|Zhou dynasty has been listed as a level-4 vital article in History. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
History Section: Expansion, but somewhere else...
I know everything's still a mess and much of the history coming out of the PRC is politicized, but we really ought to
- A. Keep the sections here as a fairly brief and highly-linked outline.
- B. Have somewhere else to put much more stuff.
For example, this article – even if not necessarily correct in all its particulars – should have its outline of the scholarly disagreements, consensuses, and concerns mentioned somewhere, even though here isn't really the place. Right now, we've got a branch out at Western Zhou but not Eastern Zhou and the closest thing to covering their early history is the stub I put up at Duchy of Zhou... but there really should be something like a History of the Zhou Dynasty article to tie it all together... — LlywelynII 12:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- The usual periodization is Western Zhou, Spring and Autumn and Warring States. Does anyone treat Eastern Zhou as a topic? Similarly the Western Zhou is so different from the later periods that it doesn't make much sense to treat the Zhou dynasty as a unified topic, even if it is nominally a single dynasty. I'd favour moving most of the content to those three articles and having this one summarize them. Kanguole 16:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
This article needs to be seriously "de-crapped" I remember when it used to be good. here are some issues:
- why is the map a PNG file? this is something that should be SVG
- what is the policy going to be on use of Pinyin Hanzi and English in the article for example, certain pinyin words become anglizcied when the dicritics are dropped from the vowels. which ones should be allowed to do so? should they be put in italics?
- Chinese studies often suffers from poor or inaccurate translation for example: civil servant, scholar, gentleman, burecrat, ect. all used interchangably for describing "Shi" when in fact not every scholar was a civil servant. lets be very precise and consistant in our translations
- Zhou dynasty could mean different things to an archeologist, a historian, a sinologist, an urban planner, ect. we should have a section for each one.
- This article is related to Shang and Xia dynasty articles and the state formation of china in general all three should have identical layouts and section topics and be extensively cross linked.
- If you are including Hanzi they should be cross linked to wiktionary so people can validate translations.
I propose the sections for xia/shang/zhou should be: Etemology, Ethnicity, Political History, Archeology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurdjieff (talk • contribs) 05:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe a uniform treatment of the Xia, Shang and Zhou would make sense. They are radically different, not least in the quality of evidence we have for them and the extent to which we can connect traditional accounts with archaeology. Even the Zhou period is too diverse for a unified treatment. We'd be better off building up the Western Zhou, Spring and Autumn period and Warring States period articles and trimming this one to a brief overview. Kanguole 23:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Starting year of Zhou
Current version of this page says that the beginning year of Zhou is BC 1046. However, Korean historian Min Hooki says in his article A Survery and Criticism on the Date of the King Wu's Conquest of Shang" and "the Chronology of the Late Shang" in the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project(하상주단대공정 중의 '무왕극상년'과 '상대 후기 연대학'에 대한 검토와 비판) there are many different theories assuming the starting year of Zhou. The earlist year among them is BC 1130, and the last year is BC 1018. The BC 1046 is just one of these theories, supported by Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project. This project caused severe conflict between scholars participating this project and the others, including Western scholars and even minor Chineses. David Nivison and Edward Shaughnessy don't accept this result and claimed BC 1045 (see The Cambridge History of Ancient China). I think there is no orthodox theory for estimating Zhou chronology, even the result of Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project is accepted as orthodox in china. Therefore, I think that description of the starting year of Zhou should not point a certain year.--Synparaorthodox (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- We should certainly flag the uncertainty of Chinese dates before 841 BC, but modern scholars seem to have converged on shorter chronologies with mid-11th century dates for the conquest. No-one seems to advance the traditional date of 1130 any more. I think putting "c." in front of 1046 would be sufficient. Kanguole 12:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Move request to decapitalize all Chinese dynasty articles
There's a move request to decapitalize "dynasty" in the Chinese dynasty articles, as in Han Dynasty → Han dynasty. For more information and to give your input, see . --Cold Season (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Source on Zhou religion
Title Early Chinese Religion: Part One: Shang Through Han (1250 BC-220 AD) (2 Vols) Early Chinese Religion Editors John Lagerwey, Marc Kalinowski Publisher BRILL, 2008 ISBN 9004168354, 9789004168350
Language. Removed, without consultation on this page
According to Scott DeLancey, the growth of the Shang state probably led to the adoption of its language as a lingua franca among the southern Baiyue and the Sino-Tibetan speaking Zhou to the West, creating a common lexical stock. The rise of the Zhou within the Shang state in turn, strengthened the Sino-Tibetan component, and, when the Zhou established a dynasty, the lingua franca underwent creolization with a stronger Zhou Sino-Tibetan lexicon while building on a morphology that was inherited from the Shang dynasty speakers. The sum effect of the Zhou diffusion of their version of the lingua franca was, he argues, one of Tibeto-Burmanization, with a concomitant shift from a SVO morphological substrate to a language with an increasing tendency towards SOV structure. Linguist Paul K. Benedict also proposed that the Shang may have not been Sinitic speakers and that the Zhou invaders from the west were the bearers of proto-Sinitic languages.
- Scott DeLancey, 'The origins of Sinitic,’ in Zhuo Jing-Schmidt (ed.) Increased Empiricism: Recent advances in Chinese Linguistics, John Benjamins Publishing Co. 2013 pp.73-99 pp.91-2, p.91: ‘When Zhou takes over the empire, there is, as on Benedict’s model, a temporary diglossic situation, in which genuine Zhou speech is, for a while, retained in the ruling class, but among the former Shang population, Shang speech is gradually replaced not by “pure” Sino-Tibetan Zhou, but by a heavily Tibeto-Burman influenced version of the lingua franca.’
- Van Driem, George (2005). Tibeto Burman vs. Indo-Chinese. London: Routledge. p. 88.
- A discussion of this issue is going on at Talk:Shang - weigh in there.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogress (talk • contribs) 07:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)