5 ms·
There are primary sources. There are archeological sites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qianling_Mausoleum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qianling_Mausoleum Th
by A_D_E_P_T 2mo ago
There are primary sources. There are archeological sites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qianling_Mausoleum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qianling_Mausoleum
There are also histories written just after the Tang Dynasty had fallen. It was considered good form for a new dynasty to write a historical review of the previous one, and there are two retrospectives on Tang, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Book_of_Tang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Book_of_Tang
And there is ironclad evidence from foreign sources. Among others, Japanese histories detail the journeys of emissaries to the Tang Court: https://web.archive.org/web/20260315181529/https://japansociety.org/news/the-japanese-missions-to-tang-china-7th-9th-centuries/ https://web.archive.org/web/20260315181529/https://japansoci...
So the theory is bait, and hard to take seriously.
But I'll give it credit for hijacking a genuinely interesting scholarly premise: What is taken quite seriously is the notion that China's first dynasty -- the Xia Dynasty -- never existed. It is of rather mythic proportions; later Chinese would speak of Xia the way Romans would speak of Troy. And there is very little evidence to support its existence. The Shang Dynasty is also supported by rather scant evidence -- and is also mythic, though obviously less so than the Xia.
Worth noting that both the Xia and Shang are exceedingly ancient -- roughly 2000 BC to 1000 BC between them -- unlike the Tang, which fell around 900 AD and is thus middle-of-the-pack by Chinese dynastic standards.
- suzzer99 2mo agoThe Aztecs had the same mythical reverence for the Toltecs.
- senderista 2mo agoThe Shang dynasty is also kind of a propaganda nightmare, with all the archeological evidence for mass human sacrifice.
- A_D_E_P_T 2mo agoYeah. You're probably familiar with the "Hanfu" revival -- a sort of resurgence in people adopting traditional clothing and makeup styles from the Han and Tang dynasties. It's entirely on account of the fact that those two dynasties were remarkably stable, prosperous, and peaceful, so they lend themselves to historical romanticism -- like the Chinese equivalent of the Renaissance Faire. Good vibes. Even popular in Japan, with e.g. The Apothecary Diaries and similar fare. Shang, and all of the post-dynasty collapse centuries like The Spring and Autumn Period, were not great times to live in. Dismal and evil vibes, for the most part, unless you happen to be a mighty hero or bandit-lord who believes that he can conquer the age. Even so, most of them ended up in soup pots.
- SllX 2mo ago> Even popular in Japan, with e.g. The Apothecary Diaries and similar fare. Notably the Tang Dynasty in China was concurrent with the Taika Reforms, Nara period & beginning of the Heian period in Japan.
- A_D_E_P_T 2mo agoAnd thus for a very long time, and even today to some extent, the Japanese (or their cultural theorists at any rate!) have viewed themselves as the inheritors of "true" Ancient Chinese culture -- unsullied by Mongol/Manchu/Communist influence. There's some truth to this. The Japanese preserved certain Tang Dynasty customs which were lost to China, and they have some of the best collections of Tang-era artifacts. This line of thought was, however, used in very unfortunate WWII-era propaganda, like "we have to invade China to rescue its civilization, only we can do this!"
- samudrijan 2mo agoThey resent our freedoms!
- toast0 2mo agoThat was nice of them. I don't know if everyone would have sent them again!
- geokon 2mo agoIn my experience the Chinese very much think this as well. Though it can be framed in a more derogatory way as "derivative" or "they just copied us" I'd argue its difficult to find major aspects of Japanese culture that don't trace back to ancient China (maybe the language, eating raw food and sumo)
- einichi 2mo agoShinto is a big one
- EdwardDiego 2mo agoYour comment sent me to Wikipedia and this caught my eye [0], a Late Shang inscribed rhinoceros rib, which then deepened the wikihole [1], it's funny how even though I know of the Indian rhino and Sumatran rhino, it never occurred to me that they were even more widespread... [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Shang#/media/File:Shang_dynasty_inscribed_bone.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Shang#/media/File:Shang_d... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceroses_in_ancient_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceroses_in_ancient_China
- mac3n 2mo agowait until you find about the Yana River people! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yana_Rhinoceros_Horn_Site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yana_Rhinoceros_Horn_Site
- gloryjulio 2mo agoNot exactly an issue though. Because the following Dynasty Zhou was portrayed as a protagonist, which rebelled against Shang and abolished human sacrifice and established the right Chinese civilization. And all the following dynasties are claiming that Zhou was the good old days and they are following Zhou's tradition. Shang being an villain fits this narrative.
- jmclnx 2mo agoEverywhere in the Wikipedia articles is this phrase "had Han ethnic origins". Looks like China Editors are trying to change history. At least that is based upon what the CNN article is saying.
- EdwardDiego 2mo agoI spotted the same thing, and there's never a source given. Allegedly his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather (or 15th great-grandfather for short) was totally Han, the son of the scourge of the Xiongnu - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Guang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Guang A timely reminder that, damn, China is olllldddd.
- otabdeveloper4 2mo ago> A timely reminder that, damn, China is olllldddd. China proper starts about 1000 BC, so China is quite a bit younger than Europe. (Whatever "Europe" is.)
- drabbiticus 2mo ago> quite a bit younger than You have introduced a comparison, which thus begs the following questions: 1. What is the event that defines "China proper"? 2. What is the event that defines "Europe [proper]" to you?
- otabdeveloper4 2mo ago1. Whatever was happening in Zhou. (Not sure it was really a "dynasty" pe se.) 2. Proto-Indo-European and Ancient Egyptian cultural norms and patterns are still very much alive in "Europe" today, so probably the invention of the wheel in the early Bronze Age is a good start.
- irdc 2mo agoIf you define Europe as Sumer or Egypt, then yes. If you define Europe as Rome, then no. The earliest deciphered Greek writing dates from 1450 BC (Linear B) but that civilisation fell in the Bronze Age collapse and there is no (written) continuity with Europe as it stands today. As far as I'm concerned we're all equally ancient descendants from LUCA.
- brightball 2mo agoThere are times I’m convinced that promoting the Mandela Effect is to enable stuff like this.
- Apocryphon 2mo agoEvery ancient empire did this with their primordial beginnings, from Romulus and Remus to Izanagi and Izanami.
- stvltvs 2mo agoHengist and Horsa
- readthenotes1 2mo agoThe Tang Dynasty is hardly primordial though.
- Apocryphon 2mo agoI was referring to the Xia, the mythical precursor/founding dynasty.
- scythe 2mo ago>And there is ironclad evidence from foreign sources. Including a rather unusual battle between the Tang Dynasty and the Abbasid Caliphate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Talas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Talas It's recorded that the Caliph, on hearing of the battle, said "What is this? A crossover episode?"
- raincole 2mo ago> What is taken quite seriously is the notion that China's first dynasty -- the Xia Dynasty -- never existed There are some nuances about this. We know that there are multiple developed cities (and likely monarchies, given there are palace-like ruins) around or before Xia era. It's just that we don't know which one is so-called Xia Dynasty. But it doesn't meant that there were only small tribes and suddenly Shang came out of nowhere.
- IAmBroom 2mo agoIt doesn't mean anything. There were robber barons in early Norman England. It's just that we don't know which one is so-called Robin Hood... when in reality it's most likely just a pop myth.
- YackerLose 2mo ago>So the theory is bait, and hard to take seriously. There are people who believe that Trump won in 2020, that vaccines cause autism, and that the Holocaust is a hoax. You cannot reason people out of an idea they didn't use reason to arrive at.
- throwawaythekey 2mo agoThe majority of people don't reason themselves into anything, whether it's the mainstream view or the conspiracy. There's just a substantial bias where people assume all 'new knowledge' is wrong. Probably correct most the time, but still often wrong.
- MelonArmiger 2mo agoMy favorite conspiracy of the moment is that Trump won in 2020 and lost in 2024, but they switched them because he needed more time. People truly are regrettable.
- readthenotes1 2mo agoMany of the people I know that believe odd things do use reason, but they only accept certain things as facts and discard other things as dysfactual. Sometimes the things they accept is facts are merely delusions, of course, but that doesn't mean they don't reason. It just means that their reason is based on delusions. Otoh, I also have met a number of people that when you ask "because why" freeze up as they simply have no basis at all and don't understand themselves why they came to hold a position. And we can't forget that wood and witches are the only things that float because Science.
- conmod278 2mo agoThere is a similar theory heavily contested in Indian History that the Vedic period never existed.
- ajross 2mo ago> later Chinese would speak of Xia the way Romans would speak of Troy Troy was indeed largely fabricated though! Really I think that's of a piece with stuff being, y'know, really old. There are big holes in Sumerian and Egyption history too (though the latter helped out a ton by digging secret tombs and hiding them really well). Post-classical Mayan history is pretty suspect in a lot of places, etc...
- insane_dreamer 2mo agoThe Xia and Shang dynasties are necessary to exist in order to maintain the story of "5000 years of Chinese history" that is ingrained into Chinese students and repeated to anyone who will listen
- bulbar 2mo ago> “Certainly under Xi, the CCP now honors the longer trajectory of Chinese history. This means that all history needs to point in a direction that suggests unified (rather than split) identity, historical and cultural continuity, and an idea of ‘China’ as a long-standing entity that has been continuous through history,” he said. That's a weird phrasing for describing that China itself does basically the same thing: Redefining history aka lying about it. That's certainly not 'honoring' the history. So he seems to have incentives to be aligned with Chinese dictates which makes him being an unreliable source.