| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Sinitic Civilization began in 3000 BC in Liangzhu
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Sinitic Civilization began in 3000 BC in Liangzhu

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 2014 at 02:59
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 

No. English language comes from Roman times, when the Barbarians living in the British Isles were tough to write by the Roman intellectuals.


The English language does not come from Roman times, but is an amalgamate of mostly Anglo-Saxon (Germanic tribes of NW Europe), Scandinavian, and Norman (French) influences. The Celtic languages encountered by Roman armies are now only modestly represented in Scottish and Welsh remnants.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 2014 at 03:45
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 

No. English language comes from Roman times, when the Barbarians living in the British Isles were tough to write by the Roman intellectuals.


The English language does not come from Roman times, but is an amalgamate of mostly Anglo-Saxon (Germanic tribes of NW Europe), Scandinavian, and Norman (French) influences. The Celtic languages encountered by Roman armies are now only modestly represented in Scottish and Welsh remnants.
 
Captain: But English does have many "loan words" from many other languages other than the Old Norman and Germanic, including Italian (Roman), Greek, Chinese etc.
 
As for being taught to write by the Romans, I'd suggest that:
 
a. The Christian monks were the most educated group in England in ancients times;
 
b. The intellectuals were educated by the monks;
 
c. The ruling class were a poor third; and
 
d. The peasantry picked up what they could along the way, unless chosen for the priesthood.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 2014 at 04:27
Yes, English has accepted many terms from other languages, right up to the present day. Which is probably why it has tended to become the lingua franca of the modern world, as apposed to languages such as French, which have tended to contract in order to maintain its purity, or Japanese or Mandarin, which are both complex and unwieldy to the point of tedium.

However, English most definitely does not come from Roman times. Modern English speakers could not understand what was being said by those in the Britain of 1000 AD, 500 years after the Roman occupation. It was only until Chaucer's time, around 1300 AD, that the modern ear could start to discern an English language, in the sense of understanding the majority of what was said.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jun 2014 at 07:27
Captain wrote:
Quote
However, English most definitely does not come from Roman times. Modern English speakers could not understand what was being said by those in the Britain of 1000 AD, 500 years after the Roman occupation. It was only until Chaucer's time, around 1300 AD, that the modern ear could start to discern an English language, in the sense of understanding the majority of what was said.
 
I agree. But the same can be said of Old Germanic, Old French(Norman) and so on. Language evolves.
 
But of course, this thread is about the Chinese or Sinitic Civilisation, and perhaps ancient Chinese language has changed too, I don't know, and it's not really relevant to the thread.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2014 at 00:12
Quote
ANO has arrived. He is reunited with his master.


You've graduated.  You now represent the Mongolic aspect of the Chinese Trinity.

Edited by literaryClarity - 05 Jun 2014 at 00:14
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2014 at 03:45
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Quote
ANO has arrived. He is reunited with his master.


You've graduated.  You now represent the Mongolic aspect of the Chinese Trinity.
 
 
Sheesh!Thumbs Down
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
easy772 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 06 Jun 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 38
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote easy772 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2014 at 02:04
Most linguists, anthropologists, geneticists, archaeologists or scholars would disagree with you:

1.) From the 9th century BC, two northern Yue peoples, the Gou-Wu and Yu-Yue, were increasingly influenced by their Chinese neighbours to their north. These two states were based in the areas of what is now southern Jiangsu and northern Zhejiang respectively. Their aristocratic elite learned the written Chinese language and adopted Chinese political institutions and military technology. Traditional accounts attribute the cultural change to Wu Taibo, a Zhou prince who had self-exiled to the south. The marshy lands of the south gave Gou-Wu and Yu-Yue unique characteristics. They did not engage in extensive agrarian agriculture, relying instead more heavily on aquaculture. Water transport was paramount in the south, so the two states became advanced in shipbuilding and developed riverine warfare technology. They were also known for their fine swords.

2.) A study of Liangzhu remains found a high prevalence of haplogroup O1, linking it to Austronesian and Daic populations;[56] the same study found the rare haplogroup O3d at a Daxi site on the central Yangtze, indicates possible connection with the Hmong, although "only small traces" of haplogroup O3d remains in Hmong today.[57] What is now thought of as Chinese culture developed along the more fertile Yellow River basin; the "Yue" people of the lower Yangtze possessed very different traditions – blackening their teeth, cutting their hair short, tattooing their bodies, and living in small settlements among bamboo groves[58] – and were considered barbarous by the northerners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze#Early_history

Zhejiang (The area where Liangzhu was) was not sinicized until 900BC

3.) Scott De Lancey

 "A persistent problem in Sino-Tibetan linguistics is that Chinese is characterized by a mix of lexical, phonological, and syntactic features, some of which link it to the Tibeto-Burman languages, others to the Tai-Kadai, Hmong-Mien, and Mon-Khmer families of Southeast Asia. It has always been recognized that this must reflect intense language contact. This paper develops a hypothesis about the nature of that contact. The language of Shang was a highly-creolized lingua franca based on languages of the Southeast Asian type. Sinitic is a result of the imposition of the Sino-Tibetan language of the Zhou on a population speaking this lingua franca, resulting in a language with substantially Sino-Tibetan lexicon and relict morphology, but Southeast Asian basic syntax.

4) George Van Driem

"1. A post-glacial northward wave of 
peopling at a time depth beyond what is 
generally held to be linguistically 
reconstructible by historical linguists. 

2. A northeasterly spread of ancient 
Tibeto-Burmans to the putative early locus of 
Sino-Bodic. 

3. An incremental spread of various 
ancient Tibeto-Burman groups throughout the 
Himalayas, where there is both linguistic and 
genetic evidence of pre-Tibeto-Burman 
populations. 

4. A southward spread of Sino-Bodic, 
suggested by archaeology, genes and language, 
bringing Sino-Bodic groups, including Sinitic, 
into contact with the ancient Hmong-Mien, the 
early Austroasiatics, the Austronesians and a 
number of other Tibeto-Burman groups. 

5. A Bodic spread across the Tibetan 
plateau spilling over into the Himalayas, as 
evinced by the distribution of Bodish, East 
Bodish, Tamangic, West Himalayish and 
several other groups. 
Following these tentatively reconstructed 
prehistoric stages of peopling, there were the 
historically attested ethnolinguistic dispersals: 

6. The historically documented Hàn spread, 
clearly evinced in linguistics and genetics, 
probably assimilating non-Tibeto-Burman as 
well as other Tibeto-Burman groups. 

7. The historically documented spread 
of Bodish (i.e. Tibetic) across the Tibetan 
plateau. "



5.) Randy La Polla

The Sino-Tibetan language family is one of the largest language families in the world, both in terms of number of speakers and in terms of geographic distribution. It includes the majority languages of China and Myanmar, plus minority languages in China, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, and Northeast India. Three main factors have been involved in the formation of the present-day Sino-Tibetan language family: a shared genetic origin, divergent population movements (i.e. innovations appearing in the different groups after their split), and language contact (among themselves and with non-Sino-Tibetan languages). Population movements and language contact have in fact generally been two aspects of a single phenomenon. This paper looks at the history of the development of the Sinitic branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family from the point of view of population movements and language contact, to show the role language contact has had in the formation of the branch as we know it today. These factors have been an important part of the development of the branch from its origin in the central plains of what is now north China, in the valley of the Yellow River, some 6,500 years ago, right up to the present, and are still the main factors in language change today.

6.) Robert Blench

"When and from which direction was the Sinitic expansion? 

This expansion would surely have been from north to south, from millet cultivating to the humid areas where 
irrigated rice was possible."

7.) Barbara A. West
"Longshan culture has been described by many as the cultural inheritor of both the Dawenkou culture of the lower Yellow River basin and the Yangshao culture of the region slightly to the west of Dawenkou."

Dawenkou writing is ancestral to Longshan is ancestral to the Shang which is where the oracle bonesare from

8.) Ward Goodenough


9.) Laurent Sagart- Notice Zhejiang (where Liangzhu was located) supposedly spoke a non Sino-Tibetan Language. Notice how Sinto-Tibetan is completely separate from the Eastern Branch




10.) Anne Underhill




Edited by easy772 - 06 Jun 2014 at 02:07
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2014 at 02:30
A very well researched and presented post.
 
Congratulations. Clap
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2014 at 04:44
Originally posted by easy772 easy772 wrote:

Most linguists, anthropologists, geneticists, archaeologists or scholars would disagree with you:

1.) From the 9th century BC, two northern Yue peoples, the Gou-Wu and Yu-Yue, were increasingly influenced by their Chinese neighbours to their north. These two states were based in the areas of what is now southern Jiangsu and northern Zhejiang respectively. Their aristocratic elite learned the written Chinese language and adopted Chinese political institutions and military technology. Traditional accounts attribute the cultural change to Wu Taibo, a Zhou prince who had self-exiled to the south. The marshy lands of the south gave Gou-Wu and Yu-Yue unique characteristics. They did not engage in extensive agrarian agriculture, relying instead more heavily on aquaculture. Water transport was paramount in the south, so the two states became advanced in shipbuilding and developed riverine warfare technology. They were also known for their fine swords.


No they would agree with me.  Yue was an umbrella term for people that weren't originally stationed with the Zhou.  In order for the Zhou to advance their northwestern ethnocentrism they had to label people whom they felt were out of the reach of the Zhou dynasty.  Taibo is a mythical figure, says so in wikipedia.  They can't even ascertain his birth and death dates.  I'm sorry but the worldhistoria.com community has little tolerance for mythical data.  They can however be used to epigraphically show people whom have had no history of their own and relied on a mythical basis for their identity.  Such was that of the Zhou.

The Sino scholar, Sarah Allan has already deconstructed the mythical basis of the Zhou identity whom used the mythical analogs of the Shang dynasty to arrange for themselves a predecessor of Xia.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25211710?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104265063753



Edited by literaryClarity - 07 Jun 2014 at 03:17
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2014 at 04:56
Quote

2.) A study of Liangzhu remains found a high prevalence of haplogroup O1, linking it to Austronesian and Daic populations;[56] the same study found the rare haplogroup O3d at a Daxi site on the central Yangtze, indicates possible connection with the Hmong, although "only small traces" of haplogroup O3d remains in Hmong today.[57] What is now thought of as Chinese culture developed along the more fertile Yellow River basin; the "Yue" people of the lower Yangtze possessed very different traditions – blackening their teeth, cutting their hair short, tattooing their bodies, and living in small settlements among bamboo groves[58] – and were considered barbarous by the northerners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze#Early_history

Zhejiang (The area where Liangzhu was) was not sinicized until 900BC


Again you use wiki and mythical accounts.  Direct historical data has already disproven those "tattooed Yue" to be anything but Tibeto-Burman when on the mainland.  When they are off the mainland they are indeed Austronesian and practice tooth evulsion etc.  Sagart has already shown us the connection between the Tibeto-Burmans and Austronesians.  They both farmed millet as a sacred crop.  Cishan Peiligang Jiahu complex sites were shown to be thematically similar to those found in Dapenkeng.


For more information on Julian Steward's direct historical approach and how incorrectly using it led to all sorts of inadequate/erroneous ethnolinguistic identifications, see this paper by Heather Peters titled "Tattooed Faces and Stilt Houses, Who were the Ancient Yue?"

http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp017_yue.pdf


Edited by literaryClarity - 06 Jun 2014 at 07:41
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2014 at 05:15
Quote
3.) Scott De Lancey

 "A persistent problem in Sino-Tibetan linguistics is that Chinese is characterized by a mix of lexical, phonological, and syntactic features, some of which link it to the Tibeto-Burman languages, others to the Tai-Kadai, Hmong-Mien, and Mon-Khmer families of Southeast Asia. It has always been recognized that this must reflect intense language contact. This paper develops a hypothesis about the nature of that contact. The language of Shang was a highly-creolized lingua franca based on languages of the Southeast Asian type. Sinitic is a result of the imposition of the Sino-Tibetan language of the Zhou on a population speaking this lingua franca, resulting in a language with substantially Sino-Tibetan lexicon and relict morphology, but Southeast Asian basic syntax."


Congratulations, you read the introductory paragraph, the hypothesis.  Read onwards to actually see if you comprehend what's going on through DeLancey's mind.

3 pages later,
Quote
An important part of the problem is that the features which distinguish Sinitic from Tibeto-Burman are shared with not one, but all of the southern language groups – Hmong-Mien, Tai-Kadai, and Viet-Muong – which all share a characteristic, very marked areal syntactic and phonological proile (Henderson 1965; Matisof 1992; Enield 2003, 2011). Thus the contact scenario which we need to reconstruct must be considerably more complex than the simple imposition of a Sino-Tibetan superstratum on a monolingual substrate population.


When the Zhou conquered the Shang there was no replacement of the lingua franca.  The lingua franca remained intact and it was instead Tibeto-Burmanized.  The Zhou, whom descended from Tibeto-Burman speakers, used SOV syntax, and agglutinated speech, was not speaking the lingua franca of the Shang in the same way the Shang did though they had derived enough from Sinicization by their contacts with the Shang to perceive it as the vehicular language.  Look here:

Quote
Following the suggestions of Benedict and Nishida, we focus particularly on the time of the replacement of the Shang Dynasty by Zhou, formerly a western vassal state of presumably Tibeto-Burman origin. But in this context it is a mistake to suppose that the deep and pervasive areal phenomena which we see could be the simple result of a single dramatic historical event. Ater the establishment of the Zhou Dynasty we can certainly expect the language of Zhou to have had some inluence on surrounding languages. But prior to that, when Zhou was subordinate to Shang, there would presumably have been inluence in the other direction. And, since there must have been a history, over at least a century or two, of increasing Zhou strength and inluence ultimately leading to the dynastic shift, the language of Zhou could well have been inluential in the region for some time prior to the fall of Shang.


and here:

Quote
Shang speech is gradually replaced not by “pure” Sino-Tibetan Zhou, but by a heavily Tibeto-Burman inluenced version of the lingua franca. In similar situations, certainly in all subsequent instances of the institution in China of a foreign dynasty, we see the vehicular language, rather than the speech of the foreign invaders, ending up as the language of administration.


So what you don't understand is that the pure Sino-Tibetan of Zhou was a Tibeto-Burman construct long Sinicized (in the contact sense) before it could ever go on to Sino-Tibetanize.  That's why there is relict morphology and pronouns coming from the Tibeto-Burmans despite Tibeto-Burmans having little influence on basic things like syntax, whether speech is agglutinated or not, tones, etc.  In the period of the Zhou dynasty, the rulers were heavily Tibeto-Burman and still adamant about retaining Tibeto-Burman linguistic patterns and pronouns but eventually the ruler's speech is virtually replaced by the lingua franca.  It marks the difference between having some language sound Tibeto-Burman and another sound like Wu Chinese, Cantonese, or even Mandarin.









Edited by literaryClarity - 08 Jun 2014 at 03:55
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2014 at 05:52
Quote

4) George Van Driem

"1. A post-glacial northward wave of 
peopling at a time depth beyond what is 
generally held to be linguistically 
reconstructible by historical linguists. 

2. A northeasterly spread of ancient 
Tibeto-Burmans to the putative early locus of 
Sino-Bodic. 

3. An incremental spread of various 
ancient Tibeto-Burman groups throughout the 
Himalayas, where there is both linguistic and 
genetic evidence of pre-Tibeto-Burman 
populations. 

4. A southward spread of Sino-Bodic, 
suggested by archaeology, genes and language, 
bringing Sino-Bodic groups, including Sinitic, 
into contact with the ancient Hmong-Mien, the 
early Austroasiatics, the Austronesians and a 
number of other Tibeto-Burman groups. 

5. A Bodic spread across the Tibetan 
plateau spilling over into the Himalayas, as 
evinced by the distribution of Bodish, East 
Bodish, Tamangic, West Himalayish and 
several other groups. 
Following these tentatively reconstructed 
prehistoric stages of peopling, there were the 
historically attested ethnolinguistic dispersals: 

6. The historically documented Hàn spread, 
clearly evinced in linguistics and genetics, 
probably assimilating non-Tibeto-Burman as 
well as other Tibeto-Burman groups. 

7. The historically documented spread 
of Bodish (i.e. Tibetic) across the Tibetan 
plateau. "



5.) Randy La Polla

The Sino-Tibetan language family is one of the largest language families in the world, both in terms of number of speakers and in terms of geographic distribution. It includes the majority languages of China and Myanmar, plus minority languages in China, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, and Northeast India. Three main factors have been involved in the formation of the present-day Sino-Tibetan language family: a shared genetic origin, divergent population movements (i.e. innovations appearing in the different groups after their split), and language contact (among themselves and with non-Sino-Tibetan languages). Population movements and language contact have in fact generally been two aspects of a single phenomenon. This paper looks at the history of the development of the Sinitic branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family from the point of view of population movements and language contact, to show the role language contact has had in the formation of the branch as we know it today. These factors have been an important part of the development of the branch from its origin in the central plains of what is now north China, in the valley of the Yellow River, some 6,500 years ago, right up to the present, and are still the main factors in language change today.

6.) Robert Blench

"When and from which direction was the Sinitic expansion? 

This expansion would surely have been from north to south, from millet cultivating to the humid areas where 
irrigated rice was possible."



Points 4 and 5 was basically refuted by the post preceeding this.  To correctly interpret Van Driem and La Polla's view one must not trivialize the Zhou's linguistics as having existed in isolation like the rest of their Tibeto-Burman brethren further west in archaeologically defined Rong and Di areas.  Should you want to actually discover the origins of Rong and Di, more information can be found in the paper by J. Yang titled "Differentiation of two types of cultural remains of the eastern Zhou period in north China".

http://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle/j$002fchar.2012.12.issue-1$002fchar-2012-0017$002fchar-2012-0017.xml

Point 6.  What you NEED to do is follow the text throroughly to induce the correct train of thought.  What you often do is quote by selecting it out of context.  For example when you first chose to crop Sagart's linguistic map.



The emergent properties of Sinitic are differentiated from both Tibeto-Burman and Austronesian.  Very clear indicators: 1) SVO word order in Shang (of presumably heavily Baiyue stock) 2) Non-agglutinated speech patterns (aka monosyllabism) both lacking in Tibeto-Burman and Austronesian.  It was therefore a disservice to revealing the origins of Sinitic when you cut off the map at the top to diffuse Tibeto-Burman and Austronesian's linguistics away from their original Cishan-Peiligang context 8500 YBP.

Sagart had chosen to refrain from specific discussion of Sinitic within his paper but left it as Sino-Tibetan Austronesian (STAN) to become inclusive of Sinitic.  However the paper was mainly about the millet farmers of east Asia, MEANING the Tibeto-Burmans and the Austronesians, not Sinitics!  By poorly comprehending DeLancey's paper about the actual emergence of the Sinitic one would be mistakened to believe Sagart was speaking about the origins of the Sinitic within his paper when he wasn't.

Which leads us back to point 6.

Focusing on north-south expansion of the Sinitic reveals nothing about Liangzhu type sites since Liangzhu's time did not fall in the Zhou/Qin expansion period.  The full quote in Blench's paper:

Quote
4.2.  When and from which direction was the Sinitic expansion? This expansion was from north to south, from millet cultivating in the dry zone to the humid areas where irrigated rice was possible. However, Sinitic languages underwent a signiicant bottleneck some >2000 years ago and records of the language prior to that are highly idiosyncratic. Knowledge of the expansion of Sinitic prior to this event will remain restricted.


It directly refutes your aim in pursuing a non Sinitic origin of the Liangzhu.

The Zhou/Qin dynastic period of expansion is clear but Blench had to remind us that the earliest settlers of the Yellow River were unlikely to have any linguistic descendants.  Superphylums existing 6000+ years ago diversified to become language families and none in China were as important as the ones belonging to those whom had capability to expand their linguistic influence beyond their initial territory.  Hence Blench shares Barnes' ideation of "late neolithic elites".  Blench does not agree with you that Liangzhu was Austronesian.  Blench agrees with Barnes' in that:

Quote
Wherever Sinitic originates within Sino-Tibetan, there is a broad consensus that its main spread has been
north-south from the millet-growing to the rice-growing areas and that it has assimilated or overwhelmed an
diverse in situ population. It is therefore unlikely that Sinitic can be identified with the earliest Neolithic communities in North China such as the Péilígǎng or Císhān (6500 BP onwards) and it is more helpful to think of Sinitic as one of Barnes’ (1993:108) ‘Late Neolithic Elites’ emerging between 3500-2000 BC.


La Polla is clearly refuted by Blench's statements.  Trying to show a Sinitic which emerged 6500 years ago in a time and place which originated Tibeto-Burman and Austronesian is considered by him to be highly unlikely.

He repeats himself by concluding:

Quote
There is no obvious candidate for the ethnolinguistic identity of the millet‑growers of Péilígăng and it may be that they have no linguistic descendants.


The late neolithic elites spoken by Barnes included the Liangzhu, the Dawenkou, and the Hongshan cultures.  These were affiliated with the specificity of Chinese jade ritual objects in their culture as opposed to any kind of jade objects which were found elsewhere throughout other neolithic regions in the world.  As far as we know neither Tibeto-Burmans nor Austronesians had the same forms of ritual iconography.  They held millet as a sacred crop.


Edited by literaryClarity - 07 Jun 2014 at 08:37
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2014 at 06:29
Quote
7.) Barbara A. West
"Longshan culture has been described by many as the cultural inheritor of both the Dawenkou culture of the lower Yellow River basin and the Yangshao culture of the region slightly to the west of Dawenkou."

Dawenkou writing is ancestral to Longshan is ancestral to the Shang which is where the oracle bonesare from

I've understood you took that from a random encyclopedia no better than wikipedia.  But another random site
argues the exact opposite.  That Yangshao didn't have anything to do with it.

Quote
Let us look at another Neolithic culture that seemed to emerge in coastal China with the end of the Yangshao culture. Remember that the Yangshao were located on the upper Yellow River. This culture, called the Longshan Black Pottery Culture, after a principle site and their black pottery, seems to have originated in the Lower Yellow River towards the coast, in the present day province of Shantung. It then spread north, south, and eventually westward, poor Yangshao culture, doomed to subjugation. Its dates are roughly set at 2500-1000 BC. (Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1997: China, history of)


And in fact a college professor teaches that Liangzhu was indeed the start of the Longshan horizon.

http://bruceowen.com/emciv/a341-09s-21-ChinaLongshan3Dynasties.pdf

Quote
− the Longshan horizon apparently started on the lower Yangtze river, in the Liangzhu culture, as early as 3500 BC


Furthermore the Dawenkou writing you've mentioned were all originated in Liangzhu.  The neolithic pictographic writing which has alone been presumed to align to sentence structure format had been those from Liangzhu samples.  Other writings during the neolithic were merely logographic but never strung together.


Edited by literaryClarity - 06 Jun 2014 at 06:36
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2014 at 06:47
Quote

8.) Ward Goodenough



What is the source of this?  It looks to be nothing but conjecture.  It is well known that there is no trace of Austronesian within China either as substratum or adstratum which depletes all hope for an Sino-Austronesian language phylum.  It is preposterous to assume there is an underlying current of modern Austronesian linguistics within China when the correct methodology used to support an out of Taiwan hypothesis shows the ensuing linguistics directly linked to Malayo Polynesian areas and which ancestrally came from the Yellow River 6500 years ago.

I've already mentioned that direct historical data proves that they were Tibeto-Burmans when they were on the mainland.  They were Austronesians when they were off the mainland.


What there is in Sinitic are Daic substratum undertones from whence the Austronesians migrated to Hainan.  Austronesians, upon becoming influenced by Austro-Asiatics in the southwestern regions of China, forged the Daic.  This was also explained by Sagart in his Setaria paper.  This is why Daic areas also exhibit the Tibeto-Burman/Austronesian thematic similarities to Cishan-Peiligang/Jiahu/Dapenkeng when analyzing for their neolithic archaeological remains.  The culture remained even as the language split off to become another language family.


Edited by literaryClarity - 06 Jun 2014 at 07:20
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2014 at 07:17
Quote
9.) Laurent Sagart- Notice Zhejiang (where Liangzhu was located) supposedly spoke a non Sino-Tibetan Language. Notice how Sinto-Tibetan is completely separate from the Eastern Branch



I just got done explaining this on the posts previous to this one.  The STAN linguistics in Sagart's paper does not talk about Sinitic.  It makes the comparison between Tibeto-Burman root words and Austronesian words for millet, rice and other significantly cultural words in the Swadesh checklist.  A ten percent minimum criteria was set to match Austronesian to Tibeto-Burman in STAN linguistics.  The areas of China did not become Sinitic until the Austronesians departed from the mainland.  It leaves Tibeto-Burman to become Sino-Tibetan but Tibeto-Burman wasn't actually Sinitic in of itself which I got done explaining on one of the posts previous to this one.  Tibeto-Burmans were Sinicized before they were able to Sino-Tibetanize.

Quote
10.) Anne Underhill



I have no idea what you are trying to argue with this slide.  It says Liangzhu was the earlier of Longshan, not the other way around.  Therefore the Longshan was the child of Liangzhu not the other way around.


Edited by literaryClarity - 07 Jun 2014 at 02:13
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
Alpha NOVA Omega View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 02 Jun 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Alpha NOVA Omega Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 03:03
WOAH! Let the battle begin. Big smile
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 04:21
The general consensus of Sinitic historians agree with the hypothesis that civilisation of China began in the Yellow River basin area, and spread south-to the "barbarian" provinces.
 
 
 
Quote

 
The Xia dynasty is thought to have run from the end of the third millennium B.C. to the middle of the second. The period of the Xia Dynasty is sometimes equated with Erlitou or Longshan cultures. Records of the Grand Historian and Bamboo Annals mention the Xia Dynasty.
 
Xia Population:

The Xia under King Yu probably had about 13.5 million people, according to Duan Chang-Qun et al.

  • "Relocation of Civilization Centers in Ancient China: Environmental Factors," by Duan Chang-Qun, Gan Xue-Chun, Jeanny Wang and Paul K. Chien. Ambio, Vol. 27, No. 7 (Nov., 1998), pp. 572-575.

Xia Accomplishments:

The Xia dynasty was the first to irrigate, produce cast bronze and a strong army. It used oracle bones and had a calendar. Xi Zhong is credited in legend with inventing a wheeled vehicle. He used a compass, square and rule. King Yu was the first king to be succeeded by his son instead of a man chosen for his virtue. This made the Xia the first Chinese dynasty.

  • Evolution of International Statistical Standards Via Life Cycle of Products and Services, by Michele Boulanger, Mark Johnson, Christophe Perruchet and Poul Thyregod International Statistical Review / Revue Internationale de Statistique © 1999

Start of the Xia Dynasty:

The Xia dynasty is thought to have been founded by Yu the Great, who was born in 2059 and considered a descendant of the Yellow Emperor. His capital was at Yang City. Yu is a semi-mythical figure who spent 13 years stopping the great flood and brought irrigation to the Yellow River Valley. Yu was the ideal hero and ruler, ascribed a mythical dragon birth. He became god of the soil.

  • "Yu" A Dictionary of World Mythology. Arthur Cotterell. Oxford University Press, 1997.
  • "Yu" A Dictionary of Asian Mythology. David Leeming. Oxford University Press, 2001

The 17 Xia Dynasty Kings:

  • Yu
  • Qi
  • Tai Kang
  • Zhong Kang
  • Xiang
  • Xiao Kang
  • Zhu
  • Huai
  • Mang
  • Xie
  • Bu Xiang
  • Jiong
  • Jin
  • Kong Jia
  • Gao
  • Fa
  • Jie

Fall of the Xia Dynasty:

The fall of the Xia is blamed on its last king, Jie, who is said to have fallen in love with an evil, beautiful woman and become a tyrant. The people rose up in rebellion under the leadership of Zi Lü, the Tang Emperor and founder of the Shang Dynasty.

Other Sources:

  • "War and Politics in Ancient China, 2700 B.C. to 722 B.C.: Measurement and Comparative Analysis," by Claudio Cioffi-Revilla and David Lai. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 467-494.
  • "Radiocarbon Dating and the Prehistoric Archaeology of China," by An Zhimin. World Archaeology, Vol. 23, No. 2, Chronologies (Oct., 1991), pp. 193-200.
  • "Xia" A Dictionary of World History. Oxford University Press, 2000.
  • Xia dynasty. (2009). In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved March 24, 2009, from Encyclopedia Britannica Online: http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-9041275

 

and

Quote

Victor H. Mair, “Was There a Xià Dynasty?”
Sino-Platonic Papers, 238 (May 2013)
6
Dingyun, who begins his article entitled “Guwen ‘Xia’ zi kao — Xia chao cunzai de wenzi
jianzheng (Study of the Ancient Writing of Xia — The Writing Witness of Xia Dynasty Existed
[sic; i.e., A Study of the Ancient Graph for Xià: Paleographic Testimony for the Existence of the
Xià Dynasty],” Zhong Yuan [sic] wenwu (Cultural Relics from central plains [sic]) 3 (cum. 73)
(1995), 65–75 as follows:
We are the descendants of Huáxià 華夏 [see section XXI], the sons and grandsons
of the Yellow Emperor. As for Xià among ancient forms of the script, we must
[bùkěbù, i.e., cannot but] seek for it, we must investigate it, we must distinguish
it. Ever since the Northern Sòng period, generation after generation of
graphologists have continuously carried out analyses and adduced proofs
concerning Xià in ancient forms of the script. Up till the present moment,
however, this process remains inconclusive. People are by no means clear about
the evolution of the graph for Xià. In particular, they still entertain doubts over
whether or not a graph for Xià is found among the OSBIs. Given this situation,
the author has for many years assiduously sought for it, until now he feels that he
has finally perceived a clue [to the solution of the problem]. Therefore, I have put
together [my findings] in this article and present them to the scholarly world for
correction.
Cao’s conclusion starts with these words:
As everyone knows, the Xià Dynasty was the first dynasty in Chinese history. It is
also the age when Chinese history formally entered civilization. Yet, with regard
to the history of the Xià Dynasty, in the past it has all along been positioned in
legend. No matter whether in archaeological articles or historical textbooks, they
all [treat the Xià Dynasty as] a supposition, and precise proof [for the Xià
Dynasty] in the script has not been obtained. One can see how great the difficulty
of solving this problem is and, moreover, how weighty is its significance.

 

 

 


Edited by toyomotor - 07 Jun 2014 at 04:42
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 04:28
 
 
Cont:
 

 So, if the Xia are recognised as the First Dynasty, responsible for the civilisation of China, it would seem that so-called civilisation did not occur until the period 17th-15th century BCE, between thirteen and fifteen centuries before the dates claimed in the OP.

Quote

http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Myth/xia.html

The Xia dynasty (17th - 15th cent. BCE) was, according to traditional historiography, the oldest of the Three Dynasties of antiquity (Sandai 三代: Xia, Shang and Zhou ). Yet unlike the two others, the authenticity of the Xia could never be surley established by archeological findings.
Chinese scholars of the early twentieth century like Gu Jiegang
顧頡剛 and Qian Xuantong 錢玄同 doubted the historicity of the Shang and the Xia and called them inventions of mythology, like the stories about the Yellow Emperor 黃帝, Yao , Shun , or Yu the Great 大禹. Archeological discoveries brought evidence about the historicity of the Shang dynasty. For the Xia dynasty, excavations in Erlitou 二里頭 near Zhengzhou 鄭州, Henan, have brought to light artifacts that might be remnants of the polity of the Xia, but so far no written source has been found that proves this identification. The state of the Xia was certainly not a territorial state ruling over large parts of China, as it is suggested in ancient histories, but it was only one of "ten thousand states" (wan guo 萬國) of what was later to become the cultural sphere of China.

Traditional accounts


According to traditional historical sources, the Xia dynasty was founded by Yu the Great (Da Yu)
大禹 (family name: Si ), enfeoffed as Viscount of Xia 夏伯 by the mythical emperor Shun. Yu the Great is, like is father Gun , credited with the taming of the floods that inundanted the Central Plain. During his work, Yu the Great divided "China" into nine provinces (jiuzhou 九州). Each region had its particular rivers and mountains, and the soil was categorized into different classes of quality. Yu furthermore reported to the emperor which tributed each region or province was able to deliver. An account of these "Tributes of Yu" (Yu gong 禹貢) are to be found in the Classic Shangshu 尚書, but this text was compiled as late as the the end of the Warring States period 戰國 (5th cent.-221 BCE) and is not an authentic report of the Xia period. Yu, Bo Yi 伯夷 and Gao Yao 皋陶 served as the highest counselors of Emperor Shun. When Shun died, Yu refused to succede to the imperial throne, as Shun had wished, and claimed that Shun's son Shang Jun 商均 might succeed, but the nobles all desired to serve Yu as the new emperor. Yu the Great is connected with the area of Guiji 會稽 (near Shaoxing 紹興 in modern Zhejiang where tourists can still find his tomb.
Yu's son Jing
was the first ruler in China who directly succeeded to his father. Before, all emperors had not chosen their own sons as successors, but a noble and worthy man. Under king (emperor) Tai Kang a rebellion of the king's five brothers (wuzi 五子) endangered the untiy of the kingdom. His brother and successor Zhong Kang 中康 was unable to control his ministers Xi and He who engaged in lust and selfishness. During these years, the Lord of Yin attacked the two usurpers. After several generations, King Kong Jia 孔甲 again endangered the royal line. The last ruler of Xia was Jie , known as a cruel and depraved tyrant who as distracted from the business of politics by his consort Mo Xi 末喜. The lords of the various domains rebelled against Jie, their head being Tang the Perfect (Cheng Tang 成湯) who was incarcerated by Jie but later set free, a motif that is repeated in the story of the last ruler of the Shang dynasty (17th-11th cent. BCE). Tang assembled an army and dethroned Jie who died in exile in Nanchao 南巢 somewhere in the south. His descendants were enfeoffed with the small fief of Qi .

Archeological evidence


While the traditional accounts about the Xia dynasty were for a long time despised as pure mythical accounts, the discovering of the inscribed oracle bones in Anyang
安陽, Hebei, had proved that the traditional ruler lists of the Shang dynasty provided in the history Shiji 史記 and the Zhushu jinian 竹書紀年 "Bamboo Annals" were not mythology, but historical fact. Archeology in the last decades has shown that the city of Yin as the seat of the Shang dynasty was by no means a capital of a vast territorial kingdom but rather one single city state (guo ) that controlled other states and areas in a distance of several hundred miles. These states delivered tributed to the Shang court, and some places seem to have been colonies of the Shang with the purpose to ensure trade and ressources. It might have been a pure incidence that the Zhou period historiographers chose the royal line of Yin/Shang as universal predecessor of their own dynasty. Similarly, the Zhou historiographers interpreted the royal line of the Xia as a universal dynasty controlling the Central Yellow River Plain before the takeover by the Shang. The real situation in the 15th to 14th centuries might have been quite different from these pictures in the traditional histories.
The mighty city state discovered in Erligang
二里岡 (modern Zhengzhou, Henan) controlled regions far south as Hubei and Jiangxi. Not far away, archeologists discovered a neolithic and early bronze age site near Erlitou 二里頭 (near Luoyang 洛陽, Henan) that might well have been the domain of a royal house like that of Xia. Recently, pottery with inscribed readable Chinese characters have been discovered there. The state of Erlitou was not only a cultural center whose inhabitants made use of a script, but archeological remains that are linked with Erlitou (early Shang period) are dispersed in a large area of southern Shanxi and northern Henan. Erlitou might have been the mightiest state of a period before the first Shang polities rose to regional power, and probably later historians chose this state as predecessor of the later Shang Dynasty - that was likewise no single state but one of the most powerful of her time. A polity or dynasty called Xia could therefore have been a mighty polity during the early Shang period or slightly before, and was chosen because of its outstanding cultural acheivements by historiographers as a universal dynasty to serve their model of a China as a unified political entity. Still today, after many discoveries have been made, it is not yet clear which community might clearly be identified with the seat of the Xia dynasty. Some scholars locate a Xia polity in the east, in Shandong, while most scholars identify the Erlitou city with the Xia dynasty. The problem is even more difficult as the historical accounts speak of many transfers of the capital, and it is not clear whether the dynasties really transferred their capital because of unfavourable conditions in the surroundings, or if several cities were identified with the same royal line.



Edited by toyomotor - 07 Jun 2014 at 04:29
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
easy772 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 06 Jun 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 38
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote easy772 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 04:36
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

The general consensus of Sinitic historians agree with the hypothesis that civilisation of China began in the Yellow River basin area, and spread south-to the "barbarian" provinces.
 
Liangzhu is situated at the mouth of the Yangtze River, where evidence has been found of O1 DNA, and linked to the Austronesian and Tai Kadai peoples.
 
 
Quote

 
The Xia dynasty is thought to have run from the end of the third millennium B.C. to the middle of the second. The period of the Xia Dynasty is sometimes equated with Erlitou or Longshan cultures. Records of the Grand Historian and Bamboo Annals mention the Xia Dynasty.
 
Xia Population:

The Xia under King Yu probably had about 13.5 million people, according to Duan Chang-Qun et al.

  • "Relocation of Civilization Centers in Ancient China: Environmental Factors," by Duan Chang-Qun, Gan Xue-Chun, Jeanny Wang and Paul K. Chien. Ambio, Vol. 27, No. 7 (Nov., 1998), pp. 572-575.

Xia Accomplishments:

The Xia dynasty was the first to irrigate, produce cast bronze and a strong army. It used oracle bones and had a calendar. Xi Zhong is credited in legend with inventing a wheeled vehicle. He used a compass, square and rule. King Yu was the first king to be succeeded by his son instead of a man chosen for his virtue. This made the Xia the first Chinese dynasty.

  • Evolution of International Statistical Standards Via Life Cycle of Products and Services, by Michele Boulanger, Mark Johnson, Christophe Perruchet and Poul Thyregod International Statistical Review / Revue Internationale de Statistique © 1999

Start of the Xia Dynasty:

The Xia dynasty is thought to have been founded by Yu the Great, who was born in 2059 and considered a descendant of the Yellow Emperor. His capital was at Yang City. Yu is a semi-mythical figure who spent 13 years stopping the great flood and brought irrigation to the Yellow River Valley. Yu was the ideal hero and ruler, ascribed a mythical dragon birth. He became god of the soil.

  • "Yu" A Dictionary of World Mythology. Arthur Cotterell. Oxford University Press, 1997.
  • "Yu" A Dictionary of Asian Mythology. David Leeming. Oxford University Press, 2001

The 17 Xia Dynasty Kings:

  • Yu
  • Qi
  • Tai Kang
  • Zhong Kang
  • Xiang
  • Xiao Kang
  • Zhu
  • Huai
  • Mang
  • Xie
  • Bu Xiang
  • Jiong
  • Jin
  • Kong Jia
  • Gao
  • Fa
  • Jie

Fall of the Xia Dynasty:

The fall of the Xia is blamed on its last king, Jie, who is said to have fallen in love with an evil, beautiful woman and become a tyrant. The people rose up in rebellion under the leadership of Zi Lü, the Tang Emperor and founder of the Shang Dynasty.

Other Sources:

  • "War and Politics in Ancient China, 2700 B.C. to 722 B.C.: Measurement and Comparative Analysis," by Claudio Cioffi-Revilla and David Lai. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 467-494.
  • "Radiocarbon Dating and the Prehistoric Archaeology of China," by An Zhimin. World Archaeology, Vol. 23, No. 2, Chronologies (Oct., 1991), pp. 193-200.
  • "Xia" A Dictionary of World History. Oxford University Press, 2000.
  • Xia dynasty. (2009). In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved March 24, 2009, from Encyclopedia Britannica Online: http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-9041275

 

and

Quote

Victor H. Mair, “Was There a Xià Dynasty?”
Sino-Platonic Papers, 238 (May 2013)
6
Dingyun, who begins his article entitled “Guwen ‘Xia’ zi kao — Xia chao cunzai de wenzi
jianzheng (Study of the Ancient Writing of Xia — The Writing Witness of Xia Dynasty Existed
[sic; i.e., A Study of the Ancient Graph for Xià: Paleographic Testimony for the Existence of the
Xià Dynasty],” Zhong Yuan [sic] wenwu (Cultural Relics from central plains [sic]) 3 (cum. 73)
(1995), 65–75 as follows:
We are the descendants of Huáxià 華夏 [see section XXI], the sons and grandsons
of the Yellow Emperor. As for Xià among ancient forms of the script, we must
[bùkěbù, i.e., cannot but] seek for it, we must investigate it, we must distinguish
it. Ever since the Northern Sòng period, generation after generation of
graphologists have continuously carried out analyses and adduced proofs
concerning Xià in ancient forms of the script. Up till the present moment,
however, this process remains inconclusive. People are by no means clear about
the evolution of the graph for Xià. In particular, they still entertain doubts over
whether or not a graph for Xià is found among the OSBIs. Given this situation,
the author has for many years assiduously sought for it, until now he feels that he
has finally perceived a clue [to the solution of the problem]. Therefore, I have put
together [my findings] in this article and present them to the scholarly world for
correction.
Cao’s conclusion starts with these words:
As everyone knows, the Xià Dynasty was the first dynasty in Chinese history. It is
also the age when Chinese history formally entered civilization. Yet, with regard
to the history of the Xià Dynasty, in the past it has all along been positioned in
legend. No matter whether in archaeological articles or historical textbooks, they
all [treat the Xià Dynasty as] a supposition, and precise proof [for the Xià
Dynasty] in the script has not been obtained. One can see how great the difficulty
of solving this problem is and, moreover, how weighty is its significance.

 

 

 

Exactly. If you go back and look at his responses, even the works he cites directly contradicts a Sinitic Liangzhu. I wouldn't waste my time trying to reason with him though, guys posting similar content were banned from China History Forum (mohistManiac), Eastbound88(Toohoo) and Historum(wingerman) for distorting sources and generally promoting a false history among other things. I just came by to copy+paste that information so that anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity can see what's what. 


Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 04:41
O1 is an Austronesian marker.  By that silly logic O2 in Indonesian is void.  O3 in Philippines is void.  And Japanese should presumably be speaking Sinitic since the expansion of the O3's also went into Japan, presumably "barbarian", during the mythological reign of Taibo 
 
You can also cite as many myths as you'd like but it doesn't make King Arthur and the Knights of Camelot any more of a true story.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 04:46
Quote
Exactly. If you go back and look at his responses, even the works he cites directly contradicts a Sinitic Liangzhu. I wouldn't waste my time trying to reason with him though, guys posting similar content were banned from China History Forum (mohistManiac), Eastbound88(Toohoo) and Historum(wingerman) for distorting sources and generally promoting a false history among other things. I just came by to copy+paste that information so that anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity can see what's what.


Aww touche, I don't find such remarks surprising coming from someone that has their mod status revoked due to biased and immaturity issues.  Why keep on insisting that Liangzhu was not the birthplace of Sinitic civilization?  Even textbooks in China will mention it come this September.

Btw mohistManiac is not banned but temporarily suspended for aggressively defending the reputation of Chinese people against a forum member Gwailo.  Wingerman was not banned for his ideas but for having multiple accounts. And finally Toohoo was given a reprieve by various mods (of which you I'm glad to say are no longer one of) and was temporarily suspended as well.  They are the same person on multiple forums.  They are my usernames.  Anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity would be able to see that.  If I was banned for my ideas then all the dozens of people on those forums whom agreed with me and from whom I've received a large share of knowledge would have gotten banned too.


Edited by literaryClarity - 07 Jun 2014 at 05:54
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
Arlington View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 13 Feb 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Arlington Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 04:50
http://www.wasu.cn/Play/show/id/1612569

As this is a live recording and no translation available for me..I presume this supports your assertions. Otoh, that very lack of understanding it... then forces me to reject it.

If possible can you either find the written text and provide a translation or find a similar in English so that we might give it a fair analysis.

Thanks.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 04:50
I've just revisited my last post and deleted the reference to Liangzhu being at the mouth of the Yangtze River, as one map shows it to be inland. However, there seems to be some confusion as to it's location, depending on the source referenced.
 
However, Google Earth does place Liangzhu at the mouth of the Yangtze.
 
Perhaps the map below refers to an earlier period, I don't know!
 
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 04:54
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

O1 is an Austronesian marker.  By that silly logic O2 in Indonesian is void.  O3 in Philippines is void.  And Japanese should presumably be speaking Sinitic since the expansion of the O3's also went into Japan, presumably "barbarian", during the mythological reign of Taibo 
 
You can also cite as many myths as you'd like but it doesn't make King Arthur and the Knights of Camelot any more of a true story.
 
It would be helpful if you indicated to whom you are addressing your remarks in your posts.
 
If you were addressing your remarks to me, I don't consider my post myths but the writings of scholars with knowledge of what they speak.
 
If you disagree with their writings, you are most welcome to provide evidence in rebuttal.
 
In the absence of any such evidence, I'll take the scholars over you all day long.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 05:03
Easy772 wrote:
Quote Exactly. If you go back and look at his responses, even the works he cites directly contradicts a Sinitic Liangzhu. I wouldn't waste my time trying to reason with him though, guys posting similar content were banned from China History Forum (mohistManiac), Eastbound88(Toohoo) and Historum(wingerman) for distorting sources and generally promoting a false history among other things. I just came by to copy+paste that information so that anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity can see what's what. 
 
This thread appears to be developing as one group of scholastic writers being used to refute other scholarly works.
 
Me? I don't know who's right and who's wrong, but, I do subscribe to the theory that civilisation started in China in the Yellow River region, and spread south.
 
If one accepts the position that the Xia people were the ones who developed civilisation in China, and then were later overthrown by the Shang, one must also accept that civilisation came later than 3000BC.
 
N'est ce pas?
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 05:07
Can I ask you a question easy772? when you responded with "Exactly." to toyomotor were you meaning to agree with the mythological account basis for the basis of 5000 years of civilization in China?  Because that's exactly what it sounds like.  Wouldn't have anything against it because anyone is entitled their opinions even though it is completely disrespecting the scientific and archaeological basis for the deduction of China's 5000 years of civilization.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 05:13
Originally posted by Arlington Arlington wrote:

http://www.wasu.cn/Play/show/id/1612569

As this is a live recording and no translation available for me..I presume this supports your assertions. Otoh, that very lack of understanding it... then forces me to reject it.

If possible can you either find the written text and provide a translation or find a similar in English so that we might give it a fair analysis.

Thanks.


Let me give you a clue.  It has to do with 5000 years of scientific establishment of the Middle Kingdom's civilization as per the OP and my signature.  If you want a translation for it, try to learn Mandarin.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 05:24
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Can I ask you a question easy772? when you responded with "Exactly." to toyomotor were you meaning to agree with the mythological account basis for the basis of 5000 years of civilization in China?  Because that's exactly what it sounds like.  Wouldn't have anything against it because anyone is entitled their opinions even though it is completely disrespecting the scientific and archaeological basis for the deduction of China's 5000 years of civilization.
 
LC:
What's your response to what I wrote above,
 
"If one accepts the position that the Xia people were the ones who developed civilisation in China, and then were later overthrown by the Shang, one must also accept that civilisation came later than 3000BC.
 
N'est ce pas?"
 
As an aside, I'm surprised by what I found when researching this thread. Personally, I would have thought that civilisation in China would have commenced at least 5000 years BCE, but there seems to be no evidence to support that idea.Smile
 
 


Edited by toyomotor - 07 Jun 2014 at 05:28
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 06:26
Sorry I only speak Mandarin English so I don't know what you were asking.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4805
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 06:36
Easy772:
I note that you had a similar discussion with Toohoo on East Bound, but it doesn't seem to have been resolved, or have I missed something?
 
 
 


Edited by toyomotor - 07 Jun 2014 at 08:15
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.