28 replies to this topic

[fcharton]

Archeological data now recovered shows An Fang palace was probably never close to finish. There was no sign of burning as recorded in shiji by xiangyu.
"Now, what is the population of China at the time? The only estimate I have found puts it around 20 millions, which, I believe, is a high estimate (it was around 100 millions iirc in the beginning of the 18th century, and the empire of the Qing was much larger and densely populated...)."
estimates from modern analyzation of Chinese georaphic statistics

500b.c.: 27 million
300b.c.: 32 million
200 b.c. 18 million
1 A.D. : 65 million
The Qin population is probably around 25 million from the conquest wars before and Chu Han war after.

Warhead,

Thanks for the data. Would you agree that the 18 million figure seems a bit low? I mean, the conquest wrs and Qin rule were certainly harsh, but still it would mean that the population was almost divided by half through the third century, without a major epidemic (there would be records). This just seems a bit too much. Or could it be that the 18 million pertains to a much smaller geographic entity than the 32 and 65.

Anyway, this sheds some better light on Qin available workforce/military.

25 millions people means 12.5 million men, and probably about 8 million able bodied men (discarding the children, the oldest and the crippled). These men are scattered all over a big empire (although many are concentrated in the central plains). Counting the military and the workers committed to state projects, we get (the usual sources tell us), some 700 000 + 2 000 000, ie about one third of the total, over a period of 15 years (the reign of Qin Shi Huang as emperor).

My impression is that this is just not possible. I would say that a more likely total (given the autocratic character of the regime, but also the need to feed everyone) would be, at most, between a million and a million and a half...

Francois

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"Thanks for the data. Would you agree that the 18 million figure seems a bit low? I mean, the conquest wrs and Qin rule were certainly harsh, but still it would mean that the population was almost divided by half through the third century, without a major epidemic (there would be records). This just seems a bit too much. Or could it be that the 18 million pertains to a much smaller geographic entity than the 32 and 65."

Yes, it seems a little low, but not much. My own rough estimation prior to this using historical war ratio and the distribution of population studies during the warring state and the Latter Han was around 20 million, but its not important, the difference is two small to matter since the whole estimation is only approximate to begin with. I also consider 27 million a bit high for spring and autumn, but then again, its not impossible.




btw, don't forget the destruction Sheng Shen Wu Guan rebellion at the end of Qin and the Chu-Han war after, thats pretty destructive too.

[fcharton]

Yes, it seems a little low, but not much. My own rough estimation prior to this using historical war ratio and the distribution of population studies during the warring state and the Latter Han was around 20 million, but its not important, the difference is two small to matter since the whole estimation is only approximate to begin with. I also consider 27 million a bit high for spring and autumn, but then again, its not impossible.
btw, don't forget the destruction Sheng Shen Wu Guan rebellion at the end of Qin and the Chu-Han war after, thats pretty destructive too.

Another point, which might explain the big decrease in population during the end of the warring states and Qin dynasty might have been the fact that a perpetual state of war existed for a very long period. In the long run, this might have produced a very uneven demographic structure : lack of men, and "holes" in the age pyramid, which might in turn have caused a lack of births, increasing the effect of conscription on population growth and reducing the number of farm hands (therefore causing lower life expectancies and birth rates). In a couple of generations, the effects might well be impressive.

Francois

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

I think that Shi Ji's critisicim of Qin's labour are very exaggerated.
The document of Mount Tai tells a completely different story.(althou biased since its written by the Qin, but I don't think its less biased than Han, which does the opposite. And considering the mt. Tai sources are primary, I trust them a little more)
The mt. Tai inscription said that the peasants are freed from their serfs which existed under feudalism of warring states(and historians has confirmed it), canals were also built, therefore Qin's population should have a positive growth not negative. The living standard under the Qin is probably even higher than the warring states, however, it was the law that was unbearable.
In fact Cheng Sheng Wu Guan didn't rebel because they are suffering from lack of food, they did so because they are under the threat of execution.
There isn't the slightest hint that Qin people are starving. Qin's strict bureucracy probably had a very efficient economic system and distribution of food. If the first emperor didn't do so much monumental work and conquest, the qin might survive just as long as the Han.

[Sephodwyrm]

I would think that it is the worsening and collapse of legalistic order in the reign of the second emperor that led to the demise of the Qin. Li Si multiplied the punishments in the hope of using oppression to stamp out discontent. It didn't work too well.

[Mei Houwang]

Hey seph, your back!

[Kenneth]

A confirmation of what Bao Pu and Fcharton suggest of certain numbers being metaphorical rather than literal (ie simply 'a great many') comes from archaeological commentary on Shi Ji. Firstly a general commentary of the limits of Shi Ji as an authority on all peoples and periods within its enormous scope.

''''....Detailed analysis of these sources permits us to note certain contradictions, especially regarding the formation of Xiongnu cultural complex and its chronology. The written sources document the Xiongnu conquest and the distribution of their influence in Central Asia during the period of Maodun, during the third and the beginning of second century B.C. (209-174 B.C.). The written sources also suggest that the Xiongnu initial territory and the chief's headquarters in this period were situated in the northern areas of the Chinese Yan and Zhao states (eastern Shanxi, northern Hebei, western Liaoning, as well as southeastern Inner Mongolia). However in the listed area, typical Xiongnu complexes are not present in the archaeological record.....
.
..&....The most reliable material of the Xiongnu archaeological complexes is represented by the wu-shu coins, the Han mirrors, and the inscriptions on some artefacts {i.e; these not before 2nd century BC}. The archaeological material from these Xiongnu sites does not permit a date earlier than the 1st century B.C. This conclusion is against the conventional explanations based on Chinese written sources, suggesting an initial date of 3rd cent. B.C. for the Xiongnu complexes. The distribution area of the archaeological sites does not coincide with the area that the Xiongnu first inhabited in the first decades of the empire. The standard chronologies of the Xiongnu cultural complex must be revised....
.
..&.....These texts mention that in the period of the Qin dynasty the Xiongnu were banned from their homeland to the north and after the downfall of the Qin they returned to the region "south of the river" (the Ordos plateau). But there are some contradictions between the text of Sima Qian and the text by Ban Gu and some mistakes in the text by Sima Qian. After a detailed analysis of the two Chinese chronicles one can assume that, in fact, the homeland of the Xiongnu in the Warring States period was situated in the northern regions of the states of Zhao and Yan.....

.&......Here lie two contradictions: first, between the archaeological evidence and the written sources, i.e., between the existence of the Ivolga fortress and the sentence, "the Xiongnu had no towns"; and second, between the written sources themselves wherein the the same phrase reads, "the Xiongnu had no towns" from the Shi Ji and the description of the capital of Zizi shanyu in the Han Shu. The archaeological evidence obviously demands a re-examination of the written source. The 110th chapter of Shi Ji by Sima Qian entitled Xiongnu Liezhuan is the main source for Xiongnu history. This chapter could be divided into two parts. The first part focuses on the nomads, predecessors (not ancestors) of the Xiongnu in Central Asia, from ancient times until the end of the third century B.C, who "had no the towns". The second part of chapter 110 is the history of the Xiongnu tribes themselves. It is in this part that Sima Qian comments: "Xiongnu constructed a town for keeping the grain."

........&....{even more relevant to this # topic specifically}..''The practice of human sacrifices in the burial tradition of Xiongnu was recorded already by their contemporaries — ancient Chinese chroniclers. Ssu-ma Ch'ien (145–87 B.C.), who the first compiled information about Xiongnu in his “Historian Records”, mentioned that “the most beloved servants and concubines followed the deceased into the grave, and the greatest number of such persons amounted to several thousand or hundreds”.
It seems, a number of several thousand of such “servants and concubines” was doubted already at that time.
It is not accidental, that Pan Gu, the author of “The History of Han”, when redacting the text of the “Historian Records” replaced “several thousand or hundreds” in the above phrase for “several tens or one hundred” These divergences show that Han historians had not have in their disposition the precise information about the number of humans offered in sacrifice during burials of Xiongnu elite.''

{note; see linked article for excavation of Xiongnu burial complexes, layout and human sacrifice associated with nobles graves}
http://www.chinahist...?showtopic=8226


Excavation can reveal details of Xiongnu that otherwise are not recorded in contemporary Chinese accounts and the above is relevent to the issue of numbers at the Qin site and the literal truth of the SHi Ji on all matters. (The Xiongnu use of imitation cowries was of interest to me too.) The influence between the material culture of the Ordos region and the central plains does not merit comment from historians of larger political and historical events. This is shown in artefactual stlyes found in China that can be attirbuted to the nomads...the ornamental Ordos belt plaques being a very attractive example.
The written histories and excavations both fill in details the other cannot provide..names to sites and sites to names.
Another suggestion we take Shi Ji as a historical account (which has the strength and weaknesses of all historical accounts to the present day) is that it is NOT infallible in the records of the Xiongnu cultural areas at moments in time which are found to be at odds with the evidence of Xiongnu settlements. These locations can be dated securely by the presence of bronze mirrors or Han wushu coins such as
http://www.chinahist...?showtopic=8153 &
http://www.chinahist...?showtopic=7769 in a cultural plain as these do not exist before the Han.
Given the noted contradictions it is healthy to ponder on the near papal authority of Sima Qian on Chinese history. The ommissions in Sima Qians brief account of the physical evidence of Qin ShiHuangs tomb as noted by Fcharton are valid too. With no mention of the buried army (which was still incomplete and a long term project of some note!) I do wonder how literal the layout of the Shi Ji can be taken for the tomb interior also, or if it draws from 'what is to be expected' as there are earlier Zhou accounts of tombs with lakes of mercury also (although none yet found).
始 皇 初 即位 ， 穿 治 酈 山 ， 及并 天 下 ， 天 下 徒 送 詣 七 十 餘 萬 人 ， 穿 三 泉 ， 下 銅 而 致 槨 ， 宮 觀 百 官 奇 器 珍 怪徙 臧 滿 之 。 令 匠 作 機弩 矢 ， 有 所 穿 近 者 輒 射 之 。 以 水 銀 為 百 川 江 河 大 海 ， 機相 灌 輸 ，上 具 天 文 ，下 具 地 理 。 以 人 魚 膏 為 燭 ，度 不 滅 者 久 之 。

After all we are also told that those that filled the tomb were entombed inside to keep the secrets...but yet those details sought to be protected are common knowledge today....or alleged to be.
In this way for the 700,000 I would requires graves, remains of structures/housing (the lodgings alone would support a population bigger than any Imperial capital city), logistal evidence, contemporary reports of supplies to feed these numbers (as Peers notes some logistical evidence exists for the large armies mobilised)...before I accept the tomb workers # in particular as really simply literal. Clearly some numbers are given to impress or from hearsay (how likely is Sima Qian to have actually seen the regions or the Xiongnu towns he wrote of).
This is not a slur on the intergrity of the Chinese. It is simply sound practice when dealing with any written history.

It is worth noting again that despite the modern world discovering the buried army this century, and no referecne in the Shi Ji, that the Han must have known of it since all the West Han Emperors went to great lengths to be buried with massive ceramic retinues of equal scope but minaturise scale(and utilising forced labour in several instances also)...these of even greater diversity than has been found at the Qin tomb to date.
The practice was essentially estabilished in its form from QIn and taken on by the Han...therefore some knowledge must have existed even if Sima Qian does not note it or the construction. This is most peculiar but as I said above excavation can reveal (or contradict) details that otherwise are not recorded in contemporary Chinese accounts. Shi Ji is not the final word.
In the end we believe what we will, but to me confirmable physical evidence of the historical is a form of benchmark and without this we only work on a conditional trust.

Edited by Kenneth, 22 November 2005 - 04:36 PM.

[fcharton]

It is worth noting again that despite the modern world discovering the buried army this century, and no referecne in the Shi Ji, that the Han must have known of it since all the West Han Emperors went to great lengths to be buried with massive ceramic retinues of equal scope but minaturise scale(and utilising forced labour in several instances also)...these of even greater diversity than has been found at the Qin tomb to date.
The practice was essentially estabilished in its form from QIn and taken on by the Han...therefore some knowledge must have existed even if Sima Qian does not note it or the construction. This is most peculiar but as I said above excavation can reveal (or contradict) details that otherwise are not recorded in contemporary Chinese accounts. Shi Ji is not the final word.

This is quite interesting. Is there any evidence that the practice of burying ceramic armies was actually older than Qin Shihuang? I mean, whereas Qin Shihuang might have taken this to an unprecedented scale, he could have expanded on an older tradition, either chinese, or specific to Qin (or, even, to other cultures with which Qin, as a borderland kingdom might have known). The preexistence of such a practice might then explain (partly) why Sima Qian did not refer to it (a point I find very troubling, now that you mention it).

On the Shi Ji (and Xiongnu), it is interesting to note that the chapters which are considered the less reliable (because they were edited, or reconstructed, after Sima's death) are, surprisingly, the ones dealing with the most recent history... I know there has been a lot of debate on the authenticity Dayuan chapter (123), maybe the Xiongnu chapter (even though it is said that Sima Qian did participate in an expedition against them) is another case.

Francois

[Kenneth]

I have heard of burial figures of wood in late East Zhou (wooden figurines exist in Han also although they survive only in exceptional circumstances).
One such figure I realise is shown in the Albert Dien article on armour (figure 1) and this is from Chu and late East Zhou.
I have heard of these wooden figures before and this article also confirms the earlier wooden figurines in the south. Real people were more popular tomb objects in earlier times although some rare examples of human sacrifice exist in Han such as the King of Nanyue tomb.

Already in Neolithic times, graves had been furnished with vessels filled with grain, water, and wine to nourish the spirit of the deceased. By the Shang and Zhou (c. 1050-221 B.C.) dynasties, elaborate funerary ceremonies had evolved that required the use of jade implements and ritual bronze vessels. Shang ceremonies sometimes involved human and animal sacrifices as well, the animals including elephants, rhinoceroses, horses, oxen, pigs, and dogs, among many others. Burial figurines of wood were used in the south during the Warring States period (481-221 B.C.), perhaps as substitutes for the sacrificial victims of earlier times. Then, burial sculptures of fired ceramic ware began to be used in the north from the late third century B.C. onward. {i.e Qin}
The earliest ceramic tomb sculptures-those of the Qin and Han dynasties-represent warriors and horses. Intended to protect the tomb from demons and intruders while at the same time symbolizing the wealth, political power, and military might of the tomb occupant, they depict ethnically Chinese figures in native attire. The repertory of subjects expanded during the Han dynasty to include court attendants, entertainers, and barnyard animals.

http://www.asianart....es/preface.html

Edited by Kenneth, 22 November 2005 - 06:31 PM.

[MengTzu]

On this forum and elsewhere, the number 700 000 seems to be appearing a lot when referring to things built by Qin Shihuang. I think I have seen it as the number of people :

1- used to build E Pang palace
2- used to build the Qin Mausoleum (sometime saying that they were all staughtered)
3- used to build the Great Wall
4- buried inside the Great Wall

Where there people buried inside the Great Wall? Proof?

[fcharton]

Where there people buried inside the Great Wall? Proof?

My opinion is that this is yet another (enduring) legend... Note that the Great Wall was mostly finished before Qin. Yan had a long northern wall from Korea to actual Zhangjiakou (Hebei). Zhao had one from modern 100 km east of Hohoot to the northern loop of the yellow river. So Qin Shihuang's task was more like linking them (there was a hole about 100 km large, actually I am not sure that the Qin was was that continuous) and reinforcing them than actually building the whole thing.

Point is, though, extravagant figures are given for the number of builders and casualties, and the specific number of 700 000 comes up often (which was my original question).

Francois

[MengTzu]

My opinion is that this is yet another (enduring) legend... Note that the Great Wall was mostly finished before Qin. Yan had a long northern wall from Korea to actual Zhangjiakou (Hebei). Zhao had one from modern 100 km east of Hohoot to the northern loop of the yellow river. So Qin Shihuang's task was more like linking them (there was a hole about 100 km large, actually I am not sure that the Qin was was that continuous) and reinforcing them than actually building the whole thing.

Point is, though, extravagant figures are given for the number of builders and casualties, and the specific number of 700 000 comes up often (which was my original question).

Francois

I'm not asking about the number of people buried, I'm asking, are there or are there not people buried IN the Great Wall.

[Kenneth]

I have heard that when people died they were tossed in and used as mortar...that the wall is a symbol of trajedy also.
This sounds plausible, but if it is a myth I am unsure if it has been proven literally to be true.
There are mythical accounts tied into the Qin great wall that have a version where a scholar husband was buried in it after being worked to death and the wife wept bitterly.
This exists in different versions and I believe it was shown to be based on a distortion of an even earlier tale.

Short answer to question....certainly it is said to be so on occasion but I havent seen any specific commentary on bodies found in either 'great wall' to confirm it.

David Copperfield made comment about bodies being inside the great wall when he did a televised 'walking through the great wall' magic trick. It was lame and a long time ago but another version of popular culture of the wall which hasnt been demonstrated as factual yet.
Funnily enough to satisfy my own curiousity I tried a keyword search and didnt even find any mention of stories either wall with graves inside (or David Copperfield BTW).
It suggests there isnt much relating to this topic of note, and is therefore likely a myth.

For the rammed earth wall of Qin it wouldnt seem nessecary since they compact earth layer by layer and stomping on a squishy corpse would be a pain...but of the brick and stone wall of Ming I would have considered the loose centre a good dumping ground for cadavers.

i.e If I was working on the wall, carting heavy rocks, the worker beside me expired. Quickly...looking side to side and no overseer watching ..I would toss them in and dump rocks atop the body. heheheh.
Thats one less load of heavy rocks that needs to be moved to fill that section!

Edited by Kenneth, 22 November 2005 - 11:10 PM.

[MengTzu]

i.e If I was working on the wall, carting heavy rocks, the worker beside me expired. Quickly...looking side to side and no overseer watching ..I would toss them in and dump rocks atop the body. heheheh.
Thats one less load of heavy rocks that needs to be moved to fill that section!

In case we happen to be building a great wall any time soon, remind me not to work next to you.