183 replies to this topic

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

I'm not sure what more proves do you require. The census taken by the Han dynasty already showed that the majority of the people in Liao Ning were people that migrated there from the central plains. They made up the majority of Manchuria's population. However, the concept of Manchuria simply does not exist back then, it was only a concept that started in the late 19th century.

[maneatinghorse]

I'm not sure what more proves do you require. The census taken by the Han dynasty already showed that the majority of the people in Liao Ning were people that migrated there from the central plains. They made up the majority of Manchuria's population. However, the concept of Manchuria simply does not exist back then, it was only a concept that started in the late 19th century.

First of all, I doubt the accuracy of the census taken back 2000 years ago and I question the way how census would have been undertaken.

Secondly, I don't know how you can come up with that conclusion... You take the results of dubious census taken for Liao Ning (a small portion of Manchuria which also happens to be geographically closest to the central plains) and extrapolate the results for entire manchuria? What does that prove? Nothing!

It is a well established fact amongst academia around the world that Manchuria for most part of its history were occupied by people who identified themselves as something other than the Han Chinese or people from the central plains.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

First of all, I doubt the accuracy of the census taken back 2000 years ago and I question the way how census would have been undertaken.

The accuracy of the census has already underwent modern revision in the two volume book "Zhongguo Feng Sheng Ren Kou Kao.) Indeed, the census was actually underestimating the population.

Secondly, I don't know how you can come up with that conclusion... You take the results of dubious census taken for Liao Ning (a small portion of Manchuria which also happens to be geographically closest to the central plains) and extrapolate the results for entire manchuria? What does that prove? Nothing!

You don't appear to understand the demographic distribution of Manchuria, Liao Ning is the only agricultural intensive area in the whole of Manchuria. Most of Ji Lin and all of Hei Long Jiang were nomadic. And if you didn't know, agricultural lands can support many times the population of pastural lands. The estimated population for the present day Ji Lin and Liao Ning in the Zhong Guo Feng Sheng Qu Ren Kou Kao was only around half a million for each. In fact historical sources also shows that the entire population of the Khitan and Shi Wei that resided in these parts of Manchuria were no more than a few hundred thousand in size.

It is a well established fact amongst academia around the world that Manchuria for most part of its history were occupied by people who identified themselves as something other than the Han Chinese or people from the central plains.

Bullocks, give me the source which stated so. We are talking about the entire territory of Manchuria, which does not even exist as a concept back then, not just parts of it.

Edited by warhead, 18 September 2007 - 11:28 PM.

[maneatinghorse]

The accuracy of the census has already underwent modern revision in the two volume book "Zhongguo Feng Sheng Ren Kou Kao.) Indeed, the census was actually underestimating the population.

Hence it would understimate the population of other ethnic groups even more so since a vast majority of them would be nomads or outside the control of Chinese authorities.

You don't appear to understand the demographic distribution of Manchuria, Liao Ning is the only agricultural intensive area in the whole of Manchuria. Most of Ji Lin and all of Hei Long Jiang were nomadic. And if you didn't know, agricultural lands can support many times the population of pastural lands.

That proves the so-called central plain Chinese were limited to small Liao Ning area and rest of Manchuria were inhabited by other ethnic groups who are mainly nomads.

We are talking about the entire territory of Manchuria, which does not even exist as a concept back then, not just parts of it.

Yes, we are talking about the entire territory of Manchuria and most of the land which is included in Manchuria were inhabited by other ethnic groups and the central plain chinese were restricted to a small area. Also, does it matter whether Manchuria as a "concept" existed back then? The land within Manchuria always existed and throughout history, most of the land was occupied by people other than Chinese.

Sorry... but check mate!

[tongyan]

First of all, I doubt the accuracy of the census taken back 2000 years ago and I question the way how census would have been undertaken.

Can't really comment on census-taking methods or the reliability of 2000 year-old censuses.

Secondly, I don't know how you can come up with that conclusion... You take the results of dubious census taken for Liao Ning (a small portion of Manchuria which also happens to be geographically closest to the central plains) and extrapolate the results for entire manchuria? What does that prove? Nothing!

If Warhead's census is correct, I think his conclusion follows naturally. Let me give you an example.

Assume that a census concluded that everyone who lived in Chicago was Polish. It is a fact that nearly all of Illinois' population is concentrated in Chicago. Is it unreasonable to say that the majority of people in Illinois are also Polish? I think it is the most logical conclusion, since most of the population of Illinois is concentrated in the relatively small area of Chicago.

Back to Manchuria... (Again, assuming Warhead's census is correct)

1. Liaoning is a part of Manchuria
2. Most, if not all, of Liaoning's population were Han
3. The majority of Manchuria's population resides in Liaoning
Conclusion: The majority of Manchuria's population is Han

Does it prove that Manchurian culture was heavily influenced by Han? No
Does it prove that the non-Han ethnicities were absorbed by Han or contained alot of Han blood? No
Does it prove that the Han had the most widespread geographical distribution in the area now known as Manchuria? No
Does it prove that, in terms of numbers, the majority of the population of the area now known as Manchuria was Han? YES

Unless I misread his posts, I think this is what Warhead has been arguing all along. And for the last time, if his census is reliable, I think he made a pretty good argument.

[maneatinghorse]

Can't really comment on census-taking methods or the reliability of 2000 year-old censuses.
If Warhead's census is correct, I think his conclusion follows naturally. Let me give you an example.

Assume that a census concluded that everyone who lived in Chicago was Polish. It is a fact that nearly all of Illinois' population is concentrated in Chicago. Is it unreasonable to say that the majority of people in Illinois are also Polish? I think it is the most logical conclusion, since most of the population of Illinois is concentrated in the relatively small area of Chicago.

Continuing with your example, assume that all other area in Illinois with the exception of Chicago is inhabited and controlled by people other than Polish. One could say that... although the Polish outnumber all other people in Illinois, most of Illinois with the exception of Chicago is inhabited and controlled by people that are not Polish.

Back to Manchuria... (Again, assuming Warhead's census is correct)

1. Liaoning is a part of Manchuria
2. Most, if not all, of Liaoning's population were Han
3. The majority of Manchuria's population resides in Liaoning
Conclusion: The majority of Manchuria's population is Han

Back to Manchuria...

1. Liaoning is a part of Manchuria
2. Most of Manchuria's area is NOT Liaoning
3. Han population is restricted to Liaoning
Conclusion: The majority of Manchuria's area is inhabited by non-Han

Does it prove that Manchurian culture was heavily influenced by Han? No
Does it prove that the non-Han ethnicities were absorbed by Han or contained alot of Han blood? No
Does it prove that the Han had the most widespread geographical distribution in the area now known as Manchuria? No

Can't argue with you there.

Does it prove that, in terms of numbers, the majority of the population of the area now known as Manchuria was Han? YES

Unless I misread his posts, I think this is what Warhead has been arguing all along. And for the last time, if his census is reliable, I think he made a pretty good argument.

If that is what Warhead is trying to say, then I have no arguments. However, I was under the impression that Warhead was claiming that all of "Manchurian lands" (as we define it in modern times) were continuously occupied by the Han long before Choson, Sushen, Koguryo, Mohe etc. Which is clearly false. The Han occupied and controlled a very small portion of it and throughout history most of Manchuria was not historically Han.

[tongyan]

Continuing with your example, assume that all other area in Illinois with the exception of Chicago is inhabited and controlled by people other than Polish. One could say that... although the Polish outnumber all other people in Illinois, most of Illinois with the exception of Chicago is inhabited and controlled by people that are not Polish.

Sure, you can say that, and it would be entirely true. But what I said is true as well. Our statements aren't mutually exclusive.

Back to Manchuria...

1. Liaoning is a part of Manchuria
2. Most of Manchuria's area is NOT Liaoning
3. Han population is restricted to Liaoning
Conclusion: The majority of Manchuria's area is inhabited by non-Han

Right again. But if you look back at Warhead's posts, Warhead has made the following statement twice in two of his three posts:
"They made up the majority of Manchuria's population."

And that is just the truth of the matter if his census is correct. I don't think Warhead or anybody else claimed that "The majority of Manchuria's area is inhabited by Han" nor did they dispute that "The majority of Manchuria's area is inhabited by non-Han" as you stated above.

If that is what Warhead is trying to say, then I have no arguments. However, I was under the impression that Warhead was claiming that all of "Manchurian lands" (as we define it in modern times) were continuously occupied by the Han long before Choson, Sushen, Koguryo, Mohe etc. Which is clearly false. The Han occupied and controlled a very small portion of it and throughout history most of Manchuria was not historically Han.

I suggest you look back at the previous posts or ask Warhead himself what he meant. That'll save alot of the bickering back and forth in this thread and keep the discussion focused on the topic, namely, "a possible solution to the Koguryo dispute."

Through my interpretation of his posts, along with his clear statement "they made up the majority of Manchuria's population", it seems that Warhead's contention is that (1) the Han were concentrated in the southern parts of Manchuria where their agricultural lifestyle supported a large population, (2) the other parts were sparsely populated by non-Han groups due to their nomadic lifestyle, and thus (3) the Han were the majority in Manchuria. This is about as objective an argument you can make and it doesn't bring in any mention of cultural, ethnic, or political overtones. The fact that Warhead mentioned that the other parts of Manchuria (notably, Heilongjiang) were entirely nomadic already precludes the existence of a large Han population in the area, given Warhead's definition of Han as being agriculturalists.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Hence it would understimate the population of other ethnic groups even more so since a vast majority of them would be nomads or outside the control of Chinese authorities.

No, if you actually read the book, it was only underestimating the population of the Liao Ning, not that of Hei Long Jiang or Ji Ling, which were not included as part of the census. In another word, the actual population of Liao Ning, with the Han majority should have been even greater than those listed on the census. The other territories outside of Liao Ning were nomadic, hence their population is vastly smaller than the agricultural population at Liao Ning. We hear plenty of comments such as that the population of the entire barbarians does not exceed that of a single prefecture. In any case the Han was still the majority.

That proves the so-called central plain Chinese were limited to small Liao Ning area and rest of Manchuria were inhabited by other ethnic groups who are mainly nomads.

No one stated otherwise. But that doesn't negate the fact that the population of Liao Ning is greater than the rest of Manchuria, hence making the Han Chinese the majority population there.

Yes, we are talking about the entire territory of Manchuria and most of the land which is included in Manchuria were inhabited by other ethnic groups and the central plain chinese were restricted to a small area.

That wasn't the point of my original arguement, which was to debunk the statement that Han Chinese was only a minority there. I have already proven my statement, that Han Chinese was the majority, any other arguements are simply impertinent to this statement.

Also, does it matter whether Manchuria as a "concept" existed back then? The land within Manchuria always existed and throughout history, most of the land was occupied by people other than Chinese

No it doesn't. Nor should ancient history be of any value in legitimizing politics. However, you stated this; "It is a well established fact amongst academia around the world that Manchuria for most part of its history were occupied by people who identified themselves as something other than the Han Chinese or people from the central plains" This statement is false, for one, the Han population outnumbered the none-Han ones. Second, the reason I emphasized that Manchuria wasn't a concept back then was precisely to deal with your forced dichotomy between Han and Non-Han. There is no ethnic group called none-Han and Manchuria was not a concept. The Han might not have occupied most of Manchuria's territory, but neither did any other ethnic group. However, the Han still had the largest population there along with a large chunk of territory that was no smaller than any other ethnic groups that dwelled there. My statement was aimed at proving fact for fact's sake, nothing more.

Sorry... but check mate!

yes, for you.

If that is what Warhead is trying to say, then I have no arguments. However, I was under the impression that Warhead was claiming that all of "Manchurian lands" (as we define it in modern times) were continuously occupied by the Han long before Choson, Sushen, Koguryo, Mohe etc. Which is clearly false. The Han occupied and controlled a very small portion of it and throughout history most of Manchuria was not historically Han

Then you have a false impression, perhaps out of paranoia. Since nothing in my comments indicate anything of the sort. Furthermore, labeling all these territories outside of Liao Ning as none-Han is also simplistic, these territories were divided between the Dong Hu, Fu Yu, Chao Xian, and more. The Han was just the largest of these ethnicities.

Edited by warhead, 04 October 2007 - 07:50 PM.

[WangKon936]

Furthermore, labeling all these territories outside of Liao Ning as none-Han is also simplistic, these territories were divided between the Dong Hu, Fu Yu, Chao Xian, and more. The Han was just the largest of these ethnicities.

Warhead,

I am still completely unconvinced that your arguments are statically true from Han times to Song Dynasty times. The population of Manchuria was in flux, particularly the Liaoning area. The kingdoms of Yan, Koguryo and Xiongnu states competed in the area and it is conceivable that this conflict caused some migration that changed the population makeup. Furthermore, Fu Yu, Chao Xian and other barbarian groups, as described by the San Guo Zhi, cultivated the "five grains" and were stratified societies with an agrarian base, then their populations may conceivably rival or even surpass the Han population.

Bottom line is in Han times perhaps Liaoning had a very large Han Chinese population and during the Liao Dynasty, the records would show that there were many Han Chinese in southwestern Manchuria, but from between that time, we simply don't know...

Even if there was consistently a majority sized Han population in the southwestern corner of Manchuria, these Han Chinese played a limited role in the political development of Manchuria proper. It was the non-Han populations of Koguryo, Bohai, Liao and Jurchen (in that order) that were to play the major role in shaping Manchuria's development.

Thus, with the knoweldge that the Han Chinese were not consistant and active participants in Manchurian history until their conquest by the Manchus, what exactly is your point Warhead? What does saying that the Han Chinese had a population majority via the southwest corner of Manchuria prove to you?

[Tungus]

Honestly I don't understand why people wasting thier time arguing the population makeup of Manchuria 1000-2000 years ago. What's the point? The bottom line is Han Chinese were more advanced and kept thier textual records well and others did not have such records. So no one knows the exact population makeup of the time. Koreans have very thin lineage to Koguryo anyway. Just look at major korean surnames kim, Park,...These Silla originated surnames constitute 80 to 90% of korean population. So the land of Manchuria is not a proper palce to look for ancestry for modern koreans.

From a non-Han Chinese and non-korean point of view, korean culture is so sinicized that Chinese Han and Korean Han make no differences to the third parties. As result of the geographic closeness between China and Korea, the history of Han Chinese and korean were all tangled up for thousands of years. So what's the point to flight what belongs to Han Chinese and what belongs to Koreans? Remember how Mongols labeled koryo people and North Chinese back then? To mongols, they were all Han! Remember how Manchus lumed Northern Josen and Liaodong Han Chinese together into the same unit of the Han Eight Bannar systems? This shows that korean culture and Han Chinese culture were too similar to make an obvious distinguishing. It really make no differences to outsiders. No biggies there I think.

My statements might enrage many korean members. And you guys might say modern Manchus are all sinicized too. So I should shut up. The thing is that Manchu culture and language were not sinicized and were maintained very close to her original tungusic form. So a clear distinguishing can be made between Manchu culture and Han culture. So we have a different case here.

Stop arguring! It's waste of time to de-emphasize the present of Han Chinese in Manchuria. It only enrages Chinese people and won't get koreans any more points. It's like we Manchus start arguing the history of northeast korea belongs to us Manchus and korean should not distort the history of northeast korea peninsula. I think koreans will all go mad as well. Seriously Manchus really are the ones have every right to make voice about the history of Manchuria. Not you koreans and Han Chinese. Machuria was called Manchuria for a reason.


　

Edited by Tungus, 16 October 2007 - 03:06 AM.

[Dagvadorj]

Remember how Mongols labeled koryo people and North Chinese back then? To mongols, they were all Han! Remember how Manchus lumed Northern Josen and Liaodong Han Chinese together into the same unit of the Han Eight Bannar systems? This shows that korean culture and Han Chinese culture were too similar to make an obvious distinguishing. It really make no differences to outsiders. No biggies there I think.
　

I wouldn't say Mongols are outsiders. And that "To mongols, they were all Han!" is not true, since Mongols divided Chinese as

1. Mongols
2. Coloured-eye (Turkic, Arabic, Persian)
3. Northern Chinese (rather Khitan, Jurchen, Gao Li - Korean)
4. Southern Chinese (rather Han Chinese)

The Mongol name for China "Khitad" derives from Khitans, since they were seen as sinified to the Hamag Mongol-Taychiud.

Gao Li was not like other Chinese provinces, it was like protectorate with its Khan (king) having a Mongol name.

[Dagvadorj]

Actually, we must refer to Gogureyo as a Korean state with the concept Korea including Hangeuk saram, Chosun saram (with Yanbian saram), Koryo saram (in Central Asia and Sakhalin altogether).

Is this a subject or dispute of Han Chinese supra-ethnicity issue?

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Warhead,

I am still completely unconvinced that your arguments are statically true from Han times to Song Dynasty times. The population of Manchuria was in flux, particularly the Liaoning area. The kingdoms of Yan, Koguryo

and Xiongnu states competed in the area and it is conceivable that this conflict caused some migration that changed the population makeup. Furthermore, Fu Yu, Chao Xian and other barbarian groups, as described by the San Guo Zhi, cultivated the "five grains" and were stratified societies with an agrarian base, then their populations may conceivably rival or even surpass the Han population.

Your argument is specious and fails to stand in the light of vigorous examination. Demographic depends on the area of cultivation as well as the farming methodologies and high yielding grains; just because there were small amount of agriculture in non-Liao Ning region of Manchuria doesn't mean they "rival or even surpass the Han population." The Fu Yu population were not fully agricultural in the first place. Chao Xian's foothold in Manchuria was extremely small.
As for competition, the kingdom of Yan was only created in the 4th century, when the Xian Bei was relocated to Liao Ning. It has no pertinence to the Han era. Furthermore, the Xian Bei population never outnumbered the local inhabitants. Koguryo also only came to the picture in Liao Ning starting from the late 4th century. Prior to that, the area was mostly Han dominant(simply meaning that the people there were labeled as Han, ethnicity was not fully defined in the first place). Furthermore, we also know of many Han who escaped north, especially towards the end of the Han and early Tang, hence the populations of Xian Bei and Fuyu were hardly pure either, containing much content from the central plains. If you want to say that people of Liao Ning were not all Han simply because some of the locals were original non-Han then the same should apply to the Xian Bei, Chao Xian and Fuyu as well.

Bottom line is in Han times perhaps Liaoning had a very large Han Chinese population and during the Liao Dynasty, the records would show that there were many Han Chinese in southwestern Manchuria, but from between that time, we simply don't know...

Nothing is 100% known in history. That statement is analogous to the statement that the sky is blue. But under the newest and most thorough examination of the primary accounts and census of the era in the Zhongguofengshengrenkoukao, we have good evidence to conclude that the Han population in Liao Ning well outnumbers the population of other people in Jiling and Hailongjian.

"Even if there was consistently a majority sized Han population in the southwestern corner of Manchuria, these Han Chinese played a limited role in the political development of Manchuria proper. It was the non-Han populations of Koguryo, Bohai, Liao and Jurchen (in that order) that were to play the major role in shaping Manchuria's development."

First of all, thats impertinent to the original statement. Second of all, its not even true. Northeastern Asian politics were heavily influenced by the Han and the subsequent dynasties, whether by means of direct military expansion or indirect policies of accommodation, resettlement and subsidy payment. Without the economic backing of the Han state, the Xianbei Bei would never even have rose in power over the Xiongnu, without the relocation policy of the Han and Jin, the XianBei would never even have gained a foothold in LiaoNing. Without the Han, kingdoms such as Koguryo would not even exist. The Tang was also instrumental in bringing Bo Hai and the Khitans to power. There are many ways of influencing politics, and migration is just one of them.

Thus, with the knoweldge that the Han Chinese were not consistant and active participants in Manchurian history until their conquest by the Manchus, what exactly is your point Warhead? What does saying that the Han Chinese had a population majority via the southwest corner of Manchuria prove to you?

My point was crystal clear since the beginning. To debunk the statement that the Han was only an insignificant people in Manchuria and I believe I've already made my case.

Edited by warhead, 16 October 2007 - 08:29 AM.

[Tungus]

I wouldn't say Mongols are outsiders. And that "To mongols, they were all Han!" is not true, since Mongols divided Chinese as

1. Mongols
2. Coloured-eye (Turkic, Arabic, Persian)
3. Northern Chinese (rather Khitan, Jurchen, Gao Li - Korean)
4. Southern Chinese (rather Han Chinese)

Koryo people and North Chinese including Khitan, Jurchen, and, Han were all labled as "Han Ren" (汉人).

Southern Chinese were labled as "Nan Ren"(南人，southern people)

This is stated in History of Yuan (元史).

The Mongol name for China "Khitad" derives from Khitans, since they were seen as sinified to the Hamag Mongol-Taychiud.

Gao Li was not like other Chinese provinces, it was like protectorate with its Khan (king) having a Mongol name.

I don't see major differences how Mongol treated Koryo people and other northern Chinese. The relationship between Mongols and koryo royal house was relatively better, because Koryo royal submitted themselves to Mongols with little resistence.( in the name of repelling Kidan remnants who invaded Koryo.) Koryo kings and royal house willingly adopted Mongol surnames with no pressure from Mongols. For example, Koryo king Chungnyeol(忠烈王) not only adopted Mongol surname and dressed in Mongol custumes, he also orderd all high ranking officials of Korya court shaved heads like Mongols. Khubilai Khan was actually very surprised and pleased his act. However average koryo population, like other northern Chinese such as Jurchens, Han, Kidans in the central plain, fought Mongol domination. Of course Mongols pacificed many rebellions in koryo like they always did in other parts of China. In th end, Koryo was included in Yuan dynasty as a province called Zheng Dong Xing Sheng (province of conquored east, 征东行省 ) with semi-autonomy.

[Tungus]

Actually, we must refer to Gogureyo as a Korean state with the concept Korea including Hangeuk saram, Chosun saram (with Yanbian saram), Koryo saram (in Central Asia and Sakhalin altogether).

Is this a subject or dispute of Han Chinese supra-ethnicity issue?

You probably read too much baselss materials from korean websites. Seriosuly some of history-related korean websites are really wicked. No kidding. Actually I originally thought that Koguryo should be labled as a koreanic kingdom. After much of reading of ancient texual sources from Korea and China, I do not think so anymore. There were fundemental differences between people of Koguryo and koreanic people of southern korean peninsula namely, the Samhan peopel (Silla and Paekje). And the lineages in culture, blood, langauges between Koguryo and koreanic Samhan were very unclear. (or very thin.)

Edited by Tungus, 16 October 2007 - 04:29 PM.