Talk:Hanfu

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 汉代 国博首场中国古代服饰展.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Thin silk skirt, unearthed form Mawangdui Tomb.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

is Hanfu really modern chinese traditional dress??

Baizerman, Suzanne, Joanne B. Eicher, and Cathleen Cerny. "Eurocentrism in the Study of Ethnic Dress." Dress 20 (1993): 19–32. Blumer, Herbert. "Collective Behavior." In An Outline of the Principles of Sociology. Edited by Robert Park. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1939. Boas, Franz. "The Social Organization and the Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians." Report of the U.S. National Museum for 1895. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Museum, 1897. Ellwood, Charles. An Introduction to Social Psychology. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1918. Frater, Judy. "Rabari Dress." In Mud, Mirror, and Thread: Folk Traditions in Rural India. Edited by Nora Fisher. Santa Fe: Museum of New Mexico Pres; Ahmedabad: Mapin, 1993. Freeman, Richard. Travels and Life in Ashanti and Jaman. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Co., 1898. Harrold, Robert, and Phylidda Legg. Folk Costumes of the World. London: Cassell Academic Press, 1999. Hendrikson, Carol. Weaving Identities: Construction of Dress and Self in a Highland Guatemala Town. Austin: University of Texas, 1995. Kennett, Frances. Ethnic Dress. New York: Facts on File, 1995. Lentz, Carola. "Ethnic Conflict and Changing Dress Codes: A Case Study of an Indian Migrant Village in Highland Ecuador." In Dress and Ethnicity. Edited by Joanne B. Eicher. Oxford: Berg, 1995. Mera, H. P. Navajo Women's Dresses. General Series Bulletin No. 15. Santa Fe, N.M.: Laboratory of Anthropology, 1944. Sapir, Edward. "Fashion." In Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. 6. New York: Macmillan, 1931. Sumberg, Barbara. "Dress and Ethnic Differentiation in the Niger Delta." In Dress and Ethnicity. Edited by Joanne Eicher. Oxford: Berg, 1995. Tarrant, Naomi. The Development of Costume. London: Routledge, 1994. Underhill, Ruth. The Navajos. Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1956. Weir, Shelagh. Palestinian Costume. Austin: University of Texas, 1989. Welters, Linda. "Introduction." In Folk Dress in Europe and Anatolia. Edited by Linda Welters. Oxford: Berg, 1999. Westermarck, Edward. Marriage Ceremonies in Morocco. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1914. Wilcox, R. Turner. Folk and Festival Costume of the World. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965.

according to reference like upward, Hanfu is not traditional dress of modern china. their revived Hanfu is like roman Toga and greek Kiton . accordinf to definition of tradition. Hanfu is nor traditional dress of modern chinese. 175.213.48.82 (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Hanfu is the traditional clothing of the Han Chinese, because they are 100% restored according to the clothing of the ancients 63.157.97.218 (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

according to your funny logic, hanbok is not the traditional dress of south Korea, since south korea was established in 1948. It has nothing to do with Ancient Korea. 63.157.97.218 (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The word 'Hanfu' didn't even exist before 2000. It's a made up 'modern word' by Chinese government's cultural propaganda. Plus, what is transitional clothing? Doesn't it mean continued generation to generation? Clothes that Chinese people call 'Hanfu' is forgotten and discontinued clothing at least hundreds years ago. So how Chinese revived so called Hanfu? Easy. Good references were there. Korean Hanbok and Japanese Kimono. 199.175.128.1 (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It’s even funnier to use western materials to talk about Chinese culture. Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece have perished, but China has always existed. 63.157.97.218 (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It is very likely that those sources are outdated by many decades. Back in the days, there were not much critical studies of non- American/European clothing. This was reflected in the literature of that time when authors did not see non-Western countries as having fashion and believed that non-Western (traditional) clothing was static and unchanged with time, which was itself a bias view on clothing, apparel, jewelleries, garments of others non-American/European people. Because they were not familiar with the clothing of others, they could not neither observe nor record differences in fashion. For them, traditional clothing became something static when it was not.

Hanfu cannot be compared with the roman toga and the greek kiton; the ancient greeks and romans are old civilization which do not exist anymore. Same with ancient Egypt, the ancient Egypt civilization does not exist. Chinese civilization is remains one of the oldest civilization with a continuous history; hanfu still existed in the 20th century but showed a decline at last from the mid-20th century. The early 21st century shows a progressive return to popularity. As such, hanfu has never ceased to exist. Hanfu also falls in the Webster's Third International Dictionary definition, "an inherited or established way of thinking, feeling or doing: a cultural feature preserved or evolved from the past" . Regardless of how the forms, styles, fashion have changed with time and socio-historical contexts , it still follows an established way of thinking, feeling, and doing, being a cultural feature which has been preserved and evolved from the past. Gyuligula2 (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, you admitted. 'Hanfu' is a modern word that didn't even exist before 2000. It was created by Government led cultural operation. The question is why it is different from Roman Toga and Greek Kiton while Chinese has stopped wearing their old clothes for at least hundreds years? 199.175.128.1 (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Traditional dress may be defined as the ensemble of garments, jewelry, and accessories rooted in the past that is worn by an identifiable group of people. Though slight changes over time in color, form, and material are acknowledged, the assemblage seems to be handed down unchanged from the past.Traditional dress or costume is a phrase used widely both by the general public and writers on dress.

It conjures up images of rural people dressed in colorful, layered, exotic clothing from an idealized past in some faraway place. This notion of traditional dress has been scrutinized and found inadequate by many researchers and scholars, but its uncritical use continues into the twenty-first century.

"traditional costume." In Webster's Third International Dictionary, tradition is defined as "an inherited or established way of thinking, feeling or doing: a cultural feature preserved or evolved from the past" (1993, p. 2422; italics by author).

Often made in the family for personal use, traditional dress uses materials commonly available where the maker lives. These materials and styles are often assumed to have evolved in response to environments-wool in cold climates, cotton in warm. But traditional dress often also incorporates imported materials obtained by trade. Exotic fabrics or notions can be incorporated into a people's dress and become "traditional," as Indian madras has for the Kalabari Ijo of the Niger Delta. Although no one knows where it originated, a print cloth called ondoba, said to have arrived with the Portuguese in the fifteenth century, "belongs" to the Nembe Ijo of the Niger Delta.

The word "tradition" refers to an old culture that has been passed down to the present, because it is difficult to see that Hanfu is already a tradition the moment you substitute this word. A tradition is called a tradition if it has been passed on for at least three generations from the old days, and it can be recognized as a tradition if there are no interruptions or forgotten things in the middle. This similar concept is also used for UNESCO World Heritage listing. No matter how much they restore the lost Tang music, it cannot become a World Intangible Heritage. Even though relics excavated from tombs in the past are restored, restoration or re-creation does not conform to the concept of tradition. The form of hanfu they speak of differs from dynasty to dynasty, and it is not known how the masses wore it or how it was made.

Thats why,does not conform to the concept of tradition.

For example, it can be seen that the traditional clothing of modern Italy and Greece is different from the toga of ancient Rome and Greece. In other words, Italy and Greece do not define traditional culture that has been passed down to the present by excavating ancient relics that have not been worn until modern times, restoring what the ancient Romans wore, and wearing them. Even if the ancient Egyptians are unearthed and worn by modern Egyptians, they cannot be their traditional attire. In fact, the traditional clothing of the Egyptians is only recognized as the traditional clothing worn by the Egyptians in Galabe. In case of Hanfu, there is no evidence like photo and other record to proove that Chinese people had have worn Hanfu in modern periods

Citations about Influencing other Cultural Dress

I just checked the citation regarding Hanbok being influenced by Hanfu—the one from the National History Museum of Korea in its issu digitized magazine form.

I understand many nationalists from China, Korea, and really whatever other country’s cultural dress is in question get riled up and HEATED about this discussion on origin. Regardless, I must point out that having actually read the magazine no where in it does it support the claim Hanbok was influenced by or descended or associated with etc etc. with Hanfu.

I’m sure there’s a credible English source out there somewhere that acknowledges connection or influence from Hanfu. But nowhere in the Hanbok section is China or any Chinese dynasties even mentioned. Ergo, this citation is pointless, it does not support the assertion made. Should the citation be removed or some sort of tag placed indicating the need of a stronger citation? It’s kind of like no one actually read the magazine. I feel like this also prompts a round of review on the other citations for clarity. Hopefully they all support what is being said in the article as written, but it is clear the current source for Hanbok is insufficient. Maybe some fashion studies journal article about Hanfu/Hanbok would have the line needed? 2601:14D:8600:2E30:254A:11FA:7FF0:C116 (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)