Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 19th, 2017, 02:16 AM   #41
Archivist
 
Joined: Sep 2016
From: 天下
Posts: 138

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jangkwan View Post
Interestingly enough, the forebearers of the Mongols (via the Xianbei-Rouran) were known as the Donghu, which means Eastern Hu or possibly Eastern Barbarian. Now who can say these Eastern Hu didn't have seafaring abilities considering there is only coast lands to the east of ancient Chinese core domains.
Click the image to open in full size.
(pictured: Zhou Dynasty map)

Let's say that by 2nd-1st century BC, they had already sailed north in face of the expanding Han dynasty, moving their location and leaving much confusion for later ancient historians.
If you were to research a bit more then you would know that Donghu were nomads living in northern Hebei and Inner Mongolia. Even if they had access to the sea, we have absolutely 0 examples in the world of nomadic pastorals being seafaring. Also there is no archeological evidence of any contact.
Vaderfan is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 19th, 2017, 04:25 AM   #42
Academician
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Northern lands
Posts: 86

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaderfan View Post
If you were to research a bit more then you would know that Donghu were nomads living in northern Hebei and Inner Mongolia. Even if they had access to the sea, we have absolutely 0 examples in the world of nomadic pastorals being seafaring. Also there is no archeological evidence of any contact.
If they were nomads, they could by definition, move around. I mean, think about it. They were around for a good five centuries. This is plenty of time for them to transition into all sorts of lifestyles.

It's possible that the Donghu or Eastern Hu started off to the east of the ancient Chinese as their name would imply. From there, migrating north by sea to their more well known locations.

Last edited by Jangkwan; April 19th, 2017 at 04:36 AM.
Jangkwan is offline  
Old April 19th, 2017, 04:56 AM   #43
Archivist
 
Joined: Sep 2016
From: 天下
Posts: 138

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jangkwan View Post
If they were nomads, they could by definition, move around. I mean, think about it. They were around for a good five centuries. This is plenty of time for them to transition into all sorts of lifestyles.

It's possible that the Donghu or Eastern Hu started off to the east of the ancient Chinese as their name would imply. From there, migrating north by sea to their more well known locations.
Hubei and Inner Mongolia are to the east, Northeast more precisely. There is no evidence to think they lived further to the south.
Vaderfan is offline  
Old April 19th, 2017, 12:52 PM   #44
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Cyberspace Dystopia
Posts: 49

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senyokbalgul View Post
YeunTchai, Please reread the passage you have provided slowly and carefully in detail since you did not understand the passage correctly.

Nowhere in this quote says anything about Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Mongol and Tungusic people having a common genetic origin. The passage that you have quoted says that Chinese culture was not uniquely created by the Chinese alone. It says that Chinese culture as we know was also shaped and influenced by other unrelated peoples such as Koreans, Japanese, Jurchen and Manchus. Thus, his conclusion is that credit should also be given to Koreans, Japanese, Jurchen and Manchus since they helped shape Chinese culture. This challenges the long-held view that the Chinese and the Chinese alone created Chinese culture.



Just because the whole world sees it as the same, doesn't mean that it is. All Asians look the same, sound the same, walk the same, they're all the same is clearly not true.
Yes, I understand that. Instead of thinking about this and that fits into that box or category, we have to understand all these cultures complemented. It's a direct iteration of concepts of the Interactive Sphere Thesis, which is further expanded upon by Skinner's Physiographic Macroregions Hypothesis and the development of Chinese culture and regional cultures.

It's something the ancient people of East Asia understand that they all lived under the same Heaven/sky as explained in the tract the Huainanzi

Click the image to open in full size.

It's not about how Chinese culture shaped neighboring cultures or vice versa, but how all these cultures shaped each other in a long term dynamic process
YeunTchai is offline  
Old April 19th, 2017, 12:59 PM   #45
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Cyberspace Dystopia
Posts: 49

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senyokbalgul View Post
I am not sure where you are getting this information but please provide the source of these "latest findings".

Koreans do not originate from the south of China since the "consistent and accepted findings" indicate that the maternal line of Koreans originates in Siberia, not Southern China. The maternal line is used rather than the paternal line, since it is more reflective of the original inhabitants of a certain geographical region.



Please provide sources.
It's dual origins, but Professor Jong Bhak seems to refer more to south, or "a south" (he implies it is much more complicated than that "northern" component ultimately originates from the same areas in the south, and travelled through different routes. and it was constantly many different waves....

I think he doesn't even use the framework of southern vs northern, all of it ultimately derives from the south and different migrations to the north at different times
YeunTchai is offline  
Old April 19th, 2017, 05:49 PM   #46
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Andromeda
Posts: 552

Quote:
Originally Posted by YeunTchai View Post
Yes, I understand that. Instead of thinking about this and that fits into that box or category, we have to understand all these cultures complemented. It's a direct iteration of concepts of the Interactive Sphere Thesis, which is further expanded upon by Skinner's Physiographic Macroregions Hypothesis and the development of Chinese culture and regional cultures.
The Interactive Sphere Thesis is just the name of the theory. The theory says that Chinese culture as we know it was shaped and influenced by other cultures, instead of China creating it alone. The theory says nothing about China being the origin other East Asian countries, ethnicities or cultures.


Quote:
Originally Posted by YeunTchai View Post
It's something the ancient people of East Asia understand that they all lived under the same Heaven/sky as explained in the tract the Huainanzi.
Not really. The Huainanzi essays talks about the necessary conditions for a perfect and peaceful political order across nations around China. It is a book which explains that one ruler (China) should be in the centre of power while everyone else (neighbouring countries) should be sovereign to that ruler to achieve perfect harmony in East Asia.

In short, it doesn't say anything about everyone holding hands together and living under the same Heaven. It says that everyone should hold hands together and live under the same Heaven.


Quote:
Originally Posted by YeunTchai View Post
It's not about how Chinese culture shaped neighboring cultures or vice versa, but how all these cultures shaped each other in a long term dynamic process
It's actually not about both, since again, we are talking about origins. We are not talking about external cultural influences. You need to understand the clear difference between origin and external influence since they are completely different concepts.
Senyokbalgul is offline  
Old April 21st, 2017, 03:03 PM   #47
Academician
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Northern lands
Posts: 86

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaderfan View Post
Hubei and Inner Mongolia are to the east, Northeast more precisely. There is no evidence to think they lived further to the south.
You mean to say Hebei. That location is firmly northerly.

The Zhou had coastal lands lying to its east. Take a look at the map of Zhou I posted. It's plausible that the Donghu started in the eastern lands, roughly coastal Shandong and stretching south along the coast, which is more along what their name would suggest.

It's also related to the founders of Goguryeo and Baekje likely being of Donghu-Xianbei stock (Mongolic essentially). If we think about a narrative where the founders of Baekje and Goguryeo started on the coastal lands of mainland China, it best explains why Baekje seems to have had a major enclave somewhere on the Chinese mainland with no mention of any conquest.

Last edited by Jangkwan; April 21st, 2017 at 04:01 PM.
Jangkwan is offline  
Old April 21st, 2017, 05:23 PM   #48

Pessimist Crow's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Sep 2016
From: Education state of Australia
Posts: 174

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jangkwan View Post
You mean to say Hebei. That location is firmly northerly.

The Zhou had coastal lands lying to its east. Take a look at the map of Zhou I posted. It's plausible that the Donghu started in the eastern lands, roughly coastal Shandong and stretching south along the coast, which is more along what their name would suggest.

It's also related to the founders of Goguryeo and Baekje likely being of Donghu-Xianbei stock (Mongolic essentially). If we think about a narrative where the founders of Baekje and Goguryeo started on the coastal lands of mainland China, it best explains why Baekje seems to have had a major enclave somewhere on the Chinese mainland with no mention of any conquest.
It seems like you want Koreans to be related to Mongols or some other equestrian nation. You also make large assumptions on where and from whom the Proto Koreans originated from. Why is that? Shouldn't you build a narrative from facts rather than building a narrative and trying to find out which facts supports your narrative?
Pessimist Crow is offline  
Old April 21st, 2017, 10:47 PM   #49
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: Earth
Posts: 955

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pessimist Crow View Post
Shouldn't you build a narrative from facts rather than building a narrative and trying to find out which facts supports your narrative?
Bravo

Quote:
Originally Posted by JangKwan
why Baekje seems to have had a major enclave somewhere on the Chinese mainland
Please explain why does Baekje "seem" to have a major enclave on the Chinese mainland? Was it the infamous KBS "documentary"?
bananasinpajamas is offline  
Old April 21st, 2017, 11:32 PM   #50

Devdas's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: India
Posts: 3,202

As far I know, Japanese are the closest ethano-linguistic group to Koreans.
Devdas is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
jurchen, jurchens, koreans, mongols, origin, share



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jurchen people in North Korea (1100s) Pessimist Crow Asian History 0 March 11th, 2017 12:03 AM
Manchu/Jurchen soldiers, how were they so strong? YeunTchai Asian History 22 December 5th, 2016 04:24 AM
The Jurchen? Haardrada Asian History 70 April 12th, 2015 09:46 AM
the relation about sushen,jurchen, manchu fangqingming Asian History 18 December 2nd, 2012 08:03 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.