Ancient Chinese Warfare (73 page)

42
For a contrary view, see Ko Sheng-hua, HCCHS 1992:11, 13.

43
“T’eng-wen Kung,”
Mencius.

44
This statement has also been employed to claim that population records were already being kept and then undertake population estimates for the Hsia and subsequent periods, a seemingly flawed approach given the many quantitative unknowns. (See Sung Chen-hao, LSYC 1991:4, 92.)

1
Until recently oracle bone discoveries had been confined to Anyang, but a number of small finds have now been made in other, even peripheral areas, including ancestral Chou locations and at the pre-Shang sites of other cultures, though most of them lack inscriptions. (For example, see Shan-tung Ta-hsüeh Dung-fang KK YCS, KK 2003:6, 3-6, and Sun Ya-ping and Sung Chen-hao, KK 2004:2, 66-75.)

2
Primarily by Tung Tso-pin, Shima Kunio, Kuo Mo-jo, Ch’en Meng-chia, and others in China, as well as David E. Keightley and Paul Serruys in the West. It should be noted that the nature of these inscriptions, whether they represent reports, charges, or entreaties to the ancestors or some other transcendent entity, remains uncertain. (For example, see Qiu Xigui, EC 14 [1989]: 77-172.)

3
For a brief discussion of the dynasty’s name see Chang Kwang-chih, EC 20 (1995): 69-78.

4
In addition to the essential materials found in
The Cambridge History of Ancient China
, Bruce G. Trigger, JEAA 1 (1999): 43-62, has advanced an interesting analysis of the Shang state. Among the key issues is whether the Shang should be considered a city or territorial state (even though neither may be applicable). The presence of non-Shang clans in the core domain and their degree of participation in Shang power raises further questions.

5
Articles arguing one or another cause constantly appear. However, the often seen claim that the ruler initiated the move to curb abuses and restore monarchial authority is particularly puzzling, because any tenuousness in his authority would have precluded having the power to compel such a move.

6
The Shang’s theocratic nature has been particularly emphasized over the past two decades. For example, see Yang Sheng-nan, CKSYC 1997:4, 16-23; Wang Hui, HCCHS 2000:6, 36-41; Li Shao-lien, STWMYC, 304-312; and David N. Keightley,
History of Religions
17 (1978): 211-224, and PEW 38 (1973): 367-397.

7
From the oracular inscriptions it is obvious that Ti was held in awe because he had the power to inflict misery, defeat, and disaster on the Shang. Although probably not an anthropomorphic entity, it is unclear whether Ti was conceived of as a titular deity, the spirit of an immediately preceding ruler or ancestor, or some collective but numinous entity. Ti’s sanctification was deemed necessary before military campaigns could be undertaken, explaining the importance of announcing them in the ancestral temple, a martial practice that would persist well into imperial times. (For contending viewpoints on Ti’s nature and role see, for example, Robert Eno, EC 15 [1990]: 1-26; Chou Chi-hsü, HCCHS 2008:1, 3-11; Yang Hsi-mei, CKSYC 1992:3, 36-40; Fu Pei-jung,
Chinese Culture
26, no. 3 [1985]: 23-39; and David N. Keightley, JEAA 1, nos. 1-4 [1999]: 207-230. It should be noted that repeated inquiries about undertaking particular campaigns suggest the decision had already been made, that the divinatory process was a mere formality or psychological ploy.)

8
The archaeological records are replete with descriptions of sacrificial burial pits. Family members and retainers followed their lords and masters into death, but prisoners of war were
slain in more general rites, often in exceedingly brutal fashion and numbers that could exceed a hundred. However, whether because productive labor assumed greater importance as the economy burgeoned or there was a shift in religious attitude, the totals diminish as the era progresses. (For overviews see Tuan Chen-mei, 1991, 182-191; Loewe and Shaughnessy,
The Cambridge History of Ancient China
, 192-193 and 266-267; Li Hu, 1984, 130-136; Yang Sheng-nan, LSYC 1988:1, 134-146; and the discussion on the Ch’iang that follows in the focal military section. For just one example of a major sacrificial burial site, see Shan-tung-sheng Po-wu-kuan, WW 1972:8, 17-30. Dramatic statues of sacrificial victims have also been recovered farther afield in Sichuan. See WW 2004:4, 56 and 57, for illustrations.)

9
Even the expansive
Cambridge History of Ancient China
avoids the issue by merely dealing with the artifacts themselves and commencing its account with the Anyang period. Although, as shown by numerous articles in
Early China
and the
Journal of East Asian Archaeology
, interest in the Shang has burgeoned in recent decades, apart from Robert Thorp’s
China in the Early Bronze Age: Shang Civilization,
the main Western-language books on the Shang remain three works from the early 1980s:
Studies of Shang Archeology
,
The Origins of Chinese Civilization
, and the comprehensive but increasingly outdated
Archeology of Ancient China
.

10
For an analysis of the “Yin Pen-chi” see Ch’ü Wan-li, 1965, 87-118.

11
For a recent example, see Wang Chen-chung, HCCHS 2005:1, 3-6, 64.

12
Certain references to Yin in later, supposedly transmitted works nevertheless have prompted considerable discussion of this topic as well. (For typical analyses see Chang Fu-hsiang, HCCHS 2001:5, 57-60; Lien Shao-ming, HCCHS 2000:1, 27-31; and Ch’en Chieh, HCCHS 2001:4, 46-53.)

13
In contrast, based on the name “Yin” another interesting variant concludes that the Shang originated in the upper Huai River area before moving to Yen-shih. (See Ching San-lin, HCCHS 1986:5, 37-46.)

14
How the final location of a remnant people whose destiny was dictated by their conquerors can be interpreted as evidence for the dynasty’s founding site is puzzling in the extreme.

15
K. C. Chang’s section on the Shang in his
Archaeology of Ancient China
and overview in
Shang Civilization
, 335-355, extensively discuss these and similar issues. Based on the coinciding number of fourteen rulers in the Hsia and predynastic Shang and their lengthy period of intermixed dwelling in the east, in 1936 Ch’en Meng-chia (
Ku-shih-pien,
Vol. 7B, 330-333) concluded that the Hsia and Shang were members of the same
tsu
(clan). However, acrimonious disagreement marks discussions of predynastic Shang culture. (For example, see Li Wei-ming, KKWW 2000:3, 51-55, and STWMYC, 208-213; Yang Sheng-nan, HYCLC, 1996, 143-148; Tu Chinp’eng, HYCLC, 1996, 160-164; Chang Kuo-shuo, STWMYC, 280-285; Tsou Heng, HSCLWC (reprint of 1993), 221-226; and Tuan Hung-chen, STWMYC, 213-222.)

16
A particularly useful article by Ch’en Ch’ang-yüan, LSYC 1987:1, 136-144, summarizes the various views. However, for representative theories and opinions see Han K’ang-hsin and P’an Ch’i-feng, LSYC 1980:2, 89-98; Wang Yü-che, LSYC 1984:1, 61-77; Ching San-lin, HCCHS 1986:5, 37-46; Kan Chih-keng et al., LSYC 1985:5, 21-34; and Yen Wen-ming, SCKKLC, 227-247. Cheng Hui-sheng, 1998, 33-34, suggests the name may have been derived from an unusual height where the clan initially dwelled. Chang Ts’ui-lien, KKWW 2001:2, 36-47, argues that the Shang emerged out of the Hsia-ch’i-yüan because the Shang-ch’iu area was already inhabited by the Yüeh-shih prior to the appearance of Shang/Erh-li-kang culture and that Yüeh-shih (or Tung Yi) didn’t evolve into Erh-li-kang. Others, noting the presence of numerous Yi and Yüeh cultural elements, have concluded that the Shang may have been an amalgamation of cultures and clans. For example, based on an early Shang site just west of Hsing-t’ai-shih in southern Hebei, Chia Chin-piao KK 2005:2, 71-78, believes that the early Shang benefited from a multiplicity of cultural influences and Hsia-ch’i-yüan can’t be the sole defining representation.

17
K. C. Chang,
Archaeology of Ancient China
, 326-329; Chang Ch’ang-shou and Chang Kuang-chih, KK 1997:4, 24-31.

18
See Ch’en Ch’ang-yüan’s summary, LSYC 1987:1, 136-144.

19
See, for example, Liu Hsü, HCCHS 1989:7, 21-26, and Cheng Shao-tsung, STWMYC, 423-428.

20
For example, Ch’en Ch’ang-yüan and Ch’en Lung-wen, HCCHS 2004:4, 15-27, argue that the Shang originated in the middle southern part of Shanxi, then moved eastward, evolving into the Chang-ho manifestation before secondarily developing as Hui-wei. (There was a basic shift from mid-Hebei to southern Hebei and settlement along the Chang River.) T’ang therefore should be identified with Yüan-ch’ü in Shanxi.

21
K. C. Chang advanced this idea; for a more recent analysis see Chang Wei-lien, HCCHS 2006:4, 23-32. (For further information on pre-Shang climate and crops, especially the Tawen-k’ou to Yüeh-shih cultures in Shandong’s Shu river valley, see Ch’i Wu-yün, KK 2006:12, 78-84.)

22
A number of articles have discussed the effects of climate change in the late Neolithic, Lungshan, Erh-li-t’ou, and even Shang eras. Commencing about 3000 BCE, the average temperature apparently dropped about 3 degrees C from the climatic maximum, rainfall amounts decreased, herbs and grasses proliferated, woodlands and marshes shrank, and small-animal wildlife populations diminished (making it necessary to raise more animals), all of which could have prompted Hsia aggressiveness even though they are noted for battling floods, not drought. (See, for example, An-hui-sheng WWKK YCS, KK 1992:3, 253-262; Yüan Ching, KKHP 1999:1, 1-22; Sung Yü-ch’in et al., KK 2002:12, 75-79; and Wang Wei, KK 2004:1, 67-77.)

23
Ancient China developed an extensive psychology of
ch’i
(spirit or the will to fight), and the early military classics include important passages on stimulating and manipulating it. For example, in a purported historical overview the
Ssu-ma Fa
(“Obligations of the Son of Heaven”) notes that “Shang rulers swore their oaths outside the gate to the encampment for they wanted the people to first fix their intentions and await the conflict.” Further discussion of the concept and psychology of
ch’i
may be found in Sawyer, “Martial
Qi
in China: Courage and Spirit in Thought and Military Practice.”

24
See “
Shang Shu
” in M. Loewe, ed.,
Early Chinese Texts
, M. Loewe, 378.

25
Note that Karlgren, “Glosses on the Book of Documents,” 172-174, interprets the lines as Hsia complaints that T’ang is reciting to rationalize the attack on Chieh. However, since T’ang justifies the assault in the next paragraph as a response to their complaints and answers the even more pointed question as to Chieh’s impact on them, the translation follows the common understanding that the words were uttered by the Shang populace. (The
Shih Chi’s
“Yin Pen-chi” integrates the oath into its explanation of King T’ang’s actions.)

26
Irrespective of whether the historical sequences are realistic or inspiring leaders necessary, the Chou conquest of the Shang so closely replicated the Shang’s overthrow of the Hsia that the authenticity of the account and achievements of the key actors have long been derisively dismissed by cynics.

27
“Chung Hui chih Kao,”
Shang Shu
(
Shang-shu Chu-shu chi Pu-cheng
, 8:14b). Being from the so-called old text materials, this section probably dates to the fourth century CE, just like the “T’ang Kao” that follows it. (See Loewe,
Early Chinese Texts
, 377-383.)

28
“Chung Hui,”
Shang-shu Chu-shu chi Pu-cheng
, 8:15a.

29
The best account remains Sun Sen’s
Hsia Shang Shih-kao
, 1987, 303-319, but similar versions are found in the massive
Chung-kuo Li-tai Chan-cheng-shih
, Vol. 1, 45-54, as well as overviews by historians such as Wang Yü-hsin, HCCHS 2007:5, 14-20.

30
Historians such as Sun Sen, 303-304, believe that the Shang actually moved south, closer to the Hsia, to position themselves to launch an attack that would require less than a full day’s march. However, they presuppose the Hsia either sanctioned or lacked the might to oppose such a move. (Although there is great disagreement over the site’s identity, most accounts emphasize
that the Shang sought a remote, isolated location [presumably east of the T’ai-hang Mountains] in order to avoid the Hsia’s perversity and allow their incipient power to grow unobserved.)

31
See, for example, Hsü Chao-feng, KKWW 1999:3, 43-48.

32
Yi Yin’s life and career continue to prompt articles that employ a broad range of traditional and oracular sources. One of the most extensive is Cheng Hui-sheng’s “Yi Yin Lun” (1998, 184- 208), which points out that Yi was especially mentioned as a recipient for sacrifices after Wu Ting’s reign, had exalted status comparable to all the ancestors apart from the Shang’s progenitor, and was apparently viewed as chief of the officials. (For inscriptional examples, see HJ27656, HJ27653, HJ27655, HJ30451, HJ27661, HJ27057, HJ26955, and HJ507.) Based on a detailed examination of numerous traditional sources conjoined with materials winnowed from the oracle bones, Cheng affirms the traditional (rather romanticized) view that Yi was originally an orphan of low, even slave status who derived his name from the Yi River, where he had been found, and was brought up by a kitchen helper. Because all the other Shang administrators were members of the nobility, he then reaches the novel conclusion that Yi was the first professional bureaucrat (207-208).

33
Mencius
, VA7.

34
Hsü Chao-feng and Yang Yüan, KKWW 2008:5, 28.

35
According to the “Hsia Pen-chi,” Chieh later expressed regret at failing to execute him.

36
Hsü Chao-feng and Yang Yüan, KKWW 2008:5, 28.

37
The parents of the slain youth, rather than all the common people slain by the earl’s troops. However, it may also be understood as “ordinary men and women.”