Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Do you think Xia Dynasty ever existed in Chinese history?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
oodog View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 106 		  Quote oodog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Do you think Xia Dynasty ever existed in Chinese history?
    Posted: 16-Apr-2005 at 23:22

The existence of Xia Dynasty is controversial among historians and archeologists both in China and abroad. The Chinese people like to say "China is country with a civilization of 5000 years". It would be a problem if the existence of Xia, which was regarded the first centralized kingdom in Chinese history were not convincing.However,there are still not enough relic unearthed to tell the fact. There are different opinion on the Xia Dynasty:

1. Xia was only a legendary or even fictional regime.

2.Xia was in fact a chiefdom or a major tribe among various Chinese primitive ethinic groups. There was no mature civilization in China at that time.

3.Xia really existed. But the archeological findings to some extend are fortuity.  Even the existence of Shang Dynasty was highly doubtful before the discovery of the oracle bones. Likewise, the evidence that could prove the existence of Xia would be unearthed someday. It is only a matter of time and chance.   

BTW, the predigree list of the kings(or emperors) of the Xia Dynasty was very detailedly recorded in Shi Ji written by the greatest Chinese historian Sima Qian, just as that of the Shang Dynast, which was largely proven to be truth according to the information provided by the text on the oracle bones. 

 
Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187 		  Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Apr-2005 at 23:24
I thought they found a Xia city and put all doubt to rest.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Apr-2005 at 19:17
I believe that the Xia existed as a great civilition.  I never heard of a Xia city beng unearthed, but would love to read an article about it if u have one Hueyi Tlahtoani.
Back to Top
Elanjie View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 06-Feb-2005
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129 		  Quote Elanjie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Apr-2005 at 08:14

Xia is not so famous as shang, maybe it is because the book 񡷣legends of Gods).

If Xia did really exist, that's not a bad thing.

Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187 		  Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Apr-2005 at 19:46
Here's what I was talking about.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2004/Mar/91576.htm

Xinzhai Ruins Confirmed as Xia Dynasty City

Two years of archaeological research at the Xinzhai Ruins of Xinmi City, in central China's Henan Province, has borne fruit. Scientists have basically confirmed this was a large city with three moats and grand buildings in the early part of the Xia Dynasty (c.2100 BC - c.1600 BC). It is the first time that a walled city dating from the Xia Dynasty has been found, providing new materials for research on the period.

 >>

Researcher Zhao Chunqing of the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, is in charge of the dig. He says that the city at the Xinzhai Ruins was a typical community of the later period of primitive society and that it served as a link between the Longshan and Xia Dynasty cultures.

 >>

The city covered a total area of 1 million square meters, with three layers of defense works: the outer moat, city wall and inner moat. The central part was lined with large buildings. The east and north city walls were built against a natural gully using fill and rammed earth, while the river running outside the west wall was manmade. About 220 meters beyond the north city wall was a natural ditch. Enhanced by manpower, it became the outer moat, extending 1,500 meters from east to west. It was 6 to 14 meters wide and 3 to 4 meters deep. Only the west, north and east sides of the inner moat, which once encircled the city, still exist.

 >>

In the central part of the city, archaeologists found a large building foundation, over 50 meters from east to west and 14.5 meters from north to south. Sections of rammed-earth walls, pillar holes and baked earth were excavated. Other articles found include bronze utensil fragments, a vessel lid with designs similar to those on the bronze plates of the Erlitou culture and the foot of an earthen utensil bearing patterns resembling dragons. The quality and style of the artifacts indicate that aristocrats once inhabited the building.

 >>

Last year, Chinese archaeologists found a large building foundation in the Erlitou Ruins at Yanshi, also in Henan Province, which they have dated to the latter part of the Xia Dynasty.>>

 >>

Since the discovery of Xinzhai, archaeologists have unearthed another Xia city site at Dashigu, a suburb of Zhengzhou, the capital of Henan. Because of its strategic location, archaeologists believe that it may have been a garrison city or capital of a subordinate kingdom of the Xia Dynasty.

 >>

The excavation of the Xinzhai ruins is an important component of the Preliminary Studies for Tracing the Source of Ancient Chinese Civilization, a key scientific project of the 10th Five-Year Plan (2001 - 2005).

 >>

The project focuses on 11 topics pertaining to the source, formation and early development of Chinese civilization. One of them is research on social structure as reflected by the settlement of western Henan Province and southern Shanxi Province from the period of the Longshan culture to the early Xia Dynasty. Archaeologists working on this segment of the project are studying the Guchengzhai ruins and Xinzhai ruins of Xinmi City and the Wangchenggang ruins of Dengfeng City, all in Henan Province; and the Taosi ruins of Shanxi Province.

 >>

(China.org.cn by Li Jinhui, March 29, 2004)


Here's another one.

http://www.chinapage.com/archeology/xinzhai-ruin.html
Back to Top
Berosus View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 17-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 153 		  Quote Berosus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Apr-2005 at 19:53
I thought that Erlitou, in the same general area, was the most likely site for the Xia capital.  Of course, if the Xia were anything like the Shang, they would have needed to move the capital from time to time, to protect it from hostile neighbors, like the cultures in Shandong and Shaanxi.
Nothing truly great is achieved through moderation.--Prof. M.A.R. Barker
Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187 		  Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Apr-2005 at 20:54
Here's a thread on CHF about the discovery.
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=108&a mp;hl=
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2005 at 13:20
Xia is the first Dynasty. There are some unearthed relics of that dynasty.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-May-2005 at 13:59

Xia dynasty did existed as long as there is no enough evidence to overthrow its existence. Xia didnt existed as long as theres no enough evidence to proof its existence.
Back to Top
Chinghiz View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Chinghiz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 07:22
Originally posted by GuoooZz

Xia dynasty did existed as long as there is no enough evidence to overthrow its existence. Xia didnt existed as long as theres no enough evidence to proof its existence.

So, lets find the evidence!
Veritas lux mea
Back to Top
Dayanhan View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 61 		  Quote Dayanhan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-May-2006 at 14:15
Originally posted by oodog

The existence of Xia Dynasty is controversial among historians and archeologists both in China and abroad. The Chinese people like to say "China is country with a civilization of 5000 years". It would be a problem if the existence of Xia, which was regarded the first centralized kingdom in Chinese history were not convincing.However,there are still not enough relic unearthed to tell the fact. There are different opinion on the Xia Dynasty:

1. Xia was only a legendary or even fictional regime.

2.Xia was in fact a chiefdom or a major tribe among various Chinese primitive ethinic groups. There was no mature civilization in China at that time.

3.Xia really existed. But the archeological findings to some extend are fortuity.  Even the existence of Shang Dynasty was highly doubtful before the discovery of the oracle bones. Likewise, the evidence that could prove the existence of Xia would be unearthed someday. It is only a matter of time and chance.   

BTW, the predigree list of the kings(or emperors) of the Xia Dynasty was very detailedly recorded in Shi Ji written by the greatest Chinese historian Sima Qian, just as that of the Shang Dynast, which was largely proven to be truth according to the information provided by the text on the oracle bones. 

 

 

I don't think Xia was a legendary or fictional regime. But, I disagree with the ethnic nature of Xia ruling people. It appears that they were originally of non-Chinese nature, based on many different sources.

Thus, I don't think "Xia was in fact a chiefdom or a major tribe among various Chinese primitive ethinic groups." They were either Western Rong Barbarians (Xi Rong) or Qiang.

I also disagree with the thesis saying " There was no mature civilization in China at that time." They must have had a very strong cultural basis that made the later Chinese to adopt the name of Xia or Hua-Xia as their ethnic name.

 
Veritas lux mea est!
Back to Top
Omnipotence View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 494 		  Quote Omnipotence Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-May-2006 at 19:29
Unless the Xia moved into the land that is considered current China from another part of the world, how would they be of "non-Chinese" nature?
Back to Top
Dayanhan View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 61 		  Quote Dayanhan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-May-2006 at 19:53

Originally posted by Omnipotence

Unless the Xia moved into the land that is considered current China from another part of the world, how would they be of "non-Chinese" nature?

Xia people migrated from the West of Shaan Xi, probably further western area.

Further, King Yu was a Xi Rong (Western Barbarian), as recorded in almost more than douzens of souces. The Huns and Turkic people also claimed to be his descendants.

Si Ma Qian, who artificially created the myth of one lineage of all ancient Kings, also partially recognized this by saying that King Yu come from or had a different family name from that of other Kings. 

 On the contrary, ancient Chinese tend to belive that he was not their direct ancestor though they adopted the concept of Hua-Xia people later, as a result of Xia rule.
Veritas lux mea est!
Back to Top
MengTzu View Drop Down
General
General

Retired Moderator

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 957 		  Quote MengTzu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2006 at 15:27
Originally posted by Dayanhan

Originally posted by Omnipotence

Unless the Xia moved into the land that is considered current China from another part of the world, how would they be of "non-Chinese" nature?

Xia people migrated from the West of Shaan Xi, probably further western area.

Further, King Yu was a Xi Rong (Western Barbarian), as recorded in almost more than douzens of souces. The Huns and Turkic people also claimed to be his descendants.

Si Ma Qian, who artificially created the myth of one lineage of all ancient Kings, also partially recognized this by saying that King Yu come from or had a different family name from that of other Kings. 

 On the contrary, ancient Chinese tend to belive that he was not their direct ancestor though they adopted the concept of Hua-Xia people later, as a result of Xia rule.

    I suggest that rather than seeing any of these ethnic groups (Xia, Dong Yi, etc.) as Chinese or non-Chinese, it's more realistic to say that they were ancestors of today's Chinese people.  The actual "Chinese" identity as we know it today did not exist until modern era.  However, the people and culture we now know as Chinese trace back to antiquity, and groups such as Xia and Dong Yi are some of the many groups who, throughout the ages, culminated in the Chinese people and culture today.  Therefore, Xia is every bit as Chinese as any of the Chinese ethnicities throughout history.  There is no realistic reason or ground for calling Xia non-Chinese while calling, say, Zhou Chinese.  I opine that we apply this same logic on ancient groups like Dong Yi, and the more recent groups like Xianbei.

    Whether a group originated geographically outside of China has no relation to the question whether this group is or isn't Chinese.  Otherwise, since all the people in China originally migrated from somewhere else, by that logic one must conclude that all Chinese are non-Chinese, which makes no sense at all.



Edited by MengTzu


(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.)
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2006 at 17:08
Originally posted by MengTzu

Originally posted by Dayanhan

Originally posted by Omnipotence

Unless the Xia moved into the land that is considered current China from another part of the world, how would they be of "non-Chinese" nature?

Xia people migrated from the West of Shaan Xi, probably further western area.

Further, King Yu was a Xi Rong (Western Barbarian), as recorded in almost more than douzens of souces. The Huns and Turkic people also claimed to be his descendants.

Si Ma Qian, who artificially created the myth of one lineage of all ancient Kings, also partially recognized this by saying that King Yu come from or had a different family name from that of other Kings. 

 On the contrary, ancient Chinese tend to belive that he was not their direct ancestor though they adopted the concept of Hua-Xia people later, as a result of Xia rule.

    I suggest that rather than seeing any of these ethnic groups (Xia, Dong Yi, etc.) as Chinese or non-Chinese, it's more realistic to say that they were ancestors of today's Chinese people.  The actual "Chinese" identity as we know it today did not exist until modern era.  However, the people and culture we now know as Chinese trace back to antiquity, and groups such as Xia and Dong Yi are some of the many groups who, throughout the ages, culminated in the Chinese people and culture today.  Therefore, Xia is every bit as Chinese as any of the Chinese ethnicities throughout history.  There is no realistic reason or ground for calling Xia non-Chinese while calling, say, Zhou Chinese.  I opine that we apply this same logic on ancient groups like Dong Yi, and the more recent groups like Xianbei.

    Whether a group originated geographically outside of China has no relation to the question whether this group is or isn't Chinese.  Otherwise, since all the people in China originally migrated from somewhere else, by that logic one must conclude that all Chinese are non-Chinese, which makes no sense at all.

      

 I cannot agree with your "logic". Xia cannot necessarily be Chinese, if they were not originally.  There can be two different situations.

First, say, Japanese occupied China for a while, but they all returned home thereafter. But, we cannot say  the Japanese are Chinese. 

Mongol Yuan is the same. After one hundred  years of reign,  they returned (fled) to Mongol homeland, except who failed to do so.  Further, those Mongols, who remained in China, later became the ancestors of "some" Chinese, but not all of the Chinese or Chinese generally. Furthermore, those later generations who got assimilated may be called Chinese, but not those who did not (get assimilated) and who maintained self-consciousness as Mongols.   Who can legitimately claim the Yuan History, the people of Republic of Mongolia or Chinese (?), even though Southern Mongols may also claim so together with Mongols of Mongolia?

Second situation is one in which those people remained in the territory of modern China.  As this example, lets assume that Marco Polo did not return to Venice.

Then, even though it is possible to say that the offspring of Marco Polo, a Non-Chinese man became Chinese because they got absorbed into the Chinese after several generations, we nonetheless cannot say that Marco Polo himself was  a "Chinese" or became a Chinese at his time. He remained a Venetian, though his unknown offspring may have become Chinese.

We can say the less that the many interesting travels he made on the way to China, the realm of Mongol Yuan State, were part of Chinese history because his descendants became Chinese. The travel made by Polo was as a Venetian, not as a Chinese.  

Therefore, the origin of historical people is directly relevant.  "Italians" may say that "Marco an Italian" did such and such things in the Mongol-ruled China and his descendants became Chinese. But, Chinese cannot say that a Chinese Marco made such and such great travels (merely based on the fact that Marco's offspring became Chinese or remained in China)

The same "logic" (but not your logic) may apply to the history of Non-Chinese Xia or Eastern Barbarian (Dong Yi)s, even though many of them (even all of them) became abosorbed into the later day Chinese. The history before that point is not the history of China, but merely the history of Xia people (who were Hunnic (Turko-Mongolic) people using Altaic language with some tribes or elements of Qiangic people using  Tibeto-Burmese language.
 
 

Edited by Shigintang
Back to Top
wefone90 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 26-Feb-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote wefone90 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2006 at 17:44
"First, say, Japanese occupied China for a while, but they all returned home thereafter. But, we cannot say the Japanese are Chinese."

The Japanese are very different, they occupied part of China, but their capital stills based in Japan, unlike Mongols or Manchu Empires, their cultural metropolis were based in China.

Edited by wefone90
Back to Top
bigtoothbrush View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 121 		  Quote bigtoothbrush Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2006 at 18:18
China itself is a mixed by different groups. Who conquers this land, who will join these groups finally. from Han, Mongols to Manchus, all follow this rule. While Japanese failed to conquer this land, they lost the war finally. Just like Xiongnus did.  
Back to Top
Dayanhan View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 61 		  Quote Dayanhan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2006 at 14:54

Originally posted by bigtoothbrush

China itself is a mixed by different groups. Who conquers this land, who will join these groups finally. from Han, Mongols to Manchus, all follow this rule. While Japanese failed to conquer this land, they lost the war finally. Just like Xiongnus did.  

In fact, many historians think that the original Xia people are the direct ancestors of the Huns (Xiongnus).

Further, there are two ethnic groups who claim to be the direct descendants of Xiongnus or Xia people.

Sianbi (Xian Bei)-Mongols and Kitans claimed to be the offspring of the Huns and later-day Tanguts (Tibeto-burmese) claimed to be the descendants of Xia people and took their state name "Western Xia".

Modern Mongol scholars also claim that Xia people were basically "Di" people and that they were Mongol ancestors. Many scholars also think that Xia people come from Central Asia near Chinese border and Chinese Central Asia (Xi Yu: Western Region) and entered mainland China via He Xi (West of Yelloe River) corridor.
Veritas lux mea est!
Back to Top
bigtoothbrush View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 121 		  Quote bigtoothbrush Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2006 at 21:18

that's just a supposition. many historians also think that the original Xia people are the one of the direct ancestors of the huaxia people. 

furthermore, actually there must be tons of xiongnus became huaxia people due to the ethnical mixed. but you can't say all xiongnus became chinese.

Back to Top
Dayanhan View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 61 		  Quote Dayanhan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2006 at 14:19
Originally posted by bigtoothbrush

that's just a supposition. many historians also think that the original Xia people are the one of the direct ancestors of the huaxia people. 

furthermore, actually there must be tons of xiongnus became huaxia people due to the ethnical mixed. but you can't say all xiongnus became chinese.

 

It's not supposition of modern scholars alone. Those historic peoples claimed so in the ancient days. Chinese later adopted the therm of "Hua Xia" after they were ruled by the Non-Chinese Hua-Xia people who were the Huns and related peoples (laterday Turko-Mongols and Altaic people).

Some Huns partly became "some" individual "Chinese" (say, Liu family), but the majority Huns became ancestors of Turko-Mongols (Kazakh, Uighur, Mongols, etc.) and in farthern west, they became the Bulgaians, Magyar (Hungarian) and Fins (Finland).

They are the modern Huns. Therefore, they did not disapear at all or absorbed into Chinese.



Edited by Dayanhan
Veritas lux mea est!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.