Sacrifice to the wind gods in late Shang China – religious, paleographic, linguistic and philological analyses: An integrated approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a bewildering array of rituals and sacrifices performed by the aristocratic, ruling elite in late Shāng China (c. 13th–11th centuries BC). They range from major, regularly scheduled, ritual observances to unscheduled rituals and sacrifices directed to the ancestors and the nature gods such as the wind, rivers, mountains and other deities. They were often accompanied with apotropaic prayers. What might have been their rationale is a question that remains to be answered. Sacrificing to the wind gods, for example, is often encountered in oracle-bone inscriptions. Scholars do not seem to have examined the deeper, ontological problem of the raison d’être of various rituals and sacrifices. A closer reading of the inscriptions containing fēng 風 ‘wind’, fèng 鳳 ‘phoenix’ and other collocated words may restore their original meanings. This paper distinguishes the ‘wind’ as a natural phenomenon from the ‘wind god’, even though they are written by the same graph. It also distinguishes between dì fēng 禘風 ‘dì-sacrifice to the wind (god)’ and níng fēng 寧風 ‘appease (unwanted) winds’. Identifying collocations of the words involved is an effective way for the distinctions we will be making. The paper also explores the need for the wind sacrifices accompanied by various other sacrifices. By addressing these issues, the paper is intended to stimulate further, in-depth discussion of the ritual and sacrificial system of late Shāng China. It covers a wide-ranging topic on late Shāng religious beliefs. They are analyzed in terms of paleography, linguistics and philology in an integrated manner.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".