102 replies to this topic

[Craig]

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

As is your perogative. However, in the archaeological literature the term 'urbanization' is arbitrarily defined. Patterns of Chinese urbanization differ from those found at Mojendaro or Ur in that clusters of Chinese villages were organized into intra state networks with specializations given for specializations received from other villages; all of which were under a central political administration. As evidenced by the recent discovery of the Hsia city (which by any measure qualifies as a city) , Chinese archaeology is in its infancy with new discoveries almost daily. In light of emerging data, iI don't think we can put a definitive date, as yet, on the beginning of Chinese civilization.

[Wu Zetian]

However, there is no archaeological evidence of Huang Di, Zhuan Xu, Di Ku, Yao, and Shun, so we regard them as at least semi-legendary. There is hardly even conclusive evidence of the Xia dynasty, which is believed to have been founded around 2,070 BC.

I do not find it hard to believe that Huang Di etc existed. I think one of the main reasons of there being no evidence of Huang Di etc. was because many historical artifacts / records etc. were destroyed by Qin Shi Huang when he was on his rampage of getting rid of everything that was "old". Furthermore it has been 5000 years since Huang Di, so even if nobody deliberately destroyed historical items from that era, a lot of them would just naturally be lost/eroded away.

Although older books say there is no evidence of Xia, I think they have now found new evidence of the Xia Dynasty just in the last few years. Cannot remember the source though

[Koolasuchus]

I do not find it hard to believe that Huang Di etc existed.  I think one of the main reasons of there being no evidence of Huang Di etc. was because many historical artifacts / records etc. were destroyed by Qin Shi Huang when he was on his rampage of getting rid of everything that was "old".  Furthermore it has been 5000 years since Huang Di, so even if nobody deliberately destroyed historical items from that era, a lot of them would just naturally be lost/eroded away.

Although older books say there is no evidence of Xia, I think they have now found new evidence of the Xia Dynasty just in the last few years.  Cannot remember the source though

I think what Craig meant was that there were no archaeological evidence is that no tomb of HuangDi, or anyone associated with HuangDi, had been found. And without some good old bones to do DNA analysis, modern Western Historians count everything else as fiction.

[TMPikachu]

when did we start using chopsticks? I figure that would be a good measure of civilization length.

I figure from Qinshihuangdi for the age of China as a country, but we are measuring culture it seems?

[yehzhaofeng]

Hmm, when DID we use chopsticks.

I heard during the Shang Era, they have large flat bowls for eating and had used spoons and not chopsticks.

[Craig]

when did we start using chopsticks? I figure that would be a good measure of civilization length.

I figure from Qinshihuangdi for the age of China as a country, but we are measuring culture it seems?

The definitions are murky, but generally 'civiization' is characterized as having specialized crafts, monumental building, record keeping, central authority and class divisions.
Certainly some political unity began with the Qin rule and the end of the feudal bureaucracy; but the nascent components of Chinese civilization are evident even in lungshoid and erh-li-tou. Just as the art historian sees a continuity of motif between Shang and Zhou, so the anthropologist sees a neolithic civilization that spawned the dynastic political divisions.

[Kenneth]

my thoughts;
Chinese civilisation is not 5,000 years old, and huang di etc. are mythical and not even commented on in even Chinese academia that discuss the established dynasties. If they existed they are probably not the same as the fabolous characters we hear of, and they are simply culture heroes from early times and not a basis to claim a beginning any more than I could use Adam & Eve.
At a stretch we could push Chinese to around 4,000, but it seems to be an ill founded competition to compare anything earlier than that to the true first great civilsations like Sumer & Uruk (i.e there are distinct Chinese cultures but they dont have anything like cities, literacy, merchant classes or states).
At present I think we could include the Erlitou(around 21BC) as the earliest precursor to a bronze age China, but Shang (as the first) best contender with clear central authority, metal working and a known written script.
These all probably existed earlier, but that hardly justifies pushing it back so far as any other world culture could do the same game and talk of the pre-Sumer societies or pre-bronze age cultures..

So certainly around 3,600 years......probably more......but if we include the Banpo (5,000 bc) or early Yanshao/Longshan neolithic as 'civilisation' then we could find somebody living in a mud hut in the jungle who could claim the same.
Even the late neolithic still only had hammered copper and painted ceramics and some with beautiful worked jades which have some connection to Shang but this is not 'civilisation' of a level any more than any other stone working society that has pottery and art and domesticates a few animals and has some agriculture.


Regarding chopsticks, there are references to them during Shang....try a google search, and there are chop sticks found in Western Han tombs.
4 pairs of bronze chopsticks from a single tomb came on the market this year and by the time I decided I would make an offer they were already sold!.
Everytime I eat with nice metal chopsticks now I think of the lost chance as such pairs are very rare...and I hope the dealer might come accross more, but I doubt it.

[Kenneth]

heres a fun site,

http://www.jadedrago...chopsticks.html

The first widespread recorded use of chopsticks is attributed to the Shang dynasty (1766 B.C.- 1122 B.C.). The oldest existing pair of chopsticks is made of ivory and was discovered in the ruins of an 11th century B.C. palace. Since then, they have been made of nearly every conceivable material, including jade, gold, ebony, cloisonne, lacquer, bone, brass, agate, and a dizzying variety of exotic woods, the most common material being bamboo. Korea is the only country that routinely uses metal chopsticks.


PS there is no evidence of Xia yet....when people call Erlitou the Xia it is generally newspapers rather than the excavators or Chinese academics.
Xia should be taken seriously but there is no identified site of theirs found yet...this is why the sites are called Erlitou instead as of course there are societies before Shang, and probably were many.
There is no reason to assume the first site that is found from the 22nd century MUST be Xia as it may even be found in another part of CHina.

[Craig]

heres a fun site,

http://www.jadedrago...chopsticks.html

The first widespread recorded use of chopsticks is attributed to the Shang dynasty (1766 B.C.- 1122 B.C.). The oldest existing pair of chopsticks is made of ivory and was discovered in the ruins of an 11th century B.C. palace. Since then, they have been made of nearly every conceivable material, including jade, gold, ebony, cloisonne, lacquer, bone, brass, agate, and a dizzying variety of exotic woods, the most common material being bamboo. Korea is the only country that routinely uses metal chopsticks.
PS there is no evidence of Xia yet....when people call Erlitou the Xia it is generally newspapers rather than the excavators or Chinese academics.
Xia should be taken seriously but there is no identified site of theirs found yet...this is why the sites are called Erlitou instead as of course there are societies before Shang, and probably were many.
There is no reason to assume the first site that is found from the 22nd century MUST be Xia as it may even be found in another part of CHina.

Here again, the argument for the dating of Chinese civilization is circular. If one retricts ones definition of civilization to that which only bears a political dynastic label, then you are correct. So are we to place everything previous to Shang kings as outside the definition of civilization? Sure, if we frame the concept of civilization in purely political arena. But that is not the task of the historian, because a historian needs to deal in pre-history as well. Civilization is not limited to what is known or recorded. This is particularly true in China where scientific archaeological study is in its infancy. It wasn't until the late 1950's that three different culture areas demonstrated parallel development and chronology from 3000bc to nine thousand bc .(Chang, 1984)
Yang shao sites and Pan po by any measure, exhibit the foundational indices of the feudal bureacracy; craft specialization, ritual burial, pottery decorating motifs including clan markings, and a centralized political structure. All of these elements fulfill the criteria of a unique civilization whether or not we know what the ruling clan was called.

[Kenneth]

You are right that 'civilisation' needs to be defined, but I thought perhaps what justifies ancient Sumer as an early civilisation might do........developed writing, a merchant class, specialisation/artisans, metal working , cities/states and central authority/government.
If you want to go earlier than the 22nd century BC then you will find, as I said, a man living half naked in a
mud hut who will fit any broader definition.
'''''the foundational indices of the feudal bureacracy; craft specialization, ritual burial, pottery decorating motifs including clan markings, and a centralized political structure.''''' Huh? are we talking about Banpo? Lets not go nuts here. All of what you just mentioned is quite standard.and as for 'fuedal bureacracy & central political strucure' I would like to know how somebody deduces that from the sites of houses, bones in urns, remains of meals and cooking fires. Look at the evidence and then justify such poetry.

The Chinese neolithic is no more remarkable than any other, so if stone age pre-history is to be included then it just pushes every back further and the Sumerians are gonna win out in the end.
ANy idea that a 'centralised political structure' has been identified in the Chinese neolithic might require an explnation as to how on earth they figured that.
Do they mean authority? Like a tribal leader? how big was the population within a single sphere of influence? how was the structure administrated and what rights and responsiblities existed for its citizens?
There are a hundred questions, but the first is how does anyone know that from a pre-historic site excavation? evidence of trade is not evidence of a state. Paleolithic man might well qualify.

I think the 5,000 years thing is a feel good statement with no real basis....because if the level of technology 5,000 years ago is good enough then why not make it 7,000 as the phases of the Chinese neolithic communitys with ceramics and organised communities like Banpo/Yanshao are not vastly different to the late neolithci beyond ART and a few more domesticated animals.
If we dont count some minimum standard then you may find Banpo and the groups like Hong Shan for example are much the same as primative man anywhere. It is hardly civilisation of a scale to make a fuss about and existed like this for mellenia.

If the 'legends' are the guide to 5,000 years ago then the dating is even more flimsy as a culture hero of mythalised person...real or not....is no reason to draw it on a calender any more than a person uses the bible to decide how many thousands of years the world is old (as was actually done).
Can the West then try Adam & Eve on? or even the Eygptians and Sumerians had the great flood that was plagarised for the bible..........so then if we get all warm & fuzzy over appealling myth without substance then why not make a society 10,000 years old? Myths are no better than using Romulus and Remus myths to date the beginning of the Rome state. Myths do not often marry comfortably with reality...and an origin myth is not good enough if Chinese civilisation wants to compete for 1st place with Sumeria 5,000 years ago.
There is no comparison.
Really, as I said, to date the earliest reconisable precursor to the central plains civilisation which became the 'Chinese' would be the pre-Shang Erlitou at 22nd century BC,
Tribal people grinding stones to make tools and baking clay to make vessels like their ancestor did for a mellenia before them is NOT a reason to set a date of 3,000 BC as a beginning of civilisation.
It makes NO sense.

[Alexander39]

My grandfather told me that the best definition of a civilisation were the establisment of a bureaucrasy to invent things like income tax like the Sumer did and a standing army duing nothing eksept making sure that people payed said tax

[tuanoo1]

pektuanoon@yahoo.com

I have been making some research myself on the earliest Chinese history. I voted 5000 years old but I think it must be much more earlier. How to get evidence to prove the age of the existence of Chinese history, I wonder. Recently I made some study on Chinese characters especially the ancient forms. Perhaps they could be the alternative source to check or confirm the age.

The book entitled 'shanhai jing', what is the age of this book? Can this be of any use to determine the age of the Chinese tradition and civilisation and the age of Chinese history.

Thanks

[yehzhaofeng]

Tuanoo, why not try puttingyour email as your signature instead so you won't have to keep typing it.

I think a civilization needs an army, a language, and cities.

[Alexander39]

I think what Craig meant was that there were no archaeological evidence is that no tomb of HuangDi, or anyone associated with HuangDi, had been found.  And without some good old bones to do DNA analysis, modern Western Historians count everything else as fiction.  

Ah not only that but there has been no archeological evidence of him, PERIOD.
wether that is the written word. arts (Sculptures, paintings, scrolls etc.), Burial grounds, not only fore HuangDi but for anybody at the time, no remains of cities, organized millitary or bureaucrasy, no desribtions or the like from decendens either, all in all NOTHING. In fact the level off proof demanded by western historins is not unreasonable, otherwise they would have to treat Atlantis and Lemuria as real too. In other words push the idea of true civillation more than 10000 years back whitout any tangible proof, oher than and old mans sayso?.

By the way the oldest regonized city in the world is Cataltoyuk in turkey and that is datet to around 7000BC. But it is still not countet as part of a civillisation, even throu the city is there, and a fairly good sized one too, of around 2000+ citizen.

By the way i votet Shang dynasty as the start, since even in its early period, there is good evidence of rudimental use of most aspects of civillizations, among other things written word for record keeping (Essential) and 'pensel pushers' IE the first bureaucrats.