dp

Scripts of Dawenkou



Relics of Dawenkou

^ Just a note, Dawenkou symbols are not considered a script by most non-Chinese scholars. If they were a script, that would mean people in China were writing back in the third or fourth millennium. This would place Chinese writing at the same age as Mesopotamian and Egyptian writing, which I find unlikely.

I know what are symbols and what are scripts BurdenOfAges.
The ancient culture of Dawenkou actually have their own written scripts.

Symbols are written languages just like the Aztec, Egypt, Mayan and etc...

Many scholars have different opinions. Some argue that the ancient culture of Shandong is the earliest Chinese civilization, while other disagreed.
In the mean time, you can't deny one over the others, because no one has come to any agreements, even by all scholars themselves.

There are many theories. One can't be right over the others.
In the mean time, the Hmong people did used to have their own characters, which were banned by the ancient Chinese as recorded by their oral history.

earliest written scripts were from Shang Dynasty though there were many many symbols found throughout China and other areas; they were not really an official script for the collective distribution of these symbols and markings on potteries

No, the Chinese nationalists believe their scripts came from the Shang Dynasty. That's their understanding and historical perspective. Many different scripts were indeed found around China. The Shang scripts stem from the lower basin, which is why the Chinese believe the scripts came from the Shang because they believe themselves to be people from the lower basin since Shang sphere located in the yellow river basin.

They can't claim other scripts because if they do, then it would go against their understanding of Chinese history and development. In nationalistic view, Shang would be the birthplace of Chinese scripts, but some argue that the scripts of Dawenkou are the oldest and earliest in China, not from nationalistic/Han views.

It's not from nationalistic/Han views that scholars claim Shang Dynasty had the earliest writing, since it's mostly international scholars who claim this. In fact, the scholars that insist on treating Dawenkou symbols as writing are usually Chinese scholars trying to extend the history of writing to earlier times, so as to "prove" that China had writing as early as the older civilizations of the Middle-East and Near East. Writing is not simply the process of setting down symbols, or else petroglyphs would be considered writing and those are ~10,000 years old. Writing is a linguistic innovation consisting of using symbols to represent words, rather than things (as pictures do). There is a very deep difference and it's beyond the expertise of most if not everyone here (including me).

Also, I don't think there's any attempt to "suppress" Dawenkou culture since contemporary Chinese historiography claims Dawenkou as its own. Even if there are Hmong nationalists who believe that Dawenkou is "theirs," it is not widely accepted and therefore of little consequence to the Chinese scholars who might care about such things. In short, don't believe in conspiracy theories where there are none. Like I said, the people who are suspicious of the Dawenkou script theory are mostly non-Chinese, and they have very good reasons for doing so.

I think you got it all wrong. Chinese as in what? Hmong in China are Chinese. There are actually no Hmong nationalists. I'm comparing the culture of Dawenkou to the culture of the Hmong. It's not claiming or anything.

First thing first is that people need to look outside the Chinese nationalist sphere. It's the same as some argue that Xia dynasty doesn't exist, yet it is taught in Chinese history class. Do you understand?

You're still ignoring the most important point: it's mostly non-Chinese scholars who are arguing that Dawenkou symbols aren't writing.

Have you been here the whole summer??? this board was loaded with people claiming that hmong created chinese civilization from writing to rice cultivation to the early dynasties.

Xia was up north along the HuangHe. Main grain were wheat and millet.

Rice came from south along the Yangtze. Says it all in the Shijing. Are you trying to say that "southern barbarians" were Chinese? I thought Mans and Miao people weren't "Chinese" according to the Hans because they seem to exclude all others (barbarians) except for proto-Hans.

Hmong/Miao doesn't have to claim anything. They ARE part of Chinese civilization; and that includes all other "barbarians" from the north, east, west, and south. You must remember, there were multi-ethnic groups living in the same area of the Huanghe and yangtze during Xia and Shang. It wasn't ONLY Han people or proto-Hans.

Let me play the devil's advocate for a moment, just to see whether you have a good answer to it.

You say that Hmong/Miao doesn't have to claim anything, because they are part of Chinese civilization...

...Then why don't they call themselves "Chinese?" The term, "Han," is a new word for an old identity. "Han" does not come from "Xia" (Suab). It does not come from "Zhou" or "Qin" or even the "Han Dynasty."

"Han" comes from "Hua"; historically, "Hua = Chinese." It is the quintessential self-designation of the Chinese for their own civilization. One can be "Hua" without being "native" (the Xianbei considered themselves "Hua," but they were not native to China). But one cannot be "Chinese" without being "Hua," because "Hua" meant "civilized," and if you were not civilized in the eyes of the "Hua," then you were a barbarian, a "non-Chinese."

If Hmong/Miao consider themselves Chinese, then why don't they call themselves "Hua?" If they had done so, they would have been (re)classified as "Han" under the modern ethnic framework. Then there would be no discussion of their identity. For you see, when the PRC came up with the "Han" designation, they included in it every people that considered themselves "Hua" and who could only speak and write a Chinese language. The Hmong/Miao were not included because the Hmong/Miao chose to not identify with "Hua." If so, how could they be considered Chinese?

Hmong/Miao don't call themselve Chinese because to them, it's more of an ETHNIC term rather than a NATIONAL designation.

I think only certain groups of Chinese refer to themselves as "hua" because guess what? Maybe that word is a Mandarin or whatever language the dominant group in Ancient and imperial China was so yeah... every culture see the other as "barbarians" and they often see themselves as "civilzed" and so the term "hua" isn't really universal across China i'd argue.

Notice that all Han people speak a sinotic language therefore, are related. Guess what? How related? Maybe this term "hua" is exclusive to those people that have the blood of the dominant group. Unless you could find me a group that doesn't speak a sinitic language that is HAN this theory might have some grouds.

Plus, Miao were always rebellious according to history. I don't think the "rebels" would accept that they are part of the "civilzed" world of their enemies. AKA "Hua". -_-

The modern name for China is Zhong Hua Ren Min Gong He Guo. In the West, this is translated as the People's Republic of China. Prior to the Communists, the Chinese Nationalists called the country Zhong Hua Min Guo - the Republic of China. There is a clear and obvious link between "Hua" and the notion of Chinese. Note that "Han" is not used. This is because "Han" does not have the same resonance with Chinese history, being a more recent term. Both "Han ren" and "Tang ren" (used by speakers of Cantonese) are subsets of "Hua ren." It is "Hua" that designates China. However, in official ethnic classification, "Han" is used because the PRC does not want to call its minorities "non-Hua" and therefore "barbaric." In truth, the old "Hua" is pretty much the new "Han."

The fact that Hmong/Miao do not think of themselves as "Hua" or "Han" implies that they did not think of themselves as being part of "Chinese" civilization. How do you justify your point about Hmong/Miao being part of Chinese civilization, in this case?

"Hmong/Miao doesn't have to claim anything. They ARE part of Chinese civilization; and that includes all other "barbarians" from the north, east, west, and south. You must remember, there were multi-ethnic groups living in the same area of the Huanghe and yangtze during Xia and Shang. It wasn't ONLY Han people or proto-Hans."


Let me give you a hard truth, the non-hans, manchus,mongols, tibetans,uighurs, contributed little to the benefit of chinese civilization as a whole. Hans the group that emerged as the majority in china did, hmongs were a nomadic tribe that contributed little to chinese civilization. If uighurs claimed that they invented what the hans did because they are part of chinese civilization i'll be asking him if he is high.

Okay, so Hua is the term to use from now on instead of Han to avoid ambiguity.

First of all, to them "hua" or Chinese is the same as Black and White in America in the Hmong usage. I don't think the "blacks" would think of themselves as "white". You see this? The word for Chinese isn't a national designation to them but to the Chinese/Hua people, it might.

Hmongs calling themselve "hua" or Chinese in their language would LITERALLY mean that they are no longer Hmong. It's basically equivalent to ethnic identity or name. The vocabulary for Chinese or "hua" in the Hmong language serves to identify the dominant group in Ancient China. Hmongs cannot see themselves as being another ethnic identity such as Kinh or Yi or Bouyi or "hua".

And the part about Chinese civilization. Example, what if group A contributed to the civilization no matter how small but then never was part of the majority. Does that mean that they are no longer part of the civilization just because they do not identify themselve with this name? So you're basically saying that as long as they accept the label "hua", and even if they didn't contribute, that they are indeed, part of the Civilation. I'm not trying to claim that Hmong/miao contributed anything but i think it's concievable that all groups may had contributed something be it slaves or people or whatever. Even "barbarians" contributed in a way.

But my question is... how could "Hua" people claim rice cultivation if "Hua" people came from the north? Rice cultivation clearly came from the south as indicated in the Shijing. South was home to "barbarians" such as the Man. So now these "barbarians" are part of Chinese civilization too? The question is, what is their identity? First "barbarians" and now "hua"?

Further more, from my undertstanding you're basically saying that "barbarians" such as the western Rong, eastern Yi, northern Xiongnu, and southern Man are now the minorities of China? Since they were "barbarians" and thus, not "hua" therefore, those "barbaric" people around Chinese Civilization are now to be found amoung the Chinese minorities?

I won't comment on your argument because i see a major flaw in one of your claims.

"hmongs were a nomadic tribe that contributed little to chinese civilization"

First of all, Hmong/miao are NOT normadic people. They are known for agricultural practices. Normadic people are usually from the west and north. Mongols and Manchu people.

Second, you said "contributed little" to Chinese civilization. That isn't a nuetral claim to begin with. All contributions should be equally acknowledge. Of course the bulk of Chinese civilization are from "hua" people but that's not a surprise. Their population in proportion is like 100X.

Let me answer your question with a question.

The Muslims of the Middle-East undoubtedly contributed to Western civilization, but does that make them a part of Western civilization?

How can a people that does not identify with a civilization be a part of it?

small contribution does not make them part of the civilization. I see where you're going with this. Makes sense but i still disagree with others

saying that Miao or Yue minorities trying to claim rice cultivation. Xia and Zhou and Shang were northern dynasties eating millets.

So now "hua" people are claiming rice cultivation which is clearly a southern thing from "barbarians". Makes alot of sense to me. It's all about about who's stronger.

My example, Native Americans lived through the booming economy of the United States. They might have contributed very very little. But they are also part of it because they live in it. I think we're misunderstanding the difference between being part of it actively and passively; or directly and indirectly

Isn't there a difference between claiming an invention (ie rice cultivation) and being part of a civilization?

China has been populated and ruled by many groups that were once very different, ethnically speaking. This does not change, however, the common trend that groups claiming to be "Chinese" claimed to be "Hua." The Xianbei claimed it, the Manchus claimed it, even the Communists claimed it. To this end, it is a defining feature of the civilization and a critical aspect of membership within it. Of course, the rule is not hard and fast, but the relationship is there: Hua and Chinese, Chinese and Hua.

About your Native American analogy: Native Americans are certainly part of America, the country and its history. But are they part of the civilization that America represents? Are they part of the "West" - the European version of "Hua?"

About the Native American analogy i wouldn't say that they are part of the "west". But we all know White Europeans labeled Native Americans as "savages/barbarians". We all know about Ancient Aztec and other native civilizations. It's all about who gets to label who; also who claims what.

Like you said, If the Manchus and Xianbei once made that claim of "hua" i guess there isn't an absolute "hua" identity. It's all about who claimed it. What if some random Yue people had claimed it also... would they be "hua" too?

Isn't a group's identity ultimately and fundamentally about what it identifies with?

If that's the definition of "Hua" then i'm not impressed at all. It's all but a collective identity of people who ruled China. Anyone who's not on that "special list" isn't part of Chinese Civilization. How could a collective identity think of themselves so pure; excluding all that didn't identify with it. Therefore, it is concievable and safe to say that to be part of the history of China you must lose your identity; That is, it is ONLY the SININIZED or ASSIMILATED that enjoys this to this day.

I do not post this to impress you, but to challenge you about the definition and nature of identity. Too many people believe that ethnic identity is based on purity and descent, yet their beliefs are ill-founded. When the curtain rose at the dawn of history, China was populated by a myriad of people scattered across hundreds if not thousands of local communities, each with their own tribal identities. Among these, a few macro identities rose to the fore - identities like Xia, Hua, Yue, Miao, Xianbei. The formation of these identities followed the formation of political states and confederations, which provided opportunities for intercultural exchange and, ultimately, homogenization. Thus, identities were created and adopted, and then passed down - not only from parents to children, but also from states to subjects, elites to commoners, and peoples to peoples.

The Hmong/Miao exist, today, because they chose to identify with Hmong/Miao, and not Hua. They could've chosen otherwise, and indeed most people in China did, but the Hmong/Miao did not. To this end, why say that Hmong/Miao is part of Hua (Chinese) civilization? Why not respect their historical choice to not be identified as Hua?

So basically majority of Manchus became part of Chinese civilization because they lost their ways and became Hans.

I could understand your logic regarding assimilation and acculturation to homogenization. I only say that Miao were part of Chinese civilation because i'm pretty sure there were some kind of taxation system back then. Hence the great miao rebellion during Qing due to taxation from Han Chinese.

So if you say that simply paying tax isn't enough to be part of Chinese history then i guess not. I pay tax but i cannot vote.

Nice discussion with you. Until next time... Goodnight.

Identity, it seems to me, is not only a cage, but also an opportunity. To this end, people's ability to change their identities is an ultimate expression of the freedom to choose their own narratives. For the Chinese, the Hua, it is a story of emperors and philosophers, of imperial glory and high culture - yet tinged with tragedy, and sorrow, and hubris, of terrible violence, barbarism committed in the name of righteousness, of moral corruption, social exploitation, and the suffering of the masses. The Chinese will have their pride, yet they will pay for it, as well.

As for the Hmong, perhaps the Hmong will remain the Hmong, and continue to tell their children the same stories they've told for thousands of years...

To us, history is a way to find our root and place in the world. It hold no grudges, although it sometimes create the underline tension and emotional feeling. Many of the Hmong religious rituals, songs, funeral traditions, cultural traditions are actually reenacting/interpreting historical events.

Taxing has been used during the early Han Dynasty. It was part of legalism.