ORIGIN OF THE CHINESE
_Parent Stock a Migratory People--They Invade China from the
Northwest and Colonise the Banks of the Yellow River and of the
Han--Their Conflicts with the Aborigines--Native Tribes Absorbed
by Conquerors_
That the parent stock in which the Chinese nation had its origin
was a small migratory people, like the tribes of Israel, and that
they entered the land of promise from the northwest is tolerably
certain; but to trace their previous wanderings back to Shinar,
India, or Persia would be a waste of time, as the necessary data
are lacking. Even within their appointed domain the accounts of
their early history are too obscure to be accepted as to any extent
reliable.
They appear to have begun their career of conquest by colonising
the banks of the Yellow River and those of the Han. By slow stages
they moved eastward to the central plain and southward to the Yang-tse
Kiang. At that early epoch, between 3000 and 2000 B. C., they found the
country already occupied by various wild tribes whom they considered
as savages. In their early traditions they describe these tribes
respectively by four words: those of the south are called _Man_
(a word with the silk radical); those on the east, _Yi_ (with
[Page 68]
the bow radical); those on the north, _Tih_ (represented by
a dog and fire); and those on the west, _Jung_ ("war-like,
fierce," the symbol for their ideograph being a spear). Each of
these names points to something distinctive. Some of these tribes
were, perhaps, spinners of silk; some, hunters; and all of them,
formidable enemies.
The earliest book of history opens with conflicts with aborigines.
There can be no question that the slow progress made by the invaders
in following the course of those streams on which the most ancient
capitals of the Chinese were subsequently located was owing to the
necessity of fighting their way. Shun, the second sovereign of
whose reign there is record (2200 B. c.), is said to have waged
war with San Miao, three tribes of _miaotze_ or aborigines,
a term still applied to the independent tribes of the southwest.
Beaten in the field, or at least suffering a temporary check, he
betook himself to the rites of religion, making offerings and praying
to Shang-ti, the supreme ruler. "After forty days," it is stated,
"the natives submitted."
In the absence of any explanation it may be concluded that during
the suspension of hostilities negotiations were proceeding which
resulted not in the destruction of the natives, but in their
incorporation with their more civilised neighbours. This first
recorded amalgamation of the kind was doubtless an instance of
a process of growth that continued for many centuries, resulting
in the absorption of all the native tribes on the north of the
Yang-tse and of most of those on the south. The expanding state
was eventually composed of a vast body of natives who submitted
[Page 69]
to their civilised conquerors, much as the people of Mexico and
Peru consented to be ruled by a handful of Spaniards.[*]
[Footnote *: To this day, the bulk of the people in those countries
show but small traces of Spanish blood. Juarez, the famous dictator,
was a pure Indian.]
As late as the Christian era any authentic account of permanent
conquests in China to the south of the "Great River" is still wanting,
though warlike expeditions in that direction were not infrequent. The
people of the northern provinces called themselves _Han-jin_,
"men of Han" or "sons of Han," while those of the south styled
themselves _T'ang-jin_, "men of T'ang." Does not this indicate
that, while the former were moulded into unity by the great dynasty
which took its name from the river Han (206 B. c.), the latter
did not become Chinese until the brilliant period of the T'angs,
nearly a thousand years later? Further confirmation need not be
adduced to show that the empire of the Far East contemporary with,
and superior in civilisation to, ancient Rome, embraced less than
the eighteen provinces of China Proper. Of the nine districts into
which it was divided by Ta-yü, 2100 B. C. not one was south of
the "Great River."
[Page 70]