upvote
The Shang dynasty is also kind of a propaganda nightmare, with all the archeological evidence for mass human sacrifice.
reply
Yeah. You're probably familiar with the "Hanfu" revival -- a sort of resurgence in people adopting traditional clothing and makeup styles from the Han and Tang dynasties. It's entirely on account of the fact that those two dynasties were remarkably stable, prosperous, and peaceful, so they lend themselves to historical romanticism -- like the Chinese equivalent of the Renaissance Faire. Good vibes. Even popular in Japan, with e.g. The Apothecary Diaries and similar fare.

Shang, and all of the post-dynasty collapse centuries like The Spring and Autumn Period, were not great times to live in. Dismal and evil vibes, for the most part, unless you happen to be a mighty hero or bandit-lord who believes that he can conquer the age. Even so, most of them ended up in soup pots.

reply
> Even popular in Japan, with e.g. The Apothecary Diaries and similar fare.

Notably the Tang Dynasty in China was concurrent with the Taika Reforms, Nara period & beginning of the Heian period in Japan.

reply
And thus for a very long time, and even today to some extent, the Japanese (or their cultural theorists at any rate!) have viewed themselves as the inheritors of "true" Ancient Chinese culture -- unsullied by Mongol/Manchu/Communist influence.

There's some truth to this. The Japanese preserved certain Tang Dynasty customs which were lost to China, and they have some of the best collections of Tang-era artifacts.

This line of thought was, however, used in very unfortunate WWII-era propaganda, like "we have to invade China to rescue its civilization, only we can do this!"

reply
In my experience the Chinese very much think this as well. Though it can be framed in a more derogatory way as "derivative" or "they just copied us"

I'd argue its difficult to find major aspects of Japanese culture that don't trace back to ancient China (maybe the language, eating raw food and sumo)

reply
Shinto is a big one
reply
They resent our freedoms!
reply
That was nice of them. I don't know if everyone would have sent them again!
reply
That’s really interesting. Thanks for sharing. I’m a big fan of clothing and architecture that are appropriate/historic for a given country or area. It’s unfortunate we’ve standardized on 5-over-1s and graphic t-shirts with sweatpants/leggings over time instead of maintaining some of that cultural and location based uniqueness. I understand why we have changed our clothing patterns, but we did lose a little bit of something in that change, in my opinion.
reply
Your comment sent me to Wikipedia and this caught my eye [0], a Late Shang inscribed rhinoceros rib, which then deepened the wikihole [1], it's funny how even though I know of the Indian rhino and Sumatran rhino, it never occurred to me that they were even more widespread...

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Shang#/media/File:Shang_d...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceroses_in_ancient_China

reply
wait until you find about the Yana River people!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yana_Rhinoceros_Horn_Site

reply
Not exactly an issue though. Because the following Dynasty Zhou was portrayed as a protagonist, which rebelled against Shang and abolished human sacrifice and established the right Chinese civilization. And all the following dynasties are claiming that Zhou was the good old days and they are following Zhou's tradition.

Shang being an villain fits this narrative.

reply
The Aztecs had the same mythical reverence for the Toltecs.
reply
The Xia and Shang dynasties are necessary to exist in order to maintain the story of "5000 years of Chinese history" that is ingrained into Chinese students and repeated to anyone who will listen
reply
>And there is ironclad evidence from foreign sources.

Including a rather unusual battle between the Tang Dynasty and the Abbasid Caliphate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Talas

It's recorded that the Caliph, on hearing of the battle, said "What is this? A crossover episode?"

reply
There is a similar theory heavily contested in Indian History that the Vedic period never existed.
reply
There are times I’m convinced that promoting the Mandela Effect is to enable stuff like this.
reply
Everywhere in the Wikipedia articles is this phrase "had Han ethnic origins". Looks like China Editors are trying to change history. At least that is based upon what the CNN article is saying.
reply
I spotted the same thing, and there's never a source given. Allegedly his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather (or 15th great-grandfather for short) was totally Han, the son of the scourge of the Xiongnu - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Guang

A timely reminder that, damn, China is olllldddd.

reply
> What is taken quite seriously is the notion that China's first dynasty -- the Xia Dynasty -- never existed

There are some nuances about this. We know that there are multiple developed cities (and likely monarchies, given there are palace-like ruins) around or before Xia era. It's just that we don't know which one is so-called Xia Dynasty. But it doesn't meant that there were only small tribes and suddenly Shang came out of nowhere.

reply
Every ancient empire did this with their primordial beginnings, from Romulus and Remus to Izanagi and Izanami.
reply
> later Chinese would speak of Xia the way Romans would speak of Troy

Troy was indeed largely fabricated though! Really I think that's of a piece with stuff being, y'know, really old. There are big holes in Sumerian and Egyption history too (though the latter helped out a ton by digging secret tombs and hiding them really well). Post-classical Mayan history is pretty suspect in a lot of places, etc...

reply
>So the theory is bait, and hard to take seriously.

There are people who believe that Trump won in 2020, that vaccines cause autism, and that the Holocaust is a hoax. You cannot reason people out of an idea they didn't use reason to arrive at.

reply
The majority of people don't reason themselves into anything, whether it's the mainstream view or the conspiracy.

There's just a substantial bias where people assume all 'new knowledge' is wrong. Probably correct most the time, but still often wrong.

reply