Ancient Chinese Warfare (74 page)

38
Mencius
, IIIB5.

39
It is also emphasized in the late Warring States
Six Secret Teachings
and
Three Strategies of Huang-shih Kung
.

40
“Employing Spies,”
Art of War
.

41
The preface to the “T’ang Shih” spuriously attributed to Confucius summarizes Yi Yin’s role simply as having “acted as a minister in T’ang’s attack on Chieh.” (Since his purported actions are fully analyzed in Sawyer,
Tao of Spycraft
, only a few key points need be noted here.)

42
“Shen-ta Lan,”
Lü-shih Ch’un-ch’iu.
(Note that Chieh’s fate is rather different in this account.)

43
“Ch’üan Mou.”

44
The relationship between the Hsia and the Nine Yi seems to have fluctuated over the Hsia’s existence but generally to have been nonantagonistic despite the Hsia’s early conquest of the San Miao.

1
The location of Po, the reputed first capital and residence of King T’ang prior to the conquest, is particularly disputed, with claims even being made that it was located in the mountains. (See Ch’en Li-chu, HCCHS 2004:4, 28-37, who believes Po continued on as the permanent ritual center.)

2
These topics are all well covered in the chapters on the Shang in
The Cambridge History of Ancient China
, K. C. Chang’s volumes on Shang China, and innumerable articles published over the past several decades. Without doubt the Shang was agriculturally based; many inscriptions inquire about the harvest, opening lands, and other productive concerns (Chang Ping-ch’üan, BIHP 42:2 [1970], 267-336).

3
For site analyses, see Yüan Kuang-k’uo and Ch’in Hsiao-li, KKHP 2000:4, 501-536, and Ch’eng Feng, HCCHS 2004:2, 24-26, 35. The sudden intrusion of Shang (Erh-li-kang) cultural elements with the erection of the walls around the end of the third or beginning of the fourth Erh-li-t’ou period is interpreted as evidence of Hsia elements having been forcibly displaced. Whether this was just prior to, or coincident with, their final conquest of the Hsia might be
questioned. However, to the extent that dating presently allows, the bastion well fits a probable sequence of Shang expansion.

4
Lengths average some 280 meters, remnant widths 4 to 8 meters except on the south, where a 14-meter-wide section is visible. The western and northern segments still retain a height of 2 to 3 meters.

5
See Ch’eng Feng, HCCHS 2004:2, 24-26. However, this sort of explanation is not fully convincing because capital expenditures had already been made and threats were arising from this quarter.

6
The following are informative: Wang Hsüeh-jung, KK 1996:5, 51-60; Tung Ch’i, KKWW 1996:1, 27-31; Chang Kuo-shuo, KKWW 1996:1, 31-38; Tu Chin-p’eng et al., KK 1998:6, 9-13, 38; SHYCS Honan Ti-erh Kung-tso-tui, KK 1998:6, 1-8; An Chin-huai, HCCHS, 1993:11, 332- 338; An Chin-huai and Yang Yü-pin, KK 1998:6, 14-19; Fang Yu-sheng, KKWW, 1999:3, 39-42; Chao Chih-ch’üan, HCCHS 2000:1, 18-27; Tu Chin-p’eng, HCCHS 1999:5, 38-40, and WW 2005:6, 62-71; Tu Chin-p’eng and Wang Hsüeh-jung, KK 2004:12, 3-12; and SHYCS Honan Ti-erh Kung-tso-tui, KK 2006:6, 13-31 and 32-42.

7
Tsou Heng has long argued that Yen-shih is the detached T’ung palace to which T’ai Chia was exiled. (See HSCLWC, 120-122, 123-158, and 166-168, as well as JEAA 1, nos. 1-4 [1999]: 195-205.)

8
Residual markings show the framing boards ranged in height from 0.3 to 0.7 meter and each ascending layer was set in about 10 cm. In addition, there is a massive inner waist wall, with a slight 15 degree pitch that extends some 13 meters to the interior from a point about 0.7 meter high up on the core wall. Moreover, the walls were not only constructed on an excavated foundation ditch with an unusual profile (because the terrain to the interior is approximately 1 meter higher than the exterior), but also extend out onto unprepared ground. (This may be partly the result of excavating the soil for the raised interior platform from the immediate vicinity of the core wall, thereby leveling the ground between the wall and the moat.) The foundation ditch has an average top opening of 18.6 meters, and both sides slant inward toward the bottom.

9
See, for example, Wang Hsüeh-jung’s lengthy analysis of textual materials coupled with his own on-site investigations, KK 1996:5, 51-60.

10
Exact dimensions are reported as 233 meters for the western wall, 230 for the eastern, 213 for the southern, and a surprisingly short, presumably northern wall remnant of 176 meters.

11
Yen-shih and the later capital of Huan-pei are seen as evidencing a transition to the regularized layout of capitals described in the
K’ao-kung Chi
: three concentric segmented rectangles all demarked by walls of various solidity, arrayed along the same axis, that functioned as the royal quarters, inner city, and outer city. (For a typical discussion see Li Tzu-chih, KKWW 2004:4, 33-42, or Liu Ch’ing-chu, KKHP 2006:3, 296-297. However, Liu doesn’t see the city as being fully developed until the imperial age.)

12
SHYCS Honan Ti-erh Kung-tso-tui, KK 2006:6, 13-31. Artificial pools with outflow ditches for irrigation or water supply have been found in the palace complexes of both Yen-shih and Cheng-chou and may have been a regular feature of Shang city construction (Tu Chin-p’eng, KK 2006:11, 55-65).

13
This is the view of analysts such as Chang Kuo-shuo, who emphasize the austere character and martial aspects of this first capital. (See also Chao Chih-ch’uan, KKWW 2000:3, 28-32.)

14
An observation made by many, including Li Tzu-chih, KKWW 2002:6, 43-50.

15
However, as the number of radiocarbon-dated artifacts increases, several other dates,
generally centering on 1600 to 1525 BCE, have been suggested as critical to determining the actual age of the site’s walls. For example, An Chin-huai and Yang Yü-pin, 15-18, cite 3395 and 3380 BP, which, when calibrated, give 3650 and 3630 BP (± 125-130 years) respectively. (An and Yang point out that all the artifacts come from Erh-li-t’ou’s first three phases, that the walls and building foundations are therefore earlier than lower Erh-li-kang, and therefore, at the latest, they date from the fourth phase. Moreover, since Cheng-chou’s walls are built over a lower Erh-li-kang layer, they must postdate Yen-shih.) Separately, Yang Yü-pin, KK 2004:9, 87- 92, ascribes radiocarbon dates of 1610-1560 BCE to Yen-shih and 1509-1465 to Cheng-chou. Tung Ch’i, KKWW 1996:1, 30, believes the walls all date to the lower Erh-li-kang period, 1600 BCE or later, and Chang Kuo-shuo, KKWW 1996:1, 34, also argues that the walls at both Yen-shih and Cheng-chou were in existence during the lower Erh-li-kang. Assuming a core date of 3570 BP for Cheng-chou and about 3650 BP for the palace foundations at Yen-shih, An and Yang note a difference of about eighty years. (The most detailed analysis to date is provided by Chang Hsüeh-lien et al., KK 2007:8, 74-89. Other useful articles include Kao Wei et al., KK 1998:10, 66-79, and Ch’en Hsü, HSLWC [reprint of 1985], 119-128.) Despite these potentially significant quibbles, given the radiocarbon deviation allowance being at least a century, ascribing a very early sixteenth-century date to Yen-shih is certainly justified.

16
For example, see Wang Hsüeh-jung, KK 1996.5: 58-59; Tung Ch’i, KKWW 1996:1, 30- 31, who believes the walls date from 1600 BCE or slightly later; and An Chin-huai and Yang Yü-pin, 6 (1998): 16-18. Tu Chin-p’eng, KK 2005:4, 69-77, makes the interesting point that there is no real evidence that T’ang conquered Hsia from Po and then returned to Po. (See also Liu Hsü, HYCLC, 1996, 38-41; Ch’en Hsü, HSLWC, 119-128; and Kao Wei et al., KK 1998:10, 66-79.)

17
See Chang Kuo-shuo, KKWW 1996:1, 36-37.

18
Cheng-chou has been the subject of many reports of varying quality and argumentative character, including An Chin-huai, WW 1961:5, 73-80; An Chih-min, KK 1961:8, 448-450; Liu Ch’i-yi, WW 1961:10, 39-40; Honan-sheng Po-wu-kuan, WW 1977:1, 21-31; Cheng-chou-shih Wen-wu Kung-tso-tui, KKHP 1996:1, 111-42; Chang Kuo-shuo, KKWW 1996:1, 31-38; Fang Yu-sheng, KKWW 1999:3, 39-42; An Chin-huai, HCCHS 1993:11, 32-38; Chang Wei-hua, HCCHS 1993:11, 48-56; Hsü Chao-feng, KKWW, 1999:3, 43-48; An Chin-huai, 1986, 15-48; and Louisa G. F. Huber, EC 13 (1988): 46-77.

19
Tsou Heng and Ch’en Hsü have both been strong proponents of the Po identification. (See HSCLWC, 97-100, 101-106, 117-119, and 173-188; and HSLWC, 8-15, 23-35, 36-44, 45- 54, 64-72, 73-84, 85-95, 96-103, 104-110, and 115-118 respectively.)

20
This is An Chin-huai and Yang Yü-pin’s conclusion based on radiocarbon dates of 1650 or 1630 for Yen-shih’s walls and roughly 1570 BCE for Cheng-chou. In addition (following others before them, including An Chin-huai’s 1993 article on Cheng-chou), they note that Yen-shih’s walls are no later than Erh-li-t’ou fourth period and pre-Erh-li-kang lower cultural layers, whereas the walls at Cheng-chou are built over an Erh-li-kang lower culture foundation. Chao Chihch’üan, KK 2003:9, 85-92, while identifying Po with Yen-shih and concluding that it demarks Hsia and Shang interaction in this area, observes that the main features of the palaces and walls show a Yen-shih to Cheng-chou sequence but that the artifacts tend to be opposite.

21
Tsou Heng envisions its construction and occupation as having been contemporary with Yen-shih despite radiocarbon dates cited by others to the contrary. (For example, see HSCLWC, 97-106 and 117-119.)

22
Chang Kuo-shuo, KKWW 1996:1, 35-36, argues that Po was not the name of a single site but a general term for the early Shang capitals and that both Cheng-chou and Yen-shih were necessary to control the Hsia, thus relegating Yen-shih to a sort of secondary status. Li Min, HCCHS 1996:2, 44-46, identifies it with Ao and (contrary to most views that it was fully abandoned) believes that it continued to serve as a military bastion during the Anyang period. (See also Chu Yen-min, STWMYC, 296-299.)

23
An Chin-huai (1986, 43) and others see the location of bronze-casting workshops outside the city as evidence that slaveholders dwelled within the walls, slaves outside them.

24
Chang Kuo-shuo, KKWW 1996:1, 36. An Chin-huai and Fang Yu-sheng, KKWW 1999:3, 39-42, claim that the bronzes discovered in three large hoards at Cheng-chou are evidence of a sophisticated stage of Shang culture; therefore Cheng-chou must be Chung Ting’s capital of Ao. (Fang cites the
Ku-pen Bamboo Annals
entry: “After Chung Ting ascended the throne, he moved the capital from Po to Ao in his inaugural year [and] conducted a punitive expedition against the Lan Yi.”) Conversely, scholars such as Chang Wei-hua, HCCHS 1993:11, 56, believe that Cheng-chou’s development, wealth, and extensiveness argue against it having been so early a capital.

25
The best descriptions of the walls remain those of the Honan Provincial Museum, WW 1977:1, and An Chin-huai’s “The Shang City at Cheng-chou,” 22-26.

26
Ch’ü Ying-chieh, 2003, 42-44.

27
Ho-nan-sheng WWKKYCS, KK 2000:2, 40-60, and KK 2004:3, 40-50; Yüan Kuang-k’uo and Tseng Hsiao-min, KK 2004:3, 59-67.

28
Chang Kuo-shuo, KKWW 1996:1, 37.

29
Chang Kuo-shuo, KKWW 1996:1, 37.

30
For comparative dates and Cheng-chou’s occupation before the conquest, see Yüan Kuangk’uo and Hou Yi, WW 2007:12, 73-76, and Chang Hsüeh-lien and Ch’iu Shih-hua, KK 2006:2, 81-89.

31
For dissenting views, see Chang Wei-hua, HCCHS 1993:11, 49-55, and Hsü Chao-feng, KKWW 1999:3, 43-48. Chang concludes that King T’ang built Yen-shih immediately after the conquest but only dwelled there briefly because five years of drought—Heaven’s punishment for overthrowing the legitimate ruling house—immediately ensued, forcing the Shang to precipitously move eastward. Hsü, however, stresses that Cheng-chou was needed to dominate the east.

32
P’ang Ming-chüan, KK 2008:2, 55-63.

33
For a representative analysis that synthesizes the archaeological discoveries at Erh-li-t’ou with traditional historical accounts, see Chao Chih-ch’üan, KKWW 1999:2, 23-29.

34
Lower Ch’i-tan Shang culture, which predates Erh-li-kang, was primarily centered in the Chi-pei, Yü-nan, and Yü-tung areas (Chao Chih-ch’üan, KKWW 1999:2, 24, and KKWW 2000:3, 28-32).

35
For example, see Chao Chih-ch’üan, KKWW 2001:4, 36-40.

36
Li Liu and Hung Xu,
Antiquity
81 (2007): 886-901, or WW 2008:1, 43-52. Liu and Xu emphasize the essential continuity in bronzes between ELT and ELK and date Yen-shih to 1600- 1400 BCE, the initial construction having occurred during Erh-li-t’ou’s fourth phase.

37
Although it evolved out of Henan Lungshan culture, the Hsia’s immediate precursor was Hsin-chai-ch’i culture.

38
Despite the newly mandated chronology, numerous Erh-li-t’ou alternatives have been offered, including by T’ien Ch’ang-wu, HCCHS 1987:12, 12-16, who concluded that Erh-li-t’ou’s four cultural stages each lasted about a century and that the Shang conquered the Hsia in the midst of the third period, somewhat after 1700 BCE, earlier than most analysts.

39
In addition to Chao Chih-ch’uan, KKWW 2000:3, 28-32, see Yang Yü-pin, KK 2004:9, 87- 92, who concludes that Yen-shih was unquestionably Po.

40
Chao Chih-ch’uan, KKWW 2000:3, 26.

41
Shang technologies and craft techniques tended to disperse outward, but local cultural elements often constituted the core content. Interaction with the Yi resulted in numerous shared cultural elements and practices, whatever the direction of transmission.