of “palatial foundations” (in the words of the distinguished archeologist K. C. Chang).1 Reconstruction by the on-site archeologists indicates that one of the residences had a gabled roof and a timber framework. Tombs adjacent to the residences show the sharp social distinctions that had developed. A few – the graves of the elite – had lacquered coffins and other valuables, but the depredations of grave robbers make it impossible to assess the exact nature of the ritual and practical objects placed in these tombs. Others were bare and appear to contain the remains of ordinary people of nonelite background. A few individual residences were sizable, reflecting the rise of a newly prosperous elite. In sum, the scale of the palaces and a few of the tombs reveal a much more highly developed culture than that of the Longshan.
Although stone tools and objects made of bone and shell similar to those found at Longshan predominated, artifacts composed of other materials less frequently found (if at all) at Longshan occurred at Erlitou. Stone tools comprised the vast majority of agricultural implements excavated at the site, and a few farm tools were shaped from bone and shell. Yet the inhabitants of Erlitou also used bronze knives and chisels. Gray, black, and red pottery provided most of the food and storage containers, but bronze wine vessels also appeared in larger numbers. Bronze weapons and musical instruments supplemented the stone varieties and were found even more frequently than in the Longshan sites. Objects made of new and more valuable materials and probably used for rituals and ceremonies surfaced more often from this era. Jade ceremonial knives and axes, lacquer drums and cups, and turquoise plates constituted new objects not represented in Longshan sites. On the other hand, like the Longshan peoples, the inhabitants used oracle bones, but, unlike the Shang, they did not produce inscriptions, thus revealing the absence of a written language.
In short, Erlitou represents a mixture of Longshan and Shang, but can it be identified as a distinct phase that coincided with the Xia dynasty? This question continues to be controversial and, like much else in the prehistory of China, the archeological evidence is, as yet, insufficient to provide incontrovertible proof. Also, like much else in the study of Chinese archeology, it has become entangled with feelings of nationalism and attitudes about traditional Chinese historical sources. For a few scholars (certainly not the majority), ethnic pride has become bound up with proving the veracity of the Chinese historical accounts, which are among the most prized and revered writings in China, and with verifying traditional beliefs in and descriptions of the Xia. No doubt they, as well as scholars who have no particular national pride invested in this controversy but who nonetheless subscribe to their views, have developed a strong case to confirm the existence of a Xia dynasty. Longshan, Erlitou, and Shang lie along a continuum, but there are marked differences between the three. The bronzes, burials, and palaces of Erlitou are larger in scale and more diverse in decoration than the similar objects and buildings of the Longshan, whose inhabitants certainly did not erect palaces of any size. The congruence of the dates of Erlitou and the Xia (2100–1800 BCE) also buttresses the claims for an independent dynasty distinct from the Shang. Yet the most striking evidence is that Erlitou sites have been found in precisely the places mentioned in later texts as the locations of the Xia capitals. According to some scholars, this geographic congruence corroborates the information on the Xia in the Chinese historical texts. However, unless written evidence confirming the identification of Erlitou with the Xia is uncovered, the controversy will continue to rage.
Some of the most critical questions swirling around the study of early Chinese civilization center on the origins of its most characteristic cultural and technological elements. To put it simply, did the Chinese develop these institutions and practices independently or did many derive from neighboring cultures from which the Chinese borrowed? The evidence generally bears out the view that the unique features of Chinese civilization developed in China, although useful contributions were introduced from other lands, and careful archeological and linguistic studies may indicate closer links and diffusion between China and other cultures. Analysis of bronzes produced in central Asia may, for example, testify to their predating and influencing the so-called unique bronzes of ancient China; similarly, study of eastern Siberia may show that scapulimancy developed earlier there than in Longshan; finally, the Chinese numerals and writing may have antecedents elsewhere. In short, as more information becomes available, closer links and interchanges between China and the surrounding cultures may be revealed.
THE SHANG AND THE ORIGINS OF CHINESE CIVILIZATION
The Shang is not only the first attested dynasty of China but also the first era to provide an array of rich source materials. More abundant information translates into more precise reconstruction of its history than at any previous time in China’s history. Excavations in the last Shang capital of Anyang have uncovered artifacts, such as bronzes, pottery, jades, and oracle bones, offering vivid glimpses of society. The names of about thirty kings have been identified in the oracle-bone inscriptions, and archeologists have located the sites of eight different capitals of the dynasty. Later written accounts yield stereotypical portraits of the kings, providing insights into the later dynasties but primarily offering anecdotes with a specific moral message about the Shang. For example, these sources depict Cheng Tang, the first ruler, as a great unifier who represented, in Chinese eyes, the highest moral standards. According to these accounts, many regions voluntarily accepted his rule because they recognized that he embodied the virtues prized in Chinese culture. The same sources depict his adversaries, in particular King Jie, the last ruler of the so-called Xia dynasty, as despicable exploiters and oppressors of their subjects. Victory for Cheng Tang was almost predictable, for, in these later accounts, the moral superiority of the new ruler would naturally attract others to join him in defeating the evil and dissolute tyrant.
The other leading Shang figures are also portrayed in dubious stereotypes that served to support the orthodox political morality. The written sources laud rulers of probity but vilify licentious and corrupt kings in order to justify rebellion and usurpation. Pan Geng, for example, is portrayed as a hero because he reputedly moved the capital city to Yin at a propitious time. On the other hand, King Zhou, the last ruler of the dynasty, is presented as a grotesque monster. According to these later sources, he ignored the government, sponsored outrageous orgies, and exacted higher taxes to pay for the lavishness at court. Critics of his policies and activities took their lives in their hands. He had recalcitrant ministers sliced open so that he could examine their hearts; he used the so-called “grilled roast” technique to incinerate, in a most painful way, any dissenters; and he killed a female bedmate who was apparently not enchanted with his sexual proclivities. This horrifying portrait of a brutal tyrant naturally served to justify the Zhou dynasty’s overthrow of the Shang in the eleventh century BCE. The political motives underlying this depiction arouse suspicions about its accuracy. Nor can the Shang’s fall be attributed to a depraved and blood-thirsty monster. Economic, social, and political factors, some of which will never be known because of the limitations of the written sources and the material artifacts, contributed much more to its decline than the alleged brutality of a loathsome, almost inhuman king.
Despite these lacunae, archeological data and written inscriptions reveal considerable development in almost every area of endeavor. The Shang, the dates of which are still in dispute, though it certainly ended in 1028 BCE, witnessed remarkable changes from Neolithic cultures. Cities rather than towns were built. Rituals and ceremonies were more elaborate, and a recognizable system of writing was created. The populations of the cities were larger, necessitating a more complicated social system. Nearly every site and institution was on a larger scale than in the Neolithic.
The modern city of Anyang (in modern Henan province), in which the Shang capital of Yin was located, has turned out to be a treasure house of Shang civilization. The site stretches beyond the old city walls of Anyang to include small villages and tomb complexes. The village of Xiaotun, the principal site thus far excavated, consisted of rectangular houses with stamped-earth bases, large tombs adjacent to smaller burial pits, and ritual areas also with burial pits. The excavations indicate that Xiaotun was inhabited prior to the shifting of the capital. Even in this early period, the several hundred or so residences uncovered had drainage ditches, and graves of seemingly important individuals contained bronze
