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 February 22nd, 2015, 07:25 PM   #31
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Northern City
Posts: 433

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakbus View Post
How does this make Shang elite Joseonite? I can see why you might interpret it as Shang elite moving back to Joseon, but there is no evidence of Shang culture in the region of Joseon or Joseon region culture in Shang, as far as I know. We need to have a multidisciplinary approach, and not rely on only one (or several) controversial records written 700+ years after the events they describe.

We also need to establish for certain that Joseon existed as a kingdom before c. 200 BC; I am not aware of any evidence.
The Shang elite come from the Hongshan culture, an area that was known as Joseon. This is where I am getting Shang elites being Joseonites. From the fact that Hongshan is being considered as China's first kingdom.

It's equally important to consider how part of the Shang royal court moved back to Joseon according to various records.

Taken together, we can know the foundation of Chinese civilization is connected to this area.

Last edited by Yeongsang; February 22nd, 2015 at 07:28 PM.
Yeongsang is offline  
Remove Ads
Old February 23rd, 2015, 06:14 AM   #32
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Northern City
Posts: 433

Quote:
Originally Posted by ise View Post
Yes perhaps you were discussing his claims on how Yellow River tribes spoke Cantonese?
Oh thats simple. There's already a theory that Mandarin came about as a result of influence from northern invaders, starting from from approximately Yuan dynasty. However, I personally feel that Han dynasty lingua franca would not be too different from Mandarin based on my own reconstruction.

Naturally this required a suitable starting point for the changes that predates Han dynasty so I chose something that was most likely to have drastically impacted the language of the Yellow River, which had to be the Shang dynasty. Where else could we get an Altaic takeover on the scale of Yuan or Qing.

Since Korea is likley to have been influenced by Chu settlers speaking Cantonese, and Cantonese is in fact closer to proto-Burmese-Tibetan, naturally it had to be that Cantonese was the original of the Yellow River and Mandarin the adopted language of the northern invaders. You see, I was trying to explain a divide in language that occured at a very early phase of Chinese history.

Last edited by Yeongsang; February 23rd, 2015 at 06:22 AM.
Yeongsang is offline  
Old February 23rd, 2015, 07:08 AM   #33
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Northern City
Posts: 433

There are some problems with my view however which I can admit.

Namely it generates some major inconsistencies with ancient Chinese records.

Da Yu, the first sovereign of Xia was from Sichuan apparently. And even the Shang emperors and ruling class tended to descend from the same group as Da Yu.

How Da Yu could be from Sichuan, I have a lot of trouble explaining. And if you push this angle a little better, I might wish to abandon my theory altogether.
Yeongsang is offline  
Old February 23rd, 2015, 09:43 AM   #34
ise
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Gaia
Posts: 433

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeongsang View Post
Oh thats simple. There's already a theory that Mandarin came about as a result of influence from northern invaders, starting from from approximately Yuan dynasty. However, I personally feel that Han dynasty lingua franca would not be too different from Mandarin based on my own reconstruction.

Naturally this required a suitable starting point for the changes that predates Han dynasty so I chose something that was most likely to have drastically impacted the language of the Yellow River, which had to be the Shang dynasty. Where else could we get an Altaic takeover on the scale of Yuan or Qing.

Since Korea is likley to have been influenced by Chu settlers speaking Cantonese, and Cantonese is in fact closer to proto-Burmese-Tibetan, naturally it had to be that Cantonese was the original of the Yellow River and Mandarin the adopted language of the northern invaders.
1) Mandarin was essentially an indigenous language that developed in isolation from other dialects. Given contact with Mongols and Manchu in the 1500s, it adopted some aspects of those languages. But linguistically it's predominantly a Sinitic language. That's one count.

Second, the Han didn't speak Mandarin. They spoke Old Chinese as the lingua franca. Two strikes.

Third, your "Altaic takeover" comment does not seem to follow from any logic. It seems totally speculative as well as irrelevant. Mandarin is not even close to an Altaic language.

Quote:
Since Korea is likley to have been influenced by Chu settlers speaking Cantonese, and Cantonese is in fact closer to proto-Burmese-Tibetan
Cantonese did not exist at the time of the Chu State. Fatal to your argument. Also, where is your proof of this fantastical relationship between Korea and Canton? Cantonese is an offshoot of Middle Chinese, not proto-Tibeto-Burman

Quote:
You see, I was trying to explain a divide in language that occured at a very early phase of Chinese history.
You have all the dates and phylogeny completely and utterly wrong. There was no "great divide" in the Chinese language until the late 1600s, when the Manchu took a liking to Mandarin (which they found in one region of North China) and then propagated it as the lingua franca.
ise is offline  
Old February 23rd, 2015, 10:47 PM   #35
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 231

I think that Yeonsang is cantonese nationist or He is Hansalam. I do not understand why Korean were mentioned in first civilization of China. Korean is related with Siberian-Scythian culture. Additionely. Shang people were more close to Southen Asian.

As Korean, I have seen ridiculous threads like this, which have intended insultation of Korea from chinese blood.

1. Korean nationists do not agree with Hwandangogi which is just novel like Conan

2. Many Korean and Korean historian do not recognize Hwangdangogi and ridiculous maps as history and nationism

3. Altaic and Hwandangogi are not related each other.

4. Chinese nationists in here should study Turanism before criticism korean nationism

5. That thread makers are not Korean, They can not speak Korean or write Korean.

If you do not trust me, You question true Korean nationist. I give nationist's site in Korea.
???? ????

Last edited by AltaicKorean; February 23rd, 2015 at 11:33 PM.
AltaicKorean is offline  
Old February 23rd, 2015, 11:26 PM   #36
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Northern City
Posts: 433

Quote:
Originally Posted by ise View Post
1) Mandarin was essentially an indigenous language that developed in isolation from other dialects. Given contact with Mongols and Manchu in the 1500s, it adopted some aspects of those languages. But linguistically it's predominantly a Sinitic language. That's one count.

Second, the Han didn't speak Mandarin. They spoke Old Chinese as the lingua franca. Two strikes.

Third, your "Altaic takeover" comment does not seem to follow from any logic. It seems totally speculative as well as irrelevant. Mandarin is not even close to an Altaic language.
The majority of Han probably did speak mandarin. Not today's mandarin, but something close to it. If you're able to reason that Mongols and Manchus had an effect on the lingua franca of China in the manner of Mandarin, you can also reason that Hongshan culture's presence in the Shang upper class could also have the same effect.

Quote:
Cantonese did not exist at the time of the Chu State. Fatal to your argument. Also, where is your proof of this fantastical relationship between Korea and Canton? Cantonese is an offshoot of Middle Chinese, not proto-Tibeto-Burman
I'm not talking about Cantonese in the modern form. But rather a predecessor of Cantonese, existing along side early Mandarin. I can't even talk about Cantonese as an offshoot of Middle Chinese because I don't believe a Middle Chinese exists. The concept of Middle Chinese is simply a modern invention that I think is flawed. Rather I feel Mandarin was more or less lingua franca all the way though Chinese history.

Quote:
You have all the dates and phylogeny completely and utterly wrong. There was no "great divide" in the Chinese language until the late 1600s, when the Manchu took a liking to Mandarin (which they found in one region of North China) and then propagated it as the lingua franca.
Not necessarily. I might have rejected some estimates because they don't fit the larger pattern. Dates and phylogeny are not to be taken like dogma. Regarding the phylogeny side of your reasoning, I can say they had a small sample size or simply were looking at a ruling class that might have been killed off.

Last edited by Yeongsang; February 24th, 2015 at 12:06 AM.
Yeongsang is offline  
Old February 24th, 2015, 01:46 AM   #37
Lecturer
 
Joined: Feb 2015
From: Singapore
Posts: 266

"Based on your own reconstruction". May I ask if you have a degree or phD in Asian history or linguistics? If not, your statement is just as good as trash.

Southern Min is the only remaining Chinese dialect that exists which is closest to Old Chinese in terms of pronunciation, number of tones etc.; Not Mandarin.

Southern Min is based on the form of Chinese spoken throughout China during the Jin Dynasty (晉朝 / 265 AD - 420 AD), and has been heavily influenced by Middle Chinese spoken during the Tang & Song dynasties.

Cantonese, Wu & Hakka are offshoots of Middle Chinese spoken throughout China during the Tang & Song dynasties less than 1500 years ago.

Genetic studies carried out on the paternal lineage of Hongshan remains in Miaozigou (廟子溝) and surrounding areas have shown that they mainly carry Haplogroup N1c and O3a2c1a-M117 - not O2b-M176 carried by the modern-day Koreans supposedly descended from the "Joseonites".

There were many Neolithic cultures sprouting across China throughout that period of time. Sino-Tibetan speaking peoples are mainly descended from the Neolithic culture of Yangshao (仰韶文化) and Majiayao (馬家窯文化) in Gansu Province (甘肅省), Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region (寧夏回族自治州) and Shaanxi Province (陝西省) - evident in the paternal lineage of remains collected from these sites (O3a2c1-M134 amongst Tibeto-Burman speakers and the mutated form of O3a2c1a-M117 amongst Sinitic speakers).

Hmong-Mien speakers descended from the Daxi Neolithic Culture (大溪文化) of Hubei Province (湖北省) and their main marker is O3a2b-M7.

There have been completely no signs of O2b-M176 anywhere in China, Mongolia and Siberia throughout history and even today. Keep on dreaming about "conquering Asia" when your paternal lineage is almost completely absent on the Eurasian Mainland except for Korea & Japan. O2b-M176 is the sibling branch of O2a-M95 which can only be found amongst Southeast Asians like Vietnamese, Khmers, Shompen, Munda and Indonesians.
Takoyaki is offline  
Old February 24th, 2015, 06:17 AM   #38
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Northern City
Posts: 433

Worry about your own trash, namely your southern-centric Chinese language reconstructions that got destroyed recently, in no small part thanks to my "intuition" as you called it.

I'm going to ignore those codes. I doubt you even grasp the concepts so its probably just nonsense.
Yeongsang is offline  
Old February 24th, 2015, 06:25 AM   #39
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,027

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeongsang View Post
The Shang elite come from the Hongshan culture, an area that was known as Joseon. This is where I am getting Shang elites being Joseonites. From the fact that Hongshan is being considered as China's first kingdom.

It's equally important to consider how part of the Shang royal court moved back to Joseon according to various records.

Taken together, we can know the foundation of Chinese civilization is connected to this area.
Where is your evidence that Shang elite come from Hongshan culture?

Shang come from neolithic in central plain not north east. No mention of Hongshan here.

The Chinese Neolithic: Trajectories to Early States - Li Liu - Google Books

Shang people had nothing to do with Hongshan people.

@Takoyaki
Genetic debate not allow here in Historum.

Last edited by Zoopiter; February 24th, 2015 at 06:38 AM.
Zoopiter is offline  
Old February 24th, 2015, 07:14 AM   #40
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: EARTH
Posts: 955

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeongsang View Post
Worry about your own trash, namely your southern-centric Chinese language reconstructions that got destroyed recently, in no small part thanks to my "intuition" as you called it.

I'm going to ignore those codes. I doubt you even grasp the concepts so its probably just nonsense.
Wow, I guess Turkey must have always spoken Turkish! Anatolian languages did not exist and all historical records must be some Greco-Anatolian centric lies. Wait, since Anatolian languages do not exist - then Anatolians must be a Greek fabrication! Oh, those sneaky greeks. I see now!

Thanks, Yeongsang. What great intuition you have.
Moloc is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
chinese, civilization, foundations, theory



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Proof Chinese civilization was founded in Liangzhu wingerman Asian History 29 June 7th, 2014 09:30 PM
Was 'six limb theory' of Chinese painting borrowed from India? vikas Asian History 8 March 21st, 2013 10:45 PM
Continuity of civilization and Chinese identity deke Asian History 0 September 19th, 2012 02:36 PM
Should the Chinese just admit that Western civilization and hisory is better? TruthSeeker1 Asian History 9 February 14th, 2012 11:50 AM
Chinese civilization: yellow river vs Yangtze tomar Ancient History 4 February 22nd, 2011 05:12 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.