7 replies to this topic

[somechineseperson]

I have recently read a historical world atlas that shows the various tribes/states around the world at different times in history. The atlas is colour-coded so that regions with peoples at different levels of cultural/technological development are coloured differently. The levels of cultural/social organisation used in this book are:

Level 1 Hunter-Gatherers (most primitive)
Level 2 Simple Farming Societies
Level 3 Complex Farming Societies/Chiefdoms
Level 4 State Societies (the mark of complex civilisation)
Level 5 Empires

Nomadic groups are shown in a different colour.

With this altas the vast amounts of differences in levels of development between various parts of the ancient world become very obvious. And the difference is great indeed. (This altas really makes you understand the meaning of the word "inequality"!) Tribes developed simple farming societies and abandoned the hunter-gatherer lifestyle extremely early in China, India and West Asia. By 8500BC simple farming societies appeared in Mesopotamia and by 6500BC in Eastern China, whereas Africa still largely consisted of hunter-gatherers as late as 500 AD and the native Australians were still hunter-gatherers in the 19th century AD!

The point I want to make is an interesting comparison between East and West Asia in terms of development. I must say the Chinese still lagged behind West Asia by a millennium in terms of the major developments. For instance, the first state societies appeared in Sumeria by 3500 BC, and in China state society only came into existence after 2000 BC, 1500 years behind the West Asians. By 1000 BC large areas of West Asia, the Mediterranean and North Africa had bronze technology, whereas in East Asia bronze technology is limited to a small region in what is now central China. But actually the most interesting thing is this: if you look at the map of the world in 1000BC in this altas, you would see a striking difference between East and West Asia: In the Western end of Asia there were numerous states (In Egypt, Mesopotamia and Iran, the Crete and Indus Valley states had collapsed by 1000BC), surrounded by a large region of various chiefdoms. So the amount of difference in terms of development in West Asia wasn't very great. The entire region consisted of state societies (Level 4) and chiefdoms (Level 3), and Bronze technology was available throughout the region. Yet if one looks at East Asia of exactly the same period the picture is completely different, true, there was the great Zhou Dynasty of China (one of my favorites), which is a complex state society that is fully the match of any states in West Asia. But in East Asia in 1000BC, Zhou China was the only state society. Not only this, the tribes around China (Tibetans, South-East Asians, Koreans, Japanese etc) haven't even developed into chiefdoms yet, it would take another thousand years for them to advance that far. So the amount of difference in development between Zhou China and the tribes around them was great indeed. Zhou China was a state society (Level 4), while the tribes around it were simple farming societies (Level 2) without Bronze or any metal technology. No wonder the ancient Chinese regarded these tribes as "barbarians", not worthy of consideration. (I'm not suggesting this attitude is correct) China was ahead of its neighours in terms of development by 2000 - 3000 years. Shortly after 2000 BC China already had a state society, and it wasn't until the first few centuries AD for Korea and Japan to follow suit. One would have to wait until the Tang Dynasty, after several great Chinese empires had risen and fallen, for the Tibetans to develop their first state (the Tubo), and until the 12th and 13th centuries AD for state development to take place in North Asia. (Jurchens and Mongols) So my question is, why is there such a difference between West and East Asia in terms of development? (China really seems to be the odd-one-out in East Asia in 1000BC, without China, the map of East Asia in 1000BC would only be one level better than that of Africa or Australia) Why is China the odd-one-out? Why have the Chinese developed civilisation 2000 years before their neighbours?

One theory is that the ancient Chinese were originally West Asian nomads that migrated to East Asia during the third millennium BC. See for example this link.This would take into account and explain the similarities between Chinese and West Asian religious practices during China's Shang and Zhou Dynasties. (E.g. offering sacrifices to a Supereme Heaven-God, in the Chinese case Shangdi) I must say, in 1000BC in terms of civilisational development Zhou China certainly had more affinity with the West Asians than with her neighbours. I am not saying this theory is conclusively correct, for there are also key differences in Chinese and West Asian religious practices, for example divination in China is done through heating oracle bones by fire, whereas in West Asia it is done through examining animal entrails.

What do you think?

Edited by somechineseperson, 19 October 2005 - 07:40 PM.

[somechineseperson]

Can the fact that Europeans went ahead eventually be explained by ultimate causes in early history? It is true that civilisation started in most of Europe much later than China. It wasn't until 3500 BC for the first simple farming societies to develop in Mainland Europe (3000 years behind China) and it wasn't until the first centuries AD for the emergence of states in the northern part of Europe (2000 years behind China). But Europe is located in an advantageous geographical location. Its proximity to the great civilisations of West Asia and Eastern Mediterranean means it can simply "copy" many developments of civilisation without having to develop much independently by itself. And since farming started later in Europe than in West Asia, the European lands could still support intensive farming even today whereas the once-great Mesopotamian lands have become deserts due to pro-longed periods of intensive farming. So Europe eventually raced ahead of China, by stepping on the shoulder of giants. (Mainland European civilisation is almost totally derived from West Asia, the Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa) Is it a coincedence that the most advanced regions in the world today - Western Europe and North America, is a derivative civilisation of the great ancient civilisations of West Asia, which was the region was the earliest farming societies, metal technology, states and writing?

[somechineseperson]

Some figures for the varying levels of civilisational developments of various regions around the world:

China Eastern Mediterrean Mesopotamia Egypt India Mainland Europe

Simple Farming Societies 6500BC 6500BC 8500BC 6500BC 6500BC 3500BC
Chiefdoms 3200BC 3200BC 5000BC 4000BC 3200BC 1000BC
State Societies 2000BC 2000BC 3500BC 3000BC 2500BC 1AD
Bronze technology 2000BC 2000BC 2500BC 2500BC 2000BC 1500BC
Writing 1500BC 2000BC 3500BC 3000BC 2500BC 1AD
Iron technology 500BC 1000BC 1000BC 1000BC 1000BC 500BC
Steel technology 200AD 1000AD 1000AD 1000AD 1000AD 1000AD

[DaMo]

I doubt this West Asian nomad theory. While it is entirely possible that certain technologies were brought to China through nomadic influence, nomads themselves are unlikely to have brought West Asian civilization there. Why would civilized West Asians become nomads, travel all the way to China, then settle again? According to the link you posted, they had to relearn farming (while farming had been around in China for many thousands of years prior) and settled living (extremely ancient citiy complexes are being uncovered in China that well predate even the Xia, let alone the Zhou). With these precedents already in China, what good reason is there to believe that the core of her civilization is anything but indigenous to the region?

[somechineseperson]

I doubt this West Asian nomad theory. While it is entirely possible that certain technologies were brought to China through nomadic influence, nomads themselves are unlikely to have brought West Asian civilization there. Why would civilized West Asians become nomads, travel all the way to China, then settle again? According to the link you posted, they had to relearn farming (while farming had been around in China for many thousands of years prior) and settled living (extremely ancient citiy complexes are being uncovered in China that well predate even the Xia, let alone the Zhou). With these precedents already in China, what good reason is there to believe that the core of her civilization is anything but indigenous to the region?

You might have a point, but if so, why were the regions around central China so primitive? (Not even chiefdoms) The level of difference between the regional civilisation centre and the surrounding areas is much greater in China than it is in the Western end of Asia.

If the nomad theory is correct, the nomads were probably never farmers to start with, and only turned into farmers when they reached China.

Also, it is not clear whether the pre-Xia (that is pre-Erlitou) settlements should be labelled as "cities" rather than "towns". Cities are the centres of state societies, while towns are the centres of chiefdoms. Although chiefdoms have been around in China since at least 3200BC, there is still no good evidence for the existence of state societies in China during the 3rd millennium BC.

True, farming has been around in China from at least 6500BC, probably still earlier. But there are significant differences between the three levels of farming societies: simple farming societies, with simple stone tools, consisting of small clan-based groups of a few hundred people and no towns, chiefdoms with complex stone tools, consisting of tens of thousands of people and concentrated in towns, and state societies, with bronze technology, writing, centralised politico-religious power, large scale palaces, millions of people concentrated in cities protected by city walls. There is no doubt that simple farming societies are indigenous to East Asia, they were all around the place, not just in China. But there is a certain possibility that chiefdoms or more likely states came from elsewhere.

[tadamson]

There isn't really a problem here.

Farming is something that quit possibly developed separately in different aras of the world (after all The Chinese and Messopotamians relied on different staple cerial crops).

The core process is reasonably clear:-

Hunter gatherers use cerials (grasses etc) when in season. (grinding seeds is a surprisingly common prehistoric prctice)
Planting seeds is discovered accidentally.
Clearing weeds starts for access, rapidly becomes an obvious advantage.
Suddenly you have a field, so you stay close to protect it.....


Some other things worth considering:

There were surprisingly widespread trading networks during the mid stone age.
Pastoral nomads actually live in a very advanced socia-economic culture that requires, farming and trade centres before it can start.
Religion is very, very, old (eg widespread 'earth mother' figures from early stone age)..

[DaMo]

You might have a point, but if so, why were the regions around central China so primitive? (Not even chiefdoms) The level of difference between the regional civilisation centre and the surrounding areas is much greater in China than it is in the Western end of Asia.

If the nomad theory is correct, the nomads were probably never farmers to start with, and only turned into farmers when they reached China.

Also, it is not clear whether the pre-Xia (that is pre-Erlitou) settlements should be labelled as "cities" rather than "towns". Cities are the centres of state societies, while towns are the centres of chiefdoms. Although chiefdoms have been around in China since at least 3200BC, there is still no good evidence for the existence of state societies in China during the 3rd millennium BC.

True, farming has been around in China from at least 6500BC, probably still earlier. But there are significant differences between the three levels of farming societies: simple farming societies, with simple stone tools, consisting of small clan-based groups of a few hundred people and no towns, chiefdoms with complex stone tools, consisting of tens of thousands of people and concentrated in towns, and state societies, with bronze technology, writing, centralised politico-religious power, large scale palaces, millions of people concentrated in cities protected by city walls. There is no doubt that simple farming societies are indigenous to East Asia, they were all around the place, not just in China. But there is a certain possibility that chiefdoms or more likely states came from elsewhere.

Well, I think it is a non sequitur. It almost seems to imply that civilization is somehow in the blood of West Asians, even West Asian nomads, but not the people who were already settled in the China and had already reached a pretty high level of organization and sophistication. There doesn't have to be just a single source of state-based civilization any more than there had to be a single source of any of the lower levels of development.

[somechineseperson]

Well, I think it is a non sequitur. It almost seems to imply that civilization is somehow in the blood of West Asians, even West Asian nomads, but not the people who were already settled in the China and had already reached a pretty high level of organization and sophistication. There doesn't have to be just a single source of state-based civilization any more than there had to be a single source of any of the lower levels of development.

I think you do have a point, nor am I suggesting that the West Asian nomad theory is necessarily right, but it still needs to be explained why of all the numerous simple farming societies in East Asia, only the ones in the region of Central-Eastern China developed into chiefdoms and eventually states during the years 3200 - 2000BC. Why only these societies? Why did take almost another 3000 years after 3200 BC for chiefdoms to appear elsewhere in East Asia and 2500 years after 2000BC for states to develop? Why was there a big gap between China and her neighbours? That was my original question. In West Asia this kind of situation didn't exist. By 1000BC the entire region from the Eastern Mediterranean, Southeastern Europe and the coast of North Africa all the way to North India consisted of either state societies or chiefdoms, and they all had bronze technology. In East Asia there was only Zhou China, the rest of the places, from Tibet in the west to Japan in the east and south-east Asia to the south there were only simple farming societies without bronze technology. In North Asia nomadism wasn't around in 1000BC so the people there were still hunter-gatherers.