15 replies to this topic

[Dagvadorj]

We know that Mongols classified commoners into 4 social groups as following:

• Mongols
  
• Coloured-eye (Turkic people, Arabs, Persians, and others)
  
• Han (Northern Chinese - Khitans, Jurchens, Koreans)
  
• Hua (Southern Chinese)

Did the 3-rd group include ethnic Han Chinese?
Is it like Han (as a group) included Khitans, Jurchens, Koreans with Mandarin, while the Hua (as a group) included Wu, Min, Yue, Miao and the other Southerners and minorities in the south?

[大泽升龙]

We know that Mongols classified commoners into 4 social groups as following:

• Mongols
  
• Coloured-eye (Turkic people, Arabs, Persians, and others)
  
• Han (Northern Chinese - Khitans, Jurchens, Koreans)
  
• Hua (Southern Chinese)

Did the 3-rd group include ethnic Han Chinese?
Is it like Han (as a group) included Khitans, Jurchens, Koreans with Mandarin, while the Hua (as a group) included Wu, Min, Yue, Miao and the other Southerners and minorities in the south?

The correct classification is:
1. Menggu (Mongol)
2. Semu (Tangut, Tibetan, Uygur, Alkhun, Ongut, Kipchak, Naiman, Kyrgyz, Sogdian, Kharazmi, Sart, Qarluq, Bulgar, Azeri, Kashmiri, Persian, Arab, Russian, etc)
3. Han (Northern Chinese, including Han ruled by Jurchen, Khitan, Jurchen, Korean)
4. Nan (Southern Chinese, including Han ruled by Southern Song and other southern minorities)

Edited by 大泽升龙, 18 February 2008 - 04:40 PM.

[Non-Han Nan Ban]

Didn't the third group also include Tanguts of the fallen Xi-Xia?

EDIT: Oops, my bad, just read that in the 2nd group.

[Yun]

Whether Semu actually meant 'coloured eyes' is debatable. Some scholars believe it is a Mongol word that just happened to be transliterated with the characters meaning 'colour' and 'eye'.

The Mongol ethnic category 'Han' was actually even more complicated than this. The Yuan Shi states that at least for the military ranking system, "the Jurchen and Khitan are categorized similarly to Han people. If the Jurchen or Khitan grew up in the north or west and does not speak or understand the Han language, then he is categorized similarly to Mongols. If the Jurchen [and presumably Khitan] grew up in the Han lands, then he is categorized similarly to the Han."

Tao Zongyi (1316-?), a scholar of the late Yuan and early Ming period, wrote that the Yuan ethnic category 'Han' actually included eight groups: Khitan, Koryoans/Koreans, Jurchen, Zhuyindai, Shulikuodai, Zhuwen, Zhuchidai, and Bohai. The PRC scholar Jia Jingyan argues (citing earlier writings by Chen Yinke/Yinque) that 'Shulikuodai' and 'Zhuchidai' were both variant transliterations of 'Jurchen', and that 'Zhuyindai' and 'Zhuwen' were both variant transliterations of 'Jauqut', a Mongol word for 'Han'. So Tao's eight groups may actually have been just five: Khitan, Koreans, Jurchen, Han, and Bohai. His unfamiliarity with Mongol terms may have led him to think Zhuyindai, Shilikuodai, Zhuwen, and Zhuchidai were ethnic groups he did not know about.

To make things even more complicated, there is some evidence that the Jurchen Jin regime already included Khitan and Bohai under the category 'Han', and that it also referred to the 'Han' category as 'Khitan'. The Mongols probably followed this practice, using both 'Khitat' (the plural of 'Khitan') and 'Jauqut' as Mongol-language equivalents for the ethnonym that was rendered as 'Han' in the 'Han language'.

As for the former subjects of Southern Song, these were known as Nanren (people of the south), Nanjia (southern households), Manzi (southern barbarians - appears as 'Mangi' in Marco Polo's writings), 'Songren' (people of Song), or 'Xinfuren' (newly submitted people).

[Yun]

They're too long to post here, but I can give the publication details.

A few relevant articles by Jia Jingyan are collected in 《中華民族多元一體格局》edited by Fei Xiaotong.

Chen Yinke/Yinque's article 《元代漢人譯名考》is now collected in 《金明館叢稿二篇》.

[Sinoid]

Seems like us Southerners were the lowest of the low.

Ironic how time changes, one of my Southern friends went on a charity trip to UB to help street children of the Great Kaan.

Shows you how forgiving we Southerners are.. ;-)

[Fechin]

The correct classification is:
1. Menggu (Mongol)
2. Semu (Tangut, Tibetan, Uygur, Alkhun, Ongut, Kipchak, Naiman, Kyrgyz, Sogdian, Kharazmi, Sart, Qarluq, Bulgar, Azeri, Kashmiri, Persian, Arab, Russian, etc)
3. Han (Northern Chinese, including Han ruled by Jurchen, Khitan, Jurchen, Korean)
4. Nan (Southern Chinese, including Han ruled by Southern Song and other southern minorities)

Is it ironic that Northern Chinese like to claim themselvs as pure Han? I suspect that is how the concept come from. Not to offensive, it seems that after Yuan dynasty, Northern Chinese seems to "disappear". Is it because the North China never recover from the war damages?

[大泽升龙]

Is it ironic that Northern Chinese like to claim themselvs as pure Han? I suspect that is how the concept come from. Not to offensive, it seems that after Yuan dynasty, Northern Chinese seems to "disappear". Is it because the North China never recover from the war damages?

There is no pure Han. Han generally refers to the Sinicised people, so in this sense, Khitan, Jurchen and Koreanin were called Han in Yuan dynasty.

[Zorigo]

Sometimes I feel like Beijing Hans and Muscovite Russians have very similar development.
Southern Slavics, for example, Ukrainians consider themselves as real Rus'- Kievan Rus. Muscovites are mixture of Tatar-mongols.
Both has impreial ambition which directly inherited from Mongols

Edited by Zorigo, 22 February 2008 - 01:21 PM.

[大泽升龙]

Sometimes I feel like Beijing Hans and Muscovite Russians have very similar development.
Southern Slavics, for example, Ukrainians consider themselves as real Rus'- Kievan Rus. Muscovites are mixture of Tatar-mongols.
Both has impreial ambition which directly inherited from Mongols

On the contrary, Ukrainians are considered might have more Turkic influence from Volga-Bulgars and Kipchaks.

The imperial ambition was not inherited from Mongols, Mongolic tribes had the least imperial ambition in all east Asian nomads. In fact, the imperial ambition was derived from ancient China, originally from Qin dynasty which was passed on to Mongol, Turkish, Russian and Japanese.

Edited by 大泽升龙, 22 February 2008 - 01:43 PM.

[Zorigo]

On the contrary, Ukrainians are considered might have more Turkic influence from Volga-Bulgars and Kipchaks.

The imperial ambition was not inherited from Mongols, Mongolic tribes had the least imperial ambition in all east Asian nomads. In fact, the imperial ambition was derived from ancient China, originally from Qin dynasty which was passed on to Mongol, Turkish, Russian and Japanese.

maybe my "imperial ambition" was wrong choice of word. So what was the reason of Mongol expansion?
China and Russia is certainly inherited that expansionist ideal which is outdated now.

[大泽升龙]

maybe my "imperial ambition" was wrong choice of word. So what was the reason of Mongol expansion?
China and Russia is certainly inherited that expansionist ideal which is outdated now.

Outdated? That depends on which date you are talking about. Today's expansionist idea was from Cold War, or more recently is from United States today. The cultural, economic and military expansions are far more important than the primitive idea of expansion on territory.

Edited by 大泽升龙, 22 February 2008 - 02:02 PM.

[Dagvadorj]

The correct classification is:
1. Menggu (Mongol)
2. Semu (Tangut, Tibetan, Uygur, Alkhun, Ongut, Kipchak, Naiman, Kyrgyz, Sogdian, Kharazmi, Sart, Qarluq, Bulgar, Azeri, Kashmiri, Persian, Arab, Russian, etc)
3. Han (Northern Chinese, including Han ruled by Jurchen, Khitan, Jurchen, Korean)
4. Nan (Southern Chinese, including Han ruled by Southern Song and other southern minorities)

Can you show me how i can find the original source pls.

[Akskl]

IGOR DE RACHEWILTZ, Turks in China under the Mongols: A Preliminary Investigation of Turco-Mongol Relations in the 13th and 14th Century, in: CHINA AMONG EQUALS - THE MIDDLE KINGDOM AND ITS NEIGHBORS, 10th - 14th CENTURIES, EDITED BY MORRIS ROSSABI, Chapter 10, University of California Press - Berkeley - Los Angeles – London, pp.281-310.

http://www.kyrgyz.ru...p?showtopic=263

[LongMa]

Sometimes I feel like Beijing Hans and Muscovite Russians have very similar development.
Southern Slavics, for example, Ukrainians consider themselves as real Rus'- Kievan Rus. Muscovites are mixture of Tatar-mongols.
Both has impreial ambition which directly inherited from Mongols

There is not that much evidence of Mongolian admixture in Russians...check some genetic tests. There is far more Slavic admixture with Finno-Ugric tribes that were absorbed as the Eastern Slavs moved further East and consolidated into major political entities.

http://dienekes.blog...hromosomes.html

http://dienekes.blog...f-russians.html

Most Russian admixture is on the female side, not the male, which tells me that Slavic men did not except mixed race people with non-Slavic fathers in Russia proper.

It is true that "Ukrainians SAY" they are more pure and that the Russian people are an offshoot of them (Kievan Rus) but in reality Kievan Rus was started by the Vikings and although it is true that parts of Western Ukraine (and Belarus) were not controlled by Mongolians or Turkic tribes they have long been considered "rednecks" by Russians who have constantly been passed around between Russia, Latvia, and Poland.

Both groups have some admixture with non-Slavs...from Europe and Asia, but I seriously doubt Russian imperial ambitions have much to do with Mongolians. They seemed to be on their way to that before Mongolians controlled them. Like China the Russians were probably motivated for expansion to increase trade and to have defensible borders against Eastern Nomads and Western threats like the Poles, Swedes, and other European incursions. They also considered themselves the 3rd Rome, after the fall of the Byzantine Empire, because they then became the leading Orthodox Power...this position gave them an excuse (or obligation) to interfere in other Orthodox peoples (especially Slavs) affairs on their behalf.


As far as China, it is hardly fair to say that the only imperialistic or expansionist Han were Northern Chinese around Beijing who mixed with Northern nomadic Mongols. In this way Russia and China are similar in that there is little genetic differences in Han males in North and south, the difference is in the females.

Or it could have been enough Han Northern males have migrated South over the last 1,500 years to mitigate any real difference.