Posts with Comments by Eventine
When China contained the world
I see. But given that the Gokturks were a major player during the Tang Dynasty, shouldn't they be distinguished from the Eastern Eurasian Xianbei who migrated into China centuries earlier? Some readers might get the impression that the Tang imperial line was related to the Gokturks, which was not the case as far as I know.
The Li family was intermarried with Turks? I had the impression that it was with Xianbei, a Mongolic or Tungusic people.
Who’s the barbarian now? Empires of the Silk Road
Thanks for the comments.
I largely agree that it is not implausible for there to have been significant contact between the Tocharians and the Chinese. But I am not sure that it is prudent to trace all or most outside influences to them. Are you guys familiar with the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon? Or the presence of bronze artifacts in Thailand in 2000 BC, or Majiayao (2700-3100 BC in Gansu) even earlier? Contact between China and the outside world might have occurred before the Tocharians, prompted by either settlers or traders. The Seima-Turibno Phenomenon, in particular, suggests a rapid migration of peoples from the Altai Mountains region into China (as well as Europe) around 1500-2000 BC. I hesitate to say what people these were, but they could've been Indo-European (perhaps Indo-Iranian) or Altaic.
These peoples seem to have had the chariot and metallurgy, but did not appear strong enough to attack major civilization centers. It could be that they were simply absorbed by the Chinese elites, and that would've been another way by which the technology & ideas could have been transmitted. Ultimately, though, I think a major piece of the puzzle that is currently missing is the precursor to the Chinese logorams. Historically, scholars have noticed similarities between these and the written forms of Babylonian and the Indus Valley culture, but nothing so significant that would suggest that it was a simple adaptation. Yet these influences could provide clues as to who, exactly, the Chinese were in contact with. Any thoughts?
I largely agree that it is not implausible for there to have been significant contact between the Tocharians and the Chinese. But I am not sure that it is prudent to trace all or most outside influences to them. Are you guys familiar with the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon? Or the presence of bronze artifacts in Thailand in 2000 BC, or Majiayao (2700-3100 BC in Gansu) even earlier? Contact between China and the outside world might have occurred before the Tocharians, prompted by either settlers or traders. The Seima-Turibno Phenomenon, in particular, suggests a rapid migration of peoples from the Altai Mountains region into China (as well as Europe) around 1500-2000 BC. I hesitate to say what people these were, but they could've been Indo-European (perhaps Indo-Iranian) or Altaic.
These peoples seem to have had the chariot and metallurgy, but did not appear strong enough to attack major civilization centers. It could be that they were simply absorbed by the Chinese elites, and that would've been another way by which the technology & ideas could have been transmitted. Ultimately, though, I think a major piece of the puzzle that is currently missing is the precursor to the Chinese logorams. Historically, scholars have noticed similarities between these and the written forms of Babylonian and the Indus Valley culture, but nothing so significant that would suggest that it was a simple adaptation. Yet these influences could provide clues as to who, exactly, the Chinese were in contact with. Any thoughts?
John Emerson: except Beckwith argues that the Zhou, too, were "non-Chinese," and that the Zhou maternal line was "probably Indo-European." This would make almost the entirety of early Chinese history Indo-European (if you also believe the Shang era entrance), which seems suspicious - how could such a large impact, akin to the founding of a civilization, not be reflected at the genetic or linguistic level? Everywhere else the Indo-Europeans went, the descendant populations have marked Indo-European traits and ended ups peaking an Indo-European language. Why would the Chinese be exempt?
My own thought is that too little credence is given to the possibility that the Eastern Eurasians were also active at this time - not in Central Asia, but perhaps in Siberia and Manchuria. Koreans claim that they were part of the Scytho-Siberian cultural sphere in ancient days. If this is true, then there might have been a diffusion into China from the Eastern steppes. This would preserve China's genetic composition and also explain the extensive word borrowing from Indo-European by Old Chinese, since the Eastern Eurasian steppes would've had contact with the West Eurasian steppes, which were dominated by the Indo-Europeans.
My own thought is that too little credence is given to the possibility that the Eastern Eurasians were also active at this time - not in Central Asia, but perhaps in Siberia and Manchuria. Koreans claim that they were part of the Scytho-Siberian cultural sphere in ancient days. If this is true, then there might have been a diffusion into China from the Eastern steppes. This would preserve China's genetic composition and also explain the extensive word borrowing from Indo-European by Old Chinese, since the Eastern Eurasian steppes would've had contact with the West Eurasian steppes, which were dominated by the Indo-Europeans.
Recent Comments