historum论坛： 中国真的有5000年历史吗？ [美国媒体]

Does China Really Have 5,000 Years of History?

中国真的有5000年历史吗？




aldo12
From: Europe/Switzerland/Ticino
Does China Really Have 5,000 Years of History?
It’s often said that China is a nation with 5,000 years of history ( written history ? ) What you’re less likely to hear is a discussion of where that magic number comes from. Truth be told, what you find when you go back far enough is a loosely weaved tale of conflicting answers, divergent histories and celebrated heroes of varying authenticity.
The earliest archaeological records that can be tied to a dynasty pertain to the Shang, a dynasty that began around 1700 B.C.

中国真的有5000年历史吗？
经常说中国是一个有5000年历史（记载的历史？）的国家但你却很少能听到这个神奇的数字从何而来的讨论。说实话，由自相矛盾的解释，有分歧的历史和不够可靠的着名英雄所组成的松散编织起的故事且据你如此久远，你又能从中找出什么呢。
最早的考古记录可以追溯到商朝，一个大约开始于公元前1700年的朝代。

Holapian
From: Hong Kong
I am doubtful of this claim, since it is extremely hard, if not impossible,to prove the unearthed civilizations in northern China, which dated back to some time between 4000 to 2000 BC, are the ancestral civilizations of the current China. That they just happened to be in the territory of modern China does not necessarily means Chinese are legitimate to appropriate them as part of their heritage. We just know so little about their languages and customs.
As to China's written history, I think the Shang dynasty was the oldest traceable dynasty.

我怀疑这种说法，它是否真实太难确认了，一些可追溯到公元前4000年至2000年间的文物在中国北部出土，这些来自现代中国的祖先文明。他们只是在现代中国领土上存在过并不一定意味着中国可以合理的把它们视为中国自己的文化遗产。我们对他们的语言和习俗所知甚少。
按照中国记载的历史，我认为商朝是可追溯的最古老王朝。

Joined: Jun 2014
From: Lisbon, Portugal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holapian View Post
—I am doubtful of this claim, since it is extremely hard, if not impossible,to prove the unearthed civilizations in northern .......
It was actually only during the late Shang period that we find evidences of proto-writing and the existence of big settlements aka urban centres, and the existence of a stratified political structure.
But it's still up to debate if "Chinese civilisation" begun in that period or not.
Some scholars say that Chinese civilisation only dates back to the Spring and Autumn period (everything before that belonged to a different civilisation in the same geographic era), some say it only begins with the Qin unification, or some even say that the "China" only really begins during the Han 

—我怀疑这种说法，它是否真实太难确认了，一些可追溯到公元前4000年至2000年间的文物在中国北部出土，这些是来自现代中国的祖先文明.......
事实上我们发现的证据只是到晚商时期，这些证据来自原始记载，又名城市中心的大型聚居点和分层的政治结构的存在。
但“中国文明”是否开始于那个时期仍是有争论的。
一些学者说中国文明只能追溯到春秋时期（之前的一切属于同一地理时代的不同文明），一些说它只是开始于秦朝，有一些甚至说“中国”真正开始于汉代。

aldo12
From: Europe/Switzerland/Ticino
In terms of age, civilizations in other parts of the world precede China. Writing systems in Egypt and Mesopotamia ( places that actually do have five thousand years of history ) predate Chinese writing by two thousands years. ( Sumerian writing system 3.500 B.C )The world’s first city, Uruk, in modern-day Iraq, dates back seven thousand years. Even in comparison to Europe, China isn’t that old. Confucius’ life overlapped with those of Pythagoras and Socrates. China was first unified in 221 BC, a century after Alexander the Great had created the Hellenistic Empire, and just a few centuries before the zenith of the Roman Empire and after the Etruscans ( in Italy ) fall.
No doubt that china's history is one of the oldest and sophisticated history in the world.

就时代而言，世界其它地区有些文明早于中国。埃及和美索不达米亚（确实有5000年历史的地方）出现文字比中国要早2000年。（苏美尔文字在在公元前3500年出现）。世界上第一个城市乌鲁克位于现在的伊拉克境内，可追溯到7000年前。即使与欧洲比较中国也并不是那么古老，孔子生活的时代与毕达哥拉斯和苏格拉底他们重叠。中国在公元前221年首次统一，而在一个世纪以前亚历山大大帝已经建立了亚历山大帝国，且就在几个世纪后罗马帝国在伊特鲁里亚人（位于意大利）崩溃后到达顶点。
毫无疑问的是中国历史是世界上最古老和最复杂的。

译者注
Etruscans：伊特鲁里亚人，公元前十世纪到公元前一世纪活跃在意大利的欧洲古文明，曾主导早期罗马，后逐渐衰弱最终融入罗马共和国。
Egypt ：古埃及文明形成于公元前4000年左右，古埃及前王朝开始于公元前3100年左右，美尼斯统一上下埃及建立第一王朝，终止于公元前30年罗马征服埃及托勒密王朝。
Mesopotamia：美索不达米亚是古希腊对两河流域的称谓，意为“（两条）河流之间的地方”，即幼发拉底河和底格里斯河。生活于其中的苏美尔人于公元前3200年左右发明楔形文字，苏美尔文明的开端可以追溯至公元前4000年。约结束在公元前2000年，乌玛国王卢伽尔-扎吉西（约公元前2373-前2349年）征服南部各城邦，建立苏美尔国家，定都乌鲁克城。约在公元前二十四世纪末为阿卡德所灭。
Alexander ：亚历山大大帝（前356—前323），即亚历山大三世，马其顿帝国国王，亚历山大帝国皇帝，建立了亚历山大帝国，在他早逝后因无合法继承人帝国陷入内战然后分裂。

bananasinpajamas
From: Earth
There are written records discovered for the Shang Dynasty 1600 BC. 
The following Zhou dynasty 1046 BCE is when we first see the terms "zhongguo" referring to the land of the Yellow River and "huaxia" referring to the culture and people of the Yellow River.
We also see the first evidence of the concept of the "Mandate of Heaven", which was the dynastic system used in continuity up and until the 20th century.
The Zhou used the Mandate of Heaven to legitimize it's takeover of the Shang.
If someone really wants to have an intellectual argument, you could debate whether the Shang or the Zhou was the "real" start of China.
I see no good reasoning for moving the start to the Qin or the Han dynasty.
The reason people state that China is old, is not because of the start date. We all know it was not thee first civilization. It is stated as "old" because it is the longest lasting. The other empires mentioned in this thread such as the Hellenistic, the Roman, etc. are no more.

已经有公元前1600年的商代书面记录被发现。
随后的周代在公元前1046年首次把“中国”用于指黄河流经的土地，而“华夏”用来指黄河文化和人民。
同样也可以看到“天命”这个概念第一次出现，被朝代体系们持续使用直到20世纪。
周用天命来使取代商的行为合法化。
如果一些人真的想要一个理智的看法，你会仔细思考商或周哪个是“真正”的开创了中国。
我觉得把起源安在秦或汉代的说法不怎么样。
人们觉得中国古老不是因为它的建立时间。我们都知道它不是第一个古文明。之所以说它“古老”是因为它是一直持续至今的最古老文明。其它在本串提到的帝国如亚历山大帝国，罗马帝国等已经消亡了。

Darth Balle
From: 3rd planet of the Solar System
more like 3800-4000 years,

更像是3800-4000年。

VHS's Avatar
From: Solar System, Orion Arm, Milky Way
The Daoist (or Taoist) calendar claims about the ascension of Huang Di as the beginning of the Chinese calendar, which is the Gregorian year +2697 years. 
It is consider rather arbitrary nonetheless. 
I would consider the unification of China under Qin as a far better start year!

道教（或道家）历法以黄帝登基为中国历法的开始，也就是公历前2697年。
尽管如此但想想还是太随意了。
我认为把秦代中国的统一当做开始要好得多。

译者注
Gregorian ：格里高利历是公历的标准名称，由教皇格里高利十三世于1582年颁布。而公元即“公历纪元”，又称“西元”。

A Vietnamese
From: meo
Weird, the last time I check, it's 4000 years, not 5000 years.

奇怪我最后又检查了下是4000年不是5000年。

Darth Balle
From: 3rd planet of the Solar System
Originally Posted by VHS View Post
—The Daoist (or Taoist) calendar claims about the ascension of Huang Di as the beginning of the Chinese calendar, which is .......
How about Shang and Zhou dynasty ?? I think they are also Chinese, Confucius and Sun Tzu, two of many great Chinese philosophers was born before the unification under Qin

—道教（或道家）历法以黄帝登基为中国历法的开始，也就是公历2697年前。
尽管如此但想想还是太随意了。
........
那么商和周王朝呢？我觉得他们也是中国人，孔子和孙子这两个伟大的中国哲学家出生在秦朝一统之前。

VHS
From: Solar System, Orion Arm, Milky Way
—How about Shang and Zhou dynasty ?? I think they are also Chinese, Confucius and Sun Tzu, two of many great Chinese philosophers was born before the unification under Qin、
I don't deny the achievements of Shang and Zhou, but they were not unitary states such as the major dynasties after the Qin Dynasty:
The dynasties that are considered to have unified China:
1) Qin Dynasty
2) Western Han Dynasty
3) Eastern Han Dynasty
4) Western Jin Dynasty
5) Sui Dynasty
6) Tang Dynasty and the interlude of Zhou Dynasty under Empress Wu
7) Northern Song Dynasty
8) Yuan Dynasty
9) Ming Dynasty
10) Qing Dynasty
It sounds like there were 10 dynasties that have ruled all or much of China proper.

—那么商和周王朝呢？我觉得他们也是中国人，孔子和孙子这两个伟大的中国哲学家出生在秦朝一统之前。
我不否认商和周的成就，但它们不是像秦之后的主要朝代一样是个统一的国家：
被认为统一了中国的朝代：
1秦
2西汉
3东汉
4西晋
5隋
6唐和作为插曲的武周
7北宋
8元
9明
10清
听起来这有10个统治了全部或大部分中国本土的朝代。

bananasinpajamas
From: Earth
This is kind of backwards logic. During the Shang and the Zhou, the rest of the land was not Sinicized. The rest was not "China" yet

这是种倒退的逻辑。商周之际其余土地还没有中国化。其它地方还不是“中国”。

heavenlykaghan
—I don't deny the achievements of Shang and Zhou, but they were not unitary states such as the major dynasties after the Qin .......
What do you mean by unitary states? The Zhou was long considered the model of a unitary state by posterity and Li Feng's studies also showed that early Western Zhou was far more unified and bureaucratic than western feudal states of the medi period. I do not see the Western Zhou any less unified than say the Mauryan Empire or the Parthian Empire. If by unitary, you meant not ruling "China Proper" you'll need to define this China proper, as the concept never existed in Chinese history, and what is considered Zhongguo or even "Tianxia" changed in every dynasty.

—我不否认商和周的成就，但它们不是像秦之后的主要朝代一样是个统一的国家：
被认为统一了中国的朝代：
.........
你说的统一国家是什么意思？周长期以来都被后人们认为是统一国家的典范，且Li Feng的研究还表明西周早期远比西欧中世纪封建国家更加统一与官僚化。我没有发现西周在统一方面比孔雀王朝或帕提亚帝国差。如果你说的统一不是指统治“中国本土”你需要定义一下这个China proper，这个概念在中国历史上从未存在过，而中国甚至“天下”的意思在每个朝代都会发生变化。

译者注
Mauryan Empire：孔雀王朝（约公元前324年－约前188年）是古印度摩揭陀国着名的奴隶制王朝，因其创建者旃陀罗笈多出身于一个饲养孔雀的家族而得名。旃陀罗笈多赶走了希腊人势力并击退了塞琉古王朝的入侵。末代国王被臣子所杀遂灭亡。
Parthian Empire：帕提亚帝国（公元前247年－公元224年）又名阿萨息斯王朝或安息帝国，是亚洲西部伊朗地区古典时期的奴隶制帝国。建于公元前247年，开国君主为阿尔撒息。公元226年被萨珊波斯代替。

aldo12
From: Europe/Switzerland/Ticino
—How about Shang and Zhou dynasty ?? I think they are also Chinese, Confucius and Sun Tzu, two of many great Chinese philosophers was born before the unification under Qin
No doubt, ancient Chinese people existed in the ancient world before Shang dynasty.( Like many Others place in the world ).
What is argued is if China has a history of civilization over 5,000 years.
In accordance with archeological datas China history is 3.500-3.700 years old.
Why the chinese claim that their history is 5.000 years old ?
It is not proved that China has a history of civilization over 5,000 years.

—那么商和周王朝呢？我觉得他们也是中国人，孔子和孙子这两个伟大的中国哲学家出生在秦朝一统之前。
毫无疑问，古中国人在商代以前便已存在。（和世界其它许多地方一样）
争论的是中国文明的历史是否超过5000年。
按照中国历史的考古数据来说是3500-3700年。
为什么中国声称他们的历史是5000年？
没有证明显示中国文明有超过5000年历史。

bananasinpajamas
From: Earth
I think the 5000 thing is not perpetuated by academics. I think it's just around number that someone started using probably based on 5000-year-old ruins being discovered 
And you're right those ruins aren't evidence of civilization but you know how PR works

我觉得学者们说的5000并非是延续的。我认为这可能只是一些人基于被发现的5000年的遗迹而开始用的大概数字。
你是对的这些遗迹并非文明的证据但你知道公关是如何工作的。

Darth Balle
From: 3rd planet of the Solar System
—Originally Posted by bananasinpajamas View Post
This is kind of backwards logic. During the Shang and the Zhou, the rest of the land was not Sinicized. The rest was not "China" yet
and ?
whats your point ?? that one patch of land was still Sinic, and thus it is still a part of Chinese history.

—这是种倒退的逻辑。商周之际其余土地还没有中国化。其它地方还不是“中国”。
然后？
你想说什么？？那一块土地仍是中国的，因此它仍是中国历史的一部分。

bananasinpajamas
From: Earth
—and ?
whats your point ?? that one patch of land was still Sinic, and thus it is still a part of Chinese history.
i dont think you know what i am responding to.

—然后？
你想说什么？？那一块土地仍是中国的，因此它仍是中国历史的一部分。
我不认为你知道我在回复什么。

Gize
From: Canada
Honestly I don't really hear the number "5000 years" being thrown around a lot. The thread seems like a strawman for that. The usual stated number is 4000 years, which is fairly accurate.

说实话我真的没怎么听到过“5000年”这个数字。这串讨论看起来似乎只是树个靶子打。最常用的数字是4000年，这还是相当准确的。

Wenge（似乎是在中国教学的美国人？）
From: The True Capital of China
—Honestly I don't really hear the number "5000 years" being thrown around a lot. The thread seems like a strawman for that. The usual stated number is 4000 years, which is fairly accurate.
If you have never heard the number 5000 very often, then you haven't been to China. Every Chinese school child is trained in the concept of 5,000 years of Chinese history.

—说实话我真的没怎么听到过“5000年”这个数字。这串讨论看起来似乎只是树个靶子打。最常用的数字是4000年，这还是相当准确的。
如果你从未经常听过5000年这个数字，那你没来过中国。每个中国学校的孩子都被教育了5000年中国历史的概念。

Gize
From: Canada
Originally Posted by Wenge View Post
—If you have never heard the number 5000 very often, then you haven't been to China. Every Chinese school child is trained in the concept of 5,000 years of Chinese history.
I'm not going to argue with you because you're well known as an "anti-Chinese" poster on this forum. The most common number used in academia is generally 4000 years. A majority of objective Chinese historians and historians outside of China agree with this number, even if there are some that throw around 5000.

—如果你从未经常听过5000年这个数字，那你没来过中国。每个中国学校的孩子都被教育了5000年中国历史的概念。
我不会和你争论因为你是本论坛一位知名的“反中”典范。在学术界使用的最常见的数字一般是4000年。大多数客观的中外历史学家都认同这个数字，即便有一些人把它调到5000.

Wenge
From: The True Capital of China
—I'm not going to argue with you because you're well known as an "anti-Chinese" poster on this forum. The most common number .......
I am not and have never been an anti Chinese poster on this forum. Just because you do not agree with me does not make me anti Chinese.

—我不会和你争论因为你是本论坛一位知名的“反中”典范。在学术界使用的最常见的数字一般是4000年。大多数客观的中外历史学家都.......
在这个论坛我不是也从来不是反中典范。只是因为你不赞同我并不会让我变成反中人士。

Darth Balle
From: 3rd planet of the Solar System
—I am not and have never been an anti Chinese poster on this forum. Just because you do not agree with me does not make me anti Chinese.
you are anti Chinese and you know it, no need to deny your own identity lol  
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

—在这个论坛我不是也从来不是反中典范。只是因为你不赞同我并不会让我变成反中人士。
你就是反中而且你自己知道，不用否认自己的身份哈哈。

VHS
From: Solar System, Orion Arm, Milky Way
—What do you mean by unitary states? The Zhou was long considered the model of a unitary state by posterity and Li Feng's ........
I would like to contrast the nature of Western Zhou and the First Empire of China (Qin Dynasty and the Han Dynasty) according to historian Huang Renyu.
Western Han Dynasty started with a feudal system, but the power of the principalities declined after the failure of the Uprising of Seven Principalities (this is my translation, but please check the more formal one.)
Eastern Han Dynasty was partially doomed by the Rebellion of the Yellow Band and the delegation of administrative and military power to the regional leaders, but that was NOT feudal per se.

—你说的统一国家是什么意思？周长期以来都被后人们认为是统一国家的典范，且Li Feng的研究还表明西周早期远比西欧中世纪封建国家更加........
我想根据历史学家黄仁宇的观点对比西周和第一个中华帝国（秦与汉）的性质。
西汉开始于封建制度，但是诸侯国的力量在七国之乱（这是我的翻译，但请找更严谨的）失败后衰弱。
东汉注定灭亡部分是因为黄巾之乱和军政大权委任地方要员，但它本身不是封建制。

Wenge
From: The True Capital of China
—you are anti Chinese and you know it, no need to deny your own identity lol  
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
I am in no way anti Chinese.

—你就是反中而且你自己知道，不用否认自己的身份哈哈。
我并不反对中国

bananasinpajamas
From: Earth
—I am in no way anti Chinese.
Where is "The True Capital of China"?

—我并不反对中国
“中国真正的首都”在哪？

Sephiroth
From: It is a Top Secret
Where is "The True Capital of China"?
Kaifeng?

“中国真正的首都”在哪？
开封吗？

kazeuma
—Where is "The True Capital of China"?
here is the answer:

—“中国真正的首都”在哪？
这是答案（接下来是维基链接略过）

bananasinpajamas
From: Earth
I dont know if everyone is being coy or not realizing that my question was directed to Wenge

我不知道大家是不好意思说还是没有意识到我的问题是针对Wenge。

VHS
From: Solar System, Orion Arm, Milky Way
—Originally Posted by bananasinpajamas View Post
.........
What renders the Chinese civilization resilient and other ancient civilizations more ephemeral?

—已经有公元前1600年的商代书面记录被发现。
随后的周代在公元前1046年首次把“中国”用来指黄河流经的土地，而“华夏”用来指黄河文化和人民。
.........
那么什么使中国文明更加强韧而其它古文明更短暂呢？

heavenlykaghan
Posts: 2,558
—I would like to contrast the nature of Western Zhou and the First Empire of China (Qin Dynasty and the Han Dynasty) ...........
The Western Zhou might be less bureaucratic than later dynasties, but one should not confuse this lack of bureaucracy with lack of centralization compared to other contemporary states. The Western Zhou， especially in its early phase, was far more centralized than feudal Europe as Li Feng have demonstrated. Whereas the lord and vassal relationship in the later is contractual and obligatory, in the former, the king's power were absolute and he could dispose any vassal and divide any of their fiefs to his liking. The Western Zhou even had Jianguo, a system not too different from the "Eyes and Ears of the King" of the Persian Empire. The only problem with the Jianguo was that they were hereditary however, which meant the Western Zhou was somewhat less stable than the Achaemenid system, but it still compares quite favorably with the Parthian system, and probably even more centralized than the Mauryan control of India from what I can gather and if these states can be considered "unitary", then Western Zhou certainly can, both politically and ideologically.

—我想根据历史学家黄仁宇的观点对比西周和第一个中华帝国（秦与汉）的性质。
..........
西周可能比起后世王朝官僚化程度尚有不足，但和当时其他国家相比较不能把官僚化程度不足和集权化不足混淆。西周，尤其是其早期，Li Feng已论证其比起欧洲封建时期集权程度要远远超出。后者领主与附庸的关系是基于契约和义务，而前者国王的权力是绝对的，他可以按照喜好处置任何下属和划分其领地。
西周甚至有家国，一种不同于波斯帝国“王之眼与耳”的体系。家国唯一的问题是他们是世袭的，这意味着西周要比阿契美尼德体系稍不稳定，但仍要比掌控印度的孔雀王朝更加集权，根据我掌握的如果这些国家可以被认为是“统一”的那么西周当然也可以。包括其政治与思想。

译者注：
Eyes and Ears of the King：指的是波斯帝国时期派去用于控制地方，检查民众忠诚和进行治理的官员。
Achaemenid：阿契美尼德即波斯阿契美尼德王朝，又称波斯第一帝国，持续时间为公元前550年—前330年，末代君主大流士三世在亚历山大东征中战败死于逃亡途中，帝国灭亡。

Jubelu
—The Western Zhou might be less bureaucratic than later dynasties, but one should not confuse this lack of bureaucracy with ........
What do you say if I compare Western Zhou to a "feudal" state such as Sassanid Persian dynasty?
—more centralized than feudal Europe as Li Feng have demonstrated.
During early and high medi or this covers also the late medi, according to him? I haven't read Feng's book but I can guess by that same line of reasoning, the Western Zhou's level of concentration is actually higher than any medi states in the Middle East after the Seljuq invasion and prior to the Mongol invasion, including the Khwarezm-Shah, the most powerful state in the post-Seljuq period. Given its long period of unity, it might also be said to be even more stable than the Ghaznavid Empire in the years following Mahmud of Ghazna's death and the Timurid Empire after the death of Tamerlane.

—西周可能比起后世王朝官僚化程度尚有不足，但和当时其他国家相比较不能把官僚化程度不足和集权化不足混淆。西周，尤其是其早期.......
如果我将西周比作和波斯的萨珊王朝一样的“封建”国家你会说什么呢？
—Li Feng已论证那比起欧洲封建时期集权程度要远远超出
是在中世纪早期，中期还是晚期，根据他的研究？我没有读过Li Feng的书但我可以用同一推理方法猜测，西周的集权程度实际上高于塞尔柱人入侵后蒙古人入侵前在中东的所有中世纪国家，还包括花剌子模这个后塞尔柱时期最强大的国家。考虑到其长期的统一，或许也可以说甚至比在伽色尼的马哈茂德死后的伽色尼帝国和帖木儿死后的帖木儿帝国更加稳定。

译者注
Sassanid Persian dynasty：波斯萨珊王朝（前224-651），又称波斯第二帝国，最后一个前伊斯兰时期的波斯帝国，灭于阿拉伯帝国。
Seljuq：塞尔柱，塞尔柱人属突厥乌古斯部落联盟（乌古斯叶护国）4大部族的一支，初居中亚北部的大草原地区，以其酋长塞尔柱克(Saljuq)的名字命名，后塞尔柱之孙图格鲁克伯克占领呼罗珊；进而征服波斯全境，建立塞尔柱帝国（1037—1194年）。
Khwarezm-Shah：花剌子模，在塞种人的语言里意为“太阳土地”，曾隶属波斯帝国，马其顿帝国，贵霜王朝（西迁大月氏建立），波斯萨珊，阿拉伯帝国，塞尔柱帝国等，后独立，为西辽所败称臣纳贡，终灭于蒙古西征。后复国建立希瓦汗国，被沙俄吞并，苏联时期于1920年建立花剌子模苏维埃人民共和国，4年后解散并入乌兹别克斯坦和土库曼共和国。
Ghaznavid Empire：伽色尼帝国（962～1186），阿勒普特勤(AlbTikin）建立，其子马哈茂德苏丹时期帝国达到鼎盛，灭于古尔王朝。
Timurid Empire：帖木儿帝国（1370-1507），西察合台汗国臣子埃米尔·帖木尔建立的国度，曾联络初建的明朝希望共同反蒙，后在率领20万军队试图入侵明朝途中病死。终被乌兹别克汗国所灭。

waywardauthor
From: %
—and ?
whats your point ?? that one patch of land was still Sinic, and thus it is still a part of Chinese history.
Sinic means Chinese, so yes.

—然后？
你想说什么？？那一块土地仍是中国的......
中国的意味着中国人，所以是的。

waywardauthor
From: %
—I'm not going to argue with you because you're well known as an "anti-Chinese" poster on this forum. The most common number ......
Wenge was not incorrect, most Chinese believe in a 5000 year history. Many Westerners often are proponents of a 2000 year history, or a 3000 year history. 4000 seems to be a middle ground that has some acceptance, but it is a thousand years shy for the Chinese, and it is even more shy for those critical of China's ancient claims. A lot of historians seem to take a strange glee in remarking that China is no older than ancient Greece, as if it implies greater equivalency.

—我不会和你争论因为你是本论坛一位知名的“反中”典范。在学术界使用的最常见的数字一般是4000年。大多数客观的中外历史学家都.......
Wenge说的不对，大部分中国人相信5000年历史。许多西方人往往支持2000或3000年历史的说法。4000年看起来像是被部分接受的妥协，但这一千年会让中国人感到蒙羞，甚至会让这些危险的中国历史宣称而感到蒙羞。许多历史学家似乎对谈论中国没有比古希腊古老以及双方是否一样伟大时有种奇异的兴奋。

bananasinpajamas
From: Earth
Well actually do people say Chinese civilization is 5000 years old or that it has 5000 years of history
There is a difference

好的实际上人们说中国文明有5000年了或有5000年历史，
这是有区别的。

A Vietnamese
From: meo
—Wenge was not incorrect, most Chinese believe in a 5000 year history. Many Westerners often are proponents of a 2000 year ........

"Claims" （笑脸图片）
—Wenge说的不对，大部分中国人相信5000年历史.....
“宣称”哈哈

waywardauthor
From: %
—"Claims" 
Yes, they tend to blend their mythological history and their neolithic period so they can give their claims more legitimacy.

—“宣称”哈哈
是的，他们倾向于把他们的神话历史和他们的新石器时代结合起来以此可以让他们的宣称更合理。

VHS
From: Solar System, Orion Arm, Milky Way
—Well actually do people say Chinese civilization is 5000 years old or that it has 5000 years of history
There is a difference
Certainly a few cultures in China dated earlier than the Shang Dynasty; loosely speaking, these cultures were found in China!
1. 
Peiligang Culture, c. 7000-
5000 
2. 
Yangshao Culture, c. 5000-
3000 
3. 
Longshan Culture, c. 2700-
2000 
4. 
Liangzhu Culture, c. 3500-
2000 
The Daoist calendar year is 4713 this year, but this is based on the assumed ascension year of Huang Di (or Yellow Emperor), which is mostly legendary rather than historical. 
The Chinese culture started earlier than 5000 years, but for reliable written history, most states the year of 841 BCE as the beginning year with reliable historical records. 
The Gonghe Regency from 841BCE to 828BCE was disputable nonetheless.

—好的实际上人们说中国文明有5000年或有5000年历史.......
当然一些在中国的文化出现的比商早，大略地说这些文化都在中国被发现！
1裴李岗文化，公元前7000-5000年。
2仰韶文化，公元前5000-3000年。
3龙山文化，公元前2700-2000年。
4良渚文化，公元前3500-2000年。
今年是黄历4713年，但这是基于相较于历史更像传说的黄帝登基年。
中国文化开始的比5000年更早，但是就可靠地历史记载而言，大部分国家在公元前841年开始被信史记载下来。
尽管如此从公元前841-公元前828的周召共和还是有争议的。

Pessimist Crow
From: What I think is a bad suburb of Melbourne
—Certainly a few cultures in China dated earlier than the Shang Dynasty; loosely speaking, these cultures were found in China!
.........
There is a big difference between culture and civilisation though. For one, a civilisation must have a culture but a culture might not have a civilisation. A group of settlers may practices unique customs but they might not have an organised social hierarchy of role. And can you really call these people Chinese at all? These pre Qin States had never developed a sense of national identity that could be shared with other "tribes" and most often developed their society in isolated regions all across China.

—当然一些在中国的文化出现的比商早，大略地说这些文化都在........
但文化和文明之间有着很大区别。例如，一个文明必然有一种文化但一种文化不一定有一个文明。一群移民可能有独特的习俗但他们可能没有一个有组织的社会结构。你真的能把这些人都叫做中国人吗？在秦以前从没有诞生出统一的民族认同感并分享与其它“部族”，而全中国的大部分在孤立区域的部族都诞生了自己的社会。

heavenlykaghan
—What do you say if I compare Western Zhou to a "feudal" state such as Sassanid Persian dynasty?
.........
I do not know the details of Sassanid administration, but it does appear to be similar to the Western Zhou system (both are more detailly recorded than the Achaemenid system) from the limited things I have read. However, we still need to be cautious in equating the two as the details of many functions of official posts in both empires are not known, and nothing is universally applied.
From what I see, the satraps are very much like the guo in the Zhou Empire. 
1) Both were usually hereditary
2) These satraps, like the guo, were not equal in status. In the Sassanian Empire, we have Shahs and Shahrdar ruling the satraps whereas in the Zhou, we have a five degree hiearchical nobility system of Gong, Hou, Bo, Zi, Nan for the guo (fiefs).
3) Both contain imperial inspectors to check local power, in the Sassanid Empire we have the Shahrab whereas in the Zhou, we have the Jian 监.
4) The Sassanian Marzban and the Zhou Jianguo 监国 seem like parallel positions. Both are mini hereditary polities that the conquest regime established strategically alongside the conquered. So Marzbans are typically established along frontiers like Khurasan, whereas we also have the famous 三监 or "three jians" established by the Zhou around Henan to oversee the remnants of Shang power (we also have evidence from the oracle bones that Jianguo was already a Shang institution).
5) Both contains "client kingdoms" which already existed before the central authority came to power. In Sassanian's case, we have states like Albania and in the Zhou, we have the state of Chu.
I've seen some world history scholars who propose the idea that Qin unification was influenced by the Achaemenid system, which I find preposterous under the light of studies by Li Feng and other scholars. The Western Zhou (if not the Shang) already had a system with “states" 国 that was comparable to the Achaemenid satraps in the degree of control, although much smaller. The Western Zhou was very much a universal world empire in its own order and was quite extensive for its time (covering over 2/3 of the traditional central plains, part of the south, and probably part of Liaoxi in "Manchuria") and populous too (estimated to be at over 10 million by the start of the 8th century BC, and the population of the disunited Zhou states by the 5th century BC was probably more numerous than the Achaemenid Empire).

—如果我将西周比作和波斯的萨珊王朝一样的“封建”国家你会说什么呢？
......
我不了解萨珊王朝行政管理的细节，但从我阅读过的有限事物来看它似乎与西周的制度很相似（都比阿契美尼德制度记录更详细）。当然我们需要谨慎把两者看待成相似的，两个帝国的许多行政官员作用的详细资料还不清楚，且没有什么是普遍使用的。
以我看来总督与周王朝的国非常相像。
1双方通常都是世袭
2这些总督像国一样在地位上并不平等。在萨珊帝国有Shahs和Shahrdar控制总督们，而在周朝对于国（采邑）有五个等级的贵族体系即公，侯，伯，子，男。
3两者都有检视地方实力的督抚，萨珊帝国有Shahrab而在周有监。
4萨珊的Marzban和周的监国看起来地位相同。都是战略上征服已建立的政体后又建起的小型世袭组织。所以通常Marzbans像呼罗珊一样建立在边界而我们也有周朝建立的着名的三监在河南监视商势力的残余。（而甲骨文显示商代已经有监国这个机构了）
5两者都包含“附庸国”这种在中央政权掌权前就建立起的国家。就萨珊来说有阿尔巴尼亚而在周朝有楚国。
我看过一些世界史学者提出的秦的制度受到阿契美尼德影响，在Li Feng及其他历史学者的研究照耀下显得无比荒谬。西周（如果不是商）已经有了在控制力度上可以媲美阿契美尼德总督的“国”制度，虽然更小一些。西周在自己的秩序内是公认的世界性帝国，在当时是非常辽阔（覆盖了超过三分之二的传统中原地区，部分南方地区，可能还包括在“满洲”的辽西部分土地）且人口众多。（在公元前8世纪开始时预估有超过1000万人口，而在公元前5世纪分裂的周王国的人口可能比阿契美尼德帝国更多）

VHS
From: Solar System, Orion Arm, Milky Way
—I do not know the details of Sassanid administration, but it does appear to be similar to the Western Zhou system (both are .......
Of course, this federation collapsed after the Western Zhou dynasty, and the Qin Dynasty represented the transformation of China to the centralized empire.

—我不了解萨珊王朝行政管理的细节，但从我阅读过的有限事物来看它似乎与西周的制度很相似（都比阿契美尼德制度记录更详细）。当然我........
当然，在西周以后联盟就崩溃了，秦朝代表了中国转型为了集权帝国。

sculptingman
From: San Diego
once, when I was in China, I commented to my chinese translator girl about how everywhere I went in china I saw thousands of bicycles, but I NEVER saw any NEW bicycles... they all looked like they were 50 years old.
And her response was to say, " China is 5,000 years old.... a 50 year old bike is actually pretty new."

有一次当我在中国时，我和我的中文翻译女孩聊为什么我到中国到处都能看到数以千计的自行车，但我从没见过新的...他们看起来都像是有50年了。
她回答说，“中国有5000年了...一辆50年的自行车其实挺新的。”

heavenlykaghan
—Of course, this federation collapsed after the Western Zhou dynasty, and the Qin Dynasty represented the transformation of China to the centralized empire.
That depends on your definition of federation. If the definition of federation assumes the constituent states had rights that cannot be altered by the central power; this was not the case with the Zhou, where the central power theoretically had absolute authority over its parts and it was a state that had a loose control over its regional units, but these regional units were not independent, they were intrinsically part of the Zhou polity bound by a system of hierarchy in rites, title and bloodline. In another word, the fiefs of the Zhou had no legal authority which the king had to follow.
I would say that a semblance of unification was briefly re-established under the rules of the various "hegemons", although certainly not as centralized as the early Western Zhou. 
However, only some rulers were real hegemons, many others were only empty names. Qi Huangong, Jin Wengong, Jin Daogong and his successors were the true hegemons that had almost all of the central plains outside of Qin under their command with the backing of the Zhou king, Wei Wenhou was also close in doing that. In any case, its not like the concept of unification 大一统 was a Qin thing, it long existed under the Zhou.

—当然，在西周以后联盟就崩溃了，秦朝代表了中国转型为了集权帝国。
这取决于你如何定义联盟。假定联盟的定义是组成的国家有权不被中央政权改变的话，那么这就不是周的情况，周是中央政权理论上对于超出它所属的部分有绝对权威而（实际上）对于自身之外的地方区域它只有着松散的控制，但这些地方区域并非是独立的，他们从本质上来说是约束于礼仪制度，爵位和血统的周朝政治体系的组成部分。换句话说周的封地没有让国王必须跟从的法定权利。
我要说表面上的统一是由按照各种“霸主”的规则短暂重新建立的，虽然其集权程度肯定不如西周早期。
当然只有一些统治者是真正的霸主，许多其他的不过徒有虚名。在周王室的支持下齐桓公，晋文公，晋悼公和他的继承人是将除了秦外几乎全部的中原都处于他们指挥下的真正霸主。魏文侯也差点做到。任何情况下它也不像个统一的概念，大一统是秦这个长期存在于周王室之下国家的事物。

robto
From: Lisbon, Portugal
—That depends on your definition of federation. If the definition of federation assumes the constituent states had rights that ........
I remember reading somewhere (not really remember) that the Zhou dynasty in China can be very well compared with the Medi Holy Roman Empire when it comes to its political organisation and relations between the hegemon and its vassal feudal lords. But I don't know if that's an accurate comparison or not...

—这取决于你如何定义联盟。假定联盟的定义是组成的国家有权不被中央政权改变的话，那么这就不是周的情况，周是中央政权理论上对于超........
我记得在什么地方（不太记得了）读到过中国的周代在政治结构和霸主与封建诸侯们的关系上可以很好的对照中世纪的神圣罗马帝国。但我不知道这是否是个准确的对比.....

heavenlykaghan
As stated before, Li Feng's argument was that the Zhou regime was much more centralized than feudal European states. European lord-vassal relationship was contractual and mutually obligatory, the Zhou king's power was theoretically absolute and often bond by blood relationship through enfiefment of relatives or marriage alliance.

正如之前说的，Li Feng的观点是周政权比欧洲封建国家更为集权。欧洲领主 — 附庸关系是基于契约和强制互助义务，周王的权力理论上是至高无上的且经常通过分封或亲属或婚姻同盟形成的血缘关系从而团结在一起。

VHS
From: Solar System, Orion Arm, Milky Way
—As stated before, Li Feng's argument was that the Zhou regime was much more centralized than feudal European states. European ......
Are you referring to this historian? 
It would be intuitive to discuss Chinese history on Baidu history forum, but Baidu is known for extremely low quality of posts!

—正如之前说的，Li Feng的观点是周政权比欧洲封建国家更为集权。欧洲领主-附庸关系是基于契约和强制互助义务，周王的权力理论上是........
你是说这个史学家吗？（下为维基链接略过）
百度历史吧上讨论中国历史很直观，但众所周知百度贴子的水平极端的低。

waywardauthor
From: %
The Zhou Dynasty was, perhaps by its nearest parallel, the Holy Roman Empire. Strong in the beginning, a few brief resurgences, and gradually the local land holders created a mess of hundreds of states who would eventually murder each other until one was left standing - and it wasn't the King.

跟周朝相比最接近的可能是神圣罗马帝国。开创时强大，少数短暂的复兴，逐渐的地方统治者造成了数百国家的混战，互相残杀直到最终只剩一个存在 — 且它不是国王。

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt
From: Canada
—once, when I was in China, I commented to my chinese translator girl about how everywhere I went in china I saw thousands of ......
That's a good one!
And when was this?

—有一次当我在中国时，我和我的中文翻译女孩聊为什么我到中国到处都能看到数以千计的自行车，但我从没见过新的...他们看起来都像是有.......
这个不错！
还有是什么时候啊？

heavenlykaghan
Like I said, I find far more parallels between Zhou and Persian regimes like Sassanians and later Mongolian regimes like the Xiongnu or the Mongol Empire than medi Europe. The formers were far more centralized, there was no need for the kings to meet with vassals to determine the laws and policies of the state as in the case of the Holy Roman Empire.

就像我说的，相比中世纪欧洲我在周和萨珊之类的波斯政权，后来的匈奴或蒙古帝国之类的蒙古政权间找到了更多相似之处。就前者来说集权程度远远超出（后者），对于国王来说没有必要会见诸侯来决定国家的法律和政策，就像神圣罗马帝国的例子一样。

waywardauthor
From: %
Like I said, I find far more parallels between Zhou and Persian regimes like Sassanians and later Mongolian regimes like the ......
I meant it in regard to the political fragmentation of the nation until it had effectively become a collection of independent states nominally under a ruler. The King's direct authoritarian rule developed into one of symbolic importance, particularly with regards to religious practices, with only limited mediation power. The Spring and Autumn period launched a free for all contest, in which the Warring States emerged and later eclipsed the Zhou entirely.

—就像我说的，相比中世纪欧洲我在周和萨珊之类的波斯政权，后来的匈奴或蒙古帝国之类的蒙古政权间找到了更多相似之处。就前者来说集.......
我的意思是在它实际成为一个名义上处于一位统治者控制下的独立国家集合前在政治上是分裂的。国王的直接专制统治发展为了一种重要的象征，尤其是对于宗教传统来说（尤为重要），且只有有限的调解权力。春秋时期开始了群雄逐鹿，他们在战国也出现了并在之后完全超越了周。

heavenlykaghan
The thing is that the Western Zhou did not "slowly become decentralized" in direct relationship with time, it became decentralized because the ruler made a political blunder and was killed by the invading Rong in 771 BC.

西周并不是“慢慢分裂的”和时间也没什么直接关系，它变的分裂是因为统治者犯了一个政治错误且在公元前771年被入侵的戎所杀。

译者注：此处指周幽王姬宫湦（前795年―前771年），公元前771年，犬戎攻入西周都城镐京，杀死姬宫湦，西周灭亡。

waywardauthor
From: %
—The thing is that the Western Zhou did not "slowly become decentralized" in direct relationship with time, it became ...........
Not quite, there was a steady decentralization involved. Local landholders grew in power, to the point where a death of a king and a loss in a war could kickstart their independence.

—西周并不是“慢慢分裂的”和时间也没什么直接关系，它变的分裂是因为统治者犯了一个政治错误且在公元前771年被入侵的戎所杀。
不完全是，还有一个稳定的权力分裂。地方领主势力的壮大，尤其是国王去世和一场战败可能会使他们独立。

heavenlykaghan
—Not quite, there was a steady decentralization involved. Local landholders grew in power, to the point where a death of a ........
Provide an instance of decentralization. 
Even the last Western Zhou king was still calling upon all the armies of the vassals. The king might not be as influential as the first Zhou kings, but such cases dependent on individual military prowess of the founder applies to every empire.
Even as late as 817 BC, Zhou Xuanwang was still able to directly interfere with the succession of the state of Lu and appointed the younger son, prince Xi to inherit the succession over the eldest just because he liked Xi. No Holy Roman Emperor had that kind of power over his vassals even when the Empire was at the height of its centralization.
Other than southern states like Chu, which were never under firm Zhou control to begin with, successfully repulsing Zhou invasions, Zhou bronze inscriptions was showing that it was still calling upon vassals to campaign against the Xianyun in the west and north, Huai Yi to the east, and Qiang rong and other southern kingdoms around the Yangze, multiple times in the reign of Xuanwang, 827-782 BC.

—不完全是，还有一个稳定的权力分裂。地方领主势力的壮大，尤其是国王去世和一场战败可能会使他们独立。
举一个分裂的实际例子。
即使是最后的西周王仍在召唤所有诸侯的军队。这个王可能不像第一任周王一样有影响力，但依赖创始者的个人军事能力的情况适用于每个帝国。
即使到了公元前817年，周宣王仍能直接干预鲁国的继承并指定了更年轻的那个，继承者是戏而不是长子只是因为他喜欢戏。神圣罗马帝国皇帝对他的附庸没有这种权利即使帝国高度集权。
其它的比较比如南方国家像是楚，从未被周牢牢掌控且成功击退周的入侵。周的青铜器铭文显示在周宣王（公元前827-公元前782）统治下仍多次号召诸侯对抗西部和北部的山戎，东部的淮夷，犬戎和其它长江上的南方国家。

译者注：周宣王（？－前783年）名姬静，一作靖，前817年（周宣王十一年）春天，鲁国国君鲁武公和长子公子括、少子公子戏，朝见周宣王，周宣王因喜爱戏违反礼法强行废长立幼立公子戏为鲁国太子，公子戏继位，是为鲁懿公，后为公子括之子伯御及鲁人所杀，伯御史称为鲁废公，此事令周宣王大怒引兵攻杀伯御，后立鲁武公的三子公子称为君，是为鲁孝公，此事使得周王室声威大减，从此揭开了礼崩乐坏，诸侯不服王化的序幕。