Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:12:57.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

WHAT THE ELITES ACTUALLY WORE IN 500–300 B.C.E. CHINA: EVIDENCE FROM TEXTILES, BAMBOO, AND BRONZES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2020

Kin Sum (Sammy) Li
Kin Sum (Sammy) Li*
Affiliation:
Kin Sum (Sammy) Li, 李建深, Hong Kong Baptist University; email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article uses evidence from textiles, bamboo, and bronzes to explore what the elites wore, who made up the design communities behind the elites, and how luxurious these items were considered to be in 500–300 b.c.e. China. It first examines the reliability of the art historical sources available for the reconstruction of this history and cautions the readers against certain past interpretations of the textiles and accessories of the period. It then delineates a brief history of how certain textile patterns and weaving techniques developed and how their producers selected and obtained sources of inspiration and interacted and exchanged ideas with producers of other types of artifacts. It argues that textile designers seemed to favor certain types of sources and had formed their own distinct, though not impervious, community. After carefully examining the weaving techniques of several pieces of fabric, it proposes a means of building a more reliable and solid foundation for art historical reconstruction. Textiles and accessories were symbols of the wealth, status, and power of individuals who wore them. This article will explain how a combination of the production techniques of textiles and accessories, together with a sharing of designs and techniques within the community of producers, contributed to the formation of those symbols.

提要

提要

本文以基於紡織物、竹器、銅器的證據去探討幾個問題，包括在公元前500–300年中國的精英們穿甚麼，誰組成這些精英們背後的設計團體、以及為何視這些器物是貴重之物。本文首先檢視用以重構這段歷史的藝術史證據的可靠性，提醒讀者要注意以往關於這時期的紡織物與飾物的詮釋是否正確。接着，本文簡要描述一些紡織物紋飾與紡織技巧的發展歷史，紡織者如何選擇、獲取靈感來源，如何與其它產品製造者交流等。這時期的紡織物設計者似乎較喜歡某類靈感來源，並組成了獨特的設計團體，這是本文的一大論點。在細心地察看幾塊布料的紡織技巧後，本文提議一種新方法以建立藝術史中重構紡織技巧時可靠而又牢固的根基。紡織物與飾物是配戴者財富、地位、權力的象徵。本文嘗試結合紡織物與飾物的製作技藝，以及製作者團體的設計與技巧的共享，解釋這些象徵是如何形成的。

Keywords

textiledesignbronze mirrorritual vesselbamboo box紡織物設計銅鏡青銅禮器竹籃
Type
Articles
Information
Early China , Volume 43 , September 2020 , pp. 161 - 205
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Study of Early China and Cambridge University Press 2020

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.)

Footnotes

The work described in this article was partially supported by grants from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), China (Project No. HKBU 12604017, 12625716, 14600118, and 22601019); the Quality Education Fund, Government of the HKSAR (no. 2018/1337); the Hong Kong Baptist University (HKBU) Faculty Research Grant Category II (HKBU no. FRG2/15–16/045); the Faculty Collaborative Research Grant (HKBU no. SOSC/16–17/CRGID1); the Hong Kong Baptist University Jao Tsung-I Academy of Sinology; and the HKBU Equipment Matching Fund (RC-EMF 07/17–18).

References

1. Cf. Xun, Zhou and Chunming, Gao, 5000 Years of Chinese Costumes (San Francisco: China Books and Periodicals, 1987), 12–41Google Scholar; 沈從文, Shen Congwen, Zhongguo gudai fushi yanjiu—zengdingben 中國古代服飾研究–增訂本 (Hong Kong: The Commercial Press, 1992), 4–5Google Scholar, 12–14; Aili, Miao 繆愛莉 and Lu, Kuang 鄺璐, Zhongxi lidai fushi tudian 中西歷代服飾圖典 (Guangzhou: Guangdong keji, 2000), 3–5Google Scholar; Krahl, Regina, “Designs on Early Chinese Textiles,” Orientations, 20.8 (1989), 62–5Google Scholar; Krahl, “Early Bronze Age Dress,” Orientations 26.5 (1995), 58–61; Ji, Sun 孫機, “Shenyi yu Chufu” 深衣與楚服, in Zhongguo gu yufu luncong 中國古輿服論叢 (Beijing: Wenwu, 2001), 139–50Google Scholar. See also Sun Ji, “Luoyang Jincun chutu yin zhuoyi renxiang zushu kaobian” 洛陽金村出土銀着衣人像族屬考辨, in Zhongguo gu yufu luncong, 151–60. See Vainker, S. J., Chinese Silk: A Cultural History (London: British Museum Press, 2004), 20–36Google Scholar, for a more careful approach to this type of discussion.

2. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 中國社會科學院考古研究所, ed. Yinxu Fu Hao mu 殷墟婦好墓 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1980), 151; Robert Bagley, “The High Yinxu Phase (Anyang Period),” in The Great Bronze Age of China: An Exhibition from the People’s Republic of China, ed. Wen Fong (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1980), 189.

3. Sichuan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 四川省文物考古研究所, Sanxingdui jisikeng 三星堆祭祀坑 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1999), 162–66. Jay Xu, “Bronze at Sanxingdui,” in Ancient Sichuan: Treasures from A Lost Civilization, ed. Robert Bagley (Seattle: Seattle Art Museum, 2001), 72–76.

4. For a discussion on how these weavers and embroiderers were institutionally organized, see Angela Sheng, “The Disappearance of Silk Weaves with Weft Effects,” Chinese Science 12 (1995), 56–61.

5. Peng Hao, “Representations of Cosmology in Chu Textiles,” in New Perspectives on China’s Past: Chinese Archaeology in the Twentieth Century, ed. Yang Xiaoneng (New Haven: Yale University Press; Kansas City: with the Nelson Atkins Museum of Art, 2004), 317–18; Colin Mackenzie, “The Influence of Textile Designs on Bronze, Lacquer, and Ceramic Decorative Styles during the Warring States Period,” Orientations 30.7 (1999), 82–91. See also Suzanne Cahill, “A Comparison of Designs on Bronze Mirrors and Silk Textiles from the Warring States through the Tang Periods,” in The Lloyd Cotsen Study Collection of Chinese Bronze Mirrors, vol. 2, ed. Lothar von Falkenhausen (Los Angeles: Cotsen Occasional Press, UCLA Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, 2011), 130–59. See Krahl, “Designs on Early Chinese Textiles,” 62–63 for the discussion of the relationship between textile and lacquer designs.

6. But I will not attempt to argue that these items reflected the rise of individuality. Colin Mackenzie argues that this was “the time in Chinese history when the concept of the individual first came to the fore.” See Colin Mackenzie, “Mirrors of the Warring States Period,” in The Lloyd Cotsen Study Collection of Chinese Bronze Mirrors, vol. 2, 70.

7. Hubei sheng Jingzhou diqu bowuguan 湖北省荊州地區博物館, Jiangling Mashan yihao Chu mu 江陵馬山一號楚墓 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1985), 30–56; Huang Nengfu 黃能馥, ed. Yin ran zhi xiu/ Zhongguo meishu quanji (gongyi meishu bian) 印染織綉‧中國美術全集 (工藝美術編), vol. 6 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1985), 4–37; Huang Nengfu and Chen Juanjuan 陳娟娟, Zhongguo fuzhuangshi 中國服裝史 (Beijing: Zhongguo lüyou, 1995), 54–69. See also John Becker with Donald B. Wagner, Pattern and Loom: A Practical Study of the Development of Weaving Techniques in China, Western Asia and Europe (Copenhagen: NIAS Press, 2014), for a comprehensive summary of the weaving techniques. The lack of discussion of the production techniques of specific artifacts is a gap in current scholarship on ancient Chinese textiles and accessories. For instance, we have a long list of weaving techniques in the field of ancient Chinese textiles, and previous scholars have already developed a comprehensive overview of nearly all the techniques used on actual fabrics found to date. However, these scholars seldom either explain in detail how a specific piece of fabric was woven or clearly display its woven structure. A technical phrase describing the general technique for weaving the fabric is usually deemed satisfactory to them.

8. Personal communication. See the silk woven patterns in Vivi Sylwan, “Silk from the Yin Dynasty,” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 9 (1937), 119–26, and pls. I to IV.

9. See Sylwan, “Silk from the Yin Dynasty,” 119–26; Peng Hao, “Sericulture and Silk Weaving from Antiquity to the Zhou Dynasty,” in Chinese Silks, ed. Dieter Kuhn (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), Chap. 2, 81, figs 2.19 and 2.20.

10. Dieter Kuhn, Chinese Silks, 526.

11. Sichuan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Sanxingdui jisikeng, 164, 167–68.

12. Hubei sheng bowuguan 湖北省博物館, ed., Panlongcheng: Changjiang zhongyou de qingtong wenming 盤龍城：長江中游的青銅文明 (Beijing: Wenwu, 2007), 52; Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 湖北省文物考古研究所, Panlongcheng: 1963–1994 nian kaogu fajue baogao 盤龍城：1963–1994年考古發掘報告, vol. 1 (Beijing: Wenwu, 2001), 189.

13. Robert Bagley, Max Loehr and the Study of Chinese Bronzes: Style and Classification in the History of Art (Ithaca: Cornell East Asia Series, 2008), 163.

14. Sylwan, “Silk from the Yin Dynasty,” 119–23.

15. Personal communication with Angela Sheng.

16. Cf. Dieter Kuhn, “Silk Weaving in Ancient China: From Geometric Figures to Patterns of Pictorial Likeness,” Chinese Science 12 (1995), 83, fig. 2.2. The T-pattern seen on textiles could be traced to the Shang times.

17. But Rose Kerr and Nigel Wood do not support the idea that the model was scraped down to a core, see Rose Kerr and Nigel Wood, Science and Civilisation in China, Vol. 5: Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Part XII: Ceramic Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 401–2.

18. Robert Bagley, “Anyang Mold-Making and the Decorated Model,” Artibus Asiae, vol. 69.1 (2009), 39–90.

19. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 山西省考古研究所, Houma zhutong yizhi 侯馬鑄銅遺址, vol. 1 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1993), 201. There were actually two figurines found, numbered IIT13H34: 4 and 5. See also Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Houma taofan yishu 侯馬陶範藝術 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 103, 522, no. 1287.

20. See Colin Mackenzie, “The Influence of Textile Designs on Bronze, Lacquer, and Ceramic Decorative Styles during the Warring States Period,” 83–84. See also Krahl, “Early Bronze Age Dress,” 59–60.

21. Jiangxi sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 江西省文物考古研究所, “Jiangxi Jing’an xian Lizhouao Dongzhou muzang” 江西靖安縣李洲坳東周墓葬, Kaogu 7 (2008), 51. See also Jiangxi sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Jing’an xian bowuguan 靖安縣博物館, “Jiangxi Jing’an Lizhouao Dongzhou mu fajue jianbao” 江西靖安李洲坳東周墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 2 (2009), 14.

22. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Houma taofan yishu, 429 (image), 517 (description), no. 1060, mold IIT47.

23. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, “Shanxi Changzi xian Dongzhou mu” 山西長子縣東周墓, Kaogu xuebao 4 (1984), 522.

24. Sun Ji, “Zhongguo gudai de daiju” 中國古代的帶具, in Zhongguo gu yufu luncong, 253–64. Sun Ji, “Zhoudai de yupei” 周代的玉佩, in Zhongguo gu yufu luncong, 124–38. Peng Hao 彭浩, Churen de fangzhi yu fushi 楚人的紡織與服飾 (Wuhan: Hubei jiaoyu, 1996), 186–205. Angela Sheng, “The Disappearance of Silk Weaves with Weft Effects,” 50–52.

25. Sun Ji, “Zhoudai de yupei,” 133.

26. Jenny F. So, Early Chinese Jades in the Harvard Art Museums (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Art Museums, 2019), 17–25.

27. Mackenzie, “The Influence of Textile Designs,” 82–91. Suzanne Cahill, “A Comparison of Design,” 130–59.

28. Discussions of the decorative patterns on mirrors refer to the backs of mirrors. The mirror front is smooth and reflective, whereas its back is often decorated.

29. Robert Bagley, “What the Bronzes from Hunyuan Tell Us about the Foundry at Houma,” Orientations 26.1 (1995), 219, 221.

30. Bagley, “What the Bronzes from Hunyuan,” 221.

31. Hubei sheng Jingzhou bowuguan 湖北省荊州博物館, Jingzhou Tianxingguan erhao Chu mu 荊州天星觀二號楚墓 (Beijing: Wenwu, 2003), 43. See Ji Kunzhang 吉琨璋, “Guanyu Chushi yuqi huo Chuwenhua yuqi” 關於楚式玉器或楚文化玉器, in Youfeng laiyi: Hubei chutu Zeng Chu yuqi 有鳳來儀：湖北出土曾楚玉器, ed. Hubei sheng bowuguan 湖北省博物館 and Xianggang zhongwen daxue wenwuguan 香港中文大學文物館 (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 2018), 13.

32. Bagley, “What the Bronzes from Hunyuan,” 222.

33. Mackenzie, “Mirrors of the Warring States Period,” 64.

34. Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 湖北省文物考古研究所, Jiangling Jiudian Dongzhou mu 江陵九店東周墓 (Beijing: Kexue, 1995), 318.

35. Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Jiangling Jiudian, 318.

36. The gender of the weaver is not specified because we do not have firm evidence either way.

37. Hubei sheng Jing Sha tielu kaogudui 湖北省荊沙鐵路考古隊, Baoshan Chu mu 包山楚墓, vol. 1 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1991), 158–59.

38. The black-and-white drawing of the box is visually confusing, but the only available black-and-white photo does not provide a clear image either. The connected-T pattern would be far more easily distinguished on a newly made box.

39. Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Jiangling Jiudian, 319.

40. Hubei sheng Jing Sha tielu kaogudui, Baoshan Chu mu, 151.

41. Yunmeng Shuihudi Qin mu bianxiezu 《雲夢睡虎地秦墓》編寫組, Yunmeng Shuihudi Qin mu 雲夢睡虎地秦墓 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1981), 45. See also Zhongguo qingtongqi quanji bianji weiyuanhui 《中國青銅器全集》編輯委員會, ed., Zhongguo qingtongqi quanji 中國青銅器全集, vol. 16 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1998), 35.

42. Sheri Lullo, “Toiletry Case Sets Across Life and Death in Early China (5th c. BCE-3rd c. CE),” Ph.D. dissertation (University of Pittsburgh, 2009), 39.

43. Cf. Mackenzie, “The Influence of Textile Designs,” 89–90.

44. Although bronze ritual vessels and mirrors may have been produced in the same workshops, the techniques used to produce the molds and models of vessels and mirrors were different. Moreover, metallurgical composition analyses show that casting vessels and mirrors required different alloy composition formulas. See Kin-sum (Sammy) Li, “Mirrors from 500–200 BC Middle Yangzi Region: Design and Manufacture,” Ph.D. dissertation (Princeton University, 2015), 333–34; He Tangkun 何堂坤, Zhongguo gudai tongjing de jishu yanjiu 中國古代銅鏡的技術研究 (Beijing: Zijincheng, 1999), 32–101. See also David Scott, “The Technical Analysis of Chinese Mirrors,” in The Lloyd Cotsen Study Collection of Chinese Bronze Mirrors, vol. 2, 198–233. An in-depth explanation of these differences exceeds the scope of this article.

45. Changsha shi bowuguan 長沙市博物館, Chufeng Hanyun: Changsha shi bowuguan cangjing 楚風漢韻：長沙市博物館藏鏡 (Beijing: Wenwu, 2010), 10. Accession numbers in this museum have two parts: zongzhanghao 總帳號 (general accession number) and fenleihao 分類號 (categorization number). Readers may use these numbers to refer to one specific mirror in the Changsha Municipal Museum. The zongzhanghao of this mirror is 4817; the fenleihao is 1B313.

46. Zhongguo qingtongqi quanji, vol. 16, 29.

47. Hubei sheng Jingzhou diqu bowuguan, Mashan, 41. See also Huang Nengfu, ed. Yin ran zhi xiu, 5, description, no. 12.

48. Hubei sheng Jingzhou diqu bowuguan, Mashan, 41, 43. See also Huang Nengfu, ed. Yin ran zhi xiu, 6, description, no. 15.

49. Hubei heng Jingzhou diqu bowuguan, Mashan, 80.

50. Hubei sheng Jingzhou diqu bowuguan, Mashan, 63, 66. See also Huang Nengfu, ed. Yin ran zhi xiu, 10, description, no. 24.

51. Zhongguo qingtongqi quanji, vol. 16, 9.

52. Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Jiangling Jiudian, 334, 336.

53. Hubei sheng Jingzhou diqu bowuguan, Mashan, 27. See also Shu Zhimei 舒之梅 and Zhang Xuqiu 張緒球, Chu wenhua—qijue langman de nanfang daguo 楚文化——奇譎浪漫的南方大國 (Hong Kong: Shangwu, 1997), 252. For another example that was collected by Lloyd Cotsen, but dates to approximately 208–264 c.e., see the silk brocade weave pouch in The Lloyd Cotsen Study Collection of Chinese Bronze Mirrors, vol. 1, 163, pl. 67.

54. Gift of Enid A. Haupt to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accession no. 1993.387.15.

55. Zhuge Kai 諸葛鎧 et al., Wenming de lunhui: Zhongguo fushi wenhua de licheng 文明的輪迴：中國服飾文化的歷程 (Beijing: Zhongguo fangzhi, 2007), 1–88.

56. The embroidery technique adopted by most embroiderers during this period is called suoxiu 鎖繡, “chain-stitch.” See Hubei sheng Jingzhou diqu bowuguan, Mashan, 56.

57. Hubei sheng Jing Sha tielu kaogudui, Baoshan, vol. 1, 170–72. The patterns on this Baoshan M2 jin fabric (Figure 28) appear very similar to those on the jin from Mashan M1 (Figure 20), although the author of this article cannot discern whether their weave structures are identical.

58. Hubei sheng Jing Sha tielu kaogudui, Baoshan, vol. 1, 172, object no. 451 in chart no. 20.

59. For an English discussion, see Peng Hao, “Sericulture and Silk Weaving from Antiquity to the Zhou Dynasty,” in Chinese Silks, 65–74. See Chinese discussion in Hubei sheng Jingzhou diqu bowuguan, Mashan, 29–30. Huang Nengfu and Chen Juanjuan, Zhongguo fuzhuangshi, 2–4, 54–7. Huang Nengfu, ed. Yin ran zhi xiu, 1–22.

60. Hubei sheng Jing Sha tielu kaogudui, Baoshan, vol. 1, 170.

61. In the future we can attempt to create a digital visualization of the weaving process. The weave structure resembles the matrix model in mathematics; we can convert the weave structure into digits and reconstruct the entire weave structure via computer. The weaving process can be visualized in this way as well. To transform the weave structure into a matrix model, we can take photos of both sides of a textile piece and analyze the spatial structure of the warps and wefts. Once the computer can “read” the spatial structure of the textile piece, it will be able to create a matrix model of the weave structure. See our experiment attempt, Connie C.W. Chan, K.S. (Sammy) Li, and Henry Y.T. Ngan, “Weaving Pattern Recognition of Ancient Chinese Textiles by Regular Bands Analysis,” Electronic Imaging, Intelligent Robotics and Industrial Applications using Computer Vision (2017), 31–36.

62. See Angela Sheng, “Determining the Value of Textiles in the Tang Dynasty in Memory of Professor Denis Twitchett (1925–2006),” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 3rd ser. 23.2 (2013), 182, where she provides a good summary of how the silk and hemp cloth were used as money and tax payments.

63. Hubei sheng Jing Sha tielu kaogudui, Baoshan, vol. 1, 172, 177.

64. Hubei sheng Jing Sha tielu kaogudui, Baoshan, vol. 1, 166–67.

65. Hubei sheng Jing Sha tielu kaogudui, Baoshan, vol. 1, 167.

66. Hubei sheng Jing Sha tielu kaogudui, Baoshan, vol. 1, 167.

67. Angela Sheng, “The Disappearance of Silk Weaves with Weft Effects,” 52–53.

68. Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Jiangling Wangshan Shazhong Chu mu 江陵望山沙塚楚墓 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1996), 190. The mat is numbered “SM1: 56” in the report.

69. Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Jiangling Wangshan Shazhong, 190.

70. Karlgren, Bernhard, “Huai and Han,” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 13 (1941), 53Google Scholar, mirror no. C85, see also pl. 25 (no pagination). This mirror also appears in Karlgren, “Early Chinese Mirrors: Classification Scheme Recapitulation,” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 40 (1968), 84, mirror no. C85, see also pl. 33 (no pagination).

71. Kin Sum (Sammy) Li, “The Component-Model Method of Mirror Manufacture in 300 BCE China,” Archives of Asian Art, 67.2 (2017), 257–76.

72. See Zhuge Kai et al., Wenming de lunhui, 9. For a comparative study between ancient Chinese and eighteenth century Manchurian textiles, see Vollmer, John Voll, Dressed to Rule: 18th Century Court Attire in the Mactaggart Art Collection (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 2007)Google Scholar. Vollmer argues that clothing could create ethnic identity, imperial identity, and served as imperial symbols. See also Joselit, Jenna Weissman, A Perfect Fit: Clothes, Character, and the Promise of America (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2001), 1Google Scholar: “‘Your clothes are your visiting cards, your cards of admission.’ No wonder, then, that Americans … endowed their clothes with so much meaning and possibility. Getting dressed was serious business.” Michio, Chimura 千村典生, Tujie fuzhuangshi 圖解服裝史, trans. Jiliang, Sun 孫基亮 and Lu Fengqiu 陸鳳秋 (Beijing: Zhongguo fangzhi, 2002), 1–36Google Scholar.