Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fairnesscounts (talk | contribs) at 19:34, 16 August 2022 (→Establishment year 1555/1554 BC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China: History Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as Top-importance). Former countries (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries East Asia (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q:Why doesn't the article give details on how and when Shang writing was developed? A:Although many examples of developed Shang writing have been found, archaeological evidence of how their writing system evolved is still lacking. Q:Why are two different Chinese characters used for "dynasty" in the article? A:The character 朝 is usually read as "dynasty" and 代 is usually read as "period." Since historical periods in China and elsewhere are often named after the ruling dynasty, the two words can be used interchangeably in this context. Q:Why are multiple dates of establishment given? A:Because the Shang were so ancient, all dates come from either classical historians or modern archaeology and scholarship. These sources often differ, and they all have advantages and disadvantages. Instead of insisting on only using one source and arguing over which should be used, a few sources and their dates are mentioned at the beginning of the article Q:Why are the Shang called the "first civilization in Chinese history?" A:While there is some archaeological evidence for the existence of the earlier Xia dynasty, written records documenting an era are required for that era to be "historical." The Shang oracle bones are the earliest known written records in Chinese history. Therefore, earlier cultures and even the Shang prior to the use of writing are part of Chinese "prehistory." Q:The article says that the geographical extent of the Shang is uncertain so how did the shape of the map come about? A:The current map is a vector image based on an earlier raster image, which consisted of multiple, disconnected regions and dots. These regions corresponded to archaeological sites that suggest some connection to the Shang dynasty, which is itself a controversial topic. The current map draws a more intuitive boundary line around these sites, but this line does not represent a certain political or military border. It is a rough approximation to the region under Shang influence based on ties to the culture at Yin.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Meaning of name

According to using Google's translater to translate characters one at a time, "Shang Dynasty" (Chinese: 商朝) means "business dynasty" and "Yin Dynasty" (殷代) means "flourishing period", Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, but that's not helpful at all. Modern use of the characters ≠ original senses. In fact, the Shang refugees in the Luo Valley became proverbial for their business acumen and may have been the source for that sense of the character; it doesn't mean that's what their dynasty was named after. Similarly, Yin (now Yinxu) was the name of their last capital; its name may have derived from some sense of "flourishing" but it wouldn't mean the dynasty itself was.

On the other hand, if you can find some scholarly articles or books discussing the names' etymologies, that would be more than welcome. — LlywelynII 11:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Date of oracle bone inscriptions

I have doubts about the claim "Oracle bone inscriptions are thought to date at least to Pán Gēng's era." Every source I've seen dates them from the reign of Wu Ding. Kanguole 17:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Confucius descended from Shang kings

I'm referring to this edit . Legend should be clearly distinguised from fact (Info from Confucius life having undergone significant revision over time). Info that is not established should state from where it is derived from; "according to whom?". Many of the authors doesn't even state it as fact, but write that "it is said that...". Some even say that it is fabricated/constructed. This excessive quoting is also major wp:copyvio. I also don't see how this piece of info is relevant to this topic and--if anything--should be properly worked into the Confucius article at best (also brought up at the talkpage at that article). This should plainly be removed. --Cold Season (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I have kept quoting from copyrighted sources to a minimum. Most are one or a few sentences. If that is considered copyvio then remove it. But the page long quotes are from copyright free sources whose copyrights expired 100 years ago. That is not copyvio.

Second, it is a fact that Confucius is descended from Shang kings, look at the sources here Family_tree_of_Confucius_in_the_main_line_of_descent#References.

then look at the family tree. Family tree of Confucius in the main line of descent. Are those kings I see on the tree part of my imagination?Greengrenous (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Also look at chinese wikipedia -

孔子世家大宗世系 (Ancestors and descendants of Confucius. Shang dynasty kings are included. As is their ancestry up to Huangdi himself. If anything is legendary it is the descent from Huangdi and not from shang dynasty kings)

弗父何

宋国君主世系图 Confucius is on this family tree of Song dukes who were descended from the Shang Kings.Greengrenous (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at --Cold Season (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It is completely out of proportion to add tens of thousands of bytes of references to support just two sentences of article text, and makes the article unmanagable. Please don't do that. You need to select the few best references (i.e. recent academic works), and you don't need to quote them. Kanguole 22:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw other people add tens of thousands of bytes but whatever. some of the non academic text were translations of chinese text (book of odes) so they are of some value. I will stop using them here.Greengrenous (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

SVO word order

How is SVO word order relevant to the archaeology of the Shang? Tai and Miao–Yao are SVO, but so is Chinese at all periods with minor exceptions. What's the point? Kanguole 13:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I would add another section but I don't know how to do that. The linguistics of Shang is a very high profile subject and I was interested in sharing it within the part that stated "inscriptions". If you read the source I gave, The Origins of Sinitic, it shows the transition of SVO even after Tibeto-Burman SOV (subject-object-verb) overtook the speech of the elites. And yet Chinese reverted to SVO. That is the significance. The reversion to the state in which it had been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmohhaach (talk • contribs) 13:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, this is just Delancey's view, not something we can state as fact. There is little evidence that Chinese was SOV at any point in the historical period. Delancey cites not verbs after objects but relative clauses before nouns, a feature that often correlates with SOV but is still present in the modern Chinese languages, all solidly SVO. His suggestion, following Benedict and Nishida, that the Shang spoke a non-Sino-Tibetan language is very much a minority opinion, even fringe. Besides, he doesn't mention Shang bronzes at all. Kanguole 14:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Kanguole. Delancey's view is just hypothesis not really a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomcaws (talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Move request to decapitalize all Chinese dynasty articles

There's a move request to decapitalize "dynasty" in the Chinese dynasty articles, as in Han Dynasty → Han dynasty. For more information and to give your input, see . --Cold Season (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Source on Shang religion

Title Early Chinese Religion: Part One: Shang Through Han (1250 BC-220 AD) (2 Vols) Early Chinese Religion Editors John Lagerwey, Marc Kalinowski Publisher BRILL, 2008 ISBN 9004168354, 9789004168350

http://books.google.com/books?id=Idhyr1hqS0kC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Language

I have reverted the Language sections, based on DeLancey, from this article and Zhou dynasty, because this is very much a minority view, and not held by anyone who works with oracle bone inscriptions. Kanguole 20:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an absence of any Linguistic data on the Shang or Zhou on Misplaced Pages. If it is a minority view we should just add the majority view instead of sweeping it under the rug. --Easy772 (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It isn't fair to call a new development in a field a "minority view" when the book was only published in December of 2013. Also it is written by respected academics not fringe theorists. Why should it be censored? --Easy772 (talk) 07:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

DeLancey specializes in Tibeto-Burman languages, not Sinitic languages, and not Sino-Tibetan languages in general. From his theory I see he appears to making up his own opinion about Tibeto Burman origins of the Zhou language and claiming it got mixed with some non-Sinitic Shang language. He has not worked with or studied the Shang dynasty Oracle bones themselves. Other linguists who actually specialize in Sinitic languages have looked at the Oracle Bones and concluded they were Sinitic. Would you consult a linguist who specializes only in Germanic languages about Iranian languages?Rajmaan (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

His hypothesis should still be considered valid, and he apparently wasn't alone. If that is the case, why not add those sources rather than opposing research? Admittedly I've only just begun filling in holes in East and Southeast Asian pre-history and history here on Misplaced Pages, but I've already noticed that some horrendous sources (Like blogs) are considered "OK" if people agree with it, but when I post scholarly works, that people seem to dislike the findings of, they get censored. --Easy772 (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A few loanwords from other languages found in the oracle bones are not notable. You going to add the origin of every single loanword in English on the English language article?Rajmaan (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Some of the most commonly used graphemes on the bones, in addition to the Chinese time-cyle "Twelve earthly branches and ten heavenly stems." Apparently used since the beginning of Chinese history. I don't get what the big deal is. English, since you brought it up, is largely made up of loanwords from Latin, German languages for example. This shows in it's history (France) and prehistory (Germanic tribes) undoubtedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easy772 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We should not be trying to interpret original research on contentious issues. We should be relying on secondary sources that review and evaluate that research. Any survey of the secondary literature will confirm that the consensus view is that the language of the oracle bones is Old Chinese. The suggestion of Benedict and Nishida is not supported by anyone in the field.

Your latest addition exemplifies the issue by misrepresenting Norman. He argued that six words that date from the oracle bones, but are still in modern Chinese, were borrowed from an Austroasiatic language. Neither Norman for the author of the article citing him are arguing that the language of the oracle bones was Austroasiatic – they are arguing that these loans show that Austroasiatic speakers were formerly so far north that they were in contact with the Chinese. Norman's own view is clear in his Chinese in the Cambridge Language Surveys series – like everyone else in the field he says that the oracle bone script records Old Chinese. Kanguole 22:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. I quoted directly because it seems like people are more unhappy with what the latest discoveries and archaeology are saying about the Shang Dynasty rather than the actual content. It says in the source that there was definitely an Austro-Asiatic element to the Shang, which I was getting around to directly quoting. These are not "quack or fringe theories" I am posting, these are respected Linguists on the cutting edge. I am going to ask for moderator arbitration because I think these new discoveries are being censored. --Easy772 (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'moderator arbitration' on Misplaced Pages. There are no 'moderators', and admins don't rule on content disputes. I suggest that between you, you seek outside input using one of the methods described in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. I would also advise you to stop edit-warring over content, before one or more of you gets blocked under WP:3RR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages should reflect academic consensus, not "cutting edge", unproven hypotheses. And academic consensus is unequivocal: "it is clear that the language in which they are written is directly ancestral to what we know as 'Chinese' in both a classical and a modern context." (Chapter 2: Language and Writing, in The Cambridge History of Ancient China, p. 75). -Zanhe (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. I will follow the steps up until "Formal Mediation". --Easy772 (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

So let's start with compromise. If the consensus in the field is that it is Old Chinese then we should post that, but we should realize that there are new discoveries all of the time. We should post both sides, I often see Misplaced Pages articles which break down the different positions of both for readers not keep them in the dark or just omit the information all together. I did not mean to misrepresent Norman to mean that he said Shang language was Austro-Asiatic but he did state it likely had an Austro-Asiatic substrate. All of the new evidence is pointing to a complex process with multiple origins in the formation of early China. Are you willing to post both sides? Are there any disagreements to these new research papers or books that I've missed?

I would also like to add that under the Misplaced Pages "Identifying reliable sources" policy, significant majority and minority views should both be covered. It is definitely a position that has a significant amount of supporters even if it is a minority position. Also " Stated simply, any statement in Misplaced Pages that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." So let's make this language section happen. --Easy772 (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC) --Easy772 (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see some sources here for the "cutting-edge" linguists, please. DeLancey's "creole" is not being represented correctly. His recent work suggests grammatical convergence during the Zhou, not the Shang. Benedict stated the Shang might be non-Sinitic-speaking in 1972 and NIshida in 1976 but that's a million years ago in linguistic studies and both have been very strongly criticised for scholarly failings by Scott Delancey in his 2013 paper... in other words, while Delancey might suggest the Shang might not have spoken Sinitic, he didn't do so for the same reasons Nishida or Benedict did. The argument seems to be: Sinitic is different than Tibeto-Burman; Sinitic has areal grammatical structure, therefore Sinitic is a creole. Then they each look for a way to explain how this creole appeared. Delancey is the only one to actually explore the issues and problems with this situation in any depth. So what other work is present? This is an encyclopedia, not a linguistics conference: we need to present readers with some level of vetted material, and if this work is truly so new that no one has responded, then frankly it doesn't belong in the article. Ogress _smash! 07:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• There is a methodological error here. This page deals with the Shang Dynasty. The page from which material is being removed, based on a veryt primitive exchange of opinions here, concerns the Zhou Dynasty. I assume the removalist premise is in propositional terms:'Shang and Zhou are Chinese dynasties therefore what applies to the former, also applies to the latter. The assumption is, continuity, ethnic and linguistic.'

Questionable objections.

• User:Rajmaan 'DeLancey specializes in Tibeto-Burman languages, not Sinitic languages, and not Sino-Tibetan languages in general.'

This means you are unfamiliar with the topic, since the Tibetan-Burman, Tibetan-Sinitic categories themselves are contested as accurate taxonomic divisions.

• User:Kanguole’ Any survey of the secondary literature will confirm that the consensus view is that the language of the oracle bones is Old Chinese. The suggestion of Benedict and Nishida is not supported by anyone in the field.'

That the language of the oracle bones is 'Old Chinese' is not the point. The point is, what was that 'Old Chinese'. De Lancey favours a Mischsprache approach, which is not rare. Christopher Beckwith even argued Prot I.E+Non IE. it was a composite with Proto Indo-European elements.

• User:Zanhe 'Misplaced Pages should reflect academic consensus, not "cutting edge", unproven hypotheses. And academic consensus is unequivocal: "it is clear that the language in which they are written is directly ancestral to what we know as 'Chinese' in both a classical and a modern context."

Misplaced Pages nowhere 'reflects academic consensus' as a guiding rule. It emphasizes, where views differ WP:Due that we factor in all relevant (specialist) views per relative weight, unless we are dealing with WP:Fringe, which is not the case here. It asks that, optimally, we use academic resources. Most articles could not be written if 'academic consensus' were the guideline, since academics in historical areas are not concerned with 'consensus' but with developing hypotheses based on ascertaining facts, which, in antiquity, and prehistory, are few and far between. Again, it is stating the obvious that Oracle Bones are ancestral to modern Chinese. That is not the issue on the Zhou page.

• user:Kanguole.'We should not be trying to interpret original research on contentious issues. We should be relying on secondary sources that review and evaluate that research. What a ranking linguist argues is not 'original search' in the wikisense.

Editors may not do, 'original research': academics if they are worth their salt do nothing but original research. Prehistory is intrinsically contentious. It is all hypothesis. DeLancey's work is frerquently mentioned in the secondary literature (i.e. Zhuo Jing-Schmidt ‘Introduction’ in Zhuo Jing-Schmidt (ed)Increased Empiricism: Recent advances in Chinese Linguistics, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2013 pp.1-21 p.ix., more or less sums up what I said in my edit, for example)

• User:Ogress (a) Delancey might suggest the Shang might not have spoken Sinitic, he didn't do so for the same reasons Nishida or Benedict did.(b) This is an encyclopedia, not a linguistics conference: we need to present readers with some level of vetted material, and if this work is truly so new that no one has responded, then frankly it doesn't belong in the article

No one has cited any academic source saying DeLancey's views are fringe/ DeLancey's views are incompetent forays outside his field/that DeLancey's views are 'truly new'. All I can see here is a certain nervousness with one editor, on this Shang Dynasty page, which has struck by contagion at the Zhou page, and comments that are not focused on policy and practice. It's hard to me to include User:Kanguole here in this, because I have always found him accurate, amenable, and I hope he doesn't take my slight exasperation here the wrong way.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 07:45, 9 June 2015‎ (UTC)Nishidani (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise on my "tone" if you think I am not presenting the information correctly. Regardless, they both seem to think it to be a non-Sinitic language and there are a few more that think it's "likely" at least: Link

Or can see that the that the formation of Chinese is a complicated blending process, rather than a uniform, straight-line development. Link (I would love to access these source material as well once I have time)

Regarding that sort of single-line continuity, it's seeming like it's not quite that simple. I'd actually say the majority of scholars nowadays think that the formation was a more complex process: Link You can see in this work that the author is skeptical of that type of Shang to Zhou continuity. (page 231)

Link And this article does a good job of explaining why a single-line is unlikely.

I am simply trying to convey these messages in an objective, neutral manner and I'd welcome help doing so. I apologize if I came off biased, but even minority opinions should be shown under the neutral tone policy.--Easy772 (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither Bagley (in CHOAC) nor Rawson (in THES) say anything to suggest that the language of the oracle bone script was not Chinese. You need to stop tying to cobble together primary sources and oblique references in support of a thesis, and instead use secondary sources that address the matter directly, such as Boltz's language chapter in the Cambridge History of Ancient China, Norman's Chinese, Qiu Xigui's Chinese Writing, Baxter and Sagart's Old Chinese and Keightley's Sources of Shang History. The consensus view is very clear. As Ogress says, it is not Misplaced Pages's role to promote new hypotheses (or new variants of old hypotheses) that have not achieved any traction in the field. Kanguole 10:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in --Easy772's edits or position, whatever it is. I saw carelessness in one of his edits, which reduplicated the same material, consisted of a quote, and showed no familiarity with the topic. I rewrote it. My edit was removed because, apparently, it was seen to support Easy's position, which is untenable. This discussion is about linguistic evidence relative to Shang. My edit regarded linguistic evidence or hypothesis regarding the Zhou. It is quite improper to confuse the two.Nishidani (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Easy772 added identical text to both articles. You cleaned up the version in Zhou dynasty and then got caught in the crossfire, so your annoyance is understandable. But I don't think the text was fixable. Even with your corrections it still gave undue weight to very marginal claims about both the Shang and Zhou languages.

I don't think it's fair to require a source refuting DeLancey's hypothesis. Lots of ideas get published, and most of the less useful/wrong ones don't get debunked, they just sink without trace. (However I can find sources saying the Benedict/Nishida idea is untenable because of the continuity between the oracle bone and Zhou languages, e.g. Bodman and Jacques.) What we're looking for is other authors accepting and/or developing the hypothesis. The mention by Zhuo Jing-Schmidt doesn't really count, because that is the introduction to the book in which DeLancey's article appears, and it introduces all the chapters. Kanguole 14:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks (also for the Jacques link). For the moment, I made my edit after reading the Zhou Dynasty page. Note that above it has a 1980 quote from Bodman, which is nuanced seems, but transformed into a statement of known facts, whereas it is a majority position, not a fact:

The Zhou is known to have spoken more or less the same language as the Shang and were their cultural successors. At the same time, the Zhou may also have been connected to the Xirong, a broadly defined cultural group to the west of the Shang, which the Shang regarded as tributaries. According to the historian Li Feng, the term "Rong" during the Western Zhou period was likely used to designate political and military adversaries rather than cultural and ethnic 'others

Bodman (1980), p. 41: "Moreover, Shang dynasty Chinese at least in its syntax and lexicon seems not to differ basically from that of the Zhou dynasty whose language is amply attested in inscriptions on bronze vessels and which was transmitted in the early classical literature."

Li Feng (2006), p.288. 'At the same time, the Zhou may also have been connected to the Xirong, a broadly defined cultural group to the west of the Shang, which the Shang regarded as tributaries. According to the historian Li Feng, the term "Rong" during the Western Zhou period was likely used to designate political and military adversaries rather than cultural and ethnic 'others.'

The Li Feng paraphrase fails verification (p.288), but elsewhere (p.343)he says that Xirong and Quanrong are used interchangeably but that "Rong" was not restricted to the Xianyun or Quanrong and could be used for other hostile societies beyond the frontiers of the Western state'. In any case, it's just one scholar's view. Laurent Sagart in his book hazards that "Rong" were probably Tibetan-Burman speaking (p.8).

So, put a dated Bodman quote, changing its hypothetical "seems not to differ basically" into "is known to have spoken more or less the same language as the Shang', with a selective quote from one (very good) source, which fails verification, but has a much more complex picture, and the drift of the paragraph is that it is a fact that considerations ethnic or linguistic diversity are to be apriori excluded. Possible, but many scholars would disagree (Shu-hui Wu, The Great Migration:Inception of the Zhou identity for instance)

The POV problem I detected here is well-explained by Enfield, an entrenched belief (it may be right) or approach that 'Sinitic' is self-contained, exclusive of germinal difference. My addition to DeLancey aimed first to correct Easy's mess, by getting DeLancey's views correctly paraphrased, and to correct the assertions earlier on, that wrongly affirm there is no dissonance in the one internal linguistic line of descent in the Chinese language. Had editors (a) raised WP:Undue, I think a compromise would have been rapid, by being more concise, or (b) by altering the Bodman/Li Feng patchwork, with a few words nodding towards scholars who disagree, like DeLancey. But certainly, when editors do some homework, read, paraphrase and add matter, and you disagree with it, rather than cancel it from the face of the wikiearth, a moment's thought and courtesy would suggest that one simply lift it out, and find a proper home for it, in this case, on the Scott DeLancey page.

Personally I have no views on the subject. Like Greek, Palestinian/Biblical, Japanese, Roman etc., prehistory I am interested in this instance also in studying the force of national POVs historically in how theories emerge, and what they do not say, and how new paradigms emerge. Greece, to illustrate, was a self-contained IE unit until in the 1960s, scholars like Walter Burkert and Martin West broke with the paradigm and showed how ethnically and linguistically intertwined its originative core myths, rituals and even language were with those of the Asia Minor/Mediterranean world. I don't think the 'truth' can be known. I do think all relevant theories, per due weight, should be mentioned, so that readers get an understanding that the past is a hypothetical construction, not an established narrative. Best Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, Kanguole, if that is the mainstream view that is fine. I am fine adding that there and am glad to include that it is the mainstream view in the language article. However, Misplaced Pages's 'Neutral point of view' clearly states that all significant minority views should be considered. The possibility of Shang being non-Sinitic is clearly a significant minority view. Also, the link to the published journal is also not a primary source. It is a commentary on other research papers. The Zhou having affecting a strong altering effect on the Shang is also probably now the majority view and the direct continuity of language seems to be the fading minority. Regarding those two sources, they were not meant to claim Shang was AA, if you re-read I was addressing the single-line continuity assumption ethnic, linguistic, cultural.

"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." --Easy772 (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"the direct continuity of language seems to be the fading minority" is completely wrong, and suggests a total misreading of the literature. Kanguole 17:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, well the picture is a lot more complex than it was before and less straight-line at the very least. I would examine the primary sources for the commentary on research papers, but apparently that's no good.

Also. While she may not be saying it directly, There is apparently a lot of support by referenced linguists for a non-Sinitic element to Shang language in the text in Zhuo Jing-Schmidt's book. Sagart for example says: "From a typological view, Old Chinese was closer to Gyarong, Khmer or Atyal than to it's daughter language Middle Chinese". (p. 82). If you read starting on page 73 you can see it's clearly contested currently in the field and not some "fringe" theory it's being made out to be. --Easy772 (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No. Sagart is contrasting the Chinese of the Western Zhou with that of the Qieyun over a millennium later, not the Shang-Zhou transition. Kanguole 17:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Your knowledge of linguistics is impressive, but it still doesn't refute the fact that none of my sources are "fringe" or unworthy and should be allowed to be posted, regardless if you agree with my "tone". I am willing to compromise on the "tone" and come to a middle-ground on how to properly state the information from these sources. "Some scholars claim that the language of the Shang was non-Sinitic" seems fair to me for Delancey and Benedict. "Archaeological research has found that the Zhou dynasty and Shang Dynasty have originated differently and their respective languages were different too." is fair for the secondary research here: Analysis of the Origin of Han Culture in Archaeological and Historical Linguistic Perspective

Is this okay with you? --Easy772 (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Archaeology cannot prove what languages were spoken. Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that was probably a bad translation. It's clear that the analysis in the sourced material is also discussing Linguistics seeing as Linguistic papers are included in citations. "Research has found that the Zhou dynasty and Shang Dynasty have originated differently and their respective languages were different too." This is fair now? --Easy772 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope again, unfortunately. 'Research' posits theories almost 99% of the time (I'm thinking of an emendation by Nietzsche, who invented a word to emend a Greek tragedy, -the word did not exist in Greek- it was just an hypothesis. Just as his brainb fizzled out, they dug up Oxyrhynchus, and the hypothetical word was found to exist on a papyrus in an ancient Egyptian paper dump). What the respective languages were, given the nature of the script, will be almost impossible to determine with scientific assurance. In any case, 'originated differently' is meaningless historically.Nishidani (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Kanguole.

What we're looking for is other authors accepting and/or developing the hypothesis.

Jacques writes:

A better integration of conservative Sino-Tibetan languages such as Rgyalrong,Tibetan, Dulong/Rawang and Kiranti in the Sino-Tibetan reconstruction model is likely to solve long-standing problems regarding the word-families and irregular correspondences. Rgyalrong and Kiranti present an important quantity of commoninflexional and derivational morphology (Jacques to appear.b), and since these two groups are considerably divergent lexically and located far away from each other, it is probable that this morphology represents proto-Sino-Tibetan inheritance. In this view, Chinese (and many other ST languages) would have lost its formerly complex verbalsystem; DeLancey (2010) presents an account of how such a drastic change could have taken place.

The appreciative reference is to Scott DeLancey's Language replacement and the spread of Tibeto-Burman. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (2010)3.1:40-55, where DeLancey states precisely the thesis I synthesized. I.e.

Creolization in Sinitic

It is hardly a novel observation to point out that prehistoric and historic language contact have played a large role in the formation of the Chinese languages (see Terrien de la Couperie 1887, Hashimoto 1976a, b, Ballard 1984, La Polla 2001, Ansaldo and Matthews 2001, Blench 2008, inter alia):

The movement of the Chinese has almost never been to an area where there were no people. Splitting of the language by migration almost always involved language contact, either with non-Chinese languages or other Chinese dialects, and very often in government-sponsored migrations there was purposeful mixing of peoples. What we now think of as the Han Chinese have from very early on continually absorbed other peoples into the race. (LaPolla 2001)

Sinitic is typologically a Mainland Southeast Asian family. The dramatic typological divergence, most conspicuously the word order realignment, between Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman reflects a massive reorganization of an originally Tibeto-Burman grammar. This must have been a result of intense contact with Tai and other languages which Sinitic encountered when it migrated eastward into China. The original formation of Chinese resulted through contact between invaders, identified with the Chou dynasty, speaking a SOV Tibeto-Burman-type language, and the indigenous SVO language of the Shang (Benedict 1972, Nishida 1976, see also van Driem 1997, 2008). The substantial vocabulary shared by Sinitic, Tai, and Vietnamese, as well as the astonishing degree of phonological and syntactic convergence among these languages, points to a period of intense contact along and south of the Yangzi (Ballard 1984), involving Blench’s (2009ms) “Southern Yunnan Interaction Sphere”. The morphosyntactic profile which Sinitic shares with Kadai, Hmong-Mien, and the Mon-Khmer languages of Vietnam and Cambodia is strikingly similar to the so-called creole prototype,pp.43-44.

I.e. Jacques takes DeLancey's work as a very serious hypothesis.Nishidani (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Jacques does give it a brief mention, but he has already (bottom of p5) described the non-ST-Shang aspect, which is the point of contention here, as "highly unlikely in view of the continuity between Shang and Zhou Chinese". I take that as a polite way of saying it's completely batty in view of the immense success obtained over the last century by using knowledge of Zhou Chinese to read the oracle bone inscriptions. Kanguole 15:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Jacques is one voice on one linguistic theory, one leg in the necessary quadripodic evidence (genetic, archaeological, linguistic and historical) required to determine the most likely hypotheses. 'The continuity between Shang and Zhou Chinese' is, technically, as often, an unfortunate inept lapsus by a great scholar slipping into neutral because it assumes what is to be proven. 'The ideographic continuity between Shang and Zhou writings' would have avoided the problem. Sumerian cuneiform was adopted to write languages as genetically different as Hittite and Akkadian; Minoan gave Mycenaean Linear B its script; Chinese in turn was, very early on, employed from Korea to Japan to write radically different languages. It is logical to think that the adoption of the Shang script by the Zhou indicates linguistic continuity. It is also logical to consider that since the Zhou were, in later tradition, ethnically heterogeneous, and indeed that their elite regularly procured their wives from the Jiang (姜), that the Zhou might well have spoken a language, (or been bilingual (the maternal language)) that differed from that used by the Shang Court. The word 民 (mín) which so deeply inflected Zhou ideology denominated members of the Zhou clan, whose lineage stems appear to contain rong and jiang tribal members, in the early period, not ‘people’, Chinese or others, generically. As you know, Mencius says the Zhou founder was a Western barbarian (IV B,128: 文王 . -.西夷之人也). That itself can, and has been, interpreted as factual, or as rhetorical. The Mencius’s point of course was that ‘Chineseness’ is not ethnic, but cultural. The identity of Shang/Zhou linguistic identity is a premise, assumption, and can't be proved.

in any case, I don't think, as I outlined, that the text of the Zhou Dynasty article in pushing as facts what are attributable opinions (by distinguished scholars), can be left as it is without the adjustment I suggested, which means DeLancey and other views should also be noted en passant, if the 'majority' view is to be retained. Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't need the other three legs, because we are concerned here with language, as witnessed by recovered inscriptions. Different ethnicity, etc need not imply much difference in language. I cited Bodman and Jacques because they explicitly discussed the Benedict/Nishida hypothesis, but they are far from unusual in holding that the language of the oracle bones is much the same as that of the Zhou bronzes and received texts. I listed several secondary sources for this point above (Boltz, Norman, Qiu, Baxter and Sagart, Keightley). All the standard works treat the oracle bone language as a form of Old Chinese. There is simply no-one who works with the oracle bone inscriptions, from Beijing to Berkeley, who argues against it. They just take it as the framework within which they work. You might call that intellectual laziness, but I'd call it a working hypothesis that has been immensely successful, enabling the inscriptions to be read as coherent texts and yielding an enormous wealth of information about the Shang state. The hypothesis has needed minor adjustment, as people have studied the lexicon and syntax of the language and charted its changes over the centuries, but broadly it has held up well.

It is true that a script can be adapted to a different language, but that leaves massive traces. The Manyoshu is written with Chinese characters, but one needs to know it is in Japanese to read it. But there is nothing like that here: the script has the same syntax, same function words and the phonetic loan characters make sense only for Chinese words.

Regarding your objections to the text in Zhou dynasty#Cultural origins, I will defend only the claim that the language of the dynastic Zhou is generally accepted to be much the same as the language of the Shang oracle bones. Kanguole 00:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll drop this because I get the impression from remarks like 'All the standard works treat the oracle bone language as a form of Old Chinese. There is simply no-one who works with the oracle bone inscriptions, from Beijing to Berkeley, who argues against it,' that we're talking past each other, since I have nowhere stated that oracle bone language is not a form of Old Chinese, but repeatedly stated the problem is, what language lies behind Old Chinese. I see no consensus among the formidable scholars who, from different angles, argue over these complex topics. I see the word consensus constantly being raised about, not Scott Lancey, but some of the scholars he cites. It's not Delancey but Sagart who wrote:'From a typological point of view, Old Chinese was more similar to modern East Asian languages like Gyarong, Khmer or Atayal than to its daughter language Middle Chinese,'(Laurent Sagart, The Roots of Old Chinese, John Benjamins Publishing, 1999 p.13) while Zev Handel is dismissive of a Chinese mainland consensus when he writes: 'Broad Sino-Tibetan theory states that Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman are also related to Tai-Kadai and Hmong Mien, which all form a large Sino-Tibetan family descended from a single ancestor, Most specialists in China subscribe to this form of the thesis. (based on common monosyllabic, tonal, isolating features). However these similarities are more likely due to early contact and borrowing. Vietnamese was once an atonal, non-monosyllabic language, like other members of Mon-Khmer family but became tonal and monosyllabic under the influence of Chinese. p.38. (Zev Handel, 'The Classification of Chinese (Sinitic (The Chinese Language Family),‘ in William S.Y. Wang, Chaofen Sun The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics, Oxford University Press 2015 pp.35-44.p.38) I'll get back to some concrete editing. CheersNishidani (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Old Chinese means Zhou Chinese; that is the period of the documentary evidence from which it is reconstructed. From the start of this discussion, the point of contention has been whether that language and the language of the oracle bones are much the same. Sagart's views on the typology of Old Chinese are orthogonal to that question, because he's talking about the language reconstructed for the Zhou (specifically Western Zhou) period. Kanguole 22:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: The problem with asking "what language is behind Old Chinese" is that such a question brings up an entire host of methodological principles that you have to refer to before asking it. For example, among comparative historical linguists today it is widely believed that there are no "mixed languages". Hence, by stating that "Old Chinese" is the ancestor of "Middle Chinese," which you quoted Sagart for above, you are already acknowledging the Shang language as Sinitic because Sinitic is a genetic language grouping, in which case you're arguing about what substratums Sinitic ultimately displaced. Yet this is very, very different from what Benedict, Nishida, and DeLancey said. Benedict and Nishida made arguments regarding the Shang's language being outside of the Sino-Tibetan family - ie that it was Austro-Asiatic/Hmong-Mien. In that case, the Shang language is not "Old Chinese" in the sense that Sagart spoke about at all, but a separate language that is not genetically ancestral to Middle Chinese, because again, there are no "mixed languages." Not making the distinction between these two ideas causes all sorts of problems and is why linguistics is difficult for Misplaced Pages editors, ultimately, to navigate. Lathdrinor (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Thank you for the additional material. I will have to give those a read. I am drawing a blank on how to properly post the information on Analysis of the Origin of Han Culture in Archaeological and Historical Linguistic Perspective. Does anyone have a suggestion on how to convey the message objectively and in a balanced fashion? How about "Some scholars have found..." ?

"Some scholars posit that Xia Dynasty,Shang Dynasty and Zhou Dynasty originated differently and their respective languages were different as well." --Easy772 (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we're conflating two separate issues here. The Shang language, attested with a rich corpus of oracle bone inscriptions, is considered by most scholars as Sinitic. But Zhou is a very different story. It left few written records before its conquest of Shang and therefore open to interpretation. They came from the far western edge of the China proper and it's known that they intermarried extensively with the Jiang/Qiang people, who were possibly Tibeto-Burman speakers (and Beckwith even thinks they were Indo-European). See Pulleyblank's article. -Zanhe (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd be cautious about Beckwith – see this review in the Journal of Indo-European Studies for example. The reviewer demolishes Beckwith's pronouncements on IE in general, and a claimed role in the origin of Chinese in particular (pp432–3). Kanguole 15:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of Beckwith's reputation. I wouldn't add his claims to articles, only mentioning them for discussion. -Zanhe (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zanhe: I would think from all the evidence so far, that the Zhou language was quite different from that of the Shang. I know that some older evidence seems to point to them speaking the same language or roughly the same language. But, I agree with your statement. Again, I have no problem with the article stating "most scholars consider Shang language to be Sinitic", but to be fair we should post some of the material above as a significant minority, non-fringe opinion.

Also, would you consider this fair regardign the Analysis of the Origin of Han Culture in Archaeological and Historical Linguistic Perspective paper: "Some scholars posit that Xia Dynasty, Shang Dynasty and Zhou Dynasty had different linguistic origins" --Easy772 (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

As a previous commentator on this subject, I've been tapped to comment on it again. My view remains unchanged. Scott DeLancey presented a new *hypothesis* of language change by which the Sinitic language could have come into existence as the result of the Zhou's "Tibeto-Burman tongue" - which is itself not a proven theory - being spoken by Tai-Kradai, Hmong-Mien, etc. native speakers. But he did not actually present any *evidence* that the Shang spoke a "Southeast Asian" language, besides the trivial observation that the Shang language was typologically "Southeast Asian" in its areal affinity - eg it is SVO in syntactic structure as opposed to SOV Tibeto-Burman languages. As Kanguole stated, DeLancey is not an oracle bone scholar and he certainly did not present any lexical, phonological, or morphological evidence from the excavated Shang language in his papers. He also did not explain why this language change had to have taken place during the Shang as opposed to earlier periods; he simply assumes tautologically that the Sinitic language did not form till the Zhou conquered the Shang, even though that is against the consensus.

As for other evidence - archaeologically speaking, there is *no* consensus within the PRC regarding the proto-Shang culture, and Easy772 is almost certainly cherry picking sources in saying that archaeology supports any Austro-Asiatic/Austronesian view. In fact, the leading *archaeological*, *anthropological*, and *genetic* theories of the Shang's origin within the PRC are that the proto-Shang people came from northern, northwestern, and/or northeastern China, and I am willing and capable of providing sources for this statement, in case it is needed. As a foreward, "The Archaeology of China: From the Late Paleolithic to the Early Bronze Age" by Li Liu et. al is widely cited as a secondary source detailing PRC archaeological work, and the book does not mention any theory for the Shang originating in Neolithic cultures connected to those languages. Instead, the book makes an explicit mention of the Xiaqiyuan culture in southern Hebei being the "proto-Shang." That is a long distance away from the currently accepted center of the various Hmong-Mien, Tai-Kradai, and Austro-Asiatic groups. The Shang Dynasty page also contains references to recent genetic studies conducted by the PRC, again showing that the population of the Shang's capital at Yinxu was not connected to them.

To this end, there is no reason to consider DeLancey's hypothesis a solid alternative to the existing consensus. The same is the case for Benedict who, as per my talk with Kanguole under Oracle Bone Script, did not provide evidence but mentions the idea only in passing - as an explanation - again - of the "Southeast Asian" substratum he detected in Old Chinese. In fact, only Nishida has provided any empirical evidence, however slim, but I am not aware of any further work in continuation of his 1970s offering, nor am I aware of up-to-date formal evaluations of his ideas. Were such information to be found, then perhaps it is prudent to reevaluate the presentation on this page. As it is, however, I'd support, at best, a statement in line with "The language captured by the oracle bone script is generally identified as an early form of Old Chinese, though this is occasionally disputed," which was on the Oracle Bone Script page before it was edited out. I'd also remove this on the ground of WP:NPOV - "However, we need research more thoroughly to draw a further conclusion." Lathdrinor (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lathdrinor: The paper I posted stated that Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties were basically more different in their Language than was previously thought, not that they spoke Austro-Asiatic. Regardless of your personal opinions on how valid this is, there are well respected scholars who do consider it a valid alternative, so I think it should at least be mentioned as a minority opinion. I would like to see the material you have from the PRC, just for my own catalog of information. Thanks --Easy772 (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Easy772: Is the author a historical linguist? Did he cite/present linguistic data? Without the actual paper at hand, there is no way to decide whether the author has an actual argument, or is simply trying to transform an archaeological argument into a linguistic one, which, as stated above, is not a valid methodology, yet looks to be what the author is doing from the abstract. Indeed, just by his mentioning of the Xia Dynasty, there is cause for concern, as the Xia Dynasty is not generally accepted internationally as a historical entity, much less a linguistic one. As for well respected scholars supporting this minority view, I think we've dealt with that already - outside of DeLancey, the only scholars who've talked about it were from the 70s, and hardly stand for 'recent research.' As for Chinese sources, you should start with the reference section in Li Liu (2012). It quotes a great variety of Chinese sources regarding current archaeological research on the Shang and Zhou. Lathdrinor (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lathdrinor: I could probably get a hold of the primary sources, and would be glad to seek your input on how to neutrally paraphrase the content. But I still say we're taking too much liberty as anonymous editors to call in to question what is valid. For example "I think it is a polite way of saying the theory is completely false" when the author is saying "it is likely the Shang spoke a Bai Yue language, though it is not what I adhere to" (this is just an example). What the author says should be taken "as is" without people trying to read between the lines. While the majority opinion may not adhere to it, they clearly hold the view in esteem. A part of the disagreement seems to be that Old Chinese seems to be similar in some ways to non-Sinitic languages e.g. Sagart said "From a typological point of view, Old Chinese was more similar to modern East Asian languages like Gyarong, Khmer or Atayal than to it’s daughter language Middle Chinese." Right, he's not referring specifically to the Shang language but if Shang spoke a form of Old Chinese, is there a reason why Shang is an exception to this statement? It seems like we're trying to make this into a more implausible theory than it is.

I think a lot seemed to be lost in translation regarding the paper I cited earlier. It seems to be the case when I read research from Academia Sinica as well. There seemed to be papers that deal with linguistics in his references, as I mentioned before. He could be using "archaeology" because he didn't know what else to say. I see your point though, we shouldn't use it if it's that poorly translated, we should dig deeper. Regarding the Xia, he's probably referring to Eriltou which some consider to be the reality of the Xia (according to the "Early Civilizations" book I've been reading). I will attempt to get a hold of the primary material, and we'll go from there.

Regarding the PRC material. I will read it, but it shouldn't be a source held in higher regard than any other recent material. Should certain scholars from India be the ultimate source on the reality of the Aryan Invasion theory? We should take all sides into account. I would like to compare the material you mentioned to the material cited in the research paper I posted, then quote it directly here where we should decide how to post both sides neutrally. --Easy772 (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Easy772: DeLancey doesn't even propose that the Shang language was a "Bai Yue" language. He is citing Nishida and Benedict for it, to which end it's not even his theory, but a theory from fifty years ago that hasn't been accepted by subsequent linguists. I don't think 1970s theories are especially worth mentioning as 'recent research.' DeLancey's model does not actually require that the Shang spoke a Bai Yue language because he's ultimately talking about how Sinitic came to share Bai Yue typological features. That could've occurred at any stage during and before the Shang. Provided there must be a mention of the idea, Nishida is the primary citation, *not* DeLancey. Lathdrinor (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lathdrinor: I was giving an example of how some editors are putting to much emphasis on their own personal insight and restating my point that we should stick closely to what's actually being written. If Nishida and Benedict are the originators of the idea that's fine, DeLancey clearly still thinks it plausible. The Jing-Schmidt's opinion on it is that it is "likely" though she doesn't subscribe to it. It's clearly not fringe but not the majority opinion either. We can use Nishida as the primary citation, I can agree to that. --Easy772 (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Easy772: Jing-Schmidt is commenting on DeLancey's paper, not on Benedict/Nishida. My issue is you were trying to present Nishida's idea as "recent/new/groundbreaking" research when it isn't. DeLancey's hypothesis is new but it is about the origins of Sinitic, not the language of the Shang. It doesn't belong in this article. He presents no new evidence concerning the language of the Zhou/Shang/etc. That's not what his paper is about. He merely cites Nishida and Benedict for his own purposes. Just because an old idea is cited positively in a new paper does not warrant presenting it as new research. Lathdrinor (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lathdrinor: The new research I meant was the paper I cited, but I agree with you in the sense that we can't take that "as is" and need to go through the primary material. Jing-Schmidt did say that it was "likely that the Shang language was of Bai Yue stock" (page 88), but mentions later she doesn't particularly subscribe to it. Nothing cited invalidates the idea, they just consider other possibilities "more likely".

@Easy772: The quote you're talking about is from DeLancey's paper, not Jing-Schmidt. Jing-Schmidt's book is a collection of essays, of which DeLancey's article is one. That is what is found on page 88 of the book. Lathdrinor (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lathdrinor: My mistake, well then Delancey said that then. In any case, as much as we're attempting to make this theory into a fringe one, it clearly isn't. It's definitely held in some esteem. I think it's time to move on to how to phrase it properly --Easy772 (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Easy772: I disagree. I think it is quite fringe presently, as besides DeLancey, Benedict and Nishida's ideas have not met with acceptance by other scholars, and even DeLancey only evaluates it as 'likely'. At best, I'd be okay with adding a statement to the effect of 'the Shang language is widely believed to have been an ancestral form of Sinitic, though there have been occasional proposals for a Southeast Asian affinity.' Lathdrinor (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lathdrinor: That statement is fine with me.

Likely means it's probable, so he's clearly not saying it's fringe. But yeah, I won't waste your time because we clearly should just agree to disagree on this point.--Easy772 (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Before I add the statement, are there any objections? --Easy772 (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I've arrived late to the discussion, so I'll be butting in a little bit. For the above statement, we will need to be specific per WP:WEASEL. A better wording would be "though proposals made by (author), (author) and (author) have hypothesized a Southeast Asian affinity", or something along those lines. When listing out claims, it's better to link those with specific names. Reading through the discussion on this page and elsewhere, most of what I would probably say have already been brought up, so I won't cloud up the waters. That said, it's better to wait for more input, rather than assuming consensus with only two people weighing in. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

We have seen no sources that support the claim that the theory that the Shang spoke a non-ST language is "definitely held in some esteem". We've seen two sources that explicitly reject it (Bodman & Jacques). I've listed a few (Boltz, Norman, Qiu, Baxter & Sagart and Keightley) of the many secondary sources that state the opposite view, namely that the Shang and Zhou languages were much the same. The non-ST Shang theory isn't quite fringe, but it is held by a tiny minority of Sino-Tibetanists, and not by anyone who works on Chinese historical linguistics or oracle bone inscriptions. To include it would be to give it a weight it does not have in the literature on the Shang. Kanguole 15:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kanguole: The way it's cited and discussed, it's obvious they think it's plausible/likely or at least understandable why they would think that at the time. We do have DeLancey then saying it's likely. I am fine with saying something like "Nishida and Benedict once proposed the Shang spoke an Austro-Asiatic language, which has since fallen out of favor by the majority of linguists". Though a majority of linguists no longer subscribe to an Austro-Asiatic Shang Language, A significant amount of the linguistic papers/books I'm reading definitely conclude an Old Chinese connection/similarity/affinity to Austro-Asiatic languages, it definitely should be mentioned in some form. --Easy772 (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

David McCraw, An “ABC” Exercise in Old Sinitic Lexical Statistics SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS, Number 202 May, 2010

This article explores a new resource. Recent research — the fruit of many long yearsAxel Schuessler has spent gathering words — reveals an astonishing number of very old Southeastern words in the Old Sinitic lexicon.1 Schuessler has, in his words, uncovered “the multiple origins of the Chinese lexicon”;2 as Schuessler remarks, amazedly, “When pursuing OC and TB/ST etyma down to their roots, one often seems to hit AA bedrock, that is, a root shared with AA.”

McCraw draws different conclusions, but the concept is by no means reducible to a few old papers by Benedict et al.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I just messaged Kanguole on the "Old Chinese" article, talk section about that same article. Yes, it's clear that AA and OC have a relationship and almost certainly (In my opinion) a common history. We're just getting caught up in technicalities on how to properly word this and add it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easy772 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 13 June 2015‎ (UTC)

McCraw specifically concludes, "But our data strongly suggest the Shang and early Zhou shared a common language. But the profile match between Shang and Zhou inscriptions makes a random similarity a less than 1% chance; we can safely guess, based on current data, that the language Shang kings — or at least their scribes — transcribed into OBI largely matched that of early Western Zhou inscriptions." He is speaking specifically of Ancient Chinese as that common language. Ogress _smash! 23:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

That is also Schuessler's view (ABC, p1). Indeed McGraw mentions Schuessler arguing for close similarity (McGraw, fn53). As McGraw notes (fn52), Sinologists are unanimous on this point. Kanguole 00:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Easy772: On the contrary: the way these authors discuss the non-ST Shang language theory indicates they do not find it plausible or likely. That leaves DeLancey saying his own theory is likely. This theory has not "fallen out of favor" – it was always marginal. By the way, Benedict and Nishida did not say AA, they said non-ST, though Nishida gave an example that suggests he was thinking of Hmong–Mien. As for your "Old Chinese connection/similarity/affinity to Austro-Asiatic languages", you are bundling together a number of different things to synthesize support for your "common history" theory. Kanguole 00:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kanguole: I think we are going to need formal mediation to resolve this dispute. I am confident that a neutral committee with no "dog in this fight" would read the quotes and realize that many Linguists see an obvious connection between AA and OC. Regarding "my common history theory", that's really just Ad Hominem. The theory that Shang spoke a non-Sinitic language was probably around before I was born, as was the theory of shared origins between OC and AA. I don't even necessarily subscribe to either, but they definitely deserve to be mentioned.

But, for some reason, which I won't guess at, it seems that any mention of this obvious connection/similarity/affinity warrants being erased from Wiki. We can post technical material and Jargon more suited for a textbook, but not the author's conclusions on the material? --Easy772 (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Minority viewpoints shouldn't merit inclusion in major articles. And why are people advocating for this to be inserted into the Shang dynasty article instead of Old Chinese or Oracle Bone script since this is supposedly a purely linguistic exercise. It seems suspicious. I hope nobody is trying to claim the Shang dynasty as AA to satisfy their own theories on the ethnic makeup of ancient China.Rajmaan (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rajmaan: "Tiny minority" viewpoints should not be included (Misplaced Pages gives the example of "Flat Earth", an obviously fringe theory). "Minority view points" should be given due weight. I had brought the "OC AA similarity, due weight discussion" to the Old Chinese section. I have learned a lot since the beginning of this discussion, since out of all of the fields that deal with pre-history Linguistics is the one I know least about, but when Verbatim quotes from linguists are being reverted at the mention of any Austro-Asiatic connection to Old Chinese in layman's terms it makes me suspicious as well. If it is a minority view so be it, but it isn't fringe in the least and I still think the way it is discussed the authors think it's plausible. A brief mention is fine with me. However, since this discussion has degenerated into ad hominem accusations of motives/bias on either side. I propose we call in a neutral formal committee to objectively analyze the source material and deem what weight each deserves in being added to Misplaced Pages. I would say this is necessary for both the proposed Language section here and for the Old Chinese Article. --Easy772 (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't have been suspicious, had I not noticed that certain internet trolls spammed this same theory on multiple internet forums about Shang language being AA and citing DeLancey's work as evidence. And claiming that this mean Shang people were Austroasiatic or Baiyue or whatever. A quick google search can confirm this. These trolls appeared to have been banned from multiple forums. Is wikipedia being used as WP:BATTLEGROUND for these forums and trolls?Rajmaan (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that, and I doubt the Shang were Austro-Asiatic in entirety. Longshan seems to be a mix of 'Shandong Longshan' and 'Yangshao' in terms of it's culture. Shang descends ultimately from Longshan it seems, though I am not sure of what kind of demographic shifts could have occurred as the Longshanoid period in China is quite long. --Easy772 (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Though one can continue to discuss this issue here, but this matter has been gone to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and further discussion regarding "content dispute" should be done there in civil manner. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 21:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Moderated Discussion

Moderated discussion is now in progress at the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN). Please take the discussion of language, and of any other questions for which you want facilitated discussion, to DRN. You are not required to go to DRN, but any comments made here rather than at DRN may not be taken into account. Any editors here, whether or not they are currently parties to the DRN thread, are welcome to participate at DRN (and may request to be added to the list of parties, but are not required to be added to the list of parties). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Craniometrics

In the latest diffs, Easy772 misrepresents the material completely and apparently deliberately. The Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia focuses on remains from Ban Chiang and has the Shang as one of its plot points; on page 83, it does not say what he claims it does about Shang similarities to Ban Chiang skulls. You are contorting a book that uses the word "Shang" one time in order to further your notion that AA = Shang. This is not acceptable editor behavior. Ogress _smash! 09:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does. read it again. --Easy772 (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The edit says "other scholars", but both citations are articles by Michael Pietrusewky, discussing the same data on Ban Chiang in northern Thailand, with Anyang as one of several outside points of comparison. Any statements about Anyang are thus incidental to the main thrust of his work. His dendogram (figure 3.6 in the book, figure 8 in the paper) does group Anyang with Taiwan and Hainan, but his sampling in China is thin, as it is not his main focus. It does not support the claims about Vietnam, Laos, Thailand and Jomon, all of which are placed further away than the other Chinese samples. An additional problem is that the Anyang skulls he examined were of sacrificial victims, which were often war captives. This all demonstrates that in a contentious area like the origins of peoples, our interpretations and deductions from research papers cannot be relied on. We need reliable secondary sources focussed directly on the matter. Kanguole 09:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's different interpretations on the same set of crania. I can easily find secondary sources. Easy772 (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

When you cite something in a book that is a collection of separately authored chapters, it's important to give the title and author(s) of the chapter you're citing rather than attributing the views to the editor of the book. (You made the same mistake with Jing-Schmidt and DeLancey above.) In this case the chapter and the paper had the same author, who in both articles was drawing the same conclusions from the same data. Your presentation of some say this but other scholars say that was entirely spurious.

Finding secondary sources would be a good idea, but they'd need to be focussed on the subject you want to use them for. Kanguole 14:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The author from the second citation clearly believes the Shang were better represented by Taiwanese Han and Cantonese speaking Han than by modern Southeast Asians (Though it should be important to note that all East Asians are closer to Southeast Asians than they are to Central and Northeast Asians in terms of physical anthropology.. You can see this by examining Howell's data set which is open to the public). Personally I think this is much more likely than the Shang being "Khmer-like" or "Thai" etc. as I mentioned before. It's possible they examined the measurements and photographs of the same cranial series or compared them to the measurements of different modern populations. e.g. The tree on page 129 in the second citation clearly matches the text I posted and wasn't included in the first citation (unless I missed it, I was up pretty late reading). I was trying to be objective by showing different sides/interpretations.

Regarding the sources not supporting the claims about Laos, Jomon and Vietnam. They most certainly do. First we have to realize that there are two analysis being explained in the first citation. The first one is where I obtained that quote:

"These results indicate a possible connection between Bronze Age Anyang (northern China), and Jomon Japanese with Ban Chiang, early Indo China and the Non Nok Tha series." Page 72

For the second analysis:

"Closer inspection for the smallest distances for Ban Chiang and Khak Phanom Di indicate similarities between these groups, modern Southeast Asians and the bronze age Chinese series from Anyang." Page 83

The second citation seems to place more emphasis on the similarity with Southern Chinese which is why I included it for objectivity. The dendrogram on page 129 and analysis of it does not appear in the first paper, unless it's on one of the pages not included on the preview. I will access a hard copy.

http://seasiabib.museum.upenn.edu:8001/pdf_articles/BIPPA/1997_16_Pietrusewky.pdf

Regarding the Anyang remains being not representative of average Shang population, I think it's definitely plausible and have heard it before (not from scholars but on comments on Dienekes, Eurogenes and forums etc.) There is also recent genetic evidence of a population from the North of China migrating south and claiming noble status ~1000 BC (Link to paper on Eurogenes), who is to say this didn't start earlier? No one is entirely certain about the demographic shifts in China that arose along with the change in cultures/dynasties at this time period. Personal speculations on the nature of this should be avoided though, we should stick to the author's analysis of the dendrogram and measurements rather than do our own. Anyways, If you are aware of any scholarly consensus or criticisms that they were not representative of average Shang people, please post the citation here and I would gladly include it in my paragraph.

@Ogress: If you think I am the one being biased in this matter, again, I am willing to submit a request for informal mediation to determine "due weight" and if we can't agree there, then proceed to formal mediation etc. Hopefully we can just hammer the details out here and save time. Easy772 (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a classic case of not having the background to make full use of the source. Yes, there were Southeast Asian types discovered in Anyang "large graves," specifically the sacrificial pits. But they were not the only types discovered in these pits, and further they do not stand for the general population of the Shang people themselves because they are *sacrificial victims*, which were frequently taken from war captives. It is indeed as Kanguole said - you have to be careful when using primary sources when you are not an expert on the subject. There have been a plethora of anthropological studies on the Shang population in China and I can assure you that they do not support the clause that the Shang people = Shang sacrificial victims = Southeast Asian types. For example, the "small and medium" graves studied in this paper: http://meeting.physanth.org/program/2013/session13/zeng-2013-preliminary-research-on-hereditary-features-of-yinxu-population.html are widely believed to have been from the actual Shang citizenry due to their "free" status and their residency within the Shang capital, and the contrast with your example is stark. You'd do well to not hastily add sources as they lead to these sorts of disputes. Lathdrinor (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lathdrinor: I think it's quite the opposite. I think you are synthesizing work from other disciplines to assume that the people in these pits were definitely slaves taken from other areas as war captives rather than local sacrificial victims. I summarize the findings of this *actual research* which *explicitly* support similarity with Anyang other populations. If you have a scholarly citation that says the remains weren't good representatives of 'typical Shang' you should post it, otherwise your just guessing based on personal interpretation. Regarding the 'Yinxu paper' You know you have to look at Y-DNA, mtDNA and atDNA to get a good idea of a population, this focuses solely on mtDNA. Also the paper itself is cautious with it's findings, whereas the author is quite confident in his findings in the paper I cited. The 'Yinxu paper' also fails to compare remains of the Yinxu with remains from cultures which archaeological record show to be at least partly ancestral to the Shang. However, since I don't think this sort of "armchair scholarship" should be applied to whether or not it's included in the Shang page, it's best just to note the authors caution, which I did.

Another assumption you're making is that the Shang were homogeneous when they were obviously a "cosmopolitan" culture and very diverse, the "elite" probably changed frequently during dynastic and cultural shifts. Most of the research I've seems to be pointing to a similarity with modern Hong Kong and Han Taiwanese first and foremost by the way, not Southeast Asian precisely, but certainly not representative the same population inhabiting the region today.

I would also like a citation that the remains discussed were found in 'large graves' vs 'small graves' and also the "plethora" of studies which explicitly support your views. Easy772 (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

YOU CONTINUE TO BOLD YOUR QUOTES, WHY ARE YOU DOING THAT Ogress _smash! 20:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No, let's not debate how these research papers should be interpreted. My point was that it is unsafe to try to interpret primary sources in a contentious area like population history, and that's been amply demonstrated. You said you were going to find secondary sources – that is the way forward. Not tertiary sources, mind, and they need to have more than a passing treatment of the topic. Kanguole 21:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's only "unsafe" because of your interpretation of the Anyang remains not representing common members of Shang. I think the research is quite clear even using a primary source. However since a secondary source is required, I think the book' Bioarchaeology' qualifies as secondary as in "generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." "They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." It's a book not a research paper after all.

Misplaced Pages:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Easy772 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Easy772 denied that he was pushing a racial ethno-agenda when I noted the similarities between the content being added and certain trolls on interent forums claiming the Shang were southeast asians who got invaded and conquered by "Tibeto-Burman" Zhou. Now he is adding stuff about how Shang people are racially southeast asian right after he was adding the part about their language being AA.Rajmaan (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please re-read, most of the evidence clearly points to Shang remains from the sacrificial pits being closest to Han Cantonese and Han Taiwanese. Yet again more ad hominem and also a straw man tactic now. Look it's even reiterated here:

"Ancient and modern Chinese and Thai skeletal populations were used for this biological distance analysis. The ancient Chinese population is from northern China at Anyang dating to the Shang Dynasty (1600BC-1046BC) while its modern counterpart is located in Hong Kong dating from 1977-1983. Individuals from both populations are thought to have belonged to the Han ethnic group and are possibly biologically related."

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap/10?0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:osu1306430849

2 primary sources show sacrificial pit Anyang remains to be closest to Southern Chinese. 1 secondary source says modern Southeast Asians, though it should be noted that Southern Chinese have significant amounts of Southeast Asian admixture, obviously.

--Easy772 (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Easy772: "We find photographs of five types of crania excavated from sacrificial pits at Anyang. The bodies were buried in the ramps around the grave during the sacrificial process.7 Here it is important to note that the crania from the sacrificial pits are thought to be the remains of those who were captured in war and subsequently executed when ritually needed.8 " http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp132_anyang.pdf

The issue with any study using the remains in the sacrificial pits is the difficulty of establishing the actual identity of the sacrificial victims. Whether they were local/foreign is indeterminable from simply looking at the bones, though sources such as Li Ji 1977 establish them as war captives. The study you quoted failed to make this distinction and in any case isn't about the anthropological identity of the Shang, to begin with. Simply quoting a primary source without giving context and balance is a form of spin and therefore violates WP:NPOV. Provided you desperately want to talk about physical anthropology, you ought to find a balanced set of sources, and not just ones supporting your POV. The link I gave you spoke of Pamir-Ferghana type skeletons, for example, in the sacrificial pits, being 'most represented.' How do you plan to balance that with your own study? What are your credentials for doing so?

Primary sources are problematic precisely because Misplaced Pages editors lack the necessary expertise to actually interpret them. I see no cause to believe otherwise here. Lathdrinor (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lathdrinor: Thanks for the paper. I am completely fine with including the information from your paper regardless of how the Pamir-Ferghana type skeletons relate to modern populations. Regarding "my plan", I would probably lay all the relevant information out as close to verbatim as possible without affecting the flow of the paragraph. I don't feel comfortable discussing my personal information with people on an open forum like this. If you want to inquire about my background/credentials etc. feel free contact me in another fashion.

In the future, If I'm coming off "one-sided", don't hesitate to educate me on the other side of the story. Easy772 (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

So the core issues seem to be 1) not giving due weight to other scholars identification of the Southern Chinese/Southeast Asian sacrificial pit remains as war captives. 2) Identification of the other types present in the sacrificial pits. 3) Cautionary note that the remains of the elite have not been compared. Provided I add these, does any one have a problem with the material I'm adding?

Is it my responsibility to be aware of every scholar's position/interpretation, by the way? I think it's more proper to post the opposing/balancing views in the paragraph rather than obliterate my citations from the face of Misplaced Pages. Thanks Easy772 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the core issues are using primary sources and sources focussed on something else. Kanguole 18:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Does it have to be the "focus" of the source if it's discussed extensively? Is there a policy for that? "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" I see this now, (and apologize, again, I am new to wiki and it's policies).

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research

I have a a secondary source stating "Howells has gone to great lengths using discriminant function analysis and other methods to demonstrate that the people buried in these sacrificial pits represent ordinary North Chinese living during the Shang dynasty and do not represent individuals of composite or mixed origin as originally believed by Yang (1966)." So, apparently there are indeed more sides to this than you and Lathdrinor let on and I am not the one that can be accused of being "one-sided" or "not knowing every scholars opinion" etc.

https://books.google.com/books?id=RTsXTy5aBgQC&pg (Page 225)

Does anyone have a problem with the material in Lathdrinors link being posted? I find most of that extremely interesting as well? 1) Significant West Eurasian element to most of the remains in the pits, also Oceanian, Mongoloid (from either low class or war captives from regions ot the south) etc.

2) Cautionary note about assuming these remains are the Shang "elite" which have not been compared as of yet.

3) Speculation about the multicultural nature of the Shang. http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp132_anyang.pdf --Easy772 (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop conducting WP:Original Research and WP:Synthesis and actually read wikipedia policy before making suggestions. Sino-Platonic papers are explicitly published by Victor Mair for the purpose of trying to establish all sorts of inane connections as possible between ancient China and Central Asians (Indo-Europeans). Mair has an obsession for trying to prove Chinese civilization originates from Indo-Europeans. It isn't a neutral source either as Mair lets any Joe Shmoe come up with a new theory and publish something in it.Rajmaan (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rajmaan: Lathrindor was the one who gave me the citation, you should direct your comment to him/her then. The paper itself seems clear that the Indo-Europeans were probably captives or slaves, at best low-class. There's no possible way to interpret it as an Indo-European 'cultural elite' or anything of the sort. I wasn't aware of the bias in Sino-Platonic papers, and I respect your opinion and don't doubt the validity of your claim of the bias of these papers, but do you have a source where a scholar critiques the papers as such or it's publisher Victor Mair?

Some new quotations from the secondary source:

1) The "late lithic samples" from Laos and Vietnam and the prehistoric samples from Thailand and the prehistoric samples from Thailand generally grouped together and were separate from the Bronze Age sample in Anyang. In a second broader analysis using 30 comparative series, Ban Chiang and "late lithic" Laos were members of a Southeast Asian cluster made up of modern and pre-historic series and separate from southern (Hong Kong) and northern (Anyang) Chinese samples

2) The closest series to Ban Chiang was the late bronze age Chinese from Anyang, followed by a lesser degree to similarities with Jomon crania.

Easy772 (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

If some judgement is to be presented in an article, it needs to come from a reliable secondary source. It is not enough to assemble evidence from reliable sources and make a deduction from that – in WP terms, that would be synthesis. Kanguole 12:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I too would like to see some published sources of this alleged "bias". Professor Mair is an internationally recognized authority on Chinese languages and cultures, and his Sino-Platonic Papers is cited in 750 WP articles. There is no reason to respect either historical revisionism or archaeological denialism. Keahapana (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyang and Hainan

I was wondering why Howells was comparing Shang sacrificial victims with Hainan of all places in this article:

• Howells, William (1983). "Origins of the Chinese People: Interpretations of recent evidence". In Keightley, David N. (ed.). The Origins of Chinese Civilization. University of California Press. pp. 297–319. ISBN 978-0-520-04229-2.

It seems it was an accident of history. When he was doing this work in the early 70s, there was no access to the mainland. Whan he did have access to was two sets of material in Taibei:

• a collection of skulls of Shang sacrificial victims brought to Taiwan by the fleeing Nationalists, and housed at the Academia Sinica in Taibei. (pp304–5)
• "recent Chinese skulls collected on Hainan Island by the energetic Takeo Kaneseki" held at National Taiwan University (p305) (Taiwan was under Japanese rule from 1895 to 1945.)

So he used what he could access and made his inferences from those. But of course much more and less remote material have become available since. Kanguole 00:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. What's surprising is that to this day, that still remains the best match to the Shang crania according to all the work Pietrusewky has done in recent years. Easy772 (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was interrupted and had to cut my thought short. In my mind it wasn't surprising that the Shang remains would be physically closer to Southern Chinese. I'm no expert on Chinese history, but how many times have Chinese relocated south due to conflict with foreign northern dynasties? Even as early as 400 AD there is historical evidence of this. I think it's more incredulous to think that, given this well documented history, Northern Chinese would be the same today as they were in the bronze age. Easy772 (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

And yet, Howells concludes the opposite (p313):

At the moment, the safest hypothesis seems to be that the population of China in this northern region has been constant in physique, or at least in cranial form, and also surprisingly homogeneous, since the Neolithic.

Although Pietrusewky, working in the 90s, had more Chinese specimens, he had none from north China. That's reasonable for his work, seeking to identify the relatives of Ban Chiang in northern Thailand. I would suggest that the southern grouping you're seeing is another artifact. Kanguole 09:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that, which is why I brought it up. Bowles(1977) was "more correct" in his observations of the cranial diversity possibly reflecting genetic diversity in modern Chinese. Howell's whole argument of continuity relies on Hainanese being representative of modern Han, which they are, but not necessarily an indicator of the continuity he posits. Later works both in genetics and bioarchaeology confirm this diversity in Han Chinese. Easy772 (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops. I did not see your second statement regarding Pietrusewsky's work. That is a valid point and I'm open to the idea that comparisons to modern Northern Chinese might alter the conclusions. e.g Some analysis he's done show Korean the second closest to Hainan. The Korean population itself has been speculated to have gone through a demographic transformation resulting from bronze-age rice agriculturalists expanding from China, which could account for the phenotypic similarity. Both Hainanese and Korean crania have been noted by Pietrusewsky to be similar to many Southeast Asian series (I can't really speculate on this for Korea, but for Hainan the assimilation of 'Yue' groups seems likely), but this similarity is not noted for the Northeast China (Manchuria) series he used. I wouldn't be surprised if certain areas in Northern China physically differed from Northeast China though (especially in the Northwest). Also, I know you dislike the 'machine translated' papers I post and I agree that they probably don't have a place on Misplaced Pages, but it has been noted that bronze-age Chinese do have southern affinities, while still being related to North Chinese. I think this fits Hainan pretty well. Easy772 (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

All of this is a further demonstration of the problems with attempting to interpret primary sources in this area, and thus the need to rely on relevant secondary sources. Kanguole 23:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we add any of my speculations to the section, I was merely responding to your speculations that 1) modern North Chinese might be closer to Anyang than Hainanese, which I'm willing to entertain however unlikely, but we have no evidence of this. 2) Howell's statement that North Chinese are unchanged since the Neolithic is correct, this was more of a caution since this has been refuted since then.

Anyways, I'm certainly not misinterpreting the similarity between Taiwanese, Hainanese and bronze-age north Chinese. This is explicitly and plainly stated. Pietrusewsky's entry The Physical Anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia, and Southeast Asia: A Multivariate Craniometric Analysis in Sagart's book is considered secondary according to WP:ANALYSIS, it specifically says "Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources" which when clicked on, states that a scholar reviewing his own work is considered secondary. His work deals with all people of the Pacific, Southeast Asia and East Asia and he is no novice to working with the Anyang remains. As I said before this conclusion is based on decades of research, which did include research directly dealing with Anyang and how they related to modern Chinese (If you look here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easy772 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Pietrusewsky's study in that book explicitly excludes Anyang and other ancient sites. There is only a passing mention when he recounts his earlier work in the introduction. Kanguole 10:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This is where we disagree. What you call a "passing mention", I call a explicit and plainly stated conclusion. There is no room for misinterpreting his remark. You make it seem as if he were to go into detail the conclusion would be altered, but this is not the case. If you look at his recent work: Biological Connections across the Sea of Japan: A Multivariate Comparison of Ancient and More Modern Crania from Japan, China, Korea, and Southeast Asia, you'll note that the closest relationship is still Hainanese. He also concludes: "Possible connections between the premetal inhabitants of Southeast Asia, such as Ban Chiang, Bronze Age Chinese (Anyang), Hainan Island, and modern Ryukyu Island series, are further implied by these results." Easy772 (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

And has Pietrusewsky stated a specific conclusion about Anyang in of any these acticles? If so, please quote it. (None of the quotes given so far come close.) Kanguole 15:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

"The separation between southern (e.g., Hainan and Taiwan) and northern Chinese samples in the present results supports earlier work in physical anthropology (e.g., Wu et al., 2007; Zhang, 1999) and molecular genetic studies (e.g., Kivisild et al., 2002; Shi et al., 2005) that has demonstrated systematic differences between northern and southern Chinese. Hainan Island, Taiwan, Anyang, and Korea form a group that is intermediate between one that includes the remaining Chinese and all of the Japanese cranial series, an association that suggests that this region is the likely source of Eastern Asians on both sides of the Sea of Japan. The inclusion of the Shang Dynasty Anyang cranial series in this intermediate clustering adds an element of antiquity to this association."A multivariate analysis of measurements recorded in early and more modern crania from East Asia and Southeast Asia- 2009.

I would also like to say that I think this is unfair. I've found multiple quotes from reliable sources directly and explicitly stating that Anyang and Hainan lack differentiation, group together or are connected. But, because you deem it a "mention" rather than a "statement" it should be completely omitted. e.g I find a quote saying "Dogs and wolves are biologically close to coyotes" and you say "The statement is only a brief mention and it's not about dogs or wolves but coyotes". Do you see how ridiculous that is? Howells (1983) is "directly related" to Anyang remains, do you object to me posting my section based on that source? He notes "a lack of differentiation" in Hainanese and Anyang and also bases his argument for continuity on it. Easy772 (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The passage you quote is broad and has little usable information about the Shang. In addition, it's plucked out of the middle of the paper. His actual conclusion is "The Shang Dynasty cranial series from Anyang, Korea, and the modern cranial series from Manchuria are among the series most closely associated with the source population that ultimately was responsible for the modern Han Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, people who live on either side of the Sea of Japan." Which is also quite diffuse, but doesn't support what you want to say.

Rather than talking about dogs, let's take a quote you offered previously as an example: "The closest series to Ban Chiang was the late bronze age Chinese from Anyang". That is not the same as saying that Ban Chiang is the closest series to Anyang, nor does it say anything about how close Ban Chiang and Anyang are.

After looking at Howells (1987), I think it's dated, because the data used is so limited, and so much more has become available since. But again you're picking something out of the middle of the paper, and again his conclusion (that Chinese in that area have been physically much the same from Neolithic to the present) doesn't fit with what you want to say. Kanguole 23:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is getting super long so I'm adding in an arbitrary break: continue discussing after it. Ogress _smash! 01:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

con·clude: arrive at a judgment or opinion by reasoning

So we're only allowed to use conclusion sections? Both Howells and Pietrusewsky state clearly and explicitly the similarity between Anyang and Hainanese so indeed they do conclude this, they just don't do so in the conclusion section. I think this is where you are confused, "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves" (WP:NOR) does not mean I am limited to the conclusion section if a statement is written elsewhere that "arrives at a judgement". Both authors clearly arrive at a judgement that Anyang and Hainan are similar and they always go hand-in-hand when being compared in Pietrusewsky's work if you didn't notice. These two groups have been the closest in every research paper he's done actually, while the other groups have shifted positions depending on methods, samples or what have you.

Again you seem to be implying that I am misleading people, or perhaps misinterpreting something, by "picking from the middle", but I am correct about these quotations. You can take a look a look at the dendrogram and distance analysis and see for yourself. So if I were to say "Scholars note that there is little differentiation between Anyang bronze-age remains and Hainanese" this is a fact, the only problem we're having now is finding a source you deem relevant enough for inclusion. The sources generally dealing with "analyzing East and Southeast Asian skeletons both past and present" are relevant enough. What you're arguing is like like saying an analysis on a East Asian and Southeast Asian genetics paper is not a good enough citation for, say, Thailand because it's not directly about Thailand. Again, ridiculous.

Because some of the information is outdated in Howells (1983) all of it should be omitted? Some of what he says has been proven wrong, I've already posted some quotes showing this, but that doesn't mean his conclusions that:

1. Anyang are physically within the range of modern Chinese
2. The Anyang remains are not foreign
3. Anyang, Taiwanese and Hainanese lack differentiation

are outdated. The only things that are really outdated are his assumption that there would be little-to-no phenotypic differentiation in East Asians based on their geographic position.

By the way, not of importance but perhaps of interest, the conclusion that East Asians came out of a "northern hearth" does fit my priors quite well, I have no problem posting this. Easy772 (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Pietrusewsky's and Howells's "Anyang sample" is quite explicitly listed as "Shang Dynasty sacrificial victims" and cannot be used to argue about the rest of the Shang population. Provided you want to include a section on craniometrics, this has to be specified, and not generalized to the Shang population as a whole. As I stated before, there has been quite a bit of research on Shang "small and medium tombs" in China, and the results do not match Howell's and Pietrusewsky's conclusions for the "sacrificial victims." Yet, because there is virtually no joint research between Chinese and Western scholars, we cannot make any statements about whether their methodologies, standards, etc. are consistent. Therefore, it's best not to WP:SYNTH the available data at all, and to simply describe Howells's and Pietrusewsky's research as they pertain to "sacrificial victims" and to leave it at that. Lathdrinor (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I never planned to exclude that fact from my paragraph, it's actually in the first sentence. I agree we should not post a synthesis of research, but can you link me to some of these Chinese research papers? I've only seen roughly translated material e.g. like this, which is an example of bronze age Chinese remains described as "primarily East Asian with some Southeast Asian" being compared to Yinxu (And yes, I'm aware that Wayagou remains being similar to Yinxu doesn't necessarily imply the opposite is true). A lot of the new evidence seems to note a cosmopolitan aspect to bronze-age China and I won't deny that there may have been class substructures or what have you. I also won't deny the idea of a "bronze-age north Chinese hearth" mentioned before. e.g Even if you look at the Yinxu mtDNA/crania paper, the Hongshan culture of Northeast China is quite distant from Yinxu, but suddenly during the bronze age it's successor, Lower Xiajiadian, falls within the same cluster. What's also interesting is this seems to match the increase in distribution of Y-DNA O3 during the bronze age that we've been seeing in the ancient DNA papers. Easy772 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

For Anyang tombs, a recent article is: http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10183-2010107718.htm The article's main idea is indicated in the abstract: "人种特征的研究表明,殷墟中小墓居民中的多数个体的基本种系特征表现出“古中原类型”居民的特点,少数则表现出“古东北类型”居民的特点。" ie "The majority of Yinxu small and medium tombs' inhabitants exhibit the 'ancient Central Plains type', while a minority exhibit the 'ancient Northeast type.'" Of course, this doesn't say anything about modern populations. As I said, Chinese scholars don't use the same metrics and categories as Western scholars and therefore the results are not immediately comparable, but that's precisely why we should avoid WP:SYNTH. Pietrusewsky and Howells may see the same data and come to different conclusions. There's no way to tell. Lathdrinor (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I have seen that rough translation before, I've actually paraphrased that abstract somewhere on Misplaced Pages. But, you said that there was some kind of definite disagreement between the Chinese research and Howells or Pietrusewsky's but this doesn't really qualify. The remains of ancient central plains Chinese (Neolithic in this case, at least very close to Henan ) have been compared to modern populations and they are not the same then as today. Even if there were a definite disagreement or difference in interpretation, Wiki policy suggests balancing the opposing views rather than omitting both views. Balancing two scholars opposing views is not synthesis. Synthesis would be putting two or more facts together to mislead the reader or imply a false conclusion. e.g Blue jeans were invented in the 18th century and since their invention the world population has increased exponentially. The speculation that there might be disagreement between scholars definitely shouldn't be a reason to exclude what we know according to sources we can actually verify. Easy772 (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The paper I linked is actually very old, I realized. The methods must have significantly improved since then, as we see in Howells(1983). There was a paper (from 1985) that someone brought my attention to a while back that actually compares neolithic Chinese remains with those of modern populations. They concluded that North Chinese neolithic populations were generally similar to East Asians with some measurements also similar to Southeast Asians, while South Chinese neolithic populations were closer to Southeast Asians. Apparently the old research papers seem to place to much emphasis on traits like brow ridges and prognathism in determining a populations "racial characteristics". Easy772 (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The "ancient Central Plains type" as used by this scholar in 2010 is not necessarily the same as the "Neolithic Central Plains Chinese" used by a different scholar at a different time. There is no exact definition of "ancient Central Plains type" shared between scholars, especially not between scholars of different times. This is the problem that leads to WP:SYNTH - asserting that the scholar you quoted and the scholar I quoted have the same definitions and therefore the "ancient Central Plains type" in the 2010 paper has already been compared with modern populations, when there is no evidence of such. It is what Kanguole warned to avoid, and there I fully agree with him because none of the editors here are experts in physical anthropology.

To the degree that I am aware of what "ancient Central Plains type" stands for, it is basically what they found in "Xia" and "early Shang" era graves in Henan, Shanxi, and a few other locations. I have seen craniometric clusters from Chinese anthropology websites that show these remains cluster with northern China populations, rather than southern China populations, but these have not been validated by actual articles. Consequently, I am very wary of trying to say what they are unless a host of additional sources are brought forth. I am certainly not supportive of trying to equate a 1960 article to a 2010 article in terms of definitions. Lathdrinor (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, I've seen such displays on Ranhaer and places like that, but often times they turned out to be misinterpretations of various sorts. I never meant to assert that they were the same samples by the way, and certainly wasn't suggesting we include Yen (1960) as a citation. I was just noting that neolithic remains from the general area have been compared to modern populations and speculating that neolithic Shaanxi remains shouldn't be too different from neolithic Henan remains (again not suggesting we include any personal speculation). Anyways, Even if those clusters on the Chinese websites were verifiable and in definite disagreement, like I said, the proper procedure is to balance opposing views in a neutral tone, not to omit both views until one is determined more accurate. And then the question becomes: "Are these websites a reliable source?" Do you have a link to these Chinese anthropology websites? Are they websites run by scholars or enthusiasts/hobbyists? Are these "homemade runs" using raw data or are they PCAs taken from the research papers? I can probably have them translated, eventually, and even if they're run by hobbyists, as long as their conclusion matches the conclusion from the scholarly source, I see no problem in using them. Until then, we should stick to the verifiable material we do have and balance any opposing material as it becomes verifiable.

Also, we supposedly aren't allowed to use primary sources by themselves, even the abstract/conclusion sections! So technically we can't use those Chinese sources unless we have a meta-analysis of sorts on those papers. I am completely willing to be "lenient" with this rule and consider abstracts, intros, conclusions etc. "secondary" in this section though for the sake of balance if you guys are. Easy772 (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am actually willing to omit Howells speculation that the Anyang pit remains were "average north Chinese" because a lot of this speculation seems to be based on his assumed uniformity of China as a population. In other words, he thought Anyang pit remains were typical bronze-age north Chinese because he thought Hainanese would be physically very similar to modern north Chinese.(Howells-1983- p.315) This has been refuted by modern evidence. Easy772 (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, given the lack of actual secondary sources beyond Pietrusewsky and Howells, and given that those scholars are talking about the Anyang pits only, I'm against adding a section about Shang anthropology at all. Insert a line in the section about human sacrifices instead. Lathdrinor (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll just add a couple sentences and won't touch any kind of speculation as to whether they were citizens vs. war captives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easy772 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the state of the sources, there seems to be very little of any use that can be said. Kanguole 20:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"Useful" is kind of subjective, I'd certainly find both citations useful and interesting. Easy772 (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Date

Hello Kanguole. How Cambridge University Press' (which is the most rs publisher) source can be a less appropriate than source of Chinese project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahanshah5 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that a wide range of dates have been proposed, as explained in the article. For example, David Keightley in the Cambridge History of Ancient China, also published by Cambridge University Press, gives a date of c. 1570 BC. In that situation, it seemed best to use the date of the XSZ project, which is widely cited, but perhaps just giving the more approximate 16th century would more faithfully reflect the range of opinion. Kanguole 13:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm agree with you but I wonder that could we add my source in any section below the main section as <here is opinion that the dynasty was established in 1554 BC> ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahanshah5 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Capitals

Even if it needs to be caveated ("traditionally...", "according to...", "Chinese archaeologists believe...", &c.), the article should include the 5ish traditional capitals (Xibo, Ao, &c.) and their supposed sites (Yanshi in the Luo Valley, Zhengzhou, Qufu, &c.) somewhere. Archive says User:Gurdjieff already found and sourced some in a version of the page c. 2009, User:Zar2gar1 improved and formatted them c. 2010, but later well-meaning editors improperly blanked the info instead of citing or formatting it appropriately.

Needs to be restored. Yinxu was not remotely the center of the dynasty for its entire existence. — LlywelynII 11:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I guess it would belong in the Traditional accounts section. Sima Qian and the Bamboo Annals differ a bit on the list of capitals. Kanguole 14:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Just adding a thought on this, the Shiji account is sometimes being cited for things that it does not provide, like the time of death for Zuji, who, according to the Shiji, outlived Wu Ding. Thus that Zu Ji can't refer to the same person other traditions understand as Wu Ding's predeceased son, aka Xiao Ji. Given how little the Shiji actually knows about the Shang in any definite terms, it might be useful to entirely remove the Shiji from the discussion of chronology and put it in a historiography section instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:47:4601:540:1474:F3FF:5EBC:CD67 (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Images, historical account

The article is now overloaded with images, making it difficult to read. Their number needs to be reduced to the most useful illustrations of the text.

Also, there needs to be a clearer distinction between what is stated in the traditional accounts and what has been verified archaeologically. Kanguole 11:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Map-of-sites-to-yield-Shang-style-bronzes-in-China.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Bronze Jia, Shang dynasty.jpg
• Four Goat Square Zun.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits by Miyawaki kyoto

It seems like all the images uploaded by Miyawaki kyoto are obvious copyright violations, which I have removed from the article. However, the fact that Miyawaki kyoto is willing to pass off so many images as his own work throws considerable doubt onto his huge number of recent edits to this article (the only article he has edited on Misplaced Pages since 2016). How can we be sure that his text edits do not show the same disregard for copyright as his image uploads? We need to carefully check for copyright violation, and revert the article to the state it was before he started editing. Actually, I would support reverting regardless because in many cases his text is not an improvement, and the quality of his English is not great (e.g. here which he says are translations from Chinese, and therefore a copyright violation). BabelStone (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I would also support reverting. My main issue is the conflation of the traditional accounts with archaeological evidence. Consider for example the "Religious reform" section, where Sima Qian's account of Wu Yi's irreverant behaviour is mixed with divination and human sacrifice (both known archaeologically but not mentioned by Sima Qian) to yield a story about religious reform. This is a translation of zh:商朝#武乙射天, which has been in the zh article for a long time, but looks like unjustifiable synthesis. It's safest to remove it all. Kanguole 16:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the best way to preserve the quality of this article would be to revert the numerous edits by Miyawaki kyoto, and suggest that he discuss on talk before making any more contentious edits. BabelStone (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to say "delete it all" such arbitrarily. When you delete something, you have to be careful; you have to respect other's work. The images I uploaded were wrongly marked as "my own work", so it's OK to edit them, or even just delete them. But the other works I did, most of them were update works. Having seen this article so outdated, even citing books from last century, so I cited the latest Chinese archaeology book focusing on Shang dynasty, "商代史 Shang dynasty history", written by the scientists from Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The book was written based on latest found in archaeological and historical research. If you want to delete my edits, please check the book first, and point out unambiguously where my edits are wrong cited. Last thing, the traditional accounts, so called the Records of the Grand Historian, written by Sima Qian, was an official history book, well accepted by other related articles, such as other dynasties in China. Translation work from foreign language article in Misplaced Pages is supported by the community. Just check the following link: ]. Miyawaki kyoto (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It is understandable that your edits are doubted. Those images are still marked as your own work on Commons, and they are still in the zhwiki article, along with text you copied from online sources.

The edit summary from this edit says "Adding translations from Chinese history books of Shang dynasty". Is that what the text is? If so, it is a derivative work of those books, and cannot be used on Misplaced Pages.

I have raised specific concerns about the Wu Yi section that you translated from the zhwiki article. I have also raised a more general concern about the conflation of traditional accounts with archaeological evidence. A further concern is adding events to the infobox that are not evidenced in archaeological finds or contemporary records. Kanguole 12:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to say that the history can only be described based on the archaeological finds. This is kind of all or none thinking. History's meaning in Misplaced Pages is:

History is the past as it is described in written documents, and the study thereof.

This article should not only include archaeological finds, but also traditional history records. Oracle bones was not enough to cover all aspects of Shang period. There are many buried oracle bones yet to discover. We can't say that discovered oracle bones at the moment are all of them. We can't even read many characters scripted on oracle bones. What's more, the Chinese history books which referring to the Records of the Grand Historian, were written by Sima Qian in 2000 years ago. There is no copyright violation at all. Sima Qian was already dead for more than 2000 years.Miyawaki kyoto (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The material you've added to the lead is a translation of this addition by you to the zhwiki article. The first two sentences of that addition appear on the National Museum of China website. Other sentences can be found elsewhere on the web. Your assertions of "own work" are unreliable.

On the content, I agree that both archaeological finds and traditional history should be included in the article. However, they need to be carefully distinguished, because they provide completely different kinds of information. The issue with Sima Qian's account and the Bamboo Annals is not copyright, but that they were written down more than a thousand years after the events we're talking about here, based on a mix of sources of different ages, which are difficult to disentangle. Kanguole 10:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Royal tomb of Shang dynasty.jpg
• Shang dynasty sites.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Relatives of Shang dynasty in Assam

https://revivingforgottenhistories.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/the-kasomari-monoliths-re-exploring-kachari-grandeur/ https://books.google.co.in/books?id=9wxWAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA84 2409:4065:D9C:BFE3:C17:CE15:A8B3:7F4B (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that connects the two? Kanguole 14:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kanguole: Ancestor of Bhaskaravarman came from China. Kamarupa kingdom had connection with China. Tian means Heaven. In sanskrit Shargiah, we also called ourselves heavenly. Just doing research , These monoliths are similar to Tian symbol of Shang dynasty. 2409:4065:D9C:BFE3:C17:CE15:A8B3:7F4B (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I've nothing to add. Kanguole 14:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kanguole: No need to add this, I just want to know from Chinese people if these monoliths are Tian or not . Anyway , Thank you for conversation 2409:4065:D9C:BFE3:C17:CE15:A8B3:7F4B (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dates

I have reverted a recent change of the dates based on Liu et al (2020), on the basis that it gave undue weight to a single source. Moreover the source itself does not claim that these are the exact dates. Their method was to define a range for each period as the union of the 68% confidence intervals for individual bones from that period, yielding this table of reign dates (their Table 2):

The date ranges overlap, and the authors say they have an uncertainty of about 10 years and up to 20 years in extreme cases. They do not claim to contradict the XSZ project dates, but rather say the XYZ dates are within these uncertainty ranges. Kanguole 13:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

We are sidelining the latest peer-reviewed radiocarbon dating in favor of XSZ? This is a transparently nationalist project that includes dates for mythical events like the accession of the Xia. Trying to date events based on Chinese astronomical records is a fool's errand. For many years, the supposed solar eclipse of 776 BC was one of the best-known dates of Chinese history. Later, it was shown that there was in fact no eclipse that year and that the ancient records were in error. The Shang used three or four different calendars, each of which used a different date as the first of the month. The record of the supposed lunar eclipse of 1065 BC that XSZ is relying on goes like this: “at the ceremony paying homage to the full moon ... the king announced, ‘The many eclipse(s) is/are untimely; you shall begin planning succession’.” This is not a record of an eclipse on a particular day, or even a particular year. See “Astro-Historiographic chronologies of early China are unfounded.” by Douglas Keenan. Fairnesscounts (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

"the latest peer-reviewed radiocarbon dating" is a single source, whereas the XSZ project is essentially the consensus of modern Chinese academia. There has always been a split between the West and China on these matters, and we can certainly not favor a single Western paper over the entirety of Chinese scholarship. Your personal evaluation of the so-called "transparently nationalist project" is pointlessly rude and largely WP:OR. Aza24 (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

These authors were part of the XSZ project, and continue in the same tradition. They have the same uncritical acceptance of a 59-year reign from the Wuyi chapter of the Shangshu, even though the same text is known to be wrong on reign lengths for the last Shang kings, which would have been very recent history if it was really written in 1030 BC. They also present their results as compatible with the project. In any case, many of the dates adopted by the XSZ project had already been proposed by authors outside of China.

But the key issue is, as noted above, that they do not claim these are precise dates for various events, but have an uncertainty of 10–20 years. The reason for this is clear from the detail of the paper. For example, the source of the 1041 BC date is the 68% confidence interval 1118–1041 BC for one of the three objects from period V that they dated. That's an uncertainty range of 77 years. Identifying the end date of a confidence interval for a single object with the end date of the Shang is quite arbitrary. Kanguole 10:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

As I read the report, the conclusions are not based on any individual radiocarbon reading. The report explains that by using data from consecutive phases, they could apply the Bayesian method, narrow the date range, and increase reliability. Liu is claiming a "fall-in ratio" of 80 to 90 percent. The FIR represents the author's confidence that the divinations in a given phase all occurred within the given date range. In short, the 1041 BC date represents an upper bound for phase V divinations. This would mean that whoever wrote the abstract misunderstood the study since error bars are obviously not equivalent to regnal dates.

Cambridge gives the Zhou accession date as 1045-1046 BC. This is within the error margin that Liu gives for phase V (1121–1041 BC).Fairnesscounts (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I interpreted "superposition of the 68% date ranges of all the samples in that phase" as meaning the union of the 68% date ranges of all samples for a phase. That explains the ranges they give, except for the end of period III and the start of period V, which are off by 2 and 1 years respectively, but I don't think an adjustment method is described. So 1254 BC comes from the start of the earliest range, and 1041 BC comes from the end of the latest one.

It's not surprising that the Cambridge History and the XSZ project came up with much the same date for the Zhou conquest, since both dates are based on the same analysis of the same astronomical events, though the XSZ project also used archaeological evidence and C14 dating. Kanguole 22:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's a timeline of the 68% ranges of various objects in their Table 3:

Diviner groups:   Wu,   Shi,   Zi,   Bin,   Chu,   Unnamed,   He,   Huang.

It is wierd that the ranges are clumped within each of the five periods, especially II–V. I can't think of a good explanation for that. Kanguole 13:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see that they discarded the results for over a third of the samples, many because of an "unacceptable low agreement index", i.e. being out of the sequence implied by the periods, even though they went down to 50% in some cases. Earlier they say that "On average, 1 in 20 agreement index values to drop below 60% might be expected, but if the index values are substantially lower or a large proportion fall below 60%, something internally inconsistent between the model and the data could have occurred". Kanguole 16:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

For completeness, here are their 68% ranges for the Li-group bones:

Diviner groups:   Li type 1,   Li type 2.

Again the odd clumping. Kanguole 16:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Establishment year 1555/1554 BC

With reference to this edit;
The dates of the establishment of the Shang dynasty proposed by Pankenier and Nivison (1555/1554 BC) are I far as I see it not in the conflict with the result of the more approximate dating 1600 BC from the Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project. I would say that the Pankenier and Nivison dates are trustworthy and is a further development of the research. I propose to use 1554 BC as the main date for the establishment of the Shang dynasty in this article. (Same goes for the corresponding dates for Xia dynasty). BR --Bairuilong (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Why are these dates trustworthy? Nivison agrees with Pankenier, but no-one else seems to. Indeed most other workers regard the "current text" Bamboo Annals, on which these dates are based, as unreliable. Perhaps the more approximate date is an accurate reflection of the state of the field. Kanguole 10:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You write that no-one seems to trust Nivison and Pankenier. Can you please give some references that support that credible historians distrust 1555/1554 BC? Thank you in advance! BR/--Bairuilong (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

That's the wrong way round. References are needed to show that these dates are accepted.

As for the "current text" Bamboo Annals being distrusted, see e.g. Keightley "The Bamboo Annals and Shang-Chou Chronology", Barnard "Astronomical data from ancient Chinese records: the requirements of historical research methodology". Kanguole 11:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You are referring to old publications that I don't think give support against 1555/1554 BC. However, there are a huge number of publications that support 1555/1554 BC. First of all of course several publications by Nivison and Pankenier, and besides that for example: Maisels "Early Civilizations of the Old World", Feng "Early China: A Social And Cultural History", Hägerdal "Kinas historia". It's easy to list several more. (Interesting that you mention Keightley as argument against 1554 BC, since he actually has accepted 1554 BC.).

I can not see any relevant argument against 1555/1554 BC, but on the other hand a lot of support. BR --Bairuilong (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

If you are surveying third-party sources, you'll find that even more of them say 1600 BC.

Incidentally, although Li Feng says that Keightley has accepted this date, if you look at the citation he gives you'll see that Keightley is reporting Pankenier's calculation, but not endorsing it. (Which is not surprising, since Keightley's focus was what can be found in excavated texts, which start centuries later.)

There is a diversity of views, so there is no justification for presenting the 1555/1554 BC date as a bald fact. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, we should present the significant alternative views and say who holds them: Pankenier and Nivison say this and XSZ says that. Nor is it appropriate to call it the latest research, since Pankenier's work (early 1980s) and Nivison's agreement (around 1990) pre-date the XSZ project. Kanguole 16:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course all relevant alternative should be presented in the article. I agree about that for sure. The point is what should be in the infobox. You have not shown anything that support your statement that no-one seems to trust Nivison and Pankenier, and the opposite is easy to find - there are a lot of reliable sources that support 1555/1554 BC, and both Nivison and Pankenier are heavily credible sources on this subject. Of course it is possible to find sources that still write 1600 BC (and also 1766 BC, 1675 BC and 1559 BC), but that is not an argument for us to forever stick to 1600 BC. Specially since it is not so hard to find criticism of the XSZ project and its result. BR --Bairuilong (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

In saying "still write 1600 BC", you are clinging to the idea that the Pankenier/Nivison proposal is the most recent research, when in fact it is the other way round: the XSZ project was conducted after their proposal.

Both proposals have been criticized, and both are cited (but as I said, the XSZ project dates are cited more often). So both should be presented as the views of their proposers.

As you say, that leaves the field in the infobox. It is inappropriate to present 1554 BC as the definitive answer here. You might well reply that it is also inappropriate to present 1600 BC as the sole answer. So a less definite statement seems to be called for, say "early 16th century BC". Kanguole 17:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for a constructive reasoning. The essence of my point is that Pankenier/Nivison hold the most credible alternative according to my understanding.

I am also aware that there are margins of error to indicate exact years for event several thousand years back in time with this level of sources. I guess we will never be totally sure, and this also applies, for example, to 1046 BC and several other year for this millennium. Nevertheless we need to select the information from the most credible source. It seems that your opinion is that XSZ project is the most credible. I agreed with that for a long time, but have changed my mind the more I read about the Pankenier/Nivison research.

I appreciate that you make a compromise proposal, but I want to make a counter-proposal: "1550s BC". How about that? BR --Bairuilong (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The 1554 BC date is based on a five-planet conjunction that supposedly occurred in 1576 BC. This was centuries before writing was introduced to China, so there is nothing resembling a contemporary record. Venus was 40 degrees away from conjunction on the night in question, so it was four-planet conjunction. These are too common to be used for chronology. What are the chances that both the beginning and the end of the Shang dynasty were predicted by five-planet conjunctions? The ancients loved cyclical history and astrologers had an interest in promoting the idea that events can be predicted by astrology. IMO, a round number is best when dating a possibly mythical event. See "Astro-Historigraphic Chronologies of Early China are Unfounded:"

"Several researchers have made proposals for a chronology of ancient China that rely on records of astronomical events—solar eclipses or five-planet conjunctions. It is shown herein that either the events did not occur or there is no reliable record of them, or both, and that such problems are unrectifiable." While XSZ is based on eclipse data, Cambridge History uses a dating system based on five-planet conjunctions, according to the article.

As for the Bamboo Annals, it records an eclipse in 776 BC that did not occur. This supposed eclipse was at one time quite well known to historians, but it was later debunked. Spring and Autumn Annals records solar eclipses on 3 April 645 BC,15 May 592 BC, 19 September 552 BC, and 18 July 549 BC. None of these supposed eclipses actually occurred.

1600 BC is by far the most commonly given start date for the Shang dynasty, according to this ngram. This has been the case going back to the 19th century, long before XSZ. Fairnesscounts (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Fortunately, we will certainly not base the dating in our articles on Google-statistic. Add (2001 - 1046 BC) to your statistic, and you have a winner, and a food for thought what your graphics show. Your statistical graphics have very little in common with the state of research for the dating of the Shang Dynasty. BR --Bairuilong (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

To also give a more nuanced answer and comment on the Keenan-article:

Keenan places great emphasis on the fact that he judge that Venus was to far away from the other planets 1576 BC in order to be counted as a true five-planet conjunction. However, it is quite extreme to make that assessment of the exact meaning what "五星錯行" meant when was written thousands years ago. It is also important to add the fact that not least Nivison add a important layer of chronology synchronisation on top of the years for the astronomical event. The 1576 BC planet conjunction is only one part of the background to the 1555/1554 BC dating. BR --Bairuilong (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe the XSZ project is particularly credible, though I do appreciate their modesty in choosing a round number. The truth is that there can be very little basis for dating events from centuries prior to the invention of writing in a given part of the world. All we can do is assess which dates are the most used in the sources. It is possible to trick ngrams, but it is still true that 1600 BC is the most commonly used date.

Astronomical events offer very precise dates, but using them for this period means using the "current text" Bamboo Annals, which most (but not all) scholars believe to be a Ming-era forgery – even champions of the "current text" like Nivison and Shaughnessy acknowledge that they are in the minority. Even the original Bamboo Annals was compiled in the Warring States period, more than a millennium after the dates at issue. Pankenier then has to interpret opaque passages as referring to five-planet conjunctions in certain parts of the sky. Nivison's dating is based on a complex re-interpretation of the reign lengths given in the "current text" Bamboo Annals; he acknowledges that almost no-one agrees with him on this. They build elaborate structures, on completely unreliable foundations.

"1550s" is a less precise version of 1555, but it is still unjustifiably precise. Kanguole 09:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

First: We should definitely drop the discussions of what is most frequent published. We need to focus on judge which credible source publishes what.

Having said that; If we should find a dating formulation that cover result from both XSZ project and Pankenier/Nivison I think we need to look at the background to "1600 BC". The way I understand this date is that the XSZ project could not agree if Erlitou Phase III belongs to Xia or Shang. Rounded worded I think we can say that the joint between Phase II and III is about 1600 BC and the joint between Phase III and IV is about 1560 BC. My conclusion of this is that the XSZ project-intention is that Shang begins about 1600 BC or about 1560 BC, and the round date "c. 1600 BC" could be imprecise enough to cover both alternative. I think the expression: "First half of 16th century BC" cover the intention of XSZ project and the Pankenier/Nivison dates. Could this be something? BR --Bairuilong (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keightley (1999), David Keightley's essay for Cambridge History, is the most cited serious source on Shang China, including 14 times in this article. It is also recommended by Wilkinson (2013), a manual for historians of China. Keightley dates the dynasty as "ca. 1570-1045 BC." Fairbank & Goldman (2006) gets 12 citations. (This is harder to justify since it has only a few pages on the Shang.) In any case, it dates the dynasty as 1750–1040 BC. Lee (2002) gets four cites. His dates are 1600-1046 BC. He cites XSZ.

Encyclopedia.com returns Gale Encyclopedia of World History, which gives 1766 to 1122 BC, and Oxford World Encyclopedia, which gives c.1523–c.1030 bc. Oxford Reference returns Berkshire Encyclopedia of China, which gives 1766 bce–1045 bce.

Since our sourcing consists primarily of Cambridge History authors and editors such as Keightley, Bagley, and Shaughnessy, I would conclude that we should be using the Cambridge History date for the beginning of the dynasty, namely c. 1570 BC. Fairnesscounts (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

As far as I see, the year 1570 BC is only mentioned within parenthesis in the Cambridge History. When Keightley in chapter "Chronology / Absolute Dating" goes in to details regarding dating of the beginning of the dynasty he actually referring to Pankenier and the dating 1554 BC, and he does not give any other dates more weight. I still would say that "First half of 16th century BC" is the best interpretation of the existing source state, if we decide to not go for 1554 BC. BR --Bairuilong (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

What source says "first half of 16th century BC"? Surely Cambridge History is better than using no source. Fairnesscounts (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You can find the background to the proposal if you read my text above from 11:25, 23 July 2022 that it is a way to include both the intention from the XSZ project and the Pankenier/Nivison dates in an inclusive expression. I think "Cambridge History of Ancient China" is a good source. The way I understand the Shang dating chapter (D.N. Keightley, chapter "Chronology / Absolute Dating". page 248) is that the only relevant year mentioned for the establishment of the Shang is 1554 BC (with reference to Pankenier). The "1570" within parenthesis is not mentioned and left without explanation in the text. If we strictly should follow Cambridge History of Ancient China, then I think we should go for 1554 BC. That's also fine - and that was my original suggestion in this discussion. BR --Bairuilong (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

What you are proposing is called WP:SYNTHESIS. By far the most common solution is to use 1600 BC as the start date of this dynasty. It's a nice round number that confesses lack of precise knowledge. Dates based on Chinese astrology are notoriously inaccurate. This one seems particularly suspicious since it is centuries before the introduction of writing. Fairnesscounts (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• Top-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
• B-Class Chinese history articles
• Top-importance Chinese history articles
• WikiProject Chinese history articles
• WikiProject China articles