[somechineseperson]

I'm tired of this portrayl of Shang and Early Zhou Dynasty China as an "inferior" second-rate civilisation compared with the civilisations of Egypt and Mesopotamia. Unfortunately many people think in this way. The fact is, even though China started later as a civilisation compared with Egypt and Mesopotamia, in some respects Shang and Early Zhou Dynasty China was more advanced than its contemporary West Asian and North African counterparts. I am not going to say China was "superior" either, because there are also other respects in which Egypt and Mesopotamia surpassed China during this period. I think they are roughly about comparable with each other.

Here are 3 ways in which China was more advanced than Egypt and Mesopotamia during the Shang and Early Zhou period:

1. Silk technology. China already had this technology which western cultures will not possess for another millennium. The clothes (Hanfu) Chinese people (or at least the elites) wore during the Shang Dynasty already had essentially the same style and were made of essentially the same material as the clothes of subsequent dynasties.

2. More advanced bronze technology. Even though China invented bronze technology centuries later than Egypt and Mesopotamia, by the Shang Dynasty Chinese bronze technology was the most advanced in the world at that time, as testified by the high-quality bronzewares that were produced.

3. An ethical religious system. The Superme God of the Chinese people, Shangdi or Tian, is a Moral God. As the ancient Chinese classic Shang Shu clearly says:

"The Way of the Lord On High (Shangdi) is not invariant,
On the good-doer He sends down blessings,
And on the evil-doer He sends down miseries."

"The God of Heaven does not have favorites,
The only aid one has is moral virtue."

"Shangdi supervises the general populace,
One must reach the level of Heavenly virtue."

Therefore ancient Chinese religion is rooted in ethical considerations, rather than in irrational superstitious fear. The only Western Eurasian civilisation that had an ethics-based religion at this time was the Hebrews (authors of the Old Testament Bible).

This is not to say that Shang and Early Zhou Chinese people were all ethical in their actions, of course not. For example, during the late Shang Dynasty there was a lot of human sacrifice which is clearly not ethical. However, at least there was an ethical code. Later on this ethical code was further clarified by philosophers such as Confucius and Mozi. I dare say that even modern people cannot really do better than their ethics.

Of course, there are some areas in which Egypt and Mesopotamia surpassed China during this period as well. For instance, the Egyptians built the great pyramids as early as the third millennium BC which the Chinese did not. However, I think often this kind of thing is over-exaggerated and blown out of proportion. Just because the Egyptians built the pyramids and the Chinese did not does not necessarily indicate that the Egyptian civilisation was "superior", because firstly ancient Chinese religion was simply not oriented in the same direction (not every ancient civilisation built pyramids), from the Chinese point of view, building pyramids is simply pointless and frankly a waste of valuable resources which can be used on something more productive (e.g. the military or agriculture) - the Chinese of course had always been a practically-oriented people. Secondly, this does not mean the ancient Chinese was incapable of building relatively large-scale structures during this period. It's just that the ancient Chinese used timber instead of stone as a building material which simply is not as durable so virtually no structures from the Shang and Zhou periods survive (except some remanents of ancient city walls - the Chinese had always been quite good at building defensive walls it seems). Again, using timber instead of stone as a construction material does not imply that the Chinese were more "primitive", stone was simply a very rare resource in China compared with Western Eurasia. It was due to environmental factors. Also, building pyramids is not as complex a task as it may first seem, so the ability to do so is not a certain sign of extremely advanced civilisation. For example, the Aztecs also built pyramids, but by Eurasian standards their civilisation was relatively less advanced.

[DaMo]

Actually, Neolithic Chinese did build pyramids/tumuli, though not nearly on the scale of the Egyptians (refer Niehuliang and Hemudu).

[xng]

somechineseperson, on Feb 25 2006, 01:20 PM, said:

I'm tired of this portrayl of Shang and Early Zhou Dynasty China as an "inferior" second-rate civilisation .

You are forgetting that the xia dynasty existed before the shang dynasty. But the site has not been excavated yet.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

3. An ethical religious system. The Superme God of the Chinese people, Shangdi or Tian, is a Moral God. As the ancient Chinese classic Shang Shu clearly says:

"The Way of the Lord On High (Shangdi) is not invariant,
On the good-doer He sends down blessings,
And on the evil-doer He sends down miseries."

"The God of Heaven does not have favorites,
The only aid one has is moral virtue."

"Shangdi supervises the general populace,
One must reach the level of Heavenly virtue."

Therefore ancient Chinese religion is rooted in ethical considerations, rather than in irrational superstitious fear. The only Western Eurasian civilisation that had an ethics-based religion at this time was the Hebrews (authors of the Old Testament Bible).

Not this BS again, Shang religion is hardly ethical, it was barbaric and bloodthirsty, human sacrifice in Shang was more prevalent than both Egypt and Mesopotamia.
No ethics? Have you even read Egyptian religious texts? Try the Egyptian Book of the Dead, it is far more ethical than any Chinese or Hebrew religions at the time(which had no moral codes until much later(no the OT does not exist at this time, contrary to legend, they are justa bunch of wild tribes. And Confucian moral codes hardly exist during the Shang). There was the judge of hell in Egypt, Osiris, he make a judge on the deeds of the human in their lifetime when they are dead. Shang oracle bones are just as superstitious as Egyptian divinition. Maybe the only thing good about Chinese religion compared to Middle East and Egypt(at least during the reign of Akanatan) is that it was more tolerant, there was no superstition such as my god can beat up your god typical of Middle East where one people's god became dominant when they defeat the others. Or getting rid of all other gods like what Akanatan did when he made Amun the only god to be worshipped.

This post has been edited by warhead: 26 February 2006 - 05:06 PM

[Yang Zongbao]

Hanfu?
I don't think you can call them Hanfu at that time, with the "Han" as part of that name...there wasn't a Han ethnicity then.

I would also say it's a stretch to say Chinese have always been practical minded. If that were true, I don't think we'd have such extravagant tombs for emperors as Qinshihuang.

[somechineseperson]

Yang Zongbao, on Feb 26 2006, 11:47 PM, said:

Hanfu?
I don't think you can call them Hanfu at that time, with the "Han" as part of that name...there wasn't a Han ethnicity then.

Please don't split hair here. I'm just using "Hanfu" as a convenient label. The important point is that "the clothes Chinese people (or at least the elites) wore during the Shang Dynasty already had essentially the same style and were made of essentially the same material as the clothes of subsequent dynasties", so essentially they are all the same type of clothing.

It is more accurate to describe it as "Huafu" (华服) rather than "Hanfu", because THE HUAXIA ETHNICITY DID EXIST IN SHANG AND ZHOU TIMES. Personally I think "Huaxia" is a more accurate ethnic label for the Chinese people than "Han", it also dates back to a much more ancient period. (See for example Shang Shu)

[浪淘音]

Yang Zongbao, on Feb 26 2006, 11:47 PM, said:

Hanfu?
I don't think you can call them Hanfu at that time, with the "Han" as part of that name...there wasn't a Han ethnicity then.

I would also say it's a stretch to say Chinese have always been practical minded. If that were true, I don't think we'd have such extravagant tombs for emperors as Qinshihuang.

Chinese clothes later known as Han Fu did exist back then,although much more practical and less extravagant. even the sanxingdui site statues have clothing resembling "Han Fu".

i don't like somechineseperson's Han nationalism much (i consider myself a northern-centric Chinese civilization-ist, haha) but the rest of you guys go too far and get hung up on terminology like "Han" . its just a name and its easy to romanize and pronounce for foreigners, very convienent(though i'm glad you haven't gone the kedi ren path and say "Chinese civilization never existed")

zhong guo ren (minus PRC politics), han ren, tang ren, hua ren, huaxia-all interchangable

[TMPikachu]

Somechinese, where do you find these comparisons?

For me, I'd think there's progress for Shang/Zhou to be mentioned in the first place


"Therefore ancient Chinese religion is rooted in ethical considerations, rather than in irrational superstitious fear. "

I like the "BLOOD SACRIFICES! YAAAH!" aspect of ancient Chinese culture though

I think it gives it character, at least more than the usual 'moral dweebs' label slapped on 4000 or so years.

[Kenneth]

Shang/Zhou China is not "inferior" compared with, Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia

Comparing cultures point by point sucks. It is a sad digression that reeks of insecurity.

somechineseperson, on Feb 25 2006, 01:20 PM, said:

I'm tired of this portrayl of Shang and Early Zhou Dynasty China as an "inferior" second-rate civilisation compared with the civilisations of Egypt and Mesopotamia. Unfortunately many people think in this way.

I doubt anybody of any note has ever said anything like this, so unless you are again mistaking somebody anonymously windbagging on internet forums as a sort of common & shared opinion then it would appear your own insecurities over this speak more than anything.
Please find a single comment in any published book or commentary by a scholar to this effect.


The fact is, even though China started later as a civilisation compared with Egypt and Mesopotamia, in some respects Shang and Early Zhou Dynasty China was more advanced than its contemporary West Asian and North African counterparts. I am not going to say China was "superior" either, because there are also other respects in which Egypt and Mesopotamia surpassed China during this period. I think they are roughly about comparable with each other.

Who are you trying to convince? It is comparing societies in totally different enviroments and they are not even contemporary.

Here are 3 ways in which China was more advanced than Egypt and Mesopotamia during the Shang and Early Zhou period:

1. Silk technology. China already had this technology which western cultures will not possess for another millennium. The clothes (Hanfu) Chinese people (or at least the elites) wore during the Shang Dynasty already had essentially the same style and were made of essentially the same material as the clothes of subsequent dynasties.

I think it shows cleverness and exploitation of a local resource, but silk could only exist in China since most other moths dont spin a case from a single thread, silk was simply not availble elsewhere. It isnt something to compare but it meant China had a huge advantage in potential trade in later periods and the scale of the industry increased in time.
To balance this I will point out that China didnt have glass in the early period (which is more a technical than local production), and imported glass from other places in south east asia and the west from the Zhou to as late as Rome/Han periods.
The beads of the Warring States type (eye beads) are direct copies of Egpytian examples..and the chemical % can identify which are imports or Chinese copies.

2. More advanced bronze technology. Even though China invented bronze technology centuries later than Egypt and Mesopotamia, by the Shang Dynasty Chinese bronze technology was the most advanced in the world at that time, as testified by the high-quality bronzewares that were produced.

Well, the Shang had fine casting but we need to balance out like you said that other societies had both iron and bronze centuries earlier (and even when the Chinese first used iron other cultures in the West had already abandoned bronze entirely by this time, again balanced with the inique casting and scale of Chinese iron that emerged after this date).
In terms of art I think the Shang are remarkable, but the bronze is not superior. The Chinese addition of lead and the lack of any evidence of work hardening (delicate edge work) on Chinese bronze doesn;t lead me to believe the metal itself is better at all. The Qin swords 'hard as steel' story always neglects to add that the high tin means the metal is more brittle too.
The different % of copper and tin would be just the same in the West, but without lead (which makes it softer)...so the main remarkable feature of Chinese bronze is fine casting (design) and not the metal itself.

PS; the Shang still used bone arrowheads in large numbers...suggesting bronze was expensive and the casting of ritual vessels more a display of power since bone was still used for projectiles like neolithic times.

3. An ethical religious system. The Superme God of the Chinese people, Shangdi or Tian, is a Moral God. As the ancient Chinese classic Shang Shu clearly says:

In the interests of brevity...their spirituality is subjective and irrelevant (truly).
IMHO the Shang were superstious and bloodthirsty, & warlike. If I summed them up in terms of ritual and religion. They had bronze casting and writing and that is very good....but they relished human sacrifice and grotesque imagery which to me was distinctly evil & fearsome. My own thoughts on Taotie motif have been explained elsewhere.
I have nothing against the Shang. They are the precursor to Chinese civilisation...but even without the Zhou blackening of their name their own remains show them to be something other than a symbol of virtue.




Of course, there are some areas in which Egypt and Mesopotamia surpassed China during this period as well. For instance, the Egyptians built the great pyramids as early as the third millennium BC which the Chinese did not. However, I think often this kind of thing is over-exaggerated and blown out of proportion. Just because the Egyptians built the pyramids and the Chinese did not does not necessarily indicate that the Egyptian civilisation was "superior", because firstly ancient Chinese religion was simply not oriented in the same direction (not every ancient civilisation built pyramids), from the Chinese point of view, building pyramids is simply pointless and frankly a waste of valuable resources which can be used on something more productive (e.g. the military or agriculture) - the Chinese of course had always been a practically-oriented people. Secondly, this does not mean the ancient Chinese was incapable of building relatively large-scale structures during this period. It's just that the ancient Chinese used timber instead of stone as a building material which simply is not as durable so virtually no structures from the Shang and Zhou periods survive (except some remanents of ancient city walls - the Chinese had always been quite good at building defensive walls it seems). Again, using timber instead of stone as a construction material does not imply that the Chinese were more "primitive", stone was simply a very rare resource in China compared with Western Eurasia. It was due to environmental factors.


................Also, building pyramids is not as complex a task as it may first seem, so the ability to do so is not a certain sign of extremely advanced civilisation. For example, the Aztecs also built pyramids, but by Eurasian standards their civilisation was relatively less advanced.

Dude, you are just pulling this out of thin air. Who are you trying to convince?
Yourself. Of course the Aztecs were advanced societies as well. Some pre-Columbian cities rival others contemporary in terms of population and planning. To say that building pyramids is not complex since the Aztecs built them is just poor poor logic.
Yes, the Chinese used rammed earth and wood but it seems a childish argument to say;
""Chinese are practical, they used other material, they could have built pyramids if they wanted...they just didnt want to. Bulding pyramids is not hard anyway.""
Sounds like the defensive boasting of a child in a playground.

Is this why you started a military thread on Egypt versus Shang?
I suspect this is just becuase of another internet discussion you came accross.
Just bear in mind that many of the great pyramids had stood for 1,000 years when the Shang first began.
China cant win every 'first and greatest' in history contest everytime & all the time.
Just deal with it.

PS; I think Egypt gets far too much air time...and I prefer ancient China (and the sites can be just as grand, like Qianling) but this threads premise as a result is just sad.
It's like looking over the neighbours fence all the time and being jealous because they have a new ride on mower or a flash shiny BBQ set or something. It doenst actually hurt you though. Enjoy life.
Just deal with it when it happens.