32 replies to this topic

[General_Zhaoyun]

I am now watching the China's historical TV Series "Hanwu Dadi 汉武大帝" (Emperor Wu of Han, or Han Wudi).

In the starting episode, it mentions:

"According to records of Shiji (史记) and Hanshu (汉书), XiongNu people and Han-chinese people had the same origin. They were all descendents of Dayu (大禹) [Dayu was the founder and 1st king of Xia dynasty. After Xia dynasty collapsed, one faction of Xia Jie (夏桀)[last king of Xia dynasty] escaped to the north and became XiongNu tribe. After years of conquest and subjugating other tribes/people, Xiongnu swiftly developed into a powerful force. During Qin/Han period, XiongNu became the largest ethnic group in northern China and established the 1st powerful slavery-based regime in northern China.

This film depicted the early han period 2000 years ago, the battle, conflict between Han dynasty and XiongNu people, and finally a descendence into ethnicity mixing of chinese people."

I've always thought XiongNu and Han-chinese were completely different, but the above mentioned that according to chinese history classics such as Shiji and Hanshu, XiongNu and Han-chinese were from the same origin.

How true is this?

Some questions I post are:

Assuming XiongNu was one of the factions from Xia tribe, how come XiongNu became nomadic? Do they have to become nomads in order to surivive in Mongolia? We know that Xia probably already had agriculture and were farming-based society in China. So, how can a Xia-originated XiongNu became nomadic ?

Any comment is appreciated. Do you think Xiongnu and han-chinese originated from Xia tribe? Are what is recorded in Shiji and Hanshu true? Isn't Xiongnu turkic rather than sinitic (chinese)?

[lobster]

Assuming Xiongnu did have same origins as Hans, it could be explained that when that faction went to the north, they get assimilated by the nomads. Maybe their numbers were not big, maybe they just adopted to the environment, etc.

But I seriously doubt if they really did have same origins as Hans. I always think this is just a Xiongnu propaganda to justify their invasion of Han. Not sure though, I just don't give it too much credit.

[tianzhuwoye]

I don’t have anything particularly concrete to contribute here but I’ve always been sympathetic to the idea that the ‘Han’ and a number of the northern ‘minorities’ aren’t nearly as different as we usually think. The moment of ‘separation’ occurred when early states began to take shape- people who settled down into sedentary lives and agriculture would later go on to write histories defining those who were still hunting and not controllable as ‘others’ and we just buy into that. And this is reinforced by the tendency to try and trace modern ‘ethnicities’ to peoples and states mentioned in early records as well as the notion that they have different cultures and ‘look different’ today.

There’s some interesting stuff with language, especially as far as aspects of classical Chinese that have died out in the vernacular (at least with Mandarin). A sentence like 瑟兮僩兮者，恂栗也 is decidedly ‘Altaic’ with its topic markers and copulas, and there are theories that ‘Chinese’ may have started out with a completely different structure than what we have today- something closer to the ancestors of the modern ‘Turkic’ family (Sino-Tibetan, like Altaic, is far from stable). That might sound strange because we’re used to thinking of Chinese as a written language, and that’s all we have to work with from the period before we could record sound, but it might be worth pointing out that nobody really knows what the common people were actually speaking for most of the history of this area. Interestingly, there are theories that right now modern Chinese may be developing (back?) into an agglutinating language (like Turkish or Hungarian)- meaning that grammar comes out in attaching suffixes to root words: 吃, 吃过, 吃了, 吃了没有, 吃吧, etc, even something like ‘- 死我了’ might look more like a suffix if we didn’t ‘know’ that it’s written with 3 separate characters. Still, connections in language don’t necessarily mean anything.

Much is made of similarities between very, very early archaeological findings in the ‘border areas’ and those in the central plains. The idea is usually to establish a connection between the inside/outside regions and to imply that they naturally and historically ‘belong to China.’ Sometimes I think though that they might not have been all that different to begin with.

Just to note, the theory that the words ‘Han’ and ‘Hun’ have the same origin is interesting but thoroughly discredited by now. It's also very difficult to get down concrete definitions for any of these terms. We're not even exactly sure who or what the Xiongnu were, for example.

[lobster]

Just to note, the theory that the words ‘Han’ and ‘Hun’ have the same origin is interesting but thoroughly discredited by now.

No way man... "Han" is the modern Mandarin pronounciation of the character used to name the region around river Hanshui. It could have read a bit different back then. And it's used to describe Centerians only starting from 200-ish BC. "Hun" is a Roman word.

[浪淘音]

studies of Sinodontry (teeth) show affinity between ancient populations of the steppe as well as Northern Chinese (BOTH ancient and modern). just to clarify, Northern Chinese meaning populations of Huabei as well those descended from Huabei ren

[hansioux]

No way man... "Han" is the modern Mandarin pronounciation of the character used to name the region around river Hanshui.  It could have read a bit different back then.  And it's used to describe Centerians only starting from 200-ish BC.  "Hun" is a Roman word.

No, Hun is not a roman word, Hun is a Hun word.

Hun is what the Huns refer to man.

XiongNu 匈奴's traditional pronounciation is "Hun-nu". The original translation for the same word, Hu 胡 "Hu" just dropped the n, which is common in Han translations (However in the Holo language, Hu is fellowed by a nasil N. HuN).

However, 漢 is just Han, in Mandarin or traditional Han languages.

And Han did came from the word 漢水 (Han River) and 漢中 (Han Zhong Area) which Liu Bang was forced to go and later named his empire after.

However, when did the word 漢 also started to mean man? For example, 好漢, 漢子?

Han and Hun... could there be connections? I doubt it. I mean even Han 漢 and Han 韓 aren't the same, right? XD

[TMPikachu]

I've heard that studies of Y chromosones in men in China show that they have common ancestory in the northern regions of China/Manchuria.

[lobster]

No, Hun is not a roman word, Hun is a Hun word.

Hun is what the Huns refer to man.

XiongNu 匈奴's traditional pronounciation is "Hun-nu".  The original translation for the same word,  Hu 胡 "Hu" just dropped the n, which is common in Han translations (However in the Holo language, Hu is fellowed by a nasil N.  HuN).

However, 漢 is just Han, in Mandarin or traditional Han languages.

And Han did came from the word 漢水 (Han River) and 漢中 (Han Zhong Area) which Liu Bang was forced to go and later named his empire after.

However, when did the word 漢 also started to mean man?  For example, 好漢, 漢子?

Han and Hun... could there be connections? I doubt it.  I mean even Han 漢 and Han 韓 aren't the same, right? XD

Hmm you're rephrasing me...

Basically both of us just wanted to say Han and Hun do not have the same origin.

"Hun" is three Roman characters resembling the pronounciation of how those people called themselves at the time they met the Romans (I guess?). It may have the same problem as e.g. "Canada" or it may not.

漢 may not be "Han" all the time in every Chinese dialect. It's pronounced "Hon" in modern Cantonese and it may or may not pronounced "Han" back in the, err, Han dynasty.

As for 好漢, 漢子 those are not ancient Chinese words. They look mandarin to me.

[hansioux]

Hmm you're rephrasing me...

Basically both of us just wanted to say Han and Hun do not have the same origin.

"Hun" is three Roman characters resembling the pronounciation of how those people called themselves at the time they met the Romans (I guess?).  It may have the same problem as e.g. "Canada" or it may not.

漢 may not be "Han" all the time in every Chinese dialect.  It's pronounced "Hon" in modern Cantonese and it may or may not pronounced "Han" back in the, err, Han dynasty.

As for 好漢, 漢子 those are not ancient Chinese words.  They look mandarin to me. 

The 好漢, 漢子 is something worth researching for. I wonder how far it goes back. If it is just in Madarin, can we assume that the term came about because of foreign rule?

[Yihesan]

The Xiongnu and Han having the same origin is nothing but a myth, these peoples have got nothing to do with each other.

[dbslht]

I am now watching the China's historical TV Series "Hanwu Dadi 汉武大帝" (Emperor Wu of Han, or Han Wudi).

In the starting episode, it mentions:

"According to records of Shiji (史记) and Hanshu (汉书), XiongNu people and Han-chinese people had the same origin. They were all descendents of Dayu (大禹) [Dayu was the founder and 1st king of Xia dynasty. After Xia dynasty collapsed, one faction of Xia Jie (夏桀)[last king of Xia dynasty] escaped to the north and became XiongNu tribe. After years of conquest and subjugating other tribes/people, Xiongnu swiftly developed into a powerful force. During Qin/Han period, XiongNu became the largest ethnic group in northern China and established the 1st powerful slavery-based regime in northern China.

This film depicted the early han period 2000 years ago, the battle, conflict between Han dynasty and XiongNu people, and finally a descendence into ethnicity mixing of chinese people."

I've always thought XiongNu and Han-chinese were completely different, but the above mentioned that according to chinese history classics such as Shiji and Hanshu, XiongNu and Han-chinese were from the same origin.

How true is this?

Some questions I post are:

Assuming XiongNu was one of the factions from Xia tribe, how come XiongNu became nomadic? Do they have to become nomads in order to surivive in Mongolia? We know that Xia probably already had agriculture and were farming-based society in China. So, how can a Xia-originated XiongNu became nomadic ?

Any comment is appreciated. Do you think Xiongnu and han-chinese originated from Xia tribe? Are what is recorded in Shiji and Hanshu true? Isn't Xiongnu turkic rather than sinitic (chinese)?

General....it's hard to determine whether they are of the same origin, but
for sure...a lot of Xiongnu were assimilated and became Chinese...
When I was in Xian a few years ago visiting the local musuem of history,
there was a table listing the major Xiongnu clans (and other non-Han tribes) which
adopted Chinese surnames on their way to full sinicisation.

[MING-LOYALIST]

Han people includes many different peoples, better peoples would be QIN.
Qin like Zhao and maybe Yan was nomads who settled and faught the XiongNu and later became Han.

[qrasy]

There’s some interesting stuff with language, especially as far as aspects of classical Chinese that have died out in the vernacular (at least with Mandarin). A sentence like 瑟兮僩兮者,恂栗也 is decidedly ‘Altaic’ with its topic markers and copulas, and there are theories that ‘Chinese’ may have started out with a completely different structure than what we have today- something closer to the ancestors of the modern ‘Turkic’ family (Sino-Tibetan, like Altaic, is far from stable).

tianzhuwoye, can you tell me the meaning of "瑟兮僩兮者,恂栗也" (each character & the whole meaning) because I don't understand.
You said it's like Altaic but could it be Indo-European (do Indo-European always put suffixes after like -ing?)? Or could it be related to Austronesian?
How about the passive marker 被 which is put before (an affix)?

Edited by Yun, 20 April 2005 - 06:21 AM.

[AhMan]

there was an outrageous assertion from a certain Chinese scholar that Han is a corruption of Khan (in chinese it would be Han3) so Liu Bang was a XiongNu Mongolian.
But many scholars already agreed that Zhou peole were related to Qiang, ultimately related to XiongNu. Zhou conquered China and formed the ruling class so the Han they referred to could be the Zhou.

[General_Zhaoyun]

there was an outrageous assertion from a certain Chinese scholar that Han is a corruption of Khan (in chinese it would be Han3) so Liu Bang was a XiongNu Mongolian.
But many scholars already agreed that Zhou peole were related to Qiang, ultimately related to XiongNu. Zhou conquered China and formed the ruling class so the Han they referred to could be the Zhou.

AhMan, I think you're probably very confused about chinese ethnicity history on the whole.

Firstly, when you say "Han is a corruption of Khan." May I know whether the "han" you're referring to is Han-chinese? Or are you referring to the chinese term "han 汗"

It seems you're not well-informed or clear about chinese history terms. Note that the chinese term Kehan "可汗" was used to refer to the leader, king or chieftain of the nomadic civilization in northern China/Mongolia after Sui dynasty.

This term "kehan" was probably first used in Turks (chinese: Tujue 突厥) that dwelled Mongolia/Steppe during Sui dynasty of 6th century. In the old turkic language, "kehan" is translated as Kaghan. "Khan" is sometimes used to as short-form. Thereafter, most of the other nomadic civs later on used "Khan" to refer to their leader, such as Mongols, Khitan, Manchu etc. Khan in chinese is called "han 汗"

The first nomadic civilization that dominated Mongolia and the Steppe are the XiongNu (凶奴). Their leaders are not called "Khan" but rather called "Chanyu 单于"

Please kindly also note that XiongNu is not equal to Mongolian. They may dwelled in Mongolia, but they are not the direct ancestors of Mongolian people today. The Xiongnu has already disappeared in history, some mixed into the chinese people, some mixed into European in the west, as a result of migration history.

The Qiang (羌) are not in anyway related to XiongNu. I'm still quite skeptical that they are related to Zhou people. The "Zhou" people formed a distinct minority tribe that later conquered the Shang people to establish western Zhou dynasty in 1100 BC.
The Qiang was said to be the ancestors of Tubo (吐藩), who in turn are the direct ancestors of Tibetan today.

Both Qiang and XiongNu belonged to the "hu 胡" people, a generic term used to refer to various northern nomadic minorities that lived in Mongolia and northern China. During Zhou dynasty, the chinese people that dwelled in central plain are referred to as "Huaxia people 华夏人", with origin dating back to Xia dynasty (2100 BC). Take note that 'han' people at that time hasn't been formed. It was only till the establishment of han dynasty in 202 BC that the chinese people in central plain began to refer to themselves as 'han-ren 汉人" (han-chinese) or the "han".

Thus, it would sound 'funny' and 'weird' when you say "liu bang was a Xiongnu mongolian". Your above statements also sound 'weird' .

Edited by Yun, 22 April 2005 - 09:11 AM.