[lifezard]

In the oracle bones, King Zhou 纣 (known as Di Xin 帝辛 in the records) was known to have a conducted 2 major campaigns against Ren Fang (人方), nowadays identified with the 东夷 of the Zhou period, in the 8th year and 10th year of his reign. Although, the 2 campaigns were largely successful, with a lot of captives captured, it has been speculated that these campaigns exalted a huge financial and manpower strain on the Shang that ultimately led to its collapse.

Indeed, at the battle of Muye, it was said that a large portion of Shang positions were manned by these former Yi captives whose poor loyalty to the Shang (probably hatred even) meant that they swiftly abandoned battle once the Zhou attacked.

Would like to hear the views of folks here on this hypothesis.

For me, I am highly suspicious of the long-term effects these campaigns had as Zhou was known to have ruled 10-20years or more after these campaigns, but I might be wrong

This post has been edited by lifezard: 18 June 2006 - 11:54 AM

[Bao Pu]

lifezard, on Jun 18 2006, 10:44 AM, said:

In the oracle bones, King Zhou 纣 (known as Di Xin 帝辛 in the records) was known to have a conducted 2 major campaigns against Ren Fang (人方), nowadays identified with the 东夷 of the Zhou period, in the 8th year and 10th year of his reign. Although, the 2 campaigns were largely successful, with a lot of captives captured, it has been speculated that these campaigns exalted a huge financial and manpower strain on the Shang that ultimately led to its collapse.

Indeed, at the battle of Muye, it was said that a large portion of Shang positions were manned by these former Yi captives whose poor loyalty to the Shang (probably hatred even) meant that they swiftly abandoned battle once the Zhou attacked.

Would like to hear the views of folks here on this hypothesis.

For me, I am highly suspicious of the long-term effects these campaigns had as Zhou was known to have ruled 10-20years or more after these campaigns, but I might be wrong

-- I agree. It seems he would had plenty of time to rebuild a good military force.
By the Way, you say that the people of Renfang 人方 were later referred to as eastern Yi 東夷. Is this true - is it "generally agreed upon"? I would just like to know (for future reference).

[lifezard]

Bao Pu, on Jun 19 2006, 07:24 AM, said:

-- I agree. It seems he would had plenty of time to rebuild a good military force.
By the Way, you say that the people of Renfang 人方 were later referred to as eastern Yi 東夷. Is this true - is it "generally agreed upon"? I would just like to know (for future reference).

The words Dong Yi 東夷 or even the supposingly more appropriate word Yi Fang夷方 was never attested in the oracle bones. In its place rather, were Shi Fang 尸方 which was attested mostly during Wuding's reign and Ren Fang 人方 which was attested in other periods of Shang.

Both 人 and 尸 are said to be very similar-looking in the oracle bones. ( I dun have oracle bone version of 尸 but in the bronze inscriptions 人 and 尸 look rather similar, and as they were located in the same general direction i.e the eastern seaboard of China, many scholars deduced that Ren Fang and Shi Fang are one and the same people or 2 very related tribes. It is important to note the 2 words aremutually exclusive i.e. that both never appeared together and thus somewhat lends weight to 'same people' theory.

The Ren Fang or Shi Fang was identified as the Dong Yi on the following basis:

1. In historical documents such as the Zuozhuan 左传, King Zhou was said to have subdued the Dong Yi. Since the Dong Yi were absent from the oracle bones, and in its place Ren Fang was mentioned as the subdued side in rather good detail, and because Dong Yi and Ren Fang were located in the same approximate area. Ren Fang is generally equated with the Dong Yi

2. In Western Zhou inscriptions, the character 尸 was regularly put in places where 夷 is supposed to occur. Eg. 东'尸' instead of 东夷, 淮'尸' instead of 淮夷 etc. It is therefore deduced, that '尸' is really equivalent '夷'

[Bao Pu]

lifezard, on Jun 19 2006, 08:03 AM, said:

...Both 人 and 尸 are said to be very similar-looking in the oracle bones. ( I dun have oracle bone version of 尸 but in the bronze inscriptions 人 and 尸 look rather similar, and as they were located in the same general direction i.e the eastern seaboard of China, many scholars deduced that Ren Fang and Shi Fang are one and the same people or 2 very related tribes. It is important to note the 2 words aremutually exclusive i.e. that both never appeared together and thus somewhat lends weight to 'same people' theory.

I see. Yes, both 人 and 尸 look similar in the oracle bones. I have an oracle bone font (ICS3) and access to the CHANT database. I see examples like:
丙子卜…其伐尸□于…
...令征尸。
...正尸...
and many with 彳+止 尸
which all suggest attacking, subduing, correcting, etc. And also:
〔貞〕尸方不出。 〔一〕 二 二告 三 四

I personally don't know where they were said to have lived, but you may be right.
Thanks!

[lifezard]

A little background on the oracle bones regarding the Ren Fang campaign (after checking around): They belonged to the 5th and last period of the Yin era i.e. just before the seizure of the mandate by the Zhou.. This is a period that has been normally attributed to 帝乙 and 帝辛.

The hard fact is; these names are temple names.. i.e. names associated with the king after they had passed away and not names they would use during their lifetime. (Eg. 帝辛 Dixin will be known by his personal name (probably Zhou/Shou 纣/受), or just wang 王 during his lifetime (at least in inscriptions).

What does this mean? It simply means that Di Yi and Di Xin were never in the records! (All right, flame me, my 1st thread was c**p then....should never have started this thread anyway, but since started, have to shamelessly carry on ). The basis on this 5th period is therefore built upon worship on the 2 kings' predecessor Wen Wu Ding文武丁. We can assume that reigning king (at least one of them) in the 5th period records was Di Yi (because of worship to Wen Wu Ding).

What about Di Xin (Zhou) then? I think this was one of the bigger controversies ever since the oracle bones appeared. Here are the few theories possible:

1. Some people just deduced that no records of Zhou's reign had been found yet. i.e. the records of period 5 were all pertaining to Di Yi (let me check out his personal name later) and the Ren Fang campaigns were therefore Di Yi's campaigns

2. That there were 2 different kings in period 5. The strength of this is based on differences in style between certain records and thus an indication of 2 different kings. Also scholars had referred to Zhou's subjugation of the Dong Yi to deduce the Ren Fang records was in Zhou's times. The weakness, of course, is the absence of ritual worship to Di Yi in the records, which isn't what Di Xin was supposed to do when Di Yi passed away?

hmmm .. looks like I need to look up a bit more on the ancestral worship system of the Shang tonight..

This post has been edited by lifezard: 21 June 2006 - 02:05 AM

[lifezard]

There is an inscription that referred to Di Yi though, not oracle bone records but the bronze inscription '四祀邲其卣' Si4 Si4 ? Qi2 You3 ( I think the 3rd character is wrong, but not sure how to type the correct one)

I think this is one inscription that can be proven to be in King Zhou's reign. Not sure if there are others

Dong Zuobin actually allocated 52 years to Zhou's reign, which I find peculiarly long for an alleged immoral and tyrannical ruler like him

This post has been edited by lifezard: 21 June 2006 - 10:31 AM