 | This articleshould specify the language of its non-English content using{{lang}} or{{langx}},{{transliteration}} for transliterated languages, and{{IPA}} for phonetic transcriptions, with an appropriateISO 639 code. Wikipedia'smultilingual support templates may also be used.See why.(December 2021) |
_%25E4%25BA%25BA%25E5%25A4%25B4%25E5%25BD%25A2%25E9%258A%258E%25EF%25BC%2588qi%25C3%25B3ng%25EF%25BC%2589%25E9%259D%2592%25E9%2593%259C%25E6%2588%259F%2c_%25E7%2581%25B5%25E5%258F%25B0%25E5%258E%25BF%25E7%2599%25BD%25E8%258D%2589%25E5%259D%25A1%25E5%2587%25BA%25E5%259C%259F%2c_%25E8%25A5%25BF%25E5%2591%25A8.jpg)
) next to this area.[4]
TheXianyun (simplified Chinese:猃狁;traditional Chinese:獫狁, 玁狁;pinyin:Xiǎnyǔn;Wade–Giles:Hsien-yün;Old Chinese: (ZS) *g.ramʔ-lunʔ; (Schuessler) *hɨamᴮ-juinᴮ < *hŋamʔ-junʔ[6]) was an ancient nomadic tribe that invaded theZhou dynasty.[7] This Chineseexonym is written withxian獫 or玁 "long-snouted dog", and this "dog" radical 犭 is commonly used ingraphic pejorative characters. "Xianyun" was the preferred designation for northern tribes during theZhou dynasty, earlier designations being theXunyu,Guifang (Xia and Shang dynasties), and later ones being theXiongnu, during theHan dynasty.[8]
The Xianyun appear to have been a fairly structured society occupying a broad expanse from theHetao area of theYellow River to the Upper Yellow River valley. Xianyun society was fairly uniform culturally, with a high level of concentration at the top, and was capable of coordinated action against theZhou dynasty. "Xianyun" was probably their self-designatedendonym, while the Zhou tended to call them using the general termRong, (戎, "Warlike people").[4] These terms were rather interchangeable: a poem probably composed during the reign ofYih (899–892 BC) describes incursions alternatively by the Rong (戎) and the Di (狄), and concludes that the Xianyu destroyed everything.[9]
The Xianyun used bronze objects, such as bronze helmets, spears,ding (鼎) andpu (铺) vessels, which were captured and recorded by the Zhou and cast into their ownding ceremonial vessels, all during the reigns ofYih andXiao (899–886 BC).[10] Like the Zhou, they also used war chariots, up to 400 in one offensive. They attacked the vicinity of the capitalHaojing (modernXi'an), all during the reign ofKing Xuan of Zhou (827/25–782 BC).[11]
The earliest archaeological records mentioning the Xianyun appear in great number during the reign of King Xuan of Zhou (827/25–782 BC).[12] TheBook of Songs contains four songs about military actions between the Zhou and the Xianyun. The song "Gathering sow thistle" (Cai qi) mentions 3,000 Zhou chariots in battle against the Xianyun. The song "Sixth month" (Liu yue) says that the battlefield was between the lower courses of theJing (泾河) andLuo rivers and theWei valley, very close to the center of the Zhou state.[13]
Written records place the first incursions against Zhou under the nameXirong "Western Rong" in 843 BC.[13]
In 840 BC, the fourteenth year of reign ofKing Li of Zhou (877–841 BC), the Xianyun reached the Zhou capital Haojing, as reported in the inscription of theDuo You ding: "It was in the tenth month, because the Xianyun greatly arose and broadly attacked Jingshi, [it] was reported to the king. The king commanded Duke Wu: “Dispatch your most capable men and pursue at Jingshi!” Duke Wu commanded Duoyou: “Lead the ducal chariots and pursue at Jingshi!” (...) Duoyou had cut off heads and captured prisoners to be interrogated: in all, using the ducal chariots to cut off 205 heads, to capture 23 prisoners, and to take 117Rong chariots".[14] Apparently, the "Western Rong" and Xianyun were the same people here, named in the first case by a generic term meaning "warlike tribes of the west" and in the second case by their actual ethnonym.[13]
.jpg)
The Xianyun attacked again in 823 BC, the fifth year of reign of King Xuan. Some scholars (e.g.Jaroslav Průšek) suggest that their military tactics characterized by sudden attacks could only have been carried out by highly mobile troops, most likely on horseback and relate the appearance of the Xianyun to migrations from theAltai region in Chinese or, more specifically, the appearance ofScythians andCimmerians migrating from the west. However, there is no definite evidence that the Xianyun were nomadic warriors;[13][15] moreover, a Duo You bronzeding vessel inscription unearthed in 1980 nearXi'an tells that c. 816 BC Xianyun forces attacked a Jing (京) garrison in the lowerOrdos region, drawing a Zhou military response. It indicated that like the Zhou, the Xianyun fought on horse-drawn chariots; contemporary evidence does not indicate that the increased mobility of the Xianyun is related to the emergence of mounted nomads armed with bows and arrows.[13][16]
Due to pressure from the Xianyun or the Quanrong, theWestern Zhou dynasty collapsed in 771 BC and had to withdraw from theWei River valley (Guanzhong), moving the capital away fromXi'an, toLuoyang about 300 km to the east.[17]
.png)
The Xianyun may have been related to the archaeologically identifiedSiwa culture, but questions are raised against this theory because the Siwa sites are small with low subsistence levels, whereas the Xianyun seem to have been more advanced.[20] According to Feng Li, these could not have sustained an advanced society like the Xianyun.[20] The debate remains open.[21]
From the 7th century BC, the Siwa culture was followed by the appearance ofEurasian steppe cultures, particularlyScyticOrdos culture, which again interracted in various ways with theCentral Plains of China.[22]
The nomadic leaders depicted inDeer stones inMongolia, dated to 1400–700 BCE, leading large-scale organized nomadic groups, may have affected the lateShang and earlyZhou dynasties of China to their south. They were equipped with weapons and instruments of war, such as daggers, shafted axes, or curved rein holders for their horses. These powerful nomadic leaders, leading large-scale organized nomadic groups capable of building monumental decorated stone tombs, may have being part of the nomadic challenge to the early Chinese dynasties.[18]
TheUpper Xiajiadian culture was aBronze Age archaeological culture inNortheast China derived from the Eurasian steppe bronze tradition.[23] It is associated with theDonghu ("Eastern Barbarians") of Chinese history.
Later Chinese annals contain a number of references to the Xianyun, such as bySima Qian (c. 145/135 – 86 BC),Ying Shao (140–206 AD),Wei Zhao (204–273), andJin Zhuo (late 3rd–4th century AD).[24][25][26][27] They stated thatXunyu (獯鬻) orXianyun were terms that designated nomadic people who later during theHan dynasty were transcribed as "Xiongnu" (匈奴). This view was also held by theTang dynasty commentatorSima Zhen (c. 8th century).[28]Wang Guowei (1877–1927), as a result of phonetical studies and comparisons based on the inscriptions on bronze and the structure of the characters, came to the conclusion that the tribal names "Guifang" (鬼方), "Xunyu" (獯鬻), "Xianyu" (鮮虞), "Xianyun", "Rong" (戎), "Di" (狄), and "Hu" (胡) given in the annals designated one and the same people, who later entered history under the name Xiongnu.[29][30][31]
), and the taking of 50 prisoners.The exact time period when the nomads' ethnonym had the Old Chinese phonetizations ancestral tostandard ChineseXianyun remains determined only vaguely. Using theBronze Inscriptions andClassic of Poetry, Sinologist Axel Schuessler posited the date of 780 BC.[32]
Using Sima Qian's Shiji and other sources, Vsevolod Taskin concludes that in the earlier pre-historic period (during the time of legendaryYellow Emperor) the Xiongnu were called 葷粥Hunyu, in the late pre-historic period (during the time of legendaryEmperor Yao andEmperor Shun) they were called 戎Rong, in the literate period starting with theShang dynasty (1600–1046 BC) they were called 鬼方Guifang, in theZhou period (1045–256 BC) they were called 獫狁Xianyun, starting from theQin period (221–206 BC) the Chinese annalists called them 匈奴Xiongnu.[33][34][35]
Even so, Paul R. Goldin (2011) reconstructs theOld Chinese pronunciations of 葷粥 ~ 獯鬻 ~ 獯鬻 ~ 薰育 as *xur-luk, 獫狁 ashram′-lun′, and 匈奴 as *xoŋ-NA; and comments all three names are "manifestly unrelated". He further states thatsound changes made the names more superficially similar than they really had been, and prompted later historians and commentators to conclude that those names must have referred to one same people in different epochs, even though people during theWarring States period would never have been thus misled.[36]
Li Feng (2006) characterizes Wang Guowei's argument as "essentiallydeductive" and not based on solid evidence.[37] Following Pulleyblank (1983), Li rejects the identification of the Xianyun with the Xiongnu, and only accepts identification of the Xianyun as one of the 戎Rong "warlike foreigner" groups.[38] Li proposes that the Xianyun:
Further, Li suggests that theXianyun andQuanrong were either closely related[40] or the term Quanrong was invented duringEastern Zhou period to denote the Xianyun.[41] Li points to evidence from the Western Zhoubronze inscriptions, theClassic of Poetry,Guoyu, theBamboo Annals, and that when the nameXianyun became writtengraphically pejorative as 獫狁 with the 犭"dog" radical, the character 獫's notion of dog[a] motivated the coining ofQuanrong (犬戎; lit. "Dog Barbarians").[45]
Comments about the conflicts against the Xianyun appears in several poems and bronze inscriptions of the Western Zhou.
| Name | Artifact | Transliteration | "Xianyun" | Translation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gathering Millet (Caiqi) 采芑 Song 178, verse 4 | Poem fromThe Book of Songs (Shi Jing 詩經) | 蠢爾蠻荊 大邦為讎 方叔元老 克壯其猶 方叔率止 執訊獲醜 戎車嘽嘽 嘽嘽焞焞 如霆如雷 顯允方叔 征伐獫狁 蠻荊來威 | How foolish were those savage tribes To make an enemy of the great state! Fangshu the Great Marshall Laid mighty plans, Led his army forth. He captured prisoners for questioning. Many were his war chariots, Many and ample. Like claps of thunder they rumbled. Illustrious was Fangshu, he was true, He smote the Xianyun barbarians, He over-awed the tribes of Jing.[46] | |
| Duo You ding 多友鼎 840 BC[47] |  |  | | It was in the tenth month, because the Xianyun greatly arose and broadly attacked Jingshi, [it] was reported to the king. The king commanded Duke Wu: “Dispatch your most capable men and pursue at Jingshi!” Duke Wu commanded Duoyou: “Lead the ducal chariots and pursue at Jingshi!” On the guiwei (no. 20) day, the Rong attacked Xun and took captives. Duoyou pursued to the west. In the morning of the jiashen (no. 21) day, [he] struck [them] at Qi. Duoyou had cut off heads and captured prisoners to be interrogated: in all, using the ducal chariots to cut off 2[X]5 heads, to capture 23 prisoners, and to take 117 Rong chariots; [Duoyou] liberated the Xun people captured [by the Xianyun]. Furthermore, [Duoyou] struck at Gong; [he] cut off 36 heads and captured 2 prisoners and took 10 chariots. Following [the Xianyun], [Duoyou] pursued andstruck at Shi; Duoyou again had cut off heads and taken prisoners. Thereafter, [Duoyou] rapidly pursued [them] and arrived at Yangzhong; the ducal chariotry cut off 115 heads and captured 3 prisoners. It was that [they] could not capture the [Rong] chariots; they burnt [them]. And it was their (the Xianyun's) horses that they wounded gravely. [Duoyou] recaptured the Jingshi captives.[47] |
| Guoji Zibai pan 虢季子白盘 816 BC |  |  | | On the Dinghai day during the auspicious first month of the twelfth year, Guo Jizibai made the treasure plate. The illustrious Zibai was brave and accomplished in military operations and managed the world. They attacked and conquered the Xianyun and reached the north of Luoshui. He beheaded 500 enemies, captured 50 prisoners, and became the vanguard of the entire army. The mighty Zibai cut off his enemy's left ear and presented it to the king. The king greatly appreciated Zibai's majesty. The king came to Xuanxie in the Ancestral Temple of Chengzhou and held a banquet for all the ministers. The king said: "Father Bai, your merits are outstanding and extremely glorious." The king gave Zibai a chariot with four horses to assist the king. He gave him a scarlet bow and arrows, a very bright color. He was given a big ax to use to conquer the barbarians. (Zibai made the utensil to make it useful for generations to come). |
Buqi gui (JC: 4329) 815 BC[48] | .jpg) .jpg) |  | .jpg) | It was the ninth month, first auspiciousness, wushen-day (no. 45), Boshi said: “Buqi, the Border Protector! The Xianyun broadly attacked Xiyu, and the king commanded us to pursue to the west. I came back to send in the captives. I commanded you to defend and to pursue at Luo, and you used our chariots sweepingly attacking the Xianyun at Gaoyin; you cut off many heads and took many prisoners. The Rong greatly gathered and followed chasing you, and you and the Rong greatly slaughtered and fought. You have done well, and have not let our chariots get trapped in difficulty. You captured many, cutting off heads and taking prisoners.” Boshi said: “Buqi, you young man! You are nimble in warfare; [I] award you one bow, a bunch of arrows, five households of servants, ten fields of land, with which [you are] to take up your affairs.” Buqi bowed with [his] head touching the ground, [and extols] the beneficence. [Buqi] herewith makes for my august grandfather Gongbo and Mengji [this] sacrificial gui-vessel, with which to entreat much good fortune, longevity without limits, and eternal pureness without end. May [my] sons’ sons and grandsons’ grandsons eternally treasure and use [it] inofferings.[48] |
There is research on the ethnic image of the northern nomadic people of the Altaic language family. It may be that this is the image of the Xianyun tribe that once posed a serious military threat to the northern border of the Zhou Dynasty. They were called "Ghost people" (Guifang) because they looked different from the Chinese. 有考证系阿尔泰语系的北方游牧民族人种形象。可能是曾经对周朝北方边境构成严重军事威胁的猃狁部族，因相貌异于华夏，被称作"鬼方"。
The Europoid faces of the two figures atop the present ornament are the only other clues to its non-Chinese origins. It is therefore almost inevitable that such scabbard ornaments should appear in far western and northern contexts, where cultural exchange was easiest and most active.(with photographs)
The faces on no. 41, a scabbard ornament made some eight hundred years earlier, suggesting that peoples of similar ethnic—probably West Asian—origins may have arrived at China's northwestern borders as early as the beginning of the first millennium B.C.
According to Li Feng's study, based primarily on written sources, the "Xianyun"were a large-scale society with highly concentrated power that lived in an area that stretched from the Hetao (bend of the Yellow River) to the upper Yellow River Valley.The Xianyun were organized around coherent social units with a shared cultural tradition and background, laying the foundation for them to reconcile with each other to fight the Zhou together. "Xianyun" was probably a self-claimed title, and bronze inscriptions suggest that the Zhou called the Xianyun the "Rong," indicating that it was a warlike group (Li Feng 2006:142–45).
According to scholars of the Han dynasty, this poem was composed during the reign of King Yih in the Western Zhou. This proposal was endorsed by the new text school of the Poetry and the recordings in the Biography of Xiongnu of the Hanshu: "懿王时，戎狄交侵，中国被其苦。诗人作诗疾而歌之曰：'靡(没有)室靡家， 狁之故。" The Hanshu states that "during the reign of King Yih, the Rong and Di alternatively invaded (the Central Kingdom), the country suffered from them; the poet first composed the refrain, and then quickly sang "No family, no home, (all) because of the Xianyun."
The Shitong ding from Xiawuzi village, Fufeng, Shaanxi, for instance, was inscribed with the following: 孚戎金胄卅、戎鼎廿、铺五十、剑廿, 用铸兹尊鼎. Captured thirty Rong metal helmets, twenty Rong ding, fifty pu cauldrons, (and) twenty swords. Made this revered ding. Scholars think that metal helmets, Rong ding, pu cauldrons and swords are all bronze objects that were used by these northern groups (Li 1983).
The three discrete sub-regions we have chosen for study were of particular significance in the Western Zhou period, as all three provided buffers against intrusive movement southwards into agricultural areas during the centuries when the administrative centre was near present-day Xi'an (1045–771 BCE). During the eighth century BC new invaders, named in vessel inscriptions and transmitted texts as either the Quanrong or the Xianyun, drove the Zhou from their centres near Xi'an to the secondary capital at Luoyang, demonstrating the need for some kind of enhanced defence.
Attacks from the north on Zhou territory are well recorded in bronze inscriptions, such as that on the Duo You ding, which describes a major chariot battle with the Xianyun.(...) We can look first at Mongolia to explain this shift, for a new development, the creation of large stone monuments, khirigsuurs (fig. 19) and deer stones (fig. 20), marks significant on-going changes in steppe societies. These impressive structures are widespread across western and central Mongolia, dating from 1400–700 BC. It would have taken a large labour force to create the mounds of stones that make up khirigsuurs, which seem to have been both burial and ceremonial sites for central figures of the many small groups of Mongolian mobile pastoralist societies. (...) In some tombs are horse fittings, such as bits. Parts of hundreds of horses might be interred over time around a major khirigsuur. (...) Deer stones tell the same story (fig 20). Although the majority are stylised, a few of these tall, originally standing, stones have a human head carved on one side at the rounded top, sometimes with temple rings shown on two of the other three sides, perhaps representing a powerful individual, or the more general concept of powerful leaders. (...) Then comes a horizontal belt and from this hang weapons, especially knives or daggers, and shafted axes, with curved rein holders below. A shield is often shown higher up. Not only do these deer stones represent people, they memorialise the achievements of warriors with their personal weapons. (...) These developments had probably had an impact on the peoples in the arc who had then interacted with the late Shang and early Zhou states.
Li argues that the Xianyun cannot be identified with the archaeological remains of the Siwa culture because all the sites that are associated with this archaeological culture are small and simple, whereas the activities of the Xianyun suggest a much more complex society (p. 187). While this observation makes sense, it may have more to do with the problematic definition of the archaeological "culture" rather than with Xianyun society. Pushing the location of the Xianyun further north and identifying them with a vaguely defined "Northern Zone" tradition (p. 188) certainly does not advance our under standing of the Xianyun society.
The archaeological culture in this area became more complex after the disintegration of the Qijia Culture. The collision-integration initially occurred between native Siwa Culture and Central Plains cultures, followed by Eurasian steppe cultures and indigenous cultures that later converged and exchanged again (Li et al., 1993; Wang, 2012).
Historical non-Han peoples in China | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ancient |
|  | ||||||||
| Medieval |
| |||||||||
| Early Modern |
| |||||||||
.jpg)
_monuments%2c_including_a_two-horse_and_a_four-horse_vehicle_(vertical_layout).png)