Talk:Shang dynasty

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shang dynasty article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 12 months

China: History Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as Top-importance).

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country

East Asia (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q:Why doesn't the article give details on how and when Shang writing was developed?

A:Although many examples of developed Shang writing have been found, archaeological evidence of how their writing system evolved is still lacking.

Q:Why are two different Chinese characters used for "dynasty" in the article?

A:The character 朝 is usually read as "dynasty" and 代 is usually read as "period." Since historical periods in China and elsewhere are often named after the ruling dynasty, the two words can be used interchangeably in this context.

Q:Why are multiple dates of establishment given?

A:Because the Shang were so ancient, all dates come from either classical historians or modern archaeology and scholarship. These sources often differ, and they all have advantages and disadvantages. Instead of insisting on only using one source and arguing over which should be used, a few sources and their dates are mentioned at the beginning of the article

Q:Why are the Shang called the "first civilization in Chinese history?"

A:While there is some archaeological evidence for the existence of the earlier Xia dynasty, written records documenting an era are required for that era to be "historical." The Shang oracle bones are the earliest known written records in Chinese history. Therefore, earlier cultures and even the Shang prior to the use of writing are part of Chinese "prehistory."

Q:The article says that the geographical extent of the Shang is uncertain so how did the shape of the map come about?

A:The current map is a vector image based on an earlier raster image, which consisted of multiple, disconnected regions and dots. These regions corresponded to archaeological sites that suggest some connection to the Shang dynasty, which is itself a controversial topic. The current map draws a more intuitive boundary line around these sites, but this line does not represent a certain political or military border. It is a rough approximation to the region under Shang influence based on ties to the culture at Yin.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 365 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 5.

too-detailed scholarly discussion of dates in lede?

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Reading the first paragraph of this article, I am surprised by the in-text inclusion of the names of three scholars and a scholarly project (Pankenier, Nivision, Shaughnessy, and the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project) in debate with each other on the dating of this dynasty. This is valuable for certain, but perhaps too much detail for the first paragraph. I suggest instead, after the sentence on how the current text of the Bamboo Annals suggests rule dates of 1556 to 1046 BC, something like: “Modern scholarship supports this chronology, and radiocarbon dating from archeological sites has suggested a founding date as early as c. 1600 BC.” Interested readers could turn to the Absolute Chronology section for more detailed information. Thoughts? Resaliest (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

100% they need to be discussed as is, but yes the place for that is in their own section and not the lead. The lead can just begin with the generally accepted dates and acknowledgement of dispute or simply say that the specific dates are disputed within a range of ~. — LlywelynII 03:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any reason to mention the traditional dates at all in the lead, considering there is practically no use of them in contemporary academia. Aza24 (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyvio paragraph

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Given recent incidents in articles around early Chinese history/archeology, I've been more wary of copyvio—this revision by Porcinipal appears to plagiarize a paragraph pretty much verbatim from the source it's attached to, which is unacceptable. It's only one, but I suppose I've been seeing it too much in this space to be happy about it. Remsense留 02:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Spot-checking their other contributions, they seem to do this with approximately one paragraph per article. Remsense留 02:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion in progress

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Qing dynasty which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

About Shang religion

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Since the article on Shang religion is already too large for this article's religion section to summarize, is it okay now to do a thorough rewrite of the section? Strongman13072007 (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

That seems certainly worthwhile @Strongman13072007, particularly since the dynasty article is rather short at only 3.5k words. Nice job with the Shang religion article – Aza24 (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply