1,516
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 59:
Line 59: + +
Talk:World History Lecture Three (view source)
Revision as of 23:47, February 16, 2009
, 23:47, February 16, 2009→Earliest Chinese archeological findings
::Andy is correct in that the first archaeological signs of ''civilisation'' (ie written records, inscriptions etc) are dated to the 1700s B. C. There are artifacts from before then, just as there are artifacts from Egypt and Iran that predate the so-called civilisations in those areas. Chinese civilisation is dated from about 1700, but legend and logic have it that it didn't suddenly appear fully formed and accoutred like Pallas Athena from someone's forehead. For instances there is traditionally, and in records written a few hundred years later, a period of five named "Sages" before the first (Shang) dynasty. There are settlement finds dated well before 1700 but they are not indicative of Chinese culture as we would think of it. It is generally accepted that the Chinese Civilisation began about 1700. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:52, 16 February 2009 (EST)
::Andy is correct in that the first archaeological signs of ''civilisation'' (ie written records, inscriptions etc) are dated to the 1700s B. C. There are artifacts from before then, just as there are artifacts from Egypt and Iran that predate the so-called civilisations in those areas. Chinese civilisation is dated from about 1700, but legend and logic have it that it didn't suddenly appear fully formed and accoutred like Pallas Athena from someone's forehead. For instances there is traditionally, and in records written a few hundred years later, a period of five named "Sages" before the first (Shang) dynasty. There are settlement finds dated well before 1700 but they are not indicative of Chinese culture as we would think of it. It is generally accepted that the Chinese Civilisation began about 1700. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:52, 16 February 2009 (EST)
:::I can see the point about there being a difference between finding artifacts like musical instruments versus evidence of an active civilization. However, it's not the age of an item that make it significant - it's the importance of that item towards improving our understanding of the world and its history that counts. I would also doubt that the Metropolitan Museum would publish findings unless there was some corroboration, and don't see why the date claims are implausible. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:47, 16 February 2009 (EST)