The Oldest Extant Building in China?

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,256
Welsh Marches
I was watching a very interesting Japanese programme in which the narrator was comparing Japanese attitudes to European ones (especially British), and he started off by showing an artificial medieval woman that some country gentleman had built in his estate; even the wish to preserve ruins is a cuktural pecularity, in which continuity with the past is regarded as having an inherent value (from the room in which I am typing this I have a view of a ruined medieval castle which is one of the most valued features of the town!). In Japan by contrast, he said, there are old wooden structures that are constantly rebuilt, and most of the old castles have been destroyed (I hope I have got that right). It is really only since the latter part of the 18th Century that such attitudes have developed, until then people were quite happy to knock down a wonderful old medieval or Jacobean half-timbered mansion to build a run-of-the-mill brick mansion in the modern style. Since then, however, a real value has been placed on the preservation of old buildings and the sense of hiistorical continuity that results. Until recently, Victorian architecture didn't count, and in the 50s amazing Victorian city-centres were pulled down to be replaced with junk that is now rotting or has already been pulled down in its turn. This enbales one to view how 18th century people viewed Gothic architecture, the very name being a term of abuse.

As for places surviving because people could not afford to replace them, that is true to some extent of my town, which was an important administrative centre during it earlier history and then assembly town for the local gentry; but it fell into relative decline in the 19th Century and thus hardly anything was demolished to be built anew; and so it comes about that there are unspoiled streets full of medieval or 17th Century half-timber buildings and Georgian town-houses. Though I like to think thta the best of them would have been preserved in any case.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
I repeat what I told you before:
Let's get this straight, Bart. You are the one who FIRST brought up "lack of large Chinese seafaring ships", specifically over 400 tons, in a thread about ancient Chinese buildings. Then you moved on to talk about lack of this or that Chinese thing which have nothing to do with buildings, and some of those claims are just wrong anyways. If you justify yourself to bring up things unrelated to the thread in order to dismiss Chinese achievements, then I can justify myself to bring up things unrelated to the thread to speak about Chinese achievements. I don't find your double standard impressive.

Let's face it, you tried to dismiss Chinese achievements about a list of things that have NOTHING to do with the thread OP. It just so happens I'm better at "boasting" about Chinese achievements then you were about belittling Chinese achievements. So even though you were the first to veer away from the OP, you accuse me of doing it even though I was just following your stride.



So I see how this is, first you question the recorded evidence, when show pictorial evidence you demand archaeological evidence. You constantly switch the goalpost. Plus, I just gave you the archaeological dig from Henan.



Those depend on pictorial evdience, which was something you dismissed in the sentence before.
As for the rest of your post, you mention:
1. waterwheels
2. bridges
3. traction trebuchets
4. abacus
5. sailing ships

^You mentioned these things, but what do they have to do with the thread OP which is about ancient buildings? They have "zero relevance to the topic of the thread".
So when you say the sentence: Once again another thread is hijacked for another round of just Chinese boasting
I want you to think real, real hard about the paragraphs you just made like the above points 1 to 5.

So I see how it is, if you boast about Roman achievements, that's fine. If you belittle Chinese achievements to put the Chinese in their place, that's fine too. But God forbid if somebody boasts about Chinese achievements, because they aren't white.

Also, as for your statement about indoor heating, the Chinese have been using the kang since the Neolithic period. And since Chinese writing wasn't invented in the Neolithic period, the evidence is archaeological.

And by your standard in which we discard all recorded evidence, then the first recorded evidence of the ancient Greek windlass from the Mechanica would be "not real evidence", your words. Whereas we have Chinese archaeological evidence of the windlass from the ancient period:





Correction: You suggest Chinese inferiority on topics unrelated to the OP, like you are doing now, sometimes with racist remarks about Chinese people in general. Not to mention anybody else who isn't white.

Anyway are you talking about those examples where if your argument gets backed into a corner, you start talking about Chinese failure about the "round earth" which usually have nothing to do with the OP? Or when we speak about Medieval inventions, you can't help but bring in post-Medieval European accomplishments, and usually these smokebombs go with statements like
"Despite you Chinese arrogance"
"Japanese have a culture of deceit and lying"
"But as usual, you make typical Muslim claims not backed by anything so trivial as "facts" "
"Contrary to the arrogance of today's India scholars"
.....

What do those statements have to do with the OP? At least when I get sidetracked from the OP, it's because people have already sidetracked it, in this case you sidetracking it. And when I get sidetracked, I don't need to resort to racism.



What does your mention of sailing ships, abacus, traction trebuchets, and waterwheels have to do with the earliest buildings? It's OK to throw the thread off track by belittling Chinese achievements, but it's not OK to follow in your stride and boast about Chinese achievements? Hypocritical much?



Your right, it's not the topic, yet you just DID "rant on all the Roman and European achievements". This whole thing started because you started mentioning Chinese sea going ships which have NOTHING to do with the OP. So why don't you answer what I and heylouis repeatedly asked of you?:

Bart, which Chinese academic claimed that the Han had >400 ton sea going ships? You make it sound as if they claimed such a thing, who claimed such a thing? You shouldn't say the Chinese have "no real evidence" as if the Chinese ever made the claim, when in fact they haven't.

Before you get started, you should respond to the above.

Unlike you who expected me to answer things about the traction trebuchet or the abacus, things I made no mention over, I'm acutally asking you over things you did mention. It's not "failing" to refrain from providing evidence on things I never spoke of. It is, however, failing for you if you can't provide evidence for things you mentioned.

You also gave the blatantly wrong accusation that "all" of the machinery I gave came from the Medieval period or later, even though NONE of the evidence I gave dates to those periods. ALL of them dates to the ancient period.

So I gave you a list of all the evidence I gave, please prove which of them dates to the Medieval period:
The sternpost rudder picture I gave dates to Han times: Ancient period
The steering oar picture I gave dates to Han times; Ancient period
The Mingqi pottery building of a waterwheel driven hammers dates to Han times: Ancient period
The picture of the giant wheel for the blast furnace is based off of the excavation in Henan Zhenzhou, # 2 Han dynasty Blast furnace: Ancient period
The list of foot operated drawloom pictorials and quilling wheel pictorials came from Han stone pictorials: Ancient period
The complicated multi-hedle drawloom, every bit a match for the Antikythera mechanism, I showed came from a Han tomb: Ancient period
The gear mold came from the Han period: Ancient period
The gear and ratchet came from the Warring States period: Ancient period
The picture of the Dujiang and Lingqu canal are pictures of canals built during the Qin-Han periods: Ancient period
The picture of the giant Han armory was excavated in Han Chang'an: Ancient period
The picture of the excavated seed drills dates to the Han period: Ancient period
The adjustable plough pictorial dates to the Han period: Ancient period
The quern with oscillating motion of crank and connecting rod dates to the Han period: Ancient period
The salt evaporation pan dates to the Han period: Ancient period
The salt derrick is a rubbing of a pictorial dating to the Han period: Ancient period.

And I also added:
Decimal Multiplication table: Warring States period
pictorial of Multi pulley system and arch bridge: Han period

Book on Computation: Han period

^None of those depend on recorded evidence that you dismiss, but pictorial or archaeological evidence. Now, since you want put Chinese in their place by mentioning Chinese inventions that depend on recorded evidence (ie abacus or sails), a type of evidence that you dismiss, then I'm allowed to mention Chinese inventions that do not.
Again.a long lengthy post off topic, just another form of boasting of hos great China is,.yawn. I.wont waste time responding except to make a deal points;

1. You haven't answered the question I asked you that is pertinent to the topic . When did the Chinese start using lifting cranes and when did they start using multiple pulleys and tackle.in series for mechanical advantage? If you don't know the answer, we can safely assume that it was introduced sometime after European contact, limy in the 19th century. It could help explain the Chinese reluctance to use stone earlier, since cranes and block and tackle do make life easier when moving heavy blocks.
Note the Han picture of mutliple pulleys don't appear to show them.acting in series and demonstration the principle of mechanical advsntage. That was what was.asked, not what you provided


2. Like a borken record, I would to point out that I am well aware the Chinese had stern rudders in on small Han river craft, but the issue was on larger sea going ships. I already explained why you can't automatically assume that what was a feature on a small.craft on rivers was one on much larger.sea going ones. You attempt to evade the issue won't work, and showing pictures of small river boats does not answer questions for.largd sea going ship.

3. I still haven't seen any pre.medieval remain or picture for a traction trebuchet in China. Nor an example of an ancient abacus . The lack.of such evidence may lead to re asses the claims that the Chinese were the first inventor of those objects ..the Mozi text which is where the trebuchets were mentioned appears.to.be corrupted in parts and difficult to interpret.

4. Since you dedicate most of.long post to a Han shipyard the least you can do is answer some questions about Han sea going ships. Do we have any actual evidence for ancient Chinese sailing ships? If so, what? Note s picture from.tjd Song dynasty does not qualify.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
. .. ...,
There is an excavated Qin-Han shipyard for building 100-120 ton ships, with loading capacities of 60 tons. That's much larger than the models of small boats. This is somewhat more than the size of the largest standard Roman warship.

Also small ships heavily outnumber large ships across the globe:

Similarly, 16th century port manifests from London show that 56 percent were 40 tonnes or less, 82 percent of 60 tonnes or less, and only 4.7 percent were of were of 100 tonnes or more. This suggests that the average Roman merchant ship probably weighed more no more than 30 to 40 tonnes, and almost certainly less than 60 tonnes.
-The logistics of the Roman Army at War: 264 B.C - A.D. 235 by Jonathan Roth, Jonathan P. Roth, pg 192

The first item is a decree of the Emperor Claudius. In the 40s A.C., Claudius granted certain civil rights to men or women who built ships of at least 10,000 modii and used them to transport grain for six years (Gai. Inst. 32c; Suet. Claud. 18-19). Casson argued that the terms of this decree suggest that "a 70-tonner was the smallest-sized carrier the government considered useful." While we may readily agree that the decree indicates that 70-ton ships and larger were considered desirable, two further points need to be made. First, the decree clearly implies that, in Claudius's day, there were many ships in the grain fleet which were not as large as 70 tons; and this is the grain fleet, ships carrying a single product over a long-distance route, rather than the general merchant fleet, which must have included many coasters like those discussed above. Second, the decree contains not one, but two, conditions: not just the size of the ship, but the length of service in the annona (six years are specified) is of concern. This helps clarify the purpose and background of the decree. It is presumably designed at least in part for administrative convenience, for it will be much easier to deal with a small number of ships, each committed to a long period of service, than with many ships each making only one or a few voyages. And this implies that, at least down to the time of Claudius, a significant percentage of Rome's grain was in fact being transported by a large number of presumably smaller vessels, each spending fewer than six years in the service of the annona.
Our second item indicates that, however much the Roman government may have wanted only large ships in the grain fleet, it found it difficult to achieve that goal. Over a century after Claudius, exemptions from liturgies were offered to those who built and placed in the service of the annona either one ship of 50,000 modii (=350 tons) or several (perhaps five) of 10,000 modii (=70 tons each). While the decree clearly shows that large ships of 350 tons were in use, it also implies that there were still many ships of less than 100 tons in the grain fleet, and that despite Claudius' earlier concessions there continued to be a shortage of ships even as large as 70 tons. Left to their own devices, merchants and ship-builders seem to have preferred to construct ships of less than 70 tons burden, and/or to have used their ships to carry freight as opportunity arose rather than commit them to a long-term service.
Finally, we may note three further items which, taken together, imply the existence of large numbers of smaller ships. First, a series of passages in the works of Hero of Alexandria: in his Stereometrica, Hero gives the formulas for calculating the capacity (in amphorae and modii) of merchant vessels of various sizes. The ships he deals with are relatively small. The three he gives as examples have capacities according to his calculations, of 7,680 modii (=about 58 tons), 12,600 modii (=about 95 tons), and 19,200 modii (=about 144 tons). In other passages, he mentions ships with lengths of only 24 and 60 ft, and nowhere does he mention a merchant vessel with a capacity of more than 144 tons.............
Second, the famous lex Claudia of 218 B.C., prohibited senators and sons of senators from owning ships with a capacity of more than 300 amphorae (=15 tons). This law implies that ships in use at that time were often of low tonnage, certainly below 100 tons, for if ships were regularly over 100 tons burden, the same result could have been achieved by setting the limit at(for example) 50 tons. Third and last, a passage in Cicero seems to imply that a ship of 2,000 amphorae (=100 tons) was considered large; vessels of this size are cited by the writer (Lentulus) in a passage where it is in his interest to imphasize the impressive nature of his enemy Dolabella's preparations.............
There is at present very little evidence to suppor tthe view that ships of 500 tons burden or more were anything but extraordinary, and much of both our comparative and ancient material suggests that small ships-ships of, day, 60 tons burden and less, comprised the vast majority of Roman merchant vessels.
-From Ports in Perspective: Some Comparative Materials on Roman Merchant Ships:


Here's some wreckages of Roman ship sizes that came to the above author's attention:


Author says: In addition to the ships included in Table 4, there are many wrecks partially preserved or incompletely excavated, of which the surviving elements suggest that the ship was small rather than large. But even those we have listed above suffice to make our point: there were in antiquity, as in other contexts, numerous small vessels alongside the larger more conspicuous ships.

There you have it. Small outnumber large across the globe. Still holds true today where canoes and fishing boats outnumber oil tankers and aircraft carriers.

There are also Warring States illustrations of two decker ships, the bottom deck being used for rowing and the upper deck for battle:



It also shows the siege ladder and the cloud ladder. The existence of which would be absent in ancient Rome if we use your standard in which recorded evidence are dismissed as "not real evidence", much like the Roman catapult or the existence of sinew in the Roman ballista whereas excavated Qin crossbows would have sinew and bone. Again this is your standard that you insisted on the Chinese. Not my standard, I'm just showing you what your standard would mean if you adopted it for the Greco-Romans. Personally I think your standard is strange and unreasonable.

Agan this is all according to your logic of dismissing recorded evidence as "not real evidence". And before you once again start tossing accusations of going off track, remember you are the one who first started about something that have NOTHING to do with buildings. All this have to do with your off-track statement, and you built up on it by mentioning trebuchets, waterwheels, sailing ships, bridges, and abacus, none of which have to do with buildings. So you shouldn't be mad if I mention things that don't have to do with buildings either. You shouldn't accuse me of doing the exact same thing you are doing. You didn't even stop doing it when you accused me, in every post you accused me, you did the exact same thing. If you can't handle it then you shouldn't dish it out in the first place. Then you wouldn't have to handle it because you never dished it out. Pot calling the kettle black and all that.
Another long lengthy post that did not address the questions and points I made but answered a point I never made or claimed.

I never said that the majority of ships.were not small in any time period, I never denied it.

The fact you yourseld.provide multiple lines of evidence showing the existence of large Roman ships but not a single line of such evidence from Han China proves my point. If the Han Chinese were building such large ships as the Romans there would be at least one piece of such evidence but there is isn't, because anxient Chinese weren't building such ships. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence if we should have had such evidence but we don't. In the case of the large ships, we should have had at least one piece of such evidence, but we don't. That small ships outnumber big one is irrelevant to the point. Roman ships were.made out of wood, same as Chinese

It is typical of con artist and dishonest persons that they accuse others of the dishonesty they themselves are guilty to distract others from their own dishonest. To have long post mostly about Roman ships.when the issue was Chinese ships is rather dishonest nd frankly tuoicsl of yoursmoke and mirrors tactics. Where is all the similar evidence for the Chinese ships? I am still waiting for similar information about Chinese ships.
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,256
Welsh Marches
Just a correction to a comical slip in my post above:

"I was watching a very interesting Japanese programme in which the narrator was comparing Japanese attitudes to European ones (especially British), and he started off by showing an artificial medieval woman that some country gentleman had built in his estate" - it should be 'ruin' not 'woman' !
 

HackneyedScribe

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
6,587
Again.a long lengthy post off topic, just another form of boasting of hos great China is,.yawn. I.wont waste time responding except to make a deal points;
That's right. You are allowed to set the topic off track by belittling Chinese achievements that have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, stuffing words into the Chinese academia over things they never claimed. Yet when people correct you that's "boasting". The Chinese needs to know their place.

In post 82 I told you:

Let's face it, you tried to dismiss Chinese achievements about a list of things that have NOTHING to do with the thread OP. It just so happens I'm better at "boasting" about Chinese achievements then you were about belittling Chinese achievements. So even though you were the first to veer away from the OP, you accuse me of doing it even though I was just following your stride.

Yawn. You have a habit of making racist comments against non-white people, so I'm sure your criteria for boasting about non-white accomplishments is different from most people's.

This all started in post 66 in which you claimed: Despite the assumption of many, there is no real evidence for large sea going ships from the Han dynasty, neither ancient reliefs or archeological remains, and given that the contemporary Roman Empire has such evidence, one can well question whether such ships existed then.
And you post 69 you made it clear that by "large" you mean "> 400 ton Han sea going ships "

What does that have to do with the thread OP? And when heylouis and I asked you just who made the assumption you speak of, you were SILENT over and over and over.

In post 73 I asked you :Bart, which Chinese academic claimed that the Han had >400 ton sea going ships? You make it sound as if they claimed such a thing, who claimed such a thing? You shouldn't say the Chinese have "no real evidence" as if the Chinese ever made the claim, when in fact they haven't. Before you get started, you should respond to the above

In post 78 I asked you again:
This is not to mention that you are implying that the Chinese academia said something they didn't. You have not proven if they did indeed say what you implied them to say.

In post 82 I asked you again:
This whole thing started because you started mentioning Chinese sea going ships which have NOTHING to do with the OP. So why don't you answer what I and heylouis repeatedly asked of you?:Bart, which Chinese academic claimed that the Han had >400 ton sea going ships? You make it sound as if they claimed such a thing, who claimed such a thing? You shouldn't say the Chinese have "no real evidence" as if the Chinese ever made the claim, when in fact they haven't. Unlike you who expected me to answer things about the traction trebuchet or the abacus, things I made no mention over, I'm acutally asking you over things you did mention. It's not "failing" to refrain from providing evidence on things I never spoke of. It is, however, failing for you if you can't provide evidence for things you mentioned.


Bart Dale said:
1. You haven't answered the question I asked you that is pertinent to the topic . When did the Chinese start using lifting cranes and when did they start using multiple pulleys and tackle.in series for mechanical advantage? If you don't know the answer, we can safely assume that it was introduced sometime after European contact, limy in the 19th century. It could help explain the Chinese reluctance to use stone earlier, since cranes and block and tackle do make life easier when moving heavy blocks.
Note the Han picture of mutliple pulleys don't appear to show them.acting in series and demonstration the principle of mechanical advsntage. That was what was.asked, not what you provided

2. Like a borken record, I would to point out that I am well aware the Chinese had stern rudders in on small Han river craft, but the issue was on larger sea going ships. I already explained why you can't automatically assume that what was a feature on a small.craft on rivers was one on much larger.sea going ones. You attempt to evade the issue won't work, and showing pictures of small river boats does not answer questions for.largd sea going ship.

3. I still haven't seen any pre.medieval remain or picture for a traction trebuchet in China. Nor an example of an ancient abacus . The lack.of such evidence may lead to re asses the claims that the Chinese were the first inventor of those objects ..the Mozi text which is where the trebuchets were mentioned appears.to.be corrupted in parts and difficult to interpret.
Bart, where did I mention anything about ancient China having pictures of the traction trebuchet, the abacus, or any of the above? Ergo I'm not obligated to provide information I made no mention about. I've told you this, yet like a broken record you keep repeating it.

In post 73 I told you:
Who in this thread claimed otherwise? You made a claim that I've said nothing about, and then proceed to refute the claim and blame it on me for not "admitting" to something I've said nothing about.

In post 82 I told you:
It's not "failing" to refrain from providing evidence on things I never spoke of. It is, however, failing for you if you can't provide evidence for things you mentioned.

In post 85 I told you:
for the N-th time I have zero obligation in finding evidence for things I said NOTHING about or made ZERO claims for. I only need to provide evidence for things I actually claimed, and I did do that.

On the other hand, unlike you I asked you to prove things that you DID claim.

In post 73 and post 74 I asked you the following:

Bart, which Chinese academic claimed that the Han had >400 ton sea going ships? You make it sound as if they claimed such a thing, who claimed such a thing? You shouldn't say the Chinese have "no real evidence" as if the Chinese ever made the claim, when in fact they haven't. Before you get started, you should respond to the above.

You repeatedly ignored it, and unlike you, my question is asking you to back something you actually claimed. I don't have to answer things I made no claim over, that's an unreasonable expectation of yours.

Btw, the earliest Medieval European depictions of the traction trebuchet were weak single pole ones, whereas the depictions of traction trebuchets from China along the same period consisted of multiple types of traction trebuchets including more powerful ones mounted on frame instead of a single pole, which implies they've had more time to work with it longer. Whereas the only pictorials of Roman catapults dates to the Medieval era, just like depictions of Chinese traction trebuchets. Except in regard to catapults the artist drew it so badly you know he has no idea how a catapult works. So by your logic in which you disregard recorded evidence as "no real evidence", even though the Chinese invention of the trebuchet would be pushed to a later period, the Roman invention of the catapult would have never happened, while the Roman use of sinew rope for their ballistas would have "no real evidence".

Bart Dale said:
2. Like a borken record, I would to point out that I am well aware the Chinese had stern rudders in on small Han river craft, but the issue was on larger sea going ships. I already explained why you can't automatically assume that what was a feature on a small.craft on rivers was one on much larger.sea going ones. You attempt to evade the issue won't work, and showing pictures of small river boats does not answer questions for.largd sea going ship.
In post 73 and 85 I told you the following:

You aren't reading, I already went over this and I will repost it:

And if we are using your standard that recorded evidence is "no real evidence", then you are wrong that there is no archaeological evidence for Han sternpost rudders though. Now you might defend yourself by saying that you were speaking of rudders used specifically on "sea going ships", in which I respond: Which Chinese academic made the claim that Han seagoing ships used sternpost rudders? Tit for tat.

The reason we know the Han had sternpost rudders is because of archaeological evidence, the same with Han steering oars, you made it sound as if there's no archaeological evidence for Han stern-mounted steering oars either, even on river ships.

Rudder:


Steering oar:



I mean, is this your tactic: Make a claim about Chinese invention that no Chinese academic claimed, and then refute it to make it look like the Chinese academia is wrong?

I even bolded it for you in post 85. Now I'm underlining it as well. Why haven't you addressed it?

Bart Dale said:
4. Since you dedicate most of.long post to a Han shipyard the least you can do is answer some questions about Han sea going ships. Do we have any actual evidence for ancient Chinese sailing ships? If so, what? Note s picture from.tjd Song dynasty does not qualify.
We have plenty of recorded evidence that ancient Chinese used sailing ships. Because you dismiss recorded evidence, you have to dismiss the recorded evidence of these following things, because there is no pictorial nor archaeological evidence to them:
Greco-Roman siege ladders.
Greo-Roman escalade machinery.
Greco-Roman siege rams.
Greco-Roman catapult.
Greco-Roman oxybeles.
Greco-Roman use of sinews in their ballista.
Greco-Roman automated cart.
Greco-Roman automated cart driven by gasoline.
Greco-Roman multiplication table.
Greco-Roman gimbal.
Greco-Roman air cannon.
Greco-Roman Aelophile.
Greco-Roman vending machine.
Greco-Roman syringe.
etc, etc.....
 
Last edited:

HackneyedScribe

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
6,587
. .. ...,

Another long lengthy post that did not address the questions and points I made but answered a point I never made or claimed.
In post 66 you claimed: Despite the assumption of many, there is no real evidence for large sea going ships [>400 tons] from the Han dynasty, neither ancient reliefs or archeological remains, and given that the contemporary Roman Empire has such evidence, one can well question whether such ships existed then.

In post 73 I asked you :Bart, which Chinese academic claimed that the Han had >400 ton sea going ships? You make it sound as if they claimed such a thing, who claimed such a thing? You shouldn't say the Chinese have "no real evidence" as if the Chinese ever made the claim, when in fact they haven't. Before you get started, you should respond to the above

In post 78 I asked you again:
This is not to mention that you are implying that the Chinese academia said something they didn't. You have not proven if they did indeed say what you implied them to say.

In post 82 I asked you again:
This whole thing started because you started mentioning Chinese sea going ships which have NOTHING to do with the OP. So why don't you answer what I and heylouis repeatedly asked of you?:Bart, which Chinese academic claimed that the Han had >400 ton sea going ships? You make it sound as if they claimed such a thing, who claimed such a thing? You shouldn't say the Chinese have "no real evidence" as if the Chinese ever made the claim, when in fact they haven't. Unlike you who expected me to answer things about the traction trebuchet or the abacus, things I made no mention over, I'm actually asking you over things you did mention. It's not "failing" to refrain from providing evidence on things I never spoke of. It is, however, failing for you if you can't provide evidence for things you mentioned.

Bart Dale said:
I never said that the majority of ships.were not small in any time period, I never denied it.
You said this, yes or no?: Given the number of models of small boats it is rather surprising that we don't have models of large Han ships, but there you have it.

Ergo my statement that large ships are greatly outnumbered by small ships is relevant to the point you made. Canoes outnumber aircraft carriers even today. So depictions of canoes outnumber depictions of aircraft carriers.

Bart Dale said:
The fact you yourseld.provide multiple lines of evidence showing the existence of large Roman ships but not a single line of such evidence from Han China proves my point. If the Han Chinese were building such large ships as the Romans there would be at least one piece of such evidence but there is isn't, because anxient Chinese weren't building such ships. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence if we should have had such evidence but we don't. In the case of the large ships, we should have had at least one piece of such evidence, but we don't. That small ships outnumber big one is irrelevant to the point. Roman ships were.made out of wood, same as Chinese
Again, I never said the ancient Chinese built ships as large as that of the Romans. I said that they built ships that's on par with the size of the largest Roman warships, and I gave proof of this, I did not say they built ships the size of the biggest Roman merchant ships.

So when it comes to accusations of dishonesty, you should quote just where I claimed that the Han built over 400 ton ships? Again, in post 69 you made it clear that you define large ships as ">400 tons".

It is typical of con artist and dishonest persons that they accuse others of the dishonesty they themselves are guilty to distract others from their own dishonest. To have long post mostly about Roman ships.when the issue was Chinese ships is rather dishonest nd frankly tuoicsl of yoursmoke and mirrors tactics. Where is all the similar evidence for the Chinese ships? I am still waiting for similar information about Chinese ships.
In post 66 you made the false claim: Despite the assumption of many, there is no real evidence for large sea going ships from the Han dynasty, neither ancient reliefs or archeological remains, and given that the contemporary Roman Empire has such evidence, one can well question whether such ships existed then.

Ergo it was you who side-tracked the thread into one of ships. Otherwise please tell which post I made prior to your post 66 that is about ships? So if you think it's dishonest to side-track the thread into a discussion on ships, you should first read your post 66. All I did was ask you just which Chinese academic assumed there were large (>400 ton) sea going ships from the Han dynasty? I asked this over and over and all you could do was throw insults instead of actually answering the question, as well as smokebombs demanding I prove things I made no mention over.

And in terms of dishonesty, in response to my evidence you replied with the following in post 76: None of the pictures of the Chinese machinery are from ancient times, they all.date from medieval times and or.later.

Let's go over the evidence I provided so far:

This is an ancient depiction of a ship with rudder:


This is an ancient depiction of a ship with steering oar:


This is ancient depiction of waterwheel powered hammers:



This is from excavation of blast furnaces dated to the Han (ancient) period:



These are pictorial representations of treadle drawlooms and quilling wheels dating to the Han (ancient) period:


This is a picture of a multi-hedle drawloom found in a Han tomb (bottom right), ergo ancient period:


This is a Han gear mold (Ancient period):


This is a Warring States gear and ratchet (ancient period):


This is the Lingqu and Dujiang canals (constructed in ancient period):



Han armory in Chang'an (ancient):


Han seed drill (ancient):


Han plough with adjustable strut (Ancient):


Han depiction of quern with oscillating motion of crank and connecting rod (ancient period):


Han salt evaporation pan (Ancient period):


Han salt derrick (rubbing of a Han era pictorial, ergo ancient):


So tell me which of the above are Medieval or post-Medieval as you claim? I mean, you claimed ALL the pictures of machinery are Medieval or post-Medieval, so you must be quite confident to make such a claim and you must have the evidence to back it up.
 
Last edited:

HackneyedScribe

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
6,587
And what I posted since then....

Warring States Multiplication table (Ancient):


Han use of multi-pulley system (Ancient):


~Warring States windlass (Ancient):


Han jade gate pass (Ancient):


Han Hecang granary (ancient):


Warring States bronze vase art of two decker ships, cloud ladder, and siege ladders (ancient period):



Still looks like all the pictures I'm providing are over evidence dating to the ancient period. What is this "Medieval" or "post-Medieval" evidence you say I'm providing?

On the other hand you did bring Renaissance Globe Theater in post 83. Even though it was first burned down, rebuilt and then dismantled. The Globe Theater that's standing now is a 1997 replica. And the replica and relocation of the Globe Theater relies on recorded evidence, which you seem to think is "no real evidence". If the Globe Theater was a Chinese building you would have dismissed it because it's no longer standing and because it was a post-ancient building, which is the standard you put forth for China in this thread but apparently not Europe.
 
Last edited:

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
^You should read my above post. The Globe Theater isn't in the Medieval era, much less the ancient era. And the Globe theater that's standing now is a modern replica. So the original one did not even make it to the modern day either. So I'm confused why Bart would accuse my evidence as Medieval or post-Medieval (which isn't even true, all my evidence dates to the ancient period), yet he himself would use the Globe Theater as a testament to European engineering.
I never said that the Globe Theater was medieval or that it was still standing. I merely pointed out that the feature you boasted about for the Chinese was not unique to them. Once again you dishonestly accuse me of saying things I did not. And you did not even answer my question. You really are the most dishonest person I have ever debated .

Heylou in the following post to yours kindly answered the question I asked, and did acknowledge that dismantling and relocating buildings wasn't done very often, but was done. The advantage seems more theoretical than real.


Even though
1. The original Globe Theater isn't standing today, something he consistently criticized about ancient Chinese buildings. The British theater built in 1600 AD caught fire in 1613. The replacement built in 1614 was torn down in 1645. A replica was built in 1997.
2. Even if it was standing it's not built in the ancient period, not even Medieval period. It was built in the Renaissance period.
And I never said the Globe Theater was ancient or still standing and frankly it is not honest of you to imply otherwise. The point being made was that the ability to dismantled and reconstruct wooden buildings was not unique to the Chinese. As I thought, though, dismantling and relocating large Chinese buildings was not done very often, and not really that big an advantage.


My entire point was that a building that could be easily dismantled like lego would tend to be easy to parasite off of by locals wanting easy lumber once the building became abandoned. And him mentioning the Globe Theater actually helps my case when you consider its ultimate fate.
Same thing happens to stone buildings. It is easier to grab stones from old building than quarry new ones. And limestone from old stone buildings was used to make quicklime. Bricks get recycled too. Wooden buildings are no more likely to be pilfered than other ones. The Great Pyramids used to be white, but over time the white cap stones were pillages.


Is more advanced than any Han dynasty palace. Those lucky garrison soldiers.
A.complex structure that last a long time is more of an engineering challenge. The construction of a Gothic cathedral or the Pantheon requires more technical skills and greater challenged than any Han palacd. .wood is a very forgiving medium to work, stone much less so. And creating open space without a forest of pillars that the Chinese used is a challenge as well. The logistics alone are much greater challenged than what the Chinese faced. Transporting 60 ton pillars across the sea was a greater logistical challenge than faced by a Chinese wooden structure. The Han Chinese simply could not have done what the Romans did, none of their ships were capable of transporting 60 ton blocks.

How is the illustration of a traction trebuchet more impressive than the the excavation of blast furnaces?
Because it demonstrates that the trebuchets really existed then. When you rely on text , possibilities of mistranslating and misunderstanding exist. A name for one device might be later assigned to a different device, so the name in the older text might be talking about a different different device altogether than what you thought. Or references might be added to it that didn't exist in the original text. Since we usually only have copies and not the original . If I have a text on military equipment, I might add a reference to the latest piece of hardware than wasn't in the original, thus making it seem that technology had been around longer than it actual was. No intention to decide, it made an older text more valuable, but it does make the historians job hsrder. You and from what I see other Chinese posters, don't seem very interested in textual criticism, but it's important if text are what you are relying on for evidence. The conservative nature of the Chinese writing makes it even more of a problem. The lack of illustration for trebuchets raises the issue is perhaps they were not as old as we think in China, especially in light of all the crossbow pictures we have. The question of is this device is manuscript a later addition and not in the original? Those questions get asked all the time in Western sources, very seldom in Chinese ones from what I see. Interpolations can be deliberate or accidental. And because the conservative nature of Chinese writing it is much harder to spot these sddition.

Plus, last time you demanded Medieval Chinese art of their waterwheels, and I provided just that, you responded with the accusation that I gave Medieval Chinese artwork and Chinese are liars who forge their art.
I did not create the fact that China is the leading nation of forgers and was votdd the world's most dishonest nation, and that does effect the discussion when it comes to history. An art dealer with a history of selling forgies is justly treated with greater skepticism and China falls in that category, like or not. And you seem only interested in proving Chinese superiority in all matters and take issue if I suggest in any way that the Chinese were not among the best in anything. You went on long rants showing all kinds of irrelevant Chinese inventions to the discussion when I simply said that there was no evidence the Han Chinese built ships as the Romans. Given that attitude proving Chinese superiority at all cost , I don't trust you to examine shady evidence as long as it proves Chinese superiority. And because the Chinese were unable to build as long lasting complex sturctures, you challenged the very idea that building a building that last for thousands of years is any more difficult than a circus tent that last a short period of time. If the Chinese didn't do, it wasn't important. And

And So why do you even ask? Even if ancient China had illustrations to match their recorded evidence for inventing trebuchets, you'd just call the illustration as a forgery based on your accusation that Chinese are natural forgers.
You provide me with tons of illustrations I did not ask for, so.why not ones I did? That is because you can't , because they don't exist. And that raised the possibility the traction trebuchets were not an ancient invention at all, one that you don't want thd possibility of because l you are interested in is proving how more advance the Chinese were, and this does not fit the narrative you want. And no body is a natural forger. But China is known for illegal copies and bootlegging. Are you saying that many Chinese don't engage in making art forgeries and illegal copies and its reputation unwarranted ? Not the impression I received from reading the newspapers

For that matter, why do you constantly think I'm trying to impress you?
Because you send all these post to me with unasked for information that is not relevant to the topic of the thread. All that irrelevant stuff makes replying harder


How many Han and Tang illustrations of sieges do you know about? I know plenty of illustrations of open field battles, none about sieges. Traction trebuchets belong in sieges, crossbows belong to both open field battles and in sieges. Please do share if you know any Han-Tang illustrations of siege battles, Bart.
Traction trebuchets can also used in field operations as well. Their use was not confined to sieges. However medieval illustrations seem to show them primarily in sieges . But they were also used on ships.
 
Last edited:

HackneyedScribe

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
6,587
I never said that the Globe Theater was medieval or that it was still standing.
Where did I claim you said that?

Is this true or not: You accused me of providing pictures of Chinese machinery from Medieval and post Medieval buildings? <---False accusation btw
Is this true or not: You presented the Globe Theater which is a post-Medieval building

Bart Dale said:
I merely pointed out that the feature you boasted about for the Chinese was not unique to them. Once again you dishonestly accuse me of saying things I did not.
First of all, where did I accuse you of saying it? If you can't find it, then I'm not being dishonest, you're just putting words in my mouth.
Second of all, I'm not obligated to answer questions that I made no claim over. Show me if I made a claim about it, THEN ask me if I have evidence for it. Expecting me to provide evidence for something I never claimed is unreasonable, period.

Bart Dale said:
And you did not even answer my question. You really are the most dishonest person I have ever debated .
In post 73 I told you:
Who in this thread claimed otherwise? You made a claim that I've said nothing about, and then proceed to refute the claim and blame it on me for not "admitting" to something I've said nothing about.

In post 82 I told you:
It's not "failing" to refrain from providing evidence on things I never spoke of. It is, however, failing for you if you can't provide evidence for things you mentioned.

In post 85 I told you:
for the N-th time I have zero obligation in finding evidence for things I said NOTHING about or made ZERO claims for. I only need to provide evidence for things I actually claimed, and I did do that.

In post 95 I told you:
Bart, where did I mention anything about ancient China having pictures of the traction trebuchet, the abacus, or any of the above? Ergo I'm not obligated to provide information I made no mention about. I've told you this, yet like a broken record you keep repeating it.
On the other hand, unlike you I asked you to prove things that you DID claim.

In post 73 and post 74 I asked you the following:

Bart, which Chinese academic claimed that the Han had >400 ton sea going ships? You make it sound as if they claimed such a thing, who claimed such a thing? You shouldn't say the Chinese have "no real evidence" as if the Chinese ever made the claim, when in fact they haven't. Before you get started, you should respond to the above.

You repeatedly ignored it, and unlike you, my question is asking you to back something you actually claimed. I don't have to answer things I made no claim over, that's an unreasonable expectation of yours.

Bart Dale said:
And I never said the Globe Theater was ancient or still standing and frankly it is not honest of you to imply otherwise.
Where did I accuse you of saying that? Nowhere? Then I'm not being dishonest.

But is this true or not: You accused my pictures of being not from the ancient period, even though they are
Is this true or not: You bring up the Globe Theater which is built in the Reinassance period.

Is this true or not: You were critical of ancient Chinese buildings that don't last to the present day
Is this true or not: The Globe Theater you were boasting about didn't last to the present day

Bart Dale said:
The point being made was that the ability to dismantled and reconstruct wooden buildings was not unique to the Chinese. As I thought, though, dismantling and relocating large Chinese buildings was not done very often, and not really that big an advantage.
I said that Chinese buildings could easily be dismantled in order to explain one reason it have a higher tendency to last a shorter amount of time. Because abandoned buildings can be dismantled by surrounding locals for cheap lumber. How is that "boasting" about Chinese architecture?

And you do know that buildings such as the Forbidden Palace are constantly dismantled and rebuilt with the same materials in order to repair the building? In fact it was done not a few years ago. The very fact that you bring up the Globe Theather, which was dismantled twice, supports my argument.

Bart Dale said:
Same thing happens to stone buildings. It is easier to grab stones from old building than quarry new ones. And limestone from old stone buildings was used to make quicklime. Bricks get recycled too. Wooden buildings are no more likely to be pilfered than other ones. The Great Pyramids used to be white, but over time the white cap stones were pillages.
It's easier to dismantle nailess wooden buildings than to dismantle stone buildings held together with mortar. That's the entire point. I don't know why you think it's boasting. I'm not saying which is better, I'm just saying what type of building is easier to parasite off of by locals once abandoned. How is that "Boasting"?

Bart Dale said:
A.complex structure that last a long time is more of an engineering challenge. The construction of a Gothic cathedral or the Pantheon requires more technical skills and greater challenged than any Han palacd. .wood is a very forgiving medium to work, stone much less so. And creating open space without a forest of pillars that the Chinese used is a challenge as well. The logistics alone are much greater challenged than what the Chinese faced. Transporting 60 ton pillars across the sea was a greater logistical challenge than faced by a Chinese wooden structure. The Han Chinese simply could not have done what the Romans did, none of their ships were capable of transporting 60 ton blocks.
Gothic Cathedrals and the Pantheon are more advanced because of things like flying buttresses and domes, not because it's built out of stone. Also Gothic Cathedrals are not in the ancient period and are not built in the style of the ancient period. Good wooden materials need to be heat treated and processed, stone don't have to deal with it. It's a different sort of challenge.

Bart Dale said:
Because it demonstrates that the trebuchets really existed then. When you rely on text , possibilities of mistranslating and misunderstanding exist. A name for one device might be later assigned to a different device, so the name in the older text might be talking about a different different device altogether than what you thought. Or references might be added to it that didn't exist in the original text. Since we usually only have copies and not the original . If I have a text on military equipment, I might add a reference to the latest piece of hardware than wasn't in the original, thus making it seem that technology had been around longer than it actual was. No intention to decide, it made an older text more valuable, but it does make the historians job hsrder. You and from what I see other Chinese posters, don't seem very interested in textual criticism, but it's important if text are what you are relying on for evidence. The conservative nature of the Chinese writing makes it even more of a problem. The lack of illustration for trebuchets raises the issue is perhaps they were not as old as we think in China, especially in light of all the crossbow pictures we have.
Actually Mohist texts mention trebuchets in multiple places and gives dimensions for rebuilding one, and it was mentioned in successive sources. We know where Mohist texts are fragmented and the section on trebuchets is not one of them. I don't see any dimensions on the records of the Roman catapult, why haven't you questioned the existence of the Roman catapult?

Bart Dale said:
The question of is this device is manuscript a later addition and not in the original? Those questions get asked all the time in Western sources, very seldom in Chinese ones from what I see. Interpolations can be deliberate or accidental. And because the conservative nature of Chinese writing it is much harder to spot these sddition.
You don't even read Chinese, how do you know which Chinese source said what? How many academic Chinese sources on history have you read?

Bart Dale said:
I did not create the fact that China is the leading nation of forgers and was votdd the world's most dishonest nation, and that does effect the discussion when it comes to history. An art dealer with a history of selling forgies is justly treated with greater skepticism and China falls in that category, like or not. And you seem only interested in proving Chinese superiority in all matters and take issue if I suggest in any way that the Chinese were not among the best in anything. You went on long rants showing all kinds of irrelevant Chinese inventions to the discussion when I simply said that there was no evidence the Han Chinese built ships as the Romans. Given that attitude proving Chinese superiority at all cost , I don't trust you to examine shady evidence as long as it proves Chinese superiority. And because the Chinese were unable to build as long lasting complex sturctures, you challenged the very idea that building a building that last for thousands of years is any more difficult than a circus tent that last a short period of time. If the Chinese didn't do, it wasn't important. And
Keep the closet racism in the closet please.

Also the thread is about buildings. If you justify yourself talking about trebuchets, ships, rudders, and any other assortment of non-buildings, then you shouldn't accuse me of talking about non-buildings either. It all started because of a topic you started in post 66.

Chinese forgers focus on making forgeries of trinkets you buy on Ebay, not forgeries of famous written material. The world's most famous forgers in that respect aren't Chinese (Septimius, Onomacritus, Pseudo Dionysius, Thomas Chatterton, Philip Yorke, Charles Nodier, etc. etc....).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: spirocate

HackneyedScribe

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
6,587
Bart Dale said:
You provide me with tons of illustrations I did not ask for, so.why not ones I did? That is because you can't , because they don't exist. And that raised the possibility the traction trebuchets were not an ancient invention at all, one that you don't want thd possibility of because l you are interested in is proving how more advance the Chinese were, and this does not fit the narrative you want. And no body is a natural forger. But China is known for illegal copies and bootlegging. Are you saying that many Chinese don't engage in making art forgeries and illegal copies and its reputation unwarranted ? Not the impression I received from reading the newspapers
You provide with with no zero illustrations of any sort, so you really shouldn't be picky about illustrations.

More importantly, I started providing illustrations in post 73 and 74 and 78. That's where the vast majority of my illustrations came from. You first started demanding illustrations in post 80. The numbers 73, 74, and 78 are less than 80. How could I know what you type of illustrations you want before you even demanded them?
Most of the illustrations I provided occurred BEFORE you asked for any illustrations. So the illustrations you DID ask for is based on the illustrations of things you know that only recorded evidence exist, instead of illustrations in which there certainly are pictorial and archaeological proof of Chinese invention.

Bart Dale said:
Because you send all these post to me with unasked for information that is not relevant to the topic of the thread. All that irrelevant stuff makes replying harder
I'm not responsible for providing only the things you want, I get to post information that I want.
It was you in post 66 who first side-tracked the thread, remember? In post 66 you claimed: Despite the assumption of many, there is no real evidence for large sea going ships [>400 tons] from the Han dynasty, neither ancient reliefs or archeological remains, and given that the contemporary Roman Empire has such evidence, one can well question whether such ships existed then.

In post 73 I asked you :Bart, which Chinese academic claimed that the Han had >400 ton sea going ships? You make it sound as if they claimed such a thing, who claimed such a thing? You shouldn't say the Chinese have "no real evidence" as if the Chinese ever made the claim, when in fact they haven't. Before you get started, you should respond to the above

In post 78 I asked you again:
This is not to mention that you are implying that the Chinese academia said something they didn't. You have not proven if they did indeed say what you implied them to say.

In post 82 I asked you again:
This whole thing started because you started mentioning Chinese sea going ships which have NOTHING to do with the OP. So why don't you answer what I and heylouis repeatedly asked of you?:Bart, which Chinese academic claimed that the Han had >400 ton sea going ships? You make it sound as if they claimed such a thing, who claimed such a thing? You shouldn't say the Chinese have "no real evidence" as if the Chinese ever made the claim, when in fact they haven't. Unlike you who expected me to answer things about the traction trebuchet or the abacus, things I made no mention over, I'm acutally asking you over things you did mention. It's not "failing" to refrain from providing evidence on things I never spoke of. It is, however, failing for you if you can't provide evidence for things you mentioned.

Bart Dale said:
Traction trebuchets were also used in field operations as well. Their use was not confined to sieges.
In which Chinese field battle was traction trebuchets used? Please provide source and quote.
 
Last edited: