The Origins of Zhou’s Enfeoffment System

The Zhou Dynasty’s enfeoffment system presents a fascinating historical puzzle: was it truly a feudal society as Marxist historiography suggests? When Marxist historical philosophy was introduced to China, officials defined the entire pre-Qin era as China’s slave society, with the Qin unification marking the beginning of feudal times. However, scholars have increasingly challenged this view, arguing that the Western Zhou period represented China’s true feudal origins due to its formal land-grant system resembling Western feudalism.

To understand a society’s true nature, we must examine its production relations and class structures rather than superficial institutional descriptions. During the Shang and Zhou periods, society comprised three classes: the numerically small aristocracy, slaves, and commoners (some wealthy commoners also owned slaves, effectively becoming slave owners). Unlike later feudal eras where landlords oppressed vast peasant populations, slave societies weren’t defined by slaves outnumbering free people—an inherently unstable situation where oppressed slaves might revolt. The true marker was slaves being engaged across all production sectors.

The Reality of Slave Society

In aristocratic fields, nobles drove slaves to perform the most backbreaking agricultural labor while family members supervised and performed lighter tasks. Wealthy commoners could purchase slaves for strenuous fieldwork. Slaves dominated every difficult occupation—pottery workshops, bronze foundries facing molten metal hazards, construction sites with frequent fatal accidents, quarries and logging camps with brutal overseers, and suffocating mines prone to cave-ins. This was the essence of slave society.

The distinction between feudal and slave systems economically lies in whether unequal labor relations stemmed from land ownership or direct personal control. Politically, it depends on whether privileges came through hierarchical enfeoffment or economic power derived from slave ownership. The pre-Qin enfeoffment system saw lords’ power rooted in their family’s military and economic strength (slaves and land), with Zhou kings merely recognizing existing power. This differs fundamentally from European medieval feudalism.

The Transition to True Feudalism

The real beginning of China’s feudal society came with Shang Yang’s reforms in Qin, establishing a military merit system where land grants and associated privileges came from higher nobles. By the Han Dynasty, this system matured, though China’s early centralization made it appear atypical. While the administrative commandery-county system showed central control, mid-to-lower levels still relied on layered power grants.

The idealized “well-field system” described by Confucians likely never existed as depicted. This utopian model ignored human self-interest—farmers would naturally prioritize private plots over communal ones. A more plausible origin lies in early agricultural development where collective farming was necessary due to primitive technology. As surpluses emerged and social stratification occurred, ruling classes demanded continued labor on “public fields,” creating an early labor tax disguised as tradition.

Zhou’s Armed Colonization Strategy

The Zhou people rose from agricultural origins in the Wei River valley, their ancestor Houji revered as the god of grain. After generations of struggle, their victory at Muye destroyed the Shang and established Zhou rule. Facing the challenge of governing vast territories as a smaller power (“small Zhou conquering great Shang”), Kings Wu and the Duke of Zhou created a comprehensive system centered on kinship hierarchy and enfeoffment.

Zhou’s enfeoffment was essentially armed colonization—dispatching royal relatives and meritorious ministers with their clans and armies to unstable regions as authorized colonies. Examples include states like Cai, Sui, Ying, and Xi among the “Han Yang Ji” or border states like Qi and Yan. This cost the Zhou king nothing while expanding control—land nominally belonged to the king but was conquered and defended by lords who became border guardians.

This model allowed Chinese civilization to expand across modern China’s territory. Colonies established cities in optimal farming areas, gradually assimilating local populations through force and cultural appeal. Some regions remained only loosely controlled for centuries, like Qin’s nominal rule over Lingnan’s three commanderies, with full development coming much later under the Song Dynasty.

Varieties of Enfeoffment

Different enfeoffment patterns emerged:
– Near-capital nobles: Weaker clans or those closely tied to the king were granted lands around the capital to serve as royal guards and provide troops for the king’s armies (like the Western Six Armies or Chengzhou Eight Armies). Examples include early Guo, Zheng, Yu, and Bao.
– Powerful semi-independent states: Entities like Chu in the south or Shen in the northwest were too strong to eliminate but acknowledged Zhou’s nominal sovereignty.
– Assimilated former enemies: Conquered but not fully integrated groups like descendants of Shang royalty were granted states like Song.
– Strategic royal relatives: Key family members were placed in critical locations, like the Duke of Zhou’s son Boqin in Lu next to powerful Qi, or the Duke of Shao in Yan bordering hostile forces.
– Political exiles: Figures like Taibo who founded Wu likely fled political struggles rather than voluntarily relinquishing power, establishing distant outposts with their followers.

The Fall of Western Zhou

The conventional tale of King You fooling nobles with false beacon signals to amuse his concubine Bao Si obscures the complex realities behind Zhou’s collapse. Military analysis reveals the story’s implausibility—beacon signals couldn’t summon distant states simultaneously, and mobilization required weeks. The truth involves deep political crises:

After King Li’s failed reforms and exile (841 BCE), Zhou never fully recovered. Military defeats eroded royal power—the Western Six Armies were destroyed fighting Chu (961 BCE), and subsequent losses to western tribes left the dynasty vulnerable. Natural disasters like droughts and river failures (780 BCE) compounded problems. Meanwhile, nobles steadily encroached on royal lands and authority.

King You’s reign (781-771 BCE) saw critical mistakes: replacing senior officials with favorites, deposing his heir Yijiu (who fled to maternal relative Marquis Shen), and promoting Bao Si’s son Bofu. When Shen allied with western tribes to restore Yijiu, Zhou forces were defeated. King You was killed at Mount Li, with no allies coming to his aid—not because of prior deception, but due to widespread disillusionment with Zhou rule.

The subsequent division saw Marquis Shen and allies proclaim Yijiu as King Ping in the east, while royalists supported King You’s brother Yu Chen as King Xie in the west. This “Two Kings Period” ended when Jin’s Duke Wen killed Xie in 750 BCE, but Zhou never regained its former power.

Military Foundations and Evolution

Zhou’s military strength originally lay in three main forces:
1. Western Six Armies: The core force that conquered Shang, later rebuilt after heavy losses.
2. Yin Eight Armies: Established after rebellions to control former Shang territories.
3. Chengzhou Eight Armies: Created to guard the eastern capital and handle southern threats.

These forces relied on chariots as elite striking units with infantry support. Each chariot carried three armored warriors (nobles) and was supported by foot soldiers (commoners). Slaves rarely fought—the Shang’s disastrous experience arming slaves at Muye served as warning. Zhou’s military expansion depended on increasing noble numbers to crew more chariots.

Chariot warfare dominated until the Spring and Autumn period, when infantry began gaining importance. The Zhou chariot was a technological marvel—larger and sturdier than Near Eastern counterparts, with sophisticated lubrication systems and weight distribution allowing four-horse teams to carry three fully armored warriors. Recent reconstructions demonstrate their impressive mobility and psychological impact, though they ultimately proved inferior to cavalry.

Legacy and Historical Significance

The Zhou collapse, while traumatic, allowed Chinese civilization to evolve beyond rigid ritual hierarchies. What we remember as “feudal” China actually began with Qin’s reforms, while Zhou’s system represented an aristocratic slave society transitioning toward feudalism. The Eastern Zhou’s fragmentation created the conditions for philosophical flowering during the Hundred Schools of Thought.

Zhou’s achievements—cultural integration, territorial expansion, and administrative innovations—laid foundations for imperial China. Their military systems, though obsolete, reflected the social structures of their time. The chariot’s eventual obsolescence mirrors how societies must adapt or decline—a lesson resonating through China’s long history of absorbing foreign ideas while maintaining cultural continuity.

Ultimately, the Zhou story teaches that civilizations survive not through rigid systems but through adaptability. Their fall, though blamed on romanticized tales of beauty causing kingdoms to crumble, actually resulted from institutional failures to address changing realities—a warning as relevant today as three millennia ago.