Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T21:43:19.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Pivot: Comparative Perspectives from the Four Quarters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2015

Nancy Thompson Price
Nancy Thompson Price*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis Davis CA 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The fixity of urban centers has been deeply implicated in models of political development from chiefdom to the state and early empire. For this reason, both Western and Chinese scholars have neglected the importance of non-permanent or shifting ceremonial centers or capitals like China's in the evolution of complex society. A brief examination of the touchstone cultures of early Mespotamia and Classical Greece, to which China is compared, demonstrates how narrowly conceived and exclusive the Euro-American view of complex society constructed by archeologists and historians has been on the issue of mobility and the relation of ruler and polity to territory. The Chinese case, like those of India and South Asia, suggests that the moving center should be recognized as a common variant in the process of socio-political development and change. The integration of the Asian state and early empires into the comparatist project seeks to analyze the formative relations between religious and cosmological conceptions and social, political and economic development.

都邑中心固定不遷移已深深地含括在從部落制發展到邦國與早期帝國的政治發展理論模式中.正是由于這個原因, 東西方學者一向忽略了像古代中國之非永久性的, 或曰移動性的都城在向複雜社會發展過渡過程中所起到的重要作用.中國 (或其他文明) 的這種״獨特性״暗含著從一種更爲標準的型態中離異出來的意味.然而, 如把中國與一些所謂的״典型״文化,諸如早期美索不達米亞以及古希臘文明作一些簡略的比較,即可看出在對都邑遷移問題和對統治者、政體與領土關係上,一般考古學家和歷史學家所持的是何種狹隘而又淸一色的歐美複雜社會觀觀念.更確切地說,所謂中國的׳'特例״以及印度與東南亞等地的一些實例提醒我們; 不斷遷徒的都邑中心在社會政治的發展與變遷中應被視爲一種常見的變例.本文將亞洲的邦國與帝國早期放在一起,以綜合比較的方法,試圖能從更廣的角度來對宗敎與宇宙觀: 社會、政治、經濟的發展與變遷等問題加以分析研究.

Type
Articles
Information
Early China , Volume 20 , 1995 , pp. 93 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Study of Early China 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Waltham, Clae, translator and modernizer [of James Legge]. The Book of Documents (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1971), 85–86Google Scholar; Homer, Odyssey, Bk.6.2-10. The present article ing of the Association for Asian Studies, Chicago, 1990. I should like to thank Professors Lionel Jensen and Don Price for persistent encouragement. I have benefited greatly from the advice of Professor Sarah Nelson and two anonymous reviewers.

2. Wheatley, Paul, The Pivot of the Four Quarters (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1971), 225–226Google Scholar; reviewed by Keightley, David N., “Religion and the Rise oi Urbanism,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (1973), 527–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Fox, Richard G., Urban Anthropology: Cities in Their Cultural Settings (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1977), 39–57, 40–41Google Scholar. Fox considers the regal-ritual city characteristic of decentralized states in which the monopoly oi wealth and power by the king, chief, or priest is limited, typical of the segmentary state discussed by Southall, Ai dan, Alur Society: A Study in Processes and Types of Domination (Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons Ltd., 1956)Google Scholar, and Geertz, Clifford, Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth Century Bali (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980)Google Scholar.

4. This discussion is adapted from Sinopoli's, Caria M. digest of Amos Rapaporf s review article, “Capitals and their Physical Expression,” in Capital Cities: International Perspectives, eds. Taylor, John, Lengellé, Jean G., and Andrew, Caroline (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1993), 31–67Google Scholar, in Sinopoli's, , “Monumentality and Mobility in Mughal Capitals,” Asian Perspectives 33 (1994), 293–308, esp. 293–294Google Scholar. Although I am not concerned with morphology, Rapaport distinguishes between dispersed capitals, where the political/ideological center(s) is/are isolated from other settings of social and economic life within the wider urban area, and compact ones, where political, residential, and economic activities are strongly nucleated; see also Wheatley, , The Pivot of the Four Quarters, 305–325Google Scholar, for the genesis of urban core from dispersed settlement. Marcus, Joyce, “On the Nature of the Mesoamerican City,” in Prehistoric Settlement Patterns: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey, eds. Vogt, Evon Z. and Leventhal, Richard M. (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1983, 195–242Google Scholar, discusses classification and morphology.

5. Sinopoli, , “Monumentality and Mobility,” 294Google Scholar.

6. Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber, “Presidential Address: State Formation in Asia — Prolegomenenon to a Comparative Study,” The Journal of Asian Studies 46 (1987), 731-746, esp. 739–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Geertz, Clifford, “Centers, Kings, and Charisma: Reflections on the Symbolics of Power,” in Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology (New York: Basic Books, 1983), 150–171Google Scholar; Tambiah, Stanley J., “The Galactic Polity in Southeast Asia,” in Culture, Thought, and Action: An Anthropological Perspective (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985), 252–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. Sinopoli, , “Monumentality and Mobility,” 293–294Google Scholar.

8. Cameron, Catherine M. and Tomka, Steve A., Abandonment of Settlements and Regions: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, have formulated the study of abandonment, whether planned, gradual, or sudden, as a key process in the formation of the archaeological record using ethnographic, ethnoarchaeological, and archaeological data. Vogt, Evon Z., “Some New Themes in Settlement Pattern Research,” in Prehistoric Settlement Patterns, 18Google Scholar, noted that some archaeologists “are beginning to recognize that if they are to understand the decisive determinants of prehistoric settlement patterns …, they must look … to [the] area of cultural symbolism and ideology and the ways in which master symbols structurally pervade and interweave whole cultural systems.”

9. Keightley, David N., “The Late Shang State: When, Where, and What?” in The Origins of Chinese Civilization” ed. Keightley, David N. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), 523–564Google Scholar.

10. For an introduction to and survey of these themes, see Trigger, Bruce, A History of Archaeological Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Johnson, Allen W. and Earle, Timothy, The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987)Google Scholar; and Hodder, Ian, ed., Archaeological Theory in Europe: The Last Three Decades (London: Routledge, 1991)Google Scholar.

11. Fried, Morton H., The Evolution of Political Society (New York: Random House, 1967)Google Scholar, and Service, Elman R., Primitive Social Organization (New York: Random House, 1971)Google Scholar and Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution (New York Norton, 1975)Google Scholar.

12. There is considerable discussion on whether urbanism is a necessary ingredient of state formation and a characteristic of the early state. See briefly, Claessen, Henri J.M., “The Early State: A Structural Approach,” in The Early State, ed. Claessen, Henri J.M. and Skalnik, Peter (The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1978), 540–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adams, Robert Mc.C, The Evolution of Urban Society (Chicago: Aldine, 1966)Google Scholar, and Barnes, Gina L., Protohistorie Yamato: Archaeology of the First Japanese State (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Center for Japanese Studies and the Museum of Anthropology, 1988), 265–277Google Scholar.

13. Keightley, , “The Late Shang State,” 556–558Google Scholar.

14. Keightley, , “The Late Shang State,” 556–558Google Scholar.

15. Underhill, Anne P., “Variation in Settlements during the Longshan Period of Northern China,” Asian Perspectives 33 (1994), 197–228Google Scholar; Liu, Li, “Development of Chiefdom Societies in the Middle and Lower Yellow River Valley in Neolithic China—A Study of the Longshan Culture from the Perspective of Settlement Patterns” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1994)Google Scholar.

16. Keightley, , “The Late Shang State” 556–557Google Scholar.

17. Rudolph, , “Presidential Address: State Formation in Asia,” 732–733Google Scholar.

18. Norman Yoffee and Andrew Sherratt, “Introduction: The Sources of Archaeological Theory,” and Yoffee, Norman, “Too Many Chiefs? (or, Safe Texts for the '90s),” in Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda?, eds. Yoffee, Norman and Sherratt, Andrew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 1–9, 60–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19. Feinman, Gary M. and Neitzel, Jill, “Too Many Types: An Overview of Sedentary Prestate Societies in the Americas,” in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 7, ed. Shiffer, Michael (New York: Academic Press, 1984), 39–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the city-state and the inchoate, incipient, early, and mature state, see Claessen and Skalnik, eds. The Early State; Claessen, Henri J. M. and Skalnik, Peter, eds. The Study of the State (The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Claessen, Henri J. M. and Velde, Pieter van de, eds. Early State Dynamics (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987)Google Scholar; for the segmentary state, see Southall, Aidan W., Alur Society: A Study in Process and Types of Domination (Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons, Ltd., 1956)Google Scholar; for the patrimonial dynastic state, see Keightley, , “The Late Shang State,” 523–564Google Scholar; Clifford Geertz, Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali; Stanley J. Tambiah, “The Galactic Polity in Southeast Asia.”

20. See, for example, Earle, Timothy, ed., Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991)Google Scholar;van Bakel, Martin A., Hagesteijn, Renee R., and Velde, Pieter Van De, eds., Private Politics: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Big-Man' Systems (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986)Google Scholar, and Claessen and Van De Velde, eds.. Early State Dynamics.

21. See Yoffee, , “Too Many Chiefs?,” 60–78Google Scholar; for a different opinion, see Spencer, Charles S., “On the Tempo and Mode of State Formation: Neoevolutionism Reconstructed,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9 (1990), 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22. Chang, K. C., Art, Myth, and Ritual: The Path to Political Authority in Ancient China (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983), 45–55Google Scholar, and “Ancient China and its Anthropological Significance,” Symbols (Spring/Fall, 1984), 2–4, 20–22Google ScholarPubMed.

23. Morrison, Kathleen, “States of Theory and States of Asia: Regional Perspectives on States in Asia,” Asian Perspectives 33 (1991), 183Google Scholar.

24. Chang, K. C, “China toward Urban Life,” “Urbanism and the King in Ancient China,” “Towns and Cities in Ancient China,” in Early Chinese Civilization: Anthropo logical Perspectives (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976), 22–71Google Scholar; and Guangzhi, Zhang 張光直, “Xia Shang Zhou Sandai duzhi yu Sandai wenhua yitong” 夏商局三代都制與三代文化異同,Guoli Zhongyang Yanjiu Yuan Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 國立中央硏究院歷語言硏究所集刊 56 (1984), 51–71Google Scholar.

25. Keightley, David N., “Early Civilization in China: Reflections on How It Became Chinese,” in Heritage of China: Contemporary Perspectives on Chinese Civilization, ed. Ropp, Paul S. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 15–54Google Scholar.

26. Steinhardt, Nancy Shatzman, Chinese Imperial City Planning (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990), 29, and esp. 19–26, 29–42Google Scholar; for the pre-conquest Qin moves, see Hearn, Maxwell K., “The Terracotta Army of the First Emperor of Qin (221-206 B.C.),” in The Great Bronze Age of China,“ ed. Fong, Wen (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1980), 353–356Google Scholar; for the moves of Chu, see Blakeley, Barry B., ”In Search of Danyang. I: Historical Geography and Archaeolgical Sites,” Early China 13 (1988) 116–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is not my intent here to survey and debate issues of geography, chronology, and reliability of textual evidence for the pre-conquest period. See Chang, K. C., “Sandai Archaeology and the Formation of States in Ancient China: Processual Aspects of the Origins of Chinese Civilization,” in The Origins of Chinese Civilization, 495–521Google Scholar, and Shang Civilization (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), 3–19Google Scholar; Thorp, Robert L., “Erlitou and the Search for the Xia,” Early China 16 (1991), 1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Huber, Louisa G. Fitzgerald, “The Bo Capital and Questions Concerning Xia and Early Shang,” Early China 13 (1988), 46–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nivison, David S. and Pang, Kevin D., “Astronomical Evidence for the Bamboo Annals' Chronicle of Early Xia, with Comments and Responses,” Early China 15 (1990), 87–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nivison, David S., “Chu shu chi nien 竹書糸己年,” in Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographic Guide, ed. Loewe, Michael (Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies and Society for the Study of Early China, 1993), 39–47Google Scholar.

27. Keightley, , “The Late Shang State,” 552Google Scholar; Chang, K. C., “Urbanism and the King in Ancient China,” 50Google Scholar.

28. Renfrew, Colin, “Introduction,” in Peer Polity Interaction and Sociopolitical Change, eds. Renfrew, Colin and Cherry, John F. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 1–18Google Scholar; Griffeth, Robert and Thomas, Carol G., “Introduction,” in The City State in Five Cultures (Santa Barbara, Ca., and Oxford, England: ABC-Clio, 1981), xiii–xxGoogle Scholar; Anthony Snodgrass, “Interaction by Design: The Greek City State,” in Peer Polity, notes, “whether or not we choose to credit the polities of Classical Greece with ‘statehood’, with the specific attributes given to that term in the last few centuries of modern political thought, the fact remains that they represented a striking, innovatory and advanced system by the lights of their own age” (47); Vliet, Edward Ch. L. Van Der, “Tyranny and Democracy: The Evolution of Politics in Ancient Greece,” in Early State Dynamics, 70–90Google Scholar.

29. Weber, Max, The City, trs. and eds. Martindale, Don and Neuwirth, Gertrude (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1958), 54–55Google ScholarPubMed.

30. Cummings, Milton C. Jr. and Price, Matthew C., “The Creation of Washington, DC: Political Symbolism and Practical Problem Solving in the Establishment of a Capital City for the United States of America, 1787-1850,” in Capital Cities: International Perspectives, 213–249Google Scholar.

31. Wheatley, , Pivot, 305–311, 411–451Google Scholar; Rapaport, , “On the Nature of Capitals and their Physical Expression,” 35–56Google Scholar.

32. Redman, Charles L., The Rise of Civilization: From Early Farmers to Urban Society in the Ancient Near East (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1978), 215–268Google Scholar.

33. Trigger, Bruce G., Gordon Childe: Revolution in Archaeology (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Childe, V. Gordon, “The Urban Revolution,” Town Planning Review 21 (1950), 3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34. Bruce Trigger, A History of Archaeological Thought; Charles L. Redmond, The Rise of Civilization, and Kathleen D. Morrison, “States of Theory.”

35. Wheatley, , Pivot, 428–451Google Scholar; Smith, Jonathan Z., “In Search of Place,” in To Take Place: Toward a Theory of Ritual (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 1–23Google Scholar, emphasizes that Eliade appropriated the concept of the cosmic mountain (Weltberg) from German translations of the Near Eastern texts and that they had been misunderstood by earlier philologists. See Allan, Sarah, The Shape of the Turtle: Myth, Art and Cosmos in Early China (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), 98–101Google Scholar, for Eliade, the symbolism of the center, and the world mountain in China.

36. Smith, “In Search of Place”; also Smith, Jonathan Z.Map is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religion (Leiden: E. J. Brill 1978)Google ScholarPubMed, esp., “The Wobbling Pivot” and “Map is Not Territory,” 88-103, 289-309.

38. Burkert, Walter, “The Meaning and Function of the Temple in Classical Greece,” in Temple in Society, ed. Fox, Michael V. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1988), 27–47Google Scholar.

39. Burkert, , “The Meaning and Function of the Temple in Classical Greece,” esp. p. 33 and n. 20Google Scholar; Delphi, called “the navel of the earth,” is a singular case, pace Eliade. See Ferguson, Yale, “Chiefdoms to City-states,” in Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology, ed. Earle, Timothy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 171–184Google Scholar, on the transformation of legitimizing ideology from the Dark-Age chiefdoms to the “Olympian revolution” at the time when the polis emerged about the eighth century Snodgrass, B.C.E. Anthony, Archaic Greece (London: J. M. Dent Sons, 1980), 31–34Google Scholar, suggests that one factor to account for the origin of the polis was the desire to regularize the worship of cult deities at a central sanctuary.

40. Demand, Nancy H., Urban Relocation in Archaic and Classical Greece (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990)Google Scholar, discusses relocation as regards origin of the polis (14-27); relocation in Eastern Greece (28-33). Demand argues that prior explanations of relocation as motivated by a need to enhance commercial development, avoid silted harbors, and escape drought and famine are basically unfounded: “Each case reviewed within its historical context, reveals that the need to escape, or to meet, an external threat was the primary motivating factor” (165-176).

41. Demand, , Urban Relocation, 34–44Google Scholar; Herodotus, Bk.8.40-41, 50, 61-62.

42. Demand, , Urban Relocation, 45, and passimGoogle Scholar.

43. Demand, , Urban Relocation, 7–8Google Scholar.

44. Jacobsen, Thorkild, The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976), 3–21Google Scholar; Anu, King of Heaven, was worshipped in many Sumerian cities, but his principal shrine was in Uruk; see Redman, , The Rise of Civilization, 275Google Scholar.

45. Winter, Irene J., “‘Seat of Kingship/A Wonder to Behold’,” Ars Orientalis 22 (1992), 1 and n. 2Google Scholar. The Sumerian word for temple consists of the logogram for “house” followed by the name of the deity; the word for palace is “house” followed by the adjective “large, great.” The first buildings clearly identified as palaces date from the third phase of the Early Dynastic period (ca. 2600-2430 B.C.), and coincide with the earliest textual evidence for political titles.

46. Jacobsen, , The Treasures of Darkness, 77–91Google Scholar; Kramer, Samuel Noah, “The Temple in Sumerian Literature,” in Temple in Society, 1–16Google Scholar; Charles L. Redman, The Rise of Civilization, chapters 8 and 9 for general survey.

47. Ferguson, , “Chiefdoms to City-States,” 185–192Google Scholar.

48. Michalowski, Piotr, “Charisma and Control: On Continuity and Change in Early Mesopotamian Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East,” in The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, eds. Gibson, McGuire and Biggs, Robert D. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 55–68, esp. 64–68Google Scholar.

49. Higham, Charles, The Archaeology of Mainland Southeast Asia: From 10, 000 B.C. to the Fall of Angkor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 239–320Google Scholar. See Tambiah, “The Galactic Polity,” for a discussion of the form and symbolism of the mandala; for examples of the relocation of the ceremonial center in Southeast Asia, see Wheatley, , Pivot, 448Google Scholar; and for traditional Africa, see Rapaport, “Capitals and Their Physical Expression.”

50. Underhill, “Variation in Settlements during the Longshan Period of Northern China”; Li Liu, “Development of Chiefdom Societies”; for a brief critique of the historicity of the Xia and identification of the Erlitou site as a Xia capital, see Falkenhausen, Lothar von, “On the Historiographical Orientations of Chinese Archaeology,” Antiquity 67 (1993), 845–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51. For example: Thorp, Robert L., “The Growth of Early Shang Civilization: New Data from Ritual Vessels,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 45 (1985), 16–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Huber, , “The Bo Capital,” 46–47Google Scholar, citing the Bamboo Annals, points out that after a period of initial stability under Cheng Tang, the location of the capital was changed in rapid sue-cession no fewer than six times, including Pan Geng's move to Yin; Bagley, Robert W., Shang Ritual Bronzes in the Arthur M. Sackler Collections (Washington D.C.: The Arthur M. Sackler Foundation, 1987)Google Scholar; and a recent find outside of this area that Bagley, , “An Early Bronze Age Tomb in Jiangxi Province,” Orientations 24 (1993), 20–36Google Scholar, dates on typological and stylistic grounds to a time between the Zhengzhou and Yinxu II Period, represented by the Fu Hao Tomb vessels. See also Morrison, Kathleen D. and Lycett, Mark T., “Centralized Power, Centralized Authority? Ideological Claims and Archaeological Patterns,” Asian Perspectives 33 (1994), 327–350Google Scholar.

52. Thorp, “The Growth of Early Shang Civilization,” and “The Archaeology of Style at Anyang”; for discussion of bronze vessels of the Loehr Style IV, see Huber, Louisa G. Fitzgerald, “Some Anyang Royal Bronzes: Some Remarks on Shang Bronze Decor,” in The Great Bronze Age of China: A Symposium, ed. Kuwayama, George (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1983)Google Scholar; also Chang, K. C., “Yin-hsu Tomb Number 5 and the Question of the P'an Keng/Hsiao Hsin/Hsiao Yi Period in Yin-hsu Archaeology,” in Studies in Shang Archaeology, ed. Chang, K. C. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), 65–79Google Scholar.

53. For a general review, see Chang, K. C., Shang Civilization (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), 69–135Google Scholar, and The Archaeology of Ancient China, 4th ed., revised and enlarged (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), 295–367Google Scholar; Thorp, Robert L., “The Date of Tomb 5 at Yinxu, Anyang,” Artibus Asiae 43 (1981–1982), 239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for description of the Yinxu II corpus. Thorp believes that Yinxu Period II represents the proper beginning of the cult center at Anyang. See also Thorp, , “The Archaeology of Style at Anyang,” 47–69Google Scholar and “Cult Practices and Social Structure: The Evidence from Anyang” (Paper delivered at the conference on “Ancient China and Social Science Generalizations,” Airlie House, Virginia, June 21-27, 1986); Huber, , “Some Anyang Royal Bronzes,” 16–43, esp. 18–19Google Scholar.

54. Steinhardt, Chinese Imperial City Planning. Renfrew, Colin, “Epilogue and Prospect,” in Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, 153Google Scholar, reminds us, “It is well recognized that in the early days of a new system of centralised government, there is often considerable expenditure of wealth, often magnifying the importance of the ruler, or of labour devoted to public works which may have served to consolidate central power.”

55. Chang, K. C., Shang Civilization, 210–220Google Scholar; and “Xia Shang Zhou san dai du zhi yu sandai wenhua yitong,” 51-71.

56. Keightley, , “The Late Shang State,” 552–554Google Scholar. For a survey of the progress, see Kobishchanow, Yurii M., “The Phenomenon of gafol and its Transformation,” in Early State Dynamics, 108–128Google Scholar. According to Geertz, Clifford, “Centers, Kings, and Charisma,” 162–163Google Scholar, the Moroccan progress was very nearly continuous, “demonstrating that God has gifted the king with the capacity to dominate, … The mobility of the king was thus a central element in his power: the realm was unified to the very partial degree that it was unified and was a realm—by a restless searching-out of contact, most of it agonistic, with literally hundreds of lesser centers of power within it.”

57. Keightley, , “The Late Shang State,” 524–548Google Scholar. Joyce Marcus, On the Nature of the Mesoamerican City,” found that the capitals of the religious and political hierarchies could be separate in a spatial sense, but that the city's function as an administrative center was a very close second to religious function in frequency (239).

58. Sinopoli, , “Monumentality and Mobility in Mughal Capitals,” 293–308Google Scholar; Winter, Irene J., “‘Seat of Kingship’/‘A Wonder to Behold’,” 31, and n. 33Google Scholar; Liverani, M., “The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire,” in Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires, ed. Larsen, M. T. (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979), 297–318Google Scholar; see n. 49 above. Joyce Marcus, On the Nature of the Mesoamerican City,“ in Prehistoric Settlement Patterns, 239, notes, ”Some Mixtec rulers shifted residences (and hence capitals) as often as the Achaemenid kings, who travelled seasonally from Susa to Persepolis to Hamadan.”

59. Sinopoli, , “Monumentality and Mobility,” 299, 303–306Google Scholar.

60. Sinopoli, , “Monumentality and Mobility,” 303–304Google Scholar; Liverani, 309.

61. Sinopoli, , “Monumentality and Mobility,” 299Google Scholar, quoting Streusand, D. E., The Formation of the Mughal Empire (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1989), 14Google Scholar.

62. Sinopoli, , “Monumentality and Mobility,” 299Google Scholar, quoting Richards, J. F., “The Formation of Imperial Authority under Akbar and Jahangir,” in Kingship and Authority in South Asia, ed. Richards, J. F. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978), 253Google Scholar.

63. Sinopoli, , “Monumentality and Mobility,” 299Google Scholar; Petruccioli, A., “Fatehpur Sikri — Urban Forms and Mughal Life,” in Vijayanagara: City and Empire, ed. Dallapiccola, A. L. (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1985), 354Google Scholar.

64. Keightley, David N., “Time, Space, and Community: The Imposition of World Order in Late Shang Divination” (Paper delivered at the Annual Symposium in Chinese Studies: “Empire, Nation, and Region: The Chinese World Order Reconsidered.” Center for Chinese Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 03 3-4, 1995), 48Google Scholar.

65. Rudolph, , “Presidential Address: State Formation in Asia,” 733Google Scholar; also Thapar, Romila, “The State as Empire,” in The Study of the State, ed. Claessen, Henri J. M. and Skalnik, Peter (The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1981), 409–426Google Scholar.

66. Keightley, , “Time, Space, and Community,” 40Google Scholar; quoted with permission of the author.

67. Hung, Wu, “From Temple to Tomb: Ancient Chinese Art and Religion in Transition,” Early China 13 (1988), 78–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 79. See also, Tambiah, Stanley J., “A Performative Approach to Ritual,” in Culture, Thought, and Social Action (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1985), 123–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68. Keightley, , “Time, Space, and Community,” 31–32Google Scholar.

69. Keightley, , “Time, Space, and Community,” 34Google Scholar, with permission to quote granted by the author.

70. Keightley, , “Time, Space, and Community,” 42–49Google Scholar.

71. Wang, Aihe, “Cosmology and the Transformation of Political Culture in Early China” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1995)Google Scholar, esp. chapts. 1 and 2, for origin and development of the sifang-center cosmology of the Shang; Kwang-chih, Chang, “Shuo Yindai de ”yaxing“ 說殷代的‘亞形’,” in Zhongguoqingtongshükierji 中國靑銅時代二 集 (Beijing, Sanlian shudian, 1990), 82–94Google Scholar, for summary and evaluation of these theories; Chang, K. C., Shang Civilization, 207Google Scholar; Allan, , The Shape of the Turtle (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), 74–111Google Scholar. The precise meaning of ya is unclear; it may be an official title or symbol of rank, but the juxtaposition of the “many ya” (duo ya 多亞) with the “many fang” (duo fang 多方) led Allan to propose that the “‘many ya’ were the Shang king's own lineage, whereas the ‘many fang’ were the lineages from outside regions, foreigners” (91).

72. Higham, Charles, The Archaeology of Mainland Southeast Asia, 321–355Google Scholar.

73. Spencer, Charles S., “On the Tempo and Mode of State Formation: Neoevolu-tionism Reconsidered,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9 (1990), 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roscoe, Paul B., “Practice and Political Centralization: A New Approach to Political Evolution,” Current Anthropologx,” 34 (1993), 111–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74. Spencer, , “On the Tempo and Mode of State Formation,” 23Google Scholar; Ferguson, , “Chiefdoms to City-States,” 170Google Scholar.

75. Renfrew,

76. Champion, Timothy C, “Introduction,” in Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology, ed. Champion, Timothy C. (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989), 1–21, esp. 17–18Google Scholar; see Schortman, Edward M. and Urban, Patricia A., “Modelling Interregional Interaction in Prehistory,” in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 11 (New York: Academic Press, 1987), 37–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for discussion of “core-periphery” and world-systems models.

77. Falkenhausen, , “On the Historiographical Orientation of Chinese Archaeology,” 839–849Google Scholar.

78. Sinopoli, , “Monumentality and Mobility,” 296Google Scholar.

79. Pankenier, David W., “Early Chinese Astronomy and Cosmology: The ‘Mandate of Heaven’ as Epiphany” (Ph.D. diss.: Stanford University, 1983)Google Scholar.