Following this, Geng-Ding (tomb 1002), the son of Zu-Jia, was buried via strategy X, paying respect to his uncle, King Zu-Geng (1004) (Figures 1 & 4g). That he was not buried in a position paying respect to his father suggests that the decision was a highly strategic one and might have related to competition between the faction(s) supporting the line of tombs of 1001, 1550, 1004 and 1002, and the faction(s) supporting the line of 1003, 1500 and 1217. Geng-Ding’s (1002) son Wu-Yi (1500) was buried in a position that effectively received respect from all the previous kings (strategy Y) except Wu-Ding (1400) (Figures 1 & 4h). This suggests that he or his followers may have attempted to position him highest in the entire genealogical hierarchy represented at the cemetery. Interestingly, from Wu-Yi onwards, unilineal male succession is recorded in Shiji until the end of the dynasty (Figure 5), suggesting that Wu-Yi attempted to renew kingly authority and power. It is interesting to note that Wen-Wu-Ding (tomb 1217), or his faction, chose not only to construct the largest tomb in terms of ramp length, but also to make the main burial pit identical in form to those of tombs 1001 and 1400—the latter most probably the tomb of Wu-Ding, founder of the late Shang dynasty (Figures 1 & 4i). Wu-Yi’s and Wen-Wu Ding’s reigns were characterised by the revival of old ritual traditions, which Dong Zuo-bin describes as the ‘Old School’ (Tung 1956) formerly practised by Wu-Ding, also described as “the Wen Wu Ting ‘revival’ of Wu Ting institutions” (Chang 1980: 187). (It must be noted, however, that this proposal by Dong Zuo-bin is currently under scrutiny.) That this took place immediately before the demise of the Shang dynasty suggests that Wen-Wu-Ding attempted to revitalise power and authority by connecting himself to the founding ancestor, Wu-Ding, in response to the dynastic decline.
Chang (1980: 176, 187–88, 1982: 121–26) hypothesised that ‘Ding’ and ‘Yi’, repeatedly used as a part of kings’ names, represented two royal descent groups: the Ding (later to become the Zhao in the Zhou period), and the Yi (later to become the Mu). Chang assigned four kings to the former group, and seven to the latter, and argued that they coincided with the number of large tombs in the western and eastern zones of the Xibeigang cemetery. The subsequent Zhou system enthroned kings alternately from the Zhao and Mu groups, and Chang inferred that such a system had already been practised in the Shang period (Chang 1982). Our chronological reconstruction of the Xibeigang cemetery reveals that his model is not sustainable: the tombs were not constructed alternately in the eastern and western zones (Figure 4) (Chang 1982). Why, then, is there a clear spatial division between these zones? Before the construction of the first royal tomb (1001) in the western zone, tombs 1443 and 50WGM1 (probably belonging to the Middle Shang kings residing at Huɑnbei Shɑnɡchenɡ ; Tang 1999) had already been built in the eastern zone. The eastern zone was hence already designated as the ancestral burial ground, and became a location for rituals as indicated by the continuous sequence of sacrificial pits and burials. Wu-Ding, who probably organised the mortuary rituals of Xiao-Yi (tomb 1001) and Zu-Ji (tomb 1550), and was effectively the head of a new dynasty, founded the new burial ground in the western zone. When Wu-Ding died, he was commemorated as both the founder of the new dynasty and as the legitimate successor of the Middle Shang kings; his burial, in the eastern zone, also sought to glorify the ancestors. The tombs of Wu-Ding’s sons and their successors, by contrast, were placed in the western zone that Wu-Ding had designated as the new royal burial ground, while ancestor rituals continued to be conducted in the eastern zone. Ultimately, we find it significant that the results of archaeological investigation coincide with those of expert analysis of the historical records.
