Talk:Donghu people/Archive 1

Did 胡 mean "nomadic people"?

Are there any verifiable references that define the Chinese word hu 胡 as "nomads"? Many English dictionaries and books define it as literally "barbarian" and figuratively "foreign", but I can't find any published sources for "nomadic people". Keahapana (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

On the interpretation of "胡" as "nomadic people"

To answer your question, the Chinese character "胡" is one of the commonest last names seen among the Chinese, including the current president of China, 胡锦涛，the former General Secretary of China, 胡耀邦, whose death resulted in the pro-democracy movement in the late 1980s, and a famous leader during the Nationalist time in China, 胡宗南. There is no such interpretation that the character 胡 in itself represented anything like "barbarian" or "foreign."

In historical terms, the last name "胡" likely came from the Xianbei, who descended from the Donghu. During the Northern Wei, the Xianbei changed their names into the Chinese styles and totaled about 114 last names. Genealogical research suggests that the "Hegu" and "Tuoba" of the Xianbei changed their last names into "Hu," who were one of the seven ruling clans of the Northern Wei. Some of them changed "Hu" into "Li" later. Through their extensive rulings over China from the Northern Wei through the Sui and Tang Dynasties, the Xianbei culture was immersed with that of the Chinese. They laid the political and social structures of China, while the Chinese for most of the history were peasants who passively received the cultures developed by the Xianbei. After most of the Xianbei lost their language and ethnic identity, they became indistinguishable from the Chinese.

The English dictionaries may indicate that the term "Hu" meant "barbarian" or "foreign," but it is simply false. The imperial centers of China had historically defined all peoples who surrounded them as "barbarians" from the east, south, west, and north. Since the Ming Dynasty, which is the only dynasty that the peasant southern Chinese could claim to, ethnic identities and history of China have been systematically altered. They claimed to be "Han" and took credit for the Chinese civilization that has been substantially developed by the northern nomadic people. To hide the fact that they were "nan man" or "southern barbarians," they turned the Chinese history upside down and stigmatized the nomadic peoples. Western knowledge on the history of China has been substantially influenced by the biases projected by the falsifications and alterations of the southern Chinese.

"Donghu" was historically interpreted to be the "eastern Hu" based on the Chinese characters and their location on the east of the Xiongnu. As the names suggest, there was no "Hu" in the name of the Xiongnu, which suggests that the term "Hu" did not come from the Xiongnu. It is more likely that the term "Hu" was applied to the other northern nomadic peoples because of the extensive dominance of the Donghu over the Xiongnu and other nomads. The fact that Mongols referred to Donghu as "Tünghu" is further evidence that "Donghu" was an ethnonym by itself, rather than implying "eastern Hu" as the Chinese have historically claimed.

--Alexjhu —Preceding undated

Thanks for explaining your interesting linguistic opinions and original research. I noticed that on this edit (summarized with "Where the hell did your interpretation of "barbaian" [sic] come from? Get your facts right!"), you intentionally changed Burton Watson's quoted Shiji translation from "barbarians" to "nomads" and "peoples". Perhaps you don't understand this violates Wikipedia's Minimal Change rule for verbatim quotations. WP:MOSQUOTE says: "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation. Where there is a good reason not to do so, insert an editorial explanation of the changes, usually within square brackets (for example, [her father] replacing him, where the context is omitted in the quotation)." Would you rather revert these misquotations yourself or should I? Keahapana (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and not very clear on its rules, although I have very much appreciated it for providing a platform to explore and discuss just about every subject of interest in the world. In the last couple of years, I have been conducting extensive amount of research on the history and culture of China. One consistent theme that came across was that the Chinese history has been systematically distorted to make the "Han" in the center while stigmatizing the non-"Han" peoples, filled with fallacious characterizations. Since Western understandings of China in the past were substantially derived from the Chinese sources, they have been invariably influenced by the bias projected from the Chinese sources. These findings compelled me to make edits and changes on the errors. It occurred to me that much of the misunderstanding of the Western scholars was unintentional and came from a lack of understanding of the complex history and culture of China. As much as "Shiji" has been recognized as a monumental piece of work, the consensus among most Chinese historians is that it was not only biased by the personal opinions of Sima Qian, but also by the political mandate to serve the rulings of the central court. A full discussion of it is beyond the scope of this page. As my writings get published, I will provide relevant references. For the time being, perhaps you can make necessary changes as you see fit by noting the historical biases present in the Chinese sources and Western understandings of China. --Alexjhu

Thank you. I'll correct the quotes and related problems. Later, I'll add more information, which you can revise accordingly. Yes, Chinese historiography reveals that all history is inherently biased, whether ancient Confucianist or modern Marxist. In the future, please feel free to ask me (here) for help with WP conventions. I'd suggest you read WP:MOS (for general information), WP:NOT (Wikipedia isn't a discussion platform), and to create a user page (which would eliminate your name's redlink). Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Since we seem to agree that the original interpretation for the name of "Donghu" made by the Chinese and Western scholars were flawed, I removed all indications of "barbarians" from the page. There is no need to honor this derogatory assertion; otherwise all the peoples around the world, except the Chinese living in the political centers of China, would be characterized as "barbarians." You may check out this article: Jiang, Linchang [江林昌] (2007). "Wu di shi dai zhong hua wen min de zhong xin bu zai zhong yuan [The center of the Chinese civilization was not in the Central Plains during the period of the Five Emperors] 五帝时代中华文明的重心不在中原." Dong yue lun cong [Dong Yue Tribune] 东岳论丛 28(2): 9-21. As it indicates, archaeological and historical research has shown that the most advanced culture in China was developed by the "Dongyi," or "the eastern barbarians," including the written script that was made into the official language of China. Through the two thousand years of imperial history of China, historical truism was systematically distorted in order to serve the rulings of the central court. --Alexjhu —Preceding undated comment added 03:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

I assumed WP:GOODFAITH and mistook your "I am relatively new to Wikipedia and not very clear on its rules" to be true. I now realize that you've been editing WP since May 2007 and consistently refuse to follow the rules. Claiming that we agree is shamefully disingenuous. One of us is adding well-sourced facts and the other is trying to censor them. "Facts are stubborn things" and "Eastern Barbarians" is the customary English translation for Donghu. If you find any published English sources that say it wasn't originally pejorative, please add them. Chinese-language sources like a newspaper article are trivially irrelevant for this historical topic; see WP:NONENG. I'm reverting your unjustifiable POV deletions and adding further references. I won't engage in an edit war and if you continue to violate WP policies, I'll ask for outside help. Keahapana (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to get personal or question how long I have used Wikipedia or was clear of its rules. As a free-minded intellectual, I have appreciated the technological advancements as represented by the internet and scientific developments that have enabled most of us not to be trapped in the ancient imperial bogus invented by the emperors or dictators. As China becomes more open, archaeological and social sciences research has progressed rapidly. Whereas some of their research findings confirmed previous assumptions, others challenged them, enabling the Chinese social sciences to shift toward a more post-modernistic approach to examine the "social and political constructions" made by the imperial dynasties or emperors, in contrast to the former Communist style dogmas. The references that I have provided came from the publications of some of the most distinguished Chinese historians and most authorative academic presses of China, rather than what you characterized as “newspaper articles.” There is no doubt that the native Chinese scholars are most suited to conduct studies on China related subjects, be they concerned with the Chinese history or culture. You may adhere to the outdated English sources, some of which have no doubt been associated with racist assertions that were probably applied to just about every human race on this planet. I have no interest in engaging in what you claimed to be an “edit war,” nor in knowing where and how your fixation on the “barbarians” came from. But I take it as my responsibility to share the latest research findings with the other members of the international community who may resort to Wikipedia as an expedient source of information. If you can carry out any solid intellectual discussion or provide enlightened reference sources to back up your adamant adherence to the imperial Chinese claim that all the other peoples outside of the Chinese political center were "barbarians," you may lay them out here for further discussions. If you cannot, I suggest you to withhold your outdated sources and mindset for yourself and not to resort to the Wikipedia rules as a means to impose your personal biases on how a particular subject should be defined. And please, do not try to threaten me with your “outside help." --Alexjhu

Edit war

It seems a most unfortunate and destructive edit war has developed with this article. I have just read the long complex arguments above and looked at some of the massive reversals of edits by Users Alexjhu and Keahapana. I will try to deal with the major issues here before making changes to the article.

First, to the easiest one to address: User Alexjhu has reversed the use of BCE and CE to BC and AD with no reason given that I can see. The Wikipedia rules are quite specific, see WP:ERA. "It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other." Also: "BCE and CE or BC and AD are written, in upper case, spaced, and without periods (full stops)." Now, the use of BCE and CE in this article was first used by myself and should, therefore, be continued.

Secondly, there is no way "hu" can be translated as "nomad". Hu 胡 is used for various northern and western peoples of non-Chinese stock. It was commonly used for people of Persian, Sogdian, Turkic, Xianbi, Indian and Kushan origin and, occasionally, for the Xiongnu (possibly because of their connections with the Tonghu or Eastern Hu – a separate tribe conquered by the Xiongnu).

One of the Western translators who commonly used "nomad" as a translation for 胡 was Hulsewé. However, Hulsewé’s translation of "hu" as "nomad" (see his note in China in Central Asia, p. 80, n. 71) cannot be accepted, as his own translation from the Hanshu on the state of Xiye (Hsi-yeh) proves (ibid. p. 101). He translates the passage to read: "[The people of] Hsi-yeh are different from the nomads; their race is of the same type as the Ch'iang and the Ti. It is a land of nomads; in company with their stock animals [the inhabitants] move around in search of water and pasture . . . ."

To say that the people from a "land of nomads" are "different from the nomads" is meaningless. The passage in question from Hanshu 96A reads: 西夜與胡異，其種類羌氐行國，隨畜逐水草往來。 I translate this as: "The Xiye are different than the Hu, they are similar to the Qiang and Di, following their herds to search for water and pasture."

Furthermore, Hu 胡 is used for various northern and western peoples of non-Chinese stock. It was commonly used for people of Persian, Sogdian, Turkic, Xianbi, Indian and Kushan origin and, occasionally, for the Xiongnu. (The latter use may be because the connections of the Xiongnu with the Tonghu or Eastern Hu – a separate tribe conquered by the Xiongnu). Now, many of these peoples cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as "nomads". So, please, let us not have this argument presented again.

It would seem, then, that "Hu" was used to express the concept of "non-Chinese". Whether this was considered derogatory or not probably depended on the context. To complete the picture I thought it might be of interest to include the following quotes from Marc S. Abramson (2008). Ethnic Identity in Tang China. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. ISBN 978-0812240528:

"One anecdote illustrates some of the complexities of ethnic identity in Tang China. In the late spring of 719, the South Indian Buddhist monk Vajrabodhi was living in Luoyang, the Tang Empire’s eastern capital and the second city of the empire after Chang’an, the western capital and the largest city in the world. . . . . Shortly afterward, Vajrabodhi’s attendants informed him that the emperor would soon issue an edict ordering "alien [fan] monks from foreign lands" to return home. Rather than referring to his supernatural powers (which he had wasted little time in demonstrating), his erudition, or past imperial favors to claim immunity, he denied that he belonged to the category of fan, the most common designation for ethnic outsiders, in the Tang sources. He is reported to have said, “I am an Indian monk, not a fan or hu [another common term for ethnic Others, often used to refer to peoples from Inner Asia], so the imperial edict doesn’t apply to me. I certainly won’t be leaving." Abramson (2008), p. viii.

And here we have a clear case of a pejorative association with Hu:

"Fu Yi mainly uses the term hu to refer to the originators and disseminators of Buddhism. Here and in other Buddhist polemics, hu combines the semantic fields of generic "barbarian" (which is how I have largely translated it in Fu Yi’s and other anti-Buddhist polemic works) and non-Han of the "Western Regions" (Xiyu; modern-day Xinjiang, Uzbekistan, southern Kazakhstan, and parts of Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan), the latter being the template for many stereotypical characteristics that were mapped onto all non-Han in much of Tang discourse. Many of these come out in Fu Yi’s polemics quoted above, including militarism, offensive smells, and ugly and incomprehensible speech. In addition, Fu Yi moves beyond the mainstream Tang genealogical definitions of non-Han ethnicity―which simply defined non-Han through their descent from ancestors from outside the historically accepted boundaries of China―with an explicitly racialist discourse positing hu as a separate species with non-human characteristics. He describes hu as "born out of mud" and condemns their mixing (za) with the Han population, probably referring to their integration into China’s communities but also to intermarriage. The position that Hu and Han were fundamentally different contributes to Fu Yi’s assessment in the second passage that non-Han are impervious to the transforming influence of Confucianism and thus to civilization in general: "If we were to transmit the teachings of Confucius to the Western Regions, the barbarians would certainly be unwilling to practice them." Abramson (2008), pp. 61-62.

As this all seems to support User Keahapana's positions, I will now reverse the changes to his last version. Please do not continue with this edit war. If User Alexjhu disagrees, I think it is up to him or her to ask the Wikipedia administrators to intervene. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

A Response

It seems either the "outside help" has arrived for Keahapana or conventional ignorance has overridden reasoning and common sense. In the face of groundbreaking research discoveries supported by solid references, on what ground can you claim the right to reverse the article back to a former page that reflects bigotry?

The citations that you provided are OUTDATED. Unless you can come up with more enlightened references that prevail upon the latest research discoveries of the Chinese scholars, your citations carry no weight, nor do they justify the maintenance of BIGOTRY and IGNORANCE.

Conventional Chinese and Western studies of the Chinese history and culture have been substantially influenced by the political schemes carried out in particular during the Han and Ming Dynasties, the only two peasant rebellions that ever established a centralized government in the imperial Chinese history. More and more historical and archaeological research has shown that the Chinese civilization was principally developed by the northern nomadic peoples, and was passively received by the Chinese for most of the history. Recent research has confirmed that the Sui and Tang Dynasties, the latter of which led China to develop into the most prosperous state of civilization seen in the Chinese and even the world’s history, were founded by the Xianbei who had descended from the Donghu. It has also been found that the legendary Chinese Emperors Yan and Huang, who had been upheld as the earliest ancestors of the “Huaxia,” came from the Western “Qiang,” rather than from central China where the majority of the Chinese have lived. Archaeological discoveries have linked the Chinese national totems of dragon to the Hongshan Culture, which had its bases in Manchuria. Whereas these “post-modernisitc” discoveries made by the Chinese scholars have substantially influenced social sciences research in China, Western understandings of the Chinese history and culture have lagged far behind and been trapped in the obsolete racist frameworks.

Since your argument is not based on intellectual merit, but merely resorted to the outdated English references, I am reversing the page until an administrator intervenes. --Alexjhu

Reply to a very angry response

I must object to Alexjhu's angry response to my note above. The citations I provided can hardly be called "outdated" - as they are taken from a well-respected work published in 2008 and refer to well-known works in Chinese which cannot just be denied because that suits the editor.

Also, I object to the accusations that the citations "justify the maintenance of BIGOTRY and IGNORANCE." I believe that you, Alexjhu, are the one supporting such attitudes by insisting on a one-eyed view of the Chinese and their culture.

Are you really trying to say that the Chinese did not sometimes exhibit scorn for foreigners? That they never exhibited a superior attitude to the tribal peoples to their west and north? Can anyone really believe that? I don't think you are doing the Chinese people themselves any favours by insisting on such a bizarre and one-sided assessment of Chinese attitudes - you are creating a picture of them as non-humans or people without normal human feelings and fears. Let me assure you that the Chinese are real people and do have faults and weaknesses and prejudices just like other people do. Much as I admire Chinese people in general, and their culture and history, they are not all perfect angels and, I am sure, would only laugh at anyone trying to paint them that way.

I have very carefully outlined what I think is true about the use of the term Hu in ancient texts. I said: "It would seem, then, that "Hu" was used to express the concept of "non-Chinese". Whether this was considered derogatory or not probably depended on the context."

How does such a statement justify you attacking me in this way? Are you really trying to insist that the term Hu was NEVER used in a derogatory way? Please give some evidence for this surprising claim.

Thanks for at least following my request that the original use of the Common Era notations be retained. However, it is clear we have a major divergence of views here and, seeing as you took it upon yourself to reverse the article once again (with a few changes), and did not request the help of the Administrators before you made such changes as requested, I will take it upon myself to contact the Administrators to request mediation here now. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional note on use of Common Era. On further examination of the changes I see there has been a reversion to the Christian Era in parts of the article (but not in others). Please revert to the Common Era which was the original style in this article. John Hill (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your opinions and perspective. Thanks also for requesting Mediation Cabal help. After this article becomes stable, I'll be glad to standardize the dates to CE and add your useful contributions. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Extra Note on the use of derogatory terms in the Hou Hanshu

I thought I should add here a note on the common use of a clearly derogatory term in the Hou Hanshu for the Xiongnu; i.e. Beilu.

The term Beilu 北虜 refers to the Northern Xiongnu who frequently and seriously threatened Chinese power and communications to the west. Beilu translates literally as 'Northern Captives' or 'Northern Prisoners of War' – clearly a deliberately derogatory term used by the Chinese for their bitter enemies as it was commonly used for the Xiongnu – even when they were not prisoners. Sometimes the text just refers to them as Lu, without even the Bei or 'Northern' attached.

Hulsewé and Loewe suggest in China and Central Asia, p. 170, n. 550, the rendering of lu 虜 as 'savage'; implying that the Xiongnu were uncultured (which they clearly were not - except, perhaps, in the imaginations of some Chinese). Another term, 'caitiff,' is sometimes used, but is not widely recognized these days in English. Accordingly, I have settled for the better-known term, 'scoundrels,' and translated Beilu 北虜 as 'Northern Scoundrels' throughout my new book, Through the Jade Gate to Rome: A Study of the Silk Routes during the Later Han Dynasty. 1st to 2nd Centuries CE. An annotated translation of the Chronicle on the 'Western Regions' from the Hou Hanshu which is due to be published soon in the U.S. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

comment

The Chinese have made bad names for everyone in history. The Americans called the Chinese "Chink." The Chinese called the white Americans 白鬼 (white devils), and the black Americans 黑鬼 (black devils) and 酱油鬼 (soy source devils). The mainland Chinese call the Americans 美国鬼子 (American sons of devils), the Japanese 倭寇 (short bandits), the Europeans 洋毛子 (Western hairy sons). They called the people with mixed ancestry 杂种 (mixed bastard) and sometimes 狗杂种 (doggish mixed bastard). In the past, the character 胡 may be interpreted in a bad way, but now it's a common surname. It's hard to believe it to be bad.

Mediation Cabal Case Discussion

I noticed this discussion on the WP:MEDCAB page. I can see that this article has editors who are deeply interested in improving the project. That is excellent to see. I believe that a large part of the problem above results from editors failing to fully explain from what independent secondary sources they are deriving their proposed additions. I suggest that each involved editor make a brief summary of their position. Please include in what way you would like the article to differ from its present form, and what sources support your proposed addition. Hopefully we can come to a concensus that allows all good-faith editors to contribute constructively. —Matheuler 17:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to mediate our regrettable problem with recurring reversions. The edit history details the back and forth, but let me summarize my POV. I contend that this article should provide complete and uncensored information, including the well-documented point that the exonym Hu anciently had a negative "barbarian" meaning. I've added various reliable sources (e.g., Pulleyblank, di Cosmo, Yu) that translate Donghu as "Eastern Barbarians", and have tried to ameliorate the tone by contrasting the ancient "barbarian; non-Chinese" and modern "foreign" meanings, including that quote about the Greeks, etc. (all of which have been deleted again). I could be wrong, but Alexjhu apparently contends that western academics, including eminent historians and sinologists, are categorically wrong about Hu. He/she believes this justifies removing wikilinks, altering and deleting quotations, and insisting that this English-language article exclusively rely upon unlinked Chinese-language sources. Yes, I want to improve this article and would humbly request that Alexjhu stop trying to bowdlerize the widely-known fact that Hu, like many Chinese character exonyms such as Wa (Japan) 倭, had disparaging connotations. I'm sympathetic with personal sensitivities to racial slurs but don't think individual feelings should supersede WP policies. I look forward to reaching a reasonable consensus. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Hill

My earlier response was not “angry” as you had interpreted. I have no cause to be “angry,” least over a disagreement in an internet discussion. Perhaps you perceived I got “angry” because “Hu” was my last name, which you may gather from my username, and a derogatory interpretation was made out of it in the English literature? If anyone should get “angry” over the negative interpretations of the last name of “Hu,” the President of China should be the first. Out of the 1.3 billion population of China, without counting those overseas, there are probably tens of millions of Chinese who bear the last name of “Hu.” There is no reason for me to make a personal deal about it and get “angry.” In the past history, both the Chinese and Western literature has imposed derogatory remarks and interpretations on just about every human race and ethnic group in the world. Why get “angry” about them now? My interest in the subject is merely intellectual: to try to understand how and where it came from.

Rather than feeling “angry,” I was first surprised and then amused that the English dictionary and literature would have made so ostensible a mistake to assert that the Chinese character “Hu” meant “barbarian” or “foreign.” It would probably shock hundreds of millions of the Chinese. It is amusing to imagine how many and for how long the Westerners have been misled by such an erroneous interpretation made in their dictionary. What came across as equally amusing was the sharp contrast between what appears to be taking place in China and in this Wikipedia discussion. As much as the Chinese intellectuals have been confined and more often suppressed by the Communist dogmas for more than half a century, a handful of prominent Chinese scholars carried out frontier research in recent decades to “deconstruct” some of the fundamental historical claims that have been either taken for granted for centuries or contended in China and abroad. They cross-examined an abundance of historical records, corroborated with ongoing archaeological excavations, and sought for historical truths. As evident from the Chinese internet messages and online discussions, some of these scholars have been attacked as the “Han traitors” by the others who seem to be frantically trying to hang on to the imperial indoctrinations. The educated characterized the attackers as “huang chong,” which literally means the “emperors’ worms or bugs,” which reflects that they are so brainwashed that they cannot break off from the submissive mentality formed over two thousand years of the imperial rulings of the emperors and fail to think on their own.

What came in sharp contrast was that in this Wikipedia discussion, I see no shortage of people outside of China who are equally adamant about trying to hang on to the ancient imperial doctrines, when their validity has been brought into doubts or overturned by the latest research. If the “emperors’ worms or bugs” in China adhere to the imperial indoctrinations because they lack factual information and cannot think on their own, what could account those who are outside of China to behave like them, the very people who have presumed to be living in a “free” world and criticized China for not being “democratic”? To defend the Western knowledge that turns out to be flawed in the face of new knowledge? Or to assert derogatory names upon the others just to make themselves feel better, much like what the Chinese have done in the past, who despite of been extensively conquered by the nomads and whose culture and genes have been infused with theirs, turn against their ancestry and fail to show any respect for truths?

It is common knowledge that the Chinese have historically asserted derogatory names to the other peoples around the world. The Chinese language is also self limiting in that it often cannot capture pronunciations from other languages and when transcribed, they appear odd and strange, which provide the ground to assert further derogatory interpretations.

In the interpretation of the name of “Donghu,” there are two possibilities: one is that “Donghu” was a Chinese phonetic transcription of their original name, and the other is that it was created by the Chinese solely on the belief that they were the eastern "barbarians” represented by the Chinese character "Hu." If “Donghu” was originally an ethnonym, then a derogatory interpretation cannot be made. Since it was merely a name, there should be no ground to associate it with derogatory interpretations unless arbitrarily imposed or asserted.

Based on available knowledge, as I had provided in the article and earlier comments, the Chinese historians have now come to consider that “Donghu” by itself was an ethnonym. The Chinese transcription came from their original name “Tünghu” as referred to by the Mongols. They have also come to consider that in the name of “Xiongnu,” who were referred to “Hun” in the West, the second character “nu” meaning “slave” or “servant” was asserted later. The derogatory interpretation made for the name “Hu” most likely occurred when historical facts were systematically distorted during the Han and Ming Dynasties and was further strengthened by Sun Yat-sen at the turn the last century.

There are two Chinese characters in the name of “Donghu.” The first character, “Dong,” means “east.” There should be no disagreement that the word “east” cannot have any derogatory meaning whatsoever, should there?

The point of contention concerns the second character “Hu.” As far as I can tell from how most Chinese would perceive it, the character in itself has no derogatory meaning either. In most countries in the world in the past and at present, China in particular, the names of individuals and identities of ethnic groups have always been an important marker and affected everyday lives of people. Based on common sense reasoning, if the character “Hu” had a derogatory meaning as “barbarian” and “foreign” as interpreted in the English dictionary and literature, what parents in the world would allow their children to grow up with a last name that would bring them only stigma and discrimination? Do you think the Chinese parents would not have thought and tried to replace the last name of their offspring with a more decent character? Since there are plenty of characters to chose from and be made into a last name, why would they stick to the one that is associated with an apparent derogatory meaning? What reasons can you come up with to explain that there are still tens of millions of Chinese who bear the character “Hu” as their last name and have no problem with it at all, including the President of China? If the last name of Hu Jintao is perceived to be least derogatory, let alone meaning “barbarian” and “foreign,” do you think he can sit in the position as the President of China comfortably? Would not his former leaders who had promoted him have made him change his last name, or would it not have already been carried out by his subordinates by now?

Perhaps the English dictionary compilers would argue that the Chinese character “Hu” had multiple meanings and that when it was applied to a group or groups of people, it meant “barbarian” or “foreign,” and when it was used in the name of individuals, it carried no derogatory meanings. If so, a question can be raised to the dictionary compilers: would they put such words as “barbarian” and “foreign” in the names of their children? The same argument can be made that such terms as “barbarian” and “foreign” carry a derogatory meaning only when applied to a group or groups of people, but are value neutral when used in the individual names. Would they accept the argument and name their children as such? If they don’t, there must be some other parents who might, but do you see or know anyone whose name bears such words as “barbarian” or “foreign”?

To solve this riddle, it may be necessary to examine when and how the earliest interpretations of the character “Hu” as “barbarian” and “foreign” came about in the English dictionary. A likely possibility is that the editors who made the earliest translation in the dictionary were influenced by their Chinese sources. Based on the current knowledge of how ethnic identities have evolved in China, the derogatory assertions against the northern nomads were intensified by Sun Yat-sen for the purposes of generating nationalism and uniting the Chinese internally to overthrow the last Qing Dynasty and externally against the Western powers. If the English dictionary was edited in this period and the Chinese participated in the process, the derogatory interpretation for “Hu” may well have been inserted in it. The subsequent editions of the dictionary and translations of the Chinese historical records would have followed on it.

You have asserted that your sources were updated. Those materials that you provided were literal translations of the imperial Chinese records derived from the flawed interpretations made in the English dictionary, without taking into consideration of historical distortions made by the different dynasties in the past or incorporating the latest research discoveries. They are therefore outdated.

This is by far the most amusing discovery that I have come across this year: the English dictionary and literature have interpreted one of the commonest last names, the Chinese character “Hu,” derogatorily to mean “barbarian” and “foreign,” whereas the tens of millions of the Chinese who bear it have no knowledge of. This should qualify it to be put on “the top ten list” of the most amusing stories of the twenty-first century. Alexjhu (talk)

Another reply to Alexjhu

By the way, Alexjhu, if you start accusing people of justifying "the maintennance of BIGOTRY and IGNORANCE", and claiming that the citations they give are "OUTDATED", and make comments like: "Since your argument is not based on intellectual merit", and gross generalisations such as, "Western understandings of the Chinese history and culture have lagged far behind and been trapped in the obsolete racist frameworks", you should expect that others will interpret your reply as an angry one.

You also seem to fail to realise that words (including derogatory terms) can change meanings very rapidly in most, if not all, languages. For example, if you had referred to a person of African-American descent as "black" in the 1950s or 1960s this would have been considered an extreme insult. The acceptable term then was "negro" or "coloured person". If you called such a person nowadays a "negro" it would be considered a serious insult, whereas calling them "black" would be quite acceptable. I should also mention that "Black" is a perfectly acceptable and common English surname with none of the overtones mentioned above (rather like Hu is in Chinese). One doesn't have to be ignorant or a bigot to point these different usages out.

I am quite happy to accept that Donghu may have originally been an ethnonym consisting of two characters, and it may, therefore, be worthwhile mentioning in the article with suitable references as one possibility. However, this says nothing new to us about the fact that the term Hu sometimes carried pejorative connotations. Yours, John Hill (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Refocusing

The Mediation Cabal case has been formally opened [1]. I want to advise the parties that it would be best if they avoided extremely verbose replies (anything over two-three paragraphs should be rethought). Also, while I am sure that Alexjhu has the best intentions, he did not present any sources in his comments above. Again, the focus must be on independent sourcing! Thanks for your efforts, I am sure this can be brought to an amicable conclusion. I am continuing to review the content issues. —Matheuler 03:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's please stop quibbling over straw men like surnames and return to the original question of translating Donghu. I complied with your 17 September request for position summaries and wonder why Alexjhu hasn't. There are many additional independent sources for translating "Eastern Barbarians". Google finds 556,000 hits for "tung hu eastern barbarians" and 360,000 for "dong hu eastern barbarians". The respective figures are 583 and 94 for Google Books, plus 2,560 and 10 for Google Scholar. Admittedly, some of these pages refer to Donghu and translate Dongyi as "eastern barbarians". The Wiktionary hu 胡 entry includes "(archaic) barbarian; a generic term for any peoples who lived outside of China's borders (particularly to the north and west)." Keahapana (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Number of Chinese people with the surname "Hu"

"Hu" is one of the commonest surnames among the Chinese people. As of November 2006, it ranked the 15th among all the surnames and 14.97 million Chinese had "Hu" as their surname on the mainland (http://www.nciic.com.cn/yewufanwei-rksu-mfcp2.htm).

The above data came from the identification files. Because more than 30 million Chinese have no identification files, the actual number of Chinese with the surname of "Hu" is about 15.4 million.

Plus the Chinese with the surname "Hu" living in Hong Kong, Macaw, and Taiwan in addition to foreign countries, the total number of Chinese with the surname "Hu" is estimated to surpass 16 million (http://tieba.baidu.com/f?kz=372595141).

This webpage from the Chinese search engine, Baidu, provides an overview on the origins and some of the famous Chinese people with the surname "Hu": http://baike.baidu.com/view/37145.htm. (A shorter version here: http://baike.baidu.com/view/33088.htm).

The Chinese people would be shocked that the Chinese surname "Hu" meant "barbarian" and "foreign" Yunjie

You're correct that Hu is a common name. No one disputes that fact except perhaps Alexjhu who has repeatedly deleted my addition of the Hu (surname) wikilink. As for your allegation of widespread ignorance and shock among "Chinese people" that hu means "foreign", I'd direct you to the second meaning of 胡 in the 现代汉语词典 (2002), translated as "goods introduced from the minority-inhabited northern and western areas or foreign countries". Keahapana (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Final Reply and References

My earlier message may have come across as strong from my shock that so common a character as “Hu” was interpreted to mean “barbarian” and “foreign” in the English dictionary and literature. This was the first time that I run into such an interpretation, which no clear-minded Chinese would accept. Based on my experiences, “African American” is the only politically correct reference accepted in the U.S. today; no other names would be respected. I am aware that the situation may be different elsewhere.

Two years ago, I learned that the Hegu and Tuoba of the Xianbei adopted “Hu” as their last name during the Northern Wei Dynasty. Based on the web-link provided above, the character “Hu” was one of the earliest last names used in the Chinese history. Its first usage was recorded in the name of a king during the Western Zhou era, which dates more than three thousand years ago. This validates that the character “Hu” carries no derogatory meaning in itself. How could a character that had always been part of the Chinese culture, from the very beginning of its civilization, mean “barbarian” and “foreign”? Can anything more ridiculous than this be found in the world?

Based on your user profile and response, I gather that you have been researching and translating earlier Chinese historical records. If you don’t mind, perhaps I could advise you not to take those records at face value. The Qin Dynasty that unified China destroyed all the written records of the other kingdoms and peoples, which made it possible for the successive Han Dynasty to rewrite the Chinese history centered in the Central Plains, when recent archaeological research has confirmed that multiple civilizations had been flourishing simultaneously in multiple areas across China inside and outside of the Great Wall. The subsequent dynasties rewrote histories over and over, most of which were self centered and some intentionally stigmatized the nomadic and other peoples for politically causes. Contemporary Chinese versions of history are the product of the great mix of these dynasties and further selectively energized one category while suppressing the others. Due to extensive destructions of historical records and distortions of history in the past, the validity of the records available today needs to be treated cautiously.

Below are some publications relevant to the early origins and history of the northern nomadic peoples:

Lin, Gan [林干] (2007a). Donghu shi [The Donghu History] 东胡史. Huhehaote [呼和浩特], Nei Mengguo ren min chu ban she (Inner Mongolia People's Press] 内蒙古人民出版社. (2007b). Xiongnu shi [The Xiongnu History] 匈奴史. Huhehaote [呼和浩特], Nei Mengguo ren min chu ban she (Inner Mongolia People's Press] 内蒙古人民出版社. Liu, Xueyao [劉學銚] (1994). Xianbei shi lun [The Xianbei History] 鮮卑史論. Taibei [台北], Nan tian shu ju [Nantian Press] 南天書局. (2001). Wu Hu shi lun [History of the Five Hu] 五胡史論. Taibei [台北], Nan tian shu ju [Nantian Press] 南天書局. Ma, Changshou [馬長壽] (1962). Wuhuan yu Xianbei [Wuhuan and Xianbei] 烏桓與鮮卑. Shanghai [上海], Shanghai ren min chu ban she [Shanghai People's Press] 上海人民出版社. Mi, Wenping [米文平] (2000). Xianbei shi yan jiu [Research on the Xianbei History] 鮮卑史硏究. Zhengzhou [郑州], Zhongzhou gu ji chu ban she [Central State Ancient Literature Press] 中州古籍出版社. Zhang, Jinkui [张金奎] (2007). Xongnu di guo chuan qi [Legends of the Xiongnu Empires] 匈奴帝国传奇. Beijing [北京], Zhongguo guo ji guang bo chu ban she [Chinese International Broadcasting Press] 中国国际广播出版社.

Below are some publications on the middle history of the northern nomadic peoples in China. The earliest scholar to point out that the Sui and Tang Dynasties were founded by the Xianbei, who had descended from the Donghu, was Chen Yinke, one of the most prominent Chinese historians before the Communist took control and among the first to be tortured to death by the Red Guards when the Cultural Revolution broke out. The latest publication of Yang Jun and Lü Jingzhi (2008) confirmed his research and pointed out that based on the genealogy of the Tang emperors, “the Tang was the resurrection of the Northern Wei” founded by the Tuoba Xianbei:

Chen, Yinke [陳寅恪] (1943). Tang dai zheng zhi shi shu lun gao [Manuscript of Discussions on the Political History of Tang Dynasty] 唐代政治史述論稿. Chongqing [重慶], Shang wu [商務]. Chen, Yinke [陳寅恪] and Tang Zhenchang [唐振常] (1997). Tang dai zheng zhi shi shu lun gao [Manuscript of Discussions on the Political History of Tang Dynasty] 唐代政治史述論稿. Shanghai [上海], Shanghai gu ji chu ban she [Shanghai Ancient Literature Press] 上海古籍出版社. Cheng, Tian [承天] (2008). Qidan di guo chuan qi [Legends of the Khitan Empires] 契丹帝国传奇. Beijing [北京], Zhongguo guo ji guang bo chu ban she [Chinese International Broadcasting Press] 中国国际广播出版社. Liu, Zhanwu [刘占武] and Ren Xuefang [任雪芳] (2007). Sui tang wu dai da shi ben mo [Major Events of the Sui, Tang, and Wudai Dynasties] 隋唐五代大事本末. Beijing [北京], Zhongguo guo ji guang bo chu ban she [China International Broadcasting Press] 中国国际广播出版社. Wang, Qinghuai [王清淮] (2008). Tang Taizong [Emperor Taizong of the Tang] 唐太宗. Beijing [北京], Zhongguo she hui ke xue chu ban she [Chinese Social Sciences Press] 中国社会科学出版社. Wang, Zhongluo [王仲荦] (2007). Wei jin nan bei chao shi [History of Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties] 魏晋南北朝史. Beijing [北京], Zhonghua shu ju [China Press] 中华书局. Yang, Jun [杨军] and Lü Jingzhi [吕净植] (2008). Xianbei di guo chuan qi [Legends of the Xianbei Empires] 鲜卑帝国传奇. Beijing [北京], Zhongguo guo ji guang bo chu ban she [Chinese International Broadcasting Press] 中国国际广播出版社. Zhou, Weizhou [周伟洲] (1985). Tuyühu shi [The Tuyühu History] 吐谷浑史. Yinchuan [银川], Ningxia ren min chu ban she [Ningxia People's Press] 宁夏人民出版社. (2006a). Nanliang yu xi qin [Southern Liang and Western Qin] 南凉与西秦. Guilin [桂林], Guangxi shi fan da xue chu ban she [Guangxi Normal University Press] 广西师范大学出版社. (2006b). Tang dai dang xiang [Dangxiang in the Tang Period] 唐代党项. Guilin [桂林], Guangxi shi fan da xue chu ban she [Guangxi Normal University Press] 广西师范大学出版社.

These publications show that at least two thirds of the imperial dynasties in China proper were founded by the northern nomadic peoples. Among them, the Xianbei founded the most. Use common sense reasoning, if the nomadic peoples were indeed “barbarians” as characterized, how did they get to establish so many outstanding dynasties? If the “Han” Chinese were as “superior” as claimed, how did they get subjugated over and over? The Donghu should be at least recognized just as human as any other peoples, if not the greatest or the most powerful of all the Chinese ethnic groups. Not only were they the most dominant force extensively in the north, but also their descendants, the Xianbei, laid down the social and political structure of ancient China from the Northern Wei through the Sui and Tang Dynasties. Almost all the major landmark Buddhist monuments in northern, central, and northwest China were built by them, including the magnificent Buddhist statues and the world famous Shaolin Temple. The subsequent Khitans who established the Liao and the Mongols who established the Yuan also derived their ancestries from the Xianbei based on the Chinese historians, although they probably had more substantial input from the Xiongnu, at least a mixture of the Xianbei and Xiongnu.

You may also check out the following publications of the Western scholars who have studied the Chinese ethnic groups. A shared conclusion is that the Chinese ethnic categories known as “minzu” was “politically invented,” which is inherently linked to how the contemporary versions of the Chinese history got constructed:

Bulag, Uradyn Erden (2002). The Mongols at China's edge : history and the politics of national unity. Lanham, Md., Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Gladney, Dru C. (1996). Muslim Chinese: Ethnic Nationalism in the People's Republic. Cambridge (Massachusetts) and London, Published by Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University and distributed by Harvard University Press. Harrell, Stevan (2001). Perspectives on the Yi of Southwest China. Berkeley, University of California Press. Heberer, Thomas (1989). China and its national minorities : autonomy or assimilation? Armonk, N.Y., M.E. Sharpe. Mackerras, Colin (2003). China's ethnic minorities and globalisation. London; New York, RoutledgeCurzon. Schein, Louisa (2000). Minority rules: the Miao and the feminine in China's cultural politics. Durham, Duke University Press. Sincerely Alexjhu 9/19/09

Again Refocusing...

OK, so there has been quite a bit of information posted. It seems to me that there is a general concensus forming for the balanced interpretation of the wording as sometimes being "foreign", largely in line with John Hill's understanding. Are there any users other than Alexjhu who believe that the term should never be translated to foreign, barbarian, ect.? If so, could they state in less than five lines what easily-referenced source supports their position. If no response is made to this final inquiry, I recommend a conclusion of this case as supporting the balanced view espoused in part by John Hill an others. —Matheuler 01:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

“Donghu" can't be translated

"Donghu" was the name of like an ancient country. The names of country and people can't be translated. For example, Spain in Chinese is 西班牙. It can't be translated into "the Western Class of Teeth." Portugal in Chinese is 葡萄牙. It can't be translated into "The Grape Teeth." In China, there is 苗people. They can't be translated into the "Sprout" people. The 羌 can't be translated into the "Sheep" people. Yunjie

Sorry - but I but I beg to differ. Donghu is, rather, the name of a group of people who were highly mobile. Dunghu did not refer to a specific territory or "country." This sort of thing may be found even today. For instance, many people in Afghanistan are still called "Kuchis" which really just means "nomads." It is never used as the name of a "country." Also, some ethnonyms in Chinese are clearly descriptive - for example the Duanren (or 'Short Men') who were said in the Weilüe to live "possibly more than 10,000 li to the northwest of Kangju" and who were said to be only about 3 chi tall. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

First, it's common practice to literally translate Chinese transcriptions of ethnonyms, see Transliteration into Chinese characters. Second, Donghu wasn't an "ancient country". The original Liji reference mentions "forest" Linhu 林胡, "eastern" Donghu 東胡, and "mountain" Shanhu 山胡. Watson's translation (which Alexjhu disallows) says: "North of Jin were the Forest Barbarians and the Loufan, while north of Yan lived the Eastern Barbarians and Mountain Barbarians." Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

We must have sources

We appreciate Yunjie's comments, however we must have sources to verify their position or it will be summarily disregarded. —Matheuler * * * 16:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to reverse article

I propose that we reverse the article to the last version edited by User:Keahapana, and then continue editing from there - the present version seems me like a poor place to start from. If anyone would like to comment on this - please let me know over the next day or two. If I don't hear any criticisms, I will do this the day after tomorrow. John Hill (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What I have tried to do today with the article.

I should try to explain what I have done here today. I first reversed the article to the last version by User:Keahapana, as I said I would unless people objected by now (which they didn't). Then, I tried to restore some of the neutral changes that had been done in the meantime. Then, I tried to lower the profile of derogatory references by the Chinese to foreign groups, usually rendered in English as 'barbarians'. Now, while there can be no doubt that the Chinese often used the names they gave to foreign peoples in a derogatory way (see discussions above on this page), it is true that they were also often used or meant in a more neutral way. Of course, it is impossible to indicate all these subtle different nuances in a single English word. It has to be inferred from the context whether the terms were meant to be derogatory or not - although sometimes it is impossible to tell. I have, therefore, tried to give alternatives such as "Eastern Foreigners" or "Eastern Barbarians" for Donghu (and similarly with other ethnonyms). I hope this will bring the rather destructive edit wars on this page to an end. Please try to work together to make this article factual and fair, informative and readable. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring and improving the Donghu article. Edit wars waste of time and energy that should be used constructively. Note that I've slightly revised your Di Cosmo quote. (Should this "Liu Hu" be "Lin Hu"?) I also hope we can all work together to further develop this article. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad you are happy with what I have done. And thanks for pointing out the typo - yes, of course it should be "Lin Hu" and not "Liu Hu" - I really shouldn't do these things when I am tired and in a hurry. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

My Point of View

Thanks to the mediation effort of Matheuler. My points were spelled out in my earlier responses. Let me reiterate some key points here:

1) Ma Changshou, who was the most prominent historian of China and specialized on researching the origins and history of the Donghu, Wuhuan, and Xianbei, wrote: the name “Donghu” represented the federation of Wuhuan and Xianbei. See Ma, Changshou [馬長壽] (1962). Wuhuan yu Xianbei [Wuhuan and Xianbei] 烏桓與鮮卑. Shanghai [上海], Shanghai ren min chu ban she [Shanghai People's Press] 上海人民出版社.

2) Zhuan Xueyuan, who was trained with a Ph.D. in physics in the U.S. but conducted extensive amount of anthropological and linguistic research on the interrelatedness of the northern nomads with the Chinese civilization and the ancestral origins of the Europeans, pointed out that the traditional interpretation of the “Donghu” as “eastern hu” was incorrect. Before the Sui and Tang Dynasties, the Chinese characters with suffix of “n” and “ng” in the case of “Dong” and “Tong” were unmarked. “Donghu” as recorded in the Chinese historical records could well be pronounced as “Tonghu.” See Zhu, Xueyuan [朱学渊] (2008). Qin Shi Huang shi shuo menggu hua de Nüzhen ren [The First Emperor of the Qin was a Jurchen who spoke Mongolic language] 秦始皇是说蒙古话的女真人. Shanghai [上海], Huadong shi fan da xue chu ban she [Eastern China Normal University Press] 华东师范大学出版社. The fact that the Mongols refer to the Donghu as “Tunghu” is further validation of this viewpoint. It is further believed that the name of the current “Dawo’er” ethnic group is a variant pronunciation of “Donghu.”

3) The emergence of “Donghu” in the Chinese historical records preceded that of the “Xiongnu.” Just as the name of the “Xiongnu” cannot be translated, neither can the name of “Donghu.”

4) The “Xiongnu” self proclaimed to be “Hu” after their Maodun destroyed the Donghu federation. Since the Xiongnu also conquered most of northern China, Russia, and central Asia, all these nomadic groups controlled by them were summarily referred to as the “Hu” people.

5) In the Song and Ming Dynasties, the “Hu” people were characterized as “barbarians.” The fact that they were engaged in extensive battles against the northern nomadic peoples account for the derogatory assertions, rather than suggesting that the character “hu” meant “barbarian.”

6) The interpretation of “Hu” to mean “foreign” came from the fact that most of the northern nomads were not part of China then. The English dictionary should mark the interpretation “Hu” as “foreign” as obsolete, because most of those who were summarily referred to as “Hu” historically have become part of China now. The usage of “Hu” to represent “foreign” goods is no longer seen.

7) For these reasons stated above, the English translation of “Hu” as “barbarian” is unfounded. It would be a shame if Wikipedia allows ignorance to override commonsense and functions as a platform to perpetuate ignorance. Alexjhu 10/2/09

Shocked!

I am once again shocked to see the misinterpretations made in the edits. As much you had the right to object my earlier reversion, I am going to object that the unbalanced version of “Donghu” presented in this article.

You have mixed up the “Dongyi” and “Donghu.”

In the Chinese language, the characters that represented “barbarians” are “Man” 蛮and “Yi” 夷.

The interpretation of the Chinese character “Hu” was implied in certain historical periods. It cannot be literally translated.

While there is no one whose name bears “蛮”and “夷,” there are tens of millions of Chinese who bear the character “Hu” in their names.

Use commonsense reasoning, rather than falling into the obsolete English translation.

I am sorry but I will have to reverse the article to a former page until you make a balanced edit. Alexjhu —Preceding undated comment added 07:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC).

I assume you facetiously mean "shocked" to learn that Wikipedia has editorial conventions like when Captain Renault learned that Casablanca had gambling. This encyclopedia is based upon reliable sources and not individual opinions about "common sense". WP:VERIFY begins by explaining:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Thanks for providing numerous but unverifiable Chinese-language sources. Which of them would you say readers (even the small minority of Sinophones) are able to check? I can't find your sources either online or in local libraries. Furthermore, your citations neither quote the original Chinese text nor provide the translations necessary for non-English sources. If we follow the rules, shouldn't we remove all this unverified material? Keahapana (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There is something called inter-library loan service available in most academic institutions that enables serious researchers to locate rare books from around the world. This is not a history classroom here. Don't expect the others to teach you what is already known and published extensively in a language that you personally may have no access to. Alexjhu

Mediation needed again!

I am sorry to hear that User Alexjhu is "shocked" by the common translation of "hu" as "barbarian" into English. I am in agreement with him here that "barbarian" is really not a good translation. However, I do think the word "foreigner" is about as close as one can get, and suggest that it be used in the article as a likely meaning in ancient names used by the Chinese for foreign peoples.

I don't think Alexjhu should take ancient uses of words so emotionally. One doesn't hear (as I mentioned above) that English people with the name "Black" take personal offense when the word "black" is used pejoratively (as in "blacks", "black magic", "black humor", "black mood", etc.) So, why should people with the name "Hu" take offense if it was once used long ago to mean "foreigner" or even, sometimes, was used with negative overtones?

Words and names in both English and Chinese can carry many meanings and usually people understand them according to their context and don't get upset - so what's the problem for you?. I know a Professor Wrong in Vancouver, Canada - and that doesn't seem to be a problem for either him or the people who know him and respect him. I can't imagine any adult - anyone past school age - making a fuss about possible derogatory overtones to his surname. So why do you make such a fuss about Hu? Aren't you being a bit over-sensitive?

I hardly know where to start with your "shock". Firstly, let me say that I think there is plenty of room to calmly state in the article that there are two major interpretations of Donghu current in scholarly circles - one that it is simply an ethnonym - nothing more, nothing less, but the other, very common view is that it can be interpreted as something like "Eastern Foreigners", and may even have had derogatory overtones in certain contexts.

Alexjhu, in your point number 6) above you state: "The English dictionary should mark the interpretation “Hu” as “foreign” as obsolete, because most of those who were summarily referred to as "Hu" historically have become part of China now. The usage of "Hu" to represent "foreign" goods is no longer seen."

This is a totally irrelevant comment - we are talking about the usage of a word as part of the name of a people who flourished more than two thousand years ago - why should anyone question that one or more of its meanings might have been dropped over such a long period of time? I don't understand your reasoning.

You also state that: "Just as the name of the “Xiongnu” cannot be translated, neither can the name of “Donghu.” Well, I tend to disagree. As I have pointed out above, the Northern Xiongnu were commonly referred to in the Hou Hanshu and other texts as Beilu 北虜 - or as just Lu 虜, a clearly derogatory term, as I am sure you will agree. And, I believe, the characters in the name Xiongnu itself were likely also chosen for their derogatory overtones. Here is how I have discussed the name Xiongnu in a note to my book:

"The name 'Xiongnu:

xiong 匈 – ‘breast’, ‘heart’. K. 1183d *χįung / χįwong; EMC: xuawŋ. nu 奴 – ‘slave’, ‘dependents’, ‘wife and children’. K. 94l *no / nuo; EMC: nɔ

The first character 匈 xiong, nowadays, means ‘thorax’ or ‘chest,’ the seat of intelligence and emotions; but originally it had the meaning of ‘evil hidden within the man’ – see GR Vol. III, No. 4593. The second character, 奴 nu means simply ‘slave’ or ‘serf’.

The name may have been partly chosen to approximate the sound of the name of one or more of the Xiongnu tribes, but the insulting characters must have been deliberately chosen by the Chinese. See also Beckwith (2009), pp. 404-405, nn. 51-52. The Xiongnu may have referred to themselves by the names of their component tribes – some of which seem very closely related to the names given to the later Huns. Clues are found in the following passage from Yu (2000), p. 180, which lists transcriptions of some of the names of the Xiongnu tribes:

“Of the tribes of the Xiongnu 匈奴 as seen in the Shiji 史, ch. 110, there was a Hunyu 渾庾 and a Hunxie 渾邪, which may have derived from the Kunwu 昆吾. This is because the Hunyu 渾庾 [kuən-jio], Hunxie 渾邪 [kuən-zya] and Kunwu 昆吾 [kuən-nga] can be regarded as different transcriptions of the same name.”

Pulleyblank’s EMC reconstructions for these characters are: hunyu 渾庾 – *ɣwən-juă; hunxie 渾邪 – *ɣwən-zia or *ɣwən-yé; kunwu 昆吾 – *kwən-ŋɔ. The phonetic similarities with the later names for the ‘Huns’ who invaded Europe are very close."

So, to sum up, I still cannot see what your great objection is regarding the use of the character or word "hu" as "foreign" or even, at times, something more objectionable. I think you are being rather precious and emotional about the modern family name Hu - which clearly is neutral.

I do think this article should discuss both theories - that Donghu meant "Eastern Foreigners" or the like, and the theory you are promoting that it is a simple compound name (which I am very happy to see advanced in the article - I just don't think you should censor the other theory just because you don't like it and think it is wrong). Neither theory, I believe, is proven (or, probably, provable). If you don't want the first theory discussed - I say "too bad" - this is an encyclopedia - not a forum for the purification of ancient names.

I will refrain at this point from reversing your reversals once again as, hopefully, the mediator Matheuler will help bring this prolonged (and I believe, silly and pointless and boring, argument) to some resolution which we can all live with. However, I don't believe just censoring out a commonly accepted theory is the way to resolve the issue. Yours, John Hill (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you but feel we're wasting our breath trying to be reasonable. Matheuler has apparently left Wikipedia, so I suggest we find another mediator or administrator. Which do you think would be best? Keahapana (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no ideas on how to pick a suitable mediator or administrator. I agree that I think I may be wasting my time trying to be reasonable with an unreasonable, biased person - Alexjhu does not seem to want to listen to reasonable proposals or even to try to present a balanced presentation of competing theories. If this is indeed the case, we probably need an Administrator to adjudicate here. As I contacted the mediator last time, would either you, Keahapana, or Alexjhu please bring this dispute to the attention of an administrator asking for their guidance? If I don't hear of some such action in the next couple of days I will reverse the recent changes by Alexjhu and make a few edits myself to try to make the article more balanced and inclusive of current theories about the origin of the name Donghu. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 05:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You're correct; it's my turn to request mediation. Since our mediator User:Matheuler appears to have voluntarily quit Wikipedia (I hope not because of this absurdly time-wasting case), I've contacted to Mediation Committee for help. Although you and I want to reach a compromise on editing this article, if informal mediation fails, I'll notify WP:RFM or WP:ANI. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Quotes and References on the Interpretation Errors

Below is the quote concerning the interpretation of the name of “Donghu:”

隋唐或隋唐之前，“东”、“同”等字似无尾音n 或ng，而读如tu或du，故《百家姓》的“东方”可能是“吐浑”，“东郭”是匈奴“屠各”或鲜卑“徒河”。相关的族名“东胡”，当然也就不是望文生义的“东方的胡人”了。

(Translation: During or before the Sui and Tang Dynasties, the characters “Dong” and “Tong” had no suffix “n” or “ng.” Their pronunciation was close to “tu” or “du.” Therefore the last name of “Dongfang” in “the Last Names of One Hundred Families” was probably “Tuhu;” “Dongguo” was “Tuge” of the Xiongnu or “Tuhe” of the Xianbei. The relevant ethnic name of the “Donghu” of course cannot be interpreted from its characters as “the Hu people of the east.”)

The quote came from page 35 in Chapter Four of the book, “Research on ‘the Last Names of One Hundred Families’ （《百家姓》研究）,” by Zhu, Xueyuan [朱学渊] (2008). Qin Shi Huang shi shuo menggu hua de Nüzhen ren [The First Emperor of the Qin was a Jurchen who spoke Mongolic language] 秦始皇是说蒙古话的女真人. Shanghai [上海], Huadong shi fan da xue chu ban she [Eastern China Normal University Press] 华东师范大学出版社. The Book Chapter was originally published in 《历史月刊》or (“History Monthly”), June 2006.

On page 75 in Chapter 9, “匈奴民族的血缘和语言” (“The Genetics and Languages of the Xiongnu Ethnic Groups”), he reiterated the above points and wrote on page 76:

东胡、乌桓属鲜卑系民族 (The Donghu and Wuhuan were the ethnic groups who belonged to the Xianbei series).

On page 119 in Chapter 14, “鲜卑民族及其语言线索” (“The Xianbei Ethnic Groups and their Linguistic Characteristics”), he wrote further:

《后汉书》说“鲜卑”、“乌桓”是“东胡”的后代，其实它们只是同源，未必有裔属的关系。“达斡尔”是“东胡”、“屠何”之音源，而“乌桓”即是“乌洛侯”，也就是春秋之“山戎”。东胡、乌桓、鲜卑使用类同的语言，因此被归属为一个族类，现代学者已经确认契丹语、蒙古语都是由它们的语言发展而来的。

(Translation: “The Book of the Latter Han” characterized that the “Xianbei” and “Wuhuan” had descended from the “Donghu.” In fact, they only shared the same origins. Their relationship was not necessarily of a lineal descent. “Dawo’er” is a variant pronunciation of “Donghu” and “Tuhe.” “Wuhuan” was “Wuluohou,” who were the same as the “Shanrong” during the Spring and Autumn Period. The languages of the Donghu, Wuhuan, and Xianbei were similar. They were therefore classified into one ethnic category. Contemporary researchers have confirmed that the Khitan and Mongolian languages had all evolved from theirs.)

This Chapter was originally published in “History Monthly,” February 2005.

Zhu Xueyuan also published an earlier book on the ancestral origins of the northern Chinese ethnic groups and their relationships to the Europeans. (2004). Zhongguo bei fang zhu zu de yuan liu [The Origins of the Northern Chinese Ethnic Groups] 中国北方诸族的源流. Beijing [北京], Zhonghua shu ju [China Book Group] 中华书局. The book cover put “American” in parenthesis in front of his name, suggesting that the author was not “Chinese.” The book was originally published in Taiwan. Alexjhu

Two theories regarding the origin of "Donghu"

This is all great to see, Alexjhu. Thank you for providing the quotes and translations, but I don't think they take us any further than we were before.

We are still left with two opposing theories - either of which, or neither of which, may be true, and we have no way of deciding decisively between them. So, can't we just briefly outline each theory and the evidence for it - being careful to note that they are just theories, with no way of proving either of them at the moment? Then we could get on with completing a balanced encyclopedia article and stop wasting so much time and energy.

By the way, this Zhu Xueyuan you quote - is he the same Zhu Xueyuan who is referred to on the internet as the "scholar who lives in the US [who] pointed out that President Sarkozy [of France] is the descendant of China’s northern ethnic group according to the research of his family name"? See: [2] and [3] If so, do you really think he should be taken seriously?

And, why does he claim that, just because Chinese characters may (and probably did) have different pronunciations in the past that have some similarity to other ethnic names, that the characters used in the name Donghu could not have carried a meaning during the Later Han similar to "the Hu people of the east"? I do not follow his "logic".

Also, you quote him as saying: “The Book of the Latter Han” characterized that the “Xianbei” and “Wuhuan” had descended from the “Donghu.” In fact, they only shared the same origins. Their relationship was not necessarily of a lineal descent."

Well, I don't see that he has in any way proven that the Hou Hanshu was wrong here. How can he state so boldly that, "In fact, they only shared the same origins."? He has no proof of this - it is only another theory and, I think, he must have been aware that he was going too far, because he immediately tried to qualify his bold claim by saying, "their relationship was not necessarily of a lineal descent". Note that he does not say that they were not of lineal descent - only that it was possible they were not of direct lineal descent. So, here again, we are left with unproven speculations - nothing more. It all looks like rather sloppy "scholarship" to me. (All emphases in bold are mine).

Please, let us leave it at this. Let us briefly describe both theories in the text of the article (and clearly point out that they are just theories) and then get on with life. Yours, John Hill (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The French President and Northern Nomadic Peoples of China

I did not know that Zhu Xueyuan had stirred up a controversy about the ancestry of the French president. Since he was trained in physics with a Ph.D. in a U.S. university, it came across to me that his lack of training in traditional history enabled him not to be confined in conventional paradigms but to make bold or groundbreaking discoveries. Initially some of his theories seemed too farfetched. Careful reading of his book indicated that his theories cannot be brushed off. Although China has become more open in the last couple of decades, the Communist Party is still in power and maintains tight control over every sector of the society, including the media and publishers. To follow the Party lines remains to be an important issue. The fact that his papers got published in the authorative “History Monthly” is an indication that his theories had scholarly merit, or they would not have been allowed for publication. Furthermore, the title of his book is “The First Emperor of the Qin (China) was a Jurchen who spoke Mongolic Language.” From historical perspectives, the Jurchens emerged on the historical stage when they founded the Jin Empire, one millennium after the Qin. The Mongols emerged in the thirteenth century and their language beforehand was Xianbei. To claim that the Qin emperor was a Jurchen and spoke Mongolic language did not seem to make sense. Politically, to claim the Qin was founded by the nomadic people presented a fundamental challenge to the Chinese versions of history which have methodically emphasized on the “Han” superiority. If the first Qin was founded by the Jurchens, it would indicate that from the very beginning of the formation of China as a unified country to the fall of the last Qing Dynasty in 1912, the country was ruled almost exclusively by the northern nomadic peoples. But the empirical evidence upon which he built his argument made sense. It has long been known that the Qin emperor came from the “Rong Di,” although no Chinese scholar ever formally dug deep into the subject. Traditionally “Rong” and “Di” were summary terms that referred to the nomadic peoples in the northwest and north. They were part of the “Xiongnu,” who were comprised of multiple ethnic and linguistic groups. Zhu’s analysis was based on linguistic and cultural characteristics of the Qin, which demonstrated that the Qin had significant nomadic features attributable to the Jurchen ancestors. Contemporary understandings on the origins of the Jurchens are very limited. They were traditionally thought to have originated from the Tungus Plains in “Siberia,” a name derived from the Xianbei to mean “the land of the Xianbei.” It now seems that the predecessors of the Jurchens were historically scattered and moved about, and may have eventually become settled or concentrated in Manchuria before they established the Jin Empire, and then again the last Qing Dynasty.

With respect to the correlation between the European ancestry and the northern nomadic peoples, Zhu Xueyuan was not the only or first one to study it. In the late 1990s, the earliest discoveries of the Human Genome Projects reported that there were 1.6 million Europeans who were genetically related to the “Mongols,” and it was accounted that they were the descendants of Genghis Khan from the Mongol rule over Europe. This was hardly convincing. The Mongol rule over their vast empire lasted less than a century. After the Yuan Dynasty fell, most of them withdraw to Mongolia. Those who remained in the multi-ethnic environment in southern China such as Yunnan continued to maintain the Mongol traditions. Due to their relatively recent history, almost all the Mongols maintained clear recollection of which banner they had come from and shared great pride in being Mongol and descendants of Genghis. Since the Mongols did not leave much of a trace in most of their empires, there is no reason to believe that they would have left millions of descendants in Europe. Based on available knowledge, there were at least two waves of the northern nomadic peoples who went westward to Europe before the Mongols emerged as a mighty power in the thirteenth century. The first wave occurred in the end of the first century when the northern Xiongnu were defeated by the joint forces of the Han Dynasty, Xianbei, Wuhuan, and Dingling. They fought their way to central Europe and nearly brought down the Roman Empire. Those who remained there got settled and intermarried with the original inhabitants of Europe. The name of “Hungary” is believed to have come from the Xiongnu, who were referred to as “Hun” in the Western literature. The second wave of the northern nomadic peoples occurred during the Tang Dynasty in the seventh century when the Tang troops defeated the Mohe (靺鞨) on the west of the Korean Peninsula, from whom the Tang Emperor Li Shimin was earlier inflicted with an arrow wound that took his life. They fought their way to Europe and were believed to have given rise to the reference of the Hungarians as “Magyar.” Those two waves of the northern nomads were probably far more significant than the Mongols. The influence of the northern nomadic peoples on the European languages and ancestry was reported or studied by a number of Western scholars, including Sir Aurel Stein (1865-1943), Edouard Chavannes (1865-1918), Pal Pelliot (1878-1945), Henrri Maspero (1883-1945), Edward Gibon (1737-1794), Joseph de Moyria de Maillac (1669-1748), and Maehchen-Helfen etc. Zhu Xueyuan combined the earlier research and further enriched it with more linguistic and anthropometric comparisons. Whether Sarkozy had ancestral origins from the northern nomadic people of China could probably be verified through genetic research. My recent discussion with a Finnish minister indicated that her family traced their origins to Hungary through genetic tests. Since Hungary has been an area in which the ancient northern nomads got settled, it is probable that they had genetic input from the northern nomadic peoples of China. If the Finnish could trace their genetic relatedness to the Hungarians, there is no reason to believe that the French president could not have. What Zhu Xueyuan has done was to go further and spell out what the others were reluctant or afraid to. The fact that he was a physicist with a U.S. citizenship enabled him to make bold propositions. He also interpreted on the origins of the name of “Germany,” which was accounted to have long puzzled the Western scholars. He suggested that the name “German” came from the “Cimmerians,” who originally resided on the southern Russian grassland but joined the northern Xiongnu in their westward conquest. The Germans were believed to have descended from a mixture of the original inhabitants with the Cimmerians and other nomadic peoples. Perhaps these speculations can become verifiable with continued advancements in science and technology.

As far as it concerns research on the Donghu and other northern nomads, Zhu Xueyuan is not the only one either. The other prominent historians include Ma Changshou, Lu Jianfu, and Lin Gan on the mainland China, Liu Xueyao in Taiwan, and Lin Luzhi in Hong Kong. Some of their publications were listed both in the article and my earlier responses. I don’t have time to present their theories here. If you are interested, I am sure you can find some of their books in a local library or obtain them through an interlibrary loan. What Zhu Xueyuan pointed out was consistent with the theories of other scholars, except that his language came across as strong, which is understandable since he is not a traditional historian by training and the book was intended for a general audience edited from his original articles published in the journal of “History Monthly.” One area of ambiguity concerned if the Donghu federation was formed by two Mongolic language speaking groups: the Xianbei and Wuhuan, or if there was a third group. The earlier scholars as represented by Ma Changshou followed 《后汉书》 and characterized that the Donghu federation was formed by the Xianbei and Wuhuan. More recent scholars point out that there was one more group named “Donghu.” The earliest record of the “Donghu” occurred in the third century B.C. Shiji recorded that they were active around the seventh century B.C. When it comes to the Xianbei, 《后汉书》 noted that they had contact with the Zhou Dynasty as early as the eleventh century B.C., which suggests that the “Xianbei” existed long before the Donghu federation was destroyed by the Xiongnu in the third century B.C. It supported the theory that the Xianbei were part of the Donghu federation, not of a lineal descent from the Donghu. After the fall of the Donghu federation, the Xianbei moved northward and the Wuhuan moved southward of the current Daxinganling. Whereas most of the original Donghu were probably annexed by the Xiongnu, some likely have joined the Xianbei and Wuhuan in the migrations.

Earlier it was pointed out that the English literature suggested that the name of “Xiongnu” be translated into “breast slave” or “serf” based on the similarity in the pronunciation of the character “Xiong” for “breast.” This is totally ridiculous. Would the “eminent historians and sinologists” explain what “breast slave/serf” meant? A first-grade Chinese elementary school student knows that the Chinese character for “breast” is “胸”, which is different from “匈” designated for the Xiongnu. The similarity in their pronunciations cannot be taken as if they had the same meaning. Would this suggest that the “eminent historians and sinologists” of the West know less than a first-grade Chinese elementary school student? Can anything more ludicrous than this be found?

I have pointed that your earlier version of the “Donghu” article mixed them up with the “Dongyi.” Whether “Dongyi” meant “eastern barbarians” remains debatable; it is a subject that I cannot get into right now. But to confuse the “Donghu” with the “Dongyi” is unacceptable. In order to establish your case that “Donghu” meant “eastern barbarians” or “foreignness,” you need to show evidence that the Chinese character “Hu” represented “barbarian” or “foreign.” If a derogatory connotation was intended in the name, a wide variety of characters could have been chosen, including:“虎”-to mean “tiger;” “糊”-to mean “messy;”“狐”-to mean “fox;”“壶”-to mean “jar;”“唬”-to suggest “scary;”“猢”-to suggest an animal part;“鶘”-to give a bird part;“鰗”-to indicate a fish part. In addition to these characters, there are plenty of others that could be chosen, including: 葫，瑚，琥，忽，弧，扈，唿，蝴，斛，笏，瓠，鹄，戽，呼，淲，箶，虝，惚，煳，鹱，螜，萀，觳，瓠，楜，餬，箎，錿，媩，鳠，鴩，鶦，鳸，to list a few. To impose a derogatory connotation, it is easy to pick one of these characters with an apparent degrading meaning. The truth is that out of all these possibilities, only “胡” was used. You may note that the first usage of this character in a person occurred in the name of a king during the Western Zhou era which dates three thousand years ago. You may also note that the first record of “Donghu” in ancient Chinese historical documents occurred in the third century B.C., before China became a unified country. Today there are more than 16 million Chinese who bear the character “Hu” in their names. If it were interpreted with any derogatory meanings such as “barbarian” and “foreign,” would you not think that the Chinese parents would have changed the names of their children? You may also know that the current President of China, Hu Jintao, bears the same character in his name. Would you suggest that his name be translated into or interpreted to represent “Foreign” if not “Barbarian” Jintao?

Archaeological discoveries have linked the Donghu with the Upper Xiajiadian Culture, which was characterized with the practice of agriculture and animal husbandry combined with bronze handcrafts and artwork. Among the northern ethnic groups, the Donghu were the first to develop bronze technology. Their extensive dominance over the Xiongnu on their west came from the usage of bronze weaponry and armored cavalry. After the Xiongnu destroyed the Donghu federation, the Xiongnu self proclaimed to be “Hu” and declared as “the proud son of heaven:” “强胡，天之骄子.” This claim resonated with the Shang Dynasty, which is known to be founded by the northern nomadic peoples from Manchuria. The founders of the Shang Dynasty were accounted to have descended from Heaven, as recorded in 《商颂》of 《诗经》: “天命玄鸟，降而生商.” The King of the Shang was 契，whose father was believed to be God and mother was a human by the name of “Jiandi” (简狄). The summary term of “Beidi” (北狄) later referred to the northern nomadic peoples most likely came from the name of his mother.

Let me add a final note on the prehistoric civilization of China. Traditionally the Chinese civilization was accounted to be developed by the Huaxia (华夏) group in the Central Plains. The “barbarians” were presumed to surround them and presented “threats.” The name of “Huaxia” was traditionally believed to have come from the first recorded Chinese dynasty of Xia (2070 B.C.-1600 B.C.) founded by Yü the Great (大禹) about four thousand years ago. According to Zhu Xueyuan, the name “Huaxia” came from “Huihe” （回纥）, which was a variant name designated to the northern nomadic peoples in the ancient past. Preceding the Xia Dynasty, there were Emperors Yandi and Huangdi who fought against Chiyou, the last of whom was accounted to be the ancestor of the Miao/Hmong. Chiyou was a powerful leader and headed 81 tribes of the Dongyi (eastern barbarians) and Nanman (southern barbarians) in the Lower Yellow River. Emperor Yandi came from the Upper Yellow River in northwest China but was defeated by Chiyou. Emperor Huangdi came from the north and beheaded Chiyou and then defeated Emperor Yandi. In historical records, the “Book of the Zhou” 《周书》recorded that the Yüwen Xianbei had descended from Emperor Yandi. They founded the Western Wei (535-556) and Northern Zhou (557-581) of the Northern Dynasties (386-581). The subsequent Khitans who established the Liao Dynasty (916-1125) derived their ancestry from the Yüwen Xianbei. The “Book of the Wei” 《魏书》recorded that the Tuoba Xianbei had descended from Emperor Huangdi. The Tuoba Xianbei were the most powerful of all the northern nomadic peoples. They unified northern China during the Sixteen Kingdoms (304-439) by establishing the powerful Northern Wei (386-535). Based on available knowledge on the genealogy of the Tang emperors, the Tang Dynasty (618-907) was the resurrection of the Northern Wei founded by the Tuoba Xianbei. After the Tang fell, they established the Western Xia (1038-1227), which was destroyed by the Mongols. During the last round of battles, Genghis also got killed. Most contemporary Chinese scholars have characterized the historical records that the Yüwen Xianbei and Tuoba Xianbei had descended from Emperors Yandi and Huangdi as “self proclaimed,” while asserting that the “Han” were the authentic heir of these emperors. Linguistic evidence shows that these historical records cannot be rejected. Emperor Yandi’s name was 神农氏; Emperor Huangdi’s name was 轩辕氏 and his last name was 公孙, all pointing to northern nomadic origins. The subsequent emperors, 尧，舜, and 禹bore his last name. Recent archaeological and historical research indicated that the homeland of Yü the Great (大禹) who founded the Xia Dynasty was located on the easternmost point of Qinghai, known as Sanchuan/Guanting of Minhe County, which holds the most densely populated Xianbei settlement today. What these findings show is that not only the imperial Chinese history, starting from the first Qin to the last Qing Dynasty, but also the prehistoric civilization of China, was primarily developed by the northern nomadic peoples. Based on available anthropological and genetic research, the Chinese ethnic classification of the “Han” is a giant political hoax. The vast majority of those labeled as “Han” are not of the same ethnic group. They exploited the identity of the authentic Han, who reside in the northwest and had founded the Zhou Dynasty, as a political scheme to maintain national unity and justify their legitimacy to rule over China. Historical truism and ethnic boundaries were systematically distorted to serve such a political goal. Alexjhu

On the Interpretation of the Name “Xiongnu”

In one of the earlier messages, I wrote that some Chinese scholars believe that the second character “nu” in the name of “Xiongnu” was intentionally inserted to give a derogative meaning of “slave” or “servant.” Zhu Xueyuan suggested that “Xiongnu” be referred to as “Xiong ren” (匈人), to mean the “Xiong people,” which somehow would be consistent with the Western reference of them as “Hun.” However, this remains problematic. It is unclear if and at what point the second character “nu” was inserted. If it were inserted, it would most likely have taken place after the Xiongnu were defeated, but it seems that the term “Xiongnu” was always designated for them from the very beginning.

Some contemporary ethnographic context may shed interesting light. In the Xianbei settlement in Sanchuan/Guanting today, the villages of “Wen” (文), “Yan” (阎), and “Wu” (吴) were believed to have descended from the Xiongnu and were referred to as “Xiongxiong.” After the Xiongnu were defeated, those who remained submitted under and self-proclaimed to be Xianbei. When a large group of the Xianbei migrated westward to Qinghai from Manchuria in 284 under the leadership of Tuyühu Khan, some Xiongnu likely joined them and others were annexed from the Xia Kingdom founded by the Haoxian Xiongnu. These three villages probably came from the Xiongnu groups from these historical periods. Their local reference as “Xiongxiong” seems to suggest that the original reference of the “Xiongnu” were “Xiongxiong” and that the second character “nu” was indeed inserted. However, there is another tradition among the Xianbei: one of the commonest personal names is “Nuernuer,” which is most often seen among females but occasionally males too. It is not uncommon to find in the historical records of the Northern Dynasties and the Liao that the character “nu” (奴) was recorded in the names of some emperors and high-ranking officials, which had puzzled contemporary scholars if they had come from slave or servant backgrounds. For example, the father of the founding emperor of the Sui Dynasty was Yang Zhong (杨忠). His personal name (or “小名” in Chinese) was “Nunu” (奴奴) and his Xianbei name was “Puliurushi” (普六茹氏) (See Zhang Lanfang [张兰芳] (2008). Sui yang di [Emperor Yang of the Sui] 隋炀帝. Beijing [北京], Zhongguo she hui ke xue chu ban she [Chinese Social Sciences Press] 中国社会科学出版社. Page 82). These names can be understood from the Xianbei tradition today. One month after birth, a child is given a personal name, usually by the grandfather. Yang Zhong’s personal name “nunu” likely came from this tradition and his original name “Nuernuer.” Today, when a child reaches the school age, a formal name is given, which is then reflected in all formal documents and carried for the rest of his life. In the case of Yang Zhong, his formal name was likely necessitated from the positions he took in the Northern Zhou court of the Yüwen Xianbei, in which he was appointed as the Duke of Sui and was the father-in-law of the emperor. His Xianbei name “Puliurushi” may have represented the clan from which he came and been given to him when he reached the age of marriage. Up until recently, the official Chinese versions of history have uniformly attributed the Sui and Tang Dynasties to be founded by the “Han” ethnic group, while the names and genealogies of the Sui and Tang emperors point to the Xianbei origins as a continuation of the Northern Dynasty founded by the Xianbei.

Getting back to the name of “nunu,” once it is understood as a Chinese phonetic transcription of the Xianbei name “nuernuer,” there is no ground to interpret the names of those who bore “nu” as having come from a “slave” or “servant” background. This provides some clues on how the name of “Xiongnu” may have come about. Throughout ancient Chinese history, it was common for an ethnic group to be referred to by the name of their leader, and in turn the reference of one dominant group was often applied to all the other ethnic groups who resided on the same territory. The name of “Xiongnu” may have been abbreviated from a combination of “Xiongxiong” and “nuernuer,” which may have represented the clan and personal names of their highest leader. The Xianbei referred to them by one of the two names, “Xiongxiong,” which seems consistent with the Western literature that recorded them as “Hun,” whereas the Chinese record reflected an abbreviation of both the personal and clan names. This is the most probable explanation that I can think of, rather than concluding hastily that the second character “nu” was inserted. The interpretation of “nu” to represent “slave” or “servant” came from the coincidental overlap between the transcribed name and the meaning of the Chinese character used. This again reflects the limitations of the Chinese language, in that it often cannot accurately capture the pronunciations from other languages, and when transcribed, it comes across as odd and then becomes ground for making further derogatory interpretations. After the Western Xia was destroyed by the Mongols in the thirteenth century, the highest Xianbei concentrations were found in Shaanxi Province. As they lost their native language over time, they became classified into “Han” later. There they left a series of geographic and personal names that reflected Xianbei legacy. For example, the commonest female name in Shaanxi has been known to be “Nini” (妮妮). It most likely evolved from the Xianbei name “Nuernuer.” This seems to apply to Shanxi Province as well though to a lesser extent; it had historically been a transitional area for the Xianbei to move about in China. Alexjhu

A personal name is given one-month after birth. The event takes place within the family, and the name is given by the oldest male, either the grandfather or great-grandfather if alive. The clan name is given on the 100th day of birth when a party is held with the attendance of the clan leaders, who may give a new name different from the personal name. It does not have to wait until the person reaches the age of marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.222.233.249 (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Refocusing redux

None of this bloglike rambling about Xiongnu is relevant to the present question – Is Donghu commonly translated "Eastern Barbarians"? Publications by scholars like Watson, Pulleyblank, Di Cosmo, and Yu (temporarily bowdlerized or not) confirm the affirmative answer. On 22 September, Matheuler asked for an "easily-referenced source" that the term Hu "should never be translated to foreign, barbarian, etc." Presenting original research and copious citations from "rare books from around the world" doesn't answer this central question. No one is saying the modern surname Hu 胡 is belittling. That would be as foolish as claiming the name Barbara (which derives from Greek βάρβαρος and originally meant "barbarian/savage/foreign woman") is derogatory. As John Hill sensibly requested on 5 October, "Please, let us leave it at this … briefly describe both theories … and get on with life". Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My Apologies

I am sorry to have left all of you good contributors in the lurch. I had mistakenly thought this matter was resolved, and had subsequently gone on a little wikibreak to care for other matters. I do apologize for the oversight. I will attempt to check back once in a while, but it appears that PhilKnight has also taken an interest in your case. Thank you all for your enthusiasm. —Finn Casey 04:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC) (formerly User:Matheuler)

Welcome back. Your help is appreciated. Should we revert back to the last uncensored version now or wait for Alexjhu to concur? Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Donghu means the "Eastern Hu" according to a prominent early Chinese historian

First of all, let me say I am glad to see that User:Matheuler is back on deck and still wanting to help. Thanks for that.

Now, I have finally found one of the quotes I have been looking for. It is in a footnote to the Shiji 110 (the chapter dealing with the Xiongnu). It is a quote from Fu Qian 服虔 (125–195 CE), who wrote the Hanshu yinxun 漢書音訓.

I think it should (hopefully!!!) put an end to all this speculation that Donghu was meant to be a transcription of the sound of the name of the people - it is quite explicit and clear that the name refers to their position as being east of the Xiongnu and that, therefore, Donghu is to be interpreted as the "Eastern Hu". I will give the Chinese text first and then a rough translation:

服 虔 云 ： 「東 胡 ， 烏 丸 之 先 ， 後 為 鮮 卑 。 在 匈 奴 東 ， 故 曰 東 胡 。 」

Translation:

"The Eastern Hu (Donghu) were the ancestors of the Wuwan and later the Xianbei. They were situated east of the Xiongnu which is why they were called the Eastern Hu (Donghu)."

I don't think anything can be any clearer than this and it comes from a prominent and respected Chinese historian of the Later Han Dynasty (2nd century CE). Obviously, "Hu" in this context means something like "foreigner," as it implies that the Xiongnu were also considered as "hu". So, please (please!) can we finally put an end to all this speculation about the name? It simply means "Eastern Hu" or "Eastern foreigners" and speculation that it was meant to be a transcription of a foreign name is just speculation, nothing more. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a similar reference from Cui Hao 崔浩 last month (which was repetitively deleted) but this full quote is better. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back, Matheuler. What was cited above from Shiji is precisely where all the misunderstandings came from. It was what Zhu Xueyuan wrote in objection, that it was a presumption and cannot be taken as valid. Contemporary scholars have cross-examined it with other historical documents. The consensus is that it was flawed. Give me a couple of days to sort out the original sources for you to cross-examine them. Alexjhu —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC).

Great Alexjhu! As I have said all along, we have here two major competing theories on the derivation of Donghu - so, each should be given a brief outline in the article in a sober way (suitable for a general encyclopedia article) - showing who supports each, and (very briefly) why. I can live with this - even though I personally believe the later theory is mainly just speculation. We don't have to agree on everything - nor should we be engaging in "original research" here - just presenting the main positions fairly. I can't see what the problem is for you. Let's hope it can now be resolved and we can move on to more pressing issues. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

General Summary

It looks like we are getting closer to agreement. That is excellent! Two points I might suggest:

• We should look into archiving the talk page. Some parts of the above discussion are rather verbose and abstract.
• If further discussion is needed, let's try to do it by discussing the merits of the actual article text, not long debates over original research/first sources. If you are concerned about the wording of a line in the article, try posting with this format:

1. (Current text of article)
2. (Proposed revision)
3. (Short explanation of why the change is a good idea - under 100 words)
4. (Sources)

• If we do this, we can discuss small sections of the article in a concise way.
• If the sources section is not included with independent secondary sources that directly support the proposed revision, the revision should be summarily rejected and ignored.
• Thanks again to all for the enthusiasm and good editing!

—Finn Casey * * * 22:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Finn. Both points sound good to me. Yes, let's archive this talk page and focus on improving the Donghu article content. Should we start discussing from the 29 September version (which includes the deleted and altered quotes)? Thanks again. Keahapana (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems most reasonable to start the process based on the current (21:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)) version of the page. Analysis can proceed on any disputed points from there according to the above noted format. I will attempt to archive/restructure this talk page in the next few days to facilitate such discussion. Otherwise, it seem appropriate to exhort all editors to refrain from making any substantial edits to the article without clear consensus on this talk page. Thanks! —Finn Casey * * * 21:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand. As this diff shows, the former version had both Chinese and English sources, while the latter removed most (over 20 Kb) of the English ones, except for the Watson quote changed from "Barbarians" to "Nomads". If we're seeking a compromise, wouldn't it be more reasonable to start with both sides of the disagreement? Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Original Quotes and Translations

Finn Casey: Thank you for your input. John Hill: To answer your question, I take research seriously and like to do things right. I started getting into history two years ago for a book project to be revised from my doctoral dissertation that dealt with the healthcare problems of the Southeast Asians in the U.S. In the dissertation, I primarily relied on English literature to present their history. When a Chinese scholar saw an outline of it later, he expressed shock. I realized that my presentations of their history may have been wrong. In order to better understand their origins, I undertook exploratory trips to Southeast Asia and southern China from where they had migrated. The findings were multifaceted. The research validated the impression that the English literature had made serious misinterpretations on their history. I also came to discover significant problems embedded in the Chinese ethnic classifications and ideologies, which were inherently linked to why the riots broke out in Tibet last year and Xinjiang this year. Here we have come across with another area of inconsistencies between the East and West concerning the history and interpretations of “Donghu.” We have had a lot of discussions here. I hope by going over the original historical records below, we can clarify the ambiguities and reach an agreement on how to best write the WP article.

Keahapana: Your illustration of the English name “Barbara” as having come from the Greek word “Barbarian” does not apply to the Chinese context. In Chinese history, the first usage of the character “Hu” in a person was recorded in the name of a king, Hu Gongman (胡公满), the 33rd generation of descendants of the ancient King 虞舜.He was the son-in-law of King Wu (周武王) of the Zhou Dynasty (1045 B.C.-256 B.C.), who reigned from 1046 BC-1043 BC. This dates the name “Hu” to more than three thousand years ago, and the lineage indicates that “Hu” clan was the authentic descendants of Huangdi (黄帝) (baike.baidu.com/view/37145.htm), or the Yellow Emperor, who was the most powerful king with a northern nomadic origin and laid down the foundations for the Chinese civilization. Therefore the case with the Chinese name of “Hu” is very different from the English name “Barbara.” There is no basis to interpret it as meaning “barbarian” or “foreign.” The derogatory connotations for “Hu” were imposed in certain historical stages and cannot be literally translated.

(1) Shiji: quote provided by John Hill

「東 胡 ， 烏 丸 之 先 ， 後 為 鮮 卑 。 在 匈 奴 東 ， 故 曰 東 胡 。 」

When the Chinese characters “先” (front/former) and “后” (back/latter) appear together, they typically reflect a relationship either in spatial positioning or time sequence. If a spatial relationship is taken, the first sentence would be translated into: “Donghu was in front of the Wuhuan, behind [them] was the Xianbei.” If interpreted in a time sequence, it would be translated into: “Donghu was before the Wuhuan, later became the Xianbei.” The second interpretation would not make as strong of a sense as the first. As we will see from other records, this phrase represented a spatial relationship in their locations. The reference point for their geographical locations was the Central Plains.

In your translation, you used the word “ancestors.” The Chinese word for ancestors is “祖先.” When it is abbreviated, the first character “祖” is typically used, not the second. If the character “先” is presumed to represent “ancestors,” its translation would be similar to that of a time sequence: “Donghu was the ancestor of the Wuhuan, later became the Xianbei.” This is unclear as to who among the Donghu and Wuhuan, or both of them, became the Xianbei. Based on the common presumptions, both the Wuhuan and Xianbei descended from the Donghu; not in a sequential event that the Donghu first became the Wuhuan and the latter or both became the Xianbei later.

The second sentence is more straightforward: “The [Donghu] were located on the east of the Xiongnu, therefore were referred to as the eastern Hu.” We will see from cross-examining other historical records that this was a presumption based on the Chinese characters. Nonetheless, this sentence suggests a spatial relationship in their geographic positioning, and indicates that the first sentence also reflected their geographic locations, rather than a time sequence of lineal descent.

Based on this phrase, you concluded that “obviously ‘Hu’ in this context meant something like ‘foreigner.’” The Chinese word for “foreign” is “外国,” “别国,” “他国,” “异域,” or “异国.” The historically derogatory reference for “foreign country” is 蛮夷之国 (man yi zhi guo), which literally meant “the country of the barbarian people.” The original phrase of Shiji did not contain any of these terms to justify an inference or interpretation of “foreignness” or “foreigner.”

In the studies of the Chinese history, there are three typical mistakes, which are figuratively represented by three Chinese proverbs: 望文生义, 断章取义 and 以讹传讹. The first proverb: “wang wen sheng yi,” literally means: “to presume a meaning based on the characters.” It resembles the second mistake: “duan zhang qu yi,” which means: “to presume a meaning by breaking the article into parts.” These two mistakes give rise to third type of mistake that subsequent scholars make: “yi e chuan e,” which means: “to spread false knowledge based on the presumptions [made by the others].” A common mistake that contemporary scholars make is: 以今训古, “yi jin xun gu,” meaning: to try to apprehend the ancient past from the present perspectives. When this is applied to the Western studies of the Chinese history, it would mean to interpret the Chinese culture based on the presumed knowledge of the West.

The presumptions and subsequent misinterpretations following Shiji fall into these mistakes above. A meaning was presumed based on the Chinese characters designated for the Donghu, whose original name was either “Tunghu” or “Tonghu.” Whereas “Tunghu” was the Mongolian reference, “Tonghu” was a variant Chinese name since the characters with suffixes of “n” and “ng” were undifferentiated before the Sui and Tang Dynasties. When Shiji was written, the Xiongnu had destroyed the Donghu federation and self-proclaimed to be “Hu.” This provided ground to presume that the name of “Donghu” came from their geographic location on the east of the Xiongnu based on the Chinese characters. Subsequent scholars were often misled by the presumptions of Shiji.

(2) 《后汉书 ∙ 乌桓鲜卑列传》 “Houhan Shu” makes more explicit statements: “The Chronicles of the Wuhuan and Xianbei” in “the Book of Later Han.”

乌桓者，本东胡也。汉初，匈奴冒顿灭其国，余类保乌桓山，因此为号焉。 鲜卑者，亦东胡之支也，别依鲜卑山，故因号焉。其语言习俗与乌桓同。

Translation: The Wuhuan were originally Donghu. In the beginning of the Han Dynasty, Xiongnu Maodun annihilated their kingdom. The remnants went by the Wuhuan Mountain and hence got their name. The Xianbei were also a branch of the Donghu. They went by the Xianbei Mountain and hence got their name. Their language and customs were identical to that of the Wuhuan.

Zhu Xueyuan quoted this phrase in his book and wrote:

其中“保乌桓山”和“依鲜卑山”而得其名号，都是瞎说；但东胡、鲜卑、乌桓都是说蒙古语的民族，却是千真万确的。

Translation: Within it, the statements that they got their names from the “Wuhuan Mountain” and “Xianbei Mountain” were all nonsense. What was true was that the Donghu, Xianbei, and Wuhuan were all Mongolic language speaking ethnic groups.

(From Page 13 in Zhu Xueyuan [朱学渊] (2008). Qin Shi Huang shi shuo menggu hua de Nüzhen ren [The First Emperor of the Qin was a Jurchen who spoke Mongolic language] 秦始皇是说蒙古话的女真人. Shanghai [上海], Huadong shi fan da xue chu ban she [Eastern China Normal University Press] 华东师范大学出版社.)

Earlier John Hill questioned the “logic” of Zhu Xueyuan. The logic is that Houhan Shu characterized that the Wuhuan and Xianbei got their names from the mountains by the same name. The question is where the Wuhuan and Xianbei Mountains were, and who named those mountains before the Donghu federation was destroyed.

The Chinese historical documents showed that the earliest Xianbei Mountain was recorded in southern Daxinganling that runs along Manchuria and Inner Mongolia. Two Xianbei Mountains were recorded in western Liaoning: one in Jinzhou and the other near Yi County. Another Mt. Xianbei was recorded in northern Daxinganling from where the Tuoba Xianbei had resided before they migrated southward into China. In the northwest, the Qilian Mountains that run along Gansu and Qinghai Provinces were referred to as the Greater Mt. Xianbei. In Sanchuan/Guanting of Minhe County in Qinghai, one mountain named as Xianbei stands in the west. Zhu Xueyuan noted that mountains named as Xianbei could be found throughout Mongolia. In the face of so many Xianbei Mountains, the Houhan Shu statements would make no sense. The Xianbei Mountains could only have been named by the Xianbei and followed their migrations.

(3)《魏书》”Weishu” (the Book of Wei) explains the origins of the Xianbei:

昔黄帝有子二十五人，或内列诸华，或外分荒服，昌义少子，受封北土，国有大鲜卑山，因以为号。

Translation: “In the past, the Yellow Emperor had twenty five sons. They were either assigned to inside China or in the peripheral areas. The younger son of Changyi (who was one of the twenty five sons of Huangdi) was put in charge of the northern areas. There was a Great Xianbei Mountain in their country. They were therefore referred to as so”.

This phrase explains the origins of the Xianbei, that they had descended from Huangdi, or the Yellow Emperor, the most powerful leader to defeat Yandi and Chiyou and lay down the foundations for the Chinese civilization. In the names of the Yellow Emperor (黄帝) and Yan Emperor (炎帝), the second character di (帝) is identical to the character in emperor (皇帝). In its historical usage, 帝 referred to a person who accomplished the status of a deity and became equivalent of a god. Its usage in the name of the emperors was started by the first emperor of the Chin (秦始皇). Since he was believed to have accomplished more than any preceding kings in conquering the largest territory, the historical usage of “三皇” and “五帝” were combined to give rise to 皇帝. Among the 25 sons of the Yellow Emperor, Changyi (昌义) was older. Therefore, the phrase 昌义少子 should represent “the younger son of Changyi,” rather than “the younger son Changyi,” who was placed in charge of the northern areas and from whom the Xianbei descended. This lineage indicates that the Xianbei were the authentic descendants of the Yellow Emperor.

Recent archaeological discoveries corroborated the characterizations of “Weishu.” The Gaxian Cave, located in Alihe of Elunchun Autonomous County in Hulunbeiermeng in northeastern Inner Mongolia that borders eastern Russia, had stone inscriptions of the Northern Wei emperor dated 443 (Its introduction in English can be seen at: http://www.showcaves.com/english/cn/showcaves/Gaxian.html, and in Chinese at: hhttp://web.archive.org/web/20040907194316/http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/twain/1279/royalhouse/xianbei/gaxian.htm 鮮卑石室（嘎仙洞）祝詞Xianbei cave]. This suggested that the Gaxian Cave represented one point in the migrations of the Xianbei in a historical stage before they went southward to establish the Dai Kingdom (338-376 or 398) first and then the Northern Wei (386-556) in China proper.

These records and presence of numerous “Xianbei Mountains” indicate that Shiji and Houhan Shu were presumptuous and incorrect. After the Qin (221-207 BC) unified China, it carried out a 焚书坑儒 moment, in which the written documents of the other kingdoms were burned and several hundred intellectual were buried alive in an effort to maintain national unity and centralize its ultimate authority. This enabled the Han Dynasty (202 BC-9 AD) to rewrite history to further justify the legitimacy of the rulings of the central authority under the emperor, especially during the rule of Wang Mang, who organized teams of more than ten thousand scholars to produce fake historical documents, including distortions of lineages and fabrication of Confucius writings. An analysis of this can be seen in [顾颉刚] (2003). Gu Jiegang jing dian wen cun [Classic Theses of Gu Jiegang] 顾颉刚经典文存. Shanghai [上海], Shanghai da xue chu ban she [Shanghai University Press] 上海大学出版社, pages 147-153. Because of these political movements, historical records from the Han Dynasty need to be treated with caution.

Based on the characterizations of Shiji and Houhan Shu, the Xianbei and Wuhuan descended from the Donghu, which would indicate that the names of Xianbei and Wuhuan should have occurred only after the Donghu federation was destroyed by the Xiongnu in the third century BC, not beforehand. However, it was not the case.

(4) 《国语 ∙ 晋语篇》 “Chapter on the Jin Discourses” in “the Discourses of Kingdoms”

“Guoyu,” or “the Discourses of the Kingdoms,” is the oldest Chinese historical records that documented different kingdoms from the Western Zhou (1121 BC – 771 BC) to 454 BC. Its compilation began around the 5th century BC and continued into the late 4th century BC. The phrase below represents the earliest record of the “Xianbei,” from one of the nine chapters on “the Discourses of the Jin” of “Guoyu.”

昔成王盟诸侯于岐阳，楚为荆蛮，置茅蕝，设望表，与鲜卑守燎，故不为盟。

Translation: In the past, King Cheng [of the Zhou] held alliance meetings with the hereditary nobles in Qiyang. The Chu were the southern barbarians. They set up platforms and charts to communicate military information with the Xianbei. Therefore, [the Zhou] did not form alliance [with the Chu].

This phrase refers to the regular meetings that the Zhou rulers had with the hereditary nobles of different kingdoms. 成王 is King Cheng of the Zhou Dynasty who reigned from 1042 BC-1021 BC. 岐阳 is a city in Shaanxi where the meeting took place. 楚 refers to the southern kingdom in present Hubei in opposition to the Qin in the north. 置茅蕝, 设望表 represented the ancient ritual of setting up platforms and charts. 守燎 refers to the military practice of guarding the barricades built on high points such as mountain tops to inform each other of an enemy attack. (Notice the only Chinese character that can be literally translated into “barbarians” is “蛮.” Its derogatory connotations are manifested in its structure: on the top is 亦, meaning “also” or “remains;” and on the bottom is 虫 meaning “worm” or “bug.” Combined together, the character suggests “remains to be worm or bug.” The other character presumed to mean “barbarian” is “夷.” Literally it only meant “people.” The character is made up of two parts: a person, “人,” standing through a bow, “弓.” Its pronunciation, “yi,” was a variance of “yin” for “ren” meant for people. The pronunciation of “ren” as “yin” remains seen in the eastern and northeastern dialects today. Its usage to represent people came from the historical reference of the eastern Chinese as 东夷. The term represented “the easterners who carried bows [on their shoulders]” that referred to the eastern Chinese in Shandong who traditionally carried bows across their shoulders and used them in hunting and war. Historically the British were referred to as “英夷,” which literally meant the “British people.” Its derogatory connotations as “barbarians” were presumed from the traditional association of 夷with 蛮 to mean “the barbarian people.”)

The record of “Guoyu” indicated that “Xianbei” had existed as early as the eleventh century BC, long before the Donghu federation was destroyed in the third century BC. Therefore they could not have descended from the Donghu as presumed in Shiji and Houhan Shu. It suggested that in the three groups of the Donghu federation, the Xianbei were the most prominent, since they were recorded the earliest. In the ancient Chinese history as it is today, ethnic groups were recorded only when they accomplished prominences. This is consistent with what Zhu Xueyuan stated as: 东胡、乌桓属鲜卑系民族 (Translation: The Donghu and Wuhuan were the ethnic groups who belonged to the Xianbei series. From Page 75 of the same book cited above). It suggested that the Xianbei were the most powerful of them, whereas the Donghu and Wuhuan were part of their series. As the Xianbei resided farther in the north, the Donghu became more active and got noted more frequently due to their geographic proximity to the Central Plains.

(5) Contemporary scholars:

The earliest record of the Donghu occurred between the fifth to the third century BC, as Prof. Lin Gan, one of the leading historians on the northern nomads and author of “the Donghu History,” “the Xiongnu History,” and “the Turkish and Huihe History,” wrote:

东胡之名最早见于《逸周书》卷七《王会篇》。考《逸周书》为先秦作品，其中《王会篇》为战国作品（公元前五世纪至前三世纪）时人所撰。东胡之名出现于战国时期的史书，正反映出东胡一族已活跃于历史舞台。

及至西汉司马迁著《史记》，更多次提到东胡的活动，而其所述东胡活动的事迹，在时间上可追溯至公元前七世纪中期，即周襄王在位时期（前652-前619）。

Translation: The earliest record of the name of Donghu was found in chapter seven, “Chapter on the Meeting of Kings,” in “the Book of Yi Zhou.” The “Book of Yi Zhou” was written before the Qin. The “Chapter on the Meeting of Kings” in it was compiled during the Warring States period (5th Century BC to 3rd Century BC). The fact that the name of Donghu appeared in the historical books of the Warring States reflected that the Donghu ethnic group was active on the historical stage during this period.

Up to the compilation of “Shiji” by Sima Qian in Western Han, the activities of Donghu were mentioned multiple times. The time frame of the events that concerned the activities of Donghu could be traced back to the middle of the seventh century BC. It corresponded to the period of reign under King Xiang of the Zhou (652 BC-619 BC).

The quote came from Lin Gan [林干] (2007). Donghu shi [The Donghu History] 东胡史. Huhehaote [呼和浩特], Nei Mengguo ren min chu ban she (Inner Mongolia People's Press] 内蒙古人民出版社, page 3.

The Donghu federation and their culture were written by one of the most accomplished historians, Prof. Lü Jianfu. His earlier book on the “History of Chinese Secret Buddhism” won the most prestigious social sciences research award in China in 1997 and has been used as a reference and teaching material in the Western academic institutions (1995. Zhongguo mi jiao shi [中国密教史]. Beijing [北京], Zhongguo she hui ke xue chu ban she [Chinese Social Sciences Press] 中囯社会科学出版社). The quotes below come from his more recent 601-page book that presents the Xianbei history. Lü Jianfu [呂建福] (2002). Tu zu shi [The Tu History] 土族史. Beijing [北京], Zhongguo she hui ke xue chu ban she [Chinese Social Sciences Press] 中囯社会科学出版社, from pages 6-9:

从零星的汉文资料结合考古发现知道，东胡联盟的三个部落东胡、乌桓、鲜卑，分别定居在老哈河流域、西拉木伦河流域、大小凌河流域。《史记 ∙ 货殖列传》载：“燕国南通齐赵，东北边胡，北临乌桓”。则知乌桓在西，东胡在东。但最早的时候，三部都在西拉木伦河以北，乌桓部与鲜卑部更在其北，乌桓偏西，鲜卑似偏东。商周之际南移后，三部各自为政，并未统一。

Translation: The sporadic Chinese documents combined with archaeological discoveries indicate that the Donghu federation was formed by the three tribes of Donghu, Wuhuan, and Xianbei, who respectively resided in the areas of Laoha River, Xilamulun River, and Greater and Lesser Ling Rivers. “Shiji” recorded that “the Yan Kingdom communicated with the Qi and Zhao Kingdoms in the south, Hu in the northeast, and Wuhuan in the north.” This indicates that the Wuhuan resided on the west and Donghu were on the east. In the early stages, all three groups were in the north of Xilamulun River, with the Wuhuan and Xianbei farther in the north. Whereas the Wuhuan were toward the west, the Xianbei seemed to be toward the east. When they migrated southward during the Shang and Zhou Dynasties, the three groups managed on their own and were not yet unified.

(This description supports that the first sentence in the original quote from “Shiji” provided by John Hill referred to the geographic locations of the three groups, rather than representing a lineal descending relationship across time.)

Description on the Donghu federation and their military strength:

约到西周晚期、春秋早期，三部结成联盟，形成古代国家形式。《晋书 ∙ 慕容廆载记》说：“风俗、官号与匈奴略同”。军事实力业已强大，说盛时有“控弦之士二十余万”。其装备也比较先进，武士除带有青铜短剑外，还配备长兵器。除骑乘马匹外，亦使用战车。考古证明，东胡的国力在西周晚期至春秋早期已经强盛起来，春秋战国之际亦是一个北方强国了。

Translation: Around the late Western Zhou and early Spring and Autumn periods, the three groups developed into a federation in the form of an ancient kingdom. “Records of Murong Wei” in “The Book of Jin” noted their “customs and official titles were more or less similar to that of the Xiongnu.” Their military power was strong and had “more than two hundred thousand archeries.” They were also equipped with more advanced weaponry. In addition to cavalries and chariots, the worriers carried short bronze swords and also had long weapons. Archaeological discoveries corroborated that the strength of the Donghu rose from the late Western Zhou to the early Spring and Autumn. By the time of the Warring States, they were already a powerful kingdom.

Description on their battles and fall of the federation:

战国中后期，东胡与燕、赵、匈奴经常发生争战，曾略取赵国人口充实边地，山戎灭后迫燕国称臣，还越燕与齐国交战。至公元前3世纪末的汉初，匈奴冒顿弑父自立，东胡王乘机遣使问罪，索要人马及至弃地，想迫使匈奴继续称臣听命。但结果却掉以轻心，引来匈奴骑兵突袭，终致国破人亡，部众离散。

Translation: In the middle and late Warring States period, Donghu frequently engaged in battles with the Yan and Zhao Kingdoms and Xiongnu. They annexed the population of the Zhao Kingdom to supplement their peripheral areas. After the Shanrong were annihilated, the Donghu forced the Yan Kingdom to submit under their rule, and further bypassed the Yan to engage in battles with the Qi Kingdom. In the beginning of the Han Dynasty in the third century BC, Maodun of the Xiongnu killed his father and took the throne. The Donghu King sent officials for condemnation and demanded for horses and land in an effort to continue maintaining rule over the Xiongnu. However, this brought surprise attacks from the Xiongnu cavalry and out of negligence, his kingdom was destroyed and his people dispersed.

Description on their culture:

据考古资料和有关文献记载表明，东胡是最早跨入文明社会的北方民族，也率先创造出灿烂的青铜文化，其发展水平在同时代的北方民族中处于领先地位。

从东胡遗物的考古发现可知，东胡人从事多种经济生产，兼有农业、畜牧业及狩猎和比较发达的手工业，其中农业生产在经济生活中占有相当的比重，墓葬和遗址中出土了各种形式的农业生产和生活工具。东胡人取得了较高的艺术成就，尤其是青铜雕刻艺术，技艺精湛，造型美观大方，纹饰形象生动、细腻，富于生活气息和民族风格。

Translation: Archaeological discoveries and relevant publications indicate that the Donghu were the earliest to evolve into a state of civilization among the northern ethnic groups and the first to develop splendid bronze culture. Analysis of archaeological remains of the Donghu showed that they were engaged in multiple forms of economic productions, including agriculture, animal husbandry, hunting, and advanced handcrafts. Among them, agricultural production occupied a substantial portion in their economic life. The tombs and ruins yielded all kinds of agricultural tools and living utensils. They made significant achievements in art, especially with bronze sculptures, characterized with fine skills, and elegant and delicate styles that demonstrated ethnic characteristics.

Suggestions for the WP article:

The quotes above provide a number of options to write the WP article. One way would be to summarize the key findings, and the other way would be to present the original quotes with translations. If any of you have better suggestions on how this article can be written, I would be happy to accept so long as they are fair and accurate. Sincerely Alexjhu —Preceding undated comment added 08:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC).

Ready to Go!

I have archived the talk page discussion in order to promote clarity. User:Alexjhu has posted a very long comment directly above this one. While I appreciate Alexjhu's enthusiasm, verbose and tendentious posts are not in the interests of an amicable conclusion to our discussion. I am further concerned that very few independent scholarly works are being cited as the basis for the proposed alterations to the article. We must have sources, and we must discuss proposed revisions in a concise and clear manner. I am confident that we can thus get to the bottom of this matter. —Finn Casey * * * 18:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving the off-topic verbosity. Do you think we should restore the scholarly sources (Yu, Pulleyblank, Cosmo, Watson, Schuessler) deleted on 3 October? Keahapana (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, could you link to diffs of the deleted sources, as well as to proof (perhaps a google search) that the sources are reliable and should be included. Then, to be fair, we can invite brief comments from the deleting editor regarding the reasons for their deletions. At present, I am leaning toward reinclusion of the sources, but we should discuss it first in a clear manner. —Finn Casey * * * 21:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to this diff mentioned above. Reading through the two large 3 October changes, one can see that the deleting editor removed various quotes, wikilinks, and references that verify hu can mean "foreign; barbarian". I thought about simply reverting these unjustified deletions, but wanted to avoid escalating this edit squabble. We've already wasted a lot of time on this discussion, and it would take many hours to list individually the dozens of diffs with Google verifications. Wouldn't it be more efficient to revert back to the 29 September version? Then we can rationally discuss removing any content that editors consider as unverified or unreliable. Thanks again. Keahapana (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

At last I am hopeful of seeing this article come together! Thank you all for your enthusiasm and hard work. I will be a bit distracted over the next few weeks (as my new book on the history of the Silk Routes in the Later Han Dynasty, Through the Jade Gate to Rome, is due to be published in a couple of weeks, and I will be busy marketing, etc. Whoopee! It has been exactly 30 years since I started on it!). However, I would be happy to check some of the references as I do have many of the quoted works here at home. Please let me know if I can help. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

John, do you have any published sources that translate the Guoyu reference to the Donghu? I look forward to reading your book. Keahapana (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Keahapana! No, I am sorry - I don't believe the reference has been published in English yet - although I may be mistaken. Hope you enjoly my book and, please, do let me know if you have any criticisms or suggestions as I may be able to weave these into a later edition and, anyway, I would like to know. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Change title?

Thanks to Finn Casey for getting this article back on track. The current "Eastern Hu" title was previously "Donghu", which is now a DAB page. Should we rename this half-translated half-transliterated phrase? Comparable Chinese historical articles are titled either "people" (Miao people, Qiang people) or parenthetical "(ethnic group)" (Di (ethnic group), Jie (ethnic group)). What do you think of "Donghu people" or "Donghu (ethnic group)"? Keahapana (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The article title was changed by a user completely unfamiliar with our discussions, in an attempt to disambiguate. But we can put the title as whatever we would like, please let me know what seems best! —Finn Casey * * * 00:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Donghu, Eastern Hu and Western Hu

Hi again! Just out of interest I thought I would add the Eulogy to the 'Chapter on the Western Regions' from the Hou Hanshu the official history of the Later (or ‘Eastern’) Han Dynasty (25-221CE), which was compiled by Fan Ye 范晔 (398-446 CE). This is adapted from my new book, Through the Jade Gate to Rome - sorry for all the self-promotion - but I need to make it clear that although it has not been published yet - it should be available on Amazon.com, etc., within a couple of weeks.

"The Eulogy says:

The Western Hu (西胡) are far away.

They live in an outer zone.

Their countries’ products are beautiful and precious,

But their character is debauched and frivolous.

They don’t follow the rites of China.

They don’t have the canonical books.

If they don’t follow the ‘Way of the gods,’

Why should they care, and what can control them?"

This Eulogy is, I believe, of interest to our discussion in a couple of ways. First, the name 'Xihu' (西胡), clearly refers to the numerous distinct peoples discussed in the text who were to be found to the west of China, which included Indians, Persians, people from the Roman Empire, the Tarim Basin, and others, discussed in this chapter of the Hou Hanshu. So, we have here a clear case of 'Hu' being used as a generic term for certain foreigners.

Secondly, I would suggest that the name 'Western Hu' is clearly being used to distinguish them from other 'Hu' - such as the 'Eastern Hu.'

This is not to completely negate the theory that 'Donghu' may also have been an attempt to transcribe a local name. There are numerous examples which could be given to show that the Chinese often tried to pick characters to represent foreign names that would not only give a rough approximation of the sound, but carry some meaning or clues to Chinese readers as well.

Because of this possibility, and the fact that these people are commonly referred to as the 'Donghu' in most English translations so far (as well as to help smooth ruffled feathers), I would suggest that it might be appropriate to move the article back under the heading of 'Donghu' (while, of course, retaining a redirect from 'Eastern Hu'). However, I do not feel strongly about this and if the rest of you disagree, I will happily go along with whatever you decide. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

PS I do think it is only fair that we stop using the highly-charged word 'barbarian' to translate 'Hu'. The Chinese used 'Hu' to refer to Romans and Indians (amongst others) who both had advanced sedentary civilisations of which the Chinese were not only aware, but generally admiring of. 'Foreigner' would seem to me to be a more accurate translation. John Hill (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Objections

The original historical documents that I have analyzed show that Donghu was an ethnonym that represented the nomadic federation of Donghu, Xianbei, and Wuhuan. Finn Casey requested for research on the English sources, which I did not see being presented here. I have no objections to include the English sources, but will not accept any presumptions concerning the translations of the name of Donghu or mixing them up with Dongyi. I am reversing the article to the former page until I see a more balanced edit. Alexjhu

Hi, please feel free to move Eastern Hu to [[Donghu (xxx)]]. But, please don't renmae it back to Donghu by cut and paste. Please see Help:Moving a page. Thanks!! --Pengyanan (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I just moved Eastern Hu to Donghu people. I have no intention to participate in the discussion about the article's title, but just adopts its original tilte Donghu and adds people for disambiguation. You guys may continue to discuss it. Thanks.--Pengyanan (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The article has been under mediation. Without having the dispute resolved, an abrupt creation of a new page and changing the name of "Donghu" into "Eastern Hu" were not appropriate. Thanks for fixing the page. Alexjhu 10/27/09 —Preceding undated comment added 05:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC).