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


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 10th, 2012, 08:13 AM   #111
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 479

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoopiter View Post
One way or another, no evidence of Dravidian influence on Shang have been found.
Making conclusion without evidence is nothing more than biases and agenda. Conclusions are base on the available evidences found, NOT attempted then dialectically resolved. Attempted it then dialectically resolved just show you want history goes according to your wishful thought.That just bias and very unprofessional. The burden of proof lies upon claimant. Making conclusion without evidence is what we call non existence argument.



Actually, it's uncommon.


True, even the neutral, western scholars do not buy all this Korean propaganda nonsense. Western scholars, Sarah M.Nelson and the two scholars that Cerberus quoted, Pulleyback and Nigel Wiseman see Shang as Chinese and they even presented EVIDENCES on why Shang is Chinese.
Korean nationalism has nothing to do with this topic. I am merely showing how there is room for jizi migration to Korea while raising deeper possible shang influence based on historical and linguistic evidence. Read the opening post. Some of lines of reasonings such as Dravidian influence coming through China isn't as airtight as I first expected, as Cerberus has explained. However it's still a reasonable hypothesis to look into.

What I'm arguing here should make Chinese nationalists happy since Jizi migration story may have been invented by ancient Han dynasty nationalists and put into history records. But we don't know if it's a lie for certain. I'm just saying that if it's a lie then it was created to benefit the Han dynasty. Except you don't like the fact that there is Dravidian influence in the Korean language because jizi supposedly taught Korea agriculture but the terms are in Dravidian. That is why you refuse to even consider this argument. It is your beliefs that are shaped by your desire for a nationalistic version of Chinese history, free of any foreign influences.
Hansaram is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 10th, 2012, 08:31 AM   #112
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,375

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hansaram View Post
Korean nationalism has nothing to do with this topic. I am merely showing how there is room for jizi migration to Korea while raising deeper possible shang influence based on historical and linguistic evidence. Read the opening post. Some of lines of reasonings such as Dravidian influence coming through China isn't as airtight as I first expected, as Cerberus has explained. However it's still a reasonable hypothesis to look into.

What I'm arguing here should make Chinese nationalists happy since Jizi migration story may have been invented by ancient Han dynasty nationalists and put into history records. But we don't know if it's a lie for certain. I'm just saying that if it's a lie then it was created to benefit the Han dynasty. Except you don't like the fact that there is Dravidian influence in the Korean language because jizi supposedly taught Korea agriculture but the terms are in Dravidian. That is why you refuse to even consider this argument. It is your beliefs that are shaped by your desire for a nationalistic version of Chinese history, free of any foreign influences.
I got no problem that Dravidian have influence on Korea but I got problem with your claim that Dravidian have influence on Shang. Your own source did not say any influence of Dravidian on Shang and as the author, Cerberus and I pointed out many times already, Dravidian influence arrive in Korea without coming in contact with Shang. If this theory Shang prince migrate to Korea is true and Gija and Jizi are the same person, doesn't that mean a Chinese man create Korean kingdom.

You said it's a lie created to benefit Han dynasty, yet at the same time you try to claim it's not a lie. You are contradict with yourself. I will consider this argument if there's enough evidences to support it. It's already 12 pages and more than 1 month since you create this thread and no evidence of Dravidian influence on Shang have been presented at all.

Last edited by Zoopiter; November 10th, 2012 at 10:20 AM.
Zoopiter is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 08:52 AM   #113
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 479

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoopiter View Post
I got no problem that Dravidian have influence on Korea but I got problem with your claim that Dravidian have influence on Shang. Your own source did not say any influence of Dravidian on Shang. It's already 12 pages and more than 1 month since you create this thread and no evidence have been presented at all.
It's stated in historical records that jizi taught Korea agriculture. Agriculture in Korean contains Dravidian influences. Jizi is a shang prince. So there is enough evidence to suggest that there might have been Dravidian influence in China. Which means it's worth looking into. That's the reason for having this discussion. Like I said, just think of it as a thought experiment. Or an attempt at finding a different conclusion from the one we're taught. This should also be open, fun, and honest as we try to pursue any small possibilities.
Also, nothing is established until we first attempt to establish it. What do you have to lose?
Hansaram is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 08:58 AM   #114
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,375

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hansaram View Post
It's stated in historical records that jizi taught Korea agriculture. Agriculture in Korean contains Dravidian influences. Jizi is a shang prince. So there is enough evidence to suggest that there might have been Dravidian influence in China. Which means it's worth looking into. That's the reason for having this discussion. Like I said, just think of it as a thought experiment. Or an attempt at finding a different conclusion from the one we're taught. This should also be open, fun, and honest as we try to pursue any small possibilities.
Also, nothing is established until we first attempt to establish it. What do you have to lose?
You are contradict with yourself. First, you said Jizi migrating to Korea might be lied, then you said it might not be. Before we even entertain this idea again, we need to really figures it out first if it's true there's really Shang prince migrate to Korea. Even if it's true, it still doesn't make any sense as no evidence of Dravidian influence found in Shang. In my opinion, you have two extremely difficult tasks to prove here. First is to prove there are in fact Shang prince migrate to Korea and second, to prove that Shang really have Dravidian influence. I only establish something base on the available evidence.Yes, you are free to express your idea here for fun but just remember people are free to disagree with you as well.

Last edited by Zoopiter; November 10th, 2012 at 09:27 AM.
Zoopiter is offline  
Old June 27th, 2013, 10:39 AM   #115
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 479

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerberus View Post
All logographic scripts are tied to spoken languages in their construction. A logographic script is usable by speakers who do not speak said language, in the same way that alphabetic scripts - ie Latin-based alphabets - are usable by people who do not speak Latin languages. However, this is an adaptation rather than original design, and the way logographic scripts are designed contain a lot of information about the spoken language of the people who designed them.

Thus:

"All logographic scripts ever used for natural languages rely on the rebus principle to extend a relatively limited set of logograms: A subset of characters is used for their phonetic values, either consonantal or syllabic. The term logosyllabary is used to emphasize the partially phonetic nature of these scripts when the phonetic domain is the syllable. In both Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs and in Chinese, there has been the additional development of fusing such phonetic elements with determinatives; such "radical and phonetic" characters make up the bulk of the script, and both languages relegated simple rebuses to the spelling of foreign loan words and words from non-standard dialects."

To say that logographic systems, such as classical Chinese and the oracle bone script, do not contain information about the spoken language they were created from is simply incorrect. I have corrected you several times on this topic already. Repeating an incorrect argument several times does not give it additional validity, so for the sake of everyone's patience, stop doing it.



A conjecture, albeit not an invalid one. There are scholars who hypothesize that the 'oracle bone' script was an earlier development than the late Shang period during which oracle bones containing said script were discovered. The bulk of early writing was done on perishable material, ie bamboo and silk, which simply do not last long enough for archaeological rediscovery.

There is, however, no proof for this hypothesis, and it only helps your argument insofar as it allows for the Shang to have a spoken a different language than the people who developed the oracle bone script. It does not, however, show that they did.





I'm sure that, in your head, such a sequence of events preempts the need for evidence because of their mutually canceling properties - we 'need not find evidence of Dravidians teaching Chinese agriculture because all traces of them were erased when Sino-Tibetans replaced Dravidians in China.'

Unfortunately, actual archaeological research doesn't work this way. For Dravidians to have taught Chinese agriculture, there has to be evidence of Dravidian agricultural techniques and artifacts in China, followed by Chinese agricultural developments using those techniques and artifacts. For Sino-Tibetans to have replaced Dravidians in China, there has to be evidence of such a large scale cultural displacement in the archaeological record.

There is neither.

All there is, is this line of thought:



This is misguided from the start. As I told you before, there are several routes to Korea other than the one from China. Further, in prehistoric times, the route through the steppe - from Central Asia, to Mongolia, to Manchuria, and to Korea - was of greater importance to cultural developments in Korea than the route from China, as is well known by the archaeological community. The Scytho-Siberian complex and its predecessors exerted immense influence on fledgling cultures in the Korean region, long before Chinese culture arrived.

To this end, the Dravidian words in Korea are just as well the result of Scytho-Siberian loans than proper Dravidian speakers. After all, you do not need to have spoken a language to loan words from that language to other cultures, and both technologies and their attendant words spread rapidly across the steppe. This is why, for example, the word for 'horse' in Turko-Mongol, Chinese, and Korean cultures are all cognates of Indo-European 'mar-,' which does not show that Indo-European was once spoken in Korea, China, and Mongolia, but rather that their technology was adopted by all three cultures through the trans-steppe highway of the ancient world.

Another source for the loans is southern China, which in prehistoric times was not believed to have been populated by Chinese speakers, but which has been connected to the emergence of intensive agricultural patterns in Korea. In support of this route, southern China is also nearer to India than northern China, and the idea that the 'Dravidian' migrants first reached southern Korea speaks of a maritime path.

To show that it was speakers from China, and not the steppe, who brought Dravidian loanwords to Korea, you first have to establish that these speakers were in China, and second, that these speakers migrated to Korea, and third, that Koreans adopted said words from these migrants. Because your argument posits the migration of Shang people, this requires you to show this process:

People of Shang China used Dravidian agricultural words
People of Shang China migrated to Korea
Koreans adopted their agricultural words from these migrants

The first is contradicted by the oracle bone script expressing a proto-Chinese language.
The second is contradicted by the dearth of Shang artifacts in Korea and the 20th century debunking of the Jizi story.
The third is contradicted by the presence of agriculture in Korea long before the late Shang.

I do not believe that you're able to demonstrate any of the three steps in the process, which is why I consider your argument 'forcing an argument that doesn't exist.'
I had incorrectly replied to this post earlier.

1. The Korean word for rice, which is the staple crop of India and China, are in Dravidian. It is unlikely that India, instead of China, passed their rice culture to Korea. It had to be China that taught Korea farming of rice, and taught it in Dravidian terminologies. I had a lapse and forgot why I originally felt the Steppes were an unlikely candidate for the pathway of Dravidian influence. It's unimaginable that an expert rice farmer from India would travel north into a place like the Steppes. They would seriously have no way of supporting themselves there.

2. It's in historical records that Shang people moved to Korea and taught the people agriculture and sericulture. That is good enough. This is not something that is hard to believe. Also, there is a long history of acceptance of this in both Korea and China.

3. It doesn't really matter whether the Jizi/Gija Migration story is 100% accurate. It's the most logical that Korea learned its farming from China somehow. The record offers us a clue as to how Chinese agriculture may have got to Korea, but ultimately this clue isn't as important as I first thought. What's crucial is that China is on the necessary pathway for Dravidian influence to travel to Korea, and this means the Dravidian influence first had to enter China before entering Korea. (Assuming China isn't the source of said Dravidian influences... or Korea isn't the source of said Dravidian influences)

So no, your argument isn't as airtight as either of us thought initially.

If China had rice agriculture before India, they would have taught it to Korea rather than the Indians. So either way, there is no way to bypass China. Based on all this I feel there is almost no possible way Dravidian didn't exist in China.

Last edited by Hansaram; June 27th, 2013 at 11:10 AM.
Hansaram is offline  
Old June 27th, 2013, 11:05 PM   #116
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,375

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hansaram View Post
I had incorrectly replied to this post earlier.

1. The Korean word for rice, which is the staple crop of India and China, are in Dravidian. It is unlikely that India, instead of China, passed their rice culture to Korea. It had to be China that taught Korea farming of rice, and taught it in Dravidian terminologies. I had a lapse and forgot why I originally felt the Steppes were an unlikely candidate for the pathway of Dravidian influence. It's unimaginable that an expert rice farmer from India would travel north into a place like the Steppes. They would seriously have no way of supporting themselves there.

2. It's in historical records that Shang people moved to Korea and taught the people agriculture and sericulture. That is good enough. This is not something that is hard to believe. Also, there is a long history of acceptance of this in both Korea and China.

3. It doesn't really matter whether the Jizi/Gija Migration story is 100% accurate. It's the most logical that Korea learned its farming from China somehow. The record offers us a clue as to how Chinese agriculture may have got to Korea, but ultimately this clue isn't as important as I first thought. What's crucial is that China is on the necessary pathway for Dravidian influence to travel to Korea, and this means the Dravidian influence first had to enter China before entering Korea. (Assuming China isn't the source of said Dravidian influences... or Korea isn't the source of said Dravidian influences)

So no, your argument isn't as airtight as either of us thought initially.

If China had rice agriculture before India, they would have taught it to Korea rather than the Indians. So either way, there is no way to bypass China. Based on all this I feel there is almost no possible way Dravidian didn't exist in China.
Rice is not Shang staple crop. It's millet and wheat. Early history of rice farming are associated with the southern China,Yang Tze river, not Shang.

Last edited by Zoopiter; June 27th, 2013 at 11:11 PM.
Zoopiter is offline  
Old June 28th, 2013, 04:39 AM   #117
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,057

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hansaram View Post
I had incorrectly replied to this post earlier.

1. The Korean word for rice, which is the staple crop of India and China, are in Dravidian. It is unlikely that India, instead of China, passed their rice culture to Korea. It had to be China that taught Korea farming of rice, and taught it in Dravidian terminologies. I had a lapse and forgot why I originally felt the Steppes were an unlikely candidate for the pathway of Dravidian influence. It's unimaginable that an expert rice farmer from India would travel north into a place like the Steppes. They would seriously have no way of supporting themselves there.

2. It's in historical records that Shang people moved to Korea and taught the people agriculture and sericulture. That is good enough. This is not something that is hard to believe. Also, there is a long history of acceptance of this in both Korea and China.

3. It doesn't really matter whether the Jizi/Gija Migration story is 100% accurate. It's the most logical that Korea learned its farming from China somehow. The record offers us a clue as to how Chinese agriculture may have got to Korea, but ultimately this clue isn't as important as I first thought. What's crucial is that China is on the necessary pathway for Dravidian influence to travel to Korea, and this means the Dravidian influence first had to enter China before entering Korea. (Assuming China isn't the source of said Dravidian influences... or Korea isn't the source of said Dravidian influences)

So no, your argument isn't as airtight as either of us thought initially.

If China had rice agriculture before India, they would have taught it to Korea rather than the Indians. So either way, there is no way to bypass China. Based on all this I feel there is almost no possible way Dravidian didn't exist in China.
as for 水田Oryza sativa(japonica)it was from Yangtze River to japan directory
and it was from Japan to korea
hoihoi is offline  
Old June 28th, 2013, 08:17 AM   #118
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: May 2013
From: usa
Posts: 795

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hansaram View Post
I've already been made aware that the Dongyi was being used on different distinct groups. However, for the sake of communication, let me just point out that the Dongyi group being referred to were nomadic and herdsmen. They were not farmers. Also, they have a distinct migration path that is being specified. First, into Shandong, then into Henan.

I should point out that the Shang probably did not invent the script from scratch. It was probably in development for indeterminable length of time, and possibly precedes the Shang. This is due to the fact that some of its elements are considered too advanced. Also, it could be like Latin being used in churches. The Oracle Bone script had religious significance, and its possible the Shang adopted this religion and were compelled to use the script as is even if its a foreign language to them. You can easily imagine them being told by a priesthood that its the language of Shangdi. Remember that the Shang were nomadic, so they could not have been as culturally sophisticated as the Xia kingdom they conquered.

It's still possible that the spoken language of Shang differed from the Oracle bone scripts. What if the oracle bones are the works of a Xia priesthood? Try to understand that language pluralism was very common in ancient times, existing in parallel to a lingua franca. It's highly likely the Shang spoke a different language from Xia since one was agricultural and civilized while the Shang were originally nomads.


How do you know they weren't Shang? The Korean language's link to the Dravidians must have originated somewhere in the central plains. But today's Sino-Tibetan language lacks dravidian elements.

I never said its a Dravidian language. I said the Korean farming terminology was derived from Dravidian, which means that ancient Koreans originally were taught how to farm in the Dravidian terminologies. The Dravidian influence likely spread through China to Korea, since there isn't much use for farming in the Mongolian Steppes. However, we don't see the same Dravidian influence within the Chinese language today, so that means at some point, the Dravidian influenced language was wiped out in the central plains after being passed on to Korea (and Japan). It was most likely passed through settlers from the central plains moving to Korea and Japan since there was no literacy and you have to be there to teach people. It makes sense that the settlers were from Shang because the Zhou likely came from the Qiang (Tibetans) and spoke a Sino-Tibetan language. The Qin who were also based in the western central plains on the exact same capital as the Zhou, Xi'an/Chang'an, probably spoke the same language as the Zhou, and due to these dynasties' immense influence and Qin's language centralization policy, these are the most likely candidates for eliminating Dravidian influenced languages in the central plains.

1) there was ancient banbo script etc. that look like linear A etc. pottery was invented in jomon (i consider anywhere from hon kong/taiwan/japan/korea to land at east china sea during iceage. And after ice started to melt, there might been plenty water on silk road and thus pottery went to middle east.

2) hongshan culture was basis of chinese civilization.

3) Just like in japan, lots refugee from china came to(or back to) northern korea. Or perhaps even southern korea, like mahan confiderate type of things as well as merchant. Irony is though, silla royalties might have been from japan. "
Kim_Alji Kim_Alji
is born from a golden box that
Hogong Hogong
(japanese)discovered." But japanese resident could been from middle east/china/korea etc.

Silla Silla



4) One of southern korean forklore said some pricess came from india. Perhaps farming and related language came at same time.
rocket7777 is offline  
Old July 1st, 2013, 06:02 AM   #119
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 479

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoopiter View Post
Rice is not Shang staple crop. It's millet and wheat. Early history of rice farming are associated with the southern China,Yang Tze river, not Shang.
The Lower Yangtze was part of a Sinic cultural sphere in neolithic times that was shared with the Yellow River cultures. So even if it may not be Shang the kingdom, it has much in common with Shang culture.

Let's say that the Yellow River people spoke a different language than the the Lower Yangtze people even if their cultures are similar. More specifically, let's say they spoke Dravidian in the Lower Yangtze and not the Yellow River.

Then why do people to the north and northwest of the Yellow River speak an Altaic language, which is related to the Dravidian language. (See Nostratic)

Maybe its just a few words learned from the Indians, but at the core the languages are different. Maybe these languages were not originally related. Maybe there was a triangular exchange of ideas between west asia, south asia, and east asia. Maybe Dravidian and Altaic aren't really related at all.

Last edited by Hansaram; July 1st, 2013 at 06:46 AM.
Hansaram is offline  
Old July 1st, 2013, 06:47 AM   #120
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 479

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocket7777 View Post
1) there was ancient banbo script etc. that look like linear A etc. pottery was invented in jomon (i consider anywhere from hon kong/taiwan/japan/korea to land at east china sea during iceage. And after ice started to melt, there might been plenty water on silk road and thus pottery went to middle east.

2) hongshan culture was basis of chinese civilization.

3) Just like in japan, lots refugee from china came to(or back to) northern korea. Or perhaps even southern korea, like mahan confiderate type of things as well as merchant. Irony is though, silla royalties might have been from japan. "Kim Alji is born from a golden box that Hogong(japanese)discovered." But japanese resident could been from middle east/china/korea etc.

Silla - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


4) One of southern korean forklore said some pricess came from india. Perhaps farming and related language came at same time.
That is all just speculation. Is it not?
Hansaram is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
connection, korea, shang


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shang dynasty and lead poisoning Clemmie Asian History 19 October 28th, 2013 07:37 AM
Shang and Zhou Dynastys Loren Ancient History 7 February 14th, 2011 03:53 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.