It is more than 60 years since the Erligang type site at Zhengzhou was discovered yet, as Kyle Steinke and Robert Bagley point out in Art and Archaeology of the Erligang Civilization, Erligang culture remains unfamiliar, poorly understood and overshadowed by its more glamourous relation Anyang. In 2008, Princeton University hosted a conference that brought together archaeologists, intellectual historians and art historians for the purpose of remedying this situation. This book is a product of that conference.

In his introductory chapter, Bagley reviews the archaeological record for early Bronze Age China and explains how and why it developed, including - how it was shaped by changes in archaeological and political attitudes and agendas. He then proceeds to make a convincing case for Erligang's importance by demonstrating that the achievements we attribute to Anyang - such as advances in bronze design and technology, factory organisation and more - should actually be credited to Erligang. He suggests that the main reason Erligang is not a ‘household word’ is due to a reliance on later historical texts. Bagley, who has made disentangling history and archaeology an objective, has long championed the position that material remains should be evaluated on their own terms. Here he concludes by suggesting that the way to correct misapprehensions and enhance understanding of early China is to approach it through the material record and cross - cultural analysis.

In Chapter 2, Zhang Changping, a professor of archaeology at Wuhan University, turns to Panlongcheng, a frontier outpost of Erligang in modern day Hubei, which, although smaller than the Erligang type site in Zhengzhou, has produced richer tombs, more bronzes and is much more accessible to archaeologists. Zhang focuses on bronze artefacts and the information they provide about social stratification, the bronze industry, and their possible ritual and social usage. Zhang even suggests that Panlongcheng may have been the site of a bronze foundry, although, as he admits, confirmation must await additional archaeological finds.

The next two chapters focus on Erligang expansion. In both chapters the art historian Wang Haicheng and the Egyptologist John Baines each approach the subject as recommended by Bagley through the material record and cross-cultural comparison.

In ‘China's First Empire’, Wang Haicheng looks to ancient Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley and the Olmec civilisation all of which witnessed similar sudden and widespread expansions.

Armed with insights gained from these comparisons, he suggests that Erligang was a short-lived empire with colonies acquired through military conquest. Wang next turns to the issue of the motives for this expansion. Here, using comparative models of resource procurement and trade, he suggests that one possible motive for colonisation may have been the acquisition of mineral resources for the elite or agricultural land for the masses - both of which are reasonable in the light of the archaeological record. But this is not the end; in his conclusion, Wang suggests that there may be ideological motives and that in analysing the issue we should think like a ‘king’. Positioned almost as an afterthought, this suggestion not only highlights the limitations of the material record that Wang has carefully analysed, it also raises issues of objectivity and just what should be the role of the archaeologist.

For his comparison, Baines uses early Egyptian expansion into Palestine and Lower Nubia. As a comparison it does not appreciably increase understanding of the specifics of Erligang civilisation. The differences are too great. The discussion of Erligang is too general. It also includes some assertions that require clarification and greater evidentiary support such as his claim that ceramics and lacquer were among those materials “having high value across a vast region” (p. 114) or his assertions about bronze forms and styles of decoration and their implications. Baines's comparison does, however, position Erligang in a broader context. It also effectively highlights the complexities of making a cross cultural comparison using such disparate states.

Roderick Campbell and Yung-ti Li focus inward on diachronic comparisons between sites in the Central Plain. Campbell applies the two most common meanings of civilisation – the older definition that looks at indicators of scale and complexity and the newer definition associated with Baines and Norman Yoffee that looks to practices and artefacts linked with the elite and political power. Campbell concludes that the available archaeological evidence is insufficient to reach conclusions about Erligang civilisation in either sense of the term other than that there is a similarity between Erlitou, Erligang and Anyang with respect to social and political organisation. But this is not a wasted exercise because in the process Campbell identifies new avenues of inquiry that could provide more definitive answers.

Yung-ti Li continues Bagley's effort's to disentangle history from archaeology. Offering Anyang as a case study, he argues that the dynastic model used in traditional historiography that characterises Erlitou, Erligang and Anyang as mega-centres and reduces all interregional interactions into the pattern of a strong dynastic ruler and subordinates is incompatible with the archaeological record. Although his case study needs more detail, he makes an interesting argument and his paper raises interesting questions. It also suggests useful starting points for further research and analysis.

In Chapters 7 and 8, Kyle Steinke and Robin McNeal look at Erligang influence in the south. Steinke engages in an art historical analysis of stoneware and bronzes. Focusing on technology, forms and decoration he shows how Erligang influence may have spread to Xingan in Jiangxi and then throughout the lower Yangzi River region. He suggests that interactions were not one - sided and that the spread of technology was only possible because the cultures encountered were sophisticated. McNeal, a historian, turns his attention to bronze using cultures in regions to the southwest and specifically Hunan and focuses on topographical features. He maintains, quite convincingly, that Erligang's importance lies in its contribution to the creation and maintenance of complex interaction networks - Panlongcheng being just one aspect - that primarily followed river systems. These he claims were critical to the movement of new technologies, ideologies, goods and people. Indeed, he offers the intriguing suggestion that one of the motivations for Erligang settlement in Hunan may have been a desire to participate in such networks.

In a final chapter, Maggie Bickford adds still another viewpoint. She approaches Erligang bronzes from the perspective of a former student, a teacher with many years of experience and a scholar of art history and specifically Chinese painting. She views bronzes as important not just to early China but to the practice of art history in general. Bickford suggests that because bronzes are ‘unencumbered’ by textual material (she views the absence of text as an advantage), their study makes them a useful ‘agent’ for developing visual observational skills - “directed observation, rigorous visual thinking, precise articulation” - that she, like Bagley, believes are fundamental to the art historian. Using Erligang as an example in bronzes and the Boston Museum of Fine Arts handscroll ‘Court Ladies Preparing Newly Woven Silk’ in painting, she also discusses the problems encountered in integrating new discoveries that up-end entrenched text driven narratives and demonstrates that these are not limited to early China.

This book achieves its stated objectives. It focuses attention on Erligang. In fact it is the only book written in English devoted exclusively to Erligang. It shows why Erligang deserves to be studied and demonstrates how different methodological tools can help us interpret the archaeological record on its own terms. It is well illustrated and contains an excellent and extensive bibliography. This is not a book that professes to have all the answers. Indeed, one of its strong points is that it poses questions and suggests new areas that need to be investigated.