 | Late Shang is currently a World history good article nominee. Nominated by Kanguole at 22:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer. Short description: Earliest known literate civilization in China |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
A couple of things to bear in mind:
- Most of the tertiary (and some secondary) sources tend to be syntheses of archaeological evidence with traditional accounts, which were written several centuries after the period, and have a tendency to project later realities back in time. We can really only rely on what is verified archaeologically.
- Museums usually label as "Late Shang" finds from anywhere in China dating from this period. In considering archaeological cultures, a more fine-grain categorization is appropriate, so we need to find a source giving details of the original source of the object.
Kanguole 15:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Kanguole: From what I can tell, "Late Shang" is the predominant term used within China academia, while "Anyang period" is the main term used within the international literature. It definitely seems like a strong predominance towards "Anyang period" in Anglophone academia — perhaps that might be a better title? Generalissima ( talk) (it/she) 16:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Campbell uses Anyang period, but Keightley and Thorp use Late Shang. So do Liu and Chen, writing in English (Chen is at CASS, but
Liu is at Stanford).
Kanguole 16:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, fair enough. Never mind then! Generalissima ( talk) (it/she) 17:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Can we make any mention about "Shang territory"? That is, I've yet to find any source that defines which "Shang" site really belonged to Shang and which ones were culturally influenced. Strongman13072007 ( talk) 07:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- The article presently doesn't speak in these terms; what specific passages are you referring to? Remsense 诉 10:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed the archaeological finds tell us which sites have similar material culture to the Yinxu site and how similar they are, but that doesn't tell us about political control. (Also, the direction of influence is not always outward from Yinxu.) Also, apart from the lands directly under royal control, there might not have even been a territory in the sense understood in imperial times. It seems the Shang kings operated through varied and varying relationships with local elites. There have been attempts at charting these relationships based on oracle bone evidence – Shima Kunio (1958), Keightley (1983), Campbell (2015) – but the results are fuzzy.
Kanguole 11:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ok so we just better leave it this way. Strongman13072007 ( talk) 12:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Late Shang/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Kanguole ( talk · contribs) 22:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Generalissima ( talk · contribs) 22:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I've been seeing you put a ton into this, I figured I'm familiar enough with things to give at least some decent feedback. Will try to get cracking before the week is out.
(and I haven't forgotten about the GAN you're reviewing, don't worry)
Generalissima (
talk) (it/she) 22:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Initial thoughts
Just from first readthrough.
- I think it'd be good to briefly touch on the traditional narratives in the very initial section of the body and how the discovery of Yinxu confirmed the Shang Dynasty as a historic polity, against the Doubting Antiquity School. Having to wait till the end of the article might end up confusing readers.
- Good point. I'll try restructuring that.
- Likewise, I think it'd be good in Precursors to talk about how the Erligang and Xiaoshuangqiao-Huanbei antecedents are sometimes identified with the Early/Middle Shang (esp. in Chinese publications) and how this is disputed. I think it's important to give the reader some context here, in case they do not have prior knowledge of the Shang dynasty or ancient Chinese history at all.
- Additionally, we're kind of lacking any description of the history of archaeology and excavation outside the immediate vicinity of Yinxu. I think this is a problem in some of the 90s-era sourcing, which relies on archaeology done before mainland sites were as accessible to western researchers. Maybe we can squeeze a little more out of Campbell to fill in some gaps in Keightley and Bagley.
- Campbell (2014) presents the results of excavation elsewhere, and this is covered in the Geography section, but I don't think he says much about the history of the archaeology there, except to say it's getting better.
- This might be a little more radical, but I think it might make things a lot more comprehensible if you incorporated the "Relation to traditional accounts" in with Discovery to create a Historiography section, to avoid having to restate the same concepts.
- My current thinking is to have some introductory material, but leave the rest till the end after everything has been presented.
- Per
MOS:IMAGELOC, you only really want left-aligned images if it is a portrait of someone facing right. You got a fair bit of sandwiching issues at some points; either use a multiple image template for similar images, or make some cuts.
- Done.
- There's a lot of niche detail here that's really good, but I think detracts from the article's focus as an archaeological culture — especially without the context of how this may be different from the Zhou or other periods of the Shang. Extended discussion of the Shang timekeeping system should really be split off into a
Society and culture of the Shang dynasty or something of that sort (a la the similar article on the
Han). The Religion section is a lot better, although I think the Powers subsection be shortened to an introductory paragraph summarizing Shang religion as a whole, since it isn't as relevant to the archaeology of Anyang Period religion (which is much more focused on burials, divination remains, etc..)
- I don't think the article should be focussed just on material discoveries. A theme running through the literature is that we have these two sources of information: the material culture and what they wrote on those bones (which of course were also excavated). The latter gives us insight into how they thought, what they believed and what was important to them (or at least the king), and all of that is a vital part of the picture.
- I think it'd be extremely helpful to expand a bit on the level of Late Shang territorial control, the differences between its core area, its extended territory, and its area of cultural influence, and also possibly give some indication of the extent of these on the map.
- I don't think there is sourcing to define a territory, and it was probably a very complex network anyway. All we can do is talk about the material finds in various places, as the Geography section tries to do.
- In contrast, I think we can do with expanding Society, especially as it relates to trade and governance. I do very much like how you contextualize stuff with the archaeological finds and theories; keep this energy up throughout!
- We don't know much more about governance, and Campbell laments the lack of study of the economy until recently.
- I understand the intense focus on Yin (they didn't call it the Great Settlement Shang for nothing) but parts of the later article feel a bit Anyangcentric to me. I don't think we need stuff like the climate statistics for modern Anyang.
- I've dropped the Anyang climate figure. To a large extent the Anyang-centrism reflects the focus of the archaeological work. Even away from Anyang the main interest has been in elite tombs, with Guandimiao as an exception.
- "Climate and agriculture" is kind of a weird combo here, esp. cause these are both fairly well-covered. Maybe we can put Climate in as a subsection of Geography, while merge Agriculture with the (somewhat too specifically-named) Workshops to create an "Economy and trade" section?
- I started out on a farm, so the combination doesn't seem so weird to me. And most of these people were engaged in agriculture. I'll think about it.
- Make sure to capitalize your captions
- Done.
Categories:
- Good article nominees
- Good article nominees on review
- B-Class China-related articles
- Mid-importance China-related articles
- B-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
- B-Class Chinese history articles
- Mid-importance Chinese history articles
- WikiProject Chinese history articles
- WikiProject China articles
- B-Class Archaeology articles
- Mid-importance Archaeology articles
| Late Shang is currently a World history good article nominee. Nominated by Kanguole at 22:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer. Short description: Earliest known literate civilization in China |
|
| This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
A couple of things to bear in mind:
- Most of the tertiary (and some secondary) sources tend to be syntheses of archaeological evidence with traditional accounts, which were written several centuries after the period, and have a tendency to project later realities back in time. We can really only rely on what is verified archaeologically.
- Museums usually label as "Late Shang" finds from anywhere in China dating from this period. In considering archaeological cultures, a more fine-grain categorization is appropriate, so we need to find a source giving details of the original source of the object.
Kanguole 15:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Kanguole: From what I can tell, "Late Shang" is the predominant term used within China academia, while "Anyang period" is the main term used within the international literature. It definitely seems like a strong predominance towards "Anyang period" in Anglophone academia — perhaps that might be a better title? Generalissima ( talk) (it/she) 16:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Campbell uses Anyang period, but Keightley and Thorp use Late Shang. So do Liu and Chen, writing in English (Chen is at CASS, but
Liu is at Stanford).
Kanguole 16:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, fair enough. Never mind then! Generalissima ( talk) (it/she) 17:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Can we make any mention about "Shang territory"? That is, I've yet to find any source that defines which "Shang" site really belonged to Shang and which ones were culturally influenced. Strongman13072007 ( talk) 07:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- The article presently doesn't speak in these terms; what specific passages are you referring to? Remsense 诉 10:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed the archaeological finds tell us which sites have similar material culture to the Yinxu site and how similar they are, but that doesn't tell us about political control. (Also, the direction of influence is not always outward from Yinxu.) Also, apart from the lands directly under royal control, there might not have even been a territory in the sense understood in imperial times. It seems the Shang kings operated through varied and varying relationships with local elites. There have been attempts at charting these relationships based on oracle bone evidence – Shima Kunio (1958), Keightley (1983), Campbell (2015) – but the results are fuzzy.
Kanguole 11:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ok so we just better leave it this way. Strongman13072007 ( talk) 12:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Late Shang/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Kanguole ( talk · contribs) 22:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Generalissima ( talk · contribs) 22:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I've been seeing you put a ton into this, I figured I'm familiar enough with things to give at least some decent feedback. Will try to get cracking before the week is out.
(and I haven't forgotten about the GAN you're reviewing, don't worry)
Generalissima (
talk) (it/she) 22:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Initial thoughts
Just from first readthrough.
- I think it'd be good to briefly touch on the traditional narratives in the very initial section of the body and how the discovery of Yinxu confirmed the Shang Dynasty as a historic polity, against the Doubting Antiquity School. Having to wait till the end of the article might end up confusing readers.
- Good point. I'll try restructuring that.
- Likewise, I think it'd be good in Precursors to talk about how the Erligang and Xiaoshuangqiao-Huanbei antecedents are sometimes identified with the Early/Middle Shang (esp. in Chinese publications) and how this is disputed. I think it's important to give the reader some context here, in case they do not have prior knowledge of the Shang dynasty or ancient Chinese history at all.
- Additionally, we're kind of lacking any description of the history of archaeology and excavation outside the immediate vicinity of Yinxu. I think this is a problem in some of the 90s-era sourcing, which relies on archaeology done before mainland sites were as accessible to western researchers. Maybe we can squeeze a little more out of Campbell to fill in some gaps in Keightley and Bagley.
- Campbell (2014) presents the results of excavation elsewhere, and this is covered in the Geography section, but I don't think he says much about the history of the archaeology there, except to say it's getting better.
- This might be a little more radical, but I think it might make things a lot more comprehensible if you incorporated the "Relation to traditional accounts" in with Discovery to create a Historiography section, to avoid having to restate the same concepts.
- My current thinking is to have some introductory material, but leave the rest till the end after everything has been presented.
- Per
MOS:IMAGELOC, you only really want left-aligned images if it is a portrait of someone facing right. You got a fair bit of sandwiching issues at some points; either use a multiple image template for similar images, or make some cuts.
- Done.
- There's a lot of niche detail here that's really good, but I think detracts from the article's focus as an archaeological culture — especially without the context of how this may be different from the Zhou or other periods of the Shang. Extended discussion of the Shang timekeeping system should really be split off into a
Society and culture of the Shang dynasty or something of that sort (a la the similar article on the
Han). The Religion section is a lot better, although I think the Powers subsection be shortened to an introductory paragraph summarizing Shang religion as a whole, since it isn't as relevant to the archaeology of Anyang Period religion (which is much more focused on burials, divination remains, etc..)
- I don't think the article should be focussed just on material discoveries. A theme running through the literature is that we have these two sources of information: the material culture and what they wrote on those bones (which of course were also excavated). The latter gives us insight into how they thought, what they believed and what was important to them (or at least the king), and all of that is a vital part of the picture.
- I think it'd be extremely helpful to expand a bit on the level of Late Shang territorial control, the differences between its core area, its extended territory, and its area of cultural influence, and also possibly give some indication of the extent of these on the map.
- I don't think there is sourcing to define a territory, and it was probably a very complex network anyway. All we can do is talk about the material finds in various places, as the Geography section tries to do.
- In contrast, I think we can do with expanding Society, especially as it relates to trade and governance. I do very much like how you contextualize stuff with the archaeological finds and theories; keep this energy up throughout!
- We don't know much more about governance, and Campbell laments the lack of study of the economy until recently.
- I understand the intense focus on Yin (they didn't call it the Great Settlement Shang for nothing) but parts of the later article feel a bit Anyangcentric to me. I don't think we need stuff like the climate statistics for modern Anyang.
- I've dropped the Anyang climate figure. To a large extent the Anyang-centrism reflects the focus of the archaeological work. Even away from Anyang the main interest has been in elite tombs, with Guandimiao as an exception.
- "Climate and agriculture" is kind of a weird combo here, esp. cause these are both fairly well-covered. Maybe we can put Climate in as a subsection of Geography, while merge Agriculture with the (somewhat too specifically-named) Workshops to create an "Economy and trade" section?
- I started out on a farm, so the combination doesn't seem so weird to me. And most of these people were engaged in agriculture. I'll think about it.
- Make sure to capitalize your captions
- Done.
Categories:
- Good article nominees
- Good article nominees on review
- B-Class China-related articles
- Mid-importance China-related articles
- B-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
- B-Class Chinese history articles
- Mid-importance Chinese history articles
- WikiProject Chinese history articles
- WikiProject China articles
- B-Class Archaeology articles
- Mid-importance Archaeology articles