This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
Article should be more comprehensive. The culture being described here is a branch of the jade route between the Philippines and Taiwan, along with other areas in Southeast Asia. I propose to change the title to Maritime Jade Road, to fit the narrative.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibedapse (talk • contribs) 06:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hung, Iizuka, Bellwood et al have established that most of the jade worked in the Philippines came from Taiwan, and that these worked pieces were distributed across southeast Asia. Apparently Liu I-chang (劉益昌) calls this a "South Pacific Sea Jade Road", but the same report describes this as a hypothesis. It therefore appears that the recent renaming and re-focussing of this article is promoting a minority position. Kanguole21:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of the references added, newspaper reports should be avoided when there is more reliable literature, as is the case here, Tsang does not mention jade at all, and Junker does not mention Taiwan and has only two passing mentions of jade, one of which somewhat contradicts the thesis of this revision:
"However, this early extra-archipelago trade appears to be sporadic, geographically dispersed, and low-volume, with no archaeological indicators of concentrated trade at particular coastal ports." (p. 185)
