totem component as the first-stage and accept the emergence of dragon-totem as the second-stage of the culture in this area. The safest bet would be to treat both bird-totem Yi people and dragon-totem Xia people as merely two parallel developing tribal groups that shared the same Sino-Tibetan origin, with the former migrating to the east one step ahead of the latter. The Xia people, per Liu Qiyu, later moved from today's Shanxi to Henan Prov to establish the dynasty of Xia, and Liu Qiyu validated the demise of Xia in Henan Prov by citing the ancient statement that '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 early legendary lords of Yao [Yao-di], Shun [Shun-di] and Yu [Yu-di] had prospered in different locations of central China at different stages: first Lord Yao (Tao-tang-shi) in southern Shanxi Prov, then Lord Shun (You-yu-shi) in Henan-Shandong provinces, and lastly Lord Yu (Xia-hou-shi) in western Henan Prov. Hence, Tian Changwu compromised different views by stating that the Xia people might have two tribes, with 1) father Gun developing in southern Shanxi Prov where they were previously subordinate to Lord Yao and 2) son Lord Yu developing in western Henan Prov 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 Prov. (The character 'Gun' was a combination of two words: black and fish. Senior scholar Wei Chu-Hsien pointed out that 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.)
The Burial Difference Among Dragon-totem People & Bird-totem People
What could be confidently validated would be the burial difference in dragon-totem and bird-totem peoples. Studies of tomb burials from Yangshao and Longshan excavations, per Liu Qiyu, 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 Qiyu 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.
Reconciliation for Different Totems
Qin Yanzhou speculated that proto-Dong-Yi shared similar ancestry as proto-Bei-Di, while proto-Nan-Man shared 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 deep eyesocket barbarians to the north of Huangdi for clarification). Qin Yanzhou's claim in regards to proto-Nan-Man's relationship to proto-Xi-Rong is close to 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 erroreous claim in regards to "nomadic" or "mobile" nature of Huangdi the Yellow Overlord, hence refuting 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 various groups of people and zoning the territories of the nation" inside the "Section On Xia Lord Yu" in Sima Qian's "Historian's Records", Scholar Luo Xianglin attributed the i) flooding at the end of Stone Age and ii) Xia people's "quelling floods" activities to the initial migration and diaspora of 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. In Luo Xianglin's viewpoint, four other tribal groups of Qiang, Di, Yi, and Man went through a process of conversion and diversion with Xia people. In the west, Qiangic people spread across 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 spread across Hubei-Hunan-Jiangxi-Guizhou-Guangxi-Fujian-Zhejiang to become Nan-Man; and in the north, Di spread across Xinjiang-Ningxia-Mongolia-Shanxi-Hebei provinces to become Bei-Di. Here, Xi-Rong or Western Rong meant for later Rong people (Sino-Tibetan speaking Qiangic people) in northwestern China, Bei-Di or Northern Di meant for later northern Di people, Dong-Yi or Eastern Yi people meant for later Yi people in the east, and Nan-Man or Southern Man2 meant for the southern barbarians.
Note that Scholar Wang Zhonghan cited "Guan-zi" in stating that it would be around the middle of Warring States time period that 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 proto barbarians.
Legends Of the Yellow Lord vs the Fiery Lord
Chinese classics, per Sima Qian's "Shi Ji", claimed that early Chinese overlords were of same heritage. Yandi (Fiery Lord) was said to have been born in Lixiang, east of the Yellow River, and he was known as Li-shan-shi by the name of Lixiang. (Alternatively speaking, Yandi was said to have been born or had grown up on the bank of ancient Jiang-shui River, while Jiang-shui, should it be treated the same as Qiang-shui River, would be commonly known as Bai-he [white river, i.e., ancient Bailongjiang or White Dragon River] in Qinghai Prov to the west. The ancient classics, though, claimed that the Jiangsui River was the same as the Yi-shui River in the truly central land of China, i.e., today's Luoyang of Henan Province. The legend of "Yandi's mother being impregnated by a dragon-faced spirit in Hua-yang [south of Mt Huashan ?], however, pointed to a 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. Huangdi (Yellow Overlord) were said to be born in eastern China, somewhere close to 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. It would be in Zhuoluo area of today's 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 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 descendants of Tai-hao-shi and Shao-hao-shi. (In conflicting explanations, 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 Henan Prov.)
Yandi and Huangdi, said to be sons of the Shaodian tribe, should be considered 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 Prov 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 ancient Di-Qiang people who migrated southward along the Hengduan Mountain Range. The ancient Di-Qiang people had much greater influence in ancient China than people could imagine: They were commented to have also shared 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 Qiang, originally dwelled along the eastern Chinese coast for about eight generations, could have fed into the genes of the Jomons in Japan across the sea, and then were exiled to Northwest China where they developed into the later Qiangic and Tibetan people.
Ban Gu commented that Yandi (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. Yandi relocated to later Chen-guo fief and Lu-guo fief (Qufu, Shandong, on 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 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 ancestor Xie, had adopted 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.)
According to Sima Qian, Lord Huangdi (i.e., Yellow Lord, l. 2697 - 2599 B.C.E.? [2738-2598 B.C.E. per Chu Bosi]) was the son of the Shaodian tribe. 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, to 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-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, would be a patrilineal tribal affiliation to mean that Huangdi had invented compass and chariots etc. Guo Moruo, however, claimed that 'xuanyuan' could denote some kind of three-leg turtle that would mutate into later lizard and dragon totems.)
Lord Yandi (Fiery Lord) was in charge of China prior to the emergence of Huangdi (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, 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 1910s, already refuted the racial approach to the origin of civilizations.) Since Huangdi was the embodiment of earth, 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.
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 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 I am seeing here is that Huangdi had in fact set his domain (capital) of ruling at Youxiong, not his birthplace. The time Huangdi had set its capital at Youxiong would have to be after his defeating Chi-you (or Yandi) at Zhuolu or Banquan, which was beyond the Yellow River and at the border with the Inner Mongolian steppe.)
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 in the west, i.e., today's Sichuan Province. One of the sons born with Huangdi's Wife Leizu is called Changyi. Changyi was conferred the land in today's Sichuan Province, by the ancient Ruo-shui River, and Changyi's son, named Gaoyang, is Lord Zhuanxu (l. B.C.E. 2514 - 2437 ?).
Among ill-intended claims as to the non-Mongoloid origin of Chinese civilization, apparently deviations of the "racial approach" in regards to the origin of civilization, there were claims about the Linzi DNA analysis. I have already observed some wild claims, including 1) Qi Principality on Shandong Peninsula must be non-Chinese since DNA studies of 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 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 ancient classics "Shi-zi" (approx 338 B.C. works) in authenticating the ethnicity about ancient barbarians in four directions: Guan-xiong-guo in the south, Chang-gu-guo (Chang-gong? long arm [later rewritten as long leg]) in the west, Shen-mu-guo (deep eye socket) in 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 2300 years earlier, at the time of the Yellow Overlord [Huangdi (l. B.C.E. 2697 - 2599 ?)], there were 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 forgery 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 Kumtag Desert to conquer the Yu-shi [or misnomer Yuezhi] people.
Here, I will, once and for all, settle the issues in regards to Huangdi or the Yellow Overlord, i.e., i) semantic error in translating the overlord for 'di4' into emperor; ii) appropriation in attaching the Caucasian tag to Huangdi. I will use Shi-zi's record of deep eye socket people to the north of Huangdi as corrobaration that the Huangdi people were not of deep-socket eyes at all. Furthermore, I had expounded the ethnic nature of various Rong people in the section on the Huns and cleared the dispute in regards to the ethnicity of the 'Rong' people as merely Sino-Tibetan Qiangic peoples. (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 Mongoloid [Negroid to be in Wei's apparently blown-away alternative writing] and Caucasoid, 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.)
Now some expoundings on the foundation on basis of which Shi-zi made the above observations. Namely, how did Shi-zi know that there were deep-socket eye people [who were inferred to be living to the north of Huangdi or the Yellow Overlord who lived about 2300 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 forgery 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 Kumtag Desert to conquer the Yu-shi [or misnomer Yuezhi] people. The speculation that I 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.)
Shi-zi, who had fled to today's Sichuan after Shang-yang's death in 338 B.C.E. via five horses splitting the body, could be the same person who wrote the legendary book Shan Hai Jing (i.e, The Legends of Mountains and Seas). Both the book Shi-zi and the book Shan Hai Jing, with the fingerprint of today's Sichuan locality -- the ancient land of exile for Qin Dynasty just like Siberia being the land of exile for Russia and Ningguta being the land of exile for the Manchus, carried similar history accounts from the southern or southwestern Chinese perspectives. The only other book that carried accounts of the real locality of the long-arm people would be "Zhou King Muwang's 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 as the "wasted films".) When ancient historians dug in to find more about Shi-zi, they invariably claimed that Shi-zi was from the principality of Wei. The limited dots to connect between Shi-zi and Shan [mountain] Hai [sea] Jing [records] was that the book Shan [mountain] Hai [sea] Jing [records] had the flavor of southern China (i.e., the mid-Yangtze land of the Chu Principality, including the Sichuan basin - where Shi-zi fled in 338 B.C.E. and died there in 330 B.C.E.) and Shi-zi (390-330 B.C.E.) had the time to produce the books to be buried in Wei King Xiangwang's tomb in 296 B.C.E.
The book Shan [mountain] Hai [sea] Jing [records], which was named Shan [mountain] Jing [records] by Han Dynasty scholar Wang Chong - a person who succinctly summarized the ancient Japanese Wa people's contact with the Chinese in the Yangtze River area to have started from Zhou King Chengwang's era, was said to be limited to only one part of the presently-known components, namely, the records on the mountains of China - which was termed Wu [five] Zang [viscera of mother Earth] Shan [mountain] Jing [records] from the Warring States time period of late Western Zhou Dynasty. What the people were saying was that scholar Wang Chong, in commenting on Sima Qian's comments in Shi Ji as far as 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 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 through-chest people, people with deeply-set eyes, and long brachial people beyond the Chinese border, while repeatedly numerous sections of Shan [mountain] Hai [sea] Jing [records] stated in the "Records of the Northern Land Beyond the OverSeas" that there was to the northern direction the country with people with deeply-set eyes. In this sense, Shan [mountain] Hai [sea] Jing [records] would have contained both the parts on the mountains and the parts on the seas by the 4th century B.C.E., if not the 3rd part on the "Overseas Wilderness" that Guo Pu added during the Jinn Dynasty.
(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 Song 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
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. Chinese surnames used to carry female character part to denote the maternal tribal affiliations. 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 Chinese mixed up surnames and clan names for designating the 'last name' in 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 LÃ¼ Shang of LÃ¼-shi clan or Jiang Ziya with Jiang surname.
Huangdi's Wars With Chiyou & Yandi, Respectively
When Huangdi was in regency, he had 83 Chiyou brothers in his court. Since the Chiyou brothers were very cruel to people, Xuanyuan or Huangdi (the Yellow Lord) fought 73 successive battles against Chi-u (Ciyou), the leader of Jiuli tribe. Jiuli, i.e., nine 'li' people, were considered a group of Yi people.
Some advocates for southern aboriginals claimed that Chiyou (Chi-u) belonged to southern Chinese who descended from the Liangzhu Culture and that southerners had expanded into Hebei areas of northern China, instead. Qin Yanzhou speculated: that Jiuli was an alliance of ox-totem southern proto-Nan-Man people and bird-totem eastern proto-Dong-Yi people; that after Jiuli's defeat, proto-Nan-Man people evolved into San-Miao people; that proto-Dong-Yi inter-married with Lord Zhuanxu's tribe into later ancestors of Chu-Qin-Zhao statelets; and that proto-Dong-Yi inter-married with Lord Diku's tribe into later Shang people. Qin Yanzhou further divided the San-Miao into Dong-yue (Eastern Yue or She-tribe) in the Southeast, Yao-tribe in the South and 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 Mongolians and Malays. Note Qin Yanzhou's speculation is not supported by either written classics or archaeology. In Vietnamese & Southerners, I had expounded the compositions of the Hundred Pu People and the Hundred Yue People.
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 Zhuolu area when Chi You realized the unification of 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 pole in the development of 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 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 six tribes using animal as totems) and most importantly, compass. The battleground was called Zhuolu, near today's Zhuozhou of Hebei Province. 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. Per Chu Bosi's citation of Yan Su report to Song 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 the emissary of Yue-chang-shi; 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; scientist Zu Chongzhi re-invented it during 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 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 Yellow Lord and the Fiery Lord are in fact 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 people for one hundred years, and Huangdi's teachings were utilized by people for one hundred years." (Zeng Guangdong, at regenerating-universe.org/Chain_of_DNA.htm, 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 people of age 80-90 serving as ministers and counsellors, while nomadic people often celebrated the death of their elders once certain age was exceeded.)
(What I stated previously was what I wrote around year 2000. As I began to study the ancient history in a new angle, I believe there is a good chance that Yandi and Chiyou could be the same person, carrying the "Jiang" name, while Huangdi appeared to be an invader from the north (i.e., the Hongshan Culture) and conquered the agricultural natives to the south of Zhuolu. Should we examine Sima Qian's Shi Ji line by line, we could find major conflicts whenever Huangdi's origin was concerned. Sima Qian claimed that Huangdi and Yandi were brothers, albeit stating in a different section to point out that Yandi was one of the last overlords of the Shennong-shi reign. The Yandi Dynasty had apparently continued for a long history, not to mention the preceding overlords between the first overlord Fuxi-shi and the last royal house of Shenong-shi from which the Yandi Dynasty originated. Should we speculate on the historical pattern of nomadic invasions against the central plains, then we could safely discard the Huangdi's lineage and at most treat Huangdi as belonging to the same category as Tuoba who conquered the Huns and Xianbei to establish the Northern Wei Dynasty in northern China in the 5th century A.D. See Re-write of China's Prehistory.)
The Restrictive Definition of Hua (Huaxia) vs Yi
Confusion abounds here in that many legendary figures carry multiple names or multiple identifies are made onto one single person. While Sima Qian had analyzed ancient classics to make sense of legends, there existed books like "San Hai Jing" which further mystified ancient Chinese. Myths and legends varied. For example, Yumang (Yuwang), descendent of Shin-nong (Hua-mingled or 'sinicized'), was said to be the twin brother of Xuanyuan the Yellow Lord. Korean nationalist point of view claimed that So-jeon (Shao Dian) was said to be same as Shen-nong the Divine Farmer, a sinicized Yi. 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 recent attempt to reinterpret the ancient classics such as Shan Hai Jing and Huai Nan Zi.
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 (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 orthodox Chinese who had descended from Yandi-Huangdi lineages, the actual term 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 a conferral, i.e., the fief in Yangdi (a place in dispute as to Henan or Shanxi Prov). (Scholar Fu Sinian studied the bronze inscriptions, i.e., jin wen, from Zhou times and concluded that the ancient five rankings of duke, marquis, count, viscount, and baron did not conform with bronze inscriptions 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 border posts.)
Liu Qiyu pointed out that after the demise of Xia, whoever stayed in Shanxi/Shenxi provinces continued to call themselves 'Xia' people. First Zhou King Wenwang eulogized the eastward flow of Feng-shui River as Lord Yu's accomplishment, and numerous Zhou Dynasty records stated that they were descendants of Xia Dynasty founder Lord Yu. Wei Principality, who inherited southermost Jinn land of southern Shanxi Prov, described themselves as riding in Xia-chariots and claiming to be Xia King. A Qin Principality official also denoted himself as Xia-zi or son of Xia people because his mother was a Qin-ren or Qin people. In ancient classics, during south-north dynasties, occasional usage of the word 'Xia-ren' (i.e., the Xia people), had been adopted for differentiating the Chinese of Sichuan Prov 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), would mention a dialogue between Zhunmang and Yuanfeng in regards to Zhuangmang's sailing into East Sea and polarized zhongguo (central statelet) and 'si hai' (four seas). Xu Hao, in comments on "Shuo Wen", stated that Yi-di barbarians began to invade China at the times of Xia people and that then Chinese were hence named Xia-ren or Xia people. Liu Qiyu listed similar parallel antagonism of 'ji-zhou' and 'si hai' in "Chu Ci" (Chu Principality Poems) and "Huai Nan Zi" to validate the exact location of the land of 'Xia' as equivalent to ancient 'ji-zhou' prefecture, i.e., southern Shanxi Prov. Similarly, Liu Qiyu cited similar parallel antagonism of 'zhongguo' (central statelet) versus 'si yi' (four groups of barbarians) in "Zuo Zhuan" for same sense interpretation.
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 Fiery Lord, i.e., Shen-nong-jia, exists today. The ox-totem Yandi tribal group embodied the transformation of husbandry to agriculture. Archaeologists in Hunan-Hubei areas firmly believe that Yandi's oblation temple there had proven that Yandi had origin around the middle Yangtze River area. In Shaanxi Province, Huangdi pilgrimage has been in existence since ancient times. http://www.hmongcenter.org/inonkinchipa.html stated: i) that Mt Qiong-shan, i.e., 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 Prov, "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)
After analyzing the following, alternative conclusions could be reached for the prehistoric Chinese. That is, ancient Chinese had been mixture of peoples from the northwest, north, south and east. The two major groups would be the dragon-totem Xia people and bird-totem Yi people. The two totems, i.e., dragon and phoenix, had become China's national treasures and symbols after two groups of people mixed up with each other during the course of history. It is not a simple matter of descending from Yandi and Huangdi alone.
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. Yi-people were noted for their bird-totem which had its imprints in excavations from Liangzhu Culture 7000 years ago, and Yangshao/Longshan Cultures 4000-5000 years ago. 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 Prov where the Xia people originally dwelled.
Lord Shun (l. 2257 - 2208 B.C.E. ?) was said to be a Dong-yi, but he also could be traced to the same family as Huangdi. The big family lineage is apparent. Lord Shun was considered more of 'Yi' because he was born near Mount Yaoqiu, near Yuyao of Zhejiang Province in Yangtze Delta. Zhou Chu's Feng Tu Ji (Records of Winds and Soils), further commented that Lord Shun was a Dongyi. Later Shang Dynasty people took pride in Lord Shun being their ancestors. According to Sima Qian's Shi Ji, the ancestor of the Shang people was named Xie, a son of Lord Diku (l. B.C.E. 2436 - 2367 ?). Legend said that Xie was born after his mother, Jiandi (Yousong-shi woman, a statelet located in Yuncheng of Shanxi Prov), swallowed an egg of a black bird (swallow). Fourteen generation descendant would be Tang (Shang-Tang), the founder of Shang Dynasty.
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 Warring States time period that Qi Principality editors adopted the terms of four barbarians as might have existed at the time of Guan-zi [Guan Zhong] of Spring & Autumn time period of Eastern Zhou Dynasty.
The 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 'Yi' people. In fact, Chinese classics repeatedly stated or hinted that Yandi was Chiyou, which led to my rewrite of the prehistory at http://www.imperialchina.org/ImperialChina/?p=6 to point out that Huangdi was a late newcomer invading the agricultural China from today's Kalgan area, i.e., the sphere of Hongshan Culture.
Generations later, Lord Shun (reign 2257-2208 B.C.E. ?) suggested to Lord Yao to have Gun (Lord Yu's father) executed on Mount Yu-shan (feather mountain, in today's Linyi County, Shandong Prov) for creating detente onto the 'Yi' barbarians. However, Lord Shun himself was said to be a 'Dong-yi' (i.e., Eastern Yi). After Lord Shun would be Lord Yu. As pointed out by scholar Zhang Fan in his article, "Reserach Into Shang Totems and Confucius Ancestry", Lord Yu, per "Mo-zi", had spread teachings to nine Yi people in the east. (See 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 [phoenix Yi], Zi-yi, and Yang-yi [sun Yi] etc. Prof Wei, alternatively, claimed that Mount Yu-shan, i.e., feather mountain, could be islands in Pacific Northeast where ancient Chinese travellers had observed huge layers of feather from migrating birds, hence linking up the legend of Gun's body transforming into a brown bear.)
Scholar Wang Zhonghan pointed out that the character 'Yi', having appeared as Shi-fang statelet in Shang Dynasty's oracle bones, would still exist in Shangdong-Jiangsu provinces and around Huai-shui River by late Spring & Autumn time period of Eastern Zhou Dynasty. Wang Zhonghan, after analyzing the wars between Zhou people and numerous Yi people, had concluded that "Eastern Yi" [in Shandong Peninsula] had declined as a result of expeditions by Duke Zhou-gong and King Cheng-wang in early Western Zhou time period; that "Huai-yi" [around Huai-shui River] emerged from middle to late time periods of Western Zhou Dynasty; that "Nan-yi" [in southern or southeastern direction] rose up in influence at time of Zhou King Liwang; and that by the time of Qin-Han Dynasty, 'Dong-yi' would be designation for 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 Qiyu pointed out, 'hua' and 'xia', pronounced the same way as [hwer] in 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. (Ancient West Yellow River Bend is the same as today's East Yellow River Bend. 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 South Bend in southern Shanxi Prov and then a south-to-north turn in Hebei Province for exit into the sea.) Liu Qiyu's dissertation proposed the opposite movement of the Xia people, i.e., that the Xia people, the direct descendants of Huangdi with dragon totem, originally dwelled in southern Shanxi Province and then expanded eastward and southward, across the South Bend, to today's Henan Province. Xia people, under Qi (Lord Yu's son), defeated the You-hu-shi Dong-yi people, built cities and capital in Henan Prov, endured power struggles with Dong-yi people under Hou-yi and Han-zhuo, and stayed in Henan Prov for hundreds of years till Shang-tang's group of Dong-yi people expelled them. After Shang Dynasty overthrew Xia, remnant Xia people fled northward and westward, and majority of them returned to their ancestral home in southern Shanxi Prov. Some of those Xia people who fled northward and westward would become the Yuezhi (i.e., a soundex to Yu-shi tribe) in the west and the Huns in the north per scholar Wang Guowei. 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 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 Qiangic People, I detailed the compositions of the Rong to derive a good conclusion that some of the Rongs at the time of Zhou Dynasty could be of Qiangic and Rong people in the west shared the same blood-line with Xia Chinese but differred in 'Culture' such as cuisine, clothing, money and language. 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. I 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 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).
The Hua people, similarly, would also imply a more restrictive meaning for the people that would be called Xirong or the Western Rong nomads. Lord Yu (r. B.C.E. 2204-2195 ?) or Da Yu, a descendant of Huangdi, was said to be a so-called 'Xi-yi Ren' (western alien) because he had origin or birth in the land of the Xirong (Western Rong) and/or Xi Qiang peoples. Scholar Liu Qiyu further tackled the issue of 'xi' or west. His validations 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, later land between 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 southern Shanxi Prov. (Liu Qiyu pointed out that original places for Taiyuan and Jinyang etc would be in southern Shanxi Province and that they did not get appropriated to northern Shanxi Prov until after Jinn Lord Daogong quelled various 'Di2' statelets in the north. Liu Qiyu further stated that after the split of Jinn into Haan-Zhao-Wei principalities, 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 '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 later peoples due to the historical linkage of Xia people. Later, the Huns at once set up a kingdom called 'Xia' (AD 407-431), and the Tanguts proclaimed their Da Xia, i.e. Xixia or Western Xia Dynasty (AD 1032-1227) in the same place. (Xia was also the Chinese name for Bactria. Wang Guowei speculated that Yuezhi people, after their defeat in the hands of Huns, fled to Bactria to found a similar 'xia' kingdom and that even the later 'Tu-huo-luo' kingdom of Afghanistan could be a mutation of the ancient pronunciation for 'da xia'. I expounded on Wang Guowei's blunder in the hun.htm section. Note that Bactria existed at the time of Alexandre Invasion which was before the Yuezhi migrated to the west.) 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 belonged to the 'Yi' people.
The playgrounds for the Yi and Hua peoples are quite extensive. In contrast with the map which usually depicted the Yellow River and Shandong Peninsula as the domain for ancient Chinese, there are convincing stories that ancient Chinese had expanded towards both south and west. Huangdi married woman from the west (i.e., Xi Ling NÃ¼'); Huangdi climbed Mount Xiongshan on the Yangtze bank; Huangdi married his sons with women from Sichuan Province. Huangdi's grandson, Lord Zhuanxu, had his influence reaching Jiaozhi, today's Guangdong-Guangxi provinces bordering Vietnam. Yu the Great controlled the floods 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 Gorge for the Yellow River to flow down, and he was also responsible for repairing nine rivers in the lower plains where the Yellow River converged into the sea. There was an ancient claim that during Song Dynasty, Kuaiji people, when rebuilding the Yu Pilgrimage, dug up some one hundred pieces of jade articles ('Gui') that were considered instruments of power conferrals for vassals. Kuaijishan Mountain would be where Yu convened the vassals. Lord Yu was buried on Kuaijishan Mountain, 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 an embodiment of the wife of Lord Shun, a Yi tribal leader. Lord Shun died in the land of Cangwu, a place in today's Guangxi, near Gungdong border, and was buried on Mount Qiuyishan, Ningyuan County of Hunan Province. The ancestors of later Qin Empire had migrated to Shaanxi-Gansu from the traditional Dong Yi ground of Shandong Province. Today's Chinese, without distinction, would usually call themselves the descendants of Yan-Huang, namely, Fiery Lord and Yellow Lord, while not acknowledging that the Yi people might have comprised a much larger percentage of the original Chinese.
Comment In Regards To 'Dong-yi' & 'Xi-yi'
History annals claim that Lord Shun was a Dong-yi and that Lord Yu was a Xi-yi. This could be interpreted as an ancient conventional way of 'birthplace naming'. For thousands of years, Chinese used to claim ancestry place as their point of origin. This applies to Hakka people who, having dwelled in southern China for over one thousand years, still claimed northern Chinese prefectures as their point of origin. As a result of ancient Chinese ancestor worshipping, Chinese clans present a unique way of identification of surnames and Gene-tree Y-chromosome. Should we interpret '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 ... "
Big Korea Nation School of Thought
The Yi People of 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 Koreans) would single out the Koreans and other Altaic-speaking people, like Jurchens (Manchus) and Mongols etc, as the representative of Yi People.
This is only one contesting school of thought and we will examine the identities of 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. 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, belonging to the so-called Altaic language family against the Sino-Tibetan language family of the Chinese, however, could be a later phenomenon. Ancient Korea was invaded by Puyo and Koguryo peoples, i.e., nomadic tribes from Manchuria. Ji-zi's Choson and Wei Man's Korea could very well be different from later Koguryo as far as language / speech is concerned. Archaic Korean language had already disappeared in Korea, but it was said to have retained some elements in 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 human remains excavated in Shandong Peninsula ( http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v64n1/980634/980634.html ) suggested southern and northern points of origin for Jomon and Yayoi Japanese. On basis of various historical records and modern technology analysis, I would speculate i) that early Korean culture was very much connected with eastern China as a result of nascent human migration from south to north and ii) that Tungusic invasions from Manchuria gradually overtook the early Continental traits. Koguryo, a Tungusic people, claimed descent from ancient Lord Zhuanxu (Gao-yang-shi, l. 2514 - 2437 ?) and adopted the surname of 'Gao' (i.e., 'Ko') as their clan name. In both cases, Tungusic or continental, Koreans shared inseparable relations with the Chinese.
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 different calendar was used here), there was an alleged arrival of Kija from Shang China." 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 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 Chinese had adopted. Their timeframe for Zhou Dynasty would be 1122 B.C.E. - 256 B.C.E. The Korean school of thought discusses the prehistory of "Dongyi" people, i.e., the ancestors of the Koreans between 7193 BC-2333 B.C.E. My impression is that it is a recitation of the same legends as Chinese. It touches upon such familiar names as
"Grand Korean View" said that the Dongyi people established "Bak-dal Nara" (Korean words), the first Dongyi state, with territories covering:
More about Ji-zi and the Yi People is available at http://www.imperialchina.org/ImperialChina/?p=311
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 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 2300 years ahead of him.)
Now how early did the Mongoloid reached 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 peceded 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.
The Orthodoxy Huangdi Lineage
The orthodox order in Sima Qian's Shi-ji
HUANGDI |-Changyi---Gaoyang---Qiongyi-Jingkang-Juwang-Qiaoniu-Gusou-SHUN | (ZHUANXU)| | | | |------------------------Gun-------------------YU | |-Xuanxiao--Qiaoji---Gaoxin----YAO (SHAOHAO) (DIKU)Huangdi (l. B.C.E. 2697 - 2599 ?) married a woman from Xiling (western mountain) Statelet who bore two sons, Xuanxiao and Changyi. His grandson, Lord Zhuanxu (l. B.C.E. 2514 - 2437 ?) 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. (Five forms include wood, mud, water, metal and fire.) Alternative account would treat Shaohao (Jintian-shi, l. B.C.E. 2598 - 2515 ?) as a ruler with a reign of 84 years, between Lord Huangdi (Xuanyuan-shi) and Lord Zhuanxu (Gaoyang-shi). Shao-hao-shi (junior 'Hao' clan), said to be offsprings of earlier Tai-hao-shi (senior 'Hao' clan), had included various bird-totem sub-clans such as Feng-niao-shi (phoenix), Xuan-niao-shi (black bird clan, i.e., Shang people), Qing-niao-shi (green bird), Zhu-jiu-shi, and Shuang-jiu-shi etc. Lord Zhuanxu's nephew, Diku or Di Ku (Gaoxin-shi, l. B.C.E. 2436 - 2367 ?), was next. Diku had his capital in Bo, later Shang capital and 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 (l. B.C.E. 2357 - 2258 ?).
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. ?). Zhi earlier conferred the title of Marquis Tanghou on Yao. Hence Yao(3) was called Tang-yao (reign 2357-2258 B.C.E. ?) or Tao-tang. Alternatively speaking, Yao, per Shi Ji, was originally conferred the land of Tang (Tangxian county of Hebei Prov) in the east; moreover, Yao, per 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. Scholar Liu Qiyu, citing his teacher Gu Xiegang, stated that both Lord Yao and Lord Shun were appropriated to the land of 'Xia' after Xia people's eastward expansion into the bird-totem Eastern Yi barbarian land. (Gu Xiegang cited ancient classics Zu Zhuan in stating that nowhere in Zu Zhuan could find reference that Lord Shun was surnamed 'Yao' or Lord surnamed 'Tang' and that Zu Zhuan did not have any reference about Yu-shi clan of Xia people being the descendant of Lord Shun or Tao-tang-shi of Xia people being the descendant of Lord Yao.)
Lord Shun (reign 2257-2208 B.C.E. ?), aka Yu-shun, was called Chonghua or Yao Chonghua for his double apples in his eyes. 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 Zhejiang Province in 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 right in extrapolating the locality if Yao-xu to Zhejiang Province.) Alternatively speaking, Meng-zi stated that Shun was born in Zhufeng of Shandong Prov, relocated to Fuxia (i.e., Puyang of northeastern Henan Prov) and died in Miaotiao (near Kaifeng of Henan Prov) and Mo-zi stated that Shun had tilled fields in Lishan (Heze county of Shandong Prov) and fished in Leize (same area as Heze or Weishanhu Lake area).
For five generations before Shun, the family 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 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 "Zhu Shu Ji Nian" (i.e., "Bamboo Annals" 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 rebellion. Shun would select many saints for managing the country, and this would include Yu (father of Xia Dynasty founder), Xie (Shang Dynasty ancestor), Houji (Zhou Dynasty ancestor), Bo-Yi (Qin Dynasty ancestor) etc. 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 in southern China, and he was buried in later Lingling Commandary [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 1960s]. (As to the death of Lord Shun in southern China, "Bamboo Annals" claimed that it was Lord Yu who usurped the power and exiled Lord Shun to southern China. However, Chu Bosi pointed out that Lord Shun had died in southern expedition against 'Miao' barbarians.)
Yu (r. B.C.E. 2204-2195 ?) would master the flooding which his father failed to control, and Yu rezoned the country into 9 prefectures and made nine bronze 'ding' or cauldrons as embodiment of the nine prefectures called 'jiu zhou'. 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 today's Yangdi. Ban Gu of Latter Han Dynasty disputed the generation gap between Lord Zhuanxu and Lord Yu, claiming that Gun was the fifth generation grandson of Lord Zhuanxu and that Lord Yu would be six generations away from Lord Zhuanxu.
Lord Yu was the grandson of Lord Zhuanxu. (There is 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, a land where the Western Qiangs lived. Liu Qiyu validated the location of 'xi' or west as nothing other than the areas to the west of today's Tongguan Pass of eastern Shenxi Prov.) Scholar Liu Qiyu, citing his teacher Gu Xiegang, stated that in both Xia people and Chu people's legends, the common gods happened to be Gun and Yu, not Yao and Shun. Liu Qiyu stated that both Lord Yao and Lord Shun were appropriated to the land of 'Xia' after Xia people's eastward expansion into the bird-totem Eastern Yi barbarian land.
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, namely, today's Taihu Lake, Jiangsu Province. Recent excavations 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 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 Zhejiang people in Yangtze Delta where the descendants of King Shaokang of Xia Dynasty (21-16th c. BC) had lived.
Historian Luu Simian cited Li Ji: Jifa Zhengyi's preface from Cunqiu 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 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 ancient Chinese rule had continued.
The Chinese vs the Barbarians - the Mongols vs Non-Mongols
Largely due to the double destructions 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 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 and Rong. Inter-marriages between the Rong/Di & Chinese were common. The Rongdi Rongs (ancestors of later Huns) had their daughter married to Zhou King Xiangwang. Prince Chong'Er of Jin 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 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 Di 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.
To clarify Chinese ethnic continuity, I 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 corrobaration that Huangdi's people were not of deep-socket eyes at all. In the paragraph on the origin of Huns, I 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, I will list the following sentence as a proof that 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 hei' (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. Non-Mongolian physiques did exist among the Chinese as a result of the Chinese interaction with Hunnish, Turkic and Mongol peoples 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 nomads. As history had recorded, various steppe peoples, at certain points, had been recorded to be people carrying different features as to hair, nose, eye and skin. The Hunnish, Turkic and Mongol peoples, however, should be considered more Mongoloid peoples than else, and they had acted as a kind of buffer in between the Mongoloid and Caucasoid peoples since prehistory. To get a glimpse of ancient Mongoloid, we just need to take a look at terracotta soldiers dug out of Qin Emperor Shihuangdi's tomb.
My unchanged belief is that the Sino-Tibetan-speaking Qiangic SanMiao 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]. The Tokharai, 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, I had cited descriptions of Non-Mongolian Physiques among the various groups of nomadic peoples 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 at the Chinese border. In 175-174 B.C.E., Hunnic Chanyu's letter to 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 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]. The Huns, after raiding to the West, had tacked on the non-Mongolian physique. Though, the original Huns shared the same origin as the Xia Chinese. 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 Physiques 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 of 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), 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 emperor 'Li'. 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. Tang records stated that the Kirghiz disliked BLACK hair and took it as BAD OMEN. Tang records said those Kirghiz who carried black hair must be the descendants of Li Ling.
For further discussions on the Barbarians & the Chinese, please refer to
Relationship Between Shang Dynasty, Succeeding Zhou Dynasty & Barbarians
Difference Between Rong and Chinese In 'Culture', Not 'Blood-line'
Merging and Subjugating Barbarians By Zhou Dynasty & Principalities
Assertions By Luo Xianglin & Wang Zhonghan
Continuing Zigzags With Barbarians
Where Were Yuezhi, Wusun & Sai-ren [Scythians]?
There long appeared four designations of 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 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 Sanmiao (i.e., the Three Miao Tribes), Man(2) and Lao barbarians, and the Zangke, Qiongdu, Yelang and Tian-Yue peoples in southern and southwestern China. Rong-of-the-West are the nomadic peoples 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 peoples living in Manchuria, Korea and Japan. In early times, the Yi was associated with the word 'niao' for bird, and there were eight to nine different 'niao-yi' people in the east. Shang Dynasty people were recorded to have treated 'Xuan Niao' (i.e., Black bird, possibly sparrow) as the totem. Manchurian legends as to the birth of their founder had something to do with swallowing the red fruit dropped by a bird. In later times, the Yi designation would be associated with a word 'dao' for island, pointing to the barbarian peoples in East China Seas. (Both the character 'niao' and 'dao' looked quite close and might have corrupted consecutively during the course of history.) Yi is more an inclusive word to mean aliens, and 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. Quanrong 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 to have first lived at the coast and then in the west could be the result of the epic migration of the original inhabitants of China from the coast to the mid-Yangtze during the wars of the Yellow Overlord and the Fiery Lord/Chiyou, and then the San-Miao exile towards the west from the Mid-Yangtze area.)
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 SanMiao. (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 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 flood-control job; Gun's fault was his failure to control the flooding. (Gun was the father of Yu the Great.) 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; SanMiao people were exiled to San-Wei-Shan Mountain in Gansu's Dunhuang to counter the Xirong or Western Rong people; and Gun was killed on Mountain Yushan (Feather mountain) to detente the Eastern Yi people.
Kong An'guo of Han Dynasty claimed that Hundun wan an infilial descendant of Huangdi the Yellow Lord. Gun was an infilial son of Lord Zhuanxu. The 'Sanmiao' people were said to be infilial 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 'Sanmiao' 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 Peoples, Qiang, Sanmiao & 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, numerbing 5 million per 1982 census, are said to be descendants of ancient Lord Chiyou who headed the Nine Li tribes, i.e., ancestors of the SanMiao 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.)
Speculations 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 'SanMiao' 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 Prov was a mountain named 'San Wei Shan' where the Three Miao peoples were exiled. This could lead to a sound speculation that 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 Yeuzhi, 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 mid-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 Xiaohe 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." Tibetans, clearly descendants of the Sino-Tibetan-speaking Qiangic SanMiao 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 Sino-Tibetan-speaking Qiangic SanMiao people first reached the He-xi Corridor of Gansu Prov 4000 years ago and onward to Khotan area of southern Chinese Turkistan. It is never an accident that 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 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 rathern than the other way around.
Tibetans - The Fiery Lord Tribe
In my opinion, the peoples who share the same origin and history as today's Chinese will be 1) Tibetans, and 2) Koreans. The Tibetans, according to a Chinese linguist, would be the descendants of the Xi 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 (Western Qiang) and Dong Qiang (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 peoples. There were 150 different groups of Qiangic peoples, widely dispersed among Sichuan, Ganshu, Qinhai and Shenxi Provinces. Ancient classics stated that the word 'qiang' means the shepards 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.
One opinion also said that the ancient Tibetans possibly derived from the Sanmiao (Three Miao) tribes who, being in constant battles with the Hua and Yi tribes, had once occupied today's upper and middle Yangtze River areas. At the times of Lords Yao-Shun-Yu, the 'Sanmiao' (Three Miao) people had taken Lake Dongting as their very homeland. According to Sima Qian, the 'Sanmiao' 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 peoples were exiled. 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. San-Miao people were not considered 'Chinese' at the times of Yao-Shun-Yu, and they belonged to the barbarian groups in ancient Chinese classics.
San-Miao, Qiangs, Xianbei, Tuoba, & Tanguts
San-Miao people, the Qiang people and the Di nomads etc long dwelled in the Gansu-Qinghai and northwestern Sichuan areas. (The Di nomads had been suspected to be responsible for the so-called 'Sanxingdui Excavations' in today's Sichuan Province. In the section on Sixteen Nations, we had traced the Di statelets.) I 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 I 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 23rd century B.C.E.
In late Han times, the Qiangs had been mercenaries of Han emperors in numerous wars, and one family of generals had joined the Shu Han against the Wei kingom during 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 Yongjia years (AD 310s) of Jin Dynasty to the 3rd year of Longsuo (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 Xianbei nomadic elements, would mix up with the Qiangic peoples (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).
With the defeat of i) the Yi People under Chi-you and ii) the "Qiangic" people under Fiery Lord, 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), which were mostly likely from today's Kalgan area, 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, as the progenitor of the Chinese nation. 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. 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"). 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 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 them in the 9th century B.C. The conflicts with the barbarians in southern Manchuria would resurface time and again during 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, Chinese were defeated by the Koreans and Sui Emperor Yangdi hence lost his empire due to internal revolts, and in Tang Dynasty, Chinese intervened in Korean civil wars and helped one Korean kingdom (Silla) defend against the Japanese who were invited by a rival.
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 struggles between the dragon-totem Xia people and the bird-totem Yi people never settled for next 1400 years, till Zhou Dynasty's Duke Zhougong campaigned against Ren-fang-guo on the Shandong Peninsula and quelled the remaining Shang people after 1122 B.C.E. Among the Yi People of the east would be Lord Shun and later Shang Dynasty ancestors. During the famous tribal power successions of lords Yao, Shun and Yu, prior to the founding of the first dynasty of Xia by Yu's son, we had Lord Shun of comparatively Yi nature succeeding Lord Yao. After Lord Shun would be Lord Yu who represented the Xia or Huaxia people of the west. Lord Yu's son set up the Xia Dynasty in Henan Prov, and Xia people must have close relations with the natives to the west of Henan Prov, i.e., Qiangs and Xirong (Western Rong People). (Today's term Huaxia would be the combination of hua and xia, with "hua" said to be from Shenxi Prov's Huashan Mountain, a name appropriated from southern Shanxi Prov across the Yellow River Bend, or more likely an alternate word for "xia", while "xia" from the Duke Xia title of Lord Yu, a title possibly made up to backtrack the actual victory of Lord Yu's Xia people over the Dong-yi people.)
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 second important recognizable Chinese ethnogenesis would occur at the time of Xia-Shang dynastic substitution, around 1766 B.C.E. The struggles between Xia people and 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 Shandong Province. Houyi, the 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. The Yi people would later build the Shang Dynasty from 1765 B.C.E. to 1122 BC in place of the Xia Dynasty. The son of last Xia Dynasty Lord Jie would later flee to the northern plains to be the ancestors of the Huns.
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. 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 would mount 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 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. After reflecting on various theories, my conclusion is that the ancient people tend to diverge rathern than converge. Early human population was nothing in comparison with the number of animals and beasts around them. Early human beings had to fight against animals and beasts for survival than against fellow human beings. Relatively speaking, in past 10,000 years, the first part should be quite peaceful, and only in second part of 5000 years did we notice the signs of civilizations and the multiplicity of human beings. Before the invention of weapons, no matter stone axe, copper dagger or iron sword, early people had no choice but to wrestle against each other with bare hands. In this sense, Marxist perspective on "slave society" had its merits because the killings between human beings had only been observed among the buries "mass' graves during this time period. In contrary to common sense, early human migrations took the shape of diversion, NOT conversion. Early human migrations 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.
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 Xiling (western mountain) Statelet who bore two sons, Xuanxiao and Changyi. Among Lord Huangdi's 25 sons, two elder sons, Changyi and Xuanxiao, were both conferred the land in the west, today's Sichuan Province, and the two sons married so-called 'Shu-shan nÃ¼', i.e., women from Sichuan Province.
Fallacies Of Tribal Leadership Succession: Yao-Sun-Yu
Earlier, we cited Scholar Liu Qiyu and his teacher Gu Xiegang in stating that both Lord Yao and Lord Shun could have been appropriated to the land of 'Xia' after Xia people's eastward expansion into the bird-totem Eastern Yi barbarian land. Gu Xiegang cited ancient classics Zu Zhuan in stating that nowhere in Zu Zhuan could find reference that Lord Shun was surnamed 'Yao' or Lord surnamed 'Tang' and that Zu Zhuan did not have any reference about Yu-shi clan of Xia people being the descendant of Lord Shun or Tao-tang-shi of Xia people being the descendant of Lord Yao.
Aside from the disupte 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 successions of tribal powers among tribal leaders of Yao-Sun-Yu who led the mingled Dongyi-Huaxia Tribes prior to the monopolization of power by Xia-hou-shi clan of Xia Dynasty. Here, Yao & Yu belonged to the Hua tribes; Sun, however, was a Dongyi tribal leader.
Yao-Sun-Yu legends had been praised by the Chinese communists as the paradise in 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 successfuly controlled the floods (i.e., repairing nine rivers in lower Yellow River line), and Yu was recommended to Shun for his bypassing home three times in between 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 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.
Hanfei-zi wrote in his book that the Yao-Shun-Yu deeds were fabricated stories. According to records from Shang Shu, Shun, a Yi tribal leader, 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 push him in a boat in 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 Prov 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, to succeed him. But Yu staged a coup and later banished Shun to southern China which would be still marshlands and mountains in the Warring States period of Zhou Dynasty two thousand years after Shun's times. Somewhere in 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. Lord Shun died in the land of Cangwu, a place in today's Guangxi, near Guangdong border. (Alternative account claimed that Lord Shun died on a southern campaign against the barbarians.) Hanfei-zi further claimed that the usurpation was the norm, not the exception, and the mandate of heaven was construed to legalize the usurpation of later rulers. An often disputed ancient book, Zhu Shu Ji Nan, i.e., the Bamboo Annals, written in approx 299 B.C.E., 75 volumes in total, excavated from Wei Principality King Xiangwang's tomb in A.D. 330 (alternatively said to be discovered in year A.D. 281, i.e., Jinn Wudi's reign), had corroborated Han-fei-zi's claim. (Scholar Li Xueqin, in his dissertaion on "Zhu Shu Ji Nan and Xia Dynasty", claimed that the Bamboo Annals was biased in description of usurpation & tyrants and might have fabricated historical events to serve the purpose of belligerent Warring States time period, with anti-history stories like Shang Dynasaty 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 as 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. Hence, the Bamboo Annals' accounts of Xia King Qi's killing Yi or the usurpation of Shun vs Yao & Yu vs Shun should be questioned for its authenticity. Alternatively speaking, the Bamboo Annals, i.e., "Zhu Shu Ji Nian", appeared to have the most authentic historic account of the three dynasties of Xia, Shang, and Zhou, as well as the pre-Xia history, and could be said to be the only book with accurate accounts of the eras of all ancient rulers, other than the parts on usurpation.)
With the founding of Xia by Yu's son, Qi(3), China was said to have entered the era of 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.) 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
This website expresses the personal opinions of the webmaster (firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.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.
ECON 101: US Interest Rate Down = China Exchange Rate Up !
Republican China in Blog Format