18 replies to this topic

[Shifa Shengli]

Hi everyone! iam new member here and looking for guidance from all of you!!

Yuan and Qing Dynasty often considered as foreign dynasty because their ruler not come from majority Han Chinese

also not part of hua instead they are coming from steppe as nomad conqueror

if iam not wrong Zhou & Qin rulers also not part of hua civilization and coming from western region (Gansu & Shaanxi),,, they are also have story of their ancestry coming from bird or something like that considered common among barbarians,,, Qin itself during spring autumn and warring states era often looked down for their barbarians ancestry

so why they never classified as barbarian ruling or foreign occupation like Yuan and Qing??? or their ancestry not really barbarians?

Greetings

[mohistManiac]

Hi everyone! iam new member here and looking for guidance from all of you!!

Yuan and Qing Dynasty often considered as foreign dynasty because their ruler not come from majority Han Chinese

also not part of hua instead they are coming from steppe as nomad conqueror

if iam not wrong Zhou & Qin rulers also not part of hua civilization and coming from western region (Gansu & Shaanxi),,, they are also have story of their ancestry coming from bird or something like that considered common among barbarians,,, Qin itself during spring autumn and warring states era often looked down for their barbarians ancestry

so why they never classified as barbarian ruling or foreign occupation like Yuan and Qing??? or their ancestry not really barbarians?

Greetings

I think it's just a matter of perspective. Zhou royal house would not consider Qin royal house foreign (to a certain extent) but the people in Qin by the great majority could very well be said to differ from places that haven't been united to its land. Han came during the Han dynasty. Anything before that is simply a collection of Chinese states or civilizations on a smaller scale of than what was developed by Qin to engulf the greater Chinese state. Therefore it isn't wrong to label Zhou and Qin as foreign since everyone was more or less mutually foreign to each other.

[SlickSlicer]

Welcome to the perplexing and bungled study of ethnicity in China, clouded by so many levels of nationalistic and modern biases, imprecise methods of ethnography in ancient Chinese historical sources and speculation. It will get even worse when you move past the Jin dynasty...

Ethnicity in ancient China is very confusing. There are tons of vague points, and things are complicated even further by the fact that many important ethnic groups have assimilated to the point of becoming Chinese. I think in many ways it is often irrelevant. If the Zhou were of different stock than the Shang, it ultimately isn't as important as the fact that the Zhou inherited a certain cultural tradition from the Shang, to varying degrees. Culture was very important in identification in ancient China, possibly moreso than ethnicity. If people became Confucians (or sometimes Daoists, Buddhists), learned to converse in Chinese and adopted Chinese customs, they could "become Chinese." The opposite was true too as many Chinese could defect to the northern frontier, adopting the customs, habits and lifestyles of non-Chinese (and some did). I think Nicola di Cosmo offered a very interesting interpretation of the kingdoms of Chu and Qin in Ancient China and its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History. He mentions that even states recognized as Chinese, such as Chu and Qin, were at times labeled under the Zhou as "Yi-Ti" (something along the lines of "barbarians"). In his opinion, this classification sometimes just meant that these states labeled "yi ti" were disloyal the Zhou order in one way or another. It didn't necessarily have the ethnic connotation that might be apparent.

I'm not sure that this is the right answer though. Ethnicity is just too confusing a subject. I don't think China was the center of a single civilization or group of people. There were many groups of people and civilizations that developed concurrently with one another and interacted with each other. China is such a large country (even in ancient times) that it's very feasible to me that the people of kingdoms on the periphery (i.e. Qin/Zhou) were of different ethnicity than their contemporaries, but merged with them over time.

Edited by SlickSlicer, 14 August 2011 - 12:17 AM.

[Rykard]

Welcome to the perplexing and bungled study of ethnicity in China, clouded by so many levels of nationalistic and modern biases, imprecise methods of ethnography in ancient Chinese historical sources and speculation. It will get even worse when you move past the Jin dynasty...

Ethnicity in ancient China is very confusing. There are tons of vague points, and things are complicated even further by the fact that many important ethnic groups have assimilated to the point of becoming Chinese. I think in many ways it is often irrelevant. If the Zhou were of different stock than the Shang, it ultimately isn't as important as the fact that the Zhou inherited a certain cultural tradition from the Shang, to varying degrees. Culture was very important in identification in ancient China, possibly moreso than ethnicity. If people became Confucians (or sometimes Daoists, Buddhists), learned to converse in Chinese and adopted Chinese customs, they could "become Chinese." The opposite was true too as many Chinese could defect to the northern frontier, adopting the customs, habits and lifestyles of non-Chinese (and some did). I think Nicola di Cosmo offered a very interesting interpretation of the kingdoms of Chu and Qin in Ancient China and its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History. He mentions that even states recognized as Chinese, such as Chu and Qin, were at times labeled under the Zhou as "Yi-Ti" (something along the lines of "barbarians"). In his opinion, this classification sometimes just meant that these states labeled "yi ti" were disloyal the Zhou order in one way or another. It didn't necessarily have the ethnic connotation that might be apparent.

I'm not sure that this is the right answer though. Ethnicity is just too confusing a subject. I don't think China was the center of a single civilization or group of people. There were many groups of people and civilizations that developed concurrently with one another and interacted with each other. China is such a large country (even in ancient times) that it's very feasible to me that the people of kingdoms on the periphery (i.e. Qin/Zhou) were of different ethnicity than their contemporaries, but merged with them over time.

Of course, the ethnicity or identity of ancient people such as Zhou and Shang peopl are not specifically told. Therefore, the best way to determine their ethnicity is through archaeology evidence. The oracle bones script from Shang and bronze inscriptions from Zhang have writings believed to be the ancestors of modern day Chinese characters.

http://en.wikipedia....cle_bone_script
http://en.wikipedia....ze_inscriptions

Even if the identity Han Chinese only created during the Han dynasty, judging from those archaeology evidence, it is safe to say that Shang and Zhou people are the same ethnic, the ancestors of Han Chinese, that including the ruler of Zhou and Shang.
If there is any state considered foreign such as Chu, it is not in the sense of ethnicity, but it because they have different politic point of view and not entirely loyal to the Zhou as suggested by Nicola di Cosmo. The situation is similar to modern day China and Taiwan. Both of them are majority Han Chinese ethnic, but Taiwanese view China as foreign and don't consider themselves as part of China. Hope that make sense.

If Mongol have Genghis Khan to unite many of the nomadic tribes of northeast Asia and create Mongol empire, then Han Chinese have Qin Shi Huang who unified all those different civilization but share similar ethnic background. That is why Qin Shih Huang conquest is considered unification.

Regarding the origin of ruler of Zhou, I'm not sure about his origin. Do you guys have any sources regarding Zhou rulers background? Anyone can post a map of Hua civilization and how far it extent? I thought Shanxi is geographically almost the same as Shang dynasty and Zhou state was located in Wei River, somewhere around yellow river and the area where Sino-Tibetan(Han Chinese) originated from.

The Zhou state was located in the Wei River valley in present day Shaanxi Province.

http://en.wikipedia...._Zhou#Biography



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wei_River

Edited by Rykard, 14 August 2011 - 04:24 AM.

[mohistManiac]

If there is any state considered foreign such as Chu, it is not in the sense of ethnicity, but it because they have different politic point of view and not entirely loyal to the Zhou as suggested by Nicola di Cosmo. The situation is similar to modern day China and Taiwan. Both of them are majority Han Chinese ethnic, but Taiwanese view China as foreign and don't consider themselves as part of China. Hope that make sense.

It is possible ethnic division in neolithic China manifested through the religious cult boundaries maintained by people sharing a common set of views which discriminated against other sets of ideas. When I believe in water and you believe in fire it produces the effect of living in isolation to the effect of different politics and states being formed. Not only that there is also the issue of natural barriers to consider. Qin did not remain separate nor did Chu out of luck. Rather it was their control of resources and terrain which set their expertise different from other states. In considering the 56 ethnic groups of China we don't go about finding 56 divisions of ancestors but we need to learn what sets each of them apart due to the unique situation of each in terms of historical background. Therefore when Zhou looted the lands of Shang and overtook their equipment manufacture how can they be considered the same as Shang? Moreover how would the assimilation process make a change in effect to the underlying identity of the Zhou royal house to remain indefinitely loyal unto themselves? In the modern age Han can be thusly considered. If the inhabitants of Taiwan forged a new ethnic identity for themselves it will be while retaining much of Han identity. This is hardly surprising.

Edited by mohistManiac, 14 August 2011 - 09:53 AM.

[Rykard]

Ethnic tensions in ancient China had a way of manifesting themselves first through the different political or religious cult boundaries set by the shared views of the people living in isolation from each other. How else would you get 56 different ethnic groups? Did they all arrive from 56 separate divisions of common ancestors arriving into the landscape at 56 different points of entry all bothering to keep themselves into 56 unique compartmental tribes all through the history of China? In the modern age what you said about Taiwan is slightly untrue. There may be many Han in Taiwan but if the Taiwanese forged themselves their own ethnic group and by choice continue to do so in defiance regardless of an official reunification between Taiwan and mainland then matters will surely complicate further regarding foreign identity.

I wonder if people can be called non Han by people considering themselves to be members of the Han ethnic group simply because of the perception that they appear to be doing something which sets them apart politically in some way either militarily, economically, politically, etc. If so then it provides a bridging insight into the past of China where everyone was foreign to each based on the creation of their own geopolitical boundary which was for the most part during all the history of China.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here.How can Taiwan forge themselves ethnic group when they are culturally the same as Han Chinese and speak the same language as them. Are you saying they can forge themselves their own ethnic group by creating their own languages and culture? From what I see so far, Taiwanese are physically the same as Han Chinese. About the ethnic group, I'm not saying they are all Han Chinese, I believe they are multicultural state.However,I believe the ancestor of Han Chinese as proven by archaeology evidence are the majority in ancient China. Otherwise, how did more than 1 billion Han Chinese who share similar culture and totally outnumber the entire 56 ethnic minority appear in China? Archaeology evidence also prove that Han Chinese culture such as the writings have huge influence on ancient China since Shang dynasty. I always felt that in ancient China, everyone was considered foreign based on the creation of their own geopolitical boundary like you just said.

Edited by Rykard, 14 August 2011 - 09:09 AM.

[mohistManiac]

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here.How can Taiwan forge themselves ethnic group when they are culturally the same as Han Chinese and speak the same language as them. Are you saying they can forge themselves their own ethnic group by creating their own languages and culture? From what I see so far, Taiwanese are physically the same as Han Chinese. About the ethnic group, I'm not saying they are all Han Chinese, I believe they are multicultural state.However,I believe the ancestor of Han Chinese as proven by archaeology evidence are the majority in ancient China. Otherwise, how did more than 1 billion Han Chinese who share similar culture and totally outnumber the entire 56 ethnic minority appear in China? Archaeology evidence also prove that Han Chinese culture such as the writings have huge influence on ancient China since Shang dynasty. I always felt that in ancient China, everyone was considered foreign based on the creation of their own geopolitical boundary like you just said.

Sorry the language I used was a little belligerent but you'll see the point I'm making in the revised post.

[SlickSlicer]

Even if the identity Han Chinese only created during the Han dynasty, judging from those archaeology evidence, it is safe to say that Shang and Zhou people are the same ethnic, the ancestors of Han Chinese, that including the ruler of Zhou and Shang.

I don't think that's evidence that they are the same people. I think it's evidence that they shared certain cultural features. They might have well originally been different people, but culturally (and likely through intermarriage, thus: ethnically as well) they merged over time. Since the Zhou were from the West, isn't it possible they may have also had links with other Tibetan or Central Asian groups?

Ethnicity is a dicey subject. The problem is that you can't look at different people groups retroactively. The Xiongnu and Ba may not really exist as separate peoples anymore, but they clearly did exist at one point and were also clearly separate from the rest of the Chinese at one point. Similarly, although it's possible that the Zhou and the Shang may represent the ancestors of the eventual "Han" people, in their own time they may have very well been separate people.

Edited by SlickSlicer, 14 August 2011 - 03:39 PM.

[Shifa Shengli]

Ethnicity in ancient China is very confusing. There are tons of vague points, and things are complicated even further by the fact that many important ethnic groups have assimilated to the point of becoming Chinese. I think in many ways it is often irrelevant. If the Zhou were of different stock than the Shang, it ultimately isn't as important as the fact that the Zhou inherited a certain cultural tradition from the Shang, to varying degrees. Culture was very important in identification in ancient China, possibly moreso than ethnicity. If people became Confucians (or sometimes Daoists, Buddhists), learned to converse in Chinese and adopted Chinese customs, they could "become Chinese." The opposite was true too as many Chinese could defect to the northern frontier, adopting the customs, habits and lifestyles of non-Chinese (and some did). I think Nicola di Cosmo offered a very interesting interpretation of the kingdoms of Chu and Qin in Ancient China and its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History. He mentions that even states recognized as Chinese, such as Chu and Qin, were at times labeled under the Zhou as "Yi-Ti" (something along the lines of "barbarians"). In his opinion, this classification sometimes just meant that these states labeled "yi ti" were disloyal the Zhou order in one way or another. It didn't necessarily have the ethnic connotation that might be apparent.

so it's far more important to judge someone or other group according their culture instead relevant ethnicity? although from what you said i can see concept about ethnicity can be very flexible and make it vague

It is possible ethnic division in neolithic China manifested through the religious cult boundaries maintained by people sharing a common set of views which discriminated against other sets of ideas. When I believe in water and you believe in fire it produces the effect of living in isolation to the effect of different politics and states being formed. Not only that there is also the issue of natural barriers to consider.

then different religion also can be classiffied as different culture too? how about Wu Qi definition about different custom and culture among warring states? i think his thought was good to describe culture and ethnicity among states

[Rykard]

I don't think that's evidence that they are the same people. I think it's evidence that they shared certain cultural features. They might have well originally been different people, but culturally (and likely through intermarriage, thus: ethnically as well) they merged over time. Since the Zhou were from the West, isn't it possible they may have also had links with other Tibetan or Central Asian groups?

Ethnicity is a dicey subject. The problem is that you can't look at different people groups retroactively. The Xiongnu and Ba may not really exist as separate peoples anymore, but they clearly did exist at one point and were also clearly separate from the rest of the Chinese at one point. Similarly, although it's possible that the Zhou and the Shang may represent the ancestors of the eventual "Han" people, in their own time they may have very well been separate people.

Isn't ethnicity define by culture? Also, when you said west, how far it is? Because last time I check Zhou state was in Wei River, which is not that far from yellow river, the place where sino-tibetan(Han Chinese) originated from. So, I don't think they,Zhou had links with Tibetan or Central Asian group.

Edited by Rykard, 14 August 2011 - 10:50 PM.

[SlickSlicer]

Isn't ethnicity define by culture? Also, when you said west, how far it is? Because last time I check Zhou state was in Wei River, which is not that far from yellow river, the place where sino-tibetan(Han Chinese) originated from. So, I don't think they,Zhou had links with Tibetan or Central Asian group.

I was under the impression that ethnicity had more racial connotations than culture. To be honest, upon further examination, I'm finding it hard to substantiate that view. Now I think I just confused myself on the subject.

[mohistManiac]

http://www.eacenter....ch and Pins.pdf

On searching about Qin ethnicity I found this insightful paper which shows a new way of examining archaeological evidence that helps to clarify the matter of ethnic identity during the Zhou fragmentation and warring states period.

[Rykard]

http://www.eacenter....ch and Pins.pdf

On searching about Qin ethnicity I found this insightful paper which shows a new way of examining archaeological evidence that helps to clarify the matter of ethnic identity during the Zhou fragmentation and warring states period.

Thanks for the link, but it a too long. Can someone summarize it? Anyway, this part caught my attention.

As a departure point for our discussion we focus on the much debated topic of
Qin ethnic identity and Qin’s relations with the rest of the Zhou (i.e. “Chinese”)
world. This debate began in the 1930s when scholars have suggested that Qin was
ethnically and culturally alien to the ancient Xia (also “Chinese”) and that it was
absorbed into Zhou civilization only on the eve of the imperial unification (Bodde
1938; Meng Wentong 1936; cf. Liu Yutao 1988).This paradigm was based on several
passages in Sima Qian’s ( , ca. 145–90 B.C.) Shiji ( , “Historical
Records”), which refer to Qin’s similarity to the Rong and the Di “barbarians”
(Shiji 1997 5:202; 15:685; 68:2234). Later as archaeological and epigraphic
discoveries highlighted strong similarities between Qin and Zhou since the earliest
stages of Qin history scholars began rejecting the old paradigm, as a result of which
the once “barbarian” and remote polity is conceived nowadays as a state which
“preserved the practices and inherent values of the Zhou ritual legacy with at least
the same eagerness as their eastern neighbors did” (Kern 2000:63; cf. von Falkenhausen
2004 and n.d.).

That is why I feel they are considered alien because of geopolitical boundary, not because of ethnicity. By the way, I still haven't read the entire thing yet, so I might miss out something.

It is possible ethnic division in neolithic China manifested through the religious cult boundaries maintained by people sharing a common set of views which discriminated against other sets of ideas. When I believe in water and you believe in fire it produces the effect of living in isolation to the effect of different politics and states being formed. Not only that there is also the issue of natural barriers to consider. Qin did not remain separate nor did Chu out of luck. Rather it was their control of resources and terrain which set their expertise different from other states. In considering the 56 ethnic groups of China we don't go about finding 56 divisions of ancestors but we need to learn what sets each of them apart due to the unique situation of each in terms of historical background. Therefore when Zhou looted the lands of Shang and overtook their equipment manufacture how can they be considered the same as Shang? Moreover how would the assimilation process make a change in effect to the underlying identity of the Zhou royal house to remain indefinitely loyal unto themselves? In the modern age Han can be thusly considered. If the inhabitants of Taiwan forged a new ethnic identity for themselves it will be while retaining much of Han identity. This is hardly surprising.

So, what you are trying to say is that definition of ethnic in Neolithic China is based on geopolitic boundary right? If we are to define ancient ethnicity using modern day logic, can Shang and Zhou still be considered the same people, that is the ancestors of eventual Han Chinese? However, if they are considered alien because of ethnicity and not the ancestor of Han Chinese, then what is their race? Which ethnic minority are they related to? How did Han Chinese manage to outnumber the entire 56 ethnic minority by such a huge number?

Edited by Rykard, 15 August 2011 - 10:31 PM.

[mohistManiac]

Thanks for the link, but it a too long. Can someone summarize it? Anyway, this part caught my attention.

That is why I feel they are considered alien because of geopolitical boundary, not because of ethnicity. By the way, I still haven't read the entire thing yet, so I might miss out something.

The different geopolitical boundaries were not superficial in producing differentiation in ethnicity concerning the way the inhabitants in each warring state sector wanted to uphold their own collective identity. Even in today's world we can find the analogy. Although the world knows of using the internet to make communication into a global convenience there are still cultural and ethnic differences which are maintained.

So, what you are trying to say is that definition of ethnic in Neolithic China is based on geopolitic boundary right? If we are to define ancient ethnicity using modern day logic, can Shang and Zhou still be considered the same people, that is the ancestors of eventual Han Chinese? However, if they are considered alien because of ethnicity and not the ancestor of Han Chinese, then what is their race? Which ethnic minority are they related to? How did Han Chinese manage to outnumber the entire 56 ethnic minority by such a huge number?

Shang and Zhou cannot be considered the same people and yet they can be the ancestors of the eventual Han Chinese. It took until the Han dynasty that eventually Han Chinese identity could be forged out of multiple peoples due to a strong desire and success by their government to maintain a whole out of what would have eventually became various ethnic groups. There are so many minority ethnic groups because these are the places which somehow built up a resistance or diverged regardless of how many times China was reunified and the Han people became reaffirmed to their identity.

[Rykard]

The different geopolitical boundaries were not superficial in producing differentiation in ethnicity concerning the way the inhabitants in each warring state sector wanted to uphold their own collective identity. Even in today's world we can find the analogy. Although the world knows of using the internet to make communication into a global convenience there are still cultural and ethnic differences which are maintained.



Shang and Zhou cannot be considered the same people and yet they can be the ancestors of the eventual Han Chinese. It took until the Han dynasty that eventually Han Chinese identity could be forged out of multiple peoples due to a strong desire and success by their government to maintain a whole out of what would have eventually became various ethnic groups. There are so many minority ethnic groups because these are the places which somehow built up a resistance or diverged regardless of how many times China was reunified and the Han people became reaffirmed to their identity.

Yeah, that is what I thought as well. Shang and Zhou are both the ancestor of the eventual Han Chinese, it just that the identity Han Chinese are not created during Shang and Zhou period of time. Regarding the ethnic minority,do any of those 56 ethnic minority actually have their own kingdom? If yes which one and what is the name of their kingdom?

Edited by Rykard, 16 August 2011 - 08:33 AM.