Talk:Erligang culture

followedby in infobox

The |followedby= field of {{infobox archaeological culture}} is documented as holding "The culture that directly followed this culture in its geographical range". That clearly does not include the Feijiahe culture, whose range was south of the former Erligang range. Kanguole 23:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I recommend you read the sources instead of looking at a Wikipedia map (which are often a bit inaccurate / outdated). Feijiahe was within the Erligang culture geographic range: Several Feijiahe sites originated as Erligang sites, with one of them -Tonggushan- so extremely Erligang-influenced that researchers even speculated that it was founded by migrants originating at the northern Erligang centers. Applodion (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The argument for Feijiahe being within the geographical range of the Erligang culture seems to rest on Tonggushan, which is described as an outpost of Panlongcheng. During the Xiaoshuangqiao-Huanbei period, its pottery is said to have been still predominantly of Central Plain type (though with southern influences as in Erligang times), but replaced by southern influences during the Anyang period (Campbell pp116, 161). Thus it is not even a marginal overlap between the southern periphery of Erligang and the northern periphery of Feijiahe. Erligang was succeeded at the site by a North-China-plain-style Xiaoshuangqiao-Huanbei layer, as in most of the rest of the former Erligang area. Only in the later Anyang period were these replaced with southern forms. Kanguole 16:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Anyang is associated with the Shang dynasty, i.e. the northern successor of Erligang. You just reaffirmed(!) that Feijiahe is the southern successor of Erligang. So I don't understand how you conclude that there is somehow no overlap. Robin McNeal (2014) repeatedly notes that Feijiahe was a Erligang successor. Applodion (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The successor of Erligang was Xiaoshuangqiao–Huanbei (aka Middle Shang). The successor to that was Anyang (aka Late Shang) and several other cultures. (cf Campbell, Liu & Chen, etc) I was unable to find where McNeal speaks of a "successor", but in any case the particular sense required by the |followedby= field is "directly followed this culture in its geographical range", which is not the case here. Kanguole 17:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

That's the whole point. Feijiahe maintained Erligang traditions, and was apart from Erligang's northern successors. I still don't see how you can argue that there was no overlap when Feijiahe sites like Tonggushan were literally Erligang-dominated. To word it differently: Panlongcheng is regarded as Erligang culture site, and Feijiahe succeeded southern Panlongcheng-Erligang outposts. Ergo facto, Feijiahe was literally built upon Erligang sites and was within its geographical range.
Perhaps we misunderstand each other. My basic argument boils down to the fact that the Erligang culture extended further south, with Tonggushan (settled during Erligang II) and other local sites within its range. Locally, these southernmost sites were then succeeded by Feijiahe. Based on your sandboxes, I see that you appear to be well versed in the period, so perhaps my argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding - do you have read sources which outright say that Tonggushan & co. were not Erligang sites? If so, I would obviously withdraw my position.
Or do you mean that there was no overlap because the "southern influences" only became predominant in the later Shang period, thus meaning that there was a time gap between Erligang and Feijiahe? If so, that assumption would be incorrect due to the problematic (i.e. almost nonexistent) definition of Feijiahe - it is basically seen only as culture marked by northern-southern mixture which appeared after Panlongcheng waned in importance, meaning that the phase when Tonggushan was still dominated by Erligang with more southern influences during the middle Shang actually also falls under the Feijiahe culture label. Applodion (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Tonggushan was an Erligang site. What is this "& co"? For example, McNeal (p182) says Zaoshi and Baota were not Erligang.

The "directly followed this culture in its geographical range" fails on two counts. The Tonggushan assemblages designated as Feijiahe overlay Xiaoshuangqiao–Huanbei layers, which are the direct successor to Erligang (Campbell pp116, 161). Incidentally, Campbell does not speak of southern influences gradually increasing in the X–H period, but rather of them having been present since the foundation of the site in the Erligang period, and of the site being abandoned before the Feijiahe assemblages appeared. In addition to the temporal gap, the geographical ranges show only a small overlap. Retreating to the weakness of the Feijiahe definition does not strengthen the case.

Also, the whole Shang (north) / Feijiahe (south) framing is off. Erligang was succeeded throughout its range by Xiaoshuangqiao–Huanbei assemblages. That in turn was replaced by around half a dozen cultures (depending on how you count), of which the largest was the Late Shang centred on Anyang. Kanguole 19:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Baota and Zaoshi indeed belonged to different traditions, but I was not talking about those. McNeal mentions that there were more Erligang sites, though is not very specific aside of highlighting Zhangshutan as being Erligang-associated.
Your assumption that the presence of a Xiaoshuangqiao–Huanbei layer disqualifies Tonggushan hinges on the assumption that Feijiahe started after this layer. As I tried to explain above, per my reading of the sources, the southern Xiaoshuangqiao–Huanbei elements are contemporary to the Feijiahe culture. McNeal states "Nevertheless, the proliferation here of sites that were roughly contemporaneous with or just followed the last period of occupation at Tonggushan, after the Erligang influence there disappears, and that share distinct cultural features with it (discernible primarily through analysis of pottery) makes this region an excellent case study of how the arrival of the Erligang culture transformed the local cultural landscape" (p. 183). The culture he is talking about here is Feijiahe. Further down the page, he says "Of the nine that have been excavated in the greater Yueyang area, the Zhangshutan site was occupied for the longest time, beginning as early as late Erligang, contemporaneous with the later occupation of the Tonggushan site and perhaps even overlapping with the last stage of occupation there." Zhangshutan was part of Feijiahe. He also reiterates that Erligang strongly influenced the Feijiahe culture: "The emergence in northeast Hunan of an indigenous culture able to cast bronze is an indication of the impact that the Erligang settlement at Tonggu-shan must have had on the region, even if the details of the interactions between the Tonggushan occupants and local inhabitants are not otherwise apparent." (p. 184). The way I see it, McNeal says that Feijiahe began during Erligang's terminal phase (no time gap), and gradually became dominant as Tonggushan faded in importance before being abandoned and resettled by Feijiahe people.
In regards to your last point, we can of course replace Shang in the infobox with Xiaoshuangqiao–Huanbei, and perhaps add other nuances as well.

Then again, I am no expert in this field, and I readily acknowledge that whatever relation Feijiahe had to Erligang was in no way comparable to the northern sites. Thus, even if we disregard the question of succession and geographical range, Feijiahe being listed next to mid-Shang / Xiaoshuangqiao–Huanbei as follow-up culture is probably misleading. Perhaps it would be better to shift Feijiahe into its own small section in the article, discussing Erligang's southern influences. What do you think? Applodion (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I would certainly be in favour of limiting the |followedby= field to Xiaoshuangqiao–Huanbei and having a section of the article on southern influences. Incidentally, linking the Shang dynasty article in the infobox field for this archaeological period is somewhat problematic, because prior to the Late Shang/Anyang period the Shang dynasty is known only from traditional accounts. Kanguole 22:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I will adjust the article accordingly. Applodion (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Is Erligang culture a period of the Shang dynasty?

Someone wrote a section that says Erligang cities like Zhengzhou cannot be taken as Shang settlements but didn't cite sources. Meanwhile, the article on Zhengzhou Shang City says that Zheng Zhenxiang confirmed that Zhengzhou site belonged to Shang by taking artifact samples. Can anyone find a source to clarify whether Erligang sites were Shang or not? Strongman13072007 (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)