Which is older: Ayurveda or Traditional Chinese Medicine?

In a Shanghai TCM clinic, an elderly pharmacist weighs astragalus root on a copper scale; in a traditional New Delhi practice, an Ayurvedic physician stirs triphala powder (myrobalan, amla, and chebulic myrobalan) into warm milk. These two healing traditions, spanning millennia, are gaining increasing global attention in the age of globalization. Yet a common question arises: Which is older—Ayurveda or Traditional Chinese Medicine? As a Western scholar researching global traditional medicine, I seek clues within the folds of history.

I. The Timeline in Texts: Who Left Written Traces First?

If we use the earliest extant systematic texts as a benchmark, Ayurveda appears to hold the advantage.

India's oldest religious text, the Rigveda (c. 1500–1000 BCE), already contains scattered accounts of using herbs and incantations to treat illnesses; while the more direct medical classic, the Atharvaveda (c. 1000 BCE), explicitly compiled over 700 healing mantras and herbal formulas, regarded as the prototype of Ayurveda. By the 1st-2nd centuries CE, the emergence of two monumental works—the Sushruta Samhita and the Charaka Samhita—marked the maturation of the Ayurvedic system. The former specialized in surgery, while the latter systematically expounded physiological, pathological, and therapeutic principles, establishing a highly refined theoretical framework centered on the three humors (Vata, Pitta, Kapha).

In contrast, the written documentation of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) appears somewhat “late-blooming.” While Neolithic archaeological finds (such as the stone needles unearthed at the Tianshuoshan site in Zhejiang, dating to around 5000 BCE) suggest early medical practices, a systematic medical theory only took shape during the Warring States to Western Han periods (approximately 475–25 BCE) with the emergence of the Huangdi Neijing (The Yellow Emperor's Inner Canon). This text, attributed to the “Yellow Emperor,” was not the work of a single author or era but rather a compilation of medical knowledge from the pre-Qin to Han dynasties, establishing core theories such as Yin-Yang, the Five Elements, and the viscera-meridian system. In other words, while TCM practices may predate written records, its systematic theoretical framework emerged later than Ayurveda's period of maturity.

II. Archaeology and Oral Traditions: The “Prehistory” Concealed by Writing

Beyond textual constraints, the picture grows complex. Both civilizations possessed profound oral traditions, with knowledge transmitted orally for centuries or millennia before written records emerged.

Archaeological sites of the Indus Valley Civilization (c. 3300–1300 BCE) yielded abundant remains of medicinal plants (e.g., turmeric, black pepper) and stone tools potentially used for acupuncture. Scholars speculate these may relate to early Ayurvedic practices, though such interpretations remain inconclusive without textual corroboration.

In China, residue analysis of pottery from the Jiahu site in Henan (c. 7000–5000 BCE) indicates that people at the time were already preparing beverages using Chinese medicinal herbs (such as hawthorn and goji berries). The medical text Fifty-Two Prescriptions for Diseases, unearthed from the Mawangdui Han Tombs (2nd century BCE), predates the Huangdi Neijing and documents treatments for 52 disease categories involving over 280 medicinal substances. These discoveries trace the reliable origins of Chinese medical practice back to the late Neolithic period. However, similarly to Ayurveda, these represent fragmented technical elements rather than a cohesive philosophical system and methodology.

III. Cultural Differences in Perception: Diverse Definitions of “Ancient”

The interpretation of “ancient” may also depend on cultural perspectives.

In India, Ayurveda is known as the “Science of Life” (Ayur-Veda, where ‘Ayur’ means life and “Veda” means knowledge). Its roots trace back to the core of Vedic civilization—a worldview deeply intertwined with religion and philosophy. For Indians, this “ancient” quality transcends mere chronology; it embodies an unbroken lineage of civilizational DNA. From the myths of the Rigveda to today's village herbal stalls, Ayurveda remains an integral part of daily life.

In China, the “ancient” nature of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is more closely tied to “transmission.” Though compiled later, the Huangdi Neijing established an open system capable of integrating successive generations of experience—from Zhang Zhongjing's Treatise on Cold Damage and Miscellaneous Diseases to Li Dongyuan's theories on the spleen and stomach. TCM continually absorbed new practices while maintaining the continuity of its theoretical core. For the Chinese, this “ancient” quality represents a dynamic continuity rather than a static “first.”

Conclusion: Antiquity is a shared human heritage

Returning to the core question: Which is older, Ayurveda or Traditional Chinese Medicine? If judged by systematic documentation, Ayurveda's mature system predates the Huangdi Neijing. If judged by the origins of practice, both may trace back to the late Neolithic era, making it difficult to declare a clear winner.

What matters more is that both represent humanity's wisdom in confronting illness, pursuing the same fundamental question: How can we live in harmony with nature and our bodies? When comparing “which is older,” we should recognize that both are living traditions. Their ‘antiquity’ has never become a shackle; instead, illuminated by modern science, they continually radiate new vitality. After all, for humanity, the wisdom of healing—the older it is, the more “youthful” it may become.

Document dated 2025-11-05 10:15 Modify