Feb., 1912. Jade. 71 



recorded history will make us believe, for it is not only traditions them- 

 selves which in the course of time change and deteriorate, but above 

 all their interpretations and constant re-interpretations in the mind 

 of man. A custom, e. g., may survive at the present time and be 

 practised in exactly the same or a similar manner as thousands of years 

 ago; but another reason for it may be given, another significance 

 attributed to it by modern man. And these explanations of customs, 

 of rites, of traditions, have possibly nothing to do with the objective 

 development of the matter in the world of reality. They are certainly 

 important, but more as folklore or psychological material, while their 

 historical value is small and only relative in that they may be apt to 

 furnish the clue to the correct scientific explanation. Applied to the 

 case under consideration, this means: Kuan-tse's argumentation is 

 certainly interesting as characterizing the intellectual sphere of the 

 man, the trend of his thoughts, and his manner of reasoning, and as 

 furnishing a good example of this mode of Chinese philosophizing; 

 but to make use of it as the foundation of far-reaching conclusions 

 regarding the existence of certain cultural periods is, in my estimation 

 at least, out of the question. 1 Such conclusions must be reached 

 by other methods. 



In weighing the records of the Chinese in the balance of our critique, 

 we are, above all, confronted with the fact that, throughout Chinese 

 literature, there is not one single instance on record in which the Chinese 

 would admit that stone implements like arrow-heads, knives or hatchets 

 have ever been made and used by them in ancient times. In attempt- 

 ing to account for the occasional finds of stone implements, the mere 

 thought that these might have originated from their forefathers, did 

 not even enter their minds. They were strange to them and looked 

 upon with superstitious awe. As far as Chinese history can be tiaced 

 back, we find the Chinese as a nation familiar and fully equipped with 

 metals, copper or bronze, or — copper and bronze, the beating and 



1 The same holds good for the culture-periods established by Hirth in his paper 

 Chinesische Ansichten uber Bronzetrommeln, pp. 18-19, on the ground of a passage 

 in the Yiieh tsiieh shu compiled in 52 a. d. and possibly containing views attributable 

 to the fifth century B. c. Also here no historical source is involved from which 

 inferences could be drawn in regard to historical events, but only the theorizing 

 opinion of a philosopher couched in the style of a biblical sermon. According to 

 him, in oldest times, weapons were made of stone to cleave timber for making 

 palaces and houses; the dead were buried by dragons, for God the Lord had so in- 

 tended; up to the time of Huang- ti, weapons were made of jade to fell trees for build- 

 ing houses, and to bore into the soil, for jade was also a divine substance; and as the 

 Lord still intended so, the dead were buried by dragons. In the same stilted lan- 

 guage, with reference to Providence, bronze and iron are treated to conclude the 

 evolutionary series. For lack of all palpable sources, this philosopher was, of course, 

 entirely ignorant of any facts relating to the periods of which he speaks. His utter- 

 ances are philosophy of history, not history. 



