Talk:Chinese pyramids

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)

You should do some more research & edit this article correctly. 194.207.141.183 (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Turks did not exist but Hans (Chinese) did huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.207.250 (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

the bodies of chinese emperors were found in the tombs. so your saying turks built a pyramid for chinese emperors??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.246.158 (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there are Turkic inscriptions inside is evidence that the pyramids were built by Turkic people, which means they existed when the pyramids were built (duh!?!?). By the way, what makes you think that the mummy inside was a chinese emperor? I mean, I would expect chinese inscriptions inside if he were chinese...no?

Let's see some reliable sources for Turkic inscriptions. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

See my discussion below in the "Turkic hypothesis" section. I believe this statement should be removed if no one will bother to properly cite the 'academic' source from where it came, and for a statement this bold, the article better be in English for all of us to read.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Here's Mirsan's Turkish Wikipedia page, although it does not help me very much, as I cannot read Turkish. A quick Google search for "Kazım Mirşan Chinese pyramid" yields nothing but results for public, non-academic discussion forums. In what specific article does Kazim Mirsan support this theory? In the meantime, I have added a "who?" and "citation needed" tag to the introduction of the article, until this issue about alleged ancient Turkic inscriptions can be sorted out properly. In the meantime, let's get real here. Some of these Chinese pyramids date to the Qin Dynasty and Han Dynasty, i.e. the first centuries BC and AD, and were built specifically for the purpose of housing the deceased bodies of ruling emperors. This is thoroughly documented in ancient Chinese historical sources, even down to the detail of moving families to these sites to create settlements that would perpetually care for their tombs. As far as I know, the oldest Turkic writing system is the Old Turkic script, which was created several centuries later. This throws serious doubt on the so-called Turkic inscriptions being discussed here on the talk page, and now asserted in the second sentence of this article as if it should be given the greatest prominence without even a citation or its own detailed section.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, if built by some proto-Turkic people, it would be strange that they would have followed not only Chinese burial customs, such as creating (in one case life-size and) miniature armies of terracotta Chinese figurines to guard and serve the deceased Chinese emperors in the afterlife, but would have randomly built pyramids for rulers they were not subject to. Even the idea that some Turkic slaves or some kind of conscripted workers forced into labor by the Chinese imperial court seems of marginal importance. I believe this hypothesis about Turkic origins hits too many brick walls to be taken seriously.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

In light of that, I believe the statement about Turkic inscriptions should be removed no later than one week from now if no one bothers to step forth and provide necessary source material to back up this (quite frankly) bizarre assertion. We'll see how serious this is.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see this and have already removed it. Among other things, the lead is a summary of the article so claims like this don't belong in the lead. I've seen this claim in a few other places, never with a source, and when I've challenged it no one has provided a source. I've look for one, nothing has come up, and I've done quite a bit of research over the years into these tombs. This is just another attempt to publicise a fringe idea. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, as I heavily doubt the credibility of this. Besides, fringe theories are not to be given any ample space in Wikipedia articles.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

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.

Western Han

Nach Angaben von chinesischen Behörden handelt es sich bei ihnen um Grabhügel von Herrschern der westlichen Han-Dynastie. .--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Pyramids in China vs. Chinese Pyramids

It's not correct to call them Chinese pyramids, simple because they're located in China. China has been areas lots of non Chinese people have lived. Thus pyramids in China is more neutral and reasoable.

? Ok. But they were built by Han people as part of a new imperial tumulus tradition of the Han Dynasty. Moreover, they were built specifically for the Han emperors. In ancient times, ethnic groups did live within the Han-majority society (which at that time was a completely new ethnic group), so it is plausible that non-Han minorities were conscripted as part of the regular community to labor on these projects. However, we have no explicit written evidence providing the names or ethnicity of the workers, only those who commissioned the projects, which would be the Han emperors. Also, calling something "Chinese" is a loaded term which does not necessarily have to mean Han people, so your preferred terminology is in fact synonymous with the one you wish to replace (i.e. "Pyramids in China" versus "Chinese pyramids").--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like another attempt at calling them Turkic. These are Chinese, quite clearly. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You may be right about that. Aside from a distinct Turkic writing system being invented centuries after the fact, is there any written evidence that "Turkic" peoples even existed in China when these pyramids were built? I say this due to the fact that the first real Turkic state was the empire of the Göktürks, established in the 6th century AD, although the Turkic peoples were perhaps subject to greater nomadic confederations beforehand (such as the Xiongnu).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Nope, you wrong man,if you think so,i mean The Göktürks or Turkic Kaganate is the first real Turkic state,you should check your knowledge or information about Turkic-Turkish history. Also there is not any evidence or findings to prove that they are chinesse:)--85.100.79.243 (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If they are chinesse pyramids ...

If they are really chinesse pyramids why chinesse government is hiding them with trees? And china is not using them as cultural image or touristic places Its not logical!--85.100.79.243 (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC) The trees are always there, it's Chinesse tradition to plant tree on tomb mounts. So that life would cycle back in leaves and seeds. And most the pyramids has websites, such the one in the picture on the main page.

May be some greek culture affected guys are so disturbed from using or discussing the Turkic or Turkish name here, but come on every possibility and probability should be invetigated,and the Turkic hypotesis is the one of them.Please dont mix your ideology in that type of studies or researches.--85.100.79.243 (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The opinions of Greeks (modern or Byzantine) have nothing to do with this. They're called Chinese pyramids because buried beneath them are the remains of ancient Chinese monarchs from the Han Dynasty. Archaeologists have excavated enough of them to find all the stereotypical ancient Chinese grave goods to help the spirit of the dead monarch in the afterlife. For example: Chinese silk clothes for him to wear, Chinese lacquer dishes for him to eat with, and miniature terracotta armies (i.e. tiny realistic ceramic soldiers) to guard him. And yes they are touristic places; my aunt and uncle went to China two years ago and visited the pyramid and tomb of Emperor Wen of Han. This conversation has run its course, because you're presenting one of the sillier fringe theories that don't belong at Wikipedia. Academia certainly doesn't support a Turkish hypothesis, if one exists beyond your own personal musings.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

And btw, I'm not Greek. I'm not even a Greek American! Although I am fond of ancient Greek history. And I certainly don't speak Greek, although I can speak Kyrgyz, which is (gasp!) a Turkic language.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

They aren't being hidden by trees, they are a tourist attraction! Dougweller (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

References

Comparison Chart

The pyramid comparison chart was removed due to it being a piece of racial propagandist rubbish. If you're going to include that hotel as the largest pyramid, then you ought to include the tallest building in the world as well. The Shard was tossed in at a later date to make the racial self-aggrandizement less apparent. Likewise, the Chinese pyramid listed is only taller than the Mesoamerican ones because of a 'projected' height speculated by scholars, rather than the actual height--hence the dashed line. As with the Shard, a collapsed Egyptian pyramid was added later to give the impression of unbiased neutrality. (It seems like every single time I look something up on Wikipedia, a certain group of Wikipedians is embellishing their people's history, often at the expense of another group, and it is sickening that no one opposes them!) Anti-racialpropaganda (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:POINT and WP:BRD, you also might like to take a look at WP:NOTHERE. Heiro 04:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not racist (and swearing in edit summaries is a bad idea) but I don't like it as it stands. The Shard isn't a pyramid for a start, and in any case I don't think we should have a chart that includes modern constructions. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Note 2

ok, and where is this mysterious The Science News-Letter, Vol. 51, No. 15. (Apr. 12, 1947), pp. 232-233? I searched the Sciencemagazin with a number of search terms and didn't find it. doi please or exact Link -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 21:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Not Science Magazine, Science News-Letter. [1] is a stable URL for this (might be subscription access though as I'm viewing through an institutional portal).

EmyP (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

it's a little late but as usual in wikipedia nobody answers questions and so I didn't check back into Wiki for a long time - thank you EmyP - (Hartmann Schedel) -- 88.217.180.247 (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Denying ancient stories related with these Chinese Pyramids

Please stop removing materials that are related with the ancient legends of these Chinese pyramids or is there something to hide? it's up to you if you want to believe it but please do not remove material that are related with these pyramids. I would put Alien theory on my next edit, please do not deny all the evidences that are related with these ancient pyramids but if you do remove it please explain why you did it.. (User:92.236.36.173 (talk) 9:25, 20 may 2013

See WP:FRINGE and do not add this nonsense without an ironclad mainstream scientific source. Heiro 20:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit war to reinsert this unsourced nonsense again and I take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Heiro 20:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

:YOU WANT MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC SOURCE? HERE........... -----------------> http://rense.com/general29/chin.htm

" BEIJING, China -- A team of Chinese scientists is to head out to the far west of the country to investigate a mystery pyramid that local legend says is a launch tower left by aliens from space. Nine scientists will travel this month to probe the origins of the 50-60 meter (165-198 ft) tall structure -- dubbed "the ET relics" -- in the western province of Qinghai, China's state-run Xinhua agency said on Wednesday. The mystery pyramid sits on Mount Baigong, has three caves with triangular openings on its facade and is filled with red-hued pipes leading into the mountain and a nearby salt water lake, Xinhua said. Rusty iron scraps, pipes and unusually shaped stones are scattered around the inhospitable and largely uninhabited area, it said.

ET theory

A research fellow at a nearby observatory of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Yang Ji, told Xinhua the theory the pyramid was created by extra terrestrials was "understandable and worth looking into."

"But scientific means must be employed to prove whether or not it is true," Yang said.

Xinhua has not given any details on the age of the structure, or any other possible explanations for it.

But a study carried out by a local smeltery suggests the pipes are very old, Liu Shaolin, the engineer who carried out the analysis, told Xinhua.

These findings have made the site more mysterious, says Qin Jianwen, a spokesman for the Delingha government.

"Nature is harsh here. There are no residents let alone modern industry in the area, only a few migrant herdsmen to the north of the mountain," Qin said.

This will be the first time scientists are heading out to study the mysterious site near Delingha City in the depths of the Qaidam Basin, according to sources with the Haixi Mongolian and Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture.

A team of daring Chinese researchers, digging into the ancient mysteries of the origin of their country, have come to the inescapable conclusion that 12,000 years ago an interstellar, supreme alien race used much of the northern and central Chinese regions as massive Earth bases. One such base may be the astonishing pyramid structure that sits near the apex of Mount Baigong in the western province of Qinghai, the Xianyang pyramid. "

(User:92.236.36.173 (talk) 9:43, 20 may 2013

This is not a WP:RELIABLE source. If you disagree, take it to WP:RSN. Heiro 20:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

And this 92.236.36.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the info for the IP user above, not sure what they are doing to make the wrong links show up in their sig. Heiro 20:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Than what is exactly a reliable source? What are the differences between the citations on that wiki and mine? same thing is mentioned on the google book. This data is acknowledge by Chinese themselves that Alien bases were in China, it's up to you if you don't want to believe but at least let me ( or you ) edit it as part of " Alien theory "

Weekly World News 10 Sep 2002

I'S EVEN BEEN IN NEWSPAPERS.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zPIDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48&dq=alien+pyramids+chinese&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lY2aUeWcB8GmhAeOw4HIBQ&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=alien%20pyramids%20chinese&f=false

"BEIJING, China — An alien-built pyramid has been found in the wilds of China! Scientists have found a 198- foot-tall structure in the deep dark forests of Mount Baigong in Qinghai province that local people say was a launch tower used by "

(User:92.236.36.173 (talk) 9:59 May 20 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please, PLEASE, PLEASE take "Weekly World News 10 Sep 2002" to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask other editors there their opinion on it as WP:RELIABLE (click this and read if you want criteria for reliable sources) source. Please, I need the laugh, take it there now. Heiro 21:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't wait, I took it there myself, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Chinese pyramids. Heiro 21:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So what's exactly the point of this wikipedia? does it seek the truth and wide of different opinions or not?

What I posted is even acknowledged by CNN world news, China baffled by 'alien' pyramid. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/20/china.aliens/

(User:92.236.36.173 (talk) 9:59 May 20 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Obtain consensus on CNN reported facts on Alien pyramids in China

acknowledgement by CCN world news on Alien pyarmids of China had been acknowledge, request to edit this in " Alien theory " section http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/20/china.aliens/

BEIJING, China -- A team of Chinese scientists is to head out to the far west of the country to investigate a mystery pyramid that local legend says is a launch tower left by aliens from space.

Nine scientists will travel this month to probe the origins of the 50-60 meter (165-198 ft) tall structure -- dubbed "the ET relics" -- in the western province of Qinghai, China's state-run Xinhua agency said on Wednesday.

The mystery pyramid sits on Mount Baigong, has three caves with triangular openings on its facade and is filled with red-hued pipes leading into the mountain and a nearby salt water lake, Xinhua said.

Rusty iron scraps, pipes and unusually shaped stones are scattered around the inhospitable and largely uninhabited area, it said.

ET theory

CNN.com Asia More news from our Asia edition

A research fellow at a nearby observatory of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Yang Ji, told Xinhua the theory the pyramid was created by extra terrestrials was "understandable and worth looking into."

"But scientific means must be employed to prove whether or not it is true," Yang said.

Xinhua has not given any details on the age of the structure, or any other possible explanations for it.

But a study carried out by a local smeltery suggests the pipes are very old, Liu Shaolin, the engineer who carried out the analysis, told Xinhua.

These findings have made the site more mysterious, says Qin Jianwen, a spokesman for the Delingha government.

"Nature is harsh here. There are no residents let alone modern industry in the area, only a few migrant herdsmen to the north of the mountain," Qin said.

This will be the first time scientists are heading out to study the mysterious site near Delingha City in the depths of the Qaidam Basin, according to sources with the Haixi Mongolian and Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture. -- (User:92.236.36.173 (talk) 10:55 May 20 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. One small blurb saying some scientists want to go check out a site is not proof of aliens, extraterrestrials or anything else. Heiro 22:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

How about: no. It would be simply laughable to create a section speculating on the Chinese pyramids being built by anyone other than the ancient Chinese for the purpose of housing the remains of deceased emperors and other members of the ruling family. First we had a guy saying the Turks built the ancient Chinese burial mounds, and now we have another saying extraterrestrials built them as launching pads for space ships. Really? I can't help but feel that the History Channel's "Ancient Aliens" show is partly if not wholly responsible for giving such ammunition to the crazies out in cyberspace. I find it odd that said people latch on to historical sites like this to support their tinfoil hat conspiracies. Surely extraterrestrials would have left behind artifacts of their superior technology associated with their spaceships, instead of piles of ancient grave goods like pottery horses ridden by Chinese-looking riders dressed in simple robes. Lol.Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

CNN new link (archived) https://web.archive.org/web/20090823095054/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/20/china.aliens/

OK, it can seem weird but maybe this is backfire of wiki strict (intransigent?) policies. There are more and more findings everyday that sugests a "new inclusive history" covering strange anomalies all around the world . Wiki needs more openess, not dictatorship. Thanks and love. --JKim (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No. See WP:FRINGE. Heiro 20:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

We have an article on this nonsense at Baigong pipes. Doug Weller talk 20:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite to include only reliably sourced pyramidal structures

There are enough sources to do this now. Doug Weller talk 20:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chinese pyramids. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712233414/http://www.hylae.com/en/brief.asp to http://www.hylae.com/en/brief.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015173104/http://caea.uchicago.edu/events_publications/symposia/051306/abstracts/eckfield.shtml to http://caea.uchicago.edu/events_publications/symposia/051306/abstracts/eckfield.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090918215626/http://www.archnet.org/library/documents/one-document.jsp?document_id=3935 to http://www.archnet.org/library/documents/one-document.jsp?document_id=3935

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Explain a rumor，and why there are trees on the grave

From this，we can see the Publicity Department of China is so failed that so many people belive this kind of "too young too simple" STORY which arbitrarily invented by other counties（such as t/Turkey ） and wrote in WIKI.（Maybe "Wiki" rhymes with "Turkey"？） 自此我们可以看出，中国的宣传部门是有多么的失败，以至于其他国家[比如土（尔）鸡/其]任意编造的如此“图样图森破”的故事竟然能够让如此多的相信并载入维基？（毕竟维基和土耳其是押韵的？） To those respected、patriotic、knowledgeable、awake Turks（Maybe continues "Turks in Soul"？）。I——a fatheaded、non-professional、offensive young really want to know if Xiongnu those forefathers identified by YOU know this news in HEAVEN, how will they think？"Builded these pyramids for own nemesis？"（In fact，owners of these pyramids，the BIG WORK of emproers in Qin[cf.Meng Tian] and Han[cf.Han–Xiongnu War] is "Driving Xiongnu to further north[perhaps the Anatolia lol]"） 给那些尊敬的、富有爱国心的、博学的、清醒的土耳其人（也许还有“精神土耳其人”？）。我，一个愚钝的、非专业的、冒昧的年轻人，非常想知道若是被您们认定先父的匈奴人会怎么想？“为了自己的死敌建造这些金字塔？”（事实上这些金字塔的主人——无论秦朝还是汉朝皇帝的大事业都是“北驱匈奴[也许是赶到安纳托利亚？( ﹁ ﹁ ) ~→]”） In addition，let me explain why Old Chinese（or Han Chinese） plant trees on these so called "pyramids"——According to Book of Rites,Chapter "Royal Regulations", Section 25 "The common people let the coffin down into the grave by ropes, and did not suspend the interment because of rain. They raised no mound, nor planted trees over the grave."（cf. http://ctext.org/liji/wang-zhi ，P.S How pithily is sentence in Classical Chinese）； 另外，让我解释下为什么古代中国人（或汉族）要在“金字塔”上种树的原因——《礼记·王制》(第25节)中写着“庶人县封，葬不为雨止，不封不树，丧不贰事”， According to I Ching,Chapter "Xi Ci II",Section 2, Sentence 12 "When the ancients buried their dead, they covered the body thickly with pieces of wood, having laid it in the open country. They raised no mound over it, nor planted trees around; nor had they any fixed period for mourning."（cf.http://ctext.org/book-of-changes/xi-ci-xia） 《易经·系辞下》（第2段。第12行）中写着“古之葬者，厚衣之以薪，葬之中野，不封不树，丧期无数。” In other words, only graves of"modern people"（Of couse it's to era that I-ching been writen. i.e.Western Zhou 1046–771 BC） and "non common people" can be planted trees.. 也就是说只有“现在的人”（当然是指易经写作时的“现代人”，也就是公元前1046到公元前771年间）和“非普通的人”的坟墓才可以被种上树。 P.S. These graves are not pyramids, becaus they haven't the apex（Maybe for show the respect to Tian，becaus if the grave have apex likes stabing to Sky/Heaven/Tian） 另外，这些陵墓不是金字塔，因为他们没有尖顶（也许是为了表示对“天”的尊敬，毕竟坟墓有了尖顶，就像是在“刺天”） If you come to this place in China，and you will find there is not any Enter Injunction, any Turks symbol，or any Occult Fact,only "people mountain people see" tourists from all over the world （especially in Chinese vocation，such as 1 may、1 oct.-7 oct.） 如果你来到这些在中国的地方，你就会发现没有什么进入禁令、什么土耳其象征或什么被“隐藏的真相”，只有来着世界各地的“人山人海”的游客（特别是在中国的假期）

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese pyramids. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160813152342/http://server1.docfoc.us/uploads/Z2016/01/04/43gx58XwDT/16f3e1b3326b07aba1a7134b862e6f1b.pdf to http://server1.docfoc.us/uploads/Z2016/01/04/43gx58XwDT/16f3e1b3326b07aba1a7134b862e6f1b.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)