Talk:Shang Dynasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

12.191.99.15 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)†

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
華	This article is maintained by the Chinese history workgroup.
More information about this article... High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

WikiProject Echo has identified Shang Dynasty as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Norwegian language Wikipedia.

Contents 1 Format 2 Date of Establishment 3 Calendar 4 Various changes 5 Map Of Shang 6 Early Shang 7 "Shang or Anyang?" 8 No reason to note Shang historicity???

[edit] Format

All, I changed the format of this page to add the possible reign length, as well as a little clarity. I am trying to use a theme consistant with the Xia dynasty changes. Please see the Talk:Xia page to review the progression of these changes.
User:MLG

I don't quite like the format of the rest of the text. Perhaps we should make it a bit more structure and include some more information? http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ANCCHINA/SHANG.HTM seems to be nice. raylu 17:08, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Establishment

An overwhelming number of sources seem to state 1766 BCE as the date of establishment, not our 1600 BCE? --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 19:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The exactly year is disputed and unknown, 1600 BCE here is from Xia Shang Zhou Chronology Project. — Yaohua2000 09:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The Xia Shang Zhou Chronology Project is also disputed and we should mention that. Elijahmeeks 20:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the project is disputed. But it is one of the most reliable sources we have so far. These dynasties are very ancient, so perhaps the exactly year of establishment would be never known. — Yaohua2000 10:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely, I just think we should mention it in the article (That's why I started the XSZ Chronology page, which I hope is non-biased). I consider the XSZ project to be extremely valuable and important and would love it if you would take a look at the page and make sure I'm being nonbiased. Elijahmeeks 18:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that traditional dates disputed and the matter simply has not been settled yet. But giving a precise date of, say, "1700" is therefore misleading as to the level of precision known. Using either centuries (not dates) or adding 'circa', or adding "the dates are disputed" or "the chronology is currently a matter of scholarly debate" would be better. I've added "ca." for now. Dragonbones 08:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

       this is all by Natalia

[edit] Calendar

June had 30 days - how is that different from the Gregorian calendar? Beetle B. 07:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'll put together an article on the Shang Calendar, which is very interesting and which I'm researching right now. Hopefully we can make this a little more accurate. Elijahmeeks 18:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The Shang calendar is based on the count of days as far as my research has found out, and nowhere have I found any mention to it being similar or equal to the Gregorian calendar. For starters, their inscriptions on oracle bones give days in the gan and zhi (sexagenary cycle) format. When alluding to months they write (in the literal character by character sense) 1 month, 2 month, 3 month, 4 month... and so forth. If like modern Chinese lunar calendar they employed alternate or nearly alternate cycles of 29 and 30 days, then I would not disagree with this, since the average lunar cycle is 29.530588 days long, and so two months is approximately 59 days or so. If this was the gist of the comment made in the article, then I suggest it needs to be reworded for clarification, otherwise, we'd be left thinking the first month has 31 days as will do the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th, 10th and 12th months of this supposedly near Gregorian like Shang calendar... Dylanwhs 19:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Primarily it's a lunar calendar, with provisions like all lunar calendars to match up with the solar year. However, there is particular to the Shang calendar features such as the beginning of the Ganzhi system seen in Zhou and, as Shang progresses, a full 360-day ritual calendar, wherein each day was a different set of 'acceptable rituals'. The evolution of this calendar and its importance to later cultures, I think, is important enough to justify a seperate article. It'll be a little while before I get to work on this, though, and I would be in favor of removing the current reference to the Gregorian calendar as of now. Elijahmeeks 20:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Like Dylanwhs, I'm very uncomfortable with the Gregorian reference; despite the presence of records counting moons, the primary date system is sexagenary. In line with Elijahmeeks's comment as well, I have removed the reference here: "The Shang dynasty population used their calenders to determine rituals, using a calendar very similar to the contemporary Gregorian Calendar, the only differences being that February had 29 days and June had 30." I look forward to seeing what you work out on the Shang calendar, but I'd caution against overly liberal comparisons to the Gregorian system.Dragonbones 09:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various changes

1. The OB didn't "typically" have a prognostication and verification. Based on reading Keightley I've reworded the description here to be more cautious; have done or will soon do same on other OB-relevant pages. Dragonbones 09:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

2. I cut " The bones are often from cattle, oxen or monkeys, but never from cats or dogs. Shang dynasty art was normally curved." Extensive detail on the source of bones belongs on the oracle bones page, and the content of the deleted bit is not well worded anyway.

[edit] Map Of Shang

The map does not make any sence to me. These are indication of archeology sites, is it possible that all the Shang cities are found? So this map is very inaccurate, I suggest to delete it. 12.47.110.46 15:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

see response to same comment made at Talk:History of China--Jiang 19:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early Shang

"no evidence has been unearthed proving the existence of the Shang dynasty before its move to its last capital. "

THis is not true. The oracle bones did have writings of worship the early Shang Kings. For example, there are worship to Yiyin(伊尹) record on the bones. Please, do more research before you drew a conclusion. Dongwenliang 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No one is claiming the kings that did not rule in Anyang did not exist. There is no evidence for them. They could have existed, or they could have not. Is modern Chinese officials paying tribute to the Yellow Emperor evidence of the Yellow Emperor's existence? It is a recurrent theme for rulers to use legitimacy myths to cement their power.--Jiang 08:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"It is a recurrent theme for rulers to use legitimacy myths to cement their power". True but starting when? Also it is also a recurrent theme that every dynasty is legendary to modern scholars even though the dynasty is mentioned in later histories and even some (or many or most) eventually are shown to have existed. How many western scholars did not believe in the Shang? How many western scholars now don't believe in the Xia? Heck even some don't believe in an early Shang; probably don't believe the capital was moved several times. So many times "modern western scholars" discount all ancient writings or oral traditions when perhaps they have some truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.171.76.248 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

I added the events of kings of Shang after Pan Geng. Dongwenliang 03:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Shang or Anyang?"

I put a citation needed tag at the "Shang or Anyang?" section, specifically at the statement that "western scholars" have doubts about the supposed archaeological evidence. It's a little contentious when we start making these "western scholars vs. Chinese scholars" kinds of statements, so a reference would be good. The same thing goes for the Xia dynasty article and any articles about ancient China, really. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No reason to note Shang historicity???

One of the notable aspects of the Shang is that it is historical. This is a point that should be stressed, not played down. Elijahmeeks 15:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not to play down its "historicity". Ancient Chinese texts claimed that Xia came before it, but the existence of Xia is not as widely accepted as the existence of Shang. Thus, Shang is the first "confirmed" historic dynasty. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and I'm not going to get into a revert war (I should have made this statement before I reverted anything, but I just got so worked up when I saw it) but that's what "historic" means. To say that it's not confirmed is tautological and takes away from one of the major points of interest regarding the Shang. Between this page and the Xia Dynasty page, we've got too much of an emphasis on what is a minority view among scholars. Elijahmeeks 15:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

But... It doesn't say it's not confirmed. It says it is confirmed... The point is, Xia dynasty is really the first historic dynasty, not Shang. Except that Shang is more widely accepted to have actually existed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HongQiGong (talk • contribs).

No, the point is that the Shang is the first historic dynasty. The Shang have writtern records, making them historic, and they have a notable spatial, geographic and temporal extant, making them a dynasty. The Xia are legendary, meaning that they have been mentioned in texts, but have no historic record themselves, and they may be an archaeological culture, with some material record, but to imply that they are a real historic entity, especially calling them a dynasty (With all that comes with that) is a disservice to anyone reading this article. Elijahmeeks 16:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, please be advised that there are 2 differences between "No historic record" and "No Writing has been discovered". First, it is possible that there were writings but not been found yet, similar before findings of Oracle bones at Anyang. Secondly, the Xia Dynasty and even the Five Emperor Period, were mentioned independently by various sources from Early Zhou(1046- 900BC)and prior Qin period texts, these texts also could be called “historic records”. For example, calculation indicated that there is a star somewhere in space, but it is possible that this star is not discovered by telescope yet. I wish you can understand the difference.12.47.110.46 21:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This has all been addressed. Now, I would be happier than anyone to find written records from a Xia Dynasty (And, as a point of fact, I am pursuing this right now in my PhD studies). But until there is corroboration of the Zhou references to Xia (From which all later texts draw their own inference as to the existence of the Xia), then it is merely supposition. To present it otherwise to the lay observer (Who is the primary audience for these articles) would be wholly unethical. Elijahmeeks 04:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted to "historic" - as long as we don't have any written records from the Xia dynasty, everything before Shang is part of China's prehistory.--Niohe 16:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder when and who writing was developed by in the Shang dynasty, a lot of people would like to know.

Probably lost to the sands of time... Thanatosimii 05:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

To make the old, that's something we can answer with accuracy but not precision. Elijahmeeks 17:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)