The Oldest Extant Building in China?

Feb 2011
6,040
In summary:

1.
Here are the most famous literary forgers in history:

Onomacritus: Who used false compilations of oracles and invented false mythologies.
Septimius: Produced false account of the Trojan War
Pseudo Dionysius: Created the Dionysan Corpus, amongst other things, with the author claiming to be someone he's not. In the 1000 years from when it was written to when it was discovered as a forgery, Pseudo Dionysius made an impact on theology.
Thomas Chatterson: Made a series of poems attributed to a Medieval Monk. Thomas was not a Medieval monk.
Philip Yorke: created forgery purported to be the first English newspaper (English Mercurie), describing an account of the battle of 1588 with the Spanish armada. Still sometimes used in modern times as if it's a valid source.
Heidemann and Konrad Kujau: Created the Hitler diaries to create quick cash.

Other famous forgeries include:
Protocols of the Elders of Zion: Forged text used to cause anti-Jewish resentment. Henry Ford published 500,000 of these copies using his own purse.
The Donation of Constantine : Forged text claiming that Emperor Constantine transferred vast sums of land and political power to the Pope
The Education of Little Tree: Supposed memoirs of a Cherokee, but it was actually written by a KKK member

^None of them are Chinese. Bart Dale, you don't see me questioning European sources in general just because of these bad apples. That's because I treat all authors as individuals, you treat Chinese by looking at the worst of the lot. That's called racism. And justifying your racism don't make you less racist, it makes you more racist.

2.
Also, Bart, your constant accusations of dishonesty is getting old. When I claim you said something, I gave the specific post number and the quote of exactly what you said word for word. When you claim I said some lie, you can't give the specific post number and the quote because I've never said it. You couldn't even do that once. If you can't do that simple thing then you shouldn't accuse me of it.

For example:
I gave pictures of ancient Chinese technology. You mentioned the Globe Theater.
We both accused the other of presenting things from the post-Medieval period.
My defense: I challenged you to show just which picture I gave is of something dating to the Medieval or post-Meideval period. You repeatedly couldn't do so. I gave the post number and quote of your exact accusation in my prior post.
Your defense: Saying I'm a liar because you didn't say the Globe Theather was ancient. Did I accuse you of saying that? Where? Show the post number and quote where I said it. What I did do was accuse you of presenting things dating to the post-Medieval period, even though you won't let me present things dating to the same time period or even before.

Just because you didn't deny the Globe Theater was post-Medieval, or that you didn't deny it's no longer standing, does not take away that you were critical of Chinese evidence that's post-Meideval or no longer standing. It's not about what you said, it's about your shifting standards.

3.
For the N-th time I'm not obligated to present evidence I mentioned nothing about. The vast majority of my illustrations was given BEFORE you demanded what type of illustrations you want, so they don't have to answer to you. On the other hand I actually asked you questions over things you claimed, so you ARE obligated to answer those, you had plenty of chances to do so, but you have not. For example, your insinuations of the false assumptions that the academia holds, but when challenged to point out just who said what, you couldn't provide even one example. You don't even know Chinese, so I find it questionable that you have read Chinese academic articles enough to make an opinion on the assumptions held by the Chinese academia.

4.
If you think I am diverging from the OP, then your accusation should not include diverging topics like trebuchets or sailing ships within the same post. You shouldn't have started the diverging topic about sea-going ships either. This all started because of your side-track topic in post 66. Don't dish it out if you can't handle it.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2016
538
United States, MO
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
We know that China could move heavy stones because they did so with steles. I will requote my own post here:

Yes, you are correct that building in stone requires more time, more expensive resources, and it puts a greater demand on the infrastructure of a given state. You are also correct that some stone buildings, like the Roman Pantheon likely require the use of pulleys that reduce weight.

However, it should be clear that not all stone structures require these pulley systems. The pyramids were built with ramps and rolling logs. So, some structures presumably do need a pulley system and some do not.

Now I do agree that cutting and moving large stones puts more demand on the economy and the workforce than chopping down large trees. However, this practice is not really foreign to China, and some forms of pulleys were also used in China.

Let's start with cutting and moving stone. Some of the biggest stones that were cut and moved in China were for steles. These steles consist of three parts, a base, a main pillar, and a cap. Here is one that was erected for the tomb of Wu Zetian, China's only female empress.


Altogether, the stele weighs 98 tonnes and is a little over 6 meters tall.

Here is one from the Song dynasty.

All three pieces together top 250 tonnes and it is over 16 meters tall.

And this is a little on the side, but the Ming Dynasty Hongwu emperor once commissioned a stele that was never completed because it was too big to move. Here is the base plate that was almost completely cut, before the project was stopped because it would be impossible to complete.




This piece is estimated to weigh 16,250 metric tons alone.


I know that other places have bigger steles and obelisks, but this at least shows that the Chinese could cut and move large stones, just not ones that are bigger than houses.

Now, I am not aware of China using pulleys that maximized force like the Greek ones, but pulleys were definitely used.

He is a mining drill from a


This is from around the Song dynasty, but the salt mining with drills took place as early as the Han dynasty.

Also, the chain pump was invented in the Han dynasty. It is not a true pulley, but uses two gears with a belt on it.


So, although these pulleys don't maximize force as much as the Greco-Roman ones. It is still evidence for their use in China.

Now, wooden buildings may be more vulnerable to fire than some stone buildings are to earthquakes, but the cheaper price and reduced labor cost for wooden buildings is precisely what makes wooden buildings worth the risk of fire. If wood did indeed take as much effort as stone, but was still susceptible to fire, than no one would ever use it.

Also, the time and money saved constructing wooden buildings was likely spent by making the biggest statues in the world.


So China could move and transport huge amounts of stone, but they didn't make buildings with these materials.
 
Feb 2011
6,040
Bart Dale said:
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
Bart Dale said:
you send all these post to me with unasked for information that is not relevant to the topic of the thread.
Also, Bart, my illustrations of Chinese technology is a response to this statement of yours in post 69, yes or no?
Post 69: If we went by actual archeological remains, or ancient illustrations, we would have very little evidence for many, most of the ancient Chinese inventions and many of the medieval ones as well.

So I provided illustrations in post 73 and 74 and 78 which disproves your statement in post 69. That's where the vast majority of my illustrations came from. These include things like rudders, stern mounted steering oars, ratchet gearing, treadle operated drawlooms, quilling wheels, waterwheels, blast furnaces, windlass, salt derricks, salt evaporation pans, cloud ladders, crank and oscillating shaft, etc, etc..... <----All of these were contemporary ancient illustrations or excavations from the ancient period

^If it's not relevant to the topic of the thread, then why did you mention it in post 69?

You first started demanding illustrations of very specific technology like traction trebuchets in post 80, AFTER I gave most of my illustrations. In post 69 you talk about the supposed lack of evidence in general, not specific technologies.
You demanded more and more specific evidence of very specific technologies AFTER I gave many illustrations of technology in general. Your original point is about "most Chinese inventions", not the handful of specific ones you mentioned.

So I addressed a topic in which YOU started, in which you are talking about Chinese technology in general. You then moved on, in post 80, talking about how "you weren't impressed", or that I didn't give illustrations about very specific technologies. This was NOT what you originally said, originally in post 69 you were not speaking about Chinese lack of illustrations for a specific technology, but their lack of illustrations/excavations for technology in general.

Your statement in post 69 have been disaproven by the illustrations and excavations I've provided:

HackneyedScribe said:
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):

Warring States Multiplication table (Ancient):



~Warring States windlass (Ancient):
So I am merely responding to an incorrect statement you made. That is not "proving Chinese superiority at all cost". Your statement in post 69 have been proven incorrect, for there are plenty of illustrations and excavations of ancient Chinese inventions, and the list would have additional inventions if we discount recorded evidence as per your standard.
In response you shifted gears and switched to a new and very specific goalpost. That cost you your credibility.

So you allow yourself to sidetrack from the topic by making incorrect claims as you did in post 69. But if I correct you, that's "sidetracking". It's not a smokebomb, you made a claim that's wrong in post 69 and I corrected it. You only say it's a smokebomb because you switched the goalpost in post 80 and beyond.
 
Last edited:

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
6,866
I'm not responsible for providing only the things you want, I get to post information that I want.
Then stop providing me with a bunch of things I didn't request and don't having anything to do with the discussion. And the things you post should have a relation to the topic of the thread or the point under discussion.


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.
It was you that hijacked this thread in the first place. You reponded with an entire post to something I merely said in passing to another poster, and added further irrevelant material about a list of Roman inventions we had no illustrations or physical evidence for, none of which had anything to do with the thread. You further went on repeated rants which had nothing to do with the thread. You are the one hijackkng this thread, I have done is been reponding to you. And while I have usually tried to include some material relate to the topic of the thread, you haven't even made any lretrnse for most of your many postings, which are twice as numerous a mine.

In post 73 I asked you :Bart, which Chinese academic claimed that the Han had >400 ton sea going ships?


You implied it when you replied to.my original post. There was no point about providing that lengthy post about the the ancient Chinese shipyard other than to try to dispute my claim there were no large Han dynasty sea going ships. There was no excuse for your lost otherwise. It was a post mostly discussing Chinese shipyard and ancient Chinese ships, and this thread isn't about Chinese ships, so it had not place in it. There is world of difference of mentioning something in a single line, and dedicating an entire post as you did. Since you mentioned ship sizes in your post, I specified a dimension my later post to make it clear what was a large ship, so you couldn't claim that the examples you gave were large ships.

And I did not bother to answer the question, because I had answers already to another poster, and did not see this post. You have made 2 or more lost for every one of mine, and you make them so rapidly it just hard to keep up.

Let's clarify the matter right now. Do you acknowledge that there is no evidence of NY kind for large Han sea going ships (400+ ton ) ? If we don't have any evidence then we.must assume they dd not exist, the burden of proof is having.evidence they did exist. Your answer must be yes, we have no evidence, otherwise your question is extremely dishonest.


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 haven't sacknowledge fact there is no evidence. All you have to do is acknowledgd the statement.

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 sawhat you implied them to say.
Show me where I used the word academic or scholar I what I said. Since I didn't say that scholars or an academic said this , I am not obliged to answer a question of.something I did not say.

Not at all. I said that there is no large Han dynasty sea going ship. I did.not specifically mention what scholar thought. If you dispute that claim, the burden is up to you to provide the evidence they existed . Your responses so.fsr implu that you do dispute the claim, otherwise you would not have made the post of the Chinese shipyard or the on the Roman ships, which have no place on this thread.


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.




No, it started when you dedicated an entire post to a Hand shipyard which had nothing to do with the OP! You did not ask me to he question about what Chinese scholar said something until after your irrelevant ship yard post. I.have read a number of post and articles, which I never said were scholars , who assume that Han sea going ships were like the later Song and you are one them. When I asked for a picture of an ancient sea going Chinese ships, you send me pictures of large .Song dynasty ships in previous thread that was quite a while back, thereby indirectly claiming the Han ships were like the Song. Instead of just admitting we don't have any pictures of Han sea going ships, you sent me pictures of Song ships. You and others are who I had in mind.

But keep this in mind - you are one the derailing the thread. A single line in a post doesn't do it, repeated entire post as you do does.

Now, you haven't reponded to my question as to when the Chinese had lifting cranes and used pulleys in series for mechanical advantage which is relevant to the topic of the thread. The Han picture , which was poor quality, does not show what I asked for. But you claimed it did. A pulley in series has the same rope around both pullies and allows the force to be halved to lift something. In the picture you provided the pullies were side by side and not in series and are not example of mechanical advantage.

In which Chinese field battle was traction trebuchets used? Please provide source and quote.
They were not used in the field in China? I must be wrong then. My mistake, I thought they were, which explains why no picture of them.
 
Feb 2011
6,040
Bart Dale said:
Then stop providing me with a bunch of things I didn't request and don't having anything to do with the discussion. And the things you post should have a relation to the topic of the thread or the point under discussion.
In post 69 you said: If we went by actual archeological remains, or ancient illustrations, we would have very little evidence for many, most of the ancient Chinese inventions and many of the medieval ones as well.

I am allowed to correct you on that incorrect statement such as in post 73 and 74 and 78. It is related to the point under discussion, because YOU introduced the discussion of Chinese inventions in the first place in post 69 as anyone can see above.

Hence if I talk about excavations/illustrations of the blast furnace, it is in line with a discussion YOU introduced in post 69
Hence if I talk about excavations/illustrations of the quilling wheel, it is in line with a discussion YOU introduced in post 69
Hence if I talk about excavations/illustrations of the waterwheel, it is in line with a discussion YOU introduced in post 69
Hence if I talk about excavations/illustrations of the windlass, it is in line with a discussion YOU introduced in post 69
Hence if I talk about excavations/illustrations of the decimal multiplication table, it is in line with a discussion YOU introduced in post 69
Hence if I talk about excavations/illustrations of the multi-hedle drawloom, it is in line with a discussion YOU introduced in post 69
etc, etc.... you know what I mean

Bart Dale said:
It was you that hijacked this thread in the first place. You reponded with an entire post to something I merely said in passing to another poster, and added further irrevelant material about a list of Roman inventions we had no illustrations or physical evidence for, none of which had anything to do with the thread. You further went on repeated rants which had nothing to do with the thread. You are the one hijackkng this thread, I have done is been reponding to you.
So in summary:
When you make incorrect statements that have nothing to do with the thread, I am not allowed to correct you because it has nothing to do with the thread.
You are allowed to talk about Chinese inventions that we have no illustrations or physical evidence for, but I am not allowed to talk about Roman illustrations that we have no illustrations or physical evidence for.

I think that's a good summary of what you just said.

Also having your entire starting paragraph be about fabrications of Chinese history is not what you say "in passing". Anyone can see this in post 66. And in post 69 where you claimed most ancient and Medieval Chinese inventions have no illustrations or archaeological evidence, you were not saying it "in passing" to another poster, you were saying it directly to me.

In summary
Bart in post 65:
We have no evidence for any ancient Chinese abacus (we have Roman illustrations of one), or the use of the Chinese stern post rudder on ancient sea going ships
Hack in post 66: So the warship constructed in ancient Qin-Han Guangzhou, most likely meant for attacking the Southern Yue by sea, could be up to 30 meters in length and 8.4 meters in width, and have a loading capacity of 50-60 tonnes. Which means the ship itself would weigh at least 100-120 tonnes.
Bart in post 69: If you have any evidence of large > 400 ton Han sea going ships, then please provide it.
Hack in post 73: 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.

^That question from me to you hasn't been answered, even though I asked you repeatedly. Notice how you only defined that "large" means "over 400 tons" AFTER I showed you the excavated examples of Qin-Han ships of 100-120 tons. Since 100 ton ships belong to the largest class of Roman warships, I consider it large. Apparently you think the largest Roman warships are not large.

Also notice how you were talking about technology in general in post 69. And when I showed you about twenty contemporary illustrations and excavations of ancient Chinese technology, you demanded only specific technology in post 80.

Bart Dale said:
And while I have usually tried to include some material relate to the topic of the thread, you haven't even made any lretrnse for most of your many postings, which are twice as numerous a mine.
Which source material have you provided so far? I see a lot of opinion, and when I correct you you get angry. I don't see much solid materials at all.

Bart Dale said:
You implied it when you replied to.my original post.

There was no point about providing that lengthy post about the the ancient Chinese shipyard other than to try to dispute my claim there were no large Han dynasty sea going ships. There was no excuse for your lost otherwise. It was a post mostly discussing Chinese shipyard and ancient Chinese ships, and this thread isn't about Chinese ships, so it had not place in it. There is world of difference of mentioning something in a single line, and dedicating an entire post as you did. Since you mentioned ship sizes in your post, I specified a dimension my later post to make it clear what was a large ship, so you couldn't claim that the examples you gave were large ships.

And I did not bother to answer the question, because I had answers already to another poster, and did not see this post. You have made 2 or more lost for every one of mine, and you make them so rapidly it just hard to keep up.

Let's clarify the matter right now. Do you acknowledge that there is no evidence of NY kind for large Han sea going ships (400+ ton ) ? If we don't have any evidence then we.must assume they dd not exist, the burden of proof is having.evidence they did exist. Your answer must be yes, we have no evidence, otherwise your question is extremely dishonest.
All I said was that the ancient Chinese were building 100-120 ton ships. How is that implying the Chinese were building 400 ton ships?

Your original post is post 65. It says nothing about how you define large ships as over 400 tons, which only occured in post 69 after I showed you that ancient Chinese were building ships of 100-120 tons in post 68.

Bart Dale said:
No, it started when you dedicated an entire post to a Hand shipyard which had nothing to do with the OP! You did not ask me to he question about what Chinese scholar said something until after your irrelevant ship yard post. I.have read a number of post and articles, which I never said were scholars , who assume that Han sea going ships were like the later Song and you are one them. When I asked for a picture of an ancient sea going Chinese ships, you send me pictures of large .Song dynasty ships in previous thread that was quite a while back, thereby indirectly claiming the Han ships were like the Song. Instead of just admitting we don't have any pictures of Han sea going ships, you sent me pictures of Song ships. You and others are who I had in mind.

But keep this in mind - you are one the derailing the thread. A single line in a post doesn't do it, repeated entire post as you do does.

Now, you haven't reponded to my question as to when the Chinese had lifting cranes and used pulleys in series for mechanical advantage which is relevant to the topic of the thread. The Han picture , which was poor quality, does not show what I asked for. But you claimed it did. A pulley in series has the same rope around both pullies and allows the force to be halved to lift something. In the picture you provided the pullies were side by side and not in series and are not example of mechanical advantage.
Let me get this straight:
When you talk about Chinese ships, that have to do with the OP.
When I talk about Chinese ships in response, it have nothing to do with the OP.

You don't find that just the slightest bit hypocritical?
It should be noted that you talked about Chinese ships in post 65, every mention I made about Chinese ships is after post 65 in response.

You demand evidence from me about Chinese sails, trebuchets, pulleys, but accuse me of straying from the OP.
If I provide evidence, you attack me for straying from the OP. If I don't provide evidence, you attack me for refusing to provide evidence over things I made no claim over. Make up your mind.
 
Last edited:

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
6,866
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.
And you are the one that is.providing all the pozt with pictures that are irrelevant to thread as well. Multiple times. Why post the same pictures unasked in multiple.post?. It just waste space.

And the example of the multiple.pulkey is not what I asked for. I was quite specific, and those pulleys are not in series.as asked. They don't demonstrate the.Chinese understood the principle of mechanical advantage with pullies , meaning the.Chinese had to work harder when lifting heavy blocks. The picture does not show the Chinese used or understood the principles.of mechanical advantage, and from your responses they did not. Had there been a text or picture that showed the Chinese understood used them, you would have provided them by now.

Since the Chinese did not know about mechanical.advsntage or have lifting crs rx , they were at a disadvantsge when consntructing large stone buildings, which could be an additional factod in why they did not construcf them.

The ship picture.alpears to be of s river craft not s sea going ship I was taking abo
 
Feb 2011
6,040
And you are the one that is.providing all the pozt with pictures that are irrelevant to thread as well. Multiple times. Why post the same pictures unasked in multiple.post?. It just waste space.

And the example of the multiple.pulkey is not what I asked for. I was quite specific, and those pulleys are not in series.as asked. They don't demonstrate the.Chinese understood the principle of mechanical advantage with pullies , meaning the.Chinese had to work harder when lifting heavy blocks. The picture does not show the Chinese used or understood the principles.of mechanical advantage, and from your responses they did not. Had there been a text or picture that showed the Chinese understood used them, you would have provided them by now.

Since the Chinese did not know about mechanical.advsntage or have lifting crs rx , they were at a disadvantsge when consntructing large stone buildings, which could be an additional factod in why they did not construcf them.

The ship picture.alpears to be of s river craft not s sea going ship I was taking abo
In post 69 you said: If we went by actual archeological remains, or ancient illustrations, we would have very little evidence for many, most of the ancient Chinese inventions and many of the medieval ones as well.

All of my illustrations is in response to your statement in post 69. If it's irrelevant to the thread then why did you make that statement? In post 69 you were not talking about specific technologies such as pulleys, you were talking about the evidence for "most of the ancient Chinese inventions and many of the Medieval ones as well"

Ergo any ancient or even Medieval Chinese technology I show would be relevant as long as I have the illustration or excavation to prove it.

Only in post 80, do you start demanding things such as pulleys, after I gave the vast majority of the illustrations/excavations of Chinese technology in post 73 and 74 and 78 . Ergo your questions are tailored to a specific agenda by post 80. I'm not going to play along with your goal switching tactic.

As I said in post 85:
So next time you say I "failed" or "have not" provided evidence for something I mentioned nothing about, then perhaps by that same standard you also:
Failed to provide pictorial or archaeological evidence for the Greco-Roman catapult.
Failed to provide pictorial or archaeological evidence for the Greco-Roman catapult throwing gunpowder bombs.
Failed to provide pictorial or archaeological evidence for the Greco-Roman oxybeles.
Failed to provide pictorial or archaeological evidence for the Greco-Roman oxybeles shooting rocket arrows.
Failed to provide pictorial or archaeological evidence for the Greco-Roman automated cart.
Failed to provide pictorial or archaeological evidence for the Greco-Roman automated cart driven by gasoline.
Failed to provide pictorial or archaeological evidence for the Greco-Roman multiplication table.
Failed to provide pictorial or archaeological evidence for the Greco-Roman decimal multiplication table.
Failed to provide pictorial or archaeological evidence for the Greco-Roman gimbal.
Failed to provide pictorial or archaeological evidence for the Greco-Roman gimbal with compass
Failed to provide pictorial or archaeological evidence for the Greco-Roman air cannon.
Failed to provide pictorial or archaeological evidence for the Greco-Roman gunpowder cannon.
Failed to provide pictorial or archaeological evidence for the Greco-Roman Aelophile.
Failed to provide pictorial or archaeological evidence for the Greco-Roman Aelophile used as more than a toy.
Failed to provide pictorial or archaeological evidence for the Greco-Roman vending machine.
Failed to provide pictorial or archaeological evidence for the Greco-Roman vending machine using electricity.
Failed to provide pictorial or archaeological evidence for the Greco-Roman syringe.
Failed to provide pictorial or archaeological evidence for the Greco-Roman medical syringe.
etc, etc.....
I have told you this repeatedly yet you ignore it, I hope it's clear enough for you now: If I didn't claim it, then I don't need to prove it.
If the Chinese academia only said that the ancient Chinese invented the sternpost rudder, then they don't need evidence for rudders on sea-going ships specifically. Stop stuffing words in people's mouths.


I already told you of this asinine tactic of yours in post 78 and many posts afterwards: You should also stop stuffing words in my mouth about how I have "not shown X" , even though I said nothing about X.

I will stop repeating the illustrations/excavations of ancient Chinese technology that I've already given, when you stop demanding I prove things I made no claim about. Otherwise it's hypocritical. I love how you cut off my post and didn't quote the part in which I explained why I was re-posting those illustrations, and then accuse me of re-posting those illustrations.

Here are more ancient Chinese technology dating to the ancient period which I haven't yet shared.

Han dynasty winnowing fan:


Han dynasty odometer:


Han dynasty bronze caliper:


Heavy iron moldbourd plough:


Remember, it was you who said in post 69: If we went by actual archeological remains, or ancient illustrations, we would have very little evidence for many, most of the ancient Chinese inventions and many of the medieval ones as well.

You were talking about technology in general, not specific ones. You switched goalposts after I gave 20 or so illustrations/excavations of ancient Chinese technology, after which you started demanding me to show pictorial/archaeological evidence of very specific technologies tailored to the types that I haven't shown. Nobody claimed the compound pulley was a Chinese invention, so it has NOTHING to do with whether there is "archaeological remains, or ancient illustrations" of most ancient Chinese inventions as you were stating in post 69.

At the same time you accuse me of "straying" from the OP, even though all I did was take part in the discussion YOU started in post 69 as quoted above. You accuse me of straying from the OP and yet demand that I give evidence which stray from the OP. The OP is about the oldest extant buildings, not pulleys. It's highly funny, but also unreasonable. So perhaps you are trying to achieve something "at all costs", considering you are demanding I do two mutually contradictory things.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
6,040
And you are the one that is.providing all the pozt with pictures that are irrelevant to thread as well. Multiple times. Why post the same pictures unasked in multiple.post?. It just waste space.
I love how you cut off what I said immediately before and after what you quoted from me. Because those sentences you cut off would have answered your question.

What you cut off before: 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.
What you cut off after: 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?

I've went through my illustrations naming the period of when each pictorial or excavation belongs to. All of them dates to the ancient period. Ergo this accusation of yours in post 76 is completely wrong: None of the pictures of the Chinese machinery are from ancient times, they all.date from medieval times and or.later.

Bart Dale said:
The ship picture.alpears to be of s river craft not s sea going ship I was taking abo
The Warring States pictorial of two-decked ships is regarding your statement: 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.

Plus, if you demand illustrations of sea-going ships, how can you tell if the illustration is at sea or on a river anyways?
Also, you still haven't answered our question.

In post 66 you claimed: Despite the assumption of many, there is no real evidence for large sea going ships [>400 tons as was specified in post 69] 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.

When heylouis and I asked you just who made the assumption you speak of, you were silent over and over and over yet you still keep talking about it.

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.

You see, when I demand evidence from you it's because you made a specific claim about it. I can pinpoint the quote and post number where you said it. I can't say the same regardng your treatment of me, in which you demand things from me in which I never claimed. I don't know why you're making me explain this over and over, it's common sense. I'm not obligated to prove things that I made no mention of.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Zanis
Feb 2011
6,040
Keen Edge said:
Now, I am not aware of China using pulleys that maximized force like the Greek ones, but pulleys were definitely used.
They used counterweight pulleys like in this Han pictorial of a salt derrick:


Or on some of their wells such as this Mingqi pottery example:


You do make a point that the Han needed to use something to lift their heavier building blocks, as it could not have been done by hand alone. For example there's a lot of these littered around, the ancient Han probably meant them represent wooden towers:



And these are the stone foundations to a wooden bridge:

 
Last edited:
Likes: Zanis
Feb 2011
6,040
Also since the original statement I'm countering in post 69 was this: If we went by actual archeological remains, or ancient illustrations, we would have very little evidence for many, most of the ancient Chinese inventions and many of the medieval ones as well.

Then the criteria is that
1. All I need to do is show illustrations or archaeological remains
2. What I show must be ancient Chinese or Medieval Chinese (although I only focused on ancient for now)
3. What I show must be considered Chinese inventions

So far I have shown
1. roughly 25 or so illustrations or archaeological remains/artifacts dating to the ancient Chinese period, depending on how you count it
2. All of these are either Chinese inventions, OR they are Chinese inventions if we consider only "archaeological remains" and contemporary "illustrations" as true evidence. Albeit this consists of only a minority in the list.
3. These include the windlass, rudder, blast furnace, mechanical wheel for blast furnace, treadle operated drawloom, multi-heddle drawloom, quilling wheel, salt derricks (and by extension borehole drilling), salt evaporation pans, counterweight pulleys, odometer, heavy moldboard iron plow, plow with adjustable strut, seed drill, winnowing fan (and by extension the crank handle), cloud ladder, multiplication table (which is also a decimal multiplication table), Long (and by extension the crank and connecting rod), water powered trip hammers (and by extension trip hammers in general), metal caliper, breaststrap harness, handheld crossbow, and the ratchet gear.

So in order for the quoted statement in post 69 to be true, more than 25 examples of ancient Chinese inventions must be shown to be with neither their accompanying illustration nor archaeological remains, and that we only know about these inventions in recorded texts. To counter post 69 I'm not required to show any specific technology, as long as what I do show fulfills the three criteria listed above. So the demands that I show 'sails on ships', or 'compound pulleys', are switching the goalpost. No academic worth their salt was shown to claim that the Chinese invented these. And demands like 'sails on ships' are only in regards to recorded technology the Han had available, not technology that they invented. By that standard there are no illustrations of even the Roman basic handcart or swape either. Whereas we do have illustrations of Han handcarts and wheelbarrows and swapes such as the following pictorial of a wheelbarrow:



Also unlike the swape, the first definite proof of the wheelbarrow came from the Han dynasty so it is counted as a Chinese invention, not just some technology they had available.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Zanis

Similar History Discussions