Talk:Suanpan

Origins and the Roman abacus

Its similarity to the Roman abacus suggests that that was the ultimate source, and this was very possible, since there were direct trade relations between the classical world and China, and Mongol traders along the Silk Route were a bridge between East and West. It could even have been introduced by the Roman soldiers captured by the Persians and sold to the Chinese emperor as engineers. Most were later ransomed, but many found China much to their liking.

This connection is way too far-fetched in my opinion for several reasons:

• There are more dissimilarities than similarities.
• Roman uses removable beads
• Chinese uses sliding beads
• Roman abacus uses 1-plus-4 beads to represent decimal numbers
• Chinese abacus uses 2-plus-5 beads to represent either decimal or hexadecimal numbers
• Roman used the abacus purely as a counting tool.
• Chinese used it as a calculating device by developing advanced computation techniques to do multiplication, divison, square root and cubic root on the abacus.

Such claim needs more evidence than just pure speculations. Kowloonese 01:14, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is not pure speculation. Claiming the Mayans were influenced by the Egyptians solely because of a similarity of large buildings that exist in both civilization is an example of PURE speculation. There was no opportunity for the two cultures to come into contact.

The Roman abacus dates back to at least 100 BCE.

The well-known version of the Chinese abacus, the Suan Pan, emerged in the 13th century, when most of the cultures in the world were using the 10-digit positional notation system which, almost one thousand years earlier, the Romans lacked.

The Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368) was when the Mongols rule China. It was a period of cultural enlightenment. The Mongols replaced the Han Chinese bureaucrats and all important central and regional posts within China were monopolized by Mongols, who also preferred employing non-Chinese from other parts of the Mongol domain--Central Asia, the Middle East, and even Europe to fill positions for which no Mongol could be found. Scientic education, literacy, and public works florished under Mongols. It was in this melting pot of cultures and enlightenment, that the Suan Pan leaped into existance as a fully formed two-deck abacus in the 13th century.

Admittedly, as far back at 190 CE, there were references to abaci in China. It was mentioned in a book of the Eastern Han Dynasty, namely Supplementary Notes on the Art of Figures written by Xu Yue in that year. Of course, this was at the height of the Roman Empire. In addition to trading via the Mongols along the Silk Road, there is proof of direct contact between the cultures. Hou Hanshu (History of the Later Han) recounts that a Roman convoy set out by emperor Antoninus Pius reached the Chinese capital Luoyang in 166 CE and was greeted by Emperor Huan.

Chinese Trade in the Tang Dynasty (618-907) along the Indian Ocean and the Middle East would have provided direct contact with India and Islam allowing them to accquire the concept of Zero and the decimal point from Indian and Islamic merchants and mathematicians.

Another reference to an abacus in China occurred at the latest during the Song Dynasty (960-1297), when Zhang Zeduan painted his Riverside Scenes at Qingming Festival. In this famous long scroll, an abacus is clearly seen lying beside an account book and doctor's prescriptions on the counter of an apothecary's (Feibao). Worthy of note is the increased Mongol influences as Song Dynasty collapsed under Mongol incursions.

By the 13th century, the Chinese numeral system is a fully expressed 10-digit system with positional notation, so it is not unreasonable to expect the Chinese to have developed computing techniques for the abacus that are readily expressed as algorisms under a positional notation system.

Any form of advanced arithmetic is extremely difficult using Roman numerals which lacked the Zero and positional notation. Before an arithmetic operation could be transfered to an abacus, someone had to develop the algorism for the operation. The complexity of multiplication and division under Roman arithmetic did not mean they were limited to only counting on an abacus. The limitation of the advanced arithmetic operations is a function of limitations of the Roman numeral system and not their abaci.

The adaption of the Roman abacus to the needs of the Chinese numeral system could be the cause of the mutation from 1/4 to 2/5 beads. I have found no evidence for or against early Chinese abaci having other than the 2/5 configuration. If a Roman abacus was presented to the Han Emperor in 166 CE, (no doubt the staff and merchants whom accompanied the envoy would have had abaci as well) then the intervening centuries were sufficently long enough for the Chinese to make the abacus their 'own' by adapting to their needs.

Furthermore, I did find an obscure reference that there was a Roman abacus with 2/5 configuration, but I am not sure if the author was correct. The author of the article cites K. Menninger, Number Words and Number Symbols (New York: Dover, 1992) as the source.

Note that the text of the article did not assert the connection was proven. However, I believe that there is more than enough evidence to suggest such a connection and that such a connection is not pure speculation as you claim. If more evidence presents itself, I am sure references will be cited and proofs offered.

--Denise Norris 13:39, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

I am not convinced despite everything you quoted here. There were many similar inventions in Chinese and Western culture that were proven to be developed independently. Almost all cultures around the world figured out what a year and a month is because they all looked at the same sky, not because they made contact and shared notes. Almost all cultures around the world figured out how to count in ten. Not because the cultures had contact with each other, it was because human beings have the common physiology, the ten fingers. The 1/4 bead counting came naturally when people used one hand to count while the other hand was busy sorting things. People count in ten because of ten fingers in two hands, people modified it into 1/4 counting because one hand got busy and then they figured out that they can count using the thumb to represent 5 and the fingers to represents ones. The abacus could very well be a natural extention to finger counting. Chinese and Roman could easily come up with the same idea independently.

You could believe Mayan and Egyptian could came up with large buildings independently because you couldn't find any evidence that the two cultures made contact. What if the evidence show up tomorrow, will you then claim Mayan and Egyptian learned their building technique from each others? Substitute buildings with abaci, then the same argument becomes very weak. Proving Chinese and Roman had contact does not prove their abaci are related.

In my opinion, the 1/4 and 2/5 design of the abaci were developed independently. And Chinese stuck with the same design all along because they used it for both decimal and hexadecimal calculation. The Japanese adopted the Chinese abacus, but they didn't use them for hexadecimal calculation, and they removed the two redundent beads and resulted to a design very similar to the Roman abacus.

Another example is the weighing unit in China and the Imperial weighing unit from England. Chinese had one jin for 16 liang while the English had one pound for 16 ounces. You can argue they learned from each other because they made contact and the hexadecimal approaches are strikingly similar. However, when you understand the 16 based unit were natural result from using a beam balance scale to make division. For example, you spit one pound of your grains into two piles until the scale balances on both side, you repeat it 4 times and you get an ounce. The Chinese did the same with their grain to come up with the similar 16 base units. Whether the two cultures made contact or not is irrelevant.

Unless you have found literature that explained the origin of the abaci, the claim in the article is baseless and should be removed. Kowloonese 07:59, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I wonder how Needham treated this controversy. I wish I were back in Montreal, I would have access to his publications right away. AlainV 06:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am working on getting the sources from the various authors as well as starting orginal research were opportunity exists. I believe it is unlikely that a definitive answer will emerge. --Denise Norris 12:07, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

The claim of a Roman origin is mere speculation. If it does not stand on fairly firm ground, it should be removed. Shorne 01:03, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the current wording of the text was acceptable to all. If you have specific suggestions to resolve a perceived NPOV issues, please feel free to discuss them here.

--Denise Norris 16:46, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

You knew my opinion from the start. Since wikipedia is a collaboration, my opinion only count for one vote. I still think the Roman connection is extremely weak. Though it does not hurt to include the possiblity in the article, but in my opinion it is so unlikely that the inclusion is irrelevant. I don't really like the current wording personally, because it sounded like the Roman connection was more likely than the independent development theory. I'd prefer the two emphasis swapped around instead. Kowloonese 17:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the article as written gives too much weight to the dubious claim of a Roman origin. That position comes across as stronger than it is. Shorne 18:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)