No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Shang dynasty's “nine generations chaos” and the reign of Wu Ding: towards a unilineal line of transmission of royal power
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 August 2023
Abstract
This article explores the political crisis before Wu Ding. The accession of king Wu Ding to the throne was not a given but the result of a political move by his father Xiao Yi. It must be seen as one of the consequences of an earlier political crisis named the “nine generations chaos” by Sima Qian, during which an attempt to share royal power between two royal lines finally collapsed and led to a move by Pan Geng to a new capital. This new city has recently been discovered north of the Huai river. The political crisis of the time led Shang kings to try to implement a unilineal system of succession. Other steps, ritual in particular, were involved after the reign of the king Zu Jia, one of the reigning sons of Wu Ding, in order to ensure the primacy of the unilineal system of royal succession.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 86 , Issue 2 , June 2023 , pp. 293 - 315
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of SOAS University of London
Footnotes
This research would have been more imperfect without the remarks of professors Chao Lin, E. Shaughnessy, R. Campbell, M. Kayutina, A. Thote, O. Venture, D. Elisseef and CNRS researcher Pauline Sebillaud. My understanding of some issues related to the anthropology of family has benefitted greatly from the generosity of Chao Lin and Maurice Godelier. Any remaining errors are mine.
References
1 The dates of Wu Ding's reign (GZ 1273–1213 bce, TDC 1250–1192 bce) are given according to table B.1, in Campbell, Roderick, Violence, Kinship and the Early Chinese State, The Shang and their World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 272Google Scholar. Campbell gives two absolute dates, the first according to the Guben Zhushu jinian 古本竹書紀年 (GZ), the second according to the Three Dynasties Chronology Project 夏商周断代工程 (TDC). The dates given are only for broad reference.
2 Shiji, “Yin benji” 殷本紀 (Zhonghua ed. 1985), 3. 101.
3 I use here James L. Watson's definition from “Chinese kinship reconsidered: anthropological perspectives on historical research”, China Quarterly, 92, 1982, 594: “A lineage is a corporate group which celebrate ritual unity and is based on demonstrated descent from a common ancestor” (author's italics).
4 Shiji, “Yin benji”, 3. 101.
5 In this list, I first give the numeral corresponding to the order of succession in the Shiji, followed either by S (for son), B (for brother), BS (for brother's son) or FBS (for father's brother's son = nephew) indicating the type of kinship relation between a king and his predecessor. The list is given in the Shiji, “Yin benji”, 3.100–1.
6 The cyclical sacrifices mention another of his sons, Zu Ji 祖己, the “young king”, who died before Wu Ding.
7 Another element confirms the validity of the Shiji's testimony: it notes that the Shang people moved from capital to capital, as verified through archaeological discoveries. I will show below that those archaeological data allow in certain cases to correct Sima Qian and indirectly give weight to some of what is suggested by some texts of late provenience.
8 The Shiji presents the Shang kings’ genealogy strictly from the male (agnatic) perspective; there is no mention of spouses.
9 The first description and study of this cycle was presented in his Yinli pu 殷曆譜, published in 1945.
10 Cf. table B.1, Campbell, Violence, Kinship and the Early Chinese State, 269–75. The cyclical sacrifices have been analysed by Chang Yuzhi 常玉芝 in what remains an authoritative work, Shangdai zhouji zhidu 商代周祭制度 (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue, 1987), quoted below as Zhouji.
11 After the reign of Zu Jia, other iterations of the cyclical ceremonies have been observed in the oracular inscriptions belonging to later reigns, those of Wen Ding 文丁, Di Yi 帝乙, and Di Xin 帝辛. There are differences between the cycles of Zu Jia and those after his reign, such as the duration of the cycles, mainly because the number of ancestors was augmented. Those differences (analysed in detail in Zhouji, 12–20, 22–3) are not germane to this article.
12 In the inscriptions of the cyclical sacrifices, as well as in other inscriptions mentioning ancestors, the names are composed of a kinship term, such as father fu父, mother mu 母, brother xiong 兄 and, at the level EGO+2 and above (male) ancestor zu 祖 and (female) ancestor bi 妣; those kinship terms are paired with a heavenly stem character. The kinship terms in Shang inscriptions are classificatory and not descriptive: all kin at the same generational level are given the same kinship term. In the cycles, spouses are systematically noted according to the pattern X (name of a male ancestor) shi 奭 Y (name of the spouse). This is to avoid problems of homonymy. Since the names of ancestors are mentioned in religious context (for example in inscriptions related to sacrifices), I use the term “hyeronym” (sacred name) as a general appellation.
13 The spouse of Qiang Jia, Bi Geng 羌甲奭妣庚, was not honoured after the first implementation of the cycles during the reign of Zu Jia. The proof of her presence in the cycles of Zu Jia's reign is given by the inscription 合集23325, period 2, group 出2.
14 The number of spouses of Zu Ding 祖丁 mentioned in the cyclical sacrifices is in dispute. Zheng Huisheng 鄭慧生 (“Cong Shangdai wu di qie zhidu shuo ta de shengmu ru ji fa” 從商代無嫡妾制度說到它的生母入祀法, in Jiaguwenxian jicheng 甲骨文獻集成, Song Zhenhao 宋鎭豪 and Duan Zhihong 段志洪 (eds) (Chengdu: Sichuan Daxue ed., 2001), 40 volumes, a compendium of articles from 1899 to 1999, quoted below as Jiaguwenxian, t. x, t. 20, 482–3, originally published in Shehui kexue zhanxian 社會科學戰綫 4, 1984) gives four spouses to Zu Ding: Bi Jia 妣甲, Bi Geng 妣庚, Bi Yi 妣乙 and Bi Gui 妣癸, but there is no trace of Bi Yi in the oracular inscriptions. Wu Junde (cf. Yinxu buci xianwang chengwei zonglun 殷卜辭先王稱謂綜論, Taipei: Liren, 2010, hereafter quoted as Xianwang, 119–24) also gives him four spouses. Yan Yiping 嚴一萍 believed (cf. “Guanyushi si Zu Ding” 關于釋四祖丁 in Zhongguo wenzi new series 中國文字 新 3, 1981, 253) that he had five spouses. It would of course not be impossible for two spouses to have given birth to four sons (for example, two each, three and one or even none and four), but if the correspondence in the cycles between Wu Ding's three recorded spouses and his three sons is an indication, the number of spouses for Zu Ding should be four, corresponding to his four sons.
15 The Shiji makes He Dan Jia 河亶甲 (Jian Jia 戔甲) the father of Zu Yi 祖乙 while oracular inscriptions make him the son of Zhong Ding 中丁. Oracular inscriptions in the sacrificial cycles indicate that sacrifices to He Dan Jia/Jian Jia 河亶甲/戔甲 were offered before those to Zu Yi 祖乙, but during the same period of ten days. See Zhouji, 110. In the Shiji, Zhong Ding 仲丁(=中丁) is followed by two brothers, Wai Ren 外壬 (= Bu Ren卜壬) and He Dan Jia, but in the cyclical sacrifices Zhong Ding is accompanied by two spouses, Bi Ji and Bi Gui (妣己、癸). Therefore, Zhong Ding was succeeded by his brother Wai Ren, the royal power later being transmitted to two sons of Zhong Ding, He Dan Jia and Zu Yi. No royal spouse in the cyclical sacrifices is associated with He Dan Jia/Jian Jia 河亶甲/戔甲; it indicates that he could not have been the father of Zu Yi 祖乙.
16 This is made clear in the Shiji as well as the reconstituted list of ancestors in the cycles: Qiang Jia was the brother of Zu Xin; the son of Zu Xin, Zu Ding, succeeded him; and Nan Geng, the son of Qiang Jia became king after the death of Zu Ding.
17 The superscript numbers represent the succession for this particular sequence. The number in parentheses corresponds to the number of spouses.
18 This was observed by Zhao Cheng in “Huayuanzhuang dongdi jiagu yiyi tansuo”, 花園莊東地甲骨意義探索, Huayuanzhuang dongdi jiagu lunwenji 花園莊東地甲骨論叢, Wang Jiansheng 王建生, Zhu Qixiang 朱歧祥 (eds) (Banqiao: Shenghuan, 2006), 51.
19 I will examine below the question of a preferred type of marriage (to the patrilateral parallel cousin marriage, i.e. marriage of EGO to the FBD – father brother daughter) for Shang nobility, in the context of Wu Ding marital alliances where such a marriage can be observed. According to this type of marriage, Zu Xin would have given one of his daughters to Nan Geng, the son of his brother and Qiang Jia would have given one of his daughters to the son of his brother, Zu Ding.
20 Cf. “Wu Ding buci zhong Bing Fu Ren shenfen de tantao” 武丁卜辭中 
父壬身份的探討, Guwenzi yu Yin Shang shi 古文字與殷商史, 3, 2012, 125–48.
21 Cai Zhemao (cf. “Wu Ding buci zhong Bing Fu Ren shenfen de tantao”, 135–9) links this Bing Father Ren to another person, alive, designated as Chief Bing (伯 
also named Bing 
) who was engaged in different activities (for example, warfare) at the service of the king. Cai Zhemao also quotes (“Wu Ding buci zhong Bing Fu Ren shenfen de tantao”, 142–4) an inscription from Huayuanzhuang (H 290–3) in order to suggest that the prince of Huayuanzhuang, Zai/Zu Jia, offered sacrifices to Bing. Adam Craig Schwartz (“Huayuanzhuang East 1: A study and annotated translation of the oracle bone inscriptions”, PhD, University of Chicago, 2013, 504–05) interprets this sentence as the record of a feast offered to a person named Bing. It is not certain that it is the same person.
22 The term hieronym designates here the name given to a deceased relative. It is by no mean reserved to royalty or nobility but is employed throughout all the Shang social strata. It is composed of a marker of seniority and kinship (such as xiong 兄, elder brother, fu 父 father, mu 母 mother, zu 祖 male ancestor, or bi 妣 female ancestor). Since Wu Ding called his own father, Xiao Yi, and his paternal uncles by the same kinship term, fu 父 (father), it can be deduced that Bing Fu Ren was at the same generational level as Wu Ding's father and uncles.
23 Han Jiangsu 韓江蘇, Jiang Linchang 江林昌, ‘Yin benji’ dingpu yu Shangshi renwu zheng 《殷本紀》 訂补與商史人物徵, Shangdai shi 商代史, t. 2, Song Zhenhao 宋鎮豪 ed. (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue, 2010), quoted below as Shang renwu, 146, understands Yang Jia to be the king who put an end to the period of chaos by repossessing royal power from his paternal uncle, Nan Geng.
24 Cf. Shiji, “Yin benji”, 3, 100–02, Shangshu, Shisanjing zhushu ed. 十三經注疏 (Beijing: zhonghua shuju, 1983 hereafter quoted as SSJ), 3, 168–70. Parts of those chapters are quoted in later Spring and Autumn and Warring States texts; cf. Cheng Yuanmin 程元敏, Shangshu xueshi 尚書學史 (Taipei: Wunan tushu, 2008), 14–15, 178, 218–9.
25 Huanbei was occupied for over 100 years (c. 1400–1250 bc); cf. Pauline Sebillaud, “La distribution spatiale de l'habitat en Chine dans la plaine Centrale à la transition entre le Néolithique et l'âge du Bronze (env. 2500–1050 av. n. è.”, PhD, EPHE, 2014, 179. This site, where study is ongoing, revealed that one palace compound (F1) occupied 6,300 m2. Fan Yuzhou 范毓周, “Guanyu Yinxu wenhua kaogu fenqi de jige wenti” 關於殷墟文化考古分期的幾個問題, Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物, 4, 2010, 41–51, presents (table, p. 46) the correspondence of the archaeological sites in Anyang with the reigns of kings from Pan Geng to the end of the dynasty and the corresponding periods of oracular material. No oracular inscription in the sites south of the river belong to reigns pre-Wu Ding. Fan Yuzhou (pp. 48–9) also identifies Huanbei with the city founded by Pan Geng. The Huanbei discovery has helped archaeologists establish the existence of a middle Shang phase, after the Zhengzhou 鄭州/ Erligang 二裡崗 and before the last phase of the Shang dynasty (site of Anyang proper).
26 See for example Yue Nan 岳南, Kaogu Zhongguo ‘Shiji’ yiluo de 1220 nian lishi 考古中國 《史記》 遺落的 1200 年歷史 (Taipei: Shangzhou, 2007), 248–51, Fan Yuzhou, “Guanyu Yinxu wenhua kaogu fenqi de jige wenti”, 48, Roderick B. Campbell, Archaeology of the Chinese Bronze Age: from Erlitou to Anyang (Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press Monographs, 2014), 110–2; Feng, Li, Early China A Social and Cultural History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 81–2Google Scholar.
27 According to Shaughnessy, Edward, “Shang shu”, in Loewe, Michael (ed.), Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide (Berkeley: Society for the Study of Early China, 1993), 378Google Scholar, the chapters “Pan Geng”, considered to be the earliest document of the Shangshu, were probably written in Zhou times to justify the removal of Shang people after the conquest, taking advantage of the resonance with Shang people of Pan Geng's move. Nevertheless, such a justification would have made sense only if the move of the capital by Pan Geng had indeed been etched into Shang memory.
28 The reason for the move has been a topic of dispute among scholars. According to Shang renwu, 149–50, the main reason was politics. Two other articles synthesize the causes evoked for Pang Geng's move, Liu Yifeng 劉義峰《尚書⋅盤庚》與盤庚之政, Yindu xuekan 殷都學刊, 4, 2009, 5–8; and Koo Yung Hoi 具隆會 “Tan jiushi zhi luan yu Yinren lüqian wenti” 談九世之亂與殷人屢遷問題, Yindu xuekan 殷都學刊 2, 2013, 24–9. It is not possible given the present state of documentation to pinpoint an exact and unique cause for the move. It is probable that it was multifactorial. Nevertheless, the extant written sources, palaeographic and received, document one of those: the dynastic difficulties linked to the process of royal succession.
29 Cf. “Wu Ding wangwei jicheng zhi mi – cong Yin buci de teshu xianxiang lai zuo tantao” 武丁王位繼承之謎——從殷卜辭的特殊現象來做探討, Jiaguwen yu Yin Shang shi 甲骨文與殷商史, 4, 2014, 10, n. 21.
30 Cf. “Wu Ding wangwei jicheng zhi mi – cong Yin buci de teshu xianxiang lai zuo tantao”, 1–3. In this anecdote (Shiji, 31.1, 1449–51), the king Shou 壽 of the Wu 吴 polity had four sons but he wanted to establish his younger son who declined, so there was a succession between the other brothers, starting with the elder; the younger one still refused to be king even after the death of the remaining brother.
31 Cf. “Wu Ding wangwei jicheng zhi mi – cong Yin buci de teshu xianxiang lai zuo tantao”, 2–3. See for example 醉古 43= 合集 2130+ 乙補 1598, rubbing 1 p. 14, where the oracle is tasked to determine whether those three fathers are harming the king. The reconstituted inscriptions quoted by Cai Zhemao in this article come from Lin Hongming 林宏明, Zuiguji: jiagu de zhuihe yu yanjiu 醉古集: 甲骨的綴合與研究 (Taipei: Wanjuanlou, 2011).
32 Cf. Chao Lin 趙林, Yinqi shiqing: lun Shangdai de qinshu chengwei ji qinshu zuzhi zhidu 殷契釋親: 論商代的親屬稱謂及親屬組織制度 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2011), quoted below as Yinqi, 141–2. Chao Lin adds that since then, it would be necessary to distinguish between the principal, direct, father-to-son line and the collateral line marked by the character jie 介, hence our translation. Cai Zhemao notes that in the inscriptions of the second period, those three fathers become the “three ancestors”, 三祖, as in 合集 32690 (group 歷 2). Cf. “Wu Ding wangwei jicheng zhi mi – cong Yin buci de teshu xianxiang lai zuo tantao”, 5. This inscription also mentions a sacrifice to Father Ding 父丁, that is to say Wu Ding. Another inscription presented by the author, 合集 32617, group 歷 2, notes the offering of the sacrifice sui 歲 to Xiao Yi 小乙. Group 歷 2 (cf. Huang Tianshu 黃天樹, Yinxu wangbuci de fenlei yu duandai 殷墟王卜辭的分類與斷代, Beijing: Kexue, 2007, mentioned hereafter as Fenlei), 189 sq.) dates mainly from the reign of the king Zu Geng.
33 Cf. “Wu Ding wangwei jicheng zhi mi – cong Yin buci de teshu xianxiang lai zuo tantao”, 7. This explanation is dubious, even within the context of intra-lineage tensions. The use of the hieronym Yang Jia 陽甲 might have had other causes, such as the existence of a surname or even a moniker given to this individual while alive. The corresponding Shang character has been interpreted generally as hu 虎 (tiger) but also as hui 喙 (snout or mouth). According to Yu Xingwu 于省吾 ed., Jiaguwenzi gulin 甲骨文字詰林 t. 1–4 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1999), abbreviated below Gulin, t. 2, n. 1660, 1614, this character was also a verb related to hunting. Yang Jia would then have been nicknamed “the hunter of tigers”, hardly an insult for the Shang.
34 Cf. “Wu Ding wangwei jicheng zhi mi – cong Yin buci de teshu xianxiang lai zuo tantao”, 10–11; he examines the status of Qiang Jia in inscriptions coming from the group 歷 (for example 醉古 247) and concludes, based on the fact that Qiang Jia received a greater number of penned ox in sacrifice than other great royal ancestors (such as Zhong Ding or Zu Xin), that this ancestor, while not counted among the direct line royal ancestors, benefitted from an elevated status. Nevertheless, the number of victims might also be indicative of the necessity to placate the recipient of the sacrifices.
35 Shiji, “Yin benji”, 3. 102.
36 Shisanjing zhushu ed. 十三經注疏 (Beijing: zhonghua shuju, 1983), hereafter quoted as SSJ ed., 16. 109. The antiquity of this chapter (cf. Shangshu xueshi, 282–3), according to Edward Shaughnessy's article “Shang shu”, in Loewe (ed.), Early Chinese Texts, 379, is questionable.
37 Zhushu jinian, 竹書紀年, Pingjinguan cuishu 平津館叢書 compendium (Taipei: Yiwen, 1967), v. 42, n. 19, quoted below as JBZJ ed., 2. 18b. Edward Shaughnessy has studied in depth the composition and details of the transmission of this text in Rewriting Early Chinese Texts (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006), 185–256. It does not conclude on the historical value of the text per se but shows clearly that the accusation of forgery is baseless. David Nivison, The Riddle of the Bamboo Annals (Zhushu jinian jiemi 竹書紀年解謎) (Taipei: Airiti Press, 2009) has examined extensively the question of absolute dates of Shang and Zhou dynasties based in part on the text of the Zhushu jinian.
38 SSJ ed., 10.63; this chapter (cf. Shangshu xueshi, 220) belongs to the forged old text 偽古文尚書 and is probably a forgery due to the Eastern Jin dynasty 東晉 scholar and official Mei Ze 梅賾 (fourth century ce).
39 SSJ 18.109
40 In this chapter, the only Shang monarchs mentioned in this regard are Wu Ding and one of his sons, Zu Jia.
41 The authors of the Shang renwu, 154, interpret the mission given to Wu Ding as a preparation for tackling hostile polities, a move that would anyways require allies.
42 Yan Yiping 嚴一萍, Yin Shang Shiji 殷商史記 (t. 1–3) (Taipei: Yiwen, 1989), quoted below as Yin shiji, t. 1, 154 mentions one inscription, 合集 5566, period 1, group 賓 standard, recording the order given by the king Wu Ding to a shuai (military leader) Pan 
(=帥)般; Yan Yiping interprets the character gan 甘, a mistranscription of the character shuai 帥. There are more than 30 inscriptions mentioning this name.
43 This information is given explicitly in the chapter “Yue ming” 說命下. While the information provided by this text is of very late provenience, composed of fragments of quoted early material, it is interesting to note that the mention of the flight of Wu Ding prior to his accession to royal power would be consistent with a situation of intra-lineage difficulties.
44 See Yue Nan, Kaogu Zhongguo “Shiji” yiluo de 1220 nian lishi, 251.
45 See Jing, Z., Jigen, T., Rapp, G. and Stoltman, J., “Recent discoveries and some thoughts on early urbanization at Anyang”, in Underhill, Anne P. (ed.), A Companion to Chinese Archaeology (Chichester: Blackwell, 2013), 349–50Google Scholar.
46 There is a curious passage in the Shiji (3.102) saying that 殷已都河北，盤庚渡河南, “The Shang had their capital situated north of the river, Pan Geng crossed south”. The site of Huanbei is situated north of the Huan river 洹河 while the new capital was established south of it. This mention in the Shiji is a sober but very accurate description of what the archaeological data show. Why was such a move attributed to Pan Geng and not Wu Ding? The answer is unknown as yet, but the description is too close to the archaeological data to be a coincidence. Archaeological maps do not reveal any other river north of the site of Huanbei. It is possible that information was garbled through the lengthy process of transmission of the texts Sima Qian consulted.
47 Chao Lin (Yinqi, 34–5), in the light of the numerous inscriptions dedicating sacrifices to xiong (elder brother) 兄 Ⅹ, concluded that primogeniture was not a rule, at least in the case of royal succession.
48 Cf “Yin Shang Wu Ding shiqi renwu ‘Que’ shiji yanjiu”, 殷商武丁時期人物「雀」史跡研究 in Zhongyang yanjiu suo lishi yuyan yanjiu suo jikan 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊, 85/4, 2014, 679–767. See also “Zailun Yinxu buci zhong de ‘duozi’ yu ‘duosheng’,” 115–6.
49 Cf “Yin Shang Wu Ding shiqi renwu ‘Que’ shiji yanjiu”, 686.
50 The existence of vessels bearing the character que as a house/clan name, dating from the last period of the Shang dynasty, is proof that Que was indeed the origin of this house, which still existed at the very end of the Shang dynasty. See “Yin Shang Wu Ding shiqi renwu ‘Que’ shiji yanjiu”, 732–5.
51 For Edward L. Shaughnessy (“Extra-lineage cult in the Shang dynasty – a surrejoinder”, Jiaguwenxian t. 20, 500–02, originally published in Early China 11–12, 1985–87), Que was not part of the Shang royal lineage. Nevertheless, he was the beneficiary of sacrifices of protection (yu 禦, exorcism against malevolent entities) offered to Father Yi (合集 413, period 1, group 賓 3, Fenlei, 104, end of Wu Ding's reign), and Mother Geng (合集 13892, two inscriptions, period 1, group 賓 3), that is to say the father and mother of Wu Ding. Those inscriptions show that there was a strong connection between this individual and the Shang royal lineage and therefore support Zhang Weijie's hypothesis.
52 I mean that this woman did not belong to any of the Shang lineages composing the Shang cultural entity: her lineage did not belong to the same ancestors as the Shang. One important inscription presented below is a clear indication of that.
53 Wang Ning 王寧 (“Wu Ding taizi Xiaoji xiangguan wenti bianxi” 武丁太子孝己相關問題辨析, published March 2014 in Guoxue 國學, online edition, http://www.guoxue.com/?p=18670, consulted 16 February 2020) mentions the inscription H 395 of the Huayuanzhuang 花園莊 corpus, recording a sacrifice offered to a Mother Wu (Mu Wu 母戊); Wang identifies this Mother Wu as the deceased Lady Jing. Given the fact that most ancestors honoured by the prince of Huayuanzhuang are known as royal ancestors in the other Anyang inscriptions, this identification is plausible. Huang Tianshu 黃天樹, “Jianlun ‘Huadong zilei’ buci de shidai” 簡論 “花東子類”卜辭的時代” in Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字硏究, 36, 2006, 23–9, dates those inscriptions from Wu Ding's reign. See also “Jianlun ‘Huadong zilei’ buci de shidai” 簡論 ”花東子類 ” 卜辭的時代 in Huang Tianshu guwen lunji 黃天樹古文字論集 (Beijing: Xuefan 學苑, 2006), 149–57.
54 Cf. Shang renwu, 330–8.
55 Li Min 李民 and Zhu Zhen 朱楨 (“Zu Yi qian Xing yu buci Jingfang” 祖乙遷邢與卜辭井方, Zhengzhou daxue xuebao, zhexue shehui kexue xuebao 鄭州大學學報, 哲學社會科學報, 6, 1989, 17) are wrong when they say that there are more divinations about Lady Jing delivering a child than there are about Lady Hao: the Heji compendium shows clearly that this is the other way around.
56 According to “Zu Yi qian Xing yu buci Jingfang”, 17, the tasks given to this spouse were mainly religious in nature and not military. Only two inscriptions, 合集 6584 and 6585 正 (both period 1, group 賓 1) mention a military role for Lady Jing, ordered to attack the territory of the Long people 龍方. She was also involved in campaigns against another non-Shang territory; cf. Shang renwu, 336–7.
57 There are numerous inscriptions where her name is mentioned as Fu Jing, the character jing not being accompanied by the character nü; ex. 合集 8165 正, period 1, group 賓 standard.
58 See Sun Bingbing 孫並冰 and Lin Huan 林歡, Shangdai dili yu fangguo 商代地理與方國 Shangdai shi 商代史 t. 10, Song Zhenhao 宋鎮豪 ed. (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue, 2010), quoted below as Shang dili, 310–13. There is for example one instance of rebellion in this territory in the bronze inscription of the Yin Guang fangding 尹光方鼎 (Sandai compendium 三代 4. 10.2); according to the authors, the territory would be in the Shanxi and does not correspond to the Xing 邢 Shang capital, which is in Hebei 河北. There is another example of hostilities between the Shang and the Jing territory 井方. See, for example, in Zhao Cheng 趙誠 (ed.), Jiaguwen jianming cidian 甲骨文簡明詞典, abbreviated Jianming (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1988, 140), 合集 33044, period 1, group 歷 2, 己巳貞：執井方 “The day jisi, test: subjugate the Jing territory”. Inscriptions of the group 歷 2 dating mainly from the reign of Zu Geng (cf. Fenlei, 195), show hostilities started after the reign of Wu Ding. Therefore, Li Min 李民 and Zhu Zhen 朱楨 (“Zu Yi qian Xing yu buci Jingfang”, 16–7) say incorrectly that the Jing territory was always allied to the Shang.
59 Cf. Meng Shikai 孟世凱, “Fu Jing yu Jingfang” 婦妌與井方, Jiaguwenxian, t. 28, 292–6, originally published in Yindu xuekan 骰都學刊, 3, 1994; Zhu Zhen 朱楨, “Jinguo zuizao shu Yin Shang – shuo Fu Hao, Fu Jing” 巾幗最早屬殷商——説婦好、婦井, Jiaguwenxian, t.21, 84, originally published in Yindu xuekan 骰都學刊, 2, 1990.
60 Cf. Violence, Kinship and the Early Chinese State, 167. See also 168–9, table 5.1; for the author, this table suggests that “the Late Shang kings generally took wives from areas securely within the ambit of royal power. This might help to explain why only around 20% of the Fu names seem to correlate with places”. Those spouses (for example Lady Long 婦龍, Lady Zhou 婦周, Lady Zhu 婦壴) came from hostile territory during Wu Ding's reign, their territories being located to the north and west of Shang. See also the table in Chen Jianmin 陳建敏, “Buci zhufu de shenfen ji qi xiangguan wenti” 卜辭諸婦的身份及其相関問題, Jiaguwenxian, t. 25, 18–9, originally published in Shilin 史林, 2, 1986.
61 According to Jing et al., “Recent discoveries and some thoughts on early urbanization at Anyang”, 360, Huanbei was built in a “top-down” process, while “Yinxu was seemingly much more self-organized (bottom-up local processes)”.
62 Cf. Jing et al., “Recent discoveries and some thoughts on early urbanization at Anyang”, 361.
63 This inscription is mentioned by Chang Yuzhi (Zhouji, 105, n. 1) erroneously as 合集 4033; for the dating of this inscription, see Liu Fenghua 劉鳳華, “Yinxu cunnan xilie jiagu buci de zhengli yu yanjiu” 殷墟村南系列甲骨卜辭的整理與研究, PhD, University of Zhengzhou, 2007, quoted below as Xilie, 38. The term bi 妣 being applied to all female ancestors from level EGO+2 on corresponds to a kinship term given after the reign of Zu Jia.
64 This son's hieronym is Zu Ji 祖己. The inscription 合集 21546, period 1 group 子: 己丑子卜貞小王 
田夫 “The day jichou, the prince made the cracks and tested: the young king (personal name X, not deciphered yet) goes hunting to Fu (name of a place)” gives his personal name. The young king died before the end of Wu Ding's reign as the inscription 合集 39809, period 1, group dui 
small characters shows: … 㞢小王己 
“… offering one bull to the young king Ji by the sacrifice you”. The inscription also shows that the young king was indeed Zu Ji. The identification of Lady Jing as his mother is made through elimination: in the cyclical sacrifices post-Zu Jia, Wu Ding is accompanied by three spouses, Bi Xin 妣辛= Mother Xin 母辛 = Lady Hao 婦好, Bi Gui 武丁奭妣癸 = Mother Gui 母癸 (her living name remains unidentified), and Bi Wu 武丁奭妣戊 = Mother Wu 母戊 = Lady Jing 婦妌. I will show below that Lady Hao was the mother of Zu Jia. Yan Yiping (in Yin shiji, t. 1, 175), based on the inscription 合集 2580, period 1, group 賓 standard, has identified Mu Gui 母癸 as the mother of Zu Geng. Therefore, the mother of the young king must have been Lady Jing/Mother Wu 母戊. Another clue is the complete absence of sacrifices offered to Mu Wu in the inscriptions of the reigns of Zu Geng and Zu Jia. The alliance between the king Wu Ding and the Jing territory seems (cf. above, n. 58) to have entered a difficult period after his reign. It is possible that the death of the young king led to a reassessment of this alliance.
65 The presence of Zu Ji in the Zhouji of all periods shows that he was considered a legitimate king, even if he never reigned.
66 Chao Lin (cf. Yinqi, 108, 151–70) provides such a list of spouses, and attributes to him more than one hundred. Zheng Huisheng 鄭慧生 (“Cong Shangdai wu di qie zhidu shuo ta de shengmu ru ji fa” 從商代無嫡妾制度說到它的生母入祀法, originally published in Shehui kexue zhanxian 社會科學戰綫, 4, 1984, Jiaguwenxian t. 20, 482–3) mentions a tally by Hu Houxuan 胡厚宣, giving 64 spouses to this king. Many of them (according to the inscriptions) bore children for the king. Song Zhenhao (Shang lisu, 413) gives him only eight official spouses but his criteria for such a limited number of spouses are not clear.
67 While outside the purview of this article, two other elements must be noted: 1. Demographic augmentation of the population (cf. Song Zhenhao 宋鎮豪, Shangdai shi lungang 商代史論綱, Shangdai shi 商代史 Song Zhenhao 宋鎮豪 ed., vol. 1, 91, 134, particularly 135 for the fastest evaluated population growth during the reign of Wu Ding); 2. During his reign, Wu Ding engaged in many military expeditions. See Luo Kun 羅琨, Shangdai zhanzheng yu junzhi 商代戰爭與軍制, Shangdai shi 商代史 Song Zhenhao 宋鎮豪 ed., vol. 9 (Beijing: Zhongguo shehuikexue 中國社會科學, 2010), 118–25 for the timing of Wu Ding's campaigns).
68 This identification was first proposed by Yao Xuan 姚萱 in “Yinxu Huayuanzhuang dongdi jiagu buci de chubu yanjiu” 殷墟花園莊東地甲骨卜辭的初步研究, PhD thesis, 2005, 40–43. It is based on a place mentioned frequently in the Huayuanzhuang inscription, written 
, which was the powerbase of the prince. Dong Zuobin (in “Jiagu duandai yanjiu li”, 甲骨斷代研究例, article published in 1933, republished in Dong Zuobin xiansheng quanji 董作賓先生全集, vol. 1, Taipei: Yiwen, 1977, 427–9) interpreted the character 
as an archaic form for Zai 載, the personal name of the king Zu Jia as given in the Zhushu jinian 竹書紀年. A prince of this name, son of Wu Ding, is documented in the Anyang royal inscriptions.
69 There is another clue, the abundance of inscriptions (59) with sacrifices dedicated to Mu Xin 母辛 (hieronym of Lady Hao used at the level EGO-1) in the inscriptions from the reign Zu Jia.
70 For this identification, see Yao Xuan in Yinxu Huayuanzhuang dongdi jiagu buci de chubu yanjiu, 47; see also Liu Huan 劉桓, “Yinxu bucizhong de ‘duoyu’ wenti” 殷墟卜辭中的 “ 多毓”問題, Kaogu 考古 n. 5, 2010, 64. The two most frequently mentioned ancestors are the paternal grandparents of the prince, father and mother of Wu Ding.
71 There are other clues to the existence during the Shang dynasty of a system of preferred marriage with the paternal cousin. On that point, see Chao Lin, Yinqi, 255–9, 295–6. Those clues come essentially from the analysis of kinship terminologies. It makes Wu Ding's marital alliance with Lady Jing all the more significant and highly political.
72 “One” and not “the”. The later iterations of the cyclical sacrifices show that Wu Ding was succeeded by two sons, Zu Geng and Zu Jia, with another son (the young king) also honoured in a place that acknowledges at the same time his status as a son of Wu Ding and his royal footing. Those three sons were sons of different mothers.
73 JBZJ, 2. 19 a.
74 “Luyu shang” 魯語上, Sibu congkan ed. 四部叢刊, 4–9.
75 The Shang renwu, 156, links those texts precisely to the necessity to consolidate and unify the higher lineages of the Shang clan.
76 In the cycle, none of the first mentioned ancestors (Shang Jia 上甲, Bao Yi 報乙, Bao Bing 報丙, Bao Ding 報丁) is accompanied by a spouse. The arrangement of those four first ancestors obeyed probably to the same logic: no spouse meant no division of lineages.
77 Cf. Yinqi, 431–3.
78 Another inscription, 补編 10371, mentioned in Xilie, 152, also associates Tang (as the head of a series of royal ancestors) to the little temple.
79 Another inscription, 合集 34044 正 (period 1–2, group 歷1) also presents the same ancestor Shang Jia 上甲 as the first ancestor of the series honoured in the great temple.
80 In the received sources, the first Shang ancestor who was called a king (wang) was Tang; Shang Jia is acknowledged as a great ancestor but not a king. An inscription, 合集 34046 (period 1–2, group 歷 1), indicates that the classification between the great temple and the little temple was not always clear cut: the ancestor Shang Jia 上甲 is at the head of several other royal ancestors but this series is honoured in the little temple. The sample is insufficient to reach definite conclusions (the compendium Heji contains only ten inscriptions mentioning either the great or the little temple). For later periods, there are incomplete inscriptions, mentioning only the great temple, such as 合集 30376, period 3–4, group 無名, with mention of a divination effected in the great temple, or 合集 30377, 30378 (same period, same group, mentioning only the great temple) but without mention of the honoured royal ancestors.
81 While this last type of inscription is interpreted as an ad hoc arrangement of ancestral tablets according to non-systematic necessities of the cult, the “great” and “lesser” tablets have been understood (see for example Chao Lin in Yinqi, p. 66) to represent ancestors according to their classification in direct and indirect lines of succession, by reference to the Zhou system of direct/indirect (zhi 直/pang 旁xi 系) line. It is also the perspective used by Chang Yuzhi, “Buci ‘dashi’ zai yi” 卜辭“大示”所指再議, Jiaguwen yu Yin Shangshi 甲骨文與殷商史 new edition, 1, 2008, 49–56. See also Chang Yuzhi, Shangdai zongjiao jisi 商代宗教祭祀, in Shangdai shi 商代史, Song Zhenhao 宋鎮豪 (ed.), t.8 (Beijing: Zhongguo shehuikexue 中國社會科學, 2010), mentioned below as Shang jisi, 360–98. Unfortunately, the dating of many inscriptions in the text of the Shang jisi is faulty: inscriptions belonging to the first and second period are placed in the fourth (example, 合集 32384, which belongs to the 歷 2 group). A synthesis of the question (Hu Huiping 胡輝平, “Yin buci zhong ‘dashi’ wenti zai yanjiu” “殷卜辭中“大示” 問題再研究”, Kaogu, 3, 2010, 71–9) shows to the contrary that the categories of da shi 大示 (great tablet) and xiao shi 小示 (lesser tablet) are more amenable to an explanation based on the regrouping of ancestral tablets for a given circumstance; it would therefore be unwise, as L. Vandermeersch (in Wangdao ou la voie royale: Recherches sur l'esprit des institutions de la Chine archaïque. t.1 structures cultuelles et structures familiales, Paris: EFEO, 1977, quoted below as Wangdao t. 1, 136) remarked, to conflate those Shang ritual mentions with the later Zhou system.
82 Li Shuangfen 李雙芬 (in “Cong xuan ji dao Zhouji – binglun Shangdai houqi wangquan de hefaxing jiangou”, 從選祭到周祭 — 兼論商代後期王權的合法性建構, Yindu xuekan 殷都學刊, 2, 2015, 15–7) provides a list of the different types of tablet arrangements in periods 1 to 5. The majority of those belong to the reign of Wu Ding and Zu Geng.
83 Cf. Yinqi, 23–4.
84 “Yinxu bucizhong de ‘duoyu’ wenti” 殷墟卜辭中的“多毓” 問題, in Kaogu 考古, 5 2010, 61–8. Qiu Xigui 裘錫圭's work is the article “Lun Yinxu buci ‘duoyu’ zhi ‘yu’”「論殷墟卜辭“多毓” 之“毓”」, Jiaguwenxian t. 21, 159–61, originally published in Zhongguo Shang wenhua guoji xueshu taolunhui lunwen ji 中国商文化国际学术讨论会论文集, Zhongguo dabaike, 1998. The transcription yu is more commonly used in OBI studies; I give systematically both transcriptions (yu/zhou).
85 This spouse is mentioned with the marker in only one inscription; Liu Huan and Qiu Xigui use the inscription 粹 397 (corresponding to 合集 279, period 1, group 賓 3 (cf. “Lun Yinxu buci ‘duoyu’ zhi ‘yu’”, 160). The inscription mentions also a Gao Bi Ji 高妣己 and a Bi Geng 妣庚, spouses of Zu Yi 祖乙, and it is this inscription that led Qiu Xigui to interpret yu/zhou as a marker of generation: Zu Yi was the father of Zu Xin 祖辛 and Qiang Jia 羌甲, heads of the two competing lineages analysed above. I surmise that this Gao Bi Ji was probably the mother of the lineage initiated by Zu Xin and thus given the marker gao 高, “the high ancestress Bi Ji”.
86 The ancestors are presented in chronological order, from the oldest male ancestor.
87 Cf. “Yinxu bucizhong de ‘duoyu’ wenti”, 65. According to Liu Huan, the majority of the inscriptions presented date from the reign of Zu Geng 祖庚.
88 Cf. Liu Huan, “Yinxu bucizhong de ‘duoyu’ wenti”, 64.
89 Cf. Liu Huan, “Yinxu bucizhong de ‘duoyu’ wenti”, 66. This inscription belongs to the group 歷無類 (cf. Xilie, 63, 66). This group is not identified in the Fenlei but from the name of the royal ancestors given in this group, the largest part of it dating from the reign of Zu Jia 祖甲.
90 One of the inscriptions mentioning this spouse is 合集 27456 正. This inscription is classified in the group 何 1; this group (cf. Fenlei, 229) is in activity across periods 2 and 3. The only spouse corresponding to this hieronym, at that generational level (EGO +2 level), is one of Wu Ding’ spouses. Therefore, this inscription dates either from the reign of Lin Xin or Kang Ding 康丁. Since the number of inscriptions associated with the former is very limited, the latter is more probable.
91 In the sacrificial cycles, Wu Ding is associated with three spouses: Bi Xin 妣幸, Bi Gui 妣癸, and Bi Wu 妣戊.
92 Liu Huan (“Yinxu bucizhong de ‘duoyu’ wenti”, 66) mentions also a Bi Gui 妣癸. This spouse does not correspond to any royal spouse at the level EGO+2, that is to say (since the inscription mentioning her – 合集 1249, group 賓3 – dates from the reign of Wu Ding 武丁) the level of the grandfather of Wu Ding, Zu Ding 祖丁. Liu Huan says that she is one of the spouses of Zu Ding but it does not seem to be the case.
93 The Shiji, “Yin benji”, 3. 103–4, describes his reign as chaotic. The canon of documents (Shangshu 尚書) presents him in a more favourable light; see the chapter “Wuyi” 無逸, SSJ 18.109. This late chapter suggests nevertheless that Zu Jia had to remove himself from the Shang court before becoming king. I will examine in detail the career of Zu Jia in another article.
94 To wit, Yang Jia 陽甲, Pan Geng 盤庚 and Xiao Xin 小辛.
95 See for example the inscription 合集 27650, period 3–4, group 無名, where it is opposed to another marker, duozi 多子, the numerous princes: 唯多生饗. 唯多子[饗] (last character missing and supplied through the context). Chronologically speaking, the term duozi 多子 is present in inscriptions dating from the first period to the fourth period while the term duosheng is only present in inscriptions from the second period to the fourth.
96 Cf. Yinqi, 213, 216–25. Two dictionaries understand the term in the same way: Jiaguwenzi gulin 甲骨文字詰林 t. 1–4, Yu Xingwu 于省吾 ed. (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1999), abbreviated below Gulin t.1, n. 1381, 1309–26, especially pp. 1312–13, Jianming, 162–3. While there are (particularly in Shang bronzes) numerous signs interpreted as markers of lineage, it was not the equivalent of the later (Zhou times) system of names. On this topic, see David Sena, “Reproducing society: lineage and kinship in Western Zhou China” (PhD, University of Chicago, 2005, 7–10) discussing xing 姓, as what he calls a “conceptual category of names”, in the historical context of Spring and Autumn texts.
97 Taking the case of the king Wu Ding, a king could marry any woman coming from a Shang sub-lineage, with of course the exception of his own blood sisters. Those blood sisters in turn would have to marry any man coming from a different sub-lineage. Then, from the point of view of the king = EGO, the children of those sisters would not be the sons and daughters (zi 子) of the king but relatives by blood and designated as 生, “born” (of a mother, relative of the king). This term of address would be used only because this uterine descent made the children part of the royal lineage; it would emphasize the uterine descent of those relatives vis-à-vis the king = EGO, in order to distinguish them from the members of the royal sub-lineage by ways of agnatic descent.
98 JBZJ, 2. 21-a (reign of Zu Jia 祖甲). While the first name mentioned, Xiao 囂, corresponds to the king Kang Ding 康丁 (see JBZJ, 2. 22-a, Yin shiji, t. 1, p. 185), the second name, Liang 良, does not correspond to the recorded name of Lin Xin 廩辛, who is named, in the Zhushu jinian, Feng 馮. The king Lin Xin is only mentioned in oracular inscriptions by his hieronym, Brother Xin. The Zhushu jinian indicates that he reigned for only four years. The discrepancy in names cannot be easily explained. Is it possible that the prince Liang was another son of Zu Jia, dead before he could reign?