Talk:Longshan culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Historians such as Jacques Gernet think that the Longshan Culture was also culturally ancestral to the Erlitou Culture and the later Shang dynasty in the middle Yellow River Valley region. There are some good evidence for this claim, for both the Longshan and Shang cultures shared the following basic elements:

1. A similar technical of divination based on heating animal bones and shells until they crack. 2. Similar construction techniques for city-walls, fortifications and building platforms using rammed earth. 3. Similar artistic styles.

Furthermore, the Shang dynasty technology of bronze metallurgy seems to be the descendant of high temperature ceramic-making techniques used by the late Neolithic Longshan Culture.

Removed the above addition - mostly because there isn't a lot of solid evidence for the link yet; the characteristics described above are found in varying degrees among several regional cultures, so any direct links are a bit too speculative; besides, the above info is better suited for the article on the Erlitou culture, which already mentions this possibility, albeit briefly--Confuzion 01:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Not in citation given[edit]

I check the source by user It doesn't says anything about Yangshao not being paternal ancestor to Longshan. The user add his own opinion into wikipedia. Please read wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thought. You are not suppose to publish your own opinion or conclusion that you yourself derive from reading other research papers. ShanghaiWu (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable source for[edit]

My personal opinion agrees with this, in that, I think the Longshan culture descends from both Yangshao and Dawenkou cultures. I just don't know where the academic source is from this link: Longshan culture

Which states: "Early studies indicated that the Longshan and Yangshao cultures were one in the same. It is now widely accepted that the Longshan culture is in fact a later development of the Yangshao culture."

Again, I agree with the statement but I think it needs a better citation.. I have emailed the author, Richard Wertz, for clarification.

update 10/09/15: After multiple emails, he has yet to respond. I think an "unreliable source" notification is warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree the source is pretty unreliable, unless the one who posted can prove otherwise. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Archeological cultures vs traditional history[edit]

I have reverted the addition of the Xia dynasty and the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors as successor cultures in the archaeological culture infobox, because these are not archaeological cultures. The identification of the brief description of the Xia dynasty in the traditional histories with specific archaeological cultures is controversial, and many scholars doubt whether the Xia existed at all. Most scholars regard the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors as mythical figures. Indeed the whole idea of forcing archaeological finds into the framework of traditional accounts is controversial. The infobox is not an appropriate place to present controversial identifications as fact, though the issues should be discussed in the bodies of articles. The traditional histories describe a clear sequence of dynasties, which we should use in the infoboxes of dynasties. Similarly archeologists have set out relationships between archaeological cultures, which we should use in archaeological culture infoboxes. But the two should not be mixed. Kanguole 12:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Dawenkou vs. Yangshao contribution to Longshan[edit]

@Balthazarduju: Regarding Li Feng's Early China: A Social and Cultural History, he doesn't state Longshan is a continuation of Yangshao, but says "In this new picture the Yangshao and Longshan cultures are best seen as a continuation of two large scale developments of the Neolithic cultures of various types in different regions in north China." This actually hints at what West was saying about Longshan being a mix of the two, but we can't use this source as saying Yangshao is a precursor to Longshan. He doesn't directly say Lognshan is Yangshao's successor at all.

I will have to read more, but it seems like most scholars think Longshan is either a successor of Dawenkou or a fusion of Dawenkou and Yangshao with Dawenkou being the more "dominant" in the blending process. --Easy772 (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

On page 41 of Li Feng's "Early China: A Social and Cultural History", it directly stated "What the "multi-region" model of Neolithic cultural development cannot explain is how state-level society arose first not from other regional traditions but from the heartland of the Yangshao culture and its successors the Longshan cultures in Henan and Shanxi."--Balthazarduju (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but in the preceding paragraphs he states that Longshan cultures spread out and though had commonalities were slightly different from region to region. So the "Henan Longshan" and "Shanxi Longshan" were indeed descended from the Yangshao but originate from the Shandong Longshan imposing their culture on them. He also doesn't differentiate from Dawenkou and Longshan in the book. Someone else pointed me to this passage: (page 24). We can keep that as a "Yangshao origin" if you really want, but it seems like a general consensus that Longshan came out of Shandong Longshan/Dawenkou --Easy772 (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Xia, Shang and Zhou developing from Central Plains Longshan variant[edit]

How is that a poor source? It's a reliable (academic even), clearly secondary source. I will examine the source material at my leisure, but I don't think it's an absurd theory at all. It's a very common claim that the Longshan were ultimately forefathers of the Shang, for example. The fact that archaeologists have noted more similarities between culture from certain Longshan variants and historical dynasties and then proposed they may be ancestral seems almost expected. "Conflation" of historical cultures and neolithic cultures should not be grounds for omission or reversion. Many archaeologists connect prehistoric cultures to modern ones based on these similarities. Easy772 (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The source is an unpublished article. There is no evidence that the authors are authorities on Chinese archaeology. For the views of archaeologists, you need to cite archaeologists. Xia is not a culture, but a dynasty sketchily described in tradional Chinese histories. Its existence or linkage to known archaeological cultures is unproven. Similarly, treating Shang as a unit is avoided by careful archaeologists, as only the last part of the traditional account has been connected with an archaeological culture. Kanguole 08:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Technically magazines are considered reliable secondary sources. Why should this article be any different? At least this article is written by a professor. It's not like what he's saying is incorrect, is it? If what he is saying is a misrepresentation of the source material I'll gladly drop this. Regarding the Xia, the fact that it's sketchy or what have you is not grounds for omission either. If that were the case then there should be no article on the Xia at all. Easy772 (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".

The material was made available by a university. I don't see the problem and would gladly ask for second opinions from neutral parties. I am new to this and could definitely be wrong here. For the record, I don't particularly have any strong feelings about my edit, I just want to make sure the reason for reversion is actually sound. Easy772 (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Dawenkou to Longshan transfer[edit]

@Kanguole: Many scholars use Shandong Longshan and Dawenkou interchangeably seeing as the late Dawenkou transitions into Shandong Longshan, but I don't mind the move here. Some of the citations about southern Dawenkou sites should also be moved here for accuracy then, as they are describing Liangchengzhen and related sites specifically. I will do it at my leisure unless you want to. I was actually thinking about making sections for all the various Longshan cultures I happen to read about, it seems you were also thinking the same thing and beat me to it.

On an unrelated note, I don't mind that you removed the Xia statement and replaced it with a more accurate one, it's the outright omission based on your skepticism of the Xia that I objected to initially. Cheers--Easy772 (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

True Longshan vs. Longshanoid sites[edit]

There is no distinction between "Longshan" and "Longshanoid" sites in the last edit. The Longshan sites were formed by Dawenkou expanding west, the way you wrote it made it seem like they all developed independently. "Longshanoid" sites developed independently but are from the same era. Easy772 (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually I shouldn't say that Longshan sites were formed by Dawenkou moving west. The contribution and importance of Yangshao and Dawenkou cultures to forming the Longshan sites along the Yellow River is debated. The sites along the Yellow River were formed by intense interaction between these two, but much of the pottery in other areas was more of a cultural transmission, similar to the noted importance of jade ritual in the Liangzhu being emulated in the north (and even in the Shang), but this isn't because of the same sort of intense interaction. Other than that, I'd say the edit is good, but just needs to be more detailed in describing the differences I mentioned. --Easy772 (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"Longshan" has had a range of meanings as Chinese archaeology has developed. The story is discussed in some detail in the opening chapters of Liu (2005) and Liu & Chen (2012), which are solid secondary sources. I attempted to summarize their account. You say "the edit is good, but just needs to be more detailed" in some areas, but instead of adding the missing details you have reverted to a "he says, she says" back-and-forth based on very poor sources: tertiary sources (Moore & Lewis, Maisel, Tanner, West) and vague offhand mentions of "successor" or "predecessor" in various sources. Kanguole 14:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a good edit besides what I previously mentioned. Longshganoid simply means from the long sham era, longshan typically refers to the sites along the yellow river area that descend from Dawenkou and Yangshao. The northern origin point of eggshell pottery is Shandong, not a general northern one. Also if your sources "say the same thing" don't omit my citation please. The Li 2005 source has also been criticized for ignoring recent evidence in favor of traditional outdated views. I would use it sparingly or at least with another source to back it. Also you keep saying explicit statements are "vague mentions". Many books go into extensive detail on the intense exchange between the Yangshao and Dawenkou which formed real longshan sites. this is what this article is about so your previous edit was grossly misleading by changing the whole thing into longshan era site meta description

The "offhand mentions" of "successor" or "predecessor" I was referring to are:
  • Moore & Lewis (2009): "The Yangshao people [...] Their successors, the Longshan people [...]"
  • Underhill (actually Qin, 2013): "Liangzhu [...] coexisted with Longshan's predecessor, late Dawenkou"
  • Chang (actually Shao, 2005): "The Dawenkou culture was the predecessor of the Longshan culture"
  • Li (2013): "the Yangshao culture and its successors the Longshan cultures in Henan and Shanxi"
It is not clear what the authors mean by "successor" or "predecessor" here; perhaps just the following or preceding culture in the same area. Further ambiguity comes from different uses of the term "Longshan". These are extremely poor references for the connections between cultures you intend to suggest. If you have solid secondary sources that go into detail on these connections, perhaps you should cite them. Kanguole 13:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

First off, many of those citations aren't "mine" and were tacked on by users still clinging to a strict Yangshao To longshan continuum which is outdated. Around the middle era of Dawenkou the Dawenkou move west bringing with them material culture. Some of those are mine, but it is clear in that the most updated consensus is that "real longshan" sites are a fusion of Dawenkou and Yangshao with Dawenkou playing a "dominant role". This is different from longshanoid interaction sphere and horizon. That and overcitation of Li 2005 are the only problems I had. I actually an to add a lot back and even reminded me of other citations I forgot to add. I am unable to access my desktop for ~ a week but will soon Easy772 (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

My point wasn't who added these citations, but the very poor sourcing of what you reverted to.
By Li I assume you mean Liu: her book has been criticized for its focus on the middle and lower Yellow River regions, to the exclusion in particular of Yangtze valley cultures. However, this limited focus includes the cultures you're talking about, and reviews have praised many other aspects of her book, including the summary of the history of conceptions of Longshan that I was citing. Kanguole 11:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

If some of the sources are poor, that's one thing. No reason to delete all sources when they are portraying the facts. I will review the sources I have access to when I can and prune them. Regarding Liu: sourcing is fine just not relying on her book as the primary one for this article. It's really not a big deal just your version was confusing origin of longshan sites with interaction between longshan-era sites. Easy772 (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, Liu is precisely the sort of reliable secondary source we should be relying on – a well-regarded expert, published by a reputable academic publisher, giving an overview of her own field – rather than the above vague offhand mentions of "successor"/"predecessor", or tertiary sources (Moore & Lewis, Maisels, Tanner, West). The only appropriate source in that passage is Demattè, who actually says something somewhat different from the article text. Kanguole 22:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No. That would be a complete lack of balance. Also your version is inaccurate. If there are bad sources I will review and reword or omit. Not all sources are bad please refrain from skewing things to one source you favor and deleting all sources even good ones. ThanksEasy772 (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, all but one of the sources in the passage you reverted to are inappropriate, and even that one (Demattè) is not accurately represented. Kanguole 14:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Briefly skimming your latest edit, I find it much more acceptable than your initial edit. I will add some additional information when I am able. Cheers. Easy772 (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Shijiahe as Longshan-type vs Longshan-era[edit]

I've definitely seen the Shijiahe culture listed as a Longshan variant or subtradition, but can't recall exactly where. A quick google search led me to this:

 Populations for one of the largest Longshan towns (Shijiahe) may have ranged from between 15,000 to 50,000 inhabitants within the settlement's walls

In any case, it's not a huge deal. I think the Daxi and it's related subtraditions are pretty distinct from Longshan sites, I've just heard it argued that the later Daxi-type sites are actually closer to Longshan-type. Easy772 (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles need to have a clearly delimited scope, in order to have a useful collection of articles on the field. We have much better sources than the above, and they reserve "Longshan culture" for the middle and lower Yellow River valley regions. Kanguole 00:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Another source is Encyclopedia of Prehistory Volume 3, page 156. The Shijiahe culture is listed as a "regional subtradition" of Longshan. I think it's debatable and personally think we should say that "some scholars include Shijiahe as part of the Longshan subtradition" etc. Again, not a huge deal. I'm fine with just adding the information directly to the Shijiahe article. Easy772 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)