page 263 note 1. Cf. Creel, Herrlee Glessner, The Origins of Statecraft in China: Volume 1: The Western Chou Empire (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1970)Google Scholar; Cho-yun, Hsu and Linduff, Katheryn M., Western Chou Civilization (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

page 264 note 2. It should be noted that historical geography is a flourishing scholarly field in China, which is very little known to non-specialist western readers. The author not only acquaints us with the Chinese historical-geographical discourse, but brings together historical geography and systematic, theoretically oriented historical research, which can be appreciated by Chinese readers as well (cf. review of the Chinese translation of Landscape and Power by Feng, Xu 徐峰, “Ping Xi Zhou de miewang: Zhongguo zaoqi guojia de dili he zhengzhi weiji” 評《西周的滅亡: 中國早期國家的地理和政治危機》, Kaogu 2010.1, 90–96)Google Scholar.

page 264 note 3. Cf. Barney, Warf, and Arias, Santa, “Introduction: The reinsertion of space into the social sciences and humanities,” in The Spatial Turn: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Warf, Barney and Arias, Santa (New York: Routledge, 2009), 1–10, esp. 2Google Scholar.

page 264 note 4. For other recent publications with distinct “spatial perspective” cf. Di Cosmo, Nicola, Ancient China and Its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lewis, Mark Edward, The Construction of Space in Early China (Albany: SUNY, 2006)Google Scholar.

page 264 note 5. Cf. The Spatial Turn, 2. As the bibliographical index makes clear, Li Feng assumed his perspective not under the influence of western spatial turn theorists, such as Foucault, Cosgrove, or Soja, but rather through his experiences as field archaeologist and attentive observer.

page 265 note 6. Creel hesitated whether the role of kinship in the Zhou society had not been “exaggerated” (Origins of Statecraft, 381)Google Scholar. In contrast, Hsu and Linduff validate the importance of kinship in early Chinese politics (Western Chou Civilization, 171). In his next book, Li Feng reviews his position and attaches more organizing efficiency to the kinship, defining the Zhou, Western as “delegatory kin-ordered settlement state” (cf. Bureaucracy and the State [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008], 294–98)Google Scholar. It seems also not obvious that the regionalization of the material culture necessarily reflects decentralizing political trends. The fact that Qi and Lu remained basically loyal to the royal court also during the Spring and Autumn period points rather to the contrary.

page 265 note 7. Cf. Hsu, and Linduff, , Western Chou Civilization, 279Google Scholar. On this place, readers can be advised to consider the fundamental investigation into the distribution and exchange of landed property during the Western Zhou period based on bronze inscriptions: Lau, Ulrich, Quellenstudien zur Landvergabe und Bodenübertragung in der westlichen Zhou-Dynastie (1045?–771 v.Chr.) (Sankt Augustin: Monumenta Serica 1999)Google Scholar.

page 266 note 8. South is given less attention in Landscape and Power, but, as the book does not pretend to be a “general history,” the focus on one direction of Western Zhou external politics is justified.

page 266 note 9. This agrees with Shaughnessy, , “Western Zhou History,” 350Google Scholar.

page 266 note 10. It remains unclear on which evidence the latter argument is based.

page 266 note 11. In some earlier studies, Xianyun were regarded as nomads (cf. Western Chou Civilization, 259).

page 266 note 12. Some scholars date Duo You ding to King Xuan's reign (e.g. Shaughnessy, Edward L., “The Date of the ‘Duo You Ding’ and its Significance,” Early China 9–10 (1983–1985), 55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar). In the latter paper, Shaughnessy reconstructs the geography of the war and identifies locations mentioned in the Duo You ding in Jing River valley, even providing a map. Li Feng's suggestions about the proceeding of the war are in some points different from Shaughnessy's. Still, it is surprising that the author of Landscape and Power considers only Shaughnessy's dating suggestions (130), but not his historical-geographical analysis.

page 266 note 13. Localisation of place names mentioned in the Duo You ding was a matter of hot debate in early 1980s. Landscape and Power supports identifications made by Zhongcao, Li 李仲操, “Ye shi Duo You ding ming wen,” Renwen zazhi 1982.6, 95–99Google Scholar, and Xiang, Liu 劉翔, “Duo You ding ming liang yi” 多友鼎銘兩議, Renwen zazhi 1983.1, 82–85Google Scholar.

page 266 note 14. The author is aware of the problem of using the Shanhai jing 山海經 as a source for geographic identifications (227–28).

page 266 note 15. If this localization is true, King You's political incompetence appears beyond all comprehension.

page 267 note 16. For bringing up this issue for the first time cf. Fulin, Chao 晁福林, “Lun Ping wang dongqian” 論平王東遷, Lishi yanjiu 1991.6, 8–23 (the name of the author is misspelled as Chao Fucun 晁福村 in the bibliography on p. 357)Google Scholar.

page 267 note 17. In particular, Hsu and Linduff provide a sub-chapter “Movement of Chou States,” based on Pan, Chen 陳槃 Chunqiu dashibiao lieguo juexing ji cunmiebiao yhuanyi 春秋大事表列國爵姓及存滅表譔異 (Taibei: Academia Sinica, 1969)Google Scholar (cf. Western Chou Civilization, 158–63). There, they simply list the states that moved, leaving the reader wondering how this could be done in practice.

page 267 note 18. Their value as such has been stressed by Shaughnessy, Edward in his Sources of Western Zhou History: Inscribed Bronze Vessels (Berkeley: California University Press, 1991)Google Scholar, thus validating the approach assumed earlier by Wang Guowei, Guo Moruo, Kaizuka Shigeki, Bernhard Karlgren and Herlee Creel. In contrast, Lothar von Falkenhausen has called for treating “inscriptions as essentially religious documents” (cf. “Issues in Western Zhou Studies.” Review article on Sources on Western Zhou History, by Edward L. Shaughnessy, and Western Zhou Ritual Bronzes from the Arthur M. Sackler Collections, by Rawson, Jessica. Early China 18 [1993]: 139–226Google Scholar). A large number of studies based on bronze inscriptions and dedicated to a wide range of historical questions published during the last decades leave no doubt that bronze inscriptions can be used as historical sources in many ways, although their appropriateness has to be discussed for every particular investigation. Cf. e.g. Shaughnessy, Edward L., “Western Zhou History” in The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C., edited by Loewe, Michael and Shaughnessy, Edward L. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 292–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 268 note 19. These include the inscription's title in transcription and in standard or reconstructed characters, its number according to the Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng 殷周金文集成, ed. Yanjiusuo, Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Yuan Kaogu 中國社會科學院考古研究所 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1984)Google Scholar and, when possible, information about the place of its discovery. Inscriptions not included in the Jicheng are referenced separately.

page 268 note 20. Cf. Origins of Statecraft and Western Chou Civilization. Still, some further improvements can be suggested, e.g. tabulation of inscriptions according to their period together with information about their provenience, and, if applicable, about their attribution to a particular reign, in an appendix.

page 268 note 21. Although the author states that different chronologies exist (xv), having chosen Nivison-Shaughnessy's scheme (xvii), he does not inform us about the scope of discrepancies between various systems. For a model of how to make these discrepancies transparent cf. Western Chou Civilization (387–90).

page 268 note 22. Li Feng localizes the state of Guai 乖, appearing in the Guai bo gui 乖伯簋 with unknown provenience, in upper Jing River (185) based on the Guai shu ding 乖叔鼎 (Jicheng, no. 1733; the Jicheng number is missing in the text) found in a tomb in Gansu province, Lingtai County, Yaojiahe 甘肅靈臺姚家河. Li Feng thus (reasonably) chal-lenges the earlier localization of Guai in the Yangzi River Valley in Zigui 秭歸 County of Hubei province, suggested by Guo Moruo (185 n. 121). However, considering that bronzes were often exchanged between lineages, localizing a lineage's residence based on a single inscription (especially, in absence of relevant references in delivered texts) is methodologically problematic. Other considerations can be raised both against and in favour of Li Feng's hypothesis, and, therefore a more substantial weighing of pros and cons would be appropriate in such cases.

page 268 note 23. The author identifies huangfu qingshi 皇父卿士 (“Prime Minister” in Li Feng's terms) mentioned in the “Shiyue zhi jiao” 十月之交 Ode of the Shi jing with Han huangfu 函皇父, the commissioner of bronzes for Lady Yun of Diao 琱妘 discovered in Kangjia 康家 in Fufeng County of Shaanxi Province, i.e. on the “Plain of Zhou.” Li Feng bases this identification on his assumption of exclusiveness of the title huang (“August” in his terms) (204). However, e.g. Xin shu huangfu gui 辛叔皇父簋 (Jicheng, no. 3859), made by the head of a collateral branch of Xin lineage, demonstrates that “August” or “Grand Father” was not such an uncommon title during the Late Western Zhou. Characteristically, the spouse of the head of another collateral branch of the same lineage was referred to as Xin zhong Ji huangmu 辛仲姬皇母, “Grand Mother Lady Ji, [spouse of] Xin-zhong” (Xin zhong Ji huangmu ding 辛仲姬皇母鼎, Jicheng, no. 2582, Late Western Zhou). Similarly, Han huangfu was the head of Han lineage, possibly, residing far from the Plain of Zhou, and not necessarily involved in the Zhou government.

page 269 note 24. Still, it is not certain, whether Taiyuan 太原 referred to in the Bamboo Annals in connection with King Mu 穆's campaign against the Quanrong 犬戎, is the same place as Taiyian, referred to in the “Liu yue” 六月 ode of the Shi jing (145). The Bamboo Annals 竹書紀年 is a Warring States period text, found in one tomb together with the Mu Tianzi zhuan 穆天子傳, rendering the story about King Mu's travels. According to the later source, very likely consulted by the author of the Bamboo Annals, King Mu moved to the north through Taihang Mountains in Shanxi province and attacked Quanrong in the upper flow of Hutuo 虎沱 River. This was the area to the north of Taiyuan, as a place in middle Fen 汾 River Valley was already called during the Warring States period.

page 269 note 25. For a recent critical attack on the “sancta sanctorum” of the Western Zhou sources, the “earliest” chapters of the Shang shu, cf. Vogelsang, Kai, “Inscriptions and Proclamations: On the Authenticity of the ‘gao’ Chapters in the Book of Documents,” BMFEA 74 (2002): 138–209Google Scholar.

page 269 note 26. Cf. e.g. Lau, , Quellenstudien, 391Google Scholar.

page 270 note 27. Li Feng offers a theoretical discussion about the state in his second book, Bureaucracy and the State, which is not subject of the present review.

page 271 note 28. For a discussion about functions of capitals reflected by bronze inscriptions and about related historical memories in post-Western Zhou literature cf. Khayutina, Maria, “Royal Hospitality and Geopolitical Constitution of the Western Zhou Polity),” T'oung Pao 96/1–3 (2010), 1–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Khayutina, Maria, “Western ‘Capitals’ of the Western Zhou Dynasty: Historical Reality and its Reflections until the Time of Sima Qian,” Oriens Extremus 47 (2008), 25–65Google Scholar.

page 271 note 29. Compare with Rawson, Jessica, “Western Zhou Archaeology,” in The Cambridge History of Ancient China,352–449 (97 pages)Google Scholar. Falkenhausen's, Lothar vonChinese Society in the Age of Confucius (1000–250 BC). The Archaeological Evidence (Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of Los Angeles, 2006; 555 pages)Google Scholar, published simultaneously with Landscape and Power, covers the whole Zhou period from early Western Zhou until the Warring states period. However, it does not include a general review of archaeological finds by period, but is organized around a set of particular problems.

page 271 note 30. Regrettably, Landscape and Power seldom enters a dialogue with these standard works, serving as orientation for non-specialist readers and students. For example, it often discusses complexes and individual finds that have been already considered, but, in some cases, differently interpreted in Western Chou Civilization or in “Western Zhou Archaeology” (compare, e.g. the discussion of the archaeology of Yan state in Western Chou Civilization (194–201), in “Western Zhou Archaeology” (409–13), and in Landscape and Power, 335–41). This reproach, however, should not be addressed to Li Feng alone. Jessica Rawson completely ignores Hsu and Linduff's book in her chapter in the Cambridge History of Ancient China. In contrast, the latter authors repeatedly reflect on Creel's Origins of Statecraft, undoubtedly, helping the reader to follow the thread and to distinguish, what is new, and what is different. It can be suggested that works available to a general western audience would be referred to more regularly for sake of greater transparency and intelligibility of the new scholarship.

page 272 note 31. In few cases, legends do not specify represented objects by type, so that they do not help a non-specialist to distinguish things referred to in the text which this picture is supposed to complement (e.g. Fig. 21 on 120).

page 272 note 32. Landscape and Power includes nineteen maps. For comparison, there are only five maps in Western Chou Civilization, and only two in The Origins of Statecraft.

page 273 note 1. One of the most interesting examples of this lasting respect for the Zhou kings' position at the apex of the religious pyramid is the jade tablet inscription with a prayer to Mt Hua 華山, produced in all likelihood by one of the Qin 秦 rulers shortly after the demise of the Zhou house in 256 B.C.E. See details in Pines, Yuri, “The Question of Interpretation: Qin History in Light of New Epigraphic Sources,” Early China 29 (2004), 1–44 on pp. 4–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 274 note 2. An excellent example of this peculiarity is the Guai Bo gui 乖伯簋 inscription, discussed by Li Feng on pp. 183–85; the donor names his father “king” but refers to the Zhou monarch as “Son of Heaven.” Noteworthy, even in the Warring States period none of the self-appointed regional “kings” dared proclaim himself Son of Heaven (for a single exception, see Zhanguo ce zhushi 戰國策注釋, annotated by Jianzhang, He 何建章 [Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1991], 20.13 [“Zhao ce” 趙策 3], 737)Google Scholar.

page 274 note 3. The fear of the potential loss of the Mandate is evident in many supposedly early Western Zhou texts, such as “Kang gao” 康誥 and “Duo fang” 多方 documents or the “Wen Wang” 文王 ode.

page 274 note 4. For the most systematic discussion of the Late Western Zhou ritual reform, see Falkenhausen, Lothar von, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius (1050–250 BC): The Archaeological Evidence (Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA, 2006), 29–73Google Scholar.

page 275 note 5. No intact Zhou royal tombs have ever been excavated; hence the precise composition of the sets of ritual vessels therein is not clear. However, there is consensus that initially, at least, the Zhou kings constituted a separate ritual level; their tombs differed from those of regional lords and of other aristocrats both in terms of their shape and in terms of numbers of sacrificial items. See details in Falkenhausen, Chinese Society; and Qun, Yin 印群, Huanghe zhongxiayou diqu de Dong Zhou muzang zhidu 黃河中下游地區的東周墓葬制度 (Beijing: Shehui kexue chubanshe, 2001)Google Scholar. The political importance of the royal sumptuary privileges is exemplified in a Zuo zhuan 左傳 anecdote, which tells of the refusal of King Xiang of Zhou 周襄王 (r. 651–619 B.C.E.) to grant them to his powerful protector, Lord Wen of Jin 晉文公 (r. 636–628 B.C.E.), claiming that this would be equivalent to “establishing two kings” (see Chunqiu Zuo zhuan zhu 春秋左傳注, annotated by Bojun, Yang 楊伯峻 [Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1981], Xi 25.1: 432–33)Google Scholar.

page 275 note 6. From the careful analysis of Qin burials conducted by Teng Mingyu 滕銘予, it appears that the Qin movement into the Wei River valley was much more gradual than suggested by textual sources analyzed by Li Feng, and that it was completed only in the fourth century B.C.E., three centuries later than Li Feng suggests. See Mingyu, Teng, Qin wenhua: cong fengguo dao diguo de kaoguxue guancha 秦文化: 從封國到帝國的考古學觀察 (Beijing: Xueyuan chubanshe, 2003)Google Scholar.

page 276 note 7. Li Feng (pp. 262–73) proposes a highly interesting but also very speculative analysis of what he calls the Zhou-Daluo 大駱-Qin triangle, which solidified the Zhou control of the western reaches of the Wei River valley. Yet since his conjectures are primarily rooted in a single passage from the “Basic Annals of Qin” (秦本紀) of Sima Qian's (司馬遷, c. 145–90) Shi ji 史記, they remain largely unverifiable.

page 276 note 8. Various aspects of Qin's cultural and political proximity to the Zhou are discussed in Kern, Martin, The Stele Inscriptions of Ch'in Shih-huang: Text and Ritual in Early Chinese Imperial Representation (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 2000)Google Scholar; Pines, , “The Question of Interpretation,” 4–23Google Scholar; idem, “Biases and Their Sources: Qin History in the Shi ji,” Oriens Extremus 45 (2005/2006): 10–34; see also the next note.

page 276 note 9. Falkenhausen, Lothar von with Shelach, Gideon, “Introduction: Archaeological Perspectives on the Qin ‘Unification’ of China,” in: Pines, Yuri, Shelach, Gideon, Falkenhausen, Lothar von, and Yates, Robin D.S., eds., The Birth of Empire: The State of Qin Revisited (forthcoming volume)Google Scholar.

page 277 note 1. Cf. Ashmore, Wendy and Knapp, Bernard, Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, 1999)Google Scholar.

page 278 note 2. Pratt, Mary Louise, Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation (London: Routledge, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 278 note 3. Ferguson, R. Brian and Whitehead, N. L., War in the Tribal Zone: Expanding States and Indigenous Warfare (Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research, 2005, 2nd ed., xii)Google Scholar.

page 278 note 4. Taussig, Michael, Shamanism, Colonialism, and the Wild Man: A Study in Terror and Healing (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Whitehead, N. L., “While Tulips, Black Caribs and Civilized Indians: The rhetoric of ethnic transgression in the colonial possession of South America” (Paper presented at the 20th Burdock-Vary Symposium, Madison Wisconsin; Whitehead 1997)Google Scholar; Ferguson and Whitehead, xii.

page 278 note 5. Ferguson and Whitehead, xii.