Xianyun

The Xianyun (; Old Chinese: ( ZS) *''g.ramʔ-lunʔ''; (Schuessler) *''hɨamᴮ-juinᴮ'' < *''hŋamʔ-junʔ'') was an ancient nomadic tribe that invaded the Zhou dynasty. This Chinese exonym is written with ''xian'' 獫 or 玁 "long-snouted dog", and this "dog" radical 犭 is commonly used in graphic pejorative characters. "Xianyun" was the preferred designation for northern tribes during the Zhou dynasty, earlier designations being the Xunyu, Guifang (Xia and Shang dynasties), and later ones being the Xiongnu, during the Han dynasty.

Overview

The Xianyun appear to have been a fairly structured society occupying a broad expanse from the Hetao area of the Yellow 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 the Zhou dynasty. "Xianyun" was probably their self-designated endonym, while the Zhou tended to call them using the general term ''Rong'', (戎, "Warlike people"). These terms were rather interchangeable: a poem probably composed during the reign of Yih (899–892 BCE) describes incursions alternatively by the Rong (戎) and the Di (狄), and concludes that the Xianyu destroyed everything.

The Xianyun used bronze objects, such as bronze helmets, spears, '' ding'' (鼎) and ''pu'' (铺) vessels, which were captured and recorded by the Zhou and cast into their own '' ding'' ceremonial vessels, all during the reigns of Yih and Xiao (899–886 BCE). Like the Zhou, they also used war chariots, up to 400 in one offensive. They attacked the vicinity of the capital Haojing (modern Xi'an), all during the reign of King Xuan (827/25–782 BCE).

The earliest archaeological records mentioning the Xianyun appear in great number during the reign of King Xuan of Zhou (827/25–782 BCE). The Book 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 the Jing (泾河) and Luo rivers and the Wei valley, very close to the center of the Zhou state.Nicola Di Cosmo, ''The Northern Frontier in Pre-Imperial China//The Cambridge History of Ancient China'', p. 920

Written records place the first incursions against Zhou under the name Xirong "Western Rong" in 843 BCE.

In 840 BCE, the fourteenth year of reign of King Li of Zhou (877–841 BCE), the Xianyun reached the Zhou capital Haojing, as reported in the inscription of the Duo You ding: "It was in the tenth month, because the Xianyun greatly arose and broadly attacked Jingshi, twas 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 117 Rong chariots". 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.

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 the Altai region in Chinese or, more specifically, the appearance of Scythians and Cimmerians migrating from the west. However, there is no definite evidence that the Xianyun were nomadic warriors; moreover, a Duo You bronze ding vessel inscription unearthed in 1980 near Xi'an tells that c. 816 BCE Xianyun forces attacked a Jing (京) garrison in the lower Ordos 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.

Due to pressure from the Xianyun or the Quanrong, the Western Zhou dynasty collapsed in 771 BCE and had to withdraw from the Wei River valley (Guanzhong), moving the capital away from Xi'an, to Luoyang about 300 km to the east.

Archaeological identification

Siwa culture (1300–600 BCE)

The Xianyun may have been related to the archaeologically identified Siwa 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. According to Feng Li, these could not have sustained an advanced society like the Xianyun. The debate remains open.

From the 7th century BCE, the Siwa culture was followed by the appearance of Eurasian steppe cultures, particularly Scytic Ordos culture, which again interracted in various ways with the Central Plains of China.

Deer stones culture (1400–700 BCE)

The nomadic leaders depicted in Deer stones in Mongolia, dated to 1400–700 BCE, leading large-scale organized nomadic groups, may have affected the late Shang and early Zhou 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.

Upper Xiajiadian culture (1000–600 BCE)

The Upper Xiajiadian culture was a Bronze Age archaeological culture in Northeast China derived from the Eurasian steppe bronze tradition. It is associated with the Donghu ("Eastern Barbarians") of Chinese history.

Later accounts

Later Chinese annals contain a number of references to the Xianyun, such as by Sima Qian (c. 145/135 – 86 BCE), Ying Shao (140–206 AD), Wei Zhao (204–273), and Jin Zhuo (late 3rd–4th century AD). They stated that Xunyu (獯鬻) or ''Xianyun'' were terms that designated nomadic people who later during the Han dynasty were transcribed as "Xiongnu" (匈奴). This view was also held by the Tang dynasty commentator Sima Zhen (c. 8th century). 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.

The exact time period when the nomads' ethnonym had the Old Chinese phonetizations ancestral to standard Chinese ''Xianyun'' remains determined only vaguely. Using the Bronze Inscriptions and Classic of Poetry, Sinologist Axel Schuessler posited the date of 780 BCE.

Using Sima Qian's Shiji and other sources, Vsevolod Taskin concludes that in the earlier pre-historic period (during the time of legendary Yellow Emperor) the Xiongnu were called 葷粥 ''Hunyu'', in the late pre-historic period (during the time of legendary Emperor Yao and Emperor Shun) they were called 戎 ''Rong'', in the literate period starting with the Shang dynasty (1600–1046 BCE) they were called 鬼方 '' Guifang'', in the Zhou period (1045–256 BCE) they were called 獫狁 ''Xianyun'', starting from the Qin period (221–206 BCE) the Chinese annalists called them 匈奴 ''Xiongnu''.

Even so, Paul R. Goldin (2011) reconstructs the Old Chinese pronunciations of 葷粥 ~ 獯鬻 ~ 獯鬻 ~ 薰育 as *''xur-luk'', 獫狁 as ''hram′-lun′'', and 匈奴 as *''xoŋ-NA''; and comments all three names are "manifestly unrelated". He further states that sound 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 the Warring States period would never have been thus misled.

Li Feng (2006) characterizes Wang Guowei's argument as "essentially deductive" and not based on solid evidence. 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. Li proposes that the Xianyun:
*were indigenous hunters, farmers, and pastoralists living in widely distributed communities in the "Northern Zone Complex" in the region stretching from the Yellow River's Ordos Loop to its upper reaches;
*were possibly cultural successors to the Ordos culture ( 6th to 2nd centuries BCE; from late Shang to early Western Zhou), with pastoralism gradually becoming dominant; and
*the Xianyun society boasted "a considerable size and high concentration of power", allowing them to field hundreds of chariots against the Zhou.
Further, Li suggests that the ''Xianyun'' and ''Quanrong'' were either closely related or the term Quanrong was invented during Eastern Zhou period to denote the Xianyun. Li points to evidence from the Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, the Classic of Poetry, Guoyu, the Bamboo Annals, and that when the name ''Xianyun'' became written graphically pejorative as 獫狁 with the 犭 "dog" radical, the character 獫's notion of dog motivated the coining of ''Quanrong'' (犬戎; lit. "Dog Barbarians").Li (2006) pp. 343–346

Epigraphy

Comments about the conflicts against the Xianyun appears in several poems and bronze inscriptions of the Western Zhou.

Notes

References

See also

* Ethnic groups in Chinese history
* Xirong
* Guifang
* Xunyu
* Xiongnu

{{DEFAULTSORT:Xianyun
Ancient peoples of China
Xiongnu
Dogs in China