Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Zhou Ancestry


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Lord_Naomasa

Lord_Naomasa

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 28 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Han Dynasty, Zhou Dynasty and the Warring states period, Three Kingdoms

Posted 04 June 2007 - 12:13 AM

I have been trying to find out if anyone lives today that is someway related to the Zhou Family of the Zhou Dynasty. I'm a big lineage fan and constantly look up lineages. My most recent one which I am extremely happy about much because a few people I know helped greatly was that of the Sun family. That of Sun Tzu and Sun Quan etc. from the Three Kingdoms period that in fact some of their ancestors still survive today, which I was extremely excited and happy about. So anyway, if anyone can help me find out about the Zhou ancestors and help me follow their line as far as we can go would be great. Thanks again!
Everything has a weakness, nothing is ever flawless.

#2 thirdgumi

thirdgumi

    Grand Marshal (Da Sima/Taiwei 大司马/太尉)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 1,434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lisbon, Portugal at the moment
  • Interests:None
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 04 June 2007 - 01:46 PM

Such an ancient bloodline is hard to trace. The Zhou ruling house's maternal family name was Ji 姬, but their descendents splited into various paternal family names including Wang 王, there could be a Wang out there who is from this bloodline. Since Qin Shi Huang ended the practice of maternal family names, we can't tell which family name was descendent of Zhou ruling house.

We could do DNA testings though, if we could get some DNAs from Zhou royal tombs.
Human is evil by nature - Xun Zi

Therefor, its existence is a crime, and the punishment is death - thirdgumi

#3 Lord_Naomasa

Lord_Naomasa

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 28 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Han Dynasty, Zhou Dynasty and the Warring states period, Three Kingdoms

Posted 04 June 2007 - 04:47 PM

Ah, so thats why it was possible to be able to trace certain bloodlines from the Three Kingdoms and Han onward. So, is there a break because Qin Shi Huang stopped family names or what? We could do DNA testings but that can be errorous because a body who was not related blood wise could be taken right. That info about Qin Shi Huang stopping maternal family names is interesting. Could you tell me more about it. I Know he did the burning of the books and such things were not his thing because he was paranoid but I never knew about that family name thing. Seem rather dumb to me that he did so.
Everything has a weakness, nothing is ever flawless.

#4 thirdgumi

thirdgumi

    Grand Marshal (Da Sima/Taiwei 大司马/太尉)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 1,434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lisbon, Portugal at the moment
  • Interests:None
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 05 June 2007 - 10:06 AM

About the family name subject, we had some topics about it long time ago, since I can't find them, I will write it again.

Before Qin Shi Huang, only the nobility and royality had family names, the commoner did not. There were 2 family names, maternal (xing 姓) and paternal (Shi 氏), some schoolars argue that the maternal family name was the trace and remnat of maternal society. A men of nobitily or royalty had both maternal and paternal family names while women had only maternal. Though noble man were only refered by his paterna family name, maybe they thought it was not manly to be called by maternal family names. The maternal family name was passed to all descendents, while the paternal only passed to the heir, thus all non-heir males of nobility or royalty had to take other paternal family names for their own. There was a prince of Zhou ruling house who was denied the right to the throne, and was exiled, so he could not adopt his father's paternal family name and had to take one for his own, so he took Wang, there could be a group of people today with the family name of Wang who are from this bloodline, or not.

When Qin Shi Huang unified all states, he wanted to make a sensus. To make the process easier, he ordered that all people, noble or commoner alike would have family names, not maternal nor paternal, but merged into just family names.
Human is evil by nature - Xun Zi

Therefor, its existence is a crime, and the punishment is death - thirdgumi

#5 Lord_Naomasa

Lord_Naomasa

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 28 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Han Dynasty, Zhou Dynasty and the Warring states period, Three Kingdoms

Posted 05 June 2007 - 11:15 PM

About the family name subject, we had some topics about it long time ago, since I can't find them, I will write it again.

Before Qin Shi Huang, only the nobility and royality had family names, the commoner did not. There were 2 family names, maternal (xing 姓) and paternal (Shi 氏), some schoolars argue that the maternal family name was the trace and remnat of maternal society. A men of nobitily or royalty had both maternal and paternal family names while women had not maternal. Though noble man were only refered by his paterna family name, maybe they thought it was not manly to be called by maternal family names. The maternal family name was passed to all descendents, while the paternal only passed to the heir, thus all non-heir males of nobility or royalty had to take other paternal family names for their own. There was a prince of Zhou ruling house who was denied the right to the throne, and was exiled, so he could not adopt his father's paternal family name and had to take one for his own, so he took Wang, there could be a group of people today with the family name of Wang who are from this bloodline, or not.

When Qin Shi Huang unified all states, he wanted to make a sensus. To make the process easier, he ordered that all people, noble or commoner alike would have family names, not maternal nor paternal, but merged into just family names.



I change my view about his idea. It was a rather good idea that he did that. I just didnt understand the process completely.
Everything has a weakness, nothing is ever flawless.

#6 thirdgumi

thirdgumi

    Grand Marshal (Da Sima/Taiwei 大司马/太尉)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 1,434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lisbon, Portugal at the moment
  • Interests:None
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 06 June 2007 - 05:33 AM

I guess it's the standard process for census, they record the name (full name), age, gender, etc.

PS: there was a mistake on my previous post, I meant to say that the women had only maternal family name. I corrected it.
Human is evil by nature - Xun Zi

Therefor, its existence is a crime, and the punishment is death - thirdgumi

#7 prince of zhou

prince of zhou

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 22 posts

Posted 11 June 2007 - 09:09 PM

I am the 136 generation of King Wen of Zhou dynasty according to my family book.
My ancestor is the 10th son of King Wen. He was the brother brother of King Wu and
duke Zhou gong and he himself was the ruler of state Shen.

Today the royal tombs of King Wen, King Wu, King Cheng and King Kang are located
in China Xi-an xianyang. while some of the tombs of the eastern zhou kings are
located in Luoyang.

#8 norenxaq

norenxaq

    Imperial Inspector (Jianyushi 监御使)

  • Supreme Scholar (Jinshi)
  • 193 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    genealogy, numismatics

Posted 12 June 2007 - 01:43 AM

I am the 136 generation of King Wen of Zhou dynasty according to my family book.
My ancestor is the 10th son of King Wen. He was the brother brother of King Wu and
duke Zhou gong and he himself was the ruler of state Shen.


Hello:

what is your lineage from King Wen?

thank-you

#9 fcharton

fcharton

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • CHF Grand Historian Award
  • 3,016 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nemours and Paris
  • Interests:Contemporary poetry, these days...
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    PreQin, Classical chinese

Posted 12 June 2007 - 02:03 AM

I have been trying to find out if anyone lives today that is someway related to the Zhou Family of the Zhou Dynasty. I'm a big lineage fan and constantly look up lineages. My most recent one which I am extremely happy about much because a few people I know helped greatly was that of the Sun family. That of Sun Tzu and Sun Quan etc. from the Three Kingdoms period that in fact some of their ancestors still survive today, which I was extremely excited and happy about. So anyway, if anyone can help me find out about the Zhou ancestors and help me follow their line as far as we can go would be great. Thanks again!


From a statistical standpoint, and provided that their descendency was not extinct, it seems likely that a *lot* of modern chinese would be related to the Zhou family... Look at it this way:

- on your family tree, you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, ie the number of your "ancestors" (number of names in your family tree) doubles at each generation.
- assuming 4 generations per century, your number of ancestors is multiplied by 16 every hundred years
- now, there are about 30 centuries since the beginning of the Zhou, so the number of names in your family tree at that level is 2^120... (just to help realise how big it is: a billion is about 2^30, this is a billion of billion of billion of billions...)

Of course, most of these ancestors will be the same, and in fact most names will appear many many times (billions of times... if you go that far back). But they most certainly are not all the same, because biology teaches us that there must be variety in our ancestors (or we'd get genetic defects). Yet, it seems likely that most chinese (and a number of non chinese) who lived in the early Zhou time (and whose descendency was not extinct after a few generations), are somewhere in your family tree...

As such, I would think that many (most? all?) chinese can probably claim to be blood related to the Zhou kings, or Confucius, or any Three Kingdom heroes. Just to give a comparison, a similar point was made with Charlemagne (who only lived in 800 AD...), which concluded that a large fraction of the european population were his descendents.

And, of course, every chinese is a descendent of the Yellow Emperor...

Francois

#10 Lord_Naomasa

Lord_Naomasa

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 28 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Han Dynasty, Zhou Dynasty and the Warring states period, Three Kingdoms

Posted 18 June 2007 - 10:46 PM

From a statistical standpoint, and provided that their descendency was not extinct, it seems likely that a *lot* of modern chinese would be related to the Zhou family... Look at it this way:

- on your family tree, you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, ie the number of your "ancestors" (number of names in your family tree) doubles at each generation.
- assuming 4 generations per century, your number of ancestors is multiplied by 16 every hundred years
- now, there are about 30 centuries since the beginning of the Zhou, so the number of names in your family tree at that level is 2^120... (just to help realise how big it is: a billion is about 2^30, this is a billion of billion of billion of billions...)

Of course, most of these ancestors will be the same, and in fact most names will appear many many times (billions of times... if you go that far back). But they most certainly are not all the same, because biology teaches us that there must be variety in our ancestors (or we'd get genetic defects). Yet, it seems likely that most chinese (and a number of non chinese) who lived in the early Zhou time (and whose descendency was not extinct after a few generations), are somewhere in your family tree...

As such, I would think that many (most? all?) chinese can probably claim to be blood related to the Zhou kings, or Confucius, or any Three Kingdom heroes. Just to give a comparison, a similar point was made with Charlemagne (who only lived in 800 AD...), which concluded that a large fraction of the european population were his descendents.

And, of course, every chinese is a descendent of the Yellow Emperor...

Francois







It is said that every 1 out of 20 people on this earth is related to Genghis Khan. At first, it seems that so many people could be related to him but as you should with the math, after only a few generations the number becomes enormous. Everyone on the earth I believe are bothers and sisters, cousins and nephews, etc. In the beginning, it was estimated from fossil evidence that a few thousand primates involved. In order for genetic defects to be avoided, they had to mate with others out of their "group". This evolution took millions of years and I assume all the primates probably mated with atleast one member of the other family. Odd, would this make me related to Jesus because he was born from Mary, although God aided mary but still. I dont know because thats more of a religious question and religious things have a lot of exceptions but one thing I believe is we are all family and its a shame we all do not treat eachother as one.
Everything has a weakness, nothing is ever flawless.

#11 Prince of the South

Prince of the South

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 514 posts
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 18 June 2007 - 11:11 PM

Hi Lord Naomasa,

You mentioned you are interested in lineages. Can I ask if you would know of a genealogy software that supports both English and Chinese?

I trialed Family Historian 3.1, it was great but the only drawback is that it doesn't support Chinese characters.

As Chinese are interested in genealogy, I suppose there is a software that could be used for Chinese developed by Chinese in China or Taiwan, or elsewhere, i just hadn't been looking at the right place.

If you do know, please let me know! thanks!

#12 Prince of the South

Prince of the South

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 514 posts
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 18 June 2007 - 11:19 PM

From a statistical standpoint, and provided that their descendency was not extinct, it seems likely that a *lot* of modern chinese would be related to the Zhou family... Look at it this way:

- on your family tree, you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, ie the number of your "ancestors" (number of names in your family tree) doubles at each generation.
- assuming 4 generations per century, your number of ancestors is multiplied by 16 every hundred years
- now, there are about 30 centuries since the beginning of the Zhou, so the number of names in your family tree at that level is 2^120... (just to help realise how big it is: a billion is about 2^30, this is a billion of billion of billion of billions...)

Of course, most of these ancestors will be the same, and in fact most names will appear many many times (billions of times... if you go that far back). But they most certainly are not all the same, because biology teaches us that there must be variety in our ancestors (or we'd get genetic defects). Yet, it seems likely that most chinese (and a number of non chinese) who lived in the early Zhou time (and whose descendency was not extinct after a few generations), are somewhere in your family tree...

As such, I would think that many (most? all?) chinese can probably claim to be blood related to the Zhou kings, or Confucius, or any Three Kingdom heroes. Just to give a comparison, a similar point was made with Charlemagne (who only lived in 800 AD...), which concluded that a large fraction of the european population were his descendents.

And, of course, every chinese is a descendent of the Yellow Emperor...

Francois


I could see the rational in that but I think the Lord is interested in "direct" lineage. As you noted, in time, after generations and centuries, the common ancestor's descendants would have branched out into the millions or billions, but many will not be "direct" descendants, surely? I mean your "cousin" of the same 50th generation is really as good as a stranger?

So in most royal lineages, we find that the inheritance of a title/rank diminished in each generation. This is true for Manchu royalty (Prince of the First Degree, Prince of the Second Degree, Beile, Beizi etc), and the descendants not from the direct line will merely become a clansman, that's it. And there are red and yellow "belts" to differentiate even the royal clan into Gioros and Aisin Gioros etc...

And the Thai royalty, after a stated generation (i think it was 6 or 12), the relatives become commoners or something

#13 fcharton

fcharton

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • CHF Grand Historian Award
  • 3,016 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nemours and Paris
  • Interests:Contemporary poetry, these days...
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    PreQin, Classical chinese

Posted 19 June 2007 - 03:16 AM

I could see the rational in that but I think the Lord is interested in "direct" lineage. As you noted, in time, after generations and centuries, the common ancestor's descendants would have branched out into the millions or billions, but many will not be "direct" descendants, surely? I mean your "cousin" of the same 50th generation is really as good as a stranger?


Actually, I was doing it the other way around, instead of counting the number of descendents, I counted our number of ancestors, which are all "direct" by definition (unless you consider descendence through mothers, or being a second son, less direct, of course). The point is that as soon as you go over several centuries, or millenia in this case, the number of your ancestors is so large that anyone can claim direct descendence.

Or do you have a different definition of "direct"?

Francois

#14 urofpersia

urofpersia

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • CHF Grand Historian Award
  • 3,174 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth - Sol System
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 19 June 2007 - 04:24 AM

I could see the rational in that but I think the Lord is interested in "direct" lineage. As you noted, in time, after generations and centuries, the common ancestor's descendants would have branched out into the millions or billions, but many will not be "direct" descendants, surely? I mean your "cousin" of the same 50th generation is really as good as a stranger?


And the Thai royalty, after a stated generation (i think it was 6 or 12), the relatives become commoners or something


Think of it this way, they still shared the same ancestor so in that sense it can be thought of as being descended from him (or her as the case may be)

So in terms of title or perhaps the right to name may not be passed on to cousins, in terms of blood (that is DNA) they have as much right, the right of which amounts to calling so-and-so an ancestor.
Ur of Persia

#15 Prince of the South

Prince of the South

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 514 posts
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 20 June 2007 - 09:28 PM

Actually, I was doing it the other way around, instead of counting the number of descendents, I counted our number of ancestors, which are all "direct" by definition (unless you consider descendence through mothers, or being a second son, less direct, of course). The point is that as soon as you go over several centuries, or millenia in this case, the number of your ancestors is so large that anyone can claim direct descendence.

Or do you have a different definition of "direct"?

Francois


My thought about "direct" ....

Assumption (for simplicity)

- One common ancestor (1st generation)
- Each male individual has 2 sons
- Each generation is 25 years

Second generation = 2 people
Third = 4
Fourth = 8
Fifth = 16
Sixth = 32
:
15th = 16,384
:
20th = 524,288
:
25th = 16,777,216
:
30th = 536,870,912
:
35th = 8,589,934,592

Let's stop at the 35th generation, already we reached over 8 billion descendants.

So if you are the 35th generation, your common ancestor in the first generation, lived about 875 years ago. even if you take a generation of 30 years we could go as far as a millenia, at best. So if someone could trace their lineage back to Zhou dynasty, that would be another 35 generations or more, ie 70 over generations. There is a problem. Already in the 35th generation the descendants reached over 8 billion following my assumption! Hence, my assumption here probably wrong, way off. But this is not the point of this exercise. i assume one male heir has two sons each, not including daugthers, and the fact some male heir could have a few partners, and some male heir has no heir at all, some perhaps more than a dozen....etc etc.....

Back to the meaning of "direct". In this case direct means you trace your father, father's father, etc... from 35 generation upwards until you could link to the common ancestor. So in your 35th generation, where you shared with 8 billion individuals (in our scenario*), their father, father's fathers cannot be counted as your "direct" ancestors, though you could still be blood-linked, but i reckon it would very very dilute, as you start bringing in mothers etc from different clans etc, for 30 plus generations, surely could you claim descend from, say, your second generation "direct" ancestor's brother (remember our assumption). It is also possible for one individual in your same 35th generation, that could trace his lineage "directly" to the same common ancestor, if like yours his lineage is unbroken.

So, to put it simply, you can only have 34 "direct" ancestors.

* I see the flaw of this assumption, but for argument's sake, this is only a scenario so to describe what i mean by "direct" ancestors, clearly at least, i hope. It is flaw because we know that there are less than 7 billion people in this world and that if we assume our assumption, we would have billions billions and billions of people if we start counting everyone in the world, not just YOUR ancestors! So, then, can we still say everyone'e related? To a certain extent, maybe. "Directly"? i doubt so.

I am the 109th generation of my clan's genealogy that traced all the way back to the Spring and Autumn period. I can "prove" it but this is not about it's authencity etc. But the point I like to make is that this genealogy, traces only the direct line. So you can see, after the 109th generation will have 3 different sets as I have 2 other brothers. In time, after 200 generations, I am not sure about my brother's son's son' etc... can claim me as an ancestor or not, Surely not a "direct" ancestor, but my father is their "direct" ancestor though......

Edited by Prince of the South, 20 June 2007 - 09:46 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users