63 replies to this topic

[somechineseperson]

The name of the Zhou Supreme Deity is Tian or "Supreme Heaven", and later Religious Daoism was to base the name of the Daoist Supreme God (The Three Pure Ones) on this Zhou term, which is called Tianzun or "Lord of Heaven/Vernerated Supreme Heaven".

I'm just wondering, does this imply an Altaic connection in the linguistic sense? This is because in Mongolian, the Supreme God is called Tengri, and I know that in Japanese, which is partially Altaic, the Son of Heaven/Emperor is called Tenno, so Heaven Itself must have a similar name in Japanese.

I wonder, can someone tell me the name for "Supreme Heaven" (as the Highest God) in the various Altaic and partially Altaic languages? (I think both Korean and Japanese are linguistically a mixture of Altaic and Sino-Tibetan influences) Such as Korean, Japanese, Manchu and Turkish?

It is clear that Tian/Tianzun, Tengri and Tenno etc share the same linguistic root, just as the various names for God or the gods in the various Indo-European languages also sound similar and share the same linguistic root: E.g. devas in Sanskrit, deus in Latin, and deo in the Romance languages of Western Europe.

We know that the Zhou people originated in Western China before they overthrew the Shang Dynasty in the 11th century BC. My view is that the Zhou was a Sino-Tibetan people, but linguistically Altaic and Sino-Tibetan peoples do share the same "ancestry". This is logical since physically both Sino-Tibetans (Han Chinese, Qiang, Tibetan, Vietnamese) and Altaic peoples (Manchus, Mongols, Xianbei, proto-Turks before they moved west) and the linguistic mixture of these two (Koreans and Japanese) are all Mongolids and do not actually look very different.

In fact, personal I'd put Altaic together with Sino-Tibetan as Sino-Alta-Tibetan, and essentially linguistically speaking all of East Asia from Mongolia and the Tungus in the North to Vietnam in the South, from Tibet in the West to Japan in the East, are all Sino-Alta-Tibetan linguistically speaking.

Edited by somechineseperson, 14 January 2007 - 01:57 PM.

[lifezard]

The name of the Zhou Supreme Deity is Tian or "Supreme Heaven", and later Religious Daoism was to base the name of the Daoist Supreme God (The Three Pure Ones) on this Zhou term, which is called Tianzun or "Lord of Heaven/Vernerated Supreme Heaven".

I'm just wondering, does this imply an Altaic connection in the linguistic sense? This is because in Mongolian, the Supreme God is called Tengri, and I know that in Japanese, which is partially Altaic, the Son of Heaven/Emperor is called Tenno, so Heaven Itself must have a similar name in Japanese.

tennou is a sino-japanese term meaning (heavenly august?) and actually dates no earlier than the late nara period.. the native term for sky or heaven is ama/ame which incidentally is the same as the meaning 'rain' ... this seem to have cognate to manchu : abka (heaven) which also meant 'rain' originally (rain later became 'aga')

I wonder, can someone tell me the name for "Supreme Heaven" (as the Highest God) in the various Altaic and partially Altaic languages? (I think both Korean and Japanese are linguistically a mixture of Altaic and Sino-Tibetan influences) Such as Korean, Japanese, Manchu and Turkish?

It is clear that Tian/Tianzun, Tengri and Tenno etc share the same linguistic root, just as the various names for God or the gods in the various Indo-European languages also sound similar and share the same linguistic root: E.g. devas in Sanskrit, deus in Latin, and deo in the Romance languages of Western Europe.

We know that the Zhou people originated in Western China before they overthrew the Shang Dynasty in the 11th century BC. My view is that the Zhou was a Sino-Tibetan people, but linguistically Altaic and Sino-Tibetan peoples do share the same "ancestry". This is logical since physically both Sino-Tibetans (Han Chinese, Qiang, Tibetan, Vietnamese) and Altaic peoples (Manchus, Mongols, Xianbei, proto-Turks before they moved west) and the linguistic mixture of these two (Koreans and Japanese) are all Mongolids and do not actually look very different.

In fact, personal I'd put Altaic together with Sino-Tibetan as Sino-Alta-Tibetan, and essentially linguistically speaking all of East Asia from Mongolia and the Tungus in the North to Vietnam in the South, from Tibet in the West to Japan in the East, are all Sino-Alta-Tibetan linguistically speaking.

the possibility is there, i did post once regarding 'tian' s relation to 'tengri' of course, relation to indo-european zeus/dyaus cannot be ignored too

[somechineseperson]

There are some scholars from Turkey who say the Zhou was actually an Altaic people, but I think there is not enough evidence for this claim.

[Intranetusa]

I'm not sure if Zhou is actually in (modern) western China. Wasn't the Zhou homeland right in the middle of China?


http://en.wikipedia....ge:China_2a.jpg

[lifezard]

I'm not sure if Zhou is actually in (modern) western China. Wasn't the Zhou homeland right in the middle of China?
http://en.wikipedia....ge:China_2a.jpg

it is considered to be in the west of the historical chinese territory, not modern china... modern china includes xinjiang which will make 'Hao' (western Zhou s capital) appear central in modern Chinese territory

[DearCoolZ]

It is clear that Tian/Tianzun, Tengri and Tenno etc share the same linguistic root, just as the various names for God or the gods in the various Indo-European languages also sound similar and share the same linguistic root: E.g. devas in Sanskrit, deus in Latin, and deo in the Romance languages of Western Europe.

like lizezard said,tenno is actually a sino-japanese word.(天皇, tennō?, literally "heavenly Emperor"). same meaning as 皇帝

We know that the Zhou people originated in Western China before they overthrew the Shang Dynasty in the 11th century BC. My view is that the Zhou was a Sino-Tibetan people, but linguistically Altaic and Sino-Tibetan peoples do share the same "ancestry".

yeah,but if you go back a few thousands years more,the chinese were in kunlun mountain in northwest of china.

This is logical since physically both Sino-Tibetans (Han Chinese, Qiang, Tibetan, Vietnamese) and Altaic peoples (Manchus, Mongols, Xianbei, proto-Turks before they moved west) and the linguistic mixture of these two (Koreans and Japanese) are all Mongolids and do not actually look very different.

vietnamese are not sino-tibetans. vietnamese is under Austro-Asiatic- Mon-Khmer-Viet-Muong

In fact, personal I'd put Altaic together with Sino-Tibetan as Sino-Alta-Tibetan, and essentially linguistically speaking all of East Asia from Mongolia and the Tungus in the North to Vietnam in the South, from Tibet in the West to Japan in the East, are all Sino-Alta-Tibetan linguistically speaking.

but altaic itself is a hypothetical language group.

[YuenKamSiu]

It seems like Pan-Altaic nationalists are trying to Altaicize everything about China. If that is indeed the case, one must ask the question, who are the Chinese then? If everything is altaic about Chinese culture then why don't they just unanimously agree that China was an altaic civilization? It would save them a whole lot of trouble.

[Nikha]

Its all about tendencies, I have seen them. In fact you can also see them on youtube and facebook or other forums. The theory is all about...ooops sorry, It will be too political.

[ahxiang]

It seems like Pan-Altaic nationalists are trying to Altaicize everything about China. If that is indeed the case, one must ask the question, who are the Chinese then? If everything is altaic about Chinese culture then why don't they just unanimously agree that China was an altaic civilization? It would save them a whole lot of trouble.

In other threads, I already discussed the early history about the Chinese versus the barbarians. In ancient China, there was the antagonism of proto-Qiangs and proto-Chinese, as well as the antagonism between the civilized proto-Chinese and the uncivilized proto-Chinese. The raw or uncooked Qiangs later went the Tibetan line, while the raw or uncooked proto-Chinese, and the the vivilized proto-Chinese, had several mix-ups. Sometime, it happened in reverse, namely, the civilized-mutating-to-uncivilized proto-Chinese, e.g., the story of the son of last Xia king Jie to become the founder of the Huns.

Up to the warring states time period, there did not appear to have any existence of an "Altaic" people. Wang Zhonghan has research in this field. And there was no, let me emphasize, again, there was no communication between the Central Asia and China or Mongolia around that time. There was two routes available for movement to China, and I mentioned that already, the Black River, and the Yenesei River. Zkou King Muwang's western trip could have just stopped around Mt Dunhuangshan, and the Chinese jade trade of Shang Dynasty was to do with the Hetian area on the border of Tibetan plateaun and the Southern Chinese Turkestan deseart, a westernmost post the proto-Qiangs had reached.

As Wang Zhonghan points out, it will be after the Warring States time period, that ancient China observed that the northern barbarians were different from the earlier barbarians - who invariably shared the same last name as the civilized Chinese, 'JI'. The Jinn principality had passage after passage of writings on the prohibition of the same last name marriage between the civilized Chinese families and the barbarian tribes living around today's northern Shanxi Province.

My speculation was that it was the Xianbei who introduced the Altaic language to Mongolia and western China. And the Altaic language originated in Manchuria.

Edited by ahxiang, 01 April 2011 - 11:25 PM.

[baybal]

We know that the Zhou people originated in Western China before they overthrew the Shang Dynasty in the 11th century BC. My view is that the Zhou was a Sino-Tibetan people, but linguistically Altaic and Sino-Tibetan peoples do share the same "ancestry".
yeah,but if you go back a few thousands years more,the chinese were in kunlun mountain in northwest of china.

We can't simply say that an ethnic group with any particular connection was "Altaic" back two thousands years ago. Simply for the fact that it wouldn't be possible to clearly define which ethnc groups could be considered "Altaic" back then. At that time the whole area east to Himalayas was in a process of constant ethnogenesis, when new nations were emerging and dissapearing virtually every year.

[Eidolon]

It seems like Pan-Altaic nationalists are trying to Altaicize everything about China. If that is indeed the case, one must ask the question, who are the Chinese then? If everything is altaic about Chinese culture then why don't they just unanimously agree that China was an altaic civilization? It would save them a whole lot of trouble.

Credit should be given where credit is due. This idea came about in the early-mid 20th century, due in part to an assumption then that Turkic peoples were in western China during early history. Most of the people associated with the idea have Turkic historiography as a background. Perhaps the reason it fell out of style among most modern historians is that they now have to contend with linguists who claim that western China was the Tibeto-Burman homeland. An exception is Chen Sanping, who considers the Zhou "partly Altaic/Indo-Iranian" - he's Taiwanese, though that's not to say Chinese scholars never pointed out a similar link.

Edited by Eidolon, 14 April 2011 - 03:48 AM.

[mohistManiac]

New theory about Chinese pyramids as Tarim mummy sun god star charts.

[Jaak]

Up to the warring states time period, there did not appear to have any existence of an "Altaic" people. Wang Zhonghan has research in this field. And there was no, let me emphasize, again, there was no communication between the Central Asia and China or Mongolia around that time. There was two routes available for movement to China, and I mentioned that already, the Black River, and the Yenesei River. Zkou King Muwang's western trip could have just stopped around Mt Dunhuangshan, and the Chinese jade trade of Shang Dynasty was to do with the Hetian area on the border of Tibetan plateaun and the Southern Chinese Turkestan deseart, a westernmost post the proto-Qiangs had reached.

It is quite clear that ancient China and Mongolia were strongly influenced by Central Asia to their northwest.

Wheat and barley are at the foundation of Chinese civilization, and they do not grow wild in China, they grow wild in Near East. Cattle, sheep and goats did not live wild in China, but did in Near East. Wild Przewalski Horses do live in Mongolia - but the domesticated horses of Mongols and Chinese are related to (now extinct) wild horses of Europaean steppes rather than Przewalski horses.

[mariusj]

New theory about Chinese pyramids as Tarim mummy sun god star charts.

Yes, both the Roman and Han were beaten by the Uyghur so badly that they made them into uncivilized barbarians despite whatever cultural civilization that the Uyghurs have. Surly all the surviving articles and archeology finds will further strengthen this claim, further ridiculing the thieving Romans and Han Chinese. Certainly there could be no other explanation that why tall non-asian bodies were found mummified in the waterless, dry, desert other than they were originated from there.

[ahxiang]

It is quite clear that ancient China and Mongolia were strongly influenced by Central Asia to their northwest.

Wheat and barley are at the foundation of Chinese civilization, and they do not grow wild in China, they grow wild in Near East. Cattle, sheep and goats did not live wild in China, but did in Near East. Wild Przewalski Horses do live in Mongolia - but the domesticated horses of Mongols and Chinese are related to (now extinct) wild horses of Europaean steppes rather than Przewalski horses.

Nowadays you have the carbon test to verify those wild claims about the origin of Wheat and barley or animals. I only read one authenticated study in regards to the rice kernels excavated in the Yangtze delta of China versus those excavated in southern Korean peninsula and the western Japanese coast, which pointed to the Yangtze delta as the origin. -You may want to point me a scientific journal to show that Wheat and barley had originated in Central Asia.

Remember when the Han Dynasty emissary, Zhang Qian, first arrived in today's Afghanistan, he noticed that the goodies sold there came from China via India. There was no such mythical Silk Road 2200 years ago. And there is no such myth as called the "Gansu Steppe" where the so-called original "Turks" started their waves of migration towards the west. I happened to have tracked Genghis Khan's campaign against the Tanguts to know where you could have found the desert path through the Gobi Desert, called "Da Zi" in the ancient classics - a black hole that was recorded to swallow anybody who stranded into.

The only reasonable explanation for the origin of Turkic-speaking people would be in the fertile Manchuria.