Ancient Chinese Warfare (85 page)

49
For the example, see Wang Yung-kang et al., KKWW 2007:3, 11-22. This moderately sized
yüeh
measures 21.5 cm. high by 12.8 cm. wide and was mounted with a narrow 7.2 cm.-long tab. Apart from the sheep’s heads protruding at the top of the slightly nonsymmetrical blade, the axe has flanges on both edges, a binding hole in the tab, additional
t’ao-t’ieh
decorations on both the blade and tab, and a 1.5-cm.-wide raised perimeter on the blade itself, thickening the profile. The blade’s two faces are identical, ensuring that its awesomeness would still be projected no matter how they were viewed.

1
In pre-imperial times numerous materials were employed to produce knives, even bamboo, which can produce a highly lethal edge if properly prepared.

2
A few exceptions in stone and bronze have been recovered. For example, the weapon set found in the grave of a foreign nobleman that dates to Yin-hsü’s second period includes a surprisingly long knife of 32.7 cm. It has a straight tab continuous with the upper edge; the blade turns upward near the point; the front and rear portions are wider than the middle, ranging from 5 to 8.2 cm.; the top is thicker than the edge; and it weighs 335 grams. (See An-yang-shih WWKK YCS, KK 2008:8, 28-29.) A bronze knife recovered from Hsiao-t’un is 27.3 cm. long and 3.2 cm. wide (Shih Chang-ju, BIHP 40 [1969]: 660). Finally, a particularly long
tao
with a turned-up edge almost like seen on elf shoes, a decorated band near the top, a straight bottom edge, a blunt back with a short tab at the top and “Ya Ch’ang” on it, 44.4 cm. long (and thus somewhat functional), and a width of about 5.6 cm. has been recovered from “Ya Ch’ang’s” tomb. (See SHYCS An-yang Kung-tso-tui, KK 2004:1, 14.)

3
For a concise overview see Liu Yi-man, KK 1993:2, 150-166.

4
The numerous knives and daggers found in China’s peripheral cultures, particularly the Northern complex, have prompted several studies that, though in part charting their evolution, lie outside the scope of
Ancient Chinese Warfare
, as does the more comprehensive question of
the nature and degree of influence from more distant steppe and Eurasian cultures with bronze precursors, including Sintashta-Petrova.

5
Based on early discoveries (BIHP 22 [1950]: 19-79) and references in the
Shang Shu
, Shih Chang-ju concluded that weapons were normally grouped into functional sets. Therefore, after exchanging archery fire at a distance and employing spears at intermediate range, knives were supposedly used (76). Apart from being completely unrealistic—the possibility of anyone still standing after engaging with spears (or dagger-axes) being minuscule—a sample of six sets is too limited to justify such sweeping conclusions. In fact, Ch’en Meng-chia, KKHP 1954.7: 15- 59, has challenged the conclusion that the knives were weapons for close combat, notes that they are found with whetstones in sets for maintaining shafted weapons, and cites evidence from other areas where they are found in combination with an axe (
ch’i
) rather than in elaborate sets (52). His analysis of about 100 knives from Yin-hsü (43-57) not only criticizes Li Chi’s earlier classifications but also finds that most were tools shaped to specific purposes such as woodworking, kitchen work, and separating hides (46-47). Nevertheless, he terms one category of longer variants that range from 27.5 to 52 cm. a “
chin
” (the basic axe radical). Designed for horizontal mounting along a handle, until being enlarged and mounted horizontally on or atop a long shaft, such as the later Kuan Tao, it could only have been used for executions. (Executions and combat require significantly different modes of action.)

6
Shih Chang-ju (74-76) believes that the knives were hierarchically differentiated by weight and decorative motif, with the horse head being the most prestigious, the ox next, and finally the ram. (The weights range from 382 grams down through 379, 301, 137, 131, and finally an ultralight 62.) Five of the six curve downward; those with animal heads are wider and have a flange, though one has two rings. The knives were carried in two different types of sheaths, with the fancier one being hung from a jade ring.

7
Several early stories are preserved in the
Wu-Yüeh Ch’un-ch’iu
and
Yüeh Chüeh-shu
. A certain mystique came to be associated with the dagger, the preferred weapon of notable assassins.

8
“Waging War.”

9
For example see Chou Wei, 1988, 88-98; Yang Hung, 1985, 126.

10
Yang Hung, 1985, 125-26.

11
See Chang Kwang-chih, 1980, 45, and 1982, 13.

12
The development of longer daggers in Wu and Yüeh, where watery terrain precluded the extensive use of chariots, is often, though without justification, cited as evidence that chariot warfare and swords were somehow mutually exclusive. (Similarly, Chiang Chang-hua, KK 1996:9, 78-80, who believes that swords are indigenous, thinks they first evolved in Shu because of Sichuan’s wetness.)

13
Whatever the ratio per chariot may have been—10, 25, 72, 75, or even 100 to 1—foot soldiers always comprised the majority of warriors.

14
See Max Loehr’s classic article, “The Earliest Chinese Swords,” 132-142.

15
See, for example, Chou Wei, 1981, 112-116. (Early dagger-axes, spearheads, and daggers are so similar in appearance as to be virtually interchangeable.)

16
See Yang Hung, 1985, 129.

17
Swords would eventually become too long and unwieldy for the battlefield, as the example of the King of Ch’in being unable to draw his weapon when attacked by the famous assassin Ching K’o shows. For personal defense in normal situations, daggers of moderate length were always more effective.

18
Hayashi Minao, 1972, 199-236, and Chou Wei, 1988
,
109-157. Although still the most extensive treatment, Minao’s work suffers from being based on materials published prior to 1970; therefore, the only Western Chou “sword” he considers comes from Chang-chia-p’o in Ch’angan. Moreover, he rarely provides actual measurements, only figures with rough proportions.
Fortunately, a number of articles have studied the dagger’s complex history in considerable detail, including Yang Hung, 1985, 115-130; T’ung En-cheng, KK 1977: 2, 35-55; Lin Shou-chin, KKHP 1962:2, 75-84 and WW 1963:11, 50-55; Hsiao Meng-lung, KKWW 1996:6, 14-27; Sung Chih-min, KK 1997:12, 50-58; Chung Shao-yi, KK 1994:4, 358-362; Chu Yung-kang, WW 1992:12, 65-72; Ho Kang, KK 1991:3, 252-263; Li Po-ch’ien, WW 1982:1, 44-48; Ch’en P’ing, KK 1995:4, 361-375; Chang T’ien-en, WW 1993:10, 20-27, and KK 1995:9, 841-853; and Kuo Pao-chün, KK 1961:2, 114-115. (Essential illustrations may also be found in the
Chung-kuo Ku-tai Ping-ch’i T’u-chi
.)

19
This may be seen from the mix of older and newer weapons found in many graves across the ages. Han tombs even include both bronze and iron swords, even though only the latter may have been used in actual combat. (For one example, see Chung Shao-yi, KK 1994:4, 359.)

20
This sort of knowledge apparently died out after the Han, by which time the
tao
had replaced the sword as a military weapon and even ceremonial versions had been largely replaced by wooden ones (Chung Shao-yi, KK 1994:4, 358-362).

21
One Spring and Autumn burial contains a 50 cm. bronze sword and a long spear with a handle of 120 cm. and a 26.8 cm. head (Ch’ing-yang-hsien Wen-wu Kuan-li-suo, KK 1998:2, 18-24).

22
Considerable insight can be gleaned from modern techniques, even though the latter cannot be simply projected backward. For example, depending on the fighting style, there are several methods for grasping the handle, but it is unlikely that the ancients ever held the blade horizontally or laid back against the wrist and forearm, both of which dramatically alter the type of movements that prove effective.

23
In connection with Pa and Shu see T’ung En-cheng, KK 1977: 2, 40, and for a recent report of a similar double scabbard recovered in Inner Mongolia, Hsiang Ch’un-sung and Li Yi, WW 1995:5. (Daggers from the latter site, which dates to the late Western Chou or early Ch’un Ch’iu, are fairly lengthy, roughly 40 cm., and have blades at least twice the length of the hilt.)

24
Chung Shao-yi, KKHP 1992:2, 130-131. (For representative examples see
Chung-kuo Ku-tai Ping-ch’i T’u-chi
, 13.)

25
Chung Shao-yi, KKHP 1992:2, 130-131.

26
For example, see Max Loehr, 1948, 132-142, and Lin Yün, 1986, 237-273.

27
Prominent archaeologists who have argued for, or simply asserted, indigenous origins include Lin Shou-chin and T’ung En-cheng. (See Lin Shou-chin, KKHP 1962:2, 75-84, and WW 1963:11, 50-55, and T’ung En-cheng, KK 1977: 2, 35-55.)

28
However, Chai Te-fang, KKHP 1988:3, 277-299, divides the north into three regions.

29
For a representative view, see Lin Yün, 1986, 237-241. For a study of the complex interactions marking the northern zone and northern China during the Shang and early Chou (including the effects visible in knives, daggers, and other bronze artifacts), see Yang Chien-hua, KKHP 2002:2, 157-174. The northwest also served as a conduit for Eurasian styles and developments.

30
Significant reports include Chu Yung-kang, WW 1992:12; Pei-ching-shih Wen-wu Kuan-li-ch’u, KK 1976:4, 251-253; Wu En, KKWW 2003:1, 21-30; and Chai Te-fang, KKHP 1988:3, 277-299.

31
Important articles on these daggers and their evolution include Chin Feng-yi, Pt. 1, KKHP 1982:4, 387-426, and Pt. 2, KKHP 1983:1, 39-54, as well as WW 1989:11, 24-35; Lin Yün, KKHP 1980:2, 139-161; Wang Ssu-chou, KK 1998:2, 53-63; Liao-ning-sheng Hsi-feng-hsien Wen-wu-kuan-li-suo, 1995:2, 118-123; Chao Chen-sheng and Chi Lan, KK 1994:11, 1047-1049; Tung Hsin-lin, KKHP 2000:1, 1-30; Chung Shao-yi, KKHP 1992:2, 129-145; Wang Ch’eng, KK 1996:9, 94 (which shows that these styles were sometimes found as far west as Inner Mongolia); and Chai Te-fang, 1988.3: 280-285. Guo Da-shu, 1995, 182-205, includes a well-illustrated examination of knives, daggers, and axes, especially those with ring-type handles. (Not all Liaoning swords
are so distinctive. For example, a damaged stone “sword” dating to about 2500 BCE, about 20 cm. long, was probably a thrusting weapon because it is distinguished by a rhomboidal cross-section and sharpened edges and tip. See Hsü Yü-lin and Yang Yung-fang, KK 1992:5, 395.)

32
Chin Feng-yi, WW 1989:11, 24-35. However, Wang Ssu-chou, KK 1998:2, 53-63, dates their inception to the late Shang or early Western Chou.

33
Chin Feng-yi, WW 1989:11, 24-27, and KKHP 1983:1, 46-48; Wang Ssu-chou, KK 1998:2, 53-63; and Chao Chen-sheng and Chi Lan, KK 1994:11, 1047-1049.

34
Fan Chün-ch’eng, KKWW 1995:5, 91. Even discounting the surpassingly long handle of 23 cm., the blade is still remarkably long for the Shang. However, the dating is dubious.

35
Ma Hsi-lun and Kung Fan-kang, WW 1989:11, 95-96. It has been termed the first Shang bronze sword discovered in this area.

36
Yang Hung, “Chien ho Tao,” 116; SHYCS, “Feng-hsi Fa-chüeh Pao-kao,” WW 1963. (Other daggers from the Beijing area are even shorter, at 17.5 cm.)

37
Based on calibrating the original radiocarbon dating of 1120 RC ± 90. (See Lin Shou-chin, 1962.2: 80-81. Lin thus significantly revises an original date of late Western Chou, as seen in Pei-ching-shih Wen-wu Kuan-li-ch’u, KK 1976:4, 251-253.) Two rather poor-quality bronze daggers with slightly raised spines about 21 cm. in length, tentatively dated to the mid- or late Shang, have also been found at Ch’eng-tu Shih-erh-ch’iao (Chiang Chang-hua, KK 1996:9, 78-79).

1
The combination of the characters for shield and dagger-axe,
kan
and
ko
, would eventually become a common term meaning “warfare.”

2
The
Shuo-wen Chieh-tzu
and its greatly expanded variant the
Shuo-wen Chieh-tzu Ku-lin
long provided the classic interpretations, but the discovery of oracular inscriptions produced an entirely new genre of literature in which interpretations of seemingly incomprehensible characters have been advanced and heatedly debated by Kuo Mo-juo, T’ang Lan, Yen Yi-p’ing, and others.

3
The idea entailed by this pronouncement (and accompanying, fabricated dialogue) probably dates to the middle Warring States period, if not later, when the
Tso Chuan
was compiled. For example, in “Benevolence the Foundation” the
Ssu-ma Fa
states: “Authority comes from warfare, not from harmony among men. For this reason if one must kill men to give peace to the people, then killing is permissible. If one must attack a state out of love for their people, then attacking it is permissible. If one must stop war with war, although it is war it is permissible.”

4
Tso Chuan
, Hsüan Kung, twelfth year.

5
Examples of stone and other dagger-axes may be conveniently found in the chapter on Shang weapons in
Chung-kuo Ku-tai Ping-ch’i T’u-chi
. The authors postulate (on 12) that the first stone
ko
appeared in Guangdong and may have originated as an agricultural implement.

6
For a succinct example of the process and complexity of mutual interaction in China’s western area, see Liu Chün-she, KKWW 1994:4, 48-59. Oddities and variations have also been recovered, including one with a stone blade but bronze haft. (See Li Chi, KKHP 4 [1949]: 40- 42.) Examples from the late Shang recently discovered in Shaanxi that strongly reflect the process of cultural interaction (with the Northern complex) include one
ko
with a single slot in the middle of the blade, a definite upward tilt, partial downward blade extension, flange extending both up and down, and a tab positioned to extend straight back at the top. A full crescent blade with three binding holes was also found at the site. (See Wang Yung-kang et al., KKWW 2007:3, 11-22 plus back interior cover.)