For a comprehensive look at Chinese architecture of rammed earth fortification and wooden-timber construction, which seems to dominate the Chinese landscape before the 7th century, I would suggest the book called Chinese Architecture, by Xinian Fu, Daiheng Guo, Xujie Liu, Guxi Pan, Yun Qiao, and Dazhang Sun, edited and expanded by Pennsylvania Professor Nancy Steinhardt. This has detailed accounts of the wooden structures, palaces, bridges, etc. that were lost to us because they were made primarily out of wood, not stone or brick like the materials so widely used in Europe beforehand in the Greco-Roman tradition. Sadly, all that is left of the Han Dynasty are written descriptions, depictions from tomb murals and frescos, some rammed earth foundations for palaces and rammed earth fortification city walls, towers, and gatehouses, a select few stone walls, and I'd say the majority of what we get from that era in China comes from the Han Dynasty burial tombs, which have plenty of their own merits and awesome relics to paint the picture of their past.

 

 

Eric

 

Eric

here's a good site for beginners:http://newton.uor.edu/Departments&Programs/AsianStudiesDept/china-art.html

 

 

But of course, the real examples:

 

 

However, the site says these are proven to be no older than the 13th century, with speculation that some might be older.

 

Eric

 

This is a Ceramic model of a han dynasty Watchtower or House.

Unusually the multi storied houses were usually for poorer people.

 

 

But of course, the large Terracotta horses of Qin Shi Huang's 3rd century BC tomb are more impressive.

 

Eric

 

 

Eric

 

But i think the Rich lived house with a courtyard and garden

Hrothgar is also being bias/Eurocentric toward Chinese culture; see his posts from the following:

 

 

"One simply cannot compare the quality and quantity of European sculpture/architecture with Chinese.  Heck, I lived in Lausanne for a year and that small city in Switzerland alone has more architectural heritage than displayed in all of Beijing"

 

 

 

"In terms of architectural heritage and works of art i think Europe has no peer.

i went to China two summers ago and really, outside of the tourist traps of the Great Wall, the forbidden palace, and some museums, there's really nothing noteworthy"

 

 

"I don't see what the big fuss about Chinese pagodas is, when there are

so many beautiful estates and castles in Europe that often you just hiking french country side you can find an abandoned one.  Here's what a quick google example brings up.

My opinion, architecture was much more celebrated in the west than in the east."

 

However, one quote from the section about the water mills in Barbegal, France seriously bothered me.

 

"At their time, the Romans were the only ones able to build geared vertical water wheels."

 

This is historically false, as I've already proven to you in another thread at simaqianstudios (while using your other name, Tibet Libre).

 

Here's an excerpt from that conversation we had, just to set the record straight once and for all. Here's the first post by me...

 

Ok, so far so good, but then you said this...

 

Add to that the reference to saw mills in the 4th century (poem of Ausonius).

Roman watermill technology featured beside horizontal wheels also

- geared undershot wheels
- geared overshot wheels
- turbines

Since the Greeks were the first to the invent watermill, there is a fair chance that the Greco-Romans kept the technological lead throughout antiquity.

The last part of which, I rebutalled...

 

 

So please, go back into your post, for the sake of historical accuracy, Gun Powder Ma, and edit that statement about the Romans being the only ones with geared vertical waterwheels. It's not true. I'll admit the horizontal waterwheel was not as efficient as the vertical, and that the horizontal water wheel was more often used in ancient China than the vertical, but the vertical waterwheel was used as well, regardless.

 

For information on this, refer to these:

 

http://www.waterhistory.org/histories/waterwheels/ - http://www.waterhistory.org/histories/waterwheels/

Edelberg, Lennart and Schuyler Jones, 1979, Nuristan, Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz, Austria.

Gies, Frances and Joseph, 1994. Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel: Technology and Invention in the Middle Ages, Harper Perennial, New York.

Reynolds, Terry S.,1984. "Medieval Roots of the Industrial Revolution," Scientific American, July pp.122-130.

Please consider revising,

Eric

 

 

http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/zoomObject.cfm?ObjectId=3251">

 

Shang Dynasty Bronze Ritual Vessel (Chia), 12th century BC

 

 

Shang Dynasty Bronze Ritual Wine Vessel (Huo) in the form of an elephant with separate elephant lid, 12th-11th century BC

 

 

Shang Dynasty Halberd, 12th-11th century BC, crafted of bronze, turquoise and jade

 

 

Shang Dynasty Bronze Wine Server (Huo), circa 1200-1100 BC

 

 

Shang or Western Zhou Bronze Ceremonial Blade, 11th century BC

 

http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/zoomObject.cfm?ObjectId=6330">

 

Shang Dynasty Bronze Axle Cap Chariot Fitting, 1600-1050 BC

 

http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/zoomObject.cfm?ObjectId=4750">

 

Western Zhou Bronze Ritual Vessel, late 11th century - early 10th century BC

 

http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/zoomObject.cfm?ObjectId=9872">

Western Zhou Dynasty Bronze Ritual Vessel (Yu) and Cover, late 11th century/early 10th century BC

 

http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/zoomObject.cfm?ObjectId=6328"> http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/zoomObject.cfm?ObjectId=6327">

 

First one: Bronze Chariot fitting from the Shang Dynasty, 1600-1050 BC, and the next: Bronze Chariot Linchpin Fitting from the Zhou Dynasty, 1050 - 221 BC

 

 

Western Zhou Dynasty Bronze Tiger, 9th century BC

 

 

Eastern Zhou Dynasty Bronze Ceremonial Basin (Chien), 5th century BC

 

 

Eastern Zhou Dynasty Sleeve Weight, 5th-4th century BC, iron, gold, inlaid with jade

 

 

Eastern Zhou Dynasty Jade Belt Hook, 4th-3rd Century BC

 

http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/zoomObject.cfm?ObjectId=9875">

 

Eastern Zhou Dynasty Jade Hair Comb, 5th-4th century BC

 

http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/zoomObject.cfm?ObjectId=7810">

 

Eastern Zhou Dynasty Glass Ring, 5th-4th century BC

 

 

Eastern Zhou Dynasty Bronze Mirror, 5th-4th century BC

 

 

Eastern Zhou Dynasty Ceremonial Stemmed Oval Offering Cup, 5th-4th century BC, made out of lacquer

 

 

Eastern Zhou Dynasty Wooden Tray Covered in Lacquer, 4th-3rd century BC

 

http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/zoomObject.cfm?ObjectId=4791">

 

Western Han Dynasty Green-Glazed Hu Shaped Jar, circa 100 - 9 BC, stoneware with green glaze (celadon)

 

 

Western Han Dynasty Green-Glazed Covered Tripod, 2nd Century BC, stoneware with green glaze (celadon)

 

 

Western Han Dynasty Incense Burner (Boshan Xianglu), 2nd century BC, carfted of bronze, gold, silver, turquoise, and carnelian

 

 

Eastern Han Dynasty Ding Tripod Vessel, early 1st-3rd century AD, earthenware with copper-green lead-silicate glaze

 

 

Western or Eastern Han Dynasty Bronze Mirror, 206 BC- 220 AD

 

http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/zoomObject.cfm?ObjectId=1192">

 

Eastern Han Dynasty Tomb Jar, early 1st century - 3rd century AD, earthenware with copper-green lead-silicate glaze 

 

http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/zoomObject.cfm?ObjectId=1392">

 

Eastern Han Dynasty Tomb Jar, early 1st century - 3rd century AD, earthenware with copper-green lead-silicate glaze 

 

http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/zoomObject.cfm?ObjectId=1670">

 

Eastern Han Dynasty Tomb Dish, early 1st century - 3rd century AD, earthenware with copper-green lead-silicate glaze

 

http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/zoomObject.cfm?ObjectId=7965">

 

Eastern Han Dynasty Jade Ritual Disk (Bi), 2nd century AD

 

 

Western Jin Dynasty Yue Ware Basin, 265-316 AD, glazed stoneware

 

 

Bronze Mirror, period of division (220-589 AD)

 

 

But of course! It's quite a great leap to not build canals at all and then all of the sudden build the longest canal in the world (which it still is, even today, after roughly 1,400 years). Hell, it's quite impossible to contemplate how the ruthless dictatorial regime of the First Qin Emperor would have been able to effectively administer central power and suppression of internal rebellion had he not broken the rifts between the old Warring States and built tons of miles of new Imperial roads and canals linking the river systems of China. By doing this, he not only facilitated greater interstate trade and reciprocity between the once rival regions of ancient China, but it was also an effective measure of sending his troops around to do his bidding and secure the empire effectively by allowing his troops to march and sail at top speeds by following standard road systems and new canals that opened up easier access to every corner of the realm. Very smart move on his part, aside from the mercury digestion. Lol. I never thought I'd say it, but mercury death in this instance was a good thing for China, the succeeding Han certainly would have argued so, if they had known at the time that it was mercury that led to his insanity and death.

 

I was aware that the vertical waterwheel was also known in Han China, but somewhere I have read that they were not geared. Now do not ask me how to drive a vertical waterwheel without gears. Perhaps one should look up whether gears - first invented by the Greeks - were known at all in Han China. For Eastern Han (1-200 AD) I think there is evidence, but I am not so sure about the Western Han (200-1 BC).  Anyway, I am going to take out my assertion until I get confirmation either way.

 

Hmm, I can't think of an example in the Western Han Dynasty or before of gears in China, but I've already shown an example of one application of gears here, the chain pump of the Eastern Han Dynasty, which pretty much accomplished the same thing that the earlier Archimedes Screw did, lift substance (dirt, water, sand, diet cola (lol), etc.) from a lower elevation to a higher one:

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14835&PN=2 -   

 

The Chinese chain pump was most often used in irrigation works from the Eastern Han Dynasty onwards, but there is evidence to suggest that the first chain pump existed in ancient Egypt long before the Eastern Han model of China. Instead of wooden pallets and such like the Chinese used, the ancient Egyptians used earthenware pots that were carried around and around by wheels that fed the water through drainage pipes in their ancient plumbing system. Pretty impressive stuff. But of course, pipes used for plumbing and waste management of latrines, bathhouses, and such were also utilized by the Babylonians, the natives of Crete and the Greeks, the ancient Indians at Harappa, extensivley by the Romans, the Chinese, yada, yada, so on and so forth.

 

http://www.muswell-hill.com/foxandco/pages/history.htm - http://www.muswell-hill.com/foxandco/pages/history.htm

 

The link above is an awesome site describing Roman plumbing and bathhouses, along with other interesting historical tidbits, like this one:

 

 

Anyways, while this thread is on the subject of architecture, here's the basic typology of Chinese architectural structures, but it is by far not limited to this list (giving just the basics here).

 

A lou is a multistory building

A tai is a terrace

A ting is a pavilion

A ge is a two-story pavilion

A ta is a Chinese pagoda

A xuan is a veranda with windows

A xie is pavilions or houses on terraces

A wu is rooms along roofed corridors

 

On fortifications, here's an always thoughtful post by Yun from Chinahistoryforum.com:

 

The Chinese had a different concept of fortification. Unlike medieval European noblemen, who built their homes up into castles, the Chinese local centre of power was the provincial capital city, which would itself be walled and defended. Since every major Chinese city was walled to protect its governor, the surrounding populace would seek refuge in that city in the event of war, while a rebel army would also have to besiege and take it in order to capture control of the province.

The Japanese daimyo during the Sengoku period were more similar to the European aristocrats, building their headquarters into large castles and also having other minor castles at strategic points. The Koreans, besides their walled cities based on the Chinese model, also had a unique model of Sansong (mountain fortresses), which utilised their rugged terrain to have chains of low fortifications snaking along ridges and mountain ranges, like miniature Great Walls.

A fortress is generally on a larger scale than a castle, while a fort or stockade is on a smaller scale. The Chinese did build many local forts (wubi 坞壁) for self-defence during the chaotic first half of the Age of Fragmentation, when pillaging 'barbarian' cavalry ranged across the northern countryside and village militias had to fight them behind the safety of improvised fortifications. Many of these forts would have been of wood and bamboo rather than the stone and rammed earth of larger walled cities.

The Northern Wei also set up the Six Garrisons (Liu Zhen 六镇) along their northern border to guard against the raiding Rouran, but it is not known how well-fortified they were, since they were originally meant more as forward bases for counteroffensive strikes rather than as static strongpoints for withstanding sieges. The northern nomads avoided siege warfare and were highly mobile, so it was usually more effective to use walls against them rather than isolated forts that they could bypass easily. The Northern Wei, Northern Qi and Sui all rebuilt parts of the Han Great Wall or constructed new walls to defend against the Rouran and later the Turkut. The medieval Europeans were never able to build such lines of walls after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, because of the lack of a central authority to initiate and finance the construction. But the Romans themselves had been avid wall-builders, as seen from the example of Hadrian's Wall in Britain, and the walls of Constantinople in the Byzantine Empire were built up over the centuries to be extremely formidable.

So the building of castles (as in Western Europe and Japan) is not so much an indication of an advanced military as of the fragmentation of local political authority. Whenever the central government became stronger, castles would be torn down because they represented a potential challenge to central control. No such problem existed for the walled cities of imperial China, because they were an essential apparatus of government control over local populations.

 

And once again:

 

 

Eric

 

One thing people here tend to ignore is that an invention is only useful if it is widely applied throughout the society, which the Greeks never managed to do. Lots of Archimedes invention never spread out throughout Greek world. In China, because of strong central authority(or authorities), lots of high level technology were spread through a much wider domain. Greek city states are much smaller than Chinese kingdoms, they usually held one or several cities at most, while most Chinese states during the warrring states period held at least upwards of 100. The blast furnace production and canal projects for example, were on a scale unseen in the west because the central government had a monoply in these constructions. Only the Roman empire manged to create a central administration, though their roads might have been somewhat more impressive than their Chinese counterparts, their canal system were dwarfed by the Chinese in scope and efficiency. According to estimation, China had 2,500 km of canal system, thats many times more than what the Romans had. Roman applied physical technology were also relatively backwards in comparison to China's(especially in the area of energy efficiency). What they were strong at were intellectual and architectural engineering.

 

About what? About Roman being superior to Chinese? 

 

Thats just simply my opinion, in general of course. Please refer to my first post.

 

 

But it seems the scope here went beyond that.

 

No he said that they had a similiar standard of living,Adshead argument was based on the romans having more miles of roads and the mediteranean ocean as lanes for Superior communication.

 

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14082&pid=4852000&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry4852000 - http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14082&pid=4852000&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry4852000

 

Original from CHF:

 

Why cheerio, General Zhaoyun and Chen06, good ole chaps!
Have mercy on the Queen, what odd indigenous names you two natives have! Mr. Zhaoyun, if you could, I would prefer to call you Chief Joe Young of the great Chinese tribe, and Chen, if I simply called you Ben06. Ho-ho! Jolly good then, it's settled! Chief Joe Young and his fellow villager Ben06 it is!

This is Arthur Steelwell here, proprietor and chief investor of Steelwell Limited of England, and I've always wondered about where this China place is on a map of the globe, and behold! This site here helped me right away with finding that sort of rarity! Excuse me for a moment, would you...

(Sips on my tea, and from an ivory-carved tea cup from the elephant I shot down in that Safari trip I took with my brother Benjamin Steelwell, Lord of Huxleburry Lordshaft, when we took my private jet to Sub-Saharan Africa last winter...anyways)...

Are there elephants in this China place, perhaps? Such magnificent beasts to have in your sight, let alone your scope-sight, let me tell you good boy! Ho-ho! In any case, I am most surprised at these luxurious pictures you've posted Lychee, mind if I call you Larry?

(Adjusts my tobacco pipe and raises my brow) ...and I had always thought this is what homes in that far distant jungle place of China supposedly looked like...



Jolly-ho! I'll see you all again, once I'm done arguing with the misses after a couple shots of brandy, a martini, a beer-bong of fine Batard-Montrachet Romonet-Prudhon Chardonnay, and maybe a couple hits of crack-cocaine. My word is most definitely bond, homes! (I picked up some urban slang in America from the indigenous African peoples living there)

(wife yells in the background)

Coming dear! Well chaps, I'll discuss this more later! Time to do some heavy drinking...

(Hah. I'm funny.
Eric)

>>> And another entry here http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14194&pid=4851998&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry4851998 - http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14194&pid=4851998&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry4851998

 

Well greetings and cheerio to you, Soka Norman! Mind if I call you Sylvia Norman the Conqueror? Ho-ho! Jolly good then, Sylvia Norman!

(^^^Puts out tobacco pipe to lift glass and sip some Cumbrae Castle Scotch on the rocks...)

I would say India no doubt! Since it was once an uncivilized tribal wasteland annexed by the glory of the British Empire! I should know, I hunt elephants there every spring after my winter trip from Africa. Always a great safari when my brother Benjamin Steelwell, Lord of Huxleburry Lordshaft, accompanies! Hip-hip, cheery ho!

Oh, how daft of me! I'm Arthur Steelwell, CEO and chief member of our Board at Steelwell Limited. We make steel and more steel, something that I understand was invented by we British!

In any case, I've recently discovered where this China is on the global map, since I've heard of this China place before, run by a certain tribal chief, General_Zhaoyun, Chief Joe Young as I prefer to address him! Cheery-ho! This land of yours is quite far away from merry ole London town where I hail, the heart of Britain. Tell me, native people, where I could find my way around this jungle known as China? I will pay 15 British pounds to each one who acts as my tour guide and holds my umbrella amidst your nomadic jungle of China, and if you work very hard, I suppose 30 pounds a month is in order. Most of all I wish to see your land if it is full of elephants, no doubt! Elephants with tusks for me to turn into more ivory shot glasses and ivory toothbrushes, and a very long, shaft-ribbed cylinder-shaped carved ivory piece for my wife, Shelby Steelwell. I wonder why she likes those so much? Jolly good!

I have no doubts that since India is filled with the riches of the British Empire, that this tribal confederation known as China Land has little to rival with! Ho-ho!

Good day, young natives!

(Hah.
Eric)

 

 

@ Arthur Steelwell...

 

 

Nope, he said China had a greater output per capita because of millet and because of the greater quantity of canals present, while Rome might have greater consumption because of its lavishness and better communication. But the latter part is still disputed, Needham(which Adshead drawn his information from)for example considered Chinese integration to be comparible to Roman ones, he considered the better developed Canal system of China just as efficient as the advantage of the medditeranean ocean. Adshead said these canals are more for irrigation than transportation, but thats not supported by evidence at all because the Shi Ji clearly mentioned that the reason the Lin qu canal was built was to transport grain to support the military campaign against the Bai Yue. Moreover, Adshead also neglected physcial technology that helps support communication, technology such as wheel barrow(invented in 1st century B.C.), breast collar, and dish wheels.

 

Central watchtower, architectural model, Eastern Han dynasty (25–220), 1st–early 3rd century
China
Earthenware with green lead glaze

 

 

Another set of ancient green-glazed earthenware towers from the Eastern Han Dynasty, 1st-2nd century AD

 

 

More examples to add to non-existent Chinese wooden architecture by ancient model representation,

 

EDIT POST: I found this cool pic to exemplify what others have said about the Chinese placing stones over rammed earth fortification, this pic below being part of the Great Wall in Shaanxi Province.

 

 

With the old ruins of the Nanjing stone citadel I posted earlier with Yun's comments, compare the old citadel with Ming Dynasty era fortress citadels at Zhen Bei Tai, Shaanxi Province...

 

 

Eric

 

(Porn music cue) Chica-chica-wa-wa.

 

Eric

 

Whats Dish Wheels.And why would rome have better lavishness, there lavaratorys?

 

When the Qin emperor unified already existing city states great walls after the unificaton of china, there were States in central china with walls surrounding the entire state.It has already been shown that the 'Simple Rammed earth" affair is on par or even better than Stone.Its not simple mudbrick,in fact its much harder to make than placing stones in place.Hours of work to raise the wall 1cm it takes!

Its effectiveness has been proven when the Japanese modern artillery shells had a hard time destroying ancient walls.

Depending on the availability of local stones it was sometimes easier to make stone walls

 

Or in the desert where there was no good earth to make

 

Though much of this first QIn/HAn Great Wall has disappeared as a result of centuries of natural and artificial damage, it can be seen fromwhat remains of it that the wall was built with a variety of materials: compressed earth on the plains and loess plateaus, sand in the desert and stones in the mountainous areas. The ruins of the second wall in the Daqingshan Mountains of inner Mongolia are 3.5metres wide at the base and one to twometres high. The section near Guyuan in Ningxia is in better condition. The average height of existing walls built in the Qin period ranges from two to ten metres, and insome places they are as high as fifteen metres. Small castles and beacon towers built of earth stand in large numbers along the walls. The castles were barracks for the garrison troops, while a few larger castles with perimeters of more than three kilometres served as command posts. The beacon towers, all standing on the inner side of the wall, are eight to ten metres high, mostly built of earth, a few of them of stones.

 

In Total more than 10,000 km of Wall were made by the Han dynasty ! thats more than the Ming Great wall.Also theres no reason to suggest that the rammed earth wasnt covered in Stone slabs(like chinese rammed earth is) to prevent Erosion if you like the Aesthetic look of stones.

 

 

 

 

 

The first representation of Chinese tiered roofs with patterned, glazed ceramic tiles that we have are those Han Dynasty glazed-earthenware models shown above (and on the first page of this thread), although I've read in several other sites that this style was probably inherent from an earlier age, the Western Zhou, or even as far back as the Shang Dynasty. As far how 'widespread' this technique was in the Han Dynasty, written records tell of how each provincial and county seat government popularly styled their local and provincial government office buildings from the original design of the Imperial Palace at Chang'an/Luoyang. From the earthenware models above, each one displays this type of roof design, and as for the models themselves, they are all arguably guard towers or apartment buildings, keep in mind I'm no expert on this. It is well known, however, that poor/commoner Chinese in the city lived in multistory apartments since they were forced to walk down flights of stairs, the apartments at the bottom actually being less expensive to rent (completely opposite in the West, where people liked to have an upper view), whereas the rich had most often a one-story walled house complex, a front gate and a spirit gate, a central courtyard with a garden, a meeting hall, and a residence hall for living quarters right behind this. Although rich homes were typically one story, the meeting halls and residence halls of a rich home were also sometimes two-story level affairs. 

 

Someone on here once said that architecture was much more celebrated in the West than in the East, which could definitely be exemplified by the only two remaining Chinese works from the Imperial Age on architectural building: the Yingzao Fashi, or Building Standards, which was printed in 1103 AD during the Northern Song Dynasty, and the Gongbu Gongcheng Zuofa Zeli (Engineering manual for the Board of Works), which was printed in 1734. It has only been since the 1930s that a concise historiography of Chinese architecture has been existent. All of this can be explained by traditional Chinese culture, where the architectural profession in earlier times was not esteemed as one of the greater fine arts by the aristocrats, which was painting, zither (qin) musical playing, writing and reciting poetry, and writing sound calligraphy. Architects and craftsmen in ancient, medieval, and Early Modern Age China simply passed down their skills of building to the next generation, and the craftsmen were not only responsible with the building itself, but also the maintenance involved as well. However, all dynasties after the ancient Han Dynasty pretty much used the inherent skills of architecture from that era to build their own planned cities, city walls, towers, and gates, provincial and local city palaces based on the design of the Imperial Palace, mausoleums, monasteries, Buddhist pagoda towers, grottoes, private, royal, and public gardens, government offices, folk public buildings, one level and multistory pavilions, residential houses, bridges, etc.

 

Eric

 

Which I find curious since traditional Chinese architecture made no use of arches or vaults. And bricks walls, if there were any, had no static supporting role, but simply a separating function. Which means that the skeleton of Chinese multi-story houses must have been almost completely out of wood. But how high and strong can you build a normal house out of wood...? Are there any Han and Tang houses extant? Perhaps you can post some pics from Ming houses to get a better idea of Chinese urban dwellings.

 

 

Originally posted by Preobrazhenskoe Someone on here once said that architecture was much more celebrated in the West than in the East, ...

 

I think architecture is not simply another form of art, it is a highly utilitarian thing which really can facilitate life. It is no question of art whether you live in a house with walls of fired bricks, blazed roof tiles, running water in the basement, central heating and double glazed windows - or not. It is a question of living standards.

 

 

Originally posted by Preobrazhenskoe However, all dynasties after the ancient Han Dynasty pretty much used the inherent skills of architecture from that era to build their own planned cities, city walls, towers, and gates, provincial and local city palaces based on the design of the Imperial Palace, mausoleums, monasteries, Buddhist pagoda towers, grottoes, private, royal, and public gardens, government offices, folk public buildings, one level and multistory pavilions, residential houses, bridges, etc....

 

Read just yesterday a renowned travel guide on China and they said exactly the opposite. Ancient Chinese cities never developed the kind of complex infrastructure without which Western or Islamic cities are unthinkable.

 

The duality of Emperor and citizen - with nothing in between - was also reflected in the meek infrastructure of Chinese cities. No citizens and no concept of citizenship or self-government meant in terms of urban architecture lesser public buildings, less crystallisation points for urban living. Add to that the perishability of traditional wood based East Asian architecture and we know why Chinese cities - as far as architecture is concerned, not people! - do not have the same aura as Indian, Muslim or Western cities.

 

 

 

 

But how high and strong can you build a normal house out of wood...?

 

The tallest wooden (not stone or brick like others) Buddhist pagoda in China, dated to 1056 AD during the Northern Song Dynasty, may exemplify this, standing at 67.31 meters in height, the Sakyamuni, or Yingxian Wooden Pagoda seen below:

 

 

I don't think there are any Han Dynasty wooden houses left in existence, since timber rots and is easily burned over the years. The oldest wooden buildings left standing in China are a select few wooden temples from the early Tang Dynasty in the 7th century. Other than that, the oldest surviving brick-and-stone buildings are dated to the Sui Dynasty in the late 6th century/early 7th century, I believe (although I could be wrong about the stone and brick buildings, some perhaps older than Sui).

 

Originally posted by Gun Powder Ma Perhaps you can post some pics from Ming houses to get a better idea of Chinese urban dwellings.

 

Sure thing. Although Beijing and Nanjing remain prime examples of architecture during the Ming period (1368-1644), there are some other notable towns as well, like Lijiang (built first during the Northern Song period, many buildings dating back to the Ming), Pingyao (established during the Western Zhou, but the oldest buildings are from the Ming period), and others.

 

 

This is an old Ming Dynasty mansion-home of the Qiao family of Pingyao City. It was even used in the movie "Raised the Red Lanterns" by Chinese director Zhangyimou, and is a good example of a wealthy family's home.

 

 

Some urban-street housing at Pingyao in the traditional style. Pingyao boasts some 4,000 houses and apartments that belong to the Ming and Qing periods, and more than 300 sites of ruins that belong to earlier periods such as the Yuan, Song, and Tang. 

 

 

Well-preserved walls of Pingyao, completed by 1370 AD during the Ming period

 

 

Arched Entrance at Pingyao

 

 

A street pavilion in Pingyao

 

 

Town of Lijiang, home to the Naxi ethnicity

 

 

Town of Lijiang

 

 

Center compound in the town of Lijiang

 

The duality of Emperor and citizen - with nothing in between - was also reflected in the meek infrastructure of Chinese cities. No citizens and no concept of citizenship or self-government meant in terms of urban architecture lesser public buildings, less crystallisation points for urban living. Add to that the perishability of traditional wood based East Asian architecture and we know why Chinese cities - as far as architecture is concerned, not people! - do not have the same aura as Indian, Muslim or Western cities.

 

The Chinese concept of self-governance was drafting Confucian-taught scholars through the highly competitive Imperial Exams, established first by Emperors Wen and Wu of the ancient Han Dynasty, and reestablished as of the Sui Dynasty onwards. It was a measure to ensure meritocracy, not the Nine Ranks of heredity, would ensure sound and efficient governance. In contrast, the Greek and Roman West were the hallmarks of democracy and republicanism, that was until Alexander conquered such ancient city-states as Alexandria, and later when the shaky Roman Republic gave way to rule by leading Imperators. During the feudal Middle Ages in Europe, people were heavily tied to the ruling nobles and their family estates, where society was hardly based around catering to a cushy or free-spirited life of the serfs. During this time period the Church remained largely the sole place for public congretation, with an absolute lack of any Roman ideals of entertainment or creating enormous bathhouses for public enjoyment, and so forth. Ancient Greece and Rome were hallmarks of public works and entertainment that can be likened to today, this is true, but to have this idea that the Chinese lacked an urban social life or an interest in entertainment is absurd, Gun Powder Ma, and I think you know this. 

 

Anyways, Beijing gets a lot of spotlight attention as the prime site to visit in China these days, but people often forget about the other great Ming Dynasty capital (and capital of previous dynasties), the city of Nanjing. I've seen tons of photos of how the ruins of the mid-14th century city's walls and Zhonghua Gate of Nanjing appear today, but here's a cool illustration I found of it.

 

 

As opposed to how it looks now:

 

 

Eric

 

Too bad XiangYu burned up QinShiHuang's palace though. When XiangYu ordered to have the palace burnt, it was recorded that the building burned for 3 months before it fell to the ground.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaifeng - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaifeng

 

I find your tone extremely unpleasant. Unlike Gun Powder Ma who is obvsioulsy knowledgeable and smart and has raised many excellent points, and unlike even me who has at least tried to make a real effort to join in the discussion, all you have done is to throw in your little useless remarks that even a 9-year-old can write, only with an unhealthy addition of childish sarcasm (e.g. "Go European barbarians!"). Aren't you ashamed of yourself?

 

In Gun Powder Ma's posts, I find a healthy dose of learned skepticism. But in your posts (not just this one), all I find is narrow-minded Eurocentrism with a huge dose of ignorance. Not cool.  

 

Now I am not a student of architecture, so what I am going to say may seem laughable in the eyes of Gun Powder Ma and Eric. Please feel free to correct any flaws in my arguments.

 

The first question that I would like to ask is that, did ancient Chinese possess the actual technological skills and know-how to build buildings similar in size and scale to those we see in the Graeco-Roman period? (After all, this is one of Gun's premises, i.e. the Chinese lagged behind their European counterparts in engineering and architectural technologies.) However, my hunch is that they probably did given the size and scale of other civil engineering projects (canals, dams, fortified walls, towers, etc.) that they embarked on. Then the question is, why didn't they apply the same technology to build impressive buildings and "high-rises" as the ancient Greeks and Romans did? Tough question to answer. Gun wisely evoked the different nature of the government and the sociopolitical structure of the two societies as an explanation (which, however, actually does not help to support his point that Chinese technologies lagged behind those of their European counterparts'). I think that's a plausible and even good explanation. However, I would like to propose another.

 

As I mentioned earlier in another post, architecture includes more than technologies. It is also about aesthetics. Just look at those ancient Chinese civil engineering projects. I think there's one thing in common among them - they are all just not that aesthetically pleasing. Yes, the Great Wall of China is extremely impressive. But is it beautiful? Hell no. Those are just frigging walls!!! Are the Grand Canals impressive? Of course. But are they beautiful? Hell no - again.

 

So my argument is that a civilization's traditional aesthetic taste may have dictated how to build something and what to build. I personally think the Greek parthenon is one of the most beautiful ancient buildings of the entire world. However, given its very masculine structure and shape with its multiple high pillars, if it had been erected in the middle of "downtown" Chang'an, it would have been frowned upon as a monstrosity. I have visited many European castles, and unlike ancient Greco-Roman architecture, I am much less impressed by them aesthetically. They're all impressive and solid. But they appear pretty ugly to me, not unlike the Great Wall of China. Are there many remains of those castles today for us to marvel at? Yes. Did one need technologies to build those castles? Yes.

 

So let's go back to my point. If we think that Han, T'ang, or Song Chinese did possess the technologies and wealth to build solid structures and high-rises, why didn't they do it? My answer is - aesthetics. Maybe somehow they felt that using other materials, such as wood, could enable them to reach the aesthetic ideal that their culture (Confucianist, Taoist, and Buddhist) dictated. The Japanese, for instance, even used rice paper as their building material. Had they not mastered how to use bricks and stones? Absolutely not. So why didn't they do that?

 

To argue that ancient Romans lived in dwelling 7 stories high as a reflection of the superiority of Roman architectural and engineering technology reminds me of a rather funny comparison. I have, for many years, lived in Chicago where there were (and still are) many housing projects (including the notorious Cabrini Green). On the University of Chicago campus, I also walked past a classic Frank Lloyd Wright building daily. 500 years from now, structurally speaking a Frank Lloyd Wright building may not survive but a Cabrini Green building might (that is if it had not already been completely dismantled by explosives). I don't think I need to say no more as I am sure you have got my point already.

 

So let's get back to my chopstick and paper currency example. We Westerners are trained to use what we see as hard evidence for our constructed reality. However, our over-reliance on such way of reasoning may render us neglect the importance of what we do not see. The photos that Gun provides us are very impressive, and I do get his points. On the other hand, what's being depicted in those humble silk paintings (that Hrothqar is so contemptuous of, especially with its typical Chinese way of representing depth and three-dimensionality (which can be another topic of discussion) is obviously much less impressive. But do we also get the point despite its quiet aestheticism and humble appearance?        

 

 

 

Eric

 

 

Part of your statement is correct, about vaults and domes, but arches? Are you serious? If you paid attention to the bridge on the last page (and yes, bridges are considered architecture, lol), then you'd notice the many arches that make up the 7 meter tall, 60 meter span of the Anji (Zhaozhou) Bridge. That's showing complex knowledge of engineering in segmented arches in the early 7th century. Either Li Chun was an absolute prodigy genius architect for his time, or he was working with a precedent on arches of some sort that came from an inherent age. Hell, even the 14th century gatehouses of Nanjing I posted on the earlier page clearly show stone arched gateways and paths. I've also seen Medieval Song Dynasty era gatehouses using arches as well (I posted a picture of it in CHF). As for its use and application on a wide-scale, to all models of architecture, obviously the Chinese didn't implement arches on such a widespread use as Western and Near Eastern societies, but that doesn't mean they weren't present and implemented.

 

Eric

stone architecture.

I guess the Chinese got over the scruples of masonry being considered 'lowly' on the societal scale of things and decided to throw caution into the wind as well.

 

As I have already pointed out, Han buildings are completely gone except their foundations. You should know this, because I have already stated this repeatedly, and to force other people to post things that don't exist is simply not cool. Thus there are only the foundations, as can be seen here.

 

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1034/j.1600-0390.2001.720202.x?cookieSet=1 - http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1034/j.1600-0390.2001.720202.x?cookieSet=1

 

I have already stressed this fact before, so please don't reiterate them the next time.

 

http://www.xjtu.edu.cn/xjnet/scenery/famen.html - http://www.xjtu.edu.cn/xjnet/scenery/famen.html

 

http://www.chinapictures.org/photo/travel/xian/40114112908863/ - http://www.chinapictures.org/photo/travel/xian/40114112908863/

 

^pagoda at famen, a reconstruction of the real thing(Han to Tang). But it's a reconstruction. As I've said, no Han structures exist today, I don't get the point.

 

http://www.chinapictures.org/photo/travel/leshan-buddha/40203102540537/ - http://www.chinapictures.org/photo/travel/leshan-buddha/40203102540537/

 

^something from the Sui dynasty, NOT the Han dynasty. And even during that time remaining structures were really rare.

 

 

lol, obviously, peasant houses are mainly of one story type. Why don't you compare these to the straw huts of European peasants?

We actually don't need building fabric to construct Chang An and KaiFeng's layout, we got paintings and ancient texts that detailly describes their layout, as well as models of housings. We even got grain wages to determine their rough living standards. Infrastructure does not mean buildings in a city it is defined as "The basic facilities, services, and installations needed for the functioning of the community." In that case Chang An is the most orderly planned city in the world at the time.

 

Also, you were wrong when you say you can't see any former glory in cities like Chang An and Han Zhou, there are plenty of buildings left? The Da Yan Ta of Chang An, the Zhao Zhou Chiao, and much more.

 

 

 

Sometimes they actually prefer living higher up. This usually happens when people start throwing all their crap down towards the bottom. Thus the game "King of the Hill".

 

What??? Throw caution to the wind? Dude, there's thousands of pagodas throughout China, a large portion of them being built from stone and brick, and a large portion of them standing since the 7th century onwards (there were hundreds of wooden pagodas of the earlier Northern and Southern Dynasties period, but they are no longer existent). Throw caution to the wind? You make it sound as if this one Spirit Pagoda at Famen Temple is some sort of rarity.

 

Silly.

 

@Gun Powder Ma

 

Since you wanted to see Chinese arches and vaults before the 7th century AD, here's an example from Han Dynasty underground tombs. This is an Eastern Han tomb vault located southwest of Zhengzhou. It is called the Dahuting Tomb. Notice the modern-touristy glass-casing protecting the delicate, ancient painted murals on the walls leading up to the arched roof.

 

 

Here's another arched tomb vault of the Three Kingdoms Period (220-265 AD) in Zhejiang Province, Dongqiao of Ningbo City. Notice the clear work of arched walls and the small arched entrance at the end of the hall in this photo to the left. Also, observe the one below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's another pic from the tomb of Empress Wu of the late 7th century Tang Dynasty.

 

 

Eric

 

"Backward", "stagnant" (and the word "excuses" that you used in another post) are all very loaded and negative terms that I think we should avoid especially when we are making comparisons based on subjective criteria. In doing so, it makes you appear unscholarly and subjective and can potentially and unnecessarily infuriate people. I expect better behaviour from you, Gun Powder Ma.

 

To get back to your point, I have actually, in another thread in the East Asia Forum, raised the question of whether Confucianism might have indeed been an "impeding force" in the "development" of Chinese music. Some musicologists have actually argued that the Confucianist ideal of "wholeness" might have led to the ascension of the pentatonic scale (with no semitones) as the basis of Chinese music at the "expense" of other scales that might have coexisted with the pentatonic one before Confucianism became the dominant ideological force in China.

 

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10083&KW=confucianism - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10083&KW=confucianism

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lei_Cheng_Uk_Han_Tomb_Museum - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lei_Cheng_Uk_Han_Tomb_Museum

 

 

According to the structure, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_calligraphy - calligraphy and content of the inscriptions on tomb bricks and to the tomb finds, the tomb is commonly believed to have been be built during the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Han_Dynasty - Eastern Han Dynasty (AD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25 - 25 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/220 - 220 ) although the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Dynasties - Southern Dynasties period was also suggested. It was probably built for a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China - Chinese officer attached to the local garrison.

The tomb is constructed of bricks (average size 40x20x5cm) and consists of four chambers set in the form of a cross. The domed vault at the center was constructed by laying bricks in a spiral, while the other chambers are barrel vaulted. Some bricks are stamped or carved with inscriptions or patterns on the exposed sides. It is believed that the rear chamber is the coffin chamber, that side chambers were used for storage, while ritual ceremonies were performed in the front chamber under the domed roof.

The tomb's cross-shaped structure and the burial objects found inside show great similarities as compared to other Han tombs found in South China, which prove that early Chinese civilisation has spread to Hong Kong 2,000 years ago. The inscription http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panyu - Panyu on tomb bricks further confirms the dating, since, according to historical records, Panyu was the name of the county to which the present territory of Hong Kong belonged during the Han Dynasty. Also, the style of the calligraphy used in the inscriptions was an angular version of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lishu - lishu (clerical script) which was generally used in inscriptions on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze - bronze wares and stones during the Han Dynasty

.

 

 

 

Another equally good site here at http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/History/en/lcuht_exhibition1.php - http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/History/en/lcuht_exhibition1.php , notice the tiny pics of the arched vault and dome.

 

 

 

 

Another good sight can be found here, with large pics showing the dome and vault brick-arch architecture of the Eastern Han, only it is in PDF format and I could not paste the pics here. Go have a look for yourself instead.

 

http://rincon.gps.caltech.edu/FIG10sym/pdf/Session%20VIII_Paper%205.pdf - http://rincon.gps.caltech.edu/FIG10sym/pdf/Session%20VIII_Paper%205.pdf

 

Here's another PDF file with great pics of the Eastern Han dome and vault. It also describes the layout of the tomb itself, with four long arched brick corridors reaching the central dome.

 

http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/History/download/lei1e.pdf - http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/History/download/lei1e.pdf

 

Here's another PDF file with more pics.

 

http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/History/download/lei2e.pdf - http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/History/download/lei2e.pdf

 

HAN TOMB FOUND IN ZENGCHENG

http://www.newsgd.com/english/news/photonews/200304180553.htm - http://www.newsgd.com/english/news/photonews/200304180553.htm

 

 

A tomb of the Eastern Han Dynasty was unearthed in Guangzhou's Zengcheng , a city near Guangzhou, South China's Guangdong province.

The tomb was built with bricks and the chamber contains several rooms and corridors. Its coni-form dome in the middle room is unique among tombs belonging to the Eastern Han Dynasty.

The tomb has been looted. Because no epitaph was found inside, archeologists are not able to identify the tomb's owner. According to the scale of the tomb, the owner is speculated to be a county official.

 

Also, Emperor Wu's (ruled 156-87 BC) tomb called Mao Ling lies some 45 km to the west of Xi'an city. The dome-shaped tomb rises 130 meters tall despite the more than 2000 years of erosion by wind and rain. Around the emperor's tomb, there are more than 20 attendant tombs.

 

 

Emperor Wu's tomb

 

I guess by the Song Dynasty (960-1279 AD), tombs built in this manner of pyramidal structure were converted to stone, not rammed earth, as seen below by Shao Hao's tomb in Qufu, Shandong Province.

 

 

With more arches in pre-Ming architecture, here's an example of the Tang Dynasty (618-907 AD) brick pagoda tower known as Kumarajiva Pagoda. Notice the arched-windows that very much resemble (on a smaller scale) the arches found in in the ancient Eastern Han Dynasty tombs.

 

 

While on the subject of pagodas, I found this cool cross-section illustration of the wooden-made Northern Song Dynasty Foguang Si Pagoda (completed in 1056 AD), just to show the intricate and overlapping timber work that goes in making a pagoda tower.

 

 

Compared to a pic of the actual pagoda...

 

 

Eric 

 

 What? I thought Buddhism was transferred to Japan via the Baekje Kingdom in southern Korea. In a way the Japanese obtained Buddhism from China, since Buddhism from China was transmitted to Korea in the 4th century AD. And then you could stretch it even farther, saying that Emperor Ming of the Eastern Han Dynasty obtained Buddhism from Yuezhi Buddhist monks from the newly-established Kushan Empire in northern India.

 

Anyways, thanks guys, I don't mind posting pics at all. I can't believe I totally forgot about the Han tombs! In terms of architecture, that is. However, the question remains, did the Chinese apply the arched vaults and arched domes of their brick-laded tombs to wooden-timber based architecture above ground? We see arched stone structures in China that have survived since roughly 600 AD, but if we were to know anything about the wooden architecture of the Eastern Han, Western Jin, Northern/Southern Dynasties periods, where could we turn to in order to find out? This remains unsolved, at least to my knowledge...

 

Eric

 

 

Notice the brick-constructed bridge in the center where the Han procession of troops and chariots are riding over.

 

Food for thought,

Eric

 

 

The traditional Chinese buildings were mainly made of wood, that's why there are very few well-preserved till today. The reason why wood would be so widely used is a debatable topic, the dominent point is out of the philosopy and culture.

 

Medal, wood, water, stone and earth were the five elements that ancient Chinese believed should be the very basic to form the world. The attributes of wood and earth were yan while stone was yin ( forgive me not explain the yin&yan theory here, its so complex, i wont be bothered with it now) . Generally, yan refers to those which have positive attributes while yin is negative. That's why woods and bricks were used to build houses while stones were used to build tombs and mausoleums.

 

 

Back to the topic, the comparison. The Greco-Roman definite has its weight. But if the conclusion that they are superior to Han China's which  based on these pics is nothing but nonsense. Thpse Greco-Roman buildings are maginficent and awesome. They re made of stones, enduring through the ages. I never doubt they are one of the greatest feats in human history.

 

But we are not comparing who are grander and more magnificent, right? It's architecture, man. It's not like which one is higher, bigger that simple though that might requires more techniques. The ordinery Chinese architectures may not higher due to its materials, but they were equal intricate and complex to those Roman's if not more.

 

Just go to check the Great Wall, the Buddiha statues, the Great Cannal and numerous emperors mausoleums you would find the Chinese techniques to use stones dated back to Han period were also great.  

 

BTW, why cant i post pics here?

 

Error

Only members with sufficient permission can access this page.