Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Yuan ethnic classification system


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Dagvadorj

Dagvadorj

    Grand Guardian (Taibao 太保)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 201 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Ethnicities,Peoples
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 18 February 2008 - 11:56 AM

We know that Mongols classified commoners into 4 social groups as following:
  • Mongols
  • Coloured-eye (Turkic people, Arabs, Persians, and others)
  • Han (Northern Chinese - Khitans, Jurchens, Koreans)
  • Hua (Southern Chinese)
Did the 3-rd group include ethnic Han Chinese?
Is it like Han (as a group) included Khitans, Jurchens, Koreans with Mandarin, while the Hua (as a group) included Wu, Min, Yue, Miao and the other Southerners and minorities in the south?

#2 大泽升龙

大泽升龙

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 496 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Utera Næfreland
  • Interests:Things & Thinks
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Mythology
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    science, art, history, linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, philosophy, logic

Posted 18 February 2008 - 12:30 PM

We know that Mongols classified commoners into 4 social groups as following:

  • Mongols
  • Coloured-eye (Turkic people, Arabs, Persians, and others)
  • Han (Northern Chinese - Khitans, Jurchens, Koreans)
  • Hua (Southern Chinese)
Did the 3-rd group include ethnic Han Chinese?
Is it like Han (as a group) included Khitans, Jurchens, Koreans with Mandarin, while the Hua (as a group) included Wu, Min, Yue, Miao and the other Southerners and minorities in the south?


The correct classification is:
1. Menggu (Mongol)
2. Semu (Tangut, Tibetan, Uygur, Alkhun, Ongut, Kipchak, Naiman, Kyrgyz, Sogdian, Kharazmi, Sart, Qarluq, Bulgar, Azeri, Kashmiri, Persian, Arab, Russian, etc)
3. Han (Northern Chinese, including Han ruled by Jurchen, Khitan, Jurchen, Korean)
4. Nan (Southern Chinese, including Han ruled by Southern Song and other southern minorities)

Edited by 大泽升龙, 18 February 2008 - 04:40 PM.


#3 Non-Han Nan Ban

Non-Han Nan Ban

    Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)

  • Supreme Scholar (Jinshi)
  • 1,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, Virginia
  • Interests:All of Chinese history. Seriously.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    History of Chinese Science and Technology

Posted 18 February 2008 - 12:58 PM

Didn't the third group also include Tanguts of the fallen Xi-Xia?

EDIT: Oops, my bad, just read that in the 2nd group. :P
Posted Image
"Wait for the wisest of all counselors...Time"
- Pericles, 5th century BC Athenian statesman and strategos

#4 Yun

Yun

    Sage-King

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 9,057 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore/USA
  • Interests:Ancient Chinese history, with a focus on the Age of Fragmentation. Chinese ethnicities, religion, philosophy, music, and art and material culture. Military history in general.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Three Kingdoms, Age of Fragmentation, Sui-Tang

Posted 21 February 2008 - 01:50 AM

Whether Semu actually meant 'coloured eyes' is debatable. Some scholars believe it is a Mongol word that just happened to be transliterated with the characters meaning 'colour' and 'eye'.

The Mongol ethnic category 'Han' was actually even more complicated than this. The Yuan Shi states that at least for the military ranking system, "the Jurchen and Khitan are categorized similarly to Han people. If the Jurchen or Khitan grew up in the north or west and does not speak or understand the Han language, then he is categorized similarly to Mongols. If the Jurchen [and presumably Khitan] grew up in the Han lands, then he is categorized similarly to the Han."

Tao Zongyi (1316-?), a scholar of the late Yuan and early Ming period, wrote that the Yuan ethnic category 'Han' actually included eight groups: Khitan, Koryoans/Koreans, Jurchen, Zhuyindai, Shulikuodai, Zhuwen, Zhuchidai, and Bohai. The PRC scholar Jia Jingyan argues (citing earlier writings by Chen Yinke/Yinque) that 'Shulikuodai' and 'Zhuchidai' were both variant transliterations of 'Jurchen', and that 'Zhuyindai' and 'Zhuwen' were both variant transliterations of 'Jauqut', a Mongol word for 'Han'. So Tao's eight groups may actually have been just five: Khitan, Koreans, Jurchen, Han, and Bohai. His unfamiliarity with Mongol terms may have led him to think Zhuyindai, Shilikuodai, Zhuwen, and Zhuchidai were ethnic groups he did not know about.

To make things even more complicated, there is some evidence that the Jurchen Jin regime already included Khitan and Bohai under the category 'Han', and that it also referred to the 'Han' category as 'Khitan'. The Mongols probably followed this practice, using both 'Khitat' (the plural of 'Khitan') and 'Jauqut' as Mongol-language equivalents for the ethnonym that was rendered as 'Han' in the 'Han language'.

As for the former subjects of Southern Song, these were known as Nanren (people of the south), Nanjia (southern households), Manzi (southern barbarians - appears as 'Mangi' in Marco Polo's writings), 'Songren' (people of Song), or 'Xinfuren' (newly submitted people).
The dead have passed beyond our power to honour or dishonour them, but not beyond our ability to try and understand.

#5 Yun

Yun

    Sage-King

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 9,057 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore/USA
  • Interests:Ancient Chinese history, with a focus on the Age of Fragmentation. Chinese ethnicities, religion, philosophy, music, and art and material culture. Military history in general.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Three Kingdoms, Age of Fragmentation, Sui-Tang

Posted 21 February 2008 - 07:47 PM

They're too long to post here, but I can give the publication details.

A few relevant articles by Jia Jingyan are collected in 《中華民族多元一體格局》edited by Fei Xiaotong.

Chen Yinke/Yinque's article 《元代漢人譯名考》is now collected in 《金明館叢稿二篇》.
The dead have passed beyond our power to honour or dishonour them, but not beyond our ability to try and understand.

#6 Sinoid

Sinoid

    Imperial Inspector (Jianyushi 监御使)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Sea
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Ethnicities,Peoples
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 22 February 2008 - 05:15 AM

Seems like us Southerners were the lowest of the low.

Ironic how time changes, one of my Southern friends went on a charity trip to UB to help street children of the Great Kaan.

Shows you how forgiving we Southerners are.. ;-)

#7 Fechin

Fechin

    Commissioner (Shi Chijie 使持节)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 61 posts

Posted 22 February 2008 - 06:08 AM

The correct classification is:
1. Menggu (Mongol)
2. Semu (Tangut, Tibetan, Uygur, Alkhun, Ongut, Kipchak, Naiman, Kyrgyz, Sogdian, Kharazmi, Sart, Qarluq, Bulgar, Azeri, Kashmiri, Persian, Arab, Russian, etc)
3. Han (Northern Chinese, including Han ruled by Jurchen, Khitan, Jurchen, Korean)
4. Nan (Southern Chinese, including Han ruled by Southern Song and other southern minorities)



Is it ironic that Northern Chinese like to claim themselvs as pure Han? I suspect that is how the concept come from. Not to offensive, it seems that after Yuan dynasty, Northern Chinese seems to "disappear". Is it because the North China never recover from the war damages?

#8 大泽升龙

大泽升龙

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 496 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Utera Næfreland
  • Interests:Things & Thinks
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Mythology
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    science, art, history, linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, philosophy, logic

Posted 22 February 2008 - 11:11 AM

Is it ironic that Northern Chinese like to claim themselvs as pure Han? I suspect that is how the concept come from. Not to offensive, it seems that after Yuan dynasty, Northern Chinese seems to "disappear". Is it because the North China never recover from the war damages?


There is no pure Han. Han generally refers to the Sinicised people, so in this sense, Khitan, Jurchen and Koreanin were called Han in Yuan dynasty.

#9 Zorigo

Zorigo

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 459 posts

Posted 22 February 2008 - 01:08 PM

Sometimes I feel like Beijing Hans and Muscovite Russians have very similar development.
Southern Slavics, for example, Ukrainians consider themselves as real Rus'- Kievan Rus. Muscovites are mixture of Tatar-mongols.
Both has impreial ambition which directly inherited from Mongols

Edited by Zorigo, 22 February 2008 - 01:21 PM.


#10 大泽升龙

大泽升龙

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 496 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Utera Næfreland
  • Interests:Things & Thinks
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Mythology
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    science, art, history, linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, philosophy, logic

Posted 22 February 2008 - 01:41 PM

Sometimes I feel like Beijing Hans and Muscovite Russians have very similar development.
Southern Slavics, for example, Ukrainians consider themselves as real Rus'- Kievan Rus. Muscovites are mixture of Tatar-mongols.
Both has impreial ambition which directly inherited from Mongols

On the contrary, Ukrainians are considered might have more Turkic influence from Volga-Bulgars and Kipchaks.

The imperial ambition was not inherited from Mongols, Mongolic tribes had the least imperial ambition in all east Asian nomads. In fact, the imperial ambition was derived from ancient China, originally from Qin dynasty which was passed on to Mongol, Turkish, Russian and Japanese.

Edited by 大泽升龙, 22 February 2008 - 01:43 PM.


#11 Zorigo

Zorigo

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 459 posts

Posted 22 February 2008 - 01:55 PM

On the contrary, Ukrainians are considered might have more Turkic influence from Volga-Bulgars and Kipchaks.

The imperial ambition was not inherited from Mongols, Mongolic tribes had the least imperial ambition in all east Asian nomads. In fact, the imperial ambition was derived from ancient China, originally from Qin dynasty which was passed on to Mongol, Turkish, Russian and Japanese.

maybe my "imperial ambition" was wrong choice of word. So what was the reason of Mongol expansion?
China and Russia is certainly inherited that expansionist ideal which is outdated now.

#12 大泽升龙

大泽升龙

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 496 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Utera Næfreland
  • Interests:Things & Thinks
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Mythology
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    science, art, history, linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, philosophy, logic

Posted 22 February 2008 - 02:00 PM

maybe my "imperial ambition" was wrong choice of word. So what was the reason of Mongol expansion?
China and Russia is certainly inherited that expansionist ideal which is outdated now.


Outdated? That depends on which date you are talking about. Today's expansionist idea was from Cold War, or more recently is from United States today. The cultural, economic and military expansions are far more important than the primitive idea of expansion on territory.

Edited by 大泽升龙, 22 February 2008 - 02:02 PM.


#13 Dagvadorj

Dagvadorj

    Grand Guardian (Taibao 太保)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 201 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Ethnicities,Peoples
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 07 March 2008 - 07:04 AM

The correct classification is:
1. Menggu (Mongol)
2. Semu (Tangut, Tibetan, Uygur, Alkhun, Ongut, Kipchak, Naiman, Kyrgyz, Sogdian, Kharazmi, Sart, Qarluq, Bulgar, Azeri, Kashmiri, Persian, Arab, Russian, etc)
3. Han (Northern Chinese, including Han ruled by Jurchen, Khitan, Jurchen, Korean)
4. Nan (Southern Chinese, including Han ruled by Southern Song and other southern minorities)


Can you show me how i can find the original source pls.

#14 Akskl

Akskl

    General of the Guard (Hujun Zhongwei/Jinjun Tongshuai 护军中尉/禁军统帅)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 103 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Languages spoken:Russian
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Eurasian
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    science

Posted 25 March 2008 - 09:38 PM

IGOR DE RACHEWILTZ, Turks in China under the Mongols: A Preliminary Investigation of Turco-Mongol Relations in the 13th and 14th Century, in: CHINA AMONG EQUALS - THE MIDDLE KINGDOM AND ITS NEIGHBORS, 10th - 14th CENTURIES, EDITED BY MORRIS ROSSABI, Chapter 10, University of California Press - Berkeley - Los Angeles – London, pp.281-310.

http://www.kyrgyz.ru...p?showtopic=263

#15 LongMa

LongMa

    Supreme Censor (Yushi Dafu 御史大夫)

  • Supreme Scholar (Jinshi)
  • 1,173 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wash DC
  • Interests:history, global politics, economics, genetics, psychology, sociology, Confucianist countries, economic development, SubSahara African politics and economics.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Ethnicities,Peoples
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Modern Greater China Political-Economy

Posted 06 April 2008 - 03:52 PM

Sometimes I feel like Beijing Hans and Muscovite Russians have very similar development.
Southern Slavics, for example, Ukrainians consider themselves as real Rus'- Kievan Rus. Muscovites are mixture of Tatar-mongols.
Both has impreial ambition which directly inherited from Mongols


There is not that much evidence of Mongolian admixture in Russians...check some genetic tests. There is far more Slavic admixture with Finno-Ugric tribes that were absorbed as the Eastern Slavs moved further East and consolidated into major political entities.

http://dienekes.blog...hromosomes.html

http://dienekes.blog...f-russians.html

Most Russian admixture is on the female side, not the male, which tells me that Slavic men did not except mixed race people with non-Slavic fathers in Russia proper.

It is true that "Ukrainians SAY" they are more pure and that the Russian people are an offshoot of them (Kievan Rus) but in reality Kievan Rus was started by the Vikings and although it is true that parts of Western Ukraine (and Belarus) were not controlled by Mongolians or Turkic tribes they have long been considered "rednecks" by Russians who have constantly been passed around between Russia, Latvia, and Poland.

Both groups have some admixture with non-Slavs...from Europe and Asia, but I seriously doubt Russian imperial ambitions have much to do with Mongolians. They seemed to be on their way to that before Mongolians controlled them. Like China the Russians were probably motivated for expansion to increase trade and to have defensible borders against Eastern Nomads and Western threats like the Poles, Swedes, and other European incursions. They also considered themselves the 3rd Rome, after the fall of the Byzantine Empire, because they then became the leading Orthodox Power...this position gave them an excuse (or obligation) to interfere in other Orthodox peoples (especially Slavs) affairs on their behalf.


As far as China, it is hardly fair to say that the only imperialistic or expansionist Han were Northern Chinese around Beijing who mixed with Northern nomadic Mongols. :rolleyes: In this way Russia and China are similar in that there is little genetic differences in Han males in North and south, the difference is in the females.

Or it could have been enough Han Northern males have migrated South over the last 1,500 years to mitigate any real difference.
"That's One of the tragedies of this life - that the men who are most in need of a beating up are always enormous"

-Preston Sturges 1942 film, The Palm Beach Story.

http://southeastasia...olicyblogs.com/

龙马 Rising!




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users