Talk:Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project

Legitimacy of XSZ Project Criticism
This Wikipedia article was created in toto based on Lee's article. There is no original research or unreferenced information in it. Elijahmeeks 20:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Refimprove Tag Added
I believe that an article of this nature needs more source citations than what's currently on the page. So, I added a refimprove tag. MastaFighta (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also a problem with undue weight regarding the controvercy section, which seems to mainly consist of negative (rather fringe-like) views by a non-expert. In a dating debate that involves so many authoritative and well-cited scholars, the heavy focus on this source is questionable. I have tagged for that problem as well. This article is in dire need of expert attention to get into shape. Sophiasghost (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Stephenson is an astronomer, the world's leading authority on ancient eclipses, and the author of the standard text in this field (Cambridge, 1997). Keenen is a mathematician who has published several peer-reviewed papers in archaeological science.  If you know of peer-reviwed literature that rebuts their work, then you should cite it.  Until then, the citations should stay as they are.  62.253.36.4 (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with my predecessor! This article is based in toto on Lee's article. Adding a tag is so easy. If those tagging people actually read Lee's article, they should notice he writes in a rather neutral and unbiased way. He even accepts nationalism as a drive to start this project, because there was no pushing back of dates (to make Chinese history look older). His main objection is about the basic, fundamental, and not to be discussed point of view on which all research of the project was based: archaeological and astronomical results remained subordinate to traditional written sources. This remains a flaw in the project, although the research itself was unique, especially the cooperation of scholars from so different scientific fields. So, that's why Lee objects the linear succession of the three oldest dynasties, a viewpoint even left by famous historians like Su Bingqi (mantian xingdou, 满天星斗, a starry sky). Also, that's why astronomers object the astronomical data given by the Project. The preliminary report was published in 2000, the definitive report should follow soon, but didn't appear until now. So there remains hope! Guss2 (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Reception section
This edit has a number of problems: Kanguole 14:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It removes a substantial chunk of sourced text.
 * It attributes criticisms to a country (the US), but they come from several academics and news outlets. Nor are all of these in the US.
 * It says that Nivison disputed something, when the link says no such thing. He said the project was motivated by a desire for exact dates, but to claim that is disputing something someone else said is original research.
 * The statement "politics does not play a role in the running of the project" has a different meaning from what Lee said: "politics do not play a role in the specific details of the chronology project."

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140224213145/http://www.asian-studies.org/absts/2002abst/China/sessions.htm to http://www.asian-studies.org/absts/2002abst/China/sessions.htm#79

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110815095950/http://ealc.uchicago.edu/documents/6Chronologies%20of%20Ancient%20China-1.pdf to http://ealc.uchicago.edu/documents/6Chronologies%20of%20Ancient%20China-1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ealc.uchicago.edu/documents/6Chronologies%20of%20Ancient%20China-1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229122751/http://bbs.xhistory.net/read.php?tid=18985 to http://bbs.xhistory.net/read.php?tid=18985

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Bias
- "The project was criticized for being a major political project rather than a major archaeological project with the purpose to glorify the Chinese nation, and boasting the ethnocentric nationalism in China, which may raise frictions with its neighbors." Who exactly are they offending, especially in such an early phase of Chinese history? - From the source provided: "The claims about the Xia are already being promoted in China as evidence of the country's "sacred" past--a revealing echo of the claims Japan made in the 1930s about its own history, paving the way for its aggression in World War II." Comparing China to Imperial Japan is already a red flag that this source is not as "neutral" as people think. I guess Southeast Asian countries are "victims of Chinese imperialism", even though they have their own overlapping claims on the South China sea, and their own ethnic issues. - "However, when evaluated on its own merits, the evidence reveals a much more complex origin of Chinese civilization, with many other advanced states that are not mentioned in the histories." Most modern Chinese historians acknowledge their contributions, however overstating it is what I have a problem with (especially with other wikipedia articles suggesting that the Shang was founded by steppe peoples and that advanced bronze metallurgy came from them as well). The Central Plains clearly had the leading role in the development of Chinese civilization.

My requests: -The acknowledgement of states possibly equivalent to that of the Xia and Early Shang (overreliance on written records is not good as many Mesoamerican and Andean civilizations had no writing system). -Inclusion of more sources from Chinese historians to present their point of view. -Removal of the second line from the reception section for its blatant bias and China bashing.

2601:645:C101:3570:19A7:9733:3F20:D269 (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's certainly true that the traditional sources (Sima Qian, Bamboo Annals, Shangshu, etc) give no hint of much of the complex picture uncovered by archaeology. If other articles suggest that the Shang were founded by steppe peoples, that should be addressed at those articles.
 * On the specific points:
 * It is unclear what is being requested in the first point.
 * Which other views should be be presented? It should be clear from the article that much of the project's work was based on aligning the Xia and early Shang with Erlitou and Erligang.
 * I agree that the second sentence of the Reception section is peripheral commentary, and have removed it.
 * Kanguole 14:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * (I am the same person who wrote the first comment.) The project was conducted before the discovery of Zhengzhou's (13 km^2) outer city and walls so it's understandable that this article may not address it. Complex yes, but as diverse as some think?, no.
 * Requests:
 * Perhaps the addition of more Central Plains archaeological sites, such as Huanbei (4.7 km^2), Yanshi (2 km^2) and Xiaoshuangqiao (1.4 km^2) to the "Major archaeological sites" interactive map? The current distribution seems more spread out than it should be, which may give the reader a skewed view.
 * Adding in that Chinese historians still consider the Central Plains as having the leading role in the development of Chinese civilization?
 * 2601:645:C101:3570:70A7:E625:CB4C:1356 (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Zhengzhou outer wall was reported in 1991, but that seems tangential to this article, as Zhengzhou has been proposed as an early Shang capital since 1961. On the specific requests:
 * Those three sites are so close to Anyang, Erlitou and Zhengzhou respectively that they wouldn't show on a map of this scale. In any case, the caption does say "Major archaeological sites".
 * The whole article makes clear that the Project's work is based on aligning the Xia and early Shang with Erlitou and Erligang.
 * Kanguole 18:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (I am the same person who wrote the first comment.) You could just add / to the sites. These are "Major archaeological sites", Wucheng and Panlongcheng are only 61 ha and 20 ha respectively.
 * 2601:645:C101:3570:ED40:FE6F:9B93:CA00 (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That would clutter up that diagram, and it's not clear what what purpose it would serve. As for the other two, the outer wall at Panlongcheng enclosed 260 ha, and Wucheng grew to 400 ha in the late Shang period, which seems pretty major.
 * Perhaps it would be useful to replace the ugly map in the Early Shang and Xia section. Kanguole 23:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have replaced that map. Is anything else required? Kanguole 23:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)