Cross-reading “Kang gao,” “Shao gao,” and “Luo gao” research-article Michael Nylan Journal of Asian History, Jahrgang 54 (2020), Ausgabe 1, Seite 1 - 62 This essay seeks to bring into the same discursive space the entire range of evidence – literary, epigraphic, archaeological, and theoretical – about the seemingly intractable problem presented by a group of chapters in the Documents classic: the circumstances prompting the founding of Luo city 洛/雒邑 and a possibly related site called ChengZhou 成周 in the first decade of early Western Zhou. As multiple secondary sources have acknowledged, the available evidence is unfortunately contradictory, with the result that three main solutions have been proposed: that Luo city is the same as ChengZhou; that Luo city and ChengZhou are two separate cities; and that Luo City and ChengZhou are closely connected somehow, as if in a “package.” Each of these solutions requires ignoring part of the evidence at hand, however. While admitting that a “solution” to this problem at this remove in time seems unlikely, this essay suggests a possible way forward that seems “good to think with.”