Many Worlds Under One Heaven: Material Culture, Identity, and Power in the Northern Frontiers of the Western Zhou, 1045–771 BCE 9780231552622

Citation preview

MANY WORLDS UNDER ONE HEAVEN

TANG CENTER SERIES IN EARLY CHINA

Editors Li Feng Anthony Barbieri-Low

The dramatic increase of information about China’s early past made possible by recent archaeological discoveries has reenergized the study of Early China. The Tang Center Series in Early China, sponsored by the Tang Center for Early China at Columbia University and published by Columbia University Press, presents new studies that make major contributions to our understanding of early Chinese civilization and break new theoretical or methodological grounds in Early China studies, especially works that analyze newly discovered paleographic and manuscript materials and archaeological data. The disciplinary focus of the series includes history, archaeology, art history, anthropology, literature, philosophy, and the history of sciences and technology. The time period covered spans from the Neolithic to the end of the Han Dynasty (220 ce) or to the end of the Tang Dynasty (907 ce) for titles in archaeology. Modeling Peace: Royal Tombs and Political Ideology in Early China, Jie Shi Kingly Splendor: Court Art and Materiality in Han China, Allison R. Miller

Many Worlds Under One Heaven M AT E R I A L C U LT U R E , I D E N T I T Y, A N D P O W E R I N T H E NORTHERN FRONTIERS OF THE WESTERN ZHOU, 1 0 4 5 –7 7 1 B C E

Yan Sun

Columbia University Press New York

Columbia University Press wishes to express its appreciation to the Tang Center for Early China for funding and editorial support in the publication of this book.

Columbia University Press Publishers Since 1893 New York Chichester, West Sussex cup.columbia.edu Copyright © 2021 Columbia University Press All rights reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Sun, Yan, 1970– author. Title: Many worlds under one Heaven : material culture, identity, and power in the northern frontiers of the Western Zhou, 1045–771 BCE / Yan Sun. Description: New York : Columbia University Press, [2021] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020051675 (print) | LCCN 2020051676 (ebook) | ISBN 9780231198424 (hardback) | ISBN 9780231552622 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Material culture—China—History. | Borderlands—China—History. | Group identity—China—History—To 1500. | China—History—Zhou dynasty, 1122-221 b.c. | China—Social life and customs—To 221 B.C. | China—Politics and government—To 221 b.c. Classification: LCC DS747 .S95 2021 (print) | LCC DS747 (ebook) | DDC 931/.03—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020051675 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020051676

Columbia University Press books are printed on permanent and durable acid-free paper. Printed in the United States of America Cover design: Noah Arlow Cover art: Xi zun, from tomb M4 at the Shigushan cemetery, Baoji. Photo provided by Cao Wei, Shaanxi Normal University.

For my mentors, Professors Katheryn M. Linduff and Cho-yun Hsu, with respect, gratitude, and love

CONTENTS

L I ST O F M A P S

ix

L I S T O F F IG U R E S

L I S T O F TA B L E S

xi

xiii

AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S

xv

R E IG N DAT E S O F W E S T E R N Z HOU K I N G S

Introduction

xix

1

Chapter One An Old Frontier and New Challenges in the Northwest 17 Chapter Two A Frontier Close to Home: Lineage Polities in the Western Baoji Region 63 Chapter Three The North-Central Frontier: Political Integration and Cultural Homogenization 100

viii CONTENTS

Chapter Four The Northeastern Frontier: Colonization, Confrontation, and Collaboration 153 Chapter Five The Emerging Frontier in the Far West: The Upper Wei and Xihan River Valleys 212 Conclusions NOTES

 

B I B L IO G R A P H Y

INDEX

237



 

MAPS

0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 5.2

Western Zhou capitals and northern frontiers 3 Late Shang and Western Zhou sites in the upper Jing River valley 22 Western Zhou sites in the western Baoji region 64 Late Shang and Western Zhou sites in the lower Fen River valley 101 Late Shang and Western Zhou sites in the northeastern frontier 154 Major Western Zhou sites in the upper Wei and Xihan River valleys 213 Zhou period sites in the Niutou River valley found in 2005 and 2008 surveys 221 5.3 Siwa and non-Siwa (early Western Zhou) sites in the upper Xihan River valley found in 2004 survey 227 5.4 Siwa and non-Siwa (late Western Zhou) sites in the upper Xihan River valley found in 2004 survey 228

FIGURES

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.3

Layout of the Baicaopo cemetery 30 Bronze vessels from tomb M2 at the Baicaopo cemetery 34 Bronze weapons and tools from tombs at the Baicaopo cemetery 35 Layout of the Yujiawan cemetery 43 Late Shang and Western Zhou pottery and bronzes from the Yujiawan cemetery 45 Bronzes from Yucun 55 Pottery and bronzes from Jiuzhan 58 Layout of Yu cemeteries at Zhuyuangou (ZYG) and Rujiazhuang (RJZ) 67 Pottery and bronzes native to the Yu lineage 68 Yu bronze weapons and jade pendants showing stylistic connections with the Northern Zone 73 Type A (no. 1) and Type B (no. 2) bronzes and a bronze ding with its inscription from tomb BRM2 at Rujiazhuang 76 Layout of the Shigushan cemetery and of tomb M4 82 Three types of pottery at Shigushan 84 Three styles of bronzes from the Shigushan cemetery 87 Ze bronzes and pottery 93 Layout of the Jinhou cemetery at Beizhao 103 Excavations and survey sites at Tianma-Qucun and Beizhao 104 Bronze vessels from Jin tombs in style of the Zhou center 111

xii FIGURES

3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 5.1

Pottery from Jin tombs at Qucun 114 Exotic artifacts from Jin tombs at Beizhao and Qucun 116 Diagram of social networks of Jin, Peng, and Ba 121 Inscriptions on Peng bronzes 124 Line drawings of Bi Ji’s tomb M1 and selected bronzes from the tomb 131 Rubbings of inscriptions on bronzes from Ba tombs 137 Bronze vessels from Ba tombs in style of the Zhou center and a bronze bird-shaped zun from tomb M114 at Beizhao 142 Artifacts with distinct styles from Ba tombs (except no. 3) 146 Bronze vessels and gold ornaments from the Liujiahe tomb 155 Bronzes commissioned by Yanhou 157 Layout of the Liulihe cemetery 159 Bronzes from Liulihe tombs in the style of Shang and Zhou centers 162 Styles originating in regions outside the Shang and Zhou centers 167 Pottery from Liulihe in the style typical of Anyang 168 Bronzes from Liulihe, Niulanshan, and Kazuo bearing Jiyayi lineage emblems 171 Yu vessels from tomb M253 at Liulihe 172 Bo Ju bronzes and inscriptions 173 Bronze lei and its inscription “Guzhu” from Beidong cache No. 1 181 Bronzes from caches at Kazuo showing stylistic connections with the Northern Zone 182 Bronze ding and gui and gold ornaments of the Zhangjiayuan culture in the Jing-Jin-Tang region 190 Bronze knives and daggers from the Yan mountainous region 195 Bronzes from the Xibozi cache at Yanqing 201 Bronze vessel you and horse ornaments of the Weiyingzi culture 205 Pottery and bronzes from tombs at Maojiaping 216

TABLES

1.1 Western Zhou tombs along the upper Jing River (excluding Baicaopo, Yujiawan, and Yaoheyuan) 24 1.2 Western Zhou tombs in the lower Malian River valley 26 1.3 Burial features and goods of five tombs at the Baicaopo cemetery 32 1.4 Comparison of tombs of different periods at the Yujiawan cemetery 48 2.1 Size and placement of bronze willow leaf–shaped swords in Yu tombs at Zhuyuangou and Rujiazhuang 69 2.2 Distribution and placement of triangular-blade ge in Yu tombs at Zhuyuangou and Rujiazhuang 71 2.3 Type and number of bronze vessels in four tombs at the Shigushan cemetery 89 3.1 Distribution of bronze vessels in male and female tombs at the Peng cemetery in Hengshui 128 3.2 Bronze-yielding burials from the Ba cemetery at Dahekou 140 4.1 Bronzes from caches at Kazuo in western Liaoning 179 4.2 Bronze-yielding burials of the Zhangjiayuan culture 188 4.3 Bronze-yielding burials of the Weiyingzi culture 203 5.1 Western Zhou sites containing Siwa and non-Siwa remains in the upper Xihan River valley 225 5.2 Comparison of material culture at four sites in the upper Wei and upper Xihan River valleys 233

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writing of this book was an intellectual journey to discover the fascinating worlds of ancient China, specifically the interactions between people and objects and the identity constructions of individuals and groups in the northern frontiers of the Western Zhou state. This book could not have been completed without the encouragement, support, and assistance of many individuals. My deepest gratitude goes to my two graduate school mentors, Professors Katheryn M. Linduff and Cho-yun Hsu at the University of Pittsburgh. They laid the foundation for my scholarship during my six years of doctoral study after I graduated from the Department of Archaeology at Peking University in the mid-1990s. My interest in the frontiers of early China was nurtured by Professor Linduff, who introduced me to the material culture of the Northern Zone and encouraged me to look at the region in the larger geographic and cultural context of Eastern Eurasia. More importantly, she introduced me to anthropological and archaeological theories and taught me the value of interdisciplinary studies. Professor Linduff has read different drafts of this manuscript and has provided insightful suggestions. Professor Choyun Hsu introduced me to Chinese historiography and taught me how to ask the right historical questions regarding archaeological materials. His vision of early Chinese history guided my search for the historical significance of material culture, and I have benefited greatly from his profound knowledge of ancient China. I feel very fortunate to have studied under these two teachers.

xvi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am also grateful for the support and help of a group of scholars who have generously shared their knowledge and expertise. I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Liu Yu from the Palace Museum, who passed away on February 26, 2020. I came to know Professor Liu through our mutual friend Professor Connie Cook from Lehigh University in the early 2000s, when I had just completed my PhD degree. For all these years, Professor Liu generously shared his knowledge of Western Zhou bronze inscriptions. He was an erudite scholar, a kind friend, and most importantly a respectful teacher. Professor Cao Wei of Shaanxi Normal University is a longtime collaborator and a friend. He solved my puzzles over bronze inscriptions and historical texts and helped me secure copyright permission for many illustrations in this book and in other publications. Professor Su Rongyu of the Chinese Academy of Sciences generously shared his knowledge of ancient Chinese bronze casting and the high-quality photographs he shot during our study of late Shang and Zhou archaeological materials in Gansu. During a visit to the Shanxi Provincial Museum, I also benefited from stimulating discussions with Professor Zhang Maorong of Shaanxi Normal University about the Peng and Ba bronzes of the lower Fen River valley. Professors Li Boqian and Liu Xu, my undergraduate teachers at Peking University, helped me learn about archaeological materials from the Zhou regional states Jin and Yan. I am also indebted to Professor Chen Chao-jung of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, for generously sharing her research on the marriage networks of the Western Zhou period. Professor Francis Allard of Indiana University of Pennsylvania, a longtime friend, offered invaluable feedback on the proposal for this book and helped me articulate my ideas. Professor Luo Xinhui of Beijing Normal University, Professor Han Binghua of the Shanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology, Professor Zhang Liyan of Northeast Normal University, and Liu Shuman, postdoctoral fellow from Shaanxi Normal University, helped me obtain Chinese publications not available in this country. My thanks should also go to archaeologist Ma Qiang of the Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology and Professor Wang Hui of Fudan University, who arranged my field visits at Ningxia and Gansu and allowed me to examine the newly excavated materials. I must also thank Scott Mann, a friend and professor at Coastal Carolina University of South Carolina, for creating beautiful maps, as well as Fang Dan in China for making neat, high-resolution illustrations for this book. I must thank the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange for its generous financial support during my two sabbatical

xvii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

leaves in 2011–2012 and 2018–2019. The grants allowed me to fully devote my time to research and writing. The foundation’s commitment to early Chinese studies is critical and admirable. Faculty development grants from Gettysburg College also generously supported my summer field trips to China and enabled me to visit archaeological sites, museums, and local institutions that held cultural relics. The publication of this book has also depended on generous support from the Tang Center at Columbia University. I would like to thank the series editors, Professors Li Feng and Anthony Barbieri, for supporting the project from the very beginning. I thank two anonymous reviewers of the book for their positive comments and constructive suggestions, as well as the reviewer who copyedited the entire manuscript. My wholehearted thanks must go to Professor Li Feng. His diligent editing and insightful comments ensured that this book presented the best scholarship. I would also like to thank Weng Haiying, the program manager of the Tang Center, and Lowell Frye and Monique Briones, the editors at Columbia University Press, for their professionalism and their timely assistance during the production of this book. I wish to extend my thanks to the following institutions and individuals who granted permission for reprinting the images in the book: Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology; Gansu Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology; Beijing Cultural Relics Institute; Professor Li Boqian from Peking University; Chen Xingcan from the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Xie Yaoting from Shanxi University; and Shui Tao from Nanjing University. Last but not least, my gratitude goes to my family. For all these years, my husband, Hongyu Yang, and my son Adrian have shared with me all the joys and pains of writing this book. My parents, Sun Guochun and Yu Fengrong, and my brother Sun Yu back in Beijing have also cheered for me. Their love, unconditional support, and encouragement kept me going and motivated me to pursue my intellectual questions. The material worlds of ancient China project the dynamic interactions between people and artifacts. This book presents the “many worlds” of the northern frontiers of the Western Zhou state through an examination of artifacts and bronze inscriptions. I hope that readers will find that, just like today, those ancient worlds were diverse, intriguing, and ever evolving.

REIGN DATES OF WESTERN ZHOU KINGS

(All dates are BCE) King Wen

㔯䌳

1099/56–1050

King Wu

㬎䌳

1049/45–1043

Duke of Zhou

␐℔

1042–1036

King Cheng

ㆸ䌳

1042/35–1006

King Kang

⹟䌳

1005/3–978

King Zhao

㗕䌳

977/75–957

King Mu

䧮䌳

956–918

King Gong

ℙ䌳

917/15–900

King Yih

ㆧ䌳

899/97–873

King Xiao

⬅䌳

872?–866

King Yi

⣟䌳

865–858

King Li

⍚䌳

857/53–842/28

Gong He

ℙ␴

841–828

King Xuan

⭋䌳

827/25–782

King You

⸥䌳

781–771

Source: Based on Edward L. Shaughnessy, “Calendar and Chronology,” in The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C., edited by Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 25.

MANY WORLDS UNDER ONE HEAVEN

INTRODUCTION

The Western Zhou dynasty (1045–771 bce) occupies a special position in early Chinese dynastic history. Unlike its predecessor, the Shang ⓮ dynasty (c. mid-sixteenth century to 1045 bce), the Western Zhou dynasty, through the establishment of regional states and alliances, was able to expand its political reach to remote regions and various groups and to create vast geopolitical frontiers to defend its political center in the Wei 㷕 and Luo 㳃 River valleys. These frontiers stretched into northern Huabei 厗⊿ Plain in the far northeast, the Huai 㶖 and middle Yangzi River valleys in the south, the Jing 㲦 and Wei River valleys in the west, and the Shandong Ⱉ㜙 peninsula in the east (Zhou Shucan 2000: 218–20; Li Feng 2006: 300–42), and were essential to the formation of the Western Zhou as a political entity. The Zhou introduced a new political ideology, the “Mandate of Heaven” (tiānmìng ⣑␥), to justify its conquest of the Shang, its expansion into these vast “foreign” lands, and its authority over “others” (e.g., Creel 1970: 44–45, 51–52; Wang Aihe 2000: 67–73). The idea was that the king, as the “Son of Heaven,” was bestowed with divine legitimacy and power to create a universal civilization that extended from the political core to all people on all lands under Heaven. Transmitted texts of the ensuing historical periods adopted this view and created a Zhou-centric historical narrative that elaborated and amplified the centrality and universality of the Zhou king’s authority. This authority is extolled in Zhou literature, such as in the poem “Northern Hills”

2 INTRODUCTION

(Beishan ⊿Ⱉ) in the Book of Poetry (Shijing 娑䴻) (1980: 463; Waley 1996: 189): Everywhere under heaven, Is no land that is not the king. To the borders of all those lands, None but is the king’s slave.

㹍⣑ᷳᶳ 卓朆䌳⛇ 䌯⛇ᷳ㾙 卓朆䌳冋

This outlook reflects what is called today the core-periphery model, which highlights cultural assimilation, political dominance, and integration across the Zhou frontiers as a result of influence from the center, a perspective that has been adopted by historians of both ancient and modern times and by archaeologists in their studies of the Western Zhou frontiers. New archaeological discoveries in the northern frontiers in the last three decades, however, have revealed remarkable regional variations in the material culture, suggesting a demographic, cultural, and political landscape that is far more dynamic and diverse than has previously been recognized. These new findings call for an updated analysis of the data and a critical reevaluation of the Zhou-centric paradigm.

This book shifts the research focus from the political center to the frontiers. Specifically, it covers the northern frontiers which stretched from southern and southeastern Gansu 䓀倭, through the western Baoji ⮞浬 region in the Wei River valley of Shaanxi 昅大 and the lower Fen 㰦 River valley in southern Shanxi Ⱉ大, to northern Hebei 㱛⊿ and western Liaoning 怤䓗 (map 0.1). Using newly excavated archaeological materials and epigraphic evidence, it investigates the multiplicity and complexity of the identity constructions and power negotiations that were unfolding in the northern frontiers of the Western Zhou. It thus challenges the Zhou-centered view with a frontier-focused perspective that promotes diverse, inclusive, and contested narratives of multiple players in the frontiers. The Western Zhou northern frontiers, like the borderlands of other empires in the ancient world, were dynamic and fluid. The book proposes that these northern frontiers were a land of negotiation and that the local inhabitants were active agents who were responsible for broad political, cultural, and social changes. It examines the identity constructions and power relations of these people, which were not only significant aspects of the frontier life

3 INTRODUCTION

N Mongolia LIAONING Elevation MASL 6,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 500 0

Shenyang

China Yellow

HEBEI

Beijing

Bo Sea ea

SHANXI Taiyuan

Lanzhou

r

ve

GANSU

Anyang

Baoji

Zongzhou

Ri

Yel elllllow Sea e ea

Chengzhou Zhengzhou

SHAANXI

East China Sea r

ve

Yan

Ri

gtz

Shanghai

300 km

Northern frontiers Zhou capitals Modern cities

MAP 0.1. Western Zhou capitals and northern frontiers (from left to right: the upper Wei and Xihan river valleys, western Baoji, the upper Jing river valley, the lower Fen river valley, and the northeastern frontiers)

but also held the key to the sociopolitical and cultural dynamics of the Western Zhou state. Material remains in the northern frontiers are the primary sources for this study. Their diverse artifacts express the customs, ideas, and technologies that originated locally or were imported from elsewhere due to population movement, cultural contact, or political expansion. They played an active and central role in creating and manipulating individual and group identities in these regions and in expressing their political and power relations. In contrast to traditional studies of material remains, which emphasize the typology and classification of artifacts, this book highlights how the artifacts were used in practice, recognizing that, through the use of material culture, people negotiated their identities and relations with one another. It examines the style and use of artifacts in both mortuary and residential contexts to reveal their meanings in local, regional, and cross-regional settings. Epigraphical and textual evidence, whenever available, is examined along with archaeological materials to evaluate the mutual and contrasting perceptions and practices conveyed through each line of evidence. As the discussions in the following chapters reveal, across the northern frontiers of the Western Zhou, individuals and groups experienced a

4 INTRODUCTION

multitude of cultural and political realities. The northern frontiers and the experiences of the people who lived there should be understood as “many worlds under one Heaven.” THE NORTHERN FRONTIERS OF THE WESTERN ZHOU

The Western Zhou state consisted of a political core and the frontiers that surrounded it in all directions. The political core stretched from the Zhou homeland in Guanzhong 斄ᷕ1 in the middle and lower Wei River valley of Shaanxi to the former Shang heartland in western and northern Henan. It encompassed the Zhou Royal Domain (wángjī 䌳䔧) (the area under the direct administration of the Zhou court) and was anchored by two capitals: the western capital or Zongzhou ⬿␐ at Feng 寸 and Hao 捔, and the eastern capital Chengzhou ㆸ␐ at Luoyi 㳃怹. This political core was also the geographical center of the Western Zhou state, and from there the Zhou court projected its political and military power outward. In this book, I use the term “Zhou center” to refer to this political core, including both capital regions. Beyond this political center lay the vast geopolitical “frontiers” of Zhou, which in this book refer to the regions that experienced Zhou political expansion or intervention. The frontiers of the Western Zhou did not possess welldefined boundaries demarcating them from the Zhou center. The transition from the center to the frontiers, and from the frontiers to areas outside the Zhou political sphere, was often gradual, vague, and sometimes reversible. As Li Feng 㛶Ⲙ (2008: 294) has suggested, the Western Zhou state can best be characterized as a “delegatory kin-ordered settlement state” defined not by its territorial size with a linear border, but by numerous regional states, each comprising a cluster of integrated settlements. As the Zhou continuously expanded in some regions and ultimately withdrew from others, the geographical extent of the frontiers fluctuated over time. The northern frontiers discussed in this book include five geographically discontinuous regions: the northwestern frontiers, consisting of the upper Wei and upper Xihan River 大㻊㯜 valleys, the upper Jing River valley, and the western Baoji region; the north-central frontier in the lower Fen River valley immediate north of Chengzhou; and the northeastern frontier extending from the Jing-Jin-Tang Ṕ㳍Ⓒ alluvial plain and the Yan 䅽 mountainous region in northern Hebei to western Liaoning (map 0.1).2 The upper Jing River valley and the western Baoji region were traditionally known in

5 INTRODUCTION

transmitted texts as the “Western Land” (xītǻ 大⛇), which circumscribed the western capital. The north-central and northeastern frontiers were traditionally called the “Northern Land” (běitǻ ⊿⛇) as they were north of the eastern capital.3 Corresponding to their geographical diversity, regions in the northern frontiers demonstrated remarkable cultural and demographic variation during the late Shang and Western Zhou periods. The three regions in the northwestern frontiers—the upper Wei and upper Xihan River valleys, the upper Jing River valley, and the western Baoji area—were occupied by communities with distinctive ceramic and bronze traditions and mortuary customs (Shui 2001: 220–67; Zhang Tian’en 2004: 277–334).4 The north-central frontier yielded few material remains of the late Shang period, but the areas immediately north and west were occupied by groups whose material remains juxtaposed Shang-style bronze vessels typical of the late Shang capital Anyang ⬱春 with weapons of the Northern Zone bronze traditions (Li Boqian [1988] 1998: 167–84; Linduff et al. 2018: 127–44).5 Carefully selected late Shang burial customs and artifacts with distinctive Northern Zone styles made their way into the tombs of Western Zhou residents in the region, including Jin 㗱, Peng ᾿, and Ba 曠. In the remote northeastern frontier, local-style metal ornaments and/or pottery, along with bronze types from the Shang capital region and the Zhou center, dominated the assemblages in local tombs (Linduff et al. 2018: 80–89, 98–118). Transmitted texts and inscriptions on bronzes have also revealed that different lineages and groups were active in regions across the northern frontiers during the late Shang and Western Zhou periods, indicating a landscape of demographic diversity. Most of these communities developed a sedentary lifestyle based on farming, but some, particularly in the Yan mountainous region, became increasingly mobile. Needless to say, the level of wealth and political complexity varied noticeably across the frontiers. Politically, the tempo and method of the Zhou expansion that transformed these regions into frontiers also varied from region to region. The upper Jing River valley and the western Baoji region experienced Zhou political expansion prior to the conquest of the Shang. The Zhou, through military conquests and political alliances, converted both regions into its early frontiers, and local polities were likely incorporated into the Zhou political system as submissive allies that enjoyed a high degree of political autonomy. In contrast, both the north-central and northeastern frontiers were born from the establishment of the Zhou regional states Jin and Yan ⋥ (䅽), respectively, at

6 INTRODUCTION

the beginning of the Western Zhou period. Often members or relatives of the royal family, accompanied by subject populations, marched to foreign lands to build settlements and colonize local people. According to traditional historical narratives such as the Zuo Commentary (Zuozhuan ⶎ⁛), one of the main objectives of establishing regional states was to protect the Zhou center (1980: 1817, 2114, 2314). The upper Wei and Xihan River valleys, separated by the Liupan ℕ䚀 Mountains from the Zhou center and other frontiers, were likely beyond the direct political reach of the court for much of the Western Zhou period. According to the Grand Scribe’s Records (Shiji ⎚姀), Zhou cultivated both regions as a potential frontier through its support for Qin’s 䦎 fights against the local Rong ㆶ groups, who became increasingly aggressive after the middle Western Zhou period (Shiji 1982: 177–79). This book focuses on the northern frontiers because, compared with the eastern and southern frontiers, they were far more complex and diverse in geography, demography, culture, social organization, and historical relations with the Zhou. The variations within each region and between regions make the northern frontiers an excellent place to examine the complexity and multiplicity of identity building and power dynamics. Furthermore, the northern frontiers were situated between two distinct cultural and political spheres: the Zhou political center and the bronze-using cultures of the Northern Zone. While the southern and eastern frontiers witnessed the interplay primarily between Zhou and the local inhabitants, the northern frontiers saw interactions between three active players: Zhou and its delegates, local people, and groups from the Northern Zone. These players not only had overlapping and often conflicting cultural and political agendas, but their priorities, strengths, and relations also changed over time at various speeds and in various directions, generating continuous cultural and power negotiations across the northern frontiers throughout the Western Zhou period. PREVIOUS SCHOLARSHIP

The frontiers of ancient Chinese states have been the subject of many historical and archaeological studies in the West since the publication of Owen Lattimore’s seminal research on the Inner Asian frontiers of China (Lattimore 1940). William Watson (1971) examines artifacts from each region of the Inner Asian frontiers from a traditional core-periphery perspective. Emma Bunker, Jenny So, and Katheryn Linduff ’s art history studies focus on the

7 INTRODUCTION

stylistic and iconographic features of bronzes in the Inner Asian frontiers (So and Bunker 1995; Bunker et al. 1997). Thomas Barfield (1989) and Nicola Di Cosmo (2001) use transmitted texts as primary evidence to examine interactions between political centers in the middle Yellow River valley and nomadic polities in the northern frontiers. Gideon Shelach (2009) conducts an archaeological study of material remains to examine identity formation and economic changes in the northeastern region of the Inner Asian frontiers of ancient China. These studies, however, do not focus exclusively on the geopolitical frontiers of the Western Zhou, and they differ significantly from this book in research questions, methods, and evidence. Since the 1980s, a proliferation of archaeological excavations in the outlying regions of the Western Zhou has generated a rich and diverse body of material remains, including burials, residential debris, house foundations, city walls, animal remains, oracle bones, bronzes, and jade, stone, and ceramic artifacts. Interpretations of these data, however, are heavily influenced by transmitted texts and underlying historical narratives that credit Zhou for having created a universal “civilization” that extended from its political core to these remote regions. As a result, studies often adopt the dynastic-centered view of material culture, asking historical questions such as the origin of the Ji ⦔ clan, the locations of the Zhou regional states, and the association of material remains with groups or lineages mentioned in transmitted texts. This approach favors typological and chronological analysis of artifacts and tombs, rather than an analysis of how these artifacts and tombs express the identity of individuals and groups and the processes involved in power negotiations. For instance, in the upper Jing River valley, studies on material culture are centered on two questions: (1) What are the remains of the predynastic Zhou culture (e.g., Lei 2010: 1–14)? and (2) What group or groups are behind the material remains of the Siwa ⮢䩒 archaeological culture (e.g., Zhao Huacheng 1989: 145–76)? In the upper Wei River valley, archaeological work has been guided by the search for the material remains of the Qin 䦎, who eventually established the first unified Chinese empire in 221 bce (e.g., Zhao Huacheng 1989: 145–76). Similarly, excavations of Jin tombs in the lower Fen River valley have been conducted to search for the state of Jin, and subsequent discussions have focused on the history of the Jin ruling family and the identification of tomb occupants (e.g., see Liu Xu 2007 for a study of the Jin culture and Shanghai bowuguan 2002 for a collection of essays related to the Jin state). The search for the material remains of the Zhou regional

8 INTRODUCTION

state Yan has dominated archaeological studies on the northeastern frontier (e.g., see Chen Guang 1995 and BWY 1997 for a collection of essays on Yan and the northeastern frontier). Continuing this approach, historian Zhou Shucan ␐㚠䆎 (2000), for example, examines the political expansion of the Western Zhou state in the frontiers using historical and epigraphic, but not material, evidence to highlight the successful spread of Zhou civilization. In short, in this “dynastic core-centered” view, Zhou’s political and military expansions brought an advanced culture into the frontiers and acted as vital stimuli for local social and cultural developments (e.g., Yang Kuan 1999: 391–92, 577–99; Zhou Shucan 2000: 222–28). On the other hand, some have noticed that the delegated rulers of the Zhou regional states actively interacted with the indigenous people using flexible strategies and produced various cultural and social landscapes. But these studies tend to focus on how regional states managed local situations and how they assisted Zhou cultural and political expansion (Hsu and Linduff 1988: 186–226; Li Feng 2006: 301–42; Yang Kuan 1999: 577–99). How local groups actively participated in the construction of frontier social and cultural life has not been adequately addressed. As a result, the regional particularities, diverse processes, and varied outcomes of the cultural and political negotiations that took place in the Zhou frontiers remain seriously understudied. The frontiers of the Western Zhou have recently gained increasing attention. Several studies examine different communities across the frontiers, including the Peng and Ba lineages in the lower Fen River valley and the state of Yan in the northeast frontier (Yan Sun 2003: 761–70, 2006a: 215–37, 2006b: 159–77, 2012: 55–74; Jaffe 2012: 47–67; Khayutina 2017: 71–132). A recent study by Linduff, Sun, Cao, and Liu (Linduff et al. 2018) investigates the role of artifacts, particularly bronzes and pottery, in defining social and cultural changes across the Inner Asian frontiers, including parts of the northern frontiers of the Western Zhou. FRONTIERS, IDENTITY, AND POWER

Frontiers and peripheries of political centers, states, or empires have long been examined through the core-periphery model in archaeological, anthropological, and historical studies. The core-periphery model has proposed that cultural change in peripheries is primarily driven by innovations and influences from the core, and it treats local people as a homogenous group and a passive receiver of advanced cultures from the center. It further assumes

9 INTRODUCTION

that smaller, less powerful groups in frontiers have a natural desire to borrow or adopt the cultural traits of the more advanced center and eventually are absorbed into the dominant culture, resulting in acculturation and assimilation. The core-periphery model contrasts the dominant core to the subject periphery and the powerful newcomers to the less advanced natives (Stein 2002: 903–16). As a result, stories drawn from the center, the powerful side, have been told and retold, while the “invisible” locals or “barbarians” have remained invisible. In the West, the core-periphery perspective was nurtured by the colonial experience of European expansion from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, leading to a particular focus on how centers such as ancient Greece and Rome influenced local societies. Hellenization and Romanization, for example, became the primary vehicles of cultural change in Greek and Roman frontiers, as Hingley and Mattingly have pointed out in their research (Hingley 2005: 15–18; Mattingly 2010: 283–95). Archaeologically, such a perspective has led to the practice of identifying cultural elements from the center in the material remains in frontiers and then using them as evidence that the local people adopted the core culture. Consequently, these studies project the idea that culture and power expanded uniformly and ubiquitously from the center. With the rise of postmodern and postcolonial theory, since the 1980s this simplistic yet powerful narrative of cultural change and power relations has been seriously challenged and criticized (e.g., Stein 2005: 1–31). Aided with new theories on frontiers, identity, globalization, and the active agency of local people, recent studies on frontiers recognize the heterogeneity and particularity of cultures and people and promote diverse narratives of frontier cultural change and power relations. The frontier has now been widely recognized as a fluid and dynamic zone, not a place with a well-defined boundary. It has been described as a “contact zone” (Pratt 1992: 33–40), a “tribal zone” (Ferguson and Whitehead 2000: xii), a “middle ground” (White 2011: xxvi, 50–93), a “third space” (Bhabha 1996: 53–60; Varberg 2007: 58–82), a “contested ground” (Guy and Sheridan 1998: 10), and a “meeting place of peoples” (Adelman and Aron 1999: 815). These discussions recognize that the frontier is less structured and more prone to disruptive forces than the center and is a place of indeterminacy, ambivalence, and volatility. The division of frontier populations into local people versus immigrants from the center, each being viewed as homogenous units, is grossly inadequate; instead, these populations are cross-cutting, overlapping, and heterogeneous social

10 INTRODUCTION

segments with shifting and contested goals (e.g., Lightfoot and Martinez 1995: 471–92; Sweely 1999: 1–14). More importantly, local groups should not be casually dismissed as merely passive recipients to be civilized or victimized; instead, they can shape their own cultural and political relations with the center and, in some cases, even influence the “global” cultural identity of the large state (Hodos 2010: 3–31). As people of different origins and backgrounds meet and interact in various frontiers, their sense of us versus others, and their desire to express a shared group affiliation or to mark differences from others, become heightened and urgent. Identity constructions and reconstructions, therefore, become a significant part of their lives. People in frontiers have the opportunity to negotiate an identity through the agency of choice (Feuer 2016: 23). They can negotiate varied identities based on their accessibility to others and on their specific needs at the moment. As studies of the frontiers of other ancient societies have shown, local people have often used diverse, nuanced approaches to forming an identity. They have embraced the foreign culture to construct a shared global identity, incorporated both native and foreign cultures to create a new hybrid identity, or upheld their local identity in defiance of or resistance to the global culture (e.g., Dusinberre 2003: 196–217; Hingley 2005: 50–59; Parker and Rodseth 2005: 3–22; Stein 2005: 1–31; Revell 2009: 191–93; Mattingly 2011: 203–45). Individuals and groups can also simultaneously be affiliated with multiple identities (Mattingly 2010: 283–95), aspects of which could be contradictory or overlapping. People can maintain both “global” and “local” identities, or identities that have both global and local aspects. Identities can differ along social, cultural, political, and ideological lines. Individuals can further define their identities based on gender, age, and status, and these identities may or may not align with their group identities. To explore the full spectrum of the discrepancy between Romans and natives in Roman frontier communities, David Mattingly, for example, proposes the concept of discrepant experience as an alternative to Romanization (Mattingly 2011: 203–9). Although the frontiers of a state are created by the center’s political expansion, the power dynamics in geopolitical frontiers cannot be reduced to central dominance versus local resistance. Political expansion from the center can take a number of forms, such as political alliances with the local elite, military conquest, intimidation, or colonization. The effectiveness of the political control, or lack of it, has led scholars to use comparisons in defining the various types of frontier: internal versus external, open versus closed, and

11 INTRODUCTION

inclusion versus exclusion (e.g., Feuer 2016: 19–20). Each type has different implications for both the center and the frontier. Local people can develop a wide range of strategies: join the political system of the center, take advantage of alliances with the center to accumulate power and wealth, defend their autonomy and independence, or emigrate out of the frontier. Local groups grow into seasoned opportunists who switch allegiances according to evolving circumstances. A central theory of this book is therefore that the frontier was a negotiated landscape. The author proposes that the Western Zhou northern frontiers should be viewed as a negotiated and evolving land where individuals and groups of various backgrounds developed different experiences and varied life stories over time and through space. Like the frontiers of other ancient states, the northern frontiers of the Western Zhou certainly witnessed the rise and fall of various identities. Similarly, the political negotiations between various players led to highly regionalized political dynamics. More specifically, what Zhou perceived as its geopolitical frontiers were simultaneously the homeland of the local people and the frontline for migrant groups from the Northern Zone. The Zhou colonists, the local inhabitants, and the groups from the Northern Zone were shaped by one another’s actions. Their encounters should be understood as an ongoing process, not a mere event at a given point. Even when the dynastic power defeated the local residents militarily, there were often negotiations before, during, and after the military activities. Contacts, trade, political gifting, and intermarriage were some of the common means that facilitated cultural and political engagement between peoples in the frontiers (Anderton 1986: 242; Coldstream 1993: 96; for a summary, see Feuer 2016: 57–89). The northern frontiers of the Western Zhou are no exception to these patterns of individual and group behaviors. METHOD AND EVIDENCE

Recent theories of cultural contact and social change in frontiers have benefited from the increasingly abundant archaeological materials discovered in the frontiers and the more nuanced understandings of these data. Archaeological studies in the last two decades have demonstrated that material culture often acts as an active, sophisticated agent that can carry multiple messages and meanings regarding the social and cultural identities of individuals and groups. It thus holds an important key to the complex processes of identity construction (Hoskins 1998: 1–24, 2006: 74–84; Gosden and Marshall 1999:

12 INTRODUCTION

169–78; Meskell 2001: 187–213). Material culture, of course, does not equate to identity. Rather, it is “objects in context or in practice,” or, in other words, “artifacts in action,” that can shed light on identity formation and reveal the relations between things and people (e.g., Mattingly 2010: 283–95; Linduff et al. 2018: 21–23). This book adopts this methodological approach and considers material remains as a primary source and an independent line of evidence, rather than a visual manifestation and extension of transmitted texts and historical narratives. It proposes that artifacts, whether imported or locally produced, and customs and practices, whether adopted or inherited, act together as an active agency to renew and recalibrate perceptions, values, identities, and power dynamics. A multidimensional analysis of material remains reveals various aspects of cultural identity and political negotiation or, in other words, the localized meanings embedded in those remains. In particular, this book analyzes the style and type of bronzes (a material manifestation of the elite culture) and pottery (an exemplification of the culture of the common people), artifact assemblage and placement in tombs, architectural features of burials and mortuary customs, and residential remains (whenever data are available) at both community and regional levels. It examines, in other words, the artifacts and their localized uses in each community. The material culture in the northern frontiers of the Western Zhou was diverse, often a mixture of artifacts and practices that originated in the Shang capital region, the contemporary Zhou center, the Northern Zone, and local or other regions within the northern frontiers. Comparisons of artifacts and customs of the Western Zhou period in the northern frontiers with those in the late Shang capital region and local predecessor cultures can help us understand cultural change through time. At the same time, comparisons of artifacts and practices in the northern frontiers with those from the Zhou center and other contemporary cultures can illuminate cultural variations within a certain time period. Groups in the northern frontiers selectively adopted artifacts and practices from Anyang during the late Shang period, such as the use of wine vessels, waist pits (yāokēng 儘⛹), and dog and human sacrifices in tombs. How they handled these artifacts and practices adopted from the “former center”—when they now interacted with Zhou, the “new center”—is a key aspect of identity (re)construction that this book examines. Other forms of evidence for this study include inscriptions on bronzes and transmitted texts. In many cases inscriptions on Western Zhou bronze

13 INTRODUCTION

vessels can help to identify the lineage background of individuals and communities. Those inscriptions often record the name of the caster, his or her lineage emblem, the circumstances under which the vessel was cast, and the person for whom the vessel was made. They therefore provide a direct, crucial link between objects and people, making the material remains no longer “anonymous.” An increasing number of inscribed bronzes, along with other artifacts, have been discovered in tombs in the northern frontiers. The mortuary context allows us to identify who the deceased was, whose vessels were placed in the tomb, and the possible mechanisms that led to the placement of certain vessels in the tomb. This contextual analysis of inscribed bronzes opens up a wide range of interesting questions about literacy, gifting, marriage, and political networking between peoples. All of these questions are closely intertwined with the issue of identity and political negotiation, as a few scholars of early China, including this author, have proposed (Li Feng 2002: 210–42; Chen Chao-jung 2009: 18–96; Khayutina 2017: 71–132; Yan Sun 2017: 47–70). Transmitted texts concerning the northern frontiers of the Western Zhou are very limited. Only a handful of texts contain passages related to the regions of this period, including the Book of Documents (Shangshu ⯂㚠), the Grand Scribe’s Records (Shiji ⎚姀), the Book of Poetry (Shijing 娑䴻), and the Zuo Commentary (Zuozhuan ⶎ⁛) (Li Feng 2006: 10–17). Only the Grand Scribe’s Records has relatively detailed accounts of the upper Jing, Wei, and Xihan River valleys, but those are the passages that concern the rise of the Ji ⦔ clan and of the Qin people (Shiji 1982: 112–14, 174–79). Furthermore, the passages in transmitted texts often are brief, vague, and sometimes contradictory. For instance, even the names of such groups as Xirong 大ㆶ, Quanrong 䉔ㆶ, and Quanyi 䉔⣟ are ambiguous. Transmitted texts are not used directly in this book to interpret material remains. Instead, they are used primarily along with bronze inscriptions to provide a general historical context that can help us interpret the material culture and its meanings. Transmitted texts are subject to cross-examination with material remains and inscriptions. This study recognizes that each line of evidence has particular limitations. The availability of the material remains is often at the mercy of partial preservation, excavation, and publication. As this book reveals, this variability directly impacts how deeply one can analyze a particular community or region. Inscriptions on bronzes are sometimes subject to varied readings. And whether they can be regarded as historical documents has been debated

14 INTRODUCTION

(Shaughnessy 1991: 175–82; Falkenhausen 1993: 139–226; Li Feng 2008: 11–20). Transmitted texts are also biased because they cannot escape from the authors’ perspective. Then again, some texts are “historical memories” recreated in later periods rather than historical facts (e.g., Li Feng 2006: 10–17; Wang Mingke 2013: 31, 47, 166–70). These imperfections, however, should not discourage us from using them to learn about the lives of the peoples in the northern frontiers. If we are conscious of these biases and cautious about their limitations, we can combine multiple lines of evidence to provide a more reliable and comprehensive reading of ancient cultures and societies. Indeed, this book is keen to integrate these various lines of evidence. STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK

This book consists of an introduction and five chapters, each focusing on a particular region of the northern frontiers, followed by a conclusion. The introductory chapter outlines the research questions the book aims to address and the theoretical and methodological research frameworks. It also presents an overview of the geographical features and historical backgrounds of the northern frontiers, as well as a review of previous scholarship. The first two chapters focus on the two earliest frontiers of the Western Zhou. Both the upper Jing River valley and the western Baoji region experienced Zhou political expansion prior to the conquest of the Shang. Chapter 1 examines the upper Jing River valley, which witnessed a dramatic transformation from a stable, safe backyard of the rising Zhou polity to a contested, volatile battlefield after the middle Western Zhou period. The chapter examines, in particular, four communities, each representing a different social, cultural, or historical configuration of frontier life: Yujiawan Ḷ ⭞䀋 in Chongxin ⲯᾉ County, Baicaopo 䘥勱✉ in Lingtai 曰⎘ County, Yaoheyuan ⦂㱛⠔ in Pengyang ⼕春 County, and Jiuzhan ḅ䪁 in Heshui ⎰㯜 County. The artifacts and tombs of these communities present certain shared regional characteristics, but they also show distinct variations. Through these cases, we recognize the complex and ever changing cultural and political relations among the Zhou court, the local people, and people from the Northern Zone. Chapter 2 examines the western Baoji region on the western edge of the Zhou homeland. The region was inhabited by a number of polities. The chapter examines in detail the material remains of three communities: the Yu , and Ze ⣐ lineages, and the Shigushan 䞛溻Ⱉ community. The three

15 INTRODUCTION

communities had different social and cultural backgrounds, and they interacted with the Zhou center in different ways. Yu created a hybrid material culture featuring the use of Shang-style bronze vessels and those from the Zhou center, an array of local artifacts in tombs, and the manipulation of Zhou ritual culture. The material cultures of Ze and Shigushan both adopted bronzes and pottery in the style of the Zhou center, but the political relations between these communities and the Zhou court varied. Interactions between these communities through marriage and gift giving created an active regional network. Internal and intense competition between the polities, however, dominated the political landscape of this frontier throughout the Western Zhou period. Chapter 3 looks into the north-central frontier in the lower Fen River valley, which was formed at the beginning of the Western Zhou period with the establishment of the state of Jin. It examines primarily three polities: Jin, Peng, and Ba. The populations of the three polities consisted of lineages of varied social, cultural, and political backgrounds. The chapter focuses on two key questions: (1) As a local representative of Zhou, how did Jin construct its cultural identity while maintaining a close political tie with the Zhou court? and (2) As non-Zhou groups, how were Peng and Ba integrated into the Zhou political system but, at the same time, preserved their own cultural traditions? Chapter 4 is devoted to the northeastern frontier, which was formed with the establishment of the state of Yan. It starts by examining material remains at Liulihe to reconstruct the social and cultural identities of the inhabitants and to determine the internal political order of the state of Yan. Yan’s expansion into northern Hebei and western Liaoning Provinces is assessed through bronzes discovered at Niulanshan 䈃㪬Ⱉ and Kazuo ┨ⶎ. The analysis shows that local communities in the Jing-Jin-Tang region, the Yan mountainous region, and western Liaoning developed varied strategies for interacting with the expanding Yan state during the early Western Zhou period. The chapter also addresses the changing political dynamics between Yan and aggressive dagger-using communities after the middle Western Zhou period, which led to the fragmentation of the regional political and cultural landscape. Chapter 5 investigates the remote upper Wei and Xihan River valleys, the westernmost and newest frontier of Zhou. The available material remains of the Western Zhou period in this frontier are relatively limited, and Zhou political engagement with this frontier is less evident. The chapter looks into

16 INTRODUCTION

the material remains at Maojiaping 㮃⭞✒ and Liya 㛶Ⲿ in the upper Wei River valley, and at Xishan 大Ⱉ and Dabuzishan ⣏⟉⫸Ⱉ in the upper Xihan River valley. The diversity of material cultures in these communities suggests that varied cultural and political developments took place within this frontier over time. The chapter also questions the attribution of these communities to the Qin. The conclusion brings together the analyses and observations in each region of the northern frontiers. It summarizes various processes of identity construction and political interaction. It also highlights the importance of material culture and inscriptions as potent tools for examining identities and power relations. The book concludes with the proposal that the northern frontiers of the Western Zhou should be recognized as “many worlds under one Heaven.”

Chapter One

AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

The upper Jing River valley in southeastern Gansu constituted one of the earliest frontiers of the rising Zhou power in the late second millennium bce. The Zhou were centered in Guanzhong, a region in the middle and lower Wei River valleys. Today, the region is largely under the jurisdictions of the present-day cities of Pingliang ⸛㵤 and Qingyang ㄞ春. The Jing River originates in the Liupan ℕ䚌 Mountains in Jingyuan 㲦㸸 County, Ningxia 䓗⢷ Hui ⚆ Autonomous Region (map 1.1). It flows through the region from west to east before joining the Wei River in Gaoling 檀昝 County in Shaanxi. The area south of the Jing River’s main stream in Chongxin ⲯᾉ and Lingtai 曰 ⎘ Counties is divided by its three tributaries, the Rui 㰕, Hei 㼞, and Daxi 忼㹒 Rivers, all flowing from west to east. The area north of the Jing River, mainly administered by Zhenyuan 捖⍇, Qingcheng ㄞ❶, Heshui ⎰㯜, and Zhengning 㬋䓗 Counties, is divided by the Pu 呚 and Malian 楔咖 Rivers, both flowing north to south. The Malian River, the largest tributary of the Jing River, runs about 375 kilometers southward to reach the Jing River in Ning 䓗 County. The Jing River and its tributaries cut through loess plateau and create numerous connected river valleys and gullies that are often flanked by loess hills and mountains. There are marked environmental variations in the upper Jing River valley. The elevation descends from over 2,000 meters above sea level in the northern and western mountainous areas to about 900 meters above sea level in the southeast. The annual precipitation is about 350 to 600 millimeters, but most of it falls in the southern part of the region.

18 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

The upper Jing River valley is situated at the crossroads of the vast Northern Zone and the flat, fertile Guanzhong Plain in Shaanxi. The famous road to the Xiao Pass 唕斄,1 an important route entering the Wei River valley from the northwest prior to the Han 㻊 dynasty (206 bce–220 ce), for example, proceeded along the Jing River (Shi Nianhai 1991: 110). The Malian River, on the other hand, provided a key north-south channel between Guanzhong and the Ordos Plateau in the north. Because of the environmental differences within the upper Jing River valley and its in-between geographical location, the local people developed varied economic activities and created diverse cultural identities that often incorporated artifacts and burial customs from neighboring areas. The region was also susceptible to significant foreign interference from both the north and the south. Indeed, as the following analysis reveals, diversity and volatility were two defining features of the local cultural and political landscape in the upper Jing River valley from the late Shang to the end of the Western Zhou periods, roughly from the late second to early first millennia bce. According to transmitted texts, the upper Jing River valley was occupied by polities such as Gong ℙ, Ruan 旖, Mixu ⭮枰, and Rui 剖, which were established by various groups of unknown origins in the late Shang period (Liu Qiyu 1991: 501–13; Zhu Zhongxi 2013: 168–84; Liang Yun 2015: 100–17). Archaeological remains of the period, including bronzes, pottery, and tombs, have been found at a number of sites, such as Yaoheyuan ⦂㱛 ⠔ in Pengyang ⼕春 County, Yujiawan Ḷ⭞䀋 and Xiangshansi 楁Ⱉ⮢ in Chongxin County, and Jiuzhan ḅ䪁 in Heshui County (see map 1.1). Finds at these sites offer insufficient information to attribute any of them to the particular polities recorded in transmitted texts, but they clearly reveal the hybrid nature of the local material culture.2 Sites of the Siwa culture (c. 1400–700 bce) such as Jiuzhan, for example, were distributed mainly north of the Jing River and were dominated by diagnostic pottery types such as handmade ceramic guan 仸 jars with a saddle-shaped mouth and one or two handles (Wang and Shui 1997: 331–32, 418–33). Sites south of the Jing River such as Yujiawan, however, yielded divided-crotch ceramic li 櫚 tripods with high collars and three baggy legs. During this period, local people also used bronzes, as evidenced by the weapons, particularly ge ㆰ dagger axes, in Yujiawan tombs, and as evidenced by the vessels, such as ding 溶 cauldrons and a bu 䒧 wine container, at the Nianzipo 䡦⫸✉ site in Changwu 攟㬎 County that borders Lingtai in the southwest (GWKY 2009: 74–79; ZSKKY 2007: 183–88).

19 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

Scholars have long considered the upper and middle Jing River valleys to be the homeland of the Zhou before their southern migration to the Plain of Zhou (Zhouyuan ␐⍇) in Guanzhong in the late twelfth century bce. The non-Siwa material remains of the late Shang period found in the region are defined archaeologically as the Nianzipo culture (named after its type site Nianzipo, c. 1300–1000 bce) (Zhang Tian’en 2004: 319–34). These material remains have been regarded by some scholars as a component of the “predynastic Zhou” (xiānzhōu wénhuà ⃰␐㔯⊾) culture, a term used by archaeologists to define the material culture of the Zhou prior to the conquest of the Shang (Li Feng 1991: 265–84; Shui 2001: 257–67). Others disagree with linking the Nianzipo culture with the predynastic Zhou or with the identification of the upper Jing River valley as the early homeland of the Zhou (for a summary, see Li Feng 2006: 40–41; Lei 2010: 1–28). Given the limited data available, a solid conclusion on this issue is hard to reach. Even if the Zhou had lived in the region, they were just one of the many local groups. The wide use of the divided-crotch ceramic li tripods with high collars and three baggy legs during the late Shang period suggests that local groups across the region shared aspects of their material cultures. The upper Jing River valley became one of the early targets of Zhou political expansion probably because of its geographical proximity to the Zhou center at Guanzhong. Li Ling 㛶暞 (2017: 46–59) metaphorically refers to the upper Jing River valley as a “side room” (xiāngfáng ⹪㇧) in a courtyard that represented the Zhou center. Near the end of the Shang period, roughly in the early eleventh century bce, King Wen 㔯 of Zhou waged a military campaign against Mixu ⭮枰, a local polity in Lingtai, as recorded in the poem “Sovereign Might” (Huangyi 䘯䞋) in the Book of Poetry (Shijing 1980: 519–22; Waley Arthur 1996: 236–39). A drum captured from Mixu was later awarded to Tang Shuyu Ⓒ⍼嘆, the founder of the Jin 㗱 state, according to a passage in the Zuo Commentary (Zuozhuan 1980: 2135). After the defeat of Mixu, the Zhou and local friendly polities built a regional political alliance that ultimately overthrew the mighty Shang (Li Feng 2006: 50–52). The formation of this close political alliance between the Zhou and local groups also nurtured a self-defined geopolitical identity known as “the people of the west” (xītǻ zhīrén 大⛇ᷳṢ), which they shared by the time of the conquest (Shiji 1982: 122). The Zhou conquest of Mixu was seen by historians as a monumental event that established Zhou as the regional hegemon (Liu Qiyu 1991: 501–13; Zhu Zhongxi 2013: 189–95). The conquest was also monumental for local

20 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

societies because Zhou not only transformed an independent region into one of Zhou’s political frontiers, but also marked the first significant foreign interference that fundamentally reshaped local cultural and political developments. In the following two centuries, alliances with Zhou became the cornerstone of the local political order. Frontiers, however, are precarious by nature. The upper Jing River valley was particularly precarious given its unique geographical location. This frontier was indeed “an extremely complex political and cultural system” (Li Feng 2006: 187). Over time, it evolved from a cozy backyard of Zhou during the early period to a highly contested land between Zhou and the invading Xianyun 䌓䉩 from the northwest after the middle Western Zhou period.3 This old frontier contributed significantly to the rise of the Zhou state, but it posed new challenges to the state after the middle Western Zhou period—and led to its eventual fall in 771 bce. The shifting political context also challenged the local inhabitants, who considered the region to be their homeland. The material culture of these groups reflects their selective use of artifacts and burial customs from the late Shang capital region, the Zhou center, the Siwa culture, and the bronzeusing cultures in the Northern Zone. Communities of the Siwa culture (such as Jiuzhan) survived throughout the Western Zhou period on the edge of this frontier. Other groups, such as those at Baicaopo 䘥勱✉ and Yujiawan, widely adopted the material culture from the Zhou center. Through an analysis of material culture across this frontier and of a select number of communities, this chapter examines the dynamic interplay among material culture, identity, and political changes in this volatile region during the Western Zhou period. WIDESPREAD ADOPTION OF MATERIAL CULTURE FROM THE CENTER IN THE EARLY AND MIDDLE WESTERN ZHOU

During the Western Zhou period, the upper Jing River valley continued to be occupied by multiple communities and polities. Transmitted texts and inscriptions on bronzes, for example, reveal that various groups, such as Yuan , Bing ᷎, Guai ᷾, and Lü ⎽, were active in the region. Material remains also suggest that local communities, such as those at Yaoheyuan and Yujiawan, had lived in the region since the late Shang period and continued to thrive during the Western Zhou period. The close political ties between the region and the Zhou court were likely strengthened during the early Western Zhou period. Li Feng, for example, argues that the

21 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

upper Jing River valley, particularly around Lingtai, was fully integrated into the Zhou royal domain in the Wei River valley and could even have been managed by the Zhou court in the same manner that it managed the center (Li Feng 2006: 57). But Li Feng also recognized that there were local polities such as Guai ᷾ that could have maintained political independence from the Zhou court but that served Zhou interests as political allies in the region (Li Feng 2006: 187–91). Material cultures in the upper Jing River valley and the Zhou center show a tendency toward convergence during the early and middle Western Zhou period, which could have been facilitated by close political ties between local polities and the Zhou court. Artifacts and tombs at the sites along the Jing River and the lower Malian River bear a general resemblance to those from the late Shang capital region and the Zhou center (map 1.1). Although the Siwa culture had been native to the region since the late Shang period, its communities were mainly distributed in the northern part of the upper Jing River valley, a subject to be discussed further in the following section. Lingtai was co-occupied by multiple groups during the early and middle Western Zhou periods. The most important discovery in Lingtai to date is the Baicaopo cemetery, whose tombs M1 and M2 were among the well-furnished tombs of the Western Zhou period, particularly in terms of bronze artifacts. Inscriptions on bronzes in M2 suggest that the deceased was Yuanbo ỗ, the head of the Yuan lineage. Besides Baicaopo, early Western Zhou tombs were found at Yaojiahe ⦂⭞㱛, Dongshan 㳆Ⱉ, Yawan Ⲿ䀋, and Zhengjiawa 惕⭞䩒 (map 1.1) (GBW and LW 1976: 39–48; Liu Dezhen 1981: 557–58; Shi Kehui 1987: 100–1). Contents of these tombs are summarized in table 1.1. Four of the tombs collectively yielded seven bronze vessels: four ding cauldrons, one gui 䮳 tureen, one yan 䒿 steamer, and one zun ⮲ wine container. The ornamentation and shape of these vessels resemble closely their counterparts at Anyang and in the Zhou center. One ding (M1: 6) in the Dongshan tomb, about sixty centimeters tall, features animal face motifs on its upper body and the upper portion of the three legs. The zun (M1: 5) in the same tomb with a bulging belly on a ring foot is fully covered with animal face motifs. Another ding (M1: 1) in a Yaojiahe tomb is decorated with leaf patterns with whorl intervals. Inscriptions on bronze vessels reveal that they were cast by multiple lineages. A ding (M1: 6) in the Dongshan tomb is inscribed with a character “ ”. The ding in M1 at Yaojiahe is inscribed with “Guai Shu makes [this vessel]” (᷾⍼ἄ); he was the third born of

22 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

N

ins. Mounta Liupan

22

Guyuan

M

16

an

Long M

25 24

Ru

20

19

Heshui 23

21

River

ins

g

11

Chongxin 10

Elevation MASL

12

r ve

Jing

Ri

R iv er

14 13

26

River

Hon

Pu

ounta

15

Pingliang

27

18

17

Rive

r

28

Rui River r

ive Hei R 4 2

6

5

7

r

ve

Ri

3

nR ya ng Ho

Changwu 9 Lingtai er axi Riv 8 D

Longxian

Qian Mountains

r ive

r

ive

g

1

gR

an

Sil

Jin

3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500

ali

30 km

Late Shang to mid-WZ sites Late WZ sites Siwa sites Modern cities or counties

MAP 1.1. Late Shang and Western Zhou sites in the upper Jing River valley: 1. Sigou, 2. Yawan, 3. Dongshan, 4. Yaojiahe, 5. Baicaopo, 6. Zhengjiawa, 7. Hongyagou, 8. Xiling, 9. Nianzipo, 10. Xiangshansi, 11. Yujiawan, 12. Jiugongyuan, 13. Miaozhuang, 14. Dachen, 15. Yaoheyuan, 16. Sunjiazhuang, 17. Zhuangdi, 18. Yangjiatai, 19. Bajiazui, 20. Xifeng district, 21. Hanjiatan Miaozui, 22. Maliantai, 23. Tuergou, 24. Hejiapan, 25. Jiuzhan, 26. Yucun, 27. Xigou, 28. Wanglu

the Guai  lineage. A yan thirty-nine centimeters tall in the Yawan tomb is inscribed with “Bingbo makes [this] treasured vessel” (᷎ỗἄ⮞⼄), revealing that it was made by Bingbo, the head of the Bing lineage. A bronze ding (M2: 1) in the Zhengjiawa tomb was cast by Guang to commemorate his father Wu; the inscription reads, “Guang makes [this] ding vessel for Father Wu” (⃱ἄ䇞ㆲ溶). Ceramic vessels in these tombs were dominated by the joint-crotched li (liándānglì 倗塮櫚) and flat-bottomed guan (píngdáıguàn ⸛⸽仸), two types popular in the Zhou center. The adoption of bronze and pottery types from the Zhou center continued into the middle Western Zhou period in Lingtai, as exemplified by

23 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

tombs at Xiling 大ⵢ, Sigou ⮢㹅, and Hongyagou 䲭Ⲿ㹅 (GBW and LW 1976: 39–48; Liu Dezhen 1981: 557–58, 1983: 109). A damaged tomb at Xiling yielded one bronze ding and one gui. The gui is inscribed with “Lü Jiang makes [this] gui vessel” (⏪⦄ἄ䮳), indicating that it was made by a lady of the Lü lineage of the Jiang surname. A tomb at Sigou yielded a bronze ding stylistically similar to the one in the Xiling tomb and a bronze joint-crotched li that resembles a li (M5: 3) in tomb M3 at Hejiacun in Guanzhong (SB and SWGW 1976: 31–38). Traces of painted lacquer in the tomb suggest the use of a painted coffin. A bronze ding in the Hongyagou tomb is decorated with the kui ⢼ dragon motif, characteristic of bronze vessels of the middle Western Zhou period. North of Lingtai, a Western Zhou tomb was found at Zhuangdi 匲⸽ in Jingchuan, on the northern bank of the Jing River (map 1.1, table 1.1) (Liu Yulin 1977: 92). West of Lingtai is Chongxin, where past archaeological surveys have identified eleven sites that yielded material remains of the Western Zhou period (Tao Rong 1995: 5–12; GWKY 2009: 210–16). None of these sites has been excavated, so their internal organization is unknown. Their size varies greatly, from over 360,000 square meters (at Jiugongyuan ḅ≇⠔) to less than 5,000 square meters. The excavation of the cemetery at Yujiawan reveals that it was in use from the late Shang to the middle Western Zhou periods (GWKY 2009: 8–10). West of Chongxin, tombs dated from the late Shang to the Western Zhou periods were found at Dachen ⣏昛 and Miaozhuang ⺇匲 in Pingliang (map 1.1, table 1.1) (GWKY 2009: 4). Farther northwest along the Jing River, the recently discovered Yaoheyuan cemetery in Pengyang and a tomb at Sunjiazhuang ⬓⭞匲 in Guyuan ⚢⍇, Ningxia, mark the westernmost presence of artifacts and customs from Anyang and from the Zhou center in the upper Jing River valley (GWG 1983: 982–84; Yaoheyuan kaogudui 2018a). A similar pattern of widespread adoption of artifact styles that were typical for Anyang and for the Zhou center can be observed in the lower Malian River valley, where early Western Zhou tombs were found at Yangjiatai 㣲⭞⎘, Tuergou ⃼⃺㹅, Bajiazui ⶜⭞◜, Hanjiatan Miaozui 杻⭞䀀⺇◜, Xifeng district 大Ⲙ⋨, and Maliantai 楔咖⎘ (map 1.1) (Xu Junchen 1983: 8–11; QDB 1985: 853–75, 809; Xu and Liu 1987: 660–61; Zhongguo xinwenwang 2012). Details of these tombs are summarized in table 1.2. Bronze vessels in these tombs were centered on ding and gui food vessels, and the weapons were dominated by ge dagger axes. Pottery assemblages were dominated by li and guan vessels. A group of bronze vessels, pottery, turquoise beads, and

Early Western 2.8 Zhou (damaged)

Early Western 3 (damaged) North-south Zhou

Early Western Unknown Zhou

Early Western Unknown Zhou

Early Western 11.2 (looted) North-south Zhou

Early Western 2.5 Zhou

Early Western 5 Zhou

Yaojiahe M2

Yaojiahe M3

Yaojiahe M4

Yaojiahe M5

Yawan

Dongshan

Zhengjiawa

North (head) 1

North (head) 2

Unknown

Unknown

North-south

1

1 1

dingġġ guiġġ liġġ yanġ zunġġ zhiġġ jueġġ 溶 䮳 櫚 䒿 ⮲ 妗 䇝

North-south 1

Early Western 5.1 Zhou (damaged)

Yaojiahe M1

Surface area Tomb (sq. m.) orientation

Date

Tomb

Bronze vessels

TABLE 1.1 Western Zhou tombs along the upper Jing River (excluding Baicaopo, Yujiawan, and Yaoheyuan)

2

1

geġġ ㆰ

jiġġ ㇇

Bronze weapons

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

liġġ guanġġ penġġ 櫚 仸 䙮

Pottery

Yes

Use of waist pit

bronze jingle bell 1, jade beads 13, dog sacrifice 1

bronze roundels 2, clams 2, cowry shells 2

bronze roundels 11, clams 11, jade 1

grinding stone 1

cowry shells 2

bronze spearhead 1, bronze horse and chariot ornaments and roundels, clams, and cowry shells (not individually counted, but total of 142 pieces)

Other artifacts

North-south 1

√

Sunjiazhuang Early Western 5.8 Zhou

East (head)

1

West-east

Early Western 2.6 Zhou (damaged)

Zhuangdi

West-east

Miaozhuang Early Western Unknown M2 Zhou

Mid-Western Unknown Zhou

Hongyagou

North (head) 1

1

Unknown

Mid-Western 6 Zhou

Sigou

Unknown

Miaozhuang Early Western Unknown M1 Zhou

Mid-Western Unknown Zhou

Xiling

1

1

1 √ 1

√

1

√

1

1

1

1

2

1

1 Yes

Yes

bronze horse ornaments 22, chariot pieces 6, roundels 211; jade tubes 4; bone horse ornaments 2, bone ornaments 10; clams 515, cowry shells 195

human sacrifices 2

human sacrifices 2

bone hairpin 1, shells 7, dog sacrifice 1

all bronzes: jingle bells 2, chariot piece 1, roundels 2, ornaments 2

bronze jingle bells 3, jade axe 1, cowry shells 52

bronze jingle bells 4, cowry shell 1, clam ornament 1, stone disk 1

Date

Early Western Zhou

Early Western Zhou

Early Western Zhou

Early Western Zhou

Early Western Zhou

Early Western Zhou

Early Western Zhou

Early Western Zhou

Tomb

Yangjiatai

Tuergou M1

Tuergou M2

Tuergou M3

Tuergou M4

Tuergou M5

Tuergou (1978)

Bajiazui

Damaged

Damaged

0.91 (damaged)

Damaged

Damaged

Damaged

Damaged

Damaged

Surface area (sq. m.)

Unknown

Unknown

West-east

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Tomb orientation

TABLE 1.2 Western Zhou tombs in the lower Malian River valley

1

1

1

1

1

ding gui 溶 䮳

li yan gu 櫚 䒿 如

jue you zhi 䇝 ⌋ 妗

Bronze vessels hu ⢢

xu 䚐

2

2

ge ㆰ

ji ㇇ dagger

Bronze weapons

3

1

1

1

li 櫚

1

1

1

guan hu 仸 ⢢

Pottery Use of waist pit

stone knife 1, stone axe 1

clam ornaments 12, clam knives 2, cowry shells 3

shell ornaments

Other artifacts

Early Western Zhou

Late Western Zhou

Late Western Zhou

Late Western Zhou

Late Western Zhou

Hejiapan

Wanglu

Yucun

Xigou

Northwestsoutheast

East (head)

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

East (head)

7

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

2

1

7

1

*The numbers of vessels here are based on a news report (Zhongguo xinwenwang 2012). No formal archaeological report on the discovery has been published yet.

6.4

Damaged

Damaged

Damaged

Early to middle Damaged Western Zhou

Damaged

3.64 (damaged)

Maliantai

Xifeng district* Early Western Zhou

Hanjiatan Miaozui

Yes

Yes

bronze roundels 67, horse ornaments 11, other small items 5; jade ornaments 2; stone axe 1, stone spade 1, stone ornaments 2; clams 63, cowry shells 10; dog sacrifice 1

bronze tiger sculpture 1, tiger plaques 3, small guan jars 2, zun-shaped vessel 1, spoons 4, dagger 1, small bells 2, hook 1, other ornaments 4; clam and bone ornaments 8

Unclear if the vessel was originally from a tomb

cowry shells 9, bone needles 7

bronze arrowheads 2, roundel 1; cowry shells 37, clam 1; dog sacrifice 1

28 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

shell and clam ornaments that were accidentally found at a construction site in the Xifeng district of the Qingyang municipality could have originally come from a tomb. If so, this tomb would be one of the richest burials found in the lower Malian River valley to date. According to a news report, the bronze assemblage included three food vessels, a ding, a li, and a gui, and two wine vessels, a you ⌋ pot, and a zhi 妗 cup (Zhongguo xinwenwang 2012). Inside the square base of the gui is a dangling bell, a design feature that was also seen on a gui in tomb BZM13 of the Yu lineage at Zhifangtou 䳁⛲柕 in Baoji (Lu and Hu 1988: 55–57). Another notable discovery is the tomb at Hanjiatan Miaozui. The tomb contained three bronze vessels, including one ding, one gu 如 goblet, and one jue 䇝 tripod. It is a rare case in the region in which gu and jue were paired in an assemblage. The jue vessel is inscribed with “Niao [makes this vessel for] Ancestor Gui” (沍䣾䘠), suggesting that it was cast as a sacrifice for ancestor Gui by an individual of the Niao lineage. Underneath the deceased was a waist pit containing a sacrificial dog. Both the vessels and the use of a waist pit speak of a close alignment with bronzes and burial customs popular at Anyang. The discovery of a bronze ding and a li in a tomb at Maliantai, however, reveals the northernmost reach of bronze types from the Zhou center in the region to date. The extensive adoption of artifacts and ritual assemblage from the Zhou center underscores the fact that local communities had a center-focused attitude in their selection and use of “foreign” material culture. The use of a written language to self-identify individuals or lineages, as evident in inscriptions on bronzes, further indicates the emergence of consciously formed lineage groups and the formation of a “lineagescape” across the region (Linduff et al. 2018: 224–25). This practice brought local communities culturally closer to the Zhou center. More significantly, artifacts and burial customs that were popular at Anyang and that were characterized by the use of wine vessels, waist pits (often containing a dog sacrifice), and human sacrifices were also found in a number of communities in the upper Jing River valley. Local communities could have adopted these mortuary practices during the late Shang period, and at least some chose to continue to use them in the Western Zhou period (see tables 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3). The continuation of these practices suggests that some communities must have transformed these “foreign” cultural elements (adopted in an earlier period) into their own mortuary traditions, a phenomenon also seen in the Peng and Ba lineages in the lower Fen River valley

29 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

(see chapter 3). At the same time, it is important to recognize that many other communities did not adopt these features even though they were adjacent to those that did. A closer look at the material cultures of different communities in this frontier reveals subtle and substantial differences. The following section will focus on three communities, Baicaopo at Lingtai, Yujiawan at Chongxin, and Yaoheyuan at Pengyang, each of which belonged to a different lineage. The material remains of these communities are relatively rich. The analysis aims to reveal how each group selected different artifacts and mortuary practices to construct their cultural identities. Baicaopo at Lingtai

Lingtai was the principal gateway between the Zhou center in the south and Pingliang and Guyuan in the northwest. At least eight sites in Lingtai yielded tombs with bronzes that can be dated to the early and middle Western Zhou periods. Artifact styles, inscriptions on bronzes, and burial customs suggest that those tombs belonged to multiple lineages. Of these sites, the Baicaopo cemetery provides the richest material evidence. It is located fifteen kilometers northwest of the Lingtai County seat. Nine tombs (M1–M9) and a horse and chariot pit (G1) were uncovered in 1967 and 1972 (GBG 1977: 99–129). Tomb M3 was partially cut off by a steep loess cliff, suggesting that the original cemetery could have been much larger. The nine tombs spatially formed two clusters (fig. 1.1). M1, M2, and the horse and chariot pit were located next to one another in the south, and sixty meters to their north were the other seven tombs arranged in three adjacent rows. All nine tombs are rectangular earthen pits with secondary ledges (èrcéngtái ḴⰌ⎘) on four sides.4 The surface area of these tombs varies considerably, ranging from over ten square meters (M7) to less than three square meters (M9). Tombs M2 and M9 are intact, whereas the others were looted (M3–M8) or partially damaged (M1 and G1). Only M1 and M2 yielded bronze vessels. Others yielded only a few bronze weapons, jades, and pottery. Based on the style of the bronze vessels in them, M1 and M2 are dated to the reign of King Kang ⹟ around the end of the eleventh to the early tenth centuries bce, with M1 slightly earlier than M2. The seven tombs in the north are dated to the middle Western Zhou period, around the mid-tenth to mid-ninth centuries bce (GBG 1977: 99–129; Zhu Fenghan 2009: 1230–31).

30 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

FIGURE 1.1. Layout of the Baicaopo cemetery (redrawn after GBG 1977: 99, fig. 1)

DOMINANCE OF MORTUARY CULTURES FROM ANYANG AND THE ZHOU CENTER IN M1 AND M2

Buried in tombs M1 and M2 were two male elite members. M1 is the richest tomb in the cemetery. It has a surface area of 8.25 square meters and contained over 340 artifacts (of which 324 are bronzes). The twenty-one bronze vessels in the tomb include a wide range of types. The seven ding, three gui, and one yan are the core food vessels, and they are accompanied by a large, diverse group of wine vessels, including three you, two zun, one zhi, one jue, one jiao 奺 tripod, one jia 㕅 tripod, and one he 䙱 spouted water vessel (table 1.3). The tomb was partially damaged, so the original placement of most of the artifacts is unknown.

31 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

However, the placement of burial goods is well preserved in the neighboring M2. Similar to the deceased in M1, the occupant in M2 was provided with a wide range of goods: eleven bronze vessels, numerous bronze weapons, horse and chariot fittings and implements, about seventeen tiny jade ornaments, a couple of proto-porcelains, and ninety-five cowry shells (table 1.3; examples in fig. 1.2). The artifacts were arranged in four layers, each centered on a core type. The top layer featured bronze vessels on the northern secondary ledge. The second layer consisted of about two dozen bronze ge dagger axes scattered at six spots around the outer coffin. The third layer included the remaining weapons, horse ornaments, and tools placed at three spots on top of the outer coffin. Jade ornaments and cowries next to the body inside the coffin formed the last and innermost layer. The layering of these artifacts in M2 reveals that their deposition during the funerary ritual was a thoughtful, deliberate process through which individuals and the community expressed certain meanings. The style and assemblage of artifacts in both tombs are consistent with those in tombs of the Zhou center. Bronze vessels and weapons, horse and/ or chariot fittings, and jade ornaments constituted the core repertoire of artifacts in male elite tombs of the Zhou center. The majority of bronze ge dagger axes were intentionally broken before being placed in the tomb, a practice termed “breaking weapon” (known as zhébīng ㉀ℝ in Chinese archaeology) that was commonly seen in tombs of the Zhou center and regional states (Zhang Mingdong 2005: 171–84). The use of ding and gui as the main types of food vessels, of zun and you as the main types of wine vessels, and of an accompanying horse and chariot pit was likewise typical of male elite tombs in the Zhou center. M1 and M2 also adopted mortuary customs that were popular in Shang tombs at Anyang and among the remnants of Shang (yīnyímín 㭟怢㮹) during the Western Zhou period. Both tombs were equipped with a waist pit and contained a considerable number of wine vessels (table 1.3). M1 contained ten wine vessels of seven different types. More significant is that it contained a jia and a jiao, two vessel types common in tombs of the late Shang period but rarely seen in tombs of the early Western Zhou period. The other known case of using jia and jiao vessels in the early Western Zhou period is in a tomb at Changzikou 攟⫸⎋ in Luyi 渧怹, Shandong. The tomb belonged to a head of a lineage who lived outside the Shang political center but demonstrated an intimate cultural connection

ŃųŰůŻŦġŸŪůŦġŷŦŴŴŦŭŴ

ŃųŰůŻŦġŧŰŰťġŷŦŴŴŦŭŴ

General

ij IJ IJ IJ

IJ Ĵ IJ ij IJ IJ

jiaġ㕅

youġ⌋

zhiġ妗

zunġ⮲

heġ䙱

jiaoġ奺

IJ

IJ

IJ

yanġ䒿 IJ

ij

jueġ䇝

ij

Ĵ

ŚŦŴ

ŏŰųŵũŸŦŴŵŦųůġĩũŦŢťĪ

ĸ

ŚŦŴ

ŖŴŦġŰŧġŸŢŪŴŵġűŪŵ

M2 Early Western Zhou ķįĸ

guiġ䮳

ŏŰųŵũŸŦŴŵĮŴŰŶŵũŦŢŴŵ

dingġ溶

ĹįijĶ

ŕŰŮţġŰųŪŦůŵŢŵŪŰů

Early Western Zhou

ŔŶųŧŢŤŦġŢųŦŢġĩŴŲįġŮįĪ

Date

M1

TABLE 1.3 Burial features and goods of five tombs at the Baicaopo cemetery

ōŰŰŵŦť

ōŰŰŵŦť

ŚŦŴ

ŏŰųŵũŦŢŴŵĮŴŰŶŵũŸŦŴŵ

IJıįĶ

Middle Western Zhou

M7

ōŰŰŵŦť

ōŰŰŵŦť

ŚŦŴ

ŏŰųŵũŦŢŴŵĮŴŰŶŵũŸŦŴŵ

Ķįĺ

Middle Western Zhou

M8

ŏŰůŦ

ŏŰůŦ

ŏŰ

ņŢŴŵġĩũŦŢťĪ

Ĵįij

Middle Western Zhou

M9

ŐŵũŦųġŢųŵŪŧŢŤŵŴ

őŰŵŵŦųź

ŃųŰůŻŦġŸŦŢűŰůŴġŢůťġ ŵŰŰŭŴ

IJ ŢťŻŦġIJĭġţŰŸġIJĭġ ŢųųŰŸũŦŢťŴġĺĶĭġũŦŭŮŦŵġ IJĭġŴũŪŦŭťġŰųůŢŮŦůŵŴġĵĭġ ŢŸŭŴġij

IJ IJ IJ IJ ţŰŸġIJĭġŢųųŰŸũŦŢťŴġ IJĴıĭġũŦŭŮŦŵġIJĭġŴũŪŦŭťġ ŰųůŢŮŦůŵŴġĵ

ŢŹŦ

űŪŤŬĮŢŹŦ

ŬůŪŧŦ

ŤũŪŴŦŭ

ŰŵũŦųŴ

ţųŰůŻŦġũŰųŴŦġŢůťġ ŤũŢųŪŰŵġŧŪŵŵŪůŨŴġĵĸijļġ ţųŰůŻŦġũŰųŴŦġŢůťġŤũŢųŪŰŵġ ūŢťŦŴġIJĸĭġŤŰŸųźġŴũŦŭŭŴġ ŧŪŵŵŪůŨŴġIJijIJļġūŢťŦŴġIJıĭġ ĺĶĭġŴũŦŭŭġŰųůŢŮŦůŵŴġ ŴũŦŭŭġŰųůŢŮŦůŵŴġŢůťġ ĩŶůŤŰŶůŵŦťĪĭġŷŦŴŴŦŭŴġŰŧġ ŤŭŢŮŴġĩŶůŤŰŶůŵŦťĪ űųŰŵŰĮűŰųŤŦŭŢŪůġij

douġ寮

liġ櫚

IJ IJ

leiġ仵

IJ

IJ

IJ

yueġ摢ġŢŹŦ

ŤŰŸųźġŴũŦŭŭŴġijıĭġŤŭŢŮŴġ ĵĭġŴũŦŭŭġŰųůŢŮŦůŵŴġĺĭġ ŰųŢŤŭŦġţŰůŦġIJĭġŢůŪŮŢŭġ ţŰůŦŴġĩŶůŤŰŶůŵŦťĪ

ōŰŰŵŦť

ij ij

ij

Ĵ

ijIJ

ŴŸŰųť

Ĵij

jiġ㇇

geġㆰ

ūŢťŦġŰųůŢŮŦůŵġIJ

ōŰŰŵŦť

IJ

ūŢťŦŴġĵĭġŤŰŸųźġŴũŦŭŭŴġ IJıĭġŤŭŢŮŴġij

IJ

ŏŰůŦ

34 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

to Shang  (HWKY and ZW 2000: 199–212; Zhu Fenghan 2009: 1365–69). M2 contained more wine vessels (six vessels of five types) than food vessels (five vessels of three types). A sacrificial dog was also placed inside the waist pit in the tomb. The adoption of the material culture from Anyang and the Zhou center did not, however, prevent the Baicaopo community from exploring artifacts that originated in other cultures. Four of the five bronze you in M1 and M2, a pair in each tomb, feature a cylindrical body. The pair in M1 are decorated with kui dragon motifs, and the pair in M2 with bird motifs (fig. 1.2: 2). Two bronze you of the same shape but with different decorative patterns were also found in tomb BZM13 of the Yu lineage at Baoji. This type of you was absent in tombs in the Zhou center. It is likely a local type more prevalent among groups at Baoji and the upper Jing River valley

FIGURE 1.2. Bronze vessels from tomb M2 at the Baicaopo cemetery (from GBG 1977: 107–8, figs. 7–8)

35 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

FIGURE 1.3. Bronze weapons and tools from tombs at the Baicaopo cemetery (from GBG 1977: 111, 115–16, figs. 10, 13, 15)

(He and Wang 2013: 40–44). The willow leaf–shaped sword and its sheath decoration in M2 and the tiger motif on bronze ge in M1 and M2 also resemble those in the Yu tombs (fig. 1.3: 1–2). Such shared styles suggest contacts between the two regions (Yan Sun 2006c: 113–22, 2018: 120–51). A bronze socketed pick-axe (M1: 59), a socketed ge (M2: 33), and two knives (M1: 63 and M2: 38) also show connections with comparable artifacts in the Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau and Yan 䅽 mountainous region. These are diagnostic bronze styles in those regions (fig. 1.3: 3–5) (Wu En 1985: 135–56). Interestingly, a rattle-pommeled knife (M2: 38) in M2 was decorated with a distorted kui dragon, an ornamentation that dominated the bronze vessel decor at Anyang. Current evidence does not allow us to study the provenance of those artifacts, but their presence in Baicaopo tombs once again suggests that individuals in this frontier selectively used artifacts of diverse cultural sources to articulate their cultural identities. Noticeably, however, artifacts in M1 and M2 show no connections with the neighboring Siwa culture.

36 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

INSCRIPTIONS AND THE IDENTITY OF THE OCCUPANTS IN TOMBS M1 AND M2

The deceased in M2 can be identified as Yuanbo based on inscriptions on bronzes in the tomb. Eight of the eleven bronze vessels in M2 are inscribed with “Yuanbo makes [this] treasured sacrificial vessel” ( ỗἄ⮞⮲⼅) (fig. 1.2: 5). Two other vessels, a zhi (M2: 6) and a jue (M2: 5), are inscribed with “Bo makes [this] vessel” (ỗἄ⼅) and “Bo makes” (ỗἄ), respectively, both likely abbreviated versions of the full inscription on the eight vessels. If so, ten of the eleven vessels were commissioned by Yuanbo, indicating that he was most likely the tomb occupant. Inscriptions on bronzes in M1, however, do not provide clear information on the identity of the deceased. Bronze vessels in the tomb were commissioned by individuals of different lineages. Inscriptions on a group of seven vessels reveal that they were commissioned by seven individuals for their respective deceased fathers or mothers, including Father Yi 䇞ḁ, Father Ji 䇞⶙, Father Ding 䇞ᶩ, Father Gui 䇞䘠, Father Xin 䇞彃, and Mother Xin 㭵彃. In addition, a zun and a zhi bear two lineage emblems that clearly indicate their casters’ historical affiliation with the former Shang regime. The type and ornamentation of these vessels, along with the inscriptions on them, suggest that they were likely vessels of Shang date, possibly cast at Anyang. Their casters belonged to groups culturally affiliated with Shang. According to the Grand Scribe’s Records, after the conquest the Zhou king distributed captured Shang bronzes and other gifts to his people and Zhou allies (Shiji 1982: 126–27). Those “awarded vessels” (fēnqì ↮☐) are thought to be an important component of the sacrificial vessels in elite tombs during the early Western Zhou period (Huang Mingchong 2012: 607–70).5 The Shang-date vessels in M1 could be vessels that the Zhou king awarded to his allies after the victory. On the other hand, three wine vessels of the early Western Zhou period, including one zun and two you, all bear the same, short inscription that the author of the archaeological report reads as “Heibo makes [this] treasured sacrificial vessel” (㼞ỗἄ⮞⮲⼅), indicating that they were cast by the head of the Hei lineage (GBG 1977: 99–129). The first character “Hei” 㼞, however, is interpreted by others as “Jing” 㲦 (Li Xueqin 1985a: 46–51; Liu Zhao 1989: 219–20). Unlike those on the other vessels previously discussed, inscriptions on these three vessels do not carry posthumous ancestral titles. Instead, they use “Bo” ỗ, a seniority title that refers to the head of a lineage in the Zhou

37 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

period, a practice that was not followed by Shang elite at Anyang. This evidence suggests that the casters of these vessels were probably not remnants of Shang. The Hei/Jing lineage is most likely a group indigenous to the upper Jing River valley. The original archaeological report has identified the deceased in M1 as Heibo based on the inscription on these three vessels (GBW 1977: 99–129). This identification, however, is problematic. During the Western Zhou period, individuals were often buried according to their kin relations. Studies of cemeteries of Western Zhou regional states such as Wei 堃 at Xincun 彃㛹 and Guo 嘊 at Shangcunling ᶲ㛹ⵢ suggest that the spatial layouts of the tombs are intended to display the lineage and kin relations of the deceased (Guo Baojun 1964: 3–6; ZKKY 1959: Plate I, B; Hsu and Linduff 1988: 163–71). This principle, in fact, can be widely observed in cemeteries of the Western Zhou period, such as the Yu, Peng, and Ba lineage cemeteries (see chapters 2 and 3), the Jin cemetery at Qucun 㚚㛹, and the Yan cemetery at Liulihe 䎱䐫㱛 (see chapters 3 and 4). If we apply the same principle to the Baicaopo cemetery, it will be clear that the deceased in M1 is unlikely Heibo or Jingbo 㲦ỗ, the head of the Hei or Jing lineage. Tombs M1 and M2 were spatially next to each other (fig. 1.1). It is highly likely that the two deceased were of the same lineage. Given that M1 is earlier than M2, and that the deceased in M2 is identified as Yuanbo with a high degree of certainty, it is more likely that the deceased in M1 was Yuanbo of an earlier generation. The three vessels made by Heibo or Jingbo could have been funerary gifts to the Yuan lineage, further suggesting interactions between groups in the region.

MARRIAGE RELATIONS AND POLITICAL AUTHORITY

Inscriptions on bronzes in M2 reveal that the deceased of the tomb (and likely that in M1) could have been a member of the Yuan lineage. Some argue that the deceased could be remnants of Shang who were military commanders dispatched by the Zhou court to guard Lingtai (GBG 1977: 99–129; Liang Yun 2015: 100–17). But given that “Bo” was not used by lineages traditionally aligned with the Shang, the “Yuan” were more likely a group native to the upper Jing River valley. Fortunately, an inscription on a recently discovered early Western Zhou zun vessel provides more clues to their background (Wu Zhenfeng 2008: 6–9). The inscription states that the “king of Yuan” (Yuan wáng 䌳) casts the vessel for his wife Ze Ji ⣐⦔,

38 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

the lady of the Ze lineage of the Ji surname. Based on the practice of exogamy during the Zhou period, Yuan should be a non-Ji lineage. It is unclear whether the king of Yuan mentioned in the zun inscription was the same individual who was buried in M1 at Baicaopo. The Ze was a lineage polity that was active in the neighboring Long 晜 and Qianyang ⋫春 Counties in the Qian 㰏 River valley (Lu and Yin 1982: 48–57; Chen Chao-jung 2012: 251–86; Li Feng 2006: 186–87). The Ze lineage will be discussed in detail in chapter 2. The inscription on the zun just mentioned refers to the head of the Yuan lineage as a “king” (wáng 䌳), like the Zhou king, to mark his unparalleled political authority. Bronze inscriptions have revealed that besides Yuan, the head of a few other lineages, such as Ze ⣐, Lü ⎽, Bin 尛, Guai ᷾, and Feng 寸, also used the “wáng” appellation (Zhang Zhenglang 1986: 74–180; Huang Yue 2000: 1–4; Liu Yu 2006: 6–29). Most of these lineages lived in the Jing and Wei River valleys. Scholars suggest that these polities using the “wáng” appellation were either “others” that operated outside the Zhou political system or the “old states” (jiùbāng 冲恎) that established political affiliations with Zhou prior to the conquest (Wang Shimin 1983: 3–17; Zhang Zhenglang 1986: 74–180; Huang Yue 2000: 1–4; Wang Guowei 2001a: 623–24; Wang Mingke 2013: 165–66). One piece of evidence on political relations between Zhou and the polities using the “wáng” appellation comes from the inscription on the Guaibo gui ᷾ỗ䮳 (JC: 4331) of the middle Western Zhou period. It records that Meiao 䚱㓾, the head of the Gui lineage, referred to his deceased father as “King Ji of Guai” (Guai jıˇ wáng ᷾⸦䌳) and to his polity as a “petty border state” (xiaˇoyìbāng ⮷塼恎). King Yih ㆧ of Zhou in the same inscription referred to Guai as literally the “other” or “foreign state” (tābāng Ṿ恎). More interestingly, King Yih recounted the assistance provided by Meiao’s ancestor to Kings Wen and Wu and their participation in the great mandate, suggesting that Guai was an old ally of Zhou (Li Feng 2002: 219–20). The use of the “wáng” appellation by these polities reveals that their political relations with Zhou were likely different from those between the Zhou court and the Zhou regional states in the east. Political authority and the roles of the Zhou court and regional states were institutionalized. At their core was the hierarchical structure in which the Zhou court had absolute power over the regional states. But the relations between the Zhou and those polities using the “wáng” appellation were fuzzy and fluid. Many of these polities were traditional allies of Zhou, the “old states.” They might have considered

39 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

themselves junior partners of Zhou, as Meiao stated in the inscription previously discussed, but they must have had a considerable degree of political independence or autonomy. The case of the Ze lineage, another lineage using the “wáng” appellation in the Baoji region (see chapter 2), will shed more light on the political ambitions of such polities. The self-adoption of the “wáng” appellation by the Yuan lineage suggests that the lineage was likely a local group that was active in the upper Jing River valley prior to the conquest, rather than the remnants of Shang. Even if the Yuan was not under the direct political control of the Zhou court, the lineage could be politically affiliated with Zhou and thereby could have served Zhou interests at Lingtai at least during the early Western Zhou period. Inscriptions reveal that some of the bronze vessels in M1 and M2 were of Shang dates and were likely to have been awarded to Yuan after the Zhou conquest. Both tombs show that their occupants possibly enjoyed remarkable ritualized military strength, evident in the hundreds of bronze weapons and horse and chariot fittings buried in them and the accompanying horse and chariot pit. The military capability of the Yuan lineage may have been directed at their local peers. As analyzed in the section “Widespread Adoption of Material Culture from the Center in the Early and Middle Western Zhou,” the tombs and inscriptions on bronzes in the Lingtai area suggest that it was occupied by multiple polities. These polities could have maintained relatively stable relations under the supervision of the Zhou court during the early Western Zhou period. At the same time, however, the lineages could have also competed with each other for resources and power.

THE NORTHERN SECTION: CONTINUITY OR DISRUPTION IN THE MIDDLE WESTERN ZHOU PERIOD?

The seven tombs in the northern section of the Baicaopo cemetery are about sixty meters distant from M1 and M2 to the south. Six of them were severely looted; only M9 remained intact. M3, M7, and M8 yielded bronze ge and pao 㲉 roundels, along with small jade ornaments, shells, and animal bones. M9 contained one ceramic li, ten shells, and four small jades (table 1.3). Tomb M4 had only one shell and one clam left, and M5 a small jade arc huáng 䑄 and M6 nothing (GBG 1977: 99–129). These tombs have received little scholarly attention since their publication because of the lack of bronze vessels due to looting. But artifacts including bronze vessels are only one aspect of mortuary practices; other mortuary features, such as the tomb orientation,

40 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

size, structure, and location, can still shed light on the sociocultural identity of the occupants and deserve careful examination. The marked difference in the size of these tombs allows them to be separated into three distinctive tiers. On the top were the four large tombs, M7, M4, M5, and M3, each with a surface area ranging from eight to eleven square meters. M8, with a surface area of about six square meters, represented the middle tier. The bottom tier included the two smallest ones, M6 and M9, each about three square meters (for the size of M7, M8, and M9, see table 1.3). Three tombs (M7, M4, and M5) are larger than M1 (8.25 square meters), and all four of the top tier are larger than M2 (only 6.7 square meters) in the southern section of the cemetery. If the surface area of a tomb correlates with the scale of tomb offerings, the four largest tombs in the northern section would conceivably have contained goods at a scale comparable with, if not greater than, those in M1 and M2. The deceased in M7 was placed in one inner coffin inside two outer coffins, a more elaborate set than that used for the deceased in M2. The deceased in the seven tombs in the northern section must have had varied wealth and status in life. The spatial proximity of these tombs to one another, however, suggests that the deceased likely had kin ties. There is no epigraphic evidence to identify the lineage of the deceased in the northern section. Remaining artifacts in the tombs, though limited, do show cultural connections with the Zhou center and the Baoji region. M7 contained a triangular-blade bronze ge (M7: 2) (fig. 1.3: 6). The blade has a central ridge and a perforation near the tang. During the late Shang period, this type of ge was seen at sites as far south as Hanzhong 㻊ᷕ in southern Shaanxi and as far west as Xujianian ⼸⭞䡦 in Siwa tombs (c. the eleventh to mid-eighth centuries bce) west of the Long 晜 Mountains (Cao 2006: 25–27; ZSKKY 2006: 90). The triangular-blade ge became one of the defining material symbols of the Yu lineage during the Western Zhou period (Yan Sun 2012: 55–74). The only ceramic pot in the seven tombs was a jointcrotched li in M9 (M9: 1). This type of li was prominent in tombs in the Zhou center. Its use in M9 reveals local adoption of non-elite culture from the Zhou center. Except for the two smallest tombs, M6 and M9, the other five tombs were equipped with a waist pit, suggesting that the local elite carried on this Shang mortuary tradition into the middle Western Zhou period. And as with M1 and M2 in the south, there is no noticeable adoption of the neighboring Siwa culture. The seven tombs also show noticeable differences from M1 and M2. Six of the seven tombs were oriented in a northeast-southwest direction,

41 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

contrasting with the northwest-southeast orientation of M1 and M2 (fig. 1.1). The head orientation of the deceased in all tombs except M2 and M9 is unclear because of poor preservation of human bones. None of the seven tombs was accompanied by a horse and chariot pit. M7 featured a niche on its western wall, and a horse head originally wearing bronze fastening devices, including roundels, was placed inside the niche. Both practices are unseen in M1 and M2. A sacrificed horse head rather than an entire horse was not common in tombs in the Zhou center and regional states, but it was traditionally associated with bronze-using cultures in the Northern Zone. One of the early examples of animal head sacrifices has been reported in tombs of the Zhangjiayuan ⻝⭞⚺ culture at Houqianyi ⼴怟佑 in northern Hebei, dated roughly to the thirteenth to tenth centuries bce (see chapter 4). Sheep/goats and cattle skulls were buried with the deceased in seven tombs at the site. This practice was also a projection of a mixed local economy of agriculture and animal husbandry (Linduff et al. 2018: 86–87). The same case could be argued for Baicaopo. The area was suitable for raising horses, and this practice was ritualized in mortuary sacrifices. Given the limited evidence, it is unclear if the deceased in the northern section of the cemetery were members of the Yuan lineage. If they were, it suggests that the Yuan lineage continued living at the region from the early to middle Western Zhou periods. The head of the lineage accumulated wealth and power over time (as shown by the increased size of M7). If the deceased in the northern and southern sections were of different lineages, what occurred at Baicaopo, therefore, could be an early episode of local demographic and political change: Yuan lived at Baicaopo in the early Western Zhou period but was replaced by another group during the middle Western Zhou period. Given the similarities of the material culture in both sections of the cemetery, the new group was likely locally based and had broadly the same material cultural preferences as the Yuan. Yujiawan Cemetery in Chongxin County

To the west of Lingtai is Chongxin. Two rivers, the Rui in the north and the Hei in the south, meander through from west to east, creating two narrow valleys where most of the present-day population lives. Between the valleys, the land is taken up by loess hills and gullies. Of the eleven Western Zhou sites, Jiugongyuan is the largest, with a size of over 360,000 square meters. Others are much smaller, ranging from a mere 4,800 to 137,200 square

42 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

meters. Jiugongyuan was likely a local center in the region during the Western Zhou period. The Yujiawan cemetery is about 1.5 kilometers west of Jiugongyuan. It is situated on a stepped terrace on the northern bank of the Rui River (fig. 1.4). With 138 tombs and six horse pits of the late Shang to middle Western Zhou periods uncovered in three excavations from 1982 to 1986, the cemetery is one of the largest Western Zhou cemeteries discovered in the upper Jing River valley to date (GWKY 2009: 8–147). Given its close proximity to Jiugongyuan, it is possible that Yujiawan was the cemetery of the inhabitants there. All tombs were rectangular earthen pits with the heads of the deceased oriented north. Many of the tombs were equipped with secondary ledges for the placement of tomb offerings. The deceased were frequently placed in a supine, extended posture inside single or double wooden coffins. One hundred and thirteen tombs (82 percent) were disturbed or severely looted. Only sixty-four burials can be dated according to the style of surviving artifacts. The date of these tombs suggests that the cemetery was continuously used from the late Shang to the middle Western Zhou periods.

LINEAGE BACKGROUND AND DEMOGRAPHIC COMPOSITION

The lineage background of the deceased at Yujiawan is unclear. Presumably, many large tombs were originally outfitted with bronze vessels, and some could have carried inscriptions that bear lineage names. Unfortunately, looting took away all but seven vessels and left no epigraphic evidence to identify either the individuals or the lineages to which they belonged. The cemetery has been attributed to the Ruan 旖 or Rui 剖 lineages recorded in the transmitted texts (GWKY 2009: 144–46; Liang Yun 2015: 100–17). Given the lack of solid evidence, however, it is premature to draw conclusions on the lineage of the deceased. The cemetery consisted of both elite and non-elite burials. The surface area of the tombs varies from as small as one to as large as twelve square meters. The scale of tomb offerings, even after disturbance and looting, shows three levels of funerary wealth: (1) those with no burial goods or just pottery; (2) those with either bronze weapons or vessels; and (3) those with both bronze weapons and vessels. The two intact medium-size tombs, M9 and M20, yielded one ding and three gui, and one gui, respectively, giving us a glimpse of bronze assemblages in lower-ranking elite tombs. The exact contents of the large tombs, with a surface area over ten square meters, is unclear, but the

FIGURE 1.4. Layout of the Yujiawan cemetery (from GWKY 2009: 9, fig. 3)

44 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

remaining artifacts can still shed light on the richness of their original burial goods. For example, the looted tomb M149, over eleven square meters in surface area, contained a large lacquer pan 䚌 plate with a diameter of forty-five centimeters, the largest found so far in tombs of the Western Zhou period. Tombs M1 and M2 at the neighboring Baicaopo cemetery were furnished with twenty-one and eleven bronze vessels, respectively, but are only about 8.25 and 6.7 square meters, respectively. It is possible, based on this comparison, that a dozen of the tombs here with a surface area larger than that of M1 and M2 at Baicaopo were originally furnished even more richly than the two Baicaopo tombs. And the occupants of these large tombs, according to the excavation report, could be lineage heads (GWKY 2009: 143). Elite and non-elite tombs were often clustered together in the cemetery. This phenomenon suggests that tomb placement was not exclusively based on the wealth and status of the occupant in his or her lifetime but was likely governed by the kin relations of the deceased. In other words, the deceased, rich or poor, were bonded together at death based on their blood ties, and members of the same families were likely buried together. Additionally, burials at the Yujiawan cemetery formed two spatially separated groups, one group consisting of tombs in the southern section up to M3, and the other of the remaining tombs in the northern section (fig. 1.4). Both groups consist of early and middle Western Zhou tombs, suggesting that they were largely contemporaneous. It is unclear whether the deceased in the two groups were of different branches of the same lineage or of two different but related lineages. Tombs in both groups demonstrate overwhelming similarities in the treatment of the deceased; however, noticeable variations exist between the two groups, which will be examined in the following section.

FROM CULTURAL DIVERSITY TO DOMINANCE OF MATERIAL CULTURE FROM THE ZHOU CENTER

Ceramic vessels and bronze weapons in thirteen late Shang tombs reveal diverse cultural traditions. The six ceramic li include two distinctive types. Three are divided-crotched li, a type widely used in the upper Jing River valley, and the other three are joint-crotched li, a type dominant in the Zhou center (fig. 1.5: 1–2). A broad axe (M60: 1), with a curved blade perforated with five round holes at its rim, is a weapon type rarely seen in tombs of the Zhou center (fig. 1.5: 3). But close parallels were found in M12 at Ahatelashan 旧⑰䈡㉱Ⱉ and in M117 at Panjialiang 㼀⭞㠩 of the Kayue ⌉䲬 culture

45 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

(c. 1600–500 bce) in Qinghai 曺㴟 (Liu Baoshan 1997: 62; QWKY 1994: 28–86). The Ahatelashan example is dated to roughly around 1500 bce (Zhang Wenli 2010: 68–74) and was likely the model that inspired the Yujiawan axe. A socketed bronze ge (M58: 1) in M58 resembles those in Shang tombs at Anyang (fig. 1.5: 4) (GWKY 2009: 133–34). This type of ge is thought to have been a mixture of the Shang bronze ge type and bronze weapons with a tubular socket, a diagnostic feature of weapons and tools in the Northern Zone (Wu En 1985: 135–56). The adoption of the late Shang mortuary culture is also evident in a damaged tomb on the western side of the loess terrace. The tomb yielded two wine vessels, one bronze jue, and one gu, but no food vessel such as ding or gui. Both wine vessels are inscribed with ancestral names in the Shang practice and decorated with animal face motifs and banana leaf patterns typical of late Shang bronzes at Anyang (GWKY 2009: 207–9). A clear difference from the Baicaopo tombs, however, is that almost none of the Yujiawan tombs used a waist pit: of the 138 tombs, only two had it.

FIGURE 1.5. Late Shang and Western Zhou pottery and bronzes from the Yujiawan cemetery (from GWKY 2009: 62, 71–73, 75, 82, 92, figs. 56, 61–65, 72, 80)

46 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

The Yujiawan community widely adopted mortuary culture from the Zhou center. Pottery assemblage continued to be dominated by li vessels. Of the thirteen undisturbed Western Zhou tombs that contained pottery, ten contained at least a ceramic li. A significant change, however, was the decline of the divided-crotched li and the increased popularity of the joint-crotched li. Of the twenty-three ceramic li found in the Western Zhou tombs, all but one have a joint crotch. Bronze weapons and vessels further show the widespread adoption of the material culture from the Zhou center. Seven bronze vessels, including two ding, four gui, and one zhi, survived looting in four tombs (M9, M20, M73, and M96) (fig. 1.5: 5–8). All resemble those from the Zhou center in style. The two intact tombs, M9 and M20, offer us evidence of ding and gui food vessel–centered bronze assemblages. Bronze ge dagger axes were the most popular weapons in the tombs. Twenty-two ge in the Western Zhou tombs reveal a wide variation with respect to the length of the hú 傉 extension (long, medium, none)6 and the number of perforations on it (one to three, or none). Similar to the ge in M1 and M2 at Baicaopo, a large number of ge were also broken into pieces prior to their deposition in Yujiawan tombs, suggesting the practice of zhébīng ritual as well (Zhang Mingdong 2005: 171–84). Both the style of ge and the way they were used in tombs further reveal close cultural connections between Yujiawan and the Zhou center. The Yujiawan community could also have had cultural contacts with the Baoji region. Seven tombs of the early and middle Western Zhou period, all located in the southern section of the cemetery, were equipped with niches, a feature often seen in tombs of the Liujia ∱⭞ culture (c. 1400–1000 bce) in the Baoji region. A broken bronze sheath ornament in an openwork fashion (M144: 2) bears strong stylistic connections with the examples at Baicaopo and the Yu lineage tombs at Zhuyuangou 䪡⚺㹅. Bronze willow leaf–shaped swords in lacquer sheathes with such an openwork design were characteristic artifacts of the Yu lineage (fig. 1.5: 9) (see chapter 2). Two types of bronzes illustrate the adoption of artifacts and/or techniques originating in bronze cultures in the Northern Zone, although it is unclear where these bronzes were made. Two plain disks, known as “mirrors” in the archaeological report, of 8 and 8.5 centimeters in diameter, were found in M38 (fig. 1.5: 10). Early examples of such mirrors were found in tombs at Gamatai ⮽楔⎘ and Qijiaping 滲⭞✒ of the Qijia 滲⭞ culture (c. 2200–1800 bce) and at Dahuazhongzhuang ⣏厗ᷕ匲 of the Kayue culture (Wu En 2008: 85–86). Current archaeological discoveries indicate that

47 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

these early examples might have inspired the design of late Shang bronze mirrors at Anyang and those of the early Western Zhou period in the Wei River valley (Song Xinchao 1997: 147–69; Wu Xiaoyun 2017: 1–64). Yujiawan could have been one of the early communities in the Jing River valley that adopted this type. Another type of bronze is what the archaeological report has called “pen” 䙮, which literally means basin. This type of artifact was found in eight early and middle Western Zhou tombs: M104 contained five, and other tombs yielded only fragments. These “pen” are plain, round, and shallow with extremely thin walls (0.5 to 1.65 millimeters) (fig. 1.5: 11). Their small size and fragility suggest that they couldn’t have served the usual function of a basin. Instead, they were likely used for decorations of other objects such as lacquer shields. Bronze shield ornaments in a similar style have been found in Western Zhou tombs (see section “Gifting and Political Inclusion of the Remnants of Shang” in chapter 4). What further sets these objects apart from the bronzes of the Zhou center is how they were made. Metallurgical analysis indicated that one of the five pieces in M104 was cast, but the other four were hot-forged (GWKY 2009: 180–95). Many of the metal artifacts of the Huoshaogou 䀓䅺㹅 culture (c. 2000–1600 bce) in western Gansu were made by forging, which contrasts with the casting technique that was widely used at Anyang and in the Zhou center (Linduff, Han, and Sun 2000: 1–22). The presence of both types of artifacts at Yujiawan is a testament to how artifacts and technology in the Northern Zone continued to serve as a source of inspiration to the communities in the upper Jing River valley.

GROWTH, DECLINE, AND POLITICAL RELATIONS

The lack of inscribed bronze vessels in the tombs due to looting hinders our ability to analyze the social and political networks of the Yujiawan community during the Western Zhou period. The remaining artifacts in Yujiawan tombs, however, suggest that the community could have interacted with multiple groups even though the extent and nature of such contacts cannot be fully evaluated. The predominance of the material culture of the Zhou center suggests that the community maintained close contacts with the Zhou center in the middle Wei River valley. The use of similar sword sheath ornaments at Yujiawan, Zhuyuangou, and Baicaopo indicates that these communities could have had direct or indirect interactions with one another. An inscribed bronze ge in M3 is thought to have been an import

48 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

from a polity named Huang 湫 that was active in the upper Jing River valley (fig. 1.5: 12) (Zhu Zhongxi 2013: 180). The use of axes with broad blades and bronze “pen” ornaments reveals the adoption of the artifacts and/or bronze technology from the Huoshaogou and Kayue cultures further to the west. Similar to Baicaopo, Yujiawan had few traces of the Siwa cultural elements. The community at Yujiawan was likely prosperous from the late Shang to the early Western Zhou periods but declined during the middle Western Zhou period. No tomb has been dated to a period later than the middle Western Zhou, indicating that the site could have been abandoned then. The changing fortunes of this community can be determined to a certain degree by the number and size of tombs of each period (table 1.4). All thirteen late Shang tombs were small with a surface area of less than four square meters, some of which were furnished with pottery and/or bronze weapons. The number of tombs of the early Western Zhou period, however, sharply increased to forty-three. More importantly, all but two of the twelve largest tombs fall into this period. These tombs were likely supplied with numerous bronze vessels and weapons originally. This pattern indicates that not only did the community experience a demographic growth, but the upper echelon of the population was able to amass unprecedented wealth and power, further distancing itself from the rest of the population. The surface area of the eight middle Western Zhou tombs, however, was less than five square meters, suggesting a decline in the wealth of the community as a whole and TABLE 1.4 Comparison of tombs of different periods at the Yujiawan cemetery Date

Late Shang

Early Western Zhou

Middle Western Zhou

Number of tombs

13

43

8

Head orientation

North

North

North

Average surface area (sq. m.)

2.2

5.2

3.7

Range of surface size (sq. m.)

1.2–3.6

1.3–12.3

2.2–5.0

Number (%) of tombs with bronze vessels*

0 (0%)

11 (26%)

3 (38%)

Number (%) of tombs with bronze weapons*

3 (23%)

22 (51%)

2 (25%)

Number (%) of tombs with ceramic li

6 (46%)

20 (47%)

5 (63%)

*Most

of the tombs were looted, so the number of tombs with bronzes is likely under-represented.

49 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

in that of the elite in particular. The other seventy-four tombs that were spatially intermingled with those datable ones exhibit shared mortuary customs, suggesting that their dates fall broadly into the period from late Shang to middle Western Zhou. The absence of late Western Zhou tombs leads the excavators to conclude that the population moved out of the area because of the invasion of the Xianyun (GWKY 2009: 145–46). The changing fortunes of this community, however, seem to have closely corresponded with the fortunes of the Zhou court in the upper Jing River valley. The community reached its pinnacle during the early Western Zhou period, when Zhou political control of this region was at its peak. The decline started in the middle Western Zhou period, and by the late Western Zhou, the cemetery was ultimately abandoned, echoing the decline and eventual loss of Zhou control of the region. This evidence, despite its limitations, seems to indicate a close political relationship between the local community and the Zhou court. It is highly likely that the community was a political ally of Zhou. Yaoheyuan at Pengyang

The newly discovered Yaoheyuan site is situated on a loess terrace formed by two tributaries of the Hong 䲭 River at Xinji 㕘普, Pengyang County, in the northwestern part of the upper Jing River valley. The site covers an area of 86,000 square meters and includes an inner city in the east and an outer city in the west, separated by pounded-earth walls. The inner city consists of workshops of pottery making and bronze casting, two cemeteries, and pounded-earth foundations of palatial or ritual structures (Yaoheyuan kaogudui 2018a, 2018b: 2, 129; NHZWKY and PWG 2020: 30–52). Fifty or so burials of large, medium, and small sizes were identified at the cemetery in the northeastern part of the inner city. Material remains at the site are dated from the end of Shang (the late second millennium bce) to the middle Western Zhou period (the early ninth century bce). It is unclear, however, whether the city walls were constructed in the late Shang or at the beginning of the Western Zhou periods. Large burials excavated at the site so far have all been looted and have failed to provide evidence for the lineage of the deceased. However, the surviving artifacts do reveal the distinctive mortuary practices of this remote community. Mortuary features at Yaoheyuan show a clear similarity to those of the Zhou center and Zhou regional states in the east. The placement of the tombs

50 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

in the cemetery followed a well-planned layout, with single-ramped tombs surrounded by medium and small burials, sacrificial horse pits, or horse and chariot pits. All burials were pit graves and oriented in a north-south direction. Two of the three ramped tombs found so far have been excavated. One was accompanied by a horse sacrificial pit, and the other by a horse and chariot pit. Both pits were placed to the north or northeast of the tombs. Current archaeological data indicate that sacrificial horse pits and horse and chariot pits originated at Anyang in the late Shang period and were symbols of status and prestige (Linduff 2003: 139–62; Yuan and Rowan 2005: 252–70). During the Western Zhou period, the use of sacrificial horse and/ or chariot pieces in a tomb or in an accompanying pit was a crucial component of funerary practice for the elite of the Zhou center and regional states (Wu Xiaoyun 2013: 74–80). This practice was clearly adopted by the elite at Yaoheyuan. Another prominent burial custom at Yaoheyuan is the adoption of waist pits with dog sacrifices, a salient Shang mortuary feature at Anyang. This practice was found in both rich and poor burials at Yaoheyuan. Human sacrifices at the entrances of the ramped tombs, another prominent Shang mortuary practice at royal tombs at Anyang, were replicated in a rich burial at M13. A human sacrifice, along with a sacrificial sheep and a cow, was also found in one of the sacrificial pits accompanying the ramped tombs. Elite members of the Yaoheyuan community also adopted the written language to record divinations, as is suggested by an inscription of thirty-five characters on an oracle bone found in the earth fill of M13. The wording of the inscription and the way the bone was drilled indicate a close link with the inscribed bones found in Zhouyuan, suggesting the adoption of a Zhou oracle bone preparation custom (Fu Qiang 2019: 30–32). The adoption of the bronze culture from the Zhou center can also be observed in the fragments of remaining bronze vessels, such as a lid of a zhi decorated with consecutive circles near the rim and a cylindrical leg of a square ding (Yaoheyuan kaogudui 2018a). Some of the vessels were likely cast at a local foundry, as a large number of mold fragments, including those for vessels, have been found at the site. The Yaoheyuan community adopted different types of ceramic vessels over time. In the late Shang period, the community used various types that were typical of the Liujia, Siwa, and local cultures (Yaoheyuan kaogudui 2018b: 2, 129). In the early Western Zhou period, however, artifacts of local styles and styles typical of the Zhou center formed the core of pottery assemblages. By the middle Western Zhou period, artifacts in the style of the Zhou

51 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

center became the sole dominant types. A similar trend can be observed at other sites in the region, such as Yujiawan (see previous analysis in “Yujiawan Cemetery in Chongxin County”). The increasing use of artifacts in the style of the Zhou center at the sites in the Jing River valley could suggest more frequent contacts, both culturally and politically, between this region and the Zhou center. The Yaoheyuan community had settled in the region since the late Shang period. Its rise during the early Western Zhou period was related to the rise of Zhou political power and its close ties with Zhou. The discovery of an early Western Zhou tomb (roughly dated to King Cheng’s ㆸ or King Kang’s reign) and a concurrent horse and chariot pit further northwest at Sunjiazhuang suggests far-reaching communications between the Zhou state and its northwestern frontier even beyond the upper Jing River valley (GWG 1983: 982–84). The tomb and the pit at Sunjiazhuang yielded bronze vessels ding and gui, weapons, and chariot and horse fittings, a bronze repertoire typical of tombs of the Zhou center. Like the Yaoheyuan tombs, the Sunjiazhuang tomb also used a waist pit and a dog sacrifice. Did the tomb belong to an individual of a lineage that was an ally of Zhou active in the upper Jing River valley before the conquest, or to a migrant community from the east dispatched by the Zhou after the conquest? In either case, the deceased must have had close contacts with the Zhou center at least during the early Western Zhou period. Yaoheyuan was on the route to Guyuan, and its decline since the middle Western Zhou period could also be related to the increasing conflicts between Zhou and the Xianyun that escalated after King Mu’s 䧮 reign in the late half of the tenth century bce. THE SHIFTING AND DIVERGENT CULTURAL AND POLITICAL LANDSCAPE IN THE LATE WESTERN ZHOU PERIOD

The early and middle Western Zhou material remains were widely distributed in the upper Jing River valley. They spread along the Jing River from Lingtai and Chongxin to Pengyang, further west to Guyuan, and along the Malian River in the north. The material culture, however, presents a sharp contrast between the two areas during the late Western Zhou period. No late Western Zhou archaeological sites have been found yet along the Jing River valley in Lingtai and Chongxin. But bronzes and tombs of the late Western Zhou period were found at a number of sites in the lower Malian River valley. What led to this discrepancy and its cultural and political implications are the subject of this section.

52 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

From Backyard to Battlefield Along the Jing River

Inscriptions on bronzes and the transmitted texts document increasing conflicts between Zhou and local polities in the upper Jing River valley beginning in the middle Western Zhou period. The “Basic Annals of Zhou” (Zhoubenji ␐㛔䲨) of the Grand Scribe’s Records record a debate at the Zhou court on an ill-conceived campaign by King Mu against the Quanrong in the northwestern frontier, who afterwards stopped paying tribute to Zhou (Shiji 1982: 135–36). The passage highlights the overall decline of Zhou control in the region as early as the reign of King Mu. The inscription on the Guaibo gui (JC: 4331) aforementioned further presents an interesting case of friction between the Zhou court and its old ally during the reign of King Yih, the grandson of King Mu (Li Feng 2006: 183–87). This inscription says that Duke Yi (Yigong 䙲℔) was sent by King Yih to suppress the Guai lineage and that five months later, Meiao, the head of the lineage, paid a court visit in an effort to mend their broken relationship. King Yih awarded Meiao a badger coat, and Meiao cast a sacrificial vessel (the gui) to commemorate this event and dedicated it to his deceased father. The inscription also records that King Yih recounted the assistance of the ancestors of Meiao to Kings Wen and Wu of Zhou. What can be learned from this inscription is that King Yih used the occasion to persuade Meiao to resume his loyalty to the Zhou court by invoking fond historical memories between the two states. It also exposes an undeniable fact that Zhou’s relations with its old allies in the northwest had turned sour after several generations. The Zhou effort to win back its old allies succeeded to a certain degree. Meiao (the same person mentioned in the inscription cited in the previous paragraph), indeed, assisted Zhou in dealing with the Rong. An inscription on another gui cast by Meiao (JC: 4213) records that Ziyafu ⫸䈁䇞 of Zhou rewarded Meiao after receiving one hundred carts of metal from the Rong. Presumably, Meiao played an important role in the dealings between the Rong and the Zhou court. This episode is a vivid reminder that the allegiance of local groups to Zhou was situational and fluctuated according to changing political circumstances. The conversation between Shenhou 䓛ὗ, the head of the Shen lineage, and King Xiao ⬅ (872?–866), the successor to King Yih, as recorded in “Basic Annals of Qin” (Qinbenji 䦎㛔䲨) of the Grand Scribe’s Records, further illustrates that the Zhou king did not have absolute authority over local polities and that the relationship between the two was delicate and one

53 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

of mutual dependence (Shiji 1982: 177–78). King Xiao intended to replace Cheng ㆸ, a son of Daluo ⣏榙 and the daughter of Shenhou, with Feizi 朆⫸, another son of Daluo, as the legitimate heir of the lineage. Shenhou opposed this plan by arguing that marriage alliances between the Shen and Daluo lineages and their allegiance to Zhou helped keep the Rong in check and had created a peaceful frontier for Zhou since the late Shang period. The subsequent withdrawal of King Xiao’s plan to replace Cheng with Feizi was a clear signal validating the central argument of Shenhou—that the Shen lineage played a vital role in assisting Zhou to manage its frontier, a role so important that King Xiao had to give up his original proposal. The invasion of the groups historically known as the Xianyun after the middle Western Zhou period exacerbated the already tenuous situation in the upper Jing River valley. The Xianyun remain archaeologically elusive. The inscription on the Duoyou ding ⣂⍳溶 (JC: 2835) of King Li’s ⍚ reign and the poems in the Book of Poetry document their prolonged war with Zhou (Shijing 1980: 415, 424; Waley 1996: 141–42, 150–51; Yangjiacun kaogudui 2003: 4–42; Li Feng 2006: 141–74). Li Feng, based on the inscription on the Duoyou ding, points out that not only did the Zhou court lose effective control of the region, but the region was transformed into a war zone. The local people failed to defend the land, allowing the invading Xianyun to pass through the area to reach Qi 㺮 on the southern bank of the Jing River without much difficulty (Li Feng 2006: 188–89). Indeed, the absence of material remains of the late Western Zhou period in Chongxin and Lingtai along the Jing River suggests that the region could have been largely deserted during that time, a dramatic contrast with the situation during the early and middle Western Zhou periods, when many polities were active there. It seems that the local population abandoned the Chongxin and Lingtai areas and moved to other places toward the end of the middle Western Zhou period. As local groups fled from their homeland, they also brought the end of Zhou political fortune in the region. Cultural Continuity and Political Stability in the Lower Malian River Valley

While the area along the Jing River was transformed into a battlefield between Zhou and the Rong and later Xianyun during the late Western Zhou period, the lower Malian River valley largely remained politically stable. Artifacts and tombs dated to the late Western Zhou period were found in western Heshui County in the north and in the Ning and Zhengning Counties in the

54 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

south, roughly the same geographical area where the early Western Zhou tombs were found. The sites include Hejiapan ỽ⭞䓼, Xigou 大㹅, Wanglu 䌳䤧, and Yucun ⬯㛹 (map 1.1). Details of the artifacts from the sites are summarized in table 1.2. Local communities, particularly their elite, continued to use types and styles from the Zhou center to define their cultural identities. The tomb at Hejiapan is a good example (Zhongguo xinwenwang 2009). With a surface area of about ten square meters, it yielded eight bronze vessels (seven ding and one yan), nine shells, and seven bone needles, but no weapons. The style of the bronzes helps date the tomb to the late phase of the late Western Zhou period. The inscription of sixty-one characters on one of the ding indicates that the caster, Bo Shuofu ỗ䟽䇞, was put in charge of the Red Rong (Chirong 崌ㆶ) and the affairs of the northern borders by the Zhou king (Liang Yun 2015: 100–17). The inscription also reveals that Bo Shuofu’s wife was Shen Jiang 䓛⦄, a woman of the Shen 䓛 lineage of the Jiang surname. Her maternal lineage, Shen, was a local polity that was likely situated north of the Jing River in the Pingliang area or in the lower Malian River valley (Li Feng 2006: 221–28; Liang Yun 2015: 100–17). The occupant of the tomb was a member of the high-ranking elite, possibly Bo Shuofu himself. The tomb belonged to a lineage cemetery, and nearby was a settlement of the Western Zhou period. Considering these pieces of evidence and the location of the tomb, as well as Bo Shuofu’s marriage with Shen Jiang, we can conclude that Bo Shuofu’s lineage was a local group active in the region and at the service of the Zhou king. A damaged tomb at Xigou had a surface area of six square meters and was oriented northwest (QDB 1989: 24–27). It contained two bronze ge— one without a hu 傉 extension and the other a socketed ge decorated with a tiger motif—and seven bronze ji ㇇ halberds, among many other artifacts (table 1.2). Since the tomb was damaged, it is not clear whether it originally contained bronze vessels. It is noticeable that the tomb was equipped with a waist pit with a dog sacrifice inside. To the southeast of Xigou, a bronze square hu ⢢ pot dated to the late Western Zhou period on the basis of its style was found at Wanglu in Zhengning (Xu Junchen 1983: 8–11). It is likely that the vessel was originally in a tomb. A noticeable change in the local cultural landscape in the late Western Zhou period is manifested in the increasing use of bronzes in the style that originated in the Northern Zone. At Yucun ⬯㛹 in Ning County, a group of twenty-two bronzes were accidentally discovered by a local farmer in 1981

55 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

(Xu and Liu 1985: 349–52). According to the farmer’s recollection, the vessels were likely originally from a tomb where the deceased was laid in a prone, extended posture with the head pointing to the east. The bronze li and the xu 䚐 tureen are small—thirteen and sixteen centimeters tall, respectively— and both inscribed; the li was made by Zhong Shengfu ẚ䓇䇞 for Jing Mengji ḽ⬇⦔, a lady of the Jing lineage of the Ji ⦔ surname, and the xu by Luobo ỗ for Zhong Ji ẚ⦆, a lady of the Ji ⦆ surname (fig. 1.6: 1–2). More impressive is the fact that except for the two vessels, other bronzes in the tomb—including one dagger, one crouching tiger sculpture, three tiger plaques, two tiny guan jars, four spoons, and a few other ornaments—show strong connections with bronzes in the Northern Zone (table 1.2, fig. 1.6: 3–4). Li Feng argues that such a wide collection of Northern-style artifacts in a tomb indicates a strong presence of the Northern Zone culture in the region by the late Western Zhou period and that the deceased might have been a migrant from the northern steppe who could have cast a li according to Zhou standards, or could have looted both vessels from a nearby Zhou settlement (Li Feng 2006: 181–83). The occupant of this tomb is likely of a “northern” identity, as other artifacts (non-vessels) in the tomb illustrate the custom of wearing bronze

FIGURE 1.6. Bronzes from Yucun (1–2 from Xu Junchen 1983: 13, fig. 7; 3 from Xu and Liu 1985: 350, fig. 3; 4 redrawn after Xu and Liu 1985: 351, fig. 6)

56 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

accessories on the belt, which was not a known practice in the Zhou center. Although the placement of those bronzes in relation to the occupant in the tomb is not preserved, the perforations on spoons and the knobs on bells and small jars indicate that they were designed for hanging on the belt. The three bronze tiger plaques with knobs at the back were likely belt buckles. These accessories are closely associated with the mobile lifestyle of the Northern Zone in south-central Inner Mongolia and in the Yan mountainous region in northern Hebei during the Spring and Autumn period (Wu En 2008: 183–86). The Yucun tomb offers us a nuanced look at how a member of a non-Zhou group was able to maintain his or her native cultural tradition in the upper Jing River valley. Bronze vessels in the style of the Zhou center in this case were likely used as prestige goods and valued for their exotic nature. The Yucun case signals that the bronze culture of the Northern Zone infiltrated into the lower Malian River valley in the late Western Zhou period. Besides the tomb, other remains found on the surface (without excavation) at the site included ash pits, house remains, and cultural deposits that yielded ceramic sherds of li, guan, dou 寮 high-stemmed plate, and gui. Stylistically, these objects resemble those of the Zhou center and can be roughly dated to the Western Zhou period. It is unclear, though, how the site and the tomb were related. No other sites in the region yielded large collections of artifacts in the style typical of the Northern Zone, suggesting that immigrations into this region from the north were more isolated than widespread. THE SIWA CULTURAL HORIZON ON THE EDGE OF THE FRONTIER

The upper Jing River valley, besides hosting numerous communities whose material culture aligned with that of the Zhou center, was also the homeland of communities of the Siwa culture. Jiuzhan is one of the few Siwa sites excavated in the lower Malian River valley (map 1.1). Located on the northern bank of the Heshuichuan ⎰㯜ⶅ River, a small tributary of the Malian River, the site included both a residential area of about 160,000 square meters and a cemetery of about 150,000 square meters (Wang and Shui 1997: 300–477). Although the excavation was limited in scale (75 square meters of the residential area and 1,700 square meters of the cemetery), it uncovered thousands of ceramic sherds, a house foundation and eight ash pits in the residential area, and eighty tombs at the cemetery. Most of the material remains are dated from the end of the Shang to the late Western Zhou periods, providing us with a rare opportunity to examine how a local Siwa community on the northeastern edge of the upper Jing River valley used artifacts to define its

57 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

cultural identities throughout the Western Zhou period. More significantly, the excavation uncovered material remains in both the residential area and the tombs, allowing us to compare cultural practices in daily life and in a mortuary context. Different Choices of Pottery for the Living and the Dead

The over ten thousand ceramic sherds excavated in the residential area reveal two broad stylistic traditions. The first consisted of local Siwa pottery types, which tend to be plain, brownish in color, and handmade with coarse sandy paste and low firing. The types included small and large hu, small singlehandled cups, dou, divided-crotched li, and various kinds of two-handled guan jars (shuāngěguàn 暁俛仸). The second group of pottery pieces were often wheel-made, in fine and solid paste, and gray on the surface, which was decorated with thin rope patterns (shéngwén 丑䲳). They included types such as the joint-crotched li, the round- and slope-shouldered guan, the pen 䙮 basin, the dou, and the bo 以 bowl. These were foreign types that were widely used in Guanzhong but adopted by other communities in the region during late Shang and Western Zhou periods. It is likely that these types were introduced to Jiuzhan through other local communities. The Siwa type pottery overwhelmingly dominated the ceramic assemblage during the late Shang to the early Western Zhou periods, but the foreign types steadily gained popularity over time, reaching over 50 percent in some excavation units by the late Western Zhou period. Ceramic sherds in excavation units T1 and T4 at Jiuzhan, for example, document this trend. In T1, ash pit H3, cultural deposit layers ④C, B, and A represent cultural remains in chronological order from the late Shang to late Western Zhou periods. The share of the Siwa-type sherds experienced a steep decline from nearly 97 percent and 94 percent, respectively, in H3 and the T④C layer of the late Shang to the Western Zhou periods, to 48 percent in the ④A layer of the late Western Zhou period; at the same time, sherds of the foreign types increased from only 4 percent to nearly 52 percent. A similar trend was repeated in T4, where the Siwa-type sherds accounted for nearly 99 percent during the late Shang period but declined to 68 percent in the late Western Zhou period. The foreign pottery types, however, did not replace the native ones. Indeed, throughout the Western Zhou period, the native Siwa types continued to form the core of pottery. It is unclear what prompted the community to adopt the foreign pottery types. It is possible that the foreign types served the same functions as the native types but were more durable.

58 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

In contrast to its steadily increasing use in daily life, foreign-type pottery was essentially absent in tombs at Jiuzhan. The seventy-eight burials, roughly dated from the late Shang to the mid-Western Zhou periods, contained about 692 ceramic vessels. The two-handled guan jars alone accounted for over 47 percent, and the other four Siwa vessel types—the single-handled bei 㜗 cup, the hu ⢢ without handle, the li, and the dou—accounted for another 38 percent (fig. 1.7: 1–8). The excavators identified only nine ceramic vessels (less than 1.5 percent of all vessels) in seven tombs that were of non-Siwa types. These vessels resemble those found in other sites in the region and in the Zhou center (fig. 1.7: 9–15). Of the seven tombs, four (M13, M14, M17, and M36) are dated to the late Shang period, two (M55 and M71) to the early Western Zhou period, and one (M66) to the middle Western Zhou period.

1

6

5

4

3

2

8

7

17 10 9

11

18

12

16 13

14

19

15

FIGURE 1.7. Pottery and bronzes from Jiuzhan (from Wang and Shui 1997: 377–78, 381, 385, 391, 395, 402, 404, 419, 432, 437, figs. 55, 57–58, 61, 63, 66, 71–72, 82, 91, 93)

59 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

In all seven tombs, however, the Siwa vessel types continued to dominate the pottery assemblage, indicating that non-Siwa pottery types never gained any meaningful inroads in the mortuary context from the late Shang to the middle Western Zhou periods. The chronology of the residential remains and that of the cemetery overlapped. The residential remains span from the late Shang to the late Western Zhou periods, and the tombs mainly from the late Shang to the middle Western Zhou periods. The site report suggests that the tombs in general can be dated from the late Shang to the middle Western Zhou periods. Given the nearly complete absence of non-Siwa pottery in the tombs, it is clear that even though the Siwa community at Jiuzhan adopted non-Siwa ceramic types in its daily life, it largely avoided the use of “foreign” artifacts to serve the deceased in the afterlife. The divergent choices on pottery use for the living and the dead indicate that the community took a flexible approach toward the “foreign” artifacts for the secular world, but a more restricted approach for the sacred world. Bronzes and Limited Social Inequality

The Jiuzhan tombs yielded bronze ornaments and weapons, but no vessels. Of the fifty-two in the tombs and the three collected on the surface, the overwhelming majority (forty-nine) were small ornaments, including fortythree dome-shaped buttons for clothing, five tube-shaped items, and one tiny bell. The remaining six items were weapons and tools, including one knife, two armlets, two ge, and one dagger (Wang and Shui 1997: 437–40) (fig. 1.7: 16–19). The weapons reveal cultural connections with regions to the north and south. The two cylindrical-shaped cuff bracelets (M49: 15 and M20: 13), about 5.7 and 6.5 centimeters in diameter, respectively, were placed on the left arm of the deceased. Bronze and gold bracelets with distinctive local styles were typical personal ornaments of bronze-using cultures in the Northern Zone and have been found in late Shang and Western Zhou tombs of local groups in northern Shanxi and northern Hebei (see chapter 4). The dagger (M24: 8) is short, about 22.8 centimeters long, with a straight blade and a tang ending with a mushroom pommel. The blade and the tang are separated by two flanges. This type of dagger was found in a horse and chariot pit (M3) at Anyang, in a cache at Xiaohe’nan ⮷㱛⋿ in Xinglong 冰昮 of the late Shang period, and in a few sites in northern Hebei and western Liaoning (Wu En 2008: 31–36, 58–62). The origin of this type of dagger was

60 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

debated; it could be from the Northern Zone in China (Wu En 2008: 58–62), Eastern Eurasia, or southern Siberia (Yang Jianhua 2008: 221–55). No matter where this type of dagger originated, its presence in different regions in north China suggests the transmission of metallurgical knowledge in a westeast and north-south network of contacts that must have reached the upper Jing River valley (Linduff et al. 2018: 68). A triangular-blade ge collected on the surface at Jiuzhan suggests possible contacts with other communities in the upper Jing River valley or further south. The ge is about seventeen centimeters long with a rectangular tang (fig. 1.7: 17). Its blade has a central ridge and a perforation near the tang. This type was also found in M7 of the middle Western Zhou period at Baicaopo (see the section “The Northern Section: Continuity or Disruption in the Middle Western Zhou Period?”) and evolved into a signature weapon type of the Yu lineage at Baoji during the early Western Zhou period (see chapter 2). One prominent feature of the Jiuzhan community’s use of metal is the absence of bronze vessels of any type. It reveals that, unlike Baicaopo and Yujiawan, this community did not establish a mortuary practice centered on the use of Shang- and Zhou-style bronze vessels and did not produce an elite class whose cultural identity was defined by the use of these vessels. Compared to the elite tombs at Lingtai and Chongxin, the Jiuzhan tombs were significantly smaller and poorly furnished. M60 had the largest surface area, about 6.5 square meters, but it contained only twenty-nine ceramic vessels, one bronze button, one stone axe, and no bronze weapon or vessel. The five tombs with bronze weapons and tools—M15, M14, M20, M24, and M49— are all less than four square meters in surface area; the core goods in them were Siwa-type pottery ranging from eight to thirteen pieces each. As a group, they were neither larger nor richer than other tombs at the cemetery without bronze weapons or tools. The modest difference exhibited by Jiuzhan tombs regarding surface area and the scale of offered goods indicates that the Jiuzhan community likely had not experienced significant social change over time. One Land but Two Worlds in the Lower Malian River Valley

As the preceding analyses have indicated, communities that adopted the material culture of the Zhou center were widespread in the lower Malian River valley from the early to late Western Zhou periods. Jiuzhan, as a local community of the Siwa culture, was not far from these communities. It is about thirty to forty kilometers northeast of Tuergou and Hejiapan and a bit

61 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

farther from Hanjiatan Miaozui. At Hanjiatan Miaozui, Siwa cultural deposits were found underneath that of the Zhou culture, suggesting that the site was originally occupied by a Siwa community but later replaced by a group who adopted the material culture of the Zhou center (QDB 1985: 853–54, 809). The Jiuzhan community did not suffer the same fate as Hanjiatan Miaozui. One possible reason could be that the Zhou presence primarily focused on the area of present-day Qingyang municipality and western Heshui County without extending further northeast where Jiuzhan was located. There was ample room for the Jiuzhan community to develop its cultural tradition at its own pace. But by the same token, compared with many other communities, Jiuzhan was marginalized, persisting on the periphery rather than in the center of regional interactions. Even though the Jiuzhan community was not far from those using bronze vessels such as Tuergou and Hejiapan, it acquired no bronze vessels of any kind, suggesting that it could have very limited contacts with these communities. Though sharing geographical space with those communities, Jiuzhan clearly maintained a separate cultural sphere of its own.

The upper Jing River valley was transformed into one of the earliest frontiers of Zhou near the end of the Shang dynasty when Zhou inserted its political authority over the region through military campaigns and alliance building. Strong political alliances between local polities and the Zhou court were the cornerstone of the local political order during the early and middle Western Zhou periods. But within this Zhou-led political world, local polities such as Yuan and Guai seemed to have had a certain degree of political autonomy. Corresponding to their political closeness with Zhou, local groups adopted bronzes and pottery, burial customs, and written language from the Zhou center, which formed the core of material cultures in the region. But behind the general resemblance between the material culture of this region and that of the Zhou center, each local group developed its own way to define its identity through the selective use of local and foreign cultural elements. A closer look at three communities—Baicaopo, Yujiawan, and Yaoheyuan—has exposed a varied mixture of local tradition and artifacts and burial customs from Anyang and the Zhou center, the Northern Zone, and the Baoji area. It suggests that, while local elites were active agents who were responsible for the introduction and spread of the material culture of Anyang and the Zhou center into this frontier, their cultural and political experiences were nonetheless local. Through their localized use of material culture

62 AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST

from the diverse sources at their disposal, communities in this frontier created material cultures and identities with varied flavors and levels of sophistication that suited their needs. If the Zhou invasion near the end of the Shang period marked the first significant foreign interference in the upper Jing River valley that shaped local political development in the following two centuries, the invasion of the Xianyun from the northwest in the middle Western Zhou period and the subsequent prolonged conflicts between them and Zhou represented the second major foreign interference that once again fundamentally reshaped the local political landscape. With the Zhou-local alliances weakening and Xianyun attacks accelerating, the area along the Jing River from Pengyang to Lingtai became highly contested and was transformed from a land dotted with regional polities to an open battlefield between two outside players (Zhou and the Xianyun). But the area along the Malian River avoided this disruption presumably because it was not on the path of the Xianyun invasion. The different life experiences of people living along the Jing and the Malian Rivers have also been expressed through the material cultures in the two regions. No late Western Zhou remains have been found in the area along the Jing River, suggesting that populations could have moved out of the region. Archaeological finds dated to the late Western Zhou period, however, are scattered along the Malian River and have revealed the widespread adoption of bronzes and burial customs from the Zhou center. Inscriptions on bronzes further suggest the continued political engagement of Zhou in the Malian River valley. A large collection of artifacts typical of the Northern Zone in Yucun suggests possible immigration into the region from the north as well. The communities of the native Siwa culture could have been marginalized throughout the Western Zhou period in this frontier. Few sites of the Siwa culture were found, and few Siwa-type artifacts were used in tombs and sites south of the Jing River. The Siwa community of Jiuzhan that lived on the edge of the frontier largely continued its own cultural traditions without disruption. In contrast to those at Baicaopo, Yujiawan, and Yaoheyuan, the Jiuzhan elite were not participants in a ritual culture centered on bronze vessels. The absence of bronze vessels and the limited quantity of bronze weapons speak of fewer contacts with others within and outside the region. The Jiuzhan community embraced ceramic types from the Zhou center in its daily life, but at the same time, it excluded these vessels from mortuary use, revealing a high degree of sophistication in the selective adoption of foreign artifacts for specific purposes.

Chapter Two

A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME Lineage Polities in the Western Baoji Region

The juncture of the upper and middle parts of the Wei River valley, or the western Baoji region, is immediately west of the Zhou heartland in Guanzhong. At the center of the region is a narrow, alluvial plain created by the convergence of the Qian River (flowing north to south) and the Wei River (flowing west to east). Like the upper Jing River valley, the region was one of the earliest frontiers that witnessed Zhou political expansion prior to the conquest. But the region is closer to the Zhou center and relatively further away from the Northern Zone. The western Baoji region is geographically more constrained, being surrounded in three directions by mountains that form natural barriers: the Qinling 䦎ⵢ Mountains to the south, the Long 晜 Mountains to the west and northwest, and the Qian ⋫ Mountains to the north (map 2.1). The region was dominated by the Liujia archaeological culture in the late Shang period. Major discoveries include the Zhifangtou site and cemeteries at Liujia, Gaojiacun 檀⭞㛹, Doujitai 櫍暆⎘, and Chaoyu 㗩Ⲓ, where altogether about fifty tombs were excavated (SZK 1984: 16–29; BK 1989: 47–55; BKG 1998: 1–6; Zhang Tian’en 2004: 279). The divided-crotch ceramic li tripods with high collars and three baggy legs were widely used among Liujia communities, but the joint-crotched ceramic li, a type popular in the neighboring Zhou heartland, became more plentiful in the region toward the end of the Shang period. The people behind the Liujia material culture are thought to be the historically known Jiang Rong ⦄ㆶ group, who, according

64 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

N

Elevation MASL Nanpo

2,800 2,000

Qian Mountains

Longxian

WeijiazhuangLiangfucun

1,500 850

an Qi

500

n Lo gM nt

r ve

Ri

ou Jin

s ain

lin gR ive r

Shangguan Linglong

Fengxiang

Futuo Qishan

Jiacun

Wei

ZFT RJZ ZYG

Baoji Daijiawan Doujitai Shigushan

River

Mengyugou

Qinling Mountains 20 km

Western Zhou sites Modern cities or counties

MAP 2.1. Western Zhou sites in the western Baoji region

to transmitted texts, could have already established a solid political alliance with the Zhou by the reign of King Wen (the first half of the eleventh century bce) (Zou 1980: 297–355, 1988: 19–41; Zhang Tian’en 2004: 316–18). The Siwa culture had also made limited inroads into the region: a few Siwa-type pottery double-handled guan 仸 jars were found, for instance, at the Mengyugou 㾃Ⲓ㱇 site, but no large settlement of the culture has been reported in the region (map 2.1) (Lu and Hu 1988: 13–16). The western Baoji region continued to be inhabited by a number of polities in the following Western Zhou period. Informed by inscriptions on bronzes discovered in the region, Lu Liancheng 䚏忋ㆸ proposes that the Baoji region was partitioned by at least four major polities, Yu , Ze ⣐, San 㔋, and Dianjing ⤈ḽ (Lu Liancheng 1984: 232–48). Other groups living in the area included Guo 嘊 (Western Guo) and the communities at Shigushan 䞛溻Ⱉ and Daijiawan ㇜⭞㸦, to name a few (Lu Liancheng 1984: 232–48; Li Xueqin 1999b: 127–29; Gao and Liu 2006: 38–42; Li Feng 2006: 253–54;

65 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

Ren Xueli 2012: 175–77; Shigushan kaogudui 2013a: 3–24, 2013b: 4–54). Given its geographical and political closeness to the Zhou heartland, the region was often viewed as the backyard of the Zhou (Li Ling 2017: 46–59). Some went further to argue that the region was part of the Zhou royal domain, implying that it was managed closely and directly by the Zhou court (Lu Liancheng 1984: 232–48). Inscriptions, artifacts, and burial customs, however, portray a demographically and culturally diverse region. The political relations of various lineage polities with the Zhou court were different and fluid throughout the Western Zhou period. Some could have maintained a certain degree of political autonomy, while others might have enjoyed a close relationship with the Zhou court. The interactions and competitions among local polities were the primary driving force for local cultural and political changes. From this perspective, the western Baoji region is, therefore, considered a Zhou frontier, not part of its political core. The material remains of three lineages are relative rich: the Yu and Ze lineages, and the newly discovered Shigushan community. Yu was a relatively new immigrant community in the region, but Shigushan likely belonged to an indigenous community with deep local roots. The Ze lineage initially lived in the northwestern periphery of the region and later expanded into the center. With their unique cultural and historical backgrounds, the three communities are good candidates for case studies on cultural and political dynamics in this frontier. This chapter examines their material cultures in detail and explores how the three groups constructed distinct cultural identities and negotiated their power relations with Zhou and among themselves. THE YU LINEAGE

The Yu was a non-Ji lineage that is missing in the transmitted texts. What we know about the group came exclusively from archaeological materials at three adjacent cemeteries: Zhifangtou (ZFT), Zhuyuangou (ZYG), and Rujiazhuang (RJZ) 勡⭞匲 (map 2.1). Twenty-nine tombs that belong to the Yu lineage were found: three at ZFT, twenty-two at ZYG, and four at RJZ. Those tombs are dated roughly from the beginning to the early part of the middle Western Zhou period. The excavators further date tombs at ZFT to King Cheng’s reign, at ZYG to the reigns of Kings Cheng to Zhao 㗕, and at RJZ to King Mu’s reign based on the style of bronzes (Lu and Hu 1988: 413–16). Besides those tombs, a damaged early Western Zhou tomb was found and over one thousand ceramic sherds were recovered from three ash pits at RJZ (Lu and Hu 1988: 6–12).

66 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

Research on this body of data indicates that the Yu lineage was not an indigenous group at Baoji, but an immigrant community that relocated to the region around the mid-eleventh century bce near the end of the Shang period. Yu was likely a Zhou ally during its campaign against the Shang, which could have helped the lineage secure the land in Baoji (Lu and Hu 1988: 446–62: Zhang Tian’en [1994] 2008: 151–65). This proposition is supported by the dating of the earliest Yu burial M1 at ZFT to the early phase of King Cheng’s reign, based on the style of bronzes in the tomb. Yu thrived during the early and middle Western Zhou periods but likely moved out of the region afterward. The material remains of Yu demonstrate a mixture of bronze vessels stylistically resembling those at Anyang and in the Zhou center, as well as a wide array of artifacts and mortuary customs of its own. This combination continued into the middle Western Zhou period, when new material expressions appeared that asserted Yu’s rising power, a power boosted by an advantageous marriage with the Jing lineage in the highly competitive political environment of the western Baoji region. The history of the Yu lineage is a vivid illustration of the dynamic nature of this frontier. Conformity to the Elite Culture from the Zhou Center in the Early Western Zhou Period

Yu’s adoption of Zhou ritual culture was primarily manifested by and confined to the elite. The use of bronze ding and gui as the core of sacrificial vessel assemblage in tombs was broadly in line with the practice among the elite in the Zhou center and in regional states such as Jin and Yan. In high-ranking elite tombs, wine and water vessels were also important components of the assemblage. Twenty-one bronze vessels, for instance, were buried in a tomb of Yubo ỗ, the head of the Yu lineage, at ZYG (BZM13), including a wide range of food vessels (seven ding, three gui, one yan, and one dou), wine vessels (one zun, two you, one he, one zhi, one hu, and one jue), and water vessels (one pan and one hu) (Lu and Hu 1988: 50–71). Inscribed bronzes were concentrated in four richly furnished tombs, BZFM1, BZM13, BZM7, and BZM4. Together, they yielded thirty-two inscribed bronzes, including eight commissioned by male members of the Yu lineage such as Yubo and Yuji ⬋. Inscriptions on other bronzes indicate that they were commissioned by various lineages that were once already active during the Shang period. A recent study proposes that the bronzes that resembled the ones at Anyang could be war trophies granted to Yu elite for their participation in King Wu’s 㬎 military campaign against the Shang (Huang Mingchong 2012: 607–70).

67 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

It is also possible, however, that some of these vessels in Yu tombs could have been acquired through marriages with and gifting from other lineages in the early Western Zhou period. Material Manifestation of a Distinctive Yu Cultural Identity in the Early Western Zhou Period

The early Western Zhou burials of the Yu lineage are situated at ZFT and ZYG. Rescue excavations in 1981 and 2003 at ZFT uncovered three partially damaged tombs lined up in a row, dated to the early phase of the early Western Zhou period (Hu, Liu, and Li 1988: 21–27; Lu and Hu 1988: 17–42; Liu et al. 2007: 28–47). The full picture of the quantity, type, and placement of the artifacts in each tomb is unknown, but a considerable number of burial goods survived. The occupant of BZFM1 is identified as a member of the first generation of Yubo who likely passed away in the early phase of King Cheng’s reign (Lu and Hu 1988: 17–42). Twenty-two tombs, mostly intact, were excavated at ZYG (fig. 2.1) (Lu and Hu 1988: 43–269). The deceased in BZM13 and BZM7 are identified as the heads of the Yu lineage; the former was interred in the early phase of King Kang’s reign and the latter during the reigns of Kings Kang and Zhao. Another tomb, BZM4, belonged to Yuji, a head of a minor branch of the Yu lineage. The earlier and richer tombs tend to occupy higher elevations at the cemetery. A salient feature of Yu tombs in both cemeteries is their orientation. The tombs were uniformly aligned with an east-west direction (93° to 156°). A few identifiable cases show the head of the deceased oriented east. This presents a clear contrast to the north-south orientation overwhelmingly used by Zhuyuangou (ZYG)

Rujiazhuang (RJZ)

FIGURE 2.1. Layout of Yu cemeteries at Zhuyuangou (ZYG, left) and Rujiazhuang (RJZ, right) (from Lu and Hu 1988: 44, 271, figs. 32, 186)

68 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

those of Ji ⦔ surnamed lineages (Lu and Hu 1988: 44; Liu et al. 2007: 28–47). For instance, the majority of the tombs at Zhangjiapo ⻝⭞✉ and Beiyao ⊿䩗 in the Zhou center and in the cemeteries of Zhou regional states such as Yan adopted the north-south orientation (ZSKKY 1999: 382–416; Luoyang shi wenwu gongzuodui 1999: 321–31). Another Yu practice that was not seen in tombs of the Zhou cultural background was the sacrifice of female consorts. Three male elite tombs (two generations of Yubo and Yuji) at ZYG each contained a female consort dressed in the same style of funerary gowns with red and yellow strips. The consorts seem to have had a certain ritual status as they were placed in separate coffins and accompanied with bronze vessels and pottery. A set of unique bronze and ceramic artifacts can best illustrate Yu’s effort to not only preserve but also promote its own cultural identity. Instead of using signature ceramic wares of the Zhou center, li, guan, and dou, Yu people placed their own distinctive pots in tombs, exemplified by the small pointed and flat-bottomed guan jars and large jars featuring an elongated belly and a small collared, slightly flared mouth (fig. 2.2: 1–3). Besides the pottery, four groups of bronzes were indispensable funerary goods that were regularly included in Yu tombs but rarely seen at the cemeteries of Ji-surnamed lineages: the willow leaf–shaped sword, the triangular-blade ge dagger axe, a set of four miniature bronzes, and hair and robe ornaments (fig. 2.2: 4–15).

FIGURE 2.2. Pottery and bronzes native to the Yu lineage (from Lu and Hu 1988: 79–80, 91, 120, 162, 203, 213, 313, figs. 63–64, 71, 96, 148, 125, 154, 219)

69 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

WEAPONS AS IDENTITY SIGNIFIERS: BRONZE SWORDS AND DAGGER AXES

Thirteen bronze willow leaf–shaped swords were found in eleven tombs at ZYG and one at RJZ, dating from the early to middle Western Zhou periods (Lu and Hu 1988: 463–69). The eleven tombs at ZYG, all of males, each contained one sword. Though similar in shape, the swords differ in their degree of wear, length (23.5 to 36 centimeters), and ornamentation on the blade and sheath (fig. 2.2: 4–6). The personalization of each sword may indicate that it was an object made for and used by a particular individual (Yan Sun 2018: 120–51). Except for one unknown case in BZM1 at ZYG, each sword was placed at the right or left side of the waist of the deceased inside the inner coffin (table 2.1). Such an intimate, uniform placement suggests that the swords were worn at the waist, which quite likely derived from a custom of wearing a sword in life.

TABLE 2.1 Size and placement of bronze willow leaf–shaped swords in Yu tombs at Zhuyuangou and Rujiazhuang

Bronze sword

Tomb date

Sex of the deceased*

Sword length (cm.)

Sword placement in tomb

BZM8: 13

Reigns of Kings Cheng and Kang

M

23.5

Right side of the waist

BZM11: 11

Reigns of Kings Cheng and Kang

M

28.1

Right side of the waist

BZM18: 38

Reigns of Kings Cheng and Kang

M

25.4

Right side of the waist

BZM19: 59

Reigns of Kings Cheng and Kang

M

22.8

Right side of the waist

BZM20: 35

Reigns of Kings Cheng and Kang

M

27.8

Right side of the waist

BZM21: 24

Reigns of Kings Cheng and Kang

M

25.4

Right side of the waist

BZM1: 258

King Kang’s reign

Unknown

23.6

Unknown

BZM13: 99

Early phase of King Kang’s reign

M

26.8

Right side of the waist

BZM7: 147

Late phase of King Kang’s reign to early phase of King Zhao’s reign

M

28.4

Right side of the waist

BZM14: 22

Early Western Zhou

M

29

Left side of the waist

BZM4: 55

Late phase of King Zhao’s reign

M

25.5

Right side of the waist

BRM1B: 68

Late phase of King Mu’s reign

M

26.8

Left side of the waist

BRM1B: 69

Late phase of King Mu’s reign

30

Left side of the waist

*Human bones in most of the tombs were poorly preserved and cannot be used to identify the sex of the deceased. The sex of the deceased in some tombs was determined based on the type of burial goods, a common practice in Chinese archaeology. Source: Based on Sun Yan 2012: 56, table 1.

70 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

The triangular-blade ge dagger axe is another weapon widely used in Yu tombs (fig. 2.2: 15). It has been suggested that this kind of ge was a distinctive local weapon type suitable for combat in the hilly terrain in Baoji (Lu and Hu 1988: 431–35). To function, the body of the bronze dagger axe needs to be fastened onto a wooden handle. Two forms of ge with a triangular blade were used in Yu tombs: a real weapon for combat use, and a surrogate that was smaller and crudely cast for funerary purposes. Half of the twenty-two tombs at ZYG typically contained a real weapon ge laid on the left or right side of the waist of the deceased and a surrogate ge often placed together with the real weapon ge (table 2.2). In four tombs—BZM11, BZM10, BZM13, and BZM3—however, the surrogate ge were placed next to the head of the deceased. The quantity of surrogate ge in the thirteen tombs varies considerably, from two to fourteen. In addition, there is a strong correlation between the triangular-blade ge and the willow leaf–shaped sword; not only did they often appear in the same tomb, but they were also placed close to each other in tombs, implying that both weapons were likely used together.

A UNIQUE LIFESTYLE SEEN THROUGH SMALL ARTIFACTS

Four miniature bronzes—a flat-bottom guan jar, a pointed-bottom guan jar, a rectangular shallow pan plate-shaped object, and a ladle-shaped object with a curved handle—present another group of artifacts uniquely associated with the Yu lineage (fig. 2.2: 7–10). The site report suggests that the ladle-shaped object with a curved handle was derived from a late Neolithic pottery prototype in Sichuan ⚃ⶅ (Lu and Hu 1988: 451), but there are noticeable stylistic differences between the vessels in the two regions. Recent research has connected the ceramic ladle-shaped objects in the Yu tombs with those in Iran and Central Asia and has proposed that the bronze was a copy of a ceramic prototype imported into the Zhou cultural sphere (Rawson 2013: 357–98). The prototype of the pointed-bottom jars, however, can be traced to sites of late Neolithic and Shang periods in the Chengdu ㆸ悥 Plain, from where the type could have been transmitted to Baoji (Sun Hua 2000: 2–46). The ceramic flat- and pointed-bottom jars were found in Yu tombs and in ash pits at ZYG, suggesting that both types were used in both mortuary practice and daily life (Lu and Hu 1988: 7–8). The four types of bronze objects were often placed together in tombs, suggesting that they could be used as a set. Undecorated and crudely cast with visible marks of imperfection, they were often placed right next to the

TABLE 2.2 Distribution and placement of bronze triangular-blade ge in Yu tombs at Zhuyuangou and Rujiazhuang Tomb number

Tomb date

Number of surrogate ge

Placement of surrogate ge

Number of real ge

Placement of real ge

BZM8

Reigns of Kings Cheng and Kang

8

Right side of the waist

1

Right side of the waist

BZM11

Reigns of Kings Cheng and Kang

3

Right side of the head

1

Right side of the waist

BZM18

Reigns of Kings Cheng and Kang

6

Right side of the waist

1

Right side of the waist

BZM19

Reigns of Kings Cheng and Kang

6

Right side of the waist

1

Right side of the waist

BZM20

Reigns of Kings Cheng and Kang

6

Right side of the waist

1

Right side of the waist

BZM21

Reigns of Kings Cheng and Kang

10

Right side of the waist

1

Right side of the waist

BZM3

Reigns of Kings Cheng and Kang

5

One near the head; four near the waist

None

Both sides of the waist

BZM10

Reigns of Kings Cheng and Kang

2

Right side of the head

None

BZM1

King Kang’s reign

9

Unknown

1

Unknown

BZM13

Early phase of King Kang’s reign

14

Between inner and outer coffins near the right side of the head

1

Right side of the waist

BZM7

Late phase of King Kang’s reign to early phase of King Zhao’s reign

10

Right side of the waist

1

Right side of the waist

BZM14

Early Western Zhou

6

Right side of the waist

1

Right side of the waist

BZM4

Late phase of King Zhao’s reign

6

Right side of the waist

4

Between inner and outer coffins

BRM1B

Late phase of King Mu’s reign

None

2

Right side of the waist

Source: Based on Sun Yan 2012: 57, table 2.

72 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

head of the deceased or in between the inner and outer coffins near the head. Moreover, next to them were often bronze hairpins and comblike artifacts, hinting that the vessels could have been used as toiletries for personal beautification. It is not clear whether they had been used in the treatment of the body during the funerary ritual. Their simple design, small size, and poor quality suggest that the ones buried in tombs could have been made for funerary purposes (Lu and Hu 1988: 451). Unlike the bronze swords, the four miniature bronzes were gender-neutral objects. In three early Western Zhou tombs—BZM4, BZM7, and BZM13—for instance, both the deceased males and their consorts were buried with these objects. Bronze hair and robe ornaments further signify Yu’s distinctive cultural identity. Tree-shaped bronze hair ornaments, 7 to 9.7 centimeters tall, were found in nine tombs at ZYG (fig. 2.2: 11). The ornaments have a central cylindrical stem that gradually tapers to the top and four additional short branches. The two loops at the base could have been used for fastening. Traces of silk ribbons were found on most of the hair ornaments. Poor preservation of human bones hinders the sex identification of the deceased in the nine tombs. It is not clear who used the ornaments, though none of the female consorts were buried with them. Fourteen tombs at ZFT and ZYG yielded bronze robe ornaments. The ornaments, small and lightweight, were often placed below the waist of the deceased. They were made in three types: anchor-, leaf-, and fish-shaped (fig. 2.2: 12–14). The last type only appeared in two burials, 2003BZFM2 and BZM13. Some of the ornaments were poorly cast with visible seams and therefore could have only been used for funerary clothing. Traces of silk threads on some ornaments indicate that they could have been originally sewn onto the fabric dangling from the robes. All thirteen tombs with robe ornaments yielded bronze vessels, implying that the ornaments were only used to decorate the funerary robes of Yu elite, including the female consorts buried in BZM7 and BZM13. Mortuary Changes, Local Casting, and Manipulation of Zhou Writing in the Middle Western Zhou Period

Four tombs were uncovered at Rujiazhuang (BRM1, BRM2, BRM3, and BRM4) (see fig. 2.1). They are dated to the early phase of the middle Western Zhou period. BRM1 and BRM2, two tombs next to each other, are identified as the tombs of Yubo and his wife Jing Ji ḽ⦔, respectively. BRM3 was

73 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

a single-ramped, empty tomb thought to have been prepared for a lineage head. BRM4, about ten meters to the north of Yubo and Jing Ji’s tombs, possibly belonged to a family servant of Yubo. Although the four miniature bronzes were absent in these tombs, the pointed- and flat-bottom ceramic jar (in BRM1, BRM2, and BRM4), the willow leaf–shaped sword (in BRM1), and the use of human sacrifices (in BRM1 and BRM2) suggest the continuity of mortuary culture from the early Western Zhou period at ZYG to the middle Western Zhou period at RJZ. The lavishly designed jade pendants in BRM1 feature naturalistically rendered crouched felines and stags in side views, occasionally with the head looking backward (fig. 2.3: 3–4). The design and style of these pendants were inspired by the art created by communities in the Northern Zone in Inner Asia (So and Bunker 1995: 42–43). A rare portrayal of members in these communities was seen on three bronze chariot fittings found in two horse and chariot pits at RJZ (So and Bunker 1995: 27). Mortuary practices and associated material culture at RJZ, however, display three noticeable changes. The first is the shift from a lineage-based to a family-based cemetery. The second is the creation and use of local-style bronzes, and the third is Yu’s imitation and manipulation of Zhou writings.

FIGURE 2.3. Yu bronze weapons and jade pendants showing stylistic connections with the Northern Zone (1–5 from Lu and Hu 1988: 71–72, 74, 343–44, figs. 59–61, 237–38; 6 redrawn after Lu and Hu 1988, plate 69: 4)

74 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

These changes collectively project an increased concentration of power and wealth in the ruling family of the Yu lineage, a desire to utilize bronze casting to promote local identity, and the superficiality of Yu’s appreciation of Zhou writing and ritual culture (Li Feng 2002: 210–42; Yan Sun 2012: 55–74). The following discussions further show that these changes were motivated by Yu’s political ambition.

MORTUARY CHANGES AND THE EXPRESSION OF SOCIAL STATUS

The Yu cemetery at ZYG was organized according to kin relationships of the deceased. The layout of the cemetery reflects a sense of community rooted in kin relations of the deceased to one another (fig. 2.1). Tombs of Yubo and of other elite members and commoners were clustered together in the cemetery. The RJZ cemetery, on the other hand, seems to break that tradition. It was designed as a cemetery exclusively for the Yu ruling family. Surveys found no other tombs in the cemetery. The separation of the tombs of the Yubo family from the rest of the lineage members marks a shift from a mortuary tradition that was keen to preserve the kin relations of the deceased to one that highlighted the power of the lineage head. In ZFT and ZYG, the tombs of Yubo and others were both pit graves. At RJZ, however, long ramps were added to the tombs of Yubo and his wife Jing Ji, making both much larger and structurally complex. The use of tomb ramp(s) was seen in Shang royal tombs at Anyang and was further institutionalized by the Zhou as a prominent burial structure associated with the prestigious sociopolitical status of the deceased (Falkenhausen 2006: 100). It was reserved for Zhou royal members, regional rulers, and the heads of the major aristocratic lineages associated with the Zhou court. The use of ramps in Yubo and Jing Ji’s tombs is, therefore, considered by some a “violation” of Zhou ritual regulations (Tian, Liu, and Zhang 1994: 15–25). By adopting the ramps, the Yu ruler intended to elevate his social status in the framework of the Zhou ritual institution and consequently to earn a membership in the Zhou political sphere. The emphasis on the expression of individual power is further projected by Yu’s increasing use of human sacrifices. Both Yubo and Jing Ji were accompanied by an unusual number of human sacrifices. Seven human sacrifices, including three children and four adults (a female and three males), accompanied Yubo in BRM1. Five were buried on the ledges surrounding the

75 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

burial chamber, and the other two (a male and a female adult) in the earth fill next to the entrance of the burial chamber. In Jing Ji’s burial, an adolescent boy and a girl were sacrificed, one on the eastern ledge of the burial chamber and the other on the northern ledge. The use of human sacrifices was a distinctive choice that Yu made. Although this practice was popular in late Shang tombs at Anyang, it was generally not adopted by Zhou elite and was not commonly seen in tombs of the Zhou center, particularly during the middle Western Zhou period.

CASTING AND USE OF LOCAL-STYLE BRONZES IN MORTUARY ASSEMBLAGES

Inscriptions reveal that at least eight vessels in ZFT and ZYG tombs were commissioned by Yu lineage members Yubo and Yuji, and sixteen in the RJZ tombs by Yubo. It is likely that some of those un-inscribed bronzes could have also been commissioned by Yu elite. A closer look at the style of these vessels and the inscriptions on them reveals that at least some of them were likely cast locally (Li Feng 2002: 210–42). Two types of bronzes stand out from the sacrificial vessels in Yubo and Jing Ji’s tombs. The types, defined as Type A and Type B, feature a squat globe-shaped body and three short legs. Type A, identified as “ding” in the site report, has two small loop-shaped handles on the rim; Type B, identified as “gui,” is decorated with two pairs of high-relief ox-shaped handles with each holding a ring on the vessel’s belly (fig. 2.4: 1–2). Neither Type A vessel is inscribed. But each of the two Type B vessels (BRM1-A: 8 and BRM2: 11) is inscribed with “ding gui” 溶䮳, suggesting that the inscription likely refers to both Type A and Type B vessels.1 Yubo and Jing Ji were both given a set in their tombs. Both types borrowed the naming practice of Zhou vessels but are idiosyncratic in style, indicating Yu’s attempt to adopt the Zhou bronze culture with localized modification. Another novel phenomenon with regard to both types is that they were used as a standardized “ding-gui” set. In the western chamber of BRM1, a set of five “ding” or Type A vessels of the same style but of descending sizes, and four “gui” or Type B vessels of identical style and size, were used to accompany Yubo’s consort. This use pattern further reinforces the earlier proposal that the inscription “ding gui” refers to both types as a set. Some of the vessels bear a character “Er” ⃺. Scholars have noticed the

76 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

FIGURE 2.4. Type A (no. 1) and Type B (no. 2) bronzes and a bronze ding with its inscription from tomb BRM2 at Rujiazhuang (from Lu and Hu 1988: 364–65, 367, figs. 248–49, 251)

significance of this matching set of “ding” and “gui” and have proposed that they were the earliest cases of such matching sets (Rawson 1999: 421–22; Cao Wei 2000: 274–80). It is not clear, however, whether the use of a “dinggui” set by Yu as shown in this tomb was related in some ways to that of the standardized ding and gui set increasingly popular in late Western Zhou elite tombs in Zhou regional states such as Jin and Guo. The use of this “ding-gui” set was not a mainstream practice in Yu tombs, and the vessels’ quality is poor, with noticeable cracks on the rim and body (Cao Wei 2000: 274–80). Regardless, it can be considered an example of local experimentation by the Yu lineage.

77 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

EMULATION AND MODIFICATION OF ZHOU WRITING

Inscriptions on Yu bronzes of the early Western Zhou period differ markedly from inscriptions of the middle Western Zhou period. In their writing quality and calligraphic style, inscriptions on Yu bronzes of the early Western Zhou period are essentially indistinguishable from those on bronzes found in the Zhou center. Yet inscriptions on Yu bronzes of the middle Western Zhou period were generally scribbled, implying a lack of knowledge and appreciation of the standard writing used in the Zhou center (Li Feng 2002: 210–42). This point is well illustrated by inscriptions on two bronze ding commissioned by Yubo for Jing Ji (fig. 2.4: 3–4). The content and word count of both inscriptions are the same, but the sequence of the words differs. The inscription of twenty-four characters, the longest on a Yu bronze, is hard to read because of its frequent mistakes and distorted calligraphic forms. A careful study of both inscriptions shows that among the twenty-four characters, five are unreadable and another five can only be read by comparing both inscriptions and guessing based on context (Li Feng 2002: 210–42). The overall content of the inscription states that Jing Ji visited her own lineage temple to make offerings to her deceased father, named so and so Gong ℔, for whom Yubo, her husband, particularly commissioned a set of ding and gui for her use. The two bronze ding are rare examples of a husband commissioning vessels for his wife to present sacrifices to her ancestors. Often inscriptions record the husband commissioning vessels for his wife to fulfill her ritual duties in the lineage she was married into and to make sacrifices to his deceased parents and ancestors. Even on vessels given as dowries that were cast by the bride’s parents, inscriptions generally indicate that they were intended to be used for sacrifices to her in-laws (Chen Chaojung 2009: 18–96). Quite significantly, these are the only two inscriptions on Yu bronzes that bear the honorific posthumous name of the deceased, namely, Jing Ji’s father, so and so Gong XX (two unreadable characters). Inscriptions on eight early Western Zhou bronzes commissioned by Yubo and Yuji, all short, only bear generic phrases such as “Makes [this] treasured sacrificial vessel” (ἄ⮞⮲⼄), or “Treasured sacrificial vessel” (⮞⮲⼄), following the seniority title such as “Yubo” (or simply “Bo” or “Bo Ge”) or “Yuji.” All the inscriptions on the bronzes commissioned by Yubo at RJZ, except for the two previously mentioned, follow a simple format that records the name of the caster (Yubo) and/or of the recipient (Jing Ji) in addition to the verb representing the

78 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

action of casting: “Make” (ἄ) or “Self make” (冒ἄ or 冒䇚). It seems that the Yu artisans were aware of the Zhou practice of naming ancestors but only used it on bronzes cast for Jing Ji, which were supposedly used in the ancestral temple of her natal family. As for bronzes cast for their own use, the Yu elite showed little interest in following either the Shang or Zhou practices of naming ancestors. This fact separates Yu practice from that of other non-Ji lineages, such as Peng and Ba located in the lower Fen River Valley in southwestern Shaanxi, who instead demonstrated a genuine, deep appreciation of Zhou writing and ritual culture (see chapter 3). These two ding were among at least eight bronze vessels Yubo commissioned for Jing Ji for use in her lifetime. Such frequent casting activities for a wife were unprecedented in the Yu lineage and rare in the Western Zhou period. Yubo’s unusual patronage of bronzes and generous support for Jing Ji’s sacrifices for her natal family were closely tied to the influential status of the Jing lineage during the early half of the middle Western Zhou period. Yu’s marriage with the powerful Jing lineage clearly boosted the standing of Yubo and his lineage in the Western Zhou political sphere, as will be discussed further. Limited Connections with Bronze Cultures in the Northern Zone

Yu’s adoption of the material culture from regions further north and west of Baoji was limited. A double-handled pottery guan jar with a saddle-shaped opening and two connected jars with a single handle typical of the Siwa culture (c. 1400–700 bce) were found in BZM1 at ZYG (Lu and Hu 1988: 139–40). The nearly complete absence of the salient Siwa pottery type in other Yu tombs is remarkable given that pottery of the Siwa type was widely used at Mengyugou, about thirty meters west of RJZ (Lu and Hu 1988: 13–16). Only about 10 percent of the ceramic sherds found in three ash pits at RJZ are those of the high-collared and baggy-legged li typical of the local Liujia culture, suggesting that Yu had limited use of this local pottery type in daily life. None of the Yu tombs contained this local type, suggesting a deliberate rejection of such a vessel type in a mortuary space. Artifact types and ornamentation that originated in the Northern Zone were found in a few Yu tombs. For instance, a bronze mace head (BZM13: 163), a socketed ge (BZM13: 165), and a socketed yue 摢 (BZM13: 169) displayed on the outer coffin of tomb BZM13 are weapon types dominant in the Northern Zone (fig. 2.3: 1–2, 5) (Wu En 1985: 135–56; Li Gang 2011: 116–23). Another noticeable adoption of the artifacts originally from the Northern

79 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

Zone is the use of carnelian beads as pendant components. Carnelian beads made their way into the design of Yu ornaments likely by means of the Siwa culture (Rawson 2010: 1–42; Huang Tsuimei 2013: 95–151; Hommel and Sax 2014: 1213–28). The Yu were among the early groups that integrated a jade huáng arc and jade plaques with carnelian and turquoise beads to create pendants as shown in BZFM3 at ZFT and in BZM1 at ZYG (fig. 2.3: 6) (Huang Tsuimei 2013: 95–151). Active Construction of Regional Networks

Inscriptions on bronze vessels in the Yu tombs reveal that Yu had built a wide social network with a number of local and nonlocal lineages, including Ze ⣐, Feng 寸, Ling ⢴, Jing ḽ, Nangong ⋿⭖, and the Shigushan community (see the following section “The Shigushan Community”). Yu’s contacts with Ze and Ling may have lasted for generations. A pair of bronze li commissioned by Zebo, the head of the Ze lineage, was found in Yubo’s tomb BZFM1 at ZFT, dating to the reign of King Cheng (Lu and Hu 1988: 24). Similarly, Yubo’s tomb BRM1 at RJZ, dating to the reign of King Mu, contained a highfired proto-porcelain dou that bears the name “Ze” (painted by brush and fired) (Lu and Hu 1988: 358). The Ling lineage was likely situated to the north or west of the present-day city of Baoji (Lu and Hu 1988: 420–21). A bronze zhi (BZM4: 3) commissioned by Lingbo ⢴ỗ, the head of the Ling lineage, was buried in Yuji’s tomb BZM4, dating roughly to the late phase of King Zhao’s reign. In Jing Ji’s tomb, dating to King Mu’s reign, a bronze li commissioned by Ling Ji ⢴⦔, a lady of the Ji surname who married into the Ling lineage, was also found. A square ding (M3: 5) in M3 at ZFT bears a graph “Hu” ㇞, suggesting that the vessel originally belonged to a member of the Hu lineage (Zhang Tian’en 2015b: 32–42, 61). A recently discovered cemetery at Shigushan is thought by some to belong to the Hu lineage. These vessels could have been brought into Yu through marriages or as funerary gifts. Yu also established contacts with lineages residing in the Zhou center. A round ding commissioned by the Duke of Feng (Fenggong 寸℔) was found in BZM7, indicating the likelihood that Yu had contacts with the Feng lineage, probably a branch of the Zhou royal lineage located west of the Feng River (Cai and Chen 1983: 69–71, 52). A ding (BRM2: 8) in Jing Ji’s tomb is inscribed with “Bo makes [for] Nangong X [this] gui vessel” (ỗἄ⋿ ⭓ X 䮳), indicating that Bo ỗ made the vessel for someone of the Nangong lineage of the Ji surname. Based on the convention of Western Zhou

80 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

bronze inscription, we can be almost certain that this gui was made for a woman. If Bo refers to Yubo and the receiver of the vessel was his wife, the inscription would suggest that Yu had marriage relation with the Nangong lineage derived from Nangong Kuo ⋿⭖㊔, a powerful figure at the Zhou court during the early Western Zhou period. The Nangong lineage played a critical role in assisting the Zhou court to manage the volatile southern frontiers (Huang and Hu 2014b: 41–45). Recent archaeological discoveries have unveiled Wester Zhou cemeteries of Zeng 㚦, a Zhou regional state bestowed to the Nangong lineage, in the Jianghan 㰇㻊 Plain in Hubei 㷾⊿ (HB, HWKY, and SB 2013). The most noticeable expansion of Yu’s social network during the middle Western Zhou period, however, was through the marriage with the Jing lineage. As inscriptions have indicated, Yubo married Jing Ji, a woman of the Jing lineage. Jing was likely a northern neighbor of Yu. The major branch of the lineage is thought to have been active in the Qian River valley, north of Baoji (Sena 2005: 224–28). Jing was politically active and strong during the Western Zhou period. Its influence and power likely peaked during the early half of the middle Western Zhou period, when Jingbo ḽỗ, the lineage head, held the senior position of Supervisor of Horses (sīmaˇ ⎠楔), a high rank at the Zhou court (Han Wei 2007a: 127–52). A minor branch of the lineage headed by Jingshu ḽ⍼, the third born, was dispatched to Zhangjiapo ⻝⭞✉ in the Zhou capital region during the late phase of the early Western Zhou period to maintain Jing’s active connections with the court and to ensure that their members remained at the service of the king. In this context, Yu’s marriage with the powerful Jing lineage could have been politically motivated, aiming to boost Yu’s power and prestige in the region. The large number of vessels commissioned by Yubo for Jing Ji, as previously analyzed, is a testament to the political significance of this relationship. Contacts with other communities provided a venue for the limited spread of Yu material culture. The pointed-bottom ceramic jar, a signature vessel of Yu, was present in the Shigushan community, though in a limited fashion (more details in the following section). The most influential aspect of the Yu material culture was the willow leaf–shaped sword, which has been found in more than a dozen early Western Zhou communities across a large geographical area (Yan Sun 2018: 120–51). Its spread to those communities can be largely traced back to the Yu lineage. The sword, however, seems to have been transformed into a prestige or exotic good that was treasured by the elite in those communities, rather than a material symbol of the Yu lineage.

81 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

THE SHIGUSHAN COMMUNITY

The Shigushan community was centered at the Shizuitou 䞛◜⣜ village, about six kilometers southwest of the city center of Baoji (map 2.1). From 2012 to 2014, archaeological surveys and excavations revealed fourteen tombs of the late Shang and early Western Zhou periods and other material remains, including ash pits, houses, and kilns, in an area of 240,000 square meters on the hilly terrain south of the Wei River. Materials in four tombs (M1–M4) have been briefly reported (Shigushan kaogudui 2013a: 3–24, 2013b: 4–54; SKY, BKY, and BWB 2016: 5–52). One hundred and ten artifacts (all but three are bronzes) from the four tombs (mostly M3) were on display in an exhibition held at the Shanghai Museum in 2014 and were subsequently published in a catalog (SKY, BWL, and SB 2014: 54–275). Data on other tombs were not formally published but were briefly discussed in articles published by the excavators (Ding 2015: 23–41; Wang Zhankui 2015: 43–51). These published data are the primary evidence for the following analysis. The fourteen tombs formed two clusters (fig. 2.5). The northern cluster consisted of nine tombs (M1–M9) with the head of the deceased oriented north. The large tombs (M3, M4, and M9) had a surface area of thirteen square meters or more, but the small ones (M5, M6, M7, and M8) had a surface area less than three square meters. The sizes of M1 and M2 are unknown due to damage. About ninety-two bronze vessels were found in six tombs (M1–M5 and M9). The two largest and richest tombs, M3 and M4, contained twenty-nine and fifty vessels, respectively (table 2.3). Such extraordinary collections of bronze vessels helped the site win the “China’s Top Ten Archaeological Discoveries of 2013” award (QSKXHB 2014). The southwestern cluster consisted of five small tombs (M12 and M18– M21). Unlike in the tombs of the northern cluster, the heads of the deceased in these tombs were oriented east. No bronze vessels were found in these tombs. M19 and M20 contained a bronze ge and an arrowhead, respectively. The other three tombs contained only pottery. The spatial separation of the two clusters could have suggested a distinction between elites and commoners, but more data are needed to draw a definite conclusion. Although bronzes of the early Western Zhou period were found at Shigushan in the past (Gao Ciruo 1991: 11–16, 1993: 39–42), the discovery of the fourteen tombs with their rich, diverse artifacts and well-preserved archaeological contexts enables us, for the first time, to examine in depth this previously unknown community. The large collection of bronzes in the

82 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

N

0

100 cm

FIGURE 2.5. Layout of the Shigushan cemetery and of tomb M4 (from SKY, BKY, and BWB 2016: 5–6, figs. 2–3)

tombs makes Shigushan one of the prominent communities known to date in Baoji. The lineage background of Shigushan residents, however, is unclear. Inscriptions on bronze vessels from M3 reveal over ten lineage signs, complicating the effort to uncover the possible identity of the deceased. Three vessels of the early phase of the early Western Zhou period, a square yi 㕡⼅ wine container and a pair of you, bear the same lineage sign “Hu” ㇞ and were prominently placed on a bronze altar table in niche K3 of M3. “Hu” by far is the most frequently occurring lineage sign on bronzes in the tomb. In addition, because of the vessels’ flamboyant style and superb casting technique, some researchers, including the excavators, propose that the deceased were very likely of the Hu lineage (Shigushan kaogudui 2013a: 3–24; Wang, Liu, and Xin 2013: 77–85; Liu Junshe 2014: 21–29; Zhang Tian’en 2015b: 32–42, 61). Others attribute the deceased to Xiguo 大嘊, the Ran ℱ lineage, the Youhu 㚱ㇰ lineage, an unknown native community at Baoji, or even to remnants of Shang (Liu and Liu 2013: 53–57; Peng Xi 2013: 50–53; Zhang Maorong 2014: 41–45). Eight of the fifty bronze vessels in M4 are inscribed. The inscriptions reveal at least seven lineages, making the identification of

83 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

the lineage background of the deceased once again challenging. Two horse frontlets out of the eight bronzes found at the same site in 1983 also bear the lineage sign “Hu” (Gao Ciruo 1991: 11–16). That discovery lends more support to the proposal that the Shigushan site was the remains of the Hu lineage. The use of niches in pit graves is also typical in tombs of the Liujia culture in the Baoji area. Often one or more niches were used to display burial offerings, primarily pottery (BKG 1998: 1–6; Wang Zhankui 2015: 43–51). Niches were used in the three largest tombs at Shigushan. This connection with the indigenous Liujia culture has led some to suggest that the Shigushan community belonged to an indigenous lineage of the Jiang surname (Shigushan kaogudui 2013a: 3–24). The following discussions focus on how the Shigushan community used material culture to define its local cultural tradition while, at the same time, it became an active participant in the new Zhou political and cultural sphere. Local Roots and Selective Use of Foreign-Style Pottery

About two dozen ceramic vessels are reported at Shigushan. Their varied style and selective use carry rich cultural messages. Pottery in the ash pit H36 near M4 has not been formally published, but limited descriptions by the excavators reveal that the ash pit contained at least three ceramic types derived from different ceramic traditions (Wang Zhankui 2015: 43–51; Zhang Tian’en 2015a: 57–67). The first type is represented by the pointedbottom guan jars and bowls (fig. 2.6: 1–3). These artifacts are signature ceramic types of the neighboring Yu lineage (see the section “A Unique Lifestyle Seen Through Small Artifacts”). To the Shigushan community, pointed-bottom jars and bowls were likely “foreign” or exotic types borrowed from its neighbor. The second type is exemplified by joint-crotched ceramic li tripods (fig. 2.6: 5). This type of li was widely used in Guanzhong and was introduced to Baoji during the late Shang period in the late second millennium bce (Zhang Tian’en 2004: 13–29). Its popularity accelerated after the conquest of the Shang and was concurrent with the spread of Zhou rule in the eastern region, including the Zhou eastern capital, Chengzhou, and the newly established regional states. This makes it a “national type” within the Zhou political sphere.

84 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

1

4

2

5

3

6

FIGURE 2.6. Three types of pottery at Shigushan (1–5 redrawn after Wang Zhankui 2015: 46, figs. 2–4; 6 from Shigushan kaogudui 2013a: 20, fig. 37)

The third type is the high-collared, baggy-legged, divided-crotch li, a signature type of the native Liujia culture since the late Shang period (fig. 2.6: 4, 6) (Zhang Tian’en 2004: 277–319). This type can be categorized as indigenous. The juxtaposition of the three pottery types with different cultural roots indicates not only the dynamism of cultural interactions among various groups at Baoji but also the collective use of these types in the daily life of the Shigushan community. It shows the community’s close cultural interactions with other groups and its openness in adopting others’ pottery types for everyday use. A different picture, however, emerges in mortuary space, where the use of pottery was more restricted. Of the three types of pottery used in daily life, the foreign or exotic type was absent in tombs. Only the joint-crotched li, the indigenous divided-crotch li, and the guan jar with rounded shoulders and a flat bottom (a type frequently seen in early Western Zhou tombs in the Zhou center) were used in tombs. Tombs of the elite and of commoners varied in their use of the two types of li. The small tombs contained jointcrotched ceramic li and/or the local types, suggesting that commoners chose

85 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

either type based on their personal preferences. The three richest tombs reported (M3, M4, and M9), however, only used a high-collared, baggylegged, divided-crotch li. This contrast suggests that the elite limited their choice exclusively to the native type, reflecting an attempt to preserve aspects of their indigenous culture in mortuary practice. The effort by the local elite to promote their indigenous culture is also manifested in the use of niches. Niches were used in tombs of the late phase of the Nianzipo 䡦⫸✉ culture in the Jing River valley and in tombs of the Liujia culture roughly from the early twelfth century to 1000 bce (Zhang and Xie 2016: 21–26). Niches in those tombs, often ranging from one to three and containing burial goods, can be categorized as a head niche (in front of the head of the deceased) or occasionally as side niches. A niche was used in both large and small tombs, indicating that it was a shared burial practice across the social spectrum of the communities. This local burial feature continued to be used in the three largest tombs (M3, M4, and M9) at Shigushan. More impressive is that the number of niches expanded to six and eight in M3 and M4, respectively (fig. 2.5). The expenditure for the construction of such niched tombs was evidently greater and suggests the considerable wealth and power of the elite of the Shigushan community. The use of niches again highlights that the elite played an active role in preserving the local cultural tradition. Something Old and Something New: Bronzes in Tombs and the Messages They Conveyed

Shigushan bronzes are impressive for the diverse cultural traditions they embody and the multiple provenances they represent. The juxtaposition of bronzes with the local, late Shang style at Anyang next to the new style created at the beginning of the Zhou dynasty in M3 and M4 allows us to examine the underlying messages behind such a mixture. The emphasis on the local can be readily observed through the selection of several types of bronzes, particularly ding and gui. The local-style ding and gui are characterized by the same decorative scheme of confronting birds or dragons below the rim and hobnails within geometric diamond patterns on the body. The ding vessels (e.g., M3: 28, M1: 5, and M2: 2) feature a round body sitting on three cylindrical legs and surmounted by two U-shaped handles (fig. 2.7: 1 for M1: 5), and the gui (e.g., M4: 103, 301) feature a bowl-shaped body on a sloped ring foot. Minor differences between the execution of hobnails on

86 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

the ding and the gui can be observed. On the ding, the hobnails are relatively flat and bosslike, but on the gui, they are in cone shapes. The gui often have thin walls and blurry decorative motifs, reflecting their inferior casting quality. In smaller tombs, M1 and M2, hobnail-decorated ding and gui formed the core of the food-focused vessel assemblage. Of the twenty-one ding and twenty-two gui in M3 and M4, one ding and four gui in M3 and two ding and nine gui in M4 are hobnail-decorated ding and gui vessels. This type of bronze gui was used by local communities of the Liujia culture in the late second millennium bce prior to the conquest. Hobnail-decorated ding and gui were often used as a set along with local-type pottery, and therefore they are thought to be native products (Zhang Tian’en 2015b: 32–42, 61). A few hobnail-decorated, bowl-shaped gui in the Shigushan tombs may have been passed-down pieces manufactured by local foundries prior to the conquest. But a nicely cast gui (M1: 4) in M1 shows greatly improved quality (fig. 2.7: 2), suggesting that this local type continued to be made in the early Western Zhou period but with a more sophisticated casting technique. The second type includes bronzes commissioned by members of various lineages that were primarily active during the Shang dynasty. A few bronzes serve as examples in this category: the Niao Fujia ding 沍䇞䓚溶 (M3: 1) (fig. 2.7: 3), the Wan yan 叔䒿 (M3: 6), and the Fujia X hu 䇞䓚 X ⢢ (M3: 16) in M3; and the two Fuding ding 䇞ᶩ溶 (M4: 202, 303), the Weiyayi square ding 杳Ṇḁ㕡溶 (M4: 503) (fig. 2.7: 4), and the X lei 仵 (M4: 304) in M4. Inscriptions on these bronzes carry lineage signs and/or illustrate the Shang practice of using “heavenly stems” (tiāngān ⣑⸡) (a part of the Shang calendar system) to name ancestors. A recent study attributes these vessels to foundries at Anyang and suggests that they were “awarded vessels” issued by the Zhou court to the lineage for its participation in the Zhou conquest of the Shang (Zhang Tian’en 2015b: 32–42, 61). But not all vessels with Shang lineage signs support this proposal. Some lineages of the Shang period continued to be active during the Western Zhou period. A you (M3: 17) in M3 (fig. 2.7: 10), for instance, was cast by an individual of the Shan ╖ lineage and is decorated with confronting birds with floral crests and grooves on the belly. Such a design is also seen on two you vessels inscribed with the lineage name “Hu” ㇞ in the same tomb (fig. 2.7: 9) and is thought to have been a newly created style at Baoji at the beginning of the early Western Zhou period. If so, the you can be dated to the early Western Zhou period and cannot be an awarded vessel. The vessel could have been a funerary gift from the Shan lineage to a member of the Shigushan community. No matter how

87 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

10 FIGURE 2.7. Three styles of bronzes from the Shigushan cemetery (1–3, 8–9 from Shigushan kaogudui 2013a: 6, 10, 11, 14, 16, figs. 5–6, 16, 18, 22, 25; 4–6 from SKY, BKY, and BWB 2016: 41, 43, 49, figs. 72, 74, 81; 10 from Shigushan kaogudui 2013b: 37, fig. 48)

these vessels made their way into the Shigushan tombs, they embodied new meanings that deviated from their original intent. They reflect the Shigushan elites’ access to the newly acquired wealth of Zhou and their connections with the Zhou court and likely with the remnants of Shang. The third type represents the most recent bronzes interred in tombs and can be dated to the early phase of the early Western Zhou period. The examples in M3 include a ding (M3: 2), a square-based gui (M3: 27) (fig. 2.7: 7), two jin 䤩 altar tables (M3: 21, 25), the Hu you ㇞⌋ (M3: 20, 23), and the Hu square yi ㇞㕡⼄ (M3: 24) (fig. 2.7: 8); and the examples in M4 include two animal-shaped zun (M4: 212, 214) (fig. 2.7: 5), a gui (M4: 208) (fig. 2.7: 6), a square-based gui (M4: 314), and a pair of fu 䯈 (M4: 803, 808) (fig. 2.7). These vessels are remarkable for their size. The Hu square yi, for instance,

88 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

is 63.7 centimeters tall, and the two you (M3: 20, 23) are 50 and 36 centimeters tall, respectively. There is also a great emphasis on their surface decorations. The main decorative motifs revolve around confronting birds, vertical grooves, and various combinations of the two. This design is rarely seen in other regions of the Western Zhou period. The main motif, such as the confronting birds on the two Hu you, is executed with three layers of motifs: the square spiral background, the birds, and incised geometric motifs on top of the birds. The animal-face motifs dominant in the late Shang bronzes at Anyang rarely appear on this group of bronzes. This fact suggests that their castors intended to move away from the typical late Shang period design and to come up new artistic vocabularies to represent their tastes. To accentuate the visual attraction of the vessel, flanges with curved ends, hooked protrusions, and animal heads (water buffalo and fantastic animals) were sometimes added. Vessels closely resembling Shigushan examples are also found in the tombs of neighboring Yu and Daijiawan communities, indicating a possible shared provenance and a production foundry for these vessels. Noticeably, inscriptions are rare in this group of vessels, suggesting that inscribing on bronzes was not a practice that local elites were keen to adopt. The emergence of this group of vessels at Shigushan reveals accessibility to the needed raw material and a fine casting technique, both of which could only have occurred through close political ties to the Zhou court. Bronze ji ㇇ halberds and horse frontlets of two horns, both newly designed implements for Zhou chariot warfare, were also used in Shigushan tombs (Wu Xiaoyun 2013: 64–69). Tomb M3, for instance, was furnished with twenty-three ji halberds and a horned horse frontlet. The assemblages of bronze vessels in Shigushan tombs are consistent with those in elite tombs in other regions of the Western Zhou period. Vessels in M3 and M4 are characterized by their sheer quantity and striking diversity. M3 contained twenty-nine vessels of thirteen types, and M4 fifty vessels of eleven types, including food, wine, and water vessels (table 2.3). This impressive scale of bronze use can only be found in tombs of other top-ranking elite during the Western Zhou period, such as the tombs of Zenghou 㚦ὗ and Jinhou 㗳ὗ (the rulers of Zhou regional states Zeng and Jin, respectively). The diversity of vessel types corresponds to the elaborateness and complexity of the funerary ritual. Among the twenty-nine vessels in M3, there are 13 (45 percent) food vessels, 12 (41 percent) wine vessels, and two (7 percent) water vessels. In M4, the funerary assemblage is decisively dominated by food vessels (38 or 76 percent), followed by wine vessels (9 or 18 percent).

89 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

TABLE 2.3 Type and number of bronze vessels in four tombs at the Shigushan cemetery Food vessels Tomb number

ding gui 溶 䮳

M1

1

1

M2

1

2

M3∗

6

6

M4

15

16

fu 䯈

Water vessels

yan zeng 䒿 䒹

yu 䙪

1 2

4

pan 䚌

1 1

2

1

he 䙱

1

Wine vessels jue 䇝

1

lei 仵

zun you ⮲ (䈢⮲) ⌋

1

1

1

1

1

6

4

1 (2)

Others

hu ⢢

1

zhi square 妗 yi 㕡⼄

1

1

jin 䤩

2

2

∗In

addition to the vessels listed here, M3 also contained two bronze dou 㔿 ladles. This chart does not count them as separate vessels since ladles were often used with wine vessels as a set.

It is notable that the gu, a core type in late Shang funerary sacrifices at Anyang and sometimes found in early Western Zhou tombs, has not been found in Shigushan tombs so far. It further underscores Shigushan’s minimal connection to the Shang sacrificial culture. Local Contacts and Close Ties to the Zhou Court

Material remains at Shigushan have revealed traces of contacts between the community and other groups inside and outside the Baoji region. The skeleton in M4 was poorly preserved. But based on the lack of bronze weapons in the tomb and its proximity to M3, the occupant of M4 is thought to be the wife of the occupant in M3 (Wang and Ding 2014: 13–19; SKY, BKY, and BWB 2016: 5–52). The short inscriptions on bronzes in her tomb, however, fail to establish her lineage identity. Her burial goods closely resemble her husband’s and prominently display local cultural traditions, indicating that she was of either a local lineage with a shared cultural tradition or of a lineage outside the region but whose identity was indigenized through funeral ritual. Yu and the lineage at Daijiawan ㇜⭞䀋 were two other groups in the region that could have had contacts with Shigushan. Daijiawan, only about five kilometers away, was a close neighbor of Shigushan. Tombs at Daijiawan were severely looted in the 1920s (Gao, Liu, and Li 2006: 1–18). A recent study has identified at least 145 bronze vessels that could have originally come from the site (Ren Xueli 2012: 47–67). A comprehensive catalog of Daijiawan bronzes was also recently published (Chen

90 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

Chaojung 2015). Daijiawan and Shigushan are the two sites in Baoji that yielded the most bronze vessels to date. Given the scale of the tombs and the quality and quantity of bronze vessels found at both sites, it is likely that both communities were major political players in the region during the Western Zhou period. The overwhelming similarity of their bronzes leads some to propose that the two communities may have been two branches of the same lineage (Ren Xueli 2014: 30–40; Zhang Maorong 2014: 41–45). Unfortunately, inscriptions on bronzes at both sites fail to establish the lineage identity of either community. Contacts between the Shigushan community and the Yu lineage can be observed through multiple aspects of their material cultures. Shigushan adopted the pointed-bottom guan jars in domestic space, as shown in the ash pit H36. This type of guan is one of Yu’s signature ceramic wares. Tomb M3 yielded a bronze ge (M3: 62) decorated with a tiger motif. Similar tiger motifs can be found on bronze ge in Yu tombs. More interestingly, a Yu tomb at ZFT yielded a bronze square ding (2003 BZFM3: 5) inscribed with the character “Hu” ㇞, and the same character was also found on bronze vessels at Shigushan (Zhang Tian’en 2015b: 32–42, 61). It is not a surprise that the two communities interacted with each other given that they were close neighbors, only about eight kilometers apart. As previously discussed, the large collection of late Shang–style bronze vessels found in M3 could have been awarded by the Zhou court to the lineage at Shigushan for its contribution in the military campaign against the Shang. Based on the reading of the inscription on a ding of King Cheng’s reign in M3 (M3: 81), Li Xueqin 㛶⬠⊌ (2013b: 56–58) proposes a close political tie between the Shigushan community and the Zhou court. Others argue along the same line and suggest that Yi Jiang 怹⦄, the wife of King Wu, could be a lady of the Shigushan community and the ding could have been a funerary gift from her to a member of her natal lineage on behalf of the court (Xin and Wang 2014: 26–28). If so, the Shigushan community could have been one of the marriage partners of the Zhou royal family, which was certainly a great source of prestige, power, and wealth. But these are speculations at this point and need more evidence to support them. Nevertheless, the possession of a large number of elegantly designed and finely cast bronzes and their extraordinary display in tombs vividly reflect the newly acquired fortunes of the Shigushan community during the early Western Zhou period. We do not have much archaeological data about this community during the middle and late Western Zhou periods. How long their fortunes lasted remains unclear.

91 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

THE ZE LINEAGE

Like the Yu lineage, Ze does not appear in transmitted texts. The lineage came to light after a string of discoveries of bronzes inscribed with the character “Ze” ⣐. About thirty-five bronze vessels, weapons, and horse ornaments bearing the name “Ze” were found at Baoji and surrounding regions (Lu and Hu 1988: 417–19; Chen Chaojung 2012: 251–86). Seventeen of them were discovered at nine locations at Baoji. These sites are distributed along the Qian River, with high concentrations in Long County 晜䷋ in the north and Jiacun 屰㛹 Township in the south (map 2.1). Bronzes at Nanpo ⋿✉, Doujitai, and Zhifangtou are from excavated tombs, while others are accidental finds with no clear archaeological context. A few bronzes, such as the Ze Wang zhi ⣐䌳妗 (JC: 6452) and the Sanshi pan 㔋㮷䚌 (JC: 10176), known to scholars since the Qing 㶭 dynasty or the early Republic, are thought to have come from the Baoji area originally. Analysis of the find spots of Ze bronzes suggests that Ze likely lived at Long County from the late Shang to early Western Zhou periods and expanded southward to Jiacun near the present-day Baoji municipal seat during the late Western Zhou period (Liu Qiyi 1982: 42–45; Huang Shengzhang 1983: 298–305; Xiao 1991: 1–10). To trace the lineage background of Ze, scholars have focused on inscriptions that contain the surname of the noblewomen with whom Ze had marriage relations. Those inscriptions help reveal the surname of Ze based on the practice of exogamy during the Zhou time. Two inscriptions on the Ze Wang gui ⣐䌳䮳 (JC: 3871) and the Sanbo gui 㔋ỗ䮳 (JC: 3777–3780) are thought to have offered crucial evidence to decipher the lineage background of Ze (Wang and Gao 1983: 6–8; Wang Guangyong 1984: 18–20). The inscription on the lid of the Ze Wang gui states that “the king of Ze makes [for] Zheng Jiang 惕⦄ [this] sacrificial gui; may [his] sons and grandsons treasure and use [it] for ten thousand years” (⣐䌳᷵(ἄ)⤈(惕)⦄⮲䮳; ⫸⫸⬓⬓℞ 叔⸜㯠⮞䓐). The inscription on the Sanbo gui reads, “Sanbo makes [for] Ze Ji [this] treasured gui; may [it] be treasured and used for ten thousand years” (㔋ỗἄ⣐⦔⮞䮳; ℞叔⸜㯠ᾅ䓐). Different readings of these inscriptions, however, have led some to identify Ze as a lineage of the Jiang surname but others to identify Ze as a lineage of the Ji surname (Lu and Yin 1982: 48–57; Huang Shengzhang 1983: 298–305; Zhang Zhenglang 1986: 174–80). Studies also present opposite proposals on the relations between the Ze and Yu 嘆 (or Wu ⏜) polity recorded in the Book of Poetry and Grand Scribe’s Records (Zhang Xiaohen 1958, 3: 61–81, 4: 81–98; Liu Qiyi 1982: 42–45; Chen Chaojung

92 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

2017: 189–208). A recent comprehensive study integrating the inscriptions with historical geography points out that Ze was most likely of the Ji surname (Chen Chaojung 2012: 251–86). This conclusion can be supported by the manner in which noblewomen were named in the Zhou period (Li Feng 2018: 101–2). Some suggest further that the Ze likely descended from a branch of the Zhou ruling family or shared the same ancestry with the Zhou (Liu Qiyi 1982: 42–45). The Ze lineage was a major player at Baoji throughout the Western Zhou period. Material remains, though limited, shed some light on Ze cultural and political lives in the multi-lineage environment in this frontier. Inscriptions on bronzes reveal marriages and rivalries between Ze and other groups and, more importantly, underscore a great degree of political independence. Bronzes and Tombs: A Close Alignment with the Zhou

Twenty-eight out of the thirty-five bronzes connected to Ze were cast by individuals of the lineage. The other seven were cast by members of the San and Yuan lineages for their wives who were from the Ze lineage. Bronzes cast by Ze lineage members include seventeen items, such as weapons and horse and chariot ornaments typically inscribed with the character “Ze” ⣐ and eleven vessels with longer inscriptions. The type, shape, and decoration of the vessels and the writing style and sentence structure of the inscriptions share common features with their counterparts in the Zhou center. The six early Western Zhou vessels—1 pair of ding and one pair of gui, one yan, and one you—are typical of the style of the Zhou center. The ding (LNM6: 1) in M6 at Nanpo resembles the Xian Hou ding 䌣ὗ溶 (JC: 2626) of King Cheng’s reign (fig. 2.8: 1) (Lu and Yin 1982: 48–57). It is characterized by a three-lobed body and cylindrical legs. Ze vessels of the middle and late Western Zhou periods continued to be stylistically consistent with those in the Zhou center, as illustrated by a gui commissioned by Ze Shu ⣐⍼ found at Dingtongcun ᶩ䪍㛹 in Qishan ⰸⰙ, as well as a square xu 䚐 commissioned by a Ze lineage member discovered at Futuocun ㈞㈀㛹 (fig. 2.8: 2) (Gao Ciruo 1984: 107; Pang and Cui 1990: 50–52, 57). The bowl of the gui is elevated by three elephant trunk–like legs and decorated with groove patterns, a design popular in the middle Western Zhou period. The xu (selfnamed) has a square-round body with intertwined dragon motifs around the rim and is supported by four cylindrical legs. The square-round body shape was typical of xu or gui during the late Western Zhou period (Zhu Fenghan

93 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

3

2

1

4

5

6

FIGURE 2.8. Ze bronzes and pottery (1, 3, 6 from Lu and Yin 1982: 50, 53, 54, figs. 4, 11, 14; 2 from Pang and Cui 1990: 50, fig. 1; 4–5 redrawn after Lu and Yin 1982: 52, figs. 9–10)

2009: 1313). Such stylistic parallels suggest that, regardless of where the vessels were cast, Ze must have maintained active contacts with the Zhou center throughout the Western Zhou period (Lu and Yin 1982: 48–57). The use of bronzes in Ze tombs is again consistent with that in elite tombs in the Zhou center. Nanpo in Long 晜 County is an excavated site that can be attributed to the Ze lineage. The site includes a residential area in the west and a cemetery in the east. The residential area has not been excavated, but remains of house floors, storage pits, and sherds can be observed on the surface. A small-scale excavation at the cemetery in 1974 uncovered four tombs dated to the early Western Zhou period (Lu and Yin 1982: 48–57). The largest tomb, LNM6, about twelve square meters in surface area, was furnished with three food vessels—one ding (previously discussed), one gui, and one yan— and one wine vessel zun, seven bronze ge, and fifty-seven horse and chariot

94 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

ornaments. One ge (LNM6: 5) in the tomb is inscribed with “Zezhong” ⣐ ẚ (fig. 2.8: 3). LNM1 and LNM2 are medium-sized tombs, about five to six square meters in surface area, respectively. Neither contained bronze vessels. LNM1 was partly destroyed, with only one ge in it. LNM2 contained a wide collection of horse and chariot pieces, five ge, one lacquer shield, and twentyone shells. Three horse frontlets (dānglú 䔞䚏) bear the character “Ze” ⣐. The smallest tomb, LNM5, was severely damaged and left with a ceramic guan jar and a li. These tomb variations indicate the noticeable differences in status and wealth in the community; the deceased buried in LNM1, LNM2, and LNM6 were likely elite members of varied ranks, and the one in LNM5 was likely a commoner. The four tombs broadly resemble those in the Zhou center in architecture and furnishings. They are rectangular pit graves that are equipped with secondary ledges on which groups of vessels, weapons, and other furnishings were often placed. The use of niches in tombs, a structure popular with the Liujia culture at Baoji, was absent. Elite tombs were differentiated not only by their size but also by the quantity and type of bronze vessels, weapons, and horse and chariot ornaments in them. The vessels were exclusively food vessels (no wine vessels), and the weapons were mostly of the ge type, reflecting a familiar pattern that has been observed in elite tombs in the Zhou center and regional states. There are few finds of pottery that can be associated with the Ze lineage. Tomb LNM5 provides a rare case of pottery use in Ze tombs. It contained two ceramic pots, a li (M5: 2) and a guan (M5: 1), a set consistent with that of other tombs in the region (fig. 2.8: 4–5). The li with a joint crotch and thick robe patterns was a popular type in the region. The guan has a flat bottom and sloped shoulders and has two narrow C-shaped handles attached. Its body is decorated with thin robe patterns and is more cylindrical than circular, a shape that could derive from Siwa pottery. If so, the vessel would be a rare example of stylistic integration of Siwa- and Zhou-style guan. Political Autonomy and the Use of the “Wáng” Appellation

Close cultural alignment with the Zhou center did not stop Ze from pursuing a high degree of political independence. Inscriptions on Ze vessels repeatedly reveal that the head of the lineage proclaimed himself “king” (wáng 䌳) throughout the Western Zhou period. On three early Western Zhou vessels—a square ding cover (JC: 2149), a zhi (JC: 6452), and a you

95 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

in the collection of the Shanghai Museum (Lu and Hu 1988: 418)—all the inscriptions state that the precious, sacrificial vessel was cast by “king of Ze” (Ze wáng ⣐䌳). Interestingly, inscriptions on vessels cast roughly in the same period also show that “Ze” adopted the Zhou convention of using “Bo” to refer to their lineage head. Moreover, Ze used the title “king” not only to make a self-proclamation of autonomous power but also to fulfill the duties of that role, much like the Zhou king did. On the Tong you ⎴⌋ (JC: 5398), a middle Western Zhou wine vessel now in the collection of the Nanjing Museum, the inscription states: ⓗ⋩⍰Ḵ㚰, ⣐䌳岄⎴慹干, ⺻䞊, ⎴⮵㎂䌳ẹ, 䓐ἄ䇞ㆲ⮞⮲⼄ In the eleventh month, the king of Ze awarded Tong a metal chariot and arrows. Tong extols the king’s virtue and casts [this] sacrificial vessel to commemorate his father Wu.

This inscription exactly copies the structure and format of inscriptions recording the Zhou king’s awards to subordinates. The Ze ruler also uses the title “king” in the inscription on a vessel cast for his wife. The inscription on the lid of the aforementioned Ze Wang gui of the late Western Zhou period, for example, cast by the Ze ruler for his wife Zheng Jiang 惕⦄, uses the title “king” (JC: 3871) (fig. 2.8: 6) (Lu and Yin 1982: 48–57). In the inscription on the famous Sanshi pan 㔋㮷䚌 (JC: 10176), dated to the reign of King Li that records a land dispute and settlement contract between the Ze and San polities, the Ze ruler is referred as king of Ze. This is highly significant because the vessel was cast by the San lineage. The San lineage, despite being an adversary of the Ze lineage in this case, accepted the use of “king of Ze” in this formal document, signifying that Ze’s self-proclaimed title at least received a certain degree of acknowledgment by other local polities at Baoji. All these details indicate Ze’s strong political autonomy and growing political ambition. Curiously, Ze’s political ambition did not seem to stir up confrontations with the Zhou court. The continuous use of the title “king” throughout the Western Zhou period suggests that the court must have not considered Ze a serious threat to its power. This was not the case, however, for the Guai ruler. Zhou king Yih sent Duke Yi to subdue the Guai polity, and the defeat brought to the court the lineage head Meiao, who made a promise not to disappoint the king’s beneficence. The Ze rulers’ political

96 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

ambition and expansion primarily focused on the Baoji region; their victims were neighboring polities such as Yu and San. Lu Liancheng proposes that the Ze ruler adopted the title “king” in the later part of the early Western Zhou period after King Cheng’s reign (Lu Liancheng 1984: 232–48). This was likely a prelude to the Ze polity’s increasing aggressiveness in the following middle and late Western Zhou periods. Regional Expansion and Political Ambition

Material remains and inscriptions on bronzes have revealed that the Ze lineage was an active player interacting with other peer polities in the Baoji region and the Jing River valley through marriage, gifting, and conflicts. The Ze lineage likely had matrimonial relations with at least four lineages throughout the Western Zhou period. The Ze sent their brides to Lingtai in the upper Jing River valley, where burials of Yuanbo and his associates dated to the early phase of the early Western Zhou period are identified (Chen Chaojung 2012: 251–86). Like Ze, the Yuan lineage head also assumed the appellation “king” in the early Western Zhou period, as shown in the inscription of a zun cast by Yuanbo for his wife Ze Ji (Wu Zhenfeng 2008: 6–9). Ze is thought to have been bordered by the Yu lineage in the south (Lu and Hu 1988: 416–20). As discussed earlier, a pair of li commissioned by Zebo and a high-fired proto-porcelain dou bearing the character “Ze” ⣐ were buried in BZFM1 at ZFT and in BRM1 at RJZ, respectively, suggesting contacts between the two polities (see the Yu lineage section in this chapter). San was a marriage partner of Ze during the late Western Zhou period. A set of four gui and a yi ⋄, originally from Fengxiang ↌佼, record a Sanbo who cast the vessels for his wife Ze Ji. As mentioned earlier, the inscription on the lid of the Ze Wang gui (JC: 3871) commissioned by a Ze king records that the Zheng 惕 lineage of the Jiang surname sent a bride to Ze. Throughout the Western Zhou period, marriage was an important means for a lineage to build strong ties with the Zhou royal family and powerful lineages. Ze’s extensive marriage network, therefore, should be viewed in conjunction with its political ambition. Lu Liancheng proposes that the Yu lineage was likely the first victim of Ze’s aggressive southward expansion. Ze pushed the Yu lineage out of the northern bank of the Wei River, leading to Yu’s subsequent decline after the middle Western Zhou period (Lu and Hu 1988: 416–22). In the late Western Zhou period during the reign of King Li, Ze waged a failed attack on the San estate, as revealed by the inscription on

97 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

the Sanshi pan (JC: 10176). As a result, Ze transferred some lands to San as compensation. The boundaries of the transferred land and the oaths sworn as guarantees by San officers are detailed in the inscription. The inscription states that it was Ze who initiated the attack on San. Ze presumably aimed to annex more land. San’s victory in this episode, however, was more likely a setback and not the end of Ze’s quest for regional dominance. The relations among local polities in Baoji throughout the Western Zhou period were fluid, multifaceted, and dynamic. Lineages could be friends one day through marriage but foes on another, vying for land and power. Each polity, such as San, Ze, and Yu, had to keep adjusting strategies to survive in the intertwined and shifting political networks in the region. Lu Liancheng suggests that the king of Ze mentioned in the inscription on the Sanshi pan and on the lid of the Ze Wang gui are the same person (Lu Liancheng 1984: 232–48). If so, we can conclude that the Ze polity made Zheng an ally through marriage and at the same time launched an unsuccessful attack against San for more land. Ze’s southward expansion can also be observed through the geographical distribution of the bronzes in the Qian River valley that have been reported so far. In the upper Qian River, a dozen locations yielded about 267 Western Zhou bronzes in Long County, including thirty vessels comprising ding and gui, twenty-eight weapons and tools that were almost exclusively ge, and 209 horse and chariot fittings, mostly pao roundels (Lu and Yin 1982: 48–57; Xiao 1983: 2–3, 1991: 1–10; Yin Shengping 2004: 158). Major sites yielding Ze bronzes include Nanpo, Weijiazhuang 杳⭞匲, and Liangfucun 㠩䓓㛹. Remarkably, almost all bronzes found in Long County are dated to the early Western Zhou period, except for six weapons that could be dated to the middle Western Zhou period. The steep decline of Ze bronzes in Long County could be due to the emigration of the lineage out of the region. It is highly likely that the Ze relocated to central Baoji after the early Western Zhou period. This probability is also supported by the fact that the late Western Zhou Ze bronzes found to date were concentrated in three villages (Jiacun, Linglongcun, and Shangguancun) of Jiacun Township in the lower Qian River valley. Among major findings are a lid of a Ze Wang gui, a xu by Ze X (unidentifiable name), ten chime stones, and ninety-three horse and chariot fittings, some of which are inscribed with “Ze” ⣐ (Lu and Yin 1982: 48–57). A settlement site of roughly 2.5 square kilometers dated from the Western Zhou to Spring and Autumn periods has also been identified at Jiacun.

98 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

The shift of Ze from Long County down to central Baoji in the south presents an example of a polity’s relocation from the periphery to the center of this frontier. The Qian River flows from the northwestern part of the Jing River valley southeastward to the heartland of Baoji. It provided a vital communication route between the two regions (Li Feng 2006: 35–39). Long County borders the Jing River valley. Compared to other areas of Baoji, it was the most vulnerable to the invading Rong from the north. The upper Qian River valley, surrounded by mountainous terrain, had limited arable land. These factors could have prompted Ze to move south to the rich agricultural land at the juncture of the Qian and Wei Rivers. Central Baoji, however, was already densely populated with a multitude of groups and polities, such as Yu and those at Shigushan and Daijiawan, since the beginning of the early Western Zhou period. The late arrival of Ze unsurprisingly amplified regional rivalries for the limited resources, as recorded in the inscription of the Sanshi pan.

Baoji was one of the earliest frontiers cultivated by the Zhou prior to the conquest. Inscriptions on bronzes and material culture in the region portray a frontier occupied by a host of lineage polities whose interaction and competition drove local political and cultural changes throughout the Western Zhou period. The three polities analyzed in this chapter give us a view of the dynamic, diverse, cultural and political landscape at Baoji. Unlike the upper Jing River valley, this frontier did not witness dramatic political disruptions caused by external actors. The Yu lineage was an immigrant community in the region. Its material culture was dominated by artifacts (both bronzes and pottery) and practices of its own tradition in both domestic and mortuary spaces. The Yu elite used ritual bronzes in a similar fashion as the elite in the Zhou center, but their adoption of those vessels was probably driven by the need to compete and communicate with elite members of other lineages in the region. At the same time, the manufacture of their own bronze types and their manipulation of Zhou ritual culture and writing have further illustrated the desire of the Yu elite to promote their own cultural heritage rather than fully embrace the Zhou ritual culture. Shigushan was a community native to Baoji, and its material culture reveals a strong connection to the preceding Liujia culture. The lineage identity of the Shigushan inhabitants is unclear based on current available data.

99 A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME

The material culture at Shigushan, however, suggests that the inhabitants were likely of a non-Ji lineage who could have belonged to the so-called “Jiangrong” ⦄ㆶ groups, long-term allies of Zhou according to transmitted texts. The community adopted aspects of the material culture and burial customs of the Zhou center. But the Shigushan elite were keen to “remember” rather than “forget” their own cultural traditions; thus they produced localstyle bronze vessels, used local-style, high-collared, baggy-legged ceramic li, and also used niched tombs. Originally living in the northern periphery of Baoji, the Ze lineage embraced the material culture from the Zhou center in all aspects, from burial customs, bronzes, and pottery to writing, suggesting a high degree of understanding and appreciation of the Zhou material culture. But a shared cultural identity does not equate to a political intimacy. The use of the “wáng” appellation in inscriptions signals Ze’s increasing political strength and independence. With its move from the periphery to the center of Baoji over time, Ze became a major local player who shaped the regional political landscape more than others did. Marriages and contacts among the local polities and with those outside Baoji, well documented through inscriptions, did not prevent local competition, which had markedly intensified since the middle Western Zhou period. Current evidence indicates that, while the Yu lineage declined and even possibly exited from the region, Ze gained more prominence and the fate of the Shigushan community remained ambiguous. As the fortunes of each polity changed and the regional landscape shifted over time, there is little evidence of any meaningful involvement from the Zhou court that had a major impact on this frontier.

Chapter Three

THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER Political Integration and Cultural Homogenization

The north-central frontier of the Western Zhou is located in the lower Fen 㰦 River valley in southern Shanxi. The region is administered primarily by the present-day cities of Linfen 冐㰦 in the north and Yuncheng 忳❶ in the south (map 3.1). The southern section of the Fen River flows south in the central valley of Shanxi, creating the Linfen Basin, and turns west to join the Yellow River at Hejin 㱛㳍. South of the Linfen Basin, the Su 㴹 River, flowing east to west, creates the relatively smaller Yuncheng Basin in the shape of a narrow strip. The two basins with their flat and alluvial plains provided land for farming and settlements and formed the core area of the north-central frontier of the Western Zhou. Similar to the western Baoji region in the Wei River valley, this frontier is geographically circumscribed, with the Yellow River on the west and mountains on the other three sides. To the northwest are the Lüliang ⏪㠩 Mountains. To the east are the Taiyue ⣒ⵥ Mountains, which stretch between the Linfen Basin on the west and the Changzhi 攟㱣 Basin on the east. And to the south are the Zhongtiao ᷕ㡅 Mountains, which separate this region from the Zhou eastern capital of Chengzhou. Inscriptions on oracle bones and bronzes record the various polities and lineages that were likely active in the region during the late Shang period (Tian Jianwen 2004: 327–29; Xie Yaoting 2010: 8–9). To date, however, there are few archaeological discoveries of this period. Two sites, Qiaobei 㧳⊿ in Fushan 㴖Ⱉ and Jiuwutou 惺⊁柕 in Wenxi 倆╄, yielded tombs dated to

101

tain

s

N

oun ng M Taih a

Jingjiecun Linfen

Taiy u

Mou Lülia ng

w Yello

Yongningbu

Anyang

Qiaobei

Fen

Elevation MASL 2,200 1,200 800 500 0

e Mo

ntain

s

unta

ins

THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

Dahekou

n Qi

River

Qucun Beizhao

River

Hengbei Jiuwutou Liangdaicun

Lu o

Su

River

er Riv

Yuncheng

o

ngtia

Zho

s. ntain Mou

R iv er

Yel low

Chengzhou

Wei River

uo Yil

er R iv

Rive

r

30 km

Shang and WZ sites Zhou capital Modern cities

MAP 3.1. Late Shang and Western Zhou sites in the lower Fen River valley

as early as the late Shang period (Qiaobei kaogudui 2006: 347–94; Zhongguo shehui kexuewang 2019). Although these tombs were severely looted, they show a wide adoption of many Shang burial customs at Anyang, such as the use of a waist pit, human and dog sacrifices, and bronze wine vessels, suggesting that the region must have maintained certain cultural (and perhaps political) contacts with Shang during the late Shang period. According to transmitted texts, the Zhou court established a regional state, Jin 㗱, in southern Shanxi at the beginning of the Western Zhou period (Shiji 1982: 1635–36). Transmitted texts and inscriptions on bronzes also name a string of polities, such as Yang 㣲 and Huo 暵, that were likely located in southern Shanxi (Zhang Tian’en 2010a: 50–56). Some scholars argue that tombs at Fangdui-Yongningbu ⛲➮-㯠䓗⟉, northeast of Jin in the Taiyuan ⣒⍇ Basin, may have belonged to the Yang 㣲 lineage of the Ji ⦆ surname (SWGW and HW 1987: 1–16; Li Boqian 1998: 31–34). A recent study identifies at least seventy-five Western Zhou sites in Linfen and eightyone in the Yuncheng regions (Xie Yaoting 2010: 21). All this evidence indicates that the lower Fen River valley was likely occupied by multiple polities and lineages with varied cultural and demographic backgrounds. Indeed, besides the Jin cemeteries at Tianma-Qucun and Beizhao, archaeological discoveries at Hengbei 㨓⊿ and Dahekou ⣏㱛⎋ have revealed two previously unknown polities, Peng ᾿ and Ba 曠, that were active in the region

102 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

during the Western Zhou period (SKY, YWG, and JW 2006a: 16–21, 2006b: 4–18; SKY and DMLK 2011: 9–18; SKY et al. 2018a: 89–139, 2018b: 223–62). This chapter examines in depth the three major players that are known to have lived in the region and that have relatively rich material remains: Jin, Peng, and Ba. All three were new settlers that relocated to this frontier at the beginning of the Western Zhou period, but they had different historical and cultural backgrounds. Their interaction, cooperation, and competition defined their particular cultural characteristics and political destinies and the cultural and political landscape of the entire region. This multi-polity landscape was similar to that of western Baoji and the upper Jing River valley, at least during the early Western Zhou period, but as the following analysis demonstrates, this frontier was able to remain politically stable throughout the Western Zhou period. JIN: THE ZHOU COLONY IN THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

According to the Grand Scribe’s Records, the founder of the Jin state was Shu Yu ⍼嘆, who was a younger brother of King Cheng, and was first granted the land at Tang Ⓒ, east of the Yellow and Fen Rivers. Shu Yu’s son, Xiefu 䆖䇞, became the inaugural ruler of Jin (Shiji 1982: 1635–36). An inscription on the Yaogong gui ℔䮳 of the early Western Zhou period substantiates this historical claim. It states that the king (Cheng), in the twenty-eighth year of his reign, commanded Tangbo Ⓒỗ to be “hou” ὗ or ruler of Jin (Zhu Fenghan 2007: 64–69, 2011: 33–38; Li Boqian 2009: 48–51, 83; Shaughnessy 2017: 133–88). Extensive archaeological fieldwork in the lower Fen River valley from the early 1990s to 2000 has revealed that the Tianma-Qucun ⣑ 楔-㚚㛹 area at the juncture of present-day Yicheng 侤❶ and Quwo 㚚㰫 Counties was the center of Jin from the early Western Zhou period to the beginning of the Spring and Autumn period (Zou 2000: 283; Li Boqian 2002: 29–40; Liu and Xu 2002: 41–52). Two cemeteries were found in the area: the Beizhao ⊿嵁 cemetery of the Jin ruling family and the Qucun cemetery of other Jin elite members and commoners. A small-scale excavation at Qucun has also uncovered five house remains, eight wells, eight pottery kilns, and 253 ash pits. Evidence of stone and pottery workshops and bronze-casting foundries was found at the excavation areas J6 and J7, implying the existence of local industries at Jin (Zou 2000: 10, 238, 263, 1133). The two cemeteries yielded rich material and inscriptional evidence relating to the cultural identities of Jin, the possible makeup of its subjects, and its sociopolitical networks within the region and with the Zhou court.

103 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

Beizhao Cemetery: A Separation of Political Power and Kinship Ties

The Jinhou cemetery, the cemetery of the Jin ruling family, is situated south of the Beizhao village in the north-central section of the Tianma-Qucun site. Scientific excavation of the cemetery started in 1992 after severe looting was reported. Excavations during six seasons from 1992 to 2000 uncovered nineteen tombs that belonged to nine rulers of Jin and their wives, dated roughly from the end of the eleventh to the first half of the eighth centuries bce (fig. 3.1) (BDK and SKY 1993: 11–30, 1994a: 4–28, 1994b: 22–33, 68, 1994c: 4–21, 1995: 4–39; BDKW and SKY 2001: 4–21, 55; Li Boqian 2002: 29–40). These tombs were spatially arranged in pairs of husband (Jinhou) and wife, with the exception of tomb M64, which was accompanied by two wives’ tombs, M62 and M63 (BDK and SKY 1994c: 4–21). Accompanying each of the eight pairs of tombs to the east was a chariot and horse pit. The orderly arrangement suggests that the cemetery was carefully planned and managed (Yin Qun 2000: 70–72; Liu and Xu 2002: 41–52; Song Jian 2002: 148–55). Only one chariot and horse pit (No. 1) associated with M8 and M31

Modern brick kiln

Modern brick kiln

FIGURE 3.1. Layout of the Jinhou cemetery at Beizhao (rectangles filled with slanted lines represent horse and chariot pits; redrawn after BDKW and SKY 2001: 4, fig. 1)

104 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

was excavated, revealing forty-eight chariots and 105 horses, the largest collection of chariots and horses found in a Western Zhou horse and chariot pit to date (SKY and BDKWX 2010: 4–22). What is unusual about the Jinhou cemetery is its considerable distance from the Qucun cemetery, where elite of various ranks and the rest of the subjects of Jin were buried (fig. 3.2). The two cemeteries are about 1,200 meters apart, with no tombs reported in between after decades of surveys and probing. Trenches were found in the north, south, and central-west portions of the Jinhou cemetery. Archaeological evidence indicates that the southern trench was dug before the cemetery was constructed (Sun Hua 1998: 265–89; Song Jian 2002: 148–55). The earliest pair of burials in the cemetery, M114 and M113, are dated to King Zhao’s reign, the end of the eleventh century bce (Sun Qingwei 2001: 239–48; Li Xueqin 2001: 67–70), suggesting that the southern trench was likely completed right before that time. The trenches

River

Fu

FIGURE 3.2. Excavations and survey sites at Tianma-Qucun and Beizhao (from Zou 2000: 10, fig. 4)

105 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

deliberately outlined an independent physical space for the Jinhou cemetery and also symbolically displayed the unique ritual and social status of the deceased. The exclusivity of the Jinhou cemetery seems to have been deliberately maintained, as the Qucun cemetery expanded north and west through time but not east, where the Jinhou cemetery was located. Using separate cemeteries for the ruling family and for the rest of the population was uncommon during the Western Zhou period. Among the cemeteries of Zhou regional states reported to date, Jin was the only state whose ruling family members were buried separately from the rest of the population. In other Zhou regional states, such as Yan, Wei 堃, and Zeng 㚦, members of the ruling family and others were often buried in the same cemetery (BWY 1995: 250; Guo Baojun 1964: 3–6; HB, HWKY, and SB 2013: 13–14). To highlight the unique status of the ruling family, a special section in the cemetery was often designated for the rulers, their wives, and close family members. Their tombs were further differentiated from those of others by their large size, ramps, and rich funerary goods centered on bronze vessels. The Yan rulers and their wives, for instance, were interred in the southeastern section of Zone Three of the cemetery at Liulihe (see chapter 4) (BWY 1995: 7–8). No barriers such as walls or trenches were used to separate their tombs from others’ tombs. People of varied social statuses were buried close together in the Yan cemetery, creating a sense of togetherness and social cohesion rooted in the kin relations of the deceased (Zhu Fenghan 2004: 263–66). In the Wei cemetery at Xincun 彃㛹, Jun County 㴂䷋, tombs of the Wei rulers were spatially mixed with smaller burials whose occupants had close kin relations with the rulers (Guo Baojun 1964: 3–6; Zhu Fenghan 2004: 240–43). In the Zeng cemetery at Yejiashan 叱⭞Ⱉ, tombs of the Zeng rulers were situated at the highest point of the cemetery on the top of a mountain ridge surrounded by relatively smaller tombs (HB, HWKY, and SB: 2013: 13–14). The cemeteries of these three states consistently show that tombs of the ruling family were treated as an integral part of the cemeteries. This spatial arrangement could have simultaneously fulfilled two needs: to express the political or social superiority of the ruling family and to reinforce the kin relations of the entire lineage. In these cases, tombs of the ruling family, though physically grander and richer, nonetheless shared the same physical space with other members of the lineage. Toward the end of the Western Zhou period, the prestige of the ruling family was increasingly emphasized. The Guo 嘊 cemetery at Shangcunling ᶲ㛹ⵢ, Sanmenxia ᶱ攨ⲥ, which is dated from the late ninth to

106 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

mid-seventh centuries bce, is an early example of this trend. Burials of the ruling family and high-ranking elite were placed exclusively in the northernmost section of the cemetery and were separated from other tombs by an east-west trench. The trench was a symbolic marker of the sociopolitical superiority of the ruling elite (HWKY and SWG 1999: 6–11). This transition manifested in the Guo cemetery could have reflected the increasing power of regional rulers during a time when the Zhou court was losing its firm grip over regional states. But even in the Guo state, the ruling family did not have their own independent cemetery. The Jinhou cemetery can be dated to as early as the later phase of the early Western Zhou period, when the power of the Zhou court over the regional states was strong. What led the Jin state to designate an independent cemetery for its ruling family is unclear. The Jin rulers were descendants of Shu Yu ⍼嘆, a younger brother of King Cheng, and were close to the Zhou royal family in blood. The same can be said for the founders of Yan and Wei, although the closeness of their blood ties to the Zhou king varied. Was their close blood tie to the Zhou king or the internal politics of the Jin state the main factor that prompted the Jin ruling family to use an independent cemetery? Did Jin rulers need to ask the Zhou king for permission for this practice? While these questions cannot be answered, it is clear that mortuary ritual in the Jin state was used to reinforce the supreme power and status of the ruling family rather than to re-create the sense of interconnected kin relations. In contrast, cemeteries of other regional states like Yan, Wei, and Zeng were a powerful venue for the preservation of lineage unity between their rulers and the rest of the population. Tomb Orientation and Demographic Heterogeneity

The demographic diversity of the Jin state is alluded to in a well-known passage in the Zuo Commentary. The passage, in the fourth year of the Duke Ding (Dinggong ⭂℔) of the Lu 欗 state, records the following regarding the establishment of the Jin state: ↮Ⓒ⍼ẍ⣏嶗⭮枰ᷳ溻炻旁朷㱥㲿炻㆟⥻ḅ⬿炻借⭀Ḽ㬋炻␥ẍ˪Ⓒ 官˫炻侴⮩Ḷ⢷嘃炻⓻ẍ⢷㓧炻䔮ẍㆶ䳊. (Zuozhuan 1980: 2135) To Tang Shu [the first ruler of Jin] there were given a grand carriage, the drum of Mixu, the Quegong mail, the bell Guxian, nine lineages of the surname

107 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

Huai, and five presidents over the different departments of office. The charge was given to Tang Shu as contained in the “Announcement of Tang,” and the old capital of Xia was assigned as the center of his State and he was to commence his government according to the principles of Xia, but his boundaries were defined by the rules of the Rong. (Legge [1872] 1970: 754)

The passage goes on to discuss the establishment of the Wei 櫷 and Lu states. It is written from the perspective of a priest, Tuo ỿ of the Wei state during the Warring States period (475–221 bce), and is presented retrospectively as a historical memory of the founding of regional states at the beginning of the Western Zhou period. Scholars often cite this passage as crucial evidence on the political structure of the Western Zhou state (Creel 1970: 317–87; Derk 1981: 85–131; Hsu and Linduff 1988: 151–58; Li Feng 2003: 115–44). In the passage, it is said that the Zhou king (King Cheng) awarded Tang Shuyu, the founder of Jin, symbolic gifts and most importantly nine lineages of the Huai clan to rule in the new state. Although it is debatable who the nine lineages of the Huai clan were and how they can be identified archaeologically, this historical text does give a general picture of the diverse population of the Jin state. The following discussion will focus on how archaeological evidence in Qucun can shed some light on the demographic heterogeneity of Jin. Excavations of the Jin cemetery at Qucun from 1980 to 1989 revealed 641 tombs in four zones: I2, J3, J4, and K4. These tombs were dated from the early Western Zhou to the early Spring and Autumn periods, roughly the late eleventh to early seventh centuries bce (Zou 2000: 334–35). Excavated tombs are only about 1/35 of the estimated 20,000 tombs in the cemetery (Zou 2000: 283), but their wide distribution across the cemetery and their dating to all phases of the Western Zhou period present a solid picture of the entire cemetery. Forty-four tombs contained bronze vessels (Zou Heng 2000: 334–35). They are dated to the early to late Western Zhou periods and are spread across sections in J3, J4, and K4 (Zhu Fenghan 2009: 1473–75; Xie Yaoting 2010: 30–33). In each zone, tombs with the same orientation and burial customs but of different periods tend to cluster together, suggesting coordination and centralized management of the cemetery (Liu and Xu 2002: 42). One salient feature of burials at the Qucun cemetery is the diversity of the head orientations of the deceased. Of the excavated 641 tombs, northern and eastern orientations were dominant, with the former found in 362 tombs (56.5 percent) and the latter in 241 tombs (37.6 percent). Burials with western

108 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

orientations were only 5.1 percent and mainly concentrated in K4, although they were also found in J3 and J4 and in residential areas. Scholars notice different head orientations in the tombs at Qucun and attempt to decipher their social and cultural significance. Teng Mingyu 㹽所Ḱ divides tombs in Zone J4 into two sections: J4 East, dominated by tombs using a northern orientation, and J4 West, with tombs using an eastern orientation (Teng Mingyu 2004: 335–49). She argues that tombs of both sections were of Ji-surnamed lineages but that the deceased in J4 East probably had closer blood ties with the Jin ruling family than the deceased in J4 West because their tombs used the same northern orientation as did the Jin ruling family at Beizhao. A more comprehensive study of the Qucun tombs by Xie Yaoting 嫅⟗ṕ proposes that the difference in orientation reflected the demographic diversity of the Jin state (Xie Yaoting 2010: 82–85). Based on transmitted texts in the Zuo Commentary (previously cited) and the Grand Scribe’s Records (1982: 1635–36) alluding to the establishment of Jin, Xie suggests that burials with northern orientations were of Ji-surnamed lineages, who constituted the majority of the Jin population, and those with eastern orientations were of the Tang Ⓒ (the so-called remnants of Xia ⢷), who were relocated to Qucun with Shu Yu’s son Xiefu as subjects when he was granted the title “ruler of Jin.” As for the small number of tombs with western orientations, Xie considers that, due to their frequent use of waist pits and dog sacrifices, the deceased were likely remnants of the Shang that relocated from Anyang. Unlike the Yan tombs at Liulihe, where inscriptions on bronzes often provide supporting evidence for the lineage identity of the deceased, tombs at Qucun yielded little epigraphic evidence on lineage identity. Amazingly, other than head orientation, there is an extraordinary homogeneity in other aspects of these tombs, such as the use of sea shells in the mouth and around the body of the deceased and the supine and extended posture of the deceased (Xie Yaoting 2010: 51–68). Even if the deceased in tombs with northern and eastern orientations were of different lineages, the overwhelming similarity of the material remains strongly suggests a shared cultural identity. The studies addressed here raise the important question of what mortuary practices such as orientation of the deceased can tell us about the social identity of the deceased. Relying solely on orientation to identify the social identity of the deceased is certainly insufficient, as orientation, like other mortuary customs, could have been adopted or manipulated by individuals and groups. However, if we consider the head orientation used in Western

109 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

Zhou tombs in regional or national contexts, we can observe that the various patterns of orientation to some extent do suggest the lineage or social background of the deceased. Comprehensive archaeological investigations of head orientation at Anyang suggest that population diversity was a primary cause for variation in head orientation in the late Shang capital (Gao Xiangping 2011: 85–95). At individual cemeteries at Anyang, such as Xiaomintun ⬅㮹Ⱇ, tombs with the same orientation tended to cluster together and share mortuary customs, implying that the deceased could have belonged to the same lineage (YXG 2007: 26–36). Similarly, the spatial grouping of the tombs and their shared burial customs in the Yinxu West cemetery suggest close kin ties within each group (Zhu Fenghan 2004: 102–12). Lineage signs on bronzes in tombs at various cemeteries at Yinxu further reveal the diverse lineage backgrounds of Anyang residents (Chen Xie 2002: 73–80; Venture 2017: 33–46). Investigations of Western Zhou tombs suggest a similar correlation between head orientation and the social identity of the occupant. In the cemeteries of Ji-surnamed groups (whose lineage backgrounds have been revealed through bronze inscriptions)—such as Zone Three in the Yan cemetery at Liulihe, the Jinglineage cemetery at Zhangjiapo, the Wei cemetery at Xincun, and the Jinhou cemetery at Beizhao—tombs of the elite and commoners almost all exclusively used the northern orientation (BWY 1995: 7–8; ZSKKY 1999: 5; Guo Baojun 1964: 3–6; Liu and Xu 2002: 41–52). In the Beiyao cemetery at Chengzhou, where 348 Western Zhou tombs were excavated, the heads of the deceased were all oriented in a north-south direction. The cemetery was used for high-ranking Zhou elite such as important court officials (Luoyang shi wenwu gongzuodui 1999: 360–67). At the same time, the tombs of non-Ji groups often adopted an east-west orientation. For instance, tombs of the Datuotou and Zhangjiayuan cultures in the Jing-Jin-Tang region from the late Shang to the Western Zhou periods almost exclusively adopted an eastern orientation (see chapter 4). In the Linfen Basin of the lower Fen River valley, inscriptions on bronzes show that two lineages of non-Ji origin, Peng and Ba, coexisted with Jin throughout the Western Zhou period. Tombs of both lineages overwhelmingly used the western orientation (to be detailed in the following section). The east-west orientation can also be traced to three bronze burials at Jingjiecun 㕴ṳ㛹 in Lingshi 曰䞛, further north in Shanxi, that are dated from the end of Shang to the beginning of the Western Zhou periods (the early half of the eleventh century bce) (SKY 2006: 13, 93, 110).

110 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

If this observed pattern can be applied to the Qucun tombs, it will suggest that the Jin population had diverse backgrounds. The majority of tombs with northern orientation at Qucun, therefore, could have belonged to those of the Ji-surnamed lineages or those traditionally allied with the Zhou. One example of the latter is the male occupant of M6081. He was likely of a nonJi lineage, as inscriptions on two round ding in the tomb reveal that his wife was of the Nangong lineage of the Ji surname (Zou 2000: 335–50). Tombs with western orientations correlated with the use of a waist pit and a dog sacrifice, and the deceased in them could be the remnants of Shang. As for the tombs with eastern orientations, one difference between them and those with northern orientations is that no pottery was used in the male elite tombs (Xie Yaoting 2010: 55–56), implying that those deceased were likely of a nonJi lineage or lineages, although their specific identity is unclear. This study of head orientations intends to offer a broad understanding of the social and lineage makeup of Jin. Future DNA studies on the skeletons in Qucun tombs may shed more light on the diversity of the Jin population. Adherence to the Bronze and Pottery Culture of the Zhou Center

The previous discussions of head orientation reveal that the Jin population at Qucun likely consisted of various Ji and non-Ji lineages. Apart from having certain orientations, tombs at Qucun, however, show remarkable similarities in other aspects, suggesting a high degree of cultural homogeneity that transcended lineage boundaries. The mortuary culture at Qucun and Beizhao closely resembled that of the Zhou center. In a sense, it can be regarded as a regional replica of the culture in the center. Bronze vessels in Jin tombs are highly comparable to those in the Zhou center in shape, ornamentation, and assemblage (Li Chaoyuan 2002a: 28–36; Zhu Fenghan 2009: 1453, 1477). Based on stylistic comparisons with dated bronzes found in the Zhou center, a seven-phase chronology of Jin bronzes of the Western Zhou period has been established (Zou Heng 2000: 334). For instance, a ding (M6195: 33) in M6195 was typical of the shape and decoration of the late phase of the early Western Zhou period (fig. 3.3: 1). The inscription on the inner wall reads “Chengzhou” ㆸ␐, suggesting that the vessel was cast in a workshop in the Zhou eastern capital and was brought to Jin. A gu (M6384: 16) in M6384 resembles the Lüfu gu 㕭䇞如 (Yin Shengpin 1992: 15, plate 8) of the late phase of the early Western Zhou period found in cache No. 1 at Zhuangbai 匲䘥, and a pan (M6384: 5) and a he (M6384: 15) in the same tomb bear the design of birds

111 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

2

1

3

4

5

FIGURE 3.3. Bronze vessels from Jin tombs in style of the Zhou center (from Zou 2000: 360–61, 387, 501, 504, figs. 528, 530, 556, 698, 701)

with split, long-tails, typical of bronzes of the early phase of the mid-Western Zhou period (fig. 3.3: 3–5). Two gui (M5189: 5, 7; M5189: 6, 8) in M5189 are covered with horizontal grooves and scalelike patterns on the body, a style typical of late Western Zhou bronze decoration of the Zhou center (fig. 3.3: 2). The strong stylistic resemblance between bronzes from Jin and the Zhou center throughout the Western Zhou period reflects close contacts between the two regions, which were likely facilitated by their geographic proximity. Bronze assemblage in Jin elite tombs at Qucun overwhelmingly followed the “food-focused” practice in the Zhou center. Among forty-seven tombs containing bronze vessels, forty-four (94 percent) contained at least one ding, and twenty-six (55 percent) at least one gui. Ding and gui as a set were used in twenty-four tombs. Li and yan, two other food-cooking vessels common in elite tombs of the Zhou center, were also used to enrich and expand the bronze assemblage. A li was used either by itself, often as one or two objects (e.g., in M6080 and M6197), or together with a yan (e.g., in M6081, M6210, and M6195). A few tombs contained other types of vessels that often played a supplementary role in the bronze assemblage. Tombs containing wine vessels, such as zun, you, jue, and zhi, were primarily dated to the early Western Zhou period. The rare appearance of wine vessels in female tombs exposed a gender division in the use of wine sacrifice in funerary ritual.

112 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

Tombs of Jinhou and their wives at Beizhao also adopted the same “foodfocused” assemblage, though on a much grander scale. Ding and gui sets were offered in fourteen burials (found intact or partially looted). M6 (Jinhou) and M7 (the wife), both completely looted, could have originally contained ding and gui sets as well. The use of ding and gui as core vessels of the assemblage in Qucun and Beizhao tombs was highly comparable to that in elite tombs of the Zhou center and regional states such as Yan (see chapter 4). The Jin elite must have been active participants in the shared Zhou ritual culture (Li Chaoyuan 2002b: 431–40). As for the use of wine vessels, there were more varieties of wine vessels, including jue, zhi, zun, you, and hu, in Jinhou’s tombs during the early and middle Western Zhou periods. Toward the late Western Zhou and the early Spring and Autumn periods, a pair of square hu became the core vessels for wine sacrifices (Song Lingping 2007: 48). This change was consistent with that of the Zhou center, where a pair of large-sized hu made an impressive debut in tombs at the beginning of the late Western Zhou period (Rawson 1999: 434). One characteristic of the ding and gui assemblage in the Jinhou cemetery was the appearance of what is called “lieding” ↿溶 (an array of ding) and “liegui” ↿䮳 (an array of gui) in Chinese archaeology (Guo Baojun 1959: 11, 1981: 87–88). The former refers to a set of ding tripods of the same style but in descending (or sometimes similar) size, and the latter to a set of gui of the same size and style. The earliest use of the standard graded ding set in the Jinhou cemetery was in tombs M8 and M31 of the late ninth century bce. The occupant of M8, Jinhou Su 㗱ὗ䧴, was accompanied with a fiveding set and his wife in M31 with a three-ding set (BDK and SKY 1994a: 4–28, 1994b: 22–33, 68). The shift to a graded ding set also took place in the Zhou center, and it has been considered the result of the Ritual Revolution or Ritual Reform (Rawson 1988: 228–38). Combining this evidence with transmitted texts, some scholars propose that the use of standard bronze vessel sets reflected Zhou sumptuary rules that were coordinated with the social rank of the occupant (Yu and Gao 1978: 85–98; Cao Wei [1998] 2004: 91–106; Falkenhausen 2006: 49–50). Interestingly, Jinhou Su’s tomb contained only a five-ding set, smaller than the seven-ding set recorded in pre-Qin transmitted texts, which some archaeologists argue to be the standard number for rulers of regional states.1 Three tombs, M2001, M2011, and M1052 at the Guo 嘊 cemetery at Shangcunling ᶲ㛹ⵢ, roughly contemporaneous with Jinhou Su’s tomb, yielded a set of seven ding (BDK and SKY 1994a: 4–28). Scholars have provided

113 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

various explanations for this apparent discrepancy, arguing that it was due to the unequal status of regional rulers when they were installed (Sun Hua 1995b: 50–57), to the different seniority ranks of the rulers in the Zhou royal lineage (Falkenhausen 2006: 109–10), or to tomb looting (that is, Jinhou Su’s tomb likely originally contained seven ding) (Zhou Ya 2002: 446–52). The current available mortuary data are insufficient for a full investigation of this phenomenon. It is unclear whether the sumptuary rules were universally and equally applied across Zhou regional states, but it seems that the set can be used as a reliable barometer to gauge and compare the status of the deceased within the lineage or state (Falkenhausen 2006: 100). It is important, therefore, to recognize that even if the sumptuary principle centered on the standard ding and gui sets was shared across Zhou regional states, its practice in each state or region could vary. Each state could have interpreted and implemented a shared ritual principle differently according to its own ability or need without violating or disrespecting that principle. At the very end of the Western Zhou period, around the early eighth century bce, bronze replicas were used in conjunction with regular vessels that fulfilled real functions; this became one of the most distinctive mortuary customs in the Jinhou cemetery. It was seen in M62 and M63, the tombs of two wives of a Jinhou (the occupant of M64), and in the latest pair of tombs, M93 and M102 (BDK and SKY 1994c: 4–21, 1995: 4–39). M93, tomb of another Jinhou, contained a set of bronze replicas, including ding, gui, zun, you, jue, zhi, pan, and square yi, and his wife’s tomb, M102, contained a relatively smaller set of ding, gui, jue, zhi, square yi, and he (BDK and SKY 1995: 4–39). The practice seems to have been a privilege of high-ranking elite in the Jin state, as it was not seen in tombs at Qucun (Falkenhausen 2006: 104–5). The same practice was seen in a few tombs at Chengzhou, the Zhou eastern capital, the states of Guo and Ying ㅱ in western and southern Henan, and the state of Rui west of the Yellow River in Shaanxi. A recent study argues that the use of replica or surrogate vessels in these tombs demonstrated a growing desire to distinguish the living from the dead (Zhang Wenjie 2013: 48–58). The quantity of replica bronze vessels seems less regulated than that of the functional ones. What is also intriguing about this new ritual practice was the reintroduction of ancient wine vessel types in the form of replicas. Those types had long been obsolete among functional bronzes by the end of the late Western Zhou period. What led to the use of replicas of obsolete wine vessels is still a matter of debate (Falkenhausen 2006: 104–5; Zhang Wenjie 2013: 48–58).

114 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

Nevertheless, such a nostalgic display of elaborate wine vessels in Jin tombs indicates an attempt to connect with the past. Two recent comprehensive analyses have provided an impressive picture of the pottery culture at Qucun. Both studies reinforce the idea that the pottery culture in the lower Fen River valley had strong connections with that of the Wei River valley (Hao 2010: 54; Xie Yaoting 2010: 25–28). Throughout the Western Zhou period, Qucun adopted the pottery-making tradition of the Zhou center. At the core of this adoption was the production and consumption of three types of li tripods, the most commonly used pottery type at Qucun. The three types are known as the “sunken-crotched li” (biědānglì 䘇 夈櫚), the “joint-crotched li” (liándānglì 忋夈櫚), and the bronze imitation li (faángtónglì ầ戭櫚), all diagnostic li types in the Wei River valley (fig. 3.4: 1–3). Additionally, the waxing and waning of each type of li at Qucun was amazingly consistent with that of the Zhou center. The “sunken-crotched li” in Qucun, for instance, followed the trend of the Zhou center: it was popular in the early Western Zhou period but declined dramatically in the middle and late Western Zhou periods. The “joint-crotched li,” a hallmark of the Zhou ceramic tradition, dominated the pottery assemblage at Qucun throughout the Western Zhou period. Of the 438 li tripods found at Qucun,

FIGURE 3.4. Pottery from Jin tombs at Qucun (from Zou 2000: 322, 324, 330, 327, 332, figs. 486–87, 491, 494, 497)

115 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

415 (about 95 percent) were of this type. The bronze imitation li, presumably appropriating the shape of the bronze li, is stylistically characterized by jutting flanges and round button-like decorations on the body. The type made its debut in the late phase of the early Western Zhou period at Qucun and became more popular from the middle Western Zhou period onward (Hao 2010: 13). A few other types of pottery—a li with a divided crotch (fēndānglì ↮夈 櫚); a type of gui with a flared mouth, thick rim, and consecutive triangles around the belly; a type of dou with high-stemmed plates; and bu containers with round shoulders—can be traced to the late Shang pottery-making tradition (fig. 3.4: 4–6). These types as a whole were rare in Qucun tombs and were primarily used during the early and middle Western Zhou periods. For instance, of 438 li tripods in the tombs, only nine are identified as “dividedcrotch” li. The gui characterized by a high stem and a flare-mouthed bowl is often called a “Yin-style gui” (Yīnshìguıˇ 㭟⺷䮳) in Chinese archaeology reports because this type of gui was originally popular in Anyang tombs.2 It constituted 31.8 percent (14 out of 44) of all gui at the cemetery. Surprisingly, this type of gui was absent in tombs with a western orientation in K4, where other burial features popular in Anyang tombs, including a waist pit and a dog sacrifice, were prevalent. Instead, it was often used in tombs with a northern orientation. All of these types lack stylistic connections with the local pottery-making tradition, suggesting that they were probably introduced into the lower Fen River Valley with the arrival of Jin. Exotic Artifacts and Gender Identity

A small number of ceramic and bronze vessels in Jin tombs can be traced to cultures outside Anyang and the Zhou center. Most noticeable among them are ceramic or bronze three-footed urns (sānzúwèng ᶱ嵛䒽), ceramic flare-mouthed jars (dàkoáuzūn ⣏⎋⮲), and bronze double-handled jars (shuāngěrguàn 暁俛仸). These vessels, few in quantity and small in size, were in no position to compete for prominence in funerary ritual and daily life with the dominant ceramic or bronzes vessels. Nonetheless, their limited presence is significant in that they embodied historical memories, gender identity, and cultural exchanges between Jin and others. Three-footed urns were rare in Jin tombs. In the Jinhou cemetery, three burials of Jinhou’s wives (M113, M32, and M92) dated to the early to late Western Zhou periods each contained at least one ceramic three-footed urn,

116 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

according to published data (Song Lingping 2007: 66–68). A number of accompanying female burials excavated in the Jinhou cemetery also yielded a ceramic three-footed urn, but details of these tombs have not yet been published (Hou Yi 2002: 114–22). At Qucun, eight out of the 641 tombs reported contained a ceramic three-footed urn (fig. 3.5: 1–2) (Chen Fangmei 2002: 168). These tombs are dated from the early to middle Western Zhou periods. Tomb M7113 contained a bronze ding and gui set along with eight ceramic vessels, but the other seven tombs contained only pottery, ranging from two to thirteen pieces each. The deceased in the eight tombs are identified as females based on the characteristics of the human bones. The flare-mouthed jar, featuring a trumpet-shaped opening and a flat bottom, was another rare pottery type used in Jin tombs. In the Jinhou cemetery, tombs of four of Jinhou’s wives, M2, M13, M32, and M92, contained a ceramic flare-mouthed jar (fig. 3.5: 4, showing the one in M2) (Song Lingping 2007: 66–68). Three accompanying female tombs, M38, M39, and M40, contained a flare-mouthed jar as well. These tombs are dated to the middle and late Western Zhou periods. At Qucun, a flare-mouthed jar was

FIGURE 3.5. Exotic artifacts from Jin tombs at Beizhao and Qucun (1, 2, 5 from Zou 2000: 331–32, figs. 495, 498; 3 from BDKW and SKY 2001: 15, fig. 21; 4 from BDK and SKY 1993: 26, fig. 40; 6 redrawn after BDKW and SKY 2001: 15, fig. 22)

117 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

used in thirty-four tombs dated from the early to late Western Zhou periods (fig. 3.5: 5) (Song Lingping 2007: 69–74). Seven of the thirty-four tombs contained bronze vessels (one to five vessels each), and the rest only ceramic wares (two to fifteen pieces each), indicating that the deceased were of varied status. The richest among them is burial M6080, in which the deceased was offered with five bronze food vessels, consisting of ding, gui, and li, and fifteen ceramic vessels, along with bronze horse and chariot fittings, lacquer wares, jades, and sets of necklaces (Zou 2000: 395–404). The deceased who were accompanied with a flare-mouthed jar were predominately females. Of the forty tombs at Beizhao and Qucun, the deceased in thirty-one (77.5 percent) were females, in five (12.5 percent) were males, and in four (10 percent) were unknown. Both the three-footed urn and the flare-mouthed jar were foreign to the pottery culture of Anyang and the Zhou center (Zhang and Yang 1997: 5–59; Jing 2006: 419–46). Current archaeological data suggest that they were widely used in communities (such as Zhukaigou 㛙攳㹅, Dakou ⣏⎋, Xinhua 㕘厗, and Yudaohe Ⲓ忻㱛) in northern Shaanxi, north-central Shanxi, and southern Inner Mongolia from 2300 to 1900 bce, and then introduced into the lower Fen River valley afterward (Jing 2006: 19–46; Sun Zhanwei 2010: 23–28; Khayutina 2017: 71–132). Their popularity, however, plunged after the mid-second millennium bce, when both types disappeared in most areas, including the lower Fen River valley. Nevertheless, both artifacts survived in the communities of the Lijiaya culture (such as Lijiaya 㛶⭞Ⲿ, Xuejiaqu 啃 ⭞㷈, and Gaohong 檀䲭) along the banks of the Yellow River in the ShanxiShaanxi Plateau roughly from 1400 to 1100 bce (Jing 2006: 19–46; Khayutina 2017: 71–132). Interestingly, both types reemerged in tombs of Jin, Peng, and Ba in the lower Fen River valley after the early Western Zhou period. Some argue that both artifacts were native to the lower Fen River valley (Li Jiansheng 2012: 392–406), but the temporal and spatial distribution of both types indicates that that was unlikely the case. Instead, their reappearance in the region suggests cultural or ethnic connections between the Peng and Ba lineages and the people of the earlier Lijiaya culture; it may also suggest marriage relations between the two lineages and the descendants of the Lijiaya culture (Chen Fangmei 2002: 157–96; Khayutina 2017: 71–132). In Beizhao and Qucun cemeteries, three-footed urns were only found in female tombs, suggesting that they became a gender-specific artifact exclusively associated with women of varied status. This distribution pattern led to the proposal that the three-footed urn was brought into Jin through

118 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

marriages with women of non-Ji background who inherited the tradition of using three-footed urns from their natal families (Chen Fangmei 2002: 157–96). The three-footed urn was also considered material evidence of contact between Jin and the surrounding Rong and Di 䉬 groups in the lower Fen River valley (Zhang Tongxin 2002: 377–83). The three-footed urns in Jin tombs varied: some had an egg-shaped drooping body without a visible neck, but others were much shorter with a horizontally bulging body. If three-footed urns were introduced to Jin through marriages with non-Ji groups, their variations could indicate that those non-Ji groups likely developed their own localized version of the vessel. Further, a bronze three-footed urn (M113: 37) was found in tomb M113 (fig. 3.5: 3). Compared to the ceramic one in the same tomb, the bronze urn was much smaller, only 10.5 centimeters tall, making it a miniature vessel. This evidence indicates that the bronze version of the urn did not compete with other bronze vessels for prominence in mortuary ritual, but was likely used to mark the northern background of the deceased (Chen Fangmei 2002: 157–96). The flare-mouthed jar, another type used in the Lijiaya culture, was often paired together with the threefooted urn in Jin tombs (of the eleven tombs with three-footed urns, seven contained flare-mouthed jars). It is possible that both types were introduced to Jin through the same mechanism. Jin, however, did not transform the jar into a gender-specific artifact, as the vessel was used in tombs of both genders at the Beizhao and Qucun cemeteries. A third type of exotic vessel in Jin tombs is a bronze double-handled jar with a collared neck slightly flaring to the mouth, sloped shoulders, and a contracted body (fig. 3.5: 6). The jar was found in M113, which also contained the bronze three-footed urns already mentioned. No ceramic version of the jar has been reported in Jin tombs to date. Pottery jars of the same style, however, were prevalent in the Qijia culture (c. 2200–1800 bce) in Gansu in the northwest and were adopted over time by a number of early Bronze Age communities in Inner Mongolia, northern Shanxi, and Shaanxi, from roughly the end of the third millennium to the seventeenth century bce (Zhao Jumei 2008: 3–43). For instance, at the well-known Zhukaigou site, Qijia-style guan jars with one or two handles were frequently present in tombs from Phases I to IV (roughly the third millennium to 1500 bce). The spread of the Qijia-type vessels to Zhukaigou was possibly facilitated by the eastward migration of people from Gansu to the Zhukaigou area in Inner Mongolia (Ma Mingzhi 2009: 38–45). Zhukaigou was not an isolated case of strong Qijia cultural presence in the east. Qijia cultural elements also

119 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

penetrated into northern and central Shanxi in the early second millennium bce. The strong morphological connection of the bronze double-handled jar in the Jin tomb with the ceramic ones in the Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau and areas further north suggests the northern root of the type. The doublehandled jar embodies the northern cultural tradition and serves as material evidence that the Jin included “foreign” cultural elements. Regional and Interregional Political Networks

As a regional state, Jin had the responsibility to fulfill its political, military, and ritual duties for the Zhou court. In discussing how Western Zhou regional states interacted with the central court, Li Feng proposes at least three forms of interaction based on available inscriptions on bronzes: participation in the political and ritual ceremonies at the court, personal visits to the court by rulers of regional states, and military assistance to the Zhou royal army (Li Feng 2008: 257). Though limited in numbers, bronze inscriptions in Jin tombs reveal that throughout the Western Zhou period, Jin was actively involved in the political, ritual, and military affairs of the Zhou court. An inscription of forty-eight characters on a square ding in M114 records that Shu Ze ⍼⣐,3 the caster of the vessel, participated in the grand róng (wine-offering ritual), the cè (pronouncing of written documents), and the huì (an entreating ritual): all ceremonies performed by the Zhou king at Chengzhou in the fourteenth month (BDKW and SKY 2001: 4–21; Cao Wei 2002: 272–76; Li Feng 2008: 257). The king awarded Shu Ze a cap, a jacket, a chariot with horses, and thirty strands of cowries after the ceremony. Shu Ze cast the vessel to extol the beneficence of the king. M114 is dated to the late phase of the early Western Zhou period. The deceased could be Shu Yu (BDKW and SKY 2001: 4–21; Li Boqian 2001: 39–42) or his son Xiefu (Huang Shengzhang 2002: 212–31; Sun Qingwei 2002: 239–48). Li Feng further points out that in the inscription Ze refers to himself as “the king’s official” (juéshì ⍍⢓), indicating his subordinate position to the king (Li Feng 2008: 259). In the same tomb, a bronze yan carries an inscription recording that the caster of the vessel, Wei , participated in King Zhao’s southern military inspection and campaign (Sun Qingwei 2007: 64–68). The inscription starts with a clear statement of the event and time at which Wei was sent by the king (Zhao) to a place named Fan ䷩. Wei’s trip occurred in the same first month as when the king commanded Nangong ⋿⭓4 to carry out a military campaign against the rebellious Hufang 嗶㕡. Coincidently, the same date

120 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

and event are also recorded on the well-known Zhong square ding ᷕ㕡溶 (JC: 2751, JC: 2752) of the “Six Vessels of Anzhou” (Anzhou liuqi ⬱ⶆℕ ☐).5 Scholars have considered this inscription and the one on the Zhong yan ᷕ䒿 (JC: 949) in the same group as crucial evidence regarding King Zhao’s southern campaign, a significant component of his legacy (e.g., Wang Zhankui 1998: 89–90; Liu Litang 2000: 66–71; Tang 2016: 296–305). The identity of Wei, however, is not clear. He could be Xiefu or a high-ranking elite (Sun Qingwei 2007: 64–68; Li Xueqin 2013a: 67–71). The most intriguing inscription regarding Jin’s participation in a court-led military campaign is recorded on sixteen bronze bells cast by Jinhou Su 㗱ὗ 䧴. This inscription of 355 characters records in vivid detail a military campaign led by King Li against the Suyi ⣁⣟ in Shandong (JL: 35–50). Jinhou Su was called out by the king to attack three major settlements of the enemy based on the king’s plan (Shim 1997: 43–57; Ma Chengyuan 2002: 8–28). The campaign ended with a Zhou victory, and upon returning to Chengzhou, King Li awarded Jinhou Su with gifts in two formal ceremonies. This campaign must have been an important event in King Li’s reign, but it was missing in the transmitted texts. The inscription reveals the close military and political connection between Jin and the Zhou court during the late Western Zhou period. Inscriptions on bronzes also reveal that Jin was an active regional player in southern Shanxi (fig. 3.6). As in other Western Zhou regional states, interlineage marriage was an important means for Jin to construct a regional sociopolitical network. It has been suggested that Jiang-surnamed women were preferred marriage partners of the Zhou royal family and the Ji-surnamed rulers of the Zhou regional states (Liu Qiyi 1980: 85–90; Chen Chaojung 2007: 253–92). This was certainly the case for Jin. Inscriptions on four bronze ding in tomb M13 indicate that they were cast by a Jiang-surnamed woman. She was referred to as Jin Jiang 㗳⦄, the wife of Jinhou who was buried in M9 (BDK and SKY1994a: 4–28).6 There is no evidence, however, on her natal family. Peng was a neighboring polity of Jin situated in Hengbei. Inscriptions on bronzes found in burials of Jinhou and Pengbo ᾿ỗ (the head of the Peng lineage) reveal reciprocal marriage relations between Peng and Jin. An inscription on a bronze gui in a Jinhou’s tomb (M91) indicates that Jinhou Xifu 㗳ὗ╄䇞 commissioned the vessel for his wife Pengmu ᾿㭵, a woman of the Peng lineage, for the sacrifices to the royal lineage (Li Boqian 2010: 29–36). Similarly, in an inscription on a bronze vessel in a late Western Zhou

121 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

FIGURE 3.6. Diagram of social networks of Jin, Peng, and Ba

tomb, M1016 at Hengbei, Pengbo refers to himself as “Bo Jinsheng” ỗ㗳䓇, the nephew of Jin, showing his maternal connection with the Jin ruling family (Xie Yaoting 2010: 129). No inscriptional evidence currently indicates marriage relations between Jin and Ba, another neighboring lineage polity. However, a female tomb at Qucun, M6197, of the early Western Zhou period, contained a bronze gui (M6197: 11) commissioned by Babo 曠ỗ, the head of the Ba lineage (Zou 2000: 405). How the vessel ended in this Jin tomb is not clear, but it does suggest contacts between Jin and Ba. It is possible that the deceased was a woman of the Ba lineage who married into Jin and the vessel was a funerary gift to her (Zou 2000: 404–07; Liu Xu 2012: 122–46). A debatable inscription on a pair of bronze hu in a late Western Zhou burial at Beizhao, M63, could have revealed Jin’s connection with the Yang 㣲 lineage (BDK and SKY 1994c: 4–21). The inscription of nine characters states, “Yang Ji makes delicious sweet wine vessel; may it be treasured forever” 㣲⦆ ἄ但慜⢢㯠⮞䓐. The identity of Yang Ji and whether she was the occupant of M63 have long been debated since the publication of the inscription. Some

122 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

scholars suggest that Yang Ji was a woman of the Yang 㣲 lineage of the Ji ⦆ surname and was likely the wife of Jinhou and the occupant of M63 (Li Xueqin 1994: section 3, 2005: 51–52, 56; Wang Guangyao 1995: 82–85; Li Boqian 1998: 31–34; Feng 1998: 31–34). Others propose, however, that Yang Ji was a woman of the Ji ⦆ surname who married into the Yang lineage of the Ji ⦔ surname, and therefore cannot be the occupant of M63 (Wang Rencong 1996: 31–32; Sun Qingwei 1997: 63–65). How a noblewoman was referred to in inscriptions depended on whether she was a caster or a receiver of the vessel from her parents (as a dowry vessel), husband, son, or others. In a study of Zhou appellations of women, Chen Chao-jung 昛㗕⭡ (2012: 251–86) cautiously proposes that when a married woman was the caster of a vessel, she often self-identified with the lineage name of her husband together with the surname of her natal family. This kind of naming practice is present in about 85 percent of the 131 cases in her study. Recently, Li Feng (2018: 101–2) proposed the rationales and rules governing the naming practice of women in bronze inscriptions in the Zhou period. In this case, the inscription reveals that Yang Ji commissioned both vessels. According to the naming pattern, we can conclude with a high degree of certainty that she was a lady of the Ji ⦆ surname who married into the Yang lineage. It is unclear, however, how this pair of hu ended up in a Jin tomb. Transmitted texts indicate that the Yang lineage could have lived in central Shanxi, and the archaeological remains at Fangdui-Yongningbu ⛲➮-㯠⬩⟉, north of Jin in the Taiyuan Basin, could belong to the lineage (Li Boqian 1998: 31–34). If so, the pair of hu could have revealed marriage or other forms of contact between Jin and its northern neighbor. In addition to the bronze inscriptions, ceramic three-footed urns and flare-mouthed jars, and a bronze double-handled jar in Jin tombs at Beizhao and Qucun, previously discussed, could have portrayed a more expansive marriage network of Jin with the Rong. Inscriptions on a set of eight bells commissioned by Rongsheng ㆶ䓇 in 740 bce provide important contextual information on the marriage between the Rong and Zhaobo 恝ỗ, who served under Jinhou (Poly Art Museum 1999: 117–28; Li Xueqin 1999a: 75–82). The caster of the bells states in the inscription that his grandfather, who was posthumously named Xiangong ⭒℔, was a Zhou court official during King Mu’s reign and was given the responsibility of managing the affairs of Rong. His father Zhaobo was an official under Jinhou. His name, Rongsheng, literally meaning “the nephew of the Rong,” reveals that his mother was from a Rong group.

123 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

Since the founding of Jin, its history was closely intertwined with the Rong. The oft-cited passage in the Zuo Commentary (Zuozhuan 1980: 2135) with regard to Jin’s establishment reveals that Jin’s boundaries were defined by the rules of the Rong, implying that Jin was given the land surrounded by the Rong and that the court instructed Jin to follow the Rong custom. By the middle to late Spring and Autumn periods, Jin’s dealings with the Rong were already glorified as part of the historical memory of the Jin ruling lineage, as recounted in the inscription on the Jingong pen 㗱℔ġ (JC: 10342). In the inscription, the Duke of Jin (Jingong 㗳℔) claimed that the founder of Jin, the Duke of Tang (Tanggong Ⓒ℔), made peace with the “hundred wild tribes” (baˇimán 䘦埣), a general reference to the Rong during the Spring and Autumn period (Li Xueqin 1985b: 135; Xie Mingwen 2013: 236–357). The Rong could also have had marriage relations with Jin, as revealed by bronze inscriptions and exotic artifacts in Jin tombs (Shang 2002: 371–76; Zhang Tongxin 2002: 377–83; Chen Fangmei 2002: 157–96). The two sides, however, were also competitors and adversaries. The Zuo Commentary (Zuozhuan 1980: 2077–78) also documents an interesting dialogue between the Jin envoys, Xun Li 勨嶆 and Ji Tan 䯵婯, and Zhou king Jing 㘗 at Chengzhou in the late sixth century bce, in which Ji Tan argues that the pressure from the Rong and Di hindered Jin’s contact with the court. THE PENG LINEAGE AT HENGBEI

The cemetery of the Peng lineage at Hengbei, Hengshui 㨓㯜 Township, Jiang County 亃䷋ in southern Shanxi, has been known to the public since 2004. To date 1,299 burials and one horse and chariot pit (out of thirty-three) were excavated at the cemetery from 2004 to 2007 (Song et al. 2007: 5; Xie Yaoting 2010: 85–129; SKY et al. 2019: 15-59, 2020c: 89-121). They are dated from the late phase of the early Western Zhou to the beginning of the Spring and Autumn periods (Xie Yaoting 2010: 85–86). Most of the tomb information has not yet been published, but several of the largest burials have been reported partially or fully, including M1, M2 (SKY, YWG, and JW 2006a: 16–21, 2006b: 4–18), M2158 (SKY et al. 2019), and M2531 (SKY et al. 2020c). According to the style of bronzes, these large burials can be dated to the early phase of the middle Western Zhou period.7 The occupants of M2 and M1 are identified, respectively, as Pengbo ᾿ỗ, the head of the Peng lineage, and his wife Bi Ji 䔊⦔ (M1), a woman of the Bi 䔊 lineage of the Ji ⦔ surname. The deceased in M2158 is identified as a Pengbo and that in M2531 as an elite

124 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

member. Additionally, a published dissertation by Xie Yaoting, one of the chief excavators of the site, has analyzed about 204 burials excavated in 2005 and revealed information about head orientation, the sex and posture of the deceased, and the quantity and type of pottery and bronze vessels (Xie Yaoting 2010: 86–127). Although the published data are limited, they still enable us to make important observations on Peng’s cultural identities and political activities throughout the Western Zhou period. The Ancestral Background of the Peng Lineage

Inscriptions on five bronzes, four in M1 and one in M2, indicate that Pengbo cast these vessels for his wife, Bi Ji. This marriage relation suggests Peng’s non-Ji background, according to the practice of exogamy during the Zhou period. The surname of the Peng lineage has been revealed by an inscription on the Pengzhong ding ᾿ẚ溶 (JC: 2462), a middle Western Zhou bronze ding of unknown provenance. The inscription reads, “Pengzhong makes [for] Bi Kui [this] dowry ding vessel” (᾿ẚἄ䔊⩧⩝溶), indicating that the ding was cast by Pengzhong ᾿ẚ, the second born of the Peng lineage, as a “dowry ding vessel” for his daughter’s marriage to the Bi lineage (fig. 3.7: 1). The inscription explicitly reveals that the surname of the Peng lineage is Kui ⩧. Historian Wang Guowei 䌳⚳䵕 first links the surname Kui in bronze inscriptions with Gui 櫤, recorded in transmitted texts such as the Zuo Commentary, based on the similarity of the pronunciation and the written form

1

2

FIGURE 3.7. Inscriptions on Peng bronzes (1 from JC: 2462; 2–3 from SKY, YWG, and JW 2006b: 8, 17, figs. 14, 36)

3

125 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

of the two graphs (Wang Guowei 2001b: 296–306). He further suggests that Kui or Gui could be the surname of Guifang 櫤㕡 of the Shang and Zhou periods and that the Gui surname was one of the “nine lineages of the Huai surname” (Huáxìng jiuˇzōng ⾨⥻ḅ⬿) that were bestowed to Tangshu Ⓒ⍼, the founder of Jin. This proposal has been subsequently endorsed by other scholars (Chen Gongrou 1989: 211–17; Zhang Tian’en 2010a: 50–56). Other studies share the view that the Peng lineage was of the Kui surname and likely part of the Di 䉬ġgroup recorded in transmitted texts, but they challenge the idea that Peng was one of the “nine lineages of the Huai surname” bestowed to the Jin founder. Xie Yaoting and Li Jiansheng 㛶⺢䓇, for instance, argue that the Peng lineage descended from a branch of Guifang who were active in the Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau during the late Shang period and who were relocated by the Zhou court to the lower Fen River valley in the early Western Zhou period. Both scholars also suggest that Peng was politically independent from Jin and could not have been part of the “nine lineages of the Huai surname” (Xie Yaoting 2012: 374–84; Li Jiansheng 2012: 392–406). Based on her analysis of two types of ceramic wares, the “three-footed urn” and the “flare-mouthed zun,” Khayutina establishes a link between the Peng and the non-Ji groups residing in the Lüliang Mountains from the middle Shang to the middle Western Zhou periods; she suggests that Peng had connections with the Lijiaya and Zhukaigou cultures (Khayutina 2017: 71–132). Peng’s non-Ji background was also manifested in the east-west orientation used in its tombs. Of the 204 burials in Xie’s study, 198 (97 percent) had an east-west orientation, with the deceased heads in 175 tombs oriented to the west and those in the remaining twenty-three oriented to the east (Xie Yaoting 2010: 126). The east-west orientation had its local roots in central Shanxi. As mentioned earlier, burials at Jingjiecun and the tombs of Peng’s neighbor Ba 曠 in the lower Fen River valley primarily used east-west orientation. This orientation clearly contrasts with the dominant north-south orientation of Jin tombs at Qucun and Beizhao. Continuation of Shang Ritual Culture

Bronze assemblages and mortuary practices at Hengbei have shown Peng’s extensive and deep adoption of Shang ritual culture and that of the Zhou center. Many characteristics of Peng tombs interestingly showed a close alignment with the Shang mortuary culture at Anyang: waist pit, dog and

126 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

human sacrifice, prone posture of the deceased, and wine-focused sacrifice. Thirty-four out of 240 tombs were furnished with a waist pit often containing a dog sacrifice; thirty-five contained one or more human sacrifices placed in various spots in the tomb (Xie Yaoting 2010: 93–98). These tombs are dated to the Western Zhou period, and the deceased included both males and females. Twenty-three (74 percent) of those with a waist pit and 25 (71 percent) of those with human sacrifices were furnished with bronze vessels of various types and quantities (Xie Yaoting 2010: 91–93), suggesting that the majority of the tombs using both practices were of elite members of the Peng lineage. Shang funerary customs were very likely acquired by the Peng during the late Shang period, and these elite members must have acted as active agents to keep them alive during the Western Zhou period. The placement of the deceased in a prone posture was common in Shang tombs at Anyang (Zhang Mingdong 2005: 94–100; Gao Xiangping 2011: 106–9). Although the practice can be observed in both male and female tombs, it was more common in the former (Gao Xiangping 2011: 111). This Shang practice, nonetheless, continued to be used by the Peng lineage during the Western Zhou period, as in about a third (66 out of 204) of the tombs the deceased was laid in a prone position. The magnitude of the offerings in those tombs varies markedly: thirteen contained bronze vessels, thirty-nine only pottery, and thirteen neither pottery nor bronzes (Xie Yaoting 2010: 98–102). This suggests that, unlike waist pits and human sacrifices, which were favored by elite members, the use of prone posture cut across social classes. The social meaning of the prone position is unclear. Some suggest that it was a type of interment unique to the Shang (Li Ji 1931: 447–80; Yang Shennan 1998: 138–45), but others propose that it could be related to unnatural death, a fertility belief, or a custom for burying slaves (see a summary in Zhang Mingdong 2005: 98–99). Five of Pengbo’s tombs dated to the middle Western Zhou period (M2158, M2, M1006, M1011, and M2022) had a wide variety of wine vessels, including gu, jue, zhi, zun, you, and hu. These vessels, particularly gu and jue, were widely used in Shang elite tombs at Anyang, but they fell out of favor after the late phase of the early Western Zhou period and were gradually replaced by zhi, pan, and he. The switch in vessel types could signal a change in how the Zhou elite conducted ritual sacrifices (Zhu Fenghan 2009: 1327–28). Furthermore, two out of five tombs included wine vessels such as the gong 妍 and square yi that were frequently seen in late Shang high-ranking elite tombs but again rarely used in Western Zhou burials. The anachronistic

127 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

assemblage in Pengbo’s tombs demonstrates that aspects of late Shang ritual culture were cohesively and faithfully maintained by Peng elite despite the trend to replace them in the Zhou center. This echoes the Peng preservation of Shang mortuary customs such as waist pits and human sacrifices, as previously discussed. It suggests that practices from Anyang must have been transformed by Peng into part of its own cultural traditions. Deep but Selective Adoptions of Ritual Cultures of the Zhou Center

As in tombs of Jin and other Zhou states, ding and gui constituted the core of bronze assemblages in Peng tombs, regardless of the sex of the deceased. At the same time, wine vessels continued to play a preeminent role, particularly in male elite tombs. Forty-nine of the 204 tombs studied by Xie Yaoting were furnished with bronze vessels, of which thirty-nine contained at least a ding and/or a gui. Those tombs, dated from the early to late Western Zhou periods, suggest a multitiered sociopolitical hierarchy among Peng elite (table 3.1). At the top of this hierarchy were eight burials dated to the middle and late Western Zhou periods; the deceased are identified as Pengbo of various generations according to inscriptions on bronzes and other mortuary features (Xie Yaoting 2010: 128). In these high-ranking elite tombs, food vessels were often accompanied by water and wine vessels and bronze music bells. Such an assortment of sacrificial bronzes illustrates Peng’s broad conformity with bronze assortments in elite tombs of the Zhou center and regional states. Although only a selected number of bronzes in M1 and M2 are published, they closely resemble the bronzes in the Zhou center (SKY, YWG, and JW 2006a: 16–21, 2006b: 4–18). Examination of the style and content of inscriptions on bronzes in M1 and M2 further reveals Peng’s deep appreciation for the ritual culture of the Zhou center (Chen Chao-jung 2009: 18–96). The inscription on a bronze gui in M1 (M1: 205) records that Pengbo Cheng Ῡ commissioned the vessel for his deceased father to extol Duke Yi’s (Yigong 䙲℔) “acknowledgment of merits” (mièlì 咹⌮), that is, compliments and awarding of gifts (fig. 3.7: 2) (SKY, YWG, and JW 2006b: 4–18).8 Casting sacrificial vessels for a deceased father as a ritual or gifting activity was a common practice among the elite in the Zhou political and cultural sphere. The grammatical structure and wording of the inscriptions on Peng vessels are indistinguishable from those on bronzes cast by the elite of the Zhou center or regional states. An example is on a ding (M2: 103) commissioned by Pengbo for offering sacrifices to

3

3

3

3

2

1

1

1

1

M2

M1006

M1011

M2022

M2113

M2531

M2049

M2066

M2086

1

1

2

2

1

2

4

1

8

4

M2165

1

M2105

2

1

M2096

1

1

M2040

1

8

1

M2061

Middle Western Zhou M2158

1

M2001

gui 䮳

M2014

Early Western Zhou

Male tombs

ding 溶

2

3

li 櫚

yan 䒿

1

1

1

1

1

Food vessels

1

pen 䙮

jue 䇝

1

1

2

2

1

TABLE 3.1 Distribution of bronze vessels in male and female tombs at the Peng cemetery in Hengshui

1

1

1

1

1

gu 如

1

1

1

2

1

4

zun ⮲

1

1

1

1

1

you ⌋

1

1

1

2

hu ⢢

Wine vessels

1

1

1

zhi 妗

1

square yi 㕡⼄

1

1

gong 妍

1

1

1

1

1

1

pan 䚌

1

1

1

1

2

he 䙱

Water vessels

1

?

M2050 (disturbed)

5 1 1 1 1

3 1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

2 1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2 1

1

1

3

Note: Most of the data in this table have been previously published by the author (see Sun Yan 2012: 66–67, tables 3–4) and are based on Xie Yaoting 2010: 102–9. This table also includes data on the tombs that have been recently published in SKY et al. 2019 and SKY et al. 2020c.

1 1 1

? 5 1

1 1

?

M2129 M2144 M2123 M2147 (disturbed) Middle Western Zhou M1 M2002 M2082 Late Western Zhou M1005 M1015 M2021 M2023

Early Western Zhou

Female tombs

?

M2167 (disturbed)

1

M2508

M2150 (disturbed)

1

M2058

1

Undated

1

M2006

1

1

M2055

1

?

2

M2007

M2064 (disturbed)

3

M1016

3

M1008

5

M1013

Late Western Zhou

130 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

his deceased father, whose posthumous name was “cultured father” (wénkaˇo 㔯侫), an ancestral title commonly used in inscriptions on bronzes cast by individuals of the Ji-surnamed lineages (fig. 3.7: 3). Pengbo also commissioned five vessels (two ding, one gui, one pan, and one yan) for his wife Bi Ji, one of which was a sacrificial vessel, according to the inscription. A recent scientific testing of soil traces left in bronzes during the casting process suggests that a number of Peng bronzes were cast locally (Nan et al. 2008: 259–62). This possibility enriches our understanding of Peng’s willingness to embrace the Zhou bronze-casting technique, language, and ritual culture to a degree that put Peng elite on an equal footing with the elite of the Zhou center and regional states. However, the practice of using standard ding and gui sets was absent in the forty-nine burials. It is unlikely that the Peng elite were unaware of this practice, as it was implemented by their neighbor, Jin. Interestingly, a set of graded “stemmed bells” (yoˇngzhōng 䓔揀), a type that rose to prominence along with the standard ding and gui set in burials in the Zhou center, was found in three Peng tombs, M1011, M1, and M2. The lack of a standard ding and gui set in Peng tombs indicates Peng’s deliberate selection of the ritual culture of the Zhou center and also the flexibility Peng exercised in implementing Zhou sumptuary rules. Fusion of Two Cultural Identities: The Tomb of Bi Ji

Bi Ji’s tomb stands out among all burials at Hengbei in a number of aspects. Dated from the end of the tenth to the early ninth centuries bce, it is a rectangular earthen pit with a sloped ramp on the western side. Compared to her husband’s tomb, the chamber of Bi Ji’s tomb is larger and wider and its ramp longer, indicating that more energy and labor were invested in the construction of her tomb than in the construction of her husband’s (fig. 3.8). A fascinating discovery in Bi Ji’s tomb was an earth impression of a section of a silk coffin cover (huāngwéi 勺⶷) embroidered with elaborate phoenix designs. Bi Ji was accompanied by twenty bronze sacrificial vessels, nearly doubling the eleven vessels in her husband’s tomb (table 3.1). Among the vessels in her tomb were five ding and five gui, more than the three ding and one gui accompanying her husband (fig. 3.8: 1–2). Her tomb contained all three types of sacrificial vessels: food (ding, gui, li, yan, and pen), wine (hu and zhi), and water vessels (he and pan). Wine vessels (hu and zhi) have not been found in other female tombs in the Peng cemetery reported so far.

131 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

0

2m

FIGURE 3.8. Line drawings of Bi Ji’s tomb M1 and selected bronzes from the tomb (from SKY, YWG, and JW 2006b: 5, 8, 11, figs. 2, 11–12, 17–18)

More astonishing is that Bi Ji was buried with a set of five bronze bells of the same style but in cascading sizes. Bronze musical bells were typically found in high-ranking male elite tombs during the Zhou period. Pengbo was also interred with a set of five bells, which surprisingly are smaller than those in Bi Ji’s tomb. Bronze vessels, along with lacquer wares and pottery, were placed in different layers on a wooden shelf (1.8 m long × 1.8 m wide × 2 m high) situated on the western side of the southern part of the burial chamber, parallel to the head of the deceased. This orderly display may have been intended to make a great impression on the participants in her funeral, including those from her natal family, the Bi lineage (Yan Sun 2012: 55–74). Bi Ji’s tomb is the richest among all female burials in the Peng cemetery and only second to M2158, a tomb of a Pengbo. Among Western Zhou elite tombs, tombs of rulers of the regional states or lineage heads consistently exceed those of their wives in size, scale, and scope of burial goods,

132 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

regardless of the wives’ lineage backgrounds. This can be widely observed, for instance, at the cemeteries of the Jin and Guo regional states (HKY and SWG 1999: 522–24; Cao Wei [1998] 2004: 91–106; Yong 2004: 161–202; Song Lingping 2007: 148–50). Inscriptions on bronzes and transmitted texts reveal an unusually powerful female figure, Rui Jiang 剖⦄, in the Rui 剖 state in the early Spring and Autumn period at Liangdaicun 㠩ⷞ㛹, Hancheng 杻❶. After her husband passed away, Rui Jiang became the de facto ruler of Rui (Yan Sun 2014: 125–35). But even with such impressive power, her tomb (M26) only contained a five-ding set, less than the seven-ding set in her husband’s tomb (M27). In the context of mortuary practice in the Western Zhou period, a noblewoman rarely received a treatment at death far exceeding that of her husband. Another unusual feature of Bi Ji’s tomb is that it contained thirteen threefooted urns and three flare-mouthed jars (fig. 3.8: 3–4). Both vessel types were found only in a few published Peng tombs. As the previous analysis of Jin tombs indicates, both types were not part of the pottery repertoire at Anyang and in the Zhou center, but likely were introduced by women who were married in from other groups north of the Linfen Basin (Chen Fangmei 2002: 157–96). Bi Ji, however, was a woman of the Bi lineage of the Ji surname, and the use of either type of pottery was certainly not a tradition of her natal family. More remarkable is the number of the two types of vessels in her tomb. In Jin and Ba, typically one three-footed urn, or one flare-mouthed jar, or one of each type, was offered in a tomb. Bi Ji’s tomb, however, contained a collection of thirteen three-footed urns and three flaremouthed jars. They were not just indispensable necessities for Bi Ji’s funerary sacrifices, but an excessive or extravagant display. The prominence of both types of vessels was further highlighted by their placement on the top level of the wooden shelf above the bronze vessels. The superior mortuary treatment of Bi Ji and the extravagant display of artifacts in her tomb should be understood as signifying something beyond the personal emotion and preference of her husband Pengbo, who passed away afterwards. Because she was the first lady of Peng, Bi Ji’s funeral must have carried cultural and political messages for the Peng lineage as a whole. The excessive use of three-footed urns and flare-mouthed jars in Bi Ji’s tomb was a deliberate attempt to indigenize her identity. Bi Ji cannot be regarded as only a member of her natal family, or as a member of the Bi lineage or the Peng lineage, but simultaneously and inseparably as a member of both lineages. In other words, the message Peng presumably aimed to convey to

133 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

the internal and external audiences at Bi Ji’s funeral is that Bi Ji embodied not just a marriage between two individuals, but the unity of two lineages and the fusion of two cultural identities. The extravagant treatment of Bi Ji’s tomb demonstrates Peng’s appreciation of its marriage relation with the Bi lineage and its desire to sustain this relation. This splendid treatment seems to have violated or contradicted the common mortuary practices of the Zhou elite circle, in which the husband consistently received more elaborate mortuary treatment than his wife. But Bi Ji’s treatment was used to strengthen the relations between Peng and Bi and to bring the two even closer. Ultimately, it would facilitate Peng’s access to and integration into the Zhou political and cultural core, a topic that is discussed in the following section. Building Political Networks and Alliances

A close examination of inscriptions on bronzes cast by Peng lineage members suggests that Peng had an extensive marriage network and active interactions with the Zhou court after the early Western Zhou period. Besides the Bi lineage already mentioned, marriage partners of Peng likely included the Zhou royal family, members of the Zhou regional states Rui and Jin, the Nangong ⋿⭓ and Cheng ㆸ lineages of the Ji ⦔ surname, and the Ji ࠣ (Jiang ⦄), Hu 嗶 (Si ⥺), Yi 佑 (Ji ⦆), and Fan 䔒 (Ji ⤨) lineages (see fig. 3.6) (Han Wei 2007a: 219–21, 353–54; Chen Chao-jung 2009: 18–96, 2014: 88–106; Xie Yaoting 2013: 285–306). One of the most notable marriage relations Peng had was with the Zhou royal family during the early phase of the middle Western Zhou period. Three recently published bronze inscriptions on a yan (M2158: 173), a he (M2158: 81), and a pan (M2158: 84) document that a Ruibo cast these vessels as gifts for Pengbo’s marriage with an old sister of the Zhou king (Chen Chao-jung 2009: 18–96; Xie Yaoting 2013: 285–306; SKY et al. 2019: 15–59).9 It is not surprising that Rui participated in the celebration of this high-profile marriage, considering Rui’s close kin relation with the Zhou court and its own matrimonial connection with Peng. The Peng-Rui marriage relation is recorded in a number of inscriptions. Inscriptions on two middle Western Zhou gui vessels in M1006 (Nos. 66 and 122) state that Pengbo cast the vessels for his wife Rui Ji’s 剖⦔ use in ancestral sacrifices (Xie Yaoting 2013: 285–306). The inscription on a bronze gui in Pengbo’s tomb M2158 (No. 148) records that Ruibo 剖ỗ cast four gui as dowries for his daughter Peng Ji ᾿⦔ (SKY et al. 2019: 15–59). Studies of bronze

134 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

inscriptions and of transmitted texts, such as the Book of Documents, suggest that generations of Ruibo served as high-ranking officials at the Zhou court during the reigns of Kings Wu and Kang, when the Rui polity was likely situated in the Qian River valley and was bordered by the Yu 嘆 polity (Zhang Tian’en 2010b: 35–42; Chen Chao-jung 2017: 189–208). The discovery of the Rui lineage cemetery at Liangdaicun suggests that the lineage was relocated to Hancheng on the western bank of the Yellow River after the middle Western Zhou period and remained there until the middle Spring and Autumn period (Zhang and Sun 2012: 21–32). Inscriptions on bronzes in a recently excavated Rui tomb, M502, have revealed that Rui simultaneously maintained active engagement with the Bi and Peng lineages (SKY, QQBKY, and HJGW 2010: 227–28). The Peng-Bi marriage relation was another prominent one. Inscriptions on three bronzes in M1 and M2, two ding (M1: 212, M2: 57), and a gui (M1: 199), record that Bi Ji, the wife of Pengbo (the occupant of M2), was of the prominent Bi lineage (SKY, YWG, and JW 2006a: 16–21). The Bi lineage derived from Bigong Gao, a prominent figure at the Zhou court in the early Western Zhou period. Members of the lineage, including Bigong Gao, are recorded in bronze inscriptions or transmitted texts such as the Grand Scribe’s Records and the Lost Book of Zhou (Yizhoushu 忠␐㚠) (Han Wei 2007a: 55–60; Chen Yingfei 2012: 35–49). Peng also reciprocally married its women into the Bi lineage, as indicated by the inscription on the aforementioned Pengzhong ding ᾿ẚ溶 (JC: 2462) cast by Pengzhong ᾿ẚ as his daughter Bi Kui’s 䔊⩧ dowry. The inscription on another gui in M1 (No. 205) dated to around 900 bce documents the award of a metal chariot and banner to Pengbo Cheng Ῡ by an important Zhou court figure, Duke Yi (SKY, YWG, and JW 2006a: 16–21). Studies of other inscriptions related to Duke Yi’s activities indicate that he was active at the court from King Gong’s ℙ reign to the beginning of King Yih’s reign. Some scholars, based on the inscription on the Bi Xian gui 䔊歖䮳 (JC: 4061), suggest that Duke Yi (Yigong) was a head of the Bi lineage and Bi Ji could be his daughter (Khayutina 2017: 75–132; Yang Yachang 2004: 71–75, 2009: 60–62, 67), but others argue that Yigong and the Bi lineage were unrelated (Han Wei 2007a: 55–60, 2007b: 16–21). Marriages of the Bi and Rui lineages facilitated Peng’s access to the Zhou court, as members of both lineages held important offices at the court. Furthermore, members of the Peng lineage could have had direct access to and even served at the court. An inscription on the Wang gui 㛊䮳 (JC: 4272) shows that Pengfu ᾿䇞, a member of the Peng lineage, held the office of

135 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

zǵi ⭘, the manager of the king’s lineage, at the court of King Gong. Pengfu, because of his position at the court, might have arranged marriages between Pengbo Cheng and Bi Ji (Khayutina 2017: 71–132). The Peng members, like the Jin, seem to have had the obligation to provide military services for the court. An inscription on a you (M2: 75) in M2 dated to King Mu’s reign records that its caster, Su 倫, likely a younger brother of Pengbo, assisted the Zhou king in an eastern military campaign (Dong Shan 2014: 50–55; Li Xueqin 2014: 144–45). Within this frontier, marriage relations between Peng and Jin are documented on inscriptions, as analyzed in the preceding section. The nature of the contacts between Peng and Ba, however, is unclear. Tomb M1017 in the Ba lineage cemetery at Dahekou contained a bronze pan (M1017: 26) inscribed with “Pengbo begins to make [this] travel pan vessel; may [he] for ten thousand years eternally use [it]” (᾿ỗ倯ἄ㕭䚌℞叔⸜㯠䓐). The vessel was commissioned by Pengbo but ended up in a Ba tomb, suggesting contacts between the two lineages. Peng could have also established contacts with the Zhou regional state Yan in the remote northwestern frontier. Peng tomb M2158 contained a bronze li cast by Taibao (the Grand Protector), the titular founder of Yan (SKY et al. 2019: 15–59). An early Western Zhou gui known as the Peng Gai gui ᾿ᶸ䮳 (JC: 3667), commissioned by a Peng lineage member, was found in a cache at Shanwanzi Ⱉ䀋⫸ in western Liaoning (KW, CDB, and LB 1977: 23–27, 43). The cache contained twenty-two vessels commissioned by individuals of various lineages, some of whom were Yan elite members stationed at Kazuo (see chapter 4). Since the Yan ruling family had marriage relations with Ba, another neighboring polity in the lower Fen River valley (see the following section “The Ba Lineage at Dahekou”), it is not surprising that Yan could have had contacts with Peng as well. Peng’s desire to build an expansive network through marriages and other contacts with Zhou regional states or prominent lineages could have been politically motivated. This network could have facilitated Peng’s access to the center of Zhou politics and elevated Peng to an “insider.” In fact, Peng had developed a political identity based on deep integration with the Zhou center, as exemplified by Peng’s participation in court activities and the king’s military campaign. The close political integration seems to have also facilitated Peng’s assimilation into the Zhou ritual culture. Inscriptions on bronzes and mortuary practices reveal that Peng members were masterful at absorbing the Zhou language, bronzes, and ritual culture.

136 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

THE BA LINEAGE AT DAHEKOU

Ba was another lineage polity that was active in the lower Fen River valley in the Western Zhou period. Absent in transmitted texts, Ba was brought to light by archaeological excavations at Dahekou, Yicheng 侤❶, in the southeastern Linfen Basin (see map 3.1). The site was first discovered in 2007 due to the report of a tomb robbery. A decade of probing and scientific excavations since then has identified a cemetery of 45,000 square meters and a settlement about 500 meters southwest of the cemetery. The excavations have unveiled about 2,200 burials and twenty-four chariot and horse pits containing over 25,000 artifacts, including bronzes, pottery, lacquer wares, stone and bone tools, jade, bone and shell ornaments, and oracle bones (Zhongguo xiwenwang 2017). Inscriptions on a number of bronzes in tombs M1, M2, and M1017 reveal that the lineage self-identified as Ba 曠 (SKY and DMLK 2011: 9–18). The tombs were arranged in an orderly fashion and spanned from the early, middle, and late Western Zhou periods to the beginning of the Spring and Autumn period, suggesting that the Ba lived continuously in the region throughout the Western Zhou period. Like Peng and Jin, Ba was an active player in the lower Fen River valley who developed strong connections with the court and Zhou regional states such as Jin and Yan. Data published to date on the Dahekou cemetery are limited. About a dozen tombs excavated prior to 2011 have been briefly reported (SKY and DMLK 2011: 9–18; SKY et al. 2018a: 89–139, 2018b: 223–62; SKY et al. 2020a: 4–30, 2020b: 4–25). An exhibition catalog of selected artifacts from Dahekou on display at the Capital Museum in Beijing ⊿Ṕ in 2014 was also published (SKY, SB, and SB 2014). Inscriptions on bronzes reveal that the occupants of M1 and M1017 were Babo, the heads of the Ba lineage of two generations, and that of M2002 was Bazhong 曠ẚ, the second born of the Ba lineage (SKY et al. 2018a: 89–139, 2018b: 223–62). Both M1017 and M2002 are dated to the early phase of the middle Western Zhou period. M2002 could be slightly later than M1017, in the transitional period from King Mu’s reign to King Gong’s reign in the second half of the tenth century bce. M1 was not dated in the report, but it can be attributed to King Zhao’s reign of the mid-tenth century bce based on the morphological characteristics of interred bronzes and the content and writing style of the bronze inscriptions. In very recently published site reports, tombs M1034 and M6096 are dated to the early phase of the middle Western Zhou period and the late Western Zhou period (SKY

137 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

et al. 2020a: 4–30, 2020b: 4–25), respectively. These published data allow us to examine the cultural identities of the Ba lineage and the complex political interactions of the polities in this frontier during the Western Zhou period. The Ba Lineage: Who Were the Ba?

Inscriptions on bronzes in M1 and M1017 indicate that the Ba lineage was of a non-Ji background. An inscription on a bronze pan (M1017: 41) in M1017 states that Babo cast the pan for his wife, a woman of the Ji ⦔ġsurname, to commemorate his defeat of the Rong (SKY et al. 2018a: 89–139) (fig. 3.9: 1). Wine vessels found in M1 commissioned by Yanhou Zhi ⋥ὗ㖐 for his aunt and deceased father Xin indicate that Ba had marriage relations with the Yan state in the northeastern frontier.

FIGURE 3.9. Rubbings of inscriptions on bronzes from Ba tombs (1, 4–6 from SKY et al. 2018a: 105, 108, 116, 125, figs. 21, 23, 31, 38; 2–3 from SKY et al. 2018b: 230, fig. 6)

138 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

None of the inscriptions, however, specify the lineage background of the Ba. Excavators of the Dahekou cemetery have noticed a number of shared mortuary practices between Ba and Peng, including the western orientation used in their tombs and the use of waist pits and dog sacrifices. These shared characteristics have led some to argue that Ba, like Peng, belonged to a branch of Di 䉬 with the Kui surname (SKY and DMLK 2011: 9–18; Xie Yaoting 2012: 374–84) and that Ba could have been related to the “nine lineages of the Huai surname” recorded in the Zuo Commentary (see previous discussion in “The Ancestral Background of the Peng Lineage”) that were bestowed to Jin by the Zhou king (Zhang Tian’en 2010a: 50–56; Tian Wei 2011: 28–32; Liu Xu 2012: 122–46; Han Wei 2014: 388–405). Others have attributed Ba to various polities recorded in the transmitted texts based on linguistic and phonological analysis. One study proposes that Ba was the Bai 㝷 lineage of the Ji ⦆ surname recorded in the Zuo Commentary and was the descendant of the legendary Yellow Emperor and not related to the Rong or Di (Zhu Jiping 2012). Another study has identified Ba as Ge 㟤 since the two characters could be used interchangeably in ancient times, and it has linked Ba with Lu 㼆, who, according to the Speeches of the States (Guoyu ⚳婆) and the Zuo Commentary, was the descendant of Guirong 櫤ㆶ, a powerful polity mentioned in the Bamboo Annals (Zhushu jinian 䪡㚠䲨⸜) (Xie Yaoting 2014a: 439–42; Huang and Zhang 2015: 105–11). The latter proposal is more plausible based on the epigraphic evidence in M2002. Inscriptions on a bronze ding (M2002: 9) and a pair of gui (M2002: 8 and 33) record that Gezhong 㟤ẚ, the second born of the Ge lineage who fought against the Rong, killed the enemy and caught captives. The same tomb also yielded a bronze ding (M2002: 34) commissioned by Bazhong, the second born of the Ba lineage (fig. 3.9: 2). All four vessels are stylistically similar and fall into the early phase of the middle Western Zhou period. Bazhong and Gezhong likely referred to the same person. If so, Ba and Ge could be different names of the same lineage. Inscriptions on an early Western Zhou bronze ding (JC: 2184) and gui (JC: 3565) commissioned by a noblewoman, Ba Ji 曠⦆, provide further clues for Ba’s lineage background. Both inscriptions read, “Ba Ji makes treasured sacrificial vessel” (曠⦆ἄ⮞⮲⼄). Ba Ji could be understood either as a lady of the Ji ⦆ surname who married into the Ba lineage, or a lady of the Ba lineage of the Ji ⦆ surname. The naming of a married noblewoman in Zhou bronze inscriptions has long been used as crucial evidence to identify the surname of a particular lineage. The practice of naming women in bronze inscriptions

139 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

of the Western Zhou period has been recently studied (Chen Chao-jung 2012: 251–86; Li Feng 2018: 101–2). Ba Ji, in this case, is a Ji ⦆-surnamed lady married into the Ba lineage. If so, Ba could not be of the Ji ⦆ surname because of the practice of exogamy. In summary, this inscriptional evidence indicates that Ba was of a non-Ji ⦔ lineage, but Ba’s exact ancestral background cannot be resolved with certainty. Preservation of Shang Ritual Culture

Like the Peng, the Ba lineage selectively preserved the characteristics of Shang ritual culture at Anyang. Among the reported or partially reported tombs, five were furnished with a waist pit, and three contained a dog sacrifice; both practices were popular in late Shang tombs at Anyang (see table 3.2). All five tombs yielded bronze vessels of various types and quantities, suggesting that the deceased were elite of varied rank. M1 and M1017 contained food, wine, and water vessels, M2002 food and water vessels, and M1034 and M1033 only food vessels. These tombs indicate that, as with the Peng lineage, it was the elite of the Ba lineage who acted as the main proponents for the continuation of late Shang ritual culture in the Western Zhou period. Assemblages of bronze vessels in M1 and M1017 also reveal the continuation of the late Shang preference for the use of jue and gu wine vessels in ancestral sacrifices (table 3.2). Tomb M1 was furnished with twenty-two wine vessels, including one gu, six jue, eight zhi, two zun, four you, and one lei 仵 jar. M1017 of the middle Western Zhou period contained twenty-one wine vessels, including three gu, seven jue, one jia, two zhi, three zun, three you, one lei, and one hu. The use of a jia wine vessel in this middle Western Zhou tomb is quite surprising because the type, though popular at Anyang in the late Shang period, was rarely used in tombs at the beginning of the Western Zhou period. With nearly 34 percent (M1) and 40 percent (M1017) of bronze vessels being wine vessels, both tombs presented an assemblage featuring both food and wine vessels rather than a food-focused one. The wine vessels in both tombs surpassed those in Peng tombs in number and type. The use of bronze wine vessels can also be observed in three tombs at Jingjiecun, Lingshi, north of Dahekou. The three tombs are dated to the Shang-Zhou transitional period. Tombs M1 and M2 each contained ten jue and four gu, and M3 contained three jue and one gu (SKY 2006: 203). Groups that traditionally associated with Shang often continued to use a large number of wine vessels, particularly gu and jue, in tombs during the

M2002

Undated

Late Western Zhou

3

M1017

King Gong’s Reign

1

M1033

M2011

1

1

M1034 (male)

M6096 (male)

3

3

M2 (female)

13

24

M1

King Zhao’s Reign

1

2

1

3

6

9

ding gui 溶 䮳

Tomb number

Period

TABLE 3.2 Bronze vessels from the Ba cemetery at Dahekou

2

1

7

li 櫚

1

1

1

1

4

yan dou 䒿 寮

Food vessels

2

xu 䚐

1

1

2

pen 䙮

1

1

1

1

pan 䚌

1

1

1

1

he 䙱

1

yu 䙪

Water vessels

7

6

jue 䇝

3

1

gu 如

1

jia 㕅

3

2

3

4

zun you ⮲ ⌋

hu ⢢

1

Wine vessels

2

8

zhi 妗

1

1

lei 仵

2

1

2

5

8

11

53

65

Vessel Total

bell 1

a set of three bells

a set of three bells, a set of three nao 撁 bell; a set of two diao 揫 bells

Musical instruments

1

1

1

1

1

Waist Pit

1

1

1

Dog Sacrifice

141 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

early Western Zhou period, such as in M1 at Taiqinggong ⣒㶭⭓, Luyi 渧怹, in Henan Province and in the Shi ⎚ lineage burials at Qianzhangda ⇵㌴⣏, Tengzhou 㹽ⶆ, in Shandong Province (HWKY and ZW 2000: 205–6; ZSKKY 2005: 208).10 What is remarkable is that the Ba lineage upheld this practice into the middle Western Zhou period, reflecting that it could have long incorporated this practice into its own culture. Ba’s continuation of the ritual culture at Anyang was also underscored by the use of square ding in M1 and M1017. The square ding was primarily used by the remnants of Shang during the early Western Zhou period (Yang and Liu 1991: 533–45). Only a limited number of square ding were commissioned by individuals of the Ji-surnamed lineages, and their casters were exclusively Zhou royal members and high-ranking elite (Zhang Maorong 2002: 75–87). Among the impressive collection of ding and gui in M1 and M1017 are seven square ding (two in M1 and five in M1017). The one reported in M1 is modest in size (26.5 cm high, 15 cm long, and 12.5 cm wide at the mouth) and is decorated only with two rows of bowstrings below the rim. The two published in M1017 (M1017: 2, 10), however, feature fancier design; one of them was commissioned by Babo. Selective Adoption of Zhou Ritual Culture from the Center

Ba’s adoption of Zhou ritual culture from the center is primarily manifested in the style and use of bronzes, the skillful mastery of Zhou writing, and the adoption of Zhou elite social etiquette. Bronze vessels in M1, M1017, and M2002, in particular, are highly comparable to their counterparts from the Zhou center and regional states in shape and ornamentation. Some vessels have stylistic characteristics typical of different phases of the Western Zhou period. For instance, a bronze gui (M1: 99) in M1 is typical of gui of the early phase of the early Western Zhou period: a bowl supported by a tall ring foot with a thick rim and two handles, each with a hanging rectangular extension (fig. 3.10: 1). More prominently, the bowl of the gui is decorated with two pairs of face-to-face crouching animals known as the “snail-like animal motif ” (wōtıˇ shòumiàn 圠橼䌠朊) (ZQQBW 1996: 12). This kind of decoration is thought to be a Zhou invention that was popular during the reigns of Kings Wu and Cheng. Around the ring foot are two pairs of long-tailed birds, the pattern fitting well into the third type of bird design in Chen Gongrou 昛℔㝼 and Zhang Changshou’s ⻝攟⢥ typological study of bird motifs, a type popular during the reigns of Kings Cheng and Kang (Chen and Zhang

142 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

FIGURE 3.10. Bronze vessels from Ba tombs in style of the Zhou center and a bronze bird-shaped zun from tomb M114 at Beizhao (1 from SKY and DMLK 2011, color plate 5. 1; 2–3 from SKY et al. 2018a: 100, 102, figs. 15, 17; 4–5 from SKY et al. 2018b: 228, 240, figs. 4, 18; 6 from BDKW and SKY 2001: 10, fig. 14)

1984: 265–86). These stylistic characteristics help date the gui to the reigns of Kings Cheng and Kang (the late eleventh to the early tenth centuries bce). Another bronze vessel gui in M1017 (M1017: 8) bears stylistic characteristics of the early part of the middle Western Zhou period. It features a squat oblong body, a ring foot with a thick rim, and two small handles on the belly (fig. 3.10: 2). The belly and lid carry groove patterns that were popular during the early part of the middle Western Zhou period in the Zhou center. The style of the inscription on the gui also has middle Western Zhou characteristics (fig. 3.10: 3). The inscription consists of forty-eight characters evenly spread into six columns. This neat arrangement is a departure from that of the early Western Zhou period. Each character looks round and smooth without sharp ending strokes. Two commonly seen characters in the inscription, Qi ℞ġand Bao ⮞, also display a writing style typical of the middle Western Zhou period (Liu Huaxia 2010: 43–72).

143 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

A pair of bronze gui (M2002: 8 and 33) in M2002 are highly comparable in shape and ornamentation with the gui in M1017 just discussed, suggesting that the three vessels are likely contemporaneous. Other bronze vessels in M2002 closely resemble their counterparts from the Zhou center. For instance, the round ding (M2002: 9) features a drooping, widening belly toward the bottom, highly comparable to the Fifth Year Wei ding Ḽ䣨堃溶 and Ninth Year Wei ding ḅ⸜堃溶 in a cache at Dongjia 吋⭞ in Fufeng ㈞桐 (fig. 3.10: 4) (Cao 2005: 336–43). A bird-shaped he (M2002: 23) amazingly shares an extremely similar design with a bronze he in M114 at Beizhao, implying that the two vessels were likely cast by the same workshop (fig. 3.10: 5–6). It is not known where Ba bronzes were cast. As the neighboring Peng could cast bronze vessels locally, it is possible that some of the Ba vessels were also cast locally. The strong stylistic consistency between Ba vessels and those of the Zhou center indicates that Ba had intimate knowledge of bronze casting in the center. Like other polities within the Zhou political system, Ba used bronzes as a primary material symbol to mark the political status of its members. Among the ten partially reported tombs, the scope and scale of burial goods vary considerably, projecting the tiered sociopolitical status of the deceased. The occupants of M1 and M1017 were the rulers of the lineage. Their burials were not only the largest but also the richest in the cemetery. M1 has a surface area of about fourteen square meters and is 9.75 meters deep. M1017 is slightly larger at the opening, about seventeen square meters, and around ten meters deep. Both tombs were lavishly furnished with bronze food, water, and wine vessels, weapons, tools, horse and chariot pieces, and musical instruments. M1 contained an impressive collection of sixty-five vessels and M1017 contained fifty-three vessels, a scale unmatched even by the Jinhou tombs. The number of bronze ding and gui in M1 and M1017 are especially striking. M1 yielded twenty-four ding and nine gui, and M1017 yielded thirteen ding and six gui (see table 3.2). The quantity of ding and gui in both tombs far exceeds that in tombs of the rulers of Zhou regional states such as Jin and Rui. For instance, M113, the tomb of Jinhou’s wife of the late phase of the early Western Zhou period, yielded the most ding and gui in all Jin tombs, but it only contained eight ding and six gui. M2002 and M2 represent the next level of tombs. Both were supplied with bronze food and water vessels but no wine vessels. The occupant of M2002 is identified as Bazhong. The tomb yielded a marvelous example of a he (self-named in the inscription) cast in the shape of a bird (fig. 3.10: 5).

144 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

The inscription on the lid records a vow declared by the caster of the vessel, Qi Ḇ/㯋 (Li Xueqin 2011a: 3–4; Qiu 2012: 5–11; Yan and Xie 2018: 43–52). The vow was repeated in an inscription on a bronze pan in the same tomb. M2, whose occupant was a female, yielded a bronze yan cast by Babo, suggesting some kind of connection between Babo and the deceased. The third level of tombs is represented by M1034, M1033, M6096, and M2011, all of which were furnished with only bronze ding and/or gui ranging from one to five each. The occupants of these tombs were likely lowerranking elite. Further down are tombs of commoners, as exemplified by M1038, M1028, and M4008 (not shown in table 3.2). None of them contained bronze vessels. M1038 yielded bronze weapons, M1028 only ceramic pots, and M4008 neither bronzes nor pottery. Among the reported tombs, M1, M1017, and M2002 yielded vessels commissioned by Ba lineage members who self-identified as Babo and Bazhong 曠ẚ, indicating adoption of the Zhou tradition of appellation. The occasions on which the vessels were commissioned also imitated the Zhou elite practice of casting vessels to extol and commemorate the awards given by higher-ranked officials or the court. An inscription on a gui (M1017: 8), for instance, records that Babo cast the vessel to extol Jingshu’s award, and a yu 䙪 bowl (M1017: 6) of King Gong’s reign in the same tomb was commissioned to extol the awards from the Zhou king (SKY et al. 2018a: 89–139). The composition and calligraphic style of these inscriptions are comparable to those on bronzes commissioned by Zhou elite in the center, suggesting a high level of mastery of the Zhou written language. Ba’s adoption of Zhou ritual and social etiquette can be best illustrated by the inscription on the yu (M1017: 6) just mentioned. The inscription of 116 characters has attracted considerable scholarly attention since its publication (fig. 3.9: 4) (e.g., Li Xueqin 2011b: 67–68; Sun Qingwei 2013: 506–14; Zhang Liang 2013: 81–83). The vessel was commissioned by Babo Shang 曠ỗ⯂, the lineage head, who was also the recipient of mièlì, an “acknowledgment of merits” ritual. Bokao ỗ侫, as the Zhou king’s envoy, delivered gifts, grass (to filter the alcohol), and ales to Shang. Shang, to extol the king’s beneficence, cast the vessel. What is special about the inscription is that it narrates in great detail the various processes of protocol and gift exchanges between Bokao and Babo. For instance, the inscription records that Shang bowed on the ground three times to extol the king’s beneficence and awarding of gifts. Shang also presented gifts to Bokao three times in return and accompanied his entourage to the Ba border to send him back to the court. Such

145 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

documentation indicates that Ba was well integrated into the Zhou political circle and treated Bokao’s visit very seriously in an honorable manner. Ba’s adoption of the ritual culture from Anyang and the Zhou center was, nonetheless, selective. Human sacrifices, a popular Shang burial custom at Anyang and widely used in elite tombs of the neighboring Peng lineage, were absent in the Ba tombs published to date (Xie Yaoting 2014b: 18). The Peng elite also used a ramp, like Zhou elite in other regions, to mark their high rank, as seen in the tombs of Pengbo (M2) and his wife Bi Ji (M1). The Ba elite, however, for whatever reason, did not adopt this practice. Connections with Bronze-Using Cultures Outside Anyang and the Zhou Center

One of the most noticeable architectural features of M1 is the eleven niches dug into the walls of the burial chamber. Eight niches were filled with lacquer wares, proto-porcelains, and pottery of various types. Niched tombs were not widely used during the Western Zhou period. The twenty-five niched tombs of the Western Zhou period known to date are located primarily in the Baoji area and the Zhou center (Zhang and Xie 2016: 21–26). The use of niched tombs in the Baoji area can be traced back to the local Liujia culture (see chapter 2). Two niched burials (M22 and M26) of the Taosi culture (2300–1900 bce) were reported in the lower Fen River valley where Ba settled in the Western Zhou period. M22 was furnished with eleven niches that morphologically resemble those in M1 (ZSKKY, SKY, and LW 2003: 3–6). However, the huge chronological gap between the two tombs makes it premature to suggest any connection between them. It is unclear whether the use of niches was a mortuary custom native to the Ba lineage or simply a practical solution for the placement of the extraordinary funerary wealth. Considering that communities at Baoji and the Ba lineage interacted frequently with the Zhou court, it is conceivable that Ba could have learned about this burial custom from the Zhou center or the Baoji area. Interestingly, a single-handled bronze jar in M1 shows a stylistic connection with a ceramic prototype of the Liujia culture (fig. 3.11: 1, 3). The bronze jar, 8.5 centimeters tall, features a contracted collared neck, a globular body, and a slightly concave bottom. Around the neck, belly, and handle are incised geometric motifs. Like the double-handled bronze guan in M113 at Beizhao, the ceramic prototype of the jar could be traced to the Qijia

146 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

culture in Gansu and to early Bronze Age communities in Inner Mongolia, northern Shanxi, and Shaanxi, roughly from the end of the third millennium to the seventeenth century bce. But it has not been found in the Lijiaya culture and in Shang-date sites in southern Shanxi (Zhao Jumei 2008: 3–43). The closest examples are the ones from the late phase of the Liujia culture, whose ceramic jars often carry crossed incised lines and punctuations (Zhang Tian’en 2004: 295). The zigzag geometric motifs on the bronze jar, filled with punctuated short lines, are incised rather than cast. It is unclear whether the jar was made locally or was an imported item, and it is also unclear what cultural meanings it might have embodied besides functioning as a wine-serving utensil. Connections between Ba and the surrounding cultures are manifested in a few types of artifacts in tombs. A bronze gui in M1034 of the early phase of the middle Western Zhou period exhibits an uncommon shape, with a high ring foot, deep belly, and flared mouth (fig. 3.11: 2). This type of ceramic and bronze gui vessel was found in a number of sites of the late Shang period

FIGURE 3.11. Artifacts with distinct styles from Ba tombs (except no. 3) (1 redrawn after SKY, SB, and SB 2014: 58; 2, 4 from SKY et al. 2020a: 15, 19, figs. 29, 36; 3 from SZK 1984: 22, fig. 10)

147 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

along both sides of the Yellow River in the Jin-Shaan Plateau, suggesting cultural connections between Ba and the people of that region (Li Jiansheng 2012: 392–406). A bronze dagger (M1034: 93) in the same tomb exhibits the style typical of the Northern Zone (fig. 3.11: 4). Its blade, featuring a raised central ridge, is typical of daggers on both sides of the Taihang ⣒埴 Mountains during the late Shang and Western Zhou periods. The openwork design and small raised bosses on the hilt, however, are mostly seen east of the Taihang Mountains. The male deceased was young, about eighteen or nineteen years old. It is possible that the dagger was a piece of war booty acquired during fights with the Rong. Ceramic three-footed urns and flare-mouthed jars were also found in Ba tombs. Three-footed urns are reported in M2 and M1033. The example published in an exhibition catalog is short, and its belly swells horizontally (SKY, SB, and SB 2014: 127). M2, a female tomb, contained eight bronze vessels along with a bronze bell and ceramic li, guan, and three-footed urns. M1033 was furnished with bronze and ceramic vessels but no bronze weapons, indicating that the deceased was likely a female, based on the general pattern of burial goods in female tombs in the Zhou period. As discussed previously, three-footed urns were also present in Jin and Peng tombs. Jin, Peng, and Ba used the vessel in a similar fashion: it was typically placed in female tombs as a minor type in the ceramic assemblage that centered on li and guan vessels. As for the flare-mouthed jar, only one example in Ba tombs was published in an exhibition catalog (SKY, SB, and SB 2014: 131). As in Jin and Peng tombs, its use in Ba tombs was very limited. It is clear, though, that the use of both ceramic types was a shared practice among a segment of the populations in Jin, Peng, and Ba. Interactions with the Zhou Court and Marriage Relations

Published inscriptions on bronzes in Ba tombs vividly portray Ba’s interactions with the Zhou court, regional states, and a string of communities inside and outside the north-central frontier (fig. 3.6). Ba’s participation in the court ceremony and its involvement in military campaigns can be best illustrated by inscriptions on bronzes in M1017. The inscription on a square gui (M1017: 42) of the late tenth century bce records that Babo received an award of ten strands of cowries at a royal ceremony performed by the Zhou king at a place called Di 㮸 (fig. 3.9: 5) (SKY et al. 2018a: 89–139). The same event is documented in an abbreviated manner in an inscription on a bronze

148 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

he in the same tomb (M1017: 70). The two vessels were likely cast by the same Babo to commemorate the event and the acceptance of the award from the Zhou king. The style of the he, a round-square body with four bulging lobes, displays characteristics of the early phase of the middle Western Zhou period. The same Babo was also a recipient of two “acknowledgment of merits” rituals performed by eminent figures at the Zhou court, Jingshu ḽ⍼ and Bokao ỗ侫, who were sent to Ba to convey the message of the Zhou king. The ritual, performed in the eleventh month as recorded on three gui in M1017, was delivered by Jingshu, who previously commanded Babo to carry out a punitive military campaign (fig. 3.9: 6) (SKY et al. 2018a: 89–139).11 Leather (for chariot spokes), cinnabar, and a tiger skin were awarded to Babo in the ceremony. Babo likely received mièlì from the Zhou king because of his battle against the Rong, which is recorded in the inscription on a bronze pan (M1017: 41) in the same tomb. The inscription states that Babo fought against the Rong and caught captives on the bıˇngwuˇ ᷁⋰ day (day 43) of the dying brightness in the first month (SKY et al. 2018a: 89–139).12 Interestingly, inscriptions on a ding (M2002: 9) and two gui (M2002: 8 and 33) in M2002 shed more light on the same military campaign (fig. 3.9: 3). The inscriptions state that on the jiaˇwuˇ 䓚⋰ day (day 41) of the first month, the Rong invaded a place called Sangyuan ╒⍇. Gezhong 㟤ẚ led the army and defeated the Rong, and he cast the vessel to extol the blessing of his ancestors (Li Jiansheng 2014). Gezhong might have been Bazhong or someone who served under Babo (Xie Yaoting 2014a: 439–42). The date and content of the inscriptions in both tombs indicate that a series of events occurred in tandem. Another mièlì ritual documented on a bronze yu (M1017: 6) in M1017 was performed by Bokao ỗ侫 for Babo Shang ⯂ on behalf of the Zhou king, as discussed in the preceding section “Selective Adoption of Zhou Ritual Culture from the Center.” The inscription details a two-day diplomatic exchange between the royal guest, Bokao, and the host, Babo Shang. Bokao brought not only the praises from the Son of Heaven, but also royal gifts of fragrant grass (yù 櫙) and ales (chàng 櫗 and jiāng 冏 [㻧]) (Li Xueqin 2011b: 67–68). Bokao also presented personal gifts, a tiger skin, and a jade zhāng 䐳 to Shang. On the second day, Shang first asked Bokao to convey a message to the Zhou king that he was gratified by the king’s praises and awards and asked Bokao to present a jade zhāng blade to the king. The rest of the inscription carefully documents how Shang presented a series of gifts to

149 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

Bokao and eventually sent the guest for departure at the Ba border. Although inscriptions of “acknowledgment of merits” rituals and gifting were common in the Western Zhou period, such diligent recordings of the visit of the royal ambassador illustrate the great attention Babo Shang paid to the mièlì ritual and the praises from the king. It further suggests that Ba was a protagonist in Zhou ritual practices and an active participant in the Zhou political system. Another eminent court figure who carried out a gift-giving mission to Ba was the Duke of Rui (Ruigong 剖℔). The inscription on a gui (M1: 93) in M1 records that Ba cast the vessel to commemorate the award of two horses, jade, and metal from the duke (SKY and DMLK 2011: 9–18). Historical studies suggest that members of the Rui lineage had long served in important positions at the Zhou court (Chen Chao-jung 2017: 189–208). It is likely that the Duke of Rui served as the envoy of the Zhou king to carry out the giftgiving mission. As a Ji-surnamed polity, Rui might have also been a marriage partner of the Ba lineage. Marriage relations between the Ba lineage and the Yan state are well documented by inscriptions on vessels in tomb M1, which included a set of five wine vessels, two you, two jue, and one zun, commissioned by Yanhou Zhi, the second ruler of Yan. Inscriptions on these vessels indicate that they were cast at different occasions and dedicated to different ancestors. The you and zun vessels were cast as a set and dedicated to a deceased aunt of Yanhou Zhi who was referred to as “the father’s younger sister” (gūmèi ⥹⥡). The two jue vessels were dedicated to Yanhou Zhi’s deceased father Xin. The appearance of Zhi’s sacrificial vessels for his father and aunt in Babo’s tomb suggests that his aunt was likely the wife of Babo, who was buried in M1 (Xie Yaoting 2014b: 9–26). Zhi’s aunt passed away before her husband Babo. Zhi must have donated those sacrificial vessels for his aunt and father as funerary gifts at Babo’s funeral. Other marriage partners of Ba included lineage members of the Ji ⦆ surname. The Ba Ji ding and gui vessels discussed previously (see “The Ba Lineage: Who Were the Ba?”) were cast by a noblewoman of the Ji ⦆ surname who was likely married into the Ba lineage. Marriages with the Ji ⦔ and Ji ⦆-surnamed lineages could have strengthened Ba’s access to prominent figures at the court and catalyzed its integration into the Zhou political system. Within the north-central frontier, unsurprisingly, Ba had contacts with the neighboring Jin and Peng. Among the published data, no bronze inscription records direct contact between Ba and Jin. However, as mentioned earlier, a bronze gui commissioned by Babo was buried in a Jin tomb M6197 at Qucun, suggesting contacts between Jin and Ba (the female deceased could

150 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

be a woman of the Ba lineage who married into Jin). The interaction between Ba and Peng was shown by a pair of bronze pen basins found in tomb M1017 (M1017: 9, 26) (SKY et al. 2018a: 89–139). The pair were commissioned by Pengbo but made their way into Babo’s tomb, likely through funerary or other forms of gifting. POLITICAL INTEGRATION AND CULTURAL ASSIMILATION: A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE

The north-central frontier witnessed a high degree of political integration with the Zhou political center throughout the Western Zhou period. Jin, whose founder was a younger brother of Zhou king Cheng, was an integral part of the Zhou state. Inscriptions document its subordinate position to the Zhou king and its participation in court-led military campaigns. Its material culture, particularly its cemetery layout and the use of bronze vessels, clearly reinforced its political identity as a Zhou colony. Peng and Ba, on the other hand, were two polities established by non-Ji lineages. Inscriptions document their active, frequent interactions with the Zhou court through their participation in military campaigns and ritual ceremonies. Through marriages with other lineages, both polities were able to expand their social and political networks with many prominent families, which brought them closer to the center of Zhou political power. The geographic proximity of the Zhou eastern capital region to the lower Fen River valley could have facilitated the extensive contacts between Jin, Peng, and Ba and the central court and others in the Zhou center. Jin, Peng, and Ba represent three major polities known to date that were active in this frontier during the Western Zhou period. Some suggest that Peng and Ba were politically affiliated with Jin or under Jin’s supervision, but others argue that they were established and directly controlled by the Zhou court, and therefore independent from Jin (Zhang Tian’en 2010a: 50–56; Tian Wei 2011: 28–32; Ji Kunzhang 2012: 385–91; Li Jiansheng 2014). Given that bronze inscriptions repeatedly reveal that both polities had direct contacts with the Zhou court and provided services such as military assistance, it is more likely that they were independent from Jin. An inscription on a middle Western Zhou ding, for instance, records that the Jin army stopped at the Peng border when chasing a fugitive who had fled into Peng territory, suggesting that Jin respected Peng’s sovereignty at least until the middle Western Zhou period (Ma Chengyuan 1992: 150–54).

151 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

Within this frontier, Jin, Peng, and Ba seem to have maintained a balance of power, making enduring political stability a defining feature of this frontier throughout the Western Zhou period. The orderly layout of the tombs further suggests that each cemetery was carefully planned and managed over time. The cemeteries were continuously used from the early to late Western Zhou periods, and some well into the early Spring and Autumn period, suggesting that Jin, Peng, and Ba were able to sustain their lives throughout the Western Zhou period. Some have used the concept of “peer polity interaction” to explain the political relations between Jin, Peng, and Ba (Khayutina 2017: 71–132). But the three polities were not entirely politically independent; they were all part of the Zhou political system and under the same authority of the Zhou king. The Zhou court, through its active engagement with these polities, could have played a significant role in shaping the local political order throughout the Western Zhou period. Given the high degree of their political integration into the Zhou political system, it is not surprising that the material cultures of Jin, Peng, and Ba closely resemble the material culture of the Zhou center. This similarity is manifested in the style of bronze and ceramic vessels, in the way they were deployed in tombs to mark the wealthy, ritualistic, and political identities of the deceased, and in the use of inscriptions on bronzes to glorify political and gifting events involved by the caster of the vessel or the deceased. These details are all consistent with the practices of the elite in the Zhou center. The three polities had strong cultural similarities to one another and to the Zhou center and other regional states. Peng and Ba, however, showed different preferences regarding aspects of the material culture of the Zhou center. Peng, for instance, did not adopt the lieding or liegui set that was popular among Zhou center elite tombs in the late Western Zhou period. Ba did not use tomb ramps to express the status of leaders. Even though both Peng and Ba used ding and gui as the core vessels in their elite tombs, the quantity of both types varied markedly. This difference may reflect not only their wealth and their ability to acquire bronze resources, but also their desire to choose what fit their needs. The active desire of Peng and Ba to define their cultural identities can also be observed in their continuation of many mortuary practices from the Shang period. Mortuary customs popular in late Shang tombs at Anyang, such as the use of waist pits and dog sacrifices and the prominent display of wine vessels, were persistently used by both lineages throughout the Western Zhou period, making those customs a pillar of their mortuary culture and an

152 THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER

integral part of their cultural identities. It is highly likely that ancestors of the Peng and Ba lineages were exposed to and consequently adopted the mortuary culture of the late Shang period. The political transition from Shang to Zhou and the incorporation of Peng and Ba into the Zhou political system, however, did not lead either to give up those practices, which must have become part of their own cultural heritage over time. However, regarding the adoption of late Shang mortuary customs, the two lineages differed in their degree of selectivity. Peng, for instance, adopted the practice of human sacrifice and the prone posture of the deceased, but Ba did not. The use of two types of pottery, the three-footed urn and the flaremouthed jar, added another layer of complexity to the identity constructions in this frontier. Both types were only used in a small number of Jin, Peng, and Ba tombs (mainly female), but the underlying cultural messages they carried in each polity were quite different. Neither vessel was native to the Jin state; they could have been introduced into Jin through marriages with women from surrounding areas. Their presence at Jin, therefore, meant that they were exotic, foreign cultural symbols that enriched the Jin material culture. For Peng and Ba, however, both vessels were not only gendered artifacts but also material symbols that bore historical memories and embodied their ancestral culture. The use of both vessels in Peng and Ba, therefore, reflects an attempt to preserve their own cultural heritage. Indeed, Peng employed both vessels in an extravagant way to localize Bi Ji’s identity.

Chapter Four

THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER Colonization, Confrontation, and Collaboration

The northeastern frontier of the Western Zhou state extends from northern Hebei to western Liaoning, traditionally known as Liaoxi 彥大, and consists of three environmentally distinctive zones. In the south is the alluvial plain, part of the Great Huabei 厗⊿ Plain and conventionally known as the Jing-Jin-Tang Ṕ㳍Ⓒ region. The area during the Bronze Age was enclosed by the Taihang Mountains in the west, the Yan 䅽 Mountains in the north, and the Yellow River in the south, which flowed through present-day Shijiazhuang 䞛⭞匲 and reached the Bo Sea 㷌㴟 near Tianjin ⣑㳍 (before 602 bce) (Wu and He 1991: 132–48) (map 4.1). Along the foothills of the Yan and Taihang Mountains are passes connecting the Jing-Jin-Tang alluvial plain with the rest of the northeastern frontier. To the south of the Jing-Jin-Tang region are the dynastic centers of Shang and Zhou. In the north is the vast Yan mountainous region, extending from the Shanhai Ⱉ㴟 Pass in the east to the Chaobai 㼖䘥 and Luan 䀌 River valleys in the west. To the northeast, the western Liaoning region is composed primarily of the Daling ⣏㶑 and Xiaoling ⮷㶑 River valleys flanked by mountainous terrains. The Yan Mountains create a natural barrier hindering communication and transportation between northern Hebei and the area further north, but various river valleys across the mountains, such as the one from Kazuo to Qinglong 曺漵 in northern Hebei, provide limited routes connecting both sides. A convenient route for traveling from the Jing-Jin-Tang region to western Liaoning, in both ancient and modern times, however, is the narrow but relatively flat coastal area along the Bo Sea.

154 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

N 30 Chaoyang

Elevation MASL

31

g

2,000 1,000 500 100 0

29

lin

Da

27 23

28

er R iv

26 25 24 2122 20 19 Zhangjiakou

an Lu

Yo n

gd

ing

4

g

2 3

1 Beijing

11

Shanhai Pass

12

13 14

10

15 16

17

r ve Ri

an

9

7

i ba ao Ch

ih Ta

Mo

s ain

8

6 Juyong Pass

t un

Yan Mountains

5

River

Tangshan

Bo Sea ea

18

Shang and Zhou Period Sites Zhangjiayuan sites Sites in Yan mountainous region Weiyingzi sites Bronze caches Other sites

River

Tianjin 50 km

Modern cities

MAP 4.1. Late Shang and Western Zhou sites in the northeastern frontier: 1. Liulihe, 2. Liujiahe, 3. Niulanshan, 4. Guanzhuang Sites in Yan mountainous region: 5. Jundushan, 6. Xibozi, 7. Baifu, 8. Xiaohe’nan, 9. Chaodaogou Sites of the Zhangjiayuan culture: 10. Zhenjiangying-Tazhao, 11. Bangjun, 12. Zhangjiayuan, 13. Mashaocun, 14. Xiaoshandongzhuang, 15. Caijiafen, 16. Dongkan’gezhuang, 17. Chenshantou, 18. Houqianyi Caches at Kazuo: 19. Shanwanzi, 20. Machanggou, 21. Beidong, 22. Xiaobotaigou, 23. Gulugou Sites of the Weiyingzi culture: 24. Gaojiadong, 25. Daohugou, 26. Nangoumen, 27. Shuiquan, 28. Weiyingzi, 29. Xiangyangling, 30. Heshanggou 31. Nanshan’gen

The northeastern frontier lies between Eastern Eurasia in the north and the Zhou center in the middle Yellow River valley in the south. It is a contact zone and cultural crossroads between the north and south. The geographic diversity nurtured cultural pluralism among local communities. The material culture of the region during the early second millennium bce demonstrates shared characteristics across the region and at the same time distinctive local variations, a feature that continued into the early half of the first millennium bce. The material remains north of the Yan Mountains are archaeologically defined as the Lower Xiajiadian ⢷⭞⸿ culture; south of the Yan Mountains in northern Hebei is the Datuotou ⣏✐柕 culture (c. nineteenth to thirteenth centuries bce) (Han Jiagu 1984: 220–29; Li Boqian 1994: 143–57).1 The two archaeological cultures on each side of the Yan Mountains represented settled and farming societies that used few metal tools. The pottery and metal ornaments found in the tombs of both cultures are similar, leading

155 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

some to suggest not only cultural interactions but also movement of people between the two regions during the first half of the second millennium bce (Wang Lixin 2004: 1–27; Jiang 2008a: 111–47). The rise of Shang and then Zhou dynastic powers and their northern expansions affected local communities in different ways. Early adoption of ritual culture from the Shang center can be observed through the material remains from a tomb at Liujiahe ∱⭞㱛 in Pinggu ⸛察, Beijing (map 4.1) (BWG 1977: 1–8). Dated roughly to between 1400 and 1300 bce, the tomb is the earliest known case showing local use of Shang-style bronze vessels in northern Hebei (fig. 4.1: 1–3). Pottery of the Shang style at Anyang was adopted in a highly limited fashion by local communities such as Zhenjiangying 捖㰇䆇 and Tazhao ⟼䄏 in Fangshan ㇧Ⱉ (BWY 1999: 191–94). Li Boqian 㛶ỗ嫁 (1994: 143–57) suggests that Shang culture had the widest influence in the early phase of the late Shang period but after that retreated to Laishui 㵆㯜 in the Yishui 㖻㯜 River valleys on the southern edge of the Jing-Jin-Tang region, with occasional intrusions into the nearby Juma ㉺楔 River valley.

FIGURE 4.1. Bronze vessels and gold ornaments from the Liujiahe tomb (1–3 from BWG 1977: 5, fig. 6; 4–6 redrawn after BWG 1977: 6, figs. 13, 17–18)

156 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

Inscriptions on oracle bones at Anyang and transmitted texts have portrayed the northeastern frontier as a land shared by a number of polities that frequently interacted with the Shang in the late second millennium bce (Ge 1983: 1–18; Jin Yue 1986: 66–76, 1987: 86–88). Details about the provenance and location of these groups are often sketchy, but they clearly had interactions with the Shang at Anyang. The Yan ⋥ in northern Hebei, for instance, married their women to Shang men (Yang Shennan 1997: 97–103). Lady Zhu 䪡, a consort of the Shang king Wu Ding 㬎ᶩ, may have come from Guzhu ⬌䪡, which scholars located in the present-day Lulong 䚏漵 and western Liaoning regions according to the passages in the transmitted texts (Hu 1970: 1–35; Li Xueqin 1983: 202–6). Both Yan and Guzhu supplied oxen, wild boars, and tortoise shells to Shang, and in general, inscriptions suggest a friendly relationship between the local people in northern Hebei and the Shang. The establishment of the Zhou regional state of Yan at Liulihe 䎱䐫㱛 at the beginning of the Western Zhou period (late eleventh century bce) was a watershed moment for the local people. For the first time, the Zhou dynastic power brought immigrants into the region to set up a colony and stay permanently; in this way Zhou hoped to assert its cultural and political control of the region. Consequently, local communities faced an immediate and direct challenge from Zhou and were pressured to interact with the Yan state culturally and politically. The groups that were relocated to Liulihe to establish the new regional state faced similar challenges: how to construct their identity and power in this “foreign” land. This chapter examines how various local groups and newcomers in the northeastern frontier negotiated their power relations among themselves and with others in this new cultural, demographic, and geopolitical context. The key questions are how the Yan state constructed its cultural identities and established political control over the frontier, as well as how communities in the Jing-Jin-Tang region, the Yan mountainous region, and western Liaoning responded to the Zhou intrusion in the name of Yan. Material evidence from the northeastern frontier is abundant for the early Western Zhou period, and consequently the analysis is more nuanced for this period. In the middle and late Western Zhou periods, material remains, though limited, are sufficient to help illustrate the broad cultural and political changes across the region. Unlike previous studies, which primarily focus on the cultural assimilation and political incorporation of the local people by the Yan state (and by extension the Zhou court), this study focuses on the diverse cultural and political changes experienced by the different groups of people that were active in this frontier throughout the Western Zhou period.

157 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

COLONIZING THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF YAN AT LIULIHE

Yan was the northernmost state established by Zhou at the beginning of the Western Zhou period. For a long period of time, what we know about Yan came from a short entry in the Grand Scribe’s Records regarding the lineage of the Duke of Shao (Shaogong ⎔℔), to whom Yan was bestowed (Shiji 1982: 1549). Inscriptions on two bronze vessels, a lei (JL: 987) (fig. 4.2: 6) and a he (JL: 942), that were excavated in 1986 in tomb M1193 at Liulihe, southwest of Beijing, provide exciting evidence on the establishment of Yan (LK 1990: 20–31; Chen Ping 1997: 252–68; Yan Sun 2016: 19–20). The two inscriptions, though cast at different times (Li Feng 1997: 2–41), share the same content (fig. 4.2: 5): 䌳㚘ĻȾ⣒ᾅ炻ⓗᷫ㖶ᷫ櫗炻ṓἁᷫ彇ˤἁ⣏⮵ᷫṓ炻Ẍ⃳ὗḶ ⋥ˤ 伴ˣ楔ˣഴˣ暑ˣ楕ˣἇ炷⽖炸įȿ⃳ 炷Ἦ?炸⋥炻ℍ⛇䚼ġ 炷⍲炸⍍㚱䛷炷⎠炸ˤ䓐ἄ⮛⮲⼅ˤ ġ King [Cheng] said, “Grand Protector, you performed the meng ceremony, dedicating fragrant wine, and made sacrifice to your ruler. I am grateful for your dedication and blissfully respond, and command Ke ⃳ to be the ruler of Yan, in charge of Qiang 伴, Ma 楔, Cuo ഴ, Yu 暑, Yu 楕, and Wei ⽖.” Ke went to Yan, accepted the land and officials, and therefore made this precious sacrificial vessel.

FIGURE 4.2. Bronzes commissioned by Yanhou (1–2, 5–6 from LK 1990: 24–25, 28, 30, figs. 3–4, 7, 10; 3–4 from BWY 1995: 211, fig. 128; 7 from JC: 2628; 8 from RBC 1955, plate 7)

158 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

Scholars disagree on the transcription of some individual graphs and the interpretation of the inscriptions, but they agree that the inscription documents the verbal commission of a Zhou king (known as cèmìng Ⅎ␥),2 likely King Cheng. The inscription further reveals that it was Ke ⃳, a son of the Grand Protector (Taibao ⣒ᾅ, the official court title of the Duke of Shao), who was sent to establish Yan (Chen Ping 1991: 843–54; Sun Hua [1992] 1995a: 278–86; Zhu Fenghan [2014] 2015: 121–34). Archaeological surveys and excavations from the 1960s to 1990s yielded rich material remains at Liulihe, including the remains of city walls at Dongjialin 吋⭞㜿 and a cemetery at Huangtupo 湫⛇✉. Sixty-one tombs and five horse and chariot pits of the Western Zhou period were excavated from 1973 to 1977, and the full report on those tombs was published in 1995 (LK 1974: 309–21; BWY 1995). The report divides the cemetery into two sections that are about three hundred meters apart from one another and separated by the Beijing-Guangzhou railroad line (fig. 4.3). At least 187 tombs were excavated at the cemetery from 1981 to 1995, including tomb M1193, in which the two inscribed bronzes just mentioned were discovered (LK 1984: 405–16, 404; BDK and BWY 1996b: 16–27; BWY, BDKW, and ZSK 2000: 32–38). Data on a few of those tombs were published, but the majority were only briefly reported. Excavators dated most of the city remains and tombs to the early Western Zhou period, which will be the primary evidence for examining the lives of the Yan residents at Liulihe. Constructing a New Political Space: The Walled City at Liulihe

Constructing a new settlement was a political measure taken by Zhou to establish its presence in a foreign land. The most important settlement built by Zhou after the conquest of Shang was Luoyi 㳃怹 (or Chengzhou ㆸ␐).3 The Zhou relocated remnants of Shang to this new capital and set up the apparatus of the central court there to manage newly acquired territories in the east. Similarly, the construction of capital cities in the regional states was an important step toward establishing Zhou’s sovereignty beyond its political center. However, few residential remains of Western Zhou regional states have been discovered to date. The Yan city remains are by far the best archaeologically documented settlement of a Western Zhou regional state. The city, situated in the western section of the Liulihe site, was constructed at

FIGURE 4.3. Layout of the Liulihe cemetery (redrawn after BWY 1995: 7–8, figs. 3–4; the actual distances between Zones One and Two and Zones Three and Four are not represented in the figure)

160 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

the beginning of the Western Zhou period (BDK and BWY 1996a: 4–15; Li Boqian 1997: 72–89). The northern wall was about 829 meters long and was partially visible on the ground in the 1960s. The northern section of the eastern and western walls presumably extended over 300 meters, based on the underground foundations of both walls (BWY 1990: 40). The southern wall has not been located archaeologically; it could have been washed away by the overflow of the nearby Dashi ⣏䞛 River over time (Tian Jingdong 1997: 64–71). The wall was constructed using the pounded-earth technique. It consisted of three parts: a central section (about 2.5 meters wide) and auxiliary walls (5.15–5.95 meters wide) on both sides. Part of a drainage ditch was identified at the northeastern corner of the city (BDK and BWY 1996a: 4–15; LK 1997: 4–13). The remains of a moat were found outside the northern, eastern, and western walls. The moat reached 25 meters at the widest point and 2.8 meters at the deepest. The walls and the moat surrounding them show that the city took defensive measures, suggesting that Yan colonists had to exercise vigilance against any potential intruders in this “foreign” land. The city was the political center of the Yan state, performing a multitude of social, economic, and political functions. In the north-central part of the walled city are large stamped-earth foundations, and “oval-shaped ceramic roof tiles” (toˇngwaˇ 䫺䒎) were also discovered in this part of the city (Liu and Zhao 1997: 34–41). This type of tile was often used for temple and palatial architecture in the Zhou capital region in the Wei River valley (SZK 1979: 27–37). The foundations and tiles suggest that palatial or ritual structures were built where the Yan rulers carried out ritual and political activities. Drilled tortoise shells provide evidence of divination. Three of the tortoise shells in an ash pit, G11H108, are inscribed (LK 1997: 4–13; Lei, Zheng, and Wang 1997, section 3). Yan might have also operated a bronze foundry in the city, as fragments of clay molds were found, including ones engraved with scroll patterns (LK 1997: 4–13). The newly built walled city was not only a physical alteration of the local landscape but also a real and symbolic change in the local political landscape. The walled city created a spatial separation between the Zhou colony and native communities and served as a power center from where Yan rulers could project political control over the local people. In this sense, it represented a disruption and reconfiguration of the local political order by a foreign power.

161 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

Cemetery Layout, Inscriptions, and a Multilineage Population

Inscriptions on bronzes and mortuary customs evident in the cemetery outside the city shed light on the diverse lineage and cultural backgrounds of the residents at Liulihe during the early Western Zhou period. The investiture inscription of Yan, previously discussed, records the awarding of six lineages to Ke, the first ruler of Yan. Different interpretations have been proposed for where those lineages could have originated (KZ 1989: 953–60). One study argues that Qiang and Wei were traditional allies of the Zhou in the west and that Ma and Cuo were once allies of the Shang in Henan and Shandong who were awarded to Yan (Chen Ping 1997: 252–68). Such identifications, if accurate, illustrate the demographic diversity of Yan. Although no inscription on bronzes in Liulihe tombs reported so far has revealed the activities of these lineages, the spatial layout of the tombs and the inscriptional data do reveal a regional state consisting of mixed lineage groups. The following discussions aim to integrate mortuary data and inscriptions on bronzes to study the identity of the lineages and individuals buried in the Liulihe cemetery. Tombs in the cemetery were arranged spatially in different sections, with each consisting of multiple clusters of tombs; as in the Zhou regional states Wei 堃 at Xincun and Guo 嘊 at Shangcunling, this spatial layout was probably intended to display the lineage and kin relations of the deceased (Guo Baojun 1964: 3–6; Hsu and Linduff 1988: 163–71). The excavation report of the Liulihe cemetery divides the tombs into two sections, but a closer look reveals that it consisted of four spatially distinctive zones (Yan Sun 2001: 94–115). Zones One and Two are in the north, while Zones Three and Four are in the south (fig. 4.3).

ZONES ONE AND TWO: REMNANTS OF SHANG

It has been proposed that the occupants in Zones One and Two at the Liulihe cemetery were remnants of Shang (BWY 1995: 309–21; Yan Sun 2003: 761–70; Lei Xingshan [1997] 2015: 248–55). Tombs in both zones often contained a waist pit and dog or human sacrifices, two features popular among the late Shang tombs at Anyang (Zhang Mingdong 2005: 70–71; Gao Xiangping 2011: 69–79, 118–31). In Zone One, twelve (92 percent) of the thirteen early Western Zhou tombs contained either a human sacrifice or one or two dog sacrifices, or both, and ten (77 percent) contained a waist pit. Three (60 percent) of the five middle Western Zhou tombs continued to use a dog sacrifice and a

162 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

waist pit, but no human sacrifice. In Zone Two, five (71 percent) of the seven early Western Zhou tombs contained dog or human sacrifices, and three (43 percent) contained a waist pit. Both middle Western Zhou tombs in this zone were equipped with a waist pit with a dog sacrifice inside. One of them, M51, also contained a human sacrifice. Inscriptions on bronzes in Zone Two tombs shed further light on the lineage identity of the deceased and their affiliation with Shang. Inscriptions on a ding (JC: 2507) and a zun in M52 (JC: 5978), for instance, record that their caster Fu ⽑ received awards from Yanhou and cast the vessels as sacrifice for his deceased father Yi ḁ. Both inscriptions end with a lineage emblem indicating that Fu was a member of the Ju lineage (fig. 4.4: 1–2). Three other vessels in the same tomb, a pair of bronze jue and a zhi, bear the same ancestral posthumous name “Father Yi” 䇞ḁ, indicating they were likely also cast by Fu. Ju was a prominent lineage of the late Shang period and had close ties with the Shang royal family (He Jingcheng 2008: 54–70). The relocation of the Ju lineage members after the Zhou conquest is traceable through inscriptions on bronzes. The lineage was dispersed and moved to the Zhou center in the Wei River valley or to regional states such as Yan. Members of the Geng ⹂ lineage (a branch of Ju), such as Yuan ⒉, Qi 㕪, and Shang ⓮ (a person’s name), all held high positions at the Zhou court or served under

1

6

3

2

7

4

8

9

FIGURE 4.4. Bronzes from Liulihe tombs in the style of Shang and Zhou centers (1–5, 8–9 from BWY 1995: 104, 106, 133, 135, 151, 182, figs. 72B and D, 86B and D, 92A, 107; 6–7 from LK 1984: 413, fig. 8; 10 from LK 1990: 26, fig. 5)

5

10

163 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

Zhou high-ranking elite (Liu and Yin 1992: 58–78; Zhang Yachu [1993] 1995: 223–30; Zhu Fenghan 2004: 263–69). Chen Ping 昛⸛ suggests that Cuo, one of the six lineages awarded to Yan, could also have been a branch of the Ju lineage (Chen Ping 1997: 252–68). Inscriptions on Fu’s vessels suggest that a branch of the Ju lineage was relocated to Liulihe. Fu’s tomb, M52, was placed in a cluster of five burials (fig. 4.3). All but M51 contained bronze vessels and human sacrifices. Adjacent to M52 is M53, whose occupant is likely You 㓠. The inscription on a magnificently cast bronze gui in the tomb indicates that You received three strands of cowries from Yanhou and cast the vessel to commemorate his recently deceased father Wu ㆲ (BWY 1995: 126–31). Given that the tombs of You and Fu are next to each other in the same cluster, it is quite possible that You belonged to the same Ju lineage (Zhu Fenghan 2004: 266).

ZONE THREE: LINEAGES OF THE JI CLAN AND ITS ALLIES

The most prominent figures buried in Zone Three are members of the Yan ruling family. Their tombs were concentrated in the southwestern section of the zone and spatially separated from the rest of the burials. At least twentysix tombs of varied sizes were found in that section. Three ramped burials, M1193, M202, and M1046, are identified as those of Yanhou, all dated to the early Western Zhou period based on the remaining artifacts in the tombs (Liu and Zhao 1997: 34–41). Tomb M1193, with four ramps extending out from each corner of the rectangular burial pit, yielded the Ke he ⃳䙱 and Ke lei ⃳仵, both carrying inscriptions recording the investiture ceremony of Yan and the verbal commission of the Zhou king. The occupant is identified as the first Yanhou, but whether he was the Duke of Shao (LK 1990: 20–31; Yin Weizhang 1990: 66–77) or his oldest son Ke (Chen Ping 1991: 843–54; Lin Xiaoan [1994] 1997: 164–66) is still a matter of debate. The latter proposal seems more likely because the inscription on a ding in burial M253 at Liulihe (M253: 12) indicates that the Duke of Shao resided at Zongzhou and that Yanhou sent an envoy to pay him respects. The other two ramped tombs, M202 and M1046, were severely looted. One of these could be that of Yanhou Zhi 㖐, whose bronzes are now housed in museum collections and were surprisingly found in a recently excavated early Western Zhou tomb, M1, at Dahekou in southern Shanxi (SKY and DMLK 2011: 9–18; also see chapter 3). These vessels display stylistic characteristics of the bronzes contemporaneous with the reigns of

164 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

Kings Kang and Zhao, suggesting that Zhi was primarily active during the early half of the tenth century bce. It has been suggested that Ke was likely the first Yanhou and Zhi (as the son or brother of Ke) the second (e.g., Chen Xie 1999: 16–25; Zhu Fenghan 1998: 303–8; Ren Wei 2004: 159–62; Li Baojun [2013] 2015: 135–45). The rest of the tombs in this zone form at least three clusters north of the burials for the Yan ruling family. The tombs in those clusters are spatially close to one another. They display a high degree of uniformity in mortuary practices and show minimum adoption of late Shang burial customs. Human or dog sacrifices and waist pits are rarely found in this zone, a clear contrast to their overwhelming presence in Zones One and Two. Only two (8 percent) out of twenty-four tombs excavated from 1973 to 1977 contained human or dog sacrifices, and only one (4 percent) used a waist pit. The brief report on the 121 tombs excavated from 1981 to 1983 in this zone states that none of those tombs contained a human sacrifice and that only a very small number of them contained a dog sacrifice or waist pit (LK 1984: 405–16, 404). It is unclear whether the deceased in this zone came exclusively from branches of the Ji clan or also consisted of members of non-Ji lineages who were Zhou traditional allies from the west. In either case, tombs in this zone demonstrate close cultural or kinship ties. With at least 144 tombs identified, Zone Three contained far more tombs than other zones. Indeed, the number of tombs in this zone is more than the number of tombs in the other three zones combined. If the number of tombs can be used to gauge population composition, we can conclude that the members of the Ji clan and their traditional allies constituted the majority of the Yan population at Liulihe.

ZONE FOUR: UNKNOWN IDENTITY OF THE DECEASED

Zone Four is adjacent to Zone Three but distant from Zones One and Two. A third of the fifteen burials in this zone, M251, M252, M253, M254, and M401, were excavated, and all date to the early Western Zhou period. None of the tombs contained a waist pit or a human sacrifice (only M254 contained a dog sacrifice in the earth fill). This fact suggests that the deceased in this zone did not adopt the late Shang burial practices. Inscriptions on bronzes in the tombs, however, reveal a much more complex picture of the identity of the deceased. Burials M251 and M253 are the two tombs that yielded the most bronze vessels in the cemetery reported to date. In M253, inscriptions on four vessels, one you (M253: 4), one yan (M253: 15), one square ding (M253: 11), and

165 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

one gui (M253: 14), reveal that they were commissioned by Yu ⚱. A zun and a you in the same tomb can be attributed to Yu as well based on their stylistic features and the short inscriptions on them (Yan Sun 2017: 47–70). Given that six out of the thirteen inscribed bronzes in the tomb belonged to Yu, it is most likely that he was the tomb occupant. The inscriptions, however, do not reveal his lineage background. The rest of the inscribed bronzes in the tomb belonged to six individuals, including Jin ➯ of the Jiuguan 䲦屓 lineage and an individual of the Jiyayi 䬽Ṇ䞋 lineage (Zhang Yachu [1993] 1995: 223–30). Both lineages existed during the late Shang period, and their members continued to be active in the Zhou political circle. Tomb M251 yielded two vessels, a pan (M251: 2) and a li (M251: 23), that bear the name of the caster, Bo Ju ỗ䞑. The character “Gui” (䘠) in the pan’s inscription could be a lineage sign (Cao Shuqin 1995: 200–7). If so, it suggests that the Gui lineage, which derived from the Shang period as early as Shang king Wu Ding’s reign during the late half of the thirteenth century bce, continued to be active in the Yan mountainous region during the Western Zhou period (Cao Shuqin 1995: 200–7). Besides the Bo Ju vessels, bronzes of other twelve individuals were also found in the tomb, making it difficult to pin down the identity of the deceased. A reliable identification of the lineage background of the deceased in this zone is challenging because the tombs contained vessels cast by a number of individuals of diverse backgrounds. Some of those individuals, such as Jin and Bo Ju, were Yan elite members, but they were probably not the occupants of M251 and M253. They could have lived in other satellite settlements of Yan, such as Niulanshan where the Jiyayi lineage lived (as detailed in the following section). Their vessels (such as those of Jin, Bo Ju, and Jiyayi) could have been funerary gifts to the deceased (Yan Sun 2017: 47–70). Bronzes and Pottery in Tombs: Domination by Material Cultures from the Center

About seventy-seven bronze vessels from Liulihe were reported, of which seventy were from tombs excavated from 1973 to 1977. The overwhelming majority can be dated to the period from the end of Shang to the early Western Zhou and exhibit stylistic resemblance to those at Anyang and the Zhou center. Some of the vessels could have been cast and used at Anyang prior to the conquest. For instance, a circular-footed gui in M253 (M253: 13) closely resembles the Yuan gui 䇘䮳 at Anyang in shape and decorative

166 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

scheme (Yan Sun 2001: 37) (fig. 4.4: 3). It might have ended up in M253 as an “awarded vessel” received from the court after the conquest of Shang.4 Some of the early Western Zhou bronze vessels, nonetheless, display the late Shang style at Anyang. For instance, the Jin ding (M253: 12) ➯溶, the largest vessel reported at Liulihe thus far, was cast during the reign of King Cheng or King Kang based on the content of the inscription. It is stylistically comparable to bronze ding vessels at Anyang, such as the Xusizi ding ㆴ▋⫸溶 (ZQQBW 1997: 28) (fig. 4.4: 4). Scholars have often attributed this stylistic continuity from late Shang to early Western Zhou periods to the Zhou’s relocation of artisans at Anyang to its capitals, where they continued to work at bronze workshops (Luoyang shi wenwu gongzuodui 1983: 430–41; SZK 2011: 245–326; Zhang Tian’en 2013: 235–56). Some of the bronzes at Liulihe were likely manufactured at the Zhou eastern capital of Chengzhou. Two bronze ge (M1193: 48 and 62) in M1193, for example, are inscribed with “Chengzhou” ㆸ␐, revealing that they were cast at a workshop there (i.e., fig. 4.4: 10). Bronze vessels at Liulihe evolved similarly to those in the Zhou center. A ding (M1026: 2) and a gui (M1026: 1) in M1026 and the You gui 㓠䮳 in M53, for example, all feature a belly slightly bulging toward the ring foot, a signature style of vessels of the Zhou center during the reigns of Kings Kang and Zhao (fig. 4.4: 6–8). The ornamentation on the bowl of the You gui, birds with crests composed of curvilinear lines with teardrop intervals, is a distinctive decorative motif on bronzes during the reigns of Kings Zhao and Mu (Zhu Fenghan 2009: 1269, 1289). Styles originating in regions outside Anyang or the Zhou center were rare at Liulihe (Yan Sun 2006a: 215–37). The buffalo motif on the Bo Ju li in M251, the willow leaf–shaped swords in M52 and M253, and the sword sheath ornaments in M253 stylistically can be traced back to areas in western Shaanxi (the Baoji area), eastern Gansu (the Lingtai area), and Sichuan (the Chengdu Plain) (fig. 4.5: 1–3). The You gui (M53: 8) stands on legs shaped as three standing tigers, a design that could have been inspired by decors on bronzes in the Dayangzhou ⣏㲳㳚 tomb in the lower Gan 崋 River valley in Jiangxi 㰇大, dating roughly to the late second millennium bce. The helmet in M1193 and the yoke ornaments in the shape of an eagle and a horse head suggest stylistic connections with bronze-using cultures in the Northern Zone (fig. 4.5: 4–5). Artifacts with these distinctive characteristics, however, were also found at Anyang or in the Zhou western capital region, suggesting that their introduction to Yan was likely related to the Zhou expansion into the northeastern frontier (Yan Sun 2006a: 215–37).

167 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

3

2

1

5 4 FIGURE 4.5. Styles originating in regions outside the Shang and Zhou centers (1–4 from BWY 1995: 156, 202, 219, figs. 94, 118, 132; 5 redrawn after LK 1990, plate 3: 7)

The Yan ruling lineage was the descendant of the Duke of Shao, a minor branch of the Zhou royal lineage. Yet intriguingly, bronzes cast by lineage members such as Yanhou adopted the Shang practice of naming ancestors, seemingly contradicting the general belief that the Ji clan did not use a heavenly stem to name their ancestors (Shaughnessy 1991: 167–68; Zhang Maorong 1993: 173–77). Sacrificial bronzes commissioned by Yanhou Zhi, a bronze ding (Chen Peifeng 2004: 8–9) and a hu (Yuyaju 2012: 76), for instance, bore the ancestral temple name “Father Xin” 䇞彃, a Shang practice of naming ancestors. Two bronze jue commissioned by Yanhou Zhi but found in tomb M1 of the Ba lineage at Dahekou used the same ancestral temple name (SKY and DMLK 2011: 9–18). Besides Zhi, other members of Duke Shao’s family, including Boxian ỗ⭒ and Bohe ỗ潊, used “Father Xin” to refer to their ancestor, as revealed by inscriptions on vessels they commissioned (Zhang Maorong 2009: 27–29). As already discussed, remnants of Shang were part of the Yan population, and their prominent members served

168 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

under Yanhou as Yan officials. The Yan ruling family’s adoption of the Shang practice of naming ancestors could have related to their efforts to promote political integration of the Shang remnants. In contrast to the stylistic continuation of the late Shang bronzes at Anyang, ceramic vessels in Liulihe tombs show few signs of the late Shang pottery tradition. The most popular ceramic vessels in the tombs were li tripods and guan jars. The overwhelming majority of the li vessels feature a slightly curved or flat crotch, and the guan vessels feature a narrow mouth, both typical of ceramic traditions in the Wei River valley (Li Feng 2006: 340). Out of the seventy-two li vessels in Liulihe tombs, only a few examples show a stylistic resemblance to their counterparts in late Shang tombs at Anyang. Two early Western Zhou li vessels (M209: 30 and M30: 1) feature three wide, baggy legs with a low crotch, a type popular in late Shang tombs at Anyang (fig. 4.6: 2–3). The occupant of M30 was likely a member of a lineage that was traditionally associated with Shang. Burial M209, on the other hand, was in the tomb cluster of the Yan ruling family. The random distribution and scarcity of the li tripod of late Shang style suggest that this pottery tradition declined even among the remnants of Shang. Moreover, a refined gray ceramic gui (M22: 5) is carefully carved with animal-face motifs and square spirals in leaf patterns, an imitation of late Shang–style bronze gui (fig. 4.6: 1). The use of bronzes and pottery at Liulihe indicates noticeable differences between the remnants of Shang and others. Elite members of the remnants of Shang continued using “heavenly stems” on bronzes to name their ancestors, such as “Father Yi” on the Fu ding and Fu zun, “Father Wu” 䇞ㆲ on the You gui, and “[the] eldest son Gui” ⣏⫸䘠 on the Jin ding (JC: 2703). Bronze assemblages in their tombs focused on wine vessels, contrasting with those in Zones Three and Four, where ding and gui food vessels were more prominent. Three tombs (M50, M52, and M53) in Zone Two contained wine vessels such as jue, zhi, and zun, and one (M65) contained a jue vessel.

FIGURE 4.6. Pottery at Liulihe in the style typical of Anyang (from BWY 1995: 80–81, figs. 57, 60)

169 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

This wine-focused ritual practice is also evident in tombs of Shang remnants in Zhou western and eastern capital regions (Huang Mingchong 2012: 607–70). Furthermore, pottery assemblages in Zones One and Two mainly consisted of three types of food vessels: li, gui, and guan. They contrasted with the wine-centered ceramic assemblage (gu and jue) in Anyang tombs (Zhang Mingdong 2005: 104–16; Gao Xiangping 2011: 146–52) and also differed from the li and guan assemblages in Zones Three and Four. The dominance of ritual cultures from Anyang and the Zhou center, manifested in bronzes and pottery in Liulihe tombs, illustrates the resettlement of a population consisting of multiple lineages of various backgrounds. Tombs of local communities in the Jing-Jin-Tang region were characterized by the eastern orientation of the heads of the deceased and the use of personal ornaments (gold armlets and earrings). Tombs of the Yan mountainous region were often furnished with bronze weapons such as straight-blade daggers with mushroom pommels and horse and raptor heads typical of the Northern Zone. Such bronze weapons were introduced as far south as Anyang in the late Shang period (Zhu Fenghan 2013: 1–28). None of these local artifacts and customs were, however, adopted in Liulihe tombs. Only a small number of the indigenous floral-rimmed, high-collared li tripods were discovered in the city (BDK and BWY 1996a: 4–15). Such a discrepancy suggests that localstyle pottery was possibly introduced into the daily life of the city residents to some extent but must have been deliberately excluded from mortuary space. This is a clear contrast to what occurred in the Jin state, where threefooted urns and flare-mouthed jars of northern origin made their way into Jin tombs. The Yan colonists at Liulihe seemed keen to preserve the culture inherited from their homelands and to maintain the cultural divide between themselves and those “others” in the mortuary space. Gifting and Political Inclusion of the Remnants of Shang

The wide variation in size and burial furnishings among the Liulihe tombs, along with the bronze inscriptions, presents clear differences in social and political status among the residents at Liulihe. Scholars propose a multitiered social hierarchy consisting of the Yan ruler, the high-ranking elite, the lower-ranking elite, and soldiers and commoners (Yan Sun 2001: 118–24; Chen Guang [1999] 2015: 272–98). A similar sociopolitical spectrum can be observed in other Zhou regional states such as Wei and Jin (Hsu and Linduff 1988: 171–77).

170 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

Individuals of various lineages were incorporated into the Yan ruling class. Bronze inscriptions reveal that the Yan officials Fu and You, both buried in Zone Two, received awards from Yanhou. Inscriptions on the ding and zun cast by Fu record various kinds of gifts awarded to him by Yanhou, including three strands of cowries on one occasion (inscription on ding) (BWY 1995: 102), and cowries, clothing, and male and female servants on another (inscription on a zun) (BWY 1995: 182) (fig. 4.4: 2). The inscription on the You gui reveals that You received three strands of cowries from Yanhou and cast this sacrificial vessel for his recently deceased father Wu ㆲ (JC: 3906) (fig. 4.4: 9). Both Fu and You could have been Yan military officers. Members of lineages traditionally affiliated with Shang, such as the Jiuguan and Jiyayi lineages, likely also played prominent political roles in the Yan state. Jin of the Jiuguan lineage, as revealed by the inscription on a ding (M253: 12), served as an envoy of Yanhou to Zongzhou to pay respects to the Grand Protector, presenting him with a special kind of sweet food; the Grand Protector awarded cowries to him on the gengshen ⹂䓛 day, and Jin thus cast the vessel for his deceased eldest son Gui (fig. 4.4: 5) (Shaughnessy 1991: 165; BWY 1995: 101). A ding (M253: 24) cast by an individual of the Jiyayi lineage was found in M253 (BWY 1995: 102, 111–12) (fig. 4.7: 3). Vessels cast by the same lineage were also found in other locations at Beijing and Kazuo. The late Qing scholar Pan Zuyin 㼀䣾哕 recorded the discovery of a group of Jiyayi bronzes, including one he, one you, one gu, and two jue, in 1876. Those vessels were likely looted from tombs at Liulihe (Chen Ping 2006: 283–84). The inscription on the he records that an individual of the lineage who held the Ya Ṇ position received cowries from Yanhou (JC: 9439) (fig. 4.7: 1).5 Another group of Jiyayi bronzes, including one ding, one you, one zun, one zhi, two gu, and two jue, was found in a waste recycle station but was likely originally buried in a tomb at Jinniucun 慹䈃㛹 in the Niulanshan 䈃㪬Ⱉ Township, Shunyi 枮佑, Beijing (Cheng Changxin 1983: 64–67) (fig. 4.7: 2). The “Jihouyayi” 䬽 ὗṆ䞋 sign also appears on a large square bronze ding dated to the early phase of the early Western Zhou period in cache No. 2 at Beidong ⊿㳆 at Kazuo (fig. 4.7: 4) (KW, CDB, and LB 1974: 364–72). The inscription on the ding records that Fei 㔸, who commissioned the vessel, received two hundred strings of cowries from Yang and made this sacrificial vessel for his deceased mother. Those inscriptions suggest that both lineages served under Yanhou and were part of the Yan political establishment (Cao and Yin 1986: 191–99; Zhang Yachu [1993] 1995: 223–30; Zhang Jian 1997: 265–74).

171 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

FIGURE 4.7. Bronzes from Liulihe, Niulanshan, and Kazuo bearing Jiyayi lineage emblems (1 from JC: 9349; 2 from Cheng 1983: 65, fig. 13; 3 from BWY 1995: 111–12, fig. 74A and C; 4 from KW, CDB, and LB 1974, plate 7: 3, p. 366, fig. 3)

Other individuals who could have held a prominent position in Yan include Yu of an unknown lineage and Bo Ju. Three vessels in M253, a gui (M253: 14; JC: 2505), a you (M253: 4), and a yan (M253: 15) (BWY 1995: 151, 166, 187), as well as a gui (ZQQBW 1997: 12, 61) in a cache at Xiaobotaigou ⮷㲊㰘㹅, Kazuo, were cast to commemorate the Zhou king’s award of cowries to Yu for his participation in the “Entreatment” (huì ) state ritual at Chengzhou (i.e., fig. 4.8: 2). Another you (M253: 5) was inscribed with “makes [this] treasured vessel” (ἄ⭅⼅), but its shape and decoration and the style of the inscription are strikingly comparable to those of the you commissioned by Yu (BWY 1995: 187). The same inscription was repeated on a zun (M253: 2). Both vessels could also have been made by Yu. Moreover, the inscription on a square lidded ding (M253: 11) records that Yu received cowries from Yanhou and cast the vessel to commemorate the gifting, further highlighting his political prestige within the Yan state (fig. 4.8: 1) (BWY 1995: 171, 179–80, 187).

172 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

FIGURE 4.8. Yu vessels from tomb M253 at Liulihe (from BWY 1995: 107, 110, 149, 151, figs. 73A and D, 91B and E)

Bo Ju commissioned a li (M251: 23; JC: 689) and a pan (M251: 2; JC: 10073), both found in M251. The inscriptions on the lid and neck of the li read, “On the day of wuchen, Yanhou awarded Bo Ju with cowries, [Bo Ju] cast [this] sacrificial vessel for his father Wu” (⛐ㆲ彘, ⋥ὗ岄ỗ䞑居, 䓐ἄ䇞ㆲ⮲⼄) (fig. 4.9: 1) (BWY 1995: 140, 160). The body of the li is fully covered with animalface motifs and decorated with water buffalo horns projecting from its surface (fig. 4.5: 1). The same motif is repeated on the lid, where two three-dimensional water buffalo heads join each other to form the handle. Such a high-profile flamboyant design reflects the significance of the award commemorated in the inscription. The inscription on the pan cast by Bo Ju starts with “Gui” 䘠, which could be the lineage sign of Bo Ju (fig. 4.9. 2) (Cao Shuqin 1995: 200–7). Vessels cast by Bo Ju were found in other locations, including a yan in a cache at Shanwanzi at Kazuo (fig. 4.9: 4) and one gui, one hu, and two you in various collections (KW, CDB, and LB 1977: 23–27, 43; Rawson 1990: 147). An inscription on a ding cast by Bo Ju shows that Bo Ju was tasked to entertain the Zhou king’s emissaries to Yan (JC: 2456; Tang 2016: 98; more details in next section). All this evidence suggests that Bo Ju, regardless of his lineage background, was a high-ranking elite of the Yan state (Yan Sun 2017: 47–70).

173 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

FIGURE 4.9. Bo Ju bronzes and inscriptions (1–2 from BWY 1995: 160, 197–98, figs. 94, 114A and B; 3 from JC: 2456; 4 from KW, CDB, and LB 1977, plate 52, p. 24, fig. 3)

Besides the cowries, servants, and clothes recorded in the preceding inscriptions, other gifts from Yanhou include bronze weapons such as a ge dagger axe, ji halberds, and lacquer shields with bronze yang 挂 roundels (shield ornaments). Weapons of Yanhou were found in M1193, a tomb of a Yanhou, including bronze ji halberds inscribed with “ge dagger axe of Yanhou for the grand dance” (⋥ὗ准ㆰ) and yang roundels with “the yang of Yanhou for the grand dance” (⋥ὗ准挂) (fig. 4.2: 1–2). They were also found in tombs of others at Liulihe. M52 contained a yang and a ji halberd, both inscribed with “Yanhou” ⋥ὗ. The halberd was placed right next to the deceased inside the coffin, indicating the deceased’s appreciation of this special gift from Yanhou (BWY 1995: 23–28). M1029 contained three weapons of Yanhou, one ge, one ji, and one yang, and M252 contained two yang (fig. 4.2: 3–4) (LK 1984: 405–16, 404; BWY 1995: 210–11).6 Gifting was a well-established political mechanism in the Zhou court and regional states and was used to maintain and enhance the political relations among the players of various levels (Cook 1997: 253–94). The inscriptions and weapons that have been analyzed illustrate that Yanhou’s awards and gifts to elite members were an intrinsic part of Yan political activities.

174 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

Through gifting, Yanhou not only reinforced his political authority over his subordinates but also showed his appreciation of their contribution and allegiance to the state. Another form of gifting activity practiced at Liulihe was funerary gifting, in which one’s bronzes were presented as gifts to the deceased and his or her family at the funeral. Inscribed bronzes in M251 and M253, for example, reveal that they were made by individuals of various lineages. In M251, eighteen inscribed vessels were likely commissioned by thirteen individuals from lineages of both Shang and Zhou ancestries. Similarly, thirteen inscribed bronzes in M253 reveal at least seven casters. How did vessels of different individuals end up in the same tomb? Some propose that those Shang-style vessels could be “awarded vessels” that the Zhou gave to their members and allies after the conquest of Shang (Huang Mingchong 2012: 607–70). However, a careful examination of inscribed bronzes suggests that some of the vessels were likely funerary gifts given to the deceased’s family by the Shang remnants who continued to serve under Yanhou (Yan Sun 2017: 47–70). Active Participation in the Zhou Political and Social Network

Yan, as a regional state, was an integral part of the Zhou political system. It maintained close political and diplomatic interactions with the Zhou court and its nominal founder, the Duke of Shao, during the early Western Zhou period. Such interactions allowed the court to maintain sovereignty over regional states. Inscriptions on bronzes in Yan tombs at Liulihe and in museum collections have richly documented Yan’s active participation in the ritual and political activities at the Zhou court despite its remoteness to Zhou capitals (over 700 kilometers from Liulihe to Chengzhou and 1,000 kilometers to Zongzhou). An inscription on a ding in the Senoku Hakukokan museum describes Yanhou Zhi’s first visit to Zongzhou after his succession as the ruler of Yan (JC: 2628) (fig. 4.2: 7) (Sen-oku 2002: 11, 185). The inscription reads: ⋥ὗ㖐⇅夳ḳḶ⬿␐炻䌳岆㖐居Ḵ⋩㚳炻䓐ἄ⥺⮞⮲⼄ Yanhou Zhi paid his first court visit at Zongzhou. The Zhou king bestowed on Zhi twenty strands of cowry shells, with which [Zhi] casts [for] Si [this] precious vessel.

175 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

The king awarded Zhi with symbolic gifts of twenty cowrie strands. Such personal and ceremonial court visits allowed the Zhou king to grant authority to the new ruler of a regional state. The gifting of cowries, as recorded on the Yanhou Zhi ding, was only one of the ceremonial activities during the visit that is captured in the inscription. Similarly, the inscription on a Mai square zun 湍㕡⮲ details a series of activities that the ruler of Xing (Xinghou 恊ὗ)7 participated in during his first court visit: he performed an archery ritual with the king, met the king in his inner palace, received gifts, and had the honor of riding in the royal chariot (JC: 6015). In addition, the inscription documents that the ruler of Xing, upon returning to his state, reported to his ancestors about the visit, a ceremonial gesture that confirmed the connection between ancestral sacrifices and political responsibility to the king. Zhi was likely greeted with very similar ceremonial activities and, upon returning to Yan, cast the ding as a sacrifice for his mother Si ⥺ (surname). Inscriptions reveal that Yanhou not only made a personal visit but also sent other elite members to participate in Zhou ritual activities at the capital. Inscriptions on the four aforementioned vessels cast by Yu ⚱ record his participation in the “Entreatment” state ritual at Chengzhou and the receipt of cowries from the Zhou king. The Zhou king also sent his envoy to Yan. An inscription on a ding cast by Bo Ju states: “Bo Ju casts [this] precious vessel to entertain the king’s emissaries to Yan” (ỗ䞑ἄ⮞⼄炻䓐妨炷㫮炸䌳↢ ℏ炷ℍ炸⎷炷ἧ炸Ṣ) (fig. 4.9: 3) (JC: 2456; Tang 2016: 98). It is possible that Yan’s titular leader, the Duke of Shao, visited Yan during the founding period of the state. An inscription on the well-known Xiaochen X (unreadable graph) ding ⮷冋 溶 (JC: 2556) records that the Duke of Shao went to Yan and performed the “ritual of cultivating the land” (jítián 䯵䓘). Five strands of cowries were granted to petty servant Xiaochen X, who cast the sacrificial vessel to commemorate the event (Chen Mengjia 1955: 94–95; Qiu 1992: 353–56; Li Feng 2008: 48). Xiaochen X was likely a family servant of Yanhou. Additionally, a tortoise shell in an ash pit at Liulihe carrying the characters “Chengzhou” ㆸ␐ was probably brought to Yan by the Duke of Shao during his visit (Cao Dingyun [2008] 2015: 217–21). As the analysis of Peng and Ba in chapter 3 has shown, the Yan ruling lineage had marriage relations with Ba. Yan could also have had contacts with Peng during the early Western Zhou period. It is not surprising that Yan, Ba, and Peng interacted with one another given that they were all participants in the Zhou political system. There is no evidence, however, that the Yan state had marriage relations with other polities, particularly with local groups in

176 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

northern Hebei. Jin had marriage relations with local Rong and Di groups in southern Shanxi. The severe looting of the tombs belonging to Yanhou and their wives makes it difficult to investigate possible marriage relations between Yan and the local people. But given that there is no local-style pottery in Liulihe tombs, large or small, it is possible that Yan could have been highly selective in choosing marriage partners, limiting them to those within the Zhou political system. A SATELLITE SETTLEMENT AND SUBCOLONIES OF THE YAN BEYOND LIULIHE: BRONZES AT NIULANSHAN AND KAZUO

The preceding discussions reveal Yan as a Zhou regional state consisting of multiple lineages with varied social and cultural practices. Where those lineages were settled, however, remains unclear in the archaeological record. Limited archaeological surveys near the Yan capital have revealed settlements at six locations, particularly during the early phase of the Western Zhou period (Liu and Zhao 1997: 34–41). Those settlements likely belonged to lineages associated with Yan. Further beyond the Yan capital, inscribed bronze vessels found at Niulanshan and caches at Kazuo reveal connections between the vessels and the elite who were active at the Yan capital at Liulihe, as well as the possible political expansion of Yan into both areas. The projection of Yan’s power is also indirectly illustrated by the poem “Hann Is Mighty” (Hannyi 杻⣽) in the Book of Poetry (Shijing 1980: 570–73; Waley 1996: 277–79). The last section of the poem documents that the city of Hann 杻, a Zhou regional state in the northeast, was built by the Yan army during the late Western Zhou period. In the same poem, the king charges the ruler of Hann to rule over the Zhui 徥 and Mo 尲 people and the states in the north, as his ancestor took over control of the “hundred wild tribes.” The poem also serves as important evidence that King Xuan ⭋ tried to restore a royal connection with the Zhou regional state and to regain control over the local people in the remote northeast (Li Feng 2006: 137–38). The fact that Yan was able to assist Hann’s construction of the city walls implies that Yan was still able to maintain its power, at least to some extent, in northern Hebei during the late ninth and early eighth centuries bce. Interestingly, this was also around the period that the documentation of the ruler of Yan reappeared in transmitted texts such as the Grand Scribe’s Records after the long-missing documentations of the genealogy of the Yan ruling lineage (Chen Ping 1995: 179–83). The whereabouts of Yan during this time, however, remain unclear archaeologically.

177 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

A Satellite Settlement: The Jiyayi Lineage at Niulanshan

Scholars believe that Jiyayi or Jihouyayi 䬽ὗṆ䞋 was a branch of the Shang royal lineage derived from Jizi 䬽⫸, a historical figure in transmitted texts who is celebrated for his benevolence and loyalty (Cao and Yin 1986: 191–99; Zhu Yanmin 1997: 218–25). Earlier discussions in this chapter have shown that members of Jiyayi or Jihouyayi served under Yanhou and were active in Yan during the early Western Zhou period (Zhang Yachu [1993] 1995: 223–30). Bronzes commissioned by members of the Jiyayi lineage have been discovered in Beijing and western Liaoning. A branch of this lineage likely had a settlement at the present-day Niulanshan Township in Beijing, northeast of Liulihe (map 4.1). Eight bronze vessels were recovered from a local supply and marketing cooperative in the township. These vessels were originally retrieved together with four ceramic guan jars and fragments of lead vessels. Although no human skeleton or tomb structure was found, scholars believe that collectively these vessels belonged to a tomb (Cheng Changxin 1983: 64–67). All eight vessels bear the Jiyayi lineage sign. Except for one ding food vessel, the remaining seven—one you, one zun, one zhi, two gu, and two jue—are wine vessels. Such dominance of wine vessels was consistent with the late Shang mortuary culture at Anyang. Because of their style, this group of vessels can be dated from the end of Shang to the beginning of the middle Western Zhou periods. The gu could be the earliest of the late Shang period, around the eleventh century bce, but the you and zun vessels with the bulging and drooping bellies exhibit stylistic features popular during the reigns of Kings Zhao and Mu, around the tenth century bce. If the vessels were indeed from a tomb as the archaeological report hypothesized, the date of the tomb should fall around the tenth century bce. This suggests that the Jiyayi lineage was active at the Niulanshan area during the late phase of the early Western Zhou period. A bronze cast by an individual of the Jiyayi lineage was buried in tomb M253 at Liulihe. It was likely a funerary gift from the lineage to the tomb occupant, Yu, who held a prominent position at Yan (Yan Sun 2017: 47–70). Interestingly, a bronze gui cast by Yu and a Jihouyayi ding were both found at Kazuo, further implying interactions between members of the two lineages, who both served under Yanhou. Scholars disagree on the original locations of the Jizi and Jiyayi settlements and when the lineage moved to northern Hebei.8 Based on inscriptional evidence and the discovery of the vessels at Niulanshan, the Jiyayi lineage, like other remnants of Shang, were assimilated into the Yan political

178 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

system during the early Western Zhou period. Niulanshan could have been an important satellite settlement of the Yan state outside its capital. Niulanshan was situated between the Yan capital Liulihe in the south and the Yan mountainous region in the north. The surrounding alluvial plain is suitable for farming and allows for a sustainable economy. The strategic location of Niulanshan enabled it to monitor several mountain passes through which people moved up and down through the Jing-Jin-Tang alluvial plain and the Yan mountainous region. Communities using bronze daggers (though sporadically distributed) were always present in the southern slopes of the Yan mountainous region. Archaeological findings at tombs at Baifu recorded the struggle between Yan and communities in the mountainous region (Linduff et al. 2018: 91–95). The Jiyayi lineage at Niulanshan was likely a frontline community set up at the intersection of the mountainous region and the Jing-Jin-Tang alluvial plain to defend the Yan capital. Expansion into Western Liaoning: Bronze Caches at Kazuo

Material remains from the late second to early first millennia bce in western Liaoning have been primarily attributed to the Weiyingzi 櫷䆇⫸ culture. Among the cemeteries and residential remains that have been identified as this local bronze-using culture, however, are six caches containing mostly bronze vessels dated from the late Shang to the late phase of the early Western Zhou periods, roughly from the thirteenth to mid-tenth centuries bce (Zhu Fenghan 2009: 1428–31). The vessels were likely interred during King Zhao’s reign, around the tenth century bce (Zhu Fenghan 2009: 1429). These caches, from north to south, were dispersed at five adjacent locations at Kazuo: Gulugou ␽☄㹅 (Dongshangcun 㳆ᶲ㛹), Xiaobotaigou (unpublished), Beidong (two caches), Machanggou 楔⺈㹅, and Shanwanzi Ⱉ䀋⫸ along the bank of the Daling River (Map 4.1) (Chen Mengjia 1955: 94–95; RBC 1955: 16–27; LB and CDB 1973: 225–26, 257; KW, CDB, and LB 1974: 364–72, 1977: 24–27, 43). The distance between the northernmost location, Gulugou, and the southernmost, Shanwanzi, is only about twenty-seven kilometers. Altogether about sixty-five bronzes were found in those caches, but not all of them have been published. Whereas bronzes were sporadically found in caches in the Yan mountainous region such as in Chaodaogou ㈬ 忻㹅 and Xiaohe’nan ⮷㱛⋿, bronze weapons and tools are absent in these caches. The number of bronze vessels in each cache varies, ranging from one ding from Gulugou to twenty-two vessels from Shanwanzi (table 4.1).

179 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

TABLE 4.1 Bronzes from caches at Kazuo in western Liaoning

Cache

Quantity of vessels Bronze vessels

Date of bronzes

Key individual/lineage names on bronzes

Late Shang

Guzhu ⬌䪡

Beidong No. 1

6

lei 5, bu 1

Beidong No. 2

6

ding 3, gui 1, lei 1, Early Western Zhou Jiyayi 䬽Ṇ䞋 dou 1

Shanwanzi

22

ding 1, gui 10, li 1, Early Western Zhou Ge ㆰ, Boju ỗ䞑, yan 3, yu 1, zun 1, Shuyi ⍼⯡, Pengwan ᾿叔, you 1, lei 3, pan 1 Yu 欂

Machanggou

16

ding 1, gui 3, yan Early Western Zhou Yanhou ⋥ὗ, Yufugui 欂䇞䘠, 2, zun 1, you 2, lei Shi ⎚ 2, hu 1, he 1, pan 1, unknown 2

Xiaobotaigou

14

ding 6, gui 1, lei 1, Early Western Zhou Yu ⚱ pan (?) and others unknown

Gulugou

1

ding 1

Early Western Zhou None

Vessels include food and wine vessels, and occasionally a water vessel pan. Interestingly, portable wine vessels, jue and zhi, were not found in the caches, implying that the vessel deposits focused on heavier bronzes that were not easily moved around. At least twenty-four of the vessels carry inscriptions revealing casters of multiple lineages from Shang and Zhou cultural backgrounds. Vessels from four caches share the same casters with those unearthed in tombs at the Yan capital Liulihe. Those casters can be unmistakably identified as members of the Yan elite. A yu 䙪 in Machanggou, dated to the early Western Zhou period, was cast by a Yanhou of an uncertain generation (fig. 4.2: 8) (RBC 1955: 16–27). Another prominent caster was Bo Ju, who, as the previous analysis shows, was likely in charge of Yan “foreign” affairs and played an active role in Yan politics. A bronze yan by Bo Ju was found in the Shanwanzi cache (fig. 4.9: 4) (KW, CDB, and LB 1977: 23–27, 43). Two vessels cast by Bo Ju, one li and one pan, were also found in tomb M251 at Liulihe (BWY 1995: 140, 195) (fig. 4.9: 1-2). A finely cast square-based gui in the Xiaobotaigou cache is one of the six vessels commissioned by Yu, the occupant of burial M253 at Liulihe, to commemorate his participation in the “Entreatment” state ritual in Chengzhou (ZQQBW 1997: 12). Early discussions in this chapter suggest that various lineages derived from the Shang period were allocated to the newly founded Yan state and

180 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

continued to serve under Yanhou. Among the lineages with a Shang cultural background that were active in the Yan state was the Jiyayi lineage. Bronzes cast by Jiyayi members were found in tombs at Liulihe (M253) and Niulanshan, as discussed earlier. The Jihouyayi ding in Beidong cache No.2, though showing late Shang stylistic characteristics, can be dated to the early phase of the early Western Zhou period (Li Xueqin 1975: 274–79; Zhu Fenghan 2009: 1428–29). Tang Lan Ⓒ嗕 suggests that the granter of the award, Yang, in the inscription on this ding could be a member of the Yan ruling class (Tang 2016: 116–18). If so, this is further evidence that the Jiyayi lineage was active in the Yan state during the early Western Zhou period. Shang clan emblems and the Shang practice of naming ancestors are also evident on a few vessels in Machanggou, cache No.1 at Beidong, and Shanwanzi. An early Western Zhou gui in Machanggou bore the lineage emblem “Yu” 欂 and “Father Gui” 䇞䘠. The same emblem and ancestral dedicatee were found on the knob and handle of a jue in tomb M1143 (M1143: 29) at Liulihe. Both vessels could have been cast by the same person. A zun in the Shanwanzi cache, dated to the early phase of the early Western Zhou period, was also cast by an individual of the Yu 欂 lineage. The concurrent presence of Yu 欂 vessels with Yanhou yu and Bo Ju yan suggests that Yu, like the other lineages with a Shang cultural background previously discussed, likely continued to serve Yanhou. Ge ㆰ is another lineage whose vessels were found at Liulihe (a yan in M251) and Kazuo (a you in the Machanggou cache). The cemetery of a branch of the Ge lineage was found at Gaojiabu 檀⭞⟉, Jingyang, Shaanxi (Dai Yingxin 1995). The lineage’s relation to Yan is not clear. The inscription on the No. 2 lei in Beidong cache No.1 reveals that the vessel belonged to Guzhu ⬌䪡, a polity active during the late Shang period (fig. 4.10) (KW, CDB, and LB 1974: 364–72). The cache yielded six vessels, including five lei and one bu, all dated from the late Shang to the beginning of the Western Zhou period. The five lei are similar in style but distinguishable by their slight size variations and by the attached dangling rings on the handles (no rings appear on nos. 5 and 6). The stylistic proximity of these lei vessels in the cache suggests that they likely all belonged to Guzhu. Besides these vessels, three Guzhu bronzes are identified in museum collections (Li Xueqin 1983: 202–6). As mentioned earlier, scholars have located Guzhu, which was active during the Shang period, at various areas in northern Hebei, particularly present-day Lulong 䚏漵 and western Liaoning (Peng Bangjiong 1991: 380–404; Wang Yuliang 2000: 56–61; Miao 2008: 76–80).

181 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

FIGURE 4.10. Bronze lei and its inscription “Guzhu” from Beidong cache No. 1 (from LB and CDB 1973: 226, figs. 2, 3)

Bronzes belonging to a few individuals active during the early Western Zhou period can also be identified, although current available evidence cannot determine their specific connections with the Yan state. The vessels include the Shuyin ⍼⯡ ding of King Zhao’s reign, a gui by the Tan 夫 lineage, a gui of the Yin ⯡ lineage, and a you by Shi Fa ⎚Ẹ at Machanggou. Caches at both Machanggou and Shanwanzi also yielded vessels commissioned by Yan elite, suggesting that vessels of these lineages were likely introduced into Kazuo through their connection with Yan. Bronzes in caches at Kazuo were dominated by the types and styles of Anyang and of the Zhou center. Bronzes that had the same casters as Liulihe bronzes were imports to Kazuo and were cast for the same purpose as the Yu gui or at the same foundry as the Yanhou yu and Bo Ju li. Nevertheless, a small number of vessels display stylistic characteristics that have been identified as either local or derived from bronze traditions in the Northern Zone. The local style is exemplified by a twisted rope design on the upper body of a yan from Machanggou; the Northern style is shown by a slender hu from the same cache with a grid design on the body that was likely inspired by a softleathered pouch used for liquids by northern herders and hunters (fig. 4.11: 1–2) (So and Bunker 1995: 42). Also representative of the Northern style is a jingle-pommeled bronze spoon, a lid, and a square-based gui with a jingle hanging on the bottom, all from Xiaobotaigou (see fig. 4.11: 4 for the lid). Additionally, a globular-shaped bowl with a short spout from Beidong cache No. 2 and a duck-shaped vessel from Machanggou are very different from vessels of the Zhou center, and the limited archaeological evidence makes their stylistic sources hard to trace (fig. 4.11: 3, 5). They may have been cast locally (Hirokawa 1996: 186–201). The ownership of the bronzes at Kazuo and the reason for their interment have long been the focus of scholarly discussion. Emphasizing the convenient geographic proximity between these caches and the sites of the local Weiyingzi culture, some scholars claim that these vessels were locally owned

182 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

FIGURE 4.11. Bronzes from caches at Kazuo showing stylistic connections with the Northern Zone (1–3 from Guo Baojun 1981, plates 41, 43: 2, 44: 2; 4 from Guo Dashun 1987: 90, fig. 8; 5 from KW, CDB, and LB 1974: 368, fig. 5)

(Guo Dashun 1987: 79–98; Dong Xinlin 2000: 1–29). This theory, however, needs to explain the sharp contrast between the abundance of bronze vessels in the caches and the scarcity and highly limited types of vessels in the Weiyingzi tombs. How bronzes, especially those with Shang and Zhou lineage signs, made their way into Kazuo will also need to be addressed. A few studies focus on the means by which these bronzes flowed into the Kazuo region, arguing that they were either “prestige goods” given by Yan to the local elite (Miyamoto 1999: 91–111) or booty taken from Yan by hostile groups (Lin Yongchang 2007: 16–30). The reason for interment is another focus of study. Bronzes at several sites, such as the two caches at Beidong and the one at Machanggou, were ritual sacrifices (LB and CDB 1973: 225–57; Yang Jianhua 2002: 157–74). There has been no discussion, however, about the practitioners of these rituals. A recent study offers a new perspective on the interment by suggesting that a nomadic group left those heavy bronzes during its seasonal movement (Xu Jian 2011: 26–31). However, the study does not provide any details about which nomadic group was responsible for such action. The presence of vessels belonging to identifiable Yan elite members— Yanhou, Yu, Bo Ju, members of the Jiyayi, and Yu lineages with a Shang cultural background that served in Yan—suggests a special connection between Yan and Kazuo that is not seen elsewhere in the northeastern

183 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

frontier. The strong bonding of the material culture between the two regions has led some to propose that Kazuo was a Yan colony that was founded at a strategic location that connects to the far northeastern region. The vessels originally belonged to Yan elite who may have been once stationed at Kazuo (e.g., Chen Mengjia 1955: 94–95; Li Xueqin 1975: 274–79; Yan Sun 2003: 761–70; Li Feng 2006: 339; Zhu Fenghan 2009: 1428–31). Although no Zhou settlement has been reported at Kazuo to date, this hypothesis seems to be the most plausible given the current available data. The Guzhu vessels in Beidong cache No. 1 could have provided a possible motive for Yan’s expansion farther north to western Liaoning during the early Western Zhou period. Historical studies trace the Guzhu mentioned in bronze inscriptions to the “Zhu” 䪡 recorded in oracle bone inscriptions of the late Shang period, roughly the end of the fourteenth to the late twelfth centuries bce (Tang 1973: 5–14; Li Xueqin 1975: 274–79, 1983: 202–6; Peng Bangjiong 1991: 380–404). Zhu had friendly relations with Shang at Anyang. The Zhu served as diviners at the Shang court and brought in tributes such as stone musical instruments, tortoise shells, and slaves. King Wu Ding also married a lady from Zhu. Guzhu’s relations with the Zhou, however, were not as collegial as they were with the Shang. A famous entry in the Grand Scribe’s Records, for instance, records that Guzhu rulers Bo Yi ỗ⣟ and Shu Qi ⍼滲 attempted to stop King Wu’s military campaign against the Shang and later starved to death by refusing to eat “Zhou” grains as a demonstration of their loyalty to Shang (Shiji 1982: 2123). The virtue and morality of the two characters have been repeatedly praised by Confucian writers throughout Chinese history. The underlying message of the story, however, is that Shang remnants resented the Zhou. The coexistence of Guzhu bronzes with bronzes of Yan elite at Kazuo suggests that members of the Guzhu lineage were once active in the region and likely even fought against Zhou, given the resistant sentiment conveyed by the Bo Yi and Shu Qi story. If this hypothesis stands, it explains to some extent why the Yan state had a presence in this remote northeastern region, 450 kilometers away from its capital, not long after settling down at Liulihe. Yan likely subdued the resistance and subsequently set up a form of control in the area. The geopolitical landscape experienced a major shift in Kazuo and the Daling River valley from the mid-tenth century bce onward when a culture using bronze daggers with curved blades made a strong appearance.

184 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

Findings at Baifu attest to the rise of an aggressive dagger-using culture on the southern slope of the Yan Mountains as well. The interment of vessels belonging to the Yan elite in caches at Kazuo marked the end of the Zhou presence in the region. THREE NEIGHBORS OF YAN IN THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

The Yan state was only one of many polities active in the northeastern frontier during the Western Zhou period. Available archaeological data indicate that, besides Yan, the frontier was occupied by at least three distinctive cultures. The Jing-Jin-Tang region where Yan was situated was occupied by communities archaeologically defined as the Zhangjiayuan culture, whose tombs included bronze vessels juxtaposed with gold earrings and armlets with fan-shaped terminals. Active in the southern slope of the Yan mountainous region were dispersed groups that favored portable daggers and knives that terminated with jingles and animal pommels. Further northeast of the Yan Mountains in western Liaoning was the Weiyingzi culture, whose burials often featured ceramic bo 摝 bowls, metal bracelets and earrings, and occasionally imported bronze vessels. The populations that created these diverse material cultures could have had varied demographic backgrounds and developed varied lifestyles, cultural identities, and political entities. The arrival of the Yan state, however, transformed local communities into involuntary hosts who now in their native lands faced a new challenge from a delegate of Zhou power. Contacts, contests, and negotiations between those communities and the Yan state throughout the Western Zhou period shaped the cultural and political landscape across this frontier. Local Groups in the Jing-Jin-Tang Region: The Zhangjiayuan Culture

Material remains in the Jing-Jin-Tang region roughly from 1300 to the midtenth century bce are archaeologically defined as Phase III of the Weifang ⚵⛲ culture and the succeeding Zhangjiayuan culture (Han Jiagu 1984: 220–29; Shen Yong 1993: 19–24; Li Boqian 1994: 143–57). The former was dated to the late Shang period and the latter to the Western Zhou period, but the transition between the two cultures across the region was gradual over time (Ji Liemin [2002] 2015: 349–67; Jiang 2017 114–23). Some communities continued practicing Phase III of the Weifang culture well into the Western Zhou period. There is a strong cultural continuity between the two cultures.

185 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

Except for modest ceramic stylistic changes, other aspects of these cultures are very similar. The populations of both cultures lived a settled life supported primarily by farming. Tools for farming, harvesting, and food processing were abundant at sites such as Zhenjiangying 捖㰇䆇 (BWY 1999: 262–72). Additional economic activities included animal husbandry of sheep, cattle, and pig, deer hunting, and fishing, as revealed by remains of animal bones at Zhenjiangying and Houqianyi ⼴怟佑 (BWY 1995: 557–65; Zhang and Zhai 2016: 25–33, 99–103). Habitation sites in the region were generally small, often yielding ceramic sherds, ash pits, and tools. Overall, they do not show significant internal social complexity. The few house remains found at Zhangjiayuan and Zhenjiangying were small, round, and subterranean (BWY 1995: 195–97; TLBKD 1984: 698–705, 1993: 311–23). Tombs were also found at a few sites in the Chaobai and Luan River valleys, but no large-scale cemetery has been reported. Ceramic data indicate a strong continuity between a local pottery tradition and the earlier Datuotou culture. The use of non-local-style pottery was rare. At Caijiafen 哉⭞⡛ of the Luan River valley, the pottery assemblages were defined entirely by local ceramics (She 2015: 22–25). But at Zhenjiangying, pottery li and gui in the style of the Zhou center had been somewhat adopted by the mid-tenth century bce, likely due to the contact with Yan at Liulihe, only about thirty-five kilometers to the east (BWY 1999: 402–4). The contrast between the two sites suggests that these local communities had differing relationships with Yan at Liulihe. Seventeen tombs at seven sites in the Jing-Jin-Tang region, dating roughly from 1300 to the tenth century bce, contained metal objects such as gold or bronze ornaments and/or bronze vessels. The presence of bronze vessels suggests that the local communities first communicated with the Shang at Anyang and then later with Yan at Liulihe; it also suggests that their wealth and social inequality increased over time.

UPHOLDING LOCAL IDENTITY IN MORTUARY SPACE: TOMB ORIENTATIONS AND PERSONAL ORNAMENTS

The eastern orientation of the deceased in the tombs was one of the most persistent, widespread characteristics of mortuary practices in the Jing-Jin-Tang region after the mid-second millennium bce. About seventy tombs of the earlier Datuotou culture were reported; the deceased all adopted an eastern orientation (Wu En 2008: 48–50). Other aspects of those tombs, however,

186 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

show clear variations. For instance, tombs at Xiaoguanzhuang were built with stone slabs, but those at other sites were rectangular earthen pits; tomb occupants at Tazhao were buried with cattle and sheep, while those at other sites were not; and the deceased were placed in various postures across the sites. The significance of the eastern orientation as a distinct, regional mortuary tradition is more apparent when these tombs are compared with tombs at Anyang and in the Zhou center, in which the heads of the deceased were primarily oriented north (Zhang Mingdong 2005: 94–103). Such a contrast suggests that even though the Jing-Jin-Tang region could have had interactions with the Shang and Zhou centers in the south, the local people were able to maintain aspects of their indigenous mortuary culture. The local mortuary tradition of an eastern orientation continued in the region after the Datuotou culture from 1300 to the mid-tenth century bce. In twenty-one tombs dated from the late Shang to early Western Zhou periods, including eight at Houqianyi, five at Dongkan’gezhuang ᷄旂⎬⸬, four at Zhenjiangying, and four at Zhangjiayuan, the heads of the deceased were primarily oriented east (HWY 1985: 980–84, 989; TLBKD 1993: 311–23; BWY 1999: 204–7; Zhang and Zhai 2016: 25–43, 99–106). Six tombs at Bangjun 恎⛯ dated to the middle Western Zhou period, around the mid-tenth century bce, also used an eastern orientation (TLBKB 1991: 18). These tombs vary considerably in size, grave goods, and even the posture of the deceased (the deceased at Zhangjiayuan were placed in the prone posture but those at Houqianyi in the supine posture), but they all carried on the local tradition of the eastern orientation. In contrast, in Yan burials at Liulihe, the heads of the deceased were primarily oriented north. The persistence of local cultural tradition was also manifested in the use of gold or bronze personal ornaments, including earrings and armlets, and ornaments consisting of turquoise beads. The trumpet-shaped earrings were mostly found in tombs and occasionally in residential contexts at six locations of the Datuotou culture (Wu En 2008: 22).9 The earrings were often found near the head of the deceased in a pair, suggesting that a practice in life continued into the afterlife. Gold armlets were another type of personal ornament in the region. The earliest example came from a Datuotou tomb at Qinggongtai ㄞ≇⎘ that contained a gold armlet with fan-shaped terminals and over two dozen ceramic pots (LWG and XWB 1999: 26–30, 32). Metal earrings and armlets similar in style have been found at sites of the Qijia,

187 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

Siba ⚃✅, and Zhukaigou cultures in the west and of the Lower Xiajiadian and Weiyingzi cultures in the north across the Northern Zone (Wu En 2008: 21–26). Earrings of the same type, dated roughly to the mid-second millennium bce, were also discovered at the Andronovo-type sites (c. 2000–1000 bce) in the Altai region of southern Siberia. Although the specific mechanism of exchange between the Jing-Jin-Tang region and regions further in the west such as southeastern Inner Mongolia is unclear (Linduff 1997: 20), the vast geographic distribution suggests that dynamic cultural exchanges occurred across Eastern Eurasia during the second millennium bce. A discovery of bronze trumpet-shaped earrings in tomb M7 at Guanzhuang ⭀匲 dated to no later than the mid-second millennium bce could shed light on the possible transmission of those ornaments from the west (HWY 2001: 25–28), as Guanzhuang sits on a critical route entering the Jing-Jin-Tang region from the western area via Zhangjiakou ⻝⭞⎋. Local people continued to use metal earrings and armlets in the second half of the second millennium bce (table 4.2). The Liujiahe tomb contained an earring and two armlets, all in gold (fig. 4.1: 4–6). Gold armlets were seen in tombs at Dongkan’gezhuang and Xiaoshandongzhuang ⮷Ⱉ㜙匲 (fig. 4.12: 8) (TWG and QWG 1997: 58–62). And trumpet-shaped earrings were found in an ash pit at Zhenjiangying and in the tomb at Xiaoshandongzhuang. A new type of hoop earring with fan-shaped terminals that was modeled after the gold armlet was increasingly popular (fig. 4.12: 6–7). These earrings, similar in style to the armlets but much smaller, were found in tombs of both males and females at Houqianyi ⼴怟佑 and Zhangjiayuan, all dating to between the end of the Shang period and the early Western Zhou period. Seven of the eight tombs at Houqianyi each yielded a single earring or a pair of gold or bronze earrings (table 4.2). At Zhangjiayuan, three of the four tombs contained gold hoop earrings. All three types of ornaments converged in the aforementioned tomb at Xiaoshandongzhuang of the early Western Zhou period, which contained a pair of gold armlets, a gold earring of the same shape, and a bronze hoop earring with fan-shaped terminals.10 Matching the bright-colored gold or bronze earrings and armlets were ornaments stringed with greenish-colored turquoise beads. The wide distribution of these ornaments across the Jing-Jin-Tang region suggests that they had become distinctive indicators of both the personal and regional identities of the local people.

Unknown

Late Shang

Early Western Zhou

Mashaocun

Xiaoshandongzhuang

Late Shang to early Western Zhou

Late Shang

Late Shang

Late Shang

Houqianyi 1999M4* (male)

Houqianyi 1999M5* (male)

Houqianqi 1999M6* (male)

Houqianyi 1999M7* (female)

East

East

Houqianyi 2001M2* (male)

East

East

East

Houqianyi 2001M1* (female)

Late Shang to early Western Zhou

East

Late Shang

Houqianyi 1999M2* (male)

East

Unknown

Dongkan’gezhuang

Unknown

Unknown

Late Shang to early Western Zhou

Chenshantou

Head orientation

Date (c. 1300–mid10th century BCE)

Tomb (sex of deceased)

Bronze-yielding burials in the Luan River valley

TABLE 4.2 Bronze-yielding burials of the Zhangjiayuan culture

ding 2

ding 3, gui 1

ding 1, gui 1

ding 1, gui 1

ding 3, gui 1

ding 1, gui 1

ding 1, gui 1

Bronze vessels

gold earring 1, jade jue earring 1

bronze earrings 2

bronze earrings 2

bronze earrings 2, bronze choker 1, turquoise necklace 1

gold earrings 2, gold foils

bronze mirrors 2, gold earrings 2, turquoise necklace 1

bronze earring 1

gold armlet 1

gold earring 1, gold armlets 2, bronze trumpet-shaped earring 1, turquoise beads 35

Personal ornaments

socketed axe 1, bowshaped object 1

bow-shaped object 1

socketed ge 2, socketed axes 4, buttons 124

socketed axe 1, bowshaped object 1

Bronze weapons and tools

li 1, guan 2

guan 1

li 1, guan 4

li 1, bo 2

li 1, guan 2

li 1, guan 2

li 4, guan 8

li 1, guan 1

guan fragments

Pottery

ox skulls/bones 8, sheep/goat bones 20

ox skull 1, sheep/ goat skull 1

ox skulls 7

ox skulls 2, sheep/ goat skulls 2

sheep/goat scapulae 1, bones 2

Animal sacrifices

Late Shang to early Western Zhou

Late Shang to early Western Zhou

Late Shang to early Western Zhou

Late Shang to early Western Zhou

Middle Western Zhou

Middle Western Zhou

Zhangjiayuan M1 (male)

Zhangjiayuan M2 (female)

Zhangjiayuan M3 (female)

Zhangjiayuan M4

Bangjun M1

Bangjun M2

East

East

East

East

East

East

Head orientation

ding 1, gui 1

ding 1, gui 1

ding 1, gui 1

ding 1, gui 1

ding 1

Bronze vessels

gold earrings 2, turquoise bead 1

gold earrings 2, turquoise beads 11

turquoise beads 2

gold earrings 2, turquoise beads 2

Personal ornaments

stone arrowhead 1

spinning wheel 1

Bronze weapons and tools Pottery

Animal sacrifices

Source: Based on Linduff et al. 2018: 81, chart 3.1, but see note above.

*The burial data for Houqianyi are based on the site report (Zhang and Zhai 2016). The Houqianyi burial data previously published by the author (see Linduff et al. 2018: 81, chart 3.1) are based on the MA thesis of one of the excavators (Zhang Wenrui 2003: 2–3). There are data discrepancies, however, between the site report and the thesis, including the types and quantity of artifacts in the tombs. This book uses the data in the site report, with the assumption that these data are more accurate.

Date (c. 1300–mid10th century BCE)

Tomb (sex of deceased)

Bronze-yielding burials in the Chaobai River valley

190 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

FIGURE 4.12. Bronze ding and gui and gold ornaments of the Zhangjiayuan culture in the Jing-Jin-Tang region (1–5 from TLBKD 1993: 320–21, figs. 11, 13–14; 6–7 redrawn after TWG and QWG 1997: 61, fig. 6; 8 redrawn after TLBKD 1993: 321, fig. 13)

“FOREIGN” ARTIFACTS DEFINING ELITE IDENTITY: THE DING AND GUI VESSELS IN TOMBS

The practice of using “foreign” artifacts in local tombs, specifically bronze vessels from the Shang center, can be traced back to the aforementioned Liujiahe tomb. Sixteen bronze vessels were found in the tomb, including seven cooking vessels (five ding, one li, and one yan), seven wine vessels (one jue, one jia, one you, one lei, one bu, and two he), and two pan water vessels (fig. 4.1: 1–3). This bronze assemblage, though covering a wide variety of vessel types, emphasizes wine vessels and alcohol sacrifices, and it is remarkably consistent with the assemblages in Shang elite tombs at Anyang. Stylistic studies of these vessels reveal that their shape and ornamentation resemble those of Shang vessels at Zhengzhou 惕ⶆ and Anyang. The source of these vessels was primarily identified through their style and casting quality. X-ray examinations of the vessels indicate that spacers were commonly used during the casting, suggesting that most were likely imports.11 A few may possibly have been locally produced, such as a pair of small square ding decorated with a thunder and cloud pattern (e.g., Zhang Zhan 1990: 334–37; Yang Yubin 2006; Chen Ping 2006: 214–17). Overall, the use of bronze vessels in the tomb reflects the ritual culture and mortuary customs of the Shang center.

191 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

The occupant of the Liujiahe tomb has been identified as a local elite with an unclear group or lineage background (Bu 1989: 30–38; Yang Yubin 2006: 189–96; Liu and Zhao 2001: 146–52). “Foreign” artifacts continued to be used in tombs in this region from 1300 bce to the tenth century bce. Twelve tombs of the Zhangjiayuan culture at seven sites yielded bronze vessels resembling those at Anyang and the Zhou center (table 4.2) (map 4.1). The tombs at Mashaocun and Chenshantou (both damaged and accidental discoveries) and at Bangjun contained a bronze ding and a gui but no metal ornaments (Meng and Zhao 1994: 376; Li and Yin 1995: 88–89). Tombs at four other sites often contained both vessels and metal ornaments. The vessels and ornaments were found in both male and female tombs, indicating that they were not gender-specific objects. The dating of these tombs has long been a challenge. Tombs in the Chaobai River valley often contained no pottery, which is important evidence for the relative dating of tombs. Tombs at other sites contained ceramic li and guan, but their stylistic features reveal little chronological information. Bronze vessels have, therefore, been used as the primary evidence for dating these tombs. The date of the vessels in a tomb, however, is not necessarily the same as the date of the tomb, as vessels of earlier periods can be buried in tombs at a later time. Nevertheless, vessels remain useful for determining the approximate date of a tomb. According to the styles of bronze vessels, the tombs of the Zhangjiayuan culture can be dated from as early as the mid-thirteenth century bce (such as 1999M5 at Houqianyi) to as late as the beginning of the mid-tenth century bce (such as M1 and M2 at Bangjun). Most of the tombs, however, can be dated from the end of the Shang period (preconquest) to the beginning of the Western Zhou period (postconquest). It is not possible to date them more precisely. For instance, tombs at Zhangjiayuan and Xiaoshandongzhuang are dated to the early Western Zhou period by some scholars, but to the late Shang period by others (Chen Yong 1999: 28–39; Liang Jinling 2001: 17–23; Zhu Fenghan 2009: 1426–27; Jiang 2008b: 187–89; Jiang et al. 2012: 55–66). Unlike the Liujiahe tomb, which contained a wide range of bronze types, the twelve later tombs universally adopted two types of vessels, ding and gui. The twenty-seven bronze vessels found in these tombs included seventeen ding and ten gui of varied styles (table 4.2). This suggests that the local elite during the Western Zhou period used mainly ding and gui and excluded other food and wine vessels popular in Zhou center elite tombs (fig. 4.12: 1–5).

192 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

Such a practice indicates a highly selective, regionally consistent adoption of bronze vessels during the early Western Zhou period. Except for the bronze vessels, however, the twelve tombs show no differences from tombs without bronze vessels. Both groups of tombs (with or without bronze vessels) used eastern orientations, and their occupants were sometimes adorned with gold or bronze earrings and armlets and accompanied with local-style pottery. The use of ding and gui did not disrupt the existing mortuary tradition; instead, both vessels were used to mark the emerging local elite class in the region.

POWER NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN YAN AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES: LOCAL ELITE AS THE INTERMEDIARY

To understand the possible mechanism behind the adoption of ding and gui vessels in the region, a precise dating of the tombs in the region is critical. For those who date most of the local tombs to the late Shang period, the presence of the ding and/or gui vessels is seen as the result of Zhou infiltration in the region prior to the conquest (Han and Ji 1993: 355–64; Jiang 2017: 75–77). However, historical studies have long claimed that the region had friendly relations with the Shang, so it is unlikely that the Zhou political reach was able to extend far northeast from the Wei River valley before the conquest (Hu 1970: 1–35; Li Xueqin 1983: 202–6; Peng Bangjiong 1991: 380–404; Sun Hua [1992] 1995a: 278–86; Wang Yuxin 1997: 80–92). If we accept that tombs such as 1999M5 at Houqianyi can indeed be dated to the early phase of the late Shang period, it would suggest that the local elite in the Luan River valley started to adopt the ding and gui set before the establishment of the Yan state. It also indicates that an exchange network could have been established between the local people and those from the Shang center during the late Shang period. Such a network could have expanded with the arrival of the Yan state in the region during the early Western Zhou period. And Yan could have been a major force that facilitated the increasing adoption of ding and gui vessels by local communities in the early phase of the early Western Zhou period (Linduff et al. 2018: 87–88). A number of vessels in these tombs bear inscriptions or lineage emblems suggesting that they were imports (Linduff et al. 2018: 88). They include a ding (QXM1: 4) inscribed with “make [this] sacrificial vessel” (ἄ⮲⼅); a gui (QXM1: 1) with “X (unreadable graph) Jue makes [this] treasured, sacrificial vessel” (⣏⢔䇝ἄ⭅⮲⼅) at Xiaoshandongzhuang; a ding and a gui with “bu” ⌄

193 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

and “qi” ℞, respectively, at Chenshantou; and a gui (87M4: 2) in tomb M4 at Zhangjiayuan with a lineage emblem “Tian” ⣑. It is possible that local elites obtained these vessels through their interactions with Yan. And such a network likely continued into the middle Western Zhou period. A ding and a gui in a tomb at Bangjun, for example, are both inscribed. The inscription on the gui reads, “Ge Fu Ding” (ㆰ䇞ᶩ), suggesting that the vessel was likely cast by the remnants of Shang and imported into the local community. The ding and gui vessels could have acted as a conduit through which Yan extended its political reach to the local people. The local elite essentially became intermediaries between the Yan ruling class and the local people. Through them, Yan was able to manage local groups indirectly. In a sense, just as the Zhou court delegated the political expansion and control of the frontiers to its regional states, Yan in turn delegated much of the control of local people to the local elite. This delegation fulfilled the needs of both sides and brought benefits to both. Yan needed military resources to support expansion into western Liaoning and to defend itself from aggressive groups active in the southern slopes of the Yan mountainous region. Local communities were in general politically and militarily weak. No local site known to date is spatially large or functionally complex enough to be recognized as a political center wielding meaningful influence in the region. No defensive facilities such as walls and only a few weapons of any kind were found, suggesting that large-scale and frequent military conflicts might have not been a major part of local life. The local inhabitants, therefore, were probably not an immediate and serious threat to the newly established Yan state. At the same time, the local elite seized the opportunity to cooperate with Yan to gain power and prestige in their communities through the use of bronze vessels. Indeed, besides those imports, some of the vessels could be local imitations, such as the ding (QXM1: 7) at Xiaoshandongzhuang. The vessel follows the conventional shape of a round, cylindrical, legged ding, but its body is dotted with bosses, a decorative scheme unknown in the Zhou center. During the early Western Zhou period, the material culture from the Zhou center, as represented by Yan, was mainly distributed in the area adjacent to Liulihe, whereas the Zhangjiayuan culture continued to dominate the rest of the region. Some scholars suggest that the material culture from the center expanded further into a larger area during the middle Western Zhou period, eventually replacing the Zhangjiayuan culture in the Jing-Jin-Tang region, or at least in the area south of the Yongding 㯠⭂ River, by the late

194 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

Western Zhou period (Chen Guang [1999] 2015: 272–98; Jiang 2017: 108–14). These studies have overstated the influence of Yan and underappreciated the evidence of a strong cultural continuity in local material culture. Another study proposes that the material culture from the Zhou center mainly extended into a limited area within a radius of seventy to ninety kilometers of Liulihe throughout the Western Zhou period (Li Boqian 1994: 131–43). Even this proposal overestimates the extent of Yan influence in the region. It considers the Baifu tombs as evidence of Yan northern expansion; however, as the following analysis shows, it is unlikely that the deceased in the Baifu tombs were from the Yan state. In the Jing-Jin-Tang region, no site known to date has been identified as a Yan settlement besides Liulihe and Niulanshan. It is clear that the Yan population at Liulihe and the local people were spatially and culturally separated from each other. They lived more or less in two different cultural spheres that were, nonetheless, politically connected. The agents that linked the two cultures and peoples were the local elite, who, through interactions with Yan, enhanced their own wealth and status in their communities. A coherent, integrated cultural identity shared by both the Yan immigrants and the local people throughout the Western Zhou period has remained largely elusive. Communities in the Yan Mountainous Region

Immediate north of the Jing-Jin-Tang alluvial plain is the southern slope of the Yan mountainous region. Limited archaeological remains have been found in the region. Major discoveries dated to the late Shang and Western Zhou periods, roughly from the mid-thirteenth to mid-tenth centuries bce, include caches at Chaodaogou, Qinglong, and at Xiaohe’nan, Xinglong, respectively; three tombs at Baifu, Changping 㖴⸛; and a cache at Xibozi 大㑍⫸, Yanqing ⺞ㄞ. Besides these discoveries, sporadic findings of bronze weapons and tools have also been reported at other locations.12

BRONZE CACHES AT CHAODAOGOU AND XIAOHE’NAN

Bronzes in the caches at Chaodaogou and Xiaohe’nan were dominated by weapons and tools typical of the Northern Zone (map 4.1). The Chaodaogou cache yielded eight bronze weapons: a straight-bladed bronze dagger that terminated with an ibex head; five curved-bladed knives with a deer, a jingle,

195 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

FIGURE 4.13. Bronze knives and daggers from the Yan mountainous region (1–2 from Wang Feng 1990: 58, fig. 2; 3–6 from Lin Yun 1987: 132, fig. 1; 7–10 from BWG 1976: 253, fig. 9)

and a ring pommel; a socketed battle axe; and a curved blade (HWWG 1962: 644–45). The daggers and knives were finely cast and had clear indication of wear (fig. 4.13: 3–6). The eyes of the animal are highlighted with turquoise, an inlay technique commonly seen on weapons in Eastern Eurasia. Hilts on knives and daggers are bordered with diagonal or parallel striations, a distinctive Northern decorative pattern. The Xiaohe’nan cache, dated between the eleventh and tenth centuries bce, presents a bronze assemblage similar to that which dominated the Northern Zone. Diagnostic bronzes include a dagger with a mushroomcapped pommel, two knives, one pommeled with a jingle and the other with an animal head, a socketed yue 摢 battle axe, and three socketed ge dagger axes (fig. 4.13: 1–2) (Wang Feng 1990: 57–58). These artifacts are typically small, with daggers usually less than fifty centimeters in length and knives thirty centimeters long that can be conveniently carried around. Collectively, bronzes in both caches reflect a culture fundamentally different from the Zhangjiayuan culture active in the Jing-Jin-Tang region, where personal

196 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

ornaments and Shang/Zhou-style bronze vessels jointly defined the identity of the local elite. Bronze daggers and knives in the two caches displayed strong stylistic connections with the findings in burials of the Lijiaya culture (c. 1400–1100 bce) in the northern Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau west of the Taihang Mountains, as well as with those in western Liaoning (Linduff 1997: 29–32; Yang Jianhua 2002: 157–74; Wu En 2008: 26–48). They are among the diagnostic artifacts of the Northern Zone. Active and dynamic interactions between peoples must have taken place within this cultural sphere, although the specific mechanisms of cultural transmission are unclear. No residential remains, tombs, or ceramics have been reported in the Yan mountainous region, suggesting that the area was sparsely populated in the last two hundred years of the second millennium bce. Chaodaogou, for instance, is considered a site of temporary migrants from the west who came east for trade, pasture, or hunting purposes (So and Bunker 1995: 38). Comparable artifacts have also been found in Eastern Eurasia as far north and west as Mongolia and the Baikal area in Siberia. The provenances of these bronzes are diverse. For example, animalpommeled daggers likely originated in Mongolia and the Baikal area, but mushroom-capped daggers were likely introduced into China from the Eurasian steppe. The wide geographic distribution of these types of artifacts and their presence in the Yan mountainous region suggest a vibrant movement of artifacts, technology, and people in Eastern Eurasia (Wu En 2008: 23–92; Linduff et al. 2018: 215–27). Unlike those in the Jing-Jin-Tang region, communities in the Yan mountainous region may have had very limited contacts with the Shang to their south. The only evidence of a possible contact is a bronze lid in the Xiaohe’nan cache that is inscribed with “ancestral Yi” (䣾ḁ) and is decorated with a typical Shang animal-face motif. The lid is apparently an import to the region. The strong cultural connections between the Yan mountainous region and the rest of the Northern Zone reflects an underlying shared lifestyle among those increasingly mobile and militant peoples, forecasting the movement of the mountainous communities into the south during the following centuries.

CULTURAL HYBRIDIZATION AND POLITICAL COMPETITION: BAIFU TOMBS AND THE XIBOZI CACHE

Weapons and tools in the style of the Northern Zone continued to dominate the Yan mountainous region in the following mid-tenth century bce. Material findings at Baifu present a rare example of a ritualized display of

197 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

frontier-style bronze weapons and tools in a mortuary setting (map 4.1). The three tombs at Baifu, situated in the foothills of the Long 漵 Mountains, were single pit graves constructed with log chambers inside. Fine-grained white clay was used as sealant between the log chambers and the tomb walls in M2 and M3. Tomb M1 contained no offerings, but M2 and M3, of a middle-age female and male, respectively, were richly furnished with bronze weapons, tools, and vessels of various sorts. M2 and M3 are dated to the transition from the early to middle Western Zhou periods, roughly around the midtenth century bce, based on stylistic analysis of the artifacts and calibrated C14 dating (BWG 1976: 247–58, 228; Yang Jianhua 2002: 157–74; Zhu Fenghan 2009: 1410–11). The Northern Zone–style weapons and tools at Baifu strongly resemble the earlier ones found at Chaodaogou and Xiaohe’nan and in a recently reported cache at Dongwanggang 㜙䌳ⲿ in western Liaoning (Cheng, Sun, and Meng 2016: 64–75), suggesting a flow of casting knowledge, artifacts, and possibly people across the Yan mountainous region. Seven daggers, two in M2 and five in M3, ranging from twenty-five to forty-five centimeters long, bear clear stylistic resemblance to the earlier ones at Chaodaogou and Xiaohe’nan. They are decorated with pommels of mushroom shapes, jingles, and horse or raptor heads (fig. 4.13: 7–10). A dagger in M3 and a bronze knife in the Xiaohe’nan cache have similar hilts and pommels. Both feature a jingle pommel with slits and sharp-pointed protrusions at the end, as well as a hilt covered with striations, a bronze decorative scheme also found on weapons and tools at several sites in Eastern Eurasia (Linduff et al. 1997: 29; Yan Sun 2006b: 159–77). The daggers were placed on the upper right side of the deceased in both tombs. Similar placement is also seen in a contemporary tomb at Ji ⎱ County, Shanxi, west of the Taihang Mountains (JWG 1985: 848–49). Besides the daggers, M3 contained a socketed axe (M3: 17) and M2 contained a pick-axe (M2:20), a bronze knife with a curved blade terminating in a raptor head, and a stone tool (M2: 28) originally thought to be a hammer but that is likely a mace head, all types typical of the Northern Zone. Some horse cheek pieces and bits in both tombs have stylistic connections with the ones seen in Mongolia and Eurasia (Wu En 2008: 82–85). Bronze daggers and knives formed the basic toolkit for the frontier life, with the former being used for hand-to-hand combat and the latter for multifunctional uses such as slicing, scraping, piercing, or paring (Csorba 1996: 564–87). Together with other weapons and horse ornaments, they constituted an integral part of life and death for individuals living in the frontier.

198 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

Tombs M2 and M3, at the same time, incorporated a number of mortuary practices from the center. Both were equipped with a waist pit—the one in M2 containing a dog sacrifice. The use of a waist pit was a prominent mortuary custom among Shang tombs at Anyang and was continued by many groups into the Western Zhou period. It is unclear where the people at Baifu learned this custom, but Yan at Liulihe could be a source because the remnants of Shang there widely used it in their tombs. M2 contained dozens of fragments of tortoise shells, a couple of which were inscribed. M3 contained hundreds of fragments of tortoise shells and cattle and sheep scapulae, some of which were also inscribed. The inscriptions on the shells are of the late Shang calligraphic style at Anyang. If the shells were locally inscribed, it suggests that the local people had certain contacts with the Shang and knowledge of the Shang writing practice. A bronze ge dagger axe (M2: 36) and a ji halberd (M2: 35), a popular type in the Zhou center during this time, were inscribed with marks that could be lineage emblems. Seven bronze vessels were buried in the two tombs: M3 contained two ding and two gui of the early Western Zhou period, and M2 contained a ding, a gui, and a hu of the early phase of the middle Western Zhou period (BWG 1976: 247–58, 228; Zhu Fenghan 2009: 1410–11). These vessels, except for one gui in M3, were plain, small, and poorly cast. The use of horse and chariot fittings, commonly seen in elite tombs in the Zhou center and regional states, was also adopted by the Baifu tombs. Stylistically, most of these pieces are similar to those found in the Zhou center, although some show stylistic connections with the cultures of the Northern Zone. Tombs M2 and M3 present a clear case of a cultural mixture of artifacts and customs from the Northern Zone and the center (Linduff et al. 2018: 92–94). This mixture makes it difficult to identify the lineage background of the deceased. Some argue that the deceased were military leaders dispatched by Yan to the region for defense and expansion (Li Weiming 2000: 52–55; Han Jianye 2011: 36–38), but others suggest that they were either from the Northern Zone or of the Zhangjiayuan culture (Han Jinqiu 2008: 102–18; Dong Xinlin 2000:1–29). These different identifications are based on the selective use of the material evidence from the Baifu tombs. Tombs at Baifu are clearly different from those of Yan and the Zhangjiayuan culture, the two southern neighbors of Baifu. The occupants of Baifu tombs were unlikely members of the Zhangjiayuan culture, as the Baifu tombs didn’t use the eastern orientation and contained no personal ornaments, two principal mortuary customs of the Zhangjiayuan culture. The emphasis on

199 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

Northern-style weapons and tools in Baifu tombs also distinguishes their occupants from the Yan elite buried at Liulihe, where the tombs predominantly featured bronze food and wine vessels and ge dagger axes, a weapon type widely used in tombs in the Zhou center and regional states. More significantly, how the occupants at Baifu were dressed, particularly the martial presentation of a female (in M2) as a warrior, is clearly not aligned with Zhou orthodox mortuary practice, which often used jades and bronze vessels, but not weapons, to accompany female elite, as exemplified in the tombs of Jinhou’s wives in the lower Fen River valley (Yong 2004: 161–202; also see chapter 3). The female in M2 wore a bronze helmet and also leather boots and leg armor ornamented with bronze roundels; the male in M3 wore a bronze helmet and was buried with 145 roundels of the same style. Such military gear, along with weapons and tools, projects a frontier lifestyle of the Baifu occupants that was more aligned with those active in areas further north and west in the Northern Zone. Current archaeological evidence shows that, toward the end of the second and the beginning of the first millennia bce, groups west of the Taihang Mountains used exclusively weapons and tools in the style of the Northern Zone to project the martial identity of tomb occupants. This is evident, for instance, at three sites in the Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau: Gaohong 檀䲭 in Liulin, Caojiayuan 㚡⭞⠔ in Shilou, and Shangdongcun ᶲ㜙㛹 in Ji County (Yang Shaoshun 1981a: 11–12, 1981b: 49–53; JWG 1985: 848–49). These tombs adopted Northern-style jingle-pommeled daggers and socketed battle axes to mark the identity of their occupants. Aggressive individuals and groups like these continued to be active on both sides of the Taihang Mountains. They were likely the “Rong” militaristic groups recorded in bronze inscriptions of the Western Zhou period, such as those recorded on the Chen Jian gui 冋宷䮳 (King Cheng’s reign) (JC: 4237) and the Babo pan 曠ỗ䚀 (dated to the reigns of Kings Mu and Gong) (SKY and DMLK 2011). The Baifu occupants were likely Rong warriors. In M2 and M3, bronze daggers and knives, like those in the tombs west of the Taihang Mountains, were placed close to the body of the deceased. A stone mace head, a material symbol of power in the Northern Zone, was placed near the right hand of the occupant in M2, underscoring the occupant’s warrior role (Linduff et al. 2018: 92–93). The geographical location of Baifu—on the route leading to the Juyong ⯭⹠ Pass and further west to the Taihang Mountains—held strategical significance for Yan and the indigenous communities in the Jing-Jin-Tang alluvial plain, on the one hand, and for those active in the Yan mountainous

200 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

region, on the other. The bronze vessels may have been used to mark an elevated status at death due to their exotic nature, but the Northern-style weapons must have signified personal valor and identity. Artifacts in Baifu tombs, therefore, have revealed the multiple cultural and status affiliations of the deceased. Material culture of later times in the region documents the emergence of communities whose cultural identities were exclusively defined by material symbols native to the Northern Zone. The cache at Xibozi, about forty-six kilometers northwest of Baifu, contained fifty-three bronzes placed in a large broken fu 憄 cauldron (BWG 1979: 227–30). These artifacts can be roughly dated to the mid-tenth to eighth centuries bce based on stylistic comparisons with similar artifacts found in other places. The bronze fu cauldron is among the few early examples of this type found in the Northern Zone. It is characterized by a wok-shaped bowl with two striated loop handles, each surmounted by a short knob (fig. 4.14: 3) (Wu En 2007: 265–67). This type continued to be used by local communities, as indicated by examples in the Jundushan 幵悥Ⱉ cemetery of the Yuhuangmiao 䌱䘯⺇ culture in the Yan mountainous region from the early eighth to early fifth centuries bce (BWY 2007: 908). In addition, knowledge of the bronzes of the Nanshan’gen type of the Upper Xiajiadian culture (c. 1000–600 bce) in southeastern Inner Mongolia is evident in an array of Xibozi bronzes, including a bronze spoon, seven ring-pommeled knives, a hunting hook, and eight bronze buttons (fig. 4.14: 2, 4–11) (Yang Jianhua 2002: 157–74). It reveals increasing regional contacts between two sides of the Yan mountainous region. A bronze hoop earring with fan-shaped terminals shows connections with examples from the Zhangjiayuan culture in the Jing-Jin-Tang region in the south. These myriad connections between Xibozi and surrounding regions suggest that the location was a cultural crossroads and that there were increased contacts between the regions. A set of eleven tripods is the most prominent finding at Xibozi. The tripods were plain and poorly cast and had visible mold seams. Their shape, a shallow wok-like bowl sitting on three hollow but not fully closed cylindrical legs, resembles neither the bronze type in the Zhou center nor the local ceramic prototype (fig. 4.14: 1). The discovery of six pieces of slag in the cache suggests that these tripods were likely the products of local casting experiments. What is remarkable is that the eleven tripods are of the same style but descending in size, which echoes the lieding, an array of ding tripods, in the Zhou cultural sphere. The idiosyncratic nature of the Xibozi tripods proves

201 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

FIGURE 4.14. Bronzes from the Xibozi cache at Yanqing (from BWG 1979: 228–29, figs. 2, 4)

that the local elite attempted to manage indigenous bronze production and to imitate Zhou ritual culture, probably to boost their authority and standing in the local community. The material cultures at Baifu and Xibozi represent a prelude to the emerging military and political power of groups in the Yan mountainous region. In the cemetery at Jundushan, about twenty-five kilometers north of Xibozi, well-cast, straight-bladed bronze daggers, ring-headed knives with animal imagery on the hilt and pommel, and animal-shaped plaques in bronze and gold (BWY 2007: 959–87, 1176–89) attest not only to the continuation of a cultural identity built on artifacts native to the Northern Zone, but also to the ever growing military strength of local groups. Armed with their military apparatus, the mobile groups in the Yan mountainous region transformed themselves into a powerful polity that aimed to compete with Yan for political supremacy in this frontier in the following Spring and Autumn period.

202 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

Local Communities at Kazuo: The Weiyingzi Culture

Local communities in the Daling River valley in western Liaoning that are contemporaneous with the bronze caches at Kazuo are loosely associated with the Weiyingzi culture. The Weiyingzi culture is chronologically between the Lower Xiajiadian and the Upper Xiajiadian cultures, based on stratigraphic evidence at Nangoumen ⋿㹅攨 and Xiangyangling ⎹春ⵢ (map 4.1). The culture lasted primarily from the late second to the early first millennia bce, but into the early eighth century bce in some areas (Guo Dashun 1987: 79–98; Dong Xinlin 2000: 1–29). There is a lack of in-depth understanding of this culture due to the limited archaeological work to date. Small-scale excavations at a dozen sites indicate settled communities. The settlements were generally small, and the agriculture was less sophisticated than that of the preceding Lower Xiajiadian culture (Lin Yun 2003: 95–146). Fifteen tombs of the Weiyingzi culture were excavated at four sites, including nine at Weiyingzi, four at Heshanggou ␴⯂㹅, and one each at Daohugou 忻嗶㹅 and Gaojiadong 檀⭞㳆 (map 4.1) (Guo Dashun 1987: 79–98; LBWG 1977: 305–9; LWGY 1998: 39–42, 86; LWGY and KB 1989: 110–15; Xin, Liu and Guo 2017: 204-10). Seven of the nine tombs at Weiyingzi contained no objects. Two of the four tombs at Heshanggou contained only local-style pottery. The remaining six tombs at the four sites contained metal objects and are dated to the mid-thirteenth to mid-tenth centuries bce (table 4.3). The tomb artifacts and mortuary practices of the Weiyingzi culture reveal a local cultural identity that is clearly distinct from that of Yan and the Zhou center. In their daily life, local communities widely used high-collared guan jars and li tripods with bulging bellies, high solid feet, and decorative floral patterns around the rims or necks. But in tombs, they favored ceramic reddish bo bowls with rope designs. Tombs of the Weiyingzi culture show close similarities with those of the Zhangjiayuan culture and those at Baifu. Like those of the Zhangjiayuan culture, they often used an eastern orientation and contained personal ornaments like bronze earrings (the tomb at Daohugou and M2 at Heshanggou) or gold armlets and turquoise beads (M1 at Heshanggou and M7101 at Weiyingzi). The mortuary practices that they shared with Baifu tombs include the use of rectangular earthen pits featuring wooden inner and outer coffins and the use of fine clay as a sealant between the wooden chamber and burial pit, as seen in the nine tombs at Weiyingzi. The similarity of the material culture between these two regions suggests that, regardless of the presence of Yan, local groups on both sides of the

Late Shang to early East Western Zhou

Heshanggou M1

Heshanggou M2

East

Unknown

Early Western Zhou Unknown

Weiyingzi M7101

Weiyingzi M7606

fragments

helmet 2, horse frontlets 2

Source: Based on Linduff et al. 2018: 99, chart 3.2, with updates.

bo bowl 2

bo bowl 1, wan bowl 1

Pottery

turquoise beads 12, gold bracelet 1

mirror 1, bronze loop earrings 5

bo bowl 1

bronze earrings 2 guan jar 1

gold bracelets 2, turquoise beads

Personal ornaments

* Orientation of the tomb; head orientation is unknown due to poor preservation of human bones in the tomb.

East-west*

Daohugou (damaged) Late Shang

you 1, hu 1

horse and chariot fittings 8, roundels around 100

Late Shang to early East Western Zhou

Gaojiadong M1

bu 1

Late Shang

Tomb East

Date (mid-13th to Bronze weapons mid-10th centuries Head and horse and BCE) orientation Bronze vessels chariot fittings

TABLE 4.3 Bronze-yielding burials of the Weiyingzi culture

jade jue earring 1

Other artifacts

204 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

Yan Mountains maintained their own networks of interactions. The cultural similarities between the Weiyingzi and Zhangjiayuan cultures are so strong that some argue that the peoples in the two regions may have been related to each other (Dong Xinlin 2000: 1–29; Wang Lixin 2004: 1–27). It is important to note, however, that unlike the tombs at Baifu and Liulihe, the tombs of the Weiyingzi culture often contained no weapons of any kind. Local adoption of bronze vessels from the center is highly limited. Only a few bronze vessels and horse and chariot fittings have been found in tombs of the Weiyingzi culture. Tomb M1 at Gaojiadong contained a bronze bu of a late Shang style and two ceramic bowls of the local style (one bo and one wan 䠿), and M1 at Heshanggou contained one bronze you and one hu, two ceramic bowls, and two gold armlets (Guo Dashun 1987: 79–98; LWGY 1998: 39–42, 86). The you vessel could have been cast in the early phase of the Western Zhou period by migrants who were familiar with the late Shang bronze style at Anyang (Hirokawa 1996: 186–201). The hu vessel could have been an import, as its outer surface is inscribed with a character “Bing” ᷁, which is also seen on bronze vessels in late Shang and early Western Zhou tombs at Jingjiecun in central Shanxi (fig. 4.15: 1) (SKY  2006: 198; also see chapter 3). About a hundred cowry shells were placed inside the hu, suggesting that the vessel was used differently than that in the center. Tombs M7101 and M7606 at Weiyingzi, both damaged, yielded bronze horse and chariot fittings (fig. 4.15: 2–9). Stylistically, these pieces resemble the ones in Baifu tombs, providing evidence to date both tombs to around the mid-tenth century bce. The sparsity and inconsistency of bronzes in Weiyingzi tombs imply a limited access to or acceptance of the bronze culture from the center. It is difficult to determine whether the use of bronze vessels in local communities was the result of Yan expansion into Kazuo. Tombs containing vessels are dated broadly to the late Shang (hence before the Yan expansion) to early Western Zhou periods. It is clear, nonetheless, given the scarcity of vessels from local elite tombs, that the presence of the Yan colonists at Kazuo during the early and middle Western Zhou periods did not substantially impact local cultures and communities. Because they lived close to each other, the local people and the Yan colonists could have interacted with each other, but by and large they maintained a great degree of cultural separation. Their interactions did not bring significant changes in their respective material cultures. The local elite seemed to use a limited number of bronze vessels as exotic goods to enhance their prestige in their communities.

205 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

4 5 1

3

2

6

7

8

9

FIGURE 4.15. Bronze vessel you and horse ornaments of the Weiyingzi culture (1 from LWGY and KB 1989: 111, fig. 2; 2–9 from LBWG 1977: 307–8, figs. 3–5)

THE SHIFTING POLITICAL AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPE AFTER THE EARLY WESTERN ZHOU PERIOD

The political fortunes of Yan fell sharply around the middle Western Zhou period in the mid-tenth century bce. Its capital at Liulihe was at its pinnacle during the early Western Zhou period. The overwhelming majority of the material remains, including city walls, moats, palatial structures, and the majority of the tombs, are dated to that period. Material remains at the site that are dated to the middle and late Western Zhou periods are far fewer. This sharp decline prompts some scholars to argue that Yan must have relocated its capital from Liulihe to another site roughly around or right after the mid-tenth century bce (Liu and Zhao 1997: 34–41; Zhao, Chai, and Wang 2015: 8–25). A few small tombs equipped with a waist pit are dated to the late Western Zhou period, leading some to propose that Liulihe likely continued to be occupied by descendants of the remnants of Shang until the end of the Western Zhou period. Where exactly the Yan state had resettled in northern Hebei remains a mystery. Some suggest that Ji 咇, a city recorded in transmitted texts, might have served as the Yan capital after Liulihe (Chen Ping 1998a: 123–31, 111). But there are no archaeological data to date to support this proposition.

206 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

Current archaeological evidence indicates that the middle Western Zhou period was a turning point for Yan. Material remains at Kazuo and Niulanshan, like those at Liulihe, for instance, also point to the decline of Yan political strength. Evidence from both sites suggests an almost simultaneous retreat from both regions after the middle Western Zhou period. With the retreat from Kazuo, Yan lost its grip over western Liaoning. It took over six hundred years for Yan to retake the region after General Qin Kai 䦎攳 defeated the Donghu 㜙傉 in 300 bce (Shiji 1982: 2885–86). Yan political control in the Jing-Jin-Tang region had been curtailed as well. Bronze vessels from Niulanshan are dated to no later than the early part of the middle Western Zhou period, indicating that Yan expansion in the area could have ended after that period. The decline of bronze vessels in tombs of the Zhangjiayuan culture at the same time implies that a source of bronzes for the local elite was no longer available after the middle Western Zhou period. Dagger-Using Cultures and the Rise of Local Rivalries

The decline of Yan political fortunes in the northeastern frontier over time was not brought on by local communities of the Zhangjiayuan culture in the Jing-Jin-Tang region or by those of the Weiyingzi culture in western Liaoning, but by the rise and spread of the increasingly powerful dagger-using cultures active on both sides of the Yan Mountains. Those groups not only obstructed Yan expansion, but over time imposed serious challenges to the very survival of Yan. In western Liaoning, material remains present a significant shift from the mid-tenth century bce onward as the region witnessed the rise of daggerusing groups (Linduff et al. 2008: 102–4). At Shuiquan 㯜㱱 in Jianping ⺢ ⸛, eighteen tombs were found, and data on one of these, tomb M8, were published (LB and CB 1986: 11–29). The tomb yielded a straight-bladed dagger with a socketed hilt, a saw tooth–bladed handled knife, conjoined beads, and roundels with two tail-like protrusions. Such artifacts were unknown to the Weiyingzi culture but were typical of the Upper Xiajiadian culture (c.  1000–600 bce) active in southeastern Inner Mongolia (Dong Xinlin 2000: 1–29). A similar cultural shift can be observed at Heshanggou, where twenty-two burials were excavated at four spots (A, B, C, and D). Four tombs at spot A are of the Weiyingzi culture, but tombs at B, C, and D yielded types of bronze weapons, such as three daggers with curved blades, that

207 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

were absent in tombs of the Weiyingzi culture. Similar types of weapons were often used by communities of the Upper Xiajiadian culture (Jin Fengyi 1982: 387–426; Guo Dashun 1987: 79–98; Zhao Binfu 2006: 32–69; Xin, Liu and Guo 2017: 204-10). Some of the weapons stylistically resemble those in Nanshan’gen ⋿Ⱉ㟡 tombs in Ningcheng 䓗❶, suggesting that the tombs at spots B to D can be dated roughly to the mid-tenth to early eighth centuries bce, later than the tombs of the Weiyingzi culture at spot A. At Nangoumen, remains of the Weiyingzi culture were covered by stone-chambered burials containing curved-blade bronze daggers and belt hooks, of which the earliest are dated to around the mid-eighth century bce (Guo Dashun 1987: 79–98). This evidence suggests a similar cultural shift from the Weiyingzi to the dagger-using cultures at the site. The vast region north of the Yan Mountains, beginning in the mid-ninth century bce, witnessed the rise of the Upper Xiajiadian culture, with the bronze dagger as one of its signature weapons. Changes in the material remains at Shuiquan, Heshanggou, and Nangoumen suggest that populations using bronze daggers could have moved into the Daling River valley from the north during the middle Western Zhou period. They not only brought cultural change to the region but also were likely the force that pushed Yan out of the region. The southern slopes of the Yan mountainous region were the home of various groups after the second millennium bce, as exemplified by the bronze caches at Chaodaogou and Xiaohe’nan. Discoveries at Baifu, Xibozi, and Jundushan from the middle Western Zhou period to the beginning of the Spring and Autumn period indicate the increasing strength of aggressive daggerusing groups in the area (BWG 1976: 247–58, 228, 1979: 227–30; Jin Fengyi 1989: 17–35, 43). The emergence and increasing power of these groups are echoed in records preserved in transmitted texts such as the Zuo Commentary, the Grand Scribe’s Records, and the Speeches of the States. In those texts, Yan is portrayed as a chronically weak state that suffered repeated attacks by the aggressive Rong throughout the Spring and Autumn period (Han Jiagu 1991:1–24). Duke Huan of the Qi state (Qi Huangong 滲㟻℔), according to the texts, rescued Yan from the attack by the Mountain Rong (Shanrong Ⱉㆶ) in 664 bce. The rescue has been considered one of the major military achievements that established Huangong as the hegemon (bà 曠) of the Zhou states (Hsu Cho-yun 1999: 553–56). It is in this historical context that we can understand the abandonment of Liulihe and the retreat of Yan from Kazuo and the Jing-Jin-Tang region after the middle Western Zhou period.

208 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

But what exactly happened to Yan in the middle and late Western Zhou periods remains largely a mystery waiting for future archaeological discoveries to resolve. Forgetting and Remembering: Yan in the Historical Memory

Surprisingly, the Yan state of the Western Zhou period is poorly documented in transmitted texts. In the “Genealogy of the Duke of Shao” (Yan Shaogong shijia 䅽⎔℔ᶾ⭞) in the Grand Scribe’s Records, for instance, only the Duke of Shao’s activities are briefly mentioned (Shiji 1980: 1550). The posthumous names and activities of subsequent rulers for nine generations until King Li’s reign are completely missing. Although inscriptions on the bronzes at Liulihe already discussed offer modern scholars a glimpse of Yan’s early history, this remote regional state seems to have been largely forgotten in the historical memory. A few factors may have contributed to the anemic recording of Yan history in the Western Zhou period. The remoteness of Yan from the Zhou political center put it in a disadvantageous position. Although this geographic disadvantage did not seem to be problematic during the early Western Zhou period when the power of the court remained strong, the disconnection likely increased when the kinship ties between the court and regional states began to loosen from the mid-tenth century bce onward (Shaughnessy 1999: 323). Another factor is the encroachment of the Rong from the Yan and Taihang mountainous regions, which must have interrupted travel and communication between Yan and the Zhou court. The inscription on the aforementioned Chen Jian gui (JC: 4237) records that the Xing 恊 state was attacked by the Rong during the early Western Zhou period. Under the command of Xinghou, the ruler of the Xing state, Chen Jian led his troops to fight against the Rong (Li and Tang 1979: 56–59; Xie Mingwen 2014: 46–54). The fight was so fierce that it killed the younger brother of Cheng Jian. More importantly, Xing was situated on the route from Yan to the Zhou court, so the Rong attack on Xing could have endangered the communications between Yan and the Zhou center during the early Western Zhou period. The Rong attacks on Zhou regional states escalated in the Spring and Autumn period, as seen with the Shanrong attack on Yan in 664 bce already mentioned. The event has been recorded in a few historical texts, such as the Grand Scribe’s Records, the Zuo Commentary, and the Annals of the Warring States (Zhanguoce ㇘⚳䫾) (Chen Ping 1995: 200–8). The Yan

209 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

military was too weak to fight, and Duke Huan of Qi had to come to its rescue. After the defeat of the Rong, Duke Huan asked Duke Zhuang of Yan (Yan Zhuanggong 䅽匲℔) to resume paying tribute to the Zhou court, symbolically restoring the policy created by the Duke of Shao (Chen Ping 1995: 200–16). This record further indicates that contact between Yan and the Zhou court was disrupted for a considerable period of time, making it necessary to ask for resumption and restoration. Despite the separation from the Zhou center, descendants of the Duke of Shao seemed to have continued to maintain their Zhou cultural identity. Six vessels among the famous “seven vessels of Liangshan” (Liangshan qiqi 㠩 Ⱉᶫ☐) can be dated to the early Western Zhou period according to their styles and inscriptions (Zhu Fenghan [2014] 2015: 121–34).13 These vessels belonged to members of the Duke of Shao lineage and were thought to have been originally displayed in the Yan ancestral temple but were later looted by the Qi army in 315 bce (He Qinggu 1991: 57–58, 51). If this hypothesis stands, it suggests that ancestral sacrifice was continued in Yan into the Warring States period despite the lack of frequent communications with the Zhou homeland. Such ritual practices were a continuous reminder of their rulers’ Zhou roots and reinforced Yan’s inherited identity as a Zhou regional state. The Zhou roots of the Yan ruling family and Yan membership as a Zhou regional state were reinforced in the Spring and Autumn period around the seventh century bce. This is the time when a collective “Huaxia” 厗⢷ identity was forming in the face of increasing invasions by the aggressive Rong and Di groups (Hsu Cho-yun 1999: 548–51). Duke Huan of Qi’s rescue of Yan restored not only Yan authority but also the authority of the Son of Heaven. The rescue elevated Duke Huan to a higher moral ground, boosting his political image and authority. The aggression of the Rong and Di prompted the formation of a shared identity among Zhou regional states and the acceptance of Yan into the newly formed Huaxia cultural and political circle. In this sense, the Zhou identity of Yan was not only continued by the Duke of Shao lineage internally through ritual ceremonies, but was also unintendedly reinforced by the non-Zhou groups in the northeastern frontier.

The northeastern frontier was formed upon the founding of the Zhou regional state Yan at Liulihe in northern Hebei soon after the beginning of the Western Zhou period. This complex geopolitical and cultural landscape was shaped by the Yan state, local communities in the Jing-Jin-Tang region,

210 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

and various groups on both sides of the Yan Mountains who had strong cultural affiliations with bronze-using cultures further north and west in the Northern Zone and Eastern Eurasia. The debut of Yan as a Zhou colony in the region was marked by the establishment of a walled settlement at Liulihe. As a regional state, Yan maintained strong ties and active contacts with the Zhou court during the early Western Zhou period despite the long distance between them. The Yan ruling family established marriage relations with the Ba lineage in southern Shanxi, indicating the extension of the political network to other non-Ji lineages within the Zhou political sphere. The Yan integrated lineages of various backgrounds, including the remnants of Shang, into its political establishment. It firmly upheld Zhou ritual culture across a wide social spectrum, as manifested in both bronze and pottery culture. Elite members of the Shang cultural background continued to practice wine-focused sacrifices in tombs, as illustrated by the assemblages of bronze vessels. Interestingly, the Shang cultural traditions that were manifested in pottery in tombs remained minimal. Local pottery traditions of the Jing-Jin-Tang region, though detectable in residential remains within the capital, never made their way into tombs, suggesting that the Yan colonists did not use local pottery in their mortuary practice. At its peak, Yan exerted political influence into limited areas in the JingJin-Tang region and further north into western Liaoning north of the Yan Mountains, as shown by bronze vessels found at Niulanshan and Kazuo. After the mid-tenth century bce, when dagger-using groups on both sides of the Yan Mountains became strong contestants and decisively shaped the local political landscape, the Yan state ended its political presence in western Liaoning and even retreated from areas in the Jing-Jin-Tang region. The abandonment of Liulihe as its capital might have further signaled the political weakness of Yan in this frontier. What happened to Yan afterward remains elusive in both material culture and transmitted texts. Local communities in the Jing-Jin-Tang region, on the other hand, developed strategies to handle the arrival and expansion of Zhou power and culture. The use of a ding and gui vessel set in local elite tombs in the JingJin-Tang region likely started around 1300 bce. The wide use of the pair across the region during the early Western Zhou period seems to be a result of local peoples’ contact with Yan. The arrival of Yan in the Jing-Jin-Tang region catalyzed the rise of a local elite class who combined indigenous personal ornaments with “foreign” material symbols (bronze vessels) to distinguish themselves. By engaging the local elite, Yan to some extent expanded its political control over the local people in the region.

211 THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER

The Yan mountainous region was the most volatile area in the northeastern frontier after the late second millennium bce. Geographically, it was an integral part of the Northern Zone. The region served as a conduit through which bronze weapons and tools similar to those found in Mongolia and the Baikal area entered into northern Hebei. The region was also responsible for introducing those exotic bronzes further south into Anyang, although contacts with the Shang would have been very limited. By the mid-tenth century bce onward, the region witnessed the rise of individuals and groups with distinctive martial identities. Findings at Baifu and Xibozi (mid-tenth to eighth centuries bce) forecast that those groups would become serious competitors with Yan and other regional states. In the Daling River valley across the Yan Mountains, an aggressive dagger-using culture forced the Yan state out of the region. Not long after the mid-tenth century bce, Yan withdrew from Liulihe, leaving the northeastern frontier increasingly fragmented and unstable.

Chapter Five

THE EMERGING FRONTIER IN THE FAR WEST The Upper Wei and Xihan River Valleys

On the western side of the Long Mountains are the upper Wei and upper Xihan River valleys, which constituted the westernmost frontier of the Western Zhou. The Wei River originates in the Niaoshu 沍滈 Mountains, flows eastward to the present-day cities of Dingxi ⭂大 and Tianshui ⣑㯜, and passes through the Long Mountains to reach Baoji, forming the upper reaches of the river. Together with its tributaries, the Sandu 㔋㷉, Hulu 吓單, and Niutou 䈃柕 Rivers, the Wei River creates a valley of roughly thirty thousand square meters in eastern Gansu. Adjacent to the upper Wei River valley in the south is the upper Xihan River valley, which extends from Tianshui to Li 䥖 and Xihe 大⎰ Counties in southern Gansu (map 5.1). This frontier was occupied by communities of the Siwa culture during the late Shang period. The Siwa culture (c. 1400–700 bce) originated in the neighboring Tao 㳖 River valley to the west in the latter half of the second millennium bce and spread eastward into the upper Wei and Xihan River valleys over time (Shui 2001: 220–29). Communities of the Siwa culture continued to live in the region throughout the Western Zhou period. Archaeological surveys have found that the Siwa sites were widely distributed along the Wei River and its tributaries and along the Xihan River (GWK et al. 2008: 278–83; ZQLK 2010: 4–23; Zhongguo xinwenwang 2018). Two of the Siwa sites, Lanqiao 㪬㧳 and Xujianian ⼸⭞䡦, on the southern and northern edges of this frontier, respectively, were excavated (map 5.1) (GWG, BDK, and XW 1987: 678–91; ZSKKY 2006: 148–65). The data show that both

213 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

Xujianian

N

Xihetan

Zha

ng

Riv

er

Wei

Zhangjiachuan

Qin’an

Longxian Liya

Maojiaping

Wushan

Tianshui

River

an

Xih Xishan

River

3,500 2,500 1,500 1,000 500

er u Riv

Elevation MASL

Hulu River

Sand

Yangsi

Dabuzishan Lixian

Lanqiao

Xihe

20 km

Siwa sites Other Western Zhou period sites Modern cities or counties

MAP 5.1. Major Western Zhou sites in the upper Wei and Xihan River valleys

communities had limited social inequality and use of bronze artifacts. We know little about the other Siwa sites except that they are in general small and yielded Siwa-type ceramic sherds. A new development that occurred in this region after the early Western Zhou period, however, was the appearance of sites whose material culture was different from the local Siwa culture. These sites were distributed widely in both river valleys. Their artifacts and tombs closely resemble those from the Zhou center to the east, and in some cases even show similarities with those previously popular at Anyang. Some attribute these sites to Zhou political expansion into the region, but such an interpretation is too simplistic (Zhang Tian’en 2003: 219–30; Pei 2017: 47–51). Excavations at Maojiaping 㮃⭞✒, Liya 㛶Ⲿ, Xishan 大Ⱉ, and Dabuzishan ⣏⟉⫸Ⱉ reveal that material cultures among these sites vary considerably, implying that the inhabitants could have had diverse social and cultural backgrounds. Previous studies loosely called this type of material culture the “Zhou culture.” To avoid confusion, however, this book will use a more neutral term, the “non-Siwa culture,” to refer to it. The Siwa and non-Siwa sites coexisted in various parts of this frontier. Some sites contained only one or the other type of material culture, but others contained both, suggesting that communities developed diverse material cultures. Archaeological surveys have revealed different settlement patterns at Qinshui 㶭㯜 and Li Counties, indicating that social and political developments varied across this frontier.

214 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

Transmitted texts provide no evidence for Zhou political involvement in this region until the middle Western Zhou period, when King Xiao granted Feizi 朆⫸, a son of the Daluo ⣏榙 lineage, a settlement at Qin 䦎 and instructed him to carry on the sacrifice for the Ying 岷 clan, leading to the birth of the Qin lineage (Shiji 1982: 177).1 According to the Grand Scribe’s Records, after that the region’s political landscape was dominated by the prolonged conflicts between the Qin lineage and the local people, collectively known as the Western Rong (Xirong 大ㆶ). With support from the Zhou court, Qin survived and eventually grew into a strong regional polity near the end of the Western Zhou period. The Zhou court, meanwhile, through its engagement with Qin, extended its political reach into the region after the middle Western Zhou period. The Qin-focused historical narrative has deeply impacted archaeological research in this frontier. A number of archaeological surveys and excavations were conducted during the last two decades in several counties under the project titled “Archaeology of the Early Qin Culture,”2 which aimed to uncover material remains of the Qin lineage and reconstruct its early history in the Western Zhou period. More recently, an archaeological survey in Wushan 㬎Ⱉ and Gangu 䓀察 Counties was carried out to locate the western boundary of the Qin culture (Zhongguo xinwenwang 2018). Often the sites containing non-Siwa types of remains are attributed to the Qin and those of the Siwa culture to the Western Rong, despite substantial variations in the material cultures among those sites. This view has led to an oversimplified interpretation of the cultural and political landscape of this frontier. This research recognizes the diversity and complexity of the cultural and political landscape presented by the material remains in this region. It proposes that populations living in this frontier must have had diverse social and demographic backgrounds and that the Qin was just one of those groups. Material remains, therefore, need to be examined without the Qin-centric bias. This chapter will examine four excavated sites, Maojiaping and Liya in the upper Wei River valley, and Xishan and Dabuzishan in the upper Xihan River valley. Changes in settlement patterns will also be analyzed based on the archaeological survey data at Qingshui and Li Counties. MAOJIAPING AT GANGU

The Maojiaping site is located on the southern bank of the Wei River at the Maojiaping village in Gangu County. Excavations from 1982 to 1983 revealed that the site was primarily occupied in the Western and Eastern Zhou

215 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

(770–221 bce) periods, with the residential area in the northern section and the cemetery in the southern section (GWG and BDK 1987: 359–96). The excavators divided the material remains into Group A and B based on distinctive ceramic types. Group A remains include thirty-five ash pits, two house foundations, four urn tombs, and ten pit graves in the residential area and twenty-two pit graves and two ash pits in the cemetery. The remains in the residential area are dated from the early Western Zhou to the early Warring States periods, and the tombs are dated from the middle to late Western Zhou to the early Warring States periods. Group B remains include eight urn tombs and a few hundred ceramic sherds. But since they are dated to the Eastern Zhou period, Group B remains will not be included in this analysis. The site was excavated again in 2012–2013, yielding hundreds of ash pits and tombs dated mostly to the Eastern Zhou period (Liang et al. 2013). The summary report of the excavation shows that the characteristics of the newly discovered material culture are broadly consistent with those from the 1982– 1983 excavations: the deceased were often placed in a flexed posture with their heads oriented west; Group A remains continued to be dominant; and the same four types of ceramic vessels were popular: joint-crotched li, pen, dou, and guan. The excavation also uncovered horse and chariot pits, tombs with bronze weapons such as ge dagger axes, arrowheads and plaques, and a central public plaza, all dating to the Eastern Zhou period. The evidence from the excavations suggests that Maojiaping continued to grow from the Western Zhou to the Warring States periods. Pottery, Flexed Posture, and Absence of the Siwa Culture

The Western Zhou remains at the site include ceramic sherds in the residential area and eight out of the thirty-two tombs excavated during the 1982–1983 season. The earliest remains were from the deposition of stratum 4B, which are dated to the early Western Zhou period in the archaeological report, although some scholars date them to as early as the late Shang period or to as late as the late Western Zhou period (GWG and BDK 1987: 359–96; Teng 2000: 281–96; Liang Yun 2011: 1–28). Of the eight tombs, the earliest can be dated to the middle to late Western Zhou periods. The summary report of the 2012 excavation states that two tombs of the Western Zhou period were found, but the details of both tombs have not been published. The eight Western Zhou tombs (M1–M4, M6, M9, M10, and TM5) are non-elite burials. Their surface areas are less than 3.6 square meters. The deceased were placed in a flexed posture inside a wooden coffin with their

216 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

heads oriented west. Each tomb contained three to seven ceramic vessels consisting primarily of four types, the joint-crotched li, pen, dou, and guan (fig. 5.1: 1–4). The ceramic vessels were poorly made and often smaller than their counterparts in the residential area (li in the residential area, for instance, were typically 20 to 35 centimeters tall, but those in tombs were only 10 to 15 centimeters tall), suggesting that they were likely made exclusively for funerary purposes. The only bronzes found at the site are two small bells in a female tomb, M4 (fig. 5.1: 5). The deceased in three tombs are identified as females and in four tombs as males. No meaningful differences in terms of the size and funerary offerings can be observed between the male and female tombs, suggesting gender equality in mortuary practice among the commoners in the community. The tombs and artifacts present a number of distinct features. The pottery demonstrates stylistic connections with that in tombs and at sites of the Zhou western capital region at Guanzhong. Some scholars suggest that the material culture at Maojiaping resembles that at the Zhengjiapo 惕⭞✉ site of the late Shang period in central Shaanxi, and therefore could be regarded as a local variation of the Zhou material culture (Niu 1996: 41–50; Teng 2000: 281–96). But there are noticeable differences in ceramics between the two regions. For example, ceramic vessels at Maojiaping are mostly

2 1

5

3

4

FIGURE 5.1. Pottery and bronzes from tombs at Maojiaping (from GWG and BDK 1987: 379, 383, 385, figs. 17, 19, 21)

217 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

reddish wares rather than grayish wares and have fewer types and decorative patterns when compared to those from the Zhou center (GWG and BDK 1987: 359–96; Li Feng 2006: 264–65). The western orientation and flexed posture of the deceased further set these tombs culturally apart from those of the Zhou center, where the deceased are often placed in an extended posture with their heads oriented north. The Maojiaping tombs did not adopt Siwa-type artifacts and burial customs. Signature Siwa pottery, such as double-handled and saddle-mouthed guan jars, were absent at the site. Popular Siwa mortuary customs, such as the use of niches and secondary burials, were not adopted either. An archaeological survey in 2017 found no Siwa site in the Gangu area (Zhongguo xinwenwang 2018). If so, this could explain at least partially the absence of Siwa cultural elements at Maojiaping. Furthermore, the Maojiaping tombs did not use waist pits or dog sacrifices, two practices popular in late Shang tombs at Anyang and among a variety of communities in the early Western Zhou period (including Liya and Dabuzishan, two communities in this frontier). The inhabitants at Maojiaping might have had no knowledge of these practices or may have decided not to adopt them even though they were exposed to the practices through contacts with others. Maojiaping was one of the known communities that were active in Gangu and the area further west. The survey in 2017 identified four sites in Gangu and five in neighboring Wushan that yielded non-Siwa types of artifacts, though their specific dates are unknown. Besides those sites, sporadic discoveries of non-Siwa–type ceramic sherds of the Western Zhou period were recorded at a number of sites in Gangu and counties to the west (GWGW 1958a: 1–5, 1958b: 6–16). One of the sites is Xihetan 大㱛䀀 in Longxi 晜大 County, about fifty kilometers west of Maojiaping (map 5.1). Like pottery at Maojiaping, pottery in the sixteen Western Zhou tombs excavated at the site is stylistically similar to pottery in the Zhou center (Zhao Huacheng 1989: 145–76). But the deceased in these tombs were placed in an extended posture. The different postures of the deceased at Maojiaping and Xihetan suggest that even among communities of a non-Siwa culture in the region, mortuary customs could be very different. The Early Qin and the Identity of the People at Maojiaping

The dominant narrative on Maojiaping since its first excavation is that the occupants were the early Qin people and the remains represent the Qin material culture of the Western Zhou period. Zhao Huacheng 嵁⊾ㆸ, the chief

218 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

excavator of the site in the 1982–1983 season, argues that material remains at the site indicate that the Qin were active in the upper Wei River valley no later than the end of the Shang period (Zhao 1987: 1–7). He Qinggu ỽ㶭察, however, suggests that the ancestral group of the future Qin lineage was first relocated to Maojiaping from Shanxi, and the Daluo branch later left for Quanqiu 䉔᷀ (He Qinggu 1991: 70–77). Based on his reading of the bamboo texts of the middle Warring States period in the collection at Qinghua 㶭厗 University,3 Li Xueqin (2011c) proposes that the ancestors of the Qin lineage could have been forced to relocate to Gangu by Zhou king Cheng at the beginning of the Western Zhou period, thus providing further support for the identification of the inhabitants of Maojiaping as the early Qin. Other scholars accept the historicity of the Qin migration but question the timing of Qin’s relocation from the east. Liang Yun, for example, dates the remains at Maojiaping to no earlier than the middle Western Zhou period and argues that the Qin may have settled at Liya first and only expanded to Maojiaping in the late Western Zhou period (Liang Yun 2014: 74–88). Transmitted texts have played an important role in the effort to attribute Maojiaping to the Qin. The history of Qin during the early Western Zhou period is often established based on a few short passages in the “Basic Annals of Qin” in the Grand Scribe’s Records. These passages document, as mentioned in the introductory section of this chapter, that King Xiao granted Feizi a settlement at Qin and instructed him to carry on the sacrifice for the Ying clan (Shiji 1982: 177). As a result, the Qin lineage was born as a dependent of Zhou, branching out from the Daluo lineage. The settlement where Feizi lived was called Qinyi 䦎怹. The political landscape in this region since then was characterized by prolonged conflicts between the Qin lineage and the Western Rong. In the subsequent reign of King Li (857/53–842/28), the Western Rong annihilated the Daluo lineage at Quanqiu. To revitalize the lineage, King Xuan (827/25–782) lent troops to Duke Zhuang 匲 of Qin to defeat the Western Rong. The land at Quanqiu was awarded to Duke Zhuang, along with the official court title “Minister of Western March” (Xichui Daifu 大✪⣏⣓) (Shiji 1982: 178). To evaluate the relationship between the Qin lineage and the inhabitants of Maojiaping, it is appropriate to start by comparing the material culture here with that at Dabuzishan, a site archaeologically proven to have been occupied by the Qin lineage no later than the early Spring and Autumn period (see section “From Xishan to Dabuzishan”). Mortuary practices at the two sites are clearly different, representing two distinctive cultural

219 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

traditions. Tombs at both sites are rectangular earthen pits with the heads of the deceased oriented west. The deceased at Dabuzishan, however, were placed in an extended posture, not the flexed posture used in Maojiaping tombs. Waist pits and human or dog sacrifices were used in the Dabuzishan tombs but were absent in tombs at Maojiaping. Similar contrasts can be observed between the Maojiaping and Liya tombs. The Liya tombs commonly feature a waist pit containing a dog sacrifice, and their deceased were often placed in an extended posture. Given the clear differences in mortuary practice between Maojiaping and Dabuzishan, it is questionable that the inhabitants of Maojiaping were the early Qin. The flexed posture of the deceased at Maojiaping was used as a critical piece of archaeological evidence for attributing the residents of Maojiaping to the early Qin (GWG and BDK 1987: 359–96; Teng 2000: 281–96). This is mainly because flexed posture was widely used in a number of cemeteries of the Qin state in central Shaanxi during the following Eastern Zhou period (Du 1998: 513–42). The cultural root of the flexed posture used in Maojiaping tombs is unclear. Some argue that flexed posture was a local practice that can be traced back to the late Neolithic Banshan ⋲Ⱉ culture (c. 2650–2350 bce) and the following Qijia (c. 2200–1800 bce) and Xindian 彃⸿ bronzeusing cultures (c. 1700–600 bce) (Zhao Huacheng 1987: 1–7; Dai Chunyang 1992: 751–56; Du 1998: 513–42). There is a huge chronological gap, however, between those earlier sites and Maojiaping. Others propose that flexed posture may have originated from areas further west of Gansu, even in Central Asia (Liang Yun 2017: 149–74). Regardless of its origin, scholars increasingly suggest that flexed posture was not a funerary practice native to the early Qin; instead, it must have been initially used by other groups active in the upper Wei River valley (Han Wei 1986: 23–28; Chen Hong 2011: 98–102; Liang Yun 2017: 149–74). With the expansion of its political reach in the region over time, Qin could have incorporated many culturally and demographically diverse groups as subjects near the end of the Western Zhou period. Many of those groups could have moved into central Shaanxi when the Qin polity annexed the area after the Zhou King fled to the eastern capital Chengzhou in 770 bce. The flexed posture may have become popular in central Shaanxi tombs during the Eastern Zhou period as those groups migrated into the region (Du 1998: 513–42; Chen Hong 2011: 98–102). Maojiaping is estimated to be as large as half a million square meters and could contain over a thousand tombs. Pits with bronze chariots, human and dog sacrifices, and tombs with bronze weapons of the Eastern Zhou

220 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

period were found at the site. According to the “Basic Annals of Qin” in the Grand Scribe’s Records, Duke Wu 㬎 of Qin in 688 bce defeated the Rong at Ji ℨ (present-day Gangu County) and then incorporated the region as a new county into the Qin state (Shiji 1982: 182). Qin annexation could have been one of the driving forces for the growth at Maojiaping during the Eastern Zhou period. But the annexation did not disrupt the local mortuary tradition. The western orientation and the use of flexed posture continued into the Eastern Zhou tombs at the site. It is possible that the flexed posture popular at Maojiaping was introduced to other parts of the Qin state during the Eastern Zhou period as the Qin continued their political expansion in this frontier. THE LIYA SITE AT QINGSHUI

To the east of Gangu are Qin’an 䦎⬱, Qingshui, and Zhangjiachuan ⻝⭞ ⶅ Counties, administered by Tianshui City, where Western Zhou ceramic sherds, primarily gui and li, and bronze vessels, ding, gui and hu, have been found at over a dozen locations (e.g., see Mao, Liang, and Nan 2006: 38–45; Lu Guoquan 2013: 48–56 for a summary; Pei 2017: 47–51). Most of the artifacts, however, were sporadic discoveries with no archaeological context. The artifacts closely resemble their counterparts from the Zhou center. They are dated to the early and middle Western Zhou periods, with a few possibly as early as the late Shang period. Archaeological surveys in 2005 and 2008 along the Niutou and Houchuan ⼴ⶅ Rivers and their tributaries found twenty-eight sites that contained ceramic sherds; stylistically, the sherds can be dated from the Western Zhou to the Spring and Autumn periods (map 5.2) (ZQLK 2010: 4–23). It is unclear how many of these sites yielded Western Zhou date remains. Strikingly, the surveys did not discover Siwatype sherds in the region. Excavations at Liya in the 2009–2011 season, however, uncovered Siwa-type artifacts, suggesting that deposits of the Siwa culture may have been buried deep underground and are unobservable on the surface. It is too early, therefore, to conclude that no communities of the Siwa culture could have lived in the Niutou River valley during the Western Zhou period. It is clear, though, that the Siwa culture was active in the area further north, where a Siwa cemetery was excavated at Xujianian in Zhuanglang 匲㴒 (ZSKKY 2006). Liya is situated on a terrace at the juncture of the Fan 㦲 and Niutou Rivers. With an area as large as one million square meters, Liya is the largest site in

221 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

N 58 59 57 55

Ba

Tan

R iv

gg u

er

Ho uc h

ua n

52

itu

Ri

42

r ve

43 39 u Niuto

R iv er

o 34 35

er R iv

Qingshui 27 23

44 46

32

31

22 13

12 11 9 7

15

ve r

47

Ri

2,250 1,850 1,500 1,300

53 54

Fan

51

Elevation MASL

Zhou Period Sites > 100k sq. m. 50k - 100k sq. m. 10k - 50k sq. m. < 10k sq. m. or unknown

5 km

Modern county

MAP 5.2. Zhou period sites in the Niutou River valley found in 2005 and 2008 surveys: 7. Chenggouxi, 9. Dugouping, 11. Ligouping, 12. Wuping, 13. Taipingsi, 15. Housiwan, 22. Zhuyingtai, 23. Taishanmiao, 27. Liushuyuan, 31. Liya, 32. Mengjiashan, 34. Wujiazun, 35. Miaoya, 39. Anjiaping, 42. Weijiaxia, 43. Dazhuang, 44. Panhe, 46. Anjiacun, 47. Zhoujiazhuang, 51. Baitouzhengxi, 52. Liuping, 53. Huangmen, 54. Shangchengcun, 55. Zhengjiawan, 57. Liutanli, 59. Taizicun, 58. Xiakou (based on ZQLK 2010: 5, 20–22, fig. 1, site number in the map is after the site number in the survey report)

the Niutou River valley known to date. The site contained the remains of multiple periods, from the late Neolithic to the Northern Wei ⊿櫷 (386–534 ce). Western Zhou remains were mainly located in the southeastern part. About forty ash pits and nineteen tombs dated roughly to the middle Western Zhou period were excavated and partially reported (Zhao et al. 2012; Liu Jiaxing 2014: 17–18; Liang Yun 2016: 112–46). The Eastern Cultural Connection and the Use of Siwa-Type Pottery

The nineteen tombs at Liya are remarkably uniform in a number of aspects. All tombs are small, rectangular earthen pits. Their surface areas range from five to less than two square meters. All but one were equipped with a waist pit containing a dog sacrifice. The heads of the deceased were often oriented west. All but two deceased were placed in a supine, extended posture inside one coffin or double coffins. The core burial offerings consisted mainly of four types of ceramic vessels: li, guan, gui, and pen. Most tombs

222 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

contained five to ten ceramic vessels; M9 yielded the most, with twenty-six. The ge in M22 is the only bronze artifact found in these tombs. Altogether, the evidence indicates that these tombs are of non-elite members of the community. These non-elite tombs, nonetheless, reveal the intermingling of artifacts and customs from Anyang and the Zhou center with those of local Siwa cultures. The tombs, though dated to the middle Western Zhou period, often used waist pits and dog sacrifices, two mortuary customs popular in late Shang tombs at Anyang and present in tombs of many groups in other frontiers during the Western Zhou period. The ceramic li with a square rim and a divided crotch and the gui with triangular decorative patterns also suggest typological connections with the Shang ceramic tradition. Pottery assemblages were dominated by li, gui, pen, and guan, resembling those seen in tombs of the Zhou center. Most of the vessels display stylistic similarities with those in central Shaanxi, as does the bronze ge in M22. Typical Siwa ceramic types, such as horse saddle–shaped guan jars, jars with one or double handles, and plain gui vessels, were used in eight of the nineteen tombs as well. The tombs further illustrate that individuals made different choices in their selection of material cultures. The common use of a waist pit and a dog sacrifice indicates that both customs were ingrained in the mortuary practices of the entire community. The use of ceramic vessels, however, reveals individualized choices: four of the nineteen tombs contained only Siwa-type vessels (a guan in each), eleven had only vessel types resembling those from Anyang and the Zhou center, and the remaining four had both types of vessels. Tomb M9 can serve as a good example in this regard. It was equipped with a waist pit containing a dog sacrifice. The tomb, however, was a secondary burial with the body of the deceased composed of a pile of human bones, a practice seen in Siwa cemeteries such as Lanqiao. Of the twenty-six vessels in the tomb, three are Siwa-type vessels—a saddle-mouthed guan jar, a jar with a single handle, and a plain gui—and the rest of the types—li, gui, guan, and pen—resemble those from the Zhou center. M18 and M20 were placed next to each other, less than five meters apart. The deceased in M18 is identified as male and that in M20 as female, and they are possibly husband and wife (Liang Yun 2016: 112–46). Interestingly, the husband was buried with only a Siwa-type guan with double handles. The wife, presumably from another community, was supplied with both Siwa-type and non-Siwa-type vessels. This phenomenon points out that the adoption of Siwa-type vessels

223 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

was not limited to female members who were married in from other communities, but was also carried out by male community members. A similar juxtaposition of Siwa-type and non-Siwa-type vessels in a tomb can be observed in a damaged tomb at Yangsi 㣲⮢ in Qin’an, about fifty kilometers northwest of Liya (map 5.1) (Nan and Guo 1987: 27–34, 43). The tomb is dated from the middle to late Western Zhou periods. The identity of the deceased is unclear. The tomb contained ten ceramic vessels, which, interestingly, included five Siwa-type li, one non-Siwa-type li, and four nonSiwa-type gui. The Siwa-type li are plain and reddish in color, but the nonSiwa vessels are greyish and decorated with rope patterns. It has been suggested that the Siwa cultural elements could have been introduced to Liya through contacts and marriages with Siwa communities in the Luo River valley, where many Siwa sites such as Xujianian were found (Liang Yun 2016: 112–46). The underlying assumption is that there were no Siwa communities living in the Niutou River valley because the surface survey found no Siwa remains. As already mentioned, however, we cannot dismiss the likelihood of the existence of Siwa communities in the Niutou River valley. Future fieldwork in the region could provide more evidence to evaluate the cultural source of the Siwa-type artifacts in Liya. A Regional Center and the Question of Qinyi

Liya is the largest Western Zhou site found so far in the Niutou River valley. Except for a few over 100,000 square meters, the majority of the sites found in the valley are less than 10,000 square meters, suggesting that a multilayered settlement hierarchy, consisting of regional centers and small villages, developed in the region (map 5.2). Thirteen of the twenty-eight Zhou-date sites, including Liya, were located in the middle section of the Niutou River, making it the most densely populated area in the valley during the Western Zhou period.4 According to the survey data, Liya could have grown into a regional center during the middle Western Zhou period. It was surrounded by a couple of second-tier settlements, which themselves were further surrounded by other small settlements. The dominant archaeological interpretation is that Liya was Qinyi, the settlement of Qin granted to Feizi by King Xiao, and that the inhabitants of Liya could therefore have been the Qin (Liang Yun 2010: 24–31). Many historians have long suggested that the settlement of Qin recorded in the Grand Scribe’s Records was located in present-day Qingshui County (Duan 1982: 166–75;

224 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

Lin Jianming 1982: 16–20). As a regional center, Liya’s immense scale makes it a good match for a settlement of Qin. Material remains at the site are dated to the middle Western Zhou period, chronologically corresponding to the reign of King Xiao. Tombs at Liya show a number of similarities with the Qin tombs at Dabuzishan, including the western orientation, the extended posture of the deceased, and the use of waist pits and dog sacrifices. These factors together indeed make a compelling case for identifying Liya as Qinyi. It is premature, however, to simply say that Liya was a settlement of Qin. Inscriptions on two bronze vessels, the Xun gui 宊䮳 (JC: 4321) and the Shiyou gui ⶰ惱䮳 (JC: 4288), allude to “Qinyih” 䦎⣟ and “Qinren” 䦎Ṣ. Li Feng suggests that, given that both vessels could be dated earlier than the reign of King Xiao, a community bearing the name “Qin” must have already existed prior to the time when the king granted the place to Feizi (Li Feng 2006: 268). Qinyih or Qinren, as recorded in the two bronze inscriptions, could refer to these people, who, given their artifact types and mortuary customs, could have been previously relocated to the northwestern frontier from the eastern region by the Zhou court. Material remains at Liya therefore could have belonged to those resettled groups, rather than the Qin lineage descended from Feizi (Shi Dangshe 2015: 18–27). THE UPPER XIHAN RIVER VALLEY

Wang Guowei has placed the geographical location of early Qin settlements Xichui 大✪ and Quanqiu, recorded in the transmitted texts, in Li and Xihe Counties in the upper Xihan River valley (Wang Guowei 2001c: 271–74). This valley subsequently became a focal point for the archaeological search for the Qin culture of the Western Zhou period. Tombs at Dabuzishan, discovered in the early 1990s, yielded bronzes of the early Spring and Autumn period inscribed with “Duke of Qin” (Qingong 䦎℔) (Dai Chunyang 2000: 74–80). They provide, for the first time, a direct link between Li County and the Qin. An archaeological survey was carried out in 2004 in the upper Xihan River valley to find sites of the Qin of the Western Zhou period (GWK et al. 2008). The survey covered areas along the Xihan River and its tributaries, including the Yan 䅽, Yongping 㯠✒, Hong 乊, and Yangshui 㻦㯜 Rivers. It found thirty-six sites that can be dated to the Western Zhou period, containing artifacts of the Siwa type or non-Siwa type, or both (table 5.1). The survey relied primarily on surface observation. At some sites, besides sherds on the

Table 5.1 Western Zhou sites containing Siwa and non-Siwa remains in the upper Xihan River valley*

Site number∗ 1

Site name

Size (sq. m.)

Containing Siwa remains

Containing non-Siwa remains (early Western Zhou)

Containing non-Siwa remains (late Western Zhou)

Pantoushan

Unknown

Y

13

Gaolouzi

Unknown

Y

15

Shagoukouxi

50,000

Y

16

Wangmo

20,000

28

Dabaozishan

240,000

29

Zhaoping

300,000

32

Mengzhang

200,000

33

Shanjiao

30,000

Y

36

Xingtian

80,000

Y

38

Malianba

30,000

42

Chitushan

Unknown

Y

43

Magou

12,000

Y

44

Gangou

20,000

Y

45

Miaozuizi

5,000

Y

46

Luantingshan

2,000

Y

47

Leishenmiao

150,000

Y

Y

48

Xishan

100,000

Y

Y

49

Zhuangkedi

30,000

Y

52

Gaositou

100,000

Y

53

Lijiafangbeihou

80,000

Y

55

Shigouping

200,000–400,000

Y

56

Shijiangou

15,000

Y

57

Ertu

300,000

Y

58

Guquansi

80,000

Y

59

Shiba Yihao

200,000

Y

63

Yangping

15,000

64

Xiaotian

34,000

Y

67

Pengya

75,000

Y

71

Liubatu

320,000

73

Feijiazhuang

Unknown

77

Luojiaping

20,000

Y

78

Zhoujiaping

79

Tanghekou

Unknown

Y

91

Jianjiaoping

240,000

93

Hejiazhuang

5,000

Y

95

Xiyuping

30,000

Y

∗Based

Y Y Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Y Y Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y Y Y

Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

on a 2004 survey reported in GWK et al. 2008; the site number here is after the site number in the survey report.

226 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

surface, damaged tombs, human bones, and cultural deposits were recorded, though the internal structure of these sites is largely unknown. Site size was estimated based on the distribution area of the sherds on the surface. Many sites yielded artifacts of multiple periods, including the Western Zhou period. The survey data are limited, but they do provide valuable information to make some important observations regarding the political and cultural landscape of this region in the Western Zhou period. A SHIFTING CULTURAL AND POLITICAL LANDSCAPE

The survey identified twenty-five sites that yielded Siwa-type ceramic sherds, such as li with a plain surface and guan with a saddle-shaped mouth. The sherds are insufficient to date each site individually, but their stylistic resemblance to the pottery found in other Siwa sites, such as Lanqiao and Jiuzhan, suggests that these sites can be broadly dated to the Western Zhou period (GWK et al. 2008: 279–82). Twenty (80 percent) of these sites were located in western Li County along the Xihan River, extending from Zhaoping 嵁✒ southwestward to Pengya ⼕Ⲿ (map 5.3). In contrast, except for a couple of small Siwa sites along the Hong 䲭 River, no Siwa sites have been found in eastern Li County. The concentration of these sites in western Li County indicates that this area was the heartland of the local Siwa communities throughout the Western Zhou period. The size of these Siwa sites varied considerably. Ertu Ḵ⛇ (No. 57), estimated to be as large as 300,000 square meters, was the largest. Three others, Shiba Yihao 䞛⢑ᶨ嘇 (No. 59), Xishan (No. 48), and Gaositou 檀⮢柕 (No.  52), each with an area between 100,000 and 200,000 square meters, formed the second tier. These sites were accompanied by smaller ones. This spatial distribution of sites with varied sizes suggests a settlement hierarchy among Siwa communities in which large ones could function as regional or local centers supported by small surrounding villages. Besides the Siwa sites, the survey discovered eleven sites that contained non-Siwa-type ceramic sherds that can be dated to the early Western Zhou period (four of the eleven sites also contained Siwa-type artifacts) (map 5.3). Most of these sites were located in eastern Li County, indicating that these non-Siwa communities could have initially settled in an area away from the heartland of the local Siwa communities. Some scholars consider the presence of these communities as a sign of Zhou political expansion into Li County to secure access to local resources such as salt (Liang Yun 2011: 1–28;

227 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

71

Hon

N

g

Yongping

Elevation MASL 93

77

91

River

Yan 45

56

Xihan

42 33 32 29 36

43

57

Yang

58

15 28

Lixian 44 55

52

13

r

49

1

Rive

47 48

River

46

53

78

79

er R iv

3,000 2,400 2,000 1,750 1,500

59 64

River

67 95

Xihe

10 km

Sites with Siwa-type remains Sites with non-Siwa-type remains Sites with both types of remains Modern counties

MAP 5.3. Siwa and non-Siwa (early Western Zhou) sites in the upper Xihan River valley found in 2004 survey: 1. Pantoushan, 13. Gaolouzi, 15. Shagoukouxi, 28. Dabuzishan, 29. Zhaoping, 32. Mengzhang, 33. Shanjiao, 36. Xingtian, 42. Chitushan, 43. Magou, 44. Gangou, 45. Miaozuizi, 46. Luantingshan, 47. Leishenmiao, 48. Xishan, 49. Zhuangkedi, 52. Gaoshitou, 53. Lijiafangbeihou, 55. Shigouping, 56. Shijiangou, 57. Ertu, 58. Guquansi, 59. Shiba Yihao, 64. Xiaotian, 67. Pengya, 71. Liubatu, 77. Luojiaping, 78. Zhoujiaping, 79. Tanghekou, 91. Jianjiaoping, 93. Hejiazhuang, 95. Xiyuping (based on GWK et al. 2008, fig. 224, site number in the map is after the site number in the survey report; the size of site numbers 28, 29, 32, 55, 57, 59, and 71 is over 200,000 square meters)

Lu Guoquan 2013: 48–56; Zhang Tian’en 2001: 67–74). The identity of the inhabitants of these sites, however, is unclear. During the late Western Zhou period, however, the sites that contained non-Siwa-type artifacts increased to twenty-one (map 5.4). They spread into the heartland of the Siwa communities, as fourteen (67 percent) of the twenty-one sites were located in western Li County. The survey identified three settlement clusters, each anchored by a large site (over 300,000 square meters in size) surrounded by smaller ones, suggesting the development of multiple regional centers (GWK et al. 2008: 288). Some were spatially close to the Siwa sites (such as No. 63 close to No. 64, No. 36 close to No. 38, and No. 28 close to No. 33), presenting a landscape that was shared geographically but politically contested by the two communities. The changing spatial distribution of the Siwa and non-Siwa sites reveals that the region witnessed a shift, from being a culturally segregated landscape

228 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

71

Hon

N

g 73

ping Yong

Elevation MASL 93

77 79

78

1

er R iv

3,000 2,400 2,000 1,750 1,500

91

Yan

16

67

River

53

48

Lixian

33 32 29 38

36

River

47

44 49 55 43 56 57 58 59 63 64

n Xiha

Yang

52

15

28 42

River

46

River

45

95

Xihe

10 km

Sites with Siwa-type remains Sites with non-Siwa-type remains Sites with both types of remains Modern counties

MAP 5.4. Siwa and non-Siwa (late Western Zhou) sites in the upper Xihan River valley found in 2004 survey: 1. Pantoushan, 15. Shagoukouxi, 16. Wangmo, 28. Dabuzishan, 29. Zhaoping, 32. Mengzhang, 33. Shanjiao, 36. Xingtian, 38. Malianba, 42. Chitushan, 43. Magou, 44. Gangou, 45. Miaozuizi, 46. Luantingshan, 47. Leishenmiao, 48. Xishan, 49. Zhuangkedi, 52. Gaoshitou, 53. Lijiafangbeihou, 55. Shigouping, 56. Shijiangou, 57. Ertu, 58. Guquansi, 59. Shiba Yihao, 63. Yangping, 64. Xiaotian, 67. Pengya, 71. Liubatu, 73. Feijiazhuang, 77. Luojiaping, 78. Zhoujiaping, 79. Tanghekou, 91. Jianjiaoping, 93. Hejiazhuang, 95. Xiyuping (based on GWK et al. 2008, fig. 224, site number in the map is after the site number in the survey report; the size of site numbers 28, 29, 32, 55, 57, 59, and 71 is over 200,000 square meters)

during the early Western Zhou period where Siwa communities lived in the western part and the non-Siwa ones in the eastern part of Li County, to being an integrated but contested landscape during the late Western Zhou period where the two communities increasingly lived next to each other. Noticeably, except for a few sites, such as Shigouping 䞛㹅✒ (No. 55) and Mengzhang 呁⻝ (No. 32), the survey found no sherds dated to the middle Western Zhou period. If the chronological gap is not due to the limitation of the survey, it indicates that the region could have experienced multiple population movements over time. The people who settled in Li County and used non-Siwatype artifacts during the early Western Zhou period could be unrelated to those who lived there during the late Western Zhou period. A number of sites in central Li County contained both Siwa-type and non-Siwa-type artifacts, indicating that the area was the focal point of contacts and contests between the two cultures (maps 5.3 and 5.4). Ertu (No. 57) was dominated by Siwa cultural deposits (including tombs) and was likely a

229 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

local center. The appearance of non-Siwa-type sherds from the early Western Zhou period could have indicated a limited adoption of “foreign” ceramic culture by this Siwa community. On the other hand, Zhaoping (No. 29), a large site dominated by non-Siwa-type remains from the late Western Zhou and early Spring and Autumn periods, also yielded a small number of Siwatype sherds, suggesting limited use of the “native” material culture in this community. This cross-cultural borrowing increased over time as more sites (eleven versus four) contained both Siwa-type and non-Siwa-type artifacts from the late Western Zhou period. The geographical expansion of sites containing non-Siwa-type artifacts into the heartland of the Siwa communities could have been related to the intensified battles between the Qin and local groups during the late Western Zhou period (GWK et al. 2008: 279–83). As people lived closer to one another, their interactions became frequent. The increasing number of sites containing both types of artifacts reveals that some communities were able to use both Siwa and non-Siwa artifacts to define their evolving cultural identities during the late Western Zhou period. From Xishan to Dabuzishan

Following the survey, the fieldwork at Xishan 大Ⱉ and Dabuzishan ⣏⟉ ⫸Ⱉ uncovered more archaeological data, allowing for a further examination of the varied material cultures and shifting political experiences of both communities. A small-scale excavation at Xishan in 2005 found six tombs that can be dated to the late Western Zhou period or slightly later (Zhao, Wang, and Hou 2008). Details of the excavation have not been published, but the summary report has revealed that two distinctive mortuary traditions were practiced. The six tombs are at two locations. At one location are three tombs that are relatively large and are equipped with a waist pit. The heads of the deceased were oriented west. The deceased were placed in an extended posture facing up and accompanied by human sacrifices and bronze and ceramic artifacts. Tomb M200 is the largest of the six, with a surface area of over thirteen square meters. The deceased, a middle-age male, was placed in an extended posture inside a painted wooden coffin and was accompanied by two female human sacrifices. The tomb was furnished with bronze vessels and weapons (ge and swords), jade ornaments, ceramic li, guan, and pen, and sea shells. A bronze arrowhead was found in the skull of the deceased, revealing that he could have been killed at war. Significantly,

230 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

the tomb contained two bronze ding and three gui, thus providing one of the earliest examples of the use of a ding and gui set in this frontier. Both vessels stylistically resemble those found in late Western Zhou tombs in the Zhou western capital region (Liang Yun 2017: 149–74). At the second location are the other three tombs, which show a clear contrast with the tombs at the first location. These tombs are small and contained no human sacrifice or jade or bronze artifacts, suggesting that the deceased were likely commoners. Noticeably, these tombs used no waist pit, and the deceased were placed in a flexed posture with their heads oriented north. These facts suggest that, besides wealth and status differences, the deceased in these tombs could have subscribed to different beliefs and mortuary traditions from those buried at the first location. Surveys at Xishan during the 2005–2006 season found the remains of city walls near Leishenmiao 暟䤆⺇ (ZQLK 2008a: 323–36). The area inside the city wall was estimated to be less than 90,000 square meters. Inside the city, multiple pounded-earth foundations and ceramic water pipes were found, suggesting the construction of palatial and/or temple structures and a citywide drainage system. Tombs containing Siwa-type pottery were found in the northwestern and southern suburbs of the city—near the Liujiagou ∱⭞㹅, Daxueping ⣏暒✒, and Xiaoxueping ⮷暒✒ villages. Some of the tombs were, however, oriented in a north-south direction. Tombs containing nonSiwa-type sherds and pounded-earth foundations were found in the northern suburb of the city at Luantingshan 淦ṕⰙ. Details of these tombs are unknown, as they have not been excavated. Besides the tombs, ash pits near Liujiagou often contained both Siwa-type and non-Siwa-type ceramic sherds, but the residential area at Leishenmiao was dominated by non-Siwa-type artifacts. The different distribution patterns of the tombs and the artifacts of Siwa and non-Siwa cultures suggest that groups with different cultural backgrounds lived in different quarters at Xishan and were buried separately at death. Some suggest that Xishan could have been the site of Quanqiu and that the presence of two types of material culture could indicate that the Qin and Western Rong both had occupied the site during different parts of the late Western Zhou period, as documented in the Grand Scribe’s Records (ZQLK 2008a: 323–36). It is too early, however, to conclude that Xishan was Quanqiu. The relations between groups using Siwa and non-Siwa artifacts, therefore, still remain unclear. It is also not clear when the city walls were initially constructed. The site yielded very few artifacts from the middle Western Zhou period, suggesting

231 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

that it was not densely populated during that period, and therefore the walls were probably not constructed earlier than the middle Western Zhou period. The walls were likely abandoned sometime during the late Western Zhou period, since they were damaged by ash pits and house foundations that are dated to that time. The Xishan community, with its walled city, could have acted as a regional political center during the middle Western Zhou period. The abandonment of the city walls indicates that it could have experienced a political decline and no longer functioned as a regional center after the late Western Zhou period. The site was not, however, completely deserted. It continued to be occupied, as shown by the discoveries of tombs, ash pits, and house remains dating to the Spring and Autumn period. Accompanying the decline of Xishan after the late Western Zhou period was the rise of Dabuzishan. Dabuzishan, about thirteen kilometers east of Xishan, is located on the northern bank of the Xihan River. In the early 1990s, bronzes inscribed with “Duke of Qin” were found at the site (Dai Chunyang 2000: 74–80). Eleven tombs were excavated at the site, among which M2 and M3 are the two largest tombs. They are dated to the beginning of the Spring and Autumn period, according to the style of the bronze vessels that were supposedly looted from the tombs. Both tombs used a waist pit (with a dog sacrifice inside) and contained quite a number of human sacrifices (nineteen in M2 and eight in M3). The occupants of the two tombs have been identified by scholars as various generations of Qin rulers, including Dukes Zhuang 匲 and Xiang 壬, or Xiang and Wen 㔯, or Wen and Xian ㅚ, or Duke Xiang and his wife (Chen Ping 1998b: 78–87; Wang Hui 1998: 88–93; Dai Chunyang 2000: 74–80; Li Feng 2017: 209–34). The other nine tombs are smaller, and some contained human sacrifices and bronze vessels. Like the pair buried in M2 and M3, the deceased in these tombs were also placed in an extended posture, and their heads were oriented west. An archaeological survey at the site in 2006 found the remains of city walls that can be dated to no earlier than the late Western Zhou period (ZQLK 2008a: 323–36). The walls enclosed an area of roughly half a million square meters, making the city one of the largest walled cities in the region known to date from both the Western and Eastern Zhou periods. Inside the city, pounded-earth foundations and a cemetery of the Qin ruling family were found in the northeastern corner and smaller tombs in the southwestern corner. Outside the northern wall of the city was a cemetery containing potentially three to four hundred tombs. Excavation there in the 1990s discovered seven tombs and one pit containing bronze musical instruments

232 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

of the early Spring and Autumn period. An inscription on the largest bell from the pit records the name “Qinzi” 䦎⫸, further suggesting that the site was occupied by the Qin lineage, including members of the Qin ruling family (ZQLK 2008b: 14–29). The cemetery of the ruling family, the large-scale city walls, and the numerous tombs and architectural foundations together indicate that Dabuzishan must have grown into a prominent regional political center during the Spring and Autumn period, when Xishan experienced a drastic decline. Indeed, some scholars argue that Dabuzishan might have been the Qin capital Xixinyi 大㕘怹 recorded in transmitted texts (Liang Yun 2007: 32–39). Zhaoping, about three kilometers east of Dabuzishan, could be the cemetery location for the Qin elite in the early and middle Spring and Autumn periods (map 5.4). Two elite tombs, M1 and M2 of the early Spring and Autumn period, were found at Zhaoping (Dai Chunyang 2000: 74–80). The deceased might have been a couple, a wife (M1) and a husband (M2), with M2 containing seven ding and six gui vessels and M1 containing six ding and four gui vessels. Both tombs share a number of mortuary features with M2 and M3 at Dabuzishan, including their east-west orientation and their use of bronze vessels and human sacrifices. The area from Dabuzishan to Xishan in the west and from Dabuzishan to Zhaoping in the east likely grew into the political core of the emerging Qin polity from the late Western Zhou to the early Spring and Autumn periods. The construction of city walls and the use of bronze vessels in elite tombs can be viewed as material expressions of the increasing political and military strength of Qin during that time. The style of bronze vessels and their use in tombs resembled the vessels and their use in the Zhou western capital region, indicating increased contacts between Qin and Zhou. In this geopolitical context, it is possible that the spread of non-Siwa communities along the Xihan River during the late Western Zhou period was driven by Qin expansion. Inhabitants in some of those sites could have been members of the Qin lineage or those closely affiliated with them. It is important to recognize, at the same time, that many native Siwa communities continued to live in the region even under the Qin expansion. Settlement patterns found in the 2014 survey reveal that both the Siwa and non-Siwa communities occupied the region in the late Western Zhou period. Opposite to Dabuzishan, on the southern bank of the Xihan River, was a walled city at Shanping Ⱉ✒ (map 5.4) (ZQLK 2008a: 323–36). The area enclosed by the walls was about eighty thousand square meters and

233 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

yielded ash pits and tombs. Outside the city was a cemetery featuring the Siwa cultural tradition. If the tombs were contemporaneous with the city, which is dated tentatively to the early and middle Spring and Autumn periods, it would suggest that this walled settlement was occupied by a local Siwa group. If so, this indicates that even in the political core of the Qin polity, native groups could have continued to live and compete with Qin during the Spring and Autumn period.

The upper Wei and upper Xihan River valleys were co-occupied by Siwa and non-Siwa communities during the Western Zhou period. Artifacts and tombs of the non-Siwa communities clearly show cultural connections with their counterparts in the Zhou western capital region. But at the same time, the material cultures among these communities vary considerably, as exemplified by remains at Maojiaping, Liya, Xishan, and Dabuzishan (table 5.2).

TABLE 5.2 Comparison of material culture at four sites in the upper Wei and upper Xihan River valleys Sites

Maojiaping

Liya

Xishan (group 1)

Xishan (group 2)

Date of tombs

Middle to late Western Zhou

Middle Western Zhou

Late Western Zhou

Late Western Zhou

Late Western Zhou to early Spring and Autumn

Head orientation of the deceased

West

West

North

West

West

Posture of the deceased

Flexed

Extended

Flexed

Extended

Extended

Use of waist pit or dog sacrifice

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Use of human sacrifices

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Use of Siwatype pottery in tomb

No

Yes

?

No

No

Use of bronze vessels in tomb

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Construction of city walls

No

Yes

Yes

Dabuzishan

Yes

234 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

Tombs at Liya and Dabuzishan shared a number of mortuary customs, including the western orientation, the use of a waist pit, and the extended posture of the deceased. Tombs at Liya show a clear adoption of Siwa culture, particularly Siwa-type pottery, but Dabuzishan tombs, large or small, were largely immune to Siwa cultural elements. Maojiaping, on the other hand, adopted neither Siwa-type artifacts nor the custom of using a waist pit and a dog sacrifice, and its deceased were often placed in a flexed posture, in a clear contrast to the extended posture popular at Liya and Dabuzishan. Xishan was likely occupied by multiple groups who seem to have been spatially and culturally separated in life and after death. The use of a bronze ding and gui set in tombs at Xishan and Dabuzishan suggests that the Zhou elite culture was embraced by the elite at both sites during the late Western Zhou period. The diverse material cultures of these non-Siwa communities suggest that their inhabitants could have come from various social and demographic backgrounds. This theory contrasts with the prevalent view, which identifies the groups at these sites as the Qin and the material remains as the Qin culture of the Western Zhou period. The inhabitants at Liya could have belonged to a non-Qin group who may have been relocated there from the east. The people at Maojiaping were probably not related to the Qin, given their distinctive mortuary customs. It is likely that various groups could have migrated into the region at different times throughout the Western Zhou period, creating a diverse, changing, cultural and demographic landscape, as suggested by the changing settlement patterns in the upper Xihan valley. It is important, therefore, to recognize that Qin, as a lineage and a polity, must have been one of many players active in the region during the Western Zhou period. The widespread distribution of non-Siwa sites in this frontier during the early Western Zhou period may suggest increasing cultural contacts between this frontier and the upper Jing River valley and possibly the Zhou western capital region. The identities of the occupants living in those communities remain unclear. Inscriptions referring to Qinren and Qinyih and transmitted textual records on the Qin in the Grand Scribe’s Records suggest that the Zhou court could have had certain political authority over some groups in the region, such as the Daluo lineage, in the middle Western Zhou period. But archaeologically, there is no clear evidence for a Zhou political presence, transient or sustained, in this frontier in both the early and middle Western Zhou periods. During the late Western Zhou period, the Zhou outsourced the war against the Western Rong to the Qin lineage. As the Qin

235 T H E E M E R G I N G F R O N T I E R I N T H E FA R W E S T

established and increased their political power in the upper Xihan River valley, they transformed the region into their newly founded homeland and subsequently into an emerging frontier of Zhou. Through this process, the Qin elite increasingly adopted the Zhou bronze culture, elevating themselves into the Zhou elite circle. The rise of the Qin polity was only one of many political developments in this frontier. Maojiaping, for instance, experienced little political change throughout much of the Western Zhou period. The Niutou River valley witnessed the rise of Liya as a regional center and an increase in regional settlement hierarchies during the middle Western Zhou period. And Xishan experienced a rise and fall from the middle to late Western Zhou periods. Throughout the Western Zhou period, local Siwa communities continued to live in their homeland. Archaeological surveys have shown the widespread existence of Siwa sites in the upper Wei and upper Xihan River valleys, but few have been excavated. Ertu, for instance, was one of the largest sites along the Xihan River. But without excavation, there is little evidence on how its inhabitants employed material culture to define their identities. The two Siwa cemeteries that have been excavated to date are located on the edge of this frontier: Lanqiao cemetery in Xihe County in the far south and Xujianian cemetery in Zhuanglang County at the northeastern corner (GWG, BDK, and XW 1987: 678–91; ZSKKY 2006: 1–165). Tombs at Lanqiao show little adoption of “other” cultures, but tombs at Xujianian reveal noticeable adoption of the material culture popular in the Zhou western capital region and Baoji, including writing characters, pottery guan and gui, and various types of bronze ge dagger axes. Nevertheless, native Siwa artifacts and burial customs continued to be dominant at both sites. Our knowledge on the social, cultural, and political development of the Siwa communities in the region as a whole, however, remains rather limited. This is a worthy topic for future studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The northern frontiers of the Western Zhou were an expansive geographic region sandwiched between the Zhou political center in the south and the Northern Zone, a part of Eastern Eurasia ecologically and culturally. Regions in the northern frontiers demonstrate great diversity in geography, demography, cultural tradition, political structure, and relations with the former Shang dynasty and the newly established Zhou power. Throughout the Western Zhou period, local and immigrant communities in the northern frontiers negotiated their various cultural identities and power relations with Zhou. Through investigations of material culture and inscriptional and textual evidence, the preceding chapters have revealed these diverse processes and varied outcomes. This book considers the Western Zhou northern frontiers as a contact zone, a cultural crossroads, and a politically negotiated land where the Zhou central power, the remnants of Shang, indigenous communities, and migrant groups from further north in Eastern Eurasia created vibrant and various interactions. In particular, it gives the indigenous groups across the northern frontiers their own voices. Rather than being passive receivers of Zhou political control and cultural influence, local groups, such as the Siwa communities in the far northwest, the Zhangjiayuan culture in the Jing-Jin-Tang region, and the sword-using cultures in the Yan mountainous region in the northeast, were active participants and creators of the regional geopolitical and cultural landscape. This book emphasizes the particular

238 CONCLUSIONS

local and regional identities of the individuals and groups that resided in each frontier. SHIFTING GEOPOLITICAL SPACES

Case studies in the preceding chapters have revealed three types of geopolitical frontiers, the inner, the outer, and the emerging, in terms of the dynamic power relations between Zhou and the frontiers. Geography, local sociocultural complexity, and on and off intrusions by populations from the Northern Zone were significant factors contributing to these geopolitical distinctions. The inner frontiers—such as western Baoji and the north-central region in the lower Fen River valley (see chapters 2 and 3)—were geopolitical spaces created by Zhou through strong alliances with local people or colonies in the form of regional states. The inner frontiers enjoyed a period of political stability and close connections with the Zhou court. The outer frontiers were regions that experienced weak or declining Zhou political presence or persistent conflicts between the Zhou and others. A typical case was the upper Jing River valley of the middle and late Western Zhou period, where long-lasting battles between the Xianyun and the Zhou caused the eventual withdrawal of the Zhou political presence in the region (see chapter 2). The emerging frontier, such as the upper Wei and upper Xihan River valleys (see chapter 5), was the geopolitical space where the Zhou court hoped to increase its presence but was unable to exercise meaningful political control. These three geopolitical spaces changed at different times in different locations and encapsulated various and volatile political processes. The frontier, by nature, was fluid, dynamic, and malleable. The inner, outer, and emerging frontiers were ever changing geopolitical spaces that rose and fell at different times. During the early Western Zhou period, the new regime propelled the Zhou to convert most of its northern frontiers, near and far, into the inner frontiers. The frontiers adjacent to the Zhou center at western Baoji and the upper Jing River valley developed close political ties with Zhou and were metaphorically referred to as the “backyard of Zhou.” Both regions were dominated by a host of pro-Zhou lineage polities who adopted the Zhou written language and self-identified themselves in inscriptions on bronzes. Some of these lineages, such as Ze, Guai, and Yuan, had a certain degree of political autonomy, and their strong alliances with the Zhou made possible local political stability and Zhou control over these regions.

239 CONCLUSIONS

Zhou expanded its inner frontiers to southern Shanxi and northern Hebei in the eastern plain primarily through the establishment of the regional states Jin and Yan, respectively. Both regional states were local delegates of Zhou central power and managed the new land and people on behalf of the court. The subordinate non-Ji lineage polities, Peng and Ba, in the north-central frontier seem to have been under the direct control of the Zhou court. Inscriptions record that the Jin and Yan rulers, as well as lineage heads of the Peng and Ba, were active participants in the political and ritual activities at the court and provided military services for the Zhou king. Their frequent communications with the center brought both frontiers politically close to the Zhou court. From the middle Western Zhou period onward, the upper Jing River valley and the northeastern frontier diverged from the rest of the areas in the northern frontiers. Both frontiers experienced heightened political instability and were transitioned into the outer frontiers. The prolonged conflict between the Zhou and the Xianyun disrupted local polities and ended Zhou political presence south of the Jing River. The region was transformed from a backyard into a battlefield, an outer frontier where conflicts became increasingly frequent. With the rise of aggressive militaristic communities in the Yan mountainous regions and the Daling River valley, the northeastern frontier became politically fragmented and volatile. The Yan state lost control of western Liaoning and struggled for its survival in northern Hebei. Its connections with the Zhou court were disrupted. The intruding groups from the Northern Zone became major players that shaped regional political development in the following Spring and Autumn period (770–475 bce). The upper Wei and Xihan River valleys were the most remote geopolitical space and remained an emerging frontier throughout the Western Zhou period. The region was occupied by Siwa communities and others whose material cultures showed clear connections with those from Anyang and the Zhou center. The local political landscape and the extent of the Zhou political presence were unclear during the early Western Zhou period. The region witnessed the rise of the Liya community and the Qin lineage, whose material culture showed intimate connections with that from the Zhou center during the middle Western Zhou period. Together with transmitted texts, this material culture suggests that the Zhou court might have had a certain degree of political authority over some groups in the region. The rise of the Qin lineage polity transformed the local political landscape in the late Western Zhou period. To what extent Qin was able to exercise its political control

240 CONCLUSIONS

over the others in the region, and to what extent the Zhou court could effectively manage Qin from the center, are unclear. These important questions need to be answered through future archaeological work. FRONTIER DYNAMICS AND CULTURAL PROCESSES

The northern frontiers were inhabited by native and immigrant communities of varied lineage and cultural backgrounds, as documented by bronze inscriptions, artifacts, and their uses in mortuary and residential spaces. Material cultures in the northern frontiers often showed a mixture of artifacts, rituals, and customs from Anyang, the Zhou center, the bronze-using cultures of the Northern Zone, and various local communities. Through the selective use of material culture and the Zhou written language, individuals and groups in the northern frontiers developed four distinct cultural processes. The first was cultural homogenization that features a widespread adoption of the culture from the center that resulted in a center-dominated identity, enabling local elites to “become Zhou.” This cultural identity was adopted by a number of groups, including those at Baicaopo, Yujiawan, and Yaoheyuan; the Ze lineage and the Shigushan community; and the Peng and Ba lineages (see chapters 1 to 3). These groups adopted the Zhou written language to various degrees, absorbed the bronze and pottery culture of the Zhou center, and synchronized their cultural development with the center. The second was cultural hybridization, characterized by a substantial integration of native and other cultures that led to the formation of a multicultural identity. It was most evident in the Yu lineage (see chapter 2) and in the Baifu (see chapter 4) and Liya communities (see chapter 5). The Yu lineage largely adopted the Zhou ritual culture, but at the same time it created bronze vessels, weapons, and personal ornaments with local roots. The Liya community modeled its burial customs after the Shang practices at Anyang but embraced both Zhou- and Siwa-type artifacts to create an inclusive identity. And the Baifu tombs mixed together artifacts in the style of the Northern Zone and the Zhou center. The third was cultural experimentation, in which the existing tradition was enhanced with limited foreign imports used primarily as prestige goods. This led to an enriched local identity with local pottery-making and burial customs continuing to be dominant. This identity was adopted by the people of the Zhangjiayuan and Weiyingzi cultures (see chapter 4). Personal

241 CONCLUSIONS

ornaments were signature material markers of Zhangjiayuan and Weiyingzi communities, but late Shang and Western Zhou bronzes were also included in tombs, either in a regular pattern (Zhangjiayuan) or sporadically (Weiyingzi), adding prestige to local elite members. The fourth was cultural continuation that preserved existing cultural traditions with little adoption of “foreign” cultural elements. This pattern can be seen in communities at Jiuzhan (see chapter 1), Jin (see chapter 3), Xibozi and Yan (see chapter 4), and Maojiaping (see chapter 5). Jiuzhan continued its Siwa cultural tradition, adopting little of either the Zhou or the Northern Zone style of artifacts. Xibozi was dominated by the cultural tradition of the Northern Zone, adopting little of the cultural elements from the Zhou center or the Zhangjiayuan culture. The Yan state at Liulihe largely insulated itself from both the surrounding Zhangjiayuan and the Northern Zone cultures. The Jin state showed remarkable cultural consistency with the Zhou center. Material culture at Maojiaping showed few changes and no adoption of the local Siwa culture throughout the Western Zhou period. Foreign cultures may not have been accessible or perhaps were resisted, or both. ARTIFACTS AS ACTIVE AGENTS

Artifacts are integral parts of human lives. Their styles and varied uses in residential and mortuary spaces project human perceptions and act upon human emotions, enabling people to mark their identities and show their allegiances. In the dynamic frontier environment studied in this book, artifacts enabled people to become active agents in shaping their cultural identities and negotiating their power relations. As these chapters have revealed, different artifacts reflected different identities across the Western Zhou northern frontiers. Local groups, such as those of the Siwa, Liujia, Zhangjiayuan, and Weiyingzi cultures, developed their own unique ceramic types. These communities expressed different preferences of the use of bronzes: for food or wine vessels (such as by the Shigushan, Ze, Yujiawan, Baicaopo, and Peng and Ba groups), for Northernstyle tools and weaponry (such as by Baifu and Xibozi), for metal earrings and armlets (such as by the Zhangjiayuan and Weiyingzi cultures), and for indigenous styles (such as by Yu). Mortuary customs shed further light on group or regional variations. While the tombs in the Zhou center were often oriented in a north-south direction, local groups in the lower Fen River valley and the northeastern

242 CONCLUSIONS

frontier oriented their tombs in an east-west direction. This distinction persisted into the Western Zhou period. Across the northern frontiers, while a number of groups chose to use a waist pit, a mortuary custom popular in Shang tombs at Anyang, at the same time many of their neighboring communities rejected that practice. The tomb niche was less popular, used only in a few communities (Shigushan, Yujiawan, and Ba). The flexed or prone postures were even rarer, only seen in tombs at Maojiaping, Zhangjiayuan, and the Peng cemetery. These aspects of material culture represent material symbols that are neither random nor passive; instead, they express varied identities. This book recognizes that material culture is dynamic and evolving, and so are the processes of identity construction. Aspects of material culture can be inherited or adopted. Some traits adopted in earlier periods became “inherited” traditions (such as the continuous use of Shang mortuary customs by the Peng and Ba cultures in the Western Zhou period). Some “inherited” traditions were replaced by newly “adopted” artifacts (such as the replacement of local-style li with the joint-crotched li at Shigushan and in the upper Jing River valley). Inherited or adopted traits were sometimes customized (with changed styles or meanings) to create a new dimension of the local material culture (such as the use of bronzes in Yu and the Zhangjiayuan communities and the use of three-footed urns and flare-mouthed jars in the Jin state). Across the northern frontiers, people decided what aspects of their inherited cultures to preserve or discontinue and what aspects of “foreign” cultures to adopt, manipulate, or reject (the Yan state is a prominent case of rejection of “other” cultures). The changing material cultures documented diverse cultural processes and varied identity constructions. Material culture can also help uncover the multidimensionality of identities within a group or lineage. Individuals in the same community such as Liya and Yujiawan made highly personalized choices to adopt or reject foreign artifacts and practices, therefore aligning with or diverging from the group identity. Identity can further be differentiated according to one’s gender or status. Gender differences were highlighted in tombs in some communities (such as the Yu and Peng lineages and the Jin state) but deemphasized in others (such as the Zhangjiayuan culture and the Maojiaping community). Female elite tombs, such as those of Bi Ji and Jing Ji, were used as a venue for a display of fused identities. The elite and non-elite use of pottery and mortuary customs was similar in some communities (such as in Baicaopo, Yujiawan, Dabuzishan, Zhangjiayuan, and Weiyingzi and by the Ze, Peng,

243 CONCLUSIONS

and Ba lineages) but different in others (such as in Shigushan and Xishan), creating shared or contrasting group identities within the community. The overwhelming similarity of mortuary practices at Qucun revealed a strong, shared group identity, but at the same time the varied tomb orientations exposed the different lineage backgrounds among the population. Some communities further fine-tuned their choices of pottery. At Liulihe, Jiuzhan, and Shigushan, for instance, foreign-style pottery was adopted for daily use but not for burials. Whether the individuals acted as agents for change or continuity, the material culture across the northern frontiers made their “voices” heard and their “stories” told. Inscriptional evidence, including the writing style and content of inscriptions, helps reveal the various ways that non-Ji groups in the northern frontiers adopted the Zhou written language, ritual culture, and social etiquette. This book analyzes the interment of inscribed bronzes in tombs or caches to uncover the movement of artifacts and the stories behind them (e.g., awarded vessels, marriage relations, and political contacts). More importantly, inscriptions reveal the lineage or ancestral backgrounds of many groups in the northern frontiers, whether they were of Ji or non-Ji lineages, the remnants of Shang, or derived from groups active in the Northern Zone. Using artifacts and inscriptional evidence together, this book further demonstrates the dynamic interplay between social or lineage background and cultural identities. Peng, Ba, and the communities at Shigushan and Baicaopo, all of non-Ji lineages, immersed themselves deeply in the cultural practices of the Zhou center. Yu, another non-Ji lineage, on the other hand, was keen to preserve its own indigenous cultural traditions. The Yan and Jin states, both dominated by the Ji lineages, as well as Zhou colonists, nonetheless developed different interactions with indigenous cultures. MANY WORLDS UNDER ONE HEAVEN: TOGETHER AND APART

Political-cultural processes and identity constructions were intertwined in the frontiers in various ways. They reinforced each other in some cases but charted their own independent paths in others. As a result, each frontier developed its own political, social, and cultural experiences, as delineated carefully in each of the chapters in this book. The traditional core-periphery perspective of Zhou cultural and political dominance fails to grasp the multiplicity and dynamism of the life experiences of individuals and groups across the frontiers. This book proposes, therefore, that the northern

244 CONCLUSIONS

frontiers should be recognized as a land of negotiation and that the resulting negotiated landscape should be understood more fittingly as “many worlds under one Heaven.” Through political engagements, ritual activities, gifting, and marriages, local polities, regional states, and the Zhou court created vast, overlapping social and political networks and nurtured a shared political belief among elites in both the frontiers and the Zhou center, as well as among the regions in the frontiers. In particular, intermarriages between Ji lineages in the center and non-Ji lineages in the frontiers, between non-Ji lineages and Zhou regional states, and among non-Ji lineages in the frontiers were instrumental in pulling the northern frontiers together. Marriages not only blurred political and cultural boundaries among peoples, but more significantly brought different peoples together into an ever-expanding kin-based Zhou social structure. Kin relation was the foundation of the Zhou sociopolitical structure and therefore opened doors for others to join the Zhou political system. At the same time, other forces were at work to pull the frontiers apart. The political ambitions of local leaders prompted them to switch their allegiance whenever the circumstances were favorable. The rise of various groups in the Northern Zone made parts of the northern frontiers increasingly vulnerable. The decline of Zhou central power weakened its ability to maintain political order in the frontiers. All these factors, as discussed in different chapters, created formidable forces to pull the northern frontiers away from the Zhou political system. It was the interplay between these forces that kept pulling frontiers together or apart, not only during the Western Zhou period, but also in the ensuing historical periods of ancient China.

NOTES

INTRODUCTION 1. Guanzhong 斄ᷕ, or “within the passes,” is located in present-day central Shaanxi 昅大. Geographically, it is an alluvial plain in the middle and lower Wei River valley that is enclosed by four passes: Dasan Pass ⣏㔋斄 to the west, Hangu Pass ↥察斄 to the east, Xiao Pass 唕斄 to the north, and Wu Pass 㬎斄 to the south. Guanzhong holds special political significance in Chinese history. The region became the homeland of the Zhou in the late twelfth century bce. Thereafter, it was the location of the capital (and the political center) of several major dynasties in Chinese history, including the Western Zhou ␐, Qin 䦎, Han 㻊, Sui 昳, and Tang Ⓒ, until the beginning of the tenth century. 2. The Jing-Jin-Tang Ṕ㳍Ⓒ alluvial plain, part of the northern part of the Huabei 厗 ⊿ Plain, is defined by the Yan 䅽 Mountains in the north and the Yellow River in the south. The region is under the jurisdiction of the present-day cities of Beijing ⊿Ṕ, Tianjin ⣑㳍, and Tangshan ⒸⰙ. During the Western Zhou period, travel between the region and the Zhou center in the Luo and Wei River valleys primarily took place along the eastern slope of the Taihang ⣒埴 Mountains due to the numerous marshes created by the ancient course of the Yellow River and its tributaries on the Huabei Plain. 3. The Zhou concept of “four lands” sìtǻ ⚃⛇ or “four quarters” sìfāng ⚃㕡 derived from the Shang dynasty. It refers to the Zhou political geography, which situated the king, the Son of Heaven, geographically and symbolically in the center, surrounded by lands and peoples in four directions. The dominance of Zhou over the “four lands” was at the core of this concept. For detailed discussions, see Wang Aihe 2000: 57–74. 4. Archaeological cultures of the late second and early first millennia bce in the northwestern frontiers include the Siwa ⮢䩒 culture (c. 1400–700 bce) in the upper Wei and upper Xihan River valleys, the Siwa and Nianzipo 䡦⫸✉ cultures (c. 1300–1000 bce) in the upper Jing River valley, and the Liujia ∱⭞ culture (c. 1400–1000 bce) in

246 NOTES

the Baoji region. North and west of the lower Fen River valley are material remains defined as the Shilu-Suide 䞛㦻-䴷⽟ type and/or Lijiaya 㛶⭞Ⲿ culture (c. 1400– 1100 bce). In the remote northeastern frontier, material remains in the Jing-Jin-Tang region from about 1300 bce to the mid-tenth century bce are named as the third phase of the Weifang ⚵⛲ᶱ㛇 and the Upper Zhangjiayuan ⻝⭞⚺ or Zhangjiayuan cultures, and those in western Liaoning as the Weiyingzi 櫷䆇⫸ (c. late second to first millennia bce) and Upper Xiajiadian ⢷⭞⸿ cultures (c. 1000–600 bce). 5. The terms “Northern Zone Bronzes” and “Northern Zone Bronze Complex” were first used by Chinese scholars Wu En 䁷】 and Lin Yun 㜿㰬 in the late 1980s to categorize the distinctive bronze weapons and tools found north of the Shang dynastic center at Anyang from the late Shang to early Western Zhou period (Wu En 1985: 135–56; Lin Yun 1987: 129–55). It is a distinctive bronze cultural zone and includes archaeological findings from the Yan mountainous region, northern Hebei, the Ordos region, and the regions on both sides of the Yellow River in the Jin-Shaan Plateau (Yang Jianhua 2008: 221–55). A recent study by Linduff, Sun, Cao, and Liu (Linduff et al. 2018: 12–14) emphasizes the Chinese “Northern Zone” as part of the Inner Asian frontier and examines the regional particularity and dynamic exchanges of metallurgy, artifacts, and ideas among the communities across the entire Inner Asian frontier. To avoid confusion, this book uses the term “Northern Zone” with the understanding that the region was an integral part of the Eastern Eurasia cultural zone in ancient times. Whenever appropriate, the connections between the material culture of the Northern Zone of ancient China and that of Eastern Eurasia are also addressed in this book.

1. AN OLD FRONTIER AND NEW CHALLENGES IN THE NORTHWEST 1. The Xiao Pass was located in the southeastern part of the present-day city of Guyuan ⚢⍇, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. It held strategic significance in early Chinese history (particularly the Han dynasty) because it was a main gateway to Guanzhong from the northwest. 2. Tomb 84CXM1 at Xiangshansi 楁Ⱉ⮢ presents an excellent illustration of the hybrid nature of late Shang material culture in the region (GWKY and CB 2009: 210–16). The  pit grave features a niche in the northern wall that contained seven ceramic vessels. The use of a niche was seen in tombs of the Liujia culture in the Baoji region. The seven vessels show diverse styles that originated from multiple sources. Three divided-crotched ceramic li tripods and two guan jars with round shoulders were types widely used in the Jing River valley and the Baoji region. A guan with a single handle (84CXM1: 4), however, resembles its counterparts of the Siwa culture, and another guan (84CXM1: 5) with two handles displays stylistic connections with those of the Liujia culture. 3. Xianyun 䌓䉩 is a name used in transmitted texts such as the Grand Scribe’s Records (Shiji ⎚姀) to identify one of the ancient groups that had engaged in prolonged battles with Zhou, likely since the reign of King Mu until the end of the dynasty. The Zhou-Xianyun conflicts had fundamentally shaped the political fortune of Zhou. The Xianyun were likely indigenous inhabitants of the region north of the Jing River

247 NOTES

valley. We know little about their demographic background or economic and political organization, and there are no archaeological remains to date that can be reliably attributed to the group (Li Feng 2006: 142–71). 4. Ercengtai ḴⰌ⎘ or “secondary ledge” is a term in Chinese archaeology referring to an earthen structure or ledges on four sides of a pit grave. During the Bronze Age, secondary ledges were often used to place mortuary offerings, including artifacts and human and animal sacrifices, in tombs. 5. The term “awarded vessels” or fēnqì ↮☐ is derived from two historical texts, the preface of the Book of Documents (Shangshu Zhengyi 1980: 193) and “Basic Annals of Zhou” (Zhoubenji ␐㛔䲨) of the Grand Scribe’s Records (Shiji 1982: 126–27), which record that King Wu distributed sacrificial vessels in Shang ancestral temples after the defeat of the Shang. A recent study by Huang Mingchong 湫所ⲯ (2012: 607–70) discusses this historical event through the comprehensive investigation of inscribed bronzes in Western Zhou tombs. 6. The term “hu” 傉 refers to the extended section of the lower blade of a ge dagger axe. Often the “hu” bears one or more perforations or slits for fastening.

2. A FRONTIER CLOSE TO HOME: LINEAGE POLITIES IN THE WESTERN BAOJI REGION 1. Supporting evidence for this proposal can be found in the inscription on vessels in the same tomb (BRM1). The inscription on a ding typical of the style of the Zhou center (BRM1-B: 12) ends with “ding gui,” and the inscription on a gui (BRM1-B: 6) in the tomb also ends with the same inscription. This suggests that the name “ding gui” on each vessel refers to both vessels in a set.

3. THE NORTH-CENTRAL FRONTIER: POLITICAL INTEGRATION AND CULTURAL HOMOGENIZATION 1. This view derived from archaeologists Yu Weichao ᾆ῱崭 and Gao Ming’s 檀㖶 interpretation of recordings in two primary pre-Qin transmitted texts, the Etiquette and Rites (Yili ₨䥖) and the Zuo Commentary (Zuozhuan ⶎ⁛), which state that nine ding tripods should indicate the status of the Zhou king and seven should indicate the regional rulers in the Western Zhou period (Yu and Gao 1978: 84–97). Li Xueqin 㛶⬠⊌ (1984: 207–8) and Wang Shimin 䌳ᶾ㮹 (1986: 163–65), on the other hand, endorse the twelve-ding proposal recorded in the Rites of Zhou (Zhouli ␐䥖). Lin Yun (1990: 12–24), however, points out in a subsequent paper that (1) there are discrepancies among pre-Qin historical texts regarding the number of ding in a set corresponding to the rank of the Zhou elite, and (2) what the transmitted texts recorded were practices in the Eastern Zhou period so using them to interpret Western Zhou archaeological materials is problematic (Lin Yun 1990: 12–24). In English literature, Lothar von Falkenhausen (2006: 49–51) considers the appearance of the standardized sets as one of the key indicators of Ritual Reform after 850 bce. The vibrant scholarly debate on the Western Zhou sumptuary rules has also exposed the challenges faced by scholars when using transmitted texts to assist the interpretation of archaeological materials.

248 NOTES

2. The use of the term here follows the convention in Chinese archaeology reports to show that the type was popular in Anyang tombs. It does not assume any affiliation of this type of gui with a particular lineage or group. 3. Ze ⣐ in this inscription is identified as “Yu” 嘆 based on the linguistic connection between the archaic forms of the two characters. Ze ⣐ is the phonetic component of Yu (Tang 1956: 79–83). 4. Two recently excavated Zeng 㚦 state cemeteries—at Yejiashan 叱⭞Ⱉ of the Western Zhou period (Fang Qin 2013: 10–15; Huang and Hu 2014a: 50–56) and at Zaoshulin 㡿㧡㜿 (Guo et al. 2019: 3–8; Guo et al. 2020: 3–30) of the Spring and Autumn period at Suizhou 晐ⶆ, Hubei 㷾⊿—have yielded bronzes with inscriptions indicating that the Zeng state was founded by the Nangong ⋿⭖ lineage. 5. The “Six Vessels of Anzhou,” ⬱ⶆℕ☐, collectively refer to the six bronze vessels discovered in the year 1119 during the reign of the Northern Song ⬳ emperor Hui Zong ⽥⬿, at Anzhou, present-day Xiaogan ⬅デ, Hubei. Inscriptions on the vessels were first recorded by Song antiquarian Zhao Mingcheng 嵁㖶婈 in the Recordings on Bronzes and Stones (Jinshilu 慹䞛抬). The illustrations of the vessels were published in the Illustrated Antiquities of Xuanhe Hall (Xuanhe bogutu ⭋␴⌂⎌⚾) compiled by Wang Fu 䌳溤 in 1223 (Liu Zhaorui 1992: 76–77). There are discrepancies in historical recordings about the time and location of the discovery and about the vessels in the group (Huang Yifei 2017: 60–63). Three bronzes cast by Zhong ᷕ, a yan and a pair of square ding, discussed here, are included in the Yinzhou jinwen jichen (JC: 949, 2751, 2752) edited by the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Science. 6. This Jin Jiang 㗳⦄ should not be confused with the other Jin Jiang who commissioned the widely known Jin Jiang ding dated to the early Spring and Autumn period. The latter Jin Jiang was the wife of Jin Wenhou 㗱㔯ὗ and an influential figure in the Jin state in the mid-eighth century bce. She was likely from the Qi 滲 state of the Jiang surname (Li Xueqin 1999a: 75–82; Cao Zhaolan 㚡⃮嗕 2004: 238–41). 7. The brief excavation report in 2006 dated M1 and M2 to King Mu’s reign based primarily on the style of artifacts in both tombs. But Han Wei 杻⵵ (2007a: 348–54) and Maria Khayutina (2017: 71–132) used both bronze inscriptions and style to date M1 to the end of King Gong’s reign or the beginning of King Yih’s reign, from the end of the tenth to the beginning of the ninth centuries bce. 8. Mièlì 咹⌮, “acknowledgment of merits,” refers to a ritual ceremony recorded in Western Zhou bronze inscriptions that was often performed by a superior individual in recognition of a subordinate’s merit. Gift awards frequently followed the recounting of the merit. From the early Western Zhou to the early phase of the middle Western Zhou periods, this ritual was often performed to honor the military merit of the recipient (Li Feng 2008: 226–29). 9. The content of the inscription on the three vessels is the same except for the different vessel names, “yan,” “pan,” and “he.” The pan and he, according to their style and inscription, were likely cast as a pair. The inscription on the pan reads, “Ruibo respectfully bows and dares to make this pan for king’s sister, may [she and] Pengbo [use it for] ten thousand years [and to] entertain king’s envoys” (ℭ(剖)䘥(ỗ)㊄䧥椾,㔊᷵ġ (ἄ)䌳⥲䚀,℞䚼᾿䘥(ỗ),怩(ᶯ)⸜䓐悟(ṓ)䌳微ὄ). There are different readings on the identity of “wangzi” 䌳⥲, which may mean either the older sister of the (Zhou) king or the respectful sister of Ruibo if “wang” is interpreted as “huang” 䘯. In the context of the sentence, in this case, the first interpretation is more appropriate and, therefore, is adopted here.

249 NOTES

10. The dating of M1 at Taiqinggong and the identity of the tomb occupant are still a matter of debate. The excavators dated the tomb to the beginning of Zhou, no later than King Cheng’s reign, based on bronze style and burial customs. Li Feng, after analyzing the writing style of the inscriptions and the shape and ornamentation of the bronzes, suggests that the tomb should be dated to King Kang’s reign or later (Li Feng 2008: 104–16). The tomb occupant is identified as Changzikou 攟⫸⎋ (HWKY and ZW 2000: 209–10) or Weizi Qi ⽖⫸⓻, the first ruler of the Song ⬳ state recorded in transmitted texts (Wang Entian 2002: 41–45; Zhang Changshou 2002: 77–79). 11. Three gui in M1017 record the same mièlì ceremony: nos. 8 and 40 (as a pair), and 35. 12. BǷngwǻ ᷁⋰ (day 43) is a day in the gānzhī-day ⸡㓗 designation, one day of the 60-day calendrical cycle created by combing a series of ten heavenly stems (tiān’gān ⣑⸡) and twelve earthly branches (dìzhī ⛘㓗) (Shaughnessy 1999: 19–20). The gānzhī-day designation is one of the four calendrical elements in Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, and the other three are the year of reign, the month, and the portion of the month. The four elements are crucial information for dating Western Zhou bronzes (Shaughnessy 1991: 134–36). The gānzhī day sometimes occurred in combination with the portion of the month, like “the dying brightness” (the last quarter of the month according to the lunar calendar) in this inscription.

4. THE NORTHEASTERN FRONTIER: COLONIZATION, CONFRONTATION, AND COLLABORATION 1. The Datuotou ⣏✐柕 culture (c. nineteenth to thirteenth centuries bce) is an early Bronze Age archaeological culture named after the Datuotou site in Dachang ⣏⺈, Hebei, excavated in 1964. Material remains of the Datuotou culture had long been considered as a regional variant of the Lower Xiajiadian culture until 1984, when it was recognized as an independent archaeological culture (Han Jiagu 1984: 220–29). Bronzes of the Datuotou culture were primarily ornaments and implements, including loop and trumpet-shaped earrings, rings, armlets, hairpins, needles, knives, and arrowheads (Wu En 2007: 40–60). Many of the ceramic wares and mortuary traditions of the Datuotou culture continued to be used in the succeeding archaeological cultures in the region, the Phase III of the Weifang culture and the Zhangjiayuan culture. 2. Cèmìng ℴ␥ was a verbal commission, charge, or command that was also documented in the form of a bronze inscription. Three important rites were often performed during the ceremony: ancestral sacrifices to King Wu, the issuing of the charge by the king, and the bestowal of colored soil, which symbolically showed the offering of the land to the ruler of the regional state. The Ke he ⃳䙱 and the Ke lei ⃳仵, discussed here, are among the rare early Western Zhou examples that capture the king’s command. The inscriptions start by reciting the king’s verbal commission, and they then express the key content of the charge, which includes bestowing land and population. Unlike the investiture or appointment inscriptions in the later period, the inscriptions on the Ke he and Ke lei do not mention when and where the ceremony took place. In his research of the Western Zhou bureaucracy, Li Feng proposes that cèmìng was an administrative procedure and a defining feature of Zhou government. He further points out that after the early phase of the middle Western Zhou period there was a significant increase in appointment inscriptions that diligently document

250 NOTES

every procedure of the court ceremony, suggesting that the symbolic recognition of social esteem was highly desirable during that time (Li Feng 2008: 103–14). 3. The construction of the new capital and its political significance are recorded in the chapters entitled “The Announcement of the Duke of Shao” (Shaogao ⎔官) and “The Announcement Concerning Luo” (Luogao 㳃官) in the Book of Documents (Shangshu Zhengyi 1980: 211–14, 214–17; Legge [1865] 2004: 140–51), and also in the inscription on He zun ỽ⮲ (JC: 6014), an early Western Zhou vessel found in Baoji (Tang 1976: 60–61). 4. For a brief discussion on “awarded vessels,” see chapter 1. 5. Ya Ṇ is a graph that is often used in conjunction with the lineage emblem in inscriptions on late Shang and Western Zhou period bronzes. It is thought that Ya represents a high position at the Shang court and can be used interchangeably with “hou” ὗ, the archer lord. The position was, therefore, equivalent to hou or was sometimes used in conjunction with hou, as in the case of Jihouyayi 䬽ὗṆ䞋 discussed here. Bronzes carrying the Ya graph are often found in high-ranking elite tombs at the late Shang capital Anyang (He Jingcheng 2009: 46–61). 6. The site report published in 1995 did not provide details regarding the placement of these bronze roundels in tomb M252. Research indicates that bronze roundels like these would have been originally attached onto lacquered shields, based on the meaning of the character “yang” recorded in transmitted texts (Cheng Dong 1989: 71–79; He and Luo 2005: 44–52). The discovery of lacquered shields decorated with bronze roundels carrying the same inscription in tomb M1193 lends support to this proposal (LK 1990: 20–31). The inscriptions on the roundels, “the yang of Yanhou for the grand dance” (⋥ὗ准挂), also inform us that the original shields were used at the grand dance, a ceremonial dance performed during the annual ancestral sacrifices. A bronze ji halberd inscribed with “ji halberd of Yanhou for the grand dance” (⋥ὗ准ㆰ) was also found in M1193, hinting that the weapon was likely used in conjunction with the shields at the same ceremony. 7. Xing 恊 was a Zhou regional state established in the early phase of the early Western Zhou period in present-day Xingtai 恊⎘, Hebei, about three hundred kilometers south of Liulihe. The inscription on the well-known Xinghou gui 恊ὗ䮳 (JC: 4241), thought to have originally been interred in a Xing tomb at Xingtai, documents that Xing was founded by the descendants of the Duke of Zhou. Excavations in the 1990s at Nanxiaowang ⋿⮷㖢 and Gejiazhuang 吃⭞匲 have uncovered inscribed oracle bones and 230 burials of the Xing state of the Western Zhou period (HWY and XWG 1992: 241-50; Ren, Guo and Li 1999: 7-25; Zhang and Duan 2008: 59–66). 8. The arguments can be summarized as follows: Through tracing the history of Yayi bronzes, Cao and Yin (1986: 191–99) suggest that the lineage received the title “Jihou” (Ruler of Ji) near the end of the Shang period and that it continuously lived in an area adjacent to Liulihe from the late Shang to the Western Zhou periods. Zhang Yachu ⻝Ṇ⇅ ([1993] 1995: 223–30) go further to suggest that the lineage might have resided in the Niulanshan area, where a group of bronzes cast by the descendants of Jizi were found. Zhu Yanmin 㛙⼍㮹 (1997: 218–25) suggests, however, that the Ji lineage derived from Jizi and that the walled city at Liulihe was the capital of the enfeoffed land of Jizi during the late Shang period but was taken over by Yan as its new capital at the beginning of the early Western Zhou period. This proposal, however, was undermined by archaeological evidence that the city walls at Liulihe discovered so far are dated to no earlier than the early Western Zhou period. Jae-hoon Shim (2002: 271–305) investigates the historicity of Jizi and the Ji lineage’s eastward movement

251 NOTES

through inscriptions on animal bones and bronzes and their find spots. He concludes that the lineage was relocated to northwestern China during the early Western Zhou period. Based on oracle bone inscriptions and find spots of bronzes inscribed with the Ji lineage sign, Minna Wu (2013: 207–19) proposes that the Ji lineage was split during the early Western Zhou period: one branch was relocated to the Beijing area close to the state of Yan, and the other to Tengzhou in association with the Teng state. She further suggests that Ji lineage members were sent by the ruler of Yan to the outpost in Liaoning. 9. These sites include Liulidian ∱㛶⸿, Xueshan 暒Ⱉ, Tazhao ⟼䄏, Xiaoguanzhuang ⮷⭀匲, Weifang ⚵⛲, and Zhangjiayuan ⻝⭞⚺. 10. Some of the artifacts at Xiaoshandongzhuang were discovered during road construction, and others were washed out by rain. Remains of human bones were found near the artifacts, which led the archaeologists to suggest that they were originally buried in a tomb. While it is likely true that the artifacts were grave goods, it is possible that they could have belonged not to one, but multiple, tombs. 11. The Capital Museum of Beijing conducted X-ray analyses of some bronzes in the Liujiahe tombs. The results were shared with the author in 2015, but details of the analyses have not yet been published. 12. Examples are Shizikou 䋭⫸⎋ in Huaian ㆟⬱ (Liu Jianzhong 1988: 941) and Hejiaying 屨⭞䆇 in Weichang ⚵⟜ (Peng Liping 1993: 88). 13. The “seven vessels of Liangshan” 㠩Ⱉᶫ☐ refer to a group of seven inscribed bronzes discovered in the late nineteenth century at present-day Liangshan, Shandong. These vessels include the Xichen Yu xi zun ⮷冋ᾆ䈨⮲, the Taibao ding ⣒ᾅ溶, the Taibao gui ⣒ᾅ䮳, the Taishi You yan ⣒⎚⍳䒿, the Xian ding ㅚ溶, and the two Tai Bao X ding ⣒ᾅX 溶. Except for the first zun, the rest of the bronzes were cast by lineage members of the Duke of Shao and provide invaluable evidence on the genealogy of the lineage (Chen Ping 2006: 288–93).

5. THE EMERGING FRONTIER IN THE FAR WEST: THE UPPER WEI AND XIHAN RIVER VALLEYS 1. The origin of the Qin 䦎 lineage has been the focus of investigations of Qin history in modern times. Two theories, the “eastern” and “western” origins, have been proposed. Wang Guowei 䌳⚳䵕 (2001c: 271–74) first proposed that the Qin ancestors were the Rong and Di groups. Meng Wentong 呁㔯忂 further suggested that the Qin derived from the Western Rong and were possibly part of Quanrong 䉔ㆶ (Meng 1936: 17–20). This “western origin” theory later was endorsed by archaeologists such as Yu Weichao ᾆ῱崭 (Yu [1980] 1985: 180–92) and Liu Qingzhu ∱ㄞ㞙 (1982: 176–81). The “eastern origin” theory was first proposed by Xu Zhongshu ⼸ᷕ冺 ([1927] 2008: 1–8) and later expanded by Fu Sinian ‭㕗⸜ in his seminal paper “Yi Xia dong xi shuo” ([1933] 1996: 187–240). It traces the root of the Qin to the Eastern Yi (Dongyi ᷄⣟) of the late Shang period in Shandong. Archaeologists who hold the “eastern origin theory” have tried to identify and summarize the specific material characteristics of the Qin, including the tomb structure, posture, and head orientation of the deceased and the use of certain pottery types. The “eastern-origin theory” has been reinvigorated recently since the launch of the project titled “Archaeology of the Early Qin Culture” in 2004. Archaeologists Zhao Huacheng 嵁⊾ㆸ and Liang Yun 㠩暚, the two major organizers of this project, propose that the Qin moved from Shandong first

252 NOTES

to southern Shanxi and then to eastern Gansu (Zhao 2013: 39–47; Liang 2011: 1–28). Historian Li Xueqin 㛶⬠⊌ (2011c) endorses the “eastern origin theory” based on the recording of early Qin history in the “Xinian” 䲣⸜ section of the bamboo slips of the Warring States period in the collection at Qinghua University. For a review of the Qin origin in English literature, see Falkenhausen 2006: 234–35 and Li Feng 2006: 262–64. 2. The project “Archaeology of the Early Qin Culture” 㖑㛇䦎㔯⊾侫⎌, launched in 2004, is a joint venture by several universities and research institutions, including Peking University, Northwestern University, the National Museum of China, the Gansu Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, and the Shaanxi Archaeological Research Institute. The goal of the project is to locate the sites and material remains of the early Qin culture in the upper Wei and upper Xihan River valleys. The joint team carried out archaeological surveys in the upper Xihan River valley, the Niutou 䈃柕 River valley, and the middle and lower Qian River valley. Excavations were also conducted at Maojiaping 㮃⭞✒, Liya 㛶Ⲿ, Luantingshan 淦ṕⰙ, Xishan 大Ⱉ, and Dabuzishan ⣏⟉⫸Ⱉ. The results of the project have been published in two major reports—Report of Archaeological Surveys at the Upper Xihan River Valley (GWK et al. 2008) and Qingshui Liuping (GWKY and QB 2014)—and numerous journal articles. Other reports of the project are summarized in Liang Yun 2017: 149–74. 3. The bamboo texts, written on more than two thousand pieces of bamboo slips and dated to the middle and late Warring States periods, were donated to Qinghua University in 2008. Among them are 138 bamboo slips collectively known as Xinian 䲣⸜ that record the history from King Wu of Zhou to the early Warring States period. In the third chapter of Xinian, the bamboo texts contain a brief passage on the history of the Qin: “Fei Lian fled east to the Shangyan lineage [after the fall of Shang]. King Cheng launched a military campaign against the rebellion in the east, including Shanyan, and killed Fei Lian. The subjects of Shangyan were relocated to Zhu to fight against the Rong at Nu. And they became the ancestors of the Qin” (梃 (⹱)㜙徫Ḷ⓮䙵 (吊) 㮷ˤㆸ䌳Ẹ⓮䙵 (吊), 㭢梃 (⹱), 大怟⓮䙵(吊)ᷳ㮹Ḷ恦, ẍ䥎⤜ᷳㆶ, 㗗䦎⃰Ṣ). Li Xueqin (2011c) reads this entry as evidence for the relocation by King Cheng of the Qin ancestors from Shandong to Gangu in eastern Gansu. This information in Xinian, however, contradicts a passage in the Grand Scribe’s Records that states that Fei Lian was buried in the Huotai 暵⣒ Mountains in Shanxi (Shiji 1982: 174–75). 4. The twenty-eight sites were roughly dated to the Zhou period, which includes both the Western and Eastern Zhou periods (1045–221 bce), primarily due to the limited sherds the survey was able to collect at the sites. A few sites, such as Liya and Liushuyuan 㞛㧡⠔, yielded sherds that can be dated to the Western Zhou period. But it is unclear exactly how many of the other Zhou-date sites were occupied in the Western Zhou period. The settlement pattern based on the survey data in the Niutou River valley, therefore, should be considered preliminary and should be reevaluated when more data from the sites are available.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FREQUENTLY CITED CHINESE-LANGUAGE JOURNALS Baoji shehui kexue ⮞暆䣦㚫䥹⬠ Beifang wenwu ⊿㕡㔯䈑 Bianjiang kaogu yanju 怲䔮侫⎌䞼䨞 Gudai wenming ⎌ẋ㔯㖶 Gudai wenming yanjiu tongxun ⎌ẋ㔯㖶䞼䨞忂妲 Jianghan kaogu 㰇㻊侫⎌ Kaogu 侫⎌ Kaogu tongxun 侫⎌忂妲 Kaogu xuebao 侫⎌⬠⟙ Kaogu yu wenwu 侫⎌冯㔯䈑 Liaohai wenwu xuekan 怤㴟㔯䈑⬠↲ Lishi yanjiu 㙮⎚䞼䨞 Renwen zazhi Ṣ㔯暄娴 Wenbo 㔯⌂ Wenwu 㔯䈑 Zhongguo guojia bowuguan guankan ᷕ⚳⚳⭞⌂䈑棐棐↲ Zhongguo lishi wenwu ᷕ⚳㙮⎚㔯䈑 Zhongguo wenwubao ᷕ⚳㔯䈑⟙ Zhongyuan wenwu ᷕ⍇㔯䈑

SOURCES Adelman, Jeremy, and Stephen Aron. 1999. “From Borderlands to Borders: Empires, Nation-States, and the Peoples in Between in North American History.” American Historical Review 104, no. 3: 814–41.

254 BIBLIOGRAPHY

An, Zhimin ⬱⽿㓷. 1954. “Tangshan shiguanmu jiqi xiangguan de yiwu” ⒸⰙ䞛㢢⠻⍲ ℞䚠斄䘬怢䈑 [Stone Cist Burials at Tangshan and Related Artifacts]. Kaogu xuebao 7: 77–86. Anderton, Douglas L. 1986. “Intermarriage of Frontier Immigrant, Religious and Residential Groups: An Examination of Macrostructural Assimilation.” Sociological Inquiry 56: 341–53. BK. Baoji shi kaogudui ⮞暆ⶪ侫⎌昲. 1989. “Baoji shi Zhifangtou yizhi shijue baogao” ⮞暆ⶪ䳁⛲柕怢⛨娎㍀⟙⏲ [A Report of a Trial Excavation at Zhifangtou, Baoji]. Wenwu 5: 47–55. BKG. Baoji shi kaogu gongzuodui ⮞暆ⶪ侫⎌ⶍἄ昲. 1998. “Shaanxi Baoji shi Gaojiacun yizhi fajue jianbao” 昅大⮞暆ⶪ檀⭞㛹怢⛨䘤㍀䯉⟙ [A Brief Excavation Report on Gaojiacun, Baoji, Shaanxi]. Kaogu 4: 1–6. Barfield, Thomas. 1989. Perilous Frontiers: Nomadic Empires and China 221 B.C. to AD 1757. Cambridge, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. BDK and SKY. Beijing daxue kaoguxi ⊿Ṕ⣏⬠侫⎌⬠䲣 and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo Ⱉ大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞㇨. 1993. “1992 nian chuntian Tianma-Qucun yizhi muzang fajue baogao” 1992 ⸜㗍⣑楔炼㚚㛹怢⛨⠻吔䘤㍀⟙⏲ [Report on Excavation of Tombs at the Site of Tianma-Qucun in the Spring of 1992]. Wenwu 3: 11–30. ——. 1994a. “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jinhou mudi dierci fajue” ⣑楔炼㚚㛹怢⛨ ⊿嵁㗱ὗ⠻⛘䫔Ḵ㫉䘤㍀ [The Second Excavation at the Beizhao Cemetery of the Rulers of Jin at the Tianma-Qucun Site]. Wenwu 1: 4–28. ——. 1994b. “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jinhou mudi disanci fajue” ⣑楔炼㚚㛹怢 ⛨⊿嵁㗱ὗ⠻⛘䫔ᶱ㫉䘤㍀ [The Third Excavation at the Beizhao Cemetery of the Rulers of Jin at the Tianma-Qucun Site]. Wenwu 8: 22–33, 68. ——. 1994c. “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jinhou mudi disici fajue” ⣑楔炼㚚㛹怢⛨⊿ 嵁㗱ὗ⠻⛘䫔⚃㫉䘤㍀ [The Fourth Excavation Campaign at the Beizhao Cemetery of the Rulers of Jin at the Tianma-Qucun Site]. Wenwu 8: 4–21. ——. 1995. “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jinhou mudi diwuci fajue” ⣑楔炼㚚㛹怢⛨⊿ 嵁㗱ὗ⠻⛘䫔Ḽ㫉䘤㍀ [The Fifth Excavation Campaign at the Beizhao Cemetery of the Rulers of Jin at the Tianma-Qucun Site]. Wenwu 7: 4–39. BDKW and SKY. Beijing daxue kaogu wenboyuan ⊿Ṕ⣏⬠侫⎌㔯⌂昊 and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo Ⱉ大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞㇨. 2001. “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jinhou mudi diliuci fajue” ⣑楔-㚚㛹怢⛨⊿嵁㗱ὗ⠻⛘䫔ℕ㫉䘤㍀ [The Sixth Excavation at the Beizhao Cemetery of the Rulers of Jin at the Tianma-Qucun Site]. Wenwu 8: 4–21, 55. BDK and BWY. Beijing daxue kaoguxi ⊿Ṕ⣏⬠侫⎌䲣 and Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo ⊿Ṕⶪ㔯䈑䞼䨞㇨. 1996a. “1995 nian Liulihe Zhoudai juzhi fajue jianbao” 1995 ⸜␐ẋ⯭⛨䘤㍀䯉⟙ [A Brief Report on the Excavation of Zhou Period Residential Site at Liulihe in 1995]. Wenwu 6: 4–15. ——. 1996b. “1995 nian Liulihe yizhi muzangqu fajue jianbao” 1995 ⸜␐ẋ怢⛨⠻吔⋨ 䘤㍀䯉⟙ [A Brief Report on the Excavation of Zhou Period Cemetery at Liulihe in 1995]. Wenwu 6: 16–27. BWG. Beijing shi wenwu guanlichu ⊿Ṕⶪ㔯䈑䭉䎮嗽. 1976. “Beijing diqu de you yi zhongyao kaogu shouhuo—Changping Baifu Xi Zhou muguomu de xinqishi” ⊿Ṕ ⛘⋨䘬⍰ᶨ慵天侫⎌㓞䌚-㖴⸛䘥㴖大␐㛐㢩⠻䘬㕘⓻䣢 [Another Important Archaeological Discovery at the Beijing Area—A New Insight on the Study of Western Zhou Wooden-Coffined Tombs at Baifu]. Kaogu 4: 247–58, 228. ——. 1977. “Beijing shi Pinggu xian faxian Shangdai muzang” ⊿Ṕⶪ⸛察䷋䘤䎦⓮ẋ⠻ 吔 [Shang Date Burials Discovered at Pinggu, Beijing]. Wenwu 11: 1–8.

255 BIBLIOGRAPHY

——. 1979. “Beijing shi Yanqing xian Xibozicun jiaocang tongqi” ⊿Ṕⶪ⺞ㄞ䷋大㑍⫸㛹 䨾啷戭☐ [Bronzes from a Cache at Xibozicun, Yanqing, Beijing]. Kaogu 3: 227–230. BWY. Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo ⊿Ṕⶪ㔯䈑䞼䨞㇨. 1990. Beijing kaogu sishinian ⊿Ṕ侫⎌⚃⋩⸜ [Forty Years of Archaeology in Beijing]. Beijing: Yanshan Press. ——. 1995. Liulihe Xi Zhou Yanguo mudi, 1973–1977 䎱䐫㱛大␐䅽⚳⠻⛘ 1973–1977 [Yan State Cemetery of the Western Zhou Period at Liulihe, 1973–1977]. Beijing: Wenwu Press. —— (ed.). 1997. Beijing jiancheng 3040 nian ji Yan wenming guoji xueshu yantaohui huiyi zhuanji ⊿Ṕ⺢❶ġ3040 ⸜㙐䅽㔯㖶⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫㚫嬘⮰廗 [International Symposium on the Yan Culture and the Establishment of City Beijing for 3040 Years], edited by Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo. Beijing: Yanshan Press. ——. 1999. Zhengjiangying-Tazhao.捖㰇䆇-⟼䄏 [The Zhenjiangying—Tazhao Site]. Beijing: the Encyclopedia of China Publishing House. ——. 2007. Jundushan mudi 幵悥Ⱉ⠻⛘ [The Jundushan Cemetery]. Beijing: Wenwu Press. BWY, BDKW, and ZSK. Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo ⊿Ṕⶪ㔯䈑䞼䨞㇨, Beijing daxue kaogu wenboyuan ⊿Ṕ⣏⬠侫⎌㔯⌂昊, and Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo ᷕ⚳䣦㚫䥹⬠昊侫⎌䞼䨞㇨. 2000. “1997 nian Liulihe yizhi muzang fajue jianbao” 1997 ⸜䎱䐫㱛怢⛨⠻吔䘤㍀䯉⟙ [A Brief Report on the Excavation of Burials at Liulihe in 1997]. Wenwu 11: 32–38. Bhabha, Homi K. 1996. “Cultures In-Between.” In Questions of Cultural Identity, edited by Stuart Hall and Paul D. Gay. London: Routledge. Bu, Gong ⌄ⶍ. 1989. “Yanshan diqu Xia Shang shiqi de taoli puxi” 䅽Ⱉ⛘⋨⢷⓮㗪㛇 䘬昞櫚嬄䲣 [On the Typology of li Tripods of the Xia and Shang Periods in the Yan Mountainous Region]. Beifang wenwu 2: 30–38. Bunker, Emma, Trudy Kawami, Katheryn M. Linduff, and Wu En. 1997. Ancient Bronzes of the Eastern Eurasian Steppes: The Arthur M. Sackler Collection. Washington, DC: Sackler/Freer Gallery Smithsonian Institution. Cai, Yunzhang 哉忳䪈, and Chen Chang’an 昛攟⬱. 1983. “Fengguo tongqi ji xiangguan wenti” 寸⚳戭☐⍲䚠斄⓷柴 [Bronzes of the Feng Lineage and Related Questions]. Kaogu yu wenwu 6: 69–71, 52. Cao, Dingyun 㚡⭂暚. [2008] 2015. “Beijing Liulihe chutu de Xi Zhou bujia yu Shaogong bu ‘Chengzhou’ ” ⊿Ṕ䎱䐫㱛↢⛇䘬大␐⌄䓚冯⎔℔⌄ ‘ㆸ␐’ [Western Zhou Date Oracle Bones from Liulihe, Beijing, and Shaogong’s Divination of ‘Chengzhou’]. In Liulihe yizhi yu Yan wenhua yanjiu lunwenji: Jinnian Beijing jiancheng 3060 nian 䎱 䐫㱛怢⛨冯䅽㔯⊾䞼䨞婾㔯普: 䲨⾝⊿Ṕ⺢❶3060⸜ [Theses on the Liulihe Site and the Study of the Yan Culture: In Commemoration of the Founding of Beijing for 3060 Years], edited by Beijing shi Xi Zhou Yandu yizhi bowuguan, pp. 217–21. Beijing: Kexue Press. Cao, Shuqin 㚡㵹䏜. 1995. “Bo Ju tongqiqun jiqi xiangguan wenti” ỗ䞑戭☐佌⍲℞ 䚠斄⓷柴 [Bo Ju Bronzes and Related Issues]. In Yan wenhua yanjiu lunwenji 䅽㔯 ⊾䞼䨞婾㔯普 [Theses on the Study of the Yan Culture], edited by Cheng Guang, pp. 200–207. Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Press. Cao, Shuqin, and Yin Weizhang 㭟䏳䐳. 1986. “Yayi tongqi jiqi xiangguan wenti” Ṇ䞋戭 ☐⍲℞䚠斄⓷柴 [Yayi Bronzes and Related Issues]. In Zhongguo kaoguxue yanjiu— Xia Nai xiansheng kaogu wushi nian jinian lunwenji ᷕ⚳侫⎌⬠䞼䨞: ⢷溸⃰䓇侫 ⎌Ḽ⋩⸜䲨⾝婾㔯普 [Chinese Archaeological Research—A Collection of Essays in Celebration of Mr. Xia Nia’s Fifty Years of Archaeological Work], edited by Zhongguo kaoguxue yanjiu bianweihui, pp. 191–99. Beijing: Wenwu Press.

256 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cao, Wei 㚡䏳. 2000. “Shilun Rujiazhuang Xi Zhou mudi de qiyong zhidu—jianlun Xi Zhou houqi qiyong zhidu de yuanliu” 娎婾勡⭞匲大␐⠻⛘䘬☐䓐⇞⹎—ℤ婾大␐ ⼴㛇☐䓐⇞⹎䘬㸸㳩 [The Use of Bronze Ritual Vessels in the Western Zhou Period Cemetery at Rujiazhuang]. In Zhongguo kaoguxue kuashiji de huigu yu qianzhan ᷕ ⚳侫⎌⬠嶐ᶾ䲨䘬⚆栏冯⇵䝣 (1999⸜大昝⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫㔯普) [Retrospect and Prospect of Chinese Archaeology at the Turn of the Century], edited by Zhang Zhongpei ⻝⾈➡ and Hsu Cho-yun 姙῔暚, pp. 274–80. Beijing: Kexue Press. ——. 2002. “Shuze fang ding mingwen zhong de jisili” ⍼⣐㕡溶撕㔯ᷕ䘬䤕䣨䣤 [Sacrificial Rituals Recorded in the Inscription of Shuze Square ding]. In Jinhou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 㗱ὗ⠻⛘↢⛇曺戭☐⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫 婾㔯普 [Essays of the International Conference on Bronzes from the Jinhou Cemetery], edited by Shanghai bowuguan ᶲ㴟⌂䈑棐, pp. 272–76. Shanghai: Shanghai Shuhua Press. ——. [1998] 2004. “Cong qingtongqi de Yanhua shilun Xi Zhou qianhouqi zhijiao de lizhi bianhua” ⽆曺戭☐䘬㺼⊾娎婾大␐⇵⼴㛇ᷳṌ䘬䥖⇞嬲⊾. In Zhouyuan yizhi yu Xi Zhou tongqi yanjiu ␐⍇怢⛨冯大␐戭☐䞼䨞 [The Zhouyuan Site and the Study of Western Zhou Bronzes], by Cao Wei, pp. 91–106. Beijing: Kexue Press. ——. 2005. Zhouyuan chutu de qingtongqi ␐⍇↢⛇曺戭☐ [Bronzes from Zhouyuan]. Chengdu: Bashu Press. ——. 2006. Hanzhong chutu de qingtongqi 㻊ᷕ↢⛇⓮ẋ曺戭☐ [Shang Date Bronzes from Hanzhong]. Chengdu: Bashu Press. Cao, Zhaolan 㚡⃮嗕. 2004. Jinwen yu Yin Zhou nüxing wenhua 慹㔯冯㭟␐⤛⿏㔯⊾ [Bronze Inscriptions and Female Culture of the Yin Zhou Period]. Beijing: Peking University Press. Chen, Chao-jung 昛㗕⭡. 2007. “Cong qingtongqi mingwen kan liang Zhou wangshi hunyin guanxi” ⽆曺戭☐所㔯䚳ℑ␐䌳⭌⨂⦣斄Ὢ. Guwenzi yu gudaishi 1 ⎌㔯 ⫿冯⎌ẋ⎚䫔ᶨ廗 [Paleography and Ancient History, vol. 1], pp. 253–92. Taipei: Academia Sinica. ——. 2009. “Cong qingtongqi mingwen kan liang Zhou Yidi Huaxia de ronghe” ⽆曺戭 ☐所㔯䚳ℑ␐⣟䉬厗⢷䘬圵⎰ [The Intermingling of Huaxia and Yidi from Bronze Inscriptions]. In Guwenzi yu Gudaishi: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo huiyi lunwenji zhi jiu ⎌㔯⫿冯⎌ẋ⎚-ᷕ⣖䞼䨞昊㙮⎚婆妨䞼䨞㇨㚫嬘婾㔯普 ᷳḅ, edited by the Institute of History and Philology, pp. 18–96. Taipei: Academia Sinica. ——. 2012. “Ze Ji yu San Ji: cong nüxing chengming guilü tan Zeguo zuxing jiqi xiangguan wenti” ⣐⦔冯㔋⦔-⽆⤛⿏䧙⎵夷⼳婯⣐⚳㕷⥻⍲℞䚠斄⓷柴 [Ze Ji and San Ji: On the Surname of the Ze Lineage and Related Issues from the Perspective of the Naming Practice of Women]. In Guwenzi yu gudaishi (vol. III) ⎌㔯⫿冯⎌ẋ⎚, edited by the Institute of History and Philology, pp. 251–86. Taipei: Academia Sinica, ——. 2014. “Liang Zhou Yi Xia zuqun ronghe zhong de hunyin guanxi” ℑ␐⣟⢷㕷佌 圵⎰ᷕ䘬⨂⦣斄䲣 [Marriage Relations in the Intermingling of Yi and Xia Groups During the Zhou Dynasty]. In Liang Zhou fengguo lunheng: Shaanxi Hancheng chutu Ruiguo wenwu ji Zhoudai fengguo kaoguxue yanjiu lunwenji ℑ␐⮩⚳婾堉烉昅大杻 ❶↢⛇剖⚳㔯䈑㙐␐ẋ⮩⚳侫⎌⬠䞼䨞⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫婾㔯普 [Discussions on Regional States of the Zhou: Rui Artifacts from Hancheng and Collected Essays on the International Conference on Archaeological Research on Zhou Regional States], edited by the Shanghai Museum and Institute of Archaeology of Shaanxi Province, pp. 88–106. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Press.

257 BIBLIOGRAPHY

—— (ed.) 2015. Baoji Daijiawan yu Shigushan chutu Shang Zhou qingtongqi ⮞暆㇜⭞䀋 冯䞛溻Ⱉ↢⛇⓮␐曺戭☐ [Shang and Zhou Bronzes from Daijiawan and Shigushan at Baoji]. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academic Sinica. ——. 2017. “On the Possibility of Two Western Zhou States Yu and Rui Originally in the Jian River Valley.” In Imprints of Kinship: Studies of Recently Discovered Bronze Inscriptions from Ancient China, edited by Edward Shaughnessy, pp. 189–208. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press. Chen, Fangmei 昛剛⥡. 2002. “Jinhou mudi qingtongqi suojian xingbie yanjiu de xinxiansuo” 㗱ὗ⠻⛘曺戭☐㇨夳⿏⇍䞼䨞䘬㕘䶂䳊 [New Clues on the Study of Gender from Bronzes at the Jin Lineage Cemetery]. In Jinhou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 㗱ὗ⠻⛘↢⛇曺戭☐⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫婾㔯普 [Essays of the International Conference on Bronzes from the Jinhou Cemetery], edited by Shanghai bowuguan, pp. 157–96. Shanghai: Shanghai Shuhua Press. Chen, Gongrou 昛℔㝼. 1989. “Shuo gushi ji Huaixing Jiuzong” 婒⎌⎚⍲㆟⥻ḅ⬿ [The Nine Lineages of the Huai Surname and Ancient History]. Guwenzi yanjiu ⎌㔯⫿䞼 䨞ġ16: 211–17. Chen, Gongrou 昛℔㝼, and Zhang Changshou ⻝攟⢥. 1984. “Yin Zhou qingtong rongqi shang niaowen de duandai yanjiu” 㭟␐曺戭⭡☐ᶲ沍䲳䘬㕟ẋ䞼䨞 [Periodization of Bird Motifs on Yin Zhou Bronze Vessels]. Kaogu xuebao 3: 265–86. Chen, Guang (ed.). 昛⃱. 1995. Yan wenhua yanjiu lunwenji 䅽㔯⊾䞼䨞婾㔯普 [Collections of Theses on the Research on the Yan Culture]. Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Press. Chen, Guang 昛⃱. [1999] 2015. “Xi Zhou Yanguo wenhua chulun” 大␐䅽⚳㔯⊾⇅ 婾 [A Preliminary Discussion on the Culture of the Yan State of the Western Zhou Period]. In Liulihe yizhi yu Yanwenhua yanjiu lunwenji: Jinnian Beijing jiancheng 3060 nian 䎱䐫㱛怢⛨冯䅽㔯⊾䞼䨞婾㔯普: 䲨⾝⊿Ṕ⺢❶3060⸜ [Theses on the Liulihe Site and the Study of the Yan Culture: In Commemoration of the Founding of Beijing for 3060 Years], edited by Beijing shi Xi Zhou Yandu yizhi bowuguan, pp. 272–98. Beijing: Kexue Press. Chen, Hong 昛㳒. 2011. “Zhongxing Qinmu muzhu zushu ji shenfen tanxi—yi weishui liuyu zhongxing Qinmu de zangsu wei shijiao” ᷕ✳䦎⠻⠻ᷣ㕷Ⱄ⍲幓ấ㍊㜸-ẍ㷕 㯜㳩➇ᷕ✳䦎⠻䘬吔὿䇚夾奺 [Preliminary Studies on the Lineage Identity of the Occupants of Medium-Sized Qin Burials—A Perspective from Medium-Sized Tombs in the Wei River Valley]. Zhengzhou daxue xuebao 惕ⶆ⣏⬠⬠⟙ (⒚⬠䣦㚫䥹⬠ 䇰) 44, no. 4: 98–102. Chen, Mengjia 昛⣊⭞. 1955. “Xi Zhou tongqi duandai II” 大␐戭☐㕟ẋ (Ḵ) [Dating of Western Zhou Bronzes, Part II]. Kaogu xuebao 2: 69–142. Chen, Peifen 昛ἑ剔. 2004. Xia Shang Zhou qingtongqi yanju ⢷⓮␐曺戭☐䞼䨞 [The Study of Xia, Shang, and Zhou Bronzes]. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji. Chen, Ping 昛⸛. 1991. “Ke he, Ke lei mingwen jiqi xiangguan wenti” ⃳䙱, ⃳仵所㔯⍲ ℞䚠斄⓷柴 [The Inscriptions on Ke he and Ke lei and Related Questions]. Kaogu 9: 843–54. ——. 1995. Yanshi jishi biannian huian 䅽⎚䲨ḳ䶐⸜㚫㊱ [Annotated History of Yan]. Beijing: Peking University Press. ——. 1997. “Keqi shi Yan liuzu huishi kaozheng” ⃳☐慳䅽ℕ㕷㚫慳侫嫱 [An Investigation of the History of the Six Lineages Recorded in Inscriptions on Ke Bronzes]. In Beijing jiancheng 3040 nian ji Yan wenming guoji xueshu yantaohui huiyi zhuanji ⊿ Ṕ⺢❶ 3040 ⸜㙐䅽㔯㖶⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫嬘⮰廗 [International Symposium on the

258 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Yan Culture and the Establishment of City Beijing for 3040 Years], edited by Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, pp. 252–68. Beijing: Yanshan Press. ——. 1998a. “Yandu xingfei, qianxitan” 䅽悥冰⺊, 怟⽁婯 [The Rise and Fall of the Yan Capital and Relocation]. Beijing Shehui Kexue ⊿Ṕ䣦㚫䥹⬠1:123–31, 111. ——. 1998b. “Qiantan Li xian Qingong mudi yicun yu xiangguan wenti” 㶢婯䥖䷋䦎℔ ⠻⛘怢⬀冯䚠斄⓷柴 [Preliminary Discussions on the Duke of Qin Cemetery at Li County and Related Questions]. Kaogu yu wenwu 5: 78–87. ——. 2006. Beifang Youyan wenhua yanjiu⊿㕡⸥䅽㔯⊾䞼䨞 [The Study of Youyan Culture in the North]. Beijing: Qunyan Press. Chen, Xie 昛䴄. 1999. “Yanshao Zhuqi mingwen yu Yanshao zongzu zaoqi lishi zhong de liangge wenti” 䅽⎔媠☐所㔯冯䅽⎔⬿㕷㖑㛇㙮⎚ᷕ䘬ℑᾳ⓷柴 [Inscriptions of Yanshao Bronzes and Two Questions on the Early History of the Yan Shao Lineage]. Zhongguo shehui lishi pinglun ᷕ⚳䣦㚫㙮⎚姽婾 vol. 1, pp. 16–25. Tianjin: Tianjin Guji Press. ——. 2002. “Shilun Yinxu juluo jumin de zuxi wenti” 娎婾㭟⡇倂句⯭㮹䘬㕷䲣⓷柴 [Preliminary Studies on the Lineage Identities of Residences at Yinxu]. Nankai xuebao ⋿攳⬠⟙ (⒚⬠䣦㚫䥹⬠䇰) 6: 73–80. Chen, Yingfei 昛䧶梃. 2012. “Qinghuajian Bigong Gao, Bi Huan yu Xi Zhou Bishi” 㶭厗 䯉䔊℔檀, 䔊㟻冯大␐䔊㮷 [The Recordings of Bigong Gao and Bi Huan in Qinghua Bamboo Slips and the Bi Lineage of the Western Zhou Period]. Zhongguo Guojia bowuguan guankan 6: 35–49. Chen, Yong 昛晵. 1999. “Tianjin shi kaogu wushi nian” ⣑㳍ⶪ侫⎌Ḽ⋩⸜ [Fifty Years of Archaeology in Tianjin]. In Xinzhongguo Kaogu Wushi nian 㕘ᷕ⚳侫⎌Ḽ⋩⸜ [Fifty Years of Archaeology in New China], edited by the Wenwu Press, pp. 28–39. Beijing: Wenwu Press. Cheng, Changxin 䦳攟㕘. 1983. “Beijing Shunyi xian Niulanshan chutu yizu zhouchu daiming tongqi” ⊿Ṕ枮佑䈃㪬Ⱉ↢⛇ᶨ䳬␐⇅ⷞ所戭☐ [A Group of Inscribed Bronzes Dated at the Beginning of the Zhou at Niulanshan, Shunyi, Beijing]. Wenwu 11: 64–67. Cheng, Dong ㆸ㜙. 1989. “Xian Qin shiqi de dun” ⃰䦎㗪㛇䘬䚦 [Shields in the Pre-Qin Period]. Kaogu 1: 71–79. Cheng, Jingtang ㆸ䑇䐕, Sun Jianjun ⬓⺢幵, Meng Ling ⬇䍚2016. “Liaoning Suizhong Dongwanggangtai faxian Shang Zhou tongqi jiaocang.” 怤䓗䴷ᷕ㜙䌳ⲿ⎘䘤䎦⓮ ␐戭☐䨾啷 [A Shang and Zhou Bronze Cache at Dongwanggangtai, Suizhong, Liaoning]. Wenwu 4: 67–75. Coldstream, John N. 1993. “Mixed Marriages at the Frontiers of the Early Greek World.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 12, no. 1: 89–107. Cook, Constance A. 1997. “Wealth and the Western Zhou.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 60, no. 2: 253–94. Creel, Herrlee G. 1970. The Origins of Statecraft in China, vol. 1: The Western Chou Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Csorba, Mrea. 1996. “The Chinese Northern Frontier: Reassessment of the Bronze Age Burials from Baifu.” Antiquity 70, no. 269: 564–87. Dai, Chunyang ㇜㗍春. 1992. “Qinmu quzhizang guankui” 䦎⠻⯰偊吔䭉䩢 [Preliminary Studies on Flexed Burial Postures of the Qin Tombs]. Kaogu 8: 751–56. ——. 2000. “Li xian Dabuzishan Qingong mudi youguan wenti” 䥖䷋⣏⟉⫸Ⱉ䦎℔⠻ ⛘⍲㚱斄⓷柴 [Duke Qin Cemetery at Dabuzishan, Li County, and Related Issues]. Wenwu 5: 74–80.

259 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dai, Yingxin ㇜ㅱ㕘. 1995. Gaojiabu Geguo mu 檀⭞⟉ㆰ⚳⠻ [The Ge Cemetery at Gaojiabu]. Xi’an: Sanqin Press. Derk, Bodde. 1981. “Feudalism in China.” In Essays on Chinese Civilization, pp. 85–131. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Di Cosmo, Nicola. 2001. Ancient China and Its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ding, Yan ᶩⱑ. 2015. “Shaanxi Baoji Shigushan Shang Zhou mudi-2013 niandu kaogu shouhuo” 昅大⮞暆䞛溻Ⱉ⓮␐⠻⛘-2013 ⸜⹎侫⎌㓞䌚 [Shang and Zhou Date Cemetery from Shigushan, Baoji, Shaanxi]. In Baoji liuzhang: qingtong zhi xiang de kaoguxue xushu ⮞暆ℕ䪈: 曺戭☐ᷳ悱䘬侫⎌⬠㔀徘 [Six Chapters of Baoji: Archaeological Narratives of the Homeland of Bronzes], edited by the Shanghai bowuguan, pp. 23–41. Beijing: Peking University Press. Dong, Shan 吋䍲. 2014. “Shanxi Jiang xian Hengshui chutu M2 Su you mingwen chutan” Ⱉ大亃䷋㨓㯜↢⛇ġM2 倭⌋所㔯⇅㍊ [Preliminary Discussions on the Inscription on Suyou from M2, Hengshui, Jiang County, Shanxi]. Wenwu 1: 50–55. Dong, Xinlin 吋㕘㜿. 2000. “Weiyingzi wenhua chubu yanjiu” 櫷䆇⫸㔯⊾⇅㬍䞼䨞 [Preliminary Studies of the Weiyingzi Culture]. Kaogu xuebao 1: 1–29. Du, Zhengsheng 㜄㬋⊅. 1998. “Zhou Qin wenhua de Rongdi xing kaocha” ␐䦎㔯⊾䘬 ㆶ䉬⿏䘬侫⮇ [The Rong and Di Characteristics in the Zhou Qin Culture]. In Zhou Qin wenhua yanjiu ␐䦎㔯⊾䞼䨞 [Research on the Zhou and Qin Cultures], edited by Zhou Qin wenhua yanjiu bianweihui, pp. 513–42. Xi’an: Shaanxi Renmin Press. Duan, Lianqin 㭝忋⊌. 1982. “Guanyu Yizu de xiqian he Qinying de qiyuandi he zushu wenti” 斄Ḷ⣟㕷䘬大怟␴䦎⫝̸䘬崟㸸⛘, 㕷Ⱄ⓷柴 [About the Western Relocation of Yi and the Provenance of Qinying and Their Lineage]. Renwen zazhi (supplemental edition) (⃰䦎⎚婾㔯普): 166–75. Dusinberre, Elspeth R. M. 2003. Aspects of Empire in Achaemenid Sardis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Falkenhausen, Lothar von (伭㲘). 1993. “Issues in Western Zhou Studies: A Review Article.” Early China 18: 139–226. ——. 1997. “Youguan Xi Zhou wanqi lizhi gaige ji Zhuangbai qingtongqi niandai de xinjiashe-cong shixi mingwen shuoqi” 㚱斄大␐㘂㛇䥖⇞㓡朑㙐匲䘥曺戭☐⸜ ẋ䘬㕘`姕-⽆ᶾ䲣所㔯婒崟 [A New Hypothesis on Ritual Reform of the Late Western Zhou Period and on the Dating of Bronzes from Zhuangbai—A Discussion on Inscriptions with Genealogy Information]. In Zhongguo kaoguxue yu lishixue de zhenghe yanjiu ᷕ⚳侫⎌⬠冯㙮⎚⬠䘬㔜⎰䞼䨞 [Studies on the Integration of Chinese Archaeology and History], edited by Tsang Cheng-hwa 冏㋗厗 pp. 651–76. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academic Sinica. ——. 2006. Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius: The Archaeological Evidence. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. Fang, Qin 㕡⊌. 2013. “Suizhou Yejiashan Xi Zhou zaoqi zengguo mudi faxian yanjiu” 晐 ⶆ叱⭞Ⱉ大␐㖑㛇㚦⚳⠻⛘䘤䎦冯䞼䨞 [Discovery and Research of Early Western Zhou Period Zeng State Cemetery]. In Suizhou Yejiashan—Xi Zhou zaoqi Zengguo mudi 晐ⶆ叱⭞Ⱉ—大␐㖑㛇㚦⚳⠻⛘ [Suizhou Yejiashan—Early Western Zhou Period Zeng State Cemetery], edited by Hubei sheng bowuguan, Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, and Suizhou bowuguan, pp. 10–15. Beijing: Wenwu Press. Feng, Shi 楖㗪. 1998. “Luelun Jinhou Bangfu jiqi ming, zi wenti” 䔍婾㗱ὗ恎䇞⍲℞ ⎵, ⫿⓷柴 [Preliminary Discussions on the Given Name and Nickname of Jinhou Bangfu]. Wenwu 5: 31–34.

260 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ferguson, R. Brian, and Neil L. Whitehead (eds.). 2000. War in the Tribal Zone: Expanding States and Indigenous Warfare. 2nd ed. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Feuer, Bryan. 2016. Boundaries, Borders and Frontiers in Archaeology: A Study of Spatial Relationships. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Fu, Qiang Ẁ⻢. 2019. “Ningxia Pengyang Yaoheyuan Xi Zhou muzang M13 chutu Jiaguwen kaoshi” 䓗⢷⼕春⦂㱛⠔大␐⠻吔ġ M13 ↢⛇䓚橐㔯侫慳 [Study of an Oracle Bone Inscription Uncovered in a Western Zhou Tomb M13 at Yaoheyuan, Pengyang, Ningxia]. Yindu xuekan 㭟悥⬠↲ 4: 30–32. Fu, Sinian ‭㕗⸜ [1933]. 1996. “Yi Xia dongxi shuo” ⣟⢷㜙大婒 [On the East and West Origins of the Shang Dynasty]. In Zhongguo Xiandai xueshu Jingdian ᷕ⚳䎦ẋ⬠埻 䴻℠ (‭㕗⸜⌟) [Academic Classics of Modern Chinese Scholarship (Fu Sinian volume)], edited by Liu Mengxi ∱⣊㹒, pp. 187–240. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Jiaoyu Press. GBG. Gansu sheng bowuguan gongzuodui 䓀倭䚩⌂䈑棐ⶍἄ昲. 1977. “Gansu Lingtai Baicaopo Xi Zhou Mu” 䓀倭䚩䘥勱✉大␐⠻ [The Western Zhou Tombs at Baicaopo in Lingtai, Gansu]. Kaogu xuebao 2: 99–129. GBW and LW. Gansu sheng bowuguan wenwudui 䓀倭䚩⌂䈑棐㔯䈑昲 and Lingtai xian wenhuaguan 曰⎘㔯⊾棐. 1976. “Gansu Lingtai xian liang Zhou muzang” 䓀倭 曰⎘䷋ℑ␐⠻吔 [Zhou Date Burials at Lingtai, Gansu]. Kaogu 1: 39–48. GWG and BDK. Gansu sheng wenwu gongzuodui 䓀倭䚩㔯䈑ⶍἄ昲 and Beijing daxue kaoguxi ⊿Ṕ⣏⬠侫⎌⬠䲣. 1987. “Gansu Gangu Maojiaping yizhi fajue baogao” 䓀 倭䓀察㮃⭞✒怢⛨䘤㍀⟙⏲ [Archaeological Report of Maojiaping Site at Gangu, Gansu]. Kaogu xuebao 3: 359–96. GWG, BDK, and XW. Gansu sheng wenwu gongzuodui 䓀倭䚩㔯䈑ⶍἄ昲, Beijing daxue kaoguxi ⊿Ṕ⣏⬠侫⎌䲣, and Xihe xian wenhuaguan 大␴䷋㔯⊾棐. 1987. “Gansu Xihe Lanqiao Siwa wenhua muzang” 䓀倭大␴㪬㧳⮢䩒㔯⊾⠻吔 [Cemetery of the Siwa Culture at Lanqiao, Xihe, Gansu]. Kaogu 8: 678–91. GWGW. Gansu sheng wenwu guanli weiyuanhui 䓀倭䚩㔯䈑䭉䎮⥼⒉㚫. 1958a. “Weihe shangyou Tianshui, Gangu liang xian kaogu diaocha jianbao” 㷕㱛ᶲ忲⣑㯜, 䓀察ℑ ䷋侫⎌婧㞍䯉⟙ [A Brief Report of an Archaeological Survey at Tianshui and Gangu Counties in the Upper Wei River Valley]. Kaogu tongxun 5: 1–5. ——. 1958b. “Weihe shangyou Weiyuan, Longxi and Wushan san xian kaogu diaocha” 㷕 㱛ᶲ忲㷕㸸, 晜大, 㬎Ⱉᶱ䷋侫⎌婧㞍 [Archaeological Survey in Weiyuan, Longxi, and Wushan Counties in the Upper Wei River Valley]. Kaogu tongxun 7: 6–16. GWKY. Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 䓀倭䚩㔯䈑侫⎌䞼䨞㇨. 2009. Chongxin Yujiawan Zhou mu ⲯᾉḶ⭞䀋␐⠻ [Western Zhou Date Tombs at Yujiawan, Chongxin]. Beijing: Wenwu Press. GWKY and CB. Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 䓀倭䚩㔯䈑侫⎌䞼䨞㇨ and Chongxin xian bowuguan ⲯᾉ䷋⌂䈑棐. 2009. “Chongxin Chicheng Xiangshansi faxian Xian Zhou muzang” ⲯᾉ崌❶楁Ⱉ⮢䘤䎦⃰␐⠻吔 [A Predynastic Zhou Tomb Discovered at Xiangshansi, Chicheng, Chongxin]. In Chongxin Yujiawan Zhou Mu ⲯᾉḶ⭞䀋␐⠻ [Western Zhou Date Tombs at Yujiawan, Chongxin], pp. 210– 16. Beijing: Wenwu Press. GWKY and QB. Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 䓀倭䚩㔯䈑侫⎌䞼䨞㇨ and Qingshui xian bowuguan 㶭㯜䷋⌂䈑棐. 2014. Qingshui Liuping: Zaoqi Qin wenhua xilie kaogu baogao zhier 㶭㯜∱✒: 㖑㛇䦎㔯⊾䲣↿侫⎌⟙⏲ᷳḴ [Qingshui Liuping: The Second Report of the Archaeology Work of the Early Qin Culture]. Beijing: Wenwu Press.

261 BIBLIOGRAPHY

GWK et al. Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 䓀倭䚩㔯䈑侫⎌䞼䨞㇨, Zhongguo guojia bowuguan ᷕ⚳⚳⭞⌂䈑棐, Beijing daxue kaogu wenbo Xueyuan ⊿Ṕ⣏ ⬠侫⎌㔯⌂⬠昊, Shaanxi sheng kaogusuo 昅大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞昊, and Xibei daxue wenbo xueyuan 大⊿⣏⬠㔯⌂⬠昊. 2008. Xihanshui shangyou diaocha baogao 大㻊 㯜ᶲ忲侫⎌婧㞍⟙⏲ [Report of Archaeological Surveys at the Upper Xihan River Valley]. Beijing: Wenwu Press. Gao, Ciruo 檀㫉劍. 1984. “Baoji Jiacun zaici faxian Zeguo tongqi” ⮞暆屰㛹ℵ㫉䘤䎦⣐ ⚳戭☐ [Ze Bronzes Found Again at Jiacun, Baoji]. Kaogu yu wenwu 4: 107. ——. 1991. “Baoji shi bowuguan cang qingtongqi jieshao” ⮞暆ⶪ⌂䈑棐啷曺戭☐ṳ䳡 [An Introduction to Bronzes from the Baoji City Museum]. Kaogu yu wenwu 5: 11–16. ——. 1993. “Baoji Shizuitou faxian Xi Zhou zaoqi muzang” ⮞暆䞛◜柕䘤䎦大␐㖑㛇⠻ 吔 [Early Western Zhu Date Burials Discovered at Shizuitou, Baoji]. Wenwu 7: 39–42. Gao, Ciruo 檀㫉劍, and Liu Mingke ∱㖶䥹. 2006. “Doujitai mudi chutu qingtongqi yu Zhougong jiazu wenti de sikao-jiantan He zun yuanshi chutudi” 櫍暆⎘⠻⛘↢⛇ 曺戭☐冯␐℔⭞㕷⓷柴䘬⿅侫-ℤ婯ỽ⮲⍇⥳↢⛇⛘ [Bronzes from the Doujitai Cemetery and the Lineage of Duke Zhou as Well as Discussion of the Original Location of He zun]. Baoji shehui kexue 1: 38–42. Gao, Ciruo 檀㫉劍, Liu Mingke ∱㖶䥹, and Li Xinqin 㛶㕘䦎. 2006. “Dang Yukun daoju Doujitai (Daijiawan) wenwu diaocha baogao” 源䌱䏐䚄㍀櫍暆⎘ (㇜⭞䀋) 㔯 䈑婧㞍⟙⏲ [A Report on the Survey of Cultural Relics Robbed by Dang Yukun at Doujitai (Daijiawan)]. In Baoji Kaogu Xiecui ⮞暆侫⎌㑟厫, by Liu Mingke, pp. 1–18. Xi’an: Sanqin Press. Gao, Xiangping 悄⎹⸛. 2011. Shangxi muzang yanjiu ⓮䲣⠻吔䞼䨞 [Studies of Burials of the Shang System]. Beijing: Kexue Press. Ge, Yinghui 吃劙㚫. 1983. “Yanguo de buzu ji buzu de lianhe” 䅽⚳悐㕷⍲悐㕷䘬倗⎰ [Clans and Allied Clans in the Yan State]. Beijing Wenwu yu Kaogu ⊿Ṕ㔯䈑冯侫 ⎌1: 1–18. Gosden, Chris, and Yvonne Marshall. 1999. “The Cultural Biography of Objects.” World Archaeology 2, no. 31: 169–78. Guo, Baojun 悕⮞懆. 1959. Shanbiaozhen yu Liulige Ⱉ⼒捖冯䎱䐫敋 [The Shanbiaozhen and Liulige Sites]. Beijing: Kexue Press. ——. 1964. Jun xian Xincun 㾔䷋彃㛹 [The Xincun Site at Jun County]. Beijing: Kexue Press. ——. 1981. Shang Zhou tongqiqun Zonghe yanjiu ⓮␐戭☐䵄⎰䞼䨞 [Comprehensive Studies of Shang and Zhou Bronzes]. Beijing: Wenwu Press. Guo, Dashun 悕⣏枮. 1987. “Shilun Weiyingzi leixing” 娎婾櫷䆇⫸栆✳ [Preliminary Discussions of the Weiyingzi Culture]. In Kaoguxue wenhua Lunji 1 侫⎌⬠㔯⊾婾普 1 [Collective Essays on the Study of Archaeological Cultures], edited by Su Bingqi 喯 䥱䏎, pp. 79–98. Beijing: Wenwu Press. Guo et al. Guo, Changjiang 悕攟㰇, Chen Hu 昛嗶, Li Xiaoyang 㛶㙱㣲, Hou Jiasheng ⼴≈⋯, Jin Xiang 慹佼, and Zhang Shenyin ⻝䓛戨. 2019. “Hubei Suizhou Zaoshulin mudi 2019 nian fajue shouhuo” 㷾⊿晐ⶆ㡿㧡㜿⠻⛘2019⸜䘤㍀㓞䨓 [Report of the 2019 Excavation of Zaoshulin Cemetery at Suizhou, Hubei]. Jianghan kaogu 2: 3–8. Guo et al. Guo, Changjiang 悕攟㰇, Fan Guodong ↉⚳㢇, Chen Hu 昛嗶, and Li Xiaoyang 㛶㙱㣲. 2020. “Zenghou Qiu bianzhong mingwen chubu shidu” 㚦℔ 䶐 揀所㔯⇅㬍慳嬨 [Preliminary Transcription of Inscriptions on a Chime of Bronze Bells of Zeng Hou Qiu]. Jianghan kaogu 1: 3–30.

262 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Guy, Donna J., and Thomas Sheridan (eds.). 1998. Contested Ground: Comparative Frontiers on the Northern and Southern Edges of the Spanish Empire. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. GWG. Guyuan xian wenwu gongzuozhan ⚢⍇䷋㔯䈑ⶍἄ䪁. 1983. “Ningxia Guyuan Xi Zhou mu qingli jianbao” 䓗⢷⚢⍇䷋大␐⠻㶭䎮䯉⟙ [A Brief Report of a Western Zhou Date Tomb at Guyuan, Ningxia]. Kaogu 11: 982–84. Han, Jiagu 枑▱察. 1984. “Jing-Jin diqu Shang Zhou shiqi guwenhua fazhan de yidian xiansuo” Ṕ㳍⛘⋨⓮␐㗪㛇⎌㔯⊾䘤⯽䘬ᶨ溆䶂䳊 [A New Clue on the Shang and Zhou Period Culture in the Jing, Jin, Tang Region]. In Zhongguo kaogu xuehui disanci nianhui lunwenji [1981] ᷕ⚳侫⎌⬠⬠㚫䫔ᶱ㫉⸜㚫婾㔯普 [Essays of the Third Annual Meeting of the Chinese Archaeology Association], edited by Zhongguo kaogu xuehui ᷕ⚳侫⎌⬠㚫, pp. 220–29. Beijing: Wenwu Press. ——. 1991. “Yanshi yuanliu yu kaoguxue kaocha” 䅽⎚㸸㳩冯侫⎌⬠侫⮇ [Archaeological Investigations of the Provenance of the Yan History]. Beijing wenwu yu kaogu ⊿ Ṕ㔯䈑冯侫⎌ġ2: 1–24. Han, Jiagu 杻▱察, and Ji Liemin 䲨䁰㓷. 1993. “Ji xian Zhangjiayuan yizhi qingtong wenhua yicun zongshu” 唲䷋⻝⭞⚺怢⛨曺戭㔯⊾怢⬀䵄徘 [Comprehensive Discussions on the Bronze Culture from the Zhangjiayuan Site, Ji County]. Kaogu 4: 355–64. Han, Jianye 杻⺢㤕. 2011. “Luelun Beijing Changping Baifu M2 muzhuren shenfen” 䔍 婾⊿Ṕ㖴⸛䘥㴖M2⠻ᷣṢ幓ấ [A Preliminary Discussion on the Identity of Tomb M2 at Baifu, Changping, Beijing]. Zhongyuan wenwu 4: 36–38. Han, Jinqiu 杻慹䥳. 2008. “Baifu mudi de weiguan fenxi he hongguan bijiao” 䘥㴖⠻ ⛘䘬⽖奨↮㜸␴⬷奨㭼庫 [Microanalysis and Macro Comparative Studies of Baifu Cemetery]. Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu 7: 102–18. Han, Wei 杻῱. 1986. “Guanyu Qinren zushu ji wenhua yuanyuan guanjian” 斄Ḷ䦎Ṣ 㕷Ⱄ⍲㔯⊾㶝㸸䭉夳 [Preliminary Studies on the Lineage Identity of the Qin People and Their Cultural Origin]. Wenwu 4: 23–28. Han, Wei 杻⵵. 2007a. “Xi Zhou jinwen shizu yanjiu” 大␐慹㔯ᶾ㕷䞼䨞 [The Study of Lineages in Western Zhou Bronze Inscriptions]. PhD dissertation, Peking University. ——. 2007b. “Mei xian liqiqun de zuxing, niandai ji xiangguan wenti” 䚱䷋䚈☐佌䘬 㕷⥻, ⸜ẋ⍲䚠斄⓷柴 [The Lineage Name and Dating of the Li Bronze Group and Related Questions]. Kaogu yu wenwu 4:16–21. ——. 2014. “Hengshui Dahekou Xi Zhou mudi ruogan wenti de taolun” 㨓㯜⣏㱛⎋大␐ ⠻⛘劍⸡⓷柴䘬妶婾 [A Few Questions on Western Zhou Date Bronzes at Hengshui, Dahekou]. In Liang Zhou fengguo lunheng: Shaanxi Hancheng chutu Ruiguo wenwu ji Zhoudai fengguo kaoguxue yanjiu lunwenji ℑ␐⮩⚳婾堉: 昅大杻❶↢⛇剖⚳㔯䈑 㙐␐ẋ⮩⚳侫⎌⬠䞼䨞⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫婾㔯普 [Discussions on Regional States of the Zhou: Rui Artifacts from Hancheng and Collected Essays on the International Conference on Archaeological Research on Regional States], edited by the Shanghai bowuguan ᶲ㴟⌂䈑棐 and Shaanxi kaogu yanjiuyuan 昅大侫⎌䞼䨞昊, pp. 388– 405. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Press. Hao, Lijun 悅渿⏃. 2010. “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Xi Zhou muzang taoqi yanjiu-jianlun Jin wenhua zhi yuanyuan” ⣑楔-㚚㛹怢⛨大␐⠻吔昞☐䞼䨞-ℤ婾㗱㔯⊾ᷳ㶝㸸 [The Study of Pottery from Western Zhou Tombs at Tianma-Qucun]. MA thesis, Shanxi University Ⱉ大⣏⬠䡑⢓⬠ỵ婾㔯. He, Baojun ỽᾅ幵, and Wang Qianqian 䌳ῑῑ. 2013. “Qianxi ‘Heibo’ you ji tongxing tiliangyou” 㶢㜸” 㼞ỗ’⌋㙐䫺⼊㍸㠩⌋ [Preliminary Discussions of “Heibo” you and Cylindrical-Shaped Handled you]. Yindu xuekan 㭟悥⬠↲1: 40–44.

263 BIBLIOGRAPHY

He, Jingcheng ỽ㘗ㆸ. 2008. “Shang mo Zhou chu de Juzu yanjiu” ⓮㛓␐⇅䘬冱㕷䞼 䨞 [Research on the Ju Lineage of the Late Shang and Early Zhou Periods]. Kaogu 11: 54–70. ——. 2009. Shang Zhou qingtongqi Zushi mingwen yanjiu ⓮␐曺戭☐㕷㮷所㔯䞼䨞 [Study of Lineage Signs in Bronze Inscriptions of the Shang and Zhou Periods]. Ji’nan: Qilu Press. He, Nu ỽ≒, and Luo Ming 伭㖶. 2005. “Liang Zhou dawuwu daoju kaolue” ℑ␐⣏㬎 准忻℟侫䔍 [An Investigation of Artifacts in the Grand Dance of the Zhou Period]. Kaogu yu wenwu 5: 44–52. He, Qinggu ỽ㶭察1991. “Yingqinzu xiqiankao” 岷䦎㕷大怟侫 [Study of Yingqin’s Relocation to the West]. Kaogu yu wenwu 5: 70–77. He, Youqi ỽ⸤䏎. 1991. “Zhaobo Qiren jiqi Jiashi” ⎔ỗ℞Ṣ⍲℞⭞ᶾ [Zhaobo and His Lineage]. Jianghan kaogu 4: 51, 57–58. HWWG. Hebei sheng wenhuaju Wenwu gongzuodui 㱛⊿䚩㔯⊾⯨㔯䈑ⶍἄ昲ġ 1962. “Hebei Qinglong xian Chaodaogou faxian yipi qingtongqi” 㱛⊿曺漵䷋㈬忻㹅䘤䎦 ᶨ㈡曺戭☐ [A Group of Bronzes from Qinglong County, Hebei]. Kaogu 12: 644–645. HWY. Hebei sheng wenwu yanjiusuo 㱛⊿䚩㔯䈑䞼䨞㇨. 1985. “Hebei Lulong xian Dongkan’gezhuang yizhi” 㱛⊿䚩䚏漵䷋㜙旂⎬匲怢⛨ [Dongkan’gezhuang site at Lulong, Hebei]. Kaogu 11: 980–84, 989. HWY and XWG. Hebei sheng wenwu yanjiusuo 㱛⊿䚩㔯䈑䞼䨞㇨ and Xingtai shi wenwu guanlichu 恊⎘ⶪ㔯䈑䭉䎮嗽. 1992. “Xingtai Nanxiaowang Zhoudai yizhi Xi Zhou yicun de fajue” 恊⎘⋿⮷㰒␐ẋ怢⛨大␐怢⬀䘬䘤㍀ [The Excavation of the Western Zhou Remains at Nanxiaowang, Xingtai]. Wenwu chunqiu 㔯䈑㗍䥳 S1: 241-50. ——. 2001. “Hebei Huailai Guanzhuang yizhi fajue baogao” 㱛⊿㆟Ἦ⭀匲怢⛨䘤㍀⟙ ⏲ [An Excavation Report of the Guanzhuang Site at Huailai, Hebei]. In Hebei kaogu wenji (vol. 2) 㱛⊿䚩侫⎌㔯普 (Ḵ) [Collective Essays of Archaeology in Hebei], pp. 25–28. Beijing: Yanshan Press. HKY and SWG. Henan sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 㱛⋿䚩㔯䈑侫⎌䞼䨞㇨ and Sanmenxiashi wenwu gongzuodui ᶱ攨ⲥⶪ㔯䈑ⶍἄ昲. 1999. Sanmenxia Guoguo mudi ᶱ 攨ⲥ嘊⚳⠻⛘ [The Guo Cemetery at Sanmenxia]. Beijing: Wenwu Press. HWKY and SWG. Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 㱛⋿䚩㔯䈑侫⎌䞼䨞㇨ and Sanmenxiashi wenwu gongzuodui ᶱ攨ⲥⶪ㔯䈑ⶍἄ昲. 1999. Sanmengxia Guoguomu ᶱ攨ⲥ嘊⚳⠻ [Guo Cemetery at Sanmenxia]. Beijing: Wenwu Press. HWKY and ZW. Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 㱛⋿䚩㔯䈑侫⎌䞼䨞㇨ and Zhoukoushi wenhuaju ␐⎋ⶪ㔯⊾⯨. 2000. Luyi Taiqinggong Changzikou mu 渧怹 ⣒㶭⭖攟⫸⎋⠻ [The Changzikou Tomb at Taiqinggong, Luyi]. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji Press. Hingley, Richard. 2005. Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, Diversity and Empire. London and New York: Routledge. Hirokawa, Mamoru ⺋ⶅ⬰. 1996. Liaoning Dalinghe liuyu de Yin Zhou qingtongqi 怤䓗⣏㶑㱛㳩➇䘬㭟␐曺戭☐ [Yin and Zhou Bronzes from the Daling River Valley at Liaoning]. Translated by Cai Fengshu 哉沛㚠. Liaohai wenwu xuekan 2: 186–201. Hodos, Tamar. 2006. Local Responses to Colonization in the Iron Age Mediterranean. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ——. 2010. “Local and Global Perspectives in the Study of Social and Cultural Identities.” In Material Culture and Social Identities in the Ancient World, edited by Shelly Hales and Tamar Hodos, pp. 3–31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

264 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hommel, Peter, and Margaret Sax. 2014. “Shifting Materials: Variability, Homogeneity and Change in the Beaded Ornaments of the Western Zhou.” Antiquity 88, no. 342: 1213–28. Hoskins, Janet. 1998. Biographical Objects: How Things Tell the Stories of People’s Lives. New York: Routledge. ——. 2006. “Agency, Biography and Objects.” In Handbook of Material Culture, edited by Christopher Tilley, Webb Keane, Susanne Küchler-Fogden, Mike Rowlands, and Patricia Spyer, pp. 74–84. London: Sage. Hou, Yi ὗ㭭. 2002. “Cong Jinhou mudi tongqi kan Jin wenhua de xingcheng yu fazhan” ⽆㗱ὗ⠻戭☐䚳㗱㔯⊾䘬⼊ㆸ冯䘤⯽ [Analysis of the Formation and Development of Jin Culture from the Bronzes in Jinhou’s tombs]. In Jinhou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 㗱ὗ⠻⛘↢⛇曺戭☐⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫婾㔯 普 [Essays of the International Conference on Bronzes from the Jinhou Cemetery], edited by Shanghai bowuguan, pp. 114–22. Shanghai: Shanghai Shuhua Press. Hsu, Cho-yun 姙῔暚. 1999. “The Spring and Autumn Period.” In The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilizations to 221 bce, edited by Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy, pp. 545–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hsu, Cho-yun, and Katheryn Linduff. 1988. Western Zhou Civilization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hu, Houxuan 傉⍂⭋. 1970. “Yindai hunyin jiazu shengyu zhidu kao” 㭟ẋ⨂⦣⭞㕷䓇 做⇞⹎侫 [Research on Marriage, Lineages, and Reproduction of the Yin Dynasty]. In Jiaguxue Shangshi luncong chuji (vol. 1) 䓚橐⬠⓮⎚婾⎊⇅普 [The Beginning Volume of the Discussions on Shang History Based on the Study of Oracle Bone Inscriptions], pp. 1–35. Hong Kong: Wenyoutang Bookstore. Hu, Zhisheng 傉㘢䓇, Liu Baoai ∱⮞ッ, and Li Yongze 㛶㯠㽌. 1988. “Baoji Zhifangtou Xi Zhou mu” ⮞暆䳁⛲柕大␐⠻ [The Western Zhou Tomb at Zhifangtou, Baoji]. Wenwu 3: 21–27. Huang, Fengchun 湫沛㗍, and Hu Gang 傉∃. 2014a. “Shuo Xi Zhou jinwen zhong de ‘Nangong’-jianlun Suizhou Yejiashan Xi Zhou mudi de zushu” 婒大␐慹㔯ᷕ䘬 ‘⋿ ℔’-ℤ婾晐ⶆ叱⭞Ⱉ大␐㚦⚳⠻⛘䘬㕷Ⱄ [Discussions on “Nangong” in Western Zhou Bronze Inscriptions and the Lineage Identity of the Yejiashan Cemetery]. Jianghan kaogu 2: 50–56. ——. 2014b. “Zaishuo Jinwen zhong de Nangong” ℵ婒慹㔯ᷕ䘬⋿⭖ [Another Discussion of Nangong in Bronze Inscriptions]. Jianghan kaogu 5: 41–45. Huang, Jinqian 湫拎⇵, and Zhang Xinjun ⻝㕘ὲ. 2015. “Shuo Xi Zhou jinwen zhong de ‘Ba’ yu ‘Ge’ ” 婒大␐慹㔯ᷕ䘬 “曠” 冯 “㟤”-ℤ婾ℑ␐㗪㛇曠⚳䘬⛘㛃 [Ba and Ge in Bronze Inscriptions and the Location of the Ba Lineage]. Kaogu yu wenwu 5: 105–11. Huang, Mingchong 湫所ⲯ. 2012. “Cong kaogu faxian kan Xi Zhou muzang de ‘fenqi’ xianxiang yu Xi Zhou shidai liqi zhidu de leixing yu jieduan (shangpian)” ⽆侫⎌ 䘤䎦䚳大␐⠻吔䘬‘↮☐’䎦尉冯大␐㗪ẋ䥖☐⇞⹎䘬栆✳冯昶㭝炷ᶲ䭯炸 [A Study of “Fenqi” or Vessel Distribution in Western Zhou Date Tombs and the Type and Phase of Western Zhou Ritual Practice (part 1)]. Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan ᷕ⣖䞼䨞昊㙮⎚婆妨䞼䨞㇨普↲ 83, no. 4: 607–70. Huang, Shengzhang 湫䚃䐳. 1983. “Tongqi mingwen Yi, Yu, Ze de diwang jiqi yu Wuguo de guanxi” 戭☐所㔯⭄, 嘆, ⣐䘬⛘㛃⍲℞冯⏛⚳䘬斄䲣 [The Locations of Yi, Yu, and Ze in Bronze Inscriptions and Their Connections with the State of Wu]. Kaogu xuebao 3: 298–305.

265 BIBLIOGRAPHY

——. 2002. “Jinhou mudi M114 yu Shuyu fang ding zhuren, niandai he muzang shici niandai pailie xinlunzheng” 㗱ὗ⠻⛘ġM114 冯⍼嘆㕡溶ᷣṢ, ⸜ẋ␴⠻吔ᶾ㫉⸜ẋ㌺ ↿㕘婾嫱 [A New Discussion on M114 in the Jinhou Cemetery and the Caster and Date of Shuyu Square ding and the Sequence of Burials]. In Jinhou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 㗱ὗ⠻⛘↢⛇曺戭☐⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫婾㔯普 [Essays of the International Conference on Bronzes from the Jinhou Cemetery], edited by Shanghai bowuguan, pp. 212–31. Shanghai: Shanghai Shuhua Press. Huang, Tsuimei 湬侈㠭. 2013. “Wenhua, jiyi, zhuanji-Xinshiqi shidai zhi Xi Zhou shiqi yuhuang ji chuanshi” 㔯⊾Ʉ 姀ㅞɄ ⁛姀-㕘䞛☐㗪ẋ军大␐㗪㛇䌱䑄⍲ᷚ椘 [Culture, Memory and Biography — Jade huang and Necklaces from the Neolithic to Western Zhou Periods]. In Disijie guoji Hanxue huiyi lunwenji: Dongya kaogu de xinfaxian 䫔⚃⯮⚳晃㻊⬠㚫嬘婾㔯普: 㜙Ṇ侫⎌䘬㕘䘤䎦 [Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Sinology: New Light on East Asian Archaeology], edited by Kwang-tzu Chen 昛⃱䣾 and Cheng-hwa Tsang 冏㋗⋶, pp. 95–151. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. Huang, Yifei 湫䙲梃. 2017. “ ‘Anzhou liuqi’ kaobian” ‘⬱ⶆℕ☐’侫彐 [Investigations and Identifications of the ‘Six Vessels from Anzhou’]. Chutu wenxian ↢⛇㔯䌣 2: 60–63. Huang, Yue 湫㚰. 2000. “Xi Zhou jinwen zhuhou cheng ‘wang’ xianxiang bianxi” 大␐慹 㔯媠ὗ䧙’䌳’䎦尉彐㜸 [A Debate on ‘wang’ in Western Zhou Date Bronze Inscriptions]. Shixue jikan ⎚⬠普↲ 11: 1–4. HB, HWKY, and SB. Hubei sheng bowuguan 㷾⊿䚩⌂䈑棐, Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 㷾⊿䚩㔯䈑侫⎌䞼䨞㇨, and Suizhou bowuguan 晐ⶆ⌂䈑棐. 2013. Suizhou Yejiashan—Xi Zhou zaoqi zengguo mudi 晐ⶆ叱⭞Ⱉ-大␐㖑㛇㚦⚳⠻⛘ [Suizhou Yejiashan—An Early Western Zhou State Cemetery]. Beijing: Wenwu Press. Jaffe, Yitzchak. 2012. “Materializing Identity—A Statistical Analysis of the Western Zhou Liulihe Cemetery.” Asian Perspectives 51: 47–67. JC. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu Yanjiusuo ᷕ⚳䣦㚫䥹⬠昊侫⎌䞼䨞㇨. 2007. 㭟␐慹㔯普ㆸ炷 ᾖ妪⡆墄㛔炸 [A Collection of Yin Zhou Bronze Inscriptions]. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju. Ji, Liemin 䲨䁰㓷 [2002]. 2015. “Yanshan nanlu qingtong wenhua de leixing puxi jiqi yanbian” 䅽Ⱉ⋿渻曺戭㔯⊾䘬栆✳嬄䲣⍲℞㺼嬲 [Type, Chronology and Development of Bronze Cultures in the Southern Slope of the Yan Mountains]. In Liulihe yizhi yu Yan wenhua yanjiu lunwenji: Ji’nian Beijing jiancheng 3060 nian 䎱䐫㱛怢⛨冯䅽 㔯⊾䞼䨞婾㔯普: 䲨⾝⊿Ṕ⺢❶ġ3060 ⸜ [Theses on the Liulihe Site and the Study of the Yan Culture: In Commemoration of the Founding of Beijing for 3060 Years], edited by Beijing shi Xi Zhou Yandu yizhi bowuguan, pp. 349-67. Beijing: Kexue Press. Ji, Kunzhang ⎱䏐䐳. 2012. “Xi Zhou shiqi Jinnan de zhengzhi geju” 大␐㗪㛇㗱⋿㓧 㱣㟤⯨ [The Political Landscape in Southern Shanxi in the Western Zhou Period]. In You shi qiji—jinian Shanxi sheng kaogusuo 60 nian huadan wenji 㚱⮎℞䧵—䲨 ⾝Ⱉ大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞㇨ℕ⋩厗娽㔯普 [A Collection of Essays for the Celebration of the Sixtieth Birthday of the Shanxi Institute of Archaeology], edited by Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, pp. 385–91. Taiyuan: Shanxi Renmin Press. JWG. Ji xian wenwu gongzuozhan ⎱䷋㔯䈑ⶍἄ䪁. 1985. “Shanxi Ji xian chutu Shangdai qingtongqi” Ⱉ大⎱䷋↢⛇⓮ẋ曺戭☐ [Shang Date Bronzes from Ji County, Shanxi]. Kaogu 9: 848–49. Jiang, Gang 吳⇂. 2008a. “Yanshan nanlu Xia Zhi Zaoshang shiqi kaoguxue wenhua biannian, puxi Yu wenhua Geju” 䅽Ⱉ⋿渻⢷军㖑⓮㗪㛇侫⎌⬠㔯⊾䶐⸜, 嬄䲣冯 㔯⊾㟤⯨ [Periodization, Sequence, and Distribution of the Archaeological Culture

266 BIBLIOGRAPHY

of the Early Shang Period in the Southern Slope of the Yan Mountains]. In Gongyuanqian liangqianji de Jinshaan gaoyuan he Yanshan nanbei ℔⃫⇵ℑġ2 ⋫䲨䘬㗱昅檀 ⍇␴䅽Ⱉ⋿⊿ [The Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau and Yanshan Mountainous Region of the Second Millennium bce], edited by Jiang Gang and Yang Jianhua 㣲⺢厗, pp. 111–47. Beijing: Kexue Press. ——. 2008b. “Weifang sanqi he Zhangjiayuan shangceng wenhua” ⚵⛲ᶱ㛇␴⻝⭞⚺ ᶲⰌ㔯⊾ [Weifang Phase III and the Upper Zhangjiayuan Culture]. In Gongyuanqian liangqianji de Jinshaan gaoyuan he Yanshan nanbei ℔⃫⇵ℑġ2 ⋫䲨䘬㗱昅檀⍇ ␴䅽Ⱉ⋿⊿ [Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau and the Yanshan Mountainous Region of the Second Millennium bce], edited by Jiang Gang and Yang Jianhua, pp. 173–97. Beijing: Kexue Press. ——. 2017. Wenhua yanjin yu hudong—Taihengshan liangyi Xia Shang Xi Zhou shiqi qingtong wenhua yanjiu 㔯⊾㺼忚冯Ḻ≽-⣒埴Ⱉℑ侤⢷⓮大␐㗪㛇曺戭㔯⊾䞼䨞 [Cultural Development and Interactions—Research of the Xia Shang and Western Zhou Bronze Culture on Both Sides of the Taihang Mountains]. Beijing: Kexue Press. Jiang et al. Jiang, Gang, 哋∃ Zhao Mingxing 嵁㖶㗇, and Li Ai 㛶⩺. 2012. “Jing, Jin, Tang diqu wanshang Xi Zhou shiqi muzang yicun de zairenshi” Ṕ㳍Ⓒ⛘⋨㘂⓮大 ␐㗪㛇⠻吔怢⬀䘬ℵ娵嬀 [New Studies of late Shang and Western Zhou Burials in the Jing, Jin, Tang Region]. Huaxia kaogu 厗⢷侫⎌ 3: 55–66. Jin, Fengyi 望㝓㭭. 1982. “Lun Zhongguo dongbei diqu han quren qingtong duanjian de wenhua yicun” 婾ᷕ⚳㜙⊿⛘⋨⏓㚚↫曺戭䞕∵䘬㔯⊾怢⬀ (ᶲ) [Discussions on Cultural Remains Containing Curved Blade Swords]. Kaogu xuebao 4: 387–426. ——. 1989. “Beijing Yanqing Jundushan Dongzhou buluo mudi fajue jilue” ⊿Ṕ⺞ㄞ幵悥 Ⱉ㜙␐Ⱉㆶ悐句⠻⛘䘤㍀䲨䔍 [Brief Reports on the Eastern Zhou Period Shanrong Cemetery at Jundushan, Yanqing, Beijing]. Wenwu 8: 17–35, 43. Jin, Yue 慹ⵥ. 1986. “Yanshan fangguo kao” (part 1) 䅽Ⱉ㕡⚳侫 (ᶲ) [Regional States in the Yan Mountainous Regions] (part 1). Liaohai wenwu xuekan 2: 66–76. ——. 1987. “Yanshan fangguo kao” (part 2) 䅽Ⱉ㕡⚳侫 (ᶳ) [Regional States in the Yan Mountainous Regions] (part 2). Liaohai wenwu xuekan 1: 86–88. Jing, Zhongwei ḽᷕ῱. 2006. “Danxingweng yanjiu” 噳⼊䒖䞼䨞 [Research on EggShaped weng Jars]. Kaogu xuebao 3: 419–46. JL. Liu, Yu ∱暐, and Lu Yan 䚏ⱑ. 2002. Jinchu Yi Zhou jinwen jilu 役↢㭟␐慹㔯普抬 [Collection of Recently Excavated Yin Zhou Bronze Inscriptions]. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju. KZ. Kaogu Zazhishe 侫⎌暄⽿䣦 (ed.). 1989. “Beijing Liulihe chutu Xi Zhou youming tongqi zuotan jiyao” ⊿Ṕ䎱䐫㱛↢⛇大␐㚱所戭☐⹏婯䲨天 [Informal Conference on Western Zhou Inscribed Bronzes from Liulihe, Beijing]. Kaogu 10: 953–60. KW, CDB, and LB. Kazuo xian wenhuaguan ┨ⶎ䷋㔯⊾棐, Chaoyang diqu bowuguan 㛅春⛘⋨⌂䈑棐, and Liaoning sheng bowuguan 怤䓗䚩⌂䈑棐. 1974. “Liaoning Kazuo Beidongcun chutu Yin Zhou qingtongqi” 怤䓗┨ⶎ⊿㳆㛹↢⛇㭟␐曺戭☐ [Shang and Zhou Bronzes from Beidong in Kazuo, Liaoning]. Kaogu 6: 364–72. ——. 1977. “Liaoning sheng Kazuo xian Shanwanzi chutu Shang Zhouqingtongqi” 怤䓗䚩 ┨ⶎ䷋Ⱉ䀋⫸↢⛇⓮␐曺戭☐ [The Shang and Zhou Bronzes Excavated from Shanwanzi, Kazuo, Liaoning]. Wenwu 12: 23–27, 43. Khayutina, Maria. 2017. “The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng and Relationships Between Zhou and Northern Non-Zhou Lineages (Until the Early Ninth Century B.C.).” In Imprints of Kinship: Studies of Recently Discovered Bronze Inscriptions from Ancient China, edited by Edward Shaughnessy, pp. 71–132. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press.

267 BIBLIOGRAPHY

LWG and XWB. Langfang shi wenwu guanlichu ⹲⛲ⶪ㔯䈑䭉䎮㇨ and Xianghe xian wenwu baoguansuo 楁㱛䷋㔯䈑ᾅ䭉㇨. 1999. “Hebei Xianghe xian Qinggongtai Xiajiadian xiaceng wenhua muzang” 㱛⊿楁㱛䷋ㄞ≇⎘㛹⢷⭞⸿ᶳⰌ㔯⊾⠻吔 [Tombs of the Lower Xiajiadian Culture at Qinggongtai, Xianghe, Hebei]. Wenwu 6: 26–30, 32. Lattimore, Owen. 1940. Inner Asian Frontier of China. London: Oxford University Press. Legge, James. [1865] 2004. The Shu King, Or Book of Historical Documents. Reprint, Kessinger Publishing. ——. [1872] 1970. The Ch’un Ts’ew with the Tso Chuen. [Reprint] Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Lei, Xingshan 暟冰Ⱉ. 2010. Xian Zhou wenhua tansuo ⃰␐㔯⊾㍊䳊 [Study of the Predynastic Zhou Culture]. Beijing: Kexue Press. ——. [1997] 2015. “Shilun Xi Zhou Yan wenhua zhong de Yinyimin wenhua yinsu” 娎婾大 ␐䅽㔯⊾ᷕ䘬㭟怢㮹㔯⊾⚈䳈 [Preliminary Discussions on the Cultural Elements of the Remnants of the Shang in the Yan Culture of the Western Zhou Period]. In Liulihe yizhi yu Yan wenhua yanjiu lunwenji: Jinian Beijing jiancheng 3060 nian 䎱䐫㱛怢⛨冯 䅽㔯⊾䞼䨞婾㔯普: 䲨⾝⊿Ṕ⺢❶ġ3060 ⸜ [Theses on the Liulihe Site and the Study of the Yan Culture: In Commemoration of the Founding of Beijing for 3060 Years], edited by Beijing shi Xi Zhou Yandu yizhi bowuguan, pp. 248–55. Beijing: Kexue Press. Lei, Xingshan, Zheng Wenlan 惕㔯嗕, and Wang Xin 䌳搓. 1997. “Beijing Liulihe yizhi xinchu bujia qianshi” ⊿Ṕ䎱䐫㱛怢⛨㕘↢⌄䓚㶢嬀 [Preliminary Discussions on the Oracle Bones from Liulihe, Beijing]. Zhongguo wenwubao ᷕ⚳㔯䈑⟙, March 30, 1997. Li, Baojun 㛶⮞幵. [2013] 2015. “Xi Zhou zaoqi de Shaogong jiazu shixi—yi qingtongqi mingwen wei zhongxin de kaocha” 大␐㖑㛇䘬⎔℔⭞㕷ᶾ䲣-ẍ曺戭☐所㔯䇚ᷕ ⽫䘬侫⮇ [The Genealogy of the Family of the Duke of Shao of the Early Western Zhou—A Study Centered on Bronze Inscriptions]. In Liulihe yizhi yu Yan wenhua yanjiu lunwenji: Jinian Beijing jiancheng 3060 nian 䎱䐫㱛怢⛨冯䅽㔯⊾䞼䨞婾㔯 普: 䲨⾝⊿Ṕ⺢❶ġ3060 ⸜ [Theses on the Liulihe Site and the Study of the Yan Culture: In Commemoration of the Founding of Beijing for 3060 Years], edited by Beijing shi Xi Zhou Yandu yizhi bowuguan, pp. 135–45. Beijing: Kexue Press. Li, Boqian 㛶ỗ嫁. 1994. “Zhangjiayuan shangceng leixing ruogan wenti yanjiu” ⻝⭞ ⚺ᶲⰌ栆✳劍⸡⓷柴䞼䨞 [Research on a Few Questions of the Upper Zhangjiayuan Type]. In Kaoguxue yanjiu 2 侫⎌⬠䞼䨞Ḵ [Collected Essays on Archaeological Research (vol. 2)], edited by Beijing daxue kaoguxi, pp. 131–43. Beijing: Peking University Press. ——. 1997. “Beijing shi Fangshan Dongjialin guchengzhi de niandai ji xiangguan wenti” ⊿Ṕⶪ㇧Ⱉ吋⭞㜿⎌❶⛨䘬⸜ẋ⍲䚠斄⓷柴 [The Date and Related Questions on the Ancient City Remains at Dongjialin, Fangshan, Beijing]. In Beijing jiancheng 3040 nian ji Yan wenming guoji xueshu yantaohui huiyi zhuanji ⊿Ṕ⺢❶ġ3040 ⸜㙐䅽㔯 㖶⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫㚫嬘⮰廗 [International Symposium on the Yan Culture and the Establishment of City Beijing for 3040 Years], edited by Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, pp. 72–89. Beijing: Yanshan Press. ——. [1988] 1998. “Cong Lingshi Jingjie Shangmu de faxian kan Jinshaan gaoyuan qingtong wenhua de guishu” ⽆曰䞛㕴ṳ⓮⠻䘬䘤䎦䚳㗱昅檀⍇曺戭㔯⊾䘬㬠Ⱄ [Discussions on Bronze Cultures from the Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau Based on the Discovery of a Shang Date Tomb at Jingjie, Lingshi]. In Zhongguo qingtong wenhua jiegou tixi yanjiu ᷕ⚳曺戭㔯⊾䳸㥳橼䲣䞼䨞, edited by Li Boqian, pp. 167–84. Beijing: Kexue Press. ——. 1998. “Yetan Yang Ji hu mingwen de shidu” ḇ婯㣲⦆⢢所㔯䘬慳嬨 [Transcription and Interpretation of the Inscription on Yang Ji hu]. Wenwu 2: 31–34.

268 BIBLIOGRAPHY

——. 2001. “Shuze fang ding mingwen kaoshi” ⍼⣐㕡溶所㔯侫慳 [Study of the Inscription on Shuze Square ding]. Wenwu 8: 39–42. ——. 2002. “Jinhou mudi de faxian yu yanjiu” 㗱ὗ⠻⛘䘬䘤䎦冯䞼䨞 [Discovery of and Research on the Jinhou Cemetery]. In Jinhou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 㗱ὗ⠻⛘↢⛇曺戭☐⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫婾㔯普 [Essays of the International Conference on Bronzes from the Jinhou Cemetery], edited by Shanghai bowuguan, pp. 29–40. Shanghai: Shanghai Shuhua Press. ——. 2009. “Yaogong gui yu Jinguo zaoqi lishi ruogan wenti de zairenshi” g℔䮳冯㗱⚳ 㖑㛇劍⸡⓷柴䘬ℵ娵嬀 [Yaogong gui and Rethinking of Several Issues of Early Jin History]. Zhongyuan wenwu 1: 48–51, 83. ——. 2010. “Jinbo you jiqi xiangguan wenti” 㗱ỗ⌋⍲℞䚠斄⓷柴 [Jinbo you and Related Questions]. In Zhongguo gudai qingtongqi guoji yantaohui lunwenji ᷕ⚳⎌ ẋ曺戭☐⚳晃䞼妶㚫婾㔯普 [Theses of the International Conference on Ancient Chinese Bronzes], edited by Shanghai Museum and Art Museum of the Chinese University of Hong Kong 楁㷗ᷕ㔯⣏⬠㔯䈑棐, pp. 29–36. Hong Kong: Art Museum of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Li, Chaoyuan 㛶㛅怈. 2002a. “Jinhou mudi chutu qingtongqi zonglan” 㗱ὗ⠻⛘↢⛇ 曺戭☐䷥奥 [Overview of the Bronzes from the Jinhou Cemetery]. In Jinguo qizhen: Shanxi Jinhou muqun chutu wenwu jingpin 㗱⚳⣯䍵: Ⱉ大㗱ὗ⠻佌↢⛇㔯䈑䱦 ⑩ [Gems from Excavations of the Jinhou Cemetery in Shanxi Province], edited by Shanghai bowuguan, pp. 28–36. Shanghai: Shanghai Remin Meishu Press. ——. 2002b. “Jinhou mudi de faxian yu yanjiu” 㗳ὗ曺戭溶㍊嬀 [Study on Bronze Ding in Jinhou Tombs]. In Jinhou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 㗱 ὗ⠻⛘↢⛇曺戭☐⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫婾㔯普 [Essays of the International Conference on Bronzes from the Jinhou Cemetery], edited by Shanghai bowuguan, pp. 431–40. Shanghai: Shanghai Shuhua Press. Li, Feng 㛶撳. 1991. “Xian Zhou wenhua de neihan jiqi yuanyuan tantao” ⃰␐㔯⊾䘬 ℏ㵝⍲℞㶝㸸㍊妶 [Study on the Nature of the Predynastic Zhou Culture and Its Origin]. Kaogu xuebao 3: 265–84. ——. 1997. “Ancient Reproductions and Calligraphic Variations: Studies of Western Zhou Bronzes with ‘Identical’ Inscriptions.” Early China 22: 2–41. ——. 2002. “Literacy Crossing Cultural Borders: Evidence from the Bronze Inscriptions of the Western Zhou Period (1045–771 bc).” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 74: 210–42. ——. 2003. “Feudalism and Western Zhou China: A Criticism.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 63: 115–44. ——. 2006. Landscape and Power in Early China: The Crisis and Fall of the Western Zhou (1045–771 B.C.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——. 2008. Bureaucracy and the State in Early China: Governing the Western Zhou. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——. 2017. “A Study of the Bronze and Sacrificial Remains of the Early Qin State from Lixian, Gansu.” In Imprints of Kinship: Studies of Recently Discovered Bronze Inscriptions from Ancient China, edited by Edward Shaughnessy, pp. 209–34. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press. ——. 2018. “The Western Zhou State.” In Routledge Handbook of Early Chinese History, edited by Paul R. Goldin, pp. 101–2. London: Routledge. Li, Gang 㛶∃. 2011. Zhongguo beifang qingtongqi de ouya caoyuan wenhua yinsu ᷕ⚳⊿ 㕡曺戭☐䘬㫸Ṇ勱⍇㔯⊾⚈䳈 [Eurasian Steppe Cultural Elements in Bronzes from the Northern Zone of China]. Beijing: Wenwu Press.

269 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Li, Ji 㛶㳶. 1931. “Fushenzang” ᾗ幓吔 [The Practice of Prone Burials]. In Anyang fajue baogao (disanqi) ⬱春䘤㍀⟙⏲ (䫔ᶱ㛇) [Excavation Report of Anyang (vol. 3)], Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo zhuankan zhiyi ᷕ⣖䞼䨞昊㙮⎚婆妨䞼 䨞㇨⮰↲ᷳᶨ [Special Edition of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. Taipei]: 447–80. Li, Jiansheng 㛶⺢䓇. 2012. “Xinfaxian de yixing fengguo yanjiu” 㕘䘤䎦䘬䔘⥻⮩⚳ 䞼䨞 [Study on the Newly Discovered States of the Non-Ji Surname]. In You shi qijijinian Shanxi sheng kaogusuo 60 nian huadan wenji 㚱⮎℞䧵—䲨⾝Ⱉ大䚩侫⎌䞼 䨞㇨ℕ⋩厗娽㔯普 [Collection of Essays for the Celebration of the Sixtieth Birthday of the Shanxi Institute of Archaeology], edited by Shanxi sheng kaogusuo, pp. 392–406. Taiyuan: Shanxi Renmin Press. ——. 2014. “ ‘Peng’, ‘Ba’ guojia xingzhi bianzheng” ‘᾿’, ‘曠’ ⚳⭞⿏岒彗嫱 [The Nature of ‘Peng’ and ‘Ba’ States]. Website of the Research Center of Excavated Texts and Paleography of Fudan University 墯㖎⣏⬠↢⛇㔯䌣冯⎌㔯⫿䞼䨞ᷕ⽫. http://www.gwz .fudan.edu.cn/Web/Show/2395. Li, Ling 㛶暞. 2017. “Xi Zhou de houyuan yu linju” 大␐䘬⼴昊冯惘⯭ [The Backyard and Neighbors of the Western Zhou]. In Qingtongqi yu jinwen 1 曺戭☐冯慹㔯 (ᶨ) [Bronzes and Bronze Inscriptions (vol. 1)], edited by Beijing daxue chutu wenxian yanjiusuo ⊿Ṕ⣏⬠↢⛇㔯䌣䞼䨞㇨, pp. 46–59. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Press. Li, Weiming 㛶䵕㖶. 2000. “Beijing Changping Baifu mudi fenxi” ⊿Ṕ㖴⸛䘥㴖⠻⛘ ↮㜸 [Analysis of the Baifu Cemetery at Changping, Beijing]. Beijing wenbo ⊿Ṕ㔯 ⌂ 3: 52–55. Li, Xueqin 㛶⬠⊌ (Yan Wan 㗷⧱). 1975. “Beijing, Liaoning chutu tongqi yu Zhouchu de Yan” ⊿Ṕ怤䓗↢⛇戭☐冯␐⇅䘬䅽 [Bronzes from Beijing and Liaoning and the Yan During the Beginning of the Western Zhou]. Kaogu 5: 274–79. ——. 1983. “Shilun Guzhu” 娎婾⬌䪡 [Preliminary Studies of Guzhu]. Shehui Kexue Zhanxian 䣦㚫䥹⬠㇘䶂 2: 202–6. ——. 1984. Dongzhou yu Qindai wenming 㜙␐冯䦎ẋ㔯㖶 [The Eastern Zhou and the Qin Civilization]. Beijing: Wenwu Press. ——. 1985a. “Xi Zhou shiqi zhuhouguo qingtongqi” 大␐㗪㛇媠ὗ⚳曺戭☐ [Bronzes of Western Zhou Regional States]. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan yanjiushengyuan xuebao ᷕ⚳䣦㚫䥹⬠昊䞼䨞䓇昊⬠⟙ 6: 46–51. ——. 1985b. “Jingong pen de jige wenti” 㗱℔Â䘬⸦ᾳ⓷柴 [A Few Questions of Jingong pen]. Chutuwenxian yanjiu ↢⛇㔯䌣䞼䨞 1: 134–37. ——. 1994. “Jinhou Bangfu yu Yang Ji” 㗱ὗ恎䇞冯㣲⦆ [Jinhou Bangfu and Yang Ji]. Zhongguo wenwubao, May 29, 1994, section 3. ——. 1999a. “Rongshen bianzhong lunshi” ㆶ䓇䶐挦婾慳 [Discussion and Interpretation of the Inscription on a Set of Rongsheng Bells]. Wenwu 9: 75–82. ——. 1999b. “Guojiazhuang yu Doujitai—cong you de guanlian kan Yin Zhou wenhua yitong” 悕⭞匲冯櫍暆⎘-⽆⌋䘬斄倗䚳㭟␐㔯⊾䔘⎴ [Guojiazhuang and Doujitai—Differences Between the Yin and Zhou Culture Observed from the Stylistic Connection of you Wine Vessels]. Xuexi yu tansuo ⬠佺冯㍊䳊 3: 127–29. ——. 2001. “Tan Shuze Fang ding ji qita” 婯⍼⣐㕡溶⍲℞Ṿ [Discussions on Shuze Square ding and Others]. Wenwu 10: 67–70. ——. 2005. “Xushuo Jinhou Bangfu yu Yang Ji” 临婒㗱ὗ恎䇞冯㣲⦆ [Continuous Discussion of Jinhou Bangfu and Yang Ji]. Baoji wenli xueyuan xuebao ⮞暆㔯䎮⬠昊⬠ ⟙ (䣦㚫䥹⬠䇰) 6: 51–52, 56. ——. 2011a. “Shishi Yi xian Dahekou niaoxing he mingwen” 娎慳侤䷋⣏㱛⎋沍⼊䙱 所㔯 [A Trial Interpretation of the Inscription on Bird-Shaped he from Dahekou, Yixian]. Wenbo 4: 3–4.

270 BIBLIOGRAPHY

——. 2011b. “Yicheng Dahekou Shang yu mingwen shishi” 侤❶⣏㱛⎋⯂䙪所㔯娎慳 [A Trial Interpretation of the Inscription on Shang yu at Dahekou, Yicheng]. Wenwu 9: 67–68. ——. 2011c. “Qinghuajian guanyu Qinren shiyuan de zhongyao faxian” 㶭厗䯉斄Ḷ䦎 Ṣ⥳㸸䘬慵天䘤䎦 [A Major Discovery on the Origin of the Qin People in Qinghua Bamboo Texts]. Guangming Daily ⃱㖶㖍⟙, September 8, 2011, section 11. ——. 2013a. “Zaitan qingtongqi yu Shanxi gudaishi de guanxi” ℵ婯曺戭☐冯Ⱉ大⎌ẋ ⎚䘬斄䲣 [Another Discussion on Bronzes and the Ancient History of Shanxi]. Shanxi daxue xuebao (Ⱉ大⣏⬠⬠⟙⒚⬠䣦㚫䥹⬠䇰) 4: 67–71. ——. 2013b. “Shigushan Sanhaomu Qiming Xuanshi” 䞛溻Ⱉᶱ嘇⠻☐所怠慳 [Interpretations of Selected Inscriptions on Bronzes from Tomb No. 3 at Shigushan]. Wenwu 4: 56–58. ——. 2014. “Jiang xian Hengshui erhaomu youming shidu” 亃䷋㨓㯜Ḵ嘇⠻⌋所慳 嬨 [A Trial Interpretation of the Inscription on a Bronze you from Tomb no. 2 at Hengshui, Jiang County]. Jinyang Xuekan 㗱春⬠↲ 4: 144–45. Li, Xueqin 㛶⬠⊌, and Tang Yunming Ⓒ暚㖶. 1979. “Yuanshi tongqi yu Xi Zhou de Xingguo” ⃫㮷戭☐冯大␐䘬恊⚳ [Yuan Lineage Bronzes and the State of Xing of the Western Zhou Period]. Kaogu 1: 56–59. Li, Zongshan 㛶⬿Ⱉ, and Yin Xiaoyan ⯡㙱䅽. 1995. “Hebei sheng Qian’an xian chutu liangjian Shangdai tongqi” 㱛⊿䚩怟⬱䷋↢⛇ℑẞ⓮ẋ戭☐ [Two Shang Date Bronzes from Qian’an County in Hebei]. Wenwu 6: 88–89. Liang, Jinling 㠩慹䍚. 2001. “Lun Zhangjiayuan mudi de niandai he wenhua shuxing” ⻝ ⭞⚺㔯⊾䘬⸜ẋ␴㔯⊾Ⱄ⿏ [Preliminary Studies on the Dating and Nature of the Zhangjiayuan Culture]. Beifang wenwu 2: 17–23. Liang, Yun 㠩暚. 2007. “Xi Xinyi Kao” 大㕘怹侫 [The Study of the Western New Settlement]. Zhongguo lishi wenwu 6: 32–39. ——. 2010. “Feizi fengyi de kaoguxue tansuo” 朆⫸⮩怹䘬侫⎌⬠㍊䳊 [Archaeological Investigations of the Settlement of Feizi]. Zhongguo lishi wenwu 3: 24–31. ——. 2011. “Lun Yingqin xiqian ji Gansu dongbu Qin wenhua de niandai” 婾⫝̸䦎大怟⍲ 䓀倭㜙悐䦎㔯⊾䘬⸜ẋ [The Western Relocation of Yingqin and the Dating of Qin Culture in Eastern Gansu]. Gudai wenming yanjiu tongxun 49: 1–28. ——. 2014. “Lun zaoqi Qin wenhua de lianglei yicun” 婾㖑㛇䦎㔯⊾䘬ℑ栆怢⬀ [Discussions on Two Types of Remains of Early Qin Culture]. In Zaoqi Sichou Zhilu ji zaoqi Qin wenhua guji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 㖑㛇䴚䵊ᷳ嶗㙐㖑㛇䦎㔯⊾⚳晃 ⬠埻䞼妶㚫婾㔯普 [A Collection of Essays of the International Conference on Early Silk Road and Early Qin Culture], edited by Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo et al., pp. 74–88. Beijing: Wenwu Press. ——. 2015. “Longshan dongce Shang Zhou fangguo kaolue” 晜Ⱉ㜙“⓮␐㕡⚳侫䔍 [Preliminary Studies on Shang and Zhou Period Regional States East of Longshan]. Xibu kaogu 大悐侫⎌ 8: 100–17. ——. 2016. “Kaoguxue shang suojian Qin yu Xirong de guanxi” 侫⎌⬠ᶲ㇨夳䦎冯大ㆶ 䘬斄䲣 [The Qin and Western Rong Relation Seen from Archaeology]. Xibu kaogu 大悐侫⎌ 2: 112–46. ——. 2017. “Lun Zaoqi Qin wenhua de laiyuan yu xingcheng” 婾㖑㛇䦎㔯⊾䘬Ἦ㸸冯 ⼊ㆸ [Discussions on the Origin and Formation of Early Qin Culture]. Kaogu xuebao 2: 149–74. Liang et al. Liang, Yun 㠩暚, Hong Hongwei ὗ䲭῱, You Fuxiang 忲䤷䤍, and Zhang Xiaolei ⻝㙱䡲. 2013. 䓀倭䓀察㮃⭞✒怢⛨䘤㍀ㆸ㝄 [Excavation Results at Maojiaping Site, Gangu, Gansu]. Website of the Institute of Archaeology,

271 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chinese Academy of Social Science. http://www.kaogu.cn/cn/xianchangchuanzhenlao shuju/2013/1026/40704.html. LB and CDB. Liaoning sheng bowuguan 怤䓗䚩⌂䈑棐 and Chaoyang diqu bowuguan 㛅春⛘⋨⌂䈑棐. 1973. “Liaoning Kazuo Beidongcun chutu Yin Zhou qingtongqi” 怤 䓗┨ⶎ⊿㳆㛹↢⛇㭟␐曺戭☐ [Shang and Zhou Date Bronzes Uncovered at Beidongcun, Kazuo, Liaoning]. Kaogu 4: 225–26, 257. LB and CB. Liaoning sheng bowuguan 怤䓗䚩⌂䈑棐 and Chaoyang shi bowuguan 㛅 春ⶪ⌂䈑棐. 1986. “Jianping Shuiquan yizhi fajue jianbao” ⺢⸛㯜㱱怢⛨䘤㍀䯉⟙ [A Brief Excavation Report on Shuiquan, Jianping]. Liaohai wenwu xuekan 2: 11–29. LBWG. Liaoning sheng bowuguan wenwu gongzuodui 怤䓗䚩⌂䈑棐㔯䈑ⶍἄ昲. 1977. “Liaoning Chaoyang xian Weiyingzi Xi Zhou mudi he guyizhi” 怤䓗㛅春䷋櫷䆇⫸ 大␐⠻⛘␴⎌怢⛨ [Western Zhou Date Site and Cemetery at Weiyingzi, Chaoyang, Liaoning]. Kaogu 5: 305–09. LWGY. Liaoning sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 怤䓗䚩㔯䈑侫⎌䞼䨞㇨. 1998. “Liaoning Kazuo xian Gaojiadong Shang Zhou mu” 怤䓗┨ⶎ䷋檀⭞㳆⓮␐⠻ [Shang and Zhou Tombs at Gaojiadong, Kazuo]. Kaogu 4: 39–42, 86. LWGY and KB. Liaoning sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 怤䓗䚩㔯䈑侫⎌䞼䨞㇨ and Kazuo xian bowuguan ┨ⶎ䷋⌂䈑棐. 1989. “Kazuo Heshanggou mudi” ┨ⶎ␴⯂㹅 ⠻⛘ [Heshanggou Cemetery at Kazuo]. Liaohai wenwu xuekan 2: 110–15. Lightfoot, Kent G., and Antoinette Martinez. 1995. “Frontiers and Boundaries in Archaeological Perspective.” Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 471–92. Linduff, Katheryn M. 1997. “An Archaeological Overview.” In Ancient Bronzes of the Eastern Eurasian Steppes: The Arthur M. Sackler Collection, edited by Emma Bunker, Trudy Kawami, Katheryn M. Linduff, and Wu En, pp. 18–97. New York: Arthur M. Sackler Foundation, Abrams. ——. 2003. “A Walk on the Wild Side: Late Shang Appropriation of Horses in China.” In Prehistoric Steppe Adaptation and the Horse, edited by Masha Levine, Colin Renfrew, and Katie Boyle, pp. 139–62. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Linduff, Katheryn M., Han Rubin, and Sun Shuyun. 2000. The Beginning of Metallurgy in China. Lampeter, NY: Edwin Mellen Press. Linduff et al. Linduff, Katheryn M., Yan Sun, Wei Cao, and Yuanqing Liu. 2018. Ancient China and Its Eurasian Neighbors: Artifacts, Identity and Death in the Frontier, 3000– 700 bce. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lin, Jianming 㜿∵沜. 1982. “Zhougong dongzheng yu Yingqin xiqian” ␐℔㜙⼩冯⫝̸⥻ 大怟 [The Eastern Campaign of the Duke of Zhou and the Western Relocation of the Ying Surnamed Group]. Wenshi zhishi 㔯⎚䞍嬀11: 16–20. Lin, Xiaoan 㜿⮷⬱. [1994] 1997. “Liulihe 1193 Hao Damu fajue Chuyi” 䎱䐫㱛ġ1193 嘇⣏ ⠻䘤㍀↵嬘 [A Discussion on the Excavation of Tomb M1193 at Liulihe]. In Beijing jiancheng 3040 nian Ji Yan wenming guoji xueshu yantaohui huiyi zhuanji ⊿Ṕ⺢❶ 3040 ⸜㙐䅽㔯㖶⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫㚫嬘⮰廗 [International Symposium on the Yan Culture and the Establishment of City Beijing for 3040 Years], edited by Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, pp. 164–66. Beijing: Yanshan Press. Lin, Yongchang 㜿㯠㖴. 2007. “Liaoxi diqu tongqi jiaocang xingzhi zaifenxi” 怤大⛘⋨ 戭☐䨾啷⿏岒ℵ↮㜸. Gudai wenming yanjiu tongxun 9: 16–30. Lin, Yun 㜿㰬. 1987. “Shang wenhua qingtongqi yu beifang diqu qingtongqi guanxi zhi zai yanjiu” ⓮㔯⊾曺戭☐冯⊿㕡⛘⋨曺戭☐斄䲣ᷳℵ䞼䨞 [A Reexamination of the Relationship Between Bronzes of the Shang Culture and of the Northern Zone]. In Kaoguxue wenhua lunji 1 侫⎌⬠㔯⊾婾普 1 [Collective Essays on the Study of Archaeological Cultures, vol. 1], edited by Su Bingqi, pp. 129–55. Beijing: Wenwu Press.

272 BIBLIOGRAPHY

——. 1990. “Zhoudai yong ding zhidu shangque” ␐ẋ䓐溶⇞⹎⓮㥟 [Disputing the Use of ding Tripods of the Zhou Period]. Shixue yuekan ⎚⬠㚰↲ 3: 12–24. ——. 2003. “Zhangguo beifang Changcheng didai youmu wenhuadai de xingcheng guocheng” ᷕ⚳⊿㕡攟❶⛘ⷞ忲䈏㔯⊾ⷞ䘬⼊ㆸ忶䦳 [The Formation of the Northern Nomadic Cultural Belt Along the Great Wall Area of China]. Yanjin xuebao 䅽Ṕ⬠ ⟙ 14: 95–146. Liu, Baoshan ∱⮞Ⱉ. 1997. “Qinghai de qingtong fu he qingtong yue” 曺㴟䘬曺戭㕏␴ 曺戭摢 [Bronze fu and yue Axes from Qinghai]. Wenwu jikan 㔯䈑⬋↲ 3: 62. Liu, Dezhen ∱⼿㠊. 1981. “Gansu Lingtai liangzuo Xi Zhou mu” 䓀倭曰⎘ℑ⹏大␐⠻ [Two Western Zhou Bronze Tombs at Lingtai, Gansu]. Kaogu 6: 557–58. ——. 1983. “Gansu Lingtai Hongyagou chutu Xi Zhou tongqi” 䓀倭曰⎘䲭Ⲿ㹅↢⛇大 ␐戭☐ [Western Zhou Bronzes from Hongyagou, Lingtai, Gansu]. Kaogu yu wenwu 6: 109. Liu, Huaxia ∱厗⢷. 2010. “Jinwen ziti yu tongqi duandai” 慹㔯⫿橼冯戭☐㕟ẋ [Dating of Bronzes Based on the Style of Inscriptions]. Kaogu xuebao 1: 43–72. Liu, Jianzhong ∱⺢⾈. 1988. “Hebei Huaian Shizikou faxian de lushoudao” 㱛⊿㆟⬱ 䋭⫸⎋䘤䎦䘬渧椾↨ [The Deer-Pommeled Knife Discovered at Shizikou, Huaian, Hebei]. Kaogu 10: 941. Liu, Jiaxing ∱⭞冰. 2014. “Gansu Qingshui Liya yizhi kaogu fajue ji xiangguan wenti tanxi” 䓀倭㶭㯜㛶Ⲿ怢⛨侫⎌䘤㍀⍲䚠斄⓷柴㍊㜸 [Archaeological Excavations of Gansu Qingshui Liya and Discussion of Related Questions]. Sichou Zhilu 䴚䵊ᷳ 嶗 24: 17–18. Liu, Junshe ∱幵䣦. 2014. “Zaitan Shigushan M3 de zhuren jiqi zushu” ℵ婯䞛溻ⰙM3䘬 ᷣṢ⍲℞㕷Ⱄ [Another Discussion on the Tomb Occupant in M3 at Shigushan and His Lineage Background]. In Zhouye luming-Baoji Shigushan Xi Zhou guizumu chutu qingtongqi ␐慶渧沜-⮞暆䞛溻Ⱉ大␐屜㕷⠻↢⛇曺戭☐ [Bronzes from Shigushan Western Zhou Elite Tombs], edited by Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiuyuan 昅大䚩侫⎌ 䞼䨞昊, Baoji shi wenwu lüyouju ⮞暆ⶪ㔯䈑㕭忲⯨, and Shanghai shi bowuguan ᶲ 㴟ⶪ⌂䈑棐, pp. 21–29. Shanghai: Shanghai Shuhua Press. Liu, Junshe ∱幵䣦 et al. 2007. “Shaanxi Baoji Zhifangtou Xi Zhou zaoqi muzang qingli jianbao” 昅大⮞暆䳁⛲柕大␐㖑㛇⠻吔㶭䎮䯉⟙ [A Brief Report on the Cleanup Excavation of the Early Western Zhou Date Tombs at Zhifangtou, Baoji, Shaanxi]. Wenwu 8: 28–47. Liu, Li ∱匱, and Liu Mingke ∱㖶䥹. 2013. “Yetan Shigushan Xi Zhou muzhu ji xiangguan wenti” ḇ婯䞛溻Ⱉ大␐⠻ᷣ⍲䚠斄⓷柴 [Another? Discussion on the Occupant of the Western Zhou Date Tomb at Shigushan]. Baoji shehui kexue 2: 53–57. Liu, Litang ∱䥖➪. 2000. “Guanyu Zhou Zhaowang nanzheng Jianghan diqu youguan wenti de taolun” 斄Ḷ␐㗕䌳⋿⼩㰇㻊⛘⋨㚱斄⓷柴䘬㍊妶 [Discussions on King Zhao’s Southern Military Campaign]. Jianghan kaogu 3: 66–71. Liu, Qiyi ∱⓻䙲. 1980. “Xi Zhou jinwenzhong suojian de Zhouwang houfei” 大␐潘㔯 ᷕ㇨灘䘬␐䌳⼴⤫ [Consorts of the Zhou King in Western Zhou Bronze Inscriptions]. Kaogu yu wenwu 4: 85–90. ——. 1982. “Xi Zhou Zeguo tongqi de xinfaxian yu youguan de lishi dili wenti” 大␐⣐ ⚳戭☐䘬㕘䘤䎦冯㚱斄䘬㙮⎚⛘䎮⓷柴 [Newly Discovered Western Zhou Date Ze Bronzes and Related Issues on Historical Geography]. Kaogu yu wenwu 2: 42–45. Liu, Qingzhu ∱ㄞ㞙. 1982. “Shilun Qin zhi yuanyuan” 娎婾䦎ᷳ㶝㸸 [Preliminary Discussions on the Origin of Qin]. Renwen zazhi (supplemental edition): 176–81. Liu, Qiyu ∱崟憒. 1991. Gushi Xubian ⎌⎚临彗 [The Continuous Debate on Ancient Texts]. Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Press.

273 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Liu, Shie ∱⢓卒, and Yin Shengping ⯡䚃⸛. 1992. “Weishi Jiazu qingtongqi qun yanjiu” ⽖㮷⭞㕷曺戭☐佌䞼䨞 [A Group of Bronzes of the Wei Family]. In Xi Zhou Weishi jiazu qingtongqi qun yanjiu ⽖㮷⭞㕷曺戭☐佌䞼䨞 [A Study on the Brones of the Wei Family], edited by Yin Shengping, pp. 58–78. Beijing: Wenwu Press. Liu, Xu ∱互. 2007. Jin wenhua 㗱㔯⊾ [Jin Culture]. Beijing: Wenwu Press. ——. 2012. “Jinnian faxian de zhongyao liang Zhou muzang pingshu” 役⸜䘤䎦䘬慵天 ℑ␐⠻吔姽徘 [A Summary of Important Zhou Period Tombs Discovered in Recent Years]. In Liangdaicunli de muzang—yifen gonggong kaoguxue baogao 㠩ⷞ㛹塷䘬 ⠻吔—ᶨấ℔ℙ侫⎌⬠⟙⏲ [Burials from Liangdaicun—A Report of Archaeology for the Public], edited by Wang Weilin 䌳䁄㜿 and Chen Xiejun 昛䆖⏃, pp. 122–46. Beijing: Peking University Press. Liu, Xu ∱䵺, and Xu Tianjin ⼸⣑忚. 2002. “Guanyu Tianma-Qucun yizhi Jinguo mudi de jige wenti” 斄Ḷ⣑楔炼㚚㛹怢⛨㗱⚳⠻⛘䘬⸦ᾳ⓷柴 [A Few Questions on the Jin State Cemeteries at Tianma-Qucun]. In Jinhou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 㗱ὗ⠻⛘↢⛇曺戭☐⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫婾㔯普 [Essays of the International Conference on Bronzes from the Jinhou Cemetery], edited by Shanghai bowuguan, pp. 41–52. Shanghai: Shanghai Shuhua Press. Liu, Xu ∱䵺, and Zhao Fusheng 嵁䤷䓇ġ 1997. “Liulihe yizhi Xi Zhou Yan wenhua de xinrenshi” 䎱䐫㱛怢⛨大␐䅽㔯⊾䘬㕘娵嬀 [New Realizations of the Yan Culture of Western Zhou at the Liulihe Site]. Wenwu 4: 34–41. ——. 2001. “Weifang sanqi de niandai he Liujiahe M1 de shuxing” ⚵⛲ᶱ㛇䘬⸜ẋ␴∱⭞㱛 M1䘬Ⱄ⿏ [The Dating of Weifang Phase III Culture and the Nature of Liujiahe Tomb M1]. In Su Bingqi yu dangdai zhongguo kaoguxue 喯䥱䏎␴䔞ẋᷕ⚳侫⎌⬠ [Su Bingqi and Chinese Archaeology], edited by Su Bai ⭧䘥, pp. 146–52. Beijing: Kexue Press. Liu, Yu ∱暐. 2006. “Jinwenzhong de wangcheng” 慹㔯ᷕ䘬䌳䧙 [The King Appellation in Bronze Inscriptions]. Gugong Bowuyuan yuankan㓭⭖⌂䈑昊昊↲4: 6–29. Liu, Yulin ∱䌱㜿. 1977. “Gansu Jinchuan faxian Zao Zhou tong li” 䓀倭㲦ⶅ䘤䎦㖑␐ 戭櫚 [The Early Western Zhou Date Bronze li from Jingchuan, Gansu]. Wenwu 9: 92. Liu, Zhao ∱搲. 1989. “Jingboqi zhengming” 㲦ỗ☐㬋⎵ [The Correct Naming of Jingbo Bronzes]. Wenwu yanjiu 㔯䈑䞼䨞 5: 219–20. Liu, Zhaorui ∱㗕䐆. 1992. “ ‘Anzhou Liuqi’ Bian” ‘⬱ⶆℕ☐’ 彐 [Identification of the Six Vessels from Anzhou]. Wenwu 10: 76–77. LK. Liulihe kaogudui 䎱䐫㱛侫⎌昲. 1974. “Beijing fujin faxian de Xi Zhou nuli xunzangmu” ⊿Ṕ旬役䘤䎦䘬大␐⤜晠㬱吔⠻ [Sacrificial Slave Burials Discovered in Beijing Area]. Kaogu 5: 309–21. ——. 1984. “1981 nian–1983 nian Liulihe Xi Zhou Yanguo mudi fajue jianbao” 1981⸜–1983 ⸜䎱䐫㱛大␐䅽⚳⠻⛘䘤㍀䯉⟙ [A Brief Report on the Excavation of the Yan Cemetery of the Western Zhou at Liulihe from 1981 to 1983]. Kaogu 5: 404, 405–16. ——. 1990. “Beijing Liulihe 1193 hao damu fajue jianbao” ⊿Ṕ䎱䐫㱛ġ1193 嘇⣏⠻䘤㍀䯉 ⟙ [A Brief Excavation Report on M1193 at Liulihe, Beijing]. Kaogu 1: 20–31. ——. 1997. “Liulihe yizhi 1996 niandu fajue jianbao” 䎱䐫㱛怢⛨ġ 1996 ⹎䘤㍀䯉⟙ [A Brief Report on the Excavation at the Liulihe Site in 1996]. Wenwu 6: 4–13. Lu, Guoquan 嶗⚳㪲. 2013. “Jing, Luo and Weihe shangyou Xi Zhou wenhua bianjie Ji xiangguan wenti chulun—biandi ‘Banyuexing wenhua chuanbodai’ lishi yu wenhua yanjiu zhiyi” 㲦, 㳃, 㷕㱛ᶲ忲大␐㔯⊾怲䓴⍲䚠斄⓷柴⇅婾-怲⛘’⋲㚰⼊㔯⊾⁛ 㑕ⷞ’ 㙮⎚冯㔯⊾䞼䨞ᷳᶨ [The Perimeter of Western Zhou Culture in the Upper Jing, Luo, and Wei River Valleys and Preliminary Discussions of Related Questions— Study of the History and Culture of “the Crescent-Shaped Cultural Belt”]. Kaogu yu wenwu 3: 48–56.

274 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lu, Liancheng 䚏忋ㆸ. 1984. “Xi Zhou Zeguo shiji kaolue jiqi xiangguan wenti” 大␐⣐ ⚳⎚䲨侫䔍⍲℞䚠斄⓷柴 [Study of the History of the Ze and Related Questions]. In Xi Zhou shi yanjiu 大␐⎚䞼䨞 [Western Zhou Studies], edited by Wang Guo 䌳㝄 and Zhang Yuliang ⻝䌱列, pp. 232–48. Xi’an: Renwen Zazhi Bianjibu. Lu, Liancheng 䚏忋ㆸ, and Hu Zhisheng 傉㘢䓇. 1988. Baoji Yuguo mudi ⮞暆 ⚳⠻⛘ [The Yu State Cemetery at Baoji]. Beijing: Wenwu Press. Lu, Liancheng 䚏忋ㆸ, and Yin Shengping ⯡䚃⸛. 1982. “Gu Zeguo yizhi mudi diaochaji” ⎌⣐⚳怢⛨⠻⛘婧㞍姀 [An Archaeological Survey of Settlements and Cemeteries of the Ze State]. Wenwu 2: 48–57. Luoyang shi wenwu gongzuodui 㳃春ⶪ㔯䈑ⶍἄ昲. 1983. “1975–1979 Luoyang Beiyao Xi Zhou zhutong yizhi de fajue” 㳃春⊿䩗大␐揬戭怢⛨䘬䘤㍀ [Excavation of Western Zhou Date Casting Foundry at Beiyao, Luoyang]. Kaogu 5: 430–441. ——. 1999. Luoyang Beiyao Xi Zhou mu 㳃春⊿䩗大␐⠻ [Western Zhou Date Burials at Beiyao, Luoyang]. Beijing: Wenwu Press. Ma, Chengyuan 楔㈧㸸. 1992. “Xihuo Xi Zhou qingtongqi yanju erze” 㕘䌚大␐曺戭☐ 䞼䨞Ḵ⇯ [Two Studies on Newly Acquired Western Zhou Date Bronzes]. Shanghai bowuguan jikan ᶲ㴟⌂䈑棐普↲ 6: 150–54. ——. 2002. “Jinhou Su bianzhong” 㗱ὗ䧋䶐挦 [Chime Bells Cast by Jinhou Su]. In Jinhou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 㗱ὗ⠻⛘↢⛇曺戭 ☐⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫婾㔯普 [Essays of the International Conference on Bronzes from the Jinhou Cemetery], edited by Shanghai bowuguan, pp. 8–28. Shanghai: Shanghai Shuhua Press. Ma, Mingzhi 楔㖶娴. 2009. “Xicha wenhua chubu yanjiu” 大ⰼ㔯⊾⇅㬍䞼䨞 [Preliminary Studies of the Xicha Culture]. Kaogu yu wenwu 5: 38–45. Mao, Ruilin 㮃䐆㜿, Liang Yun 㠩暚, and Nan Baosheng ⋿⮞䓇. 2006. “Gansu Qingshui xian de Shang Zhou wenwu” 䓀倭㶭㯜䷋䘬⓮␐㔯䈑 [Shang and Zhou Period Cultural Relics at Qingshui, Gansu]. Zhongguo lishi wenwu 5: 38–45. Mattingly, David. J. 2010. “Cultural Crossovers: Global and Local Identities in the Classic World.” In Material Culture and Social Identities in the Ancient World, edited by Shelley Hales and Tamar Hodos, pp. 283–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——. 2011. Imperialism, Power and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Meng, Wentong 呁㔯忂. 1936. “Qin Wei Rongzu Kao” 䦎䇚ㆶ㕷侫 [The Study of the Qin as Rong]. Yugong 䥡届 7, no. 6: 17–20. Meng, Zhaorong ⬇㗕㯠, and Zhao Liguo 嵁䩳⚳. 1994. “Hebei Luan xian chutu wan Shang qingtongqi” 㱛⊿䀌䷋↢⛇㘂⓮曺戭☐ [Late Shang Date Bronzes from Luanxian, Hebei]. Kaogu 4: 376. Meskell, Lynn. 2001. “Archaeologies of Identity.” In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 187–213. Cambridge: Polity Press. Miao, Wei 剿⦩. 2008. “Guanyu Guzhu de tantao” 斄Ḷ⬌䪡䘬㍊妶 [A Discussion on Guzhu]. Zhongyang minzu daxue xuebao ᷕ⣖㮹㕷⣏⬠⬠⟙ (⒚⬠䣦㚫䥹⬠䇰) 3: 76–80. Miyamoto, Kazuo ⭖㛔ᶨ⣓. 1999. “䎱䐫㱛⠻⛘̠̌͊̀䅽̯㓧橼̩怤大” [Yan Politics and Liaoxi Examined from the Yan Cemetery at Liulihe]. Kōkogaku kenkyū 侫⎌ ⬠䞼䨞 46, no. 1: 91–111. Nan, Puheng ⋿㘖⿺ et al. 2008. “Hengshui Xi Zhou mudi bufen qingtongqi canliu nixin de kuangwu zucheng ji chengfen fenxi” 㨓㯜大␐⠻⛘悐↮曺戭☐㭀䔁㲍剗䘬䣎 䈑䳬ㆸ⍲ㆸ↮↮㜸 [Analysis of Mineral and Chemical Composition of Clay Cores

275 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Collected in Bronze Vessels Excavated from a Cemetery of the Western Zhou Dynasty in Hengshui]. Yankuang ceshi ⱑ䞧㳳孽 4: 259–62. Nan, Yuquan ⋿䌱㱱, and Guo Chenhui 悕㘐廅. 1987. “Siwa-Anguo xitong taoli de xuli” ⮢䩒-⬱⚳䲣䴙昞櫚䘬⸷↿ [A Seriation of Siwa-Anguo System Pottery li Tripods]. Wenwu 2: 27–34, 43. NHZWKY and PWG. Ningxia Huizu zizhiqu wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 䓗⢷⚆㕷冒㱣 ⋨㔯䈑侫⎌䞼䨞㇨, and Pengyang xian wenwu guanlisuo ⼕春䷋㔯䈑䭉䎮㇨. 2020. “Ningxia Pengyang xian Yaoheyuan yizhi zhutong zuofangqu 2017~2018 nian fajue jianbao” 䓗⢷⼕春䷋⦂㱛⠔怢⛨揬戭ἄ⛲⋨ġ2017~2018 ⸜䘤㍀䯉⟙ [A Brief Report of Execavations of a Bronze Casting Workshop at the Yaoheyuan Site, Pengyang County, Ningxia]. Kaogu 10: 30-52. Niu, Shishan 䈃ᶾⰙ. 1996. “Qin wenhua yuanyuan yu Qinren qiyuan tansuo” 䦎㔯⊾㶝 㸸冯䦎Ṣ崟㸸㍊䳊 [Investigations of the Origin of Qin Culture and the Qin People]. Kaogu 3:41–50. Pang, Wenlong 漸㔯漵, and Cui Meiying Ⲽ䍓劙. 1990. “Shaanxi Qishan jinnian chutu de qingtongqi” 昅大ⰸⰙ役⸜↢⛇䘬曺戭☐ [Bronzes from Qishan, Shaanxi, in Recent Years]. Kaogu yu wenwu 1: 50–52, 57. Parker, Bradley, and Lars Rodseth (eds.). 2005. Untaming the Frontier in Anthropology, Archaeology, and History. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Pei, Jianlong 墜⺢晜. 2017. “Zhou Qin shishi yu kaogu faxian de jubu zhenghe-yi Xi Zhou shiqi Weihe shangyou wei shikong kuangjia” ␐䦎⎚ḳ冯侫⎌䘤䎦䘬⯨悐㔜⎰-ẍ 大␐㗪㛇㷕㱛ᶲ忲䇚㗪䨢㟮㝞 [Partial Integrations of Historical Evidence on the Zhou and Qin and Archaeological Discoveries]. Tianshui shifan xueyuan xuebao ⣑ 㯜ⷓ䭬⬠昊⬠⟙ 1: 47–51. Peng, Bangjiong ⼕恎䁗. 1991. “Cong Shang de Zhuguo lunji Shangdai beijiang zhushi” ⽆⓮䘬䪡⚳婾⍲⓮ẋ⊿䔮媠㮷 [Lineages in the Northern Periphery of Shang and the Zhu State]. In Jiaguwen yu Yinshangshi (3) 䓚橐㔯冯㭟⓮⎚ (䫔ᶱ廗) [Oracle Bone Inscriptions and Yin Shang History] (vol. 3), edited by Hu Houxuan, pp. 380–404. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Press. Peng, Liping ⼕䩳⸛. 1993. “Weichang xian bowuguan shouji de yijian qingtong shoushou wandao” ⚵⟜䷋⌂䈑棐㓞普䘬ᶨẞ曺戭䌠椾⻶↨ [An Animal-Pommeled Bronze Knife Collected in Weichang County Museum]. Wenwu chunqiu 㔯䈑㗍䥳 3: 88. Peng, Xi ⼕㚎. 2013. “Lice Shigushan Xi Zhou zaoqi M3 zhuren” 埉㳳䞛溻Ⱉ大␐㖑㛇 M3ᷣṢ [A Preliminary Discussion on the Deceased in M3 of the Early Western Zhou at Shigushan]. Baoji shehui kexue 3: 50–53. Poly Art Museum. 1999. Poly cangjin ᾅ⇑啷慹 [Selected Bronzes in the Collection of the Poly Art Museum]. Guangzhou: Lingnan Meishu Press. Pratt, Mary Louise. 1992. Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation. London: Routledge. Qiaobei kaogudui 㧳⊿侫⎌昲. 2006. “Shanxi Fushan Qiaobeicun Shang Zhou mudi” Ⱉ大㴖Ⱉ㧳⊿㛹⓮␐⠻⛘ [The Shang and Zhou Cemetery at Qiaobeicun, Fushan, Shanxi]. Gudai wenming 5: 347–94. QWKY. Qinghaisheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 曺㴟䚩㔯䈑侫⎌䞼䨞㇨. 1994. “Qinghai Huangzhong Xiaxihe Panjialiang Kayue wenhua mudi” 曺㴟㸇ᷕᶳ大㱛㼀⭞㠩⌉䲬 㔯⊾⠻⛘ [The Kayue Cemetery from Panjialiang, Xiaxihe, Huangzhong, Qinghai]. Kaoguxue jikan 侫⎌⬠普↲ 8: 28–86. QDB. Qingyang qiqu bowuguan ㄞ春⛘⋨⌂䈑棐. 1985. “Gansu Qingyang Hanjiatan Miaozui faxian yizuo Xi Zhou mu” 䓀倭ㄞ春杻⭞䀀⺇◜䘤䎦ᶨ⹏大␐⠻ [A Western Zhou Date Bronze Tomb at Hanjiatan Miaozui, Qingyang, Gansu]. Kaogu 9: 809, 853–54.

276 BIBLIOGRAPHY

——. 1989. “Gansu Ning xian Jiaocun Xigou chutu de yizuo Xi Zhou mu” 䓀倭䓗䷋䃎㛹 大㹅↢⛇䘬ᶨ⹏大␐⠻ [A Western Zhou Date Tomb from Jiaocun Xigou, Ningxian, Gansu]. Kaogu yu wenwu 6: 24–27. Qiu, Xigui 墀拓⛕. 1992. “Shijian” 慳⺢ [Interpretation of the Character “Jian”]. In Guwenzi lunji ⎌㔯⫿婾普 [A Collection of Essays on Paleography], pp. 353–56. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju. ——. 2012. “Yicheng Dahekou Xi Zhou mudi chutu niaoxing he mingwen jieshi” 侤❶⣏ 㱛⎋大␐⠻⛘↢⛇沍⼊䙱所㔯妋慳 [An Interpretation of an Inscription on a BirdShaped he from a Western Zhou Date Cemetery at Dahekou, Yicheng]. Zhongguoshi yanjiu ᷕ⚳⎚䞼䨞 3: 5–11. QSKXHB. Quanguo shida kaogu xinfaxian pingxuan huodong bangongshi ℐ⚳⋩⣏侫 ⎌㕘䘤䎦姽怠㳣≽彎℔⭌. 2014. “Shaanxi Baoji Shigushan Shang Zhou mudi” 昅大 ⮞暆䞛溻Ⱉ⓮␐⠻⛘ [The Shang and Zhou Cemetery at Shigushan, Baoji, Shaanxi]. Website of the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Science. http:// www.kaogu.cn/cn/xueshuhuodongzixun/2013nianquanguoshidakaoguxinfaxian /2014/0411/45831.html. Rawson, Jessica. 1988. “A Bronze-Casting Revolution in the Western Zhou and Its Impacts on Provincial Industries.” In The Beginning of the Use of Metal and Alloys, edited by Robert Maddin, pp. 228–38. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ——. 1990. Western Zhou Ritual Bronzes from the Arthur M. Sackler Collections. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ——. 1999. “Western Zhou Archaeology.” In The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilizations to 221 B.C., edited by Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy, pp. 352–449. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——. 2010. “Carnelian Beads, Animal Figures and Exotic Vessels: Traces of Contact Between the Chinese States and Inner Asia, c. 1000–650 BC.” In Bridging Eurasia: Archäologie in China 1, edited by Mayke Wagner and Wang Wei. pp. 1–42. Mainz: Von Zabern. ——. 2013. “Miniature Bronzes in Western Zhou Tombs in Baoji in Shaanxi Province” 昅大⮞暆大␐⠻↢⛇䘬⽖✳曺戭☐. In Jinyu jiaohui—Shang Zhou kaogu, yishu yu wenhua lunwenji 慹䌱Ṍ廅-⓮␐侫⎌, 喅埻冯㔯⊾婾㔯普 [Radiance Between Bronzes and Jade—Archaeology, Art, and Culture of the Shang and Zhou Dynasties], edited by Chen Guangzu 昛⃱䣾, pp. 357–98. Taipei: Academic Sinica. RBC. Rehe sheng bowuguan choubeichu 䅙㱛䚩⌂䈑棐䯴⁁嗽. 1955. “Rehe Lingyuan xian Haidaoyingzicun faxian de gudai qingtongqi” 䅙㱛㶑㸸䷋㴟Ⲟ䆇⫸㛹䘤䎦䘬 ⎌ẋ曺戭☐ [Ancient Bronzes Discovered at Haidaoyingzi, Lingyuanxian, Rehe]. Kaogu tongxun 8: 16–27. Ren, Wei ả῱. 2004. Xi Zhou fengguo kaoyi 大␐⮩⚳侫䔹 [An Investigation of Western Zhou Regional States]. Beijing: Sheke Wenxian Press. Ren, Xueli ả暒匱. 2012. Baoji Daijiawan Shang Zhou tongqiqun de zhengli yu yanjiu ⮞ 暆㇜⭞䀋⓮␐戭☐佌䘬㔜䎮冯䞼䨞 [Organization of and Research on Shang and Zhou Bronzes from Daijiawan, Baoji]. Beijing: Xianzhuang Shuju. ——. 2014. “Bainian qianshou, tongqi liangzhi—xinchu Baoji Shigushan tongqi yu Daijiawan tongqi de duibi yanjiu” 䘦⸜䈥ㇳ, ⎴㯋忋㝅—㕘↢⮞暆䞛溻Ⱉ戭☐冯㇜⭞ 䀋戭☐䘬⮵㭼䞼䨞 [A Comparative Study of Newly Excavated Bronzes from Shigushan, Baoji, and Bronzes from Daijiawan]. In Zhouye luming — Baoji Shigushan Xi Zhou guizumu chutu qingtongqi ␐慶渧沜-⮞暆䞛溻Ⱉ大␐屜㕷⠻↢⛇曺戭 ☐ [Bronzes from Shigushan Western Zhou Elite Tombs at Baoji], edited by Shaanxi

277 BIBLIOGRAPHY

sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 昅大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞昊, Baoji shi wenwu Lüyouju ⮞暆ⶪ㔯䈑 㕭忲⯨, and Shanghai shi bowuguan ᶲ㴟ⶪ⌂䈑棐, pp. 30–39. Shanghai: Shanghai Shuhua Press. Ren, Yashan ảṆ䍲, Guo Hairui 悕㴟䐆 and Li Enwei 㛶】䍖. 1999. “1993—1997 nian Xingtai Gejiazhuang Xian Zhou yizhi, liang Zhou guizu mudi kaogu gongzuo zhuyao shouhuo” 1993—1997⸜恊⎘吃⭞匲⃰␐怢⛨ˣℑ␐屜㕷⠻⛘侫⎌ⶍἄᷣ天㓞䌚 [Major Achievements of Archaeological Works from 1993 to 1997 on the Predynastic Zhou Remains and Zhou Elite Cemetery at Gejiazhuang, Xingtai]. In Sandai wenming yanjiu [ᶱẋ㔯㖶䞼䨞(ᶨ) [Research of the Three Dynasties (vol. 1), edited by Sandai wenming yanjiu bianji weiyuanhui ᶱẋ㔯㖶䞼䨞䶐廗⥼⒉㚫 [The Editorial Committee of Research of the Three Dynasties], pp. 7–25. Beijing: Kexue Press. Revell, Louise. 2009. Roman Imperialism and Local Identities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sena, David. 2005. “Reproducing Society: Lineage and Kinship in Western Zhou China.” PhD dissertation, University of Chicago. Sen-oku Hakuko kan. 2002. 㱱⯳⌂⎌: ᷕ⚳⎌戭☐䶐 [Sen-oku Hakuko Kan: The Sumitomo Collection of Ancient Chinese Bronzes]. Kyōto-shi: Sen’oku Hakkokan, Heisei. SB and SWGW. Shaanxi sheng bowuguan 昅大䚩⌂䈑棐 and Shaanxi sheng wenwu guanli weiyuanhui 昅大䚩㔯䈑䭉䎮⥼⒉㚫. 1976. “Shaanxi Qishan Hejiacun Xi Zhou muzang” 昅大ⰸⰙ屨⭞㛹大␐⠻吔 [A Western Zhou Date Tomb at Hejiacun, Qishan, Shaanxi]. Kaogu 1: 31–38. SKY, BKY, and BWB. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 昅大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞昊, Baoji shi kaogu yanjiusuo ⮞暆ⶪ侫⎌䞼䨞㇨, and Baoji shi weibinqu bowuguan ⮞暆ⶪ㷕㾙 ⋨⌂䈑棐. 2016. “Shaanxi Baoji Shigushan Shang Zhou mudi M4 fajue jianbao” 昅大 ⮞暆䞛溻Ⱉ⓮␐⠻⛘ġM4 䘤㍀䯉⟙ [A Preliminary Excavation Report on M4 of a Shang Zhou Period Cemetery at Shigushan, Baoji, Shaanxi]. Wenwu 1: 5–52. SKY, BWL, and SB. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 昅大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞昊, Baoji shi wenwu lüyouju ⮞暆ⶪ㔯䈑㕭忲⯨, and Shanghaishi bowuguan ᶲ㴟ⶪ⌂䈑棐. 2014. Zhouye luming-Baoji Shigushan Xi Zhou guizumu chutu qingtongqi ␐慶渧沜-⮞暆䞛 溻Ⱉ大␐屜㕷⠻↢⛇曺戭☐ [Bronzes from Shigushan Western Zhou Elite Tombs at Baoji]. Shanghai: Shanghai Shuhua Press. SKY, QQBKY, and HJGW. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 昅大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞㇨, Weinanshi wenwu baohu kaogu yanjiusuo 㷕⋿ⶪ㔯䈑ᾅ嬟侫⎌䞼䨞㇨, and Hanchengshi jingqu guanli weiyuanhui 杻❶ⶪ㘗⋨䭉䎮⥼⒉㚫įġ2010. Liangdaicun Ruiguo mudi: 2007 nian fajue baogao 㠩ⷞ㛹剖⚳⠻⛘: Ḵ暞暞ᶫ⸜⹎䘤㍀⟙⏲ [Liangdaicun Ruiguo Cemetery: An Excavation Report of 2007]. Beijing: Wenwu Press. SZK. Shaanxi Zhouyuan kaogudui 昅大␐⍇侫⎌昲. 1979. “Shaanxi Qishan Fengchucun Xi Zhou jianzhu jizhi fajue jianbao” 昅大ⰸⰙ沛暃㛹大␐⺢䭱➢⛨䘤㍀䯉⟙ [Brief Excavation Report of the Western Zhou Architectural Foundation at Fengchu, Qishan, Shaanxi]. Wenwu 10: 27–37. ——. 1984. “Fufeng Liujia Jiangrong muzang fajue jianbao” ㈞桐∱⭞⦄ㆶ⠻吔䘤㍀䯉 ⟙ [A Brief Excavation Report on Jiangrong Tombs of the Liujia Culture, Fufeng]. Wenwu 7:16–29. ——. 2011. “Zhouyuan Zhuangli Xi Zhou zhutong yizhi 2003 yu 2004 nian chunji fajue baogao” ␐⍇匲墉大␐揬戭怢⛨ġ2003 冯2004⸜㗍⬋䘤㍀⟙⏲ [Excavation Report on Bronze Foundries Found at Zhuangli in Zhouyuan from 2003 to the Spring of 2004]. Kaogu xuebao 2: 245–316.

278 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Shang, Tongliu ⓮⼌㳩. 2002. “Cong Jinhou mudi M113 chutu de qingtong shuangerguan kan Jin wenhua yu Jiangrong wenhua de guanxi” ⽆㗱ὗ⠻⛘ġ M113 ↢⛇䘬 曺戭暁俛仸䚳㗱㔯⊾冯⦄ㆶ㔯⊾䘬斄䲣 [Examination of the Relation Between the Jin Culture and Jiang Rong Culture Based on the Two-Handled Bronze Guan Jar from M113 in the Jinhou Cemetery]. In Jinhou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 㗱ὗ⠻⛘↢⛇曺戭☐⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫婾㔯普 [Essays of the International Conference on Bronzes from the Jinhou Cemetery], edited by Shanghai bowuguan, pp. 371–76. Shanghai: Shanghai Shuhua Press. Shanghai bowuguan ᶲ㴟⌂䈑棐 (ed.). 2002. Jinhou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 㗱ὗ⠻⛘↢⛇曺戭☐⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫婾㔯普 [Essays of the International Conference on Bronzes from the Jinhou Cemetery]. Shanghai: Shanghai Shuhua Press. Shangshu Zhengyi ⯂㚠㬋佑 [Book of Documents]. 1980. In Shisanjing zhushu ⋩ᶱ䴻 姣䔷 [Thirteen Classics with Notes and Commentaries], annotations by Kong Anguo ⫼⬱⚳ and commentaries by Kong Yingda ⫼䧶忼. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju. SKY. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo Ⱉ大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞㇨ (You Jinle 忲慹㦪 and Han Binghua 杻㝬厗). 2006. Lingshi Jingjie Shangmu 曰䞛㕴ṳ⓮⠻ [Shang Period Tomb at Jingjie, Lingshi]. Beijing: Kexue Press. SKY and BDKWX. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo Ⱉ大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞㇨ and Beijing daxue kaogu wenbo xueyuan ⊿Ṕ⣏⬠侫⎌㔯⌂⬠昊. 2010. “Shanxi Beizhao Jinhou mudi yihao chemakeng fajue jianbao” Ⱉ大⊿嵁㗱ὗ⠻⛘ᶨ嘇干楔⛹䘤㍀䯉⟙ [A Brief Excavation Report of Horse and Chariot Pit No. 1 at Jinhou Cemetery at Beizhao, Shanxi]. Wenwu 2: 4–22. SKY and DMLK. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo Ⱉ大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞㇨ and Dahekou mudi lianhe kaogudui ⣏㱛⎋⠻⛘倗⎰侫⎌昲. 2011. “Shanxi Yicheng xian Dahekou Xi Zhou mudi” Ⱉ大侤❶䷋⣏㱛⎋大␐⠻⛘ [Western Zhou Date Cemetery at Dahekou, Yicheng, Shanxi]. Kaogu 7: 9–18. SKY et al. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo Ⱉ大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞㇨, Linfen shi Wenwuju 冐 㰦ⶪ㔯䈑⯨, Yicheng xian Wenwu Lüyouju 侤❶䷋㔯䈑㕭忲⯨, and Shanxi daxue kaogu yanjiu zhongxin Ⱉ大⣏⬠⊿㕡侫⎌䞼䨞ᷕ⽫. 2018a. “Shanxi Yicheng Dahekou Xi Zhou mudi 1017 hao mu fajue” Ⱉ大侤❶⣏㱛⎋大␐⠻⛘ġ1017 嘇⠻䘤 ㍀ [The Excavation of Western Zhou Date Tomb No. 1017 at Yicheng, Shanxi]. Kaogu xuebao 1: 89–139. ——. 2018b. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo Ⱉ大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞㇨, Linfen shi wenwuju 冐 㰦ⶪ㔯䈑⯨, Yicheng xian wenwu lüyouju 侤❶䷋㔯䈑㕭忲⯨, Shanxi daxue kaogu yanjiu zhongxin Ⱉ大⣏⬠⊿㕡侫⎌䞼䨞ᷕ⽫, and Zhongguo renmin daxue chutu wenxian yu zhongguo gudai wenming xietong chuangxin zhongxin ᷕ⚳Ṣ㮹⣏⬠ ↢⛇㔯䌣冯ᷕ⚳⎌ẋ㔯㖶䞼䨞⋼⎴∝㕘ᷕ⽫. “Shanxi Yicheng Dahekou Xi Zhou mudi 2002 hao mu fajue” Ⱉ大侤❶⣏㱛⎋大␐⠻⛘2002嘇⠻䘤㍀ [The Excavation of Western Zhou Date Tomb No. 2002 at Yicheng, Shanxi]. Kaogu xuebao 2: 223–62. ——. 2019. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo Ⱉ大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞㇨, Yuncheng shi wenwu gongzuozhan 忳❶ⶪ㔯䈑ⶍἄ䪁, Jiang xian wenwuju 亃䷋㔯䈑⯨, Shanxi daxue kaogu yanjiu zhongxin Ⱉ大⣏⬠⊿㕡侫⎌䞼䨞ᷕ⽫, and Zhongguo renmin daxue chutu wenxian yu zhongguo gudai wenming yanjiu xietong chuangxin zhongxin ᷕ⚳Ṣ㮹⣏⬠↢⛇㔯䌣冯ᷕ⚳⎌ẋ㔯㖶䞼䨞⋼⎴∝㕘ᷕ⽫. “Shanxi Jiang xian Hengshui Xi Zhou mudi M2158 fajue jianbao” Ⱉ大亃䷋㨓㯜大␐⠻⛘M2158䘤㍀ 䯉⟙ [A Brief Excavation Report of M2158 from Western Zhou Cemetery M2158 at Hengshui, Jiang County, Shanxi]. Kaogu xuebao 1: 15–59.

279 BIBLIOGRAPHY

——. 2020a. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo Ⱉ大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞㇨, Linfen shi Wenwuju 冐㰦ⶪ㔯䈑⯨, and Yicheng xian Wenwu Lüyouju 侤❶䷋㔯䈑㕭忲⯨. “Shanxi Yicheng Dahekou Xi Zhou mudi M1034 fajue jianbao” Ⱉ大侤❶⣏㱛⎋大␐⠻⛘ M1034䘤㍀䯉⟙ [A Brief Excavation Report on M1034 at the Western Zhou Cemetery at Dahekou, Yicheng, Shanxi]. Zhongyuan wenwu 1: 4–30. ——. 2020b. “Shanxi Yicheng Dahekou Xi Zhou mudi M1034 fajue jianbao” Ⱉ大侤❶ ⣏㱛⎋大␐⠻⛘ġ M6096 䘤㍀䯉⟙ [A Brief Excavation Report on M6096 at the Western Zhou Cemetery at Dahekou, Yicheng, Shanxi]. Wenwu 1: 4–25. ——. 2020c. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo Ⱉ大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞㇨, Yuncheng shi wenwu gongzuozhan 忳❶ⶪ㔯䈑ⶍἄ䪁, Jiang xian wenwuju 亃䷋㔯䈑⯨, and Shanxi daxue kaogu yanjiu zhongxin Ⱉ大⣏⬠⊿㕡侫⎌䞼䨞ᷕ⽫. “Shanxi Jiang xian Hengshui Xi Zhou mudi M2531 fajue baogao” Ⱉ大亃䷋㨓㯜大␐⠻⛘ġM2531 䘤㍀ ⟙⏲ [Excavation Report of M2531 at the Western Zhou Cemetery at Hengshui, Jiang County, Shanxi]. Kaogu xuebao 1: 89–121. SKY, SB, and SB. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo Ⱉ大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞㇨, Shanxi bowuguan Ⱉ大⌂䈑昊, and Shoudu bowuguan 椾悥⌂䈑棐 (eds.). 2014. Youyou luming-Yanguo gongzhu yanli de Baguo ␎␎渧沜-䅽⚳℔ᷣ䛤塷䘬曠⚳ [Harmonious Life: The State of Ba in the Eyes of a Yan Princess]. Beijing: Kexue Press. SKY, YWG, and JW. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo Ⱉ大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞㇨, Yuncheng shi wenwu gongzuozhan 忳❶ⶪ㔯䈑ⶍἄ䪁, and Jiang xian wenhuaju 亃䷋㔯⊾⯨. 2006a. “Shanxi Jiang xian Hengshui Xi Zhou mudi” Ⱉ大亃䷋㨓㯜大␐⠻⛘ [The Western Zhou Cemetery at Hengshui, Jiang County, Shanxi]. Kaogu 7: 16–21. ——. 2006b. “Shanxi Jiang xian Hengshui Xi Zhou mu fajue jianbao” Ⱉ大亃䷋㨓㯜大 ␐⠻䘤㍀䯉⟙ [A Brief Archaeological Report on Western Zhou Tombs at Hengshui, Jiang County, Shanxi]. Wenwu 8: 4–18. SWGW and HW. Shanxi sheng wenwu gongzuo weiyuanhui Ⱉ大䚩㔯䈑ⶍἄ⥼⒉㚫 and Hongdong xian wenhuaguan 㳒㳆䷋㔯⊾棐. 1987. “Shanxi Hongdong Yongningbu Xi Zhou muzang” Ⱉ大㳒㳆㯠ↅ⟉大␐⠻吔 [Western Zhou Date Tombs at Yongningbu, Hongdong, Shanxi]. Wenwu 1: 1–16. Shaughnessy, Edward L. 1991. Sources of Western Zhou History: Inscribed Bronze Vessels. Berkeley: University of California Press. ——. 1999. “Calendar and Chronology.” In The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilizations to 221 BC, edited by Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy, pp. 19–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——. 2017. “Newest Sources of Western Zhou History: Inscribed Bronze Vessels, 2000– 2010.” In Imprints of Kinship: Studies of Recently Discovered Bronze Inscriptions from Ancient China, edited by Edward Shaughnessy, pp. 133–88. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press. She, Junying ἀὲ劙. 2015. “Caijiafen yizhi fenqi yanjiu” 哉⭞⡛怢⛨↮㛇䞼䨞 [Periodization of the Caijiafen Site]. MA thesis, Remin University. Shelach, Gideon. 2009. Prehistoric Societies on the Northern Frontiers of China: Archaeological Perspectives on Identity Formation and Economic Change During the First Millennium bce. London: Equinox. Shen, Yong 㰰≯. 1993. “Weifang sanqi wenhua chulun” ⚵⛲ᶱ㛇㔯⊾⇅婾 [Research on the Weifang Phase III Culture]. Beifang wenwu 3: 19–24, 66. Shi, Dangshe ⎚源䣦. 2015. “Xinchu kaogu, wenzi ziliao yu Qinren zaoqi lishi” 㕘↢侫⎌, 㔯⫿屯㕁冯䦎Ṣ㖑㛇㙮⎚ [Newly Discovered Archaeological and Textual Evidence and the Early History of the Qin People]. Journal of Sinology ⚳⬠⬠↲ 4: 18–27.

280 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Shi, Kehui ⎚⎗㗾. 1987. “Gansu Lingtai xian you faxian yizuo Xi Zhou muzang” 䓀倭曰 ⎘䷋⍰䘤䎦ᶨ⹏大␐⠻吔 [A Western Zhou Date Tomb at Lingtai, Gansu]. Kaogu yu wenwu 5: 100–1. Shi, Nianhai ⎚⾝㴟. 1991. Heshanji 㱛Ⱉ普 4 [Rivers and Mountains], vol. 4. Xi’an: Shaanxi Shifan Daxue Press. Shigushan kaogudui. 2013a. “Shaanxi Baoji shi Shigushan Xi Zhou mu” 昅大⮞暆ⶪ䞛 溻Ⱉ大␐⠻ [Western Zhou Date Tombs at Baoji, Shaanxi]. Kaogu yu wenwu 1: 3–24. ——. 2013b. “Shaanxi Baoji shi Shigushan Xi Zhou muzang fajue jianbao” 昅大⮞暆䞛溻 Ⱉ大␐⠻吔䘤㍀䯉⟙ [A Brief Excavation Report on Western Zhou Date Tombs at Shigushan, Baoji]. Wenwu 2: 4–54. Shiji ⎚姀 [Grand Scribe’s Records] (by Sima Qian ⎠楔怟). 1982. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju. Shijing 娑䴻 [Book of Poetry]. 1980. In Shisanjing Zhushu ⋩ᶱ䴻姣䔷 [Thirteen Classics with Notes and Commentaries], annotations by Kong Anguo ⫼⬱⚳ and commentaries by Kong Yingda ⫼䧶忼. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju. Shim, Jae-hoon. 1997. “The ‘Jinhou Su Bianzhong’ Inscription and Its Significance.” Early China 22: 43–57. ——. 2002. “A New Understanding of Kija Choson as a Historical Anachronism.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 62: 271–305. Shui, Tao 㯜㵃. 2001. Ganqing diqu qingtong shidai de wenhua jiegou he jingji xingtai yanjiu—zhongguo xibei diqu qingtong shidai kaogu lunji 䓀曺⛘⋨曺戭㗪ẋ䘬㔯⊾䳸㥳 ␴䴻㾇⼊ン䞼䨞—ᷕ⚳大⊿⛘⋨曺戭㗪ẋ侫⎌婾普 [A Study of the Framework of the Bronze Age Culture and Economy in the Ganqing Area—A Collection of Archeological Essays on Bronze Age Northwestern China]. Beijing: Kexue Press. So, Jenny, and Emma Bunker. 1995. Traders and Raiders on China’s Northern Frontier. Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, in association with University of Washington Press, Seattle. Song, Jian ⬳⺢. 2002. “Jinhou mudi qianlun” 㗱ὗ⠻⛘㶢婾 [A Preliminary Discussion on the Jinhou Cemetery]. In Jinhou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 㗱ὗ⠻⛘↢⛇曺戭☐⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫婾㔯普 [Essays of the International Conference on Bronzes from the Jinhou Cemetery], edited by Shanghai bowuguan, pp. 148–55. Shanghai: Shanghai Shuhua Press. Song, Jianzhong, et al. ⬳⺢⾈䫱. 2007. “Shanxi Jiang xian Hengshui mudi erqi kaogu fajue xinshouhuo” Ⱉ大亃䷋㨓㯜⠻⛘Ḵ㛇侫⎌䘤㍀㕘㓞䌚 [New Archaeological Discoveries of the Second Phase Excavation at Hengshui, Jiang County, Shanxi]. Zhongguo wenwubao, September 14, 2007. Song, Lingping ⬳䍚⸛. 2007. Jinxi muzang zhidu yanjiu 㗱大⠻吔⇞⹎䞼䨞 [Research on the Burial System in Western Shanxi]. Beijing: Kexue Press. Song, Xinchao ⬳㕘㼖. 1997. “Zhongguo zaoqi tongjing ji xiangguan wenti” ᷕ⚳㖑㛇戭 掉⍲䚠斄⓷柴 [Early Bronze Mirrors in China and Related Questions]. Kaogu xuebao 2:147–69. Stein, Gil. 2002. “From Passive Periphery to Active Agents: Emerging Perspectives in the Archaeology of Interregional Interaction.” American Anthropologist 104: 903–16. —— (ed.). 2005. The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters: Comparative Perspectives. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Sun, Hua ⬓⋶. [1992] 1995a. “Yanhoukeqi mingwen qianjian—jiantan Shaogong feng Yan jiqi xiangguan wenti” 䅽ὗ⃳☐所㔯㶢夳—ℤ婯⎔℔⮩䅽⍲℞䚠斄⓷柴 [Preliminary Study of Bronzes Commissioned by Yanhou Ke—A Discussion on the

281 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Enfeoffment of Yan and Related Issues]. In Yan wenhua yanjiu lunwenji 䅽㔯⊾䞼䨞 婾㔯普 [A Collection of Essays on the Study of Yan Culture], edited by Chen Guang, pp. 278–86. Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Press. ——. 1995b. “Guanyu Jinhou Dui zumu de Jige wenti” 斄Ḷ㗱ὗ⮡䳬⠻䘬⸦ᾳ⓷柴 [A Few Questions on Lineage Tombs Related to Jinhou Dui]. Wenwu 9: 50–57. ——. 1998. “Zhoudai qianqi de Zhouren mudi” ␐ẋ⇵㛇䘬␐Ṣ⠻⛘ [The Cemetery of the Zhou People During the Early Part of the Zhou Dynasty]. In Yuanwangji: Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo Huadan Sishi Zhounian jinian Wenji 怈㛃普:昅大䚩侫⎌䞼 䨞㇨厗娽⚃⋩␐⸜䲨⾝㔯普 [Yuanwangji: Collected Essays on the Celebration of the Fortieth Year of the Founding of the Shaanxi Institute of Archaeology], edited by Shaanxi kaogu yanjiusuo, pp. 265–89. Xi’an: Shaanxi Remin Meishu Press. ——. 2000. “Sichuan pendi qingtong wenhua chulun” ⚃ⶅ䙮⛘曺戭㔯⊾⇅婾 [Preliminary Studies of the Bronze Culture in the Sichuan Basin]. In Sichuan pendi de qingtong shidai ⚃ⶅ䙮⛘䘬曺戭㗪ẋ [The Bronze Age of the Sichuan Basin], edited by Sun Hua, pp. 2–46. Beijing: Kexue Press. Sun, Qingwei ⬓ㄞ῱. 1997. “Shilun Yangguo yu Yang Ji” 娎婾㣲⚳冯㣲⦆ [Preliminary Discussion on the State of Yang and Yang Ji]. Kaogu yu wenwu 5: 63–65. ——. 2001. “Yebian ‘Jingong zongshi’—jianlun Jinhou mudi M114 muzhuren” ḇ彗 ‘ 㗱℔⬿⭌’—ℤ婾㗱ὗ⠻⛘ġ M114 ⠻ᷣṢ [On ‘the Ruling Lineage of Jingong’— Discussion on the Identity of Tomb Occupant M114]. Gudai wenming yanjiu tongxun 10: 239–48. ——. 2002. “Jinhou mudi M114 niandai he muzhu tuiding” 㗱ὗ⠻⛘ M114 ⸜ẋ␴⠻ᷣ ㍐⭂ [Analysis of the Date and Occupant of M114 in the Jinhou Cemetery]. In Jinhou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 㗱ὗ⠻⛘↢⛇曺戭☐⚳晃⬠ 埻䞼妶㚫婾㔯普 [Essays of the International Conference on Bronzes from the Jinhou Cemetery], edited by Shanghai bowuguan. Shanghai: Shanghai Shuhua Press. ——. 2007. “Cong xinchu Wei yan kan Zhaowang nanzheng yu Jinhou Xiefu” ⽆㕘↢ 杳䒿䚳㗕䌳⋿⼩冯㗱ὗ䆖䇞 [An Examination of the Southern Military Campaign of King Zhao and Jinhou Xiefu Based on the Newly Discovered Wei yan]. Wenwu 1: 64–68. ——. 2013. “Shang yu mingwen yu Zhoudai de pinli” ⯂䙪所㔯冯␐ẋ䘬倀䥖 [Inscription on Shang yu and the pin Diplomatic Ritual in the Zhou Time]. Kaoguxue yanjiu 10: 506–14. Sun, Yan ⬓ⱑ. 2001. “Negotiating Cultural and Political Control in North China: Art and Mortuary Ritual and Practice of the Yan at Liulihe During the Early Western Zhou Period.” PhD dissertation, University of Pittsburgh. ——. 2003. “Bronzes, Mortuary Practice and Political Strategies of the Yan in North China.” Antiquity 77, no. 298: 761–70. ——. 2006a. “Cultural and Political Control in North China: Style and Use of the Bronzes of Yan at Liulihe During the Early Western Zhou Period.” In Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World, edited by Victor Mair, pp. 215–37. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. ——. 2006b. “Colonizing China’s Northern Frontier: Yan and Her Neighbors During the Early Western Zhou Period.” Journal of Historical Archaeology 10, no. 2: 159–77. ——. 2006c. “Xi Zhou shiqi de liuyexing qingtong duanjian” 大␐㗪㛇䘬㞛叱⼊曺戭䞕 ∵ (Leaf-Shaped Bronze Swords in the Western Zhou). In Bashu wenhua yanjiu 3⶜ 嚨㔯⊾䞼䨞 [Bashu Culture Research] (vol. 3), edited by Duan Yu 㭝㷅, pp. 113–22. Chengdu: Bashu Shushe.

282 BIBLIOGRAPHY

——. 2012. “Material Culture and Social Identities in Western Zhou’s Frontier: Case Studies of the Yu and Peng Lineages.” Asian Archaeology 1: 55–74. ——. 2014. “Geren shenfen he quanli de kaoguxue yanjiu: Yi Chunqiu zaoqi Hancheng Liangdaicun 26 hao Zhongjiangmu weili” ᾳṢ幓ấ␴㪲⇑䘬侫⎌⬠侫⮇: ẍ㗍䥳 㖑㛇杻❶㠩ⷞ㛹ġ26 嘇ẚ⦄⠻䇚ἳ [Material Culture, Personal Identity, and Power: A Case Study of Early Spring Autumn Tomb M26 at Liangdaicun]. In Liang Zhou fengguo lunheng: Shaanxi Hancheng chutu Ruiguo wenwu ji Zhoudai fengguo kaoguxue yanjiu lunwenji ℑ␐⮩⚳婾堉烉昅大杻❶↢⛇剖⚳㔯䈑㙐␐ẋ⮩⚳侫⎌⬠䞼䨞 ⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫婾㔯普 [Discussions on Regional States of the Zhou: Rui Artifacts from Hancheng and Collected Essays of the International Conference on Archaeological Research on Regional States], edited by Shanghai bowuguan and Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiuyuan, pp. 125–35. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Press. ——. 2016. “Ke he and Ke Lei” and “Yanhou Zhi ding” in Ancient Chinese Bronze Inscriptions, edited by Constance A. Cook and Paul R. Goldin. In Early China Monograph 7, pp. 20–24. Society for the Study of Early China. ——. 2017. “Inscribed Bronzes, Gift-Giving and Social Networks in the Early Western Zhou: A Case Study of Yan Cemetery at Liulihe.” In Imprints of Kinship: Studies of Recently Discovered Bronze Inscriptions from Ancient China, edited by Edward Shaughnessy, pp. 47–70. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press. ——. 2018. “Reconstructing Cultural Biographies of Bronze Willow-Leaf Shaped Swords in Western Zhou China.” In Memory and Agency in Ancient China: Shaping the Life History of Objects, edited by Francis Allard, Yan Sun, and Katheryn M. Linduff, pp. 120–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sun, Zhanwei ⬓㇘῱. 2010. “Xi Zhou tao dakouzun leixing jiqi fenbu tezheng” 大␐昞 ⣏⎋⮲栆✳⍲℞↮ⶫ䈡⼩ [Western Zhou Date Ceramic dakouzun or Big-Mouthed Jars and Their Distribution Pattern]. Wenbo 6: 23–28. Sweely, Tracy. 1999. “Introduction.” In Manifesting Power: Gender and the Interpretation of Power in Archaeology, edited by Tracy Sweely, pp. 1–14. London: Routledge. Tang, Lan Ⓒ嗕. 1956. “Yihou Ze (gui) kaoshi” ⭄䞎䞊(㱝)侫慳 [Investigation and Interpretation of the Inscription on Yihou Ze Gui]. Kaogu xuebao 2: 79–83. ——. 1973. “Cong Henan Zhengzhou chutu de Shangdai qianqi qingtongqi tanqi” ⽆㱛 ⋿惕ⶆ↢⛇䘬⓮ẋ⇵㛇曺戭☐婯崟 [A Discussion Starting with the Early Shang Period Bronzes Uncovered at Zhengzhou, Henan]. Wenwu 7: 5–14. ——. 1976. “He zun mingwen Jieshi” ỽ⮲所㔯妋慳 [Interpretation of Inscription on He zun]. Wenwu 1: 60–61. ——. 2016. Xi Zhou qingtongqi mingwen fendai shizheng 大␐曺戭☐所㔯↮ẋ⎚⽝ [Western Zhou History Seen from Bronze Inscriptions]. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Press. TWG and QWG. Tangshanshi Wenwu guanlichu ⒸⰙⶪ㔯䈑䭉䎮嗽 and Qian’an xian Wenwu guanlisuo 怟⬱䷋㔯䈑䭉䎮㇨. 1997. “Hebei Qian’an xian Xiaoshandongzhuang Xi Zhou shiqi muzang” 㱛⊿怟⬱䷋⮷Ⱉ㜙匲大␐㗪㛇⠻吔 [Western Zhou Tombs at Xiaoshandongzhuang, Qian’an, Hebei]. Kaogu 4: 58–62. Tao, Rong 昞㥖. 1995. “Gansu Chongxin guwenhua yizhi diaocha” 䓀倭ⲯᾉ⎌㔯⊾怢⛨ 婧㞍 [Survey of Ancient Sites at Chongxin, Gansu]. Kaogu 1: 5–12. Teng, Mingyu 㹽所Ḱ. 2000. “Qin wenhua Qiyuan ji xiangguan wenti zaitaolun” 䦎㔯 ⊾崟㸸⍲䚠斄⓷柴ℵ㍊妶 [The Origin of Qin Culture and Re-discussion of Related Questions]. In Zhongguo kaoguxue kuashiji de huigu yu qianzhan ᷕ⚳侫⎌⬠嶐ᶾ䲨 䘬⚆栏冯⇵䝣 [Retrospect and Prospect of Chinese Archaeology at the Turn of the

283 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Century], edited by Zhang Zhongpei ⻝⾈➡ and Hsu Cho-yun 姙῔暚, pp. 281–96. Beijing: Kexue Press. ——. 2004. “Qucun J4 yu Jinguo mudi ruogan wenti de taolun” 㚚㛹ġJ4 ⋨㗱⚳⠻⛘劍 ⸡⓷柴䘬妶婾 [Discussions on Questions Regarding Section J4 in the Jin Cemetery at Qucun]. In Qingzhu Zhang Zhongpei xiansheng qishisui lunwenji ㄞ䤅⻝⾈➡⃰䓇 ᶫ⋩㬚婾㔯普 [A Collection of Essays in Celebration of Mr. Zhang Zhongpei’s Seventieth Birthday], edited by Jilin daxue bianjiang kaogu yanjiu zhongxin ⎱㜿⣏⬠怲 䔮侫⎌䞼䨞ᷕ⽫, pp. 335–49. Beijing: Kexue Press. Tian, Jianwen 䓘⺢㔯. 2004. “ ‘Qiyi Xiazheng,’ ‘Jiangyi Rongsuo’ de kaoguxue kaocha” ‘⓻ ẍ⢷㬋’, ‘䔮ẍㆶ䳊’ 䘬侫⎌⬠侫⮇ [Archaeological Investigations on the Establishment of Jin Recorded in Zuozhuan]. In Qingzhu Zhang Zhongpei xiansheng qishisui lunwenji ㄞ䤅⻝⾈➡⃰䓇ᶫ⋩㬚婾㔯普 [A Collection of Essays in Celebration of Mr. Zhang Zhongpei’s Seventieth Birthday], edited by Jilin daxue bianjiang kaogu yanjiu zhongxin ⎱㜿⣏⬠怲䔮侫⎌䞼䨞ᷕ⽫, pp. 327–29. Beijing: Kexue Press. Tian, Jingdong 䓘㔔᷄. 1997. “Liulihe yizhi fajue shulue” 䎱䐫㱛怢⛨䘤㍀徘䔍 [A Summary of Excavations at Liulihe]. In Beijing jiancheng 3040 nian ji Yan wenming guoji xueshu yantaohui huiyi zhuanji ⊿Ṕ⺢❶ġ3040 ⸜㙐䅽㔯㖶⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫㚫嬘㚫 嬘⮰廗 [International Symposium on the Yan Culture and the Establishment of City Beijing for 3040 Years], edited by Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, pp. 64–71. Beijing: Yanshan Press. Tian, Renxiao 䓘ṩ⬅, Liu Dong ∱㢇, and Zhang Tian’en ⻝⣑】. 1994. “Xi Zhou Yushi yicun jige wenti de taolun” 大␐ 㮷怢⬀⸦ᾳ⓷柴䘬妶婾 [Discussions on Yu Lineage Remains of the Western Zhou]. Wenbo 5: 15–25. Tian, Wei 䓘῱. 2011. “Shilun Jiang Xian Hengshui, Yicheng Dahekou mudi de xingzhi” 娎婾亃䷋㨓㯜, 侤❶⣏㱛⎋⠻⛘䘬⿏岒 [Preliminary Studies on the Nature of the Western Zhou Cemeteries at Hengshui, Jiang County, and Dahekou, Yicheng]. Gudai wenming yanjiu tongxun 50: 28–32. TLBKB. Tianjin shi lishi bowuguan kaogubu ⣑㳍ⶪ㙮⎚⌂䈑棐侫⎌悐. 1991. “1979– 1989 nian Tianjin wenwu kaogu xin shouhuo” 1979–1989 ⸜⣑㳍㔯䈑侫⎌㕘㓞䌚 [The New Discoveries of Cultural Relics and Archaeology in Tianjin]. In Wenwu kaogu gongzuo shinian 㔯䈑侫⎌ⶍἄ⋩⸜ 1979-1989 [Cultural Relics and Archaeological Work of the Last Ten Years from 1979 to 1989], edited by Wenwu bianji weiyuanhui 㔯䈑䶐廗⥼⒉㚫, pp. 14–24. Beijing: Wenwu Press. TLBKD. Tianjin shi lishi bowuguan kaogudui ⣑㳍ⶪ㙮⎚⌂䈑棐侫⎌昲. 1984. “Tianjin Ji xian Zhangjiayuan disanci fajue” ⣑㳍唲䷋⻝⭞⚺䫔Ḵ㫉䘤㍀ [The Third Excavation of Zhangjiayuan Site, Ji County, Tianjin]. Kaogu 8: 698–705. ——. 1993. “Tianjin Ji xian Zhangjiayuan disanci fajue” ⣑㳍唲䷋⻝⭞⚺䫔ᶱ㫉䘤㍀ [The Third Excavation of Zhangjiayuan Site, Ji County, Tianjin]. Kaogu 4: 311–23. Varberg, Jeannette. 2007. “Dawn of a New Age: The Late Neolithic as Third Space.” In Encounters/Materialities/Confrontations: Archaeologies of Social Space and Interaction, edited by P. Cornell and F. Fahlander, pp. 58–82. Oxford: Cambridge Scholars Press. Venture, Olivier. 2017. “Shang Emblems in the Archaeological Context.” In The Places of Lineage: Newly Found Bronze Inscriptions from Early China, edited by Edward Shaughnessy, pp. 33–46. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press. Waley, Arthur. 1996. The Book of Songs: The Ancient Chinese Classic of Poetry. New York: Grove Press. Wang, Aihe. 2000. Cosmology and Political Culture in Early China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

284 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wang, Entian 䌳】䓘. 2002. “Luyi Taiqinggong yu Weizi feng song” 渧怹⣒㶭⭖冯⽖⫸ ⮩⬳ [Luyi Taiqinggong and the Enfeoffment of Weizi at Song]. Zhongyuan wenwu 4: 41–45. Wang, Feng 䌳寸. 1990. “Hebei Xinglong xian faxian Shang Zhou qingtongqi jiaocang” 㱛⊿冰昮䷋䘤䎦⓮␐曺戭☐䨾啷 [Shang and Zhou Bronze Caches at Xinglong County, Hebei]. Wenwu 11: 57–58. Wang, Guangyao 䌳⃱⟗. 1995. “Cong xinchu Yang Ji kan Yangguo” ⽆㕘↢⛇㣲⦆䚳㣲 ⚳ [The State of Yang Seen from the Newly Discovered Yang Ji hu]. Gugong bowuyuan yuankan 㓭⭖⌂䈑昊昊↲ 2: 82–85. Wang, Guangyong. 1984 䌳⃱㯠. “Baoji xian Jiacunyuan faxian Zewang gui gai deng qingtongqi” ⮞暆䷋屰㛹⠔䘤䎦⣐䌳䮳味䫱曺戭☐ [Ze Wang gui Lid and Ze Bronzes Discovered at Jiacunyuan, Baoji]. Wenwu 6: 18–20. Wang, Guizhi 䌳㟪㝅, and Gao Ciruo 檀㫉劍. 1983. “Baoji xinchutu ji guancang de jijian qingtongqi” ⮞暆㕘↢⛇⍲棐啷䘬⸦ẞ曺戭☐ [Newly Yielded Bronzes from Baoji and a Few Bronzes from the Museum Collection]. Kaogu yu wenwu 6: 6–8. Wang, Guowei 䌳⚳䵕. 2001a. “Gu Zhuhou chengwang shuo” ⎌媠ὗ䧙䌳婒 [On the Theory of Regional Rulers Using the Title “King”]. In Guantang jilin 奨➪普㜿 (⢾Ḵ 䧖) (supplemental volume) [Collective Essays of Guantang], pp. 623–24. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Jiaoyu Press. ——. 2001b. “Guifang Kunyi Xianyun Kao” 櫤㕡㖮⣟䊫䉩侫 [The Study of Guifang, Kunyi, and Xianyun]. In Guantang jilin 奨➪普㜿 (⢾Ḵ䧖) [Collective Essays of Guantang], pp. 296–306. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Jiaoyu Press. ——. 2001c. “Qin duyi kao” 䦎悥怹侫 [Study of a Qin Central Settlement]. In Guantang jilin 奨➪普㜿 (⢾Ḵ䧖) [Collective Essays of Guantang], pp. 271–74. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Jiaoyu Press. Wang, Hao 䌳桊, Liu Dong ∱㢇, and Xin Yihua 彃⿉厗. 2013. “Shigushan Xi Zhou muzang chubu yanjiu” 䞛溻Ⱉ大␐⠻吔䘬⇅㬍䞼䨞 [A Preliminary Study on Western Zhou Tombs at Shigushan]. Wenwu 2: 77–85. Wang, Hui 䌳廅. 1998. “Yetan Li xian Dabuzishan Qingong mudi jiqi tongqi” ḇ婯䥖䷋ ⣏⟉⫸Ⱉ䦎℔⠻⛘⍲℞戭☐ [Another Discussion of the Duke of Qin Cemetery at Dabuzishan, Li County]. Kaogu yu wenwu 5: 88–93. Wang, Lixin 䌳䩳㕘. 2004. “Liaoxiqu Xia zhi zhangguo shiqi wenhua geju yu jingji xingtai de yanjin” 怤大⋨⢷军㇘⚳㗪㛇㔯⊾㟤⯨冯䴻㾇⼊ン䘬㺼忚 [Cultural and Economic Development from the Xia to Warring States Period in Liaoxi]. Kaogu xuebao 3:1–27. Wang, Mingke 䌳㖶䍪. 2013. Huaxia Bianyuan: Lishi Jiyi yu Zuqun Rentong 厗⢷怲䶋: 㙮⎚姀ㅞ冯㕷佌娵⎴ (⡆妪㛔) [The Borderland of Huaxia: Historical Memory and Ethnic Identity] (extended version). Hangzhou: Zhejiang Remin Press. Wang, Rencong 䌳Ṣ倘. 1996. “Yan Ji hu mingwen shidu yu Beizhao 63 hao muzhu wenti” 㣲⦆⢢所㔯慳嬨冯⊿嵁63嘇⠻ᷣ⓷柴 [Interpretation of the Inscription on Yang Ji hu and the Question Regarding the Identity of the Occupant in Burial M63]. Wenwu 5: 31–32. Wang, Shimin 䌳ᶾ㮹. 1983. “Xi Zhou jinwenzhong de Zhuhou juecheng” 大␐㗍䥳慹㔯 ᷕ䘬媠ὗ䇝䧙 [The Title of Regional Rulers in the Western Zhou and Spring Autumn Period Bronze Inscriptions]. Lishi yanjiu 3: 3–17. ——. 1986. “Guanyu Xi Zhou Chunqiu gaoji guizu liqi zhidu de yixie kanfa” 斄Ḷ大␐㗍 䥳檀䳂屜㕷䥖☐⇞⹎䘬ᶨṃ䚳㱽 [Some Ideas About the Use of Ritual Objects by High Elites of the Western Zhou and Spring Autumn Period]. In Wenwu yu Kaogu

285 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lunji 㔯䈑↢䇰䣦ㆸ䩳ᶱ⋩␐⸜䲨⾝: 㔯䈑冯侫⎌婾普 [Theses on Cultural Relics and Archaeology: For the Celebration of the Founding of Cultural Relics Press], edited by Cultural Relics Editorial Department, pp. 163–65. Beijing: Wenwu Press. Wang, Yuliang 䌳䌱Ṗ. 2000. “Shilun Guzhu de diwang yu ‘Jiangyu’-jianlun liaoxi chutu ‘Guzhu’ qiwu zhi yuanyin” 娎婾⬌䪡䘬⛘㛃⍲ “䔮➇”-ℤ婾怤大↢⛇ “⬌䪡” ☐䈑 ᷳ⍇⚈ [Preliminary Discussion on the Location of Guzhu and the Reason Bronzes Inscribed with “Guzhu” Were Uncovered from Liaoxi]. Shenyang Jiaoyu Xueyuan Xuebao 㰰春㔁做⬠昊⬠⟙ġ4: 56–61. Wang, Yuxin 䌳⬯ᾉ. 1997. “Shiji ‘Fen Shaogongshi yuyan’ de Wuwang wei hongguan Wuwang shiqi shuo” ˪⎚姀˫ˬ⮩⎔℔⤕㕤䅽˭䘬㬎䌳䁢⬷奨ˬ㬎䌳炷㗪㛇炸 ˭婒 [The Enfeoffment of Shaogong at Yan in Shiji during King Wu’s Reign as the Macro “Wuwang” Period]. In Beijing jiancheng 3040 nian ji Yan wenming guoji xueshu yantaohui huiyi zhuanji ⊿Ṕ⺢❶ġ3040 ⸜㙐䅽㔯㖶⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫㚫嬘⮰廗 [International Symposium on the Yan Culture and the Establishment of City Beijing for 3040 Years], edited by Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, pp. 80–92. Beijing: Yanshan Press. Wang, Zhankui 䌳⌈⣶. 1998. “Guanyu Jing fang ding de jidian kanfa” 斄㕤朄㕡溶䘬⸦ 溆䚳㱽 [A Few Observations About Jing Square ding]. Wenwu 5: 89–90. ——. 2015. “Maicang de bu jinjin shi tongqi” ❳啷䘬ᶵ㗗戭☐ [What Is Buried Is Not Just Bronzes]. In Baoji liuzhang: qingtong zhi xiang de kaoguxue xushu ⮞暆ℕ 䪈: 曺戭☐ᷳ悱䘬侫⎌⬠㔀徘 [Six Chapters of Baoji: Archaeological Narratives of the Homeland of Bronzes], edited by Shanghai bowuguan, pp. 43–51. Beijing: Peking University Press. Wang, Zhankui 䌳⌈⣶, and Ding Yan ᶩⱑ. 2014. “Shigushan shang zhou mudi sihaomu chushi” 䞛溻Ⱉ⓮␐⠻⛘ġ4 嘇⠻⇅嬀 [A Preliminary Observation of Burial M4 at the Shang and Zhou Period Cemetery at Shigushan]. In Zhouye luming-Baoji Shigushan Xi Zhou guizumu chutu qingtongqi ␐慶渧沜-⮞暆䞛溻Ⱉ大␐屜㕷⠻↢⛇曺戭☐ [Bronzes from Shigushan Western Zhou Elite Tombs at Baoji], edited by Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 昅大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞昊, Baoji shi wenwu lüyouju ⮞暆ⶪ㔯䈑 㕭忲⯨, and Shanghaishi bowuguan ᶲ㴟ⶪ⌂䈑棐, pp. 13–19. Shanghai: Shanghai Shuhua Press. Wang, Zhankui 䌳⌈⣶, and Shui Tao 㯜㾌. 1997. “Gansu Heshui Jiuzhan yizhi fajue baogao” 䓀倭⎰㯜ḅ䪁怢⛨䘤㍀⟙⏲ [Excavation Report on the Jiuzhan Site, Heshui, Gansu]. In Kaoguxue yanjiu 3 侫⎌⬠䞼䨞 (ᶱ) [Archaeology Research] (vol. 3), edited by Beijing daxue kaoguxi ⊿Ṕ⣏⬠侫⎌䲣, pp. 300–477. Beijing: Kexue Press. Watson, William. 1971. Cultural Frontiers in Ancient East Asia. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press. White, Richard. 2011. The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires and Republics in the Great Lakes Region 1650–1815. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wu, Chen ⏛⾙, and He Naihua ỽᷫ厗. 1991. “Liangwan nian lai Huabei Pingyuan zhuyao heliu de hedao bianqian” ℑ叔⸜Ἦ厗⊿⸛⍇ᷣ天㱛㳩䘬㱛忻嬲怟 [The Change in River Courses in the Huabei Plain for the Past 20,000 Years]. In Huabei Pingyuan guhedao yanjiu lunwenji 厗⊿⸛⍇⎌㱛忻䞼䨞婾㔯普 [Collected Essays on the Study of Ancient River Courses in the Huabei Plain], edited by Wu Cheng ⏛⾙, pp. 132–48. Beijing: Zhongguo Kexue Jishu Press. Wu, En 䁷】. 1985. “Yi Zhi Zhouchu de beifang qingtongqi” 㭟军␐⇅䘬⊿㕡曺戭☐ [Bronzes of North China from the Late Shang to the Early West Zhou]. Kaogu xuebao 2: 135–56.

286 BIBLIOGRAPHY

——. 2007. Beifang caoyuan kaoguxue wenhua yanjiu-qingtong shidai zhi zaoqi tieqi shidai ⊿㕡勱⍇侫⎌⬠㔯⊾䞼䨞—曺戭㗪ẋ军㖑㛇揝☐㗪ẋ [Studies of Archaeological Cultures in the Northern Steppe—Bronze Age to Early Iron Age]. Beijing: Kexue Press. ——. 2008. Beifang Caoyuan kaoguxue wenhua bijiao yanjiu ⊿㕡勱⍇侫⎌⬠㔯⊾㭼 庫䞼䨞 [Comparative Studies of Archaeological Cultures in the Northern Steppe]. Beijing: Kexue Press. Wu, Minna. 2013. “On the Periphery of a Great ‘Empire’: Secondary Formation of States and Their Material Basis in the Shandong Peninsula During the Late Bronze Age, ca. 1000–500 B.C.E.” PhD dissertation, University of Chicago. Wu, Xiaoyun ⏜㗻䬈. 2013. Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction and Identity. BAR International Series 2457. Oxford: Archaeopress. ——. 2017. “Shang Zhou shiqi tongjing de chuxian yu shiyong” ⓮␐㗪㛇戭掉䘬↢䎦冯 ἧ䓐 [Emergence of Bronze Mirrors in the Shang and Zhou Period]. Gugong xueshu jikan 㓭⭓⬠埻⬋↲ 35, no. 2: 1–64. Wu, Zhenfeng ⏛捖䂥. 2008. “Jinnian xin faxian de tongqi mingwen” 役⸜㕘↢䎦䘬戭 ☐所㔯 [Newly Discovered Bronze Inscriptions]. Wenbo 2: 6–9. Xiao, Qi 倾䏎. 1983. “Long xian Weijiazhuang you chutu Xi Zhou tongqi” 晜䷋杳⭞匲 ⍰↢⛇大␐戭☐ [Western Zhou Bronzes from Weijiazhuang, Long County]. Kaogu yu wenwu 2: 2–3. ——. 1991. “Shaanxi Long xian chutu Zhoudai qingtongqi” 昅大晜䷋↢⛇␐ẋ曺戭☐ [Zhou Period Bronzes from Long County, Shanxi]. Kaogu yu wenwu 5: 1–10. Xie, Mingwen 寊㖶㔯. 2013. “Jingong pen mingwen bushi” 㗱℔ 所㔯墄慳 [An Additional Interpretation of the Inscription on Jingong pen]. Chutu Wenxian yu Guwenzi yanjiu ↢⛇㔯䌣冯⎌㔯⫿䞼䨞 5: 236–357. ——. 2014. “Chenjian gui mingwen bushi” 冋宷䮳撕㔯堍慲 [An Additional Interpretation of the Inscription on Chenjian gui]. Zhongguo guojia bowuguan guankan 3: 46–54. Xie, Yaoting 嫅⟗ṕ. 2010. “Jinnan diqu Xi Zhou muzang yanjiu” 㗱⋿⛘⋨大␐⠻吔䞼 䨞 [Studies of Western Zhou Cemeteries in Southern Shanxi]. PhD dissertation, Jilin University. ——. 2012. “Jianlun Hengshui yu Dahekou mudi requn de guishu wenti” 䯉婾㨓㯜冯⣏ 㱛⎋⠻⛘Ṣ佌䘬㬠Ⱄ⓷柴 [A Brief Discussion on the Lineage Identity of the People at Hengshui and Dahekou]. In You Shi Qiji-jinian Shanxi Kaogusuo 60 nian Huadan Wenji㚱⮎℞䧵—䲨⾝Ⱉ大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞㇨ℕ⋩厗娽㔯普 [A Collection of Essays for the Celebration of the Sixtieth Birthday of the Shanxi Institute of Archaeology], edited by Shanxi sheng kaogusuo Ⱉ大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞㇨. Taiyuan: Shanxi Renmin Press. ——. 2013. “Peng, Ba jiqi hunyin de guozu chutan” ᾿, 曠⍲℞⨂⦣䘬⚳㕷⇅㍊ [Peng and Ba as well as Their Marriage Relations]. In Jinyu jiaohui-Shang Zhou kaogu, yishu yu wenhua lunwenji 慹䌱Ṍ廅-⓮␐侫⎌, 喅埻冯㔯⊾婾㔯普 [Radiance between Bronzes and Jade-Archaeology, Art and Culture of the Shang and Zhou Dynasties], edited by Chen Guangzu 昛⃱䣾, pp. 285–305. Taipei: Academic Sinica. ——. 2014a. “ ‘Ge’ yu ‘Ba’ ji Jinhou Tongren” “㟤” 冯 “曠” ⍲㗱ὗ戭Ṣ [“Ge”, “Ba” and a Bronze Figurine With “Jinhou” Inscription]. In Liang Zhou fengguo lunheng: Shaanxi Hancheng chutu Ruiguo wenwu ji Zhoudai fengguo kaoguxue yanjiu guji yantaohui lunwenji ℑ␐⮩⚳婾堉烉昅大杻❶↢⛇剖⚳㔯䈑㙐␐ẋ⮩⚳侫⎌⬠䞼䨞⚳晃⬠ 埻䞼妶㚫婾㔯普 [Discussions on Regional States of the Zhou: Rui Artifacts from Hancheng and Collected Essays of the International Conference on Archaeological Research on Regional States], edited by Shanghai bowuguan and Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiuyuan, pp. 439–42. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Press.

287 BIBLIOGRAPHY

——. 2014b. “Jiedu Baguo” 妋嬨曠⚳ [Interpretation of the State of Ba]. In Youyou luming: Yanguo gongzhu yanli de Baguo ␎␎渧沜-䅽⚳℔ᷣ䛤塷䘬曠⚳ [Harmonious Life: The State of Ba in the Eyes of a Yan Princess], edited by Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Shanxi bowuguan, and Shoudu bowuguan. Beijing: Kexue Press. Xin, Yihua 彃⿉厗, and Wang Hao 䌳桊. 2014. “Zailun Shigushan Xi Zhou muzang de muzhu ji zushu” ℵ婾䞛溻Ⱉ大␐⠻吔䘬⠻ᷣ⍲㕷Ⱄ [Another Discussion on the Occupants and Lineage Identity of Western Zhou Date Tombs at Shigushan]. Wenbo 2: 26–28. Xin, Zhanshan 彃⌈Ⱉ, Liu Xinmin ∱㕘㮹, and Guo Dashun 悕⣏枮. 2017. “Kazuo Heshanggou mudi” ┨ⶎ␴⯂㹅⠻⛘ [The Heshanggou Cemetery at Kazuo]. In Xin Zhanshan kaogu wenji 彃⌈Ⱉ侫⎌㔯普 [Essays on Archaeology by Xin Zhanshan], edited by Xin Zhanshan, pp. 204–10. Shenyang: Liaoning Renmin Press. Xu, Jian ⼸➭. 2011. “Kazuo tongqiqun zaifenxi: cong qiwuxue moshi dao xingwei kaoguxue quxiang” ┨ⶎ戭☐佌ℵ↮㜸:⽆☐䈑⬠㧉⺷⇘埴䇚侫⎌⬠⍾⎹ [A Reexamination of Kazuo Bronzes: From Object Study Model to Behavior Archaeology). Kaogu yu wenwu 4: 26-31. Xu, Junchen 姙ὲ冋. 1983. “Gansu Qingyang diqu chutu Shang Zhou qingtongqi” 䓀倭 ㄞ春⛘⋨↢⛇⓮␐曺戭☐ [Shang and Zhou Date Bronzes from the Qingyang Area, Gansu]. Kaogu yu wenwu 3: 8–11. Xu, Junchen 姙ὲ冋, and Liu Dezhen ∱⼿㠊. 1985. “Gansu Ning xian Yucun chutu Xi Zhou qingtongqi” 䓀倭䓗䷋⬯㛹↢⛇大␐曺戭☐ [Western Zhou Date Bronzes from Yucun, Ningxian, Gansu]. Kaogu 4: 349–52. ——. 1987. “Gansu Heshui Qingyang xian chutu Zaozhou tongqi” 䓀倭⎰㯜ㄞ春䷋↢ ⛇㖑␐戭☐ [Bronzes from Qingyang County, Heshui, Gansu]. Kaogu yu wenwu 7: 660–61. Xu, Zhongshu ⼸ᷕ冺. [1927] 2008. “Cong Gushu zhong tuice zhi Yin Zhou minzu” ⽆⎌ 㚠ᷕ㍐㷔ᷳ㭟␐㮹㕷 [The Hypothesis on the Yin Zhou People Based on Transmitted Texts]. In Xu Zhongshu lun Xian Qin shi ⼸ᷕ冺婾⃰䦎⎚ [Xu Zhongshu’s Study of Pre-Qin History], pp. 1–8. Shanghai: Shanghai Kexue Jishu Wenxian Press. Yan, Zhibin ♜⽿㔴, and Xie Yaoting 嫅⟗ṕ. 2018. “Qi pan and Qi he yu Xi Zhou shiyi” 㯋䚌, 㯋䙱冯大␐娻₨ [Qi pan, Qi he, and Oath Ceremony of the Western Zhou]. Zhongguo guojia bowuguan guankan 2: 43–52. Yang, Baocheng 㣲⮞ㆸ, and Liu Sengmiao ∱㢖㶤. 1991. “Shang Zhou fang ding chulun” ⓮␐㕡溶⇅婾 [A Preliminary Discussion on Shang and Zhou Bronze Square ding]. Kaogu 6: 533–45. Yang, Jianhua 㣲⺢厗. 2002. “Yanshan nanbei Shang Zhou zhiji qingtongqi yicun de fenqun yanjiu” 䅽Ⱉ⋿⊿⓮␐ᷳ晃曺戭㛇怢⬀䘬↮佌䞼䨞 [Studies of Shang Zhou Period Bronze Groups in the Yan Mountainous Region]. Kaogu xuebao 2: 157–74. ——. 2008. “Shang Zhou shiqi beifang yejinqu de xingcheng” ⓮␐㗪㛇⊿㕡⅞慹⋨䘬 ⼊ㆸ [The Formation of the Northern Metallurgy Belt During the Shang and Zhou Period]. In Gongyuanqian liangqianji de Jinshan gaoyuan yu Yanshan nanbei ℔⃫⇵ ℑġ2 ⋫䲨䘬㗱昅檀⍇␴䅽Ⱉ⋿⊿ [Jinshan Plateau and the Yan Mountainous Region of the Second Millennium bce], edited by Jiang Gang 哋∃and Yang Jianhua 㣲⺢厗, pp. 221–55. Beijing: Kexue Press. Yang, Kuan 㣲⮔. 1999. Xi Zhou shi 大␐⎚ [Western Zhou History]. Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin Press. Yang, Shaoshun 㣲䳡凄. 1981a. “Shanxi Liulin xian Gaohong faxian Shangdai tongqi” Ⱉ 大㞛㜿䷋檀䲭䘤䎦⓮ẋ戭☐ [Shang Date Bronzes Discovered at Gaohong, Liulin, Shanxi]. Kaogu 3: 211–12.

288 BIBLIOGRAPHY

——. 1981b. “Shanxi Shilou Zhujiayu Caojiayuan faxian Shangdai tongqi” Ⱉ大䞛㦻壂⭞ Ⲓ㚡⭞❋䘤䎦⓮ẋ戭☐ [Shang Date Bronzes Discovered at Caojiayuan, Zhujiayu, Shilou, Shanxi]. Wenwu 8: 49–53. Yang, Shennan 㣲⋯㤈. 1997. “Yinxu Jiaguwen zhong de Yan he Shaogong feng Yan” 㭟⡇ 䓚橐㔯ᷕ䘬䅽␴⎔℔⮩䅽 [The Yan in the Oracle Bone Inscriptions and the Enfeoffment of Shaogong at Yan]. In Beijing jiancheng 3040 nian ji Yan wenming guoji xueshu yantaohui huiyi zhuanji ⊿Ṕ⺢❶ġ3040 ⸜㙐䅽㔯㖶⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫㚫嬘⮰廗 [International Symposium on the Yan Culture and the Establishment of City Beijing for 3040 Years], edited by Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, pp. 97–103. Beijing: Yanshan Press. ——. 1998. “Guanyu Shangdai de fushenzang wenti: Fushuo Shangdai de zumudi” 斄Ḷ ⓮ẋ䘬ᾗ幓吔⓷柴—旬婒⓮ẋ䘬㕷⠻⛘ [Discussions on Prone Burials and Lineage Cemeteries of the Shang Period]. In Sichuan daxue kaogu zhuanye chuangjian sanshiwu zhounian jinian lunwenji ⚃ⶅ⣏⬠侫⎌⮰㤕∝⺢ᶱ⋩Ḽ␐⸜䲨⾝婾㔯普 [The Collection for the Thirty-Five-Year Anniversary of the Department of Archaeology of Sichuan University], pp. 138–45. Chengdu: Sichuan University Press. Yang, Yachang 㣲Ṇ攟. 2004. “Jinwen suojian zhi Yigong, Mugong yu Wugongkao” 慹 㔯㇨夳ᷳ䙲℔, 䧮℔冯㬎℔侫 [Studies of Yigong, Mugong, and Wugong in Bronze Inscriptions]. Kaogu yu wenwu 6: 71–75. ——. 2009. “Zaishuo Jinwen suojian zhi Yigong-jianyu Han Wei xiansheng shangque” ℵ婒慹㔯㇨夳ᷳ䙲℔—ℤ冯杻⵵⃰䓇⓮㥟 [Another Discussion of Yigong Seen in Bronze Inscriptions—A Discussion with Mr. Han Wei]. Kaogu yu wenwu 5: 60–62, 67. Yang, Yubin 㣲做⼔. 2006. “Pinggu Liujiahe Shangdai tongqimu de jidian sikao” ⸛察∱ ⭞㱛⓮ẋ戭☐⠻䘬⸦溆⿅侫 [Thinking on a Shang Period Tomb at Liujiahe, Pinggu]. In Beijing Pinggu yu huaxia wenming ⊿Ṕ⸛察冯厗⢷㔯㖶 [Collective Essays of the International Conference on Huaxia Civilization and Beijing Pinggu], edited by Wang Yuxin䌳⬯ᾉ, pp. 189–96. Beijing: Shehui Kexue Wenxian Press. Yangjiacun kaogudui 㣲⭞㛹侫⎌昲 (Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 昅大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞 ㇨, Baoji shi kaogu gongzuodui ⮞暆ⶪ侫⎌ⶍἄ昲, and Mei xian wenhuaguan 䚱 ䷋㔯⊾棐). 2003. “Shaanxi Mei xian Yangjiacun Xi Zhou qingtongqi jiaocang fajue jianbao” 昅大䚱䷋㣲⭞㛹大␐曺戭☐䨾啷䘤㍀䯉⟙ [A Brief Excavation Report on a Western Zhou Date Bronze Cache at Yangjiacun, Meixian, Shaanxi]. Wenwu 6: 4–42. Yaoheyuan kaogudui ⦂㱛⠔侫⎌昲 (Ma Qiang 楔⻟, Ma Tianxing 楔⣑埴, and Hou Furen ὗ⭴ả). 2018a. ⦂㱛⠔怢⛨-⓮␐㗪㛇䘬大⊿䔮➇ [The Yaoheyuan Site—The Northwestern Border of the Shang and Zhou Periods]. Website of the Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, January 29, 2018 䓗⢷㔯䈑侫⎌䞼䨞㇨.http:// www.nxkg.org.cn/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=show&catid=12&id=339. ——. 2018b. Pengyang Yaoheyuan Shang Zhou yizhi ruxuan quanguo shida kaogu faxian ⼕春⦂㱛⠔⓮␐怢⛨ℍ怠ġ 2017 ⸜⹎ℐ⚳⋩⣏侫⎌㕘䘤䎦 [Pengyang Yaoheyuan Shang Zhou Period Site as One of the Ten Major Archaeogloical Discoveries in 2017]. Xixia yanjiu 大⢷䞼䨞 2: 2,129. Yin, Qun ⌘佌. 2000. “Xi Zhou mudi zhidu zhi Guankui” 大␐⠻⛘⇞⹎ᷳ䭉䩢 [A Preliminary Discussion on the Western Zhou Period Cemetery System]. Liaoning daxue xuebao 怤䓗⣏⬠⬠⟙ 4: 70–72. Yin, Shengping ⯡䚃⸛. 1992. Xi Zhou Weishi jiazu qingtongqiqun yanjiu 大␐⽖㮷⭞ 㕷曺戭☐佌䞼䨞 [Research on Western Zhou Period Wei Lineage Bronzes]. Beijing: Wenwu Press.

289 BIBLIOGRAPHY

——. 2004. Xi Zhou shizheng 大␐⎚⼩ [Study of Western Zhou History]. Xi’an: Shaanxi Shifan Daxue Press. Yong, Ying. 2004. “Gender, Status, Ritual Regulations, and Mortuary Practice in the State of Jin.” In Gender and Chinese Archaeology, edited by Katheryn M. Linduff and Yan Sun, pp. 161-202. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Yu, Weichao ᾆ῱崭. [1980] 1985. “Gudai ‘Xirong’ he ‘Qiang,’ ‘Hu’ kaoguxue wenhua guishu wenti de tantao” ⎌ẋ “大ㆶ” ␴ “伴”, “傉” 侫⎌⬠㔯⊾㬠Ⱄ⓷柴䘬 ㍊妶 [Discussions of the Archaeological Cultures of the Ancient “Western Rong,” “Qiang,” and “Hu.” In Xian Qin Liang Han kaoguxue lunji ⃰䦎ℑ㻊侫⎌⬠婾普 [A Collection of Essays on Pre-Qin and Han Period Archaeology], pp. 180–92. Beijing: Wenwu Press. Yu, Weichao ᾆ῱崭, and Gao Ming 檀㖶. 1978. “Zhoudai yongding zhidu yanjiu” ␐ ẋ䓐溶⇞⹎䞼䨞 (ᷕ) [The Use of Bronze Ding in the Zhou Period]. Beijing daxue xuebao ⊿Ṕ⣏⬠⬠⟙ (⒚⬠䣦㚫䥹⬠䇰) 2: 85-98. Yin, Weizhang 㭟䍖䐳. 1990. “Xinchutu de Taibao tongqi jiqi xiangguan wenti” 㕘↢⛇ 䘬⣒ᾅ戭☐⍲℞䚠斄⓷柴 [Newly Unearthed “Taibao” Bronzes and Related Questions]. Kaogu 1: 66–77. YXG. Yinxu Xiaomintun kaogudui 㭟⡇⬅㮹Ⱇ侫⎌昲. 2007. “Henan Anyang shi Xiaomintun Shangdai muzang 2003–2004 nian fajue jianbao” 㱛⋿⬱春ⶪ⬅㮹Ⱇ⓮ẋ⠻ 吔 2003–2004 ⸜䘤㍀䯉⟙ [A Brief Excavation Report on Shang Period Burials at Xiaomintun, Anyang, Henan]. Kaogu 1: 26–36. Yuan, Jing, and Rowan Flad. 2005. “New Zooarchaeological Evidence for Changes in Shang Dynasty Animal Sacrifice.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24: 252–70. Yuyaju (Joyce Gallery). 2012. Imperial Treasures (⎱慹⽉岆-⽉晭⯭): Archaic Bronzes from the Golden Age of China. Hong Kong: Joyce Gallery. ZQLK. Zaoqi Qin wenhua lianhe kaogudui 㖑㛇䦎㔯⊾倗⎰侫⎌昲. 2008a. “Gansu Li xian sanzuo Zhoudai chengzhi diaocha baogao” 䓀倭䥖䷋ᶱ⹏␐ẋ❶⛨婧㞍⟙⏲ [Report of an Archeological Survey on Zhou Date City Remains at Li County, Gansu]. Gudai wenming 7:323–62. ——. 2008b. “2006 nian Gansu Li xian Dabuzishan jisi yizhi fajue jianbao” 2006⸜䓀倭䥖 ䷋⣏⟉⫸Ⱉ䤕䣨怢御䘤㍀䯉⟙ [A Brief Archaeological Report on a Sacrificial Site at Dabuzishan, Li County, Gansu]. Wenwu 11:14–29. ——. 2010. “Niutouhe Liuyu kaogu diaocha” 䈃柕㱛㳩➇侫⎌婧㞍 [Archaeological Survey of the Niutou River Valley]. Zhongguo lishi wenwu 3: 4–23. Zhang, Binhong ⻝㔴⬷, and Yang Qiaoling 㣲ⶏ曰. 1997. “Danxing sanzuweng chutan” 噳⼊ᶱ嵛䒖⇅㍊ [A Preliminary Discussion on Egg-Shaped Three-Footed weng Jars]. Wenwu jikan 㔯䈑⬋↲ 3: 5–59. Zhang, Changshou ⻝攟⢥. 2002. “Shangqiu Songcheng he Luyi damu” ⓮᷀⬳❶␴渧 怹⣏⠻ [Song City Sentiment at Shangqiu and the Tomb at Luyi]. In Yifenji—Zhang Zhenglang xiansheng jiushi huadan jinian wenji ㍾剔普—⻝㓧䂢⃰䓇ḅ⋩厗娽䲨⾝ 㔯普 [A Collection of Essays for the Celebration of Mr. Zhang Zhenglang’s Ninetieth Birthday], pp. 77–79. Beijing: Shehui Kexue Wenxian Press. Zhang, Cuilian ⻝侈咖, and Duan Hongzheng 㭝⬷㋗. 2008. “Hebei Nanxiaowang yizhi Xi Zhou keci bugu qianshi” 㱛⊿⋿⮷㖢怢⛨大␐⇣录⌄橐㶢嬀 [Preliminary Study on the Western Zhou Inscriptions on Carved Bones from the Nanxiaowang Site at Hebei]. Wenwu 5: 59–66. Zhang, Haibin ⻝㴟㾙, and Xie Huading 妋厗枪. 2016. “Shigushan mudi M3 ji Xi Zhou zaoqi bikanmu yuanyuan ji zushu tanxi” 䞛溻Ⱉ⠻⛘ġM3 ⍲大␐㖑㛇⡩潃⠻㶝㸸⍲

290 BIBLIOGRAPHY

㕷Ⱄ㍊㜸 [An Investigation of the Provenance and Clan Identity of the Early Western Zhou Period Niched Burials]. Zhongyuan wenwu 2: 21–26. Zhang, Jian ⻝∵. 1997. “Tan Xi Zhou Yanguo yinyimin de zhengzhi diwei” 婯大␐䅽⚳ 㭟怢㮹䘬㓧㱣⛘ỵ [A Discussion on the Political Status of the Remnants of Shang in the State of Yan]. In Beijing jiancheng 3040 ji Yan wenming guoji xueshu yantaohui huiyi zhuanji ⊿Ṕ⺢❶ġ3040 ⸜㙐䅽㔯㖶⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫㚫嬘⮰廗 [International Symposium on the Yan Culture and the Establishment of City Beijing for 3040 Years], edited by Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, pp. 265–74. Beijing: Yanshan Press. Zhang, Liang ⻝Ṗ. 2013. “Kao Babo yu mingwen shi Xi Zhou binli” 侫曠ỗ䙪所㔯慳 大␐屻䥖 [A Study of the Inscription on Babo yu and bin Ritual Ceremony]. Qiusuo 㯪䳊 2: 81–83. Zhang, Maorong ⻝ㅳ擽. 1993. “Zhouren buyong rimingshuo” ␐Ṣᶵ䓐㖍⎵婒 [The Zhou Does Not Use “Heavenly Stems”]. Lishi yanjiu 5: 173–77. ——. 2002. “Shang Zhou fang ding tanlun” ⓮␐㕡溶㍊孢 [A Preliminary Discussion on Shang and Zhou Square ding]. In Guwenzi yu qingtongqi Lunji ⎌㔯⫿冯曺戭☐婾普 [A Collection of Essays on Paleography and Bronzes], pp. 75–87. Beijing: Kexue Press. ——. 2009. “Zailun ‘Zhouren buyong rimingshuo’ ” ℵ婾 “␐Ṣᶵ䓐㖍⎵婒” [Another Discussion on: The Zhou People Do Not Use “Heavenly Stems”]. Wenbo 3: 27–29. ——. 2014. “Baoji Shigushan mudi wenhua yinsu fenxi” ⮞暆䞛溻Ⱉ⠻⛘㔯⊾⚈䳈↮㜸 [An Analysis of Cultural Elements from the Shigushan Cemetery, Baoji]. Baoji shehui kexue 3: 41–45. Zhang, Mingdong ⻝㖶㜙. 2005. “Shang Zhou muzang Bijiao yanjiu” ⓮␐⠻吔㭼庫 䞼䨞 [Comparative Studies of Shang and Zhou Tombs]. PhD dissertation, Peking University. Zhang, Tian’en ⻝⣑】. 2001. “Li xian dengdi suojian zaoqi Qin wenhua yicun youguan wenti chulun” 䥖䷋䫱⛘㇨夳㖑㛇䦎㔯⊾怢⬀㚱斄⓷柴↵婾 [Preliminary Discussions on Early Qin Cultural Remains at Li County and Related Questions]. Wenbo 3: 67–74. ——. 2003. “Xi Zhou wangchao dui Longyou de jingying yu Qinren de xingqi” 大␐䌳㛅 ⮵晜⎛䘬䴻䆇冯䦎Ṣ䘬冰崟 [Western Zhou Management of Longyou and the Origin of the Qin People]. In Zhou Qin shehui yu wenhua yanjiu lunwenji—jinian Zhongguo Xian Qin shi xuehui chengli ershi zhounian lunwenji ␐䦎䣦㚫冯㔯⊾䞼䨞婾㔯 普-䲨⾝ᷕ⚳⃰䦎⎚⬠㚫ㆸ䩳ġ 20 ␐⸜⬠埻䞼妶㚫婾㔯普 [Theses of the Research on the Zhou and Qin Societies and Cultures—Twentieth-Year Commemoration of the Founding of the Pre-Qin History Society], edited by Shaanxi shifan daxue, pp. 219–30. Xi’an: Shaanxi Shifan Daxue Press. ——. 2004. Guanzhong Shangdai wenhua yanjiu 斄ᷕ⓮ẋ㔯⊾䞼䨞 [Studies on the Shang Period Culture in Guanzhong]. Beijing: Wenwu Press. ——. [1994] 2008. “Xi Zhou Yushi yicun jige wenti de tantao” 大␐㮷 怢⬀⸦ᾳ⓷柴䘬 妶婾 [Discussion on a Few Questions on Yu Remains of the Western Zhou Period]. In Zhou Qin wenhua yanjiu lunji ␐䦎㔯⊾䞼䨞婾普 [Collective Essays on the Zhou and Qin Culture], pp. 151–65. Beijing: Kexue Press. ——. 2010a. “Jinnan yi faxian Xi Zhou guozu chuxi” 㗱⋿⶚䘤䎦䘬大␐⚳㕷⇅㜸 [A Preliminary Investigation of the Western Zhou Date States and Lineages in Southern Shanxi]. Kaogu yu wenwu 1: 50–56. ——. 2010b. “Ruiguo shishi yu kaogu faxian de jubu zhenghe” 剖⚳⎚ḳ冯侫⎌䘤䎦䘬 ⯨悐㔜⎰ [Integrated Study of Historical Texts and Archaeological Discoveries on the Rui State]. Wenwu 6: 35–42.

291 BIBLIOGRAPHY

——. 2013. “Shang Zhou zhiji qingtong zhizao zhongxin qianyi de guancha” ⓮␐ᷳ晃曺 戭⇞忈慵⽫⽁䦣䘬奨⮇ [On the Movement of the Bronze Casting Center During the Shang and Zhou Period]. In Jinyu jiaohui—Shang Zhou kaogu, yishu yu wenhua lunwenji 慹䌱Ṍ廅-⓮␐侫⎌, 喅埻冯㔯⊾婾㔯普 [Radiance Between Bronzes and Jade—Archaeology, Art, and Culture of the Shang and Zhou Dynasties], edited by Chen Guangzu 昛⃱䣾, pp. 235–56. Taipei: Academic Sinica. ——. 2015a. “Guqiang buluo de qingtong wenming jincheng” ⎌伴悐句䘬曺戭㔯㖶忚 䦳 [A Development of the Bronze Civilization of the Ancient Qiang Clan]. In Baoji liuzhang: qingtongqi zhi xiang de kaoguxue xushu ⮞暆ℕ䪈: 曺戭☐ᷳ悱䘬侫⎌⬠ 㔀徘 [Six Chapters of Baoji: Archaeological Narratives of the Homeland of Bronzes], edited by Shanghai bowuguan, pp. 57–67. Beijing: Peking University Press. ——. 2015b. “Shigushan Hushi qingtongqi xiangguan wenti Jianlun” 䞛溻Ⱉ㇞㮷曺戭☐ 䚠斄⓷柴䯉婾 [Related Questions on Hu Lineage Bronzes at Shigushan]. Wenwu 1: 32–42, 61. Zhang, Tian’en ⻝⣑】, and Sun Bingjun ⬓䥱⏃. 2012. “Liangdaicun Ruiguo mudi de jiben renshi” 㠩ⷞ㛹剖⚳⠻⛘䘬➢㛔娵嬀 [Preliminary Understanding of the Rui State Cemetery at Liangdaicun]. In Jinyu huanian — Shaanxi Hancheng chutu Zhoudai Ruiguo wenwu zhenpin 慹䌱厗⸜-昅大杻❶↢⛇␐ẋ剖⚳㔯䈑䍵⑩ [A Splendid Year of Bronze and Jade: A Selection of Superb Rui Cultural Relics of the Zhou Dynasty], edited by Shanghai bowuguan and Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiuyuan, pp.  21–32. Shanghai: Shanghai Shuhua Press. Zhang, Tongxin ⻝䪍⽫. 2002. “Jin yu Rong Di-you M113 chutu de qingtong sanzuweng suo xiangdao de” 㗱冯ㆶ䉬—䓙ġM113 ↢⛇䘬曺戭ᶱ嵛䒽㇨゛⇘䘬. In Jinhou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 㗱ὗ⠻⛘↢⛇曺戭☐⚳晃⬠埻 䞼妶㚫婾㔯普 [Essays of the International Conference on Bronzes from the Jinhou Cemetery], edited by Shanghai bowuguan, pp. 377–83. Shanghai: Shanghai Shuhua Press. Zhang, Wenjie ⻝倆㌟. 2013. “Cong ‘jingshen’ dao ‘shigui’: muzang ziliao suojian Zhoudai guizu shengsiguan de bianqian” ⽆ ‘㔔䤆’ ⇘ ‘ḳ櫤’: ⠻吔屯㕁㇨夳␐ẋ屜㕷䓇㬣奨 䘬嬲怟 [From “the Reverence for the God” to “the Service for the Ghost”: A Change in the Perception Toward Life and Death of Zhou Elites in Burial Materials]. Kaogu yu wenwu 6: 48–58. Zhang, Wenli ⻝㔯䩳ġ 2010. “Qinghai chutu zhina juanjiao tongyue de niandai ji qita” 曺㴟↢⛇䚜ℏ⌟奺戭摢䘬⸜ẋ⍲℞Ṿ [The Date of Bronze Curved-Blade yue Axes and Others]. Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu 9: 68–74. Zhang, Wenrui ⻝㔯䐆. 2003. Jidong diqu longshan ji qingtong Shidai kaoguxue wenhua yanjiu ℨ㜙⛘⋨漵Ⱉ⍲曺戭㗪ẋ侫⎌⬠㔯⊾䞼䨞 [Archaeological Research on the Culture of Eastern Hebei in the Longshan and Bronze Ages]. MA thesis, Jilin University. Zhang, Wenrui ⻝㔯䐆, and Zhai Liangfu 侇列⭴. 2016. Houqianyi yizhi Kaogu fajue baogao ji Jidong dqu kaoguxue wenhua yanjiu ⼴怟佑怢⛨侫⎌䘤㍀⟙⏲⍲ℨ㜙⛘ ⋨侫⎌⬠㔯⊾䞼䨞 [Archaeological Report on the Houqianyi Site and Study of the Archaeological Cultures in the Eastern Hebei Region]. Beijing: Wenwu Press. Zhang, Xiaohen ⻝䬙堉. 1958. “San pan Kaoshi” 㔋䚌侫慳 [An Interpretation of the San Lineage pan Plate]. Renwen zazhi 3: 61–81, 88; 4: 81–98. Zhang, Yachu ⻝Ṇ⇅. [1993] 1995. “Yanguo qingtong mingwen yanjiu” 䅽⚳曺戭所㔯 䞼䨞 [Studies of Yan Bronze Inscriptions]. In Yan wenhua yanjiu lunwenji [Collective Essays on the Study of the Yan Culture], edited by Chen Guang, pp. 223–30. Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Press.

292 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Zhang, Zhan ⻝⯽. 1990. “Xiajiadian Xiaceng wenhua yu Beijing diqu Shangdai Yan wenhua yicun” ⢷⭞⸿ᶳⰌ㔯⊾冯⊿Ṕ⛘⋨⓮ẋ䅽㔯⊾怢⬀ [The Lower Xiajiadian Culture and the Remains of the Shang Period Yan Culture in the Beijing Area]. In Shoudu bowuguan wenji 椾悥⌂䈑棐㔯普 [Research Essays of the Capital Museum], edited by the Capital Museum, pp. 334–37. Beijing: Yanshan Press. Zhang, Zhenglang ⻝㓧䂢. 1986. “Zewang gui gai ba-ping Wang Guowei de ‘Gu zhuhou chengwang sShuo’ ” ⣐䌳䮳味嵳-姽䌳⚳䵕䘬 [The Prologue of the Inscription on Zewang gui and the Comments on Wang Guowei’s Research “The Use of Title wang by Lineage Rulers”]. Guwenzi yanjiu ⎌㔯⫿䞼䨞 13: 174–80. Zhao, Binfu 嵁屻䤷. 2006. “Liaoxi Shandi Xia zhi Zhangguo shiqi kaoguxue wenhua shikong kuangjia yanjiu de zaitantao” 怤大Ⱉ⛘⢷军㇘⚳㗪㛇侫⎌⬠㔯⊾㗪䨢㟮 㝞䞼䨞䘬ℵ㩊妶 [Reexamination of the Chronological and Spatial Framework of Archaeological Cultures from Xia to the Warring States Period in the Liaoxi Mountainous Region]. Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu 1: 32–69. Zhao, Congcang 嵁⎊呤, Wang Zhiyou 䌳⽿⍳, and Hou Hongwei ὗ䲭῱. 2008. “Gansu Li xian Xishan yizhi fajue qude zhongyao shouhuo” 䓀倭䥖䷋大Ⱉ怢⛨䘤㍀⍾⼿慵 天㓞䌚 [A Major Achievement of the Excavation of the Xishan Site at Li County, Gansu]. Zhongguo wenwubao, April 4, 2008, section 2. Zhao, Fusheng 嵁䤷䓇, Chai Xiaoming 㞜㙱㖶, and Wang Xin 䌳搓. 2015. “Liulihe Xi Zhou Yandu yizhi de yanjiu” 䎱䐫㱛大␐䅽悥怢⛨䘬䞼䨞 [The Study of the Yan Capital Site at Liulihe]. In Liulihe yizhi yu Yan wenhua yanjiu lunwenji: Jinnian Beijing jiancheng 3060 nian 䎱䐫㱛怢⛨冯䅽㔯⊾䞼䨞婾㔯普: 䲨⾝⊿Ṕ⺢❶3060 ⸜ [Theses on the Liulihe Site and the Study of the Yan Culture: In Commemoration of the Founding of Beijing for 3060 Years], edited by Beijing shi Xi Zhou Yandu yizhi bowuguan, pp. 8–25. Beijing: Kexue Press. Zhao, Huacheng 嵁⊾ㆸ. 1987. “Xunzhao Qin wenhua Yuanyuan de xinxiansuo” ⮳㈦ 䦎㔯⊾㶝㸸䘬㕘䶂䳊 [New Clues on the Search for the Origin of the Qin Culture]. Wenbo 1: 1–7. ——. 1989. “Gansu Dongbu Qin yu Jiangrong wenhua de kaoguxue tansuo” 䓀倭㜙 悐䦎冯⦄ㆶ㔯⊾䘬侫⎌⬠㍊䳊 [An Archaeological Investigation of the Qin and Jiangrong Culture in Eastern Gansu]. In Kaogu leixingxue de lilun he shijian 侫⎌ 栆✳⬠䘬䎮婾␴⮎嶸 [Theory and Practice of Typology in Archaeology], edited by Yu Weichao, pp. 145–76. Beijing: Wenwu Press. ——. 2013. “Qinren cong nali lai: xunzhao zaoqi Qin wenhua” 䦎Ṣ⽆⒒塷Ἦ: ⮳㈦㖑㛇 䦎㔯⊾ [What Did the Qin Come From? Looking for the Early Qin Culture]. Zhongguo wenhua yichan ᷕ⚳㔯⊾怢䓋 2: 39–47. Zhao et al. Zhao, Huacheng 嵁⊾ㆸ, Liang Yun 㠩暚, Hong Hongwei ὗ䲭῱, You Fuxiang 忲⭴䤍, and Wang Xiaorong 䌳⮷㥖. 2012. “Gansu Qingshui Liya yizhi” 䓀 倭㶭㯜㛶Ⲿ怢⛨侫⎌䘤㍀䌚慵⣏䨩䟜 [A Major Breakthrough in Archaeological Excavations on the Liya Site, Qingshui, Gansu]. Zhongguo wenwubao, January 20, 2012. Zhao, Jumei 嵁卲㠭. 2008. “Jinshan Gaoyuan Xia Shang shiqi kaoguxue wenhua geju yanjiu” 㗱昅檀⍇⢷⓮㗪㛇侫⎌⬠㔯⊾㟤⯨䞼䨞 [A Study on Archaeological Cultures of Shang and Zhou Periods in Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau]. In Gongyuanqian liangqianji de Jin Shaan gaoyuan he Yanshan nanbei ℔⃫⇵ℑ⋫䲨䘬㗱昅檀⍇␴ 䅽Ⱉ⋿⊿ [The Jin-Shaanxi Plateau and Yan Mountainous Region of the Second Millennium bce], edited by Jiang Gang and Yang Jianhua, pp. 3–43. Beijing: Kexue Press.

293 BIBLIOGRAPHY

ZKKY. Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo ᷕ⚳䥹⬠昊侫⎌䞼䨞㇨. 1959. Shangcunling Guoguo mudi ᶲ㛹ⵢ嘊⚳⠻⛘ [The Guo State Cemetery at Shangcunling]. Beijing: Kexue Press. ZQQBW. Zhongguo qingtongqi quanji bianji weiyuanhui ᷕ⚳曺戭☐ℐ普䶐廗⥼⒉ 㚫 䶐. 1996. Zhongguo qingtongqi quanji: Xi Zhou (2) ᷕ⚳曺戭☐ℐ普: 大␐ (2) [A Comprehensive Catalog of Chinese Bronzes (Western Zhou, vol. 2)]. Beijing: Wenwu Press. ——. 1997. Zhongguo qingtongqi quanji Shang ⓮ (2) [A Comprehensive Catalog of Chinese Bronzes (Shang, vol. 2)]. Beijing: Wenwu Press. ZSKKY. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo ᷕ⚳䣦㚫䥹⬠昊侫⎌䞼䨞㇨. 1999. Zhangjiapo Xi Zhou mudi ⻝⭞✉大␐⠻⛘ [The Western Zhou Cemetery at Zhangjiapo]. Beijing: Kexue Press. ——. 2005. TengZhou Qianzhangda mudi 㹽ⶆ⇵㌴⣏⠻⛘ [The Qianzhangda Cemetery at Tengzhou]. Beijing: Wenwu Press. ——. 2006. Xujianian Siwa wenhua mudi ⼸⭞䡦⮢䩒㔯⊾⠻⛘—980⸜䓀倭匲㴒⼸ ⭞䡦侫⎌䘤㍀⟙⏲ [The Cemetery of the Siwa Culture at Xujianian: Archaeological Report of the Excavation at Xujianian, Zhuanglang, Gansu, 1980]. Beijing: Kexue Press. ——. 2007. Nanfenzhou •Nianzipo ⋿恈ⶆ•䡦⫸✉ [Nanfenzhou •Nianzipo]. Beijing: World Books Press. ZSKKY, SKY, and LW. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Shanxidui ᷕ⚳ 䣦㚫䥹⬠昊侫⎌䞼䨞㇨Ⱉ大昲, Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo Ⱉ大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞㇨, and Linfen shi wenwuju 冐㰦ⶪ㔯䈑⯨. 2003. “Taosi Chengzhi faxian Taosi wenhua zhongqi muzang” 昞⮢❶⛨䘤䎦昞⮢㔯⊾ᷕ㛇⠻吔 [Burials of the Mid-Phase of the Taosi Culture Discovered in a Taosi Walled Settlement]. Kaogu 9: 3–6. Zhongguo shehui kexuewang ᷕ⚳䣦㚫䥹⬠䵚 [Chinese Social Science Website]. 2019. Ⱉ大倆╄惺⊁柕䡢娵⓮ẋ檀䫱䳂屜㕷⠻吔 [High-Ranking Elite Tombs of the Shang Period Discovered at Jiuwutou, Wenxi, Shanxi]. http://www.cssn.cn/zx/zx_gjzh/zhnew /201902/t20190226_4837451.shtml?COLLCC=1458864849&. Zhongguo xinwenwang [Chinese News Website]. 2009. “Gansu sheng Qingyang Heshui xian faxian Xi Zhou mu” 䓀倭䚩ㄞ春⎰㯜䷋䘤䎦大␐⠻ [Western Zhou Date Burials at Heshui, Qingyang, Gansu]. http://www.chinanews.com/cul/news/2009/0520/1700780.shtml. ——. 2012. “Gansu chutu Xi Zhou qingtongqi lijing qiannian tonglingsheng qingcui” 䓀倭↢⛇大␐曺戭☐ 㙮䴻⋫⸜戭懜倚㶭傮 [Western Zhou Bronzes Uncovered in Gansu—The Bell Still Sounds Crisp After Thousands of Years]. http://www.chinanews .com/shipin/cnstv/2012/07-28/news80637.shtml. ——. 2017. “Dahekou Xi Zhou ‘Baguo’ mudi jieshu fajue, 10 nian fajue muzang 2200 zuo” ⣏㱛⎋大␐ “曠⚳” ⠻⛘䳸㜇䘤㍀, 10 ⸜䘤㍀⠻吔ġ2200 ⹏ [Excavation of the Western Zhou “Ba State” Cemetery at Dahekou, 2200 Burials Excavated Within Ten Years]. http://www.chinanews.com/cul/2017/06-07/8244700.shtml. ——. 2018. “Gansu qunian xinxian 95 chu yizhi, mingque Qin wenhua yizhi bianjie” 䓀倭 ⍣⸜㕘䎦ġ95 嗽怢⛨㖶䡢䦎㔯⊾怢⛨怲䓴 [Discoveries of Ninety-Five Sites in Gansu and the Identification of the Perimeter of the Qin Culture]. http://www.chinanews .com/cul/2018/01-16/8425589.shtml. Zhou, Shucan ␐㚠䆎. 2000. Xi Zhou wangchao jingying situ yanjiu 大␐䌳㛅䴻䆇⚃⛇ 䞼䨞 [A Study of Zhou Management of Its Four Quarters]. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji Press ᷕⶆ⎌䯵↢䇰䣦.

294 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Zhou, Ya ␐Ṇ. 2002. “Guanyu Jinhou Su ding jianshu de tantao” 斄Ḷ㗱ὗ䧋溶ẞ㔠䘬 ㍊妶 [A Discussion on the Number of Jinhou Su Bronze ding]. In Jinhou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 㗱ὗ⠻⛘↢⛇曺戭☐⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫 婾㔯普 [Essays of the International Conference on Bronzes from the Jinhou Cemetery], edited by Shanghai bowuguan, pp. 446–52. Shanghai: Shanghai Shuhua Press. Zhu, Fenghan 㛙沛㿂. 1998. “Fangshan Liulihe chutu zhi Keqi yu Xi Zhou zaoqi de Shaogong jiazu” ㇧Ⱉ䎱䐫㱛↢⛇ᷳ⃳☐冯大␐㖑㛇䘬⎔℔⭞㕷 [“Ke” Bronzes from Liulihe, Fangshan, and the Shaogong Lineage of the Early Western Zhou]. In Yuanwangji: Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo huadan sishi zhounian jinian wenji 怈 㛃普-昅大䚩侫⎌䞼䨞㇨厗娽⚃⋩␐⸜䲨⾝㔯普 [Yuanwangji: Collected Essays on the Celebration of the Fortieth Year of the Founding of the Shaanxi Archaeology Institute], edited by Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, pp. 303–8. Xi’an: Shaanxi Remin Press. ——. 2004. Shang Zhou jiazu xingtai yanjiu ⓮␐⭞㕷⼊ン䞼䨞 [The Study of Shang and Zhou Lineages]. Tianjin: Tianjin Guji Press. ——. 2007. “Yaogong gui yu Tangbo hou yu Jin” ℔䮳冯ⒸỗὗḶ㗱 [Yaogong gui and the Enoffement of Tangbo at Jin]. Kaogu 3: 64–69. ——. 2009. Zhongguo qingtong zonglun ᷕ⚳曺戭☐䵄婾 [Comprehensive Studies on Ancient Chinese Bronzes]. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji. ——. 2011. “Jianlun yu Xi Zhou niandaixue youguan de jijian tongqi” 䯉婾冯大␐⸜ẋ⬠ 㚱斄䘬⸦ẞ戭☐ [A Brief Discussion on a Few Bronzes Related to the Periodization of the Western Zhou Period]. In Xinchu jinwen yu Xi Zhou lishi 㕘Ⱘ慹㔯冯大␐㬟 ⎚ [Newly Discovered Bronzes and Western Zhou History], edited by Zhu Fenghan, pp. 33–38. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Press. ——. 2013. “You Yinxu chutu beifangshi qingtongqi kan Shangren he beifang zuqun de lianxi” 䓙㭟⡇↢⛇⊿㕡⺷曺戭☐䚳⓮Ṣ␴⊿㕡㕷佌䘬倗䲣 [The Study of the Relationship Between the Shang and Northern Groups Based on Northern Style Bronzes from Yinxu]. Kaogu xuebao 1: 1–28. ——. [2014] 2015. “Taibao ding yu Shaogong jiazu tongqiqun” ⣒ᾅ溶冯⎔℔⭞㕷戭☐ 佌 [Bronzes of the Shaogong Lineage and Taibao ding]. In Kouwen sandai wenming ⎑⓷ᶱẋ㔯㖶: ᷕ⚳↢⛇㔯䌣冯ᶲ⎌⎚⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫婾㔯普 [An Inquiry into the Civilizations of the Three Dynasties: A Collection of Essays from an International Symposium on Excavated Texts and Ancient History], edited by Du Yong, pp. 121–34. Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Press. Zhu, Jiping 㛙两⸛. 2012. “Yicheng Dahekou Baguo zushu chutan” 侤❶⣏㱛⎋曠⚳ 㕷Ⱄ⇅㍊ [A Preliminary Investigation of the Lineage Identity of Ba at Dahekou, Yicheng]. On Fudan daxue chutu wenxian yu guwenzi yanjiu zhongxin wangzhan ⽑ 㖎⣏⬠↢⛇㔯䌣冯⎌㔯⫿䞼䨞ᷕ⽫䵚䪁 [Website of the Research Center of Excavated Texts and Paleography of Fudan University]. http://www.gwz.fudan.edu.cn/Web /Show/1791. Zhu, Yanmin 㛙⼍㮹. 1997. “Jinwen zhong de ‘Ji,’ ‘Ji’ yu Jizi feng Yan kao” 慹㔯ᷕ䘬 “➢” “ࠣ” 冯䬽⫸⮩䅽侫 [The Study of ‘Ji’ and ‘Ji’ in Bronze Inscriptions and the Enfeoffment of Jizi at Yan]. In Beijing jiancheng 3040 nian ji Yan wenming guoji xueshu yantaohui huiyi zhuanji ⊿Ṕ⺢❶ 3040 ⸜㙐䅽㔯㖶⚳晃⬠埻䞼妶㚫嬘⮰廗 [International Symposium on the Yan Culture and the Establishment of City Beijing for 3040 Years], edited by Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, pp. 218–25. Beijing: Yanshan Press. Zhu, Zhongxi 䤅ᷕ䅡. 2013. Gansu tongshi (Xian Qin juan) 䓀倭忂⎚—⃰䦎⌟ [A Comprehensive History of Gansu (Pre-Qin Volume)]. 2nd ed. Lanzhou: Gansu Renmin Press.

295 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Zou, Heng 悺堉. 1980. “Lun Xian Zhou wenhua” 婾⃰␐㔯⊾ [Research on Predynastic Zhou Culture]. In Xia Shang Zhou kaoguxue lunwenji ⢷⓮␐侫⎌⬠婾㔯普 [Essays on Xia, Shang, and Zhou Archaeology], pp. 297–355. Beijing: Wenwu Press. ——. 1988. “Zailun Xian Zhou wenhua” ℵ婾⃰␐㔯⊾ [Re-discussion of the Predynastic Zhou Culture]. In Zhou Qin Han Tang kaogu yu wenhua guoji xueshu huiyi lunwenji ␐䦎㻊Ⓒ侫⎌冯㔯⊾⚳晃⬠埻㚫嬘婾㔯普 [A Collection of Essays from an International Symposium on Zhou Qin Han Tang Archaeology and Culture], edited by Xibei daxue xuebao bianjibu 大⊿⣏⬠⬠⟙䶐廗悐, pp. 19–41. Xi’an: Xibei Daxue Xuebao Bianjibu. —— (ed.). 2000. Tianma-Qucun 1980–1989 ⣑楔-㚚㛹 [The Excavations at TianmaQucun from 1980 to 1989]. Beijing: Kexue Press. Zuozhuan ⶎ⁛ [Zuo Commentary]. 1980. In Shisanjing Zhushu ⋩ᶱ䴻姣䔷 [Thirteen Classics with Notes and Commentaries], annotations by Kong Anguo ⫼⬱⚳ and commentaries by Kong Yingda ⫼䧶忼. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.

INDEX

agency, 9–10, 12 agents, 11, 61, 126, 194, 241, 243 Ahatelashan 旧⑰䈡㉱Ⱉ, 44–45 Altai region, 187 Andronovo-type sites, 187 animal head sacrifices in tombs, 41, 188–89 Anzhou liuqi ⬱ⶆℕ☐, 120, 248n5; vessels of: Zhong square ding ᷕ㕡溶, 120; Zhong yan ᷕ䒿, 120 armlets, 241; in Jing-Jin-Tang region, 169, 184–88, 192, 249n1; at Jiuzhan, 59; of the Weiyingzi culture, 202, 204 awarded vessels, 243; at Baicaopo, 36; concept of, 36, 247n5, 250n4; at Liulihe, 166, 174; at Shigushan, 86, 90 bà 曠 (hegemon), 207 Ba 曠 lineage: adoption of Zhou ritual culture, 141–45; background of, 137–39; connection with cultures outside the center, 145–47; contacts with local polities, 149–50; interactions with the Zhou court, 147–51; preservation of

Shang ritual culture, 139–41; relation with Yan, 149, 175 Babo曠ỗ: marriage with Yan, 149; receives awards from Zhou court,144, 147–49; tombs of, 136; vessels of, 121, 137, 141, 149, 199. See also Babo Shang Babo Shang 曠ỗ⯂, 144, 148 Baicaopo 䘥勱✉ cemetery, 14, 20–22, 240; comparisons with other sites, 44–48, 60–62; tombs at, 29–41 Baifu 䘥㴖 tombs, 154, 211, 240–41; background of the deceased in, 194; bronzes in, 178, 184, 196–207 Ba Ji 曠⦆, 138–39, 149; vessels of Ba Ji ding 曠⦆溶, 138, 149; vessels of Ba Ji gui 曠⦆䮳, 138, 149 Baikal area, 196, 211 baˇimán 䘦埣, 123 Bajiazui ⶜⭞◜, 22–23, 26 Bamboo Annals (Zhushu jinian 䪡㚠䲨⸜), 138 Bangjun 恎⛯, 154, 186, 189, 191, 193 Banshan ⋲Ⱉ culture, 219 Barfield, Thomas, 7

298 INDEX

“Basic Annals of Qin” (Qinbenji 䦎㛔乒), 52, 218, 220. See also Grand Scribe’s Records “Basic Annals of Zhou” (Zhoubenji ␐㛔 乒), 52, 247n5. See also Grand Scribe’s Records Bazhong 曠ẚ: tomb of, 136, 143–44; vessels of, 138, 148. See also Gezhong Beidong ⊿㳆 caches, 154, 170, 178–83 běituˇ ⊿⛇ (Northern Land), 5 Beiyao ⊿䩗 cemetery, 68, 109 Beizhao ⊿嵁 cemetery (Jinhou cemetery): 101–2, 142, 145. See also Jin state belt accessories, 56, 207 Bi Ji 䔊⦔, 152, 242; background of, 123–24, 134–35; tomb of, 123, 130–33, 145 bıˇngwuˇ ᷁⋰, 148 Bi Xian gui 䔊歖䮳, 134 Bi 䔊 lineage, 123–24, 131–34 biědānglì 䘇夈櫚 (sunken-crotched li), 114 Bigong Gao 䔊℔檀, 134 Bing ᷁, 204 Bingbo ᷎ỗ, 22 Bin 尛 lineage, 38 Bokao ỗ侫,144–45, 148–49 Bo Jinsheng ỗ㗳䓇, 121 Bo Ju ỗ䞑, 165,182; vessels of Bo Ju ding, 172–73, 175; vessels of Bo Ju li, 165–66, 172–73, 179; vessels of Bo Ju pan, 166, 172–73, 179; vessels of Bo Ju yan, 173, 179–80 Bo Sea 㷌㴟, 3, 153–54 Bo Shuofu ỗ䟽䇞, 54 Bo Yi ỗ⣟, 183 Book of Documents (Shangshu ⯂㚠): on awarding vessels after the conquest, 247n5; on construction of Luoyi, 250n3; on Ruibo, 134; as textual evidence, 13 Book of Poetry (Shijing 娑䴻): Beishan ⊿ Ⱉ in, 2; Hannyi 杻⣽ in, 176; Huangyi 䘯䞋 in, 19; as textual evidence, 13; on war with Xianyun, 53; on Yu 嘆ġ polity, 91 Bunker, Emma, 6

Caijiafen 哉⭞⡛, 154, 185 Caojiayuan 㚡⭞⠔, 199 cèmìng ℴ␥ (king’s verbal commission), 158, 163, 249n2 Central Asia, 70, 219 chàng 櫗, 148 Changwu 攟㬎, 18, 22 Changzhi 攟㱣 basin, 100 Changzikou 攟⫸⎋, 31, 249n10 Chaobai 㼖䘥 River, 153–54,185, 189, 191 Chaodaogou ㈬忻㹅, 154, 178, 194–97, 207 Chaoyu 㗩Ⲓ, 63 Chengdu ㆸ悥 Plain, 70, 166 Cheng ㆸlineage, 133 Chengzhou ㆸ␐ (eastern capital), 123, 219; artifacts and tombs at, 83, 109, 113; construction of, 123, 250n3; in inscriptions on bronzes, 110, 119–20, 166, 171, 175, 179; location of, 3–4, 100–101, 174 Chen Jian gui 冋宷䮳, 199, 208 Chenshantou 昛Ⱉ柕, 154, 188, 191, 193 Chirong 崌ㆶ (Red Rong), 54 Chongxin ⲯᾉ, 14, 17, 22–23, 29, 51–53, 60 city walls, 7, 49, 158, 176, 205, 230–33, 250n8 core-periphery model, 2, 6, 8–9, 243 Cosmo, Nicola Di, 7 cultural experimentation, 240–41 cultural homogenization, 100, 240 cultural hybridization, 196, 240 Dabuzishan ⣏⟉⫸Ⱉ, 16, 213–14, 252n2; comparisons with other sites, 217–18, 224, 233–34, 242; in regional settlement patterns, 227–29, 232; tombs and city walls at, 231–32 Dachen ⣏昛, 22–23 dagger axe. See ge daggers (bronze): in Ba cemetery, 147; in Shanxi-Shaanxi plateau, 199; in upper Jing River valley, 26–27, 55, 59–60; in Yan mountainous region, 169, 178, 194–97, 199, 201. See also dagger-using culture dagger-using culture, 15, 183–84, 206–7, 210–11, 237

299 INDEX

Dahekou ⣏㱛⎋ cemetery, 101, 135–40, 163, 167. See also Ba lineage Dahuazhongzhuang ⣏厗ᷕ匲, 46 Daijiawan ㇜⭞㸦, 64, 88–90, 98 Dakou ⣏⎋, 117 dàkoˇuzūn ⣏⎋⮲. See flare-mouthed jar Daling ⣏㶑 River valley, 153–54; bronze caches in, 178; remains of Weiyingzi culture in, 202; rise of dagger-using culture in, 183, 207, 211, 239 Daluo ⣏榙, 53, 214, 218, 234 Daohugou 忻嗶㹅, 154, 202–3 Datuotou ⣏✐柕 culture, 109, 154, 185–86, 249n1 Daxi 忼㹒 River, 17, 22 Daxueping ⣏暒✒, 230 Dayangzhou ⣏㲳㳚, 166 Di 䉬, 118, 123, 125, 138, 176, 209, 251n1 Di 㮸, 147 Dinggong ⭂℔. See Duke Ding Dingtongcun ᶩ䪍㛹, 92 Dingxi ⭂大, 212 divided-crotched li: at Baoji, 63, 84–85; in upper Jing River valley, 18–19, 44, 46, 57, 246n2 dìzhī ⛘㓗, 249n12 dog sacrifices: at Anyang, 12; at Baifu, 198; at Liulihe, 161–62, 164; in lower Fen River valley, 101, 108, 110, 115, 126, 139–40, 151; in upper Jing River valley, 24–25, 27–28, 50–51, 54; in upper Wei and upper Xihan River valleys, 217, 219, 221–22, 231, 233–34 Donghu 㜙傉, 206 Dongjia 吋⭞, 143 Dongjialin 吋⭞㜿, 158 Dongkan’gezhuang ᷄旂⎬⸬, 154, 186–88 Dongshan 㳆Ⱉ, 21–24 Dongshangcun 㳆ᶲ㛹. See Gulugou cache Dongwanggang 㜙䌳ⲿ, 197 Dongyi ᷄⣟, 251n1 double-handled jars: bronze, 115, 118–19, 122; Siwa-type ceramic, 57–58, 64, 78 Doujitai 櫍暆⎘, 63–64. 91 Duke Ding (Dinggong ⭂℔), 106

Duke of Feng (Fenggong 寸℔), 79 Duke of Jin (Jingong 㗳℔), 123 Duke of Qin (Qingong 䦎℔), 224, 231 Duke of Rui (Ruigong 剖℔), 149 Duke of Shao (Shaogong ⎔℔): as founder of Yan, 157–58, 163, 167; interactions with Yan, 170, 174–75; vessels of, 135, 251n13. See also Liangshan qiqi Duke of Tang (Tanggong Ⓒ℔), 123 Duke Yi (Yigong 䙲℔), 52, 95, 127, 134 Duke Zhuang 匲 of Qin, 218 Duoyou ding ⣂⍳溶, 53 earrings (metal): in Jing-Jin-Tang region, 184, 169, 186–89, 192, 241, 249n1; of the Weiyingzi culture, 184, 202–3, 241; at Xibozi, 200 emerging frontier, 212, 235, 238–39 èrcéngtái ḴⰌ⎘ (secondary ledges), 29, 31, 42, 74–75, 94, 247n4 Ertu Ḵ⛇, 225, 226–28, 235 Etiquette and Rites (Yili ₨䥖), 247n1 Eurasia, 154, 210, 237, 246n5; object styles of, 60, 187, 195–97 Falkenhausen, Lothar von, 247n1 Fan ䷩, 119 Fangdui-Yongningbu ⛲➮-㯠䓗⟉, 101, 122 Fangshan ㇧Ⱉ, 155 faˇngtónglì ầ戭櫚, 114 Fan 䔒 lineage, 133 Fan 㦲 River, 220–21 Fei㔸, 170 Feizi 朆⫸, 53, 214, 218, 223–24 Feng 寸, 4 Feng 寸 lineage, 38 Fen 㰦 River valley, 7–8, 15, 109, 114–15, 150, 238, 245n4; comparisons with other regions, 28, 78, 199; east-west orientation of tombs in, 109, 125, 241–42; as north-central frontier, 2–4, 100–101; use of flare-mouthed jars and three-footed urns, 117–18; use of niches in tombs, 145

300 INDEX

fēndānglì ↮夈櫚. See divided-crotched li Fenggong 寸℔. See Duke of Feng fēnqì ↮☐. See awarded vessel Fifth Year Wei ding Ḽ䣨堃溶, 143 flare-mouthed jars, 152; in Ba tombs, 147; in Jin tombs, 115–18, 122, 169, 242; in Peng tombs, 132 flexed posture in tombs: at Maojiaping, 215, 217, 220, 233–34, 242; relation with Qin, 219–20; at Xishan, 230, 233 Fu ⽑: lineage background of, 162–63, 168; receives awards from Yanhou, 162, 170 Fushan 㴖Ⱉ, 100 Fu Sinian ‭㕗⸜, 251n1 Futuocun ㈞㈀㛹, 92 Gamatai ⮽楔⎘, 46 Gangu 䓀察, 214, 217–18, 220, 252n3 Gan 崋 River, 166 Gaohong 檀䲭, 117, 199 Gaojiabu 檀⭞⟉, 180 Gaojiacun 檀⭞㛹, 63 Gaojiadong 檀⭞㳆, 154, 202–204 Gao Ming 檀㖶, 247n1 Gaositou 檀⮢柕, 225–26 ge ㆰ (dagger axe): at Baicaopo, 31, 33, 35, 39–40; at Jiuzhan, 59–60; at Liulihe, 166, 173; at Shigushan, 81, 90; in upper Wei and Jing River valley, 40, 215, 222, 229, 235; at Xiaoshandongzhuang, 188; in Yan mountainous region, 195, 198–99; in Yu cemeteries, 70–71, 78; at Yujiawan, 18, 45–47; in Ze tombs, 93–94, 97. See also triangular-blade ge Ge ㆰ lineage, 179–80 Ge 㟤 lineage, 138 Gejiazhuang 吃⭞匲, 250n7 gender, 10, 72, 111, 115, 117–18, 191, 216, 242 Gezhong 㟤ẚ, 138, 148. See also Bazhong gifting, 13; bronzes as gifts in, 67, 150, 173–74; in inscriptions, 127, 149, 151, 171–73, 175; as a means of interaction, 11, 96, 169, 244. See also awarded vessels

Gong ℙ (polity), 18 Grand Scribe’s Records (Shiji ⎚姀), 134; on Jin, 102, 108; on Qin, 6, 52, 214, 218, 220, 223, 230, 234, 252n3; as textual evidence, 13; on Yan, 157, 176, 183, 207–8; on Yu polity, 91; on Zhou, 36, 52, 246n3, 247n5. See also Bigong Gao Guai ᷾ lineage, 22, 52; Guai jıˇ wáng ᷾⸦ 䌳 of, 38; Guai Shu ᷾⍼ of, 21 Guaibo gui ᷾ỗ䮳, 38, 52. See also Meiao: Meiao gui Guanzhong 斄ᷕ, 4, 17–19, 23, 57, 63, 83, 216, 245n1, 246n1 Guanzhuang ⭀匲, 154, 187 Guirong 櫤ㆶ, 138 Gulugou ␽☄㹅 cache, 154, 178–79 gūmèi ⥹⥡, 149 Guo 嘊 state: cemetery at Shangcunling, 37, 106, 132, 161; use of bronzes in tombs, 76, 113; Western Guo, 64 Guoyu ⚳婆. See Speeches of the States Guyuan ⚢⍇, 22–23, 29, 51, 246n1 Guzhu ⬌䪡, 156, 179–81, 183 Hancheng 杻❶, 132, 134 Hanjiatan Miaozui 杻⭞䀀⺇◜, 22–23, 27–28, 61 Hanzhong 㻊ᷕ, 40 Hann 杻 state, 176 Hao 捔, 4 He Qinggu ỽ㶭察, 218 He zun ỽ⮲, 250n3 Heibo㼞ỗ, 36 Hei 㼞 River, 17, 22, 41 Hejiacun 屨⭞㛹, 23 Hejiapan ỽ⭞䓼, 22, 27, 54, 60–61 Hejiaying 峢⭞反, 251n12 helmet, 33, 166, 199, 203 Hengbei 㧒⊿, 101, 120–21, 123, 125, 130 Henan 㱛⋿, 4, 113, 141, 161 Heshanggou ␴⯂㹅, 154, 202–4, 206–7 Heshui ⎰㯜, 14, 17–18, 22, 53, 61 Hingley, Richard, 9

301 INDEX

historical memory, 107, 123, 208 Hong 乊 River, 224 Hongyagou 䲭Ⲿġ㹅, 22–23, 25 horse and chariot pits, 31, 59; at Ba cemetery, 136; at Baicaopo, 29, 39, 41; at Jin cemetery, 103–4; at Maojiaping, 215; at Peng cemetery, 123; at Rujiazhuang, 73; at Yan cemetery, 168; at Yaoheyuan, 50–51 horse pits, 42, 50 Houqianyi ⼴怟佑, 41, 154, 185–89, 191–92 house remains, 7; at Jiuzhan, 56; at Maojiaping, 215; at Nanpo, 93; at Qucun, 102; at Shigushan, 81; at Xishan, 231; at Yucun, 56; at Zhangjiayuan and Zhengjiangying, 185 Hufang 嗶㕡, 119 Hu嗶 lineage, 133 Hu ㇞ lineage: vessels at Shigushan, 82–83, 86; vessel at Zhifangtou, 79, 90. See also Shigushan Huaian ⾨⬱, 251n12 Huang Mingchong 湫所ⲯ, 247n5 Huangtupo 湬⛇✉, 158 huāngwéi 勺⶷, 130 Huaxia 厗⢷, 209 huáixìng jiuˇzōng ⾨⥻ḅ⬿ (nine lineages of the Huai surname), 106–7, 125, 138 Huai 㶖 River, 1 huì (Entreatment), 119, 171 human sacrifices: at Anyang, 12; at Baoji, 73–75; at Liulihe, 161–64; in lower Fen River valley, 101, 108, 126–27, 138, 145, 151–52; in upper Jing River valley, 25, 28, 50; in upper Wei and upper Xihan River valleys, 219, 222, 224, 229, 231–33 Huotai 暵⣒ Mountains, 252n3 Illustrated Antiquities of Xuanhe Hall (Xuanhe bogutu ⭋␴⌂⎌⚾), 248n5 inner frontiers, 238–39 Inner Mongolia, 56, 117–18, 146, 187, 200, 206

Ji 咇, 205 Ji ℨ, 220 Ji County ⎱䷋, 199 Jiacun 屰㛹, 64, 91, 97 jiāng 冏, 148 Jiangrongġ⦄ㆶ, 63, 99 Jiangxi 㰇大, 166 Jianping ⺢⸛, 206 jiaˇwuˇ 䓚⋰, 148 Ji ࠣ lineage, 133 Jin ➯, 165; Jin ding ➯溶, 166, 168 Jingbo 㲦ỗ, 37 Jing Ji ḽ⦔, 242; background of, 80; ding and gui set in tomb of, 75–76; inscriptions on vessels made for, 77–78; tomb of, 72–74 Jingjiecun 㕴ṳ㛹 tombs, 101; orientation of, 109, 125; use of bronzes in, 139, 204 Jing ḽ lineage, 55; cemetery at Zhangjiapo,109; Jingbo ḽỗ of, 80; relation with Yu, 66, 78–80. See also Jing Ji; Jingshu Jing Mengji ḽ⬇⦔, 55 Jingong pen 㗱℔ , 123 Jingong 㗳℔. See Duke of Jin Jing 㲦 River valley (upper), 1, 3–7, 13, 15–16, 61–63, 85, 238–39, 242; cultural relations with other regions, 96, 98, 102, 234; in early and middle Western Zhou period, 21–24, 28, 34, 37–39, 42, 44, 47–49, 51; geography of, 17–18; in late Shang period,18–20, 245n4, 246n2; in late Western Zhou period, 51–56, 60 Jingshu ḽ⍼, 80, 148 Jingyuan 㲦㸸, 17 Jinhou cemetery. See Beizhao cemetery Jinhou Su 㗱ὗ䧴, 112, 120 Jinhou Xifu 㗳ὗ╄䇞, 120 Jin Jiang 㗳⦄, 120, 248n6 Jinniucun 慹䈃㛹, 170 Jinshilu 慹䞛抬. See Recordings on Bronzes and Stones

302 INDEX

Jin 㗳state: adheres to the culture in the Zhou center, 110–15; cemetery for the ruling family of, 103–6; contacts and networks with other polities, 120–23; demographic heterogeneity of, 106–10; establishment of, 102; gender identity in, 115–19; political activities with Zhou court, 119–20. See also double-handled jars; flare-mouthed jars; three-footed urns; tomb orientations jítián 䯵䓘, 175 jiùbāng 冲恎, 38 Jiugongyuan ḅ≇⠔, 22–23, 41–42 Jiuwutou 惺⊁柕, 100–101 Jiuzhan ḅ䪁 site, 14, 56, 241, 243; on the edge of frontier, 20, 22, 61–62; use of bronzes, 59–60; use of pottery, 18, 57–59 Jiyayi 䬽Ṇ䞋 (Jihouyayi 䬽ὗṆ䞋), 250n5; settlement of, 177–78, 250n8; vessels of, 165, 170–71, 179–80, 182 Jizi 䬽⫸, 177, 250n8 joint-crotched li: at Baoji, 63, 84, 242; at Maojiaping, 215–16; at Qucun, 114; in upper Jing River valley, 22–23, 44, 46 juéshì ⍍⢓, 119 Ju Ą lineage, 162–63 Juma ㉺楔 River, 155 Jun County 㴂䷋, 105Jundushan 幵悥 Ⱉ, 154, 200–201, 207. See also daggerusing culture Juyong Pass ⯭⹠斄, 154, 199 Kayue ⌉䲬 culture, 44, 46, 48 Kazuo ┨ⶎ, 15, 153, 202. See also Beidong caches; Gulugou cache; Machanggou cache; Shanwanzi cache; Xiaobotaigou cache; Yan state: expansion into western Liaoning Ke ⃳ (Yanhou), 157–58, 161, 163–64; vessels of Ke he ⃳䙱, 157, 163, 249n2; vessels of Ke lei ⃳仵, 157, 163, 249n2 King Cheng ㆸ: establishes Yan state, 157–58; establishes Jin state, 102, 106–7,

150; relocation of the ancestors of Qin lineage by, 218, 252n3 King Gong ℙ, officials at the court of, 134–35 King Li ⍚: campaign against Suyi by,120; conflict with Xianyun, 53 King Mu 䧮, campaign against Quanrong by, 52; eastern campaign by, 135 King Wen 㔯: military campaign against Mixu by, 19; receives assistance from Gui, 38, 52 King Wu 㬎, campaign against Shang by, 66, 183; receives assistance from Gui, 38, 52 King Xiao ⬅, grants Feizi a settlement at Qin, 52–53, 214, 218, 223 King Xuan ⭋: charges the ruler of Hann to rule locals, 176; lends troops to Duke Zhuang of Qin, 218 King Yih ㆧ, interacts with Gui, 38, 52, 95 King Zhao 㗕ĭ southern military campaign by, 119–20 Laishui 㵆㯜, 155 Lanqiao 㪬㧳, 212–13, 222, 226, 235 Lattimore, Owen, 6 Leishenmiao 暟䤆⺇, 225, 227–28, 230 Li Boqian 㛶ỗ嫁, 155 Li 䥖 County, 212–14; settlement patterns at, 224–28 Li Feng 㛶Ⲙ, 4, 249n10; on Qin, 224; on upper Jing River valley, 20–21, 53, 55; on women naming in inscriptions, 122; on Zhou government, 119, 249n2 Li Ling 㛶暞, 19 Li Xueqin 㛶⬠⊌, 90, 218, 247ch3n1, 252n1, 252n3 liándānglì 倗塮櫚. See joint-crotched li Liangdaicun 㠩ⷞ㛹, 101,132, 134 Liangfucun 㠩䓓㛹, 97 Liangshan qiqi 㠩Ⱉᶫ☐, 209, 251n13 Liang Yun 㠩暚, 218, 251n1

303 INDEX

lieding ↿溶 (an array of ding), 112, 151, 200 liegui↿䮳 (an array of gui), 112, 151 Lijiaya 㛶⭞Ⲿ culture, 245n4; connections with northeastern frontier, 196; connections with Peng and Ba, 117–18, 125, 146 Lijiaya 㛶⭞Ⲿ site, 117 Linduff, Katheryn, 6, 8, 246n5, lineagescape, 28 Linfen 冐㰦, 100–101 Lingbo ⢴ỗ, 79 Ling Ji ⢴⦔, 79 Linglongcun 曰䍹㛹, 64, 97 Lingshi 曰䞛, 109, 139 Lingtai 曰⎘, 14, 17–18, 41, 96, 166; in early Western Zhou period, 21–23; in late Western Zhou period, 51, 53, 62. See also Baicaopo; Mixu Lin Yun 㜿㰬, 246n5, 247ch3n1 Liujia ∱⭞ culture: connections with Ba, 145–46; connections with polities at Baoji, 78, 83–86, 94, 98; connections with sites in upper Jing River valley, 46, 50, 246n2; overview of, 63, 241, 245n4. See also Shigushan; niched tombs Liujia ∱⭞ site, 63 Liujiagou ∱⭞㹅, 230 Liujiahe ∱⭞㱛 tomb, 154–55, 187, 190–91, 251n11 Liulidian ∱㛶⸿, 251n9 Liulihe 䎱䐫㱛, 154, 250n7. See also Yan state Liupan ℕ䚌 Mountains, 6, 17, 22 Liu Qingzhu ∱ㄞ㞙, 251n1 Liya 㛶Ⲿ site, 16, 213–14, 239–40, 242, 252n2; in regional settlement pattern, 223, 235, 252n4; relation with Qin, 218, 223–34; tombs at, 217, 219, 221–22, 233–34 Long 晜 Mountains, 22, 40, 63–64, 212 Longxi 晜大, 217

Lost Book of Zhou (Yizhoushu 忠␐㚠), 134 Lower Xiajiadian ⢷⭞⸿ culture, 154, 187, 202, 249n1 Lü Jiang ⏪⦄, 23 Lü ⏪ lineage, 23, 38 Luan 䀌 River, 153–54, 185, 188, 192 Luantingshan 淦ṕⰙ, 225, 227–28, 230, 252n2 Lüfu gu 㕭䇞如, 110 Lüliang ⎽㠩 Mountains, 100–101, 125 Lulong 䚏漵, 156, 180 Luo 㳃 River, 1, 101, 245n2 Luobo ỗ, 55 Luogao 㳃官 (The Announcement Concerning Luo), 250n3 Luoyi 㳃怹. See Chengzhou Lu 欗 state, 106–7 Luyi 渧怹, 31, 141 mace heads, 78, 197, 199 Machanggou 楔⺈㹅 cache, 154, 178–82 Mai square zun 湍㕡⮲, 175 Maliantai 楔咖⎘, 22–23, 27–28 Mandate of Heaven, 1 Maojiaping 㮃⭞✒, 16, 233–35, 241–42; excavations at, 213–15, 252n2; relation with Qin, 217–20; tombs and artifacts at, 215–17 marriages: between Ba and others, 117, 137, 147, 149; between Jin and others, 120– 23; between Peng and others, 117, 124, 133–35; between Shigushan and others, 90; between Yan and others, 175–76, 210; between Yu and others, 66, 78, 80; between Ze and others, 91–92, 96–97; as a means of contacts, 13, 15, 244; as a means of object movement, 67, 79, 117–18, 152, 243; in the upper Jing river valley, 37–38, 53–54; in upper Wei River valley, 223. See also Bi Ji; Jing Ji Mashaocun 楔⒐㛹, 154, 188, 191 Mattingly, David, 9–10, 12 Meiao 䚱㓾, 38–39, 52, 95; Meiao gui, 52

304 INDEX

Meng Wentong 呁㔯忂, 251n1 Mengyugou 㾃Ⲓ㱇, 64, 78 Mengzhang 呁⻝, 227–28 Miaozhuang ⺇匲, 22–23, 25 mièlì 咹⌮ (an “acknowledgment of merits” ritual), 127, 144, 148–49, 248n8, 249n11 Minister of Western March, 218 Mixu ⭮枰, 18–19, 106 Mo 尲, 176 moats, 160, 205 Mongolia, 196–97, 211 Nangong ⋿⭖ lineage: lead military campaign against Hufang, 119; marriage with Jin, 110; marriage with Peng, 133; Nangong Kuo ⋿⭖㊔ of, 80; relation with Yu lineage, 79–80; relation with Zeng state, 80, 248n4 Nangoumen ⋿㹅攨, 154, 202, 207 Nanpo ⋿✉, 64, 91–93, 97 Nanshan’gen ⋿Ⱉ㟡, 154, 200, 207 Nanxiaowang ⋿⮷㖢, 250n7 Nianzipo 䡦⫸✉ culture, 19, 85, 245n4 Nianzipo 䡦⫸✉ site, 18–19, 22 Niaoshu 沍滈 Mountains, 212 niched tombs, 242; at Baicaopo, 41; at Dahekou (Ba), 145; of Liujia culture, 83, 85, 94, 145; at Shigushan, 82–83, 85, 99; at Yujiawan, 46 Ningcheng 䓗❶, 207 Ninth Year Wei ding ḅ⸜堃溶, 143 Niulanshan 䈃㪬Ⱉ, 15, 154, 194, 206, 210. See also Jiyayi: settlement of Niutou 䈃柕 River valley, 212, 252n2; archaeological sites at, 220–21, 223, 235, 252n4 Northern Zone, 12, 20; concept of, 246n5; cultural connections with Baoji region, 73, 78; cultural connections with bronzes in Kazuo caches, 181–82; cultural connections with Fen River valley, 5, 147; cultural connections with Liulihe, 166; cultural connections

with upper Jing River valley, 41, 45–47, 54–56, 59–62, 240–41; cultural connections with Yan mountainous region, 169, 194–201, 210, 240–41; geographical relations with northern frontiers, 6, 18, 63, 211, 237; groups from, 11, 14, 238–39, 243–44 oracle bones, 7, 183, 250n8; in Ba tombs, 136; in tombs at Baicaopo, 32–33; in tombs in lower Feng River valley, 100; at sites in northeastern frontier, 156, 183; at sites of Xing state, 250n7; at Yaoheyuan, 50 outer frontier, 268–69 Pan Zuyin 㼀䣾哕, 170 Panjialiang 㼀⭞㠩, 44 Pengbo ᾿ỗ: marriages with others, 120–21, 133,135, 248n9; Pengbo Cheng Ῡ, 124, 127, 130–32, 134–35; tombs of, 123, 127, 131, 145; vessels in a Ba tomb, 150 Peng Gai gui ᾿ᶸ䮳, 135 Peng Ji ᾿⦔, 133. See also Ruibo Peng ᾿ lineage, 101–2, 151–52, 239–43; adoption of Zhou ritual culture, 127–30; background of, 123–25; continuation of Shang ritual culture, 125–27; marriages and contacts with others, 133–35, 175; political relation with Jin, 150; tomb orientation of, 109; use of three-footed urns, 117, 132; use of flare-mouthed jars, 117, 132. See also Bi Ji Pengmu ᾿㭵, 120 Pengya ⼕Ⲿ, 226–28 Pengyang ⼕春, 14, 18, 23, 29, 49, 51, 62 Pengzhong ding ᾿ẚ溶, 124, 134 Phase III of the Weifang ⚵⛲ᶱ㛇 culture, 184, 245n4, 249n1 píngdıˇguàn ⸛⸽仸 (flat-bottomed guan), 22 Pinggu ⸛察, 155 Pingliang ⸛㵤, 17, 22–23, 29, 54

305 INDEX

plaques, 27, 55–56, 79, 201, 215 prone posture in tombs, 126, 152, 186, 242 Qi Ḇ/㯋, 144 Qi 㺮, 53 Qi 㕪, 162 Qi Huangong 滲㟻℔, 207 Qian ⋫ Mountains, 22, 63–64 Qian 㰏 River, 38, 63–64, 80, 91, 97–98, 134, 252n2 Qianyang ⋫春, 38 Qianzhangda ⇵㌴⣏, 141 Qiaobei 㧳⊿, 100–101 Qijia 滲⭞ culture: armlets in, 186–87; ceramic jars of, 118, 145–46; flexed posture in tombs of, 219; mirrors of, 46 Qijiaping 滲⭞✒, 46 Qin’an 䦎⬱, 213, 220, 223 Qinbenji 䦎㛔乒. See “Basic Annals of Qin” Qinggongtai ㄞ≇⎘, 186 Qingong 䦎℔. See Duke of Qin Qingshui 㶭㯜, 214, 220–21, 223 Qingyang ㄞ春, 17, 28, 61 Qin 䦎 lineage: 7, 252n2; and Liya, 16, 223– 24; and Maojiaping, 16, 217–20; origin of, 13, 214, 251n1, 252n3; and upper Xihan River valley, 229–35, 239–40 Qinling 䦎ⵢ Mountains, 63–64 Qinren 䦎Ṣ, 224, 234 Qinyi 䦎怹, 218, 223–24 Qinyih 䦎⣟, 224, 234 Qishan ⰸⰙ, 64, 92 Quanqiu 䉔᷀, 218, 224, 230 Quanrong 䉔ㆶ, 13, 52, 251n1 Quanyi 䉔⣟, 13 Qucun 㚚㛹 cemetery, 37, 101–2, 125, 149, 243. See also Jin state Quwo 㚚㰫, 102 ramped tombs, 105, 151; at Jinhou cemetery, 103; at Liulihe, 163; at Peng cemetery, 130, 145; at Rujiazhuang, 73–74; at Yaoheyuan, 50

Recordings on Bronzes and Stones (Jinshilu 慹䞛抬), 248n5 remnants of Shang (yīnyímín 㭟怢㮹), 141, 193, 237, 243; in Jin state, 108, 110; relation with Baicaopo, 31, 37, 39; relation with Shigushan, 82, 87; in Yan state, 158, 161, 167–69, 198, 205, 210. See also Jiyayi Rites of Zhou (Zhouli ␐䥖), 247n1 Ritual Reform, 112, 247ch3n1 Ritual Revolution, 112 Rong ㆶ: attack of Xing by, 208; attack of Yan by, 208–9; battle with Ba, 137–38, 147–48; battles with Qin, 6, 220, 252n3; in the Fen River valley, 107, 118, 123, 176; in the Jing River valley, 52–54, 98; relation with Baifu tombs, 199. See also Jiangrong; Quanrong; Shanrong; Western Rong Rongsheng ㆶ䓇, 122 Ruan 旖, 18, 42 Rui 㰕 River, 17, 41–42 Rui 剖 polity (in upper Jing River valley), 18, 42 Rui 剖 lineage (state), 113, 132–34, 143, 149 Ruibo 剖ỗ, 133–34, 248n9 Ruigong 剖℔. See Duke of Rui Rui Jiang 剖⦄, 132 Rujiazhuang 勡⭞匲, 65, 67, 69, 71–79, 96 Sanbo gui 㔋ỗ䮳, 91, 96 Sangyuan ╒⍇, 148 Sanmenxia ᶱ攨ⲥ, 105 Sanshi pan 㔋㮷䚌, 91, 95, 97–98 sānzúwèng ᶱ嵛䒽. See three-footed urns settlement patterns, 213–14; in Niutou River valley, 223–24, 252n4; in upper Xihan River valley, 226–29, 232, 234 Shandong Ⱉ㜙, 1, 31, 120, 141, 161, 251n13, 251n1, 252n3 Shang ⓮ (person name), 162 Shangcunling ᶲ㛹ⵢ. See Guo state: cemetery at Shangcunling

306 INDEX

Shangdongcun ᶲ㜙㛹, 199 Shangguancun ᶲ⭀㛹, 97 Shangshu ⯂㚠. See Book of Documents Shanhai Pass Ⱉ㴟敊, 153–54 Shanping Ⱉ✒, 232 Shanrong Ⱉㆶ (Mountain Rong), 207–8 Shanwanzi Ⱉ䀋⫸ cache, 135, 154, 172, 178–79 Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau, 35, 117, 119, 125, 196, 199 Shaogao ⎔官 (The Announcement of the Duke of Shao), 250n3 Shaogong ⎔℔. See Duke of Shao sheath ornaments: at Baicaopo, 35; at Liulihe, 166; at Yujiawan, 46; at Zhuyuangou, 69 Shelach, Gideon, 7 Shen Jiang 䓛⦄, 54 Shenhou 䓛ὗ, 52–53 Shiba Yihao 䞛⢑ᶨ嘇, 225–28 Shi Fa ⎚Ẹ, 181 Shigouping 䞛㹅✒, 227–28 Shigushan 䞛溻Ⱉ community, 14–15, 64–65, 98–99, 240–43; background of, 82–83; contacts with local groups and Zhou court, 89–90; three styles of pottery at, 83–85; three types of bronzes at, 85–89; use of niches in tombs at, 85 Shiji ⎚姀. See Grand Scribe’s Records Shijing 娑䴻. See Book of Poetry Shi ⎚ lineage, 141 Shilu-Suide 䞛㦻-䴷⽟ type, 245n4 Shiyou gui ⶰ惱䮳, 224 Shizikou 䊖⫸⎋, 251n12 Shu Qi ⍼滲, 183 Shuyin ⍼⯡ ding, 181 Shu Yu ⍼嘆, 102, 106, 108, 119. See also Tang Shuyu Shu Ze ⍼⣐㕡溶, 119 shuāngěrguàn 暁俛仸. See doublehandled jars Shuiquan 㯜㱱, 154, 206–7

Shunyi 枮佑, 170 Siba ⚃✅ culture, 187 Siberia, 60, 187, 196 Sichuan ⚃ⶅ, 70, 166 sìfāng ⚃㕡 (four quarters), 245n3 Sigou ⮢㹅, 22–23, 25 sīmaˆ ⎠楔. See Supervisor of Horses sìtú ⚃⛇ (four lands), 245n3 Siwa ⮢䩒 culture, 7, 237, 239–41, 245n4; at Baoji, 64, 78–79, 94; in upper Jing River valley, 18, 20–21, 56–61, 246n2; in upper Wei River valley, 40, 220–23; in upper Xihan River valley, 212–15, 223–35. See also Jiuzhan So, Jenny, 6 Son of Heaven, 25, 148, 209, 245n3 Speeches of the States (Guoyu ⚳婆), 138, 207 Su 倫 (of Peng lineage), 135 Su 㴹 River, 100–101 Suizhou 晐ⶆ, 248n4 sumptuary rule, 112–13, 130, 247ch3n1 Sunjiazhuang ⬓⭞匲, 22–23, 25, 51 Supervisor of Horses, 80 swords, 229. See also daggers; willow leaf–shaped swords tābāng Ṿ恎, 38 Taibao ⣒ᾅ (Great Protector). See Duke of Shao Taibao ding ⣒ᾅ溶. See Duke of Shao: vessels of; Liangshan qiqi Taibao gui ⣒ᾅ䮳. See Duke of Shao: vessels of; Liangshan qiqi Taihang ⣒埴 Mountains, 101, 147, 153–54, 196–97, 199, 208, 245n2 Taiqinggong ⣒㶭⭓, 141, 249n10 Taishi You yan ⣒⎚⍳䒿, 251n13. See also Liangshan qiqi Taiyuan ⣒⍇ Basin, 3, 101, 122 Taiyue ⣒ⵥ Mountains, 100–101 TangboⒸỗ, 102. See also Tang Shuyu Tanggong Ⓒ℔. See Duke of Tang Tang Shuyu Ⓒ⍼嘆, 19, 107

307 INDEX

Tan 夫 lineage, 181 Tao 㳖 River, 212 Taosi 昞⮢ culture, 145 Tazhao ⟼䄏, 155, 186, 251n9 Teng Mingyu 㹽所Ḱ, 108 Tengzhou 㹽ⶆ, 141, 250–251n8 three-footed urns, 152; in Ba tombs, 147; in Peng tombs, 125, 132; in Jin tombs, 115–18, 122, 169, 242 tiāngān ⣑⸡, 86 Tianma-Qucun ⣑楔-㚚㛹, 101–4. See also Qucun cemetery tiānmìng ⣑␥. See Mandate of Heaven Tianshui ⣑㯜, 212–13, 220 tomb ramps. See ramped tombs Tong you ⎴⌋, 95 toˇngwaˇ 䫺䒎, 160 triangular-blade ge, 40, 60, 68, 70–71 Tuergou ⃼⃺㹅, 22–23, 26, 60–61 Tuo ỿ, 107 turquoise: at Chaodaogou, 195; in tombs of Weiyingzi culture, 202–3; in a tomb at Xifeng District, 23, 28; in Yu tombs, 79; in tombs of Zhangjiayuan culture, 186–89 Upper Xiajiadian ⢷⭞⸿ culture, 200, 202, 206–7, 245n4 Upper Xihan River 大㻊㯜 valley, 3–6, 13, 15–16, 214, 245n4; archaeological survey at, 224–25, 252n2; as an emerging frontier, 238–39; geography of, 212–13; settlement patterns in, 226–28, 231–35. See also Dabuzishan; Xishan waist pits, 12, 24–28, 101, 242; in Ba tombs, 138–40, 151; in Baicaopo tombs, 31–32, 34, 40; in Baifu tombs, 198, 205, 217; in Dabuzishan tombs, 219, 231, 233–34; in Jin tombs, 108, 110, 115; in Liulihe tombs, 161–62, 164, 205; in Liya tombs, 221–22, 224, 233–34; in Peng tombs, 125–27, 151; in Xigou tomb, 54; in

Xishan tombs, 229–30, 233, 242; in Yaoheyuan tombs, 50–51; in Yujiawan tombs, 45 wáng 䌳 appellation, 38–39, 94–95, 99. See also Yuan wáng; Ze Wang gui; Ze Wang zhi Wang Fu 䌳溤, 248n5 Wang gui 㛊䮳, 134 Wang Guowei 䌳⚳䵕, 124, 224, 251n1 wángjī 䌳䔧 (Royal Domain), 4, 21, 65 Wanglu 䌳䤧, 22, 27, 54 Wang Shimin 䌳ᶾ㮹, 247n1 Watson, William, 6 Wei (in Jin state), 119 Wei 㷕 River valley: —middle and lower: Zhou center in, 1, 4, 17–18, 21, 47, 245nn1–2; Baoji region in, 2, 38, 63–64, 81, 96, 98, 100–101; cultural connections with the Fen River valley, 114; cultural connections with Yan, 160, 162, 168, 192; —upper, 3–7, 15–16; as an emerging frontier, 238–39; geography of, 212–14; material culture in, 233, 235, 245n4; relations with Qin, 13, 218–19, 252n2 Wei 堃 state, 37, 105, 107, 161, 169 Weichang ⚜⛢, 251n12 Weifang ⚵⛲, 184, 246n4, 248n1, 251n9 Weijiazhuang 杳⭞匲, 97 Weiyingzi 櫷䆇⫸ culture, 154, 240–42; material culture of, 184, 187, 202–4, 245n4; relation with Yan state, 204; relation with bronze caches at Kazuo, 178, 181–82; replaced by dagger-using culture, 206–7 Weiyingzi 櫷䆇⫸ site, 154, 182, 202–4, 242 Weizi Qi ⽖⫸⓻, 249n10 wénkaˇo 㔯侫, 130 Wenxi 倆╄, 100 Western Rong (Xirong 大ㆶ), 13, 251n1; conflict with Qin, 214, 218, 230, 234; relation with Siwa culture, 214

308 INDEX

willow leaf–shaped swords: in Baicaopo M2, 33, 35; in Yan tombs, 166; in Yu tombs, 46–47, 68–70, 72–73, 80 wōtıˇ shòumiàn 圠橼䌠朊, 141 Wu Ding 㬎ᶩ, 156, 183 Wu En 䁷】, 246n5 Wu ⏜ polity, 91 Wushan 㬎Ⱉ, 213–14, 217 Xian ding ㅚ溶, 251n13 Xian Hou ding 䌣ὗ溶, 92 xiāngfáng ⹪㇧, 19 Xiangshansi 楁Ⱉ⮢, 18, 22, 246n1 Xiangyangling ⎹春ⵢ, 154, 202 Xianyun 䌓䉩, 20, 49, 51, 53, 62, 238–39, 246n3 xiānzhōu wénhuà ⃰␐㔯⊾, 19 Xiaobotaigou ⮷㲊㰘㹅 cache, 154, 171, 178–79, 181 Xiaochen X ding ⮷冋 溶, 175 Xiaochen Yu xi zun ⮷冋ᾆ䈨⮲, 251n13. See also Liangshan qiqi Xiaoguanzhuang ⮷⭀匲, 186, 251n9 Xiaohe’nan ⮷㱛⋿, 59, 178, 194–97 Xiaoling ⮷㶑 River, 153 Xiaomintun ⬅㮹Ⱇ, 109 Xiao Pass 唕斄, 18, 245n1, 246n1 Xiaoshandongzhuang ⮷Ⱉ㜙匲, 154, 187–88, 191–93, 251n10 Xiaoxueping ⮷暒✒, 230 xiaˇoyìbāng ⮷塼恎, 38 Xibozi 大㊐⫸, 154, 194, 196, 200–201, 207, 211, 241 Xichui Daifu 大✪⣏⣓. See Minister of Western March Xie Yaoting 嫅⟗ṕ, 108, 124–25, 127 Xifeng district 大Ⲙ⋨, 22–23, 27–28 Xigou 大㹅, 22, 27, 54 Xiguo大嘊, 82 Xihe 大⎰, 212–13, 224, 227–28, 235 Xihetan 大㱛䀀, 213, 217 Xiling 大ⵢ, 22–23, 25 Xincun 彃㛹, 37, 105, 161 Xindian 彃⸿ culture, 219 Xing 恊 state, 250n7

Xinghou 恊ὗ, 175, 208 Xinghou gui 恊ὗ䮳, 250n7 Xingtai 恊⎘, 175, 208, 250n7 Xinhua 㕘厗, 117 Xirong 大ㆶ. See Western Rong Xishan 大Ⱉ, 16, 243, 252n2; material culture at, 213, 230–35; in regional settlement patterns, 225–28 xītuˇ 大⛇ (Western Land), 5 xītuˇ zhīrén 大⛇ᷳṢ (the people of the west), 19 Xixinyi 大㕘怹, 232 Xuanhe bogutu ⭋␴⌂⎌⚾. See Illustrated Antiquities of Xuanhe Hall Xuejiaqu 啃⭞㷈, 117 Xueshan 暒Ⱉ, 251n9 Xujianian ⼸⭞䡦: cultural relations with other sites, 40, 223; Siwa cemetery at, 212–13, 220, 235 Xun gui 宊䮳, 224 Xusizi ding ㆴ▋⫸溶, 166 Xu Zhongshu ⼸ᷕ冺, 251n1 Ya he Ṇ䙱, 170 Yan 䅽 Mountains: geography of, 153–54; material cultures on both sides of, 184, 204, 206–7, 210–11 Yan 䅽 River, 224 Yan 䅽state, 15, 37, 241–43; after early Western Zhou, 205–8; bronze and pottery of, 165–69; capital of early Western Zhou of, 158–60, 250n8; cemetery and multi-lineage population of, 105, 108–9, 161–65; contacts with the court, 174–76; establishment of, 156–58; expansion into western Liaoning, 178–84, 204, 210; gifting and internal political organization, 169–74; in historical memory, 208–9; interactions with Zhangjiayuan culture, 185–86, 192–94; relation with Baifu, 198–99; a satellite settlement of, 176–78. See also Baifu tombs; gifting; Jiyayi; Niulanshan; remnants of Shang Yang Ji hu 㣲⦆⢢, 121

309 INDEX

Yangjiatai 㣲⭞⎘, 22–23, 26 Yang 㣲 lineage, 121–22 Yangshui㻦㯜 River, 224 Yangsi 㣲⮢, 213, 223 Yanhou ⋥ὗ; 157, 164, 168; bronzes of, 167, 173–75, 179–80; gifting by, 162–63, 170–74; tombs of, 163, 176. See also Ke; Yanhou yu; Yanhou Zhi Yanhou yu ⋥ὗ䙪, 179–80 Yanhou Zhi ⋥ὗ㖐, 167; bronze vessels at the Ba cemetery commissioned by, 137, 149, 163; tomb of, 163; visit at Zongzhou, 174–75; Yanhou Zhi ding, 174–75 Yaogong gui ℔䮳, 102 Yaoheyuan ⦂㱛⠔ site, 14, 18, 22–23, 240; material culture at, 49–51, 61–62 Yaojiahe ⦂⭞㱛, 21–22, 24 yāokēng 儘⛹. See waist pits yang 挂, 173, 250n6 Yawan Ⲿ䀋, 21–22, 24 Yejiashan 叱⭞Ⱉ, 105, 248n4 Yellow River, 13, 100–101, 113, 117, 134, 147, 153–54, 245n2, 246n5 Yicheng 侤❶, 102, 136 Yigong 䙲℔. See Duke Yi Yili ₨䥖. See Etiquette and Rites Yi 佑 lineage, 133 Ying 岷 clan, 214, 218 Ying ㅱ state, 113 Yin ⯡ lineage, 181 Yīnshìguıˆ 㭟⺷䮳, 115 yīnyímín 㭟怢㮹. See remnants of Shang Yishui 㖻㯜 River, 155 Yizhoushu 忠␐㚠. See Lost Book of Zhou Yongding 㯠⭂ River, 154, 193 Yongping 㯠✒ River, 224 yoˇngzhōng 䓔揀, 130 You 㓠, 163; You gui 㓠䮳, 166, 168, 170 yù 櫙, 148 Yu ⚱: activities of, 171, 175; vessels of, 164–65, 171, 179 Yubo ỗ, 66–68, 72–75, 77–80 Yuji ⬋, 66–68, 75 Yu 欂ġlineage, 180, 182

Yu

lineage, 14–15, 98–99, 240–43; adoption of Zhou bronze culture, 66–67; cultural connection to the Northern Zone, 78–79; cultural connections with upper Jing River valley, 28, 34, 40, 46, 60; emulation of Zhou writing, 77–78; layout of cemeteries of, 67, 74–75; origin of, 64–66; regional networks of, 79–80, 83, 90, 96; use of local style bronze vessels, 75–76; use of local style weapons and ornaments, 68–72. See also Jing Ji; Yubo; Yuji Yu 嘆 polity, 91, 134 Yuan gui 䇘䮳, 165 Yuan wáng 䌳, 37–39 Yuanbo ỗ, 21, 36–37, 96 Yucun ⬯㛹, 22, 27, 54–56, 62 Yudaohe Ⲓ忻㱛, 117 yue 摢 (battle axes), 33, 78, 195, 199 Yuhuangmiao 䌱䘯⺇ culture, 200 Yujiawan Ḷ⭞䀋 cemetery, 14, 18, 22–23; artifacts and tombs at, 41–45; comparisons with other sites, 51, 60–62, 240–42; cultural connections with other regions, 46–48 Yuncheng 忳❶, 100–101 Yu Weichao ᾆ῱崭, 247n1, 251n1 zaˇi ⭘, 135 Zaoshulin 㡿㧡㜿, 248n4 Zebo ⣐ỗ, 79, 96 Ze Ji ⣐⦔, 37, 91, 96 Ze ⣐ lineage, 14, 64, 99, 238; background of, 38, 91–92, 248n3; bronzes of, 92–94; pottery of, 94; relations with local polities, 79, 95–97. See also Tong you; wáng appellation; Ze Wang gui; Ze Wang zhi Ze Shu ⣐⍼, 116 Ze Wang gui⣐䌳䮳, 91, 95–97 Ze Wang zhi ⣐䌳妗, 91 Zeng 㚦 state: bronze assemblage, 88; cemeteries of, 80, 105–6, 248n4. See also Nangong lineage

310 INDEX

Zezhong ⣐ẚ, 94 Zhangjiachuan ⻝⭞ⶅ, 213, 220 Zhangjiapo ⻝⭞✉, 68, 80, 109 Zhangjiayuan ⻝⭞⚺ site, 154; house remains at, 185; inscription on bronzes from, 193; tombs at, 186–87, 189, 191, 242, 251n9 Zhangjiayuan ⻝⭞⚺ culture, 41, 237, 240–42; eastern orientation of tombs of, 109, 190–91; overview of, 154, 184–85, 246n4, 249n1; relation with Weiyingzi culture, 202, 204; relation with Yan mountainous region, 195–96, 198, 200; relation with Yan state, 192– 94; use of bronze vessels, 190–92, 206; use of personal ornaments, 186–90 Zhao Huacheng 嵁⊾ㆸ, 217, 251n1 Zhao Mingcheng 嵁㖶婈, 248n5 Zhaoping 嵁✒, 225–29, 232 zhébīng ㉀ℝ (ritual of breaking weapon), 31, 46 Zheng Jiang 惕⦄, 91, 95 Zhengjiapo 惕⭞✉, 216 Zhengjiawa 惕⭞䩒, 21–22, 24 Zhenjiangying 捖㰇䆇, 154–55, 185–87 Zhifangtou 䳁⛲柕, 28, 63, 65, 91

Zhong Shengfu ẚ䓇䇞, 55 Zhong square ding ᷕ㕡溶. See Anzhou liuqi Zhong yan ᷕ䒿. See Anzhou liuqi Zhongtiao ᷕ㡅 Mountains, 100–101 Zhoubenji ␐㛔乒. See “Basic Annals of Zhou” Zhouli ␐䥖. See Rites of Zhou Zhou Shucan ␐㚠䆎, 8 Zhouyuan ␐⍇, 19, 50 Zhu 䪡, 183. See also Guzhu Zhuangbai 匲䘥, 110 Zhuangdi 匲⸽, 17, 23, 25 Zhui 徥, 176 Zhukaigou 㛙攳㹅 culture, 125, 187 Zhukaigou 㛙攳㹅 site, 117–18 Zhushu jinian 䪡㚠䲨⸜. See Bamboo Annals Zhuyuangou 䪡⚺㹅, 46–47, 65, 67, 69, 71 Zongzhou ⬿␐, 3–4, 163, 170, 174 Zuo Commentary (Zuozhuan ⶎ⁛): on establishment of regional states, 6; on Gui group, 124, 138; on Jin state, 19, 106, 108, 123; as textual evidence, 13; on the use of ding, 247ch3n1; on Yan state, 207–8