The question is still rubbish. If you ask “how old is Chinese history” what you are in fact asking is “how old is China”. You may as well ask How old is Germany, or Europe, or Christendom, or, ‘The West’. It’s all definition. ‘China’ today is different than ‘China’ 10 years ago which is again different from whatever civilisations and cultures existed in the land now claimed by the PRC thousands of years ago. This isn’t being overly-semantic either it’s just about aksing a question that makes any sense.
Little side-note on the Mycenaen Linear B. From memory it was deciphered as an early form of archaic Greek.
Okay, I am going to cut to the chase of this debate.
First what is the difference between history and civilization?
Second, and this is really the important point that I wanted to get to eventually, can anyone tell me how long English history is? French? Japanese? Russian? etc.
Third, why is it that the Chinese endlessly preface everything with 5,000 years of history/civilization, which in turn has been picked up indiscriminately by journalists, businesspeople and even academics? What is the “cultural” significance of this (as far as I know) unique behavior? I just returned from Iran and no one ever said in 5,000 years of Persian history and I do not recall this being the case in Egypt or other ancient civilizations either.
Is this a recent trait or has 5,000 years always been emphasized in Chinese history? Or did it begin with the Western incursions? the Communist regime? the ROC moving to Taiwan? when? and if a discernible date can be identified, why did this spawn this 5,000 year tag?
quote: Second, and this is really the important point that I wanted to get to eventually, can anyone tell me how long English history is? French? Japanese? Russian? etc.
Gawd. The point several people have made above is that this is too vague a question for the answers to have any value. Pick a number, any number. 42?
On what counts as history, I remember vaguely that in the zuozhuan (or maybe the annals of Lu) written (off top of my head) around 500 BC there is reference to a battle 500 or so years earlier. Could have been the one that finished off the Shang, I don’t remember clearly.
The Zuozhuan’s full of rambling tales of astonishing valor, it was assumed to be based on mythologized oral history. Then, 20 or so years ago, they found an oracle bone from the period of the battle. And the date given on the bone and the date in the Zuozhuan were exactly the same. To the day of the week.
Where does that put books like the Zuozhuan in the “international standards” of historians?
I agree that in some senses this question is futile. We are never going to get a precise answer that everybody is happy with. The question was also originally posted in somewhat simplistic terms (international standards, exact number of years, etc). However, I still think the subject is interesting. I also think it is worth discussing, and can see no reason why we shouldn’t be able to reach at least some kind of a conclusion.
If you say that this question is meaningless based on (essentially) semantic arguments (what is China? etc.), then you really have to give up on answering any questions at all. You certainly have to give up answering any questions about history.
The stuff about the oracle bone and the zuo shan is interesting. I don’t think it is a killer argument for accepting the zuo shan as an accurate historical record though. Homer’s Iliad (about the Trojan war) was originally assumed to be pure mythology, until the city of Troy was discovered by archeologists and people came to accept that the Trojan war had really happened. However, the story is still essentially a myth, it just has large factual content. I don’t know the details, but it seems like the zuo shan is a similar example. Does this sound like a fair comment? Of course I don’t really know what I’m talking about here, having only heard of this ‘zuo shan’ thing 5 minutes ago.
Equating “history” with a, “reliable written record”, is certainly NOT what contemporary historians do.
I majored in African history at Uni, and for most of Africa, in partucular Sub-Saharan Africa, historians do not have a written record to work with. Does this mean that these are lands without “History”? Certainly eurocentric historians of yore thought so. The emminent British historian Sir Hugh Trevor-Roper wrote, “Before European contact, the content was a mass devoid of history, devoid of culture and civilization.” In a Trevor-Roperian worldview Europeans gave Africa it’s history [in much the same way as the Jesuit missionary scholars gave the Chinese their Confucian values]
Trevor-Roper staked his reputaion on the authenticity of the infamous “Hitler Diaries” - and we all know the outcome of that. Unfortunately the narrowness of his historical perspective lingers on, even though he and his reputation are now both six feet under.
In Africa oral tradition had evloved into an art form. It’s through the oral record, through the study of linguistics, and through archaeology that we have a sense of the ebb and flow of people and cilivilzations in Africa.
quote:Originally posted by brianasmus:
Okay, I am going to cut to the chase of this debate.
First what is the difference between history and civilization?
Second, and this is really the important point that I wanted to get to eventually, can anyone tell me how long English history is? French? Japanese? Russian? etc.
Third, why is it that the Chinese endlessly preface everything with 5,000 years of history/civilization, which in turn has been picked up indiscriminately by journalists, businesspeople and even academics? What is the “cultural” significance of this (as far as I know) unique behavior? I just returned from Iran and no one ever said in 5,000 years of Persian history and I do not recall this being the case in Egypt or other ancient civilizations either.
Is this a recent trait or has 5,000 years always been emphasized in Chinese history? Or did it begin with the Western incursions? the Communist regime? the ROC moving to Taiwan? when? and if a discernible date can be identified, why did this spawn this 5,000 year tag?
Thanks again for any and all serious replies
As we can see from the discussion so far, the first two questions are more about semantics than anything else. However the third question is indeed interesting.
The Chinese not only emphasize that they have a long history and ancient civilization, but also that their culture has been continuous. One thing they often say is that Chinese writing can be traced back directly to the earliest bone oracles. In contrast, there are no modern languages that are descendants of Egyptian heiroglyphics or Sumerian.
My guess is that the Chinese mantra about their long history and ancient civilization is a product of two things:
– Historical ethnocentricity and belief that China’s civilization is much advanced relative to the “barbarian” outsiders
– Over-compensation for the humiliation endured at the hands of Western (and Japanese – oops) colonial powers in the late Qing era
Thanks for all replies. I would still like to pose the question, what does China gain from emphasizing 5,000 years? And when did this obsession begin? Say for example, I were to read a Ching dynasty treatise from 1750 AD, would I find excessive tags and references to 5,000 years? Now I can look at certain aspects of Chinese foreign policy which seek to create the illusion that China has always been unified and that it has historical claims to Tibet and Taiwan whether or not this is true and I can see public relations benefits, but what does the 5,000 years accomplish? What tangible benefits are accrued from this? I guess I am trying to tap into what drives this whole thing. Any opinions no matter how far out there are welcome.
quote[quote] If you say that this question is meaningless based on (essentially) semantic arguments (what is China? etc.), then you really have to give up on answering any questions at all. [/quote]
You misunderstand. Ask when and where did writing first occur in the area of modern China and it is possible to debate the answer. But any difference of opinion over “how old is Chinese history” will just boil down to semantic argument over what counts as China, what equals history.
It’s a crap question, unless semantics is your thing.
I have often wondered though what happened to the ‘history’ of the rest of China. The pre-Warring States Chinese history that I was taught conflated the Shandong peninsula with China. There is passing mention in the annals of the time of the various barbarian tribes to the north and the south. Some of them, like the Xiong-nu, play bit part roles, kidnapping the occasional princess or providing 100 li horses. But the official history leaves much of China (all of the south) in darkness.
What happened to the records of the rest? Surely they had writing and tripods and musical instruments. Was all evidence of their culture wiped out by the ascendant Han or were they the savages (sneering references in the Han dynasty Shiji to tribes that cut their hair) that Han history would have us believe?
As to why the 5,000 years thing, I agree with SCL that it stems from ethnocentricity and a degree of insecurity.
All nations seem to have a national myth about their origins. France looks back to Egalite, Fraternite and Liberte, the US to its founding as a land of freedom. No matter that these are myths (wasn’t it the freedom to keep slaves - which lily-livered Englishmen were growing queasy about - as much as any other freedom?), they are an important part of how people view themselves.
The Chinese have conceived of themselves as a nation for barely 150 years and they began to do so only under duress. I guess that’s when the 5,000 year thing kicked in.
quote: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First what is the difference between history and civilization?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Civilisation is society with a certain developed level of culture, probably written records, laws etc. teh word is closely related to ‘city’.
History on the other hand I find harder to define despite being a history graduate. It is certainly not restricted to the study of written records or ‘civilisations’. A standard dictionary definition will say ‘the study of past events’ and I would say that this is fair enough if you qulify it a little to apply to peopel and societies.
quote:
Second, and this is really the important point that I wanted to get to eventually, can anyone tell me how long English history is? French? Japanese? Russian? etc.
No. It’s a meaningless question.
quote:
Third, why is it that the Chinese endlessly preface everything with 5,000 years of history/civilization
quote[quote] If you say that this question is meaningless based on (essentially) semantic arguments (what is China? etc.), then you really have to give up on answering any questions at all. You certainly have to give up answering any questions about history [/quote]
Not at all. You just have to ask more meaningful questions or at least more precise ones. For example, you could ask:
How far back can we trace human settlement in the area that is now called China?
How far back can we talk about ‘Imperial dynasties’ ruling the area that is now called China? Is there any real basis to claim continuity through these dynasties? Why is such a claim made?
How far back can we trace certain items of Chiense culture, such as written language?
Back to the 5000 years of Chinese culture question. Here’s a test. Name ten things you associate with Chinese culture (the first things you think of - off the top of your head).
Here’s my little list:
Mandarin
Chinese characters
Daoism
Buddhism
Confucianism
The Imperial Civil Service and Examination system
Kung Fu
Qipao
Foot Binding
Peking Opera
Now how many of these have been around in any form whatsoever for 5000 years? 1000 years? How many are still practiced widely or at all in Mainland China?
I don’t know if this will be helpful or not, since I know very little about the dynasties (except, perhaps, for the one on American TV – I do remember something about an Alexis Carrington!!! ). However, if you visit the Palace Museum here in Taipei there is a chronology of the last few thousand years. It compares “Chinese” developments with those of other parts of the globe. If I remember correctly, and I’d have to ask my bf about this, there was someone around 3,000 BC who was considered the father of China (or maybe it was an uncle?!?!). Anyway, add that 3,000 to the current 2,000 AD and you get your 5,000.
More than that vague information, I can’t help ya… Check it out yourself!
By the way, my bf always adds “glorious” to his quote “5,000 years of glorious Chinese culture, can’t be wrong!” Now we can debate if it was really “glorious” or just “hai hao”!
Qin Dynasty (221-207 B.C.) and Confucius (circa 551-479 BC).
If I heard you correctly, Confucius, and the sh*t load of “written” literatures way ahead of him, were not “Chinese”? Please explain.
Surely you’re not claiming a written “Chinese” literature existed 2,500 years before Confucius. Please explain.[/quote]
I think the argument here is whether history/culture started only when it’s written down. Didn’t pots count? As for the origin of Chinese written language, it certainly didn’t go back 5,000 years:
Xia (c. 2200 - c. 1750 BC)
Not much is known about this first Chinese dynasty – in fact, it until fairly recently, most historians thought that it was a myth. But the archeological record has proven them wrong, for the most part. What little is known indicates that the Xia had descended from a wide-spread Yellow River valley Neolithic culture known as the Longshan culture, famous for their black-lacquered pottery. Even though no known examples of Xia-era writing survive, they almost certainly had a writing system that was a precursor of the Shang dynasty’s “oracle bones.”
Shang (c. 1750 - c. 1040 BC)
There are three things to know about the Shang: one, they were the most advanced bronze-working civilization in the world; two, Shang remains provide the earliest and most complete record of Chinese writing (there are a few Neolithic pots that have a few characters scratched on them; however, a few characters do not a complete writing system make), scratched out on the shoulder blades of pigs for oracular purposes; and three, they were quite possibly the most blood-thirsty pre-modern civilization. They liked human sacrifice – a lot. If a king died, then more than one hundred slaves would join him in the grave. Some of them would be beheaded first. Some of them were just thrown in still alive. Later dynasties replaced the humans with terra-cotta figures, resulting in things like the underground army. They also did things like human sacrifice for building consecrations and other ceremonial events. The Shang had a very odd system of succession: instead of a patrilineal system where power was passed from father to son, the kingship passed from elder brother to younger brother, and when there were no more brothers, then to the oldest maternal nephew.
Western Zhou (c. 1100 - 771 BC) [copied from somewhere else]
Most scholars think that the Zhou were much more “Chinese” than the Shang. For one, they used a father-to-son succession system. Also, they weren’t too keen on human sacrifice. However, they weren’t as good at working bronze as the Shang. Still, it would be centuries before the West was able to cast bronze as well as the Zhou. Some, though not all, scholars believe that the Xia, the Shang, and the Zhou actually were three different cultures that emerged more or less at the same time in different areas of the Yellow River valley. And the historical record supports this view – the Shang were conquered from outside by the Zhou, as the Xia had been conquered from the outside by the Shang.
The Zhou actually didn’t rule all of what was then China. China was then made up of a number of quasi-independent principalities. However, the Zhou were the most powerful principality and played the role of hegemon in the area. They were located in the middle of the principalities, giving rise to what the Chinese call their country – the Middle Kingdom. The Zhou were able to maintain peace and stability through the hegemon system for a few hundred years; then in 771 BC, the capital was sacked by barbarians from the west.
Eastern Zhou (771 - 256 BC) – no ambiguity.
– Spring & Autumn Period (722 - 481 BC) — Confucius’ here!
– Warring States Period (403 - 221 BC) – Qin ended this…
There’s nothing to explain … there was no notion of “China” or a “Chinese identity” until the time of Qin Shihuang. As for the “literatures” (sic) you mention, they were written in all different kinds of early scripts … again, it wasn’t until the time of Qin Shihuang that a unified “Chinese” script was adopted.
Confucius wasn’t concerned with “China” as a nation, but a general sense of propriety and order “under heaven” (meaning the world as it was known to them at that time). Before Qin Shihuang’s time, the area now known as “China” was just a group of individual kingdoms with no strong unified identity. Even before the Zhou Dynasty collapsed and China fell into the Warring States period, the central government (under the emperor) was very different from later “Chinese” dynasties … the central authority was not as powerful, and each region still maintained a unique identity. For example, the culture of “Chu” (in the south) was VERY different from the more northern states, and this IS reflected in the literature of the time. It was Qin Shihuang who changed all of that.
history begins with writing. before writing is “pre-history.”
the first chinese writing is the oracle bones, dated at 1500 BCE. in comparison, egyptian hieroglyphs were a fully developed system circa 3500 BCE.
egyptian wasn’t the first western script. the vinca signs (which are not understood) clock in at 8000 BCE.
following the strictest definition of “history” china has 3504 years. not bad but by no means as “unparalleled” as the claims are.
