Ancient Chinese Warfare (46 page)

Several characters associated with warfare reflect the primary role that the dagger-axe played in Shang dynasty combat, including the word for “attack” (
fa
), which appears in the oracle bones as a man with a
ko
. The most important character for battle in later ages,
chan
, would consist
of a component that provides the sound and originally meant “great” (itself derived from the primary meaning of a particularly large vessel) conjoined with
ko
once again on the right. The character for “being wary” or “guarding against” something,
chieh
, is formed from two hands holding a dagger-axe in a sort of defensive posture.
²

Although this sort of speculative interpretation can easily become overly imaginative, it might be noted that the basic character for “martial”—
wu
—is composed of two components that are generally interpreted as a foot and a dagger-axe, the latter sometimes placed above the former rather than on the right, suggesting a warrior on foot with a dagger-axe. However, a purportedly post-battle dialogue dating to 597 BCE provides another interpretation, one that would be cited frequently in imperial court debates when claiming that the only real justification for employing martial power is to effect the cessation of warfare.
³
When the upstart but increasingly powerful southern state of Ch’u gained a significant victory over the antique state of Chin in the north, Ch’u’s officers encouraged the commander to raise a victory mound with the enemy’s dead so that “the martial (
wu
) achievement would not be forgotten.”
⁴
However, in declining he noted that “
wu
means resting (
chih
) the dagger-axes (
ko
)” and then cited various historical examples (including the Chou conquest of the Shang), wherein the victors had manifestly set aside their arms after extirpating the evildoers.

Even though dagger-axes were fabricated from stone in the late Neolithic,
⁵
the
ko
is primarily a bronze weapon that first appeared in cast form in the Hsia capital at Erh-li-t’ou, proliferated during the Shang, and continued to function as China’s distinctive battlefield implement during the Chou in one form or another. Although several puzzles remain because numerous variations developed across China’s ancient expanse before the dagger-axe evolved even further through interaction with indigenous cultures,
⁶
the thousands already recovered provide an adequate basis for reconstructing the weapon’s early history. In the ongoing quest for combat lethality, four major styles emerged by the middle Shang, and though three of them would subsequently be abandoned, the so-called crescent-bladed
ko
dominated Western Chou warfare until it was gradually displaced by the
chi
(spearheaded
ko
) during the Spring and Autumn period.
⁷

Artifact-based discussions of the
ko
’s evolution are complicated by a number of factors. First, any single weapon recovered from a burial site, although perhaps a favorite of the interred, may actually be just symbolic, intended to enhance the deceased’s status at death or in the afterlife. Second, perhaps because they may have been produced from the same molds, the replica weapons that appear early on at Yin-hsü are visibly identical to functional versions. However, they differ in being characterized by a much higher lead content, a change that facilitated casting while saving copper but rendered them too soft for edging or use.
⁸

More stylized, abstract, thinner, obviously simplified replicas begin to multiply by the third period at Yin-hsü. Sometimes extensively embellished, they were increasingly produced from lead alone and gradually became common even in ordinary tombs.
⁹
During the transition period from highly realistic bronze replicas to these purely symbolic realizations, the exact nature of any individual specimen can be difficult to determine. Nevertheless, it can reasonably be assumed that there is a direct correlation between the number and opulence of the weapons discovered in any particular grave and the occupant’s military achievements or prestige.

A study confined to undisturbed graves from the four periods at Yin-hsü has revealed that dagger-axes and spears are the only weapons that were buried with all ranks, and that dagger-axes far exceed spears.
¹⁰
Late in the dynasty high-ranking commanders and members of the martial nobility might be interred with several hundred weapons, including
yüeh
,
ko
, spears, arrowheads, and large symbolic
tao
(knives).
¹¹
Middle-ranking officers were accompanied by
ko
together with spears and arrowheads or spears alone, often amounting to a dozen or more; low-ranking officers rated fewer than ten weapons, invariably
ko
combined with spears or arrowheads; and ordinary soldiers were usually limited to just a
ko
, spear, or several arrowheads, never interred with any ritual vessels.
¹²
However, in chariot burials only
ko
are found, never spears.
¹³

Based on the numbers and pervasive distribution, it can be concluded that the dagger-axe was the most important weapon in the Shang, even though commanders were honored with battle-axes and perhaps even employed them on the battlefield. Furthermore, although Shang oracular inscriptions never mention them being awarded for merit,
ko
are known to have been given as a token of recognition over 2,000 times in the Western Chou, not only making them the most frequently bestowed weapon, but also preserving the names of several specific types, including “plain
ko
” (
su ko
).
¹⁴

The dagger-axes found at Erh-li-t’ou simply affixed a short, daggerlike blade near the top of a wooden shaft. The blade’s upper and lower edged surfaces were both sharpened and essentially parallel except near the front fifth or sixth, where they tapered down to a relatively well-defined point. However, because daggers had not yet appeared, only short single-edged knives, the “dagger-axe” was not fabricated by affixing preexisting “daggers” to a shaft but instead derived from long, tapered mattocks, hatchets, or similar choppers and axes employed in woodworking or in the fields, to create a more lethal weapon than an axe alone.
¹⁵
The dagger-axe has been likened to the Western halberd and has even been called a halberd, but the halberd’s blade is traditionally broad, more like a
yüeh
with a spear affixed on top, a variant known as the
chi
in China.

The earliest Neolithic versions were essentially elongated rectangles fabricated from a variety of stone materials (including jade) that tapered down somewhat over the external third of the blade and were rather tenuously lashed to a shaft. However, the improved variants and the first bronze embodiments secured the blade by inserting it through a slot in the shaft as well as generally binding it through a single hole molded into the protruding portion of the tab.

As may be imagined from the dynamics of its employment, affixing a blade to a shaft in the absence of modern nuts and bolts would have been problematic. Two methods were employed: (1) simply drilling or carving a rectangular opening in the shaft and (2) slotting down from the top (combined with preparing the necessary opening) before attempting to secure the blade by nailing, pegging, or most commonly lashing, whether singly or in combination. (Rectangular openings alone could only accommodate simple, parallel edged blades whose tabs could be inserted through them.)
¹⁶
However, slotting and drilling could fatally weaken all but the most durable wooden shafts just where the impulse from striking the enemy is transferred, and bindings alone would probably have been unable to prevent early dagger-axe blades from being pushed through on impact.

Numerous impressions left by long-disintegrated shafts in the compacted soil indicate that Shang era shafts averaged about 85 to 100 centimeters in length but could reach 113 centimeters (roughly 44 inches), and the narrow blade was affixed just about a meter (39 inches) from the butt.
¹⁷
Despite its being a single-handed infantry weapon, the length was sufficient to ensure considerable head velocity as the shaft turned through its arc, seriously stressing the bindings and the joint where the blade was attached upon impact. (Even greater forces would be exerted when the shaft was extended to 9 feet and the dagger-axe became a two-handed weapon in the Spring and Autumn period, prompting warnings in the later military writings that even though they look impressive in court, weapons with overly long shafts are unwieldy and break easily.)

The earliest shafts were probably fabricated by shaving down tree branches or saplings, presumably explaining why some Shang dynasty characters show a base with rootlike protuberances. (Speculation that the character depicts an integral base that was employed for standing the weapon is absurd, though a detachable stand would have been feasible.) Naturally the wood species chosen would affect the weapon’s overall strength, resiliency, and degree of flexing experienced in use. The Han dynasty
K’ao-kung Chi
mentions that although stiffness is desirable in thrusting weapons such as the spear, some flexibility is necessary for hooking weapons such as the crescent-bladed versions of the dagger-axe and
chi
, both of which evolved in the Shang.

By the Spring and Autumn period, if not earlier, laminated shafts were being fabricated from multiple strips of predimensioned wood and bamboo. This advance greatly facilitated realizing the requisite strength and flexibility within dimensional limitations and allowed the shaft to be lengthened to accommodate two hands in the Chou, as demanded by the exigencies of chariot-based warfare. However, in the Shang and Western Chou the shaft was still short and therefore a weapon for ground troops, even though they have been found interred alongside chariots. (No blow could have been struck across the gulf between the chariot box and an enemy standing outside the wheels.)

To resolve the problem of push-through on impact, the blade’s rear portion was reduced to create a rectangular tab, producing a cross-sectional profile with blade portions that effectively butted against the
shaft. The contact area was then further increased by adding a molded flange at the rear of the blade portion (as shown in the illustration). During the Erh-li-kang period at Yen-shih, Cheng-chou, and Lao-niu-p’o, this flange was subsequently extended to form two small protrusions above and below the blade’s edges just at the shafting point, though these adjustments did not become popular until the second period at Yin-hsü.
¹⁸

Some early versions of these straight-bladed
ko
with protruding flanges also included a lashing slot or two just in front of the flange area and subsequently the roughened area in the front portion of the tab, where it would be inserted into the shaft during the Yin-hsü period, though these slots must have compromised the blade’s integrity and somewhat weakened it. An alternative mounting method consisted of creating a tubular socket by molding a vertical shaft hole where the flange on the tab normally affixed the blade to the handle. This resulted in a somewhat pudgy profile when viewed from the top and considerably greater thickness in the rear portion of the blade and front of the tab, developments that initially required the blade’s spine to be broadened and flattened. However, blades with rhomboidal cross-sections (which had already evolved) quickly reappeared.
¹⁹

The mechanical joint created by forcing the shaft up through the socket reduced the wobbling experienced with slot-mounted blades and eliminated the danger of push-through in use as well as slippage under conditions of lower humidity, but coincidentally introduced a tendency to rotate on the shaft. Despite being a problem that could have easily been resolved by molding a small opening on the side and inserting a peg or nail horizontally through the socket into the shaft, oval-shaped
sockets and matching shafts were instead employed, and any residual wobbling was remedied by jamming thin pieces of wood into the gaps.