Eurocentrism & ancient history
John Bicketts
On Sun, 7 Sep 1997 06:51:08 GMT, b...@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
wrote:
>If medieval and modern Europe deserve a central place in the college
>curricula, then presumably the traditional emphasis on ancient
>Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and Rome makes sense. These are the ancient
>cultures that had the greatest influence on Europe.
>
>Otherwise, if multiculturalism prevails, we can expect to see a broadening
>of the traditional curricula to include more about ancient China, India,
>pre-Columbian America, and every other place under the sun. Is this a
>good idea? Or will the need to cover so much territory make it impossible
>to study the ancient history of any region in more than a superficial way?
>
I think that cultures should be studied in an ammount relative to
their influence on present-day history. Since obviously Western
European culture is, for better or worse, the most influential
cultural strain these past 500 years, it and it's ancestors obviously
still deserve considerable study. After that, I'd include other major
cultures like India, Islam and China , and of course one should learn
something about every important culture, at least for the sake of
historical and cultural perspective.
>--
> Ben Carter internet address: b...@netcom.com
--John Bicketts
Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
LenLW
>From: sfei...@mach3ww.com (John Bicketts)
>I think that cultures should be studied in an ammount relative to
>their influence on present-day history.
How can that be measured?
For example, there were cultures many centuries ago who contributed to the
form of writing we use today - and therefore strongly influenced our culture.
> one should learn
>something about every important culture, at least for the sake of
>historical and cultural perspective
Very true!
Donald Tucker
John Bicketts (sfei...@mach3ww.com) writes:
> [cut] b...@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) wrote:
>
>>If medieval and modern Europe deserve a central place in the college
>>curricula, then presumably the traditional emphasis on ancient
>>Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and Rome makes sense. These are the ancient
>>cultures that had the greatest influence on Europe.
>>
>>Otherwise, if multiculturalism prevails, we can expect to see a broadening
>>of the traditional curricula to include more about ancient China, India,
>>pre-Columbian America, and every other place under the sun. Is this a
>>good idea? Or will the need to cover so much territory make it impossible
>>to study the ancient history of any region in more than a superficial way?
>>
>
> I think that cultures should be studied in an ammount relative to
> their influence on present-day history. Since obviously Western
> European culture is, for better or worse, the most influential
> cultural strain these past 500 years, it and it's ancestors obviously
> still deserve considerable study. After that, I'd include other major
> cultures like India, Islam and China , and of course one should learn
> something about every important culture, at least for the sake of
> historical and cultural perspective.
Yes, Western European culture and the antecedent cultures of
the SW Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean are still the major
influence on modern Western culture. But there is an increasing
influence from China and Japan, and to some extent India, which
should be refected in a history course. Modern Western culture
can only be explained as the sum of its historical antecedents.
Consider the following three lists of contributions from
China, Japan, and India. To explain these elements in
modern Western culture, some explanation of Chinese and
Japanese (and perhaps Indian) history is essential. To the
extent that other cultures have contributed to modern Western
cultre, an expanation of their histories is also appropriate.
Note the many Chinese influences in modern Western culture:
Technology:
Some of technological inventions made in China before
Europe copied them or invented them independently:
Silk,
Compass (1st century BCE),
Paper-making (in use since the 2nd or 3rd century),
Block-printing, (in use since the 7th century),
Moveable type (invented 1041 to 1048),
Gunpowder (perfected in the late 9th century),
Fireworks (10th century),
Suspension bridges (25 BCE using bamboo, later with Iron-chain),
Pleated fan (8th century),
Umbrella (11th century),
Water-powered textile machinery (in use since the 5th century),
Porcelain technology (in use since the 7th century),
Blast-furnace iron casting (in use since the 4th century BCE),
Double action piston bellows (in use since the 4th century BCE),
Gimbal suspension (in use since the 2nd century BCE),
Chain drive (invented 976)--used in a mechanical clock
(used since the 8th century),
Deep-drilling for natural gas (in use since the 1st century BCE),
Kites (in use since the 5th century).
Foods, drinks, cooking:
Chopsticks
Wok and deep frying, and development of a vast range of cooking
methods, steamed, barbecue,
Tea
Dim Sum
Noodles
Dumplings
Fortune cookies
Lychee
Kiwi fruit
Persimmons
Bean sprouts
Bok choy
Snow peas
Shiitake mushroom
Water chestnuts
Won ton soup
Peking duck
Egg roll
Tofu (bean curd)
Many spices, including:
Cardomon, Cassia, Cinnamon, Cloves (originated in Indonesia),
Coriander, etc
Many sauces and condiments, including:
Brown bean sauce, Oyster sauce, Plum sauce, Shrimp paste,
Soy sauce.
Art and Design:
Brush painting
Calligraphy
Fans
Chinoiserie
Pagoda
Ceramics and Porcelain
Rugs (Turkestan origin)
Chinese literature
Shi qing, Xiyu Qi, Hung Lou Meng
Myths, tales and legends to instruct children
Film and Television:
Martial arts and other action cinema
Sonny Chiba, Bruce Lee, John Woo, Jackie Chan
Quality films
Chen Kaige, Zhang Yimou, Tian Zhuangshuang
Games and Leisure:
Kites
Go (wei qi)
Mah Jong
Pai Gow (heavenly dominoes)
Fan Tan
Fashion:
Cheongsam
Martial arts, Kung Fu, Tai Ch'i
Ideas and Philosophy:
Abacus
Sun Tzu, _The Art of War_
Ching-Ning Chu, _Thick Black Theory_
"Asian values" based on Confucius
Astrology
I Ching
Chan Meng (dream analysis)
Physiogomy
Feng Shui (wind and water) environmental harmony for buildings
Traditional Chinese Medicine:
Acupuncture, Acupressure, Herbal and dietary therapy.
Chinese religions:
Taoism, Confucianism
Organized Crime:
Headquartered in Hong Kong and Taiwan, involved in international
crime in the West.
Note the many Japanese influences in modern Western culture:
Technology:
Audio:
Walkman
CD (Compact disk)
DAT (Digital audio tape)
Video:
U-matic broadcast quality Videotape recording system
Consumer version of VTR (video tape recorder), Betamax then VHS
Laserdisk
High Definition TV (analog version)
Interactive entertainment (home gaming)
Nintendo
Sega
CD-ROM players for computer games
Motorcycles (Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki)
Automobiles (Toyota, Isuzu, Mitsubishi, Mazda, Honda, Nissan,
Subaru)
Cultured pearls
Foods, drinks, cooking:
Sushi
Tempura
Sake
MSG (monosodium glutamate)
Art and Design:
Designer plants, Bonsai and Ikebana
Daruma
Architectual style
Graphic design
Japonisme
Ceramics and Porcelain
Sanrio Inc. (Kitty and friends)
Decor and furnishings:
Futon
Paper lantern
Shoji screen
Tatami mat
Ukiyo-e (woodblock prints)
Japanese literature:
Manyoshu, Genji Monogatari
Manga (cartoon art)
Myths, tales and legends to instruct children
Film and Television:
Anime (animated film)
Dragon Ball, Robotech, Sailor Moon, Speed Racers, Star
Blazers, Astro Boy
Chambara (samurai) cinema
Monster cinema
Godzilla, Gamera, Giant Robots, Transformers, Ultraman
Quality films
Kurosawa, Mizoguchi, Oshima, Ozu, Imamura
Mighty Morphin Power Rangers
Ninjas
Games and Leisure:
Menko (origin of Pogs)
Karaoke
Origami
Pachinko
Sumo
Furoshiki (gift wrapping)
Pets: Goldfish, Toy dogs (Lhasa Apso, Pekinese, Shih-Tzu)
Music:
Kodo drums, "Sukiyaki" (pop), Kitaro (New Age)
Fashion:
Kimono, Tatooing (Chinese origin, also Micronesia)
Martial arts, including:
Jujutsu (precursor to Aikido and Judo), Karate (originated
in Okinawa), Ninjutsu
Ideas and Philosophy:
Miyamoto Mushashi, _The Book of the Five Rings_
Management techniques: Flexible Manufacturing System, Hoshin
Kanri, Kaizen, Kanban, Keiretsu, Quality Circles, Theory Z
Japanese religions:
Zen Buddhism
Purchase of companies in the West
Organized Crime:
Yakuza involved in international crime in the West
Note the significant Indian influences in modern Western culture.
The list is substantial but less impressive than the Chinese and
Japanese lists:
Technology:
Cotton
Indigo die
Foods, drinks, cooking:
Rice
Citrus fruits (also originated in SE Asia)
Mango (originated in SE Asia)
Banana (originated in Malaysia)
Dal
Tandoori
Many spices, including: Basil, Ginger (originated in tropical
Asia), Pepper, Tamarind, Tumeric
Many sauces and condiments, including:
Curry, Chutney
Art and Design:
Taj Mahal
Hindu literature
Mahabharata, Ramayana, Bhagavad Gita, Kama Sutra
Salman Rushdie
Myths, tales and legends to instruct children
Film and Television:
Bombay films, "Bollywood"
Quality films
Satyajit Ray
Games and Leisure:
Chess
Chutes (snakes) and ladders
Parcheesi
Music:
Ravi Shankar
Fashion:
Bandanna
Jodhpur
Kurta
Nehru Jacket
Pajama
Sari
Textiles: Madras, Paisley, Khaki (British Raj), Tie-die
Ideas and Philosophy:
Vedic sciences:
Yoga
Ayrveda (alternative medicine)
Self-knowledge
Astrology
Palmistry
Gurus
Ghandi, and his non-violent strategy for protest
Indian religions:
Hinduism
Buddhism
Note: Research for the Chinese technology list relies on the
work of Joseph Needham. The remaining items were inspired by
Jeff Yang, Dina Gan, Terry Hong & the staff of A. Magazine,
_Eastern Standard Time_ (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1997).
These lists suggest that the history of the remaining non-Western
cultures does not need to be taught in nearly as much detail as
the Chinese, Japanese (and perhaps Indian) cultures, or the history
of the ancient and medieval cultures of SW Asia and the Mediterranean
(Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, Greece, Rome, Byzantium and Islam)
that influenced the development of Western civilization.
Cheers Global history; Alternate history; Maps; ___,__<@~__,___
Donald Civilizations Timelines, pinyin at: /^/^/^[#]^\^\^\
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4123/ _/|\_
Pteranodon logo Copyright © 1996 " " ©1996
Kirby Urner
sfei...@mach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
I think a lot of these "what cultures were the source
of what" analyses, while useful, overlook another way
of divvying up history: landlubber versus seagoing
cultures. From a landlubber perspective, it looks
like we have all these seperate peoples with little
knowledge of one another and extreme local biases,
perpetuated to this day. From a more seagoing per-
spective, you have a lot of cosmopolitanism going
back to ancient times, with the multicultural synergies
happening most explicitly and intentionally in those
cultures evolving around a core of maritime tech.
Kirby
----------------------------------------------------
Kirby Urner "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU
Email: pd...@teleport.com
Web: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/
eda...@cts.com
[list snipped]
>
>Note: Research for the Chinese technology list relies on the
>work of Joseph Needham. The remaining items were inspired by
>Jeff Yang, Dina Gan, Terry Hong & the staff of A. Magazine,
>_Eastern Standard Time_ (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin
>Company, 1997).
>
>These lists suggest that the history of the remaining non-Western
>cultures does not need to be taught in nearly as much detail as
>the Chinese, Japanese (and perhaps Indian) cultures, or the history
>of the ancient and medieval cultures of SW Asia and the Mediterranean
>(Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, Greece, Rome, Byzantium and Islam)
>that influenced the development of Western civilization.
>
Your list of cultural influences has several flaws. I'll give an example of
each:
Silk - Europe didn't produce silk because silkworms are not native to Europe.
Importing a species of flora or fauna is hardly a cultural influence.
Moveable type - This was developed independently in Europe. Again, hardly a
cultural influence.
Hinduism - For something to be a cultural influence, it has to be widely
adopted.
Walkman - This came about after Japan became westernized. It is a better
example of the the western influence on the rest of the world.
Eliminating things that fit the above categories the list gets much smaller:
>Note the many Chinese influences in modern Western culture:
> Technology:
> Some of technological inventions made in China before
> Europe copied them or invented them independently:
> Paper-making (in use since the 2nd or 3rd century),
> Gunpowder (perfected in the late 9th century),
> Fireworks (10th century),
> Porcelain technology (in use since the 7th century),
> Film and Television:
> Martial arts and other action cinema
> Sonny Chiba, Bruce Lee, John Woo, Jackie Chan
> Games and Leisure:
> Kites
> Go (wei qi)
> Mah Jong
> Pai Gow (heavenly dominoes)
>
>Note the many Japanese influences in modern Western culture:
> Technology:
> Cultured pearls
> Foods, drinks, cooking:
> MSG (monosodium glutamate)
> Art and Design:
> Designer plants, Bonsai and Ikebana
>Note the significant Indian influences in modern Western culture.
>The list is substantial but less impressive than the Chinese and
>Japanese lists:
> Games and Leisure:
> Chess
> Chutes (snakes) and ladders
> Parcheesi
> Fashion:
> Nehru Jacket
> Pajama
A few of the items may have been independent invetnions, so I left them. There
really wasn't much influence from east Asia on the west.
You're going to have to remove the extra stuff from my address to reply.
Edmond Dantes
eda...@cts.com
Benjamin P. Carter
le...@aol.com (LenLW) writes:
>For example, there were cultures many centuries ago who contributed to the
>form of writing we use today - and therefore strongly influenced our culture.
The original (Semitic) alphabet and its subsequent modifications by
Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans are certainly part of the mainstream of
ancient antecedents to Western culture. Medieval scripts associated with
various parts of Europe are also of central importance to an understanding
of the modern world. Caroline minuscule, for example, obviously resembles
lower-case type fonts.
Chris Dunlea
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>
> >Silk - Europe didn't produce silk because silkworms are not native to Europe.
> >Importing a species of flora or fauna is hardly a cultural influence.
>
> hmmm, culture A has artifact 1, culture B does not. When culture B
> comes into contact with culture A it acquires artifact 1.
>
> Sounds like a cultural influence to me.
>
I'd agree with that, especially since Italy began sericulture in the
later middle ages.
Hinduism - For something to be a cultural influence, it has to be widely
> >adopted.
>
> I must admit to being highly ignorant of Hinduism but it is quite possible
> for a philosophical outlook of one culture to /influence/ another culture
> without being fully adopted. How this would apply to Hinduism and esp. to
> the Middle Ages is beyond my knowledge base.
>
True, but to reasonably ascribe a cultural contribution from one culture
to the next there must be a definable contact point, and evidence of
adopting the innovation. The British were quite ignorant (in certain
cases, willfully so) of Hinduism before the early nineteenth century,
and never adopted the religion or its philosophies in their culture.
Curry, on the other hand, was widely adopted and is the most popular
"ethnic" food in the British world.
> >Walkman - This came about after Japan became westernized. It is a better
> >example of the the western influence on the rest of the world.
>
> I wasn't aware that Japan had become westernized.
>
I'd have to say so. The amazing drive of Westernization was consciously
started by the Japanese in 1868 and was a clearcut attempt to emulate
the political, social, economic and technological norms of the West. To
what else would you ascribe the wide popularity of Christmas gift-giving
in a nation with a 1% Christian population?
> Was it the transistor radio that western companies failed to produce/sell?
> In any case there have been a number of technological do-hickeys that
> were originally discovered in the U.S. but were developed to their full
> potential in Asia.
>
> The mirror of this is the discovery of fireworks in China, and it's
> development into gunpowder in Europe.
>
Exactly. But just as we ascribe the development of fireworks (and
gunpowder) to China, they are not ascribed to Europe. An example of your
point would be that the Chinese invented cannon but the Europeans
invented rifles.
> (though I thought I had recently read that gunpowder was independently
> discovered in Europe, could somebody clarify?)
>
Dynamite and akin explosives, yes, but gunpowder was (to my knowledge)
a purely Chinese disovery.
[snip]
> Robert
>
> Mor...@physics.niu.edu
> Real Men change diapers
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
Chris Dunlea <crdu...@erols.com> writes:
>mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>> >Walkman - This came about after Japan became westernized. It is a better
>> >example of the the western influence on the rest of the world.
>> I wasn't aware that Japan had become westernized.
>I'd have to say so. The amazing drive of Westernization was consciously
>started by the Japanese in 1868 and was a clearcut attempt to emulate
>the political, social, economic and technological norms of the West. To
>what else would you ascribe the wide popularity of Christmas gift-giving
>in a nation with a 1% Christian population?
I think I am shading the meaning of "being westernized" somewhat differently
than you are.
Clearly Japan has been significantly influenced by western culture,
but just as clearly (IMHO) its culture remains quite distinct.
e.g. while lifetime contracts are no longer the rule it is my
impression that worker <--> employer loyalty is much greater there
than in the west, and that manifestations of that (not laying off
employees nearly as quickly) "enforced" by culture, not by labor
unions or politics.
>Exactly. But just as we ascribe the development of fireworks (and
>gunpowder) to China, they are not ascribed to Europe. An example of your
>point would be that the Chinese invented cannon but the Europeans
>invented rifles.
>> (though I thought I had recently read that gunpowder was independently
>> discovered in Europe, could somebody clarify?)
>gunpowder was (to my knowledge) a purely Chinese disovery.
Robert
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
eda...@cts.com writes:
>bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Donald Tucker) writes:
>>John Bicketts (sfei...@mach3ww.com) writes:
>>> [cut] b...@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) wrote:
>Your list of cultural influences has several flaws. I'll give an example of
>each:
>Silk - Europe didn't produce silk because silkworms are not native to Europe.
>Importing a species of flora or fauna is hardly a cultural influence.
hmmm, culture A has artifact 1, culture B does not. When culture B
comes into contact with culture A it acquires artifact 1.
Sounds like a cultural influence to me.
Now, had the Asians not already developed the method of obtaining
silk from the silk worm and making it into cloth you might have a
point.
There is clearly no superiority being inferred here, the fact that
Asia developed silk cloth was a matter of geographic happenstance.
>Hinduism - For something to be a cultural influence, it has to be widely
>adopted.
I must admit to being highly ignorant of Hinduism but it is quite possible
for a philosophical outlook of one culture to /influence/ another culture
without being fully adopted. How this would apply to Hinduism and esp. to
the Middle Ages is beyond my knowledge base.
>Walkman - This came about after Japan became westernized. It is a better
>example of the the western influence on the rest of the world.
I wasn't aware that Japan had become westernized.
Was it the transistor radio that western companies failed to produce/sell?
In any case there have been a number of technological do-hickeys that
were originally discovered in the U.S. but were developed to their full
potential in Asia.
The mirror of this is the discovery of fireworks in China, and it's
development into gunpowder in Europe.
(though I thought I had recently read that gunpowder was independently
discovered in Europe, could somebody clarify?)
I would argue that this is a crosspollenation, west influences east and
east influences west.
Business models have been going through the same type of thing.
Joseph Askew
eda...@cts.com wrote:
: >>>If medieval and modern Europe deserve a central place in the college
: >>>curricula, then presumably the traditional emphasis on ancient
: >>>Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and Rome makes sense. These are the ancient
: >>>cultures that had the greatest influence on Europe.
I have no idea what the fuss is about. I would be happy if students
learnt *any* history, regardless of whether it was Classical, modern
European or medieval Slavic. But they don't. I know students who do
not even know which side Japan was on in World War Two.
Arguing about what sort of history students don't want to learn
seems a little pointless to me.
: >These lists suggest that the history of the remaining non-Western
: >cultures does not need to be taught in nearly as much detail as
: >the Chinese, Japanese (and perhaps Indian) cultures, or the history
: >of the ancient and medieval cultures of SW Asia and the Mediterranean
: >(Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, Greece, Rome, Byzantium and Islam)
: >that influenced the development of Western civilization.
Well the education system I would recommend anyone is Taiwan's. They
spend about half their time on Chinese history. But the other half
they cover pretty much everything. Classical Greek history, Rome,
the middle ages, India, Peru, the Aztecs, the rise of Islam. You
name it and they cover it. Not very well, arts related subjects
are not a high priority so their text books do not keep up with the
West in history (although their Chinese history is better than most
you find in Uni courses in the West and their science and Math is
certainly as up to date as you can get). But they do cover it all.
I don't see why the West couldn't if we were prepared to run a
similar education system.
: Your list of cultural influences has several flaws.
Putting Salman Rushde down as a Hindu writer for a start.
: I'll give an example of
: each:
: Silk - Europe didn't produce silk because
: silkworms are not native to Europe.
Not true at all. Silkworms are found all over the place.
And the limiting requirement was *not* possession of silk worms.
The silk industry is as high tech as you can get without silicon.
: Importing a species of flora or fauna is hardly a cultural influence.
If that was all it was then even then it might not be true. But
it wasn't. You need a whole range of highly delicate and very
complicated techniques before you can produce good quality silk.
Skills the West lacked until very recently.
: Moveable type - This was developed independently in Europe. Again, hardly a
: cultural influence.
Depends if someone didn't see someone in China or Korea using it
and thought about it for a while. Remember stimulus diffusion.
Some PNG tribes invented their own alphabet after *hearing* about
the concept but before seeing an example or meeting a literate
person.
: Hinduism - For something to be a cultural influence, it has to be widely
: adopted.
No it doesn't.
And of course everyone has lef t off the modern civil service recruited
by examination. A major influence on the West from China. One which has
made the modern world possible.
Joseph
--
"It formed with the rest of the solar system, around five
billion years ago. That's fifteen million human generations"
Kim Stanley Robinson, _Red Mars_, Part Three, The Crucible
Punnadhammo
A comment on this thread;
If anything I think Donald Tucker underestimated the influences of the
east upon the west, at least as regards India.
Philosopical and spiritual ideas found their way from India into the Near
East and the Hellenic world at least going back to the missions of Asoka.
Neo-platonism is nothing but worked over Buddhism. And this was a major
source of mature Christianity via the gospel of John.
Indian philosophical speculation was at least as advanced as the Greek and
the two streams mingled in the hellenistic world when the macedonians
ruled Bactria. The Questions of King Milinda preserves a dialogue of east
& west.
Many details of the life of Christ (eg. especially the episode of simeon)
are lifted directly from the legendary life of the Buddha.
Monasticism began in India and quite possibly was introduced into
Christianity via old pre-christian monastic establishments in Eygpt that
may originally have been buddhist or buddhist-inspired.
Also India invented the zero laying the basis for all subsequent
mathematics. This crucial concept came into europe via the arabs.
And although I don't think it ever influenced the west, Indian (& chinese)
cosmology was much closer to the modern model than the
aritotelian-ptolemaic model.
Finally, aren't all these high cultures worth studying for their own
intrinsic value?
--
Punnadhammo Bhikkhu
Arrow River Community Center
http://www.foxnet.net/~arcc/home.html
Chris Dunlea
Punnadhammo wrote:
>
> A comment on this thread;
>
> If anything I think Donald Tucker underestimated the influences of the
> east upon the west, at least as regards India.
>
> Philosopical and spiritual ideas found their way from India into the Near
> East and the Hellenic world at least going back to the missions of Asoka.
> Neo-platonism is nothing but worked over Buddhism. And this was a major
> source of mature Christianity via the gospel of John.
>
(similar stuff snipped)
> Monasticism began in India and quite possibly was introduced into
> Christianity via old pre-christian monastic establishments in Eygpt that
> may originally have been buddhist or buddhist-inspired.
>
Perhaps, but can you prove this? For example, are any buddhist prayer
boks, symbols, beads to be found in Palentine? In the ruins of
synagogues or cities? Because without evidence of artifacts, scrolls or
the like it's all speculation.
> Also India invented the zero laying the basis for all subsequent
> mathematics. This crucial concept came into europe via the arabs.
>
>
> Finally, aren't all these high cultures worth studying for their own
> intrinsic value?
>
Absolutely. No course in world history would be complete without India,
China, Islam, or africa (to name the most obvious non-euro influences).
But to ascribe cultural influence without really showing a transfer link
is to just guess.
Herb
eda...@cts.com wrote:
<big snip>
>> cultures like India, Islam and China , and of course one should
> learn
> >> something about every important culture, at least for the sake of
> >> historical and cultural perspective.
My biggest arguement here would be that Islam would really need to be
included as a main component. Much of the activity in Europe (and not
just the Crusades) were done at least in part due to Islamic activity.
Also, Islamic culture had large influences in the west, especially in
the preservation of earlier Medaterrian culture. I guess this just
reinforces the problem of what is an important influence and what isn't
Herb Nowell
eda...@cts.com
In <5v4j5g$79a$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>eda...@cts.com wrote:
>
>: I'll give an example of
>: each:
>
>: Silk - Europe didn't produce silk because
>: silkworms are not native to Europe.
>
>Not true at all. Silkworms are found all over the place.
This may currently be the case. China knew that silk was a valuable export, and
tightly controled the worms. They had to be smuggled to Europe (by a couple of
Jesuits, if memeory serves).
It might also be the case that only a specific breed of silkworms are usefull
for making silk, and the ubiquitios worms you are refering to don't fit the
bill.
>And the limiting requirement was *not* possession of silk worms.
>The silk industry is as high tech as you can get without silicon.
>: Importing a species of flora or fauna is hardly a cultural influence.
>
>If that was all it was then even then it might not be true. But
>it wasn't. You need a whole range of highly delicate and very
>complicated techniques before you can produce good quality silk.
>Skills the West lacked until very recently.
>
It is interseting that the mechanical coccoon unwinder was invented by Italians.
One reason that Eupopean silk was lacking is that most of the creative energy of
Europe regarding technology was devoded to making greater quantities of stuff at
a lower cost.
>: Moveable type - This was developed independently in Europe. Again, hardly a
>: cultural influence.
>
>Depends if someone didn't see someone in China or Korea using it
>and thought about it for a while. Remember stimulus diffusion.
>Some PNG tribes invented their own alphabet after *hearing* about
>the concept but before seeing an example or meeting a literate
>person.
In the fifteenth century, unlikely.
>: Hinduism - For something to be a cultural influence, it has to be widely
>: adopted.
>
>No it doesn't.
Of course it does. By definition that is what cultural influence is.
>And of course everyone has lef t off the modern civil service recruited
>by examination. A major influence on the West from China. One which has
>made the modern world possible.
I doubt that ther was any acutal copying. It is a obvious solution to nepotism
which is a universal human problem. I'd have to see some documentation of
acutal discusions advocating copying the chinese system before I accept it.
Paul J. Gans
eda...@cts.com wrote:
: In <5v4j5g$79a$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
: >eda...@cts.com wrote:
: >
: >: I'll give an example of
: >: each:
: >
: >: Silk - Europe didn't produce silk because
: >: silkworms are not native to Europe.
: >
: >Not true at all. Silkworms are found all over the place.
: This may currently be the case. China knew that silk was a
: valuable export, and tightly controled the worms. They had
: to be smuggled to Europe (by a couple of
: Jesuits, if memeory serves).
Frances and Joseph Gies, in _Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel_
agree with you, except that they place the coup of stealing
the worms on the shoulders of a couple of 6th century Greek
monks.
[deletions]
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Chris Dunlea
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
I think I am shading the meaning of "being westernized" somewhat
differently
> than you are.
>
> Clearly Japan has been significantly influenced by western culture,
> but just as clearly (IMHO) its culture remains quite distinct.
> e.g. while lifetime contracts are no longer the rule it is my
> impression that worker <--> employer loyalty is much greater there
> than in the west, and that manifestations of that (not laying off
> employees nearly as quickly) "enforced" by culture, not by labor
> unions or politics.
>
I'm not sure that stands as a defining difference. Unless you are
posting from college you'll certainly remember that not so long ago that
too was part of our culture. There are plenty of people in this country
over 50 who remember that the expectation was to go to school, hopefully
get a high school diploma and get a job at the
factory/bank/store/whatever and get out after 35 years or so with a
pension and gold watch.
So I'm not sure corporate committments to secure employment policies
help define between East and West. BTW, if you read the Wall Street
Journal or the like, you'll note that Japan is in a severe recession and
is starting to lay people off at the firms.
> >Exactly. But just as we ascribe the development of fireworks (and
> >gunpowder) to China, they are not ascribed to Europe. An example of your
> >point would be that the Chinese invented cannon but the Europeans
> >invented rifles.
>
> >> (though I thought I had recently read that gunpowder was independently
> >> discovered in Europe, could somebody clarify?)
>
> >gunpowder was (to my knowledge) a purely Chinese disovery.
>
Bill Perez
eda...@cts.com wrote:
>
> In <5v4j5g$79a$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
> >eda...@cts.com wrote:
> >
> >: I'll give an example of
> >: each:
> >
> >: Silk - Europe didn't produce silk because
> >: silkworms are not native to Europe.
> >
> >Not true at all. Silkworms are found all over the place.
>
> This may currently be the case. China knew that silk was a valuable export, and
> tightly controled the worms. They had to be smuggled to Europe (by a couple of
> Jesuits, if memeory serves).
>
> for making silk, and the ubiquitios worms you are refering to don't fit the
> bill.
>
> >And the limiting requirement was *not* possession of silk worms.
> >The silk industry is as high tech as you can get without silicon.
>
> >: Importing a species of flora or fauna is hardly a cultural influence.
> >
> >If that was all it was then even then it might not be true. But
> >it wasn't. You need a whole range of highly delicate and very
> >complicated techniques before you can produce good quality silk.
> >Skills the West lacked until very recently.
> >
> It is interseting that the mechanical coccoon unwinder was invented by Italians.
> One reason that Eupopean silk was lacking is that most of the creative energy of
> Europe regarding technology was devoded to making greater quantities of stuff at
> a lower cost.
You do not make a very good case for Europe on this point. It's obvious
that simply having a bunch of silkworm-infested mulberry bushes in your
backyard suffices for a silk industry, and just the *idea* that such an
infestation can lead to high-quality luxury textiles, I think, can
qualify as a cultural transfer, aside from the many techniques and
admonitions that surely accompanied the worm's trip west.
>
> >: Moveable type - This was developed independently in Europe. Again, hardly a
> >: cultural influence.
> >
> >Depends if someone didn't see someone in China or Korea using it
> >and thought about it for a while. Remember stimulus diffusion.
> >Some PNG tribes invented their own alphabet after *hearing* about
> >the concept but before seeing an example or meeting a literate
> >person.
>
> In the fifteenth century, unlikely.
>
> >: Hinduism - For something to be a cultural influence, it has to be widely
> >: adopted.
> >
> >No it doesn't.
>
> Of course it does. By definition that is what cultural influence is.
Is that true? You say "widely adopted." Couldn't one culture influence
only the elites in another culture (and therefore not be "widely"
adopted) and thus come to have strong influence? Couldn't a cultural
idea, or fashion, be only partly adopted, or seriously distorted in
transmission, and still have influence? Couldn't one culture influence
another by actually being anathema, never adopted at all let alone
"widely," yet prompting all sorts of ideological defenses and responses
that otherwise would never have been dreamed of? Couldn't influence come
in the form of an adaptive imperative, a need to address the
possibilities presented by another culture?
With regard to the possible influence of Hinduism, it seems to me that
Buddhism is somewhat derivative from certain strains of Hinduism. And
William McNeill, in his massive "The Rise of the West" (an interesting
title--and must read--in light of this debate), makes a tantalizingly
truncated case for a Hindic influence on the mystic traditions in Islam
and Christianity. I myself am struck by the (superficial?) similarity in
the role of Jesus in Christianity, and the (somewhat older) role of the
Boddhisatva in Buddhism.
Bill Perez
John Bicketts wrote:
>
> I think that cultures should be studied in an ammount relative to
> their influence on present-day history.
Why? Should the sciences be studied in an amount relative to their
influence on contemporary society? This would mean that most of
astronomy would simply be dropped, especially anything that dealt with
phenomena outside our solar system. Any and all study of fossils would
be deemed a complete waste of time. And what about advanced mathematics?
It is often derided as having "no applications."
How about these reasons for studying history:
To provide a full accounting of the possibilities of human organization
thus far.
To provide test cases for theories of social power, or technological
advance, or cultural adaptation.
For its beauty; for the love of knowledge.
Because it continues to surprise.
Also: How can we ascertain the relative influences of different
cultures' histories if these histories are not studied?
> Since obviously Western
> European culture is, for better or worse, the most influential
> cultural strain these past 500 years, it and it's ancestors obviously
> still deserve considerable study.
Agreed.
> After that, I'd include other major
> cultures like India, Islam and China , and of course one should learn
> something about every important culture, at least for the sake of
> historical and cultural perspective.
But why this attempt at triage? I believe all these topics "deserve
considerable study." After all, if we really wanted to cover the period
of human existence with the most import to the present, I guess we would
have to spend 90% of our time pondering life about 40,000-50,000 years
ago, with the rest mostly spent on the transition to Neolithic ways.
BOP
RomanBtch
You guys are forgetting one important point. In many colleges, world
history is taught independently from western civ. Thus, if you are
interested in learning about Europe, you can take western
civilization, and if you want to have a multi-cultural perspective,
you can take world history. As far as cultural influences, those are
taught in western civ classes, for example, in my second western civ
class, I had to do reading on the Islamic culture, and how it came
about, because later on I'd have to read about their influence in
Southern Spain.
Oh, and when I studied greek history, I had to learn quite a lot about
the persians in order to understand Herodotus' account of the Persian
Wars. Those are a few examples, to show that western civ is not taught
in isolation, but rather, it incorporates information about cultures
that have been very influencial to the West. China, India and Japan
were not very influential in Western history till modern times, which
is very much out of my scope, since I study Classics. I chose western
civ because I needed to gather information for my own field of study,
but I didnt spend 10 weeks reading about Greece and Rome; i spent some
time studying Egypt, the Mesopotamia, and Palestine as well.
please don't reply by email =)
On 9 Sep 1997 08:02:48 GMT, eda...@cts.com wrote:
-
-In <5v1g0l$c...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Donald Tucker) writes:
->
->John Bicketts (sfei...@mach3ww.com) writes:
->> [cut] b...@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) wrote:
->>
->>>If medieval and modern Europe deserve a central place in the
college
->>>curricula, then presumably the traditional emphasis on ancient
->>>Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and Rome makes sense. These are the
ancient
->>>cultures that had the greatest influence on Europe.
->>>
->>>Otherwise, if multiculturalism prevails, we can expect to see a
broadening
->>>of the traditional curricula to include more about ancient China,
India,
->>>pre-Columbian America, and every other place under the sun. Is
this a
->>>good idea? Or will the need to cover so much territory make it
impossible
->>>to study the ancient history of any region in more than a
superficial way?
->>>
->>
->> I think that cultures should be studied in an ammount relative to
->> their influence on present-day history. Since obviously Western
->> European culture is, for better or worse, the most influential
->> cultural strain these past 500 years, it and it's ancestors
obviously
->> still deserve considerable study. After that, I'd include other
major
->> cultures like India, Islam and China , and of course one should
learn
->> something about every important culture, at least for the sake of
->> historical and cultural perspective.
->
->Yes, Western European culture and the antecedent cultures of
->the SW Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean are still the major
->influence on modern Western culture. But there is an increasing
->influence from China and Japan, and to some extent India, which
->should be refected in a history course. Modern Western culture
->can only be explained as the sum of its historical antecedents.
->
->Consider the following three lists of contributions from
->China, Japan, and India. To explain these elements in
->modern Western culture, some explanation of Chinese and
->Japanese (and perhaps Indian) history is essential. To the
->extent that other cultures have contributed to modern Western
->cultre, an expanation of their histories is also appropriate.
->
-[list snipped]
->
->Note: Research for the Chinese technology list relies on the
->work of Joseph Needham. The remaining items were inspired by
->Jeff Yang, Dina Gan, Terry Hong & the staff of A. Magazine,
->_Eastern Standard Time_ (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin
->Company, 1997).
->
->These lists suggest that the history of the remaining non-Western
->cultures does not need to be taught in nearly as much detail as
->the Chinese, Japanese (and perhaps Indian) cultures, or the history
->of the ancient and medieval cultures of SW Asia and the
Mediterranean
->(Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, Greece, Rome, Byzantium and Islam)
->that influenced the development of Western civilization.
->
-Your list of cultural influences has several flaws. I'll give an
example of
-each:
-
-Silk - Europe didn't produce silk because silkworms are not native
to Europe.
-Importing a species of flora or fauna is hardly a cultural influence.
-
-Moveable type - This was developed independently in Europe. Again,
hardly a
-cultural influence.
-
-Hinduism - For something to be a cultural influence, it has to be
widely
-adopted.
-
-Walkman - This came about after Japan became westernized. It is a
better
-example of the the western influence on the rest of the world.
-
-Eliminating things that fit the above categories the list gets much
smaller:
-
-
->Note the many Chinese influences in modern Western culture:
-> Technology:
-> Some of technological inventions made in China before
-> Europe copied them or invented them independently:
-> Paper-making (in use since the 2nd or 3rd century),
-> Gunpowder (perfected in the late 9th century),
-> Fireworks (10th century),
-> Porcelain technology (in use since the 7th century),
-> Film and Television:
-> Martial arts and other action cinema
-> Sonny Chiba, Bruce Lee, John Woo, Jackie Chan
-> Games and Leisure:
-> Kites
-> Go (wei qi)
-> Mah Jong
-> Pai Gow (heavenly dominoes)
->
->Note the many Japanese influences in modern Western culture:
-> Technology:
-> Cultured pearls
-> Foods, drinks, cooking:
-> MSG (monosodium glutamate)
-> Art and Design:
-> Designer plants, Bonsai and Ikebana
-
->Note the significant Indian influences in modern Western culture.
->The list is substantial but less impressive than the Chinese and
->Japanese lists:
-> Games and Leisure:
-> Chess
-> Chutes (snakes) and ladders
-> Parcheesi
-> Fashion:
-> Nehru Jacket
-> Pajama
-
-A few of the items may have been independent invetnions, so I left
them. There
-really wasn't much influence from east Asia on the west.
-
-You're going to have to remove the extra stuff from my address to
reply.
-Edmond Dantes
-eda...@cts.com
-
eda...@cts.com
In <341780...@xnet.com>, Bill Perez <p_cov...@xnet.com> writes:
>
>eda...@cts.com wrote:
>>
>> In <5v4j5g$79a$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>> >eda...@cts.com wrote:
>> >
>> >: I'll give an example of
>> >: each:
>> >
>> >: Silk - Europe didn't produce silk because
>> >: silkworms are not native to Europe.
>> >
If one accepts all the things you listed as influences you have to
claim that every culture was influenced by every other culture, unless
there was absolutely no contact, which renders the notion of cultural
influence null. This thread started with ideas and technologies
adopted by one culture from another. Lets stick to that.
Show me a cultural relativist at thirty thousand feet and I'll
show you a hypocrite. Richard Dawkins
Edmond Dantes
eda...@cts.com
eda...@cts.com
In <341787...@xnet.com>, Bill Perez <p_cov...@xnet.com> writes:
>John Bicketts wrote:
>>
>> I think that cultures should be studied in an ammount relative to
>> their influence on present-day history.
>
>Why? Should the sciences be studied in an amount relative to their
>influence on contemporary society? This would mean that most of
>astronomy would simply be dropped, especially anything that dealt with
>phenomena outside our solar system. Any and all study of fossils would
>be deemed a complete waste of time. And what about advanced mathematics?
>It is often derided as having "no applications."
As far an mandatory general-ed courses, yes.
>How about these reasons for studying history:
>
>To provide a full accounting of the possibilities of human organization
>thus far.
Engineers and ditch diggers don't need to know these things.
>To provide test cases for theories of social power, or technological
>advance, or cultural adaptation.
Sure for certain specialties.
>For its beauty; for the love of knowledge.
>
>Because it continues to surprise.
>
For fun, you mean.
>
>
>But why this attempt at triage?
Because the time we have is finite.
Donald Tucker
Paul J. Gans (ga...@panix.com) writes:
> eda...@cts.com wrote:
>
> : In <5v4j5g$79a$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
> : >eda...@cts.com wrote:
> : >
> : >: I'll give an example of
> : >: each:
> : >
> : >: Silk - Europe didn't produce silk because
> : >: silkworms are not native to Europe.
> : >
> : >Not true at all. Silkworms are found all over the place.
>
> : This may currently be the case. China knew that silk was a
> : valuable export, and tightly controled the worms. They had
> : to be smuggled to Europe (by a couple of
> : Jesuits, if memeory serves).
>
> Frances and Joseph Gies, in _Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel_
> agree with you, except that they place the coup of stealing
> the worms on the shoulders of a couple of 6th century Greek
> monks.
The legegend is that the silkworm eggs were in the hollows of the
monks bamboo walking canes, rather than on the monks shoulders :)
Date: 552 CE. Place: Constantinople.
But it's just a legend.
The only known fact is that the Byzantines soon after that date
became a major center for sericulture and China's primary competitior
for the production of raw silk.
Joseph Askew
eda...@cts.com wrote:
: >Not true at all. Silkworms are found all over the place.
: This may currently be the case.
: China knew that silk was a valuable export, and
: tightly controled the worms.
There are a whole range of errors in this. For a start over most
of the period of relevance (552 is the date that Gibbon gives
based on Procopius) China was not unified. After the fall of
the Han in about 220 China was ruled by a variety of smaller
administrations until the reunification by the Sui in 589. So
if a monopoly existed (which it never did) there was no one to
enforce it. But before that China did not profit from its dealings
with Central Asians. They either were forced to pay protection
money or they heavily subsidised their allies. There is no good
reason to think that they ever made a cent out of trade with any
nation to the West. So why would they protect something that was
of no importance? Third silk production took place outside China
proper in what is now Xinjiang in the Han period. We know because
Stein has dug up remains. Four no monopoly existed, getting nomads
to settle was a long standing Han policy and they did everything
they could to encourage silk production among foreign tribes. It
was only with sedentary states that peace was possible.
I could go on at length but I have done so in the recent past
and I expect you could find it using Deja News.
: They had to be smuggled to Europe
Byzantium actually. For Justinian.
If you believe Gibbon which of course I don't.
Procopius, the source of this story, doesn't say *who* they
were smuggled passed.
: (by a couple of
: Jesuits, if memeory serves).
Depends who you believe and of course 552 pre-dates the founding
of the Jesuits by a good few years. About 1000 in fact. Being
founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola (c. 1491 - 1556). There is
some question over who the "Syrian" monks were.
: It might also be the case that only a specific
: breed of silkworms are usefull
Is. Is useful. *A* breed. The Greeks made silk using the threads
of another species. On Cos. Which is how Aristotle gets to talk
about the silk industry.
: for making silk,
: and the ubiquitios worms you are refering to don't fit the
: bill.
Are you claiming that Europe lacks silk worms?
: >: Importing a species of flora or fauna is hardly a cultural influence.
: >If that was all it was then even then it might not be true. But
: >it wasn't. You need a whole range of highly delicate and very
: >complicated techniques before you can produce good quality silk.
: >Skills the West lacked until very recently.
: It is interseting that the mechanical
: coccoon unwinder was invented by Italians.
If it were true it would be interesting. *a* coccoon unwinder
is what you mean I expect.
: One reason that Eupopean silk was lacking is
: that most of the creative energy of
: Europe regarding technology was devoded to
: making greater quantities of stuff at
: a lower cost.
By 1800 perhaps. I doubt that anything even remotely close to that
applies to Italy in 1400. Why does this impede a silk industry by
the way?
: >Depends if someone didn't see someone in China or Korea using it
: >and thought about it for a while. Remember stimulus diffusion.
: >Some PNG tribes invented their own alphabet after *hearing* about
: >the concept but before seeing an example or meeting a literate
: >person.
: In the fifteenth century, unlikely.
What makes you say that? Porcelain was something Europe heard of,
could even see examples of, but didn't know how to make. They worked
it out in the end, producing an equally good but *different& product.
: >: Hinduism - For something to be a cultural influence, it has to be widely
: >: adopted.
: >No it doesn't.
: Of course it does. By definition that is what cultural influence is.
No it doesn't. Marxists have never been a large group in the English
speaking world. Yet Marxism has been very influential indeed. In fact
the platform of the American Communists as it was in the 1920s has
been adopted wholesale despite the fact that they couldn't win any
significant elections (a mayor of Cleveland was, I think, the summit
of their electoral success). Anyone can think of similar examples.
How many people do you know who know what deconstructionism is?
: >And of course everyone has lef t off the modern civil service recruited
: >by examination. A major influence on the West from China. One which has
: >made the modern world possible.
: I doubt that ther was any acutal copying.
Well the record shows there quite specifically and clearly was.
: It is a obvious solution to nepotism
: which is a universal human problem. I'd have to see some documentation of
: acutal discusions advocating copying the chinese system before I accept it.
If you spent ten minutes examining the history of the adoption of
the Civil Service Exam and recruitment by talent you would find it.
Not only supporters specifically mentioning China, but detractors
condemning the "Chineseification" of the British administration. The
case for France is a little harder because the sources aren't always
so easily available or in English. But the French adopted far more
of the Chinese model.
Paul J. Gans
Donald Tucker (bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>Paul J. Gans (ga...@panix.com) writes:
>> eda...@cts.com wrote:
>>
>> : In <5v4j5g$79a$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>> : >eda...@cts.com wrote:
>> : >
>> : >: I'll give an example of
>> : >: each:
>> : >
>> : >: Silk - Europe didn't produce silk because
>> : >: silkworms are not native to Europe.
>> : >
>> : >Not true at all. Silkworms are found all over the place.
>>
>> : This may currently be the case. China knew that silk was a
>> : valuable export, and tightly controled the worms. They had
>> : to be smuggled to Europe (by a couple of
>> : Jesuits, if memeory serves).
>>
>> Frances and Joseph Gies, in _Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel_
>> agree with you, except that they place the coup of stealing
>> the worms on the shoulders of a couple of 6th century Greek
>> monks.
>The legegend is that the silkworm eggs were in the hollows of the
>monks bamboo walking canes, rather than on the monks shoulders :)
>Date: 552 CE. Place: Constantinople.
>But it's just a legend.
>The only known fact is that the Byzantines soon after that date
>became a major center for sericulture and China's primary competitior
>for the production of raw silk.
Agreeed. But the Byzantines had to get the worms from
somewhere. Given the fairly extensive trade between
Byzantium (and western Europe too, for that matter) and
the far east, it isn't surprising that somebody
smuggled the worms into Europe.
Peter Wilkinson
In<87387556...@wagasa.cts.com>,
eda...@cts.com wrote:
>In <5v4j5g$79a$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>eda...@cts.com wrote:
<snip>
>>: Moveable type - This was developed independently in Europe. Again, hardly a
>>: cultural influence.
>>
>>Depends if someone didn't see someone in China or Korea using it
>>and thought about it for a while. Remember stimulus diffusion.
>>Some PNG tribes invented their own alphabet after *hearing* about
>>the concept but before seeing an example or meeting a literate
>>person.
>
>In the fifteenth century, unlikely.
Why? There was intermittent direct contact between western Europe and
China from at least 1250, though it was mostly broken off for more or
less all of the 15th century. So if the argument is that, as printing
had been known in China (and, more to the point, in Chinese Turkestan
- the closest part of the Chinese sphere of influence to Europe) since
the 9th century, it seems odd for the stimulus diffusion to have take
place at a time of low ebb in contacts, I would rather agree - but
Europeans of the 15th century definitely knew of and were interested
in China.
<snip>
>>And of course everyone has lef t off the modern civil service recruited
>>by examination. A major influence on the West from China. One which has
>>made the modern world possible.
>
>I doubt that ther was any acutal copying. It is a obvious solution to nepotism
>which is a universal human problem. I'd have to see some documentation of
>acutal discusions advocating copying the chinese system before I accept it.
It may seem an obvious solution to nepotism, but (at least in Great
Britain) civil service examinations *do* seem to have been a
deliberate imitation of the Chinese system. Believe it or not,
nepotism and/or purchase was the standard way into the British civil
service until the mid-19th century. Recruitment by examination was
then copied directly from the East India Company - who had in turn
copied it from the Chinese. It is by no means coincidental that senior
civil servants in Britain are often informally referred to as
"mandarins".
Peter Wilkinson
p...@pwilkinson.compulink.co.uk
John Bicketts
On 8 Sep 1997 18:26:29 GMT, bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Donald Tucker)
wrote:
snip
> Games and Leisure:
> Kites
> Go (wei qi)
> Mah Jong
> Pai Gow (heavenly dominoes)
> Fan Tan
Dont forget Stratego! (it's a clone of the Chinese game "Jungle")
> Fashion:
> Cheongsam
> Martial arts, Kung Fu, Tai Ch'i
> Ideas and Philosophy:
> Abacus
>
snip (impressive list)
>These lists suggest that the history of the remaining non-Western
>cultures does not need to be taught in nearly as much detail as
>the Chinese, Japanese (and perhaps Indian) cultures, or the history
>of the ancient and medieval cultures of SW Asia and the Mediterranean
>(Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, Greece, Rome, Byzantium and Islam)
>that influenced the development of Western civilization.
True. Mayan culture, for example, has had fairly little influence on
modern history (except for inventing chocolate). I would say, though,
that Mayan culture is interesting as a comparison to other early
cultures such as the Egyptians and Sumerians. Despite being
completely seperated and unrelated, they both developed into
theocratic societies with pyramids (among other similarities), which
suggests a very strong tendency in humanity for that...
It's like in science, you try to get several different examples of
something to get a better understanding of it.
>
>Cheers Global history; Alternate history; Maps; ___,__<@~__,___
>Donald Civilizations Timelines, pinyin at: /^/^/^[#]^\^\^\
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4123/ _/|\_
> Pteranodon logo Copyright © 1996 " " ©1996
>
>
--John Bicketts
Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
Bill Perez
eda...@cts.com wrote:
>
> In <341780...@xnet.com>, Bill Perez <p_cov...@xnet.com> writes:
> >
> >eda...@cts.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >: Hinduism - For something to be a cultural influence, it has to be widely
> >> >: adopted.
> >> >
> >> >No it doesn't.
> >>
> >> Of course it does. By definition that is what cultural influence is.
> >
> >only the elites in another culture (and therefore not be "widely"
> >adopted) and thus come to have strong influence? Couldn't a cultural
> >idea, or fashion, be only partly adopted, or seriously distorted in
> >transmission, and still have influence? Couldn't one culture influence
> >another by actually being anathema, never adopted at all let alone
> >"widely," yet prompting all sorts of ideological defenses and responses
> >that otherwise would never have been dreamed of? Couldn't influence come
> >in the form of an adaptive imperative, a need to address the
> >possibilities presented by another culture?
>
> If one accepts all the things you listed as influences you have to
You would? I'm not sure if you understood me. I made no such claim, and
I don't believe any such claim necessarily follows from what I said.
Which of the the possibilities I mention draws a connection between,
say, the !Kung ("Bushmen" of South Africa) and Australian aboriginals in
the fourteenth century? Between pre-Columbian Mayans and medieval Korea?
Between Dark Age Scotland and Sri Lankan fishing villages of the same
period? No elite contact, no partial transmission, no distinct awareness
of each other (therefore no "anathema," or "adaptive imperative"). No,
nothing I said leads to the blanket statement you mention.
Now, if you want to say that any two cultures that *directly contact
each other* necessarily influence one another, then you might actually
have an arguable point. But this would be a much different statement
than "every culture has influenced every other culture."
Besides, I never said you had to accept all the things I listed.
Accepting only ONE of them, e.g., cultural transmission through elites,
would be enough to negate your rigid definition of "cultural influence."
> This thread started with ideas and technologies
> adopted by one culture from another. Lets stick to that.
Excellent idea. Derailments such as "by definition a cultural influence
is something which is widely adopted" should be avoided. They only
invite challenge.
>
> Show me a cultural relativist at thirty thousand feet and I'll
> show you a hypocrite. Richard Dawkins
>
"River Out of Eden!" Great book (as are all of Dawkins'--I strongly
recommend ANY of his books to those who haven't read them. But don't
read "Extended Phenotype" 'til you've read "Selfish Gene").
Still waiting for "Climbing Mount Improbable" to come out in paperback.
BOP
eda...@cts.com
In <3418727b...@news.compulink.co.uk>, p...@pwilkinson.compulink.co.uk (Peter Wilkinson) writes:
>In<87387556...@wagasa.cts.com>,
> eda...@cts.com wrote:
>
>>In <5v4j5g$79a$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>eda...@cts.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>: Moveable type - This was developed independently in Europe. Again, hardly a
>>>: cultural influence.
>>>
>>>Depends if someone didn't see someone in China or Korea using it
>>>and thought about it for a while. Remember stimulus diffusion.
>>>Some PNG tribes invented their own alphabet after *hearing* about
>>>the concept but before seeing an example or meeting a literate
>>>person.
>>
>>In the fifteenth century, unlikely.
>
>Why? There was intermittent direct contact between western Europe and
>China from at least 1250, though it was mostly broken off for more or
>less all of the 15th century. So if the argument is that, as printing
>had been known in China (and, more to the point, in Chinese Turkestan
>- the closest part of the Chinese sphere of influence to Europe) since
>the 9th century, it seems odd for the stimulus diffusion to have take
>place at a time of low ebb in contacts, I would rather agree - but
>Europeans of the 15th century definitely knew of and were interested
>in China.
But moveable type was invented by a silversmith in Mainz, several
hundred miles from the coast. Since he was a tradesman, he probably
wasn't reading manuscripts of peoples accounts of China. Since he was
inland he wasn't hearing of it from sailors.
Show me a cultural relativist at thirty thousand feet and I'll
show you a hypocrite. Richard Dawkins
Edmond Dantes
eda...@cts.com
Chris Cornuelle
In article <5v6irh$p...@panix2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) writes:
|> eda...@cts.com wrote:
|>
|> : In <5v4j5g$79a$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
|> : >eda...@cts.com wrote:
|> : >: I'll give an example of
|> : >: each:
|> : >
|> : >: Silk - Europe didn't produce silk because
|> : >: silkworms are not native to Europe.
|> : >
|> : >Not true at all. Silkworms are found all over the place.
|>
|> : This may currently be the case. China knew that silk was a
|> : valuable export, and tightly controled the worms. They had
|> : to be smuggled to Europe (by a couple of
|> : Jesuits, if memeory serves).
|>
|> Frances and Joseph Gies, in _Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel_
|> agree with you, except that they place the coup of stealing
|> the worms on the shoulders of a couple of 6th century Greek
|> monks.
|>
Not to be pedantic - oh, all right, I'll go ahead anyway - but smuggled with
the silkworm was the bush on which it feeds. AFAIK another indication of how
deeply committed our ancestors were to the study of natural ecosystems - so
long as there was a denarius to be made. :^)
Chris
Donald Tucker
Paul J. Gans (ga...@panix.com) writes:
> Donald Tucker (bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>
>>Paul J. Gans (ga...@panix.com) writes:
>>> eda...@cts.com wrote:
>>>
>>> : In <5v4j5g$79a$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>
>>> : [cut] China knew that silk was a
>>> : valuable export, and tightly controled the worms. They had
>>> : to be smuggled to Europe (by a couple of
>>> : Jesuits, if memeory serves).
>>>
>>> Frances and Joseph Gies, in _Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel_
>>> agree with you, except that they place the coup of stealing
>>> the worms on the shoulders of a couple of 6th century Greek
>>> monks.
>
>>The legegend is that the silkworm eggs were in the hollows of the
>>monks bamboo walking canes, rather than on the monks shoulders :)
>>Date: 552 CE. Place: Constantinople.
>
>>But it's just a legend.
>
>>The only known fact is that the Byzantines soon after that date
>>became a major center for sericulture and China's primary competitior
>>for the production of raw silk.
>
> Agreeed. But the Byzantines had to get the worms from
> somewhere. Given the fairly extensive trade between
> Byzantium (and western Europe too, for that matter) and
> the far east, it isn't surprising that somebody
> smuggled the worms into Europe.
The two monks story is only one possible vector for the
spread of sericulture to Byzantium.
A competing myth is:
Around 200 BCE the Prince of Khotan in eastern Trukestan,
coveted secrets of silk. In order to wrest them from the
Chinese, he arranged to marry a daughter of the Chinese
emperor. The prince convinced his bride-to-be to smuggle
some silkmoth eggs and mulberry seeds in the lining of her
headdress so that when she arrived in her new home, she
would be able to continu her passtime of making silk.
Once established in Khotan, sericulture spread throughout
Central Asia, and then to India.
If there is any truth in this myth, there would have
been many ways for the Byzantines to acquire sericulture.
But we *do* know how sericulture spread to Europe form
Byzantium.
From 1147 to 1158 Byzantine emperor Manuel Comnenus fought a war
with Roger II, the king of Norman Sicily. Norman fleets ravaged
Greece and abducted silkworkers. Roger resettled them
in Palermo.
Joseph Askew
Paul J. Gans (ga...@panix.com) wrote:
: >> Frances and Joseph Gies, in _Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel_
: >> agree with you, except that they place the coup of stealing
: >> the worms on the shoulders of a couple of 6th century Greek
: >> monks.
Actually they don't quite. The use a very important weasel word
and say it is *said* that it was the work of two 6th century
Greek monks. Which is an importance difference. Last time this
came up I was going to write an article for publication but gave
up as I could find no one of importance to who the full claim.
At least not since 1970 or so. Byzantine historians carefully
step around it in just this sort of way.
: >The legegend is that the silkworm eggs were in the hollows of the
: >monks bamboo walking canes, rather than on the monks shoulders :)
: >Date: 552 CE. Place: Constantinople.
: >But it's just a legend.
: >The only known fact is that the Byzantines soon after that date
: >became a major center for sericulture and China's primary competitior
: >for the production of raw silk.
To be a competitor you have to share a market. There is no good
reason to think that the Chinese ever made a profit out of silk
exports Westwards. It is also clear that the Byzantines continued
to import large amounts of Chinese silk after 552. It was a major
trading good for the Tu"rk Empire and Luc Kwanten tries to explain
all Tu"rk-Chinese relations by way of the Tu"rk desire for silk.
He fails of course.
: Agreeed. But the Byzantines had to get the worms from
: somewhere. Given the fairly extensive trade between
: Byzantium (and western Europe too, for that matter) and
: the far east, it isn't surprising that somebody
: smuggled the worms into Europe.
Why couldn't the worms have made it on their own? While Procopius
says in his Gothic Wars that these monks smuggled in the silkworms,
he also says in the Secret History that Justinian's monopoly ruined
the silk industry of Beirut. Which strongly implies the Ancient
world had a *pre-existing* silk industry.
I also reject the idea that China traded in any normal sense of
the word with the Byzantines.
Paul J. Gans
Joseph Askew (jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au) wrote:
>Paul J. Gans (ga...@panix.com) wrote:
>: >> Frances and Joseph Gies, in _Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel_
>: >> agree with you, except that they place the coup of stealing
>: >> the worms on the shoulders of a couple of 6th century Greek
>: >> monks.
>Actually they don't quite. The use a very important weasel word
>and say it is *said* that it was the work of two 6th century
>Greek monks. Which is an importance difference. Last time this
>came up I was going to write an article for publication but gave
>up as I could find no one of importance to who the full claim.
>At least not since 1970 or so. Byzantine historians carefully
>step around it in just this sort of way.
You are quite right. Sorry for posting it in such a
positive way.
>: >The legegend is that the silkworm eggs were in the hollows of the
>: >monks bamboo walking canes, rather than on the monks shoulders :)
>: >Date: 552 CE. Place: Constantinople.
>: >But it's just a legend.
>: >The only known fact is that the Byzantines soon after that date
>: >became a major center for sericulture and China's primary competitior
>: >for the production of raw silk.
>To be a competitor you have to share a market. There is no good
>reason to think that the Chinese ever made a profit out of silk
>exports Westwards. It is also clear that the Byzantines continued
>to import large amounts of Chinese silk after 552. It was a major
>trading good for the Tu"rk Empire and Luc Kwanten tries to explain
>all Tu"rk-Chinese relations by way of the Tu"rk desire for silk.
>He fails of course.
>: Agreeed. But the Byzantines had to get the worms from
>: somewhere. Given the fairly extensive trade between
>: Byzantium (and western Europe too, for that matter) and
>: the far east, it isn't surprising that somebody
>: smuggled the worms into Europe.
>Why couldn't the worms have made it on their own? While Procopius
>says in his Gothic Wars that these monks smuggled in the silkworms,
>he also says in the Secret History that Justinian's monopoly ruined
>the silk industry of Beirut. Which strongly implies the Ancient
>world had a *pre-existing* silk industry.
I believe that the "best" silkworms were native to China
and are today found outside of China only in protected
habitats.
As far as Beirut is concerned, I'm puzzled. Mainly because
Beirut was part of the Byzantine Empire until it was
conquered by the Moslims well after the Gothic Wars.
>I also reject the idea that China traded in any normal sense of
>the word with the Byzantines.
Well, that's a quibble. There is no evidence that I know of
that the Chinese traded directly with the Byzantines. But
then, I don't buy my cars directly from Ford, either. :-)
There is much evidence that there was, as I indicated, a
large seaborn trade from China westward, through what is
now Malaysia to India, the Arab countries, and the
eastern shore of Africa. The trade was not direct. Goods
were transhiped several times. The Indians and the Arabs
knew where the goods came from. The Europeans were more
vague and knew only that they came from the east.
I suspect that the Chinese must have made some profit on
the export -- I can't imagine them selling it at cost. But
the majority of the profit was made, as always, by the
middle men.
Other well-known goods came to Europe from the east. The lapis
lazuli used to make blue ink throughout the medieval period
(and earlier as well) came from the foothills of the Himalayas.
That's just one example.
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Joseph Askew
Chris Cornuelle (b...@lynx.spa.umn.edu) wrote:
: Not to be pedantic - oh, all right, I'll go ahead anyway - but smuggled with
: the silkworm was the bush on which it feeds.
What makes you think that the silk worms were smuggled at all (esp.
given the length of time it would take to walk from China to Europe,
don't you think perhaps they might have hatched?)? At least this
claim has some evidence, Procopius says so. But that doesn't make
it so. He doesn't mention mulberries *at*all* so why would you
think they were smuggled?
Gibbon (pp. 97 - 100, 1807) doesn't mention it either.
: AFAIK another indication of how
: deeply committed our ancestors were to the study of natural ecosystems - so
: long as there was a denarius to be made. :^)
I'm sure there are examples of large scale introductions in the
ancient world.
Duncan Craig
Didn't the Chinese have a secondary treatment in the silk manufacturing
process; a trade secret that kept Chinese silk qualitatively the finest
in the world long after a Princess smuggled the worms out of China?
Can't recall the source.
Duncan Craig
David Read
In article <5vb0he$6c7$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, Joseph Askew
<jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> writes
<snip>
>Why couldn't the worms have made it on their own? While Procopius
>says in his Gothic Wars that these monks smuggled in the silkworms,
>he also says in the Secret History that Justinian's monopoly ruined
>the silk industry of Beirut. Which strongly implies the Ancient
>world had a *pre-existing* silk industry.
In "The Secret History" Procopius writes that "the manufacture of silken
garments had for many generations been a staple industry of Beirut and
Tyre". (Translation Penguin Classics). This could be equally well
interpreted as meaning that those two cities were involved in the dyeing
and tailoring of imported silk, rather than indicative of the
cultivation of silk-worms.
But there might be another avenue worth exploring that hasn't been
touched upon yet. Has the pictorial evidence from non-Chinese sources,
of nobility and court life, ever revealed Chinese designs in the
clothing ? If so, that would be hard evidence for Chinese exports of
finished silk goods; if not, it would be evidence for either non-Chinese
silk manufacture, or the export of raw or unfinished silk from China. It
would seem curious, neverthess, that Persia and India had not developed
indigenous silk industries at least as early as Greece/Rome/Byzantium,
that would not have seriously undercut the need to import silk of
Chinese origin.
--
David Read
Paul J. Gans
Excellent point! I'm not aware of any Chinese motifs on
silken goods in western Europe (but I'm not an expert either).
This tends to indicate that either thread or unfinished fabric
was imported.
Ninni M Pettersson
Paul J. Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
> David Read (da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk) wrote:
<snip>
> >But there might be another avenue worth exploring that hasn't been
> >touched upon yet. Has the pictorial evidence from non-Chinese sources,
> >of nobility and court life, ever revealed Chinese designs in the
> >clothing ? If so, that would be hard evidence for Chinese exports of
> >finished silk goods; if not, it would be evidence for either non-Chinese
> >silk manufacture, or the export of raw or unfinished silk from China. It
> >would seem curious, neverthess, that Persia and India had not developed
> >indigenous silk industries at least as early as Greece/Rome/Byzantium,
> >that would not have seriously undercut the need to import silk of
> >Chinese origin.
>
> Excellent point! I'm not aware of any Chinese motifs on
> silken goods in western Europe (but I'm not an expert either).
> This tends to indicate that either thread or unfinished fabric
> was imported.
Finally a topic that I can contribute something too!
Chinese textiles were imported to Europe for many centuries. The earlies
example is probably a fragment of so called Han-damast found in a grave
at Birka. There also exist many examples of clearly Chinese textiles in
European medieval church treasures, e.g. a 13th century twill damask in
Abo Cathedral in Finland. After the 14th century however the import
apparently grew less (except a trickle through Russia) and did not
revive again until the 18th century.
Persia had a flowering silk-industry during the Sassanidic era (many
examples found in Antinoe, and in western churches e.g. Sens) and
probably also had a developed sericulture. The Byzantine silk industry
was probably dependent on imported silk for many years even after the
"secret" of sericulture was known. And the motives and general style of
the Byzantine silk textiles were heavily influenced by Sassanidic
originals. It is also worth noting that while the shafted horizontal
loom was a Chinese invention, the drawloom that made large pattern units
possible is now known to have originated in Persia sometime in the 3d
century AD.
There exists a rich litterature on textile history. The information
above is from Agnes Geijer's _A History of Textile Art_ (1979). But
anyone interested in the matter could probably find many newer books on
these topics in any good library. Being just an interested amateur, and
located in Sweden :-), I'm not knowledgeable enough to recommend any
specific titles, but anyone interested in silk production in Byzantium
should probably try to get hold of R.S. Lopez _Silk industry in the
Byzantine empire_ (Speculum, Cambridge, Mass. 1945). Another title that
sounds interesting for anyone able to read French is _Soieries
sassanides, coptes et byzantines V-XI siecles_ by M. Martiniani-Reber
(Lyon, Musee Historique des Tissus. Inventaire des collections publiques
30. Paris 1986). It probably examines the very problem this discussion
is all about!
/Ninni Pettersson
---------------------------------
Mail-adress "anti-spammed" - remove INTE
Paul J. Gans
Thank you. I was unaware of Chinese textiles in medieval
Europe.
You folks out there are fantastic! There seems not to be
a subject out there at all which cannot be illuminated by
someone with some knowledge.
Inger Johansson
Paul J. Gans <ga...@panix.com> skrev i inlägg
<5veinh$1...@panix2.panix.com>...
> David Read (da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> >In article <5vb0he$6c7$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, Joseph Askew
> ><jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> writes
> ><snip>
> >>Why couldn't the worms have made it on their own? While Procopius says
in his
> >> Gothic Wars that these monks smuggled in the silkworms, he also says
in the
> >> Secret History that Justinian's monopoly ruined the silk industry of
Beirut.
> >> Which strongly implies the Ancient world had a *pre-existing* silk
industry.
Justinian I succeeded his Uncle Justian I as Emperor of the Roman Empire
527 AD. From that year Konstantinopel(Bysans) became the nave in the Trade
between China, India and Europe.
Since the Persians and the Romans sometimes made war at each other, the
traderoute cross Persia weren't as secure as the Romans wanted it to be.
Justinian I started a new Silktraderoute from Cherson - Bosporen - Chrim -
Lazica and Kaukasus. This Central corners for the trade had soldiers,
sometimes Goths, and between those places the Commercial travellers
(sometimes people from the Northern Europe) had help with transportation of
goods as textile(silk), jewels in one direction and skin, furs (from
Northern Europe), leather and slaves in the other direction. The people who
helped the merchants belonged to different Nomadgroups on the Step of
today's Russia south of the Ural.
> <snip>
> >But there might be another avenue worth exploring that hasn't been
touched upon yet.
> > Has the pictorial evidence from non-Chinese sources, of nobility and
court life,
> > ever revealed Chinese designs in the clothing ? If so, that would be
hard evidence for Chinese exports of
> >finished silk goods; if not, it would be evidence for either non-Chinese
silk manufacture,
> > or the export of raw or unfinished silk from China. It would seem
curious, neverthess,
> > that Persia and India had not developed indigenous silk industries at
least as early
> > as Greece/Rome/Byzantium, that would not have seriously undercut the
need to import silk of
> >Chinese origin.
There might be archaeological evidence, I read the other year that
archaeologs had found silk from the same colorbath in both an Island in the
Baltic Sea and in middle England. I try to find the article and return with
the exact details. But then someone else might have the details and be
willing to share them with us?
Inger E Johansson BA History
Joseph Askew
David Read (da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >Why couldn't the worms have made it on their own? While Procopius
: >says in his Gothic Wars that these monks smuggled in the silkworms,
: >he also says in the Secret History that Justinian's monopoly ruined
: >the silk industry of Beirut. Which strongly implies the Ancient
: >world had a *pre-existing* silk industry.
: In "The Secret History" Procopius writes that "the manufacture of silken
: garments had for many generations been a staple industry of Beirut and
: Tyre". (Translation Penguin Classics). This could be equally well
: interpreted as meaning that those two cities were involved in the dyeing
: and tailoring of imported silk, rather than indicative of the
: cultivation of silk-worms.
It could indeed. I have just read Dr Gans' post and I'm a little
confused about that, so I can't really comment. There is a lot
of evidence that silk cloth was produced in Egypt after mixing
it with cotton. Which implies unstitching and re-sewing. So that
might be possible and the dyeing was the obvious choice someone
else has already pointed out to me. It might just be easier to
assume that there was no introduction of silkworms.
Certainly the Roman world did not like the sorts of silks the
Chinese did. They must have rewoven them to get the thin,
virtually see through effect so many Romans complained about.
: But there might be another avenue worth exploring that hasn't been
: touched upon yet. Has the pictorial evidence from non-Chinese sources,
: of nobility and court life, ever revealed Chinese designs in the
: clothing ?
Chinese silk is dug out of non-Chinese tombs. Han silks are found
in many Xiongnu tombs for instance.
: If so, that would be hard evidence for Chinese exports of
: finished silk goods;
The presense of Chinese silks in Xiongnu tombs is NOT hard
evidence of *exports* but of thefts and extortion.
In one year the Chinese sent over 92 *kilometres* of silk
as payment for protection. Which they did not get.
: if not, it would be evidence for either non-Chinese
: silk manufacture, or the export of raw or unfinished silk from China. It
Aurel Stein dug up silks produced to Sassanian design in Xinjiang
from the Han period and evidence that silk was produced *outside*
Han China at this time. So someone was producing for a market and
they weren't Chinese.
: would seem curious, neverthess, that Persia and India had not developed
: indigenous silk industries at least as early as Greece/Rome/Byzantium,
: that would not have seriously undercut the need to import silk of
: Chinese origin.
Only if they were also able to match the quality of the Chinese
product. Which I don't believe they ever could. Both Persia and
India produced silks in the early modern period when the Portuguese
first came to the regions.
Paul J. Gans
Joseph Askew (jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au) wrote:
>David Read (da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: >Why couldn't the worms have made it on their own? While Procopius
>: >says in his Gothic Wars that these monks smuggled in the silkworms,
>: >he also says in the Secret History that Justinian's monopoly ruined
>: >the silk industry of Beirut. Which strongly implies the Ancient
>: >world had a *pre-existing* silk industry.
>: In "The Secret History" Procopius writes that "the manufacture of silken
>: garments had for many generations been a staple industry of Beirut and
>: Tyre". (Translation Penguin Classics). This could be equally well
>: interpreted as meaning that those two cities were involved in the dyeing
>: and tailoring of imported silk, rather than indicative of the
>: cultivation of silk-worms.
>It could indeed. I have just read Dr Gans' post and I'm a little
>confused about that, so I can't really comment. There is a lot
>of evidence that silk cloth was produced in Egypt after mixing
>it with cotton. Which implies unstitching and re-sewing. So that
>might be possible and the dyeing was the obvious choice someone
>else has already pointed out to me. It might just be easier to
>assume that there was no introduction of silkworms.
[rest deleted]
You mean, my crystal-clear writing style :-) is not immediately
understandable? Wow! :-)
Seriously, bang away at what I wrote. I don't regard discussion
as hostile. We'll try to work out what I meant and see if
it stands up or not.
David Read
In article <5vjfps$cn5$2...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, Joseph Askew
<jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> writes
>It could indeed. I have just read Dr Gans' post and I'm a little
>confused about that, so I can't really comment. There is a lot
>of evidence that silk cloth was produced in Egypt after mixing
>it with cotton. Which implies unstitching and re-sewing. So that
>might be possible and the dyeing was the obvious choice someone
>else has already pointed out to me. It might just be easier to
>assume that there was no introduction of silkworms.
I agree that seems more likely, at least before the middle of the 6th
century C.E. whichever way they first arrived in the Byzantine Empire.
>
>Certainly the Roman world did not like the sorts of silks the
>Chinese did. They must have rewoven them to get the thin,
>virtually see through effect so many Romans complained about.
That seems to be what Gibbon says; Phoenician women sometimes unpicked
the imported fabric to reweave the threads. Gibbon also makes reference
to Vergil's guesses about the origin of silk being combed from Chinese
trees; a good try but not quite right. And this leads on to the question
of whether sericulture of the Kos variety, as noted by Aristotle, was
still being practised in the Mediterranean in Vergil's day some 200 or
so years later. Perhaps it was, but see below.
>
>: But there might be another avenue worth exploring that hasn't been
>: touched upon yet. Has the pictorial evidence from non-Chinese sources,
>: of nobility and court life, ever revealed Chinese designs in the
>: clothing ?
>
>Chinese silk is dug out of non-Chinese tombs. Han silks are found
>in many Xiongnu tombs for instance.
>
>: If so, that would be hard evidence for Chinese exports of
>: finished silk goods;
>
>The presense of Chinese silks in Xiongnu tombs is NOT hard
>evidence of *exports* but of thefts and extortion.
Indeed. What flashed through my mind as I asked that question were the
well-known mosaic images of Justinian and Theodora in San Vitale in
Ravenna. My untrained eye detects no Chinese influence in the design of
either their garments or those for some of Theodora's companions. If
anything, I would detect a Persian influence, which might be logical
given that the Roman imperial court had been "easternizing" in its
fashions and practises at least since the time of Diocletian. Ninni
Pettersson reinforced that suspicion in her excellent and informative
post in this thread.
You have made the point several times about the arrival of Chinese silk
in the west not being as a result of _exports_, but of "thefts and
extortion". I see no reason to doubt this as being part of the picture
for some of the time, but surely there were periods when Chinese
manufacturers and governments were controlling their own destinies here.
It is almost as if you are implying that China did not actually _want_
to profit from the export of silk but would have rather kept it for her
own use, or am I mistaken ? And again, see below.
>
>In one year the Chinese sent over 92 *kilometres* of silk
>as payment for protection. Which they did not get.
OK.
>Aurel Stein dug up silks produced to Sassanian design in Xinjiang
>from the Han period and evidence that silk was produced *outside*
>Han China at this time. So someone was producing for a market and
>they weren't Chinese.
Xinjiang being beyond Han China's borders at the time. So who controlled
Xinjiang, and would the silk farmers have been ethnic Chinese ?
>
>Only if they were also able to match the quality of the Chinese
>product. Which I don't believe they ever could. Both Persia and
>India produced silks in the early modern period when the Portuguese
>first came to the regions.
It may well be that no-one was able to match China in the finest quality
silks. If they had been able to do so, the Byzantines might have been
content to import Persian silk alone without going to the bother of
trying to maintain the northern routes of the Great Silk Road.
Alternatively, by having two possible suppliers, Turks in the north and
Persians to the south, it would have provided leverage for Byzantine
traders to drive harder bargains with each, so the relative quality of
Chinese silks might not have been an issue, (especially if they were in
the habit of unpicking it all anyway). The Persians, in their efforts to
shut down the northern routes, may have either been seeking to keep the
prices of their own silk exports to the west high, or making the most of
the mark-up as middlemen for Chinese silk. In any event, did later
Byzantine sericulture and silk manuafacture ever satisfy the domestic
market in terms of both quantity and quality ?
BELOW
One last point. In "The Annals of the Han Dynasty" Hirth [1885] 1975
p41-42, the ancient Chinese author writes all he seems to know about the
Roman Empire. ( I only know this because it is quoted in another book).
With reference to silk he says a couple of interesting things:-
1) "They [the Romans] have 'fine cloth', called Shui-yang-ts'ui [i.e,
down of the water sheep]; it is made from the cocoons of wild silk-
worms."
2) "Their kings always desired to send embassies to China, but the An-
hsi wished to carry on trade with them in Chinese silks, and it is for
that reason that they were cut off from communication. This lasted till
the ninth year of the Yen-hsi perod during the Emperor Huan-ti's reign
[A.D. 166] when the king of Ta-ts'in, An-tun [Antoninus] sent an embassy
who, from the frontier of Jih-nan [Annam] offered ivory, rhinoceros
horns and tortoise shell. From that time dated the direct intercourse
with this country."
Comments ? (I half expect the Annals to be a fake, but if not.....)
cheers,
--
David Read
Joseph Askew
David Read (da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >else has already pointed out to me. It might just be easier to
: >assume that there was no introduction of silkworms.
: I agree that seems more likely, at least before the middle of the 6th
: century C.E. whichever way they first arrived in the Byzantine Empire.
By "no introduction" I meant that the silkworms were already there
before 552 AD.
: >Certainly the Roman world did not like the sorts of silks the
: >Chinese did. They must have rewoven them to get the thin,
: >virtually see through effect so many Romans complained about.
: That seems to be what Gibbon says; Phoenician women sometimes unpicked
: the imported fabric to reweave the threads. Gibbon also makes reference
: to Vergil's guesses about the origin of silk being combed from Chinese
: trees; a good try but not quite right.
Well Gibbon says quite a lot of things that aren't quite right. I did
like his suggestion that printing would have been a better import,
not to mention paper. There's an interesting what-if.
: And this leads on to the question
: of whether sericulture of the Kos variety, as noted by Aristotle, was
: still being practised in the Mediterranean in Vergil's day some 200 or
: so years later. Perhaps it was, but see below.
I am still looking for a good book on silk in the Ancient world. Alas
the one person I could ask has gone to Turkey for a holiday. Anyone
have any suggestions?
: >The presense of Chinese silks in Xiongnu tombs is NOT hard
: >evidence of *exports* but of thefts and extortion.
: Indeed. What flashed through my mind as I asked that question were the
: well-known mosaic images of Justinian and Theodora in San Vitale in
: Ravenna. My untrained eye detects no Chinese influence in the design of
: either their garments or those for some of Theodora's companions. If
I can't say I've ever noticed any particular Chinese influence on
Ancient art. There is a strong Greek influence on Chinese Buddhist
artworks, but I know of nothing going the other way. But then are
there references to Chinese designs? I am thoroughly ashamed to say
the only immediate reference to Chinese designs on ancient silks
that springs to mind comes from Gore Vidal's _Julian_. Did he make
it up or assume it or did he have proof? I don't know, but I expect
one of he first two.
: anything, I would detect a Persian influence, which might be logical
: given that the Roman imperial court had been "easternizing" in its
: fashions and practises at least since the time of Diocletian. Ninni
Not just easternizing but modernising. I'm afraid I can't think of
influences on late Roman Art without thinking of Auberon Waugh's
_Helena_ (a much more stylish work of fiction based on the ancient
world) which isn't really fair I suppose.
: You have made the point several times about the arrival of Chinese silk
: in the west not being as a result of _exports_, but of "thefts and
: extortion". I see no reason to doubt this as being part of the picture
: for some of the time, but surely there were periods when Chinese
: manufacturers and governments were controlling their own destinies here.
For most of the first half of the Han the Chinese were constantly on
the defensive with only intermittent offensives into what is now
Mongolia. So pretty much all their interactions with the peoples
to the north were thefts. They did pay out huge sums to other groups
in what is now Manchuria and Xinjiang to gain their aid in fighting
the Xiongnu but that wasn't trade either. Even when they were able
to defeat the Xiongnu and eventually destroy their Empire they still
had to pay out subsidies.
: It is almost as if you are implying that China did not actually _want_
: to profit from the export of silk but would have rather kept it for her
: own use, or am I mistaken ? And again, see below.
I'm not implying that. It is just that pretty much everyone was too
poor to make trade worthwhile. I doubt there was a lot of trade with
the Germanic people to the North of Rome either. Even though the
Germans had more to trade with.
: >Aurel Stein dug up silks produced to Sassanian design in Xinjiang
: >from the Han period and evidence that silk was produced *outside*
: >Han China at this time. So someone was producing for a market and
: >they weren't Chinese.
: Xinjiang being beyond Han China's borders at the time. So who controlled
: Xinjiang, and would the silk farmers have been ethnic Chinese ?
Xinjiang was at this time a group of nominally vassal states to
China. When they weren't very real vassal states to the Xiongnu.
It is possible that they were I suppose. The Xiongnu took hundreds
of thousands of Chinese prisoners and presumably sold them into
slavery further away.
: It may well be that no-one was able to match China in the finest quality
: silks. If they had been able to do so, the Byzantines might have been
: content to import Persian silk alone without going to the bother of
: trying to maintain the northern routes of the Great Silk Road.
I think that the problem with the Persians is that they just were
not willing to trade silk at all. There may well have been a
blockade which Justinian and the Turks tried to overcome by
opening a northern route.
: Alternatively, by having two possible suppliers, Turks in the north and
: Persians to the south, it would have provided leverage for Byzantine
: traders to drive harder bargains with each, so the relative quality of
: Chinese silks might not have been an issue, (especially if they were in
: the habit of unpicking it all anyway). The Persians, in their efforts to
: shut down the northern routes, may have either been seeking to keep the
: prices of their own silk exports to the west high, or making the most of
: the mark-up as middlemen for Chinese silk. In any event, did later
: Byzantine sericulture and silk manuafacture ever satisfy the domestic
: market in terms of both quantity and quality ?
I'm not sure but it is certain that Chinese imports continued so
that implies the Byzantines never produced enough. The Byzantines
may have tried that.But there wasn't really two suppliers as the
Turks held all the land surrounding China. The Persians had to
buy from the Turks. So I don't see how far they could drive down
the price unless the Persians got silks from India (a genuine
export from China). But they would have to buy them to get them.
The Turks did not. They were "given" them and so didn't have to
pay. It is possible that no other producer could match this sort
of non-economic extraction.
: One last point. In "The Annals of the Han Dynasty" Hirth [1885] 1975
: p41-42, the ancient Chinese author writes all he seems to know about the
: Roman Empire. ( I only know this because it is quoted in another book).
: With reference to silk he says a couple of interesting things:-
: 1) "They [the Romans] have 'fine cloth', called Shui-yang-ts'ui [i.e,
: down of the water sheep]; it is made from the cocoons of wild silk-
: worms."
: 2) "Their kings always desired to send embassies to China, but the An-
: hsi wished to carry on trade with them in Chinese silks, and it is for
: that reason that they were cut off from communication. This lasted till
: the ninth year of the Yen-hsi perod during the Emperor Huan-ti's reign
: [A.D. 166] when the king of Ta-ts'in, An-tun [Antoninus] sent an embassy
: who, from the frontier of Jih-nan [Annam] offered ivory, rhinoceros
: horns and tortoise shell. From that time dated the direct intercourse
: with this country."
: Comments ? (I half expect the Annals to be a fake, but if not.....)
It depends what he means by the Annals of the Han Dynasty. I expect
that he means one or other of the genuine histories. If I remember
the second part right the Hou Han Shu. If you can find a more
accurate reference I can look it up. I might be able to find the
second one anyway. I like to see the claim that the Chinese also
thought that silk came from "water sheep" if only in name. I wonder
who first started that story.
There are some serious problems with this of course. I've never
been convinced by the identification of "An-tun" and any Roman
Emperor. I've not seen the original characters but I expect that
no one has tried to re-construct the original sound. Ivory, rhino
horns and tortoise shells don't leap to mind as the most obvious
and typical Roman exports.
I think a lot of damage has been done by over-hasty assumptions
about links between people and tribes in Chinese literature and
other people and tribes in European.
David Read
In article <5vlntj$2fb$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>, Joseph Askew
<jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> writes
>By "no introduction" I meant that the silkworms were already there
>before 552 AD.
Indeed, that is what I understood you to have meant originally, but I
surmised that the passage in "The Secret History" about the silk
industry in Tyre and Beirut did not offer the evidence for sericulture
in the Mediterranean basin that you previously thought it might. It is
evidence certainly of the working of silk, and if we are to give
Procopius any credence at all in the matter, such a silk processing
industry makes more sense when taken in conjunction with the story of
the introduction of silkworms in "The Gothic Wars."
I don't have particular difficulty accepting that there may well have
been silkworms in Europe for hundreds of years before this time, whether
indigenous, or naturally migrated or perhaps even a separate species or
sub-species producing inferior silk. But that _hypothesis_ is not
evidence for long-established and continuous sericulture in the Greek
and Roman world.
>Well Gibbon says quite a lot of things that aren't quite right. I did
>like his suggestion that printing would have been a better import,
>not to mention paper. There's an interesting what-if.
Well, I'm certainly not a partisan for all things Gibbon, but the point
he makes about the unravelling of closely-weaved Chinese silk cloth in
Phoenicia and the reworking of it into either looser and diaphanous
material, or intermixing it with linen thread is just part of the
evidence you referred to in your previous post.
The point about Virgil's misunderstanding of how silk was made is
interesting. Either he was unaware of the real nature of the stuff,
which if the cultivation of silkworms was still extant on Kos might cast
doubt upon that idea; or if silk _was_ still being produced in Kos or
anywhere else in the Mediterranean it was of such inferior quality to
the Chinese material that he did not recognise it _as_ the same
material. Yet here were these daft Romans, getting hold of this
wonderful Chinese product, breaking it down and reworking it into an
inferior product more closely resembling that with which they were
already familiar; i.e., the loosely woven, floaty, filmy stuff of Kos!
Not so much Romans, as philistines.
For the most part, this was for women. By the age of Constantine I at
the latest, we see mosaics and statuary of Emperors wearing what appears
to be heavy silk, brocaided, bejewelled and embroidered; such a style
could be in imitation of either Imperial China or Sassanid Persia. But
the design doesn't look Chinese, although the base material might be.
But the base material, even the finshed product, could be almost
completely Persian - or so it seems to me. And this fashion for heavy
silks spread to the nobility of both sexes and senior clergy of the
Byzantine world.
<snip>
>: It is almost as if you are implying that China did not actually _want_
>: to profit from the export of silk but would have rather kept it for her
>: own use, or am I mistaken ? And again, see below.
>
>I'm not implying that. It is just that pretty much everyone was too
>poor to make trade worthwhile. I doubt there was a lot of trade with
>the Germanic people to the North of Rome either. Even though the
>Germans had more to trade with.
The Romans and Byzantines were not too poor. China was aware of the
demand for silk in Europe and the middlemen operating the Silk Road, or
even adventurous Roman traders might have expected to pay the Chinese
asking price and still make a handsome profit when they returned. As for
trade with the Germans, it depends what you mean by "a lot".... but
that's a digression....
<snip>
>I think that the problem with the Persians is that they just were
>not willing to trade silk at all. There may well have been a
>blockade which Justinian and the Turks tried to overcome by
>opening a northern route.
I think that this depends on whatever relationships happened to be
existing between Parthian or Sassanid Persia and Rome or Byzantium at
the time. The mercantile cities of Arabia, particularly Palmyra could
not have flourished without a very active culture of trade with Persia.
If there was a demand for silk, the supply would rise, in times of
peace, to meet the demand. All this presupposes ideal conditions and
relationships existing simultaneously between all the interested
parties, including China and Persia and their more turbulent neighbours;
(inasmuch as communications in the ancient and medieval world could ever
create anything simultaneous in international trade).
>I'm not sure but it is certain that Chinese imports continued so
>that implies the Byzantines never produced enough. The Byzantines
>may have tried that.But there wasn't really two suppliers as the
>Turks held all the land surrounding China. The Persians had to
>buy from the Turks. So I don't see how far they could drive down
>the price unless the Persians got silks from India (a genuine
>export from China). But they would have to buy them to get them.
>The Turks did not. They were "given" them and so didn't have to
>pay. It is possible that no other producer could match this sort
>of non-economic extraction.
Ah. I see. The scales are falling from my eyes. Persia had no more a
direct trade in Silk with China than Rome did.
>
>: One last point. In "The Annals of the Han Dynasty" Hirth [1885] 1975
>: p41-42, the ancient Chinese author writes all he seems to know about the
>: Roman Empire. ( I only know this because it is quoted in another book).
>
>: With reference to silk he says a couple of interesting things:-
>
>: 1) "They [the Romans] have 'fine cloth', called Shui-yang-ts'ui [i.e,
>: down of the water sheep]; it is made from the cocoons of wild silk-
>: worms."
>
>: 2) "Their kings always desired to send embassies to China, but the An-
>: hsi wished to carry on trade with them in Chinese silks, and it is for
>: that reason that they were cut off from communication. This lasted till
>: the ninth year of the Yen-hsi perod during the Emperor Huan-ti's reign
>: [A.D. 166] when the king of Ta-ts'in, An-tun [Antoninus] sent an embassy
>: who, from the frontier of Jih-nan [Annam] offered ivory, rhinoceros
>: horns and tortoise shell. From that time dated the direct intercourse
>: with this country."
>
>: Comments ? (I half expect the Annals to be a fake, but if not.....)
>
>It depends what he means by the Annals of the Han Dynasty. I expect
>that he means one or other of the genuine histories. If I remember
>the second part right the Hou Han Shu. If you can find a more
>accurate reference I can look it up.
Sorry, I looked at the footnote instead of the bibliography.
"China and the Roman Orient" F. Hirth. Shanghai and Hong Kong. 1885.
Reprint Chicago 1975.
>I might be able to find the
>second one anyway. I like to see the claim that the Chinese also
>thought that silk came from "water sheep" if only in name. I wonder
>who first started that story.
Indeed, and it also refers to "wild silk-worms" which might imply either
inferior sericulture, no sericulture at all, or a different species or
sub-species of silkworm moth. I found it curious altogether that the
Chines should be aware of Mediterranean, or perhaps more accurately
Aegean silk-production. Perhaps the Romans were exprting _their_ silk to
China! A kind of coals to Newcastle to end all coals to Newcastle. :)
>
>There are some serious problems with this of course. I've never
>been convinced by the identification of "An-tun" and any Roman
>Emperor. I've not seen the original characters but I expect that
>no one has tried to re-construct the original sound. Ivory, rhino
>horns and tortoise shells don't leap to mind as the most obvious
>and typical Roman exports.
Ivory and tortoiseshell were commonly worked into various manufactured
goods in the Roman Empire, so offering them for export in a natural or
worked condition seems reasonable. The romans were fond of curiosities,
and though I don't know of any use for rhino horn in the Roman world, it
is not inconceivable that this embassy had bought rhino horn from either
Africa, or more likely India or even Annam; if indeed the embassy
existed, and that it was Roman.
Other Roman products are listed in the same text; in fact I'll give you
all the text I have, excluding what I've already given.
"The country [the Roman Empire] contains much gold, silver, and rare
precious stones, especially 'the jewel that shines at night', 'the
moonshine pearl', the hseih-chi-hsi, corals, amber, glass, lang-kan [a
kind of coral], chu-tan [cinnabar], green jadestone [ching-pi], gold
embroidered rugs and thin silk-cloth of various colours. They make gold-
coloured cloth and asbestos cloth....... They collect all kinds of
fragrant substances, the juice of which they boil into sub-ho [storax].
All the rare gems of other foreign countries come from here. They make
coins of gold and silver. They traffic by sea with An-hsi [Parthia] and
T'en-chu [India], the profit of which trade is tenfold. They are honest
in their transactions, and there are no double prices. Cereals are
always cheap. The budget is based on a well-filled treasury. when the
embassies of neighbouring countries come to their frontier, they are
driven by post to the capital, and on arrival, are presented with golden
money....."
>
>I think a lot of damage has been done by over-hasty assumptions
>about links between people and tribes in Chinese literature and
>other people and tribes in European.
Over-hasty assumptions - a Bad Thing by definition.
cheers,
--
David Read
Yuri Kuchinsky
Joseph Askew (jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au) wrote:
...
: I can't say I've ever noticed any particular Chinese influence on
: Ancient art. There is a strong Greek influence on Chinese Buddhist
: artworks, but I know of nothing going the other way.
Ancient America?
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku
So much additional evidence argues in favor of trans-Pacific
diffusion on a very intellectual level at this point, perhaps
around the time of Christ, perhaps around the time of the
founding of Teotihuacan -=O=- Michael D. Coe (1981)
Punnadhammo
>Joseph Askew (jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au) wrote:
...
>: I can't say I've ever noticed any particular Chinese influence on
>: Ancient art. There is a strong Greek influence on Chinese Buddhist
>: artworks, but I know of nothing going the other way.
Yes, the first images of the Buddha were modelled on the greek god
apollo.
Your post, however, raises a couple of interesting questions:
1) Who first came up with the convention of the halo as a mark of
sacredness around the head of holy beings? This occurs in both eastern
and western art. Does any one know who did it first?
2) Similiarly I've noticed that medieveal images of Christ and the
saints often have their hands placed in postures identifiable as Indian
mudras. Could this be an influence?
Duncan Craig
> >: Ancient art. There is a strong Greek influence on Chinese Buddhist
> >: artworks, but I know of nothing going the other way.
>
> apollo.
>
> Your post, however, raises a couple of interesting questions:
>
> 1) Who first came up with the convention of the halo as a mark of
> sacredness around the head of holy beings? This occurs in both eastern
> and western art. Does any one know who did it first?
>
> 2) Similiarly I've noticed that medieveal images of Christ and the
> saints often have their hands placed in postures identifiable as Indian
> mudras. Could this be an influence?
to the fourth century. Undoubtedly there was a lot of intercourse via
the silk road and Bactria. Nestorians may have even carried the
Consecration for Life (Tshe-dbang) ritual to the west. A Bon-Po ritual
that consisted of distributing little pellets of barley flour and sips
of consecrated ale (chang), it may have been the prototype of Communion.
Funny thing, there are also postures, wavy lotus motifs and mahamudras
very reminicent of Buddhist iconography in Meso-America...well
documented by Paul Chou, Joseph Needham, Campbell,etcetera, etcetera.
Duncan
Dajiang Liu
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, David Read wrote:
<snipped>
> Sorry, I looked at the footnote instead of the bibliography.
>
> "China and the Roman Orient" F. Hirth. Shanghai and Hong Kong. 1885.
> Reprint Chicago 1975.
>
First on the source of the original text. It is from Xi Yu zhi (records
of western nations) from Chronicles of later Han Dynasty by Fan Ye.
Although it was written in Sung dynasty, much later than the time it
covered, it is considered "faithful history" (Xin Shi) in Chinese
tradition, and is included in the 24 official dynastic history.
> Indeed, and it also refers to "wild silk-worms" which might imply either
> inferior sericulture, no sericulture at all, or a different species or
> sub-species of silkworm moth. I found it curious altogether that the
> Chines should be aware of Mediterranean, or perhaps more accurately
> Aegean silk-production. Perhaps the Romans were exprting _their_ silk to
> China! A kind of coals to Newcastle to end all coals to Newcastle. :)
> >
In the original, the country referred to is Da Qin (or Ta ch'in). It is a
vogue in early nineteen century to associate Da Qin with the Roman empire
with Rome as the capital. But this association was questioned by Hirth in
his book "China and the Roman Orient". His claim is that Da Qin is only
some powerful outposts of the Roman Empire, probably Syria.
Da-Jiang Liu
Maa-t Sa-ab
We must understand that all of history today is indebted to the geneius
of African men and women who gave Europe its civilized existence. If it
were not for what they have stolen so far to date European social
history would not exist.
So there isn't any Eurocentrism without the benefit of what they stole
from and still to this date stealing from Africa. Never for get all you
professors of His Story we will return to our former selves to reclaim
and rewrite our story so that the planet and its inhabitants can be save
from your lies.
Joseph Askew
Paul J. Gans (ga...@panix.com) wrote:
: >Why couldn't the worms have made it on their own? While Procopius
: >says in his Gothic Wars that these monks smuggled in the silkworms,
: >he also says in the Secret History that Justinian's monopoly ruined
: >the silk industry of Beirut. Which strongly implies the Ancient
: >world had a *pre-existing* silk industry.
: I believe that the "best" silkworms were native to China
: and are today found outside of China only in protected
: habitats.
I wouldn't be surprised if selective breeding of silkworms resulted
in a superior domesticated version which might not be able to even
survive in the wild but I don't know for sure. Even E. Coli has been
used so extensively in laboratories that the strains they use can't
survive outside the lab. Or so my little brother tells me.
: As far as Beirut is concerned, I'm puzzled. Mainly because
: Beirut was part of the Byzantine Empire until it was
: conquered by the Moslims well after the Gothic Wars.
Which is why the official monopoly had such a big impact on them.
Justinian had either taken their livelihood away or forced them
to work for the state and fixed prices.
Procopius says many of them fled to Persia.
: >I also reject the idea that China traded in any normal sense of
: >the word with the Byzantines.
: Well, that's a quibble. There is no evidence that I know of
: that the Chinese traded directly with the Byzantines. But
: then, I don't buy my cars directly from Ford, either. :-)
True. But it isn't a quibble in the fields I'm interested in. For
a start the assumption that all transactions between the Chinese
and the barbarians are trade is a common one. Which means if the
Chinese object to paying what amounted to protection money Western
Mongolists claim (a) the Chinese despised trade and (b) the Mongols'
actions were in self defence. You might be able to see why I have
problems with this view. I don't reject the idea that there was a
trade in Chinese goods somewhere along the road. Just not at the
start.
: There is much evidence that there was, as I indicated, a
: large seaborn trade from China westward, through what is
: now Malaysia to India, the Arab countries, and the
: eastern shore of Africa. The trade was not direct. Goods
: were transhiped several times. The Indians and the Arabs
: knew where the goods came from. The Europeans were more
: vague and knew only that they came from the east.
I agree with this part. I think you can call much of this trade
and it really was. The Koran contains references to China and the
Chinese, as do the Hadiths. So obviously the Arabs did have some
considerable knowledge. My favourite appearance of China in the
Middle East are the Druze who are supposed to believe here are
huge numbers of Druze in western China. Whether this is true or
not I don't know as the Druze tend to keep their beliefs secret,
but the first Syrian Ambassador to the PRC was a Druze.
: I suspect that the Chinese must have made some profit on
: the export -- I can't imagine them selling it at cost. But
: the majority of the profit was made, as always, by the
: middle men.
Well they didn't have a problem with sea borne traders so to them
they probably did. But to the nomadic peoples they almost never
did. Not because they didn't want to but because they had no choice
in the matter. Huge qunatities were sent as subsidies to their allies
or payments to their enemies when too powerful. One effect of this
might have been the problems the Byzantines had getting silk around
552 AD. The shortage might have been due to a Chinese refusal to sell
which I doubt. It may have had to do with a Persia boycott which is
fairly likely. But it also marks an end of a period when the Wei were
powerful and kept the Ruo-ruan down. The shortage might have to do
with the fighting between the Chinese, the Turks and the Ruo-ruan.
: Other well-known goods came to Europe from the east. The lapis
: lazuli used to make blue ink throughout the medieval period
: (and earlier as well) came from the foothills of the Himalayas.
: That's just one example.
The famous Ming blue-and-white porcelain used, I think from memory,
a cobalt ore from Afghanistan. So there was some trade. Just not
very much, from distinct geogrpahic areas (the south and Xinjiang
mostly), and only at certain periods.
Joseph Askew
David Read (da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >By "no introduction" I meant that the silkworms were already there
: >before 552 AD.
: Indeed, that is what I understood you to have meant originally, but I
: surmised that the passage in "The Secret History" about the silk
: industry in Tyre and Beirut did not offer the evidence for sericulture
: in the Mediterranean basin that you previously thought it might. It is
: evidence certainly of the working of silk, and if we are to give
: Procopius any credence at all in the matter, such a silk processing
: industry makes more sense when taken in conjunction with the story of
: the introduction of silkworms in "The Gothic Wars."
I did originally, when I first read the SEcret History, think that
this was evidence of a pre-existing silk worm industry, but as I
have pointed out, the alternative spinning-dyeing explanation was
pointed out to me. So this time I didn't mean to offer it as proof
o the pre-existing silk producing industry but as suggesting that
perhaps the least complicated explanation is that Procopius was
making up and there was a pre-existing industry. Make no mistake I
would like to show that such an industry existed but I know I am
a long long way from doing it at the moment.
The problem with the story of the introduction is that if we reject
it as wrong and a fable Procopius made up (although why he would
totally escapes me and he is just the sort of person who would know
and damn it it is a good story anyway) what are we left with as
proof they were introduced?
: I don't have particular difficulty accepting that there may well have
: been silkworms in Europe for hundreds of years before this time, whether
: indigenous, or naturally migrated or perhaps even a separate species or
: sub-species producing inferior silk. But that _hypothesis_ is not
: evidence for long-established and continuous sericulture in the Greek
: and Roman world.
Well not of proper silk. We know that there was production of
several inferior types of silk. But without use of the modern
scientific names for the worms (which is too much to ask) how
can we tell one from the other?
: >Well Gibbon says quite a lot of things that aren't quite right. I did
: >like his suggestion that printing would have been a better import,
: >not to mention paper. There's an interesting what-if.
: Well, I'm certainly not a partisan for all things Gibbon, but the point
: he makes about the unravelling of closely-weaved Chinese silk cloth in
: Phoenicia and the reworking of it into either looser and diaphanous
: material, or intermixing it with linen thread is just part of the
: evidence you referred to in your previous post.
There is a lot more evidence that just Gibbon. Many mixed silks
survived in Egyptian tombs. I've seen the pictures. And I believe
tests have been done although on that point I'm still not clear
(the person pointed out to me as a good bloke to ask was at Sydney
Uni when in Australia and was in Afghanistan on a dig anyway so
I haven't been able to talk to him yet).
: The point about Virgil's misunderstanding of how silk was made is
: interesting. Either he was unaware of the real nature of the stuff,
: which if the cultivation of silkworms was still extant on Kos might cast
: doubt upon that idea; or if silk _was_ still being produced in Kos or
: anywhere else in the Mediterranean it was of such inferior quality to
: the Chinese material that he did not recognise it _as_ the same
: material.
Well he would have surelu known the Greek word for it. Maybe he was
not very interested, manufacturing being so illiberal and all that.
This is what the Oxford Classical Dictionary has to say,
In early times silk was exported from the Far East by
overland routes to the countries of western Asia, and
in the days o Herodotus the Persians regarded a silk
robe as one of their choisest possessions. The pure
ailk robe - vestis serica - however, was not the same
as the vestis Coa or the vestis bombycina with which it
is sometimes confused. The Coan robe was made at Cos
from the pierced cocoons of a worm - bombyx - which
lived on oak and ash trees, the bombycine robe from
the pierced cocoons of the true mulberry silkworm; and
as in both cases it was impossible to unwind the cocoons,
they were carded and then spun into coarse silk. The
Chinese alone knew the method of unwinding the entire
cocoon
Which is evidence of the silk industry in the Classical world
using geniune silk worms but is terribly vague about dates and
a general time frame.
: Yet here were these daft Romans, getting hold of this
: wonderful Chinese product, breaking it down and reworking it into an
: inferior product more closely resembling that with which they were
: already familiar; i.e., the loosely woven, floaty, filmy stuff of Kos!
: Not so much Romans, as philistines.
Well I'm not sure it was an inferior product as such (remember one
pound of silk was supposed to get twelve pounds of gold). Rather
the Mediterranean climate is different from that of northern China
(you try surviving -40 C at Xian wearing nothing but a piece of
tissue paper!), social mores just as different and silk in the
Roman world was clearly a very upper class product. Which wasn't
necessarily so true of China.
: For the most part, this was for women. By the age of Constantine I at
: the latest, we see mosaics and statuary of Emperors wearing what appears
: to be heavy silk, brocaided, bejewelled and embroidered; such a style
: could be in imitation of either Imperial China or Sassanid Persia. But
I would lean more to Persia myself. I don't see the mosaics I've
seen showing any signs of Chinese influence.
: the design doesn't look Chinese, although the base material might be.
But probably not. At least only the silk thread (which was also
"exported" in large amounts).
: But the base material, even the finshed product, could be almost
: completely Persian - or so it seems to me. And this fashion for heavy
: silks spread to the nobility of both sexes and senior clergy of the
: Byzantine world.
Indeed. A long way from the first shocked reaction to silk wearing.
Just in passing there is a Hadith from Muhammed's life when he was
given a silk shirt. He wore it to prayers but ripped it off halfway
through saying it was unfit for men and so a semi-ban has remained.
A common enough reaction it would seem and yet the Chinese wore it
thick and didn't seem to have any problems with it.
: >I'm not implying that. It is just that pretty much everyone was too
: >poor to make trade worthwhile. I doubt there was a lot of trade with
: >the Germanic people to the North of Rome either. Even though the
: >Germans had more to trade with.
: The Romans and Byzantines were not too poor. China was aware of the
: demand for silk in Europe and the middlemen operating the Silk Road, or
But the Romans were too far away and the Chinese could not sell
it direct. They would have to sell it traders of Central Asian
origin who as a general rule only traded when they had to. Theu
preferred to steal.
How do you know that the Chinese were aware of the demand for silk
in Europe?
: even adventurous Roman traders might have expected to pay the Chinese
: asking price and still make a handsome profit when they returned. As for
Twelve pounds of gold for one of silk? I bet they would have. If they
made a habit of sailing that far.
: trade with the Germans, it depends what you mean by "a lot".... but
: that's a digression....
I don't think it is much of a digression.
: >I think that the problem with the Persians is that they just were
: >not willing to trade silk at all. There may well have been a
: >blockade which Justinian and the Turks tried to overcome by
: >opening a northern route.
: I think that this depends on whatever relationships happened to be
: existing between Parthian or Sassanid Persia and Rome or Byzantium at
: the time. The mercantile cities of Arabia, particularly Palmyra could
: not have flourished without a very active culture of trade with Persia.
Indeed although less so for southern Arabia where places like Mecca
survived on incense trade with Oman. The Tu"rks, when they first
established an Empire, sent two embassies to Persia. Both carried
Chinese silks. The first one was shown the door and the Persians
publically burnt their silks. The second was supposedly poisoned
by the Persians. Not the sort of behaviour I would associate with
the promotion of active trade.
: If there was a demand for silk, the supply would rise, in times of
: peace, to meet the demand.
Assuming (a) peace and (b) the absense of other government actions.
: All this presupposes ideal conditions and
: relationships existing simultaneously between all the interested
: parties, including China and Persia and their more turbulent neighbours;
Indeed. Which isn't likely to be true.
: (inasmuch as communications in the ancient and medieval world could ever
: create anything simultaneous in international trade).
On the other hand sea trade escapes many of these problems as long
as there are friendly ports and a reasonable absence of piracy.
: >I'm not sure but it is certain that Chinese imports continued so
: >that implies the Byzantines never produced enough. The Byzantines
: >may have tried that.But there wasn't really two suppliers as the
: >Turks held all the land surrounding China. The Persians had to
: >buy from the Turks. So I don't see how far they could drive down
: >the price unless the Persians got silks from India (a genuine
: >export from China). But they would have to buy them to get them.
: >The Turks did not. They were "given" them and so didn't have to
: >pay. It is possible that no other producer could match this sort
: >of non-economic extraction.
: Ah. I see. The scales are falling from my eyes. Persia had no more a
: direct trade in Silk with China than Rome did.
Unless the Persians were able to go all the way to China as they
did in later Islamic times. But I don't think there is a lot of
evidence for it. Also China was split at this time with the main
silk producing regions being held by a different power to those
who held the southern ports (Canton for one) with which trade
would have been easiest. Obviously the Persians had some degree
of Naval power as they were able to thwart Justinian's initial
plan of opening a secure sea route to India.
: >It depends what he means by the Annals of the Han Dynasty. I expect
: >that he means one or other of the genuine histories. If I remember
: >the second part right the Hou Han Shu. If you can find a more
: >accurate reference I can look it up.
: Sorry, I looked at the footnote instead of the bibliography.
: "China and the Roman Orient" F. Hirth. Shanghai and Hong Kong. 1885.
: Reprint Chicago 1975.
Hmmm, I don't promise a lot but I'll see if I can find it.
Does he give any better reference for the "Annals of the HanDynasty"?
: >I might be able to find the
: >second one anyway. I like to see the claim that the Chinese also
: >thought that silk came from "water sheep" if only in name. I wonder
: >who first started that story.
: Indeed, and it also refers to "wild silk-worms" which might imply either
: inferior sericulture, no sericulture at all, or a different species or
: sub-species of silkworm moth. I found it curious altogether that the
: Chines should be aware of Mediterranean, or perhaps more accurately
: Aegean silk-production. Perhaps the Romans were exprting _their_ silk to
: China! A kind of coals to Newcastle to end all coals to Newcastle. :)
Maybe they were although I know of no evidence of it. There was
clearly an inferior silk product made with real silk worms in the
Classical world. Not a lot more to add to that as yet. I've been
looking because I thought an article on it would be interesting.
But what I really need is for a well known historian to claim the
story is true and most modern ones don't. Besides Bernard Lewis
anyway and he is not the right sort of historian.
: >There are some serious problems with this of course. I've never
: >been convinced by the identification of "An-tun" and any Roman
: >Emperor. I've not seen the original characters but I expect that
: >no one has tried to re-construct the original sound. Ivory, rhino
: >horns and tortoise shells don't leap to mind as the most obvious
: >and typical Roman exports.
: Ivory and tortoiseshell were commonly worked into various manufactured
: goods in the Roman Empire, so offering them for export in a natural or
: worked condition seems reasonable. The romans were fond of curiosities,
: and though I don't know of any use for rhino horn in the Roman world, it
: is not inconceivable that this embassy had bought rhino horn from either
: Africa, or more likely India or even Annam; if indeed the embassy
: existed, and that it was Roman.
They could have picked that sort of stuff up anywhere. India would
be on obvious choice. Rhinos and Elephants. Some knowledge of the
Roman world too. Still rhinos could be found in south-east Asia
(the wooly Javanese rhino is donw to about 36 animals and as such
one of the rarest big mammals anywhere I believe) as could the odd
Elephant. But on the other hand maybe some Indian merchants were
trying to pull a swift one claiming to be a Roman embassy to gain
the large "gifts inreturn" the Han court handed out. After all the
Roman Empire (or someone claiming to be such) was presenting tribute
into the sixteenth century or so.
: Other Roman products are listed in the same text; in fact I'll give you
: all the text I have, excluding what I've already given.
: "The country [the Roman Empire] contains much gold, silver, and rare
: precious stones, especially 'the jewel that shines at night', 'the
: moonshine pearl', the hseih-chi-hsi, corals, amber, glass, lang-kan [a
: kind of coral], chu-tan [cinnabar], green jadestone [ching-pi], gold
: embroidered rugs and thin silk-cloth of various colours. They make gold-
: coloured cloth and asbestos cloth....... They collect all kinds of
: fragrant substances, the juice of which they boil into sub-ho [storax].
So we have (a) precious metals, (b) gems and (c) coral. Again I'm
not sure I would associate this with Rome myself. India sounds a
much better choice although Roman traders would have to come via
the Red Sea and as such have extensive supplies of coral.
: All the rare gems of other foreign countries come from here. They make
: coins of gold and silver. They traffic by sea with An-hsi [Parthia] and
: T'en-chu [India], the profit of which trade is tenfold. They are honest
: in their transactions, and there are no double prices. Cereals are
: always cheap. The budget is based on a well-filled treasury. when the
: embassies of neighbouring countries come to their frontier, they are
: driven by post to the capital, and on arrival, are presented with golden
: money....."
The reference to India is interesting but it could only refer to a
part of India as it wasn't properly Unified and "Ten[which is a mistake
by the way on his part] chu" isn't the Chinese word for thewhole
region anyway.
But this part does sound more like Rome although a well filled
treasury?
I have heard people like the cheap grain to the public dole but
I'm not sure I buy that either.
David Read
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.97091...@carmen.umd.edu>,
Dajiang Liu <daj...@Glue.umd.edu> writes
>
>First on the source of the original text. It is from Xi Yu zhi (records
>of western nations) from Chronicles of later Han Dynasty by Fan Ye.
>Although it was written in Sung dynasty, much later than the time it
>covered, it is considered "faithful history" (Xin Shi) in Chinese
>tradition, and is included in the 24 official dynastic history.
Thanks. It would be interesting to know how far modern scholarship
accepts this "faithful history" as being of value in understanding the
period covered, and whether or not there is a consensus view.
>In the original, the country referred to is Da Qin (or Ta ch'in). It is a
>vogue in early nineteen century to associate Da Qin with the Roman empire
>with Rome as the capital. But this association was questioned by Hirth in
>his book "China and the Roman Orient". His claim is that Da Qin is only
>some powerful outposts of the Roman Empire, probably Syria.
Yes, and perhaps there is a conflation in the text of the Roman Empire,
(particularly the mercantile cities of Syria, such as Petra and Palmyra)
and the trading cities around the Arabian Peninsula littoral, such as
Charax, Gerrha, Eudaemon and Medina. This would help explain Fan Ye's
perception of the seaborne trade of Rome with Persia and India, as well
as his list of produce, only some of which seems typically Roman.
cheers,
--
David Read
Paul J. Gans
I did NOT write the paragraph below. Please watch the
attributions.
>: >Why couldn't the worms have made it on their own? While Procopius
>: >says in his Gothic Wars that these monks smuggled in the silkworms,
>: >he also says in the Secret History that Justinian's monopoly ruined
>: >the silk industry of Beirut. Which strongly implies the Ancient
>: >world had a *pre-existing* silk industry.
I DID write this paragraph.
>: I believe that the "best" silkworms were native to China
>: and are today found outside of China only in protected
>: habitats.
>I wouldn't be surprised if selective breeding of silkworms resulted
>in a superior domesticated version which might not be able to even
>survive in the wild but I don't know for sure. Even E. Coli has been
>used so extensively in laboratories that the strains they use can't
>survive outside the lab. Or so my little brother tells me.
[rest deleted]
Dajiang Liu
On Sat, 20 Sep 1997, David Read wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.97091...@carmen.umd.edu>,
> Dajiang Liu <daj...@Glue.umd.edu> writes
> >
> >First on the source of the original text. It is from Xi Yu zhi (records
> >of western nations) from Chronicles of later Han Dynasty by Fan Ye.
> >Although it was written in Sung dynasty, much later than the time it
> >covered, it is considered "faithful history" (Xin Shi) in Chinese
> >tradition, and is included in the 24 official dynastic history.
>
> Thanks. It would be interesting to know how far modern scholarship
> accepts this "faithful history" as being of value in understanding the
> period covered, and whether or not there is a consensus view.
>
This is indeed an interesting question. The early western historians,
mostly non-specialists in Chinese history, tend to have a condescending
view of Chinese dynastic histories. Naturally they don't bother to write
a book about it, and their opinions are generally scattered in articles,
when they cursorily refer to Chinese history in passing. Those opinions
were very often repeated by other authors as generally accepted truths.
Since the thirties, many western educated Chinese took those criticisms
very carefully. They dismissed those which were due to ignorance and
prejudice, and at the same time, further developed the traditional
historic criticism using the western methodology. Unfortunately, because
of the turmoils in China, their works were almost completely nullified.
Their voices were augmented in the western world by some admirable works
of western sinologists. The works of Chinese historians through thousands
of years, gradually appears on the radar map of orthodox historians
through translations. A milestone might be the publication of "Historians
of China and Japan", edited by W. G. Beasley and E. G. Pulleyblank.
It is interesting to note the concluding paragraph of Charles Sidney
Gardner's "Chinese Traditional Historiography" written in 1938.
" ... But so many contemporary records have been verbally imbedded at
least in part in later compilations of various categories, that it may
almost be said of Chinese history that it consists exclusively of primary
sources. Glaring and lamentable as are the defects in the traditional
technique of Chinese historians, their work has drawn from the very
primitiveness of their synthetic method, coupled with an age-long
insistence on intellectual integrity, a kind of rugged strength and
fundamental reliability which constitute valid claims upon our respect and
admiration. No other ancient nation possesses records of its whole past
so voluminous, so continuous, or so accurate. "
David Read
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.97092...@carmen.umd.edu>,
Dajiang Liu <daj...@Glue.umd.edu> writes
Thanks again. This has reminded me of an article I read in "The
Guardian" newspaper earlier this year, which unfortunately I did not cut
out and keep. IIRC the gist of it was that a considerable amount of
documentary evidence of ancient and medieval Chinese history had been
forged in the nineteenth century by a certain Chinese scholar. According
to the article these "forgeries" have only recently been identified as
such, and the British Library or British Museum was involved in
revealing the fraud. I remember looking at the British Museum website at
the time, but there was nothing there and I thought no more of it.
Any knowledge of this or comments about it ?
Coincidentally, the same newspaper yesterday reported a strange story
about a Jewish Italian merchant who had recorded his experiences of a
seaborne trip to China, before Marco Polo claimed to have made his
landward journey. These memoirs have been translated into English for
the first time and, superficially at least, seem much more convincing
than Marco Polo's account. The fly in the ointment is that the
mysterious owner of the original document refuses to reveal who he or
she is and the translator, (an Oxford scholar), is sworn to secrecy. He
may neither reveal the owner's identity nor may he produce the original
document for public and academic scrutiny; all of which, of course,
renders the work of the translator as historically completely
worthless....
cheers,
--
David Read
Paul J. Gans
Yes. The same report appeared in the New York Times this
past Sunday. Scholars will, I strongly suspect, withhold
judgement until the source can be examined. It just won't
fly on one person's word.
On the other hand, the content is not at all surprising. We
already know from 12th century documents stored in a Cairo
Synagogue and found in the last century that Jewish (and doubtless
Arab as well) merchants regularly travelled to India and that
there were Jewish (and again, doubtless Arab) trading colonies
further east. It was well-known where the trade route led and
China was often talked and written about. It would be surprising
if nobody had ever found their way there. Certainly China
was often visited by south-east Asians and by inhabitants of
what is now Indonesia.
The fact that Europeans did not make the trip early on is
more a tribute to medieval Europe's isolated position
than anything else.
On my class pages I have a reproduction of a 13th
century map drawn in Sicily showing India, China,
Japan, etc. The information on it was gathered from
Arab merchants.
The URL is http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/~medtech/imaps.html
Dajiang Liu
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, David Read wrote:
> Thanks again. This has reminded me of an article I read in "The
> Guardian" newspaper earlier this year, which unfortunately I did not cut
> out and keep. IIRC the gist of it was that a considerable amount of
> documentary evidence of ancient and medieval Chinese history had been
> forged in the nineteenth century by a certain Chinese scholar. According
> to the article these "forgeries" have only recently been identified as
> such, and the British Library or British Museum was involved in
> revealing the fraud. I remember looking at the British Museum website at
> the time, but there was nothing there and I thought no more of it.
>
> Any knowledge of this or comments about it ?
>
It is a pity that you don't have the original article with you. A search
in the Guardian online produced nothing similar. I don't have any
knowledge of this story, and it is really surprising breakthrough of this
magnitude did not bring more attentions, in another word, I would miss it.
A nineteen century scholar might have incentives and means of forging
oracle bones records and purporting it as genuine Shang dynasty artifacts,
considering the conditions from which those oracle bones were collected. A
lot of them were used as Chinese medicines at that time. The British
Museum recently had an exhibition about the oracle bones scriptures, this
might have some relations with it. Again I am not aware of any major
discovery of forgeries in recent years.
As to the role the of British Museum in discovering forgeries, quite
coincidentally, Frances Wood, the director of Chinese study in the British
Museum (something like this, I don't remember her exact title), recently
published a book claiming Marco Polo never made it into China. Her name
is mentioned in New York Times article about the story you mentioned
below. Her main evidences against the authenticity of Marco Polo are,
IIRC, Marco Polo didn't record some of the prominent Chinese
characteristics at that time, namely, tea drinking, foot binding, etc.
Guess what, they were all mentioned in the tale of this Jewish Italian
merchant. Of course, unlike Marco Polo, he didn't claim to be a high
official of Mongol Empire, therefore the fact that his name couldn't be
found in Chinese or Mongol records can be not be used against him. Added
the circumstances involving the source of document, the whole thing looks
like a hoax to me.
Another tidbit. The New York Times article also mentioned some so called
primitive flamethrowers. From the description of it, anyone familiar with
history of science in China and physics would recognize it as a primitive
rocket. You can find some facsimiles of original figures and descriptions
of it published in Song dynasty, even before the traveling of this
merchant supposed to happen, in many modern popular books about rockets.
What I am getting here is, the records in Chinese is so complete that even
if that tale is authentic, I doubt how much additional light it can throw
on Chinese history at those times. Of course, as Hegel said, China has no
history, therefore they might be all forgeries.
> Coincidentally, the same newspaper yesterday reported a strange story
> about a Jewish Italian merchant who had recorded his experiences of a
> seaborne trip to China, before Marco Polo claimed to have made his
> landward journey. These memoirs have been translated into English for
> the first time and, superficially at least, seem much more convincing
> than Marco Polo's account. The fly in the ointment is that the
> mysterious owner of the original document refuses to reveal who he or
> she is and the translator, (an Oxford scholar), is sworn to secrecy. He
> may neither reveal the owner's identity nor may he produce the original
> document for public and academic scrutiny; all of which, of course,
> renders the work of the translator as historically completely
> worthless....
>
> cheers,
> --
> David Read
>
>
Da-Jiang Liu
David Read
Yes, I'm kicking myself. I remember thinking at the time that someone
was bound to bring the subject up on Usenet in due course, but I never
saw any such debate in the newsgroups I subscribe to.
> A search
>in the Guardian online produced nothing similar.
Fairly useless, Guardian Online.
> I don't have any
>knowledge of this story, and it is really surprising breakthrough of this
>magnitude did not bring more attentions, in another word, I would miss it.
>A nineteen century scholar might have incentives and means of forging
>oracle bones records and purporting it as genuine Shang dynasty artifacts,
>considering the conditions from which those oracle bones were collected. A
>lot of them were used as Chinese medicines at that time. The British
>Museum recently had an exhibition about the oracle bones scriptures, this
>might have some relations with it. Again I am not aware of any major
>discovery of forgeries in recent years.
Oh well...
>
>As to the role the of British Museum in discovering forgeries, quite
>coincidentally, Frances Wood, the director of Chinese study in the British
>Museum (something like this, I don't remember her exact title), recently
>published a book claiming Marco Polo never made it into China. Her name
>is mentioned in New York Times article about the story you mentioned
>below. Her main evidences against the authenticity of Marco Polo are,
>IIRC, Marco Polo didn't record some of the prominent Chinese
>characteristics at that time, namely, tea drinking, foot binding, etc.
Yes, that and the fact that he was using Persian names for things
Chinese. But I think the authenticity of Marco Polo's story has been
seriously called into question before Frances Wood wrote about it.
>Guess what, they were all mentioned in the tale of this Jewish Italian
>merchant. Of course, unlike Marco Polo, he didn't claim to be a high
>official of Mongol Empire, therefore the fact that his name couldn't be
>found in Chinese or Mongol records can be not be used against him. Added
>the circumstances involving the source of document, the whole thing looks
>like a hoax to me.
One can only hope that the intention of the New York Times, (and the
Guardian who I see actually ran the NYT's copy), was to bring the story
to a wide and very public domain in order to persuade the owner of the
original document to come forward and reveal all. I just hope it works,
but I'm not holding my breath.
>
>
>Another tidbit. The New York Times article also mentioned some so called
>primitive flamethrowers. From the description of it, anyone familiar with
>history of science in China and physics would recognize it as a primitive
>rocket. You can find some facsimiles of original figures and descriptions
>of it published in Song dynasty, even before the traveling of this
>merchant supposed to happen, in many modern popular books about rockets.
I missed that. Could the description be equally be applied to the
naphtha-based flame-throwers as used by the Byzantines ?
>
>What I am getting here is, the records in Chinese is so complete that even
>if that tale is authentic, I doubt how much additional light it can throw
>on Chinese history at those times.
Very little. More useful would be any light it shone upon the question
of European-Chinese contact, and the Italian perspective of China.
cheers,
--
David Read
SusannaG
b...@lynx.spa.umn.edu (Chris Cornuelle) wrote:
>Not to be pedantic - oh, all right, I'll go ahead anyway - but smuggled
>with the silkworm was the bush on which it feeds. AFAIK another
>indication of how deeply committed our ancestors were to the study of
>natural ecosystems - so long as there was a denarius to be made. :^)
Yes, I think the bush was nearly as important as the variety of worm.
Silkworms can be very picky about what kind of mulberry leaf they will eat;
I believe the Georgia colony's attempt to develop a silk industry in the
1700's failed in part due to the planting of the wrong kind of mulberry trees.
Interesting discussion.
SusannaG
Joseph Askew
Dajiang Liu (daj...@Glue.umd.edu) wrote:
: As to the role the of British Museum in discovering forgeries, quite
: coincidentally, Frances Wood, the director of Chinese study in the British
: Museum (something like this, I don't remember her exact title), recently
: published a book claiming Marco Polo never made it into China. Her name
: is mentioned in New York Times article about the story you mentioned
: below.
She is hardly the first. John W. Haeger wrote "Marco Polo in China?
Problems with internal evidence," :Bulletin of Sung and Yuan Studies:,
14, (1978) pp. 22 - 30 questioning the story. Herbert Franke's _Sino-
Western Contacts under the Mongol Empire_ JRAS(HK), (1966) is another
older discussion which doesn't dismiss it.Francis W. Cleaves (far far
too pro-Mongol for my liking) has published an article in the Harvard
Journal of Asiatic Studies in 1976 on Marco Polo in China. But I'm
told that Yang Chih-chiu (notice the W-G spelling) has conclusively
proved Marco Polo's presence in China in his Yuan Shih san lun (Bei
jing, 1985). I haven't read it. I haven't even bothered to work out
his name in Pinyin. If anyone is interested I will though.
: Her main evidences against the authenticity of Marco Polo are,
: IIRC, Marco Polo didn't record some of the prominent Chinese
: characteristics at that time, namely, tea drinking, foot binding, etc.
The most compelling evidence IMO is that he didn't speak any Chinese.
The words he preserves are pretty much all Persian, not Chinese. Who
would live in China that long and not learn at least one or two words?
: Guess what, they were all mentioned in the tale of this Jewish Italian
: merchant.
The lack of any mention of foot binding is odd because just about
everyone else noticed it.
: Of course, unlike Marco Polo, he didn't claim to be a high
: official of Mongol Empire, therefore the fact that his name couldn't be
: found in Chinese or Mongol records can be not be used against him. Added
Maroc Polo, if he turned up at all, almost certainly was not a high
official.
: the circumstances involving the source of document, the whole thing looks
: like a hoax to me.
From an Oxford scholar?
: What I am getting here is, the records in Chinese is so complete that even
: if that tale is authentic, I doubt how much additional light it can throw
: on Chinese history at those times. Of course, as Hegel said, China has no
: history, therefore they might be all forgeries.
But Chinese records are only complete in certain aspects. They are
like Chinese paintings in that respect. You get a lot of useful
information from Chinese paintings, but you very rarely get any
sort of glimpse of poor people. In fact there was probably only
one Chinese painter who bothered with painting the very poor. In
the same way the Chinese records are complete with respect to the
high offficial culture. We know a lot about government decisions,
about policy discussions, about wars, about "worthy" men, about
the careers of high officials. What we don't know is what Hangzhou
looked like in 1368. There has been some good studies done of the
Korean records produced during the Qing. The Koreans sent embassies
at least once a year. They recorded a lot of things including the
gossip and popular attitudes of the Beijing residents. So while the
official record is perfectly correct we *know* that there was wide
spread contempt for and dislike of the Manchus because the Koreans
recorded ordinary people saying so. None of this appears in the
official histories.
Myself, I would welcome any extra primary material, the more
unusual and different the better. I hope it is true, but I
doubt it is.
Joseph Askew
David Read (da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Dajiang Liu <daj...@Glue.umd.edu> writes
: >This is indeed an interesting question. The early western historians,
: >mostly non-specialists in Chinese history, tend to have a condescending
: >view of Chinese dynastic histories. Naturally they don't bother to write
: >a book about it, and their opinions are generally scattered in articles,
: >when they cursorily refer to Chinese history in passing. Those opinions
: >were very often repeated by other authors as generally accepted truths.
An all too common problem with far more than just the value of the
records. But there is a real problem with the value of official
Chinese dynastic histories. They are not exactly, as a general
rule, primary material in the strict sense. Some of them show very
definite signs of rushed production (the Yuan Shi for instance)
and some of them show definite biases. The later periods are much
better served than earlier ones, for much of the Former Han there
is really just the Shi Ji and the Han Shu which uses it extensively.
What can you say about something like the Ming Shilu which was not
exactly primary material either, rather the Court diaries were gathered
at the end of the year, a "definitive" versnio produce and then the
primary documents destroyed?
Of course the other problem is that too many Western authors have
written off what they do not like. The Chinese accounts of the Xia
and Shang dynasties were called mythical in their entirity because
they conflicted with either the Bible or assumptions about the
ancient world.
: Thanks again. This has reminded me of an article I read in "The
: Guardian" newspaper earlier this year, which unfortunately I did not cut
: out and keep. IIRC the gist of it was that a considerable amount of
: documentary evidence of ancient and medieval Chinese history had been
: forged in the nineteenth century by a certain Chinese scholar. According
: to the article these "forgeries" have only recently been identified as
: such, and the British Library or British Museum was involved in
: revealing the fraud. I remember looking at the British Museum website at
: the time, but there was nothing there and I thought no more of it.
I haven't heard of it myself and would be very interested if anyone
could track down an original reference. The problem is that much of
the primary (or semi-primary) material is well known. The Chinese
did have their own historical tradition with criticism of materials.
Historical works which criticise and evaluate other older historical
works exist and if these make mention of histories then it is hard
for someone to invent something - people would ask questions about it.
I suppose it is possible to invent critical works on other invented
works but hard to hold it together.
Perhaps you are confused by the extremely close scrutiny of the
Classical texts which formed the main school of Confucian thought
in the late Qing (the KaoZheng school) whch found that some of the
traditional texts in the Classical canon were not the work of
Confucius or other historical figures but rather late Han fakes?
: Coincidentally, the same newspaper yesterday reported a strange story
: about a Jewish Italian merchant who had recorded his experiences of a
: seaborne trip to China, before Marco Polo claimed to have made his
: landward journey. These memoirs have been translated into English for
: the first time and, superficially at least, seem much more convincing
: than Marco Polo's account. The fly in the ointment is that the
: mysterious owner of the original document refuses to reveal who he or
: she is and the translator, (an Oxford scholar), is sworn to secrecy. He
: may neither reveal the owner's identity nor may he produce the original
: document for public and academic scrutiny; all of which, of course,
: renders the work of the translator as historically completely
: worthless....
There is a 13 year old boy in New Zealand who claims that he has
got a simple cheap and effective solution to the Year 2000 problem.
But he won't tell anyone. I don't know why he has got the attention
he has so far. When I see the documents.....
Still other Italians were there. A famous gravestone of an Italian
woman was found in southern China in the 1950s.
Claude BAUZOU
Mathews wrote:
>
> I think the Assyrian (?) god Nabu (1000 BC ?) was depicted with a halo.
> |> >
> |> > 2) Similiarly I've noticed that medieveal images of Christ and the
> |> > saints often have their hands placed in postures identifiable as Indian
> |> > mudras. Could this be an influence?
> |>
> |> I believe there were halos around figures in the Dunhuang caves dating
> |> to the fourth century. Undoubtedly there was a lot of intercourse via
> |> the silk road and Bactria. Nestorians may have even carried the
> |> Consecration for Life (Tshe-dbang) ritual to the west. A Bon-Po ritual
> |> that consisted of distributing little pellets of barley flour and sips
> |> of consecrated ale (chang), it may have been the prototype of Communion.
> |> Funny thing, there are also postures, wavy lotus motifs and mahamudras
> |> very reminicent of Buddhist iconography in Meso-America...well
> |> documented by Paul Chou, Joseph Needham, Campbell,etcetera, etcetera.
> |> Duncan
Hi,
Maybe there is no need to look for an asiatic influence... Official
images of the Roman emerors (IIIrd - IVth c. AD) showed halos around
the heads of the Augusti. For the postures in which the Christ is
depicted (on medieval sculpture for ex.), many people noticed a
persian Sassanid influence (through Byzantium).
Tom.
Marian Rosenberg
Have you ever read Larry Niven's Flight of the Horse? His reason for
the halo is one of the best I've seen.
Chris Dunlea
Claude BAUZOU wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Maybe there is no need to look for an asiatic influence... Official
> images of the Roman emerors (IIIrd - IVth c. AD) showed halos around
> the heads of the Augusti. For the postures in which the Christ is
> depicted (on medieval sculpture for ex.), many people noticed a
> persian Sassanid influence (through Byzantium).
> Tom.
The halo seems to be a Indo-Aryan thing, used by ancient peoples from
Ireland to India. The Celtic divine heroes were described as having
halos (what the tales described as "hero lights") that shone especially
bright in battle. The major peoples of late antiquity Europe--Celtic,
Hellenes, Germanic and Italic--all used the symbol in art or story to
set the hero/divinity as different. No wonder that the despictions of
Christ are similar from Byzantium to Iona; the cultural framework of
religion was fairly similar.
Chris
VB
Duncan Craig <"dunkers "@king.cts.com> writes:
>> 2) Similiarly I've noticed that medieveal images of Christ and the
>> saints often have their hands placed in postures identifiable as Indian
>> mudras. Could this be an influence?
>
> Funny thing, there are also postures, wavy lotus motifs and mahamudras
>very reminicent of Buddhist iconography in Meso-America...well
>documented by Paul Chou, Joseph Needham, Campbell,etcetera, etcetera.
>Duncan
Could you elaborate on this a bit more? Where is this
buddhist iconography found in meso-america (as in the new world?)
Is it some sort of post-columbian buddhist evangelism in
americas? Thanx in advance