The Wu Liang Shrine Revisited

        Awarded the 1990 Joseph Levenson Prize of the Association of Asian Studies, The Wu Liang Shrine (hereafter WS) was translated to Chinese version Wu Liang Ci in 2006, and has received acknowledgements from both Western and Chinese scholars. I will compare the book with its prototype, the Ph.D. dissertation Hung Wu compiled in 1986 at Harvard University, and further read along with Rethinking Recarving: Ideas, Practices, and Problems of the “Wu Family Shrines” and Han China (hereafter RR). This review composes of three major parts:
        First I will give a brief summary of the book. Secondly, setting aside the detailed arguments concerning its subject matter, I explore mainly the shaping, expressing of an idea, its transmission into another language and impacts on the Chinese tradition of academic field. Finally I give a brief account of the exciting new achievements on this topic and in related larger field of Han pictorial carvings.

[Summary of The Wu Liang Shrine]
        The Wu Liang shrine, in Jiaxiang, Shangdong province, is one of the best-known and most fully published monuments of the Han period (206 BC-220CE). As noted by Hung Wu, the history of scholarly attention to Wu Family Shrine lasted for nearly one thousand years, making the historiography of those studies itself a fascinating topic. Combined with a critical view, the first part of this book, “A Thousand Years of Scholarship: the Wu Family Shrine”, offers an analytical review of the history of scholarship. Instead of simply recounting the background, methodological concerns are greatly emphasized on revealing a variation of approaches of the long line of great minds in this field. For an art history student, the benefit of reading then lies beyond this single moment, in the glimpse of a reexamination of intellectual tradition.
        The second part, “ The Wu Liang Shrine Carvings: A Pictorial Universe” , is devoted to the interpretation of the entire programme of carvings. Logically arranged in three parts, the ceiling, the gables and the walls, with the appendix A offering a stone by stone account, Hung Wu stressed on the importance of close reading in a larger compositional structure. The approach he adopted can be divided into three steps: (1) the individual motifs and representations, as fully listed in appendix A; (2) the overall pictorial structure; (3) the collective ideological significance behind this composition of those individual representations, which is further discussed in the epilogue.
        Based on the previous discussions, Hung Wu proposes the mode of ready transparent symbols and the design process in rearranging and inter-acting those motifs. Parallel with the abundantly discussed Buddhist and Daoist art, the Wu Liang Shrine can be regarded as an example of Han Confucian art. Examined in the context of New Script School, Wu Liang himself, as a retired worthy, commissioned the art and communicated his Confucian ideas through it.

[Shaping, Developing and Passing through an Idea]
        At first it seems almost unwise to choose such a well published topic for a long study. However, it is a well-accepted fact that making breakthroughs on old material is much more difficult compared with bringing forth new arguments on new discoveries. By adopting the approach emphasizing on methodological self-awareness, Hung Wu undoubtedly succeeded in his challenge.
        His discussions are aptly arranged separately in the main body of the book and in the long and full appendices which stresses textual evidence. Well braced by the effort of attention to individual motifs, which is further supported by traditional texts and related studies, attentions are paid in its consistent and very full account of the iconographic programme of the shrine.
        When compared with his Ph.D. thesis, the first notable difference is the main argument. The thesis still paid much attention on the internal logic of the overall arrangement of the carvings. However, in the epilogue, he purposes that the Wu Liang Shrine carvings indicate an archaic revival in pictorial style during the Eastern Han. The strong ideological imagery of the Wu Liang Shrine suggests that this archaism was a reaction against the more representational style which had been developed during the Western Han. The main shift in the argument is evident from a stylistic standpoint to a more interpretative perspective closely related to text examination and context investigation.
        The second difference is the structure of the book. When Hung Wu rewrote the thesis into the book, two main parts, both concerning the Eastern Han funerary shrine and its origin, archaeological and textural evidences were left out. This may also resulted alongside the changes in main argument, which made this part of analysis no longer necessary. However, the ideas developed in this part were put into a journal paper later [1], and then absorbed into the book on monumentality [2] .
        Tracing the forming and developing of his ideas, the major points made in his book were all first carried out by published papers. This may indicate a step by step research progress dealt with different subject in different phases. For instance, the analysis on good omens is preceded by a paper in 1984 [3], and the cultural background of Shandong in a paper in 1988 [4]. Dividing a large topic into different sub-topics should be considered as a feasible way to develop an idea to carry out one’s doctoral thesis gradually.
        As mentioned above, in the final book, the main body paid little attention to stylistic issues, except the point made on Queen Mother of the west (the early tradition of figure representation in China was narrative, showing figures usually in profile, hunting, fighting or performing religious ceremonies, here her showed full face, in much more static compositions. This new formula, the author shows convincingly, was borrowed from Buddhism. As a religion brought from Central Asia and India composition and foreign to China, Buddha is always depicted either standing or sitting, facing the viewer with attendants symmetrically places on either side), which was mentioned and supported by Patricia Berger in her review. However, this idea was also fully discussed in his early papers [5].

[The Publication of Wu Liang Ci in Chinese and Its Influences]
        The work was introduced to China by Yan Zheng and published in 2006. Sold out immediately, the book has always enjoyed great popularity and has just been reprinted .
        The reason behind this popularity is probably the cross-disciplinary effort Hung Wu made. This approach treats the subject matter in the combined effort including rigorous and systematic archaeological analysis, historian’s textural tradition and the interpretive perspective of art historian.
        Hung Wu’s intention is to explain rather than to describe, and set out to discuss and interpret the complex figure scenes. This is exactly the shortcoming of most art history works done in Chinese. Accompanied with a trend in art history, a shift of attention was reflected in Hung Wu’s work. Not only concentrated on the graphic analysis, further discussion of social and political significance of art, the exploration of patrons, audience and representation are investigated. As a book fascinating throughout its considerable length, it was reader friendly and welcomed among art history students and general readers.
        The study of Wu Family Shrine has been dominated by a traditional interpretive discourse with textural orientation. However, with the emerging of massive materials from Han dynasty, this approach should be broadened to include a thorough examination of surviving physical and visual sources, and should approach such materials from new perspectives and by involving new disciplines. In this urging demand, the book Rethinking Recarving came forth in 2008.

[Rethinking and Recarving: New Developments and Future Concerns]
        Among the few works that composed under the shadow of The Wu Liang Shrine, Rethinking and Recarving, a collection of essays by archaeologists, art and architectural historians (after the 2005 exhibition catalogue Recarving China’s Past), is by far the most exciting publication.
        With the purpose of reexamination of the traditional view of the Wu Family Shrines, the contributors reconsider the approaches and methods used, and distinguish what is knowable from what is interpretation (RR p.6). Careful inspection reveals certain problems that have been neglected by previous studies in the following aspects:
        (1) Lack of Field Work and Close Investigation
        Represented by Cary Y. Liu’s essay (RR pp.20-51), questions are raised on the neglecting of primary sources. For the restricted access to site, scholars have been satisfied with transmitted texts or rubbings. Close examination reveals an incontrovertible evidence of physical recarving that was omitted by previous interpretations. Thus, the gathered stones reveal a much more complicated culture history. Attentions are called to the surviving monuments for further systematic investigation.
        (2) Questions about the Textual Bias
        Demonstrated in Miranda Brown’s essay (RR pp.180-195), is the first attempt in English to discuss the reliability and authenticity of historical texts. Stone inscriptions, just as other tests, share the same problem as transmitted through the ages, such as identification and interpolation. Instead of an unmediated access to the past, texts on steles should also be treated with care.
        (3) Reexamination of Han Funerary Practice, Art and Architecture
        With the emerging of more and more recently discovered documents and archaeological materials are still constantly shaping one’s understandings of Han culture. The notion of Han society, which is the context to place the understanding of Wu Family Shrines, is not monolithic or static. Michael Loewe’s essay (RR pp.52-75) focuses on the organization of public life and social structure, and refers briefly to religious practice and intellectual activities, in an effort to avoid a gullible acceptance of cliche. The ritual practice of transforming the burial site to a sacred space is examined by Lydia Tompson (RR pp.78-91).
        Nor should we form a fixed and idealized picture of Han funerary art and architecture. Yan Zheng in his essay (RR pp.92-109) drew new archaeological evidence to discuss the inscriptional content and pictorial iconography. Fresh insights were given on the viewers of Han funeral art. Susan Erickson (RR pp.110-131) examined the que-pillar in Wu Family Shrine and further compared them with related structures in Shangdong, indicating that the program on que-pillars is not unique to Wu Liang cemetery. Michael Nylan’s essay (RR pp.196-231) discussed the aboveground structure citang, its literature and archaeological evidence. He raised questions concerning the lack of records and understanding of the worship halls erected by wealthy commoners, which is also an important factor to understand the Wu Family Shrine as a whole.
        (5) Further Discussions on Carved Meanings
        One of the centers of disputations, “the homage scene” is explored in Jiang Yingju’s essay (RR pp.162-179). A frame work for understanding the famous battle scenes is also included as an abstract by Hsing I-tien (RR pp.232-233).
        Beyond Wu Family Shrine and Shandong province, Klaas Ruitenbeek (RR pp. 132-159) attempts to define the stylistic and iconographic features of the Northwestern style of Eastern Han pictorial stone carving, including the evidences found in Shaanxi and western Shanxi. Qing-dynasty Representation of Wu Family Shrine are discussed by Eileen Hsiang-ling Hsu (RR pp. 236-259) and Lillian Lan-ying Tseng (RR pp. 260-283). Critics and responses are also included (RR pp. 286-339).

        Those problems above are largely left out by Hung Wu. For instance, the textural tradition he depended on often lacks careful consideration of the source. However, one would be amazed at the progress the field has made in the years between, both in knowledge and methodology. Any attempt may also end up as an explanation instead of the explanation, but in the efforts of an understanding, the scholars are recarving the history, at the same time recarving themselves.
        “Have faith in antiquity, have doubts about antiquity, explain antiquity” is the form scholarship have been taking in modern times (RR p.15). As a symposium that took “doubt” as its main theme, skeptical inquiry and intellectual encounters in the form of academic debates are always beneficial to the promotion of our cognition, both to ourselves and the academic field.


Notes:

[1] Hung Wu, "From Temple to Tomb: Ancient Chinese Art and Religion in Transition," Early China (1988) 13: 78-115.
[2] Hung Wu. Monumentality in Early Chinese Art and Architecture. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995.
[3] Hung Wu, "A Sanpan Shan Chariot Ornament and the Xiangrui Design in Western Han Art," Archives of Asian Art, (1984) XXXVLL: 38-59.
[4] Hung Wu, "A Study of Ancient cultures of the Shandong Region, in Light of Geographical Distribution and Topographical Changes," in Su Bingqi, ed., An Anthology of Chinese Archaeological and Cultural Studies. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1987. (in Chinese).
[5] Hung Wu, "Buddhist Elements in Early Chinese Art (2nd and 3rd century AD)," Artibus Asiae (1986) 47.3/4: 263-347; Hung Wu, "Xiwang Mu, the Queen Mother of the West," Orientations (1987, April): 24-33.