獫允
註釋

↑  . www.kaogu.net.cn. The Institute of Archaeology (CASS Chinese Academy of Social Sciences).   [2024-06-27]. （原始内容存档于2019-09-16）. There is research on the ethnic image of the northern nomadic people of the Altaic language family. It may be that this is the image of the Xianyun tribe that once posed a serious military threat to the northern border of the Zhou Dynasty. They were called "Ghost people" (Guifang) because they looked different from the Chinese. 有考证系阿尔泰语系的北方游牧民族人种形象。可能是曾经对周朝北方边境构成严重军事威胁的猃狁部族，因相貌异于华夏，被称作“鬼方”。
↑  So, Jenny F.; Bunker, Emma C.  (PDF). Seattle: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Inst. [u.a.] 1995: 123–124. ISBN 978-0295974736. The Europoid faces of the two figures atop the present ornament are the only other clues to its non-Chinese origins. It is therefore almost inevitable that such scabbard ornaments should appear in far western and northern contexts, where cultural exchange was easiest and most active. (with photographs)
↑  So, Jenny F.; Bunker, Emma C.  (PDF). Seattle: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Inst. [u.a.] 1995: 90, item 1, discussing item 41 pages 123–124. ISBN 978-0295974736. The faces on no. 41, a scabbard ornament made some eight hundred years earlier, suggesting that peoples of similar ethnic—probably West Asian—origins may have arrived at China's northwestern borders as early as the beginning of the first millennium B.C.
↑  Cao, Wei; Liu, Yuanqing; Linduff, Katheryn M.; Sun, Yan. . . 23 November 2017: 186. ISBN 9781108290555. doi:10.1017/9781108290555.005. According to Li Feng's study, based primarily on written sources, the “Xianyun”were a large-scale society with highly concentrated power that lived in an area that stretched from the Hetao (bend of the Yellow River) to the upper Yellow River Valley.The Xianyun were organized around coherent social units with a shared cultural tradition and background,laying the foundation for them to reconcile with each other to fight the Zhou together. “Xianyun” was probably a self-claimed title, and bronze inscriptions suggest that the Zhou called the Xianyun the “Rong,” indicating that it was a warlike group (Li Feng 2006:142–45).
↑  《說文解字》：「獫，長喙犬。一曰，黑犬黃頭。」
↑  《詩經》〈小雅〉〈鹿鳴之什〉〈出車〉：「王命南仲、往城于方。出車彭彭、旂旐央央。天子命我、城彼朔方。赫赫南仲、玁狁于襄。」
↑  《竹書紀年》：「（帝乙）三年，王命南仲西拒昆夷，城朔方。夏六月，周地震。」
↑  《太平御覽》卷799〈四狄部〉〈北狄一〉：「《詩》曰〈采薇〉，遣戍役也。文王之時，西有昆夷之患，北有玁狁之難，以天子之命，命將帥遣戍役，以守衛中國，故歌《采薇》以遣之，《出車》以勞還，《杕杜》以勤歸也。……又曰：王命南仲，往城于方。出車彭彭，旂旐央央。天子命我，城彼朔方。赫赫南仲，玁狁于襄。」註：「王，殷王也。南仲，文王之屬方，朔方近獫狁之國也。彭彭，駟馬貌。王使南仲為將，率往筑城於朔方，為軍壘以御北狄之難。」
↑  《詩經》〈小雅〉〈南有嘉魚之什〉〈六月〉：「玁狁匪茹，整居焦獲。侵鎬及方，至於涇陽。織文鳥章，白斾央央。元戎十乘，以先啟行…薄伐玁狁，至於太原。」
↑  呂思勉《中國通史》第24章〈古代對於異族的同化〉：「獫狁，亦作玁狁，犬戎亦作畎戎，戎又作夷。此『犬』或『畎』字乃譯音，非賤視詆譭之辭。昆夷，亦作混夷、緄夷，夷亦可作戎，和串夷亦都是『犬』字的異譯，說見《詩經·皇矣正義》。」
↑  夏曾佑《中國古代史》：「今日內外蒙古之俗尚，與漢時匈奴無異。春秋戰國之間，戎狄並興，往往與中國相雜。……其為匈奴之支族，羼入內地歟？不可知也。其中惟獫狁與匈奴音最近，當即一族。」
↑  余太山《塞種史研究》，北京：中國社會科學出版社，1998年出版。頁138-141。
↑  余太山《古族新考》，北京中華書局，2000年出版。
↑  曾憲法《先秦时期塞种人之族源及其东渐问题》
↑  黃文弼〈論匈奴族之起源〉：「余按鬼方、葷粥、混夷、獫狁皆古之羌族，與匈奴異。自太史公混为一族，遂今後世，羌、胡不分也。」，收入《黃文弼歷史考古文集》，北京文物出版社，1989年出版。
↑  郭沫若〈土方考〉，收入《郭沫若全集》。
↑  王玉哲《中华远古史》，中國上海出版社，2000年。
↑  《农业类型的演变与戎狄族群的兴起》指出「晚商以前北方地区皆为华夏族群的活动地域，所谓『戎狄』族群应当是下一历史阶段里从华夏族群中分裂出去的一部分，因此，华夏与戎狄在血缘上本亦同源。」
↑  林沄《夏至戰國中國北方長城地帶遊牧文化帶的形成過程》指出「司馬遷的匈奴列傳是綜合了大量先秦時代有關北方長城地帶的文獻記載寫成的，有整理和保存重要史料方面功不可沒。但是，他和当時許多漢族的知識分子一樣，認為先秦文獻中活躍在北方長城地帶的戎狄，與秦汉時的匈奴、東胡等遊牧民族屬於同一族群。從而造成了兩個相互关連的歷史誤解：一、先秦的戎狄就是秦漢時的匈奴、東胡的前身，二、北方長城地帶自古以来被遊牧民族占居，後來才被中原農業居民向北方的拓展而逐步排擠到更北的地區。…… 結合環境學和體質人类學的研究，可以看出，先秦文獻中的戎、狄，和戰國才活躍在北方長城地帶的東胡、匈奴並非同一族群。北方長城地帶在新石器時代晚期基本上是農業地帶，它之變為遊牧人往来馳騁的地帶，是文化、生態環境、族群等變動的因素交互作用下形成的一個复雜過程。」
↑  Goldin, Paul R. "Steppe Nomads as a Philosophical Problem in Classical China" （页面存档备份，存于） in Mapping Mongolia: Situating Mongolia in the World from Geologic Time to the Present. Penn Museum International Research Conferences, vol. 2. Ed. Paula L.W. Sabloff. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. 2011. p. 225-226; p. 237, no. 22
↑  Li (2006) p. 344
↑  Li (2006) p. 142-144
↑  Li (2006) p. 144-145
↑  Li (2006). p. 4
↑  Li (2006), p. 143
↑  Li (2006) p. 343-346