Gebruiker:Guss/commentaar uit andere wikipedia's

East Yi West Xia

I reverted Guss2's insertion of the "East Yi West Xia" theory. What I mean by "the hypothsis of the pluralistic origins of Chinese culture" is not that obsolete theory but the theory originally named "區系類型論," which started to gain broad support in 1980s. And I don't think it's better to introduce "East Yi West Xia" here because it just confuses readers unfamiliar with this topic. --Nanshu 02:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Nanshu! There are still some questions which keep puzzling me. If you will spent some time in answering them I feel obliged to you:

1. Is it always possible to exchange Yi for Dongyi when talking about the ancient people living in Haidai region, whatever the period talked about, or should Dongyi be reserved for some specific time-period?
2. Does the East Yi West Xia theory, which you rightly call obsolete, talk about Yi or about the same Dongyi mentioned in this article?
3. Although the East Yi West Xia theory is obsolete it was very influential during the 30 odd years it was accepted. Confusing readers can never be a good reason to omit this theory in an ecyclopaedic article talking about usage of Dongyi in modern times. So should the theory at least be mentioned, eventually embedded in a warning that it is an obsolete theory?
4. When talking about 區系類型 isn't it better to name the scholar (Su Bingqi 蘇秉琦) who introduced the theory instead of a vaguely Some Chinese scholars?
5. Does Su Bingqi talk about Yi or Dongyi (or is it all the same, see first question)?
6. A Chinese archaeologist like Luan Fengshi refers to the Yueshi culture as representing Dongyi. But according to D. Cohen this interpretation is problematic. In his The Yueshi Culture, the Dong Yi and the Archaeology of Ethnicity in Early Bronze Age China (Ph.D. Dissertation Harvard University), Cambridge MA, 2001) he argues the Dongyi as an ethnic group was a concept initially formed during the Western Zhou dynasty, which is a few hundred years later than the Yueshi culture; there is no necessary linkage between the stylistic similarity of an archaeological culture such as the Yueshi culture and the ethnic group identified as Dongyi by itself and others during the Yueshi period. Archaeologically speaking, the Yueshi culture, probably comprising a number of social groups, shows a level of social complexity similar to the Longshan chiefdoms. Should this doubt be inserted into the article?
7. Finally I remain puzzled by the sentence Some other scholars also claim a connection between ancient Dongyi and the modern Yi people in southwestern China.[2]. Unfortunately the reference you gave is not available here. So please could you tell me in just a few words how this connection is explained. For me this connection as it is brought into the article seems rather illogical from a geographical point of view, though I admit I am an outsider on this point.
   Guss2 12:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Before answering your questions, I want you to keep in mind:

1. As the original author of this article, I aimed to arrange historical usages of Dongyi in chronological order. I lean toward literary sources. Honestly, modern usages lie outside of my scope of interest. I'm not an expert of Chinese archaeology.
2. Personally, I don't support Chinese scholars' usage of Dongyi. The section 3.1 is my reckless attempt to summarize what they say.

Okay. I'm trying to answer them.

1. As stated in the article, I think the term "Dongyi" came into use during the Western Zhou Dynasty. I don't like to apply this term to earlier people.
2. Not sure.
3. For me it's difficult to organize nicely current theories which vary considerably and often contradict each other. Adding old theories is beyond my ability. But if you can, I welcome your work.
4. If you think so, I don't prevent you from improving the article.
5. Not sure.
6. His opinion is useful, I think. As I said above, I personally dont't support Chinese scholars' usage of Dongyi. I'm always skeptical about assumptions that mythology reflects distant past.
7. I also doubt the validity of the Dongyi-Yi彝 connection. I learned this theory when I read Matsumaru:1999, which was a kind of a tutorial for Feng Shi's paper (冯时:「山东丁公龙山时代文字解读」『考古』、1994年第1期). Then I read Cai:2003 and found out about supporters of the far-fetched story. Cai claims that the Yi people 彝人 were identical with the Yi people 夷人 and that some of the Yi 夷 people of modern-day Shandong province moved to the southwestern provinces of Guizhou, Yunnan and Sichuan around 1600 BCE. He attributes his explanation to the late Wang Xiangtang 王献唐 but does not cite his source (personal communication?).

--Nanshu 11:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

_____________________

Mostly the Zizhi Tongjian (both the original as written by Sima Guang and as translated into modern Chinese by Bo Yang), supplemented with the official histories Book of Jin, Book of Song, and Book of Wei. Thanks for your comments. --Nlu (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

Guss, thanks for your work. I've tried to translate it for the Shu Han and Confucius English Wiki articles. SO much better than what is there already.

Evangeline