313
book reviews
generation of lay patronage, but . . . it
­accorded directly with Buddhist theology and
its preoccupation with the alleviation of
­suffering (dukkha)” (252). By her own admission, many of the questions Shaw raises in her
study of dams and habitation settlement sites
in this region will require further investigation to be fully substantiated. However, Shaw
successfully presents a picture of the Buddhist
monastic community as participating in the
broader social and economic milieu within
the region. Shaw’s evidence repeatedly suggests that, contrary to the picture of the aloof
or retiring Buddhist monk provided in certain textual sources, from an early date the
monastic communities around Sanchi found
“practical” and “active” ways to encourage
economic support from local residents.
In her introduction, Shaw notes the challenges involved in the study of ancient Indian
religions, which benefits from the approaches
of several distinct disciplines. As the current
“underlying academic infrastructure” makes
the acquisition of the required skills and training quite difficult for an individual student to
achieve, Shaw suggests “what is now required
is meaningful and focused dialogue across and
between the various disciplines” (26), while
also noting the challenges involved in this sort
of productive dialogue, in which “it is as difficult for an uninformed archaeologist to ask
the right questions of a scholar of Buddhist
texts as it is for the latter to recognise the potential contribution of a pile of potsherds or
hydrological data to their own research” (26).
In the years since Shaw published her study, a
number of contributions from scholars work-
ing in a range of disciplines have emerged that
engage some of Shaw’s larger questions. For
example, Jonathan Silk’s Managing Monks:
­Administrators and Administrative Roles in Indian
Buddhist Monasticism (2008), Andy Rotman’s
Thus Have I Seen: Visualizing Faith in Early
­Indian Buddhism (2009), and Akira Shimada’s
Early Buddhist Architecture in Context: The
Great Stūpa at Amarāvatī (ca. 300 b.c.e.–300
c.e.) (2012) all address, in part, ways in which
monastic communities engaged in economic
transactions. By greatly expanding our
­understanding of the broader landscape and
social contexts that surrounded the long-lived
and justifiably famous Buddhist site at Sanchi,
Shaw’s work, along with a number of other
studies, most certainly contributes to the very
sort of interdisciplinary dialogue she ­proposes.
References Cited
DeCaroli, Robert
2004 Haunting the Buddha: Indian Popular
­Religions and the Formation of Buddhism.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Rotman, Andy
2009 Thus Have I Seen: Visualizing Faith in
Early Indian Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Shimada, Akira
2012 Early Buddhist Architecture in Context:
The Great Stūpa at Amarāvatī (ca. 300
BCE–300 CE). Brill’s Indological
­Library 43. Leiden, The Netherlands:
Brill Academic Publishers.
Silk, Jonathan
2008 Managing Monks: Administrators and Administrative Roles in Indian Buddhist Monasticism. New York: Oxford University
Press.
China in the Early Bronze Age: Shang Civilization. Robert L. Thorp. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005. 320 pp, 125 figs, 9 tables, 7 maps. ISBN: 978-08122-3910-2. Hardcover: $69.95.
Reviewed by Roderick Campbell, Departments of East Asian Languages and
Civilizations and Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
In his English-language overview of Shang 商
civilization incorporating up-to-date archaeological, art-historical, and transmitted tex-
tual and epigraphic information, Thorp
attempts a Herculean task. This is a much
needed contribution to a field that has not
Asian Perspectives, V
ol. 51, No. 2 © 2014 by the University of Hawai‘i Press.
314
asian perspectives . 51(2) . fall 2012
had a synthetic treatment of the subject in
English since K. C. Chang’s work in the early
eighties (1980, 1983). As the jacket cover
states, China in the Early Bronze Age aims to be
both an introduction to Shang civilization for
those who can’t read Chinese and “a handbook and research guide” for those who can.
Given the pace of archaeological work in
China, its rapidly multiplying and frequently
scattered publications, and the difficulty of
accessing, let alone synthesizing, the results of
such diverse and esoteric sources of infor­
mation as oracle-bone and bronze vessel
epigraphy, transmitted texts with their
­millennia-deep commentarial traditions, and
current art-historical and archaeological
­approaches to material culture and its interpretation, Thorp’s relative success or failure to
achieve his stated goals must be seen in the
context of the enormity of his task.
Thorp’s preface is a Western scholar’s
­thirty-some-year backward glance at the context and development of archaeological practice in the PRC during what has been termed
“the Golden Age of Chinese Archaeology.”
Here, as throughout the work, the writing
style is straightforward, the language simple,
and the text amazingly jargon-free. Thorp’s
informative use of subject boxes aimed at an
introductory audience supplement the text
and introduce such concepts and institutions
as “mythic narratives,” “cultural relic (wenwu
文物),” and “Institute of Archaeology (Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 中國社
會科學院考古研究所).”
The introductory chapter provides the
geographical setting and Neolithic cultural
background to the Chinese Bronze Age.
Thorp tackles the important but tricky issue
of de-linking geographical China from the
modern Chinese nation-state and Han 漢
ethnicity in a manner that is both concise and
easy to understand. The idea of providing a
regional geographical context for ancient societies in China is a good one, but Thorp’s use
of Skinner’s (1985) map of Qing 清 dynasty
macroregions (which are not, contra Thorp,
entirely “natural” in the sense of being independent of human economic, cultural, and
technological developments) is perhaps not
ideal. A topographical map would have been
more useful, and one or a series of maps that
took into account the paleo-environment
and the distribution of archaeological cultures
within it would have been even better.
The 12 pages on the Late Neolithic begins
with a 6-page discussion of terms such as
“Terminal Neolithic” and “Age of Jade” and a
brief overview, followed by a history of the
changing meaning of “Longshan 龍山” and
some sites associated with this historical
­narrative. This history-of-the-discipline approach provides a common thread among
most of the topics in the book and is a valuable contextual addition when it does not get
in the way of an overview of what is currently known on a particular subject. For the
purpose of introducing students unfamiliar
with Chinese archaeology to the topic, I
would have preferred to have more systematically presented information on what is presently known than the history of particular
sites or concepts, especially in a short treatment of a huge topic (or rather, a huge complex of topics). In the six pages left to an
overview of the Late Neolithic, Thorp covers
the concept of a Chinese interaction sphere,
lists walled sites and briefly discusses some of
them, and defines “early states.” He then ties
these threads together to argue for the presence of “complex societies, some possibly incipient states” in the Terminal Neolithic (20).
While I do not necessarily disagree with
his conclusions, there are some problems with
Thorp’s presentation of the material that are
symptomatic of more general problems with
the work. First of all, the focus on walled sites
to the exclusion of non-walled sites seems an
odd choice in the context of a discussion of
regional survey and settlement hierarchies,
particularly when it means some of the largest
sites such as Liangchenzhen 梁城鎮 (245 ha)
in Shandong 山東 are ignored. Secondly,
­although this section of the introductory
chapter is devoted to the Terminal Neolithic
or Longshan period, the only maps given are
from Chang (1986), all of which are for
­periods earlier than the Longshan (3000 –2000
b.c.). For an introductory text, the lack of an
up-to-date map and chronological table of
archaeological cultures is a serious oversight.
Thirdly, although Thorp gamely joins the fray
on the issue of social complexity in China, he
is apparently unaware of the magnitude of
book reviews
315
current state of knowledge concerning contemporaneous archaeological cultures in
­China. On the level of individual details, it
By definition, early states were stratishould be noted that the dates 1900 –1500
fied societies with regional settlement
b.c. for Erlitou are now considered out of
hierarchies, two characteristics that are
date, with more recent research putting the
visible in the archaeological record.
site at c. 1850 –1550 b.c. (CASSIA 2003 : 81,
Disparities in grave goods and the
DDGC 2000 : 76-77) or even c. 1750 –1520
widespread distribution of walled sites
b.c. (Qiu et al. 2005). The claim that “all
are significant indicators that complex
bronze weapon types presently known from
societies had formed in several regional
Erlitou seem to be ceremonial gear” (42) is
settings. (19)
unsubstantiated, and, if arrowheads are inEven if one were to make the simplifying cluded, inaccurate. The Shijiahe 石家河 and
­assumption that there is a scholarly consensus Kexingzhuang 客省庄 cultures are generally
about the definition of an early state, “strati- thought to be earlier than Erlitou (i.e., Longfied societies with regional settlement hierar- shan period), not contemporaneous as the
chies” covers a lot of social evolutionary map on page 49 indicates. The Siba 寺坝 culground. “Complex societies” is equally en- ture is located west of the area shown on the
compassing, “disparities in grave goods” may map and important contemporary cultures
be an indication of differential status (but the such as Xiaqiyuan 下七垣, Zhukaigou 朱開
issue is more one of scale than presence/­ 溝, Doujitai 鬥雞台, and Guangshe 光社 or
absence), and “walled sites” are not necessar- Jinzhong 晉中 are omitted from the map and
ily related to anything except as possible indi- subsequent discussion. These omissions lead
cators of warfare and of labor invested in their Thorp to discuss potential long-range interconstruction and maintenance (one of many action between Erlitou and distant cultures
possible indicators). In short, when one con- without consideration of intervening culsiders all the ways in which societies can be tures. Thus, some Erlitou-type drinking
complex and the paucity of information con- ­vessels found at Dadianzi 大甸子 (2% of the
cerning the actual organization of Chinese total mortuary ceramic sample) are discussed
Neolithic sociopolitical entities, attempting in terms of direct Erlitou–Lower Xiajiadian
to place them on a universal social-­ 夏家店 contacts, whereas mediation through
evolutionary ladder is at best premature and at the intervening Xiaqiyuan, Jinzhong, or
worst an uncritical and inaccurate appropria- Zhukaigou cultures seems much more likely.
tion of a deeply controversial body of anthro- Finally, although the search for the Xia section is germane and generally accurate, the
pological theory.1
Chapter 1 introduces the Erlitou 二里頭 Western Zhou bronze vessel Bin Gong Xu 豳
Culture, including a brief history of its dis- 公盨, as the earliest record of the Yu 禹 narcovery and the site it is named after, its rative, is surely relevant and should have been
­regional context, its bronzes and jades, then mentioned.
Chapter 2 continues the narrative of North
contemporary cultures, and the issue of Erlitou’s relationship to the Xia 夏 dynasty. This China Bronze Age civilization with discusdivision gives a good coverage of important sion of the Erligang 二離崗 culture divided
aspects of the Erlitou Culture and its signifi- into two long sections on “a network of sites”
cance. The discussion of the Erlitou site, and and “technologies of power and prestige” and
especially its elite material culture (architec- two short sections on “Erligang Society” and
ture, jade and bronze artifacts) is informative “Erligang and the Regions.”2 The section on
and comprehensive, yet written in a manner site networks is further divided into discuseasy for non-specialists to understand. The sions on “walled capitals (du 都),” “satellites
discussion of regional context and contempo- or citadels,” and settlements (yi 邑). There is
rary cultures could have used a more compre- some anachronism in using the Eastern Zhou
hensive overview, a better map, and perhaps word for capital to describe the Shang period
some tables to more systematically present the (oracle bones record only yi-settlements or
the battle surrounding the issues when he
states,
316
asian perspectives . 51(2) . fall 2012
large yi-settlements). This might explain
Thorp’s otherwise odd fixation on walled
sites throughout the work, despite the fact
that Erlitou and Anyang 安陽 were unwalled.
Nevertheless, the introductions to the Yanshi
Shangcheng 偃師商城 and Zhengzhou 鄭州
sites are a good mixture of overview and
­historical background with a nice box on
pounded earth construction perfect for introductory students. The subsection on smaller
Erligang walled sites gives a good introduction to the subject.3 The example of the Taixi
台西 site rounds out a selection of the range
of ­Erligang-type sites and their possible relationships.
There are, however, a couple of minor
points that should be addressed with respect
to the archaeological record of this period.
Thorp’s assertion on page 76 that houses and
workshops do not survive in great numbers,
while elite burials frequently appear in
­publication, conflates two issues: Chinese
­archaeological interest and archaeological
preservation. There are in fact plenty of
­houses and, to a lesser extent, production remains, but they are much less frequently the
focus of investigation and even less of publication.4 Another assertion conflates Erligang
culture and a putative “Shang state,” two
completely different things:
The actual extent of Erligang Culture
is far from clear-cut. Dozens of additional sites are recorded as the result of
surveys and limited excavations, but
very few have the depth and range of
remains that have been discovered at
the few, best-known, sites discussed
above. In many cases, therefore, pottery
alone suggests the presence of the
­Erligang Culture, an archaeological
­horizon, without however, any clear
evidence that the locality in question
was or was not part of a Shang state.
(76–78)
The lack of evidence for a Shang state hardly
makes the extent of Erligang Culture (which
is defined mostly in terms of ceramics anyway) difficult to define. It is rather the extent
of the Shang state that is far from clear-cut. In
fact, none of the work done at the larger, better known sites allows one to be certain that
they are all part of a single Shang state, only
that they share ceramic and elite material cultural traditions.
The section on elite architecture and
bronze casting is the most detailed and
­comprehensive in the chapter, especially the
bronze casting subsection, which discusses
everything from mining to mold preparation
and the final casting of the bronzes. The short
section on Erligang society should have been
renamed Erligang burials. Furthermore, any
attempt to talk about Erligang society really
ought to incorporate some of the admittedly
more scattered and difficult to synthesize
­information on workshops, tools, ceramic
vessels, and middens. The section on Erligang
and surrounding regions is dedicated to
­describing the Wucheng 吳城 Culture and
its relationship with Erligang. While this is an
important site, and Thorp’s discussion is good,
as in previous chapters and indeed ­throughout
the book, neighboring archaeological cultures are dealt with only in piecemeal fashion
and no comprehensive overview is attempted
(nor is any map given showing the distribution of archaeological cultures).5
The last three chapters of the book all concern the Anyang 安陽 period, to which the
first half of the book serves as an introduction. Chapter 3, “The Shang Kings at Anyang,” provides a history of the excavations at
Anyang and a discussion of the site, including
subsections on the palace-temple area, workshops, royal tombs and “elite cemeteries,” and
elite material culture including ceramic,
bone, ivory, marble, jade, and bronze artifacts
(bronze vessels are left to the discussion of
divination and sacrifice in chapter 4). While
one might wish for more on the non-elites at
Anyang, Thorp can hardly be blamed for the
general lack of information on the subject.6
As you might expect from an art historian
who has spent most of his career studying the
Shang, the discussion of Anyang elite material
culture is both insightful and comprehensive.
Indeed, it is probably the best chapter in the
book, with the discussion of elite material
culture other than bronze artifacts especially
welcome. Nevertheless, chapter 3 could have
used a more comprehensive map showing
place names and locations of the cemeteries,
workshops, and “palace-temples” discussed in
the text.
book reviews
There are some minor points about which
I would like to quibble. Thorp states that the
Xiaomintun 孝民屯 foundry was a “tiny site
in comparison to Miaopu North” (苗圃北)
and that tool and weapons mold fragments
were most numerous (142). Thorp does not
seem to be aware of more recent work done
at Xiaomintun SE, where over 10,000 mold
fragments have been discovered, mostly for
ritual vessels (CASSIA 2003; Li 2003). The
discussion of “elite cemeteries” also contains a
number of problems. Firstly, it has recently
been estimated that at least 10,000 late Shang
burials have been excavated outside the royal
cemetery (Tang 2004), not 3000 as Thorp
states.7 Secondly, the claim on page 152 that
these were for “petty elite” lineages who
­enjoyed “a social status far above the rest of
the population” is simply inaccurate. Tombs
in these cemeteries range from a few large
tombs frequently associated with chariot pits
that have ramps and rich furnishings (including death attendants, bronze vessel sets, and
jade artifacts) to unfurnished pits just large
enough to fit a body. Indeed, based on my
own preliminary study of Yinxu 殷墟 burials,
the majority (over 80%) of burials were small
rectangular pits with a single coffin, a few ceramic pots, perhaps a cowry shell, and occasionally a couple of bronze weapons or tools.8
Given that this is what ordinary Chinese
Bronze Age burials look like elsewhere, there
doesn’t seem to be any good reason for calling
them “petty elite” burials or for speculating
they had a status far above a population of
which we have no evidence. It seems more
likely that the occupants of these cemeteries
were the majority of the population. The
claim that there is little indication of settlements “among or nearby” the cemeteries is
also inaccurate. Although this has come out in
recent work of which Thorp may not have
been aware, it seems most late Shang residential areas have tombs among or nearby the
houses and the Western cemeteries at Yinxu
are no exception.9
Chapter 4, an overview of the royal Shang
divination and sacrifice rituals that “held
­society together” (172), is divided into three
parts: oracle-bone divination, bronze ritual
vessels and inscriptions, and social relations.10
The first of these sections is based on David
317
Keightley’s work (1999) and is a fair attempt
at summarizing another scholar’s views while
adding some insights of Thorp’s own. It does
contain some inaccuracies such as the claim
that in late periods the king was the only
­diviner (179)11 and that there was generally a
correspondence between ancestors’ daynames and the day of divination.12 The section on bronze vessels is stronger; it goes into
more than enough detail for an introductory
text. It should be noted, however, that the
functions assigned to Shang bronzes are based
on the received textual tradition rather than
systematic residue or use-wear analysis; thus,
while the statement that yan 甗 were used for
steaming grains may be broadly correct, the
possibly steamed human skulls found in yan in
three different Yinxu burials suggest that grain
may not have been the only thing yan were
used to steam (Tang 2005 : 15–18).13 The final
section on Shang bronze inscriptions and
their relationship to social relations is an
­important inclusion and Thorp gives a good
introduction to the issues.
Chapter 5 attempts to put the previous two
chapters into regional context, discussing
possible political and cultural relationships,
regional exchange networks, and Shang material cultural influences. As in previous chapters attempting to deal with archaeological
work regionally, Thorp’s account, while introducing important examples, ends up being
rather piecemeal and lacks a good synthetic
overview. The topic of exchange networks in
the late Shang period is important, but
Thorp’s discussion is marred by errors. The
claim that Anyang copper ore came from the
Yangzi 長江 area is unsubstantiated and
­unreferenced.14 Northern proto-porcelain
may have come from Hunan 湖南, Jiangxi 江
西, and Zhejiang 浙江, but only Jiangxi
(Wucheng) is backed with a provenience
study and that is not without controversy.15
The claim that nephrite from Anyang and
Xingan 新干 came from Xinjiang 新疆 has
not been substantiated by any sourcing
­studies.16 The claim that lacquer came from
the Yangtze area is not, to my knowledge,
based on anything more than speculation. Citations would have greatly helped assessment
of some of Thorp’s claims here and throughout the book. Although perhaps reflecting the
318
asian perspectives . 51(2) . fall 2012
publisher’s policy on introductory texts, their
paucity is perhaps the greatest shortcoming of
the book, crippling its use as a “handbook
and research guide” (back cover).
As an accessible introduction to the Chinese Bronze Age, China in the Early Bronze
Age is nevertheless the most comprehensive
and up-to-date book of its type in English.
For more advanced students and courses with
space on the reading list, it should ideally be
read along with Bagley (1999), Keightley
(1999), and Liu and Chen (2003) for comparison. For students who can read Chinese,
CASSIA (2003) is the most recent and important synthesis of Chinese archaeological
research for the Early/Middle Bronze Age.
Campbell (forthcoming), moreover, presents
an updated and critical synthesis of much the
same material in English. The relevant chapters of Underhill (2013) should also be consulted and Flad and Chen (2013) shed light
on understudied regions providing an alternative perspective on the centers and peripheries of “ancient China”. China in the Early
Bronze Age can and should be supplemented
with the almost daily output of reports, analyses, and syntheses published as monographs
and in conference volumes, collections of
­essays, and a widening array of journals (too
numerous, even in English, to list here). As
archaeological work in China continues
apace, absorbs and develops new methodologies, and increasingly becomes part of an
­international archaeological community, attempts to synthesize the Bronze Age of China
will only become more difficult even while
the topic itself becomes ever more interesting. While the ’70s and ’80s were heralded by
some as the Golden Age of Chinese archaeology, I would suggest that Chinese archaeol­
ogy’s Golden Age has not yet come to pass.
Notes
1. For just a few examples of critiques of neoevolutionary theory see Paynter (1989), Smith
(2003), and Yoffee (2005). Even Feinman
(1998 : 132), who was in the vanguard of neoevolutionary theory of the 1980s, has come to
write, “an understanding of societal change
and preindustrial states requires much more
than a single theory, evolutionary scenario, or
set of prime movers.”
2. Thorp gives 1600 –1300 b.c.e. for the Erligang
Culture but, although the Xia, Shang, Zhou
Duan Dai Gong Cheng 夏商周斷代工程
(DDGC 2000 : 87) gives the same dates for the
early Shang period, Erligang layers only cover
1600 –1400 b.c.e. The last hundred years of the
“early Shang” is based on radiocarbon samples
from Xiaoshuangqiao 小雙橋 and Huayuanzhuang 花園莊 layers (see tables 15 and 18 in
DDGC [2000]), so terming this entire period
“Erligang” is inappropriate. Moreover, more
recent work on sites such as Huanbeicheng 洹
北城 at Anyang have caused a widely accepted
reappraisal of the Shang chronological scheme,
dividing it into early (c. 1600 –1400 b.c.e.),
middle (c. 1400 –1250 b.c.e.), and late Shang
(c. 1250 –1050 b.c.e.), with the middle period
basically corresponding to the Intermediate
period proposed in Bagley (1999). The term
“Middle Shang” was first suggested for the period between Erligang and Yinxu 殷墟 in Yang
and Tang (1999) and the tripartite division of
the Shang period is used in the Institute of
Archaeology’s recent synthesis of Early and
Middle Chinese Bronze Age archaeology
(CASSIA 2003).
3. The focus on walls and walled sites seen in
Table 2.2 on page 64 gives rise to misleading
impressions of the relative size of Erligangperiod sites, however. Although the walled
area of Panlongcheng 盤龍城 is only 7.5 ha in
area, the entire site covers almost ten times
that. HBS (2001 : 2) gives the figure of 1000 × 1100 m = 110 ha, but this near square includes
areas of ravine and lake; Sun (2005 : 8) gives a
more accurate figure of 64 ha.
4. For instance, far more houses than intact elite
tombs have been excavated at Anyang despite
the fact that the former appear more rarely in
publications. In excavations I participated in at
Shachang 沙場 and Sipanmo 四盤磨 in the
Anyang area, dozens of houses and tombs were
excavated, but no intact elite tombs were
found. Moreover, both houses and production
sites are increasingly the focus of ­archaeological
attention at Anyang and elsewhere. For An­
yang residential areas see Meng 2003; CASSIA
2003; Anyang Team 2009; Tang and Jing 2009.
For a sample of work on production at Anyang
see Li 2003; Liu and Yue 2005; Haapanen 2005;
Campbell et al. 2011; Li et al. 2011; He 2011.
5. Although there is no comprehensive and upto-date discussion of regional archaeological
cultures in the Chinese Bronze Age, Cohen
(2001) gives both a critique of Chinese
­culture-historical archaeological practice and
an introduction to the Yueshi culture and issues surrounding it.
6. An exception to this paucity of information
on non-elite material culture and practice is
Mina Haapanen’s doctoral dissertation concerning food practices and community at An­
yang (2005).
319
book reviews
7. This is apparently based on CASSIA
(1994 : 100) where it is estimated that 6000
tombs of all types (including sacrificial pits)
had been excavated at Anyang. In the decade
since then, many more tombs have been excavated. CASSIA (2003 : 303) states that “more
than 7000” of these “lineage cemetery” tombs
have been ­excavated.
8. Tang (2004) confirms this picture. There are
also midden burials at Anyang that might
­represent the lowest stratum of society, but
­according to Tang (2004 : 100 –102), no more
than a couple hundred of these have been
found, accounting for only about two percent
of the human remains known from Anyang.
9. This is based both on firsthand excavation
­experience at a mixed burial and residential
site at Sipanmo and conversations with An­
yang Work Station archaeologists about the
site structure in general. Tang Jigen in partic­
ular noted that the cemeteries in the Angang
安鋼 area did indeed have residential ­structures
nearby but that these were not recognized or
recorded by previous investigators who were
focused on burials (Tang and Jing 2009).
10. I would also quibble with this overly simple
picture of Shang society that seems to imply
that all social agency rested in the hands of the
high elites. Minimally, such a claim should include an argument for how royal ritual managed to involve the population as a whole and
what stake people of different social classes had
in it. Moreover, there is a danger of circularity
and bias in making a claim for the centrality of
royal ritual based entirely on royal divinations
and high elite material culture.
11. In period V, for example, there is the Huang
黄 group of diviners. It would be more accurate to say that diviners other than the king
were dramatically reduced in number in later
periods (at least as indicated by inscribed oracle bones, which were, however, a minority of
the scapulas and plastrons used for divination).
12. Rather, there is a correspondence between the
day an ancestor received sacrifice and that
­ancestor’s day-name, as the following example
shows (Heji 1979–1983 : 776):
Gui Mao day cracked, Ke tested, next Jia
Chen day [we should] offer to Shang Jia ten
bovines.
癸卯卜, 口, 翌甲辰口于上甲十牛.
13. These yan and their contents are now on display at the Yinxu Museum, Anyang (declared a
UNESCO World Heritage Site in July 2006).
14. Some scholars claim other sources for Anyang
copper, such as Yunnan ( Jin 1987; Jin et al.
1998).
15. For the argument that Wucheng may have
been a source of Central Plains proto-­porcelain
and hard-ware see Chen at al. (1999). For the
argument that Wucheng was not the source of
Anyang and Zhengzhou proto-porcelain and
hard-wares, see Zhou (2005 : 525–530).
16. It is widely believed in China that the material for Anyang jades comes from Hetian in
Xinjiang, but this assumption is based on no
more than a connoisseurial assessment by
modern jade experts examining modern jade
sources. Chemical sourcing studies would not
be easy given that a chemical database of all
known Chinese nephrite sources has not yet
been compiled.
References Cited
Anyang Team (中国社会科学院考古研究所, 安
阳工作队).
2009 Preliminary excavation report for
­Liujiazhuang north locus, Yinxu, An­
yang City, Henan, 河南安阳市殷墟
刘家庄北地2008年发掘简报. Kaogu
7 : 20 –38.
Bagley, R.
1999 Shang archaeology, in The Cambridge
History of Ancient China: From the
­Origins of Civilization to 221 b.c.:
124 –231, ed. M. Loewe and E. L.
Shaughnessy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Campbell, Roderick
2009 Toward a networks and boundaries approach to early complex polities: The
late Shang case. Current Anthropology
50 : 821–848.
Forth‑ The Archaeology of Bronze Age China:
coming From Erlitou to Anyang. Los Angeles:
2014 Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.
Campbell, Roderick, Li Zhipeng and He Yu­
ling
2011 Consumption and Production at the
Great Settlement Shang: Preliminary
Research on the Tiesanlu Bone Workshop. Antiquity 85 : 1279–1297.
Cassia (Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
Institute of Archaeology) (中國社會科學考古
研究所)
2003 Chinese Archaeology: Xia and Shang
(中國考古:夏商卷). Archaeological
Monograph Series. Beijing: Chinese
Social Sciences Press.
1994 Archaeology Excavation and Researches in
the Yin Ruins (殷墟發現與研究). Beijing: Science Press.
Chang, K. C.
1980 Shang Civilization. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
1983 Art, Myth, and Ritual — the Path to
­Political Authority in Ancient China.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
320
asian perspectives . 51(2) . fall 2012
The Archaeology of Ancient China, 4th ed.
New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
1994 (盤龍城：1963–1994年考古發
掘報告). Beijing: Cultural Relics
Press.
Chen, Tiemei, George Rapp, Jing Zhichun, He
Nu
1999 Provenance studies of the earliest
­proto-porcelain using instrumental
neuron activation analysis. Journal of
Archaeo­logical Science 26 : 1003–1015.
Heji (甲骨文合集)
1979– Collection of ­Oracle Bone Inscriptions
1983 (甲骨文合集), 13 volumes, compiled
by Guo Moruo. Beijing: Zhonghuashuju.
1986
Cohen, David
2001 The Yueshi Culture, the Dong Yi and
the Archaeology of Ethnicity in Early
Bronze Age China. Ph.D. diss. Harvard
University.
DDGC (Duan Dai Gong Cheng)
2000 Xia, Shang, Zhou Duan Dai Gong
Cheng [The Xia, Shang, Zhou Chronology Project]. 1996–2000 Report
(abridged) (1996–2000 年階段成果報
告(簡本). Beijing: World Book Press.
Feinman, Gary
1998 Scale and organization: Perspectives on
the archaic state. In Archaic States, ed.
Gary Feinman and Joyce Marcus. Santa
Fe, NM: School of American ­Research.
Flad, Rowan K.
2004 Specialized Salt Production and
Changing Social Structure at the Prehistoric Site of Zhongba in the Eastern
Sichuan Basin, China. Unpublished
Ph.D. diss. Interdisciplinary Program in
Archaeology, University of California–
Los Angeles.
2007 Rethinking specialization in the context of salt production in Prehistoric
Sichuan, in Rethinking Craft Specialization in Complex Societies: Archaeological
Analyses of the Social Meaning of Production: 107–128, ed. Zachary X. Hruby
and Rowan K. Flad. Archaeological
­Papers of the American Anthropo­
logical Association, No. 17. Berkeley:
Amer­ican Anthropological Association and the University of California
Press.
Flad, Rowan, and Chen Pochan
2013 Ancient Central China: Centers and Peripheries Along the Yangzi River. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haapanen, Mina
2005 From a Community to Communities
of Practice: The Late Shang Site at
­Miaopu Locus North, Anyang, Henan,
China. Ph.D. diss., University of California at Los Angeles.
HBS (Hebei Provincial Institute of Cultural
Relics and Archaeology)
2001 The Panglongcheng Site: Report of the
­Archaeological Excavation from 1963–
He Yuling
2011 A discussion of Yinxu craft production organization (殷墟手工业生产管
理模式探析). Sandai Kaogu 4 : 279–
289.
Jin, Zhengyao
1987 A study of alloy provenances of the
late Shang bronzes in the Central
Plains (晚商中原青銅器的礦料來源
研究), in Kexue Lunji (科學論集).
­Hefei: Chinese Science University
Press.
Jin, Zhengyao, W. T. Chase, Hirao Yoshimitsu,
Mabuchi Hisao, Yang Xizhang and Miwa
Karoku
1998 Relationships between Bronze Civilizations in the Two River Valleys in
­China (中國兩河流域青銅文明之間
的聯係), in Collected Papers from the International Conference of China’s Shang
Culture (中國商文化國際學術討論會
論文集). CASSIA ed., Beijing: Chinese Encyclopedia Press.
Keightley, D. N.
1999 The Shang: China's first historical dynasty, in The Cambridge History of Ancient China: 232–291, ed. M.L.E.L.
Shaughnessy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Li, Y.-T.
2003
The Anyang Bronze Foundaries: Archaeological Remains, Casting Technology and Production Organization.
Ph.D. diss. Harvard University.
Li Zhipeng, He Yuling, Jiang Yude (Roderick
Campbell)
2011 Research on late Shang bone workshops and the bone working industry at
Yinxu (殷墟晚商制骨作坊与制骨手
工业的研究回顾于探讨). Sandai Kao­
gu 4 : 471–480.
Liu, L., and X. Chen
2003 State Formation in Early China. London:
Duckworth.
Liu Yu and Yue Zhanwei
2005 Preliminary ­research on the materials
and craft of Yinxu bronze mold making (殷墟陶范的材料及处理工艺的
初步研究), Keji Kaogu 1 : 226–236.
book reviews
321
Meng Xianwu
2003 Archaeological Research on the Yin Ruins
安陽殷墟考古研究.
Zhengzhou:
Zhongzhou Publishing House of Ancient Books.
Tang, Jigen
2005 The true face of “antiquity”: Anyang
Yinxu sacrificial pits and the dark side
of “three dynasties civilization.” Unpublished manuscript.
Paynter, R.
1989 The archaeology of equality and inequality. Annual Review of Anthropology
18 : 369–399.
Tang Jigen and Jing Zhicun
2009 Anyang’s “Shang settlements” and
“Great Settlement Shang” (安阳的“商
邑”与“大邑商”), Kaogu 9 : 70–80.
Qiu Shihua, Cai Lianzen, Zhang Xuelian
2005 Concerning the problem of Erlitou’s
date (關於二里頭年代問題). Paper
presented at The International Conference on the Erlitou Site and Culture,
Yanshi, Henan, October 18–20.
Underhill, Anne, editor
2013 A Companion to Chinese Archaeology.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Skinner, W. G.
1985 Presidential address: The structure of
Chinese history. Journal of Asian Studies
44.
Smith, Adam
2003 The Political Landscape: Constellations of
Authority in Early Complex Polities.
Berkely: University of California Press.
Sun, Hua
2005 Urban sites of the Shang culture and
the study of state organization. Conference paper delivered at the Workshop
on Early Chinese Civilization held at
UBC, Vancouver, March 10 –12.
Tang, J.
2004
The Social Organization of Late Shang
China: A Mortuary Perspective. Ph.D.
diss. University College London.
Yang Xizhang and Tang Jigen
1999 Northern Henan, southern Hebei
middle Shang remains and the movements of the Shang capital before Pangeng (豫北冀南地處的中商遺存與
盤庚以先的商都遷徙), in Three Dynasties Civilization (1) (三代文明研究
[一]). Beijing: Science Press.
Yoffee, Norman
2005 Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of the
Earliest Cities, States and Civilizations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Zhou Guangmin
2005 Analysis of the primitive porcelain at
the Wucheng site (吳城遺址原始瓷分
析), in Wucheng: 1973–2002 Excavation
Report (吳城：1973–2002年考古發掘
報告). Jiangxi Provincial Institute of
Cultural Relics and Archaeology and
Zhangshu Municipal Museum, eds.
Beijing: Science Press.
Bellwood, P. S. 2004. First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell. 384 pp. ISBN: 978-0-631-20566-1. Paperback: $46.95 ( print on
demand).
Sagart, L., R. Blench, and A. Sanchez-Mazas, eds. 2005. The Peopling of East Asia:
Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics. London: Routledge Curzon. 360
pp. ISBN: 978-0-415-32242-3. Hardback: $200.00.
Yasuda, Y., ed. 2002. The Origins of Pottery and Agriculture. New Delhi: Roli Books.
Book Review Essay by Loukas Barton University of Pittsburgh
The Garden of Eden or Vavilov’s El Dorado?
A review of recent thoughts on the origins of agriculture in mainland East Asia
Numerous texts, edited volumes, and monographs from around the world address the
origins and consequences of agricultural life.
Asian Perspectives, V
ol. 51, No. 2 © 2014 by the University of Hawai‘i Press.