Ancient Chinese Warfare (70 page)

37
Shao Wangping, “Interaction Sphere of the Longshan Period,” 103. See also Wu Ju-tso, CKKTS 1995:8, 12-20, and Li Liu,
The Chinese Neolithic
, 193-208.

38
Also referred to as Ch’eng-tzu-ya, it is summarily discussed by K. C. Chang in 1986, 248- 250. However, his observation that this constitutes the “first erection of a defensive wall by a prehistoric settlement” has been outdated by discoveries over the past twenty years, as will be seen from the examples given in the discussion. (Other useful contextual discussions are found
in Ning Yüeh-ming et al.,
Chung-kuo Ch’eng-shih Fa-chan-shih
27; Chang Hsüeh-hai, WW 1996:12, 41-42; and Jen Shih-nan, KK 1998:1, especially 2. Unfortunately, there are a number of unresolved discrepancies in the dimensions provided for various aspects of the walls, with Jen giving 430 meters east to west and 530 north to south.)

39
However, the
Chung-kuo Ch’eng-shih Fa-chan-shih,
27, notes the wall’s width as 10.6 meters and suggests it suddenly cuts inward just above the broad platform of the foundation.

40
One analyst even believes that the walls were constructed between 1900 and 1700 BCE and concludes that rather than being a prototypical city or Hsia capital, it acted as a
ch’eng-pao
, a fortified town or early castle. (See
Chung-kuo Ch’eng-shih Fa-chan-shih
, 27, where the various arguments about its identification are conveniently summarized.)

41
Jen Shih-nan, KK 1998:1, 2. Chang Hsüeh-hai (1996, 50) cites a similar tree calibrated date of 4565± 130 BP.

42
Discussions of the site may be found in K. C. Chang, 1986,
Archaeology
, 262-267; Ho-nan-sheng WW YCS et al., WW 1983:3, 21-36; Jen Shih-nan, KK 1998:1, 2.

43
Only Jen Shih-nan, KK 1998:1, 2, has described the presence of this moat.

44
Shan-tung-sheng WWKK YCS et al., KK 1997:5, 11-24.

45
Based on Tu Tsai-chung, CKKTS 1995:8, 5-11. Significant nearby sites include Ting-kung at 108,000 square meters interior area, T’ien-wang with 150,000, Wu-lien T’an-t’u at 250,000, and T’eng-chu Yu-lou at 250,000.

46
Following the dates provided by Tu Tsai-chung. However, Shao Wangping dates the inner wall to the late middle Lungshan period and the outer to the early late Lungshan.

47
Ching-chou Po-wu-kuan, KK 1997:5, 1-24.

48
Chang Hsü-ch’iu, KK 1994:7, 629-634. The site descriptions that follow are taken from Chang and others, as individually noted.

49
Ching-chou-shih Po-wu-kuan et al., KK 1998:4, 16-38; Chang Hsü-ch’iu, KK 1994:7, 630.

50
Dimensions from Jen Shih-nan, KK 1998:1, 6.

51
The best site report is Ching-chou Po-wu-kuan and Chia Han-ch’ing, WW 1998:6, 25-29.

52
Dimensions reported for this site vary greatly. (These are taken from Wang Hung-hsing, KK 2003:9, 68.)

53
Wang Hung-hsing, 65-68. (For a brief discussion of Shih-chia-ho culture, see Fan Li, KKWW 1999:4, 50-60.)

54
Chang Hsü-ch’iu, KK 1994:7, 632. (Chang’s article does not include Chi-ming-ch’eng.) Other sites include Ch’i-chiao-ch’eng at 150,000 square meters, Chin-men Ma-chia-yüan at 240,000, and Yin-ch’eng T’ao-chia-hu at a vast 670,000.

55
Chang Hsü-ch’iu believes that the conditions and the technology for wall construction were first realized in the middle Yangtze area rather than the Yellow River and that any influence from the latter’s cultures was relatively weak.

56
For the initial report see Che-chiang-sheng WWKK YCS, KK 2008:7, 3-10, and for context see Chang Li and Wu Chien-p’ing, WW 2007:2, 74-80. No radiocarbon dates have yet been provided, but Liang-chu culture is generally dated from 3400 or 3200 to 2250 or 2200 BCE.

1
Liu Kuo-hsiang, KKWW 2001:6, 58-67. In contrast, the settlement at Hou-ma Tung-ch’engwang identified with the Miao-ti-kou culture has an 11-meter-wide, 2.6-meter-deep ditch (Kao T’ien-lin, KK 1992:1, 62-68, 93).

2
Articles appraising their differences and similarities are beginning to appear. For example, see Wei Chien and Ts’ao Chien-en, WW 1999:2, 57-62, upon which the following discussion is based.

3
Chin Kuei-yün, KKHP 2004:4, 485-505. Huai-ko-erh-ch’i Pai-ts’ao-t’a, the oldest of the Yellow River sites, has been dated to 3000 BCE, roughly comparable to Pan-p’o’s fourth stage. Three others are dated to 2700 BCE, and Chai-tzu-shang, the youngest, to 2300. The sites at Tai-hai cluster around 2500 BCE, those at Pao-t’ou around 2700 BCE.

4
Wei-chün, A-shan, Hsi-yüan, Sha-mu-chia, and Hei-ma-pan.

5
In Ching-ch’eng-hsien, Mt. Lao-hu, Hsi-pai-yü, Pan-ch’eng, and Ta-miao-p’o.

6
At Huai-ko-erh-ch’i: Pai-ts’ao-t’a, Chai-tz’u-t’a, Chai-tz’u-shang, and Shao-sha-wan. At Ch’ing-shui-ho-hsien: Ma-lu-t’a and Hou-ch’eng-tsui.

7
Ch’en Kuo-ch’ing and Chang Ch’uan-chao, KK 2008:1, 46-55. Unfortunately, full details of the stone walls visible on the site diagrams have yet to be published. Additional sites continue to be uncovered, such as a complex dating to the lower Hsia-chia-tien composed by adjoining twin stone citadels marked by massive walls constructed from moderate-sized stones. (See Nei-Meng-ku WWKK YCS, KK 2007:7, 17-27.)

8
Ch’en and Chang
,
KK 2008:1, 48. However, Yen Wen-ming (JEAA 1 [1999]: 143), has surprisingly asserted that it and all Chinese walls were basically tamped earth with stone facings.

9
Rather than solely or directly exerted by the early Shang, these pressures may have indirectly resulted from vanquished Hsia population groups fleeing to safer, if less hospitable, terrain. However, this is not one of the article’s conclusions.

10
Liao-ning-sheng WWKK YCS, KK 1992:5, 399-417. Although identified with the lower Hsia-chia-tien and termed a mixed Bronze Age culture, except for a single 13.2-cm. long bronze knife, all the implements so far recovered were fabricated from stone (axes, knives, and arrowheads) or bone (arrowheads). Reportedly the indigenous populace was subsequently displaced by Bronze Age or other unspecified northern peoples.

11
Somewhat divergent dates appear in the literature, ranging from 2800-2000 to 2500-1800.

12
See Wang Yi and Sun Hua, KK 1999:8, 60-73. (The Pao-tun culture heavily influenced San-hsing-tui, but other factors also played a role over the intervening centuries.)

13
For overviews see Tuan Yü and Ch’en Chien, HCCHS 2002:2, 57-62, and Wang Yi, JEAA 5 (2006): 109-148. Tuan and Ch’en believe the homogeneity of the sites suggests common development, evidence of having evolved from the clan stage to a more centralized power. However, the strong defensive character of the fortifications suggests an environment pervaded by threats and aggression, though whether caused by internal strife or external enemies is unclear.

14
Ch’eng-tu-shih Wen-wu K’ao-ku Kung-tso-tui et al., WW 1998:12, 38-56; Jen Shih-nan, KK 1998:1, 9. (It is also referred to as Yü-fu-ch’eng.)

15
In addition to Wang Yi, 122-125, see Ch’eng-tu-shih WWKK Kung-tso-tui, WW 1999:1, 32-42.

16
Wang Yi, 122-125.

17
For Shuang-ho see also Ch’eng-tu-shih WWKK Kung-tso-tui, KK 2002:11, 3-19. (The site was occupied between 2500 and 2000 BCE but there are discrepancies in the reported dimensions. For example, Wang Yi [127-128] gives 270 meters for the north, 420 for the east, and 110 for the south as the dimensions of the inner perimeter, the west wall having been destroyed, and 325 on the north, 500 in the east, and 120 on the south, with walls that were 18 to 30 meters wide at top, for the outer.)

18
The best analytical article to date is Tuan Yü, HCCHS 1993:4, 37-48. There is considerable disagreement over whether the cultural enclaves at these two sites are lineal predecessors of Shu and Pa. (For context see Chang T’ien-en, KKWW 1998:5, 68-77; Chao Tien-tseng, WW 1987:10, 18-23; and Sung Chih-min, KKHP 1999:2, 123-140.)

19
For a concise discussion, see Robert Bagley’s “Shang Archaeology,” 212-219.

20
For further discussion of San-hsing-tui and Ch’eng-tu, see Tuan Yü, CKKTS 1994:1, 63- 70, and HCCHS 2006:5, 16-20; Sung Chih-min, who emphasizes local origination, KKHP 1999:2, 123-140; Ssu-ch’uan-sheng Wen-wu Kuan-li Wei-yüan-hui et al., WW 1989:5, 1-20; Yang Hua,
KKWW 1995:1, 30-43; Huang Chien-hua, HCCHS 2001:6, 21-27; Lothar von Falkenhausen, JEAA 5 (2006): 191-245; Jay Xu, JEAA 5 (2006): 149-190 (who suggests it was contemporary with the late Shang, 1300-1050 BCE); Ch’ü Hsiao-ch’iang,
San-hsing-tui Ch’uan-ch’i
(1999); and Robert Bagley,
Ancient Sichuan.

21
Tuan Yü, HCCHS 2008:6, 3-9, has suggested that Shu/San-hsing-tui controlled Yünnan’s copper, tin, and lead deposits, compelling the Shang to trade with them and that Shu was never a conquest objective or a subordinate state. (There was a shortage of tin in the Shang core domain. Although the Sichuan plains area had ample copper supplies, it lacked tin, but Shu could have acquired it, just like lead, from Yünnan. Tuan concludes that the absence of Shang artifacts in Yünnan indicates the Shang must have employed Shu as an intermediary and therefore left them alone to guarantee continuity of supply. This would explain the presence of Shang ritual vessels in Shu but almost the complete absence of Shang weapons.) Tuan believes San-hsing-tui flourished around the middle of the Shang.

22
See Tuan Yü, CKKTS, 1994:1, 45, for calculations and methods. Various areas for family space have been proposed, ranging from a very small 30 square meters to a spacious 268. Based on later population densities, approximately 155 to 160 square meters per household seems supportable, with each household encompassing five people.

23
Yang Hua, KKWW 1995:1, 30-43.

24
Using the population density at Lin-tzu in the Warring States period as a reference yields 280,000, but if 155 square meters is employed, the total population could have been 484,000. (See Ch’ü Hsiao-ch’iang,
San-hsing-tui—Ku-Shu Wang-kuo te Fa-hsiang
, 1999, 73.)

25
Tuan Yü, HCCHS 1993:4, 37-54. (A useful study of Ch’eng-tu culture is Chiang Chang-hua et al., KKHP 2002:1, 1-22.)

26
For an overview see Zhu Zhangyi et al., JEAA 5 (2006): 247-276. It has been characterized as the defining site for Shih-erh-ch’iao culture and a precursor of the Shang-wang-chia-kuai culture of the strong Sichuan states that developed in the Warring States period.

27
Many contemporary analysts postulate that the development of targetable wealth constitutes the minimum requisite condition (and motivation) for “true” rather than “ritual” warfare. However, when all men exist at the subsistence level, plundering may be the best alternative.

28
“Ching Chu.”

29
“Ch’i Su.”

30
Chao Kung, thirty-second year. At that time the feudal states under Chin’s nominal leadership had been defending the Chou capital at Ch’eng Chou, and the work was prompted when the king of Chou requested that they wall it instead of maintaining (threatening) forces there.

31
A Chou dynasty
chang
or rod was about eight feet.

32
“Mien,” Mao # 237 in James Legge’s classic translation,
The She King
, 440.

33
Building fires against walls, although not unknown, was primarily done in the Neolithic period for the interior of houses, house foundations, and floors and in the Yangshao period even for clay smeared onto wooden interior beams to increase their hardness and reduce water absorption (Li Nai-sheng et al., KK 2005:10, 76-82).

34
Tu Cheng-sheng, BIHP 58:1, calculated the lower figure; An Chin-huai, “Shih-lun Cheng-chou Shang-tai Ch’eng-chih—Ao-tu,” 77, the larger.

35
An Chin-huai, “Ao-tu,” 77. A moderately fit individual digging in a pile of soft soil or sand with a modern shovel can remove two to three cubic feet per minute or several cubic yards per hour, easily sustaining a rate of one cubic yard per hour over a full day.

36
An Chin-huai, “Ao-tu,” 77. Even though An’s estimates for bronze tools seem ridiculously low, his calculations for the walls, based on employing a mixture of bronze and stone tools, may actually be somewhat optimistic. Agricultural tools were almost always fabricated from stone or bone at this early date, bronze being reserved for ritual vessels and weapons. However, given the low excavation rate, it is more likely that the majority of workers—perhaps 8,000 out
of the 10,000—would have been employed in digging, the rest in transporting and pounding the soil.

37
Modern rammed earth construction in the American Southwest reveals that compacting the layers, even with hydraulic tampers, requires a lengthy period. For example, the relatively small area of two feet in width by ten feet in length easily demands an hour to achieve the required consistency.

38
A questionable assumption given the highly varying densities found in various urban situations, although perhaps appropriate since the site is described as having considerable open space. (Even in the absence of multiple-level dwellings, some early settlements in China were so densely packed that each family often occupied a scant forty square meters.) Despite the analysts’ earnestness, calculations of this sort venture far beyond speculative.

39
Tsou Heng, HSCLWC, 59, estimates five years; Tu Cheng-sheng, BIHP 58:1, 10, estimates eight years based on a wall width of 20 meters at the base, 5 meters at the top, and an original height of 10 meters. He would apportion the 10,000 workers as 3,000 excavating dirt, 3,000 moving it, 3,500 pounding it, and 500 employed in miscellaneous tasks; and David Keightley, EC 3 (1977): 58, and JAOS 93.4.1973:530-531, estimates 12.5 years.