When someone shares with you something of value, you have an obligation to share it with others.
Thursday 7 January 2010
State of war over Henan’s claim to have found fabled ruler’s tomb
A war of words has broken out over a provincial government’s claim to have uncovered the tomb of legendary ruler Cao Cao, underscoring the heightened scepticism towards mainland officialdom.
State of war over Henan’s claim to have found fabled ruler’s tomb
Raymond Li 05 January 2010
A war of words has broken out over a provincial government’s claim to have uncovered the tomb of legendary ruler Cao Cao, underscoring the heightened scepticism towards mainland officialdom.
The Henan provincial Bureau of Cultural Relics announced the discovery of Cao Cao’s grave in the village of Xigaoxue in Anyang county at a news conference in Beijing last week.
Archaeologists uncovered more than 250 artefacts and three sets of human bones, including those of a male in his sixties thought to be Cao Cao, who died at the age of 66 in 220AD.
If substantiated, the find would be a significant archaeological breakthrough and would shed light on the life of Cao Cao, who was popularised in The Romance of Three Kingdoms as a ruthless villain who took a weak emperor hostage. Cao Cao was able to unite much of northern China to form the Wei state, one of the three warring kingdoms at the time.
Much like the debate over Cao Cao himself, who was portrayed as a tyrant in the book but was also considered a brilliant military leader, the discovery has generated debate among academics.
Online commentators made the comparison with the “South China tiger” uproar in 2008, in which a photo purporting to have been taken in Shaanxi of a member of the critically endangered big-cat subspecies was endorsed by provincial authorities but was later found to have been faked.
Thirteen officials were sacked or disciplined over that scandal.
Ni Fangliu, a historian based in Nanjing who is a specialist on tomb theft, was among the first scholars to go on record as questioning the Henan team’s conclusions, saying he believed their reasoning was flawed.
Ni said he was initially a staunch supporter of the work at the tomb because finding Cao Cao’s grave would be a great archaeological accomplishment considering the emperor’s historic status.
However, he said that as a rule of thumb in tomb excavation, archaeologists needed to present items such as the original stone tablets bearing inscriptions identifying the person, seals or books of condolence. “If you can’t come up with these hard items, the public has good reason to suspect,” said Ni.
He said he was not rejecting the Henan team’s findings but wanted more done to ensure the bureau was not rushing to conclusions.
Cultural officials from the neighbouring town of Handan, in Hebei province, also question the evidence.
A major bone of contention is whether inscription tablets were part of burial rituals at the time.
Respected archaeologist Liu Qingzhu dismissed some of the scepticism as the result of a feud between regional governments for a slice of Cao Cao’s fame. He sees nothing wrong with the Henan bureau’s conclusions because inscription tablets were not necessarily part of burial rituals at the time. Liu, a former director of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences’ Institute of Archaeology, said it was strange that most of the questioning came from people outside archaeological circles.
The public’s scepticism stems from of a lack of faith in archaeological work, which is often under heavy influence from cultural authorities. “Why do people suspect the Henan government is taking advantage of Cao Cao’s fame to boost the local economy? Because it was true with many claims before,” said Ni.
He believes the bureau wanted to announce the find four days before the end of 2009 because it would rank as one of the biggest of the year if substantiated.
1 comment:
State of war over Henan’s claim to have found fabled ruler’s tomb
Raymond Li
05 January 2010
A war of words has broken out over a provincial government’s claim to have uncovered the tomb of legendary ruler Cao Cao, underscoring the heightened scepticism towards mainland officialdom.
The Henan provincial Bureau of Cultural Relics announced the discovery of Cao Cao’s grave in the village of Xigaoxue in Anyang county at a news conference in Beijing last week.
Archaeologists uncovered more than 250 artefacts and three sets of human bones, including those of a male in his sixties thought to be Cao Cao, who died at the age of 66 in 220AD.
If substantiated, the find would be a significant archaeological breakthrough and would shed light on the life of Cao Cao, who was popularised in The Romance of Three Kingdoms as a ruthless villain who took a weak emperor hostage. Cao Cao was able to unite much of northern China to form the Wei state, one of the three warring kingdoms at the time.
Much like the debate over Cao Cao himself, who was portrayed as a tyrant in the book but was also considered a brilliant military leader, the discovery has generated debate among academics.
Online commentators made the comparison with the “South China tiger” uproar in 2008, in which a photo purporting to have been taken in Shaanxi of a member of the critically endangered big-cat subspecies was endorsed by provincial authorities but was later found to have been faked.
Thirteen officials were sacked or disciplined over that scandal.
Ni Fangliu, a historian based in Nanjing who is a specialist on tomb theft, was among the first scholars to go on record as questioning the Henan team’s conclusions, saying he believed their reasoning was flawed.
Ni said he was initially a staunch supporter of the work at the tomb because finding Cao Cao’s grave would be a great archaeological accomplishment considering the emperor’s historic status.
However, he said that as a rule of thumb in tomb excavation, archaeologists needed to present items such as the original stone tablets bearing inscriptions identifying the person, seals or books of condolence. “If you can’t come up with these hard items, the public has good reason to suspect,” said Ni.
He said he was not rejecting the Henan team’s findings but wanted more done to ensure the bureau was not rushing to conclusions.
Cultural officials from the neighbouring town of Handan, in Hebei province, also question the evidence.
A major bone of contention is whether inscription tablets were part of burial rituals at the time.
Respected archaeologist Liu Qingzhu dismissed some of the scepticism as the result of a feud between regional governments for a slice of Cao Cao’s fame. He sees nothing wrong with the Henan bureau’s conclusions because inscription tablets were not necessarily part of burial rituals at the time. Liu, a former director of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences’ Institute of Archaeology, said it was strange that most of the questioning came from people outside archaeological circles.
The public’s scepticism stems from of a lack of faith in archaeological work, which is often under heavy influence from cultural authorities. “Why do people suspect the Henan government is taking advantage of Cao Cao’s fame to boost the local economy? Because it was true with many claims before,” said Ni.
He believes the bureau wanted to announce the find four days before the end of 2009 because it would rank as one of the biggest of the year if substantiated.
Post a Comment