Читать книгу A History of China - Morris Rossabi - Страница 19

Throughout the third millennium BCE, regional cultures were in touch with each other. Groups living along the bend of the Yellow River, in Shandong, and in the middle Yangzi River valley were the most significant. Some relations within and between these three groups were peaceful and resulted in rudimentary commerce, while others involved violent struggles for power. Absence of written records impedes precise knowledge of the causes of these conflicts, but control of land and water and clashes between ambitious leaders no doubt provoked some of this warfare. More powerful villages swallowed up weaker ones, although in the process they were influenced by the traits and practices of the vanquished. Indeed, interaction, whether peaceful or adversarial, among these regions inevitably affected the customs and beliefs of the various regions and brought them closer together into a peaceful Sinitic culture. By around 2000 BCE, the stage had been set for cohesion and the establishment of a state.

Early Chinese legends traditionally attributed the founding of a state to a much earlier period and to a heroic man or god named Yu who, according to long-held beliefs, reputedly founded the Xia, the first dynasty. Yu was one of the last semidivine, semihuman figures who, mythical accounts claim, were responsible for vital technological and cultural advances, the origins of the state, and even the beginnings of the Earth. A divinity named Pangu is credited with the creation of the Earth. He divided Heaven and Earth and, after his demise, his body was transformed into the various features of the Earth’s environment. His blood flowed to create the lakes, rivers, and oceans; his eyes turned into the sun and moon, the brightest phenomena seen by mankind; his hair grew into the trees and plants; and even his body lice were changed – they formed human beings and animals.

Pangu, who appeared only in later texts, established the foundations of the reputed innovations and discoveries of the mythical Three Sovereigns (Sanhuang) and Five Emperors (Wudi). Paradoxically, some of the figures who supposedly trod the Earth after Pangu are noted in earlier sources. In fact, the later they are said to have lived, the earlier their appearance in Chinese historical texts. In addition, in these texts, the figures who reputedly inhabited the Earth in later times resemble humans and have been stripped of their characteristics as divinities. Naturally, the earlier figures retain their godlike attributes.

The Three Sovereigns, for example, assumed strange, nonhuman shapes and made extraordinary contributions to Chinese civilization. Fuxi and his consort Nuwa, who is variously described as his wife or his sister, are portrayed with human heads but serpents’ bodies. The sources laud Fuxi for introducing animal husbandry and marriage and creating musical instruments and the calendar. Shennong, the second of the Three Sovereigns, was China’s great economic benefactor because he reputedly initiated agriculture and commerce, and Zhurong, the last of the Three Sovereigns, allegedly instructed the Chinese in the use of fire.

The Five Emperors generally contributed to human relations rather than to techniques and inventions and were depicted in human form. Huangdi (the Yellow Emperor) reputedly devised the governmental structure and expelled the non-Chinese “barbarians” from China’s core territories, permitting the development of Chinese civilization. His wife served as a model for women, originating sericulture and undertaking domestic chores, and his principal minister created the first written symbols. Yao and Shun, the last two emperors, exemplified the Chinese values of wisdom and competence for rulers and embodied the highest virtues, as was later articulated by Confucius and his followers. Early accounts credit them with devising the characteristic Chinese governmental institutions and with setting political precedents. For example, Yao emphasized the principle of merit in the selection of officials and leaders, although his own family lost out as a result. He chose the commoner Shun rather than his own son as his successor. He judged Shun to be the most competent person to rule the territory of China under his control and forsook heredity as the main criterion for succession. Yao was particularly impressed with Shun’s unswerving devotion to filial piety, despite the cruel and inhumane treatment he received at the hands of his stepmother and father. Yao eventually gave the throne and two of his daughters in marriage to Shun, who supposedly came to be an exceptional ruler, proving that Yao’s confidence in him was not misplaced.

When Shun, in turn, needed to choose his own successor, he followed Yao’s example, overriding the hereditary or flesh-and-blood imperative in order to select the most competent person. In this case, he tapped Yu, who became a great cultural hero and is repeatedly mentioned and praised for his accomplishments in the Chinese histories. Yu tamed the Great Flood, which had caused havoc and devastation and threatened the survival of the sedentary agricultural civilization created near the Yellow River and its tributaries in north China. In effect, the sources depict him as the originator of the irrigation projects that permitted the continuance of Chinese civilization. Without flood control and simultaneous conservation of the occasionally scarce water resources of north China, agriculture could not have been sustained.

Having saved civilization through strenuous, life-long efforts, Yu was poised to follow his predecessors in selecting a successor. However, his people rejected his choice and selected his son as the heir, thereby legitimizing the principle of hereditary succession and originating the concept of a dynasty or a family-ruled state. His son’s succession to the throne resulted in the founding of the first reputed dynasty in the Chinese tradition, the Xia. The dynasty, which in theory flourished around 2000 BCE, survived until the reign of the cruel and tyrannical Jie, who so alienated his own people that they rebelled, enabling a virtuous leader named Tang to overthrow the Xia and found the Shang (ca. 1600–1027 BCE) dynasty. This portrait of a virtuous and wise founder and a depraved and evil last ruler of a dynasty became still another precedent in Chinese historical writings. The sources depict nearly every succeeding dynasty with just such a pattern – clearly attempts by usurpers to justify the overthrow of the previous rulers.

Because the history of the Xia appears to be intermingled with legendary accounts and mythical heroes and because no specific site has been definitively ascribed to the dynasty, some scholars have speculated that later rulers, probably in the Zhou (1027–256 BCE) dynasty, fabricated its existence to legitimize their own destruction of the previous dynasty. These rulers would have argued that, just as the Shang was justified in deposing the Xia, whose rulers had lost the people’s support because of misrule, they too were right in overthrowing the corrupt and declining previous dynasty. In this view, invention of the “Xia” was merely a convenient means of sanctioning rebellion against an existing dynasty.

On the other hand, some scholars have attempted to substantiate the historicity of the Xia, and finds at Erlitou in the province of Henan in 1957 have provided support for this interpretation. The site appears to be a cultural midpoint between the Longshan Neolithic era and the Shang dynasty. Scholars who reject the existence of the Xia label Erlitou as Early Shang, while others who are impressed by the Chinese historical sources assert that it represents a distinct phase differing from the Shang. The most obvious difference between the Erlitou and the Longshan sites is two sizable residences 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.