21 replies to this topic

[kagemusha]

This is somewhat related to the Korean origins thread. I was wondering if anyone here has any indepth information about the Dongyi people since many scholars claim that they made a major cultural and genetic contribution that created the modern Korean people. All I know is that they are from the Shandong region of China and the Han people called them "Eastern Barbarians."

[WuXiaHer0]

I heard some people say that the Dongyi were the Altaic people, right? They travelled from somewhere in Turkey to the East.

[bloodmerchant]

The Dongyi came from what is now Shandong and much of Northern Jiangsu.

We don't know what language they did speak because no one ever recorded their language. It's not as simple, as say, the 'Yue Boatman's song' where we know that the Yue language was a Tai-Kadai language, since it was the 'Yue' language written in Chinese phonemic representation along with Chinese glosses. The closest evidence we have to their ethnicity is through their corresponding neolithic sites. The only visible evidence of a written Dongyi language was through the Dinggong shards of the Longshan culture. These shards contained 'alien' logographs that were unrelated to Chinese characters. So, in essence, we don't know what language they did speak due to lack of evidence.

The use of the word Dongyi, like the use of the word 'Baiyue' or 'Nanman', was just a catch all term for all non-Sinitic peoples who lived east of them.

Edited by bloodmerchant, 25 January 2011 - 10:49 AM.

[mohistManiac]

The Dongyi came from what is now Shandong and much of Northern Jiangsu.

We don't know what language they did speak because no one ever recorded their language. It's not as simple, as say, the 'Yue Boatman's song' where we know that the Yue language was a Tai-Kadai language, since it was the 'Yue' language written in Chinese phonemic representation along with Chinese glosses. The closest evidence we have to their ethnicity is through their corresponding neolithic sites. The only visible evidence of a written Dongyi language was through the Dinggong shards of the Longshan culture. These shards contained 'alien' logographs that were unrelated to Chinese characters. So, in essence, we don't know what language they did speak due to lack of evidence.

The use of the word Dongyi, like the use of the word 'Baiyue' or 'Nanman', was just a catch all term for all non-Sinitic peoples who lived east of them.

But it depends alot on the positioning. If the eastern Dongyi were to the east just how west was the Sinitic peoples? Does east have to be a lot farther than west in order to be east or was it the far east that was Dongyi's home? Were the Shang people and the area they settled considered Dongyi? What period did Dongyi get written into record? Did the early Zhou consider Shang to be Dongyi?

[bloodmerchant]

But it depends alot on the positioning. If the eastern Dongyi were to the east just how west was the Sinitic peoples? Does east have to be a lot farther than west in order to be east or was it the far east that was Dongyi's home? Were the Shang people and the area they settled considered Dongyi? What period did Dongyi get written into record? Did the early Zhou consider Shang to be Dongyi?

From what I know, as the Sinitic demesne grew, they considered other people to the east of them, at first the Dongyi, but later the Japanese and Koreans, as 'Yi'. Remember, at first, the original Sinitic 'homeland' were the Central Plains of Northern China, and anyone to the east of the Central Plains were inhabited by 'Dongyi'. The Jurchens, on the other hand, were considered to be 'Northwest Yi', but those classifications were made during the Ming Dynasty. I'd like to bring up another use of the word 'Yi' by a non-Sinitic people to refer to a 'barbarian race'. The Japanese considered the Ainu to be 'Ezo', 'Ebisu', 'Emishi' or 蝦夷.

The first mention of these people from a source outside Japan was in the Chinese book of Song in 478 which referred to them as "hairy people" (毛人). In that book is a reference to "the 55 kingdoms (国) of the hairy people (毛人) of the East..." The Japanese used this kanji to describe these people, but changed the reading from "kebito" or "mojin" to "Emishi" most likely by the seventh century AD. Furthermore, the kanji character also changed to 蝦夷 which is a combination of the character for "shrimp" and "barbarian" in the same century. This is thought to refer to the long whiskers of a shrimp, however, this is not certain. The barbarian aspect clearly described an outsider, living beyond the border of the emerging empire of Japan which saw itself as a civilizing influence, and thus justifying their conquest. This kanji was first seen in the T'ang sources that describe the meeting with the two Emishi that the Japanese envoy brought with him to China (see below). The kanji character may have been adopted from China, but the reading "Ebisu" and "Emishi" were Japanese in origin, and most likely came from either the Japanese "yumishi" which means bowman (their main weapon), or "emushi" which is sword in the Ainu tongue. [1] Other origins have been proposed such as the word "enchiu" for man in the Ainu tongue, however, the way it sounds is almost phonetically identical to emushi so it may most likely have had an Ainoid origin.[2]

Their most widely known ethnonym is derived from the word ainu, which means "human" (particularly as opposed to kamui, divine beings), basically neither ethnicity nor the name of a race, in the Hokkaidō dialects of the Ainu language; Emishi, Ezo or Yezo (蝦夷) are Japanese terms, which are believed to derive from the ancestral form of the modern Sakhalin Ainu word enciw or enju, also meaning "human". Today, many Ainu dislike the term Ainu because it had once been used with derogatory nuance, and prefer to identify themselves as Utari (comrade in the Ainu language). Official documents use both names.

On the other hand, the term Yi referred to 'people who wield the bow', just like the example of the Ainu above.

Edited by bloodmerchant, 25 January 2011 - 05:39 PM.

[mohistManiac]

From what I know, as the Sinitic demesne grew, they considered other people to the east of them, at first the Dongyi, but later the Japanese and Koreans, as 'Yi'. Remember, at first, the original Sinitic 'homeland' were the Central Plains of Northern China, and anyone to the east of the Central Plains were inhabited by 'Dongyi'. The Jurchens, on the other hand, were considered to be 'Northwest Yi', but those classifications were made during the Ming Dynasty. I'd like to bring up another use of the word 'Yi' by a non-Sinitic people to refer to a 'barbarian race'. The Japanese considered the Ainu to be 'Ezo', 'Ebisu', 'Emishi' or 蝦夷.




On the other hand, the term Yi referred to 'people who wield the bow', just like the example of the Ainu above.

My linguistics is really bad. Could you explain if you meant to say that the Emishi or Ainu were the Dongyi? At first though I thought the Dongyi were just a poster name for people the Sinitics chose to dislike and were to the east of them but this would depend on the political boundaries marking the area. If the Dongyi were already existing as either the Shang or part of their makeup then it would probably make sense to the people like the Zhou who were on the western side of things to call these people Dongyi. The Huaxia seemed to be smack dead center so maybe they would choose to call the Shang people Dongyi as well or maybe Huaxia were Dongyi to the Zhou peoples.

[bloodmerchant]

My linguistics is really bad. Could you explain if you meant to say that the Emishi or Ainu were the Dongyi? At first though I thought the Dongyi were just a poster name for people the Sinitics chose to dislike and were to the east of them but this would depend on the political boundaries marking the area. If the Dongyi were already existing as either the Shang or part of their makeup then it would probably make sense to the people like the Zhou who were on the western side of things to call these people Dongyi. The Huaxia seemed to be smack dead center so maybe they would choose to call the Shang people Dongyi as well or maybe Huaxia were Dongyi to the Zhou peoples.

No, what I meant was that the term 'Dongyi' was excessively fluid. The Japanese used the term 夷 to refer to the Ainu even though the Chinese called the Japanese, Koreans, Ryukyuans and other people who lived east of the Huaxia demesne (China proper) as 夷.

[hidetsune]

No, what I meant was that the term 'Dongyi' was excessively fluid. The Japanese used the term 夷 to refer to the Ainu even though the Chinese called the Japanese, Koreans, Ryukyuans and other people who lived east of the Huaxia demesne (China proper) as 夷.

In fact I think the meaning of 'Dongyi' (东夷) itself was fixed during the history, i.e. the eastern barbarian (to the central kingdom 中国), and why it's used to refer to different ethnicities or tribes results from the change of the central kingdom's range of territory and the rise and fall of these ethnicities. E.g. in Shang Dynasty, the term refers to the tribes inhabiting east Henan, Shangdong, and north Jiangsu, which is east to the territory of the central kingdom of the day, i.e. the Shang, and after Han Dynasty the word is gradually used to describe the further eastern ethnicities like Korean, Japanese and Jurchens as the original Dongyi tribes have been annexed and their territory become a part of the central kingdom, but as we can see, the word Dongyi in both Shang era and Ming era means the people/ethnicities living east to the Sinitic country. For the rise and fall of tribes, the similar term 'Beilu' (北虏, the northern barbarian) can be taken as a good example. The word refers to Xiongnu (匈奴, some historian think it is Hun that invaded Roman) in Han Dynasty, to Turk (突厥) in Sui and Tang Dynasties, to Khitan (契丹) and Jurchens (女真) in Song Dynasty, and to Mongolia (蒙古) in Ming Dynasty. All these nationalities inhabited in similar area, but the later ones replaced the earlier ones.

The meaning of Yi 夷, the eastern barbarian to the central kingdom, has also been copied in the Aisan countries which was influenced by Sinocentrism, like Japan, Korea and Vietnam, all of which to some extent thought their countries as the central kingdom or small central kingdom. The most obvious example is the Japanese use of Emishi (蝦夷) to describe the non-Yamato people living in now eastern Japan (actually north-eastern), in which the word Emi 蝦 means shrimps to describe their long beard, and word shi 夷 indicates the location they lived. According to the record of Nihon Shoki (日本書紀), Japanese also called Emishi as Dongyi, as they lived east to the central kingdom which is Japan instead of China.

[SNK_1408]

I thought Emishi wasn't Ainu.
With regards to Dongyi, I think Dongyi was referred to Proto-Koreans since Post Shang era up until Tang, because ancient Korean states existed East of central plain of Yellow river. Korean culture was believed to have been influenced by cultures from Liaodong to Shandong as well as from these earlier settlers from Siberia. This can be traced by archeological evidence to profile of people in these regions.

Edited by SNK_1408, 05 February 2011 - 05:12 AM.

[ahxiang]

I thought Emishi wasn't Ainu.
With regards to Dongyi, I think Dongyi was referred to Proto-Koreans since Post Shang era up until Tang, because ancient Korean states existed East of central plain of Yellow river. Korean culture was believed to have been influenced by cultures from Liaodong to Shandong as well as from these earlier settlers from Siberia. This can be traced by archeological evidence to profile of people in these regions.

I believe you are a Korean. Your view was reflecting the "grand Korean school of thought" which claimed that the original Koreans lived on the continent, not the peninsula - if not having the origin in Siberia - which I pointed out in the Hun/Turk section to be the hostile environment where no man could have survived in the cold winters.

My take is that the original "civilized" Koreans, like the original "semi-civilized" Japanese, all came from the mainland China. There is some talk about the similarity between the Koreans and Southeastern Chinese. It was not a coincidence that the ancient people moved along the coast from Vietnam to Korea, and they shared the same origin. That was like 10,000 years ago or before that. A language, like the Altaic, could not have been formed within the last 2,500-5000 years. So it has to be something beyond this timeframe, and something like 10,000 years ago. There was a good chance that the "Altaic" speaking people settled down in Manchuria, the fertile plains, not the mountainous Korean peninsula. And those migrants, when moving along the coastline, had a cut-off in communications - which would be by the people moving eastward from the Central China - i.e., those migrants who went north through the snowy Hengduan Mountains of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau - the Sino-Tibetan people.

From 5000 years ago to 2500 years ago, we had the ancient Chinese sagas about the three ancient saints, Yao, Yu and Shun. The saint "Da Shun" - the great Shun - was considered to be of the "east" tribal group versus the Yao and Yu who were of the "west" or the "central" tribal group - while all three saints were repeatedly to be said to be of the same origin as the Yellow Lord, with them - being descendants - spreading across China to have the designation of the "east". At the same time, around 2500 years ago, we had talks of the iron-making "three Haan" states in southern Korea, i.e., iron-smiths who claimed to have moved there from China and carrying the old Chinese tradition, as well as the Himiko Japanese who shared the same tattoo as the Yangtze Delta people. What I saw here was a belt of Sino-Tibetan people all the way to Korea and Japan.

How do we interpret the "Altaic" (if the Korean language is of that nature) language phenomenon in Korea? We need not look beyond the Han Dynasty records to know that the "Manchurian" tribes were penetrating southward into the mountainous peninsula for hundreds of years at the time Wei-man Chosen collapsed under the attack of the Han Emperor Wudi. While I am not saying Wi-man Chosen was of Sinitic nature (even though the ruler was apparently Sinitic), the vacuum from the collapse of the ancient CHosen created an opportunity for the "Alataic" people of Manchuria, i.e., the descendants of the original 10,000-year-ago migrants, to enter Korea. Those same people, with the "Three Haan" ingredients, later crossed the straits to Japan to be the founders of Yamato Japan - which engaged in the hundreds of years of "genocidal" wars against the Ainus.

With DNA technology developing these days, it won't be long for the validation of what I laid out above to be what actually happened in the history.

Edited by ahxiang, 06 February 2011 - 11:22 PM.

[vorbei]

The study about Dawenkou people of Shandong,6000 years ago.

The Dawenkou people were most similiar to modern time Polynesian people.
Then
1 proto-koreans r a group of polynesian people------------------>of course that's impossible
2 Dawenkou weren't Dongyi--------------------------------------->That's even more ridiculous
3 Dongyi in different dynasty refer to different people.

BTW woman of Dawenkou


Still look like modern time East shandongese.

[nan tribes]

Jiu Li - Miao ancestors

[Eidolon]

The study about Dawenkou people of Shandong,6000 years ago.

The Dawenkou people were most similiar to modern time Polynesian people.
Then
1 proto-koreans r a group of polynesian people------------------>of course that's impossible
2 Dawenkou weren't Dongyi--------------------------------------->That's even more ridiculous
3 Dongyi in different dynasty refer to different people.

BTW woman of Dawenkou


Still look like modern time East shandongese.

Chinese historians have an unhealthy obsession with using anachronistic terms to describe Neolithic cultures. The attribution of Dawenkou to the Dongy is one of these absurd anachronisms. There is no evidence of a "Yi" concept until the Shang, and no evidence of "Dongyi" until the Zhou. Presuming that these terms must have referred to some ancient continuous ethno-linguistic group is a kind of textual arrogance.

As far as international scholarship is concerned, there are a number of theories but little concrete support, since as bloodmerchant pointed out the Dongyi left next to nothing in terms of a linguistic record. Based on substratums in geographically continuous later populations and some limited anthropological evidence, the popular theory seems to be that they were proto-Austronesian or proto-Austroasiatic speakers, but they could also have been speakers of other proto-languages or included speakers of other proto-languages.

Do not be tricked by those who would presume to tell you who the Dongyi really were - the academic reality is that no one really knows, and those who declare that they really know are often those who should be least believed, because not knowing what isn't known is a telling sign of intellectual myopism and/or an ulterior agenda.

Edited by Eidolon, 19 March 2011 - 01:53 AM.

[vorbei]

Chinese historians have an unhealthy obsession with using anachronistic terms to describe Neolithic cultures. The attribution of Dawenkou to the Dongy is one of these absurd anachronisms. There is no evidence of a "Yi" concept until the Shang, and no evidence of "Dongyi" until the Zhou. Presuming that these terms must have referred to some ancient continuous ethno-linguistic group is a kind of textual arrogance.
As far as international scholarship is concerned, there are a number of theories but little concrete support, since as bloodmerchant pointed out the Dongyi left next to nothing in terms of a linguistic record. Based on substratums in geographically continuous later populations and some limited anthropological evidence, the popular theory seems to be that they were proto-Austronesian or proto-Austroasiatic speakers, but they could also have been speakers of other proto-languages or included speakers of other proto-languages.
Do not be tricked by those who would presume to tell you who the Dongyi really were - the academic reality is that no one really knows, and those who declare that they really know are often those who should be least believed, because not knowing what isn't known is a telling sign of intellectual myopism and/or an ulterior agenda.

LOL,I have noticed an interest thing is most of u here like to put yourself above chinese historians. That's really weird, because today top historians of chinese history r still from china.
OK, return to the topic.
1. U have no source to prove the opinion "Yi did not exist till Shang".
2. I just pointed out the native of Shandong during neolithic r physically closet to modern time polynesians. I have never claimed Dongyi should speak an A or B language.btw in fact some place name of shandong r thought to relate to Yi language.

[mariusj]

1. U have no source to prove the opinion "Yi did not exist till Shang".

Fallacy: Argument from Ignorance

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa).