102 replies to this topic

[TiYiJian]

from Xia onwards

[shunyadragon]

Lately, I've been reading and hearing from others that China is 7,000 years old.

That is stretching things, Pinochio would be proud.

[shunyadragon]

Can you cite it? I am always interested. I figured as much of what you've said but I don't know details about how they actually connect Xia and Erlitou except that it was earlier than Shang and the places are supposed to be where the recorded locations of the ancient Xia capital is. But Xia is not 5000 years ago and was adjusted to about 4000 years ago based on the findings. So 5000 years continuum would have to reach into the neolithic such as Liangzhu where Chinese civilization ought to have arisen with the creation/worship of totems fashioned into jade or other hard materials.

I stress the Hemudo and Majiban as the earliest roots of civilization, because of the sophistication of their artifacts. The following is a general reference on both from Wikipedia.

Cited from http://en.wikipedia..../Hemudu_culture

The Hemudu culture co-existed with the Majiabang culture as two separate and distinct cultures, with cultural transmissions between the two. Two major floods caused the nearby Yaojiang River to change its course and inundated the soil with salt, forcing the people of Hemudu to abandon its settlements. The Hemudu people lived in long, stilt houses.

The Hemudu culture is one of the earliest cultures to cultivate rice. Most of the artifacts discovered at Hemudu consist of animal bones, exemplified by hoes made of shoulder bones used for cultivating rice.

The culture also produced lacquer wood. The remains of various plants, including water caltrop, Nelumbo nucifera, acorns, beans, Gorgon euryale and bottle gourd, were found at Hemudu. The Hemudu people likely domesticated pigs, water buffalo and dogs. The people at Hemudu also fished and hunted, as evidence by the remains of bone harpoons and bows and arrowheads. Music instruments, such as bone whistles and wooden drums, were also found at Hemudu.

The culture produced a thick, porous pottery. The distinct pottery was typically black and made with charcoal powder. Plant and geometric designs were commonly painted onto the pottery; the pottery was sometimes also cord-marked. The culture also produced carved jade ornaments, carved ivory artifacts and small, clay figurines.

Cited from http://en.wikipedia....jiabang_culture

The Majiabang culture (馬家浜文化) was a Neolithic culture that existed at the mouth of the Yangtze River, primarily around the Taihu area and north of Hangzhou Bay in China. The culture was spread throughout southern Jiangsu and northern Zhejiang from around 5000 BC to 3000 BC. Initially, archaeologists had considered the Majiabang sites and sites in northern Jiangsu to be part of the same culture, naming it the Qingliangang culture. Archaeologists later realized that the northern Jiangsu sites were of the Dawenkou culture and renamed the southern Jiangsu sites as the Majiabang culture. The Majiabang culture coexisted with the Hemudu culture for over a thousand years as two separate and distinct cultures, with cultural transmissions between the two cultures.

Majiabang people cultivated rice. At Caoxieshan, a site of the Majiabang culture, archaeologists excavated paddy fields [1]. However, faunal remains excavated from Majiabang archaeological sites indicated that people had domesticated pigs. In addition, the remain of sika and roe deer have been found, showing that people were not totally reliant on agricultural production[2]. Archaeological sites also bear evidence that Majiabang people produced jade ornaments.

The Wiki articles cite academic articles you may refer to. These cultures had domesticated animals, agriculture, and showed sophistication in organized communities, and trade. They also had the beginnings of Chinese jade culture, which requires guild like skills. there are other cultures of similar to older ages, like the Yangshao, Xinle, and Xinglongwa, but they lacked the sophistication of the Hemudo and Majiabang.


Another good source is The Cambridge History of China volume I, pp 47 to 51.

Yes these cultures may be older, but rising sea levels have obscured older possible sites before ~5000 BCE.

I may cite some other references.

Edited by shunyadragon, 14 September 2010 - 08:35 PM.

[Gan]

That is stretching things, Pinochio would be proud.

It was from a few blogs I was reading, and the bloggers and I were kind of joking a bit, saying that soon people will be claiming China is 10,000 years old.

[mohistManiac]

The Wiki articles cite academic articles you may refer to. These cultures had domesticated animals, agriculture, and showed sophistication in organized communities, and trade. They also had the beginnings of Chinese jade culture, which requires guild like skills. there are other cultures of similar to older ages, like the Yangshao, Xinle, and Xinglongwa, but they lacked the sophistication of the Hemudo and Majiabang.


Another good source is The Cambridge History of China volume I, pp 47 to 51.

Yes these cultures may be older, but rising sea levels have obscured older possible sites before ~5000 BCE.

I may cite some other references.

I keep hearing Yangshao and others weren't as sophisticated as well. Generally speaking the Yangshao had left behind artifacts of pottery but these weren't developed to the kind that was possessed by the famed Dawenkou culture. And instead of putting living spaces above ground, they dug partial pits and the roof structure would go on top which seems kind of bizarre unless the area they lived in was considerably dry but that would entail less than optimal farming conditions. The interesting thing about the cultures that were without jade possibly depicted their totems on their pottery in order to better identify themselves as a single culture. Hongshan seems like a pretty enriched culture too since it had made use of temples and ceremonial centers as well had jade artifacts. There was another neolithic culture called Pengtoushan or Qiujialing that made terra cotta army like figurines to bury with their dead or put them on display. I'm still keeping an eye out for more info on how the archaeologists connect Xia with Erlitou. How different was Xia from Shang anyways for them to be considered two stages or entities?

[shunyadragon]

It was from a few blogs I was reading, and the bloggers and I were kind of joking a bit, saying that soon people will be claiming China is 10,000 years old.

I have to be more careful when I read posts. If you consider the Hemudo and Majiabang as the roots of Chinese Civilization, as I do, then yes Chinese Civilization is at least ~7000 years old. It is the ~10000 year old claim that I consider illusive and lacking evidence.

It in part depends on what you call civilization. Some require that writing be part of the criteria for a civilization. In this case the Shang is the earliest documented writing that is widely used, therefore ~1600 BCE or ~3600 years ago. There is a possibility that similar proto-writing goes back to the Peiligang Culture dating to 6600 BCE. See http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/2956925.stm

The problem is the gaps and lack of evidence at present to give a consistent pattern of actual early writing. This id the reason I look closely at the sophistication and continuity of culture beginning with the Hemudo and MAjiabang as the 'roots of Chinese Civilization.

[shunyadragon]

I wanted to add the discover of ~4800 writing on pottery shards from Shandong Province, which adds to the continuum of the development of writing in China. It is interesting that the early proto-writing found in Henan and Shandong are consistent with the Shang discoveries on Tortoise shells.

see source here http://www.chinapage...y/2000year.html

Edited by shunyadragon, 17 September 2010 - 04:45 PM.

[Gan]

It's something on my mind, but I was wondering if, other than evidence of writing, if it's also because there's no story behind the writing that makes people skeptical of the actual age of China (I'm going to include every definition of China, as a civilization, a state, a region, etc.).

Like, other than physical similarities, there's no story to link Chinese history with characters in neolithic archeology with traditional Chinese history (no story to suggests some kind of lineage between them and to the legendary Xia and Verified Shang).

It's pretty significant if more characters can be found, but even more important if people can find a pattern, and even decipher them. However, if for example, all they could decipher was a simple list of vegetables a farmer grew, it may or may not be enough to link it with general Chinese history.

Just something to think about.

[mohistManiac]

It's something on my mind, but I was wondering if, other than evidence of writing, if it's also because there's no story behind the writing that makes people skeptical of the actual age of China (I'm going to include every definition of China, as a civilization, a state, a region, etc.).

Like, other than physical similarities, there's no story to link Chinese history with characters in neolithic archeology with traditional Chinese history (no story to suggests some kind of lineage between them and to the legendary Xia and Verified Shang).

It's pretty significant if more characters can be found, but even more important if people can find a pattern, and even decipher them. However, if for example, all they could decipher was a simple list of vegetables a farmer grew, it may or may not be enough to link it with general Chinese history.

Just something to think about.

General Chinese history written by the ancient literati in many cases doesn't provide full reality construction such as can be done from the archaeological perspective. One instance of an emperor may have thought himself a competent ruler until we discover the reign he provided wasn't all that great. If a farmer was adopting a writing system by simply making tallies of certain productions but was able to recall correctly different types of productions due to the differentiated appearances of his tallies, forms of writing such as the one just described would be considered as part of the transitional evidence for the development of writing not only for the geographical locality concerned but for worldwide human heritage as well. You may recall that I once wrote about how if it wasn't for archaeology Chinese history would never have permitted itself to include anything beyond what was actually recorded at the time of Sima Qian and even earlier and that is due to their styles of recording which took place at a time of moral appreciation of social events and values which tend not to encompass developments of more natural kind like the development of shelter and clothing. The stories that are passed on even while having been written down eventually become myths anyways so I'd say archaeological evidence is still key in developing certain aspects of Chinese history and identity.

[shunyadragon]

General Chinese history written by the ancient literati in many cases doesn't provide full reality construction such as can be done from the archaeological perspective. One instance of an emperor may have thought himself a competent ruler until we discover the reign he provided wasn't all that great. If a farmer was adopting a writing system by simply making tallies of certain productions but was able to recall correctly different types of productions due to the differentiated appearances of his tallies, forms of writing such as the one just described would be considered as part of the transitional evidence for the development of writing not only for the geographical locality concerned but for worldwide human heritage as well. You may recall that I once wrote about how if it wasn't for archaeology Chinese history would never have permitted itself to include anything beyond what was actually recorded at the time of Sima Qian and even earlier and that is due to their styles of recording which took place at a time of moral appreciation of social events and values which tend not to encompass developments of more natural kind like the development of shelter and clothing. The stories that are passed on even while having been written down eventually become myths anyways so I'd say archaeological evidence is still key in developing certain aspects of Chinese history and identity.

I agree. The myths and legends of a culture are mainly how the later cultures viewed their roots, and are subject to revision and rewriting over time. They should be interpreted and understood in light of the archeological evidence.

[YinChong]

The emergence of "a culture" seems to imply that the technology (pottery, architecture, food?) people used in a certain area suddenly developed unique characteristics. Since prior to agriculture, technology was pretty much the same everywhere, "Cultures" are really a worldwide phenomenon dating back 8,000-12,000 years, including both Peiligang and Pengtoushan in China 9,000 years ago. As far as I know, "文化" is not used to describe anything regional in China earlier than that date. "Culture" is still used for some earlier regional phenomena in Europe etc, but the correct term should still be "Industry", as it only referred to slight differences in stone tools. Were there any differences between people in China and Europe 15,000 years ago? I don't know. But its certainly not enough to merit being distinct "cultures" in my view.

Then, "a civilization" should refer to a culture which has developed significant advanced technologies compared to its neighbours, or compared to some arbitrary standard. At what point do the Chinese 黄河流域 cultures become a civilization? Perhaps all we can do is use the same standard as Sumeria and Egypt: the emergence of a mature writing system, as well as bronze technology and centralized control... In that case, 3500-4000 years? However, during that period, other comparable and distinct bronze cultures exist around 长江流域，东北，甘肃 etc, not to mention the major rival 东夷 culture to the east. My feeling is that the Shang just happened to be the first to write on bones, and probably the ones who eventually expanded the most and passed down their history to the Zhou. 东夷 "cities" in Shandong were just as large if not larger than Erlitou, and who can be absolutely sure that the Shang/Xia were earlier/earliest?

I think what I'm trying to say, is that THE unified Chinese/华夏 civilization probably can only be traced back to Spring & Autumn, whereas "civilizations", by whatever standard, first emerged 4500+ years ago (e.g. first bronze age culture in Gansu: 齊家), and probably have little to do with the recorded 夏商周 or 皇帝/炎帝 or whatever. Many early civilizations in China (the geographical region) are bound to have become extinct, so its also interesting to ask whether they are "Chinese" or not?

Of course if you have a stricter standard, such as the existence of a shared identity (华夷之辩), then you can still only trace civilization back ~2700 years. But then, you have to cut down the age of Aegean and other Civilizations as well.

[Howard Fu]

Then, "a civilization" should refer to a culture which has developed significant advanced technologies compared to its neighbours, or compared to some arbitrary standard. At what point do the Chinese 黄河流域 cultures become a civilization? Perhaps all we can do is use the same standard as Sumeria and Egypt: the emergence of a mature writing system, as well as bronze technology and centralized control... In that case, 3500-4000 years? However, during that period, other comparable and distinct bronze cultures exist around 长江流域，东北，甘肃 etc, not to mention the major rival 东夷 culture to the east. My feeling is that the Shang just happened to be the first to write on bones, and probably the ones who eventually expanded the most and passed down their history to the Zhou. 东夷 "cities" in Shandong were just as large if not larger than Erlitou, and who can be absolutely sure that the Shang/Xia were earlier/earliest?

Agree. Probably even in inner Mongolia and Yunnan. One should not forget the climate was very different back then. Inner Mongolia was more like Yangtze river right now. I don't know if there are any evidence in the oracle bones that Rong, Di, Yi or Guifang people were tribal or nomadic during the Shang time. I tend to believe they are also at least equally civilized as Shang. It was the conqueror's bias that Shang called the people they conquered barbarians, the same way Spaniards called native Americans.

Edited by Howard Fu, 08 November 2010 - 05:36 AM.

[YinChong]

One should not forget the climate was very different back then. Inner Mongolia was more like Yangtze river right now.

That's Interesting. Maybe the nomads arrived later arrived later from further north?

I doubt it's fair to class Zhou, Shang and Xia as separate cultures or civilizations, but they certainly did exist simultaneously in different regions. Kind of like in Mesopotamia, the relation between Elam, Babylon and Assur, with other cultures (lacking their own written record, Kassites for example) existing nearby and often interfering or contributing to the "central" Mesopotamian powers. I doubt they could all be bundled into a single civilization, in the way that China has been.

Edited by YinChong, 08 November 2010 - 06:21 AM.