[fcharton]

warhead, on Mar 8 2006, 05:46 AM, said:

Notice, that there isn't even Shang records of Xia. It would be very helpful if someday there is a Shang inscription that turns up recording the story of how their first emperors came to power.
Also, about the "central plain", the area that is actually a plain is the Shang Dong region, of which Shang controlled.

To Warhead and Bao Pu,

Out of curiosity, how old are the Shang records? I had the impression that most of the jiaguwen came from the end of dynasty, which might explain the absence of stories on the Xia.

Francois

[Bao Pu]

Hi François

Quote

I had the impression that most of the jiaguwen came from the end of dynasty, which might explain the absence of stories on the Xia.

-- I belive you are right. The oracle bones do list ancestors going back many generations, but I'm not sure how far. Stories of the Shang's beginnings would not have found their way onto oracle bones, and since it is very unlikely we will find bamboo-slip records from those early times, we will never find out how it started or what came before.
Despite the fact that the way the Shangshu stories tell of the Xia-> Shang-> Zhou succession sounds reasonable, (i.e., starting off benevolent and declining into oppression), it sounds even more like propaganda.
Has there been any (archeaolocial) confirmation of any of the details the Shangshu says of the Xia?

My conception of a "dynasty" is more like yours. I think the period of early Shang and Xia were too primitive and un-centralized to be considered such. But I can't rule it out, so I didn't vote "no" in the poll.

[somechineseperson]

Bao Pu, on Mar 8 2006, 12:10 PM, said:

Despite the fact that the way the Shangshu stories tell of the Xia-> Shang-> Zhou succession sounds reasonable, (i.e., starting off benevolent and declining into oppression), it sounds even more like propaganda.

Not necessarily. There is no need to be excessively cynical about things. If one looks at the pattern in later Chinese dynasties, the trend of better rulers at the beginnings vs. corrupt rulers at the end does hold virtually for every dynasty. For example, during the Western Han Dynasty the Wen, Jing and Wu emperors are generally considered to be quite effective, whereas the Cheng and Ping emperors were ineffective. The same applies to the Tang Dynasty, Taizong and Xuanzong were all of the earlier period, whereas the last few Tang emperors practically had no power at all. Most of the later Ming emperors were very corrupt as well. (With the exception of Chongzheng)

Quote

Has there been any (archeaolocial) confirmation of any of the details the Shangshu says of the Xia?

Not yet. This is why there is still no conclusive evidence that the Erlitou Culture, even though it does seem to be a bronze age state society, is actually the Xia Dynasty.

This post has been edited by somechineseperson: 08 March 2006 - 08:48 AM

[somechineseperson]

fcharton, on Mar 8 2006, 11:44 AM, said:

To Warhead and Bao Pu,

Out of curiosity, how old are the Shang records? I had the impression that most of the jiaguwen came from the end of dynasty, which might explain the absence of stories on the Xia.

Francois

According to the French sinologist Jacques Gernet, the oracle bone records are from the period 14th century BC to the 11th century BC, i.e. from about 1400 BC (which is around the middle period of the dynasty) to the end of the dynasty.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

The oracle bones do list ancestors going back many generations, but I'm not sure how far. Stories of the Shang's beginnings would not have found their way onto oracle bones, and since it is very unlikely we will find bamboo-slip records from those early times, we will never find out how it started or what came before.
Despite the fact that the way the Shangshu stories tell of the Xia-> Shang-> Zhou succession sounds reasonable, (i.e., starting off benevolent and declining into oppression), it sounds even more like propaganda.
Has there been any (archeaolocial) confirmation of any of the details the Shangshu says of the Xia?

The oracle bones lists all the kings of Shang, but not their background. The oracle bones is a religious cult, records of King's undertakings are recorded, but it is not history. It doesn't seem that there is even a "corrupt society" to speak of for the primitive Xia culture. It functions more like a bunch of independent tribal confederation with one state(possibly) at the top.

[somechineseperson]

Bao Pu, on Mar 8 2006, 03:34 AM, said:

-- According to Edwin Pulleyblank (Early China 25), "the surnames Ji and Jiang were also found among peoples known as Rong 戎 who were not recognized as Hua-Xia but were probably also Sino-Tibetan in language."

It is illogical to consider the Ji and Jiang clans to be non-Huaxia for the simple reason that the name "Huaxia" itself is a Zhou term. It is only applied anachronistically to the Shang. Just as one might applied the name "Han Chinese" anachronistically to the Zhou.

Saying that the Ji clan is not Huaxia is logically equivalent to saying that the Liu clan is not Han.

[somechineseperson]

warhead, on Mar 8 2006, 07:47 PM, said:

The oracle bones lists all the kings of Shang, but not their background. The oracle bones is a religious cult, records of King's undertakings are recorded, but it is not history. It doesn't seem that there is even a "corrupt society" to speak of for the primitive Xia culture. It functions more like a bunch of independent tribal confederation with one state(possibly) at the top.

No by early 2nd millennium BC standards the Erlitou/possibly Xia culture was not primitive. It was already a bronze age state society, consisting of several walled city-states with one of the city-states as the leader. The presence of a large-scale palace structure is found in this leading city-state, (i.e. the Erlitou site) which probably served as the capital city-palace for all of the city states. Erlitou was the largest city in Eastern Eurasia (all lands east of the Pamirs) at that time. Back then most of the world was still inhabited by hunter-gatherers and simple farming societies. Only a handful of small regions surpassed the Erlitou Culture in civilisational development: The Nile Valley, Mesopotamia, Minoan Crete and the Harappan civilisation in the Indus Valley.

[Bao Pu]

somechineseperson, on Mar 8 2006, 06:06 PM, said:

It is illogical to consider the Ji and Jiang clans to be non-Huaxia for the simple reason that the name "Huaxia" itself is a Zhou term. It is only applied anachronistically to the Shang. Just as one might applied the name "Han Chinese" anachronistically to the Zhou.

Saying that the Ji clan is not Huaxia is logically equivalent to saying that the Liu clan is not Han.

-- That's not what he's saying at all. See this abstract: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/earlychina/pub...ulleyblank.html

[somechineseperson]

Bao Pu, on Mar 9 2006, 02:47 AM, said:

-- That's not what he's saying at all. See this abstract: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/earlychina/pub...ulleyblank.html

"The fact that the surnames Ji and Jiang were also found among peoples known as Rong 戎 who were not recognized as Hua-Xia but were probably also Sino-Tibetan in language seems to be consistent with traditional accounts of Zhou's northwestern origins."

How can one know? The Rong was a non-literate people. I hope he is not relying on oral traditions, otherwise we can also prove the existence of the Yellow Emperor using oral traditions.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Quote

No by early 2nd millennium BC standards the Erlitou/possibly Xia culture was not primitive. It was already a bronze age state society, consisting of several walled city-states with one of the city-states as the leader. The presence of a large-scale palace structure is found in this leading city-state, (i.e. the Erlitou site) which probably served as the capital city-palace for all of the city states. Erlitou was the largest city in Eastern Eurasia (all lands east of the Pamirs) at that time. Back then most of the world was still inhabited by hunter-gatherers and simple farming societies. Only a handful of small regions surpassed the Erlitou Culture in civilisational development: The Nile Valley, Mesopotamia, Minoan Crete and the Harappan civilisation in the Indus Valley.

No to what? Primitive is only relative. The Xia had nothing approaching the central bureucracy in the later periods of China which allows things such as corruption at the top to affect the whole state. There is nothing wrong with the statement that they function "like a bunch of independent tribal confederation with one state(possibly) at the top." Because that is what they were. This kind of political structure does not fit those ideal Confucian theories of dynastic cycle.

[Yung]

Someone should put together a synthesis of all the pre-Han and Han textual references to the Xia. In addition, someone should compile all the info from the archeology of the Erlitou sites. I think that it would be helpful to some of us.

[lifezard]

Hi all,

my opinion is that to identify the Erlitou site as Xia is way too inmature... even though this opinion is what the Chinese archeaology circle are tending towards in recent years..

remember, the earlier theory was Erlitou was early Shang site (some say its the capital of Cheng Tang "成汤" Xipo "西亳" as the materials Erlitou yielded were basically closest to the Shang sites excavated, whether at Anyang or Zhengzhou or Daxinzhuang.. I think the reason they identify Erlitou as Xia culture was because the area (ancient Henei) is traditionally identified as the cradle of Xia culture rather than Shang.. and although I share the belief that finding writings that absolutely are from the Xia is like searching a needle in the deep sea.. it is mho that that is the only way once and for all to settle the question of the Xia

[lifezard]

Hmm..looks like some of Wang Yun and my posts have been wiped off during the babarian s insolent raid last week?

Anyway.. I had a long thought on Wang Yun s reply on Erlitou being a Xia site and here are my thoughts.. Timeline wise, I will agree that the older layers of Erlitou will certainly fit into the Xia Dynasty period.. however there is no concrete proof the occupants of these sites were indeed the Xia people, (it is not likely but it could have been another anonymous people instead of Xia)

Simply said, the evidence there is simply not concrete enough to designate Erlitou as a Xia site in the same way that Xiaotun was identified as a Shang site. I think using the term 'Xia-era site' is more appropriate instead.

For those who read Chinese, I think the below article illustrates my concerns and worries best.

http://www.xianqin.o...shwhxh/118.html

[shibo77]

The Xia did exist. As said before, it's unlikely that you will find pottery with an ancient version of the character 夏 written. But, why doesn't anyone question the existence of all those kingdoms in the Andes even they hadn't a writing system? There is plenty of early documents talking about the Xia. I read some arguments about the founders such as 禹汤 having incredible stories associated with them as a point to disbelieve in the documents. Of course, they are afterall the founders, incredible stories will be attached to them. But the simple fact that the records are so detailed alone gives a high possibility that these kings did reign, and that alot of the events did happen, exaggerated of course.

As for archaeological evidence, there are plenty of sites in the region described in the records and between Longshan and Shang timelines. Many believe that Erlitou Palace #1 is 桀's 斟寻.

This post has been edited by shibo77: 23 November 2006 - 08:13 PM

[Kenneth]

Quote

The Xia did exist.

The concept of the Xia is rather abused.
To show how wierd it becomes there are even Xinhua articles announcing Xia dynasty ruins in Mongolia given on a CHF thread recently).

To associate an Erlitou site with a specific Xia 'historical' site is just based on convienience rather than evidence.
It is not a very scientific to try and understand the past since more cities or written records may yet appear, and perhaps another contender for the 'Xia' capital.
It is not evidence the Erlitou is positively the Xia capital, or the only Xia city, or if the history is literal.

To be clear, there are many cultures in China in the late neolithic, and so there are bronze age pre-cursors to the Shang. To leave the Xia as unconfirmed as a literal lineage is not to say that the Shang sprang from nothing.
At present the best that can be done is see Erlitou as a pre-cursor to the Shang.
To make an excavated site fit the written histories of Xia personalities (i.e kings) is just done with wishful thinking unless some icon or writting confirms this.
There is no positive identification beyond looking on a calender and seeing this is an earlier site.
That's not really very convincing.

It is not academically responsible to call a discovered site a 'Xia' city when the relationship to Xia history is not understood.
It is not to say that it couldn't be the people known as Xia (as in the Erlitou site) but that to asign a ruin to a unsubstatiated history is not sound compared to the substantiated records at the Yin ruins of the Shang.





About your idea of the Andes civilisations not being doubted in the same way as the Xia.....you misunderstand.
It is not that civilisations are thought to 'not exist' without a written script but that the records/stories and histories preserved by later cultures concerning their ancestors may be inaccurate.
In the case of the Incas, they borrowed many techniques from people they conquered and then claimed all the credit and made up stories of their own origins that suited themselves.
The Aztecs incorrectly claimed descendency from the Toltecs and attempted to drive back their own civilisations beginnings & grandeur. It is a way of claiming achievements of a culture they admired. Their understanding of where the Toltecs came from and when they dated from is found in modern times to be myth, and not a literal chronology.

All civilisations have ancestors stories......to question them is not to say the ancestors did not exist but to question whether the version handed down from centuries past are accurate.
The Xia in this way should be considered as just as prone to invention or embelishment by people that were born dozens of generations after they vanished.
Untill then the literal truth of the Xia kings remains unproven.