Chinese histories

Ever heard of carbon dating? It's true that a lot of books have been destroyed and since reconstructed, but the major works can be confirmed to be legit.

>>2687406
Do they carbondate their books? I thought they mostly get copies from recent period.

I dont know. I mean they have 25 histories, ranging from 200BC to 1900s, all "already" compiled conveniently in one language, one format, and they say it's readable to modern Chinese readers. It just sounds fishy.

File: Song Dynasty Bureaucrats.jpg (231KB, 1262x865px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1262x865px

>>2687556
>I dont know. I mean they have 25 histories, ranging from 200BC to 1900s, all "already" compiled conveniently in one language, one format, and they say it's readable to modern Chinese readers. It just sounds fishy.

I agree, as if a government body task to both write and collate the history of a dynasty and even the history of earlier dynasties seems to exist...

>>2687556
Asian autism. They really like bureaucracy and tidying things up every time they switch empires

>>2687584
One problem with the dynastic histories is the new dynasty would always write the history of the dynasty they relpaced.

The histories would always follow a formula of founding, golden age, degeneration, revival and finally collapse.

you have to read between the lines with them

>readable to modern Chinese readers
Not true. They all read modern translated version. I have seen it.

>>2687095
Are they reliable?

There have been discussion about who were the Huns, and they say the Xiongnu recorded in Chinese history were the Huns that came to Europe.

But how good are Chinese people's ability to record foreign culture and languages? Their letter system wasn't phonetic and can only record the Chinese right?

That's like saying the Barbarians have many "barbs" in their language because Roman records named those people "Barbarians"

File: shan-hai-jing-1_1641[1].jpg (81KB, 530x537px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 530x537px

Some are old and unreliable, some are old and a little reliable, and some can be counted on as far as the major events go.

Then there are ones that make you go "what the fuck were these people snorting when they put this to pen"

>>2687885
So some of them are mythologies then?

Like God told Moses to conquer people and build Israel kind of self justification.

>>2688031
>Like God told Moses to conquer people and build Israel kind of self justification.

Yeah except instead of all that, they wrote down a bunch of fucking weird ass proto-furry creatures and directions that make no sense even if you know the starting and ending point from 4000 year old Chinese geography.

Also the lack of English translations hurt.

>>2687556
>and they say it's readable to modern Chinese readers.
That's just how classical Chinese and the writing system works. Nobody talks the way it's written, but with some study it's still readable even though the modern pronunciations of the characters are nothing like how the ancients pronounced them.

>>2687095
The official "24 histories"(25 histories) are mostly reliable, of course there will still be bias and misinformation time to time, but it's usually not strong enough to jeopardize the credibility. The credibility is mainly judged by the truthfulness of the contents, not how old the papers are or how many times they’ve be reprinted and translated.

It's basically one of historian's main jobs to examine the credibility of history sources, which includes every historians in the world, and 24 histories are the most crucial, fundamental sources and must-read books for academic research if you really want to study Chinese history.

>>2688167
You can read the 1st one (and the best one) by Sima Qian (aka Ssuma Chien): The Records of the Grand Historian in English. It's translated by Burton Watson and he's a good translator. I just checked on Amazon and it looks like Qin and Han, 2 vols. are out. (Only problem is that they are kinda expensive.)

>>2690875
>the Chinese version of those text are free online
>the English translation costs money
So unfair

>>2688653
Nah if you grow up in Communist China you can't read Classical Chinese. The characters they use today is too simplified and the grammar and some meanings of words have changed.
If you grow up in Hong Kong or Taiwan you have a easier time as you learn traditional characters.
Regardless, you still need to study Classical Chinese for at least a year before you can read it.

>>2690907
So its only free if you invested time and can read Classical Chinese. You gotta pay the translators something.

>>2687556
Yeah it's almost like they have a writing system passed down from generation to generation that has only recently been modified and made semi-useful or efficient.
It's almost like written Latin is similar to written old Italian?

>>2691110
Jesus christ I hate you people who think you know much about China. Fucking kill yourselves you ignorant niggers

Hey retard, people are alive today who fucking designed the simplified writing system.