Talk:Chinese pyramids

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in China may be able to help!
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents 1 Satellite Map 2 The actual Chinese pyramids 3 Great White Pyramid 4 Turkic effect 5 See Also 6 Additional resources 7 Turkic Hypothesis 8 Crap section deleted

[edit] Satellite Map

What latitude and longitude are these pyramids at? Are they on Google Earth?--Darrelljon 16:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

We need a map.--Darrelljon 17:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

They are in various parts of China, as they are simply tombs where ancient Chinese royalty were buried (well, not so ancient maybe if you compare them to the Giza pyramids).--Doug Weller (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The actual Chinese pyramids

This article is more about American "sightings" of Chinese pyramids. There should be more info on the actual pyramids themselves. The "sightings" are irrelevant because we know the actual locations, nature, and appearance of these pyramids. I don't have any sources on-hand though so can't edit. --Sumple (Talk) 23:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree! Something needs to be done! "It is now known, thanks to efforts of Chris Maier, that the particular pyramid shown in the photo is the Maoling Mausoleum of emperor Wu of Han" -- as if the Chinese needed some bloody pompous German to tell them where and what their own tourist attractions are. The whole article is almost colonial in tone. (Perhaps not surprising, as the whole thing is so ... German.) However, there is a reason for this. It simply reflects the level of knowledge almost 100 % of the English-speaking world has of these mounds. A sinologist needs to look into it.

The section heading clearly says "recognition in the west", and it talks about how the pyramids became more widely known outside China. We could certainly benefit from additional content about the pyramids themselves, but I see no issues with the section under discussion that a few quick tweaks can't fix. --Gene_poole 11:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, if some guy in Germany with illogical conspiracy theories about how the Chinese government is trying to hide these graves by planting trees on them (!) is viewed as more interesting than the pyramids itself, I understand it can be offensive. And that’s how the article stands today, with 280 words about "recognition in the west" (surely the most interesting thing about themNOT ;) and 40 about the pyramids themselves. I mean, you’re both right. I think the anonymous commentator is especially correct in that there is no decent information to find in the English language, so we can’t fix it!!! :( Bossk-Office 06:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great White Pyramid

I've restored the Great White Pyramid to the list; even if its actual existence is unconfirmed, reports of it are the main reason China's pyramid's first came to the attention of the rest of the world. --Gene_poole 06:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an old message, but I really would like to know when the archaeological community (and academics interested in ancient China) first found out about Chinese mount tombs. My guess is that the article might be different if we knew that.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turkic effect

this pyramids was built by Ancient Turkic people.

please research this.

Turkic did not exist at that time. It is the pyramid at earlier than 5000BCE.

The turks had a penchant for building pyramids in honor of other country's emperors? Kechvsf 17:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See Also

Hi Gene, I saw that you reverted my edits on a couple of pyramid related pages to include links to the pages on Ukrainian and Bosnian pyramids (and for links to the pyramid category as well). I just wanted to clarify why these links do not belong. The Bosnian "pyramid" is considered a hoax. If the digging on the Bosnian hill does eventually reveal a pyramid, then the links are justified. However, until proof of a pyramid is found, the site remains a hill, with an archeologically significant medieval village on top. In the case of the Ukrainian pyramid, the press simply carried a wrong impression of the site into the popular culture. This innacuracy was soon clarified by the archaeologist in charge. Hiberniantears 12:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not revert the external links sections of pyramid articles again. I am well aware that the Bosnian and Ukrainian "pramids" are not really pyramids, and that the scientific consensus supports this - however that is entirely beside the point; the main reason they are known by most people is because some people claimed they were pyramids; it is not for us to make value judgements concerning those claims; our job is simply to provide links to all pyramid-elated articles and let people read those articles and decide for themselves. The "see also" list is a list of related subjects - it is not merely a list of "legitimate pyramids". --Gene_poole 01:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think when something is either falsely called, or accidentally called, something it is not, no reasonable source of information would list it said entity under the misleading heading. For example, when a toddler calls a car a boat, the rest of the world does not have to amuse the toddler by now considering cars as boats "because some people claimed they were" boats. I realize you're taking an inclusionist stance on this, and I respect that. However, I think the fact that the articles themselves are already improperly named is inclusionist enough. Including the Ukrainian and Bosnian "pyramids" in a list of legitimate pyramids is very efficient way to undermine any intellectual weight this encyclopedia has. I think making lists of things which are entirely opposed to the scientific consensus (and in the case of the dig site in Ukraine, against the stated clarification by the archaeologist leading the dig) is irresponsible. To that end, I am once again making my reverts, but in the interest of fairness, I am also moving this conversation to the talk pages of the articles. Hiberniantears 12:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• One further point. This list, when it includes the disputed assortment of pyramids, becomes a fine example of Wikipedia:Listcruft. Hiberniantears 18:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The "see also" section is meant to be a list of articles broadly related to the article subject. It is not intended merely as a list of "directly related subjects" - or in this case, a list of "authentic pyramids". Deliberately expunging links to articles on clearly related subjects as you are attempting to do constitutes an inappropriate application of a personal POV to the editing process; it is not our place to be making value judgements of this nature. I am consequently restoring the article to the default position prior to your edits. If you feel this is inappropriate, you may wish to establish a straw poll on the subject to help establish community consensus on the subject before attempting to implement further changes. --Gene_poole 22:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional resources

• Pyramids in China (utanet.at) - Looks as if translated (poorly) into English, contains photographs. Perhaps an interested party could contact them for the photos? ~Kylu (u|t) 04:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkic Hypothesis

Having just researched on this topic, I would like to state that some scientists, especially Kazım Mirşan (a scientist born in Chinese borders) support the hypothesis that these pyramids were built by Turkic people. Although it is known that Turkic people did not exist back than, he also supports the hypothesis that they actually did exist. He states that that actual pyramids are in an izolated zone where no one can enter. I have not read any of his book (there are more than 10 I believe) so my knowlegde is very limited but I've read that the reason which made him start believe that Turkic people did exist was that the first inscriptions of Turkic people (Orhun Tablets) were so developped that these people mush have been around for another 3000 years. 85.103.8.79 19:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you heard of the Terracotta Army? That was found associated with the mound tomb of the First Emperor. Some of these are big tourist attractions. They are not in an isolated zone. Quite a few have been excavated. There can be no question but that these are Chinese.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crap section deleted

Wikipedia is not a repository of crap machine-translated from French. So I deleted it. Someone feel free to rewrite it in intellig’ble English. Bossk-Office (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

From http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramides_chinoises (translated) Pyramids-tumuli Shaanxi, the most numerous. Many were found within a radius of about one hundred kilometers from Xi'an, ancient capital of China (with Luoyang in Henan). Almost seventy emperors had their principal residence, the royal and aristocratic tombs, typically in the form of burial mounds. Pyramides-tumuli du Shandong Pyramids-tumuli ShandongTwo tumuli near Mount Dingzushan (鼎足山) would, according to tradition, the tombs of dukes and Jing Huan (景公) in the seventh and fifth centuries BC. J.-C., but archeologists contemporaries offer rather as occupants of the sovereign fourth century BC. Four other tumuli near Mount Nanshan (南山) and would be the mausoleums of the Dukes kings Wei (威王), Xuan (宣王), Min (闵王) and Xiang (襄王) the third century BC. J.-C.. AD. The tumuli are aligned according to orients to the north are other graves that are believed to be those of queens and ministers Tumulus of Shaohao to the east of Qufu. Although the exact identity of the owner is uncertain, it is considered long as the tomb of the legendary king and has since the eleventh century temple worship where it is made. Pyramids and tumuli attributed to the Hongshan culture (红山, 4700-2900 BC.) Tumuli funeral and pyramid (unknown function) Niuheliang site (牛河粱) discovered in 1981 in the confines of Jianping County (Chaoyang, western Liaoning). Nearby, the remains of areas and buildings where worship were found effigies of women.Niuheliang is on the list of candidates for World Heritage.