Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T10:41:55.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Erlitou and the Search for the Xia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2015

Robert L. Thorp
Robert L. Thorp*
Affiliation:
Dept. of Art and Archaeology, Campus Box 1189, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article places the recent literature on archaeological manifestations of the Xia in context, describes and analyzes the published data for the Erlitou typesite in some detail, and examines broader issues implicit in the debate on this contentious topic. The positivism that animates so much recent literature is linked to the Anyang excavations and the promise of scientific archaeology more generally. Particular attention is given to certain of the data from the Erlitou site—its layout, architectural features, burials, and prestige craft products (ritual bronze vessels and jades)—because these have figured prominently in most discussion of the nature and identity of the site and its eponymous culture. Broader issues are addressed, albeit more briefly, as a series of nested concepts: culture and subculture, periodization, cultural succession, developmental stage, ethnicity, and dynasty. Until the formal report of the Erlitou typesite reaches print, this article proposes a “minimal” definition of the current archaeological data, one that does not assume the historicity of the Xia.

Type
Articles
Information
Early China , Volume 16 , 1991 , pp. 1 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Study of Early China 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. This article is a revised version of two papers presented at the “International Symposium on Xia Culture,” organized by the Center for Pacific Rim Studies of the University of California, Los Angeles on May 23-25, 1990.

2. On the significance of the inscriptions, see Keightley, David N., Sources of Shang History: The Oracle-Bone inscriptions of Bronze Age China, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978)Google Scholar, esp, ch. 5, “The Oracle-Bone Inscriptions as Historical Sources”, 134-56.

3. Keightley, , Sources, 139–40 and Table 1 on 185-87Google Scholar.

4. For references in the literary canon, see Creel, Herrlee G., “Was There a Hsia Dynasty?” in Studies in Early Chinese Culture, First Series, (Baltimore: American Council of Learned Societies, 1938), 97–131Google Scholar.

5. Chi, Li, Anyang, (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1977)Google Scholar, esp. ch. 4–6, and Chang, Kwang-chih, Shang Civilization, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), review the excavationsGoogle Scholar.

6. The Wangehenggang site was subsequently reported in Henan Cultural Relics Research Institute and Archaeology Department, The Museum of Chinese History, “Dengfeng Wangehenggang yizhi de fajuew” 登封王城崗遺址的發掘, Wenwu 1983.3, 8–20Google Scholar. In this report, the excavators suggest the walled site under investigation may be the capital of Yu 禹 of Xia known in the textual tradition as Yangcheng 陽城.

7. Mai, Xia, “Tantan tantao Xia wenhua de jige wenti” ״談談探討夏文化的幾個問題, Henan wenbo tongxun 河南文博通訊 1978.1, 32–33Google Scholar. The meeting is reported briefly in the same journal on pp. 22-24.

8. For an exhaustive catalogue of this literature,, see Hongxiang, Zhou 周鴻翔, Xia shi Xia wenhua yanjiu shumu (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.

9. Huber, Louisa G. Fitzgerald, “The Bo Capital and Questions Concerning Xia and Early Shang,” Early China 13 (1988), 46–77, reviews the main issuesCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. Xusheng, Xu, “1959 nian xia Yu xi diaocha ‘Xia xu’ de chubu baogao” 1959 年夏豫西調查‘夏墟’的初歩報吿, Kaogu 1959.11, 592–600Google Scholar.

11. See the remarks of Zhang Changshou 張長寿 in Institute of Archaeology, Xin Zhongguo de kaogu shouhuo 新中國的#古收獲 (Beijing: Wenwu Press, 1961), 43–45Google Scholar, identifying this “Luodamiao Type” as a stage preceding the Erligang 二里岗 Phase.

12. Luoyang Excavation Team, “Henan Yanshi Shangdai he Xi Zhou yizhi diaocha jianbao” 河南偃師商代和西周遺址調查簡報, Kaogu 1963.12, 653Google Scholar, n. 1, citing the usage of Xia Nai.

13. Heng, Zou 鄒衡 et al, Shang Zhou kaogu 商周考古 (Beijing: Wenwu Press, 1979), 14–17Google Scholar.

14. Zhiquan, Zhao, “Lun Erlitou yizhi wei Xia dai wanqi duyi” 論二里頭遺址爲夏代晚期都邑, Hua Xia kaogu 華夏考古 1987.2, 196–204, 217Google Scholar.

15. Zhiquan, Zhao, “Shilun Erlitou wenhua de liuyuan” 試論二里頭文化的流源, Kaogu xuebao 1986.1, 1–19Google Scholar.

16. Shihua, Qiu 仇士華 et al., “Youguan suowei ‘Xia wenhua’ de tan shisi niandai ceding de chubu baogao” 有關所謂‘夏文化’的碳十四年代測定的初歩報吿, Kaogu 1983.10, 923–28Google Scholar.

17. Zhiquan, Zhao, “Lun Erlitou yizhi,” 197Google Scholar.

18. Erlitou Work Team, “Henan Yanshi Erlitou zao Shang gongdian yizhi fajue jianbao” 河南偃師二里頭早商宮殿遺址發掘簡報, Kaogu 1974.4, 248, n. 1Google Scholar.

19. Erlitou Work Team, “Yanshi Erlitou yizhi 1980–1981 nian III-qu fajue jianbao” 偃師二里頭遺址 1980-1981 年【11區發掘簡報, Kaogu 1984.7, 590Google Scholar.

20. Zhiquan, Zhao, “Lun Erlitou yizhi” 197Google Scholar.

21. Hebei Cultural Relics Research Institute, Gaocheng Taixi Shangdai yizhi 墨城台西商代遺址 (Beijing: Wenwu Press, 1985), 1–6, figs. 1, 3, and 4Google Scholar.

22. Participants at the “International Symposium on Xia Culture” in May, 1990 reported that a comprehensive, formal report is now in preparation.

23. See Huber, “The Bo Capital.”

24. For an assessment, see Baocheng, Yang 楊寶成, “Dengfeng Wangehenggang yu Tu du Yangcheng” 登封王城崗與禹都陽城, Wenwu 1984.2, 63–66, 54Google Scholar.

25. Weichao, Yu 俞偉超, “Zhongguo gudai ducheng guihua de fazhan jieduanxing” 中國古代都城規劃的發展階段性, Wenwu 1985.2, 52–60Google Scholar, discusses the Erlitou site as an example of what he terms a dispersed and unwalled capital.

26. The foundation was first reported in Luoyang Excavation Team, “Henan Yanshi Erlitou yizhi iajue jianbao” 河南偃師二里頭遺址發掘簡報, Kaogu 1965.5, 215–224Google Scholar. A revised assessment of the site with considerably more data appeared in Erlitou Work Team, “Zao Shang gongdian yizhi.” For a close description and analysis, see my “Origins of Chinese Architectural Style: The Earliest Plans and Building Types,” Archives of Asian Art 36 (1983), 22–39, esp. 22-26Google Scholar.

27. A restoration based in part on the account of Kaogong ji 考工記 (Artificer's Record) has been proposed by Yang Hongxun 楊鴻勛； see “Chu lun Erlitou gongshi de fuyuan wenti” 初論二里頭宮室的復原問題, Jianzhu kaoguxue lunwen ji 建築考古學論文集 (Beijing: Wenwu Press, 1987), 71–80Google Scholar.

28. Erlitou Team, IA/CASS, “Henan Yanshi Erlitou erhao gongdian yizhi” 河南偃師二里頭二號宮殿遺址, Kaogu 1983.3, 206–216Google Scholar.

29. Erlitou Work Team, 1980–1981 nian III-qu.”

30. For this term, see Keightley, David N., “Religion and the Rise of Urbanism,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 93.4 (1973), 527–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31. Heng, Zou, Shang Zhou kaogu, 24–28Google Scholar. Zou does not reveal his method of calculating the capacity of the courtyard.

32. Karlgren, Bernhard, The Book of Documents, (Stockholm: Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, 1950), 20Google Scholar.

33. Chang, K.C., “Towns and Cities in Ancient China,” in Early Chinese Civilization: Anthropological Perspectives, Harvard-Yenching Institute Monograph Series, 23 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976), 63–64Google Scholar.

34. The Pivot of the Four Quarters: A Preliminary Enquiry into the Origins and Character of the Ancient Chinese City, (Edinburgh: University Press, 1971)Google Scholar, ch. 3, “The Nature of the Ceremonial Center.” Although the Erlitou site was already reported at the time Wheatley wrote, it is not discussed in this volume.

35. Several brief notices in the Archaeological Yearbooks mention tracts of burials not yet reported. In spring and fall, 1984, sixty burials were cleared in Zones IV and VI; see Zhongguo kaoguxue nianjian 1985 中國考古學年鑑, ed. Chinese Archaeology Association (Beijing: Wenwu, 1985), 162–163Google Scholar. About twenty additional burials were cleared in Zone VI in 1985; Zhongguo kaoguxue nianjian 1986; (Beijing: Wenwu, 1988), 146–147Google ScholarPubMed. Additional work took place in the same zone in 1986, when eighteen burials were located; Zhongguo kaoguxue nianjian 1987 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1988), 178–180Google Scholar. Finally, a notice concerning work in 1987 mentions fifty-six burials in five zones: II, IV, VI, VII, and IX; Zhongguo kaoguxue nianjian 1988 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1989), 185–186Google ScholarPubMed.

36. Erlitou Work Team, “Erhao gongdian yizhi,” 210Google Scholar.

37. The Erlitou Work Team has reported graves in some detail in the following articles: “Yanshi Erlitou yizhi xin faxian de tongqi he yuqi” 値師二里頭遺址新發現的銅器和玉器, Kaogu 1976.4, 259–263Google Scholar; “1980 nian qiu Henan Yanshi Erlitou yizhi fajue jianbao” 1980 ״年秋河南偃師二里頭遺址發掘簡報, Kaogu 1983.3, 199–205, 219Google Scholar; “1981 nian Henan Yanshi Erlitou muzangfajue jianbao” 1981 ״年河南値師二里頭墓葬發掘簡報, Kaogu 1984.1, 37–40Google Scholar; “1982 nian Yanshi Erlitou yizhi jiuqu fajue jianbao” 1982 年偃師二里頭遺址九區發掘簡報, Kaogu 1985.12, 1085–1094, 1108Google Scholar; “1984 nian qiu Henan Yanshi Erlitou yizhi faxian de ji zuo muzang” 1984 年秋河南偃師二里頭遺址發現的幾座墓葬, Kaogu 1986.4, 318–323Google Scholar.

38. For an analysis of the burial assemblages, see Xu, Liu 劉緒, “Cong muzang taoqi fenxi Erlitou wenhua de xingzhi ji qi yu Erligang qi Shang wenhua de guanxi” 從墓葬陶器分析二里碩文化的性質及其與二里崗期商文化的關係, Wenwu 1986.6, 48–54Google Scholar.

39. Heng, Zou, Shang Zhou kaogu, 21–24Google Scholar.

40. Two recent studies are available in English: Wang Ningsheng 汪寧生, “Yang-shao Burial Customs and Social Organization: A Comment on the Theory of Yangshao Matriiineal Society and Its Methodology,” trans. Keightley, David N., Early China 11–12 (1985–1987), 6–32Google Scholar; Pearson, Richard, “Chinese Neolithic Burial Patterns: Problems of Method and Interpretation,” Early China 13 (1988), 1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41. See, for example, the large flat axe (yue 敏) now in the Shanghai Museum (see n. 55 below) or the “plaques” with inlay turquoise in the Fogg Museum and Honolulu Academy of Arts collections (see n. 59 below).

42. For a review of this site, see Wei, Gao 高Ä et al, “Taosi yizhi de fajue yu Xia wenhua de tansuo” 陶寺遺址的發掘與夏文化的探索, Zhongguo kaoguxuehui Disici nianhui lunwenji 中國考古學會第四次年會論文集 (Beijing: Wenwu Press, 1985), 25–33Google Scholar.

43. Yongkang, Mou 牟永抗 et al, Liangzhu wenhua yuqi 良猪文化玉器 (Beijing: Wenwu Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

44. An Zhimin 安志敏, “Some Problems Concerning China's Early Copper and Bronze Artifacts,” Early China 8 (1982–1983), 53–75Google Scholar, a translation by Julia K. Murray of an article first published in Kaogu xuebao 1981.3, 269–84Google Scholar. See also Jinghua, Li 李京華, “Guanyu Zhongyuan dichu zaoqi yetong jishu ji xiangguan wenti de jidian kanfa” 關於中原地區早期冶銅技術及相關問題的幾點看法, Wenwu 1985.12, 75–78Google Scholar. This article reviews evidence of metal working at the Taosi, Wangehenggang, Unru, and Pinglian gtai sites.

45. The archaeology yearbook for 1985, reporting work conducted in 1984, notes a sizable bronze casting site in Zone IV, dated to late Erlitou Period II; see Zhongguo kaoguxue nianjian 1985, 162–163. All vessels reported to date are from Period III and IV contexts (see Table 3).

46. For most of the jue vessels from Erlitou as well as those from Xinzheng and Shangqiu, see Henan chutu Shang Zhou qingtongqi 河南出土商周靑銅器 (Beijing: Wenwu Press, 1981), nos. 1–11Google Scholar.

47. Jinpeng, Du 杜金鹏, “Tao Jue: Zhongguo gudai jiuqi yanjiu zhi yi” 陶爵: 中國古代酒器硏究之一, Kaogu 1990.6, 519–530, 564Google Scholar.

48. Erlitou Work Team, “Ji zuo muzang,” 319Google Scholar.

49. On the typology of Early Shang vessels, see Thorp, Robert L., “The Growth of Early Shang Civilization: New Data from Ritual Vessels,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 45.1 (06 1985) 16–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50. Zhongguo kaoguxue nianjian 1986, 147.

51. See d'Argencé, René-Yvon Lefebvre, Bronze Vessels of Ancient China in the Avery Brundage Collection, (San Francisco: Asian Art Museum, 1977), 20–21 (object B60 B53)Google Scholar, where it is dated “Middle Shang” (Erligang Phase).

52. Bagley, Robert W., Shang Ritual Bronzes in the Arthur M. Sackler Collections (Washington D.C.: The Arthur M. Sackler Foundation, 1987), 15–16Google Scholar, makes a case for the techniques of the metalsmith, primarily from the evidence of so-called skeuomor-phic pottery, such as he vessels in the Qijia 齊家 Culture. For a critique of these ideas, which had been articulated several times before, see Barnard, Noel, “Wrought Metal-Working Prior to Middle Shang (?) — A Problem in Archaeological and Art-Historical Research Approaches,” Early China 6 (1980–1981), 4–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also LaPlante, John D., “Ancient Chinese Ritual Vessels: Some Observations on Technology and Style,” Early China 13 (1988), 247–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53. Guangjin, Tian 田廣金 and Suxin, Guo 郭素新, Eerduosi shi qingtongqi (Beijing: Wenwu Press, 1986), 15–36Google Scholar, suggest a date of “early Shang” for the first Ordos knives.

54. This suggestion was made by Robert Bagley citing Jessica Raw son; see The Great Bronze Age of China, ed. Fong, Wen, (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1980), 75–76Google Scholar.

55. Shanghai bowuguan cang qingtongqi 上海博物館藏靑銅器 (Shanghai: Renmin Meishu Press, 1964), no. 26Google Scholar.

56. Erlitou Work Team, “Xin faxian de tongqi he yuqi,” 260–61Google Scholar.

57. Shanxi Work Team, “Shanxi Xiangfen Taosi yizhi shouci faxian tongqi” 山西襄汾陶寺遺址首次發現銅器, Kaogu 1984.12, 1069–71Google Scholar.

58. Shaughnessy, Edward L., “Historical Perspectives on the Introduction of the Chariot into China” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 48.1 (06, 1988), 189–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59. Loehr, Max, Relics of Ancient China from the Collection of Dr. Paul Singer, (New York: The Asia Society, 1965), no. 19Google Scholar; Poor, Robert J., Ancient Chinese Bronzes, Ceramics and Jade in the Collection of the Honolulu Academy of Arts, (Honolulu: Honolulu Academy of Arts, 1979), no. 13Google Scholar. Loehr mentions two more examples in the Winthrop Collection at Harvard University; these are now displayed in the Sackler Museum.

60. Yongpo, Wang, “Ya zhangxin jie” Kaoguyu wenwu 考古與文物 1988.1, 36–46, 79Google Scholar, and Yingxin, Dai 戴應心, “Shenrnu Shimao Longshan wenhua yuqi” 神木石卯龍山文化玉器, Kaogu yu wenwu 1988.5–6, 239–250Google Scholar.

61. Sichuan Cultural Relics Administration et al, “Guanghan Sanxingdui yizhi yihaojisi keng fajue jianbao” 漢三星堆遺址一號祭祀坑發掘簡報, Wenwu 1987.10, 2–15Google Scholar; idem, “Guanghan Sanxingdui yizhi erhao jisi keng fajue jianbao” 廣漢三星堆遺址二號祭祀坑發掘簡報, Wenwu 1989.5, 2-20. A summary of the former is given in Bagley, Robert W., “Sacrificial pits of the Shang period at Sanxingdui in Guanghan county, Sichuan province,” Arts Asiatiques 43 (1988), 78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Hanji, Feng 瑪漢驥 and Enzheng, Tong 童恩正, “Ji Guanghan chutu de yu shi qi” 記廣漢出土的玉石器, Wenwu 1979.2, 32–37Google Scholar.

62. Several regions are regarded as likely sources of turquoise in pre-modern times, including Hubei, Anhui, Xinjiang, Iran, and the Soviet Union; see Bing'ao, Luan 欒秉敏, Zenyang jianâing gu yuqi 怎Ä鑑定古玉器 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1984), 16–23Google Scholar. Luan reports that the turquoise from Erlitou may have come from the Xiangyang 襄陽 region in northern Hubei.

63. For a selection of essays on the topic, see Jiexiang, Zheng 鄭杰祥, Xia wenhua lunwen xuanji (Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji Press, 1985)Google Scholar. For topical lists of writings, consult the bibliography by Zhou Hongxiang cited above, n. 8.

64. For a preliminary assessment, see Heng, Zou, “Shi lun Xia wenhua” , in Xia Shang Zhou kaoguxue lunwen ji 夏商周考古學論文集 (Beijing: Wenwu Press, 1980), 129–37Google Scholar.

65. Dongxiafeng Excavation Team, “Shanxi Xia xian Dongxiafeng Longshan wen-hua yizhi” 山西夏縣東下馮龍山文化遺址, Kaogu xuebao 1983.1, 55–92Google Scholar, and Instituteof Archaeology, CASS et al, Xia Xian Dongxiafeng 夏縣東下 (Beijing: Wenwu Press, 1988)Google Scholar. See also Boqian, Li 李伯謙, “Dongxiafeng leixing de chubu fenxi” 東下類型的初歩分析, Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 1981.1, 25–29Google Scholar, and Gao Tianlin 高天麟 and Jianmin, Li 李健民, “Jiu Dachai yizhi de fajue shixi Erlitou wenhua Dongxiafengleixing de xingzhi” 就大柴遺址的發掘試析二里頭文化東下馮類型的性質, Kaogu 1987.7, 629–634Google Scholar.

66. The Xiawanggang subtype is now reported in a monograph: Henan CulturalRelics Research Institute and Henan Team, Archaeology Team of the Changjiang Drainage Planning Office, Xichuan Xiawanggang 淅川下主岗 (Beijing: Wenwu Press, 1989), 264–306Google Scholar. The excavators recognize two periods (equivalent to Erlitou I and III),the former more significant (comprising houses, ash pits, and burials).

67. The recent view that a significant contrast begins after period I derives from thenew evidence of bronze casting in period II (see note 45 above) and the discovery of aperiod II pounded earth foundation, as yet unreported, in Zone V; see Zhongguo kao- guxue nianjian 1986, 146.

68. Weizhang, Yin 殷肆璋, “A Re-examination of the Erlitou Culture,” in Studies of Shang Archaeology, ed. Chang, K.C., (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986)Google Scholar, presents a mainstream interpretation of early and late phases. Boqian, Li, “Erlitou leixing de wenhua xingzhi yu zushu wenti” , 1986.6, 42–47Google Scholar, argues against such subdivisions.

69. Chang, Kwang-chih, “The Origin of Shang and the Problem of Xia in Chinese Archaeology,” in The Great Bronze Age of China: A Symposium, ed. Kuwayama, G., (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1983), 10–15Google Scholar.

70. Henan Team 2, IA/CASS, “Henan Mixian Xinchai yizhi de shijue” 河南密縣新柴遺址的試掘, Kaogu 1981.5, 398–408Google Scholar, and “Henan Linru Meishan yizhi fajue baogao” 河南臨汝煤山遺址發掘報吿, Kaogu xuebao 1982.4, 427–76Google Scholar.

71. There is a considerable recent literature on the term “civilization” and its archaeological utility. See “Zhongguo wenming qiyuan zuotan jiyao” 中國文明起源座談紀要, Kaogu 1989.12, 1110–20, 1097Google Scholar; Zhimin, An, “Shilun wenming de qiyuan” 試論文明的起源, Kaogu 1987.5, 453–457Google Scholar; Heng, Zou, “Zhongguo wenming de dansheng” 中國文明的誕生, Wenwu 1987.12, 69–74, 85Google Scholar; and Enzheng, Tong, “Youguan wenming qiyuan de jige wenti” 有關文明起源的幾個問題, Kaogu 1989.1, 51–59, 32Google Scholar.

72. Compare the discussions of Morton H. Fried and Kwang-chih Chang: Fried, , “Tribe to State or State to Tribe in Ancient China?” in The Origins of Chinese Civilization, ed. Keightley, David N. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), 467–93Google Scholar; Chang, “Sandai Archaeology and the Formation of States in Ancient China: Processual Aspects of the Origins of Chinese Civilization,” ibid, 495–521.

73. David Keightley has brought the reflections of a Greek archaeologist on similar issues to my attention. See Snodgrass, Anthony M., An Archaeology of Greece: The Present State and Future Scope of a Discipline (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987)Google Scholar, especially ch. 2, “Archaeology and History.”