Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy are sinologists, and this edited academic reference volume, published by Cambridge University Press, surveys the archaeology, history and thought of China from earliest civilization through 221 BCE, each period and topic written by a specialist working directly with that period's textual and archaeological evidence. Its strength is that division of labor, giving the reader the current specialist view of, for example, oracle bone religion or Zhou dynasty ritual from scholars who work on that material directly, part of the standard Cambridge History reference series. Its limit is that because it is a multi author collection assembled at one point in time, individual chapters' currency varies with how much the specific field covered has moved since 1999, and later archaeological finds are naturally not included.
Facts
Assessment
Reliability Tier1
The Cambridge History of Ancient China, a standard multi-contributor scholarly reference covering Chinese civilization from its origins through 221 BCE; a comprehensive reference, so coverage of any one topic depends on which chapter addresses it. NotesThe Cambridge History of Ancient China, a standard multi-contributor scholarly reference covering Chinese civilization from its origins through 221 BCE, including the Zhou dynasty and figures such as the Duke of Zhou. Use for established scholarly facts about ancient Chinese history and figures in this period; a comprehensive reference, so coverage of any one specific topic depends on which chapter addresses it.
Citation
AuthorMichael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy (eds.)
PublisherCambridge University Press
Publication Year1999
URLhttps://archive.org/details/cambridgehistory0000unse_i9g4
Source Typeacademic monograph
Cross-Tradition Connections
Associated With
This source names China directly: "archaeology, history and thought of China from earliest civilization through 221 BCE, each period and topic written by a specialist working directly with that period's textual and archaeological..."
Claims Backed By This Source (74 claims)
This source backs 74 claims across the atlas. As facts: 46 well-attested, 1 scholarly debate, 3 open question. As cited relationships: 13 holds. Plus 11 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.
Disposition By Topic
- Open Questions, 14 claims: 11 well-attested, 1 holds, 2 general references.
- Figures, 13 claims: 9 well-attested, 3 holds, 1 general references.
- Historical Periods, 13 claims: 3 well-attested, 7 holds, 3 general references.
- Articles, 11 claims: 10 well-attested, 1 general references.
- Historical Figures, 9 claims: 4 well-attested, 1 scholarly debate, 3 open question, 1 general references.
- Sources, 9 claims: 8 well-attested, 1 holds.
- Cultures, 3 claims: 1 well-attested, 1 holds, 1 general references.
- Cities, 1 claims: 1 general references.
- Regions, 1 claims: 1 general references.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.