Ancient Chinese Warfare (12 page)

Several odes in the
Shih Ching
also stress Yü’s work ethic and selfsacrifice, creating a much-admired persona that would be cited whenever later bureaucrats wanted to inspire the people or indirectly rebuke a profligate ruler.

Various dates, derived in part from early written sources but significantly modified to reflect radiocarbon techniques, have been assigned to the Hsia dynasty, with 2200 to 1750 BCE and 2200 to 1600 BCE having previously been the most common. However, 2100 to 1521 BCE is now deemed orthodox despite considerable criticism, acrimonious counterarguments, and a probable Shang conquest date of 1600. The preceding era—the mid- to late third millennium BCE, which witnessed a sudden proliferation in weapons, the expansion of defensive fortifications, and initial utilization of bronze in warfare—has long been revered as the age of heroes. Reflecting a thrust toward demythologizing antique legends, the vaunted cultural icons have been apportioned to the middle and late centuries, though not without ongoing disagreements about specifics.
¹⁶

It is also possible to envision these icons’ reigns not as singular events but instead as sequences of ten or twelve generations, broad indicators of various stages of civilization symbolized by certain heroic characteristics, obviating the need for unattainable chronological precision.
¹⁷
However, it should not be forgotten that they are all noted for their military accomplishments as much as for their contributions to cultural and material life.
¹⁸
Whatever the actual dates of their reigns, the traditional accounts clearly reflect the emergence of great chieftains who were increasingly glorified with the passage of time, Yü thus becoming the first “global” ruler.

Generally speaking, the Yellow Emperor has traditionally been seen as active about 2700 or 2600 BCE;
¹⁹
Yao dominated the stage somewhere around 2300 or 2200; Shun ascended to power about 2200 or 2100; and Yü, identified as the Hsia’s first monarch and the dynasty’s progenitor, arose sometime in the twenty-first century BCE.
²⁰
A number of reign periods and key events, including Yü’s ascension, have recently been computed from important eclipses and other astronomical observations, such as a rare five-planet conjunction, embedded in the
Bamboo Annals
and other Warring States compilations, many well argued but others wildly speculative. Among the possibilities suggested for these legendary totemic figures are 3709-2221 BCE for the Yellow Emperor, 2397-2275
for Yao, and 2274-2222 for Shun,
²¹
while 1953 BCE seems to be the best possibility for Yü’s first year as ruler.
²²

The question of Hsia precursors is too complex to pursue in detail even if, as here, Erh-li-t’ou culture is considered synonymous with the historical entity known as the Hsia and late Lungshan manifestations are deemed predynastic forms. Nevertheless, certain aspects of their ascension to power deserve contemplation because the Hsia undoubtedly emerged through conflict. Unfortunately, frequent shifts of their early capital and the contentious nature of origination theories, including that they evolved from Henan Lungshan culture through early Hsin-chai manifestations into early Erh-li-t’ou,
²³
considerably complicate the effort. The larger question as to whether or not the Hsia, Shang, and Chou were ethnically homogenous, whether they had a single or multiple origins, also looms large.
²⁴

The Hsia might be understood as a chiefdom that began as a localized power, perhaps one marked by a rudimentary administrative apparatus, but evolved into a despotic form of overarching rulership through struggle and coercion rather than acclamation.
²⁵
Emperor Yü emblematizes this transition from an alliance chieftain to an incipient despot, from the stage of loosely grouped settlements to a somewhat integrated domain. Moreover, in contrast to legends that extol the virtuous Sage rulers voluntarily yielding to the most worthy, traditional accounts indicate a highly lethal clash developed over Yü’s successor.
²⁶
Whatever its inception, in some sense the proto-dynastic Hsia state can therefore be understood as commencing with Yü.
²⁷

Any attempt to chronicle Hsia history can perhaps be reduced to two mutually entangled questions: Where did they originate, and when did a minimal Hsia identity emerge? The quest for origins necessarily begins in the area that they presumably controlled in their final embodiment at Erh-li-t’ou: much of Henan and Shanxi, a possible early administrative center around Mt. Sung in Chung-yüeh, the upper reaches of the Ying and Ju rivers, the Fen and Hui river areas, and other areas previously noted, including strongpoints at the perimeter such as P’anlung-ch’eng. However, without doubt, the Hsia’s core domain migrated from a somewhat peripheral, still-disputed origination point to a focal area around the Yi and Luo rivers, including Cheng-chou and Yen-shih.

The question of precursors is complicated by the several distinctive cultures then populating greater China, not just constantly evolving but interacting in every imaginable way, ranging from mutual infusion through displacement and armed conflict. Contrary to the long-held but now-discredited traditional view that all cultural developments radiated outward, the direction of influence constantly shifted throughout the Yangshao and Lungshan periods, no single group or culture always predominating. Rather than inventions, practices, and beliefs simply flowing outward, attributes from peripheral cultures, especially those evolving in the east and southeast, significantly affected the core.
²⁸

The widely accepted assumption that the Hsia evolved directly out of the Lungshan cultural stage or a particular variant such as Henan or Shandong Lungshan has recently been challenged and even rejected in favor of other possibilities.
²⁹
However, because of the incontrovertible presence of Lungshan elements in the core Hsia domain immediately before its appearance, the basic question tends to be whether late Lungshan is synonymous with early Erh-li-t’ou, Erh-li-t’ou culture is Lungshan’s direct successor, or some other culture or intermediate stage intercedes. Somewhat less orthodox but still a possibility is that Erh-li-t’ou culture represents a derivation from some other culture or combination of cultures, including Tung Yi, Liang-chu, and Yüeh-shih.
³⁰

The idea that pre-Hsia culture evolved in the east along the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River, either in Shandong or Henan, has numerous proponents, including those who posit an eastern origin for the Yellow Emperor.
³¹
Perhaps the most interesting formulation stresses that multiple shifts in the Yellow River’s course in Shandong compelled a greater intermixing of peoples (and presumably conflict over territory and resources),
³²
especially in the contentious region between the Chi and Yellow rivers where the Hsia would eventually clash with the incipient Shang.
³³
In antiquity the Hai-tai region (which essentially encompasses the area in Shandong between the Yellow River and the Yellow Sea and up to the Pohai gulf but not the Shandong peninsula) was a particularly fertile area due to the lowest reaches of the Yellow River constantly shifting and flooding. The cultures that arose there, including Pei-hsin, Ta-wen-k’ou, and Lungshan, are known to have dynamically interacted with central China at various stages. Well-fortified
towns developed in the Lungshan period, and regional centers such as Ch’eng-tzu-yai and Pien-shien-wang, situated about 100
li
apart, emerged.
³⁴

In contrast, the perceived continuity of cultures from Lungshan to Erh-li-t’ou at Teng-feng and Yü-chou on the upper reaches of the Ying River have caused the area to be proposed as a possible western origination point for Hsia culture.
³⁵
The inhospitable nature of much of the general area would have favored the unimpeded evolution of isolated groups, but also thwarted expansion and amalgamation. The lower reaches of the Fen River and its tributaries, site of the T’ao-ssu Lungshan culture, have also been suggested as probable sources, as well as equally rej ected.
³⁶

Finally, based on the (perhaps dubious) perception that many of the Hsia’s important cultural elements, including covenants, marriage customs, esteem for jade,
³⁷
large axes, military expeditions, agricultural practices, sericulture, and sacrifice, all originated in the southeast, a southern inception theory has also been proposed. Furthermore, the disappearance of Liang-chu culture and the migration of their populace into the central region coincident with the Hsia’s ascension raises questions about the nature of their interaction.
³⁸

Irrespective of their point of origination or whether they were not instead an amalgamation of different peoples,
³⁹
the era immediately preceding the Hsia clearly witnessed a fairly rapid transition from somewhat isolated settlements with rudimentary defenses to well-protected towns and regional centers marked by defensive systems consisting of massive walls and conjoined moats. Because of the incredible manpower required in an age of stone tools, complex fortifications would never have evolved without the compulsive effects of fear or pervasive concern about raids and destructive assaults.

Without doubt the increasing population, closer proximity of the settlements, reduced viability of external resources acquired through hunting and fishing, and a greater emphasis on agricultural practices that were polluting and exhausting the land and compelled occasional shifts of the populace caused an escalation in the frequency and lethality of conflict in the centuries preceding the Hsia’s appearance. Whether through coping with these threats or other challenges, more powerful clan chiefs emerged who acquired the power of life and death over others,
as well as the ability to compel participation in massive civil projects, including the construction of palace foundations, levees, and walls, thereby reinforcing their own authority.
⁴⁰
New weapons evolved and society acquired a much more martial character, with military values being esteemed and deceased warriors increasingly being honored by the presence of weapons, especially battle axes, in their graves, particularly in late Erh-li-t’ou culture.

Finally, although the Hsia’s administrative structure and their agricultural growth are often attributed to their success in mitigating the damage caused by flooding during the comparatively wet predynastic period and controlling the waters themselves, from the early Hsia to its extinction the climate became significantly drier.
⁴¹
More wells had to be dug, and conflict objectives probably changed somewhat from struggling to occupy dry, relatively secure mounds and other high points near vital water resources to battling for control of dwindling wetland areas.
⁴²
The diminished rainfall would also have reduced the land and aquatic animal populations, causing significantly increased competition for their acquisition.

Aided by radiocarbon and other dating techniques, scholars have assiduously sought to identify archaeologically excavated sites with the Hsia and Shang capitals discussed in such late written materials as the
Chu-shu Chi-nien
and
Shih Chi
, thereby chronicling their respective histories and attesting to the antiquity and continuity of Chinese civilization.
⁴³
According to these traditional writings, the Hsia and the Shang shifted their capitals a number of times for unspecified but presumably strategic and environmental reasons.
⁴⁴
Purported Hsia capitals include Hsia itself, Yang-ch’eng, Yüan, Lao-ch’iu, Hsi-ho, and Chen-hsün, most of which have been speculatively matched with various sites, including two that have already been discussed, Pien-hsien-wang and P’ing-liang-t’ai.

At present only Hsiang-fen T’ao-ssu, Teng-feng Wang-ch’eng-kang, P’ing-liang-t’ai, and Erh-li-t’ou have been even minimally justified by archaeological evidence, though Erh-li-t’ou is now officially, if not universally, recognized as the last capital of Chen-hsün. However, the fortified
cities of T’ao-ssu, Wang-ch’eng-kang, Hsin-chai, Ta-shih-ku, and Tung-hsia-feng, all of which fall within the Hsia’s projected dates of 2070 to 1600 BCE, seem to provide somewhat concrete form to the previously elusive dynasty. Being located in peripheral areas in proximity to antagonists such as the Yüeh-shih and Tung Yi, several of these sites may have been secondary capitals or major strongpoints rather than true Hsia capitals,
⁴⁵
and even Pien-hsien-wang probably functioned as a Hsia bastion, then suddenly declined, perhaps coincident with the Hsia’s extinction.

Artifacts excavated from P’ing-liang-t’ai’s five main layers are variously dated, but the walls themselves may have been constructed as early as 2370 (± 175) BCE, placing them in the putative transitional period for Yao and Shun.
⁴⁶
However, insofar as the enclosed area amounts to only a third of many earlier Yangshao sites and probably had a population of fewer than a thousand, despite claims that it was a predynastic or early dynastic Hsia capital, at best it probably was merely an early military fortress.

T’ao-ssu at Hsiang-fen in Shanxi, the defining site for the increasingly discussed T’ao-ssu culture, has sometimes been suggested as the locus for Yao, Shun, and Yü,
⁴⁷
as well as the first Lungshan city where emblematic evidence of Hsia culture can be discerned.
⁴⁸
Located in an area that has long been identified as core Hsia domain as well as Emperor T’ang’s legendary bastion, the overall site encompasses some three million square meters. The densely populated society was already marked by clear class distinctions, and the graves of esteemed males are distinguished by the inclusion of weapons and other symbols of martial status or achievement. For example, 111 stone arrowheads (out of 178 objects) were interred in one grave; others include not only a small number of arrowheads, but also stone axes.
⁴⁹
The presence of some thirty bodies whose appearance indicates they died violently, coupled with the essential abandonment of the walls even while the site flourished, has prompted the suggestion that Hsiang-fen was the site of Ch’i’s capital after their internal conflict.
⁵⁰