102 replies to this topic

[Yun]

I've been thinking about this question for a long time (and people have been asking me about it), and writing the slogan for our scroll on the main page finally made me bring it up. The popular notion among Han Chinese is that our civilisation has existed for 5,000 years, since the Yellow Emperor (Huang Di) in around 3,000 BC. 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. And even for the Shang dynasty, which has been dated as beginning in 1,600 BC, the first concrete date we have for a reign is Pan Geng's, which started in 1,300 BC with the moving of the capital to Yin.

So would it be more historically responsible to regard our history as being about 4,000 years old at most? Or 3,000? Or would it be better to regard 'China' as only coming into existence with the Qin imperial unification of 221 BC? Please share your views.

[Liang Jieming]

I think there are 2 points I'd like to make here.

1. A civilisation is not defined by the start of a dynasty, so I personally would not conclude either the Xia, Shang or Qin as starts of chinese "civilisation".

2. What did we do to be called civilised? I would take evidence of "higher" tools and crafts to mean the start of chinese "civilisation". Sumer was considered the first human civilisation because it developed cities, writing, arts, religion etc. If we use this same definition, the rise of Chinese cities, the chinese calendar, the arts and writing would also determine when our civilisation started. This would put it well before the Shang who already had cities and writing, though when during the Xia or earlier did this happen?

There is a fine line between the switch from being a "culture" to a "civilisation". The Nok culture of Africa, the Longshan culture of China, the neolitic cultures of Europe. People in these cultures lived in villages, had village rules and hierachies, pottery etc. but they are not considered civilisations. What was it? The switch from stone age to Bronze ie. metalworks? The establishment of agriculture from the hunter-gatherer stage? Domestication of animals? Weaving?

It is not a single event that when happens, we suddenly say "Ah ha! Chinese civilisation starts now because XXXXX happened." It is a gradual accumulation of higher arts, crafts and skills.

10000 to 4000 B.C. Painted Pottery.
ca. 6500 B.C. Rice cultivation in the Yangtze Valley.
ca. 5000 B.C. Matriarchal clan society.
ca. 5000 B.C. Evidence of basketry.
ca. 4000 B.C. Jade carvings.
ca. 3500 B.C. Patriarchal society develops.
ca. 3500 B.C. Widespread use of Jade and Lacquer.
ca. 3000 B.C. The first towns appear.
ca. 3000 B.C. Domestication of sheep, cattle and water buffalo.
ca. 2852 B.C. Emperor Fu Xi Shi decreed the use of surnames.
2698 B.C. The beginning of the Chinese calendar.
ca. 2500 B.C. Silk cultivation and weaving

[Enkidu]

I've been thinking about this question for a long time (and people have been asking me about it), and writing the slogan for our scroll on the main page finally made me bring it up. The popular notion among Han Chinese is that our civilisation has existed for 5,000 years, since the Yellow Emperor (Huang Di) in around 3,000 BC. 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. And even for the Shang dynasty, which has been dated as beginning in 1,600 BC, the first concrete date we have for a reign is Pan Geng's, which started in 1,300 BC with the moving of the capital to Yin.

So would it be more historically responsible to regard our history as being about 4,000 years old at most? Or 3,000? Or would it be better to regard 'China' as only coming into existence with the Qin imperial unification of 221 BC? Please share your views.

I think it is not accurate to regard the Chinese civilisation / china as coming into existence only upon the Qin unification. I think to equate unification with civilisation will be too restrictive. Going by that definition, china / chinese civilisation disappeared after the demise of the Eastern Han dynasty, reappeared during the Sui and Tang period, and disappeared again after 907AD. But I also think it is not accurate to stretch the beginning of Chinese civilisation to 3000BC, IF THERE IS NO RECORD TO SUPPORT IT. But of course, like what Jemin wrote, what should we look at to define civilisation? My view is that the first evidence of civilisation is city dwelling. Never mind the pottery, silk, weapons etc, but city dwelling is evidence of sufficient argicultural outputs, human organisation, and human co-operation, language, ...etc. I am not sure if Catal Huyuk is considered the starting point of civilisation in the Fertile Crescent or if it is the Sumerian cities like Ur, Uruk, Nimrud....etc.

[Bao Pu]

Hello Yun (and others)

You, Liang Jieming and Enkidu (so far) have made many good points. Elsewhere on this site I have suggested that when we speak of the "Xia Dynasty" what exactly we mean by "dynasty" is far from clear. Certainly there were communities of people living in the area now called Zhongguo (China) 5000 years ago, but was this a dynasty? Was this a civilization? And just because there are a number of communities, does this constitute a single civilization? We indeed have very little archaeological evidence of well-organized and civilized society before the mid-Shang dynasty.

The term "civilization" is a relative term. Europeans called all of the inhabitants of the Americas 'uncivilized' as did the Chinese central states call the inhabitants of the state of Chu and Yue.

My provisional opinion is that "Zhongguo/China" began in the mid-late Shang period. This seems to be when a well-organized society took shape and exercised authority over a number of communities throughout what is now called Zhongguo/China.

[caocao74]

What is "civilization" (according to the meaning of the word)?

http://www.wsu.edu:8...vilization.html

"civilization
The word "civilization" refers to a condition of relative advancement in human society. While there is no essential threshold at which point a society becomes "civilized" (civilization is probably best thought of as a complex continuum rather than a binary of "haves" and "have nots"), a civilized society is usually "marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions" (American Heritage English Dictionary). Civilization and culture: Culture precedes civilization. A human society will have distinct meaning systems, including language and religious systems, before these systems become institutionalized politically and socially. However, the fact that a society becomes progressively more "civilized" does not diminish the role of culture; the institutions of civilization continue to play a major role in cultural meaning systems and in the process of cultural reproduction."

This being the case, I'd back the case for the Mid- to Late-Shang Period to be seen as the dawning of Chinese civilzation.

[YesNo]

I have no problem with the current history strating from Huang Ti

As for it possibity being a legendary, we only need to remember it was not that far back when people questioned if Shang ever existed before evdience surface

So in future who know if evdience surface about Huang Di

[浪淘音]

the Erlitou site which some attribute to the Xia dynasty dates to around 2000-2100 B.C is definitely the beginning of Chinese civilization. 4000 years is my vote

saying Chinese civilization is only 3000 years is not giving your ancestors any credit for the sake of "objectivity"

even if Erlitou is not Xia, its still 4000 years old and clearly Chinese.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"So would it be more historically responsible to regard our history as being about 4,000 years old at most?"

This has always been the view since the Qing, back then it was always 4000 years of history. But then the PRC changed it to 5000 years. The Koreans always trying to prove their history is longer changed theirs to 6000 in response.

[General_Zhaoyun]

I've been thinking about this question for a long time (and people have been asking me about it), and writing the slogan for our scroll on the main page finally made me bring it up. The popular notion among Han Chinese is that our civilisation has existed for 5,000 years, since the Yellow Emperor (Huang Di) in around 3,000 BC. 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. And even for the Shang dynasty, which has been dated as beginning in 1,600 BC, the first concrete date we have for a reign is Pan Geng's, which started in 1,300 BC with the moving of the capital to Yin.

So would it be more historically responsible to regard our history as being about 4,000 years old at most? Or 3,000? Or would it be better to regard 'China' as only coming into existence with the Qin imperial unification of 221 BC? Please share your views.

I ask this question to my chinese history teacher in my chinese language and culture class and the answer I've obtained from him is , "yes, these legends should be included and thus making China 5000 years of history".

Take note that these legends are not like greek mythology. The legendary 1000 years of history starting from huang Di till Xia was recorded in chinese history classics. Though they were considered 'legends', they were actually passed down for generations by words of mouth, because at that time, China still did not have any writings. Historians during han dynasty such as Sima Qian, who wrote Shiji, had to do many oral interviews, do much research and traveling around the country before he can convincingly write these down.

Though there are currently no archaeological 'proof' of these stories, we cannot falsely say they 'did not exist'. Neither can we say these stories are 'historically true'.

My teacher mentioned it as "pre-civilization history of China" (史前历史). This pre-civilization history provides a reference link between the past and the actual civilization history of China.

Western historical analysis had an emphasis on archaeological proof. I read somewhere that Xia palaces and writings had already been found.

[General_Zhaoyun]

I think there are 2 points I'd like to make here.

1. A civilisation is not defined by the start of a dynasty, so I personally would not conclude either the Xia, Shang or Qin as starts of chinese "civilisation".

2. What did we do to be called civilised?  I would take evidence of "higher" tools and crafts to mean the start of chinese "civilisation".  Sumer was considered the first human civilisation because it developed cities, writing, arts, religion etc.  If we use this same definition, the rise of Chinese cities, the chinese calendar, the arts and writing would also determine when our civilisation started.  This would put it well before the Shang who already had cities and writing, though when during the Xia or earlier did this happen?

There is a fine line between the switch from being a "culture" to a "civilisation".  The Nok culture of Africa, the Longshan culture of China, the neolitic cultures of Europe.  People in these cultures lived in villages, had village rules and hierachies, pottery etc. but they are not considered civilisations.  What was it?  The switch from stone age to Bronze ie. metalworks?  The establishment of agriculture from the hunter-gatherer stage?  Domestication of animals?  Weaving?

It is not a single event that when happens, we suddenly say "Ah ha! Chinese civilisation starts now because XXXXX happened."  It is a gradual accumulation of higher arts, crafts and skills.

10000 to 4000 B.C. Painted Pottery.
ca. 6500 B.C. Rice cultivation in the Yangtze Valley.
ca. 5000 B.C. Matriarchal clan society.
ca. 5000 B.C. Evidence of basketry.
ca. 4000 B.C. Jade carvings.
ca. 3500 B.C. Patriarchal society develops.
ca. 3500 B.C. Widespread use of Jade and Lacquer.
ca. 3000 B.C. The first towns appear.
ca. 3000 B.C. Domestication of sheep, cattle and water buffalo.
ca. 2852 B.C. Emperor Fu Xi Shi decreed the use of surnames.
2698 B.C. The beginning of the Chinese calendar.
ca. 2500 B.C. Silk cultivation and weaving

I personally would say actual chinese civilization started from Xia dynasty while those before are considered pre-history. The representation of a civilization include:

1. The establishment of a state

2. The appearance of writing (it has been predicted that Xia already has writing, because the Jiaguwen of Shang has already a good vocabulary and grammar form)

3. Appearance of city

4. Metal smelting

5. Buildings for prayer and rites

The word "Wenming 文明" (chinese word for 'civilization) was first appeared in the famous I-Ching (or the Book of Change) during the warring states period, which attempted to describe chinese civilization and those barbarians around China.

[浪淘音]

"So would it be more historically responsible to regard our history as being about 4,000 years old at most?"

This has always been the view since the Qing, back then it was always 4000 years of history. But then the PRC changed it to 5000 years. The Koreans always trying to prove their history is longer changed theirs to 6000 in response.

yeah, i've read lots of Korean "sources" that claim their civilization has existed since 8000 B.C, at the same time, they'll claim their "Dong Yi ancestors" (bullcrap) migrated from China as late as Western Zhou dynasty

[Tibet Libre]

I voted for 3500 years (starting from Shang) which is what most Western scholars prefer - a erdict I trust more than politized archaeological excavations and the propaganda discours of the CCP. A future generation of Chinese archaeologists and scholars will be free of such political 'considerations' I am sure, but not for now.

Of course, the right vote would be "depends on how you define civilization". But even if you have come the conclusion that there existed a civilization prior to the Shang, you still have to show its link with Chinese civilization. There are a lot of places around the world where very old traces of civilization are to be found, but usually scholars are not prone to easily create continuities to later civilizations, unless sufficiently proven. This is the more true, the farther we look back in history.

So there are in fact two questions to be asked in this thread. Did a civilization exist AND was it linked somehow with Chinese civilization of a later age?

[浪淘音]

I voted for 3500 years (starting from Shang) which is what most Western scholars prefer - a erdict I trust more than politized archaeological excavations and the propaganda discours of the CCP. A future generation of Chinese archaeologists and scholars will be free of such political 'considerations' I am sure, but not for now.

Of course, the right vote would be "depends on how you define civilization". But even if you have come the conclusion that there existed a civilization prior to the Shang, you still have to show its link with Chinese civilization. There are a lot of places around the world where very old traces of civilization are to be found, but usually scholars are not prone to easily create continuities to later civilizations, unless sufficiently proven. This is the more true, the farther we look back in history.

So there are in fact two questions to be asked in this thread.  Did a civilization exist AND was it linked somehow with Chinese civilization of a later age?

so basically we should ignore the Erlitou archeaological site(bronze age) dated to around 2000 B.C?

[Sephodwyrm]

I would rather associate civilization when the people that composes it formed a collective history and body. These might include:
1. city (or tribe, etc)
2. religion (or some form of collective spiritual belief)
3. keeping of deeds, legends, history, etc