Talk:Oracle bone script
 | China Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Yin / Shang Distinction
I've noticed the latest anonymous edits made to differentiate the Late Shang from the Yin. What's the standard here? For my part I've always referred to them as Late Shang. Elijahmeeks 17:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- None of the many modern scholars I've read has distinguished the Shang dynasty in general from the name Yin; none of them uses the term Yin as a 'period' distinct from the whole dynasty, and certainly none of them refers to an "Yin dynasty" spanning *only* the late Shang dynasty period. As far as I can recall, all of them now use only the term "Shang dynasty" for the dynasty. Yin was the name of the last capital, and is generally reserved for that purpose alone. The phrasing now on the page, "The small majority date to the Shāng Dynasty (from Zhengzhou), around the 16th to 14th centuries BC and vast majority date to the Yin Dynasty (from Anyang), around 13th to 11th centuries" is objectionable for these reasons. Furthermore, I don't think 'small majority' is good English. I propose we make "Shang Dynasty" the standard reference to the dynasty as a whole, and we can introduce the term Yin once as the name of the last capital, and mention (once only) that from this comes a general synonym for the Shang dynasty. We should then clean out all the other references to Yin, and revert any anonymous edits which don't look right to us. Note to anon editors: please explain your changes on this discussion page and sign by adding four tildes (~)! Thanks! Dragonbones 01:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- They did have a distinction between Yin and Shang on the historial reference, I believe the Art of war did mentioned about the Yin Dynasty. I remembered reading other modern scholars distinguished the late Shang dynasty in general from the name Yin. As far as I can recall, all of them now use not only the term "Shang dynasty" for the dynasty. Yin was the name of the last capital, and is generally reserved for that purpose alone. 08:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'll have another look at my sources. I think I phrased the above badly, though. Let me try again. I've seen Yin as a general synonym for the Shang Dynasty, especially in historical Chinese references, and not commonly by scholars in the areas I read on. I've see Yin as a reference to the period in the late Shang dynasty when the capital was at Yin, generally by more modern scholars in the areas I read on, and certainly not appending the word 'dynasty' to this, but rather in phrases like "the Yin period". That is, I'm sure there's no "Yin dynasty" unless it refers to exactly the same thing as the "Shang dynasty", although the term "Yin period" could well refer to the "late Shang dynasty". Dragonbones 15:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Greeting -- Actually I did seen Yin used as a general synonym for the Shang Dynasty, especially the late Shang, and commonly used by scholars in the areas I read on. In fact, they did appending the word 'dynasty' to this, such as Yin Chao, but rather not in phrases like "the Yin period" or something like that. So it doesn't matter whether there's a "Yin dynasty" or not, unless it refers to exactly the same thing as the "Late Shang dynasty". Since the term "Yin period" could well refer to the "late Shang dynasty. I'm, however, fine with the using of late Shang instead of Yin. 16:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
rename page to Oracle Bone Script ?
This page should be named Oracle Bone Script; I can't recall any academic calling it 'oracle script'. Dragonbones 13:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is this pinyin so ugly?
In line 1 of the Oracle bone script page, "Oracle bone script (Chinese: 甲骨文; Hanyu Pinyin: jiǎgǔwén; literally "shell bone writing")", the pinyin "jiaguwen" looks very ugly on my screen, with odd spacing and an odd font. What gives? I tried replacing it but to no avail.Dragonbones 08:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
not the earliest confirmed writing
I would like to caution fellow editors against confusing the following: 1) signs or symbols found on early artifacts but for which there is not scholarly consensus as to whether they constitute writing. The Neolithic pottery graphs in China fall into this category. (I follow Qiu here; see also Woon) 2) isolated graphs which are close enough in appearance and in time to the writing system of the Shang, but which predate the Anyang oracle bones. There are at least one or two instances like this (see Qiu), so that it is not accurate to say that the Anyang OB are 'the earliest writing' in China. Keeping both of these in mind, we can see that despite the presence of the Neolithic graphs, we cannot safely conclude that they are the earliest 'writing'; and we can also see that the only safe conclusion on the oracle bones of Anyang is that they are the earliest 'significant corpus' of Chinese writing. I have been careful to incorporate this on the various relevant Wiki pages.Dragonbones
- Very well put and absolutely correct. Elijahmeeks 18:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The dates for the Yin (Anyang) period
The dates for the Yin (Anyang) period and thus for the majority of the oracle bone and shell inscriptions should be from the 14th to the 11th centuries BC, not 13th to the 11th centuries BC. See for example Jacques Gernet, A History of Chinese Civilisation, page 41 and page 688. I have made the relevant change. - cyl
merge Oracle bone
I don't see any reason to have a separate article for Oracle bone. Their interlanguage links are basically same. --Neo-Jay (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support. The two articles basically talk about the same topic. Oracle bone focuses more on their significance and history while Oracle bone script focuses more on the writing that appears on them. There's no reason they can't be mentioned in the same article. Even the Chinese version is presented as a single article. —Umofomia (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose the articles should just be made more distinct, as one is about a writing system, and the other is about objects and their use. This should be separate. 70.51.9.57 (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with the above contributor. They should be kept separate. Oracle Bone is a general article about the objects and their discovery. The Oracle Bone Script article deals with textual information derived from the inscriptions such as character form, meaning, syntax, grammar and language related content (or ought to if someone were to write about it more). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanwhs (talk • contribs) 23:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - You wouldn't merge cuneiform script with clay tablets. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Plus, the written language system of the Oracle Bone Script is a separate issue compared to oracle bones that were used for a specific purpose in divination ceremonies by the Shang kings and priests.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The script is distinct from the use of bones for divination, which may or may not have inscriptions. If the two articles seem basically similar then it is a fault with at least one of the articles. The two articles should be improved not merged. Moreover, as Oracle Bone script is ready to be proposed for encoding in Unicode it is important that there is a separate article that discusses the script.BabelStone (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. It is a fault with both articles; the oracle bones article needs to be just about their discovery and use in divination, with only the briefest mention of the script on them and a link to that article; the oracle bone script page needs to be just about the script on them, as Dylanwhs states. There's a lot of development needed on the script page. In the next several years I'm sure I will contribute to both when I get time; in the meantime if someone can do the paring down of each of them, moving info to the other page as needed, it would be wonderful. Dragonbones (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)