Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 5 Sep 1996 13:24:30 EDT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>Constance,
>
>A query such as yours should be directed to the ARCH-L list, not Histarch.
Histarch is concerned with historical archaeology, not prehistoric.
>>
>Anita Cohen-Williams
>Listowner of HISTARCH, SUB-ARCH, and SPANBORD
>Center for Spanish Colonial Archaeology
>4060 Morena Blvd., Suite G-250
>San Diego, CA 92117
>[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
>
OK, sorry. BUT I believe the 3rd century BCE in China is classified as
"historic" in the sense that there are historic documents that date from that
time and earlier. If we do not include paleographic documents then we trace
the date of documents to perhaps around the 4th century BCE (although they
"record" an earlier age). If we include paleographic documents, then the
"historic" age begins with the Shang, when oracle bone inscriptions were
actively in use, around 2000 BCE. Of course, Han dynasty historical records
include the Shang and subsequent periods. The arguement among Chinese
archaeologists today is whether certain ages recently dismissed as "mythical"
might or might not have links to certain neolithic cultures. In any case,
perhaps you should explain to me more clearly how you define "historic" and
"prehistoric." I always assumed it had to do with the existence or not of
contemporary written documents. In any case thanks for the suggestion that I
post my quesry to Arch-L. I do not belong to this list. Could you tell me
how to subscribe? Thank you.
C. A. Cook
|
|
|