102 replies to this topic

[Bao Pu]

Hi

Just to add a thought or two since my first response (which I still stand by) . . . . I think that if Yao, Shun and Huang Di were real ancient rulers, they would have received sacrifice by the Shang, and as far as I know, they were never even mentioned in the oracle bones. I find this very telling.
Again, I don't doubt that there were some fairly organized communities back in 3000 BCE.

[General_Zhaoyun]

Hi

Just to add a thought or two since my first response (which I still stand by) . . . . I think that if Yao, Shun and Huang Di were real ancient rulers, they would have received sacrifice by the Shang, and as far as I know, they were never even mentioned in the oracle bones. I find this very telling.
Again, I don't doubt that there were some fairly organized communities back in 3000 BCE.

That's why Yao, Shun and Huang Di were considered legendary rulers.. and was known through 'words of mouth' passed down from generations till Shang.

[Bao Pu]

Hello General

...known through 'words of mouth' passed down from generations till Shang

Are you saying the Shang wrote of these legendary rulers? What text (or inscription) do they make their first appearance?

[Liang Jieming]

Yeah, I'm curious too. What is the earliest reference we have of them no date? Is it in Shang, Qin or Han writings where we find the first indications?

[Yun]

There are stories about Huangdi, Yao, and Shun in the Shangshu (Book of Documents) and the Shijing (Book of Songs) which were probably compiled in the Spring and Autumn period, and in the Zhuangzi, Xunzi and Zhushu Jinian (Bamboo Annals) from the Warring States.

Sima Qian was the first to compile the history of the Sage-Kings into an authoritative account. But in the Warring States, Han Feizi was already questioning whether we could be sure of any of the Yao-Shun stories that had come down from nearly 3,000 years ago, and ridiculing the Confucians for taking them at face value.

[Liang Jieming]

Ah thanks Yun.

[Bao Pu]

Hi there

Yes, Yao, Shun and Yu were mentioned in the Shangshu (Book of Documents). Huang Di was not mentioned in the Shangshu or Shijing. According to Benjamin Schwartz: "“The first authenticated reference to the Yellow Emperor actually occurs in a bronze inscription attributed to King Xuan of Qi (r. 342-324 BCE). In it, he speaks of the Yellow Emperor as the high ancestor of the Tian family [his family]. In seeking his high ancestor in a quasi-divine, quasi-human figure of the remote past, the king was, of course, following a practice which was now widely prevalent among the ruling houses of the large powers, which had all by now appropriated the title ‘king’(Wang) for themselves … this does not mean that the Yellow Emperor was an invention of the Qi rulers …” (Schwartz p. 239).

People kept creating and appropriating ancient rulers/persons, in order to trump the views (and ways) of others. This practice makes it impossible to determine which ones are authentic. It's entirely possible that Yao was the name of some great and virtuous man from the ancient past, and that the early Zhou rulers and their scholars made him into a ruler of the known world.

Or maybe he was.

Personally, I need more evidence to verify the stories. But . . . . I'm just a nobody!!

[RollingWave]

Like already meantioned, it really should be dependant on the definition of civilization.

However, so far since we have already found sites that dated to the Xia dynasties while certain aspect of it (such as the fundemental buidling techniques) does seem to fit with Chinese culture in general, it wouldn't really be over the top to include it in the civilization. although going to Huang di may be over stretching... for now.

Most ancient civilization did including some parts of mythical timelines in their founding though.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"bronze inscription attributed to King Xuan of Qi (r. 342-324 BCE)."

Are you sure the date is right? Qi was ruled by king Wei at this time.

[Bao Pu]

Hi Warhead

No, I'm not sure about the date. I got it from this website though. See here: http://www.chinahist...?showtopic=2536

is this not correct?

[ZhongDa]

5000 years for me. That's official!

[Craig]

5000 years for me. That's official!

But this seems to ignore the Yang-shao in Chung Yuan, which has the fundamental elements of the Hsia, Shang and Zhou. The Yang -shao possess considerable time depth back to six thousand bc.
"If we understand Chinese civilization to be the civilization that was first consolidated during the Ch'in and Han, Chung Yuan was but one of several major contributors, rather than its only ancestor. But there is little question that Yan-shao culture was in the direct ancestral ine that eventually developed toward the Hsia, Shang and Zhou civilizations of North China. These early historical civilizations were without question the most important contributors to the Chinese civilization. In this light, Yang-shao culture was in every sense an early "Chinese" culture."
KC Chang "Archaeology of Ancient China"
Here Chang uses the terms 'culture' and 'civilization' interchangeably, and indeed the elements that define the later dynasties are present in the Yang-shao. Ancestor worship, large-scale slash and burn agriculture, ritual pottery sets, stratified society with craft specializations; all evident in 6000bc. To differentiate the Yang-shao from the later political divisions (Hsia, Shang and Zhou), then one must ignore the cultural continuity of the three dynasties, which is untenable. So seven or eight thousand years is not unreasonable.

[Tyler]

There is yet no real proof that even the Xia existed not to mention anything before them.

[Gubook Janggoon]

There is yet no real proof that even the Xia existed not to mention anything before them.

Wait, I thought they found a Xia city though.

[DaMo]

China's first urbanizations started around mid-4th to mid-3rd millennium BC (Anhui and Dadiwan).
So I'll take 5000 years.