After several years of hard work, on November 9, 2000, the "Xia and Shang Annual Table" was officially released.
And this is the most scientifically based ancient historical chronology in my country so far.
This chronology establishes a three-generation chronological framework of more than 1,200 years for the history of our country before 841 BC.
The beginning of the Xia Dynasty was 2070 BC, and the beginning of the Shang Dynasty was 1600 BC.
Pan Geng moved to Yin in 1300 BC, and the beginning of the Zhou Dynasty was 1046 BC.
Among them, the assessment of the beginning of the Xia Dynasty, the era of the division between Xia and Shang, the era of Wu Ding's reign and the era of King Wu's defeat of the Shang Dynasty has important innovative significance.
This not only creates good conditions for further accurate chronology of the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties.
It also laid a solid foundation for continuing to explore the origin and early development of Chinese civilization and for revealing a clear context of the succession and transition of the five thousand years of civilization.
The important discoveries at the Erlitou site and the Yanshi Shangcheng site in the Yangluo area have provided reliable physical evidence and made important contributions to the Xia, Shang and Zhou dating project.
However, as long as it is knowledge, there will definitely be controversy.
So until now, there has been controversy, or simply criticism of the project of dating the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties.
Since the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasty project was officially announced, its conclusions have been adopted by many mainstream dictionaries and textbooks and have begun to have an impact.
After our country put forward its own standards, foreign scholars began to criticize them. It can be said that all kinds of monsters and monsters came out.
The Xia, Shang and Zhou dating project has just begun, and my country's archaeological technology and theoretical level still need to be further improved.
Since the Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasty Project officially announced the Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasty Chronological Table, there has been constant criticism from both domestic and international sources.
Some foreign people believe that the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasty project has a "political background" and that the Chinese government is engaging in nationalism.
There are even some scholars who have doubts about the "academic ethics" of the project.
Therefore, three debates were held from 2000 to 2003.
Retired Stanford University professor David Ni wrote an article in the New York Times, asserting that "the international academic community will tear engineering reports into pieces."
However, some people believe that the so-called "international academic community" has always ignored our country's local research results and has no say in our country's history.
Some people also say that since Western society can regard Homer's epic poems, such as the works of blind artists eight hundred years after the Trojan War, as official history, questioning our country's chronological history calculated using scientific methods is just nitpicking.
Our government has not blocked these issues, and you can see introductions and discussions on this issue everywhere on the Internet.
Our government has also launched a large-scale debate on this issue, put forward various arguments to support its own views, and supported engineering scholars in in-depth research.
Many domestic and foreign scholars indeed have a rigorous and prudent academic attitude and have certain doubts about the conclusions of the project;
There are also some foreign scholars who do not recognize the efforts of the Chinese government and believe that as long as such research is supported by the Chinese government, it must have a political purpose.
Some people say that these scholars cannot even explain clearly what they have published today, so how can they judge the chronology of the three generations?
Scholars from mainland China who disagreed with the project report were also labeled as "just and awe-inspiring" by these foreign scholars and were said to be "powerless to fight the government."
There is no strong evidence to prove whether the project's results have failed.
Some achievements in the project are also recognized by the international academic community, such as Zhang Peiyu's research, but there are disputes within the project.
In fact, many scholars in our country believe that the results of such projects do not have to pass the examination of various scholars with "complex backgrounds" in the world.
As long as a consensus is reached among our academic circles, Chinese scholars’ research on history does not need outsiders to make irresponsible remarks, nor can it be obstructed by forces with various purposes.
This is just like traditional Chinese medicine. Why does it have to be scientifically tested?
It’s not that science is bad or wrong, but that the essence of our five thousand years of experience is wrong just because it is unscientific?
When you say it's unscientific, is it really unscientific? It's because science and technology haven't developed to a certain level yet, so it can't be explained?
And universities, why must they be in line with international standards?
Even if it is to avoid seclusion, to learn from the strengths of others, and to integrate with international standards, it does not matter.
However, there is no need to find some foreign rubbish to study in China and get all kinds of preferential treatment. Isn’t this stupid?
This is a lack of cultural self-confidence. We have clearly used methods that have been used for thousands of years and it must be correct, but we still need to be recognized by others. Is this necessary?
Just like the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasty project, no matter how much evidence we have, some people with ulterior motives will always find reasons to oppose it.
In fact, just ignore them. This is like Western news and newspapers. Do they speak human words?
Well, this is a bit biased, there must be a lot of good people in the world.
However, good people may not always sit on their buttocks.
The butt determines the head, we just have to be ourselves.
Of course, we can ignore some people's barking, but we must remember them.
The air in the ugly country is full of sweet remarks, and we should never forget them.
And it can be said that there are endless numbers of such people.
For example, on April 12, 2003, an academic conference on dating engineering was held in Chicago.
Jiang Zudi, an adjunct researcher at the Center for Religion and Culture at Stanford University, pay special attention to the name.
If you are truly white-skinned, you will only study Chinese history if you have too much free time.
And this person submitted an article to the conference entitled "Questions in the Study of the Dating of the Western Zhou Dynasty - Criticism of the Methodology of the Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasty Dating Engineering".
He was discussing "engineering" and studying the era of "King Wu defeated Shang".
Jiang Zudi noticed that "Project" uses the oxcal series sample program.
He said that the oxcal program series sample calculation method only has a confidence level of 68.2%.
In the journal East Asian History, douglas
j.
Keenan published an article questioning whether the first year of King Zhou Yi's reign was 899 BC.
The article raises specific questions about errors in engineering research methods.
The article mentions: ...some recent research projects, including those accepted by China (referring to the Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasty Project), are based on a record of "Tian Zaidan" in the early first millennium BC.
These studies interpreted this strange record as a partial solar eclipse at sunrise.
This interpretation seems reasonable. When dawn is about to begin, the sky darkens due to a solar eclipse, and then the sun rises again, but it is uncertain.
There are very few solar eclipses that cover the portion of the sun's surface at sunrise that is large enough to significantly darken the sky.
On April 21, 899 BC, there was indeed a solar eclipse at sunrise.
And these research projects map this solar eclipse to this strange record, which refers to the day of heaven's return in the first year of King Zhou Yi's reign.
Calculations show that the solar eclipse of 899 BC reduced subjective brightness, in this case the brightness experienced by human observers, by less than 25%.