[Bao Pu]

The Antiquity Delusion

Errors in history are bad enough, but intentional misrepresentations in history are truly deplorable. They are also very common, and they are especially common where governments or nations are involved. In Asia, national involvement often takes the form of claiming a higher antiquity than that culture actually has. Asian nations are not only in rivalry with each other for claims on territory, they are in rivalry with Mesopotamia and Egypt for the title of First Civilization. For them, antiquity fraud has become a policy; a way of life. The idea that such results are history is the Antiquity Delusion.

Here are three examples, from the late and unlamented 20th century.

China: The Sandai Project

Antiquity frenzy is nothing new in China. It was already a key element in the unification rhetoric that preceded the forced unification of the Warring States, by Chin [Qin] in 0221.

Tswei Shu in the 18c, and Gu Jye-gang again in the 20c, detected in the Warring States and Han texts the process by which the eventual list of ancient mythical emperors was "built up in reverse," the earlier figures on that list first appearing in increasingly later texts. Our study of the dates of the classical sources confirms the truth of this observation, and shows in detail the stages by which the antiquity idea, and the idea that "China" goes back recognizably to the early Neolithic, took hold over the course of the classical period.

In 1995, it was noticed that Western scholarship considered the dates of the supposed early dynasties, Sya [Xia] and Shang to be uncertain, with Sya being especially an object of suspicion, despite the fact that the tomb of Yw [Yu], the founder of Sya, was extant not only at one, but at many locations in China. The Chinese government budgeted millions for a five-year Sandai or Three Dynasties project, with the intention of giving these dates, and these dynasties, a firm scientific foundation. Chinese scientists who felt that such precision could not be reached were dropped from the project. Radiocarbon evidence was fudged or "wiggled." Archaeological sites were tenuously identified with certain supposed historical periods, the classic circular error. Still, it was claimed that during the five-year process, "all voices would be heard."

A showdown of sorts occurred at an Association for Asian Studies panel in 1998, where representatives of the Chinese government were featured along with scholars critical of Sandai methods and the results. It there emerged that some of the native workers felt they had been pressured into doing "bad science." As for the critics, one American scholar was pressured to moderate the remarks it was known he planned to make, and one Chinese scholar was openly denounced by the government side as a "traitor."

Such was the tenor of things. As the Project reached its predicable end, Bruce Gilley reported to the general public in the Far Eastern Economic Review (20 July 2000) that the assurances that "all voices would be heard" were ill founded. International scholars had been excluded from the Project as "the biggest doubters of the Sya Dynasty," and the reservations of native participants "have been silenced through a series of 'work report' meetings, according to officials involved." Another critical report by Erik Eckholm appeared in the New York Times for 10 Nov 2000. It included a quote from Edward Shaughnessy of the University of Chicago, who noted "There's a chauvinistic desire to push the historical record back into the third millennium BC, putting China on a par with Egypt. It's much more a political and a nationalistic urge than a scholarly one."

This drew disingenuous defenses from some Sandai-associated American scholars, not printed by the Times but circulated among the scholarly community.

"Is it somehow inherently suspect for the Chinese to research their own past?"

"The Chinese are justifiably proud of their ancient civilization and their impressive historical achievements,"

"After all, one does have to print some date on museum labels."

To answer only the last of these: No, one doesn't. One can print a circa, one can print a span, one can print an era. It doesn't have to be exactly the year 01046.

Said an archaeologist, reporting on a dig in Vietnam where Chinese colleagues identified every new shard as proof that the Yellow Emperor had originally held sway over that territory, territory which happened to be associated with Vietnamese offshore oil deposits, "I was trained as a scientist. I don't know how to deal with this stuff." Where one side brings pressure that the other side is not schooled to resist, you get a steamroller. What we have in this area is an interpretational steamroller. A steamroller with more than two thousand years of experience in cooking data. A high-stakes steamroller. . .

http://www.umass.edu/wsp/methodology/delus.../antiquity.html

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

This is what I call the antiquity BS'ing race. When China claimed it has 5,000 years, N. Korea tries to outdo it and claims 6,000, and then some Chinese even go as far as 10,000 years of Chinese history. They need to get a clue that ancient history is irrelevant to today's politics. What their ancestors had means c**p to the modern world.

[somechineseperson]

According to the respectable authority on Chinese history, the French historian Jacques Gernet, it is "justifiable to trace the first city-palaces and the first manifestations of Chinese civilisation to the end of the third millennium" (A History of Chinese Civilisation, pg. 40).

The history of Chinese Civilisation (as in complex civilisation, not just a neolithic culture) may or may not date back to the 3rd millennium BC (even if it did, it would still have started centuries later than Egypt), but as an approximate estimate, I think it is justifiable to say that Chinese Civilisation started at some time during the period 2100 - 1700 BC.

See: http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...0&#entry4804659

This post has been edited by somechineseperson: 17 April 2006 - 07:51 AM

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

I've read plenty of 19th century Qing dynasty documents. And one thing I notice is that these documents mention 4,000 years of Chinese history, the 5,000 year is a later PRC creation.

[Bao Pu]

Hi SCP

On page 39, Gernet mentions "elaborate workings in jade, handicrafts in bamboo, silk weaving, and hemp in the lower Yangtze..." is this in fact true? Have archaeologists found actual silk cloth and bamboo handicrafts from the 4th and 3rd millenia BCE? I was under the impression that these types of things deteriorate too quickly and that we had none from that early.

Later on the page he writes, "Although there is still no archaeological evidence that can be precisely linked to the Xia dynasty (traditional dates: 2207-1766), for which history preserves only a list of sovereigns, there is here an assemblage of characteristics that is already that of the bronze age and that renders very probable the existence of this dynasty."

-- It's not clear to me what he means by dynasty. I tend to think that a Xia dynasty would be a succession of kings/rulers of Chinese ethnicity who ruled a relatively large number of people or settlements. I can't recall hearing of any evidence of that. I think we need some actual written documents from the 3rd millenium which mention some rulers and their territory. I think I'll wait for this before admitting belief in the Xia dynasty. (My personal choice.) I agree with François that which country is older, stronger, more advanced, etc. is unimportant and may actually keep "world peace" from being realized.

This book looks pretty good though, and used copies are cheap. I may pick one up.

[somechineseperson]

Bao Pu, on Apr 18 2006, 12:41 AM, said:

Hi SCP

On page 39, Gernet mentions "elaborate workings in jade, handicrafts in bamboo, silk weaving, and hemp in the lower Yangtze..." is this in fact true? Have archaeologists found actual silk cloth and bamboo handicrafts from the 4th and 3rd millenia BCE? I was under the impression that these types of things deteriorate too quickly and that we had none from that early.

Well, according to another source (a general reference book on world history, Cassell's Atlas of World History) I have referred to, both copper and silk were used in China by 3000 BC, which is close to the starting date of the Longshan late neolithic period (c. 3200 - 1900 BC).

Quote

Later on the page he writes, "Although there is still no archaeological evidence that can be precisely linked to the Xia dynasty (traditional dates: 2207-1766), for which history preserves only a list of sovereigns, there is here an assemblage of characteristics that is already that of the bronze age and that renders very probable the existence of this dynasty."

-- It's not clear to me what he means by dynasty. I tend to think that a Xia dynasty would be a succession of kings/rulers of Chinese ethnicity who ruled a relatively large number of people or settlements. I can't recall hearing of any evidence of that. I think we need some actual written documents from the 3rd millenium which mention some rulers and their territory. I think I'll wait for this before admitting belief in the Xia dynasty. (My personal choice.)

Well walled towns and a relatively high population density already existed during the Longshan late neolithic period (c. 3200 - 1900 BC), and during its later phase (after 2500 BC) bone and shell divination and rudimentary proto-writing also came into existence. Around 2000-1900 BC China fully entered the Bronze Age. At the site of Erlitou a large palace structure, indicating a relatively high degree of centralisation, is also found. (And the Bronze Age phase at Erlitou corresponds with the later phase of the Xia dynasty according to modern, not traditional, chronology) What is really missing though, is a fully developed writing system and explicit textual records indicating that it really belonged to the Xia dynasty. (Like how the Shang dynasty oracle bone and shell records mention the Shang dynasty itself) So yes I agree that there is still no conclusive evidence for the existence of the Xia dynasty.

Quote

I agree with François that which country is older, stronger, more advanced, etc. is unimportant and may actually keep "world peace" from being realized.

Well I am not trying to *compete* with Egypt or Mesopotamia here, since China will surely *lose* anyway! Even if we know conclusively that the Xia dynasty or even the sage-kings Yao and Shun actually existed, China would still be 800 years behind Egypt and 1300 years behind Sumer in terms of when true civilisation started. I just want to discuss when Chinese civilisation (complex civilisation, that is) really started. I do have a personal love for China but I won't ever sacrifice objective truth for its sake.

[Bao Pu]

Hi SCP

Quote

...during its later phase (after 2500 BC) bone and shell divination and rudimentary proto-writing also came into existence...

-- Oracle bones from the 3rd millenium? I think not. I'm sure I would've heard of them before now.

BTW, is the ability to make bronze necessary for a population to be a "civilization"? Could the Xia Dynasty exist without experienced blacksmiths who knew how to make bronze?

Quote

I do have a personal love for China but I won't ever sacrifice objective truth for its sake.

[somechineseperson]

Bao Pu, on Apr 18 2006, 01:49 AM, said:

Hi SCP
-- Oracle bones from the 3rd millenium? I think not. I'm sure I would've heard of them before now.

http://www.chinahist...showtopic=10479

page 558, The Human Past: World Prehistory and the Development of Human Societies:

"Chinese writing has very early roots. The earliest evidence for a written script comes from Jiahu, a Neolithic site in the Huai River valley in Henan Province, dated to c. 6500 BC. It has yielded turtle carapaces that were pitted and inscribed with symbols. The Longshan site of Chengziyai in Shandong Province has produced fragments of inscribed bones used to divine the future, dating to 2500 - 1900 BC, and symbols on pottery vessels from Dinggong are thought to be an early form of writing. Symbols of a similar nature have also been found on pottery sherds from the Liangzhu culture of the lower Yangzi valley."

Quote

BTW, is the ability to make bronze necessary for a population to be a "civilization"? Could the Xia Dynasty exist without experienced blacksmiths who knew how to make bronze?

Well technically without metallurgy a culture is still in the Neolithic Age. Can a neolithic culture be considered as a true civilisation? It depends. It certainly seems to be a very important criteria for the Old World civilisations. But none of the native American civilisations (e.g. Incas, Maya, Aztecs) ever had true metallurgy.

In the Old World, ancient Egypt did not enter the Bronze Age fully until 1800 BC (according to Cassell's Atlas of World History), actually later than China did. So strictly speaking when the Ancient Egyptians built the Great Pyramids they were still in the Neolithic Age! However, during the third millennium BC Egypt was certainly considered to be a true civilisation even without bronze metallurgy.

I think for a culture to be considered as a true civilisation, it probably must have at least one of the two: True developed bronze (or iron) metallurgy or a completely fully developed written script. Ancient Egypt didn't have bronze metallurgy during the third millennium BC but at least during most of this time period there was a fully developed writing system. Late neolithic China during the third millennium BC had neither (The few inscriptions on potteries and bones and shells used for divination cannot be considered, unlike the later Shang dynasty script, to be a fully developed writing system).

[Kenneth]

Hi SCP
I see from our other discussions you are trying to make the late LongShan period a kind of transitional period in Chinese culture, it is neither the earliest silk nor the earliest use of copper which exists amongst the LongShan. LongShan is just one of many neolithic cultures and is not a revolutionary or precursor society appearing before the Shang. The main distinction between neolithic cultures/periods is not the actual technology but it is based on art & pottery styles. Hammered copper occurs in the earlier Hong Shan culture BTW, and is not a sign of metallurgy since it is a natural element. Silk has been noted in earlier societies than LongShan, i.e silkworm cocoons found on the Banpo site (i.e over a mellenia before LongShan).

Bao Pu's point about silk not surviving from these early times is correct. It is generally implied without the fabric surviving. Fabric traces imprinted into pottery from these times shows quite coarse weaving and there is no reason to assume silk garments are the only explanation for silk use. Silkworm farming & garments may be considerably later invention than the first mundane use of silk cord for example, perhaps lashing or binding since it was strong even if time consuming to produce.
The mentioned 'elaborate' items may only be elaborate in the authors mind. I see no real logic in assuming this as anything comaparible to later Chinese uses of silk. Hemp/vegetable fibre was likely more common & availible, as it still was used in historical times. The actually imprints I saw on Banpo pottery were very coarse textiles more like a floor matting.

Do not mistake the LongShan versions of scapulmancy as anything literaly comparible to the Shang versions. The markings on the LongShan bones are crude in comparision to the Shang and are more like notches and scratches, even debatable as a script except for they seem to repeat. More complex & fully formed supposed 'characters' occur both in greater numbers & centuries earlier in societies like Banpo & Dawenkou IIRC so this does not show that a final written language comes from LongShan. Despite the implications of the comment about 'similar' characters on Liangzhu & LongShan objects (ie shared between regions) I consider this the subjective opinion of the author and you should be wary of such terse conclusions unless some diagram actually shows these regional similarities.
The 'oracle bones' of Shang are the end product of what was only just a superstition that existed as early as the LongShan. It shows an occult link but they are not at all visually comparible in any other way.

Edit;
The LongShan region has revealed some late neolithic walled so-called 'cities' during this time that could suggest one of the ingredients of later Chinese civilisation may have occured in that area. A large enough population and a central authority bringing them together is part of the formula, but beyond this it is better not to see a single neolitihic lineage as influencing the Shang or Erlitou. It also depends whether the articles on these 'cities' were hyped over the size since walled settlements were around in much earlier times since warfare always existed.

PS;
The project which sparked this thread is a sad story. China occasionally shows a capacity to make audacious claims when it serves national pride or newspaper headlines. I kind of think the truth is better. You can't win the 'better & first' game all the time.
The newspaper headlines often make me gag when annoucing some new overblown ancient wonder but that is the fault of representation rather than the quality of the information the actual studies produce. I can think of examples where the headlines are even at odds with the evidence and the laypeople might get the wrong idea but luckily I dont think such contrived attitude can be forced on all Chinese academics. Sometimes a bit of background on the subject of the public reporting means the real signifigance or insignifigance will be revealed. I do find many of the newspaper accounts are hyped and unenlightening but luckily there are still sober reports for those that want to know a little more...occasionally even reaching the West.

This post has been edited by Kenneth: 17 April 2006 - 11:03 PM

[Bao Pu]

somechineseperson, on Apr 17 2006, 07:20 PM, said:

http://www.chinahist...showtopic=10479

page 558, The Human Past: World Prehistory and the Development of Human Societies:

"Chinese writing has very early roots. The earliest evidence for a written script comes from Jiahu, a Neolithic site in the Huai River valley in Henan Province, dated to c. 6500 BC. It has yielded turtle carapaces that were pitted and inscribed with symbols. The Longshan site of Chengziyai in Shandong Province has produced fragments of inscribed bones used to divine the future, dating to 2500 - 1900 BC, and symbols on pottery vessels from Dinggong are thought to be an early form of writing. Symbols of a similar nature have also been found on pottery sherds from the Liangzhu culture of the lower Yangzi valley."

-- Ah yes, I remember reading that. That's still only an interpretation. But a good one probably (even if it is circular). So divination probably existed 700 years earlier than than previously thought. I still stand by my statement made in that other thread: We will never know.
-- That book looks interesting too. It's new I see. Who wrote the part(s) on China?

Quote

I think for a culture to be considered as a true civilisation, it probably must have at least one of the two: True developed bronze (or iron) metallurgy or a completely fully developed written script.

-- fair enough, but that's not what you wrote in that other thread.

-- But anyways, back to the topic: reading of stuff like this ("the Antiquity Delsion") sadly makes my skepticism even stronger than it already is. Well, maybe that's not a bad thing.

[somechineseperson]

Bao Pu, on Apr 18 2006, 05:38 AM, said:

-- fair enough, but that's not what you wrote in that other thread.

Well I was stating the most strict standard. However, such a strict standard is not always applied. For example, as I said none of the native American civilisations ever developed any kind of true metallurgy, yet they are considered to be true civilisations. Nor was Ancient Egypt in the Bronze Age during the third millennium BC, but it is certainly considered to be a true civilisation.

[somechineseperson]

Kenneth, on Apr 18 2006, 04:34 AM, said:

Hi SCP
I see from our other discussions you are trying to make the late LongShan period a kind of transitional period in Chinese culture, it is neither the earliest silk nor the earliest use of copper which exists amongst the LongShan. LongShan is just one of many neolithic cultures and is not a revolutionary or precursor society appearing before the Shang.

Well the real transitional period is probably the earlier phases of the Erlitou Culture. However, it is clear that the Erlitou Culture directly developed from the Longshan Late Neolithic Culture.

Quote

The main distinction between neolithic cultures/periods is not the actual technology but it is based on art & pottery styles.

According to my current knowledge, there is also a distinction in the size of settlements and population density, (indicating more advanced agricultural technologies) as well as the existence of a hierarchical society and the presence of professional warriors and craftsmen. It is only in chiefdom societies that one would find these, not in simple farming societies.

Quote

Hammered copper occurs in the earlier Hong Shan culture BTW, and is not a sign of metallurgy since it is a natural element.

Yes, I am aware of this. The use of copper cannot be equated with bronze metallurgy.

Quote

Silk has been noted in earlier societies than LongShan, i.e silkworm cocoons found on the Banpo site (i.e over a mellenia before LongShan).

I am not aware of this. I didn't know silk existed as early as the 4th millennium BC (or perhaps even earlier). Could you please provide some sources?

Quote

The mentioned 'elaborate' items may only be elaborate in the authors mind. I see no real logic in assuming this as anything comaparible to later Chinese uses of silk.

"Elaborate", being an adjective, is a value judgement. Still, it may be an intermediate phase between the coarse silk weaving at sites such as Banpo and the later more elaborate silk weaving of the Shang dynasty.

Quote

Hemp/vegetable fibre was likely more common & availible, as it still was used in historical times. The actually imprints I saw on Banpo pottery were very coarse textiles more like a floor matting.

He wasn't referring to the Banpo site, but a significantly later late neolithic culture.

Quote

Do not mistake the LongShan versions of scapulmancy as anything literaly comparible to the Shang versions. The markings on the LongShan bones are crude in comparision to the Shang and are more like notches and scratches, even debatable as a script except for they seem to repeat.

Of course it would not be as complex as the actual Shang dynasty oracle bone and shell inscriptions, which is a fully developed written script with over 4000 logographs. However, having multiple "scratches" (technically, even the Shang dynasty oracle bone and shell inscriptions are also "scratches") which repeat sounds like a proto-writing system to me. After all, the earliest writing from Ancient Egypt, dating to the period 3400 - 3200 BC, is certainly no more complex. (Probably even less) The earliest Ancient Egyptian writing only has a maximum length of four hieroglyphs. We should not apply a double standard to China and Egypt.

Quote

More complex & fully formed supposed 'characters' occur both in greater numbers & centuries earlier in societies like Banpo & Dawenkou IIRC so this does not show that a final written language comes from LongShan.

I am not aware of this. Are there really such inscriptions that are older than about 2500 BC? I thought the Banpo inscriptions are individual symbols on ceramics, not multiple inscriptions that actually repeat.

Quote

Despite the implications of the comment about 'similar' characters on Liangzhu & LongShan objects (ie shared between regions) I consider this the subjective opinion of the author and you should be wary of such terse conclusions unless some diagram actually shows these regional similarities.

Point taken.

Quote

The 'oracle bones' of Shang are the end product of what was only just a superstition that existed as early as the LongShan. It shows an occult link but they are not at all visually comparible in any other way.

Well, at least it shows a similar divination system existed during the Longshan period as early as 2500 BC. This is one more piece of evidence supporting the statement that the Longshan Late Neolithic Culture is culturally directly ancestral to the Bronze Age Erlitou Culture and the Shang dynasty.

As Jacques Gernet says in his A History of Chinese Civilisation, page 40 - 41:

"There are good reasons for connecting the Bronze Age civilisation with the Longshan culture, for they possess certain characteristics in common:

1. the process of ramming earth in successive layers;
2. the fortification of urban sites by thick walls of rammed earth;
3. divination by means of animal bone subjected to the action of fire;
4. very typical shapes which appear in closely related versions both in the fine black pottery of Shandong (Longshan) and in the bronze vessels of the Shang period.

Finally, historical tradition, according to which the earliest dynasties moved their capitals from east to west, is in harmony with the respective positions of the centre of the Longshan culture in Shandong and of the capitals, which lie further to the west, of the Shang period."

Quote

The LongShan region has revealed some late neolithic walled so-called 'cities' during this time that could suggest one of the ingredients of later Chinese civilisation may have occured in that area. A large enough population and a central authority bringing them together is part of the formula, but beyond this it is better not to see a single neolitihic lineage as influencing the Shang or Erlitou. It also depends whether the articles on these 'cities' were hyped over the size since walled settlements were around in much earlier times since warfare always existed.

Instead of using the phrase "so-called 'cities'", wouldn't it be better to just use the word "towns", which seems to be the standard term in this context anyway? Otherwise some Chinese people might think that you showed some contempt for the culture of their ancestors.

[Kenneth]

somechineseperson, on Apr 19 2006, 03:24 PM, said:

.
I am not aware of this. I didn't know silk existed as early as the 4th millennium BC (or perhaps even earlier). Could you please provide some sources?

Cut cocoons were found at Banpo, and are assumed as evidence of the use of silk. This is about the most we have to go on since the silk objects made (whatever they were) do not survive. What reason do you have to assume the LongShan were the first or only people to unwind a cocoon?

"Elaborate", being an adjective, is a value judgement. Still, it may be an intermediate phase between the coarse silk weaving at sites such as Banpo and the later more elaborate silk weaving of the Shang dynasty.
He wasn't referring to the Banpo site, but a significantly later late neolithic culture.

But his own gushing enthusiasm masks the fact none of the items exist and so he is only speculating. We have stone, jade, bone and pottery to judge on aesthetics, nothing more. Why call something that nobody has seen 'elaborate?' It seems more reasonable to me to be cautious on the idea of silk fabrics or garments when in the neolithic infancy of silk use they may have been used for twine or cord (using silks strength) rather than the items of industrial farming of silkworms that occur in later times. Silk clothing/fabric is not the only explanation to silk in neolithic sites. Assuming the silk objects were 'elaborate' is just a little bit of narrative fun but not based on any real object. That is basic truth unless you can tell me what sort of items they made, or even what the fabric looked like. Even in Zhou and Han items I have seen the silk twine used as binding on an arrows tang is often silk, or the twine/thread wrapping a scabbard. I can see many mundane ways silk would be used is stone age times before we assume clothing was being made from a labour intensive product like silk. (Hemp/plant fibre fabric is also imprinted onto Han/Zhou items BTW).

I am not aware of this. Are there really such inscriptions that are older than about 2500 BC? I thought the Banpo inscriptions are individual symbols on ceramics, not multiple inscriptions that actually repeat.

Yes, characters that are more elaborate than the LongShan versions exist much earlier. The Banpo characters are singular but they repeat (as I was told at Shaanxi museum) and convey meaning most assuredly, and several might be on one vessel. If you see the Banpo and Longshan 'script' on the bones you will see what I mean. Try finding images of the actual items and the 'writing' on them.
The LongShan scratches on bone should not be assumed to be more developed conceptually then even more ancient characters since they are crude simply because they are carved on bone, just like lines really. I have pictures of the Banpo script. I have seen the LongShan bones in texts that I dont have them on me.
I'll post the Banpo script later, but is is on CHF already somewhere.

Well, at least it shows a similar divination system existed during the Longshan period as early as 2500 BC. This is one more piece of evidence supporting the statement that the Longshan Late Neolithic Culture is culturally directly ancestral to the Bronze Age Erlitou Culture and the Shang dynasty.

Yes, but you make a lot of the LongShan 'inventing' this method. Why is such a superstition proof that this culture was then somehow more advanced than others becuase of the choosen method of scapulamancy? It is simply a primitive way to try and anticipate the future, no better or worse than reading a goats intestines or a modern hippy reading tea leaves etc. Just because the Shang used it does not mean that a technological advance in fortune telling was made at the time of LongShan that is superior to other cultures systems. This was part of your telling me of changes that happened at the time of the 'Yellow Emperor'. I dont see how there is any burst of new creativity at the time you are talking about.

As Jacques Gernet says in his A History of Chinese Civilisation, page 40 - 41:

"There are good reasons for connecting the Bronze Age civilisation with the Longshan culture, for they possess certain characteristics in common:

I have said this before main times also on CHF and it is certainly true, the 'goats teat' pottery and three legged vessels show the Shang styles are directly connected to LongShan amongst other things..but as I said you should not see only one neolithic lineage as having an influence on the Shang. Liangzhu jade 'cong' are found in Shang tombs, the steppes style knives show nomad influence, the chariot is supposed to show Sythian influence, the tubular socketing on some Shang weapons comes from non-Chinese northern neighbours.
In this way to show progression through LongShan alone and have LongShan as some sort of flowering from the neolithic is not borne out by a single influence on the Shang nor in the technical achievments of the LongShan, since they are largely defined by art and not technology. In this way we cannot say the Longshan is the culture modern Chinese can trace back to, or make them out as a single lineage. Yes there are connections to Shang but it doesnt mean Shang culture (such as writing/script and belief systems) must also comes from 'advances' in LongShan technology to the exclusion of others.

Instead of using the phrase "so-called 'cities'", wouldn't it be better to just use the word "towns", which seems to be the standard term in this context anyway? Otherwise some Chinese people might think that you showed some contempt for the culture of their ancestors.

Why lower yourself to accusing me of bigotry or something? That is lame. I am clear that the newspaper reports often hype archaeological findings in the PRC. This is even the drift of the actual thread in a way.
The actual article called the discovered settlements evidence of 'states' which was even more subjective and fanciful. It was simply based on scale and then driving back the date for Chinese 'states' yet the article gave nothing to indicate the site was anything other that large. Just neolithic pottery pieces scattered over a large area and earth walls, hence I said a 'so-called city'. I felt it was making a mountain out of a molehill again. The article is on CHF. I stick by my comments becuase they have more basis that the journalists spin. If you feel they show contempt then I think you are not capable of being subjective. I need not say 'towns' since you seem to have missed the point of my comment.
If I had contempt for the ancient Chinese I would hardly be here now.

This post has been edited by Kenneth: 19 April 2006 - 10:51 PM

[Bao Pu]

Hi SCP

Quote

Shang dynasty oracle bone and shell inscriptions, which is a fully developed written script with over 4000 logographs...

-- What do you mean by "fully developed"? I know what you are getting at, but calling it "fully developed" is inappropriate.

[somechineseperson]

Bao Pu, on Apr 20 2006, 12:09 PM, said:

Hi SCP
-- What do you mean by "fully developed"? I know what you are getting at, but calling it "fully developed" is inappropriate.

Hi Bao Pu

How is it inappropriate? My point is that the Shang script is a mature system with all of the "Six Principles" of Chinese writing already in place. By "fully developed" I don't mean it is as fully developed as the modern Chinese script.

This post has been edited by somechineseperson: 20 April 2006 - 10:36 AM