Chapter 9 Chapter 7 Early Shang Civilization

Controversy over Xia and Shang Boundary Marks According to the subject setting of the Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasties Project, the entire Shang Dynasty is divided into two parts, the early Shang and the late Shang, with the famous Yin Ruins culture as the boundary, and each part contains several small topics. The main basis for establishing the chronological framework of the pre-Shang Dynasty is the periodization and dating of archaeological culture in the pre-Shang Dynasty, as well as the historical geography research of the capital city in the early Shang Dynasty and the research on the records of the Shang Dynasty in ancient documents.

From an archaeological point of view, the important sites belonging to the early Shang Dynasty include Zhengzhou Shangcheng, Yanshi Shangcheng, Xiaoshuangqiao Ruins, Huanbei Huayuanzhuang Ruins, Xingtai Caoyanzhuang Ruins and Dongxianxian Ruins, etc.Based on the above-mentioned site excavations and phased studies, a relatively complete archaeological cultural sequence of the pre-Shang Dynasty can be established.Of course, among these sites, Zhengzhou Shang City and Yanshi Shang City are the main objects of research and exploration.Because only by solving the problems of time and nature of the two capitals, can the boundary of Xia and Shang culture be established.

As already introduced, about the period between the first and second phases of Erlitou culture, between the second and third phases of Erlitou culture, between the third and fourth phases of Erlitou culture, between the fourth phase of Erlitou culture and the lower layer of Erlitou in Zhengzhou, etc. It is the saying of the Xia-Shang culture boundary. At the Xia-Shang-Zhou Dating Project held in Henan in November 1997 at the Xia-Shang Pre-Shang Archaeological Chronology Symposium, experts generally tended to agree with the two based on observations of real objects. Litou culture is Xia culture; that is to say, Erlitou culture no longer has the problem of Shang culture.So where is the earliest business culture?Which one is the Zhengzhou Commercial City or Yanshi Commercial City is the symbol of the division of Xia and Shang?As the question was raised, scholars focused their attention on the two cultural sites of Zhengzhou Shangcheng and Yanshi Shangcheng, and at the same time, heated debates were launched again around the above-mentioned questions.

Not long after the project started, in order to facilitate carbon-14 dating research, the project specially arranged archaeologists to excavate certain areas of Zhengzhou Shangcheng and Yanshi Shangcheng, and extracted typical carbon-containing samples.During this excavation, the archaeologists of Yanshi Shangcheng discovered a small city about 1,710 meters long and 740 meters wide from east to west on the basis of the original big city. From the remains of tombs, ditches, and ash pits, it can be seen from the excavated relics that the small city was obviously earlier than the big city, and the big city rose on the basis of the small city.In particular, a large gray soil ditch excavated in the north of the palace area in the small city covers almost all periods of the Yanshi Shang City, which greatly facilitates the understanding of its early remains and the correct judgment of the nature of the city site.According to this, archaeologists such as Du Jinpeng and Wang Xuerong, the excavators of the Yanshi Shang City, believe that:

Since the scale of the small town is not very large (about 800,000 square meters in area), it does not constitute a reason to deny it as the capital of the early Shang Dynasty.The smallness of the small town and the haste and crudeness shown in the construction process, as well as the strong military color in the design of the city walls.It should be consistent with the political instability, lack of manpower and financial resources that Shang Tang faced when the ruling center of the Shang Dynasty was built in the hinterland of the Xia Dynasty next to the old capital of Xia in order to suppress the Xia survivors and consolidate the ruling power at the beginning of the Tang Dynasty. .On the contrary, under the historical background at that time, it would be unbelievable if Shangtang could quickly build a large-scale city in the Heluo area.

It is worth noting that the characteristics of the small city walls, palaces, and tomb orientation are consistent with the Shang Dynasty buildings in Zhengzhou Shangcheng, Huangpi Panlong City (Note 1), and Anyang Yinxu.According to the consensus of the academic circles, most of the Erlitou culture belongs to the Xia culture, and the building of the Yanshi Commercial City is a landmark of the Xia and Shang culture.Then there is obviously no doubt that the small city of Yanshi Shangcheng belongs to the remains of Shang culture. (Note 1) Original Note: This city was discovered in 1964. It is located in Yedian Village, Huangpi County, Wuhan City. On the high ground in the north corner of the city, the foundation of a large palace building was discovered.Academic circles believe that this city should be a political and military center established by the Shang Dynasty in the south.

To sum up, the Yanshi Shang City should be the site of the royal capital in the early Shang Dynasty.The geographic location of the small town coincides with the location of Xibo, the capital of Tang Dynasty in history. The succession of success and failure gives us more reason to believe that these archaeological facts are the best footnotes to what Dong Zhongshu said in "Spring and Autumn Fanlu" that Shang Tang destroyed Xia and made the palace in Xialuozhiyang.It is also an important landmark for dividing Xia and Shang cultures. In response to the new opinion of the excavators of the Yanshi Shang City, some experts believe that the newly discovered small city may have broken the relationship at the same time, which does not mean that the small city was earlier. The landmark is naturally Zhengzhou Mall.

However, Zou Heng, who insisted on Zheng Bo’s theory, believes that the small city of Yanshi Shang City has just been excavated, and there are very few relics, and many problems have not been clarified. The mall is the landmark.If the carbon-containing samples provided by the Erlitou site, Zhengzhou Shangcheng, and Yanshi Shangcheng are correctly measured by Carbon 14, there may be a contradiction. This contradiction will be resolved in the dating comparison of the above three sites.If carbon fourteenth dating proves that the ages of Zhengzhou Shangcheng and Yanshi Shangcheng are not much different, then it is also possible to use these two cities as the markers of the Xia-Shang boundary, but Yanshi Shangcheng cannot be used as the only landmark.

In response to Zou Heng's point of view, Du Jinpeng made three explanations on the situation of Yanshi Shangcheng: First, the stratum of Yanshi Shangcheng is clear, and the relics unearthed in Dahuigou are also clearly identifiable. Among them, the first section of Huigou Most of the unearthed relics are from the Erlitou culture, and the second section of relics are pure and mainly belong to the Shang culture.Second, the staging of Yanshi Shang City was further derived on the basis of the work of many experts, and the current staging will be more detailed and reliable sooner or later based on the new stratigraphic relationship.During the research process, we also invited experts to inspect and check. It should be said that our work is recognized by the academic community.Third, regarding the age of the Yanshi Commercial City, we found clues for the earliest small city in 1996, and began to excavate in 1997. The materials we obtained were indeed not many, and we tried as much as possible. The materials were sent to the briefing.However, in the small town, there is a relationship between tombs, walls, and ditches. The Dahuigou is in the palace area and surrounded by walls, which may also be architectural relics.It was used in the first and second sections, and was filled in the fourth section. At this time, a stone pool appeared on its north side.In addition, five of the excavated palace remains were used in the second section, expanded in the third section, and a large city appeared at this time, which can also be used as circumstantial evidence.

In response to Du Jinpeng's explanation, Wang Wei, deputy director of the Institute of Archeology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences who participated in the excavation of the Yanshi Shangcheng, added: There is no direct evidence for the founding date of the Yanshi Shangcheng, but at least it is proved that the small city is earlier than the big city.Although it is not yet possible to prove that the city wall itself is as early as the first section, it can be concluded by combining the relationship between the remains in the city to prove each other.The earliest relic within the small town is a section of Dahuigou, which shares a wall with Palace No. 4. The two may be related rather than unrelated as Mr. Zou Heng said.

Regarding the boundary marks of Xia and Shang culture, Wang Wei agreed with the views of Du Jinpeng and others, and pointed out that it is difficult to distinguish the pre-Shang culture from the early Shang culture in Zhengzhou Shangcheng, and Yanshi Shangcheng appeared near Erlitou, the Xia capital. The appearance of Yanshi Shang City should be later than the Xia Dynasty and entered the Shang Dynasty, so the age of Yanshi Shang City's first construction should be close to the boundary of Xia and Shang culture.This view was supported by Yang Yubin, a researcher at the Henan Provincial Institute of Archeology. Yin Weizhang, a well-known archaeologist, disagrees with the debate over who is the earliest and who is the last, and who is qualified to serve as the Xiashang landmark.He said: What has the archaeological community done in the past ten years?It was a quarrel over whether Zhengzhou Shangcheng was early or Yanshi Shangcheng was early, and this quarrel was fruitless.You said you were early, and he said he was early, what proof do you have?In 1995, a symposium on Shang culture was held in Yanshi. I presided over the symposium, and many experts participated. At the symposium, everyone was still arguing.At that time, Mr. Qiu Shihua told me that carbon 14 dating can solve the problem of who is the earliest Zhengzhou mall or Yanshi mall. If carbon 14 dating comes out, I think this will have a basis.In fact, everyone sitting at home and discussing can't solve any problems. From an archaeological point of view, you must control a capital city to a certain extent before you can understand the situation of this site clearly.Otherwise, discussions and discussions will always fail to grasp the fundamentals and be meaningless. Regarding whether the capital city can be used as a boundary marker, Yin Weizhang also has a different view from other scholars: I do not agree to use the capital city to solve the problem of the Xia-Shang boundary. The method of building a capital city cannot solve archaeological problems.Bo is recorded in the literature, so you say that the capital is Bo, what evidence do you have?Much of the evidence you find is based on assumptions.Of course, this assumption is allowed, but it must be confirmed before making a second inference.However, some scholars did not wait for this hypothesis to be confirmed, and then a series of hypotheses came out with the second, third, and fourth ones, which seemed to be logical and solved all problems, but after research, they found that this was not the case. In fact, this is advanced consciousness, imagining out of thin air, and science does not allow this. The dispute between Zhengzhou Shangcheng and Yanshi Shangcheng involved the phase issue of Erlitou culture. Yin Weizhang said: I think there are very prominent changes between the second and third phases. Judging from the unearthed pottery, it is obvious that there are two different cultures. culture.However, Mr. Zou Heng disagrees with me. He thinks that there are changes between the second and third phases, but too little, which is a quantitative change, not a qualitative change.Just imagine the change of a dynasty, culturally it cannot be a sudden change.Ten years after the founding of the People's Republic of China, the top ten buildings in Beijing were built as symbols. The high-rise buildings we see now have only appeared in recent years.Many daily necessities are also slowly eliminated and replaced. I have never heard of anyone who smashed all their pots and pans and replaced them with new ones after the liberation of New China.Even if you smash it and want to replace it with a new one, the factory may not be able to make it for a while.Another example is Qin Shihuang's destruction of the six kingdoms and the unification of the world, but from the perspective of archaeology, it is difficult to find the historical shadow of Qin within the six kingdoms.This proves that the change of dynasties is not synchronized with the change of culture.After the founding of New China, Liang Sicheng and others proposed to build a new capital, but Mao Zedong criticized Liang Sicheng. It is said that Mao Zedong led the people to overthrow three mountains and ushered in a new era in history. Why didn’t he build a new capital?This shows that a period of history or the replacement of a dynasty does not mean the establishment of a capital. It is also the case in history. When a dynasty is born, there must be a stage of recuperation. It took a lot of money to build a new capital.It can be said that almost no capital city in history was built due to the change of dynasty, and it was all determined by some more complicated factors.For example, when Pan Geng moved to Yin in the Shang Dynasty, before moving the capital, Pan Geng summoned officials and common people to give a lecture. He said that he decided to move for the benefit of everyone. If you don’t agree to move, I will do what I want. It is a temptation, a threat, etc., which proves that it is not easy to move to a new one.For another example, after Zhou destroyed Shang, the king of Shang was still managing his subjects there, and the king of Zhou sent his two younger brothers to watch him.The Zhou Dynasty itself did not build another capital just because it destroyed Yin.Therefore, the capital cannot be used as the dividing line for the replacement of dynasties. In other words, the Zhengzhou Shang City and the Yanshi Shang City, no matter which one is earlier and which is later, cannot be used as a sign of the boundary between Xia and Shang. Du Jinpeng, the excavator of Yanshi Mall, disagreed with Yin Weizhang's argument.He believes that the excavation of the big city and the small city of Yanshi Shang City made the greatest contribution to the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties project in that it provided the coordinates of the stages, and it was the only coordinate.Du Jinpeng said: According to the views of Zheng Bo, represented by Zou Heng, Zhengzhou Shang City, as the old stronghold of Yin, had been established before the fall of the Xia Dynasty if it was built.Then this city should belong to the pre-Shang period parallel to the Xia Dynasty.When the war against Xia broke out, according to Zheng Bo's point of view, the merchants traveled from Hebei to Zhengzhou, and then to Yanshi.After the Xia Dynasty was destroyed, the merchants returned to Zhengzhou. After returning, the merchants did not build the city. It is difficult to draw an accurate conclusion when it was built.But Yanshi is different. Because it is more than ten miles away from Erlitou, it is impossible to build a city without destroying Xia. It can be said that Yanshi Shangcheng must have been built after merchants destroyed Xia.So when was it built?Through excavation and dissection of the city walls, we found that Yanshi City contained pottery fragments from the Erlitou culture period, and these pottery fragments belonged to the second or third period of Erlitou, and absolutely no pottery from the fourth period of Erlitou piece.There is a counter-evidence to this phenomenon, which proves that the Yanshi Commercial City could not be earlier than the third phase of Erlitou, but only later than the third phase, and should be built during the fourth phase of Erlitou. In response to Yin Weizhang’s question about the cultural stages of Erlitou, Du Jinpeng said: The mainstream view in the academic circles is to separate the second and third stages. Later, due to the appearance of Yanshi Mall, most people changed their views.Mr. Zhao Zhiquan was the first to change. As a result, he attracted a lot of ridicule, saying that Mr. Zhao's knowledge is not solid. If he says this today, he will say that tomorrow. Is there any certainty?In fact, many people at that time could not understand Mr. Zhao's difficulties because they did not know the unpublished excavation materials of Yanshi Mall and did not know the details of academic progress and changes.At that time, Mr. Zhao found many clues during the excavation of the Yanshi Commercial City. He felt that the Yanshi Commercial City was relatively early, and it was close to the fourth phase of Erlitou.However, the excavated materials are relatively fragmented and the quantity is small, so it is a bit mysterious to come up with a definite statement based on these things.In this case, Mr. Zhao's speech seems rather vague, if possible, etc. tone.Others think how can this person be so learned?How did you say it?But when we excavated, because we basically figured out the nature of Yanshi City, we really said what we wanted to say.Regarding this move and statement, Mr. Zhao said: You have clearly raised the issue that I did not dare to say at the beginning, and I agree with it with all my hands. Through the excavation of the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties, we now feel more and more that the first, second, and third phases of Erlitou must be the culture of the Xia Dynasty, and the fourth phase is divided into two halves, and the latter half must have entered the Shang Dynasty.But the fourth period is still Xia culture on the whole, and it is the Xia people who create and use this culture.Therefore, the second half of the fourth period is the Xia culture of the Shang Dynasty, that is, the Later Xia culture.According to the Chinese tradition, when a dynasty perishes, the victorious party will demolish his ancestral temple and rob him of his ritual vessels.The same is true at the turn of Xia and Shang. Although the Xia people were ruined and their families were destroyed, some of them still lived in the capital of Erlitou.With the inertia of culture, the Erlitou culture still developed along the original track of the Xia people, which led to the emergence of the Xia culture in the second half of the fourth period of the Shang Dynasty.In contrast, Yanshi Shangcheng, which is located six kilometers away, is different. After the merchants came, they fully accepted the progressive Xia culture, but they did not give up their own culture. In this case, Yanshi Shangcheng The mixed culture of Xia and Shang was formed in the early stage of the city, and Erlitou also had this phenomenon, but it was different from Yanshi Shang City. The original cultural system was basically not disrupted, and Shang culture was only inserted in bits and pieces. , the mixture is not very obvious, which is why the second half of Erlitou Phase 4 must be Shang.So is the first half of the fourth phase of Erlitou a business culture?Not sure yet because there is no proof.If it is proved that the second half of the fourth period is indeed Shang culture, and the time difference of the dynasty's demise is taken into account, then the middle of the third and fourth periods of Erlitou may be the real time boundary for the historical event of Shang's destruction of Xia. But the problem is, the excavated objects are placed here, but some people say it is early, and some people say it is late.Certainly there is a problem with the method. If everyone adopts the same method and logic, they can have a unified understanding.Some scholars object to using the capital city as the boundary marker of Xia and Shang. It is most accurate to use archaeological cultural periods to divide Xia and Shang, but this method is more troublesome and unclear.For example, Mr. Yin Weizhang has always insisted on dividing the second and third phases of Erlitou, and Mr. Zheng Guang insisted on dividing the first and second phases. According to Mr. Yin’s point of view, he believes that things in the second and third phases are different. Are you separated?According to this statement, Mr. Zheng's point of view is even more correct. He said that the difference between the first and second phases is greater than the difference between the third and fourth phases!Xia Shang should be divided between the first and second phases. We used to have this kind of logic and method too, but then we gave up.Why give up?Because the method Mr. Yin said is soft, Xia and Shang were originally neighbors, you live in the southwest, and I live in the northeast, and for a while the merchants belonged to Xia and were Xia's subordinate states.In this case, our cultural exchanges are very close.That being the case, it is entirely possible to produce some commercial things in Erlitou, and it is also a normal thing.However, there is also a standard problem in this phenomenon. For example, how many items from merchants in Erlitou are cultural exchanges, and how many items are dynasty replacements?Is it fifty or one hundred?This is soft, hard to say clearly.Conversely, using the city as the standard is rigid, and it is impossible for you to exceed my standard.For the sake of discussion, we have retreated from the soft standard to the hard standard because the soft standard is generally justified, and the mother-in-law is justified, but there has been no result after more than ten years of debate.In the absence of a solution, we had to fall back to this hard standard.Mr. Zhao Zhiquan originally also regarded the abandonment of the Erlitou Palace as a condition for the end of the Xia Dynasty, but this is only auxiliary circumstantial evidence, and the only criterion is still in Yanshi Shangcheng.If the Xia Dynasty did not perish, merchants could not build a city next to it, and the rise of the Shangcheng marked the end of the Xia Dynasty. At this time, it was the time when the Erlitou Palace was abandoned. The two conditions corresponded to each other, which showed the truth of the matter. .Without the rise of the Yanshi Shang City, it would be unbelievable to rely on the collapse of a palace alone to attempt to prove the demise of the Xia Dynasty. Of course, taking Yanshi Shangcheng as the symbol of the boundary between Xia and Shang is not simply a symbol of the event of dynastic change, but a symbol of cultural boundaries.After the Shang eradicated Xia, it was impossible to build a city right away. There were constraints on manpower, material resources, and time. There must be a time difference. Whether this time difference is three years, five years, ten years, or eight years, archeology It cannot be solved by itself, but apart from archaeology, it cannot be solved by any other method, including sophisticated astronomical calculations.Unless written records like the oracle bone inscriptions of the Yin Ruins are found, the hope of this discovery is very slim, so this problem can only be solved by Yanshi Shangcheng. Yin Weizhang was still unconvinced by Du Jinpeng's view on the distinction between soft and hard. He said: What is the hard standard?The materials discovered through excavation are rigid. The criteria for dividing Xia and Shang should be based on materials, rather than being measured by a city in general. Talk about other issues, otherwise there is no way to talk about it Although scholars have different methods of dividing the boundary between Xia and Shang, and they are arguing endlessly about which one is earlier and which is later, and who is more qualified to serve as a boundary marker.However, as far as the above two malls are concerned, scholars have no disputes within the framework of being the earliest known ruins of the size of the Shang Dynasty capital and their construction date should be closest to the year of the Xia-Shang transition.In view of this, we can only rely on carbon fourteenth dating to end this public case that has been debated for more than ten years. According to the division of project archaeologist Yang Yubin and others, the pre-Shang culture of Zhengzhou Shang City is divided into four phases. Before the fourth phase, it was directly pressed under the city wall of the Shang City and belonged to the type of Luoda Temple of the Erlitou Culture.The carbon fourteenth dating data of each period is shown in the table below: The remains of the late Luoda temple type; a sample of animal bone was collected; the age range is estimated to be between 1680 BC and 1540 BC. Zhengzhou Mall: The first phase and the first phase of the lower layer of Erligang are as early as; a sample of animal bone was collected; the age range is estimated to be between 1580 BC and 1490 BC. The first phase and the first phase of the lower layer of Erligang are late; two animal bone samples were collected; the age range is estimated to be between 1518 BC and 1480 BC. The second phase and the second phase of the lower layer of Erligang are late; three animal bone samples were collected; the age range of them is estimated to be between 1485 BC and 1415 BC. The third phase and the first phase of the upper layer of Erligang; four animal bone samples were collected; the age range of the fittings is from 1429 BC to 1392 BC. The fourth phase, the second phase of the upper layer of Erligang; four samples of animal bones and charcoal were collected; the age range of them was estimated to be between 1400 BC and 1210 BC. In November 1997, the Xia-Shang-Zhou Dating Project Symposium on Archaeological Chronology of the Early Xia and Shang Dynasties was held in Zhengzhou and Yanshi, Henan Province.During this meeting, dating engineering researchers Qiu Shihua and Yin Weizhang asked the staff of the Henan Provincial Institute of Archeology if there were any good charcoal specimens ready-made for carbon 14 dating.The archaeologists in Henan replied that there is a well-framed log in good condition in the warehouse for testing.This log, numbered T1J3, belongs to the relics of the first phase of the upper layer of Erligang in Zhengzhou Mall. When Qiu Shihua and Yin Weizhang saw it, they saw that the log was not only well preserved, but more gratifyingly, the outer skin of the wood was still intact.Therefore, Qiu Shihua started from the outermost round of the log, and took a sample every few rounds until it became a series, and then brought it back to Beijing for carbon-14 dating.As a result, the date of the outermost ring of the log was 1408 BC to 1392 BC, which should be the construction date of the well.If this data is compared with other samples of the first phase of the upper Erligang layer measured, it is found that their ages are basically consistent, which proves the correctness of the carbon-14 dating range of Zhengzhou Shangcheng from another measurement point. The late Luodamiao type remains and Zhengzhou Shangcheng staging and accelerator mass spectrometer dating data are as follows: The remains of the late Luoda temple type; four samples of bones and charcoal; the age range is estimated to be between 1740 BC and 1605 BC. The first phase of the first phase of Erligang Lower Floor of Zhengzhou Shangcheng is as early as the first phase; five samples of bone, charcoal, bone dagger, charcoal, etc.; the fitting date ranges from 1600 BC to 1525 BC. The first phase of the first phase of Zhengzhou Shangcheng, Erligang lower level, late phase I; three samples of bone, charcoal, charcoal, etc.; the fitting date ranges from 1533 BC to 1496 BC. The second phase of Zhengzhou Shangcheng, the second phase of the lower layer of Erligang, the late phase II; two bone samples; the fitting date ranges from 1508 BC to 1471 BC. The first phase of the upper floor of Erligang, the third phase of Zhengzhou Commercial City; three bone samples; the fitting age range is from 1476 BC to 1436 BC. The second phase of the upper floor of Erligang, the fourth phase of Zhengzhou Shangcheng; two bone samples; the fitting age range is from 1446 BC to 1415 BC. The project specialists divided the Yanshi Shangcheng site into three phases and six sections. The phases and carbon-14 dating data are shown in the table below (the sixth section is not available): Section 1 of the first phase of Yanshi Commercial City; two samples of animal bones; the fitting date ranges from 1600 BC to 1505 BC. The second section of the first phase of Yanshi Shangcheng; three samples of animal bones and charcoal; the fitting date ranges from 1532 BC to 1486 BC. The third section of the second phase of Yanshi Shangcheng; two pieces of charcoal samples; the fitting date ranges from 1500 BC to 1461 BC.Section 4 of the second phase of Yanshi Commercial City; seven samples of human bones, animal bones, charcoal, etc.; the fitting date ranges from 1467 BC to 1387 BC. The fifth section of the third phase of Yanshi Shangcheng; two charcoal samples; the fitting date ranges from 1405 BC to 1260 BC. Yanshi Shangcheng staging and accelerator mass spectrometer dating data: Section 1 of the first phase of Yanshi Shang City; two bone samples; the fitting date ranges from 1605 BC to 1515 BC. The second section of the first phase of Yanshi Shangcheng; four samples of bone and charcoal; the fitting date ranges from 1565 BC to 1489 BC. The third section of the second phase of Yanshi Shangcheng; two samples of bones and charcoal; the fitting date ranges from 1504 BC to 1460 BC. The fourth section of the second phase of the Yanshi Shang City; three samples of bone and charcoal; the age range is estimated to be between 1470 BC and 1400 BC. Section 5 of the third phase of the Yanshi Commercial City; four samples of bones, charcoal, and bamboo charcoal; the age range is estimated to be between 1430 BC and 1350 BC. From the carbon-14 dating data, it can be seen that Zhengzhou Shangcheng and Yanshi Shangcheng were basically built at the same time, which should be between 1610 and 1560 BC.With such a scientific data, the debate about who is the earliest and which is the later Zhengzhou Mall and Yanshi Mall has finally come to an end after more than ten years. However, there is still no consensus on who is qualified to serve as the landmark of the Xia-Shang boundary between Zhengzhou Shangcheng and Yanshi Shangcheng.After the start of the Xia, Shang and Zhou dating projects, the engineering expert group based on the nature of the two capitals and the carbon-14 dating data, in the "Brief Report on Phased Results of the 1996-1999 Dating Project" (draft for comments) In this paper, it is concluded that Zhengzhou Shangcheng and Yanshi Shangcheng basically coexisted at the same time, and their construction dates were both landmarks of the boundary between Xia and Shang.This conclusion was discussed in the academic report meeting on the phased results of the project jointly held by the Chinese History Society, the Chinese Archaeological Society, the Chinese Science and Technology History Society and the Xia, Shang and Zhou Dating Project Office from September 24th to 26th, 1999. Some participating scholars put forward different opinions.Zhao Zhiquan, an archaeologist who has presided over the excavation of the Erlitou cultural site for a long time, clearly put forward his own point of view. He believes that it is inappropriate to use Zhengzhou Shangcheng and Yanshi Shangcheng as the boundary between Xia and Shang in the "Journal Draft". Shuo and Xibo said it was difficult to make a choice between the two, so they took these two shopping malls as the landmarks of the boundary between Xia and Shang.Judging from the artifacts unearthed from Erlitou, Zhengzhou Shangcheng and Yanshi Shangcheng, Yanshi Shangcheng should be earlier than Zhengzhou Shangcheng. Therefore, Yanshi Shangcheng is the landmark of the boundary between Xia and Shang. Zhao Zhiquan’s opinion led to two views among the participants. One is that it is impossible for the two cities to be used as landmarks at the same time, because the two cities were obviously not built in the same year. On the issue of the city's post-construction, it is better to make it as clear as possible, and set a city as the boundary mark.Another point of view is that the concept of the term landmark should be defined, such as what are the criteria and conditions for landmarks?What kind of relics or remains can be used as landmarks?These issues should be addressed first.Because the impression given by the boundary marks is that this place is a ruler, which defines an upper and lower boundary. The year when this city is completed should be the time when Shang destroyed Xia.But this is not the case in fact, that is to say, after the Shang Dynasty destroyed Xia, it did not build the city immediately, and it was completed very quickly. It has a considerable process.At best, the boundary mark is just saying that it is relatively close to the time when Shang Tang destroyed Xia.Although it is close, it is still decades away.Therefore, it is easy to confuse the concept by simply using the word landmark. In addition to the above two points of view, Shandong archaeologist Zhang Xuehai believes that concepts such as the lower layer of Erligang in Zhengzhou should be regarded as landmarks of archaeological culture, and the landmarks of related historical events should preferably be based on a certain tomb or other specific relics It is more suitable as a boundary mark. Regarding the interpretation of the concept of landmarks, Qiu Shihua, the chief scientist of the project, believes that the reason why it is called so in the "Journal Draft" is to indicate a period of time.He thinks this time period is feasible, but the word landmark needs to be reconsidered. If it is inappropriate, then it should not be used again, so as not to cause conceptual confusion.After this meeting, based on the opinions of scholars, the engineering expert group discarded the theory of landmarks and changed the sentence mentioned above to read that Zhengzhou Shangcheng and Yanshi Shangcheng are the earliest known ruins of the scale of Shang Dynasty capitals. Its founding date should be closest to the year of Xia Shang replacement.So far, the dispute over the landmarks between Zhengzhou Mall and Yanshi Mall has really come to an end. Xiaoshuangqiao Ruins After Zhengzhou Shangcheng and Yanshi Shangcheng, according to the sequence of archaeological culture, there are typical representative sites such as Xiaoshuangqiao and Huayuanzhuang. The Xiaoshuangqiao site is located between Xiaoshuangqiao Village and Yuzhuang Village, Shifo Township, about 20 kilometers northwest of Zhengzhou City, Henan Province. It is located on a flat plain that is slightly higher than the surrounding area. The soil is mainly brown clay and fluvo-aquic soil. ; The altitude is about 105 meters, and there are Suoxu River and other water systems nearby.The site is close to the Suoxu River in the north, and the terrain is relatively high, and it gradually becomes lower towards the east and south. In the south of the site, a waterway built in recent years to divert the Yellow River into the Zheng Canal passes through it from west to east.According to the available information, the site is 500 meters long from east to west, 300 meters wide from north to south, and covers an area of ​​150,000 square meters.The thickness of the cultural layer is between 0.5 and 2 meters. Before 1989, the site of Shang culture had not been discovered. In the summer of 1985, a farmer in Shijiahe Village, one kilometer northwest of the ruins, found a bronze vessel about 1.5 meters above the surface when he was collecting soil from the farmland northwest of Xiaoshuangqiao, and handed it over to the Provincial Museum immediately. collect.Later, when the Zhengzhou Municipal Museum conducted a general survey of cultural relics in the suburbs, based on the clues of bronzes discovered by farmers in Shijiahe Village, Shang Dynasty relics were found on the seal of Zhou Bo's tomb in the center of the site, but the site has not yet been identified. In December 1989, when Wang Tiekui, a farmer in Xiaoshuangqiao Village, was collecting soil from the wheat field in the west of the village, he found another bronze vessel and handed it over to the cultural relics department.According to Hao Benxing, a cultural relic expert from the Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics, the device is a decorative component of a building in the early Shang Dynasty, and he believes that there should be very important Shang cultural relics near the excavation site.According to this important clue, the Zhengzhou Workstation of the Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics specially organized manpower to investigate and test excavate the Xiaoshuangqiao site. After investigation and trial excavation, not only cultural relics such as rammed earth building foundations, trenches, cellars, ash pits, kitchen surfaces, and tombs were discovered, but also very rich cultural relics were found; The study of the age and nature of the Xiaoshuangqiao site provides an important physical basis.Researchers believe that the Xiaoshuangqiao site should be an important Shang Dynasty cultural site closely related to Zhengzhou Shang City. In order to further clarify the scope of the site, the thickness of the cultural layer, the type of the site, the layout of the site, the age, and the nature of the site, Song Guoding and other archaeologists began a comprehensive survey of the site in January 1990.Afterwards, multiple drilling and excavations were carried out in key areas, and it was found that the total area of ​​the site is more than 1.44 million square meters, and there are many large rammed earth building foundations, sacrificial pits and bronze casting remains. On the whole, the Xiaoshuangqiao site lasted for a short period of time, corresponding to the second phase of the upper layer of Erligang in Zhengzhou, which is commonly known as the Baijiazhuang period.Regarding the nature of Xiaoshuangqiao, there are mainly two opinions in the academic circles. One is that the capital was moved by Zhong Ding in the Shang Dynasty, and the other is that it was a sacrificial place for the Shang royal family in the later period of Zhengzhou Shang City.For the cultural stages and carbon 14 dating of this site, see the following table: Accelerator mass spectrometer dating data of Xiaoshuangqiao, Huayuanzhuang and Dongxianxian sites. Major Discovery of Huanbei Mall Since the late 1950s, cultural relics from the Shang Dynasty have been frequently unearthed in Huanbei Huayuanzhuang and its adjacent Sanjiazhuang and Dongwangdu Village, which is about 3.55 kilometers north of the old city of Anyang. In 1961, the Anyang team of the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, based on the clues unearthed from cultural relics, first investigated the remains of the Shang Dynasty near Huayuanzhuang Village in Huanbei.In 1964, about 300 meters southeast of Sanjiazhuang Village, a Shang Dynasty bronze vessel cellar was discovered, and eight bronze ritual vessels were unearthed.In 1979, a bronze kiln was also discovered in Dongwangdu Village, which is adjacent to Huayuanzhuang Village.In 1980, the Anyang team of the Institute of Archeology cleaned up eight Shang Dynasty tombs in the northeast of Sanjiazhuang in order to cooperate with the infrastructure construction of the fruit warehouse in Anyang City, and unearthed many artifacts. From the geographical point of view, the above-mentioned villages are located at the outer edge of the traditional Yin Ruins, and the discoveries over the years have attracted great attention from archaeologists.In 1996, in order to cooperate with the research on the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties, the Anyang team of the Institute of Archeology of the Academy of Social Sciences began to drill in Huayuanzhuang Village, Huanbei, and found clues to the site.一九九七年，徵得國家文物局同意，安陽工作隊正式對遺址開方發掘，揭露面積一百三十六平方公尺，獲得首批較為豐富且地層關係明確的科學研究資料。一九九八年，圍繞一九九七年的發掘地點又進行了大規模的密集布孔鑽探。鑽探結果證實，遺址規模不小一百五十萬平方公尺。其分布範圍包括今三家莊、花園莊、董王渡、韓王渡、屈王渡等五個村莊。上述一九六○年代以來的幾次考古發現，實際是同一遺址不同地點的遺存。鑽探還查實，遺址的核心部位分布有大面積夯土建築。遺址內絕大多數地點的文化堆積較厚，且包含的文化遺物十分豐富。這一鑽探成果公布後，立即引起學術界廣泛關注。 一九九九年十至十二月，安陽考古工作隊再次在洹河北岸鑽探，終於發現了一座規模宏大的商代城址，城址位於著名的殷墟遺址的東北外緣，與一九六一年中國國務院劃定的殷墟保護範圍相毗鄰且略有重疊。整座城址深埋於現今地表二•五公尺以下，平面近方形。方向北偏東十三度。城牆系夯築而成。基槽的橫截面呈鍋底狀，寬約十公尺。根據鑽探，城址四面城牆的長度都在二千公尺以上，城的總面積超過四百萬平方公尺。透過對城址進行局部解剖和出土器物來看，其遺址的主體堆積顯然屬於中商時期。其中晚段遺存屬於學術界原來所劃分的殷墟文化一期偏早，約當盤庚、小辛、小乙時代，早段遺存則略晚於鄭州小雙橋遺址。 從文獻來看，成湯以後的都城遷徙，主要記錄於《竹書紀年》、《尚書序》、《世本》、《史記•殷本紀》等書之中。其中《竹書紀年》記了五處：囂、相、庇、奄、殷。《尚書序》記了四處：囂、相、耿、殷。《世本》記了四處：隞、相、邢、亳。《史記•殷本紀》與《世本》相同。由於商代最後一個都城可以確認至少是武丁以後的，鄭州商城和偃師商城又同為早商都邑（亳或隞）。所以如果文獻沒有錯誤，中商時期應與河亶甲居相、祖乙居邢（耿或庇）、南庚遷奄、或盤庚遷殷相涉。 據遺址發掘者等考古學家推斷：關於祖乙居邢，文獻記載與安陽無關。從考古資料，尤其是近年的資料看，祖乙之邢應當在今天的邢台溪南曹演莊、東先賢一帶。南庚遷奄的有關文獻也與安陽無關。且南庚徙都可能時間極短，未必能夠從考古遺存中辨析出來，因而若論洹北花園莊遺址的性質，要嘛是相，要嘛是盤庚所遷之殷，要嘛，它只是一處大型中商邑聚。 據《尚書》、《竹書紀年》等歷史文獻記載，商代後期商王盤庚曾遷都至殷。隨著安陽小屯甲骨文被學術界發現並成功釋讀，特別是王國維發表《殷卜辭所見先公先王考》和《殷卜辭所見先公先王續考》兩篇著名論文以後，多數學者認為殷墟已經找到。科學發掘小屯遺址的發掘報告公布以後，學術界皆篤信以安陽小屯為中心的面積約廿四平方公里（後改卅平方公里）範圍曾是盤庚所遷之殷。 然而，隨著考古工作的深入，人們注意到，數十年來小屯殷墟發現的主體遺存均屬商王武丁（含）至帝乙、帝辛（紂）時期。武丁以前盤庚、小辛、小乙數王時期的遺存甚少且規模很小，規格也遠不能與王都遺存相提並論。因此近年越來越多的學者開始懷疑小屯殷墟是武丁所遷之都而並非盤庚之殷。 由於殷墟在中國考古學史上有著特殊的地位，所以關於殷墟遺址性質的討論，不單是商史研究的問題，也是整個中國考古學界和史學界為之矚目的大事。洹北花園莊遺址的勘探與發掘，為澄清小屯殷墟究竟是盤庚遷殷還是武丁遷殷的歷史之謎找到了難得的契機。據此，遺址的發掘者根據出土資料，大膽提出了一個假說：洹北花園莊遺址是盤庚所遷的殷；小屯殷墟雖確為商代後期都城，但實非盤庚、小辛、小乙三王所居，而是由武丁以後各王都邑所在。這一假說解釋了為什麼小屯殷墟迄今一直未能發現早於武丁的宮殿基址、王陵，以及不出武丁以前甲卜辭的疑團。由於洹北花園莊遺址的地理位置也在洹河附近，這一解釋居然也符合《竹書紀年》等文獻記載。 關於以上這個假說有的學者擁護、有的表示反對，但不論如何，有一個事實不會改變，那就是洹北商城的發現，是商代考古工作的重大突破。從區域研究的角度看，洹北商城的發現，有助於理解殷墟作為商代最後一處都邑出現於洹河岸邊的歷史背景和文化背景，以及洹河流域古代聚落的發展演變規律。該座商城的發現，還為完成商代考古學文化的編年架構提供了關鍵性資料。過去的考古工作中，雖然有學者意識到以鄭州商城和偃師商城為代表的早期商文化和以安陽殷墟為代表的晚期商文化之間可能還存在時間斷層，但一直沒有找到好的資料加以證明。洹北商城的發現，不僅以確鑿證據證實了該缺環的存在，而且提供了能夠對該斷層階段進行考古分期的實物資料和地層依據。這對於確立夏商周斷代工程中商朝年代架構產生重大影響。 除洹北商城外，另一個被工程列入碳十四定年的東先賢遺址，位於邢台市西南郊約三公里的東先賢村附近。據調查，遺址被東先賢村分為南、北兩部分，其中村北部分已知面積近十萬平方公尺。東先賢遺址商文化遺存可分為五期，以H15和H34為代表的東先賢一期的年代晚於小雙橋遺址，而與安陽洹北花園莊早段的年代大體相當。 工程對小雙橋、花園莊和東先賢遺址出土的系列樣品進行了加速器質譜儀定年，其擬合結果如下： 商前期第四期；骨頭樣品一件；擬合得其年代區間介於西元前一四三五年至前一四一二年。 商前期第五期（花園莊早段）；骨頭、人骨等樣品七件；擬合得其年代區間介於西元前一四二二年至前一三二五年。 殷墟一期偏早（花園莊晚段）；骨頭樣品四件；擬合得其年代區間介於西元前一三四○年至前一二二○年。 工程也對屬於花園莊早段遺存的兩個標本進行了常規碳十四定年： 商前期第五期（花園莊早段）；獸骨等樣品二件；擬合得其年代區間介於西元前一五二○年至前一三八○年。 據《竹書紀年》、《尚書序》和《史記•殷本紀》等文獻，盤庚遷殷之前的商代前期，尚有成湯居亳、仲丁遷隞、河亶甲居相、祖乙遷邢以及南庚遷奄等都城變遷。工程專家組認為：鄭州商城和偃師商城基本同時或略有先後，是商代最早的兩處具有都邑規模的遺址，推斷其分別為湯所居之亳和湯滅夏後在下洛之陽所建之宮邑亦即西亳的意見具有較強的說服力。其他如小雙橋、洹北花園莊和邢台曹演莊、東先賢等大規模商前期遺址的發現，也為推定仲丁遷隞等都城的地望提供了重要的線索。 斷代工程透過對上述遺址的分期和碳十四定年研究，基本建立了比較完整的商朝前期考古學文化序列。其排序為： 第一期：以鄭州商城C1H9、偃師商城宮城北部灰溝最底層（如96YSJ1T28⑧、⑨、⑩）為代表； 第二期：以鄭州商城C1H17、偃師商城86J1D5H25為代表； 第三期：以鄭州商城C1H1、C1H2乙、偃師商城85YS5T1H3為代表； 第四期：以鄭州白家莊第二層、小雙橋遺址的主體遺存為代表； 第五期：以安陽洹北花園莊早段97G4、98AHDH11、99AHDM10和邢台東先賢遺址一期98H15、H34為代表。 以上五期文化序列的建立，為推定商前期的年代奠定了基礎。 商代前期紀年的推算 按照工程課題的設置，建立商前期年代學架構三個主要依據的研究已大致完成，那麼從商朝建立到盤庚遷殷這段歷史的年代跨度是多少？它始於何年又止於何年呢？要推算出結果，首先是對文獻記載的商代積年加以比較研究。根據工程專題組對文獻資料搜集整理的成果，先秦及漢代文獻關於商代積年的記載主要有： 一、桀有昏德，鼎遷於商，載祀六百。《左傳》宣公三年 二、由湯至於文王，五百有餘歲。《孟子•盡心下》 三、湯之治天下也，積歲五百七十六歲至紂。《鬻子•湯政天下至紂》 四、湯滅夏以至於受，廿九王，用歲四百九十六年。《史記•殷本紀》集解引《汲塚紀年》 五、殷四百九十六年。《易緯稽覽圖》 六、自伐桀至武王伐紂，六百二十九年。《漢書•律曆志》引《世經》 斷代工程專家組認為，《世經》記載之六百廿九年，不見於先秦文獻，是劉歆據三統曆推算出來的，不足憑信。 古本《竹書紀年》等書之四百九十六年說，因《竹書紀年》明記是廿九王之積年，不足《史記•殷本紀》商代卅王之數（如計入未立而卒之太丁為卅一王）。歷史學家陳夢家認為，湯滅夏以至於受可能是引述《紀年》者所加的說明，《紀年》原文可能如《通鑑外紀》注所引是廿九王四百九十六年。自湯數至文丁（文王受命）是廿九王，沒有帝乙、帝辛。據晚商祀譜的排比，帝辛公元前一○七五至前一○四六年在位卅年，帝乙在位廿六年，二王共在位五十六年，故商代總積年當為四百九十六年加五十六年等於五百五十二年（含公元前一○四六年），若將伐桀之年計入，則為五百五十三年。也有學者認為，湯滅夏以至於受可能是指從湯至帝辛即位，廿九王不包括未立而卒的太丁和帝辛。如是，則商積年為四百九十六年加卅年（帝辛在位年數）等於五百廿六年。《鬻子》記載之五百七十六年與五百五十三年接近，《左傳》之載祀六百可理解為約數。 專家們認為，可以用於工程的商代積年有三說較可信，一為《鬻子》的五百七十六年說；二為古本《竹書紀年》記載、陳夢家解釋的五百五十二年說；三為另一種解釋的五百二十六年說。由於工程中武王克商研究專題組和工程專家組已將周武王滅商之年定為西元前一○四六年。那麼以這個數字為定點，分別上推三說的商代積年，可得到西元前一六二二年、西元前一五九八年和西元前一五七二年三個數字。根據此前對鄭州商城和偃師商城始建年代的碳十四定年研究，已得結果為西元前一六一○至前一五六○年之間。這個時間段與以上三說基本吻合。有鑑於此，工程專家組研究決定商的始年就在這個架構中取捨，為取整數而定為西元前一六○○年。 西元前一六○○年作為夏商分界之年，在回答了前面已經敘述的為什麼夏代始年定為西元前二○七○年的同時，也有一個關鍵的數字需要交待，這就是建立商代始年基點的歷史上著名的武王克商之年西元前一○四六年。可以說在整個夏商周斷代工程中，如果武王克商，也就是說商朝滅亡、周朝建立的這個至關重要的定點無法建立和確定，夏商的年代學體系就不可能較準確地加以建立。當然，在武王克商這個重大歷史事件發生之前，有關商代後期的歷史脈絡和各王年代還是要先行說明的。因此，必須先說明盤庚遷殷到底始於何年？