Episode 21: Grandfathers of History, part 5
Northeast of Babel, beyond the world’s largest mountains, an ancient culture has pieces of the early history of the world.
All the quotes from the Bible for the main story were were taken from the English Standard Version (see ESV copyright here) or the New King James Version. For the other sources, including commentaries, websites, or articles, you can find links and references in the show notes below in the order they appeared. If you have any questions, there’s a link to contact me at the bottom of the page.
Show notes:
For a summary of the travels of Marco Polo, the years it took place, and the names of his father and uncle, see article here as well as McNeese, T. (2020). Polo, Marco. In The world book encyclopedia. (Vol. 15, pg. 648). Chicago, IL: World Book. (There is a discrepancy in those sources for the date of Marco Polo’s death. The World Book article notes that he died about 1304, but other sources generally note 1324. I assume 1324 to be the correct date.) As for the assignment the Mongol khan had given Niccolo and Maffeo and the unclear length of their previous trip to the Mongol empire, see pgs. 33-37 here that says (on pg. 36) that they’d been absent for more than 16 years and another summary on pg. vii-viii here that notes they’d only left in 1260, making the journey around 9 years long.
For a general summary of the travels of the Polos, see pgs. xiv-xvi here. Piecing the trip together, that source notes the Kerman desert after “Ormuz” (which I assume is “Hormuz”) in Iran meaning they had already crossed the middle east from Acre. After that it mentions the Pamirs and Kashgar and specifically says it took a month to cross the Gobi desert. That source says they arrived at the khan’s summer garden, which is probably Shangdu a bit less than 200 miles north west of Beijing according to the map here. For the Polos arrival in 1275 at the khan’s court, see pg. xxvi here. For the distance from Venice to the general region the Polos visited to meet Kublai Khan, see here.
For a discussion of the Ice Age from a Biblical perspective, see show notes for Episode 19.
For Asia having grasslands and bushes, as well as selling of ivory to Europe and China, see article on mammoths here.
For information on woolly rhinos, see here.
For elk the size of moose, see article here which notes the size and that it was most abundant in Ireland but distributed throughout Europe and Asia.
For the existence of cave lions in Asia during the Ice Age and their size relative to modern lions, see here.
For the discovery of one “steppe wolf” in Siberian permafrost, see article here.
For cave bears in Asia and their size relative to modern Polar bears and Kodiak bears, see here.
As evidence that animals would kill people at times, see the comment in Genesis 9:5 where God tells Noah that He would demand a reckoning from animals for blood of humans that they shed. See also comments here.
For a discussion of neanderthal physical features, see here. Interestingly, that article points out that humans and neanderthals interbred and were not different species, which fits with the understanding that they were just humans adapted differently. The article also references cold adaptation and possible issues due to “genetic isolation” which I assume means inbreeding in small populations.
For the suggestion that the “Neanderthals” found by researchers had different appearances compared to modern-day humans due to inbreeding from small isolated populations, see here. There is also the suggestion in the papers here and here that the differences skeletons show could be due to changes that took place over the much longer lifespans of the first generations of people to live after the Flood (for lifespan lengths, see examples in Genesis 11:10-23.
Strictly speaking, the word “neanderthal” comes from where bones were originally found, in the Neander valley in Germany (see here) but they also are found east of there in central Asia according to that source. I use it more generically to refer to these “cavemen,” and considering that, in my view, all of the people or just groups of regular humans with different appearances, trying to draw distinctions is meaningless.
For the remains of a mammoth found in the far north of Asia that shows signs of being attacked by man made weapons, see here. There are also lots of mammoth bones in Europe (see article here) but it is unclear if those bones show the same signs of having been hunted rather than simply used by humans.
For some support that cave lions were killed by human weapons, see paper here which specifically connects the hunting to Neanderthals, though it isn’t clear if that is due to how long ago they assume the lion was killed (a timeline much longer than the one given in Genesis) or because of clear “neanderthal” remains found nearby that connected the cave lion remains to Neanderthals.
For evidence that Neanderthals made things for other than practical purposes (i.e. decorations) see article here.
Whether the cave bear bone found in Slovenia is a flute or not is debated. On pg. 34 of the article here mentions that it might be a flute and measurement of hole spacing allows for diatonic scale tones, but other tones were also possible. It also mentions that the holes might’ve been made by animals trying to get at the bone marrow with a detailed argument to that effect in the article here. The counter argument is offered on pg. 271 in the article here that suggests that the bone is a flute and notes a fifth hole where the thumb would be (also note that it refers to mousterians linking the flute with neanderthals). For me, whether the holes were made by humans or animals might not be easily settled, but that the spacing is right for making music tones makes the conclusion of an animal aimlessly chewing on it less likely. In Episode 10 I also mentioned that bone flutes had been found in China (see abstract here which mentions examples with six, seven, and eight holes and that one was tested) though the age of the potential bone flute in Slovenia is supposedly older than the artifacts from China. Specifically, the bone with flute-like holes from Slovenia is dated to more than 40,000 years ago according to pg. 550 of the article here while the bones from China are older than 5,700 BC according to the abstract here. Both of these dates are older than a Biblical timeline that dates creation to around 4000 BC (see Episode 2 and the show notes there) and, as such, I assume that the bones are old but the timescale is exaggerated and both were originally made sometime after the Flood. With that in mind, it is not clear, however, whether the Slovenian bone artifact is still older than the flutes found in China or whether they’re similar age but simply from different locations in the world.
For Neanderthal Birch glue being made using a complex process, see articles here and here.
As for the use of medical treatments among “Neanderthals” see here which notes most bones show bones that have recovered from even things like a broken leg suggesting at least communal care of injured members.
Supporting the argument that Neanderthals and other cavemen were simply “men,” see articles here and here.
For the possible links between Magog and the Scythians as well as the Irish record of Magog as one of their ancestors, see Episode 19.
For the Scythians also being connected to Europe and Asia, and not Scotland only, see here.
For the possible identification that Magog’s descendants could be the “Gagaia” discussed in a 1400s BC letter from Babylon to Egypt, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association (though that source notes that the identification is challenging). In another place it suggests regions south of Black Sea mention “Gyges,” which, if the same as the ruler of the Lydians, would put them in modern day Turkey (see entry here for Lydia and “Magog” entry from Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers for the connection between Magog and Gyges).
For suggestion that Magog’s descendants went into Mongolia and northern Europe and Asia, see note on Genesis 10:1-2 here. The entry here also references Josephus and Jerome who connect Magog to the Scythians or tribes who lived in the north by the Caspian sea.
For the connection between Magog and the Tartars or Tatars, as well as the Scythians see note on Genesis 10:2, here and Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. For the home of the “Tatars” in Russia, see World Encyclopedia reference here. For the suggestion that modern Russians are connected to Magog, see note on Genesis 10:2, here. Given the size of Russia, it is unclear if this refers to those in western Russia toward Europe, or more in the Mongolia and Siberia regions.
For the age of written records of Siberian and Mongolian religion, see pgs. 303-304 here, though pgs. 304-305 note that these early records are so limited we can’t get much from them.
For the Mongol tradition of the flood, see pg 217 here.
For the suggestion that words like “Satan” and “Christ” as well as dualism might be due to Christian or Iranian influence, which undermines the idea that stories from Siberia and Mongolia are old enough to be independent memories of the event in Genesis that date all the way back to the Tower of Babel, see pgs. 313 and 321-322 here and the mention of “Nestorian” which was a group of Christians (see here).
For the story of the Lolos regarding Du-mu who survived a flood, see pgs. 163-164 here. For the location of the Lolos north of Vietnam, see pg. 98 in the article here which refers to Yunnan and the description of Yunnan’s location here.
In trying to figure out the which branch of Noah’s family the Chinese are descended from, scholars mainly suggest either Ham or Japheth. To start, while it is meant as a short explanation for kids, the article here says that the Chinese are descendants of the Sinites mentioned in Genesis 10:17 as descendants of Ham, and that the “Han” ethnic group is a reference to “Ham.” In addition, the article references Isaiah 49:12) which talks of people from the north, west, and land of “Sinim” with an assumed connection between “Sinim” and China. Investigating these links, while Chinese are often referred to with the prefix “sino-“, and sources here link “Sinim” to China among other places, there is a problem with how old these connections are. First, regarding Isaiah’s mention of “Sinim,” Isaiah lived around 700 BC (see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1977). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 4, p. 88). Review and Herald Publishing Association.) but the people ruling Egypt didn’t know of “Sinim” as a name for China until 800 years later according to the note on Isaiah 49:12 here. The note on Isaiah 49:12 in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1977). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 4, p. 279). Review and Herald Publishing Association mentions that Chinese goods have been found in ancient Egypt which is evidence that goods could migrate that far in the ancient world, but states that there’s no link between “Sinim” and “Chin” until well after the time of Isaiah, instead mentioning Egypt as a place Isaiah was referring to in that passage. See also footnote 11 on pg. 404 here arguing that “Sinim” is pointing to the south or the southern part of Egypt and the note on Isaiah 49:12 here which argues against identifying “Sinim” as China. As far as word origins, using “sino-“ as a means of referring to China only dates back to the Greeks of around 2000 years ago and is thought to be a way to refer to the “Hs’in” or “Ch’in”, the first imperial dynasty of China who ruled around 200 BC (see pgs. 1448-1449 here and later show notes on Chinese history). If this etymology is accurate, then the “Ch’in” (also spelled “Qin”) dynasty is the source of the “sino-“ name rather than the “Sinite” descendants of Ham found in Genesis 10:17. Investigating the second point, that the “Han” ethnic group is a memory of the name “Ham,” opens up the question of where the “Han” people got their name. According to the article here the “Han” tribe came from the “Huaxia” ethnic group that formed between the 21st and 8th century BC with the Han dynasty only coming to rule China around 200 BC. While this isn’t conclusive that the “Han” isn’t a memory of “Ham,” it is perhaps odd that they didn’t use the “Han” name all along, but only developed that name later after being previously called the “Huaxia.” Beyond these links, one source also suggests the Hittite descendants of Ham might be connected to “Cathay,” (see pg. 256 here. Researching the origin of “Cathay” at the same etymology dictionary referenced above, pg. 251 links “Cathay” as a name for the Khitan Tartars, a group that ruled only about 1000 AD according to pg. 25 here (see also here though this doesn’t preclude “Khitan” being a further back link to the Hittites. Another argument for the Hittites being connected to the Chinese focuses on appearances and clothing. On pgs. 43-44 of the paper written in 1889 here it suggests the Egyptian depictions of the Hittites are reminiscent of Chinese appearance, though I couldn’t find more recent arguments supporting that link. Moving on from Ham, there is a traditional Arabic belief that the Chinese are descended from Japheth. An Arabic tradition, stated on pg. 409 here claims Japheth was the father of the Chinese, though it also says Arabic traditions make Ham the father of the Europeans, which does not appear to be the case (see Episode 18 and Episode 19). Other Arabic writers try to connect China to Japheth and by “Amur” which the author speculates is “Gomer” on 406 here). Beyond this, the arguments in favor of Japheth are more logic and theology that archeology. First, for logic, if Japheth’s descendants are traced up into Central Asia around the Black Sea (see the last couple of episodes) and into India (see earlier in this episode) with speculation that Japheth’s son Magog went further up into Asia (see earlier in this episode) I would think it most likely that China would also be colonized by Japheth’s descendants. Second, regarding theology, in Genesis 9:27 Noah blesses Japheth and asks that God “enlarge” him. While this enlarging doesn’t specifically reference land, it is taken that way here with several commentators, including Benson, Barnes, Gill, and Poole suggesting Japheth’s descendants extended into Asia and possibly America as well. If, on the other hand, Ham’s descendants populated China, this blessing makes less sense as it is Ham who had a large growth of territory, unless Ham’s descendants only populated China and the rest of Asia and the Americas was still settled by Japheth’s children. In summary, while is is possible the first settlers in China might’ve been descendants of Ham, I think it is more plausible that Japheth was their forefather. For my earlier discussion of the Sinites settling in the modern Middle East, see Episode 17.
For the Chinese not claiming to be descended from any supernatural source, see pg. 6 here where author notes that it is surprising that the Chinese haven’t really shown any interest in where their people originally came from.
One possible clue regarding the ancestry of the Chinese comes from the Maio people who live in southeast Asia. You can find their story here. The oral history traces their genealogy back to Japheth. Over the years, they resisted integration with the Chinese (though one branch of the Maio did integrate with them) and they maintained the idea that the Chinese were a different people. On the basis of the Maio claiming to be descendants of Japheth and of a different family than the Chinese, Cooper, Bill. After the Flood (p. 242). Appendix 12. Kindle Edition appears to argue that the Chinese are not descended from Japheth. In my estimation, assuming the Maio stories are accurate, there are two possible explanations for this history. First, the descendants of Ham, perhaps the Sinites, did move from the Middle East into China and force out the previous inhabitants who were descendants of Japheth making them find other places to settle, and perhaps some of these people are the Maio. Alternatively, the Maio and Chinese are two branches of Japheth’s descendants that split from one another early in history and then came back into contact later, with the Maio retaining their genealogical history and the Chinese family tree being a mystery, but this is my speculation.
I wouldn’t advice using my pronunciations of Chinese names and places for reference. I’m confident at least one name is right, but the rest are a best guess.
The article here traces history in China back much further than a Biblical timeline. If the Flood was worldwide, as Genesis states (see Genesis 7), then the history of China can only begin after the Flood, or after 2349 BC according to Ussher, James (2006-11-01). The Annals of the World (Kindle Locations 502-503). Master Books. Kindle Edition. As such, I assume some of the legends and characters recalled in China’s historical stories overlapped or are fictional or the dates of Chinese history are incorrect and inflated further into the past than really took place, just like the Babylonian or Egyptian history discussed in Episode 17. In short, I assume the history of these ancient cultures, if properly understood, would align with the timeline of history recorded in the Bible.
When researching these stories of people who settled the world after leaving Babel, the age of the legends is important. Christianity spread around the world in the last 2000 years, so if a story sounds like something from the history in Genesis, there’s a chance it is the history in Genesis being echoed back by some tribe or culture that heard the story sometime in the last 2000 years. For oral traditions, there’s no good way to prove that their stories are older than 2000 years (and therefore older than Christian influence) but if written records are older than 2000 years, it at least makes them immune to the claim that the history in them came from Christian missionaries. In researching the age of legends, pg. 19 here suggests that the early legends in China come from around 200-400 BC, though those aren’t necessarily the earliest version of the story. It goes on to say (on pg. 26) that the best sources are “The Songs of Ch’u” from around the 300s BC and (on pg. 37) the “Classic of Mountains and Seas” from the 200s BC to before 100 AD. The Han dynasty (200s BC to 200s AD) tried to record and manage all the legends according to pg. 54 here. Legends from the early Han and older are the most useful as they are old enough that they largely avoid the claim of Christian influence since Christianity was not likely to have spread or embedded itself into Chinese traditions at such an early date.
For a long time scholars have known that the Chou (also spelled “Zhou”) dynasty existed, it wasn’t until the 1900s that researchers could prove the Shang was a real dynasty as well according to pg. 20 here which also states that, as of publication in 1968, the Hsia dynasty (also spelled “Xia”) were still legendary. For a note that the Shang dynasty of China is the first with evidence they really existed, and that the dynasty ended around 1100 BC, see here.
For an overview of the Zhou dynasty (also spelled “Chou”) from their conquering of the Shang dynasty, the separation of the kingdom into different regions, and those regions eventually overthrowing the dynasty itself with the Qin next taking control, see here and Hardy, G. (2020) Zhou dynasty. In The world book encyclopedia. (Vol. 21, pg. 590). Chicago, IL: World Book. For the rise of the Qin dynasty (pronounced “Chin,” according to this source) see article here that mentions the Qin being one of the several states that eventually conquered the others and the article here that mentions “Qin” became the basis for the modern name “China.”
For the first emperor of the Qin dynasty changing government structure and standardizing other things, ordering the burning of books with some exceptions, and killing scholars for disagreeing see here. That source also notes that purging of history started after a party in 213 BC, meaning it was only 3 years before the first emperor’s death in 210, though it is unclear if the purge continued to the end of the dynasty or not. Books on divination were exempted from destruction according to the source above with the definition of divination found here. In addition, see pgs. 36-40 here which appears to suggest a broader category of books were exempt than the very specific list mentioned in the earlier source above and notes that that certain important scholars were allowed to keep their books but that over 400 scholars were killed for hiding books. It also states specifically that this burning is at least somewhat to blame for why we don’t have much early Chinese legend material. That source attributes the story of the book burning to “Ssu-ma Chhien” who lived around 100 BC according to the article here.
For the Qin dynasty only lasting for 4 years after the first emperor died, see his reign ending in 210 BC here and the Han dynasty starting in 206 BC here. The first article claims that it only lasted 3 years after the first emperor’s death, but it could be that there was a year of chaos before the Han took control or that the first emperor of the Qin died toward the end of the year 210 BC and the Han took power toward the start of the year later on leaving only about a 3 year gap, but that is my speculation.
For the piecing of history back together taking place under the Han dynasty, see pg. 40 here. For the suggestion that Han scholars’ bias came through in the materials they preserved, see pg. 36 at the same source.
Just like the other mythology I’ve researched and talked about in earlier episodes, I’m an amateur when it comes to Chinese legends, and there are a number of challenges. To begin with, there are a few different classical works in Chinese with names that risk getting confused with one another. For example, the Shujing is an ancient classical work from the 300s BC (though with some parts being forgeries) while the Shiji is a book on history written around 200 years later. In addition to the similarity of names, there’s the question of whether the records we have are original or if they have been updated over time, allowing later ideas to get mixed in to the older stories. The Liji was written (supposedly) by Confucius but then updated around 500 years later by other authors. Beyond that, phrases in scholarly works such as “in one version of..” make it clear that multiple versions of a story exist (see start of pg. 119 here for example), and it’s challenging to discover which is the oldest or most original version. Beyond this, everything I read comes from a translation, and all translations risk including the translator’s own opinions or bias. Scholars themselves also have different opinions when they summarize the work. One source I used is here which is part of a series of books telling the mythology of different cultures around the world. In the note on pg. 3 in that source, the author says that the book does not include any legends which look like they came from non-native Chinese sources and that it is focused on written records not oral traditions. The explanation of Chinese beliefs and legends, however, is heavily criticized in the paper here which appears to offer valid complaints about source and accuracy. That said, I have given the sources I used in the show notes below for you to investigate and validate whether I or they accurately summarize the legends in question. For a list of ancient Chinese works, see pgs. 44-45 here.
There are several different versions of creation in Chinese lore according to pgs. 25, 27, and 28 here, including examples from the 200s BC, the 100s BC, and others from later centuries. For the reference to a Chinese creation story from around the mid-200s BC or earlier that mentions no creator but does reference a “’formless expanse’” see pg. 27 here and note that the source material is said to be the late Chou dynasty which ended in 256 BC. Another story from pg. 28 at the same source mentions a newly discovered story (as of 1999) that is believed to go back to the 300s BC. That story includes the idea of everything being empty, wet, and dim. It also says that there was not yet darkness and light, which I assume means there was no division between light and dark, details that are very similar to the description at the start of Genesis 1. Later, on pgs. 31-32 are the passages mentioned above.
Beyond the descriptions of the universe before creation from the 300s BC, there’s also a story from the 100s BC found in the Huai-nan Tzu (also spelled “Huainanzi”) which describes Yin and Yang separating out of mist on pgs. 28-29 here and translated on pg. 32 at that source. See later show note for more about the Huainanzi.
A popular Chinese legend of creation has a being named “P’an Ku” (spelled various ways) coming out of chaos (pg. 30 here), but this legend only shows up in the 200s AD an onward according to pg. 46 here and pg. 407, footnote 34 here. Another source, on pg. 29 (and referencing a different author) here suggests the story might’ve come from the people around Tibet.
There is also the story of “Yu-ti” as a creator who modeled people out of clay on pg. 104 here but I could not find the age of this legend. The book claims that sacrifices at the altar of heaven were made to Yu-ti. This Yu-ti (spelled “Yu-di”) is referenced on pg. 63 here as someone who was generated out of the Song or Tang dynasties trying to bring order to their confused list of gods.
The “Classic of Mountains and Seas” is also known as the “Shan Hai Ching” according to pg. 41 here with a discussion of the age of the work in the pages following. The article here dates the text to the 200s BC to 100 AD while pg. 58 here declares it to be be from the first century BC at the latest. A translation of the “Classic of Mountains and Seas” can be found here with pg. xxxviii and thereafter discussing the age of the original text and generally settling on the same range as given above. Pg. xlix and those following in that source also states that the current translation was made from more recent copies and that existing copies of the text only go back to 1180 AD (see pg. 1 in that source). The source also notes, on pg. xliii, what the issues were with existing translations of the book. According to pg. 183-184 here, the section in the Classic of Mountains and Seas that discusses Khun-lun was written in the 100s BC. The book has lots of details that are fantastic and mythical. I have cherry picked details which sound like Eden, but that doesn’t mean all of it sounds that way.
For an overview of the legend of Khun-lun (also spelled “Kunlun”), the mountain to the far west in Chinese lore, see pgs. 74-75 here which mentions Khun-lun as a mountain, its location to the furthest west, water that could make you live forever, and the belief that it was the source of the Yellow river. That author also mentions four rivers flowing to different parts of the world as well as their opinion that this was just evidence of Indian beliefs about the mountain “Sumeru” getting mixed in. Genesis mentions four rivers coming from the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2:10-14 but the number of rivers coming from Khun-lun varies. On pg. 140 of text of the Classic of Mountains and Seas found here (see earlier show note for description of that source) it mentions at least six rivers including Scarlet, Great, Wideflow, Black, Weak, and Green, though the rivers do specifically come from the four corners (southeast, northeast, northwest, southwest) of Khun-lun. That list doesn’t include the Yellow river, but the comment on pg. 69 here affirms that the Yellow river was thought to come from Khun-lun while the comment on pg. 219 here notes that the “weak” river went around the bottom of the mountain. Another description of the rivers, found on pgs. 161-162 here mentions four rivers coming from the mountain and names them the Yellow, Red, Yang, and Black. The Huainanzi (see later show note for more details on that source) also mentions four rivers and names them Yellow, Vermilion, Weakwater, and Yang and also says they come form the four corners of the mountain (see pgs. 156-157 here). For the “Lord of the sky” using Khun-lun as his home on Earth, see pg. 75 here. For Khun-lun being known as “Great God’s City on Earth Below,” see pg. 245 here from a translation of the “Classic of Mountains and Seas” (see earlier show note for description of that record). For the Yellow river as a major waterway in China, see article here.
For the Khun-lun peaches that let people live forever, see pg. 104 here which describes the peaches as healing illnesses and giving immortality if mixed with the ashes of a mulberry tree (see also the article here).
The “Queen Mother of the West” (spelled as both “Xiwangmu” here and “Hsi Wang Mu” in other references below) who is associated with the peaches of immortality wasn’t originally part of the legend of Khun-lun but began as a monster who lived on a nearby mountain and was in charge of illnesses whose story later changed so she took charge of the peaches of immortality that were only available once every six thousand years according to pg. 78-79 here. That source references the “Classic of Mountains and Seas” (see earlier show note for description of that record) as the source of its information. Hsi Wang Mu is mentioned in the appendix to the Classic of Mountains and Seas on pg. 249 here with the translations of specific references to the “Queen Mother of the West” found on pgs. 24, 145, and 176. The Queen Mother of the West’s late arrival in relation to the peaches of immortality is supported by comments on pg. 173-174 here which also notes that that her section of the story is from the 200s BC and that the peaches ripened every 3000 years. As far back as the 1200s BC there is mention of a “west Mother” on the oracle bones though the “queen” element only arrived in the 300s BC according to pg. 171 here. There was also mention on pg. 56 here of a partner to the Queen Mother of the West, though I didn’t see that link made elsewhere. That article does support, on pg. 57, that it was a 6000 year peach ripening period.
For the mention of every kind of animal living on Khun-lun, see pg. 176 here in the Classic of Mountains and Seas.
The description of the trees found in Khun-lun comes from the translation of the “Classic of Mountains and Seas” described in earlier show notes (see there for background and date of composition of that record). The trees in question are mentioned on pgs. 140-141 here. From the description and use of “the” is is unclear if there was one of each type of tree that is mentioned, or if the translation is referring to a species of tree and there might be more than one of each. The start of pg. 140 describes the “tree-barley” that stood on the peak of Khun-lun with a specific description of its height and width and the other description of the trees puts them specifically to the north of the “Openbright” animal mentioned in another show note, which might suggest that each of the trees mentioned is singular rather than a species. This conclusion is supported by the same authors description in a different book where pg. 183 here mentions twelve special trees, suggesting they are individual rather than species trees. That same source on pg. 185 (again by the same author as the translation of the Classic of Mountains and Seas) translates a couple things differently in the passage referring to “Sweet Water” instead of “sweet-water tree” that was added by the author in the translation, and calling the “wisdom tree” the “Wise Man tree.” Another reference to water and trees that gave eternal life is found in the description of Khun-lun on pgs. 161-162 here
For other legends of plants that gave eternal life, legends in China claim there were three islands where a plant of immortality grew but the ships sent there were all lost in a storm according to pg. 115 here. In addition, other substances in Chinese lore gave immortality including certain water sources, trees, grasses, drugs, and other things besides according to pg. 110 here
In researching ancient Chinese legends, I came across a quote from a presentation made in 1873 on pg. 238 here that suggests the Chinese had a legend of the original state of the world as a perfect and happy place without sadness or dishonesty. Going to the referenced author for that quote (though not the same edition of the book, as the page number is different) yields pg. 337 here where the statements on Chinese legends are found in the second part of a book written in 1745. That source references “ancient commentaries on the book Yking, i.e. the book of Changes,” which is likely a reference to the “Yijing,” a Chinese classic called “Book of Changes” dating back to 1100s BC with commentaries being written on it later, but still before 200 BC (see here). There is an English translation of the Yijing, called the “I-ching” in that case, made by James Legge, an authority on Chinese to English translations (see pg. 377 here). To begin with, the quote in question does not seem to appear in the Yijing itself (at least my search didn’t find it) and the reference does point to “ancient commentaries” which may or may not exist in English. Even if commentaries are the source, the Yijing was originally used to tell the future so it might not be an ideal source for concrete history. Searching further for the source of Ramsay’s quotes, I came across pg. 241 here which points to “Duhald’s Hist. of China, in his Abstract on the Chinese Classicks.” This appears to be a reference to Jean Baptiste Duhalde who collected stories and published a series of four books on the history of China in the 1700s (see pg. 209 here for Duhalde’s influence on European understanding of China). Duhalde’s (also spelled “Du Halde”) four volume work can be found online (see here or here for volume 1, here or here for volume 2, here or here for volume 3, and here or here for volume 4). I searched all of them for keywords from the quotes in question, but without much success. Of the tables of contents in each book, volume 3 looked to have the most promise. In that volume, the closest I could find to the above quotes about a once “perfect” world in ancient Chinese writings were statements attributed to an unknown "modern" philosopher. After starting on pg. 259 here with an explanation that, "Before the Heavens and the Earth were yet formed, there was nothing but a confus'd Chaos in the midst of an immense Void" the philosopher describes the formation of the earth and sun, moon, and stars then says (pg. 262), "The Production of Mankind and other Beings came afterwards, and all the Universe was then in a state of perfection: In short all that one can imagine of what is lively, spiritual and excellent in the Heavens and the Earth, becoming united and joining together in the highest degree of Perfection possible, has given a wonderful Birth to these extraordinary Men, who in their turn have endeavored after the Exaltation of Nature." It doesn't match the quote given by Ramsay, but it does offer the thought of an originally perfect universe, though again, this is in a section of the book referring to the opinions of a "modern" Chinese philosopher, so clearly not a reference to an ancient written record. I also looked through the later sections in the book summarizing the Chinese “classics” (as that appears to be the reference the earlier work pointed to) but without success. The starting section in volume 3 about Chinese religion references things learned in the Chinese classics (see starting pg. 16). In that part the author describes the “Supreme Being” named “Chang ti” with attributes that match the description of God found in the Bible. This is the closest I came to the quotes used by Ramsay (and later Titcomb from Ramsay) that at least once source says came from Duhalde. I never found the precise quotes used, but there are still a couple things to note. First, while I cannot tell what the source was for Ramsay’s quote, given the limited amount of information available on China in the 1700s, that they originally came from Duhalde or other works from around the same area is my best guess. Second, while the quote Ramsay used could be right, his information comes early in the history of Europeans trying to understand China, so it is possible that Duhalde (or whoever compiled that quote) was misunderstanding the material and summarizing it inaccurately and it has disappeared from research as better translations corrected the mistake in the years since then. In fact, in Titcomb’s presentation, where this search started, a record of the discussion shows the idea of a “supreme Monarch of the Universe” was challenged (see pg. 263 here) with the editor seeking out the advice of James Legge to see if Chinese works made such a claim (see footnote on that page which continues to the next page), and while both the editor and Legge suggested the general idea of China possibly having a traditional memory of the pre-Flood world was possible, Legge said that the “Shoo” (I assume Shuking) did not place any blame on people for the Flood.
Later in his comments, Titcomb mentions the “Liki” book (see pg. 238 here). This too, as in the above show note, is mentioned by Ramsay on pg. 338 here. The “Liki” book in question is probably the “Liji,” an ancient Chinese book meaning “Record of Rites” supposedly put together by Confucius who lived around 500 BC though it was updated around 500 years later (see here). There are at least a couple of English copies of the Liji such as here (called “Li chi”) and here (called “Li Ki”) though both are using translations by the same James Legge mentioned earlier (see above show note) with the same page numbers. I hunted in this book for the quote in question but did not find it. There are references to a “supreme” god on pgs. 233 and 301 either in the text or a footnote (see here). I also found a reference there of a story where a roughly 100 year old blind disciple of Confucius told a leader of a province around 407 BC (see footnote 3 on pg. 116) about what music was at that time and what it used to be. In that passage (pg. 118 here) the disciple of Confucius says, “In antiquity, Heaven and Earth acted according to their several natures, and the four seasons were what they ought to be. The people were virtuous, and all the cereals produced abundantly. There were no fevers or other diseases, and no apparitions or other prodigies. This was what we call "the period of great order." After this arose the sages, and set forth the duties between father and son, and between ruler and subject, for the guidance of society. When these guiding rules were thus correctly adjusted, all under heaven, there was a great [tranquility]…” The story discusses the invention of the 5 note scale and good music as contrasted with wild and violent music that shouldn’t be used for sacrifices (see pg. 119). There is no footnote on that page, so it is only my speculation that this might be a reference to a past golden age, though the entire conversation appears to take place in the context of good and bad music.
While it’s speculative on my part, there is also a reference in the description of Khun-lun on pgs. 184-185 here creatures who had a snake on their head, one on their chest, and one they were walking on which, to me, could echo the imagery from Genesis 3:15 and be a memory, in some foggy way, of God’s promise of a Savior (see Episode 6).
The descriptions of the creature protecting of Khun-lun are the same in a couple of sources, but some details of what it is doing differ. The reference on pg. 75 here describes it as having a tiger’s body and nine human heads and acting as a guard for the “door of light” that points east. Elsewhere, the appendix to the translation of the “Classic of Mountains and Seas” (see full description of that classic in earlier show note) uses the word “Openbright” as the name of the creature on pg. 245 here who is responsible for guarding a specific jewel tree, and goes on (on pg. 246) to describe the animal as pointing east. Going to the translation, pgs. 140-141 in the text where this creature is described, Khun-lun (called “Waste of Offspringline,” see pg. 245 that book in the appendix for the correlation between those names and with “Khun-lun” spelled “K’un-lun Hsu”) is said to have four sides, each with nine openings and each opening having a separate “Openbright” animal protecting it, though later on the page each of the Openbright animals’ faces east, apparently regardless of which side of the mountain they are on. From these two descriptions, I think the “door of light” reference in the summary of the story is related to the “Openbright” name used in the translation, but that is only my best guess. As for the number of guardian animals, the translations specifically mention lots of gates each with its own animal, but then for every face to point east, the animals on the west side would be looking into Khun-lun which doesn’t make much sense to me. Combine that with the reference at the end of pg. 140 and start of pg. 141 which orient other aspects of Khun-lun to the west, north, east, and south of “the Openbright” animal and it makes it sound as though there is one animal at the center of Khun-lun and rather than many surrounding the mountain. I don’t have a good explanation for this confused description. See also pgs. 183-185 here for other descriptions of this passage.
In the Garden of Eden, the fruit of the Tree of Life let people live forever (see Genesis 3:22-24) while the the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil brought death, though the serpent claimed those who ate it wouldn’t die (see Genesis 3:1-6 and Genesis 3:19 and Genesis 5:5). For the gate to the Garden of Eden being on the east side, see Genesis 3:23-24. For a discussion of ancient memories of guardians blocking access that could be a memory of the “cherubim” Genesis mentions, see Episode 7.
It is my speculation that links the Khun-lun mountain to memories of the Tower of Babel, but it is described as being both very tall and sunk very deep into the earth on pg. 74 here. Furthermore, on pgs. 161-162 here Khun-lun is described as a “sky ladder” that connected earth with heaven (see also pg. 232 here for more on “sky ladders”) and let humans and gods go back and forth. Regarding Khun-lun. The Huainanzi from around 100 BC (see later show note discussing the Huainanzi and other dates) describes Khun-lun as a sky ladder and names its different levels. It cites a passage from the Huainanzi chapter 4 (see pgs. 156-157 here) though the translation for that section says that one has to climb, “to a height double that of the Kunlun mountains” to get to the first level and then quadruple the height to get to the second level and eight times the height to get to heaven, making it unclear if these are different levels on a certain mountain or different mountains. Regardless, it is interesting that the second level is called “Hanging garden” and makes me wonder about the connection between Khun-lun and memories of Eden. Even so, Khun-lun isn’t the only sky ladder, there are others including mountains, trees, and rainbows. One story, of unknown age, says that a certain ladder was broken when the head god moved the sky further away to stop humans from coming to heaven after a young man distracted the water goddess causing a flood and killing all the humans on Earth such that they had to be recreated from seeds (for that story and other sky ladder details, see pgs. 205-206 here).
While I use the name “Nu kua” in this episode (which is used on pg. 163 here) the being in question also goes by other spellings including “Nu Gua” here and “Nu wa” here.
For the earliest legends linked to Nu kua being from the 300s BC, see comment on pgs. 163-164 here that refers to the “Questions of Heaven,” a document from the 300s BC according to pg. 26 in that source. That source also notes that Nu-kua comes up in the Classic of Mountains and Seas (see earlier show note) and the “Huai-nan Tzu,” a book written around 140 BC as noted on pg. 28 here and was influenced by Taoism.
The image of Nu kua with a snake-like lower body comes from the Han dynasty according to pg. 45 here which would put the reference in the last years BC or the first years AD. Three is also mention of her on pg. 55 here that speculates that Nu Kua is probably a memory of Shang era worship of snake-women or dragons.
For the comment that Nu kua is assumed to be a woman because of the symbols in her name but that some early traditions refer to Nu kua as a man, see pg. 31 here and Nelson, E.R., Broadberry, R.E. (1997) God’s Promise to the Chinese. (pg. 113). In an interesting theory, Kearsley, G. R., Mayan Genesis (2001) Yelsraek publishing (pg. 125) suggests that Nu kua is really a reference to “Nu” and his sister “Kua” though I cannot say whether that idea is supportable. On pg. 34 here it mentions that Nu kua’s female identity was emphasized in the BC Han period and that is when she was connected to Fuxi (spelled “Fu Hsi,” see later show note) and marriage traditions.
For the age of the story of Nu kua creating people from mud, see pg. 56 here that refers to a text from the Han dynasty but doesn’t say whether it was from the BC or AD time period. In another source, pg. 54 here points to it being a legend from the 100s AD. See also the discussion on pg. 33 here that Nu kua’s legend of creation is from around 200 AD, still older than the one about P’an Ku, but not as old as the idea humans were made from “pure vapor” (see earlier show notes).
For the ancient Chinese image of the world as land with a dome held up by columns, see pg. 24 here. The author goes on to suggest that this is similar to the ancient Egyptian understanding and speculates that it could be due to contact between Egypt and China.
The long quote of the story of Nu kua patching a hole in the sky and stopping a flood is found on pgs. 224-225 here (another translation of the same passage is found on pgs. 164-165 here). The source for the is a book called the “Huainanzi” that was written around 139 BC (see pg. 1 here or 150 BC according to pg. 55 here. The translator of the passage about Nu kua patching the sky adds a number of footnotes including that the “black dragon” was the responsible for the floods (though it is unclear to me if this is a real being or a metaphorical reference) and that “Ji province” was the central part of the world (see reference to pg. 154 in that book). The story of Nu kua is also summarized on pgs. 31-32 here. As for influence on the story, it is suggestion on pgs. 70-71 here that the second part of this tale has concepts of Taoist philosophy and, as such, might not be original. For other details, the cause of the hole in the sky that Nu kua repaired is not entirely clear. One version mentions a rebel leader being defeated by Nu kua with the rebel then hitting his head against a pillar and ripping a hole in the sky, causing a flood and killing most everyone but Nu kua and those with her (see pgs. 81-82 here) while a footnote on pg. 224 at the earlier source above suggests that Gong Gong caused the damage Nu kua repaired. The story of Gong Gong is also mentioned on pgs. 124-125 here which notes that the it originally shows up in the “Warring States” era (something dated to 400s-200s BC according to article here) but got more detail during the Han era. That source goes on to give other details and background including the suggestion that the story of Gong Gong and Nu kua were originally separate and only connected to one another later on, an idea that might come from pg. 69 here (one of that source’s references) where the author suggests that it was a different legend mixed into the Nu kua story by Han scholars since the damage caused by Kung Kung (alternate spelling of Gong Gong) was never fixed. See also pgs. 85-86 here and pgs. 27 and 98-99 here. See also pg. 122 in Kearsley, G. R., Mayan Genesis (2001) Yelsraek publishing.
For the idea of a parallel between the five colored stones and the rainbow in Genesis, see pg. 115 in Nelson, E.R., Broadberry, R.E. (1997) God’s Promise to the Chinese. For the suggestion that the five colored stones were symbols of the “Five Phases” see footnote 61 on pg. 224 here which refers to the end of chapter 4 in that book that mentions yellow, bluegreen, vermilion, white, and black heavens with various mythological details associated with those heavens (see pgs. 170-171). Pg. 68 here points out that there was a system of “fives” in general including five elements, seasons, and directions.
The note on Genesis 9:13, here suggests that rainbows were considered bad omens by the Chinese.
There are other flood stories in Chinese history besides the story of Nu kua as discussed on pgs. 79-83 here or pg. 87 here with the comment on pg. 215 here arguing that the story of Yao sounded more like the flooding of the Yellow river and not a worldwide event. To me, the stories of local floods could be either regular river flooding, or the draining of a waterlogged landscape in the first few hundred years after the worldwide Flood described in Genesis, though that is only my speculation. It is emphasized, however, that flooding wasn’t a punishment from god or evidence of people disobeying god (see pg. 83 here) whereas in Genesis people doing evil was the cause of the Flood (see Genesis 6).
Beyond Nu kua, another possible memory of people who lived before the Flood comes up in stories of Fuxi. Fuxi (also spelled “Fu Hsi” and “Fo-hi”) is a major character in Chinese mythology (see pg. 118 here), though it’s difficult to know which parts of the legends about him are ancient and which pieces might have only been added on later. Early references to Fuxi, where he’s mentioned as the first god in sources from the Zhou dynasty (also known as “Chou”) are older than 200 BC according to pg. 44 here. That source goes on to mention, however, that Fuxi was not a famous character until the Han dynasty and that he doesn’t come up in the “Classic of Mountains and Seas,” the very old work that describes Khun-lun (see earlier show note) among other things. In the same source (here) on pg. 46 there is a passage from the Han era (see explanation of that passage on pg. 45) that Fuxi used ropes with knots to make nets for hunting and fishing. Since the Han dynasty spans the BC to AD transition, it is unclear if this reference comes from the last years BC or the first years AD. Furthermore, Fuxi is shown as part snake in images from the Han era (again, unclear if the BC or AD part of that dynasty) as mentioned on pg. 44 at the above source. Elsewhere, there are a variety of other sources that offer information about Fuxi, including pg. 29-30 here (written in 1916), though that reference suggests Fuxi was also known as “T’ai Hao,” a name that pg. 44 here says was linked to Fuxi during the Han times but was an separate god from Fuxi prior to that. It doesn’t say when during the Han era the Fuxi and T’ai Hao became synonymous, only that it was present by 32-92 AD from the source cited. That said, since pg. 29-30 (cited above) refers to Fuxi as someone also known as “T’ai-Hao,” other details it offers may also be from later legends, including that Fuxi’s was born through a miracle and (later on pg. 30) that he invented marriage and limited it to people who had different last names as well as finding iron and offering sacrifices to “Heaven” on an altar outside. Similarly, in another source, on pg. 119 here it says that Fuxi’s birth was a miracle that came about after his mother stepped in a large footprint and became pregnant, and that Fuxi had, at least initially, a man’s head but a snake’s body and only turned into a human over time, but it doesn’t give a reference for where those details of Fuxi come from and whether they are early memories of Fuxi or later inventions. If all these elements come from an early date, then Fuxi is the story of a man who is remembered as a snake, who invented things, made rules about marriage, and presented sacrifices on an altar outside. Combine this with the reference from the note on Genesis 9:17, here that Fuxi was born surrounded by a rainbow, and it is not surprising to find the suggestion of a link between Fuxi and Noah, a old idea presented at least as far back as 1818 in a comment on pg. 140 here (and also mentioned on pgs. 238-239 here). This connection between Fuxi and Noah is perhaps bolstered by some of Fuxi’s names, such as “silent sacrificial victim” and “prostrate breath” noted on pg. 45 here that might be a memory of Noah’s post-Flood offering, with other names listed in that source including “roasted sacrificial victim” and “hidden play” with the last, unless it is a reference to Noah’s drunkenness in Genesis 9:18-28 doesn’t sound like an obvious reference to the story of Noah, and once again, it’s not clear how old these names are. Recognizing that, the only confident references to elements of the Fuxi legend from early Chinese history were a memory of him as the first god, the inventor of nets, and that part of his body was snakelike, which, while curious, is perhaps not enough to reliably link stories about him to memories of Noah or other pre-Flood people. See also mention of past speculation that Fuxi and Adam were the same on pg. 407 here. For more on the connection between Nu kua and Fuxi, see pgs. 56 and 86 here and pg. 55 here which claims the two were connected later on in the Han era. On pg. 31 here it claims Nu kua became ruler after Fuxi, pointing to the “Shih Chi” as it’s source, a reference I assume is to the Shiji written around 85 BC. In another place, on pg. 11 here it says that Fuxi or Fuxi and Nu kua were the first of the three rulers.
The myths and legends in China have such tantalizing details in places that it’s tempting to keep speculating on connections between people in Chinese lore and the history and characters described in Genesis. This includes “Shennong” who is known as the earthly emperor to distinguish him from Fuxi the “heavenly emperor.” Shennong was supposedly born on a mountain, was eight feet seven inches in height and had the body of man with the head of a bull, grew up in a few days, studied what plants people could eat, and lived to be 168 years old before becoming immortal (see pgs. 30-31 here). I could imagine tying Shennong to Cain, the farmer, or to Noah, who grew grapes, but we just don’t have enough information to do more than speculate.
As for the reliability of Han dynasty stories, one scholar considers the Zhou to offer good history, but the Han stories to have elements of Bhuddism and Taoism mixed in according to pg. 110 in Nelson, E.R., Broadberry, R.E. (1997) God’s Promise to the Chinese. (pg. 11).
I only gave the legends of Nu kua that came from the earlier parts of history, the Chou and Han dynasties. There is also another segment of legends that come from the 800s AD, during the Tang dynasty, that adds other information including that Nu kua and her brother Fuxi were the only survivors of a flood, lived on mount Khun-lun, were convinced to marry by smoke gathering together rather than dispersing from two separate fires, and became the parents of mankind. For more see pgs. 34 and 203 here as well as later shownote about her brother Fuxi and pgs. 161-163 here
Sometimes a work called the “Lieh Tzu" by “Liezi” is referenced as a source for Chinese legends from around the 300s BC (see for instance pg. 81 here), but scholars now think this is a forgery from the 300s AD according to pg. 185 here. For reference to what is said in the Lieh Tzu see pg. 86 here.
The sixth issue of the Philosophical Journal of Great Britain, also known as the Victoria Institute, from 1873 mentions the idea that the Chinese symbol for “large ship” is a combination of symbols for “boat,” the number eight, and a mouth (meaning people) on pg. 239 here. That page points back to pg. 9 of a book here which was written in 1774 and quotes there from a book published the prior year by a missionary in Peking (Beijing) (see original French book here with the cover page noting that the author was a missionary and the quote on pg. 32. The original quote is in French, but can be run through an online translator to get general idea. I would guess that the symbols used to generate this theory were from the medieval era, which leaves the suggestion of a connection between those symbols and the history in Genesis open to the claim that stories from Genesis simply influenced the original creation of the word symbol for “large ship.” This idea is dispelled by the discussion on pgs. 100-101 in the article here where the “ship” character made of “boat,” “mouth,” and the number 8 goes back to 700 BC. While stories from the Middle East could have reached China and been incorporated into their pictograms by 700 BC, assuming Biblical history is true, it is more plausible that the pictograms the Chinese invented are based on their own stories rather than something imported.
For the history of Chinese bronze artifacts, see the article here that mentions both when bronze working began in China and details some of the history of its development including an increasing number of symbols on bronze artifacts. See also pg. 429 here for a discussion of the increase in the number of symbols between Shang and Zhou artifacts. For bronze being an alloy of copper and tin, see here.
Regarding the symbol for ship that combines symbols for “boat,” “mouth,” and “eight,” the article here notes on pg. 101 that it was found on a bronze artifact from 700 BC. Earlier on pg. 99, it notes that there is a Taoist legend of eight “immortals” that crossed the sea on a ship. At face value, this appears to explain the origin of that symbol for “ship,” but this depends on the age of the Taoist legend. In order for the Taoist legend to be the source of the inscription, it must be older than 700 BC. Researching this, the timeline of Taoism on pg. XXIV here only goes back to 480 BC. As for the “immortals,” who were once people that supposedly achieved immortality (see pg. 48 here), all their lives started at some point, which would have to be earlier than 700 BC in order to influence the bronze symbol in question. Looking into this, a list of the eight “immortals” is found on pg. 118 here). Going through those names, starting with pg. 70, it mentions one who originally lived during the 600s and 700s AD during the T’ang dynasty. The second and third, on pgs. 150 and 159-160, also lived during the T’ang dynasty putting them no earlier than the 600s AD as well. The fourth, on pg. 214, was based on a real person who was born in 755 AD. The fifth, on pg. 348, came from the Sung (Song) dynasty which began in the 900s AD. The entry for the sixth on pg. 194 doesn’t mention an era, but the comment on pg. 293 here suggests the same T’ang dynasty as some of the others. The seventh, on pgs 201-202 at the first source, also doesn’t give an era, but suggests he was only a legendary character. In another source, an article here says that he came sometime after the 500s BC since he was tutored by someone who supposedly lived in the 500s BC according to the link in that article. That leaves the one on pg. 92 here as possibly the oldest of the supposed “immortals,” as he is described as a general during the Zhou (spelled “Chou”) era, but that entry also states that he lived during the Han dynasty and the article here mentions the same Han time frame and the suggestion that he may have been tutored by another of the “immortals” perhaps suggesting he wasn’t the oldest of them. If that’s true, none of the “immortals” is older than 500 BC. While I couldn’t find a date for the legend of the “immortals” crossing the sea in a ship, while individual “immortals” show up or are connected to historical characters a little earlier (see pg. 118 here, the eight “immortals” as a group only appeared during the Yuan dynasty when the Mongols ruled China starting in the 1200s AD according to the article here. See specifically pgs. 9-10 that mentions 1250 AD being the earliest story and pg. 18 where a Ming scholar is quoted as saying no evidence of the “immortals” is older than the Yuan era. I recognize that evidence of older Taoist or folklore legends might’ve been lost, but based on what we do find, neither Taoism nor the origin of the eight “immortals” is older than 500 BC, suggesting that the inscription from pg. 101 here (with the symbol in question shown in figure 5D on pg. 100 of that article) predates legends of the “immortals” in question. If so, a different set of eight people on a boat would need to be the source of that symbol, with the story of Noah the most obvious candidate. To me, I wonder if the story of Noah and his family on the ark was forgotten over time, but enough memory of it remained that eventually people invented another story about fictional “immortals,” but that is only my speculation.
There are different opinions about the age of the oracle bones. On pg. 113 of Nelson, E.R., Broadberry, R.E. (1997) God’s Promise to the Chinese. Read Books there is the suggestion that documents dating to 1000 BC are older than the oracle bones. This source suggests the bones date to 1100-1400 BC, and this article gives a similar range. While I do not know the cause of the discrepancy, it could be disagreements over the age of the bones themselves or about the chronology of Chinese monarchies, but that is simply my speculation. I have assumed they date back to the ~1100 BC date which is in the range offered by some of the sources cited above.
For the history of the discovery of the Chinese “oracle bones” from the Shang dynasty era, see here for the mention of their discovery in Anyang and here for a map showing Anyang’s proximity to Beijing (which was used to estimate almost 300 miles between the two cities). The bones were originally found in the late 1800s before research on their inscriptions was begun in 1899 according to the article here after Wang Yirong found the bones in a medicine shop in Beijing according to pg. 672 here. For actual excavations starting in 1928, see here. For Anyang being a capitol of the Shang dynasty, see here, though pg. 405 here says the capitol was only near Anyang. For the number of oracle bones fragments that have been found, see pg. 57 here which mentions 107,000 from a book published in 1978 (with the footnote on that page also mentioning the discovery of the bones at a pharmacy).
For the story of how the oracle bones were used in ancient Shang society, see here which mentions that it was the king or other important people who used them and outlines the process used along with mention of different gods who were the intended target of the questions. Another description is found on pgs. 24-28 here. A similar description is also given on pg. 84 here that mentions both hot rocks or metal (presumably hot) being pressed into the bone to generate the cracks. As for who interpreted the cracks, pg. 406 here says the king was the main source late in Shang history. For turtles or cows often being the source of the bones, see here.
For earlier discussions of Chinese writing and pictograms, see Episode 1. I talked about the theory and gave some examples of how Chinese oracle bone writing might show pictograms related to the history in Genesis in a few earlier episodes. For more detail see Episode 1, Episode 4, Episode 5, Episode 7, and Episode 8 with original reference to various pages of Nelson, E.R., Broadberry, R.E. (1997) God’s Promise to the Chinese.
Examples of oracle bone characters deciphered as pictures can be found in the online article here or in Nelson, E.R., Broadberry, R.E. (1997) God’s Promise to the Chinese. (pgs. 46-48). I only referenced examples already noted in earlier episodes or found online to avoid giving away too much of Nelson and Broadberry’s material, but the book referenced above has many other examples of oracle bone symbols that have been deciphered to attempt to derive the original meaning behind the pictures. I am not qualified to evaluate whether or not their analysis is accurate, but perhaps some support can be found in a letter from and response to a reader in 2002 here with discussion and support for the analysis and a later article published in 2005 analyzing characters related to the flood (see here and discussion in an earlier show note) perhaps supporting the idea that oracle bone and brozeware character meanings are still considered a valid research direction. For the definition of “covet” see here.
For the identification of Iraq as the location of the Tower of Babel from Genesis 11, see Episode 16 which also suggests the Tower of Babel might’ve at least been similar to a ziggurat.
For speculation that the pyramids of Egypt might be memories of a ziggurat-like Tower of Babel, see Episode 17 and the show notes for it.
For the first emperor of the Qin being credited with unifying China, see article here with the second entry on that site mentioning the number of clay soldiers that were buried with him.
For the size of the first emperor’s tomb mound, see pg. 360 here. That source notes that there are claims the hill used to be 380 feet tall (116 meters) though some scholars argue that that number could be due to an error in transcribing the height at sometime in the past according to a footnote on the page cited and linked to above.
For the dimensions of the Great Pyramid of Giza, see article here. For the dimensions of the tomb of the first emperor in China, see pg. 360 here. I used the equation given at this source for calculating the volume of the pyramid and mound. The result should be an underestimate as the top of the first emperor’s tomb is an area rather than a single point at the top as shown in the image on pg. 363 at the above source. Even so, I rounded the answer down from the tomb being over 1.8 times the volume of the pyramid to more than 1.5 times to avoid an overestimate or exaggeration.
For the internal structure of the hill-mound mausoleum of the first Qin emperor, see pgs. 360-363 here. The top picture on pg. 363 makes it look like only one side of the inner mound had separate levels, but the lower image shows the levels on both sides of the ramp that cuts through the wall.
For a discussion of the mounds built by earlier rulers from the Eastern Zhou, see pgs. 366-367 and 371-373 here for images and the suggestion that other smaller tombs also had terraced walls.
For the distance from the tomb of the first emperor to Shimao, I used measurements from the map here. A map of Shimao related to other cities in the area can be found in Figure 1 here.
For the fact that the ruins of Shimao have been known about for some time, including that jade artifacts could be found there, but that digging only started in 2011 see pg. 35 here. For the definition of “jade” as a (generally) green gemstone, see here. For the age of the city given variously as 1,800 to 2,300 BC see comment on pg. 36 at the above article and comment here which also mentions that the ruins show inner and outer walls and gates. For a description of the main hill that stands 230 feet high with the ruins of a palace at the top and whose sides, when cleared of accumulated soil, once formed 11 separate terraces or steps (which is referred to as a “stepped pyramid,”) see pg. 36 here, as well as a section titled, “Shimao and the Northern Zone” here that also refers to the hill as a “stepped pyramid” and notes that the hill was 70 meters high (about 230 feet) and that it had 11 steps. That source also provides a map of the various walls of the settlement and the location of the hill. Another source, on pg. 53-54 here, refers to the hill as a stepped pyramid and notes that walls of the pyramid were artistically decorated with possible religious symbols. That source also interprets the design as evidence that the hill was meant to be used for the high class of Shimao society and aimed at being defensible, but that there were also craft workshops. See also another book without page numbers, in paragraph beginning, “All this is to say,” here for reference to the hill in Shimao as a “stepped pyramidal structure.” Another article also refers to the hill as a pyramid, but notes 20 different steps, which is different than the 11 steps mentioned in other sources. Based on the sources, I assume 11 steps is the more accurate number.
It is my speculation that the steps on the sides of the hill in Shimao were made for defense, though the reference here under the heading “Shimao and the Northern Zone” does mention the walls which makes concerns about invaders likely. Similarly, it is my speculation that the stepped hill might be a memory of the Tower of Babel, which hinges not only on an attempt to mimic that tower, but on the Tower of Babel itself being ziggurat shaped (see earlier show note).
Other than speculation about Khun-lun mountain as a sky ladder (see earlier show note) or the pyramids and stepped pyramids found from different eras in Chinese history, I didn’t come across a specific legend from China of the tower of Babel or the confusion of languages. It could be that no memory of that event was written down, or that the record was lost. If it has survived to the present, I wonder what might be found in the still untranslated oracle bone characters. For 3000 of the 5000 oracle bone symbols still being a mystery as of 2017, see article here. For information on the Shimao stepped hill city, see earlier show note.
I left out a discussion of the Temple of Heaven and the annual sacrifice from this episode. I talked about it earlier in Episode 8 (and see the show note there). For clarity, the annual sacrifice predates by thousands of years the Temple of Heaven complex that was only built during the Ming Dynasty. For ancient reference to the sacrifice, see pg. 34 here that refers to the emperor Shun making an offering (with extended explanation in the footnote to that page). Shun’s life is dated to around the 23rd century BC (though that date is unproven). This record comes from the Shujing dated back to at least 300s BC (for the “Shoo King” and “Shujing” being the same book, compare descriptions here and on the page here. While the Temple of Heaven complex in Beijing might be comparatively recent, pg. 113 in Thong, C. K., Fu, C.L. (2007) Faith of our Fathers: Finding God in Ancient China. Campus Crusade Asia Ltd. Imprint Edition shows an image of an older altar from the same location as the tomb of the first emperor (discussed earlier) that is currently under restoration. In that same book, on pg. 176, it states that the emperor was supposed to kill the sacrificial animal, but between 200 and 700 BC it switched to someone else doing that for him. For that change, the book references the “Record or Rites” with dating back to 500 BC, though modified 400 years later according to article here. The comment on pg. 328 here suggests an alternative, claiming that originally the emperor cultivated a certain section of ground as a ceremony back around 2700 BC and only later started doing sacrifices at the altar instead, though if that is true, the timeline disagrees with Genesis as it has the emperor cultivating ground before the Flood. While it is my speculation, it is interesting to think that the annual sacrifice referenced in the ancient documents might have been a memory of Noah’s offering after leaving the ark.
The god Shang Di (spelled variously with “Ti,” “Di,” or “Te” which I believe all refer to the same being and for which I use “Di” to be consistent) is a possible memory of the God of Genesis based on a discussion on pgs. 24-33 here and pg. 34 here by the same author, though that can be taken as nothing more than that scholar’s opinion. Other references to Shang Di come up on pg. 52 here where it claims that there isn’t a clear story of creation in China, though there is a suggestion that Shang Di has infinite power and is the “Great Ruler” of the universe. It also mentions that “Heaven” is another name for the same being, an idea also noted on pgs. 81-84 in Thong, C. K., Fu, C.L. (2007) Faith of our Fathers: Finding God in Ancient China. Campus Crusade Asia Ltd. Imprint Edition. Elsewhere, in footnote 3 on pg. 79 of the book mentioned above, it claims the symbols for Shang Di and the title of the Shang dynasty are different making it evident that Shang Di is not just an ancestor of the Shang rulers. There is also some material on pg. 46 here and a description of Shang Di in on pgs. 16-22 here with special summary on pg. 20 which notes the parallels between the supreme God in China — spelled “Chang ti” — and the God of Christianity as I understand the context). That book is dated to 1741, so it is not the best source for up-to-date scholarship, but it does show that there is a long history of belief that Shang Di paralleled the God of Genesis. The comment on pgs. 108-109 here suggests that while Shang Di was originally a supreme god, the bias of Confucian scholars minimized his significance. With the parallels, it is plausible to me that Shang Di was a memory of the God of Genesis by the people who settled in China and passed on stories to their children. Even so, many problems still crept into their religion. Beyond the oracle bone communication with their ancestors, the Shang also sacrificed humans when certain buildings were constructed as mentioned on pgs. 23-24 here.
Update 4/12/24: Corrected shownote to say "sister" instead of "wife" in one instance.
Update 9/3/24: Updated formatting of a citation in a shownote.