[Erik Huang]

The Huang warriors of the Three Kingdom Period were actually related. Although related, they served different Masters.

They were the descendants of Huang Xiang 黄香 of Jiangxia (AD 53- AD 117), a noted filial son in Chinese history and who was a high official of the Han dynasty.

The following information was from our Huang Clan Genealogy:

88th generation
Huang Xiang 黄香
Huang Xiang had 8 sons. The eldest was Huang Qiong 黄琼 and the youngest was Huang Li 黄理.

89th generation
Huang Qiong 黄琼 (AD 86- AD 164)
Huang Li 黄理 (b. AD 100)

91st generation
Huang Wan 黄琬 (AD 141- AD 192), the loyal Han official who with Wang Yun plotted the assassination of treacherous Dong Zhuo.

Huang Wan was the grandson of Huang Qiong (89th generation).

92nd generation
Huang Zhong 黄忠, General of Shu Han Kingdom. Duke of Guannei.
Huang Gai 黄盖, General of Wu Kingdom.
Huang Quan 黄权, first General of Shu Han and later General of Wei. Huang Quan was the 10th son of Huang Wan (91st generation).
Huang Zu 黄祖, General of Liu Biao. Governor of Jiangxia.

Huang Zhong, Huang Gai, Huang Quan and Huang Zu were descendants of Huang Qiong (89th generation), the eldest son of Huang Xiang (88th generation).

Huang Yueying 黄月英 (also called 丑女 “the ugly daughter”), wife of Zhuge Liang also belonged to the 92nd generation. Her father was Huang Chengyan 黄承彦 (91st generation). Huang Chengyan was a descendant of Huang Li 黄理 (89th generation) the youngest son of Huang Xiang (88th generation).

Please see the links below for the scans of the family tree.

http://www.geocities...ng/Huanggen.jpg
http://www.geocities...g/Huanggen2.jpg
http://www.geocities...g/Huanggen3.jpg

This post has been edited by Erik Huang: 03 September 2005 - 06:27 AM

[superquarterback]

Impressive ! Thanks for your excellent post Erik Huang !
I have several questions:
1. Who was the first generation ?
2. Why was Huang Yueying depicted as the ugly daugther ? Why Zhuge Liang
wanted to marry her ? Any proof of her ugliness ?
3. Why the descendants served different masters ?
4. Which generation are you ?
5. Which position did Huang Qiong held ?
6. Which position did Huang Chengyan held ?

This post has been edited by superquarterback: 03 September 2005 - 06:42 AM

[Chiang Kai-shek]

My surname is Huang, i have lost the family records.

What is the entry for 1943?

[Erik Huang]

superquarterback, on Sep 3 2005, 07:40 PM, said:

Impressive ! Thanks for your excellent post Erik Huang !
I have several questions:
1. Who was the first generation ?
2. Why was Huang Yueying depicted as the ugly daugther ? Why Zhuge Liang
    wanted to marry her ? Any proof of her ugliness ?
3. Why the descendants served different masters ?
4. Which generation are you ?
5. Which position did Huang Qiong held ?
6. Which position did Huang Chengyan held ?

Answers;
1. The first generation was Huang Yun, who lived during the time of Legendary Emperor Yao.
2. She was called "the ugly daughter" because she had dark skin and yellow hair 肤黑发黄. Although she was very ugly, she was very intelligent. Zhuge Liang married her because her intelligence. This showed that Zhuge Liang valued intelligence more than beauty. Huang Yueying was the woman behind the successful career of Zhuge Liang.
3. Maybe they had different interpretations of what was a just cause. Another reason maybe because they lived in different places under different warlords.
4. I am 150th generation, from the line of Huang Wan 黄琬, through his 6th son Huang Kan 黄侃, aka Huang Jingmao 黄荆茂 (who was the elder brother of Huang Quan 黄权).
5. Huang Qiong had held many positions. He was appointed "Tai Wei 太尉" and conferred Duke of Kangxiang 亢乡侯. There is a biography of him in the 62st Scroll of the Book of Later Han 后汉书.
6. Huang Chengyan was a 名士 well-known scholar. There is no record of him holding official appointment.

This post has been edited by Erik Huang: 03 September 2005 - 10:15 AM

[Erik Huang]

Chiang Kai-shek, on Sep 3 2005, 07:46 PM, said:

My surname is Huang, i have lost the family records.

What is the entry for 1943?

I though Chiang Kai-shek was a Zheng 郑. Just kidding . That's the bad thing about the Cultural Revolution. Many genealogies were destroyed

I see there are many Huangs in this forum.

[Xiang Yu]

From what I understand you are a relative of them?So you are a descendant of Huang Zhong and the other men?. Whoa,thats is very cool.

How did your family found that? or did they kept names and records?.

[Erik Huang]

Xiang Yu, on Sep 4 2005, 03:52 PM, said:

From what I understand you are a relative of them?So you are a descendant of Huang Zhong and the other men?.   Whoa,thats is very cool.

How did your family found that? or did they kept names and records?.

For the past two thousand years our ancestors have meticulously kept and compiled genealogical records. These records are their most precious legacy and we should learn to treasure and preserve them. Ancestral records should be study in the light of history.

As a keen student of Chinese history myself, I find it very interesting to learn what contributions my ancestors or clansmen had made to the Chinese Nation and what roles they had played in shaping the course of Chinese history.

[Chiang Kai-shek]

Erik Huang, on Sep 4 2005, 08:36 PM, said:

For the past two thousand years our ancestors have meticulously kept and compiled genealogical records. These records are their most precious legacy and we should learn to treasure and preserve them. Ancestral records should be study in the light of history.

As a keen student of Chinese history myself, I find it very interesting to learn what contributions my ancestors or clansmen had made to the Chinese Nation and what roles they had played in shaping the course of Chinese history.

Is Huang Chao 黃巢 in the genealogical records? He is the only person of Huang surname ever become an Emperor.

[Yun]

Huang Xiang, his son Huang Qiong, and Qiong's grandson Huang Wan were indeed from Jiangxia, but after that the genealogy loses its credibility, I'm afraid.

It's only remotely possible that Huang Gai and Huang Zhong were distantly related, going by the Sanguo Zhi. Huang Zhong is described merely as a native of Nanyang 南阳 (capital Wancheng 宛城), while Huang Gai is described as a native of Lingling 零陵 but his ancestor is said in the Wu Shu 《吴书》 (another source, now lost, which is quoted in Pei Songzhi's annotation to Huang Gai's SGZ biography) to have been Huang Zilian 黄子廉, prefect of Nanyang. However, Huang Zilian's descendants are said to have spread into numerous regional branches (including the Lingling branch) many generations before Huang Gai, so it's not very possible that Huang Gai and Huang Zhong were both great-grandsons of Huang Qiong of Jiangxia. There is also no mention of Huang Zilian in your clan genealogy.

Furthermore, being a prefect of a place in ancient China usually did not mean you were a native of that place - indeed, according to the 'rule of avoidance' one usually could not be an official in one's native place.

Huang Quan is also said in the SGZ to be a native of Baxi 巴西 in Sichuan. There is no mention of him being a son of Huang Wan of Jiangxia. The genealogy gets two of his sons correct (Yong 邕 and Chong 崇), but I have seen no record of Huang Jia 贾. The genealogy gives the correct name for Huang Zhong's son (Huang Xu 叙), but makes a slight mistake for Huang Gai's son (it should be Huang Bing 柄, not Huang Bing 炳).

Huang Zu's ancestry is not given in the Sanguo Zhi, as there is no biography of him. He was prefect of Jiangxia, but again that does not necessarily mean he was a native of that place. There is also no record of his son in the SGZ.

I understand that genealogies can mean a lot to people, but there are just too many cases of families and clans tracing themselves back to famous people based on family trees of doubtful origin. People were already doing it back in the post-Han Age of Fragmentation, when pedigree became very important (even emperors of humble origin had to find someone famous with their surname as an ancestor), and it became even more widespread after the Tang, when many genealogies of great clans were lost in the civil wars and migrations.

I had a debate with a member some time back who claimed to be descended from the emperors of the Tang, but although it turns out to be true that there was a supposed Tang descendant named Li Huode in south China during the Ming dynasty, there was no evidence that his family (from Guangdong) was related to that man. But that hasn't stopped lots of Lis all over the world from claiming Li Huode as their ancestor for prestige reasons.

No offence intended - but historical sources written shortly after the period in question must still be taken as more reliable than genealogies preserved in the present day.

This post has been edited by Yun: 05 September 2005 - 10:44 AM

[urofpersia]

Yun, on Sep 4 2005, 10:57 PM, said:

I understand that genealogies can mean a lot to people, but there are just too many cases of families and clans tracing themselves back to famous people based on family trees of doubtful origin. People were already doing it back in the post-Han Age of Fragmentation, when pedigree became very important (even emperors of humble origin had to find someone famous with their surname as an ancestor), and it became even more widespread after the Tang, when many genealogies of great clans were lost in the civil wars and migrations.

I had a debate with a member some time back who claimed to be descended from the emperors of the Tang, but although it turns out to be true that there was a supposed Tang descendant named Li Huode in south China during the Ming dynasty, there was no evidence that his family (from Guangdong) was related to that man. But that hasn't stopped lots of Lis all over the world from claiming Li Huode as their ancestor for prestige reasons.

indeed, my own family genealogy traces all the way back to the 2nd or 3rd son of an Emperor or another (I cant remember) I remember thinking to myself at that time, my my, we chinese are quite an inbred bunch arent we? I wonder where the descendants of the commoners or even the lesser nobles are today?

[Chiang Kai-shek]

It is good to know, but do not think you can achieve greatness because your ancestor was someone great.

Greatness should be achieve with your own hands.

[Erik Huang]

Yun, on Sep 4 2005, 10:57 PM, said:

Huang Xiang, his son Huang Qiong, and Qiong's son Huang Wan were indeed from Jiangxia, but after that the genealogy loses its credibility, I'm afraid.

It's only remotely possible that Huang Gai and Huang Zhong were distantly related, going by the Sanguo Zhi. Huang Zhong is described merely as a native of Nanyang 南阳 (capital Wancheng 宛城), while Huang Gai is described as a native of Lingling 零陵 but his ancestor is said in the Wu Shu 《吴书》 (another source, now lost, which is quoted in Pei Songzhi's annotation to Huang Gai's SGZ biography) to have been Huang Zilian 黄子廉, prefect of Nanyang. However, Huang Zilian's descendants are said to have spread into numerous regional branches (including the Lingling branch) many generations before Huang Gai, so it's not very possible that Huang Gai and Huang Zhong were both great-grandsons of Huang Qiong of Jiangxia. There is also no mention of Huang Zilian in your clan genealogy.

Furthermore, being a prefect of a place in ancient China usually did not mean you were a native of that place - indeed, according to the 'rule of avoidance' one usually could not be an official in one's native place.

Huang Quan is also said in the SGZ to be a native of Baxi 巴西 in Sichuan. There is no mention of him being a son of Huang Wan of Jiangxia. The genealogy gets two of his sons correct (Yong 邕 and Chong 崇), but I have seen no record of Huang Jia 贾. The genealogy gives the correct name for Huang Zhong's son (Huang Xu 叙), but makes a slight mistake for Huang Gai's son (it should be Huang Bing 柄, not Huang Bing 炳).

Huang Zu's ancestry is not given in the Sanguo Zhi, as there is no biography of him. He was prefect of Jiangxia, but again that does not necessarily mean he was a native of that place. There is also no record of his son in the SGZ.

I understand that genealogies can mean a lot to people, but there are just too many cases of families and clans tracing themselves back to famous people based on family trees of doubtful origin. People were already doing it back in the post-Han Age of Fragmentation, when pedigree became very important (even emperors of humble origin had to find someone famous with their surname as an ancestor), and it became even more widespread after the Tang, when many genealogies of great clans were lost in the civil wars and migrations.

I had a debate with a member some time back who claimed to be descended from the emperors of the Tang, but although it turns out to be true that there was a supposed Tang descendant named Li Huode in south China during the Ming dynasty, there was no evidence that his family (from Guangdong) was related to that man. But that hasn't stopped lots of Lis all over the world from claiming Li Huode as their ancestor for prestige reasons.

No offence intended - but historical sources written shortly after the period in question must still be taken as more reliable than genealogies preserved in the present day.

Hi Yun,


Thank you for your views.

For your information, Huang Shouliang was indeed Huang Zilian! The following is recorded in the Genealogy:


九十世

守亮公 （琼公长子）字子廉。生于东汉安帝永初六年壬子（公元一一二年）。顺帝汉安间（公元一四二年～公元一四三年）任南阳（今河南南阳市）太守。
娶张氏，生三子：簪，缨，安。

九十一世

安 公 （守亮公三子）名智民，号炬霖。居南阳。
娶王氏，生一子：盖。


九十二世

盖 公（安公之子）字公覆。移居零陵居治地泉陵（今湖南永州市）。初为郡吏，从孙坚举义兵，坚死，从坚子策，策死从策弟权，赤壁之战献苦肉计，连船破曹操，功居第一，东吴孙权加封之为偏将军，称江东虎臣。

娶孙氏，生一子：炳。

As for the different stroke in the name Huang Gai's son, it could be a copyist's error.


As for Huang Quan, the following is recorded:

权 公（琬公十子）字公衡。生于东汉灵帝熹平五年丙辰（公元一七六年）。父琬公被难，由长安逃回过洛阳入江夏境。后下荆州投刘表，刘表命其往益州辅其长子益州刺史刘璋，刘璋命为主簿，后为刘璋守巴西阆中（今四川省北部南充地区阆中县）.....娶刘氏，生三子：贾，邕，崇。

The Genealogy recorded Huang Quan had 3 sons. Eventhough, only the names of two sons were mentioned in SGZ but that doesn't mean he only had two sons.


I agree we cannot believe all genealogies to be genuines but we also CANNOT reject all of them as fakes.

Ancestral Records should be "studied" in the light of history (which I had said in my previous post)! We should also have an "open-mind" (free from preconceived ideas) when studying genealogies and history. If someone only wants to look for something to condemn, he will never stop to have something to condemn.

Genealogies are important pieces of history and that's why the Shanghai Library takes so much troubles to seek and preserve them?

What kind of "evidence" do you expect that Li Huode's descendant to give you other than his genealogy?

Chiang, I agree we cannot achieve greatness just because our ancestor was someone great. We need to achieve this with our own hands and bring glory to our ancestors.

Regards,

Erik Huang

Hey, I'm a Taishou (Governor) now!

This post has been edited by Erik Huang: 05 September 2005 - 07:28 AM

[Yun]

Quote

权 公（琬公十子）字公衡。生于东汉灵帝熹平五年丙辰（公元一七六年）。父琬公被难，由长安逃回过洛阳入江夏境。后下荆州投刘表，刘表命其往益州辅其长子益州刺史刘璋，刘璋命为主簿，后为刘璋守巴西阆中（今四川省北部南充地区阆中县）.....娶刘氏，生三子：贾，邕，崇。

Liu Zhang was not Liu Biao's son - he was Liu Yan's son. Liu Biao's elder son was Liu Qi, and Liu Biao and Liu Zhang were not even related. I doubt that this is just a copyist's error. It is a fundamental misrepresentation of the historical record.

Furthermore, Huang Quan's Sanguo Zhi biography makes it clear that he was already a junior prefectural official in Baxi in his youth (and not in Chang'an), before Liu Zhang appointed him as a Secretary (主簿). He was later demoted to Magistrate of Guanghan county when he objected to Liu Zhang's plan to invite Liu Bei into Sichuan. He never held a senior post in Baxi (which the term 守 implies, usually pertaining to the highest prefectural post of Prefect).

If Huang Quan were the son of Huang Wan, he would be described in the Sanguo Zhi as a native of Jiangxia. When the histories state that a man is a native of a particular place (like Baxi), it usually means that either he was born there or his ancestors were born there, or both. The place that he himself migrated to is not considered as his native place.

Quote

盖 公（安公之子）字公覆。移居零陵居治地泉陵（今湖南永州市）。

The Wu Shu annotation to Huang Gai's biography states that his ancestors (zu 祖), and not he himself, migrated to Lingling. If he had migrated himself, he would be recorded as a native of Nanyang or Jiangxia.

Quote

What kind of "evidence" do you expect that Li Huode's descendant to give you other than his genealogy?

His family had no genealogy - he simply latched on to Li Huode's genealogy and some word of mouth from his relatives in China, and claimed to be from Li Huode's line. As his subsequent actions and words here and in other groups (including claiming on the basis of racist websites that the Jews were in control of the US) showed that he has no ability to discern truth from falsehood, and is unable to sustain an intelligent argument without mounting personal attacks, he was pretty soon taken seriously by no one. I do hope you'll conduct yourself much better than he did

Quote

We should also have an "open-mind" (free from preconceived ideas) when studying genealogies and history. If someone only wants to look for something to condemn, he will never stop to have something to condemn.

Point taken. But the reality is that lots of genealogies are compiled by people with preconceived ideas of what they are looking for (i.e. great ancestors), and if they want to include anyone famous from that period in the genealogy, they will be able to use 'facts' selectively while fabricating others and saying that the historical records do not have the last word.

If all the Huangs in the Three Kingdoms period were actually related despite the different places of origin they are recorded as having, why do you not claim the 'evil' eunuch Huang Hao as a clan member too? Why does no one claim the villains of history as ancestors, only the heroes?

[Erik Huang]

Quote

Liu Zhang was not Liu Biao's son - he was Liu Yan's son. Liu Biao's elder son was Liu Qi, and Liu Biao and Liu Zhang were not even related. I doubt that this is just a copyist's error. It is a fundamental misrepresentation of the historical record.

Hey Yun, you are right about this! I can't believe I have overlooked this apparent error!

I see that you do have some points in your other comments and it made me ponder for a long time

Clan genealogy has been penned by many hands over the centuries. Compiling the Clan genealogy is a very complex process which takes many years. Other genealogies are always sought and missing information is BORROWED from them. Genealogy is based on one another. It is also linked with one another to the past. This is done to enrich the Clan history. This is true in all Chinese genealogies. (There has never been ONE genealogy for each Surname Clan, different lineages of the same surname living in different places would compile their own genealogy).

For example: The ancient lineage (to the Tang dynasty) is based on "Jiangxia Huang Shi Da Cheng Zongpu" and "Jiaying Zhou Huang Shi Zong Yuan" and the information is edited with information from historical records and genealogies.

Detail information about the Huang lineage during the Three Kingdoms is based on "Yunmeng Huang Shi Zong Pu" of Yunmeng, Hubei; and the "Huang Shi Shixi Biao". The information on Huang Quan and his descendants is taken from the genealogies in Sichuan, Hubei and Jiangxi provinces, where his descendants live (through his eldest son). (Huang Gai's descendants are no where to be found).

In the old days, the borrowings were done casually as historical ducuments were not easily available. There was a danger that some borrowed information might not be reliable or even based on unreliable sources. Biographies of members were also freely edited whenever new information was found.

I believe this was when errors crept in. I think this is particularly true with the early lineage. The later lineage is much more reliable.

The lineage from the Tang dynasty onwards was based on the genealogies from the various places where our more recent ancestors had once lived. The original genealogy of our village was first written in the Ming dynasty when our founder ancestor emigrated to live there. Many records were lost during the Cultural Revolution. One genealogy of the 1565 edition survived until today, thanks to one brave clansman who hid it from the Red Guards at the cost of his life.

For the past few years, many Clan members, especially the Clan elders have called for studying genealogy in a new light. Genealogy should be studied in the light of history. If errors are found in them, they should be corrected or excluded! There are also calls to include the name of female descendants as well.

I still strongly believe genealogy should be respected and cherished. Although we cannot believe everything, we also cannot reject everything, lest we become unfilial sons. For our family, it is a tradition we must continue. However, we must see genealogy in a new light. That's my conclusion.

This post has been edited by Erik Huang: 06 September 2005 - 03:29 AM

[esse]

Sorry guys, I don't mean to offend anybody. BUT given all the major upheavals in Chinese history, especially the DEgentrification carried out at the end of Tang, any modern claim to illustrious pre-Song ancestor is highly ... dubious.

Unless you had a particularly rare last name like Zhuge or Yue, you might have a tiny chance. The Lis, Huangs, Wangs, Yangs, Zhangs, Lius of this world are, well, "ok, sure, whatever" :-)

I even highly doubt that the Lis of Tang had anything to do with the Li of Longxi like they claimed.