Ancient Chinese Warfare (83 page)

8
An interesting example of a late Shang and early Chou culture that clearly de-emphasized warfare (as evidenced by tools and hunting implements rather than ritual vessels and weapons predominating) is seen on Yü-huan Island, located 1,000 meters off the Zhejiang coast. (See T’ai-chou-shih Wen-kuan-hui, KK 1996:5, 14-20.) The intervening sea not only physically isolated them but also provided a formidable geostrategic barrier.

9
For example, the analysis of bronze containers from a fourth period Shang tomb (1046 BCE) shows that a high proportion of lead (24-27 percent, in comparison with 55-65 percent copper and only 4-6 percent tin) was employed to allow easier casting of more complex shapes (Chao Ch’un-yen et al., WW 2008:1, 92-94).

10
For reports on the phenomenon (but little speculation on the causes), see Kuo Yen-li, KKWW 2006:6, 66-73; Tuan Yü, CKKTS 1994:1, 63-70; and Liu Yi-man, KKHP 1995:4, 395- 412. Liu claims that the trend to high-lead-content funerary items and even the use of ceramic versions, reflecting a diminishment in respect for the spirits, is mirrored in a similar shift from sacrificing a large number of victims, up to 1,000 at one time (together with 1,000 cattle and 500 sheep) under Wu Ting to lower amounts under K’ang Ting (200 human victims, 100 cattle, and 100 sheep) and eventually a maximum of 30 human victims under Ti Hsin. (Other explanations are of course possible, including economizing on resources.) More broadly, Yang Chü-hua, HCCHS 1999:4, 28-43, envisions a total reorientation in values, with the Shang esteeming spirits, the Chou valuing ritual, and the Warring States seeing a new human orientation that allowed bronze artifacts to become commodities.

11
Chiu Shih-ching, CKSYC 1992:4, 3-10.

12
Tuan Yü, HCCHS 2008:6, 3-9. For a general discussion of the techniques at Anyang, see Liu Yü et al., KK 2008:12, 80-90.

13
For reports see SHYCS An-yang Kung-tso-tui, KKHP 2006:3, 351-384; Yin-hsü Hsiao-mint’un K’ao-ku-tui, KK 2007:1, 14-25; Wang Hsüeh-jung and Ho Yü-ling, KK 2007:1, 54-63; and Li Yung-ti et al., KK 2007:3, 52-63.

14
For some of these discoveries see P’eng Ming-han, HCCHS 1996:2, 47-52; Chan K’ai-sun and Liu Lin, WW 1995:7, 18, 27-32; and, for a general discussion, Ch’en Liang-tso, HHYC 2:1 (1984): 135-166 and 2:2 (1984): 363-402.

15
For a discussion of this question see Yen Wen-ming, SCYC 1984:1, 35-44.

16
Huang Sheng-chang, KKHP 1996:2, 143-164.

17
For example, T’ang Yün-ming claims that China was already producing wrought iron in the early Shang. (See WW 1975:3, 57-59, and for further discussion Hsia Mai-ling, HCCHS 1986:6, 68-72. For the history of iron in China, see Donald Wagner,
Ferrous Metallurgy,
or his earlier
Iron and Steel in China
.)

18
See note 7.

19
In addition to any specific references, the discussion that follows is primarily based on Li Shui-ch’eng, KKHP 2005:3, 239-278; Pei-ching Kang-t’ieh Hsüeh-yüan Yeh-chin Shih-tsu, KKHP 1981:3, 287-302; Yen Wen-ming, SCYC 1984:1, 35-44; and An Chih-min, KK 1993:12, 1110- 1119.

20
Pei-ching Kang-t’ieh Hsüeh-yüan Yeh-chin Shih-tsu, KKHP 1981:3, 287-302. To date, the most complete overviews of techniques and products are Lu Ti-min and Wang Ta-yeh, 1998, and Hua Chüeh-ming’s massive and highly technical
Chung-kuo Ku-tai Chin-shu Chi-shu
, 1999.

21
Shao Wangping, JEAA 2, nos. 1-2 (2000): 195-226.

22
Yen Wen-ming, SCYC 1984:1, 35-44, and WW 1990:12, 21-26.

23
Li Hsüeh-ch’in, CKKTS 1995:12, 6-12, and An Chih-min, KK 1993:12, 1110-1119.

24
Yen Wen-ming, WW 1990:12, 26.

25
Pei-ching Kang-t’ieh Hsüeh-yüan Yeh-chin Shih-tsu, KKHP 1981:3, 287-302.

26
This was pointed out by Sun Shuyun and Han Rubin, EC 9-10 (1983-1985): 260-289.

27
Sun Shu-yün and Han Ju-pin, WW 1997:7, 75-84; Li Hsüeh-ch’in, CKKTS 1995:12, 6-12; and Chang Chih-heng, 1996, 109-112.

28
Sun Shu-yün and Han Ju-pin, WW 1997:7, 75-84; An Chih-min, KKHP 1981:3, 269-285; An Chih-min, KK 1993:12, 1113. (Ch’i-chia culture is more broadly dated as 2200 to 1600 BCE.)

29
Li Shui-ch’eng, 251-254; An Chih-min, KKHP 1981:3, 269-285; An Chih-min, KK 1996:12, 70-78; and Kung Kuo-ch’iang, KK 1997:9, 7-20. (Arsenic alloys are also known in nearby Russia.)

30
Li Shui-ch’eng, 244-245.

31
For critical reports on which this discussion is based, see Sun Shu-yün and Han Ju-pin, WW 1997:7, 75-84; Li Shui-ch’eng, 241-245; and Sun Shu-yün and Han Ju-pin, WW 1997:7, 75-84.

32
Li Shui-ch’eng and Shui T’ao, WW 2000:3, 36-44; Sun Shu-yün et al., WW 2003:8, 86- 96; and Li Shui-ch’eng, KKHP 2005:3, 239-278. Copper/arsenic alloys similarly characterize ten of the eleven items found at Tung-hui-shan even though they date to about 1770 BCE. (See Kan-su-sheng Wen-wu K’ao-ku Yen-chiu-suo, KK 1995:12, 1055-1063. Some were forged, some heat treated or cold quenched after forging.)

33
Li Shui-ch’eng, 256-257.

34
Li Shui-ch’eng, 263; Li Hsüeh-ch’in, CKKTS 1995:12, 6-12. Wang Hsün, KKWW 1997:3, 61-68, has suggested that the growing Shang threat prompted the Hsia to develop better bronze weapons.

35
Chin Cheng-yao, WW 2000:1, 56-64, 69. Recognition of lead’s properties apparently came last. (Chin also notes a shift in sourcing to Shandong late in the era. Although recognizing that Seima-Turbino and Andronovo developments may have been transmitted through ongoing trade, Chin still argues for radical differentiation.)

36
Sun Shu-yün and Han Ju-pin, WW 1997:7, 75-84.

37
Chin Cheng-yao et al., KK 1994:8, 744-747, 735.

38
Ching Cheng-yao et al., WW 2004:7, 76-88.

39
For Yünnan see Li Shao-ts’en, KKWW 2002:2, 61-67; for the middle Yangtze, Liu Shih-chung et al., KKWW 1994:1, 82-88; for the lower Yangtze, Liu Shih-chung and Lu Pen-shan, KKHP 1998:4, 465-496 and illustrations (discussing a mine that was operated continuously from the middle of the Shang to around the start of the Warring States period); and for Gansu, see Sun Shu-yün and Han Ju-pin, WW 1997:7, 75-84.

40
See note 7.

41
Lu Pen-shan and Liu Shih-chung, WW 1997:3, 33-38.

42
These are the estimates for the mines at Wan-nan down in southern Anhui, where copper, iron, sulfur, and gold are all found. (See Ch’in Ying et al., WW 2002:5, 78-82.) According to Liu Shih-chung et al., KKWW 1994:1, 82-88, the middle and the lower Yangtze were prolific production areas that fed smelters located at Anyang and Wu-ch’eng. The extant slag heap around T’unglü-shan amounts to 40,000 tons, and 80,000 tons have been found in the middle Yangtze area.

43
In addition to references in the discussion about the dagger-axe that follows, see Chao Ch’un-yen et al., WW 2008:1, 92-94.

1
“Agricultural Implements,”
Liu T’ao.

2
For significant issues related to bronze artifacts, see An Zhimin, EC 8 (1982-1983): 53-75.

3
For example, numerous specimens of every known dagger-axe style have been recovered from the Anyang area, ranging from tabbed to socketed, from heavily used weapons to funerary replicas (
ming ch’i
). (For one instance see SHYCS An-yang Kung-tso-tui, KKHP 1994:4, 471- 497.)

4
An example of a highly unusual weapon is the “wavy” blade sword recovered at Chin-sha, which has six to seven “waves” or bulges along the blade’s tapered portion and was produced in both bonze and spectacularly colored jade versions. (For illustrations see pages 13 and 31 of Ch’eng-tu-shih Wen-wu K’ao-ku Yen-chiu-suo, WW 2004:4.)

5
T’ung Chao,
Hou-ch’in Chih-tu,
1997, 32, notes that bone arrowheads still comprised the majority at the start of the Western Chou and were only gradually displaced by bronze. The stones employed to fabricate Shang weapons include slate, diabase, limestone, quartzite, phylite, sandstone, and jade, with diabase and limestone especially employed for axes and slate for knives.

6
Hayashi Minao’s 1972 landmark treatment—
Chugoku In-shu Jidai no Buki—
though it includes considerable material of great importance and frames the discussion, is increasingly outdated. Very little material has been included in the ancient volume of the voluminous
Chung-kuo Chan-shih T’ung-lan
, and the important
Chung-kuo Ku-tai Ping-ch’i T’u-chi
, though extensively illustrated and the only comprehensive overview, provides minimal analytical explanation.

7
Other remnants are found in traditional Chinese opera, but they are deliberately stylized and exaggerated. Over the past three decades numerous experiments conducted with replica weapons and experienced martial artists in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea, and Japan suggest that traditional weapons had many limitations and that highly particularized fighting methods had to be scrupulously observed.

8
Traditional martial arts teach the importance of agility and the need to maintain balance in maneuver. Although not applicable to every design, the fundamental principle often cited through the ages is that weapons essentially function as extensions of the human body and therefore must be used in accord with the principles governing all human movement if they are to be successfully and easily handled. Unusual, jerky, or unbalanced movements, although certainly surprising and sometimes effective, generally expose the warrior to danger and death.

9
For one of the few articles that notes both dimensions and weights, see P’ang Wen-lung, KKWW 1994:3, 28-40, 56. For example, one late Shang straight socket
fu
measuring 13 cm. in length and 6.5 cm. in width weighed 600 grams. Two other rectangular examples from the middle Shang (with somewhat indented middle portions and splayed blade tips) are 13 cm. long, 5 cm wide, and weigh 500 grams, and 13 cm. long, 4 cm. wide, but weigh only 300 grams. Two tabbed
ch’i
similarly dating to the middle Shang are recorded as 16.3 cm. long, 5.5 cm.
wide, and 300 grams in weight, and 17.5 cm. long, 7.4 cm. wide at the top of the blade, with a 3.8-cm.-long tab, and a weight of 400 grams. (The former is rectangular with a fairly wide tab, somewhat rounded blade, and slight indentation along the blade’s length, while the latter is marked by a somewhat hourglass shape, the blade being the same width at the top and bottom.)

10
Surprisingly, Ch’ien Yao-p’eng, KKHP 2009.1: 1-34, has recently claimed that the axe was the most effective weapon in ancient China.

11
Fighters always had to be aware of potential defects and avoid movements that might fatally damage the weapon (such as directly striking a hard surface) when stone was the primary material.

12
For example, a primitive-looking, rectangular specimen with an iron blade that simply tapers upward to a tab area defined by two prominent protruding flanges has, as already noted, given rise to claims that China had commenced making iron and steel by the early Shang. However, other analysts have concluded that the high nickel content suggests a meteoric origination. (For a report, originally written in 1975 but one of many that failed to be brought out because of the Cultural Revolution, see Chang Hsien-te and Chang Hsien-lu, WW 1990:7, 66-71.) For another assertion that China was already producing wrought iron by the early Shang, see T’ang Yün-ming, WW 3 (1975): 57-59; for the history of ferrous metals in China see Donald Wagner, 1996 and 2008.

13
Numerous examples from Anyang have been documented and their composition analyzed by Li Chi in his now classic article, “Yin-hsü Yu-jen Shih-ch’i T’u-shuo,” 1952. Additional examples continued to be recovered; for example, see SHYCS,
Yin-hsü Fa-chüeh Pao-kao
, 1958-1961, 171- 173. (For an example of a site with stone
fu
intermixed with advanced bronze arrowheads, see Ho-pei-sheng Wen-wu Yen-chiu-suo, KK 1999:7, 1-7.)

14
However, Ch’en Hsü has concluded that it was primarily a symbol of authority rather than an actual weapon or executioner’s axe. (See HSLWC, 233-239.)

15
A study of the weapons found in the four periods of Yin-hsü concluded that commanders always had
yüeh
,
ko
, spears, and arrowheads in large numbers, sometimes hundreds, but no other ranks possessed them. Although (as would be expected given disparities in rank) the quality, size, and number varied, sometimes two or three up to a dozen were recovered from a single interment. (See Liu Yi-man, KK 2002:3, especially 66-70.)

16
“Yin Pen-chi.”

17
“Chou Pen-chi.”

18
Kuo Yü
, “Lu Yü, Shang.”

19
Inscribed
yüeh
recovered from Su-fu-t’un (which has been tentatively identified as the site of the former state of P’u-ku made famous by the Shang conquest) indicate that a “commander Ch’ou” (Ya Ch’ou) governed as ruler of P’u-ku (Ch’en Hsüeh-hsiang and Chin Han-p’o, KK 2007:5, 87).

20
SHYCS Ho-nan Yi-tui, KK 1992:10, 865-874. Some fifty-one
fu
were recovered. (For additional examples of early forms see Chang Chen-hung, WW 1993:9, 32-39, especially the illustrations on 38.) Hsing-lung-wa cultural sites in Inner Mongolia have yielded comparable artifacts. (For example, see Nei-Meng-ku Tzu-chih-ch’ü WWKK YCS, KK 1993:7, 577-586.)

21
For examples see SHYCS Hu-pei Kung-tso-tui, KK 1991:6, 481-494. All the
fu
recovered, though comparatively primitive, rough, and small, were well-used tools. Two sizes reported for
fu
without lashing holes are 6.1 cm. high, 4.9 cm. wide, and 1.6 cm. thick, and 10.2 by 7.3 cm., 3.5 cm. thick. Somewhat more developed styles, almost indistinguishable from the
yüeh
recovered at the site but in a narrower rectangular shape marked by a large binding hole, include
specimens with dimensions of 15.8 by 10 cm. and 1.0 cm. thick; 13 by 8.6, 0.9 cm. thick; and 13.7 by 7.6, 1.3 cm. thick.