Hakka origin (was: Linguistics Information on Hakka)

[sllee <sllee@mail.asiawind.com>]

Ekki,

I would like to carry out this discussion and exploration on a less emotional
and personal basis. If there is any misunderstanding, let's clarify it. I
think that is the principle of all debates. BTW, that is the policy of the
forum too. Please post in a civilized manner. 

A key of our discussion here is whether Hakka culture is HAN culture or HUN
culture. 

Language is but a part of the culture, not the whole. Phonology is part of a
language/dialect, and not the whole.  However, a part can reflect the whole.
When Mandarin is spoken with Fujian phonology, it is still recognizable as
Mandarin, not Fujianese. 

I never said Hakka has to be pure (by blood) Han or Hun or anything. In the
contrary, I reiterate that I believe there is no pure trait in the human race
any more. And most likely, some Hakkas carry non-Han blood through
inter-ethnic marriage. I believe blood trait do affect certain physical
features, diseases, and even personality of individuals. But change of
cultural trait requires a more unfiorm change within a much larger
population.  And we can tell a culture from the dominant trait sometimes
(e.g. Latino).  Hakka most likely bears many genetic traits of the
heterogenous ZhongHua MinZu through the multiple migrations that took place
over close to 2000 years. "Blood relationship" cannot properly define Hakka
any more. It is the culture. 

Cultural origin and trait is the theme more important in our discussion.  But
what kind of culture is Hakka culture? Is it from HAN or from HUN? 

In fact, the discussion on language is focused on one theme: Whether we can
tell from the language where Hakka was from. 

If Hakka maintained the father's tongue and the mother's phonology, and Hakka
was derived from paternal Hun, as Kiang theorizes which you seem to agree,
then Hakkas should be speaking a HUN tongue with southern phonology. 
Correct?  I don't think so. I don't know how many know the HUN tongue any
more or if it still exists. But it is likely a multisyllabic language as
Altaic subgroup.  That is incompatible with the monosyllabic Han language. 
One possibility is the Huns actually gave up all their culture and 
adopted the "Han" culture and language, which they then maintained 
stubbornly through out history. But if the Huns were so stubborn in 
maintain a culture, they should have kept their own. The Mongolians 
(Yuan) tried and they failed miserably.

Kiang thinks all Hakkas were derived from Hun and "sinicized" and 
assimilated with Han.  He think Hakkas are not even Chinese. That is a 
crucial point of the debate. Let me quote a bit of the Kiang's book here:
  --------
{Kiang : The Hakka Odyssey - p.77
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word han in English is an 
ancient form of Khan which is the turkish word meaning lord, or price, 
but originated in Tartars......Clearly the Chinese character Han derives 
from the sound of what the rulers called themselves Han (Khan) in their 
mother tongue. This pictophonetic character is a phonogram for water, 
representing the Mongolian sound of han.  Therefore, the original Han 
people signifies the people of sinicized Huns or barbarisan Mongols 
without constituting an overwhelming majority of the population and the 
dominant cultural group in China....}
  --------
This is what bothers me. The Mongolian "Khan" (or "Han") is only a sound that
happen to be same as the Han people. Khan as in Gingis Khan is written in
word as "sweat" which is only a phonetic translation.  It surely means prince
or lord, but it is totally way off from what the Chinese "Han" was from. 
(Liu Bang is going to roll over in his grave if he heard this.) Han people as
a Chinese ethnic group is from the identification with Han dynasty created by
Liu Bang, who was King of Han, spanning from Sichuan, southern Shanxi and
northwest Hubei.  Han is also the river that merges in the Yangtse River in
Hubei. 

Here are some more interesting quotes that Kiang even questioned about
Liu Bang's ethinic origin: 

{p. 79 : ...if he(Liu Bang) came from the Chinese Liu clan, why didn't he 
use the family name Liu to proclaim the Liu dynasty? }

I have not heard of anything so interesting. Look: 

Dynasty Surname
Qin	Ying
Han	Liu
Jin	Sima
Sui	Yang
Tang	Li
Song	Zhao
Ming	Zhu
Qing	Aisinjuero

In NONE of the dynasties, the family name was used as the dynasty name! 
There were kingdoms in the Chunqiu/Zhanguo period that when a king was 
"knighted" (Feng) and given a state, they also change their family 
name to go with the state. But not for a dynasty. 

How can a historian make such remarks? So, I cannot be too optimistic 
about Kiang's theory that Hakkas were  descendents of Hun/Hsiongnu 
(Xiongnu), although I am still open to more solid evidence.

SL Lee