[Daniel]

In the Xinhua Foreign Language Bookstore, I found Professor Bai's book in English translation; I got it for 80 yuan. I'm just starting it now, laying aside the very out of date Short History of the Chinese by Nourse.

My initial reaction is that it seems to be a very official and orthodox history, but far more detailed than Nourse or Durant.

Anyone who's read this book have opinions on it, or advice to bear in mind while I tackle it?

[Goujian]

Some said his view on history is along the line of communist ideology, but I guess the facts should be there and interpretation may vary.
I thought his book was quite old, too.

[Daniel]

Professor Bai's book was first published in 1982, but what I have here is a revised edition published in 2002, two years after Professor Bai's death, carrying the history of China forward to 1949 and the foundation of the People's Republic.

[Yun]

Bai Shouyi's entire series of General History of China books (of which he was the chief editor) can be found online here, in Chinese: http://zhjyx.hfjy.net.cn/asp/pattern/defau.../EBookLib/JXCKS

Look for the titles starting with 中国通史; each volume is a collaborative work by a number of experts in that field. The series was produced in the 1980s and 1990s (when Bai was already suffering from illnesses) and is generally of high quality.

As for Bai's own Outline History, I have not read it myself but it is still being used in some Chinese-language General History courses taught in my university. I would advise being alert to the Marxist framework of analysis, especially regarding the 19th and 20th centuries. Bai was himself a specialist in the history of Chinese Muslims, so the book may contain some insights into this topic.

[jwrevak]

Daniel, on Apr 11 2005, 08:24 AM, said:

In the Xinhua Foreign Language Bookstore, I found Professor Bai's book in English translation; I got it for 80 yuan.  I'm just starting it now, laying aside the very out of date Short History of the Chinese by Nourse.

My initial reaction is that it seems to be a very official and orthodox history, but far more detailed than Nourse or Durant. 

Anyone who's read this book have opinions on it, or advice to bear in mind while I tackle it?

I read it in English and I'm glad I did. It has good points and bad points in my opinion.

For a "brief" history of China he presents a fair amount of factual details that some other writers quickly gloss over. (You may or may not like this.) He frequently names specific Emperors, provides reign dates, and pinpoints activity down to the province, county, and city.

He seems to me to be pretty good at reporting the military aspects of history. Considering that the book is "brief" he provides a fair amount of details about wars, battles, tactics, etc. Many authors of general histories of China don't do this.

The book also includes helpful tables summarizing the rulers of each dynasty.

On the other hand the book is clearly nonacademic; the author often does not cite his sources.

The author definitely adheres to the party line. Unfortunately, his history sometimes verges on propaganda. Sometimes you have to take with a grain of salt what he says. For example, he is very concerned to show that early Chinese society was a "slave" society. Later, he very concerned to show a transition to a "feudal" society. Of course, this is the orthodox Marxist view of how societies develop. However, I'm unsure this applies to China well.

Unsurprisingly, on a good number of occasions, he is quick to point out how sundry uprisings over the centuries were--more or less--noble expressions of the people's true revolutionary spirit. He singles out the Taiping revolt as an admirable example of the people rising up against their opressors. He views the Taiping revolutionaries--more or less--as proto-communists. I find this view interesting, especially considering that the Taiping revolt was fueled by a religion (an unusual variation on Christianity). I guess religion isn't the opiate of the people after all.

Unsurprisingly, he is also fond of highlighting philosophers whom he says were atheists or had progressive ideas about bettering society. However, I don't know enough about Chinese philosophy to know if this is true or false.

On the other hand, his approach to Confucius and other similar philosophers isn't completely unfair. He praises Confucius and others for their progressive ideas, but also points out that ultimately they supported the ruling class. In his opinion, they failed to go far enough.

The book also contains a good index with (modern) Chinese characters and English. However, sometimes things in the book are not in the index. On the other hand, the book could use a few more maps. The edition I have has a modern map of China and that is it.

For some reason, the book suddenly stops once the PRC is proclaimed in 1949, even though it was published well after this date.

Finally, although the translation is readable and reasonably clear, it's fairly frequently rough and unidiomatic.

[Daniel]

Review of Chapter II

What I learned:

The oldest proto-human remains in China are not in Beijing, but in Yunnan, dating to about 1.7 million years ago, and is called Yuanmou Man. Peking man does not come along until about 1.2 or 1.3 million years later.

Not many surprises about Peking Man himself, except that he ate a surprising amount of deer, despite the club being his main weapon; Bai makes no mention of spears or bows. Bai says that Peking Man used fire but probably did not know how to create it. Many scrapers and other stone tools survive that were probably used to make clubs, though no actual clubs have been found.

Subsequent proto-human finds include Dingcun Man, who broke his flints by hurling them instead of banging them, Maba Man, and Changyang Man. Proto-human finds range from Shandong to Henan to Hubei to Shaanxi to Guangdong. Clearly humans became widespread in China well before historic times. Upper Cave Man, found in Zhoukoudian like Peking Man, could make as well as preserve and use fire.

The Yangshao culture of 5 to 6 thousand years ago herded pigs and dogs,and founded settlements arranged in something of an L-shape: a burial ground, a pottery-making area, and a living quarters at the elbow of the L. The living quarters was surrounded by a ditch. Women were generally buried at the center of the burial ground. People were buried with grave goods, including jewelry.

The Longshan culture developed from the Yangshao, and further developed its pottery by adopting the potter's wheel. With the Longshan it appears that women, either wives or female slaves, were buried with their husband/master, facing him on their sides with their knees drawn up, while the male skeleton faces the sky. The Longshan used sickles to harvest crops, and the increased number of reaping tools suggest that the Longshan got better harvests than the Yangshao did. Longshan also worked copper, and added goats and cattle (although Bai does not mention the horse) to the pigs and dogs. Alcohol makes its appearance.

Comments and questions

1. Common ownership of means of production

Bai stresses that all of the above cultures except the Longshan culture had common ownership of the means of production, but it is unclear how he reached this conclusion. The means of production for the pre-agricultural nomadic peoples like Peking Man would principally be hunting weapons and the tools for making them, the needles and other tools for clothing manufacture, and baskets, skins and pottery for gathering food and water. How do we know that these things were owned in common? The fact that grave goods were buried with an individual person, rather than in a central location for all the dead to use, does not suggest to me any belief that the dead would use their goods in common in the afterlife. I did not understand Bai's argument that the appearance of different numbers of pig bones in Longshan graves proves that the pigs had been the dead man's personal property when alive, when he does not reach the same conclusion from the differing numbers of other grave goods in Yangshao graves.

One good piece of evidence might be the appearance or disappearance of signs or symbols on the means of production that could have marked them as one person's property. Also, in the Yangshao culture, if the pottery-making tools are all in the separate pottery-making area, instead of in individual family homes, this would argue in favor of the common ownership of means of production.

I am not saying that Bai is wrong about the means of production being held in common. The evidence for private ownership is as thin as the evidence for public ownership. I just don't see enough evidence to make either conclusion.

2. Yuanmou man's age
My previous understanding was that H. erectus was the first proto-human to leave Africa, and that they did this about 1 million years ago. The appearance of Yuanmou man, an apparent erectus, in Yunnan about 1.7 million years ago contradicts this. I see that this website (http://www-personal....n3/yuanmou.html) cites a later 1984 study by "Liu and Ding" that Yuanmou man is actually probably about 5 to 6 hundred thousand years old. This study should have been available for the 2002 edition.

3. General biology
Bai makes no effort to fit the various fossil finds into the general picture of human prehistory, failing to identify Yuanmou, Peking, Upper Cave Man, etc. as erectus, sapiens, Neandertal, or any other species. He even refers to Yuanmou Man as an "ape man," even though Yuanmou man appears well after the divergence of apes from humans 4 to 6 million years ago, regardless of whether the 1.7 million year dating is correct.

4. Exploitation
Bai suggests that low productivity meant that there was no exploitation in the society of Upper Cave Man, Peking Man, etc. This appears logical to me. Before you can live off the labor of somebody else, he has to be able to produce enough to support both you and himself. There would be opportunities for small-scale exploitation, but presumably if you wanted to live you had best be ready to do your own work.

5. Ditches
The Banpo site (Yangshao culture) living quarters were surrounded by a ditch. Was this for defense/drainage/garbage disposal/something else?

6. Fire
Bai quotes Engels in saying the discovery of fire was the most important invention in human history, even beside the steam engine. I gotta agree with that. The steam engine presupposes fire, as does most metalworking, the colonization of cold regions, production of charcoal, slash-and-burn agriculture, the three-field system, cooking, beacons, etc.

7. Copper
Where did the Longshan culture find copper? Did they smelt it out of ore? Find it on the ground? Dig it from a stream bed?

8. Patriarchy/matriarchy
Bai believes Yangshao culture was matriarchal, and Longshan culture was patriarchal, based on the different burial patterns observed above. I think the change in grave patterns certainly show a profound difference in attitude toward women from Yangshao to Longshan, and a lesser regard for women in Longshan is the best explanation. But I think it is a very big leap from "women in Yangshao were treated more equally than in Longshan" to "the Yangshao culture was led by women", i.e. matriarchal. Especially when one considers that many societies (such as ancient Jews or modern Fante) that are matrilineal are still by no means matriarchal.

[Goujian]

Now I understand that my history education in high school was probably based on his book. I would love to learn more in detail.
Thanks, Daniel.

[Daniel]

Thank you for the kind words. And I am flattered that this thread has been pinned.

Review of Chapter III, "Myth and Legend."

What I learned

The myths and legends of pre-Shang China are dominated by the battle against the floods. I count at least six divine or semi-divine rulers who are remembered in some part for saving the land from inundation: Yao, Gun, Mei, Taitai, Nuwa, and Great Yu.

The story of the myths is also the story of where technology comes from. The ancient god-kings are given credit for inventing writing, the calendar, silk weaving, carts, armor, and any other handy thing that needed explanation.

Beside floods and technology, war is the main story. Both before and after the Xia dynasty began, the war stories center around conflicts between the bow-armed Yi of the east and the Ji, Jiang, Gonggong and other peoples of the west. The character Yi comes from the combination of the "man" character and the "bow" character, meaning a man with a bow. (The bow character definitely looks to me like it represents a recurve bow; is there any confirmation of this?) There are also the Miao of the Yangtze river region, but I did not get any picture of their role except to contribute the mythical tribal chiefs Fuxi and Nuwa.

Bai mentions that the myths show the tribes meeting on fairly equal terms and coming to decisions in a democratic manner, especially under Yao and Shun.

There is only one mention of dragons in the chapter, where Great Yu summons a divine winged dragon to help his flood control plans. Many other supernatural powers are attributed to the tribal chieftains, such as turning into a bear (Great Yu), conjuring rain and wind (Chiyou), smelting rock to fix the sky and hacking the legs off giant turtles (Nuwa), summoning goddesses (Huang Di) and, my favorite, shooting nine of the ten suns out of the sky with a bow, to protect the crops from burning (Yi).

Great Yu is said to have founded the Xia dynasty, the first hereditary dynasty. Boyi of the Yi was elected by the tribes to succeed him, but after Yu's death, Yu's son was installed as emperor by the Xia tribes. This must have made the Yi very unhappy, which may be why they attacked and deposed Yu's grandson Taikang. But Taikang's brother's grandson managed to escape from the Yi emperor and eventually retook the throne (I guess this is why usurpers try to kill every member of the royal family). Since the myths paint an unflattering portrait of Yu's children, Qi and Taikang, it may be that the tale-tellers considered election by the tribes a better method than hereditary succession for picking new leaders.

Comments and questions
Bai's concern with Chinese myth and legend is mostly what we can infer from it about the state of Xia and pre-Xia society; he's not interested in learning mythology for its own sake or to understand the mental image ancient Chinese had of their world. Thus, there is no mention of the Pan Gu creation myth, as we can safely assume that Pan Gu was not based on any real man or group of men. Reading the myths is something like reading Rome's foundation myths or the Old Testament; there are some things that are obvious fantasy, and some things that sound factual, and it's anybody's guess where the fact ends and the fantasy begins.

I am not sure that Bai has got all the myths right. For example, he says Chinese myth credits Huang Di with inventing silkworm breeding and silk weaving. Mary Nourse in A Short History of the Chinese tells in some detail that it was not Huang Di, but Huang Di's wife Su Ling, who taught the people to care for silkworms by feeding them mulberry leaves. Also he says that the Yi chieftain Chiyou was sent to heaven and became the constellation "the Banner of Chiyou," but as the below thread shows, this is questionable. http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...0&#entry4713255

One question the chapter demands: did the Xia dynasty really exist? Supposedly the Xia dynasty featured walled cities with moats, yet the ruins of no such cities from that age have been found yet. But, if the Xia cities were built on the sites of later cities, all trace of them might have been destroyed. There might be the remains of a Xia dynasty city buried beneath Xi'An or Luoyang right now.

There is an interesting story in the chapter that Shaokang, the man who restored the Xia dynasty, took shelter with the Youyu clan and worked as a food preparer. But the chief of the Youyu gave two of his daughters in marriage to Shaokang! Obviously, food preparation was not considered as lowly a position in China as it was in the West!

Bai does not give dates of origin for most of the myths. Were, say, Nuwa or Mei among the ancient leaders that Confucius idolized and held up as role models for contemporary governments to follow? How many of these myths made up part of Confucius' or Mencius' mental scenery?

Matriarchy again: Bai writes "That the tribal chiefs were said to be sons of gods actually reflects the fact that in a society of matriarchal clans people knew only who their mothers were but not their fathers." Balderdash. According to Bai himself in the previous chapter, the Longshan culture was patriarchal, and simple chronology shows that the tribal chiefs described in the chapter must have been born long after the foundation of the Longshan culture and the end of the theoretically matriarchal Yangshao. Thus there is no reason whatever to assume the mythical chiefs were born in a matriarchal culture, and every reason to assume the opposite. The chiefs themselves are overwhelmingly male, further arguing against Xia and pre-Xia mythical chiefs being matriarchal.

[jwrevak]

Daniel, on Apr 14 2005, 04:10 AM, said:

Comments and questions

1.  Common ownership of means of production

  Bai stresses that all of the above cultures except the Longshan culture had common ownership of the means of production, but it is unclear how he reached this conclusion. 

Very true. I wonder if the main reason he takes this position is that it conforms to Marxist thought. Anybody know?

Another reason he may have taken his position it that it implies that early human beings had a "communist" society, and only later did things deteriorate as some human beings began to exploit others. Therefore, "communist" society is the original, natural society.

In any case, the author fails to explain why we should accept his view or to refer readers to sources with supporting info.

Quote

4.  Exploitation
Bai suggests that low productivity meant that there was no exploitation in the society of Upper Cave Man, Peking Man, etc. 

But how do we know for a fact that production was "low", and just what is "low" production in this environment?

Quote

8.  Patriarchy/matriarchy
Bai believes Yangshao culture was matriarchal, and Longshan culture was patriarchal, based on the different burial patterns observed above.  I think the change in grave patterns certainly show a profound difference in attitude toward women from Yangshao to Longshan, and a lesser regard for women in Longshan is the best explanation.  But I think it is a very big leap from "women in Yangshao were treated more equally than in Longshan" to "the Yangshao culture was led by women", i.e. matriarchal.  Especially when one considers that many societies (such as ancient Jews or modern Fante) that are matrilineal are still by no means matriarchal.

Essentially, I agree with you. Maybe there are good reasons to believe Yangshao culture was matriarchal, but I certainly don't find them in this book. I wonder. Does Marxist thought typically state that early human beings had a matriarchal culture?

[jwrevak]

Daniel, on Apr 15 2005, 09:08 AM, said:

Comments and questions
Bai's concern with Chinese myth and legend is mostly what we can infer from it about the state of Xia and pre-Xia society;

True, and, of course, if he can push history back to the Xia period, this lengthens the purportedly uninterrupted history of China by another thousand years in round numbers. However, he fails to do so.

Quote

he's not interested in learning mythology for its own sake or to understand the mental image ancient Chinese had of their world. 

True.

Quote

Thus, there is no mention of the Pan Gu creation myth, as we can safely assume that Pan Gu was not based on any real man or group of men. 

I'm unsure we can assume the latter.

Perhaps the author didn't reference any creation myths because he considered them mere fairy tales, a manifestation of foolish religious thinking, which would be in keeping with Marxist or modern scientific thought.

Quote

Reading the myths is something like reading Rome's foundation myths or the Old Testament; there are some things that are obvious fantasy, and some things that sound factual, and it's anybody's guess where the fact ends and the fantasy begins.

No, it isn't anybody's guess. We can reach fairly intelligent conclusions within the context of history. For example, turning to Homer, we can reasonably conclude that Troy really existed. (You can even visit it in present day Turkey.) However, we cannot reasonably conclude that Zeus, Hera, and other gods influenced the outcome of the Trojan War.

Quote

One question the chapter demands: did the Xia dynasty really exist? 

As far as I know, no one has ever discovered evidence of Xia.

Quote

Bai does not give dates of origin for most of the myths.  Were, say, Nuwa or Mei among the ancient leaders that Confucius idolized and held up as role models for contemporary governments to follow?  How many of these myths made up part of  Confucius' or Mencius' mental scenery

I can't talk a lot of specifics but I'm confident that many of the foundation myths, including mythical rulers, would have been known to Confucius and part of his worldview; he was an expert on the classics and tradition and held them in high regard. He made references to early rulers fairly frequently in the Analects. However, I think that he probably frequently viewed such early rulers as historical--not mythical or fictional.

[Daniel]

jwrevak, on Apr 15 2005, 05:51 PM, said:

Very true.  I wonder if the main reason he takes this position is that it  conforms to Marxist thought.  Anybody know? 

Another reason he may have taken his position it that it implies that early human beings had a "communist" society, and only later did things deteriorate as some human beings began to exploit others.  Therefore, "communist" society is the original, natural society.

I'm not a Marxist and only have a tenuous grasp of Marxist theory. But my general understanding is that Marxism views communism as the end of history rather than the beginning. There have even been some Marxists who actively promoted the formation of capitalism in feudal or agricultural societies, on the grounds that society had to pass through a capitalist stage before communism could develop.

In Our Oriental Heritage Will Durant argues that early man had a "primitive communism" and gives many examples from 19th and 20th century hunter-gatherer tribes to show that food and land were used in common and shared. But Durant emphasizes that even in primitive societies, items personally used were private property and were buried with their owner. If such "personally used" items included weapons, sewing tools, and food-gathering containers, then we could say that early societies shared everything in commonexcept the means of production.

Quote

But how do we know for a fact that production was "low", and just what is "low" production in this environment?

True, Bai doesn't go into much detail about this. I think his conclusion is based on the evidence that the tools we can attribute to early Chinese were simply inadequate to produce enough for everyone. We can see that modern hunter-gatherer societies with equal or superior tools have low productivity, "low" meaning inadequate to leave a large surplus of food, clothing and shelter that some people can live off of without producing their own sustenance. But it is true that we don't know much about Peking Man's or Upper Cave Man's environment; if forage was vastly more abundant or deer much more plentiful and unwary than today, then their production might have been much higher than we would conclude from the tool evidence.

One other item of evidence that Bai mentions is that one third of the Peking Man skeletons found are estimated to have died at age 14 or younger. This would support a thesis of a life of hardship and want, which would be explained by low productivity.

[Daniel]

jwrevak, on Apr 15 2005, 06:15 PM, said:

I'm unsure we can assume the latter. 

I don't understand. On what real group of people might Pan Gu be based? Is there any confirmatory evidence for the Pan Gu story?

Quote

No, it isn't anybody's guess.  We can reach fairly intelligent conclusions within the context of history.  For example, turning to Homer, we can reasonably conclude that Troy really existed.  (You can even visit it in present day Turkey.)  However, we cannot reasonably conclude that Zeus, Hera, and other gods influenced the outcome of the Trojan War.

Well, I am a beginner at Chinese history, and perhaps if I had more background I could more easily tell which parts of the Chinese legends to trust and which to discount.

I don't agree with your example, however. We can conclude Troy existed because Schlieman found it, not because Homer wrote about it. Until Schlieman found the actual evidence, it was quite justified to be skeptical about Homer's story, especially considering that Homer was not an eyewitness to the war. And, as you point out, it is still justified to be skeptical about the gods' interference. I am also skeptical about the reality of Achilles, Ajax, et al., though not so skeptical as I am about the gods.

Anyway, among the things I find difficult to judge from the Chinese myths and legends are: were most of the great technological advancements invented by the rulers, as the myths say, or by the ruled, which seems to be the more usual pattern in recorded history? Were Yao, Shun, and Chiyou real people, an agglomeration of different people, or entirely imaginary? Did the tribes of Ji, Gonggong, and Yi actually exist or not? Were the Yi indeed great bowmen?

[Yun]

Quote

I'm not a Marxist and only have a tenuous grasp of Marxist theory. But my general understanding is that Marxism views communism as the end of history rather than the beginning. There have even been some Marxists who actively promoted the formation of capitalism in feudal or agricultural societies, on the grounds that society had to pass through a capitalist stage before communism could develop.

In Our Oriental Heritage Will Durant argues that early man had a "primitive communism" and gives many examples from 19th and 20th century hunter-gatherer tribes to show that food and land were used in common and shared. But Durant emphasizes that even in primitive societies, items personally used were private property and were buried with their owner. If such "personally used" items included weapons, sewing tools, and food-gathering containers, then we could say that early societies shared everything in commonexcept the means of production.

Actually, the Marxist theory of historical evolution is that societies start out with "primitive Communism", in which there are no leaders or exploitation and everyone shares everything, then proceed to slave societies, then feudalism, then capitalism, and finally real Communism.

Quote

Thus, there is no mention of the Pan Gu creation myth, as we can safely assume that Pan Gu was not based on any real man or group of men.

Quote

Perhaps the author didn't reference any creation myths because he considered them mere fairy tales, a manifestation of foolish religious thinking, which would be in keeping with Marxist or modern scientific thought.

I think the Pan Gu myth only originated in the Han dynasty, hence Bai probably did not find it useful in reflecting the worldview of the prehistoric period.

Quote

Does Marxist thought typically state that early human beings had a matriarchal culture?

It doesn't but the matrilineal nature of the first Chinese societies was a major theory in the 20th century, which has now been challenged and debunked by some scholars. One of the arguments for a matrilineal or matriarchal culture is that the characters for the earliest surnames were all based on the woman radical. See: http://www.chinahist...?showtopic=2936 (on which jwrevak himself wrote an important post)

[Daniel]

Review of Chapter IV, "The Slave State of the Shang and Zhou Dynasties."

What I learned

1. War and Politics
The Shang dynasty is said to have been begun by Tang, who overthrew the last Xia ruler, gathering a large army to himself and threatening all who would not join him with enslavement.

The Shang were ruled by a king and his nobility. The nobles were distinguished by forming the core of the Shang army and by owning slaves. Though this was essentially a military government, the Shang armies were not large; the Shang Emperor Wu Ding sometimes campaigned with about 5,000 soldiers, and the largest army he was reported to raise was 13,000. Slaves were also used as soldiers, and Wu Ding's 13,000-man army included conscripts. Zhou armies were larger, with the founder of the dynasty, King Wu, deploying an army of 45,000 soldiers plus an elite shock force of 3,000 and 300 chariots. A force of 300 chariots numbers 900 men: 300 drivers, 300 lancers, and 300 archers. A minimum of 600 horses are also required.

The Shang and early Zhou nobility was very fractious, with the lesser nobility complaining that the greater nobles were seizing their land and slaves.

Shang created a criminal law with more than ten crimes. Prisons were built, but offenders could also be sentenced to slavery for a set time.

2. Shang/Early Zhou economy
A money economy based on cowrie shells and metal limped along, but the main forms of wealth were land and slaves. The emperor secured loyalty by making large grants of land and slaves to some nobles. Slaves worked the farms, herded the animals, worked in noble houses, and did some manufacturing. Slaves could be bought and sold. Prisoners of war and convicted criminals could be made slaves. In some cases, slaves were buried alive when their masters died. Slave escape was a serious problem for the masters, who eventually had to conspire to make a Chinese version of the Fugitive Slave Act, promising to return each other's slaves wherever they turned up.

Cattle, sheep, pigs and other herd animals were also forms of wealth, although Bai doesn't emphasize them as much as land and slaves. The herd animals figured prominently in early Shang writing, with different characters used for male and female animals.

At least under Zhou, there was a large class of free commoners, who congregated in cities and particularly in the capital.

3. Shang/early Zhou technology
The Shang were mostly bronze users. They had iron also, but other than to form edges for battle axes, they don't appear to have used it much. They could make plain silk and damask silk. Early porcelain was now being made. Farm tools remained mostly wood and stone, with very little bronze being used. Bronze was smelted in large red clay furnaces, with as many as 80 furnaces sometimes being used together to make one large bronze cauldron. Charioteers and other soldiers wore armor.

Wine was brewed, mostly for the nobles. Surplus food was stored in granaries. Buildings, even palaces, had beaten earth foundations.

The Shang created both a lunar and a solar calendar, inserting an intercalary month every few years to keep the lunar calendar caught up with the solar calendar. The solar calendar had 366 days.

4. Shang/early Zhou religion and culture
The Shang emperors claimed direct descent from the Lord on High. Sacrifices of cattle and sheep, sometimes in the hundreds, were made to dead emperors; it is unclear whether living kings also received this honor. Although male ancestor worship dates back at least to the Longshan culture, it is unclear whether ordinary people and slaves also made sacrifice to their ancestors. The Shang and Zhou nobles put great faith in diviners who read oracle bones, which are of course famous as the earliest known artifacts of Shang, and indeed of Chinese civilization. The oracle bones feature 4,500 characters identified so far, of which only 1,700 have been deciphered.

Zhou religion was similar, but it started the concept of the Mandate of Heaven. The Zhou conceded that the Shang were descendants of the Lord on High. But the Zhou also claimed divine descent for themselves through a younger son of the Lord on High. The Lord on High had switched his favor to the Zhou when the Shang became corrupt.

Other than the oracle bones, the earliest written sources on the period are the Book of Odes and the Book of History.

Comments and Questions

1. Marxist analysis
Bai's problems with shoehorning Chinese history into the Marxist mould become clear here. Zhou is clearly a classic feudal system, with fiefs and vassalage and lords. Qinshihuang destroys the last remnants of the Zhou feudal system in the 3rd century B.C., but slavery continues until at least Wang Mang. This contradicts the orthodox sequence of transition from slavery to feudalism that Marxist theory predicts.

The Marxist viewpoint also causes Bai to repeatedly use the term "contradictions in society." So far as I can tell, the term "contradictions" here simply means conflicts between and within classes. I am used to "contradiction" implying two statements or beliefs that cannot both be true. Did the conflicts Bai refers to arise from some deeper "contradiction," i.e. two contradictory beliefs?

2. Slavery
Exactly as jwrevak reported, Bai emphasizes Shang and Zhou slavery. But much remains unclear about slavery. Did the switch from Longshan (Xia?) culture to Shang culture involve a transition from principally female enslavement to male enslavement? Were prisoners of war and criminals the main source of slaves? Were slaves' children also slaves? Were slaves owned only by the nobility, or could common folk also own them? It is probably not Bai's fault that he leaves these questions unanswered; he states that the written sources have very little to say about slavery.

3. Diviners and oracle bones
Given that the oracle bones are the earliest written sources in all Chinese history, it is unfortunate that Bai tells us almost nothing about the diviners themselves. Was literacy limited to the diviners, or were the nobility and common folk also literate? Were the diviners themselves nobles, with land, slaves and herds, or were they fairly humble servants? Did only nobles employ diviners, or did the common folk do so also? How did one become a diviner - through appointment, apprenticeship, inheritance?

Certainly a usable writing system of 4,500 characters did not develop overnight. Whatever age the oracle bones are, the writing system they use must have begun developing many decades and possibly several centuries before.

4. Miscellaneous
Why did the Zhou rulers accede to the idea of the Mandate of Heaven, instead of claiming that the Shang were impostors and the Zhou themselves the only true divine bloodline? I hypothesize that it made the nobility that the Zhou wanted to win over feel more secure, since delegitimizing the Shang emperors would also delegitimize the emperors' grants of land and slaves to the nobles.

What crimes did Shang law prohibit? Bai mentions that Shang was a class system; were certain acts crimes only for certain classes?

Did the Zhou nobility congregate in the cities or live out in the country near their farms and slaves?

[jwrevak]

Daniel, on Apr 17 2005, 07:59 AM, said:

Review of Chapter IV, "The Slave State of the Shang and Zhou Dynasties."

The Marxist viewpoint also causes Bai to repeatedly use the term "contradictions in society."  So far as I can tell, the term "contradictions" here simply means conflicts between and within classes.  I am used to "contradiction" implying two statements or beliefs that cannot both be true.  Did the conflicts Bai refers to arise from some deeper "contradiction," i.e. two contradictory beliefs?

I'm unsure but here's my take on this. Indeed the use of "contradictions" in this way seems unusual and even strange to me, and the author does this a lot. It doesn't sound like idomatic English. However, I've seen "contraditions" used very similary in English translations of other Chinese Communist works. As best I can figure out, "contradictions" in these contexts means--more or less--social conflict. Anyone know otherwise? Anyone know what "contradictions" is a translation for and why this translation is apparently preferred?

Quote

Why did the Zhou rulers accede to the idea of the Mandate of Heaven, instead of claiming that the Shang were impostors and the Zhou themselves the only true divine bloodline?  I hypothesize that it made the nobility that the Zhou wanted to win over feel more secure, since delegitimizing the Shang emperors would also delegitimize the emperors' grants of land and slaves to the nobles.

Perhaps few Chinese would have believed such a statement. For centuries Chinese had revered the Shang as the legitimate rulers of China, even long after their true political power was minimal.

In addition, Chinese have frequently revered the past. Rather than turn their backs on it, they frequently try to incorporate it into contemporary life. For example, many philosphers rather than reject the teachings of, say, Confucius, worked hard to extend them through new interpretations or incorporating new ideas into them as harmoniously as possible to arrive at a synthesis. Similarly, perhaps the Zhou chose not to totally de-ligitimatize the Shang because they revered the past even as they seized power.