Essay 001

Vessels of Creative Expression

An Investigation of Technology, Power & Creativity in the Development of Ritual Bronze Vessels in the Central Plains Region of Ancient China

November 20, 2021

Introduction

The Nature of Technological & Aesthetic Change

Some of the central themes in the research of ancient China concerns the nature of technology and the relationship between technological change and social complexity [Social complexity traditionally refers to the degree of social hierarchy and stratification, the presence of an organized state, and craft specialization and higher divisions of labor.]. The discovery of ritual bronze objects in the burial sites of the Central Plains region of Northern China in the late Neolithic to the Bronze Age have enhanced our understanding of how the development of bronze metal production played a central role in the standardization of ritual belief systems on the one hand and the rise of state and increased social stratification on the other (Mei et al. 2017; Allan 2007; Flad n.d.). Based on the current state of archaeological evidence, the sophistication and complexity of bronze production technology increased in parallel with the aesthetic motifs found on the ritual bronze vessels during these periods. Our current understanding is that the earliest bronze vessels found at the Erlitou site were not only a continuation of past ceramic traditions, but the new incoming bronze technology was used by the elite ruling class to recreate existing ceramic objects in newer materials for ritual purposes (Allan 2007, 472-74). Moreover, as the adoption of bronze technologies progressed, in order to successfully replicate past ceramic forms in the newer materials, new casting processes such as piece-mold casting had to be invented (Mei et al. 2017). 

In addition to the emergence of new technologies, the availability of new technologies to craftspeople—who were at the forefront of the bronze production—may have also led to the development of sophistication and complexity in their aesthetic characteristics (Kesner 1991; Bagley 2009). In two of the clearest examples, the typical spiral patterns became more densely packed and featured more modulating lines. Later in the period of the Shang, bronze vessels became the primary medium for emergence of the symmetrical two-eyed zoological motif known as the taotie (Bagley 2009; Bagley et al. 2008). 

On this subject, many studies have focused their attention on situating prehistoric technology within the context of the power and authority of the elite ruling class. Further, based on a review of the current literature, only a handful of studies (e.g. Kesner 1991; Lopes 2014; Reinhart 2018) have prioritized the experience and creative agency of the artisans and craftspeople who otherwise may have played a major role in contributing to and shaping the aesthetic language of their societies. To that end, the aim of this essay is not only to explore how ritual bronze vessels changed or remained continuous over time, but—more importantly—to understand why certain decorative motifs emerged and developed in the context of elite control over bronze production and an emergent standardization of a ritual belief system. In this paper I will demonstrate that the functional and aesthetic developments of ritual bronze vessels involved a complex and multifaceted dynamic between the creative desires of craftspeople and changes in bronze production technologies within the backdrop of an increasingly complex social landscape.

Background

Bronze Metal Production of the Central Plains

Bronze metallurgical technology is widely believed to have been first introduced into the Gansu-Qinghai region in northwest China from the Eurasian steppe during the third millennium BCE then subsequently spread eastward from there (Mei et al. 2017). Some scholars believe that regardless of the Eurasian common origin, based on the stylistic and technological variations found in the material record, the adoption of bronze metallurgy was heavily shaped by local ideological systems (Mei et al. 2017, 238). In the Central Plains region of northern China for example, many scholars believe that social and ritual need for bronze vessels was a catalyst for adopting new technologies from the West may have led to innovative breakthroughs such as the invention and use of the piece-mold technique (e.g. Shelach-Lavi 2016, Mei et al. 2017; Zhang 2021; Li 2007; Allan 2007). To that end, the earliest evidence of ritual bronze production using the piece-mold technique in the Central Plains comes from discoveries made at the site in Erlitou (Mei et al. 2017, 235).

Bronzes of the Erlitou Culture

The Erlitou culture was an early Bronze Age society that existed in the Yellow River valley in Henan Province (ca. 1900 to ca. 1550 BCE) and is subdivided into four distinct archaeological cultural phases (Shelach-Lavi 2016, 166). While over three-hundred sites have been attributed to the Erlitou culture, the type site is massive and covers an estimated 300 ha (Shelach-Lavi 2016, 166). In terms of metallurgical technology, the bronze production at Erlitou is clearly more sophisticated and larger than any society during this period. Based on the evidence of urban layout found at the site, bronze craft production was highly specialized and well organized. The proximity of bronze casting foundries (located based on the remains of crucibles, casting molds, and slugs) to palatial zones implicitly marks elite control over bronze production (Shelach-Lavi 2016, 187-88). 

While over a hundred metal objects have been discovered at Erlitou, at present, only seventeen bronze vessels— all cast with the piece-mold method—have been recovered from the site (Allan 2007, 476). The set of bronze vessels—the majority of which are dated to Phases III and IV—include the jue (爵) tripod, he (盉) pitcher, jia (斝) warming vessel, gu (觚) goblet, and ding 鼎 tripod (Xu and Liu 2021, 190-201). Subsequent similarities to the bronze vessels of the Shang and Zhou periods suggests that the Erlitou vessels were used for ritual purposes (Shelach-Lavi 2016, 170); moreover based on the residues found within the vessels, it widely believed that the bronze vessels were primarily used as wine vessels (Allan 2007, 477). Furthermore, their physical forms suggest a continuity of the ceramic traditions of the Longshan period. Additionally, it is worthy to note that metal technology does not seemed to have been employed in the production of agricultural tools.

While the surfaces of Erlitou bronze vessels are mostly undecorated, some scholars believe that the two-eyed animal faced motif—later known as taotie—was present during this period. The most concrete evidence of this include small turquoise-inlaid bronze plagues and a lacquer fragments both with rudimentary taotie motifs (Allan 2007, 479-80). Additionally, some scholars argue that evidence of painted patterns on recovered pottery hints at a more extensive decorative vocabulary that was expressed on perishable media such as lacquer or wood (Allan 2007, 482-83).

Bronzes of the Shang (Erligang and Yinxu Cultures)

Without question the Shang (or Yin 殷) dynasty (ca. 1600-1300 BCE) marks a significant milestone in Chinese archaeology and history with not only an abundance of material evidence that points to a large, centralized, and highly stratified Shang state, but also a much more advanced bronze industry when compared with the Erlitou (Shelach-Lavi 2016, 194; Allan 2007, 465). On an archaeological timeline, the Shang period is divided into three distinct cultural phases, including Erligang (Early Shang), Zhong Shang (Middle Shang), and Yinxu (Late Shang) (Zhang 2021, 304-13). Based on a classification of bronze objects found in this period, the archaeological phases do not neatly align with the development of bronze vessels technology. Rather, based on distinct aesthetic and technological characteristics, the development of bronze technology are classified into three periods—early Erligang, late Erligang (late Erligang to Early Yinxu Phase 1), and late Yinxu (late Shang Yinxu 2 to early Western Zhou culture)[For simplicity, the late Erligang to early Yinxu Phase 1 will be referred to as late Erligang and the late Shang Yinxu 2 to early Western Zhou will be referred to as late Yinxu.] (Zhang 2021, 304-05). 

When it comes to Erligang technology, the primary innovation is marked by an increase in complexity of vessels shapes and sizes, as well as advancements in a new “blind core” technology wherein ceramic cores of the handles and legs of vessels were left in the mold during the bronze casting process (Zhang 2021, 304-13). This new manufacturing process not only enhanced the vessel’s cooling ability but it also decreased the number of defects from casting. Moreover, this new technology would later pave the way for newer form factors such as the narrowing of the open portion of the legs on ding vessels (Zhang 2021, 309-12).

The primary aesthetic innovation in the Erligang period were the introduction of surface decorations on the bronzes as well as an expansion of the number of vessel types (Allan 2007, 486). The most important and ubiquitous decorative motif of this period was the taotie or two-eyed animal face, which often appears in a rectangular band around the circumference of the vessel and are occasionally enclosed by rows of small circles (Allan 2007, 486). In addition to the typical bronze vessel types found during the Erlitou period (e.g. jue, jia, he, gu, and ding), other wine vessels have also been discovered at the Erligang type-site in Zhengzhou—including the zun, lei (壘), you, and hu (壺), as well as cooking vessels including the li (鬲), yan, and gui (簋) and water vessels including the pan and yu (盂) (Allan 2007, 486). 

In terms of function, bronze vessels were used as signifiers of elite culture and status from the Erlitou period through the Erligang (Allan 2007, 486). During the Erligang period in particular, large three or four-footed ding vessels became a major component of a standard ritual system and a symbol of power and authority (Allan 2007, 487).

Technology, Power & Creativity

The Intersection of Technology & Power

The progress of technology and the manifestations of power intersect in complex and multifaceted ways. Much of the scholarship on Chinese archaeology views technology as a lens to observe how society changes in scale and complexity (e.g. Flad n.d.; Jaang 2015; Mei et al. 2017;  Allan 2007). As an example, Rowan Flad (n.d.) discusses the nature of technology and innovation by observing technological change at various geographical scales—both long distance influences and continuations of local traditions—and examines how subsistence and specialist craft technologies can be used as a lens to understand how new technologies emerge and in turn how society changes as a result of its adoption. Another key theme in the paper is the idea of social stratification, power, and authority. For instance, the rarity of jade as a material (i.e. jadeite and nephrite) and as a finished product drove the object to become a symbol of power and elite status. As a result, certain societies (e.g. Qijia culture) shifted resources and organized their craftspeople so that production could be controlled by the elite (Flad n.d., 16-17). Similarly, in a similar period—bronze technology can be observed as being a catalyst for social stratification and integration, and the adoption and invention of new metallurgical technologies surrounding bronze production is interpreted as being part of a complex process of both influence from long-distance cultures and needs of the local society.

Creative Agency

While much attention has been focused on understanding the intersection of the technology with social organization and the emergence of elite power and authority, the experience and agency of craftspeople are notably absent from the equation. In reference to a definition of technology proposed by Carrie Brezine (2011) and adopted by Rowan Flad, technology can be seen as “a system of practices interrelating transformation of material resources, abstract and practical knowledge, social and political relationships, and cultural beliefs” (Brezine 2011, 82). Within this framework of technology, it begs the question: even with the elite control over the sourcing of the raw materials and the production of the bronzes—what was the role of the artisans who were ultimately responsible for crafting the final products? Did the collective of craftspeople have any form of agency? What were the exact mechanisms that led to the emergence of new technological techniques and aesthetic features? To that end, it is salient to reference a study of Bronze Age urban development in Yanshi Shangcheng, wherein the author argues that craft specialists played an integral role in the transformation and urbanization of their city (Reinhart 2018). In other words, the author's is challenging the traditional view that the elite ruling class had full control over the design and development of living and working spaces related to specialist craft production.

The discovery of ritual bronzes in elite burial contexts and later reinforced through descriptions found in the inscriptions of oracle bones, set up an interpretive paradigm for observing technological and societal change wherein the elite classes were prioritized. While many scholars agree that the adoption of metallurgical technology in the context of the Central Plains region was highly influenced by the needs of the local societies (i.e. ritual burials and ceremonies) (e.g. Mei et al 2017; Allan 2007; Flad n.d.), characterizing technological adoption and change as being driven by regional needs is somewhat vague and still much too broad in scope. My argument is that, within the structures of elite control and organization, the craftspeople had a certain degree of creative agency within the production of bronzes. The evidence of technological and aesthetic change seen on the ritual bronze vessels from the periods of the Erlitou to the Shang suggests that the collective of artisans may have played a more vital role in shaping not only the aesthetic characteristics of bronze vessels but also may have influenced its technological development as well as its use in ritual practices.

Culture & Creativity

In Rowan Flad’s framework of viewing social change through technology, he defined innovation as a sort of “technological creativity” (Flad n.d., 7). In other words, innovation relates to a process in which new ideas are invented, vetted, and adopted into practice. Similarly, cultural anthropologists universally recognize that culture itself [Clifford Geertz (1973) once defined culture as: “a historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life.” (93).] is in a constant state of transformation and reinvention, and that cultural change always involves creative practices (Sawyer 2012, 265-66). Keith Sawyer—one of the preeminent scholars on creativity research—acknowledges that every single person in a culture is a participant in the practices of creativity and transformation of culture. He says,

Everybody in a culture participates in its reproduction and its evolution—not only special figures like musicians or storytellers. Culture creativity is found in the practices of everyday life—eating, sleeping, everyday conversation—not only in ritual or shamanic performance. Creativity is a common part of everyday life; culture can’t survive without continued improvisation and embellishment (Sawyer 2016, 267).

Within that framework of culture and creativity, one can assume that the ceramic and bronze craftspeople were not simply employing metallurgical technologies for the enrichment of the elite ruling class—but rather, they were afforded some amount of “space” within their own domain of expertise in order to improvise and embellish their creative outputs. 

While creativity—and in particular Western conceptions of creativity [Westerns cultural models of creativity often aligns with the visual arts such as painting (Sawyer 2012, 297)]—often involves the sensory art forms, creativity in the context of ritual bronze production in ancient China not only involves the transformation of the aesthetic landscape, but may have also shaped the invention of new technologies and processes. In other words, creativity is not simply an attribute of a particular domain, but rather, it is about the whole of human innovation. In the following section, we will look at the evidence of change in the material artifacts between the periods of the Erlitou and the Shang to better understand how culture is not simply created by the elite, but how laypeople—craftspeople in particular—play an important role in shaping the technological, social, and cultural environments.

Change in Ancient Chinese Vessels

Functional Change

At some point, likely in the late Neolithic period, metallurgical technology was introduced to the Central Plains from the Eurasian steppe (Mei et al. 2017). The adoption of bronze technology was first seen in the Ejin River Transfer Zone (ERTZ), a region northwest of the central plains (Jaang 2015). Some scholars argue that the people of the ERTZ relied on trade and exchange for survival and therefore were more receptive to new technologies and innovations (Jaang 2015). As a result, the bronze objects produced in that region were manufactured for trade and exchange with other societies. 

Unlike the economic rationale for the adoption of bronze technology in the ERTZ, the people of the Central Plains saw the new technology as a way to continue their cultural trajectory with a material that was much stronger and more visually impressive. To that end, the shape and sizes of the seventeen bronze vessels recovered from the Erlitou site suggest a continuation of the ceramic traditions of the Longshan period (Shelach-Lavi 2016, 170). Furthermore, all but one vessel was found in the context of graves. In other words, the amount of labor and resources required to produce bronze versions of the ceramic vessels suggest that the bronze variants held a special significance to the Erlitou people. While it is unknown whether it was the elite ruling class or creative ceramic artisans who were responsible for the idea to reproduce ceramic forms in bronze, the answer is likely that is was the result of a complex collaborative process. Perhaps a group of ceramic artisans experimented with casting existing ceramic forms in the new metals and as a result impressed the elite class enough to sponsor further exploration. While nothing in the material record points to this idea, at the same time, no evidence exists that disproves it. The fact is that existing ceramic objects were eventually cast in the new metal alloys, and as a result of its impressive characteristics, its value increased in this social context, to a point where it became more ritualized and primarily used in ritual burial ceremonies.

Technological Change

The earliest evidence of copper and bronze objects in the Central Plains region comes from the Erlitou site, where all seventeen recovered bronze vessels—including the seven jue vessels are confirmed to have been produced using the piece-mold technique [The piece-mold casting technique involves a clay model is first created, a mold formed around the model then separated into sections, and finally reassembled to form the final mold for bronze casting (Mei et al. 2017)] (Mei et al. 2017, 235). The discovery of more than twenty fragments of clay molds further reinforces these observations. There are two primary hypothesis to explain the emergence of piece-mold casting, which is considered to be a breakthrough technological achievement for this period. The first argues that the “hammering” features on some ceramic vessels is evidence that the piece-mold technology was introduced from the Eurasian steppe, where artifacts with similar production processes have been discovered (Mei et al. 2017, 236). The second argues that the new bronze technology was adopted and transformed by the needs of the existing social and ritual practices. In other words, the need to reinforce the social and ritual practices stimulated the innovation in bronze metal casting. Similarly, the development of new “blind core” technology during the period of the Shang also reflect innovation in metallurgical technology as a result of specific social and ritual needs. The functional and practical reasons for a shift away from hollow legs and handles and a move towards vessels with ceramic cores likely is a result of the creative practices of artisans, who may have been experimenting with better ways to produce bronze vessels.

As evidenced by the proximity of bronze workshops to the palatial zones, the standard view is that the production of bronzes was elite sponsored (Shelach-Lavi 2016, 168-72; Xu and Liue 2021, 190-201). While the elite ruling class clearly benefitted from the ritualization and translation of ceramic vessels into the new bronze materials, nevertheless, it is likely that the creativity of craftspeople played a role in the adoption of metallurgical technologies and the invention of new processes such as the new piece-mold technique. Likewise, while the elite may have also indirectly benefitted from the new blind-core production technique, the technology seemed primarily invented to improve the production process for the bronze craftspeople. The fact is that the bronze and ceramic artisans had the most knowledge about the vessel production processes, and such examples highlight the role craftspeople may have played in shaping the technology of the period. The current literature fails to acknowledge the role craftspeople play in shaping new technologies. While the macro-level view of elite control over bronze production is vital to understanding the dynamics between long-distance interactions with other societies, the main takeaway here is that understand how technologies are adopted and develop within the context of a particular culture requires an acknowledgement of contribution from all strata of society.

Aesthetic Change

Technology is fundamentally linked to our material world. Referencing back to the aforementioned definition of technology—technology involves the interaction of four critical components: material resources, knowledge, social relationships, and cultural beliefs (Brezine 2011). In this framework, technology as a material resource is fundamentally aesthetic or visual in nature. To put it another way, the development of technology is inextricably tied to the development of aesthetics. Parallel to the development of ritual bronze vessels, the shapes, sizes, and decorative motifs also evolved through the Bronze Age. During the Shang period in particular, many lines of evidence point to a significant increase in the sophistication of bronze production, and as a result, the bronze vessels of the Shang are much more varied in shape and decoration (Shelach-Lavi 2016, 209). While some scholars view the breadth of vessel types as a set that point to a form of cultural hegemony in the context of larger geographic spheres of influence (Allan 2007), the evidence of variation indicate a certain level of creative expression within particular social contexts. As Allan points out, “Although there are certain regional styles and occasionally regional motifs, the vessel forms and decoration are remarkably consistent wherever bronzes are found” (2007, 471). This observation reinforces one of the primary arguments of this essay, which is that while the production of bronzes were broadly controlled by the elite, within that space of constraint artisans were still able to express their creativity. In other words, the evidence of unique regional characteristics [As an example, vessels found in the Xin’gan tomb feature unique stylistic qualities such as animals on vessel handles, tiger motifs, shield-shaped border patterns, square ding with removable trays (Allan 2007, 472)], regardless of how subtle, reflects the fact that local cultures manifest themselves to a certain degree through the creative expression of craftspeople.

Historically, from around the period of the Erligang onward, bronze vessels first started to be decorated (Allan 2007, 466-68). The most conventional decorations that emerged around this time were the two-eyed motif known as the taotie (饕餮), kui (夔) dragon-like creatures, and bird-like forms (Allan 2007, 467). Based on the recovered bronzes, these zoological motifs were ubiquitous and showed very little variation. While the exact meaning, purpose, and function of such motifs still largely remain a mystery, some scholars argue that they were connected to the ritual belief system of local societies (Lopes 2014). To put it another way, the emergence of zoological forms of decoration were not deliberately created as tools of coercion by the Shang ruling class (Kesner 1991), but rather they may have been creative expressions of a preexistent system of beliefs.

Related to the development of the taotie motif are the conventional spiral patterns that are typically found incorporated around the taotie. The evidence of spiral patterns painted on pottery during the Erlitou suggests that the spiral patterns found on Shang bronzes were a continuation of a local tradition. During the period of the Shang onward, the spirals began appearing on the bronzes as background motifs rather than as a band or border (Allan 2007, 483). Even continuing through the period of the Western Zhou, the spiral patterns kept increasing dramatically in density and in complexity. There is no clear line of evidence to why such motifs changed over time, but as with the expansion of vessel shapes and sizes and the emergence of the taotie, the artisans were subscribed to the belief system of their particular context and as a result may have helped to shape the way the products were styled and produced.

Similarly, the discoveries at the Sanxingdui site in the Sichuan Basin are most often referenced based on their unique aesthetic characteristics. While many bronzes with common Shang-style motifs were found at the site, wholly unique human-sized bronze statues and masks were also discovered. The unique objects found in the Sanxingdui context reinforce the idea that within a particular society, local artisans were able to invent new technologies and techniques to express the creativity of their cultural belief systems.

Discussion

The development of ritual bronze vessels provides a wealth of opportunity to understand the nature of technology and change in social complexity. The change in the technologies that helped to create the objects reflect how societies of great distances interacted with each other and how ideas and technologies were exchanged. Further, the layout of past urban spaces including the scale and placement of bronze workshops shows us the level of sophistication that was needed to produce such bronze objects. To that end, much of the scholarship on early China tends to focus on these two themes—long distance interactions and power dynamics of the elite ruling classes. As a result of such perspectives the experience of the laypeople—and in particular craftspeople—gets lost. To that point, there is a valid reason behind such trends—the discoveries of ritual bronzes are often found in the context of elite burials and oracle bone inscriptions nearly always concern the issues of the ruling classes. Regardless, what this paper has illustrated is that within the particular structures of power, craftspeople—both individual and communities thereof—likely had the room to exercise their creativity and affect change within their own cultural spaces. The examples of the functional, technological, and aesthetic change found within the corpus of ritual bronze vessels shows that technology and creative agency intersect in complex and multifaceted ways. Further, the emergence of new and complex decorative motifs and discoveries of unique regional variations show that people are not simply static vessels for technology, but rather that technology is embodied by individuals, transformed through our cultural backgrounds, and manifest as the material artifacts of our creative expressions. The primary questions that this essay has proposed—whether the progression of decorative characteristics were a result of new technologies or were new technologies invented to fulfill the creative desires of artisans—still largely remains a mystery and more data will help answer these important questions.

Conclusion

As we have seen, the observations of change—in function, technology, and aesthetic characteristics—reflect both the broad intersocietal interactions within a particular period and the creative dynamics within communities of craftspeople. The factors that complicate this framework is understanding what role social inequities play in shaping the adoption and transformations of technologies and creative expressions. Additionally, another key theme that this essay is lacking relates to the importance and intricacies of ritual belief systems. While the standardization of ritual systems was underway during the Shang, it is during the period of the Western Zhou where we see this process develop in sophistication and scale (Sun 2021). It is during the period of the Zhou where we see a complete standardization of the ritual bronze set—in form, function, and decorative motifs—which helped the Zhou polity further consolidate their power and authority. A useful topic of further research would be to explore how the role of the craftspeople—their cultural backgrounds and creative agencies—intersect with this changing dynamic of power and evolving suite of technologies. Ultimately, the main point is that prioritizing the experiences of common people will help paint a richer, more complete picture of early civilizations.

References

Allan, Sarah. 2007. “Erlitou and the Formation of Chinese Civilization: Toward a New Paradigm.” The Journal of Asian Studies 66 (2): 461–96. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002191180700054X.

Bagley, Robert. 2009. “ANYANG MOLD-MAKING AND THE DECORATED MODEL.” Artibus Asiae 69 (1): 39–90.

Bagley, Robert W., Max. Loehr, and Bernhard Karlgren. 2008. Max Loehr and the Study of Chinese Bronzes: Style and Classification in the History of Art. Ithaca, N.Y.: East Asia Program, Cornell University.

Beckman, Joy Elizabeth. 2013. “The Meaning of Material: Ritual Vessel Assemblages in Chu Burials of the Fourth and Third Centuries BC, China.” Antiquity 87 (337): 772–87. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00049450.

Brezine, Carrie J. 2011. “Dress, Technology and Identity in Colonial Peru.” PhD Thesis. Department of Anthropology, Harvard University. 

Campbell, Roderick B. 2020. “Beyond Meaning: Skeuomorphy and the Mediation of Shang Things.” World Archaeology 52 (3): 376–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2021.1930132.

Dodson, John, Xiaoqiang Li, Ming Ji, Keliang Zhao, Xinying Zhou, and Vladimir Levchenko. 2009. “Early Bronze in Two Holocene Archaeological Sites in Gansu, NW China.” Quaternary Research 72 (3): 309–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yqres.2009.07.004.

Flad, Rowan. 2012. “BRONZE, JADE, GOLD, AND IVORY.” In The Construction of Value in the Ancient World, 306. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.

Flad, Rowan. (n.d.) “Long Distance Influences and Local Adoption: Technological Changes in Ritual and Economy in Late Prehistoric Northwest China.” In The Art and Archaeology of Ritual and Economy in East Asia: Essays in Honor of Lothar von Falkenhausen, edited by Anke Hein, Rowan Flad, and Bryan Miller, pp, TBD. UCLA: Cotsen Institute Press. 

Fong, Wen, Robert W Bagley, Jenny F So, Maxwell K Hearn, and Art New. 1980. The Great Bronze Age of China: An Exhibition from the People’s Republic of China. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Geertz, Clifford, and Robert Darnton. (1973) 2017. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. 3rd edition. Basic Books. New York: Basic Books. 

Jaang, Li. 2015. “The Landscape of China's Participation in the Bronze Age Eurasian Network.” Journal of World Prehistory 28 (3): 179–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-015-9088-2.

Keightley, David N. 1985. Sources of Shang History: The Oracle-Bone Inscriptions of Bronze Age China. Berkeley ; Los Angeles ; London: University of California Press.

Kesner, L. 1991. “The Taotie Reconsidered: Meanings and Functions of the Shang Theriomorphic Imagery.” Artibus Asiae 51 (1/2): 29–53. https://doi.org/10.2307/3249675.

Li, Haichao, Zhiqiang Zuo, Jianfeng Cui, Jianbo Tian, Yingdong Yang, Li Yi, Zhiqing Zhou, and Jianan Fan. 2020. “Bronze Production in the Ancient Chengdu Plains: A Diachronic Metallurgical Perspective on a Separate Cultural Region.” Journal of Cultural Heritage 43: 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2019.11.005.

Li, Yung-Ti. 2007. “Co-Craft and Multicraft: Section-Mold Casting and the Organization of Craft Production at the Shang Capital of Anyang.” In Craft Production in Complex Societies : Multicraft and Producer Perspectives, edited by Izumi Shimada and Society for American Archaeology, 184-226. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Liu, Li. 2003. “"The Products of Minds as Well as of Hands": Production of Prestige Goods in the Neolithic and Early State Periods of China.” Asian Perspectives (Honolulu) 42 (1): 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1353/asi.2003.0025.

Liu, Ruiliang, A. Mark Pollard, Jessica Rawson, Xiaojia Tang, Peter Bray, and Changping Zhang. 2019. “Panlongcheng, Zhengzhou and the Movement of Metal in Early Bronze Age China.” Journal of World Prehistory 32 (4): 393–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-019-09137-w.

Lopes, Rui Oliveira. 2014. “Securing the Harmony Between the High and the Low: Power Animals and Symbols of Political Authority in Ancient Chinese Jades and Bronzes.” Asian Perspectives (Honolulu) 53 (2): 195–225. https://doi.org/10.1353/asi.2014.0019.

Mei, Jianjun, Yongbin Yu, Kunlong Chen, and Lu Wang. 2017. “The Appropriation of Early Bronze Technology in China.” In Appropriating Innovations, 1st ed., 231. Oxbow Books.

Rawson, Jessica. 1993. “Ancient Chinese Ritual Bronzes: The Evidence from Tombs and Hoards of the Shang (c. 1500-1050 BC) and Western Zhou (c. 1050-771 BC) Periods.” Antiquity 67 (257): 805–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00063808.

Reinhart, Katrinka. 2018. “Rethinking Urbanism in the Early Bronze Age of China: The Role of Craft Specialists and Community Politics in the Social Construction of Yanshi Shangcheng.” Archaeological Research in Asia 14: 106–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2017.04.002.

Sawyer, R. Keith. 2012. Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Shelach-Lavi, Gideon, and Cambridge University Press. 2016. The Archaeology of Early China: From Prehistory to the Han Dynasty. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Song, Guoding. 2021. “Early and Middle Shang Periods.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early China, 1st ed, 253-84. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199328369.013.13.

Sun, Yan. 2021. “Bronze Vessels: Style, Assemblages, and Innovations of the Western Zhou Period.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early China, 1st ed, 451-70. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199328369.013.21.

Xu, Hong, and Yu Liu. 2021. “The Bronze-Casting Revolution and the Ritual Vessel Set.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early China, 1st ed, 190-201. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199328369.013.10.

Zhang, Changping. 2021. “Shang Bronze-Casting Technology and Metallurgy Issues.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early China, 1st ed, 304-13. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199328369.013.15.

Zhang, Changping, Takafumi Niwa, and Mamoru Hirokawa. 2016. “On the Piece Mold-Casting Technology of the Bronze Gui-Tureens in the Shang and Zhou Dynasties.” Chinese Archaeology (New York, N.Y.) 16 (1): 162–67. https://doi.org/10.1515/char-2016-0015.