Talk:Chu (state)

Language

any information on the languages spoken and how it differed from states further north? How would they have pronounced the name of their state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.102.65 (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Although this question has been here for a long time, but...I just added a language section. The Chu language shows a predominantly Tai-Kadai influence. The rulers of Chu probably spoke a variety of Old Chinese being on its way to merge with non-Sinitic languages, which are believed to be chiefly Tai-Kadai. Gustmeister (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

See below. — LlywelynII 02:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chen (state) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this would merge with the Chu page, unless the state literally has no history, in which case a mention of it's annexation would just occur on the Chu page.

It is a Zhou vassal state, it's annexation would appear to be it's only connection to Chu. FourLights (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Chu (state)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Chu (state)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "map":

• From Wulipu: "沙洋县行政区划图". 沙洋县人民政府门户网站 www.shayang.gov.cn (in Simplified Chinese). 湖北中大空间地理信息数据中心. November 2012. Retrieved 31 March 2018. from west to east: X020{...}白虎村{...}火龙村{...}草场村{...}陶场村{...}安全村{...}联合村{...}两河村{...}十岭村{...}焦柳铁路{...}杨集村{...}白岭村{...}G207{...}团林铺镇{...}十里铺镇{...}许场村{...}严店村{...}五里社区居民委会{...}G55{...}五里铺镇{...}金台村{...}左冢村{...}赵集村{...}枣店村{...}显灵村{...}刘集村{...}合心村{...}陈池村 {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
• From G55 Erenhot–Guangzhou Expressway: "沙洋县行政区划图". 沙洋县人民政府门户网站 www.shayang.gov.cn (in Simplified Chinese). 湖北中大空间地理信息数据中心. November 2012. Retrieved 31 March 2018. {...}G55{... {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)}

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The inclusion of the states of Wu, Yue and Tai-Kadai in the see also links

@Thomasettaei:User Thomasettaei have continuously deleted links to the states of Wu, Yue and Tai-Kadai in the see also section. This user claims that:

• Quality articles at most usually include one or two links
• See also is not a mandatory section

Where are the regulations that these silly words based on ?

If there are, then I wouldn't proceed in undoing this user's edit. Otherwise, I would have to put the links to the states of Wu, Yue and Tai-Kadai in the see also section.

Here are some featured articles with more than six links in the see also [1], [2], [3], [4].

The populations of the states of Chu, Wu, and Yue are related. Therefore, links to these states are needed. Gustmeister (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gustmeister: per MOS:NOTSEEALSO: "the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes". Many of the links you added are already linked in the article. -Zanhe (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Zanhe:OK, thanks for the link. Is Thomasettaei a different account of yours? Gustmeister (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

No, but this article is on my watch list. -Zanhe (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth Gustmeister you were right and they were wrong. Aside from WP:IAR, Zanhe—despite being a great editor for Chinese articles generally—grossly overstates the MOS:SEEALSO policy. It's to avoid unhelpful WP:OVERLINKing but in this case it's helpful for WP:READERS to be able to quickly get to the southern quasi-Chinese Zhou state Yue and Wu articles in relation to Chu. Instead, the policy would activate and be correctly applied to remove mostly unhelpful links to other random Zhou polities like Qin or Lu. Something like that—listing all of the Zhou states—would be better handled by an infobox at the bottom of the page instead.

If there already is one that does include Yue and Wu already (like there is now) that is the reason Yue and Wu don't also need to be in the #See also section. The links are already clearly available in the same area of the article for the curious. (The current Zhou state template seems like it could be better organized—in particular to separate those southern not-quite-Chinese-yet ones—but that's a separate issue to be handled on the template's talk page.) — LlywelynII 02:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

identity issues

Chu (state), Qin (state), Yan (state)

It is illustrated in the sources provided that these three states were frequently called "barbarian" by those in the Central Plains. Whether this view is caused by genuine difference in ethnic identity or just snobbery should be addressed. Why are they removed or toned down without any discussion? 42.61.172.8 (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Because of Chinese nationalism seeking to downplay past ethnic divisions within China and to avoid offending local patriotism, most likely. Information supported by reliable sources is not supposed to be removed per Wikipedia policy, but since IPs are more likely to just give up than to engage in a long dispute resolution process, many people like to just ignore policies and do whatever they want in conflicts with IPs.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I've addressed by adding the following paragraph to the "Founding" section.

"According to contemporary scholars such as Yang Shao-Yun, the Chu state emerged as a Man (蛮) kingdom, rather than as a Zhou state. The Chu state expanded into Henan and annexed some Zhou states while forcing others into vassalage. Despite not originating as a Zhou state, it was conditionally accepted over time by the Zhou states as one of them due to the Chu elite's adoption of Zhou culture, including writing in the Zhou language"

I cite from Singaporean sinologist Yang Shao-Yun's paper here: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/entities/publication/0698fadf-fb91-4347-89b9-ab74f1b7201f

(open source link here): https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/48624764.pdf

If any wikipedia editors try to covertly remove this aspect of Chu's history, ostensibly for nationalistic purposes, let me know, I'll go edit it in again. Veryhappyhugs (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the topic of this discussion may be considered an example of (or somewhat associated with) “doubting antiquity” (疑古), originally led by Chinese scholars like Gu Jiegang starting around the 1920s. While the 2007 paper by Sinologist Yang Shao-Yun for example supported the position as shown above, if we also look at scholarly works from more recent years, I am afraid that the issue is not so simple. For example, according to the work “CHU IDENTITY AS SEEN FROM ITS MANUSCRIPTS: A REEVALUATION” by Sinologist Yuri Pines, published by the Cambridge University Press in 2017:

”The traditional view of Chu as a distinct cultural entity was reinforced in the last quarter of the twentieth century, as many discoveries from the Chu tombs brought to light the peculiar, “flamboyant” style of its mortuary objects. Lothar von Falkenhausen observed: “Dazzled by these unique archeological treasures, many scholars and impressionable laypersons had been clinging to the romantic notion that Chu was a separate southern civilization, an elegant and exuberant other to the dour, disciplined Zhou in the north.” Yet this view of Chu as an “alternative civilization” was questioned later in view of subsequent archeological discoveries. The new understanding, summarized by Xu Shaohua in the seminal volume by Constance A. Cook and John S. Major is that “there is little archeological evidence of a distinctive Chu culture during the Western Zhou times.” It was only from the Springs-and-Autumns period on that a divergent cultural pattern associated with Chu began emerging, and even then Chu's elite culture remained strongly conformant with the Zhou ritual practices. This suggests an entirely different cultural trajectory: Chu was not a “barbarian entity” attracted by the glory of the Zhou culture as hinted in the Mengzi, but a normative Zhou polity that developed cultural assertiveness in tandem with the increase in its political power.”

Article link: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-chinese-history/article/chu-identity-as-seen-from-its-manuscripts-a-reevaluation/F613B0456B641581DFE04E8B5C011CBC

This newer paper apparently suggested that the Chu state did not emerge as a Man (蠻) kingdom, but instead a divergent cultural pattern associated with Chu began emerging during the Spring and Autumn period. I think it represents the result of more recent researches and archeological discoveries and it clearly contradicts with Yang Shao-Yun’s view, which (even if makes sense to a certain extent) cannot be said to represent contemporary scholars as a whole anyway. In any case we can represent both, since Yang Shao-Yun hardly represents contemporary scholars as a whole. —-Wengier (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Wengier, thanks for responding with this excellent article, i believe I came across this some time ago, it is good you raised it. I have a few points to raise here:

1. Yuri Pines' article wasn't critiquing the skepticism of Chu's identity relative to the 'Believing Antiquity' school of modern historians, but rather the labelling of 'barbarian' and Otherness by ancient contemporaries of Chu, by other Zhou states. Yang's and Pines' articles might not be as contradicting as you surmise (more on that below, see point 3 and 4). By any chance, I'd be careful of labelling Yang Shao-Yun as part of a so-termed 'Believing Antiquity' school if he had not identified himself so.
2. Yang's article claims regarding Chu being a Man kingdom comes from ancient Chinese sources themselves, not necessarily archaeology, namely the Zuoshi Chunqiu (左氏春秋) and Sima Qian's Shiji (史记). Hence it is not as if the later archaeological research overturns the earlier as you claimed. Although I do consent to your point that the Shiji might be quite a anachronistic text given its written several centuries later (as many primary sources unfortunately tend to anyway).
3. More importantly, Yang Shao Yun did not claim Chu to be apart from the zhongguo framework, or that its an entirely separate 'civilization', only that its initial phase was not as a Zhou state, but later increasingly participated in the Zhou realm. Pines' is therefore not fully critiquing Yang here, as Pines' is arguing against Zhou-era propaganda by northern states against Chu that emphasized Chu's entire Otherness from the zhongguo/zhou states.
4. I agree that Pines' does hold to the stronger view that Chu did emerge from the Zhou framework by virtue of shared historiographical traditions (among others), although I wonder if the evidence he shared is compatible with a Chu that simply started outside the Zhou realm, and participated later within it? I think the evidence still open.

My suggestions: Let's keep your newly added paragraph, but I intend to slightly rework the grammar of your paragraph to create a more neutral tone, rather than mine and yours seemingly trying to step over each other. Instead, I hope that they read as a seamless whole presenting diverse perspectives (including the legendary one above both ours). Let me know if this is good, and feel free to make more changes if you need to!

Happy working with you on this! Veryhappyhugs (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Veryhappyhugs, thanks for your responding. First of all, I have to mention that I did not know (and indeed a bit surprised to hear) that you already came across Pines‘s article some time ago, apparently because you did not mention it in your earlier comment(s). I do also think that Pines’ article is an excellent one. While his view may not contradict with Yang Shao Yun’s view in all aspects, he apparently does have a (clearly noticeably) different view from the view by Yang Shao Yun. So Pines‘s view does need to be to represented in the article (probably in addition to Yang Shao Yun‘s view). This is my main point. As for “doubting antiquity”, you may be right about it, but I will add that “doubting antiquity” is not really my main point, and I never mentioned this in the article anyway, so I think we can disregard this one for now. Instead, my main point is simply that Pines‘s view need to be represented in the article if Yang Shao Yun‘s view is represented in the article, since as I mentioned earlier Yang Shao-Yun does not represent contemporary scholars as a whole. We, as Wikipedians, do not need to have a strong view, but rather the article should be focused on representing the views from reliable sources (instead of ourselves). I am completely fine if we can make it read as a seamless whole presenting diverse perspectives, as long as the views from reliable sources are properly represented (according to their weights etc), and I will also slightly rework the paragraph for this. Thanks! —Wengier (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion

Especially for the known info on Shang-era relations to Chu,

• Li Xueqin (1991), "Chu Bronzes and Chu Culture", New Perspectives on Chu Culture during the Eastern Zhou Period (PDF), Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 1–22.

seems to have some pretty helpful info. Interested editors should kindly add it in when they've got time. — LlywelynII 02:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, i will have a good read of this (quite a hefty tome!) and I'll add when I can! Veryhappyhugs (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Size on the map

When I compare the map shown in the lede (supposedly for 350 BC) with other maps on Wikipedia for both later and earlier parts of the Warring States period (for 260 BCE and for the 'early Warring States period', so presumably the fifth century BCE), Chu seems to extend much farther to the south in the map in the lede. The map in the lede makes it seem as if Chu included almost all of today's southern China, while the usual picture I'm familiar with is of it still being mostly confined to the northern half of today's China. If there is a disagreement before the sources or a genuine change of this sort (expansion to the south followed by shrinking) in time, this should be stated explicitly and sourced, and a map corresponding to the most prevalent view should be used. As things stand, the version shown in the lede makes me suspect that this is part of a revisionist nationalist desire to claim that China has always had its present territory, or of the current trend to emphasise a supposed (partly) southern origin of Chinese civilisation, all written evidence be damned (IMO, also an attempt to flatter southerners' local patriotism and to reinforce Chinese unity) . 62.73.69.121 (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi 62, I agree with you that the territorial extent depicted on this map feels excessive. I think I prefer maps such as c:File:China Warring States Period.png, where the alpha channel shows sites and areas that were part of the Zhou cultural ecumene, without interpolating all spaces in between the population centres as being controlled by some aristo-king.

Interestingly, the source cited by the creator of the present map, The Historical Atlas of China (essentially the modern definitive standard for Chinese historical geography) doesn't presume territorial control in this way.

While I don't doubt that Chu advanced up the Gan River and established a site called Nanye, up the Xiang River and founded Pang, and up the Yuan River and founded Chenyang, the idea that the state somehow exerted sovereignty over all the peoples in all the mountains in between strikes me as pretty simplistic.

That said, I'm not really a subject matter expert on the geography of the Warring States period. Is there a map in c:Category:Maps of the Warring States Period you strongly prefer over the current one? Folly Mox (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)