Ancient Chinese Warfare (90 page)

17
Damage needs to be minimized because roads have enormous military implications and gauge differences frustrate movement. (For a discussion of roads and the effects of load, see M. G. Lay, 1992.)

18
As the
K’ao-kung Chi
states, “Heaven has its seasons, Earth has its
ch’i
, materials have their excellence, and labor has its skills. Only when these four are brought together can excellence be produced.” Just as with the bow, wood selection was sensitive to seasonal and local variation.

19
The full range for Shang dynasty wheels appears to be 120 to 156 cm., with several reported in the 145 cm. range. (For a convenient summary see the table compiled by Yang Hung, “Chanch’e yü Ch’e-chan Erh-lun,” HCCHS 2000:5, 5; the earlier table [which does not include Mei-yüan-chuang] in “Yin-tai Ch’e-tzu te Fa-hsien yü Fu-yüan,” 1985, 555, or Lu Liancheng,
Antiquity
67 [1993]: 828 and 829.) Yang Hung, “Erh-lun,” HCCHS 2000:5, 5, concludes that the wheels averaged 136.8 cm. in diameter. The chariot discovered at T’eng-chou dating to the interstice between the Shang and Chou already shows slightly larger wheels at roughly 157 to 160 cm. (SHYCS Shan-tung Kung-tso-tui, KK 2000:7, 23). Estimates of horse height, generally thought to be less than 130 cm., vary considerably: Shih Chang-ju, BIHP 40, no. 1 (1969): 665, puts them at only 100 to 115 cm., in which case the wheel rims would have stood well above their bodies, whereas Yang Pao-ch’eng, KK 1984:6, 550, reports a height of 140 to 150 cm. for the horses at M7.

20
See SHYCS An-yang Fa-chüeh-tui, KK 1977:1, 69-70. Yang Hung, “Erh-lun,” HCCHS 2000:5, 5, and others have questioned the number of twenty-six. However, the T’eng-chou chariot has twenty-two spokes.

21
At Ta-ssu-k’ung the diameter runs between 3.0 and 4.5 cm., at Hsiao-min-t’un about 4 cm., but at Mei-yüan-chuang a rather narrow 2 cm.

22
The T’eng-chou spokes are already reduced to about 2.0 to 4.0 cm. in diameter.

23
For example, see Hsiang Kung, thirty-first year, and Ai Kung, fourth year. Moving parts, even from conformable metals like brass, present extremely complex lubrication problems. Among the complications are temperature, viscosity, contamination, oxidation, and uneven wear, all of which produce increased friction and hot spots, leading to distortion, adhesion, and burnout.

24
Shang fabrication techniques remain uncertain. However, even after steaming or heat soaking, wood bending requires considerable force. (“Ch’i Fa” in the
Yi Ching
shows that the felloes were definitely being bent in the Western Chou, if not earlier.) Moreover, stresses are invariably induced because the wood is compressed on the interior and stretched on the exterior, producing cracks, crazing, and severe fiber separation. Although most wood species can be bent after sufficient conditioning, only a few prove suitable in useful thicknesses and capable of retaining their form without major fissures or fractures.

25
For some examples see Yang Pao-ch’eng, KK 1984:6, 548. The most frequently noted sizes are 7.5 cm. thick by 5.5 cm. wide, 8 by 5 cm., and 8 by 6 cm.

26
Yang Hung, “Erh-lun,” HCCHS 2000:5, 5, gives an average axle estimate of about 300 cm., diameter of 8-10 cm., wheel gauge of about 226 cm., and end caps of 14 cm. (The T’engchou chariot has a 232 cm. gauge.)

27
See Wang Hai-ch’eng, 2002, 25.

28
Sun Chi, KK 1980:5, 448, claims that Shang chariots carried only two men.

29
For a convenient summary of the number of figures per chariot, see the comprehensive tables provided by Wang Hai-ch’eng, 2002, 50-52, which show only three cases of three warriors (for the classic discoveries at Hsiao-t’un), ten with one, and two with two out of a total of thirty-eight entries. (Yang Hung, “Erh-lun,” HCCHS [2000]:5, 4, also includes a brief summary of accompanying warriors.)

30
According to Yang Hung, “Erh-lun,” HCCHS 2000:5, 5. Yang Pao-ch’eng, KK 1984:6, 549, suggests 129-133 cm. by 74 by 45 cm. The compartment at M41 at Mei-yüan-chuang has dimensions of 128 cm. in the front, 144 cm. at the back, a depth of 70 to 75 cm., and a height of 44 cm. (17.32 inches); the southern chariot at M40 is 134 cm. in the front, 146 cm. in the back, and 96 and 82 cm. deep on the sides, with heights of 39 cm. in the front and 50 cm. in the back with an additional crossbar to the front, while the badly damaged northern chariot is 105 cm. wide at the front and 132 cm. at the back with heights of 30 and roughly 40 cm. respectively (“Mei-yüan-chuang,” KK 1998:10, 50 and 57).

31
Shih Chang-ju’s placement of the opening at the front for the chariot at M40 (in “Hsiaot’un Ti-ssu-shih Mu te Cheng-li”) has been rejected by every other analyst, including Yang Paoch’eng (551), who asserts there were not any openings at the front until the late Warring States. (Other aspects of Shih’s reconstruction have also been criticized by, for example, Chang Ch’angshou and Chang Hsiao-kuang, 1986, 155.) However, in a rebuttal Shih has argued that despite most chariots having the opening in the rear, the chariot reconstruction for M40 correctly places it at the front. (See Shih’s “Yin-ch’e Fu-yüan Shuo-ming,” BIHP 58:2, 266-268.) Although a fully open back would facilitate ascending and descending, it would not offer any protection to the highly vulnerable rear.

32
Dowels as thin as 2.5 to 3.0 cm. were occasionally employed for smaller chariots, but Warring States versions sometimes soared over 7 cm. (according to the
K’ao-kung Chi
), but most were 4 to 5 cm., next in frequency being about 6 cm. (Wang Hai-ch’eng, 2002, 23-25; for an example of 3 cm. see “An-yang Yin-hsü Hsiao-min-t’un te Liang-tso Ch’e-ma-hang,” KK 1971:1, 70).

33
It should be noted that considerable strides have been made in recovery and reconstruction techniques, enabling dimensional estimates that were highly inaccurate or totally impossible a half century ago. Data from the various reports are therefore not uniformly compatible or reliable.

34
“Mei-yüan-chuang,” 64-65.

35
Examples are seen in the reconstructions from M40 at Hsiao-t’un, M40 at Mei-yüan-chuang, and at T’eng-chou. (Note the diagram for the latter, “T’eng-chou-shih,” KK 2000:7, clearly showing a much-reduced chariot compartment depth, implying two occupants rather than three.)

36
“Planning for the State,”
Wu-tzu
, mentions leather armored chariots with covered wheels and protected hubs. Wang Hai-ch’eng, 2002, 26, believes that the Shang also used walls fabricated from interlaced leather and that leather thongs were employed as upper rails to reduce weight.

37
The large number of bronze fittings (including highly functional axle caps) recovered with every chariot indicates their penchant to decorate every protruding surface. (Of particular interest, the large number of small, somewhat amorphous bronze dragons found at Hsiaot’un’s M40 apparently were arrayed to form a decorative border around the outside edges of the compartment. See Shih Chang-ju, “Hsiao-t’un Ti-ssu-shih Mu te Cheng-li,” 641-643.)

38
Yang Pao-ch’eng, KK 1984:6, 547-548.

39
One of the chariots at M40 also seems to place the axle somewhat to the rear of center.

40
Shih Chang-ju’s original reconstruction of the chariot at Hsiao-t’un’s M40 (663-665) shows them being employed on the axle. However, this aspect was universally rejected because it was generally believed that the “crouching rabbit” was a Chou dynasty innovation. (For example, see Yang Pao-ch’eng, 555.) Chu Ssu-hung and Sung Yüan-ju, KKWW 2002:3, 85, also claim that there is absolutely no evidence for the “
fu-t’u
” prior to the Chou, and in his subsequent “Yin-ch’e Fu-yüan Shou-ming,” 269, Shih acknowledged his error. However, the chariots recovered from Mei-yüan-chuang, especially from M41 (KKWW 2003:5, 38-41), are said to already employ it, in which case the incipient beginnings can be traced back to innovations at the end of the Shang.

41
For example, at Ta-ssu-k’ung the shaft and axle each have 15 cm.-wide grooves about 6 cm. deep that result in the shaft projecting just 3 cm. above the axle (KK 1974:2, 25).

42
“Mei-yüan-chuang,” KK 1998:10, 41 and 57.

43
See Yang Pao-ch’eng, 549.

44
See, for example, Joseph Needham’s concerns in
Physics and Physical Technology: Mechanical Engineering
, 303-305.

45
As seen on Ch’in bronze models; however, their use cannot be projected back into the Shang. (For a discussion of harnessing methods see Wang Hai-ch’eng, 2002, 33-37, who concludes that the same yoke saddle method was used in Egypt as in the Shang, or Sun Chi, KK 1980:5, 448-460.)

46
Bridles and harnessing are discussed by Yang Hung in “Erh-lun,” HCCHS 2000:5, 6, and his “Ma-chü te Fa-chan,” WW 1984:9, 45, as well as by Sun Chi.

47
Yang Hung, “Ma-chü te Fa-chan,” 45. Fully formed snaffle bits have been recovered from Han dynasty sites, suggesting that they may have appeared in the late Warring States period. However, a bit formed from two figure-eight pieces is already visible in remains from Mei-yüan-chuang (“Mei-yüan-chuang,” 51-52). For additional discussion also see Wang Hai-ch’eng, 2002, 27-28.

48
Numerous articles and a few books by Stuart Piggot, Robert Drews, and David W. Anthony have discussed, even vehemently argued, the horse and chariot’s history in the West.

49
Four-wheeled war wagons are not unknown, but two-wheeled vehicles induce less drag and are easier to maneuver under identical loads, though they obviously have less carrying capacity.

50
Robert Drews’s theory about the demise of chariot warfare in the West around 1200 BCE, as reprised in his
End of the Bronze Age
, tends to dominate current reconstructions.

51
For a brief summary of these positions see Wang Hai-ch’eng, 2002, 2-3 and 45-46.

52
Decades ago Hayashi Minao,
Toho Gakuho,
225, confidently asserted that the Shang had chariots by 1300 BCE and that they were used in hunting, whereas Edward L. Shaughnessy, HJAS 48, no. 1 (1988): 190, holds that the chariot’s introduction should be dated to 1200 BCE.

53
Based on a detailed reexamination of Chinese and Western artifacts, Wang Hai-ch’eng’s recent overview concludes the chariot was imported from the steppe. However, for an example of the ongoing arguments for indigenous origination, see Wang Hsüeh-jung, 1999, 239-247. (Wang opts for indigenous origination because all the necessary elements—tools, bronze, and technology—were all advancing at the same time, and some archaeological indications of earlier use, such as small hub caps, have been ignored. He also claims that other animals were employed, including sheep and oxen.)

54
See David W. Anthony,
The Horse, the Wheel, and Language
, 200 ff. (Anthony’s views, being the best substantiated and argued, are adopted herein. However, other theories have been proposed, particularly by Marija Gimbutas.)

55
Anthony, 216-222. In an earlier article Anthony’s conclusions were somewhat more conservative, 3500 to 3000 BCE. (See Anthony and Brown,
Antiquity
74 [2000]: 76; see also Anthony and Brown,
Antiquity
65 [1991]: 22-38, now outdated.) However, opposing views about the origins of riding range from outright rejection of horses ever being ridden before they were harnessed to chariots to a grudging recognition of the possibility while dismissing any military activity or significance until nearly 1000 BCE. (For one overview, see Robert Drews,
Early Riders
.)

56
One question that might well arise from this initial use of horses for riding and raiding is why chariots ever developed as a war vehicle, particularly since they seem to have functioned solely as command and archery platforms. Cavalry can also fight dismounted, just as many chariot warriors historically did in the West.

57
Anthony,
The Horse, the Wheel, and Language
, 66-72.

58
One argument against a steppe origination is the reputedly small size of these chariots, making them unstable at speed and incapable of carrying more than a single warrior. However, Anthony (399-403) points out that numerous javelin points have been found with several chariots that have a gauge of 1.4 to 1.6 m., suggesting the driver-warrior employed a javelin as his primary means of combat.

59
Although many aspects remain nebulous because of the inherent difficulty posed by reconstruction efforts, the priorities of the excavators, and problems of access, enough information is available in secondary publications to tentatively establish the basic features and dimensions.

60
See Li Shui-cheng, 2002, 171-182; Mei Jianjun, 2003, 1-39; and Mei Jianjun, BMFEA 75 (2003): 31-54. See also Stuart Piggott,
Antiquity
48 (1974): 16-24.

61
The question of whether key discoveries ranging from metallurgy to stirrups are repeated as an artifact of human experience or, because they are inevitably singular, must be transmitted, underpins any debate on the chariot’s origination in China.

62
For reports see SHYCS Erh-li-t’ou Kung-tso-tui, KK 2004:11, 3-13, and Wang Hsün, KKWW 1997:3, 61-68.

63
For reports see SHYCS Ho-nan Ti-erh Kung-tso-tui, KK 1998:6, 3; Tu Chin-p’eng et al., KK 1998:6, 13-14; and Robin Yates, “The Horse in Early Chinese Military History,” 26-27.

64
Wang Hsüeh-jung, 1999, 239-247, reflecting on the discovery of narrow cart tracks at Yen-shih Shang-ch’eng, notes that they are beneath the inner protective wall; their gauge is 1.2 m.; the ruts are 20 cm. wide but only 3 to 5 cm. deep (implying a brief period of use); and they lie only 20 to 30 cm. from the core wall, so they must have been used to haul soil for it.

65
Feng Hao, KKWW 2003:5, 38-41.

66
For a brief summary of the individual aspects, see Wang Hai-ch’eng, 2002, 7-9. (Wang concludes importation to be fully proven, a conclusion that Yang Hung also came to accept in his “Erh Lun.”)