Talk:Late Shang

China: History Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archaeology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cautions[edit]

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)[reply]

Anyang vs Late Shang[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ah, fair enough. Never mind then! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shang territory[edit]

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)[reply]

The article presently doesn't speak in these terms; what specific passages are you referring to? Remsense诉 10:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ok so we just better leave it this way. Strongman13072007 (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]