Talk:Late Shang

Cautions

A couple of things to bear in mind:

1. 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.
2. 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)

Anyang vs Late Shang

@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)

Shang territory

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 Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

@Generalissima, it looks like you were planning to take another pass at this review? -- asilvering (talk) 01:07, 28 June 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.
  • I have mentioned Early/Middle Shang.
• 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've added a brief Legacy section discussing the relationship with the Western Zhou.
• 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.
  • I've re-arranged this and an Economy section, with a short Trade subsection.
• Make sure to capitalize your captions
  • Done.

• All of this has been resolved, so I'll do another prose and source go-through

Prose

• Lede is good.
• Discovery section also good now.
• Writing also solid.
• Chronology solid.
• Warfare good.
• Religion good.
• Society good.
• Economy good.
• Legacy and Relation to Traditional Accounts good; though you could get away with making the latter a subsection of the former.

Overall very solid prose, satisfying Criterion 1.

Verifiable

Source list is well put together and very extensive. I did a random spot check of some sources I had access to.

Bagley 1999:

• 13: Checks out.
• 24: Yep.
• 25a and 25b: Yep.
• 145: Yep.
• 326: Yep.
• 394: Yep.

Keightley 1978:

• 65: Yep.
• 129: Yep.
• 383: Yep.

Keightley 1999:

• 9: Yep.
• 104: Yep.
• 110: Yep.
• 186: Yep.
• 206: Yep.
• 271: Yep.

Not noticing any source discrepancies.

Other

This seems to be a fairly accurate overview of current scholarship on the matter, satisfying C.3 and 4. It's stable, and has a relatively high number of pictures, satisfying 5. (Good job on the alt text).

Status query

Generalissima, Kanguole, where does this review stand? Is there going to be another pass soon? The review has been open for three and a half months now. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: Are you coming back to this, or should I put it back in the queue? Kanguole 15:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Kanguole: Apologies for the delay. I looked through and everything seems good to go! Great work on this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Radiocarbon dating

@Kanguole Can we add the 2021 radiocarbon dating of the oracle bones to the Chronology section? It offers an alternative method to determine the start date. Strongman13072007 (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe this refers to

Liu, Kexin; Wu, Xiaohong; Guo, Zhiyu; Yuan, Sixun; Ding, Xingfang; Fu, Dongpo; Pan, Yan (2021), "Radiocarbon dating of oracle bones of late Shang period in ancient China", Radiocarbon, 63 (1): 155–175, doi:10.1017/RDC.2020.90.

This is a primary source reporting a single study. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, using it would be undue weight. (And in any case, they say their date ranges are consistent with XSZ Project dates.) There was previous discussion of this paper at Talk:Shang dynasty#Radiocarbon dates. Kanguole 09:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that the XSZ method is well elaborated on by this article, but I don't find additional details explaining Takashima's methods in determining 1230 BCE as the date. Strongman13072007 (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I haven't seen where he gives these details. In the cited reference he merely says "I have separately arrived at around 1230–1046 B.C.E. The exact year of the Zhou conquest of Shang, 1046 B.C.E., which I follow, is by David W. Pankenier". In his entry "Shāng Chinese" in the Encyclopedia of Chinese Language and Linguistics, he gives the reign of Wu Ding as c. 1230–1171, so he follows the 59-year reign. Kanguole 17:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

First sentence

I have reverted this change to the opening sentence of the article. Per MOS:FIRST, the purpose of this sentence is to introduce and define the topic of the article, not to introduce material not found in the body of the article. Here the topic is the literate period, which according to the scholarly consensus starts with the reign of Wu Ding. Secondly, although "Yinxu" is a common name for the Anyang site, "Yin period" is not common in the modern archaeological literature. Kanguole 10:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. However, I believe that the problem with this is that it pre-assumes that the term "Late Shang" only (or mostly) means the literate period of the Shang (since Wu Ding). After all, the title of this article is "Late Shang" (not "literate Shang" for example), and according to many reliable sources (both Chinese and English ones) "Late Shang" can refer to the Shang period since Pan Geng who moved the capital to Yin. So the term "Late Shang" does has two major (although related) meanings, rather than only referring to the literate period since Wu Ding as you mentioned. In any case, this article requires major cleanups - either the article with the topic of literate period should be renamed (to "Anyang period" for example), or this article should explain both major meanings as cited by reliable sources. --Wengier (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Keightley 1985, Bagley in Houston 2004, Powell 2009, Dèmatte 2022 each equate the "Late Shang" with the "Anyang period". From the latter:

The Late Shang phase, which historically comprises the time from the move to Yin to the end of the dynasty, is identified archaeologically in the five periods of occupation of Yinxu (Yin Ruins), the location of the last Shang capital, Da Yi Shang (Great City Shang), near Anyang, Henan.

Remsense诉 17:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

So according to your source quoted above, the "Late Shang" phase "historically comprises the time from the move to Yin to the end of the dynasty", which means it starts from Pan Geng who moved the capital to Yin or Yinxu (which is located in/near present-day Anyang, meaning that the Anyang period also covers the period of Pan Geng). Indeed, the source "The Religious History of Remote Antiquity Period and The Three Dynasties (Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasty)"[1] also states this even more explicitly: "Yin Ruins, the site of the capital of the late Shang Dynasty, was also the center of the rule after Pan Geng moved to Yin. From the time of Pan Geng's move to the end of the king, the entire 8th generation of the late Shang Dynasty, the 12 kings, all used this as the capital, for a long time of 273 years". Clearly, such sources unambiguously consider that the late Shang period starts from Pan Geng instead of Wu Ding. --Wengier (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems like this article's scope starts with Pan Geng, but I'm curious what Kanguole has to say. Remsense诉 17:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTDICT, articles should be about topics, not terms. The names for things are secondary. The topic here is "the earliest known literate civilization in China", which scholars agree equates to the reign of the last nine Shang kings, from Wu Ding. That is the first truly historical polity and period in China. It is a coherent topic, and there are numerous sources that treat it in detail. Those sources call this topic "Late Shang" or "Anyang period". Other sources, focussed more on historiography than archaeology, tend to use these terms for the period from Pan Geng. That could be mentioned in a footnote. On this point, Campbell (Archaeology of the Chinese Bronze Age, p. 180, n. 6) says:

Despite a strong later textual tradition that identifies the Shang king Pan Geng with the establishment of a capital at Anyang and the long-held belief that the Anyang period begins with his reign, there is little or no evidence, either in oracle-bones, the royal cemetery, or the palace-temple complex, for kings prior to Wuding at Anyang. Some scholars have suggested instead that Huanbei, just across the river to the north, might be the capital that Panlong [typo for Pan Geng, I think] was supposed to have established in the area (Yang and Tang 1999).

This suggests that "the Shang from Pan Geng" is not a coherent topic. Kanguole 22:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

While is true that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is not always correct to say that "articles should be about topics, not terms". FYI, in WP:NOTDICT there is a section "When a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject" (WP:WORDISSUBJECT) that states "a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject", and a good example is Cathay as an alternative name for China rather than focusing on China itself. In the case of "Late Shang" however, the main problem appears to be that (as mentioned above) some sources treat it in terms of archaeology, and other sources treat it in terms of historiography, and it is common for the latter to divide the Shang dynasty into "Early Shang" and "Late Shang" (in a similar way to Western Zhou and Eastern Zhou for the Zhou dynasty), rather than talking about the historical polity based on archaeology (and note that in the case of historiography, whether the capital Pan Geng moved to was indeed Anyang or not does not really matter, since the division of "Early Shang" and "Late Shang" is simply a historiographical convention). As there is now no doubt that the term "Late Shang" is ambiguous, I think the WP naming rule "natural disambiguation" probably offers a good solution, which prefers an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources. Indeed, the term "Anyang period" as also commonly referred to by sources does not appear to be ambiguous - whether the capital Pan Geng moved to was indeed Anyang (per Campbell), I don't think historians usually use the term "Anyang period" to refer to "Late Shang" in the historiographical sense; instead, "Anyang period" generally refers to the historical polity based on archaeology (i.e. the topic of the current article). Thus it may indeed be a good solution to move this article to "Anyang period" so that it will have a unique title, instead of using an ambiguous term for the topic. --Wengier (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I take the point regarding WORDISSUBJECT, though that's not the issue here. The point here is that this article is not about the phrase "Late Shang", but rather about a coherent and precisely-defined topic that sources call "Late Shang" (and some call "Anyang period"). The fact that some people use those terms with a different definition doesn't matter. Many terms have a range of meaning: that's why the opening sentence of a wiki article should specify the topic precisely. By the way, "Anyang period" has the same range of meanings, because of the long-held belief mentioned by Campbell above. This belief is the very reason for choosing Pan Geng as the division point.

In Chinese archaeology, which is often subordinated to historiography, the recent trend is to divide the Shang dynasty of the texts between sites: Early (Erligang culture), Middle (Xiaoshuangqiao and Huanbei) and Late (Anyang). Kanguole 12:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Given that a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject (WP:WORDISSUBJECT), it is of course possible to have an article "Late Shang" about the phrase "Late Shang" itself, rather than about a specific definition of it such as the topic of the current article. So a disambiguation is still helpful for the concept(s) of "Late Shang". If "Anyang period" has the same range of meanings as you said, then "Natural disambiguation" (WP:NATURAL) may not apply here, and "Parenthetical disambiguation" (WP:PARENDIS) may be used instead, e.g. "Late Shang (archaeology)" for the current topic, and then the article titled "Late Shang" may be about the phrase "Late Shang" itself (along with an article about "Early Shang"). But as you said some sources divide the Shang dynasty into 3 phases (Early Shang, Middle Shang, and Late Shang), instead of 2 phases (Early Shang and Late Shang), which shows that the periodization of the Shang dynasty itself is likely an important topic. In such case I would prefer a general article e.g. "Periodization of Shang dynasty" (similar to Periodization of ancient Egypt) that discusses such ways of periodization (instead of separate articles titled "Early Shang" and "Late Shang"), whether there are 2 phases or 3 phases for the Shang dynasty, and concepts like "Early Shang"/"Middle Shang"/"Late Shang" (whether we consider that Late Shang starts with Pan Geng or Wu Ding) will be explained in the article. --Wengier (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe that an article about the phrase would pass the notability criteria, as it would be difficult to find much coverage in reliable sources. That would require sources that focus on the phrase itself, rather than simply using it in some way or other. Kanguole 16:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course I only talked about an article on the phrase as a possibility previously. Without a doubt I believe that a more general article "Periodization of Shang dynasty" (similar to Periodization of ancient Egypt) would be a (much) better solution especially considering the issues already mentioned. --Wengier (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)