Kingly Crafts: The Archaeology of Craft Production in Late Shang China 9780231549639

Citation preview

KINGLY CRAFTS

TA NG CE NTE R SE R IE S IN EARLY CHI NA

TANG CENTER SERIES IN EARLY CHINA

Editors Anthony Barbieri-Low Li Feng

The dramatic increase of information about China’s early past made possible by recent archaeological discoveries has reenergized the study of Early China. The Tang Center Series in Early China, sponsored by the Tang Center for Early China at Columbia University and published by Columbia University Press, presents new studies that make major contributions to our understanding of early Chinese civilization and break new theoretical or methodological grounds in Early China studies, especially works that analyze newly discovered paleographic and manuscript materials and archaeological data. The disciplinary focus of the series includes history, archaeology, art history, anthropology, literature, philosophy, and the history of sciences and technology. The time period covered spans from the Neolithic to the end of the Han Dynasty (220 ce) or to the end of the Tang Dynasty (907 ce) for titles in archaeology. Modeling Peace: Royal Tombs and Political Ideology in Early China, Jie Shi Kingly Splendor: Court Art and Materiality in Han China, Allison R. Miller Many Worlds Under One Heaven: Material Culture, Identity, and Power in the Northern Frontiers of the Western Zhou, 1045–771 bce, Yan Sun Mediation of Legitimacy in Early China: A Study of the Neglected Zhou Scriptures and the Grand Duke Traditions, Yegor Grebnev

Kingly Crafts T H E A R C H A E O LO G Y O F C R A F T P R O D U C T I O N I N L AT E   S H A N G C H I N A

Yung-ti Li

Columbia University Press New York

Columbia University Press wishes to express its appreciation to the Tang Center for Early China for funding and editorial support in the publication of this book.

Columbia University Press Publishers Since 1893 New York  Chichester, West Sussex cup.columbia.edu Copyright © 2022 Columbia University Press All rights reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Li, Yongdi, author. Title: Kingly crafts : the archaeology of craft production in late Shang China / Yung-ti Li. Description: New York : Columbia University Press, 2022. | Series: Tang center series in early China | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2021045723 | ISBN 9780231192040 (hardback) | ISBN 9780231549639 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Excavations (Archaeology)—China—Yinxu (Extinct city) | Yinxu (Extinct city)—Antiquities. | Excavations (Archaeology)—China—Anyang Shi. | Anyang Shi (China)—Antiquities. | Decorative arts—China—Yinxu (Extinct city)—History. | Handicraft—China—Yinxu (Extinct city)—History. | China—History—Shang dynasty, 1766–1122 B.C. Classification: LCC DS797.44.Y56 L54 2022 | DDC 931/.02—dc23/eng/20211013 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021045723 Columbia University Press books are printed on permanent and durable acid-free paper. Printed in the United States of America Cover design: Noah Arlow Cover image: Photo courtesy of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, Taiwan

To my parents and to K. C.

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations  ix Acknowledgments xiii Chapter One Identifying and Defining the Issues: Craft Production, Elite Culture, and Urban Centers in Bronze Age China  1 Chapter Two Craft Production at the Last Shang Capital  21 Chapter Three A Craft of Clay and Metal: Section-mold Casting Technology and the Anyang Bronze Industry  41 Chapter Four Bone Technology, Production Contexts, and the Bone Workshops  86 Chapter Five Locating the Royal Workshop and Other Crafts  129 Chapter Six Long Live the King: Anyang and Its Legacy  164 N O T E S   19 7 B I B L IO G R A P H Y   2 1 1 INDEX 251

ILLUSTRATIONS

2.1  Distribution of Anyang craft production sites  22 2.2 Daliankeng (the Great Connected Trenches in the edits.) and the Xiaotun temple-palace complex  24 2.3 Tiesanlu excavation trenches in relation to Miaopu North and Xin’anzhuang West 36 2.4 Duration of the Anyang craft production sites in terms of the pottery chronology 39 3.1  Diagram of a mold assemblage for a fangding 42 3.2  Examples of Late Shang/Early Western Zhou bronze vessel types  43 3.3  Model fragments from Miaopu North  50 3.4 Complete mold sections for the rim and the belly of a lei vessel and the corresponding horizontal mold divisions on the bronze vessel  51 3.5  Mold fragment for a lugged vessel  54 3.6  Two mold fragments with decoration incised directly into the mold  55 3.7  A mold fragment (R16890) for the handle of a gui vessel  56 3.8 Using a brush and slip to paint decoration onto the inner surface of a mold 57 3.9  Line drawing of VF6, Miaopu North  63 3.10 Plan of IVF1 at Miaopu North and reconstruction of the mold assembly in IVF1  64 3.11  STYM 2, Trenches IVT1-T4, Miaopu North  66 3.12  Distribution of foundry-related features during Yinxu Period II at Miaopu North  68

x I llustrations

3.13 Distribution of foundry-related features during Yinxu Periods III and IV at Miaopu North  69 3.14  Type I and Type II molds for a ding vessel  74 3.15  Type I and Type II molds for a gu vessel  76 3.16  Type I and Type II molds for a jue vessel  78 3.17 A you vessel with a removable top section that turns into a gu vessel from HPKM1022 and Type I mold fragments from Xiaotun for a similar vessel  80 3.18 Upper left: A bovid-shaped zun vessel from the Fuhao tomb and Type I mold fragments from Xiaotun for similar vessels  81 4.1 Number of osseous artifacts found in the royal tombs and tombs of the lesser elite  90 4.2  Distribution of osseous artifacts found in HPKM1001, HPKM1002, HPKM1003, HPKM1004, and HPKM1567  91 4.3  One of the two turquoise-inlaid ivory cups found in the Fuhao tomb  93 4.4  Type IA osseous artifacts found in Miaopu  95 4.5  Type IA (below) and Type IB (above) osseous artifacts from HPKM1001 4.6  Type III osseous artifacts found in HPKM1001  98 4.7 Type III osseous artifacts from several habitation sites and tools found in the Miaopu North bronze foundry  99 4.8  Bone spatulas with carved decoration from the royal cemetery  100 4.9 Type II osseous artifacts from the Fuhao tomb  101 4.10 Composition of manufacturing types of osseous artifacts in the royal tombs 102 4.11  Bone refuse pit at Huayuanzhuang South  105 4.12 Bone blanks for making hairpins and hairpin caps from the Dasikong bone workshop  106 4.13  Weight distribution of faunal remains from Xin’anzhuang West  108 4.14  Distribution of skeletal elements in modified cattle bones from Xin’anzhuang West  110 4.15 Distribution of skeletal elements in modified cattle bones from H144, Xin’anzhuang West  110 4.16 Reduction patterns to retrieve blanks for making spatulas and hairpins from Xin’anzhuang West  115 4.17 Standard deviation and coefficient of variation of dimensions of arrowheads from HPK1001, HPKM1002, and HPKM1003  117 4.18 Standard deviation and coefficient of variation of dimensions of beads from HPKM1001 and HPKM1003  118 4.19 Spatulas made from cattle tibia, radius, and rib unearthed in Xiaotun, Anyang 120

xi I llustrations

4.20  Distribution of skeletal elements used for spatulas  121 4.21 A bone spatula (R018222) with unfinished decoration found in Trench 74A near Daliankeng in the Xiaotun temple-palace complex  124 5.1  Wooden pallets in the shape of two back-to-back tigers found in HPKM1001 130 5.2 Marble seat or platform in the form of two back-to-back tigers from HPKM1001 134 5.3 An adult elephant and a human sacrifice found in a sacrificial pit in Xibeigang 136 5.4 An engraved spatula with turquoise inlays made from a tiger humerus  138 5.5  An engraved bone spatula supposedly from Anyang  139 5.6  Processed ivory from the Xiaotun temple-palace complex  141 5.7  A processed tiger humerus from Xiaotun  141 5.8 Distribution of modified and unmodified tiger and elephant skeletal remains in the Xiaotun temple-palace complex  143 5.9 Finished and semifinished pieces and blanks made from freshwater shells from Daliankeng  146 5.10  Small drill heads from Daliankeng  147 5.11  Type III Xiaotun stone blades  150 5.12  Stone blades Li Chi used to demonstrate his ten manufacturing stages  152 5.13  Preforms of Xiaotun stone blades  153 5.14  Reconstructed reduction sequence of Type I Xiaotun stone blades  155 5.15  Kiln Y5 excavated at Liujiazhuang North in 2008  161 6.1  Anyang urban network reconstructed by Chang  168 6.2 Reconstructed plan of lineage-based settlements at Anyang by Zheng Ruokui 169 6.3  Topography of Xiaotun and vicinity based on a 1929 topographic map  175 6.4  Architecture groups unearthed at Beixujiaqiao in 1996  177 6.5 A lesser elite residence, F79, found at Liujiazhuang North. After Anyang 2012: fig. 5, fig. 6.  178 6.6 Distribution of craft-producing activities in Architecture Group A found during the first nine seasons of the IHP Anyang campaign  183 6.7  A hypothetical model for the organization of craft production at Anyang 184 6.8  Special bronze types produced at different production precincts  188 6.9  Main bone artifact types produced at different production precincts  190 6.10 A large you vessel thought to have been from Daijiawan, Baoji, Shaanxi, and mold fragments found at Anyang for casting an almost identical vessel 193

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Kingly Crafts is the synthesis of my research on Anyang archaeology during my tenure at the Institute of History and Philology (IHP), Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan. As described in the introduction of the book, the Anyang data housed in the IHP are both essential and in need of proper contextualization among the numerous new finds coming from the ground every year. While working at IHP, I was constantly trying to define and redefine the archaeological data excavated many decades ago. The solution is of course to bring the IHP data back to the original context of Anyang and to learn from archaeologists at the Institute of Archaeology (IA), Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), currently working at the site. Through the many site visits, conferences, and personal communication and interaction, I learned and am still learning immensely from my Anyang colleagues in China. I am first of all extremely in debt to Dr. Tang Jigen 唐際根, whom I met through my late professor Kwang-chih Chang’s project with the Institute of Archaeology in Shangqiu, Henan. Dr. Tang, then the director of the Anyang field station, granted me access to firsthand archaeological data, at the time a rare but insightful decision that would lead to more international collaborations. It opened the door to Anyang archaeology for me and also provided me the opportunity to work with senior Anyang archaeologists such as the late Professors Chen Zhida 陳志達 and Yang Xizhang 楊錫璋, as well as Professors Zheng Zhenxiang 鄭振香 and Xu Guangde 徐廣德. Their kindness and generosity in sharing their knowledge of the site are fondly remembered.

xiv A cknowledgments

I was also able to work with Anyang archaeologists of the next generation, and our relationship continues to thrive. Besides Dr. Tang, they include Yue Zhanwei 岳占偉, He Yuling 何毓靈, Yue Hongbin 岳洪彬, and the academic twin flame of Tang Jigen, Professor Zhichun Jing 荊志淳 at the University of British Columbia. Through years of collaboration and communication, I have been able to learn from them and to come to my own understanding of Anyang archaeology. I am tremendously grateful to these colleagues as we developed and grew academically. Special thanks go to Yue Zhanwei, who has not only shared the excavated materials of the bronze foundry sites of Xiaomintun Southeast 孝民屯東南地 and Xiaomintun South 孝民南地 but also materials from the bone workshop at Xin’anzhuang 新安莊, the latter allowing me to venture into another area of craft production in Anyang other than bronze casting. During the many seasons of lab work at the Anyang field station, workers such as Wang Yanli 王豔麗, Huo Xiaohui 霍曉慧, Meng Jun 孟君, Wang Lixia 王麗霞, and Wang Haoyi 王浩義 were indispensable to the operation of the field station. In fact, they were the foundation of any archaeological operation in Anyang. Without their help and assistance, none of the projects included in the book would have happened. And indeed through time, they themselves have become specialists on bronze and bone production in Anyang. I am also thankful to other colleagues at the Institute of Archaeology, CASS, such as Drs. Liu Yu 劉煜 and Li Zhipeng 李志鵬, who have shared generously their respective specialties in bronze casting and zooarchaeology. Additional thanks go to Professor Chen Maa-ling, Department of Anthropology, National Taiwan University, for her assistance with the quantitative analysis of osseous artifacts in chapter 4. The IHP is unique in the full administrative support it offers to facilitate faculty members’ research. As a research institute, IHP has more staff members than researchers, and the former become the backbone of the institute thanks to whom researchers are able to focus on their individual projects. The staff assistance of both the administration and the Chinese archaeology storage 中原考古庫房 was invaluable during my tenure there. My research would not have been possible without the full support of the capable research assistants of the Anyang Archaeological Lab 安陽工作室, Feng Chung-mei 馮忠美 and Lai Shu-li 賴淑麗, who were in charge of sieving through original field records and generating maps and illustrations of the highest quality; and the various interns, Lin Yi-ling 林宜羚, Tseng Hsin-yi 曾馨儀, Chen Chia-ling 陳佳翎, and Tsai Tai-hua 蔡岱華, who helped with the data collecting and inputting tasks both in the field and the lab. I am also grateful to

xv A cknowledgments

my long-time friends and colleagues, Drs. Chen Kwang-tzu 陳光祖, Huang Ming-chorng 黃銘崇, and Chen Chao-jung 陳昭容, whose friendship and constant critiques provided me with moral support and upheld the high academic standards so cherished by the IHP tradition. The actual writing of the book took place after I relocated to the University of Chicago. I would like to thank my colleagues in the department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations for the collegial work environment and for their support and open-mindedness to have an archaeologist as a colleague. I would also like to thank students at the university, in particular Zhou Yuwei 周毓葦 and Zhu Shijie 朱詩潔, who helped me with the tedious work of bibliographic input and research. The Franke Institute for the Humanities provided me the opportunity to be on leave while staying close to home. The intense academic exchange that occurred during the regular meetings was invigorating, and the diverse backgrounds and perspectives of the participants were inspiring. I would also like to thank the Henry Luce Foundation/American Council of Learned Societies for funding a visit to the department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University, during the project’s early stages. The Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation also provided generous funding for a three-year project (XP001-D-09, 2010-13) on the bone workshop remains from Xin’anzhuang and the faunal remains from Xiaomintun. It was the first joint Anyang research project between IHP and IA, the two brother institutes. The publication of the book would not have been possible without the support of the Tang Center for Early China at Columbia University. I would like to thank the center director, Professor Li Feng and the center staff for providing the opportunity and the support. I am  also grateful to Professors Roderick Campbell and Anthony Barbieri-Low, and the anonymous reviewer, for their insightful comments and suggestions on the manuscript. My former adviser, Professor Robert Bagley, still has a lasting influence, as his critiques, even without his physical presence, have been essential in the formation of my work. Last but not least, I would like to thank Susan Hu, friend and family, and Professor Chelsea Foxwell, friend and colleague, for always being the first to proofread whatever I put forth to them, even during the oddest hours. When I was leaving for the IHP job from graduate school, my late professor Kwang-chih Chang, at the time fighting advanced Alzheimer’s, had a gleam in his eye when I bid him farewell. KC, as his students called him, was delighted in his ever-so-mild way that I found a place to dwell in the richness of Anyang archaeology, a sense of delight that I only fully understood many

xvi A cknowledgments

years after he passed away. It was a privilege to be able to study Anyang in the first institute that excavated the site. Too many social and political factors have prevented the full bloom of Anyang archaeology in the institute where it all began, but through different means and perhaps very winding routes, I am now able to call myself an Anyang specialist. And that was the meaning of KC’s gleam.

KINGLY CRAFTS

Chapter One

IDENTIFYING AND DEFINING THE ISSUES Craft Production, Elite Culture, and Urban Centers in Bronze Age China

The site of Anyang, the last capital of the Shang dynasty, dated to around 1200–1000 bce,1 is one of the best sources of our knowledge of craft production in Bronze Age China. As the first archaeological site systematically excavated in China, with investigations that have lasted over ninety years,2 Anyang has in many ways shaped the discipline of Chinese archaeology through decades of discoveries and research (e.g., Bagley 1999; Chang 1980; Chen Hongbo 2011; Hein 2016). The high material cultures of Anyang unveiled by the excavations of the settlement, and especially of the royal cemetery, demonstrate the advanced level of Shang craft workers with a wide range of media, from ceramic, stone, jade, bronze, bone, and ivory to wood and lacquer. In addition, the discoveries of several large-scale bone and bronze workshops reveal the scale and capacity of the craft industries that produced these prevalent features of the Shang civilization. In his pioneering research on Anyang, Li Chi identified the Anyang craft industries based on the material culture seen in the archaeological record and the limited amount of workshop debris excavated by the Institute of History and Philology in the 1930s (Li Chi 1977). Li Chi classified the Anyang craft industries into five groups based on the materials used: lithic industry, with products including weapons, tools, decorative pieces, and ritual objects; bone industry, for producing weapons, tools, si-spatulas, hairpins, and bones used for divination; bronze industry, for making ritual bronzes, weapons, tools, and miniature funerary objects; and “other industries,” including wood,

2 I dentifying and D efining the I ssues

textiles, architectural engineering, and transportation (199–208). During Li Chi’s time, little was known about the scale and details of the craft industries at Anyang. Li Chi’s list and classification, written more than forty years ago, were therefore far from comprehensive, but he was keen to recognize that the splendor of the Shang civilization was created by a diverse group of advanced and skillful craft workers. There was a tremendous leap in our understanding of craft production at Anyang after the Institute of Archaeology resumed excavations in the 1950s. From the discovery of the Miaopu North bronze foundry and the Dasikong South bone workshop in the 1960s, to the most recent finds at Xiaomintun, the largest bronze foundry site at Anyang, as well as the massive deposit of bone workshop debris at Tiesanlu, we now know a great deal more than earlier scholars about the technology, the scale of production, and the production organization of the Anyang craft industries. Archaeological data for craft production have come almost exclusively from large-scale production sites, and the most represented and best-understood crafts at Anyang are bronze and bone production. With more limited finds, we also have information regarding pottery production and production of lithic, marble, and shell artifacts related to the high elite. On the other hand, as will be discussed at the end of this chapter (Bias Toward Large-scale Craft Production), we know nothing about household-level craft production due partly to preservation conditions and partly to research strategies. This book is first and foremost grounded in the study of Anyang’s archaeological data. It presents a bottom-up approach to formulate observations on technology, craft industries, production organization, and, ultimately, the social and political structures behind craft production by analyzing and building upon empirical data gathered in the field. It is also an intra-site approach that chooses to understand the Bronze Age metropolis first before making broader regional and theoretical generalizations. Given the current state of research in Anyang archaeology, it is high time to synthesize and contextualize the tremendous amount of information generated over the past ninety years of excavations. Only after we have a good understanding of how Anyang functioned as a metropolis can we begin to understand how Anyang functioned as a regional center. This book is an archaeological study that deals with a set of incomplete and unbalanced data on craft-producing activities. It studies only crafts that have left physical evidence for manufacturing activities and the workshop itself. In other words, only crafts with archaeological finds of workshop

3 I dentifying and D efining the I ssues

remains and workshop facilities are examined. Consequently, the book is not an attempt to provide a comprehensive review of crafts and technology in Anyang in the sense of Moorey’s Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries (1994), or Lucas’s Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries (1989). It is also not a scientific overview of Shang technology in the tradition of Joseph Needham et al.’s monumental project, Science and Civilisation in China (Needham et al. 1954–2008). The technologies covered by this study, on the basis of surviving data, therefore include bronze making, bone working, pottery making, stone blade making, and shell and marble inlay production. Craft industries that worked with organic materials, such as textile production and carpentry, must have been equally developed at Anyang. They are, however, not discussed, as we have no data concerning the actual manufacturing process or workshop facilities. In addition, as almost no information exists for Anyang household-level craft production, it is impossible to delineate craft production performed in domestic contexts for daily activities. Data discussed in the book therefore do not cover the full scope of craft production as observed in other ancient civilizations such as Egypt, Mesopotamia, or Mesoamerica. POSITIONING THIS STUDY IN THE TRADITION OF ANYANG ARCHAEOLOGY

Anyang was first excavated by the Institute of History and Philology (IHP), Academia Sinica (AS) between 1928 and 1937. Excavations were resumed in 1950, soon after the Chinese civil war ended, by the Institute of Archaeology (IA), Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). The most important finds by the earlier IHP excavations include a cache of inscribed oracle bones, the Xibeigang royal cemetery, and several clusters of rammed-earth foundations at Xiaotun, thought to be the temples and palaces of the ruling elite. Later, decades of year-round excavations by several generations of IA archaeologists helped to delineate the extent of the urban center; established a detailed pottery chronology; and have provided a new and better understanding of the Bronze Age metropolis in terms of mortuary practices, material culture, settlement patterns, public infrastructure, and especially large-scale craft production. The IHP finds pale in comparison to those of the IA in terms of the volume of data obtained. Yet thanks to the nature of the IHP finds, namely the material culture of the royal elite, these earlier discoveries are still unique and unparalleled by the new IA data (see Li Yung-ti ed. 2009 for

4 I dentifying and D efining the I ssues

some of the important IHP finds). The relocation of IHP to Taiwan with the Nationalist government in 1948, however, means that data from the same site are now kept separately at two institutes on opposite sides of the Taiwan Strait. While detailed IHP publications enabled the integration of the pre– civil war data with the more recent finds, it has been difficult to make close comparative studies based on the actual artifacts.3 Anyang archaeology has gone through several distinctive stages in the past ninety years, with each stage characterized by different focuses and limitations. What follows is a brief and much simplified account of the development of the field. Despite the groundbreaking and monumental finds, the IHP excavations in the 1930s represent the early explorative years of Anyang archaeology. Initial and experimental attempts in the field, flaws in excavation procedures, especially during the first nine seasons at Xiaotun, and the inevitable loss of data and field notes during the turmoil of the SinoJapanese war and the Chinese civil war have left many questions about the IHP excavations unanswerable. After IA resumed field research in 1950, the scale of the excavations expanded exponentially; however, the kind of data and information being collected has been determined mostly by preservation conditions, emphasis on excavating burials, and the innate limiations of large-scale salvage projects driven by local economic and construction activities. Research and publications have focused more on the descriptive and culture-history approach to the archaeological data, which continues to generate new and essential research in the field. The new millennium is characterized by the internationalization of Anyang archaeology, which brought forth new analystical and theoretical approaches. International and research-driven joint projects began first at the pre-Anyang Huanbei settlement (e.g., He 2016b; He et al. 2010; Jing et al. 2004, 2013; Tang 2000; Tang et al. 2000, 2003, 2010, 2016), and dissertation research with an anthropological archaeological orientation also began to appear (e.g., Haapanen 2005; Li Yung-ti 2003). At the same time, as more new discoveries were generated via the year-round salvage excavations with the modern city of Anyang expanding geographically and economically, the rigorous culture-history approach continued to be the main pracitce in order to place new finds in the existing archaeological context (see, for instance, IA 2014, 2018, 2020 for recent publications of the Dasikong and Xiaomintun excavations). Invesitgations at Huanbei also prompted the need to understand Anyang both in the overall settlement and the regional scales

5 I dentifying and D efining the I ssues

(e.g., Jing et al. 2004, 2013; Tang et al. 1998, 2016). Most recently, through intensification of international collaborations and the successful application of scientific analytical techniques and experimental archaeology, new research questions are being raised, and exciting and revolutionary results are beginning to drastically change our understanding of the ancient capital (e.g., Campbell et al. 2011; Cheung et al. 2015; Stoltman et al. 2009, 2018; Yue Zhanwei et al. 2014; Zhang Hua et al. 2017). Despite gaps and flaws, the data obtained during these three stages and through the different approaches, i.e. culture-history, anthropological archaeology, and archaeology of sciences, are both cumulative and complementary. Academically, I characterize this study as situated in between the traditional culture-history approach and the anthropological archaeological approach. In it, I consciously attempt to incorporate questions and research orientations more routinely addressed in anthropological archaeology, especially those related to craft production. At the same time, I maintain a degree of affinity with the traditional historical and culture-history approaches as my understanding of the archaeological data retrieved during the IHP campaign and by the IA comes from the culture-history tradition that is still in practice today. This book has yet to fully benefit from the new and emerging research results based on scientific analysis. This book is one of the few attempts in English to integrate data from IHP and IA by examining the actual archaeological records directly.4 It represents my many years of research on Anyang, during which I travelled between Taiwan and China studying artifacts in the IHP storage and at the IA Anyang field station.5 Archaeological data from IHP and IA complement each other in different ways, and it is amply clear that we can obtain a more complete understanding of the urban center only through research on both collections. For instance, the bronze foundry remains excavated by IHP represent an earlier section-mold casting technology, while the IA finds reveal the massive scale of Anyang bronze production. For large-scale bone production, workshop data come exclusively from the IA finds, while the artifact assemblages found by IHP in the royal cemetery provide the broad range of osseous products manufactured at Anyang. In addition, it is through examining the repertoire of these osseous objects that we begin to see what is lacking in the data from the large-scale bone workshops, underscoring the need to search for the “royal workshop.” Evidence for ivory working, shell and marble inlay working, and stone blade working, scanty as it may be, came

6 I dentifying and D efining the I ssues

only from the IHP excavations in Xiaotun. Finally, IA archaeologists located the pottery kilns that had been conspicuously absent in Anyang’s record. The focus of the book therefore shifts between IHP and IA materials according to the types of craft activities in question. MISSING LINKS: THE ELUSIVE ANYANG ECONOMY

Anyang has long been deemed a political and religious center (e.g., Chang 1976, 1980; Wheatley 1971), a response developed out of traditional elitecentric historiography and the study of oracle bone inscriptions, which reflect mostly the activities and the perspective of the Shang king (see discussions in Bagley 1999). As the divination records of oracle bones and the inscriptions on bronze vessels, for instance, highlight the ritual and political aspects of Shang elites, the study of Anyang and the Shang society inevitably becomes the study of the social, ritual, and political realms of the elite residents. Under the same rubric, capital cities in Bronze Age China are described as elite lineage seats (e.g., Chang 1976, 1980; Falkenhausen 2008), and the early Chinese urban systems are seen as primarily top-down centers that meet the needs of the elite to control and to administer, or to serve a military function (Falkenhausen 2018; Wu and Gaubatz 2020). In addition, due to the prevailing dynastic model in historiography, more often than not, scholars fall back on the tributary model to explain the economic structure of Bronze Age China (e.g., Chang 1980; Liu and Chen 2003). This top-down approach has come at the expense of other equally important but overshadowed aspects of the settlement and its nonelite residents, and the other economic aspects and functions of capital cities in Early Bronze Age China such as Anyang are often downplayed (for discussions on the use of the dynastic model, see Bagley 1999; Li Yung-ti 2014, 2017). And when textual records of economic activities become more available for the later periods, scholars may see a drastic sociopolitical transformation represented by the emerging economic sectors (e.g., Hsu 1965; Barbieri-Low 2007; Falkenhausen 2018), rather than treating the changes as a legacy from the Early Bronze Age. There are very few written records of bookkeeping and economic transactions from Anyang (for a discussion on record keeping seen in oracle bone inscriptions, see Wang Haicheng 2014, 2015). We are also much less informed about the lives and economic activities of commoners and the function of the capital as a center of consumption and production even in the sense of an elite-controlled political economy. While studies of ancient Egyptian,

7 I dentifying and D efining the I ssues

Mesopotamian, and Mesoamerican civilizations routinely discuss market exchange and economic activities, thanks to the rich body of economic records and ethnohistorical accounts, with few exceptions (e.g., Campbell et al. 2011), such topics are conspicuously missing in the archaeological literature of Anyang and also Early Bronze Age China in general. The lack of such records makes it implausible to discuss both the mundane daily life of the Anyang populace and other aspects of elite life beyond the ritual and political realms. The economic aspects of Shang society hence become invisible and elude the attention of scholars working in the field. While some archaeologists began to seek alternative approaches to address such issues (e.g., Campbell et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2007; Reinhart 2015, 2018), the predominant thesis in the field on the nature of the Shang society still overlooks the economic aspects. On the other hand, scholars, especially epigraphers and historians using received texts and historiography, often describe a market economy operating in the Shang period without providing detailed analysis other than following a set of predetermined assumptions derived from the classic Marxist economic theories (e.g., Yang Shengnan 1992b; see related discussion in Li Yung-ti 2006). It is therefore difficult to generate theoretical models that do not prioritize the elite and political aspects based on the current academic tradition and state of research. If there is going to be any change in the field of ancient China on this topic, it will have to come from archaeology. We can only begin to talk about trade and exchange once we have ample evidence that delineates the system of supply and demand and the route of trade and exchange in Early Bronze Age China. We see promising projects by Campbell et al., who continue to pursue the topic of external trade by Anyang through the study of bone artifact production (personal communications with Campbell and Li Zhipeng; see also chapter 4). More similar studies are needed, especially those with the scientific means to source and trace the movement of raw materials and finished products. All being said, before we have enough data and research to reorient our interpretation of the Chinese Bronze Age economy, we have to rely on the existing evidence to address these issues. This book, therefore, follows the model that the last Shang capital at Anyang was mainly the product of a top-down approach by the elite, and the function of the city was mostly to serve the elite, while the nature of the economic and private sectors of the city remains unclear. At the same time, craft production, based on the

8 I dentifying and D efining the I ssues

data surveyed in this book, especially large-scale craft production and small artisan-centered production serving the high elite, was primarily operating within the realm and under the control of the elite. In other words, I argue that a strong state presence and the state apparatus were responsible for managing the craft production system in Anyang (chapter 6). This is not a stance without faults or liabilities, but it is the position I am taking here, based on my understanding of the available data. NATURE OF THE DATA

Similar to any archaeological site with a long heritage of research, the tremendous amount of data obtained over the past nine decades from Anyang is not always consistent, compatible, or complete in terms of the quality, types of information retrieved, or the theoretical and methodological approaches followed. Various methodological and theoretical issues in the field of Anyang archaeology can only be alluded to, since some of them cannot be successfully resolved given the current state of research in the field, especially because the research and interpretations in this book are still grounded in and shaped by the legacy of previous Anyang scholars. Additional notes need to be made first about the temporal and spatial range of data used in this book. The discovery of the pre-Anyang walled settlement of Huanbei Shang City 洹北商城, which is located across the Huan River and northeast of the Xiaotun temple-palace complex, revolutionized Anyang archaeology (e.g., Jing et al. 2013; Tang et al. 2000). The discovery immediately calls into question the relationship between the two settlements, the factors that led to the close proximity of the large settlements that must have been the political, cultural, and economic centers of their own time, and the continuity and changes that must have occurred. Archaeologists recently located the craft production areas of the Huanbei site and found workshop remains for bronze and bone working, revealing craft industries with similar technologies that are earlier than those observed at Anyang. These finds are currently being analyzed, and formal publications are not yet available. Due to these factors, and since the Huanbei finds clearly predate Anyang, data for craft production at Huanbei are not reviewed in this book. The Anyang data discussed in this book come mainly from within the National Yinxu Archaeological Protection Zone (殷墟國家重點保護區), i.e., data obtained by the IHP during the 1930s and by the IA since 1950. The protection zone, with an area of 24 square kilometers, was demarcated

9 I dentifying and D efining the I ssues

in 1961 and was based on the distribution of Late Shang remains, seen as marking the extent of the Yinxu settlement, in the area known at the time (see figure 2.1). Since then, excavations within the protection zone have been conducted exclusively by the IA. In 1986, the Anyang Municipal Cultural Relics Work Team, now the Anyang Municipal Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, was established. It has since been in charge of excavations outside of the protection zone. Excavations by the municipal institute over the past three decades have extended the distribution of the Late Shang remains further south and the area of the site is now estimated to be over 36 square kilometers. In addition, the municipal institute recently located two bronze foundry sites, Xindian 辛店 and Renjiazhuang 任家莊, outside of the 1961 protection zone (Anyang Municipal 2018; Kong et al. 2017). Data obtained by the two Anyang institutes are without doubt integral parts of the site and the finds made by the municipal institute have drastically changed our understanding of the size and the extent of the Yinxu settlement. However, further research is needed to place finds from within and outside of the protection zone into the overall context of the last Shang capital, and since the two new foundry sites are yet to be fully reported, they are, regrettably, not included in this book. Early IHP Finds

With hindsight, it is clear that the excavation procedures employed by the first-generation Chinese archaeologists in the IHP Anyang campaign in the 1930s were flawed. It is particularly true for the first nine seasons at Xiaotun, where 1 × 10 meter trenches and arbitrary horizontal excavation levels were used. Li Chi was brought to IHP from Tsinghua University by the IHP director Fu Ssu-nien to head the archaeology department and to take over the Anyang campaign after the first season (Li Chi 1977). Li, trained as a physical anthropologist at Harvard, adopted procedures used in Mesopotamia and opened narrow test trenches to sound the unknown site. Again, with hindsight, we now know that the IHP archaeologists were unable to discern the extent of the large rammed-earth features in Architecture Group A during the first nine seasons of the IHP Anyang campaign because of the limited horizontal exposure. Liang Ssu-yung is credited with implementing changes in the excavation procedures after he joined IHP in the tenth season in 1934, when the archaeological team moved to Xibeigang to excavate the royal cemetery. Like

10 I dentifying and D efining the I ssues

Li Chi, Liang received his PhD from Harvard but, unlike Li, he was trained as a field archaeologist and had worked in the American Southwest under the supervision of A. V. Kidder (Browman and Williams 2013). The tremendous size of the royal tombs at Xibeigang forced Liang to adjust the excavation plan from trench-based to feature-based procedures, which in turn inspired the use of joined 10 × 10 meter excavation units by Shih Chang-ju when the IHP team returned to Xiaotun for the last three seasons. According to Shih, it was only with the larger trenches that IHP archaeologists were able to better expose features such as the rammed-earth foundations in the temple-palace complex. However, the use of arbitrary levels for horizontal control during excavation, instead of following natural layers, meant that much of the stratigraphic information, especially the originating level of the features, was lost. Also, because the bulk of the excavated potsherds, crucial for dating, were not preserved or transported to Taiwan during the wars, it is now impossible to assign more precise dates to the IHP finds, even though a well-established and fine-tuned pottery chronology has been established by the IA archaeologists. These factors mean that the IHP finds cannot always be securely dated—particularly true for finds from the first nine seasons of excavations at the Xiaotun temple-palace complex. However, despite the deficiency in the field procedures, the IHP Anyang archaeologists marshaled tremendous efforts in publishing their work on the excavations and the finds during the constant relocating of the institute across China and after the institute settled in Taiwan. Thanks to the detailed information made available in the multivolume monographs from IHP, later archaeologists can reevaluate the data according to new discoveries made after 1950.6 Workshop vs. Workshop Debris

Chinese archaeological literature does not clearly distinguish between the discovery of a workshop (zuofang 作坊) and the discovery of workshop debris and waste (zuofang yiwu 作坊遺物). The former by definition refers to the facilities, installations, layout, and spatial configuration of the workplace—in other words, the primary context of craft production. The latter simply refers to the waste and debitage produced during the manufacturing process. The location where the debris is found usually represents a secondary context, as production waste is often transported away from the workshop to be disposed of in a different location, such as a dumping ground,

11 I dentifying and D efining the I ssues

which allows production to continue in the workshop. The conflation of the two archaeological contexts inevitably generates methodological and theoretical blind spots in Chinese archaeology (see Chang Huaiying 2017; Sun 2008, 2009 for discussions of the issues). More often than not, when Chinese archaeologists report the finding of a workshop, what’s actually found are trash pits with deposits of refuse generated from craft production activities elsewhere. It is assumed that the trash pits were near the actual workshop and should be considered as part of the workshop area in general. However, workshop debris could also be used to fill in pits, disused wells, or natural or artificial depressions in the landscape or living quarters, as shown in many examples from Anyang. The debris in the wells and in the large earthen pits formed by soil extraction for building rammed-earth structures (Yue and Yue 2012), for instance, was no doubt formed by multiple events. Without knowing the formation processes and the depositional context of workshop debris, there is the risk of misinterpreting the behavioral aspects of the archaeological data. Occasionally in situ workshop-related features and facilities are found, although at Anyang preservation condition and sampling strategy in the salvage projects complicate researchers’ attempts to investigate the extent of the physical workshop. The general preservation conditions at Anyang and the routine practice of Anyang archaeology affect the types of archaeological data that are selected or deselected in field investigations, and they tend to disfavor the discovery of the actual craft production area, the workshop itself. The continuous occupation at Anyang since the Shang dynasty and the ever-booming modern construction activities have caused constant disturbance and destruction of the archaeological record. In reviewing the Xiaomintun salvage project, one of the largest of its kind in the history of Anyang archaeology, Wang Xuerong and He Yuling commented on how the top portion of the cultural layers was already removed by later intrusions and how aboveground features rarely survived (Wang and He 2007). On the other hand, due to time and budget constraints, areas with a concentration of cultural deposits, such as burials and trash pits, are regularly prioritized. As ancient workshop areas may be void of cultural deposits due to constant cleaning when in operation, the actual workshop can be missed in the routine pre-excavation coring used to determine the placement of excavation trenches for salvage projects at Anyang. Strictly speaking, most of the workshop-related finds at Anyang, bronze and pottery workshops being the exceptions, are only the trash pits and the waste. It can be argued that without locating the actual workshop,

12 I dentifying and D efining the I ssues

waste deposits from crafting activities do not necessarily testify to the exact location of the workshop area. In most cases, archaeologists only have the contents of the workshop waste dump to work with, which means that information on the spatial configuration and physical layout of the work area cannot be extracted. When placed in the context of the urban center of Anyang, the locations of the concentrated workshop remains do speak to the spatial configuration of craft-producing activities and the overall production organization within the settlement. The massive volume of workshop remains reflects the scale of operation, which in turn indicates that fixed facilities and installations were required. The occasional finds of workshop facilities and installations, especially those for the pyrotechnologically transformative crafts such as bronze and pottery making, then provide a sketch of what the physical workshop would have been like and indicate clearly the locations where certain workshop operations took place (see chapters 3 and 5). The amount of craft production data coming from Anyang is so large (see chapter 2) that archaeologists simply have to tackle the issues, accept the deficiency in the data, and work with what is available. As shown in this book, the physical remains, finished and unfinished, from the workshop provide ample evidence to study Anyang craft production. For instance, workshop debris of waste, blanks, preforms, and semifinished products from bone and lithic workshops reveal reduction strategies, operational sequences, technological choices, standardization in procedures, and scale of production (chapters 4 and 5). Finished products identified from workshop remains and unearthed from residential and especially burial contexts provide clues for workshop practices such as the standardization of procedures and dimensions (chapter 4), the intended clientele (chapters 5 and 6), and the nature and social-cultural value of the products, whether they are bronze, bone, or shell and marble (chapters 3, 4, and 5). Despite the data’s deficiencies, we can still approach the study of Anyang craft production from many different angles. Bias Toward Large-scale Craft Production

One of the main issues in the study of Anyang craft production is the imbalance of the data: large-scale craft production is almost exclusively presented in the archaeological record while we have little information for other forms of craft-producing activities. The available data for craft production also do

13 I dentifying and D efining the I ssues

not represent the entirety of the material culture at Anyang or even that of the Shang elite. For instance, due to preservation condition and research orientation, we lack adequate data for household-level craft production in Anyang. The gap in data is also present for large-scale craft production. While pottery making is one of the most important crafts in Anyang judging from the volumes of potsherds found, the lack of data and research on the pottery workshops necessarily limits the discussion on pottery production. The massive quantity of large-scale workshop waste and refuse has therefore made archaeologists focus their attention mainly on bronze and bone craft production in the context of state and elite sponsorship and full-time specialists (e.g., Bagley 1999; Campbell et al. 2011; Li Yung-ti 2003, 2007; Sun 2008, 2009a, 2010). The other spectrums of craft production, such as household-level production by part-time specialists, are often not investigated or addressed. Such practices no doubt create biases and gaps in the understanding of craft production in Bronze Age China, and archaeologists need to incorporate new research topics in the field to begin asking different questions (for such studies on Bronze Age sites predating Anyang, see Bonomo 2018; Liu Li et al. 2007; Reinhart 2018). This lack of understanding, however, does not mean that the topic of state-sponsored craft production is invalid and does not merit further investigation. In fact, if large-scale craft production was a major form of craft production in Anyang, at least according to evidence currently available, it is necessary to provide a synthesized understanding of the material despite apparent shortcomings in the data. The bias in data and emphasis in research toward large-scale craft production, however, do perpetuate the prevalent top-down and elite-centered model of the Anyang economy, an issue that is rooted in the foundation of the discipline and cannot be immediately addressed without new archaeological data. TYPES OF CRAFT PRODUCTION AT ANYANG

In his discussion of the Chinese Bronze Age, Bagley proposes the terms small-scale and large-scale metallurgy to distinguish between the early stage of metallurgy when “technical knowledge is acquired and applied to the manufacture of simple tools and ornaments” and the next stage when “the previously existing technical knowledge is exploited on a previously unknown scale” (Bagley 1999, 137–38). The second stage is characterized by “a stage of production in large quantities . . . [that] depends on elite patronage and . . . is

14 I dentifying and D efining the I ssues

the stage at which a metal industry becomes the province of specialist metalworkers” (138). The transition to the second stage took place in the second millennium and marks the rise of state and civilization and the beginning of the Chinese Bronze Age, i.e., the Erlitou period when metal workers began to use section-mold technology to cast vessels with complex forms (see also Liu and Chen 2003). With this later stage of metallurgy, Bagley emphasizes not only changes in the technological realm but also the social and political organization that allowed for such changes. Ma Xiaolin observes a similar phenomenon in bone artifact production (Ma 2010; see also the conclusion of chapter 4). Ma compares bone artifact making in the Neolithic and bone artifact production in the Erlitou period and points out that in the latter period bone artifact production became more concentrated, large-scale7, and with more standardized artifact forms. Ma argues that the shift to large-scale bone industry, which occurred at the same time that the first state and bronze civilization appeared in China, was due to several factors: the availability of metal saws, the abundance and steady supply of raw material from domesticated cattle, and the sponsorship of the state. The scale and intensity of the Anyang craft industries increased dramatically compared to the preceding centuries, though it built upon the legacy of large-scale craft production of the Erlitou and the subsequent Erligang periods (Bagely 1999; Li Zhipeng et al. 2011; Ma 2010). If we use the common terminology in the anthropological archaeological literature to describe observations made by Bagley and Ma, the large-scale craft industries in Erlitou, Erligang, and Anyang represent elite-sponsored, attached production performed by full-time specialists. And if we try to plot the Anyang craft industries into the now classic charts proposed by Costin (1991, figure  1.4 and table 1.1), they would all fall on the extreme right end of the four parameters: Degree of elite sponsorship: attached, Concentration: nucleated, Scale:8 retainer workshop,9 and Intensity: full-time. Costin has since refined her model and terminology (Costin 1998, 2001), and many scholars in the field of craft production have also moved away from a universal, classificatory, and typological approach and endeavored to develop more nuanced and data-driven narratives (e.g., Costin and Wright 1998; Hruby and Flad 2007; Shimada 2007). This shift occurs especially where written records of craft production, production organization, and political economy are available, such as in the cases of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Indian, Aztec, and Inca civilizations, and indeed the Qin and

15 I dentifying and D efining the I ssues

Han civilizations in China (e.g., Barbieri-Low 2007; Costin and Wright 1998; Ledderose 2000; Sinopoli 2003; Stein and Blackman 1993). While case studies of craft production in ancient civilizations may reveal common patterns and approaches across time and space, they also frequently uncover unique and idiosyncratic practices that cannot easily be fit into existing theoretical models or frameworks, requiring the constant need to revise and rephrase in the literature. I have chosen to follow the more particularistic approach of craft production for this study on Anyang craft industries. I endeavor first to follow terminology used and developed by scholars in the field of ancient Chinese civilizations and then to apply the theoretical frameworks and discussions from anthropological archaeology as guidelines. By these means, I hope to avoid the pitfalls of overgeneralizing. While I share an interest in theory building with my anthropology colleagues, the many gaps and holes in the data that my contemporaries in the field of ancient China have observed make it essential to avoid overly broad generalizations based on what we know currently about Anyang.10 In this book, the term mass production is deliberately avoided in the context of craft production in Shang and Western Zhou China. The term is often encountered in the literature on the craft industries of Early Imperial China and sometimes in the discussion of Eastern Zhou and also Western Zhou craft production. However, it invokes too many layers of meaning and assumptions regarding production organization and production efficiency in the sense of modern industrial and mechanized production. While there were clearly considerations to improve efficiency in terms of workshop layout and manufacturing procedures in Eastern Zhou and Early Imperial China, such arrangements never reached the kind of efficiency observed in modern industrialized factories. A more neutral term, large-scale, following Bagley, is used instead throughout the book to describe the scale and intensity of the Anyang craft industries. Here, I use only a simple tripartite scheme to describe the types of craft production observed in the archaeological data from Anyang while acknowledging that we do not have sufficient information concerning details of the production organization of these workshops: large-scale workshop, small artisan-centered workshop, and household production. These terms are used mostly to describe the production context and do not directly address the status or identity of the craft workers, since we have virtually no information concerning them. Large-scale workshop refers to the massive bronze and bone

16 I dentifying and D efining the I ssues

artifact production (chapters 3 and 4) and is related to the “retainer workshop” in Costin’s terminology (Costin 1991, 2001). It is intended to invoke the sense of large-scale, multiple full-time and attached specialists, concentrated and permanent facilities, and complex internal division of labor. The term small artisan-centered workshop refers to craft production that requires artistic and more specialized skills, produces items with high quality, and has lower output volume. The term artisan is also used to refer to craft workers working on status objects for the exclusive use of the high elite and emphasizes the exclusiveness of the service provided by the artisans.11 Examples of artisan-centered crafts are lapidary production, ivory working, decorated spatula making, and the making of shell and marble inlays (chapter 5). Household production is the least represented form of craft production at Anyang. It has been inferred based on waste from bone artifact making found in residential contexts (IA 1987, 93, 383; IA 1994, 93), although there has yet to be any systematic investigation of household-based bone working or indeed any craft-producing activities. Household production is therefore only discussed in the context of bone production (chapter 4). Strictly speaking, large-scale workshops and small artisan-centered workshops are currently the only two forms of craft production significantly represented by manufacturing remains in Anyang. Assigning categories of production organization to these different An­yang craft industries may not necessarily be productive, as variations exist among similar crafts, and attributes are shared among different forms of craft production. Even though bronze production and bone production in Anyang were both conducted in large and factory-style scale, they are still very different in terms of the absence or presence of high-status objects. The An­yang bone industry focused on a limited range of utilitarian objects, mainly hairpins and arrowheads, while there is no evidence for the production of highstatus items that required special skills, especially the skills of designing and executing fine and elaborate decorations on bone artifacts such as those from the royal tombs. These tasks were probably performed in the production area under direct royal control (chapter 5). Bronze workshops, on the other hand, manufactured a much wider range of products, from common vessel types to those meant for the high elite, ones with unique and intricate forms and decorations and ones that are exceptionally large. The bronze and bone industries differ significantly in how the production is organized, especially in the division of labor. Highly skilled artisans must also have been present at the bronze workshop, as the designing and carving of complex decorations on the model

17 I dentifying and D efining the I ssues

and the mold required special skills. With the division of labor between clay working and metal working and the possible separation of decoration carving and bronze casting in the bronze foundry (chapter 3), the massive deposit of foundry remains possibly represents the location where most casting was performed, and master carvers in charge of engraving the intricate decorations worked at separate locations. The terms and terminology used in this book are therefore based mainly on the nature of the archaeological data from Anyang. They are descriptive working definitions to facilitate discussion and will require revision once more information and new research on Anyang craft production are available. And since there is no clear reference to craft production in contemporary textual records from Anyang, the terminology used in this book does not have the same resolution as what is used for later time periods. ORGANIZATION AND CONTENT OF THE BOOK

Structurally this book is organized into three parts: introduction (chapters 1 and 2; case studies (chapters 3, 4, and 5); and conclusion (chapter 6). Chapters 1 and 2 establish the historical and theoretical context of the book. In particular, chapter 1 reviews, both historically and academically, where this study is situated in Anyang archaeology. It explains the constraints of the archaeological data and the limitations embedded in the theoretical discussion due to the current state of research in the field. Chapter 2 briefly summarizes in chronological order the history of excavations where workshop remains were unearthed. It also sketches out the temporal and spatial framework of the finds related to craft production in order to provide synchronic and diachronic perspectives to further examine the production organization and the political economy behind Anyang’s craft industries. The two most important features of the Anyang craft industries are shown in this analysis: craft production activities tended to cluster together, forming production precincts despite the technological differences, and multiple production precincts for the same crafts coexisted and operated simultaneously. For the case studies, chapter 3 focuses on bronze production, chapter 4 on osseous artifact production, and chapter 5 on inlay, stone blade, and pottery production. Bronze production is the best represented and best studied craft industry in Anyang. Chapter 3 summarizes research and finds related to the section-mold casting technology and provides a simplified version of the operational sequence of the craft. It summarizes and intervenes in a

18 I dentifying and D efining the I ssues

recent debate on how the bronze decor was prepared, using results obtained through simple replication experiments. Since almost all of the information concerning workshop setup and workshop facilities in Anyang comes from bronze production, Chapter 3 takes a closer look at the data to delineate the physical layout of the bronze workshop and how the spatial arrangement of one particular workshop, Miaopu North, changed through time. The chapter also discusses changes and technological innovations in the Anyang sectionmold technology by comparing early mold fragments discovered by IHP from a sealed context underneath Palatial Structure B5 to those excavated by IA from later workshops that operated on a much larger scale. Chapter 4 deals with bone production at Anyang by examining both remains from the large-scale factory workshops and the bone artifact assemblages in the Xibeigang royal cemetery. While several locales yielded a tremendous amount of waste from bone working, the range of product types, mainly hairpins and arrowheads, represented in the remains is surprisingly narrow. I therefore begin the chapter by reviewing osseous artifacts found in the royal cemetery to establish the fuller repertoire of products manufactured by the Anyang bone industry. I then borrow the manufacturing continuum model proposed by Choyke (1997) to identify the types of bone artifacts based on the degree of manufacturing. I argue that from the known osseous artifact assemblages, especially those found in the royal cemetery, there must have been different modes of bone production: one that produced the highstatus objects for the royal elite, i.e., the royal artisan workshop; one  that focused on large-scale production of selected types of mundane objects; and one that took place at a local level in households or work areas using ad hoc bone tools. I also reconstruct the reduction sequences of processing cattle limb bones into spatulas and examine dimensional standardization in arrowhead and bead making. The chapter concludes by stating that largescale bone workshop production in Anyang reflects not only the advanced bone working technology but also the highly developed animal husbandry of cattle that provided the steady and abundant supply of raw material. Chapter 5 examines other crafts represented by workshop remains found in the archaeological context at Anyang. These include shell and marble inlay working, ivory working, stone blade working, and pottery production. Unlike the bronze and bone industries, they are less represented in the archaeological record, and our understanding of these crafts is rather incomplete. For instance, pottery is one of the most ubiquitous utilitarian objects in Anyang; however, evidence for pottery production comes mainly from a handful

19 I dentifying and D efining the I ssues

of locales where clusters of kilns were found, indicating that that pottery production was also conducted in a concentrated and large-scale manner, similar to bronze and bone production. I also examine the production of high-status objects, which most likely took place in artisan-centered workshops in the Xiaotun temple-palace complex. In fact, the northern section of the Xiaotun temple-palace complex, especially Daliankeng and Architecture Group A, may have been the production quarters of multiple crafts, i.e., shell and marble inlay working, ivory working, and stone blade working, and crafts that produced multimedia objects such as shell and marble inlaid lacquer objects controlled by the Shang court. In chapter 6, I examine craft production at Anyang at the settlement level in the context of the last Shang capital. As the production precincts clearly operated above the community level, indicated by the scale of operation, the investment in workshop installations and facilities, the obtaining and provisioning of raw material, and the distribution of finished products, the different forms of craft production previously discussed need to be placed in the overall social and political context of the capital. The immediate question is who or what social group ran the workshops. I argue that the prevalent model of lineage being the basic social unit for settlements and cemeteries is not based on solid data but only on conventional assumptions. We should not, therefore, extend it to craft production out of convenience. Here the models and terminology for urban societies developed in the studies of other civilizations can be used to better describe Anyang. Based on the new, albeit scanty, discoveries of architectural remains and residential units outside of the Xiaotun temple-palace complex, we have preliminary data representing households, neighborhoods/communities, and districts in terms of the spatial configuration of the Anyang urban landscape. The identification of neighborhoods in Anyang is especially significant (Jing et al. 2013; Tang et al. 2016; Tang and Jing 2009; Yue and Yue 2014a), as we now begin to see evidence for and scholarly attention to the bottom-up formation process through these new archaeological finds. I would still like to argue, however, that craft production in Anyang, especially the large-scale workshop production, remain the results of top-down processes. Besides the well-cited factors such as the gruesome human and animal sacrifices and the spatial configuration of the royal cemetery and the temple-palace complex, the strong presence of top-down management in the capital is further supported by the recent discovery of public infrastructure such as water canals and road systems, which signaled deliberate efforts

20 I dentifying and D efining the I ssues

in urban planning (Jing et al. 2013; Tang et al. 2016). I argue that it is in this context that craft production at Anyang should be placed and reviewed. The artisan-centered workshops no doubt directly served the royal court and the high elite. The multicraft production precincts scattered across the capital, meanwhile, indicate how the state managed and controlled the various large-scale craft industries through distribution of resources and control over the products. The title of this book, Kingly Crafts, therefore refers to the kings, or the ruling elite, and how they manufactured their material culture. In Anyang, we are no longer looking at an elite class that sought to legitimize itself through control over the material world or to solidify its governance over the population by negotiating via material culture between both the present and the inside world and the past and the outside world (Helms 1993). We are seeing a well-rooted and full-fledged ruling elite utilizing and wielding its political and societal power over the general population, perhaps in a coercive way, for its own benefit (Bagley 1999; Campbell 2009, 2014; Chang 1980; Keightley 1999b). We see a formative but at the same time fully functional state apparatus that was capable of extracting, transporting, distributing, and monopolizing resources by commanding its subjects for its own purposes (Chang 1980; Liu and Chen 2003; Keightley 1999b, 2012). At the moment, this is a monolithic and top-down interpretation that on the surface looks one-dimensional and without finer nuances. For now, it is a hypothesis that is based on archaeological research in Anyang and awaits further validation.

Chapter Two

CRAFT PRODUCTION AT THE LAST SHANG CAPITAL

This chapter reviews and summarizes the history of archaeological discoveries related to craft production at Anyang. The discussion is arranged in the chronological order of the excavations, which can be separated into three stages: workshops excavated by IHP in the late 1920s and 1930s; workshops excavated by IA between the 1950s and the 1980s; and workshops excavated by IA after 2000 (see figure 2.1 for sites discussed).1 Only craft-producing activities represented by production remains are examined. Detailed discussions on individual crafts will be given in subsequent chapters. WORKSHOPS EXCAVATED BY IHP IN THE 1920S AND 1930S

Along with the ground-breaking finds at the royal cemetery, caches of oracle bones, and the temple-palace complex, the IHP campaign at Anyang also uncovered for the first time various craft production remains from bronze and bone workshops and from lithic and shell production, most of which was concentrated in the northern part of the temple-palace complex located northeast of Xiaotun village, now referred to as Xiaotun Northeast by IA archaeologists. Even though the amount of workshop remains is small compared to the later finds by IA, these discoveries are still important as they may come from workshops under direct control of the royal lineage (see chapter 5). Workshop debris found by IHP came from the first nine seasons, between 1928 and 1934, and the last three seasons, seasons thirteen through fifteen, between 1936 and 1937, of the campaign. Due to the different excavation

22 C raft P roduction at the   L ast   S hang   C apital

Qianhuangpu

Shuangta

Kuhe

Litaocun Guowangdu

Fengan

Nongjizhan Zhoujiaying

Tuwangdu Beishiwang

Songwangdu

Qiukou

Shilipu

Quwangdu

Huoying

Fengjiamiao

Dongwangdu Sanjiazhuang

Qianying

Xibeigang Royal Cemetary

Fanjiazhuang

Hanwangdu

Huayuanzhuang

Songjiamiao

Houjiazhuang Caiku Beixinzhuang

Wuguancun

Huanbei

PalaceTemple District

Xiaosikongcun

airport

Sanfuzhuang

1 2

3 Xiaomintun

West Zone

Dasikongcun

Huan River 4

5 6 7

Xiaotun Sipanmo Temple-Palace District Xiaozhuang 8

Baijiafen

Xuejiazhuang

Meiyuanzhuang

Wangyukou

Haojiaqiao

Jiaoshaocun

Huayuanzhuang 10

11

Yinxu

12

Renjiazhuang Xujiaqiao

Liujiazhuang

Liujiazhuang Sanjizhuang

Tujiazhuang

Tijiakou

Xiaomintun 1 Beixinzhuang 2 Xiaomintun West 3 Xiaomintun South 4 Xiaomintun Southeast

Major Archaeological Features of Yinxu and Huanbei in Anyang Bronze Foundry Bone Workshop Jade/Stone Workshop Pottery Workshop Pottery Workshop (unpublished) Production Precinct Moat Major Road Canal National Yinxu Archaeological Protection Zone

14

Guozhuang

Xibalizhuang

Guojiawan

Gaolouzhuang

Guojiazhuang

Qijiazhuang

Dapo

N

Caixiao

13

Dazhuang

Nanxizhuang

9

Hougang

Haojiadian

Linfuzhuang

Yubeishachang

Dongbalizhuang

Xiaotun 5 Architecture Group A 6 Structure B5/Daliankeng 7 Xiaotun North 8 Huayuanzhuang

Dasikong 9 Dasikong 10 Dasikong South

0

1000 m

Miaopu 11 Miaopu North 12 Tiesanlu-Xin’anzhuang 13 Liujiazhuang North 14 Xuejiazhuang

FIGURE 2.1.  Distribution of Anyang craft production sites

procedures and the factors already mentioned, these data are of varying quality. Trenches at Daliankeng were excavated during the second and third seasons and features such as trash pits were only reconstructed in the lab by Shih Chang-ju years after the excavations (see the following section on Daliankeng; Li Chi 1930; Li Yung-ti 2015a; Shih 1981; Tung 1930). Artifacts from Daliankeng, therefore, lack the crucial stratigraphic information and

23 C raft P roduction at the   L ast   S hang   C apital

the depositional context. They can only be treated as a collection of artifacts from the general location of the excavation trenches. On the other hand, workshop debris found during seasons thirteen through fifteen, for instance, those found near Structure B5, can be securely assigned to the related features, although they still cannot be more accurately dated due to the lack of stratigraphic information and the loss of associated potsherds during the Sino-Japanese war and the relocation of IHP. Based on published literature and artifacts now housed in IHP, the IHP campaign at Anyang uncovered workshop remains at the following locations: Daliankeng, excavated during the second and third IHP Anyang seasons (1929–1930), with remains related to bronze casting, lithic production, marble working, shell working, and bone and ivory working; Trenches B3, B15, B16, and B71 in Zone B southeast of Structure B5 during the fourth season (1931), with scattered foundry remains; Structures A4 and A7 during the seventh season (1932); Structures A2 and A3 during the eighth and ninth seasons (1933–1934), with scattered finds of casting mold fragments; Dasikong South on the northern bank of the Huan River during the fourteenth season (1936), with debris from bronze and bone production (Li Yung-ti 2008; Tu and Li 2008); and various structures, especially Structure B5, in Architecture Groups B and C, with foundry remains found during the last three seasons (1936–1937) of the IHP excavations. With the exception of Dasikong South, all other locations are situated at Xiaotun Northeast, within the area of the so-called temple-palace complex (see figure 2.1). Daliankeng 大連坑, Xiaotun Northeast 小屯東北地, 1929, 1930

During the third season of the IHP campaign in winter 1929 and spring 1930, IHP archaeologists encountered rich cultural deposits in trenches placed between Architecture Groups A and B at Xiaotun. Among the finds were a large marble figure; deer skulls inscribed with oracle bone inscriptions; five large turtle plastrons, all fully inscribed; and other “treasures” (Tung 1930). Excavators decided to expand the excavation area and connected the individual 1 × 10 meter trenches. The result was an excavated area of over 150 m2 with many important finds, including raw material, semifinished artifacts, and waste and debris from various craft-producing activities. The locus name Daliankeng, or the Great Connected Trenches, was coined to refer to the connected trenches and the important finds, many encountered for the first time (figure 2.2; Li Chi 1930).2

A5

A4

A6 N

A13

A12

Daliankeng

B2

A11

Architecture Group A

B1

B5

B8

B9

B7

roup B Architecture Group

B11

B18 8

0

B20

50 M

Architecture Group C FIGURE 2.2.  Daliankeng (the Great Connected Trenches) and the Xiaotun temple-palace complex

25 C raft P roduction at the   L ast   S hang   C apital

Li Chi and Tung Tso-pin’s early work (Li Chi 1930, 1977; Tung 1930) discussed the finds from Daliankeng. Li Chi in particular mentioned the finds of bronze foundry debris and the many stone blades, some semifinished. Shih Chang-ju later published further details of the finds from Daliankeng based on field notes and lab work after excavations in the 1959 monograph on architecture remains and the 1985 monograph on the finds of oracle bones in Xiaotun (Shih 1959, 1985). The monographs, however, focus mainly on the rammed-earth features, the associated inscribed oracle bones, and the foundry remains. When foundry remains were encountered during the second and the third seasons of the IHP campaign, Li Chi immediately recognized the significance of the discovery: “These finds . . . prove that the Shang people already knew the art of bronze casting, and the locus of bronze production was here at Xiaotun” (Li Chi 1930, 240–41; author’s translation). There was no mention of any foundry-related features, possibly due to the use of narrow excavation trenches across the site. Li Chi’s observation on the nature of the 1929 discovery, however, was correct and confirmed by subsequent excavations. Compared to the later finds by IA, workshop waste and debris from Daliankeng are few in quantity. However, some of the crafts represented were only found in Daliankeng and were most likely related to the royal court. They include bronze casting, lithic production for stone blades and marble objects, inlay making with materials such as marble and shell, and ivory working. This was the first discovery of these types of activity in the history of Anyang archaeology. Zone B B區, 1931

More foundry remains were found in the fourth season of the IHP campaign in spring 1931. Excavations were again conducted at the site of Xiaotun in order to determine the extent of rammed earth found during earlier seasons (Li Chi 1933a). Foundry-related debris, such as fragments of clay molds, bronze speckles, and furnace slag, were found in several trenches in Zone B (B3, B15, and B16), some were associated with rammed earth (Kuo 1933). With the abundant finds of foundry remains, Kuo Pao-chün (Guo Baojun) concluded in the preliminary report that Trench B3 “was possibly the location where smelting took place,” Trench B16 “the locus for casting bronzes” (Kuo 1933, 581), and that “smelting was possibly also done near Trench B15, as over a hundred pieces of mold fragments and dozens of crucible fragments

26 C raft P roduction at the   L ast   S hang   C apital

(zhuguo 鑄鍋) were uncovered from the location” (594; author’s translation). Kuo also did not mention any workshop-related features. Since it now seems that only melting of ingots, not smelting of ores, was done at the Anyang foundries, what Kuo referred to as slag or crucibles were most likely furnace fragments, based on the artifacts currently in the IHP collection. The extent of the rammed-earth foundations at Xiaotun was partially determined only in the thirteenth through fifteenth seasons of the IHP excavations, and the trenches where foundry remains were unearthed in the fourth season were in fact next to the southeastern corner of Structure B5, where most of the foundry remains at Xiaotun Northeast were concentrated. Structure B5 乙五基址, Xiaotun Northeast, 1936

It was not until the thirteenth season of the IHP campaign that the most extensive discovery of foundry debris was made. Thanks to the employment of a grid system of 10 × 10 meter units that covered the entire site, and to the use of extensive horizontal exposure for uncovering architectural remains, the last three seasons of the IHP excavations at the site of Xiaotun were among the most successful (Shih 1947, 1959). Archaeological contexts of the foundry remains were finally identified when features related to foundry operation, such as a ditch and trash pits with workshop debris, were located. Ashes, casting slag, and fragments of molds, models, and furnaces were found either underneath the foundations, in the foundation fills, or above the foundations (Shih 1959, 329–32), making up the bulk of foundry-related material excavated by the IHP campaign. Shih Chang-ju discussed the foundry remains in detail in his monograph on the Xiaotun architectural remains (Shih 1955, 1959). Dasikong South 大司空村南地, 1936

During the fourteenth season of the IHP excavations, the locals reported a few new looters’ pits in the area south of the village of Dasikong on the northern bank of the Huan River, just opposite the site of Hougang, where the stratigraphic sequence of Yangshao-Longshan-Shang was discovered in 1931 (Liang 1933). The IHP archaeologists rushed to the scene and conducted a season of salvage excavation (Tu and Li 2008; see figure 2.1: 10). The locus was previously excavated by Liang Ssu-yung in 1935, although field notes for the excavation have not survived. The excavation uncovered over ninety burials and a number of trash pits of both Shang and Eastern Zhou dates. Kao Chühsün (Gao Quxun) reported that Pit H16 yielded over eighty mold fragments,

27 C raft P roduction at the   L ast   S hang   C apital

while there are also foundry remains from another pit (H12) in the IHP collection. Among the finds are also waste and semiprocessed bones and antlers from making bone and antler objects. Since the site was near a modern burial ground, 1 × 10 meter trenches were dug to avoid disturbing the modern graves. The site was therefore not fully excavated and the extent of the distribution of foundry and bone workshop remains is unclear. IA archaeologists located a large bone workshop near Dasikong and several seasons of excavations were conducted. The bone workshop debris found in the 1930s likely came from the fringe of the much larger bone workshop at Dasikong (Li Yung-ti 2008).3 It is now clear that the foundry remains underneath Structure B5 can be dated to the early half of the Yinxu period. As mold fragments from Dasikong belong to the same Type I molds as those found underneath B5, they should also be dated to the early half of the Yinxu period. Bronze casting activities represented by the finds from Daliankeng, however, extended into the second half of the Yinxu period, as the mold fragments belong to the later Type II molds (see chapter 3 for discussion of Type I and II molds). Bone workshop remains in Dasikong should be treated as part of the Dasikong bone workshop, hence sharing the same Yinxu Periods II–IV dates. Dates for the rest of the craft-producing activities in Xiaotun, however, are not clear due to the loss of stratigraphic context and datable artifacts. WORKSHOPS EXCAVATED BY IA IN THE 1950S AND 1960S

The Institute of Archaeology, first under the Chinese Academy of Sciences and later the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, was established in 1950. The institute immediately resumed excavations at Anyang. In 1958, the Anyang Archaeological Team was formed in order to conduct systematic and long-term research at the site (Zheng Zhenxiang 1988, 931). Archaeological fieldwork and research by the Anyang field station have since generated a tremendous volume of data and have in many aspects expanded and surpassed early research conducted by IHP.4 Bronze Foundry at Xuejiazhuang 薛家莊, 1957

Xuejiazhuang is situated south of the Huan River, about 500 meters east of the Miaopu North foundry and 1 kilometer southeast of Xiaotun village. In 1957, two years before the IA excavations at Miaopu North, the Henan Provincial Cultural Relics Team uncovered some foundry debris during a local salvage excavation at Xuejiazhuang (Zhou Dao and Liu Dongya 1963).

28 C raft P roduction at the   L ast   S hang   C apital

The excavation was conducted on a much smaller scale with a total excavated area of 175 square meters. Excavators found casting slag, bronze prills, charcoal, over one thousand mold fragments, and sherds of the large funnel-shaped “jiangjun kui 將軍盔” vessels. Bronze types identified from the mold fragments include ritual vessels such as gu 觚, gui 簋, zhi 觶, ding 鼎, and yan 甗, and weapons such as spearheads and ge 戈-halberds (214). The brief preliminary report made no particular mention of model pieces. Other foundry debris, such as grinding stones, charcoal remains, and sherds of jiangjun kui, may suggest that the locale was mainly used for bronze casting. The size of the excavation was too limited to determine the extent of the workshop area at the time (IA 2001, 92). With hindsight, the close proximity of the three foundry sites in the area—Miaopu North, Xuejiazhuang, and Xin’anzhuang West—indicates that they were most likely sections of the same bronze workshop, or indeed sections of the same craft production precinct if the bone workshop in Tiesanlu and the pottery kilns at Liujiazhuang North are considered. Pottery associated with the foundry remains suggests a date from Yinxu Period II through IV (IA 2001). Miaopu North Bronze Foundry 苗圃北地, 1959, 1961, 1963

One of the major discoveries in the early years of the Anyang Archaeological Team was the bronze foundry site at Miaopu North (see also chapter 3). The site is located 1 kilometer south of Xiaotun village and about 500 meters away from the Xuejiazhuang and Xin’anzhuang West sites, where foundry remains were also discovered. Excavations were conducted in both the western and eastern parts of Miaopu North.5 The bronze foundry is located in the western part of Miaopu North, covering an area over 10,000 square meters. Archaeologists unearthed large amounts of foundry debris and the deep stratigraphy of Miaopu North provided a complete sequence of stratified deposits that helped to establish the long-needed pottery chronology of Anyang (IA 1987). The foundry site at Miaopu North was also excavated in two sections. The eastern zone was first excavated between 1959 and 1961, and again in 1963, with a total excavated area of over five thousand square meters (IA 1987, 12; 2001, 83). The excavations yielded numerous foundry remains, including furnace fragments, slag, and over nineteen thousand fragments of models and molds, along with workshop-related features and work areas. The western zone was excavated between 1962 and 1964 (IA 2001, 83). Archaeologists located a number of house foundations, many with hearths, but relatively

29 C raft P roduction at the   L ast   S hang   C apital

few foundry remains were discovered. The excavators therefore consider the eastern zone to be the production area and the western zone the living quarters (IA 2001, 83).6 What we know about the foundry site at Miaopu North therefore comes mainly from the eastern zone of the western half of the site. The foundry is dated to Yinxu Periods I through IV (91). Despite having been excavated in the 1950s and 1960s, Miaopu North is one of the best-documented foundry sites at Anyang, especially in terms of workshop-related features and the spatial layout of the foundry (see chapter 3). Materials from Miaopu North were included in the carefully written monograph Report on Excavations at Yinxu, 1958–1961, 1958–1961 (IA 1987). Subsequent research on the Miaopu remains has provided the most important information for the Anyang bronze industry since the IHP excavations at Xiaotun Northeast (e.g., Chen Zhida 1986; Feng Fugen et al. 1980, 1982; IA 1987; Li Jinghua 1999). Beixinzhuang Bone Workshop 北辛莊, 1959

The bone workshop at Beixinzhuang is located south of Beixinzhuang village, about 600 meters west of Xiaomintun village and 3 kilometers west of Xiaotun. Coring conducted before local construction uncovered preforms, fragments of bone artifacts, and waste from bone processing. Anyang archaeologists conducted one season of excavation in 1959 with a limited excavated area of 247 square meters. Among the finds are a large amount of workshop debris, tools such as bronze saws and awls, stone awls and blades, and grindstones, all supposedly for processing bones. Only one out of the seven bone waste pits was excavated, yielding over 5,000 pieces of semiprocessed bones and debris and bone artifacts such as hairpin caps, bone arrowheads, and bone needles. Most of the bones came from cattle and pigs, while horse, sheep, and dog bones were also identified. The excavators dated the site to Miaopu III, the second half of the Yinxu period. The brief publication of the site compared the site with Dasikong and stated that the scale of bone production at Beixinzhuang was much smaller (IA 1987, 85–89). Bronze Foundry at Xiaomintun West 孝民屯西地, 1960

Xiaomintun West is located on the southwestern fringe of Xiaomintun village, not too far from two other large foundry sites, Xiaomintun South and Xiaomintun Southeast. Foundry remains at Xiaomintun West were found

30 C raft P roduction at the   L ast   S hang   C apital

during excavations in areas adjacent to Xiaomintun village in 1960, mainly in Zone I and in trenches VAT1, AHT101, T102, and T107 (IA 1987, 60–69). No workshop-related features were identified. Foundry-related remains came mainly from trash pits, including grindstones, furnaces fragments, and fragments of molds, cores, and models. Over three hundred pieces of mold and core fragments were found, and most of the identifiable fragments were for tools and weapons, such as spades, adzes, spearheads and ge-halberds. Few pieces were for ritual vessels such as gu, jue, and gui. Based on the associated pottery from the trash pits, the foundry remains from Xiaomintun West can be dated to Miaopu Phases II and III (i.e., Yinxu Periods II, III, and IV). The close proximity of Xiaomintun West to Xiaomintun South suggests that the two may have belonged to a single bronze workshop. Their relationship to Xiaomintun Southeast, however, is not entirely clear, as it is situated about six hundred meters further east, and excavations in the village did not uncover more foundry remains or foundry features to connect the three loci. Xiaomintun Southeast may have been a separate workshop that continued into the Western Zhou period. Bone Workshop at Dasikong South 大司空村南地

The village of Dasikong is located northeast of Xiaotun on the north side of the Huan River. IHP conducted two seasons of excavations south of the village in 1935 and 1936 (Li Yung-ti 2008). It is also one of the first locations where IA archaeologists resumed excavations. A local textile factory is situated in the vicinity, and the area has been under intensive archaeological investigations since the 1950s due to construction activities related to the factory. Archaeologists uncovered large amounts of manufacturing debris from a bone workshop during a 1960 salvage excavation. Bone artifacts and refuse were found in trenches T401–T409 across an estimated area of 1,380 m2 and were concentrated in the northern part of the excavation area in trenches T401–T405. Over thirty-five thousand pieces of semiprocessed bone artifacts and waste, and over 250 pieces of semiprocessed antlers, were found from twelve pits. Based on the types of artifacts and workshop waste found, archaeologists argued that some of the twelve features were used as trash pits, while some were where manufacturing took place. A subterranean structure with a slope leading toward the bottom, found among the pits with workshop debris, was also considered to be the location where bone artifacts were manufactured, based on the large amount of waste and tools, such as

31 C raft P roduction at the   L ast   S hang   C apital

bronze awls, bronze saws, and grindstones, found in the deposit. Finished or semifinished products were mostly bone hairpins, hairpin caps, and awls. A limited number of bone arrowheads and spoons were also found. Archaeologists were able to reconstruct the steps of the manufacturing process for making hairpins and hairpin caps based on the semifinished products (IA 1987, 2001). WORKSHOPS EXCAVATED BY IA IN THE 1970S AND 1980S

There were relatively fewer discoveries of craft-production remains between the 1960s and 2000, except for the discovery of several pottery kilns at Liujiazhuang North, a large bone refuse pit at Huayuanzhuang, and a lithic workshop at Xiaotun North. Xiaotun North 小屯北地, 1975

IA archaeologists located what may have been a workshop for lapidary production at Xiaotun in 1975 (Anyang 1976a; IA 2010). They found a rectangular semisubterranean structure, F11, near the southern fringe of Architecture Group C. F11 intruded into an earlier structure, F10, and was intruded into by a trash pit and a looter’s pit, which destroyed the southern portion and the northeastern corner of F11. A sacrificial pit interred with a dismembered individual was dug into the floor and placed in the center of F11. The floor of F11 was fired hard, and the wall appeared to be treated with plaster and decorated; archaeologists found a large piece of plaster fragment painted with red and black patterns. Found in the fill were an assortment of high-status artifacts, such as glazed proto-porcelain, mother-of-pearl copies of bronze weapons, potsherds with decorations painted on with lacquer, and many finely carved jade pieces, including a lively miniature sculpture of a snapping turtle. The largest number of artifacts found, however, consisted of over six hundred pieces of semiprocessed lithics, described by the excavators as “awlshaped preforms.” Two types were identified: one of cylindrical shape and one slightly bent toward the pointed tip. Found together with these were over 260 grinding stones and some semiprocessed jade pieces. Archaeologists argue that F11 was the locale of lithic and jade production, and the well-built structure and the high-status artifacts found within indicate that artisans working in the workshop may have enjoyed higher status. Both F10 and F11 are dated to Yinxu Period IV by the excavators (Anyang 1976; IA 2010).

32 C raft P roduction at the   L ast   S hang   C apital

Huayuanzhuang 花園莊, 1986–1987

The bone refuse pit, H27, is located south of the temple-palace complex, about 600 meters south of the Xiaotun South oracle bone cache. The pit measured about 36 × 14 meters, with an estimated area of 550 square meters at the opening of the pit. The excavators estimate that the pit contained over 300,000 fragments of animal bones, of which more than 98 percent were from cattle. Bone fragments were mainly from the axial skeleton, with very few limb bones. Only some 80 bone fragments show signs of processing, such as saw marks, with no finished or semifinished bone artifacts present. Archaeologists also found over a dozen tracks on top of the bone refuse deposit, presumably left by carts transporting the waste to the pit. The excavators suggest that the pit was used mainly as a dumping ground for refuse bones from a nearby butchering site or bone workshop. The pit was in use from Yinxu Period III to Early Yinxu Period IV (Anyang 1992b). WORKSHOPS EXCAVATED BY IA AFTER 2000

In 2000 and 2001, Anyang archaeologists located a bronze foundry site at Xiaomintun Southeast, the first foundry remains discovered since those of Miaopu North. Then, between 2003 and 2004, the salvage project at Xiaomintun uncovered more foundry remains south of the village, which proved to be the largest bronze foundry at Anyang so far discovered. In 2002, another salvage operation located massive amounts of debitage from a bone workshop at Tiesanlu in the vicinity of Miaopu North. Two more seasons of excavations were conducted at Tiesanlu in 2003 and 2006, and then at Xin’anzhuang West in 2007, making Tiesanlu the most intensively studied bone workshop. The recent discoveries have provided archaeologists the opportunities to revisit the topic of craft production using new analytical and theoretical approaches. Scholars have since generated much important new research on the subject. Bronze Foundry at Xiaomintun Southeast 孝民屯東南地, 2000–2001

In 2000, Anyang Steel, the largest enterprise in the Anyang region, was to build a parking lot at a location southeast of the village of Xiaomintun and 1.5 km due west of Xiaotun. Extensive coring was first carried out over the construction area, locating many burials, rammed-earth foundations, and

33 C raft P roduction at the   L ast   S hang   C apital

trash pits. Trenches were laid out and dug mainly according to the distribution of these features without the use of a grid system, a common practice of local salvage projects. While the western half of the parking lot was dotted with burials of the Shang and later periods, trenches in the eastern half yielded large amounts of foundry remains, indicating the presence of a Shang period bronze foundry. The upper deposit in the area, however, was badly intruded into by ancient and especially modern farming and construction activities. Worn and rounded mold fragments were found in the topsoil, while features and deposits of the Shang period were often intruded into and in most cases badly preserved. As a result, despite the abundant mold and furnace fragments found during the excavation, the season yielded poor and incomplete contextual and stratigraphic information for the foundry remains and no clear workshop features were found. In 2001, the area immediately east of the parking lot was set aside for the construction of several storage buildings. As the new construction area bordered on the eastern limit of the parking lot, where most of the foundryrelated materials were found the previous season, the Anyang archaeologists decided to open up excavation units along the eastern boundary of the parking lot. A few more trenches were placed across the 2001 construction area to determine the extent of the foundry deposits. However, archaeologists encountered the same ancient and modem intrusions, and in some parts of the excavated areas, cement blocks of modem house foundations had to be removed by dynamiting before excavations could be conducted. More foundry remains were found, especially in trenches next to the 2000 excavation, and a number of features possibly related to the bronze foundry were located, although they were again poorly preserved due to later intrusions. Based on the pottery associated with the bronze foundry remains, the foundry was in operation since Yinxu Period II and reached its peak in Yinxu Periods III and IV (Anyang 2006a). Among the tens of thousands of foundry remains are mold fragments for making several types of bronzes that were only found in the Baoji-Daijiawan region in Shaanxi, the homeland of the Zhou dynasty that overthrew the last Shang king. These bronzes were long thought to represent a new style used by the Zhou elite, and finding mold fragments for such bronzes at Anyang clearly means that they were made there. Scholars have since argued about the possibility that the Xiaomintun Southeast foundry may have continued operation and served the new clientele after the demise of the Shang capital (Li Yung-ti and Yue Zhanwei 2015; Li Yung-ti et al. 2007; Lu Guoquan 2011).

34 C raft P roduction at the   L ast   S hang   C apital

Bone Workshop at Tiesanlu 鐵三路, 2002–2003, 2006

The bone workshop at Tiesanlu is located southeast of Xiaotun near the villages of Xuejiazhuang and Xin’anzhuang. Miaopu North, where a bronze foundry was located in the 1960s, is immediately west of the excavated area. The pottery kilns at Liujiazhuang North are also in the vicinity. The bone workshop at Tiesanlu was excavated between October 2002 and March 2003, with an excavated area of 1,090 m2, and again between March and November 2006, with an area of 2,400 m2. Both excavations were of a salvage nature, and the locus is named after the road where excavation trenches were dug in the 2006 season. The two excavations yielded large amounts of bone workshop debris, estimated at over 36 metric tons, which were concentrated in the northern trenches of the 2006 excavation (Anyang 2015). The total area of the Tiesanlu workshop, or the extent where workshop debris was distributed, is estimated to be about 220  ×  80 meters, or 17,600 square meters (38). The extensive area and the tremendous amount of debris found led to the claim that Tiesanlu yielded “the largest archaeological collections of worked bone” (Campbell et al. 2011, 1281). The workshop is thought to have mainly produce hairpins and it is estimated that the hairpin production at the Tiesanlu workshop “outstripped local consumption, perhaps by as much as 300 percent” (1294). Based on the associated pottery, the bone workshop is dated to between Yinxu Period II and Late Yinxu Period IV (Anyang 2015). In 2007, more bone workshop debris was found during excavations in the vicinity of Tiesanlu near the village of Xin’anzhuang. Bone waste from Xin’anzhuang is thought to originate from the southwestern fringe of the Tiesanlu bone workshop. Bronze Foundry at Xiaomintun South 孝民屯南地, 2003–2004

In 2003 and 2004, excavations were conducted in the village of Xiaomintun as part of a large salvage project in conjunction with new furnace constructions at Anyang Steel. The entirety of Xiaomintun village was relocated to facilitate the construction project.7 A joint archaeological team, the Yinxu Xiaomintun Archaeological Team, was formed among three institutes: Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Heritage and Archaeology; and

35 C raft P roduction at the   L ast   S hang   C apital

Anyang Municipal Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology (IA 2018, 2020; Yinxu 2007a, 2007b, 2007c). The salvage project was unprecedented in its scale, the nature of the joint collaboration, and the size of horizontal exposure. The multi-institute project yielded large amounts of new data, and the multivolume reports for the IA excavations are in the process of being published. Important finds include full excavation of cemeteries with around one thousand burials; clusters of multiroomed subterranean residential structures; pottery of nonlocal origins that may indicate presence of enclaves of foreign populations; and the discovery of the largest Anyang bronze foundry site with preserved workshop facilities (Wang Xuerong and He Yuling 2007).8 During the Xiaomintun salvage operation, archaeologists encountered foundry remains immediately south of Xiaomintun village. Thanks to extensive coring and full-scale horizontal exposure, the extent of the workshop could be determined. Foundry remains and workshop features concentrated in an area of 380 meters east-west, and 100 meters north-south. Archaeologists found over 70,000 mold fragments, over 3,000 furnace fragments, over 2,000 core fragments, and about 100 model fragments (IA 2020; Yinxu Xiaomintun 2007c. Bone and Bronze Workshops at Xin’anzhuang West 新安莊西地, 2007

Workshop debris from bone and bronze production was found during a salvage project immediately west of Tiesanlu and south of Miaopu North in 2007. The site is referred to as Xin’anzhuang West, after the village nearby, or as Fanglin Huayuan, after the apartment complex where the salvage excavation was conducted (figure 2.3). The Xin’anzhuang excavations covered an area of over 8,000 square meters and yielded important features such as burials, 22 house foundations, over 250 trash pits, water wells, and several sacrificial pits with animal and human sacrifices. One of the most important finds is the discovery of three paralleled water canals, about 10 meters apart, which cut through the excavated area and connect to the Liujiazhuang North pottery workshop. These canals are part of the water supply system recently discovered that ran across the capital from west to east (see chapter 6). Xin’anzhuang West is located about fifteen meters southwest of T11, the southern-most trench with concentration of bone refuse in the 2006 excavation of Tiesanlu. Five and a half tons of bone workshop debris was

FIGURE 2.3.  Tiesanlu excavation trenches in relation to Miaopu North and Xin’anzhuang West. After Anyang 2015: figure 2.

37 C raft P roduction at the   L ast   S hang   C apital

found, and as the trenches are situated southwest of Tiesanlu and the bone workshop remains were found only in the eastern part of the excavated area, the finds most likely came from the western section of the Tiesanlu bone workshop. Bone workshop debris from Xin’anzhuang was studied separately and provides another glimpse of the massive bone production operation in the Tiesanlu workshop (see chapter 4). Pit H144, where most of the bone workshop remains came from, is dated to Yinxu Period IV (Anyang 2016). Also uncovered from the Xin’anzhuang excavations were a number of mold fragments. The better-preserved ones published in the preliminary report came from the fill of several burials. Excavators believe the mold fragments were introduced into the fill when the digging of the burials intruded into earlier trash pits of the bronze foundry. According to the report, mold fragments were found only in the northern section of the excavated area in Zone VII, and the finds defined the southern boundary of the Miaopu North foundry (Anyang 2016). Pottery Kilns at Liujiazhuang North 劉家莊北地, 2008, 2010–2011

Anyang archaeologists found little evidence for pottery production before the excavations at Liujiazhuang North. In 1988, archaeologists discovered some kiln waste north of Miaopu along the south side of Anyang Steel Plant Boulevard. Among the finds were misfired and warped pottery dou and li vessels. In 1990, more misfired vessels such as gui and pen were found south of the 1988 location near the old storage building of the Anyang Municipal Museum. It was not until the 2008 excavation at Liujiazhuang North that kilns sites, together with kiln waste, were found. More kilns, pottery-making tools, and kiln waste were found in the 2010 and 2011 excavations at Liu­ jiazhuang North. A total of twenty-four kilns were found in the last three seasons, and the finds were published in a preliminary report (Anyang 2012a). Pottery types found at the site include dou 豆, gui 簋, yu 盂, pou 瓿, and pen 盆, etc. Archaeologists also discovered tools such as paddles and model pieces to produce hollow legs for li 鬲 and yan 甗 vessels. Archaeologists are able to date the workshop operation based on the date of the pottery collected and excavated from trash pits and kilns. Some of the kilns were in operation as early as Yinxu Period I, while some continued into Yinxu Period III (Anyang 2012a). Liujiazhang North is in the vicinity of the Miaopu foundry and the Tiesanlu bone workshop.

38 C raft P roduction at the   L ast   S hang   C apital

SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE ANYANG WORKSHOPS

Most of the archaeological excavations at Anyang are related to salvage projects, and the size and location of modern construction predetermines the size and location of the excavations. The separate finds of craft production sites therefore are mostly the results of arbitrary excavation exposures and probably belonged to the same workshops. If we plot all the known craft production locations onto a map of Anyang, it becomes clear that craft-producing activities were concentrated in several areas, namely, from west to east: (1) Xiaomintun, which includes the different locales of bronze production near Xiaomintun and the Beixinzhuang bone workshop; (2) Xiaotun, which includes the bronze foundry underneath Structure B5, later bronze-casting operations in Daliankeng, and the various lithic, lapidary, marble, and shellproducing activities in Daliankeng and Architecture Group A; (3) Dasikong, which includes the bone workshop located south of the Dasikong village and the bronze-casting operations represented by the small number of casting molds found by IHP; and (4) Miaopu, which includes Miaopu North, Xuejiazhuang, and Xin’anzhuang, where foundry remains were found, the Tiesanlu-Xin’anzhuang West bone workshop, and the Liujiazhuang North pottery workshop. I would refer to these four areas as “production precincts” (see figure 2.1, areas in gray; Li Yung-ti 2003, 2007; see also Campbell et al. 2011; He 2011; Chang Shumin 2017). Each precinct therefore has multiple crafts that operated side by side, and, with the exception of Xiaotun, all operated with large-scale factory-type production. The dates and temporal positions of these workshops are also informative (see figure 2.4). Three of the four precincts, Xiaotun, Miaopu, and Dasikong, began producing bronzes as early as Yinxu Period I. Pottery production also began in Miaopu at this time. Starting from Yinxu Periods II to IV, all four precincts were in operation, producing bronzes and bone artifacts in large quantities and in multiple locations, although in the Xiaomintun precinct, bone production at Beixinzhuang did not begin until Yinxu Period III. Due to the lack of stratigraphic information from the IHP excavations at Xiaotun, craft-producing activities here cannot be properly dated except for bronze production and the two workshops excavated by IA. With the finds of mold fragments for casting Baoji-Daijiawan type bronzes, it is possible that the Xiaomintun Southeast foundry may have operated into the Western Zhou period.9 The lack of evidence for bone production in Yinxu Period I and the

39 C raft P roduction at the   L ast   S hang   C apital

Yinxu I

Yinxu II

Yinxu III

Yinxu IV

Beixinzhuang Xiaomintun West Xiaomintun

Xiaomintun South Xiaomintun Southeast Xiaotun B5

? Daliankeng

? Xiaotun

? Xiaotun North

Huayuanzhuang Dasikong South Dasikong Dasikong South

Miaopu North Miaopu

Xuejiazhuang Liujiazhuang North Tiesanlu

Bronze foundry Bone workshop Lithic workshop Pottery workshop

FIGURE 2.4.  Duration of the Anyang craft production sites in terms of the pottery chronology

relatively scarce occurrence of pottery workshops are most likely due to the fact that they have yet to be located, as bone artifacts and pottery are amply represented in the archaeological record from Yinxu Period I. It appears that technological requirements for the different craft industries may not have been a factor for determining production locations, since pyrotechnologically transformative crafts, such as bronze casting and pottery making, and extractive-reductive crafts, such as bone and lithic working, were both present in each precinct.10 There was also no apparent concern

40 C raft P roduction at the   L ast   S hang   C apital

for the hazardous conditions created by the pyrotechnological crafts, as these workshops were spread across the capital with some situated in the temple-palace complex and in the center of the settlement. On the other hand, the juxtaposition of marble, shell, ivory, and stone blade working within the temple-palace complex in the Xiaotun precinct may be related to the shared processing technology, while the co-occurrence of marble and shell inlay making may be related to lacquerware production, which required yet another set of facilities and technologies. These aspects will be further discussed in chapters 5 and 6.

Chapter Three

A CRAFT OF CLAY AND METAL Section-mold Casting Technology and the Anyang Bronze Industry

BRONZES AND BRONZE PRODUCTION IN ANYANG

The use of metal started relatively late in ancient China compared to Mesopotamia and Egypt. Metal technology also took a very different path once it was introduced in the second millennium bce (e.g., Mei et al. 2015). Perhaps as the result of the late introduction, metal technology in China began without clear evidence of a hammering stage as seen in other regions such as Anatolia. Ancient Chinese metal workers relied on clay mold casting, first using a bivalve mold and, soon after, section-mold technology, a bronze casting technique that relies on the use of clay models and multiple mold sections without the intermediate stage of a wax model (figure 3.1). Once metal technology appeared in the Central Plains region during the time of the Erlitou culture, it was already many times more sophisticated than its predecessor, the Qijia culture in the Gansu Corridor. Erlitou metal workers cast bronze vessels of complex shapes using intricately designed and divided clay section molds (e.g., Bagley 1999). The choice of making bronzes by casting also had important social and political ramifications for Bronze Age China (Bagley 1999; Franklin 1983a, b), and such a choice may have been founded on the abundant supply of copper (Bagley 1987, Part 1; Bagley 1990a). While most of the Erlitou bronzes are of small and medium sizes, such as the bells and turquoise inlay plaques for the former, and the various ritual vessels for the latter, by the time of the Erligang period, casters were creating new

42 A C raft of C lay and M etal

Mold assemblage (upside down)

Mold

Mold Core

Mold Model/bronze

Mold

Core

FIGURE 3.1.  Diagram of a mold assemblage for a fangding. After Chase 1991: 24, figure 1. © China Institute

forms and making more bronzes; at the same time, they had also mastered the skills to cast bronzes of monumental sizes (Bagley 1999). The scale of bronze production increased tremendously during the An­ yang period. Both the number of bronzes and the range of artifact types made far exceed those seen at Erlitou or in the Erligang period. In Anyang, bronze appears to have been the preferred material for making elite ritual and status items. The repertoire of ritual vessels expanded and many new vessel types appeared (figure 3.2). Bronze vessels were used, presumably, in ritual and ceremonial contexts: for food preparation such as cooking and steaming; for serving and storing; for decanting and drinking; and for ablution.1 Bronze was also used to produce weapons, either functional or for display, such

43 A C raft of C lay and M etal

Jue

Gu

Ding

Jiao

Zhi

Jia

He

You

Li

Zun

Gong

Yan

Hu

Yi

Lei

FIGURE 3.2.  Examples of Late Shang/Early Western Zhou bronze vessel types. Adapted from Loewe and Shaughnessy 1999: xxii–xxiii.

as arrowheads, spearheads, and ceremonial axes; for small musical instruments, such as chime bells, often in sets of three or five; for horse and chariot fittings; and for a limited range of implements, such as picks, adzes, saws, and awls (IA 2001). Bronzes are usually found in burial contexts at Anyang, and the number and quality of bronzes in individual tombs can be wide-ranging. The tomb of Fuhao, one of the richest unlooted elite tombs in Anyang, for instance, has 195 bronze vessels and 271 weapons, tools, and small bronze objects, with a total weight of 1,600 kilograms of metal. Interred in the tomb are bronze vessels of unique shapes and exceptionally large sizes, such as the double fangyi 方彞, the large pou 瓿, and the owl-shaped zun 尊, presumably

44 A C raft of C lay and M etal

reserved for the high elite; matched sets of common vessel types such as gu and jue, which are usually found in much smaller numbers in other tombs; and smaller, miscellaneous but unique bronze items. In the Fuhao case, the number and quality of bronzes directly reflect the female tomb occupant’s status and prestige. On the other hand, bronzes are also found in smaller and much more modest tombs, and the bronzes interred can be as simple as a pair of crudely made, undecorated gu and jue. These contrasting examples point to several aspects of the use of bronze among the Anyang elite: that among the elite, access to bronze objects was not equal and the distribution of bronze vessels as elite items can be highly differentiated; however, bronze as a material may not have been exceedingly exclusive, as members of the lower elite strata could still have access to bronze vessels of standard forms and decorations.2 When assessing the Anyang bronze industry, one is immediately struck by its large scale of production, reflected both in the number of foundry sites and the amount of foundry remains unearthed. As discussed in chapter 2, archaeologists have located several foundry sites across Anyang, and with the exception of the earliest IHP finds, all sites yielded a tremendous amount of foundry remains.3 For instance, incomplete estimates show that excavations at Xiaomintun South and Southeast uncovered more than one hundred thousand pieces of mold and model fragments.4 Through studying the decorations, the shape, and the curvature preserved in the model and mold fragments, archaeologists are able to reconstruct the types of bronzes manufactured in these workshops. I would argue that the context, scale, and production organization at Anyang suggest that the bronze workshops were probably managed in a top-down manner, ultimately by the state. The bronze industry is also the best represented craft archaeologically at Anyang in terms of workshop layout and workshop facilities. The scale of operation, the pyrotechnological nature of the craft, and the complex internal division of labor of the industry all demanded a considerable amount of investment in workshop facilities. Archaeologists have indeed found features such as casting installations, working surfaces, and storage facilities related to bronze production. In fact, bronze production provides the only example of temporal changes of workshop layout, namely at Miaopu North. We also have evidence for temporal technological changes in section-mold casting technology from the controversial foundry site at the Xiaotun temple-palace complex. This chapter therefore focuses on the following aspects of the Anyang bronze industry: (1) foundry practice and the operational sequence of bronze

45 A C raft of C lay and M etal

working reconstructed based on studies of foundry remains, lab analysis, and replication experiments; (2) physical setup and temporal changes in workshop layout of Anyang bronze workshops, reflected in the archaeological record, based on finds made at Xiaomintun South and especially Miaopu North; (3) technological changes in section-mold casting technology observed in mold fragments unearthed from Xiaotun and those from the later bronze workshops; and (4) production organization of the Anyang bronze industry in general and its implications for the Shang political economy. THE SHANG SECTION-MOLD CASTING TECHNOLOGY

The use of section-mold casting technology in ancient China means that foundry workers in Anyang worked extensively not only with metal but also with clay. The early works of Fairbank (1972) and Barnard (1961) recognized the close relationship between ancient Chinese bronze casting and pottery technology.5 Both have pointed out that the advanced pottery kilns capable of reaching a high firing temperature served as the precondition for metal technology, while the long tradition of pottery making by using molds must also have foreshadowed the making of clay models and molds for bronze casting.6 The connection between pottery making and bronze casting with clay models and molds, however, extends even further. Preparing clay for bronze casting molds is not too different from preparing clay for pottery; indeed, in Anyang, the potters and the mold makers utilized the same locally available material, loess (Freestone et al. 1989; Kerr and Wood 2004, 103; Stoltman et al. 2009, 2018). With some variations, the general steps are similar: both must go through levigation, kneading, aging, souring, and tempering.7 However, foundry workers also needed to develop their own ceramic technology in order to solve technical issues specific to section-mold casting. As different physical properties are needed for models, cores, and molds in the manufacturing process, workers had to design different clay formulas in order to achieve the required tasks (Tan 1999). For instance, in order to minimize shrinkage and warping of the mold, the clay content of the local soil is removed and silt added to form the right material for making molds (Freestone et al. 1989; Sacharuk 2014; Stoltman et al. 2009, 2018). To be able to produce and transfer the fine decorations onto the mold, the clay also needs to be fine and particle-free. The Anyang foundry workers, therefore, had to have extensive skills and knowledge involved in handling clay to

46 A C raft of C lay and M etal

TABLE 3.1 Workdays invested in the main production steps for making clay models and molds for making jue, zhi, gu, and you vessels Bronze Type Model

Jue

Zhi

Gu

You

11

10

12

35

34.5

37

25

33

Core

2

6

9

13

Inscription

0

0

5

2

Casting

1

1

1

1

Retouching

1

1

1

11

Mold Sections/Parts

Appendages

0

0

0

15

Total (days)

49.5

55

53

110

Source: Adapted from Tan 1999. Li 2007: table 8.1.

manage the many specific physical constraints encountered in bronze casting, namely low heat conductivity, resistance to high temperature, and good physical strength (Tan 1999). It is conceivable that, as the Shanghai Museum and other reconstruction projects have demonstrated, considerable labor and resources were invested in the precasting stages, such as preparation of the clay and the making of the model, core, and mold sections (Tan 1999; table 3.1). If what the Shanghai Museum project has argued is indeed the case, we may expect to see a proportional investment of resources and labor in the workshop facilities. In other words, the proportion of time and labor invested in the preparation of clay, models, and molds should also be reflected in the physical features of the workshop, and these in turn should be visible in the archaeological record, along with other more common finds of foundry debris such as mold fragments, slag, and furnace fragments. Here an analogy with large-scale pottery workshops in later imperial China, such as those at Jingdezhen or Yixing, may be appropriate (see Li Yung-ti 2003, 2007b). For instance, we might expect to find facilities similar to those at Jingdezhen to be present at a Shang bronze foundry, including features such as levigation tanks, storage for aging and souring clay, low firing kilns for prefiring molds, or shaded storing facilities for drying molds. A logical point for division of labor in the workshop organization of an Anyang bronze foundry therefore may be between the stages of clay working, such as model and mold making, and the stages of metal working, such as casting and finishing. Franklin has argued that since the Shang sectionmold casting technology required two sets of workers with skills in two

47 A C raft of C lay and M etal

very different media, clay and metal, there had to be a managerial party that designed manufacturing procedures and organized workshop operation. Franklin called this type of technology and production “prescriptive” and placed the emphasis on the presence of managerial control. Franklin therefore compares the production organization of Shang bronze working to an early form of assembly-line production (Franklin 1983, 1992; see also Li Yung-ti 2003, 2007b for a critique on Franklin). RECONSTRUCTING THE OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE AT THE ANYANG FOUNDRY

Thanks to scholarly work both in China and in the West, we now know a fair amount of detail about the foundry practices of the ancient Chinese bronze casters, especially the making and use of clay models and molds. Our present knowledge of ancient Chinese foundry practices has been obtained through several different but related approaches: studies of workshop remains through scientific means;8 technological studies by directly observing the bronzes for indications of manufacturing methods;9 replication experiments designed to reconstruct ancient foundry practices using similar raw material and procedures;10 and analyses of foundry remains found in archaeological contexts.11 Until recently, the focus has mainly been on model and mold making, and with few exceptions, scholars have yet to provide clear details on furnace building and furnace operation.12 Scholars also argue that metal was imported into Anyang in ingot form and that metal extraction was mostly done at or near the copper mines (e.g., Li Jinghua 1999; Zhou Wenli et al. 2014, 413–15). Our knowledge concerning metal preparation and furnace operation in Anyang foundry practices is therefore relatively incomplete. The following reconstruction therefore focuses more on the clay-working stages, for which there is more evidence. Particular attention is also given to the ongoing debate over bronze decor making. For the metal-working stages, the discussion emphasizes workshop remains from the archaeological context and the reconstructed production procedures. The operational sequence of bronze casting at an Anyang workshop can be simplified into the following major stages: (1) clay preparation, (2) model making, (3) making mold sections, (4) making cores, (5) metal preparation, (6) furnace building, (7) metal melting, (8) casting, and (9) finishing. The following discussion describes some of the steps of the operational

48 A C raft of C lay and M etal

sequence and the corresponding archaeological data. Depending on the available data, some steps are described in more detail.13 Clay Preparation

Understanding clay preparation procedures at the Anyang bronze foundry comes mainly from lab analysis and replication experiments. The Shanghai Museum team, for instance, observed existing traditional clay sectionmold casting and studied mold fragements from different time periods. They noted that plant ashes were added to levigated clay in order to obtain certain physical attributes of the clay, especially those related to insulation, for better casting. It was also determined that there were different formulas of clays according to their intended use, i.e., for making models, cores, or the inner and outer layers of molds (Tan 1999; Tan and Huang 1996; Tan et al. 1993).14 Western scholars have argued that loess, an aeolian sediment with vast distribution in North China, including Anyang, was ideally suited as the raw material for making the ceramic molds used in Bronze Age China (Freestone et al. 1989; Kerr and Wood 2004; Stoltman et al. 2009). Loess, with its fine particle and low clay content, has a low shrinkage rate and can be dried and fired faster than other types of clay. It was already widely utilized to make pottery in North China during the Neolithic period (Kerr and Wood 2004). Petrographic analysis of the ceramic molds shows that additional processing, presumably levigating, was done to further lower the clay content (Freestone et al. 1989; Sacharuk 2014; Stoltman et al. 2009, 2018).15 Scholars have speculated that dung may have been added as an adhesive to bind the matrix with a high silt and low clay content (Stoltman 2018; Yue, Jing, et al. 2014). The process of clay preparation may therefore have involved the following steps: mining clay from known sources and transporting the raw material back to the workshop; levigating to remove inclusion and, most of all, to reduce the clay content and keep the silt; aging and souring; and in the case of mold sections, mixing in plant ashes as temper and dung as adhesive. Different kinds of clay were prepared for the model, the core, and the inner and outer layers of the mold. Model Making

Model fragments are unusually scarce considering the large number of mold fragments unearthed at Anyang. For instance, archaeologists found

49 A C raft of C lay and M etal

over one hundred thousand mold fragments and only two hundred or so model fragments at Xiaomintun South and Southeast (Yue, Liu, et al. 2016). Of the few model fragments found, most are for vessel appendages such as handles and legs. Only several examples of model pieces for the body of a bronze vessel exist. Scholars have also noted that no two bronzes from Anyang are exactly alike, which suggests that models were not reused to make multiple, identical molds for vessels (Bagley 1987, 40).16 There are, however, indications that models of vessel appendages, weapons, and implements could have been replicated by using a “mold box” (Yue, Liu, et al. 2016, 131–32).17 Based on model fragments from Xiaomintun South and Southeast (Yue, Liu, et al. 2016) and on those now housed at IHP and the Royal Ontario Museum, the basic shape of the vessel or an appendage is formed and fashioned by sculpting, appliqué, and carving. It is likely that a brush and red ink were used to sketch out the decoration. A small piece of fired clay housed at IHP has a raised pattern in the form of a dragon and swirl lines in red that were applied with a brush on the body of the dragon. The swirl designs match the sunken lines seen on the main motif of bronzes and would need to be carved away during the following step. A fragment of a fired model in the Royal Ontario Museum in the form of an animal head that adorns the upper part of a vessel leg also has red lines applied with a brush. The piece is covered with a thin layer of slip or plaster, perhaps to create a smoother surface upon which to draw. It is likely that a brush was also used to add appliqué patterns to the mold (see the discussion on decor making). After the model was formed and decorated, it was then fired to achieve the desired hardness to allow mold sections to be taken from the model. There are indications that models, similar to molds, were also created in sections at Anyang. Scholars have pointed out how some of the protruding parts and appendages on bronze vessels must have been made with removable model parts (Yue, Liu, et al. 2016; Su, Hu, et al. 1988, Su, Hua, et al. 1995). The horns on the model for the famous four-ram zun, for instance, would have to be separated from the main body of the model when the mold was retrieved to prevent unintended damage to the mold (Su et al. 1988). The finds of individual model pieces for making appendages such as handles and animal heads support such a reconstruction (see figure 3.3: 6). Excavators at the Miaopu North site also found a section of a model for a shouldered zun-vessel (see figure 3.3: 4).18

50 A C raft of C lay and M etal

1

2

3

4

FIGURE 3.3.  Model fragments from Miaopu North: (1) lid of a gong vessel; (2–3) animal heads for vessel appendages; and (4) sectioned model for a zun vessel. Adapted from Institute of Archaeology 1987: 53, figure 38.

Making Mold Sections

Molds or mold sections refer to the negative impression taken from the positive model. Together with the core, they form the total mold assemblage used for bronze casting. The use of a fired clay model, even if it were made in two or three sections, required the mold to be prepared in sections to prevent damaging of the form and decorations of the mold when retrieved from the model, hence the term section-mold casting. Mortises and tenons were prepared on the joining sides of the mold divisions to ensure secure locking of the mold sections.19 Mold sections were then assembled and dried slowly to prevent warping and then fired below the sintering temperature, again to prevent warping, before they could be used for bronze casting. Traditional reconstructions of Anyang mold assemblages, based on modern foundry practices and observations of finished bronzes, often show mold divisions only along the vertical axis. Mold fragments with intact edges from Anyang, however, clearly indicate that there was also extensive use of horizontal mold divisions, which are usually placed near the area where the contour of the vessel begins to change in order to better facilitate the retrieval of mold sections (figure 3.4). It may also have reduced the size of the mold sections to prevent warping and for easier handling (Li Yung-ti 2003; Li Yung-ti et al. 2007).

51 A C raft of C lay and M etal

0

5 cm

0

5 cm

FIGURE 3.4.  Complete mold sections for the rim and the belly of a lei vessel (left; illustrations by Li Xiating © Institute of Archaeology, CASS) and the corresponding horizontal mold divisions on the bronze vessel (right; IA 1998: 90, figure 67).

The procedures for making mold sections can be summarized as follows: (1) building clay around the model according to predefined sections; (2) preparing mortises and tenons; (3) repeated patting during slow drying; (4) retrieving mold sections from the model; (5) decorating mold sections; (6) reassembling mold sections; and (7) binding mold sections tightly together to prevent warping; (8) slow drying; (9) and firing below sintering temperature. Making Cores

Earlier studies argued that cores for Anyang bronzes could be made by scraping down the original decorated model, a practice observed in traditional clay mold casting in Japan (Chase 1991, 115; Meyer and Holmes 1983; Smith 1981, 130), but this is not supported by the archaeological data or by the current understanding of section-mold technology. For instance, foundry remains from Anyang show that the core and the model were made

52 A C raft of C lay and M etal

from clay of different formulas and were fired to different hardnesses to meet specific physical requirements during the manufacturing process (Tan 1999; Yue, Liu, et al. 2016). While the model needs to be resistant to pressure, the core is fired to a lower temperature with lower hardness so it can then yield to the pressure created by the cooling and contracting molten bronze. On the other hand, cores are also built with additional featuers not seen on models, such as core extensions that serve as spacers to keep the gap between the core and the mold sections, or as an the extra base, often equipped with sprues and risers, that extends beyond the vessel and is joined with the mold sections in the mold assembly. The core, therefore, is not in the shape of a reduced model. Tan (1999) and Kerr and Wood (2004, 401–2) offer several possible reconstructions for core making. The core could be built within the fired and already-assembled mold sections, with a lining of clay first inserted to protect the decoration and to create the required gap between the core and the mold sections, which will become the thickness of the cast bronze. Or a separate set of molds can be prepared for the purpose of making cores separately. Excursus: Decoration on the Model or in the Mold?

How the decor was fashioned for bronze vessels has long been a contested issue. Scholars disagree on whether decorations were made on the model (e.g., Shih 1955) or executed in the mold (e.g., Karlbeck 1935, 44). Other scholars also argue that, depending on the types of decoration, decor could have been executed either on the model or in the mold (e.g., Gettens 1969, 58; Smith 1981, 136, 265; Wan 1964, 35–36; see Bagley 1987, 37–41 for a thorough discussion of the issue and his reconstruction of decoration making). The issue was recently revisited by Lukas Nickel (2006) and by Robert Bagley in response to Nickel (Bagley 2009). Based on observations of mold fragments from the Western Zhou site of Zhouyuan, Nickel argues that the decor of Shang and Western Zhou bronzes was directly applied in the mold sections and that no decorated models were used. The main reason that Nickel argues all decorations were executed in the mold is that some of the raised lines seen on the mold sections have rounded edges that could not have been produced by taking impressions from a carved model. Nikel also notes that, on some bronzes, the decorations are not symmetrical, which to him indicates that the artisan did not have the visual aid of a decorated model when executing the decor. Based on his simple experiments, Nickel suggested that

53 A C raft of C lay and M etal

the fine, raised lines of decoration were all placed in the mold by the use of tubing, a technique similar to icing a cake with a tube of frosting. The form of the bronze vessel was produced first by using a cutout board that could shape the clay into the desired form on a slow wheel (for the technique of “running profile,” see Kerr and Wood 2004, 398–99). Then section molds were taken from the undecorated model. In Bagley’s detailed reconstruction of the development of décor-making techniques in ancient China, he argues that in the beginning stage of sectionmold casting technology, casters first created decorations by directly carving into the mold sections. By the time of the Anyang period, however, bronze decorations were so intricately designed and executed that the craftsperson had to be working with a fully formed and decorated model to visually conceptualize the decor program. Bagley points to the fine details in the decorations on some Anyang bronze vessels to argue that the seamless connection between the main motif and the background swirls could only be executed in positive on the model. There is one key difference between Nickel’s and Bagley’s approaches. The former originates from observations of mold fragments, while the latter was born from an observation of finished bronzes. Anyang archaeologists working with foundry remains, especially mold fragments, have come up with yet another scenario, which is that Anyang bronze makers in fact worked both on the model and also extensively in the mold. Through careful observations of the manufacturing wear on mold fragments, Yue et al. (Yue Zhanwei, Yue, et al. 2010; Yue Zhanwei, Liu et al. 2016) have identified several types of decorations seen in the molds. There are decorations transferred from the model, decorations carved directly into the mold or applied by appliqué, and decorations pressed into the mold using stamps. Yue et al., using one of the rare examples of a decorated ding model, also note that in some cases models could also be fully formed and decorated. Studies on the IHP mold fragments confirm the observations made by the Anyang archaeologists. Examples from the IHP collection also demonstrate the technical options the Anyang mold makers had in creating the decorated mold sections. Observations of the mold fragments have shown that decorations in the mold could be formed by a combination of taking impressions from a model (figure 3.5), by incising directly into the mold (figure 3.6), and by appliqué (figure 3.7). Some examples clearly indicate that additional retouching was done to sharpen the edges of patterns imprinted from the model, as shown by the sunken lines paralleling the raised decoration on each side (figure 3.5).

FIGURE 3.5.  Mold fragment for a lugged vessel (bottom). Decoration formed by taking impressions from the model. Note that retouching can be seen along the edges of the main motifs in the close-up photos (top and middle photos by author; bottom photo by IHP). © Institute of History and Philology

FIGURE 3.6.  Two mold fragments with decoration incised directly into the mold. Note that the circular line in the lower section of R17001 (bottom) is in appliqué. © Institute of History and Philology

FIGURE 3.7.  A mold fragment (R16890) for the handle of a gui vessel. The curved lines are executed in appliqué. Traces of retouching can be seen along the raised lines (close-up photos taken by author, bottom photo by IHP). © Institute of History and Philology

57 A C raft of C lay and M etal

FIGURE 3.8.  Using a brush and slip to paint decoration onto the inner surface of a mold. Raised lines are formed by applying multiple layers of slip. Photo taken by author.

Simple replication experiments indicate that appliqué—the raised, rounded lines observed in the molds—could also have been accomplished by applying multiple layers of slip onto the mold’s inner surface using a brush (figure 3.8), rather than by using tubing, which seems an unsuitable method for producing the very fine lines seen on molds and finished bronzes. The advantages of using slip and brush are that a sketch can be applied first using the slip, and the flexibility of the brush enables the creating of fine and free-flowing

58 A C raft of C lay and M etal

cursive lines. Once the appliqué lines were formed, trimming and retouching, using some pointed tool, are needed to sharpen the lines, which would explain the fine incised lines often found along both sides of lines in the decorations (figure 3.7). Brushes and ink were already in use at Anyang, as brush-written inscriptions are found on some oracle bones. Their presence is also indicated by the decorated model fragment previously discussed.20 We have a basic understanding of the metal-working part of section-mold casting through replication experiments, such as those conducted by Wan Chia-pao (Li and Wan 1972), and studies on the foundry remains such as ingots and furnace and crucible fragments. Stages involving metal working in the Anyang bronze foundry may include preparation of metal, presumably from ingots; building and making furnaces and crucibles; melting metal in crucibles and furnaces; assembling and preheating the mold assembly for casting; and casting molten metal into the mold assemblage using crucibles or pouring cups. Once the bronze is formed and cooled down, the mold assemblage is broken apart to retrieve the cast bronze. Further finishing is required, which includes removing excess metal formed in pouring inlets and vents and polishing and retouching the bronze. In foundry remains, the metal-working part of bronze production is represented by ingots; used and shattered mold fragments; fragments of melting furnaces, usually warped and vitrified from persistent contact with high temperature produced by charcoal; fragments of crucibles with layers of residual metal; and grinding stones for retouching and polishing cast bronze. In the archaeological context, features associated with metal working include shallow earthen pits that may be the lower portion of the furnace; casting installations for unusually large bronzes; work areas with treated or vitrified surfaces, the latter most likely related to metal-melting operations; and floors covered with patina-colored soil that may have been where retouching and polishing of newly cast bronzes took place. Unlike the discussion of clay-working procedures, the following discussion focuses only on the operational sequences better represented in the foundry remains and the archaeological context, including metal preparation, furnaces building, finishing, and metal recycling. Metal Preparation: Ingots

Until recently, only three ingots were known from Anyang, including two lead ingots from Xiaotun (Chen Kwang-tzu 1991)21 and one copper ingot

59 A C raft of C lay and M etal

from Miaopu North (IA 1987, 58; Plate VII: 11). These ingots are relatively small and of different shapes. Due to the small sample size, it is not clear if they were manufactured according to specific size or weight standards. In 2015, Anyang archaeologists salvaged a cache of large oval-shaped lead ingots from local construction activities at Liujiazhuang North (Anyang 2018). The 293 ingots were found stacked in a pit, H25, and the total weight is over 3,400 kilograms. The dimensions and weights of these ingots vary widely, and the purity ranges from 75 percent to 85 percent, or 90 percent to 99 percent depending on where the samples were taken. Researchers have argued that these ingots would need further refining, which would have taken place locally to produce smaller but purer ingots. There is currently no evidence of smelting in Anyang, so these ingots may have been imported from outside. The act of stashing over 3 tons of lead in a storage pit no doubt points to some form of control and management over the raw material.22 Furnace Building

Researchers identified two types of metal-melting vessels, loosely referred to as “ronglu 熔爐 (furnaces)” and “ganguo 坩堝 (crucibles).” Lab analysis indicates that they were used for melting and not smelting (Hua 1999; Zhou Wenli et al. 2014, 2015). Both are heated from the inside with charcoal, although the size and the construction are distinctly different. Of the two, furnaces are by far the more common type. They are large and consist of a fire-resistant lining and a layer of fired shaft-tempered clay coils with an additional layer of unfired clay for support. Most of the furnace fragments are heavily warped. Researchers nonetheless reconstructed three different sizes: those with a diameter of 1 m and above; those with a diameter between 50 cm to 1 m; and those with a diameter smaller than 50 cm. The medium-sized ones are the most common (Zhou Wenli et al. 2015, 49). At Miaopu North, excavators found earthen pits plastered with a layer of fired and sometimes vitrified straw-tempered clay. They may have been the lower portion of a melting-furnace installation. Another related find is a large basin-shaped bronze disc with a diameter of 34–36 cm found in a posthole of Structure A11 in the Xiaotun temple-palace complex. The shape, the rugged inner surface, and the smooth outer surface indicate that it may have originally been metal frozen and left at the bottom of a melting furnace, later used to support a column (Li Yung-ti ed. 2009, 128, Entry No. 114).23

60 A C raft of C lay and M etal

Finishing

Direct evidence for finishing and polishing cast bronze is rarely encountered in the archeological context. At Xiaomintun Southeast, a thin layer of fine, patina-colored soil was found. The excavators interpreted it to be the work area for polishing bronzes, as the color may have been formed by oxidized bronze speckles generated from polishing. Grinding stones thought to be used for finishing bronzes are regularly recovered from bronze foundry sites. Usually made from sandstone, they are of various shapes, but most are of handheld sizes. Metal Recycling

The remelting of unwanted bronze objects or scrap metal in order to recycle the raw material is a common practice in metal working, and scholars have often assumed the existence of metal recycling in Bronze Age China. Records of recycling can be found in historical documents, and a well-known passage in the Shiji describes how weapons of the conquered states were collected by the First Emperor of Qin and melted down to cast twelve colossal bronze statues. Recycling does not usually leave much trace in the archaeological record. However, for bronze vessels cast with clay cores, such as vessels with legs and handles, the clay cores previously encased in the metal would be released when the the vessel was melted down. These would then have been discarded and would enter the archaeological context as workshop debris. Based on observation of cores in the legs and handles from recycled bronzes found at a Warring States bronze foundry at Xinzheng, Henan, these pieces would show signs of having been subjected to high temperature, as the surface may display different degrees of sintering, and the clay pieces may start to deform due to the high temperature (Li Jinghua, personal communication). There are indications that metal was recycled at Anyang. Seven or eight pieces of clay cores released from recycled bronzes were found at Xiaotun in YH42 underneath Structure B5 (Li Yung-ti 2003; Li Yung-ti ed. 2009, Entry No. 285). They are harder than other core, model, or mold fragments and specks of bronze and dark reddish patches are found on the surface. The surface is often cracked, and some have localized bubbles and areas of porosity, both indications of exposure to high temperatures close to the vitrifying point. One core from a recycled bronze is in the shape of an animal head. It is for an animal-head appendage commonly seen on large shouldered zunvessels (Li Yung-ti ed. 2009, Entry No. 285, bottom).

61 A C raft of C lay and M etal

FACILITIES AND SPATIAL ORGANIZATION OF THE ANYANG BRONZE WORKSHOPS

Due both to the preservation condition and the nature of local salvage projects, we know fairly little about the physical layout of workshops in Anyang. Evidence for workshop features comes mostly from bronze and pottery workshops as they require specific pryotechnological facilities, which tend to preserve better in the archaeological record. This section focuses on the workshop features and spatial organization of bronze production. For pottery workshops, only clusters of kilns were discovered and partially published. They will be discussed briefly in chapter 5. Of all the known locales of bronze production, Miaopu North and Xiaomintun South are the only two foundry sites with evidence of workshop layout and workshop facilities. However, while awaiting the publication of the multivolume site report of Xiaomintun South, Miaopu North remains the only foundry site with information related to spatial distribution of workshop-related features. Archaeologists have identified several types of features and facilities associated with the known foundry sites. They are aboveground structures with rammed-earth walls, semisubterranean structures, casting installations, work areas with treated or vitrified surfaces, ditches and buried ceramic pipes, trash pits, and kilns. Some of these features can be directly linked to foundry operations, such as the semisubterranean casting installations and trash pits filled with mold fragments. Some, however, are of unclear function, and their identification as foundry facilities is mostly based on association with the foundry remains. These include some of the aboveground structures, moldfiring kilns, and working surfaces. Excavators also believe that some of the burials found near and in the foundry area are those of the foundry workers. I will now focus on some of these workshop features: the pits, the aboveground structures, the casting installations, and the working surfaces. Pits

Pits for waste or storage are the most common workshop features found in the archaeological record at Anyang. Most of the foundry remains, or remains from any large-scale workshop in Anyang, come from fills of various features, such as trash pits, disused wells, and pits formed by extracting soil for building material. The distribution of pits with workshop remains is usually interpreted as evidence for the extent of the workshop area, as it is

62 A C raft of C lay and M etal

assumed that the remains were deposited not too far from the workshop, a hypothesis that remains to be validated. Strictly speaking, these trash pits were only the dumping ground for production waste. Some of the subterranean features served more specific functions, such as storage for raw materials and semifinished products. Besides the Liujiazhuang North storage pit for ingots, in Xiaomintun South, archaeologists found an earthen pit, H254, with lumps of compact sterile clay with sandy inclusion at the bottom. It is speculated that the pit was used to store raw materials for making models and molds (Yinxu 2007a, 16). The pit could also have been used for aging clay. Pit H453 at Xiaomintun South has a layer of charcoal of six to eight centimeters thick at the bottom. Also found were pieces of hard, dried clay that show traces of cutting and trimming, with some shapes similar to inner cores of bronze vessels. As charcoal pieces are usually used to absorb moisture, the pit is considered a facility for drying models and molds (Yinxu 2007a). Aboveground Structures

Miaopu North remains the only foundry site with reports of aboveground structures (Institute of Archaeology 1987, 2001).24 Judging from the betterpreserved examples, these structures are rectangular with rammed-earth foundations and walls and prepared floors. Some have one or more hearths. Some have partitions, dividing the structure into two rooms (figure 3.9). These structures could be work areas for indoor workshop activities, although without further evidence, the exact functions remain unknown. A cluster of four such structures, F2–F5, is worth noting. As they differ in size, layout, and orientation, they may have served different purposes. F2–F4 were abandoned by Yinxu Period III, and the appearance of F7 and F6, similar double-roomed structures in the southern part of the foundry site during Periods III and IV, may suggest the relocation of certain workshop activities to the other section of the workshop. As molds need to be dried slowly before they are fired, sheds or simple roofed structures without enclosing walls could conceivably have been built for this purpose. F17 at Miaopu North was reconstructed by the excavators as a roofed structure with no walls or partitions. A hearth or a small kiln was built in the middle of the structure. Fired and unfired mold pieces were found next to the hearth on the baked floor (IA 2001, 84). It may have been the location for drying molds before they were fired.

63 A C raft of C lay and M etal

Modern well

Modern well

1

A A

A

7 Balk

5

2

Balk 3

4

6

A

A 0 Modern intrusion or looters’ pit

1m

1–4 Post stones 6–7 Floor

5 Fire pit/hearth

FIGURE 3.9.  Line drawing of VF6, Miaopu North. Institute of Archaeology 1987: 18, figure 13.

Casting Installations

IA archaeologists have located several partially preserved casting installations for exceptionally large bronzes in Miaopu North and Xiaomintun South. Feature IVF1 at Miaopu North is a semisubterranean structure with sections of a mold assembly for a large fangding 方鼎 found in the middle (figure 3.10). The mold assembly was partially destroyed, and what remained included three mold sections and the core. A piece of metal was found in the gap between the mold sections and the core. This site was apparently the locale for a failed attempt to cast a bronze similar to the largest bronze vessel ever found in Anyang, the Simu Wu fangding (IA 1987, 19–20, 47–49).25 At Xiaomintun South, another two casting installations were found, F43 and F54, each with a partially preserved mold assembly set into the floor in the middle of the structure. In F43, the bottom portion of the mold assembly for a large round bronze, either a ding or a pan, is present. The base of

M24 3 4

H24

6

8

F1

5 7

A– 0

1m

A

1

2

–A’

A’

FIGURE 3.10.  Top: Plan of IVF1 at Miaopu North. (1–4) postholes; (5) in situ mold assembly for a fangding; (6, 7) mold fragments and fired clay; and (8) horse pit. Institute of Archaeology 1987: 20, figure 14. Bottom: Reconstruction of the mold assembly in IVF1. Institute of Archaeology 1987: 49, figure 35.

65 A C raft of C lay and M etal

the mold assembly has a diameter of 154 centimeters, and the cast bronze, if it survived, would have been one of the largest ever known. The excavators argue F43 was built as a semisubterranean structure similar to IVF1 at Miaopu and believe that the large mold assemblage was heated both from the outside and from the center (Yue and Yue 2009; Yinxu 2007a: 15–16). Only the round platform of a casting installation was found in F54. The installation is less well preserved and the excavators could not determine for what type of bronze the feature was constructed. Unfired models for three large ding legs were found in the northeastern corner of the semisubterranean structure, and lumps of fine, sandy clay were uncovered in the southern part of the structure. The excavators speculate that the structure was a casting installation for a large bronze and was perhaps also used for making molds or models. F54 is dated to Yinxu III (Yinxu 2007a: 16). The physical juxtaposition of evidence for model making and casting in F54 requires further explanation, as the two manufacturing stages are many steps apart in the operational sequence. One likely reason is that because of the exceptionally large size of the bronze to be cast, the manufacturing steps that normally took place in separate locations were performed where the final casting was to be done. It would have been difficult to build the large mold sections in one location and then move them to the casting site for assembly. Instead, the model, the mold sections, the mold assembly, and the final casting installation were all produced at the casting site. As in the case of IVF1 at Miaopu, a separate shed may have been built to facilitate the manufacturing process. It is worth noting that the installations for casting exceptionally large bronzes were located outside of the core area of Anyang, and the two locales, Miaopu North and Xiaomintun South, are situated across the settlement in different sectors of Anyang. Working Surfaces

Working surfaces refer to floors or activity areas where bronze production presumably took place. They are represented by hard surfaces formed either by tramping, contact with high temperature, or deliberate preparation of the associated workshop facilities. Few working surfaces have been located in the Anyang bronze workshops, and most known examples come from Miaopu North. The excavators of the Miaopu foundry reported two types of working surfaces related to foundry operations. One type is referred to as shaotu

66 A C raft of C lay and M etal

G2

Looted tomb

N

G1 M5 ? A1

A–

D

E

H

–A’

A2

A3

B

B

C

F

A

1

2 3

D

2 3 0

Hardened surface of burnt soil C. Yellowish soil H. Trash pit

Looters’ pit 1m

A1-A3. Post holes

D. Pit with mold fragments M5. Burial

A’

E 1

B. Hardened surface of reddish blue color

E. F. Small pits

G1. G2. Round pits

Looters’ pit

FIGURE 3.11.  STYM 2, Trenches IVT1-T4, Miaopu North. Institute of Archaeology 1987: 22, figure 17.

yingmian 燒土硬面, or a hard burned or baked soil surface, which consists of a localized area of oxidized clay that was formed when the surface soil came into sustained contact with a source of heat. Parts of these surfaces apparently were in contact with fairly high temperatures, as the color of the hardened soil turned bluish gray and had a glossy sheen, perhaps from having reached vitrification (figure 3.11; IA 1987, 21). Artifacts associated with

67 A C raft of C lay and M etal

these surfaces include mold and furnace fragments. Some unfired mold pieces were also found. The excavators argued that these surfaces were areas where mold firing or furnace operations took place, although mold firing does not require high temperature. The second type of working surface is referred to as jiangshifen yingmian 薑石粉硬面, or hard surface plastered with calcium nodule powder. These surfaces are usually flat and smooth, while some have multiple layers. These working areas were usually round or oval in shape with concave or convex surfaces. The floor, sometimes burned to increase hardness, was often plastered with white powder made from calcium nodules commonly found in the local soil. Most of the associated artifacts are model and mold fragments and unfired or unfinished model and mold fragments (IA 1987, 23), although the one in Trench 225 is associated with furnace pieces, mold fragments, a piece of bronze, and some grinding stones. Judging from the presence or absence of heat sources and how the surfaces were prepared, these two types of work areas may have served different functions. They are also associated with other features such as postholes, water pipes, hearths, and kilns. Changes in Workshop Layout Observed at Miaopu North

As Miaopu North is the only craft production site with preserved workshop features and published spatial information, reconstructing the spatial organization of this workshop is important. When granted access to the field records, I was able to reconstruct a map, albeit incomplete, of the layout of the workshop (figures 3.12 and 3.13).26 I first prepared a map with the correct scale of the trenches. With additional information from the field notes, I traced and plotted back features with provenance to their respective trenches on the overall map in order to examine their spatial relationship. Once the features were plotted on the reconstructed site map, I could observe that during the later phase of the foundry operations at Miaopu, there was an apparent division of workshop operations: casting was being done in the northern section and clay preparation and mold and model forming was being performed in the middle section of the workshop. Over 140 trash pits were found at the Miaopu North site.27 As only the excavation trenches, not the specific locations, of most of the trash pits are given, it is difficult to examine directly how the pits with foundry remains were distributed across the site. Alternatively, each pit with foundry remains is represented by the pottery phase to which it is dated and then marked in

68 A C raft of C lay and M etal

222 2 2 2 222

JSFYM /II

2

22 2

2222

2 222 2

22

2

22

2

2

STYM /II

222 2

2 FIGURE 3.12.  Distribution of foundry-related features during Yinxu Period II at Miaopu North. The number of times the numeral 2 is repeated represents the number of trash pits dated to Period II found in the excavation trenches (“222” represents three Period II pits found). Reconstruction based on Institute of Archaeology 1987 and field notes provided by the Anyang Archaeological Team, Institute of Archaeology, CASS.

the individual trenches on the reconstructed site map (see figures 3.12 and 3.13). For instance, Trench 233 has seven pits that yielded foundry remains, with one from Phase III, three from Phase II, and three from Phase I. The trench is therefore labeled with a series of numbers: 3/222/111. The numbers themselves represent the dates of the pits, and the number of times each number is repeated represents the number of pits in the same pottery phase. Numeral 4 is assigned to pits that can be dated to Late Miaopu Phase III, the equivalent of Yinxu Period IV, when datable pottery types were given.

69 A C raft of C lay and M etal

STYM2 /III

4 33

4 3 3 3

3 44 JSFYM1 /III

4

4

4 3 3333

3

JSFYM2 /III 3 JSFYM /III

333

3

F8 3

3

3

FIGURE 3.13.  Distribution of foundry-related features during Yinxu Periods III and IV at Miaopu North. The number of times numerals are repeated represents the number of trash pits dated to Periods III or IV found in the excavation trenches. Reconstruction based on Institute of Archaeology 1987 and field notes provided by the Anyang Archaeological Team, Institute of Archaeology, CASS.

There are nineteen pits with foundry remains dated to Phase I, thirty-five for Phase II, and thirty-three for Phase III (seven of which can be dated to Yinxu Period IV), which accounts for more than half of the total number of trash  pits excavated between 1959 and 1961 at Miaopu North (87 of the 149 total). If we compare distribution maps of each phase, the pattern of trash pits with foundry remains indicates a gradual southern expansion of the workshop, which is also observable in the distribution of the foundry features.

70 A C raft of C lay and M etal

Figures 3.12 and 3.13 show the distribution of trash pits with foundry remains according to the excavation trenches in which they were located. A majority of the trash pits with foundry remains seem to be concentrated in the central and northern parts of the excavated area where most of the foundry-related features were also located. During Miaopu Phases I and II, i.e., Early Yinxu Period, pits with foundry remains were concentrated mainly in the central part of the excavated area, while the density of trash pits increased sharply during Phase II. By Miaopu Phase III, i.e., Late Yinxu Period, trash pits with foundry remains extended south of VF6, although fewer pits were found. A southern expansion of the foundry operation is also suggested by the later dates of features situated outside the central part of the excavated area (VF6, F7, and F8). Clearly, Miaopu North was dedicated to bronze production throughout the Yinxu occupation and, despite the changes in workshop layout, the investment in bronze production, reflected in the construction and maintenance of workshop facilities, was long-term and permanent. When considered together with the other craft production activities in the same vicinity, such as the Tiensanlu-Xin’anzhuang bone workshop and the Liujiazhuang pottery workshop, such an investment may well be based on logistics. It also suggests that the Anyang production precincts were designed to be permanent production areas. REVISITING THE XIAOTUN FOUNDRY: THE EARLY IHP FINDS AND THE RELATED ISSUES

The foundry at Xiaotun Northeast was the first bronze workshop excavated in the history of Chinese archaeology. Although the scale of excavations and the amount of artifacts found were not comparable to the later IA projects, these finds launched the study of Shang bronze technology. Research on the material by Shih Chang-ju and Wan Chia-pao laid the foundation for the study of Shang bronze production and casting technology (e.g., Shih 1955b; Wan 1964, 1966, 1970, 1972, 1976; for an English summary of their work, see Li Yung-ti 2003). These early finds, however, are flawed, as the spatial and stratigraphic information was not fully retrieved and recorded by the first-generation Anyang archaeologists (see chapter 2). In addition, the loss of datable potsherds during the Sino-Japanese War and the separation of the IHP data from the IA archaeologists who continued active fieldwork at Anyang after the Chinese civil war mean that the IHP data are not always securely dated and fully integrated with the more recent finds. Because the IHP foundry remains may

71 A C raft of C lay and M etal

reflect an earlier stage of section-mold casting technology , it is important to determine the stratigraphy and dating of the Xiaotun foundry by sieving through the IHP publications and physically examining the foundry remains now housed in IHP storage. Shih Chang-ju provided a comprehensive review of the foundry remains discovered by the IHP Anyang campaign in the monograph Architectural Remains at Yinxu (Shih 1959). Piecing together information gathered in the field many years previously, Shih summarized and discussed the foundry remains in connection with the three groups of rammed-earth structures in the temple-palace complex in Xiaotun Northeast. Most of the foundry debris was concentrated in Group B of the temple-palace complex, while a much smaller amount was found in Group A and Group C.28 Within Architecture Group B, 94 percent of the mold and model fragments found in Group B are associated with Structure B5 (3,352/3,569); of those, about three quarters came from underneath B5 (2,506/3,352). In other words, most of the foundry remains excavated by IHP came from strata and features associated with Structure B5, especially those underneath the structure. Structure B5 is a reverse E-shaped rammed-earth foundation situated at the northwestern corner of Architecture Group B. The eastern extent of the structure was not located by the IHP excavations. The foundation consists of nine rammed-earth blocks, probably representing different construction phases, while a number of pits and burials intruded into the structure. The foundation itself sat on top of a series of trash pits. Foundry-related remains were found in pits underneath the foundation, in the rammed-earth foundation itself, and in pits that intruded into the foundation. Shih argued that the concentration of foundry debris underneath B5 indicated that foundry activities began before the construction of B5 and that the foundry remains found in and above the foundation represented activities during the construction of the foundation and when the structure was in use. The same can be argued for the entire temple-palace complex, as foundry-related remains were found in strata above, below, and contemporaneous with the foundations in all three architectural groups. Such an interpretation, however, does not take into consideration the factors that determined the distribution of the archaeological remains, namely the postdepositional site formation processes. Intrusion into and disturbance of earlier cultural deposits are regularly observed in excavations in Anyang. Even in the Shang period, both the extensive building of rammed-earth structures and the digging of trash pits and other features constantly intruded into earlier cultural layers. In the case of foundry remains associated with Structure B5, based on the distribution,

72 A C raft of C lay and M etal

we can safely argue that the original and earlier foundry deposits underneath B5 were intruded into and the contents were redeposited into later strata and features. In other words, foundry remains encountered in the foundation and in the pits stratigraphically above the foundation do not represent actual foundry operations during the construction and the use of the structure; they predate these events. Again, based on the distribution of the foundry remains, the degree of post-depositional disturbance may have been relatively limited, as the large rammed-earth foundation also sealed off the earlier foundry, protecting it from later intrusions and, most importantly, providing the stratigraphic context to date the remains underneath. With hindsight, we now know that Shih also underestimated the scale of bronze production at Anyang, which took place mostly outside of Xiaotun; the bronze industry, in fact, may have reached its peak during the end of the Anyang period. Dating Structure B5 and the Foundry Remains

In order to date the foundry remains associated with Structure B5, the date of B5 itself is of particular interest. Although Shih Chang-ju did not have a pottery chronology to work with, he attempted to date the three architectural groups at Xiaotun by the inscribed oracle bones found in association with the foundations, following the periodization of oracle bone inscriptions proposed by Tung Tso-pin (Shih 1959, 319–26, tables 127 and 128). Shih listed the inscribed oracle bones associated with the rammed-earth structures (320–26; tables 127, 128) and argued that Group A was the earliest. Group B was slightly later, and Group C was the latest. Shih argued that Structure B5, where most of the foundry remains came from, belonged to the early construction phase; he dated B5 and other early structures, such as B7 and B11, to the reign of King Zu Jia, i.e., Period 2 in Tung’s chronology (332). Tung Tso-pin’s periodization of oracle bone inscriptions has since been revised (see IA 2001, 165–72 and Chang 1980, 99–106 for summaries of Tung’s periodization and proposed revisions). Since the detailed monograph for the Xiaotun structural remains was published, several scholars have done painstaking research and combed through the publications to propose more fine-tuned dating. Among them are Zou Heng,29 Chen Zhida,30 Liu Yiman,31 Zhu Fenghan (2004b), and Du Jinpeng (2010). Zou, Chen, and Du made use of the well-established periodization of the pottery and bronzes and examined the artifacts associated with the various features. Liu and Zhu, on the

73 A C raft of C lay and M etal

other hand, used the datable inscribed oracle bones found in trenches or features associated with B5. With slight variations in the details, they all agreed that Structure B5 should be dated to the early half of the Yinxu Period to the reign of Wu Ding, or Zu Geng/Zu Jia. Based on those findings, I wish to establish three separate but related points: the foundry remains unearthed in association with B5 all came from foundry operations stratigraphically underneath and chronologically earlier than the rammed-earth structure; scholars, although varying in the details of their theses, all agree that B5 should be dated to the reigns of the first three kings who resided in Anyang; and foundry remains associated with B5 should therefore be dated to the first half of the Anyang period. In other words, the rammed-earth foundation serves as a stratigraphic and temporal boundary for the foundry remains. The inscribed oracle bones, the associated pottery, and the stratigraphic relationships all indicate that the foundry remains underneath B5 came from a bronze workshop that operated during the first half of the Anyang occupation.32 As will be discussed next, the mold fragments from underneath Structure B5 exhibit different physical attributes from those unearthed at other Anyang bronze foundry sites, such as Xiaomintun and Miaopu. With the temporal position of the foundry established, we may now look at the foundry remains themselves, which may represent an early form of the Anyang clay-mold casting technology. Type I and Type II Molds: Changes in Section Mold Technology

Mold pieces associated with Structure B5 are in small fragments and heavily worn, and the decoration on the interior is barely discernible. Only from a very small fraction of the molds can the type of bronze being cast be identified. The identifiable mold pieces come mainly from YH42, and the most abundantly represented vessel types are small ritual vessels such as gu and jue, although larger vessels such as ding, fangyi, gui, pou, and lei are also present. Other mold fragments include horse and chariot fittings, such as wei 軎 axle caps, pao 泡 bosses, and a mold fragment for the tang of a ge halberd (see Li Yung-ti ed. 2009, Entry Nos. 280–300 for examples of the IHP molds). Most of the gu and jue molds were published in Wan Chia-pao’s work (Li and Wan 1964, 1966). Shih Changju has also reported having identified various bronze types (Shih 1947, 1955b). Mold fragments excavated by IHP can be divided into two groups according to their physical attributes (figure 3.14) . The fragments in the first group

0

5 cm

FIGURE 3.14.  Top row: Front and back of a Type I mold for a ding vessel from Structure B5, Xiaotun. Bottom row: Front and back of a Type II mold for a fangding from Daliankeng, Xiaotun. © Institute of History and Philology

75 A C raft of C lay and M etal

are typically thin, with a smooth and finished back. One or more narrow ribs are occasionally found on the backside. These ribs are slightly raised, with a rounded surface, and may run vertically or horizontally, sometimes intersecting one another when more than one is present. The facets where mold sections are joined typically have no mortises and tenons,33 and the edges of the mold sections are often tapered and not planed or leveled, especially where the horizontal mold division is placed and where the core is joined to the mold sections. The last two attributes introduce instability in the mold assemblage, and it is most likely that a separate layer of clay or clay shell was needed to form and complete the mold assemblage.34 Fragments in this group form the main body of mold fragments in the IHP collection. They are also present in the foundry remains excavated by IA but make up a very small fraction of the large amount of foundry remains recovered. The fragments in the second group in the IHP collection are represented by the finds from Daliankeng. They are thicker and heavier than the molds in the first group. The backside is mostly irregular, showing an uneven surface formed by pressing additional clay onto the back of the mold with fingers. Examples of similar mold pieces from Xiaomintun show that a clay frame with a convex back was formed first, and additional clay was then applied into the frame, presumably after the decoration was formed, to make the mold thicker and heavier. Mortises and tenons of different shapes and sizes are systematically placed on the joining sides of the molds. Facets where the horizontal mold division is placed are typically level with square edges and are well finished, creating a stable plane for joining. This group represents the most commonly seen molds from all the other foundry sites excavated by IA. In the IHP collection, they are present in much smaller numbers and only in the foundry remains from Daliankeng, with occasional finds from other locales in Xiaotun. To better distinguish these two types of molds, the term Type I mold refers to the thinner ones with smooth backsides and no mortises and tenons. Type II mold refers to the thicker ones with mortises and tenons on the edges.35 Early researchers had noticed the presence of a type of thin mold fragment among the foundry remains from Anyang. Karlbeck distinguished two types of clay molds in the Royal Ontario Museum collection and noted the thin width and the smooth back of one type (Karlbeck 1935, 44). The IA excavators of Miaopu North also made similar observations on a jue mold fragment (IA 1987, 37) Unlike the Type I molds found in Miaopu and Xiaomintun, the IHP Xiaotun Type I molds appear in larger numbers and came from relatively simple

76 A C raft of C lay and M etal

contexts. As described earlier, all the mold fragments associated with Structure B5 are Type I. Even though the stratigraphic information is incomplete, the fact that no Type II molds were found in the same context enables the identification of the IHP Type I molds as a separate category. And since a variety of vessel forms are represented in the IHP Type I molds, they can be studied and compared with the much better understood Type II molds found in the other Anyang foundry sites. The tapering edges and the lack of mortises and tenons of the Type I molds are unexpected. Without the leveled joining facets and the interlocking mortises and tenons, while also considering the lighter weight and smaller size, the Type I molds would have been more difficult to assemble and to maintain stability during casting. In other words, there may have been a higher rate of failed casting. Judging from the types of vessels cast using these molds, however, the Anyang artisans were still able to produce both small and large bronzes with considerable workshop output. The technological differences and changes in mold-making technology observed in these two types can be examined by looking at both types of molds for the same kind of bronze vessels. Figure 3.15 shows a comparison of

FIGURE 3.15.  Type I (right) and Type II (left) molds for a gu vessel. © Institute of History and Philology (right) and Institute of Archaeology, CASS (middle and left; mold illustrations top by Li Xiating and bottom by Lai Shu-li)

77 A C raft of C lay and M etal

gu mold fragments from Xiaotun and Xiaomintun. The Xiaotun mold fragments on the right are for the upper and lower parts of the vessel, including the vessel foot. The long slender mold pieces are probably inset molds for the decorations on the upper part of the gu vessel (Li and Wan 1964). The lower body of the vessel was formed by another mold section. The lower edge of the mold piece for the body and the foot of the gu are slightly inverted, and the mold tapers toward the tip. No mortises or tenons are found. The mold fragments on the left in figure 3.15 shows two Type II mold fragments from Xiaomintun, which form the middle section, and the section from the neck and uppermost part of a gu vessel. The part for the vessel rim is missing. Both have a series of mortises and tenons prepared on the vertical and the horizontal edges of the mold. The mortises on the lower end of the upper mold and the tenons on the upper end of the lower mold show that mold pieces for these parts of a gu would have been joined together to form a complete section from the rim to the foot of the gu vessel. Figure 3.16 shows two mold sections for the upper part of a jue. The picture on the upper right is an almost complete jue mold section from Xiaotun. The mold section forms half of the tail and rim of the jue cup and terminates at the lower middle section of the body. The upper edge of the mold section ends shortly above the space where the rim of the vessel is formed on the mold. No mortises and tenons are present on the mold section. The upper and lower edges of the mold are also slightly inverted, gradually becoming thinner toward the tip. The planes of the upper and lower edges of the mold section, where other molds and the core would have been joined along the vertical axis, are therefore not horizontal. Figure 3.16 also shows a mold section from Xiaomintun Southeast. It too is for half of the tail and rim of a jue cup, but the decorations are in a later style. The lower part of the mold is incomplete, broken at the middle of the vessel body, although the rest of the mold is intact. If compared with the jue mold from Xiaotun, the Xiaomintun mold extends further from above the rim of the vessel, forming an additional section. A large triangular mortise can be seen on the extended section. Two to three rectangular mortises are placed on each of the two vertical joining sides, with the two highest mortises positioned above the rim of the vessel. The top of the mold section, where the core would have been placed, has a horizontal plane. The extension above the rim of the vessel with mortises and tenons seen on the Xiaomintun jue mold represents a major technological change in the preparation and placement of the core within the mold assemblage. The core

78 A C raft of C lay and M etal

FIGURE 3.16.  Type I (upper right) and Type II (lower right) molds for a jue vessel. Note how the top section of the Type II mold extends beyond the rim of the vessel. Photos of the vessel are mirror-reversed (from Li Chi 1966: Pl. XL). © Institute of History and Philology (upper right) and Institute of Archaeology, CASS (lower right; illustration by Lai Shu-li)

is usually the largest part in the mold assemblage, and since clay has a much lower density than bronze, it becomes crucial to secure the core and prevent it from moving when molten metal is poured into the mold assemblage during casting. The extension of the mold above the rim of the jue vessel, the large mortise on the extension, the mortises and tenons on the side of the mold above the rim, and the horizontal plane seen on the edge of the mold

79 A C raft of C lay and M etal

section are all designed to provide a better joining mechanism by which to securely assemble the core and mold sections. This also means that the core for the Xiaomintun jue mold would be very different from that of the Xiaotun jue mold. The Xiaomintun core would have a larger and wider base that extended further above the rim of the vessel than the Xiaotun core and would have included a number of mortises and tenons. The Type I–Type II distinction can also be seen in the molds from the other bronze workshops across Anyang. Although, contrary to the IHP Xiaotun find, mold fragments found in the other foundries overwhelmingly belong to Type II. Just over a hundred Type I mold fragments were found among the over thirty thousand mold fragments in Xiaomintun Southeast (Yue Zhanwei, personal communication;). While there is no information for the quantities of the Type I and Type II molds at Miaopu, one of the excavators, Yang Xizhang, confirmed that Type I molds were far rarer among the foundry remains (personal communication). The same scarcity of Type I molds has also been described by the excavator of Xiaomintun South (Yue, Liu, et al. 2016; see also Uchida and Yue 2017). As the Xiaomintun Southeast and South foundries are securely dated to Yinxu Phases III and IV, these findings indicate that by the time of Yinxu Phase III, Type II molds were already widely used and had replaced Type I molds (Li Yung-ti 2003; Yue, Liu, et al. 2016), although the occasional find of Type I molds in the later contexts has led researchers to argue that the Type I technology continued to be in use, albeit in a limited way (Uchida and Yue 2017). The physical differences between the Type I and the Type II molds clearly represent developments and improvements in the section-mold technology employed by the Shang foundry workers. The technological implications for these changes in mold-making technology are significant, although in the absence of further research and replication experiments, observations made here are speculative. With the increase in the thickness of the mold, the systematic placement of mortises and tenons, and a better-secured core with an extended and enlarged base, the stability of the mold assemblage must have increased significantly, and this in turn would have reduced the rate of failed castings and enhanced the productivity of bronze production. We do not know for sure if this technological change contributed to the increased scale of production in the later Anyang foundry sites, although the much larger number of Type II molds found at Xiaomintun and other Anyang bronze foundries may indicate such developments. However, examination of the Type I molds in the IHP collection shows that, even with the less stable and less efficient technology, the early Anyang

80 A C raft of C lay and M etal

FIGURE 3.17. A you vessel with a removable top section that turns into a gu vessel from HPKM1022 and Type I mold fragments from Xiaotun for a similar vessel. See also Li 2009: nos. 39, 294. Illustrations by Lai Shu-li. © Institute of History and Philology

bronze casters were still able to produce bronzes in special forms and in large sizes. Figure 3.17 shows several mold fragments for casting an intricately designed you vessel with a detachable top section that could be used as a beaker. Figure 3.18 shows mold fragments that would have been used to cast a bovid-shaped zun vessel similar to the one from the Fuhao tomb. If the Type I molds are dated to the first half of the Yinxu period, the exceptional bronzes found in the Fuhao tomb, and the large he vessels in the Nezu Museum, presumably from HPKM1001, would have been cast using the Type I technology. Therefore, the earlier mold technology was not an impediment to casting some very large and complex bronzes. It just would have made their production more difficult and probably riddled with more failed attempts. The evolution in the section-mold technology at the Anyang bronze foundries may have been in response to an increase in demand. The technological

81 A C raft of C lay and M etal

FIGURE 3.18.  Upper left: A bovid-shaped zun vessel from the Fuhao tomb (Institute of Archaeology 1980) and Type I mold fragments from Xiaotun for similar vessels. © Institute of History and Philology

improvements may have occurred over time, but they may have been driven by a need for a better and more efficient technology. Anyang archaeologists have argued that the area of occupation at Anyang doubled during the second half of the Yinxu period and that the distribution of settlements and cemeteries expanded westward (Institute of Archaeology 2001, 42). The number of burials in the larger cemeteries such as those in the western sectors and at Miaopu North also increased during the later half of the Yinxu period (Anyang 1979b; IA 1987.) In fact, the population in Anyang may have reached its peak during the last phase of the Yinxu period (Li Yung-ti et al. 2018; Yue Hongbin and Yue Zhanwei 2012; Zheng Zhenxiang 1988).

82 A C raft of C lay and M etal

It is conceivable that with the increase in population, including the size of the elite class, and the expansion of the Shang occupation at Anyang, the internal demand for bronzes also increased. The relationship between the foundry and the rammed-earth foundations at Xiaotun, however, remains unclear. The operation of both the earlier component of the bronze foundry at Structure B5 and the later component at Daliankeng may have at some point overlapped the use of some of the palatial structures. If we consider the foundry waste and the fire and smoke generated by the furnaces operating at the bronze workshop, it seems implausible that the bronze foundry would be situated so closely to large palatial structures. Based on the new survey and coring finds and the reexamination of the IHP data related to craft production, it is likely that the palatial structures were located further west and the locales where workshop remains were concentrated in Xiaotun may in fact have been a craft-production area controlled by the royal elite (see chapters 5 and 6). EXAMINING PRODUCTION ORGANIZATION OF THE ANYANG BRONZE INDUSTRY

As discussed in chapter 2, the separate but adjacent locales where bronze foundry remains were discovered would actually belong to the same workshop, a fact not recognized due to constraints in the early excavations and the later salvage operations. For instance, at Xiaotun, foundry remains found under Structure B5 and at Daliankeng most likely came from the early and late components of the same bronze workshop. The two main foundries, Miaopu and Xiaomintun, are located on the southern and western fringes of the late Shang occupation. Xiaomintun West, South, and Southeast, all situated by the modern Xiaomintun village, may be different sections of the same foundry. Xuejiazhuang, Miaopu North, and Xin’anzhuang West, including the newly found cache of lead ingots at Liujiazhuang North, are only a few hundred meters apart and should be seen as one and the same workshop. Counting Dasikong South, there are at least four different bronze workshops located across Anyang: Xiaomintun, Xiaotun, Miaopu, and Dasikong. All four seem to be located along the Huan River, within five hundred meters of the modern river course, and, with the exception of Dasikong South, all are south of the river. The proximity of the foundries to the river and the water canals likely reflects the need for water and for transportation of raw materials and finished products via the waterways (Tang et al. 2016). It is also worth

83 A C raft of C lay and M etal

noting that craft-production activities in other media, such as bone and pottery, are often found in the vicinity of the bronze workshops, forming several production precincts across Anyang (see chapters 2 and 6). As the late Shang occupation may have expanded westward and southward from the core area (Institute of Archaeology 2001), the appearance of a major bronze foundry close to the village of Xiaomintun during the later half of the Yinxu period was likely the result of the expansion of Shang settlements. If the distribution of bronze production locales in Anyang seems dispersed, the products made in these foundries were similar in range and types. Gu, jue, ding, gui, and you are the most common vessel types identified in the remains from all bronze workshops (e.g., Anyang 2006a; IA 1987, 2020; Tu and Li 2008; Yinxu 2007b). In other words, there was no specialization of products among the bronze workshops. They were operating simultaneously and producing similar types of products.36 At the same time, with the exception of the Dasikong locale, all bronze workshops were also producing exceptionally large and stylistically striking vessels that must have been for royal use only (for discussions on bronzes for royal use, see Huber 1983; Wang Shimin et al. 1986). For instance, the Miaopu foundry attempted to cast a bronze fangding very close to the size of Si Mu Wu fangding, the largest Shang bronze known. The foundry at Xiaomintun South also had two installations for casting very large vessels. Xiaomintun Southeast, on the other hand, cast a number of bronzes with a new decorative style, one not seen at Anyang but found only in the Zhou territory in Shaanxi (Li Yung-ti et al. 2007; Li Yung-ti and Yue Zhanwei 2015). At Xiaotun, there are mold fragments for exceptionally large ding vessels and for animal-shaped vessels similar to the bovid-shaped zun in the Fuhao tomb. The presence of molds for horse and chariot fittings in Xiaotun is also noteworthy. Although technologically simpler to cast, horse and chariot fittings may be among the more prestigious items, as the use of chariots, especially chariots adorned with bronze fittings, must have been limited to elite of the highest status. Another interesting phenomenon is that mold fragments for making arrowheads and ge halberds were found in most of the workshops. Admittedly, the number of mold fragments for weapons is small, but to have weapons manufactured across the capital must mean that there was tight control over the finished products generated by these workshops. Considered together with the fact that high-status bronzes were made in foundries across the capital, the evidence suggests that the Shang court may have had ultimate supervision over the distribution of the final products.

84 A C raft of C lay and M etal

I would like to argue that the same type of control and distribution mechanism existed for the raw materials for bronze casting, although there is much less evidence to support this. Scholars have long pointed out that foundry remains unearthed at Anyang indicate melting, not smelting, was conducted at the site (e.g., Hua 1999, 111; Shih 1955; Zhou Wenli et al. 2015). The presence of ingots then suggests that metal was prepared and imported into Anyang. The lead ingots found in the storage pit at Liujiazhuang North may be another indication of a top-down control over metal production that stored and distributed metal of such volume. CHAPTER SUMMARY

The bronze industry is the best represented and the best studied craft at Anyang in terms of archaeological remains, the technology, the workshop layout, and the production organization. We now understand the basic operational sequence of the Anyang bronze technology and how bronze production is in fact a craft that existed between extensive clay working and metal working. As demonstrated by the replication experiments, a considerable amount of time and labor was devoted to the clay-working component of the industry, while metal working is only the latter stage of the complex foundry operation. It is also clear that the co-craft nature of the technology required a high degree of internal division of labor in the workshop, which in turn entailed managerial control to oversee the production. All of this is reflected in the archaeological context in the amount of foundry remains discovered, the various specialized production facilities, and the planned and arguably permanent workshop layout. We also know that, over time, the Anyang section-mold casting technology underwent a revolutionary change in how the mold sections and the core were prepared. The addition of mortises and tenons, the leveling of the joining sides of the mold sections, and the lengthening of the mold sections beyond the cavity for the vessel to connect to the base of the core all contributed to a much more stable mold assemblage. The technological innovation no doubt reduced the rate of failed casting and increased productivity, although at the moment detailed quantitative analysis is not available. Nonetheless, it is clear that the new technology quickly replaced outdated methods. There are several salient features of the Anyang bronze industry, some of which also seem to apply to the other crafts, especially the bone industry (see chapter 4). Bronze production at Anyang was performed on a large scale

85 A C raft of C lay and M etal

and in a concentrated manner. At the same time, multiple workshops operated simultaneously across the settlement. Bronze production was therefore both concentrated in terms of scale and dispersed in terms of locales. Such patterns indicate that the local lesser elite may have been responsible for the operation of the bronze workshops (see chapter 6). On the other hand, the kinds of products being made at these workshops suggest that the royal elite may have had ultimate control over the production operation and the distribution of the finished products, as exceptionally large bronzes, bronzes with elaborate designs, and, most of all, weapons such as arrowheads, were made in workshops across the capital but often outside of the core area. The  production of high-status bronzes in multiple locations seems to be a unique feature of the bronze industry, as high-status osseous objects were most likely made in the royal workshop in the so-called temple-palace complex rather than in the production precincts outside of the core area. These aspects will be explored further in discussion of other Anyang craft industries in the following chapters and especially chapter 6.

Chapter Four

BONE TECHNOLOGY, PRODUCTION CONTEXTS, AND THE BONE WORKSHOPS

THE MANY FACETS OF BONE ARTIFACTS

The technology of making bone artifacts differs categorically from bronze casting. If bronze technology is additive, like pottery making, then bone technology is reductive, like lithic technology. Bone technology, however, differs from lithic technology in the sense that while a flintknapper can prepare the raw material to the desired shape in order to retrieve blades or flakes in the subsequent manufacturing stages, a bone worker, when making larger bone artifacts, needs to consider the natural shape and curvature of the bones. Bone technology is therefore “form follows nature,” as bone tool makers consciously choose skeletal elements of particular shapes and fashion them into tools and equipment for various activities such as hunting, hide processing, wood working, and even skating, as described in many case studies of bone technology around the world.1 Bone workers at Anyang faced similar constraints in making bone artifacts. Depending on the intended objects, the craftsperson either had to choose suitably shaped skeletal elements for their intended pieces, such as using metapodials for making hairpins, with their long and straight bodies, or design an object according to the natural shape and curvature of the bone, such as making spatulas from ribs, humeri, radiuses, and tibias. A third option is to process the bones into smaller blanks to make small objects with a standardized form, as in the making of arrowheads and hairpin caps.

87 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

Each of these technological choices results in a different kind of manufacturing process and a different degree of standardization. The making of bone artifacts therefore involves working within the constraints of the natural shape of the bone, so artisans are in some aspects more limited in their designs than they are in in other crafts such as bronze casting.2 The modern Chinese term zhigu 製骨, or “bone artifact making,” refers not only to the processing and manufacturing of animal bones but also to that of other animal skeletal parts, such as teeth, antlers, and tusk ivory. Zhigu can therefore be referred to as osseous production or osseous industry. As the raw materials came from the same source and the manufacturing usually took place in the same workshop, bone production or bone technology will refer to the processing and manufacturing of all skeletal parts. Raw materials for making bone artifacts at Anyang came mostly from domesticated animals, especially cattle. The skeletal parts were used to make weapons, such as arrowheads; utilitarian objects, such as hairpins, awls, and spades; and sumptuous objects for the elite, such as the elaborately carved spatulas found in the royal tombs. Anyang archaeologists have identified seven categories of bone artifacts based on function: tools, utensils, weapons, musical instruments, decorative pieces, carved portable art, and other items. Tools are mostly found in habitation sites and workshop contexts, while utensils, weapons, decorative pieces, and carved portable art are concentrated in large- and medium-sized burials (IA 2001, 383).3 Bone artifacts for daily use, such as awls, spades, and end scrapers, are generally easy to produce and only require simple equipment to manufacture. The sharp edges of bone splinters require minimum modification to make them into usable tools, and the raw materials are readily available as waste from meat consumption and bone artifact production. This type of bone working can be described as ad hoc (e.g., Vitezović 2013), and the term expedient or opportunistic is often used (e.g., Johnson 1982; Lyman 1984), since a bone tool user can pick up a broken bone or a splinter of approximate shape and size and modify it into something that fits the task at hand.4 This is not too different from a stone tool user who picks up a sharp flint fragment and uses it for scraping or cutting without much fashioning of the material. At Anyang, most of the utilitarian bone artifacts, such as awls, spades, and end scrapers, were made in such a manner. These tools could easily have been produced in the context of local households; bone working is indeed identified as a common type of craft activity at habitation sites at Anyang, with blanks and semiprocessed bone artifacts often found in the deposits (IA 1987, 93, 383; IA 1994, 93).

88 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

Bone artifacts can also be sumptuous items, depending on the material used and, most of all, the time and labor invested in making the objects, as seen in the intricately decorated bone objects unearthed from the Xibeigang royal cemetery. Materials used range from bones of pigs and cattle, deer antlers, ivories, to tiger and elephant limb bones. The exquisitely carved and inlaid beakers made of ivory and elephant limb bones from the tomb of Fuhao and Xibeigang tomb no. 1001, for example, combined the exotic nature of the material and the time and labor invested by the artisans, making them fine examples of what Clark and Parry termed “hypertrophic goods”.5 On the other hand, while the raw material used may not be as exotic, the thin and polished spatulas made from cattle bones, some applied with layers of finely carved decor, represent the efforts of skilled artisans who transformed the mundane material into high-status elite items through the investment of time and labor. While the hypertrophic objects attest to the advanced skills of the Anyang artisans, there is not much evidence for the production of such high-status bone artifacts at the last Shang capital, although finds from the Xiaotun temple-palace complex, especially near Daliankeng, may suggest the presence of a multicrafting artisan workshop controlled by the court (see chapter  5). There is also little information for production activities related to the manufacturing of household bone artifacts other than the blanks and semiprocessed bone artifacts, as few habitation sites have been excavated and fully reported. Evidence for bone artifact production at Anyang again comes mostly from large-scale operations, as archaeologists found several massive deposits of bone production waste, yielding an enormous amount of raw material, debitage, and semifinished products. However, the range of products made in these workshops, mainly hairpins and arrowheads, seems to be limited, especially when compared to the bone assemblages seen in the royal tombs. The large-scale production, or mass production as described by the excavators, of mainly one or two product types has led scholars to argue that the Anyang bone workshops were producing in excess of local demand for an external market (Campbell et al. 2011). The large-scale production of a limited repertoire of products is puzzling and requires further investigation. One approach is to examine the full range of bone artifacts present at Anyang, and the only context where the widest repertoire of osseous artifacts can be found is in the burials, especially the royal tombs. A closer look at the bone artifact assemblages in the royal

89 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

cemetery reveals not only the fuller repertoire of bone artifacts present at Anyang but also the diversity and complexity of the bone industries at the Shang capital. This chapter first examines bone artifact assemblages in the royal tombs to discuss the range of bone artifacts found at Anyang. It then focuses on the bone artifact production at large-scale workshops to investigate the scale, the manufacturing procedures, and the standardization of both the dimensions of certain artifacts and also the reduction strategies of bone processing. The chapter ends with a broader discussion of the production organization of the Anyang bone industry in comparison to that of bronze production, namely that even though both industries operated on a large scale, the former produced a limited range of utilitarian items while the latter had a wider array of products. OSSEOUS ARTIFACT ASSEMBLAGES FROM ROYAL AND ELITE TOMBS

Most studies of the Shang material culture focus on the exquisite and elaborate jade and bronze objects. The plain looking and sometimes poorly preserved osseous artifacts are often overlooked. Examples of bone artifacts with intricately carved decorations and the array of osseous objects from the royal cemetery, however, remind us that the Anyang bone industry and the craftsmanship of bone working are equally striking. Despite the preservation conditions and the fact that the royal cemetery was heavily looted, a quick survey of the Anyang bone artifact assemblages from the Xibeigang excavation reports impresses one with the wide range of artifact types and the sheer volume (figure 4.1). Bone arrowheads, hairpins, oval-shaped perforated beads made from deer antler, decorated and undecorated bone spatulas, and various appendages and inlay pieces made of bone, teeth, and ivories, most likely from wood and lacquerwares, were found in large numbers in the Xibeigang royal cemetery.6 The most numerous categories of osseous artifacts are the arrowheads and inlay pieces. They appear in such large numbers—for instance, the arrowheads numbering in the thousands in M1001, M1002, M1003, and M1004 (figure 4.2)—that they must have come from the large-scale workshops. Some, especially the hypertrophic objects, are fewer in quantity and are only found in the royal tombs. These items were probably manufactured separately from the large-scale workshop considering the exotic, high-value raw materials and the requisite

90 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

9,000 8,545

HPKM1001 5,871

HPKM1003 4,671

HPKM1002 3,226

HPKM1004 2,033

HPKM1567 WBM260

294

HPKM1217

245

HPKM1550

157

AHBM1

116

HPKM1500

8,000

73

HPKM1443 35 HPKM1400 1 567

Fuhao HYZ M54

59

GJZ M160 5 FIGURE 4.1.  Number of osseous artifacts found in the royal tombs and tombs of the lesser elite

craftsmanship. Even though it has been argued that the overall elite demand for bone artifacts was not large in comparison to the amount of workshop debris found across Anyang (Campbell et al. 2011), the number of osseous artifacts in the high-elite tombs is still astounding and clearly speaks to the scope of the Anyang bone industries. Osseous objects are found in elite tombs of different sizes and statuses. For the purpose of comparing distribution of osseous objects, the elite tombs are separated into three categories: the four-ramped royal tombs in the Xibeigang royal cemetery; a one-ramped tomb also in the royal cemetery; and three earthen-pit tombs located outside of the royal cemetery (see figure 4.1). Osseous objects form a major category of funerary items interred in the looted royal tombs of M1001, M1002, M1003, M1004, and M1567, each having thousands of remaining bone artifacts. The remaining five royal tombs, M1217, M1400, M1500, M1550, on the other hand, have conspicuously fewer osseous objects, with only one in M1400 where the Qinxiaoshi yu 寢小室 盂 and the only example of a bronze human mask were found. A smaller one-ramped tomb in the royal cemetery, 84AWBM260, which had also been looted and where the largest bronze from Anyang, the Simuwu square ding 司母戊方鼎, was found, has 294 osseous objects.7 Three medium-sized

19 51 HPKM1567 2

1,917

44

3,000 40 HPKM1004 54 73 59 5,621 31 11 HPKM1003 148 60 4,456 37 HPKM1002 75 57 46 6,583 117 1,051

HPKM1001

472 322 0

Arrowheads Hairpin Inlay pieces Spatula Other

1,000

2,000

HPKM1001 6,583 117 1,051 472 322 Arrowheads

HPKM1002 4,456 37 75 57 46 Hairpin

3,000

4,000 HPKM1003 5,621 31 11 148 60

Inlay pieces

5,000 HPKM1004 3,000 40 54 73 59 Spatula

6,000

7,000

HPKM1567 19 51 2 1,917 44

Other

FIGURE 4.2.  Distribution of osseous artifacts found in HPKM1001, HPKM1002, HPKM1003, HPKM1004, and HPKM1567

92 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

tombs (with no ramps) of the lesser elite can be used for comparison: the Fuhao tomb, Huayuanzhuang tomb no. 54, and Guojiazhuang tomb no. 160; all are intact and unlooted. The Fuhao tomb has the next largest number of osseous objects (567) after M1567 (2,033), but two times the number found in M1217 (245). The Huayuanzhuang tomb no. 54 has only 59 osseous artifacts, while the Guojiazhuang tomb no. 160 revealed a meager sum of five. Fuhao, as the consort of the Shang King Wu Ding and a military leader according to oracle bone inscriptions, apparently enjoyed special status, indicated by the extravagant jades and bronzes included in her tomb. This may also explain the unusually large and diverse bone artifact assemblage found in her medium-sized tomb. However, among the royal tombs there is no clear association between number of ramps, tomb size, and the amount of osseous objects found. It is clear that the exceptionally large number of osseous objects interred in M1001, M1002, M1003, M1004, and M1567 indicate the status of the tomb owner and form a strong contrast when compared with the tombs of the lesser elite represented by Huayuanzhuang tomb no. 54 and Guojiazhuang tomb no. 160. The small number of osseous objects in the remainder of the royal tombs is puzzling, however. While looting must have been a major contributing factor, it still does not explain the exceedingly uneven distribution of the osseous objects, especially since some of the objects, such as inlay and decorative pieces, are small in size and are often left behind by looters. It may no longer be possible to discover the reason for this disparity. Another contrast exists in the types of bone artifacts interred in the royal tombs and the tombs of the lesser elite. The hypertrophic objects that are unique in form and style and require a tremendous time and labor investment to make, such as the fully decorated bone beakers and spatulas, only came from the royal tombs. No such objects are seen in the tombs of the lesser elite. The Fuhao tomb is again the exception as a number of highstatus bone objects were found, including the two beakers and one pitcher made of ivory. The two beakers form a pair, each standing about 30 cm all and with a diameter of about 11 cm. Both have a broad and elaborate ivory handle. The pitcher stands about 42 cm tall, with a diameter of about 11 cm. It has a similar broad handle and an additional spout. All three are fully decorated with motifs similar to those on bronze vessels. The two beakers also have turquoise inlays set into the broader sunken lines (figure 4.3). Other examples of hypertrophic bone artifacts, although fragmentary and with pieces scattered in different collections, are the elaborately decorated bone beakers and cups from M1001 (such as the one in the cover photo).8 These vessels are made from hollowed limb bones of large mammals, with

FIGURE 4.3.  One of the two turquoise-inlaid ivory cups found in the Fuhao tomb. Institute of Archaeology 1980: figure 108, plate 39.

94 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

lacquer applied on the inside, presumably to prevent seepage, and a separate plate attached at the bottom end to seal it. Bands of decorations cover most of the exterior surface. As pointed out by Umehara, these larger vessels may have been made from elephant limb bones (Umehara 1940), and the sizes of the large beakers from M1001 certainly attest to such an interpretation. The different sizes of these decorated bone cups also suggest that together they may form a special set of drinking vessels (Uchida 2013). Ivory is another type of osseous artifact found exclusively in high-elite tombs. While most items are fragmentary and poorly preserved, the significant number found indicates the presence of a full repertoire of ivory objects. Ivory was used to make combs, finials, ornamental pieces, and larger objects such as vessels and small sculptural pieces, many also lined with turquoise inlays.9 There is evidence of ivory being processed locally in Anyang (see chapter 5), and in most cases, unlike in Sanxingdui or Jinsha, elephant tusks were processed into smaller pieces to be made into different artifacts.10 To summarize, the osseous assemblages found in the Xibeigang royal cemetery show that osseous artifacts were one of the many means through which the Shang elite chose to express status and privileges. Such expression is achieved by the sheer number of simple osseous artifacts, in some cases, and by the hypertrophic objects with elaborate forms and decorations made of rare and exotic materials, such as ivory and elephant limb bones. Osseous artifacts therefore form an essential part of the elite material culture. It is beguiling that some of the royal tombs have few bone artifacts, and the preservation condition alone does not seem to explain such paucity. The previous discussion also shows that the wide array of osseous artifacts found in the royal cemetery goes beyond the range of products manufactured in the large-scale workshops at Tiesanlu or Dasikong. Other forms of bone artifact production must have existed. One possible way to distinguish between the different modes of production and production context is to examine the degree and method of manufacturing. THE MANUFACTURING CONTINUUM

In discussing the manufacturing of bone artifacts, Choyke proposes the use of a continuum model to explain bone technology (Choyke 1997). Instead of classifying bone artifacts according to shape and function, she examines them in terms of the degree of manufacturing and proposes the model of a manufacturing continuum. In her model, Class I and Class II stand at opposite ends of the continuum. Class I represents the planned and designed

95 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

artifacts with fixed forms that are manufactured in multiple stages. Class II are the opportunistic and expedient tools made in ad hoc fashion from bones recycled from meat consumption, which is indicated by the spiral fractures of the diaphysis produced during extraction of bone marrow. Class II bone artifacts show no signs of manufacture but display localized polish or a glossy surface resulting from use and handling. Other forms of bone artifacts with different degrees of manufacture then fall in between the two extremes. Choyke’s model provides a classification of bone artifacts based on the degree of manufacturing and emphasizes the production context. By adopting the “manufacturing continuum” model proposed by Choyke, we may separate the osseous artifacts from the Xibeigang royal tombs, or from Anyang in general, into three categories. At one end of the manufacturing continuum are Type I artifacts, those with planned and designed forms. They include Type IA artifacts, items with fixed forms, such as beads, arrowheads, needles, hairpins, and the antler and ivory finials and knobs presumably for wooden staffs; and Type IB artifacts, the numerous inlay and decorative pieces made from bones and teeth presumably for lacquerwares (figures 4.4 and 4.5). Type IB artifacts, unlike those of Type IA, are

9 8

3

1

10

5

2

6

4

0

3 mm

7 FIGURE 4.4.  Type IA osseous artifacts. Bone and antler arrowheads found in Miaopu. Institute of Archaeology 1987: figure 143.

PI. CLXXXVI

3

1

4

2

7

6

5

8

0 5 cm

PI. CLXXIV

4 0 5 cm

5

6

FIGURE 4.5.  Type IA (bottom) and Type IB (top, middle) osseous artifacts from HPKM1001. Liang and Kao 1962: plates 185 and 174.

97 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

not stand-alone items. They are accessory parts for larger artifacts made in different media. In terms of the manufacturing methods, Type I artifacts are characterized by the extensive and multistage processing of skeletal elements to the extent that the original shape of the elements is altered and sometimes unrecognizable. At the other end of the continuum is Type III, tools made in an ad hoc and opportunistic fashion, such as simple awls, drills, and spades (figure 4.6). They are usually made from recycled materials, such as bones left over from meat consumption or offcuts from bone-workshop production.11 Offcuts are the protruding or unusable parts of skeletal elements that are removed and discarded during early stages of bone processing. They have clean cuts left by sawing and, similar to bones recycled from kitchen waste, preserve landmarks of the skeletal elements. Ad hoc tools made from kitchen waste and offcuts display minimal or no manufacturing wear. Type III is therefore similar to Class II in Choyke’s model, although the recycled offcuts at Anyang have wear on the edges resulting from workshop bone processing, which is not related to the later use and function of the tools. Ad hoc tools are commonly found in habitation sites and workshop areas. Figure 4.7 shows examples from habitation contexts and tools thought to be used for carving decorations on clay models and molds found at the Miaopu bronze foundry. The production and use contexts for these tools were likely to be haphazard, taking place at the location where the needed task was performed once the recycled bones to be used for tools were obtained. For clarity, Type II is used to refer to artifacts that fall in between the two ends of the continuum. They are artifacts made from preliminarily processed bones that utilize and preserve the contour and shape of the skeletal elements. For instance, bone tubes and cylinders are made from the diaphysis of limb bones with only the articular ends and the interior spongy bone removed. The original shape of the diaphysis is fully preserved. Other examples are spatulas made from ribs or one side of the limb bones of cattle and deer (figure 4.8). They retain the curvature and shape of the original skeletal elements but are also finely thinned and polished to a smooth finish. In most cases, the articular ends are removed, although there are exceptions, such as the bone scoop from the Fuhao tomb that utilizes the distal articular end as a handle (figure 4.9). Some of these spatulas have elaborate carved decorations similar to bronze decor, but even with the full decoration, the original form of the skeletal element is preserved. They differ from the Type III artifacts in that more manufacturing stages are involved.

5

3 4 6

1 2

8

10

7 9

11

16 12

17

0 13

14

15

5 cm

FIGURE 4.6.  Type III osseous artifacts. Bone points and awls found in HPKM1001. Liang and Kao 1962: plate 166.

1

2

6 3

5

4

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

FIGURE 4.7.  Type III osseous artifacts. Left: Bone tools from several habitation sites. Institute of Archaeology 1987: figure 141. Right: Tools found in the Miaopu North bronze foundry. Institute of Archaeology 1987: figure 40.

3 2

1

4

5 0

6

7

5 cm

FIGURE 4.8.  Bone spatulas with carved decoration from the royal cemetery. Chen 1995, plate V. © Institute of History and Philology

8

1

2

4

3 0

5 mm

FIGURE 4.9.  Type II osseous artifacts. A bone spoon (2) and spatulas (1, 3, 4) from the Fuhao tomb. Institute of Archaeology 1980: plate 179, figure 102.

102 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Type IA Type IB Type II Type III

M1001 6,867 1,128 506 44

M1002 4,502 75 59 35

M1003 5,705 11 149 6

M1004 3,067 54 76 29

M1217 194 13 30 8

M1400 0 0 1 0

M1443 15 7 8 5

M1500 44 3 22 4

M1550 57 67 17 16

M1567 114 2 1,917 0

FIGURE 4.10.  Composition of manufacturing types of osseous artifacts in the royal tombs

Making use of the full-length site reports, we can now examine the bone artifact assemblages of the Xibeigang royal tombs and the Fuhao tomb in terms of this manufacturing continuum model. Figure 4.10 displays the distribution of manufacturing continuum artifact types in those tombs. Most of the osseous artifacts from the high-elite tombs belong to one end of the manufacturing continuum, Type I, as Types IA and IB form the largest categories of osseous artifacts in these tombs: arrowheads, beads, appendages, and inlay pieces, all in large numbers. They were designed, to some extent standardized, and were most likely manufactured in the large-scale workshops because of the amount produced and the raw materials and the finished and semifinished products were all found in the workshop deposits. There are two exceptions, neither of which have clear significance: M1400, which has only one bone artifact remaining, and M1567, where most of the bone artifacts found are spatulas, i.e., Type II artifacts. The other main category of Type I artifacts in the high-elite tombs are the hypertrophic objects. They are characterized by exotic materials, the use of multiple media, their unique form and function, and the arduously and

103 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

masterfully carved decorations. There is no indication that the large-scale workshops processed such high-status objects, and scholars have argued that the hypertrophic objects reserved for royal use must have been manufactured elsewhere in the yet-to-be identified royal workshop. All together, Type I bone artifacts fully demonstrate the scale and complexity of the highly developed bone industry at the Shang capital. As discussed earlier, Type II bone artifacts display some interesting stylistic and technological choices made by the artisans and ultimately the clientele. The contour of the skeletal elements is deliberately preserved and the reason or preference behind such choices may be more cultural than functional. Plain spatulas and bone tubes are found in the bone workshops of Tiesanlu and Xin’anzhuang West and at habitation sites, indicating that they could have been made in the large-scale workshops and were not made exclusively for royal use. Type II artifacts with intricate decorations, however, are concentrated mostly in the royal tombs. Compared with the other products such as hairpins and arrowheads, the total number of spatulas found at Anyang is relatively small, and their presence may not be easily discerned in the workshop deposits. But it is conceivable that some of the limb bones could be processed more carefully in the large-scale workshop by the better-skilled workers to retrieve the long blanks. The engraving of decorative patterns, however, may have been done by the specialized artisans in smaller workshops. It is surprising that Type III bone tools were also found in the royal tombs (see figure 4.6). Their utilitarian functions and ad hoc production method make them unlikely candidates to be included in the high-elite burials. Not found in large numbers, their presence in the royal tombs requires further explanation, although the original archaeological context can no longer be determined. They may represent activities, symbolic or actual, related to the royal tomb occupants, the sacrificial victims, or even the tomb builders.12 Because of their nature, Type III artifacts are expected to be found across different production contexts, although households may be the main production location. Large-scale workshops are the production context best represented archaeologically at Anyang and all three artifact types are represented in the finished products and workshop remains. Current data suggest that the hypertrophic objects were manufactured in locations other than the large-scale workshops, possibly in what can be described as the royal artisan workshop (table 4.1). Data for the three production contexts are, however, imbalanced at best. There is plenty of information for the large-scale

104 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

TABLE 4.1  Manufacturing continuum of osseous objects at Anyang Type IA

Type IB

Type II

Type III

Degree of Processing

Extensive, multistage processing; planned designs

Extensive, multistage processing; planned designs

Moderately processed; uses natural shape and contour

Recycled materials; minimal processing

Artifact Type Example

Stand-alone items: Beads, arrowheads, needles, hairpins, finials, knobs

Accessories: Inlay pieces

Stand-alone items: Tubes, spatulas

Stand-alone items: Awls, drills, spades

Production Context

Artisan and large-scale workshops

Artisan and large-scale workshops

Artisan and large-scale workshops

Ad hoc, opportunistic production in households and also at workshops

workshops and some indications for the location and production organization of the royal workshop, but there is almost no information for household bone artifact production beyond the finds of bone artifacts. The following discussion focuses on the large-scale workshops: the technology, utilized taxa, reduction procedures, and the political and social implications of large-scale bone production. It focuses on Tiesanlu, while remains from Xin’anzhuang West are examined as additional examples, as they may represent different patterns of production organization. Other issues explored include standardization of both dimensions and reduction procedures. For the former, arrowheads and antler beads from the royal cemetery are examined. For the latter, the reduction sequences of different elements are examined. By comparing the reduction procedures for making hairpins and the manufacturing of spatulas, I argue that both the different reduction procedures and the distribution of the two types of artifacts suggest they were made in different workshop contexts. LARGE-SCALE BONE ARTIFACT PRODUCTION AT TIESANLU-XIN’ANZHUANG WEST

Anyang archaeologists have discovered three large deposits related to bone artifact production at Dasikong (IA 1987, 70–85), Beixinzhuang (IA 1987, 85–89), and Tiesanlu, which includes Xin’anzhuang West, a locale west of Tiesanlu but excavated separately (Anyang 2015, 2016; Campbell et al. 2011).

105 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

FIGURE 4.11.  Bone refuse pit at Huayuanzhuang South. Anyang 1992: figure 9, plate 15.

A bone refuse pit was also found in the core area at Huayuanzhuang (Anyang 1992b; figure 4.11). All yielded large amounts of workshop waste and debitage, semiprocessed materials for further manufacturing, and finished and semifinished products. For instance, the total weight of bone-processing remains from Tiesanlu is estimated to be over 36 metric tons (Anyang 2015). The partially excavated Dasikong bone workshop yielded over 35,000 pieces of waste and semiprocessed bone artifacts, and over 250 pieces of processed antlers (IA 1987, 82). Only a small section of Beixinzhuang was excavated, but the excavations still uncovered over 5,000 pieces of offcuts, debitage, blanks, and semifinished bone artifacts.13 The Huayuanzhuang bone refuse pit, on the other hand, yielded over 300,000 pieces of mostly unusable debitage from the exoskeleton. The first three sites are thought to be where bone artifact manufacturing took place, while the Huayuanzhuang site is considered a butchering site (Anyang 1992b; Li Zhipeng et al. 2011; cf. Meng and Xie 2006).

106 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

FIGURE 4.12.  Bone blanks for making hairpins and hairpin caps from the Dasikong bone workshop. Institute of Archaeology 1987: plate 21.

Dasikong and Beixingzhuang were the first two bone workshops excavated at Anyang by IA. Excavators immediately noted the scale of the workshop operation and were able to reconstruct the basic operational sequence of hairpin manufacturing based on the preforms and the semifinished products (figure 4.12). While most of these finds came from secondary contexts such as trash pits, they show that bone production at Anyang was conducted in much the same manner as was bronze production: large-scale, at multiple locations simultaneously, and by full-time specialists.

107 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

The Tiesanlu-Xin’anzhuang West bone workshop is currently the largest and best researched bone workshop at Anyang. After years of analysis, archaeologists have now examined the entirety of the workshop remains, identified the taxa utilized and the types of products made, and reconstructed the manufacturing process. Due to the size of the workshop debris, data from Tiesanlu have been processed and published separately in stages. Campbell et al. 2011 analyze the content from Unit 5 of the 2006 season (2006ATST5), namely over 200 kilograms out of the estimated 36 tons of debris, a fraction of the total debris found. It presents a quantitative approach and attempts to conceptualize the Anyang bone industry by discussing issues such as the supply-and-demand aspects of large-scale bone production. Li Zhipeng et al. 2011 provide an overview of the known bone production sites and try to establish the nature and context of large-scale bone production in Anyang. The 2015 preliminary site report, on the other hand, is the most current and comprehensive publication on Tiesanlu (Anyang 2015). It provides a summary of the excavations and the finds and describes selected examples of archaeological features, artifacts and refuse unearthed, and the manufacture techniques and procedures reflected in the workshop remains. Due to the large body of data, the preliminary site report is mainly descriptive and does not provide quantitative analysis. Bone workshop remains from Xin’anzhuang West offer additional information for the Tiesanlu workshop. The body of data, 5.5 tons of faunal remains, much less than the total weight of 36 tons from earlier excavations, still allows for a quantitative approach, and the results can be compared with those from the excavation Unit 5 (2006ATST5) of Tiesanlu. As Xin’anzhuang West is situated on the opposite side of the workshop from 2006ATST5, the different patterns shown in the workshop remains of the two locales may reflect spatial organization of the workshop. Taxa Utilized at the Bone Workshops

Cattle are by far the most represented taxon in all of the bone workshop deposits at Anyang, including Dasikong, Beixinzhuang, Huayuanzhuang, and Tiesanlu-Xin’anzhuang West. For example, in 2006ATST5 at Tiesanlu, Bos sp. and other large bovines form 64.5 percent of the total fauna remains by weight (78.9 percent, if counting Indeterminate Large Mammal) and 51.2 percent by number (72.2 percent with Indeterminate Large Mammal) (Campbell et al. 2011, 1284, table 1). At Xin’anzhuang West, cattle make up 88.6 percent of the total modified faunal remains by weight (figure 4.13).14

108 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

Rodent, 6.8, 0.00% Pig, 16,086.12, 2.49% Horse, 4,575.72, 0.71% Fish, 18.87, 0.00% Dog, 1,721.79, 0.27%

S/M Mamma, 2,572.33, 0.40% Sheep/Goat, 1,581.15, 0.25% Unknown, 34,649.12, 5.37% Bivalvia, 308.95, 0.05%

Deer, 12,362.4, 1.92%

Cattle, 571,462.47, 88.55% FIGURE 4.13.  Weight distribution of faunal remains from Xin’anzhuang West. Total 645,345.72 grams.

Cattle were regularly used as offerings during rituals in Anyang. Oracle bone inscriptions recorded many instances of cattle being used in sacrifices performed for the ancestors and the deities (e.g., Campbell et al. 2011; Fiskesjö 2001; Shih 1953). Cattle also played an important role in daily life at Anyang as their skeletal parts were systematically utilized. Scapulae seem to have been almost exclusively reserved for scapulimancy.15 Limb bones were the most important raw material for making hairpins, hairpin caps, arrowheads, and spatulas. Axial skeletal parts such as mandibles and ribs were used to make spades and spatulas. The tremendous volume of cattle bones found from the workshops shows that cattle were the most important animal at Anyang in ritual contexts, for bone artifact manufacturing, and presumably also for meat consumption (Li Zhipeng et al. 2011). Other taxa exploited include pigs, deer, sheep, and water buffalo (Anyang 2015, 60–61). In 2006ATST5, deer and pigs together form 16.1 percent of

109 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

the faunal remains by weight and 10.5 percent by number. Deer and pigs were used mostly for the head elements, antlers for deer and canines for pigs (Campbell et al. 2011). Deer antlers are commonly encountered in habitation sites and are also found in abundance in bone workshops. However, because small osseous objects such as beads and arrowheads are routinely identified as bone without making the distinction between antler and bone, the importance of antler as raw material in the large-scale bone workshops has been underestimated. The way the pig mandibles were processed indicates that the tusks of male pigs were retrieved by sawing open the mandibles (Anyang 2015) and then cut into ornamental pieces for decorations on lacquer objects, exemplified by artifacts found in burial contexts. Occasionally limb bones of deer and pigs were used to make bone artifacts. Distribution of Cattle Skeletal Elements at Tiesanlu and Xin’anzhuang West

Cattle bones are the ideal raw material for bone artifact production for various reasons. The large size of the bones makes them suitable for retrieving blanks, and the cortical bone of the limb bones is sufficiently thick to allow processing and to provide the physical strength needed for artifact use. The well-developed animal husbandry at Anyang also ensured a steady supply of raw materials. The most represented cattle skeletal elements at Tiesanlu are limb bones, especially metacarpals, followed by mandibles (Anyang 2015, 60–61). Campbell et al. (2011) note that there is a predominant presence of metapodials in 2006ATST5. Relative element distribution shows that metapodials are the most represented (100–85 percent; metacarpals=100 percent with minimum number of elements [MNE] =311), followed by mandible/humerusradius-ulna/tibia (50–30 percent), femur (25–20 percent), and carpal/tarsal/ phalange (15–5 percent). The differential distribution pattern shows that the skeletal parts were sorted before being introduced to the workshop. On the other hand, the distribution of cattle skeletal elements observed at Xin’anzhuang West contrasts sharply with those from 2006ATST5. Based on the number of identified specimens (NISP) in the worked bone assemblage, radius-ulna and tibia are the most represented, with 44.6 percent and 41.5 percent respectively, whereas metapodials account for only 9 percent of the assemblage (figure 4.14). In H144, where most of the modified bones came from, the distribution of skeletal elements is similar, with 46.5 percent radius-ulna, 42.4 percent tibia, and 9.9 percent metapodials (figure 4.15).

Metatarsal 1.9%

Humerus 2.8%

Ulna 10.9%

Tibia 41.5%

Radius 29.4%

Femur 2.0%

Metacarpal 7.1%

Radius+Ulna 4.3%

FIGURE 4.14.  Distribution of skeletal elements in modified cattle bones from Xin’anzhuang West

H144 Metatarsal 15 2.0%

Humerus 3 0.4% Ulna 85 11.2%

Radius 237 31.3%

Tibia 321 42.4%

Femur 6 0.8%

Metacarpal 60 7.9%

Radius+Ulna 30 4.0%

FIGURE 4.15.  Distribution of skeletal elements in modified cattle bones from H144, Xin’anzhuang West

111 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

The spatial distribution of skeletal elements may represent the different ways the bones entered the workshop. As shown in ethnographic studies, the meatless extremities, including metapodials and phalanges, are often removed together with the hide, while the meaty upper limbs may be kept for meat consumption. The lower limbs and extremities found at 2006ATST5 likely came from a butchering or hide-processing location, such as Huayuanzhuang, while the upper limb bones found at Xin’anzhuang West entered the workshop as recycled bones after meat consumption. It is also likely that an internal division of labor existed, which meant that different skeletal elements were processed at different locations within the large workshop. Excavators of the Dasikong site also noted that there seems to be a spatial division of workshop functions. In H406 and H416, waste consisting of articular ends of humeri, femurs, and phalanges form 73.8 percent of the waste and debitage found in the two pits. On the other hand, in pit no. H407, rectangular blanks of secondarily processed materials, semifinished materials, and offcuts form 58 percent of the waste and debitage found. Excavators argue that H407 could be near the actual location of bone artifact manufacturing, while the other two pits were used for dumping waste (IA 1987, 80). Workshop Products

Excavators believe that Tiesanlu, along with the Dasikong and Beixinzhuang sites, produced mainly hairpins, as semifinished hairpins and hairpin caps in different manufacturing stages were identified and account for most of the finished and semifinished artifacts (Anyang 2015; Campbell et al. 2011; IA 1987). In excavation unit 2006ATST5 of the Tiesanlu site, perforators, i.e., hairpins and awls, make up 90 percent of the artifact assemblage (Campbell et al. 2011, 1288). Arrowheads represent the second-largest number, although no actual figures were given (Anyang 2015, 60). Other products identified at Tiesanlu include awls and awl-like implements (or “indeterminate perforators” in Campbell et al. 2011), spatulas, spades, tubes, and plaques (Anyang 2015, 60). Campbell et al. (2011) attempt to estimate the output of the Tiesanlu workshop by first calculating the number of artifacts that could be produced from each element. The number is then considered together with the MNE identified in the debris to calculate a maximum production estimate from debitage (MPED). They then compare the projected workshop output with artifacts found at the bone workshop, a number of residential loci, and a local cemetery with 1,424 burials. The purpose of the comparison is to see if

112 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

the artifact assemblages from these archaeological contexts show similar or different distribution patterns. They argue that notable discrepancies exist in the distribution of perforators, tusk ornaments, spatulas, and other artifact classes. Factors affecting the distribution pattern include household production, preservation condition, and chance of recovery. If we compare the osseous artifact assemblages from the royal tombs with the production estimates of artifacts at Tiesanlu, the distribution patterns are also different. In the royal tombs, arrowheads and tusk ornaments form the largest categories of osseous objects. Even though the percentage of spatulas is skewed downward by the large numbers of arrowheads and tusk ornaments, the total number of spatulas is still large and not commensurate with the limited number of spatulas represented in the Tiesanlu debitage. The comparison shows that arrowheads and tusk inlays could have been produced in large-scale workshops, while spatulas may have been produced elsewhere.16 STANDARDIZATION OBSERVED IN THE LARGE-SCALE WORKSHOPS

The massive volume of debris from the Tiesanlu site and the other bone workshops at Anyang attests to the scale of bone artifact production at the Shang capital. But an immediate question needs to be asked: Were efforts made to make the production more efficient, and if so, how? In other words, can we discern any indication in the finished products, the technology, the operational sequence, or the production organization that speaks to an attempt to make more efficient use of the labor, the facilities, or the resources? Efficiency here is defined in relative terms and is not meant to invoke the sense of manufacturing efficiency in modern mechanized and mass-producing factories. It refers to decisions, arrangements, and efforts that may make the operation run smoother, as any craftsperson might do to facilitate better productivity. One frequently examined variable in the study of craft production is the degree of standardization, which is one measure of the skillfulness of the craftsperson. It can also be used to measure the degree of design and planning in the operational sequence. The former focuses on the dimensions of the finished products. The latter attempts to identify predesigned procedures in the manufacturing sequence. Both types of standardization, standardization of procedures and standardization of dimensions, can be observed in the large-scale workshops in Anyang.

113 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

Standardization of Procedures: Reduction Strategies of Skeletal Elements

Thanks to research on the workshop remains from the Dasikong and Tiesanlu-Xin’anzhuang sites, archaeologists have reconstructed the basic manufacturing techniques and procedures practiced by the Anyang bone workers. Observations of the finished bone artifacts, preforms, and workshop waste reveal that the bone workers used a number of techniques, including cutting, hollowing, drilling, polishing, and carving (Anyang 2015; IA 1987; Li Zhipeng et al. 2011). Tool marks left on the bone indicate that metal saws were used, and the large number of grinding stones found in the bone workshops suggest that they were used for grinding and polishing. More studies are needed to better understand the other tools used, the technological repertoire, and finer details of the production procedures. As already pointed out by Campbell et al. (2011), the shapes and structures of the skeletal elements predetermine the amount and the form of the blanks that can be extracted for artifact production. Factors affecting the reduction and extraction procedures of skeletal elements therefore include the curvature, the facets, the protruding landmarks, the thickness of the cortical bone, and the distribution of the spongy bone. While procedures in the early stage of reduction may be similar, each element is processed differently across element types according to the physical attributes. As reported by the Anyang archaeologists and based on the observations of the Xin’anzhuang West material, the procedure remains consistent within the same type of bone. The first step in the reduction process for each element is the same: removal of the articular ends, as the irregular shape and the spongy bone make them unsuitable for further processing.17 The protruding parts of the bones, such as the tibial crest, are removed to produce a relatively smooth and straight shaft, which can then be sawn into blanks by splitting the shaft in half along the proximal-distal axis. Depending on the objects to be made, the shafts are either sawn along that axis to retrieve larger blanks or are further sectioned and processed into smaller pieces. Judging from workshop debris, with the exception of metapodials and femurs that allow retrieval of long blanks, workers at the Tiesanlu-Xin’anzhuang West workshop were mostly retrieving small blanks from the limb bones, often processed haphazardly with unclean cuts. Workshop waste from the Xin’anzhuang West site indicates that, instead of straight through the shaft, sawing was often done in two

114 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

steps: from one side of the bone until cut almost halfway through and then from the other side but stopping short of joining up with the earlier cut. The two parts of the bone were then separated by force, leaving short studs on the cross section. Such practice indicates that there was a certain degree of hastiness in the operation probably due to the fact that bones were processed in large volumes and the intended products did not require carefully prepared blanks. Speed in handling was more important than producing clean and even cuts, suggesting that the workers were not concerned about conserving the raw material. Another indication of the abundance of raw material is that the cut made to remove the articular ends was placed further down from and not directly next to the articular ends. Below is a step-by-step description of the reduction strategy for tibia, based on debitage found at Xin’anzhuang West. tibia: usable sides: caudal, cranial-lateral A: To obtain a long rectangular blank from the caudal side of the tibia: 1. Remove proximal and distal ends. 2. Cut straight along the medial edge of the caudal side from proximal to distal end. 3. From distal end, make a slender cut to the middle. 4. From proximal end, cut straight along the lateral edge (near the posterolateral nutrient foramen), meeting the cut made in step 3; the caudal side is removed from the diaphysis at this stage. 5. Cut from distal end or proximal end of the remaining blank to remove the distallateral section. 6. Obtain a rectangular blank from the caudal side. B: To obtain the cranial-lateral side of the tibia: 1. Remove proximal and distal ends. 2. Remove tibial crest. 3. Cut along the lateral edge and the remaining part of the tibial crest. 4. Obtain a long blank from the cranial-lateral side of the tibia.

As shown in figure 4.16, the procedure was different from extracting blanks for making spatulas, as the removal of the distal-lateral section in A3 may damage the surface area intended for spatulas. The same can be observed for the humerus and especially the radius.

115 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

FIGURE 4.16.  Reduction patterns to retrieve blanks for making spatulas (left; illustration by Lai Shu-li) and hairpins (right; waste bones from Xin’anzhuang West; photo taken by author)

Standardization of Dimensions

In studies of ceramic production, the degree of standardization is often seen as correlating with intensity of production. While standardization can be expressed in raw material compositions, manufacturing techniques, and surface decorations, it is the inverse correlation between metric variability and the rate and intensity of production that has received the most attention. High degree of standardization in metric variability, such as aperture and height of pottery vessels, may indicate production by full-time specialists with high output, as suggested by various statistical and ethnoarchaeological studies. Scholars argue that with a high rate of production comes uniformity in products thanks to enhanced motor habits and skills of the craft producers (e.g., Costin and Hagstrum 1995; Roux 2003). They caution that factors such as market demand, local traditions or customs, manufacturing techniques,

116 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

and measurement aids used may also affect the degree of standardization (Eerkens and Bettinger 2001; Kvamme et al. 1996). Eerkens and Bettinger (2001) have attempted to find indicators of standardization across crafts by looking for the upper and lower baseline values of artifact variation using the Weber fraction in psychophysics. The Weber fraction refers to the fact that for humans to discriminate physical differences in size, weight, length, or area between two objects without the help of any measuring instrument, the difference between the two objects has to exceed 3 percent. In other words, if a craft producer intentionally wants to produce identical artifacts, due to the inability to perceive differences smaller than 3 percent, the finished products will have a range of variations between 97 percent and 103 percent of the intended dimensions or 6 percent of the mean. The calculated coefficient of variation (CV) is 1.7 percent, which is “the minimum amount of variability attainable by humans” (Eerkens and Bettinger 2001, 496). Ethnoarchaeological studies of standardized pottery made by Kalinga specialists show CV values range from 2 to 5 percent (Longacre 1999; quoted in Eerkens and Bettinger 2001), in support of the range described by Eerkens and Bettinger. The baseline value for random production, i.e., manual production with no intention to produce standardized products, is calculated to be CV=57.7 percent, in which 40 to 50 percent of the products “fall more than half the mean from the mean” (Eerkens and Bettinger 2001, 497). Case studies by Eerkens (2000), Eerkens and Bettinger (2001), Longacre (1999), and Roux (2003) all propose CV values of 2 to 6 percent as an indication of standardization in large-scale production.18 Unlike ceramic production, there are no ethnographic studies of standardization in bone artifact production to be used for comparison. However, with the baseline values and parameters proposed by Eerkens, we can examine stylized bone artifacts, such as arrowheads and beads, that were interred in large numbers in the royal tombs, in particular those from M1001, M1002, and M1003. As shown earlier, arrowheads form the largest category of bone artifacts from the royal cemetery. M1001 yielded 6,583 arrowheads, with M1002, M1003, and M1004 having 4,456 5,621, 3,000, respectively (figure 4.2). The site reports separated the arrowheads into several types, with Type I being the largest group. In the field, Liang Ssu-yung measured 100 complete Type I arrowheads from M1001, 46 from M1002, and 61 from M1003, and the measurements are included in the site reports. Attributes recorded include total length, length of stem, and the maximum width (figure 4.17). Not all of the arrowheads survived the multiple relocations of the IHP. For instance, of the 6,583 arrowheads recorded from M1001, only 2,320 are accounted for in the site report, of which

117 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

1

2

3

5 6

4 0

Tomb

N

Attribute Length

HPKM1001

HPKM1002

HPKM1003

100

49

61

7

5 cm

M (mm)

MAX (mm)

MIN (mm)

SD

CV %

110.9

129.5

99

6.28

5.7

Length of stem

47.16

63

34

5.66

12

Width

10.75

14.5

7.5

1.65

15.35

Length

108.34

117.8

84

6.55

6.05

Length of stem

42.15

52.5

4.67

6.96

16.51

Width

11.9

15

8.8

1.28

10.76

Length

107.29

119

92

6.02

5.61

Length of stem

42.09

64

20.8

6.55

15.56

Width

10.87

13.7

7.2

1.6

14.72

FIGURE 4.17.  Standard deviation and coefficient of variation of dimensions of arrowheads from HPKM1001, HPKM1002, and HPKM1003

only less than 100 are intact (Liang and Kao 1962, 206). The same is the case for antler beads. Field notes by Liang Ssu-yung recorded hundreds of antler beads unearthed from M1001 in one day, but only 105 are listed under M1001 in the IHP storage. Fifty beads were measured and recorded in the site report for M1001 and 30 for M1003 (figure 4.18). Measurements for the beads include total length, maximum diameter, and aperture of perforation. Figure 4.17 shows the range of CV for arrowheads from the three royal tombs. For total length, M1003 has the smallest CV value, 5.61 percent; M1001 is 5.7 percent and M1002 is 6.05 percent. CVs for length of stem and

118 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

Tomb

N

Attribute

M (mm)

MAX (mm)

Min (mm)

SD

CV %

HPKM1001

50

Length Diameter

40.89 21.73

45 24

39.5 18.5

0.98 1.31

2.39 6.03

HPKM1003

30

Length Diameter

53.85 17.85

62.5 22

36.5 15

5.97 1.73

11.09 9.71

FIGURE 4.18.  Standard deviation and coefficient of variation of dimensions of beads from HPKM1001 and HPKM1003

maximum width, however, show wider variations, ranging from 12 percent (M1001) to 16.51 percent (M1002) for length of stem and 10.76 percent (M1002) to 15.35 percent (M1001) for maximum width. The differences in CV values among the three royal tombs should be seen as temporal, as the manufacturing and interment of the arrowheads into the three royal tombs were clearly separate events with considerable intervals, since some of the burials represent kings buried a generation or more apart. The CV values of around 5 percent for the length of arrowheads for all three royal tombs are therefore significant, as they indicate a fairly high degree of standardization in arrowhead production in the total length. The CV values of 5 to 6 percent also suggest that there were multiple workers involved, which is conceivable given the scale of operation indicated by the massive amount of workshop debris from each of the three known large-scale workshops. While the range of variation for the beads from M1001 is similar to that of the arrowheads, it is less conclusive for beads from M1003. The wider range of variations in stem length and maximum width of the arrowheads, however, reflect less control over the final shaping of the arrowheads in the manufacturing process. In other words, more attention was paid to produce arrowheads with uniform length, while uniformity in the width and the shape of the stem was not a main concern, especially since the stem would be concealed inside the arrow shaft.19

119 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

COMPARING SPATULAS TO HAIRPINS

In the Chinese archaeological literature, the terms si 柶 or bi 匕 are both used to refer to bone spatulas. However, depending on the skeletal parts used, these objects have different shapes and probably served different functions. Long, thin, and carefully manufactured, they preserve enough information of the original bones, such as the contours and the landmarks, that the particular parts of the animal used and the manufacturing procedure followed can be identified (figure 4.19).

FIGURE 4.19.  Spatulas made from cattle tibia, radius, and rib. Specimens unearthed in Xiaotun, Anyang, by the Institute of History and Philology. After Lü 1965: figure 1.

120 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

Metapodial 5 0.2%

Tibia 707 27.5%

Rib 1,428 55.5%

Radius 370 14.4% Humerus 65 2.5% FIGURE 4.20.  Distribution of skeletal elements used for spatulas excavated by the Institute of History and Philology. Based on figures in Lü 1965.

A total of 2,575 pieces of bone spatulas, fragmentary or complete, were found during the IHP Anyang campaign from Xiaotun and Xibeigang (Chen Chungyu 1995; Lü 1965a, 1965b). Among them, 498 were carved with elaborate decorations similar to those found on bronzes (Chen Chung-yu 1995). In her careful analysis of the bone spatulas housed in IHP, Lü Cheng-jui identified seven types, based on the skeletal parts and the right or left element used (Lü 1965, 1965a). With few exceptions, almost all are cattle bones, and skeletal parts identified include ribs, humeri, radiuses, tibias, and metapodials (figure 4.20). The ones made from ribs form the largest group (1,428/2,575; 55.5 percent). Those made from tibia come in second (707/2,575, 27.5 percent), and those made from radius, third (270/2,575, 14.4 percent). The predominance of ribs in the composition of utilized cattle skeletal parts for making spatulas contrasts sharply with the skeletal part composition observed among the bone waste from TiesanluXin’anzhuang, as ribs were not commonly processed at the large-scale bone workshops. The percentage of tibia and radius and the very low percentage of metapodials are also notable, especially compared to the skeletal part composition observed in 2006ATST5 at Tiesanlu, which was dominated by metapodials.

121 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

The manufacturing process for making spatulas is significantly different from making hairpins or arrowheads, the main products from the largescale bone workshops, as spatula workers made specific decisions to obtain one complete section of the lateral side of the bone to be further processed (see figure 4.16). The placement of the cutting plane is carefully designed as it cuts across the surface and contour of the bone to produce a sizable blank with curvature and relative flatness. The different shapes of the particular elements, whether humerus or tibia, therefore dictate how the bones are cut and prepared and eventually the shape of the finished products. Special attention has to be paid during the sawing of the bones, especially around the proximal and distal ends of the blank, where rounded corners are formed, in order to prevent cracking or breakage. To make a spatula from a radius bone, for instance, the articular ends and the ulna were first removed. Then the shaft was sawn along the lateralmedial axis to retrieve the remaining caudal side of the bone. In the case of the tibia, after the tibial crest and the articular ends were removed, sawing was done along the lateral edge and the midline of the diaphysis to retrieve a blank from the cranial-lateral side of the bone. For a humerus, it is also the lateral side that was retrieved. The cut was made along the cranial and the caudal sides, avoiding the deltoid tuberosity and with the caudal cut reaching the top of the olecranon fossa. In all three cases, the retrieved blank hence preserves the curvature of the lateral or caudal half of the bone. The spongy bone on the interior side of the blank was then removed, and the exterior, the remaining interior sides, and the edges of the blank were finely ground to the desired thickness and thoroughly polished to produce a smooth surface. The blanks were thinned to the point that the finished artifacts could easily break under force or pressure.20 Decorations were perhaps carved before the final thinning to prevent breakage during the process.21 The preparation and utilization of the limb bones for making spatulas, arrowheads, and hairpins are therefore characteristically different. An arrowhead or a hairpin cap can be made from practically any bone fragment with the required size and thickness, therefore making more efficient use of the raw material. The hairpin body required long and straight blanks, hence skeletal parts with flat and straight surfaces such as metapodials (T5 in Tiesanlu), tibias, and radiuses (Xinan’zhuang West) were preferred. Spatulas, on the other hand, were designed to utilize and preserve as much of the surface and also the curvature of the bone as possible and ribs, tibias, radiuses, and humeri were the preferred raw materials.22

122 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

I note that although workers making hairpin bodies and spatulas made use of the same skeletal elements, the sides of the limb bones from which the blanks were retrieved are different for spatulas and hairpin bodies. Due to the specific shapes of the limb bones, the locations where cutting took place differ, and the preliminary preparation process for obtaining hairpin blanks from one side of the bone may damage the side from which the blank for making spatulas is to be retrieved. In the case of tibias, debitage from Xin’anzhuang West indicates that in order to retrieve a long blank for making hairpin bodies from the caudal side, a slanting cut across the distal half of the long bone had to be made, which renders the lateral side of the bone unusable for making spatulas. The same can be observed in the radius, as the reduction sequence for retrieving blanks for hairpins includes splitting the entire diaphysis in half along the cranial-caudal axis, hence cutting through the caudal side of the bone. According to researchers working on the workshop remains from Tiesanlu, the preparation of blanks to make spatulas should not have posed any technological challenges for the large-scale workshop workers, and plain spatulas were occasionally found at the Tiansanlu workshop. It is not clear if spatulas were processed in any large numbers and current evidence suggests that decoration carving was not performed at Tiansanlu (Roderick Campbell and Li Zhipeng, personal communications). It is worth noting, however, that the manufacturing of spatulas and the manufacturing of hairpin bodies are mutually exclusive in terms of the raw materials used, and the fact that hairpins and arrowheads are identified as the main products may indicate that spatula making was not the focus of the large-scale workshops. Many spatulas, especially those unearthed from the royal cemetery, are elaborately decorated. The execution of the ornate and ostentatious decoration clearly required skilled artisans, whose mastery in composition and carving can also be applied to different media such as clay or wood. There may also be a more selective process in choosing the appropriate material for making spatulas in terms of the size and thickness of the bones. Together with the hypertrophic bone artifacts, it can be argued that there may have been some sort of division of labor in the Anyang bone industry. In other words, besides the large-scale workshops capable of churning up large quantities of hairpins and arrowheads, there may be separate artisan-centered bone workshops focusing on the production of elite items. A semifinished carved bone tablet found in Trench 74A north of Daliankeng suggests that such high-skill tasks may indeed have been performed in the temple-palace complex (figure 4.21; see also chapter 5).

1

a

2

3

b

4

5

0

5cm

FIGURE 4.21.  A bone spatula (R018222) with unfinished decoration found in Trench 74A near Daliankeng in the Xiaotun temple-palace complex. Liang and Kao 1962: figure 78.

124 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

SCALE AND PRODUCTION ORGANIZATION OF THE ANYANG BONE INDUSTRIES

In a preliminary overview of research on bone artifact production, Ma Xiaolin discusses issues that need to be addressed in the field of zooarchaeology in China (Ma 2010). As the pilot program for a multiyear project on bone production, Ma’s paper serves as a manifesto and is meant to provide guidelines for future research in the field. Ma’s general observations were not substantiated by field data or case studies, but they point out three important aspects of bone production in Bronze Age China: the bone industry became more specialized, state-sponsored, and large-scale. Ma argues that with the rise of urban centers and the use of metal tools, qualitative changes occurred in the bone industry during the Bronze Age. In the Neolithic, the choice of raw materials for bone tool production was random and varied, as different bones from a wide range of animals were used. The types of bone artifacts made were therefore also diverse and individualized. The manufacturing technology was simple, and production was dispersed, small-scale, and not concentrated. During the Bronze Age, bone production became more concentrated, production scale increased, and the choice of raw materials became more selective, mostly limb bones of domesticated cattle, while the types of products made became more standardized. Ma argues that the main factors for such changes are the steady supply of bones as raw material from domesticated cattle used for meat consumption; the use of metal tools that enabled more efficient production; and the emergence of state craft industries that changed both the modes of craft production and the supply and demand, hence the market, for bone artifacts (Ma 2010, 139–40). Indeed, large-scale bone production appeared as early as the Erlitou period, when the first state-level society and civilization appeared in ancient China. As already discussed, three parallel bone industries existed in Anyang: one for producing daily utilitarian and expedient Type III artifacts without specific or standardized forms at the household level; one for producing Type I bone artifacts of fixed shapes and forms in large quantities in what must have been state-sponsored, large-scale workshops; and the artisan workshops that catered to the needs of the high elite and produced the hypertrophic artifacts. The Neolithic mode of bone production described by Ma, that bone production was dispersed, the choice of raw material more random, and the product types wide-ranging and not standardized, did not

125 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

cease to exist in the Bronze Age. It continued to be practiced at the household level and through ad hoc production of Type III artifacts. The largescale workshops, on the other hand, are what Ma described as the Bronze Age bone industries: large-scale, state-sponsored, producing artifacts with designed forms using cattle bones. The scale of bone artifact production at the Anyang large-scale workshops has indeed garnered the most attention. As Ma points out, several key factors have made large-scale bone production possible. The massive amount of domesticated cattle bones found in Anyang’s large-scale workshops indicates a steady and abundant supply of the raw material, which no doubt was based on well-developed animal husbandry most likely in the nearby areas outside of the capital. Some scholars hypothesize that cattle and other livestock such as horses could come from regions as far away as Shanxi, although the preliminary results for isotopic analysis are not conclusive (Cao 2014).23 The massive amount of cattle bones found in the workshop deposits also means that an equally large amount of meat was circulated, most likely also for consumption and not just for sacrificial use. Skeletal elements of the upper limbs, such as humerus, radius-ulna, femur, and tibia, are well represented in the workshop debris from Xin’anzhuang West. As they are the parts where more meat is distributed on the animal, in contrast to the lower limbs and the extremities, the meat must have been consumed and not wasted before the skeletal elements entered the workshop. Oracle bone inscriptions mention frequent sacrificial offerings of cattle and sheep/goat, sometimes in large numbers (e.g., Campbell et al. 2011; Fiskesjö 2001). In the archaeological context, complete and partial skeletons of domesticated animals are found in burial and sacrificial contexts. For instance, articulated, hence most likely unconsumed, limb bones of cattle and sheep/goat are found in tombs as offerings, and it is not uncommon to find complete cattle, along with other domesticated animals, interred in sacrificial pits. Partial or complete, once buried, the sacrificed animals were taken out of circulation for both their meat and their bones. The bones as raw materials for craft production, therefore, entered the workshops through a different mechanism, presumably after the meat was removed for consumption. The questions that follow are where the meat went and who had access to it. Were only the elite privileged enough to consume the meat, or did the Anyang population in general benefit from the abundant sources of protein? We await future physical anthropological research to answer these questions.

126 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

It has been postulated that the production of hairpins in Anyang greatly exceeded the internal need and that the high volume was to meet external demands. Campbell et al. (2011) caution that due to the overall emphasis on research on bronzes and bronze production, which were closely tied to the elite, the importance of nonelite economic activities has been downplayed in the field of Anyang archaeology. The overproduction of an unassuming item such as hairpins therefore offers the opportunity to reevaluate the current top-down model for the Shang economy. Li Zhipeng et al. (2011), on the other hand, speak directly to the presence of a market system upon which the Shang state depended to obtain revenue. Li et al. in particular evoke the supply-and-demand market mechanism to explain the large-scale production of hairpins. While the existence of a form of precapitalist market economy in the Shang dynasty can be argued, as seen in other ancient civilizations, the reconstruction of a market economy in Li et al. still needs to be further validated, as the implication of a market economy is wide and requires comprehensive examination of Shang society in general, especially since no written records of economic activities are found, and a nonelitebased market economy would leave few traces in the archaeological data. Despite the lack of data, the large-scale bone production does need to be explained. Or, even if such a nonelite-based economy existed in Anyang, how independent from the political economy of the elite was the bone industry? The scale of the large-scale workshop production points to production by attached full-time specialists sponsored by the elite. The supply and distribution mechanism that enabled such a large-scale production also points to a centralized managerial and supervising system. So does the standardization of production procedures and product dimensions. What evidence supports a bottom-up economy in Anyang that was able to operate and sustain regional market exchange? Do we have enough data to argue that the manufacturing of hairpins was indeed a bottom-up operation? Or perhaps hairpins made in and exported from Anyang were part of the political paraphernalia Anyang introduced to other regions along with its economic and political influences without specific economic incentives to begin with? In other words, the manufacturing and exporting of hairpins is still part of the political economy of the Shang elite. While hairpins were not as important a status maker as bronzes or jades, they appear to have been a part of the elite costume and are found in large numbers in richly furnished elite tombs or more modest burials. For instance, 499 hairpins of different styles were found in a wooden box in the

127 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

tomb of Fuhao (IA 1980: 208–13). In an accompanying burial of HPKM1550, a small earthen-pit tomb with moderate furnishings of bronzes and jades, dozens of hairpins were placed near the skull.24 Hairpins were also encountered in habitation sites, although few such sites are fully reported, and it is not clear if hairpins form an important category of bone artifacts in habitation sites. If hairpins were indeed items made for an external and regional market, or to use a more neutral term, clientele, there is still an alternative explanation other than the one based on the presence of market economy. If they were part of the elite attire, the unassuming hairpins may in fact be another symbol for Anyang’s political and cultural power. They represented the Anyang elite culture and could have been used in diplomatic exchanges between Anyang and the other regions, just as the bronzes found outside of Anyang. Hairpins therefore served the same functions as bronzes and perhaps even outnumbered the bronzes if we consider the scale of production. Hairpins in fact also represent the economic prowess of Anyang both in terms of the manufacturing capacity and the size of the supporting animal husbandry. They embody Anyang’s capability to operate a large-scale craft industry with a steady and high-volume output of hairpins. They are also the material manifestation of Anyang’s capability to run and maintain a largescale animal husbandry operation that could supply the raw material for the bone industry. It is indeed the ability to control resources, not only of metal but also of livestock, that made Anyang stand out among its neighbors. In this sense, the bone industry is yet another signature of Anyang’s interregional influence. I have proposed in this chapter that, unlike bronze production, bone artifacts were produced in different production contexts at Anyang. Even though the evidence is still inconclusive, based on the range of bone artifacts found, I argue that bone production took place in households, large-scale workshops, and artisan workshops. The ubiquitous presence of bone artifact manufacturing is likely due to the fact that the raw material was more readily available, as bones can be recycled from meat consumption and from the workshop waste. For instance, the expedient bone tools represent ad hoc production that may take place wherever the corresponding tasks are performed and the large-scale production of hairpins and arrowheads amply reflect large-scale workshop operations; and the exquisitely made bone artifacts, on the other hand, indicate the presence of separate artisans perhaps exclusively serving the high elite.

128 B one T echnology, P roduction C ontexts , and the B one W orkshops

One aspect of the Anyang bone industries not fully explored in this chapter is the artisan royal workshop that produced the hypertrophic osseous objects. I will address this issue in Chapter 5, together with the production of various crafts in the so-called temple-palace complex in Xiaotun. As will be shown, I argue that the craft-producing activities discovered in Xiaotun North represent those related to and controlled by the royal elite.

Qianhuangpu

Shuangta

Kuhe

Litaocun Guowangdu

Fengan

Nongjizhan Zhoujiaying

Tuwangdu Beishiwang

Songwangdu

Qiukou

Shilipu

Quwangdu

Fengjiamiao

Huoying

Dongwangdu Sanjiazhuang

Qianying

Xibeigang Royal Cemetary

Fanjiazhuang

Hanwangdu

Huayuanzhuang

Songjiamiao

Houjiazhuang Caiku

PalaceTemple District

Xiaosikongcun

Beixinzhuang

Huanbei

Wuguancun

airport

Sanfuzhuang

1 2

3

Dasikongcun

Huan River

Xiaomintun

5 6 7

4 West Zone

Xiaotun Sipanmo Temple-Palace District Xiaozhuang

9 8

Baijiafen

Xuejiazhuang Wangyukou

11 12

Haojiaqiao

Jiaoshaocun

Huayuanzhuang 10

N

Caixiao Hougang

Haojiadian Meiyuanzhuang

Linfuzhuang

Yubeishachang

Guojiawan

Major Archaeological Features of Yinxu and Huanbei in Anyang Bronze Foundry Bone Workshop Jade/Stone Workshop Pottery Workshop Pottery Workshop (unpublished) Production Precinct Moat Major Road Canal National Yinxu Archaeological Protection Zone

Gaolouzhuang

13 14

Yinxu

Guojiazhuang

Dazhuang Guozhuang

Renjiazhuang

Qijiazhuang Xujiaqiao Nanxizhuang Dapo

Liujiazhuang

Liujiazhuang Sanjizhuang

Tujiazhuang

Tijiakou Xibalizhuang

Xiaomintun 1 Beixinzhuang 2 Xiaomintun West 3 Xiaomintun South 4 Xiaomintun Southeast

0

1000 m

Dongbalizhuang

Xiaotun 5 Architecture Group A 6 Structure B5/Daliankeng 7 Xiaotun North 8 Huayuanzhuang

FIGURE 2.1 Distribution of Anyang craft production sites

Dasikong 9 Dasikong 10 Dasikong South

Miaopu 11 Miaopu North 12 Tiesanlu-Xin’anzhuang 13 Liujiazhuang North 14 Xuejiazhuang

0

5 cm

0

5 cm

FIGURE 3.4 Complete mold sections for the rim and the belly of a lei vessel (left; illustrations by Li Xiating © Institute of Archaeology, CASS) and the corresponding horizontal mold divisions on the bronze vessel (right; IA 1998: 90, figure 67).

FIGURE 3.6 Two mold fragments with decoration incised directly into the mold. Note that the circular line in the lower section of R17001 (bottom) is in appliqué. © Institute of History and Philology

FIGURE 3.7 A mold fragment (R16890) for the handle of a gui vessel. The curved lines are executed in appliqué. Traces of retouching can be seen along the raised lines (close-up photos taken by author, bottom photo by IHP). © Institute of History and Philology

0

5 cm

FIGURE 3.14 Top row: Front and back of a Type I mold for a ding vessel from Structure B5, Xiaotun. Bottom row: Front and back of a Type II mold for a fangding from Daliankeng, Xiaotun. © Institute of History and Philology

FIGURE 3.16 Type I (upper right) and Type II (lower right) molds for a jue vessel. Note how the top section of the Type II mold extends beyond the rim of the vessel. Photos of the vessel are mirror-reversed (from Li Chi 1966: Pl. XL). © Institute of History and Philology (upper right) and Institute of Archaeology, CASS (lower right; illustration by Lai Shu-li)

FIGURE 3.17 A you vessel with a removable top section that turns into a gu vessel from HPKM1022 and Type I mold fragments from Xiaotun for a similar vessel. See also Li 2009: nos. 39, 294. Illustrations by Lai Shu-li. © Institute of History and Philology

FIGURE 5.2 Marble seat or platform in the form of two back-to-back tigers from HPKM1001. See also Li 2009: no. 118. © Institute of History and Philology

FIGURE 5.4 An engraved spatula with turquoise inlays made from a tiger humerus now in the Royal Ontario Museum. The inscription on the inner side of the bone records a royal hunt that captured a tiger. Illustrations from White 1945: plate 15. Photos courtesy of the Royal Ontario Museum © ROM

FIGURE 5.5 An engraved bone spatula supposedly from Anyang now at the Art Institute of Chicago. Lucy Maud Buckingham Collection, 1937.123. Illustration by Lai Shu-li

FIGURE 5.11 Type III Xiaotun stone blades. Unearthed in Daliankeng, Xiaotun templepalace complex. See also Li 2009: no. 229. © Institute of History and Philology

FIGURE 5.12 Stone blades Li Chi used to demonstrate his ten manufacturing stages. Photo taken by author. © Institute of History and Philology

FIGURE 6.10 Left: A large you vessel thought to have been from Daijiawan, Baoji, Shaanxi. Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC: Purchase—Charles Lang Freer Endowment, F1930.26a-b. © Smithsonian Right: Mold fragments found at Anyang for casting an almost identical vessel. Illustrations by Li Xiating.

Chapter Five

LOCATING THE ROYAL WORKSHOP AND OTHER CRAFTS

The material culture of Anyang unveiled by the IHP and IA archaeologists demonstrate the advanced level of the Shang craft workers in working with a wide range of media, from jade, bronze, ceramic, bone, and ivory to wood and lacquer. The finds discussed in the previous chapters reveal the scale and capacity of the Shang craft industries that produced the tangible and material aspects of Shang civilization. However, these finds still leave many questions unanswered. One of the main issues for the study of Anyang craft production concerns the manufacturing location of the exquisite objects made for royal use. As shown in the earlier chapters, we may have clues to the location of the foundries for high-status bronzes, but for most of the high-status objects found in the elite tombs and the royal cemetery, little information exists as to where they were made. In chapter 3, I argue that bronzes of high quality and exceptionally large size were produced together with the more common ones in foundries across Anyang. In chapter 4, I show that the large-scale bone workshops made only a limited range of mundane items and that the skillfully carved bone and ivory beakers seem to have been crafted somewhere else. And where was the manufacturing site for the imposing anthropomorphic marble figures and the lacquered wooden stretchers covered with inlaid patterns found in the royal cemetery (figure 5.1)? Were they made in the same type of large-scale workshops but in different departments, or were they made in entirely separate, specialized workspaces?

3

2

B’ B’

1

A’

A

B

B

A

0

A’

50 cm

FIGURE 5.1.  Wooden pallets in the shape of two back-to-back tigers found in HPKM1001. Shell and marble inlay pieces were used to form patterns on the pallets. Liang and Kao 1962: figures 30 and 37, plate 60.

131 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

Another puzzling fact in the archaeology of craft production at Anyang concerns the relative lack of evidence for pottery and lithic manufacturing. Even after the discovery of pottery kilns at Liujiazhuang North and other locales, the number of kilns now known does not account for the quantity of pottery unearthed across the capital. We have even less information concerning the production of lithics, except for the early IHP find at Xiaotun. The different types of craft production discussed in this chapter therefore compliment what we know about large-scale bronze and bone production in Anyang. The chapter first discusses the possible location of artisan-centered workshops, using archaeological data retrieved by IHP. The discussion is based on archaeological evidence for craft production using exotic raw materials, such as ivory and tiger bones, and small but well-executed items for high-status objects, such as shell and marble inlays for lacquer objects. The chapter then examines the only known example of lithic production and surveys what we know about pottery production at Anyang. Even though the data discussed here are incomplete and much more limited, they represent a set of diverse yet coordinated craft-producing activities that add more layers to our understanding of the complex craft production system that operated at Anyang during the late Shang dynasty. IN SEARCH OF THE ROYAL WORKSHOP

Archaeologists working on the Anyang bone industries in particular have long realized that there must have existed a separate royal workshop where  the intricately carved beakers and spatulas found inside the royal tombs were made. The fact that the massive bone-working operation at Dasikong and Tiensanlu produced mostly hairpins is puzzling and does not reflect the full range of the Anyang bone industry. If we compare the bone artifacts found in the royal tombs and the finished and semifinished products found among the deposits at Dasikong and Tiesanlu, the differences in artifact types, manufacturing qualities, and degree of time and labor investment cannot be more striking. There must have been other workshops that produced items for the royal elite. The waste dump at Huayuanzhuang East could have been part of the royal bone workshop (Meng and Xie 2006). However, as Li Zhipeng et al. (2011) point out, the composition of the faunal remains suggests that the Huayuanzhuang site represents waste from butchering. Li maintains that since turquoise inlays were used on high-status artifacts such as the ivory beakers

132 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

from the tomb of Fuhao, the possible location of the royal bone workshop could be in Xiaotun South, where evidence for jade and turquoise working was found during the 1980s. Turquoise inlays, however, were also applied onto bronzes, such as weapons and horse and chariot fittings, and Xiaotun South was most likely dedicated to lapidary production, with the finished products transferred to other workshops for further manufacturing. As will be shown next, a number of other craft-producing activities directly related to the royal elite, including bone working, were also present at the so-called temple-palace complex. After sieving through the IHP Anyang collection, I would like to argue that there is evidence in the Xiaotun temple-palace complex for small-scale craft production activities performed by artisans who worked closely with the high elite. For instance, a bone spatula with semifinished decorations was found in a trench north of Daliankeng, and there are scattered finds for making osseous objects with skeletal parts of exotic animals such as elephants and tigers in the temple-palace complex as well. The best evidence for artisan workshops, however, comes from remains of shell and marble working at Daliankeng. The finely cut and polished inlay pieces suggest that they were produced by craft workers with finer skills, similar to those of lapidary workers. There are also indications that shell and marble working took place in connection with lacquer production, which is another craft that produced high-status objects for the elite, although currently no archaeological data for lacquer production in Anyang exists. MULTICRAFTING AT DALIANKENG

The name Daliankeng refers to excavation trenches located in between Architecture Groups A and B, or south of Structures A12 and A13 and north of Structures B1 and B2. It was excavated during the third season of the IHP campaign in the winter of 1929 and the spring of 1930. The IHP excavations uncovered evidence for a number of craft-producing activities, including bronze casting, lithic working, marble and shell processing, and ivory working. Although no workshop facilities were found and workshop remains from Daliankeng are small in quantity, the crafts represented are exclusive to Daliankeng thus far. Because the context and the stratigraphic information are already lost, material remains from there can only be treated as a collection of archaeological data from the area between Architecture Groups A and B without finer chronological resolution or stratigraphic information.

133 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

We also cannot clearly distinguish between artifacts from habitation contexts and those from workshop contexts, let alone the extent of craft production activities in and near Daliankeng. That being said, it is still possible to argue for the presence of multiple craft-producing activities thanks to the workshop-related remains. If the high-status objects were made in separate artisan workshops other than the large-scale workshops at Tiesanlu and Dasikong, what material remains would we expect to find for craft-producing activities related to the high elite? If the ivory and elephant limb bone beakers serve as indicators, the nature of the raw material, the required craftsmanship, and the intended clientele reflected in the workshop remains may all be clues to identify the presence of the artisan workshop. In the following discussion, I begin by examining the role of certain rare and exotic animals utilized and represented in Shang material culture. The Exotic and the Wild: Elephants and Tigers in Shang Elite Culture

The Shang kings had a desire for wild and exotic animals, exemplified by the remains of monkeys, elephants, tigers, rhinoceros, large fowl, tapirs, an extinct form of takin (Budorcas taxicola lichii; see Teilhard de Chardin and Young 1936; Young 1948), and whales found in the royal cemetery and the temple-palace complex. Whale bones found in HPKM1004 and the skull and horns of a takin found in HPKM1500 apparently entered Anyang in skeletal form,1 but some land mammals, such as monkeys and elephants, could have been brought to the capital alive. The Shang king also engaged in frequent hunting activities as recorded in the oracle bone inscriptions (e.g., Chen 1949, 1995; Yao 1981). Such royal hunting trips served both diplomatic and political functions, but they may also have resembled the modern counterpart of an elite sport (e.g., Campbell 2009; Fiskesjö 2001). Indeed, some of the killed animals were kept as trophies, as there are several examples where inscriptions recording the hunting event and the capture were carved on the skeletal parts of wild animals such as deer, tiger, and water buffalo,2 presumably the remains of hunted animals. It has been pointed out that it was the wild animals that were depicted in the various forms of representational art at Anyang (Chen Xingcan 2015). Images of wild mammals such as tigers, water buffalos, elephants, rabbits, deer, and rhinoceros, reptiles and amphibians such as snakes and frogs, and insects such as silk worms, cicadas, and praying mantises are represented in bronze decor

134 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

FIGURE 5.2.  Marble seat or platform in the form of two back-to-back tigers from HPKM1001. See also Li 2009: no. 118. © Institute of History and Philology

and depicted in full form in bronze, jade, and marble. Wild animals must have played a certain role in Shang iconography and cosmology, although the cultural or cosmological meaning remains unclear without any relevant textual information.3 For the purpose of this chapter, the tiger and the elephant are of particular interest, as their skeletal parts were found in habitation and also craft-producing contexts and were made into high-status objects. Tigers are widely depicted in the material culture of the Shang elite. The image of the tiger is found on lacquered wooden objects, on a large marble seat, and is depicted in full form in jade and sculpted marble pieces. For instance, the marble seat or altar from Xibeigang tomb no. 1001, the largest marble object from Anyang, is in the form of two back-to-back tigers, with the claws and fangs vividly depicted on the sides and on the top (figure  5.2). Tigers are also one of the most commonly represented animals in bronze decor in the form of animal mask motifs, together with dragons, long-tailed birds, water buffalos, and rams. The most noteworthy examples of the depiction of tigers, however, are the two anthropomorphic marble sculptures in the form of a kneeling tiger from Xibeigang tombs nos. 1001 and 1550. These marble sculptures may have been architectural components that were once attached to posts or columns, as they have a vertical slot on the backside.

135 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

Depictions of elephants are not as common. They are found in bronze decor, usually depicted in profile, but much less frequently. They are also represented in full form in jade, such as the miniature jade elephant found in the tomb of Fuhao, and in bronze, such as the three well-known bronze elephants of late Shang dates; an elaborately decorated bronze elephant unearthed in 1975 in Liling, Hunan; a vessel in the Freer Gallery with a small elephant adorning the lid; and one in the Musée Guimet in the shape of a juvenile individual. The latter two are of unknown provenance but are also thought to be from southern China.4 In oracle bone inscriptions, tigers and elephants both appear in the list of hunted (huo 獲) or captured (qin 禽) animals in the context of royal hunting. The number of captured elephants recorded ranges from one up to seven (e.g., Heji No. 37364) and that of tigers from one to three (e.g., Heji No. 37463; Dang 2005). The modern distribution of tigers includes North China, but elephants are no longer present in the Central Plains region. The frequent mention of encountering elephants together with other wild animals such as birds and fox during royal hunts suggests that they were native to the region during the Shang dynasty.5 Skeletal remains of tigers and elephants are occasionally encountered in archaeological contexts in Anyang. The IHP excavations in the royal cemetery uncovered two sacrificial pits interred with elephants, one juvenile and one adult, near Xibeigang tomb no.1400. The adult elephant, apparently buried with its tusks intact, also had a sacrificial human, supposedly its handler, placed near its back (figure 5.3; see also Hu Houxuan 1955). In the 1978 IA excavation in the same vicinity, archaeologists excavated forty sacrificial animal pits, all interred with full skeletons of one or multiple animals. Animals identified include horses, cattle, pigs, sheep, dogs, a fox, a monkey, and another juvenile elephant (Anyang 1987). Bronze bells were found near the neck of the monkey and the juvenile elephant. The bells and the human sacrifice clearly indicate that wild animals such as monkeys and elephants were tamed and kept in captivity. For tigers, a complete tiger skull, phalanges, and some limb bones were found at Xiaotun by the IHP. IA archaeologists also reported occasional finds of tiger bones (Li Zhipeng, personal communication). Evidence for Ivory Processing and Elephant and Tiger Bone Working

The Shang king’s fascination with exotic animals did not stop at live animals, which were either kept in captivity, hunted, or sacrificed. Perhaps for reasons

N

1.25 M

0

0.5

1.0

2.0 M

FIGURE 5.3.  An adult elephant found in a sacrificial pit in Xibeigang. A sacrificial human was placed near its back. Redrawn from field records. © Institute of History and Philology

137 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

similar to the interring of whale and takin bones into the royal tombs, skeletal parts of tigers and elephants were made into trophies and functional objects. Figure 5.4 shows an inscribed tiger humerus now at the Royal Ontario Museum. The humerus was split and processed into a spatula. The medial side of the humerus, including the supracondylar foramen and the supracondylar process, was retrieved and utilized. Decorations were carved on the exterior surface of the retrieved blank, and a long inscription recording a royal hunt and the capturing of a tiger was carved on the interior side of the bone. The inscription was then lined with turquoise inlays. The limb bones of elephants, with their unusually large size, were also utilized to make different bone objects. In the royal cemetery, archaeologists uncovered several beakers and cups made from mammal limb bones and the diameters of these vessels indicate that they were made from elephant bones (cover photo; Umehara 1940; Uchida 2013). These vessels, now in the IHP storage, utilize the diaphysis of the long bones, which was hollowed, polished and thinned, and decorated with patterns similar to those found on bronzes on the exterior surface. A layer of some red material, presumably lacquer, was applied on the interior, apparently to prevent seepage, and bottoms and handles were attached. For all the IHP examples, both the bottom and the handle are missing, but the presence of the bottom is indicated by the gap in the applied lacquer on the interior of the vessel and the presence of the handle indicated by holes along the vertical axis of the beakers on one side. Another less well-known example is in the National Museum of History in Taipei (Li Ming-chu ed. 2005, 54–55). The fragment is from a long-spouted beaker or pitcher similar in shape to the Fuhao beaker. There are several large bone tablets with elaborate carved decorations, including two from Xibeigang tomb no. 1001 (see Li Yung-ti ed. 2009, 254– 55, Entry No. 240) and one now at the Art Institute of Chicago (figure 5.5). The Art Institute piece is slightly angular with a ridge in the middle of the tablet. Two animal faces with frontal views are prominently placed in the upper sections, with various smaller decorative elements filling the rest of the surface. The large and relatively flat surface area of these tablets suggests that they were also made from elephant limb bones. The shape and perforations of one of the IHP pieces show that it was meant to be attached to another part, perhaps of different material (Uchida 2013). The Art Institute piece may also have been attached to another part, as it has a vertical groove on the back.

FIGURE 5.4.  An engraved spatula with turquoise inlays made from a tiger humerus now in the Royal Ontario Museum. The inscription on the inner side of the bone records a royal hunt that captured a tiger. Illustrations from White 1945, plate 15. Photos courtesy of the Royal Ontario Museum © ROM

FIGURE 5.5.  An engraved bone spatula supposedly from Anyang now at the Art Institute of Chicago. Lucy Maud Buckingham Collection, 1937.123. Illustration by Lai Shu-li

140 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

A similar bone tablet with semifinished decorations was found in Trench 074A just north of Daliankeng in the Xiaotun temple-palace complex (IHP Accession Number R18222; see figure 4.21). The form of the tablet is already fashioned and the upper end of it is decorated with a finely engraved animal mask motif. The rest of the tablet remains unfinished, with only the right half of the triangular motif crudely carved. The surface of the left side is prepared, although the lower end still has coarse parallel lines formed by grinding. Even though the archaeological context of the piece is lost, it is worth noting that there are other finds related to craft-producing activities in the same vicinity, including bone working. The bone tablet may therefore have come from a nearby bone artifact manufacturing location where decoration engraving took place.6 In the royal cemetery, ivory objects appear to be more common than those made from elephant limb bones. Almost all the royal tombs at Xibeigang revealed ivory vessels and various ivory objects and decorative pieces. Most of the larger ivory items are poorly preserved and the exact forms and functions unclear. Identifiable items include small sculptural pieces, dou vessels with turquoise inlay, finials, decorative inlay pieces, and various small objects.7 There is clear evidence for ivory processing at the Daliankeng locus. Although there are only a few examples, they include pieces of ivory blanks, several large and thinly sectioned ivory, an offcut with several deep saw marks, and the tip of a tusk that was sawn off from opposite directions (figure 5.6). These worked pieces indicate that ivory was processed in situ at Anyang and, judging from the thickness of the better-preserved pieces, the artisans were able to cut ivory into thin sections. It is not clear if the artisans were able to soften ivory for processing.8 IHP archaeologists also found a number of worked tiger bones. The largest piece is a cut tiger humerus (figure 5.7), probably intended for making a spatula similar to the one now in the Royal Ontario Museum. The articular ends of the tiger humerus and part of the supracondylar ridge were sawn off to produce the flat surface for splitting the bone. Based on the museum piece, the IHP example, and the procedures used in making spatulas from cattle bones (see chapter 4), the reduction sequence for making a spatula from the tiger humerus can be reconstructed as follows: remove the proximal and distal ends; remove part of the supracondylar ridge; saw from the cut on the supracondylar ridge and along the medial plane to retrieve a blank from the medial side; remove the spongy bone; and smooth and polish the exterior and interior sides of the blank.

0

5 cm

FIGURE 5.6.  Processed ivory from the Xiaotun temple-palace complex. Illustration by Lai Shu-li © Institute of History and Philology

FIGURE 5.7.  A processed tiger humerus from Xiaotun. Illustration by Lai Shu-li. © Institute of History and Philology

142 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

Unlike the abundance of livestock such as cattle for quotidian consumption, tigers and elephants were apparently special animals reserved for the royals. They were hunted during royal excursions and, in the case of elephants, also kept in captivity for the pleasure of the king. Their depictions in Shang elite material culture demonstrate that they played a distinctive role in the iconography and perhaps the spiritual realm of the elite. Objects made from the skeletal parts of tigers and elephants are only associated with the high elite and must also have contained the same symbolic meaning as their pictorial representations. Such significance would most likely be transferred into the domain of craft production, as the locations where ivory and tiger bones were processed show that the manufacturing took place within the so-called temple-palace complex (figure 5.8). The archaeological context, the unusual and elaborate forms and decor of the artifacts, and especially the rarity of the material therefore all point to a type of artisan craft production that met the needs of the high elite.9 The Use of Shell and Marble at Anyang

Shell and marble were among the many materials with which Anyang artisans chose to work. Freshwater shells or mollusks, for instance, were made into tools such as blades, sickles, and spades, and weapons such as arrowheads, although it is not clear if some of these shell objects were more symbolic or ornamental than functional.10 Most of the shell objects found in the royal cemetery were processed to make use of the inner layer, or mother-of-pearl, as inlay and decorative pieces to be attached to wooden and lacquer objects. The category of marble objects ranges from statues of realistic and mythical animals, stone chimes, tablets, and symbolic weaponry for ritual use to vessels copying forms in bronze and ceramic.11 The elaborately made sculptural pieces were clearly reserved for the royal and high elite as they are found only in the royal cemetery and in the tomb of Fuhao. Smaller marble objects, such as plain tablets and symbolic weaponry, are occasionally found in small and modest burials, although they are not always identified in the earlier publications (Jing Zhichun, personal communication). Marble was also processed into small decorative pieces for inlays or appendages that were joined and attached to lacquered wooden objects. There is an evident preference for fine-grained, white- and ivory-colored marble, but green, grey, and multicolored marble objects are also found. The material and the color may

A5 A8 A1 A6 A10

A4

A9

A2 A3

A13

A15

Architecture Group A

A11 A12

B1 B2 B5 B6

Architecture Group B

B4

B3

B8 Elephant

Tiger

Unmodified B9

B7

Modified B10 0

10

30

50 M

FIGURE 5.8.  Distribution of modified and unmodified tiger and elephant skeletal remains in the Xiaotun temple-palace complex. Symbols represent the trenches where remains were found.

144 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

likely have had symbolic or religious significance, but without contemporary textual references, this significance cannot be established. Marble deposits are commonly found throughout China. The wide distribution of marble identified in modern geological surveys means that marble was probably readily available to the Shang people in the Anyang period. In fact, marble deposits within a reachable distance likely to be exploited by Anyang were found in the southeastern fringe of the Taihang Mountains west of Anyang (Jing Zhichun, personal communication). Marble occurs in large and extensive deposits and can be mined on a large scale, a practice not only observed in modern times but also in the ancient world, such as in the ancient Greco-Roman period. Judging from the range of sizes of marble objects, the Anyang craft workers may not have had the quarrying technology to retrieve large blocks of marble. For instance, the largest marble artifact known in Anyang is the marble seat or platform in the form of two back-to-back tigers that weighs over 99 kilograms with a dimension of 84.7 × 41.2 × 12.7 cm (see figure 5.2). The absence of large-scale quarrying technology may have meant that large blocks of marble were more valuable, and the best marble, in terms of both size and quality, was reserved for royal use to produce sculptural pieces such as those found in Xibeigang tomb nos. 1001 and 1500. It is worth noting that at Anyang, marble was often processed down to small ornamental pieces while the waste products were still used as funerary furnishings, as if the material was more precious than what the abundance of the natural deposit may suggest.12 Parts of the Big Picture: Shell and Marble Working and the Production of Lacquerware

Among the artifacts salvaged by the IHP archaeologists from the heavily looted royal cemetery were hundreds of small decorative pieces made of shell, marble, and sometimes jade. Some of them may have been sewn onto leather or fabric, as there are perforations and diagonal slits for stringing threads. Some are appendages, such as flanges and claws, for objects of different media.13 Most of these pieces, however, are individual inlays of various shapes with no perforations. These seemingly insignificant objects appear to have been attached to lacquered wooden objects to form elaborate patterns of various animal motifs. Some examples of these inlaid wooden objects were found in Xibeigang tomb no. 1001 during excavations. They either could not be retrieved or did not survive the relocations of IHP, but based on the field

145 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

drawings and photos, these lacquered wooden objects were in elaborate forms and could be fairly large in size. They were decorated with patterns and motifs outlined by these small inlay pieces. Figure 5.1 shows three wooden pallets found in Xibeigang tomb no. 1001. Each is over two meters long and is in the shape of two back-to-back tigers with the forelimbs extending outward to form the pallet handles. The facial features of the tigers are delineated with shell and marble inlay pieces at either end of the pallet, and the sides of the pallet are decorated with large floral-shaped inlay pieces. Next to the pallet are traces of another wooden object with elongated inlay pieces outlining the body of a dragon. The Xibeigang tomb no. 1001 finds remind us that these small shell and marble pieces are remnants of some much more imposing objects for the use of the royal elite. SHELL WORKING

A large number of shell artifacts were found at the Daliankeng locus. The majority consists of small and thin elongated pieces with a tapered end, similar to those found in the royal tombs. There are also other decorative pieces, such as disks, bosses, and appendages to other objects or vessels, such as fangs and flanges (figure 5.9). Standing out among the shell objects from Daliankeng are the few processed blanks and semifinished shell objects that indicate manufacturing activities. Figure 5.9 shows a square mother-of-pearl blank that was neatly cut and semipolished and an unfinished boss that was cut from the dorsal side of the shell and still preserves the uneven outer surface. These semifinished objects are few in number but clearly represent shell-working activities. Another indication of workshop activities is the find of several small drill heads (figure 5.10). They are pointed on both ends and the most complete example has a raised edge, presumably to be attached to the tip of the wooden stick of a pump drill. Judging from the size of these drill heads, they were most likely tools for making small objects from softer materials such as shell or marble. IHP archaeologists may also have discovered the stocked raw materials for shell working. Li Chi described in his excavation notes that middens of freshwater shells were found during the excavation of Daliankeng.14 If the blanks and semifinished shell objects represent contents from a nearby shell artifact workshop, the large quantities of shells found in Daliankeng may have been raw materials stored for later use.15

R011829

R000500_1

R012650

R011905_17

R012121_1

R011859

R012197_1

FIGURE 5.9.  Finished and semifinished pieces and blanks made from freshwater shells from Daliankeng. Illustration by Lai Shu-li. © Institute of History and Philology

147 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

R47902

R47906 R47904

0

R47903

5 cm

FIGURE 5.10.  Small drill heads from Daliankeng, possibly for drilling shell or marble. Illustration by Lai Shu-li. © Institute of History and Philology

MARBLE WORKING

Marble objects unearthed from Daliankeng include finished and semifinished artifacts, each representing different behavioral contexts. The finished artifacts include a broken, kneeling figure, ritual paraphernalia such as symbolic weaponry of qi 戚 and ge 戈 forms, and fragments of marble vessels. They appear to have been broken after they were made and may have come from habitation contexts. Waste and worked marble pieces indicate that marble was processed in the vicinity of Daliankeng. The semiprocessed blanks are large rectangular pieces that have cut marks on one or more sides. The cut marks show that cutting, presumably with stone blades and abrasives, was done from opposite directions and often not executed all the way through. The blank may have been broken off by force, leaving uneven surfaces on the edges. These rectangular pieces could be the preforms to produce long and slender marble artifacts such as the ge-blades and gui-tablets 圭 often found in burial contexts. The offcuts and semifinished pieces can be used for small items such

148 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

as inlays or appendages. Archaeologists have yet to find evidence for the production of the large marble sculptures found at the royal cemetery. Crafting Multimedia Objects: Artisan Workshops at Daliankeng

At first sight, the production of small shell and marble inlay pieces may not speak to the presence of a royal workshop. If we consider that these inlay pieces were meant for large lacquered wooden objects such as those found in Xibeigang tomb no. 1001, the making of shell and marble inlay pieces is then only a part of the entire manufacturing process to produce sumptuous and high-status lacquerware for the high elite. The array of lacquerware found in that tomb testifies that these perishable items that did not always survive in the archaeological records in fact formed an important and exclusive part of the elite material culture. Although we know little about lacquer production during the Shang dynasty, examples from the later Eastern Zhou period and especially the Han dynasty show that lacquer production was one of the most laborious crafts and lacquerware was among the most luxurious items of the time (e.g., Barbieri-Low 2007; Chen and Nie 2019). The shell and marble decorative pieces found in the Anyang royal tombs, small and unimportant as they may seem, therefore are the embodiment of these labor intensive, high-status objects. The juxtaposition of shell and marble working, on the other hand, can be understood as a conscious workshop arrangement based on logistic needs, as the processing of the two types of materials entailed skills, tools, and facilities of similar nature. They were also made into items with the same function, i.e., inlays, to be applied to the same objects, lacquerware, perhaps by the same workers. If we consider the production process of inlaid lacquerware, it is likely that next to the shell- and marble-processing area were also the lacquer application and curing facilities, as well as the carpentry areas for producing the base objects. They were all part of the lacquer workshop that ultimately turned out high-status items meant for the elite. In 1975, IA archaeologists located a rectangular semisubterranean structure, F11, near the southern fringe of Architecture Group C that may have been a lapidary workshop (see chapter 2). Even though there was no evidence for shell or marble working associated with F11, parallels can arguably be drawn between lapidary and inlay production in terms of the required skills of the craft workers, the high-status nature of the products, the facilities and the size of the workshop, and especially the locations where craft production took place, i.e., the Xiaotun core area. If compared to the massive operation in

149 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

the bone factory workshops, the cutting, shaping, and polishing performed in shell and marble working may require finer skills and greater precision in execution than the sawing and processing of cattle limb bones seen, for instance, at Tiesanlu and especially Xin’anzhuang. The making of inlays together with lapidary production therefore points to the presence of artisan workshops situated in the core area where the royal elite supposedly resided. STONE BLADE PRODUCTION AT DALIANKENG

Another category of artifacts found in abundance at the Daliankeng locus is the so-called “Xiaotun stone blades 小屯石刀,” so named by Li Chi because of their concentration at Xiaotun. These blades are triangular or an elongated shape with the cutting edge placed on one of the long sides of the lithic. Li Chi reported that between the second and seventh seasons of the IHP excavations, archaeologists found 3,640 specimens of these blades.16 The concentration of the Xiaotun blades in and near Daliankeng is bewildering, and without further information, we may not know the exact nature of these finds. Some scholars have ventured to argue that these blades were agricultural tools kept separately for zhong 眾, or corvée labors (see Underhill and Fang 2004; for discussions of the term zhong 眾, see Peng 1990; Yang 1991; Zhao Lin 1982; Zhao Xiyuan 1956, 1982), although there is little evidence to support such an interpretation. I would like to argue that at least some of these blades came from a workshop context, as known examples appear to be from different manufacturing stages. The indication of lithic production is worth noting, especially if it is considered together with the other evidence for craft production at Daliankeng. The presence of multiple craft-producing activities therefore calls for a reinterpretation of the Xiaotun temple-palace complex, which will be treated in more detail in the concluding chapter. Li Chi’s Analysis of the Xiaotun Stone Blades

Of the over 3,600 stone blades recorded, over 400 better-preserved ones were kept during the relocations of IHP. They formed the collection studied by Li after IHP settled in Taiwan (Li Chi 1952). Li sorted the 220 complete specimens from the collection into three types based on the ratio of length to width: Type I, broad and short (80/220); Type II, intermediate (111/220); and Type III, elongated (29/220). Type I blades are short, broad, and thick, often with an arched spine, giving the blades a crescent shape. Type III blades are

150 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

FIGURE 5.11.  Type III Xiaotun stone blades. Unearthed in Daliankeng, Xiaotun temple-palace complex. See also Li 2009: no. 229. © Institute of History and Philology

the most distinctive. They are long and thin, with a slowly curved tip, and a straight edge and spine (figure 5.11). Type II consists of a mixture of blades with different shapes whose ratio of length to width falls between Types I and III. As there are no extended parts to grasp in the hand, these blades are thought to have been hafted on wooden staffs or handles (Li Chi 1952). According to IA archaeologists, no major finds of similar blades have been made since excavations resumed at Anyang after 1950 (IA 2001; Yue Hongbin, personal communication).

151 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

The three types of Xiaotun blades display varying kinds of manufacturing wear, from cuts produced by straight-bladed tools on the sides, pecking and percussion scars on the surface and edges, to coarse and fine parallel lines covering parts or the entirety of the blades, formed by different grades of grinding stone. Preforms and reworked blades recycled from fragments are also present. Li identified ten manufacturing stages based on manufacture wear and degree of finish and noted that these blades were all manufactured locally in Xiaotun (Li Chi 1952). Li then identified nine or ten stages of use-wear based on the extent of the wear and the distribution of notches and chips on the cutting edge. Of the 220 specimens examined, 20 show no signs of having been used (Stage 1), and 183 show use-wear between Stages 2, 3, and 4 (75, 72, and 36). In other words, most of the blades have signs of light or moderate use. Reconstructing the Operation Sequence of Stone Blade Making

It appears that Li Chi’s classification of the Xiaotun stone blades solely by the ratio of length to width may have been too simplistic. In retrospect, his analytical approach focused more on finding the most efficient way to classify lithics, which resulted in overlooking the morphological features and obscuring the behavioral aspects of the collection he studied. For instance, in Li’s charts, nos. 152, 178, 67, and 60 of the Type II blades are morphologically similar to nos. 62, 30, and 188 of the Type I blades. It is also difficult to reconstruct the reduction sequence based on Li’s description, especially since he did not include illustrations for his ten manufacturing steps. The original specimens cited in Li’s work are kept in the IHP storage and were examined. From observation of the actual specimens, it is clear that Li’s ten stages or types of manufacture in fact represent degrees of manufacturing across different types of blades. They should be understood as parallels and cannot not be seen as sequential steps within an operational sequence (figure 5.12). It is also worth noting that while most of the Xiaotun blades were made from schist, the blades chosen by Li were made from different raw materials. Although he noticed that these blades were made locally and displayed varying degrees of finish, without identifying the operational sequence, he downplayed the fact that some of the blades represent the same type of artifacts in different stages of production and overlooked their craft production context. An alternative to Li’s approach would be to reconstruct the reduction and operational sequence and view some of these blades as products and semifinished artifacts from a stone blade workshop. The following discussion is

152 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

FIGURE 5.12.  Stone blades Li Chi used to demonstrate his ten manufacturing stages. Photo taken by author. © Institute of History and Philology

based on what is available in the IHP collection and on Li’s research, while acknowledging the lack of archaeological context and the incomplete nature of the data set. Li points out that these blades are almost uniformly made from schist, reflecting a conscious decision for the choice of raw material. The blades are manufactured using a number of techniques including cutting, pecking, and coarse and fine grinding. The foliated structure and the brittleness of the material allows for the use of percussion and pecking only to a certain degree before the blank is fractured or damaged. The preliminary blanks are therefore crude and heavy, and it appears that grinding is the most timeconsuming and labor-intensive part of the manufacturing process.

153 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

FIGURE 5.13.  Preforms of Xiaotun stone blades unearthed in Daliankeng, Xiaotun temple-palace complex. See also Li 2009: no. 228. © Institute of History and Philology

There are five preforms currently in the IHP collection. They are thick and heavy, and their surface is uneven, undulate, and covered with bulges and scars. The shapes and sizes suggest that they are for different types of stone blades (figure 5.13). The preforms are prepared from cut blanks, as they have clean and straight edges formed by cutting with straight-bladed tools. They are then given the approximate shape of the finished products, i.e., straight or arched back, curved tip, and straight cutting edge, by pecking from both sides and from different directions. The thickness of the spine and the cutting edge is reduced by bifacial pecking, leaving seriated notches on the edge.17 There are no indications of grinding being applied on these preforms. The few complete and unused Type III blades are chosen here for further discussion of the manufacturing process. They are carefully ground down to an astonishing thickness of only 0.3 cm, and with few exceptions, most

154 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

percussion scars are ground away. Fine parallel lines from grinding cover the blades, and the cutting edge is carefully prepared by grinding from a different angle. Although the blades are not polished to a glossy sheen, the surface has a relatively smooth touch and the thickness is even from the spine to the cutting edge. The thickness of the spine and the middle section of the blade is carefully reduced and the rims given a beveled shape by additional grinding. These finished blades demonstrate that a considerable amount of time and effort was invested in grinding and retouching after the preform stage. Using the preforms and the finished blades as the two ends of the manufacturing continuum, we can reconstruct the basic reduction sequence as follows: 1. Use of cutting and percussion to produce the blank; 2. Percussion and pecking to shape and reduce the size of the blank into a preform; 3. Bifacial pecking to form the cutting edge and the spine; 4. Coarse grinding to reduce the thickness and remove the percussion scars; 5. Preparation of the cutting edge by changing the angle of grinding at the edge; 6. Further grinding to reach the intended shape, thickness, and smooth polish of the final product; and 7. Retouching the edges of the blade by grinding to form beveled rims on all sides.

Figure 5.14 shows specimens chosen from different trenches to represent various stages of manufacturing for Type I blades. Due to the limited sample size, the specimens included in the figure do not represent every major manufacturing step. Except for the initial preparation and final retouching, the order of the reduction steps does not seem to be fixed and intermediate steps may be repeated during the process. For instance, the step of preparing the cutting edge may occur at different points, sometimes earlier on, in the sequence. The cutting edge possibly needed to be prepared early and reworked repeatedly as the overall thickness of the blade was reduced in the process. In some cases, especially for non-Type III blades, the cutting edge was made functional while the body of the blade was still covered with percussion scars or coarse grinding marks. The finely polished elongated Type III blades were likely only given a final finish due to their special and perhaps nonutilitarian function. With artifacts in different degrees of finish and different manufacturing stages, it is clear that stone blade production took place in Xiaotun and especially at Daliankeng and E181 where the Xiaotun blades were concentrated. It is however difficult to determine the scale of production with the current

FIGURE 5.14.  Reconstructed reduction sequence of Type I Xiaotun stone blades based on specimens in the IHP collection. © Institute of History and Philology

156 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

collection in IHP, which has only a little over 200 specimens from the reported find of 3,640. The different forms and sizes of the semifinished and finished artifacts in the IHP collection indicate that the production focused on several types of products, while the raw material and the manufacturing techniques were similar. We may also speculate that the raw material was processed somewhere else and entered the workshop in preforms based on the few examples now in the collection. Although it is not clear if all the specimens represent workshop remains, the large number reportedly found and the concentration of over one hundred stone blades in several trenches may indicate a fairly substantial production operation. One puzzling fact is that no similar finds of lithic production were made by the IA archaeologists, and no other examples of the highly finished Xiaotun blades were found outside of Xiaotun, except one in the royal tomb of Xibeigang tomb no. 1001. Contrary to some observations (Cheng 1960: 197; Yu 1997, 146; Underhill et al. 2004, 134), the very thin and long blades did not seem suitable for utilitarian functions, as they would easily shatter during use. Further studies are needed to determine their actual functions. POTTERY PRODUCTION IN ANYANG

Pottery, both in broken sherds and whole vessel forms, is the most mundane and most abundant artifact preserved in the archaeological context at Anyang. After almost a century of research and excavations at Anyang, especially after the commencement of extensive excavations across the site conducted by the Institute of Archaeology, archaeologists have a detailed and well-established pottery chronology, which has become the backbone of Anyang archaeological research; it is used together with periodization based on bronze typology and datable inscribed oracle bones. For many decades, however, the focus on full vessel form analysis and on the temporal and chronological framework of the site has placed emphasis on a culture-history approach that is more descriptive than explanatory. The following brief discussion begins with a review of traditional Anyang pottery typology, followed by the history of Anyang ceramic studies. Only scattered finds of evidence for pottery manufacturing appear at Anyang, with Liujiazhuang North being the most extensive and best published site. This section therefore ends by discussing the nature of pottery production based on available data from Liujiazhuang North.

157 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

Traditional Approach to Anyang Ceramic Analysis

As in Chinese archaeology in general, ceramic analysis in Anyang archaeology consists mainly of descriptive and typological approaches. Archaeologists routinely focus on seriation, periodization, and typology of unearthed pottery to establish the temporal and spatial framework.18 When compared to the long tradition of ceramic analysis in Western archaeology and ethnoarchaeology that emphasizes the social and behavioral context of pottery, the contrast cannot be stronger.19 Archaeologists classify Anyang pottery based on forms, colors, temper, decoration, and functions. There are two main types of clay or paste for utilitarian vessels: jiasha 夾砂 or “sand-tempered,” which in fact refers to a variety of added temper (Stoltman et al. 2009), and nizhi 泥質 or “paste-based” or “temperless.” The names of the vessel types, which usually imply the function, are based on vessel forms, which are often borrowed from the terms used to categorize bronze vessels and are adopted without further reflection. Pottery vessels are therefore separated into three categories based on function: cooking vessels, serving vessels, and containers.20 Individual vessel types are then grouped under each category. For instance, li 鬲, yan 甗, and zeng 甑 are cooking vessels; dou 豆, gui 簋, and yu 盂 are serving vessels; and zun 尊, hu 壺, you 卣, jia 斝, and guan 罐 are containers (IA 1994, 198). The typical nomenclature of a particular pottery type gives the kind of temper used, the color, decoration, and the name of the vessel type. One of the most common types of vessels, the three-legged li, would be described as “sand-tempered, cord-marked, grey clay li” (jiasha shengwen huitao li 夾砂繩紋灰陶鬲). Anyang archaeologists also distinguish two other types of ceramics found mostly in elite contexts. Baitao 白陶, or white clay/pottery, refers to a category of ceramics made from kaolin, and yuanshici 原始瓷, or proto-porcelain, refers to high-fired ceramics made from kaolin with ash glaze. Both are only associated with elite burials. Vessel forms of baitao overlap with utilitarian wares and bronze vessels found at Anyang. They are often decorated with elaborate carved swirl patterns and animal mask motifs similar to those found on bronzes. Yuanshici, on the other hand, resemble ceramic types found in southern China, suggesting an exogenous origin. Scholars disagree whether baitao and yuanchici were locally made at Anyang, especially since high-fired and glazed ceramics first appeared in the Yangzi River Valley in southern China, and snake kilns, an earlier and smaller version of the

158 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

dragon kilns, capable of reaching high firing temeratures were found only in the southern regions (e.g., Chen Tiemei 2016; Jiangxi 1987; Li Boqian 1981; Li Wenjing et al. 2021; Niu 2016; Zhejiang 2011; see also discussion on the northern kilns in the next section). However, kaolin deposits are found in the Taihang Mountains near Anyang, and archaeologists were able to reproduce white pottery using the local source through replication experiments (Jing Zhichun, personal communication). The current discussion only considers the utilitarian wares, however, as there is little archaeological information concerning the production of white pottery and proto-porcelain at Anyang. Similar to his groundbreaking research of Anyang bronzes, Li Chi presented a multi-faceted study of Anyang pottery in Pottery of the Yin and the Pre-Yin Period (Li Chi 1956). The monograph provides detailed descriptions of the pottery found at Anyang by IHP; in addition, it includes a chapter on the chemical compositions and physical properties of the different kinds of pottery, a chapter on the classification system, and a detailed study of the manufacturing techniques used by the potters. Li’s efforts mark the initial attempts in Chinese archaeology to use scientific analysis to study Anyang pottery. He was also among the first to examine pottery manufacturing techniques. The chapter on scientific analysis in the monograph was later replicated not by archaeologists but by material scientists in the 1970s, but not until the early 2000s was similar but more up-to-date research systematically conducted on Anyang ceramics (e.g., Li Qinglin 2011; Stoltman et al. 2009; Yue Zhanwei et al. 2014). His coding and classification system for pottery typology, however, is less successful and has not been widely followed by later scholars (for a discussion of Li Chi’s approach, see Hein 2015). Li discussed several manufacturing techniques based on his observation of the pottery unearthed by IHP, including the use of paddle and anvil in different stages of manufacturing; coiling assisted by additional means of shaping; slow wheel; use of molds and sticks for vessel forming; the use of molds and hand forming to make the li-tripods with baggy legs; fast wheel; shaping by hand; and surface treatment by scraping, buffing, and applying slip. Li referred both to the premodern technical texts on Jingdezhen porcelain manufacturing and the archaeological and ethnoarchaeological studies of pottery making by Wu Chin-ting and Shih Chang-ju (Li Chi 1956, iii–iv). In the comprehensive review and summary of research and discoveries at Anyang, Chen Zhida echoed Li’s efforts and identified four basic fabrication methods based on observations of the Anyang utilitarian wares: wheel-made,

159 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

mold/model-made, coiling, and hand-made (IA 2001). Chen pointed out that the most common methods are wheel-made and mold/model-made, although multiple techniques were often combined to produce different vessel forms. For instance, the body of a gui is formed by wheel, while the rounded bottom is formed using a model. The ring foot is wheel-made and then attached to the bottom by hand. A typical li is made first by using a model to form the hollow legs; the upper portion of the legs are then joined by hand, while the solid tips of the legs are formed in molds and then joined to the legs. Chen’s observation confirmed and supplemented Li Chi’s initial study of Anyang ceramics. Recent Studies of Anyang Ceramics

Systematic scientific analysis of Anyang pottery did not resume until the 2000s after international collaborations began in Anyang. Stoltman et al. (2009) studied the petrography of potsherds from Anyang and the earlier walled settlement in Huanbei, and also ceramic molds for casting bronzes from Anyang, and compared the results with the locally available loessic and alluvial sediments. They identified three different ceramic technologies: the manufacturing of temperless ceramics using local loess; the manufacturing of tempered pottery with local alluvial sediments that can withstand heat stress; and the manufacturing of bronze-casting molds with high-silt and low-clay paste (see chapter 3 for the making of casting molds). They also identified several specimens with nonlocal temper and sediments, possibly imports, and noted that the diversity observed in the Anyang ceramic technologies indicates that the Shang ceramists were highly skilled and were able to prepare different formulas of raw materials to meet the specific physical requirements needed for the various functions of the different types of ceramic products. Another study by Li Qinglin (2011) of the ceramic water pipes found at Anyang also revealed that deliberate technological choices were made to produce water pipes with greater strength, low porosity, and high density, as the chemical composition and firing temperature of the water pipes are starkly different from regular pottery at Anyang. Li argues that these physical attributes are needed for the underground ceramic water pipes whose functions require better resistance to weight and seepage. Li did not source the materials used for the water pipes but postulates that the materials and the kilns used to make the pipes may be different from those used for regular pottery.

160 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

Yue Zhanwei et al. (2014) conducted one of the first replication experiments of pottery production based on the results of petrographic studies, ethnohistorical examples, and archeological finds of pottery and pottery kilns at Liujiazhuang North. An updraft kiln was built based on the archaeological examples from Liujiazhuang North, and through hands-on experiments over two years, they replicated over two hundred ceramic vessels and objects, including li, dou, gu, jue, and some ceramic tools, all temperless and fired grey in a reduction atmosphere as the original artifacts had been. They also described the reconstructed operational sequence for making the temperless gray pottery. The operational sequence includes the prefiring stage of procuring clay, levigation, vessel forming and decorating, drying, and final retouching; and the firing stage of kiln building, kiln filling, firing, and creating a reducing atmosphere by adding dried cattle dung at the last stage of firing (i.e., “carbonizing”; see Kerr and Wood 2004, 300) or by building a reservoir on top of the kiln and letting water seep in, i.e., the water-gas or hydrogen reduction method still practiced in traditional Chinese brick firing (Yue Zhanwei et al. 2014, 107–8; for hydrogen reduction in Chinese brick firing, see Kerr and Wood 2004, 298–99). The firing temperature of the kiln reached 800°C. The Shang dynasty kilns, however, may have reached higher temperatures as large quantities of warped and vitrified misfired pottery vessels were found near the kilns, and the kiln walls showed signs of vitrification, whereas the experimental kiln did not. Organization of Pottery Production at Anyang

The best evidence for pottery production at Anyang currently comes from the kilns. The discovery of over thirty pottery kilns at Liujiazhuang North between 2008 and 2011 marked the first time that Anyang archaeologists were able to systematically examine pottery kilns of the Shang dynasty. Liujiazhuang North is situated in the same general area where the Tiesanlu bone workshop and the Miaopu North bronze foundry were found. Archaeologists had already made several isolated finds of kiln waste before the Liujiazhuang North pottery kilns were excavated (Anyang 1995) and the new finds helped to fill in the gap of data concerning pottery production in the capital. All of the kilns discovered were damaged,21 and none have the roof or top portion intact. Archaeologists, however, were able to identify the main structure of the kilns based on the better-preserved examples (Anyang

161 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

A’

A’

Flue

N

Kiln Wall

Kiln Wall

Flue

Grate Pillar

Grate

Fire Chan n el

Fire Chan nel

Flue

Fire Chamber

Pillar

Flue

Fire Chamber

Mouth of Firebox

A

Mouth of Firebox

A

08AGDDY5 FIGURE 5.15.  Kiln Y5 excavated at Liujiazhuang North in 2008. After Anyang 2012: figure 4.

2012a). They are all two-tiered vertical updraft kilns and, with one exception, are ladle shaped. The kilns consist of an oval-shaped kiln chamber; oven floor with fireholes to allow heat to enter the chamber; a firebox consisting of a fire pit where the fuel sits and a dividing wall that supports the oven floor and divides the firebox into two fire channels; and in some cases, a work area in front of the opening of the firebox (figure 5.15). The preliminary report gives detailed descriptions of four kilns, each with a floor dimension of about 110 × 75 cm. Even though the shape of the roof and the top portion is unknown, the kilns’ two-tiered structure indicates that they were loaded from an open top, which would be sealed after the kiln was filled and ready to fire, as demonstrated in the replication experiments conducted by Yue Zhanwei et al. (2014). These kilns were in operation in Yinxu Period I and may have lasted into Yinxu Period III. Current publications, however, have not included information for the distribution and individual locations of all the kilns. The Anyang kilns appear to be a later version of the Neolithic updraft mantou 饅頭, or steamed-bun-shaped, kilns (for mantou, or man-thou kilns,

162 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

see Kerr and Wood 2004, 314–46). Judging from the vitrified kiln walls and the large amount of warped misfired pottery vessels, these kilns were capable of reaching fairly high temperatures (Yue Zhanwei et al. 2014). Their size is not too different from that of the late Neolithic ones and is smaller than the contemporary snake kilns in South China. The relatively small size may be the result of building kilns in the loess deposit, which may not be able to support heavy weight during full kiln temperature (Kerr and Wood 2004, 302). Kiln size in North China only increased dramatically after bricks were used to build the kilns (Kerr and Wood 2004). Another interesting phenomenon is that pottery vessels found in the kilns and among misfired kiln waste are all temperless grey wares fired in a reduction atmosphere. And almost all of the vessels were in the category of containers and serving vessels, such as dou and gui, with the former most represented. Archaeologists also identified one kiln, 2008AGDDII Y8, for firing only dou vessels based on waste found in the surrounding trash pits. Some division of labor may have existed, at least during the firing stage, if not the entire production process, according to the types of clay used and the types of pottery vessels made in the pottery workshops. Despite the limited body of data for pottery production in Anyang, several preliminary observations can be made based on the Liujiazhuang North find. Pottery production in Anyang again appears to concentrate in designated production areas in the vicinity of other types of craft production such as bronze and bone working. The concentration of over 30 kilns in one area indicates that pottery production was also conducted on a large scale. Judging from the small size of the kilns and the firing of pottery vessels with the same kind of temperless clay using the same reduction atmosphere, there may have existed some form of internal division of labor in the organization of pottery production. CONCLUDING REMARKS

Current data, albeit limited, indicate that multiple craft-producing activities, including bronze casting, lithic working, and shell, marble, and ivory processing, took place at the Daliankeng locus, trenches situated in between Architecture Groups A and B in the so-called Xiaotun temple-palace complex. Contrary to the bronze and bone workshops, craft production near Daliankeng perhaps concentrated on small-scale artisan-based crafts. The material, the high-status product types, and the coexistence of different but related

163 L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and   O ther C rafts

craft activities suggest craft production of a different nature than that of the massive sites at Miaopu North or Tiesanlu, one that may have taken place in artisan workshops that were perhaps directly controlled by the ruling elite. Stone blade production and pottery production, on the other hand, remain elusive at Anyang. While the production of stone blades clustered in the northern section of the temple-palace complex, we are not entirely clear about the scale and nature of their manufacture. As will be shown in the concluding chapter, evidence for craft-producing activities at Daliankeng leads to the reinterpretation of the role and function of the Xiaotun temple-palace complex. Pottery, the mundane and utilitarian artifacts whose use was shared by different social strata, seems to have been produced in a large-scale and centralized manner. The little information concerning pottery production reveals a form of production organization that may be similar to but also different from the large-scale bronze and bone production. The moderate size of the kilns reflects the technological constraints faced by the Anyang potters and imposed limits on the number of vessels fired in each kiln. Large-scale pottery production was still reached by operating multiple kilns simultaneously in a designated area. It is however not clear if the kilns were run separately by multiple individual workshops, similar to the Egyptian bakeries, or if they represented the final stage of the same large-scale workshop operation where pottery vessels were manufactured in batches and then fired in individual kilns. Nonetheless, current evidence suggests that pottery production was an integral part of the production precinct in Miaopu and perhaps Xiaotun.

Chapter Six

LONG LIVE THE KING Anyang and Its Legacy

Craft production at Anyang cannot be properly understood unless viewed in the sociopolitical and economic context of the last Shang capital. After having reviewed the archaeological data in the previous chapters, here I would like to synthesize and interpret this information with regard to the broader sociopolitical structure of which craft production was an integral component. I will demonstrate that once craft production is placed in the context of the capital, the economic aspects—especially the political economy of the city—become apparent, a long-needed approach to balance the previous emphasis of Anyang being considered only a political and religious center. I begin by summarizing the archaeological data discussed in the previous chapters and highlight their significance. I then turn to the current understanding of the spatial and social configuration of the capital to place the craft industries under the rubric of the urban center. I detail the different forms and levels of spatial components and both the top-down and bottom-up processes in the formation of the Anyang urban landscape. I also discuss how the newly discovered infrastructure, with which the production precincts should be considered together, redefine and underscore the administrative and economic characteristics of the city. Then, I return to and address the central issues of who controlled the craft industries and how. Here the lack of textual information hinders our understanding of the mechanism and especially the bureaucratic structure for managing craft

165 L ong L ive the K ing

production. I argue that the archaeological data, even though circumstantial, still enable us to infer that the Shang king had the ultimate control over craft production at Anyang. He no doubt had the administrative apparatus to assist him, and while such an apparatus is not visible in the textual record, it became the legacy on which the later Western Zhou dynasty built its own craft industries. OUTLINING CRAFT PRODUCTION AT ANYANG

As shown in the previous chapters, several characteristics stand out when we examine craft production at Anyang. Archaeological data overwhelmingly represent large-scale workshop production, which includes the bone, bronze, and pottery industries. These craft industries had multiple workshops operating simultaneously in different locations, while production based on different media clustered in the same vicinity, forming production precincts. At the same time, workshops and precincts were dispersed across the capital region, forming a production organization that was both concentrated and diffused. There are indications of the presence of separate royal workshops, which manufactured the most prestigious items. The production of such products was more specialized and the scale of operation presumably smaller. On the other hand, we know little about craft-producing activities at the household level at Anyang, since the relevant data to begin such investigations are not available. The dispersed distribution pattern of bronze production and the common use of simple bronzes as mortuary items suggest that access to bronze as a material was not the most restricted in the Shang elite culture.1 To be more precise, due to the broad demand for ritual paraphernalia and status differentiation, bronze vessels were separated into a wide range of categories to serve clientele from different social strata. Bronzes of generic forms and of lower quality were produced for a much larger clientele base, while highquality, rare, and unique bronzes were made specifically and exclusively for the high elite, although the latter kind were produced together with the more common bronzes in workshops outside of direct court supervision. And as metal was most likely imported into Anyang as ingots, a management and distribution system for the raw material and also the products must have existed. No clear evidence for bronze production exists outside of the workshop context, for instance, at the household level.2

166 L ong L ive the K ing

Bone artifact production may have been the most diverse among the Anyang craft industries. Evidence comes mostly from large-scale workshops, and despite the scale of operation, the range of products was limited. Proof exists for small-scale ad hoc production of utilitarian tools in household and workshop contexts. Artisan bone workshops must also have produced high-status objects reserved for the elite, judging from the hypertrophic bone artifacts found in the royal cemetery. The most likely location for a royal artisan workshop appears to be near the Daliankeng locus at Xiaotun. There, indications for bone-decoration carving, ivory and tiger bone processing, and shell and marble inlay making should be considered in conjunction with the production of large, sumptuous lacquer artifacts. Daliankeng and the northern section of the so-called temple-palace complex therefore may be the location of the artisan craft production controlled by the royal elite. Lithics and pottery are usually considered mundane and utilitarian items. The common assumption is that due to the availability of the raw material, lithic and ceramic production could easily have taken place in household contexts. However, the nature of the production of Xiaotun stone blades is not entirely clear. While the raw material seems mundane, it may still have to be extracted from sources outside of Anyang. Some have utilitarian functions, although the long and thin Type III Xiaotun blades may have been used for ritual purposes. The concentration of these blades, finished and semifinished, clearly speaks for the presence of stone blade production at Xiaotun, and we can safely argue that stone blade production was conducted in a concentrated manner and in a workshop context. Ceramic production appears to have taken place in a large-scale and concentrated manner as well. Despite the lack of pottery workshops discovered across Anyang, the clustering of over thirty kilns in one locale indicated the nature and scale of operations. However, since only kilns have been found, which represent the final stage of the manufacturing process, we do not know if the rest of the production process was of the same nature. Further observations can be made based on data from the previous chapters: First, the scale of operation in the large-scale workshops clearly shows that craft workers would have to come from multiple households or even multiple communities. In other words, the craft production precincts were operating at or above the community level in terms of the sources of labor. Second, the redundancy of having several multicraft production precincts operating simultaneously across the urban center indicates that

167 L ong L ive the K ing

these were parallel and decentralized operations that must have been managed locally, presumably by the lesser elites. Third, the manufacturing of high-status bronzes outside of the core area, the arrowheads made in the large-scale workshops but found in abundance in the royal tombs, and the centralized distribution of raw materials such as cattle bones and metal ingots, all denote that the large-scale workshops were ultimately controlled by the state. Last, it appears that many of the utilitarian household items, such as pottery, hairpins, and perhaps lithics, had been produced by the large-scale workshops. It suggests again that an overarching management and distribution system of raw materials and products existed. At the same time, it leads to the question, unanswerable at this stage, of what utilitarian items were produced in individual households other than bone tools, or if there existed household craft-producing activities parallel to the largescale workshops.3 In sum, the characteristics described for the Anyang craft industries suggest the strong presence of a top-down control and a minimum of a twotiered managerial system overseeing craft production at the capital. And as craft production was mostly conducted at the suprahousehold level in the production precincts, we need to place craft production in the context of the overall urban layout of Anyang, including the settlement pattern, the public infrastructure, and the social organization to fully understand how these workshops operated. Before returning to the question of craft production, in the following sections I would first like to focus on issues surrounding the traditional understanding of the urban layout at Anyang and how the new archaeological discoveries, together with a different theoretical orientation, may provide another approach to study the sociopolitical context of craft production, if not the capital itself. URBAN LAYOUT AND LINEAGE SYSTEMS AT ANYANG: CHALLENGING TRADITIONAL VIEWS

In his 1980 book, Shang Civilization, Kwang-chih Chang describes the spatial organization of the last Shang capital as a network of nodes, consisting of the royal cemetery, the temple-palace complex, the living quarters of the nonelite, the craft production areas, and the axillary settlements. As shown in figure 6.1, such a reconstruction is only schematic and was based on the incomplete information available at the time.

168 L ong L ive the K ing

River Huan

500

1,000 1,500

2,000 m.

Scale

NC Royal Cemetery

C CN

NC I

Palace Temple

Ch CN C

N

C CN

I

C

Large Grave

C I

N Nobility C Commoners I Industrial workshops Ch Chariot burials Inscribed oracle bones FIGURE 6.1.  Anyang urban network reconstructed by Chang 1980, figure 38.

Another well-cited attempt to reconstruct the social and spatial configuration of the Shang capital is by Zheng Ruokui (1995; figure 6.2). Acknowledging that the glyphs inscribed on bronze vessels represent clan signs or lineage emblems, Zheng argues that the presence of these inscribed bronzes in burials indicates that the cemeteries were lineage-based and the related lineages should have resided in the nearby settlements. By the same rule of proximity under this theory, the lineages also controlled the craft production workshops nearby. Dayi Shang 大邑商, the Great Settlement Shang, a term used in oracle bone inscriptions to refer to the capital, therefore consisted of smaller lineage settlements, which Zheng referred to as zuyi 族邑, and their affiliated craft production areas.

169 L ong L ive the K ing

Quikou Cun Sanjia Zhuang

Tongle Zhai

gBeijin

Xibei Gang Royal Cemetery

Beixin Xiaomin Zhuang Tun

way n Rail Canto

Fanjia Zhuang

Houjia Zhuang

Wuguan Cun Riv er

Dasikong Cun

Hu

an

Angang

Baijia Fen

Sipan Mo

Cotton Factory

Royal Settlement

Yuan Jia Garden

HouGang Wangyu Kou

Zhangjia Fen

Meiyuan Zhuang Miaopu Beidi Qijia Zhuang Liujia Zhuang

Railway Modern village Ancient lineage settlement area

Ancient ditch limits of area studied In 60 years of archaeological investigation

Xuejai Zhuang

Gaolou Zhuang

Guojia Zhuang

Tizi Kou

Anyang City

FIGURE 6.2.  Reconstructed plan of lineage-based settlements at Anyang by Zheng Ruokui (1995, figure 2). Illustration from Yates 1997, 84, figure 5.7.

The notion that the Shang and Zhou societies were lineage-based is not new and has received much discussion from epigraphers and historians (e.g., Zhu 1983, 2004a); but for many, Zheng’s thesis provided the archaeological correlation for such kin-based social organization. Zheng’s work has since been revisited and revised by many scholars, and the view that at Anyang, members of the same lineages lived and were buried in the same vicinity

170 L ong L ive the K ing

collectively became perpetuated in the literature (e.g., Chen Jie 2002; Tang 2004a; Tang and Jing 2009; Yue Hongbin et al. 2011). That lineages were the social units for operating the craft industries also became the prevalent interpretation (e.g., Chang Shumin 2017; He Yuling 2011; Wang Zhenzhong 2010, 2013).4 The distribution pattern of these so-called emblem glyphs is, however, enigmatic and their actual meaning elusive, to say the least. Epigraphers have noted that these glyphs consist of different types. According to the context in which they were found, they may represent place names, personal names, names of individual polities, marriage alliances, or simply official titles.5 In fact, the few instances in which the signified can be clearly identified take place when bronzes with the same glyphs occur in a concentrated manner in the same context, be it a single burial or a cemetery. The former is represented by the Fuhao tomb where multiple vessels inscribed with the term Fuhao, now determined to be the title (fu 婦) and the personal name (hao 好) of the tomb owner, were found (e.g., Cao 1980; Chang Ping-ch’uan 1986; Zheng and Chen 1981, 1985). The latter are represented by the many vessels inscribed with the single character “ge 戈” found in the Gaojiapu cemetery in Shaanxi and “xi 息” in the cemetery at Mangzhang, Henan. The two cemeteries are considered to belong to the clans of ge and xi, which are also thought to be the names of polities (see also Cao and Yin 1990). The distribution of the emblem glyphs at Anyang is less informative. A number of different glyphs are usually found in one cemetery and most occur only once (e.g., Chen Jie 2002; Han 1997; He Jingcheng 2009). The glyphs with multiple occurrences may appear in separate locations. To complicate matters even more, some of the glyphs found at Anyang are better represented in terms of frequency outside of Anyang. If the glyphs represented clan or lineage signs, then their distribution suggests not a clustering but rather a dispersing of members of the same lineages, some exogenous, across the capital. However, the percentage of burials with bronzes in a given cemetery is low, and the percentage of burials with inscribed bronzes even lower. In other words, the small sample size of tombs interred with inscribed bronzes in a given cemetery cannot be used to interpret the entirety of the cemetery, let along the social organization of the capital. We also do not know through what mechanism the inscribed bronzes were introduced into the tombs. For instance, were they all made for the tomb occupant? Or were they received gifts and the inscriptions may have no connection to the lineage affiliation or identity of the tomb occupant?

171 L ong L ive the K ing

Were the bronzes part of the dowry brought to Anyang by a female tomb owner when she was married into the community, and the glyphs therefore represent an exogenous rather than indigenous origin? Or it is possible that the tomb’s bronze assemblage represents items collected and interred as a one-time event for the burial and does not represent the affiliation or status of the owner in life, as clearly suggested by the case of the Fuhao tomb, where some of the bronzes bear the names of other individuals. Without answers to these questions, we simply do not know what the emblem glyphs inscribed on Shang bronzes signify. This lack of understanding, however, does not mean that lineage systems did not exist at Anyang. The archaeological correlation between the occurrence of emblem glyphs and the so-called lineage-based settlements and cemeteries, and, for the purpose of this book, lineage-controlled craft production precincts, is in question. The presence or absence of lineage systems at Anyang is a separate issue that can be approached via textural or physical anthropological means and may or may not be detectable in the archaeological data.6 In other words, while the textual records point to the existence of a kin- and lineage-based social structure during the Shang dynasty, by no means can it be translated directly into a spatial organization in the urban center based on lineage. The composition of a metropolis such as Anyang, or any other ancient urban center, must have been far more complex than early studies suggested. If we question that lineage systems were the principal factors in determining the spatial configuration of Anyang, then terms such as zuyi 族邑 (lineage settlement) and zu mudi 族墓地 (lineage cemetery) need to be reconsidered, as these terms presuppose the social and spatial structure of the settlement. Scholars also adopt terms used in oracle bone inscriptions and later texts to refer to the Anyang settlement structure (e.g., Tang and Jing 2009; Wang Zhenzhong 2010, 2013). However, the use of simple and ambiguous emic terms such as yi 邑 (settlement) and da yi 大邑 (large settlement) without further clarification or finer distinction fails to clearly capture the different levels of social and political structures that must have existed at Anyang.7 Studies of ancient and premodern urban centers indicate that while kinship may still be an important factor in determining spatial configuration (e.g., Ur 2014; Yoffee 2005, 2015), it is not the only one, and in many cases, not the most important factor to shape the landscape of premodern urban metropolises (e.g., Arnauld et al. 2012; York et al. 2011). At Teotihuacán, for

172 L ong L ive the K ing

instance, kin-based residence structures can be organized at the suprahousehold level, or even at the settlement level, by political authority, in the sense that political authority residing in the city is the ultimate decision maker in terms of distribution of resources, overall layout of the city, and location of residences for the populace (e.g., Cowgil 2007; Gómez-Chávez 2012; Manzanilla 2012). Scholars have proposed that there is a universal effort to divide the urban space into different levels of residential units, along with other political, religious, or administrative quarters and that the identification of spatial units such as neighborhoods and districts can facilitate the study of ancient urban centers (e.g., Arnauld et al. 2012; Smith 2010; Stone 1987). Smith argues that to study residential structures in ancient and preindustrial urban centers, a two-part scheme of neighborhoods and districts is most useful for archaeologists especially because of the lower resolution of archaeological data in terms of spatial and social organization (Smith 2010, 139). Smith defines neighborhoods as residential units based on face-to-face social interaction formed via “natural” bottom-up processes. Districts, on the other hand, represent larger residential zones consisting of multiple neighborhoods and are formed via top-down decisions. Districts are also recognized as administrative units by political authority (Smith 2010, 138–41).8 Smith’s own analyses of residential units in ancient and preindustrial cities show that the delineation of neighborhoods and districts is not always clear-cut. This situation is even more striking at Anyang where we still do not have a good and comprehensive understanding of the urban layout. Nonetheless, the etic terminology in urban studies such as household, neighborhood, and district can still provide a conceptual framework that may help us to better understand the kind of social and spatial configuration and interaction that may have existed there. DELINEATING ANYANG URBAN LAYOUT ARCHAEOLOGICALLY

In contrast to Mesopotamia or Mesoamerica, the lack of well-preserved residential architecture at Anyang impedes a more detailed reconstruction of the city layout. Until recently, reconstructing the spatial configuration of social groups in the capital has been based on analyses of cemeteries, not residential structures, across Anyang, such as the clustering of burials into subgroups and, most of all, the distribution of the emblem glyphs found on bronzes included in the cemeteries. In fact, we know more about the afterlife of the residents of Anyang than their everyday living conditions.9

173 L ong L ive the K ing

This is further amplified by the bias in the current archaeological data that favors the top-down model and significantly downplays the role of the rest of the capital’s population, be they the lesser elite or the general populace. Such an approach is apparent in the work of Wheatley (1971) and also of Chang (1980). Wheatley emphasized the ideological and cosmological aspects of the city, while Chang stressed the role of the ruling elite in organizing the spatial layout of the capital and its auxiliary settlements. It has been pointed out that such a reconstruction is static and mostly descriptive and does not address the inner dynamics of the ancient urban center (Tang and Jing 2009; Jing et al. 2013). The formation of an urban center is a combination of top-down and bottomup processes, resulting both from urban-planning decisions made by the elite and from the organic development of the populace residing in the city (e.g., Jing et al. 2013; Smith 2010; Stone 1987; Ur 2014). The continuous large-scale excavations for the past few decades at Anyang have accumulated a significant amount of data and provided a number of “windows” for archaeologists to piece together the general layout of the ancient urban center buried beneath the suburb of modern Anyang city. Archaeologists have also become more conscious about identifying residential units other than the palatial structures of Anyang, and with the introduction of new analytical techniques, scholars have been able to focus on the populace that inhabited Anyang, not just the ruling elite (e.g., Cheung et al. 2015; Zhang Hua et al. 2017). While some of the new discoveries further enhance the elite aspects of the capital, we do begin to have glimpses archaeologically of the other, lower-status residents. As will be shown in the following discussion, a combination of approaches may be the most productive way to investigate the ancient metropolis. Temple-Palace District

As the last capital of the Shang dynasty, Anyang undoubtedly displays distinctive top-down characteristics in its urban layout. The pioneering work by the Institute of History and Philology in the 1930s already provided much evidence (see Chang 1980; Li Chi 1977): the placement of the royal cemetery outside the main settlement, the large number of sacrificial pits systematically arranged in the royal cemetery, and the concentration of elite structures, burials, and animal sacrifices in the Xiaotun temple-palace complex equipped with a complex drainage system are clear indications of the elite’s role in determining the physical configuration of the city.

174 L ong L ive the K ing

Archaeologists now believe that the Xiaotun temple-palace complex may have extended further west and beyond the extent of the 1930s IHP excavations (Tang et al. 2016; Yue, He, and Yue 2011; Yue and Sun 2013; Yue, Yue, and He 2006). The size of the Xiaotun temple-palace complex defined by IHP is in fact disproportionally small in relation to the size of the capital when compared to the elite districts of other urban centers in Early Bronze Age China (Yue, Yue, and He 2006, 335–36). Recent results of extensive coring in the temple-palace complex and its surrounding regions have not only redefined the layout of the palatial structures but also extended the area of the temple-palace complex to reach the eastern fringe of the village of Sipanmo. Coring also located a large water reservoir situated immediately west of the Xiaotun temple-palace complex (figure 6.3). The reservoir was connected to the Huan River and may have served both as a hydraulic engineering device and as a recreational facility for the ruling elite. The extent of the newly defined temple-palace district more than triples the original size outlined by the IHP campaign and the central area of the district may have been west of the reservoir. The Xiaotun architectural complex excavated by IHP then represents only the eastern section of a much larger royal district. In fact, the northern portion of the Xiaotun temple-palace complex may also have been the craft production area controlled directly by the ruling elite. Public Infrastructure

The recent discoveries of large-scale water canals and road systems with track imprints also demonstrate the deliberate top-down and administrative intervention that took place at Anyang in terms of urban planning (Jing et al. 2013; Tang et al. 2016; Yue, He, and Yue 2011; see figure 2.1). In the past two decades, archaeologists located sections of roads paved with potsherds, pebbles, and bone fragments, some having track imprints, across the capital. The widths of these roads ranged from 15–20 meters for the main routes, and 1.2–2.5 meters for the narrower pathways. The road system near Liujiazhuang North is the most impressive, with two north-south roads intersected by a third one running east-west on the southern ends. A wooden structure, interpreted as a disused bridge by archaeologists, was found below the road surface where the east-west road joined the western north-south road. While the extent of the road system has not been determined, the two north-south routes appear to lead to the temple-palace district in the north and have the same orientation as the east and west walls of Huanbei.

97

0

96

92

93

96.5

93 92

97

150

96.5

92

93

94

96 95

300 m

95

95 98 97 95 94

Huayuanzhuang

96

97 96 95 94 93 92

Xiaotun

Reservoir

96

95

Reservoir outlet (“moat”)

Huan River

94

90

90

91

91

90

95

89

88 89 92 91 90 87

97 95

Reservoir outlet

94

93 9192

N

FIGURE 6.3.  Topography of Xiaotun and vicinity based on a 1929 topographic map made by the Institute of History and Philology. After Yue et al. 2006. Depressions captured in the 1929 map are now identified as parts of the Late Shang hydraulic system, which included a large reservoir and its outlets/inlets to the Huan River.

Sipanmo

98

98

93 9594

176 L ong L ive the K ing

Between 2004 and 2011, archaeologists uncovered sections of water canals in eight different locations during salvage excavations (Tang et al. 2016). These canals were about four to six meters wide and two to three meters deep. Some were massive; the biggest was ten meters wide and four meters deep. When connected, these canals formed a waterway running northwest to southeast across the city, with the eastern end forking into three branches. Tang et al. argue that the waterway could have been constructed to provide transportation and water supply to the craft industries.10 The other production precincts, however, were not reachable by the waterway, and a defensive function for the canals has not been entirely ruled out (Yue, He, and Yue 2011, 271–72). Even though we do not know the exact extent of the water canals and the road systems, the mere discovery of such public infrastructure already drastically changes our understanding of the urban landscape of Anyang; it is no longer a settlement with only loosely connected functional nodes that expanded in an organic fashion. It is an urban space that was carefully and deliberately arranged in an orthogonal-like layout.11 On the other hand, the infrastructure not only demonstrates the top-down nature of urban planning at Anyang but also accentuates the economic and administrative aspects of the city. Canals and roads were civil engineering projects to facilitate water supply and, most importantly, transportation of staples, goods, raw materials, and people. Checkpoints could be established at bridges and intersections to control the movement of raw materials and finished products, and perhaps also visitors and residents, into, across, and out of the city.12 In short, the delineation of the infrastructure now enables us to envision Anyang as an administrative and also economic center. As will be shown, the same kind of urban planning would also have played a role in the placement of the production precincts, which should be considered as part of the economic infrastructure. Residential Neighborhoods and Districts

Thanks to new research orientations and especially to the discoveries of residential structures outside of the temple-palace complex, we now can use data to discuss the residential components of Anyang other than those related to the ruling elite, especially residential units at the neighborhood and perhaps district levels. Excavations conducted by the Anyang Municipal Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology at Beixujiaqiao North in

177 L ong L ive the K ing

N

14 8 3 9 10 16

1 4

15 11

5

12 6 13 7

2 0

1

2M

FIGURE 6.4.  Architecture groups unearthed at Beixujiaqiao in 1996. Meng 2003: 68, figure 2. Courtesy of Anyang Municipal Institute of Archaeology.

1996 and 2001–2002 revealed residential complexes with groups of square or rectangular structures consisting of enclosed corridor-like wings with a central courtyard. The total area of rammed-earth foundations located is over 20,000 square meters, and the 2002 season revealed six rows of architectural complexes with a total of seventeen structures (Anyang Municipal 1997b, 2017; Meng and Li 2004; figure 6.4). Among the better preserved, Structure 3 is the largest, with an area of 30 × 25 square meters. Structure 13 is the smallest, with an area of 15 × 16 square meters. It is worth noting that the rows, and the structures within them, were more or less evenly spaced, as if following an orthogonal plan, an indication of some form of top-down urban planning (Smith 2007). Subsequent excavations in Liujiazhuang North and Dasikong also uncovered similar complexes (He 2009; IA 2014; figure 6.5), and the ones in Dasikong have an elaborate drainage system with

FIGURE 6.5.  A lesser elite residence, F79, found at Liujiazhuang North. After Anyang 2012: figures 5 and 6.

179 L ong L ive the K ing

underground ceramic pipes. These residential complexes are thought to be for the local elite, as they were elaborately built with a layout that parallels structures found in the Xiaotun temple-palace complex and Huanbei (He 2009; Meng and Li 2004). The excavators of Beixujiaqiao argue that the architectural complexes could have served administrative functions or were the temples or residences of the local lineage head (Anyang Municipal 1997; Meng and Li 2004). The residential complex in Liujiazhuang North is also thought to be of elite status, as several bronze vessels were found buried in a storage pit in the central courtyard.13 Another kind of residential structure has been identified at Anyang: aboveground, single- or double-roomed structures with rammed-earth walls and foundations. In his summary of Anyang structural remains, He (2009) notes that they are the most common type of residential structures excavated at Anyang, and the finds outnumber the other types of structures. Most are, however, poorly preserved and remain unpublished. These aboveground structures were found at locales across Anyang including Wangyukou, Xiaozhuang South, Sipanmo, Baijiafen East, Xiaomintun, Xuejiazhang South, Miaopu North, and Dasikong (He 2009, 101). Excavators of Miaopu North encountered these structures both in the workshop area and in the so-called “living quarters of the workers” (IA 1994, 83), and while the ones located in the workshop could be related to bronze production, those found outside of the workshop might have been residential units for the workers.14 Anyang archaeologists have discovered large earthen pits, presumably used for small reservoirs, which were probably the focal point of individual neighborhoods. The large size and the frequent occurrence of these pits at Anyang were puzzling, as they seem to serve no function beyond being dumping grounds. It is now understood, based on ethnographic examples in rural China (Jing et al. 2013; Yue and Yue 2012), that the earthen pits were formed during extraction of soil used as building material for rammed-earth structures, and the craters left in the ground became communal reservoirs for the surrounding households in the neighborhoods, a practice also observed at Teotihuacán and other premodern urban centers (e.g., Gómez-Chávez 2012). There may also be communities of residents of nonlocal origin at Anyang. In the 2003–2004 Xiaomintun excavations, archaeologists uncovered eightysix small, semisubterranean residential units, with only the subterranean portion of the structures having survived (He 2009; Wang and He 2007; Yinxu Xiaomintun 2007b). These rectangular units consist of one to five rooms, each with its own hearth, niches, and storage pits, with the entrances

180 L ong L ive the K ing

oriented in different directions. The only unit with five rooms is the largest, with an area of 23.88 square meters. The single-roomed units are the smallest, ranging from 5 to 7.5 square meters. These units form three clusters, perhaps representing individual neighborhoods or communities. The small sizes and simple facilities suggest that these residences were for commoners. The structure and layout, however, are not typically encountered at Anyang and some of the associated pottery show nonlocal attributes. One of the excavators argues that the occupants of these residential units could be from outside Anyang (He 2009). If that is the case, there may have existed enclaves or “barrios” of nonlocal populations in the capital, just like at Teotihuacán. Current archaeological data therefore suggest that there are several levels of spatial units at the last Shang capital: the palatial structures, including auxiliary features such as the reservoir, for the ruling elite; medium-sized compounds with corridors and central courtyards for the elite residing outside of the core area; and simple and smaller households for commoners that were either aboveground or semisubterranean. Even though current data are too fragmentary to delineate clearly larger residential groupings, such as districts in the capital, we may argue that neighborhood-like units centered around small reservoirs existed in Anyang. We may venture further and identify the types of mechanism that determined the spatial configuration of the capital (York et al. 2011; Smith and Novic 2012). State policies and the practices of the urban elite were clearly behind the construction of the royal cemetery, the temple-palace complex, and the settlement-wide infrastructure, such as the canals and road system. We may argue that the compounds of the local political leaders could have been associated with the commoner communities nearby, forming the district level of urban residential structures. The bottom-up processes are then represented by neighborhoods with the communal reservoirs and the formation of enclave-style communities in Xiaomintun. We therefore have some rudimentary and partial understanding of the social and spatial configuration of Anyang, although we do not have the kind of archeological data or research to discuss the more nuanced interaction and negotiation between the different strata of the society in terms of the formation of the Anyang urban landscape. We are still far from understanding archaeologically the residential and social structure of the last Shang capital when compared to other ancient urban centers in the world. The study of household-, neighborhood-, and district-level social units and their archaeological manifestation at Anyang

181 L ong L ive the K ing

is in its initial stage, and we are only beginning to identify and delineate the physical layout of different residential units in the archaeological context. We also have relatively little information concerning the actual function of these residential units. The lack of such understanding in turn prevents a full reconstruction of the different levels of craft production that must have existed at Anyang. For instance, it is not clear what types of subsistence or craft-producing activities took place at the household level. Until more intramural studies are conducted, we simply do not have the data to begin meaningful discussion of household craft production in the late Shang capital. The following discussion therefore focuses on the artisan workshops, the large-scale workshops, and the control and patronage of the multicraft production precincts in the core area and across the capital. WHO RAN THE WORKSHOPS? CONTROL AND PATRONAGE OF ARTISAN AND LARGE-SCALE CRAFT PRODUCTION AT ANYANG

For the purpose of this book, here are the more relevant questions to be asked: How was craft production in the core area and across the capital run? Who was in control of the artisan workshops and the large-scale workshop operations? And most importantly, where and how would the production precincts fit into the structural and ultimately the administrative scheme of the city if we can outline the nested urban structure of the Shang capital? We are far from being able to provide any definite answers, especially when it comes to the administrative structure of craft production. I would nonetheless like to present a scenario based on the current state of research. Artisan Workshops in the Core Area

The location and the nature of the artisan workshops clearly suggest close links to the Shang court. The central location of the Xiaotun production precinct, with the foundries near Structure B5 and the Daliankeng locus, the lithic and inlay workshops in Architecture Group A, the lapidary workshop in Xiaotun, and the bone refuse pit at Huayuanzhuang, suggests that the operation of these workshops was closely, if not directly, related to the Shang court. For instance, the sole location of lapidary production in the core area suggests that the Shang king was more concerned with control

182 L ong L ive the K ing

over lapidary production than bronze or bone production. The same can be said for the production of marble and shell inlays, which was likely part of the production of highly exclusive lacquer objects. Access to jades, lacquerware, and especially large marble sculptural pieces was clearly more restricted if we examine their distribution among the funerary objects. The intended clients must have been much more exclusive than the clients for bronzes. In fact, the redefining of the temple-palace district helps to explain why so many craft-producing activities, and some, such as bronze casting, potentially hazardous, took place in the architectural groups excavated by IHP. Coring conducted in Architecture Group A by IA in 2004 located additional structural remains and a pit possibly for storing raw materials for lapidary production near Structure A5 (Anyang 2009c). If we include the scattered finds made during the first nine seasons of the IHP campaign (Kuo 1933; Shih 1933), craft production took place in multiple locations in Architecture Groups A and B (figure 6.6). While there is evidence for a variety of ritual activities taking place in the temple-palace complex, such as burials and animal sacrifices, it is clear that the northern section of the complex, including Architecture Group A, Daliankeng, and Structure B5, also served as the craft production quarter under direct control of the ruling elite (Li Yung-ti 2008, 2015a; Yue and Sun 2013). It is not clear though how ritual activities and craft production were related. The Paradox of Large-scale Production Precincts

The salient and perhaps paradoxical feature of Anyang large-scale craft production is the dispersed distribution of multiple production precincts that focused on the same crafts. The redundancy of multiple production centers dedicated to the same crafts clearly needs to be explained. On the other hand, the scale of production, the concentration of workshop areas, the complex production organization, and the juxtaposition of crafts of different nature make it apparent that the production precincts were organized and operated beyond the level of individual households and neighborhoods. In other words, these production precincts were formed via top-down decisions not dissimilar to those responsible for the public infrastructure. But who then was responsible for managing activities at these production precincts? Who was the managerial party? Was it the court officials who reported directly to the court? Or was it the lesser elite who resided near

A5

A1

A8

A6 A10

A4

A9

A2 A3

A13

A15

Architecture Group A

A11 A12

B1 B2 B5 B6

Architecture Group B

B4

B3

B8

Bronze casting Bone working Lithic working

B9

B7

B10 0

10

30

50 M

FIGURE 6.6.  Distribution of craft-producing activities in Architecture Group A found during the first nine seasons of the IHP Anyang campaign. Symbols represent the trenches where remains were found. Based on Kuo 1933, Shih 1933, and Li 1953.

184 L ong L ive the K ing

Shang Court

Resources Products

Temple/palace complex

Secondary elite

Secondary elite

Secondary elite

Local settlement

Local settlement

Local settlement

Production precinct

Production precinct

Production precinct

Production precinct

Production precinct

Production precinct

FIGURE 6.7.  A hypothetical model for the organization of craft production at Anyang. After Li 2007, figure 8.17.

the production precincts? What was the role of the Shang king? If there was local control over the production precincts by the lesser elite, what was the relationship between the elite in charge and the Shang court? Did the Shang court have to compete and negotiate with the lesser elite in terms of access to resources and products? Did the court have the ultimate control despite the fact that operations of the craft industries were delegated to either the court officials or to the lesser elite? The gap in the current data prevents us from answering some of these questions. With limited textual records relevant to Anyang craft production and its management, we can only approach these issues via archaeological means. In the following sections, I wish to establish that (1) the Shang king showed little interest in directly managing the large-scale craft industries; (2) large-scale precinct workshops must have been supervised and managed locally by a managerial party, whose nature and role in the Shang state are, however, not entirely clear; and (3) through control over the procurement and distribution of raw materials for craft production and control over distribution of the products, the Shang court had the ultimate governance over large-scale craft production (figure 6.7).

185 L ong L ive the K ing

NOT IN THE KING’S BACKYARD

Oracle bone inscriptions, records of divinations made by the Shang king, bear surprisingly little information that can be directly linked to craft production (Keightley 2012; Yan 1973; Xiao 1981a). Craft production must have been a major state affair, considering the amount of resources, labor, and managerial efforts needed, but it seems to have existed outside of the main areas of concern for which the Shang king regularly sought divination. There are only two instances that may represent inquiries made in relation to bronze casting.15 While the outcome of the royal hunt and the yield of the harvest were often more eagerly divined about, the number of successful and unsuccessful casting operations in bronze foundries or the output of the bone workshops, for instance, did not seem to have been of much interest to the king. There may be several reasons, some purely pragmatic, why he chose to distance himself from the realm of craft production. The dispersed pattern of large-scale craft production such as bronze casting outside of the core area may seem perplexing, as the technology and the procurement of raw materials required administrative supervision and control (Bagley 1999; Franklin 1983; Keightley 2012). One reason may simply be related to the undesirability of the pollution and waste generated by both the pyro-transformative technologies of bronze and pottery making and the processing of animal carcasses for large-scale bone production. At a foundry the size of Xiaomintun, the workshop operation would have created a noxious, hazardous, and unsanitary environment. The massive dump of foundry debris and the constant heat and smoke may have rendered the production of bronzes an undesirable craft activity that needed to be located away from the core area.16 Even though we have much less evidence for pottery production, large-scale pottery making may have caused similarly undesirable conditions. Large-scale bone artifact production may precipitate similar environmental impacts when it comes to pollution and unsanitary conditions generated by the craft industry. Before animal bones can be used for making artifacts, they must first be defleshed and degreased. Replication experiments conducted by archaeologists indicate that the premanufacturing preparation may have involved processes of burying carcasses underground or soaking animal parts in water for a considerable amount of time to remove flesh, tendons, and bone marrow. Either process would have created a putrid odor from rotting and decaying carcasses. It may have been a managerial decision

186 L ong L ive the K ing

made by the ruling elite to locate these polluting and hazardous craft industries outside of the core area while keeping nearby the crafts that produced more prestigious objects. PRODUCING FOR INTERNAL DEMANDS

Another reason to have multiple production precincts across the capital may be the broad demands for the precinct workshop products within Anyang. The extensive use of bronze ritual vessels among the Shang elite in feasting and mortuary practices must have generated a large client base consisting of not only the royal elite but also the much larger class of the lesser elite.17 While workshops at Miaopu and Xiaomintun produced bronzes in large volume, mold fragments from these precinct foundries indicate that vessels of common types and simple decoration, such as gu, jue, gui, and you, were the main products (Anyang 2006a; IA 1987, 2020; Li Yung-ti 2003; Yinxu 2007c). Bronze production at the precinct workshops was designed to meet the needs of the lesser elite. It is not clear how large the local demand for bone artifacts was at Anyang. Studies show that the bone workshop precincts consistently produced products of less prestigious and even utilitarian nature in large volumes. It has been argued by Campbell et al. (2011) and Li et al. (2011) that bone production at the precinct workshops may have been oriented toward external demands, as the number of bone artifacts currently found at Anyang is below the projected production volume estimated from the workshop debris (Campbell et al. 2011; Li Zhipeng et al. 2011). However, local demand should not be underestimated, especially since the amount of mundane osseous artifacts salvaged from the heavily looted royal tombs, such as arrowheads and antler beads that were produced in precinct workshops, was still considerable. We also do not have a clear picture of the consumption pattern of bone artifacts in residential contexts, as relatively few habitation sites have been studied. It may be reasonable to argue that even if external demand exceeded local demand, products made in the precinct workshops were still circulated in the capital. The Invisible Managerial Party

If the role of the state and its apparatus in relation to craft production at Anyang is amply expressed in the archaeological data, it is not the case in the

187 L ong L ive the K ing

contemporary textual record. There is very limited textual evidence for the governing body that supervised craft production in the Shang state bureaucracy. And even though the term gong 工, translated as “artisan” or “official in charge of artisans” in later texts,18 is already present in oracle bone inscriptions, the context in which the term is used is so wide-ranging that neither meaning can be securely inferred. In fact, when the term is used as an official title, the officials represented appear to be “generalists,” performing tasks such as temple officiants, foragers, and even soldiers (Keightley 2012, 45). No direct reference to craft production can be found. It has been pointed out that despite the ritual nature of most of the content of the oracle bone inscriptions, there are indications that writing of the Shang dynasty also served the managerial function of record keeping (Wang Haicheng 2015). For instance, oracle bone inscriptions mention the receipt of turtle shells, the raw material for divination use. Similar record keeping and accounting must also have been performed in the Anyang bronze and bone workshops even though no written records of such nature have been found. Nonetheless, the lack of further textual evidence makes it difficult to delineate the bureaucratic structure for managing craft production in the Shang capital. Another possible line of evidence comes from archaeological data, no matter how circumstantial it is. If the spatial and social structure of the capital seen in the archaeological record are any indication, we may argue that the occupants of the elite structures outside of the core area represent the kind of lesser elite who could be in charge of administering large-scale craft production in the production precincts. As these precincts were tasked with meeting demands of the nearby elite clientele, it is conceivable that someone from the district-level administrative structure could take charge of the mundane tasks of craft production. We do not know, however, if such a manager would be granted an official title and served the court, or if the person simply represented the local administrative unit. Indications of Court Control Over Craft Production

Large-scale craft-producing activities in the production precincts could still be guarded and controlled by the court, and one of the means for such control would have been through the administered distribution of the raw materials. We know that metal entered Anyang not as ore but in ingot form, as archaeologists have yet to find evidence for smelting at Anyang. The procurement

188 L ong L ive the K ing

Huanbei

Xibeigang Royal Cemetery

Xiaomintun Huan River

Yinxu Xiaotun

Dasikongcun

N

Miaopu North

0

Bronze Foundry Bone Workshop Jade/Stone Workshop Pottery Workshop Pottery Workshop (unconfirmed) Production Precinct Moat? Major Road Canal National Yinxu Archaeological Protection Zone 1000 m

FIGURE 6.8.  Special bronze types produced at different production precincts.

of metal from outside of Anyang would require some coordinated action, and once metal ingots entered Anyang, the distribution of the raw material across the capital would also need to be supervised and controlled. If we examine the nature and range of products made in the precinct workshops, we may find further indications of how craft production was managed at Anyang. Foundries outside of the core area, such as Miaopu North, Xiaomintun South, and Xiaomintun Southeast, were making exceptionally large and stylistically striking vessels. They were also producing weapons, such as arrowheads and ge-halberds (figure 6.8).19 High-status vessels such as the large fangding intended to be cast at Miaopu North and the large ding or pan cast at Xiaomintun South could not have been used by any of the elite other than members of the royal court. The manufacturing and

189 L ong L ive the K ing

distribution of weapons, which are the ultimate means for exercising coercive force, must also have been carefully overseen by the ruling elite. The fact that the precinct workshops outside of the core area were manufacturing such objects shows that the distribution of the finished products must have been controlled by the ruling elite to ensure exclusive access to these items. On the other hand, high-status bronzes formed only a very small fraction of the products manufactured at the precinct workshops, and most of the bronzes identified from the mold fragments at the precinct workshops were common vessel types. The privilege of the lesser elite to operate bronze foundries may well have come with the prescribed obligation to produce prestige goods for royal use. Although no workshop facilities for bone working have been found, we can still discuss large-scale bone production under the same rubric as bronze production. For example, it is equally relevant to consider bone production in terms of product types and the mechanism for distributing raw materials and finished products. Artifacts identified from the bone production remains are mundane types mostly consisting of hairpins and bone and antler arrowheads. Unlike bronze production, high-status bone and ivory artifacts, such as those found in the royal cemetery and the Fuhao tomb, were made in the artisan workshops. However, the discovery of bone and antler beads and arrowheads in large numbers in the royal tombs and more than four hundred hairpins found in the Fuhao tomb indicate that despite the mundane nature of these objects, the precinct bone workshops still provided services to the high elite. And if the bone and antler arrowheads were used as weapons, the same type of control over distribution of bronze weapons may also apply (figure 6.9). The distribution mechanism of raw materials for bone production may have been as complex as that for bronze production. The large-scale operation of bone production no doubt was sustained by a constant supply of cattle bones, which in turn had to rely on well-developed animal husbandry that most likely took place outside the capital. The bookkeeping, managing, and distribution of the livestock and especially their bones would have required some form of managerial control. The location of the Huayuanzhuang bone refuse pit south of the Xiaotun precinct in the core area is therefore worth noting. If it was indeed the butchering site, its scale and the central location suggest it could also have served as the distribution node. The most indicative clue for a top-down management of the Anyang craft industries is the fact that crafts of similar and different natures and

190 L ong L ive the K ing

Huanbei

Xibeigang Royal Cemetery

Xiaomintun Huan River ?

Dasikongcun

Xiaotun

Yinxu

N

Miaopu North

0

Bronze Foundry Bone Workshop Jade/Stone Workshop Pottery Workshop Pottery Workshop (unconfirmed) Production Precinct Moat? Major Road Canal National Yinxu Archaeological Protection Zone 1000 m

FIGURE 6.9.  Main bone artifact types produced at different production precincts.

technological requirements were situated in the same vicinity. The decision to place pottery and bronze workshops in close proximity can be based on logistical reasons, as discussed earlier. The juxtaposition of bronze and bone manufacturing, however, is not as innate, as they require different technologies, skills, and facilities. Both scenarios reflect a managerial decision that came from an authority higher up in the decision-making hierarchy. If we jointly consider evidence from production precincts in and outside of the core area, the type of control that the Shang king exercised over craft production in the capital of Anyang therefore seems to have been determined by the logistics of workshop operations, either due to environmental issues or technological requirements; the demand among the lesser elite for mundane items and perhaps demands from an external market; and ultimately the exclusiveness of the products. The production of the less prestigious items,

191 L ong L ive the K ing

such as hairpins and common ritual bronze vessels, was therefore consigned to the lesser elite and took place outside of the core area. The closely supervised craft-producing activities in the core area, that is, lapidary, ivory, and shell and marble working (much of which may have been related to lacquer production), were those that produced objects that conveyed the most culturally and politically charged messages by way of excessive labor investment in the procuring and especially the manufacturing stages (e.g., Clark and Parry 1990; DeMarrais et al. 1996; Schortman and Urban 2004). Even though bronzes were an integral part of Shang elite culture, the production organization of bronzes at Anyang may have been a compromise between exercising control and meeting the logistics of workshop operations, while the production of high-status bronzes was conducted outside of the core area. The Shang king clearly enjoyed absolute power. The large-scale human sacrifices at Xibeigang, as well as the ability to mobilize labor for military campaigns and the construction of monumental royal tombs and public infrastructure, point to political power of a coercive nature that characterizes a powerful kingship (e.g., Bagley 1999; Campbell ed. 2014; Chang 1980; Huang Zhanyue 1983, 1989, 1990, 1996; Keightley 1999b; Yang and Yang 1977; Yao 1979). For Keightley, the human sacrifices “indicate that similar demands for service and obedience must surely have been part of the idealized, and in all likelihood actual, political culture of the living” (1999b: 290). In contrast to the strong kingly power, the bureaucratic system of the Shang state is often described as “incipient,” and official titles seem to have been flexible, with their function unspecialized (Keightley 1999b: 286–88; see also Keightley 1978b, 2012). The many officials and princes mentioned in oracle bone inscriptions also suggest “a lack of routine administrative delegation” in the Shang court (Keightley 1999b: 290). This combination of a strong kingship and a loosely organized incipient bureaucratic system observed in oracle bone inscriptions seems to have been paralleled in the realm of craft production. THE KING, HIS CRAFTS, AND THE LEGACY OF THE SHANG CRAFT INDUSTRIES

Even though the textual data provide little information, to manage and coordinate craft production in the various locations across the capital, the Shang king must have had some administrative or bureaucratic apparatus, especially since its presence is indicated in the archaeological data. Another line of evidence comes from the Zhou dynasty, which overthrew and succeeded

192 L ong L ive the K ing

the Shang according to traditional historiography. By the time of Western Zhou, textual records speak of officials in charge of various craft-producing activities (e.g., Sun 2008, 2010). As the large-scale craft production of the Zhou dynasty clearly parallels Anyang’s craft industries, we may be able to identify the managerial legacy of Anyang within the Zhou practice. The Zhou are said to have risen from humble origins and are described in historical texts as a group of people migrating across Shaanxi before settling in Zhouyuan or “The Plains of Zhou” (for English publications on the rise of the Zhou and the history and archaeology of Western Zhou, see Li Feng 2008, 2013; Rawson 1999; Shaughnessy 1991, 1999b). Archaeological discoveries paint a similar picture: the Zhou heartland did not have a full-blown bronze culture until after the Shang period. Technology, production organization, and the managerial system likely were transferred or reproduced from one regime to another along with the political system, a practice seen also throughout the history of Imperial China. Current archaeological evidence suggests that perhaps in the initial stage of the Zhou dynasty, the Zhou elite relied heavily on the remaining Shang craft production system, including the skilled craft workers and perhaps even the physical facilities of the Anyang workshops. In 2000, among the tens of thousands of mold fragments from Xiaomintun Southeast, my Anyang colleagues and I identified fragments for a group of bronzes previously unknown to Anyang (Li Yung-ti 2003; Li and Yue 2015; Li Yung-ti et al. 2007; figure 6.10). At the time, the only existing examples of such bronzes were pieces looted in the 1930s from Daijiawan, Baoji, Shaanxi Province, about eight hundred kilometers west of Anyang.20 In 2012 and 2013, archaeologists in Baoji, Shaanxi, made a stunning discovery at Shigushan. Several richly furnished elite burials yielded bronzes of high quality that were identical to the Daijiawan bronzes (Shaanxi et al. 2016; Shanghai 2014; Shigushan 2013a, 2013b). The Shigushan burials can be firmly dated to the Western Zhou period, which also demonstrates that the bronzes attributed to Daijiawan were almost certainly found in Shaanxi from burials dated to the Western Zhou. Archaeologists still do not have definite clues for determining when the Baoji bronzes were cast and how they appeared outside of Anyang, and the connection between Anyang and the Baoji region still needs to be further explored.21 As the finding of the mold fragments testifies that the Baoji bronzes were likely made at Anyang, the immediate questions are when they were cast, before or after the Zhou conquest, and for whom? These bronzes could have been war booty looted from Anyang and redistributed among the

193 L ong L ive the K ing

FIGURE 6.10.  Left: A large you vessel thought to have been from Daijiawan, Baoji, Shaanxi. Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC: Purchase—Charles Lang Freer Endowment, F1930.26a-b. © Smithsonian Right: Mold fragments found at Anyang for casting an almost identical vessel. Illustrations by Li Xiating.

Western Zhou elite,22 or they could have been new products made at Anyang and intended for the Zhou elite after the conquest.23 I would like to argue that the latter scenario suggests an unconventional but potentially fruitful reinterpretation of the termination date of Anyang (Li  Yung-ti et al. 2018). It leads to the possibility that while Anyang was

194 L ong L ive the K ing

sacked as a political center, the rest of the city, especially the craft industries, may have continued to operate. Being the statelet situated on the fringe of the Shang political landscape, the predynastic Zhou people did not have the same technological prowess to produce high-quality bronzes. It was only to the benefit of the newly risen Zhou elite to preserve the craft industries at Anyang for their own purposes and not leave the urban center a smoldering ruin. Soon after the overthrow of the Shang regime in Anyang and the initial transitional period, the Zhou state was able to establish its own large-scale craft industries in Fenghao, Luoyang, and Zhouyuan (e.g., Chong and Lei 2005, 2007, 2009; Fenghao 2014; Lei 2008, 2009; Luoyang 1983; Sun 2008, 2009a, 2009b 2010; Zhao 2017; Zhouyuan 2004, 2011). Scholars often cite a passage in a later transmitted text, Zuozhuan 左傳 (Zuo’s Commentaries on Chronicles of Spring-and-Autumn) to demonstrate that the Zhou conquerors relocated the Shang craft workers to the Zhou homeland, hence transferring the technology westward.24 However, what mattered was the adoption of the state apparatus, namely the managerial technology, and not just the capturing of the physical technology embodied by the craft workers.25 It also has to be noted that the practice of directly correlating this passage in a later historical text with the archaeological finds dating to the Shang-Zhou transition has become so prevalent that it hinders a broader behavioral approach to understand the complex sociopolitical dynamics of the time. While the transfer of technology can be accomplished by relocating the craft workers, to enable craft production on a scale comparable to Anyang, the transfer of the managerial system or the managerial bureaucracy is also required. This is particularly true for the large-scale bronze and bone industries. Both are what Franklin would call “prescriptive technology” or “prescriptive production,” and the emphasis is on managerial control (Franklin 1983a, 1983b, 1992). To gain the socioeconomical advantage, the Zhou adopted the Shang prestige system, including nearly all of its symbolic, material, cultural, and political aspects. The Zhou also needed the apparatus that generated the material manifestations of such a prestige system. The political transition from Late Shang to Early Western Zhou was therefore accompanied by a transfer of the technology, the craft production system, and most of all its managerial apparatus. Such a large and coordinated endeavor was only possible after the Zhou state had established the managing bureaucracy behind the actual production operation. The continuity from Shang to Zhou is apparent both in the

195 L ong L ive the K ing

style of the elite status objects and in the technology employed. The scale of craft production then reveals the adoption and continuation of the administrative system capable of managing large-scale craft production. In this sense, the large-scale craft industries in Anyang that became the legacy of the Western Zhou craft industries are ultimately the precursor and the foundation of the imperial craft industries of the Qin and the Han dynasties, which in turn yielded such grandiose material cultures expressed in the massive terracotta soldiers’ pits and the exquisite and labor-intensive lacquerware.

NOTES

1. IDENTIFYING AND DEFINING THE ISSUES: CRAFT PRODUCTION, ELITE CULTURE, AND URBAN CENTERS IN BRONZE AGE CHINA 1. Here I choose to use the more general dates for Anyang to avoid the pitfall of giving falsely precise dates based on historiography. The Xia-Shang-Zhou chronology project, for instance, dates Anyang to between 1250 bce and 1046 bce, from the first year of King Wu Ding’s reign to the year when King Wu of Zhou defeated the last Shang king at Muye. For a discussion on the Xia-Shang-Zhou chronology project and the different resolutions between the historic and archaeological record, see Lee 2002. 2. October 2018 marks the ninetieth anniversary of the commencement of archaeological excavations in Anyang. 3. For summaries of the history of excavations in Anyang, see Bagley 1999, Chang 1980, IA 2001, Jing et al. 2013, Li 1977, and Thorp 2006. 4. Shang Civilization (1980) by Kwang-chih Chang is one of the earliest attempts in English to place the IHP data in the context of the more recent IA finds available at the time. Chang’s work was based mostly on the published literature. 5. I am greatly in debt to colleagues in IHP and IA, and especially colleagues in the Anyang field station, for granting me generous access to the archaeological data and for freely exchanging ideas and information related to their own research. 6. There have been many efforts by Chinese archaeologists to comb through the IHP publications and bring new insight to the old data. One of the earliest and foundationlaying pieces of work is by Zou Heng (Beida 1979; Zou 1964a, 1964b, 1980). The work by Du Jinpeng represents a more recent effort (Du 2010). 7. The term large-scale is relative here. The scale of Erlitou bone and bronze production is large compared to earlier times but is diminutive when compared to Anyang.

198 1. IDENTIFYING AND DEFINING THE ISSUES

8. For Costin, scale refers to “composition of the production unit,” which has two variables: “size and principles of labor recruitment” (Costin 1991, 15). At one end of the parameter of scale are “small, individual or family-based production units,” and at the opposite extreme are “the wage-labor forces of the industrial West” (15). It has to be noted that we do not know the principles of labor recruitment at Anyang. 9. Costin uses “factory” to represent one extreme of the scale parameter in her figure 1.4 and uses “retainer workshop” for her table 1.1. The latter is followed here. Retainer workshop is defined by Costin as a “large-scale operation with full-time artisans working for an elite patron or government institution within a segregated, highly specialized setting or facility” (Costin 1991, 9). 10. I would like to thank Robert Bagley and Anthony Barbieri-Low for bringing this issue to my attention. 11. The use of “artisan” here is different from the Chinese term gong, sometimes translated as “artisans,” which can refer to any kinds of craft and is an all-inclusive term for craft workers (Barbieri-Low 2007, 32).

2. CRAFT PRODUCTION AT THE LAST SHANG CAPITAL 1. There are several good accounts of the history of the Anyang excavations in English, including Li Chi 1977, Chang 1980, Bagley 1999, and Thorp 2006. IA 2001 and various publications reviewing the history of Anyang archaeology by the IA Anyang archaeologists also provide good summaries in Chinese. 2. For an English summary of the season and the find, see Li Chi 1977, 63–67. 3. I argued in my dissertation that Dasikong South could have been a foundry operating during the pre-Anyang Huanbei period: “If the remains found at Dasikongcun South were indeed from a bronze foundry nearby, the location and early date of the remains suggest that the foundry had closer ties with the settlement at Huanbei than with the late Shang settlement south of the Huan River” (Li Yung-ti 2003). Anyang archaeologists have now located a bronze foundry site within the Huanbei walled settlement. The mold fragments from the Huanbei site appear to be different from the Type I molds found at Dasikong and represent a yet earlier technology. The find therefore excludes Dasikong South as a Huanbei period foundry. See also note 32 for chapter 3. 4. For a comprehensive summary of fieldwork and research at Anyang, including those by IHP, see IA 2001. 5. The eastern part of the site was excavated in 1974, 1980, 1982, and 1984 and archaeologists located over 150 burials along with features such as trash pits and pottery kilns. Foundry remains, however, were rarely encountered (IA 2001, 83). Excavations between 1980 and 1982 were published in a 1986 preliminary report (Anyang 1986b). The excavations between 1982 and 1984 were published in 1991 (Anyang 1991b). 6. Materials from excavations of the eastern zone of the foundry site between 1959 and 1961 were published in Excavation Report of Yinxu: 1958–1961 (IA 1987). Additional information is given in the recent comprehensive review of discoveries and research at Anyang: Archaeological Excavations and Researches at Yinxu (IA 2001, 83–91). Except for a brief description of the house foundations (90–91), materials from excavations between 1962 and 1964 at the western zone where the living quarters of the bronze foundry were excavated are yet to be published. The 1963 excavation at the workshop area also has not been published.

199 3 . A C R A F T O F C L AY A N D M E TA L

7. Relocating local populations for the sake of economic development is not uncommon in China. In the case of Anyang, populations were relocated to allow expansion projects of Anyang Steel. It also occurred for the sake of protecting the archaeological site. As an effort to enlist Anyang as a World Heritage Site, villagers living on top of the Shang capital were moved outside of the designated Protection Zone. In her dissertation, Wang Shu-li discusses the process from three different perspectives: those of the villagers, archaeologists, and government officials. See Shu-Li Wang, “The Politics of China’s Cultural Heritage on Display—Yin Xu Archaeological Park in the Making,” PhD diss., University College London, 2013. See also Shu-Li Wang, “Civilization and the Transformation of Xiaotun Village at China’s Yinxu Archaeological Site,” in World Heritage on the Ground: Ethnographic Perspectives, ed. D. Beliner and C. Baumman (New York: Berghahn, 2016), 171–92. 8. See Kaogu 2007, no. 1 for a devoted issue on the IA Xiaomintun excavations. 9. In the early publication of the Xiaomintun find, we dated the Daijiawan style molds to the late Shang period, as there was no clear evidence for an early Western Zhou date of the Xiaomintun Southeast foundry (Li Yung-ti et al. 2007; Li and Yue 2015). The discovery of Western Zhou elite burials at Shigushan in Baoji, Shaanxi, with bronzes similar to those found in Daijiawan and molds found in Anyang (Shaanxi 2016; Shigushan 2013, 2013a), provided more clues that the Xiaomintun Southeast foundry may have cast bronzes for the Western Zhou elite (Li and Yue 2015). 10. For a discussion on production locations and forms of production technology in other ancient civilizations, see Shimada 2007.

3. A CRAFT OF CLAY AND METAL: SECTION-MOLD CASTING TECHNOLOGY AND THE ANYANG BRONZE INDUSTRY 1. The functions of the bronze vessels are not always clear. Traditionally the descriptions in later transmitted texts are used to infer the function. Archaeologically, ding-tripods and yan-steamers often have soot on the legs and bottom of the vessels, indicating their use over a heat source for cooking. Some, such as ding-tripods, are found with animal bones on the inside, presumably remains of a meal or offering prepared in the vessel. There are also examples of liquid found within well-sealed lidded vessels. There is little evidence beyond these finds to indicate how bronzes were used. 2. The recent finds of not one but two bronze foundry sites outside of the Anyang protection zone outside of the core area by the Anyang Municipal Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology also invite such interpretations. Xindian, for instance, is situated ten kilometers north of the temple-palace complex, while Renjiazhuang is two-and-a-half kilometers south (Anyang Municipal 2018; Kong 2018; Kong et al. 2017). Once fully published, these finds will significantly change our understanding of the nature and distribution of the Anyang bronze industry. 3. The Anyang workshop debris consists mainly of virtually indestructible fired ceramic pieces. Without finer analysis of the output volume, this impression may be misleading. And as most of the mold fragments do not have the form or the decoration preserved, it is difficult to estimate the number of bronzes made at these sites. 4. The foundry site at Xiaomintun South was excavated by IA and the Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Heritage and Archaeology. The portion excavated by the latter has yet to be published.

200 3 . A C R A F T O F C L AY A N D M E TA L

5. The ceramic technology volume of Science and Civilisation in China also includes sections on model and mold making of the Shang bronze casting industry (Kerr and Wood 2004). 6. Kerr and Wood take on a different perspective, arguing that the ceramic technology suffered a decline after the focus shifted to the “clay-based” bronze technology: “The attention lavished on fine ceramics during China’s Neolithic period waned with the coming of the Bronze Age, and the quality of ceramic design, finish and ornament all declined in China with the advent of bronze” (Kerr and Wood 2004, 396). This, however, overlooks the ceramic-making traditions of high-status white pottery and proto-porcelain that existed in parallel to bronze casting during the Anyang period. 7. See Yue et al. 2014 for a discussion on clay preparation for making models and molds. See Rice 1987 for a standard summary of clay preparation in pottery making. 8. See, for instance, Chase 1983; Gettens 1969; Liu Ruiliang et al. 2020; Stoltman et al. 2017; Sun Shuyun and Han Rubin 1981; Yang Gen and Ding Jiaying 1959; Zhongguo Shehui 1982. 9. See, for instance, Bagley 1987; Gettens 1969; Hua Jueming et al. 1981; Su Rongyu et al. 1988. 10. See Tan Derui 1999; Wan Chia-pao 1972. 11. For instance, Barnard 1961; Li Jinghua 1999, 2003; Shih Chang-ju 1955; Wan Chiapao 1966; for more recent research, see Chen Jianli and Liu Yu 2011; Liu Yu and Yue Zhanwei 2004; Liu Yu et al. 2008; Yue Zhanwei, Liu, Yue, and Jing 2016; Yue Zhanwei, Yue, and Liu 2011, 2012; Yue Zhanwei, Yue, Liu, and Uchida 2010. 12. For early but speculative attempts, see Barnard 1961 and Shih 1955. Zhou Wenli et al. 2014 and 2015 provide the most up-to-date summary of research on furnace remains from Anyang and other Bronze Age sites. 13. For more detailed research and discussion, see, for example, Chen Jianli and Liu Yu 2011; Liu Yu and Yue Zhanwei 2004, 2011; Liu et al. 2008; Tan 1999; Wan 1966; Yue Zhanwei, Liu, Yue, and Jing 2016; Yue Zhanwei, Yue, and Liu 2011, 2012; Yue Zhanwei, Yue, Liu, and Uchida 2010. 14. See also Yue Zhanwei, Liu, Yue, and Jing 2016 for a description of different layers observed on the mold fragments. 15. The results obtained by Stoltman et al. were also replicated by studies on clay molds from earlier and later time periods (e.g., Liu Siran et al. 2013), indicating that such technology existed before Anyang and continued to be in use afterward. 16. The scarcity of model fragments and the apparent single use of models led some scholars to argue that models were scraped down to produce cores and hence did not survive in the archaeological records. Such practices are followed in modern foundries using traditional clay mold technology in Japan (Chase 1991). However, scraping down models to make cores is not supported by the current archaeological data (see section on core making below). 17. Yue Hongbin and Yue Zhanwei (2014b) examined and measured a set of six gu vessels and a set of ten jue vessels from Dasikong M303. They argue that the similar dimensions and decoration layout suggest that the same model was used to generate multiple identical vessels in each set. They acknowledge that more systematic studies are needed. 18. A sectioned model should conceivably better facilitate the making and retrieving of mold sections, although it would also introduce instability to the model during the manufacturing process.

201 3 . A C R A F T O F C L AY A N D M E TA L

19. As indicated by the tool marks and the precise matching of mortises and tenons, the mold sections with mortises are prepared first, while the matching mold sections with tenons are built into the mold sections with mortises. Systematic use of mortises and tenons began only in the latter half of the Yinxu period. 20. Dong Yawei (2006, 2013a, b, c) proposes yet another alternative method and argues that raised lines on the mold can be produced by attaching fine clay threads formed by rolling narrow strips of wet clay. This may explain the round profile of raised lines seen on mold fragments from the Western Zhou foundry site at Zhouyuan. The raised lines on Anyang molds are less protruding. 21. For photos of the IHP ingots, see Li Yung-ti ed. 2009, 127, Entry No. 113. 22. The amount of lead found in the alloy of Anyang bronze vessels typically ranges from 10 percent to 20 percent (Anyang 2018, 41). If we are to give a rough and conservative estimate, 3 tons of lead with 75 percent purity could produce 2.25 tons of pure lead ingots, which can be used to match with 11.25 to 22.5 tons of copper. If we use the tomb of Fuhao as a reference point, which yielded 195 bronze vessels and 271 smaller bronze objects with a total weight of 1.6 tons of metal, hundreds of bronze vessels could have been made using the lead ingots. 23. It is the only surviving example of several such finds. Shih described the use of bronze pieces, some fragmentary, some with designed forms, as column supports since they were found in postholes associated with Structure A11. See Shih 1959, 6, 48–50. 24. The 1987 site report lists seven aboveground structures with rammed-earth walls in the text and the appended table: F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, and F8 (IA 1987, 14–19, 286 [table 1]). Only four—F2, F3, F4, and F6—were published with line drawings (IA 1987, 15 [figure 11], 18 [figure 13]). 25. In his earlier publications, Shih Chang-ju interpreted a set of features in Xiaotun as a casting facility, drawing an analogy from the chapter on bell casting in the Ming dynasty technological text, Tiangongkaiwu 天工開物: The Exploitation of the Works of Nature, published in 1637 (Shih Chang-ju 1955, 1959). In hindsight, we know now that his interpretation may not be correct. Shih argued that the Xiaotun casting installation consisted of three features: a melting furnace in YH76; a ditch filled with burning fuels that channeled molten bronze to the mold assemblages; and YH43, where molds were assembled and buried. The multiple casting channels and casting pits depicted in Tiangongkaiwu, however, were meant for casting large metal objects, such as temple bells, and the illustrations show box bellows being used for the molten metal to reach and maintain a high temperature. If Shih’s reconstruction is correct, and putting aside the lack of evidence for box bellows in Anyang, we may expect to find mold fragments for large bronzes. Shih made no reference to any large mold fragments in these pits, and the author’s examination of the mold fragments from the three features housed in IHP shows that they were not for bronze vessels of exceptionally large sizes. Shih’s reconstruction has also not been confirmed in the field despite the finds at Miaopu North and Xiaomintun South. No casting channels or furnace remains were located nearby. With the above observations, we have to conclude that Shih’s reconstruction is problematic. 26. Access to the original field notes of Miaopu North was kindly granted by one of the excavators, the late Professor Chen Zhida. 27. The main text of the site report includes locations and line drawings for only a fraction of the trash pits. Additional information, such as descriptions of the contents, the shape and size of the pits, and the excavation units, can be found in the appended

202 3 . A C R A F T O F C L AY A N D M E TA L

table (IA 1987, 288–99). The table also specifies the types of foundry remains in each trash pit, but most are listed without giving quantities. As a result, only one-third of the total number of mold and model fragments found at the site are accounted for in the table (5,416/+19,000). 28. Group B has more than 97 percent (3569/3669) of the mold and model fragments found in the Xiaotun temple-palace complex. 29. In his meticulous and comprehensive study of the Anyang stratigraphy and chronology, Zou Heng examined the associated pottery and the stratigraphic relationships between Structure B5 and Pits YH66 and YH93 (Zou Heng 1964a, b). YH93 and YH 66 are the few features associated with Structure B5 that can be dated by their pottery vessels, which were published separately by Li Chi (1956). Both pits are dated to Period 2 of Zou Heng’s 1964 chronology. As YH93 intruded into the foundation according to the site report by Shih Chang-ju, and YH66 is superimposed by B5, the stratigraphic relationship therefore places Structure B5 at the same date as the pits (74). Zou Heng’s Period 2 represents the early part of the Yinxu occupation, which roughly corresponds to Yinxu Periods I and II in the chronology subsequently proposed by the Anyang archaeologists. 30. Chen Zhida, senior IA Anyang archaeologist and the excavator of the tomb of Fuhao, also examined the chronology of the rammed-earth foundations at Xiaotun Northeast (Chen Zhida 1987; IA 2001, 51–69). In his discussion of Structure B5, Chen noted that features that intruded into B5, including two burials, M66 and 3M: 14, and Pit YH93, all yielded pottery or bronzes that can be dated to Yinxu Period II or Yinxu Period I of the IA Anyang pottery chronology. Another ceramic basin from YH83, located underneath B5, is also dated to late Period I (IA 2001, 207, figure 94: 5). Chen therefore agrees with Shi Chang-ju that Structure B5 belongs to the earlier group of architectures at Xiaotun, and the time of construction “should not be later than Period II, and may be dated to an earlier time (i.e., equivalent to Period I)” (IA 2001, 59, original parenthesis; author’s translation). 31. The four excavation units discussed by Liu et al. that are stratigraphically underneath Structure B5 are B17, B30, YH38, and YH76. YH38 and YH76 have also yielded foundry remains. Inscribed oracle bones from these pits belong to the diviner’s groups of Shi and Bin, active during King Wu Ding’s reign, while one inscribed oracle bone from YH38 may be dated to the reign of Zu Geng. Three units contemporaneous with or later than B5—B125, B126, B130—have inscribed oracle bones from the diviner’s groups of Chu and Bin, both dated to King Wu Ding’s reign. Liu et al. therefore date B5 to the time of Zu Geng and Zu Jia and note that features underneath B5 should not be dated any later (Liu Yiman et al. 1986, 551). 32. If the foundry operation represented by the remains from B5 was terminated during the reign of Zu Geng/Zu Jia at the latest, when did the Xiaotun foundry begin? The discovery of the pre-Anyang walled settlement north of the Huan River (e.g., Anyang Archaeological Team 1998b, 2003a, 2003b; He 2017; He and Tang 2010; Tang, Jing and He 2010; Tang, Jing, and Liu 2010; Tang, Jing, and Rapp 2000; Tang, Yue, He and Yue 2003; Tang, Yue, He et al. 2016) prompted some scholars to argue that the Xiaotun and the Dasikongcun South foundries could be related to the earlier Huanbei settlement (Li Yung-ti 2003; Tang 2004b). However, if we look at the bronze decor and typology represented by the mold fragments, we have to argue that the bronzes cast at Xiaotun and Dasikong South do not appear to be as early as those from Huanbei. During excavations in 2015 and 2016, archaeologists located a bronze workshop in the Huanbei settlement

203 4 . B O N E T E C H N O L O G Y, P R O D U C T I O N C O N T E X T S , A N D   T H E   B O N E W O R K S H O P S

(He 2016b, 2017), and based on direct observations, the Huanbei mold fragments display physical attributes different from those unearthed at Xiaotun and Dasikong. The IHP molds therefore cannot be dated to the Huanbei Middle Shang period. 33. Tenons are still seen in foundry remains from Xiaotun. They are often found on the core for the hollow haft of weapons or tools. The tenons are used to join and secure the mold sections. 34. In his reconstruction experiment, which was based on observations of the Xiaotun mold fragments, Wan Chia-pao also did not put mortises and tenons on the mold sections. To secure and stabilize the mold sections, another layer of clay was applied to the back of the molds. The entire mold assemblage was then fired before casting. 35. I first proposed the typology in my dissertation (Li Yung-ti 2003). It was generally accepted and adopted by the Anyang archaeologists. In the most recent publication on Anyang foundry remains, Yue et al. reversed the naming of the typology by referring to the earlier molds as Type II, and the later but much more abundant molds as Type I (Yue et al. 2016). 36. The excavator of the Xiaomintun West foundry noted that there may be an emphasis on tool production there, although bronze vessels were also made (IA 1987). Since Xiaomintun West is only one of the three locales of bronze production within the Xiaomintun production precinct, the specialization, if indeed present, may be internal rather than among different workshops.

4. BONE TECHNOLOGY, PRODUCTION CONTEXTS, AND THE BONE WORKSHOPS 1. See, for instance, Choyke and Bartosiewicz 2001; Choyke and O’Connor 2013; Emery 2008; Johnson 1985; MacGregor 1985; Seetah and Gravina 2012; and Vitezović 2017. 2. For a similar observation on the Mayan bone industry, see Emery 2001. 3. Researchers know far less about habitation sites than burials in Anyang and the general observation made here may be misleading. 4. The term expedient tools was first used to refer to bone tools found in the Pleistocene site Old Crow River in Yukon, Canada. While there have been considerable scholarly efforts devoted to distinguishing between bones cracked by natural forces and humanmade artifacts found in bison butchering sites in North America (e.g., Johnson 1982, Lyman 1984), there is no need for such scrutiny for the Bronze Age bone industry in Anyang. 5. Clark and Parry describe “hypertrophic goods” as items endowed with information by investing “exaggerated energy costs” (Clark and Parry 1990, 296). 6. These were, of course, left behind by the looters, who did not find them valuable. A number of finely carved bone spatulas found their way into the hand of dealers and ended up in museums and private collections outside of China, most notably in Japan and in Toronto. See Umehara 1940, 1964, and White 1945. 7. A two-ramped tomb in the eastern section of the royal cemetery, WGM1, was excavated in 1950 (Kuo 1951). Finds of osseous artifacts were mentioned in the preliminary report, although no detailed description was provided. Another one-ramped tomb in the royal cemetery, 78AHBM1, was excavated in 1978 and yielded 116 osseous artifacts, including 6 fragments of carved ivory. The tomb is now dated to Middle Shang, or the Huanbei period, instead (Anyang 2017).

204 4 . B O N E T E C H N O L O G Y, P R O D U C T I O N C O N T E X T S , A N D T H E B O N E W O R K S H O P S

8. Umehara identified and published other pieces of the same bone beakers now in the Kurokawa Institute of Ancient Art (Umehara 1940). Uchida recently made a more comprehensive attempt at locating and refitting the scattered pieces in Japan and in the Royal Ontario Museum (Uchida 2013). See Uchida 2013 for a discussion of these bone cups. 9. For examples of ivory objects from the royal tombs, see Li Yung-ti ed. 2009, Entry Nos. 234, 238, 239, 242, and 248. 10. Although ivory was utilized in elaborate ways in Anyang, the desire and demand for ivory in Anyang pales compared to the civilizations of Jinsha and Sanxingdui in Sichuan, where complete elephant tusks in large numbers were found in sacrificial contexts. 11. It is not clear how extensively bones from meat consumption were recycled and utilized at Anyang. More systematic analysis of faunal remains from residential areas is needed. 12. Other utilitarian tools are also found in the royal cemetery. For instance, sets of grinding stones were included in HPKM1001. See Liang and Kao 1962, 170–76, plates 146–48. 13. Beixinzhuang was excavated again in the 2000s, although the results have not been reported. 14. Antlers, worked and unworked, were also found at Xin’anzhuang West, but have yet to be analyzed. 15. There is an example of a spatula made from scapula in the IHP collection. 16. As pointed out by Roderick Campbell and Li Zhipeng (personal communication), debitage from spatula making is difficult to identify. 17. There are examples of the articular ends being made into tools, artifacts, or personal adornments in the manner of ad hoc production. 18. Eerkens (2000) is particularly interested in finding universal and cross-craft parameters for standardization and has argued that: “For most prehistoric contexts archaeologists will be working with assemblages produced by multiple individuals. In this case, coefficients of variation in the range of 4–5 percent should be considered close to the limit of human ability to standardize manually produced artifacts. In contexts where the archaeologist can be fairly confident that only one or very few individuals were responsible for making the artifacts this limit can be lowered to a coefficient of variation of 2–3 percent. Values below these levels likely indicate situations in which prehistoric craft workers were not constructing goods from memory but using independent rulers, scales, or machines. Values greatly exceeding this level may indicate either mixing of artifact types that should be considered separate . . . or greater tolerance for deviation from the “ideal” shape and size” (667). I would like to thank Chen Maa-ling for bringing the related literature to my attention. 19. I would like to thank Roderick Campbell for pointing this out to me. 20. Indeed most of the spatulas in the IHP collection are fragments. 21. Uchida describes a process of soaking the bones in acid to reduce hardness and facilitate carving. In her experiments, the bone became soft and semi-translucent and easy to carve after having been soaked in acetic acid solution for two weeks (Uchida 2013, 615n36). 22. The need for blanks with specific shape and size to make hairpin bodies may explain the amount of large bone fragments found in the waste of Xin’anzhuang West. These pieces are still usable for making smaller artifacts but were cast away perhaps due to

205 5 . L O C AT I N G T H E R O YA L W O R K S H O P A N D O T H E R C R A F T S

mistakes made during processing that rendered the blanks unusable. As unwanted breakage of the raw materials is commonly seen among workshop debris from Xin’anzhuang West, it may indicate a preference for speed over quality during the preliminary stage of manufacturing. 23. There is currently little published research that discusses the sources of cattle at Anyang. 24. The accompanying tomb, M1550:49, was looted soon after the hairpins were uncovered by IHP archaeologists. The exact number of hairpins is therefore not clear. Liang estimated it to be more than 60 or 70. See Liang and Kao 1976, 15 and footnote 1 on the same page.

5. LOCATING THE ROYAL WORKSHOP AND OTHER CRAFTS 1. Takin are only found at an altitude of 1,000 to 4,500 meters in the mountainous areas of Shaanxi, Sichuan, and Tibet in modern-day China. As a paleontologist, Young (1948) misinterpreted the nature of the singular find when he cited the takin skull as evidence for the presence of the species in northern Henan. As pointed out by Roderick Campbell (personal communication), the Taihang mountains west of Anyang may be a likely candidate for the ancient habitat. Nonetheless, being the only example and considering the burial context, the takin skull may be seen as another piece in the Shang king’s trophy collection of exotic animals. 2. Liu Li et al. 2006 pointed out that the character si 兕 seen in oracle bone inscriptions are not rhinoceros, as conventionally argued (Lefeuvre 1990–91; Lei 1984), but wild water buffalos. They argue that since the water buffalo was not domesticated until the Han dynasty, those depicted in bronze and jade in Anyang were most likely wild. See also Chen Xingcan 2015, Liu Hongjie 1993, Liu Hongjie and Li 1992, Yang Dongya et al. 2008. 3. Recent works by Eugene Wang represent an effort to decipher the cosmological significance of the animals represented in Shang bronzes. Wang, however, relies on textual data much later than Anyang. See the “Why Do a Tiger and an Owl Co-exist on a Shang Bronze Vessel?” lecture given at the symposium of The Way of the Vessel—Making, Collecting, and Disseminating Chinese Bronzes, Art Institute of Chicago, May 4–5, 2018. 4. These more realistic representations of animals are thought to be characteristics of a separate bronze-making tradition in southern China (Bagley 1980a, 1992, 1999) and are not considered to be made in Anyang. These elephant vessels are used here to illustrate how elephants were depicted in the Shang period in general. Recently, some scholars have returned to the Anyang-centric view that all high-quality bronzes found outside of Anyang during Late Shang and Early Western Zhou were imported products from North China. Despite the limited range of vessel types represented in the mold fragments, the recent discovery of a bronze foundry in Taijiasi, Anhui, however, has confirmed the presence of a southern bronze industry (He Xiaolin, personal communication). 5. Various scholars argue that elephants gradually retreated to the southern part of China due to climatic change (Elvin 2005; Hwang 2017; Wang Yuxin and Yang Baocheng 1982; Xu 1930). Some also use the presence of other large mammals such as rhinoceros and tapir in Anyang as evidence for a warmer climate during the Shang dynasty. Unlike the elephant remains, the IHP discoveries of rhinoceros (metapodials)

206 5 . L ocating the R oyal W orkshop and O ther C rafts

and tapir (mandible; specimen now lost) remains are isolated examples and are not mentioned in oracle bone inscriptions. Both, however, are depicted on bronze vessels. 6. Uchida (2013) compares this tablet (R18222) to similar examples from the royal cemetery and argues that they are the main body of a type of composite bone artifacts to which additional bone decorative pieces are attached. While this may be the case, R18222 appears to be unfinished and should be seen as being associated with bone artifact production, especially considering where the tablet was found. 7. The desire and demand for ivory at Anyang pales when compared to ivory use in the civilizations of Jinsha and Sanxingdui in Sichuan, where complete elephant tusks in large numbers were found in sacrificial contexts. For examples of ivory artifacts from the Xibeigang royal cemetery, see Li Yung-ti ed. 2009, Entry Nos. 234, 238, 242, 250, and 253. 8. MacGregor describes several ways to soften ivory either practiced by artisans or recorded in texts. Methods mentioned by MacGregor include soaking ivory in hot water, heating in wine, vinegar, phosphoric acid solution, or heating ivory over a fire (MacGregor 1985, 65–66). 9. Tiger and elephant bones are occasionally encountered at the Tiesanlu bone workshop (Roderick Campbell and Li Zhipeng, personal communication). The nature of these finds awaits further clarification. 10. For a summary of shell objects found in Anyang, see IA 1994, 398–401. 11. For examples of marble artifacts excavated by IHP in Xibeigang, from where most of the elaborate marble objects came, see Li Yung-ti ed. 2009, 132–86, Entry Nos. 118–60. For a general summary of marble objects found in Anyang, see IA 1994, 356–63, 368–80. 12. Recent excavations south of Miaopu North at Xujiaqiao by the Anyang Municipal Institute of Archaeology uncovered burials interred with small marble objects such as gui tablets and ge halberds and mostly marble fragments. Excavators interpret the tombs as those of the marble workers (Meng Xianwu, personal communication). The site report is under preparation. 13. For examples of shell ornaments, see Li Yung-ti ed. 2009, 266–71, Entry Nos. 257–66. 14. Li Chi wrote: “We found a layer of freshwater shells when we reached a depth of 4.3 m. Only the intact ones were collected and they [easily] filled one basket. Needless to say, the fragments were also numerous. When we reached 4.7 m, the shell middens were gradually replaced by a layer of cowries and coiled shells (螺絲); some were perforated, some not. Cowries were found at a depth of 4.7 m to 5.6 m (Archives of the Institute of History and Philology; author’s translation).” 15. Seawater shells are also found at Anyang. Cowries and coiled shells were used as ornaments and amulets. They are either used whole without modification or perforated to be strung together, or, in the case of cowries, with the dorsal side removed, perhaps also to facilitate stringing. They are not known to be used as raw material for inlays or other artifacts at Anyang. Some scholars argue that cowries were used as currency or units of exchange. For a critical review of such claims, see Li Yung-ti 2006. 16. Li Chi listed eight excavation units that yielded more than a hundred such blades, including 縱二甲支、縱二甲、縱二乙、縱五癸東支、橫十三丙北支、橫十三/ 二五乙、大連坑、E181 (Li Chi 1952). Most of these trenches are located in the vicinity of Daliankeng. 縱五癸東支 and E181 is located near Structures A8 and A9. 17. Some of these notches will likely remain on the cutting edge after percussion scars are ground away. In that case, the presence of notches may not always represent use-wear. However, more analysis is needed.

207 6. LONG LIVE THE KING

18. For a recent English summary of the culture-history approach based on ceramic analysis in the Chinese literature, see Campbell 2014. 19. For discussions and critiques on the typological approach in Chinese archaeology, see Li Yung-ti 2014 and Hein 2016. 20. Functions of pottery vessels are mostly assumed or inferred. The best indication of function is the soot often found on the leg surface of tripods, indicating that they were placed over a heat source and hence used for cooking. Unfortunately, while food remains and liquid are occasionally preserved in bronze vessels of similar shapes, there are fewer such examples for pottery. Residue analysis is still in its early stage in the study of Anyang pottery. 21. The Liujiazhuang North preliminary report mentions that twenty-four kilns were found during the excavations (Anyang 2012a, 43). Yue, Jing et al. (2014, 100), however, mention the find of over thirty kilns.

6. LONG LIVE THE KING: ANYANG AND ITS LEGACY 1. This is further exemplified by the recent discovery of two bronze foundry sites outside of the Yinxu protection zone by the Anyang Municipal Archaeology Institute. While one is south of the Miaopu area, the other is ten kilometers north of Xiaotun (Kong 2018; Kong et al. 2017). 2. Occasional finds of individual molds occur in residential contexts at Anyang (Tang Jigen, personal communication). Because of the complex nature of the pyrotechnology, without other related evidence, single finds of molds do not indicate the presence of bronze-casting activities. 3. I would like to thank Robert Bagley for bringing this issue to my attention. 4. For a detailed discussion of the related issues, see chapter 8, The Occupational Lineages, in Working for His Majesty by Keightley (2012). After reviewing the literature and drawing references from later historical examples, Keightley concluded, “I would suggest . . . that significant elements of Shang dynastic labor were performed by corporations of skilled workers attached to the royal house; it is probable that such corporations were organized on the basis of real or assumed kinship ties, but firm evidence is lacking” (Keightley 2012, 98; emphasis mine). Note that the caution Keightley exercised is not followed by the Chinese scholars, who tend to interpret the inscriptions much more freely. See also note 22. 5. There is a large body of literature on the discussion of the so-called emblem glyphs, including several new corpus projects. See, for instance, Barnard 1986; Cao and Yin 1990; Chang Ping-ch’uan 1967, 1988; He Jingcheng 2009; Yan 2002; Zhang Maorong 2007; Zhang and Wang 2014; Zhu 1983, 2004a. Cao Dazhi (2018) recently proposed in a controversial article that most emblem glyphs represent official titles. 6. There is an extensive literature on the Shang lineage system based on textual data, e.g., Chang 1980; Ding 1956, 1960; Lin 1979; Qiu 1983; Zhu 2004. 7. For a discussion of emic/ethnohistoric terms versus etic/analytical terms in describing residential zones in Mesoamerica and Nepal, see Smith and Novic 2012. 8. Smith acknowledges that some scholars see urban residential units such as neighborhoods not as single entities but as “ecological units nested in successively larger communities” (Sampson 2003, 973; cited by Smith 2010).

208 6. LONG LIVE THE KING

9. In this sense, the early misunderstanding that Anyang was a necropolis (Thorp 1980; see Jing et al. 2013, 350–51), because archaeologists only found burials, is paradoxically not that inaccurate. 10. Tang et al. note that the production precinct that was the farthest from the river, Miaopu, was conveniently situated close to the eastern section of the waterway. They further argue that the location of Miaopu in the nexus of roads and waterways and the fact that it has the most varieties of craft industries indicate that it was under direct control by the ruling elite. 11. It remains to be seen if the waterway and the road systems formed the gridlines of an orthogonal urban layout at Anyang. See Smith 2007 for a discussion on forms of urban layouts. 12. I would like to thank Anthony Barbieri-Low for bringing this to my attention. 13. The complex was burned down at the end of the Yinxu period and the excavator interprets it as being part of the aftermath of the ravaging of the capital by the Western Zhou invasion (He 2014). For a discussion on the traditional view of the termination of Anyang, see Li Yung-ti et al. 2018. 14. It is not clear if the Miaopu North bronze workshops were dedicated work areas or if the workshop facilities were used, disused, and then became residential areas. It is also not clear if there were residences within the workshop area or if residences were built in periods of disuse. Lei Xingshan has argued that in the workshops, living, producing, and burying the dead were performed in the same location in the following Western Zhou period, and he argues such practices were already present at Anyang (Lei Xingshan, personal communication, 2014). However, the intermixing of features that represent different site use could be the result of temporal changes of the function of the locale, especially if we consider the presence of burials. 15. See inscriptions 5 and 6 cited in Keightley 2012 (30). Keightley noted that “the translation is tentative” and placed a question mark next to the translation of “to cast yellow bronze.” 16. This may also explain the limited foundry operations in the core area, as bronze casting took place in the Xiaotun temple-palace complex on a much smaller scale. 17. For a diachronic examination of feasting, ritual, funerary practices, and craft production from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age in China, see Underhill 2002. 18. For discussions on gong and craft production in the Western Zhou and Han dynasties, see Sun 2008, 2010 and Barbieri-Low 2007. 19. Note that only a few mold fragments for weapons have been identified. Weapons are cast using simple bivalve molds. Once broken into pieces, these undecorated molds are more difficult to be sorted out from the bulk of unidentifiable mold fragments. Molds for weapons are therefore underrepresented at Anyang. 20. These bronzes were soon scattered among museums in the United States, Japan, and China. See Chen 2015 for a comprehensive research study and compilation of the scattered Daijiawan bronzes. 21. This was the theme of the conference “The Age of Transition: Bronzes and Molds Found in Daijiawan, Shigushan, Baoji County, Shaanxi and Anyang, Henan” I organized at the University of Chicago Center in Beijing, China, from November 30–December 4, 2015. The proceedings for the conference are in preparation. 22. See Hwang 2012, 2013 for a comprehensive discussion on Shang bronzes found in Early Western Zhou contexts. Hwang proposes that all such bronzes were war booty. 23. For my discussion on the implication of these finds in connection with the termination of Anyang, see Li Yung-ti and Yue 2015 and Li Yung-ti et al. 2018.

209 6. LONG LIVE THE KING

24. Entry for the fourth year of the Duke of Ding, 506 bce, in Zuozhuan 左傳, Zuo’s Commentaries on Chronicles of Spring-and-Autumn (English translation by Durrant et al., Zuo Tradition: Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2016): 分魯公以大路大旂，夏后氏之璜，封父之繁弱， To the Lord of Lu was allotted a grand chariot, a grand banner, the jade half disk of the Xia ruling line, the Fanruo bow of Fengfu, 殷民六族，條氏，徐氏，蕭氏，索氏，長勺氏，尾勺氏，使帥其宗氏， 輯其分族，將其類醜，以法則周公，用即命于周， and six houses of Yin people, the Tiao, Xu, Xiao, Suo, Changshao, and Weishao lineages. These six houses were made to lead those who shared their ancestral lineages, to gather together their collateral houses, and to guide their many dependents in following the Zhou Duke’s models. . . . 分康叔以大路，少帛，綪茷，旃旌，大呂， To Kang Shu was allotted a grand chariot, a Shaobo flag, a bright red flag, pennants plain and decorated with feathers, a Dalü bell, 殷民七族，陶氏，施氏，繁氏，錡氏，樊氏，饑氏，終葵氏， and seven houses of Yin people, the Tao, Shi, Po, Qi, Fan, Ji, and Zhongkui lineages. See also note 4. 25. This is by no means an original thesis. An often-quoted passage in Chapter XXIII, Book II Principles of Government, Analects of Confucius, records Confucius describing the continuity of the ritual and political system between the Three Dynasties, Xia, Shang, and Zhou. (For a translation, see Legge 1861, 16–17.) Modern scholars as early as Wang Guowei have commented on the succession of the ritual and political system from Shang to Zhou using contemporary and received texts. The same thesis has been expressed repeatedly in the current literature on Bronze Age China. Here, I wish to place the thesis under a different rubric with an emphasis on archaeology and anthropology.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

An, Jinhuai 安金槐. 2001. Zhengzhou Shang cheng 鄭州商城. Beijing: Wenwu. Anyang Archaeology Team, Institute of Archaeology, CASS 中國社會科學院考古研 究所安陽工作隊. 1961. “Preliminary Report of the 1958–1959 Excavations at Yinxu 1958–1959 年殷墟發掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古 2: 63–76, 3–5. ——. 1964. “Preliminary Report of the 1962 Anyang Dasikong Village Excavation 1962 年安陽大司空村發掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古 8: 380–84. ——. 1965. “Test Excavations of Several Sites in the Huan River Basin in Anyang 安陽洹 河流域幾個遺址的試掘.” Kaogu 考古 7: 326–38. ——. 1972a. “Preliminary Report of the 1971 Anyang Hougang Excavation 1971 年安陽後 岡發掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古 3: 14–25, 66–68. ——. 1972b. “Preliminary Report of the Excavation at Hougang, Anyang, Spring 1972 1972 年春安陽後岡發掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古 5: 8–19, 65–67. ——. 1972c. “The Newly Discovered Horse and Chariot Pits in Anyang 安陽新發現的殷 代車馬坑.” Kaogu 考古 4: 24–28, 66–67. ——. 1975. “Preliminary Report of the 1973 Excavation in Xiaotun South, Anyang Excavation 1973 年安陽小屯南地發掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古 1: 27–46, 80–82. ——. 1976a. “1975 New Discoveries at Yinxu, Anyang 1975 年安陽殷墟的新發現.” Kaogu 考古 4: 264–72, 263, 287–88. ——. 1976b. “Pottery Pipes and Stone Chime Unearthed at Yinxu 殷墟出土的陶水管和 石磬.” Kaogu 考古 1: 61, 16. ——. 1977a. “Excavation of Tomb No. 5 at Yinxu, Anyang 安陽殷墟五號墓的發掘.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 2: 57–98, 163–98. ——. 1977b. “Two Horse and Chariot Pits at Xiaomintun, Yinxu, Anyang 安陽殷墟孝民 屯的兩座車馬坑.” Kaogu 考古 1: 69–70, 72, 80. ——. 1979a. “A Yin Tomb Located North of Wuguan Village, Anyang 安陽武官村北的一 座殷墓.” Kaogu 考古 3: 223–26, 291–92. ——. 1979b. “Excavations of the Cemeteries in the West Area of Yinxu Between 1969 and 1977 1969–1977 年殷墟西區墓葬發掘報告.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1: 27–146.

212 B ibliography

——. 1981. “Two Late Shang Period Tombs at the North of Xiaotun Village, Anyang 安陽 小屯村北的兩座殷代墓.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 4: 491–518, 559–68. ——. 1986a. “Excavation of Tomb No. 1713 in the West Area of Yinxu, Anyang 安陽殷墟 西區一七一三號墓的發掘.” Kaogu 考古 8: 703–712, 725, 771–72. ——. 1986b. “Preliminary Report of the Excavations at Miaopu North Between 1980 and 1982 1980–1982 年安陽苗圃北地遺址發掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古 2: 112–124, 137, 195–96. ——. 1986c. “Preliminary Report of the Excavation of the Yin Burials in Xuejiazhuang Southeast, Anyang 安陽薛家庄東南殷墓發掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古 12: 1067–72, 1153. ——. 1987a. “Excavation of Shang Dynasty Sacrificial Pits in the North of Wuguan Village, Anyang 安陽武官村北地商代祭祀坑的發掘.” Kaogu 考古 12: 1062–70, 1145. ——. 1987b. “Excavations of Tombs No. 259 and No. 260 at Yinxu 殷墟 259, 260 號墓發 掘報告.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1: 99–117, 140–45. ——. 1987c. “Preliminary report of the 1976 Excavation of Xiaotun Northwest, Anyang in 1976 1976 年安陽小屯西北地發掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古 4: 295–302, 374, 385. ——. 1988a. “A Horse and Chariot Pit at Guojiazhuang Southwest, Anyang 安陽郭家莊 西南的殷代車馬坑.” Kaogu 考古 10: 882–93, 963–64. ——. 1988b. “A Yin Tomb at Dasikong Village Southeast, Anyang 安陽大司空村東南的 一座殷墓.” Kaogu 考古 10: 865–74, 961–62. ——. 1988c. “Excavation of Yin Burials at Guojiazhuang Southeast, Summer 1987 1987 年夏安陽郭家莊東南殷墓的發掘.” Kaogu 考古 10: 875–81. ——. 1989a. “The 1987 Excavation in Xiaotun Northeast, Anyang 1987 年安陽小屯村東 北地的發掘.” Kaogu 考古 10: 893–905. ——. 1989b. “Preliminary Report of the Fall 1984 Excavation of Yin Burials at Miaopu North, Anyang 1984 年秋安陽苗圃北地殷墓發掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古 2: 123–38, 194–96. ——. 1989c. “Two Yin Tombs at Dasikong South, Anyang, 1986 1986 年安陽大司空村南 地的兩座殷墓.” Kaogu 考古 7: 591–97, 675–77. ——. 1990. “Excavations at Nangang, Dahan Village, Anyang 安陽大寒村南崗遺址.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1: 43–68, 136–41. ——. 1991a. “Guojiazhuang Tomb No. 160 in Anyang 安陽郭家庄 160 號墓.” Kaogu 考 古 5: 390–91, 481. ——. 1991b. “Excavation of a Yin Settlement at Miaopu North, Anyang in 1982–84 1982– 1984 年安陽苗圃北地殷代遺址的發掘.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1: 91–123, 137–44. ——.1991c. “The Excavation of Yin Burials in Meiyuan Village South, Anyang 1987 年秋 安陽梅園庄南地殷墓的發掘.” Kaogu 考古 2: 125–42, 197. ——. 1992a. “A Yin Tomb in Meiyuan Village, Anyang, Henan 河南安陽梅園庄的一座 殷墓.” Kaogu 考古 2: 187–89. ——. 1992b. “Excavations at Huayuanzhuang South, Anyang in 1986–1987 1986–1987 年安 陽花園庄南地發掘報告.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1: 97–128, 143–48. ——. 1992c. “Preliminary Report of the 1980 Excavation of Tomb No. 539 at Dasikong Village, Anyang, Henan 1980 年河南安陽大司空村 M539 發掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古 6: 509–17, 579–81. ——. 1993a. “The 1991 Excavation at Huayuanzhuang East and South 1991 年安陽花園庄 東地、南地發掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古6: 468–79, 599–61. ——. 1993b. “The 1991 Excavation of Yin Dynasty Burials at Hougang, Anyang 1991 年安 陽後岡殷墓的發掘.” Kaogu 考古 10: 880–903, 961–64. ——. 1994a. “The 1984–88 Excavations of Yin Burials at Dasikong Village North, Anyang. 1984–1988 年安陽大司空村北地殷代墓葬發掘報告.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 4: 471–97.

213 B ibliography

——. 1994b. “Preliminary Report of the Excavation at Gaolouzhuang South 河南安陽高 樓庄南發現一座殷墓.” Kaogu 考古 5: 392–96, 391. ——. 1995. “Report of the 1973 Excavation at Xiaotun South 1973 年小屯南地發掘報告.” Kaoguxue jikan 考古學集刊 9: 45–137. ——. 1998a. “A Yin Dynasty Horse and Chariot Pit in Meiyuan Village Southeast, Anyang City, Henan Province 河南安陽市梅園庄東南的殷代車馬坑.” Kaogu 考古 10: 48–65. ——. 1998b. “Preliminary Report of the 1997 Excavation at Huayuanzhuang Site, Huanbei, Anyang City, Henan Province 河南安陽市洹北花園庄遺址 1997 年發掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古 10: 23–35, 99–104. ——. 1998c. “Tomb No. 26 in Guojiazhuang Southeast, Anyang City, Henan Province 河 南安陽市郭家庄東南 26 號墓.” Kaogu 考古 10: 36–47. ——. 2001. “Excavation of a Large Building Foundation at Yinxu, Anyang, Henan Province 河南安陽殷墟大型建築基址的發掘.” Kaogu 考古 5: 18–26, 97. ——. 2003a. “Preliminary Report of the Excavation at Palace No.1, Huanbei Shang City, Anyang City, Henan Province 河南安陽市洹北商城宮殿區 1 號基址發掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古 5: 401–7. ——. 2003b. “Survey and Test Excavation of Huanbei Shang City in Anyang, Henan Province 河南安陽市洹北商城的勘察與試掘.” Kaogu 考古 5: 387–400, 481–83. ——. 2004. “Tomb No. 54 at Huayuanzhuang Site, Anyang City, Henan Province 河南安 陽市花園庄 54 號商代墓葬.” Kaogu 考古 1: 9–19, 97–98, 100–101, 104. ——. 2005. “Yin and Western Zhou Burials at Liujiazhuang North, Yinxu, Anyang, Henan 河南安陽殷墟劉家庄北地殷墓與西周墓.” Kaogu 考古 1: 7–23. ——. 2006a. “Excavation Report of the 2000–2001 Season of a Shang Bronze Foundry Site at Xiaomintun Southeast, Anyang 2000–2001 年安陽孝民屯東南地殷代鑄銅遺 址發掘報告.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 3: 351–84, 427–34. ——. 2006b. “Tomb No. 60 at Huayuanzhuang East, Anyang, Henan 河南安陽殷墟花園 庄東地 60 號墓.” Kaogu 考古 1: 7–18, 97–100. ——. 2009a. “Preliminary Excavation Report of a Large Shang Dynasty Tomb at Xiaotun West, Anyang City, Henan 河南安陽市殷墟小屯西地商代大墓發掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古 9: 54–69. ——. 2009b. “The 1989–1990 Excavations of Shang Dynasty Burials at Xiaomintun Southeast, Yinxu, Anyang City, Henan Province 河南安陽市殷墟孝民屯東南地商代墓葬 1989–1990 年的發掘.” Kaogu 考古 9: 15–40, 97–100, 111. ——. 2009c. “Coring and Excavations at the Xiaotun Palace-Temple Complex in Yinxu in 2004 and 2005 2004–2005 年殷墟小屯宮殿宗廟區的勘探和發掘.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 2: 217–46, Plates 1–8. ——. 2011. “Survey and Test Excavations at Xijiang, Anyang County, Henan 河南安陽縣 西蔣村遺址的調查與試掘.” Kaogu 考古 11: 38–50. ——. 2012a. “Excavations of Pottery Workshops at Liujiazhuang North, Yinxu, Anyang City, Henan Province 河南安陽市殷墟劉家庄北地製陶作坊遺址的發掘.” Kaogu 考古 12: 43–58. ——. 2012b. “Preliminary Report of the 2009 Excavation at Wangyukou South, Anyang City, Henan 河南安陽市殷墟王裕口村南地 2009 年發掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古 12: 3–25, 97–105. ——. 2012c. “Preliminary Report of the 2010–2011 Excavations at Liujiazhuang North, Yinxu, Anyang City, Henan Province 河南安陽市殷墟劉家庄北地 2010–2011 年發 掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古 12: 26–42, 106–12.

214 B ibliography

——. 2015. “A Yinxu Period Bone Workshop at Tiesanlu, Anyang, Henan 河南安陽市鐵 三路殷墟文化時期製骨作坊遺址.” Kaogu 考古 8: 37–62. ——. 2016. Preliminary Report of the 2007 Excavation of Shang Dynasty Remains at Xin’anzhuang West, Yinxu, Anyang, Henan 河南安陽市殷墟新安莊西地 2007 年商 代遺存發掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古 2: 3–24. ——. 2017. “Report of the 1978 Excavation of Tomb No. 1 at Houjiazhuang North in the Royal Cemetery, Anyang 1978 年安陽殷墟王陵區侯家莊北地一號墓發掘報告.” Jianghan kaogu 江漢考古 3: 20–56, 137. ——. 2018. “Preliminary Report of the Excavation of a Lead Ingot Storage Pit at Liujiazhuang North, Yinxu, Anyang, Henan 河南安陽市殷墟劉家莊北地鉛錠貯藏坑 發掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古 10: 32–41. Anyang Municipal Archaeological Team 安陽市文物工作隊. 1991. “Excavation of Tomb No. 269 at Qijiazhuang East, Yinxu 殷墟戚家庄東 269 號墓.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學 報 3: 325–52, 395–404. ——. 1995. “Preliminary Report of the Excavation of Shang Dynastic Burials in Anyang 安陽市殷代墓葬發掘簡報.” Huaxia kaogu 華夏考古 1: 1–13. ——. 1997a. “Excavations of Yin Burials at Liujiazhuang, Anyang, in 1983–1986 1983–1986 年安陽劉家庄殷代墓葬發掘報告.” Huaxia kaogu 華夏考古 2: 8–27, 113. ——. 1997b. “Excavations of the Yin Site at Xujiaqiao Village, Anyang 安陽徐家橋村殷 代遺址發掘報告.” Huaxia kaogu 華夏考古 2: 46–55, 113. Anyang Municipal Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 安陽市文物考古研究 所. 2008. “Tomb No.5 at Guojiazhuang Southeast, Yinxu, Anyang City, Henan 河南 安陽市殷墟郭家庄東南5號商代墓葬.” Kaogu 考古 8: 22–33, 99–101. ——. 2011. Report on the Excavations at Xujiaqiao and Guojiazhuang in Anyang: 2004–2008 Yinxu Archaeological Report 安陽殷墟徐家橋郭家庄商代墓葬: 2004–2008 年殷墟 考古報告. Beijing: Science. ——. 2017. “Preliminary Report of the 2002 Excavation at a Shang Dynasty Site North of the Beixujiaqiao Village, Anyang 2002 年安陽北徐家橋村北商代遺址發掘簡報.” Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 5: 4–13. ——. 2018. “Preliminary Report of the 2017–2018 Excavations of the Bronze Workshop at Renjiazhuang South, Anyang 河南安陽市任家莊南地商代晚期鑄銅遺址 2016– 2017 年發掘簡報.” Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 5: 9–26. Arbuckle, Benjamin S., and Sue Ann McCarty. 2014. Animals and Inequality in the Ancient World. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Arnold, Jeanne E., and Ann Munns. 1994. “Independent or Attached Specialization: The Organization of Shell Bead Production in California.” Journal of Field Archaeology 21, no. 4: 473–89. Arnauld, Marie-Charlotte, Linda R. Manzanilla, and Michael E. Smith, eds. 2012. The Neighborhood as a Social and Spatial Unit in Mesoamerican Cities. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Aufrecht, Walter Emanuel, Neil A. Mirau, and Steven W. Gauley. 1997. Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament (Supplement series) 244. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press. Bagley, Robert W. 1977. “P’an-lung-ch’eng: A Shang City in Hupei.” Artibus Asiae 39, nos. 3–4: 165–219. ——1980a. “The Appearance and Growth of Regional Bronze-Using Cultures.” In The Great Bronze Age of China: An Exhibition from the People’s Republic of China, ed. Wen Fong, 110–60. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art; Knopf.

215 B ibliography

——. 1980b. “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, 176–89. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art; Knopf. ——. 1987. Shang Ritual Bronzes in the Arthur M. Sackler Collections. Washington, DC: Arthur M. Sackler Foundation and Museum; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ——. 1988. “Sacrificial Pits of the Shang Period at Sanxingdui in Guanghan County, Sichuan Province.” Arts Asiatiques 43: 78–86. ——. 1990a. “Shang Ritual Bronzes: Casting Technique and Vessel Design.” Archives of Asian Art 43: 6–20. ——. 1990b. “A Shang City in Sichuan Province.” Orientations 21, no. 11: 52–67. ——. 1992. “Changjiang Bronzes and Shang Archaeology.” In Proceedings: International Colloquium on Chinese Art History, 209–55. Taipei: National Palace Museum. ——. 1993a. “Meaning and Explanation.” Archives of Asian Art 46: 6–26. (Cf. Bagley, “Meaning and Explanation.” In The Problem of Meaning in Early Chinese Ritual Bronzes, ed. Roderick Whitfield, 34–55. Colloquies on Art & Archaeology in Asia no. 15. London: Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art, School of Oriental and African Studies.) ——. 1993b. “An Early Bronze Age Tomb in Jiangxi Province.” Orientations 24, no. 7: 20–36. ——. 1999. “Shang Archaeology.” In The Cambridge History of Ancient China, ed. Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy, 124–231. New York: Cambridge University Press. ——. 2004. “Anyang Writing and the Origins of the Chinese Writing System.” In The First Writing: Script Invention as History and Process, ed. Stephen D. Houston, 190–249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——. 2005. “The Prehistory of Chinese Music Theory.” Proceedings of the British Academy 131: 41–90. ——. 2009. “Anyang Mold-Making and the Decorated Model.” Artibus Asiae 69, no.1: 39–90. Barbieri-Low, Anthony J. 2000. “Wheeled Vehicles in the Chinese Bronze Age (c. 2000–741 B.C.).” Sino-Platonic Papers 99: i–v, 1–97. ——. 2007. Artisans in Early Imperial China. Seattle: University of Washington Press. ——. 2013. “Occupational Clans and Artisan Families in Ancient China.” In The Family Model in Chinese Art and Culture, ed. Jerome Silbergeld and Dora C. Y. Ching, 199–228. Princeton, NJ: P. Y. and Kinmay W. Tang Center for East Asian Art. Barnard, Noel. 1961. Bronze Casting and Bronze Alloys in Ancient China. Canberra: Australian National University and Monumenta Serica. ——. 1986. “A New Approach to the Study of Clan-sign Inscriptions of Shang.” In Studies of Shang Archaeology, ed. K. C. Chang, 141–206. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Barnard, Noel, and Satō Tamotsu. 1975. Metallurgical Remains of Ancient China. Tokyo: Nichiōsha. Barnes, Gina L. 2015. Archaeology of East Asia: The Rise of Civilization in China, Korea, and Japan. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Beida Shang Zhou 北京大歷史系考古教研室商周組. 1979. Archaeology of Shang and Zhou. 商周考古 , ed. Zou Heng 鄒衡. Beijing: Wenwu. Beijing daxue kaoguxi 北京大學考古系 and Hubei Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 湖北省文物考古研究所. 2001. The Panlongcheng Site: Report of Archaeological Excavations from 1963–1994. (2 vols.) 盤龍城：1963–1994 年考古發掘 報告. Beijing: Kexue.

216 B ibliography

Bisson, Michael S. 2000. “Nineteenth Century Tools for Twenty-First Century Archaeology? Why the Middle Paleolithic Typology of François Bordes Must Be Replaced.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7, no. 1: 1–48. Bonner, Joey. 1983–85. “Lo Chen-yu’s Research on the Shang.” Early China 9–10: 164–8. ——. 1986. Wang Kuo-Wei: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bonomo, Michael F. 2018. “Ceramic Production and Provenance in the Yiluo Basin (Henan, China): Geoarchaeological Interpretations of Utilitarian Craft Production in the Erlitou State.” Archaeological Research in Asia 14: 80–96. Browman, David L., and Stephen Williams. 2013. Anthropology at Harvard: A Biographical History, 1790–1940. Peabody Museum Monographs, no. 11. Cambridge: Peabody Museum Press. Campbell, Roderick B. 2009. “Toward a Networks and Boundaries Approach to Early Complex Polities: The Late Shang Case.” Current Anthropology 50, no. 6: 821–48. ——. 2014. “Animal, Human, God: Pathways of Shang Animality and Divinity.” In Animals and Inequality in the Ancient World, ed. B. S. Arbuckle and S. A. McCarty, 251–74. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Campbell, Roderick B., ed. 2014. Violence and Civilization: Studies of Social Violence in History and Prehistory. Oxford: Oxbow. Campbell, Roderick B., Li Zhipeng, He Yuling, and Yuan Jing. 2011. “Consumption, Exchange and Production at the Great Settlement Shang: Bone-working at Tiesanlu, Anyang.” Antiquity 85: 1279–97. Cao, Dazhi 曹大志. 2014. “The Loess Highland in a Trading Network (1300–1050 BC).” PhD diss., Princeton University. ——. 2018. “Meaning of ‘Emblem Glyphs’ and the Structure of the Shang State ‘族徽’內 涵與商代的國家結構”. Gudai wenming 古代文明 12: 71–122. Cao, Dingyun 曹定云. 1980. “On ‘Ya Qi’: A Discussion on the Bronze Inscriptions in the Tomb of Fuhao in Yinxu ‘亞其’ 考: 殷墟‘婦好’ 墓器物銘文探討.” Wenwu jikan 文 物集刊 2: 143–50. ——. 1986. “On the Tomb Owner of Tomb No. 1001 at Houjiazhuang, Yinxu 論殷墟侯家 庄 1001 號墓墓主.” Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2: 44–50. ——. 1995. “A General Research on the Personal Relationships Based on the Inscriptions from the Tomb of Fuhao, Yinxu 殷墟婦好墓銘文中人物關係綜考.” Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 5: 44–54. Cao, Shuqin 曹淑琴, and Yin Weizhang 殷瑋璋. 1990. “A Preliminary Research on the Bronze Vessels of the State (Clan) of Guang 光國(族)銅器群初探.” Kaogu 考古 5: 452–58. Chang, Huaiying 常懷穎. 2017. “On the Spatial Configuration of Bronze Foundry Sites 略 談鑄銅作坊的空間佈局問題.” Nanfang wenwu 南方文物 3: 89–97. Chang, Kwang-chih. 1976. “The Lineage System of the Shang and Chou Chinese and Its Political Implications.” In Early Chinese Civilization: Anthropological Perspectives, ed. K. C. Chang, 72–92. Harvard-Yenching Institute Monograph Series. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ——. 1976a. “Some Dualistic Phenomena in Shang Society.” In Early Chinese Civilization: Anthropological Perspectives, K. C. Chang, 93–114. Harvard-Yenching Institute Monograph Series. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ——. 1976b. “Urbanism and the King in Ancient China.” In Early Chinese Civilization: Anthropological Perspectives, K. C. Chang, 47–60. Harvard-Yenching Institute Monograph Series. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

217 B ibliography

——. 1976c. “Man and Animal in Shang and Chou Myths and Art.” In K. C. Chang, Early Chinese Civilization: Anthropological Perspectives, K. C. Chang, 174–96. HarvardYenching Institute Monograph Series. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Originally published in Chinese and English in Minzuxue yanjiusuo jikan 民族學研 究所集刊 16 [1963]: 133–46.) ——. 1980. Shang Civilization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ——. 1983a. Art, Myth, and Ritual: The Path to Political Authority in Ancient China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ——. 1983b. “The Origin of Shang and the Problem of Xia in Chinese Archaeology.” In The Great Bronze Age of China: A Symposium, ed. George Kuwayama, 10–15. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles County Museum of Art; Seattle: Distributed by University of Washington Press. ——. 1984. “Sandai Archaeology and the Formation of States in Ancient China: Processual Aspects of the Origin of Chinese Civilization.” In The Origins of Chinese Civilization, ed. David N. Keightley, 495–521. Berkeley: University of California Press. ——. 1986. The Archaeology of Ancient China. 4th ed., rev. and enlarged. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ——. 1999. “China on the Eve of the Historical Period.” In The Cambridge History of Ancient China, ed. Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy, 37–73. New York: Cambridge University Press. ——. 2005. “The Rise of King and the Formation of City-States.” In The Formation of Chinese Civilization: An Archaeological Perspective, ed. Kwang-chih Chang and Xu Pingfang, with an introduction by Sarah Allan, 125–40. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Chang, Kwang-chih, ed. 1986. Studies in Shang Archaeology: Selected Papers from the International Conference on Shang Civilization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Chang, Ping-ch’üan 張秉權. 1967. “Research on the Identical Person Names and Place Names in Oracle Bone Inscriptions.” 甲骨文中所見人地同名考. Essays Celebrating the Seventieth Birthday of Li Chi 慶祝李濟先生七十歲論文集, 687–776. Taipei: Tsinghua xuebaoshe. ——. 1970. “Agriculture and Climate in the Yin Dynasty 殷代的農業與氣象.” Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 中央研究歷史語言研究所集 刊 42: 267–336. ——. 1986. “A Brief Description of the Fu Hao Oracle Bone Inscriptions.” In Studies of Shang Archaeology: Selected Papers from the International Conference on Shang Civilization, ed. K. C. Chang, 121–40. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ——. 1988. Oracle Bones Inscriptions and the Study of Oracle Bones 甲骨文與甲骨學. Taipei: Gouli bianyihui. Chang, Shumin 常淑敏. 2017. “Handicraft Industry Relics at Yinxu and Interpretation of ‘Sigong’, ‘Duogong’, and ‘Baigong’ in Oracle Bone Inscriptions 殷墟的手工業遺存 與卜辭「司工」、「多工」及「百工」釋義.” Jianghan kaogu 江漢考古 3: 83–88. Chase, Diane Z., and Arlen F. Chase. 1992. Mesoamerican Elites: An Archaeological Assessment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Chase, Thomas W. 1983. “Bronze Casting in China: A Short Technical History.” In The Great Bronze Age of China: A Symposium, ed. George Kuwayama, 100–123. Seattle: University of Washington Press. ——. 1991. Ancient Chinese Bronze Art: Casting the Precious Sacral Vessel (with Jung May Lee). Seattle: University of Washington Press.

218 B ibliography

Chen, Chao-jung 陳昭容, ed. 2015. Shang and Zhou Bronzes Unearthed from Daijiawan and Shigushan, Baoji 寶雞戴家灣與石鼓山出土商周青銅器. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. Chen, Chun 陳淳. 2008. “Reflecting on the Archaeological Research at Xiaotun, Anyang: Commemorating the 80th Anniversary of the Yinxu Excavations 安陽小屯考古研究 的回顧與反思—紀念殷墟發掘八十週年.” Wenshizhe 文史哲 3: 5–23. Chen, Chung-yu 陳仲玉. 1995. “Décor on the Si-spatulas from Yinxu 殷虛骨柶上的裝 飾藝術.” Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 中央研究 歷史語言研究所集刊 66, no. 3: 813–919, Plates 1–7. Chen, Hongbo 陳洪波. 2011. The Rise of Scientific Archaeology in China: History of Archaeological Research at the Institute of History and Philology, 1928–1949 中國科學考古學 的興起: 1928–1949 歷史語言研究所考古史. Guilin: Guangxi Normal University. Chen, Jianli 陳建立 and Liu Yu 劉煜, eds. 2011. Research on the Casting Technology of Clay Molds for Shang and Zhou Bronzes 商周青銅器的陶範鑄造技術研究. Beijing: Wenwu. Chen, Jianming 陳建明 and Nie Fei 聶菲. 2019. The Sorting and Research of Lacquerware from the Mawangdui Han Dynasty Tomb 馬王堆漢墓漆器整理與研究. Beijing: Zhonghua. Chen, Jie 陳絜. 2002. “On the Question of Lineages of the Residents of the Yinxu Settlement 試論殷墟聚落居民的族系問題.” Nankai xuebao 南開學報 6: 73–80. Chen, Kwang-tzu 陳光祖. 1991. “Studies of Metal Ingots from Yinxu and the Related Issues 殷墟出土金屬錠之分析及相關問題研究.” In Archaeology, History, and Culture: Collected Essays for the Eightieth Birthday of Mr. Kao Chun-hsun 考古與歷史文 化—慶祝高去尋先生八十大壽論文集, ed. Sung Wen-hsun, 宋文薰, 355–88. Taipei: Chengchung. Chen, Mengjia 陳夢家. 1956. General Research on the Oracle Bone Inscriptions at Yinxu 殷虛卜辭綜述. Beijing: Kexue. Chen, Pan 陳槃. 1949. “The Relationship between Hunting and Ritual in the Ancient Society.” 古社會狩獵與祭祀之關係.” Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊 21, no. 1: 1–17. Chen, Tiemei 陳鐵梅. 2016. “Re-examining the Origin of Proto-porcelains of the Shang and Zhou Periods Unearthed in Northern China Using a Macro and Historical Perspective 在宏觀和歷史的視角下對北方出土商周原始瓷產地的再探討.” Wenwu 文物 6: 63–69. Chen, Weizhan 陳煒湛. 1995. A Study of Hunting Inscriptions in Oracle Bone Inscriptions 甲骨文田獵刻辭研究. Nanning: Guangxi Jiaoyu. Chen, Xingcan 陳星燦. 2015. “Were Short-horned Water Buffalos Domesticated? An Archaeological and Iconographic Inquiry 聖水牛是家養水牛嗎？考古學與圖像學 的考察.” In Proceedings of the Conference Commemorating the 80th Anniversary of the Anyang Excavations 紀念殷墟發掘八十週年學術研討會論文集, ed. Li Yung-ti 李 永迪, 189–210. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. Chen, Xu 陳旭. 1985. “Craft Producers in the Shang Dynasty 商代手工業者.” In Proceedings for the National Conference of the Study of Shang History 全國商史學術討論會論 文集, ed. Hu Houxuan 胡厚宣, 91–105. Zhengzhou: Yindu xuekan. ——. 2002. “On Which King Established the Capital in Yinxu.” 關於殷墟為何王始都的 討論.” Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 4: 35–40. Chen, Zhenzhong 陳振中. 1984. “The Bronze Ju in Yin and Zhou.” 殷周的青銅鋸.” Kaogu 考古 1: 77–82.

219 B ibliography

Chen, Zhida 陳志達 . 1985. “Poultry and Livestock in the Late Shang Dynasty 商代晚期 的家畜和家禽.” Nongye kaogu 農業考古 2: 288–95. ——. 1986a. “Pottery Mould at Yinxu and Its Related Questions 殷墟陶範及相關的問 題.” Kaogu 考古 3: 269–77. ——. 1986b. “Technological Observation on the Jade Artifacts from Yinxu 殷墟玉器的 工藝考察.” Study of Chinese Archaeology: Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of Xia Nai’s Work in Archaeology 中國考古學研究：夏鼐先生考古五十年紀念文集, 210–19. Beijing: Wenwu. ——. 1987. “Analysis of the Yin Dynasty Palace-temple Complex in Xiaotun, Anyang 安陽小屯殷代宮殿宗廟遺址探討.” Wenwu ziliao congkan 文物資料叢刊 10: 68–79. Cheng, Te-K’un. 1960. Archaeology in China, Volume 2: Shang China. Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons. Cheung, Christina, Zhichun Jing, Jigen Tang, Zhanwei Yue, and Michael P. Richards. 2015. “Examining Social and Cultural Differentiation in Early Bronze Age China Using Stable Isotope Analysis and Mortuary Patterning of Human Remains at Xin’anzhuang, Yinxu.” Archaeological Anthropological Sciences 9, no. 5: 799–816. Childs-Johnson, Elizabeth, tr. 1983. “Excavation of Tomb no. 5 at Yinxu, Anyang.” Chinese Sociology and Anthropology 15, no. 3: 3–125. Chong, Jianrong 種建榮, and Lei Xingshan 雷興山. 2005. “On the Discovery of Western Zhou Elite Tombs and Rammed-Earth Wall Enclosures at the Site of Zhougongmiao 周公廟遺址西周大墓與夯土圍牆發現記.” Wenbo文博 (3): 68–73. ——. 2007. “A Pre-dynastic Zhou Bronze Foundry Site: Confirmation and Its Significance 先 周文化鑄銅遺存的確認及其意義.” Zhongguo wenwubao 中國文物報, 2007-11-30, 007. ——. 2009. “Exploring Late Shang Early Western Zhou Remains and Pre-Dynastic Zhou Culture at the Site of Kongtougou 孔頭溝遺址商末周初遺存與先周文化探索.” Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 (3): 42–48. Choyke, Alice M. 1997. “The Bone Tool Manufacturing Continuum.” Anthropozoologia 25–26: 65–72. Choyke, Alice M., and László Bartosiewicz, eds. 2001. Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies Through Time and Space. Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group, Budapest, August 31–September 5, 1999. British Archaeological Report International Series 937. Oxford: Archaeopress. Choyke, Alice M., and Sonia A. O’Connor, eds. 2013. From These Bare Bones: Raw Materials and the Study of Worked Osseous Objects. Proceedings of the Raw Materials Session at the 11th ICAZ Conference, Paris, 2010. Oxford: Oxbow. Christie, Jessica Joyce, Jelena Bogdanović, and Eulogio Guzmán, eds. 2016. Political Landscapes of Capital Cities. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. Chung, Po-sheng 鍾柏生. 1989. Essays on the Yin Shang Geography Seen in Oracle Bone Inscriptions 殷商卜辭地理論叢. Taipei: Yiwen. Clark, John E. 1995. “Craft Specialization as an Archaeological Category.” Research in Economic Anthropology 16: 267–94. Clark, John E., and William J. Parry. 1990. “Craft Specialization and Cultural Complexity.” Research in Economic Anthropology 12: 289–346. Colominas, Lídia. 2013. “Specialization or Re-utilization? Study of the Selection Documented in a Bone-working Refuse Assemblage from Roman Baetulo (Badalona, Spain).” In From These Bare Bones: Raw Materials and the Study of Worked Osseous Objects. Proceedings of the Raw Materials Session at the 11th ICAZ Conference, Paris, 2010, ed. A. M. Choyke and S. A. O’Connor, 88–96. Oxford: Oxbow.

220 B ibliography

Costin, Cathy L. 1991. “Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Craft Production.” Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 1–56. ——. 1998. “Introduction: Craft and Social Identity.” Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 8, no. 1: 3–16. ——. 2000. “The Use of Ethnoarchaeology for the Archaeological Study of Ceramic Production.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 377–403. ——. 2001. “Craft Production Systems.” In Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook, ed. Gary M. Feinman and T. Douglas Price, 273–327. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum. Costin, C. L., and M. B. Hagstrum. 1995. “Standardization, Labor Investment, Skill, and the Organization of Ceramic Production in Late Prehispanic Highland Peru.” American Antiquity 60, no. 4: 619–39. Costin, Cathy L. and Rita P. Wright, eds. 1998. Craft and Social Identity. Special issue of Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 8, no. 1: 3–16. Cowgill, George L. 2007. “The Urban Organization of Teotihuacan, Mexico.” In Settlement and Society: Essays Dedicated to Robert McCormick Adams, ed. Elizabeth C. Stone, 261–95. Los Angeles (CA) & Chicago (IL): Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, and Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. D’Altroy, Terence N., and Timothy K. Earle. 1985. “Staple Finance, Wealth Finance and Storage in the Inca Political Economy.” Current Anthropology 26, no. 2: 187–206. Dang, Ning 黨寧. 2005. “On the Character “Hu” in Oracle Bone Inscriptions 漫談甲骨文 中的 ‘虎’ 字.” In Essays on the History, Material Culture, and Archaeology in Anyang 安 陽歷史文物考古論集, ed. Zhu Aiqin 朱愛芹, 215–18. Zhengzhou: Daxiang. DeMarrais, Elizabeth, Luis J. Castillo, and Timothy K. Earle. 1996. “Ideology, Materialization and Power Strategies.” Current Anthropology 37, no. 1: 15–32. Ding, Shan 丁山. 1956. Lineages and Lineage System Reflected from Oracle Bone Inscription 甲骨文所見氏族及其制度. Beijing: Kexue (reissued by Zhonghua shuju, 1988.) ——. 1960. Research on the Historical Materials of Shang and Zhou 商周史料考證. Shanghai: Longman. Dirlik, Arif. 1974. “Mirror to Revolution: Early Marxist Images of Chinese History.” Journal of Asian Studies 33, no. 2: 193–223. ——. 1978. Revolution and History: Origins of Marxist Historiography in China, 1919–1937. Berkeley: University of California Press. ——. 1985. “The Universalisation of a Concept: From ‘feudalism’ to ‘Feudalism’ in Chinese Marxist Historiography.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 12, nos. 2–3: 197–227. Dobres, Marcia-Anne. 1999. “Technology’s Links and Chaîne: the Processual Unfolding of Technique and Technician.” In The Social Dynamics of Technology: Practice, Politics, and World Views, ed. Marcia-Anne Dobres and Christopher R. Hoffman, 124–46. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. ——. 2000. Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice Framework for Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell. Dong, Yawei 董亞巍. 2006. Clay-Mold Bronze Casting 範鑄青銅. Beijing: Beijing yishu yu kexue dianzi. ——. 2013a. “Clay Mold Bronze Casting Replication Experiments of Round-and SquareBased Gui Vessels of the Shang and Western Zhou Periods, Part One 商至西周圓形 簋及方座簋的範鑄模擬實驗研究 （上）.” Identification and Appreciation to Cultural Relics 文物鑑定與鑑賞 9: 44–49.

221 B ibliography

——. 2013b. “Clay Mold Bronze Casting Replication Experiments of Round-and SquareBased Gui Vessels of the Shang and Western Zhou Periods, Part Two 商至西周圓形 簋及方座簋的範鑄模擬實驗研究 （中）.” Identification and Appreciation to Cultural Relics 文物鑑定與鑑賞 10: 62–69. ——. 2013c. “Clay Mold Bronze Casting Replication Experiments of Round-and SquareBased Gui Vessels of the Shang and Western Zhou Periods, Part Three 商至西周圓 形簋及方座簋的範鑄模擬實驗研究（下）.” Identification and Appreciation to Cultural Relics 文物鑑定與鑑賞 11: 68–72. Dong, Zuobin (See Tung, Tso-pin) Du, Jinpeng 杜金鵬. 2006. “Preliminary Research on the Archaeological Discovery of Royal Garden 試論商代早期王宮池苑考古發現.” Kaogu 考古 11: 55–65. ——. 2010. Studies on the Architectural Foundations of the Palace-Temple District at Yinxu 殷墟宮殿區建築基址研究. Beijing: Science Press. ——. 2018. “A Discussion on the Jade and Lithic Craft Industries in the Palace District of Yinxu 殷墟宮殿區玉石手工業遺存探討.” Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 5: 27–37. Durrant, Stephen, Wai-yee Li, and David Schaberg, trans. 2016. Zuo Tradition: Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Earle, Timothy K. 1987. “Specialization and the Production of Wealth: Hawaiian Chiefdoms and the Inka Empire.” In Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, ed. E. M. Brumfiel and T. K. Earle, 64–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eerkens, Jelmer W. 2000. “Practice Makes Within 5 Percent of Perfect: Visual Perception, Motor Skills, and Memory in Artifact Variation.” Current Anthropology 41, no. 4: 663–68. Eerkens, Jelmer W., Hector Neff and Michael D. Glascock. 2002. “Ceramic Production Among Small-Scale and Mobile Hunters and Gatherers: A Case Study from the Southwestern Great Basin.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21, no. 2: 200–229. Eerkens, Jelmer W., and Robert L. Bettinger. 2001. “Techniques for Assessing Standardization in Artifact Assemblages: Can We Scale Material Variability?” American Antiquity 66, no. 3: 493–504. Eerkens, Jelmer W. and Carl P. Lipo. 2005. “Cultural Transmission, Copying Errors, and the Generation of Variation in Material Culture and the Archaeological Record.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24, no. 4: 316–34. Elvin, Mark. 1986. “Was There a Transcendental Breakthrough in China?” In The Origins and Diversity of the Axial Age, ed. S. N. Eisenstadt, 325–59. Albany: State University of New York Press. ——. 1993. “Three Thousand Years of Unsustainable Growth: China’s Environment from Archaic Times to the Present.” East Asian History 6: 7–46. ——. 2005. The Retreat of the Elephants: An Environmental History of China. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Emery, Kitty F. 2001. “The Economics of Bone Artifact Production in the Ancient Maya Lowlands.” In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space, ed. Alice M. Choyke and Lazlo Bartosiewicz, 73–84. Oxford: Archaeopress. ——. 2008. “Techniques of Ancient Maya Bone Working: Evidence from a Classic Maya Deposit.” Latin American Antiquity 19, no. 2: 204–21. Expert Team 2000. 夏商周斷代工程專家組. 2000. Periodic Report of the Xia Shang Zhou Chronology Project from 1996 to 2000 夏商周斷代工程 1996–2000 年階段成果 報告 . Beijing: World Publishing Co. Fairbank, Wilma. 1972. “Piece-Mold Craftsmanship and Shang Bronze Design.” In Adventures in Retrieval: Han Murals and Shang Bronzes, 181–201. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

222 B ibliography

University Press. (Revised version of an article originally published in Archives of the Chinese Art Society of America 16 [1962]: 8–15.) Falkenhausen, Lothar. 2008. “Stages in the Development of ‘Cities’ in pre-Imperial China.” In The Ancient City: New Perspectives on Urbanism in the Old and New World, ed. Joyce Marcus and Jeremy Sabloff , 209–28. Santa Fe, NM: School of Advanced Studies Press. ——. 2018. “The Economic Role of Cities in Eastern Zhou China.” Archaeological Research in Asia 14: 161–69. Feinman, Gary M. 1999. “Rethinking Our Assumptions: Economic Specialization at the Household Scale in Ancient Ejutla, Oaxaca, Mexico.” In Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction, ed. James M. Skibo and Gary M. Feinman, 81–98. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Feinman, Gary M., and Joyce Marcus, eds. 1998. Archaic States. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Feinman, Gary M., and Linda M. Nicholas, eds. 2004. Archaeological Perspectives on Political Economies: Foundations of Archaeological Inquiry. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Feng, Fugen 馮富根, Wang Zhenjiang 王振江, Bai Rongjin 白榮金, and Hua Jueming 華覺明. 1980. “Preliminary Report of Attempted Replication Casting of Shang Bronzes 商代青銅器試鑄簡報.” Kaogu 考古 1: 91–94. Feng, Fugen 馮富根 , Wang Zhenjiang 王振江, Hua Jueming 華覺明, and Bai Rongjin 白榮金. 1982. “Reconstruction Studies of Shang Bronze Gu-vessels from Yinxu 殷墟出土商代青銅觚鑄造工藝的復原研究.” Kaogu 考古 5: 532–39, 527, 540–41, 572. Fenghao Archaeology Team, Institute of Archaeology, CASS 中國社會科學院考古研 究所豐鎬隊. 2014. “The Bone Workshop Remains of the Western Zhou Dynasty at Fengcun Village North in Chang’an District, Xi’an City 西安市長安區馮村北西周時 期製骨作坊.” Kaogu 考古 11: 29–43. Fiskesjö, Magnus. 2001. “Rising from Blood-Stained Fields: Royal Hunting and State Formation in Shang Dynasty China.” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 73: 48–191. Foias, Antonia E., Diane Z. Chase, and Arlen F. Chase. 2013. Ancient Maya Political Dynamics. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Fong, Wen, ed. 1980. The Great Bronze Age of China: An Exhibition from the People’s Republic of China. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art; Knopf. Franklin, Ursula Martius. 1983a. “The Beginnings of Metallurgy in China: A Comparative Approach.” In The Great Bronze Age of China: A Symposium, ed. George Kuwayama, 94–99. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art; Seattle: distributed by University of Washington Press. ——. 1983b. “On Bronze and Other Metals in Early China.” In The Origins of Chinese Civilization, ed. David N. Keightley, 279–96. Berkeley: University of California Press. ——. 1992. The Real World of Technology. Toronto: Anansi. Freestone, Ian C., Nigel Wood, and Jessica Rawson. 1989. “Shang Dynasty Casting Moulds from North China.” In Cross-Craft and Cross-Cultural Interactions in Ceramics, ed. Patrick E. McGovern, 253–74. Columbus, Ohio: American Ceramics Society. Fu, Ssu-nien (also Fu, Si’nian) 傅斯年. 1930. “A Recount of the Anyang Excavations by the Institute of History and Philology 本所發掘安陽殷墟之經過.” Anayng fajue baogao 安陽發掘報告 2: 387–404. Fu, Zhongyang 付仲楊. 2015. “The Bone Workshop Remains and Bone Industry in Fenghao 豐鎬遺址的製骨遺存與製骨手工業.” Kaogu 考古 9: 92–100.

223 B ibliography

Fu, Zhongyang 付仲楊, Li Zhipeng 李志鵬, and Xu Lianggao 徐良高. 2014. “Western Zhou Bone Workshop at Fengcun North, Chang’an District, Xi’an.”西安市長安區馮 村北西周時期製骨作坊.” Kaogu 考古11: 29–43. Gates, Charles. 2011. Ancient Cities: The Archaeology of Urban Life in the Ancient Near East and Egypt, Greece and Rome. 2nd ed. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Gettens, Rutherford John. 1967. “Joining Methods in the Fabrication of Ancient Chinese Bronze Ceremonial Vessels.” In Application of Science in Examination of Works of Art, 205–17. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. ——. 1969. The Freer Chinese Bronzes, Volume II: Technical Studies. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Gibson, Harry E. 1935. “Animals in the Writings of Shang.” The China Journal of Science and Arts 23, no. 6: 342–51. ——. 1938. “Domestic Animals of Shang and Their Sacrifice.” Journal of the North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 69: 9–22. Gómez-Chávez, Sergio. 2012. “Structure and Organization of Neighborhoods in the Ancient City of Teotihuacan. In The Neighborhood as a Social and Spatial Unit in Mesoamerican Cities, ed. Marie-Charlotte Arnauld, Linda R. Manzanilla, and Michael E. Smith, 74–102. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Guo, Baojun 郭寶鈞. See Kuo Pao-jün. Guo, Ruiji 郭睿姬. 1999. “Preliminary Research on the Relationship between the Natural Environment and the Shang Dynasty 殷墟的自然環境與殷王朝的關係試探.” Huaxia kaogu 華夏考古 3: 87–90. Haapanen, Minna. 2005. “From a Community to Communities of Practice: The Late Dynasty Site of Miaopu Locus North at Anyang, Henan Province, China.” PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles. Han, Jianye 韓建業. 1997. “Analysis on the Cemeteries in the West Area of Yinxu 殷墟西 區墓地分析.” Kaogu 考古 1: 62–72. He, Jingcheng 何景成. 2009. Study of the Lineage Inscriptions from Shang and Zhou Bronzes 商周青銅器族氏銘文研究. Jinan: Qilu Book Publishing Co., Ltd. He, Yuling 何毓靈. 2009. “On the Nature of the Subterranean Dwellings at Xiaomintun, Yinxu, Anyang, and the Related Issues 試論安陽殷墟孝民屯遺址半地穴建築群的 性質及相關問題.” Huaxia kaogu 華夏考古 2: 98–108. ——. 2011. “Analysis of the Forms of Managerial Control in Craft Production at Yinxu 殷 墟手工業生產管理模式探析.” Sandai kaogu 三代考古 4: 279–89. ——. 2013. “Reinvestigating the Owner of Huayuanzhuang East Tomb No.54 殷墟花園庄 東地 M54 墓主再研究.” Sandai kaogu 三代考古 5: 110–17. ——. 2014a. “Examining the Nature of the Bronze Hoard at Liujiazhuang North, Yinxu 殷 墟劉家莊北地青銅窖藏坑性質探析.” Nanfang wenwu 南方文物 1: 96–100. ——. 2014b. “Dating the Early Looting of the Yinxu Royal Cemetery 殷墟王陵早期被盜 年代研究.” Kaogu 考古 6: 92–100. ——. 2016a. “Study on the Archaeological Records of the Zhou Conquest over Shang at Yinxu 殷墟周人滅殷遺存研究.” Sandai kaogu 三代考古 6: 287–308. ——. 2016b. “Discovery of Bronze and Bone Workshop Remains in the Huanbei Shang City, Anyang, Henan 河南安陽洹北商城發現鑄銅製骨手工業作坊遺址.” Zhongguo wenwupao 中國文物報 12.16 Page 8. http://www.kaogu.cn/cn/xccz/20161219/56519.html. ——. 2017. “The Discovery of Bronze and Bone Workshops in Huanbei Shang City 無心 插柳柳成蔭－洹北商城鑄銅、製骨手工業作坊的發現.” Dazhong kaogu 大眾考古 3: 28–35.

224 B ibliography

He Yuling 何毓靈, and Tang Jigen 唐際根. 2010. “A Brief Report of the Excavation of Compound II within the Palace-Temple District at Huanbei Shang City in Anyang, Henan 河南安陽市洹北商城宮殿區二號基址發掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古 1: 9–22, 97–100, 113. Hein, Anke. 2016. “The Problem of Typology in Chinese Archaeology.” Early China 39: 21–52. Heji (Jiaguwen Heji). See Institute of History, CASS, 1982. Helms, Mary W. 1993. Craft and the Kingly Ideal: Art, Trade, and Power. Austin: University of Texas Press. Henan Provincial Cultural Affairs Bureau Cultural Relics Work Team 河南省文化局文 物工作隊. 1958. “Preliminary Report of the 1958 Spring Excavation of the Yin Cemeteries in Dasikong Village, Anyang City, Henan 1958年春河南安陽市大司空村殷代 墓葬發掘簡報.” Kaogu tongxun 考古通訊 10: 51–62, 6–10. ——. 1958. “Preliminary Report of the Excavations of Yin Remains, Burials, and Tang Burials in Xuejiazhuang, Anyang, Henan 河南安陽薛家庄殷代遺址、墓葬和唐墓 發掘簡報.” Kaogu tongxun 考古通訊 8: 23–26, 5. Henan Provincial Cultural Affairs Bureau Work Team Team One 河南省文化局文物工 作隊第一隊. 1958. “Excavation of Yinxu, Xiaotun, Anyang in Fall 1955 1955 年秋安陽 小屯殷墟的發掘.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 3: 63–72, 151–54. Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 河南省文物考古研究所. 2001. The Shang Dynasty City in Zhengzhou: A Report on the Archaeological Excavation in 1953–1985. 鄭州商城(1953–1985 年考古發掘報告). Beijing: Wenwu. Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics 河南省文物研究所. 1989. “Bronze Production Remains in Zhengzhou from the Shang Dynasty Erligang Period 鄭州商代二里 崗期鑄銅遺址.” Kaoguxue jikan 考古學集刊 6: 100–122. Hruby, Z. X., and R. Flad, eds. 2007. Rethinking Craft Specialization in Complex Societies: Archaeological Analyses of the Social Meaning of Production. Berkeley: University of California Press. Holmes, Lore L., and G. Harbottle. 1991. “Provenance Study of Cores from Chinese Bronze Vessels.” Archaeomaterials 5, no. 2: 165–84. Hou, Lianhai 侯連海. 1989. “On the Birds from the Early Yinxu Period 記安陽殷墟早期 的鳥類.” Kaogu 考古 10: 942–47, 964–65. Hsu, Cho-yun 許倬雲. 1965. Ancient China in Transition: An Analysis of Social Mobility, 722–222 B.C. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Hu, Houxuan 胡厚宣. 1944a. Essays on Oracle Bone Studies and Shang History 甲骨學商 史論叢初集. 2 vols. Chengdu: Qilu daxue guoxue yanjiusuo. ——. 1944b. “The Origin of the Divinatory Turtle Shell of Yin Dynasty 殷代卜龜之來源.” In Hu Houxuan 1944a, volume 4, 1–23. ——. 1944c. “Discussion on Climate Changes and the Climate in the Yin Dynasty 氣侯變 遷與殷代氣侯之檢討.” Zhongguo wenhua yanjiu huikan 中國文化研究會刊 4: 1–84, 289–90. (Reprinted in Hu Houxuan 1973: 293–419.) ——. 1955. The Excavations of Yinxu 殷墟發掘. Shanghai: Xuexi shenghuo. Reprinted by Fudan University Press, 2017. ——. 1972. “Sericulture and Silk Weaving in the Yin Dynasty 殷代的蠶桑和絲織.” Wenwu 文物11: 2–7, 36, 72. ——. 1994. “Examining Climate and Climatic Change of the Yin Dynasty 氣候變遷與殷 代氣候之檢討.” Zhonguo wenhua yanjiu huikan 中國文化研究彙刊 4: 1–84, 289–90. Reprinted in Hu Houxuan, Collected Essays on the Study of Oracle–bone Inscriptions

225 B ibliography

and the Shang History 甲骨學商史論叢二集 Chengdu: Qilu daxue yanjiusuo, vol. 2: 1–64. Hu, Houxuan 胡厚宣, ed. 1983. Oracle Bone Inscriptions and the History of Yin Shang 甲骨文與殷商史. Shanghai: Shanghai guji. Hua, Jueming 華覺明. 1999. Ancient Chinese Metal Technology 中國古代金屬技術. Zhengzhou: Daxiang. Hua, Jueming 華覺明, Feng Fugen 馮富根, Wang Zhenjiang 王振江, and Bai Rongjin 白 榮金. 1981. “Study of Casting Methods of Bronzes from Lady Hao’s Tomb 婦好墓青 銅器鑄造技術的研究.” Kaoguxue jikan 考古學集刊 1: 244–72. Huang, Ranwei 黃然偉. 1964–65. “Research of the Hunting Activity of Shang Kings (Parts 1–3) 殷王田獵考 (上, 中, 下).” Zhongguo wenzi 中國文字 14–16. Huang, Tianshu 黃天樹. 1991. Typology and Chronology of the Royal Oracle Bone Inscriptions 殷墟王卜辭的分類與斷代. Taipei: Wenjing. ——. 2000. “Research on the Zi-Group Oracle Bone Inscriptions 子組卜辭研究.” Zhongguo wenzi 中國文字 26: 11–32. Huang, Zhanyue 黃展岳. 1974. “Human Sacrifice in Ancient China 我國古代的人殉和 人牲：從人殉, 人牲看孔丘 ‘克己復禮’ 的反動性.” Kaogu 考古 3: 153–63. ——. 1983. “Rethinking the Human Sacrifice in Shang Burials: Also on Animal Sacrifice 殷商墓葬中人殉人牲的再考察: 附論殉牲祭牲.” Kaogu 考古 10: 935–49. ——. 1989. “Human Sacrifice and Ancient Chinese Society.” Archaeological Review from Cambridge 8, no. 1: 76–80. ——. 1990. Human Sacrifice in Ancient China 中國古代的人牲人殉. Beijing: Wenwu. ——. 1996. “Overview of the New Materials of Human Sacrifice in Ancient China 中國古 代的人牲人殉新資料概述.” Kaogu 考古 12: 53–61. ——. 2004. General Theory of Ancient Human Sacrifice 古代人牲人殉通論. Beijing: Wenwu. Hubei Provincial Museum 湖北省博物館. 2007. Panlongcheng: Bronze Civilization in Middle Yangtze River 盤龍城: 長江中游的青銅文明. Beijing: Wenwu. Hubei Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 湖北省文物考古研究所. 2001. Panlongcheng: 1963–1994 Excavation Report 盤龍城: 1963–1994 年考古發掘報 告. 2 vols. Beijing: Wenwu. Huber, Louisa G. F. 1983. “Some Anyang Royal Bronzes: Remarks on Shang Bronze Decor.” In The Great Bronze Age of China: A Symposium, ed. G. Kuwayama, 16–43. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Hwang, Ming-chorng 黃銘崇. 2012. “The ‘fen-qi’ Phenomena in Western Zhou Tombs Observed in Archaeological Discoveries and Types and Stages of Ritual System During the Western Zhou Period, Part One 從考古發現看西周墓葬的「分器」現象與 西周時代禮器制度的類型與階段（上篇）.” Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 歷史語言研究所集刊 83, no. 4: 607–70. ——. 2013. “The ‘fen-qi’ Phenomena in Western Zhou Tombs Observed in Archaeological Discoveries and Types and Stages of Ritual System During the Western Zhou Period, Part Two 從考古發現看西周墓葬的「分器」現象與西周時代禮器制度的類型與 階段（下篇）.” Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 歷史語言研究所集 刊 84, no. 1: 1–82. ——. 2017. Taming of Elephants by the Shang People: Facts and Fabrication 商人服象－ 事實與想像. http://kam-a-tiam.typepad.com/blog/2017/09/%E5%95%86%E4%BA%B A%E6%9C%8D%E8%B1%A1%E4%BA%8B%E5%AF%A6%E8%88%87%E6%83%B3%E 5%83%8F.html.

226 B ibliography

IA. See Institute of Archaeology. Inomata, Takeshi. 2001. “The Power and Ideology of Artistic Creation: Elite Craft Specialists in Classic Maya Society.” Current Anthropology 42, no. 3: 321–49. Institute of Archaeology (IA), Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 中國社會科學院考古 研究所, ed. 1980. Tomb of Lady Hao at Yinxu in Anyang 殷虛婦好墓. Beijing: Wenwu. Institute of Archaeology Laboratory, CASS 中國社會科學院考古研究所實驗室. 1982. “Chemical Analysis of Metal Objects from Yinxu I: Analysis of Bronzes from the Fuhao Tomb 殷墟金屬器物成分的測定報告 (一)：婦好墓銅器測定.” Kaoguxue jikan 考古學集刊 2: 181–93. ——. 1980a. Oracle Bones from Xiaotun South 小屯南地甲骨 . Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. ——. 1982. Yinxu Jades 殷墟玉器. Beijing: Wenwu. ——. 1985. Yinxu Bronzes 殷墟青銅器. Beijing: Wenwu. ——. 1987. Report of the 1958–1961 Yinxu Excavations 殷墟發掘報告：1958–1961. Beijing: Wenwu. ——. 1994. Archaeological Excavation and Researches in the Yin Ruins 殷墟的發現與研 究. Beijing: Science. ——. 1998. Guojiazhuang Cemetery of the Shang Period within the Yin Ruins, Anyang 安陽殷墟郭家庄商代墓葬: 1982–1992 年考古發掘報告. Beijing. ——. 1999. The Erlitou Site in Yanshi: Report on the Excavation in 1959–1978 偃師二里 頭: 1959 年–1978 年考古發掘報告. Beijing: The Encyclopedia of China Publishing House. ——. 2001. Archaeological Excavation and Researches in the Yin Ruins 殷墟的發現與研 究. 2nd ed. Beijing: Science. ——. 2003. Chinese Archaeology: Xia and Shang 中國考古學: 夏商卷. Beijing: China Social Sciences. ——. 2004. Report of Excavations near the Village of Xiaotun, Anyang 安陽小屯. Beijing: Shijie Tushu. ——. 2007. Report on the Excavations at Huayuanzhuang Locus East in Anyang 安陽殷墟 花園庄東地商代墓葬. Beijing: Science. ——. 2010. Architectural Remains in Xiaotun Village, Yinxu, Anyang 安陽殷墟小屯建築 遺存. Beijing: Wenwu. ——. 2014. Dasikong, Anyang: Excavation Report for the 2004 Season 安陽大司空: 2004 年發掘報告. Beijing: Wenwu. ——. 2018. Xiaomintun, Anyang (IV)—Yin-Shang Period Remains: Burials 安陽孝民屯 （四）殷商遺存：墓葬. Beijing: Wenwu. ——. 2020. Xiaomintun, Anyang (III)—Yin-Shang Period Remains: Foundry Debris 安陽 孝民屯（三）殷商遺存：鑄銅遺物. Beijing: Wenwu. Institute of History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 中國社會科學院歷史研究所. 1982. Corpus of Oracle-bone Inscriptions 甲骨文合集. Beijing: Zhonghua. Institute of History, CASS 中國社會科學院歷史研究所, and Institute of Archaeology, CASS 中國社會科學院考古研究所. Jiangxi Cultural Relics Work Team 江西省文物工作隊 and Yingtan Municipal Museum 鷹潭市博物館. 1987. “Preliminary Report of Test Excavations of Shang Dynasty Kiln Sites at Jiaoshan, Yingtan 鷹潭角山商代窯址試掘簡報.” Jiangxi lishi wenwu 2: 32–38, 39–44. Jing, Zhichun, Tang Jigen, Liu Zhongfu, and Yue Zhanwei. 2004. “Survey and Test Excavation of the Huanbei Shangcheng in Anyang.” Chinese Archaeology 4: 1–20.

227 B ibliography

Jing, Zhichun, Tang Jigen, George Rapp, Jr., and Jim Stoltman. 2013. “Recent Discoveries and Some Thoughts on Early Urbanization at Anyang.” In A Companion to Chinese Archaeology, ed. A. P. Underhill, 343–66. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Jing, Zhongwei 井中偉. 2010. “Dates and Contexts of the Early Looter’s Pits in the Royal Cemetery at Yinxu 殷墟王陵區早期盜掘坑的發生年代與背景.” Kaogu 考古 7: 78–90. Jordan, Jillian M, and Keith M Prufer. 2017. “Identifying Domestic Ceramic Production in the Maya Lowlands: A Case Study from Uxbenká, Belize.” Latin American Antiquity 28, no. 1: 66–87. Johnson, Eileen. 1982. “Paleoindian Bone Expediency Tools: Lubbock Lake and Bonfire Shelter.” Canadian Journal of Anthropology 2, no. 2: 145–57. ——. 1985. “Current Developments in Bone Technology.” In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, ed. M. B. Schiffer, 157–235. New York: Academic. Kane, Virginia C. 1974/1975. “The Independent Bronze Industries in the South of China Contemporary with the Shang and Western Chou Dynasties.” Archives of Asian Art 28: 77–107. Karlbeck, Orvar. 1935. “Anyang Moulds.” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 7: 39–60. Karlgren, Bernhard. 1936. “Yin and Chou in Chinese Bronzes.” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 8: 9–156. ——. 1945. “Some Weapons and Tools of the Yin Dynasty.” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 17: 101–44. Keightley, David N. 1978a. Sources of Shang History: The Oracle-Bone Inscriptions of Bronze Age China. Berkeley: University of California Press. ——. 1978b. “The Religious Commitment: Shang Theology and the Genesis of Chinese Political Culture.” History of Religions 17, No. 3–4: 211–24. ——. 1979–80. “The Shang State as Seen in the Oracle-Bone Inscriptions.” Early China 5: 25–34. ——. 1983. “The Late Shang State: When, Where, and What?” In The Origins of Chinese Civilization, ed. David N. Keightley, 523–64. Berkeley: University of California Press. ——. 1999a. “The Environment of Ancient China.” In The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C., ed. Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy, 30–36. New York: Cambridge University Press. ——. 1999b. “The Shang: China’s First Historical Dynasty.” In The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C., ed. Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy, 232–91. New York: Cambridge University Press. ——. 2012. Working for His Majesty. Institute of East Asian Studies. Berkeley: University of California. ——. 2015. These Bones Shall Rise Again: Selected Writings on Early China. Albany: State University of New York Press. Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark, and Heather M.-L. Miller. 2007. “Multiple Crafts and Socioeconomic Associations in the Indus Civilization: New Perspectives from Harappa, Pakistan.” In Craft Production in Complex Societies: Multicraft and Producer Perspectives, ed. I. Shimada, 152–83. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Kerr, Rose, and Nigel Wood. 2004. Science and Civilisation in China, Volume 5: Chemistry and Chemical Technology; Part 12, Ceramic Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

228 B ibliography

Kong, Deming 孔德銘. 2018. “Study of the Social Organization and its Nature at the Yinxu Capital: Using Yinxu Handy-Craft Workshops as Examples 殷墟王都社會基層組織 及性質探討――以殷墟手工業作坊遺址為例.” Yindu xuekan 殷都學刊 3: 14–19, 34. Kong, Deming 孔德銘, Shen Mingqing 申明清, Li Guichang 李貴昌, and Kong Weipeng 孔維鵬. 2017. “Excavations at the Bronze Foundry Site at Xindian, Anyang and the Significance. 河南省安陽市辛店商代鑄銅遺址發掘及學術意義.” Sandai kaogu 三代考古 7: 52–64. Kong, Deming 孔德銘, and Zhang Xiaoqin 張曉芹. 1995. “Introduction and Analysis on the Yinxu Bronze Tools Stored in Anyang City Museum 安陽市博物館藏殷墟青銅 生產工具選介及淺析.” Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 4: 107–10. Kuo Pao-chün 郭寶鈞 (also Guo Baojun). 1933. “Excavations in Zone B, Part 1 B 區發掘 記之一.” Anyang fajue baogao 安陽發掘報告 4: 579–608. ——. 1951. “Excavation Report of the 1950 Spring Season at Yinxu 一九五〇年春殷墟發 掘報告.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 5: 1–61. Kvamme, K. L., M. T. Stark, and W. A. Longacre. 1996. “Alternative Procedures for Assessing Standardization in Ceramic Assemblages.” American Antiquity 61, No.1: 116–26. Ledderose, Lothar. 2000. Ten Thousand Things: Module and Mass Production in Chinese Art. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lee, Yun Kuen. 2002a. “Building the Chronology of Early Chinese History.” Asian Perspectives 41, no. 1: 15–42. ——. 2002b. “Differential Resolution in History and Archaeology.” Journal of East Asian Archaeology 4, no. 1–4: 375–86. Lefeuvre, Jean A. (see also Lei Huanzhang). 1990–91. “Rhinoceros and Wild Buffaloes North of the Yellow River at the End of the Shang Dynasty: Some Remarks on the Graph and the Character 兕.” Monumenta Serica 39: 131–57. Legge, James. 1861. Confucian Analects: The Great Learning and the Doctrine of the Mean. London: Trübner. Lei Huanzhang 雷煥章 (see also Jean A. Lefeuvre). 1984. “On Si 兕試釋.” Zhongguo wenzi 中國文字 8: 84–110. Lei, Xingshan 雷興山. 2008. “On a Newly Identified Zhou Bronze Production Tool 論新 識的一種周系鑄銅工具.” Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 6: 73–78. ——. 2009. “On the Residences and Burials of Craft Producers at Zhouyuan: the Role of Special Artifact Types in the Study of Settlement Pattern 論周原遺址西周時期手工 業者的居與葬—兼談特殊器物在聚落結構研究中的作用.” Huaxia kaogu 華夏考 古 4: 95–101. Lemonnier, Pierre. 1992. Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 88. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Lewis, Mark Edward. 1990. Sanctioned Violence in Early China. Albany: State University of New York Press. ——. 2006. The Construction of Space in Early China. Albany: State University of New York Press. Li, Boqian 李伯謙. 1981. “Inquiries on the Distribution and Periodization of Stamped Geometric Patterned Pottery in Southern China 我國南方幾何形印紋陶遺存的分 區分期及其有關問題.” Beijing daxue xuebao (zhexue shehui kexue ban) 北京大學 學報（哲學社會科學版） 1: 38–56. ——. 1998. Research on the Structure and System of Chinese Bronze Age Culture 中國青銅 文化結構體系研究. Beijing: Kexue.

229 B ibliography

——. 2000. “On the Early Xia Culture: From the Dynastic Change of Xia-Shang-Zhou and Cultural Change of Archaeology 關于早期夏文化：從夏商周王朝更迭與考古 學文化變遷的關係談起.” Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 1: 11–14. ——. 2003. Essays on the Shang Culture 商文化論集. Beijing: Wenwu. ——. 2004. “Patterns of Development Among China’s Bronze Cultures.” In New Perspectives on China’s Past: Chinese Archaeology in the Twentieth Century. Volume 1: Cultures and Civilizations Reconsidered, ed. Xiaoneng Yang, 189–215. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; Kansas City: Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art. Li, Chi 李濟 (also Li, Ji). 1928. The Formation of the Chinese People: An Anthropological Enquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ——. 1930. “The 1929 Fall Excavation at Yinxu and Its Important Finds 民國十八年秋 季發掘殷墟之經過及其重要發現.” Anyang fajue baogao 安陽發掘報告 2: 219–52. ——. 1949. “On the Excavated Bronzes from Xiaotun, Part Two: Sharp Blade Objects 記小 屯出土的青銅器—中篇：鋒刃器.” Zhongguo kaogu xuebao 中國考古學報 4: 1–69. ——. 1952. “Illustration on the Stone Blades at Yinxu 殷墟有刃石器圖說.” Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊 23, no. 2: 523–619. ——. 1956. Hsiao-t'un. Volume III: Artifacts. Fascicle 1: Pottery of the Yin and Pre-Yin Period: A Classified and Descriptive Account with a Corpus of All the Main Types 小屯, 第三本, 殷虛器物, 甲編, 陶器：上輯. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 1957. The Beginnings of Chinese Civilization: Three Lectures Illustrated with Finds at Anyang. Seattle: University of Washington Press. ——. 1977. Anyang. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Li, Chi 李濟, and Wan Chia-pao 萬家保. 1964. Archaeologia Sinica, New Series, Number 1: Studies of the Ku-Beaker 中國考古報告集新編，古器物研究專刊，第一本： 殷虛出土青銅觚形器之研究. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 1966. Archaeologia Sinica, New Series, Number 2: Studies of the Chüeh-cup 中國考古 報告集新編，古器物研究專刊，第二本：殷虛出土青銅爵形器之研究. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 1968. Archaeologia Sinica, New Series, Number 3: Studies of the Bronze Chia-vessel 中國考古報告集新編，古器物研究專刊，第三本：殷虛出土青銅斝形器之研 究. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 1970. Archaeologia Sinica, New Series, Number 4: Studies of the Ting-cauldron 古 器物研究專刊，第四本：殷虛出土青銅鼎形器之研究. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 1972. Archaeologia Sinica, New Series, Number 5: Studies of Fifty-Three Ritual Vessels 中國考古報告集新編，古器物研究專刊，第五本：殷虛出土伍拾參件青銅容器 之研究. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. Li, Feng. 2008. Bureaucracy and the State in Early China: Governing the Western Zhou. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——. 2013. Early China: A Social and Cultural History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Li, Hongfei 李宏飛. 2014. “Periodization of the Western Zhou Archaeological Cultures in the Anyang Region 安陽地區西周時期考古學文化分期研究.” Nanfang wenwu 南方 文物 3: 130–38, 99. Li, Ji (see Li, Chi)

230 B ibliography

Li, Jinghua 李京華. 1994. Studies of Ancient Metallurgy of the Central Plains 中原古代冶 金技術研究. Zhengzhou: Zhouzhou guji. ——. 1999. “The Excavation and Study of the Bronze-casting Sites of Yin Dynasty Ruins in Anyang, China.” Bulletin of the Metal Museum 金属博物館紀要 31: 1–18. ——. 2003. Studies of Ancient Metallurgy of the Central Plains, Volume Two 中原古代冶 金技術研究第二集. Zhengzhou: Zhouzhou guji. Li, Ming-chu 李明珠, ed. 2005. Treasures from the Central Plains of Ancient China 王朝 秘寶：古中原考古文物展. Taipei: National Museum of History. Li, Qinglin 李清臨. 2011. “Study on the Manufacturing and Technology of Ceramic Water Pipes from Yinxu, Anyang 安陽殷墟出土陶水管的工藝與技術研究.” Jianghan kaogu 江漢考古 2: 103–7. Li, Wenjing 李文靜, Zhu Jian 朱劍, He Yuling 何毓靈, Tang Jigen 唐際根, Zheng Jianming 鄭建明, Zhou Guangming 周廣明, Yao Zhengquan 姚政權, Song Guoding 宋國定, and Wang Changsui 王昌燧. 2021. “The Origin and Fabrication Techniques of Proto-porcelains unearthed at Anyang, Henan 安陽殷墟出土原始瓷的產地與工 藝.” Huaxia kaogu 華夏考古 3: 94–105. Li, Yung-ti 李永迪. 2003. “The Anyang Bronze Foundries: Archaeological Remains, Casting Technology, and Production Organization.” PhD diss., Harvard University. ——. 2006. “On the Function of Cowries in Shang and Western Zhou China.” Journal of East Asian Archaeology 5, no. 1–4: 1–26. ——. 2007a. “Co-Craft and Multicraft: Section-Mold Casting and the Organization of Craft Production at the Shang Capital of Anyang.” In Craft Production in Complex Societies: Multicraft and Producer Perspectives, ed. I. Shimada, 184–223. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. ——. 2007b. “Specialization, Context of Production, and Alienation in the Production Process.” In Rethinking Craft Specialization in Complex Societies: Archaeological Analyses of the Social Meaning of Production (special issue), ed. Z. X. Hruby and R. Flad, 169–80. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 17, no. 1. ——. 2008. “Eastern Zhou Burials Found During the Second Excavation of Dasikong Village by the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica in 1936 1936 年史 語所大司空村第二次發掘的殷代遺存與東周時期墓葬.” Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 歷史語言研究所集刊 79, no. 4: 749–88. ——. 2014. “The Politics of Maps, Pottery, and Archaeology.” In Art and Archaeology of the Erligang Civilization, ed. Kyle Steinke, 137–46. Princeton, NJ: The P. Y. and Kinmay W. Tang Center for East Asian Art, Princeton University. ——. 2015a. “Multi-crafting in the Royal Palace: Evidence of Multi-craft Production in the Temple-Palace Complex at Xiaotun, Anyang 史語所安陽大連坑發掘所見的王 室手工業生產活動及其相關問題.” In Proceedings of the Conference Commemorating the 80th Anniversary of the Anyang Excavations 紀念殷墟發掘八十週年學術研討會 論文集, ed. Yung-ti Li, 51–80. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 2015b. “Deconstructing ‘Periphery’ and ‘Center’: Anyang and its Neighboring Region from the Perspectives of World Systems Theory and Interregional Interaction 解構「周邊」與「中心」：從世界體系及區域互動考古試論殷墟的對外關係.” In Proceedings of the Conference on “ ‘Periphery’ and ‘Center’: Archaeological Research of Anyang and the Surrounding Regions” “周邊”與“中心’：殷墟時期安陽及安陽 以外地區的考古發現與研究, ed. Yung-ti Li, 301–19. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica.

231 B ibliography

Li, Yung-ti 李永迪, ed. 2009. Gems of Yinxu: Catalogue of Selected Artifacts from Anyang in the Institute of History and Philology 殷墟出土器物選粹：慶祝中央研究院歷史 語言研究所八十週年. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 2015a. Proceedings of the Conference on “ ‘Periphery’ and ‘Center’: Archaeological Research of Anyang and the Surrounding Regions” “ ‘周邊”與“中心”：殷墟時期安陽 及安陽以外地區的考古發現與研究”. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 2015b. Proceedings of the Conference Commemorating the 80th Anniversary of the Anyang Excavations 紀念殷墟發掘八十週年學術研討會論文集. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. Li, Yung-ti 李永迪 and Yue Zhanwei 岳占偉. 2015. “Casting Molds from Anyang and Bronzes from Daijiawan and Shigushan 殷墟孝民屯東南地出土陶範與戴家灣石鼓 山銅器群.” In Shang and Zhou Bronzes in Daijiawan and Shigushan, Baoji 寶雞戴家 灣與石鼓山出土商周青銅器, ed. Chen Chao-jung 陳昭容, 506–12. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. Li, Yung-ti 李永迪, Yue Zhanwei 岳占偉, and He Yuling 何毓靈. 2018. “Annihilation or Decline: The Fall of Anyang as an Urban Center.” Archaeological Research in Asia 14: 97–105. Li, Yung-ti 李永迪, Yue Zhanwei 岳占偉, and Liu Yu 劉煜. 2007. “On Mold Fragments from Xiaomintun Southeast and New Understandings of Yinxu Bronzes 從孝民屯東 南地出土陶範談對殷墟青銅器的幾點新認識.” Kaogu 考古 3: 52–63. Li, Xiuzhen, Andrew Bevan, Marcos Martinón-Torres, Yin Xia, and Kun Zhao. 2016. “Marking Practices and the Making of the Qin Terracotta Army.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 42: 169–83. Li, Xueqin 李學勤. 1957. “Comment on General Research on the Oracle Bone Inscriptions at Yinxu by Chen Mengjia 評陳夢家殷虛卜辭綜述.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 3: 119–30. ——. 1958. “Non-Royal Oracle-Bone Inscriptions of the Reign of Di Xin 帝乙時代的非 王卜辭.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1: 43–74. ——. 1959. Preliminary Studies of the Yin Dynasty Geography 殷代地理簡論. Beijing: Kexue. ——. 1977. “On the Date of the Fuhao Tomb and Other Related Questions 論婦好墓的 年代及有關問題.” Wenwu 文物 11: 32–37. Reprinted in Li Xueqin, Studies of Newly Unearthed Bronzes 新出土青銅器研究, 18–26. Beijing: Wenwu, 1990. ——. 1980. “On the Shi Group Oracle Bone Inscriptions 關於師組卜辭的一些問題.” Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字研究 3: 32–42. ——. 2001. “On An Inscribed Elephant Scapula 關于象胛骨卜辭.” Zhongyuan wenwu 中 原文物 4: 57–59. Li, Xueqin 李學勤, and Peng Yushang 彭裕商. 1990. “New Thesis on the Periodization of Yinxu Oracle Bones.” 殷墟甲骨分期新論. Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 3: 37–44. ——. 1996. Studies of Periodization of Yinxu Oracle Bones 殷墟甲骨分期研究. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji. Li, Zhipeng 李志鵬, He Yuling 何毓靈, and Jiang Yude 江雨德 (see also Campbell, R). 2011. “Review and Re-Examination of Studies of Bone Workshops and Bone Production during the Late Shang Period at Yinxu 殷墟晚商製骨作坊與製骨手工業的研 究回顧與再探討.” Sandai kaogu 三代考古 4: 471–84. Liang, Siyong. See Liang Ssu-yung. Liang, Ssu-yung 梁思永. 1933. “Notes on the Excavations of Hougang 後岡發掘小記.” Anyang fajue baogao 安陽發掘報告 4: 609–25.

232 B ibliography

——. 1935. “Longshan and Yangshao at Xiaotun 小屯龍山與仰韶.” In Studies Presented to Ts’ai Yuan P’ei on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Part II 慶祝蔡元培先生六十五歲論文 集 下冊, 555–68. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Supplement no. 1. Liang, Ssu-yung 梁思永, and Kao Chü-hsün 高去尋. 1962. Houjiazhuang, Volume 2, HPKM 1001 侯家莊，第二本，1001 號大墓. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 1965. Houjiazhuang, Volume 3, HPKM 1002 侯家莊，第三本, 1002 號大墓. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 1967. Houjiazhuang, Volume 4, HPKM 1003 侯家莊，第四本, 1003 號大墓. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 1968. Houjiazhuang, Volume 6, HPKM 1217 侯家莊，第六本, 1217 號大墓. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 1970. Houjiazhuang, Volume 5, HPKM 1004 侯家莊，第五本, 1004 號大墓. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 1974. Houjiazhuang, Volume 7, HPKM 1500 侯家莊，第七本, 1500 號大墓. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 1976. Houjiazhuang, Volume 8, HPKM 1550 侯家莊，第八本，1550 號大墓. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 1996. Houjiazhuang, Volume 9, HPKM 1129, 1400, 1443 侯家莊，第九本, 1129, 1400, 1443號大墓. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. Lin, Yün (see also Lin, Yun). 1986. “A Reexamination of the Relationship Between Bronzes of the Shang Culture and of the Northern Zone.” In Studies of Shang Archaeology: Selected Papers from the International Conference on Shang Civilization, ed. K. C. Chang, 237–73. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Lin, Yun 林澐 (see also Lin, Yün). 1979. “A Discussion of Lineage Organization of the Shang Dynasty based on Zi Divination Inscriptions 從武丁時代的幾種 ‘子卜辭’ 試 論商代的家族形態.” Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字研究 1: 314–36. ——. 1981. “State Alliances in the Shang Dynasty as Seen in Oracle Bone Inscriptions 甲骨文中的商代方國聯盟.” Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字研究 6: 67–92. Linduff, Katheryn M., Han Rubin, and Sun Shuyun. 2000. The Beginnings of Metallurgy in China. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen. Liu, Hongjie 劉洪杰. 1993. “The Chinese Rhinoceros and Their Geographic Distribution in the Holocene 全新世的中國犀類及其地理分佈.” Chinese Journal of Zoology 動物 學雜誌 6: 37–42. Liu, Hongjie 劉洪杰, and Wenling Li 李文翎. 1992. “On the Succession of Animal Community in the Holocene Epoch and the Extinct Times of Some Tropical Animals in Yunmeng Plain, China 雲夢平原全新世動物群的演變與幾種大型熱帶性動物的 滅絕時期.” Tropical Geography 熱帶地理 12, no. 2: 185–91. Liu, Li. 1996. “Settlement Patterns, Chiefdom Variability, and the Development of Early States in North China.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15: 237–88. ——. 2003. “ ‘The Products of Minds as Well as of Hands’: Production of Prestige Goods in the Neolithic and Early State Periods of China.” Asian Perspectives 42, no. 1: 1–40. ——. 2009. “State Emergence in Early China.” Annual Review of Anthropology 38: 217–32. Liu, Li 劉莉, and Chen Xingcan 陳星燦. 2000. “Control over Natural Resources during the Xia and Shang Periods 夏商時期對自然資源的控制問題.” Dongnan wenhua 東 南文化 3: 45–60. ——. 2003. State Formation in Early China. London: Duckworth.

233 B ibliography

Liu, Li, Xingcan Chen, and Baoping Li. 2007. “Non-state Crafts in the Early Chinese State: An Archaeological View from the Erlitou Hinterland.” Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Bulletin 27: 93–102. Liu, Li 劉莉, Yang Dongya 楊東亞, and Chen Xingcan 陳星燦. 2006. “Origin of Domestication of Walter Buffalo in China 中國家養水牛起源初探.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學 報 2: 141–78. Liu, Ruiliang, A. Mark Pollard, Qin Cao, Cheng Liu, Victoria Sainsbury, Philly Howarth, Peter Bray, Limin Huan, Bohao Yao,Yuting Fu, and Jigen Tang. 2020. “Social Hierarchy and the Choice of Metal Recycling at Anyang, the Last Capital of Bronze Age Shang China.” Scientific Reports 10, 18794. Liu, Siran, Kai Wang, Quanfa Cai, and Jianli Chen. 2013. “Microscopic Study of Chinese Bronze Casting Moulds from the Eastern Zhou Period.” Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 2402–14. Liu, Yiman 劉一曼, Guo Zhenlu 郭振祿, and Wen Mingrong 溫明榮. 1986. “Archaeological Excavations and the Periodization of Oracle Bone Inscriptions 考古發掘與卜 辭斷代.” Kaogu 考古 6: 547–57. Liu, Yu 劉煜, and Yue Zhanwei 岳占偉. 2004. “Preliminary Study of the Raw Materials and Their Preparation for the Yinxu Molds 殷墟陶範的材料及處理工藝的初步研 究.” In Proceedings of the International Symposium for the Late Shang Culture at Anyang 2004 年安陽殷商文明國際學術研討會論文集, ed. Wang Yuxin et al., 450–56. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic. ——. 2011. “Complex Production: Operational Sequence of the Late Shang Section-Mold Bronze Casting Technology 複雜化生產：晚商青銅器的陶範鑄造工藝流程.” In Research on the Casting Technology of Clay Molds for Shang and Zhou Bronzes商周 青銅器的陶範鑄造技術研究, ed. Chen Jianli. and Liu Yu, 81–94. Beijing: Wenwu. Liu, Yu 劉煜, Yue Zhanwei 岳占偉, He Yuling 何毓靈, and Tang Jinqiong 唐錦瓊. 2008. “Fabrication Techniques of Bronze Ritual Vessels Unearthed at Yinxu 殷墟出土青銅 禮器鑄型的製作工藝.” Kaogu 考古 12: 80–90. Loehr, Max. 1949. “Weapons and Tools from Anyang, and Siberian Analogies.” American Journal of Archaeology 53, no. 2: 126–44. ——. 1953. “The Bronze Styles of the Anyang Period.” Archives of the Chinese Art Society of America 7: 42–53. ——. 1956. Chinese Bronze Age Weapons. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ——. 1957. “The Stratigraphy of Hsiao-t’un (Anyang), with a Chapter on Hsiao-t’un Foundation Burials and Yin Religious Customs.” Ars Orientalis 2: 439–57. ——. 1968. Ritual Vessels of Bronze Age China. New York: Asia House Gallery. Longacre, W. A. 1991. “Sources of Ceramic Variability among the Kalinga of Northern Luzon.” In Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, ed. W. A. Longacre, 95–111. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. ——. 1999. “Standardization and Specialization: What’s the Link?” In Pottery and People, ed. J. Skibo and G. Feinman, 231–67. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Longacre, W. A., K. L. Kvamme, and M. Kobayashi. 1988. “Southwestern Pottery Standardization: An Ethnoarchaeological View from the Philippines.” Kiva 53: 101–12. Lu, Guoquan 路國權. 2011. “New Understanding and the Related Issues Regarding the Dates of Mold Fragments from Xiaomintun Southeast, Yinxu 殷墟孝民屯東南地出 土陶範年代的再認識及相關問題.” Kaogu 考古8: 66–72. Lü, Cheng-jui 呂承瑞. 1965a. “A Study of Bone Spatulas from Yinxu 殷墟骨柶之研究.” Master’s thesis, National Taiwan University.

234 B ibliography

——. 1965b. “The Classification of Bone Ssu of Yin-hsü 殷虛骨柶形制之分類.” Journal of Archaeological Anthropology 考古人類學刊 25–26: 33–60, Plates 1–6. Lü, Peng 呂鵬. 2015. “Zooarchaeological Observations on the Exploitation of Cattle by the Shang 商人利用黃牛資源的動物考古學觀察.” Kaogu 考古 11: 105–11. Luik, Heidi, Alice M. Choyke, Colleen E. Batey, and Lembi Lõugas, eds. 2005. From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth: Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group at Tallinn, August 26–31, 2003. Tallinn: Tallinn Book Printers. Luoyang Cultural Relics Work Team 洛陽市文物工作隊. 1983. “The 1975–1976 Excavations of the Western Zhou Bronze Foundry Site at Beiyao, Luoyang 1975–1979 年洛陽 北窯西周鑄銅遺址的發掘.” Kaogu 考古 5:430–441, 388, 485–86. Lyman, Lee. 1984. “Broken Bones, Bone Expediency Tools, and Bone Pseudotools: Lessons from the Blast Zone around Mount St. Helens, Washington.” American Antiquity 49, no. 2: 315–33. Ma, Dezhi 馬得志, Zhou Yongzhen 周永珍, and Zhang Yunpeng 張雲鵬. 1955. “Report of the 1953 Excavation at Dasikong Village, Anyang 一九五三年安陽大司空村發掘 報告.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 9: 25–90, 211–48. Ma, Xiaolin 馬蕭林. 2010. “Issues on the Study of Bone Artifacts in China 關於中國骨 器研究的幾個問題.” Huaxia kaogu 華夏考古 2: 138–42. MacGregor, Arthur. 1985. Bone, Antler, Ivory and Horn: The Technology of Skeletal Materials Since the Roman Period. London: Croom Helm. Madella, Marco, Gabriella Kovacs, Brigitta Kulcsarne-Berzsenyi, and Ivan Briz i Godino eds. 2013. The Archaeology of Household. Oxford: Oxbow. Manzanilla, Linda. 1997. Emergence and Change in Early Urban Societies: Fundamental Issues in Archaeology. New York: Plenum. ——. 2012. “Neighborhoods and Elite ‘Houses’ at Teotihuacan, Central Mexico.” In The Neighborhood as a Social and Spatial Unit in Mesoamerican Cities, ed. Marie-Charlotte Arnauld, Linda R. Manzanilla, and Michael E. Smith, 55–73. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Marcus, Joyce, and Jeremy A. Sabloff, eds. 2010. The Ancient City: New Perspectives on Urbanism in the Old and New World. Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research Press. Martinón-Torres, Marcos, Xiuzhen Janice Li, Andrew Bevan, Yin Xia, Kun Zhao, and Thilo Rehren. 2014. “Forty Thousand Arms for a Single Emperor: From Chemical Data to the Labor Organization Behind the Bronze Arrows of the Terracotta Army.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 21, no. 3: 534–62. Mei, Jianjun, Pu Wang, Kunlong Chen, Lu Wang, Yingchen Wang, and Yaxiong Liu. 2015. “Archaeometallurgical Studies in China: Some Recent Developments and Challenging Issues.” Journal of Archaeological Science 56: 221–32. Meng, Shikai 孟世凱. 1983. “Preliminary Study of the Nature of the Shang Royal Hunting 商代田獵性質初探.” In Oracle Bone Inscriptions and the History of Yin Shang 甲骨文 與殷商史, ed. Hu Houxuan 胡厚宣, 204–22. Shanghai: Shanghai guji. ——. 1990. “Nature and Function of Royal Hunting of the Yin Shang Period 殷商時代田 獵活動的性質與作用.” Lishi yanjiu 歷史研究 4: 95–104. Meng, Xianwu 孟憲武. 1991. “Bronzes Found at Dongwangdu, Sanjiazhuang, Anyang and A Study of Their Dates 安陽三家莊、董王度村發現的商代青銅器及年代推 定.” Kaogu 考古 10: 932–38.

235 B ibliography

——. 2003. Archaeological Research at Yinxu, Anyang 安陽殷墟考古研究. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou guji. Meng, Xianwu 孟憲武, and Li Guichang 李貴昌. 2004. “Study of the Corridored Architectural Foundations in Yinxu 殷墟四合院式建築基址考察.” Zhongyuan wenwu 中 原文物 5: 26–31. Meng, Xianwu 孟憲武, and Xie Shiping 謝世平. 2006. “Bone Production of the Yin Shang Period 殷商製骨.” Yindu xuekan 殷都學刊 3: 8–16. Meyers, Pieter and Lore L. Holmes. 1983. “Technical Studies of Ancient Chinese Bronzes.” In The Great Bronze Age of China: A Symposium, ed. George Kuwayama, 124–36. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art; Seattle: Distributed by University of Washington Press. Moorey, Roger Peter S. 1994. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Needham, Joseph et al. 1954–2008. Science and Civilisation in China. Multiple volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nicholson, Paul T. and Ian Shaw. 2000. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nickel, Lukas. 2006. “Imperfect Symmetry: Re-Thinking Bronze Casting Technology in Ancient China.” Artibus Asiae 66, no. 1: 5–39. Niu, Shishan 牛世山. 2016. “High-fired Pottery, Proto-porcelain, and Glazed Pottery from Yinxu: On the Origin of the Shang Proto-porcelains Found in the Central Plains and North China 殷墟出土的硬陶、原始瓷和釉陶—附論中原和北方地區商代原 始瓷的來源.” Kaogu 考古 8: 86–96. Peng, Bangjiong 彭邦炯. 1990. “Historical Study of ‘Zhong Ren’ of the Shang Dynasty: Regarding New Research on ‘Zhong Ren’ 商代 ‘眾人’ 的歷史考察: 關於 ‘眾人’ 的新 探索.” Tianfu xinlun 天府新論 3: 77–85. Peng, Ke, and Yanshi Zhu. 1995. “New Research on the Origin of Cowries Used in Ancient China.” Sino-Platonic Papers 68: 1–26. Peng, Ke 彭柯, and Zhu Yanshi 朱岩石. 1999. “New Study on the Origin of Sea Shells in Ancient China 中國古代所用海貝來源新探.” Kaoguxue jikan 考古學集刊 12: 119–47. Porter, Benjamin W. 2013. Complex Communities: The Archaeology of Early Iron Age WestCentral Jordan. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Quinn, Patrick Sean, Shangxin Zhang, Yin Xia and Xiuzhen Li. 2017. “Building the Terracotta Army: Ceramic Craft Technology and Organisation of Production at Qin Shihuang’s Mausoleum Complex.” Antiquity 91, no. 358: 966–79. Qiu, Xigui 裘錫圭. 1983. “Preliminary Study of the Lineage System and the Elite and Commoner Classes of the Shang Dynasty 關於商代的宗族組織與貴族和平民兩個 階級的初步研究.” Wenshi 文史 17: 1–26. Rawson, Jessica. 1999. “Western Zhou Archaeology.” In The Cambridge History of Ancient China, ed. Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy, 352–449. New York: Cambridge University Press. Reinhart, Katrinka. 2015. “Ritual Feasting And Empowerment at Yanshi Shangcheng.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 39: 76–109. ——. 2018. “Rethinking Urbanism in the Early Bronze Age of China: The Role of Craft Specialists and Community Politics in the Social Construction of Yanshi Shangcheng.” Archaeological Research in Asia 14: 106–120. Rice, Prudence M. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

236 B ibliography

Roux, Valentine. 1999. “Ethnoarchaeology and the Generation of Referential Models: The Case of Harappan Carnelian Beads.” In Ethno-Analogy and the Reconstruction of Prehistoric Artefact Use and Production, ed. L. Owen and M. Porr, 153–70. Tübingen: MoVince Verlag. ——. 2003. “Ceramic Standardization and Intensity of Production: Quantifying Degrees of Specialization.” American Antiquity 68, no. 4: 768–82. Roux, Valentine, and D. Corbetta. 1989. The Potter’s Wheel: Craft Specialization and Technical Competence. New Delhi: Oxford. Roux, Valentine, and Pierre Matarasso. 1999. “Crafts and the Evolution of Complex Society: New Methodologies for Modeling the Organization of Production, A Harappan Example.” In The Social Dynamics of Technology: Practice, Politics, and World Views, ed. Marcia-Anne Dobres and Christopher R. Hoffman, 46–70. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Sacharuk, Jasmine. 2014. “Late Shang (1200 bce–1046 bce) Bronze Casting Technology and Technological Behaviour.” Master’s thesis, the University of British Columbia. Sampson, Robert J., 2003. “Neighborhoods.” In Encyclopedia of Community: From the Village to the Virtual World, ed. Karen Christensen and David Levinson, 143–47. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schortman, Edward M., and Patricia A. Urban. 2004. “Modeling the Roles of Craft Production in Ancient Political Economies.” Journal of Archaeological Research, 12, no. 2: 185–226. Seetah, Krish, and Brad Gravina, eds. 2012. Bones for Tools—Tools for Bones: The Interplay Between Objects and Objectives. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology 陝西省考古研究院, Baoji Institute of Archaeology 寶雞市考古研究所, and Baoji Binwei District Museum 寶雞市渭濱區 博物館. 2016. “Preliminary Report of Tomb No. 4 of the Shang and Zhou Cemetery at Shigushan, Baoji, Shaanxi 陝西寶雞石鼓山商周墓地 M4 發掘簡報.” Wenwu 文 物 1: 4–52, 97. Shanghai Museum 上海博物館, ed. 2014. Noble Life of the Zhou: Bronzes Unearthed from the Cemetery of the Western Zhou Aristocrats at Shigushan of Baoji 周野鹿鳴：寶雞 石鼓山西周貴族墓出土青銅器. Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe. Shigushan Archaeological Team 石鼓山考古隊. 2013a. “Western Zhou Burials at Shigushan, Baoji, Shaanxi Province 陝西省寶雞市石鼓山西周墓.” Kaogu yu wenwu 考 古與文物 1: 3–24, 113–21. ——. 2013b. “Preliminary Excavation Report of the Western Zhou Burials at Shigushan, Baoji, Shaanxi 陝西寶雞石鼓山西周墓葬發掘簡報.” Wenwu 文物 2: 4–54, 97–98. Shaughnessy, Edward L. 1985–87. “Extra-Lineage Cult in the Shang Dynasty: A Surrejoinder.” Early China 11–12: 182–90. ——. 1988. “Historical Perspectives on the Introduction of the Chariot into China.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 48: 189–237. ——. 1989. “Historical Geography and the Extent of the Earliest Chinese Kingdoms.” Asia Major (3rd ser.) 2, no. 2: 1–22. ——. 1991. Sources of Western Zhou History: Inscribed Bronze Vessels. Berkeley: University of California Press. ——. 1999a. “Calendar and Chronology.” In The Cambridge History of Ancient China, ed. Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy, 19–29. New York: Cambridge University Press.

237 B ibliography

——. 1999b. “Western Zhou History.” In The Cambridge History of Ancient China, ed. Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy, 292–351. New York: Cambridge University Press. Shen, Jianhua 沈建華. 2004. “Territory and Tributes of the Shang Dynasty Seen in Oracle Bone Inscriptions 卜辭所見商代的封疆與納貢.” Zhongguo shi yanjiu 中國史研究 4: 3–14. Shi, Zhangru (see Shih, Chang-ju) Shih, Chang-ju 石璋如. 1933. “The Seventh Yinxu Excavation Season: Report for Zone E 第七次殷墟發掘：E 區工作報告.” Anyang fajue baogao 安陽發掘報告 4: 709–28. ——. 1947. “Recent Important Discoveries at Yinxu and A Discussion on the Stratigraphy at Xiaotun 殷墟最近之重要發現附論小屯地層.” Zhongguo kaogu xuebao 中國考古 學報 2: 1–81. ——. 1952. “Burial Groups in Zone C, Xiaotun 小屯 C 區的墓葬群.” Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊 23: 447–87. ——. 1953. “Animal Remains in the Yin Burials in Xiaotun, Anyang, Henan 河南安陽 小屯殷墓中的動物遺骸.” Taiwan daxue wen shi zhe xuebao 臺灣大學文史哲學報 5: 1–14. ——. 1955a. “Architectural Remains of the Yin Dynasty at Xiaotun 小屯殷代的建築遺 蹟.” Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 中央研究院歷 史語言研究所集刊26: 131–88. ——. 1955b. “Bronze Casting Technology of the Yin Dynasty 殷代的鑄銅工藝.” Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 中央研究院歷史語言研究 所集刊 26: 95–129. ——. 1959. Hsiao-t'un. Volume I, the Site, Its discovery, and Excavations. Fascicle 2: Architectural Remains 小屯，第一本，遺址的發現與發掘，乙編：建築遺存. Nankang: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan. ——. 1969. “Rammed Earth, Board-Frame Building, and Architectural Features of the Yin Dynasty 殷代的夯土, 版築, 與一般建築.” Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊 41, no. 1: 127–68. ——. 1972. Hsiao-t'un. Volume I, the Site, Its Discovery, and Excavations. Fascicle 3: Burials of the Middle Section 小屯，第一本，遺址的發現與發掘，丙編，殷虛墓葬之 二：中組墓葬. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 1973. Hsiao-t'un. Volume I, the Site, Its Discovery, and Excavations. Fascicle 3: Burials of the Southern Section and Northern Section Supplementary 小屯，第一本，遺址的 發現與發掘，丙編，殷虛墓葬之三：南組墓葬附北組墓補遺. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 1981. “ Two Important Features at the Site of Yinxu: The Great Connected Trenches and the Yellow-Earth Platform 殷虛遺址中的兩處重要遺蹟—大連坑與黃土臺.” Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 歷史語言研究所集刊 52, no. 4: 591–617. ——. 1985. Hsiao-t'un. Volume I, the Site, Its Discovery, and Excavations. Fascicle 4: Pit Provenience of the Oracle Bones, Part 1: Unearthed in the First Nine Seasons of Excavations 小屯，第一本，遺址的發現與發掘，丁編，甲骨坑層之一：一次至九次出土甲 骨. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 1987. “Reconstruction of the Yin Chariot 殷車復原說明.” Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 58, no. 2: 253–80.

238 B ibliography

——. 1992. Hsiao-t'un. Volume I, the Site, Its Discovery, and Excavations. Fascicle 4: Pit Provenience of the Oracle Bones, Part 2: Unearthed from the Thirteenth to the Fifteenth Seasons of Excavation 小屯，第一本，遺址的發現與發掘，丁編，甲骨坑層之 二：十三次至十五次出土甲骨. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 2001. Houjiazhuang, Volume X: Descriptions of Small Tombs One: 1005, 1022 and Other Eight Tombs and the “Yin Dynasty Ssu-Hsuan-Shih” 侯家莊，第十本，小墓分 述之一：1005、1022 等八墓與殷代的司烜氏. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. Shima, Kunio 島邦男. 1958. Studies of Yinxu Oracle Bone Inscriptions Inkyo bokuji kenkyū 殷墟卜辭研究. Hirosaki: Hirosaki daigaku Chū­goku kenkyūkai. ——. 1971. Corpus of Yinxu Oracle Bone Inscriptions Inkyo bokuji sōrui 殷墟卜辭綜類. 2nd rev. ed. Tokyo: Kyūko. Shimada, Izumi, ed. 2007. Craft Production in Complex Societies: Multicraft and Producer Perspectives. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Sino-American Huan River Valley Archaeological Team 中美洹河流域考古隊. 1998. “Preliminary Report of the Regional Surveys in the Huan River Valley 洹河流域區域 考古研究初步報告.” Kaogu 考古 10: 13–22. Sinopoli, Carla M. 2003. The Political Economy of Craft Production: Crafting Empire in South India, c. 1350–1650. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, Adam T. 2003. The Political Landscape: Constellations of Authority in Early Complex Polities. Berkeley: University of California Press. Smith, Cyril. 1981. A Search for Structure: Selected Essays on Science, Art and History. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Smith, Michael E. 2004. “The Archaeology of Ancient State Economies.” Annual Review of Anthropology 33: 73–102. ——. 2007. “Form and Meaning in the Earliest Cities: A New Approach to Ancient Urban Planning.” Journal of Planning History 6, no. 1: 3–47. ——. 2010. “The Archaeological Study of Neighborhoods and Districts in Ancient Cities.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29, no. 2: 137–54. Smith, Michael and Juliana Novic. 2012. “Neighborhoods and Districts in Ancient Mesoamerica.” In The Neighborhood as a Social and Spatial Unit in Mesoamerican Cities, ed. Marie Charlotte Arnauld, Linda R. Manzanilla, and Michael E. Smith, 1–26. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Smith, Monica L. 2003. The Social Construction of Ancient Cities. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books. Solari, A., et al. 2015. “Cooked Bones? Method and Practice for Identifying Bones Treated at Low Temperature.” International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 25, no. 4: 426–40. Song, Xinchao 宋新潮. 1991. Study of the Yin Shang Cultural Zones 殷商文化區域研究. Xi’an: Shaanxi renmin. Song, Zhenhao 宋鎮豪. 1991. “Preliminary Study of the Xia Shang Population 夏商人口 初探.” Lishi yanjiu 歷史研究 4: 92–106. ——. 1994. Social History of the Xia and Shang 夏商社會生活史. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue. St-Pierre, Christian Gates, and Reene B. Walker, eds. 2007. Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. Oxford: Archaeopress. Stein, Gil J., and M. James Blackman. 1993. “Organizational Context of Specialized Craft Production in Early Mesopotamian States.” Research in Economic Anthropology 14: 29–59.

239 B ibliography

Stoltman, James B., Jing Zhichun, Tang Jigen, and George Rapp. 2009. “Ceramic Production in Shang Societies of Anyang.” Asian Perspectives 33, no. 1: 181–202. Stoltman, James B., Yue Zhanwei, Zhichun Jing, Tang Jigen, James H. Burton, and Mati Raudsepp. 2018. “New Insights into the Composition and Microstructure of Ceramic Artifacts Associated with the Production of Chinese Bronzes at Yinxu, the Last Capital of the Shang Dynasty.” Archaeological Research in Asia 15: 88–100. Stone, Elizabeth C. 1987. Nippur Neighborhoods. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Stone, Elizabeth C., ed. 2007. Settlement and Society: Essays Dedicated to Robert McCormick Adams. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California. Storey, Glenn R., ed. 2009. Urbanism in the Preindustrial World Cross-Cultural Approaches. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Su, Rongyu 蘇榮譽, Hu Zhisheng 胡智生, Lu Liancheng 盧連成, Chen Yuyun 陳玉雲, and Chen Yiwei 陳依慰. 1988. “Technological and Metallurgical Studies of Bronzes from the Yu-state Cemetery 弓魚國墓地青銅鑄造工藝考察和金屬器檢測.” In The Cemetery of the State of Yu at Baoji 寶雞弓魚國墓地, ed. Lu Liancheng and Hu Zhisheng, 530–638. Beijing: Wenwu. Su, Rongyu 蘇榮譽, Hua Jueming 華覺明, Li Kemin 李克敏, and Lu Benshan 盧本珊. 1995. The Metal Technology of Early Ancient China 中國上古金屬技術. Jinan: Shandong Science and Technology Press. Su, Xiuju 蘇秀菊, and Nie Yuhai 聶玉海. 1987. “Construction Technology of the Shang Dynasty: Observations on the Architectural Remains and the Reconstruction of the Above-ground Structures 商代建築技術：建築遺跡和地上建築物復原之我見.” Yindu xuekan 殷都學刊 1: 9–16. Sun, Shuyun 孫淑雲, and Han Rubin 韓汝玢. 1981. “Preliminary Study of Early Bronzes in China 中國早期銅器的初步研究.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 3: 287–302. Sun, Zhouyong 孫周勇. 2008. Craft Production in the Western Zhou Dynasty (1046–771 BC): A Case Study of a Jue-earrings Workshop at the Predynastic Capital Site, Zhouyuan, China. BAR International Series; Oxford: Archaeopress. ——. 2009a. “Analysis and Study of Western Zhou Jue Workshop Remains: Part One of the Research of Jue Workshops in Qijia, Zhouuyan Site 西周製玦作坊生產遺存的分析 與研究：周原遺址齊家製玦作坊個案研究之一.” Sandai kaogu 三代考古 3: 335–59. ——. 2009b. “Patterns of Jue-earring Production in the Western Zhou Dynasty: Materials Technology and Organization—Part Two of the Research of Jue Workshops in Qijia, Zhouyuan Site 西周石玦的生產形態：關於原料、技術與生產組織的探討—周原 遺址齊家製玦作坊個案研究之二”. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 3: 49–63. ——. 2010. “Archaeological Observation of the Identity of Western Zhou Craft Producers ‘Bai Gong’: From the Burial Data of Jue Workshops in Qijia, Zhouyuan Site 西周手 工業者”百工”身份的考古學觀察：以周原遺址齊家製玦作坊墓葬資料為核心.” Huaxia kaogu 華夏考古 3: 118–33, 152. Sykes, Naomi Jane. 2014. Beastly Questions: Animal Answers to Archaeological Issues. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Tan, Derui 譚德睿. 1999. “Study of Bronze Age Clay Mold Casting Techniques in China 中國青銅時代陶範鑄造技術研究.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 2: 211–50, 263–74. Tan, Derui 譚德睿, and Huang Long 黃龍. 1996. “Scientific Studies of the Houma Molds 侯馬陶範的科學研究.” In Fenhe Wan: Collection of Papers Presented at the Conference of the Paleolithic Finds at Dingcun and the Archaeology of the Jin Culture 汾河灣—丁 村文化與晉文化考古學術研討會文集: 218–25. Taiyuan: Shanxi gaoxiao lianhe.

240 B ibliography

Tan, Derui 譚德睿, Huang Long 黃龍, Wang Yongji 王永吉, Lu Houyuan 呂厚遠, and Lu Haibin 呂海濱. 1993. “Phytolith and Its Application in the Making of Ancient Clay Molds for Bronze Casting 植物硅酸體及其在古代青銅器陶範製造中的應用.” Kaogu 考古 5: 469–74, 488. Tang, Jigen 唐際根. 1993. “On Yinxu Period I and the Related Issues 殷墟一期文化及相 關問題.” Kaogu 考古 10: 925–35. ——. 1998. “A Preliminary Study of Lineage-based Cemeteries at Yinxu 殷墟家族墓地初 探.” Proceedings of the International Symposium for the Shang Culture 中國商文化國 際學術討論會論文集, 201–7. Beijing: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu. ——. 1999a. “Study of the Middle Shang 中商文化研究.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 4: 393–420. ——. 1999b. “The Burial Ritual of the Shang Dynasty: A Reconstruction.” In Exploring China’s Past: New Discoveries and Studies in Archaeology and Art, ed. Roderick Whitfield and Wang Tao, 173–81. International Series in Chinese Art and Archaeology 1. London: Shaffron. ——. 2000. “From the Centennial of the Discovery of Oracle Bones to the New Find of A Shang City: How the Huanbei Shang City was Discovered 從百年甲骨到新發現的 商城：安陽洹北商城發現記.” Wenwu tiandi 文物天地 4: 7–12. ——. 2002. “Building the Chronology for the Archaeology of the Shang Dynasty 商王朝 考古學編年的建立.” Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 6: 50–59. ——. 2001. “The Construction of an Archaeological Chronology for the History of the Shang Dynasty of Early Bronze Age China.” The Review of Archaeology 22, no. 2: 35–47. ——. 2004a. “The Social Organization of Late Shang China—A Mortuary Perspective.” Unpublished diss., University of London. ——. 2004b. “A Brief Discussion on the Palace-Temple District at Yinxu, Anyang 安陽殷 墟宮廟區簡論.” Sandai kaogu 三代考古 1: 291–97. Beijing: Kexue. Tang, Jigen 唐際根, and Jing Zhichun 荊志淳. 2009. “Shang Settlements and Great Settlement Shang in Anyang 安陽的‘商邑’與‘大邑商’.” Kaogu 考古 9: 70–80, 111. Tang, Jigen 唐際根, Jing Zhichun 荊志淳, and He Yuling 何毓靈. 2010. “Reconstruction of Rammed-Earth Foundations No. 1 and No. 2 in the Palace District of Huanbei Shang City 洹北商城宮殿區一、二號夯土基址建築復原研究.” Kaogu 考古 1: 23–35, 113. Tang, Jigen 唐際根, Jing Zhichun 荊志淳, George Rapp 瑞普·拉普, and Xu Guangde 徐 廣德. 1998. “Preliminary Report of the Regional Archaeological Survey in the Huan River Valley 洹河流域區域考古研究初步報告.” Kaogu 考古 10: 13–22. Tang, Jigen 唐際根, Jing Zhichun 荊志淳, and Liu Zhongfu 劉忠伏. 2010. “A Brief Report of the 2005–2007 Investigation of Huanbei Shang City in Anyang, Henan 河南安陽市 洹北商城遺址 2005–2007 年勘察簡報.” Kaogu 考古 1: 3–8, 113. Tang, Jigen, Zhichun Jing, and George (Rip) Rapp. 2000. “The Largest Walled Shang City Discovered in Anyang, China.” Antiquity 74: 479–80. Tang, Jigen, Jing Zhichun, and Mayke Wagner. 2010. “New Discoveries in Yinxu/Anyang and Their Contribution to the Chronology of Shang Capitals in Bronze Age China.” In Bridging Eurasia, ed. Mayke Wagner and W. Wang, 125–44. Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Tang, Jigen 唐際根, Yue Hongbin 岳洪彬, He Yuling 何毓靈, and Yue Zhanwei 岳占偉. 2003. “A Brief Report of the Excavation of Compound 1 Within the Palace-Temple District in Anyang, Henan 河南安陽市洹北商城宮殿區 1 號基址發掘簡報.” Kaogu 5: 401–7.

241 B ibliography

Tang, Jigen 唐際根, Yue Hongbin 岳洪彬, He Yuling 何毓靈, Niu Shishan 牛世山, Yue Zhanwei 岳占偉, and Jing Zhichun 荆志淳. 2016. “The Road and Water Networks of the Huanbei Shang City and Yinxu Sites 洹北商城與殷墟的路網水網.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 3: 319–42, Plates 1–8. Tang, Jigen 唐際根, and Wang Tao 汪濤. 2004. “Fine-tuning the Chronology of Yinxu Phase IV 殷墟第四期文化年代辨微.” Sandai kaogu 三代考古 1: 178–93. Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre and Chung-chien Young. 1936. On the Mammalian Remains from the Archaeological Site of Anyang. Palæontologia Sinica, Series C, Volume 12, Fascicle 1. Peking: Geological Survey of China. Thorp, Robert L. 1980. “Burial Practices of Bronze Age China.” In The Great Bronze Age of China: An Exhibition from the People’s Republic of China, ed. Wen Fong, 51–64. New York: Knopf; Metropolitan Museum of Art. ——. 1983. “Origins of Chinese Architectural Style: The Earliest Plans and Building Types.” Archives of Asian Art 36: 22–39. ——. 1985. “The Growth of Early Shang Civilization: New Data from Ritual Vessels.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 45: 5–75. ——. 1988. “The Archaeology of Style at Anyang: Tomb 5 in Context.” Archives of Asian Art 41: 47–69. ——. 1991. “Erlitou and the Search for Xia.” Early China 16: 1–38. ——. 1999. “Tomb 5 and Other Discoveries at Xiaotun, Anyang, Henan Province.” In The Golden Age of Chinese Archaeology: Celebrated Discoveries from the People’s Republic of China, ed. Xiaoneng Yang, 162–65. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ——. 2006. China in the Early Bronze Age: Shang Civilization. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Trigger, Bruce G. 1999. “Shang Political Organization: A Comparative Approach.” Journal of East Asian Archaeology: Festschrift in Honor of K. C. Chang 1.1–4: 43–62. ——. 2003. Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tu, Cheng-sheng 杜正勝, and Li Yung-ti 李永迪, ed. 2008. Archaeologia Sinica, Number Four: Ta Ssu K’ung Ts’un (Settlement and Cemeteries of the Yin-Shang and Eastern Chou Periods at Anyang, Honan). 中國考古報告集之四，大司空村第二次發掘報 告，高去尋遺稿 Manuscript by Kao Ch’ü-hsün. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. Tung, Tso-pin (also Dong, Zuobin) 董作賓. 1929. “Report of the Test Excavation at Xiaotun, Anyang, October 1929 民國十七年十月試掘安陽小屯報告書.” Anayng fajue baogao 安陽發掘報告 1: 3–36. ——. 1930. Study of the Four Large Turtle Plastrons 大龜四版考釋. Anayng fajue baogao 安陽發掘報告 3: 423–42. Uchida, Junko 內田純子. 2013. “A Study of Carved Bone Objects Excavated at the Yinxu Tomb HPKM1001 殷墟西北岡 1001 號大墓出土雕花骨器的研究.” Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集 刊 84, no. 4: 601–49. Uchida, Junko 內田純子, and Yue Zhanwei 岳占偉. 2017. “Study of Independent Mold Modules for Decorations 獨立紋飾範的研究.” Sandai kaogu 三代考古 7: 297–304. Umehara, Sueiji 梅原末治. 1940. Selected Ancient Treasures Found at Anyang Kanan An’yo iho 河南安陽遺寶. Kyoto: Kuwana Bunseido. ——. 1964. The Ruins of Yin Inkyo 殷墟. Tokyo: Asahi shinbunsha.

242 B ibliography

Underhill, Anne P. 1996. “Craft Specialization and Social Evolution During the Longshan Period of Northern China.” The University Museum of Pennsylvania Symposium Series 6: 133–50. ——. 2002. Craft Production and Social Change in Northern China. New York: Kluwer­ Academic/Plenum. Underhill, Anne P. and Junko Habu. 2006. “Early Communities in East Asia: Economic and Sociopolitical Organization at the Local and Regional Levels.” In Archaeology of Asia, ed. Miriam T. Stark, 121–48. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Underhill, Anne P., Gary M. Feinman, Linda M. Nicholas, Fang Hui, Luan Fengshi, Yu Haiguang, and Cai Fengshu. 2004. “Early State Economic Systems in China.” In Archaeological Perspectives on Political Economies, ed. Gary M. Feinman and Linda M. Nicholas, 129–44. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Ur, Jason A. 2014. “Households and the Emergence of Cities in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 24, no. 2: 249–68. Vitezović, Selena. 2013. “Osseous Raw Materials in Vinča Culture.” In From These Bare Bones: Raw Materials and the Study of Worked Osseous Objects. Proceedings of the Raw Materials Session at the 11th ICAZ Conference, Paris, 2010, ed. A. M. Choyke and S. A. O’Connor, 59–72. Oxford: Oxbow. ——. 2017. Antler Exploitation and Management in the Vinča Culture: An Overview of Evidence from Serbia. Quaternary International 450: 209–23. Vitezović, Selena, and Ivan Vranić. 2017. “Technology Studies and Material Culture Studies: Possibilities of Cooperation in the Case of Bone Artefacts.” Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology 12, no. 3: 703–24. Wailes, Bernard. 1996. “V. Gordon Childe and the Relations of Production.” In Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory of Gordon Childe, University Museum Monograph, ed. Bernard Wailes, 3–13. Philadelphia: Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania. Wan, Chia-pao 萬家保 (also Wan Jiabao). 1964. “Part 1: The Process of Casting the Kubeaker 上篇：青銅觚形器之鑄造程序.” In Archaeologia Sinica, New Series, Number 1: Studies of the Ku-beaker 中國考古報告集新編，古器物研究專刊，第一本：殷 虛出土青銅觚形器之研究, ed. Li Chi and Wan Chia-pao, 1–44. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 1966. “Part 1: The Process of Casting the Chüeh-cup 上篇：青銅爵形器之鑄造程 序.” In Archaeologia Sinica, New Series, Number 2: Studies of the Chüeh-cup 中國考 古報告集新編，古器物研究專刊，第二本：殷虛出土青銅爵形器之研究, ed. Li Chi and Wan Chia-pao, 1–29. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 1970. A Preliminary Report on the Metallographic Examinations of Shang Bronze Helmets. Special Issue of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica no. 60 殷商青銅盔的金相學研究，中央研究院歷史語言研究所專刊之六十. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 1972. “Part 1: The Casting and Technical Development of Anyang Bronze Vessels 上 篇：安陽青銅容器的鑄造及其技術的發展.” In Archaeologia Sinica, New Series, Number 5: Studies of Fifty-three Ritual Bronzes 中國考古報告集新編，古器物研究專刊， 第五本：殷虛出土伍拾參件青銅容器之研究, ed. Li Chi and Wan Chia-pao, 1–54 (English summary, 133–44). Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——. 1976. “A Comparative Study of the Casting of Bronze Ting-cauldrons from Anyang and Hui-hsien.” In Proceedings of a Symposium on Scientific Methods of Research in the

243 B ibliography

Study of Ancient Chinese Bronzes and Southeast Asian Metal and Other Archaeological Artifacts, ed. N. Barnard, 17–46. Melbourne: National Gallery of Victoria. ——. 1977. “From the Silkworm Cocoon in Xiyin Village to Early Chinese Silk Production Industry 從西陰村的蠶繭談到中國早期的絲織工業.” Gugong jikan 故宮季刊 11, no. 3: 1–17. Wang, Haicheng. 2014. Writing and the Ancient State: Early China in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——. 2015. “Writing and the City in Early China.” In The Cambridge World History, Volume III: Early Cities in Comparative Perspective, 4000 bce—1200 ce, ed. Norman Yoffee, 131–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wang, Ruoyu 王若愚. 1979. “From the Shang Silk Artifacts and Silk Production Tools Excavated from Taixi to the Silk Production in Shang 從台西村出土的商代織物和 紡織工具談當時的紡織.” Wenwu 文物 6: 49–53. Wang, Shimin 王世民, and Zhang Yachu 張亞初. 1986. “Morphology of Bronzes Dated to the Reigns of King Yi and King Xin of the Yin Dynasty 殷代乙辛時期青銅容器的 形制.” Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 4: 46–67. Wang, Shu-Li. 2013. “The Politics of China’s Cultural Heritage on Display—Yin Xu Archaeological Park in the Making.” PhD diss., University College London. ——. 2016. “Civilization and the Transformation of Xiaotun Village at China’s Yinxu Archaeological Site.” In World Heritage on the Ground: Ethnographic Perspectives, ed. D. Beliner and C. Baumman, 171–92. New York: Berghahn. Wang, Xingguang 王星光. 2008. “Ecology, Environment, and the Development of Agriculture of the Shang Dynasty 商代的生態環境與農業發展.” Zhongyuan wenwu 中 原文物 5: 57–62. Wang, Xuerong 王學榮, and He Yuling 何毓靈. 2007. “New Archaeological Discoveries at Xiaomintun, Yinxu, Anyang, and the Related Issues 安陽殷墟孝民屯遺址的考古 新發現及相關認識.” Kaogu 考古1: 54–63. Wang, Yuxin 王宇信, and Yang Baocheng 楊寶成. 1982. “Reexamining the Elephant Pit at Yinxu and the Historical Notion that the Shang Tamed the Elephants 殷墟象坑和 ‘殷人服象’ 的再探討.” In Researching History via Oracle-Bone Inscriptions 甲骨探史 彔, ed. Hu Hou­xuan 胡厚宣, 467–89. Beijing: Sanlian. Wang, Yuxin 王宇信, Zhang Yongshan 張永山, and Yang Shengnan 楊升南. 1977. “On ‘Fu Hao’ of the Yinxu Tomb No. 5 試論殷墟五號墓的 ‘婦好’. ” Kaogu xuebao 考古 學報 2: 1–22. Wang, Ying. 2000. “Rank and Gender in Bone Art at the Late Shang Center at Anyang­.” PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh. ——. 2004. “Rank and Power Among Court Ladies at Anyang.” In Gender and Chinese Archaeology, ed. Katheryn M. Linduff and Yan Sun, 95–113. Walnut Creek, CA: Rowman & Littlefield. Wang, Zhenzhong 王震中. 2010. Capital Cities in Shang Dynasty 商代都邑. Beijing: CASS. ——. 2013. Comparative Studies of the Origin of Chinese Civilization 中國文明起源的比 較研究. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue. Wei, Jiyin 魏繼印. 2007. “Studies of Climatic Change in the Central Plains during the Yin Shang Period 殷商時期中原地區氣侯變遷探索.” Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文 物 6: 44–50. Wei, Xinying 韋心瀅. 2009. “ ‘Shang’ and ‘Da Yi Shang’ in Oracle-Bone Inscriptions 殷 墟卜辭中的 ‘商’ 與 ‘大邑商’.” Yindu xuekan 殷都學刊 1: 34–41.

244 B ibliography

Wen, Shaofeng 溫少峰, and Yuan Tingdong 袁庭棟. 1983. Studies of Oracle-Bone Inscriptions from Yinxu: Science and Technology 殷墟卜辭研究：科學技術篇. Chengdu: Sichuan sheng shehui kexue yuan. Wheatley, Paul. 1971. The Pivot of the Four Quarters: A Preliminary Enquiry into the Origins and Character of the Ancient Chinese City. Chicago: Aldine. White, William Charles. 1945. Bone Culture of Ancient China: An Archaeological Study of Bone Material from Northern Honan, Dating about the Twelfth Century B.C. Royal Ontario Museum, Division of Art and Archaeology, Museum Studies, no. 4. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Wilson, Andrew, and Miko Flohr, eds. 2016. Urban Craftsmen and Traders in the Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wright, Rita P. 1998. “Crafting Social Identity in Ur III Southern Mesopotamia.” In Craft and Social Identity, Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, ed. Cathy L. Costin and Rita P. Wright, 57–70. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association. Wu,Weiping and Piper Gaubatz. 2020. The Chinese City. Second Edition. New York: Routledge. Xia, Nai 夏鼐. 1954. “A Short Biography of Liang Siyong 梁思永先生傳略.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 7: 1–3. Xiao, Nan 肖楠 (collective designation for Cao Dingyun 曹定雲, Guo Zhenlu 郭振祿, Liu Yiman 劉一曼, and Wen Mingrong 溫明榮. 1981a. “Interpreting ‘Gong’ and ‘Bai Gong’ in Oracle Bone Inscriptions 試論卜辭中的 ‘工’ 與‘百工.’ ” Kaogu 考古 3: 266–70. ——. 1981b. “Interpreting ‘Shi’ and ‘Lü’ in Oracle Bone Inscriptions 試論卜辭中的師和 旅.” Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字研究 6: 123–32. Xu, Zhongshu 徐中舒. 1930. “The Taming of Elephants by the Yin People and the Southern Movement of Elephants 殷人服象及象之南遷.” Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊 2, no. 1: 60–76. Yan, Yun 燕耘 (alias for Lin Yun 林澐). 1973. “Records of Casting in Oracle Bone Inscriptions of the Shang Dynasty 商代卜辭中的冶鑄史料.” Kaogu 考古 5: 299. Yan, Zhibin 嚴志斌. 2002. “Thoughts on the Hierarchy of Compound Clan Names 複合 氏名層級說之思考.” Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 3: 34–37, 44. Yang, Baocheng 楊寶成. 2002a. Study of the Yinxu Culture 殷墟文化研究. Wuhan: Wuhan daxue. ——. 2002b. “Study of Bronze Assemblages from Yinxu 殷墟青銅器組合研究.” Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 3: 71–76. Yang, Baocheng 楊寶成, and Yang Xizhang 楊錫璋. 1983. “Commoners of the Yin Society as Observed from the Small Tombs in Yinxu 從殷墟小型墓葬看殷代社會的平民.” Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 1: 30–34. Yang, Dongya Y., Li Liu, Xingcan Chen, and Camilla F. Speller. 2008. “Wild or Domesticated: DNA Analysis of Ancient Water Buffalo Remains from North China.” Journal of Archaeological Science 35, no. 10: 2778–85. Yang, Gen 楊根, and Ding Jiaying 丁家盈. 1959. “Preliminary Study of the Alloy Composition and the Casting Technology of the Large Si Mu Wu Ding Vessel 司母戊大鼎的 合金成分及其鑄造技術的初步研究.” Wenwu 文物 12: 27–28. Yang, Hongxun 楊鴻勛. 2001. A Survey of the Archaeology of Palaces 宮殿考古通論. Beijing: Zijincheng Press. Yang, Hsi-chang (see also Yang Xizhang). 1986. “The Shang Dynasty Cemetery System.” In Studies of Shang Archaeology: Selected Papers from the International Conference on Shang Civilization, ed. K. C. Chang, 49–63. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

245 B ibliography

Yang, Shengnan 楊升南. 1991. “On the Status of Zhong Seen in Oracle Bone Inscriptions 殷墟卜辭中‘眾’的身份考.” In Oracle Bone Inscriptions and the History of Yin Shang, Volume 3 甲骨文與殷商史, 第三輯, ed. Wang Yuxin, 303–52. Shanghai: Shanghai guji. ——. 1992a. “Financial System of the Shang Dynasty 商代的財政制度.” Lishi yanjiu 歷 史研究 5: 81–94. ——. 1992b. An Economic History of the Shang Dynasty 商代經濟史. Guiyang: Guizhou renmin chubanshe. Yang, Xizhang 楊錫璋 (see also Yang Hsi-chang). 1981. “Periodization of the Xibeigang Royal Tombs at Yinxu, Anyang, and the Related Issues 安陽殷墟西北崗大墓的分期 及有關問題.” Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 3: 47–52. Yang, Xizhang 楊錫璋, and Yang Baocheng 楊寶成. 1977. “The Practice of Human Sacrifice in the Shang Slave Society as Observed from the Shang Sacrificial Pits 從商代祭 祀坑看商代奴隸社會的人牲.” Kaogu 考古 1: 13–19. ——. 1985. “Periodization and Assemblages of Yin Bronze Ritual Vessels 殷代青銅禮器 的分期與組合.” In Bronzes from the Yin Ruins 殷墟青銅器, ed. Institute of Archaeology, CASS 中國社會科學院考古研究所, 79–102. Beijing: Wenwu. Yang, Xiaoneng, ed. 1999. The Golden Age of Archaeology: Celebrated Discoveries from the People’s Republic of China. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art. ——. 2004b. New Perspectives on China’s Past: Chinese Archaeology in the Twentieth Century. Vol. 2, Major Archaeological Discoveries in Twentieth-Century China. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Yao, Xiaosui 姚孝遂. 1979. “Captives of the Shang Dynasty 商代的俘虜.” Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字研究 1: 337–90. ——. 1981. “Hunting-related Oracle Bone Inscriptions 甲骨刻辭狩獵考.” Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字研究 6: 34–66. Yates, Robin D. S. 1994. “Body, Space, Time, and Bureaucracy: Boundary Creation and Control Mechanisms in Early China.” In Boundaries in Chinese Culture, ed. John Hay, 56–80. London: Reaktion. ——. 1997. “The City State in Ancient China.” In The Archaeology of City States: CrossCultural Approaches, ed. Deborah L. Nichols and Thomas H. Charlton, 71–90. Washington, DC: Smithsonian. ——. 2001. “Slavery in Early China: A Socio-Cultural Approach.” Journal of East Asian Archaeology: Festschrift in Honor of K. C. Chang 3, no.1–2: 283–331. Yetts, W. Perceval. 1933. “The Shang-Yin Dynasty and the Anyang Finds.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 3: 657–85. Yin, Da 尹達. 1954. “Remembering Mr. Liang Siyong 悼念梁思永先生.” Wenwu cankao ziliao 文物參考資料 4: 8–11. Yinxu Xiaomintun Archaeological Team 殷墟孝民屯考古隊. 2007a. “Preliminary Report of the 2003–2004 Excavations of Shang Dynasty Burials in Xiaomintun, Anyang City, Henan Province 河南安陽市孝民屯商代墓葬 2003–2004 年發掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古 1: 26–36. ——. 2007b. “Preliminary Report of the 2003–2004 Excavations of Shang Dynasty Dwellings at Xiaomintun, Anyang City, Henan Province 河南安陽市孝民屯商代房址 2003–2004 年發掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古 20071: 3–13, 97–104. ——. 2007c. “The 2003–2004 Excavations of a Shang Dynasty Bronze Foundry at Xiaomintun, Anyang, Henan Province 河南安陽市孝民屯商代鑄銅遺址 2003–2004 年 的發掘.” Kaogu 考古 20071: 14–25. ——. 2014. “Western Zhou Burials at the Site of Xiaomintun, Anyang City, Henan Province 河南安陽市孝民屯遺址西周墓.” Kaogu 考古 5: 17–28.

246 B ibliography

Yoffee, Norman. 2005. Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States, and Civilizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —— ed. 2015. The Cambridge World History, Volume III: Early Cities in Comparative Perspective, 4000 bce—1200 ce. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. York, Abigail M., Michael E. Smith, Benjamin W. Stanley, Barbara L. Stark, Juliana Novic, Sharon L. Harlan, George L. Cowgill and Christopher G. Boone. 2011. “Ethnic and Class Clustering through the Ages: A Transdisciplinary Approach to Urban Neighbourhood Social Patterns.” Urban Studies 48, no. 11: 2399–415. Young, Chung-Chien. 1948. “Budorcas, A New Element in the Proto-Historic Anyang Fauna of China.” American Journal of Science 246, no. 3: 157–64. Yu, Weichao. 1997. A Journey into China's Antiquity. Compiled by the National Museum of Chinese History and Yu Weichao. Beijing: Morning Glory Publishers. Yu, Yu 虞禺. 1958. “Bone Artifact Production of the Shang Dynasty 商代的骨器製造.” Wenwu cankao ziliao 文物參考資料 10: 26–28, 37. Yuan, Yanling 袁豔玲. 2009. “Production and Circulation of Zhou Dynasty Bronze Ritual Vessels 周代青銅禮器的生產與流動.” Kaogu 考古 10: 68–77, 97. Yuan, Jing, and Rowan K. Flad. 2005. “New Zooarchaeological Evidence for Changes in Shang Dynasty Animal Sacrifice.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24, no. 3: 252–70. Yue, Hongbin 岳洪彬, He Yuling 何毓靈, and Yue Zhanwei 岳占偉. 2011. “Issues Concerning the Layout of the Capital of Yinxu 殷墟都邑布局研究中的幾個問題.” Sandai kaogu 三代考古 4: 248–78. Yue, Hongbin 岳洪彬, and Sun Ling 孫玲. 2013. “Dates and the Nature of Architecture Group A of the Xiaotun Palace District at Yinxu 殷墟小屯宮殿區甲組基址的年代 和性質探析.” Sandai kaogu 三代考古 5: 144–68. Yue, Hongbin 岳洪彬, and Yue Zhanwei 岳占偉. 2009a. “A Brief Report of the Excavation of a Large Shang Tomb in Xiaotun West at Yinxu, Anyang, Henan 河南安陽市 殷墟小屯西地商代大墓發掘簡報.” Kaogu 考古 9: 54–69, 106–8, 111. ——. 2009b. “On the Casting Technology and the Vessel Type of the Large Casting Installation Found at Xiaomintun, Yinxu—Additional Notes on the Ablution Ritual of the Shang Dynasty 試論殷墟孝民屯大型鑄範的鑄造工藝和器形—兼論商代盥洗禮 儀.” Kaogu 考古 6: 72–76. ——. 2012. “On the Causes of Demise of the Shang Capital Yinxu 談談殷墟都城的毀滅 原因.” Yindu xuekan 殷都學刊 1: 35–38. ——. 2014a. “Excavation of Colossal Earthen Pits at Yinxu and the Spatial Configuration of Urban Settlements 殷墟巨型土坑的發掘與都邑佈局.” In Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Study of Oracle Bone Inscriptions and the Important Discoveries at the Western Zhou Walled Settlement at Chenzhuang, Gaoqing 甲骨學暨 高青陳庄西周城址重大發現國際學術研討會論文集, ed. Zhang Guangming 張光 明 and Xu Yihua 徐義華, 380–85. Jinan: Qilu. ——. 2014b. “Explaining the Phenomenon of ‘One Model Multiple Cast’ at Yinxu Bronze Technology 試析殷墟鑄銅中的‘一模多器’現象.” Nanfang wenwu 南方文物 3: 92–99. Yue, Hongbin 岳洪彬, Yue Zhanwei 岳占偉, and He Yuling 何毓靈. 2006. “Preliminary Study of the Layout of the Xiaotun Palace-Temple Complex 小屯宮殿宗廟區布局初 探.” Sandai kaogu 三代考古 2: 328–44. Yue, Zhanwei 岳占偉, Jing Zhichun 荊志淳, Yue Hongbin 岳洪彬, James B. Stoltman, and Jonathan Mark Kenoyer. 2014. “Fabrication and Firing Replication Experiments of Gray Pottery from Yinxu 殷墟出土灰陶器的製作與燒製實驗研究.” Nanfang wenwu 南方文物 3: 100–109.

247 B ibliography

Yue, Zhanwei 岳占偉, Li Yung-ti 李永迪, and Shen Mingqing 申明清. 2017. “On the Two Development Directions of the Bronze Ritual Vessels during Late Shang Dynasty 試論 殷墟晚期青銅禮器的兩個發展方向.” Jianghan kaogu 江漢考古 3: 89–108. Yue, Zhanwei 岳占偉, Liu Yu 劉煜, Yue Hongbin 岳洪彬, and Jing Zhichun 荊志淳. 2016. “Studies of the Manufacturing Techniques of Clay Models, Molds, and Cores from Yinxu 殷墟陶模、陶範、泥芯的製作工藝研究.” Nanfang wenwu 南方文物 2: 129–40. Yue, Zhanwei 岳占偉, Yue Hongbin 岳洪彬, and Liu Yu 劉煜. 2011. “Casting Mold Division Techniques of Bronzes from Yinxu 殷墟青銅器的鑄型分範技術.” In Research on the Casting Technology of Clay Molds for Shang and Zhou Bronzes 商周青銅器的 陶範鑄造技術研究, ed. Chen Jianli 陳建立 and Liu Yu 劉煜, 49–80. Beijing: Wenwu. ——. 2012. “Casting Technology of Yinxu Bronze Inscriptions 殷墟青銅器銘文的製作 方法.” Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 4: 62–68. Yue, Zhanwei 岳占偉, Yue Hongbin 岳洪彬, Liu Yu 劉煜, and Uchida Junko 內田純子. 2010. “Techniques of Decoration Making of Yinxu Models and Molds 殷墟陶範的施 紋方法.” Kaoguxue jikan 考古學集刊 18: 200–210. Zhang, Hua, Deborah C. Merrett, Zhichun Jing, Jigen Tang, Yuling He, Hongbin Yue, Zhanwei Yue, Dongya Y. Yang. 2017. “Osteoarthritis, Labour Division, and Occupational Specialization of the Late Shang China—Insights from Yinxu (ca. 1250 – 1046 B.C.).” PLoS One 12, no. 5: e0176329. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176329. Zhang, Maorong 張懋鎔. 2007. “A Review of a Thousand Years of the Study of Armorial Inscriptions on Bronze Vessels of the Shang and Zhou Dynasties 一千年來商周青銅 器族徽文字研究評述.” Xin shixue 新史學 18, no. 2: 157–89. Zhang, Maorong 張懋鎔, and Wang Jing 王靜. 2014. “Archaeological Significance of the Thesis that the Zhou People Did Not Use Clan Emblems and Day Names: On the Cemetery of the Zeng State at Yejiashan, Suizhou 周人不用族徽、日名說的考古學 意義—從隨州葉家山西周曾國墓地談起.” Sichuan wenwu 四川文物 4: 47–51. Zhang, Min 張敏. 2011. “The Dates of Late Archaeological Remains and Early Tomb Robber’s Pits in Shang Dynasty Royal Tombs at Yinxu 殷墟王陵上的晚期遺跡及早期盜 掘坑年代辨析.” Journal of National Museum of China 中國國家博物館館刊 12: 27–38. Zhang, Weilian 張渭蓮. 2006. “Climatic Change and the Southward Movement of the Shang People 氣侯變遷與商人南下.” Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 1: 37–45. Zhang, Yachu 張亞初. 1986. “Studies of Shang Dynasty Official Titles 商代職官研究.” Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字研究 13: 82–115. Zhang, Yongshan 張永山. 1982. “On ‘Zhong’ of the Shang Dynasty 論商代的「眾」人.” In Researching History via Oracle-Bone Inscriptions 甲骨探史彔, ed. Hu Houxuan 胡 厚宣, 192–264. Beijing: Sanlian. Zhao, Guoyan 趙國燕, and Guo Jinfu 郭金福. 2009. “Study on the Composition and Structure of Ancient Clay Mold of Yin Ruins 殷墟青銅器陶範材料的組成及結構研 究.” Journal of Anyang Institute of Technology 安陽工學院學報 6: 28–32. Zhao, Hao 趙昊. 2017. “Mass Bone-working Industry in the Western Zhou Period (1046– 771 BC).” PhD diss., Stanford University. Zhao, Lin 趙林. 1982. “On the Social Status of ‘Zhong’ or ‘Zhong Ren’ of the Shang Dynasty 論商代「衆」或「衆人」的社會地位.” In Proceedings of the Symposium for History and Social Changes in China (Social History of China) 歷史與中國社會變遷 (中國社 會史) 研討會論文集 vol. 1, 125–38. Nankang, Taipei: Academia Sinica. Zhao, Xiyuan 趙錫元. 1956. “On the Social Status of the Main Producers Zhong and Zhongren of the Yin Dynasty 試論殷代主要生產者眾和眾人的社會身份.” Dongbei renmin daxue renwen kexue xuebao 東北人民大學人文科學學報 4: 63–80.

248 B ibliography

——. 1982. “Another Discussion on the Social Status of ‘Zhong Ren’ of the Shang Dynasty 再論商代「眾人」的社會身份.” Jilin daxue shehui kexue xuebao 吉林大學社會科 學學報 4: 9–15. Zhejiang Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 浙江省文物考古研究 所, Huzhou Municipal Museum 湖州市博物館, and Deqing County Museum 德清 縣博物館. 2011. “Shang Dynasty Proto-porcelain Kiln Sites in the Middle Dongtiao River Valley, Zhejiang 浙江東苕溪中游商代原始瓷窯址群.” Kaogu 考古 7: 3–8, Plates I–II. Zheng, Ruokui 鄭若葵. 1995. “Preliminary Discussion on the Layout of ‘Dayi Shang’ Lineage Settlements of Yinxu 殷墟 ‘大邑商’ 族邑布局初探.” Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 3: 84–93, 83. Zheng, Zhenxiang 鄭振香. 1981–82. “The Excavation of Tombs Number 17 and 18 and Their Significance.” Early China 7: 55–59. ——. 1988. “A Brief Discussion of the Six Decades of Excavations at Yinxu 殷墟發掘六十 年概述.” Kaogu 考古 10: 929–41. Zheng, Zhenxiang 鄭振香, and Chen Zhida 陳志達. 1981. “Significance of the Fuhao Tomb for Dating the Yinxu Culture and the Oracle Bone Inscriptions 論婦好墓對殷 墟文化和卜辭斷代的意義.” Kaogu 考古 6: 511–18, 503. ——. 1985. “Study of Inscriptions on Some of the Bronze Vessel Sets from the Fuhao Tomb 婦好墓部分成套銅器銘文之探討.” Kaogu 考古 10: 940–47, 939. Zheng, Zhenxiang 鄭振香, and Yang Xizhang 楊錫璋. 2000. “Correction for ‘Discussion on the Dating and Periodization of the Yinxu Culture’ 關於《試論殷墟文化的年代 與分期》一文的訂正.” Kaogu 考古 7: 91. Zhongguo qingtongqi quanji bianji weiyuanhui 中國青銅器全集編集委員會, ed. 1996–98. Catalogue of Chinese Bronzes 中國青銅器全集, ed. Ma Chengyuan 馬承源. 16 vols. Beijing: Wenwu. ——. 1985. Contributions to the Study of Human Skulls from the Shang Sites at Anyang 安 陽殷墟頭骨研究. Beijing: Wenwu. Zhou, Dao 周到, and Liu Dongya 劉東亞. 1963. “Excavation at a Late Shang Period Site at Gaolouzhuang, Anyang, in Autumn, 1957 1957 年秋安陽高樓莊殷代遺址的發掘.” Kaogu 考古 4: 213–16, 220. Zhou, Wenli 周文麗, Liu Yu 劉昱, and Yue Zhanwei 岳占偉. 2014. “Discoveries and Studies of Melting and Blasting Implements from Pre-Qin Bronze Foundry Sites 先 秦鑄銅遺址出土熔銅與鼓風器具的發現和認識.” In Xia and Shang Capitals and the Culture, Vol. 1: Proceedings of the International Symposium for ‘the Archaeology of Xia and Shang Capitals and the Thirtieth Anniversary of the Discovery of Yanshi Shang City’ 夏商都邑與文化（一）：夏商都邑考古暨紀念偃師商城發現 30 週 年國際學術研討會論文集, ed. Xu Hong 許宏, 394–417. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue. ——. 2015. “Scientific Studies of Two Copper Melting Implements Unearthed at Xiaomintun, Yixun, Anyang 安陽殷墟孝民屯出土兩類熔銅器具的科學研究.” Nanfang wenwu 南方文物 1: 48–57. Zhouyuan Archaeological Team 周原考古隊. 2004. “The Western Zhou Cemetery and Bronze Foundry Found in Zhouyuan, Shaanxi 陝西周原遺址發現西周墓葬與鑄銅 遺址.” Kaogu 考古 1: 3–6. ——. 2011. “Excavation of the Bronze Casting Remains in Locus West of Zhuangli Village at Zhouyuan Site in the Springs of 2003 and 2004 周原莊李西周鑄銅遺址 2003 與 2004 年春季發掘報告.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 2: 245–316.

249 B ibliography

Zhu, Fenghan 朱鳳瀚. 1983. “Compound Clan Names in Shang and Zhou Bronze Inscriptions 商周青銅器銘文中的複合氏名.” Nankai xuebao 南開學報 3: 54–65. ——. 1990. “Shang Royal Ancestral Temples Seen in Oracle Bone Inscriptions from Yinxu 殷墟卜辭所見商王室宗廟制度.” Lishi yanjiu 歷史研究 6: 3–19. ——. 2004a. Family and Lineage Organization of the Shang and Zhou Dynasties 商周家族 型態研究 . 2nd rev. ed. Tianjin: Tianjin guji. ——. 2004b. “On the Relationship Between the Construction Dates of the Xiaotun Northeast Rammed-earth Foundations and the Associated Oracle Bones 論小屯東北地諸 建築基址的始建年代及其與基址範圍內出土甲骨的關係.” Gudai wenming 古代 文明 3: 167–219. Zhu, Guanghua 朱光華. 2006. “Huanbei Shang City and Xiaotun Yinxu 洹北商城與小 屯殷墟.” Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2: 31–35. Zhu, Kezhen 竺可楨. 1972. “Preliminary Study of Climatic Change in China of the Last 5000 Years 中國近五千來年氣候變遷的初步研究.” Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1: 168–89. Zong, Yunbing, Shengkun Yao, Jianfeng Lang, Xuexiang Chen, Jiadong Fan, Zhibin Sun, Xiulan Duan, Nannan Li, Hui Fang, Guangzhao Zhou, Tiqiao Xiao, Aiguo Li, and Huaidong Jiang. 2017. “Structural and Compositional Analysis of a Casting Mold Sherd from Ancient China.” PLoS One 12, no. 3: e0174057. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174057 Zou, Heng 鄒衡. 1964a. “The Periodization of Yinxu Culture 試論殷墟文化分期.” Beijing daxue xuebao (Humanities) 北京大學學報（人文科學）4: 37–58, 64–68. ——. 1964b. “The Periodization of  Yinxu Culture (Continued) 試論殷墟文化分期（續完）.” Beijing daxue xuebao (Humanities) 北京大學學報（人文科學）5: 63–90. ——. 1980. Essays on the Archaeology of the Hsia, Shang and Chou Dynasties 夏商周考古 學論文集. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe.

INDEX

Note: The photo insert images are indexed as p1, p2, p3, etc. Page numbers in italics indicate figures or tables. aboveground structures, 62, 201n244 Academia Sinica (AS), 3 administrative delegation, 191 agricultural tools, 149 alluvial sediments, 159 animal heads, 50 animal sacrifices, 173–74 anthropological archaeological approach, 5 antler arrowheads, 95 Anyang, 197n1; archaeology at, 4; bone artifacts at, 87–88; bone industry organization in, 124–28; Bronze Age in, 6; bronze foundries outside of, 199n2; bronze industry in, 44–45, 84–85; bronze production of, 5, 16, 18, 41–45, 82–85; bronze workshops in, 61–70; cattle rituals in, 108; ceramic analysis, 157–60; craft industries in, 194–95; craft production data from, 12, 165–72; craft production distribution in, 22; craft production in, 8, 13–17, 39, 129, 131, 184, p1; economy of, 6–8, 127; emblem glyphs at, 170; engraved bone spatulas from, p10; foundry sequence

in, 47–60; hairpin production in, 126; ingots found in, 58–59; lineage-based settlements at, 169; manufacturing continuum in, 104; marble and shell used in, 142–44; mold fragments at, p13; pottery analysis from, 158; pottery production in, 39, 156–62; public infrastructure of, 174–76; residential components of, 176–81; seawater shells at, 206n15; section-mold casting in, 84; Shang dynasty capital of, 1–2; termination date for, 193–94; trenches with remains in, 183; urban layout at, 167–81, 168; as World Heritage Site, 199n7 Anyang Municipal Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, 9, 35, 176 Anyang Steel, 32, 34, 37, 199n7 arrowheads, 86–87, 111; bone and antler, 95, 116–18; CV of, 117, 118; foundries producing, 188–89; length of, 118; uniformity of, 118 Art Institute of Chicago, 137, 139 artisan (gong), 187, 198n11

252 INDEX

artisan-centered workshops, 166; at Daliankeng, 148–49, 162–63; in Shang dynasty, 181–82; small, 16; in Xiaotun temple-palace complex, 19 AS. See Academia Sinica awls, 98, 104, 116 Bagley, Robert W., 13–14, 52–53 baitao (white clay pottery), 157 Baoji bronze, 192–93, 193 Baoji-Daijiawan region, 33 Beixinzhuang, 29, 105–6 Beixujiaqiao, 176, 177 Bettinger, Robert L., 116 bone artifacts, 89, 120, 182; at Anyang, 87–88; arrowheads as, 95, 116–18; carved decorations in, 137, 204n21; from cattle, 125; for craft industry, 166; of elephant and tiger, 135–42; expedient tools and, 203n4; from Fuhao tomb, 102; functions of, 87; Huayuanzhuang South refuse pit of, 105, 105; hypertrophic, 92–94, 103–4; large-scale production of, 88, 104–12, 185–86; from large-scale workshops, 125; manufacturing continuum model of, 94–104; production precincts for, 190, 190–91; production standardization and, 112; raw materials for, 87, 127; from royal cemetery, 88, 92–94, 102; during Shang dynasty, 88; skeletal elements in, 140; spoons, 101; tablet from, 122, 140, 206n6; Type II-III, 103; workshops production of, 186, 189 bone fragments, for hairpins, 121–22, 204n22 bone industry, 84–85, 124–28 bone points, 98 bone spatulas, 203n6; from cattle, 119; decorations on, 123; from deer, 97; engraved, 138–39, p10; from Fuhao tomb, 101; hairpins compared to, 119–23; manufacturing of, 121–22; production of, 121–22; reduction patterns in, 115; from royal cemetery, 100, 122; skeletal elements for, 120; from Tiesanlu, 111, 122; from tiger

humerus, 138; turquoise-inlays on, p9; from Xiaotun and Xibeigang, 119, 120 bone workshops: Anyang production in, 16, 18; Beixinzhuang excavation of, 105–6; cattle used in, 107–9, 108; Dasikong hairpin caps from, 86–87, 106, 106; at Dasikong South, 30–31; excavation of, 29; hairpins from, 111, 122; IA excavation of, 34; products from, 111–13; taxa utilized at, 107–9; at Tiesanlu, 2, 28, 32, 34, 36, 111; at Xin’anzhuang West, 35–37 bottom-up approach, 2, 19, 164, 180 brick firing, 160 bronze: Anyang workshops making, 61–70; assemblage, 171; Baoji, 192–93; castings, 27, 185; column supports, 201n23; elite rituals using, 42–43; fangding, 83; production precincts for, 188; vessel types from, 205n4; workshops casting stages using, 16–17, 47–48 Bronze Age, 2–3, 6, 124; ceramics influenced, 200n6; early, 7; Erlitou period in, 13–14 bronze foundries, 2, 207n1; clay preparation in, 48; core making in, 51–52; at Dasikong South, 27, 79, 198n3; finishing and polishing in, 60; furnace building for, 59; metal recycling at, 60; at Miaopu North, 27–29, 62, 68–69, 83, 198n5; model making in, 48–49; mold fragments from, 58; mold sections made in, 50–51; outside Anyang, 199n2; at Renjiazhuang and Xindian, 9; section-mold casting from, 5, 80–81; Shang dynasty, 33, 83; sites of, 44; at Xiaomintun, 82–83; at Xiaomintun South, 34–35; at Xiaomintun Southeast, 32–34; at Xiaomintun West, 29–30; at Xiaotun Northeast, 70–73; at Xuejiazhuang, 27–28 bronze production: in Anyang, 5, 16, 18, 41–45, 82–85; at Miaopu North, 70, 208n14; workshops for, 16–17, 44–45; at Xiaomintun West, 203n36; in Yinxu Period I, 38–40

253 INDEX

bronze vessels, 51; decorations on, 52–58; function of, 199n1; lead found in, 201n22; mold-making technology for, 76–77; for rituals, 191; section mold technology used in, 73–82; during Shang dynasty, 43; types of, 43, 165 building materials, 179 burial artifacts, 43–44, 206n12 burial grounds, 27 Campbell, Roderick B., 7, 113, 126, 186, 205n1; metapodials presence and, 109, 120; Tiesanlu output and, 107, 111 carcasses, 185 castings: bronze, 27, 185; bronze workshops stages of, 16–17, 47–48; clay mold, 41, 45, 46, 50–51; facilities, 201n25; installations, 63–65. See also section-mold casting cattle: bone artifacts from, 125; bone spatulas from, 119; bone workshops using, 107–9, 108; rituals, 108; skeletal elements of, 109–11, 110; Tiesanlu distribution of, 109–11 ceramics: Anyang analysis of, 157–60; pieces of fired, 199n3; types of, 157–58; water pipes using, 159 Chang, K. C., 167, 173, 197n4 Chen Zhida, 72, 158–59, 202n30 China: ancient, 7, 41–42, 53; archaeology of, 10–12, 158, 167–81; Early Imperial, 15 Choyke, Alice M., 18, 94–102 Clark, John E., 88, 203n5 clay: fired model, 50, 200n15; mold casting, 41, 45, 46, 50–51; preparation, 48; shell, 75; types, 157; vessels molds for, 46; working procedures, 58 coefficient of variation (CV), 116, 117, 118, 204n18 communities, 166–67 core making, 51–52 Costin, Cathy L., 14, 16, 198nn8–9 cowries, 206nn14–15 craft industries: in Anyang, 194–95; bone artifacts for, 166; categories of, 1–2; community level, 166–67; in Fenghao, 194; large-scale production of, 12–14, 182–85, 183, 194; in Luoyang,

194; management in, 167, 184, 191–95; organic materials used in, 3; Shang dynasty management of, 184; topdown management of, 189–90; in Zhouyuan, 194 craft production: in Anyang, 8, 13–17, 39, 129, 131, 184, p1; Anyang data for, 12, 165–72; Anyang’s distribution of, 22; court control over, 187–91; CV in, 204n18; data of, 2; large-scale, 12–13, 185; management of, 186–87; manufacturing activities in, 2–3; mass, 15; of Shang dynasty, 192; small-scale, 132; state-sponsored, 13; at Tiesanlu and Miaopu North, 163; top-down processes in, 19–20; of Zhou dynasty, 191–92 cultural deposits, 11 culture-history approach, 5 CV. See coefficient of variation Daijiawan, 193, 199n9, p13 Daliankeng, 22, 38; artisan workshops at, 148–49, 162–63; bone spatulas from, 123; bone tablet from, 122; drill heads from, 147; excavation trenches of, 132; fangding from, 74; freshwater shells from, 146; Great Connected Trenches and, 24; ivory processing at, 140; Li Chi findings of, 25; marble objects from, 147–48; multicrafting at, 132–45; stone blades from, p11; Xiaotun stone blades at, 149 Dasikong, 106, 106, 111, 177–79 Dasikong South, 23–25; bone workshop at, 30–31; bronze foundries at, 27, 79, 198n3; excavations at, 26–27; trash pits of, 26–27 Dayi Shang (Great Settlement Shang), 168 decorations: on bone spatulas, 123; on bronze vessel, 52–58; in carved bones, 137, 204n21; curved lines of, 56; on lugged vessel, 54; mold fragments with incised, 55, p3; mold fragments with painted on, 57, 57–58; tigers back-toback as, 130, 134, p8 décor-making techniques, 53–58 deer antlers, 109

254 INDEX

ding vessels, 83, 199n1, p5 districts, 172, 176–81 division of labor, 46–47 Dong, Zuobin. See Tung Tso-pin Dong Yawei, 201n20 dou vessels, 162 drill heads, 147 Du Jinpeng, 72 dumping grounds, 179 Early Bronze Age, 174 Early Imperial China, 15 earthen pit, 62 economy, 6–8, 127 Eerkens, Jelmer W., 116, 204n18 elephants, 132, 133; bronze, 135; as sacrificial animals, 137, 143 elephant limb bones, 94 elephant vessels, 205n4 elites: burials of, 192, 199n9; ceramics of, 157–59; high-status artifacts, 131–33, 188–89; material culture of, 142; residence, 178; rituals with bronze of, 42–43; ruling, 20, 189; of Shang dynasty, 6, 133–35; tombs of, 43–44, 90, 102–3, 126–27; top-down approach of, 7–8 emblem glyphs, 170–71, 172 Erlitou period, 13–14, 197n7 excavations: of Beixinzhuang bone workshop, 29, 105–6; Daliankeng’s trenches from, 132; at Dasikong South, 26–27; IHP, 4, 9–10; Kiln Y5 at Liujiazhuang North, 161; in Liujiazhuang North, 177–79; Miaopu North’s sections of, 28–29, 198nn5–6; of natural layers, 10; Tiesanlu bone workshop trenches from, 34, 36; of workshops, 21–27; of workshops (1950s and 1960s), 27–31; of workshops (1970s and 1980s), 31–32; of workshops (after 2000), 32–37; at Xiaotun, 4 expedient tools, 127, 203n4 factory, 16, 30, 198n8 fangding, 42, 63, p5; bronze, 83; from Daliankeng, 74; in situ assembly for, 64 faunal remains, 107, 108, 131, 204n11

Fenghao, craft industries in, 194 finishing and polishing, 60 flintknapper, 86 foundries: arrowheads produced by, 188–89; production sequence of, 47–60; trash pits of, 201n27; Xiaotun’s structure B5 at, 26, 72–73, 74, 202n32. See also bronze foundries Franklin, Ursula Martius, 46–47 freshwater shells, 146, 206n14 Fuhao tomb, 43–44, 81, 92, 93, 170–71; bone artifacts from, 102; bone spoons and spatulas from, 101; royal objects found in, 142 funerary items, 90–92, 165 furnace building, 59 furnace operation, 47 Fu Sinian. See Fu Ssu-nien Fu Ssu-nien, 9 Gao Quxun. See Kao Chühsün Gaojiapu cemetery, 170 gong (artisan), 187, 198n11 gong vessel, 50 Great Connected Trenches (Daliankeng), 23, 24 Great Settlement Shang (Dayi Shang), 168 gui vessel, 56, 200n17, p4 Guo Baojun. See Kuo Pao-chün Guojiazhuang tomb no. 160, 92 gu vessel, 76, 80, p7 habitation sites, 127 hairpins, 191, 205n24; Anyang production of, 126; from bone fragments, 121–22, 204n22; bone spatulas compared to, 119–23; caps, 86–87, 106, 106; in elite tombs, 126–27; reduction patterns on, 115; from Tiesanlu bone workshop, 111, 122 Han civilizations, 14–15 Han dynasty, 148, 195 high-elite tombs, 90, 102–3 high-skilled tasks, 122 high-status artifacts, 131–33, 188–89 horse pits, 64 household production, 16 Huanbei settlement, 4, 8, 198n3, 202n32

255 INDEX

Huanbei Shang City, 8 Huayuanzhuang East, 131–32 Huayuanzhuang, 32 Huayuanzhuang South, 105, 105 Huayuanzhuang tomb no. 54, 92 human sacrifices, 35, 135, 191 hydraulic systems, 175 hydrogen reduction method, 160 hypertrophic bone artifacts, 88, 92–94, 103–4, 203n5 IA. See Institute of Archaeology IHP. See Institute of History and Philology ingots, 58–59, 62, 188 Institute of Archaeology (IA), 2–4; Archaeological Excavations and Researches at Yinxu by, 198n6; Beixinzhuang bone workshop excavated by, 29; Dasikong South bone workshop and, 30–31; data from, 5; Excavation Report of Yinxu: 1958–1961 from, 198n6; Miaopu North bronze foundry by, 27–29; protection zones of, 9; Tiesanlu bone workshop and, 34, 36, 111; workshops excavated (1950s and 1960s) by, 27–31; workshops excavated (1970s and 1980s) by, 31–32; workshops excavated (after 2000) by, 32–37; Xiaomintun West bronze foundry and, 29–30 Institute of History and Philology (IHP), 3; data from, 5; excavations by, 4, 9–10; mold fragments of, 53, 73–75; stone blades and, 156; Type I molds of, 76; workshop excavation by, 21–27; Xiaotun bronze foundry finds by, 70–73 internal demands, 186 IVF1, at Miaopu North, 64 ivory artifacts, 141, 204n10, 206nn7–8; cups turquoise-inlaid, 93; processing of, 135–42; vessels, 140 jade elephants, 135 jiangjun kui vessels, 28 jiangshifen yingmian (working surface), 67 jue mold, 77–79, 78 jue vessel, 200n17, p6

Kao Chühsün, 26 Karlbeck, Orvar, 75 Keightley, David N., 191, 207n4 Kerr, Rose, 52, 200n6 Kidder, A. V., 10 kilns: at Liujiazhuang North, 37, 160, 207n21; Neolithic, 161–62; pottery, 6, 37, 160; pottery waste from, 162; of Shang dynasty, 160–62; Y5 at Liujiazhuang North, 161 Kuo Pao-chün, 25–26 Kwang-chih Chang. See Chang, K. C. lacquered wooden objects, 144–45, 148, 182 lacquer ware, 144–49 lapidary production, 31 lapidary workshop, 148 large-scale production, 197n7; of bone artifacts, 88, 104–12, 185–86; of bone industry, 5, 126; of craft industries, 12–14, 182–85, 183, 194 large-scale workshops, 103, 112–18, 165–67, 182–84; bone artifacts from, 125; defining, 15–16; of pottery, 46 lei vessel, 51, p2 Liang Siyong. See Liang Ssu-yung Liang Ssu-yung, 9–10, 26, 116–17 Li Chi, 1–2, 9, 202n29, 206n14; Daliankeng findings of, 25; Pottery of the Yin and the Pre-Yin Period by, 158; Xiaotun stone blades analysis of, 149–52 Li Ji. See Li Chi limb bones, 121 lineage-based settlements, 169, 169–73 lineage cemetery (zu mudi), 171 lineage settlement (zuyi), 171 lithic production, 31, 131, 166 Liujiazhuang North, 35, 59, 82–84; elite residences at, 178; excavations in, 177–79; ingot storage pits in, 62; kilns at, 37, 160, 207n21; Kiln Y5 excavated at, 161; pottery kilns at, 37, 160, 207n21; pottery production from, 156, 161; residential complex of, 208n13 Liu Li, 205n2 Liu Yiman, 72, 202n31

256 INDEX

Li Zhipeng, 107, 126, 131 Lü Cheng-jui, 120 lugged vessel, 54 Luoyang, craft industries in, 194 mammals, for oracle bone inscriptions, 205n5 management: of craft industries, 167, 184, 191–95; craft industries top-down, 189–90; of craft production, 186–87 manufacturing: of bone spatulas, 121–22; continuum, 94–104, 104; in craft production, 2–3; pottery techniques in, 158–59; techniques, 158; waste produced by, 10–11; weapons, 83, 188–89 marble objects, 130, 182; Anyang using, 142–44; from Daliankeng, 147–48; deposits for, 144, 206n12; from royal cemetery, 148; seat, 134, p8; shell ivory, 40 market economy, 126 material culture, 20, 142 Ma Xiaolin, 14, 124–25 maximum production estimate from debitage (MPED), 111 melting furnace, 59 metallurgy, 13–14, 47, 58–59 metal recycling, 60 metal use, 41–42 metapodials, 109, 120 metric variability, 115 Miaopu, 208n10 Miaopu North, 36, 38, 45; bone tools found at, 99; bronze foundry at, 27–29, 62, 68–69, 83, 198n5; bronze production of, 70, 208n14; bronze workshops of, 208n14; casting installations at, 63–65; craft production at, 163; excavation sections of, 28–29, 198nn5–6; foundry at, 62, 68–69, 83; IVF1 at, 64; melting furnace at, 59; model fragments at, 50; mold fragments from, 75–82; phases of, 68–70; trash pits at, 67–70, 69; trenches at, 66, 68; VF6 at, 63; working surfaces at, 65–67; workshop layout at, 61, 67–70

military campaigns, 191 minimum number of elements (MNE), 109 model fragments, 49, 50, 200n16 model making, 48–49, 65 mold assemblage, 42, 63, 75 mold fragments, 26–27, 62, 64, 192; at Anyang, p13; from bronze foundry, 58; decoration painted on, 57, 57–58; of gui vessel, 56; of gui vessel, p4; from Huanbei site, 198n3; of IHP, 53, 73–75; with incised decorations, 55, p3; of jue vessel, p6; for lugged vessel, 54; from Miaopu North, 75–82; raised lines of, 201n20; Type I, 80, 81; of weapons, 208; weapons manufacturing and, 83, 188–89, 208; from Xiaomintun, 75–82; from Xiaotun, 77, p7 mold-making technology, 76–77 mold sections, 51, 51, 200n18, 203n34, p2 mortises, 77, 84, 201n19 MPED. See maximum production estimate from debitage multicrafting, at Daliankeng, 132–45 natural layers, 10 neighborhoods, 19, 172, 176–81, 207n8 Neolithic period, 48, 124, 161–62 Nickel, Lukas, 52–53 number of identified specimens (NISP), 109 offcuts, 97 oracle bone inscriptions, 72, 125, 133; administrative delegation lacking for, 191; dating of, 202n31; large mammals used for, 205n5; ritual nature of, 187; during Shang dynasty, 185; tigers and elephants in, 135; water buffalo in, 205n2 osseous artifacts, 203n7; arrowheads as, 95; bone tools as, 99; categories of, 90; composition of, 102; distribution of, 91; of funerary items, 90–92; manufacturing continuum of, 104; production, 17; in royal cemetery, 88–94, 90, 112; Type 1A and Type 1B, 96; Type II, 101; Type III, 98

257 INDEX

Plains of Zhou, 192 political economy, 6–7 pollution, 185 postholes, 64 pottery, 131; alluvial sediments used in, 159; Anyang’s production of, 39, 156–62; in Chinese archaeology, 158; chronology, 10; kilns, 6, 37, 160; kiln waste from, 162; large-scale workshops for, 46; Liujiazhuang North kilns for, 37, 160, 207n21; Liujiazhuang North’s production of, 156, 161; manufacturing techniques for, 158–59; production, 18–19, 163; stratigraphic relationships of, 202n29; vessel function of, 207n20; Yinxu Period I production of, 38–40 Pottery of the Yin and the Pre-Yin Period (Li Chi), 158 prescriptive technology (Ursula Franklin), 194 production: bone artifacts precincts for, 190, 190–91; foundry sequence of, 47–60; household, 16; lapidary, 31; lithic, 31, 131, 166; pottery, 18–19, 163; scale of, 198n8; small-scale craft, 132; stone blades sequence of, 151–56, 163; stone blade stages of, 152, p12; workshops precincts for, 188 protection zones, of Yinxu, 9, 199n7 proto-porcelain (yuanshici), 157–58 public infrastructure, 174–76 Qin dynasty, 195 rammed-earth structures, 11; aboveground, 201n244; at Beixujiaqiao, 177; building materials for, 179; at Xiaotun, 26, 71–72, 82; at Xiaotun Northeast, 202n30 raw materials, 87, 127 record keeping, 187 recycled materials, 97 reduction strategies, 113–14; bone spatulas with, 115; for stone blades, 154, 155 Renjiazhuang, 9 reservoir, 175 residential complex, 208n13 residential structures, 172, 176–81, 177

retainer workshops, 16, 198n8 rhinoceros, 133 rituals: bronze vessels for, 191; cattle, 108; of elites, 42–43; oracle bone inscriptions for, 187 road systems, 176 royal cemetery, 21; bone artifacts from, 88, 92–94, 102; bone spatulas from, 100, 122; elephant bones in, 137; ivory objects in, 140; marble pieces from, 148; osseous artifacts composition from, 102, 203n7; osseous artifacts distribution at, 91; osseous artifacts in, 88–94, 90, 112; shell artifacts in, 145–49; at Xibeigang, 18, 89, 94 royal hunting, 133–35 royal objects, 142 Royal Ontario Museum, 49, 75, 138, 140 royal workshop, 131–32 ruling elites, 20, 189 sacrificial offerings, 125, 136 sacrificial pit, 31 seat, marble, 134, p8 seawater shells, 206n15 section-mold casting, 17–18, 44, 51–52, 71; in Anyang, 84; from bronze foundry, 5, 80–81; bronze vessels using, 73–82; Shang dynasty using, 45–47; type I and type II molds in, 79 sediments, alluvial, 159 Shang Civilization (Chang), 167, 197n4 Shang dynasty: Anyang capital of, 1–2; artisan-centered workshops in, 181–82; bone artifacts during, 88; bronze foundry, 33, 83; bronze vessels during, 43; craft industry management by, 184; craft production of, 192; economic aspects of, 7; elite culture of, 6, 133–35; human sacrifices in, 191; hydraulic systems of, 175; kilns of, 160–62; lacquer production during, 148; as lineage-based, 169–71; market economy and, 126; oracle bone inscriptions during, 185; palatial structures of, 180; recording keeping by, 187; residential structures of, 180–81; royal hunting of, 133–35;

258 INDEX

Shang dynasty (continued ) section-mold casting used by, 45–47; skilled workers of, 207n4; top-down approach of, 7–8; Wu Ding king of, 92; Zhou transition from, 194–95 Shanghai Museum, 46 shaotu yingmian (working surface), 65–67 shell artifacts, 142–49, 206n15; freshwater shells, 146, 206n14; marble shell ivory, 40; shell inlay pieces, 130 Shi Zhangru. See Shih Chang-ju Shih Chang-ju, 10, 25–26, 202nn29–30; bronze types from, 70–73; bronze use from, 201n23; manufacturing techniques and, 158; Tiangongkaiwu by, 201n25; trash pits reconstructed by, 22 Simu Wu fangding (square ding), 63 Simu Wu square ding, 90–92 Sino-Japanese War, 70 skeletal elements, 86–87; for bone artifacts, 140; for bone spatulas, 120; from cattle, 109–11, 110; reduction strategies of, 113– 14; shape of, 97, 113; spatial distribution of, 111; structure of, 113; of tigers and elephants, 134–37, 142, 143 small artisan-centered workshop, 16 small-scale craft production, 132 smelting, 25–26, 187 spatial configuration, 172 standardization, 112–18 stone blades, 40; from Daliankeng, p11; grinding, 154; IHP and, 156; notches on, 206n17; production sequence for, 151–56, 163; production stages of, 152, p12; reduction sequence for, 154, 155; types of, 151, 154–56; workshops for, 151–56; from Xiaotun, 149–52, 150, 153; at Xiaotun temple-palace complex, 150, 153, 155 stratigraphic information, 22–23 structure B5, Xiaotun, 72–73, 74, 202n32 tablet, from bone artifacts, 122, 140, 206n6 takin skull, 133, 137, 205n1 Tan, Derui, 52 tapir, 133 taxa utilization, 107–9 technology, 194–95

temple-palace district, 173–74, 182 temporal positions, 38–39 tenons, 77, 84, 201n19, 203n33 Teotihuacan, 171–72 textile factory, 30 Tiangongkaiwu (Shih), 201N25 Tiesanlu: bone spatulas and hairpins from, 111, 122; bone waste from, 120; bone workshop, 34, 36, 111; cattle distribution in, 109–11; craft production at, 163; excavation trenches of, 34, 36; largescale operations of, 104–12 tiger humerus, 131, 138, 141 tigers, back-to-back, 130, 134, p8 top-down approach, 7–8, 19–20 trash pits, 11–12, 33, 201n27; at Dasikong South, 26–27; at Huayuanzhuang, 32; at Huayuanzhuang South, 105, 105; at Miaopu North, 67–70, 69; reconstruction of, 22; for workshops, 61–62; at Xiaotun Northeast, 71–72; at Xin’anzhuang West, 35 trenches: in Anyang, 183; at Daliankeng, 132; at Miaopu North, 66, 68; at Tiesanlu, 34, 36 Tung Tso-pin, 72 turquoise-inlays, 93, 132, 138, p9 Type IA osseous artifacts, 96 Type IB osseous artifacts, 96 Type III, bone artifacts, p11 Type II-III, bone artifacts, 103 Type III osseous artifacts, 98 Type II molds, 79, p5, p6 Type II osseous artifacts, 101 Type I molds, 76, 76, 79, 80, 81, 203n35, p6, p7 Uchida, Junko, 204n8, 204n21, 206n6 Umehara, Sueiji, 94, 204n8 uniformity, of arrowheads, 118 urban centers, 124, 171–73 urban layout, Anyang, 167–81, 168 urban planning, 174, 177 urban systems, 6 utilitarian vessels, 157, 166 vessels, clay molds for, 46 VF6, at Miaopu North, 63

259 INDEX

Wan Chia-pao, 73, 203n34 Wang Shu-li, 199n7 waste: bone, 120; at Huayuanzhuang East, 131–32; manufacturing producing, 10–11; pottery, 162; from workshops, 13, 114 water buffalo, 205n2 water canals, 35, 82–83, 176 water pipes, ceramic, 159 weapons, 83, 188–89, 208 Western Zhou period, 38, 43, 52, 208n14 Wheatley, Paul, 173 white clay pottery (baitao), 157 wild animals, 133–34 Wood, Nigel, 52, 200n6 wooden objects, 144–45 wooden pallets, 130, 145 workshops: aboveground structures for, 62; Anyang’s bronze, 61–70; bone production of, 186, 189; bronze casting stages of, 16–17, 47–48; for bronze production, 16–17, 44–45; casting installations at, 63–65; clay preparation in bronze, 48; cultural deposits from, 11; Dasikong’s spatial divisions at, 111; debris from, 10–12; division of labor in, 46–47; fired ceramic pieces from, 199n3; foundry sites for, 61; IA excavating (1970s and 1980s), 31–32; IA excavating (1950s and 1960s) of, 27–31; IA excavation (after 2000) of, 32–37; IHP’s excavation of, 21–27; internal demands on, 186; lapidary, 148; largescale pottery, 46; Miaopu North layout of, 61, 67–70; production precincts for, 188; retainer, 16, 198n8; royal, 131–32; small artisan-centered, 16; spatial and temporal distribution of, 38–40; for stone blades, 151–56; trash pits for, 61–62; waste from, 13, 114; working surfaces of, 65–67; Xiaomintun South layout of, 61; Xin’anzhuang West bone and bronze, 35–37. See also artisancentered workshops; bone workshops; large-scale workshops World Heritage Site, 199n7 Wu Chin-ting, 158 Wu Ding (king), 92, 197n1, 202n31

Xiaomintun, 38, 199n9; bronze foundries at, 82–83; jue mold from, 79; mold fragments from, 75–82 Xiaomintun South, 45; bronze foundry at, 34–35; casting installations at, 63–65; earthen pit at, 62; foundries of, 79; model fragments from, 49; workshop layout at, 61 Xiaomintun Southeast, 32–34, 60 Xiaomintun West, 29–30, 203n36 Xiaotun, 38; B5 structure at, 26, 72–73, 74, 202n32; bone spatulas from, 119, 120; bronze foundry finds at, 70–73; casting facility at, 201n25; excavations at, 4; fangding from, 74; foundry structure B5 at, 72–73, 74, 202n32; mold fragments at, 77, p7; North, 31–32; rammed-earth structures at, 26, 71–72, 82; South, 132; stone blades from, 149–53, 150; tiger humerus from, 141; topography of, 175; zone B of, 25–26 Xiaotun Northeast, 23–25, 70–73, 202n30 Xiaotun temple-palace complex, 10, 24; animal sacrifices in, 173–74; artisan-centered workshops in, 19; bone tablet in, 140; high-skilled tasks from, 122; ivory objects from, 141; size of, 174; small-scale craft production at, 132; stone blades at, 150, 153, 155; tiger and elephant skeletal elements in, 143 Xibeigang: bone artifacts from, 102; bone spatulas from, 119, 120; human sacrifices at, 191; royal cemetery at, 18, 89, 94; sacrificial offerings at, 136; tombs, 134, 144–45, 148; see also royal cemetery Xin’anzhuang West, 36; bone and bronze workshops at, 35–37; bone fragments at, 204n22; bone waste from, 120; cattle distribution at, 109–11, 110; cattle used at, 107–9, 108; large-scale bone operations of, 104–12; trash pits at, 35; workshop waste from, 114 Xindian, 9, 199n2 Xuejiazhuang, 27–28

260 INDEX

Yang Xizhang, 79 Yinxu Period I, 32, 81–82, 202n29; bronze and pottery production in, 38–40; kilns during, 161 Yinxu Period II-IV, 32–33, 68–69, 68–69 Yinxu settlement, 9 you vessel, 80, 193, p7, p13 yuanshici (proto-porcelain), 157–58 Zheng Ruokui, 168–69 Zhou dynasty, 33, 169, 191–95

Zhouyuan, craft industries in, 194 Zhu Fenghan, 72 Zou Heng, 72, 202n29 Zu Geng (king), 73 Zu Jia (king), 72–73 zu mudi (lineage cemetery), 171 zun vessels, 50, 60, 81 Zuozhuan text, 194, 209n24 zuyi (lineage settlement), 171