Kinship ties of the ancient Huaxia: correcting one historiographical inaccuracy

Safin Timur ORCID: 0000-0001-7196-8914 PhD in History Research fellow, China department, Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences 12 Rozhdestvenka str., Office of China, 107031, Russia, Moscow tamerlane93@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

In the middle and second half of the 20th century, the anthropological approach to the study of ancient China was very popular. The issues of ethnicity, kinship, and ethnographic parallels with the customs of the peoples of the world formed an important part of the research field. In Russian historiography, the most important achievement of this period was a multi-volume series of works on the ethnic history of the Chinese, published from 1978 to 1993 ^[1-6], which remains the most relevant source of information on many issues to this day. As part of this work, I will try to present to the reader a small, but, in my opinion, a fundamentally important clarification to one of her theses, key to understanding the early ethnic history of the Chinese.

In the work "The Ancient Chinese. Problems of ethnogenesis" the authors (M. V. Kryukov, M. V. Sofronov and N. N. Cheboksary) claim that by the 7th-6th centuries BC an ethnic community of the ancient Chinese was being formed, called hua, xia, or Huaxia at that time ^{[1, p. 272]}. One of the key arguments in favor of this position is that "from the point of view of the Huaxia themselves, their community was based on the bonds of kinship, unity of origin" ^{[1, p. 272]}. In my opinion, this statement is not entirely accurate. Below I will consider specific examples of information about the relationship of Huaxia, which are given by the authors of this work. All of them originate from the "Chun-qiu Zuo zhuan" (Commentary by Zuo [Qiumin] to the [chronicle] of Chun-qiu) ^[7], a key source on the history of China in the period of the 8th-5th centuries BC.

The first example is the speech of Tzu Fu, a dignitary of the principality of Jin, who in 528 BC tried to dissuade his master from an alliance with the "barbarians", to the detriment of relations with the "fraternal" state of Lu: "You believed the lies of the barbarians, thereby breaking with the possession of the brothers!" ^{[1, p. 272]}. Continuing this line, Zi Fu says: "If the kingdom of Lu serves Jin as the elder, is it really worse than if our kingdom is served by an insignificant barbarian state? Lu is the domain of our brothers. If you renounce it for the sake of the barbarians, what benefit will it bring to Jin?" ^{[1, p. 273]}. Indeed, from these words it can be understood that for Jin, the principality of Lu was considered "fraternal". But in fact, Tzu Fu says nothing about the ethnic proximity of the population of the two principalities.

In a slightly more complete form, the first of the quotations reads as follows: "The ruler believed the slander of [the barbarians] Man-yi, thereby broke [with] the state of the brothers, abandoned the descendants of Zhou-gong" () ^{[7, p. 1528]}. The Zhou-gong mentioned here was the son of the Zhou king Wen-wang and the younger brother of King Wu-wang (XI century BC), as well as the founder of the princely dynasty that ruled in Lu ^{[8, p. 64]}. The ruler of Jin, in turn, raised his family to the son of Wu-wang named Shuyi ^{[8, p. 139]}. Thus, the founders Lu and Jin were related to each other in the truest sense: their common ancestor was the Zhou Wen-wang. And speaking of "fraternal" relations, Tzu Fu does not mean a metaphorical community of origin of the inhabitants, but a very clear and genealogically traceable relationship between the rulers of the two principalities. In interpreting further passages from "Chun-qiu Zuo zhuan", the authors of "Problems of Ethnogenesis" make the same mistake, substituting the usual kinship relations with ethnic identity.

In the 24th year of the reign of the Chinese Xi-gong (637 BC), the Zhou Wang decided to punish the principality of Zheng by the forces of the barbarians. The dignitary Fu Chen dissuaded him: "This is impossible. Now, O Son of Heaven, you cannot restrain your momentary irritation and intend to abandon our kindred Zheng!" ^{[1, p. 273]}. The authors of the "Problems of Ethnogenesis" propose to see this as evidence of the ethnic identity of the ancient Chinese. But alas, in this case we are dealing with both ignoring the context and distorting the original. Firstly, the original text does not say "to abandon the Zheng related to us", but rather in a slightly different way: "to abandon the Zheng relatives" () ^{[7, p. 483]}. And the context makes it quite clear which family we are talking about. Admonishing the lord, Fu Chen names twenty-six related states, as well as the place of their rulers in the genealogy of the Zhou family ^{[7, pp. 480-481]}. The list does not include all ancient Chinese principalities, but only those whose rulers bore the family name Ji ?, the same as that of the Zhou king himself. Those principalities whose rulers had other surnames were not included in the list of "relatives". For example, the rulers of the principality of Song ? (which will be mentioned later) They were considered descendants of the kings of the Shang state (circa 1600-1046 BC) ^{[8, p. 123]}, whose family name was Tzu Yi ^{[9, p. 166]}. And although the Sung princes did not differ significantly from the representatives of the Ji family in any way culturally or linguistically, Fu Chen does not include them in the list of "relatives". Obviously, we are not talking about the ethnic identity of all the "ancient Chinese", but only about the kinship between the dynasties. And only by dynasties: it should be noted that Fu Chen in his speech divides "relatives" and "people", because the princes were related to each other, but not to the mass of their subjects: "It is impossible! [I, your] servant, have heard that [that] great rulers with the help of (grace-)de [first of all] help the people, [and] second of all, take care of [their] relatives, [and] by this they come closer to each other" () ^{[7, p. 480]}. "People" here refers to the inhabitants of their state, and "relatives" refers to the rulers of other, "related" states.

It was said above that Fu Chen does not include the completely "Chinese" principality of Song in the list of relatives, and there is explicit evidence in "Chun-qiu Zuo Zhuan" in this regard. In the same year (637 BC), the Sung Cheng-gong was on a visit to the principality of Zheng, and the Zheng Wen-gong wanted to arrange a feast, but did not know if it was right from the point of view of ritual. To this, the Zheng dignitary Huang Wu-tzu replied: "The Song are descendants of the previous dynasty, in Zhou [they] are guests" (), and a great feast was given in honor of Wen–gong ^{[7, pp. 486-487]}. Obviously, the problem was precisely that the Song and Zheng rulers did not have common ancestors and were not considered male relatives, which imposed certain restrictions on interaction in the ritual sphere.

The following quote is embedded by the author of "Chun-qiu Zuo zhuan" in the mouth of Guan Zhong, a dignitary of the principality of Qi, who in 661 BC called on his ruler to help the principality of Xing to repel the raid of the barbarians: "Barbarians are jackals and wolves, they cannot make concessions. They are relatives, and they should not be left in trouble" ^{[1, p. 274],[7, p. 346]}. The Jiang family ruled in Qi, and the Ji family ruled in Xing, but Guan Zhong speaks of relatives. Maybe this is evidence of ethnic identity? But in fact, Jiang and Ji were also related by marriage, as explicitly stated in the following quote, which is cited by the authors of "Problems of Ethnogenesis", namely:

"The juxtaposition of "huaxia" and "barbarians" did not depend on the political situation: after a successful campaign against the barbarians, the victorious commander, according to custom, brought prisoners to the capital, and then performed a ceremony of sacrificing them; if a punitive campaign was undertaken against the possessions of "relatives", then the winner was limited to the relation of Wang and the prisoners to sacrifice they did not bring it, "showing respect for those who are related," the chronicle emphasizes" ^{[1, p. 274]}. Here we mention an excerpt from the message "Chun-qiu Zuo Zhuan" for the second year of the reign of the Chinese Cheng-gong (589 BC) about the conflict between the principalities of Jin (Ji clan) and Qi (Jiang clan). Having successfully attacked Qi, the Jin ruler sent trophies to the court of the Zhou king, but the Son of Heaven refused to accept the gifts, accompanying this step with a proper explanation of the ritual: "[When the barbarians of the four cardinal directions] man, yi, rong, di do not follow Wang's orders, indulge in drunkenness [and] violate the norms, wang orders them to be punished. Then, [if] there are trophies and prisoners, Wang personally accepts and rewards them. [This is] what punishes the insolent [and] rewards those who have merit. [When] Sheng-ju's brothers [and female relatives] destroy Wang's plans, Wang orders them to be punished. [About this] case report and only, [winners] do not demonstrate their merits, thereby [show] respect [to] family [and] friends, do not allow evil and wickedness" () ^{[7, p. 815]}.

Let's pay attention to the compound term Xiong-di sheng-ju, literally: "older and younger brothers, sons of sisters and brothers of mothers", that is: male and female relatives. The term sheng-ju is quite rare, and, obviously, it is not used here by chance. For the Zhou king, the representatives of the Jiang family were not fully "brothers" of Xiong di, since they did not ascribe their family to Wen Wang through the male line. But thanks to marriage unions, the rulers of Qi were included in the category of "sons of sisters and brothers of mothers" of sheng-jiu. In particular, the founder of the Qing ruling house, Tai Gong, was an ally of Wen Wang and Wu Wang ^{[8, p. 39]}, and his daughter, Yi Jiang, was the wife of Wu Wang, the mother of the heir of Cheng Wang and the aforementioned Shuya, the founder of the Jin ruling house ^{[7, p. 1470]}. This means that the ruler of Jin, attacking Qi, attacked his relatives (and relatives of the Zhou king) on the female line. Judging by the described situation, distant kinship in the female line was "on the verge" of being recognized, and depending on the situation could be interpreted as more or less significant: hence the difference in interpretation of ritual norms regarding the presentation of trophies. But in any case, the relationship between the Ji and Jiang clans is also considered here through the prism of very real kinship relations between the rulers, and the relevant examples cannot serve as proof of ethnic identity. It is possible that the role of Tai Gong and his daughter Yi Jiang is fundamentally important in this context, because they were the heroes of the legends about the first Zhou kings, who were endowed with special significance within the framework of Zhou ritual practice.

The last two quotations, designed to demonstrate the common origin of huaxia, are similar to each other in content: "barbarians are not related to us and are distinguished by greed" ^{[1, p. 274],[7, p. 959]}; "barbarians are frivolous and do not know the order, they are greedy and are not related to us; when they win, they do not concede glory, and when they are defeated, they do not come to each other's aid" ^{[1, p. 274],[7, p. 134]}. It is implied that if "barbarians" are not related to "us", then "we" (ancient Chinese) are related. This argument is quite logical, but alas: the authors made a mistake in the translation. Listing the negative qualities of barbarians, ancient Chinese authors (who do not hide their xenophobia) claim that their neighbors at Qin "do not have kindred feelings" (that is, they do not consider it necessary to follow the "only correct" ritual norms of relations between relatives). If they wanted to say that the barbarians are "not related," they would use a different negation: Fei Qin.

The listed examples cannot testify in favor of the fact that the inhabitants of ancient Chinese principalities possessed ethnic identity and shared ideas about common origin already in the 7th-6th centuries BC. All statements about kinship relate to rulers, and imply not an ethnic community, but a genealogically traceable blood relationship or kinship by marriage between individuals. This is evidenced by various clarifications to the concept of kinship ("descendants of Zhou-gong", "sons of sisters and brothers of mothers"), the absence in the list of "related" principalities of those whose rulers bore other generic names, as well as the distinction between the concepts of "relatives" and "people". Undoubtedly, representatives of the ancient Chinese elite had some kind of common self-awareness. The presence of a common language, culture, ritual norms and an extensive network of kinship ties cemented their unity, creating a clear contrast between Huaxia and barbarians. But were the broad masses of the ordinary population of ancient Chinese principalities included in the concept of "huaxia"? Did the representatives of the elite feel their unity with the commoners? Alas, for the creators of ancient Chinese elite culture, the "people" is a faceless mass that does not possess subjectivity, and our sources simply do not disclose such topics. It is possible that in the context of the juxtaposition of "we" (huaxia) and "they" (barbarians), the masses of commoners were simply not taken into account. And by calling each other "brothers", the ancient Chinese aristocrats could act in the manner of the princes of Ancient Russia, whose "brotherhood" consisted in a common origin from Rurik – a trait that distinguished princes from subjects, and not vice versa.

In fact, the idea of a single origin of the elite and commoners could be alien to ancient Chinese culture. In particular, mythical tales about the origin of people speak against this. According to one version, people were created by the goddess Nyu-wa from two different materials: "In the world they say [that when] heaven [and] earth separated, there were no people yet, [and the goddess] Nyuva rolled up the yellow earth and made people. It was a difficult task, she tried to do it without a break, and then [she] took ropes and harnesses, [lowered] into the mud, lifted [and] so did people. So the rich [and] noble is the people of the yellow earth, [and] the poor, low-born, all [used in] the work – people harness" () ^{[10, vol. 1, p.365]}. According to another version, commoners (but not all others) arose from parasites in the body of the giant Pan-gu : "All the reptiles of [his] body, disturbed by the wind, turned into common people" () ^{[11, vol. 3, p. 1216]}. Alas, both versions were recorded relatively late, and are known only from medieval sources of the 10th-11th centuries, and therefore cannot talk about the situation in antiquity. But their very existence shows that the existence of ideas about any community of aristocrats and common people, and even more so about their common origin, should not be automatically speculated. If such a community existed, it was only in the context of the class division, which left its indelible imprint on it. For example, giving your daughter in marriage to a barbarian ruler was considered more acceptable than marrying her off to a poor peasant. If we consider the peasants to be part of Huaxia, it turns out that the line between Huaxia and barbarians was less insurmountable than between huaxia and... huaxia.

I note that not so long ago, the idea of a clear differentiation between Huaxia and the commoners of the ancient Chinese kingdoms was expressed by Christopher Beckwith, but his argument raises serious doubts. The author considers the words hua and xia to be two transcription variants of the Iranian word Arya in the meaning of "noble", "noble" ^[12], but for this he has to seriously correct the phonetic reconstruction of the corresponding ancient Chinese words. In my opinion, Beckwith's argument cannot be accepted today, but the very thesis that commoners were not necessarily included in the Huaxia community can be considered a promising hypothesis.