| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Sinitic Civilization began in 3000 BC in Liangzhu
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Sinitic Civilization began in 3000 BC in Liangzhu

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Sinitic Civilization began in 3000 BC in Liangzhu
    Posted: 02 May 2014 at 21:24
Part I:  The Broken Path
 
I have often wondered why Chinese spoke of 5000 years of continuous civilization in China while westerners claimed China only has 3000 years.  The difference had usually been attributed to the Chinese for using mythological basis to rack up years for its homegrown civilization while westerners only acknowledged China's civilization for the duration of its written history which had only begun 3000 years ago.
 
For many Chinese, though hardly the majority, mythological reference serves just as well as true historiography.  In Chinese folklore, a sagelike emperor called Huangdi, situated around 5000 years ago, was said to have used military might to pacify barbarians headed by a warlike figure, Chiyou, in order to start the prosperous society of Huaxia peoples, the supposed ancestors of Han Chinese supra-ethnic peoples.  Rumour has it that this was the period when the ethnocultural backdrop for the Han Chinese developed since Han Chinese supposedly viewed themselves with prideful regard for achieving distinct nationhood against those less civilized than they.
 
Therefore the mythology of Huangdi and Chiyou served as a reference for the ideal of "civilizing the barbarian masses".  It reasoned civilization in China was created when some men suddenly realized their civilized status by arbitrarily assigning barbarian status for those whom they have deemed necessary to civilize which is another way of saying a superiority complex was key to implementing civilization.  By converting this ideal into a parameter for the search of China's ancient civilization,  many archaeologists discovering upon the artifactual remains of China's neolithic past began to draw associations between the two.
 
Where they found the ending phase of one Chinese neolithic culture became perceived to indicate where an ancient battle was lost against some more civilized conqueror.  Where they found the beginning phase of a Chinese neolithic culture became perceived to indicate transition towards a more civilized status.  In other words they mistook what they discovered through archaeology to necessarily reflect events portrayed in the Huangdi and Chiyou mythology by using the same ideological justification which perpetuated that mythology in the first place.  But in this manner, the archaeology was never verified to demonstrate whether ancient Chinese civilization existed at all.  Rather, all that had been accomplished was the needless rendition of mythology as truth.
 
No grave site of Huangdi nor Chiyou could actually be identified since identifying them would entail the required historiography to reveal the locations of neolithic ceremonial burial sites.  Needless to say those do not exist.  Despite this, efforts were not made to halt early Chinese archaeology from vainfully assigning various grave sites as the final resting grounds of various mythological characters.
 
To be continued in Part II: Clearing a New Path


Edited by literaryClarity - 02 May 2014 at 23:34
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2014 at 06:29
LC wrote: "I have often wondered why Chinese spoke of 5000 years of continuous civilization in China while westerners claimed China only has 3000 years.  The difference had usually been attributed to the Chinese for using mythological basis to rack up years for its homegrown civilization while westerners only acknowledged China's civilization for the duration of its written history which had only begun 3000 years ago."

Is that totally correct?

I thought that the reason for the disparity between Chinese and Western historians was due to the fact that, firstly, there had been comparatively little research done in China, and secondly, China was a bit late in jumping onto the scientific research bandwagon.

The other thing is this- Asian people were living in Siberia >40,000ybp, and they are said to have come from China, which makes sense imo.

Without having an research immediately to hand, I would have thought that China would have been peopled much earlier that 5000 ybp.

The only other thing is, what do you mean by "civilisation"? I find that term highly subjective.



It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2014 at 12:57
Yes that tidbit is correct.  Historians didn't exist in China for the purposes of record keeping for the sake of record keeping until the western Zhou dynasty began.  Before then the Shang dynasty created accidental records through writing but these were for divination purposes and not necessarily for historical record keeping purposes.  Therefore western scholars do not usually assign a 5000 year continuous civilization for China.  Of course people have been existing in China for quite a long time but writing and then with it historical writing didn't appear until later on.

Civilization doesn't appear to have many subjective meanings but I understand what you mean.  In Part 1: The Broken Path, the segment documents what had been meant when mythology is taken as the Chinese civilizational precursor since civilization in that context meant ethnocultural nationhood based on criterion of superiority over those they deem necessary to civilize.  But that is begging the question, the parameter of civilization itself must be something tangible and rigid otherwise the definitions for it could continuously change rendering anyone who thought a more superior ethnocultural background existed to have generated a new civilization.


Edited by literaryClarity - 03 May 2014 at 13:06
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2014 at 14:43
I agree with you. The word "civilisation" is indeed very subjective-but if we exchange it for the word "settlement", it would probably be more relevant.

I could never agree that the settlement of China is only dated to 5000 ybp.

However, I would be interested in discussing the first settlement of China by AMH.

For example, were they part of the original "Out of Africa Coastal Migration" or did they come overland?

Did they come through Europe as an Austronesian group or did they develop in South East Asia?

I don't know. 

It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2014 at 14:49
Further-from Wiki:
"Chinese civilization originated in various regional centers along both the Yellow River and theYangtze River valleys in theNeolithic era, but the Yellow River is said to be the cradle of Chinese civilization."

I find the above interesting, as the origins and homeland of the Cuman people, a Caucasian group, is said to be near the "Big Bend in the Yellow River" in China.

Science tells us that the original Chinese were black-having come out of Africa, but the absolute history of the Cuman people is very vague.





Edited by toyomotor - 10 May 2014 at 04:00
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2014 at 19:24
Civilization has settlement association as a byproduct.  If a new market town settlement was facilitated by an earlier civilization there is no new civilizational meaning attached to it.  The market town settlement's civilization would be categorized by the same civilizational parameters that had underwent settlement before, elsewhere.  If we put this into context of China there are many settlements over the course of tens of thousands of years but newly created writing and with it the potential for its use for Chinese historiography did not appear for each one.

The first settlement of China by Americans in your example dates only to the past few centuries in coastal ports that dealt in trade with abroad and was limited to only items such as furs and furniture but this would not entail that China itself had gained a new civilization every time it happened.  The American had extended his civilization into China who by default had been an extension of the New Englander and so on and so forth until a point when there was no European civilization and potential for new settlement in America by European civilization.  However, civilization in China was homegrown despite whatever settlements by others that it had come across.  The discussion of civilizational origin certainly applies to people whom created it and not by the addition of new settlements which come from abroad.


Edited by literaryClarity - 03 May 2014 at 19:36
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2014 at 22:46
Part II:  Clearing a New Path

Ever since the old archaeology of China shifted away from focusing on mythological understandings new scholarship has been able to forge ahead in the reassessment of earlier finds.  For example the previous narrative which tried explaining the Shang dynasty's rise through its manifestation of cultural superiority over the Xia dynasty is no longer accepted as truth although we ought to keep in mind that such fabrications can still be epigraphically analyzed to gleam important clues about the nature of Chinese mythos.  The mythos of cultural superiority may after all be an important propaganda tool in the eyes of rulers but such narrative devices fall short of explaining exactly how the ruler achieved his position in the first place.  Rather such events can be explained easily through the use of historical epistemology, sociological frameworks, historiography, and archaeological materials.

Through historical epistemology we may come to understand that it may have been the Shang dynasty whom had innovated writing's use in China in ways hitherto not well understood.  The Shang dynasty capital discovered at Anyang was the final in a series of capital transitions which moved them around the map of China.  This was not unlike the move of the Ming capital from Nanjing to Beijing.  Archaeologists were caught by surprise that at Anyang ancient priests carved their famous oracle script on animal bone fragments for the purpose of divination.  The bones which bore inscriptions had contained a treasure trove of important details about the ancient Chinese such as food, rituals, battles, celebrations, etc.  Because much of the vocabulary on these divinatory items have been identified through linguistics and literary epistemological studies it is undoubtedly certain that the implementation of Chinese writing in present time can be traced back to oracle script itself.  But setting that aside, elsewhere in the world, archaeologically speaking as well as epistemologically, ancient writing discovered was always utilized in other ways than divinatory processes.  To take the famous case, in ancient Sumerian civilization, tablets containing information in cuneiform script were used to catalog trade items going about their exchange between merchants.  Archaeologists the world over now agree that writing's utilization for accounting among other purposeful/task driven motives must have a necessary part to play for writing's development overall in any civilization such that it cannot be singled out when determining the path of China's ancient civilization.


Edited by literaryClarity - 03 May 2014 at 22:58
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 04:53
I don't recall mentioning the settlement of China by Americans.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 10:58
I mentioned it because it represents the latest in a series of irrelevant rhetoric about migrations that would have traced ultimately from out of Africa, a rhetoric which you in fact used.  However, if we refer back to historical epistemology and the search for understanding about when where how and why writing developed one could easily understand that China's writing system was uniquely dedicated for use in Chinese civilization.  The idea that Chinese writing and all the trappings of its civilization which go along with the usage of Chinese writing were first implemented abroad and had been relayed to China is bizarre.  China had a system of trade all within itself and with that the propensity to develop writing which was never discovered elsewhere but in China.  And with that writing the propensity to write the histories of China.


Edited by literaryClarity - 04 May 2014 at 11:26
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 12:00
I did not mention settlement of the Americas by the Chinese, unless by a process of extrapolation.
 
Siberians, at least in part, orginated in China. Siberians migrated to the Americas.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 14:26
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Part I:  The Broken Path
 
I have often wondered why Chinese spoke of 5000 years of continuous civilization in China while westerners claimed China only has 3000 years.  The difference had usually been attributed to the Chinese for using mythological basis to rack up years for its homegrown civilization while westerners only acknowledged China's civilization for the duration of its written history which had only begun 3000 years ago.
 
For many Chinese, though hardly the majority, mythological reference serves just as well as true historiography.  In Chinese folklore, a sagelike emperor called Huangdi, situated around 5000 years ago, was said to have used military might to pacify barbarians headed by a warlike figure, Chiyou, in order to start the prosperous society of Huaxia peoples, the supposed ancestors of Han Chinese supra-ethnic peoples.  Rumour has it that this was the period when the ethnocultural backdrop for the Han Chinese developed since Han Chinese supposedly viewed themselves with prideful regard for achieving distinct nationhood against those less civilized than they.

Well, we should distinguish between the origin of Chinese culture... which may be 5000 years old and even twice as longer, with the origin of Chinese civilization, which came a lot later.

People don't usually make the distinction between these concepts. Every human being has a culture, so the origins of Chinese culture can be traced back to the early settlements in that part of the world, which can easily be ten of thousand years ago.

Now, a civilization is a culture of cities, which has some characteristics like a central government, bureaucracy, an army, a post service, international trade, etc., which also have monumental architecture, civil engineering works, and certain techniques like writing (although not all civilization have had it). And those features appeared in China only around 3.000 years ago.







Edited by pinguin - 04 May 2014 at 14:27
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 14:34
Well, with respect to the Americas, the Chinese didn't reach it before the 16th century. Who reached the Americas in pre-Columbian times were Chinese cousins': the Siberians and the ancestors of the Inuits.


A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 15:03
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Well, with respect to the Americas, the Chinese didn't reach it before the 16th century. Who reached the Americas in pre-Columbian times were Chinese cousins': the Siberians and the ancestors of the Inuits.


Civilisation defined:
 
"the stage of human social development and organization which is considered most advanced."
 
So, this means at any particular time, when a peoples human social development reaches its peak, for that period, it is a civilisation.
 
I think you'll find that the mass migration of Chinese into America occurred during the California Gold Rush period.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 15:06
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Part I:  The Broken Path
 
I have often wondered why Chinese spoke of 5000 years of continuous civilization in China while westerners claimed China only has 3000 years.  The difference had usually been attributed to the Chinese for using mythological basis to rack up years for its homegrown civilization while westerners only acknowledged China's civilization for the duration of its written history which had only begun 3000 years ago.
 
For many Chinese, though hardly the majority, mythological reference serves just as well as true historiography.  In Chinese folklore, a sagelike emperor called Huangdi, situated around 5000 years ago, was said to have used military might to pacify barbarians headed by a warlike figure, Chiyou, in order to start the prosperous society of Huaxia peoples, the supposed ancestors of Han Chinese supra-ethnic peoples.  Rumour has it that this was the period when the ethnocultural backdrop for the Han Chinese developed since Han Chinese supposedly viewed themselves with prideful regard for achieving distinct nationhood against those less civilized than they.

Well, we should distinguish between the origin of Chinese culture... which may be 5000 years old and even twice as longer, with the origin of Chinese civilization, which came a lot later.

People don't usually make the distinction between these concepts. Every human being has a culture, so the origins of Chinese culture can be traced back to the early settlements in that part of the world, which can easily be ten of thousand years ago.

Now, a civilization is a culture of cities, which has some characteristics like a central government, bureaucracy, an army, a post service, international trade, etc., which also have monumental architecture, civil engineering works, and certain techniques like writing (although not all civilization have had it). And those features appeared in China only around 3.000 years ago.


 
You really do believe in the supremacy of your own knowledge, don't you?
 
The Chinese "culture" was far more advanced than most of Europe, uch earlier than 3,000ybp.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 15:21
I think you, Toyomotor, purposely distort what I said. I have also noticed that you have a predilection for fantasy. Please, read the posts carefully.
We are arguing in here about when a culture transform into a Civilization. For instance, modern man lived in Europe for 35.000 thousand years before civilization appeared there. We are not discussing if China is superior or inferior to the West. What we now is that a culture of cities (what is call a "civilization") in China only appeared around 3.000 years ago.

 
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 15:30
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

I think you, Toyomotor, purposely distort what I said. I have also noticed that you have a predilection for fantasy. Please, read the posts carefully.
We are arguing in here about when a culture transform into a Civilization. For instance, modern man lived in Europe for 35.000 thousand years before civilization appeared there. We are not discussing if China is superior or inferior to the West. What we now is that a culture of cities (what is call a "civilization") in China only appeared around 3.000 years ago.

 
The term "civilisation" is like the desert sands, always moving.
 
The ancients, wherever they lived at any given time lived in a civilised culture.
 
From our perspective, over 2,000 years later, they were uncivilised...it's a very subjective term imo.
 
As for my fantasizing, mate, I think you're chewing on far too much Peyote or Coca.
 
Getting back on topic, please show some scientific references for your statement on the civilisation of China.
 
I wouldn't take your word for anything because you've been proven wrong too many times.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 15:44
You are a hard headed mind, but that doesn't mean you are right about a topic.

The term "uncivilized" has become political, but we are not talking here about hippie culture. The point is "civilization" is a technical term that describes a type of society and not political term, and that has nothing to do with advancement in morality or racial superiority. Civilization only means a society based on cities.  Therefore, a civilization is a sedentary society, supported by agriculture, and that has a centralized government and a bureaucracy, and that has a surplus enough to dedicate to civil works.

For references, start with wiki.
Civilization. Definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

Chinese history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China


Edited by pinguin - 04 May 2014 at 15:47
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 16:02
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

You are a hard headed mind, but that doesn't mean you are right about a topic.

The term "uncivilized" has become political, but we are not talking here about hippie culture. The point is "civilization" is a technical term that describes a type of society and not political term, and that has nothing to do with advancement in morality or racial superiority. Civilization only means a society based on cities.  Therefore, a civilization is a sedentary society, supported by agriculture, and that has a centralized government and a bureaucracy, and that has a surplus enough to dedicate to civil works.

For references, start with wiki.
Civilization. Definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

Chinese history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China
We may be at cross purposes here.
 
What I'm suggesting is, if you lived in ancient times, and forgetting your 20th Century education, in a community of people of probably all your own ethnicity, would you have considered your culture civilised?
 
I'm suggesing that you would.
 
But, with the benefit of modern education, and access to modern scientific resaerch, you would now say that the same community was uncivilised.
 
If you agree with that, then we both agree.
 
You must understand that I spent my entire adult life listening to people who wanted to tell me their highly flavoured version of some occurrence. Over the years I became very adept at detecting the lies from the mistaken from the truth.
 
You almost never back up your posts with corroberating scientific sources, when you do you frequently either misinterpret them or misrepresent them, and so one is left with only the contents of your mind, which you so generously share with us.
 
Have you heard the US saying about "Snake Oil Salesmen?"
 
Unfortunately most of us didn't come down in the last shower.
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 16:07
You don't stop to read posts. That's the problem.

Let's be clear:
I don't like the term "uncivilized" because it was an invention of Colonial times, together with the use of terms like "savage", "primitive" and others. In fact, It fascinates me the culture of ancient and modern tribal peoples.
All people has a culture, and that's enough for me. And even the simpler cultures has fascinating literature, religion mythology (even if they lack writing, in fact)
With respect to a civilization, it is just a technical term to describe complex state societies with large populations, advanced in material terms.




Edited by pinguin - 04 May 2014 at 16:09
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 16:08
Cultures have existed since the days of the neanderthals' settlements but as far as writing, cities, trade, etc. none of that occurred when they were still alive.  A settlement that regards itself at its highest state of being is not civilization unless it has all those things that make civilization what it is.  Otherwise a civilization is merely conjecture.  For it to be civilization you are considerably more on point when you began to list the various components.  However the idea that those things didn't yet occur until historiography began would be a problematic presumption.

Westerners feel China has a 3000 year continuous civilization because their parameter for continuous civilization means historiography.  Even Europeans don't alot a time beyond when their current civilization was influenced by the addition/replacement by other writing systems because it shows that continuousy unbroken historiography began for Europeans for the sake of European civilization only during after the supposed dark ages.

But in the context of what I'm discussing I'm just discussion civilization, not continuous historiography.  That's why it is a "broken path" and why Chinese no longer use the mythological historical basis for their civilization which was never viable in the first place.


Edited by literaryClarity - 04 May 2014 at 16:26
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 16:23
Well, writing is considered by many like an absolute sign of "civilization"... No matter there are some cases of not very advanced cultures that had writing, like the people of Easter Island for instance. And others were advanced cultures that have all the characteristics of civilization but lacked writing, like the Incas for example.
I believe we have a problem of definition in here. What is a civilization and how it applies to China.


Edited by pinguin - 04 May 2014 at 16:26
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 May 2014 at 16:28
That's why I said you were on point when you began to list the various components, not just one of them.  A body requires a brain afterall and vice versa.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 May 2014 at 09:15
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

That's why I said you were on point when you began to list the various components, not just one of them.  A body requires a brain afterall and vice versa.
 

One day the different parts of the body were having an argument to see which should be in charge.

The brain said “I do all the thinking so I’m the most important and I should be in charge.”

The eyes said “I see everything and let the rest of you know where we are, so I’m the most important and I should be in charge.”

The hands said “Without me we wouldn’t be able to pick anything up or move anything. So I’m the most important and I should be in charge.”

The stomach said “I turn the food we eat into energy for the rest of you. Without me, we’d starve. So I’m the most important and I should be in charge.”

The legs said “Without me we wouldn’t be able to move anywhere. So I’m the most important and I should be in charge.”

Then the rectum said “I think I should be in charge.”

All the rest of the parts said “YOU?!? You don’t do anything! You’re not important! You can’t be in charge.”

So the rectum closed up.

After a few days, the legs were all wobbly, the stomach was all queasy, the hands were all shaky, the eyes were all watery, and the brain was all cloudy. They all agreed that they couldn’t take any more of this and agreed to put the rectum in charge.

The moral of the story?

You don’t have to be the most important to be in charge, just be an asshole!LOL



Edited by toyomotor - 10 May 2014 at 04:03
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 May 2014 at 07:42
LC:
Have a look at the following web site for authoratative info on China.
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 May 2014 at 18:30
This is what the prologue in the papers state as a disclaimer.  Their ideas are interesting but not always considered factual.

Quote
Although the chief focus of Sino-Platonic Papers is on the intercultural relations of China with other peoples, challenging and creative studies on a wide variety of philological subjects will be entertained. This series is not the place for safe, sober, and stodgy presentations. Sino- Platonic Papers prefers lively work that, while taking reasonable risks to advance the field, capitalizes on brilliant new insights into the development of civilization. Submissions are regularly sent out to be refereed, and extensive editorial suggestions for revision
may be offered.

Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 May 2014 at 01:32
And your point is?
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 May 2014 at 07:10
LC:
What's the source of Path I and Path II ?
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 May 2014 at 07:27
LC:
The period in Chinese History recorded between ~2600BCE and 2500 BCE is said to be myth, and this includes the reign of the Yellow Emperor.
What happened during this period, who ruled?
 
 
See also:-
 


Edited by toyomotor - 11 May 2014 at 07:32
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2014 at 01:36
Of course it is myth, written more than a thousand years later.  I've already went through this like 10 times.  Don't you get it?  It is not enough to use myth to justify the pre existence of China's civilization from some far off place by the activities of foreign people some tens of thousands of years earlier when there wasn't any civilization anywhere to begin with.  It is on par with associating whichever came into China as "civilizing" the Chinese.

Even Victor Mair, the unauthoritative source, doesn't say Tarim Mummies made China into what it is today and Tarim Mummies were well into the civilizational timeframe during 3000 years ago.  Because they were descended from people localized to their basin area they were never associated with Chinese civilization.  So even if they were advanced and had writing which we've yet to discover they are considered non Chinese.  Do you not get it?  Your degeneration of the Chinese as having come from Africa or Cumans or India or whatever hardly dignifies what is known by Chinese civilization.  Do you call the English whom colonized Hong Kong for a century the Chinese people because they introduced a bunch of new concepts?

Sinitic civilization in China was manifested not by the random choice of settlement but through the choices made by culture creators to spread their culture in specific ways such as by levels of heirarchy, centralization, state ritual, permanent institutions, establishing trade, surplus, architecture, writing, etc.   As far as I know the 5000 years of continuous Chinese civilization is overwhelmingly characterized by the similarities shared to its neolithic rice growing areas during the Longshan which was convergent around Liangzhu's cultural presence.


Edited by literaryClarity - 12 May 2014 at 01:56
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2014 at 02:01
Not to mention Liangzhu had invented Sinitic writing.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/china-discovers-primitive-5-000-year-old-writing-article-1.1394751



Edited by literaryClarity - 12 May 2014 at 02:04
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.140 seconds.