Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

SACRIFICE VS. SUSTENANCE: FOOD AS A BURIAL GOOD IN LATE PRE-IMPERIAL AND EARLY IMPERIAL CHINESE TOMBS AND ITS RELATION FUNERARY RITES

  • Armin Selbitschka (a1)

Abstract

One of the medical manuscripts recovered from Tomb No. 3 at Mawangdui (dated 186 b.c.e.) states that, “When a person is born there are two things that need not to be learned: the first is to breathe and the second is to eat.” Of course it is true that all healthy newborn human beings possess the reflexes to breathe and eat. Yet, the implications of death should have been just as obvious to the ancient Chinese. Once the human brain ceases to function, there is no longer a biological need for oxygen and nourishment. Nevertheless, a large number of people in late pre-imperial and early imperial China insisted on burying food and drink with the dead. Most modern commentators take the deposition of food and drink as burial goods to be a rather trite phenomenon that warrants little reflection. To their minds both kinds of deposits were either intended to sustain the spirit of the deceased in the hereafter or simply a sacrifice to the spirit of the deceased. Yet, a closer look at the archaeological evidence suggests otherwise. By tracking the exact location of food and drink containers in late pre-imperial and early imperial tombs and by comprehensively analyzing inscriptions on such vessels in addition to finds of actual food, the article demonstrates that reality was more complicated than this simple either/or dichotomy. Some tombs indicate that the idea of continued sustenance coincided with occasional sacrifices. Moreover, this article will introduce evidence of a third kind of sacrifice that, so far, has gone unnoticed by scholarship. Such data confirms that sacrifices to spirits other than the one of the deceased sometimes were also part of funerary rituals. By paying close attention to food and drink as burial goods the article will put forth a more nuanced understanding of early Chinese burial practices and associated notions of the afterlife.

馬王堆三號墓出土的一卷醫書(公元前 186 年)寫道:「人產而所不學者二,一曰息,二曰食。」 毋庸置疑,所有健康的新生兒都具備呼吸和飲食的本能。然而,死亡的意義對古人而言却没有那麼明顯。一旦大腦停止工作,人就無需氧氣和營養了。可是在晚前和早期中華帝國,人们往往用食物和酒飲作為陪葬。多數現代學者認為食物和酒飲的陪葬司空見慣,因而不值一提。在他們看来,這兩種陪葬品若不是用來供奉亡靈,就是為逝者獻祭而已。然而,對考古資料的進一步分析後,結論截然不同。通過分析晚前和早期中華帝國墓葬中食器、杯皿之確切位置,並全面解析器皿表面之文字,綜合相關食物之發現,本文証明實際情況遠比簡單的二分法複雜。一些墓葬表明,長期的供奉與偶爾的獻祭不謀而合。此外,本文將介紹目前學界未有涉及的第三類獻祭行為的證據。此證據表明,作為殯葬儀式的一部分,除了祭奠墓主的亡靈,其他亡靈也同樣得到祭奠。通過對作為陪葬品的食物和酒飲進行細緻分析,本文對早期中國殯葬傳統及相關的來世理念提出一種更細緻的解讀。

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      SACRIFICE VS. SUSTENANCE: FOOD AS A BURIAL GOOD IN LATE PRE-IMPERIAL AND EARLY IMPERIAL CHINESE TOMBS AND ITS RELATION FUNERARY RITES
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      SACRIFICE VS. SUSTENANCE: FOOD AS A BURIAL GOOD IN LATE PRE-IMPERIAL AND EARLY IMPERIAL CHINESE TOMBS AND ITS RELATION FUNERARY RITES
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      SACRIFICE VS. SUSTENANCE: FOOD AS A BURIAL GOOD IN LATE PRE-IMPERIAL AND EARLY IMPERIAL CHINESE TOMBS AND ITS RELATION FUNERARY RITES
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Footnotes

Hide All

A shorter version of this article was presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Western Branch of the American Oriental Society (AOS) in Portland, OR on October 21, 2016. I am grateful to the audience for many helpful comments. I am also indebted to Dore Levy, Daniel Tuzzeo, John Kieschnick, Yitzchak Jaffe, Rod Campbell, Sarah Allan, Lothar von Falkenhausen, Donald Harper, Huang Wen-yi, Laura Macy, and two Early China reviewers for their valuable suggestions. Any remaining mistakes and infelicities are, of course, my own responsibility.

Footnotes

References

Hide All

1. Gu, Ban 班固 (32–92 c.e.), Han shu 漢書 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1962), 43.2108.

2. Harper, Donald J., Early Chinese Medical Literature: The Mawangdui Medical Manuscripts (London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1997), 432.

3. See, for instance, Minao, Hayashi 林巳奈夫, “Kandai no inshoku 漢代の飮食,” Tōhō gakuhō 東方學報 48 (1975), 198; Chang, K. C., ed., Food in Chinese Culture: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1977); Anderson, E. N., The Food of China (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1988); Renxiang, Wang 王仁湘, Yinshi yu Zhongguo wenhua 飲食與中國文化 (Beijing: Renmin, 1994); Sterckx, Roel, ed., Of Tripod and Palate: Food, Politics, and Religion in Traditional China (New York and Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005); Sterckx, Roel, Food, Sacrifice, and Sagehood in Early China (Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2011); Huang, H.T., Science and Civilisation in China, Vol. 6: Biology and Biological Technology, Part V: Fermentations and Food Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), esp. 146; Harper, Donald, “Gastronomy in Ancient China,” Parabola 9.4 (1984), 3847. One notable exception that largely went unnoticed by Sinological scholarship is Nelson, Sarah Milledge, “Feasting the Ancestors in Early China,” in Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires, ed. Bray, Tamara L. (Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003), 6589.

4. For a succinct overview of the common arguments, see Lee, Christina, “Offerings and Grave Goods,” in Archaeology of Food: An Encyclopedia, Vol. 2: L-Z, ed. Metheny, Karen Bescherer and Beaudry, Mary C. (Lanham, Boulder, New York, and London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015), 345–47, here 345–46.

5. Two notable exceptions are works by Christina Lee; see her “Offerings and Grave Goods,” and Feasting the Dead: Food and Drink in Anglo-Saxon Burial Rituals (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2007), esp. 1–15.

6. For some recent arguments, see, for instance, Brück, Joanna, “Ritual and Rationality: Some Problems of Interpretation in European Archaeology,” European Journal of Archaeology 3.2 (1999), 313–44; Pollard, Joshua, “The Aesthetics of Depositional Practice,” World Archaeology 33.2 (2001), 315–33; Garrow, Duncan, “Odd Deposits and Average Practice: A Critical History of the Concept of Structured Deposition,” Archaeological Dialogues 19.2 (2012), 85115. Since this article represents a close reading of data collected from late pre-imperial and early imperial Chinese tombs, it does not aim to contribute directly to this fairly abstract and theoretical discussion.

7. Pearson, Mike Parker, The Archaeology of Death and Burial (Phoenix: Texas A&M University Press, 2000), 10. Moreover, some recently published archaeological Oxford handbooks remain silent on the issue of food as a burial good. See, for instance, Cunliffe, Barry, Gosden, Chris, and Joyce, Rosemary A., The Oxford Handbook of Archaeology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009); Insoll, Timothy, The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual & Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).

8. See especially section 1.2 and subsection “Food containers and the idea of food storage” of section 2.3 below.

9. Girard, René, Violence and the Sacred (London, New York: Continuum, 2005), 8.

10. On the importance of ritual in the creation of social structures, see, for instance, Bell, Catherine, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Pres, 1992), esp. 169–223. Moreover, see Bourdieu, Pierre, “The Forms of Capital,” in Handbook of Theory of Research for the Sociology of Education, ed. Richardson, J. E. (New York: Greenwood Press, 1986), 241–58. Also see the discussion in section 1.2 and n.62 below.

11. See especially subsection “Sacrifices at the tomb” of section 2.1 as well as sections 2.2 and 2.4 below.

12. On the distinction between private and state sacrifices, see subsection “Sacrifices at the tomb” of section 2.1 and esp. n.88 below.

13. Also see J[an] van Baal, “Offering, Sacrifice and Gift,” Numen 23.3 (1976), 161–78, here 170 and section 1.2 below.

14. See especially subsection “Sacrifices at the tomb” of section 2.1 as well as section 2.2 and subsections “Loose foodstuff in coffins and burial chambers” and “Animal remains and food containers in waist-pits (yaokeng 腰坑)” of section 2.3 below.

15. For an excellent overview of both sides of the argument, see Guo Jue, “Concepts of Death and the Afterlife Reflected in Newly Discovered Tomb Objects and Texts from Han China,” in Mortality in Traditional Chinese Thought, ed. Amy Olberding and Philip J. Ivanhoe (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2011), 85–115, esp. 87–93. For the most recent proponent of the journey model, see Guolong Lai, “Death and the Otherworldly Journey in Early China as Seen through Tomb Texts, Travel Paraphernalia, and Road Rituals,” Asia Major, Third Series. 18.1 (2005), 1–44; Guolong Lai, Excavating the Afterlife: The Archaeology of Early Chinese Religion (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2015).

16. For references, see n.19 below; for a more comprehensive discussion of the changes in tomb structures, see the opening passage of subsection “Food containers in front of burial chambers” of section 2.2 below.

17. For a rare find of an alcoholic liquid in a bronze vessel, see Xi’an shi wenwu baohu kaogusuo, “Xi’an beijiao Zaoyuan daxing Xi-Han mu fajue jianbao” 西安北郊棗園大型西漢墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 文物 2003.12, 29–38, here 32. Moreover, some ceramic pots yielded by Mancheng Tomb No. 1 contained traces of unspecified alcoholic beverages; see Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo and Hebei sheng wenwu guanlichu, Mancheng Han mu fajue baogao, shang 滿城漢墓發掘報告, 上 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1980), 127. Moreover, see introductory passages to section 2.1 below for a more comprehensive discussion of food-related archaeological finds.

18. See, for instance, David N. Keightley, “The Quest for Eternity in Ancient China: The Dead, Their Gifts, Their Names,” in Ancient Mortuary Traditions of China: Papers on Chinese Ceramic Funerary Sculptures, ed. George Kuwayama (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1991), 12–24, here 17; David N. Keightley, “The Shang: China’s First Historical Dynasty,” in The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From The Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C., ed. Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 232–91, here 266. Among others, Hayashi Minao and Lothar von Falkenhausen have maintained this argument for the eleventh through fifth centuries b.c.e. See Hayashi Minao, “In Shū jidai ni okeru shisha no saishi” 殷周時代における死者の祭祀, Tōyōshi kenkyu 東洋史研究 55.3 (1996), 441–66; Lothar von Falkenhausen, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius (1000–250 BC): The Archaeological Evidence (Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California Los Angeles, 2006), 298–99.

19. Most recently, see Pu Muzhou (Poo Mu-chou) 蒲慕州, Muzang yu shengsi: Zhongguo gudai zongjiao zhi xingsi 墓葬與生死: 中國古代宗教之省思 (Taibei: Lianjing, 1993), 197; Poo Mu-chou, In Search of Personal Welfare: A View of Ancient Chinese Religion (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998), 165; Mark Edward Lewis, The Construction of Space in Early China (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006), 119–21; Falkenhausen, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius, 306–10; Constance A. Cook, Death in Ancient China: The Tale of One Man’s Journey (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 55–63; Michèle Pirazzoli-t’Serstevens, “Death and the Dead: Practices and Images in the Qin and Han,” in Early Chinese Religion, Part One: Shang through Han (1250 BC–220 AD), ed. John Lagerwey and Marc Kalinowski (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 949–1026, here 950–51; Susan N. Erickson, “Han Dynasty Tomb Structures and Contents,” China’s Early Empires: A Re-appraisal, ed. Michael Nylan and Michael Loewe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 13–82, here 14; Wu Hung, The Art of the Yellow Springs: Understanding Chinese Tombs (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2011), 33–47; Lai, Excavating the Afterlife, 70–74.

20. As far as not-so-ordinary containers are concerned, Guolong Lai states that “sacrificial vessels and foods reappeared in Han burials at a later time but for entirely different purposes (these were sacrificial offerings to the dead, rather than to the ancestors of the dead)”; see his Excavating the Afterlife, 63.

21. For descriptions of funerary rites before the actual interment, see Cook, Death in Ancient China, 19–42; Dieter Kuhn, “Tod und Beerdigung im chinesischen Altertum im Spiegel von Ritualtexten und archäologischen Funden,” Tribus 44 (1995), 208–67; Bernt Hankel, Der Weg in den Sarg: Die ersten Tage des Bestattungsrituals in den konfuzianischen Ritenklassikern (Bad Honnef: Bock + Herchen, 1994). For an in-depth study of the role of the “impersonator” (shi 尸) in such proceedings, see Michael Carr, “Personation of the Dead in Ancient China,” Computational Analyses of Asian & African Languages 24 (1985), 1–107.

22. Lü Buwei 呂不韋, L üshi chunqiu jishi 呂氏春秋集釋, ed. Xu Weiyu 許維遹 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2009), 222 (“Meng dong: Er ri jie sang” 孟冬: 二日節喪 9.5.10). See also Jeffrey Riegel, “Do Not Serve the Dead as You Serve the Living: The L üshi chunqiu Treatises on Moderation in Burial,” Early China 20 (1995), 301–30 (for a translation of the full passage, see pp. 308–9). On the career of Lü Buwei, see Michael Loewe, A Biographical Dictionary of the Qin, Former Han and Xin Periods (221 BC–AD 24) (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 420–21; on the textual history of the L üshi chunqiu, see Michael Carson and Michael Loewe, “Lü shih ch’un ch’iu,” in Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide, ed. Michael Loewe (Berkeley: The Society for the Study of Early China and The Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1993), 324–30. With some adjustments in wording, the entire passage also appears in Huainanzi 淮南子 (d. 139 b.c.e.); see Liu An 劉安, Huainanzi jishi 淮南子集釋, ed. He Ning 何寧 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1998), 10.786 (“Qi su” 齊俗).

23. Paul R. Goldin has argued that the book’s “synthetic format and presentation of ideas reflect, like the ideas themselves, the revolutionary intellectual developments of the third century BCE”; see his Confucianism (Durham: Acumen Publishing, 2011), 69. Thus, for the purposes of this study we might consider the contents of the text as roughly contemporary to the ideas visible in the L üshi chunqiu.

24. Wang Xianqian 王先謙, ed., Xunzi jijie 荀子集解 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1988), 366 (“Li lun” 禮論 13.19). For a slightly alternative translation of this passage, see John Knoblock, Xunzi: A Translation and Study of the Complete Works, Vol. III: Books 17–32 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), 67. On the textual history of the Xunzi, see Michael Loewe, “Hsün tzu,” in Loewe, Early Chinese Texts, 178–88; Shih Hsiang-lin and David R. Knechtges, Ancient and Early Medieval Chinese Literature: A Reference Guide, Part Three, ed. David R. Knechtges and Taiping Chang (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 1757–65.

25. See, for instance, Xia Nai 夏鼐, “Handai de yuqi: Handai yuqi zhong chuantong he bianhua” 漢代的玉器: 漢代玉器中傳統和變化, Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1983.2, 125–45, here 134–37; Luo Bo 羅波, “Handai yuyi yu shengxian sixiang chutan” 漢代玉衣與升僊思想初探, Wenwu chunqiu 文物春秋 1994.3, 55–6; Wu Hung 巫鴻, Liyi zhong de meishu: Wu Hung Zhongguo gudai meishu shi wenbian, shang ce 禮儀中的美術: 巫鴻中國古代美術史文編, 上册 (Beijing: Sanlian, 2005), 136–42; Robert L. Thorp, “Mountain Tombs and Jade Burial Suits: Preparations for Eternity in the Western Han,” in Ancient Mortuary Traditions of China: Papers on Chinese Ceramic Funerary Sculptures, ed. George Kuwayama (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1991), 26–39, here 33–35.

26. Most scholarship on the subject gives the impression that stone and jade cicadas were expressions of a universal phenomenon, particularly in Western Han (206 b.c.e.–9 c.e.) burials. It needs to be emphatically pointed out here that the opposite is true. The vast majority of (published) second century b.c.e. through early third century c.e. burials in mainland China did not yield such finds. The actual scope of this custom and, more importantly, the purported prevalence of related immortality practices in ancient Chinese society still await a comprehensive and systematic analysis; a task of this magnitude lies beyond the scope of this article.

27. Riegel, “Do Not Serve the Dead as You Serve the Living,” 329.

28. Wang, Xunzi jijie, 366 (“Li lun” 禮論 13.19). For a slightly alternative translation, see Knoblock, Xunzi, Vol. III, 67.

29. Sima Qian 司馬遷, Shi ji 史記 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1959), 129.3253–4.

30. Chen Li 陳立, ed., Baihu tong shuzheng 白虎通疏證 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1994), 11.556 (“Beng hong” 崩薨). On the textual history of this work, see Michael Loewe, “Pai hu t’ung,” in Loewe, Early Chinese Texts, 347–56. For a similar point of view, see also Han shu 11.339.

31. Zheng Xuan 鄭玄 and Kong Yingda 孔穎達, comm., Li ji zhengyi 禮記正義 (Beijing: Beijing daxue, 2000), 265 (“Tan gong, shang” 檀弓, 上). Also see, for instance, pp. 269–70, 277 (“Tan gong, shang”); 323 (“Tan gong, xia” 檀弓, 下); Wang, Xunzi jijie, 369 (“Li lun” 13.19).

32. Lothar von Falkenhausen, “Mortuary Behavior in Pre-Imperial Qin: A Religious Interpretation,” in Religion and Chinese Society, Vol. 1: Ancient and Medieval China, ed. John Lagerwey (Hong Kong and Paris: The Chinese University Press and École française d’Extrême-Orient, 2004), 109–72, here 148.

33. For traditional interpretations of the mingqi concept, see, for instance, Wu Hung 巫鴻, “’Mingqi’ de lilun he shijian: Zhanguo shiqi liyi meishu zhong de guannian hua qingxiang” ‘明器’的理論和實踐: 戰國時期禮儀美術中的觀念化傾向, Wenwu 2006.6, 72–81; Wu Hung, Art of the Yellow Springs, 87–99; Susan L. Beningson and Cary Y. Liu, eds., Providing for the Afterlife: ‘Brilliant Artifacts’ from Shandong (New York: China Institute, 2005); Qinghua Guo, The Mingqi Pottery Buildings of Han Dynasty China (206 BC–AD 220): Architectural Representations and Represented Architecture (Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2010). For a critical assessment of the concept with special emphasis on miniature tomb sculpture, see Armin Selbitschka, “Miniature Tomb Figurines and Models in Pre-imperial and Early Imperial China: Origins, Development, and Significance,” World Archaeology 47.1 (2015), 20–44.

34. Liu, Huainanzi jishi, 17.1219 (“Shuo lin” 說林).

35. John S. Major, Sarah A. Queen, Andrew Seth Meyer, and Harold D. Roth, transl. and eds., The Huainanzi: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Government in Early Han China (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010), 696, n.62.

36. Michael Dietler, “Feasting and Fasting,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, ed. Timothy Insoll (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 179–94, here 179 and 184–85. Also see, for instance, Michael Dietler, “Consumption,” in The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies, ed. Dan Hicks and Mary C. Beaudry (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 207–26; Michael Dietler, “Theorizing the Feast: Rituals of Consumption, Commensal Politics, and Power in African Contexts,” in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, ed. Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001), 65–114; Yannis Hamilakis, “Time, Performance, and the Production of a Mnemonic Record: From Feasting to an Archaeology of Eating and Drinking,” in DAIS: The Aegean Feast, ed. Louise A. Hitchcock, Robert Laffineur, and Janice Crowley (Liège, Belguim and Austin, TX: University of Liège and University of Texas at Austin, 2008), 3–20; Susan Pollock, “Feasts, Funerals, and Fast Foods in Early Mesopotamian States,” in Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires, ed. Tamara L. Bray (Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003), 17–38; Katheryn Twiss, “The Archaeology of Food and Social Diversity,” Journal of Archaeological Research 20.4 (2012), 357–95.

37. Brian Hayden, “Funerals as Feasts: Why Are They So Important?,” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19.1 (2009), 29–52, here 32–33; Moreover see, for instance, Brian Hayden, “Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon to the Importance of Feasts,” in Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, ed. Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001), 23–64; and Brian Hayden and Suzanne Villeneuve, “A Century of Feasting Studies,” Annual Review of Anthropology 40 (2011), 433–49.

38. Hayden, “Funerals as Feasts,” 37.

39. Hayden, “Funerals as Feasts,” 29.

40. Pace Pearson, Archaeology of Death and Burial, 10. Heinrich Härke is more cautious than most modern observers when stating that it is “conceivable that some of the items found in graves, such as cooking pots, food offerings and animal bones, were part of a funeral feast, their deposition symbolising the inclusion of the deceased in the feast;” see his “Grave Goods in Early Medieval Burials: Messages and Meanings,” Mortality 19.1 (2014), 41–60, here 50.

41. Lai, Excavating the Afterlife, 48 and 50.

42. Constance Cook, “Moonshine and Millet: Feasting and Purification Rituals in Ancient China,” in Of Tripod and Palate: Food, Politics, and Religion in Traditional China, ed. Roel Sterckx (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 9–33, here 11.

43. Not all of the guests may have appreciated, for instance, a decadent display of exotic and expensive foods. Negotiating “power and prestige,” as Guolong Lai put it (Lai, Excavating the Afterlife, 48 and 50) might very well have been the major goal of the bereaved. However, there is something to be said on the actual efficacy of such practices. Whether ostentatious displays of wealth and power indeed generate prestige is ultimately in the eyes of the beholders. On methodological issues related to status and prestige in archaeological contexts, see Armin Selbitschka, “Genuine Prestige Goods in Mortuary Contexts: Emulation in Polychrome Silk and Byzantine Solidi from Northern China,” Asian Perspectives 57.1 (2018), 2–50.

44. Cook, “Moonshine and Millet,” 11; 21–23.

45. Shi ji, 101. 2744. On the life and historical assessment of Ju Meng, see Loewe, Biographical Dictionary, 202–3.

46. See, for instance, Tomb No. 11 at Shuihudi 睡虎地 cemetery (dated 217 b.c.e.), Hubei province: Xiaogan diqu dierqi yigong yinong wenwu kaogu gongzuo renyuan xunlianban, “Hubei Yunmeng Shuihudi shiyihao Qin mu fajue jianbao” 湖北雲夢睡虎地十一號秦墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 1976.6, 1–10; Yunmeng Shuihudi Qin mu bianxiezu, Yunmeng Shuihudi Qin mu 雲夢睡虎地秦墓 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1981), esp. 7–8 and 12–25.

47. Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Xinyang Chu mu 信陽楚墓 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1986), 3; 7; also see Henan sheng wenhuaju wenwu gongzuodui diyidui, “Woguo kaogushi shang de kongqian faxian: Xinyang Changtaiguan fajue yizuo Zhanguo da mu” 我國考古史上的空前發現: 信陽長臺關發掘一座戰國大墓, Wenwu cankao ziliao 文物參考資料 1957.9, 21–32.

48. See, for instance, Zheng Shubin 鄭曙斌, “Qiance de kaogu faxian wenxian quanshi” 遣策的考古發現文獻詮釋, Dongnan wenwu 東南文物 2005.2, 28–34; Cao Wei 曹瑋, “Dong-Zhou shiqi de fengfu zhidu” 東周時期的賵賻制度, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2002.6, 39–42, esp. 41–42; Luke Habberstad, “Text, Performance, and Spectacle: The Funeral Procession of Marquis Yi of Zeng, 433 b.c.e.,” Early China 37 (2014), 181–219; Sterckx, Food, Sacrifice, and Sagehood, 144–45; Lai, Excavating the Afterlife, 142.

49. See, for instance, Shj ji, 87.2553; Han shu, 68.2948, 81.3364, 88.3605–6, 92.3714–8; Fan Ye 范曄 (398–446), Hou Han shu 後漢書 (Beijing: Zhonghua), 25.871, 42.1450, 78.2521, zhi 志 6.3152. At least in one case a father instructed his son to decline imperial gifts; see Han shu, 77.3267–8. Presents could also be given when the emperor granted the reburial of an esteemed subject at a more suitable location; see, for instance, Shi ji, 103.2772 (in this case the family accepted the new burial plot but declined the gifts).

50. Changsha shi wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Changsha jiandu bowuguan, “Hunan Changsha Wangchengpo Xi-Han Yu Yang mu fajue jianbao” 湖南長沙望城坡西漢漁陽墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 2010.4, 4–35, here 32.

51. Changsha shi wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Changsha jiandu bowuguan, “Hunan Changsha Wangchengpo Xi-Han Yu Yang mu,” 4–7.

52. For instance, many ancient Egyptian tombs yielded empty food containers; see John Baines and Peter Lacovara, “Burial and the Dead in Ancient Egyptian Society: Respect, Formalism, Neglect,” Journal of Social Archaeology 2.1 (2002), 5–36, here 15.

53. See, for instance, Patrick E. McGovern, Anne P. Underhill, Hui Fang, Fengshi Luan, Gretchen R. Hall, Haiguang Yu, Chen-shan Wang, Fengshu Cai, Zhijun Zhao, and Gary M. Feinman, “Chemical Identification and Cultural Implications of a Mixed Fermented Beverage from Late Prehistoric China,” Asian Perspectives 44.2 (2005), 249–75.

54. Wu Hung, “From Temple to Tomb: Ancient Chinese Art and Religion in Transition,” Early China 13 (1988), 78–115, esp. 90–104.

55. See, for instance, Lewis, Construction of Space, 122–23; Lai, Excavating the Afterlife, 64; Michael Puett, “The Offering of Food and the Creation of Order: The Practice of Sacrifice in Early China,” in Of Tripod and Palate: Food, Politics, and Religion in Traditional China, ed. Roel Sterckx (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 75–95, here 64. For an excellent study of sacrifices at the ancestral temple and shrines, see Roel Sterckx, “Searching for Spirit: Shen and Sacrifice in Warring States and Han Philosophy and Ritual,” Extrême-Orient, Extrême-Occident 29 (2007), 23–54.

56. On Huo Guang’s political career, see Loewe, Biographical Dictionary, 170–74. For an overview of jade suits in received literature, see Michael Loewe, “State Funerals of the Han Empire,” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 71 (1999) [2002], 5–72, esp. 30–34. On huangchang ticou burial chambers, see Aurelia Campbell, “The Form and Function of Western Han Dynasty ticou Tombs,” Artibus Asiae 70.2 (2010), 227–58.

57. Han shu, 68.2948 and 2959. For additional gifts of burial mounds and sacrificial halls, see, for instance, Han shu, 59.2653 and 99C.4168.

58. Han shu, 81.3350. For more details on Zhang Yu, see Loewe, Biographical Dictionary, 696–98.

59. Han shu, 72.3084–5.

60. Judging from the archaeological evidence, it is obvious that the funerary park was never finished. Of course, we have no way of knowing whether someone was indeed punished for failing to bring the building project to an end.

61. Hebei sheng wenwu guanlichu, “Hebei sheng Pingshan xian Zhanguo shiqi Zhongshan guo muzang fajue jianbao” 河北省平山縣戰國時期中山國墓葬發掘簡報, Wenwu 1979.1, 1–31, here 5 and 24, Figure 26; Hebei sheng wenwu yanjiusuo, Cuo mu: Zhanguo Zhongshanguo guowang zhi mu 墓: 戰國中山國國王之墓 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1995), 104–10. Moreover, see Fu Xinian 傅熹年, “Zhanguo Zhongshan wang Cuo mu chutu de ‘zhao yu tu’ jiqi lingyuan guizhi de yanjiu” 戰國中山王墓出土的‘兆域圖’及其陵園規制的研究, Kaogu xuebao 1980.1, 97–118; Cordell D. K. Yee, “Reinterpreting Traditional Chinese Geographical Maps,” in The History of Cartography, Vol. 2, Bk. 2: Cartography in the Traditional East and Southeast Asian Societies, ed. J. B. Harley and David Woodward (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 35–70, esp. 37.

62. See, for instance, David N. Keightley, “The Making of the Ancestors: Late Shang Religion and its Legacy,” in Religion and Chinese Society, Vol. 1: Ancient and Medieval China, ed. John Lagerwey (Hong Kong and Paris: The Chinese University Press and École française d’Extrême-Orient, 2004), 3–63; Puett, “The Offering of Food and the Creation of Order,” 78–79; Kenneth E. Brashier, Ancestral Memory in Ancient China (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center for the Harvard-Yenching Institute, 2011), 209.

63. See, for instance, Liu Zhen 劉珍 (d. c. 126 c.e.) et al. and Wu Shuping 吳樹平 comm., Dongguan Han ji jiaozhu 東觀漢記校注 (Zhengzhou: Zhengzhou guji, 1987) 9.281; Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian zhengli xiaozu, Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian 睡虎地秦墓竹簡 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1990), 131; Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian zhengli xiaozu, Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian 睡虎地秦墓竹簡 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1978), 219–20; A.F.P. Hulsewé, Remnants of Ch’in Law: An Annotated Translation of the Ch’in Legal and Administrative Rules of the 3rd Century B.C. Discovered in Yün-meng Prefecture, Hu-pei Province, in 1975 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 166 (D141).

64. On the Manager of Allotment, see Mark Csikszentmihalyi, “Allotment and Death in Early China,” in Mortality in Traditional Chinese Thought, ed. Amy Olberding and Philip J. Ivanhoe (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2011), 177–90.

65. Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Tianshui Fangmatan Qin jian 天水放馬灘秦簡 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2009), 59 and 107; for the excavation report, see Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Tianshui shi Beidao qu wenhuaguan, “Gansu Tianshui Fangmatan Zhanguo Qin Han muqun de fajue” 甘肅天水放馬灘戰國秦漢墓群的發掘, Wenwu 1989.2, 1–11 and 31. Moreover, see Li Xueqin 李學勤, “Fangmatan jian zhong de zhiguai gushi” 放馬灘簡中的志怪故事, Wenwu 1990.4, 43–47; Fang Yong 方勇 and Hou Na 侯娜, “Du Tianshui Fangmatan Qin jian ‘Zhiguai gushi’ zhaji” 讀天水放馬灘秦簡‘志怪故事’札記, Kaogu yu wenwu 2014.3, 72–73. Donald Harper has offered an English translation and analysis of the complete text; see his “Resurrection in Warring States Popular Religion,” Taoist Resources 5.2 (1993), 13–28. My own translation here differs in some respects from his rendition. In later periods, similar stories apparently became more popular. See Robert F. Campany, “Return-From-Death Narratives in Early Medieval China,” Journal of Chinese Religions 18 (1990), 91–125.

66. Based on Li Xueqin’s transcription, Donald Harper initially read the character ku 哭, “to weep, to cry, to sob” as hu 嗀, “to vomit, to throw up” and rendered it as “to spit;” see Harper, “Resurrection in Warring States Popular Religion,” 14; Li, “Fangmatan jian zhong de zhiguai gushi,” 44. However, at least two additional manuscripts suggest that the character in question should read ku rather than hu. One inscribed wooden tablet is part of the manuscript collection at Peking University; see Li Ling 李零, “Beida Qin du ‘Taiyuan you si zhe’ jianjie” 北大秦牘‘泰原有死者’簡介, Wenwu 2012.6, 81–84, here 83. I am grateful to Donald Harper for bringing this issue and Li Ling’s article to my attention. The second manuscript was recovered from the first century b.c.e. through first century c.e. settlement site at Xuanquan 懸泉 near Dunhuang 敦煌 in Gansu province. It offers somewhat comparable insights to the Fangmatan find:上冢,不欲哭。哭者,死人不敢食,去。Upon ascending the mound, one does not wish to cry. For those who do cry: the dead will not dare to eat and retreat.See Hu Pingsheng 胡平生 and Zhang Defang 張德芳, Dunhuang Xuanquan Han jian shicui 敦煌懸泉漢簡釋粹 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2001), 183. For the excavation report, see Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Gansu Dunhuang Handai Xuanquan zhi yizhi fajue jianbao” 甘肅敦煌漢代懸泉置遺址發掘簡報, 4–20.

67. Cogongrass is also used in Traditional Chinese Medicine; it is administered as a tea or concocted. See Catharina Y. W. Ang, KeShun Liu, and Yao-Wen Huang, eds., Asian Foods: Science and Technology (Lancaster, PA: Technomic Puglishing Company, 1999), 446. Since it is commonly known to be ingested, I believe the passage here refers to Cogongrass as food for the spirits rather than clothing.

68. According to the Hanyu da cidian, zhui 腏 (chou 餟) can either mean “sacrificial meal” or “libation;” see Luo Zhufeng 羅竹風, ed., Hanyu da cidian 漢語大詞典 (Shanghai: Hanyu da cidian, 1994), Vol. 6, 1340.

69. I follow Ulrich Unger, who rendered the phrase zhong shen 終身 with “das ganze Leben lang; immer(zu)” (“a whole lifetime; always”); see his Glossar des Klassischen Chinesisch (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1989), 14.

70. On the geng broth, see Sterckx, Food, Sacrifice, and Sagehood, 15–17.

71. On the double meaning of zhui 腏 (chou 餟), see n.68 above.

72. It is fairly well known that early Chinese thinkers took different ontological stances towards ghosts; see, for instance, Erica Brindley, “‘The Perspicuity of Ghosts and Spirits’ and the Problem of Intellectual Affiliations in Early China,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 129.2 (2009), 215–36; Paul Goldin, “The Consciousness of the Dead as a Philosophical Problem in Ancient China,” in The Good Life and Conceptions of Life in Early China and Graeco-Roman Antiquity, ed. R. A. H. King (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), 59–92; Roel Sterckx, “Mozi 31: Explaining Ghosts, Again,” in The Mozi as an Evolving Text: Different Voices in Early Chinese Thought, ed. Carine Defoort and Nicolas Standaert (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 95–141.

73. K[enneth] E. Brashier, “Han Thanatology and the Division of ‘Souls,’” Early China 21 (1996), 125–58.

74. Also see Brashier, Ancestral Memory, 188 and the manuscript find from Xuanquan discussed in n.66 above. Of course, Wang Chong 王充 (27–100) famously denied that the spirits needed to be fed since they lacked consciousness (jin suo ji si ren, si ren wu zhi, bu neng yin shi 今所祭死人, 死人無知,不能飲食). See Wang Chong, Lun heng jiaoshi 論衡校釋, ed. Huang Hui 黃暉 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1990), 1047 (“Si yi” 祀義 25.76); also see n.72 above.

75. Moreover, Roel Sterckx has briefly discussed sacrificial platforms (tan 壇), leveled spaces (shan 墠), and pits (kan 坎) that were “not normally roofed or covered, leaving both the ritual participants and the offerings exposed to the elements;” see his Food, Sacrifice, and Sagehood, 115.

76. Shi ji, 130.3292; see also 10.427, 106.2795. For similar views, see, for instance, Han shu, 5.148, 51.2369 and Wang, Lun heng jiaoshi, 831 (“Hui guo” 恢國 19.58), 965 (“Bo zang” 薄葬 23.67).

77. On the issue of social differentiation in early Chinese mortuary contexts, see Armin Selbitschka, “I Write Therefore I Am: Scribes, Literacy, and Identity in Early China,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 78.2 (2018), forthcoming.

78. Xuzhou bowuguan, “Xuzhou Shiqiao Han mu qingli baogao” 徐州石橋漢墓清理報告, Wenwu 1984.11, 22–40, here 38; Xuzhou bowuguan, “Jiangsu Xuzhou shi Gushan Xi-Han mu” 江蘇徐州市顧山西漢墓, Kaogu 考古 2005.12, 48–58, here 49; Xuzhou bowuguan, “Jiangsu Xuzhou shi Cuipingshan Xi-Han Liu Zhi mu fajue jianbao” 江蘇徐州市翠屏山西漢劉治墓發掘簡報, Kaogu 2008.9, 11–24, here 11; Xuzhou bowuguan, “Xuzhou Tuolongshan wuzuo Xi-Han mu de fajue” 徐州拖龍山五座西漢墓的發掘, Kaogu xuebao 2010.1, 101–32, here 101–2.

79. Yang Bojun 楊伯峻, ed., Chun qiu Zuo zhuan zhu 春秋左傳注 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1995), 697–98 (“Xuan gong” 宣公, Year 8 [601 b.c.e.]); also see Stephen Durrant, Wai-yee Li, and David Schaberg, transl., Zuo Tradition, Zuozhuan: Commentary on the “Spring and Autumn Annals, Vol. 1 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2016), 622–23.

80. Gansu sheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Tianshui Fangmatan Qin jian, 7, 25, 83, 91. Wang Chong also mentions auspicious days for burials; see Wang, Lun heng jiaoshi, 989–92 (“Ji ri” 譏日 24.70). The fact that a number of contemporaneous thinkers denied the possibility of resurrection has been briefly discussed earlier; see n.76 above.

81. Hou Han shu, 45.1522.

82. Anna Seidel, “Traces of Han Religion in Funeral Texts Found in Tombs,” in Dōkyō to shūkyō bunka 道教と宗教文化, ed. Akitsuki Kann’ei 秋月觀暎 (Tokyo: Hirakawa Stuppansha, 1987), 21–57, here 42–43; Anna Seidel, “Geleitbriefe an die Unterwelt: Jenseitsvorstellungen in den Graburkunden der späten Han-Zeit,” in Religion und Philosophie, ed. Gert Naundorf (Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann, 1985), 161–83, here 169; Terry F. Kleeman, “Land Contracts and Related Documents,” in Chūgoku no shūkyō, s hisō to kagaku: Makio Ryōkai hakushi shōju kinen ronshū 中國の宗教, 思想と科學: 牧尾良海博士頌壽紀念論集, ed. Makio Ryōkai hakushi shōju kinen ronshū kankōkai 牧尾良海博士頌壽紀念論集刊行會 (Tokyo: Kokusho kankōkai, 1984), 1–34, here 4–5.

83. Wang, Lun heng jiaoshi, 995 (“Ji ri” 譏日 24.70) and 1044 (“Jie chu” 解除 25.75).

84. See, for instance, Kominami Ichirō, “Rituals for the Earth,” in Early Chinese Religion. Part One: Shang through Han (1250 BC-220 AD), ed. John Lagerwey and Marc Kalinowski (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009), 201–34; esp. 216–20; Marianne Bujard, “State and Local Cults in Han Religion,” in Early Chinese Religion. Part One, 777–811, esp. 785–87; Ding Shan 丁山, “Houji Houtu Shennong Rushou kao, shang” 后稷后土神農蓐收考, 上, Wenshi 文史 55 (2001.2), 1–13. For an in-depth study of late pre-imperial and early imperial sacrifices as described in excavated manuscripts, see Charles Sanft, “Paleographic Evidence of Qin Religious Practice from Liye and Zhoujiatai,” Early China 37 (2014), 327–58.

85. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo Houma gongzuozhan, “Shanxi Houma Xigao Dong-Zhou jisi yizhi,” 山西侯馬西高東周祭祀遺址, Wenwu 2003.8, 18–36, here 36.

86. Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Xinzheng Zhengguo jisi yizhi, 3 juan 新鄭鄭國祭祀遺址, 三卷 (Zhengzhou: Daxiang, 2005), 40, 916–17.

87. Zhu Jiang 朱江, “Jiangsu Gaoyou Shaojiagou Handai yizhi de qingli” 江蘇高郵邵家溝漢代遺址的清理, Kaogu 1960.10, 18–23 and 44, here 21.

88. One bamboo slip from Shuihudi Tomb No. 11 very well fits the archaeological evidence at Xinzheng. The manuscript indicates that the implements that were used in the “sacrifices of the royal house” (wang shi ci 王室祠) were buried after the ceremonies were over. See Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian zhengli xiaozu, Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian (1990), 100; Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian zhengli xiaozu, Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian (1978), 163; Hulsewé, Remnants of Ch’in Law, 128 (D22).

89. Anhui sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Anhui Changfeng Zhanguo wanqi Chu mu” 安徽長豐戰國晚期楚墓, Kaogu 1994.2, 119–26, here 120 and 121.

90. Anhui sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Anhui Dingyuan Houjiazhai Xi-Han mu” 安徽定遠侯家寨西漢墓, Kaogu 1987.6, 568–69, here 569.

91. See subsection “Food containers and the idea of food storage” of section 2.3 below.

92. Anhui sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Anhui Changfeng Zhanguo wanqi Chu mu,” 119–20.

93. For additional evidence, see, for instance, Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Jingmen shi bowuguan, “Hubei Jingmen Shilipu Tugongtai Han mu fajue jianbao” 湖北荆門十里铺土公台西漢墓發掘簡報, Jiang Han kaogu 2008.3, 11–32 and 85, here 13 (M1). In addition, the shafts of Tombs No. 2 and 17 yielded several pots each. For a discussion of their significance, see the subsection “Food containers in tomb shafts” of section 2.2 below.

94. See n.66 above.

95. Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Hubei Jingmen Shilipu Tugongtai Han mu,” 13–14.

96. See, for instance, Xiangfan shi bowuguan, “Xiangfan Yugang Zhanguo Qin Han mu dierci fajue jianbao” 襄樊余崗戰國秦漢墓第二次發掘簡報, Jiang Han kaogu 2003.2, 3–15, here 5 (LM1); Xi’an shi wenwu baohu kaogusuo and Zhengzhou daxue kaogu zhuanye, Chang’an Han mu 長安漢墓 (Xi’an: Shaanxi renmin, 2004), 38 (M93); 58–59 (M107); Qin yong kaogudui, “Lintong Shangjiaocun Qin mu qingli jianbao” 臨潼上焦村秦墓清理簡報, Kaogu yu wenwu 1980.2, 42–50 and 27, here 42 (M12). Pieces of charcoal in black pottery yielded by three small, triangular niches in each of the shafts of Tombs No. 1 and 2 at Gaozhuang 高庄, Shaanxi province suggest that these were not primarily related to sacrifices. It seems most likely that fires were lit in these bowls in order to provide light during the stocking of the lateral burial chamber of both catacomb tombs. See Yongcheng kaogu gongzuodui, “Fengxiang xian Gaozhuang Zhanguo Qin mu fajue jianbao” 鳳翔縣高庄戰國秦墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 1980.9, 10–14 and 31, here 10.

97. For an overview of changes in early Chinese tomb architecture, see, for instance, Pu (Poo), Muzang yu shengsi, 55–138; Huang Xiaofen 黃曉芬, Han mu de kaoguxue yanjiu 漢墓的考古學研究 (Changsha: Yuelu, 2003); Qinghua Guo, “Tomb Architecture of Dynastic China: Old and New Questions,” Architectural History 47 (2004), 1–24.

98. Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Luoyang fajuedui, “Luoyang Jianbin gu wenhua yizhi ji Han mu” 洛陽澗濱古文化遺址及漢墓, Kaogu xuebao 1956.1, 11–28, here 21, Figure 8, 26; Xi’an shi wenwu baohu kaogusuo et al., Chang’an Han mu, 227–28 (for a vessel lid in front of a different chamber, see pp. 93–96).

99. See, for instance, Datong shi kaogu yanjiusuo, “Shanxi Datong Tianzhen Shaliangpo Han mu fajue jianbao” 山西大同天鎮沙梁坡漢墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 2012.9, 23–34, here 26–27 (M10); Xianyang shi wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Shaanxi Xianyang Dujiabao Dong-Han mu qingli jianbao” 陝西咸陽杜家堡東漢墓清理簡報, Wenwu 2005.4, 43–50 and 61, here 43; Xi’an shi wenwu baohu kaogusuo, Xi’an Longshouyuan Han mu 西安龍首原漢墓 (Xi’an: Xibei daxue, 1999), 166–69 (M170); Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Xi’an Tangcheng gongzuodui, “Xi’an beijiao Longshoucun Xi-Han mu fajue jianbao” 西安北郊龍首村西漢墓發掘簡報, Kaogu 2002.5, 31–46, here 32 (M2); Xi’an shi wenwu baohu kaogu yanjiuyuan, “Xi’an Zhangjiabaocun Han muqun” 西安張家堡村漢墓群, Zhongguo guojia bowuguan guankan 中國國家博物館館刊 2015.4, 6–38, here 14, Figure 21 (M1); Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Gansu Wushan xian Donghanping Zhanguo Qin Han muzang” 甘肅武山縣東旱坪戰國秦漢墓葬, Kaogu 2003.6, 32–43, here 36.

100. For an undisturbed tomb that yielded but a single vessel, see, for instance, Xi’an shi wenwu baohu kaogusuo, Xi’an Longshouyuan Han mu, 34 (M10). For a cemetery in which the majority of tombs did yield very little or no food vessels, see Henan sheng wenwuju 河南文物局, Tangyin Wuligang Zhanguo mudi 湯陰五里崗戰國墓地 (Beijing: Kexue, 2016).

101. See, for instance, Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Nanzhang xian bowuguan, “Hubei Nanzhang Chuanmiaoshan Dong-Zhou mudi 2014 nian fajue baogao” 湖北南漳川廟山東周墓地 2014 年發掘報告, Jiang Han kaogu 2015.4, 20–56, here 24, Figure 11; Jingzhou bowuguan, “Hubei Jingzhou Heyue Han, Song muzang fajue jianbao” 湖北荊州和悅漢, 宋墓葬發掘簡報, Wenbo 文博 2016.1, 17–22, here 19 (M6); Guangzhou shi wenwu guanli weiyuanhui and Guangzhou shi bowuguan, Guangzhou Han mu 廣州漢墓 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1981), 37 (M1105). Contrary to most of the other finds discussed here, loose food inside coffins does not pose a bigger heuristic problem. In a few cases, the interior of coffins displayed a thick stratum of stalks and husks of rice and other cereals at the very bottom. See, for instance, Handan shi wenwu guanlichu et al., “Hebei Shexian Suobao Han mu,” 13 (M1); Changjiang liuyu dierqi wenwu kaogu gongzuo renyuan xunlianban, “Hubei Jiangling Fenghuangshan Xi-Han mu fajue jianbao” 湖北江陵鳳凰山西漢墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 1974.6, 41–61, here 44 (M8; M9; M10; M12); Hubei sheng Jiangling xian wenwuju et al., “Jiangling Yueshan Qin Han mu,” 539. Seeing that layers of regular grass and sometimes ash were lining coffins in different burials, it would seem that both kinds of measures served as padding. See, for instance, Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Hubei sheng Yunmeng Zhenzhupo M17, M18 fajue jianbao” 湖北省雲夢珍珠坡 M17, M18 發掘簡報, Jiang Han kaogu 1992.2, 5–7, here 5 (M17); Shandong sheng bowuguan and Linyi wenwuzu, “Shandong Linyi Xi-Han mu faxian ‘Sunzi bingfa’ he ‘Sunbin bingfa’ deng zhujian de jianbao” 山東臨沂西漢墓發現«孫子兵法»和«孫臏兵法»等竹簡的簡報, Wenwu 1974.2, 15–26, here 16 (M1); Wuwei shi wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Gansu Wuwei Mozuizi Han mu fajue jianbao,” 4. There was also the skeleton of a juvenile dog on the coffin of the male occupant of Tomb No. 1 at Shexian in Hebei province. See Handan shi wenwu guanlichu et al., “Hebei Shexian Suobao Han mu,” 13.

102. Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Xinyang Chu mu, 20; 116.

103. See, for instance, Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Jiangling Wangshan Shazhong Chu mu 江陵望山沙塚楚墓 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1996), 121 (WM2); 194 (WM3); Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Jingmen shi bowuguan, and Xiang Jing gaosu gonglu kaogudui, Jingmen Zuozhong Chu mu 荊門左冢楚墓 (Beijing: Wenwu, 2006), 30.

104. Harper, Early Chinese Medical Literature, 103; 256; 276–77; 279; 364.

105. Harper, Early Chinese Medical Literature, 103. At least in one burial, Tomb No. 26 at Xiaojiacao 蕭家草 in Jiangling 江陵 county (dated c. late third to mid-second century b.c.e.), Hubei province, emerged in association with other spices such as ginger as well as piglet and chicken bones so that its use in curing food is also attested in funerary contexts. See Hubei sheng Jingzhou shi Zhouliang Yuqiao yizhi bowuguan, Guanju Qin Han mu jiandu 關沮秦漢墓簡牘 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2001), 180; Hubei sheng Jingzhou shi Zhouliang Yuqiao yizhi bowuguan, “Guanju Qin Han mu qingli jianbao” 關沮秦漢墓清理簡報, Wenwu 1999.6, 26–47, here 42.

106. Hubei sheng Jingzhou shi Zhouliang Yuqiao yizhi bowuguan, Guanju Qin Han mu jiandu, 165. The rice stalks were not yet mentioned in the preliminary report; see Hubei sheng Jingzhou shi Zhouliang Yuqiao yizhi bowuguan, “Guanju Qin Han mu qingli jianbao,” esp. 32–42. Rice stalks have also been found on top of the coffin of Tomb No. 44 at Shuihudi, Hubei province (dated c. mid- to late third century b.c.e.); see Hubei sheng bowuguan, “1978 nian Yunmeng Qin Han mu fajue baogao” 1978 年雲夢秦漢墓發掘報告, Kaogu xuebao 1986.4, 479–525, here 484.

107. Wuwei shi wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Gansu Wuwei Mozuizi Han mu fajue jianbao” 甘肅武威磨嘴子漢墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 2011.6, 4–11, here 4; 10.

108. Gansu sheng bowuguan, “Wuwei Mojuzi sanzuo Han mu fajue jianbao” 武威磨咀子三座漢墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 1972.12, 9–21, here 10, 12 (M48: dated late first century b.c.e.; M49: dated 126–167 c.e.); Gansu sheng bowuguan, “Gansu Wuwei Mojuzi Han mu fajue” 甘肅武威磨咀子漢墓發掘, Kaogu 1960.9, 15–28, here 25 (M23: dated early first century c.e.).

109. Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Riben Qiutian xian maicang wenhuacai zhongxin, and Gansu sheng bowuguan, “2003 nian Gansu Wuwei Mojuzi mudi fajue jianbao” 2003年甘肅武威磨咀子墓地發掘簡報, Kaogu yu wenwu 2012.5, 28–38, here 31; 33 (M6).

110. Hubei sheng Jiangling xian wenwuju and Jingzhou diqu bowuguan, “Jiangling Yueshan Qin Han mu” 江陵嶽山秦漢墓, Kaogu xuebao 2000.4, 537–63, here 539, Figure 4 (M15).

111. Yunmeng xian wenwu gongzuozu, “Hubei Yunmeng Shuihudi Qin Han mu fajue jianbao” 湖北雲夢睡虎地秦漢墓發掘簡報, Kaogu 1981.1, 27–47, here 29 (M36); Hubei sheng bowuguan, “1978 nian Yunmeng Qin Han mu fajue baogao,” 480; 483; 488–89; 517 (M44; M45); Yunmeng Shuihudi Qin mu bianxiezu, Yunmeng Shuihudi Qin mu 雲夢睡虎地秦墓 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1981), 7–8; 60 (M11).

112. See n. 21 above.

113. For pairs of hemp shoes, see Gansu sheng Bowuguan, “Wuwei Mojuzi sanzuo Han mu fajue jianbao” 10; 12 (1972WMM49; 1972WMM62; both dated to the early first century c.e.); for a pair of hemp shoes and a wooden staff, see Hubei sheng Jingzhou shi Zhouliang Yuqiao yizhi bowuguan, Guanju Qin Han mu jiandu, 165.

114. Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Jiangling Fenghuangshan yiliuba hao Han mu” 江陵鳳凰山一六八號漢墓, Kaogu xuebao 1993.4, 455–513, here 490.

115. Falkenhausen, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius, 194; 269–70. More recently, this stance has been reiterated by Guolong Lai in his Excavating the Afterlife, 50.

116. Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Hubei Yunxian Zhongtaizi yizhi fajue baogao” 湖北鄖縣中臺子遺址發掘報告, Jiang Han kaogu 2011.1, 3–41, here 7–8.

117. See, for instance, Qindu Xianyang kaogudui, “Xianyang shi Huangjiagou Zhanguo mu fajue jianbao” 咸陽市黃家溝戰國墓發掘簡報, Kaogu yu wenwu 1982.6, 6–15, here 6; Hunan sheng bowuguan, “Hunan Zixing jiushi Zhanguo mu” 湖南資興舊市戰國墓, Kaogu xuebao 1983.1, 93–124, here 97 (M494; M579; both dated to early Zhanguo period); Guangdong sheng bowuguan, “Guangdong Sihui Niaodanshan Zhanguo mu” 廣東四會擬鳥旦山戰國墓, Kaogu 1975.2, 102–8 (dated to late early Zhanguo); Guangxi Zhuangzu Zizhiqu wenwu gongzuodui 廣西壯族自治區文物工作隊, “Pingle Yinshanling Zhanguo mu” 平樂銀山嶺戰國墓, Kaogu xuebao 1978.2, 211–58, esp. 213–22 (dated to late Zhanguo); Guangzhou shi wenwu guanli weiyuanhui et al., Guangzhou Han mu, 31 (M1025; M1026; both dated to early Western Han).

118. The latter was, for instance, the case at the large fifth century b.c.e. Tomb No. 1 at Xinyang 信陽, Henan province. The yaokeng below the wooden chamber had been lined with rice straw and yielded the remains of a small deer and some of its feces, which indicates that the animal might have been buried alive. See Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Xinyang Chu mu, 3.

119. See, for instance, Robert Wessing and Roy E. Jordaan, “Death at the Building Site: Construction Sacrifice in Southeast Asia,” History of Religions 37.2 (1997), 101–21, esp. 105–7.

120. Thomas O. Höllmann, “Die Stellung des Hundes im alten China,” in Zur frühen Mensch-Tier-Symbiose, ed. Hermann Müller-Karpe (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1983), 157–75, here 161–62; Roel Sterckx, The Animal and the Daemon in Early China (Albany: State University of New York, 2002), 231. Also see n.158 below. Occasionally, dog bones also figured prominently among food waste yielded by settlement refuse pits. See, for instance, Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Gansu Dunhuang Xuanquanzhi yizhi fajue jianbao” 甘肅敦煌懸泉置遺址發掘簡報, Wenwu 2000.5, 4–20, here 16.

121. There is evidence of dogs as construction sacrifices at the early Neolithic site at Jiahu 賈湖, Henan province (dated c. 7000–5500 b.c.e.); see Zhang Yuzhong and Cui Qilong, “The Jiahu Site in the Huai River Area,” in A Companion to Chinese Archaeology, ed. Anne P. Underhill (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), 194–212, here 208. A more recent example of construction sacrifices comes from Yanxiadu 燕下都, Hebei province, where animal bones were placed at the bottom of postholes at a fifth to fourth century b.c.e. settlement site; see Hebei sheng wenhuaju wenwu gongzuodui, “Hebei Yixian Yanxiadu gucheng kancha he shijue” 河北易縣燕下都故城勘察和試掘, Kaogu xuebao 1965.1, 83–106, here 90–91. Also see Kei Shōran 桂小蘭, Kodai Chūgoku no inu bunka: shokuyō to saishi o chūshin ni 古代中國の犬文化: 食用と祭祀を中心に (Suita: Ōsaka daigaku shuppankai, 2005).

122. For burials in which canine remains were associated with other foodstuff or food vessels, see, for instance, Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Xincai Geling Chu mu 新蔡葛陵楚墓 (Zhengzhou: Daxiang, 2003), 165; Xuzhou bowuguan, “Jiangsu Xuzhou Kuishan Xi-Han mu” 江蘇徐州奎山西漢墓, Kaogu 1974.2, 121–22 and 120, here 121, Figure 1.22; Handan shi wenwu baohu yanjiusuo, “Handan shi Jianshe dajie Zhanguo Han muzang fajue baogao” 邯鄲市建設大街戰國漢墓葬發掘報告, Wenwu chunqiu 2004.6, 35–60 and 134, here 42 (HNM1), 58 (HNM15); Qinghai sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Shangsun j iazhai Han Jin mu 上孫家寨漢晉墓, 26 (M135).

123. See, for instance, Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Gansu Qin’an Wangwa Zhanguo mudi 2009 nian fajue jianbao” 甘肅秦安王洼戰國墓地 2009 年發掘簡報, Wenwu 2012.8, 27–37, here 31.

124. William J. Pestle and L. Antonio Curet, “Food and Status,” in Metheny and Beaudry, Archaeology of Food, 199–201.

125. Handan shi wenwu guanlichu and Shexian wenwu baoguansuo, “Hebei Shexian Suobao Han mu” 河北涉縣索堡漢墓, Wenwu chunqiu 文物春秋 1996.1, 12–19 and 63, here 13.

126. Jinan shi kaougu yanjiusuo, “Jinan shi Lashan Han mu fajue jianbao” 濟南市臘山漢墓發掘簡報, Kaogu 2004.8, 17–25, here 18–19. For additional evidence of complete dog skeletons immediately in front of a burial chambers, see Xi’an shi wenwu baohu kaogusuo, Xi’an Longshouyuan Han mu, 47; Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Gansu Wushan xian Donghanping Zhanguo Qin Han muzang,” 36. Watch dogs are also attested in received literature; see Höllmann, “Die Stellung des Hundes,” 160; Sterckx, The Animal and the Daemon, 231.

127. See, for instance, Wang Lixin, “The Lower Xiajiadian Culture of the Western Liao River Drainage System,” in Underhill, A Companion to Chinese Archaeology, 81–102, here 93; He Nu, “The Longshan Period Site of Taosi in Southern Shanxi Province,” in Underhill, A Companion to Chinese Archaeology, 255–77, here 267.

128. See, for instance, Zhengzhou shi wenwu kaogu yanjiuyuan, “Zhengzhou shi Jinshui qu Langqiao shuian Zhanguo wanqi Qin mu fajue jianbao” 鄭州市金水區廊橋水岸戰國晚期秦墓發掘簡報, Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 2013.4, 14–25; Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Xiangfan shi kaogudui, and Xiangyang qu wenwu guanlichu, Xiangyang Wangpo Dong-Zhou Qin Han mu 襄陽王坡東周秦漢墓 (Beijing: Wenwu, 2005), 73 (M118; M119; M120), 78 (M10; M21), 82 (M143); Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Xiangfan shi kaogudui, “Hubei Xiangfan shi Penggang Dong-Zhou muqun disanci fajue” 湖北襄樊市彭崗東周墓群第三次發掘, Kaogu 1997.8, 61–77; Hubei sheng Yichang diqu bowuguan and Beijing daxue kaoguxi, Dangyang Zhaojiahu Chu mu 當陽趙家湖楚墓 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1992), 64 (ZHM5), 66 (JM183), 67 (JM81), 68 (JM159); Hunan sheng Yiyang diqu wenwu gongzuodui, “Yiyang Chu mu” 益陽楚墓, Kaogu xuebao 1985.1, 89–117; Changde shi bowuguan, “Hunan Changde Paomagang Zhanguo mu fajue jianbao” 湖南常德跑馬崗戰國墓發掘簡報, Jiang Han kaogu 2003.3, 36–48; Changde shi wenwu guanlichu, “Hunan Changde xian Huangtushan Chu mu fajue baogao” 湖南常德縣黄土山楚墓發掘報告, Jiang Han kaogu 1995.1, 1–18; Changde shi wenwu shiye guanlichu, “Hunan Changde Deshan Maowan Zhanguo mu fajue jianbao” 湖南常德德山茅灣戰國墓發掘簡報, Jiang Han kaogu 1997.3, 33–38; Jingmen Bowuguan, “Jingmen shi Zilinggang gumu fajue jianbao” 荆門市子陵崗古墓發掘簡報, Jiang Han kaogu 1990.4, 1–11 and 55; Henan sheng wenwuju nanshui beidiao wenwu baohu bangongshi, Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, and Zhumadian shi wenwu kaogu guanlisuo, “Henan Xichuan xian Machuan mudi Dong-Zhou muzang de fajue” 河南淅川縣馬川墓地東周墓葬的發掘, Kaogu 2010.6, 36–56; Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiuyuan and Henan sheng wenwuju nanshui beidiao wenwu baohu bangongshi, “Henan Xichuan Yanganling Chu mu fajue jianbao” 河南淅川縣閰桿領楚墓發掘簡報, Huaxia kaogu 華夏考古 2014.4, 17–30.

129. Handan shi wenwu baohu yanjiusuo, “Handan shi Jianshe Dajie Zhanguo Han muzang,” 37 (HSM5); Hunan sheng bowuguan, “Hunan Zixing jiushi Zhanguo mu,” 96 (M436); Hunan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Yuanling Muxingshan Zhanguo mu fajue jianbao” 沅陵木形山戰國墓發掘簡報, Hunan kaogu jikan 湖南考古輯刊 1999, 92–96 (M15).

130. Hunan sheng Bowuguan, “Hunan Zixing jiushi Zhanguo mu,” 96, Figure 8 (M229), 96, Figure 9 (M245), 97, Figure 10 (M193).

131. Falkenhausen, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius, 105.

132. Falkenhausen, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius, 528, 531, 548; Rose Kerr and Nigel Wood, eds., Science and Civilisation in China, Vol. 5: Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Part XII: Ceramic Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 4, 29. The latter speaks of “wide-bellied storage jars with narrow necks” (p. 4).

133. Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Fengxi fajuedui, “1960 nian chun Shaanxi Chang’an Zhangjiapo fajue jianbao” 1960 年春陝西長安張家坡發掘簡報, Kaogu 1962.1, 20–22, here 20–21; Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Fengxi fajuedui, “1979–1981 nian Chang’an Fengxi, Fengdong fajue jianbao” 1979–1981 年長安灃西, 灃東發掘簡報, Kaogu 1986.3, 197–209, here 204–5.

134. Luoyang shi dier wenwu gongzuodui, “Luoyang Mengjin Zhucang Dong-Han diling lingyuan yizhi” 洛陽孟津朱倉東漢帝陵陵園遺址, Wenwu 2011.9, 4–31, here 8.

135. Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Xiangfan shi kaogudui, “Hubei Xiangfan shi Penggang Dong-Zhou muqun,” 62 (M34).

136. See, for instance, Sichuan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiuyuan, Ya’an shi wenwu guanlisuo, and Hanyuan xian wenwu guanlisuo, “Sichuan Hanyuan xian Longwangmiao yizhi 2008 nian fajue jianbao” 四川漢源縣龍王廟遺址 2008 年發掘簡報, Wenwu 2013.5, 14–30, here 26–27 (M2); Hunan sheng bowuguan, Hunan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Changsha shi bowuguan, and Changsha shi wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Changsha Chu mu 長沙楚墓 (Beijing: Wenwu, 2000), 57 (M1274); Xinxiang shi bowuguan, “Henan Xinxiang Wulingcun Zhanguo Liang Han mu” 河南新鄉五陵村戰國兩漢墓, Kaogu xuebao 1990.1, 103–35, here 103–5 (M2); Zhengzhou daxue lishi xueyuan kaoguxi and Henan sheng wenwuju nanshui beidiao wenwu baohu bangongshi, “Henan Xinxiang shi Laodaojing mudi Zhanguo mu fajue jianbao” 河南新鄉市老道井墓地戰國墓發掘簡報, Huaxia kaogu 2008.4, 16–28 and 47, here 17–18 (M29; M43); Xuchang shi wenwu gongzuodui, “Henan Xuchang shi Cangkulu Zhanguo he Handai muzang fajue jianbao” 河南許昌市倉庫路戰國和漢代墓葬發掘簡報, Huaxia kaogu 2009.4, 3–15, here 4 (M11); Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Hubei Nanzhang Chuanmiaoshan Dong-Zhou mudi 2014 nian,” 26–27 (M12); Hubei sheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Hubei Jingzhou shi Shijiadi Chu mu fajue jianbao” 湖北荆州市施家地楚墓發掘簡報, Kaogu 2000.8, 36–54, here 37–38 (M832); Changde shi Bowuguan, “Hunan Changde Paomagang Zhanguo mu,” 37 (M7); Wang Jiugang 王久剛, “Xi’an Nanjiao Shanmenkou Zhanguo Qin mu qingli jianbao” 西安南郊山門口戰國秦墓清理簡報, Kaogu yu wenwu 1994.1, 27–31, here 27 (M10); Xi’an shi Wenwu Baohu Kaogu Yanjiuyuan, “Xi’an Zhangjiabao cun Han muqun” 西安張家堡村漢墓群, Zhongguo guojia bowuguan guankan 中國國家博物館館刊 2015.4, 6–38, here 10; Shaanxi sheng Kaogu Yanjiuyuan, Xi’an Youjiazhuang Qin mu 西安尤家庄秦墓 (Xi’an: Shaanxi kexue jishu, 2008), 179 (M39); Zhao Yipeng 趙藝蓬 and Chen Gang 陳鋼, “Taicheng Han mu M132 suizangpin weizhi fenxi: Jianlun muzang wenhua yinsu quwei fenxi fangfa” 邰城漢墓 M132 随葬品位置分析: 兼論墓葬文化因素區位分析方法, Wenbo 2014.1, 38–42, here 39–41; Guangzhou shi Wenwu Guanli Weiyuanhui et al., Guangzhou Han mu, 53 (M1117); Sichuan sheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiuyuan, Ya’an shi Wenwu Guanlisuo, and Hanyuan Wenwu Guanlisuo, “Sichuan Hanyuan xian Longwangmiao yizhi 2008 nian fajue jianbao” 四川漢源縣龍王廟遺址 2008 年發掘簡報, Sichuan wenwu 2013.5, 14–30, here 26 (M2).

137. Roel Sterckx, “An Ancient Chinese Horse Ritual,” Early China 21 (1996), 47–79, here 51 and 55. On the double meaning of zhui 腏 (chou 餟), see n.68 above.

138. Harper, Early Chinese Medical Literature, 270.

139. See especially subsections “Food in ancillary storage pits” and “Food container and the idea of food storage” of section 2.3 and subsection “Sacrifices to the dead” of section 2.4 below.

140. See, for instance, Henan wenwuju, Huixian Han mu 輝縣漢墓 (Beijing: Kexue, 2014), 88; Henan sheng Nanyang diqu wenwu yanjiusuo, “Xinye Fanji Han huaxiang zhuanmu”新野樊集漢畫像磚墓, Kaogu xuebao 1990.4, 475–509, here 485 (M16); Yulin shi wenwu baohu yanjiusuo and Jingbian xian wenwu guanli bangongshi, “Shaanxi Jingbian Laofenliang Han mu fajue jianbao” 陕西靖邊老墳梁漢墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 2011.10, 51–69, here 67; Xianyang shi wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Ta’erpo Qin mu 塔兒坡秦墓 (Xi’an: Sanqin, 1998); Guangxi wenwu baohu yu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Guangxi Hepu xian Shuangfendun mu fajue jianbao” 廣西河浦縣雙墳墩墓發掘簡報, Kaogu 2016.4, 33–44, here 35 (M3; M4). More generally on the advantages of pit storage in early China, see Thomas O. Höllmann, The Land of the Five Flavors: A Cultural History of Chinese Cuisine (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014), 38–39.

141. Gushi Hougudui yihao mu fajuezu, “Henan Gushi Hougudui yihao mu fajue jianbao” 河南固始侯古堆一號墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 1981.1, 1–8. For a second early example, see Anhui sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Fengyang xian wenwu guanlisuo, “Anhui Fengyang Qiaojianzi chunqiu Zhongliguo guizu muzang fajue jianbao” 安徽鳳陽喬澗子春秋鍾離國貴族墓葬發掘簡報, Jiang Han kaogu 2015.2, 12–20, here 13. The ancillary pit yielded five ritual bronzes, one bronze scratch knife, six ceramic vessels that emulated bronze ritual vessels, four ceramic pots, and one large ceramic plate.

142. See, for instance, Lin Bo 林泊, “Shaanxi Lishan xiaoxing Qin mu jiweikeng de kancha” 陝西驪山小型秦墓祭位坑的勘查, Kaogu 2002.1, 93–95; Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiuyuan, “Shaanxi Chang’an Shenheyuan Zhanguo Qin ling yizhi tianye kaogu xin shouhuo” 陝西長安神禾塬戰國秦陵園遺址田野考古新收獲, Kaogu yu wenwu 2008.5, 111–12; Yangzhou bowuguan, “Jiangsu Yangzhou shi Xihu zhen guoyuan Zhanguo mu de qingli” 江蘇揚州市西湖鎮果園戰國墓的清理, Kaogu 2002.11, 35–41, here 36 (M1). For a late eighth century b.c.e. tomb with ancillary pit, see Xinyang diqu wenguanhui and Guangshan xian wenguanhui, “Henan Guangshan Chunqiu Huang Lituofu mu fajue jianbao” 河南光山春秋黃李佗父墓發掘簡報, Kaogu 1989.1, 26–32.

143. For the full reference, see n. 50 above.

144. See, for instance, Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo Hanling kaogudui, “Han Jingdi Yangling nanqu congzangkeng fajue diyihao jianbao” 漢景帝陽陵南區從葬坑發掘第一號簡報, Wenwu 1992.4, 1–13; Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo Hanling kaogudui, “Han Jingdi Yangling nanqu congzangkeng fajue dierhao jianbao” 漢景帝陽陵南區從葬坑發掘第二號簡報, Wenwu 1994.6, 1–23 and 30; Han Yangling kaogu chenlieguan, Han Yangling kaogu chenlieguan 漢陽陵考古陳列館 (Beijing: Wenwu, 2004); Han Yangling bowuguan, Han Yangling yu Han wenhua yanjiu, di er ji 漢陽陵與漢文化研究, 第二輯 (Xi’an: San Qin, 2012). For Pit K13A, see Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, “Han Yangling diling dongce 11–21 hao waizangkeng fajue jianbao” 漢陽陵帝陵東側 11–21 號外藏坑發掘簡報, Kaogu yu wenwu 2008.3, 3–32, here 17–19.

145. Selbitschka, “Miniature Tomb Figurines,” 36; 39.

146. Henan sheng wenhuaju wenwu gongzuodui, “Luoyang Xi-Han bihua mu fajue baogao” 洛陽西漢壁畫墓發掘報告, Kaogu xuebao 1964.2, 107–25, here 118; quotation on p. 123. On the significance of such inscribed pottery granaries, also see Armin Selbitschka, “Quotidian Afterlife: Grain, Granary Models, and the Notion of Continuing Nourishment in Late Pre-imperial and Early Imperial Tombs,” in Über den Alltag hinaus: Festschrift für Thomas O. Höllmann zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Shing Müller and Armin Selbitschka (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, forthcoming), 101–18.

147. See, for instance, Henan sheng wenhuaju gongzuodui, “Henan Xin’an Tiemenzhen Xi-Han muzang fajue baogao” 河南新安鐵門鎮西漢墓發掘報告, Kaogu xuebao 1959.2, 57–73, here 63; Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Luoyang fajuedui, “Luoyang Xijiao Han mu fajue baogao” 洛陽西郊漢墓發掘報告, Kaogu xuebao 1963.2, 1–58, here 49 (M3050; M3083; M3087); Luoyang shi dier wenwu gongzuodui, “Luoyang Gaoxin jishu kaifaqu Xi-Han mu (GM646)” 洛陽高新技術開發區西漢墓 (GM646), Wenwu 2005.9, 36–45, here 42–43.

148. Qiu Guangming 丘光明, Zhongguo lidai duliangheng kao 中國歷代度量衡考 (Beijing: Kexue, 1992), 244–45 (uses the alternative measure hu 斛 instead of shi 石). For slightly alternative numbers, see Denis Twitchett and Michael Loewe, eds., The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 1: The Ch’in and Han Empires, 221 B.C.–A.D. 220 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), xxxviii; Michael Loewe, “The Measurement of Grain during the Han Period,” T’oung Pao 49.1–2 (1961), 64–95.

149. Luoyang shi dier wenwu gongzuodui, “Luoyang Chundu Huayuan xiaoqu Xi-Han mu (IM2354) fajue jianbao” 洛陽春都花園小區西漢墓 (IM2354) 發掘簡報, Wenwu 2006.11, 22–32 and 47, here 28; 24, Figure 7. For a well-calculated estimate of the daily intake of grain per person in ancient China, see Yitzchak Yonah Jaffe, “The Continued Creation of Communities of Practice: Finding Variation in the Western Zhou Expansion (1046–771 BCE),” Ph.D. dissertation (Harvard University, 2016), 260–65.

150. See, for instance, David Frankfurter, “The Magic of Writing and the Writing of Magic: The Power of the Word on Egyptian and Greek Traditions,” Helios 21.2 (1994), 189–221, here 193; Robert Ford Campany, Strange Writing: Anomaly Accounts in Early Medieval China (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996), 124; Donald Harper, “Wang Shou’s Nightmare Poem,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 47.1 (1987), 239–83, here 279; Gil Raz, The Emergence of Daoism: Creation of Tradition (London: Routledge, 2012), 128, 130.

151. The same is true for a number of large tower models that came to light especially in modern-day Henan province. See, for instance, Henan bowuguan, Henan chutu Handai jianzhu mingqi 河南出土漢代建築明器 (Zhengzhou: Daxiang, 2002), 13–45; Jiaozuo shi wenwu gongzuodui, “Henan Jiaozuo Baizhuang Han mu M121, M122 fajue jianbao” 河南焦作白庄漢墓 M121, M122 發掘簡報, Zhongyuan wenwu 2010.6, 10–46, here 11–13; Han Changsong 韓長松, Cheng Wenguang 成文光, and Han Jing 韓静, “Jiaozuo Baizhuang Han mu M121 chutu taocanglou caihui kao” 焦作白庄漢墓 M121 出土陶倉樓彩繪考, Zhongguo guojia bowuguan guankan 2014.4, 6–16. Moreover, one of the more recent discoveries boasted the black ink inscription qun lou bai shi 囷楼百石, which translates as “granary tower [with a capacity of] one hundred bushels.” See Jiaozuo shi wenwu gongzuodui and Jiazuo shifan gaodeng zhuanke xuexiao meishu xueyuan, “Henan Jiaozuo Baizhuang sanzuo Han mu” 河南焦作白庄三座漢墓, Zhongguo guojia bowuguan guankan 2013.8, 6–27, here 8.

152. In cases of broth, flasks instead of granaries carried the respective inscriptions. See Luoyang bowuguan, “Luoyang Xi-Han Bu Qianqiu bihua mu fajue jianbao” 洛陽西漢卜千秋壁畫墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 1977.6, 1–12, here 4; Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Luoyang fajuedui, “Luoyang Xijiao Han mu,” 48 (M3009); Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Luoyang fajuedui, “Luoyang Jianbin gu wenhua yizhi ji Han mu,” 23; He Guanbao 賀官保, “Luoyang laocheng xibeijiao 81 hao Han mu” 洛陽老城西北郊 81 號漢墓, Kaogu 1964.8, 403–6, here 403. On geng broth, also see n.70 above.

153. Hunan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Huaihua shi wenwuchu, and Yuanling xian bowuguan, “Yuanling Huxishan yihao Han mu fajue jianbao” 沅陵虎溪山-号漢墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 2003.1, 36–55, here 54.

154. It merits noting that many first century b.c.e. through second century c.e. burials in Luoyang and Henan yielded a fairly standardized set of five cylindrical granary models per buried individual. It is tempting to read these as representations of the so-called “five grains,” i.e. Panicum and Setaria millets, soybean, wheat, and rice; yet, at least the inscribed granaries discussed above substitute hemp for any of the five cereals just mentioned. For the “five grains” in traditional literature, see, for instance, Huang, Science and Civilisation, 19–21; for examples of sets of five granary models in tombs, see, for instance, Xi’an shi wenwu baohu kaogusuo et al., Chang’an Han mu, 25, 80, 204, 465; Jiaozuo shi wenwu gongzuodui, “Henan Jiaozuo Baizhuang Han mu M121, M122,” 22; He Guanbao, “Luoyang laocheng xibeijiao 81 hao Han mu,” 404, Figure 1.1–5; 1.49–53. For a selection of various types of granary models, see bowuyuan, Henan, Henan chutu Handai jianzhu mingqi 河南出土漢代建築明器 (Zhengzhou: Daxiang, 2002), 1345. See also, Selbitschka “Quotidian Afterlife.”

155. Selbitschka, “Miniature Tomb Figurines,” 29. See also Zhuo Zhenxi 禚振西 and Du Baoren 杜葆仁, “Lun Qin Han shiqi de cang” 論秦漢時期的倉, Kaogu yu wenwu 1982.6, 84–93 and 103.

156. bowuguan, Hunan sheng and yanjiusuo, Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu, Changsha Mawangdui yihao Han mu 長沙馬王堆一號漢墓 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1973), 111–17; 154–55. See also Ying-shih, , “Han,” in Food in Chinese Culture: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives, ed. Chang, K. C. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1977), 5383, here 55–58; Pirazzoli-t’Serstevens, Michèle, “The Art of Dining in the Han Period: Food Vessels from Tomb No. 1 at Mawangdui,” Food and Foodways 4.3–4 (1991), 209–19.

157. See, for instance, Yangzhou bowuguan and Hanjiang xian wenhuaguan, “Yangzhou Hanjiang xian Huchang Han mu” 揚州邗江縣胡場漢墓, Wenwu 1980.3, 1–8, here 5; Yangzhou bowuguan and Hanjiang xian tushuguan, “Jiangsu Hanjiang Huchang wuhao Han mu” 江蘇邗江胡場五號漢墓, Wenwu 1981.11, 12–20, here 19; Hunan sheng bowuguan, “Changsha Shazitang Xi-Han mu fajue jianbao” 長沙砂子塘西漢墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 1963.2, 13–24, here 19–23.

158. Hunan sheng bowuguan and Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo, Changsha Mawangdui er, sanhao Han mu: Di yi juan, tianye kaogu fajue baogao 長沙馬王堆二, 三號漢墓: 第一卷,田野考古發掘報告 (Beijing: Wenwu, 2004), 52–54. With respect to the above-discussed role of dogs as a source of sustenance it is worth noting that several of the broths were based on canine meat. In addition, the inventory slips referred to numerous bamboo hampers and baskets containing various prepared dishes and preserved food (54–60) as well as silk bags full of different kinds of cereals that were also stored in hampers (60–61).

159. See, for instance, Hunan sheng bowuguan et al., Changsha Mawangdui yihao Han mu, 120; Fenghuangshan yiliuqi hao Han Mu fajue zhengli xiaozu, “Jiangling Fenghuangshan yiliuqi hao Han mu fajue jianbao” 江陵鳳凰山一六七號漢墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 1976.10, 31–37 and 50, here 37; Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Jiangling Fenghuangshan yiliubahao Han mu,” 493; Linyi shi bowuguan, “Shandong Linyi Jinqueshan jiu zuo Han dai muzang” 山東臨沂金雀山九座漢代墓葬, Wenwu 1989.1, 21–47, here 45 (M31; M32); Luoyang bowuguan, “Luoyang Xi-Han Bu Qianqiu bihua mu,” 7; Xianyang shi wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Sun Derun 孫德潤, and He Yayi 賀雅宜, “Xianyang Zhibuchang Han mu qingli jianbao” 咸陽織布廠漢墓清理簡報, Kaogu yu wenwu 1995.4, 10–28 and 87, here 25; Sichuan Liangshan Yizu zizhizhou bowuguan, “Sichuan Xichang shi Yangjiashan yihao Dong-Han mu” 四川西昌市楊家山一號東漢墓, Kaogu 2007.5, 19–32, here 26; Gansu sheng wenwu guanli weiyuanhui, “Jiuyuan Xiaheqing di 1 hao mu he di 18 hao mu fajue jianbao” 酒泉下河清第 1 號墓和第 18 號墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 1959.10, 71–76, here 76; Luoyang bowuguan, “Luoyang Jianxi Qilihe Dong-Han mu fajue jianbao” 洛陽澗西七里河東漢墓發掘簡報, Kaogu 1972.5, 116–23 and 134, here 121. In addition, the inventory slips yielded by Fenghuangshan Tombs No. 8 and No. 10 mention chopsticks or containers to store chopsticks; see Changjiang liuyu dierqi wenwu kaogu gongzuo renyuan xunlianban, “Hubei Jiangling Fenghuangshan Xi-Han mu fajue jianbao” 湖北江陵鳳凰山西漢墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 1974.6, 41–61; Jin Li 金立, “Jiangling Fenghuangshan ba hao Han mu zhujian shishi” 江陵鳳凰山八號漢墓竹簡試釋, Wenwu 1976.6, 69–75, here 73 (slip 114); Huang Shengzhang 黃盛璋, “Jiangling Fenghuangshan Han mu jiandu jiqi zai lishi dili yanjiu shang de jiazhi” 江陵鳳凰山十號漢墓簡牘及其在歷史地理研究上的價值, Wenwu 1974.6, 66–77, here 70.

160. Luoyang qu kaogu fajuedui, Luoyang Shaogou Han mu 洛陽燒溝漢墓 (Beijing: Kexue, 1959), 115. In addition, Ken-ichi Takashima has shown that the word ji in oracle bone inscriptions could either mean “minced meat” or “cut (meat) into pieces, mince;” see his “Jìsì 祭祀: A Reconstruction of the Jì Sacrifice and the Sì Ritual in Ancient China,” in Time and Ritual in Early China, ed. Xiaobing Wang-Riese and Thomas O. Höllmann (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009), 33–68, here 49

161. He Guanbao, “Luoyang laocheng xibeijiao 81 hao Han mu,” 405; Luoyang shi wenwu gongzuodui, “Luoyang Wangcheng gongyuan Dong-Han mu” 洛陽王城公園東漢墓, Wenwu 2006.3, 49–57, here 49; Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Luoyang fajuedui, “Luoyang Xijiao Han mu,” 17 (M3206).

162. Guangzhou shi wenwu guanli weiyuansuo, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo, and Guangdong sheng bowuguan, Xi-Han Nanyue wang mu 西漢南越王墓 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1991), 63–64. I was unable to find the phrase shi ji 實祭 anywhere in the transmitted sources. Initially, I rendered the sentence shi ji rou “meat for the sincere offering.” However, following a commentary in the L üshi chunqiu that takes shi to mean “final, end,” the translation above seems more plausible. See Xu, Lüshi chunqiu jishi, 26.680; Luo, Hanyu da cidian, Vol. 3, 1613.

163. See references to the works of Hayashi Minao and Lothar von Falkenhausen in n.18 above.

164. Lai, Excavating the Afterlife, 64–65 (quotation on p. 65).

165. Pirazzoli-t’Serstevens, “Death and the Dead,” 952–53 (quotations on p. 952).

166. See also Wu, Art of the Yellow Springs, 25.

167. Xianyang shi bowuguan, “Shaanxi Xiangyang Maquan Xi-Han mu” 陝西咸陽馬泉西漢墓, Kaogu 1979.2, 125–35, here 126, Figure 2 and 127–28. For comparable arrangements in single burials, see, for instance, Zhengzhou daxue kaogu zhuanye, Xinxiang diqu wenwu guanli weiyuanhui, and Xinxiang xian wenwu baohu guanlisuo, “Henan Xinxiang Lidashao yizhi Zhanguo Liang Han mu fajue jianbao” 河南新鄉李大召遺址戰國兩漢墓發掘簡報, Kaogu yu wenwu 2005.4, 5–13, here 9 (M7); Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Gansu Wushan xian Donghanping Zhanguo Qin Han muzang,” 33–34; Lingling diqu wenwu gongzuodui, “Hunan Yongzhou shi Yaozishan Xi-Han ‘Liu Qiang’ mu” 湖南永州市鷂子山西漢‘劉彊’墓, Kaogu 1990.11, 1002–11, here 1003, Figure 1; Guangxi Zhuangzu zizhiqu wenwu kaogu xiezuo xiaozu, “Guangxi Hepu Xi-Han muguomu” 廣西河浦西漢木椁墓, Kaogu 1972.5, 20–30, here 21, Figure 1.

168. See, for instance, Guangzhou shi wenwu guanli weiyuanhui, “Guangzhou Dongjiao shahe Han mu fajue jianbao” 廣州東郊沙河漢墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 1961.2, 54–57; Guangzhou shi wenwu guanli weiyuanhui, Guangzhou Han mu, 365–68; 57–77, Guangxi Zhuangzu zizhiqu wenwu gongzuodui and Hepu xian bowuguan, “Guangxi Hepu xian Jiuzhiling Dong-Han mu” 廣西河浦縣九隻嶺東漢墓, Kaogu 2003.10, 57–77, here 60 (M6a); Beijing shi wenwu guanlichu, “Beijing Shunyi Linhecun Dong-Han mu fajue jianbao” 北京順義臨河村東漢墓發掘簡報, Kaogu 1977.6, 376–81; Xi’an shi wenwu baohu kaogusuo et al., Chang’an Han mu, 503–5; Sanmenxia shi wenwu gongzuodui, “Sanmenxia shi Liujiaqu Han mu de fajue” 三門峽市劉家渠漢墓的發掘, Huaxia kaogu 1994.1, 22–30, here 22–23 (M3); Xinxiang shi wenwu gongzuodui, “Henan Xinxiang shi Wangmencun Han mu” 河南新鄉市王門村漢墓, Kaogu 2003.4, 88–91; Zhengzhou daxue lishi xueyuan kaoguxi and Henan sheng wenwuju Nanshui Beidiao wenwu baohu bangongshi, “Henan Xinxiang shi Jindengsi Han mu fajue jianbao” 河南新鄉市金燈寺漢墓發掘簡報, Huaxia kaogu 2009.1, 73–86, here 75 (M36); Xianyang shi wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Xianyang Zhibuchang Han mu qingli jianbao” 咸陽織布廠漢墓清理簡報, Kaogu yu wenwu 1995.4, 10–28 and 87, here 13 (M11); Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, “Shaanxi Fufeng Zhibai Xi-Han mu fajue jianbao” 陝西扶風紙白西漢墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 2010.10, 43–51, here 44 (M2); Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogusuo Tangchengdui, “Xi’an Beijiao Han mu fajue baogao” 西安北郊漢墓發掘報告, Kaogu xuebao 1991.2, 239–64, here 241–42 (M1); Xi’an shi wenwu baohu kaogu yanjiuyuan, “Shaanxi shifan daxue yanta xiaoqu Dong-Han mu fajue jianbao” 陝西師範大學雁塔校區東漢墓發掘簡報, Wenbo 2012.4, 3–10, here 3 (M1).

169. See, for instance, Xinxiang shi bowuguan, “Henan Xinxiang Wulingcun Zhanguo Liang Han mu,” 107–9 (M91); Henan sheng wenhuaju wenwu gongzuodui, “Henan Xingyang Hewang shuiku Han mu” 河南滎陽河王水庫漢墓, Wenwu 1960.5, 60–68; Henan wenwu gongzuodui dierdui, “Luoyang 30.14 hao Han mu fajue jianbao” 洛陽 30.14 號漢墓發掘簡報, Wenwu cankao ziliao 文物參考資料 1955.10, 42–50.

170. See, for instance, Luoyang shi wenwu gongzuodui, “Luoyang Jinguyuan chezhan 11 hao Han mu fajue jianbao” 洛陽金谷園車站 11 號漢墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 1983.4, 15–28; Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Henan Jiyuan shi Zhaozhuang Han mu fajue jianbao” 河南濟源市趙庄漢墓發掘簡報, Huaxia kaogu 1996.2, 60–74 and 28; Jiaozuo shi Wenwu Gongzuodui, “Henan Jiaozuo Baizhuang Han mu M121, M122,” 11–13 (M121); Xianyang shi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Shaanxi Xianyang Dujiabao Dong-Han,” 43–44.

171. In order to avoid expensive and time-consuming DNA tests, the sexes of archaeological skeletal remains are usually determined by physical examination (an even less reliable yet widely applied method is sexing by associating supposedly gender-specific burial goods with human bones). The morphological approach primarily considers the sizes of skulls and pelves, wheras anthropometric analyses are based on the measurements of bones in general. See, for instance, Bruzek, Jaroslav and Murail, Pascal, “Methodology and Reliability of Sex Determination from the Skeleton,” in Forensic Anthropology and Medicine: Complementary Sciences from Recovery to Cause of Death, ed. Schmitt, Aurore, Cunha, Eugénia, and Pinheiro, João (Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 2006), 225–42. Unfortunately, skeletal remains in brick chamber tombs are scarce and often too poorly preserved to allow any kind of visual examination.

172. Thomas W. Lacqueur, The Work of the Dead: A Cultural History of Mortal Remains (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015), 54.

173. See, for instance, Lai, “Death and the Otherworldly Journey;” Lai, Excavating the Afterlife, esp. 161–87.

174. See n.21 above.

A shorter version of this article was presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Western Branch of the American Oriental Society (AOS) in Portland, OR on October 21, 2016. I am grateful to the audience for many helpful comments. I am also indebted to Dore Levy, Daniel Tuzzeo, John Kieschnick, Yitzchak Jaffe, Rod Campbell, Sarah Allan, Lothar von Falkenhausen, Donald Harper, Huang Wen-yi, Laura Macy, and two Early China reviewers for their valuable suggestions. Any remaining mistakes and infelicities are, of course, my own responsibility.

Keywords

SACRIFICE VS. SUSTENANCE: FOOD AS A BURIAL GOOD IN LATE PRE-IMPERIAL AND EARLY IMPERIAL CHINESE TOMBS AND ITS RELATION FUNERARY RITES

  • Armin Selbitschka (a1)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed