Main article here:

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/nsong/hd_nsong.htm

For a more extended treatment across various periods:

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/clpg/hd_clpg.htm

Enjoy!

I am doing a research on the Song dinasty pagoda of temple Kaiyuan, known as Liaodi pagoda (1055), located in Hebei. I have been for looking for sources for some time and I can't really find much, if someone knows where I could look for or something like that I would really appriciate it. Any studies about chinese pagodas in general also helps, thanks.

On another note, where can I find a digital archive with pre-19th century maps of China?

I am thinking about asking for the first volume of the series for Christmas, but I’ve heard that because it was published in the late 80s, it is not as accurate as it could be due to new discoveries over time and stuff. Is most of the info accurate enough? But however it is, is it really that big of a deal? Does it really matter overall and are there no better alternatives?

The Qinghai-Gansu region comprises of two provinces, Gansu and Qinghai. This area is particularly a linguistic sprachbund, ie., areal features penetrating and influencing languages of different families; in this case, argument marking case inflections and other grammatical suffixes were acquired in several local Mandarin dialects due to Mongolic, Tibetic, and Turkic influence. This demonstrates that the Qinghai-Gansu region for a long time served as a cultural and linguistic hub along the Silk Road, and many inhabitants of the different ethnicites, particularly Chinese might have resorted to some forms of multilingualism. Is there such type of sprachbund exists in other areas of China as well where Chinese isn't the most common spoken language?

It seemed the Liao Dynasty during its height had control over Mongolia; Yelu Dashi on his way west collected the Khitan garrison (western outpost of Liao) in Mongolia and the resources stored there as the starting point for his army for his later conquests in Central Asia. After Yelu Dashi left, the Jurchen Jin Dynasty did not fill in the power vacuum left in Mongolia; The Jurchens built great walls facing Mongolia but never attempted to take control. 70 or so years later, from that area arose Genghis Khan.

Any military conflict or other political interaction? It seems strange (or not) that Yelu Dashi bypassed Xi Xia on his way westwards (or Yelu Dashi took the northern route and Xi Xia never came into the picture for his plans)

By West Asia I mean the areas from the Middle East to Persia, and modern Afghanistan.

The best known case seemed to be Timur, who marched his army towards, and targeting, China but he died maybe 500 miles before reaching the then Chinese border.

Any other similar attempts?

(This question shall exclude people of North Asia who happened to some times control the area to the north-west of China, such as the Huns and the pre-Islamic Turks)

What are historians' general evaluation of the High Qing period, the "grades" given the Manchu government and emperors in this period? While China was clearly falling behind Europe in technology and science, China was ignorant of it, and the traditional strength of a new dynasty still show and gave China a peaceful period (in China proper) of about 120 years. Was Qing lucky in that the immediate neighbors were not powerful, and the European power of Russia had not be able to extend in full force to the Chinese border, and powerful rulers of West Asia (Nadar Shah, for example), did not run into the Qing either?

Preferably books about the whole war. If you have the pdf or link I would appreciate a lot: I'm from Brazil and importing books is often very expensive.

https://fuqiumeng.com/viewing-room/31-transcultural-dialogues-the-journey-of-east-asian-art/

I cite from this marvellous website (please do check it out):

As groundbreaking and modern as Duchamp’s efforts may seem, a traditional Chinese artistic practice offers a serious precedent for the essential idea behind the readymade: that an object untouched from its original state can be selected by an individual and presented as art. This is the scholar’s rock, examples of which have been recorded back to at least the seventh century. Given that nature is the fundamental source of East Asian art, it is not surprising that individuals involved with aesthetic pursuits might enjoy the intriguing shapes and surfaces of stones and rocks one might come across.  However, scholar’s rocks were specifically regarded as art objects, with standards of aesthetic evaluation. Indeed, by the tenth century, there were collection catalogues recording the most significant groupings of scholar’s rocks assembled by knowledgeable individuals – connoisseurs of rocks, as it were. Otherwise untouched, the scholar’s rocks were placed on specially carved mounts – like Western sculptures placed on pedestals – designed to accentuate each rock’s admirable characteristics. By the Tang dynasty (618–907), four principal aesthetic criteria -- thinness (shou 瘦), openness (tou 透), perforations (lou 漏), and wrinkling (zhou 皱) – had been identified for judging scholars' rocks. Like Duchamp’s objects, these rocks have been awarded the status of art, and not in a perhaps tongue-in-cheek manner, as Dada was wont to indulge in. But while Duchamp’s readymades and Chinese scholar’s rocks are both found objects, Duchamp chose products of manufacturing processes, items that were decidedly artificial; utterly different is the scholar’s rock, which is completely natural.  Its appreciation reflects the profound centrality of nature to the Eastern concept of artistic production. Here the Eastern eye and mind are simply yielding before the expressive power of nature and its ability to create forms far beyond human skill or imagination.

As the title asks. Is there anything comparable on the same level as The Story of Civilization for the history of China that is well established as the seminal compilation of Chinese history?

I want to delve deep into the my cultural heritage as I prepare for father hood and be able to give them history from my side (Taiwanese/Chinese), as well as from their mothers side (English/European).

Were the defenses of the cities in the interior of the Tang Dynasty not existent at the time, as there was no war for 150 years by then?

I know that in the Forbidden City, there were six western and six eastern palaces for imperial consorts to live in. I also know that during the Qing Dynasty, all imperial consorts of the rank of pin (嬪) or higher was entitled to live in the main section of a palace, and to be the manager of that palace. I am also aware that the Emperor in the Qing Dynasty was allowed to have one empress (皇后), one imperial noble consort (皇貴妃), two noble consorts (貴妃), four consorts (妃), and six imperial concubines (嬪). That means that the Emperor could have up to fourteen high ranking consorts at a time, but there were only twelve palaces for imperial consorts in the Forbidden City. What would've happened if an Emperor had more than twelve higher ranking consorts? Where would the thirteenth (or perhaps even the fourteenth) consort have lived if all of the other palaces were already occupied?

Does anyone notice that the Chinese word ethnonym 越 'Yue' which was used to refer to the Baiyue tribes in ancient Southern China was a loan word from Austroasiatic or Austronesian languages of the Baiyue peoples? Which both means anything related to cut, battle axes, weapons, swords... used by the Baiyues

One might have come across the claim that China survived while the longest Western empire, the Roman empire, did not. This assertion is doubly false: culturally, both China and Rome are still here. Politically, neither lasted.

The Western Roman empire fell in 476, leaving the Eastern Roman empire, Byzantium, extant until the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. After almost 2 millennia of continguous (not continuous) statehood, it has ended. Yet, Roman laws forms the basis of European legal institutions. Greco-Roman philosophy informs contemporary Western philosophy and Roman Catholic theology. Russia, to an extent, considers itself the ‘Third Rome’. The Romance languages can trace their roots to Vulgar Latin. Just as Chinese language, culture, philosophy and architecture and artifice can trace themselves across millennia, Rome’s cultural heritage continues to thrive.

Likewise, a politically continuous China did not persist through ‘dynastic succession’, for each one was a discontinuous polity in its own right (highly recommended to read this paper in full). Indeed, one could argue the reverse, that Roman society was far more politically continuous than any Chinese empire/state: the political continuity of the Roman empire, from 27 BCE to 1453 CE is far longer than every single Chinese polity (the longest, the Zhou, lasted for 790 years with much of its latter centuries as merely a ceremonial power). This is not even considering the Rome’s republican phase existing since the 6th century BCE that served as the direct predecessor state to empire.

By any chance, neither Rome nor China should take the cake for cultural or political continuity. If the criterion is political continuity, then Japan supercedes all other societies. Japan has (arguably) the oldest continuous hereditary monarchy since at least the 6th century CE. If the criterion is culture of a sedentary society, ancient Egyptian cultural practices are maintained to this day.

By any chance, perhaps it is the Australian Aborigines who are the world's 'Oldest Continuous Civilization'.

If you've spent time in 两广, 海南 etc, then you've probably come across people who look quite Vietnamese (or even Thai/ Filipino), yet they claim to be Han (and that's what they're classed as by the government). I know someone who told with that their family have been hanzu as far back as anyone alive can remember and this so corroborated by government paperwork. Yet, when they did a DNA test, the results suggested that she has significant south-east Asian ancestry.

Is this kind of like how many Turks are actually ethnic europeans but they've just been assimilated into the modern conception of a Turkish person and hence, they're just oblivious to their actual lineage/ don't care.

Hi folks,

I'm looking into some books on Chinese superstitions. I see Lip, Vale, Dore, and Morgan come up frequently. Any recommendations on which of these might be the best choice as far as gaining a relatively unbiased and well-written cultural understanding?

Thanks for any tips.

Got a few burning questions on Pre-Han China. Not sure where to ask them so I thought I'd start here:

• Who is the earliest Chinese monarch that we know historically existed with a reasonable degree of confidence?
• Who is the earliest Chinese monarch that we know existed and we know, with a reasonable degree of confidence, that their deeds are indeed real (and not mythological).
• Are there any surviving sources on the chronology of pre-Han China events other than the Shiji and Chunqiu?

EDIT: By Pre-Han I meant "before the Han dynasty". So everything from mythology to the Chu-Han contention.

Thanks in advance!

I was wondering if by the end of Qing rule Manchu shamanism had already disappeared or still existed as either official state ceremonies or private practices in Manchu households.

Everybody has heard of the famous "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" covering the collapse of the Han Empire to the establishment of the Jin, and of the even more famous "Journey to the West" set in the era of Emperor Taizong of the Tang Dynasty. (The "Tales of the Water Margin" are set in the much later Song period.)

But are there any well-known literature that deals with the historical period between these two benchmarks, i.e. in the four centuries from c. 250 - 650 AD?

Many interesting events occurred during this time, surely there was some impact on Chinese historical writing?

Since ancient period until now, China led a huge swath of Asia as the leading state with Shang, Zhou, then Qin, Han, then to the medieval period of Tang, Song, Liao, Yuan, then to early modern period with Ming, Qing, and now in the modern period with PRC, still as powerful and influential as ever.

Has any other nation been able to do this?

Well, we all knew the good ol story of Shang Yang reform and how it set the foundation of Qin to unite the warring states. However, this reform, while groundbreaking, was not unique. People like Guan Zhong and Wu Qi basically had the same idea and successfully implemented the reform, if I highlight correctly between these 3 the big idea is to minimize nobility and aristocrats power, strengthen central authority, and emphasize agriculture and military. Qin, Qi, and Chu prosper due to their reform but especially in case of Wu Qi and Shang Yang, the nobles resented them and their ruler was pretty much why they still alive, after Duke Xiao of Qin and King Dao of Chu passed away, the nobles hunted them down and thus ending them.

One thing that intrigued me is, while Wu Qi and Guan Zhong philosophy eroded, Shang Yang reform took root deep in Qin:
- in the case of Chu, nobles slowly gained their power back even if King Dao's son executed nobles who hunted Wu Qi

- in the case of Qi, I would say, mainly external pressure weakened them

- in the case of Qin, King Huiwen joined the nobles to hunt Shang Yang but he kept his reforms along with the 5 more rulers in King Wu, King Zhaoxiang, King Xiaowen, King Zhuangxiang, and ultimately Qin Shi Huang.

The question is back to the title, what set Qin apart from Chu and Qi that Shang Yang's reform pretty much retained for 7 rulers and it needs unprecedented fatuous ruler in Huhai to cause it's downfall?, even then I really believe if Battle of Julu was won by qin, it would've delay Qin downfall.

Some answers that I can think of:

1. Qin just lucky to have 7 different competent rulers in a row and their good luck ran out in form of Huhai and Zhao Gao, even then what are the odds of having 7 different competent rulers in a row along with very competent powerful ministers like Zhang Yi, Fan Ju, Lu Buwei, Li Si to boot. I am not saying those 7 rulers and their prime ministers were flawless, but at least they were somewhat competent.

2. King Huiwen pretty much slowly made the reform of Shang Yang as Qin's identity and ideal that even the nobles or even later kings would not be able to easily tamper it, proven down the line it still took catastrophic defeat of Battle of Julu to end Qin's rule. If this is the case, any reading I can refer?

Disclaimer: I am not history expert nor have i dedicated a good amount of time to study it. Pretty much my interest to Chinese history, like many people, came from entertainment media like Games and Dramas, so feel free to correct where I am wrong.

Everyone knows once the revolution stopped the culture and religion came back like water from a broken dam.

If you don’t know I’ll explain

Baiyue or the hundred yue were austronesian tai austroastatic and few other groups who lived and we’re indigenous to southern China.

They were supposedly depicted as warriors sea farers and were far the from the Han Chinese expectations my question was how actually dangerous or fearsome were yue people in terms of warriors battle skills

And did they only posses swords or many other weapon’s

Some background explanation, I come from a country in SouthEast Asia and am Roman Catholic (a minority faith here so tiny even Muslims another minority outnumber my faith by a significant amount). In my nation's Catholic subculture, a lot of old customs such as lighting objects on fire that bring certain scents like flowers to honor the dead so that their souls can still smell it have been replaced by similar Catholic rituals such as lighting frankincense and myrrh incense sticks. Burning sticks to give light for the dead seeking their way to the underworld? Phased out by novena prayers utilizing candles for those we'd hope to be in purgatory if they aren't in heaven who are being cleansed of their sins. Annual family feasts for the dead where patriarchs and matriarchs of each specific family units of the larger extended house talks to the god Kinoingan? Replaced by annual memorial mass for the deceased with a big expensive lunch and later fancy even grander more expensive dinner.

And so much more. Basically the missionaries who converted the locals who are the ancestors of the Catholics of the region I live in centuries ago, worked with various pagans in my area centuries ago to Catholicize indigenous traditions or worked to find a suitable replacement. So we still practise the old rituals of heathens from centuries ago but now with specifically Catholic devotions such as reciting the rosary with beads while bowing in front of Mary statues who look like people from our clans and tribes that echoes some old ritual counting bundles of straws while bowing in front of a forgotten mother goddess whom now only historians and scholars from my country remember her name.

So I can't help but wonder as I watch Youtube videos introducing the barebones of Sinology........ Why didn't the Catholic Church simply convert the cultural practises during the Chinese Rites Controversy? I mean 6 minute video I saw of interviews with people in Southern China and asking them about Confucian ancestor worships, they were lighting incense and sprinkling water around from a container........ You can do the same with frankincense and myrrh in tandem with holy water! Someone at a temple counting beads and chanting on the day her father died? The Rosary anyone? At a local church?

Just some of so many ideas I have about converting Chinese customs. So I couldn't understand the rigidity of Pope Benedict XIV in approaching the issue and why Pope Clement XI even banned the basic concept of the Chinese ancestry rites decades earlier in the first place. Even for practises that cannot be converted in a straightforward manner because they are either just too incompatible with Catholicism such as alchemy or too foreign that no direct counterpart exist in Catholic devotions such as meditation while seated in a lotus position, the Church could have easily found alternative practises from Europe and the Middle East that fill in the same purposes and prevent an aching hole among converts.

So why didn't the Catholic Church approach Chinese culture with sensitivity and try to fill in the gaps of much sacred traditions of China with syncretism such as replacing direct worship of long dead individuals with intercessory prayers and mass for the dead? Why go rigidly black and white yes or no all out or none with approaching the Chinese Rites during the debates about how to convert China?

Like instead of banning Feng Shui completely, why didn't the 18th century Papal authorities just realize to replace old Chinese talismans and whatnot with common Christian symbols and religious arts and teach the converted and the prospect converts that good benefits will come using the same organization, decoration patterns, and household cleaning Feng Shui commands because God favors the diligent (esp those with the virtua of temperance) and thus God will bless the household because doing the now-Christianized Feng Shui is keeping with commands from the Bible for organization and house cleanliness? And that all those Christian art that replaced the old Chinese amulets at certain angles and locations across the house isn't because of good Chi or bad Chi but because the Christian symbol will remind those who convert about God and thus the same positive energy will result that plenty of traditional Chinese talisman and statues supposedly should bring fro being placed in those same areas?

But instead the Church's approach to missionary work in China was completely inflexible with the exception of some of the Jesuits who were were actually working directly inside China with the locals. Considering the Catholic community of the SouthEast Asian country I live in and who I'm a member of practically still are doing the same basic practises of our ancestors from centuries ago but made to align with proper Catholic theology and laws, I'm really in disbelief that the Vatican didn't approach Chinese culture in the same way during centuries of attempting to convert China esp during the Chinese Ancestry Rites Controversy of the 1700s! That it took 200 years for the clergy of Rome to finally open their mind to merely modernize ancestor reverence of the Sinitic peoples under Catholic doctrines rather than forbidding it outright starting 1939 simply flabbergasts me! Why did it the pattern of events in history go these way for the Sino-Tibetan regions unlike other places in Asia like the SEA country I'm from?