My system is not decent

There are many questions about the Xia, Shang and Zhou dating projects, and there are six main ones.

There are three points mentioned above, and the fourth is that the "engineering" does not rely on the records of the Western Zhou Dynasty in "Jinben Bamboo Book Chronicles".

Blindly asserting that it is a forgery, many people do not agree, because the academic circles have not yet reached a conclusion on its authenticity.

The fifth point is the carbon-14 calculation program used by the "engineering", which is only 68.3% confident.

Sixth, the "Project" measured the carbon-14 of a Jinhou tomb, and obtained several data with large gaps.

And "engineering" uses different data in different papers, which seems to have loopholes.

In addition, some overseas scholars have doubts about the academic ethics of "engineering".

The main issue here is the solar eclipse of King Zhou Yi's 'Tian Zaidan Yu Zheng' in 899 BC.

However, in foreign countries, some people have already pointed out this solar eclipse and its significance to the Western Zhou Dynasty.

Some overseas scholars feel that the "Simplified Version" does not mention foreign academic achievements at all, and it lacks certain academic ethics.

However, our domestic academic research needs to refer to the research of foreigners?Are they researching the right thing?

For example, through astronomical research, an American scholar set the date of King Wu's defeat of Zhou as 1046 BC.

This theory was proposed in the early 80s.

But our "Abbreviated Version" does not mention this at all.

In addition, Dong Zuobin, an expert on oracle bone inscriptions, has long pointed out that "Tian Zaidan" is a solar eclipse phenomenon that occurred at dawn, and set the time when this astronomical phenomenon occurred as 966 BC.

Later, Fang Shanzhu, a scholar of the Southern Dynasties, further pointed out in a paper published in 1975 that 966 BC was wrong, and the correct date should be 899 BC.

As for the issue of "Tian Zaidan", due to the limited space of the "Simplified Version", it is impossible to list the work of predecessors one by one.

Also, the report of "Tian Zaidan" is inappropriate.

Further introductions and explanations are provided later on as background knowledge on carbon-14.

In addition, Kenji Ozawa of Nihong also criticized the project for setting the year of King Wu's defeat of Zhou as 1046 BC instead of 1027 according to the "year of the quail fire".

The reason is that the era when our country determined the five stars of gold, wood, water, fire, and earth as the age star was in the Warring States Period, so it cannot be considered that the "year" in this sentence is Jupiter.

Don't we know these, our experts don't know the five elements?Would they not know when it started?

What these people can think of, we can't think of?

The intensity and effect of the debate on April 2003, 4 far exceeded those of the previous two, and there was even an astonishing climax of the debate.

Among the scholars who criticize "engineering", especially Jiang Zudi is very interesting. You must know that he had some academic status in China back then.

However, after going to Ugly Country, their research is even more interesting.

The most important content of "Jiang Wen" is to discuss the research of "engineering" on the era of "Wu Wang conquered business".

The author of "Jiang Wen" noticed that the "project" used the oxcal series of sample programs.

He specially obtained this program from Oxford University, and used it to check and calculate the few carbon-14 data published by "Engineering".

As a result, the age confidence range he calculated was much larger than the "fitting" data published in the "Abbreviated Version".

"Jiang Wen" introduced that although the oxcal program series sample calculation method can obtain a narrow confidence interval, it only has a confidence level of 68.2%;

The accuracy of this calculation program has been criticized by international carbon-14 scholars.

Why doesn't "engineering" use other methods that already have 95.4% confidence or 99.7% confidence?

"Jiang Wen" analyzed that the reason is that the confidence range of the latter is 200 years longer than that of the former.

As a result, the "engineering" leader stipulated that "the accuracy of the carbon 14 age data should be about 20 years plus or minus".

And choosing a calculation method with a small confidence range can compress the time of King Wu's defeat of Zhou to a few decades, thereby eliminating most of the 44 theories.

That is, "engineering" would rather sacrifice confidence in its methods in order to exclude more viewpoints.

"Jiang Wen" also pointed out that the series sample calculation method of the oxcal program on which the "project" is based does not represent the internationally recognized tree-ring correction method.

International carbon-14 experts have pointed out that the process of this calculation contains man-made components, and the obtained age is not accurate.

Its artificial component means that in the calculation of carbon-14 experts need archaeological experts to provide archaeological "samples".

That is, a group of archaeological samples with clear periods and an upper limit age and a lower limit age for each period.

However, it is very difficult for archaeologists to provide such accurate samples. Reluctantly, there is a lot of guesswork or artificial elements.

"Jiang Wen" takes the archaeological report of "Project" in Lixi as an example.

The dating method of "Engineering" names each cultural layer in Lixi after the kings of the Western Zhou Dynasty.

For example: the first period is "Wen Wang moved to Li to Wu Wang defeated Zhou", etc., such a dating method is called "interval".

The author of "Jiang Wen" himself once presided over archaeological excavations in Lixi, and his report was published in 1992.

The dating method he used is called "progressive", which is to mark each cultural layer with an approximate age range.

Such as: the first period is "the first period".

The difference between the two is that the "interval method" requires each period to have a clear upper and lower boundary in specific years.

Adjacent periods must be disconnected from each other in time and cannot be interleaved;

However, the "progressive method" does not have such a requirement, and only marks the early, middle and late stages of the dynasty in general.

"Jiang Wen" emphasizes that in Shang and Zhou archaeology, the "interval method" of "engineering" is very impractical.

Because the unearthed pottery, grain, wood and other items did not change with the accession of the new king.

Furthermore, samples taken from a lower layer do not necessarily represent the age of this layer.

For example: the wood for the coffin may have been prepared in the past, and it was not felled in the year of the deceased's death;

Therefore, its carbon-14 data cannot be regarded as the cultural layer it belongs to.

The conclusion of "Jiang Wen" is that the creation of the so-called "multidisciplinary research" of "Engineering" mainly uses the research of non-literal evidence to solve the problem of the Western Zhou Dynasty.

The division of archaeological strata, the staging of unearthed pottery, and the age error have hundreds of years of carbon-14 technology.

This is very helpful to prehistoric archaeology, but it cannot be applied to the study of the Western Anniversary Table that requires specific age requirements.

From an academic point of view, "Jiang Wen"'s criticism of "engineering" is well-founded and very objective.

The mistakes made by "engineering" are not in an academic point of view, but in methods, which are fatal.

At the meeting, Jiang Zudi orally introduced the main points of his article to the participants.

Finally, with the computer and the oxcai sequence program I brought with me, I re-checked some of the carbon-14 data published by the "Project" on the spot.

Since it is an opponent, the result is obviously different from that of "engineering".