Themiclesian Antiquity: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Themiclesian Antiquity''' (古代, ''ka′-legh'') was a period in [[Themiclesia|Themiclesian]] history following the [[Themiclesian Dark Ages|Dark Ages]] and followed by the [[Tsjinh]] period, precise dates bound by the opening of the ''[[Springs and Autumns of Six States]]'' in 385 BCE and the establishment of [[Tsjinh]] hegemony in 256 CE.  This era saw the earliest centralization of political power in Themiclesia, and, borrowing extensively from [[Menghe]], the introduction of many later institutions; it is often thought of as an experimental and formative period of Themiclesian politics.  Internally, it is subdivided into the Archaic and Classical periods; the latter starting with the ''Stories of States'' around 100 CE.
'''Themiclesian Antiquity''' (古代, ''ka′-legh'') was a period in [[Themiclesia|Themiclesian]] history following the [[Themiclesian Dark Ages|Dark Ages]] and followed by the [[Tsjinh]] period, precise dates bound by the opening of the ''[[Springs and Autumns of Six States]]'' in 385 BCE and the establishment of [[Tsjinh]] hegemony in 256 CE.  This era saw the earliest centralization of political power in Themiclesia, and, borrowing extensively from [[Menghe]], the introduction of many later institutions; it is often thought of as an experimental and formative period of Themiclesian politics.  Internally, it is subdivided into the Archaic and Classical periods; the latter starting with the ''Stories of States'' around 107 CE.


==Etymology==
==Etymology==

Revision as of 23:12, 2 March 2021

Themiclesian Antiquity (古代, ka′-legh) was a period in Themiclesian history following the Dark Ages and followed by the Tsjinh period, precise dates bound by the opening of the Springs and Autumns of Six States in 385 BCE and the establishment of Tsjinh hegemony in 256 CE. This era saw the earliest centralization of political power in Themiclesia, and, borrowing extensively from Menghe, the introduction of many later institutions; it is often thought of as an experimental and formative period of Themiclesian politics. Internally, it is subdivided into the Archaic and Classical periods; the latter starting with the Stories of States around 107 CE.

Etymology

(六邦之治, rjuk-prong-tje-lrjegh)

History

Sources

Archaic Period

The beginning of Antiquity is defined by the opening of the Springs and Autumns of Six States in 385 BCE, which was a list of cultic sacrifices preserved on oracular inscription collated in between 260 and 280 CE. This is a somewhat arbitrary definition as it does not correspond to any significant political or social change in Themiclesia, and many features of the Dark Ages persist through the Archaic Period. In particular, only the oracular records of one state—Sjin—extend to 385 BCE; other major states remained "dark" until as late as 122 BCE. Some scholars argue that the Dark Ages should be extended to end at 295 BCE, or the ascension of P.rjang the Sixth in Tsjinh, which signified the beginning of a period of colonization, interstate warfare, and roughly co-incided with the appearance of iron metallurgy; however, others believe that because the Six States provide credible records up to 385, that should be the end of the "dark" ages.

Compared to the later Classical Period, relatively little is known about the Archaic Period. The contemporary sources of information about the period, other than the Six States, are the Book of Charges (命, m.ringh) and the Book of Documents (書). In later works, mythical or heroic figures frequently appear with the Archaic backdrop, though most authorities consider these stories unreliable as history. In addition to these, bronze epigraphy became more common and elaborate, recording some political and military events. The abundance of ostraca, which appeared during the Dark Ages, appears to suggest that literacy had spread beyond a priestly or mercantile caste. However, on the whole, there are few historical documents per se, and the sources available provide only a microscopic view of Archaic history, which is only subject to rigorous reconstruction after the Historical Revolution of the late 18th century.

The Archaic Period was described as an "age of heroes" by the 17th-century historian Lord Prjêng, characterized by interactions between heroes, legendary kings, and "glorious fighting". However, Prjêng also notes that these stories were written down centuries after they were purported to have happened, and many tales were contradictory or illogical when compared to each other. In the 1700s, the Archaic Hero was often dismissed as figments of later writers' imagination. In the 19th century, the archetype of the Archaic Hero was identified as leaders of colonial parties that founded new settlements, often in hostile regions, recorded in the Book of Charges. In such new settlements, warriors providing protection were sometimes mythologized in later generations as heroes. After identification with the archaeologically-attested Colonial movement, which began in earnest after the introduction of iron around the turn of the 3rd c. BCE, the Archaic Hero was resurrected from imaginary figures to heavily mythologized but semi-historical figures based on unrecorded real events. The 20th-century historian A. Gro said that the heroic age, while only some 400 years apart from the end of the Classical period, was already considered the "distant antiquity", attesting to the poverty of written history from this era; he makes the conclusion that Themiclesian history "begins around 100 CE".

Classical Period

In fashion somewhat similar to the Archaic Period, the Classical Period begins at 107 CE, which is the opening year of the The States (徹邦), written in 295 CE.  The States is concerned about the interactions between states in the Classical Period, but it also discussed the roles of individuals and their actions. Ancient commentators have observed that states are sometimes portrayed as actors in The States, apart from their nobles, officials, and subjects; this practice contrasts with older works that usually portray actions exclusively as the result of individuals, while the names of states only function as the names of places. While the work is chronological, its narratives are much longer and complicated than the older, annalistic form of writing. More often than not, stories extend beyond a single year. The author sometimes distributes events and their consequences into different calendar years' headings, or chooses to describe them together, under a single year's heading, even though the events being described are not in that year. Historiographically, scholars have interpreted this phenomenon to evidence the developing art of historical writing and a struggle between the traditional, annalistic form and the demands of historical narration.

Another important work describing the Classical Period is the Stories of Tsjinh (晉故事), which gives the history of Tsjinh from 129 to 256.  Stories postdates The States by around 50 years but is nearly 10 times its length. The work seeks to account for Tsjinh's rise to hegemonic power and considers the history of the Classical Period as a "grand arena or game" in which all states compete for dominance and attempt to subjugate each other. Little attention is given to facts not related to Tsjinh's rise as regional hegemon. It opens with the phrase "In 89, Tsjinh reaped the south and first became powerful" (晉獲南茲始彊). Medieval historians sometimes held Stories of Tsjinh in lower regard due to its lack of character details. The author of Stories contrasts an early contrast of predestination and free will in his work, sometimes attributing Tsjinh's rise and Kem's fall to factors he attributed to these states, including geography, religion, and ethics and at others attributing outcomes to individual policies; however, he also frequently entertains stereotypes to justify his conclusions, castigating Kem as violent and capricious and praising Tsjinh leaders as moderate and logical.

The Antiquities of Themiclesia, the first state-sponsored history compiled in 432 for the Sungh court, primarily relies on Stories of Tsjinh but mixes with it other stories.

See also