“糸” 之新解.

Shuowen Jiezi defines “Mi (糸)” as “a fine thread, resembling the form of a bundle of threads, and all things related to ‘Mi (糸)’ derive from ‘Mi (糸)’”. More commonly, scholars lean toward this explanation, believing “Mi (糸)” refers to either the single fiber extracted from the silkworm cocoon or recognizing the early symbol of “Mi (糸)” as “si(丝)” (silk). However, this fails to explain the three pairs of contradictions of why the appearance of the character “糸” (BP 7100) is earlier than the utilization of silk (BP 6000), the deviation between the pictographic features of “Mi (糸)” is inconsistent with the morphology of a silk, and the existence of enormous Mi (糸)-series words unrelated or not only related to silk. Reconsidering the meaning of “Mi (糸)” based on its ancient script images, meaning in ancient texts, and archaeological timelines aids in understanding the evolutionary patterns of Chinese characters, comprehending the societal development of that time more accurately, and delving into cultural insights. The article employed textual analysis, textile archaeology, and statistical deductions to investigate the meaning of “Mi (糸) ” and drew three significant conclusions.First, the meaning of “Mi (糸) ”should not be limited to silk. On the timeline, the appearance of the character “Mi (糸) ” occurred at least 1 100 years earlier than the speculated use of silk found in the excavated “half cocoon” from Xiyin village, and nearly 4 000 years earlier than the appearance of the character “Si (丝)”. On pictographic features, “Mi (糸) ” has consistently depicted multiple(2–3) intertwining threads from ancient times to the present, which does not correspond to the clustered morphology of silk and raw silk. In ancient documents, among the 250 characters cataloged under the Mi (糸)-series in Shuowen Jiezi, fewer have explicit definitions related to silk than those unrelated. Furthermore, the remaining 70.0% of characters are related to textiles and their products, yet the specific fiber source is unspecified. Thus, the original meaning of “Mi (糸) ” does not signify silk. Second, the word “Mi (糸) ” is more consistent with the structure and making method of ropes and threads, i.e. twisting- or braiding-formed textiles in terms of temporal logic and historical existence. Archaeological evidence indicated the use of ropes for various purposes (BP 1 000 000 to 20 000), which preceded the appearance of “Mi (糸)” (BP 7 300 to 7 100) and silk (BP 6 000). Third, it is more appropriate, objective, and consistent with historical facts to define “Mi (糸)” as threads, ropes, or twisted bundles of fibers rather than silk. Previous research mainly focused on characters under the Mi (糸)-series, with less exploration into the original meaning of “Mi (糸) ” . The article presents three contradictions in interpreting “Mi (糸)” as silk. It systematically and comprehensively collects, organizes, and analyzes the differences and similarities between “Mi (糸)” and silk based on its ancient script images, meaning in ancient texts, and archaeological timelines, proposes the original meaning of “Mi (糸)” as a continuous, elongated material formed by twisting fibers and validates this conclusion through textile archaeological evidence. In the future, it will be possible to further explore the original meaning of “Mi (糸)” by examining specific contexts of its ancient usage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]