The Shang were considered Yi/Yin Yi/Dong Yi a different ethnic group from the Huaxia. That's pretty alien. Doesn't Yi mean alien/barbarian?Actually there isn't anything in chinese history that regard shang as alien, Zhou on the other hand were recorded as aleien by a number of sources.
Xia
Started by
Tyler
, Aug 21 2004 02:05 AM
57 replies to this topic
#16
Guest_rock bottom stewing_*
Guest_rock bottom stewing_*
-
- Guest
Posted 24 September 2004 - 01:15 PM
#17
Sephodwyrm
-
- CHF Beginner
-
- 2,711 posts
Vanguard of Zhan Guo (战国先锋)
- Location:Tucson, Arizona, US of A
- Interests:Upsetting regional imbalances
-
Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese History
-
Specialisation / Expertise:
Warring States Military, Chinese Sketches and Artwork
Posted 24 September 2004 - 02:40 PM
That's odd. If the Shang are considered the Dong Yi, why do they have to send a campaign under the reign of Wu Ding to conquer Dong Yi? (and continued by Shang Zhou as well)
#18
Borjigin Ayurbarwada
-
- CHF Han Lin Scholar
-
- 4,010 posts
Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)
-
Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese History
-
Specialisation / Expertise:
Chinese History, Chinese Military History, Qing dynasty history
Posted 24 September 2004 - 02:52 PM
"The Shang were considered Yi/Yin Yi/Dong Yi a different ethnic group from the Huaxia. That's pretty alien. Doesn't Yi mean alien/barbarian?"
Which source called them dong yi? And the term hua xia doesn't even exist back then, so how do they categorize ethnicity? In fact the very concept of ethnicity don't even exist back then.
Which source called them dong yi? And the term hua xia doesn't even exist back then, so how do they categorize ethnicity? In fact the very concept of ethnicity don't even exist back then.
#19
Guest_rock bottom stewing_*
Guest_rock bottom stewing_*
-
- Guest
Posted 24 September 2004 - 06:32 PM
Was this during the Shang or was it the Zhou? I know that the Zhou campaigned against them.That's odd. If the Shang are considered the Dong Yi, why do they have to send a campaign under the reign of Wu Ding to conquer Dong Yi? (and continued by Shang Zhou as well)
UglyChinese.org said they were. Are you familiar with that site. It is very informative but kinda dense, and I wouldn't trust everything they say there. I probably also ran across references to the Shang as Dong Yi elsewhere."The Shang were considered Yi/Yin Yi/Dong Yi a different ethnic group from the Huaxia. That's pretty alien. Doesn't Yi mean alien/barbarian?"
Which source called them dong yi? And the term hua xia doesn't even exist back then, so how do they categorize ethnicity? In fact the very concept of ethnicity don't even exist back then.
Also, the term Huaxia is very old. People were referring to themselves as the Xia even during the Shang dynasty. And there is a differentiation between the Shang and Xia. I just ran across references yesterday, but forgot the sources.
Hopefully, some experts (if there are any here) can address the issues. There just isn't decent in-depth, up-to-date material/books in the English language that's widely available, and I'm not too good on Chinese characters to read in-depth Chinese stuff online.
#20
Borjigin Ayurbarwada
-
- CHF Han Lin Scholar
-
- 4,010 posts
Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)
-
Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese History
-
Specialisation / Expertise:
Chinese History, Chinese Military History, Qing dynasty history
Posted 25 September 2004 - 06:17 PM
No, these sites you gave are secodary and are based on speculation. There is no primary source that claim Shang is Dong Yi, thus the statement "from chinese sources" gave the wrong impression. No ancient chinese record mentions shag as dong yi in fact they clearly mention the Shang faught the dong yi thus two different people. Of course Shang could have dong yi anecestry in them, buts that another unproven assumption rather than record. There is a term for xia dynasty, but the hua xia ethnicity is not a term back then.
#21
Guest_rock bottom stewing_*
Guest_rock bottom stewing_*
-
- Guest
Posted 26 September 2004 - 10:56 AM
Well, it's really not important whether the Shang or Xia are Dong Yi to me. What's really important is what Chinese characters were based on. They've found prehistoric potteries from a lot of different regions that have similar and sometimes almost the exact symbols later seen in Shang oracle bones.
This points to the likelihood that a lot of different groups shared and helped each other to develope a similar writing. This is how the Olmecs were in Central America; they were a collection of different groups that later gave rise to Maya and so on.
The Shui ethnic group is a Tai-Kadai speaking people, but their writing have almost exact characters as those found on potteries and Shang oracle bones.
From Xinhua news:
Shui regions:
This points to the likelihood that a lot of different groups shared and helped each other to develope a similar writing. This is how the Olmecs were in Central America; they were a collection of different groups that later gave rise to Maya and so on.
The Shui ethnic group is a Tai-Kadai speaking people, but their writing have almost exact characters as those found on potteries and Shang oracle bones.
From Xinhua news:
From CCTV:http://www.cctv.com/program/travelogue/20040521/102569.shtmlExperts have found that large amount of archaism originated from Central China have been preserved because the ancestors of this ethnic group migrated from northern China.
By comparison, Chinese experts discovered a dozen of symbols in the written language of Shui ethnic minority are exactly same as symbols on pottery wares unearthed from the Xia Dynasty (2100 BC -1600 BC), the first ever recorded historical period in China. It indicates that the written symbols of this ethnic group belonged to a section of the ancient Xia culture. The ancestors of the Shui ethnicity existed in the primitive society.
The stuff about how they were from northern China and how are descendents of the Xia are a bit speculative, but since archaic Chinese history/legend is full of defeated peoples moving south, it's possible. This also supports that paper I linked in the "Who were the Xia and Shang" thread, which says that Dong Yi were Tai-Kadai.The book covers such topics as calendar, astronomy, and religion, and is believed to have branched out from Luoshu, a diagram inscribed on a tortoise shell over 4000 years ago that embodies the spirit of Taoism. Only men studied Shuishu and learn how to write in Shui characters. The characters of Shuishu is a mixture of Chinese characters and some inscriptions from oracle bones.
Shui regions:
#22
MengTzu
-
- Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
-
- 2,105 posts
Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)
-
Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese Philosophy
-
Specialisation / Expertise:
General Chinese Philosophy and Religion, Confucianism
Posted 29 September 2004 - 09:03 PM
Hey Rock Bottom Sewing,
Demonstrating one logical flaw of yours will answer that question, I think. Sinitic doesn't mean Hua Xia. It means Chinese. Hua Xia is not necessarily the exact equivalent of Chinese. There are plenty of Chinese that, I'd argue, are of Dong Yi descent. I'd say that Dong Yi and Hua Xia contribute as much to the formation of Chinese culture.
Peace,
Michael
9-29-2004
Demonstrating one logical flaw of yours will answer that question, I think. Sinitic doesn't mean Hua Xia. It means Chinese. Hua Xia is not necessarily the exact equivalent of Chinese. There are plenty of Chinese that, I'd argue, are of Dong Yi descent. I'd say that Dong Yi and Hua Xia contribute as much to the formation of Chinese culture.
Peace,
Michael
9-29-2004
#23
Bao Pu
-
- Admin
-
- 1,310 posts
Genuine Person (Zhenren 真人)
- Gender:Male
- Location:Canada
-
Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese Philosophy
-
Specialisation / Expertise:
Pre-Han Philosophy, Religion, Language and History, especially early Daoism
Posted 30 September 2004 - 05:10 PM
Hi RBS
Chinese characters began as strictly pictographs. Thus they represent no spoken language. Anyone can draw. Over time phonetic elements took over.
I apologize if I misunderstand your question.
Chinese characters began as strictly pictographs. Thus they represent no spoken language. Anyone can draw. Over time phonetic elements took over.
I apologize if I misunderstand your question.
May you enjoy good health, harmony and happiness.
#24
Guest_rock bottom stewing_*
Guest_rock bottom stewing_*
-
- Guest
Posted 01 October 2004 - 04:18 PM
What does your post have to do with the linguistics of the matter at hand? I'm talking about whether Hanzi was based on a Sinitic language. Notice I didn't use "Chinese" precisely because I didn't want to define what was and what is Chinese. "Sinitic" is mostly used for classify the "Chinese" languages in linguistics. If the Hanzi was based a Dongyi language and if the Dongyi were Tai-Kadai speakers (two big "if's"), then it doesn't mean the Dongyi weren't "Chinese", but it does change the whole way we look at the past.Hey Rock Bottom Sewing,
Demonstrating one logical flaw of yours will answer that question, I think. Sinitic doesn't mean Hua Xia. It means Chinese. Hua Xia is not necessarily the exact equivalent of Chinese. There are plenty of Chinese that, I'd argue, are of Dong Yi descent. I'd say that Dong Yi and Hua Xia contribute as much to the formation of Chinese culture.
Peace,
Michael
9-29-2004
#25
yehzhaofeng
-
- Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
-
- 900 posts
Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)
- Gender:Male
- Location:Hacienda Heights, California, USA
-
Main Interest in CHF:
General Chinese Culture
-
Specialisation / Expertise:
Overseas Chinese, Chinese Ethnic Groupsand peoples, American History, and Christian Theology.
Posted 02 October 2004 - 02:08 PM
Dongyi and Hua Xia were the founding tribes of the han. For those who don't know what they are.
Yeah, pictographs, than evolved around phonetics.
Yeah, pictographs, than evolved around phonetics.
葉兆峰
andrew.yip@us.army.mil
John 3:16
#26
MengTzu
-
- Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
-
- 2,105 posts
Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)
-
Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese Philosophy
-
Specialisation / Expertise:
General Chinese Philosophy and Religion, Confucianism
Posted 02 October 2004 - 08:54 PM
Hey rock bottom stewing,
"What does your post have to do with the linguistics of the matter at hand? I'm talking about whether Hanzi was based on a Sinitic language. Notice I didn't use "Chinese" precisely because I didn't want to define what was and what is Chinese. "Sinitic" is mostly used for classify the "Chinese" languages in linguistics. If the Hanzi was based a Dongyi language and if the Dongyi were Tai-Kadai speakers (two big "if's"), then it doesn't mean the Dongyi weren't "Chinese", but it does change the whole way we look at the past."
You missed my point. My point is why do you insist that Dong Yi was not a Sinitic language. Even if we grant that it wasn't a Sinitic race, it doesn't follow that it's language group wasn't.
Peace,
Michael
10-2-2004
"What does your post have to do with the linguistics of the matter at hand? I'm talking about whether Hanzi was based on a Sinitic language. Notice I didn't use "Chinese" precisely because I didn't want to define what was and what is Chinese. "Sinitic" is mostly used for classify the "Chinese" languages in linguistics. If the Hanzi was based a Dongyi language and if the Dongyi were Tai-Kadai speakers (two big "if's"), then it doesn't mean the Dongyi weren't "Chinese", but it does change the whole way we look at the past."
You missed my point. My point is why do you insist that Dong Yi was not a Sinitic language. Even if we grant that it wasn't a Sinitic race, it doesn't follow that it's language group wasn't.
Peace,
Michael
10-2-2004
#27
yehzhaofeng
-
- Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
-
- 900 posts
Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)
- Gender:Male
- Location:Hacienda Heights, California, USA
-
Main Interest in CHF:
General Chinese Culture
-
Specialisation / Expertise:
Overseas Chinese, Chinese Ethnic Groupsand peoples, American History, and Christian Theology.
Posted 02 October 2004 - 10:05 PM
But Dongyi isn't a language.
葉兆峰
andrew.yip@us.army.mil
John 3:16
#28
MengTzu
-
- Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
-
- 2,105 posts
Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)
-
Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese Philosophy
-
Specialisation / Expertise:
General Chinese Philosophy and Religion, Confucianism
Posted 03 October 2004 - 03:02 AM
Alright, let me rephrase: why does one assume that Dong Yi used non-sinitic languages?
#29
Guest_rock bottom stewing_*
Guest_rock bottom stewing_*
-
- Guest
Posted 03 October 2004 - 09:31 PM
Did you even bother to read my posts in this thread and the other thread that I directed people to? I've already explained myself.Alright, let me rephrase: why does one assume that Dong Yi used non-sinitic languages?
#30
MengTzu
-
- Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
-
- 2,105 posts
Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)
-
Main Interest in CHF:
Chinese Philosophy
-
Specialisation / Expertise:
General Chinese Philosophy and Religion, Confucianism
Posted 03 October 2004 - 11:00 PM
Hey Rock Bottom Stewing,
As far as I know your sources say that Dong Yi is to be categorized as Tungunistic -- my point is I ain't buying it. There's no reason to suppose that a Tungunistic tribe speak a Tungunstic language -- and I'm serious. The idea that language is a reliable indicator of lineage is highly speclative. To be fair I'll give a better effort in trying to understand your argument.
Peace,
Michael
10-4-2004
As far as I know your sources say that Dong Yi is to be categorized as Tungunistic -- my point is I ain't buying it. There's no reason to suppose that a Tungunistic tribe speak a Tungunstic language -- and I'm serious. The idea that language is a reliable indicator of lineage is highly speclative. To be fair I'll give a better effort in trying to understand your argument.
Peace,
Michael
10-4-2004
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
