^a The resource being sent in could not be ascertained (usually because it was omitted from the inscription or the inscription was damaged).

^b There are four divinations about Que bringing elephants, two about monkeys and one about captured horses.

^c 奚 Xi is a Shang ally which the king divines about joining with for an attack on an enemy (e.g. 6477).

^a Only those place/actors with three or more harvest divinations were included for reasons of convenience. There are over thirty more place/actors that have one or two harvest divinations.

^b For an explanation of this term see Table A.4.

^c For an explanation of this term see Table A.4.

^d For an explanation of this term see Table A.4.

^e Obviously the first person pronouns wo 我 and yu 余as well as King (wang 王) refer to political actors rather than places. Shang 商 and Da Yi 大邑 (the great settlement), on the other hand, refer to places rather than naming political agents.

^f There are five inscriptions not included in the table that refer to the receipt of Fu’s 甫 tax or yield at Zi . Given that Fu frequently appears to be a political agent’s name as well as a place name (actually, Fu appears to be a Zi “Prince” [heji 9526]), it may be that Zi (which also is the name of a royal consort) is Fu’s domain. If this is the case, then the totals for Zi and Fu ought to be added together.

^g Bei was apparently a site of battle with Zi Bu in period I inscriptions (see examples (14) and (15) above) and was perhaps Zi Bu’s demesne. There is also an inscription divining about placing (dian 奠) general Ban there, perhaps after pacification.

^h There is a Zi Yong 子雝 who performs an exorcism on behalf of the King and who receives ritual intercessions from the King as well.

^a For an explanation of how the Shang Affiliation, Political Alignment, and Political Agency Scores were calculated see Table A.4. Basically, the SA is a measure of political affiliation with the Shang polity, the PAl distinguishes between non-affiliated allies of the Shang and subordinate polities which rebel, or enemy polities which were conquered (which might other wise have similar SA scores). The PAg score measures the percentage of inscriptions that indicate the Place/Actor in question was a political actor rather than simply a place. As Table A.3 shows, the top-ten hunting places appear as mostly places rather than as seats of political power.

^a Political entities that are either places, individuals or both. As it is frequently difficult in the oracle-bone inscriptions to decide whether a divination is referring to a place or an individual of the same name, or an individual representing a place, all of the divinations about a place/individual of a particular name are lumped together under a single place/actor designation.

^b This is actually the total number of relevant inscriptions, if the graph in question is also used to write a totally unrelated word, then those instances were not counted, nor were instances where the inscription was too fragmentary to ascertain the political relationship.

^c This score was calculated by totaling all of the inscriptions that indicated the place/actor in question was a Shang agent or place. In the agent category, divinations about the king ordering, or concern for the agent in question were counted as Shang. In the place category, visits by the king, levies, harvest or contributions to the court (other than the verb yi 以 “to bring” which we have argued in Chapter 4 is frequently associated with the contingent gifts of allies and even enemies) all contributed to the Shang score of a place. The Shang score is thus the total number of inscriptions about a place/actor suggesting that place/actor was part of a Shang polity.

^d The Ally score was calculated by totaling inscriptions were the king “joined with” (比) the agent in question, where the agent “brought in” (以) gifts for the court, or where the king ordered a second party to go to the place in question (rather than going there in person).

^e The Enemy score was calculated by totaling all the divinations about the Shang or its allies attacking or being attacked by the place/actor in question.

^f The “Shang Affiliation Score” was arrived at by taking the number of inscriptions that positively identifies a place/actor as Shang, subtracting the inscriptions that indicate enemy status and then calculating the resulting number as a percentage (that is, including the inscriptions indicating the place/actor was an ally). In formula form it would be, ((Shang – Enemy)/ (Shang + Ally + Enemy)) 100 = Shang Affiliation score. This yields a percentage between positive and negative 100%. Thus place/actors completely integrated into the king’s direct networks of authority ought to have high SA scores (> 50), while allies ought to have scores < 50 and enemies, scores in the negatives (SA <0). This score essentially calculates relative political distance or dependence without distinguishing political orientation. Thus, Zhi 沚, a staunch, but independent, ally of the court, only has an SA score of 7 percent, while Zhou 周, a sometime subordinate, sometime enemy political entity, has a SA of 11 percent.

^g The “Political Alignment” score is calculated by taking the Shang, Ally and Enemy scores and using the higher number as a first designation and the second highest (if at least 1/3 the value of the highest value) as a second designation. This allows us to distinguish political orientation from political dependence (i.e. distinguishing low SA scores that are allies from low SA scores that resulted from alternating Enemy/Shang status). Thus, Zhou 周, with a SA score of 11 percent has Shang, Ally and Enemy counts of 15, 1 and 12 respectively. Since 15 is the higher number, Zhou has a primary designation of S (Shang), but since 12 > 5 (1/3 of 15) it also has a secondary designation of E (Enemy). Thus, its PAl would be S/E. This reflects the fact Zhou alternated between being a part of the Shang King’s network of authority and warring against it.

^h “Political Agency” distinguishes between places and political actors. This score is calculated as a percentage of the inscriptions concerning a place/actor that indicated that the referent was an individual political agent as opposed to place. Thus, divinations concerning the King ordering X would count toward a high political agency score, while divinations about going to X or hunting at X would count against this score. A place/agent proper noun with a PAg score of 100 percent thus refers to an individual or collective and not a place. A place/agent with a PAg score of 0% is simply a place. Those place/agents that have PAg scores somewhere in between 0 percent and 100 percent, sometimes refer to people and sometimes to places. As noted above, since political actors are often named for their seats of power, the majority of place/agents fall into this category.

^a The Shiji was written in the Western Han period, nearly 1,000 years after the fall of the last Shang king, Di Xin (see Hulsewé 1993 for an introduction to the text and Neinhauser 1994 for an English translation). The Guben Jushujinian, on the other hand, although purporting to be a Warring States text, was supposedly discovered in a tomb 279 CE. (see Nivison 1993 for an introduction to this text, for an English translation, Legge Reference Legge1865). These are the two main transmitted sources for early dynastic chronology and narrative. As can be seen from the table, they are frequently at odds.

^b This is calculated according to the Guben Jushujinian, using the Three Dynasties Chronology date of the Zhou conquest of the Shang in 1046 BCE and adding the reign years credited to each king to it. Although it fits fairly nicely into the Zhengzhou – Anyang archaeological chronology, it is not actually consistent with itself. It states that between Tang and Shou (Di Xin) there were 29 kings and 496 years, not the 30 kings and 528 years that result from actually adding up the reigns of each king. If Di Xin’s reign is not included then the numbers accord more closely, but still not exactly.

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

^a The sources for the tombs listed in this table have been given the following abbreviations, L&G = Liang and Gao; IA = Institute of Archaeology; AT= Anyang Team; AM = Anyang Museum; AC = Anyang City.

^b A question mark denotes that it is impossible to judge whether or not there were any remains in this area due to some sort of disturbance such as looting.

^c According to Institute of Archaeology (1994: 106). From this vague description it appears that at least some of the pits were the graves of death attendants, rather than sacrificial pits, but one cannot be certain.

^d Identified as such by the excavators by the “peacock – like” array of hair pins above the head, as well as the number of jade and stone ornaments, and bronze vessels. There was also a jade ge dagger-axe.

^e There were eight human skeletons that had “fallen” into the burial chamber, presumably from the roof of the burial chamber, which had collapsed, if so they should be considered to be in zone III.

^f The author is vague about whether the damage to these skeletons was caused at time of death, excavation, or a result of decomposition. Referring to the human remains the report states: “of the sixteen sacrificial victims, four were males including one youth, two were females, and two were children. The sex and age of the remaining eight cannot be determined. At least one was killed and one probably was cut in half at the waist” (44).

^g From the illustration of this tomb Institute of Archaeology (1987a: 206), there was apparently a head compartment to this coffin, separate to the part where the grave owner was interred. If this is so, it should probably be considered the equivalent of the outer coffin in terms of being one space removed from the grave owner.

^h Actually, the two human skeletons as well as sheep and cattle legs were found inside the tomb chamber/outer coffin. We have followed the excavator’s interpretation that they fell there when the top of the chamber caved in.

ⁱ The exact size is not given in the report only that M5–8 and M11 were generally 3.0 x 1.6m².

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

^a Unfortunately, the provenience of the majority of artifacts were not published for M5, leaving one to assume that since the placement of objects on the ledge, the top of the chamber and the fill are all recorded in some detail, the majority of artifacts whose provenience is not recorded in the report must have been located in the wooden chamber or inner coffin. We know, for instance, that there were “over one hundred and thirty” (75) weapons, but, for example, except for two ge recorded as being found in the fill, the location of the other eighty-eight is not recorded. The numbers I have arrived at for the contents of the burial chamber are thus estimates based on subtracting what is reported as being in the fill or on the ledge from the total reported. In the case of the jades, it is mentioned that they are “the most important objects” in the inner coffin, but no mention of the number is made or even what percentage of the jades are in there. There is no mention of jades in the burial chamber, on the other hand, but that does not necessarily mean that there are none there.

^b The locations of the objects in this tomb are in part based on the inference of the excavators since both the chamber roof and inner coffin lid has rotten away allowing everything that was placed on top to collapsed onto what was below.

^c Although there is no outer coffin in this tomb, from the drawing, the coffin appears to have a head compartment separate from the part where the tomb owner is located. I consider this to be the equivalent to a space once removed from the tomb occupant’s person.

^d While there is no outer coffin and all the artifacts are found in the coffin (or rather where the coffin used to be) it is not clear from the cursory report, or the drawing whether these items were originally on top of the coffin lid or actually inside the coffin.