In The Archaeology of Han China, published in the Cambridge World Archaeology series, Alice Yao and Wengcheong Lam offer a refreshed narrative of the archaeology of the Han dynasty (202 BC–AD 220)—the earliest long-lasting empire in Chinese history that laid the foundation of later periods of imperial China. Incorporating recent archaeological discoveries, especially those of the non-elites and from the borderlands, the book is a timely contribution to the study of Early China and empires in the ancient world. Through the lenses of geography, foodways, crafts, and mortuary ritual, the authors adopt a network approach to trace the formation of a Han identity and the emergence of unity in early imperial China.
What makes the book stand out is its emphasis on the spatial order. Rather than taking a conventional diachronic framework, the authors organize the book’s four main parts around the parameters of core and periphery. Part I (“Imperial Geography”) articulates (a) the reworking of state space at the capital Chang’an and core regions of Guandong and the Yangzi River valley (chapter 1) and (b) the process of border formation using the examples of Ordos in the north and Lingnan in the south (chapter 2). Part II (“Food Production and Foodways”) investigates the development of agriculture against the political background of “state activism” (p. 118) by showing not only the state’s management of crop production in the capital region (chapter 3) but also the imperial intervention of foodways in the new territories of Lingnan, Hexi, and Xiyu (chapter 4). Part III (“Crafts”) shifts from crops to crafts, investigating operational chains at imperial workshops in Chang’an and ironworks in Guandong (chapter 5), as well as textile and lacquer industries in Chengdu and ceramics in Lingnan (chapter 6). Part IV (“Death Ritual”) focuses on mortuary practices. The authors examine both royal mausoleums and non-elite tombs in capital regions and local kingdoms in chapter 7, and they consider diverse burial treatments in peripheral areas in chapter 8.
One issue with the core-periphery framework, as recognized by the authors, is that their distinction between center and periphery is not uniform across the book’s chapters. Despite this early acknowledgment in the introduction, the lack of coherence may still create confusion for readers, especially when the criteria for categorizing core-periphery are not clearly articulated. For example, the middle Yangzi region, one of the core macroregions in part I, is framed as part of the periphery in part II and part III. There is an imbalanced treatment of frontier regions. Whereas Lingnan and Hexi receive much attention, the northeastern frontier (such as the four commanderies on the Korean Peninsula and the Puyo or Fuyu state in Manchuria) is largely missing, except for a brief discussion of the Sandaohao site in chapter 4.
In terms of methodology, the book adopts a network framework that successfully demonstrates the connectivity at various spatial scales within the Han dynasty. Notably, the network of irrigation and storage systems formed an imperial infrastructure for the state to control crop production. The transportation network connecting the capital to other commercial centers facilitated the movement of prestige goods. It is also noteworthy that the book puts an emphasis on the everyday life experience of the non-elites by using mundane objects and evidence from settlement archaeology. For example, in their study of spatial reworking at the capital, the authors pay attention to pipes, reservoirs, walkways, and roof tiles that shed light on the urban experience and the city’s hydrological system.
Compared to the authors’ interest in the spatial order, chronology does not seem to be their main concern. Although the book is titled The Archaeology of Han China, the authors specifically concentrate on the Western Han period (202 BC–AD 9), without a clear rationale for why the Eastern Han period (AD 9–220, different from the unconventional “end” date of AD 212 in the book) is not covered. Moreover, when discussing the empire building during the Western Han period, the authors utilize many Eastern Han materials, including pictorial bricks (e.g., p. 97, 191), ceramic models (e.g., p. 103, 113), and the textual record on Xi Guang and Ren Yan’s mission to assimilate people in the south. The book also uses several unconventional translations of Chinese terms. For example, the authors translate mingqi as “bright articles” instead of the commonly used term “spirit objects.” The title of the Xiongnu ruler, usually spelled “Chanyu,” is referred to as “Shanyu.”
Despite these criticisms, The Archaeology of Han China is an up-to-date synthesis of the archaeology of the centers and peripheries within early imperial China, and it closely engages with current scholarly debates about empire, identity and ethnicity, and borderlands. The book will appeal to not only Asianists but also scholars and students interested in those themes and in network approaches in archaeology.
