43 replies to this topic

[Kenneth]

IS the article impressive becuase it makes you 'feel good?'. There is nothing of substance in it.
It neglects to mention Banpo neolitihic at Xian which is bizzare since that is earlier than many named here, and contain the first evidence of repeating characters on pottery or early script. Banpo is often mentioned as a patriachal village so to leave it out is puzzling for tracing Chinese culture.

China launched the archaeological project in 2001, aiming to seek the origin of ancient Chinese civilization, the only one in the world that has kept developing for 5,000 years without interruption.

A very optimistic version of the truth. 5,000 years ago (Chinese nationalism fails to mention) there were true cities, merchantile classes, written language and metal working in north Africa & the Middle East, yet the 5,000 year date bandied about is entirely abitary dating that seems to have no basis as to why '5,000' years is relevant as a start point or who/where it applies to. The evidence of 'states' is only due to a theorised authority since settlements grew larger, yet large projects occur in prehistoric times elsewhere due to religious or tribal authority alone.
Given that there is no reason to consider it anything more than tribal authority (as large walled settlements does not mean civilisation to me) plus there were no features to define 'early civilisation' in China at that time then calling neolithic China of 5,000 years ago as anything more than an embryo of civilisation is wishful.
To say that China is unique in that it was never 'interupted' is again just opinion given the rule of China by foreign nationalities and the periods of division as well as importation and appropriation of foerign values and spirituality (Marxism & Buddhism for example). Chinese script was largely unchanged untill the 20th century CCP simplified it but there is more to civilisation than the method of writing. All cultures around the world continually developed regardless of upheaval or foreign influences, some are altered more than others. Occupation and administration by foreign powers...if in China's case too...means that the conquerors can absorb the ways of the occupied and visa versa. China is an ancient civilisation but there is no need to go nuts over and attempting to score points over other ancient civilisations. This seem mainly done via subjective interpretations of events than by substance.

Since there is nothing new in this article save for announcing the launch of a new investigation (dealing with questions that existed for decades). I can only hope something enlightening comes from it, and not just feel good material for the newspapers to paraphrase.

[somechineseperson]

IS the article impressive becuase it makes you 'feel good?'. There is nothing of substance in it.
It neglects to mention Banpo neolitihic at Xian which is bizzare since that is earlier than many named here, and contain the first evidence of repeating characters on pottery or early script. Banpo is often mentioned as a patriachal village so to leave it out is puzzling for tracing Chinese culture.
A very optimistic version of the truth. 5,000 years ago (Chinese nationalism fails to mention) there were true cities, merchantile classes, written language and metal working in north Africa & the Middle East, yet the 5,000 year date bandied about is entirely abitary dating that seems to have no basis as to why '5,000' years is relevant as a start point or who/where it applies to. The evidence of 'states' is only due to a theorised authority since settlements grew larger, yet large projects occur in prehistoric times elsewhere due to religious or tribal authority alone.
Given that there is no reason to consider it anything more than tribal authority (as large walled settlements does not mean civilisation to me) plus there were no features to define 'early civilisation' in China at that time then calling neolithic China of 5,000 years ago as anything more than an embryo of civilisation is wishful.
To say that China is unique in that it was never 'interupted' is again just opinion given the rule of China by foreign nationalities and the periods of division as well as importation and appropriation of foerign values and spirituality (Marxism & Buddhism for example). Chinese script was largely unchanged untill the 20th century CCP simplified it but there is more to civilisation than the method of writing. All cultures around the world continually developed regardless of upheaval or foreign influences, some are altered more than others. Occupation and administration by foreign powers...if in China's case too...means that the conquerors can absorb the ways of the occupied and visa versa. China is an ancient civilisation but there is no need to go nuts over and attempting to score points over other ancient civilisations. This seem mainly done via subjective interpretations of events than by substance.

Since there is nothing new in this article save for announcing the launch of a new investigation (dealing with questions that existed for decades). I can only hope something enlightening comes from it, and not just feel good material for the newspapers to paraphrase.

In reality Chinese civilisation is about 4000 years old. There is no good evidence of the existence of state societies in China before about 2000 BC.

Chinese script was largely unchanged untill the 20th century CCP simplified it but there is more to civilisation than the method of writing

Not true. The Chinese script underwent two major changes before PRC times. One is the change from the oracle bone script used in the Shang Dynasty and the Early Zhou to the zhuan script used in late Zhou and Qin. The second is the change from the zhuan script to the standard traditional script used from the Han Dynasty onwards. Each of these changes were just as significant as the simplification of the Chinese script in modern times, if not more. However, the continuity of the Chinese script is clearly preserved up to the present day.

I agree with you that it is strictly speaking incorrect to call China the "only surviving ancient civilisation". True, many ancient civilisations did die out, for example the Indus Valley civilisation in ancient India, no one today can even understand its script. The ancient Egyptian, Sumerian and Babylonian civilisations have all essentially died out too. However, there are still a couple of ancient civilisations that are still around. The Greek civilisation for example, which started a few centuries later than China (The Minoan civilisation wasn't truly Greek) is definitely still around today. The continuity from Classical Greece to Modern Greece is no less than the continuity from Zhou Dynasty China to Modern China. The civilisation of the ancient Hebrews is also still in existence today. The Assyrians are still around, though their modern population is very small. To a lesser extent so has the ancient civilisation of Persia, though in this case the Islamic conquest did bring about major changes. The original religion of Persia, Zoroastrianism is only believed by a very small minority of people today. The Hindu civilisation of India (not Indus Valley) is another ancient civilisation that has survived to the present day. Though it is true that all of these civilisations started slightly later than China. The civilisations that were older than or about the same age as China, Egypt, Sumer, Babylon, Minos and Indus Valley, have all essentially died out.

[Tibet Libre]

The civilisations that were older than or about the same age as China, Egypt, Sumer, Babylon, Minos and Indus Valley, have all essentially died out.

Christian Egyptians (the Kopts) are the direct descendants of the Pharaonic Egyptians. In terms of pure DNA lineage, the Kopts are far more closer to their ancestors than the Han Chinese (anyway a very modern creation) and they remained throughout history intact as a distinct community, albeit with a changing identity.

[Kulong]

Christian Egyptians (the Kopts) are the direct descendants of the Pharaonic Egyptians. In terms of pure DNA lineage, the Kopts are far more closer to their ancestors than the Han Chinese (anyway a very modern creation) and they remained throughout history intact as a distinct community, albeit with a changing identity.

Assuming you're telling the truth, these "Kopts" are no longer practicing Egyptian culture. When one speaks of "civilization", it's much more than just genetics. It's mostly about language and culture. In those sense, the Egyptian civilization died out thousands of years ago.

[Tibet Libre]

Assuming you're telling the truth, these "Kopts" are no longer practicing Egyptian culture. When one speaks of "civilization", it's much more than just genetics. It's mostly about language and culture. In those sense, the Egyptian civilization died out thousands of years ago.

Who is defining what is Egyptian culture and what not? I have been two times in Egypt and everytime it struck me how people make a point that they are Eygptians and not Arabs. If cultural continuity is a question of how peope define themself, then there is little doubt that we are talking now about 5000 years of Egyptian history.

When one speaks of "civilization",...It's mostly about language and culture.

Not even today China has one language and many Chinese dialects remain mutually unintelligible to the point that is perhaps more correct to speak of many different Chinese languages. And I am not even talking about the Chinese language in the course of time, its not even sure that Chinese was a tonal language from the start...

A Chinese of, say, 500 BC wouldnt have heard a thing about Konfuzianism, Daoism, Kongfu, Buddhism and Marxism, how much Chineseness must he have had then...?

[somechineseperson]

Christian Egyptians (the Kopts) are the direct descendants of the Pharaonic Egyptians. In terms of pure DNA lineage, the Kopts are far more closer to their ancestors than the Han Chinese (anyway a very modern creation) and they remained throughout history intact as a distinct community, albeit with a changing identity.

In terms of pure DNA lineage, the Kopts are far more closer to their ancestors than the Han Chinese (anyway a very modern creation)

1. Any solid proof that they are "purer"?

2. The Han nation is no more of a modern creation than any other nation in the world. You are clearly wrong to think there was no Han (or Huaxia before the Han Dynasty) ethnic consciousness in ancient times, the ancient texts of China proves there is. Granted, at the very beginning (the Shang and Zhou Dynasties) it was probably limited to the upper classes, (no different from how it was in the other civilisations at the time though) but certainly by the Han Dynasty this ethnic consciousness (a sense of distinction from the other ethnicities based on cultural and ancestral factors) became more wide spread.

I agree with the assertion that just because the Egyptians accepted Christianity does not mean they are suddenly no longer Egyptians. That idea would be ridiculous. In fact, Koptic Christianity has some distinctly Egyptian features. However, they are only a very small group, and besides as you said their identity has changed in history. The fact is that without the Rosseta Stone the Ancient Egyptian script would be just like the Indus Valley script, no one would understand their meaning. The discontinuity of the written script is a major factor in judging whether a civilisation had continued to survive.

However, remember I didn't say the Ancient Egyptian civilisation died out completely, it's actually very hard for a civilisation to do that. The only two civilisations that did died out virtually completely would be the Indus Valley civilisation and the Minoan civilisation.

Not even today China has one language and many Chinese dialects remain mutually unintelligible to the point that is perhaps more correct to speak of many different Chinese languages. And I am not even talking about the Chinese language in the course of time, its not even sure that Chinese was a tonal language from the start...

The diversity of dialects is to be expected since our language is not phonetic. But the written script has remained continuous. By the way, most scholars agree that the original Chinese spoken language was Sino-Tibetan just as it is today. (I.e. tonal)

A Chinese of, say, 500 BC wouldnt have heard a thing about Konfuzianism, Daoism, Kongfu, Buddhism and Marxism, how much Chineseness must he have had then...?

Maybe you don't know this, (not many non-Chinese people do I think due to lack of communication) but there was a distinctly Chinese cultural/religious traditions centuries before Confucius. In effect, there was Confucianism before Confucius as Confucius only claimed to be a transmitter not an innovator. In 500 BC the oldest of the Confucian classics would have been available (such as the Book of Songs and the Book of Ancient History) and people would have the same religious belief in ancestral spirits, the great sage-kings, and the Supreme God Shangdi. The clothing people wore (made of silk) would have been very similar to that of the subsequent dynasties as well since the basic style of Hanfu emerged during at the latest the Shang Dynasty.

[Tibet Libre]

I agree with the assertion that just because the Egyptians accepted Christianity does not mean they are suddenly no longer Egyptians. That idea would be ridiculous. In fact, Koptic Christianity has some distinctly Egyptian features. However, they are only a very small group, and besides as you said their identity has changed in history. The fact is that without the Rosseta Stone the Ancient Egyptian script would be just like the Indus Valley script, no one would understand their meaning. The discontinuity of the written script is a major factor in judging whether a civilisation had continued to survive.

This is a very Chinese way to look at things. Of course, nothing wrong there, but a European would rather put the emphasis on the spoken language. And in that respect, there is too much fragmentation for the European taste to construct a national unity. Most Europeans dont know that there are several Chinese languages, and if they do, they would be rather surprised how multi-lingual China can constitute a single nation at all.

Another point is that nowadays Chinese, if I am not completely mistaken, cant make too much of a sense of classical written Chinese. That is the written Chinese of the past doesnt speak directly to them, only through translations in modern Chinese, thus marking a barrier cutting them off of truly authentic and unmediated connection to their own past. In that sense the cultural continuity of modern China to its past is not stronger than between, say, Romanic speakers to Latin and the Roman Empire.

What I am getting at: Perceptions about group identity differ. The only criteria which comes close to supra-cultural objectivity is how people view themselves and their identity (Ironically, a very subjective criteria). And the Copts (10-15% of the Egyptian populace) view themselves as descendants of the Pharaonic Egyptians. Its just that in their case, unlike the Chinese (and many other) had not been the working field of so many social engineers trying to construct continual bonds between past and present. With a couple of Sun Yatsen et al. working the national propaganda mill, historical bonds to their ancestors would be felt among the Kopts as strong as among the Han. But as I said even without such an intellectual elite, every Kopt with his right mind is proud of the Pyramids as the work of his ancestors.

You may want to take a look at this article:
http://www.st-peter-...h.org/copt.html

Edited by Tibet Libre, 22 January 2006 - 10:55 PM.

[somechineseperson]

Another point is that nowadays Chinese, if I am not completely mistaken, cant make too much of a sense of classical written Chinese. That is the written Chinese of the past doesnt speak directly to them, only through translations in modern Chinese, thus marking a barrier cutting them off of truly authentic and unmediated connection to their own past. In that sense the cultural continuity of modern China to its past is not stronger than between, say, Romanic speakers to Latin and the Roman Empire.

Since no one speaks Latin anymore, a better analogy would have been with the modern Greeks and the people of Classical Greece. And indeed as I have said already, I don't believe the Chinese cultural continuity is greater than Greek cultural continuity. However, since I believe the Greek civilisation has survived to the present-day, the same would go for the Chinese civilisation.

What I am getting at: Perceptions about group identity differ. The only criteria which comes close to supra-cultural objectivity is how people view themselves and their identity (Ironically, a very subjective criteria). And the Copts (10-15% of the Egyptian populace) view themselves as descendants of the Pharaonic Egyptians. Its just that in their case, unlike the Chinese (and many other) had not been the working field of so many social engineers trying to construct continual bonds between past and present. With a couple of Sun Yatsen et al. working the national propaganda mill, historical bonds to their ancestors would be felt among the Kopts as strong as among the Han. But as I said even without such an intellectual elite, every Kopt with his right mind is proud of the Pyramids as the work of his ancestors.

You may want to take a look at this article:
http://www.st-peter-...h.org/copt.html

Ok, if what you say about the Copts are true than perhaps my judgement about the Egyptian civilisation is too hasty. In this case it seems they have a significant degree of cultural continuity too.

[Tibet Libre]

Since no one speaks Latin anymore, a better analogy would have been with the modern Greeks and the people of Classical Greece.

The question is who defines when we should stop talking of Latin and instead more adequately of a successor language? This is a matter of definition as well. People say modern Chinese is the successor to ancient Chinese, but modern Chinese usually cant understand neither in writing nor much less in speaking old Chinese. Intelligibility is lost, still people treat Chinese as a continuity. On the other hand, in case of Latin and its nowadays successor, even a language like English classified as Germanic, contains nearly 50% words of latin origin. And Romanic languages lie Italian and Spanish remain through their common linguistic origin to this day mutually intelligible, much more than most Chinese languages.

So again, who says there is a stronger linguistic continuity in case of Chinese than in case of, say, Latin? Whereas in the case of Greek, much of the classical language of Plato and Aristoteles had been reconstructed by linguists in the 19th century. What I am trying to say: only because that we today still use the same words "Chinese" and "Greek" for languages spoken millenia ago, doesnt say much about the degree of continuity these languages actually have. In case of latin, we are talking nowadays of Italian or Spanish, but the ACTUAL linguistic continuity of these languages to Latin may well be not much weaker than that of Chinese or Greek. Just the name of language changed.

[Friend From Far]

People say modern Chinese is the successor to ancient Chinese, but modern Chinese usually cant understand neither in writing nor much less in speaking old Chinese. Intelligibility is lost, still people treat Chinese as a continuity.

Textually, Chinese is the successor of ancient Chinese. I think you are wrong in stating that modern Chinese usually cannot understand classical texts. There is indeed a lose of intelligibility. Let have the following thought experiment. Take a group of Chinese who have graduated from secondary education, and let them read some classical texts, I think most of them will understand the texts at least partially. Take another group of secondary education graduates from, let say the UK, and let them read texts from different periods, then they will understand partially Shakespearian English, but are totally lost when reading Latin texts, even though many English words are derived from Latin.

Language is often more than sounds alone. The power of the Chinese language is that although speakers may not understand what eachother say , but understand what eachother write . In terms of continuity, it is text which survives and therewith the continuity of culture (partially) instead of speech.

There is more continuity in the Chinese language than you may think. All proverbs are derived from classical texts, and most of them are commonly used in speeches and writings as if they are modern Chinese, without many lost of intellibility for the receiver. The usage of Latin however in an English speech or article, can create some mind-wobbling at the receiver's end.

The continuity concerning actual sounds of language remains a reconstruction, we simply do not know how Latin was spoken. On the other hand, textual continuity can be tested, by reading those texts. In the latter I will give the Chinese language the edge, because of the familiarity with modern Chinese.

That is the written Chinese of the past doesnt speak directly to them, only through translations in modern Chinese, thus marking a barrier cutting them off of truly authentic and unmediated connection to their own past. In that sense the cultural continuity of modern China to its past is not stronger than between, say, Romanic speakers to Latin and the Roman Empire.

I agree with you that some classical Chinese texts, like religious Buddhist and Daoist ones, are indeed difficult and many cannot make sense of them. Wriiten Chinese began to be different from the Chinese speech from +- 200 A.D. onwards. The grammar of the officially written Chinese remain the same for the next 2000 years, while spoken Chinese evolved. Still, some grammar are still intelligible as if it is modern Chinese. Moreover, as you know the four great Chinese romans are wriiten in a language that is probably closer to the colloquial Chinese of their dates than other official texts. And I think you do not need to be trained in classical Chinese to be able to read Sanguo Yanyi, Honglou meng, Xiyou Ji or Shuihu zhuan.

[Little Fool]

My understanding is that a more fair language comparison between classical chinese and modern chinese is is that of the english writing of Chaucer with modern english.

Spellings and grammars are changed slightly, and at first glance it can appear intimidating but with a little work a modern reader with a good command of english vocabulary can read it.

I'm not familiar with the oldest forms of Chinese writings, but from a knowledge of linguistics alone I would be very surprised if many of them did not share a great deal in common with the surviving written form. Remember that the altered language derived itself from those that came before - no one invents a new written language when they have a basis to draw upon - and in that I imagine a modern Chinese reader trying to go through texts predating 400B.C. is much like a modern reader trying to decipher Old English, which is to say; almost impossible. While at the same time an expert can trace directly the roots of old words to their modern forms(and even laymen can pick out a familiar looking one here or there).

The important distinction between Egyptian civilization and language now and then and Chinese or Greek is that the modern languages are direct modifications of their originals - whereas modern Egyptian language and writing are completely foreign imports.

Additionally Greco-Roman civilization is the basis for modern Western Nations. Society is ordered upon the same lines Rome which was itself the inheritor of Greece. Try comparing the result with modern Chinese and ancient Chinese or modern Egyptians with Ancient Egyptians. Many in Mexico identify themselves with ancient Mayan or Aztec culutures and virtually everyone there can claim genetic heritage, but their culture is essentially an offshoot of Spanish. However - Greek culture is not English culture, nor French nor any of its descendents. They are part of the same civilization foundation but they are distinct cultures.

China has changed a great deal but its changes have been gradual - very gradual - and the occasional tumultuous episodes of civil war, foreign conquest and decline have harboured only small changes. There is no sudden snap where, over a short period of time the nature of the land and its people changes to something completely different. Thus Chinese history can be said to be a development of the same culture over time rather than replacement by one over another. If you say China now is different than China before... draw the line: where does Old China that no longer exists now end and New China that is not like Old China begin?

Even the current communist regime which has introduced more radical changes(open for debate) on China than any for the past two millenia cannot be said to have fundamentally altered China's underlying culture. Whereas Egypt *has* been fundamentally changed.

[Tibet Libre]

China has changed a great deal but its changes have been gradual - very gradual - and the occasional tumultuous episodes of civil war, foreign conquest and decline have harboured only small changes. There is no sudden snap where, over a short period of time the nature of the land and its people changes to something completely different. Thus Chinese history can be said to be a development of the same culture over time rather than replacement by one over another. If you say China now is different than China before... draw the line: where does Old China that no longer exists now end and New China that is not like Old China begin?

The thing is, changes of Egyptian culture have been very gradual, too!

For instance, the Arabs conquered Egypt in the 7th century, changing the face of the country with their cultural imports forever, but the indigeneous Coptic language remained dominant until the 10th to 14th century, remained alive in some parts of Upper Egypt until the 19th century and is at least still in use in liturgical services of the Coptic church to this day (spanning thereby impressive 5000 years of continuous development).

Another example for a gradual change is the replacement of the hieroglyphs. Though the Greeks came in 332 BC, making Greek the script of the administration, the old Egyptian script remained for some more time the script for religious purposes, with the last hieroglyphic temple inscriptions dating to 400 AD.

A third example is the Pharaonic title. Even so, Egypt lost with Amasis the last important Pharao of Egyptian background in the 6th century BC, foreign rulers before and long after still adopted the Pharaonic title when they ruled the country, just like the Mongols and the Mandchus did. Thus, the title of Pharao was consecutively adopted by the Persians and the Ptolemaic Greeks a further 500 years (till 30 BC).

What I am trying to say is, that in case of Egypt the cultural change didnt come at a fast pace either, and rarely abrupt, and that that way the new had time and oppurtunity enough to slowly evolve out of the old to speak of a continuous, gradual cultural development.

Yes, I would agree that China has a stronger cultural link to its past than Egypt, both in the minds of its population as in terms of hard "scientific" evidence, but that doesnt mean that modern Egypt hasnt a cultural continuity of its own! Since its creation as the very first territorial state in about 3100 BC, throughout all historical epochs and under whatever rule, be it indigenous or foreign, Egypt has been a distinct political unity, as being separate from other units. And, what is even more important, despite its modern official name as Arabic Republic, Egyptians feel connected to their Pharaonic past, they feel at the sight of the Pyramids that they are part of THEIR past and this feeling of pride and identity is what ultimately tips the scales. It is not like modern Iraq people looking indifferently at the remnants of Ur, British tourists visisting completely alien Stonehenge or Afghan Mullahs blowing up the ancient Buddhas.

Finally, lets not forget that Egypt looks back at a longer history than any other current state, so the mere mathematical possibility of change to its culture was bigger than in everyone elses case: 5000 years of existence as a state (3100 BC - 2000 AD), 3000 years of Pharaonic rule (3100 - 30 BC, with large intermediate periods of course), over 3500 years of Hieroglyphs (roughly 3100 BC - 400 AD) and over 4500 years of Egpytian as a widespread living language ( - 1400 AD) represent an even longer, continuous history than the Chinese. And who knows how different will China look like in, say, another 200 years?

[Tibet Libre]

http://news.bbc.co.u...east/521235.stm

Not news exactly, but there is strong evidence the precursors of the alphabet orginally came out of Egypt.

Compare theProto-Sinaitic, Phoenician and Greek here:

http://www.ancientsc...tosinaitic.html

So, simplified, the evolution of the Latin alphabet went like this:

Egyptian Hieroglyphs -> Proto-Sinaitic -> Phoenician -> Greek -> Latin. Also, the Arabic script then stems from the Hieroglyphs.