How many years of Chinese history?

Arts & Sciences Culture & History
41

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.[/quote]

true in the sense that QS brought about a change in government that was more centralized, more meritocratic, and unprecedented, because he disliked the clannish powers of great families, like remnants of the old feudal zhou system. QS might have believed in his time that the shang and zhou were single states that degenerated into the warring states which he sought to bring back into a cohesive unit. you could say he already had a template to look to.
studies now suggest that the shang cultural/political influence was not as strong and binding as we once thought. some suggest multi-regional influences like various shang culture centers and other centers like sanxingdui. whether this can be considered a china i guess depends on how you want to define the concept, but i more or less agree with LB. this is not like the case of dynasties in egypt where defining that kingdom is much easier. but you could say that at the peak of western zhou power, there was a concept of china, at least in the north yellow river plain area. the south and west (like where the qin come from) were still considered barbaric, and perhaps ‘foreign’ whether culturally or politically. (i dunno if all this is very accurate. from memory. haha).
confucius was obsessed with a golden age he exaggerated, and tried to freeze time rejecting much that was contemporary. he feared the chaos and change and the loss of ‘culture’. he froze some things and chinese are still paying the price of that.

42

I asked somebody last year and he said “China has 5000 years of recorded history”. So that means that now it is 5001 years.

43

No way. That’s a crap definition of history. As someone mentioned way back (in the thread that this one got merged into), that’s like saying Africa had no history until the Europeans showed up because they never wrote anything down.

5000 years of Chinese civilisation/history. 5000 years of European civilisation/history. 5000 years of American civilisation/history. 5000 years of Persian civilisation/history. Whatever.

Brian

44

crap or not, that is the standard western academic usage. so…yes, the hawaiians had no history until cook arrived. the pre-contact stuff is differentiated as being “oral history.”

the science of archaelogy is “new”. the leaps forward in the knowledge gleamed into eras here-to-fore unrecorded in writing is “pre-history.”

a stickier mess altogether is what is writing? is the weave of a basket writing? is the loom pattern of a cloth writing? is it reading if WE can’t read it?

paleography and epigraphy are fascinating fields. while western universities are choke full of linguistics the dearth of paleograpy and epigraphy departments is embarassing. the discipline has been given over to regionalist/nationalist historians in the tenure of the local state entities.

45

Today, nobody defends any more this arbitrary number of “5,000” years. There were many interesting semantic discussions posted earlier. Great points! The objective discovery of “oracles” gives little room to argument, and they could well be the origin of Chinese written language(s). However, as pointed out many times by LB, Juba, and others, this"oracle thing" wasn’t strong enough to define the start of “the Middle Country” – 中國. Then, the convenient Qin dynasty served as the de facto genesis for “China”! Yes, western world originally observed this one big “nation” of China because of the overwhelming power of Chin/Qin. Qin Shihuang(秦始皇), literally, was the first Emperor in Chinese history. So, China has a history of 2,300 years. It’s about half of the 5,000 crap!

I’d like to carry on the true spirit of Juba+LB+…'s debates. Qin lasted 15 years, and Han still served the good purpose of one big “China”. But, the following “Three Kindoms” split China and started a 350 (220-581) year of deja-vue Warring States (魏,蜀,吳,西晉,東晉,宋,齊,梁,陳,北魏,東魏,西魏,北齊,北周). Finally, Sui & Tang dynasties re-grouped “under heaven” and thus regained the one big “China”. After Tang, history repeated itself and China fell into “Five Dynasties” and “Ten Kingdoms” before Song finished them up. So, in terms of “nation”, China has never been one big chunk for too long.

You argued Qin was the FIRST! Nope, actually Western Zhou was the first nation happening in this area. Cho-Yun Hsu (許倬雲, 中央研究院院士), a prominent Chinese historian: http://www.sinica.edu.tw/as/fellow/human/Cho-Yun-Hsu.html, has a modern write-up about Western Zhou on the net: http://zgxqs.org/zlzx/xzs/0001.htm. It’s in simplified Chinese. I here translate the section of Conclusion to traditional Chinese and leave it at the bottom of this reply. It may be difficult for some of you to digest. Let me highlight some points in it.

Shang(商) was brilliant but it didn’t control much of the area. There’re many civilizations co-existing. Shang gradually expanded its political influence in the area but never really cultually did so, partially because of its religious beliefs(aka paganism). Small Zhou gradually defeated Shang and dominated the area. It achieved it not so much by military actions but mainly via Confucian doctrines (仁政, Confucius had not been born yet). Zhou treated all different “tribes” like its own citizens. Different people enjoyed their full religion freedom while intermarrieges were encouraged. It’s the first melting pot occurring among very different groups. Zhou viewed itself as a ruler of “under heaven” – the entire world, not just its original home town. Zhou defeated Shang and, more importantly, it gave Shang full credit for taking over Xia. The concept of civilization continuation took place. Starting from middle Yellow River, Zhou expanded its cultural and political influence deeply into the South and the East (which are described in two separated sections in Dr. Shu’s accounts; including Chu “楚”). Three hunderd years of simmering did create a “nation” and it was the first “China” taking shape — Hua-Xia (華夏) [Western Zhou was also, IMHO, the only Utopia ever existed. It’s a sharp contrast to the military power of Qin.]

So, China has a history of 3,100 years under your definition!

(I shall find out the email of Dr. Hsu and see if he has an English version.)

周人以蕞爾小邦，崛起渭上，不僅代替文化較高的大邑商，成為古代中國的主流，而
且開八百年基業，為中國歷史上重要的一個時代。在新石器時代的中國，若干平行
發展的文化，各在一個地區滋生發達，相互影響，彼此交流，遂使各個地方文化的
面貌逐漸接近。但是今日號為中國的東亞大陸，在新石器時代並未出現任何一個主
文化，其勢力範圍可以籠罩全局。商王國的文化圈可能遠超過其政治權力所及的範
圍，但是商人與各方國之間，大多有戰爭及貿易的交往，商以大邑商自居，大約只
有商王畿之內的人以此認同。在王畿之外，未必有一個廣泛的共同意識。

殷商時代可以看作一個主軸的政治力量，逐步擴張充實其籠罩的範圍，卻還未能開
創一個超越政治力量的共同文化。因此殷商的神，始終不脫宗族神、部落神的性格。
周人以小邦蔚為大國，其立國過程必須多求助力，因此在先周時代，周人崎嶇晉南
陝右的山地，採擷了農耕文化及北面草原文化的長處，終於與姜姓部族結為奧援。
此後翦商經過，也是穩紮穩打的一步步逼向殷都。天下歸仁，也未嘗不是多所招撫
的另一種說法。及至克商以後，歷武王周公及成康之世的經營，周人的基本策略，
不外乎撫輯殷人，以為我用，再以姬姜與殷商的聯合力量，監督其他部族集團，並
以婚姻關係加強其聯繫，同時進用當地俊民，承認原有信仰。新創之周實際上是一
個諸部族的大聯盟。周人在這個超越部族範圍的政治力量上，還須建立一個超越部
族性質的至高天神的權威，甚至周王室自己的王權也須在道德性的天命之前俯首。
於是周人的世界，是一個

46

[quote=“GangGo”]
I’m not sure i agree with some of this (tho i realize all but the last is your summary of that site.

huh? Shang oracle bones suggest their religion composed of shamanistic origins (character wu e.g.), ancestor worship (emphasis on patrilineal power??). it is likely that other tribes also had a shamanistic past. culturally, even the zhou emulated shang religious aspects like oracle bone/prognostication, bronze ritual vessels like the giant ding.

trad argument is that shang culture spread outwards as the genesis of ‘chineseness’. now other contemporary sites suggest a cross-cultural borrowing and exchange.

[quote]Small Zhou gradually defeated Shang and dominated the area. It achieved it not so much by military actions but mainly via Confucian doctrines (

47

[quote=“LittleBuddhaTW”]
The short answer: the problem with the “5,000 years of history” claim is that there was no concept of a “China” until the time of Qin Shihuang … and assuming my math isn’t that bad, that wasn’t 5,000 years ago …[/quote]

Where do you find a concept of ‘China’ during the time of Qin Shihuang?

48

Writing, as a technology, tends to arise in societies which have developed a certain set of other characteristics as well: division of labor, permanent trade relations, a bureacracy, a standing army, a professional priesthood, public building projects. This is the sort of thing most people have in mind when they say “civilization.” Nationalism is quite different, and quite later. (As an aside, I wonder whether anyone truly thought of themselves as “Chinese” prior to the late Ching? Perhaps while traveling…?)

Now, we can have all sorts of reliable knowledge about periods of history before the appearance of written records. In many cases the written record is less accurate. (Compare, for example, the biblical story of Jericho with the results of archeological research.) So, when does “history” begin? I think you’ll find that historians are quite willing to fudge this issue, and let practical considerations overwhelm theoretical consistency.

Cultural continuity is a hopelessly vague concept. We can perhaps measure genetic continuity, but how am I to decide whether I and my great-grandfather belong to the same culture? I probably have more in common with today’s Taiwanese. (For example, what clothes are we wearing? What kind of jobs do we have?)

49

Note the parentheses around “China”. I think I specified that I was giving a very brief answer, but if you want to get more specific …

“China” itself was a Western invention. From my view of “Chinese” history (again, note the parentheses), it was at this time that someone (namely the First Emperor) came up with the idea to “unite” the various warring states. This unification led to standardization in the writing system, currency, the size of spokes on wheels, etc. From this time on, many of the distinct cultures that existed in other parts of the former warring states (such as Chu, for example) began to gradually merge, become assimilated, or die out. It wasn’t until the Han dynasty and after that the idea of “Han” people came into being, which I equate with having a sense of “Chinese-ness”. But, I believe the process of creating a “China” really began with Qin Shihuang.

At any rate, the history of China is a very complex beast, and this too is probably over-simplified as well.