Talk:Longshan culture

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I check the source by user 209.236.86.201. 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought
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)
thread_title: Not in citation given

message: 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:
http://www.ibiblio.org/chinesehistory/contents/02cul/c03s04.html#The 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 24.23.211.76 (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Unreliable source for http://www.ibiblio.org/ 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Archeological cultures vs traditional history 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dawenkou vs. Yangshao contribution to Longshan

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:   
WP: SOURCE
 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)
thread_title: Xia, Shang and Zhou developing from Central Plains Longshan variant

message: 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)
thread_title: Dawenkou to Longshan transfer

message: 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
http://archaeology.about.com/od/lterms/qt/longshan.htm
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Shijiahe as Longshan-type vs Longshan-era

message: I have read several books suggesting discovery of bronze tools at the site of the Longshan culture ex:"The Great Bronze Age of China: An Exhibition from the People's Republic of China" page 2 and the wiki article for "bronze age" suggests a culture is considered bronze age when they first have bronze tools. So would the Longshan culture by wiki standards be considered bronze age? ---Tony  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.73.251 (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A very small number of metal objects have been found at Longshan sites.  The metals involved are variously described: for example, of the objects Ma mentions, the Sanlihe awl is described as copper or brass by various authors, and the Dachengshan plaques are 99.33% copper.  That is, these are early experiments in metallurgy, but stone and bone tools are predominant.  Kanguole 21:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Wiki pages can't be relied on.  We should follow scholarly sources, and they describe Longshan as Neolithic, presumably for reasons like those I tried to explain above.  Kanguole 12:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Neolithic or Bronze?

message: This section doesn't make sense. How is the debate about western influence on Yangshao impacted by the discovery of Longshan, a successor to Yangshao? The bit about bronzeware also seems unsupported, and most of the rest of the last paragraph is redundant. Kanguole 16:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance section