Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:16, 18 February 2010

China Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Regarding the Longshan Culture

The Longshan Culture was not just "Dongyi" and did not just exist in Shandong and other eastern coastal areas of China. Areas further west, including much of the middle and lower Yellow River Valley region, was also a part of the Longshan Culture area. Historians such as Jacques Gernet think that the Longshan Culture was also culturally ancestral to the Erlitou Culture and the later Shang dynasty in the middle Yellow River Valley region. There are some good evidence for this claim, for both the Longshan and Shang cultures shared the following basic elements:

1. A similar technique of divination based on heating animal bones and shells until they crack. 2. Similar construction techniques for city-walls, fortifications and building platforms using rammed earth. 3. Similar artistic styles.

Furthermore, the Shang dynasty technology of bronze metallurgy seems to be the descendant of high temperature ceramic-making techniques used by the late Neolithic Longshan Culture. - cyl

References

• Cai Fengshu 蔡鳳書, Kodai Santō bunka to kōryū 古代山東文化と交流, Higashi Ajia to hantō kūkan 東アジアと『半島空間』, pp. 45-58, 2003.
• Luan Fengshi 栾丰实, 论"夷"和"东夷" (On "Yi" and "Dong Yi"), Zhongyuan Wenwu 中原文物 (Cultural Relics of Central China), 2002.1, pp. 16-20.
• Matsumaru Michio 松丸道雄, Kanji kigen mondai no shintenkai 漢字起源問題の新展開, Chūgoku kodai no moji to bunka 中国古代の文字と文化, 1999.
• Matsumaru Michio 松丸道雄 and Takashima Ken'ichi 高嶋謙一 ed., Kōkotsumoji Jishaku Sōran 甲骨文字字釋綜覽, 1994.
• Shirakawa Shizuka 白川静, Jitō 字統, 2004.
• Tang Jiahong 唐嘉弘, 东夷及其历史地位, Shixue yuekan 史学月刊, 1989.4, pp.37-46.
• Xu Guanghui 徐光輝, Kodai no bōgyo shūraku to seidōki bunka no kōryū 古代の防御集落と青銅器文化の交流, Higashi Ajia to hantō kūkan 東アジアと『半島空間』, pp. 21-44, 2003.
• Yoshimoto Michimasa 吉本道雅. "Chūgoku Sengoku jidai ni okeru "Shii" kannen no seiritsu 中国戦国時代における「四夷」観念の成立". Retrieved 2006-03-04.

--Nanshu 00:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The "absurd claims"

It seems that those very same claims are currently being written into the article at Three Gojoseon. Those interested in the topic here may want to go over there for a look. --Yuje 06:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I get the feeling that whoever wrote the "South Korea" section has some revision to do. His facts are too opinionated and consist of heavy generalization. The fact that many Korean scholars are saying this of Confucius and several other figures in East Asian history is the fact that the Ye-Maek people, who were among the Dong-Yi, originated in the Shandong Peninsula, which is where Confucius' hometown is. It is true that scholars in Korea have claimed this but whether they are academic or not is something that no one can be sure of unless they have directly met him or did accurate research on the specific group laying the claims. I demand that someone erase those phrases and keep opinions out. --Kprideboi 22:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just my input for whatever it's worth but recently there has been alot of controversy surrounding the Dongyi peoples as to who their descendants are. Some claim that the Shang Dynasty were Dongyi people and were not ethnic Chinese therefore the Chinese civilization was founded by a non-Chinese ethnic group and that China's cultural ancestors were not Chinese. This argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. First of all it doesn't matter ethnic group the Xia, Shang, and Zhou peoples were. They could have been aliens for all it matters, they were still forebearers of the modern Chinese civilization we see today and throughout history as well and therefore Chinese people have the right to claim descent from those people and cultures. Secondly how is it possible that descendants are not related to their ancestors? The whole definition of an ancestor is A person from whom one is descended, a forebear in lineage. It's like saying parents are not related to their children and see themselves as something else, a foreign group rather than their own.

East Yi West Xia

I reverted Guss2's insertion of the "East Yi West Xia" theory. What I mean by "the hypothsis of the pluralistic origins of Chinese culture" is not that obsolete theory but the theory originally named "區系類型論," which started to gain broad support in 1980s. And I don't think it's better to introduce "East Yi West Xia" here because it just confuses readers unfamiliar with this topic. --Nanshu 02:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Nanshu! There are still some questions which keep puzzling me. If you will spent some time in answering them I feel obliged to you:

1. Is it always possible to exchange Yi for Dongyi when talking about the ancient people living in Haidai region, whatever the period talked about, or should Dongyi be reserved for some specific time-period?
2. Does the East Yi West Xia theory, which you rightly call obsolete, talk about Yi or about the same Dongyi mentioned in this article?
3. Although the East Yi West Xia theory is obsolete it was very influential during the 30 odd years it was accepted. Confusing readers can never be a good reason to omit this theory in an ecyclopaedic article talking about usage of Dongyi in modern times. So should the theory at least be mentioned, eventually embedded in a warning that it is an obsolete theory?
4. When talking about 區系類型 isn't it better to name the scholar (Su Bingqi 蘇秉琦) who introduced the theory instead of a vaguely Some Chinese scholars?
5. Does Su Bingqi talk about Yi or Dongyi (or is it all the same, see first question)?
6. A Chinese archaeologist like Luan Fengshi refers to the Yueshi culture as representing Dongyi. But according to D. Cohen this interpretation is problematic. In his The Yueshi Culture, the Dong Yi and the Archaeology of Ethnicity in Early Bronze Age China (Ph.D. Dissertation Harvard University), Cambridge MA, 2001) he argues the Dongyi as an ethnic group was a concept initially formed during the Western Zhou dynasty, which is a few hundred years later than the Yueshi culture; there is no necessary linkage between the stylistic similarity of an archaeological culture such as the Yueshi culture and the ethnic group identified as Dongyi by itself and others during the Yueshi period. Archaeologically speaking, the Yueshi culture, probably comprising a number of social groups, shows a level of social complexity similar to the Longshan chiefdoms. Should this doubt be inserted into the article?
7. Finally I remain puzzled by the sentence Some other scholars also claim a connection between ancient Dongyi and the modern Yi people in southwestern China.. Unfortunately the reference you gave is not available here. So please could you tell me in just a few words how this connection is explained. For me this connection as it is brought into the article seems rather illogical from a geographical point of view, though I admit I am an outsider on this point.
   Guss2 12:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Before answering your questions, I want you to keep in mind:

1. As the original author of this article, I aimed to arrange historical usages of Dongyi in chronological order. I lean toward literary sources. Honestly, modern usages lie outside of my scope of interest. I'm not an expert of Chinese archaeology.
2. Personally, I don't support Chinese scholars' usage of Dongyi. The section 3.1 is my reckless attempt to summarize what they say.

Okay. I'm trying to answer them.

1. As stated in the article, I think the term "Dongyi" came into use during the Western Zhou Dynasty. I don't like to apply this term to earlier people.
2. Not sure.
3. For me it's difficult to organize nicely current theories which vary considerably and often contradict each other. Adding old theories is beyond my ability. But if you can, I welcome your work.
4. If you think so, I don't prevent you from improving the article.
5. Not sure.
6. His opinion is useful, I think. As I said above, I personally dont't support Chinese scholars' usage of Dongyi. I'm always skeptical about assumptions that mythology reflects distant past.
7. I also doubt the validity of the Dongyi-Yi彝 connection. I learned this theory when I read Matsumaru:1999, which was a kind of a tutorial for Feng Shi's paper (冯时:「山东丁公龙山时代文字解读」『考古』、1994年第1期). Then I read Cai:2003 and found out about supporters of the far-fetched story. Cai claims that the Yi people 彝人 were identical with the Yi people 夷人 and that some of the Yi 夷 people of modern-day Shandong province moved to the southwestern provinces of Guizhou, Yunnan and Sichuan around 1600 BCE. He attributes his explanation to the late Wang Xiangtang 王献唐 but does not cite his source (personal communication?).

--Nanshu 11:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Nanshu is to be commended for starting and improving this interesting and informative article. Nanshu has a superb understanding of this issue from the perspective of Chinese historical literature. It will be satisfying to see this article become GA class before too long. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but in order to become a good article according to wikipedia standards, the article needs to consider the wider usage of the term from the perspective of Korean history, Chinese archaeology, and western archaeology. May I humbly and respectfully suggest that Nanshu keep in mind the policy here at wikipedia in regards to ownership of articles WP:OWN. I am a little concerned to see Nanshu's response above in the same thread, especially where the Nanshu writes: "As the original author of this article...", "...if you can, I welcome your work", etc. However, I was relieved when I saw that Nanshu left a positive message about this content dispute on another editor's talk page because he mentioned using proper dispute resolution methods. I don't mean to provoke anyone. I would like to see the article take off and be representative of the idea as it is seen in China, Korea, and the discipline of archaeology. I hope that editors will use the talk page to discuss actual editing issues. Humbly yours, Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia 14:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The character 夷

I find some of the interpretation of 夷 in Oracle script as 尸 in this article ridiculous and naive. Some of the Oracle scripts of Yi look like a side view of sitting man.(sometimes sitting on a bench). Its shape may share some similarity with that of the morden day Chinese character 尸. But the oracle scripts of 夷 and 尸 look totally different. They are totally two different characters in both ancient and modern usage. There is no Chinese dictionary equals these two. Can "姨" be interpretated as female corpse? I suggest to have these ridiculous content removed from the article. Coasilve 20:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify what you dispute and what you don't.

I don't claim that 夷 and 尸 were originally a single word that were later differentiated. But a certain set of graphemes in the oracle script can be interpreted as both 夷 and 尸. The two graphemes Image:Yi oracle.png were taken from the Kōkotsumoji Jishaku Sōran 甲骨文字字釋綜覽 (Matsumaru Michio 松丸道雄 and Takashima Ken'ichi 高嶋謙一 ed., p. 252, 1994.). This book lists the interpretations of various scholars per grapheme. You can see that some identify them as 尸 while others as 夷 and 夷/尸. In addition, 夷 used as compounds in classics including 周禮 sometimes means 尸, as in 夷衾, 夷槃 and 夷牀. We can hardly say 夷 and 尸 are totally unrelated.

As for 姨 (and 痍), they have traditionally been classified as 形聲 characters, as far as I know. I'm not sure whether they are semantically related to 夷 (as Tōdō Akiyasu 藤堂明保 claimed). Other characters containing 夷 include 恞胰洟桋荑眱銕. ti (洟, 桋, 荑) imply phonetic relations to 弟. Actually Karlgren and others assume the initial d- for 夷, making it sound more close to 弟.

Lastly, I suspect these graphemes did not directly evolve into the modern form of 夷. There was not necessarily one-to-one mapping from word to grapheme in distant past. I guess that the forms common in the oracle script were replaced by the other form that eventually became the form of 夷. But I'm not sure whether it's etymologically correct to decompose 夷 into 大 and 弓. If my memory is correct, one dictionary claimed that "an arrow with attached silk cord" and another says that "a tall man with a short man." (I cannot verify that for now as libraries are closed.) In any case the word 夷 never meant bowmen. And the 夷 in oracle bone inscriptions that refers to a certain groups of people is the corpse-like graphemes. --Nanshu (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

South Korea section

Sorry I'm late. And a lot of things are on my stack.

I restored the original content because no one has clarified the reasons for deletion. Some informally gave the reasons but they targeted the section as a whole, not each part of the section. Note that this article contains a fair-use image that will be deleted if unused.

Now I give a short comment on Ocleta's replacement.

In South Korea, the Chinese characters for Dongyi is pronounced dong-i (동이). It is considered by Koreans as the name that the Chinese used to call the people to its east. It is thought to refer to the various peoples of this geographic region, rather that a specific ethnicity, although the term later expanded to include specific ethnic groups.

This short encyclopedia article is not helpful because they don't provide verifiable detailed account. As a matter of fact, they don't contradict the description I wrote. The rest is included in the interim edition. I will work on it later. --Nanshu (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get that image? I don't think this is a valid fair use exception, but even besides that, I seriously doubt its authenticity. Looks like something someone created for a Japanese nationalist blog or chat board. Ocleta (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User: Nanshu, I had left my opinion on your talk page. First, the "bowmen" theory is not defunct. It is everywhere and I have added sources in the article. Second, according to the source you provided, "Confucious is Korean" is just someone's personal opinion that appeared in a discussion forum of a website. That is not a suitable source. Someone had already clarified this nonsense. Please don't add these information to this article again. Third, as for whether Koreans consider Dongyi as one ethnic group or not. You didn't provide any source. User:Ocleta provided a source for his statement. I'm not sure whether the source has such information or not, because I don't know Korean language. You seem to know Korean. Maybe you can check it out youself. If it is provided in the source. I think you at least should not delete his information. Coasilve (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources about Dongyi

These are citations from Classic Chinese history records:

• 《左傳》稱：「紂克東夷而損其身」。
• 《礼记·射义》载：“挥作弓，夷牟作矢。

These are sources from peer reviewed acamedic journals:

• 何德亮,“试论青州地区的东夷文化”, <<管子学刊>>2009年 第01期.
• 逄振镐, "从图像文字到甲骨文——史前东夷文字史略", 《中原文物》2002年第2期
• 韩建业, 杨新改; "大汶口文化的立鸟陶器和瓶形陶文"《江汉考古》2008年第3期
• 俞伟超:《龙山文化与良渚文化衰变的奥秘》, 《纪念城子崖遗址发掘60 周年国际学术讨论会文集》, 齐鲁书社, 1993 年

These are sources from Chinese government or government media:

• 神秘东夷甲骨文现山东 疑比殷墟甲骨早千年雅安市档案局, 2008年10月27日
• 东夷及其文化发展 山东省情网
• 追寻东夷族的文化足迹 新华网

This article is about Dongyi, not about the meaming of Yi. It should focus on Dongyi people's history, culture etc. Ecourr (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

1. http://kr.dic.yahoo.com/search/enc/result.html?p=%B5%BF%C0%CC&pk=12741200&subtype=&type=enc&field=id Yahoo Korea Encyclopedia article

• Start-Class China-related articles
• Mid-importance China-related articles
• Start-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject China articles