Ancient Chinese Warfare (89 page)

67
According to the
T’ien-kung K’ai-wu
, the best feathers come from eagles, next hawks, lesser owls, wild geese, and swans. Because southern birds were not considered as powerful as northern ones, it was believed that southern arrows would not fly as true as northern variants.

68
To date the key article has been Yang Hung, “Kung ho Nu,” 1985, 190-232, to which may be added Chang Hung-yen, KK 1998:3, 41-55, 75. Illustrations of the major types may be found in the
Chung-kuo Ku-tai Ping-ch’i T’u-chi
, Ch’en Hsü and Yang Hsin-p’ing, 2000, 218-232, and the articles noted below.

69
See Li Shui-ch’eng, KKHP 2005:3, 260. However, the late Hsia and the Shang were considerably warmer, possibly comparable to Hang-chou today, an area where bamboo proliferates.

70
Just 2.8 cm. long and dated to 28,845 BP, as already noted the earliest arrowhead yet found was discovered at Shuo-hsien in Shanxi (Yang Hung, “Kung ho Nu,” 190).

71
See “Kung ho Nu,” 193, reporting a find at Shanxi Ch’in-shui Hsia-ch’uan whose artifacts date to between 23,900 and 16,400 BP. Nine of the thirteen arrowheads have a sort of elongated oval shape; the remainder have the classic triangular profile and sharply tapered bottom edges for inserting into split shafts, a clear advance over earlier forms. However, the number of arrowheads, 13 out of 1,800 recovered objects, is statistically insignificant.

72
For example, for the Paleolithic see T’ao Fu-hai, KK 1991:1, 1-7, or Chang Hung-yen, KK 1998:3, 41-55, 75. (For the production of flint arrowheads, see Hein, “Arrowheads of Flint,” 81-95.)

73
Yang Hung, “Kung ho Nu,” 192. For a report on the earliest bone arrowhead yet recovered (dating to the Paleolithic, 18,000-12,000 BCE) see Hsi K’o-ting, KK 1994:8, 702-709. Every variety of bone ranging from large animal to human was employed.

74
Yang Hung, “Kung ho Nu,” 196, notes that a bone arrowhead discovered at Jiangsu P’eihsien Ta-tun-tzu dating to roughly 4500 BCE had penetrated 2.7 cm. into the victim’s thigh bone.

75
For example, most of the arrowheads cited by Chang Hung-ch’an, KK 1998:3, 41-55, 75, dating to the eighth and seventh millennia BP from the Liaoning area are small and triangular; relatively few elongated variants are included. (However, others from Hsin-leh in Liaoning that date to 7300-6800 BP, half of which were produced by grinding, are quite elongated.) Samples from a Hung-shan site dated to 5485 BP continue to be small triangles, though some show a slight upward turn in the inner middle at the bottom.

76
For example, artifacts from Ta-wen-k’ou culture located in Shandong, roughly dated as 3835 to 2240 BCE, include all three. (See Yang Hung, “Kung ho Nu,” 193.)

77
Yang Hung (193) believes it would have increased the arrow’s power.

78
“Kung ho Nu,” 193, and visible in numerous other reports. However, this is a somewhat unexpected result since stone, unlike bone and shell, is impervious to decay.

79
Examples discovered in Ta-wen-k’ou culture out in Shandong (dating to about 3000-2500 BCE) are noted in Shan-tung-sheng WWKK YCS, KK 2000:10, 38-39. Well-formed bone arrowheads characterized by good consistent angles have also been recovered from Han-tan. (See Ho-pei-sheng Wen-hua-chü Wen-wu Kung-tso-tui, KK 1961:4, 197-202.)

80
For a few examples see Shan-tung-sheng WWKK YCS, KK 2000:10, 27; Fu-chien-sheng Po-wu-kuan, KKHP 1996:2, 182-183.

81
For example, as late Liang-chu was transitioning to Kuang-fu-lin around 2000 BCE or slightly later, their stone arrowheads increasingly assumed a somewhat lengthened triangular shape with a
t’ing
that is formed simply by curving in and extending downward rather than being clearly circular or rhomboidal. Kuang-fu-lin variants then increase in length and include a few very elongated specimens. Average lengths vary from about 4.8 to 5.5 cm.; not all of them include a
t’ing
. (For artifacts see Shang-hai Po-wu-kuan KK YCS, KK 2008:8, especially 9-10 and 18-19.)

82
Useful reports include Pen-hsi-shih Po-wu-kuan, KK 1992:6, 506, whose specimens range from 4.7 to 6.3 cm. in length, including
t’ing
of a very short 0.7 to 2.0 cm. and body widths of nearly 2 cm., with some even narrower variants; Liao-ning-sheng WWKK YCS et al., KK 1992:2, 107-121, dated to about 3000 to 2500 BCE, whose 4 to 5 cm. stone specimens are primarily noteworthy for their upward curving and thickness reduction in the bottom portion (for insertion into the shaft); Hsü Yü-lin and Yang Yung-fang, KK 1992:5, 389-398, whose 144 stone arrowheads, produced by grinding, assume a variety of shapes (illustrated on 396), including somewhat more elongated forms, but are mostly triangular with blunt bases, some of which show some upward indentation; Chang Shao-ch’ing and Hsü Chih-kuo, KK 1992:1, 1-10, reporting on the earlier Hung-shan culture in which the
t’ing
is yet to appear, including some unusual examples with thicker blade edges that taper to give the appearance of double diamonds stuck together, and a number that display upward indentation or notching.

83
Claims that bronze increased an arrow’s killing power lack experimental substantiation. Moreover, although they were subject to breakage and chipping and possibly encountered greater penetration resistance due to surface roughness, flint, shell, and materials such as obsidian could be sharpened to a razorlike edge. The Shang, which could have equipped its warriors entirely with bronze arrowheads, still employed large numbers of stone and bone versions.

84
Liu Yi-man, KK 2002:3, 64-65, notes that although some are found in Fu Hao’s tomb, 906 grouped into 15 bundles have been discovered at Kuo-chia-chuang, a site generally dated to the third period.

85
Li Chi’s report, BIHP 23 (1952): 523-619, includes a few primitive-looking, triangular stone arrowheads with short stubs (on 616), which are characterized by a flat profile rather than the pronounced rhomboidal shape seen in Lungshan manifestations. (See also Li Chi, KKHP 4 [1949]: 54-58.)

86
For examples dating to the mid- to late Yin-hsü taken from among twenty-six specimens that can be described as fairly stubby but elongated triangles with somewhat rhomboidal heads, short projecting downward points, and slightly tapered
t’ing
that come directly down, see SHYCS, ed.,
Yin-hsü Fa-chüeh Pao-kao
, 1987, 168-171. (Typical sizes are 5.1 to 6.2 cm. long, including a
t’ing
of 2.2 to 3.5 cm., and a relatively narrow body width of 1.8 to 2.3 cm.) Additional examples dating to late Yin-hsü appear in SHY An-yang Kung-tso-tui, KK 1991:2, 134. (Typical length is 7 cm.)

87
Examples of these basic styles may be found in the
Chung-kuo Ku-tai Ping-ch’i T’u-chi
, 36, as well as numerous articles published over the years, including SHYCS An-yang Kung-tso-tui, KK 1991:2, 134 (for twenty-two arrowheads in the basic style, with an average 6.2 cm. for the stubbier form); Fu-chien-sheng Po-wu-kuan, KKHP 1996:2,183; and SHYCS An-yang Kung-tso-tui, KK 1991:2, 134 (elongated triangles dating to late Yin-hsü with long but close reverse points,
t’ing
that taper down slightly, sharply defined blades, and an average length of about 6 cm.).

88
For clear examples taken from among twenty-seven specimens that display a visible rhomboidal core, staggered
kuan,
and then circular
t’ing
, see SHYCS,
Yin-hsü Fa-chüeh Pao-kao,
1987, 168-171. Sizes range from 5.4 cm. long, including a 2.1 cm.
t’ing
and width of 2.0 cm., to 6.1 cm. long, including a 3 cm.
t’ing
and width of 1.7 cm. (For additional examples about 6.2 cm. long dating to late Yin-hsü, see SHYCS An-yang Kung-tso-tui, KK 1991:2, 134.)

89
Shih Chang-ju describes two bundles of ten bronze arrowheads each in BIHP 40 (1969): 659. In one they average a fairly uniform 7.4 cm. long, but in the other bundle they vary from 6.9 to 7.9 cm. Another fifty of highly uniform shape that were found piled together at Ta-ssu-k’ung average 7 to 7.5 cm. in length and about 3.8 cm. wide. However, the only difference is in the length of the
t’ing
, not the shape or size of the body itself (SHYCS An-yang Kung-tso-tui, KK 1992:6, 514).

90
For brief studies of shooting with cords, see Shih Yen, KKWW 2007:2, 38-41, or Hsü Chung-shu, BIHP 4:4 (1934): 433-435.

1
T’ai-p’ing Yü-lan
,
chüan
772. (Hsüan refers to a curved pole, Yüan a double pole.) His name is also said to have been derived from his birthplace, Hsüan-yüan-ch’iu.

2
T’ai-p’ing Yü-lan
,
chüan
772. Commentaries to the
Chou Li
claim that Kai was the first to harness oxen to vehicles.

3
For a brief summary of legendary views, see Ku Chieh-kang and Yang Hsiang-k’uei, 1937, 39-41.

4
Kuan-tzu
, “Hsing Shih,” dated to the late third century BCE.

5
Kuan-tzu
, “Hsing Shih Chieh,” reportedly composed about the first century BCE.

6
“Hsiao Ch’eng.”

7
For example, Hu-pei-sheng Wen-wu KK YCS et al., KK 2000:8, 55-64. Remnants of seven different-sized chariots, harnessing both two and four horses, were found in this mid- to late Warring States Ch’u tomb. (Although changes in the various components, reinforcements against wear, improvements in stability, and efforts to reduce vibration in the Chou have significant implications for the chariot’s capability, they fall beyond the compass of this volume. Only fundamental aspects necessary for understanding the chariot’s employment in battle during the Shang can be pondered here.)

8
See, for example, E. L. Shaughnessy, “Historical Perspectives,” 217, and for H. G. Creel’s doubts about barbarians employing chariots, see his (somewhat outdated)
Origins of Statecraft in China
, 266.

9
HJ36481f.

10
For a report see SHYCS Shandong Kung-tso-tui, KK 2000:7, 13-28. The chariot had two horses; unusually large wheels about 1.6 m. in diameter; an axle length of 3.09 m.; and a wellpreserved rectangular box (slightly rounded on the left front) about 0.34 m. high, 1.17 m. wide at the front, 1.34 m. wide at the back where there was a narrow opening, and a depth of 1.02 m. The sacrificial victim was accompanied by a bronze
ko
, some arrowheads, and two horses. (Whether the remains belong to an independent state, as suggested, or a Shang outpost in a subjugated state, as well as whether the chariot was imported or locally constructed, are still unanswered questions.)

11
Sun Pin (“Eight Formations”) cited this number, and it is frequently mentioned in other Warring States texts. However, 10,000 was often simply used to indicate an indefinite, large number or myriad.

12
Tso Chuan
, Chao Kung, thirteenth year. If 10 men accompanied each chariot, the infantry component would have amounted to 40,000; if 25, it soars to an astonishing 100,000, exactly the number Sun-tzu speaks about.

13
The evolution of siege warfare would see the introduction of several wheeled devices, some simply large crossbows mounted on chariots, others innovative combinations of rams, ladders, and similar equipment that merely employed wheels to facilitate their movement. (Two chapters in the
Liu-t’ao
, “The Army’s Equipment” and “Planning for the Army,” describe several
types of specialized Warring States vehicles, including chariots.) Having been displaced, according to “Occupying Enemy Territory,” ordinary chariots and the cavalry were “kept at a distance when attacking cities and besieging towns.”

14
Whether these wagons were horse or oxen powered (as generally claimed) remains unknown. However, the existence of oxen-pulled wagons is generally assumed in several traditional writings, and a
ta ch’e
is sometimes mentioned (equally without substantiation) as having been employed in the Shang. Wang Hai-ch’eng,
Ou-ya Hsüeh-k’an
3 (2002): 41, has suggested that the narrow-gauge chariots recovered from Shang sites may have been intended for transporting heavy goods. (Wang also notes that a solid-wheeled cart that might also have been adopted in China has been found in Xinjiang.)

15
At the battle of Pi some vehicles called
t’un-ch’e
, variously glossed as defensive
ch’e
(chariots) but more likely transport wagons, were pressed into service (
Tso Chuan
, Duke Hsüan, twelfth year). In 493 BCE, right at the end of the Spring and Autumn, 1,000 cartloads of grain were captured.

16
Our discussion is based on several articles that have appeared over the decades, some somewhat outdated but others current and highly informative, if often argumentative and contradictory: Shih Chang-ju, BIHP 40:1 (1969), 625-668, and BIHP 58:2 (1987): 253-280; Yang Paoch’eng, KK 1984:6, 546-555; Yang Hung, WW 1977:5, 82-90, WW 1984:9, 45-54, and HCCHS 2000:5, 2-18; and Chang Ch’ang-shou and Chang Hsiao-kuang, 1986, 139-162. Others include Kuo Pao-chün, 1997; Hayashi Minao,
Toho Gakuho
29 (1959), 155-284; and Kawamata Masanori, “Higashi Ajia no Kodai Sensha to Nishi-Ajia,”
Koshi Shunju
4 (1987): 38-58. In English, E. L. Shaughnessy’s seminal “Historical Perspectives on the Introduction of the Chariot into China,” HJAS 48:1 (1988), 189-237, remains fundamental despite further reports from Sintashta-Petrova, but other useful analyses include Lu Liancheng,
Antiquity
67 (1993): 824-838; Stuart Piggot,
Antiquity
48 (1974): 16-24; and, although somewhat outdated, Joseph Needham, 1965, 73-82 and 246-253. Wang Hai-ch’eng’s expansive “Chung-kuo te Ma-ch’e Ch’i-yüan,” 2002, provides the most comprehensive overview of critical Chinese and Western data to date, as well as highly useful tables and an extensive bibliography.