Chariots in Early China: Origins, cultural interaction, and identity 9781407310657, 9781407340371

Citation preview

BAR S2457 2013

Chariots in Early China Origins, cultural interaction, and identity

WU

Hsiao-yun Wu

CHARIOTS IN EARLY CHINA

B A R Wu 2455 cover.indd 1

BAR International Series 2457 2013

17/12/2012 11:09:19

Chariots in Early China Origins, cultural interaction, and identity

Hsiao-yun Wu

BAR International Series 2457 2013

ISBN 9781407310657 paperback ISBN 9781407340371 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407310657 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

To Professor Li Boqian 李伯謙 of Peking University with respect and gratitude

Acknowledgment

In 2004, to help me to expand my academic prospect, professor Li Boqian of Peking University introduced me to Professor Jessica Rawson of University of Oxford. This event led to my study at Oxford. Professor Li is a highly respected archaeologist in Chinese archaeological circles. To me, however, his kindness is more like that of a family member. Without him I would not have this precious chance to write this work. Therefore, I would like to dedicate this book to him. In 2006, I arrived at Oxford to start my three-and-half-year study there. Under the supervision of Professor Rawson, I benefited from the academic air of the university. Her countless critical remarks and intellectual guidance throughout the duration of my study greatly enlarged my understanding of archaeology. Without her, this work would not be possible. I am indebted to her for her immense influence on me. I would like to thank Professor Sir Barry Cunliffe, Professor Chris Gosden, and Dr. Wang Tao for their insightful advice and encouragement during this research. I am also indebted to Dr. Qin Ling of Peking University for her continuous support. I am grateful to my fellow classmates, particularly Deng Fei, Chen Xin, Chen Yi, Chin-yin Tseng, Jiang Qiqi, Celine Lai, Sascha Priewe, Neil Comber, and Shih-chong Chen, for their help and companionship. This study has been facilitated by the Taiwan Merit Scholarship from the National Science Council of the Republic of China (NSC-095-SAF-I-564-071-TMS) and a grant from the Simms Found from Merton College. Finally, thanks are due to my family. My mother, Ching-ju Lin, as an enthusiast of ancient art and cultures, gives me endless encouragement and support on my exploration of archaeology. And, particular thanks go to my husband, Jo-hung Tang, for accompanying me to and supporting me at Oxford.

Contents

Prologue...................................................................................................................................................iii Chapter One Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1 1. Historical background............................................................................................................................ 3 2. Literature Review................................................................................................................................. 16 3. Research Approaches........................................................................................................................... 25 4. Organization of the book..................................................................................................................... 27 Chapter Two The Origins: the Shang Chariot and Their Steppe Associations............................... 29 1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 29 2. Components of the Shang chariot set................................................................................................... 30 3. The origins of the Shang chariot set.................................................................................................... 32 4. The adaption of steppe chariots in the late Shang society................................................................... 45 Chapter Three The Golden Chariot of the Zhou............................................................................... 57 1. Background.......................................................................................................................................... 59 2. Associations between the Zhou chariot and the Steppe culture........................................................... 63 3. The development of social roles of chariots in the Western Zhou period............................................ 69 4. Chariots in the Eastern Zhou period.................................................................................................... 80 5. The adoption of Zhou fittings by northern steppe groups.................................................................... 82 Chapter Four Chariots, Steppe Elements, and the Zhou Elite’s Local Networks.......................... 85 1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 85 2. Negotiation with steppe groups: cases from the Yan state and its periphery....................................... 87 3. Gender and ethnic expressions of chariot burials in a local context: cases from the cemetery of the Jin ruling family.............................................................................................. 93 4. Adopting chariots in the south in the middle Yangtze River valley .................................................. 100 5. Later developments............................................................................................................................ 112 Chapter Five The Chariot of Early China: a Cultural Symbol...................................................... 115 Bibliography......................................................................................................................................... 123

i

ii

Prologue

Carved images in the Altai Mountains present chariots drawn by four horses. A striking feature is the way in which the horses are harnessed. The two inner horses are harnessed to a yoke carried on the main draft pole. The outer two are simply restrained by bridles. This is a very particular form of harness and one that also implies great skill in chariot driving, for the outer two horses could easily pull away from the chariot.   The very same harness for four horse chariots was introduced to China by the Zhou, who as western outsiders defeated the earlier ruling house, the Shang, who had introduced steppe two-horse chariots to north China in c. 1200 BCE, and took over as the dominant power in north China from c. 1046 BCE. The four-horse chariot and its particular harness for the horses were innovations that the Zhou seemed to have brought with them from the steppes.   This work will focus on the contribution of steppe people to Chinese chariot use and to the politics and hierarchies under Shang and Zhou rules. I shall argue that the steppe contribution, especially under the Zhou, has been underestimated by earlier scholars. Our recognition of this contribution transforms our understanding of how early Chinese society developed.



Representation of an Altai chariot on a rock carving c. 1500-500BCE

Representation of a Zhou chariot on a bronze vessel the 5th -4th century BCE

iii

iv

Chapter One Introduction An impressive number of chariots have been unearthed from burials of the Bronze Age in China. They were first deployed in the territory we call China by the Shang elite in c. 1200 BCE, and were even more popular into their successors, the Zhou (c. 1046-221 BCE).

diameter, were very elaborate structures (fig. 1.2). Each of them was composed of twenty straight spokes and heatbent felloes; in the center was a nave with a central hole for the wheel to mount on the axle. The box, which was situated above the intersection of the draught pole and the axle, measured 115 by 70 cm. This space was only capable of accommodating two to three people. The box sides, measuring 17 cm in height, were composed of rails. An extra high leaning rail, measuring 42 cm in height, was added across the width of the box. The leaning rail was further supported by a front rail connected to the draught pole and a side rail connected to the upper rail frame.4 These structural features survived over a long period from the late Shang period down to the Western Han period, from the 12th to 1st century BCE.

So far, over one hundred Shang chariots and seven hundred Zhou chariots have been found in China.1 These numbers are significant if we compare chariots discovered from other regions. Actual, full formed chariots from sites outside of China are rare,2 though many representations have survived. Even in Egypt, where chariots played important roles in warfare and politics during the New Kingdom period (1550-1069 BCE), only thirteen actual chariots have been discovered.3 The very abundance of chariots in Zhou burials shows that chariots were highly significant in ancient China.

The time period to be focused in this study is roughly from the appearance of chariots in burial context in about 1200 BCE in the late Shang period to the end of the Zhou period in 221 BCE, when cavalry had replaced the dominate role of chariots in warfare. The Zhou period (c. 1046-221 BCE), established after Zhou people’s military conquest of the Shang state, is particularly important because it is regarded as a Golden Age in Chinese history. In Chinese historiography, the Zhou period is conventionally divided into two major periods: the Western Zhou (c. 1046-771 BCE) and the Eastern Zhou (771-221 BCE). In later centuries, the first period was regarded as the Golden Age of great kings and sages; it was thought of as the source of legitimacy of all Chinese dynasties, particularly the ritual and culture from that period. The second stage, which was further divided into the Spring and Autumn period (771-481 BCE) and the Warring States period (481-221 BCE), is an era now linked with great philosophers. The two periods established the core of Chinese philosophy, including two most influential philosophical streams, the Confucianism and the Daoism.5

The chariots to be discussed are those powered by paired horses. In the Shang period they were drawn by two horses, while the Zhou elite also used four horses to drawn them. They consisted of an axle, a box, two spokedwheels, a draught pole, and a yoke. On the yoke were two yoke-saddles to which horses, around 180 cm high, were attached to. This structure was shared by chariots excavated from other regions. An example that has been fully reconstructed has come from a horse-and-chariot pit at Rujiazhuang 茹家莊, Baoji 寶雞, Shaanxi, dating to the 10th century BCE (fig. 1.1). The overall length of the chariot, including the box, was around 270 cm. The overall width, which was the length of the axle, was around 260 cm. Structurally, the chariot was characterised by its up-curved draught pole, shallow box sides, and muti-spoked wheels. The two wheels were independent of the axle. They, measuring 120 cm in   For the information of these chariots, see Wu Hsiao-yun 2009, pp. 211231. 2   A small number of actual chariots, dating to the second and first Millennium BCE, have been found in tombs in the Urals, the Caucasus, the New Kingdom Egypt, the Iron Age Cyprus, and in Etruscan tombs in Italy. For the Caucasian chariots, see Piggott 1974, pp. 16-24. For the chariots of Iron Age Cyprus, see Crouwel 1987, pp. 101-118. For Egyptian chariots, see Littauer and Crouwel 1985, pp. 67-68, 70-95; Partridge 1996, pp. 111-130. For the Etruscan chariots, see Piggott 1983, pp. 192-193. Though actual chariots are rare, a large number of chariot representations provide us with ample evidence to explore the role of chariots in ancient world. Those representations are found in various materials, including rock carvings and potteries of Central Asia, cylinder seals of the Near East, wall paintings and reliefs of the New Kingdom Egypt and Assyria, wall and vase paintings of the Greek Bronze Age and Iron Age, and wall paintings and bronzes of the Etruscans and reliefs of the Roman Empire. Textual evidence of these regions also provides us with useful information to explore the roles of chariots in different social and cultural contexts. 3   For a list of Egyptian chariots found in tombs, see Littauer and Crouwel 1985, pp. 67-68, 70-95. 1

Chariots are frequent in many transmitted texts relating to the Zhou period, such as the Shi jing 詩經, or the Book of Poetry, the Zuozhuan 左傳, and other Confucian texts, such as the Lunyu 論語, and the Three Ritual Text, the most important ritual texts.6 In these texts, chariots are   For the report and measurements of the Rujiazhuang chariot, see Lu Liancheng and Hu Zhisheng 1988, pp. 388-407. 5   For an introduction on the philosophical development in the Eastern Zhou period, see Nivison 1999, pp. 745-812. 6   The Three Ritual Text is composed of three principle Chinese ritual texts, the Zhou li 周禮, the Yi li 儀禮, and the Li ji 禮記. They were complied from earlier materials in the late Warrring States and early Western Han periods. The Zhou li and the Yi Li were complied during the late Warring States period in the 4th – 3rd century BCE. The Li ji was complied during the early Han period in the first century BCE to explain the Yi li. For commentaries, see Loewe (ed.) 1993, pp. 24-32, 4

1

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 1.1. Reconstruction of the chariot from horse-and-chariot pit CHMK 3 at Rujiazhuang, Baoji, Shaanxi. The Western Zhou period, 10th century BCE. (After Lu Liancheng and Hu Zhisheng 1988, fig. 269, modified with explanations)

2

Introduction

Fig. 1.2. The structure of wheel (after Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo, Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Yuncheng shi wenwuju, Linyi xian bowuguan 2003, fig. 154. 3, 4, modified with explanations)

viewed as a Chinese vehicle, indicating the power of states, individuals’ social status, and gentlemen’s virtue.7

people and consider the central role of chariots in the Chinese society. The introduction of the chariot brought into the Yellow River basin one of the most complex technologies of the day. Its impact on the settled Chinese society was momentous, affecting not only the form of warfare, but also political institutions and ritual practices.

On the other hand, excavations have revealed a rather different aspect of early Chinese chariots. As Stuart Piggott points out, the structural similarity between Shang chariots and chariots from the Caucasus indicates that the Chinese chariot was a foreign item introduced from Western Eurasian steppes.8 In addition, as will be further discussed in later chapters, the Chinese elite’s use of typical steppe weapons, steppe rattle-ornaments and a large number of horses indicates their close contact with steppe people. Yet in the centuries of the Eastern Zhou period these very suppliers of chariot skills and horses were regarded as barbarians.9

The following four parts in this chapter provide the book with a research background. The first part concentrates on a chronological survey of sites and chariot finds, which offers an overview of major materials and historical background. In addition, through the survey, I shall also illustrate the possible link between the Chinese chariot and the steppe culture. The second part reviews literature and available textual materials on Chinese chariots. The third part introduces the approaches adopted in this work. And, the fourth part provides an outline of the book.

The question posed by this study is thus focused on how the Chinese elite came to incorporate a vehicle and its horses so clearly derived from the steppes into the institutional and ritual frameworks of their settled Chinese kingdoms. This work will, therefore, examine both the steppe origins of the chariot and the ways in which the the Shang and the Zhou peoples assimilated the chariot to create a vehicle fully integrated in these settled societies in the Yellow River reaches, and later in the middle Yangtze River reaches. This is an area that has been rarely researched and very little understood. However, it has considerable significance for our understanding the Shang and Zhou societies and cultural interactions between them and the steppe world. In this work, I will illustrate the ways in which steppe chariots were adapted by Chinese-speaking

1. Historical background 1.1. The late Shang period: c. 1200-1046 BCE The site of Qiaobei A recent discovery at Qiaobei 橋北, Shanxi, in the Fen River valley, offers the most complete and earliest examples of chariots and horses found in China. The site is a cemetery with tombs of different periods. The five largest tombs with entry ramps10 had been seriously looted, but a small number of artifacts and two actual chariots were left.   In Chinese archaeology, the occurrence of tomb ramps is usually regarded as an important indicator to show the rank of occupier of a tomb. At Anyang, large tombs with four ramps, as seen in the royal cemetery at Xibeigang西北岡, are thought as tombs of Shang kings. Tombs with two or one ramps are regarded as tombs of high ranking elites. This practice was followed by the Zhou elite. 10

234-243, 293-297. 7   I will return to this point in the concluding chapter. 8   Piggott 1974, pp. 16-24. 9   For a discussion on the development of the Chinese understanding of northern steppe “barbarians,” see Li Feng 2006, pp. 285-293.

3

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 1.3. Chariot burial in the entry ramp of tomb M1 at Qiaobei, Shanxi. The late Shang period, c. 1200 BCE. (After Qiaobei kaogudui 2006, p. 351, fig. 5)

The burial practice and tomb objects, including chariot ornaments, jades, and ceramics, are very similar to those found at Anyang 安陽, Henan 河南, the site of the capital of the major power at the time, the Shang state. On these grounds, the five tombs at Qiaobei are dated to c. 1200 BCE and are attributed to local rulers of a subordinate state of the Shang.11

In their structure, accompanying items, and rattled decorations, these chariots demonstrate a close link with the steppe culture. The chariots present a highly developed form, whose counterparts can be found in an earlier site in the western Eurasian steppes at Lchashen in the Caucasus, dating to c. 1500 BCE or the 13th – 12th century BCE (fig. 1.5).14 As Stuart Piggott has pointed out, the similarities of the complex structure of the chariot box and wheels between the Shang and Lchashen chariots are particularly significant.15 Both of them had a straight railed, small box which could carry two to three people. Their complex spoked wheels were composed of around 20 spokes, a central nave, and bent felloes. All of these indicate that they were made by similar technologies following similar models. As we do not have any earlier evidence on the presence of horses and spoked wheels in the Yellow River basin, the sudden emergence of this kind of complex structure must almost certainly have been introduced from the steppe areas.

The two chariots were found on the entry ramps of tombs M1 and M18 (fig. 1.3). Each of them had two horses fastened on the yokes. The chariots and horses were placed in the approximate manner as if they were pulling the chariots. Along with the chariots were human remians.12 In the chariot boxes were weapons and tools, including bronze bow-shaped objects with rattled terminals, arrowheads, horn-shaped jades and bones (fig. 1.4). All these items have conterparts in horse-and-chariot pits M20 and M40 at Xiaotun 小屯, Anyang, Henan,13 which are frequently regarded as the earliest examples of the Chinese chariot known to date.

While the chariots and accompanying items seem to have originated in the steppes, the bronze chariot ornaments on the two Qiaobei chariots belonged to a quite different tradition. The majority of the bronze ornaments were

  For the report, see Qiaobei kaogudui 2006, pp. 347-394. The site was excavated in 2003, 33 tombs dating from the late Shang period to the Han dynasty (the 12th century BCE to 2nd century CE) have been excavated. 12   A human body was placed in front of the M1 chariot. Two humans were placed around the M2 chariots. 13   For the report fo the Xiaotun horse-and-chariot pits, see Shih Chang-ju 1970. 11

  For the chariots from the Caucasus, see Piggott 1974, pp. 11-24. For the radiocarbon dates, see Shaughnessy 1988, p. 201; Wang Wei 1998, p. 385; Wang Haicheng 2002, p. 5. 15   Piggott 1974, pp. 11-24. 14

4

Introduction

Fig. 1.4. Weapon/tool set from tomb M18 at Qiaobei, Shanxi. The late Shang period, c. 1200 BCE. 1. Bronze bow-shaped object; 2. Horn-shaped item; 3. Bone arrow-head; 4. Bronze arrow head; 5, 6. Bone whip tops (after Qiaobei kaogudui 2006, pp. 366, 367, figs. 20, 21)

Fig. 1.5. Chariots from the Lchashen site. The late second millennium BCE. (After Piggott 1974, p. 17, fig. 1; pl. 4a)

attached to the chariot box. On the upper and lower rims of the box, there were neat lines of round bronze ornaments. In the front and rear of the box, there were bronze ornaments made in particular shapes to cover the junctions of the box’s lower rims and the draught pole (fig. 1.6.1,2).16 Square-tube ornaments were placed on the two

ends of the upper rim (fig. 1.6.6). On the two ends of the axle were two axle-caps (fig. 1.6.4). The two ends of the yoke-bar were decorated with leaf-shaped ornaments. On the tops of the yoke-saddles were bronze caps (fig. 1.6.3). In addition, the horse bridles were also rich in decoration. Small round bronze ornaments decorated the thongs. No chariot or similar ornaments have been found in sites to the north. But they have many counterparts at the Shang

  On the front junction was a bronze cover, fan shi 軓飾; on the rear junction was a bronze cap, zhong shi. 16

5

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 1.6. Chariot fittings with typical Shang patterns from the chariot burial of tomb M1 at Qiaobei, Shanxi. (Adopted from Qiaobei kaogudui 2006, pp. 354-357, figs. 7.2-3, 8, 9.1, 10.1)

capital Anyang. Furthermore, typical Shang imaginative animal patterns, such as animal faces, coiled dragons kui 夔, birds, and cicadas, are seen on most of these ornaments and bow-shaped objects. These ornaments with typical Shang motifs indicate that chariots as foreign items had already been assimilated by the Shang culture.

context in this period.20 The sudden appearance of large numbers of horses, chariots, and bow-shaped objects, which did not have prototypes in previous periods in the Yellow River basin, suggests that there probably were frequent contacts between the Shang people and northern foreigners at that time.

Anyang: the capital

1.2 The Western Zhou period: c. 1046-771 BCE

Chariot burials similar to those at Qiaobei were much more frequent at the Shang capital, Anyang, from c. 1200 BCE. Chariots with horses and humans were not only found in tomb ramps, as seen in tomb M698 at Western Zone (Yixu xiqu 殷墟西區),17 but much more frequently were found in pits adjacent to large tombs, as seen in a cemetery at Guojiazhuang 郭家莊.18 In addition, similar assemblages were buried at ritual sites, such as in horse-and-chariot pits discovered at a building complex regarded as royal dwellings or ritual temples at Xiaotun.19

In c. 1046 BCE, King Wu 武 (r. 1049-1043 BCE) led his people, the Zhou group, who occupied the Wei River valley in the west, and his allies to defeat the Shang state in the east. The Zhou claimed that their successful conquest depended upon the will of Heaven to overthrow the corrupt Shang and to rule its people. Their political propaganda is not only recorded in historical texts, such as the Shangshu, but also seen in contemporary bronze inscriptions. The inscription of the He zun 何尊, for example, reads: “… King Wen (King Wu’s father) received the Great Mandate, and King Wu carried out the conquest of the Great City of Shang, announcing it to Heaven with the words: ‘I must dwell in the centre and from there rule the people….’

The fully developed horse-drawn chariot and its associated weapons and tools seen in Qiaobei and Xiaotun sites appeared in the reign of the Shang King, Wu Ding武丁 (c. 1200 BCE), an era of innovation. In addition to the chariot, the Chinese writing system also emerged in archaeological

  The earliest evidence on Chinese writing is seen in bronze inscriptions and oracle bone inscriptions of Wu Ding’s time, dating to c. 1200 BCE, from Anyang. As no mature writing is known on earlier bronzes or other finds, it is possible that they were the earliest Chinese writing. However, as the structure of characters on bronzes and oracle bones was highly developed, and some evidence indicates that there was brush writing, Robert Bagley suggests that “it is also possible that the only innovation of Wu Ding’s time was the decision to carve divination records on the divination bones.” (Bagley 1999, p. 182) 20

  For the report, see Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Anyang gongzuodui 1979, pp. 27-146. 18   For the horse-and-chariot pits at Guojiazhuang, see Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1998, pp. 127-150. 19   For the materials from the Xiaotun site, see Shih Chang-ju 1970. 17

6

Introduction the Shi ji 史記, or Records of the Historian, the Zhou group had originally lived among northern steppe groups before they settled in the Wei River valley.23 Furthermore, the Zhou connection with the steppes also implied in a poem relating to their history in the Shi jing, or the Book of Poetry. The poem “Shengming 生民” suggests that the Zhou could not grow crops until the Zhou ruler, Hou Ji 后稷, or the Lord of Millet, taught them agriculture. This probably indicates that the Zhou people turned from pastoral way of life to settled way of life by the time of

(…文王受茲大命。惟武王既克大邑商，則廷告于天 曰：「余其宅茲中國，自茲乂民。…」)”21 However, by examining early Western Zhou ritual vessels, Jessica Rawson remainds us that what behinded Zhou king’s wise political statements is that the Zhou had an apparently outsider background.22 Indeed, according to   For the He zun and its inscription, see Zhongguo qingtongqi quanji 5, no. 152 .Translation after Fong (ed.) 1980, p. 198. 22   Rawson 1989, pp. 71-95. Jessica Rawson has argued that the Zhou group, as outsiders, in the western Shaanxi adapted the Shang advanced culture to claim political legitimacy. At present, we do not have evidence to show exactly where the Zhou came from. But an understanding of the origin of Chinese chariots and horses, can add a useful layer to our 21

understanding of the origin of the Zhou people. 23   Shi ji, Zhou benji 周本紀 (Basic annals of Zhou), Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1997, p. 112.

Map 1 Distribution of chariot burials of the Western Zhou period (c. 1046-771 BCE)

7

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 1.7. Bronze chariot no. 1 from the tomb of the First Emperor (d. 210 BCE) at Lintong, Shaanxi. 1. Bronze chariot no. 1; 2. The structure of four-horse-harness; 3. The attaching method of four horses on the yoke-bar (After Qinshihuang bingmayong bowuguan and Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1998, figs. 7, 50, 53.2, 54.2)

8

Introduction Hou Ji.24 Therefore, it is relevant for the current study to note that it is highly probable that the steppe culture was an essential part of early Zhou culture. The principal capital of the Zhou kingdom in the Western Zhou period was formed by Feng灃 and Hao 鎬 settlements at present-day Chang’an County, at Xi’an in Shaanxi province. To rule the eastern land efficiently, in the reign of King Cheng 成 (r. 1042-1006 BCE), the Zhou court decided to establish a second capital, Cheng Zhou 成周, at present-day Luoyang, Henan, as an eastern administrative centre. In addition, to oversee eastern local states, members of royal family, the Ji姬-clan, were sent to several strategic eastern locations to establish new subordinate states. Several large scale sites have been identified as centers of these states. Among them, the most significant ones were the Jin 晉 state at present-day Tianma-Qucun天馬曲村 in Shanxi, and the Yan 燕state at Liulihe 琉璃河 in Beijing. Both of these states were established to control local northern steppe groups. In addition, the Wey 衛 state at Xincun 辛村, Xunxian 浚縣 in Henan was located in the centre of previous Shang territory to supervise remaining Shang people; and the Ying 應state at Pingdingshan 平頂 山 in Henan was set up to monitor the southern route to the Han 漢 River.25 New chariot type in the early Zhou period Chariot burials, including horse-and-chariot pits and chariots and fittings interred in tombs, are much more frequently found in Zhou burials in the early Zhou period than in the late Shang period. Chariot burials are found at almost every site of the early Western Zhou period (the late 11th to the early 10th century BCE), as shown in map 1. A significant feature of finds from these sites is the appearance of four-horse chariots. This chariot type represents a further complex horse control skill than that of two-horse chariots, becase its outer two horses were not harnessed to the yoke-bar directly but were restrained by bridles loosely fastened on the yoke-bar and the lower part of the chariot box (fig. 1.7).26 Thus, this form of chariots implies a version of chariot driving much more advanced than that of the Shang period. In many cases, horses of four-horse chariots were decorated with more conspicuous bronze ornaments than those with two horses. For example, in pit M3 at Huayuancun 花園 村, Chang’an, Shaanxi, dating to the reign of King Mu 穆 (r. 956-918 BCE), the horses of the four-horse chariot had richer bronze ornaments than those of the two-horse chariots (fig. 1.8).27 Thus, the appearance of the four-horse chariot with conspicuous horse and chariot ornaments   Rawson (ed.) 2009, p. 33.   For a study on the geographical strategic significance of these states, see Li Feng 2006, pp. 70-75. 26   This horse arrangement is most clear shown by the bronze miniatures of chariots found at the tomb of the First Emperor (d. 210 BCE). For the materials, see Qinshihuang binmayong bowuguan and Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1998, pp. 139-179. 27   Shaanxi sheng wenwu guanli weiyuanhui 1986, pp. 6-8. 24 25

Fig. 1.8. Horse-and-chariot pit M3 at Huayuancun, Xi’an, Shaanxi. The middle Western Zhou period, 10th century BCE. (After Shaanxi sheng wenwu guanli weiyuanhui 1986, p. 7, fig. 11)

9

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity probably indicates a need for more exaggerated chariot display than was practiced by the Shang elite.

折, Feng 豐, Qiang 牆, and Xing (fig. 1.9).32 The four groups represent four generations of a lineage, the Wei 微, living in the Zhou centre at least from the early 10th to early 8th century BCE. When these vessels were displayed on an altar in their family temple, they represented their owners, the ancestors of the Wei lineage, as accepting offerings from their descendents.33

In contact with steppe groups: the Yan and the Jin states Even after the Zhou proclaimed their political legitimacy in the Yellow River basin, northern steppe practices continued to influence chariot uses in the northern local states under Zhou domination. This phenomenon is particularly clear in the remains of two local states, the Jin at Tianma-Qucun in Shanxi and the Yan at Liulihe in Beijing. These states were established by the Zhou royal house as buffers to the northern pastoral groups.

In this sequence, a salient change occurs in the Xing group, dating to c. 850 BCE. By contrast with the previous three groups, the Xing group at least has three prominent features. First, they form a huge assemblage, including large sets of identical offering vessels, especially the eight gui簋 and the five ding in identical forms and sizes. These are identical in form and size. Second, the Xing group includes two new categories, a set of fourteen chime bells and two pairs of large hu 壺. Third, their ornaments are primarily geometric, including wave-bands, grooved surface, and square openwork, but not creatures with elaborate details as seen on their predecessors. As Jessica Rawson has shown, in the Zhou sphere, the use of chime bells and identical vessel sets occurred first in a cemetery of the Yu state at present-day Baoji, Shaanxi to the west of the Zhou centre.34 And, these geometric patterns, as in previous periods, linked the Zhou state with a steppe tradition.35

The Liulihe site of the Yan state, dating to the late 11th -10th century BCE, is on the east side of the Taihang 太行 Mountains. Over the mountains is the Tianma-Qucun site of the Jin state. The site, dating to the 10th - 8th century BCE, is composed of two locations: Beizhao and TianmaQucun. The Beizhao location was the cemetery of the Jin ruling family. Horse-and-chariot pits of the two states share certain characteristics associated with the northern steppe culture. In contrast with horse-and-chariot pits found at other Western Zhou sites of more central local states, the horse-and-chariot pits of these two states featured large numbers of horses. The horse-and-chariot pit M202CH at Liulihe contained 42 horses;28 and the largest horse-andchariot pit at Beizhao contained 107 horses.29 These large numbers of horses indicate easy access to the source of horses on the northern steppes.30

Jessica Rawson suggests that the changes demonstrated by the Xing vessels indicate a major ritual reform took place in c. 850 BCE. The large vessel size, the large group of identical vessels, and the prominent patterns imply that there was a larger audience, probably at a greater distance than formerly, joining in ritual ceremonies. The appearance of the new vessels, the hu, and the large musical instruments, the bells, shows that new procedures were added to the ritual ceremonies.36

The Ritual Reform A hoard found at Zhuangbai 莊白, Fufeng 扶風, Shaanxi, containing103 bronzes, is a site in the ritual centre of the Zou elite during the Western Zhou period. The bronzes from the hoard provide us a clear stylistic development of Western Zhou ritual bronzes.31 The hoard was buried when the ritual centre and the western capital were invaded by northwestern steppe groups around 771 BCE. The fall of the capital forced the royal house and high-ranking families in the Wei River valley to flee to the east. To protect their offering vessels, which had been displayed in family temples for centuries, these vessels were buried in hoards, so that the families would be able to find them again when they were able to return to the ritual centre. But most of the families never return.

The great change in the ritual indicates a parallel change in the Zhou society. The point in time when this happened coincided with the decline in the power of the royal house, after their failures in military expansions to the south, and the rise of aristocratic power in the capital.37 The   The Zhe vessels contain four bronzes; the Feng vessels contain three; the Qiang vessels contain two; and the Xing vessels contain 39. 33   See Rawson 2004, pp. 4-11. 34   Three chime bells, which were found at 10th century BCE tomb M7 at Zhuyuangou 竹園溝 site, were traditional southern bronzes. At Rujiazhuang 茹家莊 site, a set of identical bronze vessels, dating to the 10th -9th century BCE, came from a chamber of tomb M1, in which a concubine of a Yu ruler was buried. As her burial goods contained several non-Zhou ceramics, it is believed that she came from a non-Zhou group in further west area. See Lu Liancheng and Hu Zhisheng 1988. 35   For the relationship between the ornaments seen on the Xing vessels and western steppe tradition, see Rawson 1989, pp. 87-93; 2010. 36   For thorough discussions on the ritual reform, see Rawson 1989, pp. 87-93; 1999b, pp. 433-440. For the role of ritual vessels in the process of ritual ceremonies, see Rawson 1998, pp. 107-133. Lothar von Falkenhausen proposes a slightly different observation on the bronze ornaments of the Zhuangbai bronzes and suggests that the ritual reform happened in a slightly later period. See Falkenhausen 1999b, pp. 148173; 2006a, pp. 29-73. 37   For a detailed analysis, basing on bronze inscriptions, on the rise of the aristocratic power in the political centre and elites’ conflict with the 32

In the Zhuangbai hoard, 75 of 103 bronzes were ritual vessels. According to their shapes, decorations, and inscribed owners’ names, these vessels can be further divided into four groups in a chronological sequence: Zhe   For the report, see Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo 1995.   See Guojia wenwuju (ed.) 2007, pp. 65-68; Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo and Beijing daxue kaogu wenbo xueyuan 2010, pp. 4-22. 30   Shang oracle-bone inscriptions show that many groups in the Northern Zone were rich in horses. They were important sources of horses for the Shang and the Zhou states. See Shaughnessy 1988, pp. 232-234; see also Linduff 2003, pp. 155-157. 31   For the bronzes, see Beijing daxue kaogu wenbo xueyuan and Beijing daxue gudai wenming yanji zhongxin 2002. 28 29

10

Fig. 1.9. Ritual bronzes from a hoard at Zhuangbai, Fufeng, Shaanxi. The Western Zhou period, 10th to 8th century BCE. (After Rawson 2004, figs. 2, 3) 1. Zhe vessels; 2. Feng vessels; 3. Qiang vessels; 4. Xing vessels

Introduction

11

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 1.10. Horse-and-chariot pit no.1 at Xinzhen, Henan. The Spring and Autumn period, late 6th to early 5th century BCE. (After Guojia wenwuju (ed.) 2002, p. 56)

innovations of the Xing vessels were also frequently seen in bronze vessels found in other contemporary tombs. In tomb M1 at Qiangjia 強家¸ Fufeng, for example, large, identical sets of ding and gui vessels with geometric patterns, and a pair of large hu vessels were found.38 These examples indicate that the new ritual vessel sets, which allowed for conspicuous display associated with ancestor offerings as well as with personal status, were also deployed in burials. Such displays, both in hoards and tombs, provided the Zhou elite with means to emphasise their social status.

capital in 771 BCE. As the royal house no longer commanded political power, the Zhou local states were no longer joined as a united kingdom as before, but found themselves in competitive relationships. Several major states aspired to overall control, such as the Jin state in present-day Shanxi, the Qi 齊 state in Shandong, both of which had already been in existence for several hundred years. Furthermore, new powerful states arose on borders, such as the Qin 秦in the Wei River valley and the Chu 楚 in the middle Yangtze River valley. Numerous small states co-existed with the larger ones.

Accompanying this emphasis on display as an aspect of proclaiming of personal status was the increasingly large scale of chariot burials. As seen in tombs M157 and M170 at the Zhangjiapo site, dating after the Ritual Reform in c. 850 BCE, unprecedented large numbers of dismantled chariots were displayed on the entry ramps and on the top of the wooden burial chambers.39

Chariot displays in the Zhou states In this period, the chariot display was still an important means for the Zhou elite to assert power. Following the Western Zhou conventions, burying horses and chariots in pits was very frequent in states that had already formed under the Western Zhou. For example, horse-and-chariot pits were frequently found in cemeteries of the Jin state. As seen at Shangma 上馬40 and Chengcun程村, Linyi 臨 猗41 in Shanxi, dating to the 8th - 5th century BCE, many horse-and-chariot pits with two to five chariots were found. Further large horse-and-chariot pits accompanied tombs

1.3 The Spring and Autumn period: 771-481 BCE The Spring and Autumn period opened with the eastwards migration of the Zhou royal house to the eastern capital at present-day Luoyang and of the Wei River elite to the eastern and southern lands after the fall of the western

  Three horse-and-chariot pits, each of which contained three to five chariots, dating to the 8th to 5th century BCE, have been found in the Jin cemetery at Shangma. See Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1994, pp. 238-260. 41   Eight horse-and-chariot pits, dating to the late 6th to 5th century BCE, similar to those at Shangma have been found at Chengcun, Linyi, Shanxi. See Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al. 2003, pp. 158-237. 40

royal authority after the middle Western Zhou period, see Li Feng 2006, pp. 91-140. 38   For the report, see Zhouyuan Fufeng wenguanhui 1987. 39   For the report of M157 and M170, see Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1999, pp. 16-22, 27-35.

12

Introduction

Fig. 1.11. Horn-shaped cheek-pieces 1. Horn cheek-piece from Liulihe, Beijing. 10th century BCE. (After Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo 1995, fig. 146. 1) 2. Horn cheek-piece from Zhangjiapo, Shaanxi. 10th century BCE. (After Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1999, fig. 247.2). 3. Bronze horn-shaped cheek-piece from Fengxi, Xi’an, Shaanxi. 10th century BCE. (After Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Feng Hao gongzuodui 1987, fig.16. 3). 4. Bone cheek-piece from Chengcun, Linyi, Shanxi. 6th century BCE. (After Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al. 2003, fig. 124.6

of high ranking elite, such as one with fifteen chariots at Taiyuan 太原, Shanxi, dating to the third quarter of the 5th century BCE.42 Chariot burials were also very rich in minor states. For example, the largest horse-and-chariot pit of the period known to us is that of a ruler of a minor state, the Zheng 鄭, dating to the early 5th century BCE at present-day Xinzheng 新鄭¸ Henan. In the pit were twenty-two chariots along with many horses (fig. 1.10).43 Furthermore, in the two ramps of the ruler’s tomb that the pit associated with were 45 chariots displayed.44

dating to the middle 6th century BCE. The tomb yielded 551 bronzes including nineteen elaborate ding and a large set of 26 chime bells. However, in a horse-and-chariot pit were only six chariots.46 The 6th century BCE: a new style on horse harness A noteworthy change in chariot equipments occurred in the middle Spring and Autumn period in the 6th century BCE. In the Jin state, a large number of bone or horn cheek-pieces overwhelmingly replaced traditional bronze cheek-pieces. Among the 48 cheek-pieces from the Jin cemetery at Shangma, dating from the middle 8th to the middle 5th century BCE, only six were made of bronze.47 In the slightly later Jin cemetery at Chengcun, dating from the 6th to 5th century BCE, all of the 95 cheek-pieces were made of bone. Most of these bone cheek-pieces were finely carved into horn shape; some of them were painted with triangle patterns, and square whirls or interlinked scrolls (fig. 1.11.4). The monopoly of the bone cheek-pieces in the Jin state after the 6th century is further confirmed by the high ranking elite tomb at Taiyuan. In the tomb, all of the 33 cheek-pieces were made of horn, on which there were S-shaped patterns.48

By contrast, chariots seem to have been buried less frequently in large newly created states, particularly the powerful Qin and Chu. In a cemetery of the ruling family of the Qin state at Dabaozishan 大堡子山, Lixian 禮縣, Gansu, a ruler in the 8th century BCE had a pit with twelve vehicles.45 In the Chu sphere, the richest tomb known to us is tomb M2 at Xiasi 下寺, Xichuan 淅川, Henan, which was for the head of a significant lineage of the Chu state,   Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1996, pp. 194-231.   The chariot boxes of the 22 chariots are various in widths. The widest one could carry three people side by side, and the smallest one only could carry one person. In addition, there was a big chariot box, measuring 200 by 150 cm. As the size of the box was the double of ordinary ones, and its sides were roughly made, it is believed that it was used as a cart. Horses were placed beneath the chariots. To preserve the excavated chariots, only a very small area of the horse remains has been excavated. A very short introduction of the pit no.1 is in Guojia wenwuju (ed.) 2002, pp. 56-61. 44   No official report has been published yet. For the information of the chariots buried in the tomb, see Zhao Haizhou 2007, p. 44. 45   Three tombs and two horse-and-chariot pits have been found at Dabaozishan site. The main tomb, which is very large in the scale, is attributed to Duke Xiang 襄 (r. 777-766) or Duke Wen 文 (r. 765-716 BCE) of the Qin state. For the site, see Lixian bowuguan and Li xian Qin xichui wenhua yanjiuhui 2004, pp. 7-18. 42 43

The horn or bone cheek-piece was not a new item to the Zhou elite. The use of such items in the Zhou states started in the early Western Zhou period. In the Yan cemetery   For the report of M2, see Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo et al. 1991, pp. 103-211. 47   For the report, see Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1994. 48   For the report of the Taiyuan tomb, see Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1996. 46

13

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity The adoption of steppe cloth and cavalry of King Wuling of the Zhao state

at the Liulihe site, dating to the 10th century BCE, such items have been found in a small number of tombs and a horse-and-chariot pit (fig. 1.11.1).49 Even in the Western Zhou heartland at the Zhangjiapo site, similar items were found in three tombs of different periods (fig. 1.11.2).50 In addition, as seen at the Yan state and the Zhou centre, from the early 10th century BCE, bronze cheek-pieces were also made to imitate shapes of bone or horn cheek-pieces (fig. 1.11.3). Moreover, descendents of such bronze imitations became the major form of cheek-pieces in the middle and late Western Zhou periods (the late 10th - 8th century BCE).51 The use of horn cheek-pieces was not a Zhou tradition, but had had a long development in the Eurasian steppes.52 The occasional appearance of bone or horn cheek-pieces in Western Zhou sites can only be regarded as a result of a limited interaction with northern groups.

As shown in the Zuozhuan, large numbers of war chariots were involved in battles during the Zhou period. For example, a section of the Zuozhuan claims that the Jin state used 700 chariots and the Chu state used 600 chariots in a famous battle at Chengpu 城濮 in 632 BCE.54 Strategies of chariot battles are also described in several anecdotes, as seen in the records of the 23rd year of the reign of Duke Xiang 襄 and of the 16th year of the reign of Duke Cheng 成.55 These descriptions suggest that the chariot battle was the major form of warfare in the Zhou period. The fierceness of chariot battles in the Warring States period is well presented in a Chu poem, Guoshang 國殤, dating to c. 3rd century BCE, mourning for fallen soldiers. The poem reads:

However, the above finds in later Jin tombs reveal a very different situation from that in the previous Western Zhou period. The fact that horn or bone cheek-pieces took over from traditional bronze forms seems to indicate that, at least in the 6th century BCE, a large scale of introduction of northern steppe driving or horse management skills occurred in the Zhou states. This introduction had a very significant influence in later periods. As I will show in chapter four, in the Warring States period, very similar horn or bone cheek-pieces were the dominant form of cheek-pieces all over the Zhou sphere.

Grasping our great shields and wearing hide armour, Wheel-hub to wheel-hub locked, we battle hand to hand. Our banners darken the sky; the enemy teems like clouds; Through the hail of arrows the warriors press forward. They dash on our lines; they trample our ranks down. The left horse has fallen, the right one is wounded. Wheels are fallen into mud; horses can not move. Seize the jade drumstick and beat the sounding drum! (操吳戈兮被犀甲, 車錯轂兮短兵接。旌蔽 日兮敵若雲,矢交墜兮士爭先。凌余陣兮躐余行, 左驂殪兮右刃傷。霾兩輪兮縶四馬,援玉枹兮擊鳴 鼓。)56

1.4 The Warring States period: 481-221 BCE Historians treat the partition of the Jin state into three states, the Han韓, the Zhao趙, and the Wei 魏, by the most powerful three lineages of the Jin state in 481 BCE as the beginning of the Warring States period. After the threehundred-year competition between the Zhou states during the Spring and Autumn period, the Warring States period in the following two and a half centuries was an era of further fierce military competition, dominated by seven major states, the Qi, the Chu, the Yan, the Qin, the Han, the Zhao, and the Wei.

However, in 307 BCE, a significant event in a northern border state, the Zhao in present-day southern Hebei, radically challenged the role of chariots in warfare. Facing increasing threats from northwestern horse-riding nomadic powers, King Wuling 武靈 of the Zhao state decided to adopt nomadic practices to reinforce the state’s military power. The most important decision was to copy cavalry from their northern nomadic neighbours. Along with this was the adoption of short tunics of the nomads, which were

As in the previous periods, the elite of the Warring States period placed great importance on displaying chariots in their cemeteries. Large tombs with a number of chariot items were frequently accompanied by large horse-andchariot pits. But this practice had by then become more frequent in the south, in the Chu state. For example, the largest horse-and-chariot pit of the time, probably belonging to a Chu king, was discovered there at Xiongjiazhong熊家 冢, Jingzhou 荊州, Hubei. In the pit were 43 chariots and 164 horses.53

2011, pp. 4-19. 54   The Zuozhuan, “the 28th year of Duke Zhuang 莊”. 55   The Zuozhuan, “the 23rd year of Duke Xiang”: “In autumn, the Marquis of Qi invaded Wey. The van of the army was commanded by Wangsun Hui, with Gu Rong as charioteers and Zhao Yang as spearman. The next column was commanded by Ju Heng, with Cheng Zhi as charioteer and Fu Zhi, [son] of Shen Xianyu, as spearman. [In the centre], Cao Kai was charioteer to the marquis, and Yan Furong was a spearman. The supporting force was commanded by Xing Gong, with Shang Zhideng as charioteer, and Lu Pukuei as spearman. In the left wing, Xiang Ba commanded with Lao Cheng as charioteer and Lang Qushu as spearman; in the right, Hou Chao, with Shang Zi-ju as charioteer, and Heng Tiao as spearman. The army of the rear was commanded by Xia Zhiyukou with Shang Ziyou as charioteer, and Cui Ru as spearman, Zhuyong Ziyue being in the same chariot. 秋，齊侯伐衛。先驅，谷榮禦王孫揮，召 揚為右；申驅，成秩禦莒恒，申鮮虞之傅摯為右。曹開禦戎，晏父 戎為右。貳廣，上之登禦邢公，盧蒲癸為右；啟，牢成禦襄罷師， 狼蘧疏為右；胠，商子車禦侯朝，桓跳為右；大殿，商子游禦夏 之禦寇，崔如為右；燭庸之越駟乘。自衛將遂伐晉。”(Translation after Legge 2000, p. 502, with modifications) The Zuozhuan, “the 16th year of Duke Cheng 成”: “The viscount of the Chu got up on a carriage with a look-out on it to survey the army of Jin. 楚子登巢車，以望晉軍。” (Thranslation after Legge 2000, p. 396) 56   The English translation based on Hawkes 1959, pp. 43-44.

  For the horn cheek-pieces from the Liulihe site, see Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo 1995, pp. 239-240. 50   Horn cheek-pieces were found at M152, M284, and M165 at the Zhangjiapo site. See Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1999. 51   For the stylistic development of the bronze check-pieces, see Wu Hsiao-yun 2003, pp. 222-225. 52   For the horn-shaped cheek-pieces from Eurasian steppes, see Penner 1998, pls. 52-54. 53   For the report of the horse-and-chariot pit, see Jingzhou bowuguan 49

14

Introduction more suitable for riding, quick moving and fighting than traditional Chinese long robes.57 As a result, the chariots lost their principal role in warfare, and cavalry along with infantry became the major power in battles.58

the Chinese and the nomads were explicitly in opposition to one another.61 The building of the Great Wall can also be seen as marking the end of the period discussed in the present study. As shown above, the history of the Chinese chariot opened with a positive adoption of the steppe culture by the great Shang King, Wu Ding. Chariots were thus introduced as a new method of warfare and transport for the Shang state. When the Zhou group, as foreigners to the Shang, emerged in the western part of the Wei River valley, new types of chariots with specific steppe decorations emerged. After the decline of the Western Zhou period, a continuous pressure of steppe influence on the use of chariots was most significantly shown by the adoption of bone or horn cheek-pieces. But the military role of chariots declined after the King Wuling of the Zhao state introduced a new fighting method, namely the cavalry, from the northern steppes. When the Chinese decided to close their door to the northern nomadic world, this positive cultural influence was interrupted for a short period.62

This change of tactic had been heavily debated at the Zhao court.59 As a traditional Zhou state, the Zhao elite regarded themselves as Chinese. Thus, the adoption of the nomadic manners implied a deviation from the Chinese identity. While the Zhao elite considered their cultural identity, some nomadic groups along the northern borders wished to become members of the Chinese states. The most notable case is that of the Zhongshan 中山 state, established by a nomadic group “White Di (Bai Di白狄)” in present-day central Hebei. A tomb of a king of the Zhongshan state at Pingshan 平山, Hebei, dating to the late 4th century BCE, exemplifies this development. Apart from a small number of very high quality three-dimensional animal sculptures and some tent fittings that belonged to a strong steppe tradition, the king’s burial assemblage was dominated by Chinese artifacts. A number of typical Chinese ritual bronzes, some of which inscribed with neat Chinese characters to commemorate the king’s merits, marked his assimilation of the Chinese culture. As in other large tombs of Chinese states in their south, horse-and-chariot pits, a burial practice unknown in the northern steppes, were adopted to display the king’s status and authority.60 At the same time these burial patterns aligned the king’s identity with that of a Zhou state ruler.

1.5 Summary The continuous exchanges evident in chariots found in excavations raise the possibility of exploring the relationship between the Chinese states and their northern neighbours which must result in an account very different from that to be gleaned from transmitted texts. Most of these texts were complied after the 5th century BCE, at a time when ideas about differences between the Chinese and the northern nomads had already taken shape.63 Excavated evidence has, however, brought out two important aspects of the history of early China related to present study. First of all, as many scholars, particularly William Watson, Stuart Piggott, and Jessica Rawson, have pointed out, the steppe culture contributed quite a lot to the formation of Chinese culture.64 In this regard, the most significant fact is that the Zhou people, who were regarded as the source of Chinese political theory in later periods, came from a steppe background. Second, the frequent coexistence of

In 296 BCE, with intense conflicts between states and between Chinese and non-Chinese groups, the sinicised Zhongshan was destroyed by the nomadised Zhao. Building the Great Wall The construction of the Great Wall by the northern states, the Qin, the Yan, and the Zhao, from the 4th to the 3rd century BCE along their northern borders marked the end of an era of positive interactions between the settled Chinese states and northern steppe groups. From that time, the Chinese publicly treated the nomadic people as enemies and closed their doors to the northern steppe world. Furthermore, after the unification of the Qin state in 221 BCE and the rise of the Xiongnu 匈奴 on the steppes,

  For the building and meaning of the Great Wall from the late Warring States period to the Han period, and the opposition between the Chinese and nomads, see Di Cosmo 2002, pp. 138-158. 62   In later periods, the principle function of chariots was for transportation. In addition, chariots played a subordinate role to cavalry and infantry in battles. After the middle Western Han period in the 1st century BCE, chariot burials have almost no role in the list of the Han elite’s burial goods. Actual chariots were occasionally found in the entrance ramps of tombs of the Western Han high ranking elite, such as in a first century BCE large tomb at Dabaotai 大堡台, Beijing (see Dabaotai Han mu fajuezu 1989, pp. 74-92). The latest examples seem to be those found at a large tomb of a Western Han prince at Mancheng 滿城, Hebei, dating to 113 BCE. Six chariots were deployed in the tomb (see Zhongguo shehui keuxeyuan kaogu yanjiusuo and Hebei sheng wenwu guanlichu 1980, pp. 179-206). 63   Li Feng provides a good survey on the Chinese historical texts to show how Chinese of the Eastern Zhou period considered their differentiation from the northern nomads (Li Feng 2006, pp. 286-296). 64   As I will show later in this chapter, Watson (1971, pp. 63-65; 1978, pp. 1-31) and Piggott (1974, pp. 16-24; 1978, pp.32-51) illustrate this interpretation by examining chariots from China and other regions. Rawson examines beads, animal figures, and exotic designs to illustrate steppe contributions to the Zhou ritual practice (Rawson 2010b, pp. 1-41). 61

  The Shi ji, “Zhao Shi jia 13 趙世家十三”: “…King said: ‘…Now I will teach my people by wearing nomadic clothes and shoting from horse back…’ (王曰：「…今吾將胡服騎射以教百姓 …」).” 58   For the rise and importance of cavalry in the Warring States period after the 7th century BCE, see Goodrich 1984, pp. 279-305. 59   For a detailed discussion on the debate, see Di Cosmo 2002, pp. 134-138. For the transmitted texts on this historical event, see the Zhanguoce 戰國策, “Zhao er趙二,” and the Shi ji, “Zhao Shi jia 趙世 家.” The Zhanguoce, complied between the third to the first century BCE, is an important historical work of the Warring States history. For commentaries, see Loewe (ed.) 1993, pp. 1-11. 60   Two horse-and-chariot pits have been excavated. Only four chariots were found in one of the pits, which was far less than those of large states in the south. 57

15

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Map 2 Distribution of chariot burials of the Spring and Autumn period (771-481 BCE)

steppe weapons and other steppe artifacts with Chinese vessels and decorative motifs in numerous Zhou sites, no matter on the borders or at the centre, indicates that many people from the northern steppes were living among the Zhou as part of the society.65 Some northern peoples, as known from historical texts, were enemies. However, some others, as we learn from archaeological evidence,

were close associates, servants or even part of an elite family. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Chinese archaeological reports The excavated evidence examined in this work is primarily based on Chinese archaeological reports. Available research materials cover a long time span, from c. 1200 to 221 BCE, from over two hundred locations across a vast area in China as shown in maps 1-3. There are literally

  Chen Fang-mei 陳芳妹 argues that some of Jin female tombs of the Western Zhou period at the Beizhao site belonged to steppe females (Chen Fang-mei 2002, pp. 157-196). Lothar von Falkenhausen examines several Zhou sites to illustrate ethnic contracts with in the Zhou society throughout the Zhou period (2006a, pp. 204-243). See also Rawson 2010b, pp. 1-41. 65

16

Introduction

Map 3 Distribution of chariot burials of the Warring States period (c. 481-221 BCE)

hundreds of reports organized in different ways that provide materials for this research. Here, I will focus on some of the most representative examples, particularly those relevant to the issues proposed here.

on less than one page in a journal. Some sites, such as the Beiyao site at Luoyang, Henan,67 are well reported in individual books, however the information is incomplete. This is because these sites had been looted several times before any attempt at the excavation was made. At other sites, such as the cemeteries of the Qin ruling family,68

The quality and the availability of reports covering the important sites are varied. Some of them are edited into several volumes of books, such as the four-volume report on the Tianma-Qucun site,66 whereas others are presented

  For the report of the site, Luoyang Beiyao Xi Zhou mu 洛陽北窯西周 墓, see Luoyang shi wenwu gongzuodui 1999a. 68   Many large horse-and-chariot pits have been known in several cemeteries of the ruling family of the Qin state, dating to the Eastern Zhou period (see Liang Yun 2008, pp. 120, 122-123, 125). They were regularly arranged alongside large tombs, which indicate that horse-andchariot pits were an important part of the burial practice of the ruling 67

  For the report of the site, Tianma-Qucun 1980-1989 天馬-曲村 19801989, see Beijing daxue kaoguxuexi Shang Zhou zu and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 2000. 66

17

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity 晉國趙卿墓75 and Linyi Chengcun mudi 臨猗程村墓地.76 The dry environment in Shanxi meant that chariots buried there were well preserved. As seen in chariots discovered at Chengcun, Linyi, Shanxi, dating to the 6th century BCE, even very fragile details, such as leather cords tied on box rails, were preserved (fig. 1.12).77

important chariot burials are known to have been deposited but are yet to be excavated. Therefore, information on such sites is very limited and not very useful for the present study. Another reason why reports can vary is due to the development of excavation skills. Reports of early excavations, for example that of an important site at Xincun, Xunxian69 in Henan excavated in 1930’s, can not provide up to date information, mainly because they were written at a time when excavation skills were much more limited. At that time organic wooden parts of chariots were almost always missed during early excavations. This is because most of the wooden parts had been replaced by traces in the loess, therefore they were barely distinguishable from the surrounding soil. Time and again excavators did not realise that they were excavating chariots or chariot parts until they met bronze fittings on the axles. Even though an impressive number of fittings were found at the two sites, the structures of chariots were rarely recognised. It was not until 1950, that Chinese archaeologists acquired the skill necessary to excavate complete chariots at Huixian 輝縣, Henan.70

Chariots were also well excavated in the humid south. A recent report, Guojiamiao Zengguo mudi 郭家廟曾國墓 地, depicts the earliest wooden chariots in the Southern area found at Guojiamiao, Zaoyang 棗陽, Hubei.78 With more advanced excavation skills, archaeologists throughout China have managed to preserve wooden chariots, and their painted ornaments, in an excellent condition. In sum, we have to recognize that archaeological materials have been selected by excavators and have been reported in some rather arbitrary ways. It is important to remember that, although excavated remains provide direct evidence of chariots, it is also possible that the different understandings and emphases on particular sites have affected the ways in which excavations have been conducted and reported. With this knowledge in mind it is possible to explore the past more vigorously, even though our understanding will always be limited.

It is also noteworthy that early reports of sites, such as that of the Xiaotun horse-and-chariot pit published in 1970,71 show a particularly strong association with traditional Chinese historiography.72 The Xiaotun site was excavated because Chinese archaeologists were looking for material evidence to support historical texts that described the Shang dynasty.73 Therefore, in addition to the chariot reconstruction and the detailed descriptions of appearances and measurements of objects, the Xiaotun report also attempts to match the excavated materials to available transmitted texts to illustrate the organization of Shang chariot troops and the ways in which they were used in battles.74

2.2 Contemporary literary materials on the Zhou chariot The Zhou elite not only left us an impressive number of material remains, but have also spoken to us directly by ways of contemporary inscriptions on bronzes, funerary texts buried in tombs, and transmitted texts complied in later periods. In these three types of literary sources, the roles of chariots are only partially revealed. However, they are helpful in exploring the roles of chariots in the Zhou society. Bronze inscriptions

After the excavation at Huixian, Henan in 1950, the ability to excavate complete chariots, combined with a historiographical orientation, led later archaeologists to enthuse about exploring chariot structures and chariot building technologies. Most of the reports on Zhou chariots were written in this period and therefore frequently provided reconstructions and detailed knowledge of chariot structures that were linked to a historical account. Significant examples come from several reports on sites in Shanxi, such as Taiyuan Jin guo Zhao qing mu 太原

So far, over ten thousand inscriptions on ritual bronze vessels are available to us. In addition to those which only provide their owners’ names, there are hundreds of pieces, most of them dating to the Western Zhou period, providing abundant information on the Western Zhou elite.79 Long inscriptions, in which family history and individuals’ merits were recorded, were cast inside bronze ritual vessels. When these vessels were used in ceremonies, their inscriptions were covered by offerings of foods and wine.

group in the Qin state. However, only one pit, at Yuandingshan 圓頂山, Lixian, Gansu, dating to the 8th century BCE, has been excavated and reported (Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Lixian bowuguan 2002, pp. 19-29). 69   Guo Baojun 1964. 70   Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1956. 71   For the report of the Xiaotun horse-and-chariot pits, see Shih Chang-ju 1970. 72   For discussions on the historiographical orientation of Chinese archaeology, see Chang Kwang-chih 1981, pp. 156-169; Falkenhausen 1993, pp. 839-849. 73   See Falkenhausen 1993, p. 840. 74   Shih Chang-ju 1970. See also Shih Chang-ju 1987, pp. 1-16.

  Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo and Taiyuan shi wenwu guanli weiyuanhui 1996, pp. 194-231. 76   Zhongguo shehui keuxeyuan kaogu yanjiusuo et al. 2003, pp. 158-237. 77   Zhongguo shehui keuxeyuan kaogu yanjiusuo et al. 2003, pp. 216-219. 78   For the report, see Xiangfan shi kaogudui, Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, and Hubei Xiao Xiang gaosu gonglu kaogudui 2005, pp. 201232. 79   Edward Shaughnessy’s Sources of Western Zhou History (1991) provides an elaborate historical account on Western Zhou bronze inscriptions. In addition, Lothar von Falkenhausen presents a profound study on the role of bronze inscriptions in the Western Zhou ritual context (see Falkenhausen 2006b, pp. 343-374). 75

18

Introduction

Fig. 1.12. Chariots excavated at Chengcun, Linyi, Shanxi. The Spring and Autumn period, 6th century BCE. (After Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo, Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Yuncheng shi wenwuju, Linyi xian bowuguan 2003, pls. 101.2; 112.2)

These inscriptions along with food and wine were possibly prepared not only for ancestors, who received the offerings, but also for living descendants, who commemorated their ancestors by reading these inscriptions in later periods.80

禹鼎,83 are related to battles between the Zhou state and enemies in the north and south. Others are commemorative inscriptions, in which individuals’ glorious moments, when they were promoted to political positions or awarded by their superiors, the Zhou king in most cases, are recorded. In these commemorative inscriptions, chariots form an important part of awarded gifts.

Chariots are mentioned in at least fifty-five Western Zhou bronze inscriptions (see table 1).81 A small number of them, such as those in the Xiao Yu ding 小盂鼎82 and the Yu ding

1962, pp. 226-232; Shaughnessy 1999, pp. 320-322. See also Li Feng 2008, pp. 294-295. 83   The Yu ding, dating to the late Western Zhou period, was found at Fufeng, Shaanxi. It is in the National Museum in Beijing now. The inscription records a battle between the Zhou and southeastern groups, the Huai Yi 淮夷 and the Dong Yi 東夷. For the inscription, see Yin Zhou Jinwen jicheng no. 2833. For an English translation, see Shaughnessy (ed.) 1997, pp. 82-84. For further discussions, see Li Feng 2006, p. 103; 2008, p. 346.

  See Shaughnessy 1991, pp. 176-182; Rawson 1993, p. 56. 81   It seems that chariots were rarely mentioned in Eastern Zhou bronze inscriptions. 82   The Xiao Yu ding, dating to the early Western Zhou period, was discovered at Lixian, Qishan, Shaanxi in the late Qing period. The bronze is lost now. The inscription records a battle between the Zhou and a northern group, Gui Fang 鬼方. For the inscription, see Jinwen jicheng no. 2839. For English translations and discussions, see Dobson 80

19

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity Table 1 Bronze Inscriptions Abbreviations EWZ: The early Western Zhou

Jicheng 殷周金文集成

MWZ: The Middle Western Zhou

Sandai 三代吉金文存

LWZ: The late Western Zhou

Zongji 金文總集

LSA: The Late Springs and Autumns period

Yinde 金文引得

Date

Bronze

People

Event

chariot

Horse

1

EWZ

ˇ

ˇ

EWZ

Appointment

ˇ

3

EWZ

Xian Gui 獻簋

Reward

Golden chariot (Jin che 金車)

4

EWZ

Golden chariot (Jin che)

EWZ

Reward

Golden chariot (Jin che)

two

6

EWZ

Reward

ˇ

ˇ

7

EWZ

Baoyuan gui 保員簋 Xiaochen Zhai gui 小臣宅簋 Shu Ze fang ding 叔夨方鼎 Xiao Yu ding 小盂鼎

Reward

5

King Kang Yu King Cheng Xinghou Zhi刑 侯旨 King * bo Xian Xin gong Baoyuan Bomaofu 伯懋父 Zhai 宅 King Shu Ze King Yu

Appointment

2

Da Yu ding 大盂鼎 Mai Zun 麥尊

8

MWZ

9

MWZ MWZ

11

MWZ

12

MWZ

13

MWZ

14

MWZ

15

MWZ

King Fuyu King Mu Lv King Mu King Shi You King Shi Yun King Wu King Wu King

Appointment (司六師服) Appointment

10

16

MWZ

17

MWZ MWZ

19

MWZ

20

MWZ

21

MWZ

22

MWZ

23

MWZ or LWZ MWZ or LWZ

Duke Fan King Dong King Xuan Shi Zai King Wei Ge bo Pengsheng Qiu Wei Ju King Tong King Bo Chen

Reward (Mieli) Reward

18

Lu Fuyu pan 呂服余盤 Lv Fang yi / Zun 盝方彝/尊 Mu gui 牧簋 Shi You gui 師酉簋 Shi Yun gui (lid) 師 簋師蓋 Wu fangyi 吳方彝 Hu hu (lid) 曶壺蓋 Xing Xu 盨 Fan you 繁卣 Lu bo Dong gui 彔伯 簋 Shi Zai Ding 師 鼎 Wei gui 衛簋 Ge bo Gui 格伯簋 Jiu nian Wei ding 九年衛鼎 Tong You 同卣 Bo Chen ding 伯晨鼎 Kang ding 康鼎

King Rong bo 榮伯 （令女幽黃攸 革） King Fansheng King Hai King Jian King Ke King Ke King Maogong King Shi Cuo King Shi Qiu King Nangong Liu King Shi Dui King Ke King Shi Ying

Appointment

24

25

LWZ

26

LWZ

27

LWZ

28

LWZ

29

LWZ

30

LWZ

31

LWZ

32

LWZ

33

LWZ

34

LWZ

35

LWZ

36

LWZ

Fansheng gui 番生簋 Hai gui 害簋 Jian gui 諫簋 Ke Bo 克鏄 Ke Zhong 克鐘 Maogong ding 毛公鼎 Mi Bo Shi Cuo gui 弭伯師耤簋 Mi shu Shi Qiu gui 弭叔師求簋 Nangong Liu ding 南宮柳鼎 San nian Shi Dui gui 三年師兌簋 Shi Ke xu 師克盨 Shi * gui 師 簋

ˇ

War with Guifang Yu captured more than 100 enemy’s chariots.

Appointment

Chariot fittings/ ornaments

Horse harness

Jicheng 5.2837 ;Sandai 04.42.1 Zongji 02.1328; Yinde 4024 Jicheng11.6015; Zongji 06.4892; Yinde 2118

KG 1991, 7 Jicheng 8.4201; Sandai 06.54.1 Zongji 04.2731; Yinde 4979 WW 2001.8

Yu captured 140 horses

Jicheng 5.2839; Zongji 02.1329 Yinde 4026

ˇ

ˇ

ˇ Golden chariot (Jin che)

four

ˇ

ˇ

Appointment

ˇ (金 勒) ˇ

Golden chariot (Jin che)

four

ˇ

Appointment

ˇ

Appointment

ˇ Chariot (* che)

two

Golden chariot (Jin che)

four

ˇ

ˇ

Reward

ˇ

(格伯取良馬乘於 倗生) Exchange for land ˇ(Xingche 省車) Golden chariot (Jin che) 弓矢 Chariot (Ju che 駒車)

ˇ

ˇ

ˇ

Reward

Appointment

ˇ

Jicheng 8.4250; Sandai 06.53.2 Zongji 04.2730; Yinde 4981

ˇ

(not mentioned )

References

ˇ

Appointment

Appointment

Banner

ˇ

ˇ

ˇ

ˇ

ˇ

ˇ

ˇ

ˇ

Appointment

ˇ

Appointment

ˇ (勒)

Appointment

Dian chariot （dian che甸車） ˇ

Appointment

Dian chariot （dian che）

ˇ

Appointment

Golden chariot (Jin che)

four

ˇ

ˇ

ˇ

ˇ

Appointment

ˇ

ˇ

Appointment

ˇ

Appointment

ˇ

Appointment

Golden chariot (Jin che)

four

ˇ

ˇ

Appointment

Chariot (Ju che)

four

ˇ

ˇ

ˇ

ˇ

ˇ

Appointment

20

Jicheng 8.4302; Sandai 09.27.2 Zongji 04.2816; Yinde 5039 Jicheng 5.2830; Zongji 02.1323; Yinde 4018 Jicheng 8.4210; Zongji 04.2738; Yinde 4986 Jicheng 8.4262; Sandai 09.14.12; Zongji 04.2778; Yinde 5011 Jicheng 5.2831; Zongji 02.1322 Yinde 4019 Jicheng 10.5398; Sandai 13.38.12; Zongji 07.5473; Yinde 2807 Jicheng 5.2816; Sandai 04.36.1 Zongji 02.1308; Yinde 4009 Jicheng 5.2786; Sandai 04.25.2 Zongji 02.1280; Yinde 3991

ˇ

Appointment

Jicheng 16.10169 Yinde 5406 Jicheng 16.9899; Zongji 06.4979; Yinde 2158 Jicheng 8.4343; Zongji 04.2857 Yinde 5063 Jicheng 8.4289; Sandai 09.22.2; Zongji 04.2803; Yinde 5033 Jicheng 8.4284; Zongji 04.2789; Yinde 5029 Jicheng 16.9898; Zongji 06.4976; Yinde 2157 Jicheng 15.9728; Sandai 12.29.45; Zongji 07.5798; Yinde 1806 Jicheng 9.4462; Zongji 05.3083; Yinde 5259 Jicheng 10.5430; Yinde 2833

Jichneg 8.4326; Sandai 09.37.1 Zongji 04.2840; Yinde 5053 Jicheng 8.4258; Yinde 5009 Jicheng 8.4285; Sandai 09.19.2; Zongji 04.2796; Yinde 5028 Jicheng 1.209; Sandai 01.24.1 Zongji 09.7204; Yinde 0097 Jicheng 1.204,6; Sandai 01.21.2 Zongji 09.7040,1; Yinde 0076 Jicheng 5.2841; Zongji 02.1332 Yinde 4027 Jicheng 8.4257; Zongji 04.2769; Yinde 5007 Jicheng 8.4254; Zongji 04.2772; Yinde 5006 Jicheng 5.2805; Zongji 02.1300; Yinde 4000 Jicheng 8.4318; Sandai 09.30.1 Zongji 04.2830; Yinde 5046 Jicheng 9.4468; Zongji 05.3088 Yinde 5263 Jicheng 8.4312; Zongji 04.2817; Yinde 5042

Introduction 37

LWZ

Shi Li gui 師釐簋 Song hu/ ding/ gui 頌壺/鼎/簋

King Shi Zai King Song

Appointment (小輔鼓鐘) Appointment

ˇ

38

LWZ

ˇ

ˇ

39

LWZ

Wu Hui ding 無 鼎 Xijia pan 兮甲盤

King Hei King Xuan Xijia

Appointment

ˇ

ˇ

40

LWZ

41

LWZ

Yi gui 伊簋 Yan ding 訇鼎 * ding 鼎 Ran xu 盨 Yuan pan/ ding 袁盤/鼎

King Yi King Yan King Zouma King * King Li Yuan

ˇ

ˇ

42

LWZ

ˇ

ˇ

43

LWZ

ˇ

ˇ

44

LWZ

45

LWZ

46

LWZ

Buqi gui 不其簋

Buqi

War with xianyun Chariots were used in war

47

LWZ

Duoyou ding 多友鼎

Wu Gong Duoyou

48

LWZ

Shitong ding 師同鼎

Shitong

49

LWZ

Yu ding 禹鼎

Yu

50

LWZ

Guojizi Bai pan 虢季子白盤

King Yi Guojizi Bai

War with Xianyun Duoyou took Duke Wu’s chariot team (Gongche). The result of the war was that Duoyou’s team captured 127 chariots of enemy and beheaded more than 260 enemies. War Shitong captured five horsedrawn chariots and 20 big chariot (Da che) of enemy War with E 100 chariots (rong che), 200 charioteers, and 1000 infantrymen were involved in the war. Reward for the military victory

51

LWZ

52

LWZ

53

LWZ

54

LSA

55

LSA

42 nian Lai ding 42年 鼎 43 nian Lai ding 43年 鼎 Lai pan 盤 Geng hu 庚壺 Shu Yi zhong 叔夷鐘

King Lai King Lai King Lai Ling gong Geng King Shu Yi

Appointment and military victory reward Appointment

Chariot (Ju che 駒車)

four

Appointment Appointment Appointment

Chariot (Ju che)

four

ˇ

Reward

ˇ

Military merit

Captured chariots

Appointment

ˇ

ˇ

ˇ

Jicheng 8.4287; Sandai 09.20.2; Zongji 04.2800; Yinde 5030 Jicheng 8.4321; Zongji 04.2835; Yinde 5049 Jicheng 5.2815; Yinde 4008 Jicheng 9.4469; Zongji 05.3090 Yinde 5264 Jicheng 16.10172/5.2819; Sandai 17.18.2; Zongji 08.6789/02.1309; Yinde 5408/4012 Jicheng 8.4328; Sandai 09.48.2 Zongji 04.2852 Yinde 5054 Jicheng 5.2835; Zongji 02.1326 Yinde 4022

Jicheng 5.2779; Zongji 02.1275 Yinde 3985 Jicheng 5.2833; Zongji 02.1324 Yinde 4021

ˇ (乘 馬) Captured horses 4

ˇ

Appointment Reward for the military victory Reward

ˇ

Jicheng 8.4324; Sandai 09.35.12; Zongji 04.2838; Yinde 5052 Jicheng 15.9731/5.2829/ 8.4338; Sandai 12.30.1/04.39.1/ 09.46.2; Yinde 1807/4017/5058 Jicheng 5.2814; Sandai 04.34.2; Zongji 02.1306; Yinde 4007 Jicheng 16.10174; Zongji 08.6791; Yinde 5410

ˇ ˇ

ˇ(兵幸虎車馬)

ˇ

ˇ(余易女馬車戎兵釐僕)

ˇ

Jicheng 16.10173; Sandai 17.19.1; Zongji 08.6790; Yinde 5409 盛世吉金; Li Runquan 2008, pp. 105-106 盛世吉金; Li Runquan 2008, pp. 106-108 盛世吉金; Li Runquan 2008, pp. 108-110 Jicheng 15.9733; Zongji 07.5804; Yinde 6243 Jicheng 01.285; Zongji 09.7214; Yinde 6144

Many of bronze inscriptions have been translated from early archaic Chinese into English. The translations of inscriptions discussed in this work are primarily based on works of three scholars. The first one is W.A.C.H. Dobson’s Early Archaic Chinese, which provides good translations of several famous inscriptions, and a good explanation of the grammar of archaic Chinese.84 Edward Shaughnessy’s several articles on the Shang and Zhou history expand our understanding of early Chinese history by detailed examinations of inscriptions.85 Li Feng’s two books follow Shaughnessy’s approach to illustrate the decline of the Western Zhou and the development of bureaucracy in the Western Zhou period.86

intended them to provide a complete or objective historical record or to describe, in the words of Leopold von Ranke (1796-1886), ‘how it really was.’”87 Falkenhausen further extends Shaughnessy’s view. By examining one of the longest inscriptions, that of the Qiang pan 牆盤, dating to the late 10th – early 9th century BCE, from the Zhuangbai hoard, he argues that the way in which the family history of the Wei-lineage was described is a specific mode of political propaganda.88 The understanding on the function and meaning of bronze inscriptions brings important perspectives for exploring roles of chariots through Western Zhou inscriptions, which I will present in chapter three.

As inscriptions were cast in ritual bronzes and were used to commemorate owners’ merits, many scholars, including Edward Shaughnessy and Lothar von Falkenhausen, have argued that they should be treated as ritual documents. That is to say, they do not necessarily reflect historical facts. As Shaughnessy says, “their Zhou composers never

Funerary texts In addition to the inscriptions, other excavated literary materials also provide direct evidence for us to understand historical issues. An important category of textual material for our understanding of chariots of the Warring States period in the 5th -3rd century BCE is the funeral inventory, the qiance 遣冊.89 Inventories with descriptions of chariots

  Dobson 1962, pp. 175-232.   See Shaughnessy 1983-1985; 1988; 1991; 1999; Shaughnessy (ed.) 1997. 86   In his works, Landscape and power in early China: The crisis and the fall of the Western Zhou1045-771BC (2008) and Bureaucracy and the State of Early China (2008), a number of inscriptions are translated into English. He also provides summaries of the cited inscriptions. 84 85

  Shaughnessy 1991, p. 176.   See Falkenhausen 2006b, pp. 354-355. 89   A qiance is the inventory list of burial goods written on bamboo slips. This sort of texts was prepared for buring in tombs. Burying qiance was 87 88

21

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity are found in several large Chu tombs, such as tombs at Leigudun 擂鼓墩, Hubei and at Wangshan 望山, Jiangling 江陵, Hubei, dating to the 5th - 4th century BCE.90

in the “Zhou Song 周頌” section were written in the early Western Zhou period (the 10th century BCE), and the “Da ya 大雅” and the “Xiao ya 小雅” sections were written in a period from the middle Western Zhou to the early Eastern Zhou period (the 9th - 8th century BCE).94 Thus, to a certain extent, these poems may contain reliable information on the Western Zhou and early Eastern Zhou history. But when we use these poems as historical evidence, we should always bear in mind that they were written as literary, but not as historical works. They were result of high rhetoric and exaggerated poetic expressions.95

In the inventories, various names of chariots, horses and associated items are recorded. In the inventory of the Marquis Yi 乙 of the Zeng 曾 state (d. c. 433 BCE), for example, 39 types of chariots and other vehicles, 33 types of draught horses, and many chariot and horse associated items are recorded. Most of these horses-drawn chariots and vehicles were either gifts or funeral contributions from the deceased’s high ranking peers.91 These chariot and horse names indicate that there was a very complex understanding and classification of chariots in the Warring States period. As the inventory is a funeral text, it provides significant evidence for understanding chariot burials and their roles in funeral ceremonies and in other social contexts.

The Zuozhuan is the most important source for understanding the history of the Spring and Autumn period (771-481 BCE). The book is an elaborate commentary on the historical anecdotes and speeches of an earlier book, the Chunqiu 春秋 (the Spring and Autumn), in which a brief chronological history of the Lu 魯 state in the Spring and Autumn period is provided. It is thought that the Zuozhuan was complied by an official historian of the Lu state, Zuo Qiuming 左丘明, probably during the 4th century BCE, and, therefore, provides relatively reliable materials for the Spring and Autumn period.

In this study, the interpretation of the inventory of the Marquis Yi will be based on Xiao Shengzhong’s蕭聖中 work Zeng Hou Yi mu zhujian shiwen buzheng ji chema zhidu yanjiu 曾侯乙墓竹簡釋文補正暨車馬制度研 究.92 In this work, he has provided a careful interpretation of all of the chariot items showing in the inventory by comparison with related transmitted texts.

In the Zuozhuan, chariots are frequently mentioned. They occur in the descriptions of military and political affairs, as has quoted above.96 In addition, the book shows that chariots were also used as gifts in exchange for peace or to ransom important political figures.97 These records provide useful information on the uses of chariots in many aspects of the Zhou society. Nonetheless, as David Schaberg reminds us, as anecdotes collected in the Zuozhuan seem to belong to a period much earlier than the time when the book was finally completed, it is also possible that many historical events recorded in the Zuozhuan had been revised and amplified.98

Transmitted texts The transmitted texts discussed in this work are principally those complied in the Zhou and the Han periods. These texts provide a useful account on the Zhou period and the ways in which chariots were used. The Shi jing and the Zuozhuan provide us with some, possibly reliable information on the use of chariots in the Zhou period. The Shi jing is one of the earliest surviving Zhou texts. It is a collection of 305 folk poems of the Zhou period, datable to the 10th -8th century BCE. Descriptions of chariots appear in several poems describing battles or elite processions.93 It is thought that some of the poems

六月,”“Chuche 出車,” and “Caiqi 采芑”. Chariot processions are seen in “Zaijian 載見,”“Hanyi 韓奕,” “Huang huang zhe hua 皇皇者華,”and “Zheng min 蒸民.” 94   See Shaughnessy 1999, p. 295. 95   For a discussion on how to use the Shi jing as historical evidence, see Li Feng 2006, pp. 11-13. 96   See p. 31, fn. 80. 97   In the Zuozhuan, the 11th year of Duke Xiang, the Zheng state gave the Jin state over one hundred chariots, weapons, musical instruments, and female servants to trade peace. In the second year of Duke Xuan 宣, the Song 宋 state ransomed their important official Hua Yuan 華元 from the Zheng state with one hundred chariots and one hundred horses. 98   As Schaberg points out, “some of the detailed information in historical anecdotes of the sort found in the Zuozhuan and Guoyu almost certainly derives from written sources—most of them now lost—whose accuracy we have little reason to doubt. In the case of the speeches, however, we have every reason to suspect revision, amplification, and even outright fabrication during the decades or centuries separating the supposed moment of utterance and the inclusion of the speeches in collections of historical anecdotes.” (Schaberg 2001, pp. 26-27) Though it is hard to confirm historical facts in transmitted texts, these texts are still very important for our understanding of the Zhou history. As Li Feng points out, “the importance of the textual sources lies in the ways in which they correlate with each other in revealing an underlying coherent account of events in a historical context shared also by other types of evidence in which the independent sources can be interpreted to make the best sense of history.” (Li Feng 2006, p. 16)

a convention of Chu burial practices, and was followed by high ranking nobles in the Western Han period. Such texts have been frequently unearthed from other large Chu and Han tombs such as Warring States Chu tombs at Leigudun, Hubei (Hubei sheng bowuguan 1989), Baoshan, Hubei (Hubei sheng Jingsha tielu kaogudui 1991), and a Han tomb M 167 at Fenghuangshan 鳳凰山, Hubei (Jiling daxue lishixi kaogu zhuanye fu jinancheng kaimen banxue xiaofendui 1976, pp. 38-46). In early China, bamboo strips bound by strings were the principal form of books before the popularity of paper in the Eastern Han period. In addition to the qiance, many religious and intellectual works from the Warring States period to the Western Han period written on bamboo strips were also buried in large tombs and have been unearthed in Chu and Qin areas. Among them, the most famous examples are the Laozi 老子, dating to the middle Warring States period, from a Chu tomb at Guodian郭店, Jingmen 荊門, Hubei (Jingmen shi bowuguan 1998), and the law of Qin and a religious text, the Rishu 日書, from a Qin tomb, buried in c. 217 BCE, at Shuihudi 睡虎地, Yunmeng 雲夢, Hubei (Shuihudi qin mu zhujian zhengli xiaozu 1990). 90   For the inventory from Leigudun, see Hubei sheng bowuguan 1989, pp. 498-500. For the inventory from tomb M2 at Wangshan, see Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 1996, pp. 274-309. 91   For the materials, see Hubei sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1989, pp. 487-531. 92   Xiao Shengzhong 2005. 93   War chariots “rong 戎” are depicted in poems “Daming 大明,” “Liuyue

22

Introduction 2. 3 Previous studies of the Chinese chariot

A very notable concept seen in Eastern Zhou texts is the notion of the Chinese identity, “Huaxia華夏.”99 This notion, developed gradually from the 7th century BCE, provided a way by which the Zhou elite distinguished themselves from other non-Zhou people, described as barbarians “Rong Di 戎狄.” Sharp contrasts between the civilized Chinese and barbarian northern people are frequently seen in the Zuozhuan and many other later works, such as the Guoyu 國語.100 An anecdote of the Zuozhuan describes that the Jin elite thought that northern nomads “have no affinity and are greedy (無親而貪)” and “are birds and beasts （禽獸也）.”101 In another example in the Guoyu, northern nomads were thought that “their blood and breath are not well configured（其血氣不治，若禽獸焉）.”102

Though an impressive number of chariots have been excavated, it is surprising that, apart from the interest in exploring chariot structures as has described above, past studies have mainly focused on the origins and uses of chariots in the Shang period. Few have paid attention to the chariot of the Zhou period. The origin of the Shang chariot has received much attention from scholars. The earliest attempt to study this issue was made by Hayashi Minao 林巳奈夫 in 1959. In his “Chūgoku Senshin jidai no basha中國先秦时代の馬車,” he made a careful comparison between excavated Chinese chariots and representations and models of chariots from the Near East. As the chariots from the two areas shared some common features in structures, he suggested that the Shang chariot was most possibly transmitted from the Near East by way of Central Asia.107 A similar discussion to that of Hayashi Minao was found in William Watson’s work Cultural Frontiers in Ancient East Asia published in 1971.108

In addition to the above texts complied in the Eastern Zhou period, later historical texts, especially the Shi ji, or Records of the Historian, also provide useful historical information. The Shi ji, complied in the first century BCE by the Han court historian Sima Qian 司馬遷 (c. 140-86 BCE), is regarded as one of the most important Chinese historical work.103 The Shi ji provides a synthetic account of history from the mythical days to the early Han period. The description of the pre-Han period is based on other earlier transmitted works, such as the Shangshu and Shi jing. The history of the Shang and Zhou recorded in the Shi ji have been largely testified by excavations.

However, this account has been modified by later excavations in the Caucasus and the Urals. In 1974, Stuart Piggott published a pioneering study, “Chariots in the Caucasus and in China,” on the origins of the Chinese chariot.109 An excavation at the mentioned Lchashen site in the Caucasus drew Piggott’s attention. In the Lchashen site, remains of wooden chariots were found in two mound tombs, Barrows 9 and 11. The straight rails and shot sides of the chariot boxes and the 28-spoked-wheels (fig. 1.5) were much more similar to those of the Shang chariot (fig. 1.3) than to those of the Near East chariots, which had open side frameworks and four-to-six spoked wheels, as known from examples from Egypt. The similarity between the Lchashen chariot and the Shang chariot led Piggott to argue that the Shang chariot was possibly the descendants of the Lchashen chariot.

No literary records were left by non-Zhou people, and the descriptions of them written by Zhou authors are usually inaccurate and shaped by a Chinese perspective. Li Feng points out that such a hostile view towards steppe people emerged when large numbers of steppe people migrated into the Zhou domain after the fall of the Western Zhou in 771 BCE and attacked Zhou states towards the end of the 7th century BCE.104 That is to say, these steppe people became competitors within the Zhou society. Therefore, as Li Feng says, the concept of the Huaxia “arose as a political ideology or strategy to unite the native Chinese states against their common enemies.”105 Therefore, when we use Chinese texts to understand the northerners, it is important to be aware that the hostile descriptions on the northern steppe people were a result of a specific historical background.106

Following Piggott’s study, more insightful perspectives are presented in a couple of articles: “The Chinese chariot: an Insider’s view” by William Watson and “Chinese Chariotry: an outsider’s view” by Stuart Piggott.110 In Watson’s work, the Shang chariot and its associated weapons, and also bow-shaped objects, are associated with a Shang motif, mythical creature kui 夔, frequently seen on chariot fittings and ritual bronzes. By a comparative study on Chinese and steppe evidence, Watson argues that the motif was exotic and its appearance in China was the result of the influence from Inner Eurasia. And, many prototypes for weapons used with Shang chariots have been found in southern Siberia, in the Karasuk culture.111 Piggott, on the other hand, examines chariots from other regions.

  For the rise of the notion of Huaxia and the difference between Chinese and barbarians, see Li Feng 2006, pp. 285-292. See also Di Cosmo 2002, pp. 93-94. 100   The Guoyu, which was possibly complied after c. 425 BCE, is a record of discourses of eight of the most important states in the Spring and Autumn period. The records, arranged chronologically, cover a long period from c. 976 to 476 BCE. For commentaries, see Loewe (ed.) 1993, pp. 263-268. 101   The Zuozhuan, the 4th year of Duke Xiang. Translation after Li Feng 2006, p. 287. 102   The Guoyu 2. Translation after Li Feng 2006, p. 288. 103   For a discussion and comment on the editions, commentaries, and translations of the Shi ji, see Loewe (ed.) 1993, pp. 405-415. 104   See Li Feng 2006, pp. 290-292. 105   Li Feng 2006, p. 290. 106   For the use of textual materials in the study of Zhou history, see Li Feng 2006, pp. 10-17. For Western Zhou textual materials, see Shaughnessy 1999, pp. 292-305. For Eastern Zhou texts, see Schaberg 2001. 99

  Hayashi 1959, pp. 155-258.   Watson 1971, pp. 63-65. 109   Piggott 1974, pp. 16-24. 110   Watson 1978, pp. 1-31; Piggott 1978, pp. 32-51. 111   The Karasuk culture, dating to 1400-1000 BCE, distributed in the Minusinsk region in Southern Siberia. 107 108

23

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity Significantly, he concludes that the origins of the Shang chariot should be found in the Andronovo and Timber Grave cultures, but not in the Near East.

East, they have argued that the Chinese chariot was an exotic item from Central Asia.117 The origin of the Chinese chariot also provides discussions of routes of West-East cultural contacts. In many studies, scholars either argue that chariots were transmitted along the famous historical Silk Road, or provide two alternative suggestions to show that chariots could have been transmitted along the Silk Road in the south or by way of southern Siberia in the north.118 Furthermore, the overwhelming role of the historical Silk Road in the early West-East contact is further emphasised by the position of the southern Altai and the Hexi Corridor in present-day Gansu in the eastwards transmission of bronze metallurgy.119 Following many important studies on the importance of the Silk Road, Anthony BarbieriLow uses evidence from Xinjiang and Qinghai to suggest the southern route.120 He suggests that the appearance of chariots in China was the result of migration of Caucasian groups.121

Edward Shaughnessy, following earlier studies and materials, uses evidence from the steppes, Central Asia and the Near East as parallels to discuss the origin, function, and adoption of chariots in China. Furthermore, he carefully investigates Chinese historical texts to show the social significance of foreign chariots in the Shang and Zhou societies. He suggests that the Shang chariot was mainly used as vehicles of status and in hunting, but the Zhou chariot was used for military purposes in large numbers.112 However, an opposing view was raised by Chinese scholars from 1980’s. In order to search for a deeper understanding on the Chinese chariot, Chinese scholars compare excavated Chinese chariots with chariot materials from other regions. A representative work is Sun Ji’s 孫 機 “Zhongguo gu dai mache de xijiafa 中國古代馬車 的繫駕法.” He compares Chinese chariots with chariot representations from the Near East, and argues that Chinese horse harness was fastened on horse necks, but the Near Eastern harness was fastened on horse chests. That is to say, the neck harness was a feature specific to the Chinese chariot. Following Sun’s study and some possible wheel tracks found at Yanshi Shangcheng 偃師商城 in Henan, a site much earlier than the Anyang period, many Chinese scholars, such as Zhai Defang 翟德芳,113 Zheng Ruokui 鄭若葵,114 and Wang Xuerong 王學榮115, suggest that the Chinese chariot was indigenous rather than introduced.116

Researches on the Zhou chariot are relatively limited. Most of works focus on the physical structures of excavated chariots,122 as I have shown in the section of Chinese archaeological reports, but rarely discussed chariots’ social role. Magdalene von Dewall’s two works, Pferd und Wagen im frühen China (1964) and “New Data on Early Chou Finds— Their Relative Chronology in Historical Perspective” (1967),123 provide the most important works to our understanding of the role of chariots in the Zhou society. In the first work, she provides a comparison of excavated Shang and Zhou chariots and descriptions in the Shi jing to illustrate the role of chariots in the Chinese Bronze Age.124 In the other one, von Dewall examines Zhou fittings available at that time to argue that the Zhou “nobility was the eye-catching display of splendour and gaiety and it was pursued in driving the chariot with a stupendous array of horses, carriages, and occupants.”125

Nonetheless, from 1990’s, there have been an increasing number of studies in China that have considered the origins of the Chinese chariot in the context of cultural interactions between the Shang and the Inner Eurasia. Scholars, such as Wu En烏恩, Wang Wei 王巍, and Wang Haicheng王海城, now in U.S., have made use of archaeological materials from China, the Eurasian steppes, Central Asia, and the Near East to argue for the exotic origins of the Shang chariot. With discussions on the development of chariots in the Near East and Egypt, and a comparison between materials on chariots from China, Inner Asia, and the Near

  See Wuen Yuesitu 1994; Wang Wei 1998; Wang Haicheng 2002.   For the suggestions on the southern route, see Piggott 1974, pp. 1624; Chen and Hiebert 1995, pp. 243-300; Mallory and Mair 2000, p. 326; Wang Haicheng 2002; Di Cosmo 2002, pp. 29, 54-55; Kuzmina 2008, pp. 106-107. For the two alternative suggestions of he northern and southern routes, see Wang Wei 1998, pp. 380-388; Shelach 2009b, p. 252; Barbieri-Low 2000, pp. 9-17, 45-47. Lin Yun (1998b, p. 300; 1998c, p. 27) and Shelach (2009b, p. 252) tend to believe that chariots were transmitted by way of the the northern route through southern Siberia and Mongolia. But no detail on this transmission is provided. 119   For discussions on the transmission of bronze metallurgy to China, see Mei 2000; 2009, pp. 9-16; Linduff 2002, pp. 595-611; Kohl 2007, pp. 237-241. 120   Barbieri-Low 2000, pp. 9-17. Barbieri-Low’s work is largely based on J. P. Mallory and Victor Mair’s theory. For Mair’s theory on early WestEast contact and the importance of Xinjiang in this contact, see Mallory and Mair 2000. 121   Barbieri-Low 2000, p. 17. 122   For examples, works by Lu Liancheng 盧連成 (1993, pp. 823-838), Zhang Changshou 張長壽 and Zhang Xiaoguang 張孝光 (1980, pp. 361-364; 1986, pp. 139-162; 1994, pp. 155-171), and Qu Chuanfu 渠 川福 (Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo and Taiyuan shi wenwu guanli weiyuanhui 1996, pp. 341-364). 123   Dewall 1967, pp. 503-570. 124   Dewall 1964. 125   Dewall 1967, p. 547. 117 118

  See Shaughnessy 1988, pp. 189-237.   Zhai Defang 1988, pp. 95-106. 114   Zheng Ruokui 1995, pp. 41-56. 115   Wang Xuerong 1999, pp. 239-247. 116   Wheel-track-like imprints have been reported from a site of the early Shang period (c. 1500-1300 BCE) at Yanshi 偃師, Henan. Some scholars, such as Wang Xuerong (1999, pp.239-247), believe that they were left by chariots. However, those tracks were very narrow and were probably left by a variety of vehicles, which possibly included small carts or sledge-like transport tools. In addition, models for axle-cape like objects were reported from a site of the early Shang period at Zhenzhou, Henan. For the report of the imprints of wheel tracks, see Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo 2001, pp. 380-381. For a discussion on these imprints, see Barbieri-Low 2000, pp. 15-17. The excavators believe that they were models for making axle-caps. However, the shape on the models only shows that they were used for making some cylindrical tube-like objects. There is no evidence to show that they were used to cast axle-caps. 112 113

24

Introduction The origin of the Zhou chariot is rarely considered. The only work that once mentioned the origins of the Zhou chariot is Edward Shaughnessy’s “Historical Perspectives on the Introduction of the Chariot into China” published in 1985.126 In the article, he suggests that the location of the Zhou group in the late Shang period was much closer to northwestern pastoral tribes who mastered the skills of driving, thus the Zhou people probably learned this skill from their pastoral neighbours but not from the Shang.127 However, no further evidence and discussion are provided in this work and this argument seems to overlook the similarity between Shang and Zhou chariot-related finds. Though he did not provide any discussion and evidence to support this argument, I agree that his argument points in the right direction and will explore the origin of the Zhou chariot along the same lines.

or-performance-ranked materials manipulate our understanding of status, privilege, and value. They provide scales to measure not only our taste, but also our social classes and economic abilities. The works of thinkers, such as Bourdieu,133 Barthes,134 and in archaeology Hodder,135 have made us aware of the ways in which material culture is “intellectually created.” They have also shown the ways in which objects of both daily and ceremonial life are integrated with the ideas, values and beliefs of those who made and used them. Furthermore, current methodologies of materiality136 provide archaeologists with a possible approach to reveal the mutual influence between objects and human cognition. Unlike sociologists and anthropologists who have living subjects, the absence of living people and insufficient literary evidence places archaeologists in a difficult position when attempting to reveal conceptual meanings in the prehistoric past.

3. Research Approaches The use of wheels is regarded as one of the most important inventions in the human history. And, it is agreed that the use of light, horse-drawn chariots from the late Bronze Age in c. 2000 BCE transformed humans’ understanding of mobility, warfare, and geography, and therefore fundamentally altered their societies.128 Indeed, the use of chariots physically reinforced the mobility of people, and their complex technologies and superior abilities in speed and fighting encouraged people to use them to create symbolic meanings. Therefore, as many scholars have pointed out, in the New Kingdom Egypt and in the Sintashta culture in the Urals, the use of chariots reinforced a new aristocratic chariot-warrior class.129

Bourdieu’s theory on habitus is particularly relevant to this research. He argues that the importance of objects is that they provide a medium for people to learn to work with and to employ objects within social and cultural norms. The shared physical and practical knowledge of objects provides a material base for people to communicate with and to distinguish from each other in a symbolic way.137 Vehicle driving is a very significant bodily practice, which embodies habitus and subtle social and cultural meanings. Such an understanding is not only a modern concept but also suitable for my materials, as I will show later in this book.

It is worth noting that advanced, fast transportation plays a similar powerful role in our modern society.130 Our social and economic status can be easily represented by brands of our cars. In the 1960’s China, luxurious Hongqi 紅旗 saloons were manufactured and named to demonstrate Chinese nationalism and to reflect communistic political theories.131 And, in capitalistic societies, status can be materialised by car models, arranged according to the appearance, performance and price, of a particular manufacturer, such as Mercedes-Benz.132 These brand-

The significance of the Zhou chariot described above has led me to focus on three principal aspects of chariots: the chariots themselves, the relationship between the Chinese chariot and the steppe people and culture, and the roles of chariots in the Zhou society. To examine these aspects, this study adopts three approaches, which are based on works of Stuart Piggott, Jessica Rawson, and David Anthony. The most important approach is to treat chariots as a representation of a series of practical skills rather than simply as an object. This idea follows Stuart Piggott’s

  Shaughnessy 1988, pp. 198-237.   Shaughnessy 1988, p. 191. 128   David Anthony (2007) provides a very good example of researches on how the use of chariots transformed ancient Eurasian societies. 129   For the chariot-warrior class in the New Kingdom Egypt (1550-1069 BCE), see Schulman 1979, pp. 134-135; Shaw 1991, pp. 39-41; 2001, p. 60. For the chariot-warrior class in the Sintashta culture, see Anthony 2007, pp. 371-411. 130   The significances of car and driving in the modern daily life have been noted by anthropologists and sociologists. See Miller (ed.) 2001, pp. 1-46. 131   The manufacture of Hongqi (red flag) saloons originated because in the 1960’s Chinese thought that they should manufacture their own cars. The earliest Hongqi saloons in 1966 were labeled with a five-small-redflag symbol to represent five categories of occupations: labour, farming, business, scholar, and military. Two years later, the five-flag symbol was changed to a three-red-flag symbol to project three major political policies. In 1969, the three-flag symbol was changed to a one-large-redflag symbol to manifest the importance of the Mao’s political theory. 132   In modern society, people who can afford to buy a new MercedesBenz saloon are seen as capable to demonstrate their economic power. 126 127

These Benz saloon owners can be further categorized into three classes by the three series of model types: C-class (basic), E-class, and S-class (superior). See www2. mercedes-benz.co.uk, “new cars” section. 133   For the theory of Habitus, see Bourdieu 1977. 134   Barthes’s semiotics and structuralism studies on signs draw our attention on symbolic attributes of objects in intellectual communication. See Culler 1983. 135   Inspired by semiotics post-structuralism, Hodder compares archaeological contexts, in which objects are found, to texts. This idea provides archaeology a contextual approach to interpret excavated finds in varied perspectives to reveal material culture meanings of the past. For the contextual archaeology proposed by Ian Hodder, see Hodder and Hutson 2003, pp. 156-205. 136   For the studies of materiality, which emphasize the active role of materials in the human life, see Miller (ed.) 2005; Dant 2005. For examples on the adoption of the idea of materiality in archaeological studies, see DeMarrias et al. (eds.) 2004; Meskell 2004. 137   See Bourdieu 1977.

25

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity discussion of “the chariot package-deal.”138 In his work “Chariots and Chariotry,” he argues that chariots were “a status-conferring means of transport.”139 To maintain such a prestige, he proposes that a costly techno-complex, which is “a package,” was essential and monopolized by high ranking groups. “The chariot package” included all sorts of skills, from the fundamental abilities, such as choosing proper wooden materials and horses, to advanced wooden craftsmanship and horse training. Furthermore, examples from the Near East show that the supply of horses for chariots needed “horse traders and trainers, grooms, stable lads and the like on the domestic or institutional pay-roll.” Since chariots were introduced from the near steppes, he suggests that “In the early stages of chariot adoption [horse and chariot staff working in the palace] may be outsiders— strangers within the gates accepted as skilled technicians like the Athenian metics.”140 In addition to the series of complex back-up technologies, the demand for skilled drivers for parade, hunting or warfare was particularly essential. As Piggott concludes, “This then is what became by the early second millennium BC the expensive chariot package-deal offered to those seeking power and prestige and able to pay for it; it was a deal involving not only things but people.”141

with the appropriate skill or competence.”143 That is to say, when a set of objects is in use, it must be deployed by a particular method, which includes various movements or actions, to serve a specific purpose in a specific place. For example, as she shows, when a set of Zhou offering vessels was used in ritual ceremonies, they must be handled by particular bodily practices at special moments during the performance of ceremony. Their involvement in the ceremony was a consequence of Zhou’s uses of special practices in the service of particular beliefs. Therefore, through her study on the Zhou ritual vessel sets, we can understand the ritual, beliefs, and social practices of that time.144 Furthermore, tracing changes of sets over time can provide a useful insight into the changes which happened in that society. Differences in sizes, numbers, and shapes of ritual vessel sets of different periods reflect different actions adopted in the performance of ceremonies. Thus, changes in sets of ritual vessels indicate that there must have been a major change in ritual.145 Following Rawson’s idea, the set of charioteer skills to be discussed in this work can be represented by sets of chariot items, including horses, chariots, fittings, weapons, and tools, discovered in burials. By tracing the development, transmission, and transformation of such sets of items and the represented skills in the Bronze Age China, it is possible to reveal a specific set of shared and distinctive values and meanings for the peoples who adopted them.

Following Piggott’s idea, we can treat chariots, which were owned by members in the highest level of Chinese society, as agents, by which social relationships were generated and sustained. The social relationships that are presented by chariots concern two areas. The first of these concerns the ways in which the chariot and its associated technologies functioned and were understood within the Zhou social structure. As the Zhou chariot displays many steppe attributes, the second area concerns the ways in which the steppe practice was incorporated in and affected the use of chariots in the Zhou society.

A second approach suggests that the chariot, as a complex technology, was only invented once in the western Eurasian steppes. After its emergence in the Urals in c. 2000 BCE, it was transmitted through interactions of peoples and was localized according to the local needs.146 This approach is discussed in David Anthony’s The Horse, the Wheel, and Language,147 which illustrates the development of the Proto-Indo-Europeans and their language. In this work, Anthony describes the innovative use of light, horsedrawn chariots, particularly in war, and demonstrates the ways in which the horse-drawn vehicle transformed societies across the Eurasian steppes and linked them into “a thriving transcontinental corridor of communication, commerce, and cultural exchange” during the late Bronze Age. In this study, I shall further extend his scope to the eastern Eurasian steppes and to the Shang and Zhou states in present-day China. By the examination of adoption of steppe chariots and associated skills and ideas in the settled Chinese states, I shall illustrate the importance of

In the light of materiality, I shall treat the chariot as a package of a series of complex technologies, which played an active role and entailed social relationships in ancient societies. However, while building on Stuart Piggott’s discussion of the chariot-package, which emphasizes above all a series of technologies relating to the support and maintenance of the use of chariots, I will also incorporate Jessica Rawson’s idea of a set of artifacts that determines and is determined by bodily movements, social relations and intellectual concepts. Such an idea is helpful to the present study to emphasise the ways in which a set of chariot items required a reciprocal set of practical skills of charioteers.142 According to her, a set is “a functional group, determined in part by ownership and by all the variables which that implies. Each [item in the set] has a specific and defined [shape], one that was known to a specialist

  Rawson 1998, p. 115.   See Rawson 1998, pp. 107-133; 2009a. 145   See Rawson 1998, pp. 107-133; 2009a. 146   Many scholars working on central Eurasian studies have argued about the interactive relationship of the Eurasian Bronze Age. For examples, David Christian (2000, pp. 1-26) focuses on the role of the Silk Road in World history; Mei Jianjun (2000) provides a close examination on the development of metallurgy in Xinjiang to illustrate the interactions between late prehistoric Xinjiang and its neighbours; Michael Frachetti (2008) in his Pastoralist Landscapes argues that, in the Bronze Age western Eurasian steppes, local groups were linked in an interactive network. 147   Anthony 2007. See also Anthony 1998, pp. 94-113; Anthony and Vinogradov 1995, pp. 36-41. 143 144

  Piggott 1992, pp. 42-48.   Piggott 1992, p. 42. 140   Piggott 1992, pp. 45-46. 141   Piggott 1992, p. 47. 142   See Rawson’s discussion on Chinese ritual bronze sets and a set of modern blades of a Western workshop (1998, pp. 113-119). 138 139

26

Introduction 4. Organization of the book

exchange of artefacts and technologies in the constitution of society. The examples from China also benefit our understanding on the ways in which a steppe pastoral idea was fitted into a settled agricultural society, and on the role of ancient China on the globe-scale of the ancient world.

To explore the significance of the Chinese chariot from a perspective of contacts between Chinese-speaking people and steppe groups, the next three chapters examine three situations in which steppe chariots, their associated skills, and the idea of driving were incorporated in settled Chinese society. These three cases illustrate a process by which the steppe chariot was assimilated as part of Chinese practices and values.

The third approach is to consider that the Zhou people were outsiders with very close relationship with the steppe people, and possibly had a steppe origin. This approach follows Jessica Rawson’s two articles: “Statesmen or Barbarians? The Western Zhou as Seen through Their Bronzes”148 and a recent work “Carnelian Beads, Animal Figures and Exotic Vessels: Traces of Contact between the Chinese States and Inner Asia, c. 1000-650BC.”149 While transmitted texts present the Zhou as the founder of political legitimacy for all later Chinese dynasties, in the first article, Rawson uses excavated evidence to challenge this idea and argues that, from the view point of the Shang elite, the Zhou people were western outsiders. Further, the Zhou elite constantly introduced ideas from further west to reform the ritual practices they inherited from the Shang.150 In the other article, Rawson examines beads, animal figures, and exotic designs on vessels discovered from Zhou tombs to demonstrate the existence of long-distant cultural exchanges with Inner Asia, and the ways in which the adoption of exotic items and designs transformed the self-presentation of the Chinese elite.151 In addition, in this article, Rawson also indicates the important role of steppe people inhabiting the Chinese northern frontiers in the introduction of exotic things and ideas to the Zhou states.152 These understandings on the Zhou states provide this study with a fresh view on the nature of the Zhou people and their positively interactive relationship with their northern and western steppe neighbours, a position very different from the traditional Chinese view presented in the transmitted texts of the Warring States and Han periods (the 5th century BCE – the 2nd century CE).

Chapter two, “The Origins: the Shang Chariot and Their Steppe Associations,” examines the evolution, development, and introduction of chariots in a wide Eurasian context from the western Eurasian steppes to the Yellow River basin. The main issues explored in this chapter are the means by which steppe chariots appeared in the Yellow River basin during the Shang period and the ways in which the steppe chariots were a stimulus to transform the Shang society. This chapter re-examines the earliest Chinese chariot burials to reveal the transmission of steppe chariots to the Shang capital at Anyang, Henan. I suggest that the transmission of chariots to Anyang was along the eastern spread of the Eurasian steppe zone via southern Siberia. And, this transmission should be understood against background of social interactions between regional groups. As I will argue in this chapter, the transmission of chariots from the Urals to Anyang should not be understood as a transmission of an object but that of a specific set of skills, which had a long tradition in the Eurasian steppes. The appearance of chariots at Anyang was a result of a series of short-distance interactions by groups, which constituted a network to exchange certain important technologies. In addition, this chapter explores the ways in which the steppe chariots were incorporated and reinterpreted in a new cultural context in the Shang state. Chapter three, “The Golden Chariot of the Zhou,” explores the reasons why chariots were so important to the Zhou elite and the areas in which they were so important. Excavated evidence shows that a new form of chariots was brought to the Yellow River basin along with the establishment of the Zhou power. This chapter first examines Zhou’s innovations of chariot use, including four-horse chariots, a new set of chariot weapons, and new chariot ornaments. This examination illustrates sources of these innovations in the steppes in present-day northwest China. Then, this chapter investigates bronze inscriptions and chariot burials of the Zhou period, to illustrate the development of chariots in Zhou’s warfare, ritual and political contexts. This investigation reveals the ways in which chariots were used as important means to manifest status and a Zhou identity. Within the numerous and regular uses of chariots in warfare, appointment ceremonies, and funerals, the steppe chariot and its associated items that the Zhou had brought to the Yellow River basin in the middle 11th century BCE became a highly privileged symbol of the Chinese legitimacy and identity.

This work will explore three principal propositions. First, the use of chariots in early China will be presented as one episode in a longer history of interaction between Chinese and steppe groups. Second, the Chinese chariot provides a significant case study to illustrate the ways in which a steppe technology, along with the introduction of specific skills, such as horse domestication, penetrated the Chinese sphere and played a prominent role in the development of the Zhou social value. Third, the chariot was employed by the Zhou elite as a political agent to manifest their owners’ specific identities, which changed over time along with variations in status, gender, regions, and social environment.

  Rawson 1989, pp. 71-95.   Rawson 2010b, pp. 1-41. 150   Rawson 1989, pp. 71-95. 151   Rawson 2010b, pp. 1-41. 152   Rawson 2010b, pp. 12-15. 148 149

27

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity Chapter four, “Chariots, Steppe Elements, and the Zhou Elite’s Local Networks,” examines local attitudes of the local Zhou elite towards the adoption of steppe chariots and methods of warfare. It will consider the foreigners who probably controlled the sources of horses and associated skills. The main issues addressed in this chapter are the methods by which chariots were used by local rulers to represent their own concerns within the Zhou social framework. To explore these questions, this chapter investigates chariot displays of the Yan, the Jin, and the Chu states to illustrate three different local choices by which local elites asserted their relationships with the Zhou court and also with local powers and steppe groups. Chapter five, “The Chariot of Early China: a Cultural Symbol,” ends the book with a review of the role of the early chariot, particularly those of the Zhou, as a material symbol of virtue in Chinese culture in later Chinese society. The first part of the chapter provides an overview of the ways in which the Zhou chariot was taken over and reinterpreted by Chinese descendants in a Confucian discourse from the Han period (206BCE-220CE) to the present. The second part compares the modern role of the early chariot to that of its counterparts of Ancient Egypt, the Near East, and the Classical West.

28

Chapter Two The Origins: the Shang Chariot and Their Steppe Associations 1. Introduction

one, studies by William Watson, Stuart Piggott, Edward Shaughnessy, Wu En 烏恩, Wang Wei 王巍 and Wang Haicheng 王海城 have demonstrated that chariots were introduced from Inner Asia to the Yellow River basin no later than c. 1200 BCE.4 It is generally understood that the chariots found at the Sintashta site in the Urals and at the Lchashen site in the Caucasus are the ancestors of the Chinese chariot, as examples from these sites are extremely similar to those of the Shang state.5 Further, two transmission routes, one from the northern steppe zone and the other from the historical Silk Road, have been suggested.6

This chapter concerns the ways in which the Shang elite, with their capital at Anyang, Henan, acquired chariots from their neighbours in the steppes. It will therefore also examine the ways in which the traditions of the settled people of the Yellow River basin were merged with foreign practices developed by peoples to the north. The joining together of the two traditions in the earliest examples of Chinese chariots known to date at Qiaobei, Shanxi and Xiaotun, Anyang, Henan, dating to c. 1200 BCE, has already been mentioned in the previous chapter. On the chariots from these burials are bronze fittings with typical Shang motifs, including dragons, imaginary animal faces, birds, and cicadas (fig. 2.1.1). These motifs often embellish Shang ritual bronzes used in offering ceremonies and buried as indicators of high status in Shang tombs. These motifs are, therefore, linked with Shang rituals and prestige. By contrast, weapons and tools accompanying chariots display different characteristics. These items, particularly bow-shaped objects and knives, are wellknown for their rattled terminals, realistic animal-heads, ring pommels, and geometric patterns, all of which have long been identified by scholars as representatives of steppe culture (figs. 2.1.2).1 As counterparts of these ornaments are found in Mongolia, northern Shaanxi, Shanxi, and northern Hebei, the appearance of these steppe items at Anyang suggests that the use of chariots by the Shang elite was closely connected with that of their neighbours on the northern frontiers, the so-called “Northern Zone.” 2

Attention has also been paid to the role of the Shang chariot as war chariots. Two groups of scholars have argued for and against Shang elite’s use of chariots as engines of war. Many scholars, following transmitted texts, consider most excavated chariots as highly efficient war chariots,7 whereas others, including Magdalene von Dewall, Herrlee Creel, and Edward Shaughnessy, following the position taken by Mary Littauer and Joost Crouwel, cast doubts on the fighting effectiveness of Anyang chariots.8 They suggest that the Shang chariot only played a limited role in battles.9 Rather, they argue that chariots “served primarily as elevated and mobile command platforms.”10 Furthermore, Edward Shaughnessy suggests that, as chariots were restricted to royal and aristocratic burials, the importance of chariots to the Shang elite laid in their role as prestige symbols.11 To explore the role of chariots more fully, this chapter will treat chariots and their associated items, including horses,

Much scholarly attention has been given to the unusual items associated with chariots.3 Nonetheless, the recognition of the foreign features of the weapons and the bow-shaped objects has led scholars to question the origins of the Chinese chariot. As I have shown in chapter

  See Watson 1978; Piggott 1974; Wuen Yuesitu 1994; Shaughnessy 1998; Wang Wei 1998; Wang Haicheng 2002. 5   See Piggott 1974, pp. 16-24; Shaughnessy 1998, pp. 200-204; Wang Wei 1998, pp. 385-386. However, a number of Chinese scholars, such as Sun Ji 孫機 (1980), Zheng Ruokui 鄭若葵 (1995), and Wang Xingguang 王星光 (2005), still insist the local origins of the Chinese chariot. 6   See Piggott 1974, pp. 20-21; Wang Wei 1998, pp. 385-386; BarbieriLow 2000, pp. 9-17. 7   For examples, Shih Chang-ju (1970; 1987, pp. 1-16) and Yang Hong (1985, pp. 79-93; 1988, pp. 358-365; 2000, pp. 36-52). 8   Many scholars, such as Nicola Di Cosmo (2002, pp. 43-44), following Mary Littauer and Joost Crouwel’s argument (Littauer and Crouwel 1996, pp. 938-939), suggest that steppe chariots “would not be maneuverable enough for use either in warfare or in racing.” They should be regarded as “proto-chariots” and their major function merely served as symbolic vehicles for ritual and parade. On the contrary, David Anthony (2007, pp. 399-405) strongly argues that they were used in battles because javelins with long-stemmed point are found in some chariot burials. 9   See Dewall 1967, pp. 161-162, 183-187; Creel 1970, p.262-265, 270; Shaughnessy 1988, pp. 198, 228. Scholars of ancient Greece tend to think that chariots were only used for transporting warriors to battle fields. As J. H. Crouwel suggests, “Aegean chariots served as transport for warriors who fought on the ground.” (See Crouwel 1981, p. 145) This idea is widely accepted by scholars. 10   See Dewall 1967, p. 175; Shaughnessy 1988, p. 198. 11   Shaughnessy 1988, p. 198. 4

  See Loehr 1949a; 1949b; 1951; Bunker 1997; So and Bunker 1995; Shelach 1999; Linduff 2003; 2006. 2   “The Northern Zone” is convenient shorthand for the regions to the north of the settled areas of the Yellow River reaches. According to Nicola Di Cosmo, the Northern Zone included the Manchurian, Mongolia highland, Xinjiang, the Minusinsk basin, and the northern part of the Altai Mountains (Di Cosmo 2002, p. 13). William Watson (1971) and Lin Yun (1986) provide two of the most fundamental and important perspectives to the interplay between Northern Zone groups and Chinese. In recent studies, more and more attention is paid to the influence of the Northern Zone on settled Chinese states. For examples, see So and Bunker 1995; Bunker 1997; Di Cosmo 2000; Linduff 2003; 2006; Shelach 1999; 2009a; 2009b. This was an important area to provide stimuli for Shang innovations after c. 1200 BCE, which I will discuss in chapter two. 3   For discussions on the steppe origin of the bow-shaped object and weapons such as knives and shaft axles, see Watson 1971, pp. 61-66; Lin Yun 1986, pp. 264-266; Shaughnessy 1989, p. 44; Bagley 1999, pp. 202, 208. 1

29

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 2.1. Bronzes from the chariot burial of tomb M1 at Qiaobei, Shanxi. The late Shang period, c. 1200 BCE. 1. Chariot fittings with typical Shang patterns. 2. Bow-shaped object with geometric patterns and jingle terminals. (Adopted from Qiaobei kaogudui 2006, pp. 354, 355, 357, figs. 7, 8, 10.1)

chariots, human drivers and fighters, and associated weapons and tools, as a set. This set represents a set of technologies and skills of chariot uses. From the ways in which sets are assembled and changed over time, we can examine the practices and assumptions of a group of people who used them. This chapter re-examines materials from China, Eurasia and Central Asia in the light of this approach. By using such an analysis, it is possible to provide further insights into the transmission of chariots to Anyang, and the ways in which exotic chariots functioned in the Shang society.

ornaments carrying typical Shang motifs, and are accompanied by two horses, groups of items, and one to two men (see fig. 1.3). All of these chariot burials are arranged in a clear order. The horses and humans are neatly placed, which indicates that they were killed before being buried. The humans were either charioteers or servants must have been involved in the management of the chariots and horses. They must have had specific skills and knowledge related to the use of chariots and horses to have been buried with them. While no horse remains are datable to before the appearance of chariots in the lower Yellow River basin,12 the sudden appearance of a large number of horses at Anyang after 1200 BCE indicates that they were introduced for the specific purpose of pulling vehicles. However, horses seem to have had a high status when they first appeared in the Shang state. Unlike other domesticated animals, which principally served as meat supplements, horses seen in excavated sites appear to have been only used in ritual sacrifices and chariot pulling.13 As chariots and horses appeared in the Shang state simultaneously, and

In this chapter, I will argue that the Shang elite took over the steppe chariot for military reasons, to engage their neighbours in warfare on an equal tooling. But at the same time they integrated the chariot in their own courtesy and ritual system. By examining the physical features of the Shang chariot set and its presence in burials, it is possible to illustrate the ways in which steppe culture penetrated into the Shang culture. 2. Components of the Shang chariot set Without exception, the earliest Chinese chariots found at Xiaotun and Qiaobei are decorated with rich bronze

  For the distribution of early horse remains in China, see Flad et al. 2007, pp. 167-203. 13   Linduff 2003, pp. 148-155; Yuan and Flad 2006, pp. 127-130. 12

30

The Origins: the Shang Chariot and Their Steppe Associations are frequently linked together, it is clear that the most important reason for the Shang elite to take over horses was for them to serve in driving.14 The range of weapons and tools found in the Xiaotun and Qiaobei chariot burials mentioned at the beginning of the chapter is varied. The largest group comes from horseand-chariot pit M40 at Xiaotun. At the site, a whip handle, a bow-shaped object, a group of arrow heads, a knife, a ge blade, a sharpening stone, and an awl were found . Except for the awl, the three groups from Xiaotun M20 include all of the items found in M40. In addition, M20 yielded a pair of jade horn-shaped items, usually named as Mi 弭 or Xi 觽. The two groups of weapons and tools found along with the two chariots at Qiaobei are rather simple. Each of them includes a whip handle, a bow-shaped object, a group of arrow heads, and a jade or bone horn-shaped item (see fig. 1.4).15 Though the two groups from the Qiaobei site are simpler than those from Xiaotun, they illustrate the same essential components of weapons and tools for Shang chariots. Thus, I shall regard these routine items, which were assembled to accompany chariots, as the principal components of a chariot weapon/tool set. Their combination with horse chariots represents a functionoriented interaction between drivers and their chariots, which suggests that chariots were used for activities associated with weapons, including fighting and hunting. Thus, it is reasonable to suggest that the early chariots from Xiaotun and Qiaobei were operated with a special set of “driving and fighting skills,” which will be an important line that I will explore in this chapter.

Fig. 2.2. Ornaments pao from Xiaotun M40. The late Shang period, c. 1200 BCE. (After Shih Chang-ju 1968, pl. 4)

addition, the disc-shaped ornaments, pao, on horses and chariots in large numbers also seem to have a steppe origin. These pao are round, shield-like small bronze ornaments, sometimes in animal shapes, with horizontal or cross loops for attachment purpose in the back (fig. 2.2). The pao as a common bronze type has been overlooked by most scholars.18 But it is significant as it appears in large numbers on horse harnesses or on rims of chariot boxes. For example, in Xiaotun M20, a chariot and its two horses are decorated with over two hundred pao.19 The shape of the pao recalls ornaments from Central Asia, Xinjiang, and in particular the Minusinsk basin, where these similar items were frequently served as cloth decoration (fig. 2.3).20

The finds from Xiaotun and Qiaobei show that the earliest chariot weapon/tool sets are centered on the combination of a bow-shaped object, arrows, a ge blade, a whip handle, and a knife. Many of these items, particularly the knife and the bow-shaped object, carry geometric patterns, animal heads, or rattled terminals. All of these motifs have long been recognised as having originated in the steppes.16 The whip as a tool of horse control must have come from the steppes along with chariots. Furthermore, thin gold fragments decorating a whip from horse-and-chariot pit M20 at Xiaotun indicate a hammered metal workmanship, which is quite distinct from Shang’s mold-casting tradition. This exotic metal workmanship matches the tradition of gold ornaments in the steppes, which penetrated the Northern Zone in the form of golden earrings.17 In

In addition to horse chariots, chariot ornaments, and associated items also link the Shang chariot to the steppes. The sudden appearance of these Shang chariot sets in a complex, routine, fully developed material form indicates that such a set, which represents a complex technological

  Some scholars, such as Shih Chang-ju (1964, pp. 321-342; 1970), Wang Yuxin (1999, pp. 59-65, 71), and Hwang Ming-chorng (2008), suggest that the Shang elite adopted horse riding for military purposes. However, the existence of horse-riding is rather difficult to substantiate. In the context of the Eurasian steppe zone, it is generally believed that efficient riding for military uses did not appear until the appearance of nomads in the early Iron Age of the first millennium BCE. Ridding is not clearly mentioned in Chinese texts before the 4th century BCE (see Davis-Kimball et al. (eds.) 1995, p. xiv). For an explanation on why riding did not appear in the steppes before the first millennium BCE, see Renfrew 2002, pp. 6-7. 15   Qiaobei kaogudui 2006, pp. 356-357, 366-369. 16   See Loehr 1949a; 1949b; 1951; Bunker 1997; So and Bunker 1995; Shelach 1999; Linduff 2003; 2006. 17   Typical steppe gold earrings have been found at Yonghe 永和 and 14

Shilou 石樓 in central Shanxi. See Guo Yong 1960, pp. 33-34; Xie Qingshan and Yang Shaoshun 1962, p. 52; Shilou xian wenhuaguan 1977, p. 356, fig. 5. See also Wuen Yuesitu 1985, p. 141. 18   When discussing the role of carnelian beads in the West-East contacts during the Zhou period, Jessica Rawson reminds us to pay more attention to inconspicuous pao as part of an on-going relationship between central China and the steppes. See Rawson 2010b, p. 5. 19   For the Qiaobei chariots, see Qiaobei kaogudui 2006, pp. 350-357, 363-369; for the Xiaotun chariots, see Shi Chang-ju 1970. 20   For examples from Central Asia, see Kuzmina 2008, p. 175, figs. 31:1, 2, 14; 49:2, 12, 16, 17; For examples from Minusinsk basin, see Legrand 2008, p. 166, fig. 8.6:12-16. For examples from Xinjiang, see Han Jianye 2007, pp. 41-53.

31

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 2.3. Cloth ornaments from the Minusinsk basin. The Karasuk culture, c. 1400-1000 BCE. (After Legrand 2008, p. 166, fig. 8.6)

3. The origins of the Shang chariot set

package, had been well developed as a whole before its introduction to Shang territory.21 The Shang’s borrowings of specific steppe types of weapons,22 tools, and ornaments seem to suggest that, while deploying typical Shang motifs to embellish the introduced steppe chariot and items, the Shang people were unwilling to change their basic forms.

Preconditions for the emergence of chariots The earliest horse-drawn, spoked-wheeled chariots known to us are those of the Sintashta culture on the southeastern slopes of the Urals, dating to as early as to c. 2000 BCE.24 Two most important catalysts for the appearance of such fast, light chariots would be experience in the use of wheeled vehicles and horse exploitation. Human exploitation of wheeled vehicles can be traced back as early as to the fourth millennium BCE, seen in representations from the Uruk site in southern Mesopotamia.25 In these representations, small carts seem to have two solid wheels. The earliest wheeled vehicles in the Eurasian steppes were those of the early Bronze Age Yamnaya culture, dating to c. 3300-2500 BCE, in the Pontic-Caspian steppes.26 They were used as mobile homes of herders. As they needed to carry all of the belongings of herders, they had cumbersome frameworks and two or four solid wheels, and were usually drawn slowly by bovines. The importance of such wheeled vehicles is shown by the frequency of which solid-wheeled vehicles or carts are found in tombs. To date, over 250 examples, dating to 3000-2000 BCE, have been found in burial mounds in the steppe lands in Russia and Ukraine.27 This large number emphasises the importance of mobility to peoples inhabiting the western Eurasian steppes.28

This observation leads to further considerations. When the Shang elite adopted the steppe chariot set, they accommodated it in a Shang decorative system by casting typical Shang ornaments on many bronze fittings. However, when a borrowed item plays a crucial, actual, technical function, it seems to have been almost impossible to change its original form, even though it may have been produced locally. Therefore, though we do not actually know when chariots first appeared in the Shang state, it seems very likely that when chariots and their associated items as a set gained sufficiently high status as to be interred with the Shang elite, it was impossible to eliminate their original steppe characteristics. As the Shang people had no previous experience in a steppe environment and in the use of horses and chariots, they may simply have had taken on the existing chariot package from their steppe neighbours and merely added some superficial ornaments. Thus if we are to understand the nature of this specific steppe chariot set, which represents a particular steppe set of “driving and fighting skills,” we must look at its formation in its place of origin, the Eurasian steppe zone.23

China. Bordering the steppe zone are mountains, including the Caucasus, the Urals, the Altai, and Tian Shan, and deserts, including Gobi. 24   See Anthony 2007, pp. 371-375; Kuzmina 2008, p. 56. 25   Piggott 1983, p. 38. 26   Dates for the Eurasian Bronze Age cultures in this chapter are after Anthony 2007. For an introduction to the Yamnaya culture, see Koryakova and Epimakhov 2007, pp. 45-57. 27   See Anthony 2007, pp. 69-72. See also Piggott 1983, pp. 54-60, 66-78. 28   The western Eurasia, or the Pontic-Caspian steppes, refers to an area centers on the Caucasus, the Urals and the present-day Kazakhstan around the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea. For an introduction of the

  Chariots have been frequently discussed as technological packages. For the discussions, see Littauer and Crouwel 1996, p. 934; Piggott 1978, p. 32; 1992, pp.45-48. 22   For a discussion on the Shang borrowing of steppe weapons, see Lin Yun 1986; Shaughnessy 1989. 23   The Eurasian steppe zone centers on a narrow horizontal steppe belt extending from the north of Black Sea to Mongolia. The western part is composed of forest steppes, which is mainly distributed in present-day Kazakhstan. The eastern part is mainly distributed in southern Siberia and Mongolia. It ends in present-day northern Shanxi and Shaanxi in 21

32

The Origins: the Shang Chariot and Their Steppe Associations The experience of using wheeled vehicles must have almost certainly contributed to the appearance of further advanced vehicles, chariots. However, what was more important for the appearance of chariots was the ability to control horses so that they can serve as power engines.

of livestock could be well controlled.37 Larger herds and better mobility further allowed these herders to become rich through horse trading.38 However, what is more important for the appearance of chariots is that, with the use of horses and solid wheeled vehicles, steppe groups were able to communicate with other groups at great distances. Such communications eventually promoted the development of complex societies across the western Eurasia.39 The above changes in the steppe way of life, as Kuzmina suggests, eventually caused intense conflicts among steppe groups, which led to political changes in the western Eurasia, whose signs first appeared in the Urals.40

The earliest date of horse domestication has puzzled archaeologists for a very long time. The origin of horse domestication is still seriously disputed because of different methods of identification and dating.29 However, results of the most up to date scientific analysis of remains found at Botai in Kazakhstan provide us with very convincing evidence to show that horses were domesticated as early as 3500 BCE.30 In the Botai culture, horses served as sources of meat, marrow, and milk.31 These indicate that horses played a quite obvious role for “secondary” products in domestic economy.32 In addition, excavators suggest that marks on horse teeth were left by horse bits, which indicates that horses were probably used for riding.33 It is obvious that, once the potential of horses’ power, speed, and strength was exploited, these uses allowed a settled pastoral-arable life-style to be further developed.34

The appearance and early uses of chariots in the Eurasian steppes: c. 2100-1750 BCE The intensified conflicts coincided with the development of the use of bronze in the western Eurasian steppes. The material markers of this new era in the late third millennium BCE were bronze weapons, defensive fortresses, and chariots.41 Large defensive settlements are certainly the most significant new element in the landscape of the period. Circular, enclosed fortified settlements of the Sintashta culture (c. 2000-1750 BCE)42 are known at sites such as Sintashta, Arkaim and Demircihuyuk in the south-eastern Urals. The appearance of such constructions was probably determined by “the need for copper and the presence of a unique raw-material base for ancient metallurgy.”43 Taking the largest and best preserved Arkaim settlement (20001800 BCE) as an example, we can see that the circular settlement was enclosed by defense ditches. Its doubleconcentric-circular- structure, with all of the inhabited units facing a central square, indicates that the settlement was highly organised and probably had a strict hierarchy. And, as Gennady Zdanovich and Dmitry Zdanovich show, such settlements represent “a (new) stage connected with the formation of hierarchical societies and proto-state structure.”44 Their analysis of animal remains from the site indicates that the economy of this type of settlements was principally based on herding. Horses were bred mainly for working and subordinately for meat. They further

Many scholars, including David Anthony and Elena E. Kuzmina, have suggested economic values of the uses of horses and wheeled vehicles to local pastoral people. They argue that the use of horses further increased the mobility, which promoted economic and cultural changes.35 As Kuzmina suggests, “wheeled transport is of primary significance, since it allowed the herdsmen to move with their herds. It was then that, as a result of using carts, reasons existed for: 1) the establishment of (agro-) pastoralism as a dominate form of economy; 2) the origin of mobile forms of herding assimilating of new ecological niches, and 3) distant migrations.”36 Anthony suggests that, in the Yamnaya period, pastoral economy was sustained by slow four-wheeled wagon transportation, which served as the herders’ mobile homes, and by fast horse riding, by which a large group archaeology of western Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age, see Koryakova and Epimakhov 2007. 29   The most serious debate on the origin of horse domestication in Eurasia is between David Anthony (1986; 2007, pp. 193-224; Anthony and Brown 1991; 1998; 2003; Anthony, Brown, and George 2006) and Marsha Levine (1999a; 1999b; 2004; 2006). While Anthony insists that horses were domesticated as early as in c. 3500 BCE, Marsha Levine’s “Exploring the Criteria for Early Horse Domestication” (2004) analyses the advantage and disadvantage of available materials and the feasibility of present methods and theories, and suggests that the earliest evidence of domesticated horses is those from the Sintashta chariot burials dating to c. 2000 BCE. 30   Outram et al. 2009, pp. 1332-1335. 31   See Olsen 2003, pp. 83-103; Outram et al. 2009, pp. 1332-1335. 32   For “secondary products,” see Sherratt 1981, pp. 261-305. 33   Outram et al. 2009, p. 1332. 34   For a comparison between the efficiency of ox and horse for Bronze Age steppe groups, see Kohl 2007, pp. 140-141. 35   For an elaborate discussion on the development of mobile economics in the western Eurasia, see Kohl 2007, pp. 126-181. However, based on faunal evidence from Begash in south-eastern Kazakhstan, Michael Frachetti and Norbert Benecke doubt the scale of impact of using domestic horses on pastoral groups during the second millennium BCE (Frachetti and Benecke 2009, p. 1036). 36   Kuzmina 2003, p. 214.

  Based on the relationship between chariots and weapons, David Anthony believes that there were large scale and intense conflicts in this area and the emergence of chariots in tombs must indicate some new developments in such conflicts. See Anthony 2007, pp. 302-304. 38   Kuzmina 2008, pp. 37-38. 39   As many scholars have shown, this formation is marked by the Arkaim fortified settlement and Sintashta two-wheeled chariots, dating to c. 2000 BCE. For a general discussion on the association between them and social developments, see Kristiansen and Larsson 2005, pp. 174-179. 40   Kuzmina 2008, p. 38. 41   Anthony 2007, p. 405. 42   For the new AMS dating of the Sintashta culture, see Hanks, Epimakhov, and Renfrew 2007, pp. 358-365. A radiocarbon dating project on Sintashta chariot burials dates Sintashta chariots in a period from c. 1950-1750 BCE (see Kuznetsov 2006, pp. 638-645). 43   Zdanovich and Zdanovich 2002, p. 254. Zhang Liangren (2009, pp. 17-25) discusses how the high demands of arsenic- and silver-containing copper ores and metal trades intensified the interactions between groups in this area. 44   Zdanovich and Zdanovich 2002, p. 253. 37

33

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 2.4. Sintashta Grave 30. The second millennium BCE. (After Anthony 2007, p. 374, fig. 15.3)

suggest that high performance horses were possibly bred specifically for riding and carrying at the Arkaim site.45

probably a charioteer, was placed at the centre of the tomb. A chariot was placed at the foot of the tomb, and remains of two horse heads with shield-shaped antler cheek-pieces were found at the other side. In addition, the tomb also contained weapons, including eleven stone arrow heads, one stone javelin point, and one bronze spear head. The association between the horse chariot and shooting and projective weapons indicates that, as David Anthony suggests, the chariot was probably for warfare.48

Accompanying the fortified settlement at the Sintashta site were three tomb clusters, two of which yielded some of the earliest chariot remains known to us, dating to c. 1950 BCE.46 Of the 68 tombs in the site, nine in SM and SII cemeteries yielded imprints of chariots.47 In these nine tombs, similar burial practices were employed. Taking SM grave 30 (fig. 2.4) as an example, a male occupant,

Very similar chariot burials have also been found in other Sintashta- and Petrovka-type sites49 in the southeastern

  Zdanovich and Zdanovich 2002, p. 254.   For radiocarbon dates of the Sintashta chariots, see Kuznetsov 2006, pp. 638-645. 47   For the report of the site, see Gening, Zdanovich, and Gening 1992. For the mortuary data of the Sintashta cemetery, see Zhang Liangren 2007, pp. 212-214. 45 46

  Anthony 2007, p. 399.   The Petrovka-type is the succeed culture of the Sintashta culture in the Urals. 48 49

34

The Origins: the Shang Chariot and Their Steppe Associations Ural region.50 These discoveries indicate that chariots and bronze weapons were popular in a particular social stratum.51 Kuzmina regards the appearance of this new social stratum of “warrior-charioteers” along with “the assortment of weapons and tools typical of them (bow, arrows, spear, axe, knife-dagger, mace, lash, adze, abrasives, and warders)” as one of the innovations of the Sintashta culture.52 The co-existence of the earliest chariots and advanced bronze weapons also implies that the idea of “driving and fighting skill set” was born as one aspect of the creation of chariot. Eastwards and southwards distribution of chariots in the Andronovo period: c. 1800-1200 BCE A further complex society, as the Sintashta and Arkaim sites implied, suggests stricter resource and human managements than before. In addition, the use of fast transportation intensified communications, including trading and competition, between groups in different areas. These frequent communications eventually joined the major part of the western and central Eurasia to the east of the Urals into a long lasting, shared material culture, known as the Andronovo horizon, in the late Bronze Age (c. 1800-1200 BCE).53 Andronovo items can be found from the southeastern Trans-Urals to the upper part of the Yenisey River in southern Siberia, and to the Darya River in Central Asia.54 Furthermore, its influence reached as far east as to present-day Xinjiang.55 Anthony summarizes the significance of this brand new era in the Eurasia as follows: “with the development of Srubnaya and Andronovo the steppe bridge was open, and significant transcontinental exchanges began to occur.”56 As he points out, as in the Sintashta culture, chariots must have played important roles for elite warriors in the mobility and expansion of Andronovo culture, though the principal way of life was still settled and arable.

Fig. 2.5. Remains of a spoked wheel from Nuomuhong, Qinghai (After Qinghai sheng wenwu guanli weiyuanhui and Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Qinghai dui 1963, p. 41, fig. 18)

The practice of burying chariots had ceased at the end of the Sintashta-Petrovka period. Remains of wooden chariots of the time are only found in a small number of tombs at the mentioned Lchashen site in the Caucasus,57 dating to c. 1500 BCE or the 13th to 12th century BCE.58 The number of the spokes of the Lchashen chariots, estimated around 28, is much higher than those of the Sintashta wheels. This possibly indicates that later chariots were more durable, and the craftsmanship was more advanced. As mentioned in chapter one, many scholars have emphasized that the overall structure, the multiple-spoked wheels, and the straight railed boxes of the Lchashen chariots are very similar to those of the Shang chariot.59 And, remains of a wheel, which is the most complicated part of a chariot, found at Nuomuhong 諾木洪, Qinghai,60 also share a very similar structure with those found at Lchashen and Anyang (fig. 2.5). The similarity implies that the Shang chariot was an accurate version of chariots in the western Eurasia. That is to say, in the wide distribution of steppe chariots in Eurasia, Central Asia, and Eastern Asia,

  Chariots are also found in barrows at Krivoe Ozero and Berlik. See Kuzmina 2008, p. 154, fig. 11.2. 51   For other examples from the Sintashta cemetery, see Gening, Zdanovich, and Gening 1992; see also Anthony 2007, pp. 373-375. For an overview on chariots from the Eurasian steppes, see Kuzmina 2008, pp. 49-59. See also Piggott 1974, pp. 16-19; 1975, pp. 289-290; Kuzmina 2003, p. 217; 2008, p. 49; Anthony 2007, p. 397. 52   Kuzmina 2008, p. 110. 53   Kuzmina has shown the similarities, such as pastoral-agricultural lifestyle, ceramics, and bronze ornaments, within the widespread Andronovo sphere in several her Russian articles. Here after Anthony 1998, p. 107. 54   Anthony 2007, p. 448. 55   For the Andronovo influence in Xinjiang, see Kuzmina 1998, pp. 63-93; Peng 1998, pp. 573-580; Mei and Shell 1999, pp. 570-578; Mei 2000, pp. 66-67; Kohl 2007, pp. 237-241; Shui Tao 2008, pp. 270-305. A recent mitochondrial DNA analysis of human remains from an early Bronze Age cemetery at Xiaohe 小河, Xinjiang demonstrates that “the maternal lineages of the Xiaohe people were originated from both the East and the West, whereas paternal lineages discovered in the Xiaohe people all originated from the West (Eurasia).” (Li Chungxiang et al. 2010, p. 6) This result suggests that, as early as in c. 2000 BCE, peoples across Eurasia frequently migrated and communicated (Li Chungxiang et al. 2010, pp. 9-10). 56   Anthony 1998, p. 94. The Srubnaya culture was a late Bronze Age culture distributing in the west of the Urals, which was contemporary with the early Andronovo culture distributing from the Urals to Tian Shan. 50

  Piggott 1974, pp. 16-24.   For the dates, see Shaughnessy 1988, p. 201; Wang Wei 1998, p. 385; Wang Haicheng 2002, p. 5. 59   See Piggott 1974, pp. 16-24; Shaughnessy 1988, pp. 201-202; Di Cosmo 2002, pp. 27-30. 60   The Nuomuhong wheel can be regarded as a result of wide transmission of the Andronovo culture, as many Andronovo features have been found in adjacent Xinjiang (see Mei and Shell 1999, pp. 570-578). For the report of the Nuomuhong site, see Qinghai sheng wenwu guanli weiyuanhui and Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Qinghai dui 1963, pp. 41-42. The date of this site is still debated. But as the dates provided by different institutes fall in c. 2000 to 1000 BCE range, it is safe to argue that the site was contemporary with the Andronovo culture. For the discussion on the date of Nuomuhong site, see So and Bunker 1995, p. 26; Linduff 2003, p. 158, note 5. Anthony Barbieri-Low provides a different discussion on the Nuomuhong wheel. He links it to the Neolithic culture, the Majiayao culture, in the Gansu province. See Barbieri-Low 2000, pp. 12-13. 57 58

35

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 2.6. Representations of chariots in rock carvings 1-7. Transcaucasia (adopted from Littauer 1977, p. 244, figs. 1-7) 8-10. Central Asia (adopted from Littauer 1977, p. 244, figs. 9-11) 11. Qinghai, China (adopted from Kuzmina 2008, p. 163, fig. 20.12) 12. The Pamirs (adopted from Kuzmina 2008, p. 164, fig. 10)

achieved by the establishment of an exchange network,61 chariot building and using skills were always learned by a relatively precise method.

This argument is further supported by representations of chariots across a very wide area, from rock carvings found in Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Pamirs, the Tuva, Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Qinghai, to bronze inscriptions of the Shang state at Anyang (fig. 2.6).62 In all of these examples, chariots are depicted in a very similar way: they are shown as if from above and horses are drawn back to back. At present, we do not have effective methods for dating those rock carvings, but Kuzmina suggests that some of them may be dated to the Andronovo period.63 Though their dates are still problematic, the presence of these similar representations reveals that chariots were widely used in the Eurasian steppe zone and Central Asia.

  For a discussion on the network of trading and technology exchanges in the Inner Asia in c. 2000-1800 BCE, see Christian 2000, pp. 1014. Based on a thorough analysis on materials from central Eurasia, Michael Frachetti (2008) proposes the interactive network of the Bronze Age Eurasian pastoral local groups, by which a structure of pastoralist landscapes was emerged during the third and second millennia BCE. The attention to the exchange network in the Eurasia as an important approach to the early west-east contact is a result of the rise of the cognition of globalization. For examples of the adoption of this current theory, in a more academic term “the world system,” in Eurasian studies, see JonesBley and Zdanovich (eds.) 2000; Christian 2000; Frachetti 2008; Shelach 2009a, pp. 114-145. For examples related to China, see Mair 2006, pp. 1-16; Sherratt 2006, pp. 30-61. However, except for Shelach’s work, most of these works emphasise the Silk Road rather than the Eurasian steppe zone. In addition, the importance of chariots is much less explored. 61

  See Littauer 1977, pp. 243-262; Kuzmina 2008, pp. 57-59, 163-164, 178, 193. 63   See Kuzmina 2008, pp. 57-58. For other late Bronze Age examples from central Eurasia and a related discussion, see Frachetti 2008, pp. 139140, 160. 62

36

The Origins: the Shang Chariot and Their Steppe Associations

Fig. 2.7. Representations of camel drawn vehicles from Central Asia (After Kuzmina 2008, p. 178, fig. 34. 1, 2, 4, 6, 9)

Among these representations, hunting is the only identifiable activity. In hunting scenes, bows, arrows, and weapons with long poles are used by standing charioteers (fig. 2.6.11, 12). Though no battle scene is known to us, these representations indicate that, as in the previous periods, shooting with bows and arrows was the most important combat skill of charioteers.

However, as Mikhail Gryaznov has shown, similarities between the material cultures of the Karasuk and the Andronovo cultures suggest that the Karasuk culture appeared not because of intruders into the region but because of “a natural process of historical development in which the Andronovo culture evolved into a new and different culture.”66

The discussion above indicates that chariots, which were built, depicted and used in very similar ways, were widely distributed within the Andronovo sphere, and their uses were further introduced to adjacent areas, such as Nuomuhong in Qinghai. It is also worth noting that, when chariots were transmitted along with the Andronovo culture to different regions, it seems that local groups fitted chariots to their local conditions. For example, in representations from central Kazakhstan and Kirghizstan, local Bactrian camels were adopted to draw two-wheeled vehicles replacing the horses seen in other areas (fig. 2.7).64

In the Karasuk period, horses seem to be much more frequently used in this area than in previous periods, as seen by the higher frequency of horse bones and bone cheek-pieces (fig. 2.8). Thus, Sophie Legrand suggests that “the horse began to be of increasing importance as a means of transport, not only for traction but also as a mount.”67 No chariot has been found in Karasuk sites. But as chariots were a feature of the Andronovo culture, it is possible to suggest that the Karasuk people were likely to have had chariots, but they, following their predecessors, did not bury them. The possibility of their possession of chariots is further suggested by chariot representations found in areas adjacent to the Minusinsk basin, such as those in Tuva and Mongolia.68

Karasuk innovations and their eastward transmission in the eastern Eurasian steppes: c. 1400-1000 BCE An important step in the transmission of steppe chariots to the Shang state took place in southern Siberia. Chariots in southern Siberia were likely to have been adopted by the people of the regional successor of the Andronovo culture, the Karasuk culture. The Karasuk culture remains center on the Minusinsk basin in the middle of the Yenisey River valley, the eastern most range of the Andronovo culture. The features of the Karasuk culture are identified by specific ceramics, bronzes, and burial practices.65

  Gryaznov 1969, p. 97.   Legrand 2006, pp. 855-857. As Sophie Legrand points out, although the Karasuk culture shared many similarities with the Andronovo culture, such as oval enclosure stone burials, ceramics, and bronze ornaments, the Karasuk culture can be distinguished from the Andronovo culture by several new practices and material features. These features includes its rectangular enclosure stone burial structure, tombs without bedded stone and stout logs, stretched position of the dead, north-east, east, or eastnorth head orientations, a lot of new bronze bodily ornaments, combs, knives with a ring or animal-headed pommel, and ceramics including globular or lens-shaped bowls. 68   For representations, see Kuzmina 2008, p. 163, fig. 20. 6. 66 67

  Kuzmina 2008, p. 59, fig. 34.   Legrand 2006, pp. 843-859.

64 65

37

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 2.8. Cheek-pieces of the Karasuk culture. C. 1400-1000 BCE. (After Legrand 2008, p. 857, fig. 14 A)

Fig. 2.9. Knives of the Karasuk culture. C. 1400-1000 BCE. (After Legrand 2000, fig. 5.4; 2006, p. 854, fig. 12)

38

The Origins: the Shang Chariot and Their Steppe Associations

Fig. 2.10. Bow-shaped objects of the Karasuk culture. C. 1400-1000 BCE. (After Novogrodova 1970, fig. 40)

Though no remains of chariots have been found, it is very noticeable that most of the core items of the Shang chariot weapon/tool set, including knives with realistic animal-head and ring pommels,69 bow-shaped objects, and sharpening stones are found in Karasuk sites (figs. 2.9-11). As these items are frequently found at waists of males (fig. 2.12),70 these weapons and tools were possibly treated as an important group of functional items which needed to be carried on belts so that they could be used in the most convenient way. Among these items, knives have attracted most attention from scholars.71 To date, around one thousand bronze knives with ring, realistic animal-headed or capped pommels have been unearthed and collected in Minusinsk region (figs. 2.9).72 Animal heads on the Karasuk knives, featuring in their large, curved, loop-like horns, have been widely recognised as a typical feature of the Karasuk culture (fig. 2.9).73 Their complex three dimensional shape, which is not known in earlier periods in the steppes, indicates a clear development of bronze casting technology. Having studied the distribution of knives in the Karasuk burials,

Fig. 2.11. A sharpening stone of the Karasuk culture. C. 14001000 BCE. (After Legrand 2008, p. 169, fig. 8.7.11)

Sophie Legrand suggests that richly decorated knives with ring and animal-head pommels, which were found in waists of male tomb occupiers, were “social objects.”74 The appearance of bow-shaped objects at Karasuk sites is also relevant to my discussion. First, many scholars link   Legrand 2004, p. 145; 2008, p. 168. According to the decoration and placement, she categorizes Karasuk knives into two groups: ritual objects and social objects. The ritual objects are “knives with a ringed or lobed pommel and generally undecorated,” which were buried along with funeral remains. The social objects are knives “adorned with a zoocephalic or ringed pommel,” which were placed in the waist of male body. She argues that the rich decoration and the placement on the body indicate that the knives were indication s of “the prestigious rank of its owner.” (Legrand 2008, p. 168) 74

  Knives with a ring pommel were the principal form of knives found along with chariots in the later half of the Anyang period, when knives with realistic animal-headed pommels were rarely used. 70   Legrand 2008, p. 172. 71   See Loehr 1949a; 1949b; 1951; Novgorodova 1989; Legrand 2004. 72   Legrand 2004, p. 150. 73   Legrand 2004, fig. 5. 4. 69

39

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 2.12. Karasuk human burials with bow-shaped objects and knives in southern Siberia. C. 1400-1000 BCE. (1. After Novgorodova 1970, p. 160; 2. After Wuen Yuesitu 2008, fig. 34)

them to the use of chariots.75 Secondly, they are made with a very particular shape, a flat body with two arched arms, for which we do not have any predecessors. They are decorated with patterns, including many small, round protrusions and small squares. It seems that, in a small number of cases, the terminals of their two arched arms seem to have rattle ends (fig. 2.10. 4, 8). But the majority of examples have flat, round-disc-shaped terminals (fig. 2.10). Both of the types of terminals are found at Anyang (fig. 2.13).76 We do not really know how they were used, though many explanations have been suggested.77

Nonetheless, their very particular shape indicates that they were designed to fit a particular item and to be used by a series of specific gestures for specific functions. And, their first emergence in Karasuk burials suggests that the Minusinsk basin was an area where there were innovations in practices associated with their uses. If we refer to the burial practice of Shang bow-shaped objects, the most likely practice was chariot driving and the use of weaponry associated with chariots. From at least the 1940’s, the similarities between bronzes, particularly knives, celts, and bow-shaped objects, from Minusinsk and northern China have attracted a great deal of attentions from scholars, including Bernhard Karlgren, S. V. Kiselev, Max Loehr, William Watson, Lin Yun 林沄, Tian Guangjin 田廣金, Guo Suxin郭素新, Jenny F. So, Emma Bunker, and Gideon Shelach.78 All of their studies show that the Karasuk culture had many links with the Northern Zone and the Shang state. And, the similarities of bronzes from the Minusinsk, Tuva, Lake Baikal region,

  While Lin Yun (1998a, pp. 252-261; 1998c, pp. 302-310) suggests that bow-shaped objects found in northern China were used for charioteers to fasten reins, some scholars, following his idea, suggests that Karasuk bow-shaped objects were used for Karasuk chariots. See Legrand 2008, pp. 171-172. 76   See Kao Chu-hsun 1973, pp. 2-4; Gao Xiangping 2007, pp. 94-101. But the round-disc terminal is much more rarely found in the Shang sphere, and is limited to burials dated to c. 1200 BCE. 77   The function of bow-shaped objects is still disputed because remains of object they were originally attached to, which must be organic material, are rarely found. Scholars basically agree that the bow-shaped object is closely associated with chariots. Various explanations on functions of this type of bronzes have been proposed. At present, they are usually identified as bow fittings (Shih Chang-ju 1970; Tang Lan 1973, pp. 178-184; Watson 1978, pp. 1-6) or rein-holder worn at waists of drivers (Lin Yun 1998a, pp. 252-261; 1998c, pp. 302-310; Wuen Yuesitu 1994, pp. 330333; Wuen Yuesitu and Wagner 1999, pp. 111-133). Furthermore, their close association with chariots leads Emma Bunker to suggest that they were attachments on chariots to be used to attach reins (Bunker 1995, pp. 317-320). Between the two principal explanations, I would prefer to think that they were used with bows rather than with reins for three reasons. First, as Emma Bunker indicates, “it would be very difficult to attach and detach reins quickly because of the strongly curved terminals.” Second, examining burial contexts of the Shang bow-shaped objects, they were frequently buried with arrowheads, but much less buried with horse gears 75

or chariot fittings. As in a human burial HPKM2124 at Houjiazhuang 侯家莊 at Anyang, five bow-shaped objects were accompanied by five groups of arrow heads (Shih Chang-ju 1964, pp. 325-340). The finds from the burial show a close link between the bow-shaped objects and arrows. Third, evidence of rock carving found in Mongolia shows that warriors or hunters hanging bows, which were one of their major weapon types, at their waists (Novgorodova 1989, p. 196, fig. 30). This position is very similar to where bow-shaped objects are found in the human burials at Anyang and Minusinsk basin in southern Siberia (Novgorodova 1989, p. 160). 78   See Karlgren 1945; Loehr 1949; Watson 1978; Lin Yun 1986; Tian Guangjin and Guo Suxin 1988; So and Bunker 1995; Shelach 2009b, p. 252.

40

The Origins: the Shang Chariot and Their Steppe Associations

Fig. 2.13. Bow-shaped objects from Xibeigang, Anyang, Henan. The late Shang period, c. 1200-1046 BCE. (After Gao Chu-hsun 1973, pl. 4)

Mongolia, and Anyang suggest that there was a route linking these areas together in the late Shang period (c. 1200-1046 BCE).79

However, although the Karasuk culture had been identified as early as in the 1920’s, the question of dating had raised serious problems in understanding the relationship between these areas.80 As Russian scholars proposed two dates   Many Karasuk sites have been excavated from 1920’s and since then, many scholars have shown the similarities and differences between the Karasuk culture and the Andronovo culture. See Legrand 2006, p. 844. 80

  See Tian Guangjin and Guo Suxin 1992; Tu Cheng-sheng 1993a, pp. 326-327. 79

41

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 2.14 Weapons and tools showing on a stag-stone found in Severo-khangayskiy, Mongolia (adopted from (left) Volkov; Wang Bo and Wu Yanchun (trans.) 2007, p. 123, fig. 77a; (right) Novogrodova 1989, p. 188, no. 10)

for the Karasuk culture, one was the 14th -10th century BCE and the other was the 9th -7th century BCE, the issue of who influenced the others was seriously debated among scholars.81 Since 1999, many new radiocarbon dates obtained from human bones have indicated that the absolute date for the developed Karasuk culture is c. 14001000 BCE.82 As Sophie Legrand points out, this result also indicates that the emergence of the Karasuk culture must have taken place at an earlier date.83 That is to say, whether we base our arguments on artistic style, typology, or chronology, we can suggest that the Shang chariot weapon/tool set originated from the Karasuk culture. And, their close association with chariots in the Shang context suggests that, in the Karasuk culture, there possibly was a new advance, mainly represented by the emergence of bow-shaped objects, developed on the earlier chariot “driving and fighting skill set” seen in the Sintashta and the Andronovo cultures. This new development of the “driving and fighting skill set” and the Karasuk innovations of bowshaped objects, knives and sharpening stones, probably also including bows, as a set of items accompanied male, were transmitted to Anyang as aspects of chariots.

were adopted by people in Mongolia in the eastern part of the Eurasian steppe zone. Representations of weapons and tools on an impressive number of rock carvings, the so-called stag stones, found in Mongolia demonstrate that tubular-hafted axes,84 bows, and knives or daggers with ring, caped, and loop-horned-animal-headed pommels were basic components of the tool set of local warriors. And, in a representation of a weapon set, a bow-shaped object with animal-headed terminals is clearly depicted (fig. 2.14).85 It is possible that, as E. A. Novgorodova suggests, some of these stag stones, including the one with the representation of bow-shaped object, were contemporary with the Karasuk culture.86 If so, they were roughly contemporary with the late Shang and early Western Zhou periods. And, while the bow-shaped object with realistic animal-head terminals is not known in southern Siberia, but found at Anyang, it is possible that the Karasuk bow-shaped object had acquired animal heads before this item was introduced to the Shang state. The Shang chariot weapon/tool set with Shang patterns is probably most satisfactorily understood as a local version of the Karasuk set.

Indeed, the components of the Karasuk weapon/tool set on male belts seem to have remained quite stable when they

  E. A. Novgorodova indicates that bronze axes with tubular hafts were frequently used locally. See Novgorodova 1989, p. 193. The use of tubular-hafted axes had a very long history in the inner Asia and West Asia. This form was used in Iran as early as in 2300-2100 BCE, and was used in the further east to Minusinsk, Xinjiang, Mongolia and Chinese northern borders (see Lin Yun 1986, pp. 244-245, 260-262; Novgorodova 1989, p. 193; Kuzmina 2008, figs. 47, 48, 50, 52). A large number of tubular-hafted axes with features of the Northern Zone are found at Anyang, particularly in the sacrificial burial ground at Xibeigang. Their appearance at Anyang is usually regarded as the reach of influence of the steppe culture (see Lin Yun 1986, pp. 244-245, 254-256). 85   Novgorodova 1989, p. 188. 86   Novgorodova 1989, p. 383. But she tends to suggest that most of the stag stones she discussed are contemporary with the Karasuk culture. 84

  For the dates, see Legrand 2008, p. 153. It seems that scholars chose dates that particularly fit their viewpoints. For examples, see Bunker 1997, p. 117; Lin Yun 1986, pp. 268-272. 82   Since 1999, the Institute for Archaeology of St. Petersburg has worked on the radiocarbon dating of the Karasuk culture (see Legrand 2008, p. 153). While the Karasuk culture draws more and more attentions in these years, a science archaeological team of the Queen’s University, Belfast also devotes a great work to the Karasuk culture and their result suggests an earlier date, which dates the beginning of the Karasuk culture to the 15th century BCE, earlier than that of the Institute for Archaeology of St. Petersburg (Svyatko 2009, pp. 252-257). 83   Legrand 2004, p. 139; 2008, p. 155. 81

42

The Origins: the Shang Chariot and Their Steppe Associations

Map 4 Distribution of sites in the Eurasian Steppe zone

If this hypothesis is correct, it would be interesting to ask, what was the dynamic of the Karasuk culture that enabled it to spread its typical weaponry as far as to Anyang? The answer to this question seems to lie within the innovations in metallurgy and social developments of the Karasuk culture.

Sophie Legrand’s recent work further enlarges our understanding of the Karasuk society, and provides a useful foundation for an understanding of the dynamic of the transmission of the chariot weapon/tool set to Anyang. Her two major points are particularly helpful. First, by comparing remains of the regional Andronovo culture and the Karasuk culture from the Minusinsk basin, she shows that the emergence of the Karasuk culture “expresses a rise in pastoralism, population, male hierarchy, and mobility that occurred together.” And, “the increased mobility must have been a decisive factor in its widespread distribution.”92 That is to say, the “semi-nomadic” life style93 encouraged the larger Karasuk groups to communicate with other distant groups much quickly than the slower speed of the interactions that had taken place in the Andronovo period. The interactions between the Karasuk groups and their neighbours in the Lake Baikal regions and Mongolia to the east allowed Karasuk bronzes and bronze casting technologies to spread. Second, by examining Karasuk knives and metallurgy, she suggests a route by which Karasuk knives with animal-headed pommels were transmitted from the Minusinsk basin to Anyang by way of Mongolia, northern and northeastern China, that is, the eastern part of the Northern Zone.94 Such a transmission of weapons frequently found as part of the equipment of chariots implies that the vehicles arrived at Anyang by a very similar route.

Among the developments that the Karasuk culture brought to southern Siberia were improvements in bronze casting. Unlike the earlier thin bronzes of the Andronovo period in southern Siberia, thicker bronzes of better quality were of unprecedented importance there.87 A great range of bronzes was made, including disc-shaped mirrors with a loop handle and disc-shaped pao-like cloth ornaments, which were inherited from the Andronovo culture.88 As shown above, similar pao were extremely popular on Shang horse chariots rather than on clothing. In addition to the various implements, one of the important innovations of Karasuk casting technology was the use of clay moulds, which replaced two-part stone moulds of the Andronovo culture in southern Siberia. First of all, clay moulds could be manufactured very quickly, as they could be produced just by pressing shapes of objects, such as knives and other small tools, into prepared clay blocks. Second, clay moulds made it possible to cast more complex objects, such as three-dimensional, detailed animal heads with curved horns (fig.2.9), than was possible with stone moulds. The lively animal head indicates an improvement on the quality of bronzes and of casting technology.89 In addition, as Sophia Legrand suggests, clay moulds were more portable than stone moulds, which encouraged the transmission of the Karasuk-type bronzes.90 The local innovation of clay moulds perhaps promoted the transmission of Karasuk skills and artistic styles, enabling the eastwards spread of the Karasuk-type objects in the eastern Eurasian steppes.91

The appearance of the Karasuk-type objects in northern Shaanxi, Shanxi, and northern Hebei indicates that the western side of the Taihang Mountains was the principal route for the passage of steppe drivers and chariots into the Yellow River system (map 4). Knives with loop-hornedanimal-headed pommels are found at Chaodaogou 抄道 superior abundant in the Minusinsk basin than those from other regions, “which decreases with closer proximity to China.” 92   Legrand 2006, p. 858. 93   Many scholars suggest that the Karasuk culture represents a transition from sedentary living to a semi-nomadic life style, see Gryaznov 1969, p. 101. For a full Russian bibliography on the issue of the transition of life style in the Karasuk culture, see Legrand 2006, p. 844. 94   Legrand 2004, pp. 151-152.

  For an introduction to the metallurgy development of the Karasuk culture, see Gryaznov 1969, p. 102; Legrand 2004, pp. 143-144. 88   For mirrors and cloth ornaments, see Legrand 2008, pp. 166-167. For mirrors, see Rubinson 2006, p. 35. 89   Gryaznov 1969, p. 102. 90   Legrand 2004, p. 144. 91   Sophie Legrand (2004, p. 151) points out that Karasuk knives are 87

43

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 2.15. Steppe knives from the Northern Zone. C. 11th century BCE. 1. Karasuk-style knife from Chaodaogou, Hebei (after Lin 1986, p. 244, fig. 49. 17) 2. Karasuk-style knife from Suide, Shanxi (After Lin 1986, p. 252, fig. 51.7) 3. Knives with double-ringed pommel from Liulin, Shanxi (After Yang Shaoshun 1981, pl. 5. 2-3)

Fig. 2.16. Knives with double-ringed pommel. C. 1400-1000 BCE. 1-3. Southern Siberia; 4. Lake Baikal; 5-6. Mongolia (Adopted from Novogrodova 1970, fig. 17.10, 17, 20, 30, 32, 37)

44

The Origins: the Shang Chariot and Their Steppe Associations 溝 in northern Hebei, at Suide綏德 in northern Shaanxi, and at Lingshi 靈石 in Shanxi (fig. 2.15.1, 2).95 Finds from Liulin柳林 in middle Shanxi further emphasise the significance of the western slope of the Taihang Mountains as a route for the transmission of the Karasuk-type objects to the Shang state.96 The Liulin site yielded knives with double-ringed pommels (fig. 2.15.3), whose counterparts are common in the Minusinsk basin, Lake Baikal region, and Mongolia (fig. 2.16), but rarely found in the eastern part of Mongolia and Manchuria.97 These very close copies of the Karasuk knives appearing in the eastern end the Eurasian steppe zone suggest that the western slope of the Taihang Mountains was the last section of the transmission route of chariots and associated items from the Urals to Anyang. By this route, steppe designs, including rattle-jingles and animal-heads, were introduced along with chariots. And, the typical Shang site at Qiaobei in southern Shanxi probably can be regarded as a marker of the borderline between the settled Shang Chinese and steppe groups. While much of the route by which chariots reached the Shang state lay through steppe or even desert areas, once the vehicle became known to the Shang people, it was exploited in a very different environment, namely the settled agricultural regions of the Yellow River basin.

examine the incorporation of steppe culture in a Shang context, and to see the ways in which steppe foreigners and the Shang elite manipulated horse chariots as agents in forming their identity. Physical adaptions: the making and operating of chariots The making of a chariot, first of all, requires sophisticated carpentry skills. Based on very precise measurements, wooden materials need to be cut into various shapes for small chariot parts, and long wooden sections need to be bent into exact curves to form felloes of wheels and draught poles. Then, these separate pieces need to be made up into a whole, according to a systematic, mechanically viable plan. Apart from excavated chariots themselves, we do not have evidence on Shang chariot making. However, a wall painting in an Egyptian tomb demonstrates Egyptian chariots, which share many physical features with Shang chariots, were built in a chariot workshop. The painting shows that the making of Egyptian chariots required many steps and was achieved by cooperation of many labourers in a specific workshop (fig. 2.17).100 The Shang court probably also had a very similar workshop with a similar division of labours. As chariot building was a very complex technology introduced from the steppes, it requied carpentry skills hitherto unknown to the Shang people. Therefore, Shang chariots were probably made in specific workshops by carpenters, probably imported, familiar with steppe skills and designs rather than in workshops making other wooden items better known to the Shang people.

4. The adaption of steppe chariots in the late Shang society When the steppe chariots and horses first became known to the Shang people at Anyang, around the time of Shang King Wu Ding (c. 1200 BCE), their ability to reach high speed must have seemed very attractive, particularly if they first became known in battles with northern peoples.98 While the Shang elite had not used, and probably had not known, horse-drawn vehicles before the Anyang period, they seem to have been very eager not only to take horses and chariots from their northern neighbours, but also to produce them by themselves. However, as the sustained use of the complex technology of horse chariots for military and ritual purposes required a series of very complex supporting technologies, chariot use in the Shang state inevitably led to significant changes in many aspects of the Shang society to adjust to these new vehicles. Furthermore, as I shall show below, the continued use of horse chariots probably also brought numbers of steppe foreigners into the Shang capital to serve the needs of the court. Thus, I will explore the Shang adaption of the steppe chariots at three levels: the physical, the institutional, and the conceptual levels.99 In this way, it is possible to

Under the Shang, this steppe imported technology was linked with one of the most valuable Shang technologies, bronze casting. We can recognise the Shang contribution by the typical Shang motifs on bow-shaped objects and whip ends, indicating that steppe-type items were made locally according to the Shang taste. It seems likely that Shang local artisans also intended to adopt steppe ornaments on Shang items, as seen on knives from Xiaotun M20 (fig. 18). These knives reveal a combination of Shang knives’ broad, thick blade with steppe knives’ realistic animal-headed pommel. However, these Shang examples are somewhat dull if compared with real steppe knives’ animal-headed pommel. Finds from the largest Shang chariot pit, M1136-1137, in a royal ritual burial ground at Xibeigang 西北岡, dating to c. 1200 BCE,101 indicate that the making of chariot fittings

  For the knife from Lingshi, see Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 2006, p. 134. For the knives from Suide and Chaodaogou, see Lin Yun 1986, pp. 243, 252. 96   Yang Shaoshun 1981, p. 211, pl. 5. 97   There are two other similar examples collected in Inner Mongolia, see Tian Guangjin and Guo Suxin 1986, p. 23-24, fig. 15. 5-6, pl. 37. 1, 2. 98   According to oracle-bone inscriptions, the most frequent and strongest enemies of the Shang state were the Tufang and Gongfang on the northern frontiers. Based on oracle-bone inscriptions, Guo Moruo 郭沫若 (1933, pp. 104-113, 162), Hu Houxuan 胡厚宣(1944) and Shima Kunio 島邦男 (1958) argue that the Tufang and Gongfang were located in present-day northern Shanxi. 99   The three levels adopted here follows Jessica Rawson’s idea. For

Rawson’s three-level approach, see Rawson 2005, pp. 103-116; 2007, pp. 108-111. A similar approach is also adopted by many scholars when discussing archaeological issues on “agency.” For an example, MarciaAnne Dobres (2000, pp. 144-146) considers the use of idea of agency in archaeology in several “scales,” including conceptual, phenomenological, interpretive, material, and analytic scales. These scales, as levels adopted in this chapter, are related with each other. As she suggests, “agency can unfold at scales anywhere along that continuum, or at multiple scales simultaneously.” (Dobres 2000, p. 144) 100   The wall painting is from the tomb of Puimre and Hepu, dating to the 14th century BCE. For the wall painting, see Littauer and Crouwel 1985, pl. LXXVI. 101   For an introduction to M1136-1137 and the measurements of chariot

95

45

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 2.17. Drawing of a wall painting of a chariot workshop in the Egyptian tomb of Puimre and Hepu. The New Kingdom, 14th century BCE. (After Littauer and Crouwel 1985, pl. LXXVI)

was closely related to the making of chariot wooden parts. In the pit were over 650 bronze chariot fittings belonging to at least forty chariots. Though no identifiable wooden parts remained, the sets of chariot fittings can be differentiated from one another by their individual designs and by the ways in which they were placed in the pit. These differently ornamented sets, almost without any repetition of arrangements of motifs, indicate that each set was specifically designed and made for a specific chariot.

much wider and complex technology than that of chariots. The supply of horses required skills on horse breeding, husbandry, and veterinary. The use of horses to draw chariots in pairs required specific methods to train and communicate with them. These skills were rooted in a very long tradition in the steppes, and seem to be managed by steppe foreigners rather than by locals in the Shang state.103 Though the use of chariots and horses brought advanced technologies to the Shang elite, it was chariots’ actual functions that attracted them. As shown above, the routine coexistence of horse chariots and steppe weapon/tool sets indicates that chariots were introduced as an advanced mobile-and-fighting skill. This skill, which I call “the driving and fighting skill set,” had been in the hands of their enemies in the northern steppes. But, if the Shang elite were themselves to drive steppe chariots, they needed to master steppe skills, including ways to communicate with horses, ways to manage the vehicles at speed,104 and ways to fight with steppe weapons, and a whole host of day-to-day practices to operate these vehicles and horses as a single complex.

In the later half of the Anyang period, fitting sets were further standardized by identical forms and motifs of fittings, as seen in very similar examples found at Anyang and at Qianzhangda, Shandong.102 The schemes of embellishment paralleled those on ritual bronzes demonstrating that steppe chariots in their new guise had a high status in the Shang society, which they probably gained from their military role. As horses appeared in the Shang state simultaneously with chariots, as mentioned above, managing horses was a new experience for the Shang elite in c. 1200 BCE. The use of horses, particularly for drawing chariots, needed a

While weapon/tool sets are usually found in chariot boxes, a special case revealed in the horse-and-chariot pit M45 at Qianzhangda site, dating to c. 1100 BCE, demonstrates the direct association between a charioteer and his weapon/tool

box ornaments and axle-caps, see Wu Hsiao-yun 2006. See also Shih Chang-ju 1968; 1974. The chariot pit has not been completely published, but many types of fittings have been published in a catalogue (see Li Yung-ti (ed.) 2009, nos. 88, 90-101). 102   Identical fittings with elaborate patterns have been found in many locations at Anyang, such as Guojiangzhuang (Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1998, pp. 130-134) and Meiyuanzhuang (Zhonguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Anyang gongzuodui 1998b, pp. 51-54, 57-61), and M40, M41 and M45 at Qianzhangda, Shandong (Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 2003, pp. 339-345).

  See also Bagley 1999, p. 207.   As shown above, in representations of hunting scenes found in the Eurasia, charioteers were standing up in chariot boxes. This practice was no doubt succeeded by Chinese and practiced till the early Han period (the second century BCE).

103

104

46

The Origins: the Shang Chariot and Their Steppe Associations

Fig. 2.18. Shang made knives with animal headed pommels. The late Shang period, c. 1200 BCE. (After Shih Chang-ju 1970, pl. 136)

set. In the pit were a two-horse chariot and a man placed in the rear of the chariot (fig. 2.19). The man carried major components of a chariot weapon/tool set on his body. At his waist was a knife with ring pommel. A bow-shaped object was carried on his left arm. On the right arm were a whip handle and a group of arrows. The appearance of the whip indicates that the man was a driver. Apart from the arrows, all of the items carried by the driver arrived at Anyang at the same time as the chariot, as we have seen in the mentioned cases from Xiaotun and Qiaobei. The attachment of these items to the driver implies that he had relevant practical knowledge on deploying all these items in a close association with his driving practice. The arrangement also indicates that archery was his principal fighting power, as the knife was too short to fight from a chariot.105 Driving and archery as a combined skill must have played a central role in the Shang “driving and

fighting skill set,” as they did in the Eurasian steppes (fig. 2.6. 11, 12). This “driving and fighting skill set” included some observable actions. First of all, the most significant one was the way in which a driver communicated with draught horses, because the operation of chariot was principally carried out by controlling the horses. This communication was made by some actions on the control of reins and whips. Second, according to later representations, the driver stood on chariots (fig. 2.20). It required a high level of skill to distribute weight evenly to achieve balance and to avoid turning over, particularly when the chariot box had very short sides, which, according to excavated evidence, were below 50 cm in height. Third, the close attachment of weapons and tools on the driver’s body indicates that these items were prepared for instant uses when the driver suddenly encountered some particular situations in battle or in hunting.

  Yang Hong suggests that knives were prepared for self protection (Yang Hong 1985, pp. 84-85). But I think these knives were more likely to be used as accompanying tools of drivers. 105

47

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 2.19. Horse-and-chariot pit M 45 at Qianzhangda, Tengzhou, Shandong. Later half of the late Shang period, c. 11th century BCE. (After Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 2005, p. 130, fig. 97, with modification)

It is worth noting that, in the horse-and-chariot pit M45, a ge blade and a clapper bell in typical Shang forms were not carried by the driver but placed in the chariot box. It seems that they were held by another man, who was not buried in the pit. Indeed, the measurement of the chariot box, which is 140 x 80 cm, indicates that it could carry up to three people side by side simultaneously. This second man probably cooperated with the driver to reinforce the chariot’s fighting power. Such cooperation is also seen in many later bronze representations as shown in fig. 2.20.

stone hammer (fig. 2.21).106 Lin Meicun 林梅村 suggests that these tools, particularly the chisel and adze, were carpentry tools used to build or maintain chariots.107 Thus the introduction of chariots as military tools brought various steppe practices and ideas into the Shang state. First of all, steppe physical attributes, including the ideas of complex wooden carpentry, decorations, and weapons, were matched with Shang attributes, including bronze casting, motifs, and weapons. Second, as the use of chariots required an extremely large back-up of horses and other non-Shang skills, the Shang elite must have brought many people with these specific skills from the close-by steppes to Anyang to sustain such a massive demand for the maintenance and management of their uses of chariots. Therefore, the arrival of steppe foreigners is likely to have changed the social structure and composition of the Shang society. Third, the understanding of chariot construction, chariot management, and horse management brought new ideas of transportation and fighting strategy to the Shang elite. With these understanding Shang warriors were able to meet northern steppe enemies on their own terms.

The handling of the typical Shang ge blade by another man indicates that some Shang fighting practices were incorporated into the imported “steppe manner” of “driving and fighting skill set.” In the Shang weapon/tool set, typical Shang ge blades were used in place of tubular shafted axes, characteristics of the steppe weapon set. Therefore, this replacement probably also indicates that steppe actions with the shafted axes of the steppe weapon set were from time to time replaced by comparable Shang practices. In addition to driving and fighting abilities, it seems that charioteers needed to have certain knowledge of chariot structure and carpentry for chariot maintenance. A horseand-chariot pit found at Meiyuanzhuang 梅園莊, Anyang, dating to c. 1100 BCE, contained a rich tool set, including two bronze adze, a bronze chisel, a bronze shovel, and a

  For the material from the Meiyuanzhuang site, see Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Anyang gongzuodui 1998b, pp. 61-63. Similar tool sets were also found in horse-and-chariot pits M175, M292 at Dasikongcun 大司空村 (Ma Dezhi, Zhou Yongzhen and Zhang Yunpeng 1955; Yang Baocheng 1984), and M63 at Baijiafen xibeidi 白家墳西北地 (Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Anyang gongzuodui 1979) at Anyang, and in horse-and-chariot pits at Qianzhangda, Tengzhou, Shandong (Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 2003). 107   See Lin Meicun 2000, pp. 33-76. 106

48

The Origins: the Shang Chariot and Their Steppe Associations

Fig. 2.20. Representations of chariot hunting on bronzes of the Warring States period, 5th to 3rd century BCE. 1. Chariot representations on bronzes (after Wang Jindong 1984). 2. Chariot representations on bronzes found at Gaozhuang, Huaiyin, Jiangsu (after Huaiyin shi bowuguan 1988, figs. 24, 25). 3. Chariot representations on a water vessel jian 鑑 found at Lingshou 靈壽, Hebei (After Hebei sheng wenwu yanjiushuo 2005, fig. 219)

Institutional adaptions: the uses of chariots

While the use of chariots for war has been much debated, the discussion above on the use of the steppe set of weapons indicates that the Shang elite did indeed value chariots to fight with steppe peoples. Warfare and hunting were probably the most significant institutional uses of chariots.

To date, over one hundred chariots deployed in similar arrangements have been discovered at cemeteries and ritual burial grounds at Anyang and a small number of sites108 in the wider Shang political sphere. This large number, unknown in the Eurasian steppes and other regions, indicates that steppe chariots were probably used in the Shang society on a large scale. They probably played a much larger role in burial and ritual activities and in the concept of the afterlife than they did among the steppe peoples. That is to say, the regularity with which chariots are found indicates that they were used and buried according to the social-and-institutional framework of the Shang state, which was very different from that of the steppe world.

Though chariot burials illustrate clearly the role of chariots as vehicles for war, we do not have clear literary evidence to demonstrate their role in battle.109 But, there are several oracle-bone inscriptions showing that chariots were used in hunting.110 Chariots seem to be particularly useful in chasing large animals. At least two inscriptions document the danger of kings’ use of chariots to chase oxen.111 Another inscription shows that a king drove his chariot to   For chariots mentioned in the military context, see Shaughnessy 1988, p. 214, nos. 7, 8. 110   For oracle-bone inscriptions related to hunting, see Guo Moruo 1933, pp. 136-162; Shaughnessy 1988, p. 214, nos. 1-6; Wang Tao 2007, pp. 364-365. 111   For inscriptions, see Shaughnessy 1988, p. 214, no. 1; Wang Tao 2007, pp. 364-365. 109

  Apart from Anyang, chariots were only found at three sites, including the two from Qiaobei, Shanxi, five from Qianzhangda, Tengzhou, Shandong (Zhongguo shehui keuxeyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 2005, pp. 124136), and one from Laoniupo 老牛坡, Xi’an, Shaanxi (Liu Shi’e 2002). 108

49

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 2.21. Weapon/tool set from horse-and-chariot pit M41 at Meiyuanzhuang, Anyang, Henan. The late Shang period, c. 11th century BCE. 1. Knife with ring terminal; 2. Bow-shaped object; 3. Shovel; 4, 6. Adzes; 5. Horn-shaped item; 7. Awl; 8. Stone hammer; 9. Whip handle; 10. Arrow head. (After Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Anyang gongzuodui 1998b, p. 62, fig. 16. 5; p. 63, fig. 17)

chase deer.112 Using chariots to chase large, powerful or speedy wild animals was probably an important way to reinforce drivers’ ability when facing dangers that would also have been essential in battles. Indeed, hunting can be regarded as a part of military training. Such activities would not only have given drivers practices on uneven ground, but would also have helped drivers to use weapons to overcome unexpected and dangerous attacks. In later periods steppe peoples frequently engaged in hunting, seeing it as preliminary to military training.113 It is likely that the Shang elite borrowed the methods of chariot hunting as well as the practices of chariot fighting from their neighbours.

time of the creation of Qiaobei tombs M1 and M18 and Xiaotun pits M20 and M40 (c. 1200 BCE), when chariots first appeared in Shang tombs and ritual places, it seems that their major role in the burials was to act as guardian. In the Qiaobei tombs114 and other similar tombs at Anyang,115 chariots were always placed on entry ramps rather than in main chambers, where precious jades, prestige ritual bronzes, weapons, daily utensils, and other burial goods were deployed. This arrangement indicates that chariots had a different function from other grave goods in tombs. The places where these armed chariots were buried seem to indicate that they were used to protect the main chamber from other spirits. At Qiaobei, following the armed chariot on the entry ramp of tomb M18 were 36 dogs. Unlike the chariot, these dogs were not buried along the sloping bottom of the entry ramp but were distributed at the same level (fig. 2.22).116 This burial practice probably suggests

The power of chariots in warfare seems to be projected onto the arrangement of elite tombs for the afterlife. At the   “Crack on…: ‘If the king chases deer, he will make a catch.’ Really… the king’s chariot… ” After Shaughnessy 1988, p. 214, no. 6. 113   For a discussion on the ways in which Eurasian peoples, from antiquity to the 19th century, regarded hunting as preparation of war, see Allsen 2006, pp. 209-232. 112

  See Qiaobei kaogudui 2006, pp. 347-369.   For example, tomb M698 at Yinxu Xiqu (Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1979, p. 61). 116   For the report, see Qiaobei kaogudui 2006, pp. 347-394. 114

115

50

The Origins: the Shang Chariot and Their Steppe Associations

Fig. 2.22. Tomb M18 at Qiaobei, Shanxi. The late Shang period, c. 1200 BCE. 1. Transverse section of sloping-passageway in 1.2-1.4 m below the top of the tomb. 2. Plan of tomb M18 (After Qiaobei kaogudui 2006, p. 363, figs. 17, 18)

that this chariot and dogs were put in the tomb during the process of filling the tomb with soil. And, the function of these dogs was probably to drive off evil spirits.117 This suggestion is further supported by the location of the armed chariots at Xiaotun. They, along with many other armed and unarmed human burials, were deployed in front of a large ritual building complex.118 Armed humans and chariots buried in front of ritual buildings has been understood as a way by which Shang warriors were able to resist invading evil spirits.119

Examples from the second half of the Anyang period (c. late 12th-11th century BCE) indicate that by this later period chariots were more often used for non-military functions. In this period, weaponry was less frequently buried with chariots than in the earlier period. At present, around 60 horse-and-chariot pits dating to this period have been well reported.120 Among them, only seven yielded weapons. This phenomenon seems to be limited to the Anyang area and is very evident if we compare the situation at Anyang with horse-and-chariot pits at the largest contemporary Shang site outside Anyang, the cemetery at Qianzhangda, Tengzhou, Shandong. In the Qianzhangda site, all of the five horse-and-chariot pits contained many weapons.121 The increased number of un-armed chariots buried in highranking elite cemeteries at Anyang, suggests that more and more chariots were used in processions, for non-military

  Burying dogs as door guards can be seen as early as in an early Shang palace site at Yanshi, Henan. See Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 2003, pp. 352-353. 118   This building is identified as royal dwellings or ritual temples. See Shih Chang-ju 1970. 119   Shih Chang-ju suggested that Xiaotun horse-and-chariot pits and other human burials in front of the building Yi 7 served as guards of the building (Shih Chang-ju 1952, p. 487). Armed humans with dogs were found in front of another ritual building complex at Xiaotun. Excavators suggest that they were warriors to guard this ritual building. See Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Anyang gongzuodui 2001, p. 26. 117

  See Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 2003, pp. 411-412; Guojia wenwuju (ed.) 2006a, pp. 59-62. 121   For the horse-and-chariot pits at Qianzhangda, see Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 2005, pp. 124-136. 120

51

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity oracle-bone inscription suggests that horse feeding by kings was a ceremonial practice to demonstrate the importance of horses in the Shang society (fig. 2.23).122 However, the management of horses seems not to have been as easy as the acceptance of chariots. The difficulty of horse management is reflected in the contrast between the forms of Chinese graphic characters for chariots and horses, both of which appeared in the reign of King Wu Ding in c. 1200 BCE. When the character for chariots, “che 車,” first appeared in inscriptions, its form was schematic, like other fully developed characters (fig. 2.24).123 And, in most cases, the graph depicted chariots in an abbreviated way, in which many parts of chariots were omitted. Chariots could be represented as simple as by two wheels fixed on an axle, sometimes with two linch-pins (fig. 2.24.10-11). On the contrary, the character for horses, “ma 馬,” was depicted in a rather complex, realistic way (fig. 2.23; 25.1). Such a depiction sharply contrasts with the abstract form of other domestic animals, like dogs, pigs, bovines and sheep (fig. 2.25.2, 3).124 According to the forms of these animal characters, Victor Mair suggests that Chinese acquired horses much later than other domestic animals, and that “they initially strove to render this animal to which they were unaccustomed as faithfully as possible.”125 The contrast between the schematic character “che” and the representational character “ma” implies that the understandings of the Shang people towards their chariots and horses were different. This difference may have implied that skills associated with horses, particularly breeding and rearing, which probably required a steppe environment, were very difficult for the Shang people to adopt in the Central Plains.

Fig. 2.23. An oracle-bone inscription from Anyang describing a king feeding horses. C. 12th -11th century BCE. (After Yuan and Flad 2006, fig. 7)

display, or for transportation for high-ranking elite. This probably indicates that, in the Shang capital, the role of chariots as social objects was reinforced in the second half of the Anyang period. As chariots were expensive and exclusive for high ranking elite, burying them for the afterlife therefore became indicators of their owners’ superior social status.

  See Yuan and Flad 2006, pp. 129-130, fig. 7.   As the earliest Chinese writing known to us is in a very mature form, Robert Bagley suggests that the Chinese writing had been well developed before it was carved on oracle-bones from Wu Ding’s time. See Bagley 2004, p. 190-236. 124   Mair 2003, p. 175. 125   Mair 2003, p. 175. He also points out that it was not until the end of the Shang period, when character for horses became more schematic, Chinese became “much more used to the animal.” This idea is first proposed by Ding Su (1966, p. 2). But some scholars do not accept it. For example, David Keightley suggests that it is also possible that the more pictographic form was specifically serviced for religious purposes (Keightley 1978, pp. 42-43). 122 123

Horse management seems to have been another important aspect that was institutionalized by the Shang elite because horses were important for chariot driving and were valuable items to be used as ritual sacrifices. An

Fig. 2.24. Chinese characters “che” in Shang oracle-bone inscriptions. The late Shang period, c. 1200-1046 BCE. (After Shaughnessy 1988, p. 215, fig. 4)

52

The Origins: the Shang Chariot and Their Steppe Associations In Shang cemeteries at Anyang, the use of chariots as signifiers of Shang identity was closely associated with high social status. Chariots as advanced speedy tools, expensive technologies, and powerful weapons were restricted to high ranking individuals. In sacrificial burial grounds, like those at Xiaotun and Xibeigang, chariots were buried for members of the royal family and important ritual constructions. In cemeteries, chariots with rich bronze ornaments were buried for kings, such as those found in large tomb M1003,130 local rulers, such as those in tombs M1 and M18 at Qiaobei, and high ranking Shang individuals, such as the horse-and-chariot pits for tomb M160 at Guojiazhuang 郭家莊.131 These examples suggest that chariots were monopolized by higher ranking male elites, and their rich bronze decorations suggest that these chariots also served for the need of individuals’ public displays, including funeral displays.

Fig. 2.25. Chinese characters for domestic animals in Shang oracle-bone inscriptions. The late Shang period, c. 1200-1046 BCE. 1. “馬(ma)” character for horse; 2. “羊(yang)” character for sheep; 3. “牛(niu)” character for bovine (Adopted from Mair 2003, pp. 174-175)

Indeed, oracle-bone inscriptions show that there seems to be many steppe people employed in the Shang court to deal with horse affairs, such as Duoma ya 多馬亞 (Many Horse Guards) and Ma xiaochen 馬小臣 (Horse Minor Vassal).126 As Duoma and Ma were used as tribe and place names, Duoma Qiang多馬羌 (Qiang people with many horses) and Ma fang 馬方 (horse country), it is agreed that Duoma ya and Ma xiaochen were foreigners from adjacent steppes rich in horses.127

No chariots were buried with females. However, chariot associated items were found in a royal female tomb. In the tomb of King Wu Ding’s consort, Fu Hao 婦好 (c. 1200 BCE), are two horse cheek-pieces and major components of the Shang chariot weapon/tool set, including six bowshaped objects with rattle-jingles and realistic horseheaded terminals, and typical steppe knives with realistic looped-animal-headed and ring pommels (fig. 2.26.3).132 In addition, a series of ornaments, pao, have been identified as horse harnesses.133 All of these items show a strong link with horses and the steppes. Indeed, as in many previous studies, these chariot-and-horse related items were frequently grouped with other Fuhao’s items with steppe designs, including mirrors and a hairpin with a rattled top.134

Conceptual assimilations: chariots and horses as indicators of prestige and cultural identities Steppe chariots were drawn into the Shang conceptual structure in many ways. As shown above, the most obvious presentations of this assimilation are seen in the numerous bronze ornaments which carried Shang ritual motifs and therefore ritual meanings. These ornate chariots were interred in the royal sacrificial burial grounds and royal and elite cemeteries on an unparallel scale, quite unlike a steppe practice. Their abundant use in burials at the Shang capital, Anyang, indicates that a borrowed foreign item was now integrated in a typical Chinese practice.128 These two aspects not only demonstrate that chariots were important to the performance of Shang ceremonies, but also suggest that they must have been integrated within Shang patterns of thought. This process is similar to Anthony Cohen’s discussion on cultural borrowing. As he points out, “communities might import structural forms across their boundaries but, having done so, they often infuse them with their own meanings and use them to serve their own symbolic purposes.”129 Hence, in the above ways, the steppe chariots took on roles in Chinese belief system and were developed into a privileged symbol of the Shang state.

Though bow-shaped objects were introduced from the steppes, as has been shown, their role as signifiers of steppe identity in the Shang society needs further examination. First of all, among the items identified as steppe items from the tomb of Fu Hao, the bow-shaped objects, is the only type embellished with typical Shang motifs, i.e. typical Shang dragon reliefs on their central part (fig. 2.26.3). Second, this type of objects, usually one per tomb, is frequently found in other large Shang male tombs without other steppe items.135 Thus, they had a rather different role from other types of steppe items. They were probably regarded as associated with particular activities prized by high ranking elites rather than as signifiers of a steppe identity. And, as they were frequently buried along with ritual bronzes in main chambers of tombs of   For the report of M1003, see Liang Siyong and Kao Chu-hsun 1967; 1991. 131   Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1998, pp. 139-146. 132   For the report of the Fu Hao tomb, see Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1980. 133   Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1980, p. 11. 134   Lin Yun 1986, pp. 51-52; So and Bunker 1995, p. 36; Bagley 1999, pp. 197-198; Linduff 1996, pp. 12-48; 2003, pp. 153-154; 2006, pp. 364-365. 135   For examples, large, rich tombs Guojiazhuang M160 (Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1998), Guojiazhuang dongnan M26 (Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Anyang gongzuodui 1998a), and Qijiazhuang 戚家莊 M269 (Anyang shi wenwu gongzuodui 1991b). 130

  See Shaughnessy 1988, p. 234; Linduff 2003, p. 155.   For a discussion on Mafang and Duoma Qiang, see Shaughnessy 1988, p. 233. 128   For a thorough discussion on Chinese burial patterns and their meanings, see Rawson 1998, pp. 107-133. 129   Cohen 1985, p. 19. Here after Shelach 2009a, p. 73. 126 127

53

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 2.26. Objects with steppe features or correlated with the chariot set from the tomb of Fu Hao at Anyang, Henan. The late Shang period, c. 1200 BCE. 1. Cheek-pieces (from pl. 74. 5). 2. Jade horses and deer (from colour pl. 30. 2, 4). 3. Weapons/ tools (from pls. 66. 1-2, 67. 1, 70. 6, 74. 1, 75. 1-3). 4. Mirrors (from p. 104, fig. 65). (After Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1980)

the high ranking elite, it seems that this steppe-type object was somewhat unconsciously transformed as a signifier of Shang prestige.

The cheek-pieces from Fu Hao’s tomb, items which are rarely found in other Shang elite tombs,137 further indicate an unusual relationship between this powerful consort and steppe horses. This relationship is further supported by other horse representations exclusively found in her tomb. Among her jades are a pair of horses in a realistic style

However, the realistic horse-headed terminals of four of the six bow-shaped objects from the tomb of Fu Hao are noteworthy (fig. 2.26.3). While the majority of Shang bowshaped objects have jingle terminals,136 the high frequency of the representations of horse heads is unusual.

  While there are thousands of tombs have been found at Anyang, there are only five tombs, including the tomb of Fu Hao, tomb M6 at Guozhuang 郭莊, tombs M93, M216, and M217 at Yinxu xiqu, contained cheek-pieces in their main chambers (Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Anyang gongzuodui 1979, pp. 53-54, 136). 137

  For the bow-shaped objects, see Gao Xiangping 2007, pp. 94-101.

136

54

The Origins: the Shang Chariot and Their Steppe Associations led troops to fight with northern groups,143 or because she was in charge of precious steppe military resource, horses. A further example comes from the tomb of Wu Ding’s another consort, Fu Jing 婦井, in which horse- and stepperelated finds coexisted.144 Her name, which is known from bronzes found in her tomb, reveals that she was probably from the Jing 井 state. Shima Kunio 島邦男 suggests that the Jing was a non-Shang state located in the northern Shanxi area, not far from one of Shang’s major enemies, the Gong fang.145 The tomb had been seriously looted several times, but some small objects remained. Among them were 65 disc-shaped and eight bovine-shaped ornaments pao (fig. 2.28). These pao, which were usually decorated on horse harnesses, demonstrate that horse harnesses were buried in this tomb. In addition, the tomb also yielded horse bones, which is an unusual find among Shang tombs, particularly in a female one.146 This tomb also yielded fifteen thin golden fragments, which are linked with nonShang, steppe metal technology as mentioned above. Fig.2.27. Ritual vessel gui and the thread relief motif of a horse on the underside of its footring from tomb M1 at Jingjie, Lingshi, Shanxi. The late Shang period, c. 1200 BCE. (After Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 2006, p. 30, fig. 29)

As horse items were not buried in contemporary tombs in the Northern Zone, their appearance in Shang tombs with other northern associations seems to imply that occupants of such tombs had a power to use steppe horses or came from the steppes. These artifacts may also refer to the significant role of northern people in their control or possession of horses and associated skills in the Shang society.147

(fig. 2.26.2a). As Linduff has pointed out, a very similar counterpart of these jades is shown on the underside of a typical Shang ritual bronze from a cemetery of a nonShang group, “Qiang 羌,” at Jingjie旌介, Lingshi 靈 石, Shanxi (fig. 2.27).138 These exclusive horse-related items probably indicate that Fu Hao presented her steppe connection by a strong link with steppe horses.

The above discussion indicates that steppe chariots and associated artifacts were incorporated into the Shang burial practice, in which chariots were strongly linked with ritual and status. And, from the view point of the Shang elite, chariots would appear to have been regarded as aspects of Shang military, prestige, and ritual life rather than as exotic items. By contrast, horses, though they were used in a large scale, were not totally assimilated in the Shang society. Chang Kwang-chih suggests that horses were probably not raised in the Central Plains but were imported, most possibly from the northwest.148 Indeed, as the natural environment of the Central Plains is not suited to horse breeding, Shang uses of horses must have depended considerably on steppe groups, as in later periods.149

Fu Hao’s unusual large number of grave goods with steppe features has led Emma C. Bunker and Katheryn M. Linduff to suggest that Fu Hao was a steppe foreigner married to Shang King Wu Ding as part of a political alliance.139 Linduff further suggests that the appearance of these items indicates a practice by which Fu Hao had “retained identity with her parent culture.”140 And, other tombs at Anyang yielding horse trappings and chariots also show this practice.141 Though there are many scholars suggest that Fu Hao was a native Shang,142 it is no doubt that she had a close link with northern steppes. Such a link might be because she was from steppes, she successfully

  At least thirteen oracle-bone inscriptions mentioned Fu Hao’s military activities. For a discussion on Fu Hao’s military side based on oraclebone inscriptions, see Li Zong-kun 2012, pp. 79-106. 144   Tomb M260 at Wuguancun is attributed to another famous royal female, Fu Jing. It is believed that she is one of Wu Ding’s three offical consorts. For the report, see Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Anyang gongzuodui 1987, pp. 99-118. 145   Shima 1958, p. 414. 146   Horse trappings along with horse bones are also found in another two later tombs M216 and M217 at Yinxu xiqu, dating to Yinxu Phase IV (first half of the 11th century BCE). See Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1979, p. 136. 147   See also Lin Jialin (Linduff) 1998, p. 329; Linduff 2006, p. 265. However, Linduff suggests that these northern horse masters came from northern Hebei rather than Shanxi. 148   Chang Kwang-chih 1980, p. 143. 149   In periods of powerful Chinese empires, the supply of horses, particularly those of superior quality, constantly depended on peoples living in the close-by steppes and Central Asia, such as Qin 秦 horses for 143

  Linduff 2003, p.139. For the report of the Jingjie site, see Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 2006, p. 30, fig. 29. For the ethnic identification of the site, see Tao Zhenggang 1992, pp. 77-95. 139   So and Bunker 1995, p. 27; Lin Jialin (Linduff) 1998, pp. 323-332; Linduff 2006, p. 365. 140   Linduff 1996, pp. 12-48; 2006, pp. 364-367. See also So and Bunker 1995, p. 36. 141   Linduff 2006, p. 365. However, while chariot fittings are rarely found in tombs and horse-and-chariot pits are clearly not associated with other exotic items, chariots should be regarded as status indicators rather than ethnic marks. 142   According to the convention of oracle-bone writing, the Chinese character “Hao好” indicates that Fu Hao was a female from “Zi 子” clan, which was the clan name of the Shang royal family. Therefore, many Chinese scholars tend to believe that Fu Hao was a native Shang female. But some suggest that “Hao” is just an ordinary female mane rather than a clan indication (see Li Zong-kun 2012, p. 80) 138

55

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 2.28. Ornaments pao from tomb M260. The late Shang period, c. 1200 BCE. (After Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Anyang gongzuodui 1987, p. 106, fig. 9. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7)

The mentioned Duoma ya from Duoma Qiang and Ma Xiaochen from Ma fang probably all this significant type of foreigners at Anyang. Horses were simple, common livestock in the steppes and were rarely buried there for ritual and identity purposes; remains of horses were rare in contemporary tombs in the Northern Zone.150 However, horses or material signifiers of horses and associated skills were now buried at Anyang, probably to manifest the contribution of steppe foreigners in the Shang society.

the Western Zhou (1045-771 BCE), Dayuan大宛and Wusun烏孫 horses for the Han 漢 (206BCE-220CE) , Central Asian horses for the Tang 唐 (618-907). In periods of serious conflicts with steppe groups, such as the Song 宋 (960-1279) and the Ming 明 (1368-1644), sources of horses were a big military problem in the Chinese court. For a brief introduction of horses in Chinese history, see Cooke 2000, pp. 41-62. 150   For the evidence of horses in China of the late Shang period, see Linduff 2003, pp. 150-152, table 11. 2.

56

Chapter Three The Golden Chariot of the Zhou “… I confer upon you: a jar of sacrificial wine, and a libation ladle with jade handle; an apron of scarlet, with leaf-green jade pendants; a demi-circlet of jade and a jade hu tablet; a golden chariot, with a decorated cover on the handrail; a front-rail and breast trappings of soft leather, painted scarlet, for the horses; a canopy of tiger skin, with a reddish brown lining; yoke-bar bindings and axle couplings of painted leather; bronze jingle-bells for the yoke bar; a draught-pole rear-end fitting and brake fittings, bound with leather and painted gilt; a gilt bow-press and a fish-skin quiver; a team of four horses, with bits and bridles, bronze frontlets, and gilt girth straps; a scarlet banner with two bells…( …易女秬鬯一卣、裸圭、瓚寶、朱芾、蔥衡、玉環、玉 、金車： （較） 、朱 （鞃） （靳）、虎冟熏裏、右厄（軛）、畫 、畫 、金甬、錯衡、金踵、金豙、約 、金 簟 、魚 （服）、馬亖（四）匹、攸（鋚）勒、金 、金 （膺）、朱旂二鈴。…)” ----- Part of the inscription of the Mao Gong 毛公 ding c. the late 9th century BCE Xian gui 獻簋,6 the Baoyuan gui 保員簋,7 the Shu Yu fangding 叔虞方鼎,8 and the Xiaochen Zhai gui 小臣宅 簋,9 all are datable to the early 10th century BCE. Different from that of the Mao Gong ding, the descriptions of golden chariots in these early inscriptions are quite simple; no detail is provided. Nonetheless, bronze horse harnesses are documented in another inscription, the Mai zun 麥 尊.10 If we compare these early inscriptions with the long description of the chariot items in the late Western Zhou Mao Gong ding, it seems that the importance of the golden chariot to the Western Zhou elite was reinforced over time.

The inscription in a bronze food vessel, the Mao Gong ding,1 records the acts of Western Zhou King Xuan (r. 827/25-782 BCE in the late Western Zhou period), as he appointed Duke of Mao to “supervise the entire Zhou government and the various officials and to assist [him] to consolidate the Zhou state.”2 The gifts listed above were material symbols of the recipient’s status.3 As we learn from this gift list, an unusual emphasis was put on the four-horse golden chariot, jin che 金車. The “jin” in bronze inscriptions is usually translated as golden colour or bronze.4 The “jin” here illustrates the quality of bronze horse-and-chariot ornaments. When they were newly cast, they gleamed with a metal lustre. Chariot parts with intricate bronze fittings and leather covers and teamed horses with bronze harness items are here described in precise details.5

Excavations have testified to the Zhou elite’s emphasis on ornate chariots, as an impressive number of chariot burials, in tombs and in horse-and-chariot pits, have been discovered in almost all parts of the Zhou cultural sphere,

From the early stages of the establishment of the Zhou kingdom, the golden chariot had been regarded as a highly valuable item. As treasured gifts, chariots are recorded in several early Western Zhou inscriptions, including the

  The Xian gui is datable to the early Western Zhou period. No information on its provenance is known. For the inscription and the date, see Jinwen jicheng, no. 4250. The inscription describes that the Earl Lu awarded Xian a golden chariot for his service in arranging matters for the King. For the inscription and an English translation, see Dobson 1962, pp. 204206. 7   The Baoyuan gui, dating to the early Western Zhou period, is in a private collection. The inscription records that the Duke Xing awarded Baoyuan a golden chariot. For the bronze, see Zhang Guangyu 1991, pp. 649-652. 8   The Shu Yu fangding, dating to the early Western Zhou period, was discovered in tomb M114 at Beizhao, near Houma, Shanxi. The inscription records that “the Zhou king conducts a great entreating rite in Chengzhou, Shu Yu receives royal gifts of a chariot, horses, etc.” (Li Feng 2008, p. 339) For the inscription and interpretation, see Li Boqian 2001, pp. 39-42. The inscription is discussed in Li Feng 2008, pp. 257259. 9   The Xiaochen Zhai gui is dated to the early Western Zhou period, now in the National Museum of China in Beijing. Its provenance is unknown. The inscription records that the Duke Tong awarded Xiaochen Zhai ornate weapons, a golden chariot and two horses. For the inscription and the date, see Jinwen jicheng, no. 4201. For further discussions, see Li Feng 2006, p. 45. 10   The Mai zun, dating to the early Western Zhou period, is now lost, but it is recorded in several bronze catalogues. The earliest record is in the Xiqing gujian 西清古鑑 complied by the Qing 清 court in 1755. The inscription records that the ruler of Xing’s visit to the King in the western capital, Zong Zhou. For the inscription, see Jinwen jicheng, no. 6015. For an English translation and discussion, see Shaughnessy 1999, pp. 318319. See also Li Feng 2008, pp. 260-263, 329. 6

  For the inscription, see Jinwen jicheng, no. 4467. Translation after Shaughnessy 1991, p. 81, with minor revisions; see also Dobson 1962, pp. 209-220. The inscription of the Mao Gong ding is the longest Chinese bronze inscription known to date. It is also highly valued as one of the most important evidence of the Western Zhou period. It was discovered at Qishan 岐山, Shaanxi in 1814, and is now in the National Palace Museum, Taipei, Taiwan. Further discussions of the inscription, see Chang Kwang-yuan 1973; Li Feng 2006, p. 122; 2008, pp. 85-90, 329. 2   Li Feng 2008, p. 329. 3   For a discussion on the meaning of gift-giving and exchanges shown on bronze inscriptions, see Cook 1997, pp. 253-290. 4   “Jin” appears frequently in inscribed gift lists. In the inscription of the Mai zun (Jjinwen jicheng no. 6015), it refers to metal materials, which the king frequently awarded to subordinates. For a discussion on the gift of metal “jin,” see Cook 1997, p. 265. 5   The emphasis on the fine ornaments of the golden chariot seems to indicate its more prominent role than other prestige items, such as highly valued jades, in the same inscription. 1

57

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 3.1. Horse-and-chariot pit no. 2 at Zhangjiapo, Chang’an, Shaanxi. The early Western Zhou period, the early 10th century BCE. 1. Plan of the horse-and-chariot pit 2. Part of bronze fittings (After Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1962, figs. 94, 102)

as shown in maps 1-3 (see pp. 7, 16, 17). As mentioned in the chapter one, over seven hundred actual wooden chariots and countless bronze horse-and-chariot fittings have been unearthed. They have been discovered not only from sites at the two capitals of the Zhou, one near presentday Xi’an, Shaanxi and the other at Luoyang, Henan, but also from most, if not all, cemeteries of local Zhou states.

rear-end fittings and chariot jingles, now named as the luan, and horse bits, bridles, frontlets, and girth strap ornaments, have been unearthed in great numbers. Fittings from a horse-and-chariot pit, the horse-and-chariot pit no. 2, at Zhangjiapo張家坡, Chang’an, Shaanxi provide good examples for the fittings described in the inscription (fig. 3.1).11 However, as suggested by the inscription, much

Most of the bronze ornaments described in the inscription of the Mao Gong ding, including chariot draught-pole

11

  For the materials, see Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1962, pp. 141-155.

58

The Golden Chariot of the Zhou more other clearly valued decorations, such as the various types of finely painted leather covers, tiger skin canopies, and banners, unfortunately, no longer survive. Therefore, even though we have a great number of excavated examples of golden chariots, what we can see today is very limited. The physical evidence of the golden chariot is, thus, very partial and comprises of horses, charioteer skeleton, wooden chariot frames, and bronze fittings.

Several scholars, including Jessica Rawson, Tu Chengsheng 杜正勝, and Wang Ming-ke 王明珂, have demonstrated Zhou elite’s use of steppe ornaments on bronzes, ceramics, and jades.13 The Zhou people’s interaction with the steppe and other peripheral groups is illustrated by two distinctive ceramic types, li 鬲tripods with three separate gourd-shaped lobes and guan 罐 jars with two handles, found at several sites around Baoji contemporary with the late Shang period (fig. 3.2b). The two types of objects present a tradition associated with peoples in further west steppe, such as the Xindian 辛 店 and the Siwa 寺洼 groups in present-day Gansu and Qinghai (fig. 3.2c).14

Nonetheless, the detailed description of the golden chariot in the inscriptions and the impressive number of chariot finds are still very significant. All these demonstrate that the Zhou elite placed much more emphasis on chariots than had their predecessors, the Shang elite. The chariot burials of the late Shang period were principally concentrated in the Shang capital at present-day Anyang, Henan. Some have also been found at Qianzhangda, Shandong and Laoniupo, Xi’an, Shaanxi. And, although a number of horse-and-chariot pits were discovered at Anyang, only a very small number of tombs yielded chariot fittings buried separately from an actual chariot and its horses.12

The possible origin of the Zhou group from the steppes at present-day northwest China is hinted in several later texts. A poem in the Shi jing, or the Book of Poetry, suggests that the Zhou elite regarded their earliest ancestor Hou Ji’s 后稷 (the Lord of Millet) adoption of a settled agricultural way of life as a very prominent event as a foundation of their success. The poem reads: “Truly Hou Ji’s husbandry, followed the way that had been shown. He cleared away the thick grass, he planted the yellow crop (誕后稷之穡， 有相之道。 茀厥豐草，種之黃 茂。).”15 Christopher Beckwith indicates that the story of Hou Ji is in a typical form of foundation myth known in Central Eurasia.16 Another poem, “Gong Liu 公劉,” illustrates how another Zhou ancestor, Gong Liu, led the Zhou people to find proper lands to cultivate among steppe peoples and then finally settled in the Wei River valley.17 Further evidence comes from a later text in the Shi ji, or Records of the Historian. The text says that, before the Zhou group moved to the Wei River valley, they had lived among pastoral steppe people.18 Many scholars, like Qian Mu 錢穆 and Edward Shaughnessy, have suggested that, before the Zhou group migrated into the Wei River valley, they were living among steppe groups in the Fen River in present-day Shanxi.19 But recent studies, including those of Tu Cheng-sheng and Liu Junshe 劉軍社, argue that they were most possibly living among steppe groups around

The role of chariots in the Zhou society indeed is prominent. However, the questions as to why they were so important to the Zhou elite, and in what sense they were important are still under explored. These are, therefore, the issues to be addressed in this chapter. To explore the role of chariots in the Zhou society, these questions need to be examined within two backgrounds: the origins of the Zhou people and their political organisation once they dominated the lower Yellow River area. I shall argue that the Zhou people may have come from the steppes, or may have lived in regions of the upper Yellow River system with close connection with the steppes. Once they had settled in the Wei River valley, the largest branch of the Yellow River, in present-day Shaanxi, following their conquest of the Shang state, the Zhou elite exploited chariots, essential to their earlier mobile life-style, as instruments in constructing and maintaining political loyalty. 1. Background

  See Rawson 1989, pp. 71-95; 2009b, 1-41; Tu Cheng-sheng 1993b, pp. 3-6; Wang Ming-ke 1997, pp. 191-216. 14   For discussions on the two ceramic types and their relationship with further western steppe cultures, the Xindian and Siwa cultures, see Rawson 1989, pp. 75-79; see also Liu Junshe 2003, pp. 211-219. 15   For the translation and discussion on the relationship between the Zhou and the steppe groups, see Rawson (ed.) 2009, p. 33. 16   Beckwith 2009, p. 45. 17   The first section of the poem reads, “Staunch Gong Liu, neither dwelling nor relaxing, Then cleared, then bordered, Then piled up, then stored, Then enclosed cereals. In bags, in sacks. Through collecting he became radiant, And bows and arrows were then drawn, The awe of shields and dagger-axes raised; And with that he opened the path. (篤 公劉，匪居匪康，乃埸乃疆，乃積乃倉。乃裹糇糧，于橐于囊，思 輯用光。弓矢斯張，干戈戚揚，爰方啟行。)” For discussions on the poem, see Shaughnessy 1999, p. 300; Li Feng 2006, pp. 160-161. For the translation, see Waley (trans.) 1996, pp. 252-253. 18   The Shi ji, “Zhou benji 周本紀”: “In (Zhou ancestor) Buku’s later years, the Xia dynasty declined, and the court abandoned agriculture. For this reason, Buku lost his government position and fled among northern steppe barbarian peoples, Rong and Di. (不窋末年，夏後氏政衰，去 稷不務，不窋以失其官而奔戎狄之間。)” (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1959, p. 112). For a discussion on the Zhou group’s life among the steppe groups as mentioned in the Shi ji, see Chen Sanping 2002, pp. 313-314.19   For a discussion on this point, see Shaughnessy 1999, pp. 302-307. 13

Before their military conquest of the Shang state, the Zhou was a group of people inhabiting the Wei River valley around present-day Baoji 寶雞city in Shaanxi. At present, we can not clearly identify the pre-dynastic Zhou in the diverse archaeological materials from this area. However, this location, situated between the Shang sphere to the east, steppe areas to the north and west, and connected to the south by the Han 漢 River, suggests that the Zhou group enjoyed diverse cultural benefit from their neighbours.

  As I have discussed in chapter two, in the Shang period, chariot fittings were not regarded as a category of burial goods to be buried in tomb chambers along with other prestige items, such as bronze ritual vessels, ceramics, jades, and weapons. Chariot fittings buried in the tomb chamber were only known from tomb M166 at Western Zone (Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Anyang gongzuodui 1979, pl. 16. 4). Horse fittings were buried in a small number of tombs, which represented tomb occupants’ steppe identity. Only bow-shaped objects were buried regularly in tombs. 12

59

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 3.2. Ceramics lobed tripods li and jar guan from the Shang, the pre-dynastic Zhou, and Xindian sites (after Rawson 1989, fig. 1) a. Shang examples from Laoniupo, Xi’an, Shaanxi b. Pre-dynastic Zhou examples from Liujia, Fufeng, Shaanxi c. Xindian examples from Yongjing and Linxia, Gansu

present-day Qingyang 慶陽 in the eastern part of Gansu along the Jing 涇 River valley rather then in the Fen River valley.20

the Hyksos, invaded and then ruled ancient Egypt in the late 17th century BCE. This event led to the introduction of chariots to Egypt and they were soon developed into a significant military and social item in the New Kingdom period (1550-1069 BCE).22 Similarly, in around 1600 BCE, the Hittites from Anatolia swept to victories in Anatolia, Syria, and Mesopotamia with their advanced chariots and combined archery skills.23 At this date, the

Many scholars have illustrated the ways in which steppe warriors from Inner Asia used their powerful armed chariots to intrude upon their neighbours and spread their influence.21 For example, with chariots, an Asiatic people,   Tu Cheng-sheng 1993b, p. 4; Liu Junshe 2006, pp. 18-20. From a wider view of the Indo-European migration, Beckwith further suggests that the Zhou was an aggressive Indo-European group from Central Asia (Beckwith 2009, pp. 29-57). However, this claim seems, at present, to have insufficient foundations. 21   See Raulwing 2000; Anthony 2008, pp. 397-405; Beckwith 2009, pp. 29-57.

  For discussions on the military and social roles of chariots in Ancient Egypt, see Shaw 1991, pp. 39-42; 51-57; 2001, pp. 59-70. The scale of chariot battle in Egypt is very impressive. According to literary evidence, in the famous battle of Kadesh in c. 1285 BCE, the Hittite king Muwatallish launched 2,500 chariots to fight against the chariot troops of Ramesses II (see Littauer and Crouwel 1979, p. 93). 23   Hamblin 2006, p. 153; Kelekna 2009, pp. 93-104.

20

22

60

The Golden Chariot of the Zhou Ling fangzun 令方尊27 suggest that the Zhou government was a hierarchical administrative system, which was “topped by a body of officials associated with the Ministry (qingshiliao 卿事寮).”28 The bureau of Ministry was mainly composed of the Supervisor of Land (situ 司土), the Supervisor of Construction (sigong 司工) and the Supervisor of Horses (sima 司馬), who supervised the land properties, populations, public works, and military affairs in the royal domains. In addition, it also included document makers and scribes. Below the Ministry was a hierarchy of officials.29 Such an administrative system was also adopted by the ruling houses in the local states. This government practice, as Li Feng demonstrates, is very different from Shang king’s hegemonic control.30

Near East entered “the new ‘chariot age’ of warfare for the next half-millennium.”24 It is therefore tempting to follow this line of argument and suggest that, because the Zhou people were, like many steppe peoples, closely associated with chariots and the skills needed to use them, they too came from the steppes. In addition, they introduced the four-horse chariot, requiring skills in driving and in horse management far beyond the proficiency shown by those of the Shang people, it is possible that this much greater ability to manage chariots contributed to the strengths of the Zhou enabling them to defeat the Shang state. But despite such links to the steppes, the Zhou may not themselves have come directly from the steppes; instead they may have had considerable contact with steppe peoples, employing them and their chariots. Therefore, in this chapter, I will emphasise this special relationship between the Zhou and the steppes.

Material remains of the elite in the capitals and local states have been found in many areas in the Zhou territory. In cemeteries of the Yan state, for example, numerous ritual bronzes, jades, and ceramics similar to those from metropolitan centres, such as cemeteries at Zhangjiapo in Shaanxi and at Beiyao, Luoyang in Henan,31 have been excavated.32 The similarity between prestige and ritual items from the royal domains and local states indicates that Zhou ritual practices had been widely adopted across the Zhou sphere and indicates a commonly accepted Zhou identity among the Zhou elite. Such a collective identity, as P. DiMaggio explains, is “a shared representation of a collectivity.” 33

Chariots as a powerful military tool would, indeed, have a specific role at the beginning of the Zhou rule underlining their authority, as will be discussed below. This chapter will first review the significance of the Zhou chariot, particularly the “golden” chariot, in the Zhou society. We shall start by looking at the Zhou chariot in the political structure of the Zhou state. The methods of control established by the Zhou kingdom across a large area were unusual.25 After the Zhou came to the power, the royal house did not move to the centre of their new territory, but remained in the Wei River valley; this area was to become the western part of the Zhou kingdom. However, to rule the vast eastern part in an efficient way, the ruling group established a second capital in the central location, at present-day Luoyang, Henan. In addition, the Zhou king appointed local rulers to control states subordinate to him. New subordinate states were set up in strategic locations, many of which were ruled by royal members, as described in chapter one. The principal functions of these states were to supervise local groups in different regions, to control the remains of the Shang state and to protect the Zhou kingdom from attacks from northern steppe groups. The Yan 燕 state in Beijing, the Wey 衛 state in central Henan, the Jin 晉 state in Shanxi, and the Ying 應 state in southern Henan were all of this type. Li Feng proposes that such an organisation can be called as a “delegatory kin-ordered settlement state.”26

In the government of the Zhou kingdom, the ruling institution was maintained by the high status of the Zhou king in the political structure and the relationships between the Zhou king and local rulers and his officials. In other words, the key to the Zhou rule was a method of sustaining   The Ling fangyi and the Ling fangzun, dating to the early Western Zhou period, were discovered at Luoyang, Henan in the 1920’s. Now, the Ling fangyi is in the collection of the Freer Gallery in US, and the Ling fangzun is in the National Palace Museum, Taipei, Taiwan. The inscriptions of the two vessels are similar. They record the appointment of Duke Ming to the head of the Ministry. For the inscriptions, English translations and discussions, see Dobson 1962, pp. 195-200; Li Feng 2008, pp. 45-53. 28   Li Feng 2008, p. 51. 29   Li Feng’s Bureaucracy and the State of Early China provides a thorough discussion on the government system of the Western Zhou state. See Li Feng 2008, pp. 50-54. 30   Li Feng 2008,pp. 26, 60. Li Feng states that “The political relationship within the Shang state between the royal lineage in Anyang and the various local groups that recognized the supremacy of the Shang king was one of negotiation and power-balacing that demanded the Shang king’s continuous display of power through royal hunting and military campaigning”and “there was no other source of power to support the Shang king’s authority than that embodied in Shang military might.”(Li Feng 2008, p. 26) 31   For the materials from the Zhangjiapo site at the western capital of the Western Zhou period, see Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1999. For the materials from the Beiyao site at the eastern capital of the Western Zhou period, see Luoyangshi wenu gongzuodui 1999a. 32   For the materials from the Yan state, see Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo 1995. 33   DiMaggio 1997, pp. 274-275. The “shared representation of a collectivity.” is portrayed “as high constructed, through explicit messages and more subtle elements such as anthems and flags. Collective identities are chronically contested, as groups vie to produce social representation capable of evoking schemata favorable to their ideal or material interests.” 27

The concept of such delegation of power was also adopted in the political structure of the Zhou court. A number of military and administrative officials were appointed to assist the Zhou king. As Li Feng has shown, the early Western Zhou inscriptions of the Ling fangyi 令方彝 and

  Hamblin 2006, p. 153.   For a through discussion on the political geography of the Western Zhou, see Li Feng 2006, pp. 27-90. 26   For his definition of the “delegatory kin-ordered settlement state”, see Li Feng 2008, pp. 294-299. 24 25

61

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity the loyalty of the subordinate rulers to the king through numerous ritualised political appointments. Therefore, as shown by the inscription of the Mao Gong ding, giving golden chariots in the appointment ceremonies and then documenting them on bronzes played a prominent role in the maintenance of the relationship between the king and his subordinates in the Zhou political context. The institutional value of chariots as a component of material presentations of the Zhou collective identity can also be demonstrated by the regular practices of burying whole chariots and of burying chariot parts, which I will further illustrate below. Thus, we can suggest that chariots had political and social agency in the Zhou society. That is, by the regular uses of chariots in appointment ceremonies and in tomb settings, the power of the chariots and the importance of their ownership were reinforced and closely linked with a Zhou identity.

power came initially not from the social structure but from their functions. It was the technology associated with Zhou elite’s driving activities, for examples chariot battles and chariot parades, that provided the Zhou elite with a set of skills closely linked with positions of power. As the chariot was used in major events and local rituals, it gained a social role and thus came to be embodied in the political structure. Therefore, in the following, I shall consider the Zhou chariot from two aspects. First, as I accept the argument that chariots were developed in the Eurasian steppes, I shall examine early Zhou chariots to reveal the relationship between the Zhou people and steppe groups. This examination illustrates the reasons why the chariot was so important to the Zhou elite. Secondly, I will describe the display of ornate chariots to show the ways in which they were exploited as a platform for the Zhou elite to demonstrate power and authority and to communicate with each other. In other words, I will explore the ways in which chariots were used as prestige items to reinforce identity. To explore this aspect, I will examine bronze inscriptions

To explore the development of the role of chariots in the Zhou society and the agency that they exerted, it is important to note that, as functional items with essential roles in warfare and transportation, their associations with

Fig. 3.3. Plan of the horse-and-chariot pit at the Luoyang Forestry School at Luoyang, Henan. The early Western Zhou period, late 11th century BCE. (After Luoyang shi wenwu gongzuodui 1999b, p. 7, fig. 5)

62

The Golden Chariot of the Zhou

Fig. 3.4. Ritual vessels from the horse-and-chariot pit at the Luoyang Forestry School at Luoyang, Henan. 1. Zun vessel; 2. Handled you vessel (After Luoyang shi wenwu gongzuodui 1999b, fig. 16)

handled you vessel, were intricately decorated (fig. 3.4).35 Such elaborate vessels were never buried along with chariots in the late Shang period. Therefore, the presence of these fine ritual vessels seems to suggest that the chariot buried in the pit was highly valued by its owner and had a strong link with ritual activity.

and chariot burial practices to illustrate the ways in which ornate chariots were integrated to Zhou social and political structures. 2. Associations between the Zhou chariot and the Steppe culture

(1) The four-horse chariot

Three prominent innovations of Zhou elite’s deployment of chariots, by comparison with that of the Shang elite, were the use of chariots drawn by four horses, a set of powerful weapons, and a specific set of decorative and functional fittings. These innovations are noteworthy because they demonstrate not only improved complex, and advanced chariot fighting skills, but also the transformations of chariot and horse technologies, and the development of an aesthetic taste in the application of chariot ornaments in the Yellow River basin from the beginning of the Western Zhou period.

The appearance of four-horse chariots in the Yellow River basin in the early Western Zhou period is very significant because this event indicates a transformation of the existing local mobile and military technologies and associated concepts originating from the use of Shang’s two-horse chariots. The transformation of the chariot technology is seen in two principal areas. First, the use of four-horse chariots required greater skill to train and drive four horses as a team than to train and drive a two-horse-team. We do not have evidence of horse-training in the Zhou period. However, a horse training manual recorded in cuneiform on clay tablet36 from the Near East, dating to c. 1360 BCE, gives us insights on the possible complexities in the horse training in the Zhou state. According to the manual, to prepare chariot horses for the Hittite king, more than seven months of extensive training, including weight, endurance,

These innovations can be explored by examining an early Western Zhou horse-and-chariot pit found at the Luoyang Forestry School at Luoyang, Henan, the second capital of the Western Zhou period.34 In the pit was a chariot originally drawn by four horses (fig. 3.3). The chariot and the four horses were decorated with a number of bronze ornaments. In the chariot box was a large set of weapons indicating that this chariot was a war chariot. The earth fill above the chariot brought to light several ceramic and bronze vessels. Among them were five standard ritual vessels. These vessels, particularly the zun vessel and the

  For the materials, see Luoyang shi wenwu gongzuodui 1999b, pp. 5-6.   The manual, dating to the Hittite New Kingdom (c. 14th century BCE), is attributed to Kikkuli, master horse trainer of the land of Mitanni, who trained chariot horses for the Hittite king. For the text and translation, see Kammenhüber 1961. 35 36

  For the materials, see Luoyang shi wenwu gongzuodui 1999b, pp. 4-17. One of the four horses was completely gone and two were damaged. 34

63

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig.3.5. Representations of four-horse chariots in stone carvings in the Altai and Outer Mongolia. (After Littauer 1977, figs. 16, 22)

and swimming, was carried out to achieve a good pairing of horses.37 “The teams were inseparable, if one horse was a casualty, the survivor would only accept another yokefellow after considerable re-training.” 38

inner two horses. If outer horses were wounded, the driver probably could release the wounded ones and continue fighting on his chariot. In addition, the four- and twohorse chariots were used together. In a number of Zhou horse-and-chariot pits, four- and two-horse chariots were placed together. Among them the two chariots in the early Western Zhou horse-and-chariot pit no. 2 at the Zhangjiapo site illustrates the ranking of four- and two-horse chariots were ranked. The larger chariot was pulled by four horses and the smaller one was by two (fig. 3.1.1). In addition to the chariot sizes and the horse numbers, their hierarchical arrangement was also presented by different materials and numbers of horse ornaments. The four horses of the large chariot were decorated with rich bronze ornaments, including head bridles, masks, and bronze discs attached to body straps (fig. 3.6.1). By contrast, the bridles of the two horses of the small chariot were decorated with cowries (fig. 3.6.2).42 The incorporation of the two types of chariots, probably in a form of ranking, suggests that there was a specific technique in the use of chariots in warfare that had not been deployed by the Shang elite. In battles, chariots with four horses may have played a rather different role to those with two.

Advanced skills in horse training and control could have been developed by horse herders in the steppe areas. Representations of four-horse chariots very similar to those of the Zhou have been found in some stone carvings in the Altai Mountains and Outer Mongolia (fig. 3.5).39 These carvings show that the outer horses were not attached to the yoke bar either. Many scholars, including Stuart Piggott, David Anthony, Elena Kuzmina, and Christopher Beckwith, have argued that horses and chariots were steppe powerful military items, and that their exploitation depended upon a very complex set of technologies of horse uses.40 As I have discussed in the previous chapter, even at the Shang court, horses for chariots seem to have been managed by steppe people. Therefore, the appearance of the four-horse chariot in the Yellow River basin, just when the Zhou came to power, seems to suggest that these skills were already advanced among the Zhou. This example suggests that the Zhou was a people with strong links with those living in the further north or west. It is also possible that, as mentioned above, like the Hittites,41 the Zhou was originally a steppe group, migrating eastwards and then invading settled groups with their powerful armed chariots.

(2) The weapon set The emergence of a set of weapons with large blades or wide cutting edges is another innovation of the Zhou chariot use. As shown by the weapons in the chariot box of the chariot found at Western Zhou’s second capital at present-day Luoyang Forestry School, a Zhou set of weapons included groups of bronze and bone arrows, a long dagger, a large knife, a ji 戟 halberd, a slim sword and an axe (fig. 3.7).43 This weapon set is not an isolated example. Similar weapon sets were also found along with chariot finds in several other early Western Zhou border sites, such as a horse-and-chariot pit at Xi’an 西菴, Jiaoxian 膠縣 in Shandong, a tomb at Baifu 白浮, Changping 昌 平 in Beijing, and a tomb at Baicaopo 白草坡, Lingtai 靈

The other aspect of the transformation of the chariot technology, along with the appearance of the four-horse chariot, in the Yellow River basin was in the military side, at least including chariot fighting methods and military organisation. The four-horse chariots were probably more powerful and speedier than those with two. The other two flanking horses probably also provided protection to the   Kelekna 2009, pp. 98-99. See also Piggott 1992, p. 46.   Dent 1974, pp. 56-59. Here after Kelekna 2009, p. 99. 39   For examples, see Littauer 1977, figs. 16, 22. These representations show that Altai four-horse chariots shared many features with those of the Zhou state. In the representations, the outer two horses were not fastened on the yoke-bar but fastened somewhere in the chariot box by straps. The date of these carvings is still under discussion. 40   See Piggott 1992, pp. 42-48; Anthony 2008, pp. 397-405; Kuzmina 2008, pp. 49-59; Beckwith 2009, pp. 29-57. 41   For a discussion on the decisive role of chariots in early Indo-European invasion to the Near East, see Kelekna 2009, pp. 92-106. 37 38

  For the report of horse-and-chariot pit no. 2, see Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1962, pp. 142-155. 43   For the materials, see Luoyang shi wenwu gongzuodui 1999b, pp. 4-17. 42

64

The Golden Chariot of the Zhou

Fig. 3.6. Reconstructions of horse bridles found at horse-and-chariot pit no. 2 at Zhangjiapo, Chang’an, Shaanxi. Later half of the early Western Zhou period, c. 10th century BCE. (After Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1962, figs. 99, 100) 1. Reconstruction of bronze-decorated horse bridle of the four-horse chariot 2. Reconstruction of cowry-decorated horse bridle of the two-horse chariot

Fig. 3.7. Weapons from the horse-and-chariot pit at the Luoyang Forestry School at Luoyang, Henan. 1. Rubbings of weapons (1. Ji halberd; 2. Long dagger; 3. Large knife; 4. Sword) 2. Drawing of an axe (After Luoyang shi wenwu gongzuodui 1999b, figs. 24, 22.3)

台 in Gansu.44 Their frequent appearance indicates that these weapons were a specific set and probably associated with chariot fighting. Such a weapon set was much more powerful than those employed with the Shang chariot, in which bows and arrows played a principal role, as I have illustrated in the previous chapter.45 The regular use of

such a weapon set by the early Western Zhou elite indicates that the chariot fighting ability of the Zhou elite was more powerful than that of the Shang elite. Many of the weapons in this weapon set have been identified as related to those of the northern steppes. Chen Fang-mei 陳芳妹 has pointed out that large blades and wide cutting edges are rare among Shang weapons, but much more frequent among those of the Northern Zone.46

  For the materials of the horse-and-chariot pit at Xi’an, Jiaoxian, Shandong, see Shandong sheng Changwei diqu wenwu guanlizu 1977, pp. 63-71. For the materials of the tomb at Baifu, Changping, Beijing, see Beijing shi wenwu guanlichu 1976, pp. 250-253. The site will be further discussed in the next chapter. For the materials of the tomb at Baicaopo, Lingtai, Gansu, see Gansu sheng bowuguan wenwudui 1977, pp. 99-129. 45   As discussed in the previous chapter, a Shang chariot weapon set was 44

principally included a bow-shaped object, a knife, a ge blade, and a group of arrows. 46   Chen Fang-mei 1995, pp. 51-53.

65

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity basin, not only driving but also chariot fighting were transformed. This introduction of steppe traditions seems to have come with the military success of the Zhou people as they conquered the Shang state. (3) The fittings It is possible that it was the powerful armed chariots that enabled early Western Zhou kings to become the most powerful figure in the Eastern Asia. These powerful war tools were, therefore, highly valued by the Zhou elite. A very prominent way by which the Zhou elite presented their emphasis on their chariots was to create new ornaments for them.53 As seen in the chariot from the Luoyang Forestry School, two new fitting types unknown in Shang burials, the horned horse frontlet and the luan jingles, are markers of Zhou’s chariot decorations (fig. 3.9.4, 10). The appearances of the two new fittings carried strong steppe associations, coinciding with the sources of Zhou chariot skills. The two large, sharp horns of the horned horse frontlet may have been inspired by animal heads with sharp horns (fig. 3.9.10). Parallel examples have been discovered at Liujiahe 劉家河 at Pinggu平谷 in the district of Beijing, a site had close associations with steppes, dating to the transition from the late Shang to early Western Zhou period (fig. 3.10).54 The two long projecting horns of the Liujiahe examples probably imitated sheep horns. 55 Sheep were especially prized by the herding peoples of the steppes.

Fig. 3.8. A sword with open-work scabbard from Baicaopo, Lingtai, Gansu. The early Western Zhou period, the 11th - 10th century BCE. (After Gansu sheng bowuguan wenwudui 1977, fig. 13.1)

The advance of Zhou weaponry is evident in the emergence of the ji halberd. This type of halberds combined a long ge blade with a spear head, employing the functions of both weapons (fig. 3.7.1.1).47 Short, narrow swords are also rare in the Shang, but popular in the early Western Zhou period (fig. 3.7.1.4).48 Similar swords with or without their open-work scabbard ornaments have been found at several early Western Zhou sites, such as Liulihe 琉璃河 site in Beijing,49 Zhuyuangou 竹園溝 site at Baoji in Shaanxi,50 and Baicaopo, Lingtai in Gansu (fig. 3.8).51 And, such slim swords and interlaced ornaments have led scholars to link them with people inhabiting in the Northern Zone.52

The appearance of the luan jingle shows a further strong association with steppe culture. Its rattle-ball-jingle, simple geometric patterns, openwork designs, and socket are all typical of steppe items (fig. 3.9.4).56 Bronze implements with rattled jingle decorations, such as bow-shaped objects, knives, and swords, have been found at earlier sites at late Shang capital at Anyang.57 This presence at the Shang capital is generally regarded as evidence of interactions between the Shang state and northern groups.58 A set

The new set of weapons illustrates a new set of fighting practices. The association between the weapon set and the Northern Zone indicates that, in the Yellow River

  Magdalene von Dewall argues that the most salient feature of Zhou chariots at the beginning of the Zhou period was the rise of a new aesthetics of fitting designs. As she has pointed out, right after the conquest there was “a paramount artistic engagement in the design of horse trappings, which in their variety and abundance overshadow anything known from the Shang equipment for the horses.” (Dewall 1967, p. 546) 54   For examples, golden bracelets, ear rings, and a hairpin were found there. For the materials, see Beijing shi wenwu guanlichu 1977, figs. 13, 17, 18. 55   The excavator named this type of objects as horse frontlets. For the report, see Beijing shi wenwu guanlichu 1977, pp. 1-8. The date follows Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 2003, p. 611. 56   Geometric patterns and rattles are frequently embellished on weapons and tools, such as knives and axles, excavated from Shanxi, northern Shaanxi, and Gansu. For examples contemporary with the late Shang and early Western Zhou period, see Loehr 1949, pp. 33-36; Chen Fang-mei 1995, pp. 48-54; Bunker 1997, nos. 3, 4, 9, 14, 17, 18. 57   Rattled jingles were frequently used by the Shang elite at Anyang to embellish weapons and tools introduced from the northern steppes, including bow-shaped objects, knives, and swords. For examples, the bow-shaped objects from horse-and-chariot pits M20 and M40 at Xiaotun, Anyang (Shih Chang-ju 1970), and a sword from a horse-andchariot pit at Anyang (Guojia wenwuju (ed.) 2006a, p. 60). 58   See Lin Yun 1986, pp. 250-254. 53

  The proto-type of ji halberd was found at a Shang tomb M17 at Taixi 台西, Gaocheng 藁城, Hebei. A weapon from there combines a typical Shang ge blade with a spearhead. See Hebei sheng wenwu yanjiusuo 1985, fig. 89. 5. 48   This type of swords is traditionally called as “willow leaf-shaped swords” according to the shape. 49   A scabbard was found in tomb M253 and a set of a sword and a scabbard was found in tomb M52. See Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo 1995, figs. 117, 118. 50   A sword was found in tomb M18. See Lu Liancheng and Hu Zhisheng 1988, fig. 162. 7. 51   A set of a sword and a scabbard was found in tomb M2. See Gansu sheng bowuguan wenwudui 1977, fig. 13. 1. 52   See So and Bunker 1995, pp. 47, 123-125; Zhu Fenghan 2009, p. 423; Rawson 1999a, pp. 410-413; Sun Yan 2006, pp. 221-223. However, the presence of serpents, birds, and rhinoceroses on some scabbard ornaments leads Sun Yan to suggest that they were features from Sichuan in the south (Sun Yan 2006, p. 222). 47

66

The Golden Chariot of the Zhou

Fig. 3.9. Horse-and-chariot fittings from the horse-and-chariot pit at the Luoyang Forestry School at Luoyang, Henan. 1. Axle-cap with linch-pin; 2-3. Yoke-saddle ornaments; 4. Luan jingle; 5. bell; 6. Draught-pole ornament; 7. Squared cheekpiece; 8. Axle ornament; 9. Ornament; 10. Horned horse frontlet (After Luoyang shi wenwu gongzuodui 1999b, fig. 30)

of rattled pole-ends with round socket have been reported from a steppe site at Lingzheyu 林遮裕, Baode 保德 in northern Shanxi, contemporary with the late Shang period (fig. 3.11).59 Such pole-ends have led Hwang Ming-chorng to suggest that they were ancesters of Zhou’s luan jingle.60   A set of rattled pole ends, probably chariot ornaments, was found at a Lijiaya李家崖 site at Lingzheyu 林遮裕, Baode 保德, Shanxi. In addition to rattled jingles, bronzes of the Lijiaya culture also feature geometric patterns. For the materials from the Linzheyu site, see Wu Zhenlu 1972, pp. 63-64. For studies of the Lijiaya bronzes, see Wo Haowei 2008, pp. 56-67; Jiang Gang 2008, pp. 68-84. Similar items are also found at early Western Zhou tomb M115 at Yujiawan 于家灣 site in Gansu, a cemetery site attributed to a local steppe group. See Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 2009, pp. 22-25, 87, 89. 60   Since pole-ends similar to the Baode ones are found at a chariot burial at Anyang, Hwang Ming-chorng argues that Baode set of rattled objects was a set of chariot fittings, and this type of jingle pole-ends was an 59

Fig. 3.10. Bronze ornament from Liujiahe, Pinggu, Beijing. The transition from the late Shang to early Western Zhou period, c. 11th century BCE. (After Beijing shi wenwu guanli chu 1977, fig. 6.4)

67

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 3.11. Rattled pole-ends from Linzheyu, Baode, Shanxi. The late Shang period, the 11th century BCE. (After Wu Zhenlu 1972, pls. 3, 5)

Fig. 3.12. Knives with stud-rimed rattles 1. Knife from Baicaopo, Lingtai, Gansu. The early Western Zhou period, c. early 10th century BCE. (After Gansu sheng bowuguan wenwu gongzuodui 1977, fig. 15. 6) 2. Knife from western Mongolia. (After Bunker 1997, fig. 5.1)

However, the openwork-rimed surrounded luan’s rattled ball and the squared shape of the socket are not seen on the above rattled objects from Shanxi and Anyang. These features seem to suggest that these earlier examples are not or not the only direct ancestors of the luan jingle of the Zhou state.

(fig. 3.12).62 It seems that, from the very beginning of the Zhou dynasty, such stud-rimed rattles had been used by the Zhou elite. A prominent example was discovered at a very important pre-dynastic and early Western Zhou site not far from eastern Gansu at Doujitai 鬥雞臺, Baoji, Shanxi. This region is regarded as the earliest identified site of the pre-dynastic Zhou people (fig. 3.13.1).63 The example from Doujitai have a round tube, which is similar to other two early luan jingles from the Wei River valley, one from Licun 禮村, Qishan 岐山 (fig.3.13.2) and the other from Nanbao南堡, Weinan 渭南 in Shaanxi, both of which are datable to pre-dynastic or the beginning of the Zhou dynasty in the middle 11th century BCE.64

It seems likely that the Zhou elite took the rimed rattle from steppe groups inhabiting the northwest Northern Zone, around present-day eastern Gansu in the Jing River valley and further northwest. In the steppe area, rimed rattles are exclusively seen on knives from these areas. For examples, stud-rimed rattles, but without openwork, appear on the terminals of knives from a tomb at Baicaopo, Lingtai, Gansu61 and also on finds in western Mongolia

The correlation between the luan jingle and the steppe ornaments suggests a close relationship between peoples

ancestor of Zhou’s luan jingles (Hwang Ming-chorng 2007, pp. 20-24). 61   For the material, see Gansu sheng bowuguan wenwudui 1977, fig. 116. The rattle on the knife is enclosed by a rim with three lateral studs, which has been identified as a feature of Ordus knives (see Loehr 1951, pp. 110112, pls. X. 67-69, XIV 65, 66, XV 68). This type of ring knives have been known in Central Asia, Southern Siberia (see Novgorodova 1970, figs. 39. 4, 50. 11), Shanxi (see Lin Yun 1986, fig. 49. 16), and Anyang, Henan (see Bunker 1997, fig. A22).

  Novgorodova 1989, p. 133; Bunker 1997, p. 120.   For the material, see Su Bingqi 1948, p. 250. The report does not provide the date of the jingle. 64   For the jingle from Licun, see Shaanxi sheng bowuguan and Shaanxi sheng wenguanhui Qishan gongzuodui 1978, pp. 38-44, 65. For the jingle from Weinan, see Li Hairong 2003, pp. 42-43. 62 63

68

The Golden Chariot of the Zhou 禹 ding.66 The inscriptions show that, in the early Western Zhou period, the number of chariots involved in battles was much greater than in the days of the Shang dynasty. Chariots as war booty are recorded on a Shang oraclebone inscription, in which two were captured by the Shang troop in a battle against a northern group.67 By contrast, in two large campaigns against their primary enemies in the northwest, as recorded in the early Western Zhou Xiao Yu ding and the much later Duoyou ding, the Zhou troop captured over one hundred chariots in each battle. In addition, the use of chariots was not limited to battles against northern groups, but was also used in campaigns in the south. According to the Yu ding, dating to the late Western Zhou period, Yu led one hundred war chariots to attack southern groups, the Huaiyi 淮夷 and the Dongyi 東 夷, on the southeast borders of the Zhou state in the Huai 淮 River valley.68 It is probably because of the decisive role of chariots in battles, particularly in the conquest campaign against the Shang state,69 the Zhou elite wished to be accompanied by chariots in the afterlife. As I illustrated in the previous chapter, during the late Shang period, chariots were often buried in pits associated with large tombs or on the entry ramps of tombs of high ranking elite. They were rarely buried in the main chamber of tombs, where other prestige items were placed. In the Zhou tombs, however, horse and chariot fittings seem to be a standard category of buried goods to be placed along with ritual bronzes and weapons in the main chamber. As we shall see, they were also placed in separate chariot pits alongside very high-ranking tombs.

Fig. 3.13. Luan jingles with round tube base 1. Example from Doujitai, Baoji, Shaanxi. The late 11th century BCE. (After Su Bingqi 1948, fig. 111. 1) 2. Example from Daijiawan, Baoji, Shaanxi. The late 11th century BCE. (After Shaanxi sheng bowuguan and Shaanxi sheng wenguanhui Qishan gongzuodui 1978, p. 40, fig. 3.9)

inhabiting the northwest Northern Zone and the Zhou group. Indeed, as I have mentioned, many scholars have suggested that the Zhou people inhabited in the eastern part of Gansu before they migrated to and finally settled in the Wei River valley. Throughout the Western Zhou and well into the Eastern Zhou period, the luan jingles were conspicuously used on chariots. Their presence suggests that at the beginning of the Western Zhou period, at least, reference to steppe objects were important to the Zhou elite.

While we have not yet known large early Western Zhou tombs at Zhou’s capitals at Xi’an, Shaanxi and Luoyang, Henan, tomb M2 at a rather border site at Baicaopo, Gansu, northwest to Zhou’s ritual centre Zhouyuan in Shaanxi, provides an example to show the military value of fittings in the tomb setting of the time.70 The tomb occupant is thought to have been a local ruler. In the tomb, different categories of burial goods, separated in terms of their functions, were deployed in four layers separated by

3. The development of social roles of chariots in the Western Zhou period While Zhou’s link with the steppes remained an element in the way in which the chariot was presented, chariots were rapidly integrated with the Zhou power structure in their new role as the dominant force in the Yellow River area. The abundance of chariot burials throughout the Zhou period and the emphasis of the highly decorated chariots, as seen in the inscriptions of Mao Gong ding, indicate that the chariot was a social tool as well as a military one. In the following section, I shall examine roles of chariots in Zhou military, political, and burial contexts to illustrate the institutional values of chariots. I will argue that chariots were much more than tools of warfare and transportation; they were becoming political agents for the Zhou elite in their competitions for status and power.

discovered at Chang’an, Shaanxi in 1980. It is now in the Museum of Shaanxi province at Xi’an, Shaanxi. The inscription records a battle with the northern group Xianyun. For the inscription, see Jinwen jicheng no. 2835. For a study on the inscription of the Duoyou ding, see Shaughnessy 1983-1985, pp. 55-69. For other discussions, see Li Feng 2006, pp. 130132; 2008, pp. 139-140. 66   For the Yu ding, see chapter one, fn. 82. 67   For the oracle bone inscription and an English translation, see Shaughnessy 1988, pp. 214, no. 8; 220. 68   For the battle records in the Yu ding, see Li Feng 2006, p. 103. 69   Shi ji, “Zhou benji” (pp. 122-123) states that the King Wu 武 of the Zhou led three hundred chariots, and around fifty thousand warriors to fight the Shang at Muye 牧野, the decisive battle of the founding of the Zhou rule. Many scholars, including Shih Chang-ju (1987, pp. 1-14) and Shaughnessy (1988, pp. 228-231), study the role of chariots in the conquest campaign based on transmitted texts and archaeological finds. For, see 70   Tomb M2 is dating to the first half of the early Western Zhou period. The cemetery at Baicaopo, Lingtai, Gansu is attributed to an early Western Zhou regional state, the Hei state. Among the eight tombs found in the site, 5 contained horse and chariot fittings. In addition, a horse-andchariot pit with four horses and remains of two chariots has been found. See Gansu sheng bowuguan wenwudui 1977, pp. 99-129.

The role of chariots in the military context In the Western Zhou period, the role of chariots in battles is evident in several bronze inscriptions, including those of the Xiao Yu小盂ding, the Duoyou 多友 ding,65 and the Yu   The Duoyou ding, dating to the late Western Zhou period, was

65

69

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 3.14. Plans of tomb M2 at Baicaopo, Gansu. The early Western Zhou period, the 11th - 10th century BCE. (After Gansu sheng bowuguan wenwudui 1977, fig. 5) 1. First and second layers (First layer: 1-11. ritual vessels; 76, 78. shells; 79, 80. ceramics. Second layer:12-25, 27-34. ge blades) 2. Third and fourth layers (Third layer: 26. ge blade; 35, 36. swards; 37. arrows; 39. axe; 40. adze; 41. chisel; 42, 43. awls; 44. four luan jingles; 45. eight frontlets; 46. bow-shaped objects; 47-54. pao ornaments in various shapes; 55, 24. strap distributors; 56. cheek-piece. Fourth layer: 38. bronze knife; 66-74. jades; 75. stone ornament; 76, 95. cowries)

and two ji halberds. Wooden remains along with them indicate that these weapons were mounted on long poles. The third layer contained typical early Western Zhou horse and chariot fittings, including luan jingles, horned horse

mats (fig. 3.14). The high social status of the dead was shown by nine ritual bronze vessels in the outmost layer on the platform. In the second layer, which was in the upper parts of the wooden chamber, were 21 ge blades 70

The Golden Chariot of the Zhou

Fig. 3.15. Horse and chariot fittings found at Baicaopo, Gansu. (After Gansu sheng bowuguan wenwudui 1977, fig. 16) 1. Axle-cap with linch-pin; 2. Horned horse frontlet; 3, 7. Yoke-saddle foot ornaments; 4-6. Pao ornaments; 8. Luan jingle

frontlets and other trappings (fig. 3.15) resembling those from the Luoyang pits described above (fig. 3.9.1, 4, 10). Along with the fittings were chariot weapons, including short swords with scabbard ornaments, a ge blade, and arrow heads. In the light of the unusual number of the weapons, Li Feng suggests that the diseased probably was also a military commander.71 The fourth layer, in which jades, cowries, and a bronze knife with steppe ornaments (fig. 3.12.1) were deployed around the dead, represents personal items. The arrangement of the burial goods in the tomb clearly shows that war chariots, which were represented by their fittings and associated weapons, were regarded as a specific category of items to be buried along with other prestigious artifacts.

associated horse-and-chariot pit G1.72 The selection of specific chariot ornaments for the main chamber, I would argue, was probably interred to demonstrate that chariots were now took a prominate role as an indicators of status of their owners, to be placed along with other riual objects, in life and the afterlife. The role of chariots in the Western Zhou political context shown in inscriptions A text from the Zuozhuan, complied in the 5th century BCE, is helpful in advancing our understanding of how chariots were acknowledged as one of the most important political prestigious symbols from the early Western Zhou period. It reads:

The presence of the above large fitting sets in early Western Zhou tombs, as seen in the Baicaopo tomb, is highly significant. It seems that their owners did not simply regard these specific fittings as substitutions for real chariots. The fitting types selected to be buried in the Baicaopo tomb were all chariot ornaments rather than functional items, such as axle-caps and check-pieces seen in the tomb’s

“When King Wu had subdued Shang, King Cheng completed the establishment of the new dynasty. And chose and appointed [the princes of] intelligent virtue, to act as bulwarks and screens to Zhou. Hence it was that the Duke of Zhou gave his aid to the Royal House for the adjustment of all the kingdom, he being most   For the report of the pit, see Gansu sheng bowuguan wenwudui 1977, pp. 104-106. 72

  Li Feng 2006, p. 50.

71

71

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity dear and closely related to Zhou. To the Duke of Lu (Bo Qin, the Duke of Zhou’s son) there were given a grand chariot, a grand flag with dragon on it, the Huang-stone of the sovereigns of Xia, and the [great bow], Fanruo of Fengfu. Six clans of the people of Yin (Shang)... To Kang Shu (The first marquis of Wey) there were given a grand carriage (chariot), four flags of various coloured silks, of red, of plain silk, and ornamented with feathers, and [the bells], Dalu, with seven clans of the people of Yin (Shang)… To Tang Shu (The first lord of Jin) there were given a grand carriage (chariot), the drum of Mixu, the Quegong mail, the bell Guxi, nine clans of the surname Huai, and five presidents over the different departments of office…(昔武王克 商，成王定之，選建明德以藩屏周，故周公相王 室以尹天下，于周為睦。分魯公以大路、大旂， 夏后氏之璜，封父之繁弱，殷民六族…分康叔以 大路、少帛、綪茷、旃旌、大呂，殷民七族…分 唐叔以大路、密須之鼓、闕鞏、沽洗，懷姓九 宗，職官五正…)”73

indicates that chariots were given by the king to local rulers as an aspect of the kingly authority. The inscription of the Mai zun states that the ruler of the Xing 邢 state, in present day Hebei, visited the King Cheng 成 (r. 1035-1006 BCE) in the western capital at Zong Zhou (Feng and Hao) as he was expected to do. The king then rewarded him with 200 households of servants and a “royal chariot, metal bridles, cap, jacket, knee pads, and shoes.”77 Li Feng has argued that such a personal visit of local rulers to the Zhou king at the western capital was an institutional practice in the early Western Zhou period.78 The symbolic power, conveyed by ornate chariots that local rulers received from the king, was emphasized during such personal visits, which provided the local rulers with confirmation of their right to rule. Many other early Western Zhou inscriptions demonstrate that, chariots with fittings, in addition to being assigned to local rulers, were frequently given as status symbols when the king appointed individuals to high ranking positions (see table 1).79 Sets of highly symbolic gifts, similar to those recorded in the Mai zun, are also listed in many inscriptions commemorating appointments of high ranking officials. In the inscription of the Da Yu ding大盂鼎, for example, King Kang 康 (r. 1003-978 BCE) commanded Yu to take on his ancestor’s position in charge of Zhou military and law practices. Following the description of his appointment is a gift list including fragrant wine, official clothing, his ancestor’s former banner, and chariots. These items were the physical paraphernalia of his position and duties.80

This text mentions that, at the early stage of Zhou rule, when the Zhou royal house appointed their family members as local rulers to oversee new states, the king not only assigned local groups to these rulers, but also gave them gifts, including chariots with banners, musical instruments, jades, and clothing. Though the Zuozhuan is a much later text, the gift list and the appointment of rulers recorded in it parallel those in many Western Zhou bronze inscriptions and thus seem likely to reflect the early Western Zhou situation.74 While the bronze inscriptions are brief and relate to particular events, the Zuozhuan text is closely linked to the creation of political authority. Among the royal gifts, chariots were probably understood as symbols of political status and military control. The military association is suggested in the inscription by the presence of large drums and banners, both of which were deployed in battles.

Many other inscriptions indicate that the Zhou king used chariots with rich bronze fittings, the golden chariots, as valuable rewards for his subordinates. The inscription of Shu Yu fangding, dating to the early Western Zhou period, states that the Zhou king rewarded Shu Yu with a chariot after a ritual ceremony.81 On some unusual occasions, the high ranking elite also rewarded their subordinates with precious chariots. As seen in the inscription of the Baoyuan gui, Baoyuan’s master rewarded him with a golden chariot for his unusual merit in battle against the Yi 夷.82

Many scholars, including Chang Kwang-chih, Li Feng, and Lothar von Falkenhausen,75 have pointed out that, in appointment ceremonies, chariot items, along with official clothing, were regarded as material symbols of the authority that the king assigned to individuals as his agents to rule the vast areas outside of the capitals. The inscription of the Ke lei克罍provides a very important evidence on the appointment of local rulers, but no gift list is provided.76 Nonetheless, the record in the Mai zun

The extensive use of chariots as gifts suggested by the above early Western Zhou bronze inscriptions indicates a prominent role of chariots in the early Western Zhou political context. Long inscriptions on early Western Zhou bronzes provided the Zhou elite with a way to demonstrate pp. 241-242. 77   The translation of the inscription after Li Feng 2008, p. 262. For the full translation of the Mai zun, see Li Feng 2008, pp. 261-262. See also Li Feng 2006, p. 114. For the inscription, see Jinwen jicheng, no. 6015. 78   See Li Feng 2006, pp. 114-115; 2008, pp. 260-264. 79   For the appointment system, see Chen Mengjia 1956, pp. 98-114; Li Feng 2008, pp. 201-234. 80   The Da Yu ding, dating to the early Western Zhou period, was discovered at Qishan, Shaanxi in the late Qing dynasty in the 19th century. It is now in the National Museum of China in Beijing. For the inscription, see Jinwen jicheng, no. 2837. For an English translation and discussion, see Dobson 1962, pp. 221-226. For further discussions, see Cook 1997, pp. 273-274; Li Feng 2008, pp. 104-105. 81   For the Shu Yu fangding, see Li Boqian 2001, pp. 39-42. 82   For the Baoyuan gui, see Zhang Guangyu 1991, pp. 649-652.

  The Zuozhuan, the 4th year of Duke Ding 定; translation after Legge 2000b, p. 754. All Chinese translation has been changed to Pinyin). 74   For gift lists including chariots, see table 1. In addition, the Zuozhuan accounts of the appointments of virtous elites to supervise local peoples parallel the description of the first Yan ruler described in the early Western Zhou bronze inscription of the Ke lei. I will further discuss this inscription in the next chapter. For an English translation and commentary, see Li Feng 1997, pp. 4-15. 75   See Chang Kwang-chih 1983, pp. 126-128, Li Feng 2006, p. 127, and Falkenhausen 2006b, p. 348. 76   For the Ke lei, see footnote above. In the inscription, the Zhou king gave lands and regional peoples to the Yan ruler. For the inscription and an explanation on the establishment of theYan state, see Li Feng 2008, 73

72

The Golden Chariot of the Zhou their achievements and gifts they received from the king or superiors. This is particularly important because, as Jessica Rawson says, “political upheavals made new honors and gifts necessary to buy loyalty, and those so honored wished to publicize their rewards.”83 In such a situation, possession and display of ornate chariots seem to have been widely recognised as a significant way to demonstrate the role of elite in the political context of the Zhou state.

to horses from the north reinforces our perception that four-horse chariots were a vehicle type associated with the steppes. From this account we also learn that the Zhou elite maintained and valued this source of horses. The continuously increasing importance of chariots in political relationships is evident from the inscription of the Mu gui. Its long, detailed description of chariot ornaments much exceeds the length of earlier inscriptions, such as the Mai zun. In the 23-character-long gift list of the Mu gui, four characters are for the fine fragrant wine, and the other nineteen are devoted to the golden chariot. Among them, thirteen characters described the fine ornaments prepared for a golden chariot. A similar example is in the inscription of the Wu fangyi吳方彝,89 contemporary with the Mu gui. According to its inscription, Document Maker Wu, Zuoce Wu 作冊吳, received a wine vessel, you, of fragrant wine, some fine clothes, and a four-horse golden chariot from the king. In the inscription, 22 of 101 characters of the whole inscription give a very detailed description of the golden chariot, very similar to that seen in the Mu gui.

The use of chariots in political ceremonies provided a route for the court or the high ranking elite to reinforce their relationships with their subordinates, making the invisible assigned power visible. Chariots as gifts given in regular ritual events provided a medium to establish and sustain relationships between individuals and the political power structure.84 As such, the frequent use of ornate chariots as gifts shows the ways in which the distribution of such chariots was used as a material metaphor for the distribution of king’s authority to his subordinates. This practice enabled the role of chariots to move from their roles as military tools and expensive status items to institutional tools by which hierarchal political relationships with the king or between superiors and their subordinates could be confirmed and maintained.

In addition to providing a link with the king, the inscriptions of the Mu gui and the Wu fangyi also seem to indicate that these ornate chariots were regarded as useful material presentations of the high ranks newly awarded to Mu and Wu. In these very detailed descriptions, the role of chariots as significant instruments of political paraphernalia was further developed into a rhetorical image of the appointed individuals, who were patrons of these inscribed bronzes.

Many later appointment inscriptions indicate that the role of chariots in such gift exchanges continued and was further emphasised in the middle and late Western Zhou periods, in the 9th-8th century BCE (see table 1).85 The long inscription of the Mu 牧 gui86 provides a useful example for understanding the reinforced role of chariots in the middle Western Zhou period. The inscription describes fully an appointment ceremony, in which the Zhou king appointed Mu as the Supervisor of Land, which was one of the most important three officials in the Zhou political administration.87 Following the announcement of Mu’s position is a long description of gifts that he received from the king, it reads: “awarding you one wine vessel, you 卣, of fragrant wine, a bronze-fitted chariot (golden chariot), which has decorated side-rails, patterned axlecoverings, a covering of the front rail and chest-trappings made of scarlet leather, a tiger skin, canopy with a brown lining, a banner (usually standing on the chariot), and four fine [horses] from the north. (賜汝矩鬯一卣，金車： （較） （較）、朱虢 （鞃） （靳）、虎 冟熏裏、旂、余(馬)亖（四）匹。)”88 The reference

Very similar descriptions of ornate chariots to those of the Mu gui and Wu fangyi are seen on many other middle Western Zhou bronzes and are also common on late Western Zhou bronzes. As seen in late Western Zhou appointment inscriptions of various official titles, such as the Third Year Shi Dui gui 三年師兌簋,90 the Shi Ke xu 師克盨,91 the Mao Gong ding 毛公鼎 and the Fortythird year Lai ding 四十三年 鼎,92 chariots are depicted in a very similar way to those of the Mu gui and the Wu fangyi (see table 2). The frequent use of almost identical chariot descriptions indicates that a fixed narrative pattern   The Wu Fangyi, dating to the middle Western Zhou period, is now in the Shanghai Museum. For the inscription, see Jinwen jicheng, no. 9898. For a discussion, see Li Feng 2008, pp. 309-312. 90   The Third Year Shi Dui gui is now in the Shanghai Museum. The inscription records that “the king commands Shi Dui to take full charge of the Masters of Horses of the Left and Right camps.” (Li Feng 2008, p. 340). For the inscription, see Jinwen jicheng, no. 4318. For discussions, see Li Feng 2006, pp. 106-107; 2008, pp. 166-167, 220-221. 91   The Shi Ke xu was found at Fufeng, Shaanxi in the late Qing period in c. 1875-1908. It is now in the Palace Museum in Beijing. The inscription records that the king appoints Ke to a high ranking military position and gives him valuable gifts. For the inscription, see Jinwen jicheng, no. 8.4467. 92   The Forty-third Year Lai ding, dating to the late Western Zhou period, was discovered from a hoard at Meixian 眉縣, Fufeng, Shaanxi in 2003. It is now in the Baoji Municipal Museum. The inscription records that “the king commands Lai to take charge of the people Li.” (Li Feng 2008, p. 322) For initial report of the discovery, see Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Baojishi kaogu gongzuodui, and Meixian wenhuaguan 2003, pp. 4-42. For an English translation and discussion, see Shaughnessy 2008, pp. 17-18. For further discussions, see Li Feng 2008, pp. 125-126, 322. 89

  Rawson 1993, p. 56. The role of chariots as a political symbol is also recorded in many historical texts, such as in the Zuozhuan, which I will discuss later in this chapter. 84   For a theory on gift exchange, see Mauss; Hall (trans.) 2002. 85   For inscriptions, see table 1. 86   The Mu gui, dating to the middle Western Zhou period, is transmitted from earlier periods. It was recorded as early as in the Kaogu tu (1092). For the inscription, see Jinwen jicheng no. 4343. For an English translation and discussion, see Li Feng 2006, pp. 100-101. 87   According to Li Feng, “the Supervisor of Land managed affairs related to the landed properties in the royal domain that provided the main revenue of the Zhou court; he was also probably in charge of the populations attached to the lands under his management.” (Li Feng 2008, p. 54) 88   Jinwen jicheng, no. 4343. Translation after Li Feng 2006, p. 101. 83

73

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity Table 2 Descriptions of chariots shown in bronze inscriptions Bronze Mu Gui 牧簋

Date Middle Zhou

Western

Wu fangyi 吳方彝

Middle

Western

Zhou

Lu Bo Dong gui 彔 Middle Zhou 伯 簋 Third year Shi Dui gui 三年師兌簋

Description on chariots 金車： （較） 馬)亖（四）匹。 金車：

（鞃）朱虢

（鞃）

（靳）、虎冟熏裏、旂、余(

（靳）、虎冟熏裏、

（較）、畫

、金甬、

馬亖（四）匹、鋚勒。 Western

Late Western Zhou

金車：

Late Western Zhou

The 43rd year Lai Late Western Zhou ding 四十三年 鼎 Maogong ding 毛 Late Western Zhou 公鼎

（幬）

（較）、

（鞃）、朱虢

（靳）、虎冟

裏、金

甬、畫、金厄（軛）、畫、馬亖（ 四）匹、鋚勒。 金車： 畫

Shi Ke xu 師克盨

（較）、朱虢

（較）、朱虢

（鞃）

（靳）、虎冟熏裏、右厄（軛）、畫

、

、金甬、馬亖（四）匹、攸（鋚）勒。

駒車：

（較）、朱虢

（鞃）

（靳）、虎冟熏裏、畫

、畫

、金

、畫

、金

甬、朱旂、馬亖（四）匹、攸（鋚）勒。 駒車： （較）、朱虢 （鞃） 甬、馬亖（四）匹、攸（鋚）勒。 金車：

（較）、朱

（靳）、虎冟熏裏、畫

（鞃）

（靳）、虎冟熏裏、右厄（軛）、畫

、畫 、金甬、錯衡、金踵、金豙、約 四）匹、攸（鋚）勒、金

was followed. The Zhou elite must have regarded such formulistic chariot descriptions as an important way to display their chariot awards. Such a literary display is particularly significant when these inscribed bronzes were used in lineage ceremonies, in which these texts were probably read to the family members and to the ancestors again and again in numerous ritual events.

、金

、金簟

、魚

（服）、馬亖（

（膺）、朱旂二鈴。

for the Western Zhou elite, who would in turn place more emphasis on government service as a way to achieve social prestige.”94 It was with this change that the value of ornate chariots was redefined in a new political structure, in which their military functions diminished and their institutional value in a hierarchical government structure was emphasized. As such, the Western Zhou elite had yet further political motives to bury their chariots and fittings in tombs.

In the middle and late Western Zhou periods, a consistent use of ornate chariots as gifts in the appointment ceremonies of high ranking officials, and the adoption of a formulistic gift description in the inscriptions seem to have grown out of the continuing development of the Zhou administration from the middle Western Zhou period onward. As Li Feng points out, “from the early phase of the mid-Western Zhou period on, suddenly a large number of bronzes began to appear as documentation of official appointments, making “appointment” the most dominant theme in the entire corpus of the Western Zhou bronze inscriptions.” “Such appointments had apparently become an institutionalized procedure”, which contributed to the development of Chinese government system.93 With the regular use of ornate chariots as gifts in the frequent appointments of high ranking officials, a strong political correlation between ornate chariots and high ranking officials was reinforced. Therefore, with regularly administrative ceremonies, the use of chariots was incorporated into the political institution. In this way, political significance embodied in the ornate chariots was constantly recreated and reinforced.

The role of chariots in burial settings The importance of chariots to the Zhou elite is not only described in the bronze inscriptions but also presented by the extensive use of actual chariots and fittings in cemeteries across the Zhou sphere (see map 1). As I will show below, the prevalence of chariot burials indicates that they were part of a regular practice essential to the Zhou elite, unknown in other regions. With this regular practice, the social and institutional values of chariots developed in the military and political contexts were reinforced in burial practices, and taken on by the Zhou elite in the afterlife. In this way, the symbolic importance of ornate chariots was confirmed again and again at numerous elite funeral ceremonies. As Ian Hodder says, “Any object used in association with a set of pragmatic activities can come to ‘mean’ those activities and the contexts in which they are carried out.” “The association in practical activity can become codified into abstract conceptions. These structured systems of meaning affect the uses to which objects are put.”95 Therefore, by an examination of regular chariot burial practices, it is possible to reveal not only the role of chariots in burial settings, but also their role in routine funeral ceremonies, through which

Li Feng describes the political changes from early Western Zhou military conquest period to the civil government of the middle Western Zhou period, and suggests that “in a more general sense, the closing of the military honour

  Li Feng 2008, p. 105.   Hodder 1989, p. 259.

94

  Li Feng 2008, p. 104.

93

95

74

The Golden Chariot of the Zhou

Fig. 3.16. Map of the cemetery of Jin ruling family at Beizhao, Shanxi. The 10th -8th century BCE. (After Beijing daxue kaoguxi and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 2001, p. 1)

the social meanings embodied in these activities could be shown in a visible way.

in a regular way. Thus a Shang practice was turned into a Zhou one.

During the Western Zhou period, chariots were principally interred in three ways. In cemeteries, horse-and-chariot pits were frequently placed adjacent to principal tombs. Chariots could also be displayed on the entry ramp of large tombs and on the top of wooden burial chambers. Fittings were also placed in tombs, as already mentioned. I will argue that the three burial practices played different roles in the Zhou burials.

Two well excavated burial grounds provide important examples to illustrate the central position of horse-andchariot pits to the high ranking elite. One is that of the Jin state in the 9th to 8th century BCE at present-day Beizhao, near Houma in Shanxi. The other is that of the Guo state in the eighth to seventh century BCE at presentday Sanmenxia, Henan. At both sites, several generations of members of the ruling families were buried.

(1) Horse-and-chariot pits

The burial ground of the Jin ruling family contained nine generations of rulers, their consorts and relatives.97 Tombs of each generation were neatly arranged in the burial ground. Therefore, groups of tombs of different generations can be easily identified (fig. 3.16). Each group was centered on large tombs of a ruler, and his one or two principal consorts. To the east of each group was a large horse-and-chariot pit. This regular plan, lasting over the time span of the cemetery, indicates that horse-and-chariot pits were regarded as an essential component of a ruler’s

The horse-and-chariot pit was the most prominent type of chariot burials. Such pits were usually created alongside large, rich tombs of high ranking elite. It is likely that the Zhou elite inherited this practice from the Shang elite, as earlier examples are rarely known from centres other than the domain of the Shang state.96 Nonetheless, the Zhou elite further extended this practice by burying increasingly large numbers of horses and chariots in pits and incorporating this practice in their own burial system   In addition to the Shang capital at Anyang, in the late Shang period, horse-and-chariot pits were only known from two Shang subordinate groups at Qianzhangda, Tengzhou in Shandong (Zhongguo shehui keuxeyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 2005, pp. 124-136) and Laoniupo, Xi’an in Shaanxi (Liu Shi’e 2002). 96

  For the reports of the site, see Beijing Daxue kaoguxue xi and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c, 2001; Shanxi sheng kaogu yahjiusuo and Beijing daxue kaogu wenbo xueyuan 2010, pp. 4-22. 97

75

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity burial, and were arranged according to an accepted burial practice.

they were dismantled. And, since chariot boxes usually measured 120 cm by 90 cm, they were too small to carry coffins. In order to understand the role of such dismantled chariots in tomb settings, it would be useful to consider the role of the practice of dismantling chariots as part of the funeral process.

Similar regularity is also seen in the cemetery of the Guo state at Sanmenxia. In the northern area excavated in 1990-1999, in which a late Western Zhou ruling family of the Guo state were buried, four horse-and-chariot pits were discovered alongside the largest four tombs, belonging to a ruler, his wife, a prince, and a high ranking female.98 In the southern area excavated in 1956-1957, three horse-andchariot pits of the early Spring and Autumn period were discovered alongside the three largest tombs belonging to a Guo prince and two high ranking officials.99

Tomb M157 at Zhangjiapo site, dating to the later half of the middle Western Zhou period in the 9th century BCE, can be taken as an example. The tomb, with two entry ramps, is assigned to a head of a powerful lineage living in the western capital at present-day Xi’an, Shaanxi.101 The excavator attributes an adjacent horse-and-chariot pit, which contained two complete chariots, to this tomb. By contrast with this small number of chariots, remains of over fifteen dismantled chariots placed within the tomb are very impressive (fig. 3.17). Thirty wheels, twelve boxes, and many sections of axles, draught-poles, yokes, and yoke-saddles, covered the surfaces of the entry ramps and the top of the wooden burial chamber.102

In the two sites, the sizes of the horse-and-chariot pits were usually much larger than that of the main chamber of the tombs that they accompanied. For example, the largest horse-and-chariot pit at the Beizhao site, which is also the biggest Western Zhou horse-and-chariot pit known to date, measuring 21 m by 15.3 m, was twice as large as its main tomb, M8. A further significant example comes from the southern area of the Guo cemetery. Horse-and-chariot pit, M1051, was more than five times bigger than the prince’s tomb, M1052, to which it was attached. The presence of such large pits is very significant, because to create a pit on such a large scale required more labourers and much more time than to create a large tomb. Thus, the high ranking Zhou elite’s emphasis on their chariots is demonstrated by their great investment in creating large horse-and-chariot pits for their funeral display and the afterlife.

These chariot parts seem to play a different role from other grave goods (for examples, ritual bronzes, ceramics, and jades), which were buried in complete forms and were usually placed in wooden burial chambers. Since the wooden chamber of tomb M157 had been seriously looted before it was excavated, we do not know what was buried in it. However, according to evidence from slightly later tombs of two later heads of the lineage, M152 and M170, at the same site, the wooden chamber of M157 must have contained a number of valuable items, including at least ritual bronzes, jades, and horse and chariot fittings, additionally to the rich chariot parts on the ramps.103 Following Hayashi Minao’s idea that ritual bronzes buried in tombs were prepared for the dead to continue his offerings to ancestors in the afterlife,104 jades, weapons, and standard fittings can also be regarded as other instruments that the tomb occupant would use in the afterlife.

In addition to the labourers, further investment was in the lavish decorations of chariots and horses. The largest pit in the cemetery of the Jin ruling family, which contained 107 horses and 48 chariots, provides prominent examples.100 All of the chariots were carefully made and finely decorated, with bronze fittings and lacquer. The costly chariot decorations suggest that great attentions were paid on the manufacture of these buried chariots. It is also possible that all of such fine chariots had actually been used in life, and were to be continuously used or held to demonstrate their owners’ social status in the afterlife.

On the other hand, the appearance of dismantled chariots deployed outside of the wooden chamber indicates that displaying and dismantling chariots were prominent performances during the funeral ceremony. As we can image, after the dead and other burial goods were sealed in the wooden burial chamber, a long process was devoted to dismantling and placing these chariots, which probably had been displayed alongside of the tomb. The chariot parts were not simply thrown into the tomb. Rather, certain rules were followed. As seen in tombs M152, M157, M179 and M196, wheels were placed along the walls and on the top of other chariot parts (figs. 3.17, 18). At the end of the performance, as we can see in tomb M157, these

(2) Chariots in tombs A great number of chariots, most of which were dismantled, were buried in elite tombs. It is very difficult to give a convincing explanation for the function of dismantled chariots. It would be easy to explain those dismantled chariots as valuable belongings of the dead to be used in the afterlife. Or, these chariots may have been used in part of the funeral ceremony. However, such explanations are not satisfactory, because chariots could not be used if   For the reports of the northern area, see Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Sanmenxia shi wenwu gongzuodui 1999; Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Sanmenxia shi wenwu gongzuodui 2000, pp. 23-34. 99   For the report of the southern area, see Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1959, pp. 28-31, 37, 42-47. 100   For the material, see Shanxi sheng kaogu yahjiusuo and Beijing daxue kaogu wenbo xueyuan 2010, pp. 4-22. 98

  For a study on the lineage based on bronze inscriptions, see Zhang Changshou 1990, pp. 32-35. 102   For the report of tomb M157, see Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1999, pp. 16-22. 103   For the report of tombs M152 and M170, see Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1999, pp. 22-35. 104   Hayashi 1993, pp. 51-58. 101

76

The Golden Chariot of the Zhou

Fig. 3.17. Tomb M157 at Zhangjiapo cemetery. The middle Western Zhou period, the 9th century BCE. (After Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1999, figs.13, 14, pl. 5) 1. Plan of tomb M157; 2. Plan of the top of the wooden chamber; 3. Scene of the sloping-passageways

(3) Fittings in tombs

practices created a very impressive scene before the tomb was sealed with earth (fig. 3.17.3).

While the use of actual chariots in tombs presented their owners’ high social status as discussed above, the common presence of sets of horse-and-chariot fittings without wooden chariot parts in tombs of both high-ranking and common elite suggests that the horse-and-chariot fittings were a common category of prized burial goods among the Zhou elite. A large cemetery at the eastern capital at present-day Beiyao 北窯, Luoyang provides a good example to illustrate the prevalence of horse-and-chariot fittings placed within elite tombs of different ranks. 105 In the cemetery, 118 of the 207 datable tombs in various sizes, that is about sixty percent, contained standard horseand-chariot fittings. If we only consider bronze-yielding

Therefore, in the tomb settings as observed from the Zhangjiapo site, the dismantled chariots had a role different from the fittings and other burial goods in the wooden burial chambers. It is still hard to suggest why chariots were dismantled. However, with the practice of dismantling and placing chariot parts in tombs, certain symbolic meanings of Zhou political, ritual, or religious system embodied in such practices would have been presented and received by funeral audiences. As such, we at least can confirm that, in the Western Zhou period, chariots were significantly involved in ritual, and a series of practices were developed for using chariots as performance tools in funerals and also probably in other kinds of ceremonies.

  For the report, see Luoyang shi wenwu gongzuodui 1999a.

105

77

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 3.18. Plans of tombs at Zhangjiapo cemetery. The late Western Zhou period, c. 9th century BCE. (After Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1999, figs. 17, 31, 32) 1. Tomb M165; 2. Tomb M196; 3. Tomb M152

tombs, over eighty percent of them yielded fittings.106 Such a high frequency suggests that the burial of standard horseand-chariot fittings was a regular practice of the Zhou elite and a necessary aspect of their status. Therefore, as I will further illustrate below, with the wide adoption of this

practice and the use of standard fittings across the Zhou sphere, a collective Zhou identity was fastened. A regular set of fittings for an early Western Zhou chariot usually included two axle-caps with linch-pins, two or four luan jingles, and two or four sets of horse harness fittings, including horned horse frontlets, cheek-pieces, and pao ornaments, as seen in the Luoyang horse-and-chariot pit

  See Wu Hsiao-yun 2009, pp. 111-125.

106

78

The Golden Chariot of the Zhou

Fig. 3.19. Horse-and-chariot fittings from tomb M2001 at Sanmenxia, Henan.The 8th century BCE. 1. Yoke-saddle ornaments; 2. Strip distributor; 3. Strip ornament; 4-6. Cheek-pieces; 7. Luan jingle (After Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo and Sanmenxiashi wenwu gongzuodui 1999, figs. 87. 1; 88. 2; 90. 2, 4, 5; 94 .1; 97. 1)

and the Baicaopo tomb discussed above (figs. 3.9, 15). Such a set has been discovered in an impressive number of tombs in the metropolitans at present-day Xi’an, Shaanxi and Luoyang, Henan, and in numerous tombs of regional states, such as the Jin,107 the Yan,108 and the Yu109 in periphery and the Wey110 in a more central area of the Zhou. The sets of fittings buried in tombs were much less impressive than the deposition of whole chariots with their horses. They were also much less costly. However, the motive for using such fitting sets may have been rather different from that for creating expensive chariot pits.

large area of the Zhou sphere seems to indicate that the appearances of those fittings were regulated by a central power. And, if many chariots were royal gifts, it is likely that these fittings were designed and manufactured at the royal capital. On the other hand, if local elites themselves constantly copied, used, and buried standard fittings, these practices demonstrate that the prestige in their ownership and associated practices were widely accepted across the Zhou sphere. Standard fittings widely distributed on a large scale efficiently marked the Zhou control of a large region. With such standard fittings, a Zhou identity was presented. A good example of the use of standard fittings to reinforce a Zhou identity is illustrated by several standard Zhou fittings found along with an impressive number of typical Shang ritual bronzes in an early Western Zhou tomb of a Shang-clan high ranking elite found at Taiqinggong 太 清宮, Luyi 鹿邑, Henan.111 In the tomb, the deployment of the large set of typical Shang ritual bronzes represents occupant’s Shang background.112 But the presence of the standard Zhou fittings, particularly horned horse frontlets,113 indicates that he had used the standardised

The regular use of these particular, very similar fittings suggests that they were manufactured and used under certain rules. We do not know if these identical fittings were produced locally or in a small number of royal controlled workshops. However, the similarity of the appearances of certain fittings from sites across the   Typical early Western Zhou fittings were discovered from several tombs at a cemetery of the Jin state at present day Tianma-Qucun, near Houma, Shanxi. For the report, see Beijing daxue kaoguxi Shang Zhou zu and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 2000. 108   The cemetery of the Yan state, dating from the early to early middle Western Zhou period, has been discovered at Liulihe, Fangshan, Beijing. Among the 34 tombs of varied sizes published in a one volume report, eight large and middle bronze-yielding tombs yielded typical Zhou horse and chariot fittings. Fittings were also discovered in four horse-andchariot pits in the site. For the materials, see Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo 1995, pp. 214-225. 109   Seventeen of the twenty-seven tombs at the cemeteries of the Yu state contained horse-and-chariot fittings. For the materials, see Lu Liancheng and Hu Zhisheng 1988, pp. 463-467. 110   The cemetery of the Wey state, dating from the early Western Zhou to the early Spring and Autumn period, was discovered at Xincun, Xunxian, Henan in 1930’s. The site had been seriously looted before the excavation. Standard early Western Zhou luan jingle, horned horse frontlets and axlecaps were discovered from tombs M1, 29, 60, 67. See Guo Baojun 1964, pls. 7. 1, 2; 8. 1, 4, 7; 37. 1. 107

  The Shang feature of the tomb is shown by a number of human sacrifices and typical Shang ritual bronzes, particularly a set of squaresection vessels, which has been suggested more impressive than round ones. The typical Shang finds lead scholars to suggest that the tomb occupant was a high ranking Shang elite and surrendered to the Zhou state to retain his privileged status in the Western Zhou period. For the report of the tomb, see Henan shang wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Zhoukou shi wenhuaju 2000. For a discussion on the deceased, see Wang Entian 2000, pp. 41-45. 112   For a discussion on the occupant, see Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Zhoukou shi wenhuaju 2000, pp. 199-214. 113   The horns of the frontlet are missing. But the remain part of it clearly shows that it is a frontlet. 111

79

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 3.20. Ritual bronzes from tomb M2001 at Sanmenxia, Henan (after Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo and Sanmenxiashi wenwu gongzuodui 1999, figs. 28. 1, 29. 1, 33. 1, 52. 1)

Zhou fittings and adopted the institutionalised chariot system of the Zhou state.

家廟, Zaoyang 棗陽 in Hubei.119 By contrast with early Western Zhou fittings, which rarely shared patterns with contemporary ritual bronzes, the consistent ornaments of late Western Zhou fittings and ritual bronzes suggest that ornate chariots were identified with the ritual and status parallels of the Zhou kings and their dependents.

The practice of using standard fittings to present a Zhou political identity seems to have continued down to the end of the Western Zhou period. A large group of horse-andchariot fittings from the tomb of a ruler of the Guo state, tomb M2001, at present-day Sanmenxia 三門峽, Henan, dating to the transition from the Western to the Eastern Zhou period (the 8th century BCE), can be taken as typical of the late Western Zhou period.114 The fittings principally included luan jingles, sets of yoke-saddle ornaments, cheek-pieces, and harness ornaments. Apart from the luan jingles, which retained in their early Western Zhou steppe form with some changes on the openwork rim (fig. 3.19.7), the other fitting types were decorated with animal faces and bold patterns current on contemporary ritual bronzes (figs. 3.19. 1-6; 3.20).

The continued use of uniform fittings throughout the Western Zhou period suggests that the standardised appearance of ornate chariots, most likely regulated by the central authority as suggested above, was generally accepted and valued by the Zhou elite. Therefore, the burial of sets of standard fittings along with other ritual objects in tombs as a common burial practice of the Zhou elite suggests that the elite also shared a value of symbolic reference to the ornate chariots as an essential aspect of their tombs. 4. Chariots in the Eastern Zhou period

Sets of standard fittings very similar to those in tomb M2001 were also frequent in other contemporary large tombs, particularly those at Zhangjiapo, near Xi’an115 and Liangdaicun 梁帶村, Hancheng 韓城116 in Shaanxi, at Pingdingshan 平頂山117 and Xincun 辛村, Xunxian 濬縣118 in Henan, and at as far south as Guojiamiao 郭

The power of the Zhou Royal House waned after their flight from the western capital Feng Hao in the Wei River valley to the eastern capital Cheng Zhou at present-day Luoyang, Henan in 771 BCE. Even so, excavations suggest that the chariot burial practices of the Western Zhou period continued during the Eastern Zhou period (771-221 BCE). As shown in maps 2 and 3, chariot burials remained frequent in the expanding Eastern Zhou sphere. Following the Western Zhou practices, chariots were generally used as a common category of burial goods. Horse-and-chariot pits were created for the high ranking elite. Burials of chariot fittings in tombs continued to be a popular burial practice as well. Such practices were deployed by the elite of traditional Zhou states, such as

  For the report of the tomb, see Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo and Sanmenxia shi wenwu gongzuodui 1999, pp. 15-234. This tomb was accompanied by a horse-and-chariot pit containing 13 chariots and 64 horses. 115   For similar yoke-saddle ornaments from the Zhangjiapo site, see Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1999, figs. 156, 157. 116   An impressive number of standard luan jingles and harness ornaments were unearthed from tombs M26, M27, and M28. Tomb M27 contained over 500 fittings, and M28 yielded over four hundreds. See Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Weinan shi wenwu baohu kaogu yanjiusuo, and Hancheng shi wenwu lvyouju 2007, pp. 11-14, fig. 18. 1-3, 6-12; 2008, fig. 32. 2, 4, 5, 6; Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiuyuan 2009, pp. 9-11. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Weinan shi wenwu baohu kaogu yanjiusuo, and Hancheng shi jingqu guanli weiyuanhui 2010. 117   A very similar assemblage of fittings was found at tomb M1 at Pingdingshan site in Henan. See Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo and Pingdingshan shi wenguanhui 1988, pp. 33-36. 118   Similar yoke-saddle ornaments and many other fittings with ornaments similar to those of Sanmenxia fittings were unearthed from a slightly later chariot pit M3 at Xincun, Xunxian, Henan. See Guo Baojun 1964, pls. 82-87. 114

  Over six hundred standard late Western Zhou fittings were discovered in tomb M21. For the materials, see Xiangfan shi kaogudui, Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, and Hubei Xiao Xiang gaosu gonglu kaogudui 2005, pp. 31-47. 119

80

The Golden Chariot of the Zhou

Fig. 3.21. Luan jingles of the Warring States period, the 5th-3rd century BCE. 1. Example from Huixian, Henan (after Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1956, fig. 59.3) 2. Example from Yanxiadu, Hebei (after Hebei sheng wenwu yanjiusuo 1996, fig. 378.6) 3. Example from Xiangyang, Hubei (after Xiangfan shi bowuguan 1991, fig. 12.6) 4. Example from Zihedian, Linzi, Shandong (after Shandong sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 2007, fig. 306) 5. Reconstruction of luan jingles on a yoke found at Lingshou, Hebei (after Hebei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 2005, fig. 150)

the Qi,120 the Jin,121 and the Guo122 states, and also used by those of newly established states, such as the Qin123 in the west and the Chu124 in the south.

The finds from the tomb of the Marquis Yi of the Zeng state (died in c. 433 BCE), illustrate the ways in which chariots were a tool to be used in furnals to present social relationships. The prominent role of chariots among the burial goods is shown by the 1124 horse-and-chariot fittings deployed in the burial chamber.125 Furthermore, as recorded in Marquis Yi’s funeral inventory discovered from the tomb, his high ranking colleagues and friends sent their chariots to enrich the display in his funeral ceremony. In this practice, chariots were largely used as agents to manifest social relationships among the high ranking elite.126

  Two large horse-and-chariot pits of Qi rulers, dating to the Spring and Autumn period, have been found at Houli 後李, Linzi 臨淄, Shandong. In the large pit, ten chariots and thirty-two horses were found. For the materials, see Wang Shougong, Wang Yongpo, and Li Zhenguang 1993, pp. 5-6. 121   A number of horse-and-chariot pits of the Jin state of the Spring and Autumn period have been found at several sites in Shanxi. For examples, three horse-and-chariot pits were discovered at Shangma 上馬 at Houma 侯馬 (Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1994), and eight horse-and-chariot pits were found at Chengcun 程村 at Linyi 臨猗 (Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo et al. 2003, pp. 158-198). 122   Over fifty wooden chariots have been discovered from seven horseand-chariot pits, dating to the transition of the late Western Zhou to the early Spring and Autumn period, at Sanmenxia site. For the report of these chariots, see Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1959, pp. 42-47; Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo and Sanmenxia shi wenwu gongzuodui 1999, pp. 212-219, 296-308, 378. 123   A Qin horse-and-chariot pit, dating to the early Spring and Autumn period, at a cemetery of the ruling family at Yuandingshan 圓頂山, Lixian 禮縣, Gansu was excavated. In the pit, five chariots and sixteen horses were found. For the report, see Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Lixian bowuguan 2002, pp. 19-28. 124   Five Chu horse-and-chariot pits of the Spring and Autumn period have been excavated at Xiasi, Xichuan, Henan. For the materials, see Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo, Henan sheng Danjiang kuqu kaogu fajuedui, and Xichuan xian bowuguan 1991, pp. 24-26, 47-49, 208-210, 292, 307. 120

In the Shi jing, or the Book of Poetry, intricate chariot ornaments and banners, similar to those described in the inscription of the Mao Gong ding, shown at the beginning of this chapter, are frequently described as the most prominent features of chariots. As the poem “Caiji 采芑” reads: “They were gathering the white millet, in those   For the material, see Hubei sheng bowuguan 1989, p. 306. I will further discuss finds from this tomb in the next chapter. 126   For the funeral inventory and explanation, see Hubei sheng bowuguan 1989, pp. 487-531. According to the inventory exchanges of chariots as gifts were made between Marquis Yi and the Chu king, a Chu prince, local rulers, and other high ranking officials in the Chu court. 125

81

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity 5. The adoption of Zhou fittings by northern steppe groups

new fields, and all about these villages, when Fangshu 方叔 came to take the command. His chariots were three thousand; his banners, with their blazonry of dragons, and of serpents and tortoises, fluttered gaily. Fangshu led them on, the naves of his wheels bound with leather, and his yoke ornaments. Tinkle-tinkle went the eight luan jingles. He wore the robes conferred [by the king]; His red kneecovers were resplendent, and the gems of his girdle-jadependant were sounding. (薄言采芑，於彼新田，於 此中鄉。方叔贋止，其車三千，旂旐央央。方叔率 止，約軧錯衡，八鸞瑲瑲。服其命服，朱芾斯皇， 有瑲蔥珩。)”127 This poem shows the ways in which the description of fine fittings was regarded as a direct way to present the appearance of elite chariots and as a good way to show the status of the elite.

The remarkable feat of the Zhou was to take the primary vehicle of the steppe, the chariot, especially the fourhorse chariot, and transform it into a part of the political framework in a settled society. With the Zhou elite and their steppe four-horse chariot, the concepts of the Yellow River settled people on mobility, warfare, prestige, and rulership were changed. As such, the influence of the fourhorse chariot on the Yellow River settled people parallels that of the introductions of the two-horse chariots in the late Shang period in c. 1200 BCE and the cavalry in the Warring States period in c. 307 BCE. The established Zhou use and burial practice of chariots, as have been discussed above, seem to have been adapted by steppe groups in the Eastern Zhou period. Typical Zhou axle-capes were found in tombs at sites in border areas in Hebei,134 Ningxia,135 and Inner Mongolia.136 The presence of these fittings seems to suggest that there was a tendency to adopt Zhou items and practices among northern nomadic groups. Cemeteries of non-Zhou groups in these areas featured their steppe burial practices, such as rich domestic-animal burials, and impressive numbers of steppe swords, knives, ornaments, and horse cheek-pieces. But almost all of the axle-caps from these sites are in Zhou forms, and some of them were embellished with Zhou patterns (fig. 3.22). The presence of Zhou-style axle-caps in the northern area was probably a result of local groups’ adoption of Zhou ritual and prestige ideas, as suggested by finds from a cemetery of local nomads at Ganzibao 甘子堡, Huailai 懷來, Beijing, dating to the Spring and Autumn period. In this cemetery, Zhou-style ritual bronzes and a small number of Zhou axle-caps and cheek-pieces were found along with an impressive number of domestic animal remains,137 steppe swords and ornaments (fig. 3.23).138

While standard fittings of the Western Zhou period almost disappeared in the burials of the middle and late Spring and Autumn period (the 6th – 5th century BCE), imitations of Western Zhou luan jingles occasionally appeared in burials of the Warring States period (481221 BCE). Such imitations, though small in number, are found across a wide area. Among these are examples from a horse-and-chariot pit of the Zheng state in Henan,128 horse-and-chariot pits of the Yan state at Beijing129 and the Zhongshan 中山 state in Hebei130 to the north, a site of the Qi 齊 state at Linzi, Shandong131 to the east, and from a site of the Chu state at Xiangyang 襄陽, Hubei132 to the south. Shapes of these later luan jingles vary (fig. 3.21), but most of them resemble their much earlier Western Zhou models (figs. 3.1.2; 3.19.7). The presence of these later examples indicates that the elite of the Warring States period revived what they thought to be typical of Western Zhou chariots. With such archaic fittings, chariots seem to have been treated as a means to demonstrate what these later Eastern Zhou groups thought were Western Zhou values. However, the ways in which these later copies were installed on chariots were quite different from the arrangement of Western Zhou luan jingles. While only up to four jingles were used on a Western Zhou chariot, according to the number of horses, a Warring States chariot in a horse-andchariot pit of the Zhongshan state had seven luan jingles. They were no longer installed on the tops of yoke-saddles, but placed on the yoke bar (fig. 3.21.2).133 This change of position suggests that the Western Zhou practice of using luan jingles had been lost by the Warring States period. And, such a new practice also suggests a redefinition of the value of the Western Zhou luan jingle as well as of the Western Zhou chariot.

The finds from the northern periphery of the Eastern Zhou sphere reveal an interesting circle of value exchanges. In the early Western Zhou period, steppe forms and ornaments were borrowed by the Western Zhou ruling group to create new items, and, then, these items became   Axle-caps and linch-pins were unearthed from tombs attributed to the elite of regional group Shan Rong 山戎 at Ganzibao 甘子堡 and Jundushan 軍都山 in Beijing, and Beixinbao 北辛堡 in northern Hebei. For the finds from Jundushan, see Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo Shan Rong wenhua kaogudui 1989, fig. 25.2. For the fittings from Ganzibao, see He Yong and Liu Jianzhong 1993, fig. 14. 10. For the fittings from Beixinbao, see Hebei sheng wenhuaju wenwu gongzuodui 1977, fig. 8. 135   Axle-caps were discovered from Yanglang 楊郎, Ningxia. See Ningxia wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Ningxia Guyuan bowuguan 1993, fig. 22. 14, 18. 136   An axle-cap in Zhou form was found in a Xiongnu tomb, dating to the late Warring States to early Han period, at Zhunge’er 准格爾 in Inner Mongolia (Neimenggu bowuguan and Neimenggu wenwu gongzuodui 1977, fig. 2. 10). Another axle-cap in Zhou form was found in another Xiongnu tomb at Shenmu 神木, Shaanxi (Dai Yingxing and Sun Jiaxiang 1983, fig. 14). 137   Principal animal remains include horses, dogs, sheep, and ox. See He Yong and Liu Jianzhong 1993, p. 23. 138   For the report, see He Yong and Liu Jianzhong 1993, pp. 23-40. 134

  Translation after Legge 2000a, p. 286, with modification.   See Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1956, pp. 46-56. A reconstruction of the installation of the luan jingles is provided in the report. 129   Hebei sheng wenwu yanjiusuo 1996, pp. 650-654, 664-679. 130   For the report, see Hebei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 2005, pp. 189-190. 131   Shandong sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 2007, pp. 401-402. 132   Xiangfan shi bowuguan 1991, p. 791. 133   For the report, see Hebei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 2005, pp. 189-190. 127 128

82

The Golden Chariot of the Zhou

Fig. 3.22. Axle-caps with linch-pins from tombs of non-Zhou steppe groups. The 5th -3rd century BCE. 1. Yanglang, Ningxia (Ningxia wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Ningxia Guyuan bowuguan 1993, fig. 22.18); 2. Jundushan, Yanqing, Beijing. (Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo Shan Rong wenhua kaogudui 1989, fig. 25.2)

Fig. 3.23. Bronzes from the cemetery of regional nomads at Ganzibao, Huailai, Beijing. The 6th-5th century BCE. (After He Yong and Liu Jianzhong 1993, figs. 2, 7, 5-10, 9.2-4, 9.6-8, 10.2, 10.5, 10.8-10) 1. Ritual bronzes in Zhou style 2. Objects with steppe features 3. Steppe horse bit and cheek-pieces 4. Zhou cheek-piece and axle-cap with linch-pin

83

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity one aspect of the institution of Zhou authority in later periods, long after ornate chariots were fully incorporated into the Zhou society, the practices and social functions of chariots that the Zhou society had developed were adopted by peripheral steppe groups.

84

Chapter Four Chariots, Steppe Elements, and the Zhou Elite’s Local Networks 1. Introduction

poles, at front of chariots. Examples have been discovered from two of the earliest horse-and-chariot pits, M20 and M1136-1137 at Anyang, Henan, dating to c. 1200 BCE (fig. 4.3.1).4 Fittings with the same function, though in a different design, were popular among the Zhou elite. In addition to the example from Rujiazhuang, this type of chariot ornaments was also discovered from other Western Zhou sites, such as Beiyao, Luoyang in Henan,5 and Zhangjiapo, Xi’an in Shaanxi (fig. 4.3.2).6 The popularity of such items in the Western Zhou period indicates that the Zhou elite probably inherited this from the Shang.

A steppe human figure on a middle Western Zhou chariot fitting from a cemetery of a local polity, the Yu, at presentday Rujiazhuang 茹家莊, Baoji, Shaanxi presents an unusual link between peoples of the steppes and the Zhou state.1 The steppe feature of the figure is shown clearly by his spreading hair style, squat pose, and northernstyle clothing, including trousers, soft boots, a wide belt, and two realistic deer designs on his back (fig. 4.1).2 His appearance is radically different from that of the Zhou people, who combed their hair, sat on their heels, and wore long robes, as seen on a human representation on an early Western Zhou linch-pin from Beiyao 北窯, Luoyang, Henan (fig. 4.2).3

While most Western Zhou draught-pole-top ornaments are in the form of double-monster-faces, the Rujiazhuang example suggests that the elite of the Yu state retained the typical Zhou monster face design in the front side, but redesigned the back side, probably in terms of their local priorities. The mounting figure, holding the head of the monster, provides an unusual emphasis on his ability to control or to ride this creature, which perhaps also implied control over the chariot. No similar figure is known from other sites. Therefore, this design most likely indicates

The Yu state fitting is found on the top of a chariot’s draught-pole. The front part of the fitting is in the shape of a big monster head, and the steppe figure mounts on its back. As early as in the late Shang period, representations of monster heads were ornamenting the tops of draught  Three similar ornaments were discovered in two horse-and-chariot pits at the Rujiazhuang site. For the report, see Lu Liancheng and Hu Zhisheng 1988, p. 401, fig. 272. 2   These two deer patterns were probably designs on his cloth or tattoo on his back. 3   See Luoyang shi wenwu gongzuodui 1999a, colour pl. 9.1. 1

  For the materials, see Shih Chang-ju 1970, pp. 57-59.   For the report, see Luoyang shi wenwu gongzuodui 1999a, pp. 130, 132, 286-287. 6   For the report, see Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1999, pp. 195-197. 4 5

Fig. 4.1. Chariot fitting from the horse-and-chariot pit no. 1 at Rujiazhuang, Baoji, Shaanxi. The early to middle Western Zhou period, the 10th century BCE. (After Lu Liancheng and Hu Zhisheng 1988, p. 403, fig. 272.1)

85

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity the human figure with the steppe hair style and clothing not only suggests a close relationship between the local elite and steppe people, but also implies that there were foreigners engaged in the local uses of chariots.8 This chapter will therefore consider the ways in which the Zhou local elite deployed chariots to present their local interests within the Zhou social and political frameworks. At the same time, I shall consider the contribution of the steppe culture. Erving Goffman’s theory of framing with respect to interactions between individuals and institutions provides the present study with a way of observing practices of individuals in their institutional social life. Richard Jenkins offers a very explicit summary on this theory which is quoted here in some length: “From the individual point of view, and in the institutional constitution of the human world, specific settings are ‘frames’—each with characteristic meanings and rules—within which interaction is organized. Individuals experience life as a series of different sets or stages, organised formally or informally. While each individual may have different understandings of these settings, and of what’s happening within them, the shared frame creates enough consistency and mutuality for interaction to proceed.”9 The idea of framing provides us with an understanding that social institutions, such as rules and conventions, are flexible and manipulable rather than rigid and unbreakable. This is the same as the relationship between individuals and social and political frameworks in which they live. This idea is helpful to explore the ways in which the local elite considered standard Zhou conventions as manipulable sources, rather than as rigid laws, to reinforce their local claims of identities and privileges within a broader Zhou background. Lothar von Falkenhausen provides a similar understanding on the ritual of the Zhou period. As he argues, “we should think of ancient Chinese ritual as a set of tools for regularizing the infinite variety of daily social reality; how these were applied quite probably depended in large measure on ad hoc decisions and very crucially on individual social skill. Power lay not only in the possession of ritual privilege, but perhaps even more in the ability to manipulate the rules and accommodate them to an actual situation.”10

Fig. 4.2. Linch-pin from tomb M451 at Beiyao, Luoyang, Henan. The early Western Zhou period, the 10th century BCE. (After Luoyang shi wenwu gongzuodui 1999a, pl. 32)

local people’s interest in the steppe superiority in chariot driving. Steppe chariot specialists probably were hired by the Yu ruling family. Indeed, the case from the Yu state illustrates a local culture rather different from that seen at the political centre, discussed in the previous chapter. The Rujiazhuang pole fitting draws attention to two issues. First, when local elites, such as those in the Yu state, adopted Zhou ritual vessels, chariots and bronze fittings, they seem to have done so to demonstrate their acceptance of the Zhou political dominance. At the same time, these local elites presented their individual or local priorities in their ritual vessels, burial practices and chariots as well.7 Secondly,

With the support from Erving Goffman and Lothar von Falkenhausen’s theories with respect to the interaction between individuals and institutions, I will argue that the display of chariots in burials was a significant arena for the local elite to negotiate within their local situations. The Liancheng and Hu Zhisheng 1988. See also Rawson 1999a, pp. 419-423. 8   Many scholars try to provide explanations for the non-Zhou figure on the Rujiazhuang chariot ornament. The excavators (Lu Liancheng and Hu Zhisheng 1988, p. 448) and Emma Bunker (So and Bunker 1996, p. 27) suggest that he was a chariot driver, a slave. Others either suggest that he was a shaman or a representative of Zhou’s enemy from the Qiang group. (See Gao Xixing 2001, pp. 8-9). Rawson (2010, p. 24) suggests that he probably was a foreign expert on chariots and horses. 9   Jenkins 2008, pp. 91-92. 10   Falkenhausen 2006a, p. 126.

  The largest tomb, M1, at the Rujiazhuang site, dating to the middle Western Zhou period, can be taken as an example. A Yu ruler and his consort were buried in this tomb. The tomb occupants’ acceptance of the Zhou political dominance is shown by the presence of the large number of typical Zhou ritual vessels. By contrast, their individual or local priorities are showed by the unusual two-chamber tomb structure, rare animal-shaped bronze vessels, and local ceramics. For the report, see Lu 7

86

Chariots, Steppe Elements, and the Zhou Elite’s Local Networks s

Fig. 4.3. Animal-head draught pole top ornaments 1. Example from the horse-and-chariot pit M20 at Xiaotun, Anyang. The late Shang period, c. 1200 BCE. (After Shih Chang-ju 1970, pl. 52) 2. Example from tomb M170 at Zhangjiapo, Chang’an, Shaanxi. The Late Western Zhou period, the 9th century BCE. (After Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1999, p. 197, fig. 149)

forms of chariot displays could be varied as the situation demanded. And, with superior horse or chariot skills, steppe people from northern frontiers were frequently involved in and played roles in the development of local chariot uses. It seems likely that the inevitable direct contacts between steppe foreigners and Zhou local elites led the latter to modify conventional Zhou frames, as we shall see in an examination of atypical objects and varied practices of the Zhou elite of different periods and environments.

the Zhou social framework, their local issues, and steppe people. 2. Negotiation with steppe groups: cases from the Yan state and its periphery The horse-and-chariot Fangshan, Beijing

pit

M202CH

at

Liulihe,

The contents of a large early Western Zhou horse-andchariot pit, M202CH, in the burial ground of the Yan state at the Liulihe site, dating to the 10th century BCE, illustrate direct connections between steppe people and

This chapter will examine three particular cases, two from the north and one from the south, to illustrate three different choices by local elites in their relationships with 87

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Looted area

Fig. 4.4. Horse-and-chariot pit M202CH at Liulihe, Beijing. The early Western Zhou period, the 10th century BCE. (After Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo 1995, p. 21, fig. 14)

88

Chariots, Steppe Elements, and the Zhou Elite’s Local Networks s Western Zhou period known to date. It measures 9.6 x 7.4 m and contains 42 horses and the remains of at least seven dismantled chariots (fig. 4.4).16 The impressive number of horses is particularly unusual among early Western Zhou sites. The great number of horses in the pit exceeding the count required for the buried chariots indicates the ability of the Yan ruler to obtain horses, most probably from Yan’s northern steppe neighbours. Secondly, many fittings from the horse-and-chariot pit reveal strong steppe characteristics rather than Zhou ones. The most prominent examples are two pairs of yoke ornaments in the shape of heads of horses and birds of prey (fig. 4.5.3, 4). As Sun Yan points out, these animal motifs are typical of frontier bronzes rather than Zhou objects.17 In addition, as Jessica Rawson shows, arrow-like ornaments, decorating the rim of a chariot box, are related to ornament current in the Northern Zone.18 Remains of a yoke from tomb M253 provide a further example to illustrate the ways in which yoke-end ornaments with animal-head representations were installed along with other standard Zhou fittings on a chariot. The yoke was found on the northern wall of the tomb and was identifiable by bronze fittings attached to it (fig. 4.6). Principally, these fittings included four sets of typical Western Zhou yokesaddle covers embellished with standard luan jingles on their tops. These four sets of yoke-saddle ornaments in an identical form indicate that the yoke was prepared for a four-horse chariot. On the two ends of the yoke bar were ornaments with accurate representations of horse heads (fig. 4.5.1, 2) that replaced spear-head or triangle yokeend ornaments typical of the Zhou tradition.19 Such an arrangement provided a special visual display, in which steppe-type ornaments were joined with Zhou ones. This display indicates that the elite of the Yan state probably regarded such an arrangement as appropriate for their chariots in terms of their local practices.

Fig. 4.5. Yoke-ornaments from Liulihe, Beijing. The early Western Zhou period, the 10th century BCE. (After Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo 1995, p. 219, fig. 132)

the local elite of the Yan state. The site was located in the northern frontier of the Western Zhou realm on the eastern side of the Taihang Mountains. Several typical Northern Zone bronzes and remains contemporary with the late Shang and early Western Zhou periods have been found in several sites further north in northern Hebei and on the western side of the Taihang Mountains in Shanxi.11 As Sun Yan has pointed out, the Yan state “was strategically located in an area that functioned as a buffer between the Central Plain and the Northern Zone.”12

The examination on the horse-and-chariot pit M202CH and the yoke from tomb M253 illustrates the ways in which steppe-type ornaments were applied to the Zhou chariot in the Yan state. The fittings with representations of animal heads and the very large number of horses buried with chariots indicate that steppe culture had been exploited by the Yan elite. Since the principal function of chariots was for battle, as shown in the previous chapter, the engagement of the steppe features in the use of chariots in the Yan state suggests a close engagement of the local rulers with their neighbours. It is likely that the Yan elite included local steppe people in their effort to subdue the eastern part of the northern frontiers of the Zhou kingdom.

The horse-and-chariot pit was associated with one of the largest tombs, M202, at the site. Because the tomb had two entry ramps, the excavators have suggested that the tomb occupant was a ruler of the Yan state.13 This horse-andchariot pit stands out above its peers14 in two aspects.15 First of all, it is the richest horse-and-chariot pit of the early   For a discussion on the Yan state and its relation to the northern groups, see Li Feng 2006, pp. 335-342. For a discussion on the finds from two sides of the Taihang Mountains, see Lin Yun 1986, pp. 237-274; So and Bunker 1996, pp. 34-39. 12   Sun Yan 2006, p. 216. 13   Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo 1995, p. 251. 14   Other contemporary horse-and-chariot pits were much smaller in their sizes and numbers of horses and chariots. For example, the richest early Western Zhou horse-and-chariot pits from other areas is the one with four chariots and twelve horses, measured 13.1x3.5 m, at Tongwangchang, Xi’an, Shaanxi which will be discussed below. For the report of the Tongwangchang pit, see Wang Changqi 2002, pp. 4-5. 15   For the report of the pit M202 CH, see Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo 1995, pp. 19-23. 11

  The pit at least contains 14 wheels, three boxes, six chariot-umbrellas, and several draught poles and yokes. As the pit had been looted before the excavation, there may have been more horses and chariots buried in it. 17   See Sun Yan 2006, pp. 229-230. 18   See Rawson 2008, p. 110. 19   For the report of the tomb, see Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo 1995, pp. 36-38. For the yoke ornaments, see Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo 1995, fig. 132. 1. 16

89

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 4.6. Remains of a yoke-bar from tomb M253 at Liulihe, Beijing. The early Western Zhou period, the 10th century BCE. (After Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo 1995, p. 38, fig. 26. 3)

Fig. 4.7. Steppe military items from tomb M3 at Baifu, Changping, Bejing. The early Western Zhou period, the 10th century BCE. (After Beijing shi wenwu guanlichu 1976, pp. 252-253, figs. 8.1, 4; 9, 2-5; 10. 2)

Indeed, according to the inscription of the Ke lei 克罍, dating to the beginning of the Western Zhou period, discovered from another large tomb attribured to an early Yan ruler, the Zhou king appointed Ke as the first ruler of the Yan state to control local steppe groups for the royal house. The inscription reads: “The king said: ‘The Grand Protector, you have brightened your fragrant wine and

offered it to your monarch. I greatly response to your offering, commanding Ke to be ruler in Yan, to govern (local groups,) the Qiang, Ma, Zha, Yu, Yu and Chang.’ Ke arrived at Yan, took in land and its officials and herewith makes (this) treasured sacrificial vessel. (王曰：「太 保，隹乃明乃鬯，享於乃辟。餘大對乃享，令克侯於 匽。事羌、馬、 、 、馭、長，克出匽，入土眔

90

Chariots, Steppe Elements, and the Zhou Elite’s Local Networks s

Fig. 4.8. Fittings from tomb M3 at Baifu, Changping, Bejing. (After Beijing shi wenwu guanlichu 1976, pp. 255, 257, figs. 15. 8; 18.2-7; 19.1)

including ritual bronze vessels ding and gui, weapons, ge blades, and rich horse-and-chariot fittings, such as luan jingles and horned horse frontlets, were buried in the tomb (fig. 4.8. 1, 4, 5, 7).22 The presence of these Zhou ritual and status indicators suggests that the Zhou burial practice was adopted by the tomb occupant and he very likely accepted a Zhou identity.

厥司。」用作寶尊彝。)”20 In this inscription, six local groups were granted to Ke, and one of them was named “Horse (Ma 馬).” People from the Horse group perhaps had a prominent role in managing chariot-related issues in the Yan state. It is likely that, in Yan, the close ruling-andruled relationship between the elite of the Yan state and the local steppe groups in their daily life led steppe elements and taste to be naturally assimilated into the local Zhou material culture.

However, the presence of many steppe military items, which were not found in the Yan burial ground, indicates that the tomb occupant belonged to a steppe group (fig. 4.7). In addition to the two swords shown above, the large rattle and geometric patterns on a knife are typical of steppe decorations (fig. 4.7.6). Four horn horse cheek-pieces (fig. 4.8.3) in a form similar to those from southern Siberia (see fig. 2.8) were buried along with the standard Zhou fittings.23 Furthermore, the most specific item confirming a steppe identity was a cast bronze helmet (fig. 4.7.7). A very similar example was discovered from an earlier site of the Northern Zone, contemporary with the late Shang period, at Gaohong 高洪, Liulin 柳林, Shanxi (fig. 4.9).24 This type of helmet has been regarded as a typical nomadic item originating in the Northern Zone. Such helmets have been taken as status indicators of nomadic warriors because later examples have been discovered from a Scythian tomb in the Caucasus dating to the 7th century

Realistic representations of horses and birds, steppe weapons, and the display of steppe identity in the Zhou sphere Representations of horse heads and birds of prey, similar to those from the Liulihe horse-and-chariot pit M202CH, were also discovered from another adjacent site at Baifu 白浮, Changping 昌平, Beijing. Rather than decorations of chariots, these creatures were placed on terminals of steppe-type swords found in tomb M3 (fig. 4.7.3, 4). Tomb M3 provides us with further clues to the local context of the Yan state. By and large, the arrangement of the tomb followed Zhou practices. Like most of the tombs of the Yan state, tomb M3 was a shaft pit and the occupant was placed in a large wooden chamber.21 Typical Zhou items,   Translation after Li Feng 2008, pp. 241-242. The names of these six local groups show that the area in modern Beijing and northern Hebei was inhabited by quite a lot small regional groups over which the Zhou central authority needed to establish a power to supervise. For the inscription and bronze, see Liulihe kaogudui 1990, p. 25. 21   Only remains of wooden chamber have been found. See Beijing shi wenwu guanlichu 1976, pp. 246-247. 20

  For the materials from Baifu, Changping, Beijing, see Beijing shi wenwu guanlichu 1976, pp. 246-258, 228. 23   Bone cheek-pieces have been found in sites of the Karasuk culture in southern Siberia. See Legrand 2008, fig. 14. A. 24   For the report, see Yang Shaoshun 1981, pl.4 .5. 22

91

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity A very similar setting is seen in a slightly later tomb, M2, at the same site. The tomb was equipped with a large wooden coffin, standard Zhou ritual bronzes, weapons, and horse-and-chariot fittings. In addition, there was a group of steppe-type military items more numerous than those of tomb M3. It included a bronze helmet, a knife capped with a representation of head of bird of prey, a shafted pickaxe and a large knife (fig. 4.10). Most of them were embellished with geometric patterns. Remarkably the occupant of tomb M2 was a female. The appearance of these steppe items indicates that the occupants of M2 and M3 were closely linked with the steppe. At the same time, the presence of Zhou ritual items shows that they gave their allegiance to the Zhou authority. In the Central Plains, the association between steppe females and warfare had a long history from at least the late Shang period. As described in chapter two, many scholars argue that Shang king Wu Ding’s consort Fu Hao had strong connections with the steppe.27 In addition, she also led troops to fight for the Shang state.28 In the wider Eurasian steppe context, females frequently took a military role, as many scholars have discussed.29

Fig. 4.9. Bronze helmet from Gaohong, Liulin, Shanxi. The 11th century BCE. (After Yang Shaoshun 1981, pl. 4.5)

BCE.25 Jenny So suggests that the presence of these steppe items in the Baifu tomb indicates that the tomb occupant was a northern foreigner.26

While steppe weapons, rattles, and horse-head representations have also been found at other Zhou30 and

  From the similar bronze helmets from the Scythian kurgan 2 of Kelermes in the northern Caucasus, dating to the 7th century BCE, Karan Rubinson argues that bronze helmets were one of the equipments of elite nomadic military leaders originated from China and the Northern Zone (Rubinson 2000, pp. 32-34, 36-38). And, Katheryn Linduff indicates that the elite of the Northern Zone regarded the bronze helmet as an “exceptional item of prestige good.” (Linduff 1995, p. 144) 26   For a discussion on the foreign identity of tomb occupants at the Baifu site, see So and Bunker 1995, pp. 44-47. See also Csorba 1996, pp. 564587. Mrea Csorba indicates that a human face with strong Caucasian features on a sword from tomb M2 suggests that “the non-Chinese are depicting themselves.” (pp. 567-568, 574-575)

  See chapter two.   Jenny So has pointed out that both Fu Hao and the occupant of tomb M2 at Beifu were female warriors with close relationship with the steppe (So and Bunker 1996, pp. 44-45). For the military role of Fu Hao showing in oracle-bone inscriptions, see Chu Ki-cheung 2007, pp. 4-5. 29   The steppe “woman-warrior” identity has been studied by many scholars and some of the researches are presented in the book Are All Warriors Male? edited by Katheryn Linduff and Karen Rubinson (2008). 30   As I have discussed in chapter three, the steppe weapons and the rattles on luan jingles from horse-and-chariot pits at Luoyang, Henan show some steppe influence on fighting methods and chariot practices of the Zhou elite.

25

27 28

Fig. 4.10. Steppe items from tomb M2 at Baifu, Changping, Beijing. The early to middle Western Zhou period, the 10th century BCE. (After Beijing shi wenwu guanlichu 1976, pp.252-253, figs. 7. 4; 8. 3, 5; 10. 1)

92

Chariots, Steppe Elements, and the Zhou Elite’s Local Networks s earlier Northern Zone and Shang sites,31 the appearance of the representations of birds of prey is particularly significant. As this theme was rarely found on materials from sites of previous periods in the Yellow River system, the relatively new and sudden use of this subject on bronzes in early Western Zhou burials probably indicates that the steppe groups whom the Zhou faced were rather different from those confronted by the Shang.

Therefore, short swords, helmets and pick-axes evident in the tombs at the Baifu site probably indicate that the Zhou elite encountered more powerful, mobile steppe neighbours than the Shang elite had done. In the Yan state, it seems that the incorporation of steppe characteristics and steppe people was an important strategy for the newly arrived Zhou elite to rule their appointed land and to cope with attacks from above the northern frontiers.

Indeed, the raptor theme was very popular among later nomadic groups, particularly those of the Sakas and the Scythians, who occupied the major part of the Eurasian steppes from the beginning of the first millennium BCE and were particularly powerful during the 6th - 4th century BCE.32 Similar representations of birds of prey with round eyes and hooked beaks were also discovered at later sites in Xinjiang and Gansu.33 Though the origin of this theme still needs further exploration, its choice as a decorative theme by steppe people probably hints these local steppe groups had started to shift from arable-pastoral way of life to the nomadism. Birds of prey have often played a very significant role among the nomads of the Eurasia. In present-day Mongolian steppes, such birds are specifically trained for hunting.34 As shown by later examples, nomad artifacts emphasised naturalistic depiction of their prey and of fierce animal battle scenes, very different from the subjects chosen by the settled Chinese states.35 These animal subjects were also different from those of the steppe groups inhabiting Shanxi and northern Shaanxi in the late Shang period, who usually illustrated images of their domesticated animals, including sheep, cattle and horses, as discussed in the chapter two.

3. Gender and ethnic expressions of chariot burials in a local context: cases from the cemetery of the Jin ruling family The Jin ruling family Turning to the west side of the Taihang Mountains, one of the dominate geographic features is the Fen River valley in present-day Shanxi province. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the burial ground of nine generations of the Jin ruling family in the 9th - 7th century BCE was discovered there at Beizhao village, near Houma. As a local state established by the royal family member,36 the rich finds from the Beizhao cemetery reveal that the local elite, with a tie to the royal kin, placed strong emphasis on Zhou ritual. In the tombs at Beizhao, the Zhou identity of the Jin ruling family is most clearly shown by the presence of impressive numbers of ritual bronzes and jades similar to those from the Zhou capitals and other Zhou local states. Several scholars, including Chen Fang-mei 陳芳妹, Yong Ying 雍穎, and Lothar von Falkenhausen, have argued that bronzes in non-Zhou forms unearthed from the tombs of the earliest two rulers’ consorts suggest that Jin rulers had intermarried with foreign steppe females.37 Chen Fang-mei has demonstrated that two unusual bronzes, a three-footed urn and a double-handled jar, from the earliest consort tomb, M113, dating to the mid-tenth century BCE, indicate a cultural link with the Northern Zone. 38 The shape of the three-footed urn followed a ceramic type that had been long established in the northern frontiers in present-day Shanxi, southern Inner Mongolia, and northern Shaanxi.39 The double-handled jar was a bronze imitation of ceramic jars of the northwest local cultures, such as the Xindian 辛店 and Siwa 寺洼cultures,40 in present-day western Shaanxi, Gansu, Mongolia, and Qinghai.41

  The steppe features mentioned here are best shown by finds from late Shang horse-and-chariot pits at Xiaotun, Anyang. For the materials, see Shih Chang-ju 1970. For a discussion on steppe features seen in late Shang and Northern Zone sites, see Lin Yun 1986, pp. 237-274. See also chapter two. 32   Nikolay Bokovenko indicates that the Scythian-Saka type appeared at the beginning of the first millennium BCE and “the Targar culture, which succeeded the Karasuk culture in southern Siberia belongs to the earliest stages of the Scythian group, and is dated to the ninth-eighth century BCE.” (2006, p. 860) This date is slightly later than the Baifu site. Representations of birds of prey have been found on terminals of swords and axes, and on shaft pickaxes (see Bokovenko 2006, fig. 10. 26, 44-45). The theme had appeared at the beginning of the first millennium BCE, and was particularly popular in the 6th - 4th century BCE in Eurasia. For examples from the Altai, see Aruz et al. (eds.) 2000, figs. 177, 179. It was also frequently adapted on heads of deer to create images of mythical creatures, such as the griffin. For examples of the Scythian and Sarmatians, see Aruz et al. (eds.) 2000, figs. 8-13, 50, 52, 69, 72. A very good gold example was discovered from Nalingaotu, Shenmu, Shaanxi (see So and Bunker 1996, fig. 20). 33   Examples have been discovered from Hejing, Chawuhugoukou, Xinjiang, dated to the middle first millennium BCE. See Mei 2006, p. 134, fig. 3. 16-17. More examples have been reported from sites of the Shajing 沙井 culture, dated from 1000-500 BCE, which is thought to have been contemporary with the early Western Zhou to Spring and Autumn period, in Gansu. Examples are now displayed in the Provincial Museum of Gansu. 34   See Bunker 1997, p. 80. 35   The most frequently depicted creatures of nomads were raptors, stage and bears. Animal fighting themes are frequently decorated on plaque ornaments of Xiongnu. Many scholars have thoroughly discussed the animal themes of the Northern Zone. For examples, see Bunker et al. 1970; Tu Cheng-sheng 1993, pp. 231-408; So and Bunker 1995; Bunker 1997. 31

  See Shi ji, “Jin Shi jia 晉世家” (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1959, p. 1635). According to Li Feng, “The Shi ji attributes the founding of the state of Jin to Shu Yu , a younger brother of King Cheng, at the site of a former state called Tang, that Sima Qian (the author of the Shi ji) himself said was located to the east of both the Yellow River and the Fen River.” (Li Feng 2006, p. 86) 37   See Chen Fang-mei 2002, pp. 157-171; Yong Ying 2006, p. 172; Falkenhausen 2006a, pp. 211-212. 38   Chen Fang-mei 2002, pp. 157-171. 39   Falkenhausen 2006a, p. 212. 40   The Xindian culture was contemporary with the late Shang period in the 12th to 11th century BCE; the Siwa culture was contemporary with the Western Zhou period (the 11th to 8th century BCE). For an introduction to the Xindian and Siwa cultures, see Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 2004, pp. 500-510. 41   See Chen Fang-mei 2002, p. 163. See also Shang Tongliu 2002, pp. 36

93

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 4.11. Chariots on the top of the wooden chamber of tomb M9 at Beizhao, Shanxi. The middle Wetsern Zhou period, the 9th century BCE. (After Beijing daxue kaoguxi and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1994a, fig. 6)

Yong Ying has argued that some burial goods interred in the tomb of the second Jin ruler’s consort, M13, present the steppe identity of the tomb occupant. She has pointed out that the presence of deer antlers and wild-boar-shaped ornaments suggests a steppe ethnic background of the tomb occupant.42 Furthermore, four ritual vessels, gui embellished with geometric patterns resembling those on mirrors of the Qijia culture, suggest that these bronzes were made following the steppe taste of the tomb occupant.43

offerings to the ancestors in the afterlife.44 With the above understanding of the role of bronze vessels in ceremonies, the presence of bronze copies of steppe ceramic types probably shows that these steppe females used these bronzes to refer to their genealogy, by analogy with the Zhou ritual practice. The ritual vessels from these Jin tombs, therefore, provide us with a valuable case to show the ways in which steppe females presented their Zhou and steppe identities simultaneously.

If we consider the role of bronze vessels in the Zhou ritual, the presence of these bronze vessels with steppe appearances in the Zhou burials is significant. The role of ritual bronzes is most evidently shown by the impressive number of bronzes of four generations of a lineage buried in a hoard at present-day Zhuangbai 莊白, Fufeng 扶風, Shaanxi. As mentioned in chapter one, Jessica Rawson indicated that when ritual vessels made by different generations of a lineage were displayed in family ritual ceremonies, these vessels acted as representatives of their patrons, who were earlier members of the lineage. In this way, these vessels provided visual proofs of their lineage and history in offering ceremonies. As she argues, archaistic vessels buried in late Western Zhou tombs M93 and M63 at the Beizhao site provided the tomb occupants with a complete vessel set to represent their earlier family members, therefore they could continue their

In the Zhou society, chariots as tools of transportation, warfare, and power and status displays, as I have described in the previous chapter, took rather different roles from ritual vessels. Chariot burials of Jin rulers and the two steppe consorts illustrate the ways in which the Jin elite displayed their chariots as tools to make claims about their identities.

371-383. 42   See Yong Ying 2006, p. 172. See also Beijing daxue kaoguxi and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1994a, p. 8. However, no pictures and further information on these items have been published. 43   Yong Ying 2006, p. 172.

44

Horse-and-chariot display of Jin rulers The Jin ruling family’s emphasis of values of chariots can be shown by their regular burials of chariots and fittings in their major cemetery. Chariots were found on entry ramps, stepped platforms, and on the top of wooden burial chambers in the tombs of the earliest four ruling couples in the Beizhao cemetery.45 The richest case came from the tomb of the second ruler, M9. In that tomb, two dismantled chariots were placed on the entry ramp and five   Rawson 2004, pp. 5-11.   Dismantled chariots were found in paired tombs M114 and M113, M9 and M13, M6 and M7, and M33 and M32, dating from the early Western Zhou to middle Western Zhou period. See Liu Xu and Xu Tianjin 2002, p. 48. 45

94

Chariots, Steppe Elements, and the Zhou Elite’s Local Networks s were accommodated on the stepped platform and on the top of the wooden burial chamber (fig. 4.11).46 In addition, standard horse-and-chariot fittings were interred in most of the tombs of the nine ruling couples.47 These practices were also frequent among elite tombs of other Zhou areas, as discussed in chapter three. Therefore, the presence of standard chariots, fittings, and chariot burial practices in the Jin cemetery demonstrates that burying chariots was regarded as a way to present Jin ruling family’s equivalent social status to that of other Zhou elites.

4.12.3). The forth type had elaborately painted sides and a wooden rear door (fig. 4.12.4). Apart from the first type, the other three are rare or unknown at other Western Zhou sites.49 The armoured chariots were apparently war chariots. Groups of weapons from the pit also suggest that most of the other three types of chariots, if not all, were associated with fighting. According to the report, groups of arrows were found in the right front of many chariot boxes. Ge daggers were found at the left front of some chariot boxes. In addition, spears with long poles were found between some chariots’ boxes and wheels. The excavators suggest that the painted chariots represent the luxurious daily life of the Jin elite.50 However, the presence of arrows along with this chariot type suggests that it was used for warfare or hunting.51

What is even more significant among the chariot burial practices of the Jin ruling family is their regular use of horse-and-chariot pits. As I mentioned in the previous chapter, each cluster of tombs of the nine generations had a large horse-and-chariot pit to the east side of the cluster (see fig. 3.16). This practice was never so thoroughly adopted at other Zhou sites. Such regularity suggests that members of the Jin ruling family constantly paid great attentions on their chariot burials from the very beginning of the use of the cemetery.

The chariots in the pit no. 1 indicate that the four different types had been evolved for different purposes in battles. The war-like contents suggest that this pit was probably attributed to the ruler buried in tomb M8 only, rather than to the couple. Therefore, the pit no. 1 can be regarded as a Jin ruler’s chariot arsenal. The presence of the finely painted chariots and the armoured chariots probably provided a dramatic display at the funeral ceremony. The design of the armoured chariots is particularly noteworthy. The bronze plaques on the boxes seem not to be for protection but as ornaments. It is because chariot boxes were usually shorter than 40 cm, which was too short to protect standing charioteers (see fig. 2.20). Such an armour design probably provided a military-related idea to viewers of the funeral ceremony, probably including family members, friends, and colleagues of the dead and invisible ancestors and spirits.

To date, only one of the nine horse-and-chariot pits, the horse-and-chariot pit no. 1, associated with late Western Zhou tomb M8, has been excavated. Nonetheless, an examination of it is adequate to demonstrate local characteristics of Jin chariot burials. The pit is the largest (measuring 21 by 15.3 m) and richest horse-and-chariot pit of the Western Zhou period known to date. In this pit, 107 horses and 48 chariots have been found in separate horse and chariot chambers.48 The chariots were displayed in neat lines, but horses were placed randomly (fig. 4.12). The practice of deploying horses and chariots in separate chambers is not found at any other Western Zhou area. As a tamped wall has been identified at the centre of the horse-and-chariot pit of the earliest paired tombs, M113 and M114, at the site, this two-chamber setting seems to be a Jin practice in use from the time of cemetery came into use.

The rich display of war chariots in the pit no. 1, unknown in other regions, seems to suggest that the Jin ruler had special needs and resources for building and equipping war chariots, perhaps because the Jin state had a distinctive military role in the Zhou kingdom. The Jin rulers’ greater commitment to chariot warfare than their contemporaries is evident if we compare the pit no. 1 with the richest late Western Zhou horse-and-chariot pits of other local states. Aside from the Beizhao site, the richest horse-and-chariot pits were the slightly later examples of the Guo state, dating to the transition from the Western to Eastern Zhou period in the 8th century BCE, at present-day Sanmenxia 三門峽, Henan. The horse-and-chariot pits there seem not to present a display of war chariots but that of chariot possessions. It is because, first of all, weapons were rare in all of the seven horse-and-chariot pits excavated there.52

In addition to its extremely large size and the impressive number of horses and chariots, a further significance of the horse-and-chariot pit no.1 is the variety of chariot types. Chariots with at least four types of chariot boxes were identified. The first type of chariot boxes was composed of wooden rails (fig. 4.12.1). Remains of fabrics or leathers found on some well-preserved chariots suggest that the front part of this type of boxes were covered. The second type was similar to the first type, but the boxes did not have back rails (fig. 4.12.2). The fully opened rear enabled charioteers to get on the chariot more quickly than through a small rear open. The third type had bronze plaques, as armour, hanging on the outside of the railed sides (fig.

  The second and third types were frequent in Eastern Zhou burials, such as the 19 chariots from Chengcun, Linyi, Shanxi, dating to the late Spring and Autumn period. See Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo et al. 2003, pp. 158-234. 50   Guojia wenwuju (ed.) 2007a, p. 68. 51   The information is from personal communication with Prof. Liu Xu who is one of the principal excavators of the pit no. 1. 52   Only one arrow was found in a horse-and-chariot pit in the southern area of the site. For the materials discussed here, see Zhongguo 49

  Beijing daxue kaoguxuexi and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1994a, pp. 6-7. 47   As the Beizhao site had been seriously looted before the excavation, the absence of fittings in a small number of tombs is probably because of looting. 48   For the material, see Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo and Beijing daxue kaogu wenbo xueyuan 2010, pp. 4-22. 46

95

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 4.12. Horse-and-chariot pit no. 1 at Beizhao cemetery. The late Western Zhou period, the late 9th century BCE. (After Guojia wenwuju (ed.) 2007, pp. 66, 67)

Second, unlike in the Beizhao site, high ranking females had their own horse-and-chariot pits. And, the number of chariots buried for a female could be higher than that of a male, as a Guo ruler’s pit contained thirteen chariots

whereas his consort’s pit had nineteen in a smaller pit (fig. 4.13).53 The presence of the extremely large war chariot display in the Beizhao site in the late Western Zhou period seems to   For the materials, see Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Sanmenxia shi wenwu gongzuodui 1999, pp. 212-224. For a further discussion on chariots of the Guo ruler’s wife, see Wu Hsiao-yun 2009, pp. 147-155. 53

kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1959, pp. 28-31, 37, 42-47; Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Sanmenxia shi wenwu gongzuodui 1999, pp. 212-219, 296-308, 378.

96

Chariots, Steppe Elements, and the Zhou Elite’s Local Networks s

Fig. 4.13. Horse-and-chariot pits found at Sanmenxia, Henan. The transition from the Western to Eastern Zhou period, the 8th century BCE. 1. The horse-and-chariot pit of a Guo ruler 2. The horse-and-chariot pit of the Guo ruler’s consort (After Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Sanmenxia shi wenwu gongzuodui 1999, figs. 159, 213)

97

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 4.14. Stone foundations of tombs 1. Tomb M39 at Beizhao, Shanxi. The early Spring and Autumn period, the 8th century BCE. (After Beijing daxue kaoguxue xi and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1995, p. 24, fig. 33) 2. Tomb M4 at Nanshangen, Ningcheng, Inner Mongolia. The late Western Zhou period, the 7-8th century BCE. (After Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Neimenggu gongzuodui 1975, p. 134, fig. 17) 3. Tomb M1 at Yangshe, Shanxi. The early Spring and Autumn period, the 8th century BCE. (After Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo and Quwo wenwuju 2009, p. 5, fig. 3)

illustrate a strained relationship between the Zhou kingdom and northern foreign groups. As Li Feng argues, “given its easy access to the Zhou heartland in the Wei River valley, the region played an important part in late Western Zhou history and in the transition to the Eastern Zhou.”54 The presence of such a war chariot display probably resulted from the specific strategic consideration of the Jin rulers.

site55 and those of a Jin ruling couple buried in another adjacent cemetery at Yangshe 羊舌, Quwo 曲沃, Shanxi56 were lined with complex stone foundations (fig. 4.14.1, 3). Stone-lined tombs were a traditional burial practice of groups inhabiting the eastern part of the Northern Zone, adopted as early as in the Neolithic period, particularly in present-day Liaoning.57 A comparable late Western Zhou example comes from Nanshangeng 南山根, Ningcheng 寧

Indeed, a significant change after the flight of the Zhou royal house from the western to the eastern capital at Luoyang in 771 BCE, which marks the beginning of the Eastern Zhou period, is evident in the change of the tomb structure of Jin rulers of the early Spring and Autumn period. The tomb of the last Jin ruler buried in the Beizhao

  The stone foundation is found in tomb M93. For the material, see Beijing daxue kaoguxi and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1995, pp. 2223. 56   The stone foundations are found in paired tombs M1 and M2. The tomb M1, which is attributed to a ruler, is the biggest Jin tomb known to date. As in the Beizhao cemetery, a large horse-and-chariot pit is known to the east of the paired tombs. For the materials, see Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo and Quwo wenwuju 2009, pp. 4-7. 57   William Watson (1971, pp. 125-136) pointed out that stone-lined tombs represent a burial practice that Chinese borrowed from steppe foreigners. The most prominent Neolithic examples are those of the Hongshan 紅 山 culture, dating to c. 3,000 BCE, at Niuheliang 牛河梁, Lingyuan 凌 源, Liaoning. For examples, see Liaoning sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 2008, pp. 4-14. 55

  Li Feng 2006, p. 82. Li Feng points out that the control of the Fen River valley was extremely important to the security of the Zhou state “because it controlled the road coming into the Fen River valley from Yuanqu and at the same time blocked the way down the Fen River valley from the north, protecting the Wei River valley from attacks from both directions.” (Li Feng 2006, p. 87) 54

98

Chariots, Steppe Elements, and the Zhou Elite’s Local Networks s

Fig. 4.15. A chariot in female tomb M13 at Beizhao, Shanxi. The middle Western Zhou period, the 9th century BCE. (After Beijing daxue kaoguxue xi and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1994a, fig. 11)

城, in Inner Mongolia (fig. 4.14.2).58 The appearance of such stone foundations in the Jin state marked the adoption of a steppe burial practice by the Jin ruling family.59

chariot, whose wheels were dismounted.62 In later pairs, gender differentiation is shown not only by numbers but also by chariots’ size, decoration, and burial practices. As seen in the second pair, M9 and M13,63 while the male tomb M9 contained seven dismantled typical chariots, the female tomb yielded only one complete small chariot with rich ornaments. The excavators note that the chariot from tomb M13 was particularly rich in bronze ornaments, and its wheel felloes were decorated with bronze items (fig. 4.15). Very similar contrasts were also seen in later paired tombs, M33 and M32. While chariots in the male tomb did not have decoration, some parts of the chariot from tomb M32 were lacquer-painted, and the bottom frame of the box was covered by lead ornaments.64 These examples show that earlier Jin local practices of gender differentiation were inherited by later generations.

Gender differences in the use of chariot By contrast with the chariot display of Jin rulers, which full of presentation of political and military powers, their consorts’ chariots show a rather different character. Chariots were discovered in the consorts’ tombs of the four earliest generations at the Beizhao site. Tomb M113 is datable to the later half of the early Western Zhou period in the 10th century BCE, and tombs M13, M7, and M32 are dated to the middle Western Zhou period in the 10th – 9th century BCE.60 Gender difference in the use of chariots can be illustrated if we make comparisons between the contents of paired tombs. In the earliest paired tombs, M114 and M113, the difference is presented by the numbers of chariots. In the male tomb M114 were three dismantled usual chariots (wheels measured c. 140 cm in diameter) and one small chariot (wheels measured shorter than 120 cm in diameter),61 whereas the female tomb only had one small

The small chariots and specific burial practices suggest that the chariot use of the Jin high ranking females differs significantly from that of their husbands. By contrast with the male chariots, their smaller size of wheels indicates a slower speed compared with usual chariots, particularly if they were drawn by smaller animals. Their fine decorations   Aside from the two unloaded wheels, the chariot fell into the wooden chamber, therefore we do not know if it had been deployed in a complete or dismantled form. For the material, see Beijing daxue kaoguxi and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 2001, p. 18. While no further information is published, we do not know if the two small chariots from the two tombs are similar. 63   For the materials, see Beijing daxue kaoguxi and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1994a, pp. 6-8. 64   Five dismantled common chariots were found on the top of the wooden chamber of ruler’s tomb M33. In his consort’s tomb M32 was a highly decorated small chariot. For the materials, see Liu Xu and Xu Tianjin 2002, p. 47; Beijing daxue kaoguxi and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1995, pp. 4-8. 62

  For the material, see Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Nei Menggu gongzuodui 1975, p. 134, fig. 17. 59   For discussions on the relationship between the stone foundations of the Jin tombs and groups in the borderlands, see Rawson 2010b, p. 16. 60   See Liu Xu and Xu Tianjin 2002, pp. 47-48. 61   For the measurements of the chariots, see Liu Xu and Xu Tianjin 2002, p. 48. As the small chariot fell into the decayed wooden chamber, we do not know if it had been buried in an intact or in a dismembered form (Li Xu and Xu Tianjin 2002, p. 47; Beijing daxue kaoguxi and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 2001, pp. 10-11). 58

99

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity imply that they were used as tools of display to express fine quality and specific privilege of their female owners. The use of typical Zhou fittings indicates that the design of these chariots belonged to a widely used set of Zhou status indicators. Thus, these small chariots confirm that their owners still acted within the framework of the Zhou institute. 4. Adopting chariots in the south in the middle Yangtze River valley Moving from the north to the middle Yangtze River valley in the south, we encounter a very different situation. The natural environment of the Yangtze River valley, with abundant water cannels, was not as suitable for chariots as was in the Yellow River basin. Chariot burials of the Western Zhou period are rarely found there. However, it seems that as the Chu state, rising in the middle Yangtze River valley, became powerful in the 7th century BCE,65 chariots were buried to demonstrate their status in the same terms as their contemporaries in the Yellow River basin. The adoption of horse chariots in the Chu state on the middle Yangtze River is very significant as no remains of chariots before the Han period (206BCE-220CE) were found in the upper and lower Yangtze River valley, though large numbers of bronzes in Zhou style have been excavated from these areas. Furthermore, such a practice expanded greatly during the Eastern Zhou period. The largest and richest horse-and-chariot pit known today, contained 43 chariots and 104 horses, measured 132.4 by 12 m, was built to be a component of a Chu King’s tomb.66 Indeed, the presence of large-scale horse-and-chariot pits in the Chu sphere in the middle Yangtze River valley is noteworthy as no similar burials are known from lower or upper Yangtze River valley.67 Therefore, an examination of the development of the use of chariots in this area will present a very useful case to illustrate how chariots, as an outstanding Zhou feature in the northern states, were adopted in a rather different context and then became a prominent part of the tomb setting of the high ranking Chu elite. The emergence of chariots in the South The earliest evidence of chariots in the Yangtze River valley is from Lutaishan魯台山, Huangpi黃陂, Hubei.68 The site is located at the conjection of the Yangtze River and the Han River. The later is the longest tributary of the Yangtze River and is thought to be the most significant water route   For a discussion on the emergence of the Chu state, based on the transmitted texts, see Hsu 1999, pp. 560-562. 66   The pit was excavated from Xiongjiazhong 熊家冢, Jingzhou 荊州, Hubei. For the report of the pit, see Jingzhou bowuguan 2011, pp. 4-19. 67   Though horse-and-chariot fittings were discovered from a small number of large tombs in the lower Yangtze River valley (see maps 1-3), no remains of wooden chariots and horses were found. No horses, chariots, and associated items earlier than the Han period were found in the Upper Yangtze River valley. 68   For the report, see Huangpi xian wenhuaguan, Xiaogan diqu bowuguan, and Hubei sheng bowuguan 1983, pp. 37-61. 65

connecting the Wei River valley in Shaanxi to the Yangtze River (see map 1). As typical early Western Zhou ritual bronzes were discovered from typical Zhou shaft tombs with entry ramps there, it is agreed that the site belonged to a group of Zhou people living far from the core areas of the Zhou kingdom in central Shaanxi and Henan. This isolated find of typical Zhou remains probably represents a shortlived outpost of the Zhou kingdom in the south as a result of Zhou’s expansion in the early Western Zhou period.69 Five horse harness ornaments, pao, and a cheek-piece were found in the richest tomb, M30, dating to the later half of the early Western Zhou period.70 All of these items are in standard Zhou forms, similar to those found in metropolitan areas and other local states. In another tomb, M36, a small bronze sculpture of horse head was discovered. The presence of these finds is very curious, as no other remains of chariots and horses of this date have been reported from the Yangtze River valley. Therefore, the presence of these horse items probably suggests that they, along with typical Zhou bronze vessels, were prestigious items brought from the metropolitan areas. Further chariot finds are discovered at a further northern site at Yejiashan 葉家山, Suizhou, Hubei.71 According to the bronze inscriptions found there, the site was a cemetery of the Zeng state used during early Western Zhou period. In addition to standard Zhou horse-and-chariot fittings, including luan jingles, linch-pins, and some pao ornaments, a horse pit is found as well.72 It was not until the transition from the Western Zhou to the Spring and Autumn period that the Zeng elite buried chariots. These earliest chariots found in the south are found at a cemetery at Guojiamiao 郭家廟, Zaoyang 棗陽, Hubei.73 Two chariot pits and one horse-and-chariot pit have been excavated. The earliest one is chariot pit GCHK2, which is datable to the late 8th century BCE (fig. 4.16.1). The other two date to the early 7th century BCE.74 Chariots in the two chariot pits were deployed in a rather neat way. The main bodies of the chariots were lined up one next another (fig. 4.16.1). And, as shown by the chariot pit GCHK1, the dismounted wheels were laid neatly below the chariot bodies (fig. 4.16.3). The horse-and-chariot pit contained a two-horse chariot (fig. 4.16.2).

  Li Feng 2006, pp. 325-327. See also Rawson 1999, p. 427.   Fourteen bronze vessels in standard Zhou forms were unearthed from the tomb (Huangpixian wenhuaguan, Xiaogan diqu bowuguan, and Hubei sheng bowuguan 1983, pp. 41-43). Some of their inscriptions reveal a close relationship between the tomb occupant and the Zhou royal house. For a discussion on these inscriptions, see Li Feng 2006, p. 325. 71   Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Suizhou shi bowuguan 2011, p. 5. The horse pit found at the Yejiashan site is the earliest and the only Western Zhou horse burial in the south. 72   No further information of the horse pit has been reported. 73   For the report of Guojiamiao chariot pits, see Xiangfan shi kaogudui, Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, and Hubei Xiao Xiang gaosu gonglu kaogudui 2005, pp. 201-232. 74   For the date of the three pits, see Xiangfan shi kaogudui, Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, and Hubei Xiao Xiang gaosu gonglu kaogudui 2005, p. 365. 69 70

100

Chariots, Steppe Elements, and the Zhou Elite’s Local Networks s

Fig. 4.16. Chariot pits from Guojiamiao, Zaoyang, Hubei. The first half of the Spring and Autumn period, the 8th -7th century BCE. 1. GMCHK2; 2. GMCHMK1; 3. GMCHK1 (After Xiangfan shi kaogudui, Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Hubei Xiao Xiang gaosugonglu kaogudui 2005, figs. 167, 169, 174)

In addition to the three chariot pits, an impressive number of standard Zhou horse-and-chariot fittings found in tombs. For example, tomb GM21, which is attributed to a high ranking elite according to its large size and entry ramp, is particularly rich in horse-and-chariot fittings. 1887 pieces of fittings were found in the tomb. 75 The appearance of the rich chariot-related burials suggests that the elite of the Zeng state were quite familiar with Zhou horse chariots. And, remains of fine lacquer-painted chariots from chariot pit GCHK1 indicate that the local elite there enjoyed the luxury of chariots no less than did those in the north (fig. 4.17). However, the absence of horses in the chariot pits is very unusual, because they were essential to chariot driving and were commonly buried with chariots in the north. This absence probably indicates that though chariots were used in the south, horses were still too precious to be buried at the transition period from the Western to the Eastern Zhou. And, as suggested by the

date of the horse-and-chariot pit discovered there, it was not until the second half of the early Spring and Autumn period that horses were first buried in the Yangtze River valley. While a number of typical Zhou horse-and-chariot fittings were discovered, unusual pairs of yoke-saddle-foot ornaments from the earliest chariot pit, GCHK2, reveal a very distinctive steppe artistic style.76 A significant decoration unknown in other sites is the realistic horse figures (fig.4.18.1). As I have demonstrated in the above discussion on the cases from the Yan and Jin states, realistic animal figures were a prominent feature of the steppe culture. The setting of this fitting with a horse figure is odd. The horse is reverse when it is installed on a yoke-saddle (fig.4.18.2). But the shape of the foot ornament still recalls a great number of examples in the form of a standing ungulate on a tube base, known as   This type of ornaments was installed on the two ends of yoke-saddles. For the examples from the Guojiamiao, see Xiangfan shi kaogudui, Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, and Hubei Xiao Xiang gaosu gonglu kaogudui 2005, p. 219. 76

  Xiangfan shi kaogudui, Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, and Hubei Xiao Xiang gaosu gonglu kaogudui 2005, pp. 31-53. 75

101

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 4.17. Fine lacquer-painted chariots from chariot pit GCHK1 at Guojiamiao, Zaoyang, Hubei. 1. Reconstruction of a lacquer-painted chariot; 2. Lacquer-painting on a nave (After Xiangfan shi kaogudui, Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Hubei Xiao Xiang gaosugonglu kaogudui 2005, pp. 226, figs. 182)

finals, which are typical of the Northern Zone.77 The ring held on the horse’s mouth is also unsual and is not seen on Zhou yoke-saddle-foot ornaments (fig. 4.18.3). It probably was used to hold reins, therefore may suggest a method of horse control slightly different from the usual practice of the Zhou people. The unusual fitting and implied horse control practice as seen in the Zeng state may suggest that there were steppe northerners involved in the adoption of   For finals with standing ungulate from the Northern Zone, see Wuen Yuesitu 2008, pp. 196-197, 199. For examples with horses, see Bunker 1997, p. 177. But this type of final is usually dated to the 6th to 5th century BCE, later than the Guojiamiao example. 77

horse chariots at the early stage of the use of chariots in the south. The early uses of chariots in the Chu state: cases from Xiasi, Xichuan, Henan The Chu, as the name of a southern group, was in use at least by the early Western Zhou period in the 10th century BCE. Several early Western Zhou bronze inscriptions indicate that the Chu was a principal enemy during Zhou’s

102

Chariots, Steppe Elements, and the Zhou Elite’s Local Networks s

Fig. 4.18. Yoke-saddle-foot ornaments excavated at Guojiamiao, Zaoyang, Hubei. The first half of the Spring and Autumn period, the 8th -7th century BCE. 1. Yoke-saddle-foot ornament with horse figure. 2. Standard yoke-saddle-foot ornaments (After Xiangfan shi kaogudui, Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Hubei Xiao Xiang gaosugonglu kaogudui 2005, fig. 176, colour pl. 17.3, pl. 36.1)

southern campaigns.78 The later inscription of the Chu Gong Ni zhong 楚公逆鐘 bell indicates that the Chu elite had had some communications with the elite of Jin state in Zhou’s northern territory.79 However, as for the archaeological context, the early stages of the Chu state remain something of a mystery.80

  At least three early Western Zhou inscriptions, Zhe Ling gui, X yu gui, and Hong shu jie gui, document that the Chu was an enemy in Zhou King Zhao’s (r. 975-957 BCE) southern campaigns. The result of the campaigns was miserable as the king dead in the Han River. It is generally believed that his southern campaigns led to the decline of the Zhou power. For a discussion on the related inscriptions, see Liu Yu 1998, p. 244. For a discussion on King Zhao’s southern campaigns, see Li Feng 2006, pp. 93-95. 79   The Chu Gong Ni zhong bell, dating to the late Western Zhou period, is found in tomb M64 at the burial ground of the Jin ruling family at Beizhao, Shanxi (Beijing daxue kaoguxi and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1994a, figs. 6, 8.3). An earlier example is the inscription of the Chu Gong Ni Bo楚公逆鎛 bell. For a discussion on the Western Zhou inscriptions related to the Chu, see Liu Binhui 1984, pp. 331-372; Li Ling 1986, pp. 353-397. 80   For an introduction to the ambiguous situation of the early Chu study, see Falkenhausen 1999a, pp. 514-515. 78

In the excavated context, the Chu state, in a mature material form, suddenly emerged in the middle Spring and Autumn period in the 6th century BCE. The most notable Chu site is a large cemetery at Xiasi 下寺, Xichuan 淅川, Henan, dating from the middle to late Spring and Autumn period in the 6th – early 5th century BCE.81 The cemetery can be divided into five clusters, each of which features a large tomb of a generation of lineage head and a horseand-chariot pit (fig. 4.19.1). Sometimes, the tomb of the leading consort was also evident. The burial custom at the Xiasi site is similar to that in the north. The practice of arranging tombs into clusters according to generations resembles that of the burial ground of the Jin ruling family at the Beizhao site, described above. The shaft structure and layered coffins seen in tombs of this site are also similar to those of their Zhou contemporaries in the north. The major tombs held   For the report of the Xiasi site, see Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo, Henan sheng Danjiang kuqu kaogu fajuedui, and Xichuan xian bowuguan 1991. 81

103

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 4.19. The Chu cemetery at Xiasi, Xichuan, Henan. The middle Spring and Autumn period, the middle 6th century BCE. 1. Plan of the cemetery 2. Horse-and-chariot pit M2CH (After Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo, Henan sheng Danjiang kuqu kaogu fajuedui and Xichuan xian bowuguan 1991, pp. 3, 209, figs. 2, 154)

large numbers of finely cast intricate ritual bronzes. Their use of sets of Zhou ritual bronzes, particularly sets of ritual food vessels ding and gui, indicates that the Chu elite had largely adopted ritual and status indicators of the northern Zhou states.82 The use of horse-and-chariot pits was also probably a sign of their adoption of Zhou burial customs.   As Lothar von Falkenhausen argues, the presence of standard Zhou burial customs and uniform sets of ritual vessels in the Chu as well as in other Zhou local states “may reflect an underlying shared system of politico religious values, as well as homologies in the social organization of elites.” (Falkenhausen 1999a, p. 544) For a discussion on Xiasi bronzes and the adoption of Zhou ritual in the Chu sphere, see Falkenhausen 1999a, pp. 520-523; 2006a, pp. 338-359. 82

With this background, the use of chariots in the Chu burials provides us with a valuable case to consider the ways in which Zhou objects were adopted by others when they were aspiring to act as members of the Zhou world. The five horse-and-chariot pits, dating to the 6th – early 5th century BCE, at the Xiasi site provide us with the earliest evidence of chariots owned by the Chu elite. The six chariots from the largest horse-and-chariot pit, dating to the middle 6th century BCE, associated with the richest tomb in the cemetery, show that varied chariots were used there. Among them, only four were identifiable. The four chariots had chariot boxes of different sizes and structures

104

Chariots, Steppe Elements, and the Zhou Elite’s Local Networks s (fig. 4.19.2).83 These variations suggest that the Chu elite had a wide knowledge of using different types of chariots, which probably had different functions and associations. Chariots with their horses in all of the five pits were deployed side by side. Deploying a set of horse chariots in a pit as if it was in use had a very long tradition rooted in the late Shang period.84 In the early Western Zhou period, such a practice was extended. In some pits, for example the horse-and-chariot pit no. 2 at Zhangjiapo in Shaanxi mentioned in the previous chapter,85 two chariots with their horses were placed side by side in a transverse position (see fig. 3.1.1). However, when more than two chariots were buried in a pit, they were deployed in a lengthwise position, as seen in an early Western Zhou pit at Tongwangchang 銅網廠, Xi’an, Shaanxi, dating to the 10th century BCE.86 Or, as the mentioned Jin example at Beizhao illustrates, horses and chariots were placed separately, as if housed in a stable (fig. 4.12). Down to the Spring and Autumn period, the later two practices were prevalent. As seen in horse-and-chariot pits of the Guo87 (fig. 4.20.1) and Qin 秦88 states, chariots were deployed in the lengthwise position. The stable-setting was more frequent in the Jin89 and Zheng90 states (fig. 4.20.3). It is curious that the Chu elite did not adopted the setting, in which horses and chariots were separated, popular with their nearest northern neighbour, the Zheng state at presentday Xinzheng, Henan, but followed a rare practice, which was used by a more distant state, the powerful Qi 齊, in present-day Shandong.91 As seen in a horse-and-chariot pit of the Qi state at Houli後李, Linzi 臨淄, dating to the early Spring and Autumn period, ten chariots and their thirtytwo horses were deployed in the transverse position.92 The two ways of deploying horse chariots seem to express two different intentions. While the lengthwise deployment looks like processions along a road, the transverse deployment of the Xiasi and Houli pits looks like a display on a battle field. Later examples show that the intention to present the horizontal chariot array is further supported by   For the materials, see Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo, Henan sheng Danjiang kuqu kaogu fajuedui, and Xichuan xian bowuguan 1991, pp. 208-210. 84   For examples, see chapter two. 85   For the material, see Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1962, fig. 94. 86   For the material, see Wang Changqi 2002, pp. 4-5. 87   For examples, horse-and-chariot pits nos. 1727 and 1051 at Sanmenxia, Henan. See Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1959, pp. 42-47. 88   See Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Lixian bowuguan 2002, pp. 19-27. 89   For examples, horse-and-chariot pits at Shangma (Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1994, pp. 238-260) and Chengcun, Linyi in Shanxi (Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo et al. 2003, pp. 158-237). 90   As seen in horse-and-chariot pit no. 1 in Xinzheng, Henan. See Guojia wenwuju (ed.) 2002, pp. 56-61. 91   The Qi state is regarded as one of the most powerful state in the Eastern Zhou period. According to the historical text, in the middle Spring and Autumn period, the ruler of the Qi state, Qi Huangong 齊桓公 ( r. 685643 BCE), took over the leadership of the Zhou local states. See Hsu 1999, pp. 553-556. 92   The Houli pit is only introduced briefly. See Wang Shougong, Wang Yongpo, and Li Zhenguang 1993, pp. 5-6. 83

the emphasis on the central position. For example, among the seven chariots from an early Warring States horse-andchariot pit at Luogang 羅崗, Yicheng 宜城, Hubei, the chariot in the centre of the array was drawn by four horses, while the other six were drawn by two (fig. 4.20.2).93 If the deployment represents facts of their actual usage, then it is possibly that the chariots at Xiasi and Houli sites were not for daily uses but for warfare. A horse burial of the Qi state at Heyatou 河崖頭, Linzi, Shandong provides further clues for the military functions of the transverse display. Six hundred horses were deployed side by side facing outwards in an inverted U-shaped horse pit surrounding the three sides of a large late Springand-Autumn tomb.94 The large scale of the horse burial indicates the abundance of this military resource in the Qi state, which most probably came from the northern steppe groups. Similar practice is also seen in a Scythian tomb in the Caucasus.95 In addition, the close association between the Qi state and the steppe culture is further evidently shown by the stone-lined foundation of the Heyatou tomb.96 As such, the deployment of the Xiasi pits, which presents the earliest known Chu funeral chariot display,97 probably was a practice that the Chu elite borrowed from the powerful Qi state to demonstrate their military power. The military character of the chariot display at the Xiasi site is also supported by the absence of horse-and-chariot fittings and weapons in high ranking female tombs.98 This gender difference in the content of burial goods suggests that activities related with driving and fighting were exclusive to males. Therefore, the absence of chariot burials in female tombs indicates a link with a masculine identity of chariot burials in the Chu state in the late Spring and Autumn period. Later in the Warring States period in the 4th century BCE, the transverse arrangement of horse-and-chariot pits appeared in an even larger scale, as seen in the Xiongjiazhong horse-and-chariot pit99 and two large horse-and-chariot pits at Jiuliandun九連墩, Zaoyang 棗陽, Hubei.100 Such an arrangement seems to have been common in the Chu sphere and can be regarded   For the material, see Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Xiangfan shi bowuguan, and Yicheng xian bowuguan 1993, pp. 1-13. 94   For the report of the Heyatou tomb and horse pit, see Shandong sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 1984, pp. 14-19. 95   Jessica Rawson has pointed out the similarity between the horse pits in Heyatou, Shandong and in the Caucasus. See Rawson 1999b, p. 25, fig. 11. 96   Similar practice is also seen in tomb M93, dating to the early Spring and Autumn period and attributed to a Jin ruler, at the Beizhao cemetery in Shanxi (Beijing daxue kaoguxi and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1995, pp. 22-25), which I have discussed above. 97   Such a chariot deployment was continuously used as the only way of setting of Chu horse-and-chariot pits during the Warring States period. 98   Rich tombs M7, M1, M3, and M4 are attributed to consorts of lineage heads. No chariot items and weapons were discovered form these tombs. For the report, see Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo, Henan sheng Danjiang kuqu kaogu fajuedui, and Xichuanxian bowuguan 1991, pp. 26-38, 50103, 212-246. 99   For the report of the pit, see Jingzhou bowuguan 2011, pp. 4-19. 100   Two large horse-and-chariot pits were discovered in 2002. For a brief introduction, see Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 2003, pp. 12-13. 93

105

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 4.20 Various displays of horse-and-chariot pits 1. Horse-and-chariot pit at Tongwangchang, Xi’an, Shaanxi. Early Western Zhou period, the 10th century BCE. (After Wang Changqi 2002, fig. 1) 2. Horse-and-chariot pit at Luogang, Yicheng, Henan. The middle Warring States period, the 4th century BCE. (After Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Xiangfan shi bowuguan, and Yicheng xian bowuguan 1993, pp. 4-5, fig. 4) 3. The horse-and-chariot pit no.1 of Zheng-Han gucheng site at Xinzheng, Henan. The late Spring and Autumn period, the 6th - 5th century BCE. (After Guojia wenwuju (ed.) 2002, p. 56)

106

Chariots, Steppe Elements, and the Zhou Elite’s Local Networks s

Fig. 4.21. Wooden chariot items from the tomb of the Marquis Yi of the Zeng state, at now Leigudun, Suizhou, Hubei. The early Warring States period, the 5th century BCE. (After Hubei sheng bowuguan 1989, pp. 309, 310, figs. 188-189) 1. Chariot box; 2. Chariot canopy

as a standard Chu practice.101 However, in the Warring States period, the military connotation of the transverse deployment seen at the Xiasi site of the 6th -5th century BCE seems to have changed. As known from the tombs of the high ranking couple at the Jiuliandun site, chariot burials were no longer restricted to men. Like her husband, the female occupant of the mid- 6th century BCE tomb M2 had a big horse-and-chariot pit, which contained fifteen chariots. Furthermore, an impressive number of horse-andchariot fittings were unearthed from her tomb as well. This is very different from the situation in the female tombs at the earlier Xiasi site. This association with women in Chu burials in the Warring States period suggests that chariots had additional links with aspects of Chu social life. Apart from their military use, chariots’ role in demonstrating social status and wealth was further emphasised in the tomb setting of the Chu state in the Warring States period.

擂鼓墩, Suizhou 隨州, Hubei. 102 In the Warring States period, the Zeng was a dependency of the Chu.

The role of chariots in the Chu social life in the Warring States period as shown by the finds from the tomb of the Marquis Yi of the Zeng state

Chariot items as a common burial category seem to be further developed among tombs of later Chu high ranking elite. For example, in a rich Chu tomb, M1, at Tianxingguan 天星觀, Jingzhou 荊州, Hubei, dating to c. 340 BCE, which is attributed to a local head of the Chu state, 2116 horse-and-chariot items were interred in the western chamber.106 In another tomb, M2, dating to c. 350-330 BCE, probably belonging to the wife of tomb M1’s occupant, over three hundred bronze fittings and

The role of chariots as a prominent part of luxuries in the Chu sphere during the Warring States period can be revealed by the finds from one of the richest tombs in the Chu sphere, tomb M1 attributed to the Marquis Yi of the Zeng state (died in c. 433 BCE) at present-day Leigudun

  In addition to the Jiuliandun pits, similar transverse arrangement was also found at other Chu sites such as Luogang in Yicheng (Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Xiangfan shi bowuguan, and Yichengxian bowuguan 1993, pp. 1-13) and Ma’anzhong 馬鞍冢 in Huaiyang 淮陽 (Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo and Zhoukou diqu wenhuaju wenwu ke 1984, pp. 2-17) in Henan province, and Jiudian 九店 in Jiangling 江陵 (Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 1995, pp. 133-143), and Xiongjiazhong (Jingzhou bowuguan 2011, pp. 4-19) in Hubei province. 101

The abundance of fine chariot items is a striking feature of the tomb. 1127 chariot items were unearthed from the eastern and northern chambers.103 Wooden chariot parts, including a chariot box and chariot canopies, were finely made and lacquered with red and black colours (fig. 4.21).104 Very detailed patterns were applied on the top of a canopy (fig. 4.21.2). Bronze fittings included axlecaps with linch-pins, horse bits, and an impressive number of horse ornaments. Most of the axle-caps and horse ornaments were finely cast and decorated. The axle-capes shared patterns with ritual bronze vessels from the tomb. The bronze horse bits were usually fastened on paired horn, bone, or lacquer cheek-pieces, on which patterns were applied (fig. 4.22).105

  The date of his death is based on the inscription of a bell from the tomb, which was a gift from the current Chu king. See Hubei sheng bowuguan 1989, p. 461. 103   Hubei sheng bowuguan 1989, p. 306. 104   Hubei sheng bowuguan 1989, pp. 309-311. 105   Hubei sheng bowuguan 1989, pp. 326-328. 106   For the materials, see Hubei sheng Jingzhou diqu bowuguan 1982, pp. 88-95. 102

107

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 4.22. Horse bits and cheek-pieces from the tomb of the Marquis Yi. (After Hubei sheng bowuguan 1989, p. 327, fig. 201.1-3)

Fig. 4.23. Wooden horse-and-chariot ornaments from tomb M1 at Tianxingguan, Jingzhou, Hubei. The middle Warring States period, the 4th century BCE. 1. Draught-pole ornament; 2. Dao horse ornament (After Hubei sheng Jingzhou diqu bowuguan 1982, pp. 90, 107, figs. 16, 30)

108

Chariots, Steppe Elements, and the Zhou Elite’s Local Networks s

Fig. 4.24. Horse ornament from Zhengjiawazi, Shenyang, Liaoning. The 6th-5th century BCE. 1. Horse ornament; 2. Reconstruction of the usage of the horse ornament (After Shenyang gugong bowuyuan and Shenyang shi wenwu guanli bangongshi 1975, pp. 150-151, figs.12. 1, 15)

wooden chariot parts were discovered.107 The presence of the impressive number of chariot items in large Chu tombs indicates that horses and chariots were used on a very large scale in the Chu sphere.

period (c. the 5th century BCE), earlier than the appearance of the dao in the Chu state.111 Thus, it is highly possible that the Chu elite borrowed the form of this steppe item from nomadic groups in present-day northeastern China.

In addition to bronze fittings and wooden chariot parts resembling those from the tomb of the Marquis Yi of the Zeng, the Tianxingguan tombs yielded two further types of wooden ornaments, dao horse ornaments and draughtpole ornaments, which were exclusive to the Chu sphere (fig. 4.23).108 The emergence of these Chu items seems to indicate that horse and chariot ornaments with strong local features had been developed at least in the middle Warring States period. The dao seems to have been intended to hold plumes or fringes as seen on the heads of bronze horses from a pit in the tomb of the First Emperor (fig. 4.29.1).109

The bamboo-slip inventory from the tomb of the Marquis Yi of the Zeng provides further valuable evidence on the use of chariots in the Chu sphere.112 The inventory documents the funeral goods of the Marquis Yi, in which over 100 chariots of 39 types were recorded. Some of these chariots’ owners, contributors, drivers, teamed horses, and associated items, principally weapons and sets of human and horse armour, were recorded in detail. In addition, 33 horse names were provided. According to the inventory, most of horses were prepared for chariots, and they were matched as teams according to colours, gender and ages.113 These complex naming systems suggest that the elite there had very detailed categories of chariots and horses. The inventory suggests that chariots had been fully adopted in the Chu cultural sphere in the middle Yangtze River valley, and were important to the Chu elite no less than to the elite of their northern contemporaries.

Similar items, along with a considerable number of steppe objects, from a remote steppe-elite tomb at Zhenjiawazi 鄭 家洼子, Shenyang瀋陽, Liaoning suggest a steppe origin of the dao (fig. 4.24).110 The tomb was contemporary with the late Spring and Autumn to the early Warring States   For the materials, see Hubei sheng Jingzhou bowuguan 2003, pp. 100110, 171. The tomb is next to tomb M1 and the occupant seems to be a female (Hubei sheng Jingzhou bowuguan 2003, p. 217). 108   For the materials, see Hubei sheng Jingzhou diqu bowuguan 1982, figs. 16, 29. 3, 29. 7, 30; Hubei sheng Jingzhou bowuguan 2003, p. 171. 109   For the dao of the bronze horses, see Qinshihuang bingmayong bowuguan and Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1998, pp. 103-105, 228231. 110   The horse ornaments were unearthed from tomb M6512 at the site. In addition, the tomb also yielded many nomadic style items including mirrors, leather boots, weapons, and cheek-pieces and bits. No Zhou item was found. For the materials, see Shenyang gugong bowuyuan and Shenyang shi wenwu guanli bangongshi 1975, pp. 149-151. 107

The presence of an impressive number of sets of horn or bone cheek-pieces, along with bronze horse bits, in the Leigudun and Tianxingguan tombs, and many other large   Shenyang gugong bowuyuan and Shenyang shi wenwu guanli bangongshi 1975, p. 154. 112   For the report of the inventory, see Hubei sheng bowuguan 1989, pp. 487-531. Xiao Shengzhong (2005) provides a thorough interpretation on the inventory from the tomb of the Marquis Yi. My discussion of the inventory follows his work. 113   For an explanation on the horse names, see Xiao Shengzhong 2005, pp. 85-89. 111

109

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 4.25. Bronze cheek pieces from Xiasi, Xichuan, Henan. The 6th century BCE. (after Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo, Henan sheng Danjiang kuqu kaogu fajuedui and Xichuan xian bowuguan 1991, pl. 6. 5)

Chu tombs, is significant. Horn-shaped cheek-pieces of earlier periods can be regarded as typical steppe objects, as shown in the above discussion on the finds from the early Western Zhou site at Baifu in Beijing. They represent a distinctive practice, which is different from the Yellow River tradition of using bronze cheek-pieces.114 Further sophisticated horn cheek-pieces are frequently found in Eastern Zhou tombs of northern states (see fig. 1.11.4). As discussed in chapter one, they were first popular in the Jin state in middle Spring and Autumn period in the middle 6th century BCE, as seen in the Jin cemetery at Shangma, Shanxi.115 The occupants there had adopted steppe horse skills and had had a closer relationship with steppe groups than other Zhou states in the central and southern areas.116 Later in the Warring States period, such cheek-pieces were widely used by the elite of the Zhou states in more central   For a discussion on the relationship between shapes of cheek-pieces and horse bits and horse control skills, based on the material from Central Asia and central Europe, see Dietz 2006, pp. 157-163; Brownrigg 2006, p. 165-171. 115   The Shangma site, dating from the middle 8th to middle 5th century BCE, is one of the largest cemeteries of the Spring and Autumn period. Over 1,300 tombs have been excavated. 48 cheek-pieces were discovered at the site, 42 of which were made of antler or bone. For the materials from the Shangma site, see Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1994. Similar bone cheek-pieces were also discovered from other contemporary Jin cemeteries, such as those at Chengcun in Linyi, and Taiyuan in Shanxi province. For the materials from Chengcun, Linyi, see Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo et al. 2003, pp. 140-142. For the materials from Taiyuan, see Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo and Taiyuan shi wenwu guanli weiyuanhui 1996, p. 118, fig. 62.2. See also chapter one. 116   For a discussion on the interaction between the tomb occupants at the Shangma site and northern steppe groups, see Tian Jianwen 1993, pp. 167-168. See also Falkenhausen 2006a, pp. 150-151. 114

Fig. 4.26. Bladed axle-caps from the tomb of Marquis Yi of the Zeng state (after Hubei sheng bowuguan 1989, pl. 108. 4)

areas, such as the Wei 魏 state, in present-day Henan.117 While the Chu elite of the Spring and Autumn period used very simple bronze cheek-pieces, as those from the Xiasi site (fig. 4.25),118 the large number of horn or bone cheekpieces in later tombs probably indicates that the Chu elite of the Warring States period had gained fuller contact with advanced horse skills adopted by their northern neigbours. Why was it important for the Chu state to keep up with such northern skills? This attempt was most probably associated with the military role of chariots in the Eastern Zhou period. Two rare axle-capes with long, curved blades from the tomb of the Marquis Yi demonstrate that they were specifically designed for battle chariots (fig. 4.26).119 The emphasis of warfare as seen in the burial goods was also well presented by the presence of an impressive number of bronze weapons, and leather armour for men and horses.120 The two sets of horse armour in the tomb of the Marquis Yi were particularly noteworthy. While the human armour   Bone cheek-pieces resembling those of the Jin sites at Shanxi were discovered from cemeteries of the Wei state at Huixian (Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1956, p. 44) and Jixian (Guo Baojun 1959, p. 33) in Henan. 118   All of the cheek-pieces from the Xiasi site are made of bronze. Their shapes are very simple and lack decorations. They are thus very different from bronze cheek-pieces of northern states. For the cheek-pieces from the Xiasi site, see Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo, Henan sheng Danjiang kuqu kaogu fajuedui, and Xichuan xian bowuguan 1991, p. 181, pls. 6, 17, 103. 119   4777 weapons, 13 sets of leather armour for people and two sets of armour for horses were discovered from the tomb. For the materials, see Hubei sheng bowuguan 1989, pp. 252-306, 322-325. 120   For the materials, see Hubei sheng bowuguan 1989, pp. 332-352. 117

110

Chariots, Steppe Elements, and the Zhou Elite’s Local Networks s

Fig. 4.27. Remains of leather horse armours with elaborated patterns found at the tomb of the Marquis Yi of the Zeng state. (After Hubei sheng bowuguan 1989, p. 350, fig. 214)

was painted with black or dark brown lacquer, the horse armour was finely painted with intricate patterns (fig. 4.27). The elaborate decoration probably demonstrates the specific role of horses in Chu military life. Based on a detailed comparison between the chariot names recorded in the inventory of the Marquis Yi and those in other contemporary and later textual materials, Xiao Shengzhong 蕭聖中 suggests that most of the chariots shown in the inventory were war chariots.121 Nonetheless,   See Xiao Shengzhong 2005, pp. 74-85.

121

a chariot usually had several functions. As Xiao points out, by unloading weapons and armour, a war chariot could become a hunting chariot. Even chariots for daily transportation could be transformed into war chariots immediately by adding some weapons.122 Indeed, as seen in several other Chu tombs123 and many tombs in the north, such as tombs at Liulige 琉璃閣, Hui Xian 輝   See Xiao Shengzhong 2005, p. 5. In a discussion on the bronze chariots of the First Emperor, Sun Ji (1983, p. 23) has discussed the diverse functions of a Warring States chariot. 123   Both hangers and leather chariot-side covers are found in tomb M2, at Baoshan 包山, Hubei. 122

111

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 4.28. Leather box-side covers and bronze hangers found at a tomb at Baoshan, Hubei. The Warring States period, the 5th - 4th century BCE. (After Hubei sheng Jing Sha tielu kaogudui 1991) 1-3. Leather side covers; 4-5. Bronze hangers

縣, Henan,124 bronze hangers were designed for hanging objects (probably leather chariot-side covers) on rails of chariot boxes (fig. 4.28). With different attachments on them, a chariot could be used for different purposes. The presence of these attachments probably explains why only very few chariot types can be identified in burials, though the naming system of chariots shown in the inventory is very complex. Textual evidence indicates that, in the Eastern Zhou period, the heyday of chariot battles in Chinese history,125 the possession of chariots was a very important measurement of powers of states and high ranking individuals. The Mencius126 records that “In a state with ten thousand chariots, the murderer of the king is usually from a lineage with one thousand chariots. In a thousand-chariot state, the murderer of the king is usually from a lineage with one hundred chariots. (萬乘之國弑其君者，必千乘之 家； 千乘之國弑其君者， 必百乘之家。)”127 This text indicates that the possession of war chariots, which represented the military, political, and economic power of their owners, was a very important issue at the time. Chariots in the ancient Near East had at a much earlier date played a similar military role, and, therefore, were regarded as one of the most important belongings of high ranking aristocrats and states. As a diplomatic letter by Hittite king Hattusili III (c. 1267-1237 BCE) from the Amarna letters shows, the king began the letter with a salutation saying that “I and my house, horses, chariots, officials and my country are well indeed. May everything

  For the report, see Guo Baojun 1959.   But it needs to note that armies were principally composed of infantries. See Lewis 1999, p. 621. 126   The Mencius, a collection of anecdotes of a Confucian philosopher, Mencius, complied in the fourth century BCE, was one of the most important Confucian texts. 127   Mencius, King Hui of Liang, Part One 梁惠王一. 124 125

be likewise well with my brother and his house, his horses, chariots, officials and his country.”128 The important role of chariots in the Eastern Zhou society therefore led chariots, particularly war chariots, to provide important indicators of social standing. As shown in the inventory, in addition to some chariots owned by the Marquis Yi, most of them were gifts offered by his high ranking contemporaries. Xiao Shengzhong has divided the chariots recorded in the inventory into three categories. The first category comprises chariots owned by the Marquis Yi, including war chariots, hunting chariots, and transportation chariots. The second one includes gift chariots from high ranking Chu elites, including the Chu king and high ranking Chu officials, during the Marquis Yi’s lifetime. They include war and hunting chariots. The third one includes chariots provided by Chu high ranking elites, including the Chu king, a Chu prince, and other high ranking figures, to support the funeral of the Marquis Yi. They are 23 war and other chariots.129 These categories indicate that chariots, particularly war chariots, were frequently exchanged among Chu high ranking elites. These exchanges were very meaningful. The possessions and exchanges of chariots provided ways through which social connections between the Marquis Yi and other high ranking contemporaries could be reinforced. In this way, social relationships were built and maintained. 5. Later developments The history of chariot using in the Zhou period seems to tangle continuously with steppe culture. The three examples presented in this chapter show that the steppe culture was the most important source when local elites needed to alter their Zhou chariots to adapt to their local needs. No matter   After Oates 2003, pp. 122-123. The Hittite was an Indo-European steppe group established their state in Anatolia in c. 1650 BCE (Beckwith 2009, p. 37). 129   Xiao Shengzhong 1997, p. 147. 128

112

Chariots, Steppe Elements, and the Zhou Elite’s Local Networks s

Fig. 4.29. Canopy carriages 1. Bronze miniature canopy carriage of the First Emperor. The late 3rd century BCE. 2. Canopy carriage found at horse-and-chariot pit no. 2 at Jiuliandun, Zaoyang, Hubei. The Warring States period. The 4th - 3rd century BCE. 3. Inside of the box of the miniature canopy carriage of the First Emperor. 4. The bronze driver of the miniature canopy carriage of the First Emperor. (1, 3-4. After Qinshihuang bingmayong bowuguan and Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1998, colour pls. 27, 29, fig. 85; 2. After Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 2003, pl. 4)

how adept the Zhou elite became at using their chariots, they continuously needed steppe groups to provide high quality horses. Therefore, the steppe groups always had roles in the Zhou society. A prominent example is the rise of the Qin state, which eventually unified the Zhou states in 221 BCE. As the Shiji states, the establishment of the Qin state by a steppe group inhabiting present-day eastern Gansu in the later half of the middle Western Zhou period was because of their merits of raising horses for the Zhou king.130   The Shiji, “Qin benji 秦本紀” says: “Feizi lived at Quanqiu and was a lover of horses and other domestic animals, being good at breeding them. The people of Quanqiu told this to King Xiao (r. 872 ?-866 BCE), who then summoned him and put him in charge of horses between the Qian River and the Wei River. The horses greatly proliferated. King Xiao wanted to establish him the heir of the Daluo lineage. The daughter of the Ruler of Shen was a wife of Daluo and gave birth to Cheng who was the legitimate heir of Daluo. Therefore, the Ruler of Shen spoke to King Xiao: “In the past my ancestor Lishan’s daughter married Xuxuan of Rong and gave birth to Zhongjue, who because of the marriage submitted himself to Zhou rule and guarded the Western March (Xichui); for this reason the Western March was at peace. In the present-days, I again gave a daughter to be Daluo’s wife who gave birth to the legitimate 130

The superior horse skill of steppe groups always brought new stimuli to Zhou politics and society, even when they were described as enemies of Chinese states during the

heir Cheng. Shen and Luo have two marriages between them, for which reason the Western Rong are all obedient, therefore allowing [you] to be the king. King, please think about it.” Thus, King Xiao said: “In the past, Bo Yi took charge of domestic animals for Emperor Shun and the animals were proliferous; therefore he received land and was awarded the surname Ying. Now, his descendent also breeds horses for me. I will divide my land and make him a dependent [of Zhou].” [King Xiao] settled him (Feizi) at Qin, and let him carry on sacrifice of the Ying clan; [Feizi] was called Qin Ying. [King Xiao] also did not abandon the heir of the Daluo lineage who was a son of the Ruler of Shen’s daughter, in order to harmonize the relationship with the Western Rong. (非子居犬 丘，好馬及畜，善養息之。犬丘人言之周孝王，孝王召使主馬於汧 渭之閒，馬大蕃息。孝王欲以為大駱適嗣。申侯之女為大駱妻，生 子成為適。申侯乃言孝王曰：「昔我先酈山之女，為戎胥軒妻，生 中潏，以親故歸周，保西垂，西垂以其故和睦。今我復與大駱妻， 生適子成。申駱重婚，西戎皆服，所以為王。王其圖之。」於是孝 王曰：「昔伯翳為舜主畜，畜多息，故有土，賜姓嬴。今其後世亦 為朕息馬，朕其分土為附庸。」邑之秦，使復續嬴氏祀，號曰秦 嬴。亦不廢申侯之女子為駱適者，以和西戎。)” (Translation after Li Feng 2006, pp. 262-263) For the original Chinese text, see the Shiji (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1959, p. 177).

113

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 4.30. Chariot representations in the western wall of the front chamber of the Wuliang Shrine at Jiaxiang, Shandong. The Eastern Han period, the 3rd century CE. (After Zhongguo huaxiangshi bianji weiyuanhui 2000, vol. 1, no. 56)

Eastern Zhou period.131 As I have mentioned in chapter one, chariots’ loss of their primary role in warfare in the late Warring States period was because of the introduction of another steppe mobile and fighting skill, the cavalry, in 307 BCE.132 It seems that after the introduction of the cavalry, a new type of luxurious canopy carriages with enclosed chamber emerged. Although chariots arrived very late in the south, the up-to-date earliest evidence of this new vehicle type is found in the Chu horse-and-chariot pits at Jiuliandun, Zaoyang, Hubei (fig. 4.29.2),133 and Ma’anzhong, Huaiyang, Henan.134 Later in the Qin dynasty, this type of carriages was used as luxurious transport for the First Emperor (fig. 4.29.1).135 The appearance of such carriages indicates an increasing need for luxurious everyday transportation, rather than for exclusive military use. As shown by the finely cast half-size bronze miniature of the canopy carriage of the First Emperor, every detail of the   For a thorough discussion on the development of hostile attitude of the Zhou elite towards their steppe neighbours in the Eastern Zhou period, see Li Feng 2006, pp. 285-293. For a research on the stimulus from the steppe groups, see Rawson 2010b, pp. 1-41. 132   Cavalry skill had been developed by nomads in the Eurasian steppes for over half a millennium before it was introduced to the Yellow River system. 133   A large canopy carriage was discovered from horse-and-chariot pit no. 2, which was the associated pit of a high-ranking Chu female. Such carriages were not found in her husband’s horse-and-chariot pit. For a brief introduction, see Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 2003, pp. 12-13. 134   Five carriages very similar to that of the First Emperor were discovered in two horse-and-chariot pits associated with paired tombs of a Chu high ranking couple. See Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo and Zhoukou diqu wenhuaju wenwuke 1984, pp. 11-12. 135   For the report, see Qinshihuang bingmayong bowuguan and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1998, pp. 139-179. The First Emperor died in 210 BCE. 131

house-shaped carriage was carefully made and intricately decorated. Furthermore, inside comfortable furniture was provided (fig. 4.29.2). What is more significant, along with the emergence of the new type of luxurious canopy carriages, is the appearance of new driving practices and skills. The most significant new practice among the Zhou elite was that drivers were sitting on this type of vehicles, as the bronze driver of the First Emperor’s bronze canopy carriage shows (fig. 4.29.3). 136 Furthermore, to fit below a lower canopy, passengers needed to sit in the carriage box. These new riding poses were very different from the standing pose of the Zhou elite (see fig. 2.20). From the Han dynasty onward, chariots were rarely driven by standing warriors being instead in the hands of seated government officials, as seen in numerous representations of chariots on walls of tombs and shrines of the Han period (fig. 4.30).137 The contrast between the standing and sitting poses probably presents a shift of chariot’s principal functions and social significance. The change probably came with the adoption of new forms of transportation and therefore driving and horse-riding skills following the development of mounted soldiers as the foremost fighting force.

  For the materials, see Qinshihuang bingmayong bowuguan and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 1998, pp. 189-193. 137   Chariot processions were among the most popular themes in Han carved tombs and shrines. The representations of chariots were sometimes accompanied by inscriptions of users’ names, official titles, or chariot names. For a study on this theme, see Xin Lixiang 1999, pp. 47-63. 136

114

Chapter Five The Chariot of Early China: a Cultural Symbol In 1969, the China Council for Eastern Asian Studies, based in Taiwan, published a study entitled “A Study of Chariots and Chariot Fittings in the I-li (Yi li 儀禮)” (in Chinese) by Cheng Yong-yih 曾永義 in the Annual Bulletin for Easten Asian Studies, volume 8.1 The work was a part of a very grand project, aiming to recover the ritual of the Zhou period (c. 1045-221 BCE), particularly the Western Zhou period (c. 1045-771 BCE), which is generally deemed by the Chinese generally to be the Chinese Golden Age, as asserted by Confucians. The Yi li together with the Li ji 禮記 and the Zhou li 周禮 are called the Three Ritual Texts.2 Confucian scholars agree that the Three Ritual Texts provide facts on Zhou ritual. It is thought that the Yi li was edited in the late Warring States period, and therefore reflects the very late Zhou period. The Yi li describes the rules of propriety of the Zhou elite. This book particularly presents detailed descriptions of many rituals, ceremonies, and ritual objects of the common Zhou elite, shi 士.3 In other words, it offers later scholars some knowledge of the ways in which late Zhou ritual objects, many of which have been discovered across China, were used. Therefore, it is not surprising that the grand project was principally led by one of the most famous first generation Chinese archaeologists, Li Chi 李濟 (1896-1979), who was trained as an anthropologist in Harvard University.4 As an impressive number of materials of the “Golden Age” had been discovered from the 1920’s, Li proposed that it was important to study this significant ritual text through a comparison with excavated materials. According to the Yi li, the grand project of the China Council for Eastern Asia Studies included the subprojects of reconstructing nine of the most important ritual institutions of the Zhou period: chariots, ritual buildings, clothing, burial clothing, musical instruments, banquets, elite meetings, offerings to ancestor, and funerals. Scholars thought that such research could provide a new and convincing way to access the reality of the age of the great Western Zhou kings and sages and of Confucius (551479 BCE). Thereby these scholars could gain a deeper understanding of Confucianism. To the Chinese, in both past and present, Confucianism is regarded as the core of the Chinese culture. The teachings   Cheng Yong-yih 1969, pp. 29-122.   The edition of Zhonghua shuju 中華書局 is the most popular edition of the Three Ritual Text and other important Confucian texts (see Shisanjing zhushu 十三經注疏). For commentaries, see Loewe (ed.) 1993, pp. 2432, 234-243, 293-297. 3   See Loewe (ed.) 1993, pp. 234-235. 4   Li Chi is deemed as the father of Chinese Archaeology. Most of his works focused on Shang archaeology, particularly remains from Anyang, Henan. He moved from China to Taiwan along with the Kuomingtang government. 1 2

of Confucius, as the most influential source of moral and political philosophy, have provided the Chinese with guidelines on all aspects of living in the world from the Han dynasty (206BCE-220CE) to present day.5 The role of chariot as an important component of the Zhou ritual has long been recognised by Chinese scholars. Abundant interpretations, explanations, and commentaries to the Zhou chariot, as described in the Three Ritual Texts and many other texts, are provided by Chinese scholars of all periods.6 Several famous Confucian scholars of the late Qing period, including Dai Zhen 戴震 (1724-1777) and Ruan Yuan 阮元 (1764-1849), conducted research on the reconstruction of the Zhou chariot (fig. 5.1).7 As they probably knew representations of Eastern Han chariots in Han carving or paintings from tombs and shrines, dating from the first to third century CE, their reconstructions were very similar to Han chariots rather than to Zhou ones (fig. 5.2). As a background to a study and spread of Confucianism, the principal work of the project of the China Council for Eastern Asian studies on the Zhou chariot was to reconstruct excavated late Shang and Zhou chariots and to match excavated materials with Confucian texts in an unprecedentedly detailed way.8 Furthermore, a particular political significance of this project was that it was supervised by the official 77th descendant of Confucius, K’ung Te-che’ng 孔德成 (1920-2008).9 The direct relationship with the descendant of Confucius gave

  For an introduction to the establishment of the role of Confucianism as an imposed measure of intellectual uniformity in the Han period, see Twitchett and Loewe (ed.) 1986, pp. 704-715, 747-807. 6   A very common practice among Chinese scholarship is to provide interpretations, explanations, and comments on the Confucian texts. Many interpretative works of the Confucian texts were complied and are then regarded as important sources and instructions to understand the Confucian texts by later scholars. One of the most important collections of such works is the Shishan jing zhushu 十三經注疏, which still plays an unchallenged role in contemporary studies of the Confucianism. 7   For an introduction to their works, see Cheng Yong-yih1969, pp. 56-58. Both Dai Zhen and Ruan Yuan’s studies were based on the Kaogong ji 考工記 (The Records of Examination of craftsman, complied in c. fifth century BCE), which is a section of the Zhou li, complied in the Eastern Zhou period. 8   Like scholars of the Qing dynasty (1644-1911), the reconstruction is largely based on the understanding of the Kaogong ji. See Cheng Yongyih1969, pp. 53-85. 9   For an introduction to the project, see Cheng Yong-yih 1969, pp. 29-30. Since Confucianism is the core value of the Chinese culture, the lineage of Confucius is very important in Chinese society and has a specific cultural and political meaning. Today, the official descendants of Confucius undertake the duty of promoting Confucianism. They enjoy very a high social reputation. In the Taiwanese government system, the duty of the official descendants of Confucius is to be in charge of the annual Confucius ceremony in the principal Confucius temple in Tainan and he is appointed as Senior Advisor of the Office of the President of the Republic of China.  5

115

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig.5.1. Models based on late Qing reconstruction of the Zhou chariot 1. Model of Ruan Yuan’s (1764-1849) reconstruction 2. Model of Dai Zheng’s (1724-1777) reconstruction (after Cheng Yong-Yih 1969, pl. 1)

Fig.5.2. Representations of Eastern Han chariots. The Eastern Han period, the 1st – 3rd century CE. 1. Representation of a chariot in a tomb at Jingbian, Shaanxi (after Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiuyuan, Yulin shi wenwu yanjiusuo, and Jingbian xian wenwu guanli bangongshi 2009, fig. 27) 2. Line drawing of a representation of a chariot on a carving in a tomb at Yinan, Shandong (after Wang Jindong 1984, p. 83)

the research a very unusual legitimacy in the eyes of the contemporary Chinese. The achievements of the project of the China Council for Eastern Asian studies on recovering several major aspects of the Zhou ritual seem to have been highly valued. The project was published in several volumes of Annual Bulletin for Eastern Asian Studies, and was re-edited into a series of books entitled “a series of studies of reconstruction of the Yi li (Yi li fuyuan yanjiu congkan 儀禮復原研究叢刊)” in 1971, reprinted in 1986. The importance of the Zhou chariot in the political theory of Confucianism In the Confucian political theory good social order is maintained through a strict social hierarchy, from the king

to common people. This political ideal is reflected by a hierarchical use of ritual vessels and other prestigious objects. Various writings in the Three Ritual Text indicate that the Eastern Zhou elite of different ranks should use an appropriate number of ritual vessels to mark their social ranks: a state ruler, Wang 王, used nine ding 鼎 tripods and eight gui 簋 basins; a marquis, Hou 侯, used seven ding tripods and six gui basins; an upper grandee, Qing 卿 or Shang daifu 上大夫, used five ding tripods and four gui basins; a lower grandee, Xia daifu下大夫, used three ding tripods and two gui basins; and a gentleman, shi 士, used one ding tripod.10   See the Yi li “Pinli 聘禮,” “Gong shi daifu li 公食大夫禮,” and the Li ji “Yu zao 玉藻.” For an archaeological perspective on this hierarchy, see Yu Weichao and Gao Ming 1978-1979. However, such a hierarchical system is hard to demonstrate in archaeological remains. On this aspect, see Falkenhausen 2006a, p. 126. 10

116

The Chariot of Early China: a Cultural Symbol Under this theory, chariots, one of the most prominent status indicators of the Zhou society, had to be incorporated into the hierarchical framework. For example, the Li ji suggests that a ruler of a state would be expected to use seven ding tripods and seven chariots; and a grandee five ding tripods and five chariots.11 A much more systematic description is seen in another text of the Zhou ritual, the I li逸禮, which was re-discovered during the reign of Emperor Jing 景 of the Han dynasty (r. 157-141 BCE).12 According to this text, a king used a chariot drawn by six horses; a marquis used a chariot drawn by four horses; a grandee used a chariot drawn by three horses; a gentleman used a chariot drawn by two horses; and an ordinary man used a chariot drawn by one horse.13 However, archaeological evidence shows that such a hierarchical arrangement was never employed in the Zhou period. It seems that, the ritual of the Zhou period, particularly of the Western Zhou period, had been partially lost in later periods. And, the notion of social ranking was over simplified in these later ritual texts, mainly because it was was over idealized. While chariots were regarded as an essential component of hierarchical ritual objects, the physical reconstruction of the Zhou chariot became an important issue to Chinese scholars. The reconstruction of chariots seems to be more urgent than that of other ritual objects, because over two millennia, from the Han period down to the introduction of modern archaeology in the 1920’s, the image of the Zhou chariot could be “read” from descriptions in various texts, such as the Three Ritual Texts and an earlier work, the Shi jing, or the Book of Poetry, but could not be physically “seen.” Therefore, to provide actual images for the literary descriptions of chariots in the Zhou texts was an important task for Confucian scholars.14 This situation was rather different from that of other Zhou ritual objects, such as bronze vessels and jades, an impressive number of which have been rediscovered, treasured, and passed down through generations of Chinese for more than two thousand years.15 Furthermore, their images had been widely published in many catalogues, such as the Kaogu tu 考古圖 (1092)16 the Xuanhe bogutu 宣和博古圖 (1123).17   The Li ji, “Tangong 檀弓”:“(At the burial) the ruler of a state has seven bundles of the offerings, and seven such small vehicles for them, and a grandee five…(…國君七個，遣車七乘；大夫五個，遣車五乘，…)” (translation after Legge 1885, pp. 174-175). Similar hierarchical descriptions are also seen in the Li ji, “Shaoyi 少儀,” the Zhou li “Chunguan 春官. Dianming 典命” and “Qiuguan秋官. Daxingren大行 人.” 12   It says that the I li was discovered from a wall in the house of Confucius. And as part of the texts in the I li are very similar to those of the Yi li, some of Confucians believe that it was originally part of the Yi li. 13   The I li, “Wangdu ji 王度記.” 14   Such a work is still emphasized by contemporary Chinese scholars. 15   For discussions on the changing value of Shang and Zhou bronze vessels throughout the Chinese history, see Rawson 1993, pp. 51-73; 2004, pp. 15-24; Tseng 1999, pp. 717-767. 16   The Kaogu tu (Dade edition, 1299; Boruzhai edition, 1368), 10 volumes, complied by Lu Dalin 呂大臨 in 1092, is one of the earliest illustrated catalogues of antiquities. 234 items from Song imperial and private collections are recorded. 17   The Xuanhe bogutu (Jiang Yang edition, 1528), 30 volumes, edited by Wang Fu 王紱under the Song court in c.1110, is the earliest illustrated 11

The presence of the Zhou chariot in the Confucian discourse and Chinese history after the Zhou period If we wish to examine the literary framework within which the visual image of the Zhou chariot in the ritual texts were read, we can turn to the Shi jing, or the Book of Poetry. This collection, composed of 305 folk poems datable from the early Western Zhou period to the Spring and Autumn period (c. 1000-600 BCE), is a literary work rather than a ritual one. However, this text has a significant role in later Confucian discourse because, apart from inscriptions in Zhou ritual vessels, it offered Chinese scholars of later periods the earliest literary source of the Zhou period. Therefore, the descriptions of chariots in the Shi jing provided useful materials for later Confucians to edit, to explain, and to comment on Zhou ritual texts. A number of poems describe chariots with their bronze ornaments. The poem “Zaijian載見” offers fine images of chariots associated with the merit of the Zhou king. It reads, “Now appearing is the ruling king, daily seeking his pattern: The dragon banner is yang-yang, the (chariot) jingle-bells yang-yang, the reins are metal-studded, the beneficence resplendent; leading to see the Shining Deceased-father, to be filial, to make offering, to strengthen long life, eternally to protect it. Hoping for august and many blessings; the valorous and cultured ruling lords comfort with many blessings and make continuous brightness in pure blessings. (載見辟王、曰求厥章。 龍旂陽陽、和鈴央央。鞗革有鶬、休有烈光。率見昭 考、以考以享、以介眉壽。永言保之、思皇多祜。烈 文辟公、綏以多福、俾緝熙于純嘏。)”18 In this text, the virtue of the Zhou king and therefore of the Zhou state is presented by the image of the king’s chariot. As such, the fine image of chariots offered later intellectuals with a material parallel with which to associate the Zhou king. Furthermore such poems show that chariots were used as a metonym of the virtuous elite of the Zhou period, usually termed Junzi 君子. An impressive example comes from the poem “Xiaorong 小戎” of the Qin秦 state, dating to the 8th century BCE. The poem, which is generally thought to have been written to celebrate the merit of the Duke Xiang 襄 (r.778-766 BCE) of the Qin state, illustrates how a wife of an officer missed her husband, who was away from home fighting against invasions of western steppe enemies. The first part of the poem reads: “[There is] his short war chariot; With the ridge-like end of its pole, elegantly bound in five places; With its slip ring and side straps; And the traces attached by gilt rings to the masked transverse; With its beautiful mat of tiger skin, and its long naves; With its piebalds, and horses with white left feet. When I think of my husband (junzi) [thus], looking bland and soft as a piece of jade; Living there in his plank house; catalogue complied under an imperial court. Such a practice was inherited by later Chinese imperial courts. The most famous one is the Xiqing gujian 西清古鑑 (Wuyingdian edition, 1755; reprint Shanghai: Hongwen shuju, 1888) edited by scholar official Liang shizheng 梁詩正 under the Qing court in 1749-1751. 18   The English translation after Shaughnessy 1997, p. 183.

117

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 5.3. Woodblock illustrations of luan jingle from Kaogu tu. 1092, the Northern Song period. (After Siku quanshu)

It ends confusion into all the corners of my heart (小戎 俴收，五楘梁辀，游環脅驅，陰靷鋈續，文茵暢轂， 駕我騏馵。言念君子，溫其如玉；在其板屋，亂我心 曲。)”19 In this poem, the detailed description of fine war chariot ornaments presents the fine quality of a Zhou elite, which represents Duke Xiang, as well as his success in the campaign. By contrast with the military characteristic of the war chariot, the presence of jade in this poem devotes the educated quality of the elite. Following the tradition as seen in the poems “Caiji” and “Zaijian” shown above, another poem, “Tingliao 庭 燎,” presents the quality of the elegant movement of the virtuous Zhou elite by illustrating the sound of chariot jingles luan. The poem reads: “How goes the night? It is not yet midnight. The torch is blazing in the court-yard. My princely men (virtuous elite junzi) are arriving; -- there is the tinkling of their luan jingles. How goes the night? The night is not yet through. The torch is growing pale in the court-yard. My princely men (virtuous elite junzi) are arriving; -- there is the sound of their luan jingle, regular and near. (夜如何其？夜未央，庭燎之光。君子至止， 鸞聲將將。夜如何其？夜未艾，庭燎晰晰。君子至 止，鸞聲噦噦。)”20 The idea embodied in the Shi jing was passed down and further emphasized in later texts, such as the Li ji. These later ritual texts emphasised the quality of the junzi as a   The English translation after Legge 2000a, p. 193, with slight modification. 20   The translation after Legge 2000a, p. 294, with modification. 19

virtuous member of the elite. In the chapter “Yuzao 玉 藻” of the Li ji, the luan jingles are placed in parallel with jades in a rather different way to that seen in “Xiaorong” to demonstrate the moral quality of the Zhou junzi. It reads: “When a virtuous junzi is sitting in a chariot, he is hearing the harmonious sound of luan jingles; when a junzi is walking, he is making the sound of jades (because his pendants are knocking together to make a tingling sound) (君子在車，則聞鑾和之聲；行則鳴配玉).” In this text, the quality of the virtuous elite was expressed in two audible ways: the sound of jades and the sound of luan jingles. The regular tempo that they produced presents the elegant way of being a virtuous Zhou junzi. According to the above texts, traditional Chinese intellectuals thought that the luan jingle exhibited some traditional Chinese virtues, such as harmony, balance and control. As Confucianism dominated the Chinese political thought, such texts became guides for all later Chinese intellectuals. As they were constantly studied, memorized, and analyzed, the texts promoted the Han understandings of the luan jingle and the Zhou chariot to be regarded as measures of virtue for later Chinese. However, the Han understanding of the Zhou chariot was only transmitted on the basis of the literary sources. Later bronze catalogues, such as the Kaogu tu and the Xuanhe bogutu of the northern Song period (960-1127) mentioned above, describe bronze luan jingles as dancers’ hand bells of the Han dynasty (fig. 5.3).21 Such an understanding   For a discussion on the misunderstanding of luan jingles and other

21

118

The Chariot of Early China: a Cultural Symbol

Fig. 5.4. Pictorial representations of chariots on seals from the Near East. The second millennium BCE. 1. Representation of a chariot with a railed box on an Anatolian seal (New York, MMA acc. no. 66.25.17b; after Littauer and Crouwel 1979, fig. 29) 2. Representation of a chariot with a screened box on an Akkadian seal from Syria (c.1779 BCE) (London, BM 16815a; after Littauer and Crouwel 1979, fig. 31) 3. Representation of a chariot with a screened box on a seal from Syria (Oxford, Ashmolean 1920. 25; after Littauer and Crouwel 1979, fig. 35) 4. A possible hunting scene on a Syrian seal (c. 18-17th century BCE) (After Littauer and Crouwel 1979, fig. 36)

on the luan jingle suggests that, at least from the Song dynasty, the actual luan jingles, the real Zhou chariots, and values believed to be embodied in the two objects were not connected. Thus, the actual jingles were not included in the understanding of the Zhou chariot, though many actual examples had been collected and recorded. It was not until the introduction of modern archaeology to China in the early 20th century that the idealised and physical existences of the luan jingle came together again. Contrasts from west The existence of the Zhou chariot in the forms of writing and concept in numerous historical, ritual, and academic texts is very different from that of their counterparts in other ancient worlds. In the era of chariot battles in the Middle East, Egypt, and the Greek and Roman worlds, chariots were not only documented in texts, but also frequently depicted by artisans.22 War chariots are frequently used as a major pictorial theme. In the Near East, they were illustrated on many seals, dating to the second millennium BCE, as in fig. 5.4.23 They were also frequently presented on walls of important buildings and tombs. A very impressive example comes from a wall relief of the Great Temple at Abu Simbel, which depicts the chariot troops of

Egypt king Ramesses II (r. 1279-1213 BCE) annihilating war chariots of the Hittites.24 In the ancient Near East, scenes of chariot battles were frequently illustrated as representations of military power and victories. Formulaic representations of Egyptian kings shooting from their chariots in battles and in hunting were regarded as a way to demonstrate the fighting ability of the kings, and, therefore, became a propaganda tool to underpin their military and political power. Such approaches were very different from the harmonious image of the Zhou king and his chariot in the poem “Zaijian,” quoted above. Even in the description of war chariots, as have seen in “Xiaorong,” they were still described in an elegant way. It seems that, in the Chinese literary context, the most important role of chariots is not to present physical power but to represent the propriety of rulers. Cultural associations of chariots in the Classical Greek and Roman worlds developed in a different way. From the Bronze Age, war chariots were associated with mythical figures and heroes.25 Furthermore, as chariot racing was one of the most popular athletic sports in the Classical World, representations of racing chariots were everywhere, from coins and pots to large public buildings. In the Roman   See Raulwing 2000, fig. 19. For more examples on scenes of Egypt chariot battles, see Raulwing 2000, pp. 53-58. 25   For examples from Greece, see Crouwel, 1981, 1992; Herrmann and Kondoleon 2004, pp. 113-119. For examples of the Roman Empire, see Humphrey 1986; Chamay et al. 2007. 24

Zhou fittings in later catalogues, see Hsu Ya-hwei 2001, pp. 62-64. 22   For examples and a thorough study on the representations of chariots from the Near East, see Littauer and Crouwel 1979. 23   For examples, see Littauer and Crouwel 1979, figs. 29-36.

119

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity

Fig. 5.5. The statue of Nike on the Wellington Arch, London. (c. 1830). Photo courtesy of Rindy Zhang.

Fig. 5.6. Image of an Egyptian king shooting from a chariot on the 20 pound Egyptian banknote. 1970’s. The Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, HCR6462. Photo taken in the Museum, 2010.

Fig. 5.7. The statue of Boudicea at Enbankment, London. Photo courtesy of Zhang Ying.

120

The Chariot of Early China: a Cultural Symbol Empire (27 BCE – 476 CE), large chariot racing circuses, as one of the most important public structures for public entertainment in cities, were built across the Empire.26 In those ancient societies, chariots embodied power and speed, and chariot representations continuously reinforced this view. Thus, in the Classical world, in addition to the military values of chariots, other associations emerged along with chariot racing. Speed, victory, and the spirit of the greatest athletes, were embodied in chariots. The impressive number of representations of chariot racing testifies to the force that chariots exerted in the Classical world. In the Western Europe, ideas of ancient chariots rooted in the Classical period surround us in many visual and material ways. The Roman chariot became one of the most popular themes for artists to deploy in commemorating victories of their royal patrons. An example comes from a sketch (1628) for a larger work by Rubens (1577-1640) to honour the French king, Henri IV (1553-1610), after his death.27 The sketch is displayed in the Wallace collection in London. In a triumph scene, King Henri IV is “dressed in classical military dress, holding the palm of victory, drawn in a chariot ‘in the manner of the triumphs of the Romans.’”28 The Greek goodness of victory, Nike, in a four-horsedrawn triumph chariot, quadriga, is another popular theme. At the heart of London, she stands high in her triumphal chariot on the top of the Wellington Arch (c. 1830), which was originally built to commemorate Britain’s victories in the Napoleonic Wars (fig. 5.5).29 Similar representations of quadriga, with Nike or Roman military figures, are also seen on other similar modern triumphal arches in other parts of the Western Europe, such as the Arch de Triomphe du Carrousel (built in 1806-1808 by Napoleon I) at Paris in France and the Brandenburg Gate at Berlin in Germany (designed in 1793). In modern societies, images of ancient chariots are frequently recreated for political purposes. A number of examples come from the Near East. In the 1960’s, the formulaic representation of Egyptian king shooting from a chariot was chosen as a principal pattern on Egyptian banknotes, one of the most prominent items for a nation to demonstrate her identity, to present local history and greatness (fig. 5.6).30 A more recent example comes from Iran. In a mural, the image of Saddam Hussein (19372006) was illustrated as a sixth century BCE Babylon king, Nebuchadnezzar, in his powerful war chariot, but   For a thorough research on Roman circuses, see Humphrey 1986. 27   The Wallace Collection, London. P522. The large painting was intended to complement the cycle devoted to Marie de’ Medici. However, it was unfinished at the end. This large painting is now in Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence. For a study on this sketch, see Wehle 1943, pp. 213-218. 28   After the web site of Wallace collection, see http://wallacelive. wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus 29   I am grateful to Professor Irene Lemos for explaining the meaning of Nike to me. 30   An example is displayed in the Ashmolean Museum (the Ashmolean, HCR6462). 26

surrounded by modern weapons.31 In this case, the image of an ancient chariot, whose power was gained from its early local history, was regarded as a much more powerful tool of political propaganda than images of other high-tech weapons. In the Western Europe, a prominent example comes from Britain. A monument (1902) for Queen Victoria (18191901) depicted the victory of the Queen in a rather different way from those with the image of Roman chariots. The sculpture is on Victoria Embankment, adjacent to the British Imperial Parliament, in London. Here the Queen is depicted as English heroine Queen Boudicea of the Iceni (d. 61), who successfully led her tribe against the tyrannical rule of the Romans, riding on her powerful chariot with sharp scythes on the two ends of the axle.32 This and the above many other examples reveal the ways in which modern political figures regarded images of ancient chariots as powerful tools to demonstrate power, victory, and history, and even more importantly, to demonstrate nationalism.33 Indeed, as in China, the values of ancient chariots were taken over by later successors and are still retained today. However, the meanings attached by the later viewers seem to go a long way beyond those of their ancestors. The ancient appearance of chariots is used as a powerful tool to demonstrate political claims in contemporary societies. Assessment The above discussion has illustrated how ancient chariots were revived as symbols of power, victory, and national politics. As mentioned above, the absence of representations or physical knowledge of the Zhou chariot after the Han period led to a new life for the Zhou chariot in later Chinese history. This existence took an unusual form in the transmitted texts of the commentaries on the Shi jing, or the Book of Poetry, and in the ritual texts, as revised during the Han period. As mentioned above, in lands dominated by Confucianism, the values of the Zhou chariot were associated with the beautiful image of the sage Zhou kings and the virtuous elite. Such qualities are radically different from those of its counterparts in other regions. In the Confucian discourse, the written image of the Zhou chariot was deemed as a material representative of the virtue of Zhou canons and was continuously provided as an example to later Chinese scholars when they imagined and imitated appropriate practices of the virtuous elite of the Golden Age. The Zhou chariot as a significant component of the Zhou ritual had a specific role in the later Confucianism   Renfrew and Bahn 2008, p. 546. The chariot in the mural was based on a mural adjacent to Nebuchadnezzar’s Southern Palace in modern Iraq. See Finkel and Seymour 2008, fig. 90. 32   The story is recorded in Tacitus, Annals 12. For a brief introduction, see Haslam 2004, pp. 8-9. For a discussion on the building of the monument in the British political context, see Kelly 2006, pp. 114-122. 33   For a discussion on the use of past to demonstrate nationalism, see Renfrew and Bahn 2008, pp. 546-547. 31

121

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity dominated periods. Instead of inheriting ancient values, the development of the Zhou chariot presents a very unusual example of the ways in which ancient chariots moved through different contexts over a very long time span. In the development of chariots in the Zhou period, as I showed in the previous chapters, specific chariot designs and practices provided a material way for the Zhou elite to identify themselves militarily as members of the Zhou kingdom. In later revisit of the Zhou, it was regarded as an elegant symbol of the appropriate manner of the Zhou virtuous elite. Therefore, the conceptual images of chariots and fittings provided later generations a means to understand the teaching of Confucius and to recognize themselves as followers of sages of the Golden Age. Such an understanding is very different from the understanding of chariots in the Zhou period, when chariots were principally regarded as military and political tools. As such, with later Confucian scholars’ continuously revisiting and recycling the Zhou chariot through the descriptions in the transmitted texts, the meaning of the Zhou chariot could be “constantly recontextualised and ‘updated’ with new roles, new significances.”34 It was in this context that the importance of the Zhou chariot as a material component of the Zhou ritual was sustained to the present-day.

River valley examples of traditional Confucian values. In later times, these practices came to be regarded as elegant and virtuous. This social life of the Zhou chariot springs many surprises.

Ancient chariots are indeed a timeless theme in our modern world. However, by contrast with its counterparts of other regions, the Zhou chariot in the Chinese modern history seems not to have been used as a powerful political tool for modern Chinese political power, unlike Zhou ritual vessels, particularly ding vessels.35 Nonetheless, from the view point of Igor Kopytoff’s cultural biography of objects, 36 the introduction and transformation of chariots from a steppe military item to a Chinese virtuous symbol illustrated in this book are unusual. While the great moral value embodied in the Zhou chariot still current at the heart of the contemporary Chinese thought correlated with Confucianism, the examination of chariots in this book reminds us of the indelible and fundamental contribution of ancient steppe people to contemporary Chinese social values. And, it seems also possible that the Zhou elite, who have been deemed as the paradigm of the Chinese value for over two thousand years, had a steppe origin. They deployed with their chariots in steppe ways in the Yellow   Byrne 2003. Here after Meskell 2004, p. 4.   The frequent rediscovery of ritual vessels of the Shang and Zhou periods in later Chinese history was regarded as auspicious signs. The possession of ritual vessels was also deemed as a method to demonstrate the legitimacy of a rule. These concepts are still available in contemporary China. For a discussion on the relationship between ritual bronzes and Chinese political legitimacy, see Rawson 1993, pp. 51-73. For a study on the relationship between ritual bronze vessels of the Shang and Zhou periods and political legitimacy in modern Chinese history, see Tseng 1999, pp. 717-767. 36   In the theory of “cultural biography of objects,” Igor Kopytoff provides a processual view to argue that objects have their life histories. He points out that an object’s social and cultural meanings are changing in different phases of its life in terms of current cultural regulations, such as social contest and taste, and can be manipulated by individuals. For the idea of cultural biography of objects, see Kopytoff 1988, pp. 64-91; Appadurai 1986, pp. 17-18. Jessica Rawson provides an example on adopting this idea to examine the long-term life history of archaic ritual bronzes in Chinese history (Rawson 1993, pp. 51-73). 34 35

122

Bibliography

Allsen, Thomas. 2006. The Royal Hunt in Eurasian History. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Anthony, David W. 1986. “The ‘Kurgan Culture’, IndoEuropean Origins, and the Domestication of the Horse: A Reconsideration.” Current Anthropology 27.4: 291-313. ------- 1998. “The Opening of the Eurasian Steppe at 2000 BCE,” in The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia, vol. 1, V. H. Mair (ed.), pp. 94-113.. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum ------- 2007. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Anthony, David W. and Dorcas R. Brown. 1991. “The Origins of Horseback Riding.” Antiquity 65.246: 22-38. ------- 1998. “Bit Wear Horseback Riding and the Botai Site in Kazakstan.” Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 331-347. ------- 2003. “Eneolithic Horse Rituals and Riding in the Steppes: New Evidence.” In Preshistic Steppe Adaption and the Horse, M. Levine, C. Renfrew, and K. Boyle (ed.), pp. 55-68. Cambridge: McDonald Institute. Anthony, David W., Dorcas R. Brown, and Christian George. 2006. “Early Horseback Riding and Warfare: the Importance of the Magpie around the Neck.” In Horses and Humans: the Evolution of Human-Equine Relationships, S. Olsen et al. (ed.), pp. 137-155. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Anthony, David W. and Dimitri Vinogradov. 1995. “The Birth of the Chariot.” Archaeology 48.2: 36-41. Anyang shi wenwu gongzuodui安陽市文物工作隊. 1991a. “Henan Guozhuang cunbei faxian yizuo Yin mu” 河南安陽郭莊村北發現一座殷墓. Kaogu 1991.10: 902-909. ------- 1991b. “Qijiazhuang dong 269 hao mu” 戚家莊東 269號墓. Kaogu xuebao 1991.3: 325-352. Appadurai, Arjun. 1986. “Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value.” In The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Arjun Appadurai (ed.), pp. 3-63, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aruz, Joan, Ann Farkas, Andrei Alekseev, and Elena Korolkova (eds.). 2000. The Golden Deer of Eurasia: Scythian ans Sarmatian Treasures from the Russian Steppes. New York: the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Bagley, Robert W. 1999. “Shang Archaeology.” In The Cambridge History of Ancient China, Michael

Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy (eds.), pp.124231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ------- 2004. “Anyang Writing and the Origin of the Chinese Writing System.” In The First Writing: Script Invention as History and Process, Stephen D. Houston (ed.), pp. 190-249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barbieri-low, Anthony. 2000. Wheeled Vehicles in the Chinese Bronze Age (c. 2000-741 B.C.). SinoPlatonic Papers 99, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Beckwith, Christopher. 2009. Empires of the Silk Road: a History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present. Princeton, N.J. ; Oxford: Princeton University Press. Beijing daxue kaogu wenbo xueyuan北京大學考古 文博學院and Beijing daxue gudai wenming yanjiu zhongxin北京大學古代文明硏究中心. 2002. Jijin zhu guoshi: Zhouyuan chutu Xi Zhou qingtongqi Jingcui 吉金鑄國史:周原出土西周青 銅器精粹. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Beijing daxue kaoguxi 北京大學考古系 and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 山西省考古研究所. 1993. “1992 nian chun Tianma—Qucun yizhi muzang fajue baogao” 1992年春天馬—曲村遺址墓葬發 掘報告. Wenwu 1993.3: 11-30. ------- 1994a. “Tianma—Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jin hou mudi dierci fajue” 天馬—曲村遺址北趙晉侯墓 地第二次發掘. Wenwu 1994.1: 4-28. ------- 1994b. “Tianma—Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jin hou mudi disici fajue” 天馬—曲村遺址北趙晉侯墓 地第四次發掘. Wenwu 1994.8: 4-21. ------- 1994c. “Tianma—Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jin hou mudi disanci fajue” 天馬—曲村遺址北趙晉侯墓 地第三次發掘. Wenwu 1994.8: 22-33, 68. ------- 1995. “Tianma—Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jin hou mudi disanci fajue” 天馬—曲村遺址北趙晉侯墓地第 五次發掘. Wenwu 1995.7: 4-38. ------- 2001. “Tianma—Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jin hou mudi diliuci fajue” 天馬—曲村遺址北趙晉侯墓地第 六次發掘. Wenwu 2001.8: 4-21, 55. Beijing daxue kaoguxuexi Shang Zhou zu 北京大學考古 學系商周組 and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo. 2000. Tianma-Qucun 1980-1989 天馬-曲村 19801989. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe. Beijing shi wenwu guanlichu北京市文物管理處. 1976. “Beijing diqu de youyi zhongyao kaogu shouhuo— Changping Baifu Xi Zhou muguo mu de xinqishi” 北京地區的又一重要考古收穫—昌平白浮西周 木槨墓的新啟示. Kaogu 1976.4: 246-258, 228. ------- 1977. “Beijing shi Pinggu xian faxian Shangdai muzang” 北京市平谷縣發現商代墓葬. Wenwu

123

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity 1977.11: 1-8. Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo. 北京市文物研究所. 1995. Liulihe Xi Zhou Yan guo mudi 1973-1977 琉璃 河西周燕國墓地1973-1977. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo Shan Rong wenhua kaogudui. 北京市文物研究所山戎文化考古隊. 1989. “Beijing Yanqing Jundushan Dong Zhou Shan Rong buluo mudi fajue jilue” 北京延慶軍都 山東周山戎部落墓地發掘記略. Wenwu 1989.8: 17-35. Bokovenko, Nikolay. 2006. “The Emergence of the Tagar Culture.” Antiquity 80.310: 860-879. Bourdieu, Pierre; Richard Nice (trans.). 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brownrigg, Gail. 2006. “‘Horse Control and the Bit.” In Horses and Humans: The Evolution of HumanEquine Relationship, Sandra Olsen et al. (ed.), BAR International Series 1560, pp. 165-171. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Bunker, Emma C. 1995. “Shang wenhua wanqi mache de yinjin” 商文化晚期馬車的引進. Paper presented in the conference “Zhongguo Shang wenhua guoji xueshu taolunhui” at Yanshi, Henan, China. ------- 1997. Ancient Bronzes of the Eastern Eurasian Steppes from the Arthur M. Sackler Collections. New York: Arthur M. Sackler Foundation. Bunker, Emma, Bruce Chatwin, Ann Farkas. 1970. Animal Art from East to West. New York: Asia Society, 1970. Byrne, D. 2003. “Messages to Manila.” Aboriginal History 11. Chamay, Jacques, Martin Guggisberg, and Anheuser Kilian. 2007. The Charioteer and the Hunters: a Masterpiece of Ancient Silversmithing. Neuchâtel: Chaman. Chang Kwang-chih. 1980. Shang Civilization. New Harven and London: Yale University Press. ------- 1981. “Archaeology and Chinese Historiography.” World Archaeology 13.2: 156-169. Chang Kwang-yuan 張光遠. 1973. Xi Zhou zhongqi Mao Gong ding 西周重器毛公鼎. Taipei: Chang Kwang-yuan. Chen Sanping. 2002. “Son of Heaven and Son of God: Interactions among Ancient Asiatic Cultures regarding Sacral Kingship and Theophoric Names.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland (Third Series) 12: 289325. Chen Kwang-tzuu and Frederik T. Hiebert. 1995. “The Late Prehistory of Xingjiang in Relation to Its Neighbors.” Journal of World Prehistory 9. 2: 243-300. Chen Fang-mei陳芳妹. 1995. Gugong qingtong bingqi tulu 故宮青銅兵器圖錄. Taipei: National Palace Museum. ------- 2002. “Jin hou mudi qingtongqi suojian xingbie yanjiu de xin xiansuo” 晉侯墓地青銅器所見性別

研究的新線索. In Jinhou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji, pp. 157-196. Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe. Chen Mengjia 陳夢家. 1956. “Xi Zhou tongqi duandai (san)” 西周銅器斷代(三). Kaoguxuebao 1956.1: 65-114. Cheng Yong-yih 曾永義. 1969. “Yi li chema kao儀禮車 馬考.” Zhongguo dongya xueshu yanjiu jihua weiyuanhui nian bao 8: 29-122. Christan, David. 2000. “Silk Roads or Steppe Roads? The Silk Roads in World History.” Journal of World History 11.1: 1-26. Chu Ki-cheung 朱歧祥. 2007. “Huadong Fu Hao zhuan” 花東婦好傳. Donghai zhongwen xuebao 19: 1-12. Cohen, Anthony. 1985. The Symbolic Construction of Community. Chichester: Ellis Horwood. Cook, Constance. 1997. “Wealth and the Western Zhou.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 60.2: 253-294. Cooke, Bill. 2000. “The Horse in Chinese History.” In Imperial China: the Art of the Horse in Chinese History, pp. 27-62. Kentucky: Kentucky Horse Park. Creel, Herrlee G. 1970. The Origins of Statecraft in China. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Crouwel, Joost H. 1981. Chariots and Other Means of Land Transport in Bronze Age Greece. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum. ------- 1987. “Chariots in Iron Age Cyprus.” Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus, pp. 101-118. ------- 1992. Chariots and Other Wheeled Vehicles in Iron Age Greece. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum. Csorba, Mrea. 1996. “The Chinese Northern Frontier: Reassement of the Bronze Age Burials from Baifu.” Antiquity 70. 269: 564-587. Culler, Jonathan. 1983. Barthes. London: Fontana. Dabaotai Han mu fajue zu 大葆台漢墓發掘組. 1989. Beijing Dabaotai Han mu 北京大葆台漢墓. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Dai Yingxing 戴應星 and Sun Jiaxiang 孫嘉祥. 1983. “Shaanxi Shenmu xian chutu Xiongnu wenwu” 陝 西神木縣出土匈奴文物. Wenwu 1983.12: 23-30. Dant, Tim. 2005. Materiality and Society. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Davis-Kimball, Jeannine, Vladimir A. Bashilov, and Leonid T. Yablonsky (eds.). 1995. Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in the Early Iron Age, Berkeley: Zinat Press. Dawson, Raymond. 1993. The Analects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DeMarrias, Elizabeth, Chris Gosden, and Colin Renfrew. 2004. Rethinking Materiality: the Engagement of Mind with the Material World. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Dent, Anthony. 1974. The Horse through Fifty Centuries of Civilization. London: Phaidon Press. Dewall, Magdalene von. 1964. Pferd und Wagen im frühen China. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag. ------- 1967. “New Data on Early Chou Finds— Their

124

Bibliography Relative Chronology in Historical Perspective.” In Qingzhu Li Chih xianshen qishi sui lunwenji, pp. 503-570. Taipei: Qinghua Xuebaoshe. Di Cosmo, Nicola. 2002. Ancient China and its Enemies: the Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asi an History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dietz, Ute Luise. 2006. “‘Cimmerian’ Bridles: Progress in Cavalry Technology?” In Horses and Humans: the Evolution of Human-Equine Relationship, Sandra Olsen et al. (eds.), BAR International Series 1560, pp. 157-163. Oxford: BAR Publishing. DiMaggio, Paul. 1997. “Culture and Cognition.” Annual Review of Sociology, 23: 263-287. Ding Su 丁驌. 1966. “Qiwen shoulei ji shouxing zi shi” 契文獸類及獸形字釋. Zhongguo wenzi 22: 1-28. Dobres, Marcia-Anne. 2000. Technology and Social Agency. Oxford and Massachusetts: Blackwell. Dobson, W. A. C. H. 1962. Early Archaic Chinese. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Falkenhausen, Lothar von (see also Luo Tai羅泰). 1993. “On the Historiographical Orientation of Chinese Archaeology.” Antiquity 67.257: 839-849. ------- 1999a. “The Waning of the Bronze Age: Material Culture and Social Developments, 770-481 B.C.” In The Cambridge History of Ancient China, Michael Loewe and Edward Shaughnessy (eds.), pp. 450-544. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ------- 1999b. “Late Western Zhou Taste.” Études chinoises 18. 1-2: 143-178. ------- 2006a. Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius (1000-250 BC). Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology and University of California. ------- 2006b. “Xi Zhou tongqi mingwen de xingzhi 西周 銅器銘文的性質,” in Kaoguxue yanjiu 6: 343374. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe. Finkel, Irving and Michael Seymour. 2008. Babylon: Myth and Reality. London: the British Museum. Flad, Rowan K., Yuan Jing and Li shuicheng. 2007. “Zooarcheological Evidence for Animal Domestication in Northwest China.” In Late Quaternary Climate Change and Human Adaption in Arid China, D. B. Madsen, F. H. Chen, and X. Gao (eds.), pp. 167-203. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Fong, Wen (ed.). 1980. The Great Bronze Age of China, an Exhibition from People’s Republic of China. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Frachetti, Michael. 2008. Pastoralist Landscapes and Social Interaction in Bronze Age Eurasia. Berkeley: University of California Press. Frachetti, Michael and Norbert Benecke. 2009. “From Sheep to (some) Horses: 4500 Years of Herd Structure at the Pastoralist Settlement of Begash (South-eastern Kazakhstan).” Antiquity 83.322: 1023-1037. Gansu sheng bowuguan 甘肅省博物館. 2006. Gansu sheng bowuguan wenwu jingpin tuji 甘肅省博物 館文物精品圖集. Xi’an: Sanqin chubanshe. Gansu sheng bowuguan wenwudui 甘肅省博物館文物

隊. 1977. “Gansu Lingtai Baicaopo Xi Zhou mu” 甘肅靈台白草坡西周墓. Kaogu xuebao 1977.2: 99-129. Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 甘肅省文物考古研 究所. 2009. Chongxin Yujiawan Zhou mu 崇信于 家灣周墓. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Lixian bowuguan 禮縣博物館. 2002. “Lixian Yuandingshan Chunqiu Qin mu” 禮縣圓頂山春秋秦墓. Wenwu 2002.2: 4-30. Gao Xiangping 郜向平. 2007. “Luelun Shang Zhou qingtong gongxingqi de xingzhi yanbian” 略論 商周青銅弓形器的形制演變. Huaxia kaogu 2007.1: 94-101. Gao Xixing 高西省. 2001. “Tan Baoji Yu guo mudi chutu ‘renwu xingxiang’ tongqi” 談寶雞 國墓地出 土‘人物形象’銅器. Wenwu shijie 2001.2: 4-11. Gell, Alfred. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon. Gening, V. F., G. B. Zdanovich, and V. V. Gening. 1992. Sintashta. Chelyabinsk: Iuzhnoural’skoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo. Goodrich, Chauncey. 1984. “Riding Astride and the Saddle in Ancient China.” Harvard Journal Asiatic Studies 44.2: 279-305. Guo Baojun 郭寶鈞. 1959. Shanbiaozhen yu Liulige 山彪 鎮與琉璃閣. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe. -------. 1964..Xunxian Xincun 濬縣辛村. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe Guo Moruo 郭沫若. 1933. Buci tongzuan 卜辭通纂. Tokyo: Wenqiu tang. Guo Yong郭勇. 1960. “Shilou Houlanjiagou faxian Shangdai qingtongqi jianbao” 石樓後蘭家溝發 現商代青銅器簡報. Wenwu 1960. 4-5: 33-34. Guojia wenwu ju 國家文物局 (ed.). 2001. “Henan Zhenzhou Waliu Xizhou mudi” 河南鄭州窪劉 西周墓地. In 1999 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu faxian, pp. 45-50. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. ------- 2002. “Xinzheng Zheng Han gucheng Chunqiu guizu muzang yu daxing chemakeng” 新鄭鄭 韓故城春秋貴族墓葬與大型車馬坑. In 2001 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu faxian, pp. 56-61. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. ------- 2006a. “Anyang Yinxu Yindai damu ji chemakeng” 安陽殷墟殷代大墓及車馬坑. In 2005 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu faxian, pp. 59-62. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. ------- 2006b. “Shanxi Hancheng Liangdaicun liang Zhou yizhi” 陝西韓城梁帶村兩周遺址. In 2006 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu faxian, pp.78-83. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. ------- 2007. “Beizhao Jin hou mudi yihao chemakeng” 北趙晉侯墓地一號車馬坑. In 2006 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu faxian, pp.65-68. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. ------- 2008a. “Shanxi Licheng Li guo mudi” 山西黎城 黎國墓地. In 2007 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu faxian, pp. 40-45. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe.

125

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity ------- 2008b. “Shaanxi Hancheng Liangdaicun mudi 2007 nian kaogu fajue guo mudi” 陝西韓城梁帶村墓 地2007年考古發掘. In 2007 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu faxian, pp. 46-51. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Hanblin, William. 2006. Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC. London: Routledge. Han Jianye 韓建業. 2007. Xinjiang de qingtong shidai he zaoqi tieqi shidai wenhua 新疆的青銅時代和早 期鐵器時代文化. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Hanks, B. K., A. V. Epimakhov, and A. C. Renfrew. 2007. “Towards a Refined Chronology for the Bronze Age in the Southern Urals, Russia.” Antiquity 81.312: 353-367. Hawkes, David. 1959. Ch’u Tz’u: the Songs of the South. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hayashi Minao 林巳奈夫. 1959. “Chūgoku Senshin jidai no basha”中國先秦时代の馬車. Tōhō gakuhō 29: 155-258. ------- 1993. “Concerning the Inscription ‘May Sons and Grandsons Eternally Use This [Vessel]’.” Artibus Asiae 53.1/2: 51-58. Hebei sheng wenhua ju wenwu gongzuodui 河北省文化 局文物工作隊. 1966. “Hebei Huailai Beixinbao Zhanguomu” 河北懷來北辛堡戰國墓. Kaogu 1966.5: 231-242. Hebei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 河北省文物考古 研究所. 2005. Zhanguo Zhongshan guo Lingshou cheng—1975-1993 nian fajue baogao 戰國中山 國靈壽城—1975-1993年考古發掘報告. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe Hebei sheng wenwu yanjiusuo 河北省文物研究所. 1996. Cuo mu: Zhanguo Zhongshan guo guowang zhi mu 墓：戰國中山國國王之墓. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. ------- 1996. Yan xia du 燕下都. Beijing, Wenwu chubanshe. Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo 河南省文物研究所. 2001. Zhengzhou Shang cheng 1953 nian-1985nian kaogu fajue baogao 鄭州商城1953年-1985年考 古發掘報告. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo, Henan sheng Danjiang kuqu kaogu fajuedui河南省丹江庫區考古發掘 隊, and Xichuan xian bowuguan淅川縣博物館. Xichuan Xiasi Chunqiu Chu mu 淅川下寺春秋楚 墓. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo and Pingdingshan shi wenwu guanli weiyuanhui 平頂山市文物管理委 員會. 1988. “Pingdingshan shi Beizhi cun liang Zhou mudi yi hao mu fajue jianbao” 平頂山市北 滍村兩周墓地一號墓發掘簡報. Huaxia kaogu 1988.1: 30-44. Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo and Sanmenxia shi wenwu gongzuodui 三門峽市文物工作隊. 1999. Sanmenxia Guo guo mu (di yi juan) 三門峽虢國 墓(第一卷). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo and Sanmenxia shi wenwu gongzuodui. 2000. “Sanmenxia Guoguo mudi M2013 de fajue qingli” 三門峽虢國墓地M2013

的發掘清理. Wenwu 2000.12: 23-34. Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo and Zhoukou diqu wenhuaju wenwuke 周口地區文化局文物科. 1984. “Henan Huaiyang Ma’anzhong Chu mu fajue baogao” 河南懷陽馬鞍冢楚墓發掘報告. Wenwu 1984.10: 1-17. Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 河南省文物考古 研究所 and Zhoukoushi wenhuaju周口市文化 局. 2000. Luyi Taiqinggong Changzikou mu鹿 邑太清宮長子口墓. Zhenzhou: Zhongzhou guji chubanshe. Herrmann, John and Christine Kondoleon. 2004. Games for the Gods: the Greek Athlete and the Olympic Spirit. Boston: MFA. He Yong賀勇 and Liu Jianzhong 劉建中. 1993. “Hebei Huailai Ganzibao faxian de Chunqiu muqun” 河 北懷來甘子堡發現的春秋墓群. Wenwu chunqiu 1993.2: 23-40. Hodder, Ian. 1989. “This Is Not an Article about Material Culture as Text.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8: 250-269. Hodder, Ian and Scott Hutson. 2003. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hsu, Cho-yun. 1999. “The Spring and Autumn Period.” In The Cambridge History of Ancient China, Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy (eds.), pp. 545-586. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hsu Ya-hwei 許雅惠. 2001. “Guqi xinquan—yuancang ‘Yongze shuyuan leiwen gui’ de zai renshi” 古 器新詮—院藏「泳澤書院雷紋簋」的再認識. Gugong wenwu yuekan 2001. 12: 54-69. Hu Houxuan 胡厚宣. 1944. “Gongfang kao” 方 考. In Jiaguxue Shang shi luncong. Chengdu: Wenyoutang shudian. Huaiyin shi bowuguan 淮陰市博物館. 1988. “Huaiyin gaozhuang zhanguo mu” 淮陰高莊戰國墓. Kaogu xuebao 1988.2: 189-232. Hwang Ming-chorng 黃銘崇. 2007. “Shang dai de lian jiqi xiangguan wenti” 商代的鑾及其相關問題. Gujin lunheng 17: 3-40. ------- 2008. “Cong Shangdai de ‘C xing maxian’ yu ‘jianzhui ceshi’ kan Shangdai de qibing wenti” 從 商代的‘C形馬銜’與‘尖錐策飾’看商代的騎兵 問題. Paper presented in the conference “Jinian Yinxu fajue bashi zhounian xueshu yantaohui,” at IHP, Academic Sinica, Taipei. Huangpi xian wenhuaguan 黃陂縣文化館, Xiaogan diqu bowuguan 孝感地區博物館, and Hubei sheng bowuguan 湖北省博物館. 1983. “Hubei Huangpi Lutaishan liang Zhou yizhi yu muzang” 湖北黃陂 魯台山兩周遺址與墓葬. Jianghan kaogu 1982.2: 37-61. Hubei sheng bowuguan. 1989. Zeng hou Yi mu 曾侯乙墓. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Hubeisheng Jingsha tielu kaogudui 湖北省荊沙鐵路考 古隊. 1991. Baoshan Chu mu 包山楚墓. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe.

126

Bibliography Hubei sheng Jingzhou bowuguan湖北省荊州博物館. 2003. Jingzhou Tianxingguan erhao Chu mu 荊 州天星觀二號楚墓. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe. Hubei sheng Jingzhou diqu bowuguan 湖北省荊州地區 博物館. “Jiangling Tianxingguan yi hao Chu mu” 江陵天星觀1號楚墓. Kaogu xuebao 1982.1: 71116. Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 湖北省文物考古研 究所. 1995. Jiangling Jiudian dong Zhou mu 江陵 九店東周墓. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe. ------- 1996. Jiangling Wangshan Shazhong Chu mu 江陵 望山沙冢楚墓. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. ------- 2003. “Hubei Zaoyang shi Jiuliandun Chu mu” 湖 北棗陽市九連墩楚墓. Kaogu 2003.7: 10-14. Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Xiangfan shi bowuguan 襄繁市博物館, and Yicheng xian bowuguan 宜城縣博物館. 1993. “Hubei Yicheng Luogang chemakeng” 湖北宜城羅崗車馬坑. Wenwu 1993.12: 1-18, 35. Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Suizhou shi bowuguan 隨州市博物館. 2011. “Hubei Suizhou Yejiashan Xi Zhou mudi fajue jianbao 湖北隨州 葉家山西周墓地發掘簡報. Wenwu 2011. 11, pp. 4-60. Humphrey, John. 1986. Roman Circuses: Arenas for Chariot Racing. London: Batsford. Jenkins, Richard. 2002. Pierre Bourdieu. London and New York: Routledge. ------- 2008. Social Identity, London and New York: Routledge. Jiang Gang 蔣剛. 2008. “Nanliu Huanghe liang’an chutu qingtongqi de niandai yu zuhe yanjiu” 南流 黃河兩岸出土青銅器的年代與組合研究. In Gongyuan qian liangqianji de Jinshan gaoyuan yu Yanshan nanbei, Yang Jianhua and Jiang Gang (eds.), pp. 68-84. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe Jiling daxue lishixi kaogu zhuanye fu jinancheng kaimen banxue xiao fendui 吉林大學歷史系考古專業赴 紀南城開門辦學小分隊. 1976. “Fenghuang shan 167 hao Han mu qiance kaoshi” 鳳凰山一六七號 漢墓遣策考釋. Wenwu 1976.10: 38-46. Jingmen shi bowuguan 荊門市博物館. 1998. Guodian Chu mu zhujian 郭店楚墓竹簡. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Jingzhou bowuguan 荊州博物館. 2011. “Hubei Jingzhou Xiongjiazhong mudi 2008 nian fajue jianbao” 湖 北荊州熊家冢墓地2008年發掘簡報. Wenwu 2011.2: 4-19. Jinwen jicheng. 1984-1994. Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, 18 vols., Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo (ed.). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. Jones-Bley, K. and D. G. Zdanovich (eds.). 2002. Complex Societies of Central Eurasia from the 3rd to the 1st Millennium BC: Regional Specifics in Light of Global Models. Washington: Institute for the Study of Man. Kammenhüber, Annelies. 1961. Hippologia hethitica. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. Karlgren, Bernard. 1945. “Weapons and tools of the Yin

Dynasty.” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 17: 101-144. Kao Chu-hsun 高去尋. 1973. “Xibeigang chutu de Yin dai gongxing tongqi” 西北岡出土的殷代弓形銅器. Dongwu daxue Zhongguo yishushi jikan 2: 1-9. Keightley, David N. 1978. Sources of Shang History: the Oracle-bone Inscriptions of Bronze Age China. Berkeley and London: University of California Press. Keightley, David N. “The Shang: China’s First Historical Dynasty.” In The Cambridge History of Ancient China, Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy (eds.), pp. 232-291. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kelekna, Pita. 2009. The Horse in Human History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kelly, Christopher. 2006. The Roman Empire: a Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kohl, Philip L. 2007. The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kopytoff, Igor. 1986. “The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as a Process.” In The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Arjun Appadurai (ed.), pp. 64-91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Koryakova, Ludmila N. and Andrej V. Epimakhov. 2007. The Urals and Western Siberia in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kristiansen, Kristian and Thomas B. Larsson. 2005. The Rise of Bronze Age Society: Travels, Transmissions and Transformations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kuzmina, Elena E. 1998. “Cultural Connections of the Tarim Basin People and Pastoralists of Asian Steppes in the Bronze Age.” In The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia, vol. 2, Victor H. Mair (ed.), pp. 63-93. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. ------- 2003. “Origins of Pastoralism in the Eurasian Steppes.” In Preshistic Steppe Adaption and the Horse, M. Levine, C. Renfrew, K. Boyle (eds.), pp. 203-232. Cambridge: McDonald Institute. ------- 2007. “Relations of the Andronovans with the Population of Xinjiang and Other Regions of China in the Bronze Age.” Ouya xuekan 7: 1-28. ------- 2008. The Prehistory of the Silk Road. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press Kuznetsov, P. F. 2006. “The Emergence of Bronze Age chariots in Eastern Europe.” Antiquity 80.309: 638-645. Legge, James. 1885. The Li Ki or Collection of Treatiese on the Rules of Propriety or Ceremonial Usages. Oxford: the Claredon Press. ------- 2000a. The Chinese Classics, vol. IV, The She King or the Book of Poetry. Taipei: SMC Publishing INC. ------- 2000b. The Chinese Classics, vol. V, The Ch’un Ts’ew and the Tso Chuen. Taipei: SMC Publishing

127

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity INC. Legrand, Sophie. 2004. “Karasuk Metallurgy: Technological Development and Regional Influence,” in Metallurgy in Ancient Eurasia from the Urals to the Yellow River, Katheryn M. Linduff (ed.), pp. 139-156. Lewiston-QueenstonLampeter: Edwin Mellen Press. ------- 2006. “The Emergence of the Karasuk Culture.” Antiquity 80.310: 843-879. ------- 2008. “Sorting Out Men and Women in the Karasuk Culture.” In Are All Warriors Male? Katheryn M. Linduff and Karen S. Rubinson (eds), pp. 153174. Lanham: Altamira. Levine, Marsha. 1999a. “The Origins of Horse Husbandry on the Eurasian Steppes.” In Late Prehistoric Exploitation of the Eurasian Steppe, M. Levine, Y. Rassamakin, A. Kislenko, and N. Tatarintseva (eds.), pp. 5-58. Cambridge: McDonald Institute. ------- 1999b. “Botai and the Origins of Horse Domestication.” Journal Anthropological Archaeology 18: 29-78. ------- 2004. “Exploring the Criteria for Early Horse Domestication.” In Traces of Ancestry: Studies in Honour of Colin Renfrew, Martin Jones (ed.), pp. 115-126. Cambridge: McDonald Institute. ------- 2006. “mtDNA and Horse Domestication: the Archaeologist’s Cut.” In Equids in Time and Space, Marjan Mashkour (ed.), pp. 192-201. Oxford: Oxbow. Lewis, Mark E. 1999. “Warring States Political History.” In The Cambridge History of Ancient China, Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy (eds.), pp. 587-650. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Li Feng. 1997. “Ancient Reproductions and Calligraphic Variations: Studies of Western Zhou Bronzes with Identical Inscriptions.” Early China 22: 1-41. ------- 2006. Landscape and Power in Early China: The Crisis and the Fall of the Western Zhou 1045771BC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ------- 2008. Bureaucracy and the State of Early China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Li Chungxiang et al. 2010. “Evidence that a West-East Admixed Population Lived in the Tarim Basin as Early as the Early Bronze Age.” BMC biology 8.15: 1-12. Li Boqian 李伯謙. 2001. “Shuzhe fangding mingwen kaoshi” 叔夨方鼎銘文考釋. Wenwu 2001.8: 3942. Li Hairong 李海榮. 2000. “Guanzhong diqu chutu Shang shiqi qingtongqi wenhua yinsu fenxi” 關中地區 出土商時期青銅器文化因素分析. Kaogu yu wnwu 2000.2: 35-47. Li Hancai 李漢才. 1992. “Qinghai Huangzhong xian faxian gudai shuang ma tongyue he tongjing” 青 海湟中縣發現古代雙馬銅鉞和銅鏡. Wenwu 1992.2: 16. Li Ling 李零. 1986. “Chu guo tongqi biannian huishi” 楚 國銅器編年彙釋. Guwenzi yanjiu 13: 353-397.

Li Runqian 李潤乾. 2008. Yangjiacun Xi Zhou yizhi 楊家 村西周遺址. Xi’an: Shaanxi renmin chubanshe. Li Yung-ti李永迪 (ed.). 2009. Yinxu chutu qiwu xuan 殷墟 出土器物選. Taipei: The Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. Li Zhong-kun 李宗焜. 2012. “Fu Hao zai Wu Ding wangchao de jiaose” 婦好在武丁王朝的角色. In Guwenzi yu gudaishi 3: 79-106. Taipei: The Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. Liang Siyong粱思永 and Kao Chu-Hsun 高去尋. 1967. Houjiazhuang. Si. 1003 hao damu 侯家莊.四.1003 號大墓. Taipei: The Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ------- 1991. Houjiazhuang. er. 1001 hao damu 侯家 莊.二.1001號大墓. Taipei: The Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. Liang Yun 梁云. 2008. Zhanguo shidai de dongxi chabie– kaoguxue shiye 戰國時代的東西差別—考古學 視野. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Liaoning sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 遼寧省文物考 古研究所. “Niuheliang di shiliu didian Hongshan wenhua jishi zhong zhongxin damu fajue jianbao” 牛河梁第十六地點紅山文化積石塚中心大墓發 掘簡報. Wenwu 2008.10: 4-14. Lin Yun 林沄. 1986. “A Reexamination of the Relationship between Bronzes of the Shang culture and of the Northern Zone.” In Studies of Shang Archaeology, Kwang-chih Chang (ed.), pp. 237-274. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ------- 1998a. “Guanyu qingtong gongxiangqi de ruogan wenti” 關於青銅弓形器的若干問題. In Lin Yun xueshu wenji, pp. 252-261. Beijing: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu chubanshe. ------- 1998b. “Dui Nanshangen M102 chutu kewen guban de yixie kanfa” 對南山根M102出土刻紋骨板的 一些看法. In Lin Yun xueshu wenji, pp. 296-301. Beijing: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu chubanshe. ------- 1998c. “Zailun guajianggou” 再論掛韁勾. In Lin Yun xueshu wenji, pp. 302-310. Beijing: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu chubanshe. Lin Meicun 林梅村. 2000. “Qingtong shidai de zaoche gongju yu Zhongguo zhanche zhi qiyuan” 青銅 時代的造車工具與中國戰車之起源. In Gudao xifeng— kaogu xinfaxian suojian zhongxi wenhua jiaoliu, pp. 33-76. Beijing: Sanlian shudian. Linduff, Katheryn M. (see also Lin Jialin 林嘉琳). 1995. “Zhukaigou, Steppe Culture, and the Rise of Chinese Civilization.” Antiquity 69.262: 133-145. ------- 1996. “Art and Identity: The Chinese and their ‘Significant Others’ in the Shang.” In Cultural Contact, History and Ethnicity in Inner Asia, M. Gervers and W. Schlepp (eds.), pp. 12-48. Toronto: the University of Toronto, 1996. ------- 1998. “Shangdai de yishu yu rentong – Zhongyuan jiqi silin” 商代的藝術與認同—中原及其四鄰. In Zhongguo Shang wenhua guoji xueshu taolunhui lunwenji, pp.323-332. Beijing: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu chubanshe.

128

Bibliography ------- 2002. “At the Eastern Edge: Metallurgy and Adaption in Gansu (PRC) in the 2nd Millennium BC.” In Complex Societies of Central Eurasia from the 3rd to the 1st Millennium BC: Regional Specifics in Light of Global Models, vol. 2, K. Jones-Bley and D. G. Zdanovich (eds.), pp. 595611. Washington: Institute for the Study of Man. ------- 2003. “A Walk on the Wild Side: Late Shang Appropriation of Horse in China.” In Preshistic Steppe Adaption and the Horse, M. Levine, C. Renfrew, K. Boyle (eds.), pp. 113-162. Cambridge: McDonald Institute. ------- 2006. “Why have Siberian Artefacts been excavated within Ancient Chinese Dynastic Borders?” In Beyond the Steppe and the Sown, D. L. Peterson et al. (eds.), pp. 358-370, Leiden and Boston: Brill. Linduff, Katheryn M. and Karen S. Rubinson (ed.). 2008. Are All Warriors Male? Lanham: AltaMira Press. Littauer, Mary A. 1977. “Rock Carvings of Chariots in Transcaucasia, Central Asia, and Outer Mongolia.” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43: 243262. Littauer, Mary A. and Joost H. Crouwel. 1979. Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East. Leiden: E. J. Brill. ------- 1985. Chariots and Related Equipment from the Tomb of Tut’ankhamūn. Oxford: Griffith Institute. ------- 1996. “The Origin of the True Chariot.” Antiquity 70.270: 934-939. Liu Binhui 劉彬徽. 1984. “Chu guo you ming tongqi biannian gaishu” 楚國有銘銅器編年概述. Guwenzi yanjiu 8: 331-372. Liu Junshe 劉軍社. 2003. Xian Zhou wenhua yanjiu 先周 文化研究. Xi’an: Sanqin chubanshe. ------- 2006. “Dui xunzhao Jingshui shangyou Xian Zhou wenhua yicun de sikao” 對尋找涇水上游先周文 化遺存的思考. Wenbo 2006.5: 17-20. Liu Shie 劉士莪. 2002. Laoniupo 老牛坡. Xi’an: Shaanxi renmin chubanshe. Liu Xu 劉緒 and Xu Tianjin 徐天進. “Guanyu Tianma— Qucun yizhi Jin guo muzang de jige wenti” 關於天 馬—曲村遺址晉國墓葬的幾個問題. In Jinhou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji, pp. 41-52. Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe. Liu Yu 劉雨. 1998. “Xi Zhou jinwen zhong de junshi” 西周 金文中的軍事. In Hu Houxuan xiansheng jinian wenji, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Jiaguxue ji Shang shi yanjiu zhongxin bianjizu (ed.), pp. 228251. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe. Liulihe kaogudui 琉璃河考古隊. 1990. “Beijing Liulihe 1193 hao damu fajue jianbao” 北京琉璃河1193號 大墓發掘簡報. Kaogu 1990.1: 20-31. Lixian bowuguan 禮縣博物館 and Lixian Qin Xichui wenhua yanjiuhui 禮縣秦西垂文化研究會. 2004. Qin Xichui lingqu 秦西垂陵區. Beijng: Wenwu chubanshe. Loehr, Max. 1949a. “Ordos Daggers and Knives. New Material, Classification and Chronology. First

Part: Daggers.” Artibus Asiae 12.1/2: 23-83. ------- 1949b. “Weapons and Tools from Anyang, and Siberian Analogies.” American Journal of Archaeology 53.2: 126-144. ------- 1951. “Ordos Daggers and Knives: New Material, Classification and Chronology. Second Part: Knives.” Artibus Asiae 14.1/2: 77-162. Loewe, Michael (ed.). 1993. Early Chinese Texts: a Bibliographical Guide. Berkeley: the Society for the Study of Early China and the Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley. Lu Liancheng 盧連成 and Hu Zhisheng 胡智生. 1988. Baoji Yu guo mudi 寶雞 國墓地. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Luoyang bowuguan 洛陽博物館. 1974. “Luoyang Zhongzhoulu Zhanguo chemakeng” 洛陽中州路 戰國車馬坑. Kaogu 1974.3: 171-178. Luoyang shi wenwu gongzuodui 洛陽市文物工作隊. 1999a. Luoyang Beiyao Xi Zhou mu洛陽北窯西 周墓. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. ------- 1999b. “Luoyang Linxiao Xi Zhou chemakeng” 洛 陽林校西周車馬坑. Wenwu 1999.3: 4-18. Ma Dezhi馬得志, Zhou Yongzhen 周永珍 and Zhang Yunpeng 張雲鵬. 1955. “1953 nian Anyang Dasikong cun fajue baogao” 1953年安陽大司空 村發掘報告. Kaogu xuebao 9: 25-90. Mair, Victor H. 2003. “The Horse in Late Prehistoric China: Wresting Culture and Control from the ‘Barbarians’.” In Preshistic Steppe Adaption and the Horse, M. Levine, C. Renfrew, and K. Boyle (eds.), pp. 163-187. Cambridge: McDonald Institute. ------- 2006. “Introduction.” In Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World, Victor Mair (ed.), pp. 1-16. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Mair, Victor H. and J. P. Mallory. 2000. The Tarim Mummies. London: Thames & Hudson. Mauss, Marcel; W.D. Hall (trans.). 2002. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. London: Routledge. Mei Jianjun. 2000. Copper and Bronze Metallurgy in Late Prehistoric Xinjiang: Its Cultural Context and Relationship with Neighbouring Regions. BAR International Series 865. Oxford: BAR Publishing. ------- 2006. “The Material Culture of the Iron Age Peoples in Xinjiang, Northwest China.” In The Golden Deer of Eurasia: Perspectives on the Steppe Nomads of the Ancient World, Joan Aruz, Ann Farkas, and Elisabetta Valtz Fino (eds.), pp. 132146. New York: the Metropolitan Museum of Art. ------- 2009. “Early Metallurgy in China: Some Challenging Issues in Current Studies.” In Metallurgy and Civilisation: Eurasia and Beyond, Jianjun Mei and Thilo Rehren (eds.), pp. 9-16. London: Archetype Publications Ltd., 2009. Mei Jianjun and Colin Shell. 1999. “The Existence of Andronovo Cultural Influence in Xinjiang during the 2nd Millennium B.C.” Antiquity 73.281: 570578.

129

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity Meskell, Lynn. 2004. Object Worlds in Ancient Egypt. Oxford and New York: Berg. Miller, Daniel (ed.). 2001. Car Cultures. Oxford and New York: Berg. ------- 2006. Materiality. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Moorey, P. R. S. 2001. “The Mobility of Artisans and Opportunities for Technology Transfer between Western Asia and Egypt in the Late Bronze Age.” In The Socual Context of Technological Change: Egypt and the Near East, 1650-1550 BC, Andrew J. Shortland (ed.), pp. 1-14. Oxford: Oxbow. Neimenggu bowuguan 內蒙古博物館 and Neimenggu wenwu gongzuodui 內蒙古文物工作隊. 1977. “Neimenggu Zhunge’er qi Yulongtai de Xiongnu mu” 內蒙古准格爾旗玉隆太的匈奴墓. Kaogu 1977.2: 111-114. Ningxia wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 寧夏文物考古研究所 and Ningxia Guyuan bowuguan 寧夏固原博物 館. “Ningxia Guyuan Yanglang qingtong wenhua mudi” 寧夏固原楊郎青銅文化墓地. Kaogu xuebao 1993.1: 13-56. Nivison, David Shepherd. 1999. “The Classical Philosophical Writings.” In The Cambridge History of Ancient China, Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy (ed.), pp. 745-812. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Novgorodova, E. A. 1970. Tsentral’naja Azia I karasukskaja problema (Central Asia and the problem of the Karasuk culture). Moscow: Nauka. ------- 1989. Drevnyaya Mongoliya (Ancient Mongolia). Moscow: Nauka. Oates, Joan. 2003. “A Note on the Early Evidence for Horse and the Riding of Equids in Western Asia.” In Prehistoric Steppe Adaption and the Horse, Marsha Levine, Colin Renfrew, and Katie Boyle (eds.), pp. 115-125. Cambridge: McDonald Institute. Olsen, Sandra L. 2003. “The Exploitation of Horses at Botai, Kazakhstan.” In Preshistic Steppe Adaption and the Horse, M. Levine, C. Renfrew, and K. Boyle (eds.), pp. 83-103. Cambridge: McDonald Institute. Outram, Alan K. et al. 2009. “The Earliest Horse Harnessing and Milking.” Science 323. 5919: 1332-1335. Partridge, Robert. 1996. Transport in Ancirnt Egypt. London: the Rubicon Press. Peng, Ke. 1998. “The Andronovo Bronze Artifacts Discovered in Gongliu County in Yili, Xinjiang.” In The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia, vol. 2, Victor H. Mair (ed.), pp. 573-580. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. Penner, Silvia. 1998. Schliemanns Schachtgräberrund und der europäische Nordosten: Studien zur Herkunft der frühmykenischen Streitwagenausstattung. Bonn: R. Habelt. Piggott, Stuart. 1974. “Chariots in the Caucasus and in

China.” Antiquity 48.189: 16-24. ------- 1975. “Bronze age Chariot Burials in the Urals.” Antiquity 49.196: 289-290. ------- 1978. “Chinese Chariotry: an Outsider’s View.” In The Arts of the Eurasian Steppelands (Colloquies on Art and Archaeology in Asia no. 7, P. Denwood (ed.), pp.32-51. London: Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art. ------- 1983. The Earliest Wheeled Transport: from the Atlantic Coast to the Caspian Sea. London: Thames and Hudson. ------- 1992. Wagon, Chariot and Carriage: Symbol and Status in the History of Transport, London: Thames and Hudson. Qiaobei kaogudui 橋北考古隊. “Shanxi Fushan Qiaobei Shang Zhou mu” 山西浮山橋北商周墓. Gudai wenming 5: 347-394. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Qinghai sheng wenwu guanli weiyuanhui 青海省文物 管理委員會 and Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Qinghai dui 中國科學院考古研究所 青海隊. 1963. “Qinghai Dulan xian Nuomuhong dalitaliha yizhi diaocha yu shijue” 青海都蘭縣 諾木洪搭里他里哈遺址調查與試掘. Kaogu xuebao 1963.1: 17-44. Qinshihuang bingmayong bowuguan秦始皇兵馬俑博 物館and Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 陝西省 考古研究所. 1998. Qinshihuang ling tongchema fajue baogao 秦始皇陵銅車馬發掘報告, Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Raulwing, Peter. 2000. Horses, Chariots and IndoEuropeans: Foundations and Methods of Chariotry Research from the Viewpoint of Comparative IndoEuropean Linguistics. Budapest: Archaeolingua. Rawson, Jessica. 1984. Chinese Ornament: the Lotus and the Dragon. London: British Museum Press. ------- 1988. “A Bronze Casting Revolution in the Western Zhou and Its Impact on Provincial Industries.” In The Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys, Robert Maddin (ed.), pp. 228-238. Cambridge: MIT press. ------- 1989. “Statesmen or Barbarians? The Western Zhou as Seen through Their Bronzes.” Proceedings of the British Academy LXXV: 71-95. ------- 1993. “The Ancestry of Chinese Bronze Vessels.” In History from Things: Essays on Material Culture, Steven Lubar and W. David Kingery (eds.), pp. 51-73. Washington D.C.; London: Smithsonian Institution press. ------- 1995. Chinese Jade: from the Neolithic to the Qin. London: British Museum Press. ------- 1998. “Chinese Burial Patterns: Sources of Information on Thought and Belief.” In Cognition and Material Culture: the Archaeology of Symbolic Storage, Colin Renfrew and Chris Scarre (eds.), pp. 107-133. Cambridge: McDonald Institute monographs. ------- 1999a. “Western Zhou Archaeology.” In The Cambridge History of Ancient China, Michael Loewe and Edward Shaughnessy (eds.), pp. 352-

130

Bibliography 449. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ------- 1999b. “The Eternal Places of the Western Han: A New View of the Universe.” Artibus Asiae LIX: 1 /2: 5-58. ------- 2004. “Novelties in Antiquarian Revivals: the Case of the Chinese Bronzes.” The National Palace Museum Research Quarterly 22.1: 1-34. ------- 2005. “Han Dynasty Tomb Planning and Design.” In Proceedings of the International Symposiums the Visual World of China, Chrystelle Marechal and Yau Shun-chiu (eds), pp. 103-116. Paris: Centre de Recherches Linguistiques sur l’Asie Orientale. ------- 2007. “The Agency of, and the Agency for, the Wanli Emperor.” In Art’s Agency and Art History, Robin Osborne and Jeremy Tanner (eds.), pp. 95113. Oxford: Blackwell. ------- 2008. “Offerings from the Bronze Age.” Apollo 2008.5: 42-46. ------- (ed.). 2009. Treasures from Shanghai: Ancient Chinese Bronzes and Jades. London: British Museum press. ------- 2009. “From Rome to China: Exchanges across Eurasia in the Development of the Ornament Systems of China and the West (abstract).” Paper presented in the conference “Confluence— Exchanges in the Making of Asia” in the National Palace Museum (Taipei), May 2009. ------- 2010a. “Reviving Ancient Ornament and the Presence of the Past: Examples from Shang and Zhou Bronze Vessels.” In Reinventing the Past: Archaism and Antiquarianism in Chinese Art and Visual Culture, Wu Hung (ed.), pp. 47-76. Chicago: Center for the Art of East Asia, Dept. of Art Hstory, University of Chicago : Art Media Resources. ------- 2010b. “Carnelian Beads, Animal Figures and Exotic Vessels: Traces of Contact between the Chinese States and Inner Asia, c. 1000-650BC.” Archäologie in China 1: 1-41. Rawson, Jessica and Emma Bunker. 1990. Ancient Chinese and Ordos Bronzes. Hong Kong: The Oriental Ceramic Society of Hong Kong. Reeder, Ellen. 1999. The Scythian Gold: Treasure from Ancient Ukraine. New York: Harr Arbrams in association with the Walters Art Gallery and the San Antonio Museum of Art. Renfrew, Colin. 2002. “Pastoralism and Interaction: Some Introductory Questions.” In Ancient Interactions: East and West in Eurasia, Katie Boyle, Colin Renfrew and Marsha Levine (eds.), pp. 1-10. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Renfrew, Collin and Paul Bahn. 2008. Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice, London: Thames and Hudson. Rubinson, Karen S. 2006. “Helmets and Mirrors: Markers of Social Transformation.” In The Golden Deer of Eurasia: Perspectives on the Steppe Nomads of the Ancient World, Joan Aruz, Ann Farkas, and

Elisabetta Valtz Fino (eds.), pp. 32-39. New York: the Metropolitan Museum of Art. ------- 2008. “Tillya Tepe: Aspects of Gender and Cultural Identity.” In Are All Warriors Male? Katheryn M. Linduff and Karen S. Rubinson (eds.), pp. 51-63. Lanham: Altamira. Schaberg, David. 2001. A Patterned Past: Form and Thought in Early Chinese Historiography. Cambridge (Massachusetts) and London: the Harvard University Asia Center. Schulman, A. R. 1979. “Chariots, Chariotry, and the Hyksos.” Journal ofthe Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 10: 105-153. Shaanxi sheng bowuguan 陜西省博物館 and Shaanxi sheng wenguanhui Qishan gongzuodui 陜西省文 管會歧山工作隊. 1978. “Shaanxi Qishan Licun fujin Zhou yizhi de diaocha he shijue” 陜西歧山 禮村附近周遺址的調查和試掘. Wenwu ziliao congkan 2: 38-44, 65. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 陝西省考古研究所, Baoji shi kaogu gongzuodui 寶雞市考古工作 隊, and Mei xian wenhuaguan 眉縣文化館. 2003. “Shaanxi Mei xian Yangjiacun Xi Zhou qingtongqi jiaocang fajue jianbao” 陝西眉縣楊家村西周青 銅器窖藏發掘簡報. Wenwu 2003.6: 4-42. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Weinan shi wenwu baohu kaogu yanjiusuo 渭南市文物保護考古研究所, and Hancheng shi jingqu guanli weiyuanhui 韓城 市景區管理委員會. 2010. 梁帶村芮國墓地—2007年度發掘報告. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Weinan shi wenwu baohu kaogu yanjiusuo, and Hancheng shi wenwu lvyouju 韓城市文物旅遊局. 2007. “Shaanxi Hancheng Liangdaicun yizhi M27 fajue jianbao” 陝西韓城梁帶村遺址M27發掘簡報. Kaogu yu wenwu 2007.6: 3-22. ------- 2008. “Shaanxi Hancheng Liangdaicun yizhi M26 fajue jianbao” 陝西韓城梁帶村遺址M26發掘簡 報. Wenwu 2008.1: 4-21. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Yulin shi wenwu yanjiusuo 榆林市文物研究所, and Jingbian xian wenwu guanli bangongshi 靖邊縣文物管理辦公 室. 2009. “Shaanxi Jingbian Dong Han bihuamu” 陝西靖邊東漢壁畫墓. Wenwu 2009.2: 32-43. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiuyuan 陝西省考古研究院. 2009. “Shaanxi Hancheng Liangdaicun yizhi M27 fajue jianbao” 陝西韓城梁帶村遺址M27發 掘簡報. Kaogu 2009.6: 3-15. Shaanxi sheng wenwu guanli weiyuanhui 陜西省文物管 理委員會. 1986. “Xi Zhou Haojing fujin bufen muzang fajue jianbao” 西周鎬京附近部分墓葬 發掘簡報. Wenwu 1986.1: 1-31. Shandong sheng Changwei diqu wenwu guanlizu 山東 省昌濰地區文物管理組. 1977. “Jiao xian Xi’an yizhi diaocha shijue jianbao” 膠縣西菴遺址調查 試掘簡報. Wenwu 1977.4: 63-70. Shandong sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 山東省文物考 古研究所. 1984. “Qi gucheng wuhao Dong Zhou mu ji daxing xunmakeng de fajue” 齊故城五號東

131

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity 周墓及大型殉馬坑的發掘. Wenwu 1984.4: 1419. ------- 2000. “Shandong sheng Zibo shi Linzi qu Zihedian erhao Zhanguo mu” 山東淄博市臨淄區淄河店 二號戰國墓. Kaogu 2000.10: 46-65. ------- 2007. Linzi Qi mu 臨淄齊墓, Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Shang Tongliu 商彤流. 2002. “Cong Jin hou mudi M113 chutu de qingtong shuangerguan kan Jin wenhua yu Qiang Rong de guanxi” 從晉侯墓地M113 出土的青銅雙耳罐看晉文化與羌戎的關係 . In Jinhou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji, pp. 371-383. Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 山西省考古研究所. 1994. Shangma mudi上馬墓地. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. ------- 2006. Lingshi Jingjie Shang mu 靈石旌介商墓. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo and Beijing daxue kaogu wenbo xueyuan 北京大學考古文博學院. 2010. “Shanxi Beizhao Jin hou mudi yi hao chemakeng fajue jianbao” 山西北趙晉侯墓地一號車馬坑發 掘簡報. Wenwu 2010.2: 4-22. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo and Quwo wenwuju 曲沃 文物局. 2009. “Shanxi Quwo Yangshe Jin hou mudi fajue jianbao” 山西曲沃羊舌晉侯墓地發 掘簡報. Wenwu 2009.1: 4-14, 26. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo and Taiyuan shi wenwu guanli weiyuanhui 太原市文物管理委員會. 1996. Taiyuan Jin guo Zhao Qing mu 太原晉國 趙卿墓. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Shaughnessy, Edward L. 1983-1985. “The Date of the ‘Duo You Ding’ and Its Significance.” Early China 9-10: 55-69. ------- 1988. “Historical Perspectives on the Introduction of the Chariot into China.” Harvard Journal Asiatic Studies 48: 189-237. ------- 1989. Western Cultural Innovations in China, 1200 BC. Sino-Platonic Papers 11, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. ------- 1991. Sources of Western Zhou History: Inscribed Bronze Vessels. Berkeley and Oxford: University of California Press. ------- 1997. Before Confucius: Studies in the Creation of the Chinese Classics. Albany: SUNY. ------- (ed). 1997. New Sources of Early Chinese History: An Introduction to the Reading of Inscriptions and Manuscripts. Berkeley: Society for the Study of Early China. ------- 1999. “Western Zhou History.” In The Cambridge History of Ancient China, Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy (eds.), pp. 292-351. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ------- 2008. “Chronologies of Ancient China: A Chritique of the ‘Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project’.” In Windows on the Chinese World: Reflections by Five Historians, Chara Wing-Chung Ho (ed.), pp. 16-28. Lanham: Lexington Books.

Shaw, Ian. 1991. Egyptian Warfare and Weapons. Princes Risborough: Shire. ------- 2001. “Egyptians, Hyksos and Military Technology: Causes, Effects or Catalysts?” In The Social Context of Technological Change: Egypt and the Near East, 1650-1550 BC, Andrew J. Shortland (ed.), pp. 59-71. Oxford: Oxbow. Shelach, Gideon. 1999. Leadership Strategies, Economic Activity, and Interregional Interaction: Social Complexity in Northeast China. New York; London: Kluwer Academic/Plienum. ------- 2009a. Prehistoric Societies on the Northern Frontiers of China. London and Oakvill: Equinox Publishing Ltd. ------- 2009b. “Violence on the Frontiers? Sources of Power and Socio-political Change at the Easternmost Parts of the Eurasian Steppes during the Late Second and Early First Millennium BCE.” In Social Complexity in Prehistoric Eurasia: Monuments, Metals and Mobility, Bryan K. Hanks and Katheryn M. Linduff (eds.), pp. 240-271. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shenyang gugong bowuyuan 瀋陽故宮博物院 and Shenyang shi wenwu guanli bangongshi 瀋陽市 文物管理辦公室. 1975. “Shenyang Zhenjiawazi de liangzuo qingtong shidai muzang” 瀋陽鄭家洼 子的兩座青銅時代墓葬. Kaoguxuebao 1975.1: 141-164. Sherratt, Andrew. 1981. “Plough and Pastoralism: Aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution.” In Pattern of the Past: Studies in honour of David Clarke. I. Hodder, G. Isaac and N. Hammond (eds.), pp. 261–305. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ------- 2006. “The Trans-Eurasian Exchange: The Prehistory of Chinese Relations with the West.” In Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World, Victor H. Mair (ed.), pp. 30-61. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Shi ji 史記 (Records of the Historian), by Sima Qian 司 馬遷 (c. 145-85 BCE). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1959. Shih Chang-ju 石璋如. 1952. “Xiaotun C qu de muzangqun” 小屯C區的墓葬群. Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 23.2: 447487. ------- 1964. “Yindai de gong yu ma” 殷代的弓與 馬. Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 35: 321-342. ------- 1968. “Xiaotun di sishi mu de zhengli yu Yindai diyilei jia zhong che de chubu fuyuan” 小屯第 四十墓的整理與殷代第一類甲種車的初步復 原. Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 40.2: 625-668. ------- 1970. Xiaotun diyiben. Yizhi de faxian yu fajue: Bing bian: beizu muzang 小屯第一本.遺址的發 現與發掘：丙編.北組墓葬. Taipei: The Institute of History and Philology Academia Sinica. ------- 1974. “Yindai diyilei che de yupan zhi yanbian” 殷

132

Bibliography 代第一類車的輿盤之演變. Huagang xuebao 8: 41-64. ------- 1979. “Yin dai che de yanjiu” 殷代車的研究. Dongwu daxue Zhongguo yishushi jikan 9: 1-26. ------- 1987. “Cong Yin Zhou zhanche lun Muye zhizhan” 從殷周戰車論牧野之戰. In Ding Wenjiang baisui jinian lunwenji, pp. 1-16. Taipei: Zhongguo dizhi xuehui zhuankan. Shilou xian wenhuaguan 石樓縣文化館. 1977. “Shanxi Yonghe faxian Yin dai tongqi” 山西永和發現殷 代銅器. Kaogu 1977.5: 355-356. Shima Kunio 島邦男. 1958. Inkyo bokuji kenkyū 殷墟 卜辭研究. Hirosaki: Hirosaki daigaku chugoku kenkyukai. Shisanjing zhushu 十三經注疏, Ruan Yuan 阮元 (ed.) (originally published in 1815). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1981 Shui Tao 水濤. 2008. “Xinjiang qingtong shidai zhu wenhua de bijiao yanjiu— fulun zaoqi zhongxi wenhua jiaoliu de lishi jincheng” 新疆青銅時代 諸文化的比較研究—附論早期中西文化交流的 歷史進程. In Xinjiang shiqi shidai yu qingtong shidai, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan bianjiang kaogu yanjiu zhongxin (ed.), pp. 270-305. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Shihudi qin mu zhujian zhengli xiaozu 睡虎地秦墓竹簡 整理小組. 1990. Shuihudi qin mu zhujian 睡虎地 秦墓竹簡. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. So, Jenny F. and Emma C. Bunker. 1995. Traders and Raiders on China’s Northern Frontier. Seattle; London: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, in association with University of Washington Press. Su Bingqi 蘇秉琦. 1948. Doujitai Goudongqu muzang 鬥雞臺溝東區墓葬. Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanbu. Sun Yan. 2006. “Cultural and Political Control in North China: Style and Use of the Bronzes of Yan at Liulihe during the Early Western Zhou.” In Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World, Victor H. Mair (ed.), pp. 215-237. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Sun Ji 孫機. 1980. “Cong xongshi xijiafa dao anshi xijiafa— woguo gudai chezhi lueshuo” 從胸式 繫駕法到鞍式繫價法—我國古代車制 略說. Kaogu 1980.5: 448-460 ------- 1983. “Shihuang ling erhao tongchema dui chezhi yanjiu de xinqishi” 始皇陵二號銅車馬對車制研 究的新啟示. Wenwu 1983.7: 22-29. Svyatko, Svetlana V., James P. Mallory, Eileen M. Murphy, Andrey V. Polyakov, Paula J. Reimer, Rick J Schulting. 2009. “New Radiocarbon Dates and a Review of the Chronology of Prehistoric Populations from the Minusinsk Basin, Southernsiberia.” Radiocarbon 51.1: 243-273. Tang Lan 唐蘭. 1973. “ ‘gongxing qi’ (tong gongbi) yongtu kao” ‘弓形器’(銅弓柲)用途考. Kaogu 1973.3: 178-184. Tao Zhenggang 陶正剛. 1992. “Lingshi Shang mu yaqiang

mingwen kao” 靈石商墓亞羌銘文考. Shanxi sheng kaogu xuehui lunwenji 1: 77-95. Tian Guangjin田廣金 and Guo Suxin 郭素新. 1986. Ordos shi qingtongqi 鄂爾多斯式青銅器. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. ------- 1988. “Ordos shi qingtongqi de yuanyuan” 鄂爾多 斯式青銅器的淵源. Kaogu xuebao 1988.3: 257275. ------- 1992. Tian Guangjin and Guo Suxin. “Zailun Ordos shi qingtongqi de yuanyuan” 再論鄂爾多斯式青 銅器的淵源. Paper presented in the conference “Zhongguo gudai beifang minzu kaogu wenhua guoji xueshu yantaohui.” Tian Jianwen 田建文. 1993. “Houma Shangma mudi M13, M2008 chutu de beifangshi qingtongqi” 侯馬上馬 墓地M13、M2008出土的北方式青銅器. Kaogu 1993.2: 167-168. Tseng, Lillian Lan-ying. 1999. “Myth, History and Memory: The Modern Cult of the Simuwu Bronze Vessel.” In Chinese Culture Centenary, pp. 717767. Taipei: National Museum of History. Tu Cheng-sheng 杜正勝. 1993a. “Ouya caoyuan dongwu wenshi yu zhongguo gudai beifang minzu zhi kaocha” 歐亞草原動物文飾與中國古代北方 民族之考察. Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 64.2: 231-40 8. ------- 1993b. “Zhou Qin minzu wenhua ‘Rong Di xing’ de kaocha— jianlun Guanzhong chutu de beifang shi qingtongqi” 周秦民族文化「戎狄性」的考 察—兼論關中出土的「北方式」青銅器. Dalu zazhi 87.5: 1-25. Twitchett, Denis and Michael Loewe (ed.). 1986. The Cambridge History of China, Volume I, The Ch’in and Han Empires, 221 B.C. –A.D. 220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Volkov, B. B.; Wang Bo and Wu Yanchun (trans.). 2007. Menggu lushi 蒙古鹿石, Beijing: Zhongguo renmin daxue chubanshe. Waley, Arthur (trans.). 1996. The Book of Songs: The Ancient Chinese Classics of Poetry. New York: Grove Press. Wang Tao. 2007. “Shang Ritual Animals: Colour and Meaning (part 1).” Bulletin of SOAS 70.2: 305372. Wang Changqi 王長啟. 2002. “Xi’an Fenghao yizhi faxian de chemakeng ji qingtongqi” 西安豐鎬遺址發現 的車馬坑及青銅器. Wenwu 2002.12: 4-14. Wang Entian 王恩田. 2002. “Luyi Taiqinggong Xi Zhou damu yu Weizi feng Song” 鹿邑太清宮西周大墓 與微子封宋. Zhongyuan wenwu 2002.4: 41-45. Wang Guangming 王光明. 2004. Qi wenhua de kaogu faxian yu yanjiu 齊文化的考古發現與研究. Ji’nan: Qilu shushe. Wang Haicheng 王海城. 2002. “Zhongguo mache de qiyuan” 中國馬車的起源. Ouya xuekan 3: 1-75. Wang Jindong 王今棟. 1984. Zhongguo gudai chema 中 國古代車馬. Henan: Henan renmin chubanshe. Wang Ming-ke 王明珂. 1997. Huaxia bianyuan: lishi jiji yu zuqun rentong 華夏邊緣：歷史記憶與族群

133

Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity 認同. Taipei: Yunchen chubanshe. Wang Shougong 王守功, Wang Yongpo 王永波, and Li Zhenguang 李振光. “Linzi Houli yihao chemakeng fajue yu baohu jishi” 臨淄後李一號 車馬坑發掘與保護紀實. Wenwu tiandi 1993.1: 5-6. Wang Wei 王巍. 1998. “Shangdai mache yuanyuan lice” 商代馬車淵源蠡測. In Zhongguo Shang wenhua guoji xueshu taolunhui lunwenji, pp. 380-388. Beijing: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu chubanshe. Wang Xingguang 王星光. 2005. “Shilun Zhongguo niuche mache de bentu qiyuan” 試論中國牛車馬車的本 土起源. Zhongyuan wenwu 2005.4: 28-34. Wang Xuerong 王學榮. 1999. “Shangdai zaoqi chezhe yu shuanglunche zai zhongguo de chuxian” 商 代早期車轍與雙輪車在中國的出現. In Sandai wenming yanjiu 1: 239-247. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe. Wang Yuxin 王宇信. 1980. “Shangdai de ma he yangmaye” 商代的馬和養馬業. Zhongguo shi yanjiu 1980.1: 99-108. ------- 1999. “Jiaguwen ‘ma’, ‘she’ de zai kaocha— jianbo ma, she yu zhanche xiang peizhi shuo” 甲骨文‘ 馬’ 、‘射’的再考察—兼駁馬、射與戰車相配 置說. Chutu wenxian yanjiu 5: 59-72. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe. Watson, William. 1971. Cultural Frontiers in Ancient East Asia. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ------- 1978. “The Chinese Chariot: Insider view.” In The Arts of the Eurasian Steppelands, Colloquies on Art and Archaeology in Asia no.7, P. Denwood (ed.), pp.32-51. London: Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art. Wehle, Harry B. 1943. “The Triumph of Henri IV by Rubens.” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, New Series 1.7: 213-218. Wo Haowei 沃浩偉. 2008. “Jinshan gaoyuan Shang Zhou shiqi qingtongqi fenqun yanjiu” 晉陝高原 商周時期青銅器分群研究. In Gongyuan qian liangqianji de Jinshaan gaoyuan yu Yanshan nanbei, Yang Jianhua and Jiang Gang (eds.), pp. 56-67. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe. Wu En and Mayke Wagner. 1999. “Bronzezeitliche Zugleinenhalter in China und Südsibirien.” Eurasia Antiqua 1999: 111-133. Wuen Yuesitu 烏恩岳斯圖 (Wu En 烏恩). “Yin zhi Zhou chu de beifang qingtongqi” 殷至周初的北方青銅 器. Kaogu xuebao 1985.2: 135-156. ------- 1994. “Lun gudai zhanche ji qi xiangguan wenti” 論古代戰車及其相關問題. Neimenggu wenwu kaogu wenj 1: 327-335. Beijing: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu chubanshe. ------- 2008. Beifang caoyuan kaoguxue wenhua bijiao yanjiu 北方草原考古學文化比較研究：青銅時 代至早期匈奴時代, Beijing: Kexue chubanshe. Wu Hsiao-yun 吳曉筠. 2003. “Shang zhi Chunqiu shiqi Zhongyuan diqu qingtong chemaqixingshi yanjiu” 商至春秋時期中原地區青銅車馬器形式研 究. Gudai wenming 1: 180-277. Beijing: Wenwu

chubanshe. ------- 2006. “Shiyusuo cang Shangdai ‘Xiashoushi’ de xin renshi” 史語所藏商代「轄首飾」的新認識. Gujin lunheng 13: 83-102. ------- 2009. Shang Zhou shiqi chema maizang yanjiu 商周 時期車馬埋葬研究. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Wu Zhenlu 吳振錄. 1972. “Baode xian xinfaxian de Yindai qingtongqi” 保德縣新發現的殷代青銅 器. Wenwu 1972.4: 62-66. Xiangfan shi bowuguan 襄樊市博物館. 1991. “Hubei Xiangyang Tuanshan Dong Zhou mu” 湖北襄陽 團山東周墓. Kaogu 1991.9: 781-802. Xiangfan shi kaogudui 襄樊市考古隊, Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 湖北省文物考古研究 所, and Hubei Xiao Xiang gaosu gonglu kaogudui 湖北孝襄高速公路考古隊. 2005. Zaoyang Guojiamiao Zeng guo mudi 棗陽郭家廟曾國墓 地. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe. Xiao Shengzhong 蕭聖中. 2005. Zeng Hou Yi mu zhujian shiwen buzheng ji chema zhidu yanjiu 曾侯乙墓 竹簡釋文補正暨車馬制度研究. PhD dissertation of Wuhan University. Hubei: Wuhan University. Xie Qingshan 謝青山 and Yang Shaoshun 楊紹舜. “Shanxi Luliang xian Shilou zhen you faxian tongqi” 山西呂梁縣石樓鎮又發現銅器. Wenwu 1962.7: 51-52. Xin Lixiang 信立祥. 1999. “Handai huaxiang zhong de chema chuxingtu kao” 漢代畫像中的車馬出行 圖考. Dongnan wenhua 1999.1: 47-63. Yang Baocheng 楊寶成. “Yindai chezi de faxian yu fuyuan” 殷代車子的發現與復原. Kaogu 1984.6: 546-555. Yang Hong 楊泓. 1985. “Zhanche yu chezhan” 戰車與 車戰. In Zhongguo gubingqi luncong, pp. 79-93. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. ------- 1998. “Shangdai de bingqi yu zhanche” 商代的 兵器與戰車. In Zhongguo Shang wenhua guoji xueshu taolunhui lunwenji, pp.358-365. Beijing: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu chubanshe. ------- 2000. “Zhanche yu chezhan er lun” 戰車與車戰二 論. Gugong bowuyuan yuankan 2000.3: 36-52. Yang Shaoshun 楊紹舜. 1981. “Shanxi Liulin xian Gaohong faxian Shangdai tongqi” 山西柳林縣高 紅發現商代銅器. Kaogu 1981.3: 211-212. Yong Ying 雍穎. 2006. “Jin hou mudi xingbie, diwei, lizhi he zangyi fenxi” 晉侯墓地性別、地位、 禮制和葬儀分析. In Xingbie yanjiu yu Zhongguo kaoguxue, pp. 143-177. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Yu Weichao 俞偉超 and Gao Ming 高明. “Zhoudai yongding zhidu yanjiu” 周代用鼎制度研究. Beijing daxue xuebao, Shehui kexue ban 1978.1: 84-98; 1978.2: 84-97; 1979.1: 83-96. Yuan Jing and Rowan K. Flad. 2006. “Research on Early Horse Domestication in China.” In Equids in Time and Space, Marjan Mashkour (ed.), pp. 124-131. Oxford: Oxbow. Zdanovich, Gennady and Dmitry Zdanovich. 2002. “The ‘Country of Towns’ of Southern Trans-Urals

134

Bibliography and Some Aspects of Steppe Assimilation in the Bronze Age.” In Ancient Interactions: East and West in Eurasia, Katie Boyle, Colin Renfrew and Marsha Levine (eds.), pp. 249-264. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Zhai Defang 翟德芳. 1988. “Shang Zhou shiqi mache qiyuan chutan” 商周時期馬車起源初探. Huaxia kaogu 1988.1: 95-106. Zhang Liangren. 2007. Ancient Society and Metallurgy: A Comparative Study of Bronze Age Societies in Central Eurasia and North China. PhD dissertation, University of California. UMI Microform 3272340. ------- 2009. “Metal Trade in Bronze Age Central Eurasia.” In Metallurgy and Civilisation: Eurasia and Beyond (edited by Jianjun Mei and Thilo Rehren), pp. 17-25. London: Archetype Publications Ltd. Zhang Changshou張長壽and Zhang Xiaoguang 張孝 光. 1980. “Shuo futu yu huamin” 說伏兔與畫 . Kaogu 1980.4: 361-364. ------- 1986. “Yin Zhou chezhi lueshuo” 殷周車制略說. In Zhongguo kaoguxue yanjiu lunji— Jinian Xia Nai xiansheng kaogu wushi zhounian, pp.139-162. Xi’an: Sanqin chubanshe. ------- 1994. “Jingshu mudi suojian Xi Zhou lunyu” 井叔 墓地所見西周輪輿. Kaogu xuebao 1994. 2, pp. 155-171. Zhang Guangyu 張光裕. 1991. “Xinjian Bao yuan gui ming shishi” 新見保員簋銘試釋. Kaogu 1991.7: 549-552. Zhao Haizhou 趙海洲. 2007. Dong Zhou Qin Han shiqi chema maizang yanjiu 東周秦漢時期車馬埋 葬研究. PhD thesis of Zhengzhou University. Zhengzhou: Zhengzhou University. Zhen Ruokui 鄭若葵. 1995. “Lun gudai mache de yuanyuan” 論中國古代馬車的淵源. Huaxia kaogu 1995.3: 41-56. Zhongguo huaxiangshi quanji bianji weiyuanhui中國畫像 石全集編輯委員會. 2000. Zhongguo huaxiangshi quanji 中國畫像石全集, vol. 1. Jinan: Shandong meishu chubanshe. Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo中國科學院考古 研究所. 1956. Huixian fajue baogao 輝縣發掘報 告. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe. ------- 1959. Shangcunling Guoguo mudi上村嶺虢國墓 地. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe. ------- 1962. Fengxi fajue baogao 灃西發掘報告. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Anyang gongzuodui 中國科學院考古研究所安陽工作隊. 1972. “Anyang xin faxian de Yindai chemakeng” 安陽 新發現的殷代車馬坑. Kaogu 1972.4: 24-28. Zhonguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Neimenggu gongzuodui 中國科學院考古研究所內蒙古工 作隊. 1975. “Ningcheng xian Nanshangen yizhi fajue baogao” 寧城縣南山根遺址發掘報告. Kaogu xuebao 1975.1: 117-140. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo中國社會科 學院考古研究所. 1980. Yin Xu Fu Hao mu 殷墟

婦好墓, Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. ------- 1998. Anyang Yinxu Guojiazhuang Shangdai muzang: 1982 nian- 1992 nian kaogu fajue baogao 安陽殷墟郭家莊商代墓葬:1982年-1992 年考古發掘報告. Beijing: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu chubanshe. ------- 1999. Zhangjiapo Xi Zhou mudi 張家坡西周墓地. Beijing: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu chubanshe. ------- 2003. Zhongguo kaoguxue. Xia Shang juan中國考 古學.夏商卷. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. ------- 2004. Zhongguo kaoguxue. liang Zhou juan中國 考古學.兩周卷. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe. ------- 2005. Tengzhou Qianzhangda mudi 滕州前掌大墓 地. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo and Hebei sheng wenwu guanlichu 河北省文物管理處. 1980. Mancheng Han mu fajue baogao 滿城漢墓 發掘報告. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Anyang gongzuodui中國社會科學院考古研究所安陽工 作隊. 1979. “1969-1977 nian Yinxu xiqu muzang fajue jianbao” 1969-1977年殷墟西區墓葬發掘 簡報. Kaogu xuebao 1979.1: 27-164. ------- 1987. “Yinxu 259, 260 hao mu fajue baogao” 殷墟 259、260號墓發掘報告. Kaogu xuebao 1987.1: 99-118. ------- 1998a. “Henan Anyang shi Guojiazhuang dongnan 26 hao mu” 河南安陽市郭家莊東南26號墓. Kaogu 1998.10: 36-47. ------- 1998b. “Henan Anyang shi Meiyuanzhuang dongnan de Yindai chemakeng” 河南安陽市梅園 莊東南的殷代車馬坑. Kaogu 1998.10: 48-65. ------- 2001. “Henan Anyang Yinxu daxing jianzhu jizhi de fajue” 河南安陽殷墟大型建築基址的發掘. Kaogu 2001.5: 18-26. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Feng Hao gongzuodui中國社會科學院考古研究所灃鎬 工作隊. 1987. “1984-1985 nian Fengxi Xi Zhou yizhi, muzang fajue baogao” 1984-1985年灃西西 周遺址、墓葬發掘報告. Kaogu 1987.1: 15-32. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Henan di er gongzuodui 中國社會科學院考古研究所河南 第二工作隊. 1998. “Henan Yanshi Shang cheng dongbeiyu fajue jianbao” 河南偃師商城東北隅 發掘簡報. Kaogu 1998.6: 1-8. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo, Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Yuncheng shi wenwuju 運 城市文物局, Linyi xian bowuguan 臨猗縣博物 館. 2003. Linyi Chengcun mudi 臨猗程村墓地, Beijing: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu chubanshe. Zhouyuan Fufeng wenguanhui 周原扶風文管會. 1987. “Shaanxi Fufeng Qiangjia yihao Xi Zhou mu” 陝 西扶風強家一號西周墓. Wenbo 1987.4: 5-20. Zhu Fenghan 朱鳳瀚. 2009. Zhongguo gudai qingtongqi 中國古代青銅器. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe.

135