8/24/2026 at 10:05:13 PM
There are primary sources. There are archeological sites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qianling_MausoleumThere are also histories written just after the Tang Dynasty had fallen. It was considered good form for a new dynasty to write a historical review of the previous one, and there are two retrospectives on Tang, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Book_of_Tang
And there is ironclad evidence from foreign sources. Among others, Japanese histories detail the journeys of emissaries to the Tang Court: https://web.archive.org/web/20260315181529/https://japansoci...
So the theory is bait, and hard to take seriously.
But I'll give it credit for hijacking a genuinely interesting scholarly premise: What is taken quite seriously is the notion that China's first dynasty -- the Xia Dynasty -- never existed. It is of rather mythic proportions; later Chinese would speak of Xia the way Romans would speak of Troy. And there is very little evidence to support its existence. The Shang Dynasty is also supported by rather scant evidence -- and is also mythic, though obviously less so than the Xia.
Worth noting that both the Xia and Shang are exceedingly ancient -- roughly 2000 BC to 1000 BC between them -- unlike the Tang, which fell around 900 AD and is thus middle-of-the-pack by Chinese dynastic standards.
by A_D_E_P_T
8/24/2026 at 10:10:45 PM
The Shang dynasty is also kind of a propaganda nightmare, with all the archeological evidence for mass human sacrifice.by senderista
8/24/2026 at 10:23:13 PM
Yeah. You're probably familiar with the "Hanfu" revival -- a sort of resurgence in people adopting traditional clothing and makeup styles from the Han and Tang dynasties. It's entirely on account of the fact that those two dynasties were remarkably stable, prosperous, and peaceful, so they lend themselves to historical romanticism -- like the Chinese equivalent of the Renaissance Faire. Good vibes. Even popular in Japan, with e.g. The Apothecary Diaries and similar fare.Shang, and all of the post-dynasty collapse centuries like The Spring and Autumn Period, were not great times to live in. Dismal and evil vibes, for the most part, unless you happen to be a mighty hero or bandit-lord who believes that he can conquer the age. Even so, most of them ended up in soup pots.
by A_D_E_P_T
8/24/2026 at 10:58:37 PM
> Even popular in Japan, with e.g. The Apothecary Diaries and similar fare.Notably the Tang Dynasty in China was concurrent with the Taika Reforms, Nara period & beginning of the Heian period in Japan.
by SllX
8/24/2026 at 11:09:08 PM
And thus for a very long time, and even today to some extent, the Japanese (or their cultural theorists at any rate!) have viewed themselves as the inheritors of "true" Ancient Chinese culture -- unsullied by Mongol/Manchu/Communist influence.There's some truth to this. The Japanese preserved certain Tang Dynasty customs which were lost to China, and they have some of the best collections of Tang-era artifacts.
This line of thought was, however, used in very unfortunate WWII-era propaganda, like "we have to invade China to rescue its civilization, only we can do this!"
by A_D_E_P_T
8/25/2026 at 1:18:07 AM
In my experience the Chinese very much think this as well. Though it can be framed in a more derogatory way as "derivative" or "they just copied us"I'd argue its difficult to find major aspects of Japanese culture that don't trace back to ancient China (maybe the language, eating raw food and sumo)
by geokon
8/25/2026 at 3:15:48 AM
Shinto is a big oneby einichi
8/24/2026 at 11:32:14 PM
They resent our freedoms!by samudrijan
8/25/2026 at 2:18:58 AM
That was nice of them. I don't know if everyone would have sent them again!by toast0
8/24/2026 at 11:24:20 PM
Even portrayed in Japanese-related games: https://shogun2-encyclopedia.com/techs/gempei_civil_core_tan...by kensai
8/25/2026 at 1:04:29 AM
That’s really interesting. Thanks for sharing. I’m a big fan of clothing and architecture that are appropriate/historic for a given country or area. It’s unfortunate we’ve standardized on 5-over-1s and graphic t-shirts with sweatpants/leggings over time instead of maintaining some of that cultural and location based uniqueness. I understand why we have changed our clothing patterns, but we did lose a little bit of something in that change, in my opinion.by ericmay
8/24/2026 at 11:01:15 PM
Your comment sent me to Wikipedia and this caught my eye [0], a Late Shang inscribed rhinoceros rib, which then deepened the wikihole [1], it's funny how even though I know of the Indian rhino and Sumatran rhino, it never occurred to me that they were even more widespread...[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Shang#/media/File:Shang_d...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceroses_in_ancient_China
by EdwardDiego
8/25/2026 at 12:46:34 AM
wait until you find about the Yana River people!by mac3n
8/25/2026 at 1:09:34 AM
Not exactly an issue though. Because the following Dynasty Zhou was portrayed as a protagonist, which rebelled against Shang and abolished human sacrifice and established the right Chinese civilization. And all the following dynasties are claiming that Zhou was the good old days and they are following Zhou's tradition.Shang being an villain fits this narrative.
by gloryjulio
8/24/2026 at 10:09:47 PM
The Aztecs had the same mythical reverence for the Toltecs.by suzzer99
8/25/2026 at 1:51:02 AM
There is a similar theory heavily contested in Indian History that the Vedic period never existed.by conmod278
8/24/2026 at 10:32:33 PM
>And there is ironclad evidence from foreign sources.Including a rather unusual battle between the Tang Dynasty and the Abbasid Caliphate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Talas
It's recorded that the Caliph, on hearing of the battle, said "What is this? A crossover episode?"
by scythe
8/24/2026 at 10:22:23 PM
There are times I’m convinced that promoting the Mandela Effect is to enable stuff like this.by brightball
8/24/2026 at 10:22:05 PM
Everywhere in the Wikipedia articles is this phrase "had Han ethnic origins". Looks like China Editors are trying to change history. At least that is based upon what the CNN article is saying.by jmclnx
8/24/2026 at 11:06:35 PM
I spotted the same thing, and there's never a source given. Allegedly his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather (or 15th great-grandfather for short) was totally Han, the son of the scourge of the Xiongnu - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_GuangA timely reminder that, damn, China is olllldddd.
by EdwardDiego
8/24/2026 at 11:45:12 PM
> What is taken quite seriously is the notion that China's first dynasty -- the Xia Dynasty -- never existedThere are some nuances about this. We know that there are multiple developed cities (and likely monarchies, given there are palace-like ruins) around or before Xia era. It's just that we don't know which one is so-called Xia Dynasty. But it doesn't meant that there were only small tribes and suddenly Shang came out of nowhere.
by raincole
8/25/2026 at 2:55:22 AM
> later Chinese would speak of Xia the way Romans would speak of TroyTroy was indeed largely fabricated though! Really I think that's of a piece with stuff being, y'know, really old. There are big holes in Sumerian and Egyption history too (though the latter helped out a ton by digging secret tombs and hiding them really well). Post-classical Mayan history is pretty suspect in a lot of places, etc...
by ajross
8/24/2026 at 10:29:27 PM
Every ancient empire did this with their primordial beginnings, from Romulus and Remus to Izanagi and Izanami.by Apocryphon
8/24/2026 at 11:51:12 PM
>So the theory is bait, and hard to take seriously.There are people who believe that Trump won in 2020, that vaccines cause autism, and that the Holocaust is a hoax. You cannot reason people out of an idea they didn't use reason to arrive at.
by YackerLose
8/25/2026 at 12:07:38 AM
The majority of people don't reason themselves into anything, whether it's the mainstream view or the conspiracy.There's just a substantial bias where people assume all 'new knowledge' is wrong. Probably correct most the time, but still often wrong.
by throwawaythekey