The notion of historical thinking has in recent years become popular in research on history education, particularly so in North America, the UK and Australia. The aim of this paper is to discuss the cognitive competencies related to historical thinking, as expressed by some influential Canadian researchers, as an history educational notion from two aspects: what is historical thinking and what does it mean in an educational context, and what are the consequences of historical thinking for history education? Our discussion will focus on possible implications of this approach to history education regarding what should be taught in history classrooms and why. By focusing on the notion of historicity, we want to argue that while a focus on a more disciplinary approach to history education is welcome, we think that more attention should be given to what could qualify as a disciplinary approach. We further argue historical thinking and the history educational challenge should be understood as wider and more complex than what history education informed by historical thinking entails.

This article places the recent literature on archaeological manifestations of the Xia in context, describes and analyzes the published data for the Erlitou typesite in some detail, and examines broader issues implicit in the debate on this contentious topic. The positivism that animates so much recent literature is linked to the Anyang excavations and the promise of scientific archaeology more generally. Particular attention is given to certain of the data from the Erlitou site—its layout, architectural features, burials, and prestige craft products (ritual bronze vessels and jades)—because these have figured prominently in most discussion of the nature and identity of the site and its eponymous culture. Broader issues are addressed, albeit more briefly, as a series of nested concepts: culture and subculture, periodization, cultural succession, developmental stage, ethnicity, and dynasty. Until the formal report of the Erlitou typesite reaches print, this article proposes a “minimal” definition of the current archaeological data, one that does not assume the historicity of the Xia.

No abstract