Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Xia Shang Zhou Chronology Project)
Jump to: navigation, search

The Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project (Chinese: 夏商周断代工程; pinyin: Xià Shāng Zhōu Duàndài Gōngchéng) was a multi-disciplinary project commissioned by the People's Republic of China in 1996 to determine with accuracy the location and time frame of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties. Tsinghua University professor Li Xueqin was the director, and some 200 experts took part in the project, which correlated radiocarbon dating, archaeological dating methods, historical textual analysis, astronomy, and other methods to achieve greater temporal and geographic accuracy. Preliminary results of the project were released in November 2000. However, several of the project's methods and conclusions have been disputed by other scholars.

Background[edit]

Major archaeological sites in north and central China dating from the second millennium BC

The traditional account of ancient China, represented by the Records of the Grand Historian written by Sima Qian in the Han dynasty, begins with the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors, leading through a sequence of dynasties, the Xia, Shang and Zhou. Sima Qian felt able to give a year-by-year chronology back to the start of the Gonghe Regency in 841 BC, early in the Zhou dynasty. For the period before that date, his sources (now mostly lost) were unreliable and inconsistent, and he gave only lists of kings and accounts of isolated events. Later scholars were unable to push a precise chronology back past Sima Qian's date of 841 BC.[1]

Many elements of the traditional account, especially the early parts, were clearly mythical. In the 1920s, Gu Jiegang and other scholars of the Doubting Antiquity School noted that the earliest figures appeared latest in the literature, and suggested that the traditional history had accreted layers of myth. Noting parallels between the accounts of the Xia and Shang, they suggested that the history of the Xia was invented by the Zhou to support their doctrine of the Mandate of Heaven, by which they justified their conquest of the Shang. Some even doubted the historicity of the Shang dynasty.[2][3]

Ox scapula with a divination inscription from the reign of the Shang King Wu Ding

In 1899, the scholar Wang Yirong examined some curious symbols carved on "dragon bones" purchased from a Chinese pharmacist, and identified them as an early form of Chinese writing. The bones were finally traced back in 1928 to a site (now called Yinxu) near Anyang, north of the Yellow River in modern Henan province.[4] The inscriptions on the bones were found to be divination records from the reigns of the last nine Shang kings, from the reign of Wu Ding. Moreover, from the sacrificial schedule recorded on the bones it was possible to reconstruct a sequence of Shang kings that closely matched the list given by Sima Qian.[5]

Archaeologists focussed on the Yellow River valley in Henan as the most likely site of the states described in the traditional histories. After 1950, remnants of an earlier walled city of the Erligang culture were discovered near Zhengzhou, and in 1959 the site of the Erlitou culture was found in Yanshi, south of the Yellow River near Luoyang. Radiocarbon dating suggests that the Erlitou culture flourished c. 2100 BC to 1800 BC. They built large palaces, suggesting the existence of an organized state.[6] More recently the picture has been complicated by the discovery of advanced civilizations in Sichuan and the Yangtze valley, such as Sanxingdui, Panlongcheng and Wucheng, of which the traditional histories make no mention.[7]

Major Erlitou Culture sites and traditional Xia dynasty capitals (based upon Kwang-chih Chang, The Archaeology of Ancient China, 1986)

Until the mid-20th century, many popular works, both Chinese and Western, used a traditional chronology calculated by Liu Xin early in the first century AD. However, modern scholars studying inscriptions on Shang oracle bones and Zhou bronzes were proposing shorter chronologies, for example typically placing the Zhou conquest of the Shang in the mid-11th century BC instead of the 12th.[8]

In 1994, Song Jian, a state councillor for science, was impressed on a visit to Egypt by chronologies stretching back to the 3rd millennium BC. He proposed a multi-disciplinary project to establish a similar chronology for China. The project was approved as part of the ninth five-year plan (1996–2000).[9][10]

Methods[edit]

The Project used a combination of methods to attempt to correlate the traditional literature with archeological discoveries and the astronomical record.[11]

The contemporary evidence for the Western Zhou consists of thousands of bronzes, many bearing inscriptions. Around 60 of these record dates of important events as the day in the sexagenary cycle, the phase of the moon, the month and the year of reign. However the king is usually not identified.[12]

Occasionally an unusual astronomical event was recorded. A key reference point was the accession of King Yi of Zhou, when according to the "old text" Bamboo Annals the day dawned twice. The Project adopted (without acknowledgement) the proposal of the Korean scholar Pang Sunjoo (方善柱) that this referred to an annular solar eclipse at dawn that occurred in 899 BC.[13] Other scholars have challenged both this interpretation of the text and the astronomical calculations involved.[14][15]

Perhaps the most significant event requiring dating is the conquest of the Shang by the Zhou. Previous chronologies had proposed at least 44 different dates for this event, ranging from 1130 to 1018 BC.[11][16] The key documents for dating this event are a quotation from the lost Wǔchéng 武成 in the Book of Han, which gives a series of months and sexagenary days, and the Guoyu, which gives the positions of the Sun, Moon, Jupiter and two stars.[17][18] The "current text" Bamboo Annals mentions conjunctions of all five planets occurring before and after the Zhou conquest. Han-period texts mention the first conjunction as occurring in the 32nd year of the reign of the last king. Such events are rare, but all five planets did gather on 28 May 1059 BC and again on 26 September 1019. Although the recorded positions in the sky of these two events are the reverse of what occurred, they could not have been retrospectively calculated at the time the account first appears.[19]

The strategy adopted by the Project was to use archeological investigation to narrow the range of dates that would need to be compared with the astronomical data. Although the site of the battle has not been identified, the pre-conquest Zhou capital at Fengxi, Shaanxi has been excavated and strata at the site have been identified with the pre-dynastic Zhou. Radiocarbon dating of samples from the site as well as at late Yinxu and early Zhou capitals, using the wiggle matching technique, yielded a date for the conquest between 1050 and 1020 BC. The only date within that range matching all the astronomical data is 20 January 1046 BC. This date was not new, having previously been proposed by David Pankenier based on the same astronomical observations and historical accounts, but here it resulted from a thorough consideration of a broader range of evidence.[20][21][22]

Other scholars have raised several criticisms of this process. The connection between the layers at the archaeological sites and the conquest is uncertain.[23] The narrow range of radiocarbon dates are cited with a less stringent confidence interval (68%) than the standard requirement of 95%, which would have produced a much wider range.[24] Some of the texts containing astronomical observations are extremely obscure.[25][26] For example a key text used in dating the conquest can be interpreted in several different ways, with one alternative reading leading to the date of 9 January 1044 BC.[27]

For the late Shang, the oracle bones provide less detail than Zhou bronzes, routinely recording only the day in the sexagenary cycle. However, calculations using a longer ritual cycle were used to date the reigns of the last two Shang kings.[28] Mentions of five lunar eclipses in oracle bone divinations from the late Wu Ding and Zu Geng reigns were dated between 1201 and 1181 BC.[28][29] Wu Ding was assigned a 59-year reign following the "Against Luxurious Ease" chapter of the Book of Documents.[30]

Chronological table[edit]

The Xia Shang Zhou Chronology Project concluded precise dates for accessions of rulers from Wu Ding, the Shang dynasty king whose reign produced the oldest known oracle bone records. These dates are here compared with the traditional dates and those used in the Cambridge History of Ancient China:[31][32][33]

Dynasty King Accession date (BC)
XSZ Project Cambridge History Traditional
Shang Wu Ding 1250 before 1198 1324
Zu Geng 1191 after 1188 1265
Zu Jia c. 1177 1258
Lin Xin c. 1157 1225
Kang Ding c. 1148 1219
Wu Yi 1147 c. 1131 1198
Wen Ding 1112 c. 1116 1194
Di Yi 1101 1105 1191
Di Xin 1075 1086 1154
Zhou King Wu 1046 1045 1122
King Cheng 1042 1042 1115
King Kang 1020 1005 1078
King Zhao 995 977 1052
King Mu 976 956 1001
King Gong 922 917 946
King Yi 899 899 934
King Xiao 891 872? 909
King Yi 885 865 894
King Li 877 857 878

Earlier dates are given more approximately:[33][34]

  • The relocation of the Shang capital to Yin during the reign of Pan Geng is dated c. 1300 BC.
  • The establishment of the Shang dynasty was identified with the building of the Yanshi walled city and dated c. 1600 BC, compared with the Cambridge History's c. 1570 BC and the traditional date of 1766 BC.
  • The project identified all four phases of Erlitou culture with the Xia dynasty, dating its beginning at c. 2070 BC, compared with the traditional date of 2205 BC.

Reception[edit]

Coverage of the project in the Western press focussed on alleged conflicts between nationalism and scholarship.[35][36] One of the criticisms is that the project supports the concept of a 5,000-year, unbroken and homogeneous history of China, wherein the three ancient dynasties (Xia, Shang and Zhou) were large and powerful states—ignoring the fact that many other groups of people (perhaps equally advanced) existed throughout China and Central Asia during this period.[23]

A preliminary report of the project was issued in 2000.[33] A session of the Annual Conference of the Association for Asian Studies in 2002 was devoted to the report, where its methods were criticised by David Nivison, among others.[37] No further report has been issued. An international conference on chronology arranged for October 2003 was postponed due to the SARS outbreak, but never rescheduled.[38] Varying dates based on different interpretations of the evidence continue to be offered by experts, including Li Xueqin, the director of the XSZ Project.[39] The Project's dates have however become the orthodox chronology in Chinese textbooks and reference works.[40]

References[edit]

Footnotes
  1. ^ Lee (2002), pp. 16–17.
  2. ^ Lee (2002), p. 21.
  3. ^ Wagner (1993), p. 10.
  4. ^ Fairbank & Goldman (2006), p. 33.
  5. ^ Keightley (1999), pp. 234–235.
  6. ^ Fairbank & Goldman (2006), pp. 33–35.
  7. ^ Bagley (1999), pp. 124–125.
  8. ^ Shaughnessy (1999), pp. 23–24.
  9. ^ Shaughnessy (2011), p. 274.
  10. ^ Lee (2002), p. 17.
  11. ^ a b Yin (2002), p. 1.
  12. ^ Lee (2002), pp. 29–30.
  13. ^ Shaughnessy (2009), p. 24.
  14. ^ Keenan (2002), p. 62.
  15. ^ Stephenson (2008), pp. 238–239.
  16. ^ Lee (2002), p. 32.
  17. ^ Lee (2002), pp. 33–34.
  18. ^ Liu (2002), p. 4.
  19. ^ Zhang (2002), p. 350.
  20. ^ Lee (2002), pp. 31–34.
  21. ^ Yin (2002), pp. 2–3.
  22. ^ Pankenier (1981–82).
  23. ^ a b Lee (2002), p. 36.
  24. ^ Keenan (2007), p. 147.
  25. ^ Keenan (2002).
  26. ^ Stephenson (2008).
  27. ^ Lee (2002), p. 34.
  28. ^ a b Lee (2002), p. 31.
  29. ^ Liu (2002), pp. 3–4.
  30. ^ Zhang (2002).
  31. ^ Shaughnessy (1999), p. 25.
  32. ^ Mathews (1943), p. 1166.
  33. ^ a b c XSZCP Group (2000).
  34. ^ Li (2002).
  35. ^ Eckholm (2000).
  36. ^ Gillery (2000).
  37. ^ Session 79: The Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project: Defense and Criticism, AAS Annual Meeting, Washington, 2002.
  38. ^ Shaughnessy (2011), p. 276.
  39. ^ Lee (2002), p. 35.
  40. ^ Shaughnessy (2009), p. 25.
Works cited