If you do research with a purpose, the test results will be wrong no matter what.
Later, they also said that other professionals, such as Qiu Shihua, agreed with the issues raised by Jiang Zudi.
He also said that he personally also has doubts about the carbon-14 data in "Jianben".
Zhang Changshou also made it clear that he personally agreed with Jiang Zudi’s opinion on the archaeological staging of Lixi.
The foreign professor present, named Shaughnessy, was also shocked.
This is a bit of a surprise to the allies. This person asked: In this case, is the "Western Chronology" based on carbon-14 and Lixi archeology still tenable?
Zhang Lidong, who participated in the meeting, was once the secretary of "Project" and is now a doctoral student at the University of Chicago.
Look, who are these people and what are they doing now?
This former friend, the secretary, introduced the meeting content in the domestic "Huaxia Cultural Relics News" on May 24, 2002.
Among them, "engineering" experts who agreed with Jiang Zudi's views were also reported.
The report immediately caused an uproar in the domestic academic community.
More than two months later, on August 16, "Huaxia Cultural Relics News" published an article titled "Answers to Chou's Journey to the Kingdom of China - About the "Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasty Project".
This was written by the author Su Hui after interviewing relevant experts, stating that Zhang Lidong’s report is not consistent with the facts.
It mainly causes misunderstandings among readers in key aspects.
For example, according to the memories of Su Hui and Qiu Shihua, the situation of the meeting in Chicago was different from what Chiang had said before.
"Jiang Zudi asked to use a computer to check the data on the spot. According to the conditions I provided, it was found that the difference was only one year. I laughed and said: 'If we calculate it again, there may be a difference of two years, but this is within the allowable error range and does not mean anything.
question.'"
Several scholars who participated in the Chicago seminar at that time said that they personally heard Qiu Shihua express his agreement with Jiang Zudi's opinion, and were also surprised by Qiu Shihua's unserious attitude.
Xu Lianggao, the author of the "Lixi Excavation Report of 1997" criticized by "Jiang Wen", also behaved similarly.
Xu argued in the Huaxia Cultural Relics News that the terminology he used in his report was "approximately equivalent to" the period of a certain king.
When "Chiang Wen" quoted it, "all of them were deleted" and the "Excavation Report" was verified.
The original text is: "First issue: It is estimated that it dates from King Wen moving to Li to King Wu conquering Zhou."
The second period: It is estimated that its era is from the early years of the Western Zhou Dynasty from King Wu to the early period of King Cheng.
Therefore, the quotations from "Chiang's Wen" are completely faithful to the original text.
From Qiu Shihua not acknowledging his speech at the lecture to Xu Lianggao not acknowledging the published text, some scholars have doubted the academic ability and attitude of some major scholars of the "project".
Of course, we can just take a look at these things, and the most we can do is laugh at these clowns.
It turns out that they may be masters at home, but after going abroad, they become clowns.
This is because the butt determines the head, and we don’t mean to belittle them casually.
If these people are science students, after they go abroad, in order to curry favor with their ugly masters, they can get a good life as long as they work hard.
What about some liberal arts professors and experts?
What is the use of Eastern culture to ugly Westerners? It would be best to simply exterminate it.
Therefore, some literati and scholars who went to the West to beg for food, the Eastern culture they studied became useless.
So, how do you win the favor of your masters in the West?
There is a way to attack Eastern culture, dig up their roots, poke out their seedlings, and destroy the five thousand years of cultural pride of the great Eastern countries. This can also be flattering, and maybe you can get some meat and bones.
Therefore, such people emerge in endlessly.
In fact, there are many people with crooked buttocks, such as some literati in Wanwan.
In early January 2013, Xia Hanyi, a professor in the Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures at the University of Chicago, made this statement.
At the just-concluded 4th International Sinology Conference of the Academia Sinica held in Benbei, he questioned the "Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasty Project".
He asserted that the project is "a complicated copy" and may not be published in the future.
Li Xueqin, the chief expert of the "Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasty Dating Project" and a professor at Huaqing University, responded that it is normal to have disputes and that the "traditional version" is under review and will be released in a while.
Xia Hanyi said that the "Jianben" only provided a general framework for the Xia and Shang dynasties, and provided absolute dates for the late Shang dynasty, but he also admitted that these dates were not necessarily accurate.
It is completely different for the Western Zhou Dynasty. From King Wu's defeat of Zhou to King You's death under Mount Li, absolute dates are provided for the reigns of the 12 kings of the Western Zhou Dynasty.
Xia Hanyi believes: "The reigning years of the Western Zhou kings recorded in the "Jianben" are not consistent with any ancient history books. If you can find support in ancient books, you can quote them, and if you can't find support, you can discard them. This is obviously different from the general historical method.
Disagree.
In addition to the fact that the date of King Wu's defeat of Shang is based on the "Yi Zhou Shu Shi Fu Jie" and other documents handed down from ancient times, and the first year of King Yi is based on the record of "Tian Zaidan in Zheng" contained in the "Bamboo Book Annals", the "Jianben" contains
The reign dates of the kings of the Western Zhou Dynasty are basically divided into periods based on the chronological records contained in sixty-three bronze inscriptions that have been published at that time.
Not only can the chronological framework and periodization proposed in the "Jianbian" cannot accommodate the newly discovered bronze inscriptions in recent years, but there are also several important errors in the periodization of the original sixty-three bronzes. The basis of the "Jianben" is so wrong.
The framework also fell into disrepair.”
It's normal to have different opinions. We're just dating, not saying this is absolutely correct.
Why date the dynasty? Only when the existence of this dynasty is confirmed can we date the dynasty.
From this point of view, these opponents actually recognize the five thousand years of Chinese history.
In the "Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasty Project", Xia, Shang and Zhou are only regarded as a staged academic achievement, and we do not expect it to become a final conclusion. It is normal to have disputes.
The complex version of the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasty engineering report was not released for a long time after the simplified version was released, mainly because the manuscript had not been finalized.
Because there was a lot of data and all needed to be very precise, it took a long time.
In addition, there are still a lot of new materials and new data that need to be added, and at the same time, some opinions and views from the academic community should be absorbed.
Since more than ten years have passed since the simplified version was released, there will be certain differences in the traditional version.
It is estimated that there will be debates after it is released, and this is how scientific work is.
This kind of work must be done no matter how controversial it is. The main reason is that it is meaningful.
First of all, the Xia, Shang and Zhou chronology project gave a rough chronology of the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties.
This will promote future academic research. As a staged result, it is not the final conclusion. Discussion is beneficial to academic progress.
Secondly, a large amount of capital and technology investment has enabled my country's archeology, especially at the technical level, to achieve great development.
This kind of multidisciplinary joint research is conducive to the development of archeology as an interdisciplinary subject.