Imprints of Kinship: Studies of Recently Discovered Bronze Inscriptions from Ancient China 9789629966393, 9629966395

Citation preview

Institute of Chinese Studies The Chinese University of Hong Kong Monographs Series (17)

Imprints of Kinship Studies of Recently Discovered Bronze Inscriptions from Ancient China

Edited by Edward L. Shaughnessy

The Chinese University Press

ICS Monographs Series (17) Imprints of Kinship: Studies of Recently Discovered Bronze Inscriptions from Ancient China Edited by Edward L. Shaughnessy © The Chinese University of Hong Kong 2017 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from The Chinese University of Hong Kong. ISBN: 978-962-996-639-3 The Chinese University Press The Chinese University of Hong Kong Sha Tin, N.T., Hong Kong Fax: +852 2603 7355 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.chineseupress.com Printed in Hong Kong

Contents

Lists of Figures, Tables and Maps

vii

Contributors

xi

Preface Edward L. SHAUGHNESSY

1

The Language of the Bronze Inscriptions Wolfgang BEHR

9

Shang Emblems in Their Archaeological Context Olivier VENTURE

33

Inscribed Bronzes, Gift-giving and Social Networks in the Early Western Zhou: A Case Study of the Yan Cemetery at Liulihe Yan SUN

47

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng and Relationships between Zhou and Northern Non-Zhou Lineages (Until the Early Ninth Century B.C.) Maria KHAYUTINA

71

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History: Inscribed Bronze Vessels, 2000–2010 Edward L. SHAUGHNESSY

133

On the Possibility That the Two Western Zhou States Yu and Rui Were Originally Located in the Jian River Valley CH’EN Chao-jung

189

vi · Contents

A Study of the Bronze Vessels and Sacrificial Remains of the Early Qin State from Lixian, Gansu LI Feng

209

Genealogical Statements on Ritual Bronzes of the Spring and Autumn Period Guolong LAI

235

Reflections on Literary and Devotional Aspects of Western Zhou Memorial Inscriptions Robert ENO

261

Bibliography

287

Finding List of Bronze Vessels Cited

319

Index

331

Lists of Figures, Tables and Maps

Figures Figure 2.1

Main Content of Bronze Inscriptions from M1046 at Liujiazhuang North

36

Figure 2.2

Inscriptions from Qianzhangda Tombs

37

Figure 2.3

Major and Minor Emblems of Tomb M907 at Yinxu West Zone

39

Figure 3.1

Bronze Zhi Commissioned by Shu from Tomb M251 54 (M251:8) and Bronze Zhi Commissioned by Gongzhong from Tomb M251 (M251:9)

Figure 3.2

Bronze Zun (M253:2) and Bronze You (M253:5) Attributed to Yu

56

Figure 3.3

Distribution of Burials in Zone One and Zone Two in the Yan Cemetery at Liulihe

62

Figure 3.4

Distribution of Burials in Zone Three and Zone Four 63 in the Yan Cemetery at Liulihe

Figure 4.1

Objects from Tomb M1 at Hengshui, Jiangxian, Shanxi

Figure 4.2

Objects from Tomb M2 at Hengshui, Jiangxian, Shanxi

76

Figure 4.3

Tureens from Peng Tombs M1 and M2 and Their Parallels

78

Figure 4.4

Vessels with Inscriptions Mentioning Yigong

80

Figure 4.5

Pottery Vessels from Hengbei M1

82

Figure 4.6

Three-Legged Weng in Western Zhou Tombs

84

Figure 4.7

Northern Pottery Forms and Their Southwestern Shanxi Counterparts

89

Figure 4.8

Gaohong Pottery in Comparison to Hengbei Vessels

93

75

viii · Lists of Figures, Tables and Maps

Figure 5.1

Shu Ze fangding 叔夨方鼎 Inscription

136

Figure 5.2a–b

Yao Gong gui g公簋 Vessel and Inscription

138

Figure 5.3a–b

E Hou fangyi 噩侯方彝 Vessel and Inscription

141

Figure 5.4a–b

Bi Bo Ke ding 畢白克鼎 Vessel and Inscription

148

Figure 5.5a–b

He gui 𣄰簋 Vessel and Inscription

151

Figure 5.6a–b

Lu gui 䚄簋 Vessel and Inscription

152

Figure 5.7a–b

Shi Shan pan 士山盤 Vessel and Inscription

156

Figure 5.8a–b

Shi You ding 師酉鼎 Vessel and Inscription

157

Figure 5.9a–c

Ying Hou gui 應侯簋 Vessel and Inscriptions

159

Figure 5.10a–b

Ying Hou Xiangong ding 應侯見工鼎 Vessel and Inscription

161

Figure 5.11a–b

Bo Congfu gui 伯㦰父簋 Vessel and Inscription

163

Figure 5.12a–b

Zuo Bo ding 柞白鼎 Vessel and Inscription

166

Figure 5.13a–b

Diao Sheng zun 琱生尊 Vessel and Inscription

169

Figure 5.14

Xian ding p鼎 Inscription

171

Figure 5.15a–b

Wen xu 文盨 Vessel and Inscription

173

Figure 6.1

Handled You-Bucket Decorated with Large Phoenixes 197 Found in Tomb M27, Liangdaicun, Shaanxi

Figure 6.2

Gui-Tureen with Square Base Collected in 1998 in Longxian, Shaanxi

198

Figure 7.1

Qin Gong Bronzes from Dabuzishan, Group A

213

Figure 7.2

Qin Gong Bronzes from Dabuzishan, Group B

214

Figure 7.3

“Qinzi” Bo-bells and Bells Unearthed from the Sacrificial Pit K5 at Dabuzishan

224

Figure 7.4

Bronzes and Pottery from Tomb M25 at Dabuzishan 228

black

Tables Table 2.1

Comparison of Fu Hao’s Name in Oracular 34 Inscriptions and Her Emblem in Bronze Inscriptions

Table 2.2

Proportion of Different Kinds of Content in Bronze Inscriptions from Qianzhangda

39

Table 2.3

Bronze Inscriptions from Yinxu West Zone

42

Table 3.1

Inscribed Bronzes Found in Tomb M251 at Liulihe

51

Lists of Figures, Tables and Maps · ix

Table 3.2

Inscribed Bronzes Found in Tomb M253 at Liulihe

Table 4.1

King Mu (r. 956–928 B.C.) Inscriptions from Years 20–34

115

55

Table 4.2

Calendar of King Gong (r. 922–900 B.C.)

116

Table 4.3

King Yih (r. 899–873 B.C.) Inscriptions from Years 1–8

118

Table 7.1

Known Bronzes from the Tombs of the Dukes of Qin in Lixian 禮縣, Gansu

210

Table 7.2

Comparison of Bo-bells

225

Table 7.3

Comparison of Qin Wugong Yong-bells (Taigongmiao) 226 and Yong-bells from Dabuzishan

Maps Map 2.1

Archaeological Remains at the Shang Site of Yinxu

41

Map 4.1

Geographical Situation of Peng

72

Map 4.2

Archaeological Sites, Western Zhou Polities and Finds of Inscribed Bronzes

84

Map 6.1

Location of Yu 虞, Rui 芮 and Zhou 周

194

Map 6.2

Distribution of Ze 夨 Bronzes in the Jian River Valley

195

Map 7.1

Distribution of Tombs of the Dukes of Qin in the Dabuzishan Walled Site

218

T his page intentionally left blank

Contributors

Wolfgang BEHR (Chinese name 畢鶚) is the Traditional China Chair at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. He read Sinology, Slavic Studies, Indo-European Comparative Linguistics, and Sociology at universities in Frankfurt, Shenyang, Changchun, and Moscow, receiving his M.A. in 1991 with a thesis on Sanskrit-Chinese Lexicography and his Ph.D. in 1997 with a dissertation on “Rhyming Bronze Inscriptions and the Origins of Chinese End-rhyme Versification.” Behr has been continuously working on themes situated at the interface between the paleography, phonology, and etymology of the Chinese language, which inform the historical linguistics of comparative Sino-Tibetan. From 2001 to 2007, he has been first Executive Secretary, then President, of the European Association of Chinese Linguistics. He was a founding member of the European Association for the Study of Chinese Manuscripts in 2004 and is one of the directors of the Li Fang-Kuei Society for Chinese Linguistics. His major publications include special issues on Language and Thought in East Asia and on early Chinese artificial prose, as well as a three-volume textbook of Classical Chinese (with Bob Gassmann, 2nd ed., 2012–2013) in German. More recently, he is the co-editor of the Handbook of Early Chinese Manuscripts, as well as of the five-volume Encyclopedia of Chinese Language and Linguistics, to appear with E.J. Brill Publishers, Leiden, in 2016. CH’EN Chao-jung 陳昭容 is a Research Fellow in the Institute of History and Philology of Academia Sinica in Taipei, Taiwan. She received her Ph.D. from Tunghai University in Taichung, Taiwan, and has worked at Academia Sinica since 1983. She works on the history of the Chinese script and bronze inscriptions. In her work on bronze inscriptions, she focuses in particular on social structure and kinship relations. She has published numerous scholarly articles, and has been the editor of Xinshou Yin Zhou

xii · Contributors

qingtongqi mingwen ji qiying huibian 新收殷周青銅器銘文暨器影彙編 (2006), Guwenzi yu gudai shi 古文字與古代史 (2007), and Yinxu chutu qiwu xuancui 殷墟出土器物選粹 (2009). In addition, she is primarily responsible for Academia Sinica’s “Yin Zhou jinwen ji qingtongqi ziliaoku” 殷周金文暨 青銅器資料庫 database. Robert ENO has written on a variety of topics concerning early China, including work on Shang and Zhou inscriptions, with a primary focus on the intellectual history of the Spring-Autumn and Warring States periods. His publications include “Shang State Religion and the Pantheon of the Oracle Texts” (2009) and “The Social Background of the Kong Family of Lu and the Origins of Ruism” (2003). He taught for many years at Indiana University. Maria KHAYUTINA (Chinese name 夏玉婷) is Visiting Lecturer in the Institute of Sinology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, in Germany. She received her Ph.D. in History from the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and works on the history of early China through the Warring States period, in particular on Western Zhou bronze inscriptions. She is currently engaged in a habilitation project entitled “Kinship, Marriage and Politics in Early China (11–8 c. B.C.).” Most recently she curated the exhibition “Qin: The Eternal Emperor and His Terracotta Warriors” at the Bernisches Historisches Museum in Bern, Switzerland, and edited the exhibition catalog Qin: The Eternal Emperor and His Terracotta Warriors (2013). Guolong LAI 來國龍 is Associate Professor of Chinese Art and Archaeology at the University of Florida. He attended Jilin University (B.A. 1991, International Law), Peking University (M.A. 1994, Archaeology and Paleography), and UCLA (Ph.D. 2002, Art History). His research interests include early Chinese art and archaeology, paleography, museology, and the history of heritage conservation in modern China. He is the author of Excavating the Afterlife: The Archaeology of Early Chinese Religion (University of Washington Press, 2015), and the co-editor of the conference volume Collectors, Collections and Collecting the Arts of China: Histories and Challenges (2013).

Contributors · xiii

LI Feng 李峰 is Professor of Early Chinese History and Archaeology at Columbia University. He was trained in archaeology and paleography at the Institute of Archaeology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (M.A. 1986) and the University of Tokyo (1990–1992), and in history at the University of Chicago (Ph.D. 2000). With a central interest in bronze inscriptions and Western Zhou history, Li’s research extends to broad issues such as the organization of early states, the workings of ancient bureaucracies, interregional cultural relations, and the nature and functions of early writing. He is also an active field archaeologist. His works include Landscape and Power in Early China: The Crisis and Fall of the Western Zhou 1045–771 BC (2006), Bureaucracy and the State in Early China: Governing the Western Zhou (2008; Joseph Levenson Prize Honorable Mention 2010), Writing and Literacy in Early China: Studies from the Columbia Early China Seminar (co-editor, 2011), and Early China: A Social and Cultural History (2013). He is currently preparing a bilingual monographic report with colleagues in China on their three-year collaborative field archaeological survey in Guicheng, Shandong province. Edward L. SHAUGHNESSY (Chinese name 夏含夷) is the Lorraine J. and Herrlee G. Creel Distinguished Service Professor in Early China Studies in the Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations of the University of Chicago. He attended the University of Notre Dame (B.A. 1970, Theology) and Stanford University (M.A. 1980, Ph.D. 1983; Asian Languages) and studied for a number of years in Taiwan at the Tiande hongshe 天德黌舍. Throughout his career, he has worked broadly on the cultural history of ancient China, specializing in the written traditions of the Zhou dynasty. He is the author, among other works, of Sources of Western Zhou History: Inscribed Bronze Vessels (1991), I Ching, The Classic of Changes: The First English Translation of the Newly Discovered SecondCentury B.C. Mawang- dui Texts (1997), Before Confucius: Studies in the Creation of the Chinese Classics (1997), Gu shi yi guan 古史異觀 (2005), Rewriting Early Chinese Texts (2006), and Xing yu xiang: Zhongguo gudai wenhua shi lunji 興與象：中國古代文化史論集 (2012), and was the co-editor (with Michael Loewe) of The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C. (1999). Most recently, he has completed a study entitled Unearthing the Changes: Recently Discovered Manuscripts of the Yi Jing (I Ching) and Related Texts (Columbia University Press, 2014).

xiv · Contributors

Yan SUN 孫岩 is Professor in the Department of Art and Art History at Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania. She received her bachelor’s degree from the Department of Archaeology at Peking University (1994) and a doctoral degree in Chinese Art History from the Department of History of Art and Architecture at the University of Pittsburgh (2001). Her research focuses on the rise of regional bronze cultures and the interplay between material culture, social identities and power during the late Shang and Western Zhou periods. Her major publications include “Bronzes, Mortuary Practice and Political Strategies of the Yan in North China” (2003), “Colonizing China’s Northern Frontier: Yan and Her Neighbors during the Early Western Zhou Period” (2006), “Cultural and Political Control in North China: Style and Use of the Bronzes of the Yan at Liulihe during the Early Western Zhou Period” (2006), “The Source and Spatial Distribution of Bronzes from Hanzhong and Their Cultural Implications” (in Chinese and English, 2011), “Material Culture and Social Identities in Western Zhou’s Frontier: Case Studies of the Yu and Peng Lineages,” Gender and Chinese Archaeology (co-edited with Katheryn M. Linduff, 2004), Hanzhong chutu Shangdai qingtongqi 漢中出土商代青銅器 (2006), and Shaanbei chutu qingtongqi 陝北出土青銅器 (co-edited with Cao Wei 曹瑋, 2009). Olivier VENTURE (Chinese name 風儀誠) has been Assistant Professor at the École Pratique des Hautes Études, in Paris since 2005, where he teaches courses on Chinese civilization from Shang to Han. His publications concern ancient inscriptions, bamboo manuscripts, wood documents and the use of writing in early China.

Preface Edward L. SHAUGHNESSY The University of Chicago

The studies in the present volume derive from a conference entitled “Ancient Chinese Bronzes from the Shouyang Studio and Elsewhere: An International Conference Commemorating Twenty Years of Discoveries” held at the University of Chicago on 5–7 November 2010. The conference was intended to celebrate the opening of the exhibition “Ancient Chinese Bronzes from the Shouyang Studio: The Katherine and George Fan Collection,” held at the Art Institute of Chicago from 7 November 2010 through 2 January 2011. The Art Institute exhibition marked the third and final showing of Katherine and George Fan’s remarkable collection of ancient Chinese bronzes, the collection having previously been exhibited at the Shanghai Museum (18 October 2008–7 February 2009) and at the Art Museum of The Chinese University of Hong Kong (28 February–2 August 2009).1 A previous conference had been held at The Chinese University of Hong Kong on 17–18 April 2009, attended primarily—although by no means exclusively—by scholars from China. This conference resulted in a volume of essays, also primarily—though again not exclusively—in Chinese, entitled prosaically enough Zhongguo gudai qingtongqi guoji yantaohui lunwenji 中國古代青銅器國際研討會論文集, i.e., Collection of Essays from the International Conference on Ancient Chinese Bronze Vessels.2 With the return of the Fan Collection to the United States, we felt that it would be proper that another conference should feature primarily Western scholarship. Moreover, whereas The Chinese University of Hong Kong conference and the attendant conference volume were exclusively focused on pieces in the Fan Collection, we felt that for the purposes of a second conference it would be appropriate to broaden the focus to include all ancient bronze vessels that had appeared in the preceding 20 years— the period during which Mr. Fan had assembled his collection; Mr. Fan

2 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

himself was very supportive of this broader focus. The Chicago conference brought together twenty scholars for three days of presentations and discussions. The scholars came from throughout the Western world, as well as China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Since many of the Chinese participants had already contributed to the previous volume, they agreed that the present volume should include only essays in English. From those essays, we decided further to select just those addressing inscriptions on the vessels. Considering these further, it soon became clear that many of them cohered around the common theme of kinship; hence the title of the present volume: Imprints of Kinship: Studies of Recently Discovered Bronze Inscriptions from Ancient China. The volume includes nine essays, of which four address in particular the topic of kinship among bronzes from four significant archaeological sites of the Western Zhou dynasty. Yan Sun examines the early Western Zhou bronzes excavated in the 1980s from the cemetery of the state of Yan 燕 at Liulihe 琉璃河, just outside of Beijing. She describes how individual tombs in this cemetery, located on the periphery of the Zhou political world, reflect donations of different persons and even different cultural backgrounds. Although the rulers of Yan belonged to the highest levels of the Zhou royal family, the state included also a significant population that had lived in the area prior to the Zhou conquest of Shang, and over time came to include as well—through marriage, warfare and other relationships—people from other states in the surrounding area. As Sun says in her conclusion, “vessels in a single tomb represent snapshots of various social connections between the deceased and his or her family and other individuals and lineages.” Maria Khayutina draws similar conclusions from the cemetery of the state of Peng 倗, first discovered in 2005 in Jiangxian 絳縣, Shanxi, the excavation of which continues to the present day. Unlike the state of Yan, well known from traditional Chinese historical sources, Peng is almost unheard of in those sources. Nevertheless, evidence in both bronze inscriptions and also the archaeological evidence unearthed from the tombs of its rulers show that by the middle of the Western Zhou period, the period of the elite tombs excavated to date, the state enjoyed a high level of cultural production and was fully engaged with the better-known states surrounding it. Nevertheless, there is other evidence linking Peng with indigenous cultures of the area around Jiangxian. Khayutina traces some of these inf luences to the Lijiaya 李家崖 culture of the Lüliang Mountains of western Shanxi and areas to the west of the north-south

Preface · 3

stretch of the Yellow River, and suggests ways in which Peng served as a conduit between these northern cultures and the metropolitan Zhou culture. For instance, she shows that Peng was well represented at the Zhou court, and had close relations with some of the leading figures of that court. In this regard, she demonstrates that the recently excavated Peng bronzes may contribute important information toward resolving the vexed issue of the chronology of the middle Western Zhou kings. Another remarkable archaeological discovery of the last ten years is the topic of Ch’en Chao-jung’s contribution to the volume. Archaeological excavations, ongoing since 2005 at Liangdaicun 梁帶村, Hancheng 韓城, Shaanxi, have unearthed a cemetery of the ruling elite of the state of Rui 芮, a celebrated but apparently minor state that maintained itself over the course of several centuries in the very heart of the Zhou homeland. Rui was implicated in Zhou politics from an early date. Indeed, King Wen (r. 1099–1050 B.C.) is supposed to have come to prominence by virtue of adjudicating a lawsuit between Rui and Yu 虞. However, it was unclear just where Rui was located. Indeed, most scholars had assumed that it was located further east, within what is today Shanxi province, very near to where Peng was located. The excavations at Liangdaicun have now resolved this long-standing debate over the location of Rui. But more than that, as in the cases of Yan and Peng examined by Yan Sun and Maria Khayutina, the bronzes from this cemetery also suggest how Rui engaged with people of other states in the vicinity. The fourth contribution to address a particular archaeological site is that of Li Feng, who introduces the cemetery and architectural remains at Dabuzishan 大堡子山, Lixian 禮縣, Gansu. This site came to worldwide attention in the early 1990s through the appearance on the international antique market of bronzes commissioned by one or more Qin Gong 秦公, Duke of Qin. Qin, of course, is the important state that would eventually unify all other states to create the Chinese empire, so that its early history is of crucial importance in understanding early Chinese cultural history. The site was originally looted by tomb robbers, but archaeologists have subsequently conducted extensive excavations there. Despite the advances made possible by these excavations, questions remain about the nature of the site and the identity of the dukes buried in its two largest tombs. Through a painstaking analysis of the calligraphy of the inscriptions and of the decor on the 22 bronzes that can be traced to this cemetery, Li argues cogently that the tombs should be those of Dukes Zhuang 莊 (821– 778 B.C.) and Xiang 襄 (r. 777–766 B.C.), rulers of the state at the end of

4 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

the Western Zhou and the very beginning of the Eastern Zhou period. He further explores the geography of the region to explain the dynamics of Qin’s relationship with the Zhou royal house during and just after this period, at which point the Qin lords moved eastward into the Wei River 渭 水 valley, filling the void left by the departure of the Zhou kings. Placed in the middle of these four studies of individual archaeological sites and their bronzes is a lengthy chapter by Edward L. Shaughnessy surveying all of the inscribed Western Zhou bronzes that appeared— both through archaeological excavations and also as a result of tomb robberies—in the first decade of the new century. Shaughnessy notes that with only a couple of exceptions these bronzes attracted almost no attention in the West, perhaps because their appearance coincided with the publication of the remarkable and otherwise unprecedented Warring States manuscripts written on bamboo strips that have excited scholars everywhere. At another time, these discoveries of inscribed bronze vessels surely would have commanded more attention. They span the entire period of the Western Zhou, from the very first years until almost the very last, and come from all of the different regions of the realm. There are bronzes made by lords of states as well as by other individuals who played important roles in the history of the Western Zhou state, as, for instance, He 𣄰, known already from the early Western Zhou He zun 𣄰尊; Sima Jingbo Lu 𤔲馬井白䚄, known from numerous mid-Western Zhou bronze inscriptions; and Diao Sheng 琱生, known from the pair of late Western Zhou Diao Sheng gui 琱生簋. In these and in several other cases, these bronzes provide important new information with which to understand such varied issues in Western Zhou history as chronology, warfare, lawsuits, and much more as well. The periods before and after the Western Zhou are the focus of contributions by Olivier Venture and Guolong Lai. Venture’s essay “Shang Emblems in Their Archaeological Context” surveys bronzes excavated from two different cemeteries at Anyang 安陽 (at Yinxu 殷墟 West and at Liujiazhuang 劉家莊) as well as one much farther afield (at Qianzhangda 前掌大) in present-day Shandong province. Although the inscriptions are very short, they are relatively numerous (being found on some twenty percent of the bronze vessels excavated from these cemeteries) and provide important information about the lineage affiliation and, in some cases, about the official status of the persons in whose tombs they were buried. For his part, Lai focuses on statements of genealogy that become a routine part of inscriptions of the Spring and Autumn period. These statements

Preface · 5

claim a kinship relationship between the patron of the vessel and one or more ancestors. Sometimes they also state a relationship with other living figures. Lai demonstrates that these genealogies—whether real or fictive— played an important role in the political identity of the patron, both men and women. Intriguingly, there are several notable cases in which these genealogical statements were erased—in antiquity—from the inscription, presumably to account for changes in ownership of the vessel, or perhaps altered family circumstances. Archaeology provides much promise for understanding kinship relations in ancient China, and as both Venture and Lai demonstrate, inscriptions on bronze vessels remain the keys to unlocking many of these relationships. Sandwiching all of these studies of the places of kinship in ancient China are two remarkable—and remarkably different—studies of the nature of bronze inscriptions. Opening the volume is Wolfgang Behr’s “The Language of the Bronze Inscriptions,” which provides an extraordinarily detailed survey of all linguistic aspects of bronze inscriptions: grammar, phonology, metrical organization, syntax, and lexicon. It seems that there is not a doctoral dissertation too recent nor a journal too obscure to have missed Behr’s reading, but exhaustive though the survey is, the description of these linguistic features is always straightforward and authoritative. In his conclusion, Behr considers some of the outstanding debates in the field, such as the extent to which the inscriptional language parallels the language of received literature, or whether the derivational morphology seen in Tibeto-Burman data can be attested in bronze inscriptions, ending disarmingly with the statement: “Perhaps linguistic approaches to excavated texts simply have not yet looked hard enough behind the intricate veil of the early writing system.” It is clear that Behr has looked very hard indeed, and that his report of this look will do much to lift the veil of the early writing system. Closing the volume is Robert Eno’s “Ref lections on Literary and Devotional Aspects of Western Zhou Memorial Inscriptions.” Eno too seeks to lift the veil of the bronze inscriptions. However, in his case the veil is the formulaic nature of the inscriptions. His goal is to find evidence of “individual expression breaking through the ground of textual convention,” and to use this evidence to explore possible “personal perspectives of members of the elite as authors.” It is not often that such personal expression is to be seen, but sometimes a sympathetic reading such as that which Eno brings to his task suffices to tease out something about the personality of these authors. Consider the case of one Shu Huanfu 叔䟒父,

6 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

who cast a you 卣-bucket with the following poignant exhortation to a younger associate (perhaps his son, perhaps not) named Shu 焂: Shu Huanfu said, “I am old and unable to manage affairs. You, Shu, should attentively order your person. Do not continue to act as a youth! I give you this small wine vessel. You should use it to feast your ruler the Marquis of Zhi as you receive orders, coming and going in service to his person. Oh, Shu! Be attentive! Let this small vessel never be discarded. Bringing me to mind as you employ it, may it provide you drink.

It is easy to identify with Shu Huanfu’s personality and to imagine sharing with him his you-bucket and the wine in it. It is easy too, through reading this study, to identify with Eno’s personality and through it to come to a deeper and more individual reading of these ancient bronze inscriptions. Inspired by Shu Huanfu’s exhortation to Shu, whoever Shu may have been, to employ his you-bucket, may I invite you, dear reader, to employ the present book, and close with the hope that you may drink deeply from it, and that it may provide you inspiration. *

The editor wishes to express his gratitude to Elinor Pearlstein of the Art Institute of Chicago for her assistance during the “Ancient Chinese Bronzes from the Shouyang Studio: The Katherine and George Fan Collection” exhibition at the Art Institute; to Jeffrey Tharsen of the Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations of the University of Chicago for creating all of the archaic characters found in this book; to Jiang Wen 蔣文, who compiled the Finding List of Bronze Vessels Cited and the Index, and also suggested numerous valuable corrections; to Tsarina Yim and to the staff of the Institute of Chinese Studies, The Chinese University of Hong Kong for their splendid hospitality during the final editing of the book; and to all of the other contributors to the book for their cooperation and patience in the long course of its editing. I should like to note that final versions of the essays were submitted to the publisher in November 2013, and no substantial revisions could be made after that date. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to take account of scholarship published after that date.

Preface · 7

Notes 1

2

A catalog of the exhibition is Shouyang jijin: Hu Yingying, Fan Jirong cang Zhongguo gudai qingtongqi 首陽吉金：胡盈瑩、范季融藏中國古代青銅器, ed. Shouyang zhai, Shanghai bowuguan and Xianggang Zhongwen daxue Wenwuguan (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2008). Shanghai bowuguan and Xianggang Zhongwen daxue Wenwuguan, eds., Zhongguo gudai qingtongqi guoji yantaohui lunwenji 中國古代青銅器國際研討 會論文集 (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2010).

The Language of the Bronze Inscriptions Wolfgang BEHR Universität Zürich

It is well-known that the “antiquarian” study of bronze inscriptions (BI) in China was initiated during the Northern Song period,1 bequeathing to subsequent dynasties a vessel terminology, rubbing layout, and transcription format still widely influential today. Since the great stimulus received from the imperial bronze cataloguing efforts during the Qianlong 乾隆 period (1736–1795),2 many of the works situated within the “probing into antiquity” (kaogu 考古) tradition implicitly addressed not only graphemic, but also lexicographic, semasiological, syntactic and, more rarely, phonological issues in their respective analyses of the inscriptional texts. This becomes especially manifest in Republican-period studies by the more analytically inclined paleographers, such as Wang Guowei 王國維 (1877– 1927), Yang Shuda 楊樹達 (1885–1965), Guo Moruo 郭沫若 (1892–1978), Yu Xingwu 于省吾 (1896–1984), Lin Yiguang 林義光 (?–1932)3 or Shang Chengzuo 商承祚 (1902–1991), to name but a few of the most important figures, or, conversely, in the works of the more paleographically inclined historians, such as He Dingsheng 何定生 (1911–1970), one of Gu Jiegang’s 顧頡剛 (1893–1980) favorite students. As an early member of Gu’s “disputes on ancient history” (gushibian 古史辨) movement,4 He is now best remembered for his iconoclastic dating of the Shangshu 尚書 chapters, based on a book-length study of their divergent grammatical layers, in which he occasionally made use of comparative BI data5 —to roughly the same degree, incidentally, as the most recent monograph on the same topic published in 2004.6 He was also the first scholar in China to point to the methodological necessity of including inscriptional data in any convincing study of pre-Han grammar, in a series of little-known essays published in 1928.7 Yet it was only through the methodological impetus from the West in this period, initiated by the establishment of the Harvard-Yenching Institute in 1928, and the scholarly format pursued in the Yanjing xuebao 燕京

10 · Wolfgang Behr 學報, founded a year earlier, 8 that specialized articles on BI grammar

slowly started to appear. The first one, by the journal’s editor-in-chief, the eminent paleographer, archaeologist and writing reformer Rong Geng 容 庚 (1894–1983),9 dealt with personal pronouns; the second one, published half a decade later by Shen Chunhui 沈春暉, treated double object (ditransitive, especially “dative”) constructions10 —two topics which were to remain very prominent in BI grammatical studies throughout the twentieth century. These articles aroused some peripheral interest among the leading general linguists of the period, such as Li Jinxi 黎錦熙 (1890–1978), the “godfather” of modern Chinese grammar, who proceeded to discuss BI grammar in an open letter to Rong Geng, published on the pages of the Beiping World Daily in 1936.11 But the first complete monograph dedicated to the language of the BI, Guan Xiechu’s 管燮初 (1914–2000) Xi Zhou jinwen yufa yanjiu 西周金文語法研究, although drafted already in the 1950s and 1960s, would appear only in 1981, that is, during the reestablishment phase of classical scholarship in the People’s Republic, well after the end of the “Cultural Revolution.” Guan’s grammar, methodologically a much improved sequel to his study of oracle bone inscription (OBI) grammar,12 based on a corpus of examples culled from 218 inscriptions and systematically incorporating a comparative perspective on 816 Shangshu 尚書 examples, remains still useful today for its inclusion of modern translations or paraphrases of the BI examples quoted and for its quantitative analysis of the data. Its drawbacks include an overly rigid and fairly unhistorical application of the now woefully outdated grammar model taken over from Ding Shengshu’s 丁聲 樹 (1909–1989) Lectures on Modern Chinese Grammar,13 as well as a somewhat disquieting tendency toward swifthanded generalizations based on a far too limited corpus of examples, mostly inherited from Guo Moruo’s Liang Zhou jinwenci daxi tulu kaoshi 兩周金文辭大系圖錄攷釋.14 At the time of Guan’s writing in Beijing, Zhou Fagao 周法高 (1915–1994) produced his magisterial three-volume grammar of pre-Qin Chinese in Hong Kong and Taibei, which occasionally refers to BI examples,15 while William Arthur Charles Harvey Dobson (1913–1982) worked on his grammar of Early Archaic Chinese in Toronto.16 Dobson’s study offered fourteen translations of inscriptions in systematic comparison with the six most archaic Shangshu chapters and tried to fit the peculiarities of BI grammar into a Firthian structuralist framework, including many idiosyncratic ap proaches to syntax and terminology which were not even part of the London school mainstream at the time of its publication.

The Language of the Bronze Inscriptions · 11

It is interesting to note that Guan, Zhou, and Dobson concurred in viewing BI grammar not as a system sui generis,17 i.e. independent from other contemporary epigraphic writing materials or the (allegedly) contemporary edited literature, but simply as one instantiation of the overall diachrony of Chinese language development during the first centuries of the first millenium B.C. This view has been continued by many more recent monographs, such as Zhang Yujin’s 張玉金 fine study of the Western Zhou (WZ) pronominal system and his comprehensive grammar of WZ Chinese,18 or by Shi Bing’s 時兵 theoretically more sophisticated work on ditransitivity and differential object marking in Early Archaic Chinese, richly informed by both osteographic and BI data.19 Other contemporary scholars have, however, insisted on treating BI as a corpus to be studied in its own right, and argued, more or less implicitly, that the pragmatic setting and sociolinguistic peculiarities of the ritual language of investiture, ancestral dedication and communication, typically (though not exclusively) encountered in BI texts, would justify its descriptive separation from the grammars of the more argumentative, poetic or historiographical modes seen in the edited literature. Earlier studies in this mold include for instance Dai Lianzhang’s 戴璉璋 book manuscript on the syntax of BI,20 Fang Lina’s 方麗娜 comprehensive (466 pages) M.A. thesis on 44 WZ function words in the BI,21 and Cui Yongdong’s 崔永東 independent mainland counterpart to it, covering 60 WZ and 46 Eastern Zhou (EZ) “cenematic” (xuci 虛詞) entries.22 The most important study on the syntax of BI is now clearly Pan Yukun’s 潘玉坤 recent monograph, which devotes chapters to passive formation, double object constructions, the structure of noun phrases and the relationship of parataxis and modification, prepositional objects, the syntactic behavior of negatives, 23 conjunctions, measure words, and the irregular extraposition of “moved” constituents, respectively.24 It is nicely complemented by Zhu Qizhi’s 朱其智 discourse linguistics approach to pronominalization, ellipsis and nominal reference in WZ BI.25 Moreover, several recent Ph.D. dissertations espouse the same separation of inscriptional Chinese from the language of the Shangshu and of the Early Archaic documents, and offer in-depth studies of “function words,” the inscriptional WZ lexicon, word classes, and word formation,26 the verbal system,27 or even stylistics and metaphor28 in the BI. For studies of the phonology of BI,29 especially those interested in the pronunciation of simple and cluster initials30 and thus heavily dependent on the analysis of homophonophoric (xiesheng 諧聲) series, phonetic loans, and variants, a separation of the BI data from the standardized writing in edited sources

12 · Wolfgang Behr

was generally a methodological precondition to avoid circular arguments in reconstruction. Such studies have thus, with few exceptions, first looked at BI as a self-standing corpus, and only then proceeded to compare it to texts like the Shangshu or the Shijing 詩經. On the one hand, then, the BI language is characterized by constraints imposed extralinguistically, i.e. by the “functional stylistics” of the Zhou ritual culture with its stock phrases, gift lists, and formulaic “blessing invocations” (guci 嘏辭) placed at the end of the inscriptions in more than two-thirds of the extant texts.31 On the other, it more faithfully reflects the underlying spoken language than do most transmitted sources, which have gone through long and complex processes of editorial tampering and standardization, usually rendering precise dating well-nigh impossible. This is true as a general tendency, even if one has to keep in mind that BI might not always be directly informed by an oral performance culture,32 and that the dating of their language does not necessarily coincide with the dating of the inscription, since the latter might have recycled nonextant written sources33 as well as “orthoepically” transmitted earlier materials.

Phonology Phonologically, the language of BI is surprisingly little characterized by dialectal elements, such as the selection of a particular phonophoric to represent a local pronunciation of a phonosemantic character, or regionally clustered usages of loan graphs. This is so despite the very wide geographical distribution of BI texts, which is almost coextensive with the territorial range of the sinosphere at the eve of the Qin unification of China. To be sure, we do occasionally find regionally confined lexemes, mostly in Eastern Zhou bronze inscriptions. Examples include the Chu 楚 character for “mother, lady,” mi 嬭 (? < OC *m-nej-ʔ),34 possibly representing a Tai-Kadaiic or Austroasiatic substrate word in this area;35 the Chu graph for “one, once” written as (? < OC *nnəŋ) in the E jun qijie 鄂君啟節 bronze tally and in Warring States bamboo inscriptions, 36 also representing a Kadaiic areal word;37 the Chu graph (? < OC *ɢ(r)Ak), a suffix attached to the Chu month names and cognate to xi 夕 (OC *s-ɢak) “evening, night” in the standard language;38 or the Northern Yan 燕 word for “container,” written as qie 契 (OC *kkhet). 39 There are also local tendencies, for instance in pronoun usage, as when the standard WZ inscriptional first person pronoun *la(-ʔ), typically written as yu 余 in the BI and as yu 予 in the edited literature when occurring in subject or object

The Language of the Bronze Inscriptions · 13

position, starts to assume a “clitic” or “umlaut” form *(s-)lə in the determiner position, represented by the orthographies 台, 辝, , 怠, etc. in the states of Yan 燕, Qi 齊, Jin 晉, Zhu 邾 and Xu 徐 from the late seventh century.40 What is far more striking, however, is the high degree of phonological, lexical, and, to a certain extent, even rhetorical standardization41 of Western and Eastern Zhou BI texts. Thus, while we do find some diachronic layering in the rhymed passages occurring in some 260 of the currently published inscriptions from the very early WZ beginnings down to the Qin period,42 regional characteristics are few and far between. The system of BI rhymes broadly agrees with the system established for the Shijing, itself not a diachronically monolithic block.43 For probabilistic and other reasons, it is unlikely that this geographical uniformity is simply an artifact of the vicious epistemological circle, in which Shijing-based reconstructions are harnessed in the reconstruction of BI phonology, while both depend on the analysis of divergent, but diachronically cumulative phonophoric series, which, by default, provide only a quo dates for the usage of particular phonosemantic characters. None of the proposed rhyme-class mergers, allegedly “diagnostic” for the Eastern Zhou Chu 44 or Qi 45 dialects, for instance, is in fact confined to BI texts from these areas. Such phenomena are thus more readily explained as the reflex of either a looser rhyming standard than that found in Shijing poetry, licensing “assonances” and various categories of “slant” or “feature” and “subsequence” rhymes, or as diachronic features, shared widely as retentions across Sinitic “dialect” boundaries.46 The observable broad phonological uniformity is in sharp contrast with the great regional diversity of writing during the EZ period,47 and it clearly presupposes the early existence of a type of normative “elegant speech” (yayan 雅言), propagated fairly widely through an educational system among the small echelons of Western Zhou society capable of reading and writing. This would be echoed by statements, found in several Warring States and Qin-Han texts, to the effect that the male offspring of the nobility were trained in the “six scripts” (liu shu 六書), entering what would later be called the artes minores (xiaoxue 小學) curriculum at an age given in different sources between eight and thirteen years of age.48 Or consider stories in the Zuozhuan 左傳 about non-Sinitic visitors at the Eastern Zhou courts during the Chunqiu period, conversing in flawless Chinese, including even witty self-mockery and the obligatory casual Odes quote. 49 When phonophoric elements get replaced throughout the

14 · Wolfgang Behr

development of the BI script, occasionally resulting in the creation of characters with “doubled phonophorics” (chongshengzi 重聲字) such as qi (with phonetic 己 *N-k(r)ə-ʔ and 亓 *gə) or fu (with phonetic 畐 *pək and 北 *ppək),50 the motivation seems to have been to maintain some kind of aural stability diachronically, rather than the faithful representation of a particular regional pronunciation.

Metrical Organization Metrically, and with respect to the observance of Middle Chinese “tone classes” in rhyming, BI of all periods are considerably more irregular than the Shijing poetry. They only approach the strict tetrasyllabic preferences of the shi poets—or, indeed, their late preimperial editors—during the Chunqiu period,51 and they tolerate many more particle and penultimate rhymes, as well as certain mixed rhyme schemes, rarely found in the Shijing.52 A fairly late, i.e. EZ dating of a Shijing-style prosodic systematization is also borne out by parallels in the formulaic phraseology and poetic closure types occurring in BI only since the late WZ and early Chunqiu periods,53 and the extraordinary proximity of the rhyming system of the Shijing to that of the Qin inscriptions.54 The highly irregular line lengths of the earlier inscriptional materials, counting up to 14 syllables between rhyme-words, would seem to suggest that BI Chinese was not a syllablecounting language—an observation which lends some support to the reconstruction of a “sesquisyllabic” syllable typology, reminiscent of Southeast Asian Austroasiatic languages, for at least the WZ stage of the language development in Early China.55

Syntax There are very few constructions in either Western or Eastern Zhou BI which are not encountered in some parts of the early edited literature as well. The differences are more a matter of frequency, triggered by the pragmatic context and the syntactic preferences it entails. Thus, interrogative phrases, along with a set of corresponding pronouns and final particles do exist, but they are fairly rare, because in an investiture setting or in a prayer-like communication with the ancestors, there is little room for questions. Passive, ditransitive and disposal constructions, verb serialization, and complex predicates with numeral, prepositional or nominal complements are all attested, but are more restricted in their occurrence

[128.104.46.206] Project MUSE (2024-03-02 03:18 GMT) UW-Madison Libraries

The Language of the Bronze Inscriptions · 15

and in the syntactic means used to mark them. Many function words, known from the Shangshu and other early edited texts, do occur, but often in different orthographies (such as → ze 則, 𩁹 → yu 于, → cu 徂, → si 肆, → you 由, / → jiang 將, etc.), and usually with somewhat more confined functional ranges. Conversely, some high-frequency particles of the classical period in the edited literature, such as sentence-final ye 也 in indicative-declarative nominal predications, nominalizing 者 after VPs, or the resumptive quantifying adverb → jie 皆 marking plurality of its preceding nominal reference, only make their appearance late and sporadically in the EZ BI corpus.56 As could be expected from a language developing within a time window of almost a millennium, many function word usages overlap to a considerable degree between the bronzes and the edited literature. But there are also some subtle differences. It can be observed, for instance, that the pronoun jue 氒~厥, which is almost exclusively attested with third person reference in the early edited literature, may be found quite commonly with first, and even second person reference in EZ bronzes.57 With high-frequency particle words it is sometimes possible to document complicated grammaticalizations throughout the inscriptional record, as in the case of yi ~台~以: emerging from a full verb “to employ, command, lead,” and still used as a sacrificial verb in OBI, yi gradually acquired a good dozen prepositional (comitative, case and place marking, benefactive, purposive, instrumental, etc.) and conjunctional functions, which can be neatly differentiated within the BI diachrony. This prolonged grammaticalization process, however, remains entirely nontransparent from the viewpoint of the broad post quem synchronic variety of the edited literature. 58 Similarily, the word wei 隹~惟~維, etymologically a nonindicative copula, which is used as an assertive modal auxiliary before verbs, as a negatable and schetically markable equative copula with descriptive functions, or as a focalizing device before recipients, locatives, and time expressions in oracle bone inscriptions,59 generally assumes a position in the ubiquitous BI date and location formulas of the type “wei time X,” “wei event Y,” or “wei location Z,” typically encountered at the beginning of an inscription, apart from slowly developing peripheral optative-adhortative functions. These usages reanalyze the non-indicative semantics into a copula signaling narrative “self-distancing,” a kind of reportative or citational evidentiality, in which the event or location is located in illo tempore, i.e., within a space barred from the immediate experience of the inscriber.60 While remnants of almost all of these usages

16 · Wolfgang Behr

do appear in the Shangshu and other early texts, their systematic interconnections could hardly be reconstructed from the edited evidence alone. Nevertheless, there are some peculiar syntactic structures especially in early to mid-WZ BI, which are only rarely encountered in the edited classical literature.61 These include, for instance, postposed noun phrase modifiers, be they “adjectives” or nouns, typically occurring as part of gift lists (examples 1–3), or postposed prepositions (examples 4–6) and verb phrases (examples 7–10), usually translated as relative clauses.

a. Postposed modifying noun phrases (1) 王易（賜）赤環巿、玄衣黹屯（純）、 （鑾）旂。62 *waŋ lek-s (s-lek-s) t-qʰ(r)Ak ɢɢʷren pup, ɢɢʷin ʔəj ti-ʔ tu[r] (tu[r]-ʔ), _ ?_ (Cə-rron) gəj. “The king awarded [him] red circlet knee pads, a fine brocaded dark robe, and a chariot bell pennant.” (2) 易（賜）女（汝） （……）玄衣 （黥）屯（純）、 （鑾）旂五日。63 *lek-s (s-lek-s) nra-ʔ (na-ʔ) (...) ɢɢʷin ʔəj ?ggraŋ-s (ggraŋ) tu[r] (tu[r]-ʔ), Cə-rron gəj ŋŋa-ʔ nit. “I award you (...) a glossy sable dark robe, a chariot bell pennant with five suns [on it].” (3) 易（賜） 鬯一卣、玄袞衣、赤 、金車、 、虎 （幎）熏（纁）裏、 攸（鋚）勒。64

、畫

（鞃）、朱虢（鞹） 、金甬、馬四匹、

*lek-s (s-hlek-s) _?_ tʰaŋ-s ʔit lu, ɢɢʷin kkon ʔəj, t-qʰ(r)A ssa-ʔ, krəm Cə-qʰ(r)a, qqʰut _?_ (N-kkʷəŋ), to kkʷrak (kkʷʰak) _?_ , qqʰra-ʔ _?_ (mmek) qʰun (qʰun) rə-ʔ, qqʰut-rraʷk, ɢɢʷrek-s bbak, krəm loŋ-ʔ, mmra-ʔ s-lij-s pʰit, liw (liw) rrək. “I award [you; scil. 作冊吳] one bucket of black millet libation wine, a dark ceremonial robe, red slippers, a chariot with bronze fittings, a decorated leather kneeling bench, vermillion soft leather breast trappings, tiger skin chariot drapes with deep crimson linings on the inside, a decorated axle cover, painted attachment straps, bronze axle caps, a quadriga of horses with bits and bridles.”

The Language of the Bronze Inscriptions · 17

b. Postposed modifying prepositional phrases (4) 懋父倈（賞）御正衛馬匹自王。65 *mus p(r)a-ʔ _?_ (s-taŋ-ʔ) ŋa-s teŋ ɢʷat-s m-rra-ʔ pʰit N-tsit-s ɢʷaŋ. “Father Mao bestowed upon Equerry Wei a quadriga of horses from the king.” (5) 毛公易（賜）朕文考臣自 （厥）工。66 *mmaw Cə-qqoŋ lek-s (s-hlek-s) ləm-q mən kkhu-q gin N-tsit-s kot (kot) kkoŋ. “Duke Mao awarded our cultivated ancestral father retainers from among his workers.” (6) 王姜易（賜） 田三于待 （ ）。67 *ɢʷaŋ Cə-qaŋ lek-s (s-hlek-s) _?_ lliŋ ssum ɢʷ(r)a ddə-ʔ _?_. “Queen Jiang awarded

(name) three fields [located] in Dai-X.”

c. Postposed verb phrases acting as modifiers (often translated as relative clauses) (7) 王乎（呼）內史駒冊命師 （純）、戈琱

父易（賜） 巿 （絅）黃（珩）、玄衣黹屯

、旂。68

*ɢʷaŋ ɢɢa (qqʰa) nəp.s-rə-ʔ ko tsʰreak mriŋ-s _?_ (r)a-ʔ lek-s (s-hlek-s) ?ɢʷa[r] ?ɢʷəj pup, kkʰʷeŋ N-kkʷaŋ (N-kkraŋ), ɢɢʷin ʔəj ti-ʔ tu[r] (tu[r]-ʔ), kkoj ttiw _?_ (?nuk), gəj. “The king summoned the Inner Scribe Ju to record the mandation to Father Commander X, awarding him protective knee pads with unlined straps, a finely brocaded dark robe, a ge-battle ax engraved on the inside, a pennant.” (8) 易（賜）女（汝）井（邢）人奔于量。69 *lek-s (s-hlek-s) nra-ʔ (na-ʔ) s-kkeŋ-ʔ (N-kkeŋ) nin pur ɢʷ(r)a raŋ. “I reward you with persons from Xing who have fled to Liang.” (9) 述乍（作）兄日乙寶 （尊）彝 。70 *hlut N-ttsrak-s (ttsak) hmraŋ nit qrət _?_ (ttsu[n]) li qrəm-s. “Shu had made an honorable bronze vessel for his deceased forebear to give [him] to drink.”

18 · Wolfgang Behr

(10) 儕女（汝）十五昜（鎕）登、盾生皇（凰）畫內……71 *sr-hllij nra-ʔ (na-ʔ) gip.ŋŋa-ʔ laŋ ttəŋ, hlu[n]-r sreŋ ɢɢʷaŋ Cə-ɢɢʷrek nnəp, … “I bestow upon You fifteen sacrificial bronze containers, a shield with lively phoenixes drawn on the inside ...” Such constructions are not entirely unknown from the edited literature and may sometimes even be repeated, as in the Shangshu phrase in example 11, possibly for purposes of rhetoric: (11) 予惟曰：「汝劼毖殷獻臣（……）矧惟若疇，圻父薄違，農夫若保，宏父 定辟，矧汝，剛制於酒。」72

*la (tə-)wuj wat: na-ʔ kkhrit prit-s ʔrər s-ŋŋar gin (…) hli[n]-ʔ (tə-)wuj na-k dru, gəj b(r)a-ʔ Cə-bbak ɢʷəj, nnuŋ.p(r)a na-k ppu-ʔ, gʷrəŋ.p(r)a N-tteŋ-s pek, hli[n]-ʔ na-ʔ, kkaŋ tet-s ʔa s(k) lu-ʔ. “I tell you: ‘You should earnestly caution the wise servants of Yin (…) and still more those who serve you in your activities; and still more the k’i-fu (minister of war) who suppresses the transgressors, the nung-fu (master of the multitudes, the farmers) who (conforms himself to=) carefully attends to the territories, and the hung-fu (master of works) who carefully attends to the strongholds (sc. walled cities), (these three) who establish the laws; and still more you should restrict yourself in regard to wine.’” However, we do not usually find prosodically heavy and syntactically complex post-head modifiers like those in example 12 in the edited literature: (12) 王乎（呼）史淢冊易（賜） 玄衣黹屯（純）、赤市朱黃（珩）、 （鑾） 旂、攸勒、戈

、 （緱）必（ ）、彤沙（緌）。73

*ɢʷaŋ ɢɢa (qqʰa) s-rə-ʔ N-k-wrək tsʰrek lek-s (s-hlek-s) ?ɢʷa[r] ɢɢʷin ʔəj ti-ʔ tu[r] (tu[r]-ʔ), t-qʰ(r)Ak pup, to N-kkʷaŋ (N-kkraŋ), Cə-rron gəj, liw (liw) rrək, kkoj ttiw _?_ (?nuk), _?_ (kko), pit (N-pit), lluŋ ssraj (?nuj). “The king summoned scribe Yu to reward Yuan in recorded investiture a fine brocaded dark robe, red knee pads [with] crimson straps, a chariot bell pennant, bits and bridles, a ge-battle ax engraved on the inside, with a wrapped axe handle and vermillion tassles.”

The Language of the Bronze Inscriptions · 19

Other such syntactic peculiarities, presumably originating from the same underlying typological profile, include the preposing of fully lexical noun phrases as objects of non-negated verbs (examples 13–14) in Western Zhou bronze inscriptions: (13) 天子明 （哲），

于申。74

*hllin.tsə-ʔ mraŋ _?_ (tet), _?_ (qqʰru-s) ɢʷ(r)a hlin. “The Son of Heaven is enlightened in knowledge, extending [His] manifest piety.” (14) 王親旨（指） 駒易（賜）兩。75 *ɢʷaŋ tsʰin kij-ʔ (kij-ʔ) ?lon-s ko lek-s (s-lek-s) pə-raŋ-ʔ. “The king ordered in person that ?Li be awarded two foals.” In the edited literature, “object-inversion” rules are somewhat stricter, being typically limited to (i) interrogative pronouns occurring as direct objects in interrogative phrases, (ii) some, but by no means all, pronominal objects in negated predicates, (iii) the demonstrative shi 是, and (iv) direct objects occurring with wei 唯 and shi 是 as focus markers.76 Moreover, WZ bronze inscriptions even allow “raised” adverbs (example 15) or modal verbs (example 16) in pre-nominal extraposition, two phenomena which practically never occur in the pre-Qin edited literature: (15) 永其萬年子=孫=寶用。77 *ɢʷraŋ-ʔ gə mran-s nnin tsə-ʔ.tsə-ʔ ssu[r].ssu[r] ppu-ʔ loŋ-s. “May son’s sons and grandson’s grandsons eternally treasure and use [this vessel].” (16) 俗（欲）我弗乍（作）先王憂。78 *s-ɢok (ɢ(r)ok) ŋŋaj-ʔ pə-t N-ttsrak-s (ttsak) ssər ɢʷaŋ ʔu. “It is our desire to avoid causing sorrows to the former kings.” Whether constituent reversals in compounding (xiao da bang 小大邦 “small and big states”) or exclamatives inserted between the subject NP and its verb (er, you, sui xiaozi 爾有唯［雖］小子 “even if you, my dear, are still a little squire”) also belong to the same “inversion syndrome,” is currently hard to say. While it is obvious that not all such variation may be accounted for simply by focalization requirements, rhetorical conditioning or metri causa in rhyming inscriptions, it is presently unclear how much of it reflects regional (dialectal) influences, or, for instance, the conflicting syntactic typology of an underlying SOV language diachronically or under

20 · Wolfgang Behr

conditions of language contact. Finally, sociolinguistic, discourse pragmatic and text type specific factors may also have been at play, notwithstanding the conventionalized ritual setting of most inscriptional texts, and even scribal errors or casting inversions may never be fully ruled out as reasons for the observed syntactic peculiarities.79

Lexicon The WZ period, as reflected in bronze inscriptions, shows a great development if compared to the oracle bone inscriptions (OBI). The number of analytically transparent non-onomastic characters commonly agreed upon in the scholarly community almost doubled (1087 for OBI, 1753 for BI), and the ratio of particular character types is markedly different, with phonosemantic (xingsheng 形聲) formations rising from 29.3% to 59.9% between the OBI and WZ BI periods.80 Needless to say, such statistics are to be taken with a big shaker of salt, since they presuppose particular, and sometimes debatable, analyses of character structures and a specific underlying reconstructed phonology. Thus, it is likely that given new models of Old Chinese syllable structure and new types of consonant clusters being reconstructed, the percentage of the traditional “syssemantic” (huiyi 會意), “pictographic” (xiangxing 象形) and “deictic” (zhishi 指事) characters in the OBI will steadily shrink. Moreover there are obviously many character formations which escape the traditional Shuowen 說文 categorizations, typically used to study such distribution frequencies.81 In any case, it is clear that already during the WZ period the phonosemantic principle had risen inexorably, such that more than 82% (> 900 tokens) of the innovated characters during this period belong to the traditional xingsheng 形聲 type.82 Lexical compounding, a process barely begun in the OBI, developed very swiftly as well. Notwithstanding the major and still largely unresolved controversies about the criteria to differentiate compounds from word groups or phrases in the BI language—as, indeed, in all later diachronic periods of the Chinese language(s)83 —it is clear that the WZ BI lexicon included a considerable proportion of disyllabic word formations, ranging somewhere between 400 and 500 lexemes in recent counts.84 More importantly, almost all word formation strategies found developed in the Classical lexicon ([Noun-Noun], [Verb-Verb], [Adjective-Adjective], [Particle-Particle] coordinations; [N.modifier-N.head], [N.head-N.modifier], [Verb-Object], [Adverb-Verb], [Numeral-Noun] subordinations; full

The Language of the Bronze Inscriptions · 21

and partial reduplications; suffixed nouns; unanalyzable loan transcriptions, etc.) are well attested in the WZ and developed steadily throughout the EZ period. This disyllabification process is partly driven by languageinternal factors, such as the loss of derivational morphology, the loss of final laryngeal gestures resulting in tonogenesis, the reorganization of the syllable structure eventually ushering in the Late Middle Chinese division (deng 等) distinctions, expressive reduplications, dimidiations, lento forms, etc. Probably even more important was the extension of lexical domains represented in writing, i.e. the general extralinguistic pressure to represent new objects and ideas, especially from technical, ritual, and philosophical semantic fields, as well as proper and geographic names and loanwords.85 This “lexical explosion” coupled with the conceptual-semantic complexities of Zhou ritual and material culture are probably part of the reason why BI texts sometimes feel intricate, obscure, or even downright inscrutable to readers trained in “standard” Classical Chinese. Other factors include a fair amount of variability in word formation, indicative of a transitory phase in the development of the lexicon, and, above all, the instability of the writing system. Here, cases abound where one and the same word can be written with a range of different characters, including different or even combined phonophorics and rampant classifier variation, where one character is used to write many different words, or where even commonly encountered “autosemantic” content words (shici 實詞) are exclusively represented by phonetic loans.86

Conclusion These minor detractions aside, the overall impression of a fairly uniform language, comparable to contemporary and later edited texts, still dominates. Whether this standardized language is a linear continuation of the language known from the stylistically and thematically even more constrained corpus of Yin-Shang oracle, bronze and lithic inscriptions remains an open question, although most studies of Yin-Shang phonology and grammar would seem to tacitly assume this.87 Notice, however, that only parts of the derivational morphology now posited for Old Chinese on the basis of the internal reconstruction and the comparison of external Tibeto-Burman data are reflected in the WZ BI,88 or, for that matter, the oracle bone inscriptions already.89 It remains to be studied whether this is due to the different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds of the Zhou people

22 · Wolfgang Behr

adopting the Yin-Shang script or to the notorious underspecification of that script. Perhaps linguistic approaches to excavated texts simply have not yet looked hard enough behind the intricate veil of the early writing system.

The Language of the Bronze Inscriptions · 23

Notes 1

2

3

4

5

For overviews of the works produced since Lü Dalin’s 呂大臨 (fl. 1086–1093) pathbreaking Kaogu tu 考古圖, see Zhu Jianxin 朱劍心, Jinshixue 金石學, Guoxue xiao congshu 國學小叢書 (Changsha: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1940); and Ma Heng 馬衡, Zhongguo jinshixue gaiyao 中國金石學概要 (Taibei: Yiwen yinshuguan, 1967; repr. in Fanjiangzhai jinshi conggao 凡將齋金石叢稿 [Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1977]). The history of Song paleography is exhaustively covered in Ye Guoliang’s 葉國良 1983 Ph.D. dissertation, “Songdai jinshixue yanjiu” 宋代金石學研究 (Zhongguo wenxue yanjiusuo 中國文學研究 所, Guoli Taiwan daxue 國立臺灣大學), which, however, only became accessible through publication in 2011 (Chutu sixiang wenwu yu wenxian yanjiu congshu 出土思想文物與文獻研究叢書 39 [Taibei: Taiwan shufang, 2011]). For the Song intellectual background, see also Wang Guowei 王國維, “Archaeology in the Sung Dynasty” (paper read before the Peking Historical Association; trans. by C. H. Liu 劉崇鋐), The China Journal 6.5 (1927): 222–30, and R. C. Rudolph, “Preliminary Notes on Sung Archaeology,” Journal of Asian Studies 22 (1962–1963): 169–77. A good bibliography of modern studies on Song paleography is included in Wu Weihua 吳偉華, “Songdai jinshixue zhuzuo de xueshu jiazhi” 宋代金石學著作的學術價值, Qi-Lu yiyuan 齊魯藝苑 2007.1: 82–86. While less extensive than during the Song period, considerable scholarship on bronze and stone inscriptions was produced under the Jin 金 dynasty (1115–1234), neatly summarized in Zhou Feng 周峰, “Jindai jinshixue shuyao” 金代金石學述要, Zhongguo lishi wenwu 中國歷史文物 2007.4: 73–78. For the intellectual history of epigraphy during the Qing period, see Shana J. Brown, “Pastimes: Scholars, Art Dealers, and the Making of Modern Chinese Historiography, 1870–1928” (Ph.D. diss.: University of California, Berkeley, 2002), and Guo Mingxun 郭名詢, “Qingdai jinshixue fazhan gaikuang yu tedian” 清代金石學發展概況與特點, Xueshu luntan 學術論壇 7 (2005): 150–54. Lin Yiguang’s year of birth is unknown. For a sketch of his life and work, see Ye Yuying 葉玉英, “Lun Lin Yiguang dui guwenzixue de gongxian” 論林義光 對古文字學的貢獻, Fujian shifan daxue xuebao 福建師範大學學報 125.5 (2004): 90–95. See Laurence A. Schneider, Ku Chieh-kang and China’s New History: Nationalism and the Quest for Alternative Traditions (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), and Ursula Richter, Zweifel am Altertum: Gu Jiegang und die Diskussion über Chinas alte Geschichte als Konsequenz der neuen Kulturbewegung ca. 1915–1923, Münchener Ostasiatische Studien 60 (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1992). He Dingsheng 何定生, “Shangshu de wenfa ji qi niandai”《尚書》的文法及其年 代, Guoli Zhongshan daxue Yuyan lishi yanjiusuo zhoukan 國立中山大學語言歷 史研究所周刊 5.49–51 (1928): 1–189. For a full biographical and scholarly appreciation, see the eight contributions to the special section on He Dingsheng in Zhongguo wenzhe yanjiusuo tongxun 中國文哲研究所通訊 20.2 (2010): 1–88.

24 · Wolfgang Behr 6 7

8

9

10

11

12 13

Qian Zongwu 錢宗武, Jinwen Shangshu yufa yanjiu 金文尚書語法研究 (Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2004). He Dingsheng 何定生, “Han yiqian de wenfa yanjiu” 漢以前的文法研究, Guoli Zhongshan daxue Yuyan lishi yanjiusuo zhoukan 33.31 (1928): 1–12; 33.32 (1928): 1–9; 33.33 (1928): 1–18. On the history of the journal, see Zhang Yue 張越, “Guanyu Yanjing xuebao” 關 於《燕京學報》, Shixueshi yanjiu 史學史研究 1996.4: 70–78. The overall progress of BI grammar studies is neatly summarized by Wu Zhenyu 武振玉, “Liang Zhou jinwen cilei yanjiu (xuci pian)” 兩周金文詞類研究（虛詞篇）(Ph.D. diss.: Jilin daxue Guji yanjiusuo, 2006), 1–14, and Li Xiaofeng 李曉峰, “Xi Zhou jinwen yuyan yanjiu de lishi yu xianzhuang” 西周金文語言研究的歷史與現狀, Guji zhengli yanjiu xuekan 古籍整理研究學刊 2008.6: 83–86. The history of Western Zhou (WZ) grammar studies is sketched by Zhang Yujin 張玉金, “Xi Zhou Hanyu yufa yanjiu de huigu ji zhanwang” 西周漢語語法研究的回顧暨展望, Yuyan yanjiu 語言研究 2003.3: 15–20, and in his Xi Zhou Hanyu yufa yanjiu 西 周漢語語法研究 (Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2004), 16–30, both of which include extensive bibliographies. A nicely illustrated study of the overall importance of paleographical materials as a still largely untapped “database” for linguists interested in Early Chinese is Liu Zhao 劉釗, “Tan guwenzi ziliao zai gu Hanyu yanjiu de zhongyaoxing” 談古文字資料在古漢語研究的重要性, Gu Hanyu yanjiu 古漢語研究 2005.3: 54–58. For appreciations of his scholarship, see, for example, Zeng Xiantong 曾憲通, “Rong Geng xiansheng de xueshu chengjiu he zhixue tedian” 容庚先生的學術 成就和治學特點, Guji zhengli yanjiu xuekan 古籍整理研究學刊 1993.4: 38–41; Zhang Zhenlin 張振林, “Rong Geng xiansheng de xueshu chengjiu he zhixue fangfa” 容庚先生的學術成就和治學方法, Xueshu yanjiu 學術研究 1984.4: 88–93; and the memorial volume Dongguanshi Zhengxiehui, ed., Rong Geng Rong Zhaozu xueji 容庚容肇祖學記 (Guangdong: Guangdong renmin chubanshe, 2004). For a bibliography of his works, see Chen Xiuhong 陳修紘, “Rong Geng jiaoshou zhuzuo shulu ji lunshu nianbiao” 容庚教授著作書錄及論述年表, Zhongshan daxue xuebao 中山大學學報 1984.3: 137–46. Rong Geng, “Zhou jinwen zhong suo jian daimingci shi li” 周金文中所見代名 詞釋例, Yanjing xuebao 燕京學報 6 (1929): 1041–46, and Shen Chunhui 沈春暉, “Zhou jinwen zhong zhi ‘shuangbinyu jushi’” 周金文中之「雙賓語句式」, Yanjing xuebao 燕京學報 20 (1936): 375–408. Li Jinxi 黎錦熙, “Lun jinwen wenfa zhi Rong Geng shu” 論金文文法致容庚書, Shijie ribao 世界日報 226 (1.II.1936): 3. On this theoretical linguist, language reformer, Mao Zedong intimus, and poet, see the contributions to the memorial issue of Hanzi wenhua 漢字文化 2008.3. Guan Xiechu 管燮初, Yinxu jiagu keci de yufa yanjiu 殷墟甲骨刻辭的語法研究 (Beijing: Shehui kexue chubanshe, 1953). Ding Shengshu 丁聲樹 et al., eds., Xiandai Hanyu yufa jianghua 現代漢語語法 講話 (Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1961). The book is a revised collection of lectures given by various prominent Chinese linguists right after the

The Language of the Bronze Inscriptions · 25

14

15

16 17

18 19

20 21 22 23

24 25

26

founding of the PRC, which were originally serialized in Zhongguo yuwen 中 國語文 (1952–1953). Guo Moruo 郭沫若, Liang Zhou jinwenci daxi tulu kaoshi 兩周金文辭大系圖錄 攷釋 (Tokyo: Monkyûdô shoten, 1935; rev. ed., Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo Kaoguxue zhuankan 中國社會科學院考古研究所考古學專刊 1.3 [Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 1957]). For detailed criticisms of this work, see the reviews by Wang Haifen 王海芬, “Xi Zhou jinwen yufa yanjiu du hou”《西 周金文語法研究》讀後 , Zhongguo yuwen 中國語文 1982.6: 469–71; Chen Chusheng 陳初生, “Xi Zhou jinwen yufa yanjiu (Guan Xiechu) jian ping”《西 周金文語法研究》 （管燮初）簡評, Zhongguo yuwen yanjiu 中國語文研究 5 (1984): 35–36; and the extensive list of corrigenda in Zhang Qingsong 張青松, “Shi ping Xi Zhou jinwen yufa yanjiu” 試評《西周金文語法研究》, Huanan ligong daxue xuebao 華南理工大學學報 2002.1: 79–83. Zhou Fagao 周法高, Zhongguo gudai yufa 中國古代語法, 3 vols., Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, zhuankan 專刊 39 (Taibei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan, 1971). W. A. C. H. Dobson, Early Archaic Chinese: A Descriptive Grammar (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962). Zhou, incidentally, offered a most skeptical and detailed review of Dobson’s Early Archaic Chinese in the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 24 (1962–1963): 252–60. Zhang Yujin, Xi Zhou Hanyu yufa yanjiu, complemented by his Xi Zhou Hanyu daici yanjiu 西周漢語代詞研究 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2006). Shi Bing 時兵, Shanggu Hanyu shuangjiwu jiegou yanjiu 上古漢語雙及物結構研 究 (Hefei: Anhui daxue chubanshe, 2007). For a sustained justification of this “integral” approach to BI grammar, including rich bibliographic documentation, see for example Zhang Yujin, Xi Zhou Hanyu yufa yanjiu, pp. 1–20. Dai Lianzhang 戴璉璋, “Liang Zhou jinwen yufa yanjiu” 兩周金文語法研究 (Taibei: Xingzhengyuan Guojia kexue weiyuanhui, 1970). Fang Lina 方麗娜, “Xi Zhou jinwen xuci yanjiu” 西周金文虛詞研究 (M.A. thesis: Taiwan shifan daxue, 1985). Cui Yongdong 崔永東, Xi Zhou jinwen xuci yanjiu 西周金文虛詞研究 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1994). See also the very fine earlier study by Redouane Djamouri, “Particules de négation dans les inscriptions sur bronze de la dynastie des Zhou,” Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 20.1 (1991): 5–76. Pan Yukun 潘玉坤, Xi Zhou jinwen yuxu yanjiu 西周金文語序研究 (Shanghai: Huadong shifan daxue chubanshe, 2005). Zhu Qizhi 朱其智, Xi Zhou mingwen pianzhang zhitong ji qi xiangguan yufa yanjiu 西周銘文篇章指同及其相關語法研究 (Shijiazhuang: Hebei da xue chubanshe, 2007). Cf. Yang Huaiyuan 楊懷源, “Xi Zhou jinwen cihui yanjiu” 西周金文詞匯研究 (Ph.D. diss.: Sichuan daxue Lishi wenhua xueyuan, 2006); Zhu Gangxun 朱 剛焄, “Xi Zhou qingtongqi mingwen fuyinci yanjiu” 西周青銅器銘文復音詞研

26 · Wolfgang Behr

27 28 29

30

31

32

33 34

究 (Ph.D. diss.: Shandong daxue, 2006); and Wu Zhenyu, “Liang Zhou jinwen cilei yanjiu (xuci pian).” Kou Zhanmin 寇占民, “Xi Zhou jinwen dongci yanjiu” 西周金文動詞研究 (Ph.D. diss.: Shoudu shifan daxue, 2009). Li Yihai 李義海, “Liang Zhou jinwen xiuci yanjiu” 兩周金文修辭研究 (Ph.D. diss.: Huadong shifan daxue, 2009). For comprehensive studies see Yu Naiyong 余迺永 [Yu Nae-wing], “Liang Zhou jinwen yinxi kao” 兩周金文音系考 (Ph.D. diss.: Taiwan shifan daxue, 1980); Wolfgang Behr, “Reimende Bronzeinschriften und die Entstehung der chinesischen Endreimdichtung” (Ph.D. diss.: University of Frankfurt/Main, 1997); and Shi Yumei 師玉梅, “Xi Zhou jinwen yinyun kaocha” 西周金文音韻 考察 (Ph.D. diss.: Zhongshan daxue, 2004). See for example Guo Xiliang 郭錫良, “Xi Zhou jinwen yinxi chutan” 西周金文 音系初探, in Yuan Xingpei 袁行霈 et al., eds., Guoxue yanjiu 國學研究 (Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 1994), n.s., vol. II, pp. 227–76 and Liu Zhicheng 劉 志成, “Liang Zhou jinwen yinxi de shengmu xitong” 兩周金文音系的聲母系統, Chuandong xuekan 川東學刊 1995.3: 71–76. On the constrained variability of these guci 嘏辭, see Xu Zhongshu’s 徐中舒 now classic article “Jinwen guci shili” 金文嘏辭釋例, Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 6.1 (1936): 1–44. The layered variation of such formulas might potentially be useful even for dating purposes; cf. Cao Jianguo 曹建國, “Jinwen guci yu Shi pian duandai” 金文嘏詞與《詩》篇斷代, Zhongguo wenhua yanjiusuo xuebao 中國文化研究所學報 49 (2009): 1–33. On this aspect, see for example Lothar von Falkenhausen, “The Royal Audience and Its Reflections in Western Zhou Bronze Inscriptions,” in Li Feng and David Prager Branner, eds., Writing and Literacy in Early China (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2011), pp. 239–79; Martin Kern, “The Performance of Writing in Western Zhou China,” in Sergio La Porta and David Shulman, eds., The Poetics of Grammar and the Metaphysics of Sound and Sign (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2007), pp. 109–76; and “Bronze Inscriptions, the Shijing and the Shangshu: The Evolution of the Ancestral Sacrifice during the Western Zhou,” in John Lagerwey and Marc Kalinowski, eds., Early Chinese Religion, Part One: Shang through Han (1250 BC to 220 AD) (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2009), pp. 143–200, at pp. 179–82. Cf. Edward L. Shaughnessy, “The Writing of a Late Western Zhou Bronze Inscription,” Asiatische Studien/Études Asiatiques 61.3 (2007): 845–77. Guo Bizhi 郭必之 [Kwok Bit Chee], “Jinwen zhong de Chuxi fangyanci (san ze)” 金文中的楚系方言詞（三則）, Journal of Oriental Studies (Hong Kong) 34.1–2 (1998): 102–16; Cao Zhaolan 曹兆蘭, “Jinwen zhong fangyan ‘mi’ yu yayan ‘mu’ de xiangyin shengyi” 金文中方言「嬭」與雅言「母」的相因生義 , Fangyan 方言 2002.2: 177–82. Old Chinese reconstructions throughout this paper are reconstructed according to the “Baxter-Sagart sytem,” version 1.0 (http://crlao.ehess.fr/docannexe.php?id=1203, accessed 4 May 2011), noting type-A (“pharyngealized”) syllables by a doubling of the initial.

The Language of the Bronze Inscriptions · 27 35

36

37

38

39

40

I.e. Proto-Tai *mɛɛB, Proto-Kam-Sui *mlɛɛB, Proto-Hlai *mʔai B or ProtoAustroasiatic *me-ʔ, Proto-Monic *meʔ, Proto-Katuic *mɛ(ː)ʔ for “mother.” For the backgrounds and sources of these reconstructions, see Li Fang Kuei, A Handbook of Comparative Tai (Honolulu: The University Press of Hawai’i, 1977); Graham Thurgood, “Notes on the Reconstruction of Kam-Sui,” in Jerold A. Edmondson and David B. Solnit, eds., Comparative Kadai: Linguistic Studies Beyond Tai (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1988), pp. 179–218; В.И. Гохман, Историческая фонетика тайских языков [Historical phonetics of the Tai languages] (Москва: Наука, 1992); and Ilia Peiros, Comparative Linguistics in Southeast Asia (Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, National University of Australia, 1998), respectively. Lin Hongying 林虹瑛, Murase Nozomu 村瀨望 and Furuya Akihira 古屋昭弘, “Sengoku moji ‘itsu’ ni tsuite” 戰國文字「 」について, Kaipian 開篇23 (2004): 71–75; Zheng Wei 鄭偉, “Gudai Chu fangyan ‘yi’ zi de laiyuan” 古代楚方言 「 」字的來源, Zhongguo yuwen 中國語文 2007.4: 378–81. The alternative “indigenous” explanation proffered in Wang Zhiping 王志平, “‘ ’ zi de duyin ji xiangguan wenti” 「 」字的讀音及相關問題, Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字研究 27 (2008): 394–99, is phonologically unconvincing. Proto-Tai *hnïŋ (Thai 22nɯŋ, Dai 33nɯŋ, Lungchow Anəəŋ, etc.) “one, once,” etc.; cf. Li Fang Kuei, A Handbook, pp. 115–16, and Pittayawat Pittayaporn, “The Phonology of Proto-Tai” (Ph.D. diss.: Cornell University, 2009), p. 218. Zhu Dexi 朱德熙, “Xing li qu xi jie” 屈 解, Fangyan 方言 1989.4: 303; Mei Zulin 梅祖麟, “Gudai Chu fangyan zhong ‘xi (?xi)’ zi de ciyi he yuyuan” 古代 楚方言中「夕（ ）」字的詞義和語源, Fangyan 方言 1981.3: 215–18; Rao Zongyi 饒宗頤, “Qinjian rishu zhong ‘xi’ (?xi) zi hanyi de shangque” 秦簡日書中「夕」 （ ）字含義的商榷, Zhongguo yuyan xuebao 中國語言學報 1982.1: 167–72. This appears in the Dishi hu 杕氏壺 (in Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo, ed., Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng 殷周金文集成 [hereafter abbreviated as Jicheng], 18 vols. [Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1984–1994; 2nd ed., 2007], #9715); cf. Ma Chengyuan 馬承源, Jiang Dayi 將大沂, Chen Peifen 陳佩芬, Pan Jianming 潘建明, Chen Jianmin 陳建敏 and Pu Maozuo 濮茅左, Shang-Zhou qingtongqi mingwen xuan 商周青銅器銘文選 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1986–1990), vol. IV, p. 564. This might, again, be a substrate word, related to Proto-Japanese *ke (< *ka-Ci) > Old Japanese ke “vessel, container” or Middle Korean kali 籗 “fish pot, container” (< Old Korean *ka[l,t]). Cf. Han Yaolong 韓耀隆, “Jinwen zhong chengdaici yongfa zhi yanjiu” 金文中 稱代詞用法之研究, Zhongguo wenzi 中國文字 23 (1967): 1–12; 24 (1967): 1–11; 25 (1967): 1–8, at 3–4; Jiang Baochang 姜寶昌, “Zhoudai jinwen daici shixi” 周代金文代詞試析, in Shandongsheng yuyan xuehui, ed., Yuhai xintan 語海新 探 (Ji’nan: Shandong jiaoyu chubanshe, 1984), vol. 1, pp. 352–64; Redouane Djamouri, “The Development of the Writing System in Early China: Between Phonographic Necessity and Semiographic Efficiency,” in F. Bottéro and R. Djamouri, eds., Écriture chinoise: Données, usages et représentations,

28 · Wolfgang Behr

41

42

43

44

45

Collection des Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 6 (Paris: CRLAO/ EHESS, 2006), pp. 7–34; and Wu Zhenyu, “Liang Zhou jinwen cilei yanjiu,” pp. 26–41. On the latter problem, see the case study in Constance Anne Cook, “Auspicious Metals and Southern Spirits: An Analysis of the Chu Bronze Inscriptions” (Ph.D. diss.: University of California, Berkeley, 1991). For some noteworthy rhetorical innovations in EZ inscriptions, see also Gilbert L. Mattos, “Eastern Zhou Bronze Inscriptions,” in Edward L. Shaughnessy, ed., New Sources of Early Chinese History: An Introduction to the Reading of Inscriptions and Manuscripts, Early China Special Monographs 3 (Berkeley: The Society for the Study of Early China, and Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1997), pp. 86–92. This is the combined number of the rhyming inscriptions studied in Behr, Reimende Bronzeinschriften, plus the number of rhyming inscriptions which have meanwhile been published in Liu Yu 劉雨 and Lu Yan 盧岩, eds., Jin chu Yin Zhou jinwen jilu 近出殷周金文集錄, 4 vols. (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2002), and in its sequel erbian 二編, edited by Liu Yu and Yan Zhibin 嚴志斌, 4 vols. (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2010). Other studies (Liu Zhicheng, “Liang Zhou jinwen yinxi de shengmu xitong”; several articles by Luo Jiangwen 羅江 文, including “Liang Zhou jinwen yunli” 兩周金文韻例, Yuxi shizhuan xuebao 玉溪師專學報 1994.1/2: 61–66, “Cong jinwen yongyun he wenzi de tongyixing kan liang Zhou yayan shumianyu” 從金文用韻和文字的統一性看兩周雅言書面 語, Yuxi shizhuan xuebao 玉溪師專學報 1995.1: 21–23, and “Cong jinwen kan shanggu linjin yun de fenli” 從金文看上古鄰近韻的分立, Gu Hanyu yanjiu 古漢 語研究 1996.3: 27–29, 14; and Chen Shiyi 陳仕益, “Guo Moruo liang Zhou jinwen yundou bulun” 郭沫若兩周金文韻讀補論, Guo Moruo xuekan 郭沫若學 刊 76.2 [2006]: 53–60) count up to 300 rhyming inscriptions, but they contain many spurious rhyme identifications or line-internal rhymes. See, for example, Jin Yingruo 金穎若, “Shijing yunxi de shidai fenye” 詩經韻系 的時代分野, Gu Hanyu yanjiu 1993.4: 53–55, and William H. Baxter, “Zhōu and Hàn Phonology in the Shījīng,” in W. Boltz and M. Shapiro, eds., Studies in the Historical Phonology of Asian Languages, Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, ser. 4, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 77 (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 1991), pp. 1–34. Dong Tonghe 董同龢, “Yu Gao Benhan xiansheng shangque: ‘ziyou yayun’ shuo, jian lun shanggu Chu fangyin tese” 與高本漢先生商榷：「自由押韻」說， 兼論上古楚方音特色, Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 7.4 (1938): 533–43; Liu Baojun 劉寶俊, “Dong bu guixiang de shidai he diyu tedian yu shanggu Chu fangyin” 冬部歸向的時代和地域特點與上古楚方音, Zhongnan minzu xueyuan xuebao 中南民族學院學報 44.5 (1990): 79–86; and Huang Qi 黃綺, “Zhi, yu bu fen, yu du ru zhi” 之、魚不分，魚讀入之, Hebei xuekan 河北學 刊 1992.2: 34–40. See Wang Qiming 汪啟明, Xian Qin liang Han Qiyu yanjiu 先秦兩漢齊語研究 (Chengdu: Ba-Shu shushe, 1998) on the merger of the traditional rhyme

The Language of the Bronze Inscriptions · 29

46

47

48 49

50

51

52

53

classes zhi 之, zhi 支, and zhi 脂 in Qi and Xu 徐 BI, and in the edited literature. Yu Suisheng 喻遂生, “Liang Zhou jinwen yunwen he xian Qin ‘Chu yin’” 兩周 金文韻文和先秦「楚音」, Xinan shifan daxue xuebao 西南師範大學學報 1993.2: 105–9; Luo Jiangwen 羅江文, “Tan liang Zhou jinwen heyun de xingzhi—Jian ji shanggu ‘Chu yin’” 談兩周金文合韻的性質— 兼及上古「楚音」, Chuxiong shizhuan xuebao 楚雄師專學報 14.4 (1999): 73–77; Behr, Reimende Bronzeinschriften, passim; and Jin Yingruo 金穎若, “Ji jin zou ya—Cong Dong Zhou lieguo jinwen yunwen lice yayan de cunzai” 吉金奏雅— 從東周列國金文韻 文蠡測雅言的存在, Yuyan yanjiu 語言研究 1998, zengkan 增刊. For systematic studies of the regional and diachronic diversity of the script, see He Linyi 何琳儀, Zhanguo wenzi tonglun (dingbu) 戰國文字通論（訂補） (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003), chap. 3; Zhao Xueqing 趙學清, Zhanguo dongfang wu guo wenzi gouxing xitong yanjiu 戰國東方五國文字構形系統研究 (Shanghai: Shanghai jiaoyu chubanshe, 2005); Zhang Xiaoming 張曉明, Chunqiu Zhanguo jinwen ziti yanbian yanjiu 春秋戰國金文字體演變研究, Wenzi xungu yu shufa wenhua yanjiu congshu 文字訓詁與書法文化研究叢書 (Ji’nan: Qi-Lu shushe, 2006); and, on a more general plane, Olivier Venture, “La question de «écritures chinoises» à l’époque des Royaumes combattantes,” Arts Asiatiques 61 (2006): 30–44. Cf. Shi Yumei, “Xi Zhou jinwen yinyun kaocha,” p. 2. See Zuozhuan 左傳 (Xiang 襄 14), and Yuri Pines, “Beasts or Humans: PreImperial Origins of the Sino-Barbarian Dichotomy,” in R. Amitai and M. Biran, eds., Mongols, Turks and Others: Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary World (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2004), pp. 59–102, at p. 70. For a good study of this phenomenon, see Ye Yuying 葉玉英, Guwenzi gouxing yu shangguyin yanjiu 古文字構形與上古音研究, Xiamen daxue Guoxue yanjiuyuan zizhu chuban congshu 厦門大學國學研究院資助出版叢書 (Xiamen: Xiamen daxue chubanshe, 2009), pp. 378–420. See also Meng Guangdao 孟廣 道, “Shengfu leizeng xianxiang chutan” 聲符纍增現象初探, Gu Hanyu yanjiu 古漢語研究 47.2 (2000): 10–13, and Liu Zhao 劉釗, Guwenzi gouxingxue 古文 字構形學 (Fuzhou: Fujian renmin chubanshe, 2006), pp. 79–90. See Wolfgang Behr, “The Extent of Tonal Irregularity in Pre-Qin Inscriptional Rhyming,” in Anne O. Yue, Ting Pang-hsin and Hoh Dah-an, eds., Hanyushi yanjiu—Jinian Li Fanggui xiansheng bainian mingdan lunwenji 漢語 史研究 — 紀念李方桂先生百年冥誕論文集 [Studies in the History of the Chinese Language—Memorial Collection on the Occasion of Mr. Li Fangkuei’s 100th Birthday] (Taibei: Academia Sinica, 2004), pp. 111–46. See Luo Jiangwen, “Liang Zhou jinwen yunli” and Liu Zhicheng 劉志成, “Liang Zhou jinwen yundou he Shijing yundou zhi bijiao” 兩周金文韻讀和詩 經韻讀之比較, Chuandong xuekan 川東學刊 1996.3: 75–78, 83. See Shirakawa Shizuka 白川靜, “Seishû kôki no kinbun to shihen” 西周後期の 金文と詩編, Ritsumeikan bungaku 立命館文學 264–65 (1967): 467–504; Inoi Makoto 家井真, “Shikyô ni okeru ‘shô’ no hassei ni tsuite”《詩經》における「頌」

30 · Wolfgang Behr の發生について, in Nitta Daisaku 新田大作, ed., Chûgoku shisô kenkyû ronshû 中國思想研究論集 (Tokyo: Yūzankaku, 1986), pp. 319–49; and Chen Zhi 陳致,

54

55

56

57

58

59

60 61

62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

“Cong Zhousong yu jinwen zhong chengyu de yunyong lai kan gu geshi zhi yongyun ji siyan shiti de xingcheng” 從《周頌》與金文中成語的運用來看古歌詩 之用韻及四言詩體的形成 , at http://w w w.guwenzi.com/srcshow.asp?src_ id=932, published 9 October 2009, accessed 2 December 2009. Martin Kern, The Stele Inscriptions of Ch’in Shih-huang: Text and Ritual in Early Chinese Imperial Representation, American Oriental Series 85 (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 2000). Cf. Laurent Sagart, The Roots of Old Chinese, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 184 (Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1999), pp. 12–23; and Pan Wuyun 潘 悟雲, “Han-Zangyu de ciyao yinjie” 漢藏語的次要音節, in Pan Wuyun and Shi Feng 石峰, eds., Zhongguo yuyanxue de xin tuozhan 中國語言學的新拓展 (Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press, 1998), pp. 126–47. See Zhao Cheng 趙誠, “Jinwen de ‘zhe’” 金文的「者」, Zhongguo yuwen 中國語 文 2001.3: 267–68, and Wu Zhenyu, “Liang Zhou jinwen cilei yanjiu,” pp. 119–20, 264–65. Takashima Ken’ichi 高嶋謙一, “Jinwen he Shangshu zhong de zhishici jue/jue zi yanjiu” 金文和《尚書》中的指示詞氒／厥字研究, in Collected Essays in Ancient Chinese Grammar, Collection des Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 6 (Paris: CRLAO/EHESS, 2001), pp. 130–60. See Redouane Djamouri [Luo Duan 羅端], “Cong jia, jinwen kan ‘yi’ zi yufahua de guocheng” 從甲、金文看「以」字語法化的過程, Zhongguo yuwen 中 國語文 2009.1: 3–9; Pan Yukun, Xi Zhou jinwen yuxu yanjiu, pp. 234–52; and the respective yi-entries in Wu Zhenyu, “Liang Zhou jinwen cilei yanjiu.” Redouane Djamouri, “Markers of Predication in Shang Bone Inscriptions,” in Hilary Chappell, ed., Sinitic Grammar: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 143–71. See Wolfgang Behr, “Morphological Notes on the Old Chinese Counterfactual,” Bochumer Jahrbuch zur Ostasienforschung 30 (2006): 55–88. Most examples are taken from Pan Yukun, Xi Zhou jinwen yuxu yanjiu, chap. 8, and Li Shiyuan 李世淵, “Yin-Zhou jinwen wenli yanjiu” 殷周金文文例研究 (M.A. thesis: Guoli zhengzhi daxue, 2005), chaps. 4–6. Geng ji ding 庚季鼎 (Jicheng #2781). Hu guigai 虎簋蓋 (Jinchu #491). Wu fangyi gai 吳方彝蓋 (Jicheng #9898). Yu zheng wei ding 御正衛鼎 (Jicheng #4044). Meng gui 孟簋 (Jicheng #4162). X ding 鼎 (Jicheng #2704). Notice that the phrase cannot be construed as *“The king [located] in Dai-X awarded (name) three fields.” Shi X fu ding 師 父鼎 (Jicheng #2813). Da Ke ding 大克鼎 (Jicheng #2836). Shu you 述卣 (Jicheng #5336). Wu nian shi-X gui 五年師 簋 (Jicheng #4182).

The Language of the Bronze Inscriptions · 31 72

73 74 75 76

77 78 79 80

81

82 83

84

85

86

Shangshu (Shisanjing zhu shu ed.), 25 (“Jiu gao” 酒告), as translated by Bernhard Karlgren, The Book of Documents (Göteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag, 1950; repr. from the Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities), pp. 45–46. ? Yuan pan 盤 (Jicheng #10172). Da Ke ding 大克鼎 (Jicheng #2836). ? Li ju zun 駒尊 (Jicheng #6011). See Hilary Chappell, Li Ming and Alain Peyraube, “Chinese Linguistics and Typology: The State of the Art,” Linguistic Typology 11.1 (2007): 187–211, at p. 190. Bai xiao-X xu 白孝□盨 (Jicheng #4407.1). Mao gong ding 毛公鼎 (Jicheng #2841). For a fascinating first compilation of such “errors,” see Li Shiyuan, “Yin-Zhou jinwen wenli yanjiu.” These figures are taken from Jiang Xuewang 江學旺, “Cong Xi Zhou jinwen kan Hanzi gouxing fangshi de yanhua” 從西周金文看漢字構形方式的演化, Guji zhengli yanjiu xuekan 古籍整理研究學刊 2003.2: 30–33. For a catalog of such exceptional character structures, see Wolfgang Behr, “In the Interstices of Representation: Ludic Writing and the Locus of Polysemy in the Chinese Sign,” in A. de Voogt and I. Finkel, eds., The Idea of Writing: Play and Complexity (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2009), pp. 281–314. Jiang Xuewang, “Cong Xi Zhou jinwen,” pp. 32–33. For extensive discussion of syntactic, semantic, prosodic, statistic and other criteria, see Yang Huaiyuan, “Xi Zhou jinwen cihui yanjiu,” pp. 33–38, 49–75, and Zhu Gangxun, “Xi Zhou qingtongqi mingwen fuyinci yanjiu,” pp. 109–300. For a good theoretical perspective on wordhood in Chinese, see Duanmu San [端木三], “Wordhood in Chinese,” in Jerome L. Packard, ed., New Approaches to Chinese Word Formation: Morphology, Phonology and the Lexicon in Modern and Ancient Chinese (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1998), pp. 135–96. For different counts, cf. Yang Huaiyuan, “Xi Zhou jinwen cihui yanjiu,” appendix I, which has 385 disyllabic, 22 trisyllabic, and 5 tetrasyllabic entries, and Zhu Gangxun, “Xi Zhou qingtongqi mingwen fuyinci yanjiu,” who counts 448 compounds, using basically the same corpus. For a good argument why intralinguistic motivations are insufficient to explain the disyllabification explosion, see Tang Yuming 唐鈺明, “Jinwen fuyinci jianlun—Jianlun Hanyu fuyinhua de qiyuan” 金文復音詞簡論— 兼 論漢語復音化的起源, repr. in Zhuming Zhongguo yuyan xuejia zixuan ji: Tang Yuming 著名中國語言學家自選集．唐鈺明 (Hefei: Anhui jiaoyu chubanshe, 2002), pp. 117–35. For a long list of pertinent examples, see Yang Huaiyuan, “Xi Zhou jinwen cihui yanjiu,” pp. 42–48. The best BI specific sources on phonetic loans are Jeon Kwang-jie 全廣鎮 [Chǒn Kwangjin, Quan Guangzhen], Liang Zhou jinwen tongjiazi yanjiu 兩周金文通假字研究, Zhongguo yuwen congkan 中國語

32 · Wolfgang Behr 文叢刊 11 (Taibei: Xuesheng shuju, 1989); Yang Huaiyuan, “Xi Zhou jinwen cihui yanjiu,” pp. 185–212; and Wang Hui 王輝, Guwenzi tongjia zidian 古文 字通假字典 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2008), s.vv.

87

88

89

For bibliographical overviews of inscriptional phonology, including the OBI period, see Hong Yang 洪颺 and Chen Yingbao 陳英寶, “Ershi shiji liyong chutu wenxian yanjiu shangguyin jinzhan shuping” 二十世紀利用出土文獻研 究上古音進展述評, Bohai daxue xuebao 渤海大學學報 2004.3: 92–95, and Liu Zhao 劉釗 and Ye Yuying 葉玉英, “Liyong guwenzi ziliao de shangguyin fenqi fenyu yanjiu shuping” 利用古文字資料的上古音分期分域研究述評, Gu Hanyu yanjiu 古漢語研究 2008.2: 10–18. For inscription-based OBI syntax, see Tang Yuming 唐鈺明, “Guwenzi ziliao de yufa yanjiu shuping” 古文字資料的語法研 究述評, Zhongshan daxue xuebao 中山大學學報 1998.4: 57–64. Apart from Dong Kun’s sketch of the phonology of the Zhouyuan 周原 bone inscriptions (Dong Kun 董琨, “Zhouyuan jiaguwen yinxi tedian chutan” 周原甲骨文音系特 點初探, in Wang Yuxin 王宇信 and Song Zhenhao 宋鎮豪, eds., Jinian Yinxu jiaguwen faxian yibai zhou nian guoji xueshu yantaohui 紀念殷墟甲骨文發現 一百週年國際學術研討會 [Beijing: Shehui kexue chubanshe, 2003]), there exists, as far as I am aware, no other linguistic attempt to compare this important body of evidence to the BI. For competing models, cf. Sagart, Roots, Jin Lixin 金理新, Shanggu Hanyu xingtai yanjiu 上古漢語形態研究 (Hefei: Huangshan chubanshe, 2006), and Axel C. Schuessler, ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2007), pp. 1–130. On this point, see Djamouri, “The Development of the Writing System.”

Shang Emblems in Their Archaeological Context Olivier VENTURE École Pratique des Hautes Études

Shang bronze inscriptions are usually short, containing signs with a strong figurative aspect.1 Their contents can be categorized into three elements: emblems, the names of the people to whom the bronzes are dedicated (“the dedicatees”), and other elements. Emblems correspond to those signs with strong figurative aspects. Dedicatees’ names usually correspond to posthumous titles, such as Father Ding (Fu Ding 父丁) or Ancestor Jia (Zu Jia 祖甲), etc.2 What I term other elements are different kinds of expressions, mostly related to the use of the bronze vessel: the position of the vessel within a set,3 the specific kind of sacrificial animal to be cooked in the vessel,4 the place where the vessel was to be used,5 etc. Of these three types, emblems represent the largest category, followed by dedicatees’ names, with only a few inscriptions clearly belonging to the last category.6 The present study will focus only on the category of emblems. An emblem consists of a single sign or group of signs that refers either to a single person or to a group of persons (such as European coats of arms or monograms). Even if some components are identical to signs used in the writing system of that time, emblems and writing have two different functions and should not be confused. The earliest inscriptions contain either one or a combination of these three elements. By Yinxu Phase IV, which is to say, the reigns of the last two kings of the Shang dynasty (around 1100 to 1050 B.C.), most inscriptions still followed this early model, but a few longer inscriptions with more complex content began to appear at Anyang, announcing the kind of inscription that would develop during the Western Zhou period. Although a few earlier examples exist, inscriptions that can be categorized as emblems mainly developed during the time of Wu Ding 武丁, i.e., Yinxu Phase II (around 1200 to 1150 B.C.). Among these emblems, it is possible to distinguish between collective emblems and individual emblems. In

34 · Olivier Venture

fact, many individual emblems are individual names written in a specific way, so they can frequently be considered as monograms.7 The most famous case is the emblem of Fu Hao 婦好, as shown in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Comparison of Fu Hao’s Name in Oracular Inscriptions (A) and Her Emblem in Bronze Inscriptions (B) A

B

Detail from Guo Moruo, ed., Jiaguwen heji 甲骨文合集 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1982), #14000.

Jicheng #793.1.1

Most Western scholars working on Shang collective emblems call them “clan emblems” or “lineage emblems.” In Chinese scholarship, the term zuhui 族徽 “lineage emblem” is still most frequent, but zushi mingwen 族氏 銘文 “lineage inscriptions” has recently been adopted by many scholars. As I am still not sure whether members of these related groups were all actually related by blood, I prefer to use the more neutral term “collective emblems.” Numerous studies of Shang and Zhou emblems have already been published.8 The purpose of this paper is not to resolve all of the many problems raised by these materials but just to show how the archaeological context can perhaps help to understand better this specific kind of inscription. My reflections will be based on three funerary sites from which numerous bronzes with emblems have been excavated.

Yinxu West Zone Funerary Site The first site is situated in the northwest suburb of modern Anyang, in the western part of Yinxu 殷墟, the place where the remains of the last Shang capital are located (see Appendix, Map 2.1).9 This is the most important Shang funerary site excavated at Anyang published to date. Covering

Shang Emblems in Their Archaeological Context · 35

nearly 30 hectares, more than 1,000 Shang tombs have been identified there through drilling, among which 939 were scientifically excavated between 1969 and 1977. The site is divided into 8 zones, containing between 6 (zone 5; about 2,000 m²) and 389 tombs (zone 3; 112,500 m²). Some tombs had already been looted when discovered by archaeologists, while others were destroyed by later construction or contained too much water to permit a complete scientific excavation. However, 771 tombs remained intact. Although the percentage of nonlooted tombs is quite high among Shang-dynasty cemetery sites at Anyang (75.71%), more than 90% of the tombs larger than the average size were looted, and the largest had been looted several times. The fact that most of the large-scale tombs at the site have been looted is significant for the study of bronze inscriptions because there are clear relationships between both the size of the tomb and the number of the bronze vessels in it and also between this number and the percentage of inscribed bronze vessels.10 Focusing on tombs with bronze vessels, and especially on tombs with inscribed bronze vessels, it is possible to make some remarks. Only 67 of the 939 Shang tombs of the western zone contained bronze vessels (approximately 7.13%). The proportion is nearly the same if we take into consideration only nonlooted tombs (53 of 711 = approximately 7.45%). When we further consider that nearly a third of the tombs that contained bronze vessels also contained inscribed bronze vessels,11 it is clear not only that bronze vessels were reserved to a small elite, as already noticed by many scholars, but also that members of this elite were often buried with inscribed vessels. If we focus on the bronzes themselves, 175 ritual bronze vessels have been excavated from this site, among which 35 bear an inscription. Thus, approximately 20% of the excavated bronze vessels are inscribed, which is quite representative of the proportion of inscribed bronzes in Shang lowerelite tombs at Anyang (between Yinxu Phases II and IV).12 In addition to these ritual vessels, eight inscribed bronze objects have also been discovered (one fragment of an unidentified object, one ben 錛 socketed adze blade, two ge 戈 halberd blades, one mao 矛 spear blade, and three nao 鐃 bells). Most of these 43 inscriptions correspond to an emblem. Only six inscriptions contain reference to a family title: “Father” (four examples) and “Ancestor” (two examples). With perhaps one exception, these titles always appear in inscriptions where an emblem is also present. This is quite representative of the importance of the use of the emblem in Shang inscriptions at Anyang.13

36 · Olivier Venture

If we classify inscriptions according to the tombs and zones defined by archaeologists (see Appendix, Table 2.3), some features appear quite clearly. Twelve tombs contain only emblems that are not attested in other tombs.14 At least fifteen emblems are attested in only one tomb, three emblems in two different tombs, and two other emblems in three different tombs each. In the two groups of three tombs sharing a common emblem, tombs were located close to each other. This could also be the case for the three groups of two tombs, but they were sometimes located in different zones (for example, M271 of zone 8 and M1116 of zone 4).

Tomb M1046 at Liujiazhuang North In 1999, a nonlooted Shang upper-elite tomb was excavated in the northern part of Liujiazhuang 劉家莊, in the eastern part of modern Anyang city, about 2 km south of Xiaotun 小屯 (see Appendix, Map 2.1).15 This area is part of an important cemetery site, where more than a thousand Shang tombs have been excavated, dating from all four of the Yinxu periods. Tomb M1046, dated to Yinxu Phase IV, is a rectangular pit 4.25 m long, 2.16 m wide and 8.70 m deep (without the waist pit). It contained 302 burial artifacts. Among the 33 ritual bronze vessels, 24 carried an inscription. An emblem composed of at least three elements appears on three bronzes (Figure 2.1A); an abbreviated form of this emblem was found on sixteen other bronzes (Figure 2.1B), while five bronzes were inscribed with only an old form of the character ya 亞 (Figure 2.1C), which seems to refer to a military officer at Anyang during the Shang period. This character is a component in the emblem present on the other bronzes (in both the complete and the abbreviated forms). As far as I know, this emblem is not attested elsewhere in Anyang, or even in our principal bronze inscription corpus. Therefore, it should be considered as an unattested collective emblem or perhaps an individual emblem, such as the one belonging to Fu Hao. Figure 2.1 Main Content of Bronze Inscriptions from M1046 at Liujiazhuang North A

B

C

Shang Emblems in Their Archaeological Context · 37

With this last example, we see the major kinds of archaeological context in which emblems can be found at Anyang: 1) emblems attested on one bronze found in a single tomb; 2) emblems attested on several bronzes found in tombs scattered in different places; 3) emblems attested on a few bronzes found in groups of two or three small to midsize tombs not too distant from one another; 4) sets of ten (or more) similar emblems originating from one single large tomb. Having made clear the different kinds of contexts at Anyang, I would like to propose a last example to show the difference with cemeteries outside of Anyang.

Qianzhangda Cemetery The Qianzhangda 前掌大 cemetery is located in the southern part of Shandong province, within the territory of Tengzhou 滕州 municipality. A Shang-Zhou cemetery was identified there as early as the 1960s, but scientific excavations began only in the 1980s. In 2005 an archaeological report was published on the first to eighth seasons of work, covering the excavations and discoveries up to the year 1998.16 Of the 111 tombs excavated, the authors were able to date 73 tombs, with 27 belonging to the late Shang period and 46 to the early Western Zhou period. As emphasized by Professor Li Chaoyuan 李朝遠 in his study of Qianzhangda inscriptions,17 26 tombs contained ritual bronzes; of these, 17 contained bronzes with the emblem Shi 史 (see Figure 2.2A). He also pointed out that a total of 171 ritual bronzes were unearthed, of which 67 featured this same emblem. Figure 2.2 Inscriptions from Qianzhangda Tombs A

B

C

D

If we take into consideration only the datable, nonlooted tombs containing funeral goods, we count 50 tombs, of which 20 contained ritual bronze vessels. Of these 20 tombs with ritual vessels, 15 contained inscribed bronze vessels. A total of 146 ritual bronze vessels were found in

38 · Olivier Venture

these 20 tombs, of which 81 were inscribed; this means that 55.47% of the ritual bronze vessels were inscribed, representing a significant proportion. However, as Li Chaoyuan emphasized, most of these tombs can be dated to the early Western Zhou period. Therefore, even if they belong to the same Shang tradition as those of the Yinxu West zone cemetery or the Liujiazhuang M1046 tomb, they may reflect a new step in the evolution of the practice of bronze inscriptions. Furthermore, as proposed above with respect to the Anyang data, it may be interesting to distinguish between tombs of the lower elite and those of the upper elite. If we take the quantity of bronze vessels as a criterion, we have one group of fourteen tombs none of which contains more than six bronze vessels, and another group of six tombs which each contain twelve or more bronze vessels. A little more than a third of the ritual bronze vessels excavated from the first group were inscribed, whereas a little more than half of those in the second group were inscribed. One tomb of the second group, M11, contained the most important assemblage of ritual bronze vessels (31 bronzes); more than 80% of its bronzes carry an inscription. All this confirms the importance accorded to inscriptions by the upper elite. Turning to the content of the inscriptions, it is clear that Shi 史 here was a collective emblem. It appears in 12 of the 15 nonlooted tombs with inscribed bronze vessels and on 62 of the 81 total inscribed bronze vessels (76.54%) found in the tombs; finally, it appears on all 25 of the inscribed bronzes from the M11 tomb. Furthermore, it is clear that this cemetery belonged to a group which had Shi 史 as an emblem, and that the deceased in tomb M11 must have had quite a high position in this group. People with higher positions than he may have been buried in larger tombs, such as those with ramps; however, all of these tombs have been looted, so there is no information about the bronze vessels they must have contained originally. In addition to the emblem Shi 史, we find among the inscriptions some other well-known collective emblems, such as examples B, C and D in Figure 2.2; however, they are not very numerous. Some tombs also contain bronzes with ancestor names or ancestor names linked to collective emblems. However, as shown in Table 2.2 below, and as noted in the introductory remarks above, this was not the most important content of early bronze inscriptions. As at Anyang, Qianzhangda elites were more concerned with putting their collective emblem

Shang Emblems in Their Archaeological Context · 39

onto their ritual bronzes, rather than with writing the name of the ancestor to whom the bronze was dedicated. Table 2.2 Proportion of Different Kinds of Content in Bronze Inscriptions from Qianzhangda Number of Inscriptions

%

Only emblems

60

70.58

Emblems + kinship term + heavenly stem (tiangan 天干)

18

21.17

Emblems + heavenly stem

3

3.52

Others

4

4.70

Content

Remarks18 As can be observed in the examples presented above, the way emblems appear in each tomb and in each cemetery seems to follow distinct patterns. To analyze this phenomenon, I find it useful to distinguish two different kinds of emblems. When a tomb contains many bronzes with emblems, with most of the bronzes carrying the same emblem, then it can be called the major emblem of the tomb. Other distinct emblems found in the same tomb which occur in far smaller numbers can be regarded as minor emblems of the tomb. For example, in tomb M907 of the Yinxu West cemetery, there are both a major emblem (see below Figure 2.3A) and a minor emblem (Figure 2.3B). Figure 2.3 Major and Minor Emblems of Tomb M907 at Yinxu West Zone A

B

As small tombs usually only contain one or two bronzes, it is difficult to distinguish between major and minor emblems. However, this distinction

40 · Olivier Venture

can also be applied to emblems found in groups of tombs. If a group of three or four tombs, located in the same area, contains bronzes with the same emblem, it can be considered as the major emblem of this group of tombs. This would seem to be the case with regard to the Shi 史 emblem at Qianzhangda. My research reveals that the situation at Anyang is quite different from that of other important late Shang-early Western Zhou cemeteries. Scholars often refer to clan or lineage cemeteries at Anyang (a concept mostly based on similarities in funeral assemblages and ancient texts), but there are some difficulties connecting this phenomenon with the spread of emblems in Anyang. Up to now, we cannot identify at Anyang any cemetery in which a large group of tombs shares the same major emblem as at the Qianzhangda cemetery. However, we do find similar examples outside of Anyang, such as at Mangzhang 蟒張 in southern Henan.19 A slightly different situation is ref lected by the cemeteries of Gaojiabao 高家堡, Shaanxi or Jingjie 旌介, Shanxi, where we find only small groups of upperelite tombs sharing the same major emblem. It seems that this phenomenon too has not yet been reported at Anyang.20 The phenomenon of major emblems at Anyang usually concerns single upper-elite tombs (such as M1046 of Liujiazhuang) or small groups of lower-elite tombs (such as M284, M271 and M1125 of zone 8 in the Yinxu West cemetery). Furthermore, in many cases, major emblems of upper-elite tombs should probably be considered as individual rather than collective emblems.21 The evidence also suggests that groups defined by the use of the same emblem on bronzes seem to have been quite small in Anyang. Of course, we have to remember that only a minority of Anyang tomb owners were given bronze vessels as funerary goods.22 Considering that doubtless only the leaders of the groups enjoyed this kind of luxury artifact, it might be supposed that emblems reveal only the small, visible part of the iceberg; larger groups must also have been present at Anyang, but most of their members were not buried with ritual bronzes or perhaps did not even own ritual bronzes when they were alive. If this was the case, and if Anyang cemeteries were actually organized as clan or lineage cemeteries, we would expect to find tombs with different collective emblems to be located at a considerable distance from each other, but excavations at Anyang do not seem to support this. In fact, we often find different emblems inside large groups of tombs usually considered as discrete cemeteries. As a final reflection, even if collective emblems at Anyang were associated with lineages, these must have been only small groups. Furthermore,

Shang Emblems in Their Archaeological Context · 41

emblems do not directly reflect that Shang society, or the entire Anyang Yinxu site,23 was structured according to large-scale kinship groups.24 Of course, many problems still exist that prevent us from understanding early bronze inscriptions well; these problems stem mostly from their abbreviated content. Moreover, we are still far from thoroughly understanding emblems. However, I firmly believe that, in parallel with other kinds of approaches, such as looking for parallels with oracle bone inscriptions, bringing inscriptions back to their original archaeological context will help us to understand better this specific kind of sign.

Appendix Map 2.1 Archaeological Remains at the Shang Site of Yinxu

42 · Olivier Venture Table 2.3 Bronze Inscriptions from Yinxu West Zone M198 Yinxu Phase 3 M699 Yinxu Phase 4 Looted M692 Yinxu Phase ? M613 Yinxu Phase 2 M355 Yinxu Phase 3

Zone 3

M374 Yinxu Phase 4 M764 Yinxu Phase 3 M697 Yinxu Phase 4 M354 Yinxu Phase 2 M856 Yinxu Phase 4 M793 Yinxu Phase 4 M727 Yinxu Phase 3 Looted

*

*

Shang Emblems in Their Archaeological Context · 43 M216 Yinxu Phase 4 Looted Zone M1116 4 Yinxu Phase 4 M1118 Yinxu Phase 4 M1102 Yinxu Phase 4 Zone Looted 6 M1080 Yinxu Phase 4 Looted

[128.104.46.206] Project MUSE (2024-03-02 03:18 GMT) UW-Madison Libraries

M907 Yinxu Phase 4 Zone M152 7 Yinxu Phase ? Looted M93 Yinxu Phase 4 Looted M284 Yinxu Phase 4 Zone M1125 8 Yinxu Phase 4 M271 Yinxu Phase 3 Table adapted from Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1979.1: 27–146. A “*” mark indicates fictive copy of an inscription which was not reproduced in the original report. Yinxu Phases are as given in the report. A “?” mark indicates that a dating was not given.

44 · Olivier Venture

Notes 1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9

10

11 12

13

For a presentation of Shang bronze inscriptions, see Robert W. Bagley, “Anyang Writing and the Origin of the Chinese Writing System,” in Stephen D. Houston, ed., The First Writing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 200–13, and Robert Thorp, China in the Early Bronze Age: Shang Civilization (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), pp. 208–13. References to deceased Mother (Mu 母), Grandmother (Bi 妣) and Elder Brother (Xiong 兄) can also be found, but they are much less frequent. See the inscriptions on the three he 盉 pitchers in the Nezu Museum (Tokyo), said to have come from Anyang. Reproductions of these inscriptions can be found in Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo, ed., Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng 殷周金文集成 (hereafter abbreviated as Jicheng), 18 vols. (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1984–1994; 2nd ed., 2007), #9315, #9316 and #9317. Jicheng #1104 and #1110. Jicheng #10302. Because of the difficulties involved in understanding early inscriptions, it is possible that some signs presently considered as emblems may, in fact, have some other meaning and probably have to be put in the other elements category. For example, this term is used by Robert W. Bagley in “Anyang Writing and the Origin of the Chinese Writing System,” pp. 200–202. For a recent study with a sizeable bibliography and commentary by an important scholar in the field, see Zhang Maorong 張懋鎔, “Yiqian nian lai Shang Zhou tongqi zuhui wenzi yanjiu shuping” 一千年來商周銅器族徽文字研 究述評, Xin shixue 新史學 18.2 (June 2007): 157–89. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo Anyang gongzuodui, “1969– 1977 nian Yinxu xiqu muzang fajue baogao” 1969–1977年殷墟西區墓葬發掘報 告, Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1979.1: 27–146. See Feng Yicheng 風儀誠 [Olivier Venture], “Anyang Shang dai muzang chutu ‘zuhui’” 安陽商代墓葬出土「族徽」, Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字研究 29 (2012): 213–15. The relationship noted here should not be considered a mathematical relationship, but rather is a global tendency to which exceptions sometimes occur. I count 20 tombs among 67 tombs with bronze vessels (29.85%), against 16 among 53 (30.18%) for nonlooted tombs. I here use “lower elite” and “upper elite” as convenient terms to distinguish people buried with a few bronzes (one to six) as opposed to those buried with more bronzes (ten and more). I do not expect these categories to correspond to any well-defined social class. See for example the remarks on this corpus made by Yan Zhibin 嚴志斌, in Yan Zhibin and Hong Mei 洪梅 , Yinxu qingtongqi: Qingtong shidai de Zhongguo wenming 殷墟青銅器：青銅時代的中國文明 (Shanghai: Shanghai daxue chubanshe, 2008), pp. 186–89.

Shang Emblems in Their Archaeological Context · 45 14

15

16 17

18 19

20

21

22

23

24

Or perhaps thirteen, if the first sign of the inscription found in tomb M216 is also an emblem. Unfortunately, the rubbing is not clear enough to be sure of this identification. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo Anyang gongzuodui, “Henan Anyang Yinxu Liujiazhuangbei 1046 hao mu” 河南安陽殷墟劉家莊北1046號墓, Kaoguxue jikan 考古學集刊 15 (2004): 359–89. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo, ed., Tengzhou Qianzhangda mudi 滕州前掌大墓地 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2005). Li Chaoyuan 李朝遠, “Qianzhangda mudi zhong de Shi ji qita: Du Tengzhou Qianzhangda mudi” 前掌大墓地中的史及其他— 讀《滕州前掌大墓地》, Dongfang kaogu 東方考古4 (2008): 154–61. For more examples (but with less details) leading me to the same conclusions, see Feng Yicheng, “Anyang Shang dai muzang chutu ‘zuhui.’” For a brief presentation and bibliographical references concerning these late Shang-early Western Zhou cemeteries outside Anyang, see Thorp, China in the Early Bronze Age, pp. 218–28. The closest case is probably one of two elite tombs excavated southeast of Guojiazhuang 郭家莊. One of them (M26) contained eight ritual bronze vessels, two of which carried a similar emblem (also appearing on a bronze ash pan). The second tomb (M5) contained eleven ritual bronze vessels, of which four carried the same emblem (also appearing on a bronze ash pan). The distance between these two tombs is not indicated in the two reports, but they were probably not too far one from another. See Anyang shi Wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Henan Anyang Yinxu Guojiazhuang dongnan wu hao Shangdai mu” 河南安陽殷墟郭家莊東南五號商代墓, Kaogu 考古 2008.8: 22–33 and Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo Anyang gongzuodui, “Henan Anyang shi Guojiazhuang dongnan 26 hao mu” 河南安陽市郭家莊東 南26號墓, Kaogu 考古 1998.10: 36–47. Of course, we must keep in mind that many tombs at Anyang have been looted, which very likely distorts our perception of the original situation. However, many other Shang/Zhou cemeteries outside Anyang (such as at Qianzhangda) also suffer from the same problem. Despite this situation, relevant data remain quite numerous, so I believe that the differences we can observe between these different archaeological sites still reflect some aspects of the actual situation in antiquity. The proportion of tombs with bronze vessels differs significantly from one cemetery to another. Robert Thorp estimates that 4% of all Shang tombs at Anyang contained bronze vessels; see Thorp, China in the Early Bronze Age, p. 152. For a recent article interpreting Shang remains from Anyang using this approach, see Tang Jigen 唐際根 and Jing Zhichun 荊志淳, “Anyang de ‘Shang yi’ yu ‘Da yi Shang’” 安陽的「商邑」與「大邑商」, Kaogu 考古 2009.9: 70–80. Some scholars studying composite emblems (fuhe zuhui 複合族徽) have tried to prove the existence of larger groups that may have contained subgroups

46 · Olivier Venture represented by different emblems; see, for example, Zhu Fenghan 朱鳳瀚, Shang Zhou jiazu xingtai yanjiu: Zengding ben 商周家族形態研究：增訂本 (Tianjin: Tianjin Guji chubanshe, 2004), pp. 89–99. However, it has been shown quite convincingly that a systematical hierarchical treatment of composite emblems leads to illogical conclusions; see Yan Zhibin 嚴志斌, “Fuhe shiming cengji shuo zhi sikao” 複合氏名層級說之思考, Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 2002.3: 34–44.

Inscribed Bronzes, Gift-giving and Social Networks in the Early Western Zhou: A Case Study of the Yan Cemetery at Liulihe* Yan SUN Gettysburg College

Bronze vessels are often considered goods inalienable to their owners. Confucian doctrine manifested in transmitted texts such as the Zuo zhuan 左傳 and Li ji 禮記 held that bronzes were quintessential symbols of ritual and of an individual’s privileged social status. According to Confucius, transferring the vessel and ritual regalia to someone else was tantamount to giving up the power to rule and would endanger the state.1 Inscriptions on bronzes, moreover, have indicated that bronze vessels were rarely used as gifts during social interactions among the nobles. Gifts recorded in numerous inscriptions on Western Zhou bronzes typically include cowries, clothes, servants, land and metal (jijin 吉金), but not bronze vessels. Indeed the vessels are often cast as a result of gift-giving activities to commemorate the award and extol the merit of the gift-giver.2 However, the notion of the immobility of bronze vessels has been directly challenged by archaeological evidence from Western Zhou elite tombs, which often contain vessels commissioned by numerous patrons

*

The author wishes to extend her sincere thanks to Professor Edward Shaughnessy for his kind invitation to the conference “Ancient Chinese Bronzes from the Shouyang Studio and Elsewhere” at the University of Chicago, where an early version of this paper was presented. Professor Shaughnessy also patiently edited the entire manuscript and offered valuable suggestions for revision. During the course of writing, Professors Cao Wei, Zhang Maorong and Li Feng kindly offered their help and shared their knowledge of bronze inscriptions. Leslie Wallace read the entire manuscript and corrected my errors in English. Finally, my gratitude goes to Professor Katheryn M. Linduff, who has kindly provided comments for the revision of the paper and who is always there to guide and encourage me to explore new ideas and methods beyond art historical study of ancient Chinese bronzes.

48 · Yan Sun

from various lineages. Bronze inscriptions from tombs of the Yan 燕 state at Liulihe 琉璃河, the Ge 戈 lineage cemetery at Gaojiabao 高家堡, the Yu 𢐗 lineage cemetery at Baoji 寶雞, and the tombs at Baicaopo 白草坡, for example, have revealed that many individuals’ vessels were used to furnish a single tomb. The underlying implication of this archaeological phenomenon is that bronze vessels have been moved or transferred from their original patrons to a new owner—namely the deceased, and from their original social and ritual contexts to new mortuary environments. The generic explanations for the transfer and movement of bronze vessels are warfare, gift-giving, exchange, marriage and heirlooms.3 Those proposals are often insensitive to individual cases and fail to investigate the particular mechanism associated with each case. To date, only a handful of studies strive to examine specific forms of bronze movement. Zhu Fenghan 朱鳳瀚, for example, examined a particular case of bronze transfer. He suggested that seven Shang bronze vessels found in an early Western Zhou tomb (99M1) at Waliu 洼劉 near Zhengzhou 鄭州 could be war booty obtained by the deceased in his lifetime after the Zhou conquest of Shang.4 The style of these vessels betrays a much earlier dating (the third phase of the Yinxu period) than the date of the tomb, suggesting that they could not have been given to the deceased by their original owner(s).5 Cao Wei 曹瑋 proposed that the practice of fengfu 賵賻 or funerary giftgiving recorded in Eastern Zhou texts can be traced back to the late Shang and Western Zhou periods. He further explained that the purpose of donating one’s own sacrificial vessels to the deceased is to ask the deceased to convey blissful prayers to the donors’ own ancestors in the spirit world.6 Cai Yunzhang 蔡運章 presented another case of funerary gift-giving in the Western Zhou. He suggested that ink writings on a bronze gui 簋 and six ge 戈 in three Western Zhou tombs at Beiyao 北窯, Luoyang 洛陽 (M37, M139, and M172) were names of their original owners and that these objects were funerary gifts to the deceased.7 These studies, though limited, demonstrate increasing scholarly interest and effort to identify the specific mechanisms of bronze movement. It is important to recognize that as bronzes moved and were used in a new context, they would accumulate new social meanings. They were not just the symbol of wealth and privileged status of individual owners, but material witnesses and agents of social relations and interactions. Each vessel made by individuals other than the deceased in a tomb could represent an act of social contact between those individuals and families and

Inscribed Bronzes, Gift-giving and Social Networks · 49

the deceased and his or her lineage. Therefore, collectively, bronze vessels in a tomb can reflect broad and accumulated social relations between individuals and lineages. It is clear that inscribed bronzes in a tomb are particularly excellent evidence to examine social networks of the individual and his or her family. The inscription on a bronze often reveals the patron’s identity (personal name or lineage affiliation), the dedicatee for whom the vessel was intended, and the event leading to the making of the vessel; these essentially provide the details surrounding the “birth” of the vessel. The tomb, on the other hand, adds a new contextual dimension to the inscribed bronzes. Each individual patron of a vessel in a tomb may or may not have been directly related to the others or had contact with each other. Yet, by being pooled and buried together in a tomb, inscribed bronzes represent a range of social networks in which the deceased and his or her family engaged. Taken together, inscribed bronzes can provide valuable insight into the scale and scope of social networks. Given these theoretical and methodological considerations, this chapter aims to construct social networks embodied by inscribed bronzes in early Western Zhou tombs through a case study of bronzes from the tombs of the Yan state. Yan was a regional state established by the Zhou court during the second half of the eleventh century B.C. It was located on the northeastern frontier, 43 km southwest of present-day Beijing. The establishment of Yan is well documented in inscriptions on two bronze vessels, the Ke he 克盉 and Ke lei 克罍, discovered in 1986 in the severely looted tomb M1193. The inscription documents the Zhou king’s verbal commission concerning the establishment of Yan through the bestowal of land and peoples.8 Over the past three decades, excavations at Liulihe have revealed a cemetery of over 200 tombs, 26 horse and chariot pits, and the remains of a walled city identified as the Yan capital surrounded by a moat and equipped with drainage systems and various residential areas.9 Burials of the lords of Yan (Yan Hou 匽侯; such as tombs M1193 and M202) and their family members, presumably the richest burials in the Yan cemetery, were severely looted, so that the full scale of their bronze assemblage cannot be known. Two well-preserved elite burials, M251 and M253, dating to the reigns of King Cheng (1042/35–1006 B.C.) or King Kang (1005/3–978 B.C.), contain a number of vessels commissioned by individuals of various lineages and will be primary sources for this research.

50 · Yan Sun

I will first examine the inscription and style of the bronzes in these two burials to identify the individual patrons and their cultural and political identities and affiliations when possible. Based on these studies, I will then hypothesize the possible mechanism of the vessels’ movement and reconstruct social networks in the Yan state as embodied by these inscribed vessels. Finally, I will examine other aspects of the Yan cemetery to provide the cultural and political contexts in which these social networks developed. Through the study of these two burials, this research aims not only to deepen our understanding of the social networks in Yan in the early Western Zhou, but more importantly, to stimulate more interest in new perspectives and approaches to inscriptions and bronzes from Western Zhou tombs in general.

Inscribed Bronzes in Tomb M251 Twenty-two bronze vessels were offered to the deceased in tomb M251. They include thirteen food vessels (six ding 鼎, four gui 簋, two li 鬲 and one yan 甗), seven drinking vessels (three zhi 觶, two jue 爵, one zun 尊 and one you 卣), and two water vessels (one pan 盤 and one he 盉). Eighteen (82%) of the vessels bear inscriptions revealing that they were commissioned by some thirteen different individuals (see Table 3.1). Personal and/ or lineage names of ten individuals can be identified: Boju 伯矩 (li M251:23; pan M251:2), Ganzi Yue 干子鉞 (you M251:6 and zun M251:7), (gui M251:10 and M251:11), 亞 (ding M251:17 and he M251:1), Mai 麥 (li M251:16), Shu 庶 (zhi M251:8), Gongzhong 公中 (zhi M251:9), Boding Geng 伯丁庚 (gui M251:12 and M251:13), (jue M251:4), and an individual from the Ge 戈 lineage (yan M251:25).10 The patrons of the remaining three inscribed vessels are not specified: a jue (M251:5) is inscribed with “父辛” (Fu Xin), a ding (M251:24) with “父癸” (Fu Gui), and another ding (M251:20) with “X 作寶彝” (X made this treasured vessel). The different ancestral temple names on the jue (M251:5) and the ding (M251:24) suggest they were likely made by two different individuals (Table 3.1).

Inscribed Bronzes, Gift-giving and Social Networks · 51 Table 3.1 Inscribed Bronzes Found in Tomb M251 at Liulihe Patron Name/ Lineage

Vessel Type

Vessel Number

Inscriptions

zun 尊

M251:7

干子鉞父戊

you 卣

M251:6

干子鉞父戊

he 盉

M251:1

亞

ding 鼎

M251:17

亞

pan 盤

M251:2

li 鬲

M251:23

在戊辰，匽侯賜伯矩貝， 用作父戊 彝

麦

li 鬲

M251:16

麦作彝

戈

yan 甗

M251:25

戈父甲

jue 爵

M251:4

庶

zhi 觶

M251:8

乙丑，公中賜庶貝十朋， 庶用作寶 彝

公中

zhi 觶

M251:9

乙丑，X賜公中貝十朋， 用作寶 彝

ding 鼎

M251:24

父癸

ding 鼎

M251:20

作寶 彝

gui 簋

M251:10

作文祖寶

彝

gui 簋

M251:11

作文祖寶

彝

gui 簋

M251:12

伯丁庚作寶彝

gui 簋

M251:13

伯丁庚作寶彝

jue 爵

M251:5

父辛

干子鉞

亞

伯矩

作父乙尊彝 伯矩作寶尊彝

None

伯丁庚

None

52 · Yan Sun

The inscriptions on these vessels reflect different cultural practices in naming ancestors, suggesting that the individuals who commissioned them came from diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Ten of the inscriptions record ancestral names. Eight of them use the Shang or eastern cultural tradition of naming ancestors such as “Father Wu” 父戊 on the Boju and Ganzi Yue vessels, “Father Yi” 父乙 on a ding (M251:17) and a he (M251:1), and “Father Xin” 父辛 (M251:5), “Father Jia” 父甲 (M251:25), and “Father Gui” 父癸 (M251:24) on other vessels. On a pair of early Western Zhou square-based gui, the patron addressed his ancestor as “wen zu” 文祖 “cultured grandfather.” It has been convincingly argued that square-based gui originated during the late Shang and the beginning of the Zhou among the Zhou and those closely associated with them in the northwest.11 The pair of vessels in this tomb is among the earliest examples of square-based gui in the early Western Zhou period. Thus, both the type of the vessels and the inscription on them indicate that the patron was most likely from a lineage of Zhou ancestry.12 Some patrons of these vessels might have been elite members of the Yan state or had close political ties with Yan. Two vessels in the tomb, a pan and a li, were cast by an individual known as Boju. The inscription on the pan (M251:2) reads: 伯矩作寶尊彝

Boju makes this treasured sacrificial vessel.

The inscription on the li (M251:23) reads: 在戊辰，匽侯賜伯矩貝，用作父戊 彝

On wuchen, Yan Hou awarded Boju cowries, which [Boju] uses to make this sacrificial vessel for Father Wu.

Cao Shuqin 曹淑琴 has examined about twenty early Western Zhou bronze vessels inscribed with the name Boju 伯矩, including three ding, four gui (two of which are a pair), one li, and two each of the following types: yan, hu 壺, you, zun, he, and pan. She argues that Boju might have been the head of a local lineage known as Gui 癸 active in the mountainous area around Yan.13 The awarding of cowries to Boju by Yan Hou suggests that Boju was politically related to Yan. Boju might have been an elite member of Yan, or if he was a local lineage head as Cao has suggested, he might have become a local political affiliate of Yan. The award inscription is repeated on the

Inscribed Bronzes, Gift-giving and Social Networks · 53

lid and neck of the li. The vessel itself was flamboyantly designed: fully covered with animal-face motifs, and decorated with water buffalo horns projecting from its surface; the same motif repeats on the lid, where two sculpturally rendered water buffalo heads join to form the handle. The inscription and selection of the style of the vessel all speak to the significance of the awards to Boju. Further, a yan cast by Boju and bearing the inscription 伯矩作寶尊彝 “Boju makes this treasured sacrificial vessel,” was discovered in 1974 in a cache at Shanwanzi 山灣子, Kazuo 喀左, Liaoning.14 In this and other caches in the area, bronzes belonging to elite members of Yan include a yu 盂 cast by Yan Hou 匽侯, a gui cast by Yu 圉 (the occupant of tomb M253), and a zun cast by a person of the Yu 魚 lineage.15 The region might have served as a colony or military post of Yan for some period of time.16 Boju or his family members, along with other prominent members of the Yan state, might have been involved in Yan’s expansion into the region. The inscription on a zhi (M251:9) in the tomb reads: 乙丑，X 賜公中貝十朋，用作寶 彝

On yichou, X awarded ten strings of cowries to Gongzhong, who uses them to make this treasured sacrificial vessel.

The other zhi in the tomb (M251:8) documents a similar award on the same day: 乙丑，公中賜庶貝十朋，庶用作寶 彝

On yichou, Gongzhong awarded ten strings of cowries to Shu, who uses them to make this treasured sacrificial vessel.

Both zhi feature a squat body and a slightly bulging belly leading toward an elevated ring foot, and are decorated with similar patterns: square spirals bordered by bow springs or consecutive circles in a narrow band (Figure 3.1a–b). The inscriptions and style of both vessels suggest that Gongzhong and Shu may have been related to each other by kinship or office. Interestingly, the inscription on another vessel commissioned by a Gong records that Gongzhong awarded cowries to him at Zongzhou 宗 周, perhaps implying that Gongzhong was a member of the Zhou ruling elite and may have had some connections with the Zhou court.17 The fact that Gongzhong and Shu’s vessels were buried in a Yan elite tomb implies some sort of connection between the two patrons and the deceased.

54 · Yan Sun Figure 3.1

a. Bronze Zhi Commissioned by Shu from Tomb M251 (M251:8); after Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, Liulihe Xi Zhou Yanguo mudi 1973–1977 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1995), p. 172, fig. 102.2; b. Bronze Zhi Commissioned by Gongzhong from Tomb M251 (M251:9); after ibid., p. 172, fig. 102.3. a

b

The identity of the deceased, however, is hard to detect, given the wide array of patrons revealed by these vessels and the lack of dominance of any one patron’s vessels in the tomb. Indeed, the distribution of vessels by patrons is fairly flat: one or two vessels per patron. Individuals of five different lineages each contributed two vessels: a zun and a you by Yue 鉞 of the Ganzi 干子 lineage, a he and a ding by an individual of the 亞 lineage, a pan and a li by Boju, a pair of gui by , and another pair of gui by Boding Geng. Gongzhong and Shu, who might somehow be related to each other as the above analysis indicates, each contributed a zhi. Other individuals each contributed one vessel. No matter who the deceased in the tomb was, it is clear that the majority of the vessels in it were made and contributed by others. Some patrons such as Boju, Gongzhong, Shu and were members of an elite and associated with the Yan state. Their vessels were given to the deceased as funerary gifts and buried in the tomb. The identity of the other patrons is less clear. Inscriptions on their vessels use Shang cultural practice, suggesting that they were from non-Zhou lineages. Given that the Yan population was diverse, including lineages of both Shang and Zhou

Inscribed Bronzes, Gift-giving and Social Networks · 55

cultural background (a topic that will be discussed further in the following section), it is possible that some of these patrons were Yan elites, and that therefore their vessels could be given to the deceased as funerary gifts as well. If so, it is clear that the inscribed bronzes in this tomb reflect a fairly wide and diverse social network associated with the deceased or his or her family.

Inscribed Bronzes in Tomb M253 The deceased in tomb M253 was also offered twenty-two bronze vessels, including thirteen food vessels (six ding, four li, two gui and one yan), six drinking vessels (two jue, two you, one zun and one zhi), and three water vessels (one each of pan, he and hu). Thirteen of the vessels are inscribed; the inscriptions indicate that they were cast by at least seven different individuals (see Table 3.2). Four vessels, a you (M253:4), a yan (M253:15), a square ding (M253:11) and a gui (M253:14), were cast by an individual named Yu 圉. Another you (M253:5) is inscribed 作寶彝 “makes this treasured vessel.” Its shape, decoration and the calligraphic style of its inscription are strikingly comparable to the you commissioned by Yu (Figure 3.2b). The same inscription is also seen on a zun (M253:2; Figure 3.2a). Both the you and zun might also have been cast by Yu. If so, six out of thirteen inscribed bronzes in the tomb would have been made by Yu, making him the most likely occupant of the tomb. Table 3.2 Inscribed Bronzes Found in Tomb M253 at Liulihe Patron Name/ Lineage

圉

堇

Vessel Type

Vessel Number

Inscriptions

fangding 方鼎

M253:11

休朕公君，匽侯賜圉貝，用作寶

彝

gui 簋

M253:14

王𠦪于成周，王賜圉貝，用作寶 伯魚作寶 彝

彝

yan 甗

M253:15

王𠦪于成周，王賜圉貝，用作寶

彝

you 卣

M253:4

王𠦪于成周，王賜圉貝，用作寶

彝

you 卣

M253:5

作寶彝 (attributed to Yu)

zun 尊

M253:2

作寶彝 (attributed to Yu)

ding 鼎

M253:12

匽侯令堇禧太保于宗周，庚申，太保賞堇 貝，用作太子癸寶尊 ，糾貫

ding 鼎

M253:21

父丙

56 · Yan Sun Patron Name/ Lineage

Vessel Type

Vessel Number

Inscriptions

箕亞矣

ding 鼎

M253:24

箕亞矣作彝

其史

zhi 觶

M253:3

其史作祖己寶

jue 爵

M253:6

未

jue 爵

M253:7

未

he 盉

M253:10

丰父辛

未 丰

彝

Figure 3.2 a. Bronze Zun (M253:2) and b. Bronze You (M253:5), Attributed to Yu; after Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, Liulihe Xi Zhou Yanguo mudi 1973–1977 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1995), pp. 179, 190. a

b

Inscriptions on the vessels reveal that Yu was an elite member of the Yan state with a prominent political position. Three vessels in tomb M253, a you (M253:4), a yan (M253:15) and a gui (M253:14), bear the same inscription: 王𠦪于成周，王賜圉貝，用作寶

彝

The king conducted the hui ceremony in Chengzhou, the king awarded cowries to Yu, who herewith makes this treasured sacrificial vessel.

A gui in a cache at Xiaopotaigou 小波汰溝, Kazuo 喀左 carries the same inscription.18 It is very likely that all four vessels were cast at the same time by Yu to commemorate the Zhou king’s award of cowries to him for his

Inscribed Bronzes, Gift-giving and Social Networks · 57

participation in the Zhou state ceremony, the dahui 大𠦪, in Chengzhou. Yu may have been sent to Chengzhou by Yan Hou to participate in the ceremony as Yan’s envoy. Moreover, the inscription on a square-lidded ding caldron (M253:11) records that Yu received the award of cowries from Yan Hou. It reads: 休朕公君，匽侯賜圉貝，用作寶 彝

Glorious my lord, Yan Hou awarded cowries to Yu, who casts this treasured sacrificial vessel.

The other seven inscribed bronzes in the tomb belong to other individuals. A pair of identical jue (M253:6 and M253:7) was cast by an individual of the Wei 未 lineage; a he (M253:10) for “Father Xin” 父辛 by a member of the elite Feng 丰 lineage; a ding (M253:21) for “Father Bing” 父丙 by Ning Yang 寧羊; a zhi (M253:3) for “Grandfather Ji” 祖己 by a scribe of the Qi 其 lineage; and a ding (M253:12) by a person named Jin 堇 of the Jiuguan 糾貫 lineage. The ding cast by Jin is the largest vessel found in the Yan tombs to date. Its inscription reads: 匽侯令堇禧太保于宗周，庚申，太保賞堇貝，用作太子癸寶尊 ，糾貫

Yan Hou sent Jin to Zongzhou to pay [his] respects to the Grand Protector [Taibao 太保, the titular founder of the Yan state]; on gengshen, the Grand Protector awarded cowries to Jin, who herewith casts this precious vessel for his deceased eldest son Gui. Jiuguan.19

Jin was likely a member of the Yan elite who held a certain position in the state and was sent by Yan Hou as his envoy to pay his respects to the Grand Protector. A ding (M253:24) found in M253 bears the inscription 箕亞矣作彝 “Ji Ya Yi made this sacrificial vessel.” “Ji Ya Yi” is considered to be a name, an abbreviation of “Ji Hou Ya Yi” 箕侯亞矣.20 Three discoveries in Beijing and the Kazuo area have yielded a considerable number of bronzes bearing “Ji Hou Ya Yi” or “Ji Ya Yi” inscriptions. A discovery in 1867 recorded by late Qing scholars includes a he, a you, a gu, and two jue. The location of that discovery was ambiguous, but Chen Ping 陳平 has recently suggested that the vessels were likely looted from Yan tombs at Liulihe and subsequently emerged on the antique market.21 The inscription on the he in this set of wine vessels commemorates an award of cowries from Yan Hou to a member of the lineage who held the Ya 亞 position. It reads: 箕侯亞矣。匽侯賜亞貝，用作父乙寶尊彝

58 · Yan Sun Ji Hou Ya Yi. Yan Hou awarded cowries to Ya, who herewith makes this treasured sacrificial vessel for Father Yi.

Another group of Ji Ya Yi bronzes dated between the late Shang and early Western Zhou period, including a ding, a you, a zun, a zhi, two gu and two jue, was found at a waste-recycling station. It has been suggested that they were likely originally buried in a tomb at Jinniucun 金牛村 in the Niulanshan 牛欄山 area north of Liulihe.22 The pronounced use of wine vessels in these two discoveries, particularly the gu and jue, though perhaps not representing the entire assemblage of sacrificial vessels in the respective tombs, reflects the lineage’s continuing practice of late Shang sacrificial tradition in the early Western Zhou period. Paleographic studies also trace the history of the lineage back to the late Shang period to as early as King Wu Ding’s reign (died around 1189 B.C.).23 The third discovery was a large square ding, in cache No. 2 at Beidongcun 北洞村 in Kazuo, dated to the early phase of the early Western Zhou. The ding was cast by an individual of the Ji Ya Yi lineage who received 200 strings of cowries from 𢦚 and thus cast the vessel for his deceased mother Ji 己.24 In the same area, bronzes cast by other Yan elites, including Yan Hou, Yu, Boju and an individual of the Yu lineage, were also found. The appearance in Beijing and the Kazuo area of sacrificial bronzes belonging to members of the Ji Ya Yi lineage suggests that the lineage was active in the Yan area and could even have been involved in Yan’s expansion into the northeast.25 Recognizable patrons of the bronzes in tomb M253 such as Yu, Jin and an individual of the Ji Ya Yi lineage all likely served in the newly founded Yan on the northeastern frontier. Yu and Jin acted on different occasions as envoys of Yan Hou to participate in activities in Zongzhou and Chengzhou. Both of them perhaps held political positions in Yan. The presence of vessels originally made by others in Yu’s tomb suggests that these sacrificial vessels were given to Yu as funerary gifts, and thus that Yu and his family built social networks with Jin and the Jiuguan lineage, as well as the Ji Ya Yi lineage. Inscriptions on other vessels in the tomb follow Shang or eastern traditions of naming ancestors. These vessels were likely cast by members of non-Zhou lineages. The Wei 衛 lineage, for instance, is thought to have been active originally near Zhaoge 朝歌, the last Shang capital in Henan.26 It is unclear, however, whether any of these lineages, including Wei, were relocated to Liulihe as subjects of Yan. Given that members of lineages

Inscribed Bronzes, Gift-giving and Social Networks · 59

associated with Shang were active in Yan, there is some likelihood that the rest of the vessels were given to Yu as funerary gifts by those lineages.

Gift-giving and Social Networks in the State of Yan The above analysis of inscriptions on bronzes in tombs M251 and M253 reveals that a number of bronze vessels in each tomb were commissioned by individuals other than the deceased. At least some of those vessels were likely donated to the deceased as funerary gifts from elite members of other lineages. It seems that the deceased in each tomb developed diverse and broad social networks involving multiple lineages of both Shang and Zhou cultural background. Identifiable patrons of some vessels in both tombs were likely members of the Yan elite or had political ties with Yan. Funerary gift-giving, as indicated by inscribed bronzes found in two elite tombs, is only one of the mechanisms by which social interaction was carried out in Yan. Inscriptions on bronzes from other Yan tombs record frequent gift-giving activities between members of elites of various levels. Inscriptions on a ding and a zun in tomb M52, for instance, record that Fu 復 received awards from Yan Hou, and then commissioned the vessels for his deceased father Yi 父乙. The awards included three strands of cowries on one occasion (the inscription on the ding), and cowries, clothing, and male and female servants on another (the inscription on the zun).27 The Fu ding reads: 侯賞復貝三朋，復用作父乙寶尊彝。

Hou awarded Fu three strands of cowries; Fu herewith makes this treasured sacrificial vessel for Father Yi. .

The Fu zun documents: 侯賞復絅衣臣妾貝，復用作父乙寶尊彝。

Hou awarded Fu a garment, male and female servants, and cowries; Fu herewith makes this treasured sacrificial vessel for Father Yi. .

The lineage sign Ju at the end of both inscriptions reveals that Fu was a member of that lineage. Ju was a prominent lineage of the late Shang period that had close ties with the Shang royal family.28 The inscriptions indicate that after the Zhou conquest, a branch of the Ju lineage may have relocated to Liulihe to join the Yan state. In addition, a bronze ji 戟 inscribed “Yan Hou” 匽侯 was placed inside the coffin near the body,

60 · Yan Sun

indicating that it was a gift from Yan Hou and was treasured by Yu enough to be included in his tomb. An inscription on a gui from tomb M53 records Yan Hou’s award of three strings of cowries to a noble named You 攸, who then cast the vessel to commemorate the death of his father Wu 父戊.29 It reads: 侯賞攸貝三朋，攸用作父戊寶尊彝，啟作綦

Hou awarded You three strands of cowries; You herewith makes a treasured sacrificial vessel for Father Wu, for the first time making 綦.

Although the inscription does not reveal You’s lineage identity, the use of human and dog sacrifices in the tomb and its proximity to M52 suggest You’s Shang cultural identity. The inscriptions on the Yu and Jin vessels in tomb M253 discussed above have already provided us a glimpse of the political and diplomatic interactions between Yan and the Zhou court. Two additional inscriptions shed further light on this aspect. The inscription on the Yan Hou Zhi ding 匽侯旨鼎 in the Senoku Hakukokan 泉屋博古館 collection in Kyoto, records Yan Hou Zhi’s 匽侯旨 first visit to Zongzhou 宗周, the ancestral Zhou capital, as the new ruler of the Yan state.30 Zhi’s personal and ceremonial court visit was a necessary political process that allowed the Zhou king to confirm the passage of authority to the new ruler of the regional state. The well-known Xiaochen X ding 小臣□鼎 records that Yan’s titular leader Shao Gong 召公 established the state of Yan and granted five strands of cowries to Xiaochen X 小臣□, who cast a sacrificial vessel to commemorate the event.31

Sociopolitical Circumstances Surrounding Gift-giving in Yan Inscribed bronzes in tombs M251 and M253 and inscriptions from other tombs portray broad, active social networks among Yan elites. These networks were woven together by individuals and lineages through giftgiving, in the form of sacrificial vessels, at funerals and at other ritual occasions by means of gifts such as cowries and clothes. Compared with other regional states (such as Jin 晉) or lineage-based polities (such as Yu 𢐗) of the early Western Zhou period, Yan seems to have developed a particularly active and extensive social network. This phenomenon might have been prompted by its complex demographic composition and its political circumstances during the early Western Zhou. The inscription on the two

Inscribed Bronzes, Gift-giving and Social Networks · 61

bronze vessels Ke he 克盉 and Ke lei 克罍, from the looted tomb M1193, document the Zhou king’s verbal commission establishing Yan through the bestowal of land and peoples.32 It records the bestowal to Ke 克, the first Yan Hou, of six clans: Qiang 羌, Ma 馬, Zha 𠭯, Yu 𩁹, Yu 馭 and Wei 微.33 Similar assignments of clans to other regional states are recorded in ancient texts such as the Zuo zhuan and Shi jing 詩經 and in other bronze inscriptions.34 The inscribed bronzes from Yan tombs discussed above have revealed that the Yan population at Liulihe consisted of various cultural and ethnic groups, and that members of various lineages held political office in Yan. The diversity of lineage groups can also be observed in the layout of the Liulihe cemetery. The cemetery was spatially organized into four zones, each consisting of clusters of burials interspersing large, richly furnished tombs with small, poorly furnished ones. Each cluster consists roughly of two rows of burials facing each other (north and south) along an east-west axis. Large tombs (such as M22 and M105 in zone one, M52 and M53 in zone two, M1193 and M202 in zone three, and M251 in zone four) were located north of the other burials in each cluster (Figures 3.3, 3.4). Burial customs closely associated with the Shang elite members at Anyang such as the use of yaokeng 腰坑 “waist pits,” and human and dog sacrifices, are much in evidence in tombs of zones one and two. In zone one, for instance, all eleven reported burials were furnished with yaokeng.35 Among the seven early Western Zhou tombs in zone two (where both M52 and M53 were located), four were furnished with yaokeng and dog sacrifices and three with human sacrifices.

62 · Yan Sun Figure 3.3 Distribution of Burials in Zone One and Zone Two in the Yan Cemetery at Liulihe; Based on Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, Liulihe Xi Zhou Yanguo mudi 1973–1977 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1995), p. 7.

Inscribed Bronzes, Gift-giving and Social Networks · 63 Figure 3.4 Distribution of Burials in Zone Three and Zone Four in the Yan Cemetery at Liulihe; Based on Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, Liulihe Xi Zhou Yanguo mudi 1973–1977 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1995), p. 8.

By contrast, human and dog sacrifices and yaokeng are largely absent in tombs in zones three and four. The southern part of zone three where ramped burials are located was reserved for Yan Hou and his family members. Other tombs in this zone likely belonged to members of the Ji Zhou 姬周 clan and people closely associated with them. Based on available evidence, it is hard to tell the lineage identity of the tombs in zone four (where both tombs M251 and M253 were located).36 In addition, Yan was situated in a region far from the Zhou metropolitan area. The region was Zhou’s northern frontier, functioning as a base from which to expand Zhou’s cultural and political inf luence further north, and as a buffer zone to defend the Zhou court against hostile and aggressive northern groups and remnants of the former Shang regime. Archaeological evidence indicates that the region had been occupied by populations mixing cultural traditions of Shang and Zhou as well as

64 · Yan Sun

distinctive local flavors before and after the Zhou conquest.37 The establishment of Yan by the Zhou court marks the first attempt by a political power from the Central Plain to occupy the land and control the region. To survive and succeed in this “new” land, Yan needed to establish an internal political solidarity, especially because the newly founded state consisted of various lineages that were artificially bundled together by the Zhou court. It is in this context that we are able to understand the political significance of frequent gift-giving in Yan. Active social networking would bring populations of diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds together to build a shared sense of solidarity and cooperation, which would have been essential for the survival of Yan, and ultimately of those lineages themselves in this new land.

Conclusions Inscriptions on bronzes in tombs M251 and M253 of Yan have revealed that vessels in each tomb were contributed by a pool of patrons of diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds. By examining all of the inscribed bronzes from each tomb, this study suggests that they were likely funerary gifts to the deceased by different donors and, as such, are material witnesses to active social networks in the Yan state. Bronze inscriptions from other tombs of Yan, such as M52 and M53, portray a similar picture of active social networks. The demographic diversity and the unique geopolitical circumstances of Yan may have been the driving forces leading the development of this active social network. Inscribed bronzes from early Western Zhou tombs in other regions, however, demonstrate different patterns of social contacts and relations. An early Western Zhou tomb at Taiqinggong 太清宮 in Luyi 鹿邑, Henan, for instance, was furnished almost exclusively with bronzes commissioned by the deceased in his lifetime: 48 of the 54 inscribed bronze vessels bear the name of the deceased in different fashions: Chang Zi Kou 長子口, Zi Kou 子口, and Kou 口.38 Tombs of the late Shang-early Western Zhou Shi 史 lineage cemetery at Qianzhangda 前掌大 in Tengzhou 縢州, Shandong, typically contain only vessels made by members of the lineage. The richest early Western Zhou tomb, M11, was furnished with 30 vessels, all bearing the character “Shi” 史.39 In both of these cases, inscribed bronzes show little sign of social contact with individuals outside the lineage, a strong contrast with the cases embodied by inscribed vessels in Yan tombs.

Inscribed Bronzes, Gift-giving and Social Networks · 65

Inscribed bronzes in Western Zhou tombs thus point to dynamic, diverse, and regionally specific social relations and interactions by different individuals and lineages in the Zhou society. By investigating inscriptions and inscribed bronzes in the context of a tomb, this study has addressed questions concerning the movement of bronze vessels, gift-giving and underlying social networks among elites in the early Western Zhou. It has demonstrated that vessels in a single tomb represent snapshots of various social connections between the deceased and his or her family and other individuals and lineages. It is my hope, through this case study, that we will be able to recognize that bronze vessels were not just symbols of wealth and status of the deceased, but were embodiments of social relations.

66 · Yan Sun

Notes 1

An often quoted passage in the Zuo zhuan (second year of Duke Cheng 成, 589 B.C.) records a comment by Confucius upon learning that the Wei 衛 ruler Mugong 穆公 granted Zhongshu Yuxi 仲叔于奚 bronze bells and horse ornaments that were reserved for regional lords. Confucius said: 惜也，不如多與之邑。唯器與名，不可以假人，君之所司也。名以出信，信 以守器，器以藏禮，禮以行義，義以生利，利以平民，政之大節也。若以假 人，與人政也。政亡，則國家從之，弗可止也。

Alas! It would have been better to give him many cities. It is only peculiar articles of use, and names, which cannot be granted to other [than those to whom they belong];—to them a ruler has particularly to attend. It is by [the right use of] names that he secures the confidence [of the people]; it is by that confidence that he preserves the articles [distinctive of ranks]; it is in those articles that the ceremonial distinctions of rank are hid; those ceremonial distinctions are essential to the practice of righteousness; it is righteousness which contributes to the advantage [of the State]; and it is that advantage which secures the quiet of the people. Attention to these things is the condition of [good] government. If they be conceded where they ought not to be conceded, it is giving away the government to the recipients. When the government thus perishes, the State will follow it; it is not possible to arrest that issue.

2

3

4

See James Legge, trans., The Chinese Classics, Vol. 5: The Ch’un Ts’ew with the Tso Chuen (London: Trubner, 1872; repr., Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1960), pp. 339, 344. Confucius believed that ritual objects (including bronzes) and noble titles and associated privileges could not simply be given or loaned to others. They were solely the entitlement of the ruler of the state. For the full entry of the original text and annotation, see Li Mengsheng 李夢生, Zuo zhuan yi zhu 左傳譯注 (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 1998), p. 513. A passage in the “Quli” 曲禮 chapter of the Li ji states that when the owner of sacrificial vessels needed to leave the state, the vessels should not be taken with him, but should be stored in the house of another noble with equivalent status; see Yang Tianyu 楊天宇, Li ji yi zhu 禮記譯注 (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 1998), p. 51. In early Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, metal was often on the gift list alongside cowries, servants, cloth, wine and animals. For a detailed discussion, see Constance A. Cook, “Wealth and the Western Zhou,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 60.2 (1997): 253–94. For a general discussion concerning the movement of bronzes in the Zhou period, see Yuan Yanling 袁艷玲, “Zhoudai qingtong liqi de shengchan yu liudong” 周代青銅禮器的生產與流動, Kaogu 考古 2009.10: 68–77. Zhu Fenghan 朱鳳瀚, Zhongguo qingtongqi zonglun 中國青銅器綜論 (Shanghai:

Inscribed Bronzes, Gift-giving and Social Networks · 67

5

6

7 8

9

10

Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2009), pp. 1376–77. This archaeological evidence corresponds to a record in the “Zhou benji” 周本紀 in the Shi ji 史記 . The entry records that King Wu awarded sacrificial vessels from Shang ancestral temples to lineage lords who were charged to rule regional states; see Sima Qian 司馬遷, Shi ji 史記 (2nd ed., Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1982), vol. 1, pp. 126–27. For a recent study of Shang-period sacrificial vessels awarded by Zhou kings as war trophies and found in early Western Zhou tombs, see Huang Mingchong 黄銘崇, “Cong kaogu faxian kan Xi Zhou muzang de ‘fenqi’ xianxiang yu Xi Zhou shidai liqi zhidu de leixing yu jieduan (shang pian)” 從考古發現看西周墓葬的「分器」現象與西周時代禮器 制度的類型與階段（上篇）, Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊 83.4 (2012): 607–70. Cao Wei 曹瑋, “Shilun Xi Zhou shiqi de fengfu zhidu” 試論西周時期的賵賻 制度, in Zhouyuan yizhi yu Xi Zhou tongqi yanjiu 周原遺址與西周銅器研究 (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2004), pp. 165–75; originally published in Zhongguo wenwu xuehui et al., eds., Shang Chengzuo jiaoshou bainian d anche n jinian we nji 商承祚教 授百年誕 辰紀 念文集 (Beiji ng: Wenw u chubanshe, 2003), pp. 299–310. For the definition of fengfu and its practice in the Eastern Zhou period, see Cao Wei, “Dong Zhou shiqi de fengfu zhidu” 東周時期的賵賻制度, in Zhouyuan yizhi yu Xi Zhou tongqi yanjiu, pp. 258–63. Cai Yunzhang 蔡運章, “Luoyang Beiyao Xi Zhou mu moshu wenzi lüelun” 洛 陽北窯西周墓墨書文字略論, Wenwu 文物 1994.7: 64–69, 79. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo and Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, “Beijing Liulihe 1193 hao damu fajue jianbao” 北京琉璃河1193號大墓發掘 簡報, Kaogu 考古 1990.1: 20–31. Beijing daxue Kaoguxi and Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, “1995 nian Liulihe Zhoudai juzhi fajue jianbao” 1995年琉璃河周代居址發掘簡報, Wenwu 文物 1996.6: 4–15; idem., “1995 nian Liulihe yizhi muzang fajue jianbao” 1995年 琉璃河遺址墓葬發掘簡報, Wenwu 1996.6: 16–27; Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, Liulihe Xi Zhou Yanguo mudi 1973–1977 琉璃河西周燕國墓地1973–1977 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1995); Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, Beijing daxue Kaogu wenboyuan and Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo, “1997 nian Liulihe yizhi muzang fajue jianbao” 1997年琉璃河遺址墓葬發掘簡 報, Wenwu 2000.11: 32–38; Liulihe kaogudui, “1981–1983 nian Liulihe Xi Zhou Yanguo mudi fajue jianbao” 1981–1983年琉璃河西周燕國墓地發掘簡報, Kaogu 1984.5: 405–16, 404; idem., “Liulihe yizhi 1996 niandu fajue jianbao” 琉璃河遺址 1996 年度發掘簡報 , Wenwu 1997.6: 4 –13; Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo and Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, “Beijing Liulihe 1193 hao damu fajue jianbao” 北京琉璃河1193號大墓發掘簡報, Kaogu 1990.1: 20–31. The character on the you M251:6 and zun M251:7 is transcribed in the original excavation report as Shan單; see Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, Liulihe Xi Zhou Yanguo mudi 1973–1977, pp. 171, 183. Zhu Fenghan transcribes the character as Gan 干; see Zhu Fenghan, Zhongguo qingtongqi zonglun, p. 1410.

68 · Yan Sun

11

12

13

14

15

16 17 18

19 20

21 22

I follow Zhu Fenghan’s transcription. Zhang Maorong 張懋鎔, “Xi Zhou fangzuo gui yanjiu” 西周方座簋研究, in Zhang Maorong, Gu wenzi yu qingtongqi lunji 古文字與青銅器論集 (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2002), pp. 88–97 (originally published in Kaogu 考古 1999.12: 69–76). For Shang and Zhou naming practices, see Edward L. Shaughnessy, Sources of Western Zhou History: Inscribed Bronze Vessels (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), pp. 167–68; Zhang Maorong 張懋鎔, “Zai lun ‘Zhou ren buyong riming shuo’” 再論「周人不用日名說」, in Zhang Maorong, Gu wenzi yu qingtongqi lunji, Di san ji 古文字與青銅器論集・第三輯 (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2010), pp. 23–36 (originally published in Lishi yanjiu 歷史研究 1993.5: 174–78); “Zai lun ‘Zhou ren buyong zuhui shuo’” 再論「周人不用族徽 說」, in Gu wenzi yu qingtongqi lunji, Di san ji, pp. 27–30 (originally published in Kaogu 考古 1995.9: 835–40). Cao Shuqin 曹淑琴, “Boju tongqi qun ji qi xiangguan wenti” 伯矩銅器群及其 相關問題, in Chen Guang 陳光, ed., Yan wenhua yanjiu lunwenji 燕文化研究論 文集 (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1995), pp. 200–207. Kazuo xian wenhuaguan, Chaoyang diqu bowuguan and Liaoning sheng bowuguan, “Liaoning sheng Kazuo xian Shanwanzi chutu Yin Zhou qingtongqi” 遼寧省喀左縣山灣子出土殷周青銅器, Wenwu 文物 1977.12: 23–27, 43. For a comprehensive discussion of bronzes commissioned by Yan elites, see Chen Ping 陳平, Beifang You Yan wenhua yanjiu 北方幽燕文化研究 (Beijing: Qunyan chubanshe, 2006), pp. 282–87. Yan Sun, “Bronzes, Mortuary Practice and Political Strategies of the Yan in North China,” Antiquity 77.298 (2003): 761–70. Li Feng, Bureaucracy and the State in Early China: Governing the Western Zhou (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 259. The gui in the cache at Xiaopotaigou bears the same inscription as the three vessels in tomb M253, suggesting that the four vessels were cast at the same time. The excavation report on the Xiaopotaigou cache has not yet been published. For a general introduction to this site, see Wang Shimin 王世民, “Xi Zhou shidai zhuhou fangguo qingtongqi gaishu” 西周時代諸侯方國青銅器概述, in Zhongguo qingtongqi quanji bianji weiyuanhui, ed., Zhongguo qingtongqi quanji 6 中國青銅器全集6 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1997), pp. 1–34, pl. 12. Shaughnessy, Sources of Western Zhou History, p. 165. Cao Shuqin 曹淑琴 and Yin Weizhang 殷瑋璋, “Ya Yi tongqi ji qi xiangguan wenti” 亞矣銅器及其相關問題, in Zhongguo kaoguxue yanjiu bianweihui, ed., Zhongguo kaoguxue yanjiu: Xia Nai xiansheng kaogu wushi nian jinian lunwenji 中國考古學研究：夏鼐先生考古五十年紀念論文集 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1986), pp. 191–99. Chen Ping, Beifang You Yan wenhua yanjiu, pp. 283–84. Cheng Changxin 程長新, “Beijing Shunyi xian Niulanshan chutu yizu Zhou chu daiming tongqi” 北京順義縣牛欄山出土一組周初帶銘銅器, Wenwu 文物 1983.11: 64–67.

Inscribed Bronzes, Gift-giving and Social Networks · 69 23 24

25

26

27 28

29

30 31

32

33

34

Cao Shuqin and Yin Weizhang, “Ya Yi tongqi ji qi xiangguan wenti,” p. 195. Kazuo xian wenhuaguan, Chaoyang diqu bowuguan and Liaoning sheng bowuguan, “Liaoning sheng Kazuo xian Beidongcun chutu de Yin Zhou qingtongqi” 遼寧省喀左縣北洞村出土的殷周青銅器, Kaogu 考古 1974.6: 364–72. In Zhang Yachu’s discussion of inscribed bronzes of Yan in the Western Zhou period, he adopted an idea of Tang Lan 唐蘭 that Ji Ya Yi was a lineage branch of the family of Ji Zi 箕子. Based on dating of the bronzes of the Ji Ya Yi lineage found in Beijing and the Kazuo area, Zhang further suggested that members of the Ji Ya Yi lineage were among the political elites of Yan throughout the entire early Western Zhou period. See Zhang Yachu 張亞初, “Yanguo qingtongqi mingwen yanjiu” 燕國青銅器銘文研究, in Chen Guang, ed., Yan wenhua yanjiu lunwenji, pp. 223–30. Feng Shi 馮時, “Qianzhangda mudi chutu tongqi mingwen huishi” 前掌大墓 地出土銅器銘文匯釋, in Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo, ed., Tengzhou Qianzhangda mudi 縢州前掌大墓地 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2005), pp. 583–97. For these two vessels, see Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, Liulihe Xi Zhou Yanguo mudi, pp. 101, 182. For a comprehensive discussion of the Ju lineage, see He Jingcheng 何景成, “Shang mo Zhou chu de Juzu yanjiu” 商末周初的舉族研究, Kaogu 考古 2008.11: 54–70. See Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, Liulihe Xi Zhou Yanguo mudi, p. 127. For discussion of this inscription, see Yan Wan 晏琬, “Beijing Liaoning chutu tongqi yu Zhou chu de Yan” 北京遼寧出土銅器與周初的燕, in Chen Guang, ed., Yan wenhua yanjiu lunwenji, pp. 10–16. For the political significance of regional rulers’ personal visits to the Zhou king, see Li Feng, Bureaucracy and the State in Early China, pp. 260–64. For further discussions of the inscription on this vessel, see Chen Mengjia 陳 夢家, “Xi Zhou tongqi duandai (2)” 西周銅器斷代（2）, Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1955.2: 94–95; Qiu Xigui 裘錫圭, Gu wenzi lunji 古文字論集 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1992), pp. 418–28; Li Feng, Bureaucracy and the State in Early China, p. 48. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo and Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, “Beijing Liulihe 1193 hao damu fajue jianbao” 北京琉璃河1193號大墓發掘 簡報, Kaogu 考古 1990.1: 20–31. For detailed discussions of these six lineages or groups, see the following articles in Chen Guang, ed., Yan wenhua yanjiu lunwenji: Yin Weizhang 殷瑋 璋, “Xin chutu de Taibao tongqi ji qi xiangguan wenti” 新出土的太保銅器及其 相關問題, pp. 253–65; Sun Hua 孫華, “Yan Hou Ke qi mingwen qianjian: Jian tan Shao Gong feng Yan ji qi xiangguan wenti” 匽侯克器銘文淺見：兼談召公封 燕及其相關問題, pp. 278–86; Fang Shuxin 方述鑫, “Taibao lei he mingwen kaoshi” 太保罍盉銘文考釋, pp. 287–90. Cho-yun Hsu and Katheryn Linduff, Western Zhou Civilization (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), pp. 153–58.

70 · Yan Sun 35

36 37

38

39

Statistical analysis of reported late Shang burials at Yinxu indicates that 51% of the tombs were equipped with waist pits. At Xibeigang 西北崗, where the Shang kings were buried, each king’s tomb was equipped with at least one waist pit. For detailed analyses, see Zhang Mingdong 張明東, “Shang Zhou muzang bijiao yanjiu” 商周墓葬比較研究 (Ph.D. diss.: Beijing daxue, 2005), pp. 70–71. Yan Sun, “Bronzes, Mortuary Practice and Political Strategies,” pp. 761–70. Yan Sun, “Colonizing China’s Northern Frontier: Yan and Her Neighbors during the Early Western Zhou Period,” International Journal of Historical Archaeology 10.2 (2006): 159–77. In all there were 75 bronze vessels in the tomb. For a detailed report of the tomb, see Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Zhoukou shi wenhuaju, Luyi Taiqinggong Changzikou mu 鹿邑太清宮長子口墓 (Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji chubanshe, 2000). Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo, ed., Tengzhou Qianzhangda mudi, pp. 75, 77–78, 529–33.

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng and Relationships between Zhou and Northern Non-Zhou Lineages (Until the Early Ninth Century B.C.)*

[128.104.46.206] Project MUSE (2024-03-02 03:18 GMT) UW-Madison Libraries

Maria KHAYUTINA University of Munich

A Western Zhou period cemetery near Hengshui zhen 橫水鎮 in Jiang 絳 county, southwest Shanxi, was discovered in 2004.1 A comprehensive report about the excavations of the whole site has not yet been published, but some observations can be made based on preliminary reports about the tombs of Pengbo Cheng 倗伯爯 and his spouse Bi Ji 畢姬. Inscriptions discovered elsewhere reveal that Peng 倗 was a lineage of the Kui 媿/Gui 鬼 surname. Some received texts associate Kui/Gui-surnamed lineages with the Di 狄 /翟 group of northern non-Zhou peoples. According to the Chinese historiographical tradition, the Di remained autonomous from the Huaxia 華夏 cultural and political community, which was dominated during the Western Zhou period by polities ruled by lineages of the Ji 姬 and Jiang 姜 surnames. The new discovery shows that a small non-Zhou polity, not referred to in transmitted literature, existed quite close to the eastern residence of the Zhou kings at Chengzhou 成周 and just to the south of Jin 晉, one of the major Zhou colonies ruled by a lineage of Ji surname. Moreover, rulers of Peng had marital relations with Bi 畢, another distinguished Ji-surnamed lineage closely related to the Zhou

*

The present investigation was supported by a BGF-grant from the LudwigMaximilians-University of Munich. The text represents an amended version of my conference paper “The Tombs of Peng State and Related Questions” read at the “Ancient Chinese Bronzes from the Shouyang Studio and Elsewhere: An International Conference Commemorating Twenty Years of Discoveries” in Chicago in November 2010. I use this opportunity to express my thanks to Professor Shaughnessy and his colleagues for organizing this meeting.

72 · Maria Khayutina

royal house. Thus, the case of Peng can be very instructive for understanding geopolitical and cultural relations in China during the Western Zhou period. In the following, I briefly introduce the tombs of the Peng ruling couple and the inscriptions on their bronzes, and then proceed to discuss the following four issues: • •

• •

the date of tombs M1 and M2 of the Peng cemetery; the relationship of Peng with non-Zhou peoples, as it can be observed based on the analysis of material remains and onomastic evidence; the integration of the Peng lineage into the Zhou political and social network; the role played by Yigong 益公, mentioned in the inscription on the Pengbo Cheng gui 倗伯爯簋 tureen, in the acquisition of allies among non-Zhou peoples.

In the conclusion, I use the case of Peng to discuss some general issues in the relationships between Zhou and non-Zhou polities of central China during the late tenth to the early ninth centuries B.C.

Peng Bronzes and the Date of the Peng Tombs Map 4.1 Geographical Situation of Peng 2

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 73

The cemetery of Peng was discovered in 2004 on the northern bank of the Sushui 涑水 River at Hengbei 橫北 village near Hengshui town (Map 4.1). As has become common in the Chinese archaeological literature, I will refer to this site as Hengbei. The cemetery covers an area of about 35,000 m2. During the 2004–2005 excavation season, the Shanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology excavated about 8,500 m2, containing 188 tombs and 21 horse-and-chariot pits.3 As of 2007, 81 tombs with bronze ritual vessels had been found.4 According to the most recent information, 1,326 tombs have been excavated through 2008. The cemetery was in use since the early Western Zhou until the early Spring and Autumn period.5 The excavators identified four categories of tombs according to size: large (4 m x 5 m), medium large (3 m x 4 m), medium (2 m x 3 m), and small (1 m x 2 m).6 Supposedly, fourteen large tombs belonged to subsequent heads of the Peng lineage.7 Adjacent tombs of females plausibly belonged to the heads’ spouses.8 In the majority of the tombs, the head of the deceased points west. Archaeologists noted peculiarities in the construction of some large and middle-sized tombs. Square, round or oval holes were found outside the tomb mouth. In fourteen tombs, two such holes were located on their eastern sides; in five tombs, holes were found at all four corners. In most cases the holes possibly served to hold pillars, but in a few cases sloping holes were connected to the tomb chamber. This is the first time that such features have been observed in a cemetery of the Western Zhou period. Thirty-five large and middle-sized tombs with bronze vessels contained one to seven human victims.9 The westward orientation of the tombs, the peculiarities of their architecture, and the extensive use of human sacrifice distinguish the Peng lineage from lineages of the Zhou origin, particularly the neighboring Jin.10 Two large tombs labeled M1 and M2 have been reported so far. They are constructed as vertical pits rectangular in cross-section and trapezoidal in profile, with the bottom slightly larger than the mouth, with entry ramps on the western side and pillar holes near the northeastern and southeastern corners.11 The tombs’ occupants had their heads directed to the west. The skeletons were not well preserved, so physical identification of the sexes was not possible. Each tomb was equipped with a wooden burial chamber (guo 槨) and two nested coffins (guan 棺). Each tomb also contained pieces of chariots that had been dismantled and placed atop the burial chamber or on an earthen platform inside the pit.12 The outer coffin of M1 was covered with a red silk cloth, finely embroidered with large and

74 · Maria Khayutina

small bird patterns. Such textile wrappings for coffins are referred to as huangwei 荒帷 in later ritual handbooks, but this is the first time they have been witnessed archaeologically.13 In tomb M1, skeletons of three human victims wrapped in reed mats were found in the burial chamber near the eastern side of the coffin. The burial chamber of M2 included skeletons of four other persons, two of whom were wrapped in mats, possibly made of bamboo, and had chariot ornaments near their feet. The third skeleton had already decayed, though its remains are said to have lain over some bronze objects—possibly also chariot ornaments. The excavators suppose that this might have been a charioteer. The fourth skeleton was that of a child. The occupant of M1 wore rich ornaments made of jade, agate and bone. These included pendants and hairdressing elements. Some jade objects were also found outside the coffin. The bronze objects include five ding 鼎-caldrons, five gui 簋-tureens, one yan 甗-steamer, one li 鬲-tripod, one yu 盂-caldron, two he 盉-kettles, two pan 盤-basins, one elongated hu 壺-flask with bail handle, one hu-flask with small lugs through which a cord could be threaded, and five yongzhong 甬鐘-shank bells. Pottery vessels included thirteen san zu weng 三足瓮 (“three-legged weng-jars”), three da kou zun 大口尊 (“large-mouthed zun-jars”), five pottery guitureens with a high round foot, and one li-tripod with notched ribs. The ritual vessels were originally placed in a wooden rack with seven shelves located in the southeastern corner of the burial chamber. The pottery vessels were placed above the bronzes. In M2, horse-and-chariot ornaments, small and large jingle bells, axes and dagger-axes, clothing ornaments made of bronze, bone and wood, as well as jade pendants, were placed along the northern outer side of the coffin. Ritual objects were arranged along the western side of the outer coffin in the following sequence from north to south: one pottery li-tripod, one bronze pan-basin, two ding-caldrons, one he-kettle, one chan 鏟-shovel, one jade scepter, one gui-tureen, one jue 爵-beaker, one gu 觚-goblet, one zun 尊-jar with a bronze plate decoration placed inside it, one freshwater mussel shell, one lacquer vessel, five bronze yongzhongshank bells, one carriage shaft, another sixteen freshwater mussel shells, and one yan-steamer with one you 酉-pitcher placed inside it. Apart from one pottery li and one lacquer vessel, all other vessels in this set were made of bronze. Another bronze ding-caldron was placed near the northwestern corner of the coffin, and another bronze plate ornament was found in the southwestern corner.

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 75

Based on the burial inventories of the two tombs, the excavators identify the occupant of M2 as a male and the occupant of M1 as a female. Inscriptions on the vessels found in the tombs identify them as Pengbo 倗 伯 or the First-born of Peng, and Bi Ji 畢姬, or Née Ji of Bi. Figure 4.1 Objects from Tomb M1 at Hengshui, Jiangxian, Shanxi A. Ding-caldron M1:212; B. Gui-tureen M1:199; C. Gui-tureen M1:205, after Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou mu fajue jianbao” 山西絳縣橫水西周墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 文物 2006.8: figs. 11, 12 and “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou mudi,” fig. 1. A

B

C

Bronzes from M1 carry the following inscriptions: 倗伯作畢姬寶旅鼎。

Pengbo makes the treasured caldron for travel for Bi Ji (ding-caldron M1:212, as well as four other ding in the set). 倗伯作畢姬寶旅簋。

Pengbo makes the treasured tureen for travel for Bi Ji (gui-tureen M1:199, as well as several other gui). 唯廿又三年初吉戊戌。益公蔑倗伯爯歷。右告令金車旂。爯拜稽首對揚公休。用 作朕考尊。爯其萬年永寶用享。

It was the twenty-third year, first auspiciousness, day wuxu. Yigong praised the merits of Pengbo Cheng and announced the command [to give Cheng] a metal-[decorated] chariot and a banner. Cheng bowed his head to the ground, extolling in response the beneficence of Yigong. [I] use [this occasion] to make [this] sacrificial vessel for my father. May Cheng eternally treasure and use it for offerings for ten thousand years! (gui-tureen M1:205).

76 · Maria Khayutina Figure 4.2 Objects from Tomb M2 at Hengshui, Jiangxian, Shanxi A. Ding-caldron M2:57; B. Gui-tureen M2:62; C. He-kettle M2:61, after Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou mu fajue jianbao,” figs. 30, 31, 33. A

B

C

Tomb M2 has also yielded several inscribed bronzes: 倗伯作畢姬尊鼎。其萬年寶。

Pengbo makes [this] reverent caldron for Bi Ji. May it be treasured for ten thousand years! (ding-caldron M2:57). 倗伯肇作尊鼎。其萬年寶用享。

Pengbo makes [this] reverent caldron for the first time. May it be treasured and used for offerings for ten thousand years! (ding-caldron M2:58). 唯五月初吉倗伯肇作寶鼎。其用享用考（孝）于朕文考。其萬年永用。

It was the fifth month, first auspiciousness; Pengbo makes [this] treasured caldron for the first time. May it be used for offerings and for filial piety toward my cultivated deceased father! May it be eternally used for ten thousand years! (ding-caldron M2:103). □□作寶盤其萬年永用。 XX makes [this] treasured basin. May it be eternally used for ten thousand years! (pan-basin, M2:65).

The inscriptions from M1 inform us that Pengbo made a set of five ding-caldrons and four gui-tureens for Bi Ji. These objects were described as lü 旅, i.e., objects “for travel.”14 Interestingly, this tomb also contained a set of bells. This is the first occurrence of bells in a Western Zhou tomb occupied by a woman. Pengbo, who commissioned several bronzes for Bi Ji, must be her husband. The inscription on the gui-tureen M1:205

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 77

identifies his name as Cheng 爯. Tomb M2 has yielded one caldron dedicated by Pengbo to Bi Ji and designated as zun 尊 “reverent.” Whereas objects “for travel” were made for living persons, “reverent” vessels were normally made for the deceased.15 This suggests that Cheng outlived his wife and that tomb M2 dates later than M1. Comparing the bronzes from Hengbei to the objects from the cemetery of Jin rulers at Tianma-Qucun 天馬曲村, the excavators observe that Peng tombs M1 and M2 date later than tombs M32–33 and earlier than tombs M91–92 in the Jin cemetery.16 These Jin tombs have been dated to the later part of middle Western Zhou and to late Western Zhou respectively; i.e., approximately the first half of the ninth century B.C.17 However, the excavators of Hengbei then go on to conclude that the Peng tombs date to the end of the reign of the fifth Western Zhou king, Mu 穆 (r. 956–923 B.C.) or slightly later, much earlier than the Tianma-Qucun comparisons would suggest.18 This dating is based on the assumption that during the reign of King Gong 共 (r. 922–900 B.C.), there was a shift of the focus of ritual assemblages from vessels for alcoholic beverages to vessels for meat and grain. In Western literature, it is understood as a part of the “ritual revolution” or “ritual reform.”19 Since tomb M2 of the Hengbei cemetery has yielded gu-goblets and jue-beakers, the excavators conclude that it should date before or at the beginning of King Gong’s reign. However, although the “ritual reform” was probably launched by King Gong, it was not accomplished during this single reign. Rather, the new standard became firmly established only toward 850 B.C.20 If Peng accepted the Zhou sumptuary rules, it can only be said that tomb M2 dates before 850 B.C. Besides, the ding-caldrons and gui-tureens from the Hengbei tombs display a number of features that became current starting only from the reign of King Gong or even later. In particular, the caldrons from both M1 and M2 have relatively shallow bellies, flat bottoms and thin cabriole legs. They have no decor other than one or two high-relief ribbons just below the rim (see Figures 4.1 and 4.2). This shape, usually in combination with similar minimalist decor, is manifested in a number of standard vessels from King Gong’s reign, but is not typical of earlier periods.21 The gui-tureens commissioned by Pengbo for Bi Ji look archaic due to their square bases (e.g., M1:199; Figure 4.3A). Tureens with a square base were current especially during the early and middle Western Zhou periods. However, they were occasionally cast later as a reminiscence of an ancient tradition.22 The earlier gui

78 · Maria Khayutina

with square bases are usually quite massive and their surfaces are completely filled with zoomorphic and geometric patterns (cf. Figure 4.3B). In contrast, the gui-tureen M1:199 manifests the same decorative minimalism as the ding-caldrons from both M1 and M2. The very simple style of the tureen M1:199 and the tripods might result from the lack of ability of Peng craftsmen and cannot be regarded as decisive in establishing the date of Peng tombs, since other tureens from the two tombs display even more distinctive late features. Figure 4.3 Tureens from Peng Tombs M1 and M2 and Their Parallels A, C. Tureens M1:199 and M1:205 from Hengbei tomb M1, after Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou mu fajue jianbao,” figs. 11, 12; B. Tureen M2:62 from Hengbei tomb M2, after Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou mu fajue jianbao,” fig. 31; D. Early to mid-Western Zhou square-based tureen Meng gui 孟簋 (cf. Jicheng #4163, Zhangjiapo 張家坡, Chang’an county, Shaanxi), after Li Xixing 李西興, Shaanxi qingtongqi 陜西青銅器 (Xi’an: Shaanxi renmin meishu, 1994) [henceforth, Shaanxi qingtongqi], fig. 74; E. Xun gui 訇簋 (cf. Jicheng #4321, Sipo 寺坡, Lantian 藍田, Shaanxi, King Gong’s reign), after Shaanxi qingtongqi, fig. 70; F. First-year Shi Shi gui 師 簋 (cf. Jicheng #4281, Zhangjiapo 張家坡, Mawangzhen 馬王鎮, Xi’an Chang’an qu 西安長安區, supposedly, King Yi’s reign [865–858 B.C.]), after Shaanxi qingtongqi, fig. 78. A

B

D

E

C

F

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 79

The tureens M1:205 and M2:62 have a ring base supported by three small zoomorphic legs. Their bodies and lids are decorated with relief ribbon (wawen 瓦文) pattern, which spread starting from the middle Western Zhou period, especially the reign of King Gong (cf. Figure 4.4A, C, E).23 Additionally, the tureen M1:205 has ornamental ribbons on the upper register of the body and on the periphery of the cover. Instead of handles, it has small zoomorphic lugs pierced with rings, also popular during the reign of King Gong (cf. Figure 4.4A, C, E, F). The tureen M2:62 finds parallels in standard vessels of King Gong’s reign (cf. Figure 4.3E, F). The lid of M1:212 has an elevated base (Figure 4.3C). Lids with an elevated base occasionally appear on tureens from the beginning of the ninth century B.C. (cf. Figure 4.3F and Figure 4.4F). 24 In sum, art-historical features widely manifested during the reign of King Gong or later predominate in the assemblages of Peng tombs M1 and M2. This strongly suggests that the Peng tombs were closed during King Gong’s reign or later, i.e., during the late tenth or first half of the ninth century B.C. The inscription on the tureen M1:212 sets the terminus post quem for the closure of tomb M1. It commemorates the donation of a chariot to Pengbo Cheng by Yigong 益公. This event is dated to a twenty-third year. As usual, the inscription does not specify the name of the Western Zhou king whose year-count it uses. Yi 益, literally “advantageous,” was applied to individuals in two ways.25 First, it is attested as a posthumous name of an ancestor in earlier inscriptions.26 Second, similar to epithets such as mu 穆 “Reverent” or wu 武 “Martial,” Yi was also used as an honorific byname of one distinguished person, Yigong (“Duke” or “Patriarch” Yi), during his lifetime.27 Inscriptions representing Yigong as a living person date to the ninth, the twelfth, and the seventeenth years and are regarded as standard inscriptions of King Gong’s reign (see Appendix, Table 4.2). The stylistic similarity of the dated and undated vessels, especially tureens, with inscriptions mentioning Yigong supports that all of them are roughly contemporary (Figure 4.4A, C–F).

80 · Maria Khayutina Figure 4.4 Vessels with Inscriptions Mentioning Yigong Vessels dating from the reign of King Gong: A. Guaibo gui 羋白簋, dated to the ninth year (cf. Jicheng #4331), after Shanghai bowuguan, Shanghai bowuguan cang qingtongqi 上海博物館藏青銅器 (Shanghai: Shanghai renmin meishu chubanshe, 1964), fig. 54; B. Yong yu 永盂, dated to the twelfth year (cf. Jicheng #10322, Hubinzhen 湖濱鎮, Lantian, Shaanxi), after Shaanxi qingtongqi, fig. 219; C. Xun gui 訇簋, dated to the seventeenth year (cf. Jicheng #4321, Sipo 寺坡, Lantian, Shaanxi), after Shaanxi qingtongqi, fig. 70; D. Hengbei M1:205, Pengbo Cheng gui 倗伯爯簋, dated to the twenty-third year, after Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou mu fajue jianbao,” fig. 12. Vessels dating from the reign of King Yih 懿: E. Wang Chen gui 王臣簋, dated to the second year (cf. Jicheng #4268, Chuanyecun 串業村, Chengcheng 澄城 , Shaanxi), after Shaanxi qingtongqi, fig. 71; F. Shi Dao gui 師道簋, dated to the seventh year (Xiaoheishigou 小黑石溝 , Ningcheng 寧城 , Chifeng 赤峰, Inner Mongolia), after Neimenggu zizhiqu wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo et al., Xiaoheishigou: Xiajiadian shang ceng wenhua yizhi fajue baogao 小黑石溝：夏家店上 層文化遺址發掘報告 (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2009), fig. 301. King Gong’s Reign (A to D) A

B

C

King Yih’s Reign D

E

F

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 81

According to the chronology of Western Zhou reigns proposed by Edward Shaughnessy and accepted by most Western Sinologists during the last two decades, King Gong reigned from 917 to 900 B.C.28 Earlier, David Nivison had proposed 922/920–904 as King Gong’s dates.29 The dates of the three inscriptions mentioning Yigong during the ninth through seventeenth years are compatible with a year-count starting either from 917 or 922 B.C.30 However, the inscription on the Zouma Xiu pan 走馬休盤, dated to the twentieth year and also mentioning Yigong, suggests that King Gong reigned at least 20 years. The art-historical features of the Xiu pan as well as of a gui-tureen commissioned by the same person support their mid-Western Zhou date.31 Considering this evidence, the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project chaired by Li Xueqin 李學勤 suggested 922–900 B.C. as the dates for King Gong’s reign.32 The date of the Zouma Xiu pan is compatible with all other standard inscriptions of King Gong and they all fit the reconstructed calendar starting with 922 B.C. (cf. Appendix, Table 4.2). The newly discovered Pengbo Cheng gui also suggests that King Gong’s reign lasted 23 years from 922 until 900 B.C.33 The year 900 B.C., regarded as the last year of King Gong also by Shaughnessy, is verified by the inscriptions on the Shi Hu gui 師虎簋 and Hu gui 曶簋, both dated to the first year of King Yih (899/897–873 B.C.). King Yih’s year-count is, in its turn, verified by the “King’s Servant’s tureen,” Wang Chen gui 王臣簋, dated to 898 B.C. (see Appendix, Table 4.3). The latter vessel also bears an inscription mentioning Yigong and shares many art-historical features with the Pengbo Cheng gui (Figure 4.4E). Given that Pengbo Cheng received a chariot from Yigong during the twenty-third year, i.e., the last year of King Gong (900 B.C.), the Peng tombs should date from roughly the first quarter of the ninth century B.C. Therefore, the following discussion concerning the situation of the Peng lineage and the relationships between the Zhou and non-Zhou lineages is particularly relevant for the late tenth to the early ninth centuries B.C.

82 · Maria Khayutina

Peng Pottery and Connections to Peoples of the North The tombs of Pengbo and Bi Ji contain typical objects used by the elites in rituals of ancestral worship throughout the Zhou cultural sphere. These include bronze vessels for cooking and serving meat and grain; for warming, pouring and drinking beer;34 and for performing the handwashing ritual. However, the pottery san zu weng with slightly squeezed globular bodies and three hollow legs, as well as the da kou zun with trumpet-shaped necks and very wide rims (see Figure 4.5), seldom occur in elite tombs of the Western Zhou period and have never before been found in a tomb in such large number. Their position at the top of the wooden rack inside the pit may also suggest that they were more highly valued than the bronzes placed on the lower shelves. The fact that such a prominent place was alloted to these pottery vessels in the tomb of Bi Ji may be related to the cultural self-identification of the Peng lineage. Figure 4.5 Pottery Vessels from Hengbei M1 A. Da kou zun; B. San zu weng, after Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou mu fajue jianbao,” figs. 15, 16. A

B

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 83

San zu weng have been found in a small number of middle-sized tombs in the Jin cemetery at Tianma-Qucun, normally one per tomb. As Chen Fangmei 陳芳妹 points out, the occupants of these tombs were all female (see Figure 4.6A, D, F, G).35 One pottery and one bronze san zu weng have been discovered in the large tomb M113 at Tianma-Qucun, supposedly occupied by the spouse of the ruler of Jin buried in the adjacent tomb M114 (see Figure 4.6E). The latter two tombs represent the earliest burials of the Jin rulers discovered so far. The excavators date them to the transition between the early and middle Western Zhou periods, i.e., about mid-tenth century B.C.36 M113 also yielded another vessel, obviously foreign to the Zhou repertoire: a bronze double-handled jar (shuang er guan 雙耳罐). As Lothar von Falkenhausen comments: since bronze specimens of these vessel types have never been found in the cultures where their ceramic prototypes originated, the two specimens from Tomb 113 were made at Jin foundries in imitation of ceramics the tomb occupant brought from her home.… Neither san zu weng nor shuang’er guan fulfilled a function that could not have been easily accomplished by established vessel types of the Zhou ceramic repertoire. This suggests that their significance in Zhou contexts was symbolic rather than utilitarian and increases the likelihood that they served to signify their possessors’ ethnic origin.37

Another pottery san zu weng was found in tomb M92 at TianmaQucun, supposedly occupied by the spouse of Jin Hou Xifu 晉侯喜父 and dated to the late ninth century B.C. This time it was combined with a da kou zun. Both vessels were prominently placed outside the inner coffin on the left-hand side of the deceased woman, whereas all standard Zhou ritual bronze vessels were placed at the foot side of the coffin.38 Da kou zun are also found in some other tombs of Jin rulers’ spouses, but never in the rulers’ tombs. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that not only san zu weng and shuang er guan, but also da kou zun fulfilled symbolic functions in burials of elite women married to the rulers of Jin and Peng.39

84 · Maria Khayutina Map 4.2 Archaeological Sites, Western Zhou Polities and Finds of Inscribed Bronzes

Apart from the Tianma-Qucun and Hengbei cemeteries, pottery san zu weng have sometimes appeared in elite tombs of the Western Zhou period in other places (see Map 4.2). One san zu weng with a lid has been found in the early Western Zhou tomb M54 of the Yan 燕 cemetery at Liulihe 琉璃河 near Beijing (Figure 4.6B). The tomb was furnished with a wooden burial chamber and one coffin, and included two human victims. Burial goods included pieces of a chariot, bronze and pottery vessels, jade and stone ornaments. The rich burial goods point to the high status of the deceased. The skeleton of the main occupant of the tomb had decayed and the sex could not be identified anthropologically. The absence of weapons in contrast to the adjacent tombs and a large number of personal ornaments suggest that this could be a woman.40 Figure 4.6 Three-Legged Weng in Western Zhou Tombs A. Tianma-Qucun tomb M6136, Phase I, EWZ; B. Liulihe tomb M54, Phase I, EWZ; C. Yongningpu tomb NDM14, EWZ; D, E. Tianma-Qucun tombs M6049 and M113, Phase II, early MWZ; F. Tianma-Qucun tomb M7093, Phase III, MWZ; G. Tianma-Qucun tomb M7113, Phase IV, MWZ (King Gong’s reign); H.

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 85 Hengbei M1, MWZ (King Gong’s reign); I. Qijiacun H90 (supposedly originally M33), late MWZ; J. Tianma-Qucun tomb M92, LWZ (mid-ninth century B.C.). A, D, F, G after cf. Zou Heng 鄒衡, ed., Tianma-Qucun: 1980–1989 天馬—曲村： 1980–1989, 4 vols. (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2000), vol. 1, fig. 498; B after Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, “Liulihe Yan guo mudi,” fig. 69: 8; C after Shanxi sheng wenwu gongzuo weiyuanhui and Hongtong xian wenwu ju, “Shanxi Hongtong Yongningpu Xi Zhou muzang” 山西洪洞永凝堡西周墓葬, Kaogu 考古 1987.2: 1–16, fig. 16; E after Beijing daxue Kaoguxue xi and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jin hou mudi di liu ci fajue,” fig. 33; H after Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou mu fajue jianbao,” fig. 16; I after Zhouyuan kaogu gongzuodui, “2002 nian Zhouyuan yizhi (Qijiacun) fajue jianbao” 2002年周原遺址（齊家村）發掘簡報, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2003.4: 3–9, fig. 4; J after Beijing daxue Kaoguxue xi and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jin hou mudi di wu ci fajue,” fig. 12.

G

A

B

C

D

E

F

H

I

J

86 · Maria Khayutina

One other san zu weng has been found in the early Zhou tomb NDM14 at Yongningpu 永凝堡 in Hongtong 洪洞 county, Shanxi (Figure 4.6C).41 The excavators suppose that this cemetery belonged to the Ji* 姞-surnamed Yang 楊 lineage that traditional sources locate in the Hongtong area. 42 Pottery and bronze vessels from Yongningpu mostly correspond to Zhou standards, though some tombs contain certain unusual objects. Tomb NDM14 had a burial chamber with one coffin and included pieces of a chariot, bronze and pottery vessels, and agate, stone and bone ornaments, suggesting the person buried in it—identified as a female on the basis of bone analysis—was of an elevated status. Another contemporary, robbed tomb included one da kou zun (Figure 4.7:25).43 San zu weng occasionally appear also in tombs on the Zhou Plain 周原 of Shaanxi province where the main Zhou royal residences, Zhou 周 on the Zhou Plain and Zongzhou 宗周 in Feng 灃 River valley, were located.44 They have been found in three mid-Western Zhou tombs in the Zhangjiapo 張家坡 cemetery associated with Zongzhou, in one of which a san zu weng appears in combination with a da kou zun.45 One three-legged jar was found together with one pottery shuang er guan at Qijiacun 齊家村 in Fufeng 扶風 county, i.e. on the Zhou Plain (Figure 4.6I). These vessels originally belonged to the relatively large middle-sized tomb M33, dated to the later part of the middle Western Zhou period, but destroyed and robbed during the late Western Zhou period.46 The skeleton of the deceased was not preserved, so identification of its sex is not possible. But in the late Western Zhou tomb in the Zhuangli 莊李 cemetery in Fufeng county that yielded another san zu weng, the deceased has been identified as a female by anthropological analysis.47 This case confirms that in the Zhou metropolitan region, san zu weng also appear in tombs of females. Although san zu weng have been found in many different places located at great distances from one another, they share common features and display similar changes over time (see Figure 4.6). All of them have hollow legs set wide apart from each other. Earlier specimens have nearly globular bodies without a neck and with a relatively wide rim, whereas mid- to late Western Zhou san zu weng are slightly squeezed, have a short neck, and a comparatively narrow rim. The vessels are often decorated with horizontal relief ribbons, or with ribbons composed of triangles. Either the whole ribbons, or only the triangles, are usually filled with parallel vertical lines incised into the clay before burning. In sum, in cemeteries of Zhou lineages, san zu weng represent rare and exotic elements in comparison to the standard local repertoire of ritual

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 87

vessels. Usually, they appear in tombs of women of high status. Considering the similarities in appearance of the san zu weng found in different places in tombs of females and the fact that they were not typical for the tombs of the local population nor found in the local settlement deposits, it is likely that women buried with san zu weng were migrants who belonged to mutually related cultural groups. The fact that such objects appear only in large, i.e., elite, tombs suggests that these women were not slaves captured during wars against aliens, but enjoyed a high status in the receiving societies, which, certainly, derived from their status in the societies of origin. Their presence can only be explained by marriage to elite Zhou men. This means that during the early and middle Western Zhou period both Zhou colonists and members of the metropolitan elite concluded marital alliances with these women’s native groups. In the tombs of the female non-Zhou migrants, san zu weng plausibly played a symbolic role, emphasizing the owner’s cultural identity, as suggested by Falkenhausen. But where did these women come from? Falkenhausen further mentions that both shuang er guan and san zu weng were established among the farmers and pastoralists, both sedentary, who flourished in the transitional zone between the agricultural core of China and the Central Eurasian steppes (Shaanxi, Southern Inner Mongolia, and northern Shanxi). The archaeological cultures associated with these populations go back to the Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age—many centuries before any part of this area came under the control of polities governed by lineages of the Ji clan, and before any indications of urban civilization, an aristocratic rank order, or ancestral ritual ever became locally manifest.48

This observation calls forth further questions. Did the women buried with san zu weng during the Western Zhou period come from societies residing far in the north? Why were Zhou colonists interested in entering into marital alliances with them? And why do such objects appear in the tomb of Pengbo Cheng’s spouse, who was not a non-Zhou woman, but a daughter of a noble Ji-surnamed lineage? Chinese archaeologists trace the origin of the pottery san zu weng with hollow legs to the Zhukaigou 朱開溝 pottery tradition, named after the Zhukaigou settlement on the Ordos Plateau in Ejin Horo 伊金霍洛 banner, Ikh Juu 伊克昭 League of Inner Mongolia (see Map 4.2). 49 Zhukaigou was a residential center with an area of about 50 ha occupied since ca. 2000 B.C. and abandoned ca. 1250 B.C., probably because of the aridization of Ordos. 50 During this long period, the Central Plains of

88 · Maria Khayutina

China saw the rise and decline of the Erlitou 二里頭 tradition (ca. 1850– 1600 B.C.), followed by the rise of the Shang civilization from the Erligang 二里岡 period in Zhengzhou 鄭州 to Phase 2 of Yinxu 殷墟 period in Anyang 安陽 (up to ca. 1200 B.C.).51 Zhukaigou’s inhabitants led sedentary lives and combined agriculture with animal husbandry. Since about the eighteenth century B.C., they cast bronze weapons, tools and ornaments. About the mid-second millennium B.C., the pottery tradition associated with Zhukaigou dominated the Ordos Plateau, southern Inner Mongolia outside the bend of the Yellow River, and the northern parts of Shaanxi and Shanxi provinces. The finds of one Erligang-type bronze caldron and some dagger-axes witness about contacts between Zhukaigou and the early Shang.52 The Zhukaigou potters created a considerable variety of san zu weng, including egg-shaped, nearly globular forms, as well as specimens characterized by a straighter narrowing body. All of them had hollow legs (see Figure 4.7A). They were used as objects of utility and as coffins for infants’ burials. Da kou zun also belonged to the Zhukaigou standard ceramic repertoire, whereas shuang er guan often appear in tombs (see Figure 4.7:1–6). Zhukaigou pottery types, including the san zu weng, appear in various places. About 70 km southward, pottery vessels of all these three types were found on the Shimao 石峁 and Xinhua 新華 sites in Shenmu 神木 county, Shaanxi province (see Figure 4.7:7–12).53 In 2012, excavations in Shimao have revealed two rings of city walls constructed of piled stones, enclosing an area of ca. 4 km2. Although radiocarbon dates are not yet available, excavators suppose that the construction of the walls began ca. 2000 B.C.54 This discovery of the so far largest known walled city of the Chinese early Bronze Age, preceding Erlitou, but contemporary with the early phase of Zhukaigou, is about to change our understanding of the cultural and political relationships of that epoch.55 Plausibly, the prominence of Shimao may explain why the Zhukaigou pottery tradition spread along and across the Yellow River. Nearly identical and, very likely, contemporary san zu weng and da kou zun were found in Dakou 大口 on the western bank of the Yellow River near Hequ 河曲 in southern Inner Mongolia,56 and Yudaohe 峪道河 in Fenyang 汾陽 county on the southeastern foot of the Lüliang Mountains 呂梁山 in Shanxi (see Map 4.2 and Figure 4.7:14, 16).57 Further south, egg-shaped san zu weng were adopted and adapted to the local taste in the Dongxiafeng 東下馮 pottery tradition (or the Dongxiafeng variant of the Erlitou tradition) spreading along the

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 89

middle course of the Sushui River and the lower course of the Fen 汾 River during ca. 1800 to 1500 B.C. (see Figure 4.7:13, 15). The Dongxiafeng tradition was present along the upper course of the Sushui River during ca. 1600–1500 B.C.58 This was the area where the Peng lineage resided during the Western Zhou period. The chronological gap between these early Bronze Age cultures and those who could see san zu weng and da kou zun as symbols of their cultural identity on the edge of the tenth and ninth century B.C. is clearly too big to suppose a direct connection between them. Who transmitted the Zhukaigou tradition to posterity and where did they reside? Although some scholars have suggested that, in particular, san zu weng could pertain as a local pottery type adopted in the Sushui valley since the Erlitou period, this is unlikely.59 First, the Dongxiafeng potters modified the Zhukaigou egg-shaped prototype of the san zu weng, replacing hollow legs with solid ones or making egg-shaped jars with a flat bottom.60 They did not adopt the nearly globular variant of san zu weng that could be compared with the specimens from the Jin and Peng tombs. Figure 4.7 Northern Pottery Forms and Their Southwestern Shanxi Counterparts A. Zhukaigou-Erlitou period: 1–6: Zhukaigou; 7–12: Shenmu Shimao; 13, 15: Dongxiafeng; 14, 16: Yudaohe. B. Shang Yinxu period: 17: Lijiaya; 18: Xiguaqu; 19–20: Zaoshugounao; 21–22: Gaohong. C. Western Zhou period: 23, 25: Yongningpu; 24, 26–28: Tianma-Qucun; 29–30: Hengbei M1. 1–6 after Neimenggu zizhiqu wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Eerduosi bowuguan, Zhukaigou, pp. 101, 114, 142; 7–12 after Yan Hongdong, “Shenmu Shimao yizhi taoqi fenxi,” figs. 1–3; 13, 15 after Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo, ed., Xiaxian Dongxiafeng, figs. 31, 179; 14, 16 after Wang Kelin and Hai Jindong, “Shanxi Fenyang xian Yudaohe yizhi diaocha,” fig. 4; 17 after Zhang Yingwen 張映文 and Lü Zhirong 呂智榮 , “Shaanxi Qingjian xian Lijiaya gucheng zhi fajue jianbao” 陜西清澗縣李家崖古城址發掘簡報, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 1988.1: 47–56, fig. 7; 18 after Lü Zhirong 呂智榮, “Shaanxi Ansai xian Xiguaqucun yizhi shijue jianbao” 陜西安塞縣西 渠村遺址試掘簡報, Huaxia kaogu 華夏考古 2007.2: 10–17, fig. 4; 19 after Xibei daxue Wenhua yichan kaogu yanjiu zhongxin et al., “Shaanxi Chunhua xian Zaoshugounao yizhi xian Zhou shiqi yicun” 陜西淳化 縣棗樹溝腦遺址先周時期遺存, Kaogu 考古 2012.3: 20–34, fig. 11; 20 after Xibei daxue Wenhua yichan kaogu yanjiu zhongxin et al., “Shaanxi Chunhua xian Zaoshugounao yizhi 2007 nian fajue jianbao” 陜西淳化縣棗樹溝腦遺址2007年發 掘簡報, Wenwu 文物 2013.2: 55–66, fig. 12; 21–22 after Jinzhong kaogudui,

90 · Maria Khayutina “Shanxi Loufan, Lishi, Liulin san xian kaogu diaocha” 山西婁煩、離石、柳林三縣 考古調查, Wenwu 文物 1989.4: 31–39, fig. 12; 23, 25 after Shanxi sheng wenwu gongzuo weiyuanhui and Hongtong xian wenwu ju, “Shanxi Hongtong Yongningpu Xi Zhou muzang,” fig. 16; 24, 26–28 after Xie Yaoting, “Jinnan diqu Xi Zhou mucang yanjiu,” pp. 374–75; 29–30 after Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou mu fajue jianbao,” p. 11, figs. 15, 16, redrawn by the author of the present article. A

B

C

Second, about 1500–1300 B.C., Dongxiafeng and related settlements were either taken over by bearers of the Erligang, e.g., early Shang tradition, or abandoned.61 After ca. 1300 B.C., southwestern Shanxi became largely depopulated due to climatic changes, warfare, and other reasons.62 Somewhat later, some people associated with the Baiyan 白燕 pottery tradition spread from the middle course of the Fen River to the area of Linfen 臨汾. Although egg-shaped san zu weng with solid legs appear on

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 91

some Baiyan sites, they did not belong to the main vessel types of this tradition.63 Hence, there was no direct continuity between Dongxiafeng san zu weng and the san zu weng from the Jin or Peng tombs, nor was there any relationship between the populations that inhabited the Sushui River valley during ca. 1800–1500 B.C. and during the Western Zhou period. At the end of the second millennium B.C., san zu weng and da kou zun were no longer present in the pottery repertoire of the southwestern Shaanxi.64 However, these vessel types were maintained and developed in some places further to the north along the Yellow River. Among the sites of the late Shang period, hollow-legged san zu weng have been witnessed on the Lijiaya 李家崖 settlement in Qingjian 清澗 county, Shaanxi province (see Figure 4.7:17). Situated in the valley of the Wuding 無定 River about 5 km to the west of the Yellow River’s bank, Lijiaya represented a small walled fortress with a palace- or temple-like structure on a rammed-earth platform in the middle. It was occupied from ca. 1200 B.C. until the mid-Western Zhou period.65 Both Lijiaya wall-construction technique and pottery tradition developed against the Zhukaigou-Shimao cultural background. Pottery, also deriving from the Zhukaigou tradition and related with Lijiaya, has also been found in Xiguaqu 西坬渠 in Ansai 安塞 county located ca. 100 km westward in the upper flow of the western Luo 洛 River and dated to the ca. twelfth to eleventh centuries B.C. (see Figure 4.7:18). Hollow-legged san zu weng were also found on this settlement. 66 Further south, the inf luence of the Zhukaigou tradition, as well as relationships to both Lijiaya and Xiguaqu, are visible in the forms and decorations of vessels from the recently excavated Zaoshugounao 棗樹溝腦 settlement in Jing 涇 River valley in Chunhua 淳化 county, Shaanxi province, continuously occupied during ca. 1200–800 B.C. San zu weng, verifiably produced in the Zaoshugounao kilns, were increasingly popular during the ca. twelfth to eleventh centuries B.C. The local repertoire also included several forms of the da kou zun (see Figure 4.7:19–20). Notably, local inhabitants often buried the dead with their heads pointing west or east. At the same time, they were also closely related to the proto-Zhou groups that settled along the Jing River.67 Living side by side, they quite certainly intermarried. The presence of san zu weng and da kou zun in tombs in Zhangjiapo, Qijiacun and other places in the Zhou metropolitan region may be explained by the long established relationships between the Zhou and some population groups that probably incorporated migrants from further north, but resided along the Jing and western Luo rivers already during the twelfth to eleventh centuries B.C.

92 · Maria Khayutina

Qingjian and Chunhua counties of Shaanxi belong at the same time to the area where a particular burial tradition was maintained since ca. 1200 B.C. (see Map 4.2). It has been witnessed on about 30 sites on both sides of the Yellow River, also including Suide 綏德, Yanchang 延長 and Ganquan 甘泉 counties in Shaanxi and Shilou 石樓, Baode 保德, Yonghe 永和, Liulin 柳林 and Jixian 吉縣 counties in Shanxi province. It is manifested in elite tombs, found individually or in small groups, and containing bronze weapons and tools as main burial goods. These weapons and tools display features typical of the Steppe cultures of Outer Mongolia, the Lake Baikal area and southern Siberia, thus suggesting that the societies that buried their dead with such objects interacted with peoples of the north. Some of these tombs also contain bronze ritual vessels imported from Shang or made according to Shang models, thus attesting also to contacts with inhabitants of the Central Plains. After the discovery of the Lijiaya settlement, some scholars suggest understanding this burial tradition as a part of the “Lijiaya culture” (Lijiaya wenhua 李家 崖文化).68 On the eastern side of the Yellow River, a related site has been discovered about 60 km to the northeast of Lijiaya in Gaohong 高紅 . The Gaohong settlement was situated atop a steep cliff inside a bend of the Sanchuan 三川 (Qinglong 青龍) River in the southern part of the Lüliang Mountains in Liulin county, Shanxi province.69 On the site, about 20 rammed-earth structures of various sizes were identified in 2004. Archaeologists suggest that Gaohong was an important economical and political center during Phase 2–3 of Yinxu (i.e. up to ca. 1100 B.C.), but that its significance decreased toward ca. mid-eleventh century B.C.70 However, the burial of a warrior, containing a bronze helmet and various northern weapons, discovered in Gaohong several decades earlier and dated by its excavators to Phase 4 of Yinxu (ca. 1100–1040 B.C.), suggests that this site retained its significance even longer.71 Pottery pieces from Gaohong published up to now include upper parts of slightly squeezed globular jars with narrow rims (Figure 4.8A–B). The bottoms of these jars were lost, but pocket-legs found on the same site witness the presence of hollow-legged san zu weng (Figure 4.8D–F). Also, large egg-shaped weng were present there (Figure 4.8H). The ornaments include horizontal ribbons filled with parallel vertical lines or composed of triangles (Figure 4.8I). In addition, trumpet-mouthed da kou zun that can be compared to the specimen from Hengbei tomb M1 are also witnessed in Gaohong (Figure 4.8K).

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 93 Figure 4.8 Gaohong Pottery in Comparison to Hengbei Vessels San zu weng upper body and neck: A, B. Gaohong; C. Hengbei. San zu weng lower body and feet: D–F. Gaohong; G. Hengbei. H. Egg-shaped weng, Gaohong. I. Pottery ornaments, Gaohong. Da kou zun: J, K. Gaohong; L. Hengbei. A, B, D–F, H–J after Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, “2004 Liulin Gaohong Shang dai hangtu jizhi shijue jianbao,” figs. 3, 7, 9, 10; K after Jinzhong kaogudui, “Shanxi Loufan, Lishi, Liulin san xian kaogu diaocha,” fig. 12; C, G, L after Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou mu fajue jianbao,” p. 11, figs. 15, 16, redrawn by the author of the present article. A

D

B

E

F

H

J

C

G

I

K

L

The shapes and ornaments of the Gaohong pottery display striking similarities with the objects discovered in tomb M1 at Hengbei.72 Importantly, the pottery sherds with distinctive Gaohong features have been collected not in tombs, but in the settlement deposits. This indicates that the respective objects were used in daily life and were typical of this place. Based on the similarities between the Gaohong pottery and the objects from tomb M1 at Hengbei, it can be suggested that the inhabitants of Gaohong and the Peng lineage shared the same cultural tradition. Still, a question remains whether these population groups lived during the same time or were separated by a chronological gap.

94 · Maria Khayutina

In general, the dating of the Lijiaya sites is a problem that has not yet been definitively resolved. Apart from the two settlements mentioned above, Lijiaya and Gaohong, all other sites represent tombs, which do not contain pottery vessels that archaeologists normally use for dating. Some archaeologists distinguish between Lijiaya burials with and without Shang bronzes as Shilou and Baode variants (Shilou leixing 石樓類型, Baode leixing 保德類型) of the Lijiaya culture respectively.73 The tombs of the Shilou variant are usually dated to the Shang period based on the shapes of Shang ritual vessels. This is reasonable, but not necessarily very reliable. Not all vessels were imported from Shang, but were sometimes made by local artisans after Shang models. Their maintenance of Shang tradition could have continued after the fall of the Shang kingdom. In the absence of better dateable ritual bronze vessels from the Central Plains, dating of the tombs of the Baode variant is even more problematic. In so far as the northern bronzes found in these tombs are similar to those found in the tombs of the Shilou variant containing Shang vessels, the Baode variant tombs are usually also dated to the Shang period. This is how the warrior’s burial in Gaohong, containing only weapons, has been dated.74 Since no tombs combining northern bronzes and Zhou ritual vessels have been found in Shaanxi or Shanxi, it appears that after the end of Shang the Lijiaya culture disappeared without any apparent reason. Some authors acknowledge that it is difficult to understand its sudden eclipse.75 After the Zhou conquest of the Shang, the Jin principality was established along the lower course of the Fen River, but during the early Western Zhou period it controlled a rather limited territory.76 This has become gradually evident during the last decade, especially after the discovery of the Hengbei cemetery and, more recently, the Dahekou 大河 口 cemetery of the Ba 霸 polity near Yicheng 翼城, ca. 30 km to the east of Tianma-Qucun.77 Bronze objects from several Dahekou tombs, published so far, suggest that Ba emerged in this location not later than Jin was founded.78 Also the data from the Hengbei cemetery reveal that Peng lineage resided in this area since the early Western Zhou period.79 The absence of finds that can be dated to yet earlier periods indicates that, similarly to the Jin colonists, Ba and Peng migrated to these places from somewhere else. The references to the Lijiaya tradition in Peng tombs allow to suppose that this polity could be founded by people who migrated from some places located ca. 100–200 km to the north of the Yellow River valley. Investigations into the material culture of the northern zone,

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 95

intensified during the several past decades, call for revisions of the dating of some archaeological sites, including the burials of the Baode variant of the Lijiaya culture.80 In particular, the Gaohong bronzes possibly date from the Shang-Zhou transitional period or even up to the mid-Western Zhou period. 81 Hopefully, further archaeological investigations of the Gaohong settlement will determine this date.82 If the early to mid-Western Zhou date is confirmed, from the chronological point of view, the inhabitants of Gaohong and other groups that shared the Baode variant of the Lijiaya culture could then have been the source of the san zu weng that accompanied elite women in the cemetery of Jin. Judging from the presence of rammed-earth foundations and elite burials with bronze weapons, Gaohong was home to a stratified society with war-like elites who were able to mobilize their people for large-scale construction work and for war. Although such non-Zhou polities as Gaohong might have been relatively small, they were able to attack the Zhou colonists residing in the valleys and to retreat rapidly back to the mountains. It was indeed better to have them as friends rather than as enemies, a consideration that might have motivated marital alliances between Zhou lineages and their non-Zhou neighbors. This might explain the presence of elite women from these societies in cemeteries of Zhou lineages. During the early Western Zhou period, these women might have come from such places as Gaohong or places located further to the south where other groups related to the Baode variant of the Lijiaya culture resided. The Peng lineage that possibly moved further south and adopted many features of Zhou ritual culture also established marital relationships with the Jin elite, as well as with other Ji-surnamed lineages. Inscriptions corroborate that during the middle and late Western Zhou periods, Peng was one of the sources of women who married Jin men and even became spouses of Jin rulers. In particular, the spouse of Jin Hou Xifu, buried with large pottery san zu weng and da kou zun in tomb M92 at Tianma-Qucun, was a woman from Peng.83 If pottery related to a non-Zhou cultural tradition and found in elite female tombs in the cemeteries of Jin and other Zhou lineages emphasizes the cultural roots of its owners—women from non-Zhou polities—its function in the Hengbei tomb M1 must be different. Bi Ji, buried there, was a daughter of a renowned Ji-surnamed lineage from the Zhou metropolitan area. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the thirteen san zu weng and the three da kou zun were intentionally emphasized in the set of her funerary equipment. A tentative explanation can be provided for this case.

96 · Maria Khayutina

In tombs of foreign women in the cemeteries of Ji lineages the nonZhou ritual objects always appear in combination with standard Zhou ritual vessels. If the former symbolized the cultural identity of their owners, the latter demonstrated the owners’ role as members of their husbands’ lineages and cultural communities. It was expected from a spouse to integrate into her husband’s culture, whereas her original cultural affiliation was also handled with due respect. Although the Peng lineage adopted the Zhou ritual culture and imitated their Jin neighbors in many respects, some peculiarities in the tomb architecture and the extensive use of human sacrifice suggest that it was not yet fully assimilated, but behaved in its own distinct way. If the display of non-Zhou features was part of the self-representation of the Peng rulers, it stands to reason that the rulers’ spouse would also be expected to respect Peng culture and to contribute to this display. This might have included adopting some specific details of costume or hairdressing, which cannot be witnessed archaeologically, or using some specific objects during the lifetime or in the afterlife, as we can now observe in tomb M1 at Hengbei. Thus, the san zu weng and da kou zun in Bi Ji’s tomb possibly fulfill a symbolic function, pointing not to the origin of the buried woman, but to the non-Zhou cultural roots of the Peng lineage. There is some counter evidence to this hypothesis: the absence of similar vessels in tomb M2, supposedly occupied by Pengbo Cheng. It would be logical to expect that the tomb of the ruler of Peng would yield even more idiosyncratic objects than the tomb of his spouse. This was apparently not the case, although this cannot be ruled out completely until all objects from his tomb are fully published. Other irregularities are also manifested in Pengbo Cheng’s tomb. First, tomb M2 is slightly smaller and contains fewer ritual objects than M1 does. Most noteworthy, M1 included five bronze ding and five bronze gui, whereas M2 included only three bronze ding and one bronze gui. As the excavators note, it is unusual that the tomb of a wife was furnished more richly than that of her husband. However, in the Hengbei cemetery, bronzes were in general used unsystematically in various numbers, and sets of ding or gui vessels with identical decor and graded sizes were not used.84 Second, the status of Pengbo Cheng or the economic situation in Peng might have changed in the years after the death of his wife. Although Pengbo Cheng offered her a very solemn funeral, it is possible that his descendants were not able to render him a higher honor or did not see any further need to display otherness.

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 97

Onomastic Evidence for the Northern Roots of the Peng Lineage As stated in the introduction above, the connections between the Peng lineage and northern non-Zhou peoples are also suggested by their surname. During the Western Zhou period, surnames were indicated only in designations of married females. Married women from Peng had to be buried in cemeteries of their husbands’ lineages. For this reason, the surname of the Peng lineage does not appear in inscriptions from the Hengbei tombs. Nevertheless, it can be ascertained based on inscriptions found elsewhere: 倗仲乍畢媿賸鼎。其萬年寶用。

The Second-born of Peng makes the dowry tripod for Bi Kui/Gui. May she treasure and use it for ten thousand years!85 生乍成（宬）媿賸鼎。其子孫永寶用。

Peng X-sheng makes the dowry tripod for Cheng Kui/Gui. May her children and grandchildren eternally treasure and use it.86

Consisting of the phonetic gui and the “woman” determinative, the character 媿 is usually transliterated as “Kui.” However, the “woman” determinative was not necessarily a stable part of characters used for surnames, but sometimes simply emphasized that the intended person was a woman.87 This means that otherwise, the same surname could be written with a different determinative, or without a determinative, e.g., Kui 隗, 傀 or simply Gui 鬼. The “Zheng yu” 鄭語 chapter of the Guo yu 國語 mentions in one passage, referring to the late ninth century B.C., the “Kui-surnamed Di” 隗翟 together with the polities located to the west of the eastern Zhou residence Chengzhou, including Jin, Yang, Yu 虞, Guo 虢, Rui 芮, and Wei 魏.88 The latter six polities were located in southwestern Shanxi or in adjacent areas on the opposite side of the Yellow River. Judging by its geographical location, Peng could be one of the Kui/Gui-surnamed “Di,” which is to say northern non-Zhou. The same text also lists several “northern states” including Lu 潞, Luo 洛, Quan 泉, Xu 徐, and Pu 蒲. According to the commentary by Wei Zhao 韋昭 (204–273), they belonged to the “Red Di” group, sharing the Kui surname (赤狄隗姓) and living in the Taihang Mountains 太行山.89 Wang Guowei was the first to argue that the Kui/Gui-surname derived from the ancient Guifang 鬼方 polity,90 whose existence is witnessed

98 · Maria Khayutina

starting from the Shang period. According to received texts, Shang king Wu Ding 武丁, who ruled during the late thirteenth and early twelfth centuries B.C., led a war against the Guifang. It took Wu Ding three years to bring them to obedience.91 Shang oracle bone inscriptions from Anyang also mention the Guifang. Although they do not contain records about military actions, they confirm that the relationship between the Shang and the Guifang was hostile.92 Notably, the Gui appear in one inscription together with the Zhou. This may signify that these peoples were neighbors and allied with each other against the Shang.93 On the other hand, the small number of references to the Guifang in the oracle inscriptions shows that their contacts with the Shang were not regular. This suggests that they resided at a considerable distance from the Shang. Reconstruction of the historical geography of the Shang period is very complicated in general, and the location of the Guifang in particular is problematic because of the scarcity of information. Various scholars accept Wang Guowei’s assumption about the genetic relation between the Guifang and the Kui 隗-surnamed Red Di of the Spring and Autumn period as established fact. Accordingly, they locate the Guifang homeland in a variety of places in Shanxi.94 The Warring States-period text Zhushu jinian 竹書紀年 mentions two place names in connection with the Guifang of the Shang period. However, neither can be located with certainty. In particular, this text states that on his way to fight the Guifang, Wu Ding stopped at Jing 荆.95 Liu Yunxing 劉運興 suggests reading this place name as Jing 井 and identifying it with the Jing Canyon 井陘 mentioned in some later texts and located in the northern part of the Taihang Mountain range in the vicinity of Heng 恒 Mountain, about 500 km from Wu Ding’s capital at Anyang.96 This location would place the Guifang very far to the north. On the other hand, the place name Jing 荆 can be related to Jingfang 井方, mentioned in the Shang oracle bone inscriptions.97 During the Western Zhou period, the Ji-surnamed Xing 邢 state was founded on the Huabei 華北 Plain near present-day Xingtai 邢臺 in the southern part of Hebei province, only 125 km north of Anyang. Jing 荆 and Xing 邢 were both written with the phonetic jing 井 in Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, and both place names might be related to the Jingfang referred to in oracle bone inscriptions.98 Besides, the Mu Tianzi zhuan 穆天子傳, found together with the Zhushu jinian, mentions Mount Xing 銒 in the central part of the Taihang Mountains,99 possibly not very far from Xing 邢.100 Thus, Wu Ding’s campaign might have been related to attempts by the Guifang to penetrate the Huabei Plain from the north or northwest, even

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 99

though their own location remains unclear. The Zhushu jinian states further that during the thirty-fifth year of Shang king Wu Yi 武乙, i.e., in the early eleventh century B.C., the Zhou leader Ji Li 季歷 (the father of the future King Wen 文) fought the GuiRong peoples of Western Luo 西落鬼戎.101 The Hou Han shu provides a longer quotation from the original Zhushu jinian: 周公季歷伐西落鬼戎，俘其二十翟王

[128.104.46.206] Project MUSE (2024-03-02 03:18 GMT) UW-Madison Libraries

The Duke of Zhou Ji Li fought the Gui-Rong of Western Luo, capturing twenty of their Di kings.102

The authors of this passage seem not to be certain whether Guifang were Rong or Di, or, as was common among early Chinese writers, simply did not differentiate between them. According to this text, the designation “Gui” referred to a group of small states ruled by kings, which could join together temporarily to attack the Shang and their allies or to defend themselves. The geographical information in this passage is just as ambiguous as in the previous entry. Some authors identify Western Luo with the Kui-surnamed Lu 潞 or Luo 洛 polity of the Spring and Autumn period, i.e., one of the “northern states” referred to in the “Zheng yu” as being located in the southern part of the Taihang Mountains. However, more plausibly, this toponym referred to the western Luo 洛 River, a northwestern tributary of the Yellow River in Shaanxi (see Map 4.2). Ji Li, who resided on the Zhou Plain, would have been more able to launch an expedition into the Luo River valley in Shaanxi than into the Taihang Mountains of Shanxi. Some scholars link the Guifang to the archaeological Lijiaya culture, arguing that the latter was distributed in areas where the Guifang are supposed to have lived.103 If Kui-surnamed lineages really did descend from the Guifang, the relation of the Kui-surnamed Peng lineage to the Lijiaya tradition posited above would support this linkage between the Guifang and the Lijiaya. Many Lijiaya sites were located in east central Shaanxi and could be accessed through the Luo River valley; this would be consistent with the information in the Zhushu jinian. Peoples on both sides of the Yellow River in Shaanxi and Shanxi who shared this tradition had contacts with the Shang. Besides, changes within assemblages of ritual bronze vessels in burials of the Shilou variant of the Lijiaya culture during the late Shang period can be explained by the influence of the predynastic Zhou culture: in earlier tombs, vessels for alcoholic beverages and dingcaldrons for meat offerings prevailed, as was customary with the Shang; however, by the late Shang period, the ding start to appear regularly in

100 · Maria Khayutina

combination with gui-tureens, as was customary with the Zhou.104 The absence of ritual bronze vessels in tombs of the Baode variant of Lijiaya culture suggests that within this cultural community, certain groups were unwilling to accept Shang or, later, Zhou customs at all. The pattern of the relationships between the Shang, the Zhou and the Guifang, reflected in written sources, resembles that of the relationships between the Shang, the Zhou and the Lijiaya tradition, manifested in the material culture. Another war between the Zhou and the Guifang took place during the Western Zhou period.105 The campaign was directed by Yu 盂, the head of the Ji-surnamed Nangong 南公 lineage in the Zhou metropolitan area. The Da Yu ding 大盂鼎 inscription recorded the king’s command to Yu: 王曰：「而，令汝盂型乃嗣祖南公！盂，廼紹夾死司戎，敏諫罰訟，夙夕召我一 人烝四方，𩁹我其遹省先王受民受疆土！」

The king said: “Now [I] command you, Yu, to take as a model your ancestor Nangong! Yu, continue then thoroughly until death to supervise the Rong, diligently admonish [while applying] punishments [and judging upon] lawsuits, mornings and evenings summon me, the single man, to assist the four quarters, follow me to inspect the peoples and the border lands received by the former kings!”106

Yu was apparently entrusted to control some northern non-Zhou groups referred to in the inscription as Rong.107 To support him, “four elders, governing the bang-polities” (si bang si bo 司邦四伯, possibly referring to heads of Zhou lineages) and “thirteen elders, alien governors of king’s servants” (yi si wang chen shiyousan bo 夷司王臣十又三伯, possibly referring to heads of non-Zhou lineages who sided with the Zhou), as well as more than two thousand people controlled by these elders, had to be resettled from their lands and transferred under Yu’s control as a “gift.” The conflict with the Guifang could have resulted from Yu’s activities related with his mission among the Rong. Yu commemorated his victory over the Guifang and its celebration in the Temple of Zhou with another inscribed bronze vessel: the Xiao Yu ding 小盂鼎. Yu and his fellow combatants brought back a rich booty: several thousand prisoners, more than one hundred war chariots, several hundred oxen, dozens of sheep and many horses.108 The inscription on the Xiao Yu ding suggests that the Guifang represented a large political entity and that this people raised horses and practiced cattle breeding. They were not nomads, since cattle are not suitable for mobile pastoralism, although they could be moved to summer

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 101

pastures. The Guifang way of life basically corresponds with that of the Lijiaya people, who resided in foothill settlements and bred horses, sheep, oxen and pigs. However, it is as yet unclear whether such small settlements as Lijiaya and Gaohong belonged to a larger overarching coalition, which could recruit so many armed men for a war against the Zhou. The Xiao Yu ding inscription further suggests that the Guifang possessed a developed technology permitting them to equip their troops with large numbers of chariots. Bronze shaft endings, bow-shaped implements for holding reins, tinkling bells for horses, and horses’ figurines have been found in tombs associated with the Lijiaya tradition on both sides of the Yellow River.109 These finds witness that the people associated with this tradition used chariots. The warrior’s burial in Gaohong included a tinkling bell—probably a symbol of status and cultural affiliation, rather than an object that the deceased could use during his lifetime in Sanchuan valley, not very suitable for chariot-riding.110 Unusual elements in the construction of the chariot in the tomb of Pengbo Cheng may be related to a technological tradition that developed parallel to these of the Shang and the Zhou.111 Possibly, after Yu’s campaign the Guifang ceased to exist as an entity, since it is not mentioned any more in sources of any kind. Smaller groups, identifying themselves by surnames deriving from the name Gui, continued to live separately, arranging themselves with the Zhou. The Kui/ Gui-surnamed Peng lineage could be one of them. The presence of early Western Zhou tombs in the Hengbei cemetery indicates that if Peng was related with the Guifang, it split from the common stock relatively early. Therefore, its foundation was not related with Yu’s attack on Guifang. The lineage name Peng represents another link connecting the polity at Hengbei with the peoples of the north. It is written in bronze inscriptions in two ways: with the determinative “hand” and with the determinative “roof”:

These two characters might represent either graphic variants of the same name or branches of the Peng lineage that distinguished themselves by the graphic form of their name. The Peng lineage designated in either one of these ways does not appear in early Chinese literature. Some scholars have suggested that the

102 · Maria Khayutina

Peng lineage was related to the Peng 䣙 polity mentioned in the Mu Tianzi zhuan.112 The first chapter of this text provides an account of King Mu’s 穆 journey from the eastern Zhou capital at Chengzhou to the north and northwest. According to it, King Mu first marched with his armies northward through the Taihang Mountains. Gaining the northern bank of the Hutuo 滹沱 River, he went farther north to the Quan Rong 犬戎 people. Then he turned west through the Jueyu 絶隃 Pass (identified with the Yanmen 雁門 Pass of the Han 漢 period) and reached the territory of the Peng people (ren 人) or Peng polity (bang 邦).113 This Peng has been located near the southward bend of the Yellow River, i.e., in southern Inner Mongolia near Hohhot.114 According to the Mu Tianzi zhuan, Peng belonged to the “River Clan” (He zong 河宗), which possibly underscores the close geographical relationship of this people to the Yellow River. Guo Pu 郭璞, commenting on this text, stated that there was a Peng state (guo 國) located between Yu 虞 and Rui 芮 in southwestern Shanxi. The latter Peng certainly corresponds to the Peng discovered now in Hengbei, but is there any evidence that it had any connections to the populations who inhabited the area near Hohhot during the early to mid-Western Zhou period? In the area encompassed by the upper course of the Fen, Hutuo and Sanggan 桑乾 rivers in northern Shanxi and stretching northeast toward the valley of the Qingshui 清水 River, which empties into the Yellow River near the place where the latter turns south, the archaeological Xicha 西岔 culture spread about the same time when the Lijiaya tradition spread in northeastern Shaanxi and the Lüliang Mountains of Shanxi. The Xicha tradition also developed against the background of the Zhukaigou tradition that dominated these areas earlier, but differed from the Lijiaya tradition in many respects.115 For instance, neither san zu weng nor da kou zun belong to the standard Xicha pottery types. Thus, it remains unclear whether the Peng lineage in Hengbei was somehow related to the Peng polity near Hohhot. Nevertheless, the Mu Tianzi zhuan might reflect the Peng lineage’s memory of its northern origin and close relationship with the Yellow River, but its geography is not reliable.116 In sum, together with other Kui/Gui-surnamed lineages of southern and southwestern Shanxi, the Peng lineage belonged to the group of northern non-Zhou peoples classified by early Chinese authors as “RongDi” or simply “Di.” It is not yet possible to verify whether all Kuisurnamed lineages, and Peng in particular, were descendants of the ancient Gui people of the Shang and Western Zhou periods. There is still

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 103

too little evidence to permit us to locate the Guifang of the Shang and early Western Zhou periods, and its connections with the Lijiaya culture remain hypothetical. On the other hand, the san zu weng and da kou zun in tomb M1 at Hengbei suggest a link between the Peng lineage and northern non-Zhou peoples residing in the Lüliang Mountains from the middle Shang to middle Zhou periods and currently associated by archaeologists with the Lijiaya culture. As did their predecessors—people who lived in Zhukaigou and related settlements—peoples associated with the Lijiaya culture were involved in exchanges both with peoples of the northern cultural zone and with contemporary polities of the Central Plains of China. They were organized in small, possibly lineage-based polities centered on fortified settlements in mountainous river valleys. Finds of pottery and bronze objects characteristic of these peoples in large, richly equipped tombs of females in cemeteries of Zhou lineages in Shanxi, Shaanxi and Hebei witness marital alliances concluded between the ruling elites of polities of Zhou and non-Zhou origin. Aimed at maintaining a status quo or even a more intensive cooperation, such alliances suggest that Zhou polities communicated with their non-Zhou peers at eye level and were vitally interested in their friendship. Peng was one such nonZhou polity that was established in a depopulated area to the south of Jin during the early Western Zhou period and maintained autonomy from its Ji-surnamed neighbors by about 900 B.C.

The Peng Lineage within the Zhou Political Network and the Activities of Yigong By no later than the end of the reign of King Gong the Peng lineage had gradually become incorporated into the Zhou political and social network. The inscription on the Pengzhong ding quoted above was commissioned by a member of the Peng lineage for his daughter, who was married to a man from the Bi lineage. This was the native lineage of Bi Ji, who was buried in tomb M1 at Hengbei. Evidently, during the middle Western Zhou period, marital relationships between Bi and Peng were reciprocal. This is important for understanding the political standing of Peng. Weaker lineages often married out their daughters to stronger ones, thus displaying loyalty and seeking protection, without getting brides in exchange. By comparison, bilateral exchanges of women signify that lineages or principalities treated each other as equals.117 The number of tombs containing bronze

104 · Maria Khayutina

vessels in the Hengbei cemetery suggests the considerable economic strength of Peng. Possibly, Peng owed its wealth to its proximity to copper ore deposits in the nearby Zhongtiao 中條 Mountains, to salt-production sites near Yuncheng 運城, or to its involvement in the horse trade.118 At about the same time as the marital alliance between the Bi and Peng lineages was concluded, Peng probably also became a marital partner of the Zhou royal house. A person who identified himself as Pengsheng 倗 生 (甥) and used the emblem “Zhou” in his inscription was likely the son of a Peng woman married into the Zhou lineage. The inscription informs that Pengsheng exchanged horses for land with Gebo 格伯. Ge probably corresponded to Lu 路, another Kui/Gui-surnamed lineage in the Taihang Mountains.119 Pengsheng’s connections to the Peng lineage via his mother could have helped him to trade with other lineages of the same surname. Judging by his extraordinarily beautiful tureens, Pengsheng accumulated considerable wealth. Pengfu 倗父, another member of the Peng lineage, held the prestigious office of the manager of the king’s lineage zai 宰 at the court of King Gong, as is documented by the Wang gui 朢簋 inscription.120 It is possible that Pengfu arranged marriages of women from other Kui/Gui-surnamed lineages with members of the metropolitan elites: in one hoard in Wugong 武功 county, Shaanxi, tureens constituting the dowry of a Kui/Guisurnamed woman were found together with tureens commissioned by a certain Chu 楚—most likely that woman’s husband—who was introduced at a royal audience by Pengfu.121 It may not be mere coincidence that Chu’s tureens look very similar to the tureen of Pengbo Cheng.122 Perhaps the marriage between Pengbo Cheng and Bi Ji was also arranged by Pengfu. The Wang gui inscription suggests that Pengfu maintained a close relationship with the Bi lineage, since he acted as the “right-hand attendant” youzhe 右者 for Wang 朢, who was appointed by the Zhou king to manage the Bi lineage: 唯王十又三年六月初吉戊戌，王在周康宮新宮。旦，王各大室，即位。宰倗父右 朢入門，立中廷，北嚮。王呼史年冊命朢：死司畢王家，賜汝赤巿、鑾。用事。 朢拜稽首，對揚天子丕顯休。用作朕皇祖伯甲父寶簋，其萬年子子孫孫永寶用。

It was the thirteenth year, sixth month, first auspiciousness, wuxu. The king was in the new palace in the Kang Palace in Zhou. At dawn, the king entered the Great Chamber and assumed his position. The Superintendent Pengfu, accompanying Wang on the right-hand side, entered the Gate. [They] stood in the Middle Yard, facing north. The king ordered Secretary Nian to read aloud the written command to Wang: “Until your death manage the Bi royal family.

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 105 I bestow on you red kneepads [and] tinkling bells. Use them in service!” Wang bowed his head to the ground extolling in response the illustrious beneficence of the Son of Heaven. [I, Wang] use [this opportunity] to make a treasured tureen for my august ancestor Bo Xfu. May [my] children and grandchildren eternally treasure and use it for ten thousand years!123

The expression “Bi wang jia” 畢王家, the “Bi [branch of the] royal family” points to the especially close connection between the royal house and Bi lineage, and the privileged position of the latter compared to other metropolitan lineages. The Zuo zhuan 左傳 lists Bi as one of the 16 lineages descending from King Wen.124 Its founder Bi Gong Gao 畢公高 was a confidant of King Cheng 成 and King Kang 康.125 In Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, the heads of the Bi lineage were referred to as gong 公 (“Duke” or “Patriarch”).126 According to Sima Qian, the Bi lineage later came to be demoted to the status of commoners for some unknown reason.127 The inscription on the late Western Zhou Bi Xian gui 畢鮮簋 tureen indicates that Yigong, who gave a chariot to Pengbo Cheng in 900 B.C., was probably a member of the Bi lineage: 畢鮮作皇祖益公尊簋，用祈眉壽魯休，鮮其萬年子子孫孫永寶用。

Xian of Bi makes this reverent tureen for his august ancestor Yigong. [He] will use it to pray for longevity and abundant grace. [May I], Xian, for ten thousand years [have] children and grandchildren to eternally treasure and use [this tureen]!128

As mentioned above, Yi 益 might be simply a posthumous title, such that the Yigong mentioned in this inscription was not necessarily the same person who used this name in his own lifetime during the reign of King Gong. However, if Yigong belonged to the Bi lineage, this would explain why a bronze vessel commemorating the donation of a chariot by Yigong to Pengbo was found in Bi Ji’s tomb. The gift would have been related to the marriage between Pengbo and Bi Ji, with Yigong being Pengbo’s father-in-law. Traditional sources provide conflicting information about the location of Bi. Some locate it to the south of the Chang’an 長安 of the Han period, some to the north of Xianyang 咸陽, some thirty li west of Feng 豐, the royal residence during the Western Zhou period, while other texts state that it was very large and stretched along both sides of the Wei 渭 River.129 Bronze inscriptions confirm that at least part of the Bi territory was to the south of present-day Xi’an 西安, the provincial capital of

106 · Maria Khayutina

Shaanxi. They also show that some descendants of Yigong lived in Zhouzhi 盩厔 county, i.e., to the west of Feng.130 Possessions of the Bi lineage north of the Wei River have not yet been confirmed, but the activities of Yigong reached many distant places both in the south and in the north. A series of bronze inscriptions demonstrates that he played a crucial role in acquiring allies for the Zhou among foreign peoples. His meeting with Pengbo Cheng should be considered in the context of this political process. According to the inscription on the Guaibo gui 乖伯簋, during the ninth year of King Gong’s reign (914 B.C.) Yigong led a campaign against Mei’ao 眉敖.131 Mei’ao was related to the Guai 乖 kingdom, the native polity of the vessel’s commissioner. Guai was possibly located in the upper Jing River valley.132 After Yigong’s expedition, the ruler of Guai hastened to express loyalty to the Zhou king,133 so that Yigong’s success both increased the prestige of the Zhou king and also strengthened his own position in the Zhou governmental hierarchy. In the twelfth year of King Gong’s reign (911 B.C.), Yigong “received the mandate from the Son of Heaven” and transferred a part of his fields to his protégé shi (“Captain” or “Master”) Yong 師永.134 Yong’s yu 盂 vessel was found in the southeastern part of Lantian 藍田 county near the foot of the Zhongnan 終南 Mountains. This is part of the Qinling 秦嶺 Range and is located about 180 km from the Zhou Plain, 60 km from Feng, and 40 km from the putative location of Bi near Xi’an. The fields given to Yong were located at Yinyang Luo 陰陽洛, understood to be the upper course of the southern Luo River in southern Shaanxi, in present-day Nanluo 南洛 county to the east of Shangluo 商洛 city.135 This area south of the Qinling Range was on the way between the Zhou metropolitan area and regions inhabited by Huai Yi 淮夷 peoples. Therefore, it was strategically very important to Zhou. The place of the vessel’s discovery suggests that Yong did not reside in the upper Luo valley permanently, but as a landowner he would have been motivated to participate in the defense of this area against attacks by alien peoples. Otherwise, he would not only have failed in his duties in the royal service, but at the same time would have lost his sources of income. After this time, Yigong is often mentioned in inscriptions as the “right-hand attendant” (youzhe) accompanying other persons to royal audiences. Li Feng has shown correlations between the administrative responsibilities of various youzhe, usually high officials at the Zhou court,

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 107

and the occupations of those they introduced to the king. Li suggests that “Western Zhou officials were usually accompanied by people from the same administrative sectors of the central government.”136 Examples of some persons introduced to the Zhou king by Yigong point to the fact that the youzhe and the individuals they brought to royal audiences were not just associated with each other as representatives of the same branch of government, but were related to each other by kinship, or as neighbors or friends. During the seventeenth year of King Gong’s reign (906 B.C.), Yigong accompanied shi Xun 師訇 to a royal audience. Xun was appointed as general coordinator of activities of various military divisions, including the royal guard (“tiger-warriors” [huchen 虎臣]), foot soldiers, border watches, and many groups of non-Zhou peoples denominated as Yi 夷. The area under Xun’s control stretched from central Shaanxi to the eastern royal residence Chengzhou in central Henan, separated from each other by about 400 km: 王若曰：「訇！不顯文、武受令。則乃且奠周邦。今余令汝啻官、𤔲邑人，先虎 臣後庸：西門夷、秦夷、京夷、 夷、師笭側薪、□華夷、弁豸夷、 人！成周 走亞、戍：秦人、降人、服夷！易女玄衣黹屯、 巿、冋、黃、戈琱 、厚柲、 彤沙、䜌旂、攸勒。用事！」訇稽首、對揚天子休令。用乍文且乙白同姬尊簋。 訇萬年！子子孫孫永寶用！唯王十又七祀。王才射日宮。旦。王各。益公入右 訇。

The King spoke as follows: “Xun! Illustrious [Kings] Wen [and] Wu received the Mandate. Hence, your ancestors stabilized the state of Zhou [on their orders]. Now I command you to assume the position as the root officer. Administer the people of the City, first [taking care of] the tiger-warriors, then of the ordinary [men]: aliens from Ximen, aliens from Qin, aliens from Jing, aliens from Chuo, faggotters of shi Ling, aliens from X-Hua, aliens from Bianzhi, [and] men of Yu. [In] Chengzhou, [administer] the foot soldiers [and] frontier guards: men of Qin, men of Jiang, [and] aliens [who perform] services [for Zhou]. [I] bestow on you a dark robe with embroidered border, black leather kneepads,137 [a piece of] light clothing, a [jade] pendant, a halberd with a carved handle, a [weapon with a] handle wound with rope, cinnabar sand, a flag with tinkling bells, and [a horse] harness. Use them in service!” Xun bowed his head, in response extolling the beneficent command of the Son of Heaven. [He] uses [this occasion] to make this sacrificial tureen for his cultivated ancestor Yibo and [Lady] Ji. May Xun for ten thousand years [have] sons and grandsons [to] eternally treasure and use [this vessel].

108 · Maria Khayutina It was the seventeenth sacrificial year of the king. The king was in the Shooting-Sun-Palace (?). At dawn, the king entered. Yigong entered, [accompanying] Xun on his right-hand side.138

Shi Xun was a member of the Mi 弭 lineage residing at Sipo 寺坡 in present-day Lantian county.139 This place was located about 150 km from the Zhouyuan, 35 km from Zongzhou, and 25 km from where the Yong yu, mentioned above, was discovered. This was a place from which it would have been possible to control various activities in the valleys of many rivers coming out of the Qinling Range, thus giving access to the Zhou core area from the south. The creation of such coordinating hubs on the periphery of metropolitan Zhou signified the establishment of a new decision-making level in the Zhou state. This increased the complexity and the effectiveness of the Zhou administrative structure and represented an important step in the development of Zhou statehood. Sipo was located only 10 to 15 km to the south of Bi. Hence, the Mi and Bi lineages were neighbors. If Yigong were a member of the Bi lineage, as I have suggested above, it seems likely that he would put his neighbor Xun in this commanding position, which defended both lineages, gradually making the area of present-day Xi’an a counterweight to the royal political center in the Zhouyuan. The Xun gui records that Yigong engaged many non-Zhou peoples in the organization of the Zhou defense. However, the relationship between Zhou and these “aliens” remains unclear. A hint may be found in the example of the “King’s Servant” 王臣: 隹二年三月初吉庚寅。王各于大室。益公入右王臣。既立中廷北鄉。呼內史 冊 命王臣：易女朱黃（璜）、𠦪親（襯）、玄衣黹屯、䜌旂五日、戈：畫 、厚柲、 彤沙。用事！王臣拜稽首。不敢顯天子對揚休。用乍朕文考易仲尊簋。王臣其永 寶用。

It was the second year, the third month, first auspiciousness, gengyin (day 27). The King entered the Great Chamber. Yigong entered accompanying the King’s Servant on the right-hand side. [The King’s Servant] took [his] position in the central yard facing north. [The King] ordered the Internal Secretary Ao to read aloud the written command to the King’s Servant: “[I] award you with a crimson pendant, an ornate shirt, a black robe with embroidered hem, a banner with five suns, a bridle [for a chariot]; halberds: [one] with a carved handle, [one] with a handle wound with rope; cinnabar sand. Use them in service!” The King’s Servant bowed, touching his head to the ground, not daring to extol in response the illustrious beneficence of the Son of Heaven. [I, King’s Servant] use [this occasion] to make a reverent tureen for my deceased father Yizhong. May King’s Servant eternally treasure and use it!140

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 109

This audience took place during the second year of King Yih’s reign. Here again we see Yigong in the role of youzhe. The vessel, commissioned by the “King’s Servant,” was found in 1977 in a tomb in Chengcheng 澄城 county to the east of the northern Luo River in central Shaanxi. This place is located about 300 km from the Zhouyuan and about 180 km from Zongzhou in the Feng River valley. Apart from this inscribed tureen, the tomb included a broken caldron, four tinkle-bells and twelve bronze fishes.141 To date, this has been the only find of Zhou material culture in the vicinity of Chengcheng. Thus, it is unlikely that this area was colonized and firmly controlled by the Zhou. Rather, the person referred to as “King’s Servant” was a local non-Zhou leader, one of the many “aliens” that Yigong and his trustees attempted to draw to their side.142 It is remarkable that, apart from this King’s Servant, very few other persons were given a banner with five suns during a royal audience. Possibly, this represented a special privilege. Recipients included [shi] Hu 虎, who was given an audience by King Mu during his thirtieth year (927 B.C.). The lid of an inscribed tureen of his was found in southeastern Shaanxi in the valley of the Dan 丹 River about 300 km from the Zhouyuan, 190 km from Zongzhou, and about 70 km to the south from the Yinyang Luo area where shi Yong 師永 was invested in 911 B.C.143 Another recipient was shi Ji 師耤 of the Mi 弭 lineage, who served King Gong.144 As did his other relatives, Ji guarded passes through the Qinling Range.145 Both Zhou and non-Zhou recipients of banners with five suns held the title shi. “Shi-lineages” (shi shi 師氏) resided in strategically important places and constituted the foundation of the Zhou military forces, including the so-called “eight western and six eastern shi 師.” Although shi 師 is usually translated into English as “garrisons” or “armies,” I find it highly improbable that in the absence of a developed taxation system the Zhou could have maintained standing armies consisting of recruits or even professional warriors financed by the king. The example of the Mi lineage shows quite clearly that the shi-units were lineage-based, but that these lineages were strongly controlled by the Zhou king and his agents, such as Yigong. The most amazing find relating both to Yigong’s activities and to the policy of creating non-Zhou “Captaincies” was made in 1996 in Xiaoheishigou 小黑石溝 near Chifeng 赤峰 city in eastern Inner Mongolia. The rich tomb M9601 with a stone burial chamber has been identified with the Upper Xiajiadian 夏家店 culture. Although it was partially emptied by

110 · Maria Khayutina

robbers, still it yielded many bronzes of both northern Steppe and Zhou styles. The latter include a tureen, the Shi Dao gui 師道簋, with the following inscription: 唯二月初吉丁亥。王在康宮。各于大室。益公內右師道。即立中廷。王呼尹冊命 師道：賜汝 𠦪 朱亢，玄衣黹屯，戈：琱 ，厚柲；彤沙，旂五日，轡。道拜稽 首，對揚天子丕顯休命。用作朕文考寶尊簋。余其萬年寶用享于朕文考辛公。用 匄得屯盉，亘命，霝冬。

It was the second month, the first auspiciousness, dinghai (day 24). The king was in the Kang Palace. [He] entered the Great Chamber. Yigong entered, accompanying shi Dao on the right-hand side. [Shi Dao] took [his] position in the central yard. The king ordered the Document-Maker to read aloud the written command to shi Dao: “[I] award you a large crimson pendant, a black robe with embroidered hem, [and] halberds: [one] with a carved handle, [one] with a handle wound with rope; cinnabar sand, a banner with five suns, and a bridle [for a chariot].” Dao bowed, touching his head to the ground, extolling in response the illustrious beneficent command of the Son of Heaven. [I, Dao,] use [this occasion] to make a treasured sacrificial tureen. During ten thousand years may I use it for offerings to my cultivated deceased father Xin Gong. [May it be] used for greatly obtaining pure harmony, everlasting command [and] a numinous end.146

Here again, Yigong acted as the youzhe at a royal audience during which he accompanied shi Dao. The latter received a set of objects identical to that of the “King’s Servant,” including the banner with five suns. The inscription indicates only the month and the day, but not the year of reign. Judging from both the appearance of the vessel and the date, it can be dated to the reign of King Yih (probably, 893 B.C.).147 Xiaoheishigou was located more than 1600 km from the Zhouyuan, where the king offered audience to shi Dao 師道. It is still hard to believe that local rulers personally attended the Zhou court, even if we know that rulers of Yan near present-day Beijing travelled almost 1200 km in order to visit the Zhou king in Zongzhou more than one hundred years earlier.148 It should be taken into account that contacts between the Lower Xiajiadian tradition in the Chifeng area (ca. 2300–1600 B.C.) and the Central Plains had been established already during the early second millennium B.C.149 Not just one but a number of tombs at Xiaoheishigou contained various bronze objects of Zhou style. The same tomb, M9601, also yielded a bronze helmet similar to one found in a tomb near the Gaohong settlement, considered above for its possible connection with the Peng lineage.150 Moreover, an early Western Zhou tureen dedicated by Peng Mian 倗丏 to a

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 111

Grandmother Yi 義妣 was found in a hoard near Pingfangzi 平房子 in Liaoning province, a little more than 100 km to the southeast of Xiaoheishigou.151 Thus, peoples in the northeast of present-day China maintained communication with peoples in Shanxi during the early and middle Western Zhou periods. The Peng lineage at Hengbei, located 440 km from the Zhouyuan, 330 km from Zongzhou, and about 300 km from Bi, was also involved in this process. The meeting between Yigong and Pengbo Cheng in 900 B.C. may have had a consequence that an envoy from further places went to the royal court in the hope of rich awards. There they would be given the title shi and sent back with a banner with five suns as a new representative of the Zhou king. The examples of “King’s Servant” and shi Dao reflect attempts to establish loyal representatives beyond the territories colonized and effectively controlled by the Zhou during the reigns of Kings Gong and Yih, i.e., from the late tenth to the early ninth centuries B.C. The aim of this policy, especially in the case of shi Dao, would have been to demonstrate the authority of the Zhou king rather than to govern effectively. In contrast to other non-Zhou lineages drawn by Yigong to the Zhou side, Peng rulers did not assume the title of shi. Although men and women from Peng rotated at the Zhou court and interacted with metropolitan lineages during the reign of King Gong, Peng rulers possibly did not volunteer to come to a royal audience and to accept insignia that would identify them as king’s servants. In the case of Peng, Yigong privately concluded an alliance with this non-Zhou lineage residing in a strategically and economically important place. This alliance was sealed not only by the gift of a chariot, but also by a marriage of Yigong’s daughter (or another female member of the Bi lineage) with Pengbo Cheng. In doing this, Yigong possibly acted not only in the interests of the Zhou king. Although his actions were doubtless sanctioned by the king, he aimed to strengthen his own position both internally and externally and to increase his own prestige. A similar policy of establishing marital connections with the non-Zhou can also be observed in other Ji-surnamed lineages, as this is reflected both in finds of idiosyncratic pottery or bronzes discussed in the previous part of this article and in bronze inscriptions from many places.152 The Peng lineage continued to exist until the early Spring and Autumn period and intermarried with Ji-surnamed lineages in the west and the east, including the Ji-surnamed Cheng 郕 lineage in Shandong. Hence, despite its origin among the “Rong-Di,” Peng and other

112 · Maria Khayutina

Kui-surnamed lineages became firmly integrated into the Zhou political and cultural spaces, which were gradually becoming more inclusive for non-Zhou lineages in general.

Concluding Remarks The discovery of the tombs of Peng, a polity forgotten by traditional Chinese historiography, sheds new light on a number of aspects of early Chinese history. A comparison of the bronze vessels from Hengbei with other mid-Western Zhou bronzes, especially those related to the person of Yigong, confirms that King Gong reigned 23 years from 922 to 900 B.C., as has been suggested by the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project. This does not mean that the results of that project must be accepted in their entirety, but correcting the dates of King Gong is an important step toward reconstructing the chronology of the Western Zhou dynasty. Specifically, the date of the Pengbo Cheng gui (900 B.C.) is important for the analysis of the political relationships between the Zhou royal house, Ji-surnamed lineages, and lineages of non-Huaxia cultural background during the reigns of Kings Gong and Yih. The san zu weng and da kou zun pottery vessels found in tomb M1 at Hengbei display strong relations with the pottery of the Lijiaya tradition evident in northeastern Shaanxi and central and northern Shanxi from the middle Shang until early to mid-Western Zhou periods. Both the Peng lineage and the bearers of the Lijiaya culture might also be related to the Gui people referred to in Shang oracle bone inscriptions, Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, and Eastern Zhou traditional literature, but evidence for this relationship is fragmentary. From the viewpoint of early Chinese authors, both the ancient Gui people and the Kui/Gui-surnamed lineages residing in Shanxi during the Western Zhou and Spring and Autumn periods belonged to the “Rong-Di” or “Di” group of northern non-Zhou peoples. If such peoples were related to the Lijiaya tradition, deriving from the earlier Zhukaigou tradition, it is important to acknowledge that they were not radically “other,” as they are sometimes imagined. Similarly to the Shang and the Zhou, they cultivated land and raised animals, built similar houses, buried their dead in a similar way and were acquainted with the ritual culture of the Central Plains. Hence, at least in such places as the southwestern Shanxi, the Zhou colonization was taking place in what Chris Gosden defines as “shared cultural milieu.”153 After the Zhou conquest of Shang, Ji-surnamed Jin lineage colonized

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 113

the Fen River valley. The case of Peng shows that Kui-surnamed lineages also migrated to the southwestern Shanxi about the same time. The finds of idiosyncratic vessels in tombs of elite women in cemeteries of Jin and other Ji-surnamed lineages reveal that the Zhou colonists and their nonZhou neighbors maintained peace by concluding marital alliances. The shapes of the pottery vessels in tomb M1 at Hengbei suggest that some non-Zhou lineages that mingled among the Zhou, adopting some customs of the Central Plains, maintained a memory of their northern cultural roots. By using the northern-style objects in burials, and possibly also during their lifetimes, rulers of non-Zhou polities tried to find their own way of representing themselves to various spectators, including their own subordinates, relatives by kinship and marriage, and, perhaps, their neighbors. Inscriptions from tombs M1 and M2 at Hengbei provide important evidence to investigate the relations between the metropolitan Zhou and non-Zhou groups in various places. The discovery of the Pengbo Cheng gui as well as other recent finds of inscribed vessels sheds more light on the activities of Yigong who was one of the key political figures during the reigns of Kings Gong and Yih. Supposedly a member of the Ji-surnamed Bi lineage intimately related to the Zhou royal house, Yigong became prominent after his successful campaign against the non-Zhou Mei’ao polity in 914 B.C. Yigong’s success prompted some other non-Zhou rulers, such as Guaibo, to take sides with the Zhou king. During subsequent years, Yigong was responsible for installing a number of new outposts on both the northern and southern peripheries of the Zhou core area. He also brought newly recruited non-Zhou allies to audiences in the royal residence on the Zhou Plain. In the course of these audiences, these allies were given standardized garments and other insignia identifying them as Zhou beneficiaries. Some of them even assumed new designations, such as “King’s Servant,” thereby expressing their fidelity to the Zhou court. The discovery of the Shi Dao gui in eastern Inner Mongolia shows that some of the individuals sponsored by Yigong resided at a great distance from the Zhou centers. Although in most cases Yigong acted as a representative of the king, the Pengbo Cheng gui demonstrates that he also forged private alliances with non-Zhou lineages. He offered gifts to the ruler of Peng and possibly arranged a marriage between him and his own daughter or another woman from the Bi lineage. At the time this happened, Peng was a wealthy autonomous polity. Judging by the size and burial equipment of the Peng

114 · Maria Khayutina

rulers’ tombs, they attempted to imitate and to compete with the neighboring state of Jin.154 Thus, they manifested behavior defined by Colin Renfrew as “competitive emulation,” characteristic of what he calls “peerpolity interaction.”155 Although the absence of tombs with ramps in the Hengbei cemetery during the late Western Zhou period may suggest that Peng was losing in this competition, at the beginning of the ninth century B.C., its rulers considered themselves and were possibly considered by others as peers of Jin and other important lineages. Peng was one of many non-Zhou lineages receiving favors from the king or from metropolitan Zhou elites and supporting Zhou rule in return. In view of the strategically favorable location of Peng as well as its connections with other Kui/Gui-surnamed non-Zhou lineages, Zhou kings undertook various measures in order to integrate the Peng lineage into their political network. Hence, sons of Peng women and some male members of the Peng lineage circulated within the Zhou court. Apparently, they arranged marriages between other Kui/Gui-surnamed lineages and representatives of the metropolitan elite. The bilateral exchange of women between Peng and the metropolitan Bi lineage was mutually advantageous. On the one hand, Peng strengthened its connections with the metropolitan Zhou elites, which also was relevant for Peng’s relationships with its neighbor Jin. On the other hand, Bi benefited from getting allies among the wealthy non-Zhou, who were at the same time marital relatives of the Zhou royal house. By choosing marital allies among the non-Zhou, heads of Bi and other major Ji-surnamed lineages competed with each other for influence and prestige. In addition, as in the case of Yigong, they used their connections with the non-Zhou in their service for the Zhou court. In the end, the inclusion of the non-Zhou into the Zhou political and social spaces facilitated cultural exchange and the genesis of the Huaxia community. At the same time, it was also a source of much conflict on various levels of Zhou society, and made Zhou rule a dangerous balancing act.

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 115

Appendix Table 4.1 King Mu (r. 956–923 B.C.) Inscriptions from Years 20–34156 Months

Yr

B.C.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

20 21

937 936

6 1

36 31

6 60

5 59

35 29

4 58

33 28

3 57

32 27

1 56

31 26

22

935

55

25

54

53

23

52

22

52

21

51

20

23

934

19

49

18

35 30 A 24 47

17

47

16

46

45

15

44

24

933

14

43

13

42

11

41

10

40

15 B 9

39

9

39

25

932

38

7

37

6

35

5

34

26

931

32

2

1

30

59

27

930

26

56

55

25

28

929

50

20

31 D 26 50

19

29

928

44

14

44

13

30

927

38

8

38

31 32 33

926 925 924

2 57 52

32 27 21

1 56 51

34

923

16

45

15

F 7 31 25 20 44

Vessels

3

33

2

29

27

57

27

56

54

23

53

22

51

21

50

49

18

47

46

15

45

14

43

12

42

17 E 11

41

10

39

9

37

7

36

6

35

5

34

4

33

1 55 49

30 24 19

60 54 48

30 24 18

59 53 47

29 23 17

58 53 47

28 22 16

46

13

G 43

12

41

11

41

10

40

Month

Phase

Ganzhi

4 9 8 3 8 4 4

3 3 3 2 1 1 2

46 27 21 35 11 11 19

Day of Month 23 19 18 12 1 5 13

5

3

55

13

作冊吳盉

G Xian gui

鮮簋

34

小盂鼎 班簋 虎簋蓋

20

Year 22 24 25 27 29 30 30

裘衛簋

8

33

庚贏鼎 師 簋

50

C 4 58

Geng Ying ding Shi Lu gui Xiao Yu ding Qiu Wei gui Ban gui Hu gui gai F Zuoce Wu he

A B C D E

13

116 · Maria Khayutina Table 4.2 Calendar of King Gong (r. 922–900 B.C.) Yr

B.C.

1

Months 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

922

10157

40

A 9

39

8

37

7

36

5

35

4

34

4

2

921

34

4

33

3

32

1

31

60

29

59

28

58

3

920

28

58

B 27

57

27

56

25

55

24

53

23

52

4

919

22

52

21

51

21

50

20

49

19

48

17

47

5

918

C 46

16

55

15

55

14

44

13

43

12

42

11

6

917

40

10

39

9

38

8

38

7

37

7

36

6

31

1

7

916

36

6

35

5

34

3

33

2

32

D 1

8

915

60

30

59

29

E 58

27

57

26

56

25

55

F 24

9

914

G 54

24

H 54

23

53

22

51

21

I 50

19

49

18

10

913

18

48

17

47

16

46

15

45

14

43

13

42

11

912

12

41

11

41

10

39

9

38

7

37

6

36

35

4

34

K 3

33

2

31

1

30

12

911

6

35

J 5

13

910

60

30

60

29

59

L 28

58

27

57

26

55

25

14

909

24

53

23

53

22

52

22

51

21

50

19

49

46

N 16

45

15

44

14

44

15

908

18

48

17

47

M 16

16

907

13

42

12

41

11

40

10

39

O 9

39

8

38

17

906

37

7

36

5

35

4

33

3

33

2

32

2

18

905

31

1

31

60

29

59

28

57

27

56

26

56

19

904

55

25

55

24

53

23

52

21

51

20

50

20

20

903

P 49

19

49

19

48

17

47

16

45

15

44

14

21

902

13

43

13

42

12

41

11

40

9

39

8

38

22

901

7

37

7

36

6

36

5

35

4

33

3

32

900

Q 2

R 31

1

S 30

60

30

59

29

58

28

57

27

23

16

30

48

54

8

26

43

56

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 117

Persons Mentioned Vessels

A

Shi Xun gui

Year Month Phase Ganzhi Day

師訇簋

1

2

3

27

伯 益 井 榮 定 俗 公 伯 伯 伯 父

21

x

豆閉簋

2

2

15

7

?

x

B Wei he

衛盉

3

3

2

39

13

x

C Wei ding

衛鼎

5

1

1

47

2

x x

Dou Bi gui (?)

曹鼎

7

10

2

?

?

E Gengji ding

庚季鼎

?

5

2

7

11

F Qisheng Lu yi

齊甥魯彝

8

12

1

24

1

D Jue Cao ding

G Wei ding

衛鼎

9

1

4

17

27

H Ji gui

即簋

?

3

1

57

4

I Guaibo gui

乖伯簋

9

9

?

51

2

J Zou gui

走簋

12

3

3

27

23

K Yong yu

永盂

12

?

1

4

2

L Wang gui

朢簋

13

6

1

35

8

M Jue Cao ding

曹鼎

N Shi Kuifu ding 師奎父鼎 O Shi Shan pan

士山盤

P Zouma Xiu pan 走馬休盤 Q Shen gui R

Pengbo Cheng gui

S Shi Hu gui

申簋 倗伯爯簋 師虎簋

x

x x

x x

x x x x

15

5

2

19

4

?

6

2

27

12

16

9

2

21

13

20

1

3

11

22

x

?

1

1

4

3

x

23

?

1

34

?

x

?

4

2

34

5

x

x

x

118 · Maria Khayutina Table 4.3 King Yih (r. 899–873 B.C.) Inscriptions from Years 1–8 Yr

B.C.

1

Months 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

899

26

55

25

54

24

A 53

23

53

22

52

21

51

2

898

20

50

B 19

49

18

48

17

57

16

56

16

45

3

897

15

45

14

43

13

42

11

41

10

40

10

40

4

896

39

C 9

38

7

37

6

35

5

34

4

34

3

5

895

33

3

33

2

31

1

30

59

29

58

28

57

6

894

57

27

56

26

55

24

54

23

53

22

52

21

50

20

50

19

49

18

47

17

46

16

44

14

44

13

43

13

42

11

41

10

7

893

51

D 21

8

892

E 45

15

13

9

27

40

Persons Mentioned Vessels

A

Year Month Phase Ganzhi Day

Shi Hu gui

師虎簋

1

6

3

11

21

Hu gui

曶簋

益 公

1

6

3

12

22

B Wang Chen gui 王臣簋

2

3

1

27

9

C Shi Yun gui

師 簋

?

2

1

15

7

D Shi Dao gui

師道簋

?

2

1

24

4

x

E Mu gui

牧簋

7

13

2

51

7

x

井 伯

內 史 吳

x

x

x

x

x

x

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 119

Notes 1

2

3 4

5

6 7

8

9

10 11 12 13

Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou mudi” 山西絳縣橫水西周墓地, Kaogu 考古 2006.7: 16–21; Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou mu fajue jianbao” 山西 絳縣橫水西周墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 文物 2006.8: 4–18. Map 4.1 was made using the Harvard-Fudan China Historical Geographic Information System datasets (downloaded in March 2011) and ESRI Arc Map software. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou mudi,” p. 16. See Xie Yaoting 謝堯亭, “Hengshui mudi yong ding gui li de kaocha” 橫水墓地 用鼎簋禮的考察, paper read at the Conference on Western Zhou Civilization, Qishan 岐山, Shaanxi, 10–12 April 2009. Of this number, 27 tombs are of a much later date. See the interview with Song Jianzhong 宋建忠, director of the Shanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology, in Li Shanghong 李尚鴻, “Shanxi Jiangxian: Xi Zhou Peng guo guojun, furen mu chenshui 3000 nian” 山西絳縣：西周倗國國君、夫人墓沉睡3000年, San Jin dushi bao 三晉都市報, 9 March 2009, quoted from Shanxi xinwen 山西 新聞, at http://www.sx.chinanews.com.cn/news/2009/0309/3110.html, last consulted on 14 October 2010. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou mudi,” p. 18. These include M3 and M3250 (early period), M2, M1006, M1011, M2022, M2158, M2165, M2167 (middle period), M1013, M1016, M2047 (late period), as well as robbed tombs that cannot be dated, including M2064 and M2150. See Xie Yaoting 謝堯亭, “Jinnan diqu Xi Zhou mucang yanjiu” 晉南地區西周墓 藏研究 (Ph.D. diss., 2010), p. 128. For the custom of paired burials, see Jay Xu, “The Cemetery of the Western Zhou Lords of Jin,” Artibus Asiae 56.3/4 (1996): 193–231, esp. 200; Lothar von Falkenhausen, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius (1000–250 BC): The Archaeological Evidence (Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, 2006), esp. pp. 111–23. Cf. Xie Yaoting, “Jinnan diqu Xi Zhou mucang yanjiu,” p. 98; Qin Ying 秦穎 et al., “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengbei Xi Zhou mudi rengu qian hanliang fenxi” 山西絳縣橫北西周墓地人骨鉛含量分析, Wenwu 文物 2009.7: 43–47. For burial customs in ruling lineages of several polities of the Western Zhou period, cf. Falkenhausen, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius, pp. 74–126. The burial pit of M1 is 5.4 m long at the bottom, with an entry ramp 20.6 m long. The dimensions of M2 are 5.5 m and 16.8 m respectively. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou mu fajue jianbao,” pp. 9, 11. Ibid., p. 20, color pl. 6:2. Reed mats covering the inner coffin have been discovered and identified as huangwei in tomb M8 at the cemetery of Ying 應

120 · Maria Khayutina

14

15

16 17

18

state at Pingdingshan 平頂山; see “Henan Pingdingshan Ying guo mudi ba hao mu fajue jianbao” 河南平頂山應國墓地八號墓發掘簡報, Huaxia kaogu 華夏 考古 2007.7: 20–49. Some authors regard lü as a special type of sacrifice, or translate it as “grand.” However, the definition of lü can be substituted by other words with similar meanings, for example, xing 行 “to go, to travel,” zheng 征 “to campaign,” and yu 御 “to drive a carriage.” They appear on relatively small vessels that could easily be taken along on trips. For examples, see Maria Khayutina, “Royal Hospitality and Geopolitical Constitution of the Western Zhou Polity,” T’oung Pao 96.1–3 (2010): 1–73, esp. 36 n. 87. For examples, see Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo, ed., Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng 殷周金文集成 (hereafter Jicheng), 18 vols. (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1984–1994); idem., Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng shiwen 殷周金文集成釋 文, 6 vols. (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2001); Zhang Yachu 張 亞初, Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng yinde 殷周金文集成引得 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2001); electronic CHANT (Chinese Ancient Texts) Database, D.C. Lau Research Centre for Chinese Ancient Texts, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, at http://www.chant.org; and Academia Sinica’s Yin Zhou jinwen ji qingtongqi ziliao ku 殷周金文暨青銅器資料庫 “Digital Archives of Bronze Images and Inscriptions,” at http://www.ihp.sinica.edu.tw/~bronze/. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou mu,” p. 19. The excavators of the Jin cemetery date M32–33 to the later part of middle Western Zhou and M91–92 to the earlier part of late Western Zhou. They suggest that the occupants of M33 (Jin Hou Boma 晉侯僰馬) and of M91 (Jin Hou Xifu 晉侯喜父) were related as father and son; Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo and Beijing daxue Kaoguxue xi, “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jin Hou mudi di san ci fajue” 天馬—曲村遺址北趙晉侯墓地第三次發掘, Wenwu 文物 1994.8: 22–34. Furthermore, they identify Xifu with Jing Hou 靖侯 (r. 858–840 B.C.). I agree with David Nivison and Edward Shaughnessy that King Mu’s reign did not last 55 years; David N. Nivison, “Dates of Western Chou,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 43 (1983): 481–580, esp. 539–53; Edward L. Shaughnessy, Sources of Western Zhou History: Inscribed Bronze Vessels (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), pp. 245–54; Edward L. Shaughnessy, “Chronologies of Ancient China: A Critique of the ‘Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project,’” in Clara Wing-chung Ho, ed., Windows on the Chinese World: Reflections by Five Historians (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2008), p. 24. As the Xian gui 鮮簋 inscription testifies, King Mu reigned at least 34 years (Jicheng #10166: thirty-fourth year, fourth month, after the full moon, day wuxu 戊戌 [55]); the inscription mentions sacrifices performed by the reigning king to King Zhao 昭, i.e., King Mu’s father. The year 956 B.C., regarded by both Nivison and Shaughnessy as the first year of King Mu’s

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 121

19

20 21

22

23 24

25

26

27 28 29

reign, seems acceptable in light of currently available sources. For the end date of King Mu’s reign, see the discussion below. The excavators refer to Li Feng 李峰, “Huanghe liuyu Xi Zhou muzang chutu qingtong liqi de fenqi yu niandai” 黃河流域西周墓葬出土青銅禮器的分期與年 代, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 1988.4: 383–418. For Western publications see Jessica Rawson, “A Bronze Casting Revolution in the Western Zhou and Its Impact on Provincial Industries,” in Robert Maddin, ed., The Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys: Papers from the Second International Conference on the Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys, Zhengzhou, China, 21–26 October 1986 (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1988), pp. 228–38; Falkenhausen, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius, pp. 56–64. Falkenhausen, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius, pp. 56–64. For example, the Jue Cao ding 曹鼎 and fifth-year Wei ding 衛鼎 (Jicheng #2831–2, Dongjia, Qishan county, Shaanxi, fifth year of King Gong). For descriptions and images, see Jessica Rawson, Western Zhou Ritual Bronzes from the Arthur M. Sackler Collections (New York: Arthur M. Sackler Foundation, 1990), vol. IIB, pp. 281–83. Cabriole legs in combination with a flatbottomed body represent a relatively late feature. See Ma Chengyuan 馬承源 , Zhongguo qingtongqi 中國青銅器 (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 1988), pp. 131–32 and 138–140, figs. 25–32; Rawson, Western Zhou Ritual Bronzes, vol. IIA, pp. 104–06. Ma Chengyuan, Zhongguo qingtongqi, pp. 133 and 141–42, figs. 40–43, 50–51. Chu gui 楚簋 (Jicheng #4246, Renbei 任北 , Sufang 蘇坊, Wugong 武功, Shaanxi; LWZ) may serve as another example of this feature. For the image, see Shaanxi sheng Kaogu yanjiusuo et al., Shaanxi chutu Shang Zhou qingtongqi 陝西出土商周青銅器 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1979), p. 122, fig. 4. Pre-Qin literature never mentions an Yi lineage. Geographical descriptions from the Han period or later also do not give a place name Yi from which this lineage could derive its name. Vessels commissioned by Li 盠 and discovered in Lijiacun 李家村 in 1955 (cf. Jicheng #6013, Lijiacun, Meixian 郿縣, Shaanxi) were dedicated to an ancestor Yigong 益公. As the inscription on the Qiu pan 逑盤 from the hoard at Lijiacun discovered in 2003 shows, Li belonged to the Shan 單 lineage and was active during the reigns of Kings Zhao and Mu. However, the temple name Yi Gong does not appear in the Qiu pan inscription. Possibly, it corresponds to Gongshu 公叔, “Duke’s Third-born,” who was active during the reign of King Cheng 成. It is not clear why the name of an ancestor had been changed. One may wonder whether this might be due to the fact that during the reigns of Mu and Gong the byname Yigong became associated with a prominent royal official. Yang Yachang 楊亞長, “Jinwen suo jian zhi Yigong Mugong yu Wugong kao” 金文所見之益公穆公與武公考, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2004.6: 71–75. See Shaughnessy, Sources of Western Zhou History, pp. 254–55. See Nivison, “Dates of Western Chou,” p. 556.

122 · Maria Khayutina 30 31

32

33

34

35

36

37 38

39

Zhang Peiyu 張培瑜, Zhongguo xian Qin shi libiao 中國現秦史歷表 (Jinan: Qi Lu shushe, 1987), p. 52. The Xiu gui 休簋 (Jicheng #3609) is a classic mid-Western Zhou tureen, most similar to the Qiu Wei gui 裘衛簋 (Jicheng #4256). Both pan and gui are dedicated to Xiu’s father Fu Ding 父丁/wen kao ri Ding 文考日丁, which makes evident that they were commissioned by the same person. See Xia Shang Zhou duandai gongcheng zhuanjiazu, Xia Shang Zhou duandai gongcheng: 1996–2000 nian jieduan chengguo baogao, Jianben 夏商周斷代工程： 1996－2000 年階段成果報告，簡本 (Beijing: Shijie tushu chuban gongsi, 2000), p. 36; Li Xueqin 李學勤, “Lun Xi Zhou zhong qi zhi wan qi chu jinwen de zuhe” 論西周中期至晚期初金文的組合, Shehui kexue zhanxian 社會科學戰線 2000.4: 262–67. The year 922 B.C. as the date of the beginning of King Gong’s reign conforms to the reconstructed calendar of King Mu beginning in 956 B.C. as suggested by Shaughnessy (cf. Xia Hanyi 夏含夷, “Cong Zuoce Wu he zai kan Zhou Muwang zai wei nianshu ji niandai wenti” 從作冊吳盉再看周穆 王在位年數及年代問題, in Zhu Fenghan, ed., Xin chu jinwen yu Xi Zhou lishi 新 岀金文與西周歷史 [Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2011], pp. 52–55). See also Appendix, Table 4.1. The Pengbo Cheng gui omits the month number and dates the event only with “first auspiciousness” and the day dingyou 丁酉 (34). This day can be found at the beginning of the second, the fourth, the sixth and the eighth months of 900 B.C. (cf. Appendix, Table 4.2). The alcoholic beverage often translated as “wine” in Sinological literature was in fact a kind of beer; see Thomas Höllmann, Schlafender Lotus, trunkenes Huhn: Kulturgeschichte der chinesischen Küche (München: Beck, 2010), pp. 145–47. See Chen Fangmei 陳芳妹, “Jin hou mudi qingtongqi suo jian xingbie yanjiu de xin xiansuo” 晉侯墓地青銅器所見性別研究的新線索, in Shanghai bowuguan, ed., Jin hou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 晉侯 墓 地出土青 銅 器 國際 學 術研 討 會 論文 集 (S h a n g h a i : S h a n g h a i s hu hu a chubanshe, 2002), pp. 157–96. Beijing daxue Kaoguxue xi and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, “TianmaQucun yizhi Beizhao Jin hou mudi di liu ci fajue” 天馬—曲村遺址北趙晉侯墓 地第六次發掘, Wenwu 文物 2001.8: 4–21, 55, esp. 21. Lothar von Falkenhausen dates the tomb to the mid-tenth century B.C.; see Falkenhausen, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius, p. 211. Falkenhausen, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius, p. 212. Cf. Beijing daxue Kaoguxue xi and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, “TianmaQucun yizhi Beizhao Jin hou mudi di wu ci fajue” 天馬—曲村遺址北趙晉侯墓 地第五次發掘, Wenwu 文物 1995.7: 4–39, esp. 11. Sun Zhanwei 孫戰偉 has recently revealed that da kou zun as exotic objects had some extraordiary functions in Zhou culture. These functions were different in metropolitan Zhou and in Shanxi. In Shanxi, these vessels were mostly associated with burials of females. See Sun Zhanwei, “Xi Zhou tao da

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 123

40

41 42 43 44 45

46

47

48 49

kou zun leixing ji qi fenbu tezheng” 西周陶大口尊類型及其分布特徵, Wenbo 文 博 2010.6: 23–28. Unlike tomb M54, adjacent tombs M52 and M53 both contained many bronze weapons. See Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, “Liulihe Yan guo mudi” 琉璃河燕國墓地, in Su Tianjun 蘇天鈞, ed., Beijing kaogu jicheng 11 北京考古集 成11 (Beijing: Beijing chubanshe, 2000), pp. 3–302, esp. 20–25. Shanxi sheng wenwu gongzuo weiyuanhui and Hongtong xian wenwu ju, “Shanxi Hongtong Yongningpu Xi Zhou muzang,” esp. p. 4. Zhang Sulin 張素琳, “Jinnan diqu Xi Zhou muzang chutan” 晉南地區西周墓葬 初探, Zhongguo lishi wenwu 中國歷史文物 1998.1: 36–43, esp. 40. Shanxi sheng wenwu gongzuo weiyuanhui and Hongtong xian wenwu ju, “Shanxi Hongtong Yongningpu Xi Zhou muzang,” p. 4. For the location and functions of royal residences, see Khayutina, “Royal Hospitality and Geopolitical Constitution of the Western Zhou Polity.” Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo, ed., Zhangjiapo Xi Zhou mudi 張家坡西周墓地 (Beijing: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu chubanshe, 1999), p. 125. Tomb M33 was at least four times larger than the adjacent tomb M16 (ca. 1.2 m x 2.6 m). Judging by its size, it originally should have contained rich burial goods, including bronzes. But during the late Western Zhou period, the ash-pit H90 was dug on top of it, and anything valuable was probably stolen, whereas the damaged pottery vessels were left in place. Hence, the vessels are attributed to the pit, not to the tomb in the archaeological report. See Zhouyuan kaogu gongzuodui, “2002 nian Zhouyuan yizhi (Qijiacun) fajue jianbao.” Zhouyuan kaogu gongzuodui, “Shaanxi Fufeng xian Zhouyuan yizhi Zhuangli Xi Zhou mu fajue jianbao” 陜西扶風縣周原遺址莊李西周墓發掘簡報, Kaogu 考古 2008.12: 3–22, esp. 17, 20. Falkenhausen, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius, p. 212. Cf. Katheryn M. Linduff, Emma C. Bunker and Wu En, “An Archaeological Overview,” in Ancient Bronzes of the Eastern Eurasian Steppes from the Arthur M. Sackler Collections (New York: Arthur M. Sackler Foundation, 1997), pp. 21–22; Wu’enyuesitu 烏恩岳斯圖, Beifang caoyuan kaoguxue wenhua yanjiu 北 方草原考古學文化研究 (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2007), pp. 61–93; Yang Zemeng 楊澤蒙, “Zhukaigou wenhua yinsu fenxi ji yu zhoulin diqu kaoguxue wenhua de guanxi” 朱開溝文化因素分析及與周鄰地區考古學文化的關係, in Tian Guangjin 田廣金 et al., eds., Daihai kaogu (2)—Zhong Ri Daihai diqu kaocha yanjiu baogao ji 岱海考古（二）— 中日岱海地區考察研究報告集 (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2001), pp. 411–53. For the full archaeological excavation report, see Neimenggu zizhiqu wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Eerduosi bowuguan, Zhukaigou: Qingtongqi shidai zaoqi yizhi fajue baogao 朱開溝：青銅器時 代早期遺址發掘報告 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2000). For the geographical spread and chronological span of the Zhukaigou culture, see Jiang Gang 蔣剛, “Shanxi, Shaanbei ji Nei Menggu zhongnan bu Xia Shang Xi Zhou shiqi

124 · Maria Khayutina qingtong wenhua de yanjin” 山西陜北及內蒙古中南部夏商西周時期青銅文化的 演進, Zhongguo lishi wenwu 中國歷史文物 2008.5: 51–66, esp. maps in figs. 1, 3,

50 51

52 53

54

55

56

57 58

59

60

4, 7. Liu Li and Chen Xingcan date the Zhukaigou culture alternatively to ca. 2000–1400 B.C.; see Liu Li and Chen Xingcan, The Archaeology of China from the Late Paleolithic to the Early Bronze Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), p. 312. See Neimenggu zizhiqu wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Eerduosi bowuguan, Zhukaigou, p. 2. For the periodization and correspondences between the archaeological traditions of the Central Plains and other regions, see Roderick B. Campbell, Archaeology of the Chinese Bronze Age from Erlitou to Anyang (Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, 2014). See Liu Li and Chen Xingcan, The Archaeology of China, p. 320. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, “Shaanxi Shenmu Xinhua yizhi 1999 nian fajue jianbao” 陜西神木新華遺址1999年發掘簡報, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2002.1: 7; Yan Hongdong 閻宏東, “Shenmu Shimao yizhi taoqi fenxi” 神木石 峁遺址陶器分析, Wenbo 文博 2010.6: 3–9. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiuyuan, Yulin shi wenwu kaogu kantan gongzuodui and Shenmu xian wenbenju, “Shaanxi Shenmu xian Shimao yizhi” 陜西神木 縣石峁遺址, Kaogu 考古 2013.7: 15–24. For comparison, the Erlitou settlement occupied up to 300 ha. The early Shang city in Zhengzhou, dated to the Erligang period, enclosed an area of 13 km 2 . See Campbell, Archaeology of the Chinese Bronze Age from Erlitou to Anyang, pp. 24, 69. Ji Faxi 吉發習 and Ma Huiqi 馬輝圻, “Nei Menggu Zhungeer qi Dakou yizhi de diaocha yu shijue” 內蒙古準格爾旗大口遺址的調查與試掘 , Kaogu 考古 1979.4: 308–19. Wang Kelin 王克林 and Hai Jindong 海金東, “Shanxi Fenyang xian Yudaohe yizhi diaocha” 山西汾陽縣峪道河遺址調查, Kaogu 考古 1983.11: 961–65, 972. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Shanxi Jiangxian Liuzhuang Xia Shang yizhi fajue baogao” 山西絳縣柳莊夏商遺址發掘報告, Huaxia kaogu 華夏考古 2010.2: 12–23, 43. See Hou Yi 侯毅, “Cong Jin hou mu tongqi kan Jin wenhua de xingcheng yu fazhan” 從晉侯墓銅器看晉文化的形成與發展, in Shanghai bowuguan, ed., Jin hou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 晉侯墓地出土青銅 器國際學術研討會論文集 (Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe, 2002), pp. 114–31, esp. 119; Lin Tianren 林天人, Xian Qin San Jin quyu wenhua yanjiu 先 秦三晉區域文化研究 (Taibei: Taiwan Guji chubanshe, 2003), p. 163. The borrowing took place relatively late, in Dongxiafeng Phase III; see Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo, ed., Xiaxian Dongxiafeng 夏縣 東下馮 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1988), pp. 95–96; Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo Shanxi gongzuodui, “Jinnan Erlitou wenhua yizhi de diaocha yu shijue” 晉南二里頭文化遺址的調查與試掘, Kaogu 考古 1980.3: 203–10, 278.

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 125 61 62

63

64

65

66 67

68

69 70

Liu Li and Chen Xingcan, State Formation in Early China (London: Duckworth, 2003), pp. 103–05. Liu and Chen, State Formation in Early China, p. 105; Ma Baochun 馬保春, “You Jinnan Erligang qi zao Shang wenhua de fenbu lun qi jinru chuanbo” 由 晉南二里岡期早商文化的分布論其進入傳播, Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 2004.6: 23–33; Wu Junhua 武俊華, “Jinnan Shang shiqi kaogu yicun de xiangguan wenti” 晉南商時期考古遺存的相關問題, Cangsang 滄桑 2010.2: 84–85. See Jinzhong kaogudui, “Shanxi Taiyuan Baiyan yizhi diyi didian fajue jianbao” 山西太原白燕遺址第一地點發掘簡報, Wenwu 文物 1989.3: 1–21, figs. 12, 16, and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, “Shanxi Tunliu Xiligao yizhi fajue” 山西屯留西李高遺址發掘, Wenwu chunqiu 文物春秋 2009.3: 17, fig. 3. For the geographic spread and chronological span of the Baiyan culture, see Jiang Gang 蔣剛, “Lun Baiyan wenhua ji qi xiangguan wenti” 論白燕文化及其相關問 題, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2009.5: 27–37, esp. maps in figs. 1, 3, 4, 7–10. See Qin Xiaoli 秦小麗, “Jin xinan diqu Erlitou wenhua dao Erligang wenhua de taoqi yanbian yanjiu” 晉西南地區二里頭文化到二里岡文化的陶器演變研究, Kaogu 考古 2006.2: 63, table III. Lü Zhirong 呂智榮, “Lijiaya gu chengzhi AF1 jianzhu yizhi chutan” 李家崖古 城址 AF1建築遺址初探 , in Zhou Qin wenhua yanjiu 周秦文化研究 (Xi’an: Shaanxi renmin chubanshe, 1998), pp. 116–23. Lü Zhirong, “Shaanxi Ansai xian Xiguaqucun yizhi shijue jianbao,” pp. 10–17. Xibei daxue Wenhua yichan kaogu yanjiu zhongxin et al., “Shaanxi Chunhua xian Zaoshugounao yizhi xian Zhou shiqi yicun,” pp. 20–34; Xibei daxue Wenhua yichan kaogu yanjiu zhongxin et al., “Shaanxi Chunhua xian Zaoshugounao yizhi 2007 nian fajue jianbao,” pp. 55–66; Wang Zhen 王振 and Chen Honghai 陳洪海, “Shaanxi Chunhua Zaoshugounao yizhi 2008 niandu fajue de zhuyao shouhuo” 陜西淳化棗樹溝腦遺址2008年度發掘的主要 收穫, Xibei daxue xuebao 西北大學學報 2010.6: 32–36. See Lü Zhirong 呂智榮, “Lijiaya wenhua yinsu fenxi ji qi xiangguan wenti” 李 家崖文化因素分析及其相關問題, Shaanxi lishi bowuguan guankan 陝西歷史博物 館館刊2001.8: 363–71; Wu’enyuesitu, Beifang caoyuan, pp. 142–73; Cai Yahong 蔡亞紅, “Lijiaya wenhua yanjiu” 李家崖文化研究 (M.A. thesis: Dongbei daxue, 2008). For the geographic spread and chronological span of the Lijiaya culture, see Jiang Gang, “Shanxi, Shaanbei ji Nei Menggu zhongnan bu Xia Shang Xi Zhou shiqi qingtong wenhua de yanjin,” esp. maps 9–11; Linduff et al., “An Archaeological Overview,” pp. 22–25; Wo Haowei 沃浩偉, “Jin Shaan gaoyuan Shang Zhou shiqi qingtongqi fenqun yanjiu” 晉陜高原商周時期青銅 器分群研究, in Yang Jianhua 楊建華 and Jiang Gang 蔣剛, eds., Gongyuan qian er qian ji de Jin Shaan Gaoyuan yu Yanshan nan bei 公元前2千紀的晉陜高原與 燕山南北 (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2008), pp. 56–67. See Jinzhong kaogudui, “Shanxi Loufan, Lishi, Liulin san xian kaogu diaocha,” pp. 31–39. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, “2004 Liulin Gaohong Shang dai hangtu jizhi

126 · Maria Khayutina

71 72

73

74 75

76 77

78

79

80

81

shijue jianbao” 2004 柳林高紅商代夯土基址試掘簡報, in Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, ed., San Jin kaogu (3) 三晉考古（3）(Taiyuan: Shanxi renmin chubanshe, 2006), pp. 116–27. See Yang Shaoshun 楊紹舜, “Shanxi Liulin xian Gaohong faxian Shang dai tongqi” 山西柳林縣高紅發現商代銅器, Kaogu 考古 1981.3: 211–12. In particular, the Hengbei san zu weng seem to derive from Gaohong guan jars with narrow rims and wide shoulders, to which “breast-shaped” hollow legs, also witnessed in Gaohong, were attached; see Figure 4.8A, B, D–F. Both Hengbei san zu weng and Gaohong guan and da kou zun are decorated with two registers of ribbons filled with comb-patterned triangles (Figure 4.8B, I, K). See Jiang Gang 蔣剛 and Yang Jianhua 楊建華, “Shaanbei Jin xibeinan liu Huanghe liang an chutu qingtongqi yicun de zuhe yanjiu” 陜北晉西北南流黃 河兩岸出土青銅器遺存的組合研究, Wenwu shijie 文物世界 2007.1: 11–19. See Yang Shaoshun, “Shanxi Liulin xian Gaohong faxian Shang dai tongqi,” pp. 211–12. Cf., for example, Li Boqian 李伯謙, “Zhongguo qingtong wenhua de fazhan jieduan yu fenqu xitong” 中國青銅文化的發展階段與分區系統, Huaxia kaogu 華夏考古 1990.2: 82–91. Cf. Zhang Tian’en 張天恩, “Jinnan yi faxian de Xi Zhou guozu chuxi” 晉南已 發現的西周國族初析, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2010.1: 50–56. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo Dahekou mudi lianhe kaogudui, “Shanxi Yicheng xian Dahekou Xi Zhou mudi” 山西翼城縣大河口西周墓地, Kaogu 考古 2011.7: 9–18. The article gives only a very short summary of the excavation and provides more detail about two large tombs. This can be argued based on similarities between the bronze vessels from Dahekou and from tombs M113 and M114 at Tianma-Qucun. This however goes beyond the scope of the present study. Xie Yaoting identifies 53 early Western Zhou tombs among the ca. 240 tombs excavated during 2004–2005. See Xie Yaoting, “Jinnan diqu Xi Zhou mucang yanjiu,” p. 85. See Jiang Gang and Yang Jianhua, “Shaanbei Jin xibeinan liu Huanghe liang an chutu qingtongqi yicun de zuhe yanjiu,” p. 15; Tian Jianwen 田建文, “Lingshi Jingjie Shang mu yu Shanxi Shang dai wanqi kaoguxue wenhua” 靈 石旌介商墓與山西商代晚期考古學文化, Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 2009.1: 39–44, 61, esp. 42; Wo Haowei, “Jin Shaan gaoyuan Shang Zhou shiqi qingtongqi,” pp. 66–67. See Yang Jianhua 楊建華, “Jibei Zhou dai qingtong wenhua chutan” 冀北周代 青銅文化初探, Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 2000.5: 22–30; Yang Jianhua, “Shang Zhou shiqi Zhongguo beifang yejin qu de xingcheng—Shang Zhou shiqi beifang qingtongqi de bijiao yanjiu” 商周時期中國北方冶金區的形成— 商周時期北方青銅器的比較研究, Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu 邊疆考古研究 2007.6: 165–97. Decisive for this new date is the comparison with the assemblage of bronze weapons in the tomb discovered at Baifu 白浮 near Beijing (see Beijing

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 127

82

[128.104.46.206] Project MUSE (2024-03-02 03:18 GMT) UW-Madison Libraries

83

84 85 86 87

88 89

90

shi wenwu guanlichu, “Beijing diqu de you yi zhongyao kaogu shouhuo— Changping Baifu Xi Zhou muguo mu de xin qishi” 北京地區的又一重要考古收 穫 — 昌平白浮西周木槨墓的新啟示, Kaogu 考古 1976.4: 246–58, 228.) This tomb also included bronze ritual vessels and pottery li-tripods of the early to mid-Western Zhou period. During the archaeological survey conducted in 1982, pottery collected at the Gaohong settlement was attributed to two periods: an earlier one that could not be dated more precisely due to the lack of Central Plain comparisons, and a later one, corresponding to the Spring and Autumn to Warring States period (see Jinzhong kaogudui, “Shanxi Loufan, Lishi, Liulin san xian kaogu diaocha,” p. 39). The three charcoal samples analyzed by C14 method date either from the late Shang, or from the late Spring and Autumn period (see Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo Keji shiyan yanjiu zhongxin Tan shisi shiyanshi, “Fangshexing tansu ceding niandai baogao (ershisan)” 放 射性碳素測定年代報告（二十三）, Kaogu 考古 2006.7: 65–67, esp. 65). It is not clear whether the settlement was abandoned for a longer period of time between these two extremes, as it has only been surveyed but not systematically excavated as of yet. The tomb of Jin Hou Xifu included a bronze li vessel that the Jin ruler made for “the Mother of Peng” 倗母. Besides, tomb M1016 at Hengbei, identified as a tomb of the current head of the Peng lineage, included an inscribed bronze commissioned by Jinsheng 晉生(甥), testifying that the commissioner was an affinal relative of the Jin lineage. Other inscriptions witness about marital relations between Peng and Rui 芮. See Xie Yaoting, “Jinnan diqu Xi Zhou mucang yanjiu,” p. 129 with further references. For the meaning of the kinship term sheng see Maria Khayutina, “Marital Alliances and Affinal Relatives (sheng 甥 and hungou 婚購) in the Society and Politics of Zhou China in the Light of Bronze Inscriptions,” Early China 37 (2014): 1–61, esp. 22–25. See Xie Yaoting, “Hengshui mudi yong ding gui li de kaocha.” Pengzhong ding 倗仲鼎 (Jicheng #2462). The vessel is not preserved, but a rubbing is held at the Institute of Archaeology in Beijing. Peng X-sheng ding 生鼎 (Jicheng #2524). The character 妃 in a woman’s name should not be read fei “concubine,” but jĭ 己, as in the Wang li 王鬲 (Jicheng #645), dedicated by the king to Fan Ji 番妃. Ji 妃 (己) was the surname of the Fan and several other lineages. Guo yu 國語 (Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1935), 16 (“Zheng yu” 鄭語), p. 183. Guo yu, 16 (“Zheng yu”), p. 183, commentary. See also Chen Pan 陳槃, Chunqiu dashibiao lieguo juexing ji cunmiebiao zhuanyi 春秋大事表列國爵姓及 存滅表譔異 (Taibei: Academia Sinica, 1969), “Chi di” 赤狄, 6.554b–6a. See Wang Guowei 王國維, “Guifang Kun Yi Xianyun kao” 鬼方昆夷獫狁考, in Peng Lin 彭林, ed., Guantang jilin 觀堂集林 (1923; repr., Shijiazhuang: Hebei jiaoyu chubanshe, 2001), pp. 296–307, esp. 300. Wang Guowei also suggested

128 · Maria Khayutina

91

92

93 94 95

96 97 98

99

100 101 102 103

104

that this surname had such variants as Kui/Tui 嬇/潰/隤 and Huai 懷. The connection between the Guifang and the Kui/Tui 嬇 / 潰 /隤 surname is confirmed by a number of Warring States to Han-period texts. See Wang Yuzhe 王玉哲, “Guifang kao” 鬼方考 (1945), in Wang Yuzhe, Gu shi jilin 古史 集林 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2002), pp. 289–308, esp. 297. No textual evidence for the connection between Guifang and either Kui/Gui 隗/媿 or Huai 懷 surnames is available. Wang Guowei 王國維, Jinben Zhushu jinian shuzheng 今本竹書紀年疏證, in Fang Shiming 方詩銘 and Wang Xiuling 王修齡, Guben Zhushu jinian jizheng 古本竹書紀年輯證 (rev. 2nd ed., Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2008), pp. 202–89, esp. 232 (Wu Ding, 32–34); Fan Ye 范曄, Hou Han shu 後漢書 (Zhonghua shuju ed.), 87 (“Xi Qiang zhuan” 西羌傳), p. 2870. See Shima Kunio 島邦男, Yinxu buci yanjiu 殷墟卜辭研究, trans. Pu Maozuo 濮茅左 and Gu Weiliang 顧偉良 (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2006), pp. 802–04; Wang Yuzhe, “Guifang kao buzheng” 鬼方考補正, in Wang Yuzhe, Gu shi jilin, pp. 309–17. Wang Yuzhe, “Guifang kao buzheng,” pp. 310–12. See Shima Kunio, Yinxu buci yanjiu, pp. 802–04 with further references. Fang Shiming 方詩銘 and Wang Xiuling 王修齡, Guben Zhushu jinian jizheng 古本竹書紀年輯證 (rev. 2nd ed., Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2008), p. 232 (Wu Ding, 32–34). Liu Yunxing 劉運興, “Wu Ding fa Guifang jinjun luxian ji qita” 武丁伐鬼方進 軍路線及其他, Yindu xuekan 殷都學刊 1987.2: 22–27. See Shima Kunio, Yinxu buci yanjiu, pp. 799–800. For 荆, see, for example, Guobo gui 過伯簋 (Jicheng #3907). 邢 was in fact written simply as 井 in early Western Zhou inscriptions, e.g., Mai ding 麥鼎 (Jicheng #2706). For the transcription of the character as xing, see Zang Kehe 藏克和 and Wang Ping 王平, Shuowen jiezi xin ding 說文解字新訂 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2002), p. 926. This character is absent in bronze inscriptions, but, by analogy with the two others, it would likely be written with the jing 井 phonetic as well. See Mu Tianzi zhuan 穆天子傳 (Sibu beiyao 四部備要 ed.), 1.1. Fang Shiming and Wang Xiuling, Guben Zhushu jinian jizheng, p. 235 (Wu Yi, 35). Fan Ye, Hou Han shu, 87, p. 2871; cf. Fang Shiming and Wang Xiuling, Guben Zhushu jinian jizheng, p. 34. See Li Feng, Landscape and Power in Early China: The Crisis and Fall of the Western Zhou, 1045–771 BC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 54 with further references. See Jiang Gang and Yang Jianhua, “Shaanbei Jin xibeinan liu Huanghe liang an chutu qingtongqi yicun de zuhe yanjiu,” pp. 14–15. Jiang and Yang suggest too (p. 15) that Zhou influence can be seen in the decor on some bronze vessels.

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 129 105 Both inscriptions of Yu, discussed below, are conventionally dated to the reign of King Kang 康. I suggest revising this date in Maria Khayutina, “Reflections and Uses of the Past in Chinese Bronze Inscriptions from ca. 11th to 5th centuries BC: The Memory of the Conquest of Shang and the First Kings of Zhou,” in John Baines, Tim Rood, Henriette van der Blom and Samuel Chen, eds., Historical Consciousness and Historiography (3000 B.C.– A.D. 600), forthcoming. The date in one of Yu’s inscriptions fits the calendar of King Mu (see Table 4.1). 106 Da Yu ding 大盂鼎 (Jicheng #2837). 107 The word rong designates not only the Rong group of peoples, but can also signify “warriors.” Hence, Edward Shaughnessy has previously suggested that Yu acted as “overseer of the Supervisors of the Military”; see Edward L. Shaughnessy, “Western Zhou History,” in Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy, eds., The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 320. Most recently, he has suggested reading Rong as a person’s name; see Edward L. Shaughnessy, “The Zhou Dynasty and the Birth of the Son of Heaven,” in Maria Khayutina, ed., Qin—The Eternal Emperor and His Terracotta Warriors (Zürich: NZZ Libro, 2013), p. 22. 108 Xiao Yu ding 小盂鼎 (Jicheng #2839). 109 Wu Chenglu 吳掁彔, “Baode xian xin faxian de Yin dai qingtongqi” 保德縣新 發現的殷代青銅器, Wenwu 文物 1972.4: 62–64; Zhang Wenli 張文立 and Lin Yun 林沄, “Heidouzui leixing qingtongqi zhong de xi lai yinsu” 黑豆嘴類型青 銅器中的西來因素, Kaogu 考古 2004.5: 65–73; Wang Yonggang 王永剛, Cui Fengguang 崔風光 and Li Yanli 李延麗, “Shaanxi Ganquan xian chutu wan Shang qingtongqi” 陜西甘泉縣出土晚商青銅器, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2007.3: 11–22. 110 Yang Shaoshun, “Shanxi Liulin xian Gaohong faxian Shang dai tongqi,” p. 212. 111 The archaeological report mentions unusual paired bronze bushings for fixing wheels. See Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou mu fajue jianbao,” p. 12. 112 Ma Baochun 馬保春, “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou Peng guo da mu de xiangguan lishi dili wenti” 山西絳縣橫水西周倗國大墓的相關歷史地理問題, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2007.6: 37–43. 113 Mu Tianzi zhuan, 1.1. 114 Mu Tianzi zhuan, 1.2, 4.3. 115 Ma Mingzhi 馬明誌, “Xicha wenhua chubu yanjiu” 西岔文化初步研究, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2009.5: 38–45. 116 In particular, its information about marching distances between the stations of King Mu’s journey is obviously wrong. 117 Chen Zhaorong 陳昭容, “Cong qingtongqi mingwen kan liang Zhou HanHuai diqu hunyin guanxi” 從青銅器銘文看兩周漢淮地區婚姻關係, Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 歷史語言研究所集刊 75.4 (2004): 672.

130 · Maria Khayutina 118 For copper and tin deposits, see Peter J. Golas, Science and Civilisation in China, Volume V: Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Part XIII: Mining (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 62–63, 92–93. For the availability of salt, see Liu and Chen, State Formation in Early China, pp. 44–51. For horse trade, see the Pengsheng gui 倗生簋 (also known as Gebo gui 格伯簋; Jicheng #4262). 119 See Pengsheng gui (Jicheng #4262). For the reading of the name of Lubo (usually transcribed as Gebo), see Ulrich Lau, Quellenstudien zur Landvergabe und Bodenübertragung in der westlichen Zhou-Dynastie (1045?–771 v. Chr.), Monumenta Serica Monograph Series 41 (Sankt Augustin: Monumenta Serica, 1999), pp. 327–34. Some authors, however, argue that members of the Zhou royal house did not use clan signs and that this sign was used by members of a Yun 妘-surnamed lineage; see Lau, ibid., pp. 332–33. 120 Although names with a fu 父 suffix often represent personal names (e.g., Yifu 義父), names such as Bo Liangfu 伯梁父 and Bo Weifu 伯衛父 include names of lineages to which these persons belonged. By analogy, Zhong Pengfu 仲倗 父 or Zai Pengfu 宰倗父 were probably members of the Peng lineage. 121 Hushu Hu Ji gui 㝬叔㝬姬簋 (Jicheng #4066), commissioned by the Thirdborn of Hu 㝬叔 and his spouse Née Ji of Hu 㝬姬 for their daughter the Firstborn Née Kui/Gui 伯媿. Her husband Chu 楚 was introduced at a royal audience by the Second-born Pengfu 仲倗父; see Chu gui 楚簋 (Jicheng #4246). 122 See note 25 above. 123 Wang gui 朢簋 (Jicheng #4272). 124 Yang Bojun 楊伯峻, Chunqiu Zuo zhuan zhu 春秋左傳注 (Beijing: Xinhua shudian, 1981), p. 421 (Xi 僖 24). 125 See Shang shu zheng yi 尚書正義 (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 1990), 16.3 (“Gu ming” 顧命), p. 272; 19.1 (“Kang wang zhi gao” 康王之誥), p. 285; and 19.2 (“Bi ming” 畢命), p. 287. Note that only the “Gu ming” chapter is also found in the “new text” Shang shu. 126 Shi Huo gui 史 簋 (Jicheng #4030); Xian gui 獻簋 (Jicheng #4205). 127 Sima Qian 司馬遷, Shi ji 史記 (Zhonghua shuju ed.), 44 (“Wei shijia” 魏世家), p. 1835. 128 Bi Xian gui 畢鮮簋 (Jicheng #4061). Compared with other inscriptions, Xian seems to be a personal name. 129 See Chen Pan, Chunqiu dashibiao lieguo, p. 330. 130 Wu Hu ding 吳虎鼎, discovered at Xujiazhai 徐家寨, Shendian 申店, Chang’an 長安 county, Shaanxi; see Mu Xiaojun 穆曉軍, “Shaanxi Chang’an xian chutu Xi Zhou Wu Hu ding” 陝西長安縣出土西周吳虎鼎, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文 物 1998.3: 69–71. This inscription documents the transfer of land to Wu Hu 吳虎, who is supposed to have lived near the place of the vessel’s discovery. His fields bordered the lands of Pang Jiang 姜 to the west and those of the Bi people 畢人 to the south. This corresponds well with the location of Bi to the south of Han Chang’an and close to Du 杜. Another late Western Zhou vessel dedicated to the great-great-grandfather of the commissioner Yigong

The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng · 131

131 132 133

134 135 136 137

138 139 140 141

142 143

144

145

was found during the Song dynasty in Zhouzhi 盩厔 county, though the exact place of its discovery is unknown. Although the name of the lineage is not stated, this may be near another location of Bi “thirty li west of Feng.” Guaibo gui (Jicheng #4331). Li Feng, Landscape and Power, pp. 183–85. Yigong’s campaign against Mei’ao and the coming to court of Guaibo were related, but Guai and Mei’ao were not necessarily two designations of the same polity, as many scholars believe. The inscription does not make clear that Guai and Mei’ao were the same. Yong yu 永盂 (Jicheng #10322). Cf. Wu Zhenfeng 吳鎮烽, “Jinwen yanjiu zhaji” 金文研究劄記, Renwen zazhi 人文雜誌 1981.2: 93–96, esp. 93. Li Feng, Bureaucracy and the State in Early China: Governing the Western Zhou (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 122–33. is an adjective describing fu 巿, kneepads, which differed in color Zai (?) and served as indicators of status in the Western Zhou hierarchy of officials. The compilers of the Jicheng suggest reading it as zi 緇 “black.” Xun gui 訇簋 (Jicheng #4321). The Xun gui was found in a hoard together with a number of vessels cast by the Third-born of Mi, e.g., Mishu Shi Cha gui 弭叔師察簋 (Jicheng #4253). Wang Chen gui 王臣簋 (Jicheng #4268). See Wu Zhenfeng 吳鎮烽 and Wang Donghai 王東海, “Wang Chen gui de chutu yu xiangguan tongqi de shidai” 王臣簋的出土與相關銅器的時代, Wenwu 文物 1980.5: 63–66. Note that alien “king’s servants” were established already during King Kang’s reign as suggested by the Da Yu ding inscription quoted above. “Hu gui gai ming zuotan jiyao” 虎簋蓋銘座談紀要, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文 物 1997.3: 81–83. Hu was the same person as shi Hu 師虎 (cf. Shi Hu gui 師虎簋); Edward L. Shaughnessy, “New Sources of Western Zhou History: Recent Discoveries of Inscribed Bronze Vessels,” Early China 26/27 (2001–2002): 73–98, esp. 71–78. Mibo Shi Ji gui 弭伯師耤簋 (Jicheng #4257). The inscription is dated to the eighth month, first auspiciousness, wuyin 戊寅 (day 15), but the year is not identified. The day wuyin occurred at the beginning of the eighth month only once during the reign of King Gong, namely during his fifth year (918 B.C.). A later date (e.g., 892 B.C.) is less likely, because the inscription mentions Rongbo 榮伯, who was active mostly at the beginning of King Gong’s reign. The place where the Mibo Shi Ji gui was discovered, Xincun 新村, Lantian 藍田, Shaanxi, lies in the Wangyu 網峪 River valley about 190 km from the Zhouyuan, 65 km from Zongzhou, and 45 km from Sipo. The Wangyu River flows parallel to the Tangyu 湯峪 River, where the Yong yu was found. They are separated from each other by about 30 km. Judging from the locations of vessels cast for members of the Mi lineage, they guarded several passages

132 · Maria Khayutina

146

147

148 149 150 151 152 153 154

155

156 157

through the Qinling Range; see Shi Xun gui 師訇簋 (Jicheng #4342), Xun gui 訇簋 (Jicheng #4321), Mishu xu 弭叔盨 (Jicheng #4385) and other vessels of Mishu from Sipo, Lantian county. Shi Dao gui 師道簋 (Neimenggu zizhiqu wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo et al., Xiaoheishigou, p. 369); transcription by Li Chaoyuan 李朝遠, “Shi Dao gui mingwen kaoshi” 師道簋銘文考釋, in Li Chaoyuan, Qingtongqixue bu ji 青銅 器學步集 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2007), pp. 243–50. The Shi Dao gui and other bronzes from this tomb find parallels with objects dated to the first half of the ninth century B.C. Therefore, it is likely that this vessel was made during the reign of King Yih. During the latter reign, only the second month of 893 B.C. included a day dinghai at the beginning of the month (the fourth day of the month). Alternatively, the nineteenth year of King Gong (903 B.C.) is possible. In this case, dinghai was the sixth day of the second month. An earlier date (914 B.C.) is less plausible because of the stylistic features. Yanhou Zhi ding 匽侯旨鼎 (Jicheng #2628). Robert L.Thorp, China in the Early Bronze Age: Shang Civilization (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), p. 57. Cf. Xiaoheishigou, p. 378, fig. 306, and Wu’enyuesitu, Beifang caoyuan, p. 152, fig. 68. Peng Mian gui 倗丏簋 (Jicheng #3667). For more examples in inscriptions, see Khayutina, “Marital Alliances.” Chris Gosden, Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Contact from 5000 BC to the Present (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Due to space constraints, comparative analysis of the contemporaneous tombs of Peng and Jin cannot be provided here, but will be published elsewhere. Colin Renfrew, “Introduction: Peer-Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change,” in Colin Renfrew, ed., Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 1–18, esp. 8. Source: Zhang Peiyu, Zhongguo xian Qin shi libiao, pp. 48–53 (modified). King Gong’s calendar had to include two first months in the initial year.

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History: Inscribed Bronze Vessels, 2000–2010 Edward L. SHAUGHNESSY The University of Chicago

In 2002, I published a survey of inscribed bronze vessels of the Western Zhou period that had appeared in the course of the preceding decade.1 The timing was appropriate for at least a couple of reasons. First, the 1990s marked the first flowering of the new Chinese economic expansion; with the dramatic increase in construction activity and with newfound wealth in China came a concomitant rise in the number of ancient bronze vessels taken out of China’s earth. Although much of this excavation was unfortunately undertaken by tomb robbers, and the individual bronzes thus lost their archaeological context, nevertheless many of them appeared on the antiques markets and eventually made their way into museums and/or the scholarly press. Second, the decade also witnessed the five-year long XiaShang-Zhou Chronology Project (1995–2000). This multidisciplinary inquiry into ancient China’s political chronology was funded by the Chinese government at levels hitherto unimagined for humanistic and social science research, and it resulted in numerous discoveries and publications. The chronology of the Western Zhou period, based to a very large extent on the inscriptions in bronze vessels of the period, was perhaps the most important topic explored by this project. The decade witnessed extensive archaeological excavations at several major Zhou states, as well as the discovery of several fully-dated bronze inscriptions that were the subject of much discussion in the context of the “Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project.”2 The ten years that have just passed have brought several more extensive archaeological campaigns, several of them unearthing sites and cemeteries of heretofore unknown states within the Zhou realm, as well as many, many more bronze vessels from throughout the Western Zhou period, some of them with truly startling inscriptions. Of these, only two

134 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

have yet attracted much notice in the West—the Bin Gong xu e公盨, purchased in the summer of 2002 by the Poly Art Museum (Baoli yishu bowuguan 保利藝術博物館) of Beijing, 3 and the twenty-seven vessels unearthed from a cache of the Shan 單 family at Meixian 眉縣, Shaanxi, in January 2003.4 The inscription on the Bin Gong xu begins by invoking the hydraulic works of the legendary culture hero and putative founder of the Xia dynasty Yu the Great 大禹 and includes language strikingly similar to passages from the Shang shu 尚書. Its literary form is quite unprecedented within the entire inventory of early bronze inscriptions and will surely claim an important place in all future histories of the development of Chinese literature. The Meixian Shan-family cache, discovered by local farmers, may be of even more wide-reaching significance. It features three different very lengthy inscriptions, including one (on the Qiu pan 逑盤) that provides a sketch history of almost the entire Western Zhou period, from the founders Wen Wang 文王 and Wu Wang 武王 down to the penultimate ruler Xuan Wang 宣王, and two other inscriptions (on the Fortysecond Year Qiu ding 逑鼎 and Forty-third Year Qiu ding) that are dated to the final years of Xuan Wang’s lengthy reign. Among other notable aspects of these latter two inscriptions, their full-date notations have already served decisively to undermine the results of the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project, which had been announced just two years before these vessels were discovered. As we will see below, there would soon appear other inscribed bronze vessels that would also show that the Chronology Project’s absolute dates of the Western Zhou period are almost absolutely wrong from beginning to end. In the following survey of recent bronzes, while I will certainly have occasion to mention their implications both for the chronology of the Western Zhou and for the Chronology Project, I do not intend to discuss these implications at any length. I also do not propose to say anything more about the Bin Gong xu or the Meixian Shanfamily bronzes, having already published my own studies of all of these inscriptions. Instead, I will introduce a wealth of other new information about the Western Zhou that has become available in the first ten years of the new century. I will first survey briefly several important archaeological sites that have produced considerable numbers of inscribed bronze vessels. These sites, all cemeteries, represent different periods of the Western Zhou, from the very earliest phase of the dynasty until its very end, and also reflect several different geographical contexts. In introducing the excavations that have taken place at these sites—and in the case of at least

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 135

two of the sites, archaeological work is still ongoing—while I will try to indicate the historical significance of the site and highlight unprecedented discoveries of material culture, I will make no attempt to provide detailed reports; others, including other contributors to the present volume, are far more able to do this than I. Instead, I will focus primarily on the inscribed bronzes that have been found at the sites, or occasionally bronzes that have doubtless been robbed from the site or its environs and which have appeared on the antique market. After this archaeological survey, I will then go on to introduce another twenty or so other historically significant inscribed bronze vessels that have appeared over the past ten years, unfortunately all too often as a result of tomb robbing.5 I will introduce these vessels more or less in chronological order of their casting, and will say something about the circumstances of their appearance and, when possible, provide photographs of both the vessels and their inscriptions. Nevertheless, my main focus will be on the inscriptions—providing translations, references to prior scholarship, and some discussion of their historical significance. Several of these inscriptions contain graphs and phrasing never before seen in Western Zhou bronze inscriptions and as of yet have resisted definitive interpretation. My own translations should very much be regarded as preliminary; I am simply hoping to call these bronzes and their inscriptions to the attention of a wider reading public.

Archaeological Discoveries The Tianma-Qucun, Shanxi Site of the State of Jin The decade’s first report of a significant archaeological discovery that featured an inscribed bronze vessel was actually the result of activity at the end of the preceding decade, at the Tianma-Qucun 天馬曲村, Shanxi cemetery of the lords of the state of Jin 晉. Indeed, I already treated this discovery in my previous article since it came in the context of extensive excavations conducted at this cemetery over the entirety of the preceding decade. Since other important new evidence has since come to light with which to understand this discovery and its bronze vessel, I will describe it again here, before going on to introduce that other new evidence.6 Once the late Professor Zou Heng 鄒衡 (1927–2005) of Peking University and his team of archaeologists had located the extensive cemetery at this site in the early 1990s, archaeologists were pitted in a battle with tomb robbers to find and open the tombs of the lords and their consorts. Toward

136 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

the end of the decade, the archaeologists believed that they had finished their work, with seventeen tombs arrayed in two more or less neat rows, running from east to west. Unfortunately, in the spring of 1998, tomb robbers struck again, blasting their way into a tomb, subsequently numbered M114, located at the eastern end of the cemetery between the top and bottom rows of tombs. When the archaeologists finally salvaged what they could of the tomb, as well as a companion tomb next to it, M113, believed to be the tomb of the lord’s consort, they found that they were the earliest of all tombs in the cemetery. In M114, the tomb of the lord, they found the bottom portion of a square caldron that had otherwise been obliterated by the dynamite blast of the tomb robbers. By a stroke of rare luck, it was precisely this portion of the vessel that carried the inscription, which seems to be intact (Figure 5.1). The patron of the vessel is a figure named Shu Ze 叔夨, a name that plausibly refers to Tangshu Yu 唐叔虞,7 known from traditional historical sources as a younger brother of Cheng Wang 成王 (r. 1042/35–1006 B.C.) and the founding father of Jin. The inscription commemorates a royal award to Shu Ze after a royal offering and an assembly of lords in Cheng Zhou 成周, but it does not mention any particular action of Shu Ze himself. Figure 5.1 Shu Ze fangding 叔 方鼎 Inscription; after Liu Yu 劉雨 and Yan Zhibin 嚴志斌, eds., Jin chu Yin Zhou jinwen jilu er bian 近出殷周金文集 錄二編, 4 vols. (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2010), vol. 1, p. 344, #320.

Shu Ze fangding 叔夨方鼎

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 137 隹十又四月王f 大 禱才成周 咸禱王乎殷氒 士齊弔夨以 車馬貝三十朋敢 對王休用乍寶 尊彝其萬 年揚王光氒士

It was the fourteenth month, the king performed a libation offering, greatly inscribing a prayer at Cheng Zhou. Completing the prayer, the king called out to convene his sires, and awarded Shu Ze with a skirt and jacket, chariot and horses, and thirty double-strands of cowries, [for which Shu Ze] dares to respond to the king’s beneficence, herewith making [this] treasured offertory vessel; may for ten thousand years it extol the king’s making radiant his sire.

While there is some consensus that the Shu Ze of this inscription can be identified with Tangshu Yu, there is disagreement as to whether this was his tomb or that of his son, Xiefu 燮父. Part of this disagreement hinges on the original appointment of Tangshu Yu, one of the famous stories stemming from the beginning of the Western Zhou dynasty. When Wu Wang died and Cheng Wang was established, there was a disturbance in Tang 唐. The Duke of Zhou annihilated Tang. Cheng Wang was playing with Shu Yu, and whittled a catalpa branch into a scepter to give to Shu Yu saying, “With this I enfeoff you.” Secretary Yi 史佚 thereupon asked to choose a day to establish Shu Yu. Cheng Wang said, “I was just playing around with him.” Secretary Yi said, “The Son of Heaven has no playful words; when you speak then the Secretary writes it, the [Master of] Rites completes it, and the [Master of] Music sings it.” With that he subsequently enfeoffed Shu Yu in Tang.8

According to this story, Shu Yu was appointed to be lord in Tang 唐, and not in Jin. There are conf licting accounts as to where this Tang was located, with one tradition placing it in Jiangzhou 絳州, Shanxi, very near to modern Houma 侯馬, and another some 75 km to the northwest in present-day Xiangning 鄉寧 county.9 Wherever Tang was, the evidence is consistent that it was Shu Yu’s son Xiefu who moved to Jin, the site now known from the Tianma-Qucun excavations. The Shi ji 史記 or Records of the Historian of Sima Qian 司馬遷 (145–ca. 89 B.C.) continues its account of the founding of the state by saying simply: “Tang Shu’s son was Xie, who was the Lord of Jin” (Tang Shu zi Xie, shi wei Jin Hou 唐叔子燮，是為晉侯). The Bamboo Annals (Zhushu jinian 竹書紀年) seems to supply a precise

138 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

date for the move: the ninth year of Kang Wang 康王.10 New evidence has just surfaced to provide firm support for the attribution of the move to Xiefu. A Hong Kong antique gallery has in its possession an early Western Zhou gui 簋-tureen with a brief 22-character inscription. Zhu Fenghan 朱 鳳瀚 had the opportunity to see the vessel there, and introduced it to the scholarly world with an article in the journal Kaogu 考古 (Archaeology).11 Although details of the piece’s provenance are lacking, it seems likely that it was looted from the Tianma-Qucun cemetery. The inscription certainly concerns the founding of the state there. As seen in Figure 5.2a, the gui features an everted lip, a display band at the neck with alternating whirligigs and dragons and with single prominent animal heads in the center of the front and back of the vessel, a squat S-shaped profile ornamented in vertical ribbing, a fairly high outwardsloping flat ring foot, and two handles surmounted with an animal head and ending with a rectangular pendant. As Zhu Fenghan notes, the vessel is extremely similar in shape and ornamentation to the late Shang-dynasty Si gui 肆簋 in the Sackler Collection, though it also shares important affinities with the well-known early Western Zhou Kang Hou gui 康侯簋 in the British Museum.12 The inscription reads as follows (Figure 5.2b): Vessel and Inscription; after Zhu Fenghan, Figure 5.2a–b Yao Gong gui ed ., Xin chu jinwe n y u Xi Z hou li shi 新出金文與西周歷史 (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2011), front matter, pl. 3.1; p. 35, pl. 4.2. a

b

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 139 Yao Gong gui g公簋 g公乍h姚 簋遘于王令 昜白侯于晉 隹王廿又八祀

Yao Gong makes for his wife Yao this gui-tureen, meeting with the king’s commanding Tang Bo to be lord in Jin. It is the king’s twenty-eighth year. Clan-sign

Zhu Fenghan argues convincingly that the “Yang Bo” 昜白, i.e., “Tang Bo” 湯 (i.e., 唐) 伯 here should refer to Xiefu prior to his move to Jin: the “Tang” to which Tangshu Yu was appointed to rule, though written in received literature as 唐, is written in all excavated sources as 昜 or some variant of it;13 and the “Bo” refers to an eldest son, which Xiefu was, as opposed to Shu Yu, who was, as his name indicates, a cadet son, the younger brother of Cheng Wang. In the Yao Gong gui inscription, Tang Bo is commanded by the king to “be lord in Jin” (hou yu Jin 侯于晉), the standard early Western Zhou formula for the appointment of a lord to rule a new territory, and so this vessel evidently commemorates the move of the ruling lineage to that location. The year notation appended at the end of the inscription, as commonly in early Western Zhou inscriptions, supports this as well; as Zhu Fenghan also argues in his introductory article, this “twenty-eighth year” (nian you ba si 廿又八祀) surely refers to Cheng Wang’s reign, given in virtually all early sources as lasting a total of 37 years (including 7 years at the beginning of the reign during which Zhou Gong 周公 is said to have ruled as regent). This date has important implications for the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project. In its absolute chronology of the Western Zhou kings, it assigns Cheng Wang 22 years (1042–1021 B.C.), and his son and successor Kang Wang 25 years (1020–996 B.C.).14 The Yao Gong gui date shows that at least one of these reign lengths is too short. As I mentioned just above, virtually all early sources give Cheng Wang’s length of reign as 37 years (including the 7 years of Zhou Gong’s regency). Most of these traditional chronologies presumably derive from the Shi jing 世經 of Liu Xin 劉歆 (46 B.C.–A.D. 23) as preserved in the “Lü li zhi” 律曆志 chapter of the Han shu 漢書.15 Although it is now known that Liu Xin deduced much of his chronology of ancient China (making demonstrable errors in the process), and so it has no evidentiary value in the aggregate, after his discussion of the reigns of Cheng Wang and Kang Wang he states explicitly that “from Zhao

140 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

Wang on there are no year numbers” (zi Zhao Wang yi xia wang nian shu 自昭王以下亡年數); this would seem to imply that his sources for Cheng Wang and Kang Wang did contain explicit records for their lengths of reign. Moreover, these lengths for the reigns of Cheng Wang and Kang Wang are identical with those in the Bamboo Annals, even if only in the “Current” version of that text,16 which was still in its tomb at the time Liu Xin was writing and thus would certainly constitute independent corroboration of Liu Xin’s dates. There would seem to be a very firm evidentiary basis for accepting Liu Xin’s reign lengths for Cheng Wang and Kang Wang, as the Yao Gong gui inscription confirms yet again. Numerous scholars had noted when the Meixian Shan-family bronzes were discovered in 2003 that the full-date notations in the two Qiu ding inscriptions could not be reconciled with the Chronology Project’s dates and indeed called very much into question its chronology (and also the underlying periodization of bronzes based on that chronology) of late Western Zhou. The Yao Gong gui inscription now effectively undermines the Chronology Project’s chronology of early Western Zhou. Zhu Fenghan concludes his article by diplomatically noting “research on the dates of the Western Zhou kings, Wu Wang’s conquest of Shang, and the related calendars of bronze inscriptions are scholarly topics that require great caution; the questions that the Yao Gong gui inscription raises should have a stimulative role with respect to research on these topics.”17

The Yangzishan, Hubei Site of the State of E A second archaeological discovery of an important early Western Zhou tomb has, as far as I know, not yet been reported in scholarly journals. It warrants mention here, even if only in brief. In November 2007, tomb robbers attempted to open a tomb at Yangzishan 羊子山, Anju 安居, Suizhou 隨州, Hubei. Fortunately, they were unsuccessful, and local archaeologists conducted a salvage excavation, turning up an early Western Zhou tomb, designated as tomb number 4. The tomb contained 27 bronzes, which are currently on display in the Suizhou City Museum (Suizhou shi bowuguan 隨州市博物館); they have been published in a catalog of the local archaeological masterpieces: Suizhou chutu wenwu jingcui 隨州出土文物精粹 (added English title: Treasures Unearthed from Suizhou).18 The bronzes seem to constitute a complete ritual set, including

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 141

three truly extraordinary pieces: a zun 尊-vase, a you 卣-bucket and a fangyi 方彝-square casket with matching animal mask décor.19 Although the inscriptions on the pieces are simple, that on the fangyi does indicate that they were made for a Lord of E 噩侯 (Figure 5.3a–b), apparently indicating that this state was originally located in this vicinity.20 As we will see later in this survey, the seat of the state of E subsequently moved some 150 km up the Han River 漢水 drainage to the vicinity of present-day Nanyang 南陽, Henan, whence it was involved in some of the most momentous events in the history of the late Western Zhou reign of Zhou Li Wang 周厲 王. The Yangzishan bronzes show that the history of this Ji 姞-surnamed state went back at least to the beginning of the Western Zhou; when the report on this discovery is eventually issued, it will surely attract great scholarly attention. Figure 5.3a–b E Hou fangyi 噩侯方彝 Vessel and Inscription; after Suizhou shi bowuguan, ed., Suizhou chutu wenwu jingcui (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2009), pp. 30–31, #35. a

b

142 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

The Hengbei, Jiangxian, Shanxi Site of the State of Peng In April 2004, residents of Hengbei 橫北 village in the western part of Jiangxian 絳縣, Shanxi, just to the south of the Tianma-Qucun Jin cemetery, heard explosions rocking wheat field slopes to the north of the village. They discovered that a large tomb had been blasted open. In November of that year, archaeologists cleared that tomb, which they subsequently numbered M3, finding a few Western Zhou bronzes and jades that the tomb robbers had left behind. The archaeologists then discovered in the vicinity of this tomb two other large tombs, subsequently numbered M1 and M2, which the robbers had missed. Throughout December and into January, archaeologists from the Jiangxian Cultural Bureau (Jiangxian wenhuaju 絳縣文化局), the Yuncheng City Cultural Relics Work Station (Yuncheng shi wenwu gongzuozhan 運城市文物工作站), and the Shanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology (Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 山西省 考古研究所) excavated these two tombs.21 Both tombs were midsize to large single-ramp tombs (the tomb chamber of M1 is about 4.5 m wide, 5.5 m long and 15.28 m deep, with a tomb ramp 26.65 m long; the tomb chamber of M2 is about 3.8 m wide, about 5.6 m long, and 6.7 m deep, with a tomb ramp 16.8 m long), both of them having a coffin enclosure (guo 椁) and two nested coffins (guan 棺), and both were furnished with numerous chariot pieces, pottery, lacquerware, bronze vessels and bells (twenty-five in M1, eight of them inscribed; and sixteen in M2, also eight of them inscribed), and numerous jades, especially belted pendants encasing the deceased.22 In addition, M1 had a textile coffin shroud (huangwei 荒帷) draped over the outer coffin, preserved in the mud that had entered into the coffin enclosure when its ceiling collapsed. The existence of coffin shrouds in early China was known from both the Li ji 禮記 and Yi li 儀禮, but because of the difficulty of preserving textiles they had never before been seen from such an early period. The shroud, bright red and ornamented with phoenixes, was woven from two separate pieces of cloth and covers almost ten square meters. In the brief excavation report, the excavators surmise that these two tombs were of a husband and wife, and that M1, the larger and somewhat more sumptuously furnished of the two, was that of the wife, while M2 was that of the husband. They also argue that the tomb-master of M2 was the lord of the small state of Peng 倗, which they claim was a state not seen in the received textual tradition. Finally, they argue on the basis of comparisons of the funerary goods, that the tombs should date to the reign of Mu Wang 穆王 or slightly later.23

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 143

The bronze vessels in M1 feature simple inscriptions that a “Pengbo” 倗伯 made for Bi Ji 畢姬, presumably his wife, as on a ding-caldron (M1:212)

and gui-tureen (M1:199). M2 also included a ding-caldron (M2:57), inscribed: Pengbo zuo Bi Ji ding 倗伯作畢姬鼎 倗伯作畢姬尊鼎其萬年寶

Pengbo makes for Bi Ji this offertory caldron; may for ten thousand years it be treasured.

Vessels in M2 had variations of an inscription indicating that a Pengbo made the vessels for himself. Among these, M2:103 bears the longest inscription: Pengbo ding 倗伯鼎 隹五月初吉倗 伯肇作寶鼎其 用享考于朕文 考其萬年永用

It was the fifth month, first auspiciousness; Pengbo initiates the making of a treasured caldron. May it be used to offer filiality to my cultured deceasedfather, and may it for ten thousand years eternally be used.

In addition to these simple inscriptions, tomb M1 also included a single gui-tureen (M1:205) with a longer inscription of 45 characters, giving Pengbo’s name as Cheng 偁. Pengbo Cheng gui 倗伯偁簋 隹廿又三年初吉戊戌 益公蔑倗伯偁曆右告 令金車旂偁拜手稽首 對揚公休用作朕考寶 尊偁其萬年永寶用享

It was the twenty-third year, first auspiciousness, wuxu (day 55), Yi Gong praised Pengbo Cheng’s merits, and further announced the command of a bronze chariot pennant. Cheng saluted with his hands and touched his head to the ground, in response extolling the duke’s beneficence, herewith making for my deceased-father this treasured offertory. May Cheng for ten thousand years eternally treasure and use it to make offerings.

In her contribution to the present volume, “The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng and Relationships between Zhou and Northern Non-Zhou Lineages

144 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

(Until the Early Ninth Century B.C.),” Maria Khayutina provides a thorough discussion of all of these bronzes and their inscriptions, including especially that of the Pengbo Cheng gui. She provides as well a critical evaluation of the excavators’ views of the tombs’ date, to which I refer the reader. However, before turning to the next important archaeological discovery, there are two further points to make regarding the Peng-state cemetery that perhaps have more general interest beyond just the bronze inscriptions. First, as Dr. Khayutina also notes, the excavators did not stop their work with just the two tombs M1 and M2. From May 2005 through November 2007, they continued with two further seasons of excavations, uncovering an extensive cemetery of some 35,000 m2 spreading out to the east and west of these two tombs, with medium-sized and medium-large tombs primarily to the east, and small-sized tombs to the west.24 In all, they excavated 1,326 tombs, which contained some 14,000 artifacts, among which one of the most interesting is a pair of zun-vases in the shape of a tapir (mo 獏). Tapirs of this sort are now found no farther north than Malaysia, but clearly they must have once been known even in the area of northern China. This again attests to the dramatic climate change that the East Asian mainland has witnessed over the last three millennia. Second, although the excavators claimed that the state of Peng is unknown in the received textual tradition, even before their initial report of the discovery had been published Li Xueqin 李學勤 had already identified it with the state of Peng 䣙, 25 a state name that appears in the Mu tianzi zhuan 穆天子傳. 辛丑，天子西征至于䣙。河宗之子孫䣙柏綮且逆天子于智之□，先豹皮十、 良馬二六。天子使井利受之。癸酉，天子舍于漆澤，乃西釣于河，以觀□智之 □。……天子飲于河水之阿。天子屬六師之人于䣙邦之南、滲澤之上。

On xinchou (day 50), the Son of Heaven campaigned westward, arriving at Peng. Pengbo Qi, a descendant of He Zong, met the Son of Heaven at Zhi’s .. , and presented ten leopard skins and twelve fine horses. The Son of Heaven had Jing Li receive them. On guiyou (day 10), the Son of Heaven resided at Qi Marsh, and then fished to the west in the River, in order to observe .. Zhi’s .. . … The Son of Heaven drank at the bank of the River’s water. The Son of Heaven assembled the men of the Six Armies to the south of Peng state, on the Can Marsh.26

In the received text of the Mu tianzi zhuan, this passage comes toward the beginning of the first juan 卷. The action narrated in the text would seem

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 145

to place Peng somewhere to the north and west of Zong Zhou 宗周, the Zhou capital. Later collectanea, some referring explicitly to the Mu tianzi zhuan, state that Peng was located “between Yu and Rui” (zai Yu Rui jian 在虞芮間).27 According to most traditional sources of historical-geography, Yu 虞 and Rui 芮 were located in what is today southwestern Shanxi province, near where Jiangxian is located. This doubtless has important implications for the correct understanding of the Mu tianzi zhuan, and especially of its geography. Zong Zhou is generally understood in Western Zhou contexts to refer to either the capital Hao 鎬 near present-day Xi’an 西安, or to the Zhou ancestral homeland further west near Qi Shan 岐山. However, as Wei Tingsheng 衛挺生 (1890–1977) argued in a detailed study of the Mu tianzi zhuan, evidence in the text itself suggests that its “Zong Zhou” refers instead to the eastern capital at present-day Luoyang 洛陽.28 In this way, the excavation of the Peng-state cemetery at Jiangxian, Shanxi, which is a remarkable archaeological discovery in its own right, may also contribute toward the understanding of the historicity of the Mu tianzi zhuan, one of ancient China’s most interesting, but enigmatic, texts.29

The Liangdaicun, Hancheng, Shaanxi Site of the State of Rui As noted above, there is a tradition that the state of Peng was located “between Yu 虞 and Rui 芮.” As we have seen, Peng was located in what is today Jiangxian, Shanxi. Yu and Rui are two states that have long been connected in the collective memory of the Western Zhou dynasty; the Shi ji records that during the final years of the Shang dynasty these two states were engaged in a lawsuit with each other, and that Wen Wang of Zhou first came to prominence among the independent lords of western China by resolving it simply by his virtuous example.30 However, commentaries to the Shi ji are in disagreement concerning the location of the states. One tradition places them on either side of the north-south stretch of the Yellow River, Yu on the east side of the river at present-day Pinglu 平陸 county, Shanxi, and Rui on the west side of the river at present-day Dali 大 荔 county, Shaanxi, while another argues that they were both to the east of the Yellow River, Rui in present-day Ruicheng 芮城 county, Shanxi.31 More modern historical-geographers have also proposed that both states must have been much further west, in the vicinity of the Zhou homeland in central Shaanxi province. This question may finally have been settled by what are perhaps the most important excavations for Western Zhou archaeology of the last decade. In early 2005, an extensive cemetery of late

146 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

Western Zhou-early Eastern Zhou tombs and horse-and-chariot pits was discovered in Liangdaicun 梁帶村, Hancheng 韓城, Shaanxi.32 As in the case of the Hengbei Peng-state cemetery discussed above, in this case too we are fortunate to have in the present volume a thorough discussion of the Liangdaicun cemetery and related questions: Dr. Ch’en Chao-jung’s “On the Possibility That the Two Western Zhou States Yu and Rui Were Originally Located in the Jian River Valley.” In the following brief remarks, I will provide only a brief overview of this cemetery, closing with a translation of the longest bronze inscription that has been found in it. Hancheng is located in the eastern part of Shaanxi province, along the north-south stretch of the Yellow River separating Shaanxi from Shanxi, almost exactly 100 km due west of Jiangxian, Shanxi. In terms of topology, it is in the transitional zone between the Guanzhong Plain 關中平原 (centered on the Wei River 渭水 valley another 100 km to the south) and the Shaanbei Plateau 陝北高原. Liangdaicun is located on the second-level terrace above the Yellow River, 7 km to the northeast of the city. By April 2007, the Hancheng kaogudui 韓城考古隊 or Hancheng Archaeological Team (composed of Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 陝西省考古研究所, Weinan shi wenwu baohu kaogu yanjiusuo 渭南市文物保護考古研究所 and Hancheng shi wenwu lüyouju 韓城市文物旅遊局) had already mapped the cemetery, identifying over 1,300 tombs stretching from the Western Zhou through the early Spring and Autumn period. To date, they have excavated over forty of these tombs, including four large tombs. The largest of these, M27, was constructed with two tomb ramps (a so-called 中-shaped tomb) and contained ritual bronze vessels inscribed with the name “Rui Gong” 芮公; tombs M26 and M19 contained vessels inscribed with the name “Rui Taizi” 芮太子.33 On the basis of these, the excavators have identified it as the tomb of Rui Huan Gong 芮桓公, the ruler of the state in the opening years of the Eastern Zhou (ca. 750 B.C.). M26, just 3 m to the west of the southern extension of M27’s southern tomb ramp, was the single-ramped tomb of a female.34 Since it contained numerous bronzes inscribed “Zhong Jiang makes for Huan Gong this offertory caldron/tureen/vase” (Zhong Jiang zuo wei Huan Gong zun ding/gui/hu 中姜作為桓公尊鼎/簋 /壺), the excavators identified the occupant as Zhong Jiang 仲姜, the principal consort of Huan Gong. Two other single-ramped tombs in the immediate vicinity contained grave goods similar to those of M27 and M26, though none of the many bronzes in them is inscribed; M19, exactly parallel with M26 and just 8 m to its west, is thought to be the tomb of a secondary consort of Huan Gong,35 while M28, the tomb of a male, is perhaps that of

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 147

his son.36 All four of these tombs were filled with ritual bronzes of all types (though only M27 and M28, the two tombs of males, contained weapons), numerous chariot implements, and jades of stunning workmanship. However, since these tombs were probably closed shortly after the end of the Western Zhou, and since they are described in some detail in Dr. Ch’en’s contribution to this volume, I will not go into detail about them here. After excavating these tombs in the southern sector of the cemetery, in 2007 the archaeological team turned its attention to its northern sector. Since the cemetery seems to have begun in the north, subsequently developing toward the south, this northern sector is its earliest portion, with some tombs dating to the late Western Zhou. One of these, M502, is a single-ramped tomb, with five chariots placed on top of the coffin chamber and numerous bronze, jade, stone and pottery vessels and implements placed between the inner and outer coffins. Perhaps more important, at each of the four corners of the ledge surrounding the coffin chamber was placed a single wooden figurine (yong 俑); this is the earliest evidence of the interring of such surrogate human offerings, though the practice is mentioned in slightly later literature. Several of the middlesized tombs in this sector of the cemetery also contained bronze vessels and weapons that can be dated to the late Western Zhou.37 However, the preliminary report recently published mentions only a single inscribed vessel, discovered in tomb M502. It is on a round-bellied late Western Zhou ding-caldron ornamented with a band of lozenge design under the lip and the three bands of fish-scale design beneath that (Figure 5.4a–b). The vessel seems to be dedicated to one of the founding fathers of the Western Zhou dynasty: Bi Gong 畢公.

148 · Edward L. Shaughnessy Figure 5.4a–b Bi Bo Ke ding 畢白克鼎 Vessel and Inscription; after Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiuyuan and Shanghai bowuguan, eds., Jin yu hua nian: Shaanxi Hancheng chutu Zhou dai Rui guo wenwu zhenpin (Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe, 2012), pp. 59, 58, #12. a

b

Bi Bo Ke ding 畢白克鼎 畢白克肇作 朕丕顯皇且 受命畢公䵼 彝用追享于 子孫永寶用

Bi Bo Ke initiates making for my illustrious august ancestor the receiver of the mandate Bi Gong this sacrificial vessel, to use to send offerings; may sons and grandsons eternally treasure and use it.

The Dahekou, Yicheng, Shanxi Site of the State of Ba The most recently reported discovery bearing on Western Zhou archaeology is yet another major cemetery, this one located at Dahekou 大河口, about 6 km east of the county seat of Yicheng 翼城 county, Shanxi; it has already been included as one of the ten most important archaeological discoveries of 2010. Based on surveys, it covers an area of about 40,000 m 2, and includes over 1,000 graves. In May 2007, reports of tomb robbing at

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 149

the cemetery caused provincial and local archaeological teams (Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 山西省考古研究所, Linfen shi wenwuju 臨汾市文物 局 and Yicheng xian wenwu lüyouju 翼城縣文物旅遊局) to organize emergency excavations. From September 2007 through May 2008, they opened six tombs. From May 2009 through the end of 2010, they resumed largescale work. To date, they have surveyed 15,000 m 2, and discovered 615 tombs and 22 horse-and-chariot pits, and have already excavated more than 200 of the tombs. Among the tombs excavated in 2007 was M1, a large tomb 4.6 m long by 3.78 m wide at the base, and 9.75 m deep. The tomb, which dates to the end of early Western Zhou or beginning of middle Western Zhou, contained an abundance of grave goods, including lacquer (including still more lacquer human figurines), protoporcelain, pottery, bone, jade, shell, and bronzes. The bronzes included more than 60 ritual vessels, as well as weapons, tools, musical instruments, and chariot paraphernalia.38 Other tombs excavated at this time were somewhat later in date, dating to mid- or late Western Zhou. M2, the tomb of a woman (presumably the spouse of the deceased in M1), included, among other bronzes, three ding-caldron, one gui-tureen, one yan-steamer, one pan-basin, one he-pitcher, and one bronze zhong-bell. The yan is inscribed: Ba Bo yan 霸伯甗 唯正月初吉霸伯作寶甗其永用

It was the first month, first auspiciousness; Ba Bo made this treasured yansteamer, may it be eternally used.

This shows that the state was named Ba 霸. The preliminary conclusion is that Ba, heretofore unknown, was a rather small city or state of Di 狄 ancestry, though very much influenced by the surrounding Zhou people, and that the dates extend throughout Western Zhou and into the early Chunqiu period. 39 The initial report mentions, without elaboration, several bronze vessels with lengthy inscriptions. Other, still briefer, reports suggest that such important Western Zhou figures as Yan Hou Zhi 燕侯旨, Rui Gong 芮公 and Jing Shu 井叔 all appear in the inscriptions.40 This is surely a site that will attract much attention in the years to come. Because of the importance of the site, in 2009 the authorities decided to excavate it systematically, and to use this as a training site for local archaeologists. The first published report of the excavations stresses the need to protect the site, and indicates the steps taken to do so.

150 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

Individually Appearing Inscribed Bronze Vessels Early Western Zhou Very few early Western Zhou inscribed bronzes have surfaced in the last ten years. However, the most recently published vessel doubtless dates even earlier than the Yao Gong gui or the Yangzishan E Hou vessels introduced above: Alex Kwong-yue Cheung 張光裕 published in the February 2009 issue of Wenwu 文物 (Cultural Relics) a brief account of the He gui 𣄰簋, two nearly identical vessels that he had seen in a Hong Kong antiques gallery (Figure 5.5a–b).41 The identical thirty-three-character inscription on both vessels (and also on their covers) is remarkable for at least two reasons. First, it begins with a great event-date notation alluding to the suppression of the Wu Geng 武庚 rebellion by a “duke” (gong 公), doubtless the renowned Duke of Zhou 周公 in the opening years of the dynasty: wei ba yue Gong yi Yin nian 隹八月公䧅殷年 “it was the eighth month, the year that the Duke pacified the Yin.” This corroborates other inscriptional evidence confirming reports in the early traditional literature that the Duke of Zhou played a leading role in resolving this crisis and consolidating the establishment of the dynasty.42 Second, the patron of the vessel, He 𣄰, was already known as the patron of the He zun 𣄰尊, first discovered in 1963 in Baoji 寶雞, Shaanxi, but the lengthy inscription at the bottom of which was only discovered in 1975 during the cleaning of the vessel. The He zun attracted great attention in the West as one of only two Western Zhou bronze vessels to be featured in the 1980 Great Bronze Age of China exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of New York. Its inscription, dated to the fifth year of a reign that is not named but that is obviously that of Cheng Wang, records a royal address to assembled clansmen at Cheng Zhou, the eastern capital. The newly appearing He gui confirms that He was active at this time, having been commanded to “supervise the three kin-legions” (si san zu 𤔲三族) of the Zhou army.

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 151 Figure 5.5a–b He gui 簋 Vessel and Inscription; after Zhu Fenghan, ed., Xin chu jinwen yu Xi Zhou lishi (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2011), pls. 1.1, 1.2. a

b

He gui 𣄰簋 隹八月公䧅殷年公 益𣄰貝十朋迺令𣄰𤔲 三族為旡室用兹簋 對公休用乍且乙尊彝

It was the eighth month, the year that the Duke pacified the Yin. The Duke awarded He ten double-strands of cowries, and then commanded He to supervise the three kin-legions, to serve as He’s household. [He] uses this guitureen to respond to the Duke’s beneficence, herewith making for Ancestor Yi this offertory vessel.

Middle Western Zhou Whereas the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project’s chronology for the Western Zhou kings disregarded the early textual evidence for the lengths of reigns of Cheng Wang and Kang Wang, it accepted the tradition that the important middle Western Zhou reign of Mu Wang lasted 55 years, and made this one of the cornerstones of its chronology. Two vessels recently robbed from tombs serve to call into question this dating as well. The first of these two vessels, the Lu gui 䚄簋, was purchased by the National

152 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

Museum of China (Zhongguo guojia bowuguan 中國國家博物館) and published in its journal Zhongguo lishi wenwu 中國歷史文物,43 while the second remains in the possession of a Hong Kong antiques dealer; it has recently been published by Zhu Fenghan, former director of the National Museum of China, who has inspected the piece in Hong Kong.44 The Lu gui is tremendously important historically for commemorating the promotion of one Lu 䚄 to be Supreme Supervisor of the Horse (zhong sima 冢𤔲馬), a title that seems to refer to the commander-in-chief of the Zhou army (Figure 5.6a–b).45 Lu, elsewhere known variously as Jingbo 井 白 (i.e., 邢伯),46 Sima Jingbo 𤔲馬井白,47 and once as Sima Jingbo Lu 𤔲馬井 白䚄,48 was one of the most influential figures of the entire middle Western Zhou period, previously appearing in at least one “standard” bronze inscription from late in the reign of Mu Wang, the Chang Xin he 長甶盉 (Jicheng #9455); in several important inscriptions from throughout the reign of Gong Wang 共王 (e.g., Fifth Year Qiu Wei ding 五祀裘衛鼎 [Jicheng #2832], Seventh Year Jue Cao ding 七年趞曹鼎 [Jicheng #2783], Yong yu 永 盂 [Jicheng #10322]); and apparently continuing even into the reign of Yih Wang 懿王, as seen in the inscription on the Shi Hu gui 師虎簋 (Jicheng #4316). In these inscriptions, not only did he serve as guarantor (youzhe 右 者) for at least a half dozen figures, but he also served as the head of the juries in the famous Fifth Year Qiu Wei ding and Yong yu court cases. The newly appearing Lu gui carries a classic investiture inscription, one of the earliest of its type. Figure 5.6a–b Lu gui 簋 Vessel and Inscription; after Zhu Fenghan, ed., Xin chu jinwen yu Xi Zhou lishi (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2011), p. 37, pl. 1. a

b

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 153

Lu gui 䚄簋 隹廿又四年九月既望庚 寅王才周各大室即立𤔲 工i入右䚄立中廷北卿 王乎乍冊尹冊𤕌令䚄曰 更乃且服乍冢𤔲馬女迺諫 訊有粦取夯十寽易女赤 巿幽黃金車金勒旂女迺 敬夙夕勿灋朕令女肇亯 䚄拜稽首敢對揚天子休 用乍朕文且幽白寶簋䚄 其萬年孫=子=其永寶用

It was the twenty-fourth year, ninth month, after the full moon, gengyin (day 27), the king was at Zhou, approached the Grand Chamber and assumed his stand. Supervisor of Work X entered to the right of Lu, and stood in the center of the court facing north. The king called out to the head of the Maker of the Strips to extend the command to Lu in writing, saying: “Succeed your grandfather’s service to be Supreme Supervisor of the Horse. Would that you remonstrate and interrogate with clarity, taking ten lüe of salary. I award you crimson kneepads, a somber jade disk, a bronze chariot, bronze harness, and a pennant. Would that you respectfully morning and night not neglect my command. You are to initiate the offerings.” Lu bowed and touched his head to the ground, and daring in response to extol the Son of Heaven’s beneficence herewith makes for my cultured grandfather Youbo this treasured gui-tureen. May Lu for ten thousand years have grandsons’ grandsons and sons’ sons and may they eternally treasure and use it.

What makes this vessel and its date so important for the chronology of the reign of Mu Wang is that the life and career of this Sima Jingbo Lu set certain practical parameters for its length. We see here that his appointment as Supreme Supervisor of the Horse came in the twenty-fourth year of Mu Wang’s reign. It is probably safe to assume that an appointment to such an important post would come at a more or less mature age; what is more, the inscription states that this was an “extension” (shen 𤕌; i.e., 申) of Lu’s appointment, implying that there had been a previous appointment sometime earlier in his career. Lu then remained active not only throughout the reign of Mu Wang and also the following reign of Gong Wang but, as mentioned above and as most bronze specialists would agree, even into the reign of Yih Wang, when he served as guarantor for Shi Hu 師虎, to whom we will return below. Since Gong Wang’s reign lasted at

154 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

least 15 years, as shown by the Fifteenth Year Jue Cao ding 十五年趞曹鼎, which is almost universally regarded as a “standard” for the reign, if Mu Wang’s reign were indeed to have lasted 55 years, as traditional accounts as well as the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project chronology maintain, this would mean that Lu remained active in court affairs for at least another 48 years after his appointment as Supreme Supervisor of the Horse (32 remaining years of Mu Wang’s reign + 15 + 1). As I wrote in an earlier critique of the implications this vessel holds for the chronology of Mu Wang’s reign, this is the equivalent of suggesting in a contemporary Chinese context that Peng Dehuai 彭德懷 (1898–1974), who was defense minister in 1958, or even that Lin Biao 林彪 (1907–1971), who replaced him in the following year, would have still been active in the military in 2006. Even without considering that the average lifespan in antiquity was certainly far less than it is today (though, admittedly, the ancients did not have to fear airplane crashes), this is simply unimaginable.49

Almost surely the last of the bronze inscriptions in which Sima Jingbo Lu appears is on the Shi Hu gui, dated by most scholars to the first year of Yih Wang’s reign. In my previous survey of inscribed bronze vessels that appeared in the decade of the 1990s, I introduced the cover of an earlier vessel made by Hu 虎, the Hu gui gai 虎簋蓋, discovered in 1996 in Danfeng 丹鳳 county, Shaanxi. 50 In my brief remarks in that earlier study, I noted simply that the Shi Hu gui gai 師虎簋蓋’s full thirtieth-year date notation almost certainly refers to the reign of Mu Wang, but did not draw further inferences regarding the length of that reign. In hindsight, the career of Hu, stretching from an initial appointment in the thirtieth year of Mu Wang’s reign through a confirmation of that appointment in the first year of Yih Wang’s reign, several decades later, would be susceptible to the same sort of constraints as those for Lu.51 In the Shi Hu gui inscription, Jingbo Lu serves as guarantor in Hu’s appointment ceremony in which the royal command is issued in writing (ce ling 冊令) by one Internal Secretary (neishi 內史) Wu 吳. Wu seems to have been the patron of his own vessel, the Zuoce Wu fangyi gai 作冊吳方彝蓋 (Jicheng #9898, only the cover of the vessel survives), in which he is referred to by title as Maker of Strips (zuo ce 作冊) Wu.52 The inscription begins with a full, second-year date, compatible with the calendar of the year following that required by the Shi Hu gui date, and is thus now usually dated to the reign of Yih Wang.53 There has now appeared in a

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 155

private collection in Hong Kong a Zuoce Wu he 作冊吳盉, which is clearly an early mid-Western Zhou vessel and which is dated to the thirtieth year of an unnamed reign, but which is almost certainly that of Mu Wang. Although only x-ray photographs of the inscription have been published to date, the inscription presents few problems of reading, and can be transcribed as follows: Zuoce Wu he 作冊吳盉 隹卅年四月既生霸壬午 王才b執駒于b南林初 執駒王乎巂a召作冊吳 立唐門王曰易駒吳拜稽 首受駒以正吳敢對揚天 子不顯休用作叔姬般盉

[128.104.46.206] Project MUSE (2024-03-02 03:18 GMT) UW-Madison Libraries

It was the thirtieth year, fourth month, after the growing brightness, renwu (day 19); the king was at Kuang, picking colts in the southern forest of Kuang. When first picking colts, the king called out to Que Yang to summon Maker of Strips Wu to stand in the Tang Gate. The king said: “I award you a colt.” Wu saluted and touched his head to the ground, receiving the colt with which to govern. Wu dares in response to extol the Son of Heaven’s illustrious beneficence, herewith making for Shu Ji this pan-basin and he-pitcher.

The full-date notation that begins this inscription, “thirtieth year, fourth month, after the growing brightness, renwu (day 19)” (30/4/B/19 in my system of notation), is entirely compatible with the date in the Hu gui gai inscription (30/4/A/11), which seems to have been cast not only in the same year, but also in the same month. Both of these are in turn compatible with the calendar required by the Qiu Wei gui inscription (27/3/B/35) three years earlier and with that required by the Lu gui inscription (24/9/ C/27) six years earlier. Since there is no evidence that any other midWestern Zhou king ruled as long as 30 years, it seems clear that this date must refer to Mu Wang’s reign. If so, we have another case of a figure beginning his service during this reign and continuing to serve throughout the entirety of the following reign of Gong Wang and into the opening years of the reign of Yih Wang. If there were a single such case, perhaps it could be explained by his extreme longevity. With three such cases now, the only reasonable explanation is that Mu Wang’s reign could not have lasted 55 years, as traditional sources (and the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project) have stated. Before concluding this section, I should mention another pair of inscribed vessels that have appeared independently of each other over the

156 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

course of the last decade, but both of which scholars have dated to the reign of Gong Wang, the son of Mu Wang. The first to appear was the Shi Shan pan 士山盤, housed in the National Museum of China and first published in 2002 (Figure 5.7a–b).54 This is a more or less standard investiture inscription, differing from the standard pattern only in that the investee, Shi Shan 士山, appears before the king on his own recognizance, without a guarantor. The award to him is very difficult to construe, and has stimulated several studies in addition to the initial introduction by Zhu Fenghan.55 The entire inscription reads as follows: Figure 5.7a–b Shi Shan pan 士山盤 Vessel and Inscription; after Liu Yu and Yan Zhibin, eds., Jin chu Yin Zhou jinwen jilu er bian (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2010), vol. 3, pp. 260–61, #938. a

b

Shi Shan pan 士山盤 隹王十又六年九月即生霸甲 申王才周新宮王各大室卽立 士山入門立中廷北鄉王乎乍冊尹 冊令山曰于入j侯 k蠚刑 l服𥄳大虘服履服六孼 服j侯蠚l賓貝金山拜稽首 敢對揚天子=不顯休用乍文 考釐中寶尊般盉山其萬年永用

It was the king’s sixteenth year, ninth month, after the growing brightness, jiashen (day 21), the king was at the New Palace in Zhou. The king stepped

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 157 up to the great chamber and assumed his stand. Sire Shan entered the gate and stood in the center of the courtyard facing north. The king called out to the head of the Makers of Strips to command Shan in writing, saying: “In entering [the domain] of the Lord of Zhong, proceed to requisition Ruo, Jing and Fang’s tribute, as well as Da Ju’s tribute, Lü’s tribute, and the Six Zi’s tribute. The Lords of Zhong, Ruo and Fang will award [you] cowries and metal.” Shan saluted and touched his head to the ground, daring in response to extol the Son of Heaven’s son’s [sic] illustrious beneficence, herewith making for cultured deceased-father Li Zhong this treasured offertory basin and pitcher; may Shan for ten thousand years eternally use it.

Zhu Fenghan has discussed in considerable detail the date of the vessel, 16/9/C/21, arguing that it is consistent with a series of vessels generally considered to date to the reign of Gong Wang.56 His analysis seems to me to be generally correct.57 By adding yet another full-date notation to those known for the mid-Western Zhou, the Shi Shan pan marks a valuable addition to the corpus of inscribed bronze vessels. Two years af ter introducing the Shi Shan pan, Zhu Fenghan announced the acquisition by the Poly Art Museum of Beijing of yet another fully-dated mid-Western Zhou bronze vessel: the Shi You ding 師 酉鼎 (Figure 5.8a–b).58 In this case, not only does the inscription add yet another full-date notation, but the patron of the vessel, Shi You 師酉, was already known from other vessels cast for him, the Shi You gui 師酉簋 (Jicheng #4288–4291), and has been the subject of some discussion regarding his dates and background. Let us first introduce the inscription on the newly appearing Shi You ding: Figure 5.8a–b Shi You ding 師酉鼎 Vessel and Inscription; after Liu Yu and Yan Zhibin, eds., Jin chu Yin Zhou jinwen jilu er bian (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2010), vol. 1, pp. 352–53, #326. a

b

158 · Edward L. Shaughnessy Shi You ding 師酉鼎 隹王四祀九月初吉丁 亥王各于大室吏師俗 召師酉王寴袤 師酉 易豹裘曰貈夙夜辟事 我一人酉敢拜稽首對 揚皇天子不顯休用乍 朕文考乙白 姬寶尊 鼎酉其用追孝用其祈眉 壽髮录屯魯酉其萬年 子=孫=永寶用享孝于宗

It was the king’s fourth ritual-year, ninth month, first auspiciousness, dinghai (day 24), the king stepped up into the Great Chamber, and had Captain Su summon Captain You. The king personally greatly received Captain You, awarding [him] a badger skin, saying: “Enter morning and night to minister to and serve me the one man.” You dared to salute and touch his head to the ground, and in response extols the august Son of Heaven’s illustrious beneficence, making for my cultured deceased-father Yibo and Jiu Ji this treasured offertory caldron. May You use it to send filial-offerings and use it to entreat long life, blessed wealth, and pure grace. May You for ten thousand years have sons’ sons and grandsons’ grandsons eternally to treasure and use it to offer filial-offerings in the ancestral-temple.

If this vessel, the date of which is consistent with the calendar required by the three Qiu Wei vessels and the shape and ornamentation of which is also consistent with the style of Gong Wang’s period, does indeed date to the reign of Gong Wang, it would help to explain the date and background of the related Shi You gui, for which the date notation and vessel shape seem to be contradictory.59

Late Western Zhou Several extremely important late Western Zhou inscribed bronzes have appeared in the last ten years. Some of them require a rethinking of the periodization of previously known bronzes, even if not necessarily the chronology of the period. In “New Sources of Western Zhou History,” I introduced several inscribed bronzes from or related to the state of Ying 應 that appeared during the decade of the 1990s, beginning with a pair of Ying Hou Xiangong zhong 應侯見工鐘 purchased by the Poly Art Museum of Beijing. In a note appended to that discussion, I also introduced a pair of inscribed gui-tureens, of which Ying Hou Xiangong was also the patron, and which had also just been purchased by the Poly Art Museum.60

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 159 Ying Hou Xiangong gui 應侯見工簋 唯正月初吉丁亥王才 鄉 應侯見工友易玉 五㲄馬四匹矢三千敢 對揚天子休釐用乍 皇考武侯尊簋用易 眉壽永令子子孫孫永寶

It was the first month, first auspiciousness, dinghai (day 24); the king was at Mou, feasting wine. Xiangong, Lord of Ying, accompanying, was awarded five pieces of jade, four horses, and three thousand arrows, and dares in response to extol the Son of Heaven’s gracious gift, herewith making for my august deceased-father Lord Wu this offertory gui-tureen, with which to be awarded long life and an eternal mandate; [may] sons’ sons and grandsons’ grandsons eternally treasure it.

In the brief discussion of these Ying Hou Xiangong bronzes, I noted in passing that “the bells commemorate an audience he [i.e., Ying Hou Xiangong] had with an unidentified Zhou king (the excavators surmise, reasonably, that it was King Gong).”61 Reasonable though this periodization was at the time, it seems necessary now to conclude that Ying Hou Xiangong lived a half century or so later in the dynasty. In the Shouyang Studio (Shouyang zhai 首陽齋) collection of Katherine and George Fan (Hu Yingying 胡盈瑩 and Fan Jirong 范季融), there is a late Western Zhou covered gui-tureen, the vessel and cover of which bear separate inscriptions (Figure 5.9a–c).62 In the catalog of this collection, only the inscription on the vessel is transcribed, reading simply: Figure 5.9a–c Ying Hou gui 應侯簋 Vessel and Inscriptions (b: Vessel, c: Cover); after Shouyang jijin: Hu Yingying, Fan Jirong cang Zhongguo gudai qingtongqi (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2008), pp. 113–14, #39. a

b

c

160 · Edward L. Shaughnessy Ying Hou gui 應侯簋 應侯乍姬原 母尊簋其萬 年永寶用

The Lord of Ying makes for Mother Ji Yuan this offertory gui-tureen; may for ten thousand years it be eternally treasured and used.

As for the inscription on the cover, the catalog states that it “poses a problem,” a euphemism for suggesting that it is a forgery, though it also suggests that it “was misplaced on this bowl in the burial.” This inscription is much longer than that on the vessel and is full of historical interest. Ying Hou Xiangong gui gai 應侯見工簋蓋 唯正月初吉丁亥王若 曰應侯見工t淮南夷 逆敢搏厥眾u敢加興 乍戎廣伐南國王命應 侯正伐淮南夷丰休克 撲伐南夷我孚戈余弗 敢且余用乍朕王姑單 姬尊簋姑氏用易眉 壽永命子子孫孫永寶用亯

It was the first month, first auspiciousness, dinghai (day 24); the king approved of saying: “Xiangong, Lord of Ying; Ni of our Southern Yi of the Huai dares to strike his multitudinous subjects and dares increasingly to rise up and make war, broadly attacking the southern states. The king commanded the Lord of Ying to regulate and attack Ni of the Southern Yi of Huai.” Successful, he was capable of striking and attacking the Southern Yi, ? capturing dagger-axes. I do not dare to ? I herewith make for my august aunt Shan Ji this offertory gui-tureen, with which my aunt may award long life and an eternal mandate; [may] sons’ sons and grandsons’ grandsons eternally treasure and use it to make offerings.

It is true that there are certain anomalies about the wording of this inscription, but the inscription itself seems to have been cast into the vessel cover, suggesting that it is an authentic ancient piece.63 Moreover, an inscribed ding-caldron bearing a very similar inscription was purchased by the Shanghai Museum in 2000 (Figure 5.10a–b), and seems to clarify some of the anomalies in the Fan Ying Hou Xiangong gui gai inscription.64

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 161 Figure 5.10a–b Ying Hou Xiangong ding 應侯見工鼎 Vessel and Inscription; after Chen Peifen, ed., Xia Shang Zhou qingtongqi yanjiu (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2004), Xi Zhou pian Xia, pp. 413–14, #363. a

b

Ying Hou Xiangong ding 應侯見工鼎 用南夷逆敢乍非良廣 伐南國王令應侯見工曰 政伐丰我□令撲伐南夷 逆我多孚戎余用乍朕剌 考武侯尊鼎用祈眉 壽永令子=孫=其永寶用亯

Because Ni of the Southern Yi dared to make mischief and broadly attacked the southern states, the king commanded Xiangong, Lord of Ying, saying: “Govern and attack Ni.” We .. the command, striking and attacking Ni of the Southern Yi. We captured many weapons. I herewith make for my valorous deceased-father Lord Wu this offertory ding-caldron, to use to entreat long life and an eternal mandate. May sons’ sons and grandsons’ grandsons eternally treasure and use it to make offerings.

As Li Chaoyuan 李朝遠 (1953–2009), the late vice-director of the Shanghai Museum, noted in his study of the vessel and its inscription, this vessel is a typical late Western Zhou ding-caldron, and cannot possibly date as early as the time of Gong Wang.65 Instead, he relates it to a war between Zhou armies and the Southern Huai Yi 南淮夷 led by Yufang, Lord of E 噩侯馭方.

162 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

E 噩 is a state mentioned at the beginning of this survey of recently appearing bronze vessels in connection with the discovery of early Western Zhou bronzes at Yangzishan, Suizhou, Hubei. However, by the late Western Zhou, the state had been relocated to near present-day Nanyang 南陽, Henan, just southeast of Pingdingshanshi 平頂山市, Henan, near which the state of Ying 應 was located. This war, commemorated by at least a pair of inscribed bronze vessels, the most famous of which is the Yu ding 禹鼎 (Jicheng #2833), is almost always dated to the reign of Li Wang.66 This dating is almost certainly correct insofar as it goes. Yet, as we will see, new evidence might allow this dating to be refined still further.67 Whereas in the Yu ding inscription, Yufang, Lord of E, is named as “leading the Southern Huai Yi and Eastern Yi broadly to attack our southern states and eastern states as far as within Li” (shuai Nan Huai Yi Dong Yi guang fa nan guo dong guo zhi yu Li nei 率南淮夷東夷廣伐南或東或 至于歷內), in another closely contemporary vessel, the E Hou Yufang ding 噩侯馭方鼎 (Jicheng #2810), Yufang presents himself as being entertained by the king himself on the king’s own return from a southern campaign attacking the states of Jiao 角 and Yu 矞.68 Two new inscribed bronze vessels, both called Bo Congfu gui 伯㦰父簋, one again in the Shouyang Collection of George Fan and the other in China and reported on by Zhu Fenghan, surely relate to this royal campaign.69 Once again, the vessel and its inscription in the Shouyang Collection display several anomalies such that the editors of Shouyang jijin 首陽吉金, the catalog publishing this collection, treat the inscription at least as spurious (Figure 5.11a–b). However, comparison with the counterpart in China serves to explain most of the anomalies, and to suggest that both vessels are authentic.70 Let us first look at the inscription of the vessel in the Shouyang Collection, followed by that in China (the published rubbing of which is not clear enough to reproduce here).

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 163 Figure 5.11a–b Bo Congfu gui 伯 父簋 Vessel and Inscription; after Shouyang jijin: Hu Yingying, Fan Jirong cang Zhongguo gudai qingtongqi (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2008), p. 107, #36.

a

b

Bo Congfu gui 伯㦰父簋 隹王九月初吉庚午王 出自成周南征伐m子 n桐潏白㦰父從王伐 寴執訊十夫馘廿得孚 金五十勻用乍寶簋揚 用亯于文且考用易眉亯 壽其萬年子=孫=永寶用

It was the king’s ninth month, first auspiciousness, gengwu (day 7); the king went out from Chengzhou campaigning southwards to attack Fuzi, Yang, Tong and Yu. Bo Congfu followed the king to attack, personally manacling ten prisoners, taking twenty head-trophies, and getting fifty measures of captured bronze, using it to make this treasured gui-tureen to extol, using it to make an offering to my cultured ancestors and deceased-father, and using it to be awarded longevity; may for ten thousand years sons’ sons and grandsons’ grandsons eternally treasure and use it to make offerings. Bo Congfu gui 伯㦰父簋 隹王九月初吉庚午王 出自成周南征伐m子

164 · Edward L. Shaughnessy n桐潏白㦰父從王伐 寴執訊十夫馘廿得孚 金五十勻用乍寶簋對揚 萬年 孫 亯 用亯于文且考用眉壽其子永寶

It was the king’s ninth month, first auspiciousness, gengwu (day 7); the king went out from Chengzhou campaigning southwards to attack Fuzi, Yang, Tong and Yu. Bo Congfu followed the king to attack, personally manacling ten prisoners, taking twenty head-trophies, and getting fifty measures of captured bronze, using it to make this treasured gui-tureen in response to extol, using it to make an offering to my cultured ancestors and deceased-father, and using it for long life for ten thousand years; may sons and grandsons eternally treasure it and make offerings.

Both inscriptions display numerous points that would normally render them problematic: numerous characters display reversed or radically abbreviated components, and the line order and syntax are also disordered, especially at the end of the inscription reported by Zhu Fenghan, but also in the example in the Shouyang Collection. Nevertheless, there would seem to be little reason to doubt the authenticity of the inscription itself, the anomalies again being consistent with those seen in other inscribed vessels perhaps cast on the patron’s own recognizance.71 If the inscription is in fact authentic in any one of its extant versions, then not only can it be linked to the E Hou Yufang ding through its mention of an attack on Yu 矞, but it also serves to link that southern campaign to a still more famous one, that commemorated by the Hu zhong 㝬鐘 (also known as Zongzhou zhong 宗周鐘; Jicheng #0260), the patron of which is now almost universally accepted to be Li Wang (r. 857/53–842/28 B.C.) himself. The inscription, which reflects a royal perspective and concludes with a prayer in which the patron calls himself Hu 㝬, phonetically equivalent with the name Hu 胡 given for Li Wang in traditional sources, begins by documenting a royal campaign through the southern states, in the course of which one Fuzi 𠬝子 “dared to endanger” (gan xian chu 敢陷處) the Zhou army, precipitating a Zhou attack on “his capital” (jue du 厥都). As we can expect in a commemorative inscription of this sort, the Zhou army was victorious, with Fuzi responding to a summons by the king, leading (the leaders of) 26 southern countries (bang 邦) to present themselves to him. The Bo Congfu gui inscriptions also mention this attack on Fuzi, and thus can also be dated to the reign of Li Wang.

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 165

In addition, the Bo Congfu gui inscriptions also mention attacks against three other persons or places: Yang n, Tong 桐 and Yu 潏. Attacks on Tong and Yu are also commemorated in the inscription on the Liao Sheng xu 翏生盨 (Jicheng #4459), as well as attacks on Jiao 角 and Jin 津 (“the king campaigned against the Southern Huai Yi, attacking Jiao and Jin, attacking Tong and Yu” [Wang zheng Nan Huai Yi, fa Jiao Jin, fa Tong Yu 王征南淮夷伐角津伐桐遹]), while, as mentioned above, the inscription on the E Hou Yufang ding similarly commemorates attacks on Jiao and Yu as well as a royal banquet celebrating the victory. Ma Chengyuan 馬承源 (1928–2004) adduced good evidence to show that of these place names at least Jiao and Tong can be located with some confidence in the territory of the Huai 淮 River.72 According to the Shui jing zhu 水經注, Jiao was located near the border of the present-day provinces of Anhui and Jiangsu at the conf luence of the Huai and Si 泗 rivers,73 while Du Yu’s 杜預 (A.D. 222–284) commentary to the Zuo zhuan 左傳 identifies Tong with what is today Anhui’s Tongchengshi 桐城市, just under 100 km south and east of the provincial capital Hefei 合肥, which is in turn about 200 km southeast of Jiao.74 This same campaign is doubtless also related to that commemorated by the Guo Zhong xu gai 虢仲盨蓋 (Jicheng #4435), one of twelve xu-tureens that Guo Zhong 虢仲 had cast to commemorate his “taking the king on campaign southwards to attack the Southern Huai Yi” (Guo Zhong yi wang nan zheng fa Nan Huai Yi 虢中以王南征伐南淮夷). Zhu Fenghan has also recently introduced another inscribed bronze vessel that also prominently mentions Guo Zhong, probably also within the context of this same southern campaign, though this vessel was made by a Zuo Bo 柞白 (i.e., 胙 伯), a descendant of the famous Duke of Zhou 周公 (Figure 5.12a–b).75 Although my understanding of the inscription differs from that of Professor Zhu (he interprets it as referring retrospectively to a southern campaign by the Duke of Zhou himself), there is no question about the significance of the inscription, which narrates a concerted attack on Hun City 昏邑 by Guo Zhong, Zuo Bo and also the Lord of Cai 蔡侯.76

166 · Edward L. Shaughnessy Figure 5.12a–b Zuo Bo ding 柞白鼎 Vessel and Inscription; after Liu Yu and Yan Zhibin, eds., Jin chu Yin Zhou jinwen jilu er bian (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2010), vol. 1, pp. 354–55, #327. a

b

Zuo Bo ding 柞白鼎 隹四月既死霸虢中令 柞白曰才乃聖且周公 䌛又共于周邦用昏無 殳廣伐南或今女o率 蔡侯左至于昏邑既圍 城令蔡侯告k虢中遣 氏曰既圍昏虢中至辛酉 尃戎柞白執訊二夫隻聝 十人諆弗敢r朕皇且 用乍朕烈且幽叔寶尊 鼎諆用追亯孝用旂眉 壽萬人子=孫=其永寶用

It was the fourth month, after the dying brightness; Guo Zhong commanded Zuo Bo saying: “In [antiquity] your sainted ancestor the Duke of Zhou was formerly celebrated in the Zhou country. Because Hun brandished lances and broadly attacked the southern territories, now you are to lead the Lord of Cai to the left arriving at Hun City.” Having surrounded the city, I commanded the Lord of Cai to report to Guo Zhong Qianshi saying: “Having surrounded the city, Guo Zhong is to arrive.” On xinyou (day 58), we engaged the enemy. Zuo Bo manacled two chiefs and took the heads of ten men. By intent not having dared to besmirch my august ancestor, I herewith make for my valorous ancestor You Shu this treasured offertory ding-caldron; may it be used to offer up filial-offerings and used to entreat long life for ten thousand

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 167 years, and may sons’ sons and grandsons’ grandsons eternally treasure and use it.

Despite the many victories in battle commemorated by these various inscribed bronze vessels, both recently discovered and previously known, the historical verdict on Li Wang’s reign has been much less celebratory.77 Shortly after the king’s own southern campaign, it was necessary to enlist all of the aid possible to suppress the “rebellion” led by the Lord of E. Then within only a few more years, the king himself was forced into exile, spending the last 14 years of his life (842–828 B.C.) at Zhi 彘, near presentday Houma 侯馬, Shanxi. This was the period of the well-known Gong He 共和 interregnum, during which power at court was wielded by one Gong Bo He 共伯和, and during which the crown prince Jing 靖, known to posterity as Xuan Wang 宣王, was still a child. As we know both from the traditional historical record and now from the Qiu pan inscription, which provides a sketch history of all the Western Zhou kings down to and including Li Wang’s successor, Xuan Wang was eventually restored and, as the Forty-second Year Qiu ding and Forty-third Year Qiu ding inscriptions attest, went on to enjoy a very lengthy reign. As mentioned at the beginning of this article, the Shan family cache of 27 vessels, including the Qiu pan and the two Qiu ding, uncovered in 2003 in Meixian, Shaanxi, must surely rank among the greatest discoveries of Western Zhou bronze vessels of this or any other decade. However, as the foregoing survey should show, it was by no means the only great discovery of this decade. Indeed, it was not even the decade’s only great discovery of a cache of Xuan Wang-period bronzes. Just over three years after the Meixian discovery, in November 2006, peasants restoring a dike at Wujun xicun 五郡西村, some 5 km to the west of the county seat of Fufeng 扶風 county, Shaanxi, uncovered a circular cache in which bronze vessels, bells, weapons, a set of chariot pieces and a single jade piece had been carefully secreted.78 Of the twenty-five bronzes in the cache, clearly the most important for historical purposes are two aesthetically unexceptional zun 尊-vases, the identical inscriptions on which show them to have been made for one Diao Sheng 琱生 (Figure 5.13a–b). This inscription would have attracted great attention just in its own right. However, it immediately attracted even more than the usual attention because it corresponds with the inscriptions on a pair of Diao Sheng gui 琱生簋 that have long stimulated research and debate, one dated to the fifth year (Jicheng #4292) of an unspecified reign but almost certainly that of Xuan Wang and the other dated to the sixth year (Jicheng

168 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

#4293) of that reign.79 Of these, the Sixth Year Diao Sheng gui was apparently the first to be discovered, having first been published in 1804 in the Jigu zhai zhong ding yi qi kuanzhi 積古齋鐘鼎彝器款識 of Ruan Yuan 阮元 (1764–1849); it is currently housed in the National Museum of China in Beijing. The Fifth Year Diao Sheng gui was first published in the Jungu lu jinwen 攈古錄金文 of Wu Shifen 吳式芬 (1796–1856), which appeared posthumously only in 1895; it is in the collection of the Yale University Art Museum.80 The Fifth Year and Sixth Year gui appear to have been made as a pair, the inscriptions on them both apparently recounting the successful resolution of an interlineage land dispute involving Diao Sheng,81 representing a cadet branch lineage of the Shao 召 lineage, and Shaobo Hu 召伯 虎, famed from his mention in both the Shi jing 詩經 and throughout the traditional historical record,82 representing the senior Shao lineage. The debate about the inscriptions derives in large part from confusion about the other figures mentioned in them, and their relationships to the principal characters. Fortunately, the newly discovered Diao Sheng zun inscription throws new light on these figures, and thus helps to resolve the debate about the family dispute. These other figures include a fu shi 婦氏, “the Madame,” called Shao Jiang 召姜 in the Diao Sheng zun inscription, thus showing clearly that she was the wife of Shaobo Hu; a jun shi 君氏, who is variously identified as the mother or the father of Shaobo Hu (whether the mother or the father, it seems clear that she or he was a generation senior to both Diao Sheng and Shaobo Hu and was regarded as having authority within the lineage); and “officers” or “supervisors” (you si 有司), who seem to have been court officers, perhaps at the Zhou capital. As does the Fifth Year Diao Sheng gui inscription, the Diao Sheng zun inscription begins by alluding to a dispute between Diao Sheng and Shaobo Hu about the division of the family’s lineage retainers and land holdings, with the jun shi proposing the resolution—that the senior lineage would receive sixty percent as opposed to forty percent for the cadet lineage (in the Fifth Year gui inscription, she or he also proposed that the senior lineage would receive two-thirds as opposed to one-third for the cadet lineage, but this less favorable resolution for Diao Sheng’s branch lineage is not mentioned in the zun inscription). An exchange of gifts seems to have signaled the agreement of the respective parties within the lineage, Diao Sheng receiving a jade tablet (zhang 章, i.e., 璋), and giving in turn silk and a jade ring to Shao Jiang, Shaobo Hu’s wife. Shaobo Hu then formalized the agreement with the “supervisors” and signed (ming 名) a “register” (dian 典) or deed, which he reports was fully in agreement with

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 169

the resolution proposed by his parent. Diao Sheng commemorated the agreement by casting the pair of gui vessels extolling the grace of his “lineage lord” (zhen zong jun 朕宗君) and dedicating them to “my valorous ancestor the Duke of Shao” (zhen lie zu Shao Gong 朕剌祖召公). In the zun inscription, after also extolling the grace of his lineage lord and dedicating the vessel to the Duke of Shao, he concludes by swearing an oath: 其又亂茲命，曰：毋事召人，公則明殛。

If anyone should disorder this command, I say: “If you do not serve the men of Shao, the duke then swears to put you to death.”

The inscriptions are among the most difficult of all Western Zhou inscriptions, but the newly discovered Diao Sheng zun provides certain keys to explain the process of this dispute and its resolution. The following represents a trial translation. Figure 5.13a–b Diao Sheng zun 琱生尊 Vessel and Inscription; after Liu Yu and Yan Zhibin, eds., Jin chu Yin Zhou jinwen jilu er bian (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2010), vol. 2, pp. 273–74, #587. a

b

Diao Sheng zun 琱生尊 隹五年九月初吉 召姜以琱生c五尋壺 兩以君氏命曰余老之 我僕庸土田多刺弋 許勿使散亡余宕其 三汝宕其貳其兄公

170 · Edward L. Shaughnessy 其弟乃余熏大章報 婦氏帛束璜有司眔 d兩辟琱生奉揚朕 宗君休用作召公尊 用祈前錄得純靈 終子孫永寶用之享 其又亂茲命曰毋 事召人公則明殛

It was the fifth year, ninth month, first auspiciousness. Shao Jiang on account of Diao Sheng’s five xun of cloth and two vases used Junshi’s command, which said: “I examined it. Our retainers and fields are much litigious. Would that you assent and not cause them to disperse and abscond. I will receive three parts of them and you will receive two parts of them. The elder brother is the ducal [lineage], and the younger brother is secondary.” I being graced with a great jade tablet, requited the Madame with a bolt of silk and a jade demi-circlet, and to the supervisors conjointly give two jade bidisks. Diao Sheng in response extols my lineage lord’s beneficence, herewith making for the Duke of Shao this offertory chalice, with which to entreat exceeding wealth and to get purity and a spiritual end; sons and grandsons will eternally treasure and use it to make offerings. If anyone should disorder this command, I say: “If you do not serve the men of Shao, the duke then swears to put you to death.”

The kinship structure of the Western Zhou and especially relations between lineages and branch lineages has become a topic of great interest among students of early China,83 and the Diao Sheng inscriptions have generated their share of discussion in this regard. Recently, Wu Zhenfeng 吳鎮烽 has reported that in June 1995, he was invited to Xianyang 咸陽 to examine a number of antiquities in the possession of the Public Security Bureau.84 At the time, he made rubbings of the inscribed bronze vessels. Nine years later, organizing his collection of rubbings, he discovered that these vessels had never been published. Among them is the late Western Zhou Xian ding p鼎 (not illustrated but said to be similar to the Mao Gong ding 毛公鼎 [Jicheng #2841]), bearing what is apparently the first half of an otherwise complete inscription (Figure 5.14). Its opening lists six generations of Xian’s ancestors, beginning with his “high ancestor” (gao zu 高祖), and proceeding through three generations of “next ancestors” (ya zu 亞祖) before coming to his grandfather (wang fu 王父) and finally his deceasedfather (huang kao 皇考).

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 171 Figure 5.14 Xian ding 鼎 Inscription; after Liu Yu and Yan Zhibin, eds., Jin chu Yin Zhou jinwen jilu er bian (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2010), vol. 1, p. 350, #324.

Xian ding p鼎 p曰不顯天尹匍保 王身諫辥四方在朕 皇高且師婁亞且師 夆亞且師q亞且師僕 王父師彪于朕皇 考師孝□乍尹氏□ 妾甸人得屯亡敃□ 尹氏家p夙……

Xian said: “The illustrious heavenly governor soothes and protects the king’s person and regulates and controls the four quarters. With my august high ancestor Captain Lou, the next ancestor Captain Feng, the next ancestor Captain Yi, the next ancestor Captain Pu, the royal father [i.e., my grandfather] Captain Biao, and my august deceased-father Captain Xiao have .. served as the Governor’s .. , consorts and fieldsmen, gaining purity without defect, .. the Governor’s household. May Xian morning. …

As Wu Zhenfeng has pointed out both in his study of the Xian ding inscription and also in a separate article published in the prominent

172 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

journal Kaogu,85 the sequential listing of three generations of ya zu 亞祖 poses a considerable problem for what has become the predominant interpretation of this term, associated with Lothar von Falkenhausen (Wu Zhenfeng refers to him by his Chinese name, Luo Tai 羅泰): the head of a “branch lineage.” Writing in English, Falkenhausen has translated the term as “Subordinate Ancestor” and defined it as the establisher of a branch lineage. [T]he “Subordinate Ancestor” is separated from the founding ancestor of the trunk lineage by quite a number of generations. Those who sacrificed to a “Subordinate Ancestor” belonged to a segment of their respective branch lineage that had either split off the main trunk lineage and become a separate branch lineage, or had reconstituted itself as a new, scaled-down trunk lineage; the “Subordinate Ancestor” is the founder of this secondary-level unit within a lineage.86

Although Falkenhausen found classical support in the Li ji 禮記 or Record of Ritual for this interpretation,87 which informs several of the chapters in his recent book Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius (1000–250 BC): The Archaeological Evidence, Wu Zhenfeng argues that the evidence in Western Zhou bronze inscriptions is largely inconsistent with it. Now with the appearance of the Xian ding inscription, it would seem even more necessary to reconsider ancient China’s kinship system. To conclude this survey of recently published inscribed bronze vessels with yet another inscription that sheds new light on the twin issues of periodization and chronology, Alex Kwong-yue Cheung has introduced yet another vessel that he described as in the collection of a friend, a vessel that he refers to as Shi Baifu xu 士百父盨 (Figure 5.15a–b). 88 Professor Cheung argues that the vessel, dated to the twenty-third year of an unnamed reign, should date to the reign of Xuan Wang, and thus constitutes important new information for the middle period of that lengthy reign. After Professor Cheung’s introduction had been published, Li Xueqin followed with an article of his own, agreeing that the vessel does date to the twenty-third year of Xuan Wang’s reign, but pointing out quite properly that the vessel should actually be called Wen xu 文盨. 89 The inscription reads as follows:

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 173 Figure 5.15a–b Wen xu 文 Vessel and Inscription; after Liu Yu and Yan Zhibin, eds., Jin chu Yin Zhou jinwen jilu er bian (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2010), vol. 2, p. 137, #457. a

b

Wen xu 文盨 唯王廿又三年八月 王命士曶父殷南邦 啟者侯乃易馬王命 文曰率道于小南唯 五月初吉還至于成 周乍旅盨用對王休

It was the king’s twenty-third year, eighth month. The king commanded Sire Hufu to convene the southern countries and to initiate the many lords, and then awarded him a horse. The king commanded Wen saying, “Lead the way to the Lesser South.” It was the fifth month, first auspiciousness, returning and reaching as far as Chengzhou, he makes this sacrificial xu-tureen with which to respond to the king’s grace.

In addition to noting that the patron of the vessel was actually Wen 文, Professor Li also corrected Professor Cheung’s transcription of the name of the other figure mentioned in the inscription, in its second column: rather than Shi Baifu 士百父, as Cheung had transcribed it, it should properly be read as Shi Hufu 士曶父. More than just the correction of a single

174 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

graph, Professor Li’s transcription points toward an important significance this vessel has for the dating of some other late Western Zhou bronze vessels. Shi Hufu, or Shi Hu 士曶, also appears in the inscription on the Ke zhong 克鐘 (Jicheng #204–05, #206–07, #208) and Ke bo 克鎛 (Jicheng #209), which are “standards” for the reign of Xuan Wang both by virtue of their full-date notation (16/9/A/27), which corresponds to the calendar of the year 812 B.C., and also by virtue of being set in the “Zhou Kang La Gong” 周康剌宮, the temple in the Zhou capital dedicated to the deceased Li Wang (la 剌 being an attested writing for Li Wang’s epithet li 厲).90 Shi Hu, or simply Hu, is doubtless also the patron of the Hu hu gai 曶壺蓋 (Jicheng #9728), a late Western Zhou vessel in which Hu is commanded “to succeed your grandfather and deceased-father to serve as supreme supervisor of lands in the Chengzhou Eight Armies” (geng nai zu kao zuo zhong situ yu Chengzhou ba shi 更乃且考乍冢𤔲土于成周八師). It is interesting that this inscription on the Hu hu gai, like that on the Wen xu, places Hu in Chengzhou 成周, the eastern capital located at the site of present-day Luoyang 洛陽. Finally, the name Hu also appears in the inscription on the much celebrated Jin Hou Su bianzhong 晉侯蘇編鐘 (Jilu #35–50), on which I reported in my earlier study “New Sources of Western Zhou History.” In that study, I noted that the lengthy inscription on this sixteen-bell chime bears a full-date notation of the thirty-third year of an unspecified royal reign, but that the Shi ji indicates that the patron of this vessel, Jin Hou Su 晉侯蘇 (known to the Shi ji as Jin Xian Hou 晉獻侯), ruled in Jin from the sixth to the sixteenth years of Xuan Wang, and concluded: “The discrepancy between these dates for the reign of Jin Xian Hou and the thirty-third year date given in the inscription itself has prompted an outpouring of scholarship in China and abroad; as of yet, there is no consensus regarding these dates, though it seems clear that the chronology given in the Shi ji is mistaken in some way.”91 The Jin Hou Su bianzhong inscription narrates a long royal campaign to the east, probably to the area of modern-day Shandong, in which the king was accompanied by Jin Hou Su, who led his own forces in battle. Upon returning to Chengzhou, the king held a ceremony in the “Great Chamber” to celebrate the success of the armies. At the beginning of this ceremony, “the king called on Steward Hu to summon Jin Hou Su to enter the gate and take his stand in the center of the court” (wang hu Shanfu Hu zhao Jin Hou Su ru men li zhong ting 王乎善夫曶召晉侯蘇入門立中庭). As I have pointed out in another study, although Hu is here titled “Steward” (shanfu 膳夫) rather than Sire (shi 士) or Supreme Supervisor of Lands (zhong situ 冢𤔲土), it seems likely

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 175

that he is the same figure as the Hu in the Wen xu inscription.92 If so, then it seems even more likely that the thirty-third year date in the Jin Hou Su bianzhong could refer only to Xuan Wang’s reign, ten years after the twenty-third year date in the Wen xu inscription. If this new evidence can contribute to resolving the debate regarding the dating of the Jin Hou Su bianzhong, it will be very significant indeed.

Conclusion In the foregoing survey, I have introduced a half dozen important archaeological sites and more than twenty inscribed bronze vessels that have come to light in the course of the last ten years. These sites and vessels derive from every portion of the Western Zhou period, from the very first years of the dynasty to almost its last, and throw new light on a number of different topics in Western Zhou history. Perhaps because of my own research interests, I have focused more on chronology and periodization, on the one hand, and military affairs, on the other, than other topics. I encourage others to plumb these inscriptions for evidence on those other topics. The translations presented here should be regarded as preliminary; some of the inscriptions are relatively straightforward and present few problems, while others will surely be debated for years to come. The important point is that the number of new inscribed vessels that have appeared shows yet again just how little we still know about the period and how much more we have to look forward to in the future.

176 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

Notes 1

2

3

4

Edward L. Shaughnessy, “New Sources of Western Zhou History: Recent Discoveries of Inscribed Bronze Vessels,” Early China 26–27 (2001–2002): 73–98. For the preliminary—and still the only—report of this project, see Xia Shang Zhou duandai gongcheng zhuanjiazu, Xia Shang Zhou duandai gongcheng: 1996–2000 nian jieduan chengguo baogao, Jianben 夏商周斷代工程：1996–2000 年階段成果報告，簡本 (Beijing: Shijie tushu chuban gongsi, 2000). The Poly Art Museum has issued a catalog devoted to just this one vessel: Sui Gong xu: Da Yu zhi shui yu wei zheng yi de e公盨：大禹治水與為政以德 (Beijing: Xianzhuang shuju, 2002); the romanization “Sui Gong” is given on the title page. Sui Gong xu: Da Yu zhi shui yu wei zheng yi de includes studies of the inscription by China’s four leading paleographers. The studies were simultaneously published in the journal Zhongguo lishi wenwu 中國歷史文物 2002.6: Li Xueqin 李學勤, “Lun Sui Gong xu ji qi zhongyao yiyi” 論e公盨及其重要意 義, pp. 4–12; Qiu Xigui 裘錫圭, “Bin Gong xu mingwen kaoshi” e公盨銘文考 釋 (using the author’s preferred reading of the character ), pp. 13–27; Zhu Fenghan 朱鳳瀚, “Bin Gong xu mingwen chu shi” e公盨銘文初釋, pp. 28–34; and Li Ling 李零, “Lun Bin Gong xu faxian de yiyi” 論e公盨發現的意義, pp. 35–45. In the West, the vessel and its inscription were the topic of a workshop at Dartmouth College in 2003, the proceedings of which were published as The X Gong Xu: A Report and Papers from the Dartmouth Workshop, ed. Xing Wen, Special Issue of International Research on Bamboo and Silk Documents: Newsletter (Dartmouth College, 2003). See, too, Edward L. Shaughnessy, “The Bin Gong Xu Inscription and the Beginnings of the Chinese Literary Tradition,” in Wilt Idema, ed., Books in Numbers: Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Harvard-Yenching Library, Conference Papers (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2007), pp. 1–19. Shortly after the discovery of the cache, the vessels were sent to Beijing for a special exhibition at the Chinese Century Altar Museum (Zhonghua shiji tan yishuguan 中華世紀壇藝術館), which issued a catalog: Sheng shi jijin: Shaanxi Baoji Meixian qingtongqi jiaocang 盛世吉金：陝西寶雞眉縣青銅器窖藏 , ed. Shaanxi sheng wenwuju and Zhonghua shiji tan yishuguan (Beijing: Beijing chubanshe, 2003). For initial reports of the discovery in the scholarly press, see Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Baoji shi kaogu gongzuodui and Meixian wenhuaguan, “Shaanxi Meixian Yangjia cun Xi Zhou qingtongqi jiaocang fajue jianbao” 陝西眉縣楊家村西周青銅器窖藏發掘簡報, Wenwu 文物 2003.6: 4–42; Liu Huaijun 劉懷君 and Liu Junshe 劉君社, “Shaanxi Meixian Yangjia cun Xi Zhou qingtongqi jiaocang” 陝西眉縣楊家村西周青銅器窖藏, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2003.3: 3–12. Also of interest are “Shaanxi Meixian chutu jiaocang tongqi bitan” 陝西眉縣出土窖藏銅器筆談, Wenwu 2003.6: 43–65, and “Baoji Meixian Yangjia cun jiaocang Shan shi jiazu qingtongqi qun zuotan jiyao” 寶雞眉縣楊家村窖藏單氏家族青銅器群座談紀要, Kaogu yu wenwu 2003.3:

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 177

5

6

7

8 9

13–16. For Western-language publications devoted to the Meixian Shanfamily inscriptions, see Lothar von Falkenhausen, “The Inscribed Bronzes from Yangjiacun: New Evidence on Social Structure and Historical Consciousness in Late Western Zhou China (ca. 800 BC),” Proceedings of the British Academy 139 (2006): 239–96, and Edward L. Shaughnessy, “The Writing of a Late Western Zhou Bronze Inscription,” Asiatische Studien/ Études Asiatiques 61.3 (2007): 845–77. I have selected these bronzes out of more than 400 inscribed vessels that have appeared over the decade. I am indebted to Professor Zhang Zaixing 張再興 of Huadong shifan daxue in Shanghai for compiling a comprehensive list of these inscriptions. Shaughnessy, “New Sources of Western Zhou History,” pp. 88–89. In that survey, I presented a translation essentially identical to that given here, and referred to two studies of the inscription: Li Boqian 李伯謙, “Shu Ze fangding mingwen kaoshi” 叔夨方鼎銘文考釋 , Wenwu 文物 2001.8: 39–42, and Li Xueqin 李學勤, “Tan Shu Ze fangding ji qita” 談叔夨方鼎及其他, Wenwu 2001.10: 67–70. In the meantime, a conference was held in the summer of 2002 at the Shanghai Museum to discuss the bronzes of this cemetery, and five papers in the proceedings of the conference (Shanghai bowuguan, ed., Jin hou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 晉侯墓地出土 青銅器國際學術研討會論文集 [Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe, 2002]) were devoted to this one inscription: Li Xueqin 李學勤, “Shu Yu fangding shi zheng” 叔虞方鼎試證, pp. 249–51; Shen Changyun 沈長雲, “Xin chu Shu Yao fangding zhong yao zi de shidu wenti” 新出叔夭方鼎中夭字的釋讀問題, pp. 253–57; Feng Shi 馮時, “Shu Ze kao” 叔夨考, pp. 258–65; Liu Yu 劉雨, “Shu Ze fangding ming de runyue yu jili” 叔夨方鼎銘的閏月與祭禮, pp. 266–71; and Cao Wei 曹瑋, “Shu Ze fangding mingwen zhong de jisi li” 叔夨方鼎銘文中的 祭祀禮, pp. 272–76. Ze 夨/𣅔 and yu 虞 are graphically, and perhaps phonetically, very similar, both featuring 夨 as the core component of the character (in yu/*ngwâ 虞, the “tiger” component 虎 hu/*hlâ? serves as an added phonetic component). See too the similar point made in Ch’en Chao-jung’s discussion of the states Ze and Wu 吳 in the present volume. Sima Qian 司馬遷, Shi ji 史記 (Zhonghua shuju ed.), 39 (“Jin shijia” 晉世家), p. 1635. The oldest source supporting the location in Jiangzhou seems to be the Shi ji zheng yi 史記正義 commentary of Zhang Shoujie 張守節 (f l. 737), which quotes in turn the Kuo di zhi 括地志; Shi ji, 39 (“Jin shijia” 晉世家), p. 1636. For the location in Xiangning county, the Shi ji ji jie 史記集解 commentary of Pei Yin 裴駰 (5th c.) cites the Shi ben 世本; Shi ji, 39 (“Jin shijia”), p. 1636. For a discussion of these sources, concluding that the Xiangning location is probably correct, see Rao Zongyi 饒宗頤, “You gu Tang guo tan Tangshu Yu feng di yu ‘Shu Ze’ ji ‘Xiefu’ wenti” 由古唐國談唐叔虞封地與「叔夨」及「燮父」問題, in Rao Zongyi xin chutu wenxian lunzheng 饒宗頤新出土文獻論證 (Shanghai:

178 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

10

Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2005), pp. 133–37. For another study, with full references to recent scholarship on this question, see Sun Yabing 孫亞冰, “Yang guo kao” 昜國考, Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字研究 27 (2008): 42–47. Zhushu jinian 竹書紀年 (Sibu congkan 四部叢刊 ed.), 2.7b. The entry for this year reads: 九年：唐遷于晉作宮而美，王使人讓之。

Ninth year: Tang moved to Jin and made a palace and beautified it. The king sent someone to reprimand them.

11

12

13

The early seventh-century Beitang shu chao 北堂書抄 quotes this (Jin Hou zhu gong er mei, Kang Wang shi rang zhi 晉侯築宮而美，康王使讓之), attributing it to the Annals (“Jinian yun” 紀年云); Beitang shu chao 北堂書抄 (Nanhai Kong shi kanben, 1888), 18.4a. If this entry pertains primarily to the move to Jin, there would seem to be a discrepancy between its date and that of the Yao Gong gui g公簋, which, as we will see below, dates the royal command to Tang Bo to rule in Jin to the twenty-eighth year of an unspecified reign, but which seems surely to be that of Cheng Wang. However, if this entry is understood to refer primarily to the king’s sending of an emissary to Jin to reprimand Jin for the opulence of its palace, which presumably took some years to build (and thus translating the first phrase in the past tense: “Tang having moved to Jin and built a palace and beautified it”), there would be no discrepancy. Zhu Fenghan 朱鳳瀚, “Yao Gong gui yu Tang Bo hou yu Jin” g公簋與唐伯侯 于晉, Kaogu 考古 2007.3: 64–69. For another discussion of this piece, together with superior photographs, see Zhu Fenghan, “Jianlun yu Xi Zhou niandaixue youguan de jijian tongqi” 簡論與西周年代學有關的幾件銅器, in Zhu Fenghan, ed., Xin chu jinwen yu Xi Zhou lishi 新岀金文與西周歷史 (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2011), pp. 33–38. Zhu Fenghan, “Yao Gong gui yu Tang Bo hou yu Jin,” pp. 66–67. For the Si gui, including an extended discussion of its date and comparative pieces (including the Kang Hou gui), see Robert W. Bagley, Shang Ritual Bronzes in the Arthur M. Sackler Collections (Washington, D.C.: The Arthur M. Sackler Foundation, 1987), pp. 521–36, #103. As Bagley notes, the Si gui is dated to the twentieth year (si 祀) of a reign that must be that of either Di Yi 帝乙 or Di Xin 帝辛, the last two Shang kings. The Kang Hou gui commemorates the appointment of Kang Hou 康侯 to rule in Wei 衛, and begins with the great event date “the king came from attacking the Shang city” (wang lai fa Shang yi 王來伐商邑), and is therefore universally regarded as a standard for the very beginning of the Western Zhou. As Zhu Fenghan also points out, the Chunqiu-period Jin Gong pen 晉公盆 quotes “Jin Gong” 晉公 as referring to “our august ancestor Tang Gong” (wo huang zu Tang Gong 我皇且 公), Tang written as ; see Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo, ed., Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng 殷周金文集成, 18

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 179

14 15 16 17 18

19

20

21

22

23 24

vols. (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1984–1994), #10342. Hereafter, bronzes included in this corpus inscriptionum will be cited in text in the form Jicheng #10342. Xia Shang Zhou duandai gongcheng zhuanjiazu, Xia Shang Zhou duandai gongcheng: 1996–2000 nian jieduan chengguo baogao, Jianben, p. 88. Han shu (Zhonghua shuju ed.), 21B (“Lü li zhi”), p. 1017. Zhushu jinian, 2.7a, 2.8a. Zhu Fenghan, “Yao Gong gui yu Tang Bo hou yu Jin,” p. 69. Suizhou shi bowuguan, ed., Suizhou chutu wenwu jingcui 隨州出土文物精粹 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2009). The only other notice of these bronzes to date is an article by Li Xueqin 李學勤: “You xin jian qingtongqi kan Xi Zhou zaoqi de E, Zeng, Chu” 由新見青銅器看西周早期的鄂、曾、楚, Wenwu 文物 2010.1: 40–43. There is a strikingly similar (though manifestly squatter) uninscribed you in the collection of the Poly Art Museum (Baoli yishu bowuguan 保利藝術博物 館) in Beijing; see Baoli cang jin 保利藏金 ([Guangzhou]: Lingnan meishu chubanshe, 1999), pp. 103–4. Since this collection was formed primarily through purchases from the antique market (i.e., from the results of tomb robbing), and since this piece entered the museum’s collection prior to the excavation at Yangzishan, this raises the disconcerting possibility that this tomb—or another related tomb in the vicinity—had previously been robbed. According to Suizhou chutu wenwu jingcui, p. 24 (#30), a previously unpublished early Western Zhou zun-vase inscribed “Ziji, younger brother of the Lord of E, makes this sacrificial vessel” (E Hou di Ziji zuo lü yi 噩侯弟 季乍 旅彝) was discovered at the same site in 1976. A gui-tureen with similar décor and identical inscription is in the Luoyang City Museum, and a covered youbucket with similar décor and identical inscription is in the collection of the Shanghai Museum, the piece in the Shanghai Museum having been previously reported in Wenwu 文物 1964.7: 15, figs. 6–7; for the inscriptions on these two vessels, see Jicheng #3668 and #5325. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Yuncheng shi wenwu gongzuozhan and Jiangxian wenhuaju, “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou mu fajue jianbao” 山西絳縣橫水西周墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 文物 2006.8: 4–18. For a thorough discussion of the Hengbei cemetery and its significance for mid-Western Zhou history, see Maria Khayutina’s contribution to this volume, “The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng and Relationships between Zhou and Northern Non-Zhou Lineages (Until the Early Ninth Century B.C.).” Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou mu fajue jianbao,” pp. 17–18. The most recent report on this cemetery provides an analysis of the lead content of the bones found in several of the tombs, demonstrating that the deceased (other than sacrificial victims) in bronze-bearing tombs display a considerably higher rate of lead than do those in other tombs; see Qin Ying 秦穎 , Qin Ya 秦亞 , Xie Yaoting 謝堯亭 and Liu Wenqi 劉文齊, “Shanxi

180 · Edward L. Shaughnessy Jiangxian Hengbei Xi Zhou mudi rengu qian hanliang fenxi” 山西絳縣橫北西 周墓地人骨鉛含量分析, Wenwu 文物 2009.7: 43–47. The authors of the study

25 26 27

28 29

30 31

32

33

plausibly propose that this higher rate of lead, which does not necessarily rise to the level of lead poisoning, was due to the lead in the bronze vessels used to prepare and serve the food and drink of the elite. Li Xueqin, “Jiangxian Hengbei cun da mu yu Peng guo” 絳縣橫北村大墓與䣙 國, Zhongguo wenwu bao 中國文物報, 14 September 2007, p. 5. Mu tianzi zhuan 穆天子傳 (Sibu beiyao 四部備要 ed.), 1.1b–2a. Feng Shi 馮時, “Peng guo kao (jian gao)” 倗國考（簡稿）, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Gudai wenming yanjiu zhongxin tongxun 中國社會科學院古代文明 研究中心通訊15 (Jan. 2008): 39, cites the third juan 卷 of the Yuanhe xing zuan 元和姓纂 of Lin Bao 林寶 (fl. 812) as stating this. However, I can find no such record—either in this juan or any other juan—in the three different editions of Yuanhe xing zuan available to me. Instead, I have found similar records in the Gu jin xingshi shu bianzheng 古今姓氏書辨證 of Deng Mingshi 登名世 (preface dated 1134; Siku quanshu 四庫全書 ed.), 28.1a, and in the still later Lu shi 路史 of Luo Bi 羅泌 (compiled about 1280; Siku quanshu ed.), 29.48a. Wei Tingsheng 衛挺生, Mu tianzi zhuan jin kao 穆天子傳今考 (Yangmingshan Huagang: Huagang wenhua shuju, 1970). In addition to the identification of the name of Peng with the state of that name in the Mu tianzi zhuan, Feng Shi 馮時 has suggested that the Mu tianzi zhuan’s Pengbo Qi 䣙伯綮 and the name Pengbo Cheng 倗伯偁 seen in the Pengbo Cheng gui might also be related as “name” (ming 名) and “cognomen” (zi 字), both perhaps meaning something like “to cause to arise”; Feng Shi, “Peng guo kao,” p. 40. While this is certainly a possibility, there would seem to be no direct evidence to support the connection. Shi ji, 4 (“Zhou benji” 周本紀), p. 117. For both of these traditions, the first preserved in the Shi ji ji jie 史記集解 commentary, and the second in the Shi ji zheng yi 史記正義 commentary, see Shi ji, 4, p. 117. For the first publication of archaeological work there, see Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Weinan shi wenwu baohu kaogu yanjiusuo and Hancheng shi wenwu lüyouju, “Shaanxi Hancheng Liangdaicun yizhi M27 fajue jianbao” 陝西韓城梁帶村遺址 M27發掘簡報, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2007.6: 3–22. Subsequent reports have come out on almost annual basis, for which see the following notes. In the summer of 2012, many of the artifacts from the cemetery were exhibited at the Shanghai Museum, and published in a sumptuous exhibition catalog: Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiuyuan and Shanghai bowuguan, eds., Jin yu hua nian: Shaanxi Hancheng chutu Zhou dai Rui guo wenwu zhenpin 金玉華年：陜西韓城出土周代芮國文物珍品 (added English title: Golden Age of the Rui State: Zhou Dynasty Treasures from Hancheng, Shaanxi Province) (Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe, 2012). Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Shaanxi Hancheng Liangdaicun yizhi M27 fajue jianbao.”

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 181 34

35

36

37

38

39

40 41 42

Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Weinan shi wenwu baohu kaogu yanjiusuo and Hancheng shi wenwu lüyouju, “Shaanxi Hancheng Liangdaicun yizhi M26 fajue jianbao” 陜西韓城梁帶村遺址 M26發掘簡報, Wenwu 文物 2008.1: 4–21. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Weinan shi wenwu baohu kaogu yanjiusuo and Hancheng shi wenwu lüyouju, “Shaanxi Hancheng Liangdaicun yizhi M19 fajue jianbao” 陝西韓城梁帶村遺址M19發掘簡報, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與 文物 2007.2: 3–14. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiuyuan, Weinan shi wenwu baohu kaogu yanjiusuo and Hancheng shi wenwu lüyouju, “Shaanxi Hancheng Liangdaicun Rui guo mudi M28 de fajue” 陝西韓城梁帶村芮國墓地M28的發掘, Kaogu 考古 2009.4: 3–15. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiuyuan, Weinan shi wenwu baohu kaogu yanjiusuo and Hancheng shi wenwu lüyouju, “Shaanxi Hancheng Liangdaicun mudi beiqu 2007 nian fajue jianbao” 陝西韓城梁帶村墓地北區 2007年發掘簡報, Wenwu 文物 2010.6: 4–20. The first report of excavations at this cemetery was Xie Yaoting 謝堯亭, “Shanxi Yicheng xian Dahekou Xi Zhou mudi huo zhongyao faxian: Ci mudi keneng shi xin faxian de yige Xi Zhou fengguo mudi” 山西翼城縣大河口西周墓 地獲重要發現：此墓地可能是新發現的一個西周封國墓地, Zhongguo wenwu bao 中國文物報, 4 July 2008, p. 5. Xie Yaoting 謝堯亭, Wang Jinping 王金平, Li Yongmin 李永敏, Yang Jiyun 楊及 耘 and Li Jiansheng 李建生, “Yicheng Dahekou mudi fajue jishi: Yige kaogu gongdi guanli anli” 翼城大河口墓地發掘紀實：一個考古工地管理案例, Zhongguo wenhua yichan 中國文化遺產 2011.1: 85–94. “2010 shi da kaogu xin faxian” 2010十大考古新發現, at http://news.nen.com. cn/guoneiguoji/256/3853756_2.shtml, accessed 19 June 2011. Zhang Guangyu 張光裕 [Cheung Kwong-yue], “He gui mingwen yu Xi Zhou shi shi xin zheng” 𣄰簋銘文與西周史事新證, Wenwu 文物 2009.2: 53–56. Doubtless the most important inscriptional evidence of the Duke of Zhou’s role in this “Eastern Campaign” is found in the Ran fangding 方鼎 inscription (Jicheng #02739), which begins: 隹周公于征伐東夷豐白尃古咸

It was when the Duke of Zhou was on campaign attacking the Eastern Yi, the Elder of Feng, and Pugu, all of which [he] cut off. 43

The vessel was first reported in the 2006.3 issue of the new journal of the National Museum of China: Zhongguo lishi wenwu 中國歷史文物, with the following articles: Wang Guanying 王冠英, “Lu gui kaoshi” 䚄簋考釋, pp. 4–6; Li Xueqin 李學勤, “Lun Lu gui de niandai” 論䚄簋的年代, pp. 7–8; Xia Hanyi 夏含夷 [Edward L. Shaughnessy], “Cong Lu gui kan Zhou Mu Wang zai wei nianshu ji niandai wenti” 從䚄簋看周穆王在位年數及年代問題 , pp. 9–10; Zhang Yongshan 張永山, “Lu gui zuoqizhe de niandai” 䚄簋作器者的年代, pp.

182 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

44

45

46

47 48

49

50

51

11–13. For the second vessel, the Zuoce Wu he 作冊吳盉, see Zhu Fenghan 朱鳳瀚, “Jianlun yu Xi Zhou niandaixue youguan de jijian tongqi” 簡論與西周年代學 有關的幾件銅器, in Zhu Fenghan, ed., Xin chu jinwen yu Xi Zhou lishi, pp. 45–51; see too, Xia Hanyi 夏含夷, “Cong Zuoce Wu he zai kan Zhou Mu Wang zai wei nianshu ji niandai wenti” 從作冊吳盉再看周穆王在位年數及年代 問題, in idem, pp. 52–55. The word zhong 冢 “mound; great, eminent” seems to occur in Western Zhou bronze inscriptions only one other time as an adjective, in the Qian gui 𧽊簋 (Jicheng #04266), in which Qian 𧽊 is appointed to be zhong sima of Bin Camp 𠂤. In the Lu gui inscription, the term is not qualified in any way, and so presumably refers to the supreme commander of the entire Zhou military structure. The Seventh Year Jue Cao ding 七年趞曹鼎 (Jicheng #02783), Fifth Year Qiu Wei ding 五祀裘衛鼎 (Jicheng #02832), Gu gui gai 羖簋蓋 (Jicheng #04243), Dou Bi gui 豆閉簋 (Jicheng #04276), Shi Hu gui 師虎簋 (Jicheng #04316), Yong yu 永 盂 (Jicheng #10322), and Chang Xin he 長甶盉 (Jicheng #09455). The Shi Kuafu ding 師 𡘇父鼎 (Jicheng #02813), and Zou gui 走簋 (Jicheng #04244). The Shi Yuan gui gai 師𤸫簋蓋 (Jicheng #04283) is the key linking all of these names together. In this inscription, Sima Jingbo Lu serves as the right-handman guarantor (youzhe 右者) at the confirmation and extension of the appointment of Captain (shi 師) Yuan 𤸫 to officiate over the “City Men” (yi ren 邑人) and the military officers (shishi 師氏). It is worth noting that the scribe at this investiture ceremony was Neishi Wu 內史吳, who will be discussed further below. Edward L. Shaughnessy, “Chronologies of Ancient China: A Critique of the ‘Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project,’” in Clara Wing-chung Ho, ed., Windows on the Chinese World: Ref lections by Five Historians (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2008), p. 24. Shaughnessy, “New Sources of Western Zhou History,” p. 95. For notice of the vessel’s discovery and a transcription of its inscription, see Wang Hanzhang 王翰章, Chen Lianghe 陳良和 and Li Baolin 李保林, “Hu gui gai ming jianshi” 虎簋蓋銘簡釋, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 1997.3: 78–80; and for discussions of its dating, see “Hu gui gai ming zuotan jiyao” 虎簋蓋銘座談 紀要, Kaogu yu wenwu 1997.3: 81–83. With the examples of these careers now before us, it is easy to see that a similar analysis of the four Qiu Wei vessels—Qiu Wei gui 裘衛簋 (Jicheng #4256), Qiu Wei he 裘衛盉 (Jicheng #9456), Fifth Year Qiu Wei ding, and Ninth Year Qiu Wei ding 九年裘衛鼎 (Jicheng #2831)—is also appropriate. The latter three of these vessels are regarded as “standards” for the reign of Gong Wang, who is mentioned by name in the Fifth Year Qiu Wei ding inscription. The Qiu Wei gui inscription, which is clearly the earliest of these four vessels (the shape and ornamentation is consistent with an early mid-Western Zhou

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 183

52

53

54

[128.104.46.206] Project MUSE (2024-03-02 03:18 GMT) UW-Madison Libraries

55

56 57

58 59

60

date), bears a twenty-seventh year date, which almost all scholars regard as belonging to Mu Wang’s reign. If Mu Wang were to have reigned fifty-five years, as tradition holds, we would then have a similar situation, with Qiu Wei casting one bronze and then only after more than thirty years casting three more in rapid succession. It makes more sense to imagine that Mu Wang’s reign ended sometime sooner after the casting of the twenty-seventhyear gui-vessel. This same secretary performs the same function in the inscription on the Shi Yuan gui gai (see, above, note 48) in which Sima Jingbo Lu also serves as guarantor. See, for example, Xia Shang Zhou duandai gongcheng zhuanjiazu, Xia Shang Zhou duandai gongcheng, Jianben, p. 31; Ma Chengyuan 馬承源 et al., eds., Shang Zhou qingtongqi mingwen xuan 商周青銅器銘文選, vol. 3 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1988), p. 176. Even earlier studies that dated the vessel to the reign of Gong Wang did so because of its relationship with the Shi Hu gui; see, for example, Guo Moruo 郭沫若, Liang Zhou jinwenci daxi kaoshi 兩周金 文辭大系考釋 (Tokyo: Monkyûdô shoten, 1935), pp. 74b–75b; Shirakawa Shizuka 白川靜, Kinbun tsûshaku 金文通釋, vol. 19 (Kobe: Hakutsuru bijitsukan, 1968), pp. 370–76. Zhu Fenghan 朱鳳瀚, “Shi Shan pan mingwen chushi” 士山盤銘文初釋 , Zhongguo lishi wenwu 中國歷史文物 2002.1: 4–7. Professor Zhu does not say how the vessel entered the museum’s collection, but one must assume that it was purchased on the Hong Kong antique market. Other studies of the vessel’s inscription include: Huang Xiquan 黃錫全, “Shi Shan pan mingwen bie yi” 士山盤銘文別議, Zhongguo lishi wenwu 2003.2: 60–65; Dong Shan 董珊, “Tan Shi Shan pan mingwen de ‘fu’ zi yi” 談士山盤銘 文的「服」字義, Gugong bowuyuan yuankan 故宮博物院院刊 2004.1: 78–85; Yang Kun 楊坤, “Shi Shan pan mingwen zheng yi” 士山盤銘文正誼, Zhongguo lishi wenwu 2004.6: 18–19. Zhu Fenghan, “Shi Shan pan mingwen chushi,” p. 5. The date of this vessel is certainly consistent with the three Gong Wangperiod Qiu Wei vessels: Qiu Wei he (3/3/B/39), Fifth Year Qiu Wei ding (5/1/ A/47), and Ninth Year Qiu Wei ding (9/1/D/17). However, its calendar is generally inconsistent with the other “standard” for the reign of Gong Wang, the Fifteenth Year Jue Cao ding (15/5/B/19). This inconsistency deserves further study. Zhu Fenghan 朱鳳瀚, “Shi You ding yu Shi You gui” 師酉鼎與師酉簋, Zhongguo lishi wenwu 中國歷史文物 2004.1: 4–10, 35. These four gui-tureens, three of which are in the Palace Museum in Beijing and the other in the National Museum of China, also in Beijing, all appear to be standard late Western Zhou vessels, but other evidence suggests that they should in fact date to the mid-Western Zhou. The date of these vessels deserves further study. “New Sources of Western Zhou History,” pp. 78–79 and n. 13. For the initial

184 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

publication of these gui-tureens, see Baoli cang jin (xu) 保利藏金（續）(Guangzhou: Lingnan meishu chubanshe, 2001), pp. 122–27. By “the excavators” here, I was referring to Ren Song 韌松 and Fan Weiyue 樊 維岳, “Ji Shaanxi Lantian xian xin chutu de Ying Hou zhong” 記陜西藍田縣新 出土的應侯鐘, Wenwu 文物 1975.10: 68–69, which was the brief site report of the discovery of yet another Ying Hou Xiangong zhong in 1973. The primary basis for this periodization was the occurrence in the inscription of one Rong Bo 榮伯 as Ying Hou Xiangong’s youzhe. Rong Bo is a name seen performing similar functions in a number of mid-Western Zhou inscriptions (e.g., those on the Wei gui 衛簋 [Jicheng #04209], Tong gui 同簋 [Jicheng #04271], Qiu Wei he 裘衛盉 [Jicheng #09456], and Yong yu 永盂 [Jicheng #10322]); however, it is important to note that a Rong Bo plays the same role in the inscription on the Mi Bo Shi Ji gui 弭伯師耤簋 (Jicheng #04257), which is a typical late Western Zhou gui-tureen. Rather than attempting to identify the Rong Bo of the Mi Bo Shi Ji gui as the reappearance in old age of a single person who had been very active in his youth, it would perhaps be more prudent to leave open the possibility that there could be different Rong Bos at different times, especially considering that as a name “Rong Bo” is simply composed of a lineage name and a seniority marker (paihang 排行), and thus could recur in any generation. Shouyang zhai, Shanghai bowuguan and Xianggang Zhongwen daxue Wenwuguan, eds., Shouyang jijin: Hu Yingying, Fan Jirong cang Zhongguo gudai qingtongqi 首陽吉金：胡盈瑩、范季融藏中國古代青銅器 (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2008), pp. 112–14, #39. An inscription “identical” with that in the vessel is to be found in Lü Dalin 呂大臨, Kaogu tu 考古圖 (repr., Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1987), 3.15. The Shanghai Museum has taken an x-ray of the cover. It reveals several “spacers” arrayed about the inscription area, typical of inscriptions found in bronze vessels produced in piece molds. The vessel was first published in Chen Peifen 陳佩芬, ed., Xia Shang Zhou qingtongqi yanjiu 夏商周青銅器研究 (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2004), vol. 4, p. 413, #363. Li Chaoyuan 李朝遠, “Ying Hou Xiangong ding” 應侯見工鼎, Shanghai bowuguan jikan 上海博物館集刊 10 (2005); repr. in idem., Qingtongqi xuebu ji 青銅 器學步集 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2007), pp. 282–93. The classic study of this vessel and inscription is Xu Zhongshu 徐中舒, “Yu ding de niandai ji qi xiangguan wenti” 禺鼎的年代及其相關問題 , Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1959.3: 53–66. For a complete translation of the inscription, see Edward L. Shaughnessy, “Western Zhou Bronze Inscriptions,” in Edward L. Shaughnessy, ed., New Sources of Early Chinese History: An Introduction to the Reading of Inscriptions and Manuscripts (Berkeley: Society for the Study of Early China, and Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1997), pp. 82–83. Li Xueqin 李學勤 argues that these vessels should be dated to early in Li

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 185

68

69

70

71

72 73 74

Wang’s reign; see “Lun Ying Hou Shigong zhu qi de shidai” 論應侯視工諸器的 時代, Qingtong wenhua yanjiu 青銅文化研究 4 (2005); repr. in Li Xueqin, Wenwu zhong de gu wenming 文物中的古文明 (Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2008), pp. 252–57. Although this dating is set within Li’s almost certainly erroneous view that Li Wang enjoyed a very lengthy reign, reigning 37 years before being forced into exile, still these events must have come toward the beginning of his reign. A set of at least three contemporary late Western Zhou gui-tureens (Jicheng #3928–3929–3930), two of which are in the collection of the National Palace Museum in Taibei, are dowry vessels made by an unspecified Lord of E, very possibly Yufang, for his daughter Wang Ji 王姞, her name perhaps showing that she was married to the Zhou king. Shouyang jijin, pp. 106–7, #36. Zhu Fenghan 朱鳳瀚, “You Bo Congfu gui ming zai lun Zhou Li Wang zheng Huai Yi” 由伯㦰父簋銘再論周厲王征淮夷, Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字研究 27 (2008): 192–99. Zhu Fenghan says that he saw this vessel at the Chinese Cultural Information Center (Zhongguo wenwu zixun zhongxin 中國文物諮詢中心; sic, otherwise known as Chinese Cultural News and Information Center [Zhongguo wenwu xinxi zixun zhongxin 中國 文物信息諮詢中心]). In addition, Li Xueqin has written a study of the inscription, mentioning two different vessels, one with both vessel and cover and one vessel and cover but of which the cover does not match the vessel; “Tan Xi Zhou Li Wang shi qi Bo Congfu gui” 談西周厲王時器伯㦰父簋, in An Zuozhang xiansheng shixue yanjiu liushi zhounian jinian wenji 安作璋先生史學 研究六十周年紀念文集 (Jinan: Qi Lu shushe, 2007), pp. 86–89. Professor Li does not provide photos or rubbings, so it is difficult to know just what vessels he saw. Zhu Fenghan surmises that the vessel with the mismatched cover corresponds with the vessel that he saw at the Chinese Cultural Information Center. Although it is difficult to be certain, it would seem that neither of these vessels is that in George Fan’s Shouyang Collection, and that there are thus at least three separate vessels with very similar inscriptions. As in the case of the Ying Hou Xiangong gui gai, the Shanghai Museum has taken an x-ray of the Shouyang vessel; it too reveals “spacers” arrayed about the inscription area, showing that the inscription and vessel were cast— apparently in antiquity—in a piece-mold assemblage. For a study demonstrating that inscribed vessels cast in antiquity on the patron’s own recognizance sometimes reveal anomalies in the format of their writing, see Li Feng, “Ancient Reproductions and Calligraphic Variations: Studies of Western Zhou Bronzes with ‘Identical’ Inscriptions,” Early China 22 (1997): 1–41. Ma Chengyuan 馬承源, “Guanyu Liao Sheng xu he Zhe Jian zhong de jidian yijian” 關於翏生盨和者減鐘的幾點意見, Kaogu 考古 1979.1: 60–65. Shui jing zhu shu 水經注疏 (Nanjing: Jiangsu Guji chubanshe, 1989), 30 (“Huai shui zhu” 淮水注), pp. 2493–96 (for Tong) and 2552 (for Jiao). Du Yu 杜預, Chunqiu Zuo shi zhuan Du shi jijie 春秋左氏傳杜氏集解 (Sibu

186 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

75 76

77

beiyao ed.), 27 (Ding 定 2), 4a. Zhu Fenghan 朱鳳瀚, “Zuo Bo ding yu Zhou Gong nan zheng” 柞伯鼎與周公 南征, Wenwu 文物 2006.5: 67–73, 96. For an important corrective to Professor Zhu’s interpretation, see Zhou Baohong 周寶宏, “Xi Zhou jinwen kaoshi liu ze” 西周金文考釋六則, Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字研究 27 (2008): 220–27, esp. 225–26. It is interesting that despite these many bronze vessels cast to commemorate apparent victories against the Southern Huai Yi, the Bamboo Annals contains an entry dated to the third year of Li Wang’s reign, in which it states laconically: 淮夷侵洛。王命虢公長父伐之，不克。

The Huai Yi invaded Luo. The king commanded Changfu, Duke of Guo, to attack them; he was not successful.

78

79

80

It seems probable that the Guo Gong 虢公 here is none other than the Guo Zhong of the Guo Zhong xu gai inscription. Baoji shi kaogudui and Fufeng xian bowuguan, “Shaanxi Fufeng xian xin faxian yipi Xi Zhou qingtongqi” 陝西扶風縣新發現一批西周青銅器, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2007.4: 3–12. Newly published studies of these inscriptions include: Li Xueqin 李學勤, “Diao Sheng zhu qi mingwen liandu yanjiu” 琱生諸器銘文聯讀研究, Wenwu 文物 2007.8: 71–75; Wang Hui 王輝, “Du Fufeng xian Wujun cun jiaocang tongqi mingwen xiao ji” 讀扶風縣五郡村窖藏銅器銘文小記, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與 文物 2007.4: 13–15; Chen Yingjie 陳英傑, “Xin chu Diao Sheng zun bu shi” 新 出琱生尊補釋, Kaogu yu wenwu 2007.5: 109–11; Wu Zhenfeng 吳鎮烽, “Diao Sheng zun mingwen de jidian kaoshi” 琱生尊銘文的幾點考釋 , Kaogu yu wenwu 2007.5: 103–4, 111; Wang Zhankui 王占奎, “Diao Sheng san qi mingwen kaoshi” 琱生三器銘文考釋, Kaogu yu wenwu 2007.5: 105–8; Wang Hui 王輝, “Diao Sheng san qi kaoshi” 琱生三器考釋, Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 2008.1: 39–64; Lin Yun 林澐, “Diao Sheng zun yu Diao Sheng gui de liandu” 琱生尊與琱生簋的聯讀, Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字研究 27 (2008): 206–11; and Feng Shi 馮時, “Diao Sheng san qi mingwen yanjiu” 琱生三器銘文研究, Kaogu 考古 2010.1: 69–77. In addition to these two newly discovered zun-vases and the two previously known gui-tureens, Diao Sheng was also the patron of a (or, more likely, a set of) li 鬲-caldron (Jicheng #744) said to have been discovered sometime prior to 1949 just north of Fufeng county. Ruan Yuan 阮元 , Jigu zhai zhong ding yi qi kuanzhi 積古齋鐘鼎彝器款識 (Yangzhou, 1804), 6.17; Wu Shifen 吳式芬, Jungu lu jinwen 攈古錄金文 (N.p., 1895), 3–2.25. There is some reason to believe that the inscription of this second vessel was incised, and not cast, into the vessel, thus calling into question the authenticity of the inscription, though not the authenticity of the text of the inscription, which the current discovery of the Diao Sheng zun

Newest Sources of Western Zhou History · 187

81

shows beyond question to be authentic. The name Diao Sheng 琱生 (possibly to be read instead as Zhou Sheng, i.e., 周 生) seems to indicate a man born of a woman of a Diao 琱 lineage, which most likely was of the Yun 㜏 surname. The Han Huangfu ding 圅皇父鼎 (Jicheng #02548) is dedicated to a mother named Diao Yun 琱㜏 . As mentioned in note 79, Diao Sheng also cast a li-caldron with an inscription showing his father, Gongzhong 中, to be a member of a cadet branch of a lineage: 琱生乍文考

中

，琱生其邁年子子孫孫永寶用亯。

Diao Sheng makes for his cultured deceased-father Gongzhong this offertory li-tripod; may Diao Sheng for ten thousand years have sons’ sons and grandsons’ grandsons eternally to treasure and use it to make offerings.

82

83

84 85 86

87

In the various Diao Sheng inscriptions, Diao Sheng is also referred to as bo 伯 and boshi 伯氏, showing that he himself was the senior member of this cadet lineage. Shaobo Hu is mentioned most prominently in the Shi jing 詩經 poem “Jiang Han” 江漢 (Mao 262) in the context of a campaign against the Huai Yi. He is also credited in the traditional historical record with being one of the two ministers responsible for supporting Xuan Wang at the beginning of his reign. Among notable studies in the West, one should mention David M. Sena, “Reproducing Society: Lineage and Kinship in Western Zhou China” (Ph.D. diss.: University of Chicago, 2005), and Lothar von Falkenhausen, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius (1000–250 BC): The Archaeological Evidence (Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, 2006). Wu Zhenfeng 吳鎮烽, “Xian ding mingwen kaoshi” p鼎銘文考釋, Wenbo 文 博 2007.2: 16–19. Wu Zhenfeng, “Xian ding mingwen kaoshi,” p. 18; Wu Zhenfeng 吳鎮烽, “Gao zu ya zu wang fu kao” 高祖亞祖王父考, Kaogu 考古 2006.12: 73–77. Falkenhausen, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius, pp. 65–66. Wu Zhenfeng refers to a Chinese translation of Falkenhausen’s essay: “Youguan Xi Zhou wanqi lizhi gaige ji Zhuangbai Wei shi qingtongqi niandai de jiashe: Cong shi xi mingwen shuo qi” 有關西周晚期禮制改革及莊白微氏青銅器年代的 假設：從世襲銘文說起, in Zang Zhenhua 臧振華, ed., Zhongguo kaoguxue yu lishixue zhi zhenghe yanjiu 中國考古學與歷史學之整合研究, 2 vols., Zhongyang yanjiuyuan Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo huiyi lunwenji zhi si 中央研究院歷史語言研 究所會議論文集之四 (Taibei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 1997), vol. 2, pp. 651–76. Falkenhausen refers to the “Sang fu xiao ji” 喪服小記 (32.267, p. 1495) and “Da zhuan” 大傳 (34.280, p. 1508) chapters of the Li ji, which describe the

188 · Edward L. Shaughnessy

88

89 90 91 92

difference between “great lineages” (da zong 大宗) and “lesser lineages” (xiao zong 小宗). Zhang Guangyu 張光裕 [Cheung Kwong-yue], “Xi Zhou Shi Baifu xu ming suo jian shishi shishi” 西周士百父盨銘所見史事試釋, in Chen Zhaorong 陳昭容, ed., Guwenzi yu gudai shi 古文字與古代史 (Taibei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 2007), pp. 213–22. Li Xueqin 李學勤, “Wen xu yu Zhou Xuan Wang zhong xing” 文盨與周宣王中 興, Wenbo 文博 2008.2: 4–5. For instance, in the Qiu pan inscription, the final king referred to by epithet, clearly corresponding to Li Wang, is “La Wang” 剌王. Shaughnessy, “New Sources of Western Zhou History,” p. 84. Xia Hanyi 夏含夷, “You Meixian Shan shi jiazu tongqi zai lun Shanfu Ke tongqi de niandai: Fudai zai lun Jin Hou Su bianzhong de niandai” 由眉縣單 氏家族銅器再論膳夫克銅器的年代：附帶再論晉侯蘇編鐘的年代 , in Shanghai bowuguan and Xianggang Zhongwen daxue Wenwuguan, eds., Zhongguo gudai qingtongqi guoji yantaohui lunwenji 中國古代青銅器國際研討會論文集 (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2010), pp. 177–78.

On the Possibility That the Two Western Zhou States Yu and Rui Were Originally Located in the Jian River Valley* CH’EN Chao-jung Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica

The Location of the Lawsuit between Yu and Rui The move of Gu Gong Danfu 古公亶父 to the base of Qishan 岐山 in Shaanxi was an important milestone in the establishment of the state of Zhou. History records various important events illustrating that the Zhou were a virtuous people, having received the favor of Heaven and, at the time of Xi Bo 西伯 (i.e., King Wen), received the Mandate of Heaven and established the Zhou state. Among these events, “the exile of Tai Bo 太伯 to Wu 吳” and the “settling of the lawsuit between Yu 虞 and Rui 芮” are two particularly evocative stories. The Shi jing 詩經 poem “Mian” 緜 includes two sentences that refer to the lawsuit between Yu and Rui:

*

In 2004 I discussed my views regarding the surname of the state of Ze 夨 and the story of Tai Bo fleeing to Wu with Feng Shi 馮時 (Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences), and received a great deal of help from him, for which I express my gratitude. After the handled you-bucket with large phoenix design was unearthed at Liangdaicun 梁帶村, I also had the opportunity to discuss this discovery with Kikawada Osamu 黃川田修, while he was a visiting scholar at the Institute of History and Philology. Mr. Kikawada separately published an article discussing this issue: “Hancheng Liangdaicun liang Zhou tongqi kao: Shilun Rui guo feng di zhi lishi beijing” 韓城梁帶村兩周銅器考：試論芮國封地之歷史背景, Zaoqi Zhongguo shi yanjiu 早 期中國史研究 2.1 (July 2010): 1–41. Moreover, just as I was finishing this essay, I saw an article by Dr. Zhang Tian’en 張天恩: “Rui guo shi shi yu kaogu faxian de jubu zhenghe” 芮國史事與考古發現的局部整合, Wenwu 文物 2010.6: 35–42. The present essay contains several points in common with that of Dr. Zhang; I have incorporated Dr. Zhang’s views into this text. The present essay was translated into English by Edward L. Shaughnessy.

190 · Ch’en Chao-jung 虞芮質厥成，文王蹶厥生

Yu and Rui pledged their trust, And King Wen thwarted their lives.

In his comment on these lines, the Western Han-dynasty Shi jing scholar Mao Chang 毛萇 narrates the story of how the two lords of Yu and Rui were contending for land. The story goes as follows: 虞芮之君相與爭田，久而不平，乃相謂曰：「西伯仁人也，盍往質焉。」乃相與 朝周。入其境，則耕者讓畔，行者讓路。入其邑，男女異路，斑白不提挈。入其 朝，士讓為大夫，大夫讓為卿。二國之君感而相謂曰：「我等小人，不可以履君 子之庭。」乃相讓以其所爭田為閒田而退。天下聞之而歸者，四十餘國。

The lords of Yu and Rui had been fighting over land for a long time with no peace between them, when finally they said to each other: “Xi Bo is a humane man; let’s go pledge ourselves to him.” And so off they went together to Zhou. Entering the territory of Zhou, they noted that those plowing the fields yielded to each other as did travelers on the road. Entering the city, they found that men and women used different streets and the old greybeards were all given a hand. Entering the court, the sires yielded to the great officers, as did the great officers to the ministers. The lords of the two states were moved by this and said to each other: “Petty people such as we ought not tread into the court of a lord such as this.” Then they yielded the land that they had been fighting over, agreeing to let it go fallow, and then they withdrew. When the world heard of this, more than forty states came to pay allegiance to Zhou.1

After Yu and Rui yielded to each other, the lords of more than 40 states pledged allegiance to Xi Bo and acclaimed him king, asserting that he should be the lord who “received the mandate.” Xi Bo did declare himself king that year. Ten years later he died, becoming known posthumously as King Wen.2 The settling of the lawsuit between Yu and Rui is obviously an important event in the early history of the state of Zhou. However, the location of these states has always been a matter of debate. The Shi ji jijie 史記集解 commentary cites the “Dili zhi” 地理志 (of the Han shu 漢書) to the effect that Yu was located in Dayang 大陽 county of Hedong 河東 commandery (present-day Pinglu 平陸 county, Shanxi), and that Rui was located at Linjin 臨晉 county of Fengyi 馮翊 commandery (present-day Dali 大荔 county, Shaanxi). 3 For Yu and Rui to have been entangled in a land dispute, the two states must have been neighbors. However, Shanxi and Shaanxi are separated by the Yellow River, so that this geography is

On the Possibility That the Two Western Zhou States Yu and Rui · 191

obviously unreliable. The Shi ji zhengyi 史記正義 commentary points out that the “Dili zhi” location of Rui is mistaken, and that the record in the Kuo di zhi 括地志 that it was located instead in Ruicheng 芮城 county of Shanxi is correct. In this way, both Yu and Rui would have been located to the east of the Yellow River, giving rise to the possibility that they could have fought over land.4 This question cannot be settled quite so simply. There are scholars who doubt that either Yu or Rui was located in Shanxi. For instance, Zhao Yiqing 趙一清 (1711–1764) of the Qing dynasty proposed that Rui was located in the vicinity of Longxian 隴縣 on the border of Shaanxi and Gansu. 5 More recently, the historian Qi Sihe 齊思和 (1907–1980) also argued that the theory that Yu was located in Pinglu county, Shanxi, is mistaken. He pointed out that Pinglu is several hundred li away from Qishan 岐山; at that time, when the Zhou had just arisen, their renown could not have spread to such distant parts. This location for Yu should refer to the state of Yu in the Spring and Autumn period, and not to that at the beginning of the Western Zhou. Instead, based on the Shui jing zhu 水 經注 and the “Dili zhi,” Qi Sihe argued that at the beginning of the Zhou both Yu and Rui were located in Longxian, Shaanxi.6 Chen Pan 陳槃 (1905–1999) also pointed out that Rui was originally located in the area of Longxian, subsequently migrating along the Jing River 涇河 to Dali, Shaanxi.7 Looking at early Zhou history, at the time that King Wen would have settled the lawsuit between Yu and Rui, to the west the Quanrong 犬戎 and Mixu 密須 had not yet been pacified, and to the east the state of Chong 崇 had not been defeated; indeed, the Zhou capital had not yet been moved from Qishan to Feng 豐, so that it is really hard to imagine that Yu and Rui could have traveled from a great distance to Qishan to seek Zhou adjudication of their land dispute. For a long time, there has been no consensus regarding the location of Yu and Rui. Some scholars from Shaanxi have proposed that the name Ze 夨 seen in inscriptions on bronze vessels is the original form of the name Yu 虞, and thus that Yu was located in the Jian 汧 River valley above Baoji 寶雞. However, the paleographic evidence in support of this identification has not been very convincing. Since 2005, when archaeological excavations began at Liangdaicun 梁帶村, Hancheng 韓城, continuously producing bronzes of the state of Rui, the geographical location of Rui has become a much discussed topic, leading once again to interest in the lawsuit between Yu and Rui.

192 · Ch’en Chao-jung

Recent years have brought various clues, both direct and indirect, regarding the location of Yu and Rui at the beginning of Zhou, and there have already been a few scholars who have paid attention to this question. The map below represents the best evidence currently available regarding this question of long standing (Map 6.1). The present essay will seek to present an overview of these scholars’ results, adding some points to the foundation they have lain.

The Relationship between the State of Yu and Ze Bronze Inscriptions The name “Ze” that appears in the inscription on the San shi pan 散氏盤 (Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo, ed., Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng 殷周金文集成, 18 vols. [Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1984–1994] [hereafter, Jicheng], #10176) early on attracted scholars’ attention. The San shi pan surfaced “somewhere in Fengxiang 鳳翔” during the reign of the Qianlong emperor of the Qing dynasty. During the Guangxu reign, a San Bo gui 散伯簋 (Jicheng #3777) and San Bo yi 散伯匜 (Jicheng #10193) were also found in Fengxiang prefecture.8 The Fengxiang prefecture of that time was much larger than the present-day Fengxiang 鳳翔 county, so it is very hard to determine just where these San 散 bronzes were found.9 In a well-known study, Wang Guowei 王國維 pointed out that geographical names in the San shi pan and in the Da Ke ding 大克鼎 (Jicheng #2836) are related; since the Da Ke ding was unearthed on the banks of the Wei River 渭水 in the southern part of Baoji 寶雞 county, San must have been located somewhere nearby, probably in the vicinity of Dasanguan 大散關.10 Ze and San had geographical contact, so they were certainly neighbors. The Zhou jinwen cun 周金文存 reports that at the beginning of the Republican period in the early twentieth century, a Ze wang zhi 夨王觶 (Jicheng #6452) was also unearthed in Fengxiang prefecture. In recent decades, many more Ze bronzes have been found, with most of them coming from Baoji and Longxian, essentially along the Jian River valley as far as Daijiawan 戴家灣; this shows that Ze must have been located in this general vicinity.11 Based on the periodization of these bronzes, the state of Ze was in existence from late in the Shang dynasty throughout the early Western Zhou and all the way until the late Western Zhou period.12 The map below displays the distribution of all Ze bronzes for which the place of discovery is known with certainty (Map 6.2).13

On the Possibility That the Two Western Zhou States Yu and Rui · 193

Zhang Xiaoheng 張筱衡 early on pointed out that Ze 夨 is an abbreviation of Wu 吳, and that there is a place called Wu Peak 吳嶽 in Yongzhou 雍州 county along the Jian River, citing a plethora of geographical information about it.14 However, he did not cite very much paleographic evidence. In his discussion of the Yi Hou Ze gui 宜侯夨簋 (Jicheng #4320), in Tang Lan 唐蘭 (1901–1979) also pointed out that the character yu that inscription is composed of “tiger” (hu 虍), which he took to be the phonetic element, over ze 夨, which he said is the etymon. On the basis of this, not only did he argue that this was an early form of the character yu 虞, but also that it was actually the written form of the name of the southern state of Wu 吳.15 This conclusion was persuasive to many. However, the character yu 虞, which can be analyzed as having the etymon hu 虍 and the phonetic wu 吳, is also written as yu s, so that it is unclear how that character could also be analyzed as having hu 虍 as its phonetic.16 According to the Shuo wen 說文, ze 夨 means “the head aslant.” How to understand it as a component of either wu 吳 or yu 虞 is still an open question, and the relationship among the three characters has long been baffling. In 2001, in publishing the inscription on the Shu Ze fangding 叔夨方鼎, discovered at the cemetery of the Jin lords at Tianma-Qucun 天馬曲村, Li Boqian 李伯謙 pointed out that the person in the inscription named Shu Ze 叔夨 is none other than the Jin founder Tang Shu Yu 唐叔虞.17 Subsequently, Li Xueqin 李學勤 pointed out that the pronunciation “ze” for 夨 is the result of a deformation of the oracle bone character ze 昃.18 He suggested that ze 夨 is the original form of yu 虞, and that the bronze inscriptional form of the character, , is a pictograph of a man with his head aslant; the oracle bone form of the character ze 昃, , which refers to the period of day at dusk, features a person’s entire body aslant, being the pictograph of a person’s shadow aslant when the sun is low in the sky. Because the two characters, one with just the head aslant, i.e., , and one with the entire body aslant, i.e., , were so similar graphically, they were confused. According to Li Xueqin, only should be pronounced as ze, while should be pronounced yu, similar to wu 吳 and yu 虞.19 In this way, it is very easy to understand how wu 吳, yu s and yu 虞 could all have , read as yu, as their phonetic component. In the past, there was neither graphic nor phonetic evidence to explain how ze 夨 could be identified with yu 虞. Now, with the Shu Ze fangding’s identification of Shu Ze 叔夨 with Shu Yu 叔虞, this problem has been resolved. This result leads us to think of the Ze bronzes; was the Western

Map 6.1 Location of Yu 虞, Rui 芮 and Zhou 周

194 · Ch’en Chao-jung

Map 6.2 Distribution of Ze

Bronzes in the Jian River Valley

On the Possibility That the Two Western Zhou States Yu and Rui · 195

196 · Ch’en Chao-jung

Zhou state that was called Ze and that was located in the Jian River valley none other than the state of Yu 虞? In the past, scholars such as Liu Qiyi 劉 啟益 and Lu Liancheng 盧連成 thought so.20 Even though the paleographic evidence was not nearly sufficient at that time, it now seems that this idea is certainly correct.21 It appears that the name 夨 that appears in the bronzes that have been discovered in great numbers in the valley of Shaanxi province’s Jian River should be read as yu, similar to the name of the state of Yu engaged in the lawsuit with Rui; that is to say, it is possible that the state of 夨 is none other than the state of Yu 虞.22 However, there are still several questions that need to be resolved, such as the surnames of the states of Ze 夨 and Yu 虞. Most people believe that Yu was a Ji 姬-surnamed state. However, there has been a great deal of debate as to whether Ze was or was not a Ji-surnamed state, or whether it was a Jiang 姜-surnamed state. Another related question is whether the “Wu” 吳 to which Tai Bo fled in exile should really refer to the state of Wu located in present-day Jiangsu, or whether it might refer to the Ze (or Yu 虞 or Wu 吳) in the Jian River valley; this question requires further discussion in the context of the Yi Hou Ze gui. Many scholars believe that the Yi Hou Ze gui is evidence that an early Western Zhou king moved Yi Hou 宜侯 to the area of Wu 吳 in Dantu 丹徒, Jiangsu. However, this interpretation is not supported by the context in which this vessel was unearthed and the other vessels buried together with it, which all bear characteristics of artifacts of that region during the Spring and Autumn period. On the basis of the distribution of Ze bronzes as well as the recently discovered Xi Wang zuo Ze Ji zun v王作 夨姬尊, I provisionally believe that Ze was of the Ji surname.23 Regardless of whether the state of Wu regarded Tai Bo as its progenitor or was simply claiming a historical hero to be its ancestor, 24 the Yi Hou Ze gui cannot serve as evidence that a portion of the Zhou people were dispatched to the southern part of Jiangsu to establish the state of Wu. To conclude the above discussion, there is already plentiful paleographic evidence that the name of the state of Ze 夨 in the Jian River valley could also be written as Yu 虞 (Wu 吳), and should be read as yu. Moreover, it is very possible that the early Zhou state known from transmitted literature as Yu 虞 is none other than the Western Zhou Ji-surnamed state of Yu 夨 (i.e., Ze) that was located in the Jian River valley.

Rui Bronzes and the State of Rui at the Beginning of the Zhou The startling excavations that began in 2005 at Liangdaicun, Hancheng, Shaanxi have unearthed a great many bronzes of the state of Rui. No one

On the Possibility That the Two Western Zhou States Yu and Rui · 197

had imagined that during the late Western Zhou through the early Spring and Autumn period the state of Rui had been located here. There have already been numerous reports of the excavations at Liangdaicun. Here I will focus just on the bronze vessels. The handled you 卣-bucket decorated with large phoenixes that was found in tomb M27 of the Rui state cemetery has attracted great attention (Figure 6.1).25 It is a standard vessel type of the late Shang-early Zhou period, and must have been an heirloom when it was put into tomb M27.26 Most of the artifacts in the tomb date to the end of the Western Zhou or early in the Spring and Autumn period; as the archaeological report suggests, the décor on this you-bucket is obviously much earlier than those of other artifacts. Tombs M27 and M26 at this cemetery are tombs of a husband and wife, and both tombs also produced many jade pieces that are older than the date of the tombs, including a jade pig-dragon that derives from the Hongshan 紅山 period, a late Neolithic jade cong 琮, a Shang-period jade qi 戚-ax, an early Western Zhou jade huang 璜-demicirclet, etc.,27 suggesting that this family was fond of antiques. Because of this, it is not at all strange that the tomb should contain an early bronze heirloom. Another possibility is that this particular you-bucket may well be a late archaistic piece, as argued by Jenny So.28 Figure 6.1 Handled You-Bucket Decorated with Large Phoenixes Found in Tomb M27, Liangdaicun, Shaanxi; after Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiuyuan and Zhendan yishu bowuguan, eds., Rui guo jin yu xuancui: Shaanxi Hancheng Chunqiu baocang 芮國金玉選粹：陝西韓城春秋寶藏 (Xi’an: San Qin chubanshe, 2007), #98.

198 · Ch’en Chao-jung

Zhang Tian’en 張天恩 has pointed out that the décor on this youbucket from Liangdaicun, heretofore not seen on bronzes from other regions, is very similar to that on the body of a gui 簋-tureen with square base collected in 1998 in Longxian (and presently housed in the Longxian County Library and Museum;29 Figure 6.2).30 Figure 6.2 Gui-Tureen with Square Base Collected in 1998 in Longxian, Shaanxi; after Shenzhen bowuguan, ed., San Qin guibao 三秦瑰寶 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2010), p. 22.

According to the typology of bronze décor established by Chen Gongrou 陳公柔 and Zhang Changshou 張長壽, this sort of large phoenix décor appeared at the end of the Shang and beginning of the Zhou. Pieces with similar décor include the Wen fu Ding gong 文父丁觥 in the Princeton University Art Museum and the Zhong Zi Qi X gong 中子㠱 觥 in the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco. 31 Aside from these, the Sackler Museum has a gui-tureen with square base and the Baoji Museum has a square ding 鼎-caldron, both with large phoenix décor.32 It has already been shown that all of these pieces came from Daijiawan near Baoji, and it would seem to be reasonable that this sort of large phoenix décor was characteristic of this area.33 In any event, it has not yet been discovered anywhere outside of Longxian and Baoji. Thus, all bronzes of known provenance featuring this large phoenix décor come from the Baoji-Longxian area. Among them are bronzes displaying Shang-style inscriptions (the Wen fu Ding gong and the Zhong Zi Qi X gong), which should cause us to consider the lineage that cast them or the place of casting. Archaeologists have already pointed out that

On the Possibility That the Two Western Zhou States Yu and Rui · 199

among the bronze-casting molds found at the casting site southeast of Xiaomintun 孝民屯 village, Anyang 安陽, Henan, there are some for which corresponding bronze vessels can clearly be found. Remarkably, among the bronzes said to have come from Daijiawan, it is possible to find examples corresponding to the molds for a you-bucket decorated with a crested phoenix design, for a square jin 禁-altar-stand decorated with verticalflanged dragon décor, as well as for a ding-caldron with vertical-flanged dragon décor. What is more, the décor on these molds has never been found on bronzes excavated from Anyang.34 This certainly deserves our consideration. Aside from the large phoenix décor, there is another feature of the handled you-bucket from M27 at Liangdaicun that deserves attention; that is, the animal heads crowning the points where the handle is attached to the body of the bucket. These animal heads are decorated with palmshaped horns, another feature frequently seen on bronze you-buckets from Daijiawan. This sort of palm-shaped horn décor, which possibly evolved from the crest of the phoenix-dragon design, also appeared in the Anyang area, for example on the shoulders of the square zun-vases #128 and #152 excavated from tomb M160 at Guojiazhuang 郭家莊. However, the animal heads on the handled you-bucket #172 found in the same tomb are decorated with wine-bottle horns. The palm-shaped horns are actually restricted to the Baoji area, and especially to bronzes from Daijiawan.35 The hafted round yue 鉞-axes found in tombs M27 and M502 at Liangdaicun have also attracted attention. Zhang Tian’en has already pointed out that the only similar pieces of known provenance are the one example from tomb M1 at Lingtai 靈臺, Gansu, and two examples from Zhangjiapo 張家坡, all of which are early Western Zhou pieces.36 The date of the two examples unearthed from tomb M502 at Liangdaicun, which are also related to the area around the Jing 涇 and Wei 渭 rivers, is rather later.37 To sum up, the large phoenix décor on the handled you-bucket from tomb M27 at Liangdaicun is extremely closely related to the décor on bronzes from Longxian and Baoji in the Jian River valley, and this décor— as well as the palm-shaped horns on the animal heads of the handles—is not seen in other areas, a point to which we should pay close attention. If this type of you-bucket was an heirloom, did it come from the very distant Jian River valley in the west of Shaanxi? If it was created as an archaistic

200 · Ch’en Chao-jung

piece at the time the tomb was closed (late Western Zhou-early Eastern Zhou), based on an early Western Zhou precedent, does this reflect some sort of memory of an ancient lineage?

The Early State of Rui as Seen in Bronze Inscriptions Among bronze vessels found before the period of archaeological reportage, most of the inscribed bronzes from the state of Rui mention Rui Gong 芮 公 or Rui Taizi 芮太子, the crown-prince, whereas among those of known provenance the most important are the Rui Gong Shu gui 芮公叔簋 (Xinshou #1101),38 discovered at Zhuangtou 莊頭, Huangxian 黃縣, Shandong, the Rui Shu X fu gui 芮叔 父簋 (Jicheng #4065–4067) from a cache in Wugong 武功, Shaanxi, as well as the now well-known Rui bronzes from Liangdaicun: the newly published Rui Gong gui gai 芮公簋蓋 and Rui Taizi ding 芮太 子鼎. 39 The most beautiful of these is of course the Rui Bo gui 芮伯簋 included in the Shouyang zhai 首陽齋 collection.40 The Rui Gong Shu gui is similar to the Rui Bo gui in terms of vessel shape and décor, but it is unfortunate that the vessel has not been preserved in good condition. Most of the Rui vessels currently known date from the late Western Zhou through the early Spring and Autumn period, with only a few examples, such as the Rui Gong Shu gui, the Rui Bo hu 芮伯壺 (Jicheng #09585), the Shouyang zhai Rui Bo gui, and the Rui Ji gui 芮姞簋 (Xinshou #1665) in the Palace Museum in Taibei from the early or mid-Western Zhou; all of these pieces date from the reigns of kings Kang or Zhao through Zhao or Mu, as scholars have pointed out. From the beginning of the Zhou dynasty, members of the state of Rui served as important ministers at the Zhou royal court: traditional historical sources record that at the time of King Wu the elder of Rui (Rui Bo 芮 伯) was a high minister, at the time of King Cheng a lineage elder (zong bo 宗伯), and at the time of King Kang Supervisor of the Masses (situ 司徒).41 The Poly Art Museum has just published a Rong Zhong fangding 榮仲方鼎 (Xinshou #1567), the inscription of which records that Rong Zhong 榮仲 entertained a Rui Bo and a Hu Hou 㝬侯; this is also a vessel from the time of kings Kang or Zhao. There is no way to know whether at this time Rui had already moved to Hancheng or Dali. The Rui Bo gui in the Shouyang zhai collection has a bronze bell attached beneath its square base, which is another feature that developed in the western part of Shaanxi.42 The Rui Bo gui is a large square vessel with very beautiful décor, extremely rich in characteristics of western Shaanxi; the Rui Bo who is its patron may well

On the Possibility That the Two Western Zhou States Yu and Rui · 201

have been the one who together with Hu Hou was a guest of Rong Zhong. Even if it was not this Rui Bo, that guest must have been an important personage of the time. The Rui Ji gui in the Palace Museum also has a square base, though it is rather smaller; its inscription states that its patron was a Ji 姞-surnamed woman who had married into the Rui lineage. Intermarriage between these two lineages was also a much praised institution among the elites of the time. In 2007, a Ba gui 霸簋 was excavated from tomb M1 of the Western Zhou cemetery at Dahekou 大河口, Yicheng 翼城, Shanxi.43 Its inscription records that “Nei 內 (i.e., Rui) Gong awarded Ba 霸 two horses, jade and bronze, to use to cast this gui-tureen” (Rui Gong she Ba ma liang yu jin yong zhu gui 芮公舍霸馬兩、玉、金，用鑄簋). This is an early mid-Western Zhou tomb; that Rui Gong served as the one granting awards, having the authority to give bronze, jade and fine horses, shows his extremely high status. Among the Rui bronzes, the only one known for certain to have come from Dali is the late Western Zhou Rui Gong gui (Jicheng #04531). According to the record for it in the Kao gu tu 考古圖, during the Xianping 咸平 reign era (of the Song dynasty) a Tang Shande 湯善德 of Tongzhou 同 州 found it along a river bank in Fengyi 馮翊.44 If this record is not mistaken, by this time Rui had possibly already moved to Dali. As for the relationship between the late Western Zhou Rui at Dali and the early Spring and Autumn period Rui at Liangdaicun, any further discussion must await further evidence. At the time of the late Western Zhou king Li Wang, the state of Rui also produced the famous minister Rui Liangfu 芮 良夫; unfortunately, there is no way to know from his story where Rui was located at his time.45 In all, from the time of kings Wu and Cheng through that of kings Kang, Zhao and Mu, which is to say from the early Western Zhou through the early middle Western Zhou, Rui certainly was active at the highest levels of society.

Conclusion: On the Possibility That Yu and Rui Were Located in the Jian River Valley At the beginning of the Zhou dynasty, the “settling of the lawsuit between Yu and Rui” was a very important historical event, with the virtue of Xi Bo resolving the land dispute between those two states. In the same year, he declared himself king. Scholars have had diverse opinions about where

202 · Ch’en Chao-jung

Yu and Rui were located at that time. Traditional records that Yu was located in Dayang county of Hedong commandery (present-day Pinglu county, Shanxi) and Rui in Linjin county of Fengyi (present-day Dali county, Shaanxi) were probably based on Spring and Autumn period accounts and cannot serve as evidence for their location at the beginning of the Western Zhou. Because at the time of King Wen the Zhou still lived at Qishan, for Yu and Rui to have approached Zhou to resolve their dispute would seem to suggest that they were located in the western part of Shaanxi. From an early time there were scholars who suggested that the state of Ze seen in bronze inscriptions should be identified as the Western Zhou state of Yu, but there was never secure paleographic evidence to allow these two characters to be equated. In addition, Yu was surely a Jisurnamed state, but there were debates about whether Ze was surnamed Ji or Jiang. Because of this, there were always holes in the argument that Ze could be identified with Yu. With the discovery of the Shu Ze fangding at the cemetery of the lords of Jin at Tianma-Qucun demonstrating that Shu Ze was none other than Shu Yu, this identification finally has a relatively secure basis. This increases the possibility that the state of Ze located in the area of the Jian River valley down to Baoji was the Western Zhou period state of Yu. Traditional texts record that an elder of Rui was a high minister to the Zhou kings Wu, Cheng and Kang, while bronze inscriptions show that Rui was active at the time of kings Kang, Zhao and Mu. The Rui cemetery at Liangdaicun dates to the end of Western Zhou and early Eastern Zhou, but the handled you-bucket with large phoenix design found there displays early Western Zhou features. While this sort of vessel featuring a large phoenix design and bearing relief animal figures with palm-shaped horns has never before been seen in other areas, it has appeared frequently in the Jian River valley areas of Longxian and Daijiawan, Baoji. This causes us to consider the possibility that the early state of Rui was related to the Jian River valley. Among Rui bronzes, there are a great many gui-tureens with square bases, another feature characteristic of western Shaanxi. Also, the hafted round yue-axes from the Rui cemetery at Liangdaicun are also mainly seen in the area of Lingtai on the border of Shaanxi and Gansu. These relationships all seem to connect Rui to the western Shaanxi Jian River valley around Daijiawan, Baoji. Present-day Longxian, Shaanxi was in ancient times called Longzhou 隴州 and belonged to Fengxiang commandery. According to records in the

On the Possibility That the Two Western Zhou States Yu and Rui · 203

Du shi fangyu jiyao 讀史方輿紀要, the headwaters of the Rui 芮 River are in the Xianpu Marsh 弦蒲藪 40 li to the west of Longzhou in Fengxiang commandery. From there it flowed northeast into the southern part of Pingliang 平涼 commandery’s Huating 華亭 county (in present-day Gansu), and then turning east f lowed through the northern part of Chongxin 崇信 county, Gansu reaching to the north of Jingzhou 涇州 city (present-day Jingchuan 涇川 county, Gansu), and then going southeast through the northern part of Changwu 長武 county, Shaanxi, before finally emptying into the Wei River.46 The Rui River flows from Longxian in Shaanxi northeastwardly through Pingliang and Chongxin, Gansu, and then turns southeastwardly through Changwu 長武 county before emptying into the Jing River; the watercourses of the two rivers are not far from Binxian 豳縣. The Shi jing poem “Gong Liu” 公劉, which narrates the migration of the Zhou people to Bin 豳, mentions “the arrival at Rui Ju” (Rui Ju zhi ji 芮鞫之即), which is the settlement on the banks of the Rui River. Where Gong Liu settled was most probably at the confluence of the Jing and Rui rivers.47 This is none other than the Rui River that has its headwaters in the Xianpu Marsh, 40 li west of Longxian. The “Zhi fang shi” 職方氏 section of the Zhou li 周禮 records that there is a mountain called Yueshan 嶽山 in Yongzhou 雍州, and that there is a marsh there called Xianpu 弦蒲. The “Dili zhi” chapter of the Han shu calls this Yueshan “Wushan” 吳山. Xianpu Marsh is the source of the Rui River.48 This too allows us to link Yu 虞 (Wu 吳) with Rui. Based on this historical geography, the locations of Yueshan (Wushan) and the Rui River intersect in Longxian. If the conclusion that Ze is none other than Yu is not mistaken, the Jian River valley where the Ze bronzes are distributed and which follows the Jian River canyon in a north-south direction is likely the territory of the state of Yu. The land of the state of Rui should be along the Rui River, going north from Longxian and then southeast. The territorial dispute between the early Western Zhou states Yu and Rui very possibly took place in the area of Longxian where the two states met. Although these points do not constitute absolutely solid evidence, the possibility that the two states were located in the Jian River valley certainly exists. In the future, we can pay further attention to materials related to this question and explore it further.

204 · Ch’en Chao-jung

Notes 1 2

3 4 5 6

7

8

9

10 11 12

13

14 15 16

See Mao Shi zhengyi 毛詩正義 (Shisan jing zhushu 十三經注疏 ed.), p. 551. Shi ji 史記 (Zhonghua shuju ed.), 4.117–19. Regarding the year in which King Wen declared kingship, I provisionally accept the date given in the Shi ji. The newly published Bao xun 保訓 states “It was King Wen’s fiftieth year,” causing scholars to believe that King Wen had already declared himself king at the time that he succeeded to power. Shi ji, 4.117. Shi ji, 4.117. Zhao Yiqing 趙一清, Shui jing zhushi 水經注釋 (Siku quanshu 四庫全書 ed.), 19.46. Qi Sihe 齊思和, “Xi Zhou dili kao” 西周地理考, Yanjing xuebao 燕京學報 30 (1946); repr. in Qi Sihe, Zhongguo shi tanyan 中國史探研 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1981), pp. 27–49. Chen Pan 陳槃, Chunqiu dashibiao lieguo juexing ji cunmiebiao zhuanyi (San ding ben) 春秋大事表列國爵姓及存滅表譔異（三訂本）(Taibei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 1988), vol. 3, pp. 403–4. According to Zou An 鄒安, there were five gui 簋 inscribed “San Bo makes for Ze Ji this gui-tureen” as well as a single San Bo zuo Ze Ji yi 散伯作夨姬匜; see Zou An, Zhou jinwen cun 周金文存 (Shanghai: Guangcang xuejun, 1921), 3.3 (“Jin shuo” 金說), with supplementary remarks in juan 4 (“Jin cun” 金存). The Qing prefecture of Fengxiang included present-day Baoji 寶雞 county and city, as well as Jianyang 汧陽, Fengxiang 鳳翔, Qishan 岐山, Fufeng 扶風, Meixian 郿縣, Taibai 太白 and Fengxian 鳳縣 counties. Wang Guowei 王國維, Guantang jilin 觀堂集林 (1923; repr., Taibei: Yiwen yinshuguan, 1956), 5.179–80 (“San shi pan ba” 散氏盤跋). Lu Liancheng 盧連成 and Yin Shengping 尹盛平, “Gu Ze guo yizhi, mudi diaocha ji” 古夨國遺址、墓地調查記, Wenwu 文物 1982.2: 48–57. Lu Liancheng 盧連成, “Xi Zhou Ze guo shiji kaolüe ji xiangguan wenti” 西周 夨國史蹟考略及相關問題, in Wang Guo 王果 and Zhang Yuliang 張玉良, eds., Xi Zhou shi yanjiu 西周史研究 (Xi’an: Renwen zazhi bianjibu, 1984), pp. 294–303; Lu Liancheng, Baoji Yu guo mudi 寶雞 國墓地 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1988), p. 418. The map does not include the San shi pan 散氏盤, San Bo zuo Ze Ji gui 散伯作 夨姬簋, San Bo zuo Ze Ji yi 散伯作夨姬匜 or the Ze wang zhi 夨王觶, all said to have been discovered in Fengxiang prefecture. Zhang Xiaoheng 張筱衡, “San pan kaoshi (Xia)” 散盤考釋（下）, Renwen zazhi 人文雜誌 1958.4: 81–98. Tang Lan 唐蘭, “Yi Hou Ze gui kaoshi” 宜侯夨簋考釋, Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1956.2: 79–83. The archaic pronunciation of both hu 虍 and wu 吳 belonged to the yu 魚 rhyme class, so that yu 虞 could have either hu or wu as its phonetic. As we have seen, Tang Lan analyzed yu s as having ze 夨 as etymon and hu 虍 as

On the Possibility That the Two Western Zhou States Yu and Rui · 205

17 18

19

20

21

22

23

phonetic; however, there is no way that ze could be the phonetic of yu s, so he could only regard hu as the phonetic. Li Boqian 李伯謙, “Shu Ze fangding mingwen kaoshi” 叔夨方鼎銘文考釋 , Wenwu 文物 2001.8: 39–42. Li Xueqin 李學勤, “Shu Yu fangding shi zheng” 叔虞方鼎試證, in Shanghai bowuguan, ed., Jin hou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 晉侯墓地出土青銅器國際學術研討會論文集 (Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe, 2002), pp. 249–51. Feng Shi 馮時 also pointed out at the same time that ze 夨 should be pronounced wu; see Feng Shi, “Shu Wu kao” 叔夨考, in Shanghai bowuguan, ed., Jin hou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji, pp. 258–65. There are scholars who interpret as yao 夭, which is mistaken. Liu Qiyi 劉啟益, “Xi Zhou Ze guo tongqi de xin faxian yu youguan de lishi dili wenti” 西周 國銅器的新發現與有關的歷史地理問題, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古 與文物 1982.6: 42–46; Lu Liancheng, “Xi Zhou Ze guo shiji kaolüe ji xiangguan wenti,” pp. 294–303. Yin Shengping 尹盛平 argues that Ze and Yu were pronounced similarly, but that their meaning was different, and that they are not at all the same character. Ze was a Jiang 姜-surnamed state, while Yu was a Ji 姬-surnamed state, so that they could not be the same state. See his Xi Zhou shi zheng 西周史徵 (Xi’an: Shaanxi shifan daxue chubanshe, 2004), pp. 62–64. There is other evidence that can support reading 夨 as yu. For example, three inscribed weapons—the Wu Ku ge 吳庫戈, Yu zhi ji 虞之戟, and Yi Wu zhi zao ji 宜無之造戟 —were unearthed from tomb M14 at Fenshuiling 分水嶺 in Changzhi 長治, Shanxi; both wu 吳 and yu 虞 belong to the yu 魚 rhyme class with an yi 疑-group initial, while yi 宜 belongs to the ge 歌 rhyme class and also has an yi 疑 initial. All three characters have the same initial and the rhyme classes yu and ge are very closely related. Even though these materials date from the Warring States period, nevertheless they are quite significant. I am grateful to Li Feng for supplying this information. In addition, according to the interpretation of Zhang Yachu 張亞初, San Yi Sheng 散宜生, who was a minister to King Wen at the beginning of the Zhou dynasty, was the son of a woman of the Yi 宜 lineage who was married to a man of the San 散 lineage. Yi 宜 is the name of both a state and a lineage; it too was located in the vicinity of Fengxiang, Shaanxi. See Zhang Yachu, “Xi Zhou mingwen suo jian Mou Sheng kao” 西周銘文所見某生考, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 1983.5: 83–89. I suspect that this character yi 宜 can also be read as either yu 虞 or ze 夨, and that while San Yi Sheng was a member of the San lineage, his mother was a woman of Ze 夨. Many bronze inscriptions show that Ze and San had marriage relations over many generations; if yi 宜 can be read as either ze 夨 or yu 虞, then we can add another example to these marriages. See my “Ze Ji yu San Ji—Cong nüxing chengming guilü tan Ze guo zuxing ji qi xiangguan wenti” 夨姬與散姬— 從女性稱名規律談夨國族姓及其相關問題, paper presented at “Di san jie guwenzi yu gudai shi xueshu yantaohui” 第三屆

206 · Ch’en Chao-jung 古文字與古代史學術研討會, Zhongyang yanjiuyuan Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 25

24

25

26

27 28 29

30 31

32

33

34

35

36

March 2011. See Wang Mingke 王明珂, “Lun panfu: Jindai Yan Huang zisun guozu jian’gou de gudai jichu” 論攀附：近代炎黃子孫國族建構的古代基礎, Zhongyang yanjiuyuan Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊 73.3 (2002): 583–624. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiuyuan and Zhendan yishu bowuguan, eds., Rui guo jin yu xuancui: Shaanxi Hancheng Chunqiu baocang 芮國金玉選粹：陝西韓 城春秋寶藏 (Xi’an: San Qin chubanshe, 2007). Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Weinan shi wenwu baohu kaogu yanjiusuo and Hancheng shi wenwu lüyouju, “Shaanxi Hancheng Liangdaicun yizhi M27 fajue jianbao” 陝西韓城梁帶村遺址M27發掘簡報, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與 文物 2007.6: 3–22. See the plates and descriptions in Rui guo jin yu xuancui: Shaanxi Hancheng Chunqiu baocang. Jenny F. So, “Antiques in Antiquity: Early Chinese Looks at the Past,” Journal of Chinese Studies 48 (2008): 374–406. Liang Yanmin 梁彥民, “Longxian xin faxian de niao wen fangzuo gui” 隴縣新 發現的鳥紋方座簋, Wenbo 文博 2001.5: 34–35; Shaanxi lishi bowuguan, ed., San Qin guibao 三秦瑰寶 (Xi’an: Shaanxi renmin chubanshe, 2001), p. 22. Zhang Tian’en, “Rui guo shi shi yu kaogu faxian de jubu zhenghe.” See Wang Shimin 王世民 et al., eds., Xi Zhou qingtongqi fenqi duandai yanjiu 西周青銅器分期斷代研究 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1999), pp. 194–215, fig. 291. For these two pieces, see Jicheng #09284 and #09298. Jessica Rawson, Western Zhou Ritual Bronzes from the Arthur M. Sackler Collections, vol. IIB (New York: Arthur M. Sackler Foundation; Cambridge, Mass.: Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University, 1990); Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo, ed., Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, #01242. Zhang Maorong 張懋鎔, “Shanghai bowuguan cang jin du ji” 上海博物館藏金 讀記, Shanghai wenbo luncong 上海文博論叢 2006.3; repr. in Zhang Maorong, Guwenzi yu qingtongqi lunji, Di er ji 古文字與青銅器論集．第二輯 (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2006), pp. 65–68. Li Yongdi 李永迪, Yue Zhanwei 岳占偉 and Liu Yu 劉煜, “Cong Xiaomintun dongnandi chutu tao fan tan dui Yinxu qingtongqi de jidian xin renshi” 從孝 民屯東南地出土陶範談對殷墟青銅器的幾點新認識, Kaogu 考古 2007.3: 52–63. There are two other examples very similar to the handled you-bucket unearthed at Daijiawan: the Fu X you 婦𨷼卣 (Jicheng #5350) in the former collection of Duanfang 端方, and the Fu X you in the Nara Museum; see Nara kokuritsu bijutsukan 奈良國立美術館 (Nara: Nara kokuritsu bijutsukan, 2005), pl. 69. There are ten vessels known to have been made by the patron of these two vessels, Fu X 婦𨷼, for her mother-in-law; unfortunately, the provenance of none of them is known. Zhang Tian’en, “Rui guo shi shi yu kaogu faxian de jubu zhenghe,” pp. 35–42.

On the Possibility That the Two Western Zhou States Yu and Rui · 207 37 38

39

40

41 42

43 44

45 46

47 48

There is also a Zou Zi yue 鄒子鉞 (Jicheng #11757) from Zouxian 鄒縣, Shandong, which is similar in shape but the date of which is rather late. Jung Borsheng 鍾柏生, Chen Chaojung 陳昭容, Hwang Mingchong 黃銘崇 and Yuen Kwokwa 袁國華, eds., Xin shou Yin Zhou qingtongqi mingwen ji qi ying hui bian 新收殷周青銅器銘文暨器影彙編 (Taibei: Yiwen yinshuguan, 2006); hereafter, Xinshou. Zhang Maorong 張懋鎔, “Rui Gong gui gai shi xiao: Jianlun chui guan da niao wen” 芮公簋蓋識小：兼論垂冠大鳥紋, in Zhang Maorong, Guwenzi yu qingtongqi lunji, Di san ji 古文字與青銅器論集．第三輯 (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2010), pp. 80–88; Wu Zhenfeng 吳鎮烽, “Jinnian xin chuxian de tongqi tapian” 近年新出現的銅器拓片, Wenbo 文博 2008.2: 6–9. Shouyang zhai, Shanghai bowuguan and Xianggang Zhongwen daxue Wenwuguan, eds., Shouyang jijin: Hu Yingying, Fan Jirong cang Zhongguo gudai qingtongqi 首陽吉金：胡盈瑩、范季融藏中國古代青銅器 (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2008), pp. 100–103, #34. Shang shu 尚書 (Shisan jing zhushu ed.), 13 (“Lü ao” 旅獒), p. 185; 18 (“Gu ming” 顧命), p. 275; 19 (“Kang Wang zhi gao” 康王之誥), p. 288. Zhang Maorong 張懋鎔, “Xi Zhou fangzuo gui yanjiu” 西周方座簋研究, Kaogu 考古 1999.12; repr. in Zhang Maorong, Guwenzi yu qingtongqi lunji 古文字與 青銅器論集 (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2002), pp. 88–97; Zhang Maorong, “Zai lun Xi Zhou fangzuo gui” 再論西周方座簋, Shaanxi lishi bowuguan guankan 陝西歷史博物館館刊 2002.9; also repr. in Guwenzi yu qingtongqi lunji, pp. 98–111. Xie Yaoting 謝堯亭 et al., “Shanxi sheng Yicheng xian Dahekou Xi Zhou mudi” 山西省翼城縣大河口西周墓地, Wenwu tiandi 文物天地 2008.10: 80–87. Lü Dalin 呂大臨, Kao gu tu 考古圖 (repr., Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1987), 3.44–45. Xianping is the reign era of Song Zhen Zong (r. 998–1004). Tongzhou and Fengyi are both in the vicinity of present-day Weinan 渭南 city and Dali county. For the story of Rui Liangfu, see Guo yu 國語 (Sibu beiyao 四部備要 ed.), 1 (“Zhou yu shang” 周語上), 5b–6a. Gu Zuyu 顧祖禹, Du shi fangyu jiyao 讀史方輿紀要 (repr., Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2005), 52 (“Jing shui, Rui shui fu” 涇水，汭水附). See too Chen Pan, Chunqiu dashibiao lieguo juexing ji cunmiebiao zhuanyi (San ding ben), pp. 403–4. Zhao Yiqing, Shui jing zhushi, 19.46. Zhou li zhushu 周禮注疏 (Shisan jing zhushu ed.), 33.500. The “Zhi fang” 職方 chapter of the Yi Zhou shu 逸周書 has a similar record.

T his page intentionally left blank

A Study of the Bronze Vessels and Sacrificial Remains of the Early Qin State from Lixian, Gansu* LI Feng Columbia University

Since the 1994 discovery of two large tombs of Qin dukes at Dabuzishan 大堡子山, Lixian 禮縣, Gansu, scholars have advanced various opinions regarding the identity of the two dukes, ranging over the five generations from Qin Zhong 秦仲 (r. 844–822 B.C.) to Duke Xian 憲 (r. 715–704 B.C.). After the discovery of the architectural remains and sacrificial pits including bronze bells inscribed with “Qinzi” 秦子 at Dabuzishan in 2006, Duke Jing 靜 (d. 718 B.C.) was further added to the list, making the problem even more complex. In Landscape and Power in Early China, I examined the material published before 2000 and concluded that the tombs must be those of the Qin dukes Zhuang 莊 (821–778 B.C.) and Xiang 襄 (r. 777–766 B.C.).1 Over the past ten years artifacts originating from the two tombs have been gradually published and the field archaeology on the Dabuzishan site has also achieved major progress; therefore, it is important to reexamine this issue.

The Grouping of the Dabuzishan Bronze Vessels At present, there are at least 22 bronze vessels and bells which probably come from the Dabuzishan Qin tombs and for which images of the bronzes and, in most cases, rubbings of the inscriptions are available (see Table 7.1). In 1996, when the six Shanghai Museum vessels were published,

*

The original Chinese version of this essay was published as “Lixian chutu Qin guo zaoqi tongqi ji jisi yizhi lungang” 禮縣出土秦國早期銅器及祭祀遺址論綱, Wenwu 文物 2011.5: 55–67. I thank Brian Lander for his translation of this paper into English, which I wish to dedicate to the memory of Mr. Li Chaoyuan 李朝遠 who made significant contributions to the collection and research on early Qin bronzes.

210 · Li Feng

Li Chaoyuan 李朝遠 pointed out that the graph qin 秦 on the vessels could be divided into those with and without a jiu 臼 element (for example, ding no. 3, with the jiu, and ding no. 2, without it), and argued that the graph without jiu was the beginning of the Eastern Zhou forms of the graph qin in the Qin script tradition.2 Later, Wang Hui 王輝 argued that the vessels on which the graph qin 秦 included the jiu element (Shanghai Museum ding nos. 3 and 4 and gui nos. 1 and 2) were earlier and dated to the time of Duke Xiang of Qin, while those in which the graph lacked jiu (ding nos. 1 and 2; hu nos. 1 and 2) could be dated to the reign of the following Duke Wen 文 (r. 765–716 B.C.). 3 In 2002, when Li Chaoyuan published the Shanghai Museum Qin bo-bell (whose graph qin lacks jiu), he noted that the similarity of its calligraphy to that of its gui no. 2 (whose graph qin includes jiu) made it unlikely that the presence or absence of the jiu 臼 element reflected different production dates.4 In Landscape and Power in Early China, I argued that differences in casting technique, diction, decoration, and size show clearly that the four ding in the Shanghai Museum came from two different sets, nos. 3 and 4 being slightly earlier than nos. 1 and 2.5 Table 7.1 Known Bronzes from the Tombs of the Dukes of Qin in Lixian 禮縣, Gansu Collection Ding Gui Hu

Bobell

1

Shanghai Museum

Measurement (cm) H: 47, Diam. of Rim: 42.3

Graph Qin

Inscriptions 秦公作鑄用鼎。

2

H: 38.5, Diam. of Rim: 37.8

3

H: 25.9, Diam. of Rim: 26


4

H: 24.2, Diam. of Rim: 24.2


1

H: 23.5, Diam. of Rim: 18.8


2

H: 23.9, Diam. of Rim: 18.6


秦公作鑄用鼎。 秦公作寶用鼎。 秦公作寶用鼎。 秦公作寶簋。 秦公作寶簋。

H: 30, Diam. 秦公作鑄鎛口鐘。 of Rim: 24.5 Remark: Shanghai Museum has two uninscribed hu, possibly also from Dabuzishan. 1

1

H: 52

秦公作鑄尊壺。

2

H: 52

秦公作鑄尊壺。

James Lally

A Study of the Bronze Vessels and Sacrificial Remains · 211 Measurement Graph Inscriptions Qin (cm) H: 41, Diam. 1 秦公作鑄用鼎。 of Rim: 40 H: 37.5, Diam. 2 Same as above. of Rim: 38.5 H: 31.5, Diam. 3 Same as above. of Rim: 31 H: 10.4, Diam. 1 秦公作鑄用簋。 of Rim: 20 Remark: Gansu Museum has four more ding, three more gui, all same as published pieces. H: 35.2, Diam. 1 秦公作寶用鼎。 of Rim: 35.5 < >

Collection Ding Gui Hu

Gansu Museum

H: 32.4, Diam. of Rim: 33
>

秦公作寶用鼎。 秦公作寶用鼎。 秦公作鑄用簋。 秦公作鑄用簋。 秦公作鑄尊壺。6

Body design, decoration, size, and inscription all similar to the hu in London.7 秦公作鑄用鼎。

1

秦公作鑄尊壺。

1 Hong Kong Private

Body design and decoration similar to the hu in London. 秦公作鑄尊壺。

2

Body design and decoration similar to Lally’s hu.8

Remark: In addition, Hong Kong private collection has two gui, all similar to the gui in Shanghai Museum.9

212 · Li Feng

Here I would like to emphasize the need to consider the relationship between the structure of the characters and the diction of the inscriptions; clarification of this relationship provides a new way to study Qin bronzes, particularly those from Dabuzishan. Among the twenty-two inscriptions of Table 1 (including ding nos. 2 and 3 of the Gansu Museum, whose content is known even though no rubbings of the inscriptions are available), seven include the graph qin written with a jiu element, including Shanghai Museum ding nos. 3 and 4 and gui nos. 1 and 2, as well as the three ding owned by Mr. George Fan. The graph qin in the inscriptions of the other 15 pieces lacks the jiu element. We can see that although the vessels whose graph qin includes the jiu element differ in terms of certain words representing their vessel types and also display variations in their calligraphy, they all use the graph bao 寶 “treasured” in the formula “The Duke of Qin makes this treasured ...” (Qin Gong zuo bao … 秦公作寶X). All vessels whose graph qin lacks the jiu element use the graph zhu 鑄 “to cast” instead of bao in the formula “The Duke of Qin makes and casts this …” (Qin Gong zuo zhu … 秦公作鑄X). The correspondence of these differences in character structure and diction is exact, without exception in the 22 known vessels. It should be pointed out that the difference between bao and zhu is not only one of diction, but also of grammar, since bao functions as an adjective and the sentence is a simple “Subject-verbobject” construction. Zhu, on the other hand, is a verb, so that the sentence has a “Subject-verb-verb-object” construction, which is very different. This correspondence of character structure and specific grammatical formation is significant and there are only two ways to explain it: 1) the two groups of inscriptions date to different periods, or 2) the Dabuzishan bronzes were made by two production teams that separately produced bronzes for the dukes of Qin in accordance with their own distinctive traditions. Previous studies on the graph qin 秦 have been very productive in clarifying its history. In Western Zhou inscriptions, qin was written both with jiu 臼 (e.g., on the Shi You gui 師酉簋, Jicheng #4290–4291),10 and without it (e.g., Ran fangding 方鼎, Jicheng #2739), but in Qin bronze inscriptions the graph written with jiu is not seen after the late Western Zhou. In the Spring and Autumn period the graph qin was written either with two or three he 禾 elements, but never included a jiu, as, for example, on the Qin Gong zhong 秦公鐘 (Jicheng #270). The graph qin on the rather late Qinzi zhong 秦子鐘 from Dabuzishan (see below) also lacks jiu. Of course, the graph zhu 鑄 was also used in Western Zhou inscriptions, like the early Western Zhou Taibao ding 太保鼎 (Jicheng #1735),

A Study of the Bronze Vessels and Sacrificial Remains · 213

mid-Western Zhou Rongbo li 榮伯鬲 (Jicheng #0632), etc., but there are few examples. In Eastern Zhou inscriptions, on the other hand, it is a commonly used word. The double verb phrase zuo zhu 作鑄 is found over 50 times in bronze inscriptions. Of these, only the Xiaochen Shou gui 小臣 守簋 (Jicheng #4180), Zhong Shuofu xu 仲𩟧父盨 (Jicheng #4399), and the Lu xu 彔盨 (Jicheng #4357) can be dated with certainty to the Western Zhou; the majority date to the Eastern Zhou. The use of zuo zhu in Western Zhou inscriptions can be considered rare, while in Eastern Zhou inscriptions it is the usual phrase. Thus, based on currently available material, we can conclude that inscriptions with zuo bao 作寶 in which the graph qin contains the jiu element (Type I inscriptions) can be considered early, while those with zuo zhu in which the graph qin lacks jiu (Type II inscriptions) are later. In such a small place as Dabuzishan it is very unlikely that there were two separate groups of bronze craftsmen maintaining separate traditions of casting. So, the differences must ref lect historical changes. In the following discussion I will divide the two types of vessels into groups A and B based on these differences (Figures 7.1, 7.2). Figure 7.1 Qin Gong Bronzes from Dabuzishan, Group A (with Type I inscription: + “makes this treasured …”): Top row (from left): Shanghai ding #3, Shanghai ding #4; second row: George Fan ding #1, George Fan ding #2, George Fan ding #3; third row: Shanghai gui #1, Shanghai gui #2.

214 · Li Feng Figure 7.2 Qin Gong Bronzes from Dabuzishan, Group B (with Type II inscription: + “makes and casts this …”): Top row (from left): Shanghai ding #1, Shanghai ding #2, Gansu ding #1, Gansu ding #2, Gansu ding #3; second row: Gansu gui #1, George Fan gui #1, George Fan gui #2, Hong Kong Private Collection ding #1; third row: Lally hu #1, Lally hu #2, Hong Kong Private Collection hu #2, London hu, Hong Kong Private Collection hu #1; fourth row: Shanghai bo-bell #1.

Now we can compare the two groups in terms of vessel shape. I have previously noted that Shanghai Museum ding nos. 3 and 4 can be dated slightly earlier than their ding nos. 1 and 2.11 The former have a rounded belly and bottom, which are Western Zhou characteristics, while the latter have a

A Study of the Bronze Vessels and Sacrificial Remains · 215

more nearly flat bottom, and are close to the Spring and Autumn period flat-bottomed ding type. The two Shanghai Museum gui should be placed with ding nos. 3 and 4 in group A. In addition, Zhu Fenghan 朱鳳翰 has noted that two gui in a Hong Kong private collection have the same form and inscription as the Shanghai gui, so the set must include at least four gui vessels.12 The five hu can all be placed in group B based on the distinctions discussed above. James Lally’s pair of bronze hu, when compared with the Song hu 頌壺 (Jicheng #9731) and the hu in the Art Institute of Chicago (no. 24.233–34), both transmitted by art dealers, are clearly later as evident in their tall and narrow waists and dragon pattern designs.13 However, based on their stylistic similarities, they cannot be too far apart in date. When compared with the similar hu excavated from tomb M1 at Songcun 宋村 in Huxian 鄠縣, which are normally considered to date to the early Eastern Zhou, Lally’s hu and the Song hu are more similar, and thus perhaps closer in date.14 The Gansu Museum’s ding nos. 1–3 have shallow bellies and flat bottoms and overall are quite short, showing characteristics of later periods. Ding no. 1 in the private Hong Kong collection possibly belongs to the same set of ding as the Gansu ding pieces, but according to the report there are already seven ding in the Gansu Museum, so we await confirmation of the number in the set.15 Judged by the shape of their bellies, the two gui belonging to George Fan seem to be even later; however their handles appear to be the same as those on the Shanghai Museum and Gansu Museum gui vessels and the hanging fish-scale patterns on their bellies are the same as on the three ding in the Gansu Museum. George Fan’s two gui thus may well come from the same set as the Gansu Museum’s three fish-scale-patterned ding.16 The hu from London resembles hu no. 1 in the Hong Kong private collection in that both have round bottoms and hanging fish-scale patterns; they may both belong to this set. The gui in the Gansu Museum (of which we have only a line drawing) must originally have accompanied Shanghai Museum ding nos. 1 and 2 in the same set. In terms of the development of vessel form, the most problematic are George Fan’s three ding vessels. Their belly shape is similar to Shanghai Museum ding nos. 1 and 2, which suggests that their casting dates are not too far apart. But overall, bronzes in the B group that have Type II inscriptions (i.e., the graph qin lacks jiu and the inscription has the phrase zuo zhu) all show characteristics of later times, and they must all date to the early Spring and Autumn period. There seems to be no problem on this point.

216 · Li Feng

As the above attempt to reconstruct bronze groups makes clear, the burial assemblages originally interred in these two tombs must have been very large. Each tomb may well have had two ordered sets of ding, and at least one of the ordered sets of ding in tomb M3 must have been composed of seven vessels. If we compare this with bronze sets from burial assemblages of similar dates, we find that it is clearly larger than the tombs of the ruler of Jin at Beizhaocun 北趙村, as for example the five ding of the tomb of Duke Wen of Jin (M93), and is roughly similar to the large tombs of the state of Guo 虢 at Sanmenxia 三門峽.17 As will be discussed below, this clearly had significance in the ritual system, showing that the dukes of Qin had a special position in the Western Zhou state system. This reconstruction also suggests that there may be many more pieces originating from these tombs that have not yet been published, something that we look forward to seeing.

The Identification of the Tomb Occupants at Dabuzishan Following the looting of the tombs in 1993, members of the Gansu Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology conducted a survey and excavation at Dabuzishan from March to November 1994. At this time they excavated two large “中”-shaped tombs, both aligned north-south and about 40 m apart. Tomb M2 was at the south and was altogether 88 m long. Tomb M3 was at the north and was altogether 115 m long. To the south they also found two accompanying horse-and-chariot pits, of which they excavated one.18 According to Dai Chunyang 戴春陽, tomb robbers who were taken into custody were brought to the site, and they confirmed that Gansu Museum ding nos. 1–3 and gui no. 1 were looted from tomb M3, which is probably reliable.19 From 2004 to 2006, the Gansu Provincial Cultural Relics Bureau organized a project drawing in researchers from five archaeological institutions in China to conduct a systematic survey of ancient sites in the upper Xihan 西漢 River valley; they discovered over 40 so-called “Zhou-Qin culture” sites whose remains resemble those of Dabuzishan.20 This survey allows us to reconstruct the basic settlement system contemporary with the Western Zhou period in this drainage basin, which shows that the Xishan 西山 city site, to the west of the Lixian county seat, and Dabuzishan are the two prominent centers of the settlement system. The survey revealed that Dabuzishan did not contain just two large tombs, but actually included both tombs and a large number of

A Study of the Bronze Vessels and Sacrificial Remains · 217

rammed-earth building foundations surrounded by a wall. The site is located on a ridge about 100 m above the level of the river and the city walls follow a precipitous slope in a north-south direction for about 2600 m (based on the length of the eastern wall). This is an early capital of Qin. The two excavated tombs and their horse-and-chariot pits are located in the narrow area at the north end of the wall enclosure, and are 30–40 m from the rammed eastern wall (Map 7.1). To the south of the large tombs and in the central area of the walled site were found a large number of architectural foundations built with rammed earth, while to the north of the tombs, on a slope outside the city wall, a cemetery with many smallscale tombs was confirmed. 21 In 2006, the archaeology team further conducted a full coverage coring of the interior of the Dabuzishan city site, including excavations of some important remains, but they did not find any large tombs other than the two already excavated. 22 This is very important: there are only two large tombs at the Dabuzishan site and the two groups of bronze vessels described above are the burial goods from those tombs. So who are the two dukes buried at Dabuzishan? In 1994 Li Xueqin 李 學勤 and Sarah Allan proposed that James Lally’s two hu vessels belonged to Duke Zhuang of Qin.23 Later, Han Wei 韓偉 proposed that it was Qin Zhong and Duke Zhuang of Qin buried in the two tombs.24 Up to the year 2000 six scholars had offered opinions on this question; four believed that the tombs belonged to Dukes Xiang and Wen, while two believed that they belonged to Dukes Wen and Xian.25 To sort out this problem we certainly must determine the date of the bronze vessels from the tombs. But more importantly, we must understand the nature and background of the textual sources related to early Qin history, and must place the Dabuzishan discovery in its greater historical context of early Qin development. It was under Feizi 非子 that the Qin people established their state; there have not been any other opinions on this basic point. But according to the “Basic Annals of Qin” in the Shi ji 史記 and relevant geographical works, the land granted to Feizi was not at Dabuzishan, but was in Qin, about 100 km to the northeast in present-day Qingshui 清水 county, Gansu.26 The Lixian area, where Dabuzishan is located, was the location of Quanqiu 犬丘, home of the Daluo 大駱 tribe, the home lineage of Feizi from which Qin separated. The three rulers following Feizi, down to Qin Zhong 秦仲, all lived at Qin, not far from the center of the Zhou region. However, in the late Western Zhou period, the Qin and Daluo lineages, situated as they were on the western periphery of the Western Zhou state,

218 · Li Feng Map 7.1 Distribution of Tombs of the Dukes of Qin in the Dabuzishan Walled Site (Modified after Zaoqi Qin wenhua lianhe kaogudui, “Gansu Lixian san zuo chengzhi diaocha baogao,” Gudai wenming 2008.7: 340, fig. 11).

were the first to be affected by the long-term warfare between the Zhou and the Xianyun 獫狁. According to the Current Bamboo Annals (Jinben zhushu jinian 今本竹書紀年), in Zhou King Li’s 厲 eleventh year, the Western Rong 西戎 took Quanqiu and extinguished the Daluo, the parent lineage of the Qin people. This explains the bitter struggle between the Rong and Qin that followed. In the third year of King Xuan 宣 (825 B.C.), Qin Zhong received the king’s order to attack the Western Rong, which was only two years earlier than the 823 B.C. campaign, conducted by the Zhou court against the Xianyun in the upper Jing 涇 River region as recorded in the inscription on the Xi Jia pan 兮甲盤 (Jicheng #10174) and in

A Study of the Bronze Vessels and Sacrificial Remains · 219

the poem “Liuyue” 六月 in the Shi jing 詩經. However, the Qin war with the Western Rong does not seem to have been too successful, and in 822 B.C. Qin Zhong was killed by them. After this Qin entered a heroic phase of their early history: with the help of the Zhou royal court, Duke Zhuang of Qin and his five brothers defeated the Western Rong and retook Quanqiu from the enemy. After this campaign Qin held onto Quanqiu and Duke Zhuang moved his residence from Qin to Quanqiu, in the Xihan River drainage, which then became the center of Qin power. With a careful comparison of received texts and bronze inscriptions, we can recover a general outline of this period of early Qin history. It seems evident that the time of Duke Zhuang was a critical period of expansion in Qin history through which the foundation of the Qin state was firmly constructed. Thus when considering the identity of the dukes buried at Dabuzishan we can immediately rule out Qin Zhong, who was killed before Duke Zhuang defeated the Rong and moved to Quanqiu and must therefore have been buried somewhere near Qingshui County. Duke Zhuang, on the other hand, ruled Qin from Quanqiu for 44 years (821–778 B.C.), roughly paralleling the reign of King Xuan of Zhou. The length and stability of his reign was not only important for the consolidation of the Qin state, but was also important in maintaining the stability of the western regions of the Western Zhou state during the period of King Xuan. Obviously, written sources lack a reference to his tomb, but it is very likely that it is in the area of Quanqiu. The Shi ji suggests that early in the reign of Duke Xiang, the Rong besieged Quanqiu and captured Shifu 世父, elder brother of Duke Xiang, and this also indicates that Quanqiu was the center of Qin power at the time.27 Duke Xiang reigned at Quanqiu for 12 years (777–766 B.C.), during which the Western Zhou was overthrown and moved eastward, inaugurating the Eastern Zhou period. According to the Shi ji, after his death Duke Xiang was buried in the Western Margin (Xichui 西垂). In his third year of rule (763 B.C.), Duke Xiang’s successor Duke Wen led an army eastward into the mid-Wei 渭 River valley and then moved the Qin capital from Quanqiu to the confluence of the Qian 汧 and Wei rivers, in the area of modern Baoji 寶雞, Shaanxi, where the Qin court remained for 46 years until the end of his reign. When Duke Wen died in 716 B.C., it had been 55 years since the fall of the Western Zhou capital. It seems likely that Western Rong’s pressure on the Qin increased only after the eastward move of the Zhou court, and that Qin might have been forced to abandon the Xihan River area and

220 · Li Feng

move east. In the Shi ji, the “Basic Annals of Qin Shihuang” records that Duke Wen was buried in the Western Margin, while the “Basic Annals of Qin” records that he was buried in the western mountains (xishan 西山), as was his son Duke Xian. Li Ling 李零 has argued forcefully that the tombs of Dukes Wen and Xian must be in the Baoji area, and not in eastern Gansu.28 It is not very likely that Duke Wen, after spending half a century in the Baoji area, would be buried back in the Xihan River region in Gansu. Although the distance does not seem great, the Baoji area and the Xihan River are separated by the high Qinling 秦嶺 and Longshan 隴山 mountains, which render transportation very difficult, making it even less likely that Duke Wen could have been buried in the Lixian area. There are two reasons why previous scholars have not been willing to argue that one of the Dabuzishan tombs belongs to Duke Zhuang, but neither holds up to scrutiny. The first of these is based on a well-known paragraph in the “Basic Annals of Qin” of the Shi ji: 西戎犬戎與申侯共伐周，殺幽王酈山下。而秦襄公將兵救周，戰甚力，有功。周 避犬戎難，東徙雒邑，襄公以兵送周平王。平王封襄公為諸侯，賜之岐以西之 地，曰：「戎無道，侵奪我岐豐之地，秦能攻逐戎，即有其地。」與誓，封爵 之。

The Quan Rong of the Western Rong and the Marquis of Shen launched an expedition against Zhou and killed King You at the foot of Mount Li. However, Duke Xiang of Qin led his troops to help Zhou. He fought strenuously and gained merit. The Zhou court, escaping the calamity of the Quan Rong, moved east to Luoyi. Duke Xiang escorted King Ping of Zhou there with his troops. King Ping enfeoffed Duke Xiang as a feudal lord and bestowed on him the land to the west of [Mount] Qi, saying, “The Rong are so unreasonable. They have invaded and seized our lands of Qi and Feng. If Qin can drive the Rong out, it can have these lands.” Giving [Duke Xiang] this vow, the king conferred on him the dukedom.29

Influenced by this passage, many scholars have believed that it was only at the time of Duke Xiang that Qin was established as a regional state and its ruler became a regional ruler (zhuhou 諸侯). These scholars have therefore doubted the historical importance of Duke Zhuang in early Qin history and denied the historical record regarding Duke Zhuang having the title of “duke” (gong 公). If the Qin rulers were not called “Gong 公” before Duke Xiang of Qin obtained the status of a regional ruler, Duke Zhuang certainly could not be the occupant of a tomb at Dabuzishan whose inscriptions refer to “Qin Gong” 秦公.

A Study of the Bronze Vessels and Sacrificial Remains · 221

The second reason is that the inscription on the Qin Wugong zhong 秦 武公鐘 (Jicheng #0262–0266), discovered in Taigongmiao 太公廟 near Baoji in 1978, reads: 秦公曰：我先且受天命，商宅受或，剌剌卲文公、靜公、憲公，不彖于上，卲合 皇天，以虩事蠻方。

The Duke of Qin said: “Our ancestors received Heaven’s mandate. [They] were granted residence and received the state. Majestically eminent were Duke Wen, Duke Jing, and Duke Xian. [They] grandly [advanced:] ascended on high, and eminently acted in accordance with august Heaven and thereby vigilantly attended to [the tribes of] the Man regions.”30

Because it enumerates the previous dukes of Qin starting with Duke Wen, some scholars read the phrase “were granted residence and received the state” as referring to Duke Xiang of Qin’s being granted “all the lands west of Qi” by King Ping of Zhou, equating him with the ancestor (xianzu 先祖) referred to in the inscription. However, the reliability of the above passage from the “Basic Annals of Qin” is open to question. In the past, some scholars already doubted the historicity of this passage, which amounts to the legitimation of the Qin people’s incursion into the royal lands on the Wei River plain.31 It is more likely, however, that the passage was forged to justify the position of the Qin people rather than quoted directly from the mouth of King Ping of Zhou. As we now know, in the early years of the Eastern Zhou, there were two Zhou kings simultaneously claiming the throne. That is, at the time when Qin entered the Wei River plain in 763 B.C. there was already a second Zhou king in addition to King Ping of Zhou in Luoyang 洛陽, claiming power in the region under the sponsorship of the Duke of Guo. Moreover, Qin and this rival king were both active on the Wei River plain for at least three years, ending in 759 B.C. Under these conditions, it was necessary for Qin to invent the story of King Ping inviting them into the Wei River plain.32 Whatever the case, this passage in the Shi ji cannot be taken as proof that Qin was only elevated to the status of a regional state at the time of Duke Xiang. Moreover, this passage does not correspond with what we now know from bronze inscriptions about the Western Zhou system of granting regional states, and also contradicts some other evidence in the Shi ji itself. This is a major problem in the current study of early Qin history, and it must be corrected. As for the line quoted above from the Qin Wugong zhong, it can only be understood as referring to recent ancestors, those who had undergone the arduous history of early Qin after

222 · Li Feng

moving into the Wei River plain. The ancestor(s) described in the inscription as having been “granted residence and received the state” could refer either to Feizi’s receiving a grant of land in Qin, or to Duke Zhuang who had the Western Margin under control and officially established the foundation of the state of Qin, or perhaps to both. The references to the early rulers of Qin in received texts have profound meaning. As I have pointed out, according to the Zhou system of states granted to regional rulers, the ruler of Qin should have been called hou 侯, as were the rulers of Qi 齊, Lu 魯, Teng 滕, Yan 燕, Ying 應, and other states, as is proven by inscriptions on excavated bronzes from their respective states. During the Western Zhou very few people were called gong 公, and those were usually people of very high position, often court magnates who stood above the entire central bureaucracy and below only the Zhou king. Occasionally regional rulers who had the opportunity to serve in the central court and occupy this sort of prominent position could become gong, but such cases are very rare. Although the titles hou and gong, as well as bo 伯, zi 子, and nan 男 were used in the Western Zhou, they were not a system of ranks, but rather all had their distinctive meaning in their own contexts. It was only during the Eastern Zhou under the influence of the ba 霸 system that they were reorganized into a single system, known as the “five ranks,” but this was not a Western Zhou institution.33 Like the rulers of the other regional states, the second generation of Qin rulers, Qin Hou 秦侯, was indeed called hou, in accord with the Western Zhou institution. This shows that for a period of time after first being granted, Qin actually complied with the general rules governing titles of regional rulers. If we limit our discussion to the Western Zhou period, we see that the only regional states whose rulers were called gong when they were alive were Guo 虢 and Zheng 鄭. However, both Guo and Zheng were originally aristocratic lineages located within the royal domain, and they played a very prominent role at the late Western Zhou royal court; these are cases where the rulers obtained the title gong first, and only after the eastward migration did their lineages become regional states. From this perspective, Duke Zhuang’s being called gong and not hou (later Qin rulers continued to be called gong) indicates a sudden transformation in Qin’s status, one that might have been closely related to the special circumstances of the help Duke Zhuang of Qin gave to the Zhou royal house. Duke Zhuang was the commander of the combined

A Study of the Bronze Vessels and Sacrificial Remains · 223

Zhou-Qin army, and was able to continue to rule the “Western Margin” for 44 years. It is quite conceivable that the Zhou royal house would confer the title gong (rather than the “Dafu 大夫 of the Western Margin” as in Shi ji; no inscription suggests that the title dafu was ever granted during the Western Zhou) on a regional ruler of his stature. Because of this, when calculating the “twelve dukes” mentioned in the inscription of the Qin Gong gui 秦公簋, we must start with Duke Zhuang rather than Duke Xiang. Overall, I think the answer is very clear: only Dukes Zhuang and Xiang ruled from Quanqiu in the Xihan drainage area, and they are the only Qin rulers likely to have been buried there. Thus, it is clear why only two large tombs were found at Dabuzishan, and clear too who are buried in them. Specifically, the southern tomb (M2) should belong to Duke Zhuang, who was buried in the late Western Zhou period, while the northern tomb (M3), which contained group B vessels with Type II inscriptions (Gansu Museum ding 1–3 and gui 1), is the early Eastern Zhou tomb of Duke Xiang. As for other group B vessels with “Duke of Qin” inscriptions, without any information concerning their provenance it is impossible to say for sure whether they were all from tomb M3.

The Nature and Date of the Dabuzishan Early Qin Sacrificial Site In 2006 the Early Qin Culture Archaeological Team carried out a thorough coring survey of the Dabuzishan site and found the remains of 26 buildings. At the same time, they excavated two important sites, including the remains of rammed-earth building foundation #21 and a sacrificial site. Site #21 is found at the southern end of the Dabuzishan site on the northeast slope of the buzi 堡子 (a walled enclosure of the late imperial period built on the mountain top), and is about 500 m to the south of the large tombs. It is a rectangular structure with a north-south orientation, 117 m long with 18 stone plinths. The excavators found no separating walls, doors or stairs, which led them to infer that it was a large inventory house.34 The sacrifice site is composed of a rectangular main sacrifice pit (K5) and four smaller round human sacrifice pits (K1–4). These pits are situated about 20 m south of tomb M2. In K5 the excavators found three bronze bo-bells 鎛鐘, eight yong-bells 甬鐘, and a complete set of ten stone chimes laid in two rows. This is a very important find (Figure 7.3). The largest bell (K5:1–1) has a 26-graph inscription that suggests that the bell sets were cast by a certain Qinzi 秦子:

224 · Li Feng 秦子乍寶龢鐘，以其三鎛，厥音鍺鍺（徵徵） 𩀢𩀢（雝雝），秦子畯 （命）才 立（位） ，（眉）壽萬千無彊（疆）。

Qinzi makes this harmonious set of bells and the three bo-bells. Their sounds are zheng zheng and yong yong. Qinzi has been firmly established in his position; may he live for ten thousand years without limit.35 Figure 7.3 “Qinzi” Bo-bells and Bells Unearthed from the Sacrificial Pit K5 at Dabuzishan: Top row (from left): bo-bells: K5: 5–1 (medium), K5: 3–1 (small); second row: yong-bells: K5: 9–1, K5: 10–1, K5: 6–1, K5: 8–1.

As for the dating of the three bo-bells, Zhao Huacheng 趙化成, Wang Hui 王輝, and Wei Zheng 韋正 have already jointly published a detailed study comparing them with the Qin Gong bo-bell no. 1 in the Shanghai Museum (Figure 7.2), the Qin Gong bo-bell in the Japanese Miho Art Museum, and the Qin Wugong bo-bells discovered in 1978 at Taigongmiao in Baoji, and concluded that from the late Western Zhou to the Eastern Zhou, there was a general trend for bo-bells to become gradually taller.36 This is certainly correct. I here rearrange the data from that article in

A Study of the Bronze Vessels and Sacrificial Remains · 225

Table 7.2. The most important factor is the height ratios (the height of the bell up to shoulder ÷ the distance between the two sharp feet): the higher this figure, the taller and thinner the bell. Table 7.2 Comparison of Bo-bells

Name

Provenance Height

Qin Gong Bo

Qin Qin Qin Qinzi Qinzi Qinzi Qin Wugong Wugong Wugong Bo Bo Bo Huangong Bo Bo Bo (Large) (Medium) (Small) Bo* (Large) (Medium) (Small)

Shanghai DBZS #1

DBZS

DBZS

TGM

TGM

TGM

Transmitted since Song dynasty

30

48.5

38.5

37.5

54

50.6

45.3

55.07

Distance between Two Feet

24.5

37.2

27.7

28

40.5

37

35

36.55

Height Ratios

1.224

1.304

1.389

1.339

1.333

1.368

1.294

1.506

* Qin Huangong bo-bell: In the 2006 article, Zhao Huacheng et al. identified it as “Qin Jinggong bo-bell”; however, I consider it to have been cast by Duke Huan of Qin (r. 604–577 B.C.). DBZS = Dabuzishan; TGM = Taigongmiao.

The authors of that article argue that the bo-bells unearthed at Dabuzishan in 2006 were cast later than the Shanghai Museum bo-bell but earlier than the Qin Wugong bo-bells from Taigongmiao. Based on this dating, they also make two other important conclusions: 1) that Qinzi, caster of the bo-bells from Dabuzishan, must refer to Duke Wen’s son Duke Jing of Qin, who is estimated to have been crown prince for over 30 years and died before taking the throne, and thus is called “Qinzi” (Prince of Qin); 2) tomb M2, 20 m north of the sacrificial site where the bronze bells were found, must belong to Duke Jing, and the other tomb M3 to Duke Wen.37 However, if we look carefully at the information presented in that article, we see that only one ratio figure (large bo-bell: 1.333) from the Qin Wugong bo-bells is higher than those of the Dabuzishan Qinzi bo-bells, while the latter have two figures (medium bo-bell: 1.389; small bo-bell: 1.339) that are higher than those of the Taigongmiao bo-bells. If we compare the two sets categorically, the medium and small bo-bells from Dabuzishan are surely taller and thinner than the Qin Wugong bo-bells from Taigongmiao, as we can see in the pictures:

226 · Li Feng Bell

Large

Medium

Small

Qin Wugong bo-bell (Taigongmiao):

1.333

1.368

1.294

Qinzi bo-bell (Dabuzishan):

1.304

1.389

1.339

Therefore, according to the criteria set out in the same article, the Qinzi bo-bells should be later than the Taigongmiao bo-bells, or at least cannot be earlier. Furthermore, if we closely compare the Dabuzishan yong-bell set (from the same pit as the Qinzi bo-bells, but uninscribed) to the Taigongmiao yong-bell set, we can see that the decorative patterns on the Dabuzishan yong-bells are simpler and, in terms of the mold, their feet are sharper, their bottom curves are closer to being fully round, the side edges on some pieces even angling inwards slightly; overall, they are more graceful. This style of yong-bell can only be later than the Taigongmiao yong-bell set, not earlier. Below I arrange the information on the height ratios of the two sets of yong-bells according to the same method; the Qin Wugong yong-bell no. 1 from Taigongmiao and the Dabuzishan K5: 10–1 yong-bell are very close in size, so they are arranged in the same column. The rest are arranged in descending order in both sets (Table 7.3).38 Table 7.3

Comparison of Qin Wugong Yong-bells (Taigongmiao) and Yongbells from Dabuzishan

Number Taigongmiao Dabuzishan Number

1.183

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

1.148

1.136

1.169

1.157

1.144

1.155

1.346

1.317

1.237

1.295

1.214

1.239

#1 (9–1) #2 (10–1) #3 (6–1) #4 (8–1) #5 (11–1) #6 (12–1) #7 (13–1) #8 (14–1)

In Table 7.3 we can see that there is only one yong-bell from Dabuzishan for which the figure is relatively low (K5: 10–1: 1.155); the figures for the other seven yong-bells from Dabuzishan are all higher than that of any of the Taigongmiao yong-bells, yielding an average ratio that is significantly higher than the latter’s (Taigongmiao yong-bells : Dabuzishan yongbells = 1.150 : 1.248). Both yong-bells and bo-bells tended to become taller and thinner during the Eastern Zhou period. The Dabuzishan yong-bells are clearly taller and thinner than the Taigongmiao yong-bells, and must therefore be later, even if their dates may not differ by very much. In other words, the Dabuzishan yong-bells and bo-bells must have been cast after

A Study of the Bronze Vessels and Sacrificial Remains · 227

the time of Duke Wu 武 of Qin (r. 697–678 B.C.). The above dating of the Dabuzishan bells can be further corroborated by considerations of architectural foundation #21 and its associated remains, recently discovered at the same site. Architectural foundation #21 is located 500 m south of the sacrificial site. It was partly destroyed by a Warring States-era flexed burial tomb and it itself partially destroyed the structure of a tomb (M12) that can be dated to the Spring and Autumn period by a typical large dish-mouthed guan 罐-jar found inside it. This type of jar developed from the small-mouthed jars with multiple rings on their protruding shoulders that were common in the Shaanxi-Gansu region during the Western Zhou, from which it had already become quite different, and can be dated to the late phase of the early Spring and Autumn period. In the rammed-earth foundation of the same structure, the excavators also found a shallow dou 豆-high plate with rings on its base, which is also quite a late style. The authors of the brief excavation report on foundation #21 dated the architecture to the later phase of the early Spring and Autumn or the early mid-Spring and Autumn, which is almost certainly correct.39 In addition, the 2006 survey discovered two mid- to small-sized tombs within the walls and five outside of the walls that can be dated to the middle-late Spring and Autumn period, of which the most typical is M25 (Figure 7.4).40 This tomb is close in date to three tombs excavated in 1998 at Yuandingshan 圓頂山, Lixian, across the river from but within sight of Dabuzishan.41 These sites show that the later phase of the early Spring and Autumn or the early mid-Spring and Autumn was one of the most extensive and concentrated periods of elite activity at Dabuzishan, and the bells excavated from the “sacrificial pit” must be understood in this larger context.

228 · Li Feng Figure 7.4 Bronzes and Pottery from Tomb M25 at Dabuzishan (Adapted from Zaoqi Qin wenhua lianhe kaogudui, “2006 nian Gansu Lixian Dabuzishan Dong Zhou muzang fajue jianbao,” Wenwu 2008.11: 41–42).

As mentioned, only Dukes Zhuang and Xiang ruled from Dabuzishan, and it is they who were buried in the two large tombs discovered there in 1993. So how are we to explain the later artifacts from Dabuzishan including the bo-bell inscribed “Qinzi” and the contemporaneous cultural remains? Once we consider the historical record, the answer becomes clear. The “Basic Annals of Qin” in the Shi ji contains the following passage: 武公元年，伐彭戲氏，至于華山下，居平陽封宮。三年，誅三父等而夷三族，以 其殺出子也。……十年，伐邽、冀戎，初縣之。十一年，初縣杜、鄭。滅小虢。

In the first year of Duke Wu (697 B.C.), he led an expedition against the Pengxi clan to the foot of Mount Hua. He resided in the Feng Palace in Pingyang. In the third year (695 B.C.) he executed the Three Elders and the others and exterminated their three kindred because they had killed Chuzi.… In the tenth year (688 B.C.), the duke launched an expedition against the Rong of Gui and Ji. For the first time, Qin made them into counties. In the eleventh year (687 B.C.), for the first time, it made Du and Zheng into counties. Qin destroyed lesser Guo.42

For more than 50 years after moving east in the third year of Duke Wen (762 B.C.), the Qin people were occupied with fighting within the

A Study of the Bronze Vessels and Sacrificial Remains · 229

Wei River plain in Shaanxi. Their opponents were the various Rong peoples who had moved into the area following the eastward flight of the Zhou court.43 With the quelling of the internal problems of the Three Elders and the conquering of the Rong of Pengxi 彭戲 at Mount Hua at the eastern end of the Wei River plain, we can say that the Qin established themselves as sole masters in central Shaanxi. It is in this context that we can understand Qin’s move west in the tenth year of Duke Wu’s reign (688 B.C.), defeating the Rong polities of Gui 邽 and Ji 冀 and establishing counties to administer their lands. What is important is that Gui is the Shanggui 上邽 county of Han times, present-day Tianshui 天水, Gansu, and Ji was also in the Tianshui area; there have been no other opinions since ancient times regarding the locations of the two Rong polities. Tianshui is an area through which one must pass to travel between the Lixian area and the mid-Wei River plain in Shaanxi. Because Tianshui was home to the Rong people, it is quite likely that in moving east into the Wei River plain in Shaanxi, Qin was forced to abandon its former home in the Lixian area. As a consequence of this, the entire region west of the Longshan mountains was occupied by Rong until Duke Wu’s tenth year, when Qin moved back into the upper Wei River region by conquering Tianshui. It is very likely that Qin also reconquered their old home in the Xihan River area, and that the Dabuzishan site fell within the new Gui County of Qin. Because it was their old capital and the site of the burials of Dukes Zhuang and Xiang, it was only natural that there would be some activity at the site. In other words, the “sacrificial pit” with the “Qinzi” bo-bell is the remains of the sacrificial activities conducted by the returning Qin people at the tombs of the two early dukes. Building foundation #21 nearby was established to store goods associated with these ritual activities; the neighboring mid-size and small tombs from which bronzes were excavated belong to middle- and lower-level officials associated with these activities. The dates of these sites and tombs fit exactly with the time of Duke Wu of Qin, which agrees completely with the historical record. The original brief excavation report’s identification of Qinzi, patron of the bells from the “sacrificial pit,” with the master of tomb M2 (Duke Jing) is based on an incorrect dating of the bronze bells. In fact, the association at Dabuzishan between the “sacrificial pit” and the tombs is similar to the association between sacrificial pits and large tombs at Anyang 安陽; the sacrifices were offered to the persons buried in the tombs nearby.44 This is also apparent at the cemetery of the rulers of Jin 晉 at Beizhao 北趙, where

230 · Li Feng

eight sacrificial pits were found near tomb M68 and twenty pits were found near tomb M64. Both tombs and pits date to the late Western Zhou, the pits being contemporaneous or slightly later sacrificial sites associated with the tombs.45 The other problem with the original excavation report is that it would not be logical to use musical instruments made by the occupant of a tomb to conduct ritual offerings to the owner himself. Of course, this is not to argue that there are no remains at Dabuzishan that are contemporaneous with the two large tombs M2 and M3; there are probably tombs and building remains of this date that were discovered during the coring survey but have not yet been excavated. I am simply arguing that the sites excavated to date, apart from the two large tombs, all belong to the complex of sacrificial sites from the late phase of the early Spring and Autumn period and later. As for the question of the identity of “Qinzi,” this would require a thorough study of the type and date of all the bronzes associated with “Qinzi,” which I will leave for another occasion. Wang Hui has proposed that “Qinzi” was a youth who became ruler of Qin and died soon after, of which there were three in early Qin history, namely Duke Xian, Chuzi, and Duke Xuan 宣.46 Chen Ping 陳平 proposed that the most likely of the three was Duke Xuan.47 Duke Xuan became duke in 675 B.C. and died three years later, thirteen years after Qin had reconquered the Tianshui area. But I will leave a more detailed analysis for a later study.

Conclusion The discovery of the Dabuzishan site is the most important advance in Qin archaeology of recent years. If we want to understand the meaning of this discovery we need a thorough understanding of the historical records concerning early Qin and to consider the problem within the broader context of the early history of the Qin people. The Qin people left their original lands in the Lixian area and were separated from it until they reconquered the Tianshui area some 74 years later. If this is the case, given our experience in Zhou archaeology, we should be able to detect a hiatus in the archaeological record of Dabuzishan. For instance, in Western Zhou archaeology, remains belonging to the beginning of the Western Zhou and those of the late phase of the early Western Zhou are fully differentiable from each other. In fact, such a gap is discernable in the dates of bronzes from Dabuzishan, and the historical record provides us with a reasonable

A Study of the Bronze Vessels and Sacrificial Remains · 231

explanation of it. In terms of pottery, the examples that have been officially excavated, such as those from tomb M25, generally date to the same later early Spring and Autumn period, and are contemporaneous with later bronzes at Dabuzishan. Pottery recovered during the survey dates as late as the middle Spring and Autumn period and as early as the late Western Zhou, but due to the unsystematic nature of the pottery remains obtained by the survey, it is impossible to reconstruct a proper pottery periodization at present. Thus only further archaeological work at the site will be able to identify this gap in the pottery chronology.

232 · Li Feng

Notes 1

2

3 4

5 6 7 8

9 10

11 12 13

14

15 16

17

Li Feng, Landscape and Power in Early China: The Crisis and Fall of the Western Zhou, 1045–771 BC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 273. For an overview of early Qin history, see pp. 262–76. Li Chaoyuan 李朝遠, “Shanghai bowuguan xin huo Qin Gong qi yanjiu” 上海 博物館新獲秦公器研究, Shanghai bowuguan jikan 上海博物館集刊 1996.7: 23–33; repr. in Li Chaoyuan 李朝遠, Qingtongqi xuebu ji 青銅器學步集 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2007), pp. 77–89, esp. 84. Wang Hui 王輝, “Ye tan Lixian Dabuzishan Qin Gong mudi ji qi tongqi” 也談 禮縣大堡子山秦公墓地及其銅器, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 1998.5: 93. Li Chaoyuan 李朝遠, “Shanghai bowuguan xin cang Qin qi yanjiu” 上海博物 館新藏秦器研究, Shanghai bowuguan jikan 上海博物館集刊 2002.9; repr. in Li Chaoyuan, Qingtongqi xuebu ji, pp. 90–105, esp. 92. Li Feng, Landscape and Power in Early China, p. 272. Li Chaoyuan saw this hu in London; see his “Lundun xin jian Qin Gong hu” 倫敦新見秦公壺, Zhongguo wenwu bao 中國文物報, 27 February 2004. Zhu Fenghan 朱鳳瀚, Zhongguo qingtongqi zonglun 中國青銅器綜論 (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2009), p. 1846. The images of these three bronzes have been provided by Professors Ch’en Chao-jung and Cheung Kwong-yue, to whom I would like to express my gratitude. Zhu Fenghan, Zhongguo qingtongqi zonglun, p. 1846. Inscription numbers follow Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo, ed., Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng 殷周金文集成, 18 vols. (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1984–1994); hereafter, Jicheng. Li Feng, Landscape and Power in Early China, p. 272. Zhu Fenghan, Zhongguo qingtongqi zonglun, p. 1846. See Charles Fabens Kelley and Ch’en Meng-chia, Chinese Bronzes from the Buckingham Collection (Chicago: The Art Institute of Chicago, 1946), pl. 34–35; J. J. Lally, Archaic Chinese Bronzes, Jades and Works of Art (New York: J. J. Lally and Co., 1994), no. 54. For the Songcun hu, see Shaanxi sheng wenguanhui Qin mu fajuezu, “Shaanxi Huxian Songcun Chunqiu Qin mu fajue jianbao” 陜西戶縣宋村春秋秦墓發掘 簡報, Wenwu 文物 1975.10: 63. Dai Chunyang 戴春陽, “Lixian Dabuzishan Qin Gong mudi ji qi youguan wenti” 禮縣大堡子山秦公墓地及其有關問題, Wenwu 文物 2000.5: 74–80. Shouyang zhai, Shanghai bowuguan and Xianggang zhongwen daxue wenwuguan, eds., Shouyang jijin: Hu Yingying, Fan Jirong cang zhongguo gudai qing tongqi 首陽吉金：胡盈瑩、范季融蔵中國古代青銅器 (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2008), pp. 136–38. Beijing daxue kaoguxue xi and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, “TianmaQucun yizhi Beizhao Jin hou mudi di wu ci fajue” 天馬—曲村遺址北趙晉侯 墓地第五次發掘 , Wenwu 文物 1995.7: 4–39; Henan sheng wenwu kaogu

A Study of the Bronze Vessels and Sacrificial Remains · 233

18 19 20

21 22

23 24 25

26

27

28 29 30

31

yanjiusuo et al., Sanmenxia Guo guo mu 三門峽虢國墓 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1999), pp. 15–78. Lixian bowuguan et al., Qin Xichui lingqu 秦西垂陵區 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2004), pp. 7–10. Dai Chunyang, “Lixian Dabuzishan Qin Gong mudi ji qi youguan wenti,” 76. Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo et al., Xihan shui shangyou kaogu diaocha baogao 西漢水上游考古調查報告 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2008), pp. 2–3. Zaoqi Qin wenhua lianhe kaogudui, “Gansu Lixian san zuo chengzhi diaocha baogao” 甘肅禮縣三座城址調查報告, Gudai wenming 古代文明 2008.7: 335–47. Zhao Huacheng 趙化成, Wang Hui 王輝 and Wei Zheng 韋正, “Lixian Dabuzishan Qinzi ‘yueqi keng’ xiangguan wenti tantao” 禮縣大堡子山秦子「樂器坑」 相關問題探討, Wenwu 文物 2008.11: 61. Li Xueqin 李學勤 and Sarah Allan, “Zui xin chuxian de Qin Gong hu” 最新出 現的秦公壺, Zhongguo wenwubao 中國文物報, 30 October 1994. Han Wei 韓偉, “Lun Gansu Lixian chutu de Qin jinbo shipian” 論甘肅禮縣出 土的秦金箔飾片, Wenwu 文物 1995.6: 8. Chen Zhaorong 陳昭容, “Tan xinchu Qin Gong hu de shidai” 談新出秦公壺的 時代, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 1995.4: 69; Bai Guangqi 白光琦, “Qin Gong hu ying wei Dong Zhou chuqi qi” 秦公壺應為東周初期器, Kaogu yu wenwu 考 古與文物 1995.4: 71; Li Chaoyuan, “Shanghai bowuguan xin huo Qin Gong qi yanjiu,” 29; Wang Hui, “Ye tan Lixian Dabuzishan Qin Gong mudi ji qi tongqi,” 93. Dai Chunyang’s article, referred to above, also argues that the tombs belonged to Dukes Xiang and Wen. Li Feng, Landscape and Power in Early China, p. 268. Since 2010, archaeological surveys have been carried out here and have identified a prominent site with walls and rammed-earth building foundations located to the west of Qingshui County. Further survey of the site was planned for the Autumn 2011 field season. See Sima Qian, The Grand Scribe’s Records, vol. 1: The Basic Annals of Pre-Han China, ed. William H. Nienhauser (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994), p. 90 (romanization converted to pinyin). Li Ling 李零, “Shi ji zhong suo jian Qin zaoqi duyi zangdi”《史記》中所見秦早 期都邑葬地, Wenshi 文史 20 (1983): 19–23. Sima Qian, The Grand Scribe’s Records, pp. 90–91. Gilbert Mattos, “Eastern Zhou Bronze Inscriptions,” in Edward L. Shaughnessy, ed., New Sources of Early Chinese History: An Introduction to the Reading of Inscriptions and Manuscripts (Berkeley: Society for the Study of Early China, and Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1997), pp. 111–12. See Qian Mu 錢穆, “Xi Zhou Rong huo kao” 西周戎禍考, in Gushi dili luncong 古史地理論叢 (Taibei: Dongda tushu, 1982), pp. 155–56. It should be noted that Qian Mu’s geography of the Rong groups responsible for the fall of the

234 · Li Feng

32 33

34

35

36 37 38

39 40

41 42 43 44 45

46 47

Zhou capitals in 771 B.C., which is based on the direction of Qin campaigns, is largely anachronistic and incorrect. Li Feng, Landscape and Power in Early China, pp. 273–77. Li Feng, “Transmitting Antiquity: The Origin and Paradigmization of the ‘Five Ranks,’” in Dieter Kuhn and Helga Stahl, eds., Perceptions of Antiquity in Chinese Civilization, Würzburger Sinologische Schriften (Heidelberg: Edition Forum, 2008), pp. 109–14. Zaoqi Qin wenhua lianhe kaogudui, “2006 nian Gansu Lixian Dabuzishan 21 hao jianzhu jizhi fajue jianbao” 2006年甘肅禮縣大堡子山21號建築基址發掘簡 報, Wenwu 文物 2008.11: 4–13. Zaoqi Qin wenhua lianhe kaogudui, “2006 nian Gansu Lixian Dabuzishan jisi yizhi fajue jianbao” 2006年甘肅禮縣大堡子山祭祀遺址發掘簡報, Wenwu 文 物 2008.11: 14–29. Zhao Huacheng, Wang Hui and Wei Zheng, “Lixian Dabuzishan Qinzi ‘yueqi keng’ xiangguan wenti tantao,” 54–66. Zhao Huacheng, Wang Hui and Wei Zheng, “Lixian Dabuzishan Qinzi ‘yueqi keng’ xiangguan wenti tantao,” 62–64. I use the same methods in this analysis as did the authors of the two Dabuzishan brief excavation reports, namely: bell height - handle height = bell-body height; bell-body height ÷ distance between two foot tips = height ratio. See Zaoqi Qin wenhua lianhe kaogudui, “2006 nian Gansu Lixian Dabuzishan jisi yizhi fajue jianbao,” 28. Data on the Taigongmiao bells come from Baoji bowuguan (Lu Liancheng 盧連城) et al., “Shaanxi Baoji xian Taigongmiaocun faxian Qin Gong zhong Qin Gong bo” 陝西寶雞縣太公廟村發現秦公 鐘秦公鎛, Wenwu 文物 1978.11: 1. Zaoqi Qin wenhua lianhe kaogudui, “2006 nian Gansu Lixian Dabuzishan 21 hao jianzhu jizhi fajue jianbao,” 12. Zaoqi Qin wenhua lianhe kaogudui, “2006 nian Gansu Lixian Dabuzishan Dong Zhou muzang fajue jianbao” 2006年甘肅禮縣大堡子山東周墓葬發掘簡報, Wenwu 文物 2008.11: 30–49. Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Lixian bowuguan, “Lixian Yuandingshan Chunqiu Qin mu” 禮縣圓頂山春秋秦墓, Wenwu 文物 2002.2: 4–30. Sima Qian, The Grand Scribe’s Records, vol. 1, pp. 92–93. Li Feng, Landscape and Power in Early China, pp. 273–76. K. C. Chang, Shang Civilization (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), pp. 110–24. Beijing daxue Kaoguxue xi and Shanxi kaogu yanjiubu, “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jin hou mudi di er ci fajue” 天馬—曲村遺址北趙晉侯墓地第二次 發掘, Wenwu 文物 1994.1: 5; “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jin hou mudi di si ci fajue” 天馬—曲村遺址北趙晉侯墓地第四次發掘, Wenwu 文物 1994.8: 4. Wang Hui 王輝, “Guanyu Qinzi ge, mao de jige wenti” 關於秦子戈、矛的幾個 問題, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 1986.6: 80–82. Chen Ping 陳平, “‘Qinzi ge, mao kao’ buyi”「秦子戈、矛考」補議, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 1990.1: 102–6.

Genealogical Statements on Ritual Bronzes of the Spring and Autumn Period* Guolong LAI University of Florida

The focus of this paper is on genealogical statements inscribed on ritual bronzes of the Spring and Autumn period (771–ca. 453 BCE). By “genealogical statements” I refer to the declaration, often placed at the beginning of bronze inscriptions, identifying the owner of the ritual bronze, in the formula such as “X, the grandson of Y and the son of Z,” or in its shorter form, “X, the son of Z.” Genealogy was extremely important in early civilizations, including early China.1 It often took different forms such as oral recitation, pictorial representation, and ritual impersonation, to name just a few. In fact, genealogies were among the earliest written records in human history, immediately after the invention of writing. In ancient Egypt, selections of kings were compiled into chronologically ordered king lists to legitimize the present dynastic ruler.2 In ancient Mesopotamia, the ruling kings used the genealogy of the Hammurabi dynasty to invoke the royal names in ritual offering to their ancestors.3 In early China, the Shang royal genealogy was embedded in the ritual cycles of sacrificial offering,4 while in the Western Zhou dynasty the kings were listed along with the clan or lineage genealogies inscribed on bronze ritual vessels.5 Many more early Chinese genealogies were incorporated into narrative forms such as that of the state of Chu in the Warring States-period bamboo manuscript Chu ju 楚居 or Residences of Chu recently published in the Qinghua University collection.6 In addition, in transmitted ancient Chinese texts, there are numerous genealogies recorded in Shi ji 史記 (Records of the Grand Historian), such as “Sandai shibiao” 三代世表 (“The genealogical charts of the Three Dynasties”),7 and in Da Dai Li ji 大戴禮記 (Book on Ritual by Elder Dai),8 and in Shi ben 世本 (Genealogical Roots).9 *

The author would like to thank Edward L. Shaughnessy, Lothar von Falkenhausen, and Yuri Pines for their suggestions and comments on previous versions of this paper.

236 · Guolong Lai

Unlike these elaborate lists, charts, diagrams, or extended narratives that enumerate the intermediate persons, the genealogical statements on the ritual bronzes of the Spring and Autumn period are rather short. However, these formulas, short as they are, did express the descent of a person from an ancestor or ancestors.10 Scholars have studied this phenomenon of placing genealogical statements at the beginning of ritual bronze inscriptions. For example, Hayashi Minao 林巳奈夫 observed that the formula “X, the son/heir-apparent/grandson of Y,” became particularly prevalent after the middle Spring and Autumn period, though it originated earlier.11 Focusing on inscribed bronze swords from the southeastern states of Wu 吳 and Yue 越 of the early Warring States period (ca. 453–221 BCE), which bear similar formulas, Zhang Zhenlin 張振林 posits that the purpose of these statements was for the bronze-owning noblemen to show off their aristocratic background and to glorify themselves.12 Discussing similar inscriptions, Li Xueqin 李學勤 suggests that this was a regional phenomenon of the ritual bronzes from southern China. He posits that almost all the owners of these ritual bronzes, if their identity can be verified, came from the south.13 However, Li Ling 李零 demonstrates that this phenomenon was not unique to the southern states of Wu, Yue, Chu 楚, or Zeng 曾, but also appeared on bronzes from northern and eastern states such as Jin 晉, Qi 齊, Zheng 鄭 and Song 宋. In fact, these genealogical statements show the Eastern Zhou elite’s deep preoccupation with genealogy.14 Following these leads, in my unpublished master’s thesis I surveyed this type of bronze inscription and analyzed it in the context of the recurrent “succession crises” during the Spring and Autumn period.15 The present chapter reprises some of the discussion presented there but updates it and brings it into the wider sociopolitical contexts of the Spring and Autumn period. So far I have collected over 80 cases of such genealogical statements from the Spring and Autumn and early Warring States periods. In most cases, we know very little about the sociopolitical background of these particular bronzes and their owners beyond whatever information the objects, the inscriptions, or the archaeological contexts can provide. It is therefore rather difficult to generalize about the nature and purposes of these genealogical statements. In what follows, I shall limit my discussion to a few cases of which we have a better understanding or for which we can at least make an educated guess based on the materials we have at hand. This paper consists of two parts: I first analyze the linguistic form and kinship structure of the genealogical statements, and then discuss three

Genealogical Statements on Ritual Bronzes · 237

types of genealogies. I argue that genealogical statements in the bronze inscriptions served as a political tool for the heads of lineages or descent groups to legitimize their status and to make political alliances during the Spring and Autumn period.

Linguistic Form and Kinship Structure Three linguistic elements are essential components of a genealogical statement. The first is the name of a living person (X), who is often the owner of the ritual bronze. The second is a name or names of an ancestor or ancestors (Y, Z), with whom the living person claims to have a relationship. The third is a kinship term that defines the relationship between X and Y or Z. Since a genealogy is an expression of a person’s descent, it must express, or at least imply, a kinship relationship between X and Y or Z; otherwise, this formula would not be a genealogy. The genealogical statements on ritual bronzes are often formalized by using the function word zhi 之 “of.” Sometimes this function word could be omitted, and only implied. The inscription on the Song Gong Luan fu 宋公欒簠 (Jicheng #4589)16 of the late Spring and Autumn period, excavated from Tomb 1 at Hougudui 侯古堆 in Gushi 固始, Henan, reads as follows: 有殷天乙唐（湯）孫宋公欒作其妹句吳夫人季子媵簠。

The scion [of the king of] Yin [i.e., Shang], Tang, [whose temple name is] Heavenly Yi [i.e., Da Yi], the Lord of Song, Luan, made a fu vessel as a dowry for his younger sister Jizi, wife of the king of the state of Wu.

Here the Lord of Song refers to himself as the scion of the great founder of the Shang dynasty, Tang 湯, but no function word is used. Additionally, in shorter formulas such as “the grandson [of] the king” (wangsun 王孫), “the grandson [of] the lord” (gongsun 公孫), “the son [of] the king” (wangzi 王 子), and “the son [of] the lord” (gongzi 公子), the function word “of” is also omitted in the expressions, and only implied. In what follows, I shall discuss these three basic linguistic elements of the genealogical statements to give a general picture of the phenomenon in question. First, the owners of the ritual bronzes were often men and women of the social elite of the Spring and Autumn period, although we know very little about them individually. The very fact that they were able to own ritual bronzes indicates their high social position. In a few cases, they can be identified with historical figures recorded in the Zuo zhuan 左傳, Guo yu 國語, and other early texts.17 However, it is the bronze objects

238 · Guolong Lai

themselves, the inscriptions, and the archaeological contexts within which they were discovered that can often provide crucial information to help us understand the historical situations. For instance, from the archaeological contexts, we can infer that some bronze objects were discovered in tombs of persons different from those mentioned in the inscriptions. There are cases of several bronzes excavated from one particular tomb with only one occupant, but the inscriptions of which indicate that these bronzes had belonged to multiple owners; some of these buried bronzes must have belonged to other people before (and probably long before) the burial. One famous case is that of the Wangzi Wu ding 王子午鼎 (Jicheng #2811.2), a set of seven ritual bronze tripods, the inscriptions of which identify them as belonging to Prince Wu 王子午, the son of a Chu king and once the chief minister of the state of Chu. But these bronzes were excavated from Tomb 2 at Xiasi 下寺 in Xichuan 淅川, Henan.18 The tomb occupant was Yuan Zi Peng 薳子倗 (d. 548 BCE; the surname is alternatively written as Wei 鄬 or Hua w), a Chu nobleman from the Yuan lineage, whose name was inscribed on the lids of the tripods (Jicheng #2811.1). Both men were mentioned in the Zuo zhuan. Scholars have generally agreed that these bronze ritual vessels were taken from Prince Wu’s estate after his political downfall and were obtained by his successor, the chief minister Yuan Zi Peng, who brought them with him to the afterlife.19 Sometimes physical features of the bronze inscription can also provide useful information. On some bronze vessels of the late Western Zhou and Spring and Autumn periods, the owners’ names were intentionally erased or recarved. Chinese archaeologists discovered a set of eight bronze bo 鎛-bells (M1P: 1–8) in the aforementioned Hougudui tomb, among which the inscription on one bo-bell (M1P: 4) was completely erased. On the other bronzes, only the name of the owner was erased. In addition, a set of nine bronze niuzhong 鈕鐘 bells, of similar shape and design but with graded sizes, was discovered in the same tomb. Among them, three bells (M1P: 9, 10, and 14) have a cast inscription with the owner’s name “the head of the Pan lineage, by the name of Chengzhou” (Pan Zi Chengzhou 潘子成周). On two bells (M1P: 11 and 13), the original cast name was chiseled off (but can be puzzled out vaguely as “Yuchu” 與楚) over which was recarved the name “Pan Zi Chengzhou.” Although archaeological evidence suggests that the tomb occupant was a noblewoman, there is insufficient evidence to make a positive judgment about her identity. Mainly based on the above-mentioned Song Gong Luan fu inscription

[128.104.46.206] Project MUSE (2024-03-02 03:18 GMT) UW-Madison Libraries

Genealogical Statements on Ritual Bronzes · 239

from the tomb, the excavators suggest that the tomb belonged to the wife of Fuchai 夫差, the king of Wu. They further suggest that he was on a military campaign against the state of Chu, and that his wife died on the road and was buried here in Henan. 20 Alternatively, based on the “Pan Zi Chengzhou” inscriptions, one scholar thinks this was the tomb of the wife of the head of the Pan lineage, the ruler of a small local polity in southern Henan.21 Yet other scholars consider it to be the tomb of an unknown noblewoman from the state of Chu.22 Whatever the proper explanation might be, some of these bronzes changed hands at least twice. The two bronze bells with the “Yuchu” inscription were obtained by the head of the Pan lineage, who erased the previous owner’s name and carved his own name on them. If the tomb occupant was indeed his wife, then these bronzes made by her husband were buried in the wife’s tomb, as was the common practice at the time. The Song Gong Luan fu was someone else’s bronze vessel, perhaps obtained as war booty and buried in her tomb. If the tomb occupant was the wife of the king of Wu or a Chu nobleman, then the bronze bells changed hands thrice: their first owner was Yuchu, the second the head of the Pan lineage, and the third the king of Wu or the Chu nobleman. These acts of erasing and recarving bronze inscriptions were not isolated scenarios, but rather reflected a general trend during the Spring and Autumn and early Warring States periods.23 These phenomena suggest that political or military struggles took place among the elite of the Spring and Autumn period for power and prestige, and that these were symbolized and materialized in ritual bronze vessels. As the bronze vessels changed hands, the inscriptions were subsequently erased or changed. This was the sociopolitical background of the Spring and Autumn period in which the genealogical statements were employed. In the above Song Gong Luan fu inscription, for the lord of the small and weak polity of Song, to emphasize his connection with the glorious founding king of the Shang dynasty was to place himself on a par with the king of the powerful state of Wu, one of the five hegemons (wu ba 五霸) of the Spring and Autumn period. The second linguistic element in a genealogical statement is the ancestors, with whom the owner of the ritual bronze tried to demonstrate a relationship. Father and grandfather are certainly the most common relationships, since these are the figures from whom the social position, political power, or family property was handed down. There are, however, also many instances in which the inscriptions refer to more remote ancestors,

240 · Guolong Lai

the founders of dynasties, clans, or lineages. For example, in the Song Gong Luan fu inscription, the graph sun 孫 clearly means “descendant, scion” rather than its more common meaning of “grandson,” since here the Lord of Song refers to his ancestor of one thousand years before. This is also the case in the inscription of “the scion of the junior line of Chu” (Chushu zhi sun 楚叔之孫), excavated from the cemetery of the Yuan lineage at Xiasi in Xichuan, to be discussed below.24 In addition to recent and remote ancestors, there is another category of mythological ancestors. On the Zhu Gong Le zhong 邾公釛鐘 (Jicheng #102), the owner of the bronze bell refers to himself as “Le, the scion of Lu Yong, the lord of Zhu” (Lu Rong zhi sun Zhu Gong Le 陸融之孫邾公釛). In an early study, Wang Guowei 王國維 (1877–1927) pointed out that the name “Lu Yong” here refers to “Lu Zhong” 陸終, a mythological ancestor in the south.25 Although there are still some unresolved phonological issues with this reading,26 it seems possible that this lord of Zhu 邾, named Le 釛, is the Lord Huan 桓公 mentioned in the Zuo zhuan, whose personal name was Ge 革 (r. 487–473 BCE). 27 According to various historical accounts, during this period there were fraternal alliances in the south in the form of six or eight brothers under the same father (or ancestor) Lu Zhong or Zhu Rong 祝融 (Lu Zhong liuzi 陸終六子 or Zhu Rong baxing 祝 融八姓).28 Claiming descent from the mythological ancestor of the south, Lu Zhong would go on to consolidate Lord Huan’s position as one of the members of the southern alliances. Another famous mythological ancestor mentioned in a Warring States-period bronze inscription is Huangdi 黃帝, “Yellow Emperor.” On the famous Chen Hou Yinzi dui 陳侯因 敦 (Jicheng #4649), the owner Yinqi 因齊, King Wei 威王 (r. 356–320 BCE) of the state of Tian Qi 田齊, proclaimed himself the legitimate successor of his father Lord Huan 桓公 (r. 374–357 BCE), and that following their “high ancestor Huangdi” (gaozu Huangdi 高祖黃帝), he was thus emulating such previous hegemons as Lord Huan of Qi 齊桓公 (r. 685–643 BCE) and Lord Wen of Jin 晉文公 (r. 636–628 BCE) of the Spring and Autumn period. Scholars have pointed out that other historical sources suggest that the Chen 陳 lineage (its name changed to its homophone Tian 田 in Han-period sources), which took over the state of Qi by usurping the place of the Jiang 姜 clan, and which was not derived from the political alliances centered on the Yellow Emperor.29 But the king of Tian Qi ostentatiously declared that the Yellow Emperor was his high ancestor. This was because during the Warring States period, the Yellow Emperor was claimed as the common ancestor of

Genealogical Statements on Ritual Bronzes · 241

Tian Qi and its allies. By claiming common ancestry from the Yellow Emperor, the king of Tian Qi was constructing an “imagined community” and consolidating his social base for his political power, similar to modern nation building.30 The third, and the most important, linguistic element in a genealogical statement is the kinship terms. The basic ones include zi 子 “son” and sun 孫 “grandson.” Sometimes these two terms were also modified by a word defining the personal quality or emphasizing the legitimacy of the bronze owners, such as “the good son” (shuzi 淑子), “the first son” (yuanzi 元子), “the first grandson” (yuansun 元孫), “the filial grandson” (xiaosun 孝孫), “the great-great grandson” (xuansun 玄孫), “the remote descendant” (yisun 裔孫), “the heir” (sizi 嗣子), or “the eldest heir” (ruzi 孺子). The words zi or sun could also refer to “daughter” or “granddaughter,” respectively. For example, the inscription on a bronze vessel excavated from Tomb 7 at Xiasi in Xichuan, Henan reads:31 宣王之孫、灉子之子東姬。

The sun of King Xuan [of the Zhou], the zi “daughter” of Yongzi, Dong Ji

The occupant, Dong Ji 東姬, whose name shows her to be a woman from the royal Ji 姬 clan, was a consort of the head of the Yuan lineage. In the patriarchal society of early China, inheritance was transmitted primarily among the male members of the family. Even elite women were considered commodities that could be exchanged between different clans to seal political alliances. We will return to this point below. Both the terms zi and sun could also refer to the head of a lineage, 32 and in some cases, to the ruler of states or polities.33 For example, the above-mentioned “Pan Zi Chengzhou” likely refers to the head of the Pan lineage. Another telling example came from the late Spring and Autumn and early Warring States periods. The marquis of the state of Zeng by the name of Yu 𨘕 was also called “Zeng Zi Yu” 曾子𨘕 in bronze inscriptions. 34 The fact that these two terms, one genealogical and the other political, applied to the same person probably for different purposes and in different contexts, suggests that the genealogical term zi most likely refers to the head of the lineage, in this case, either the heir-apparent or the ruler of the state of Zeng. Indication that the word sun can refer to the head of a branch lineage first came from received texts. The modern commentator of Zuo zhuan Yang Bojun 楊伯峻 (1909–1992) first noticed that in Zuo zhuan, the successors of the heads of the five prominent lineages in the state of Lu 魯 all

242 · Guolong Lai

bore the name of sun.35 Fang Xuanchen 方炫琛 and Chen Jie 陳絜 have further argued that sun combined with the seniority terms of meng 孟 “eldest,” zhong 仲 “second-born,” shu 叔 “junior,” and ji 季 “youngest,” or with lineage names to designate the status of the person who bore this title as the head of the lineage. These combinations were not lineage names (shi 氏), as was believed to be the case previously.36 Here the kinship term sun has changed to an honorific title and was used to designate the social status of the head of a lineage.37 Similarly, some of the sun in the bronze inscriptions of the Spring and Autumn period should also be interpreted as a title of the head of the lineage, such as in the following two telling examples. On a bronze pan, discovered in Henan (Jicheng #10341), the inscription reads: 邛（江）中（仲）之孫伯戔……

Bo Jian, the head of the second branch of the Jiang lineage (Jiangzhong), …38

Another inscription on a bronze dagger (Jicheng #11252) of the early Spring and Autumn period reads: 邛（江）季之孫□方或……

.. Fang Huo, the head of the youngest branch of the Jiang lineage (Jiangji) …

Here zhong 仲 and ji 季 likely refer to the seniority of the branches within the Jiang lineage, and the term sun in this case could still semantically mean “scion or descendant,” but really designate the status of the lineage head. All of the above-mentioned kinship terms refer to patrilineal direct descendants. There is, however, another category of kinship terminology that appears in genealogical statements and refers to the “outside relatives” (waiqin 外親), that is, relatives from the mother’s or wife’s side. For example, the Zangsun zhong 臧孫鐘 (Jicheng #93–101) from Tomb 1 at Chengqiao 程橋, Liuhe 六合, Jiangsu identifies the owner as Zangsun 臧孫: 攻吳仲冬

（歲？）之外孫、坪之子臧孫……

Zangsun, Zhong Dong Sui’s daughter’s son and the son of Ping …

Although scholars have different opinions regarding the identity of Zangsun, all agree that he was the product of a marriage between the daughter of Zhong Dong Sui 仲冬 of the state of Wu 吳 and someone named Ping 坪 of some unknown state.39 The kinship term used here is waisun 外孫, “daughter’s son.” Another kinship term often used in Zhou bronze inscriptions to refer to “outside relative” is sheng 甥, which has an

Genealogical Statements on Ritual Bronzes · 243

extended semantic field that includes father’s sister’s son, mother’s brother’s son, wife’s brother, sister’s son, sister’s husband, and so on. From the above analysis of kinship terminology and kinship structure, it is clear that at least two categories of kinship relations were emphasized in genealogical statements of the Spring and Autumn period. One is patrilineal direct descent, mainly zi (“son”) and sun (“grandson”), or the more remote and generic sun (“scion, descendant”); the other is kinship relations established through marriage, such as waisun and sheng. In the first category, the genealogical statements can be divided into linear genealogy and segmented genealogy, depending on whether the relationship expresses only one or more than one line of descent from a given ancestor. In the second category, since at least two parallel lines of descent are implied, I refer to this type as parallel genealogies connected through marriage. In what follows, I will discuss these three types of genealogies respectively.

Linear Genealogies As the above-quoted OED definition of genealogy indicates, “genealogy” and “pedigree” are interchangeable in general usage. In anthropological literature, however, it has long been the practice to distinguish between these two terms, although different scholars do so differently.40 Many anthropologists and historians use “pedigree” to refer to a long list of persons that expresses only a single line of descent from a given ancestor; in contrast, “genealogy” refers to a relatively shorter list expressing more than one line of descent from a given ancestor and thus indicating segmentation or branching. These two types of genealogy are also called “linear genealogy” and “segmented genealogy.” Here I follow these terms. In ancient Chinese literature, there are many cases of long linear genealogies such as the genealogies of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties, and the states of Lu, Wei 衛, Jin, Zheng 鄭, Cai 蔡, Qin 秦, Chen 陳, Song, and Chu, as recorded in the Shi ji, the “Di xi” 帝繋 chapter of Da Dai Li ji, and in Shi ben. In my 1994 M.A. thesis, I analyzed the genealogies of the different states of the Spring and Autumn period and placed the bronze genealogical statements within the historical context of “succession crisis.” In his famous essay of 1917 “On the Shang and Zhou Institutions” (“Yin Zhou zhidu lun” 殷周制度論), Wang Guowei argued that one of the profound political institutional innovations of the Zhou dynasty was the establishment of the principles of filial succession (primogeniture) and of

244 · Guolong Lai

distinguishing between sons of consorts of different ranks. He thought that the establishment of the principles of filial succession with priority for sons of the principal wife by Zhou Gong 周公 in the early Western Zhou dynasty “put strife to rest” and “benefitted the world and future generations.” 41 But many scholars have subsequently pointed out that from Zuo zhuan, Shi ji, and other historical accounts we know that, in reality, although primogeniture was more or less an established notion, the heir-apparent constantly faced challenges from his brothers and other members of the same lineage or split lineages. The following statistics are based on Zhu Fenghan’s 朱鳳瀚 recent study;42 “normal succession” is defined as inheritance that followed the plan set by the previous ruler, while “abnormal succession” did not, the inheritance often being interrupted by assassination, usurpation, or political destruction. 1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

The state of Lu 魯 (clan name Ji 姬): established by the eldest son of Zhou Gong, this state practiced “alternation between filial succession and fraternal succession” (yi ji yi ji 一繼一及) before the early Spring and Autumn period. During the period of 770–476 BCE, among thirteen lords, only nine were designated as cases of filial succession; four successions took place under abnormal conditions, in which the inheritance did not follow the plan set by the previous lord. Among these four cases, two were filial successions, and two were fraternal successions. The state of Qi 齊 (clan name Jiang 姜): often had marriage alliances with the royal Zhou house and practiced filial succession in the Western Zhou period, but during the Spring and Autumn period, among the fifteen lords, seven had normal filial successions, while eight succeeded under abnormal conditions. Among the eight abnormal cases, only one was of filial succession while the other seven were fraternal successions. The state of Jin 晉 (clan name Ji 姬): among the twenty-one lords in the Spring and Autumn period, fifteen came to power through normal filial succession, and six through abnormal succession. The state of Wei 衛 (clan name Ji 姬): among the eighteen lords in the Spring and Autumn period, ten had normal filial successions, and eight abnormal. The state of Zheng 鄭 (clan name Ji 姬): among the seventeen lords, eleven had normal filial successions, and one normal fraternal succession. Among the five abnormal cases, one was of

Genealogical Statements on Ritual Bronzes · 245

filial succession, and four of fraternal succession in which younger brothers replaced elder brothers. 6) The state of Song 宋 (clan name Zi 子): among fifteen lords, ten were cases of normal succession, among which eight were filial successions, one fraternal succession, and one in which the brother’s son became the successor. Among the five abnormal cases, two were instances of filial successions and two of fraternal successions. 7) The state of Chu 楚 (clan name Mi 羋): among the fifteen kings, nine had normal filial successions. Among the six abnormal cases, two had filial successions, three had fraternal successions, and in one an uncle replaced his nephew and became the king of Chu. These numbers show that among these seven major states in the Spring and Autumn period, under normal circumstances, only 61% of cases followed the principle of filial succession. This is the broad sociopolitical context within which genealogical statements appeared on ritual bronze vessels. Certainly not all these genealogical statements on ritual bronzes were from the ruling houses of the states, but similar practices of the principle of primogeniture and a similar sociopolitical atmosphere permeated the elite communities. In addition to succession to rulership and inheritance, many offices were also hereditary (shiguan 世官) in the Western Zhou and Spring and Autumn periods. In the late Spring and Autumn period, however, the old nobility’s hereditary rights began to be challenged by the competing claim that virtue and talent should be used as the criteria for recruiting ministers and officials.43 Starting from the late Spring and Autumn period, China embarked on a grand social transformation in which the old kin-based hierarchical aristocratic states were unified into a highly centralized, largely nonhereditary, bureaucratic empire. It is conceivable that when their rights were threatened, the old aristocracy made explicit claims about their kin-based privilege. Thus, in linear genealogical statements, the kinship terms refer to lineal kin, such as sons, grandsons, or remote ancestors, descendants, or even mythological ancestors. The function of the linear genealogy was to legitimize the social and political position of the bronze owner. From the above discussions, we know that the kinship terms “zi” and “sun” also came to designate the head of the lineage or heir-apparent.

246 · Guolong Lai

As mentioned at the beginning of this essay, some scholars think that the placement of genealogical statements at the beginning of bronze inscriptions was for the owners to boast of their noble background. This is probably an anachronistic mistake. It is important to consider the audience for these bronze inscriptions. The inscriptions cast on bronze ritual vessels and on musical instruments were intended for use in the ancestral sacrificial rites. The primary audience was probably the deceased ancestors and the fellow noblemen and noblewomen of the same or related lineages. The inscriptions were probably not intended for commoners. Thus, it would be pointless for the owners to boast of their nobility. Rather, the genealogical statements were used by the owners to claim their right of inheritance and to legitimate their social and political power in front of the ancestors and the elite community.44 Another question, raised by Li Xueqin, is the prevalence of genealogical statements in the southern part of Spring and Autumn-period China. But as Li Ling has already pointed out, this was not an exclusively southern phenomenon. Furthermore, as I showed in the above analysis, the popularity of these genealogical statements in the south is a symptom of the succession regime in the south. Comparatively, the right of primogeniture was not as well established in the south as in the north. Thus, in bronze inscriptions from Wu, Yue, Xu 徐, and Shu 舒, linear genealogical statements are particularly prevalent. However, this does not mean, as Olivia Milburn suggests, that the principles of inheritance and succession in the southern states were “completely different from those of the other states in the Zhou confederacy.” 45 For example, in the southern state of Chu, the succession principles were fundamentally the same as in the northern states. The normal filial succession rate was 60% (nine among a total of fifteen kings), and even in abnormal circumstances, the rate of filial succession was 33% (two out of six abnormal successions). This means that the principle of primogeniture was as strong there as in the northern states.46 However, there are also numerous genealogical statements on Chu ritual bronzes. Interestingly, many of them reflect not linear genealogies, but rather segmented genealogies.

Segmented Genealogies In early China as in the medieval West, the “tree” imagery was a basic metaphor for genealogy.47 In fact, the Chinese word for “generation,” shi 世,

Genealogical Statements on Ritual Bronzes · 247

is graphically represented by a tree with three leafs or branches. Here, I adopt the definition of “segmented genealogy” from Robert R. Wilson as “a genealogy that expresses more than one line of descent from a given ancestor.”48 In segmented genealogical statements of the Spring and Autumn period, the kinship terms explicitly or implicitly refer to collateral kin such as brothers and paternal uncles, and the side branches split off the main trunk lineage. From Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, we know that from at least the middle of the Western Zhou dynasty, the seniority terms of bo 伯, meng 孟, zhong 仲, shu 叔, and ji 季 were used to indicate sibling seniority within a family or the seniority of branches within a lineage (that is, the seniority of founding lineage ancestors). However, from personal names in bronze inscriptions, it is often difficult to tell whether or not these terms indicate sibling seniority or lineage seniority. As Han Wei 韓巍 has reminded us recently, in Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, with a few exceptions such as Jingshu 井叔, Guozhong 虢仲, and Guoji 虢季, the majority of these seniority terms probably refer to an individual’s seniority among his siblings, rather than to established branches of a lineage.49 However, in genealogical statements such as Chushu zhi sun mentioned earlier, the term shu 叔 seems still to refer to the established split lineages of Chu. This interpretation is supported by the recent discovery of a set of eleven chime bells at the Wanfunao 萬福堖 site at Zhijiang 枝江 in Yichang 宜昌, Hubei.50 One of the eleven bells is inscribed. The inscription reads: 楚季寶鐘，氒孫廼獻工（于？）公。公其邁（萬）年受又（佑）福。

Chuji’s treasured bells, its descendant presented it to the lord. May the lord for ten thousand years receive blessing and fortune.

Here “Chuji” 楚季, as the above “Chushu,” and similar to the aforementioned Jiangzhong and Jiangji, Guozhong and Guoji, refers to the branch lineage. The descendant (i.e., the head) of the youngest line of Chu presented a set of chime bells, which was probably his family heirloom, to the lord of Chu. Chuji’s sun and Chushu zhi sun both imply segmented genealogies with the royal Chu kings occupying the trunk, while the “junior,” “youngest” and other lines of Chu occupy the branches. To date, we have four groups of bronzes with the genealogical statement Chushu zhi sun identifying the owner. The first two groups belong to the Yuan lineage. The first is that of

248 · Guolong Lai

Yideng 以鄧, excavated from Tomb 8 in the cemetery of the Yuan lineage at Xiasi, and datable to the middle Spring and Autumn period. The second group of ritual vessels with the same genealogical formula, identifying the owner as Peng 倗, was excavated from three tombs (Tomb 1, Tomb 2, and Tomb 3) in the same cemetery. There is now a scholarly consensus that the occupant of Tomb 2 was Yuan Zi Peng, while the other two tombs (Tomb 1 and Tomb 3) were those of his consorts. Li Ling has suggested that among the five generations buried in the Yuan lineage cemetery, Yideng belongs to the first generation, and Yuan Zi Peng to the third generation.51 The third group is represented by a bronze he 盉-pitcher with the same genealogical statement, identifying the original owner by the personal name Tuwei 途為. The bronze was excavated from a tomb with many other objects of diverse origin. 52 Based on the similarity of the bronze yi 匜-ewers from this tomb and those from Tomb 1 and Tomb 3 at Xiasi, Li Ling suggests that Tuwei is close in date to Yuan Zi Peng.53 Li Ling groups this he-pitcher with the previous two groups on the basis of Chushu as the name of the lineage. The fourth group includes two bronze ding-tripods excavated from Tomb 1 at Heshangling 和尚嶺 in Xichuan, Henan; they have a genealogical formula, Chushu zhi sun, identifying the original owner of the tripods as Ke Huang 克黃. The excavators first thought that Ke Huang was both the tomb occupant and the historical figure of that name mentioned in the Zuo zhuan. Therefore, they dated the tomb to the middle Spring and Autumn period.54 However, many other scholars disagree with this date of the tomb. Based on archaeological materials excavated from the tomb, Gao Chenglin 高成林 dates this tomb (Tomb 1) to the late Spring and Autumn period and the associated Tomb 2 (i.e., the wife’s tomb) to the early Warring States period.55 Similarly, Qiu Shi 求實 points out that both tombs should be dated to the late Spring and Autumn-early Warring States period, and that the Ke Huang of the bronze inscription could not have been the Ke Huang of the middle Spring and Autumn period mentioned in the Zuo zhuan.56 In the official archaeological report published a few years after the original brief report, the excavators revised their previous view and dated these two tombs to the late Spring and Autumn period.57 Although a consensus has been reached that Tomb 1 at Heshangling dates to the late Spring and Autumn period, scholars still disagree about the identity of the tomb occupant. Tomb 1 was heavily looted.58 Three inscribed bronze ritual tripods were excavated, two with the same inscription identifying the owner of these sheng 升-tripods as Ke Huang.

Genealogical Statements on Ritual Bronzes · 249

Typologically, these tripods are one of the earliest forms of sheng, which became popular in elite burials in the south.59 The other tripod was cast for a taishi 太師 of the state of Zeng. It is reported that at least a hu 壺 vessel and a stemmed square dou 豆-cup with inscriptions identifying the owner as Ke Huang were also excavated from Tomb 1.60 This cup has been published in the catalog of a private collection.61 The official archaeological report presented conf licting views regarding the identity of the tomb owner. In the first section, disregarding a gap of about one hundred years, the author still considered the tomb owner to be the Ke Huang of the middle Spring and Autumn period mentioned in Zuo zhuan. However, if, as the excavators maintain, this is Ke Huang’s tomb, and if Ke Huang was the historical person mentioned in the Zuo zhuan, then this would be inconsistent with the Heshangling cemetery’s belonging to the Yuan lineage and the tomb’s dating to the late rather than the middle Spring and Autumn period. According to the Zuo zhuan, Ke Huang was active during the middle Spring and Autumn period and was from the Dou 鬬 lineage, another of the four powerful lineages of Chu in the Spring and Autumn period. If, as some scholars suggest, this is Ke Huang’s tomb, but this Ke Huang was not the same historical person recorded in Zuo zhuan, but someone else with the same personal name in the late Spring and Autumn period,62 then this suggestion contradicts the fact that the sheng-tripod bearing Ke Huang’s name, the earliest among its type, is dated to the middle Spring and Autumn period. Some scholars also used the stemmed square dou-cup with the Ke Huang inscription to argue for a late Spring and Autumn date of the Ke Huang bronzes. But I think in Chinese archaeology, the typology and chronology of bronze tripods are better established than those of the stemmed square dou-cups in this region. Hence I agree with Li Ling and other scholars who suggest that the occupant of Tomb 1 at Heshangling was not the Ke Huang of the middle Spring and Autumn period, but Yuan Zi Shou 薳子受, whose bronzes were excavated from his consort’s tomb (Tomb 2).63 Tomb 2 was also looted, but luckily the majority of the burial goods was not disturbed. Among the sixty-two bronzes found in the tomb, there are two sets of bronze bells with the owner’s name, Yuan Zi Shou. As shown earlier, it was a common practice at the time that a wife’s tomb contained bronze ritual objects made by her husband. Thus from the archaeological materials in Tomb 2, we can conclude that the person interred in Tomb 1 was Yuan Zi Shou.

250 · Guolong Lai

But two questions remain. The first is that if Tomb 1 was Yuan Zi Shou’s tomb and not Ke Huang’s, why were so many of Ke Huang’s ritual bronzes buried there? As in the cases of Yuan Zi Peng and his consorts discussed earlier, this can probably be explained by these bronzes being taken from Ke Huang of the Dou lineage and buried in the Yuan lineage cemetery. The second question is why the descendants of the Yuan lineage and the Dou lineage both claimed they were the descendants of “Chushu.” Who was this “Chushu”? Scholars have different interpretations of “Chushu.” The dominant view, suggested by Li Ling and Liu Binhui 劉彬徽, is that “Chushu” (or the above-mentioned “Chuji”) refers to a specific founding ancestor, a son (a brother or an uncle, from the perspectives of different generations) of the king of Chu, who was the founding ancestor of the branch lineage when it split from the main, royal lineage, and these are the names of branch lineages (shicheng 氏稱).64 Based on an account in Guo yu and the inscriptional data from the Yuan lineage cemetery at Xiasi, Li Ling identifies “Chushu” with the Yuan lineage, and speculates that the Yuan lineage was established by Shu Xiong 叔熊, the third son of the Chu king Xiong Yan 熊 嚴.65 Li Xueqin hypothesizes that this “Chushu” was Wei Zhang 薳章, the brother of King Wu of Chu, mentioned in Zuo zhuan (sixth year of Lord Huan’s reign, i.e., 603 BCE).66 If “Chushu” refers to a specific historical person and also to the name of the branch lineage, Yuan Zi Peng, Tuwei, and Ke Huang, who all identify themselves as descendants of “Chushu,” must have belonged to the same lineage. However, based on new epigraphic data from the Yuan lineage cemetery at Heshangling and recently published Chu bamboo manuscripts, I think that “Chushu” here is a more generic genealogical term, referring to a “junior line” of Chu, and not a specific appellation for a particular lineage.67 We know that the founder of the Yuan lineage was called “Yuanzhong” 遠仲, and that of the Dou lineage was called shu, as in Doushu 侸 （鬬）叔 in the Chu ju manuscript. Hence, it is appropriate that Ke Huang from the Dou lineage would be called “Chushu.” In fact, we have precedents in such classical texts as the Shang shu 尚書; the brothers of King Wu, the founder of the Western Zhou dynasty, were all called shu.68 I suspect it is also the case here in the Chu genealogical statements that “Chushu” refers generically to “a junior line of Chu.” As scholars have shown, unlike most states, the power of aristocratic lineages was preserved in Chu in the transition from the Spring and Autumn period to the

Genealogical Statements on Ritual Bronzes · 251

Warring States period.69 These genealogical statements from Chu reflect this historical situation in which powerful aristocratic lineages claimed a strong political relationship between the trunk and branch lineages.

Parallel Genealogies The third type of genealogical statements is that of parallel genealogies, which explicitly or implicitly refer to two linear genealogies that connected at a certain point. The function of parallel genealogies is to attach oneself to a more powerful lineage, often the royal lineage, or to make a political alliance. As discussed above, the kinship terms used in this third type of statements often belong to the category of “outside relative,” employing the curious early Chinese kinship term sheng written as 生, 姓, or 甥. For example, the Luo’er yi 羅兒匜 excavated from Tomb 3 in the aforementioned site at Chengqiao, Liuhe, Jiangsu, reads: 羅兒□□，吳王之姓（甥），學伐□□□之子……

Luo’er .. .. , the sheng of the king of the state of Wu, the son of …

Scholars have interpreted the kinship term sheng differently. Li Xueqin suggests that it must refer to the king’s wife’s brothers.70 This may be the case. However, according to the “Shi qin” 釋親 chapter of the Erya 爾雅, sheng refers to the children of one’s father’s sister (gu zhi zi wei sheng 姑之 子為甥); the children of one’s mother’s brother (jiu zhi zi wei sheng 舅之子為 甥); the brothers of one’s wife (qi zhi kundi wei sheng 妻之昆弟為甥); or the husband of one’s sister (zi mei zhi fu wei sheng 姊妹之夫為甥). These are reciprocal kin terms, because both Erya and the “Fu zhuan” 服傳 or “The Commentary on Mourning Attire” chapter of the Yili 儀禮 state that “as to those who call me jiu 舅, I call them sheng” (wei wo jiu zhe, wu wei zhi sheng 謂我舅者，吾謂之甥). In other words, at least in the early Chinese mourning system, mourning obligations of both parties reached equilibrium (bao 報) at this level of kinship relation, while for closer relations such as father and mother or for distant relations, the mourning obligations were unequal. Anthropologists have various explanations as to why different generations of relatives were subsumed under the same kinship term, which is rare in Chinese kinship terminology.71 The consensus is that in each case the woman (father’s sister, sister, or daughter; mother; wife) functioned as a tie between two different clans or lineages. In fact, according to the Erya and Shuowen jiezi 說文解字,72 the very term for

252 · Guolong Lai

“marriage,” hunyin 婚姻, in which both graphic components include the nü 女 “female” determinative, referred to the male heads of two families in the marriage rather than to the bride and bridegroom individually. This avuncular relationship (i.e., the relationship between maternal uncle and nephew, jiu sheng 舅甥) was an important social relationship in early China. Scholars have pointed out that in Shang oracle bone inscriptions “duozi” 多子 pairs with “duosheng” 多生, and refers to the various Shang lineage heads and the non-Shang lineage heads.73 Here sheng can be understood either as xing 姓, “clan or surname” or as sheng 甥, referring to the heads of the intermarriage groups.74 In Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, several sheng 生 are mentioned, and scholars generally agree that in these cases it should be understood as sheng 甥.75 The importance of intermarriage alliances is emphasized in genealogical statements of the Spring and Autumn period. Furthermore, another kinship term similar to sheng mentioned in Erya is chu 出: “A man calls his sister’s children chu” (nan zi wei zi mei zhi zi wei chu 男子謂姊妹之子為出). There is only one example in bronze inscriptions in which the word chu is mentioned. It is found on the late Spring and Autumn-period Shushi zhong 叔尸鐘. It reads: 丕顯穆公之孫，其配襄公之𡛛，而成公之女。

The scion of the splendid Lord Mu, married to the niece (sister’s daughter) of Lord Xiang and the daughter of Lord Cheng.

Although Shushi 叔尸 did not spell out his entire genealogy, it is clear that his father, “the scion of Lord Mu” 穆公 (r. 728–720 BCE) [of the state of Song], married the niece of Lord Xiang 襄公 (r. 650–637 BCE) [of Song], who was the daughter of Lord Cheng 成公 (r. 654–637 BCE) [of Qi 杞].76 Here it is implied that Shushi’s father was descended from Lord Mu of Song, and thus Shushi belonged to a branch lineage of Song. Shushi’s mother was the niece (sister’s daughter) of Lord Xiang of Song and the daughter of Lord Cheng of Qi. The sister of Lord Xiang of Song married out to the polity of Qi, but her daughter married back into the state of Song and was Shushi’s mother. The function of these parallel genealogies was to indicate the marital alliances between Song and Qi, and also to attach Shushi, a subject of Lord Ling 靈公 of Qi 齊, to the aristocratic lineages of Song and Qi 杞 and to promote himself.

Genealogical Statements on Ritual Bronzes · 253

Conclusion In this paper I have examined the genealogical statements of the Spring and Autumn period. From these materials, we can observe that there are at least three types of genealogical statements on Spring and Autumnperiod bronzes. The first is linear genealogy, in which the direct patrilineal descendants are listed; the purpose of these genealogical statements was often to legitimize the social and political position of the bronze owner. The second is segmented genealogy; that is, two or more lines of descendants from the same origin are listed or implied. The purpose of these genealogical statements is often for the branch lineages to make political connections with the royal trunk lineages. The third is parallel genealogies connected through marriage or political service; that is, two or more lineages, which intersected at a certain point through the exchange of women or service, are listed or implied. The purpose of these genealogies was to establish kinship or lord-subject relationships and to forge political alliances among them. I think Robert R. Wilson’s conclusion regarding genealogies in the Biblical world can also fit the early Chinese situations: “genealogies are not normally created for the purpose of conveying historical information. They are not intended to be historical records.”77 The genealogical statements on the ritual bronzes of the Spring and Autumn period seem to have been created and preserved for the purpose of legitimating status quo, for making political claims and political alliances. The historical information preserved in the genealogies is only incidental.

254 · Guolong Lai

Notes 1

2 3

4 5

6

7 8 9 10

11

12

13

14

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “genealogy” as “an account of one’s descent from an ancestor or ancestors, by enumeration of the intermediate persons; a pedigree.” In this paper, following the practice of many anthropologists, I distinguish between “genealogy” and “pedigree.” See discussion below. Barry J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 21–26. Jacob J. Finkelstein, “The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 20.3/4 (1966): 95–118; W. G. Lambert, “Another Look at Hammurabi’s Ancestors,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 22.1 (1968): 1–2. Chang Yuzhi 常玉芝, Shangdai zhouji zhidu 商代周祭制度 (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1987). David M. Sena, “Arraying the Ancestors in Ancient China: Narratives of Lineage History in the ‘Scribe Qiang’ and ‘Qiu’ Bronzes,” Asia Major 25.1 (2012): 63–81. Li Xueqin 李學勤, ed., Qinghua daxue cang Zhanguo Chu jian (yi) 清華大學藏 戰國楚簡（壹）(Shanghai: Zhongxi shuju, 2011), vol. 1, pp. 26–29; vol. 2, pp. 117–24. Lai Guolong 來國龍 , “Qinghua jian Chu ju suo jian Chuguo de gongzu yu shixi—Jian lun Chu ju wenben de xingzhi” 清華簡《楚居》所見楚國 的公族與世系— 兼論《楚居》文本的性質, Jianbowang 簡帛網 (Wuhan University), 3 December 2011, at http://www.bsm.org.cn/show_article.php?id=1588, accessed 4 February 2015. Sima Qian 司馬遷, Shi ji 史記 (Zhonghua shuju ed.), pp. 487–508. Wang Pinzhen 王聘珍, ed., Da Dai Li ji jiegu 大戴禮記解詁 (repr., Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983). Qin Jiamo 秦嘉謨 et al., eds., Shi ben ba zhong 世本八種 (Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1957). The term “genealogy” is also used to refer to similar short expressions in other ancient civilizations; see Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977). Hayashi Minao 林巳奈夫, “In-Shunjūki kinbun no shoshiki to jōyō goku no jidaiteki hensen” 殷－春秋金文の書式と常用語句の時代的変遷, Tōhō gakuhō 東 方学報 55 (1983): 34–35. Zhang Zhenlin 張振林, “Guanyu liangjian Wu Yue baojian mingwen de shidu wenti” 關於兩件吳越寶劍銘文的釋讀問題, Zhongguo yuwen yanjiu 中國語文研 究 7 (1985): 31–36. Li Xueqin 李學勤, “Chunqiu nanfang qingtongqi mingwen de yige tedian” 春 秋南方青銅器銘文的一個特點, in Ma Chengyuan 馬承源, ed., Wu Yue diqu qingtongqi yanjiu lunwenji 吳越地區青銅器研究論文集 (Hong Kong: Liangmu chubanshe, 1997), pp. 177–79. Li Ling 李零, “Kaogu faxian yu shenhua chuanshuo” 考古發現與神話傳説, in Li Ling, Dai tu xuan wencun, Du shi juan 待兔軒文存，讀史卷 (Guilin: Guangxi

Genealogical Statements on Ritual Bronzes · 255

15 16

17

18

19

20 21

22

23

24 25 26

shifan daxue chubanshe, 2011), p. 55; “Zai lun Xichuan Xiasi Chu mu” 再論淅 川下寺楚墓 , in Li Ling, Ru shan yu chu sai 入山與出塞 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2004), pp. 225–41, 228n2. Lai Guolong 來國龍, “Yiming suo jian xingshi zhidu yanjiu” 彜銘所見姓氏制度 研究 (M.A. thesis: Department of Archaeology, Peking University, June 1994). The standard reference for bronze inscriptions here is Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo, ed., Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng 殷周金文集成, 18 vols. (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1984–1994); hereafter, Jicheng. Wang Zewen 王澤文, “Chunqiu shiqi de jinian tongqi mingwen yu Zuo zhuan de duizhao yanjiu” 春秋時期的紀年銅器銘文與左傳的對照研究 (Ph.D. diss.: Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Yanjiuyuan, 2002). Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo, Henan Danjiang kuqu kaogudui and Xichuan xian bowuguan, eds., Xichuan Xiasi Chunqiu Chu mu 淅川下寺春秋 楚墓 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1991), pp. 112–25. Li Ling 李零, “‘Chushu zhi sun Peng’ jiujing shi shui?”「楚叔之孫倗」究竟是誰？, Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 1981.4: 36–37; Chen Wei 陳偉, “Xichuan Xiasi erhao muzhu ji qi xiangguan wenti” 淅川下寺二號墓主及其相關問題, Jiang Han kaogu 江漢考古 1983.1: 32–33, 37; Yamada Takahito 山田崇仁, “Sekisen Kaji Shunjū So bo kō: Nigōbo no hisōcha to sono jidai” 淅川下寺春秋楚墓考： 二號墓の被葬著とその時代, Shirin 史林 80.4 (1997): 67–83; Lothar von Falkenhausen, “The Bronzes from Xiasi and Their Owners,” Kaoguxue yanjiu 考古學 研究5 (2002): 755–86. Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Gushi Hougudui yihao mu 固始侯古堆 一號墓 (Zhengzhou: Daxiang chubanshe, 2004), pp. 100–101. Wang Entian 王恩田, “Henan Gushi ‘Gouwu furen mu’—Jian lun Pan guo dili weizhi ji Wu fa Chu luxian” 河南固始「勾吳夫人墓」— 兼論番國地理位置 及吳伐楚路線, Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 1985.2: 59–62, 64. Li Xueqin, Eastern Zhou and Qin Civilization (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985), pp. 159–60; Liu Binhui 劉彬徽, “Jinnian Chu xi qingtongqi yanjiu shuping” 近年楚系青銅器研究述評, Hunan sheng bowuguan guankan 湖 南省博物館舘刊3 (2006): 176–77. Lai Guolong 來國龍, “Jiyi de momie: Chunqiu shiqi tongqi shang youyi mohui gaike de mingwen” 記憶的磨滅：春秋時期銅器上有意磨毀改刻的銘文, paper presented at the conference “Ancient Chinese Bronzes from the Shouyang Studio and Elsewhere: An International Conference Commemorating Twenty Years of Discoveries,” The Art Institute of Chicago and The Creel Center for Chinese Paleography, The University of Chicago, 5–7 November 2010. Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo et al., eds., Xichuan Xiasi Chunqiu Chu mu, pp. 6–8, 110–12, 126–32. Wang Guowei 王國維, “Zhu Gong zhong ba” 邾公鐘跋, in Wang Guowei, Guantang jilin 觀堂集林 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1959), p. 894. Wang Guowei posits that the graph rong 融 (OCM *luŋ) belongs to the Dong 東 rime-group, that the graph zhong 终 (OCM *tuŋ) belongs to the Dong 冬 rime-group, and that the two rime-groups had not yet split at the time. But as

256 · Guolong Lai

27 28

29 30

31 32

33

34 35 36

37 38 39

40

the Old Chinese reconstructions show, both of them actually belonged to the Dong rime-group. See Wang Guowei, “Zhu Gong zhong ba,” p. 894. The graphs le 釛 (OCM *rək) and ge 革 (OCM *krək) are closely related phonologically. Li Xueqin 李學勤, “Zhu Rong baxing” 祝融八姓, in Li Jinyun 李縉雲, ed., Li Xueqin xueshu wenhua suibi 李學勤學術文化隨筆 (Beijing: Zhongguo qingnian chubanshe, 1999), pp. 20–28. Li Ling, “Kaogu faxian yu shenhua chuanshuo,” p. 57. Wang Mingke 王明珂, “Lun panfu: Jindai Yan Huang zisun guozu jian’gou de gudai jichu” 論攀附：近代炎黃子孫國族建構的古代基礎, Zhongyang yanjiuyuan Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊73.3 (2002): 583–624. Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo et al., eds., Xichuan Xiasi Chunqiu Chu mu, pp. 35–36. For zi as the designation of the head of a lineage in early China, see Qiu Xigui 裘錫圭, “Guanyu Shangdai de zongzu zuzhi yu guizu he pingmin liangge jieji de chubu yanjiu” 關於商代的宗族組織與貴族和平民兩個階級的初步研究, in Qiu Xigui, Gudai wenshi yanjiu xintan 古代文史研究新探 (Nanjing: Jiangsu Guji chubanshe, 1992), pp. 303–10. For sun as the designation for the head of a lineage in the Spring and Autumn period, see below. In some cases zi was used to designate a rank in the Zhou political system; see Wang Shimin 王世民, “Xi Zhou Chunqiu jinwen zhong de zhuhou juecheng” 西周春秋金文中的諸侯爵稱, Lishi yanjiu 歷史研究 1983.3: 3–17. There is still a heated debate regarding whether or not the five-rank system existed in early China; see Chen Jie 陳絜, Shang Zhou xingshi zhidu yanjiu 商周姓氏制度研究 (Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2007), p. 357 n. 1. Zhang Changping 張昌平, Zengguo qingtongqi yanjiu 曾國青銅器研究 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2009), p. 355. Yang Bojun 楊伯峻, Chunqiu Zuo zhuan zhu 春秋左傳注 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1981), p. 1078. Fang Xuanchen 方炫琛, “Lun Chunqiu Lu zhongsun, mengsun, jisun, zangsun deng cheng fei shiming ji Chunqiu shiqi renwu ji ‘sun’ wei cheng zhi yi” 論春 秋魯中孫、孟孫、季孫、臧孫等稱非氏名及春秋時期人物繫「孫」為稱之義 , Dalu zazhi 大陸雜誌 75.6 (1987): 22–31; Chen Jie, Shang Zhou xingshi zhidu yanjiu, pp. 330–46. Chen Jie, Shang Zhou xingshi zhidu yanjiu, p. 345. A similar formula is recorded in the Song dynasty bronze catalog Kaogu tu 考 古圖; see Jicheng #10160. He Linyi 何琳儀, “Chengqiao san hao mu pan yi mingwen xinkao” 程橋三號 墓盤匜銘文新考, Dongnan wenhua 東南文化 2001.3: 78–81; Cao Jinyan 曹錦炎, “Chengqiao xinchu tongqi kaoshi ji xiangguan wenti” 程橋新出銅器考釋及相 關問題, Dongnan wenhua 1991.1: 147–52. Regarding the lack of precise definitions for these terms in past research, see Jack Goody, Comparative Studies in Kinship (Stanford: Stanford University

Genealogical Statements on Ritual Bronzes · 257

41 42 43 44

45

46

47

48 49

50

51 52 53 54

55 56 57

Press, 1969), pp. 13–14. Wang Guowei 王國維, “Yin Zhou zhidu lun” 殷周制度論, in Wang Guowei, Guantang jilin 觀堂集林 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1959), pp. 451–80. Zhu Fenghan 朱鳳瀚, Shang Zhou jiazu xingtai yanjiu: Zengding ben 商周家族 形態研究：增訂本 (Tianjin: Tianjin Guji chubanshe, 2004), p. 449. Qian Zongfan 錢宗範, Zhoudai zongfa zhidu yanjiu 周代宗法制度研究 (Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue chubanshe, 1989), pp. 301–3. For different modes of legitimation in ancient Egypt, see John Baines, “Kingship, Definition of Culture, and Legitimation,” in David O’Connor and David P. Silverman, eds., Ancient Egyptian Kingship (Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 3–47; for the role writing played in legitimation, see Haicheng Wang, “Writing and the State in Early China in Comparative Perspective” (Ph.D. diss.: Princeton University, 2007), chap. 1. Olivia Milburn, “Kingship and Inheritance in the State of Wu: Fraternal Succession in the Spring and Autumn Period China (772–475 BC),” T’oung Pao 90.4 (2004): 196. Tang Jiahong 唐嘉弘, “Lun Chu wang de jicheng zhidu—Jian lun xian Qin junwei chuanxi de yanbian” 論楚王的繼承制度— 兼論先秦君位傳襲的演變, Zhongzhou xuekan 中州學刊1990.1: 109–14. Mary Bouquet, “Family Trees and Their Affinities: The Visual Imperative of the Genealogical Method,” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 2.1 (March 1996): 43–66; Takagi Satomi 高木智見, Xian Qin shehui yu sixiang: Shi lun Zhongguo wenhua de hexin 先秦社會與思想：試論中國文化的核心, trans. He Xiaoyi 何曉毅 (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2011), pp. 71–75,103–7. Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, p. 9. Han Wei 韓巍, “Chong lun Xi Zhou Shan shi jiazu shixi—Jian tan Zhoudai jiazu zhidu de yixie wenti” 重論西周單氏家族世系— 兼談周代家族制度的一 些問題, in Zhu Fenghan 朱鳳瀚, ed., Xin chu jinwen yu Xi Zhou lishi 新出金文 與西周歷史 (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2011), p. 177. Yichang bowuguan, “Yichang Wanfunao bianzhong chutu ji yizhi chubu kantan” 宜昌萬福堖編鐘出土及遺址初步勘探, Zhongguo wenwu bao 中國文物報, 28 September 2012. Li Ling, “Zai lun Xichuan Xiasi Chu mu,” p. 231. Wuxian wenwu guanli weiyuanhui, “Jiangsu Wuxian Heshan Dong Zhou mu” 江蘇吳縣何山東周墓, Wenwu 文物 1984.5: 16–20. Li Ling, “Zai lun Xichuan Xiasi Chu mu,” p. 226 n. 3. Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Xichuan xian Heshangling Chunqiu Chu mu de fajue” 淅川縣和尚嶺春秋楚墓的發掘 , Huaxia kaogu 華夏考古 1992.3: 114–30. Gao Chenglin 高成林, “Xichuan Heshangling Chu mu de shidai wenti” 淅川和 尚嶺楚墓的時代問題, Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 1996.4: 61–65. Qiu Shi 求實, “Henan Xichuan Heshangling Chu mu niandai chuyi” 河南淅川 和尚嶺楚墓年代芻議, Zhongguo wenwu bao 中國文物報, 18 October 1992. Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Nanyang shi wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo

258 · Guolong Lai and Xichuan xian bowuguan, eds., Xichuan Heshangling yu Xujialing Chu mu 淅川和尚嶺與徐家嶺楚墓 (Zhengzhou: Daxiang chubanshe, 2004), pp. 120–21.

58 59 60 61 62

63 64

65 66 67

68

69 70 71

72 73

Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo et al., eds., Xichuan Heshangling yu Xujialing Chu mu, pp. 5–24. Li Ling 李零, “Chu ding tu shuo” 楚鼎圖説, in Li Ling, Ru shan yu chu sai, pp. 336–37. Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo et al., eds., Xichuan Heshangling yu Xujialing Chu mu, p. 24. Wang Tao, Chinese Bronzes from the Meiyintang Collection (London: Paradou Writing Ltd., 2009), p. 235. Qiu Shi, “Henan Xichuan Heshangling Chu mu niandai chuyi.” See the discussion following Ge Liang’s 葛亮 article, “Meiyingtang cang Zhongguo tongqi youming bufen jiaodu” 玫茵堂藏中國銅器有銘部分校讀, Chutu wenxian yu guwenzi yanjiu wangzhan 出土文獻與古文字研究網站 (Fudan University), 11 December 2009, at http://www.gwz.fudan.edu.cn/SrcShow.asp?Src_ ID=1012, accessed 4 February 2015. Li Ling 李零, “Hua Zi hu yu Xichuan Chu mu” 化子瑚與淅川楚墓, in Li Ling, Ru shan yu chu sai, pp. 242–44. Li Ling 李零, “Chuguo zuyuan, shixi de wenzixue zhengming” 楚國族源、世系 的文字學證明, in Li Ling, Dai tu xuan wencun, Du shi juan, pp. 206–9; Liu Binhui 劉彬徽, “Chuji zhong mingwen yanjiu” 楚季鐘銘文研究, Chutu wenxian yu guwenzi yanjiu wangzhan 出土文獻與古文字研究網站 (Fudan University), 11 December 2012, at http://www.gwz.fudan.edu.cn/SrcShow. asp?Src_ID=1974, accessed 4 February 2015. Li Ling, “Chuguo zuyuan, shixi de wenzixue zhengming.” Li Xueqin 李學勤, “Chuguo Shen shi liang fu dushi” 楚國申氏兩簠讀釋, Jiang Han kaogu 江漢考古 2010.2: 117–18. Lothar von Falkenhausen translates “Chushu zhi sun” as “descendant in a junior line of Chu”; he treats “shuzhisun” as one word, expressing a similar meaning as I argue for here. See Falkenhausen, “The Bronzes from Xiasi and Their Owners,” pp. 763–64. Liu Huaxia 劉華夏 and Liu Kefu 劉克甫, “‘Bo,’ ‘Zhong,’ ‘Shu,’ ‘Ji’ yu Xi Zhou Jin hou shixi” 「伯」、「仲」、「叔」、「季」與西周晉侯世系, Kaogu 考古 2008.4: 73. Barry B. Blakeley, “King, Clan, and Courtier in Ch’u Court Politics,” Asia Major, ser. III, 2 (1992): 1–39. Li Xueqin, “Chunqiu nanfang qingtongqi mingwen de yige tedian,” p. 178. See Rui Yifu 芮逸夫, “Shi sheng zhi chengwei” 釋甥之稱謂 and “Shi sheng jiu zhi guo” 釋甥舅之國, both in Rui Yifu, Zhongguo minzu ji qi wenhua lungao 中 國民族及其文化論稿, 3 vols. (Taibei: Yiwen yinshuguan, 1972), vol. 2, pp. 937–48 and 991–1012. Xu Shen 許慎, Shuowen jiezi 說文解字 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1963), p. 259. Lin Yun 林澐, “Cong Wuding shidai de jizhong ‘zi buci’ shi lun Shangdai de jiating xingtai” 從武丁時代的幾種「子卜辭」試論商代的家庭形態, Guwenzi

Genealogical Statements on Ritual Bronzes · 259

74 75

76

77

yanjiu 古文字研究 1 (1979): 214–336. Lin Yun changed his position later, suggesting that “duosheng” referred to various Shang lineages. See Lin Yun, “‘Baixing’ guyi xinjie—Jian lun Zhongguo zaoqi guojia de shehui jichu”「百 姓」古義新解— 兼論中國早期國家的社會基礎, in his Lin Yun xueshu wenji (er) 林澐學術文集（二）(Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2008), p. 277. I think his previous position is right. Lin changed his position because in oracle bone inscriptions there are phrases such as “duosheng xiang” 多生飨, which means that duosheng sacrificed to the Shang royal ancestors. The common wisdom is that only the Shang lineages should sacrifice to their ancestors. However, as Edward Shaughnessy pointed out long ago, extra-lineage cult was practiced in the Shang dynasty. See Edward L. Shaughnessy, “Extra-Lineage Cult in the Shang Dynasty,” Early China 11–12 (1985–1987): 182–94. In my 1994 M.A. thesis, I reached a conclusion similar to Lin Yun’s first position. For more discussion regarding the politics of ancestor worship in early China, see Lai Guolong 來國龍, “‘Jiandawang’ bohan de xushi jiegou yu zongjiao beijing— Jian shi ‘shaji ’”「柬大王」泊旱的敍事結構與宗教背景 — 兼釋「殺祭」, in Taiwan daxue Zhongwenxi, ed., 2007 nian Zhongguo jianboxue guoji luntan lunwenji 2007年中國簡帛學國際論壇論文集 (Taibei: National Taiwan University, 2011), pp. 443–74; “Diguo yu zongjiao: Gudai Zhongguo yu gu Luoma diguo de bijiao yanjiu” 帝國與宗教：古代中國與古羅馬帝國的比較研究, Sinologie française/Faguo Hanxue 法國漢學 14 (2009): 196–218; Chen Jie, Shang Zhou xingshi zhidu yanjiu, pp. 89–111. Chen Jie, Shang Zhou xingshi zhidu yanjiu, pp. 100–111. Lin Yun 林澐, “Zhousheng gui xinshi” 琱生簋新釋, Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字研 究3 (1980): 120–35. Zhang Yachu 張亞初, “Xi Zhou mingwen suo jian Mou Sheng kao” 西周銘文所見某生考, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 1983.5: 83–89. Shirakawa Shizuka 白川靜, Kinbun tsûshaku 金文通釋, 56 vols. (Kobe: Hakutsuru bijitsukan, 1962–1984), fasc. 38, #215, pp. 352–77; Ma Chengyuan 馬承 源 et al., Shang-Zhou qingtongqi mingwen xuan 商周青銅器銘文選, 4 vols. (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1986–1990), vol. 4, p. 543. Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, p. 199.

T his page intentionally left blank

Reflections on Literary and Devotional Aspects of Western Zhou Memorial Inscriptions Robert ENO

Memorial inscriptions on early Zhou bronze objects constitute a textual corpus comparable in size to the oracle bone records of the Shang, but far richer in literary interest and narrative detail. Whereas oracle inscriptions are wholly devoted to records of divination activities, Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, building on early bronze exemplars from the late Shang, describe familial and political history and celebrate a broad range of events and accomplishments. Unlike oracle inscriptions, which are composed in the “voice” of an impersonal recorder, bronze inscriptions are generally identified with individuals who are the subjects of these inscriptional narratives, and whose authorial voices are directly or indirectly represented in the texts. Their firsthand accounts of specific events and people are our best basis for constructing detailed historical accounts of the Western Zhou. Moreover, pious rhetoric reflecting the functional contexts of the bronze objects inscribed, overwhelmingly vessels connected with rituals of ancestral sacrifice, inform us about the religious tradition of the lineage temple. In spite of these features of specificity in authorial identity, historical incident, and ritual function, we do not often encounter an authorial voice that seems unique or religious speech that seems other than formulaic: the literary and devotional conventions of the corpus are so narrow that most of its texts seem to speak as a chorus of cultural uniformity. Only in isolated cases do we hear a voice that is individual, rather than generic. It is my goal in this study precisely to consider to what degree we may find in the corpus early evidence of such individual expression breaking through the ground of textual convention to provide insight into the personal perspectives of members of the elite as authors, religious practitioners, or vessel patrons, who employed the occasion of bronze inscription as an opportunity to formulate original thoughts in words, rather than as an

262 · Robert Eno

increasingly standard textualized ritual performed to satisfy expectations of status decorum. The issues that concern me here are these. First, given the highly formulaic and restricted nature of most bronze texts, and the fact that significant portions of many seem to be redactions of texts originally created on other materials such as wood or bamboo (a point to be discussed further below), how far can we identify in these texts elements of literary creativity and what might be construed as personal expression arising from the occasion of creating memorial inscriptions in bronze? Second, acknowledging that the context for the great majority of bronze inscriptions is religious, in connection with the ancestral cult, to what degree can we say that the texts reflect engagement in this devotional activity, as opposed to simply fulfilling a felt need to inscribe a portion of the vessels of sacrifice as a matter of proper form, and what features of such engagement may bring further nuance to our understanding of the way in which individuals conceived their relationship to the dead during the Western Zhou?1 Let me amplify what I mean by each of these questions. In terms of literary features, what aspects of bronze inscriptions might we wish to include in, for example, an historical account of Chinese literature?2 Certain features of bronze inscriptions might be of interest because they represent generic forms of literary activity pursued in the durable medium of bronze and not in other media. For example, from their earliest period, bronze inscriptions are dominated by records of awards, and a more or less standard template for these texts emerges by the earliest years of the Western Zhou, including a dating section, a narrative section that includes a list of gifts, and a dedicatory section that includes prayer formulas (guci 嘏辭). 3 This template can accommodate insertions of text apparently imported in full or redacted from wood or bamboo, as we see, for example, in the Da Yu ding 大盂鼎 (Jicheng #2837) inscription, dating from the early tenth century B.C., which embeds an extensive gao 誥-style text, clearly of independent written origin, within the framework of the standard template.4 From the mid-tenth century B.C. on, this type of inscription increasingly conforms to a narrower template, that of the investiture or ceming 冊命 genre, and other genres become more regular as well: for example, the typical bell inscription, stressing rhyme and onomatopoeic terms, often in place of an award narrative, or the dowry inscription’s dedication, marked by brevity. An anthology of these generic forms, though of interest and germane

Reflections on Literary and Devotional Aspects · 263

to a history of Western Zhou literature, is not what I have in mind when I raise questions about literary characteristics of bronzes. However, these forms are nevertheless central to my interests because what I am looking for are deviations from generic norms, exceptional cases that may signal some type of authorial creativity or engagement in an inscription, an impulse of literary artistry or personal expression. Similarly, when considering the devotional aspects of inscriptions, I am not principally interested in features that reflect standard practice: the function of most vessels as temple objects of use in sacrificial rituals, the mere presence of laudatory words about ancestors, the choice of specific guci, and so forth.5 I am interested to learn whether there are instances that stand out against this ground as exceptional examples of devotional engagement. We are accustomed to think of Western Zhou society—at least among social elites—as deeply religious, but the pervasiveness of normative institutions of religion may not tell us much about personal religious beliefs beyond the habitus of verbal and practical ceremony, the experience of which as powerful or attenuated is extremely difficult to measure through a uniform rhetorical medium. Moreover, pervasive religious forms—or a pervasive rhetoric that suggests them—may obstruct us from exploring what I assume to be likely: that some people may have been more religious than others (and perhaps recognized as such). When we see an exceptional expression of devotional sentiment, as we do on the final vessel I will discuss, the well-known Zhong gui 簋, it may be best to see it as an index of possibilities for personal or creative religious expression, rather than to assume it provides access into “Western Zhou religion” as a unified practice. The types of questions I am asking are ones that invite some theory of the authorship of the inscriptions, but I have nothing new to offer on this matter, other than to gesture to the ambiguities that the corpus suggests. A bronze inscription that follows a narrow template may have required no engagement by the vessel’s patron,6 who might simply have ordered the text from a scribe trained in forms sanctioned by rule or taste, such that neither vessel’s patron nor scribe could be said to have much in the way of authorial engagement. Moreover, when exceptional features occur, it will always, I think, be an open question whether the vessel’s patron or a scribal “composer” was the source of invention. Since a distinction that is not possible to make is not meaningful, I will simply treat the “author” behind nonstandard features as the vessel’s patron, though in many cases that may not have been the case.

264 · Robert Eno

In posing questions of the literary and devotional qualities of bronze inscriptions, I am writing in awareness of Martin Kern’s work on these issues in a very substantial essay in which he suggests generic continuities among texts such as the gao 誥-type chapters of the Shang shu 尚書, liturgical poetry in the Shi jing 詩經, and bronze inscriptions, particularly bells.7 Kern’s analysis has much to offer and I see my reflections as in part a short descant on some elements of the themes he has introduced. But Kern is principally focused on generic features of inscriptions and their relationship to norms of performative practice; I am focusing here on features that I believe may fall outside of that range.8

The “Perlocutionary” Functions of Inscriptional Texts: The Ying Hou gui gai An issue of general import bearing on questions concerning the generic or particular nature of inscriptions concerns the audience. As already noted, bronzes were commonly a medium for recording meritorious deeds and awards, and we assume that the audience for these announcements was, in most cases, conceived as the ancestral spirits to whom the vessels were generally dedicated, an assumption reinforced by identification of ancestral dedicatees and liturgical guci. But there are further questions we might ask. To what degree may inscriptions have been composed as statements to this audience, which they rarely address directly, and to what degree did these devotional objects serve only as a formal context to record deeds for a living audience? Did they perhaps simply inscribe or record these statements as a part of a formal, in some sense aesthetic, purpose to render the objects of the lineage’s sacrificial and banqueting spaces of suitable artistic and prestige value, fulfilling the social expectations of a stipulated or customary sumptuary code?9 These latter concerns, which focus our attention on the intended consequences of text inscription, rather than on the content of the inscription per se, relate, to use J. L. Austin’s term, to the perlocutionary effects of these texts: the ways in which they were meant to influence a living audience’s perceptions or responses, in contrast to the ostensive content of the prose. Among the Shouyang Studio collection vessels, the Ying Hou gui 應侯 簋, a somewhat anomalous item including a vessel and cover with differing inscriptions, provides an illustration of this issue. It is the cover inscription that raises issues relevant here. Edward Shaughnessy has provided a

Reflections on Literary and Devotional Aspects · 265

transcription and translation in his contribution to this volume, and in this case I rely on his readings with minor changes of phrasing: 唯正月初吉丁亥王若 曰應侯見工t淮南夷 逆敢搏厥眾u敢加興 乍戎廣伐南國王命應 侯正伐淮南夷丰休克 撲伐南夷我孚戈余弗 敢且余用乍朕王姑單 姬尊簋姑氏用易眉 壽永命子=孫=永寶用亯

It was the first month, first auspiciousness, on dinghai day. The king in effect said, “Xiangong, Marquis of Ying; Ni of our Yi of South of the Huai dares to stir his multitudinous subjects and dares increasingly to rise up and make war, broadly attacking the southern states. The king commands the Marquis of Ying to attack and rectify Ni of the Yi of the South of the Huai.” Capable of successfully striking and attacking the Southern Yi and capturing many dagger-axes, I did not dare to fail. I herewith make for my august aunt Shan Ji this offertory gui-tureen, with which my aunt may be awarded long life and an eternal mandate; may the sons of her sons and grandsons of her grandsons eternally treasure and use it to make offerings.10

The inscription seems anomalous because it recounts the meritorious deeds of the vessel’s patron, Ying Hou Xiangong 應侯見工, but announces that it is a presentation to an aunt (wanggu 王姑), married into the ruling lineage of the state of Shan 單, intended for her and for her descendants to use in offerings. Lothar von Falkenhausen has suggested that a married woman could continue sacrifices to her natal ancestors,11 and dowry vessels may include references to their continued use in sacrifice by later generations, though this seems quite rare.12 But this inscription is unexpected in combining three elements: dedication to a woman married into an outside lineage, statement of expectation of its use in sacrifice by her sons, and inclusion of a substantial record of the accomplishments of the author/vessel’s patron. If indeed it were intended for ongoing usage of the vessel by male descendants, the vessel would ultimately be used in the ancestral shrine of the Shan ruling lineage, rather than as a vessel of sacrifice to the common ancestors that Ying Hou Xiangong shared with his aunt. If that was Ying Hou Xiangong’s intent, then the purpose of the inscription would seem to be advertisement of Xiangong’s deeds to the Shan ruling lineage as a political statement, rather than as a devotional

266 · Robert Eno

expression suitable only for Xiangong’s own ancestors. Even if this inscription’s use of the language of devotional sacrifice was nothing more than formulaic, which appears more likely to me, it indicates how a bronze vessel could function as a prestige object that could be manipulated in ways oblique to its apparent purpose. This would represent a level of specific authorial creativity distinct from questions of literary and devotional features as we framed them at the outset. Further on, we will explore how this type of perlocutionary creativity may engage our understanding of the recently recovered Bin Gong xu 豳公盨.

Exceptional Devotional Features I want to turn now to an inscription quite different from that on the Ying Hou gui gai, a text that appears directly addressed to an ancestral audience, rather than a living one. Its practical aims seem both explicit and specific to the occasion of the inscription, and in pursuing them the author seems to go far beyond formulaic devotional gestures and to employ creative and rhetorically moving literary devices. The inscription is on the Zuoce Yi you 乍冊嗌卣 (Jicheng #5427). 乍冊嗌乍父辛 厥名義曰子子孫寶 不彔嗌子延先衋 死亡子子引有孫不 敢 憂 鑄彝 用乍大禦于厥且 匕父母多申母念 𢦏弋勿𠚩嗌鰥寡 遺祐石宗不刜

Document Maker Yi makes an offertory vessel to Father Xin. Its text should read, “May the sons of my sons and grandsons treasure it.” Through misfortune, Yi’s son Yan has already sadly died; he has no sons, nor grandsons by his sons.13 Not daring to be importunate,14 he presents this cast vessel and therewith performs a grand sacrifice for protection to his late grandfather and grandmother, father and mother. May the many spirits not plan disaster, not cut Yi off, to be left with no support.15 May they grant aid that the ancestral shrine shall not be destroyed.

There are some points of difficulty in the inscription, but if this reading is accurate enough to capture the central idea, there are several features worth noting. The first is that the inscription is clearly prepared

[128.104.46.206] Project MUSE (2024-03-02 03:18 GMT) UW-Madison Libraries

Reflections on Literary and Devotional Aspects · 267

entirely for the vessel itself, as is demonstrated by the self-referential second sentence; it does not appear to redact compositions originally inscribed on other materials. The second and most interesting aspect is that the vessel constitutes a statement of religious purpose, despite the fact that it omits customary liturgical formulas of prayer for many progeny: the author means his prayer in a specific sense, and states it nonformulaically. The occasion for casting a vessel to the patron’s father is unstated, but it would appear that the prayer and the planned ceremony to accompany it are themselves the occasion. A further feature related to the devotional nature of the vessel is that the dedicatee, Father Xin, is not to be the sole, or perhaps even the principal, object of the ceremony for which it was intended, which included two generations of forebears. Here is an inscription that actually speaks directly to the spirits in a voice represented as that of the patron. While the context of almost all bronzes was the religious role they would play in the ancestral shrine or tomb, and most inscriptions invoke this context with liturgical formulas, it is a rare inscription that is addressed directly to the spirits in this way. Reading the Zuoce Yi you raises the question of the audience for the text inscribed. We may be inclined to believe that the imagined readers of all texts were the spirits themselves—though they never cleaned their plates at sacrifice to expose the texts to view. However, recalling the Ying Hou gui gai inscription, where the primary audience seems more likely to have been the living dedicatee and her marital clan members, it may be more consistent to suggest that the notion of an ancestral audience may have become, as a matter of routine, highly attenuated under normal circumstances, and that for inscriptions that do not bear features of the kind we see in the Zuoce Yi you, the audience was conceived primarily as the living. Liturgical formulas had perhaps become a rhetoric so customary that only their absence might have been a departure from the norm significant enough to attract notice.

Authorial Origins and Literary Features I want now to point to another aspect of the Zuoce Yi you inscription: literary artfulness, of which it seems to me to be an outstanding example. In developing a context for its prayer, the author or composer has demonstrated unusual literary skill by invoking at its outset guci that terminate standard inscriptions and deploying them in an ironic, counterfactual mode.16 There does not seem to be anything formulaic in this; it is

268 · Robert Eno

inventive and conveys a personal rather than a ritual voice. In this sense, it stands out against the ground of the normal pieties and boasts of inscriptions, and constitutes a literary feature of considerable interest. The Zuoce Yi you reads very much as a private letter to an ancestral family. It is a rare example of early Western Zhou literary practice, and in displaying a suppleness of prose that broadens our appreciation of the way writing was deployed in that era, it can play a role in a history of Chinese literature. The particular literary features of the Zuoce Yi you can be highlighted by contrast with a far more flamboyant and, perhaps, “public” type of inscription: the Bin Gong xu. In an article on this recently recovered inscription, Edward Shaughnessy has pointed out its importance in providing insight into the development of literature during the Western Zhou period.17 The Bin Gong xu has been much celebrated and interpreted. I do not have anything to add to analysis of its text and so I will not discuss its particulars here, except to remind us that it recounts a version of the works of Yu the Great (Da Yu 大禹) with moral commentary that suggests it reproduces the type of text associated with chapters of the Shang shu that have been dated by modern critics to centuries well after the end of the Western Zhou. In this, it suggests that we need to rewrite our accounts of the development of Chinese literature, acknowledging that outside the bronze corpus (or, more precisely, both outside and within the corpus), imaginative texts were developing in genres beyond the types of poetry and gao 誥-style prose that have been previously documented. The Bin Gong xu is equally unsettling in demonstrating an unanticipated use of bronzes for such texts. We have long had texts such as the Da Yu ding and the Mao Gong ding 毛公鼎 (Jicheng #2841) that reproduce lengthy gao-style passages. But these are quoted as parts of the larger contexts and are tied in those narratives to the vessel’s patron, so as to make their appearance seem simply to be expansions of the commonly encountered royal commands that provided the occasions for the casting of the vessel. These speeches and commands were presumably documents previously recorded on bamboo or wood, in the manner of ceming inscriptions, and this seems to be explicitly signaled through the phrase “wang ruo yue” 王若曰 (perhaps, “the king in effect said”), which is often interpreted as meaning that his speech was in some way read out from a written document. In the case of the Bin Gong xu, the only frame for the text is a final sentence, which reads: “Bin Gong said, ‘If only people could employ virtue such as this, there would be no cause for regret.’” So atypical is this inscription that we cannot be certain how the quote, and Bin Gong, may

Reflections on Literary and Devotional Aspects · 269

be connected to the vessel itself, but the easiest assumption would be that Bin Gong was the vessel’s patron, and the quote simultaneously expresses his pious view and marks his ownership of the vessel. Why was this bronze cast; what was its perlocutionary intent? Nothing suggests a connection with the ancestor cult or any other familiar context of bronze use, and the presence of an inscription that conspicuously lacks such indicators would seem to point towards the conclusion that it was not intended for use in the ancestral temple. We have no grounds for stipulating the practical purpose of the xu, though we could speculate that Bin Gong had it cast for some secular, personal use, or to be used in his own shrine or tomb after his death. But what we can probably say is that if the text was a pre-existing one that was in circulation outside the lineage of Bin Gong and already admired, then inscribing it on the bronze object added value to the bronze by “decorating” it with a revered text. On the other hand, the comment by Bin Gong would presumably have been elevated in gravity by its inscription in bronze, beyond what might be anticipated by its addition to a version of the text on wood or bamboo. In the much later practice of the late Warring States and Han periods, objects, not always bronze, might include brief admonitory inscriptions that were identified with their owners as a kind of personal motto.18 It may be that the Bin Gong xu is an early example of this text genre, associating individuals with inscribed sententious formulas. A similar but symmetrically opposite effect would be represented by the well-known San shi pan 散氏盤 inscription (Jicheng #10176), which records a land treaty that was the outcome of a dispute between the peoples of San 散 and Ze 夨 in the Wei 渭 River valley region. The inscription, bearing no features connecting it to the ancestral cult, literally cast in bronze an agreement that had originally been formulated as an archival document, as demonstrated by what appears to be a true authorial attribution at the close: “Keeper of the left tally, the official scribe Zhongnong.” In this case, inscribing the document in bronze probably served to heighten its authority. In the cases of the Bin Gong xu and the San shi pan, in different ways and in sharp distinction to the Zuoce Yi you, inscription on bronze was, perhaps, a matter of the medium itself being the message.19 These examples highlight the question of the “perlocutionary” force of words cast in this durable medium, which itself could signify wealth and prestige. Like the Ying Hou Xiangong gui gai 應侯見工簋蓋, the impulse to inscribe vessels may in many cases have mixed multiple motives—perhaps to

270 · Robert Eno

inform the ancestors of what they would already have known, or to earn their approval through the additional pious act (and expense) of inscription, but perhaps equally to exalt the living in the eyes of the living, through the content of the words, through the fact of the words being inscribed, or through the fact that the vessels of the ancestral hall, banquet, or private chamber were embellished with inscriptions.20

Personalistic and Generic Literary Elements As noted earlier, it seems likely that a substantial number of bronze inscriptions were, in large part, transcriptions of documents, or redacted elements of documents, that existed in other contexts, most likely in lineage archives, a point that Falkenhausen makes at some length with regard to the famous Wei 微 family inscriptions recovered from Zhuangbai 莊白, Shaanxi, including the Qiang pan 牆盤 (Jicheng #10175), and that Shaughnessy has documented in great detail with regard to the recently excavated Qiu pan 逑盤.21 What can we say about the relation between preexisting texts and bronze texts in such instances? The former are lost to us, but in many cases much of their general content is quite obvious. For example, in ceming inscriptions the pre-existing written charge of the king or lord is given (whether in full or redacted we generally cannot say). Some elements of standard inscriptional templates, such as the dating formula and the narrative of the ceming ceremony that surrounds the charge and its list of gifts, may have been part of the archival record as well.22 The dedication and brief liturgical prayers that conclude the inscription are standard for sacrificial vessels. In many of these cases, it is easy to imagine the process of composition to have involved no creative literary effort at all: the text is as bureaucratic in impulse as the typical Shang oracle bone inscription. As devotional texts, such inscriptions add nothing to the casting of a sacrificial bronze other than to provide a formal element of décor that may have been conspicuous by absence, and they possess no literary value beyond a reaffirmation of generic practice. Their great value to us as historical documents is, one would suppose, a completely unintended consequence. Even the most consciously historical of these texts, such as the Qiang pan and Qiu pan, were, as Falkenhausen and Shaughnessy have demonstrated, substantially redactions of existing textual materials.23 In light of this, vessels like the Zuoce Yi you become intensely interesting as

Reflections on Literary and Devotional Aspects · 271

documents that appear to reveal authors employing bronze inscriptions as occasions for literary creativity and personal expression, and vessels like the Ying Hou gui gai become interesting as examples of creative deployment of standard textual forms for nonstandard purposes. A variety of other texts show promise, in different ways, of shedding added light on the history of literary and personal expression in the Western Zhou era. For example, from a relatively early point in the Western Zhou we see a subset of inscriptions that begin with first-person statements by the vessel patron, some of which seem to be composed for the occasion of bronze casting.24 One of the earliest of these, the Shenzi Tuo gui gai 沈子它簋蓋 (Jicheng #4330), generally dated to the early tenth century, begins as follows: 它曰拜𩒨首敢䀑卲告朕 吾考令乃鴅沈子乍𥿎于周公 宗陟二公不敢不𥿎休同公克成 妥吾考ㄙ于顯顯受令……

Tuo says, “Bowing prostrate I dare to report with all care and clarity to my late father: You ordered me, the Lord of Shen, to perform services at the clan shrine of the Duke of Zhou to the two late Dukes. I dared not fail to do so. Through the grace of the Duke of Tong, I may succor my late father by making bright the commands I have received from him....”25

This is a statement that seems to mark the occasion for the vessel, reveal its originality to the vessel inscription, and express a devotional motive directly addressed to an ancestral audience. (The vessel is, in fact, dedicated to Tuo’s father.) Another vessel, the Shu Huanfu you 叔䟒父卣 (Jicheng #5429), roughly contemporary in date, takes a similar literary form for a purpose that seems entirely secular. 弔䟒父曰余考不 克御事唯女焂 敬 辪乃身母尚為小子余 為女茲小鬱彝女 用鄉乃辟軝侯逆 出內事人烏虖 焂敬𢦏茲小彝妹 吹見余唯用諆 女

Shu Huanfu said, “I am old and unable to manage affairs. You, Shu, should attentively order your person. Do not continue to act as a youth! I give you

272 · Robert Eno this small wine vessel. You should use it to feast your ruler the Marquis of Zhi as you receive orders, coming and going in service to his person. Oh, Shu! Be attentive! Let this small vessel never be discarded. Bringing me to mind as you employ it, may it provide you drink.”26

This vessel is a testamentary admonishment, inscribed without explicit reference to the ancestral cult, wholly original to the vessel and personal in expression, although, with the possible exception of the final line, conventional in wording. (If my somewhat speculative reading of that difficult line is correct, however, the close would appear imaginative and innovative.) Though cast in bronze and so perhaps borrowing the “rhetorical pitch” of religious practice, this is in fact a genre of text distinct from the vast majority of bronze inscriptions.27 That both this and the Zuoce Yi you date from early in the dynasty may be a ref lection on the increasing tendencies towards standardization that seem to follow with the era of the ritual reform. If we were to explore issues of authorial voice and literary art in bronze inscriptions in an organized way, vessels whose inscriptions begin with formulas in the form “X yue” would seem a fruitful corpus to examine. A different type of source that clearly bears on these issues is the distinctive genre of bells, which also frequently take the form of “X yue” inscriptions. Bells enter the inscribed bronze corpus during the middle portion of the Western Zhou, and their texts follow different principles because of the unique function of bells in ritual performance (the feature of bells that most drew the interest of Kern, who has published so much on the performative nature of early texts). Bell inscriptions typically include conspicuous onomatopoeia, rhymes are far more frequent, and self-referential passages bearing on the musical nature of the objects are common. The language of devotion tends to be much more prominent on bells than on vessels of food and drink. For example, the Xing Ren Ning zhong 丼人佞 鐘 (Jicheng #109-110), dating from the mid-ninth century, bears an inscription whose occasion is no more than a celebration of ancestors through the casting of the bells themselves: 丼人人 曰： 盄文且皇考，克質氒德，得屯用魯，永冬于吉， 不敢弗帥用文 且、皇考，穆=秉德。 𡩜=聖 ，疐處宗室， 乍龢父大 鐘，用追考，考侃 前文人，前文人其嚴才上， = =，降余厚多福無彊， 其萬年子=孫永寶用享。

Reflections on Literary and Devotional Aspects · 273 Ren Ning of Xing said, “Bright and pure my patterned grandfather and august father. They were able to make bright their virtue in full integrity and grace, and lived their full measure of years in good fortune. I, Ning, dare not fail to emulate the austere (mumu) grasp of virtue of my patterned grandfather and august father. I earnestly bear in mind (xianxian) their sagely rectitude rooted in our clan shrine. Wherefore was cast this lin-bell for Hefu, so as to pursue filial service pleasing to my patterned forebears. May my patterned forebears look down from above and, chiming fengfeng chanchan, shower upon me blessings without measure. May I live forever, and may sons of my sons and grandsons ever treasure and receive this vessel’s pleasure.”28

This inscription shows a number of features of bell compositions as a somewhat different generic ground for texts: the prominent role of ancestral descriptions, the use of reduplicative terms in those descriptions (neither of these features, of course, confined to bells), onomatopoeia associated with bell sounds, and—not visible in this translation—rhyme. This is not universally true; some bell inscriptions are generically indistinguishable from food vessel inscriptions, or nearly so. For example, the recently recovered and much noted bells of Jin Hou Su 晉侯蘇 (Su, Marquis of Jin) devote virtually the entirety of their long, composite inscription to recounting the circumstances of war and reward that would typically be found on a large tureen, caldron, or basin.29 Of the inscription’s approximately 350 characters, only a section of about 25 words in length alerts us that this is a bell inscription by including self-referential onomatopoeic language and so forth; unlike many bells, the devotional language is minimal. A more typical example would be the recently recovered Rongsheng bianzhong 戎生編鐘, 30 a composite inscription of about 150 characters, which also belongs, with the slight irregularity of placing a date at the outset, to the subset of inscriptions beginning with a speech by the vessel’s patron. 31 The Rongsheng bianzhong, unlike the Xing Ren Ning zhong, combines a largely devotional text with the brief narration of an event occasioning the casting of the bells. 隹十又一月乙亥。戎生曰：休辝皇且憲公。𧻚=趩=啟厥明心，廣巠其猷。 爯穆 天子 霝，用建于茲外土，遹𤔲蠻戎，用幹不廷方。至于辝皇考卲伯，𧽚=穆=， 懿 不朁。𥃝匹晉侯，用龏王令。今余弗叚灋其 光。對揚其大福，劼遣鹵責， 俾譖征 緐 湯，取厥吉金。用乍寶 鐘。厥音 𩀢 =、鎗 =、銿 =、 =、鷔 =，既龢 𠭯 盄。余用邵追孝于皇且皇考，用祈 子孫永寶用。32

眉壽。戎生其萬年無疆，黃耈又 ，㽙保其

274 · Robert Eno It was the eleventh month on the yihai day. Rongsheng said, “How fine, my august grandfather Xian Gong! All-awesome (huanhuan) and all-reverent (yiyi), he opened his brilliant mind and broadly laid out his plans. In excellent accord with the deeply spirit-like intention of the solemn Son of Heaven he thereupon established his settlement in this distant region, guiding and controlling the Man and Rong peoples by attacking any who did not obey. Then it came to my august father Zhao Bo, all-grand (huanhuan) and allsolemn (mumu), morally fine without flaw. Aiding the Marquis of Jin, he sustained the order of the king. Now I do not dare to deviate from his shining brilliance. I have celebrated the great fortune of my forebears by forcefully dispatching those guarding the salt stores to make a side attack against Fantang, capturing their precious metals. Therewith I have cast these precious coharmonious bells. Their tones are yongyong, qiangqiang, yongyong, ai’ai, ao’ao, both harmonious and fine. With these I brightly pursue my filial duty to my august grandfather and august father, seeking grand longevity. May I, Rongsheng, live ten thousand years without end, to an old age white-haired and revered, and may my sons and grandsons be vigorously protected as they treasure these forever.

The Rongsheng bianzhong can serve as a model bell inscription, mediating between those bell texts that are solely directed towards self-referential celebration of the musical qualities of the bell and those that use bells for more ordinary inscriptional purposes, merely nodding briefly to the exceptional nature of bells, in the manner of the Jin Hou Su bianzhong 晉 侯蘇編鐘. While the inscription makes mention of the event that occasions the casting of the bells—the seizure of metals in the attack on Fantang 緐湯—the focus, as in many bell inscriptions, is on devotional praise of ancestors and a setting of the ordinary liturgical prayer in the context of an evocation of the musical qualities of the bell. The formal constraints of composition generally exceed the norm for most sacrificial vessels; for example, the musical and final prayer sections are rhymed (鐘 *toŋ; 𩀢 *ʔoŋ; 銿 *loŋʔ / 鷔 *ŋâu; 盄 *tiau / 老 *khûʔ; 壽 *duʔ / 疆 *kaŋ; *ŋâŋ; 用 *loŋh).33 It may be that extra care in creating parallel prosody has been given to the reduplicated descriptors early in the inscription as well, if these have been appropriately interpreted (𧻚𧻚趩趩 *wânwân ləklək; 𧽚𧽚 穆穆 *wânʔwânʔ mukmuk). The manner in which the format of the Rongsheng bianzhong affects the inscription can be measured in some respects by comparing it to an entirely independent caldron inscription, that on the Jin Jiang ding 晉姜鼎 (Jicheng #2826), which, as Li Xueqin has pointed out, recounts an overlapping set of events, including the seizure of metals from Fantang.34 The Jin

Reflections on Literary and Devotional Aspects · 275

Jiang ding inscription, which is in the voice of the chief consort of the late ruler of Jin, is almost as long as that on the Rongsheng bianzhong (about 120 words), and shares many of the formal characteristics of the bell inscription. It too begins with the vessel’s patron speaking, and shares so many features of vocabulary and calligraphy that one may wonder whether the composition and inscription were the products of a single scribe and calligrapher. Comparison of the two texts indicates that in this case, the effects of distinct vessel media are, after all, not profound. The Jin Jiang ding does not include onomatopoeia nor does it seem to include rhyme. Its account of events is somewhat more detailed than that of the Rongsheng bianzhong, about twice as long, but still forms only a minor part of the inscription. This comparison cannot be taken to reflect a general rule concerning the effects of the bell medium on inscriptional content, however. For example, a comparison of the various inscriptions associated with the mid-ninth century vessel patron Xing 𤼈, part of the extensive Wei clan cache from Zhuangbai, shows that food vessels and bells were put to very different uses in terms of inscriptions, with the food vessels including narration of award occasions for casting, sometimes in standard template, sometimes in the “X yue” format, and the bells confined to devotional celebration.35 On the other hand, as noted above, the Jin Hou Su bianzhong bell inscription is barely affected by the medium in which it is cast. For all the artfulness and devotional emphasis of the rhetorical “ground” for bell inscriptions as a generic template, these inscriptions do not stand out as loci for innovations of personal authorship. Moreover, comparison of the Rongsheng bianzhong and Jin Jiang ding, despite some differences, suggests that the “X yue” format may not in itself be a signal of any special degree of personalistic expression on the part of the vessel’s patron. The Rongsheng bianzhong indicates that though the form of firstperson narration may in some instances signal a true authorial voice, it can equally become a vehicle for standard convention. Ultimately, it may be that indications of literary artistry, personal expression, or exceptional devotional immediacy, all beyond the evolving but confining “ground” of normal generic expectations, cannot be predicted from any easily discernible subset of the corpus. However, as in the cases of the Ying Hou Xiangong gui gai, Bin Gong xu, Zuoce Yi you, and Shu Huanfu you, we may find evidence of engaged and personal composition or inventive deployment of the bronze medium scattered throughout the corpus. Assembling a fuller inventory would surely provide more

276 · Robert Eno

insight into possibilities of literary expression beyond the range of generic options.

A Final Example: The Zhong Gui I would like to close these reflections with an example from a well-known inscription, the mid-tenth century Zhong gui 簋 (Jicheng #4322). Outside of the most standardized body of inscriptions, those describing the ceming ceremony, bronze texts vary widely in the amount of detail they include in sections narrating the temporal and circumstantial contexts for events that occasion the casting of a bronze. Some texts provide exceptional detail (many battle and booty descriptions provide examples), but in most cases, the motive of the narrative seems to be a straightforward inventory of ceremonial or military acts, enhanced primarily with intensifying adverbs and adjectives. The Ying Hou Xiangong gui gai would be an example, when it speaks of “multitudinous subjects,” and an adversary who “increasingly” rises up, “broadly attacking.” When rhetoric of this kind proliferates to the degree it does in bronze inscriptions, it becomes part of the ground of narrative description, its impact likely attenuated by common use, and a mark of convention rather than vivid narration.36 The Zhong gui, however, seems to interrupt an otherwise at least semiformulaic battle narration with a passage that seems exceptional on both literary and devotional grounds, providing the narration with a far more powerful literary thrust than is normally seen, and suggesting devotional elements well beyond the standard expressions of ancestral cult inscriptions. This familiar passage is indicated in italics below, within the context of the full inscription. 隹六月初吉乙酉，才堂𠂤，戎伐 ， 䢦有𤔲、師氏奔追 戎于 林，博戎㝬，朕文母競敏 行， 休宕氒心，永襲氒身，卑克氒啻， 隻馘百，執訊二夫，孚戎兵：豚、矛、 戈、弓、備、矢、裨、冑，凡百又卅又五 ，寽戎孚人百又十又四人，衣 博，無 于 身，乃子 拜𩒨首， 對揚文母福剌，用乍文母日庚 寶 𣪕，卑乃子 萬年，用夙夜 享孝于氒文母，其子＝孫＝永寶。

Reflections on Literary and Devotional Aspects · 277 It was in the first period of the sixth month on the day yiyou, at the encampment at Tang. The Rong tribes attacked X. Zhong led the supervisors and the commanders, rushing to repulse the Rong at the woods of Yu, and striking them a blow at Hu. My patterned mother guided with great care my every action, made my heart firm, and ever cloaked my person that I might conquer my enemies. I took one hundred scalps, and captured two leaders along with many weapons: shields, spears, halberds, bows, quivers, arrows, battle clothes, and armor: altogether one hundred and thirty-five items. In addition, I captured one hundred and fourteen Rong troops. The blows of the troops inflicted no wounds upon Zhong’s own body. Your son Zhong bows prostrate and dares to raise in thanks the blessed glory of his patterned mother. Wherefore was cast a precious sacrificial tureen for patterned mother Ri Geng. Let your son Zhong live ten thousand years that he may unstintingly day and night perform filial sacrifice to his patterned mother. May sons of my sons and grandsons of my grandsons treasure this forever. 37

The phrases in question suggest a religious vision of ancestral spirit attendance in action that we generally miss in early narrative accounts. Its force is enhanced if we read the companion Zhong fang ding 方鼎 (II) (Jicheng #2824) and follow Chen Yingjie’s 陳英傑 interpretation of it as a prayer for protection cast in advance of the campaign described in the Zhong gui:38 曰：「烏虖，王唯念

辟剌

考甲公，王用肈事乃子 率虎臣御淮戎。」 曰：「烏虖， 朕文考甲公、文母日庚，弋休 則尚，安永宕乃子 心，安 永襲身，氒復享于天子， 唯氒事乃子 萬年辟事 天子，毋又 于氒身。」 拜 𩒨首，對揚王令，用乍文母 日庚寶 䵼彝，用穆=夙夜 享孝妥福，其子=孫=永寶茲剌。

Zhong said, “Oh! The King recalls Zhong’s valorous late father Jia Gong, and thus has the King caused your son Zhong to lead the tiger braves to repulse the Rong of Huai.” Zhong said, “Oh! My patterned father Jia Gong and my patterned mother Ri Geng! May your grace and example ever make firm the heart of your son Zhong and ever cloak the person of Zhong, that he may continue in service to the Son of Heaven. May you grant that your son Zhong may serve the Son of Heaven for ten thousand years. Let no harm touch upon his person.” Zhong bowed prostrate and raised in thanks the charge of the King. Wherefore was cast this precious sacrificial vessel for patterned mother

278 · Robert Eno Ri Geng, that Zhong may solemnly night and day filially sacrifice to her and be blessed; may sons of my sons and grandsons of my grandsons forever treasure this merit.

For Zhong, at least, the spirits of his deceased parents, moving beside him over the landscape of battle, were living allies to whom he owed grateful devotion. The Zhong inscriptions may be read as evidence of “Western Zhou religious beliefs,” but rather than picturing all members of the Zhou as sharing a single religious sensibility, I think we do better to regard exceptional rhetoric as a likely index of exceptional attitude, in this case showing a higher or at least somewhat distinct range of devotional engagement than was the norm.39 The Zhong vessels, as devotional pieces, remind us that within the larger Zhou polity there unquestionably existed a diversity of cultural traditions even among lineages that shared signature Zhou practices, such as inscribing bronze vessels intended for rites of ancestral sacrifice, as well as differences among individuals that may lie behind exceptional elements that contribute to the literary and devotional profiles of the memorial inscriptions from the Western Zhou period.

Reflections on Literary and Devotional Aspects · 279

Notes 1

2

3

For this discussion, I exclude from consideration inscriptions that fall short of prose expression, such as isolated clan signs, single-name inscriptions, name lists, etc. The scant attention paid to the role of early inscriptions as literature in the case of China contrasts to trends in the study of Egyptian texts. Miriam Lichtheim’s extensive anthology, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 3 vols. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973–1980), for example, draws heavily on mortuary and monumental stone inscriptions for its earlier components. Analysis has, however, tended to focus on “literature” in the more restricted sense of belles-lettres, excluding, in Jan Assmann’s formulation, texts that are functionally linked to normative aspects of cultural performance, as opposed to imaginative and less explicitly functional “literary” texts that are not primarily directed towards transmission of cultural norms (see, for example, Assmann’s “Cultural and Literary Texts,” in Gerald Moers, ed., Definitely: Egyptian Literature—Proceedings of the Symposium “Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms,” Lingua Aegyptia—Studia monographica 2 [Göttingen: Georg-August Universität, 1999], pp. 1–15). Taking Assmann’s approach, Chinese bronze texts would not seem to be a useful venue for the study of early literature. However, a more expansive definition of literature is reflected in John Baines’s analysis of early Egyptian inscriptional texts (see his “Prehistories of Literature: Performance, Fiction, Myth,” in the Moers volume, pp. 17–41), and this approach informs my rather less systematic ref lections here. On a different level, Assmann has noted that Egyptian tombs, complete with images and inscriptions, are distinctive in being objects that are in themselves the earliest form of authored “texts,” and this may offer substantial ground for comparison with bronzes in the Chinese case (Assmann, The Mind of Egypt [New York: Henry Holt, 2002], pp. 67–68). I would like to add here a note of thanks to John Baines, who drew my attention to the Egyptian case and, more generally, to the interest of considering inscriptions in terms of literary history. The dominance of such a generic textual template recalls the form of Shang oracle inscriptions. In both cases, the medium was charged with religious significance related to individuals, but, as David Keightley first noted, the inscriptional form seems essentially “bureaucratic” in nature, in that the inscriptional goal was the reduction of experience to an impersonal, standardized textual record (for an assessment of Keightley’s view, see my “Shang State Religion and the Pantheon of the Oracle Texts,” in John Lagerwey and Marc Kalinowski, eds., Early Chinese Religion, Part One: Shang through Han (1250 BC to 220 AD) [Leiden: Brill, 2009], vol. 1, pp. 85–89). Despite differences of content, length, and degree of rhetorical elaboration, many highly standardized bronze inscriptions share this element with oracle texts. There is, of course, development over time in the template—as well as more

280 · Robert Eno

4

5

6 7

8

9

10

11

12

variation among bronze inscriptions than is the case with oracle texts—but although there are specific differences in some features, a common generic template seems characteristic of most prose bronze texts from the point of their initial appearance in the late Shang. Of course, theoretically all literature may be viewed as structured in forms of generic “templates”; the distinctions I am drawing here, with little attempt at precision, are ultimately aesthetic and concern matters of degree. As discussed below, since my question in this essay concerns the use of bronze inscriptions for literary creativity, I do not consider such embedded texts, initially created and preserved in other media, as original elements of literary expression in bronze. Research on this last feature can now be conveniently pursued through Chen Yingjie’s 陳英傑 recently published study, Xi Zhou jinwen zuoqi yongtu mingci yanjiu 西周金文作器用途銘辭研究, 2 vols. (Beijing: Xianzhuang shuju, 2008), which explores in great detail the rhetorical features of inscriptional prayer formulas. I am using the term to describe the person who commissioned the casting of an inscribed vessel. Martin Kern, “Bronze Inscriptions, the Shijing and the Shangshu: The Evolution of the Ancestral Sacrifice during the Western Zhou,” in Lagerwey and Kalinowski, eds., Early Chinese Religion, pp. 143–200. Kern’s interest in the relation between inscriptional literature and performance relates to issues in the study of early Egyptian literature raised in Baines, “Prehistories of Literature,” pp. 25–29. Consideration of the way in which inscriptions may be related to the prestige nature of bronze ceremonial objects, as essential décor or displays enhancing social or political influence among the living, rather than as communication to the dead, was prompted by ref lection on much broader research concerning the roles of prestige objects as social commodities in the Western Zhou by Constance Cook: “Wealth and the Western Zhou,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 60.2 (1997): 253–94. Shouyang zhai, Shanghai bowuguan and Xianggang Zhongwen daxue Wenwuguan, eds., Shouyang jijin: Hu Yingying, Fan Jirong cang Zhongguo gudai qingtongqi 首陽吉金：胡盈瑩、范季融藏中國古代青銅器 (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2008), #39, pp. 112–14. See Shaughnessy’s discussion in this volume. Lothar von Falkenhausen, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius (1000–250 BC): The Archaeological Evidence (Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, 2006), p. 119. The evidence in this case is a vessel cast by a husband specifically for his wife’s use in sacrifice to her late father. It includes no reference to continued use by later generations. For an example, see the Qi Ying Ji pan 齊縈姬盤 (Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo, ed., Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng 殷周金文集成, 18 vols. [Beijing:

Reflections on Literary and Devotional Aspects · 281

13

14

15

Zhonghua shuju, 1984–1994; hereafter Jicheng], #10147). This is the only such instance I note in a broad (but by no means complete) discussion of these vessels in Cao Zhaolan 曹兆蘭, Jinwen yu Yin-Zhou nüxing wenhua 金文與殷 周女性文化 (Beijing: Beijing Daxue chubanshe, 2004), pp. 150–65. There is at least one other instance of such a gift to a wanggu 王姑 (or father’s sister, according to the Erya 爾雅). The Bo Shufu gui 伯庶父簋 inscription (Jicheng #3983) reads, “In the second month, wuyin day, Bo Shufu had made a tureen for his aunt Fan Jiang. May she treasure it forever.” (Cited in Wang Longzheng 王龍正, Liu Xiaohong 劉曉紅 and Cao Guopeng 曹國朋, “Xin jian Ying Hou Xiangong gui mingwen kaoshi” 新見應侯見工簋銘文考釋, Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 2009.5: 56.) The Bo Shufu inscription does not, however, resemble the self-advertisement of the Ying Hou gui gai. See Ma Chengyuan 馬承源 et al., Shang-Zhou qingtongqi mingwen xuan 商周 青銅器銘文選, 4 vols. (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1986–1990) [hereafter Mingwen xuan], vol. 3, #142, pp. 95–96, and Chen Yingjie, Xi Zhou jinwen zuoqi yongtu mingci yanjiu, vol. 2, pp. 553–54. My reading differs from both in breaking after si 死 and reading wang 亡 as wu 無, carrying the negative into the following phrase 子子引有孫, which I am reading in the sense of presently having no sons who could “draw forth” grandsons. Chen notes (but does not endorse) the interpretation of 子引 as the name of a second son, in which case, maintaining that Yan was the name of the original heir, the text would be read: “Yan has already sadly died and perished, but my son Ziyin has borne a grandson [to me].” In this reading, attributed to Zhang Yachu 張 亞初, the intent of the inscription and sacrifice may have been to exorcise the baleful influence of the late elder son’s spirit. The yu-sacrifice (禦) mentioned in the inscription is frequently understood as an “exorcism” ritual, but the term may be misleading if understood as the expulsion of a specific malevolent spirit. Although in a subset of oracle inscriptions the ritual is performed with reference to some form of illness in a member of the king’s family or entourage, indicating a purgative function, no instance clearly indicates that the spirits receiving sacrifice were expected to offer more than general “protection” from further harm (as the sacrificial term yu suggests). The ceremonial norm in both oracle texts and in the rare instances where the term occurs in bronze texts seems to be prophylactic, a nonspecific request for protection against adverse circumstances, often offered to multiple ancestors. This is how I interpret the term here, the adverse circumstance being Document Maker Yi’s lack of male heir. I am grateful to Adam Schwartz for pointing out the importance of clarifying these issues. I am interpreting you 憂 as rao 擾, which accords with Zhang Yachu and seems to me clearly correct, but I see no clear reading for the unknown graph and I simply infer the meaning of what appears to be a two-character phrase according to the second graph and context. Reading zai 𢦏 as zai 災, and the unknown 𠚩 in context (its meaning seems clear enough; Chen glosses it as 剝, presumably on phonetic grounds).

282 · Robert Eno 16

17

18

19

20

The phrase yi yue 義曰 (“should [appropriately] say,” rendered in context here as “its text should read”) is innovative rhetoric. The closest parallel of which I am aware appears in the “Da gao” 大誥 section of the Shang shu 尚書, where the phrases fan yue 反曰 (“[you], contrary to what is proper, say”) and yi … yue (“[you] should rather … say”) are in rhetorical opposition. Shang shu glosses commonly interpret this yi as “according to what is proper.” Edward L. Shaughnessy, “The Bin Gong Xu Inscription and the Beginnings of the Chinese Literary Tradition,” in Wilt Idema, ed., Books in Numbers: Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Harvard-Yenching Library, Conference Papers (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2007), pp. 1–19. See Mark Csikszentmihalyi, “Reimagining the Yellow Emperor’s Four Faces,” in Martin Kern, ed., Text and Ritual in Early China (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005), pp. 230–31. The caldron inscription attributed to Confucius’s ancestor Zheng Kaofu 正考父, reported in the Zuo zhuan 左傳 (Zhao 昭 7), would be a reported early example of such a text. A brief and puzzling mid-Western Zhou vessel seems devoted to inscription of a sententious remark in a very different form. The vessel known as the Guazi you 寡子 卣 (Jicheng #5392) reads, in full: “𦎫不弔， 乃邦。烏虖。 帝家以寡子。乍永寶。 子。” Relying on the interpretation of Chen Yingjie, I would render the text in this way: “‘Attack the wicked and make populous your state.’ Ah! Support our major lineage and its sons. Made for eternal treasure. Zi-clan.” (See Chen, Xi Zhou jinwen zuoqi yongtu mingci yanjiu, p. 567; I am reading differently, as yi 依, supposing a transitive usage: “provide support.”) If this is a valid reading, then the opening phrases, quoting an aphorism, may have been serving as a “signature” expression of the unnamed vessel patron. (The latter portion may itself be of interest to a survey of nonstandard devotional phrases addressed to the spirits.) This sort of function for bronzes may have been encouraged by the changes in bronze forms and ritual deployment that, following the work of Jessica Rawson and Lothar von Falkenhausen, have come to be known as the “Ritual Reform.” See the discussion of the reform characteristics in Kern, “Bronze Inscriptions, the Shijing and the Shangshu,” pp. 190–91, and his interesting discussion of the literary effects and potential relation to issues of audience in the following pages. An issue related to this last point is the quality of the calligraphy and the aesthetic care given to its presentation on the vessels. I do not attempt to address these issues here, but the relationship of calligraphic quality to vessel purpose and inscriptional content seems a potentially rich vein to explore; the only such study I am aware of to date is Li Feng’s, “Ancient Reproductions and Calligraphic Variations: Studies of Western Zhou Bronzes with ‘Identical’ Inscriptions,” Early China 22 (1997): pp. 1–41. Li’s analysis of the different calligraphic values that may have applied to primary and replicated vessels demonstrates that calligraphic aesthetics were a recognized value that was applied in different ways depending on the practical function of vessels.

Reflections on Literary and Devotional Aspects · 283 21

22

23

24 25

26

27

28

29 30

See Falkenhausen, Chinese Society, pp. 53–56, and Edward L. Shaughnessy, “The Writing of a Late Western Zhou Bronze Inscription,” Asiatische Studien/ Études Asiatiques 61.3 (2007): 845–77. With regard to dates, however, Maria Khayutina has suggested that fully dated bronze inscriptions may have served the “bureaucratic” purpose of preserving event dates when those were, in fact, absent in texts preserved in other media. See Khayutina, “The Royal Year-Count of the Western Zhōu Dynasty (1045–771 BC) and Its Use(r)s,” in Xiaobing Wang-Riese and Thomas Höllman, eds., Time and Ritual in Early China (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009), p. 139. This is not to say that these inscriptions are not artful in a literary sense. Shaughnessy’s analysis of the Qiu pan as a carefully constructed montage reveals the authorial care that lies behind its composition. Inscriptions of this form have been studied as a group by Chen Yingjie, Xi Zhou jinwen zuoqi yongtu mingci yanjiu, vol. 2, pp. 818–35. Shenzi Tuo gui gai 沈子它簋蓋 (Jicheng #4330). I give here a version of these opening phrases only to illustrate the form of text I am referring to, without pursuing philological discussion. There are a number of interesting issues that have been raised about this inscription. Not the least is whether the title “Lord of Shen” 沈子 should not instead be read “I, a sincere son,” a point first suggested by Chen Mengjia 陳夢家 (see Chen Yingjie, Xi Zhou jinwen zuoqi yongtu mingci yanjiu, vol. 2, pp. 838–39). Shu Huanfu you 叔䟒父卣 (Jicheng #5429). I have relied on the Mingwen xuan commentary (vol. 3, #85; p. 61) and Chen Yingjie, Xi Zhou jinwen zuoqi yongtu mingci yanjiu, vol. 2, pp. 561–64. I diverge from both in my reading of the difficult final line, which I break differently, taking 見余唯用 as a phrase, rather than isolating the first two characters (“Look at me,” perhaps). The Mingwen xuan reads the text as an elder brother addressing a younger, likely following Li Xueqin (who, Chen reports, reads 余 as yu xiong 余兄: “I, your elder brother”). Chen reads the graph as huang 皇 or guang 光, both in the sense of guangchong 光寵: “to favor with.” That fits well, but it seems to me more elegant simply to read the graph as kuang 貺: “to give,” which also permits what seems to me the more natural interpretation of the vessel’s patron as a father addressing his son. As Chen Yingjie notes, the vessel is unusual in bearing an inscription that is itself the occasion for the vessel’s creation (Xi Zhou jinwen zuoqi yongtu mingci yanjiu, vol. 1, p. 178 n. 8). I use the Xing Ren Ning zhong here simply to illustrate generic features, and so I am not providing a full philological analysis of this well-known text. The transcription does not reflect inscriptional line breaks. For a full transcription and translation, see Jaehoon Shim, “The Jinhou Su Bianzhong Inscription and Its Significance,” Early China 22 (1997): 43–75. The vessel is in the collection of the Poly Art Museum (保利藝術博物館) and is published in the catalog, Baoli cang jin 保利藏金 ([Guangzhou]: Lingnan

284 · Robert Eno

31

32

33 34 35

meishu chubanshe, 1999), pp. 117–28, with additional philological commentary by Ma Chengyuan 馬承源, Qiu Xigui 裘錫圭, and Li Xueqin 李學勤, pp. 353–78. The date of the vessel is disputed. Ma Chengyuan and Qiu Xigui date the inscription to late Western Zhou, largely based on an apparent reference to King Gong (龏王 = 恭王), while Li Xueqin dates this vessel to 740 B.C. (see Baoli cang jin, pp. 377–78). I find Li’s arguments persuasive, and believe they warrant an interpretation of the character 龏 as a verb (gong 供). Although Li’s date would place the inscription just outside the Western Zhou time frame of my discussion, I do not think this minor divergence is germane to the issues I raise. Transcription is informed by the renderings and discussions in Baoli cang jin, as well as in Hu Changchun 胡長春, Xinchu Yin-Zhou qingtongqi mingwen zhengli yu yanjiu 新出殷周青銅器銘文整理與研究 (Beijing: Xianzhuang shuju, 2008), vol. 1, pp. 98–103 (see also Liu Yu 劉雨 and Lu Yan 盧岩, eds., Jinchu Yin-Zhou jinwen jilu 近出殷周金文集錄 [Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2002], vol. 1, p. 41). In light of space considerations, the transcription does not reflect inscriptional line breaks, lines being very short, as is true for many bells. I have added punctuation to clarify my reading. The form , read as su 肅, follows Li (the two instances represent for similar, but not identical, bronze graphs). The transcription of accords with all commentators, relying on Yu Xingwu 于省吾, who equates somewhat similar oracle text place-name graphs with xie 協 (Jiagu wenzi gulin 甲骨文字詁林 [Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1996], pp. 1557–58). In the Eastern Zhou Zhe Jian zhong 者 鐘 inscription (Jicheng #198), where the character also appears in bell musical rhetoric, the li 力 form, which is an element of the lei 耒 phonetic, is tripled, providing additional confirmation. I have followed Hu’s reading of ao 鷔 for the unclear graph ; his lengthy analysis of the form (pp. 84–95) is supported by the rhyme his reading indicates. For the character , none of the commentators suggests a form that fulfills the expected rhyme. The transcription with a phonetic of ang 卬 (*ŋâŋ) that I propose is consistent with the graph and rhyme position. (Qiu’s reading of the phonetic as yin 印 is graphically similar, but interrupts the rhyme sequence.) My speculative translation reads the word as a cognate of ang 昂 / yang 仰, which seems to convey the sense of the component as it functions in the Mao Gong ding inscription. Phonetic reconstructions are based on Axel Schuessler, Minimal Old Chinese and Later Han Chinese (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2009). For Li’s discussion, see Li Xueqin 李學勤, “Rongsheng bianzhong lunshi” 戎生 編鐘論釋, in Baoli cang jin, pp. 375–78. I have added these comments on the Xing vessels on the basis of a brief and incomplete survey, including the Shisan nian Xing hu 十三年 𤼈壺 (Jicheng #9723), the San nian Xing hu 三年𤼈壺 (Jicheng #9724), and the Xing xu 𤼈盨 (Jicheng #4462), relatively brief inscriptions that conform to the narrative

Reflections on Literary and Devotional Aspects · 285

36

37 38

39

award-occasion template; the Xing gui 𤼈簋 (Jicheng #4170), a short “X yue”form inscription that combines a brief encomium to the ancestors with a standard award notice and guci; and three Xing zhong 𤼈 鐘 inscriptions (Jicheng #246, #247, #251–56), all distinct, only one of which (#247) includes notice of royal award. Falkenhausen discusses one of the Xing bell inscriptions and its relation to temple ceremony in Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius, pp. 294–95. I do not mean to imply that narrative sections of inscriptions would not be a valuable source for locating features of literary interest; I just have not made such a survey. Inscriptions such as the Mai zun 麥尊 (Jicheng #6015) and the Ling ding 令鼎 (Jicheng #2803) are among a number that seem to show literary inventiveness in description. Italics render the passage underscored in the transcription. This transcription and the following one do not reflect inscriptional line breaks. See Chen Yingjie, Xi Zhou jinwen zuoqi yongtu mingci yanjiu, vol. 2, p. 821. Although Chen’s intriguing interpretation seems consistent with the inscription, the more usual interpretation of the inscription as cast after a battle is also cogent. Zhong was Bo 伯 of the state of Lu 彔, and he elsewhere refers to his father as a king: Li Wang 釐王. While the title of king was not, in practice, entirely confined to the Zhou ruler, though it may have been in theory, it is an exceptional usage and may signal that the rulers of Lu (of whom we have inscriptions from several generations) represented a cultural or ethnic lineage distinct from those in the Zhou mainstream. We may, of course, always argue that what made Zhong distinctive was his sacrificial practice or inscriptional rhetoric, rather than religious sensibility, but no evidence exists to adjudicate the distinction. My point is that heightened textual signs of devotion highlight the neutral status of routine religious rhetoric in most bronze inscriptions. Uniformly pervasive pious language is not a sign of exceptional piety.

T his page intentionally left blank

Bibliography

“2010 shi da kaogu xin faxian” 2010十大考古新發現. At http://news.nen.com.cn/ guoneiguoji/256/3853756_2.shtml. Accessed 19 June 2011. Anyang shi Wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo. “Henan Anyang Yinxu Guojiazhuang dongnan wu hao Shangdai mu” 河南安陽殷墟郭家莊東南五號商代墓. Kaogu 考 古 2008.8: 22–33. Assmann, Jan. “Cultural and Literary Texts.” In Gerald Moers, ed. Definitely: Egyptian Literature—Proceedings of the Symposium “Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms.” Lingua Aeg y ptia—Studia monographica 2. Göttingen: Georg-August Universität, 1999. Pp. 1–15. —. The Mind of Egypt. New York: Henry Holt, 2002. Bagley, Robert W. “Anyang Writing and the Origin of the Chinese Writing System.” In Stephen D. Houston, ed. The First Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Pp. 200–13. —. Shang Ritual Bronzes in the Arthur M. Sackler Collections. Washington, D.C.: The Arthur M. Sackler Foundation, 1987. Bai Guangqi 白光琦. “Qin Gong hu ying wei Dong Zhou chuqi qi” 秦公壺應為東周 初期器. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 1995.4: 71. Baines, John. “Kingship, Definition of Culture, and Legitimation.” In David O’Connor and David P. Silverman, eds. Ancient Egyptian Kingship. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Pp. 3–47. — . “Prehistories of Literature: Performance, Fiction, Myth.” In Gerald Moers, ed. Definitely: Egyptian Literature—Proceedings of the Symposium “Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms.” Lingua Aegyptia—Studia monographica 2. Göttingen: Georg-August Universität, 1999. Pp. 17–41. Baoji bowuguan (Lu Liancheng 盧連城) and Baoji xian wenhuaguan (Yang Mancang 楊滿倉). “Shaanxi Baoji xian Taigongmiaocun faxian Qin Gong zhong Qin Gong bo” 陝西寶雞縣太公廟村發現秦公鐘秦公鎛. Wenwu 文物 1978.11: 1–5. “Baoji Meixian Yangjia cun jiaocang Shan shi jiazu qingtongqi qun zuotan jiyao” 寶雞眉縣楊家村窖藏單氏家族青銅器群座談紀要. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2003.3: 13–16. Baoji shi kaogudui and Fufeng xian bowuguan. “Shaanxi Fufeng xian xin faxian

288 · Bibliography yipi Xi Zhou qingtongqi” 陝西扶風縣新發現一批西周青銅器. Kaogu yu wenwu 考 古與文物 2007.4: 3–12. Baoli cang jin 保利藏金. [Guangzhou]: Lingnan meishu chubanshe, 1999. Baoli cang jin (xu) 保利藏金（續）. Guangzhou: Lingnan meishu chubanshe, 2001. Baxter, William H. “Zhōu and Hàn Phonology in the Shījīng.” In W. Boltz and M. Shapiro, eds. Studies in the Historical Phonology of Asian Languages. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, ser. 4, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 77. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 1991. Pp. 1–34. Behr, Wolfgang. “The Extent of Tonal Irregularity in Pre-Qin Inscriptional Rhyming.” In Anne O. Yue, Ting Pang-hsin and Hoh Dah-an, eds. Hanyushi yanjiu—Jinian Li Fanggui xiansheng bainian mingdan lunwenji 漢語史研究— 紀念李方桂先生百年冥誕論文集 [Studies in t he Histor y of t he Chinese Language—Memorial Collection on the Occasion of Mr. Li Fang-kuei’s 100th Birthday]. Taibei: Academia Sinica, 2004. Pp. 111–46. —. “In the Interstices of Representation: Ludic Writing and the Locus of Polysemy in the Chinese Sign.” In A. de Voogt and I. Finkel, eds. The Idea of Writing: Play and Complexity. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2009. Pp. 281–314. —. “Morphological Notes on the Old Chinese Counterfactual.” Bochumer Jahrbuch zur Ostasienforschung 30 (2006): 55–88. — . “Reimende Bronzeinschriften und die Entstehung der chinesischen Endreimdichtung.” Ph.D. diss.: University of Frankfurt/Main, 1997. Beijing daxue Kaoguxi and Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo. “1995 nian Liulihe yizhi muzang fajue jianbao” 1995年琉璃河遺址墓葬發掘簡報. Wenwu 文物 1996.6: 16–27. —. “1995 nian Liulihe Zhoudai juzhi fajue jianbao” 1995年琉璃河周代居址發 掘簡報. Wenwu 文物 1996.6: 4–15. Beijing daxue Kaoguxue xi and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo. “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jin hou mudi di er ci fajue” 天馬—曲村遺址北趙晉侯墓地第二次 發掘. Wenwu 文物 1994.1: 4–34. —. “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jin hou mudi di liu ci fajue” 天馬—曲村遺 址北趙晉侯墓地第六次發掘. Wenwu 文物 2001.8: 4–21, 55. —. “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jin hou mudi di si ci fajue” 天馬—曲村遺 址北趙晉侯墓地第四次發掘. Wenwu 文物 1994.8: 4–21. —. “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jin hou mudi di wu ci fajue” 天馬—曲村 遺址北趙晉侯墓地第五次發掘. Wenwu 文物 1995.7: 4–39. Beijing shi wenwu guanlichu. “Beijing diqu de you yi zhongyao kaogu shouhuo— Changping Baifu Xi Zhou muguo mu de xin qishi” 北京地區的又一重要考古收 穫—昌平白浮西周木槨墓的新啟示. Kaogu 考古 1976.4: 246–58, 228. Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo. Liulihe Xi Zhou Yanguo mudi 1973–1977 琉璃河西周 燕國墓地1973–1977. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1995. —. “Liulihe Yan guo mudi” 琉璃河燕國墓地. In Su Tianjun 蘇天鈞, ed. Beijing kaogu jicheng 11 北京考古集成 11. Beijing: Beijing chubanshe, 2000. Pp. 3–302.

Bibliography · 289 Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo, Beijing daxue Kaogu wenboyuan and Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo. “1997 nian Liulihe yizhi muzang fajue jianbao” 1997年琉璃河遺址墓葬發掘簡報. Wenwu 文物 2000.11: 32–38. Blakeley, Barry B. “King, Clan, and Courtier in Ch’u Court Politics.” Asia Major, ser. III, 2 (1992): 1–39. Bouquet, Mary. “Family Trees and Their Affinities: The Visual Imperative of the Genealogical Method.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 2.1 (March 1996): 43–66. Brown, Shana J. “Pastimes: Scholars, Art Dealers, and the Making of Modern Chinese Historiography, 1870–1928.” Ph.D. diss.: University of California, Berkeley, 2002. Cai Yahong 蔡亞紅. “Lijiaya wenhua yanjiu” 李家崖文化研究. M.A. thesis: Dongbei daxue, 2008. Cai Yunzhang 蔡運章. “Luoyang Beiyao Xi Zhou mu moshu wenzi lüelun” 洛陽北 窯西周墓墨書文字略論. Wenwu 文物 1994.7: 64–69, 79. Campbell, Roderick B. Archaeology of the Chinese Bronze Age from Erlitou to Anyang. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, 2014. Cao Jianguo 曹建國. “Jinwen guci yu Shi pian duandai” 金文嘏詞與《詩》篇斷代. Zhongguo wenhua yanjiusuo xuebao 中國文化研究所學報 49 (2009): 1–33. Cao Jinyan 曹錦炎. “Chengqiao xinchu tongqi kaoshi ji xiangguan wenti” 程橋新出 銅器考釋及相關問題. Dongnan wenhua 東南文化 1991.1: 147–52. Cao Shuqin 曹淑琴. “Boju tongqi qun ji qi xiangguan wenti” 伯矩銅器群及其相關問 題 . In Chen Guang 陳光, ed. Yan wenhua yanjiu lunwenji 燕文化研究論文集. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1995. Pp. 200–207. Cao Shuqin 曹淑琴 and Yin Weizhang 殷瑋璋. “Ya Yi tongqi ji qi xiangguan wenti” 亞矣銅器及其相關問題. In Zhongguo kaoguxue yanjiu bianweihui, ed. Zhongguo kaoguxue yanjiu: Xia Nai xiansheng kaogu wushi nian jinian lunwenji 中國考古 學研究：夏鼐先生考古五十年紀念論文集. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1986. Pp. 191–99. Cao Wei 曹瑋 . “Dong Zhou shiqi de fengfu zhidu” 東周時期的賵賻制度 . In Zhouyuan yizhi yu Xi Zhou tongqi yanjiu 周原遺址與西周銅器研究. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2004. Pp. 258–63. — . “Shilun Xi Zhou shiqi de fengfu zhidu” 試論西周時期的賵賻制度. In Zhouyuan yizhi yu Xi Zhou tongqi yanjiu 周原遺址與西周銅器研究. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2004. Pp. 165–75. —. “Shu Ze fangding mingwen zhong de jisi li” 叔夨方鼎銘文中的祭祀禮. In Shanghai bowuguan, ed. Jin hou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 晉侯墓地出土青銅器國際學術研討會論文集. Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe, 2002. Pp. 272–76. Cao Zhaolan 曹兆蘭. Jinwen yu Yin-Zhou nüxing wenhua 金文與殷周女性文化. Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 2004. —. “Jinwen zhong fangyan ‘mi’ yu yayan ‘mu’ de xiangyin shengyi” 金文中方 言「嬭」與雅言「母」的相因生義. Fangyan 方言 2002.2: 177–82.

290 · Bibliography Chang, Kwang-chih. Shang Civilization. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980. Chang Yuzhi 常玉芝. Shangdai zhouji zhidu 商代周祭制度. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1987. Chappell, Hilary, Li Ming and Alain Peyraube. “Chinese Linguistics and Typology: The State of the Art.” Linguistic Typology 11.1 (2007): 187–211. Chen Chusheng 陳初生. “Xi Zhou jinwen yufa yanjiu (Guan Xiechu) jian ping” 《西 周金文語法研究》 （管燮初）簡評. Zhongguo yuwen yanjiu 中國語文研究 5 (1984): 35–36. Chen Fangmei 陳芳妹. “Jin hou mudi qingtongqi suo jian xingbie yanjiu de xin xiansuo” 晉侯墓地青銅器所見性別研究的新線索. In Shanghai bowuguan, ed. Jin hou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 晉侯墓地出土青銅器 國際學術研討會論文集 . Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe, 2002. Pp. 157–96. Chen Jie 陳絜. Shang Zhou xingshi zhidu yanjiu 商周姓氏制度研究. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2007. Chen Mengjia 陳夢家. “Xi Zhou tongqi duandai (2)” 西周銅器斷代（2）. Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1955.2: 69–142. Chen Pan 陳槃. Chunqiu dashibiao lieguo juexing ji cunmiebiao zhuanyi 春秋大事表 列國爵姓及存滅表譔異. Taibei: Academia Sinica, 1969. —. Chunqiu dashibiao lieguo juexing ji cunmiebiao zhuanyi (San ding ben) 春 秋大事表列國爵姓及存滅表譔異（三訂本）. Taibei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 1988. Chen Peifen 陳佩芬, ed. Xia Shang Zhou qingtongqi yanjiu 夏商周青銅器研究. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2004. Chen Ping 陳平. Beifang You Yan wenhua yanjiu 北方幽燕文化研究. Beijing: Qunyan chubanshe, 2006. —. “‘Qinzi ge, mao kao’ buyi”「秦子戈、矛考」補議. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文 物 1990.1: 102–6. Chen Shiyi 陳仕益. “Guo Moruo liang Zhou jinwen yundu bulun” 郭沫若兩周金文 韻讀補論. Guo Moruo xuekan 郭沫若學刊 76.2 (2006): 53–60. Chen Wei 陳偉. “Xichuan Xiasi erhao muzhu ji qi xiangguan wenti” 淅川下寺二號 墓主及其相關問題. Jiang Han kaogu 江漢考古 1983.1: 32–33, 37. Chen Xiuhong 陳修紘. “Rong Geng jiaoshou zhuzuo shulu ji lunshu nianbiao” 容 庚教授著作書錄及論述年表 . Zhongshan daxue xuebao 中山大學學報 1984.3: 137–46. Chen Yingjie 陳英傑. Xi Zhou jinwen zuoqi yongtu mingci yanjiu 西周金文作器用途 銘辭研究. 2 vols. Beijing: Xianzhuang shuju, 2008. —. “Xin chu Diao Sheng zun bu shi” 新出琱生尊補釋. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與 文物 2007.5: 109–11. Chen Zhaorong 陳昭容. “Cong qingtongqi mingwen kan liang Zhou Han-Huai diqu hunyin guanxi” 從青銅器銘文看兩周漢淮地區婚姻關係. Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 歷史語言研究所集刊 75.4 (2004): 635–97. — . “Tan xinchu Qin Gong hu de shidai” 談新出秦公壺的時代. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 1995.4: 64–70.

Bibliography · 291 —. “Ze Ji yu San Ji—Cong nüxing chengming guilü tan Ze guo zuxing ji qi xiangguan wenti” 夨姬與散姬 — 從女性稱名規律談夨國族姓及其相關問題 . Paper presented at “Di san jie guwenzi yu gudai shi xueshu yantaohui” 第三屆 古文字與古代史學術研討會. Zhongyang yanjiuyuan Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo. 25 March 2011. Chen Zhi 陳致. “Cong Zhousong yu jinwen zhong chengyu de yunyong lai kan gu geshi zhi yongyun ji siyan shiti de xingcheng” 從《周頌》與金文中成語的運用來 看古歌詩之用韻及四言詩體的形成 . At http://w w w.guwenzi.com/srcshow. asp?src_id=932. Published 9 October 2009, accessed 2 December 2009. Cheng Changxin 程長新. “Beijing Shunyi xian Niulanshan chutu yizu Zhou chu daiming tongqi” 北京順義縣牛欄山出土一組周初帶銘銅器. Wenwu 文物 1983.11: 64–67. Cook, Constance Anne. “Auspicious Metals and Southern Spirits: An Analysis of the Chu Bronze Inscriptions.” Ph.D. diss.: University of California, Berkeley, 1991. —. “Wealth and the Western Zhou.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 60.2 (1997): 253–94. Csikszentmihalyi, Mark. “Reimagining the Yellow Emperor’s Four Faces.” In Martin Kern, ed. Text and Ritual in Early China. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005. Pp. 226–48. Cui Yongdong 崔永東 . Xi Zhou jinwen xuci yanjiu 西周金文虛詞研究. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1994. Dai Chunyang 戴春陽. “Lixian Dabuzishan Qin Gong mudi ji qi youguan wenti” 禮縣大堡子山秦公墓地及其有關問題. Wenwu 文物 2000.5: 74–80. Dai Lianzhang 戴璉璋. “Liang Zhou jinwen yufa yanjiu” 兩周金文語法研究. Taibei: Xingzhengyuan Guojia kexue weiyuanhui, 1970. Ding Shengshu 丁聲樹 et al., eds. Xiandai Hanyu yufa jianghua 現代漢語語法講話. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1961. Djamouri, Redouane [Luo Duan 羅端]. “Cong jia, jinwen kan ‘yi’ zi yufahua de guocheng” 從甲、金文看「以」字語法化的過程. Zhongguo yuwen 中國語文 2009.1: 3–9. — . “The Development of the Writing System in Early China: Between Phonographic Necessity and Semiographic Efficiency.” In F. Bottéro and R. Djamouri, eds. Écriture chinoise: Données, usages et represéntations. Collection des Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 6. Paris: CRLAO/EHESS, 2006. Pp. 7–34. —. “Markers of Predication in Shang Bone Inscriptions.” In Hilary Chappell, ed. Sinitic Grammar: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Pp. 143–71. —. “Particules de négation dans les inscriptions sur bronze de la dynastie des Zhou.” Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 20.1 (1991): 5–76. Dobson, W. A. C. H. Early Archaic Chinese: A Descriptive Grammar. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962. Dong Kun 董琨. “Zhouyuan jiaguwen yinxi tedian chutan” 周原甲骨文音系特點初

292 · Bibliography 探 . In Wang Yuxin 王宇信 and Song Zhenhao 宋鎮豪 , eds. Jinian Yinxu jiaguwen faxian yibai zhou nian guoji xueshu yantaohui 紀念殷墟甲骨文發現一百 週年國際學術研討會. Beijing: Shehui kexue chubanshe, 2003. Pp. 194–205. Dong Shan 董珊. “Tan Shi Shan pan mingwen de ‘fu’ zi yi” 談士山盤銘文的「服」字 義. Gugong bowuyuan yuankan 故宮博物院院刊 2004.1: 78–85. Dong Tonghe 董同龢. “Yu Gao Benhan xiansheng shangque: ‘ziyou yayun’ shuo, jian lun shanggu Chu fangyin tese” 與高本漢先生商榷：「自由押韻」說，兼論上古 楚方音特色. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 7.4 (1938): 533–43. Dongguanshi Zhengxiehui, ed. Rong Geng Rong Zhaozu xueji 容庚容肇祖學記 . Guangdong: Guangdong renmin chubanshe, 2004. Duanmu, San [端木三]. “Wordhood in Chinese.” In Jerome L. Packard, ed. New Approaches to Chinese Word Formation: Morphology, Phonology and the Lexicon in Modern and Ancient Chinese. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1998. Pp. 135–96. Eno, Robert. “Shang State Religion and the Pantheon of the Oracle Texts.” In John Lagerwey and Marc Kalinowski, eds. Early Chinese Religion, Part One: Shang through Han (1250 BC to 220 AD). Leiden: Brill, 2009. Vol. 1. Pp. 41–102. Falkenhausen, Lothar von. “The Bronzes from Xiasi and Their Owners.” Kaoguxue yanjiu 考古學研究 5 (2002): 755–86. —. Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius (1000–250 BC): The Archaeological Evidence. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, 2006. —. “The Inscribed Bronzes from Yangjiacun: New Evidence on Social Structure and Historical Consciousness in Late Western Zhou China (c. 800 BC).” Proceedings of the British Academy 139 (2006): 239–96. — . “The Royal Audience and Its Ref lections in Western Zhou Bronze Inscriptions.” In Li Feng and David Prager Branner, eds. Writing and Literacy in Early China. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2011. Pp. 239–79. Fang Lina 方麗娜. “Xi Zhou jinwen xuci yanjiu” 西周金文虛詞研究. M.A. thesis: Taiwan shifan daxue, 1985. Fang Shiming 方詩銘 and Wang Xiuling 王修齡. Guben Zhushu jinian jizheng 古本 竹書紀年輯證. Rev. 2nd ed., Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2008. Fang Shuxin 方述鑫. “Taibao lei he mingwen kaoshi” 太保罍盉銘文考釋. In Chen Guang 陳光 , ed. Yan wenhua yanjiu lunwenji 燕文化研究論文集 . Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1995. Pp. 287–90. Fang Xuanchen 方炫琛. “Lun Chunqiu Lu zhongsun, mengsun, jisun, zangsun deng cheng fei shiming ji Chunqiu shiqi renwu ji ‘sun’ wei cheng zhi yi” 論春秋 魯中孫、孟孫、季孫、臧孫等稱非氏名及春秋時期人物繫「孫」為稱之義. Dalu zazhi 大陸雜誌 75.6 (1987): 22–31. Feng Shi 馮時. “Diao Sheng san qi mingwen yanjiu” 琱生三器銘文研究. Kaogu 考古 2010.1: 69–77. —. “Peng guo kao (jian gao)” 倗國考（簡稿）. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Gudai wenming yanjiu zhongxin tongxun 中國社會科學院古代文明研究中心通訊 15 (Jan. 2008): 39. —. “Qianzhangda mudi chutu tongqi mingwen huishi” 前掌大墓地出土銅器

Bibliography · 293 銘文匯釋. In Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo, ed. Tengzhou Qianzhangda mudi 縢州前掌大墓地 . Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2005. Pp. 583–97. —. “Shu Ze kao” 叔夨考. In Shanghai bowuguan, ed. Jin hou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 晉侯墓地出土青銅器國際學術研討會論文 集. Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe, 2002. Pp. 258–65. Feng Yicheng 風儀誠 [Olivier Venture]. “Anyang Shang dai muzang chutu ‘zuhui’” 安陽商代墓葬出土「族徽」. Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字研究 29 (2012): 213–15. Finkelstein, Jacob J. “The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 20.3/4 (1966): 95–118. Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Lixian bowuguan. “Lixian Yuandingshan Chunqiu Qin mu” 禮縣圓頂山春秋秦墓. Wenwu 文物 2002.2: 4–30. Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo et al. Xi Han shui shangyou kaogu diaocha baogao 西漢水上游考古調查報告. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2008. Gao Chenglin 高成林. “Xichuan Heshangling Chu mu de shidai wenti” 淅川和尚嶺 楚墓的時代問題. Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 1996.4: 61–65. Ge Liang 葛亮. “Meiyingtang cang Zhongguo tongqi youming bufen jiaodu” 玫茵 堂藏中國銅器有銘部分校讀. Chutu wenxian yu guwenzi yanjiu wangzhan 出土文 獻與古文字研究網站 (Fudan University). 11 December 2009. At http://www. gwz.fudan.edu.cn/SrcShow.asp?Src_ID=1012. Accessed 4 February 2015. Golas, Peter J. Science and Civilisation in China, Volume V: Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Part XIII: Mining. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Goody, Jack. Comparative Studies in Kinship. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969. Gosden, Chris. Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Contact from 5000 BC to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Gu Zuyu 顧祖禹. Du shi fangyu jiyao 讀史方輿紀要. Repr. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2005. Guan Xiechu 管燮初. Yinxu jiagu keci de yufa yanjiu 殷墟甲骨刻辭的語法研究. Beijing: Shehui kexue chubanshe, 1953. Guo Bizhi 郭必之 [Kwok Bit Chee]. “Jinwen zhong de Chuxi fangyanci (san ze)” 金 文中的楚系方言詞（三則）. Journal of Oriental Studies (Hong Kong) 34.1–2 (1998): 102–16. Guo Mingxun 郭名詢. “Qingdai jinshixue fazhan gaikuang yu tedian” 清代金石學 發展概況與特點. Xueshu luntan 學術論壇 7 (2005): 150–54. Guo Moruo 郭沫若. Liang Zhou jinwenci daxi kaoshi 兩周金文辭大系考釋. Tokyo: Monkyûdô shoten, 1935. — . Liang Zhou jinwenci daxi tulu kaoshi 兩周金文辭大系圖錄攷釋. Tokyo: Monkyûdô shoten, 1935. Rev. ed., Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo Kaoguxue zhuankan 中國社會科學院考古研究所考古學專刊 1.3. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 1957. —, ed. Jiaguwen heji 甲骨文合集. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1982. Guo Xiliang 郭錫良. “Xi Zhou jinwen yinxi chutan” 西周金文音系初探. In Yuan

294 · Bibliography Xingpei 袁行霈 et al., eds. Guoxue yanjiu 國學研究. Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 1994. N.s., vol. II. Pp. 227–76. Guo yu 國語. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1935. Han Wei 韓巍. “Chong lun Xi Zhou Shan shi jiazu shixi—Jian tan Zhoudai jiazu zhidu de yixie wenti” 重論西周單氏家族世系— 兼談周代家族制度的一些問題. In Zhu Fenghan 朱鳳瀚, ed. Xin chu jinwen yu Xi Zhou lishi 新出金文與西周歷史. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2011. Pp. 168–95. Han Wei 韓偉. “Lun Gansu Lixian chutu de Qin jinbo shipian” 論甘肅禮縣出土的 秦金箔飾片. Wenwu 文物 1995.6: 4–11. Han Yaolong 韓耀隆. “Jinwen zhong chengdaici yongfa zhi yanjiu” 金文中稱代詞用 法之研究. Zhongguo wenzi 中國文字 23 (1967): 1–12; 24 (1967): 1–11; 25 (1967): 1–8. Hayashi Minao 林巳奈夫. “In-Shunjūki kinbun no shoshiki to jōyō goku no jidaiteki hensen” 殷－春秋金文の書式と常用語句の時代的変遷. Tōhō gakuhō 東方学報 55 (1983): 1–101. He Dingsheng 何定生. “Han yiqian de wenfa yanjiu” 漢以前的文法研究. Guoli Zhongshan daxue Yuyan lishi yanjiusuo zhoukan 國立中山大學語言歷史研究所周 刊 33.31 (1928): 1–12; 33.32 (1928): 1–9; 33.33 (1928): 1–18. —. “Shangshu de wenfa ji qi niandai”《尚書》的文法及其年代. Guoli Zhongshan daxue Yuyan lishi yanjiusuo zhoukan 國立中山大學語言歷史研究所周刊 5.49–51 (1928): 1–189. He Jingcheng 何景成. “Shang mo Zhou chu de Juzu yanjiu” 商末周初的舉族研究. Kaogu 考古 2008.11: 54–70. He Linyi 何琳儀. “Chengqiao san hao mu pan yi mingwen xinkao” 程橋三號墓盤匜 銘文新考. Dongnan wenhua 東南文化 2001.3: 78–81. —. Zhanguo wenzi tonglun (dingbu) 戰國文字通論（訂補）. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003. “Henan Pingdingshan Ying guo mudi ba hao mu fajue jianbao” 河南平頂山應國墓 地八號墓發掘簡報. Huaxia kaogu 華夏考古 2007.7: 20–49. Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo. Gushi Hougudui yihao mu 固始侯古堆一號 墓. Zhengzhou: Daxiang chubanshe, 2004. —. “Xichuan xian Heshangling Chunqiu Chu mu de fajue” 淅川縣和尚嶺春秋 楚墓的發掘. Huaxia kaogu 華夏考古 1992.3: 114–30. Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Zhoukou shi wenhuaju. Luyi Taiqinggong Changzikou mu 鹿邑太清宮長子口墓 . Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji chubanshe, 2000. Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo et al. Sanmenxia Guo guo mu 三門峽虢國墓. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1999. Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Nanyang shi wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Xichuan xian bowuguan, eds. Xichuan Heshangling yu Xujialing Chu mu 淅川和 尚嶺與徐家嶺楚墓. Zhengzhou: Daxiang chubanshe, 2004. Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo, Henan Danjiang kuqu kaogudui and Xichuan xian bowuguan, eds. Xichuan Xiasi Chunqiu Chu mu 淅川下寺春秋楚墓. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1991.

[128.104.46.206] Project MUSE (2024-03-02 03:18 GMT) UW-Madison Libraries

Bibliography · 295 Höllmann, Thomas. Schlafender Lotus, trunkenes Huhn: Kulturgeschichte der chinesischen Küche. München: Beck, 2010. Hong Yang 洪颺 and Chen Yingbao 陳英寶. “Ershi shiji liyong chutu wenxian yanjiu shangguyin jinzhan shuping” 二十世紀利用出土文獻研究上古音進展述評. Bohai daxue xuebao 渤海大學學報 2004.3: 92–95. Hou Yi 侯毅. “Cong Jin hou mu tongqi kan Jin wenhua de xingcheng yu fazhan” 從晉侯墓銅器看晉文化的形成與發展. In Shanghai bowuguan, ed. Jin hou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 晉侯墓地出土青銅器國際學術 研討會論文集. Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe, 2002. Pp. 114–31. Hsu, Cho-yun and Katheryn Linduff. Western Zhou Civilization. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. Hu Changchun 胡長春. Xinchu Yin-Zhou qingtongqi mingwen zhengli yu yanjiu 新 出殷周青銅器銘文整理與研究. Beijing: Xianzhuang shuju, 2008. “Hu gui gai ming zuotan jiyao” 虎簋蓋銘座談紀要. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 1997.3: 81–83. Huang Mingchong 黄銘崇. “Cong kaogu faxian kan Xi Zhou muzang de ‘fenqi’ xianxiang yu Xi Zhou shidai liqi zhidu de leixing yu jieduan (shang pian)” 從考 古發現看西周墓葬的「分器」現象與西周時代禮器制度的類型與階段（上篇）. Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊 83.4 (2012): 607–70. Huang Qi 黃綺. “Zhi, yu bu fen, yu du ru zhi” 之、魚不分，魚讀入之. Hebei xuekan 河北學刊 1992.2: 34–40. Huang Xiquan 黃錫全. “Shi Shan pan mingwen bie yi” 士山盤銘文別議. Zhongguo lishi wenwu 中國歷史文物 2003.2: 60–65. Inoi Makoto 家井真. “Shikyô ni okeru ‘shô’ no hassei ni tsuite”《詩經》における「頌」 の發生について. In Nitta Daisaku 新田大作, ed. Chûgoku shisô kenkyû ronshû 中 國思想研究論集. Tokyo: Yūzankaku, 1986. Pp. 319–49. Jeon Kwang-jie 全廣鎮 [Chǒn Kwangjin, Quan Guangzhen]. Liang Zhou jinwen tongjiazi yanjiu 兩周金文通假字研究. Zhongguo yuwen congkan 中國語文叢刊 11. Taibei: Xuesheng shuju, 1989. Ji Faxi 吉發習 and Ma Huiqi 馬輝圻. “Nei Menggu Zhungeer qi Dakou yizhi de diaocha yu shijue” 內蒙古準格爾旗大口遺址的調查與試掘. Kaogu 考古 1979.4: 308–19. Jiang Baochang 姜寶昌. “Zhoudai jinwen daici shixi” 周代金文代詞試析. In Shandongsheng yuyan xuehui, ed. Yuhai xintan 語海新探. Ji’nan: Shandong jiaoyu chubanshe, 1984. Vol. 1. Pp. 352–64. Jiang Gang 蔣剛. “Lun Baiyan wenhua ji qi xiangguan wenti” 論白燕文化及其相關 問題. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2009.5: 27–37. —. “Shanxi, Shaanbei ji Nei Menggu zhongnan bu Xia Shang Xi Zhou shiqi qingtong wenhua de yanjin” 山西陜北及內蒙古中南部夏商西周時期青銅文化的演 進. Zhongguo lishi wenwu 中國歷史文物 2008.5: 51–66. Jiang Gang 蔣剛 and Yang Jianhua 楊建華. “Shanbei Jin xibeinan liu Huanghe liang an chutu qingtongqi yicun de zuhe yanjiu” 陜北晉西北南流黃河兩岸出土青 銅器遺存的組合研究. Wenwu shijie 文物世界 2007.1: 11–19.

296 · Bibliography Jiang Xuewang 江學旺. “Cong Xi Zhou jinwen kan Hanzi gouxing fangshi de yanhua” 從西周金文看漢字構形方式的演化. Guji zhengli yanjiu xuekan 古籍整理 研究學刊 2003.2: 30–33. Jin Lixin 金理新. Shanggu Hanyu xingtai yanjiu 上古漢語形態研究. Hefei: Huangshan chubanshe, 2006. Jin Yingruo 金穎若. “Ji jin zou ya — Cong Dong Zhou lieguo jinwen yunwen lice yayan de cunzai” 吉金奏雅 — 從東周列國金文韻文蠡測雅言的存在 . Yuyan yanjiu 語言研究 1998, zengkan 增刊. —. “Shijing yunxi de shidai fenye” 詩經韻系的時代分野. Gu Hanyu yanjiu 古漢 語研究 1993.4: 53–55. Jinzhong kaogudui. “Shanxi Loufan, Lishi, Liulin san xian kaogu diaocha” 山西婁 煩、離石、柳林三縣考古調查. Wenwu 文物 1989.4: 31–39. —. “Shanxi Taiyuan Baiyan yizhi diyi didian fajue jianbao” 山西太原白燕遺址 第一地點發掘簡報. Wenwu 文物 1989.3: 1–21. Jung Borsheng 鍾柏生, Chen Chaojung 陳昭容, Hwang Mingchong 黃銘崇 and Yuen Kwokwa 袁國華, eds. Xin shou Yin Zhou qingtongqi mingwen ji qi ying hui bian 新收殷周青銅器銘文暨器影彙編. Taibei: Yiwen yinshuguan, 2006. Karlgren, Bernhard. The Book of Documents. Göteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag, 1950. Kazuo xian wenhuaguan, Chaoyang diqu bowuguan and Liaoning sheng bowuguan. “Liaoning sheng Kazuo xian Beidongcun chutu de Yin Zhou qingtongqi” 遼寧省喀左縣北洞村出土的殷周青銅器. Kaogu 考古 1974.6: 364–72. —. “Liaoning sheng Kazuo xian Shanwanzi chutu Yin Zhou qingtongqi” 遼寧 省喀左縣山灣子出土殷周青銅器. Wenwu 文物 1977.12: 23–27, 43. Kelley, Charles Fabens and Ch’en Meng-chia. Chinese Bronzes from the Buckingham Collection. Chicago: The Art Institute of Chicago, 1946. Kemp, Barry J. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. London: Routledge, 1989. Kern, Martin. “Bronze Inscriptions, the Shijing and the Shangshu: The Evolution of the Ancestral Sacrifice during the Western Zhou.” In John Lagerwey and Marc Kalinowski, eds. Early Chinese Religion, Part One: Shang through Han (1250 BC to 220 AD). Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2009. Pp. 143–200. —. “The Performance of Writing in Western Zhou China.” In Sergio La Porta and David Shulman, eds. The Poetics of Grammar and the Metaphysics of Sound and Sign. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2007. Pp. 109–76. —. The Stele Inscriptions of Ch’in Shih-huang: Text and Ritual in Early Chinese Imperial Representation. American Oriental Series 85. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 2000. Khayutina, Maria. “Marital Alliances and Affinal Relatives (sheng 甥 and hungou 婚購) in the Society and Politics of Zhou China in the Light of Bronze Inscriptions.” Early China 37 (2014): 1–61. —. “Reflections and Uses of the Past in Chinese Bronze Inscriptions from ca. 11th to 5th centuries BC: The Memory of the Conquest of Shang and the First Kings of Zhou.” In John Baines, Tim Rood, Henriette van der Blom and

Bibliography · 297 Samuel Chen, eds. Historical Consciousness and Historiography (3000 B.C.–A.D. 600). Forthcoming. —. “Royal Hospitality and Geopolitical Constitution of the Western Zhou Polity.” T’oung Pao 96.1–3 (2010): 1–73. —. “The Royal Year-Count of the Western Zhōu Dynasty (1045–771 BC) and Its Use(r)s.” In Xiaobing Wang-Riese and Thomas Höllman, eds. Time and Ritual in Early China. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009. Pp. 125–52. Kikawada Osamu 黃川田修. “Hancheng Liangdaicun liang Zhou tongqi kao: Shi lun Rui guo feng di zhi lishi beijing” 韓城梁帶村兩周銅器考：試論芮國封地之歷 史背景. Zaoqi Zhongguo shi yanjiu 早期中國史研究 2.1 (July 2010): 1–41. Kou Zhanmin 寇占民. “Xi Zhou jinwen dongci yanjiu” 西周金文動詞研究. Ph.D. diss.: Shoudu shifan daxue, 2009. Lai Guolong 來國龍. “Diguo yu zongjiao: Gudai Zhongguo yu gu Luoma diguo de bijiao yanjiu” 帝國與宗教：古代中國與古羅馬帝國的比較研究. Sinologie française/ Faguo Hanxue 法國漢學 14 (2009): 196–218. —. “‘Jiandawang’ bohan de xushi jiegou yu zongjiao beijing—Jian shi ‘shaji’” 「柬大王」泊旱的敍事結構與宗教背景— 兼釋「殺祭」. In Taiwan daxue Zhongwenxi, ed. 2007 nian Zhongguo jianboxue guoji luntan lunwenji 2007年中國簡帛 學國際論壇論文集. Taibei: National Taiwan University, 2011. Pp. 443–74. — . “Jiyi de momie: Chunqiu shiqi tongqi shang youyi mohui gaike de mingwen” 記憶的磨滅：春秋時期銅器上有意磨毀改刻的銘文. Paper presented at the conference “Ancient Chinese Bronzes from the Shouyang Studio and Elsewhere: An International Conference Commemorating Twenty Years of Discoveries.” The Art Institute of Chicago and The Creel Center for Chinese Paleography, The University of Chicago. 5–7 November 2010. —. “Qinghua jian Chu ju suo jian Chuguo de gongzu yu shixi—Jian lun Chu ju wenben de xingzhi” 清華簡《楚居》所見楚國的公族與世系— 兼論《楚居》文 本的性質. Jianbowang 簡帛網 (Wuhan University). 3 December 2011. At http:// www.bsm.org.cn/show_article.php?id=1588. Accessed 4 February 2015. — . “Yiming suo jian xingshi zhidu yanjiu” 彜銘所見姓氏制度研究. M.A. thesis: Department of Archaeology, Beijing University, June 1994. Lally, J. J. Archaic Chinese Bronzes, Jades and Works of Art. New York: J. J. Lally and Co., 1994. Lambert, W. G. “Another Look at Hammurabi’s Ancestors.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 22.1 (1968): 1–2. Lau, Ulrich. Quellenstudien zur Landvergabe und Bodenübertragung in der westlichen Zhou-Dynastie (1045?–771 v. Chr.). Monumenta Serica Monograph Series 41. Sankt Augustin: Monumenta Serica, 1999. Legge, James, trans. The Chinese Classics. Vol. 5: The Ch’un Ts’ew with the Tso Chuen. London: Trubner, 1872. Repr. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1960. Li Boqian 李伯謙. “Shu Ze fangding mingwen kaoshi” 叔夨方鼎銘文考釋. Wenwu 文物 2001.8: 39–42.

298 · Bibliography —. “Zhongguo qingtong wenhua de fazhan jieduan yu fenqu xitong” 中國青 銅文化的發展階段與分區系統. Huaxia kaogu 華夏考古 1990.2: 82–91. Li Chaoyuan 李朝遠. “Lundun xin jian Qin Gong hu” 倫敦新見秦公壺. Zhongguo wenwu bao 中國文物報. 27 February 2004. —. “Qianzhangda mudi zhong de Shi ji qita: Du Tengzhou Qianzhangda mudi” 前掌大墓地中的史及其他— 讀《滕州前掌大墓地》. Dongfang kaogu 東方 考古 4 (2008): 154–61. —. Qingtongqi xuebu ji 青銅器學步集. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2007. —. “Shanghai bowuguan xin cang Qin qi yanjiu” 上海博物館新藏秦器研究. Shanghai bowuguan jikan 上海博物館集刊 2002.9. Repr. in Li Chaoyuan 李朝遠. Qingtongqi xuebu ji 青銅器學步集 . Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2007. Pp. 90–105. —. “Shanghai bowuguan xin huo Qin Gong qi yanjiu” 上海博物館新獲秦公器 研究. Shanghai bowuguan jikan 上海博物館集刊 1996.7: 23–33. Repr. in Li Chaoy uan 李朝遠 . Qing tongqi xuebu ji 青銅器學步集 . Beijing: Wenw u chubanshe, 2007. Pp. 77–89. —. “Shi Dao gui mingwen kaoshi” 師道簋銘文考釋. In Li Chaoyuan 李朝遠. Qingtongqixue bu ji 青銅器學步集 . Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2007. Pp. 243–50. —. “Ying Hou Xiangong ding” 應侯見工鼎. Shanghai bowuguan jikan 上海博 物館集刊 10 (2005). Repr. in Li Chaoyuan 李朝遠. Qingtongqi xuebu ji 青銅器學 步集. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2007. Pp. 282–93. Li, Fang Kuei. A Handbook of Comparative Tai. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawai’i, 1977. Li, Feng 李峰. “Ancient Reproductions and Calligraphic Variations: Studies of Western Zhou Bronzes with ‘Identical’ Inscriptions.” Early China 22 (1997): 1–41. —. Bureaucracy and the State in Early China: Governing the Western Zhou. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. —. Landscape and Power in Early China: The Crisis and Fall of the Western Zhou, 1045–771 BC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. —. “Lixian chutu Qin guo zaoqi tongqi ji jisi yizhi lunwang” 禮縣出土秦國早 期銅器及祭祀遺址論網. Wenwu 文物 2011.5: 55–67. —. “Transmitting Antiquity: The Origin and Paradigmization of the ‘Five Ranks.’” In Dieter Kuhn and Helga Stahl, eds. Perceptions of Antiquity in Chinese Civilization. Würzburger Sinologische Schriften. Heidelberg: Edition Forum, 2008. Pp. 109–14. Li Feng 李峰. “Huanghe liuyu Xi Zhou muzang chutu qingtong liqi de fenqi yu niandai” 黃河流域西周墓葬出土青銅禮器的分期與年代. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與 文物 1988.4: 383–418. Li Jinxi 黎錦熙. “Lun jinwen wenfa zhi Rong Geng shu” 論金文文法致容庚書. Shijie ribao 世界日報 226 (1.II.1936): 3. Li Ling 李零. “Chu ding tu shuo” 楚鼎圖説. In Li Ling 李零. Ru shan yu chu sai 入山 與出塞. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2004. Pp. 336–37.

Bibliography · 299 —. “Chuguo zuyuan, shixi de wenzixue zhengming” 楚國族源、世系的文字學 證明. In Li Ling 李零. Dai tu xuan wencun, Du shi juan 待兔軒文存，讀史卷. Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue chubanshe, 2011. Pp. 206–9. — . “‘Chushu zhi sun Peng’ jiujing shi shui?”「楚叔之孫倗」究竟是誰？. Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 1981.4: 36–37. —. “Hua Zi hu yu Xichuan Chu mu” 化子瑚與淅川楚墓. In Li Ling 李零. Ru shan yu chu sai 入山與出塞. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2004. Pp. 242–44. —. “Kaogu faxian yu shenhua chuanshuo” 考古發現與神話傳説. In Li Ling 李 零. Dai tu xuan wencun, Du shi juan 待兔軒文存，讀史卷. Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue chubanshe, 2011. Pp. 43–70. —. “Lun Bin Gong xu faxian de yiyi” 論e公盨發現的意義. In Sui Gong xu: Da Yu zhi shui yu wei zheng yi de e公盨：大禹治水與為政以德. Beijing: Xianzhuang shuju, 2002. Pp. 35–45. —. “Shi ji zhong suo jian Qin zaoqi duyi zangdi”《史記》中所見秦早期都邑葬地. Wenshi 文史 20 (1983): 19–23. —. “Zai lun Xichuan Xiasi Chu mu” 再論淅川下寺楚墓. In Li Ling 李零. Ru shan yu chu sai 入山與出塞. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2004. Pp. 225–41. Li Mengsheng 李夢生. Zuo zhuan yi zhu 左傳譯注. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 1998. Li Shanghong 李尚鴻. “Shanxi Jiangxian: Xi Zhou Peng guo guojun, furen mu chenshui 3000 nian” 山西絳縣：西周倗國國君、夫人墓沉睡3000年. San Jin dushi bao 三晉都市報 . 9 March 2009. At http://w w w.sx.chinanews.com.cn/ news/2009/0309/3110.html. Accessed 14 October 2010. Li Shiyuan 李世淵. “Yin-Zhou jinwen wenli yanjiu” 殷周金文文例研究. M.A. thesis: Guoli zhengzhi daxue, 2005. Li Xiaofeng 李曉峰. “Xi Zhou jinwen yuyan yanjiu de lishi yu xianzhuang” 西周金 文語言研究的歷史與現狀. Guji zhengli yanjiu xuekan 古籍整理研究學刊 2008.6: 83–86. Li Xixing 李西興. Shaanxi qingtongqi 陜西青銅器. Xi’an: Shaanxi renmin meishu, 1994. Li Xueqin 李學勤. “Chuguo Shen shi liang fu dushi” 楚國申氏兩簠讀釋. Jiang Han kaogu 江漢考古 2010.2: 117–18. —. “Chunqiu nanfang qingtongqi mingwen de yige tedian” 春秋南方青銅器銘 文的一個特點. In Ma Chengyuan 馬承源, ed. Wu Yue diqu qingtongqi yanjiu lunwenji 吳越地區青銅器研究論文集. Hong Kong: Liangmu chubanshe, 1997. Pp. 177–79. — . “Diao Sheng zhu qi mingwen liandu yanjiu” 琱生諸器銘文聯讀研究. Wenwu 文物 2007.8: 71–75. —. Eastern Zhou and Qin Civilization. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. — . “Jiangxian Hengbei cun da mu yu Peng guo” 絳縣橫北村大墓與䣙國. Zhongguo wenwu bao 中國文物報. 14 September 2007. P. 5. —. “Lun Lu gui de niandai” 論䚄簋的年代. Zhongguo lishi wenwu 中國歷史文 物 2006.3: 7–8.

300 · Bibliography —. “Lun Sui Gong xu ji qi zhongyao yiyi” 論e公盨及其重要意義. In Sui Gong xu: Da Yu zhi shui yu wei zheng yi de e公盨：大禹治水與為政以德. Beijing: Xianzhuang shuju, 2002. Pp. 4–12. —. “Lun Xi Zhou zhong qi zhi wan qi chu jinwen de zuhe” 論西周中期至晚期 初金文的組合. Shehui kexue zhanxian 社會科學戰線 2000.4: 262–67. —. “Lun Ying Hou Shigong zhu qi de shidai” 論應侯視工諸器的時代. Qingtong wenhua yanjiu 青銅文化研究 4 (2005). Repr. in Li Xueqin 李學勤. Wenwu zhong de gu wenming 文物中的古文明. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2008. Pp. 252–57. —. “Rongsheng bianzhong lunshi” 戎生編鐘論釋. In Baoli cang jin 保利藏金. [Guangzhou]: Lingnan meishu chubanshe, 1999. Pp. 375–78. —. “Shu Yu fangding shi zheng” 叔虞方鼎試證. In Shanghai bowuguan, ed. Jin hou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 晉侯墓地出土青 銅器國際學術研討會論文集. Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe, 2002. Pp. 249–51. —. “Tan Shu Ze fangding ji qita” 談叔夨方鼎及其他. Wenwu 文物 2001.10: 67–70. —. “Tan Xi Zhou Li Wang shi qi Bo Congfu gui” 談西周厲王時器伯 父簋. In An Zuozhang xiansheng shixue yanjiu liushi zhounian jinian wenji 安作璋先生史 學研究六十周年紀念文集. Jinan: Qi Lu shushe, 2007. Pp. 86–89. —. “Wen xu yu Zhou Xuan Wang zhong xing” 文盨與周宣王中興. Wenbo 文博 2008.2: 4–5. —. “You xin jian qingtongqi kan Xi Zhou zaoqi de E, Zeng, Chu” 由新見青銅 器看西周早期的鄂、曾、楚. Wenwu 文物 2010.1: 40–43. —. “Zhu Rong baxing” 祝融八姓. In Li Jinyun 李縉雲, ed. Li Xueqin xueshu wenhua suibi 李學勤學術文化隨筆. Beijing: Zhongguo qingnian chubanshe, 1999. Pp. 20–28. —, ed. Qinghua daxue cang Zhanguo Chu jian (yi) 清華大學藏戰國楚簡（壹）. Shanghai: Zhongxi shuju, 2011. Li Xueqin 李學勤 and Sarah Allan. “Zui xin chuxian de Qin Gong hu” 最新出現的 秦公壺. Zhongguo wenwubao 中國文物報. 30 October 1994. Li Yihai 李義海. “Liang Zhou jinwen xiuci yanjiu” 兩周金文修辭研究. Ph.D. diss.: Huadong shifan daxue, 2009. Li Yongdi 李永迪, Yue Zhanwei 岳占偉 and Liu Yu 劉煜. “Cong Xiaomintun dongnandi chutu tao fan dui Yinxu qingtongqi de jidian xin renshi” 從孝民屯東南地 出土陶範談對殷墟青銅器的幾點新認識. Kaogu 考古 2007.3: 52–63. Liang Yanmin 梁彥民. “Longxian xin faxian de niao wen fangzuo gui” 隴縣新發現 的鳥紋方座簋. Wenbo 文博 2001.5: 34–35. Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973–1980. Lin Hongying 林虹瑛, Murase Nozomu 村瀨望 and Furuya Akihira 古屋昭弘. “Sengoku moji ‘itsu’ ni tsuite” 戰國文字「 」について. Kaipian 開篇 23 (2004): 71–75.

Bibliography · 301 Lin Tianren 林天人. Xian Qin San Jin quyu wenhua yanjiu 先秦三晉區域文化研究. Taibei: Taiwan Guji chubanshe, 2003. Lin Yun 林澐. “‘Baixing’ guyi xinjie—Jian lun Zhongguo zaoqi guojia de shehui jichu”「百姓」古義新解 — 兼論中國早期國家的社會基礎. In Lin Yun 林澐. Lin Yun xueshu wenji (er) 林澐學術文集（二）. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2008. Pp. 270–78. —. “Cong Wuding shidai de jizhong ‘zi buci’ shi lun Shangdai de jiating xingtai” 從武丁時代的幾種「子卜辭」試論商代的家庭形態. Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字 研究 1 (1979): 214–336. —. “Diao Sheng zun yu Diao Sheng gui de liandu” 琱生尊與琱生簋的聯讀. Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字研究 27 (2008): 206–11. —. “Zhousheng gui xinshi” 琱生簋新釋. Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字研究 3 (1980): 120–35. Linduff, Katheryn M., Emma C. Bunker and Wu En. “An Archaeological Overview.” In Ancient Bronzes of the Eastern Eurasian Steppes from the Arthur M. Sackler Collections. New York: Arthur M. Sackler Foundation, 1997. Pp. 18–98. Liu Baojun 劉寶俊. “Dong bu guixiang de shidai he diyu tedian yu shanggu Chu fangyin” 冬部歸向的時代和地域特點與上古楚方音. Zhongnan minzu xueyuan xuebao 中南民族學院學報 44.5 (1990): 79–86. Liu Binhui 劉彬徽. “Chuji zhong mingwen yanjiu” 楚季鐘銘文研究. Chutu wenxian yu guwenzi yanjiu wangzhan 出土文獻與古文字研究網站 (Fudan University). 11 December 2012. At http://www.gwz.fudan.edu.cn/SrcShow.asp?Src_ID=1974. Accessed 4 February 2015. — . “Jinnian Chu xi qingtongqi yanjiu shuping” 近年楚系青銅器研究述評. Hunan sheng bowuguan guankan 湖南省博物館舘刊 3 (2006): 176–77. Liu Huaijun 劉懷君 and Liu Junshe 劉君社. “Shaanxi Meixian Yangjia cun Xi Zhou qingtongqi jiaocang” 陝西眉縣楊家村西周青銅器窖藏. Kaogu yu wenwu 考 古與文物 2003.3: 3–12. Liu Huaxia 劉華夏 and Liu Kefu 劉克甫. “‘Bo,’ ‘Zhong,’ ‘Shu,’ ‘Ji’ yu Xi Zhou Jin hou shixi”「伯」、「仲」、「叔」、「季」與西周晉侯世系. Kaogu 考古 2008.4: 72–77. Liu, Li and Chen Xingcan. The Archaeology of China from the Late Paleolithic to the Early Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. —. State Formation in Early China. London: Duckworth, 2003. Liu Qiyi 劉啟益. “Xi Zhou Ze guo tongqi de xin faxian yu youguan de lishi dili wenti” 西周 國銅器的新發現與有關的歷史地理問題. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文 物 1982.6: 42–46. Liu Yu 劉雨. “Shu Ze fangding ming de runyue yu jili” 叔夨方鼎銘的閏月與祭禮. In Shanghai bowuguan, ed. Jin hou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 晉侯墓地出土青銅器國際學術研討會論文集. Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe, 2002. Pp. 266–71. Liu Yu 劉雨 and Lu Yan 盧岩, eds. Jin chu Yin Zhou jinwen jilu 近出殷周金文集錄. 4 vols. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2002. Liu Yu 劉雨 and Yan Zhibin 嚴志斌, eds. Jin chu Yin Zhou jinwen jilu erbian 近出殷 周金文集錄二編. 4 vols. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2010.

302 · Bibliography Liu Yunxing 劉運興. “Wu Ding fa Guifang jinjun luxian ji qita” 武丁伐鬼方進軍路 線及其他. Yindu xuekan 殷都學刊 1987.2: 22–27. Liu Zhao 劉釗 . Guwenzi gouxingxue 古文字構形學. Fuzhou: Fujian renmin chubanshe, 2006. —. “Tan guwenzi ziliao zai gu Hanyu yanjiu de zhongyaoxing” 談古文字資料 在古漢語研究的重要性. Gu Hanyu yanjiu 古漢語研究 2005.3: 54–58. Liu Zhao 劉釗 and Ye Yuying 葉玉英. “Liyong guwenzi ziliao de shangguyin fenqi fenyu yanjiu shuping” 利用古文字資料的上古音分期分域研究述評. Gu Hanyu yanjiu 古漢語研究 2008.2: 10–18. Liu Zhicheng 劉志成. “Liang Zhou jinwen yinxi de shengmu xitong” 兩周金文音系 的聲母系統. Chuandong xuekan 川東學刊 1995.3: 71–76. —. “Liang Zhou jinwen yundou he Shijing yundou zhi bijiao” 兩周金文韻讀和 詩經韻讀之比較. Chuandong xuekan 川東學刊 1996.3: 75–78, 83. Liulihe kaogudui. “1981–1983 nian Liulihe Xi Zhou Yanguo mudi fajue jianbao” 1981–1983年琉璃河西周燕國墓地發掘簡報. Kaogu 考古 1984.5: 405–16, 404. —. “Liulihe yizhi 1996 niandu fajue jianbao” 琉璃河遺址1996年度發掘簡報. Wenwu 文物 1997.6: 4–13. Lixian bowuguan et al. Qin Xichui lingqu 秦西垂陵區. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2004. Lü Dalin 呂大臨. Kaogu tu 考古圖. Repr. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1987. Lu Liancheng 盧連成. Baoji Yu guo mudi 寶雞 國墓地. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1988. —. “Xi Zhou Ze guo shiji kaolüe ji xiangguan wenti” 西周夨國史蹟考略及相關 問題. In Wang Guo 王果 and Zhang Yuliang 張玉良, eds. Xi Zhou shi yanjiu 西周 史研究. Xi’an: Renwen zazhi bianjibu, 1984. Pp. 294–303. Lu Liancheng 盧連成 and Yin Shengping 尹盛平. “Gu Ze guo yizhi, mudi diaocha ji” 古 國遺址、墓地調查記. Wenwu 文物 1982.2: 48–57. Lü Zhirong 呂智榮. “Lijiaya gu chengzhi AF1 jianzhu yizhi chutan” 李家崖古城址 AF1建築遺址初探. In Zhou Qin wenhua yanjiu 周秦文化研究. Xi’an: Shaanxi renmin chubanshe, 1998. Pp. 116–23. —. “Lijiaya wenhua yinsu fenxi ji qi xiangguan wenti” 李家崖文化因素分析及 其相關問題 . Shaanxi lishi bowuguan guankan 陝西歷史博物館館刊 2001.8: 363–71. —. “Shaanxi Ansai xian Xiguaqucun yizhi shijue jianbao” 陜西安塞縣西坬渠 村遺址試掘簡報. Huaxia kaogu 華夏考古 2007.2: 10–17. Luo Jiangwen 羅江文. “Cong jinwen kan shanggu linjin yun de fenli” 從金文看上古 鄰近韻的分立. Gu Hanyu yanjiu 古漢語研究 1996.3: 27–29, 14. —. “Cong jinwen yongyun he wenzi de tongyixing kan liang Zhou yayan shumianyu” 從金文用韻和文字的統一性看兩周雅言書面語. Yuxi shizhuan xuebao 玉溪師專學報 1995.1: 21–23. —. “Liang Zhou jinwen yunli” 兩周金文韻例. Yuxi shizhuan xuebao 玉溪師專 學報 1994.1/2: 61–66. —. “Tan liang Zhou jinwen heyun de xingzhi—Jian ji shanggu ‘Chu yin’” 談

Bibliography · 303 兩周金文合韻的性質— 兼及上古「楚音」. Chuxiong shizhuan xuebao 楚雄師專 學報 14.4 (1999): 73–77. Luo Tai 羅泰. “Youguan Xi Zhou wanqi lizhi gaige ji Zhuangbai Wei shi qingtongqi niandai de jiashe: Cong shi xi mingwen shuo qi” 有關西周晚期禮制改革及莊白微 氏青銅器年代的假設：從世襲銘文說起. In Zang Zhenhua 臧振華, ed. Zhongguo kaoguxue yu lishixue zhi zhenghe yanjiu 中國考古學與歷史學之整合研究. 2 vols. Zhongyang yanjiuyuan Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo huiyi lunwenji zhi si 中央研究院 歷史語言研究所會議論文集之四. Taibei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan Lishi yuyan

yanjiusuo, 1997. Vol. 2. Pp. 651–76. Ma Baochun 馬保春. “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou Peng guo da mu de xiangguan lishi dili wenti” 山西絳縣橫水西周倗國大墓的相關歷史地理問題 . Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2007.6: 37–43. — . “You Jinnan Erligang qi zao Shang wenhua de fenbu lun qi jinru chuanbo” 由晉南二里岡期早商文化的分布論其進入傳播. Zhongyuan wenwu 中原 文物 2004.6: 23–33. Ma Chengyuan 馬承源. “Guanyu Liao Sheng xu he Zhe Jian zhong de jidian yijian” 關於翏生盨和者減鐘的幾點意見. Kaogu 考古 1979.1: 60–65. —. Zhongguo qingtongqi 中國青銅器. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 1988. Ma Chengyuan 馬承源, Jiang Dayi 將大沂, Chen Peifen 陳佩芬, Pan Jianming 潘建 明, Chen Jianmin 陳建敏 and Pu Maozuo 濮茅左. Shang-Zhou qingtongqi mingwen xuan 商周青銅器銘文選 . 4 vols. Beijing: Wenw u chubanshe, 1986–1990. Ma Heng 馬衡. Zhongguo jinshixue gaiyao 中國金石學概要. Taibei: Yiwen yinshuguan, 1967. Repr. in Fanjiangzhai jinshi conggao 凡將齋金石叢稿. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1977. Ma Mingzhi 馬明誌. “Xicha wenhua chubu yanjiu” 西岔文化初步研究. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2009.5: 38–45. Mattos, Gilbert L. “Eastern Zhou Bronze Inscriptions.” In Edward L. Shaughnessy, ed. New Sources of Early Chinese History: An Introduction to the Reading of Inscriptions and Manuscripts. Early China Special Monographs 3. Berkeley: The Society for the Study of Early China, and Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1997. Pp. 85–123. Mei Zulin 梅祖麟. “Gudai Chu fangyan zhong ‘xi (?xi)’ zi de ciyi he yuyuan” 古代 楚方言中「夕（ ）」字的詞義和語源. Fangyan 方言 1981.3: 215–18. Meng Guangdao 孟廣道. “Shengfu leizeng xianxiang chutan” 聲符纍增現象初探. Gu Hanyu yanjiu 古漢語研究 47.2 (2000): 10–13. Milburn, Olivia. “Kingship and Inheritance in the State of Wu: Fraternal Succession in the Spring and Autumn Period China (772–475 BC).” T’oung Pao 90.4 (2004): 195–214. Mu Xiaojun 穆曉軍. “Shaanxi Chang’an xian chutu Xi Zhou Wu Hu ding” 陝西長 安縣出土西周吳虎鼎. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 1998.3: 69–71. Nara kokuritsu bijutsukan 奈良國立美術館. Nara: Nara kokuritsu bijutsukan, 2005.

304 · Bibliography Neimenggu zizhiqu wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Eerduosi bowuguan. Zhukaigou: Qingtongqi shidai zaoqi yizhi fajue baogao 朱開溝：青銅器時代早期遺址發掘報告. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2000. Neimenggu zizhiqu wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Ningcheng xian Liao Zhongjing bowuguan. Xiaoheishigou: Xiajiadian shang ceng wenhua yizhi fajue baogao 小 黑石溝：夏家店上層文化遺址發掘報告. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2009. Nivison, David N. “Dates of Western Chou.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 43 (1983): 481–580. Pan Wuyun 潘悟雲. “Han-Zangyu de ciyao yinjie 漢藏語的次要音節. In Pan Wuyun 潘悟雲 and Shi Feng 石峰, eds. Zhongguo yuyanxue de xin tuozhan 中國 語言學的新拓展. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press, 1998. Pp. 126–47. Pan Yukun 潘玉坤. Xi Zhou jinwen yuxu yanjiu 西周金文語序研究. Shanghai: Huadong shifan daxue chubanshe, 2005. Peiros, Ilia. Comparative Linguistics in Southeast Asia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, National University of Australia, 1998. Pines, Yuri. “Beasts or Humans: Pre-Imperial Origins of the Sino-Barbarian Dichotomy.” In R. Amitai and M. Biran, eds. Mongols, Turks and Others: Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary World. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2004. Pp. 59–102. Pittayaporn, Pittayawat. “The Phonology of Proto-Tai.” Ph.D. diss.: Cornell University, 2009. Qi Sihe 齊思和. “Xi Zhou dili kao” 西周地理考. Yanjing xuebao 燕京學報 30 (1946). Repr. in Qi Sihe 齊思和. Zhongguo shi tanyan 中國史探研. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1981. Pp. 27–49. Qian Mu 錢穆. “Xi Zhou Rong huo kao” 西周戎禍考. In Gushi dili luncong 古史地理 論叢. Taibei: Dongda tushu, 1982. Qian Zongfan 錢宗範 . Zhoudai zongfa zhidu yanjiu 周代宗法制度研究. Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue chubanshe, 1989. Qian Zongwu 錢宗武. Jinwen Shangshu yufa yanjiu 金文尚書語法研究. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2004. Qin Jiamo 秦嘉謨 et al., eds. Shi ben ba zhong 世本八種. Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1957. Qin Xiaoli 秦小麗. “Jin xinan diqu Erlitou wenhua dao Erligang wenhua de taoqi yanbian yanjiu” 晉西南地區二里頭文化到二里岡文化的陶器演變研究. Kaogu 考古 2006.2: 56–72. Qin Ying 秦穎, Qin Ya 秦亞, Xie Yaoting 謝堯亭 and Liu Wenqi 劉文齊. “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengbei Xi Zhou mudi rengu qian hanliang fenxi” 山西絳縣橫北西周 墓地人骨鉛含量分析. Wenwu 文物 2009.7: 43–47. Qiu Shi 求實. “Henan Xichuan Heshangling Chu mu niandai chuyi” 河南淅川和尚 嶺楚墓年代芻議. Zhongguo wenwu bao 中國文物報. 18 October 1992. Qiu Xigui 裘錫圭. “Bin Gong xu mingwen kaoshi” e公盨銘文考釋. In Sui Gong xu: Da Yu zhi shui yu wei zheng yi de e公盨：大禹治水與為政以德. Beijing: Xianzhuang shuju, 2002. Pp. 13–27.

Bibliography · 305 —. Gu wenzi lunji 古文字論集. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1992. —. “Guanyu Shangdai de zongzu zuzhi yu guizu he pingmin liangge jieji de chubu yanjiu” 關於商代的宗族組織與貴族和平民兩個階級的初步研究. In Qiu Xigui 裘錫圭. Gudai wenshi yanjiu xintan 古代文史研究新探. Nanjing: Jiangsu Guji chubanshe, 1992. Pp. 303–10. Rao Zongyi 饒宗頤. “Qinjian rishu zhong ‘xi’ (?xi) zi hanyi de shangque” 秦簡日書 中「夕」 （ ）字含義的商榷. Zhongguo yuyan xuebao 中國語言學報 1982.1: 167–72. —. “You gu Tang guo tan Tangshu Yu feng di yu ‘Shu Ze’ ji ‘Xiefu’ wenti” 由 古唐國談唐叔虞封地與「叔夨」及「燮父」問題. In Rao Zongyi xin chutu wenxian lunzheng 饒宗頤新出土文獻論證. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2005. Pp. 133–37. Rawson, Jessica. “A Bronze Casting Revolution in the Western Zhou and Its Impact on Provincial Industries.” In Robert Maddin, ed. The Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys: Papers from the Second International Conference on the Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys, Zhengzhou, China, 21–26 October 1986. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1988. Pp. 228–38. —. Western Zhou Ritual Bronzes from the Arthur M. Sackler Collections. 2 vols. New York: Arthur M. Sackler Foundation; Cambridge, Mass.: Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University, 1990. Ren Song 韌松 and Fan Weiyue 樊維岳. “Ji Shaanxi Lantian xian xin chutu de Ying Hou zhong” 記陜西藍田縣新出土的應侯鐘. Wenwu 文物 1975.10: 68–69. Renfrew, Colin. “Introduction: Peer-Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change.” In Colin Renfrew, ed. Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Richter, Ursula. Zweifel am Altertum: Gu Jiegang und die Diskussion über Chinas alte Geschichte als Konsequenz der neuen Kulturbewegung ca. 1915–1923. Münchener Ostasiatische Studien 60. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1992. Rong Geng 容庚. “Zhou jinwen zhong suo jian daimingci shi li” 周金文中所見代名 詞釋例. Yanjing xuebao 燕京學報 6 (1929): 1041–46. Ruan Yuan 阮元. Jigu zhai zhong ding yi qi kuanzhi 積古齋鐘鼎彝器款識. Yangzhou, 1804. Rudolph, R. C. “Preliminary Notes on Sung Archaeology.” Journal of Asian Studies 22 (1962–1963): 169–77. Rui Yifu 芮逸夫. Zhongguo minzu ji qi wenhua lungao 中國民族及其文化論稿. 3 vols. Taibei: Yiwen yinshuguan, 1972. Sagart, Laurent. The Roots of Old Chinese. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 184. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1999. Schneider, Laurence A. Ku Chieh-kang and China’s New History: Nationalism and the Quest for Alternative Traditions. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971. Schuessler, Axel C. ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2007. Pp. 1–130. —. Minimal Old Chinese and Later Han Chinese. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2009.

306 · Bibliography Sena, David M. “Arraying the Ancestors in Ancient China: Narratives of Lineage History in the ‘Scribe Qiang’ and ‘Qiu’ Bronzes.” Asia Major 25.1 (2012): 63–81. —. “Reproducing Society: Lineage and Kinship in Western Zhou China.” Ph.D. diss.: University of Chicago, 2005. Shaanxi lishi bowuguan, ed. San Qin guibao 三秦瑰寶. Xi’an: Shaanxi renmin chubanshe, 2001. “Shaanxi Meixian chutu jiaocang tongqi bitan” 陝西眉縣出土窖藏銅器筆談. Wenwu 文物 2003.6: 43–65. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo. “Shaanxi Shenmu Xinhua yizhi 1999 nian fajue jianbao” 陜西神木新華遺址1999年發掘簡報. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2002.1: 3–12. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Baoji shi kaogu gongzuodui and Meixian wenhuaguan. “Shaanxi Meixian Yangjia cun Xi Zhou qingtongqi jiaocang fajue jianbao” 陝西眉縣楊家村西周青銅器窖藏發掘簡報 . Wenwu 文物 2003.6: 4–42. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al. Shaanxi chutu Shang Zhou qingtongqi 陝西出 土商周青銅器. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1979. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiuyuan and Shanghai bowuguan, eds. Jin yu hua nian: Shaanxi Hancheng chutu Zhou dai Rui guo wenwu zhenpin 金玉華年：陝西韓城 出土周代芮國文物珍品 (Added English Title: Golden Age of the Rui State: Zhou Dynasty Treasures from Hancheng, Shaanxi Province). Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe, 2012. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiuyuan, Weinan shi wenwu baohu kaogu yanjiusuo and Hancheng shi wenwu lüyouju. “Shaanxi Hancheng Liangdaicun mudi beiqu 2007 nian fajue jianbao” 陝西韓城梁帶村墓地北區2007年發掘簡報. Wenwu 文物 2010.6: 4–20. —. “Shaanxi Hancheng Liangdaicun Rui guo mudi M28 de fajue” 陝西韓城梁 帶村芮國墓地M28的發掘. Kaogu 考古 2009.4: 3–15. —. “Shaanxi Hancheng Liangdaicun yizhi M19 fajue jianbao” 陝西韓城梁帶 村遺址M19發掘簡報. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2007.2: 3–14. —. “Shaanxi Hancheng Liangdaicun yizhi M26 fajue jianbao” 陜西韓城梁帶 村遺址M26發掘簡報. Wenwu 文物 2008.1: 4–21. —. “Shaanxi Hancheng Liangdaicun yizhi M27 fajue jianbao” 陝西韓城梁帶 村遺址M27發掘簡報. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2007.6: 3–22. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiuyuan, Yulin shi wenwu kaogu kantan gongzuodui and Shenmu xian wenbenju. “Shaanxi Shenmu xian Shimao yizhi” 陜西神木縣石峁 遺址. Kaogu 考古 2013.7: 15–24. Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiuyuan and Zhendan yishu bowuguan, eds. Rui guo jin yu xuancui: Shaanxi Hancheng Chunqiu baocang 芮國金玉選粹：陝西韓城春秋寶 藏. Xi’an: San Qin chubanshe, 2007. Shaanxi sheng wenguanhui Qin mu fajuezu. “Shaanxi Huxian Songcun Chunqiu Qin mu fajue jianbao” 陜西戶縣宋村春秋秦墓發掘簡報. Wenwu 文物 1975.10: 55–67. Shaanxi sheng wenwuju and Zhonghua shiji tan yishuguan, eds. Sheng shi jijin:

Bibliography · 307 Shaanxi Baoji Meixian qingtongqi jiaocang 盛世吉金：陝西寶雞眉縣青銅器窖藏. Beijing: Beijing chubanshe, 2003. Shang shu zheng yi 尚書正義. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 1990. Shanghai bowuguan. Shanghai bowuguan cang qingtongqi 上海博物館藏青銅器. Shanghai: Shanghai renmin meishu chubanshe, 1964. Shanghai bowuguan, ed. Jin hou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 晉侯墓地出土青銅器國際學術研討會論文集. Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe, 2002. Shanghai bowuguan and Xianggang Zhongwen daxue Wenwuguan, eds. Zhongguo gudai qingtongqi guoji yantaohui lunwenji 中國古代青銅器國際研討會 論文集. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2010. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo. “2004 Liulin Gaohong Shang dai hangtu jizhi shijue jianbao” 2004 柳林高紅商代夯土基址試掘簡報 . In Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, ed. San Jin kaogu (3) 三晉考古（3）. Taiyuan: Shanxi renmin chubanshe, 2006. Pp. 116–27. — . “Shanxi Tunliu Xiligao yizhi fajue” 山西屯留西李高遺址發掘. Wenwu chunqiu 文物春秋 2009.3: 14–25. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo and Beijing daxue Kaoguxue xi. “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jin Hou mudi di san ci fajue” 天馬—曲村遺址北趙晉侯墓地第三次 發掘. Wenwu 文物 1994.8: 22–34. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo Dahekou mudi lianhe kaogudui. “Shanxi Yicheng xian Dahekou Xi Zhou mudi” 山西翼城縣大河口西周墓地. Kaogu 考古 2011.7: 9–18. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al. “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou mudi” 山西絳縣橫水西周墓地. Kaogu 考古 2006.7: 16–21. —. “Shanxi Jiangxian Liuzhuang Xia Shang yizhi fajue baogao” 山西絳縣柳莊 夏商遺址發掘報告. Huaxia kaogu 華夏考古 2010.2: 12–23, 43. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Yuncheng shi wenwu gongzuozhan and Jiangxian wenhuaju. “Shanxi Jiangxian Hengshui Xi Zhou mu fajue jianbao” 山西絳縣橫 水西周墓發掘簡報. Wenwu 文物 2006.8: 4–18. Shanxi sheng wenwu gongzuo weiyuanhui and Hongtong xian wenwu ju. “Shanxi Hongtong Yongningpu Xi Zhou muzang” 山西洪洞永凝堡西周墓葬. Kaogu 考古 1987.2: 1–16. Shaughnessy, Edward L. “The Bin Gong Xu Inscription and the Beginnings of the Chinese Literary Tradition.” In Wilt Idema, ed. Books in Numbers: SeventyFifth Anniversary of the Harvard-Yenching Library, Conference Papers. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2007. Pp. 1–19. —. “Chronologies of Ancient China: A Critique of the ‘Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project.’” In Clara Wing-chung Ho, ed. Windows on the Chinese World: Reflections by Five Historians. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2008. Pp. 15–28. —. “Extra-Lineage Cult in the Shang Dynasty.” Early China 11–12 (1985– 1987): 182–94. —. “New Sources of Western Zhou History: Recent Discoveries of Inscribed

308 · Bibliography Bronze Vessels.” Early China 26–27 (2001–2002): 73–98. — . Sources of Western Zhou History: Inscribed Bronze Vessels. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. —. “Western Zhou Bronze Inscriptions.” In Edward L. Shaughnessy, ed. New Sources of Early Chinese History: An Introduction to the Reading of Inscriptions and Manuscripts. Berkeley: Society for the Study of Early China, and Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1997. Pp. 57–84. —. “Western Zhou History.” In Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy, eds. The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Pp. 292–351. —. “The Writing of a Late Western Zhou Bronze Inscription.” Asiatische Studien/Études Asiatiques 61.3 (2007): 845–77. — . “The Zhou Dynasty and the Birth of the Son of Heaven.” In Maria Khayutina, ed. Qin—The Eternal Emperor and His Terracotta Warriors. Zürich: NZZ Libro, 2013. Pp. 17–26. —, ed. New Sources of Early Chinese History: An Introduction to the Reading of Inscriptions and Manuscripts. Berkeley: Society for the Study of Early China, and Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1997. Shen Changyun 沈長雲. “Xin chu Shu Yao fangding zhong yao zi de shidu wenti” 新出叔夭方鼎中夭字的釋讀問題. In Shanghai bowuguan, ed. Jin hou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 晉侯墓地出土青銅器國際學術研討會 論文集. Shanghai: Shanghai huhua chubanshe, 2002. Pp. 253–57. Shen Chunhui 沈春暉. “Zhou jinwen zhong zhi ‘shuangbinyu jushi’” 周金文中之 「雙賓語句式」. Yanjing xuebao 燕京學報 20 (1936): 375–408. Shenzhen bowuguan, ed. San Qin guibao 三秦瑰寶. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2010. Shi Bing 時兵. Shanggu Hanyu shuangjiwu jiegou yanjiu 上古漢語雙及物結構研究. Hefei: Anhui daxue chubanshe, 2007. Shi Yumei 師玉梅. “Xi Zhou jinwen yinyun kaocha” 西周金文音韻考察. Ph.D. diss.: Zhongshan daxue, 2004. Shim, Jaehoon. “The Jinhou Su Bianzhong Inscription and Its Significance.” Early China 22 (1997): 43–75. Shima Kunio 島邦男. Yinxu buci yanjiu 殷墟卜辭研究. Trans. Pu Maozuo 濮茅左 and Gu Weiliang 顧偉良. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2006. Shirakawa Shizuka 白川靜. Kinbun tsûshaku 金文通釋. 56 vols. Kobe: Hakutsuru bijitsukan, 1962–1984. —. “Seishû kôki no kinbun to shihen” 西周後期の金文と詩編. Ritsumeikan bungaku 立命館文學 264–65 (1967): 467–504. Shouyang zhai, Shanghai bowuguan and Xianggang Zhongwen daxue Wenwuguan, eds. Shouyang jijin: Hu Yingying, Fan Jirong cang Zhongguo gudai qingtongqi 首陽吉金：胡盈瑩、范季融藏中國古代青銅器. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2008. Shui jing zhu shu 水經注疏. Nanjing: Jiangsu Guji chubanshe, 1989. Sima Qian. The Grand Scribe’s Records, vol. 1: The Basic Annals of Pre-Han China.

Bibliography · 309 Ed. William H. Nienhauser. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994. Sima Qian 司馬遷. Shi ji 史記. 2nd ed., Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1982. So, Jenny F. “Antiques in Antiquity: Early Chinese Looks at the Past.” Journal of Chinese Studies 48 (2008): 374–406. Sui Gong xu: Da Yu zhi shui yu wei zheng yi de e公盨：大禹治水與為政以德. Beijing: Xianzhuang shuju, 2002. Suizhou shi bowuguan, ed. Suizhou chutu wenwu jingcui 隨州出土文物精粹. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2009. Sun Hua 孫華. “Yan Hou Ke qi mingwen qianjian: Jian tan Shao Gong feng Yan ji qi xiangguan wenti” 匽侯克器銘文淺見：兼談召公封燕及其相關問題 . In Chen Guang 陳光 , ed. Yan wenhua yanjiu lunwenji 燕文化研究論文集 . Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1995. Pp. 278–86. Sun Yabing 孫亞冰. “Yang guo kao” 昜國考. Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字研究 27 (2008): 42–47. Sun, Yan. “Bronzes, Mortuary Practice and Political Strategies of the Yan in North China.” Antiquity 77.298 (2003): 761–70. —. “Colonizing China’s Northern Frontier: Yan and Her Neighbors during the Early Western Zhou Period.” International Journal of Historical Archaeology 10.2 (2006): 159–77. Sun Zhanwei 孫戰偉. “Xi Zhou tao da kou zun leixing ji qi fenbu tezheng” 西周陶 大口尊類型及其分布特徵. Wenbo 文博 2010.6: 23–28. Takagi Satomi 高木智見. Xian Qin shehui yu sixiang: Shi lun Zhongguo wenhua de hexin 先秦社會與思想：試論中國文化的核心. Trans. He Xiaoyi 何曉毅. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2011. Takashima Ken’ichi 高嶋謙一. “Jinwen he Shangshu zhong de zhishici jue/jue zi yanjiu” 金文和《尚書》中的指示詞氒／厥字研究. In Collected Essays in Ancient Chinese Grammar. Collection des Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 6. Paris: CRLAO/EHESS, 2001. Pp. 130–60. Tang Jiahong 唐嘉弘. “Lun Chu wang de jicheng zhidu—Jian lun xian Qin junwei chuanxi de yanbian” 論楚王的繼承制度— 兼論先秦君位傳襲的演變. Zhongzhou xuekan 中州學刊 1990.1: 109–14. Tang Jigen 唐際根 and Jing Zhichun 荊志淳. “Anyang de ‘Shang yi’ yu ‘Da yi Shang’” 安陽的「商邑」與「大邑商」. Kaogu 考古 2009.9: 70–80. Tang Lan 唐蘭. “Yi Hou Ze gui kaoshi” 宜侯夨簋考釋. Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1956.2: 79–83. Tang Yuming 唐鈺明. “Guwenzi ziliao de yufa yanjiu shuping” 古文字資料的語法研 究述評. Zhongshan daxue xuebao 中山大學學報 1998.4: 57–64. —. “Jinwen fuyinci jianlun—Jianlun Hanyu fuyinhua de qiyuan” 金文復音詞 簡論 — 兼論漢語復音化的起源 . Repr. in Zhuming Zhongguo yuyan xuejia zixuan ji: Tang Yuming 著名中國語言學家自選集・唐鈺明. Hefei: Anhui jiaoyu chubanshe, 2002. Pp. 117–35. Thorp, Robert. China in the Early Bronze Age: Shang Civilization. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. Thurgood, Graham. “Notes on the Reconstruction of Kam-Sui.” In Jerold A.

310 · Bibliography Edmondson and David B. Solnit, eds. Comparative Kadai: Linguistic Studies Beyond Tai. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1988. Pp. 179–218. Tian Jianwen 田建文. “Lingshi Jingjie Shang mu yu Shanxi Shang dai wanqi kaoguxue wenhua” 靈石旌介商墓與山西商代晚期考古學文化. Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 2009.1: 39–44, 61. Venture, Olivier. “La question de «écritures chinoises» à l’époque des Royaumes combattantes.” Arts Asiatiques 61 (2006): 30–44. Wang Entian 王恩田. “Henan Gushi ‘Gouwu furen mu’—Jian lun Pan guo dili weizhi ji Wu fa Chu luxian” 河南固始「勾吳夫人墓」— 兼論番國地理位置及吳 伐楚路線. Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 1985.2: 59–62, 64. Wang Guanying 王冠英. “Lu gui kaoshi” 䚄簋考釋. Zhongguo lishi wenwu 中國歷史 文物 2006.3: 4–6. Wang Guowei 王國維. “Archaeology in the Sung Dynasty” (paper read before the Peking Historical Association; trans. by C. H. Liu 劉崇鋐). The China Journal 6.5 (1927): 222–30. —. Guantang jilin 觀堂集林. 1923. Repr. Taibei: Yiwen yinshuguan, 1956. —. “Guifang Kun Yi Xianyun kao” 鬼方昆夷獫狁考. In Peng Lin 彭林, ed. Guantang jilin 觀堂集林. 1923. Repr. Shijiazhuang: Hebei jiaoyu chubanshe, 2001. Pp. 296–307. —. Jinben Zhushu jinian shuzheng 今本竹書紀年疏證. In Fang Shiming 方詩銘 and Wang Xiuling 王修齡. Guben Zhushu jinian jizheng 古本竹書紀年輯證. Rev. 2nd ed., Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2008. —. “Yin Zhou zhidu lun” 殷周制度論. In Wang Guowei 王國維. Guantang jilin 觀堂集林. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1959. Pp. 451–80. —. “Zhu Gong zhong ba” 邾公鐘跋. In Wang Guowei 王國維. Guantang jilin 觀堂集林. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1959. P. 894. Wang, Haicheng. “Writing and the State in Early China in Comparative Perspective.” Ph.D. diss.: Princeton University, 2007. Wang Haifen 王海芬. “Xi Zhou jinwen yufa yanjiu du hou”《西周金文語法研究》讀後. Zhongguo yuwen 中國語文 1982.6: 469–71. Wang Hanzhang 王翰章, Chen Lianghe 陳良和 and Li Baolin 李保林. “Hu gui gai ming jianshi” 虎簋蓋銘簡釋. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 1997.3: 78–80. Wang Hui 王輝. “Diao Sheng san qi kaoshi” 琱生三器考釋. Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 2008.1: 39–64. —. “Du Fufeng xian Wujun cun jiaocang tongqi mingwen xiao ji” 讀扶風縣五 郡村窖藏銅器銘文小記. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2007.4: 13–15. —. “Guanyu Qinzi ge, mao de jige wenti” 關於秦子戈、矛的幾個問題. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 1986.6: 80–82. —. Guwenzi tongjia zidian 古文字通假字典. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2008. —. “Ye tan Lixian Dabuzishan Qin Gong mudi ji qi tongqi” 也談禮縣大堡子山 秦公墓地及其銅器. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 1998.5: 88–93. Wang Kelin 王克林 and Hai Jindong 海金東. “Shanxi Fenyang xian Yudaohe yizhi diaocha” 山西汾陽縣峪道河遺址調查. Kaogu 考古 1983.11: 961–65, 972. Wang Longzheng 王龍正, Liu Xiaohong 劉曉紅 and Cao Guopeng 曹國朋. “Xin jian

Bibliography · 311 Ying Hou Xiangong gui mingwen kaoshi” 新見應侯見工簋銘文考釋. Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 2009.5: 54–58. Wang Mingke 王明珂. “Lun panfu: Jindai Yan Huang zisun guozu jian’gou de gudai jichu” 論攀附：近代炎黃子孫國族建構的古代基礎. Zhongyang yanjiuyuan Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊 73.3 (2002): 583–624. Wang Pinzhen 王聘珍, ed. Da Dai Li ji jiegu 大戴禮記解詁. Repr. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1983. Wang Qiming 汪啟明. Xian Qin liang Han Qiyu yanjiu 先秦兩漢齊語研究 . Chengdu: Ba-Shu shushe, 1998. Wang Shimin 王世民. “Xi Zhou Chunqiu jinwen zhong de zhuhou juecheng” 西周 春秋金文中的諸侯爵稱. Lishi yanjiu 歷史研究 1983.3: 3–17. —. “Xi Zhou shidai zhuhou fangguo qingtongqi gaishu” 西周時代諸侯方國青 銅器概述. In Zhongguo qingtongqi quanji bianji weiyuanhui, ed. Zhongguo qingtongqi quanji 6 中國青銅器全集6. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1997. Pp. 1–34. Wang Shimin 王世民 et al., eds. Xi Zhou qingtongqi fenqi duandai yanjiu 西周青銅 器分期斷代研究. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1999. Wang, Tao. Chinese Bronzes from the Meiyintang Collection. London: Paradou Writing Ltd., 2009. Wang Yonggang 王永剛, Cui Fengguang 崔風光 and Li Yanli 李延麗. “Shaanxi Ganquan xian chutu wan Shang qingtongqi” 陜西甘泉縣出土晚商青銅器. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2007.3: 11–22. Wang Yuzhe 王玉哲. “Guifang kao” 鬼方考 (1945). In Wang Yuzhe 王玉哲. Gu shi jilin 古史集林. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2002. Pp. 289–308. —. “Guifang kao buzheng” 鬼方考補正. In Wang Yuzhe 王玉哲. Gu shi jilin 古 史集林. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2002. Pp. 309–17. Wang Zewen 王澤文. “Chunqiu shiqi de jinian tongqi mingwen yu Zuo zhuan de duizhao yanjiu” 春秋時期的紀年銅器銘文與左傳的對照研究. Ph.D. diss.: Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Yanjiuyuan, 2002. Wang Zhankui 王占奎. “Diao Sheng san qi mingwen kaoshi” 琱生三器銘文考釋. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2007.5: 105–8. Wang Zhen 王振 and Chen Honghai 陳洪海. “Shaanxi Chunhua Zaoshugounao yizhi 2008 niandu fajue de zhuyao shouhuo” 陜西淳化棗樹溝腦遺址2008年度發 掘的主要收穫. Xibei daxue xuebao 西北大學學報 2010.6: 32–36. Wang Zhiping 王志平. “‘ ’ zi de duyin ji xiangguan wenti” 「 」字的讀因及相關問 題. Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字研究 27 (2008): 394–99. Wei Tingsheng 衛挺生. Mu tianzi zhuan jin kao 穆天子傳今考. Yangmingshan Huagang: Huagang wenhua shuju, 1970. Wilson, Robert R. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977. Wo Haowei 沃浩偉. “Jin Shaan gaoyuan Shang Zhou shiqi qingtongqi fenqun yanjiu” 晉陜高原商周時期青銅器分群研究. In Yang Jianhua 楊建華 and Jiang Gang 蔣剛, eds. Gongyuan qian er qian ji de Jin Shaan Gaoyuan yu Yanshan nan

312 · Bibliography bei 公元前2千紀的晉陜高原與燕山南北. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2008. Pp. 56–67. Wu Chenglu 吳掁彔. “Baode xian xin faxian de Yin dai qingtongqi” 保德縣新發現 的殷代青銅器. Wenwu 文物 1972.4: 62–64. Wu’enyuesitu 烏恩岳斯圖. Beifang caoyuan kaoguxue wenhua yanjiu 北方草原考古 學文化研究. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2007. Wu Junhua 武俊華. “Jinnan Shang shiqi kaogu yicun de xiangguan wenti” 晉南商 時期考古遺存的相關問題. Cangsang 滄桑 2010.2: 84–85. Wu Shifen 吳式芬. Jungu lu jinwen 攈古錄金文. N.p., 1895. Wu Weihua 吳偉華. “Songdai jinshixue zhuzuo de xueshu jiazhi” 宋代金石學著作 的學術價值. Qi-Lu yiyuan 齊魯藝苑 2007.1: 82–86. Wu Zhenfeng 吳鎮烽. “Diao Sheng zun mingwen de jidian kaoshi” 琱生尊銘文的幾 點考釋. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2007.5: 103–4, 111. —. “Gao zu ya zu wang fu kao” 高祖亞祖王父考. Kaogu 考古 2006.12: 73–77. —. “Jinnian xin chuxian de tongqi tapian” 近年新出現的銅器拓片. Wenbo 文博 2008.2: 6–9. —. “Jinwen yanjiu zhaji” 金文研究劄記. Renwen zazhi 人文雜誌 1981.2: 93–96. —. “Xian ding mingwen kaoshi” p鼎銘文考釋. Wenbo 文博 2007.2: 16–19. Wu Zhenfeng 吳鎮烽 and Wang Donghai 王東海. “Wang Chen gui de chutu yu xiangguan tongqi de shidai” 王臣簋的出土與相關銅器的時代 . Wenwu 文物 1980.5: 63–66. Wu Zhenyu 武振玉. “Liang Zhou jinwen cilei yanjiu (xuci pian)” 兩周金文詞類研究 （虛詞篇）. Ph.D. diss.: Jilin daxue Guji yanjiusuo, 2006. Wuxian wenwu guanli weiyuanhui. “Jiangsu Wuxian Heshan Dong Zhou mu” 江 蘇吳縣何山東周墓. Wenwu 文物 1984.5: 16–20. Xia Hanyi 夏含夷 [Edward L. Shaughnessy]. “Cong Lu gui kan Zhou Mu Wang zai wei nianshu ji niandai wenti” 從䚄簋看周穆王在位年數及年代問題. Zhongguo lishi wenwu 中國歷史文物 2006.3: 9–10. —. “Cong Zuoce Wu he zai kan Zhou Muwang zai wei nianshu ji niandai wenti” 從作冊吳盉再看周穆王在位年數及年代問題. In Zhu Fenghan 朱鳳瀚, ed. Xin chu jinwen yu Xi Zhou lishi 新出金文與西周歷史. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2011. Pp. 52–55. —. “You Meixian Shan shi jiazu tongqi zai lun Shanfu Ke tongqi de niandai: Fudai zai lun Jin Hou Su bianzhong de niandai” 由眉縣單氏家族銅器再論膳夫 克銅器的年代：附帶再論晉侯蘇編鐘的年代. In Shanghai bowuguan and Xianggang Zhongwen daxue Wenwuguan, eds. Zhongguo gudai qingtongqi guoji yantaohui lunwenji 中國古代青銅器國際研討會論文集. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2010. Pp. 177–78. Xia Shang Zhou duandai gongcheng zhuanjiazu. Xia Shang Zhou duandai gongcheng: 1996–2000 nian jieduan chengguo baogao, Jianben 夏商周斷代工程： 1996–2000年階段成果報告，簡本. Beijing: Shijie tushu chuban gongsi, 2000. Xibei daxue Wenhua yichan kaogu yanjiu zhongxin, Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiuyuan and Chunhua xian bowuguan. “Shaanxi Chunhua xian Zaoshugounao

Bibliography · 313 yizhi 2007 nian fajue jianbao” 陜西淳化縣棗樹溝腦遺址2007年發掘簡報. Wenwu 文物 2013.2: 55–66.

—. “Shaanxi Chunhua xian Zaoshugounao yizhi xian Zhou shiqi yicun” 陜西 淳化縣棗樹溝腦遺址先周時期遺存. Kaogu 考古 2012.3: 20–34. Xie Yaoting 謝堯亭. “Hengshui mudi yong ding gui li de kaocha” 橫水墓地用鼎簋禮 的考察. Paper read at the Conference on Western Zhou Civilization. Qishan 岐 山, Shaanxi. 10–12 April 2009. —. “Jinnan diqu Xi Zhou mucang yanjiu” 晉南地區西周墓藏研究. Ph.D. diss., 2010. —. “Shanxi Yicheng xian Dahekou Xi Zhou mudi huo zhongyao faxian: Ci mudi keneng shi xin faxian de yige Xi Zhou fengguo mudi” 山西翼城縣大河口西 周墓地獲重要發現：此墓地可能是新發現的一個西周封國墓地 . Zhongguo wenwu bao 中國文物報. 4 July 2008. P. 5. Xie Yaoting 謝堯亭 et al. “Shanxi sheng Yicheng xian Dahekou Xi Zhou mudi” 山 西省翼城縣大河口西周墓地. Wenwu tiandi 文物天地 2008.10: 80–87. Xie Yaoting 謝堯亭, Wang Jinping 王金平, Li Yongmin 李永敏, Yang Jiyun 楊及耘 and Li Jiansheng 李建生. “Yicheng Dahekou mudi fajue jishi: Yige kaogu gongdi guanli anli” 翼城大河口墓地發掘紀實：一個考古工地管理案例. Zhongguo wenhua yichan 中國文化遺產 2011.1: 85–94. Xing, Wen, ed. The X Gong Xu: A Report and Papers from the Dartmouth Workshop. Special Issue of International Research on Bamboo and Silk Documents: Newsletter. Dartmouth College, 2003. Xu, Jay. “The Cemetery of the Western Zhou Lords of Jin.” Artibus Asiae 56.3/4 (1996): 193–231. Xu Shen 許慎. Shuowen jiezi 說文解字. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1963. Xu Zhongshu 徐中舒. “Jinwen guci shili” 金文嘏辭釋例. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 6.1 (1936): 1–44. — . “Yu ding de niandai ji qi xiangguan wenti” 禺鼎的年代及其相關問題 . Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1959.3: 53–66. Yamada Takahito 山田崇仁. “Sekisen Kaji Shunjū So bo kō: Nigōbo no hisōcha to sono jidai” 淅川下寺春秋楚墓考：二號墓の被葬著とその時代 . Shirin 史林 80.4 (1997): 67–83. Yan Hongdong 閻宏東. “Shenmu Shimao yizhi taoqi fenxi” 神木石峁遺址陶器分析. Wenbo 文博 2010.6: 3–9. Yan Wan 晏琬. “Beijing Liaoning chutu tongqi yu Zhou chu de Yan” 北京遼寧出土 銅器與周初的燕. In Chen Guang 陳光, ed. Yan wenhua yanjiu lunwenji 燕文化研 究論文集. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1995. Pp. 10–16. Yan Zhibin 嚴志斌. “Fuhe shiming cengji shuo zhi sikao” 複合氏名層級說之思考. Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 2002.3: 34–44. Yan Zhibin 嚴志斌 and Hong Mei 洪梅. Yinxu qingtongqi: Qingtong shidai de Zhongguo wenming 殷墟青銅器：青銅時代的中國文明. Shanghai: Shanghai daxue chubanshe, 2008. Yang Bojun 楊伯峻. Chunqiu Zuo zhuan zhu 春秋左傳注. Beijing: Xinhua shudian, 1981.

314 · Bibliography Yang Huaiyuan 楊懷源. “Xi Zhou jinwen cihui yanjiu” 西周金文詞匯研究. Ph.D. diss.: Sichuan daxue Lishi wenhua xueyuan, 2006. Yang Jianhua 楊建華. “Jibei Zhou dai qingtong wenhua chutan” 冀北周代青銅文化 初探. Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 2000.5: 22–30. —. “Shang Zhou shiqi Zhongguo beifang yejin qu de xingcheng—Shang Zhou shiqi beifang qingtongqi de bijiao yanjiu” 商周時期中國北方冶金區的形 成 — 商周時期北方青銅器的比較研究. Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu 邊疆考古研究 2007.6: 165–97. Yang Kun 楊坤. “Shi Shan pan mingwen zheng yi” 士山盤銘文正誼. Zhongguo lishi wenwu 中國歷史文物 2004.6: 18–19. Yang Shaoshun 楊紹舜. “Shanxi Liulin xian Gaohong faxian Shang dai tongqi” 山 西柳林縣高紅發現商代銅器. Kaogu 考古 1981.3: 211–12. Yang Tianyu 楊天宇. Li ji yi zhu 禮記譯注. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 1998. Yang Yachang 楊亞長. “Jinwen suo jian zhi Yigong Mugong yu Wugong kao” 金文 所見之益公穆公與武公考. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2004.6: 71–75. Yang Zemeng 楊澤蒙 . “Zhukaigou wenhua yinsu fenxi ji yu zhoulin diqu kaoguxue wenhua de guanxi” 朱開溝文化因素分析及與周鄰地區考古學文化的關 係. In Tian Guangjin 田廣金 et al., eds. Daihai kaogu (2)—Zhong Ri Daihai diqu kaocha yanjiu baogao ji 岱海考古（二）—中日岱海地區考察研究報告集. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2001. Pp. 411–53. Ye Guoliang 葉國良. “Songdai jinshixue yanjiu” 宋代金石學研究. Ph.D. diss.: Zhongguo wenxue yanjiusuo 中國文學研究所, Guoli Taiwan daxue 國立臺灣大 學, 1983. Published in Chutu sixiang wenwu yu wenxian yanjiu congshu 出土思 想文物與文獻研究叢書 39. Taibei: Taiwan shufang, 2011. Ye Yuying 葉玉英. Guwenzi gouxing yu shangguyin yanjiu 古文字構形與上古音研究. Xiamen daxue Guoxue yanjiuyuan zizhu chuban congshu 厦門大學國學研究院 資助出版叢書. Xiamen: Xiamen daxue chubanshe, 2009. —. “Lun Lin Yiguang dui guwenzixue de gongxian” 論林義光對古文字學的貢 獻. Fujian shifan daxue xuebao 福建師範大學學報 125.5 (2004): 90–95. Yichang bowuguan. “Yichang Wanfunao bianzhong chutu ji yizhi chubu kantan” 宜昌萬福堖編鐘出土及遺址初步勘探 . Zhongguo wenwu bao 中國文物報 . 28 September 2012. Yin Shengping 尹盛平. Xi Zhou shi zheng 西周史徵. Xi’an: Shaanxi shifan daxue chubanshe, 2004. Yin Weizhang 殷瑋璋. “Xin chutu de Taibao tongqi ji qi xiangguan wenti” 新出土 的太保銅器及其相關問題. In Chen Guang 陳光, ed. Yan wenhua yanjiu lunwenji 燕文化研究論文集 . Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1995. Pp. 253–65. Yu Naiyong 余迺永 [Yu Nae-wing]. “Liang Zhou jinwen yinxi kao” 兩周金文音系考. Ph.D. diss.: Taiwan shifan daxue, 1980. Yu Suisheng 喻遂生. “Liang Zhou jinwen yunwen he xian Qin ‘Chu yin’” 兩周金文 韻文和先秦「楚音」. Xinan shifan daxue xuebao 西南師範大學學報 1993.2: 105–9. Yu Xingwu 于省吾. Jiagu wenzi gulin 甲骨文字詁林. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1996.

Bibliography · 315 Yuan Yanling 袁艷玲. “Zhoudai qingtong liqi de shengchan yu liudong” 周代青銅 禮器的生產與流動. Kaogu 考古 2009.10: 68–77. Zang Kehe 藏克和 and Wang Ping 王平. Shuowen jiezi xin ding 說文解字新訂. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2002. Zaoqi Qin wenhua lianhe kaogudui. “2006 nian Gansu Lixian Dabuzishan 21 hao jianzhu jizhi fajue jianbao” 2006 年甘肅禮縣大堡子山21號建築基址發掘簡報 . Wenwu 文物 2008.11: 4–13. —. “2006 nian Gansu Lixian Dabuzishan Dong Zhou muzang fajue jianbao” 2006年甘肅禮縣大堡子山東周墓葬發掘簡報. Wenwu 文物 2008.11: 30–49. —. “2006 nian Gansu Lixian Dabuzishan jisi yizhi fajue jianbao” 2006 年甘肅 禮縣大堡子山祭祀遺址發掘簡報. Wenwu 文物 2008.11: 14–29. —. “Gansu Lixian san zuo chengzhi diaocha baogao” 甘肅禮縣三座城址調查 報告. Gudai wenming 古代文明 2008.7: 335–47. Zeng Xiantong 曾憲通 . “Rong Geng xiansheng de xueshu chengjiu he zhixue tedian” 容庚先生的學術成就和治學特點. Guji zhengli yanjiu xuekan 古籍整理研 究學刊 1993.4: 38–41. Zhang Changping 張昌平. Zengguo qingtongqi yanjiu 曾國青銅器研究. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2009. Zhang Guangyu 張光裕 [Cheung Kwong-yue]. “He gui mingwen yu Xi Zhou shi shi xin zheng” 𣄰簋銘文與西周史事新證. Wenwu 文物 2009.2: 53–56. —. “Xi Zhou Shi Baifu xu ming suo jian shishi shishi” 西周士百父盨銘所見史 事試釋. In Chen Zhaorong 陳昭容, ed. Guwenzi yu gudai shi 古文字與古代史. Taibei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 2007. Pp. 213–22. Zhang Maorong 張懋鎔. “Rui Gong gui gai shi xiao: Jianlun chui guan da niao wen” 芮公簋蓋識小：兼論垂冠大鳥紋 . In Zhang Maorong 張懋鎔. Guwenzi yu qing tongqi lunji, Di san ji 古文字與青銅器論集・第三輯 . Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2010. Pp. 80–88. —. “Shanghai bowuguan cang jin du ji” 上海博物館藏金讀記. Shanghai wenbo luncong 上海文博論叢 2006.3. Repr. in Zhang Maorong 張懋鎔. Guwenzi yu qingtongqi lunji, Di er ji 古文字與青銅器論集・第二輯. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2006. Pp. 65–68. —. “Xi Zhou fangzuo gui yanjiu” 西周方座簋研究. Kaogu 考古 1999.12: 69–76. Repr. in Zhang Maorong 張懋鎔. Gu wenzi yu qingtongqi lunji 古文字與青銅器論 集. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2002. Pp. 88–97. —. “Yiqian nian lai Shang Zhou tongqi zuhui wenzi yanjiu shuping” 一千年 來商周銅器族徽文字研究述評. Xin shixue 新史學 18.2 (June 2007): 157–89. —. “Zai lun Xi Zhou fangzuo gui” 再論西周方座簋. Shaanxi lishi bowuguan guankan 陝西歷史博物館館刊 2002.9. Repr. in Zhang Maorong 張懋鎔. Guwenzi yu qingtongqi lunji 古文字與青銅器論集. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2002. Pp. 98–111. —. “Zai lun ‘Zhou ren buyong riming shuo’” 再論「周人不用日名說」. Lishi yanjiu 歷史研究 1993.5: 174–78. Repr. in Zhang Maorong 張懋鎔. Gu wenzi yu qing tongqi lunji, Di san ji 古文字與青銅器論集・第三輯 . Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2010. Pp. 23–26.

316 · Bibliography —. “Zai lun ‘Zhou ren buyong zuhui shuo’” 再論「周人不用族徽說」. Kaogu 考 古 1995.9: 835–40. Repr. in Zhang Maorong 張懋鎔. Gu wenzi yu qingtongqi lunji, Di san ji 古文字與青銅器論集・第三輯. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2010. Pp. 27–30. Zhang Mingdong 張明東. “Shang Zhou muzang bijiao yanjiu” 商周墓葬比較研究. Ph.D. diss.: Beijing daxue, 2005. Zhang Peiyu 張培瑜. Zhongguo xian Qin shi libiao 中國現秦史歷表. Jinan: Qi Lu shushe, 1987. Zhang Qingsong 張青松. “Shi ping Xi Zhou jinwen yufa yanjiu” 試評《西周金文語法 研究》. Huanan ligong daxue xuebao 華南理工大學學報 2002.1: 79–83. Zhang Sulin 張素琳. “Jinnan diqu Xi Zhou muzang chutan” 晉南地區西周墓葬初探. Zhongguo lishi wenwu 中國歷史文物 1998.1: 36–43. Zhang Tian’en 張天恩. “Jinnan yi faxian de Xi Zhou guozu chuxi” 晉南已發現的西 周國族初析. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2010.1: 50–56. —. “Rui guo shi shi yu kaogu faxian de jubu zhenghe” 芮國史事與考古發現的 局部整合. Wenwu 文物 2010.6: 35–42. Zhang Wenli 張文立 and Lin Yun 林沄. “Heidouzui leixing qingtongqi zhong de xi lai yinsu” 黑豆嘴類型青銅器中的西來因素. Kaogu 考古 2004.5: 65–73. Zhang Xiaoheng 張筱衡. “San pan kaoshi (Xia)” 散盤考釋（下）. Renwen zazhi 人文 雜誌 1958.4: 81–98. Zhang Xiaoming 張曉明. Chunqiu Zhanguo jinwen ziti yanbian yanjiu 春秋戰國金 文字體演變研究. Wenzi xungu yu shufa wenhua yanjiu congshu 文字訓詁與書法 文化研究叢書. Ji’nan: Qi-Lu shushe, 2006. Zhang Yachu 張亞初. “Xi Zhou mingwen suo jian Mou Sheng kao” 西周銘文所見某 生考. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 1983.5: 83–89. — . “Yanguo qingtongqi mingwen yanjiu” 燕國青銅器銘文研究. In Chen Guang 陳光 , ed. Yan wenhua yanjiu lunwenji 燕文化研究論文集 . Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1995. Pp. 223–30. —. Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng yinde 殷周金文集成引得. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2001. Zhang Yingwen 張映文 and Lü Zhirong 呂智榮. “Shaanxi Qingjian xian Lijiaya gucheng zhi fajue jianbao” 陜西清澗縣李家崖古城址發掘簡報. Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 1988.1: 47–56. Zhang Yongshan 張永山. “Lu gui zuoqizhe de niandai” 䚄簋作器者的年代 . Zhongguo lishi wenwu 中國歷史文物 2006.3: 11–13. Zhang Yue 張越. “Guanyu Yanjing xuebao” 關於《燕京學報》. Shixueshi yanjiu 史學 史研究 1996.4: 70–78. Zhang Yujin 張玉金. Xi Zhou Hanyu daici yanjiu 西周漢語代詞研究. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2006. —. Xi Zhou Hanyu yufa yanjiu 西周漢語語法研究. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2004. —. “Xi Zhou Hanyu yufa yanjiu de huigu ji zhanwang” 西周漢語語法研究的回 顧暨展朢. Yuyan yanjiu 語言研究 2003.3: 15–20. Zhang Zhenlin 張振林. “Guanyu liangjian Wu Yue baojian mingwen de shidu wenti” 關於兩件吳越寶劍銘文的釋讀問題. Zhongguo yuwen yanjiu 中國語文研究

Bibliography · 317 7 (1985): 31–36. —. “Rong Geng xiansheng de xueshu chengjiu he zhixue fangfa” 容庚先生的 學術成就和治學方法. Xueshu yanjiu 學術研究 1984.4: 88–93. Zhao Cheng 趙誠. “Jinwen de ‘zhe’” 金文的「者」. Zhongguo yuwen 中國語文 2001.3: 267–68. Zhao Huacheng 趙化成, Wang Hui 王輝 and Wei Zheng 韋正. “Lixian Dabuzishan Qinzi ‘yueqi keng’ xiangguan wenti tantao” 禮縣大堡子山秦子「樂器坑」相關問 題探討. Wenwu 文物 2008.11: 54–66. Zhao Xueqing 趙學清. Zhanguo dongfang wu guo wenzi gouxing xitong yanjiu 戰國 東方五國文字構形系統研究. Shanghai: Shanghai jiaoyu chubanshe, 2005. Zheng Wei 鄭偉. “Gudai Chu fangyan ‘yi’ zi de laiyuan” 古代楚方言「 」字的來源. Zhongguo yuwen 中國語文 2007.4: 378–81. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo, ed. Tengzhou Qianzhangda mudi 滕州前掌大墓地. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2005. —. Xiaxian Dongxiafeng 夏縣東下馮. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1988. —. Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng 殷周金文集成. 18 vols. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1984–1994. 2nd ed., 2007. —. Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng shiwen 殷周金文集成釋文. 6 vols. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2001. —. Zhangjiapo Xi Zhou mudi 張家坡西周墓地. Beijing: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu chubanshe, 1999. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo and Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo. “Beijing Liulihe 1193 hao damu fajue jianbao” 北京琉璃河1193號大墓發掘簡報. Kaogu 考古 1990.1: 20–31. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo Anyang gongzuodui. “1969–1977 nian Yinxu xiqu muzang fajue baogao” 1969–1977 年殷墟西區墓葬發掘報告. Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1979.1: 27–146. —. “Henan Anyang shi Guojiazhuang dongnan 26 hao mu” 河南安陽市郭家 莊東南26號墓. Kaogu 考古 1998.10: 36–47. —. “Henan Anyang Yinxu Liujiazhuangbei 1046 hao mu” 河南安陽殷墟劉家 莊北1046號墓. Kaoguxue jikan 考古學集刊 15 (2004): 359–89. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo Keji shiyan yanjiu zhongxin Tan shisi shiyanshi. “Fangshexing tansu ceding niandai baogao (ershisan)” 放射性 碳素測定年代報告（二十三）. Kaogu 考古 2006.7: 65–67. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Kaogu yanjiusuo Shanxi gongzuodui. “Jinnan Erlitou wenhua yizhi de diaocha yu shijue” 晉南二里頭文化遺址的調查與試掘. Kaogu 考古 1980.3: 203–10, 278. Zhongguo wenwu xuehui et al., eds. Shang Chengzuo jiaoshou bainian danchen jinian wenji 商承祚教授百年誕辰紀念文集. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2003. Zhou Baohong 周寶宏. “Xi Zhou jinwen kaoshi liu ze” 西周金文考釋六則. Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字研究 27 (2008): 220–27. Zhou Fagao 周法高. Review of W. A. C. H. Dobson, Early Archaic Chinese: A Descriptive Grammar. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 24 (1962–1963): 252–60.

318 · Bibliography — . Zhongguo gudai yufa 中國古代語法. 3 vols. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, zhuankan 專刊 39. Taibei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan, 1971. Zhou Feng 周峰. “Jindai jinshixue shuyao” 金代金石學述要. Zhongguo lishi wenwu 中國歷史文物 2007.4: 73–78. Zhouyuan kaogu gongzuodui. “2002 nian Zhouyuan yizhi (Qijiacun) fajue jianbao” 2002 年周原遺址（齊家村）發掘簡報 . Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 2003.4: 3–9. — . “Shaanxi Fufeng xian Zhouyuan yizhi Zhuangli Xi Zhou mu fajue jianbao” 陜西扶風縣周原遺址莊李西周墓發掘簡報. Kaogu 考古 2008.12: 3–22. Zhu Dexi 朱德熙. “Xing li qu xi jie” 屈 解. Fangyan 方言 1989.4: 303. Zhu Fenghan 朱鳳瀚. “Bin Gong xu mingwen chu shi” e公盨銘文初釋. In Sui Gong xu: Da Yu zhi shui yu wei zheng yi de e公盨：大禹治水與為政以德. Beijing: Xianzhuang shuju, 2002. Pp. 28–34. —. “Jianlun yu Xi Zhou niandaixue youguan de jijian tongqi” 簡論與西周年 代學有關的幾件銅器. In Zhu Fenghan 朱鳳瀚, ed. Xin chu jinwen yu Xi Zhou lishi 新岀金文與西周歷史. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2011. Pp. 33–51. —. Shang Zhou jiazu xingtai yanjiu: Zengding ben 商周家族形態研究：增訂本. Tianjin: Tianjin Guji chubanshe, 2004. —. “Shi Shan pan mingwen chushi” 士山盤銘文初釋. Zhongguo lishi wenwu 中國歷史文物 2002.1: 4–7. —. “Shi You ding yu Shi You gui” 師酉鼎與師酉簋. Zhongguo lishi wenwu 中國 歷史文物 2004.1: 4–10, 35. —. “Yao Gong gui yu Tang Bo hou yu Jin” 公簋與唐伯侯于晉. Kaogu 考古 2007.3: 64–69. —. “You Bo Congfu gui ming zai lun Zhou Li Wang zheng Huai Yi” 由伯㦰父 簋銘再論周厲王征淮夷. Guwenzi yanjiu 古文字研究 27 (2008): 192–99. —. Zhongguo qingtongqi zonglun 中國青銅器綜論. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2009. —. “Zuo Bo ding yu Zhou Gong nan zheng” 柞伯鼎與周公南征. Wenwu 文物 2006.5: 67–73, 96. — , ed. Xin chu jinwen yu Xi Zhou lishi 新出金文與西周歷史 . Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2011. Zhu Gangxun 朱剛焄. “Xi Zhou qingtongqi mingwen fuyinci yanjiu” 西周青銅器銘 文復音詞研究. Ph.D. diss.: Shandong daxue, 2006. Zhu Jianxin 朱劍心. Jinshixue 金石學. Guoxue xiao congshu 國學小叢書. Changsha: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1940. Zhu Qizhi 朱其智. Xi Zhou mingwen pianzhang zhitong ji qi xiangguan yufa yanjiu 西周銘文篇章指同及其相關語法研究. Shijiazhuang: Hebei daxue chubanshe, 2007. Zou An 鄒安. Zhou jinwen cun 周金文存. Shanghai: Guangcang xuejun, 1921. Zou Heng 鄒衡, ed. Tianma-Qucun: 1980–1989 天馬—曲村：1980–1989. 4 vols. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2000. Гохман, В.И. Историческая фонетика тайских языков [Historical phonetics of the Tai languages]. Москва: Наука, 1992.

Finding List of Bronze Vessels Cited

Art Institute of Chicago hu (no. 24.233–34), 215 Ba Bo yan 霸伯甗 (Dahekou 大河口 M2:37), 149 Ba gui 霸簋 (Dahekou 大河口 M1), 201 Bai Xiao-X xu 白孝□盨 (Jicheng #4407.1), 31n77 Ban gui 班簋 (Jicheng #4341), 115 table 4.1E Beiyao 北窯 M37, M139, M172 one gui and six ge, 48 Bi Bo Ke ding 畢白克鼎 (Liangdaicun 梁帶村 M502.96), 147, 148 fig. 5.4 Bi Xian gui 畢鮮簋 (Jicheng #4061), 105, 130n128 Bian guan 弁罐 (Jicheng #9983), 43 table 2.3 line 7 Bian Ri Xin jue 弁日辛爵 (Jicheng #8800), 43 table 2.3 line 6 Bin Gong xu e公盨 (Xinshou #1607), 134, 266, 268, 269, 275. See also Sui Gong xu Bo Congfu gui 伯㦰父簋 (Chinese Cultural Information Center), 163–64, 165 Bo Congfu gui 伯㦰父簋 (Shouyang Studio), 162, 163, 163 fig. 5.11,

165, 185n69 Bo Ding Geng gui 伯丁庚簋 (Jicheng #3538), 50, 51 table 3.1 line 17, 54 Bo Ding Geng gui 伯丁庚簋 (Jicheng #3539), 50, 51 table 3.1 line 16, 54 Bo Ju li 伯矩鬲 (Jicheng #689), 50, 51 table 3.1 line 6, 52, 54 Bo Ju yan 伯矩甗 (Jicheng #893), 53 Bo Shufu gui 伯庶父簋 (Jicheng #3983), 281n12 Chang Xin he 長甶盉 (Jicheng #09455), 152, 182n46 Chang Zi Kou 長子口 bronze vessels (Taiqinggong 太清宮 ), 64 Chen Hou Yinzi dui 陳侯因 敦 (Jicheng #4649), 240 Chu gui 楚簋 (Jicheng #4246), 121n24, 130n121 Chuji zhong 楚季鐘 (Wanfunao 萬福 堖 ), 247 Ci gu 朿觚 (Jicheng #6744), 43 table 2.3 line 2 Ci Yi jue 朿乙爵 (Jicheng #8013), 43 table 2.3 line 11 Da Ke ding 大克鼎 (Jicheng #2836), 30n69, 31n74, 192

320 · Finding List of Bronze Vessels Cited Da Yu ding 大盂鼎 (Jicheng #2837), 100, 129n105, 131n142, 262, 268 Da Zhong Zu Ji gu 大中且己觚 (Jicheng #7215), 43 table 2.3 line 5 Dahekou 大河口 M2 bronze vessels, 149 Diao Sheng li 琱生鬲 (Jicheng #744), 186n79 Diao Sheng zun 琱生尊 (Wujun xicun 五郡西村 J1.7,J1.8), 167, 168, 169 fig. 5.13, 169–70, 186n79, 186n80 Dishi hu 杕氏壺 (Jicheng #9715), 27n39 Dong Ji yi 東姬匜 (Xichuan Xiasi 淅川 下寺 M7.1, Xinshou #398), 241 Dou Bi gui 豆閉簋 (Jicheng #4276), 117 table 4.2A, 182n46 E Hou Di X Ji gui 噩侯弟 季簋 (Jicheng #3668), 179n20 E Hou Di X Ji zun 噩侯弟 季尊 (Jicheng #5912), 179n20 E Hou Di zun 噩侯弟尊 (Jicheng #5912), 141 E Hou fangyi 噩侯方彝 (Yangzishan 羊子山 M4), 141, 141 fig. 5.3, 150 E Hou gui 鄂侯簋 (Jicheng #3928), 185n68 E Hou gui 鄂侯簋 (Jicheng #3929), 185n68 E Hou gui 鄂侯簋 (Jicheng #3930), 185n68 E Hou you 噩侯卣 (Yangzishan 羊子山 M4), 141, 150 E Hou Yufang ding 噩侯馭方鼎 (Jicheng #2810), 162, 164, 165 E Jun Qi jie 鄂君啟節 (Jicheng #12110– 13), 12 Fifteenth Year Jue Cao ding 十五年趞曹 鼎 (Jicheng #2784), 117 table 4.2M, 121n21, 154, 183n57 Fifth Year Diao Sheng gui 五年琱生簋

(Jicheng #4292), 4, 167, 168, 169, 186n79 Fifth Year Qiu Wei ding 五祀裘衛鼎 (Jicheng #2832), 117 table 4.2C, 121n21, 152, 158, 182n46, 182n51, 183n57 Fifth Year Shi X gui 五年師 簋 (Jicheng #4182), 30n71 First Year Shi Shi gui 元年師 簋 (Jicheng #4281), 78 fig. 4.3F Forty-second Year Qiu ding 四十二年 逑鼎 (Meixian 眉縣 Shan 單 -family cache), 134, 140, 167 Forty-third Year Qiu ding 四十三年逑 鼎 (Meixian 眉縣 Shan 單 -family cache), 134, 140, 167 Fu ding 復鼎 (Jicheng #2507), 59 Fu Gui ding 父癸鼎 (Jicheng #1279), 50, 51 table 3.1 line 12, 52 Fu Gui Yu zun 父癸魚尊 (Jicheng #4997), 53 Fu Hao sanlianyan 婦好三聯甗 (Jicheng #793.1.1), 34 Fu Hao’s name in Oracular Inscriptions (Jiaguwenheji #14000), 34 Fu Ji jia 父己斝 (Jicheng #9168), 42 table 2.3 line 1 Fu X you 婦𨷼卣 (Jicheng #5350), 206n35 Fu X you 婦𨷼卣 (Nara Museum), 206n35 Fu Xin jue 父辛爵 , 50, 51 table 3.1 line 18, 52 Fu zun 復尊 (Jicheng #5978), 59 Gan Zi Yue Fu Wu you 干子鉞父戊卣 (Jicheng #5195), 50, 51 table 3.1 line 2, 52, 54 Gan Zi Yue Fu Wu zun 干子鉞父戊尊 (Jicheng #5800), 50, 51 table 3.1 line 1, 52, 54

Finding List of Bronze Vessels Cited · 321 Gao Ning ding 告寧鼎 (Jicheng #1368), 43 table 2.3 line 3 Gao Ning gu 告寧觚 (Jicheng #7006), 43 table 2.3 line 6 Gao Ning jue 告寧爵 (Jicheng #8265), 43 table 2.3 line 3 Ge Fu Jia yan 戈父甲甗 (Jicheng #807), 50, 51 table 3.1 line 8, 52 Ge X bu 戈 瓿 (Jicheng #9950), 42 table 2.3 line 4 Geng Ji ding 庚季鼎 (Jicheng #2781), 30n62, 117 table 4.2E Geng Ying ding 庚贏鼎 (Jicheng #2748), 115 table 4.1A Gong Zhong zhi 公中觶 (Jicheng #6509), 50, 51 table 3.1 line 11, 53, 54 fig. 3.1 Gu gui gai 羖簋蓋 (Jicheng #4243), 182n46 Guaibo gui 乖伯簋 (Jicheng #4331), 80 fig. 4.4A, 106, 117 table 4.2I, 131n131 Guazi you 寡子卣 (Jicheng #5392), 282n18 Guo Zhong xu gai 虢仲盨蓋 (Jicheng #4435), 165, 186n77 Guobo gui 過伯簋 (Jicheng #3907), 128n98 Guojiazhuang 郭家莊 M160.128 square zun with palm-shaped horn decor, 199 Guojiazhuang 郭家莊 M160.152 square zun with palm-shaped horn decor, 199 Guojiazhuang 郭家莊 M160.172 handled you with wine-bottle horn decor, 199 Han Huangfu ding 圅皇父鼎 (Jicheng #2548), 187n81 He gui 𣄰簋 , 150, 151 fig. 5.5, 152 fig. 5.6, 153

He zun 𣄰尊 (Jicheng #6014), 4, 150 Hengshui 橫水 M2:61 he no inscription, 76 fig. 4.2C Hengshui 橫水 M2:62 gui no inscription, 76 fig. 4.2B, 78 fig. 4.3B, 79 Hougudui bo 侯古堆鎛 (Hougudui 侯 古堆 M1P:1–8, Xinshou #283–91), 238 Hu gui 曶簋 (Shouyang Studio), 81, 118 table 4.3A Hu gui gai 虎簋蓋 (Danfeng 丹鳳 , Xinshou #633), 30n63, 109, 115 table 4.1F, 154, 155, 182n50 Hu hu gai 㫚壺蓋 (Jicheng #9728), 174 Hu zhong 㝬鐘 (also known as Zongzhou zhong 宗周鐘 , Jicheng #260), 164 Hushu Hu Ji gui 㝬叔㝬姬簋 (Jicheng #4066), 130n121 Ji gui 即簋 (Jicheng #4250), 117 table 4.2H Ji Ya Yi 箕亞矣 bronze vessels (Beijing Western Suburb Lugouqiao 北京西 郊盧溝橋 ), 57 Ji Ya Yi 箕亞矣 bronze vessels (Niulanshan 牛欄山 ), 58 Ji Ya Yi ding 箕亞矣鼎 (Jicheng #2035), 56 table 3.2 line 1, 57 Jiangji Zhi Sun ge 江季之孫戈 (Jicheng #11252), 242 Jiangzhong Bo Jian pan 江仲伯戔盤 (Jicheng #10341), 242 Jiao mao 交矛 (Jicheng #11423), 42 table 2.3 line 6 Jin ding 堇鼎 (Jicheng #2703), 55 table 3.2 line 7, 57 Jin Gong pen 晉公盆 (Jicheng #10342), 178n13 Jin Hou Su bianzhong 晉侯蘇編鐘 (Jicheng #35–50), 174, 175, 273,

322 · Finding List of Bronze Vessels Cited 274, 275 Jin Jiang ding 晉姜鼎 (Jicheng #2826), 274–75 Kang Hou gui 康侯簋 (Jicheng #4059), 138, 178n12 Ke bo 克鎛 (Jicheng #209), 174 Ke he 克盉 (Jicheng #3538), 49, 61 Ke Huang dou 克黃豆 (Heshangling 和 尚嶺 M1), 249 Ke Huang hu 克黃壺 (Heshangling 和 尚嶺 M1), 249 Ke Huang sheng 克黃升 (Heshangling 和尚嶺 M1.2–3, Xinshou #499– 500), 248–49 Ke lei 克罍 (Jicheng #3538), 49, 61 Ke zhong 克鐘 (Jicheng #204–8), 174 Li Ju zun 盠駒尊 (Jicheng #6011), 31n75 Li zun 盠尊 (Jicheng #6013), 121n26 Liangdaicun 梁帶村 M27 handled you with phoenix decor, 189 ack., 197, 197 fig. 6.1, 199, 202 Liangdaicun 梁帶村 M27, M502 yue, 199 Liao Sheng xu 翏生盨 (Jicheng #4459), 165 Ling ding 令鼎 (Jicheng #2803), 285n36 Lingtai 靈臺 M1 yue, 199 Longxiang 隴縣 square-based gui, 198, 198 fig. 6.2 Lu gui 簋 , 115 table 4.1B, 151, 152, 152 fig. 5.6, 153, 155, 181n43, 182n45 Lu xu 彔盨 (Jicheng #4357), 213 Luo’er yi 羅兒匜 (Chengqiao 程橋 M3.6, Xinshou #1266), 251 Mai ding 麥鼎 (Jicheng #2706), 128n98 Mai li 麥鬲 (Jicheng #490), 50, 51 table 3.1 line 7

Mai zun 麥尊 (Jicheng #6015), 285n36 Mao Gong ding 毛公鼎 (Jicheng #2841), 31n78, 170, 268, 284n32 Meixian 眉縣 Shan 單 -family bronzes, 134, 140. See also Forty-second Year Qiu ding; Forty-third Year Qiu ding; Qiu pan Meng gui 孟簋 (Jicheng #4162), 30n66 Meng gui 孟簋 (Jicheng #4163), 78 fig. 4.3D Mibo Shi Ji gui 弭伯師耤簋 (Jicheng #4257), 131n144, 131n145, 184n61 Mishu Shi Cha gui 弭叔師察簋 (Jicheng #4253), 131n139 Mishu xu 弭叔盨 (Jicheng #4385), 132n145 Mu gui 牧簋 (Jicheng #4343), 118 table 4.3E Ninth Year Qiu Wei ding 九年裘衛鼎 (Jicheng #2831), 117 table 4.2G, 158, 182n51, 183n57 Pan Zi Chengzhou zhong 潘子成周 鐘 (Hougudui 侯古堆 M1P:9–17, Xinshou #276–82), 238, 239 Peng Mian gui 倗丏簋 (Jicheng #3667), 132n151 Peng X-sheng ding 生鼎 (Jicheng #2524), 97, 127n86 Pengbo Cheng gui 倗伯爯簋 (Hengshui 橫水 M1:205), 72, 75 fig. 4.1C, 75, 76, 77, 78 fig. 4.3C, 79, 80 fig. 4.4D, 81, 112, 113, 117 table 4.2R, 122n33, 143, 144, 180n29 Pengbo ding 倗伯鼎 (Hengshui 橫水 M1:212), 75 fig. 4.1A, 75, 79, 143 Pengbo ding 倗伯鼎 (Hengshui 橫水 M2:57), 76 fig. 4.2A, 76, 143 Pengbo ding 倗伯鼎 (Hengshui 衡水 M2:58), 76 Pengbo ding 倗伯鼎 (Hengshui 衡水

Finding List of Bronze Vessels Cited · 323

[128.104.46.206] Project MUSE (2024-03-02 03:18 GMT) UW-Madison Libraries

M2:103), 76, 143 Pengbo gui 倗伯簋 (Hengshui 橫水 M1:199), 75 fig. 4.1B, 75, 77, 78, 78 fig. 4.3A, 143 Pengsheng gui 倗生簋 (also known as Gebo gui 格伯簋 , Jicheng #4262), 104, 130n118, 130n119 Pengzhong ding 倗仲鼎 (Jicheng #2462), 97, 103, 127n85 Qi Shi zhi 其史觶 (Jicheng #6489), 56 table 3.2 line 2, 57 Qi Ying Ji pan 齊縈姬盤 (Jicheng #10147), 280n12 Qian Fu Gui zhi 臤父癸觶 (Jicheng #6338), 42 table 2.3 line 11 Qian gui 𧽊簋 (Jicheng #4266), 182n45 Qiang pan 牆盤 (Jicheng #10175), 270 Qin Gong bo 秦公鎛 (Miho Art Museum), 224, 226 table 7.3 Qin Gong bo 秦公鎛 (Shanghai Museum, Xinshou #1345), 210, 210 table 7.1, 214 fig. 7.2, 224, 225 table 7.2, 225 Qin Gong ding 秦公鼎 (Gansu Museum no. 1, Xinshou #1337), 211 table 7.1, 214 fig. 7.2, 215, 216, 223 Qin Gong ding 秦公鼎 (Gansu Museum no. 2), 211 table 7.1, 212, 214 fig. 7.2, 215, 216, 223 Qin Gong ding 秦公鼎 (Gansu Museum no. 3), 211 table 7.1, 212, 214 fig. 7.2, 215, 216, 223 Qin Gong ding 秦公鼎 (Hong Kong private), 211 table 7.1, 214 fig. 7.2 Qin Gong ding 秦公鼎 (Shanghai Museum no. 1, Xinshou #1338), 210, 210 table 7.1, 214 fig. 7.2, 214, 215 Qin Gong ding 秦公鼎 (Shanghai Museum no. 2, Xinshou #1339),

210, 210 table 7.1, 214 fig. 7.2, 214, 215 Qin Gong ding 秦公鼎 (Shanghai Museum no. 3, Xinshou #1340), 210, 210 table 7.1, 212, 213 fig. 7.1, 214, 215 Qin Gong ding 秦公鼎 (Shanghai Museum no. 4, Xinshou #1341), 210, 210 table 7.1, 212, 213 fig. 7.1, 214, 215 Qin Gong ding 秦公鼎 (Shouyang Studio no. 1), 211 table 7.1, 212, 213 fig. 7.1, 215 Qin Gong ding 秦公鼎 (Shouyang Studio no. 2), 211 table 7.1, 212, 213 fig. 7.1, 215 Qin Gong ding 秦公鼎 (Shouyang Studio no. 3), 211 table 7.1, 212, 213 fig. 7.1, 215 Qin Gong gui 秦公簋 (Gansu Museum, Xinshou #1342), 211 table 7.1, 214 fig. 7.2, 215, 223 Qin Gong gui 秦公簋 (Hong Kong private no. 1), 211 table 7.1, 215 Qin Gong gui 秦公簋 (Hong Kong private no. 2), 211 table 7.1, 215 Qin Gong gui 秦公簋 (Jicheng #4315), 223 Qin Gong gui 秦公簋 (Shanghai Museum no. 1, Xinshou #1343), 210, 210 table 7.1, 212, 213 fig. 7.1, 215 Qin Gong gui 秦公簋 (Shanghai Museum no. 2, Xinshou #1344), 210, 210 table 7.1, 212, 213 fig. 7.1, 215 Qin Gong gui 秦公簋 (Shouyang Studio no. 1), 211 table 7.1, 214 fig. 7.2, 215 Qin Gong gui 秦公簋 (Shouyang Studio no. 2), 211 table 7.1, 214 fig. 7.2, 215

324 · Finding List of Bronze Vessels Cited Qin Gong hu 秦公壺 (Hong Kong private no. 1), 211 table 7.1, 214 fig. 7.2, 215 Qin Gong hu 秦公壺 (Hong Kong private no. 2), 211 table 7.1, 214 fig. 7.2, 215 Qin Gong hu 秦公壺 (James Lally no. 1, Xinshou #1347), 210, 210 table 7.1, 214 fig. 7.2, 215, 217 Qin Gong hu 秦公壺 (James Lally no. 2, Xinshou #1348), 210, 210 table 7.1, 214 fig. 7.2, 215, 217 Qin Gong hu 秦公壺 (London, Xinshou #1346), 211 table 7.1, 214 fig. 7.2, 215 Qin Gong hu 秦公壺 (National Museum), 211 table 7.1 Qin Gong zhong 秦公鐘 (Jicheng #270), 212 Qin Huangong bo 秦桓公鎛 (Jicheng #270), 225 table 7.2 Qin Wugong bo 秦武公鎛 (Taigongmiao 太公廟 , Jicheng #267), 224, 225 table 7.2, 225, 226 Qin Wugong bo 秦武公鎛 (Taigongmiao 太公廟 , Jicheng #268), 224, 225 table 7.2, 225, 226 Qin Wugong bo 秦武公鎛 (Taigongmiao 太公廟 , Jicheng #269), 224, 225 table 7.2, 225, 226 Qin Wugong yongzhong 秦武公甬鐘 (Taigongmiao 太公廟 #1), 226, 226 table 7.3 Qin Wugong yongzhong 秦武公甬鐘 (Taigongmiao 太公廟 #2), 226, 226 table 7.3 Qin Wugong yongzhong 秦武公甬鐘 (Taigongmiao 太公廟 #3), 226, 226 table 7.3 Qin Wugong yongzhong 秦武公甬鐘 (Taigongmiao 太公廟 #4), 226, 226 table 7.3

Qin Wugong yongzhong 秦武公甬鐘 (Taigongmiao 太公廟 #5), 226, 226 table 7.3 Qin Wugong zhong 秦武公鐘 (Jicheng #0262–66), 221 Qinzi bo 秦子鎛 (Dabuzishan 大堡子 山 K5:1–1), 223–24, 225 table 7.2, 225, 226, 228, 229 Qinzi bo 秦子鎛 (Dabuzishan 大堡子山 K5:3–1), 223, 224 fig. 7.3, 225 table 7.2, 225, 226, 228, 229 Qinzi bo 秦子鎛 (Dabuzishan 大堡子山 K5:5–1), 223, 224 fig. 7.3, 225 table 7.2, 225, 226, 228, 229 Qinzi yongzhong 秦子甬鐘 (Dabuzishan 大堡子山 K5:6–1), 212, 223, 224 fig. 7.3, 226, 226 table 7.3 Qinzi yongzhong 秦子甬鐘 (Dabuzishan 大堡子山 K5:8–1), 212, 223, 224 fig. 7.3, 226, 226 table 7.3 Qinzi yongzhong 秦子甬鐘 (Dabuzishan 大堡子山 K5:9–1), 212, 223, 224 fig. 7.3, 226, 226 table 7.3 Qinzi yongzhong 秦子甬鐘 (Dabuzishan 大堡子山 K5:10–1), 212, 223, 224 fig. 7.3, 226, 226 table 7.3 Qinzi yongzhong 秦子甬鐘 (Dabuzishan 大堡子山 K5:11–1), 212, 226, 226 table 7.3 Qinzi yongzhong 秦子甬鐘 (Dabuzishan 大堡子山 K5:12–1), 212, 226, 226 table 7.3 Qinzi yongzhong 秦子甬鐘 (Dabuzishan 大堡子山 K5:13–1), 212, 226, 226 table 7.3 Qinzi yongzhong 秦子甬鐘 (Dabuzishan 大堡子山 K5:14–1), 212, 226, 226 table 7.3

Finding List of Bronze Vessels Cited · 325 Qisheng Lu yi 齊甥魯彝 (Jicheng #9896), 117 table 4.2F Qiu pan 逑盤 (Meixian 眉縣 Shan 單 -family cache, Xinshou #757), 121n26, 134, 167, 188n90, 270, 283n23 Qiu Wei gui 裘衛簋 (Jicheng #4256), 115 table 4.1D, 122n31, 155, 182n51 Qiu Wei he 裘衛盉 (Jicheng #9456), 158, 182n51, 183n57, 184n61 Qiu Wei pan 裘衛盤 , 122n31 Ran fangding 方鼎 (Jicheng #2739), 181n42, 212 Ran ge 冉戈 (Jicheng #10714), 42 table 2.3 line 3 Rong Fu Xin jue 戎父辛爵 (Jicheng #8601), 43 table 2.3 line 10 Rong Fu Yi ding 戎父乙鼎 (Jicheng #1533), 43 table 2.3 line 9 Rong Zhong fangding 榮仲方鼎 (Xinshou #1567), 200 Rong Bo li 榮伯鬲 (Jicheng #632), 213 Rong Sheng bianzhong 戎生編鐘 (Xinshou #1613–20), 273, 274, 275 Rui Bo gui 芮伯簋 (Shouyang Studio), 200 Rui Bo hu 芮伯壺 (Jicheng #9585), 200 Rui Gong gui 芮公簋 (Jicheng #4531), 201 Rui Gong gui 芮公簋 (Liangdaicun 梁 帶村 M27.1007), 146 Rui Gong gui gai 芮公簋蓋 , 200 Rui Gong Shu gui 芮公叔簋 (Zhuangtou 莊頭 M1, Xinshou #1101), 200 Rui Ji gui 芮姞簋 (Xinshou #1665), 200, 201 Rui Shu X fu gui 芮叔 父簋 (Jicheng #4065–67), 200 Rui Taizi Bai li 芮太子白鬲

(Liangdaicun 梁帶村 M26.131, 148–50), 146 Rui Taizi ding 芮太子鼎 , 200 Rui Taizi li 芮太子鬲 (Liangdaicun 梁 帶村 M19.258–60), 146 Rui Taizi li 芮太子鬲 (Liangdaicun 梁 帶村 M26.147), 146 Sackler Museum square-based gui with phoenix decor, 198 San Bo gui 散伯簋 (San Bo Zuo Ze Ji gui 散伯作夨姬簋 , Jicheng #3777), 192, 204n8, 204n13 San Bo gui 散伯簋 (San Bo Zuo Ze Ji gui 散伯作夨姬簋 , Jicheng #3778– 80), 204n8, 204n13 San Bo yi 散伯匜 (San Bo Zuo Ze Ji yi 散伯作夨姬匜 , Jicheng #10193), 192, 204n8 San Shi pan 散氏盤 (Jicheng #10176), 192, 204n13, 269 Seventh Year Jue Cao ding 七年趞曹鼎 (Jicheng #2783), 117 table 4.2D, 121n21, 152, 182n46 Shanfu Ke 膳夫克 bronze vessels, 188n92 Shen gui 申簋 (Jicheng #4267), 117 table 4.2Q Shenzi Tuo gui gai 沈子它簋蓋 (Jicheng #4330), 271, 283n25 Shi Baifu xu 士百父盨 , 172, 188n88. See also Wen xu Shi 史 bronze vessels (Qianzhangda 前 掌大 M11), 64 Shi Dao gui 師道簋 (Xiaoheishigou 小 黑石溝 ), 80 fig. 4.4F, 110, 113, 118 table 4.3D, 132n146, 132n147 Shi Hu gui 師虎簋 (Jicheng #4316), 81, 117 table 4.2S, 118 table 4.3A, 131n143, 152, 154, 182n46, 183n53 Shi Huo gui 史 簋 (Jicheng #4030), 130n126

326 · Finding List of Bronze Vessels Cited Shi Shan pan 士山盤 (Xinshou #1555), 117 table 4.2O, 156–57, 156 fig. 5.7, 183n54, 183n55 Shi X fu ding 師 父鼎 (Jicheng #2813), 30n68, 117 table 4.2N, 182n47 Shi Xun gui 師訇簋 (Jicheng #4342), 117 table 4.2A, 132n145 Shi You ding 師酉鼎 (Poly Art Museum, Xinshou #1600), 157, 157 fig. 5.8, 158, 183n58 Shi You gui 師酉簋 (Jicheng #4288–91), 157, 158, 179, 183n59, 212 Shi Yuan gui gai 師 簋蓋 (Jicheng #4283), 118 table 4.3C, 182n48, 183n52 Shu Huanfu you 叔䟒父卣 (Jicheng #5429), 6, 271, 275, 283n26 Shu Shi zhong 叔尸鐘 (Jicheng #276), 252 Shu you 述卣 (Jicheng #5336), 30n70 Shu Ze fangding 叔夨方鼎 (TianmaQucun 天馬曲村 M114.217), 136 fig. 5.1, 137, 177n6, 193, 202 Shu zhi 庶觶 (Jicheng #6510), 50, 51 table 3.1 line 10, 53, 54 fig. 3.1 Si gui 肆簋 (Jicheng #4144), 138, 178n12 Sixth Year Diao Sheng gui 六年琱生簋 (Jicheng #4293), 4, 167, 168, 169, 186n79 Song Gong Luan fu 宋公欒簠 (Jicheng #4589), 237, 238, 239, 240 Song hu 頌壺 (Jicheng #9731), 215 Songcun hu 宋村壺 (Songcun 宋村 M1), 215, 232n14 Sui Gong xu e公盨 (Xinshou #1607), 176n3. See also Bin Gong xu Taibao ding 太保鼎 (Jicheng #1735), 212 Third Year Xing hu 三年𤼈壺 (Jicheng #9724), 284n35

Thirteenth Year Xing hu 十三年𤼈壺 (Jicheng #9723), 284n35 Tian Ce Fu Ji gu 天冊父己觚 (Jicheng #7240), 42 table 2.3 line 10 Tong gui 同簋 (Jicheng #4271), 184n61 Tu he 途盉 (Jicheng #9426), 248 Waliu 洼劉 99M1 seven Shang bronze vessels, 48 Wang Chen gui 王臣簋 (Jicheng #4268), 80 fig. 4.4E, 81, 108, 118 table 4.3B, 131n140 Wang gui 朢簋 (Jicheng # 4272), 104–5, 117 table 4.2L, 130n123 Wang li 王鬲 (Jicheng #645), 127n87 Wangzi Wu ding 王子午鼎 (Jicheng #2811), 238 Wei gui 衛簋 (Jicheng #4209), 184n61 Wei he 衛盉 (Jicheng #9456), 117 table 4.2B Wei jue 未爵 (Jicheng #7737), 56 table 3.2 line 3, 57, 67n10 Wei jue 未爵 (Jicheng #7738), 56 table 3.2 line 4, 57, 67n10 Wen Fu Ding gong 文父丁觥 (Jicheng #9284), 198 Wen Xu 文盨 , 172, 173 fig. 5.15, 173, 174, 175, 188n89. See also Shi Baifu xu Wu Hu ding 吳虎鼎 (Xujiazhai 徐家寨 ), 130n130 Wu Ku ge 吳庫戈 (Jicheng #10919), 205n22 X ben 錛 (Jicheng #11790), 43 table 2.3 line 6 X Bo Ju pan 伯矩盤 (Jicheng #10073), 50, 51 table 3.1 line 5, 52, 54 X bu 瓿 (Jicheng #9942), 42 table 2.3 line 5 X Da Zhong jue 大中爵 (Jicheng #8166), 43 table 2.3 line 5

Finding List of Bronze Vessels Cited · 327 X ding 鼎 (Jicheng #1013), 42 table 2.3 line 5 X ding 鼎 (Jicheng #1098), 43 table 2.3 line 6 X ding 鼎 (Jicheng #2702), 58 X ding 鼎 (Jicheng #2704), 30n67 X ding 鼎 (square-based, with phoenix decor, Jicheng #1242), 198 X (Ning Yang?) Fu Bing ding 宁羊父丙 鼎 (Jicheng #1836), 55 table 3.2 line 8, 57 X Fu Xin he 父辛盉 , 56 table 3.2 line 5, 57 X ge 戈 (Jicheng #10615), 42 table 2.3 line 12 X gu 觚 (Jicheng #6700), 43 table 2.3 line 11 X gui 簋 (Jicheng #2929), 42 table 2.3 line 5 X gui 簋 (Jicheng #3626), 50, 51 table 3.1 line 14, 54 X gui 簋 (Jicheng #3627), 50, 51 table 3.1 line 15, 54 X jue 爵 (Jicheng #7323), 42 table 2.3 line 3 X jue 爵 (Jicheng #7364), 42 table 2.3 line 4 X jue 爵 (Jicheng #7658), 42 table 2.3 line 8 X jue 爵 (Jicheng #7728), 50, 51 table 3.1 line 9 X Mian Fu ding li 丏父丁鬲 (Jicheng #499), 43 table 2.3 line 4 X X gu 觚 (Jicheng #7067), 42 table 2.3 line 1 X X jue 爵 (Jicheng #8154), 42 table 2.3 line 1 X X jue 爵 (Jicheng #8199), 43 table 2.3 line 7 X X Xiang gu 向觚 (Jicheng #7306), 43 table 2.3 line 1 Xi Jia pan 兮甲盤 (Jicheng #10174), 218

Xi Wang zuo Ze Ji zun 王作夨姬尊 , 196 Xian ding p鼎 (Xianyang Public Security Bureau), 170, 171, 171 fig. 5.14, 172 Xian gui 獻簋 (Jicheng #4205), 130n126 Xian gui 鮮簋 (Jicheng #10166), 115 table 4.1G, 120n18 Xiao Yu ding 小盂鼎 (Jicheng #2839), 100, 101, 115 table 4.1C, 129n108 Xiaochen Shou gui 小臣守簋 (Jicheng #4180), 213 Xiaochen X ding 小臣 鼎 (Jicheng #2556), 60 Xiasi 下寺 M1, M3 yi, 248 Xing gui 𤼈簋 (Jicheng #4170), 285n35 Xing Ren Ning zhong 丼人佞鐘 (Jicheng #109–110), 272, 273, 283n28 Xing xu 𤼈盨 (Jicheng #4462), 284n35 Xing zhong 𤼈鐘 (Jicheng #246–7, 251–6), 285n35 Xiu gui 休簋 (Jicheng #3609), 81, 122n31 Xun gui 訇簋 (Jicheng #4321), 78 fig. 4.3E, 80 fig. 4.4C, 107–8, 131n138, 131n139, 132n145 X X pan □□盤 (Hengshui 衡水 M2:65), 76 Ya X ding 亞 鼎 (Jicheng #2248), 50, 51 table 3.1 line 4, 52, 54 Ya X he 亞 盉 (Jicheng #9371), 50, 51 table 3.1 line 3, 52, 54 Ya X zun 亞 尊 (Jicheng #5911), 43 table 2.3 line 8 Ya X zun 亞 尊 (Jicheng #5949), 43 table 2.3 line 8 Ya Xin bronze fragment 亞辛殘銅片 (Jicheng #10476), 43 table 2.3 line 6 Yan Hou ji 匽侯戟 (Jicheng #10953), 59–60

328 · Finding List of Bronze Vessels Cited Yan Hou yu 匽侯盂 ((Jicheng #10305), 53 Yan Hou Zhi ding 匽侯旨鼎 (Jicheng #2628), 60, 132n148 Yao Gong gui 公簋 , 138, 138 fig. 5.2, 139, 140, 150, 178n10 Yao jue 爻爵 (Jicheng #7764), 42 table 2.3 line 9 Yi Hou Ze gui 宜侯夨簋 (Jicheng #4320), 193, 196 Yi Wu Zhi Zao ji 宜無之造戟 (Jicheng #11112), 205n22 Ying Hou gui 應侯簋 (Shouyang Studio), 159, 159 fig. 5.9, 160, 264–65 Ying Hou Xiangong ding 應侯見工鼎 (Shanghai Museum, Xinshou #1456), 161 fig. 5.10, 161 Ying Hou Xiangong gui 應侯見工簋 (Poly Art Museum, Xinshou #79), 159, 184n60 Ying Hou Xiangong gui gai 應侯見 工簋蓋 (Shouyang Studio), 160, 185n70, 266, 267, 269, 271, 275, 276, 281n12 Ying Hou Xiangong zhong 應侯見工鐘 (Poly Art Museum, Xinshou #78), 158 Yong yu 永盂 (Jicheng #10322), 80 fig. 4.4B, 106, 108, 117 table 4.2K, 131n134, 131n145, 152, 182n46, 184n61 You gui 攸簋 (Jicheng #3906), 60 Yu ding 禹鼎 (Jicheng #2833), 162 Yu fangding 圉方鼎 (Jicheng #2505), 55, 55 table 3.2 line 1, 57–8 Yu gui 圉簋 (Jicheng #3825), 53, 55, 55 table 3.2 line 2, 56 Yu gui 圉簋 (Xiaopotaigou 小波汰溝 , Jicheng #3824), 68n18 Yu yan 圉甗 (Jicheng #935), 55, 55 table 3.2 line 3, 56

Yu you 圉卣 (Jicheng #5374), 55, 55 table 3.2 line 4, 56 Yu Zheng Wei ding 御正衛鼎 (Jicheng #4044), 30n65 Yu Zhi ji 虞之戟 (Jicheng #11002), 205n22 Yuan pan 㝨盤 (Jicheng #10172), 31n73 Yuan Zi Shou zhong 薳子受鐘 set no. 1 (Heshangling 和尚嶺 M2.37–45, Xinshou #504–12), 249 Yuan Zi Shou zhong 薳子受鐘 set no. 2 (Heshangling 和尚嶺 M2.46–53, Xinshou #513–20), 249 Yue Yi gui 戉乙簋 (Jicheng #3061), 42 table 2.3 line 7 Zangsun zhong 臧孫鐘 (Jicheng #93– 101), 242 Ze Wang zhi 夨王觶 (Jicheng #6452), 192, 204n13 Zeng Taishi ding 曾太師鼎 (Heshangling 和尚嶺 M1.5, Xinshou #501), 249 Zhangjiapo 張家坡 yue, 199 Zhe Jian zhong 者減皿鐘 (Jicheng #198), 284n32 Zhong fangding 方鼎 (Jicheng #2824), 277 Zhong gui 簋 (Jicheng #4322), 263, 276 Zhong Jiang ding 仲姜鼎 (Liangdaicun 梁帶村 M26.142–3, 145–6), 146 Zhong Jiang gui 仲姜簋 (Liangdaicun 梁帶村 M26.152–5), 146 Zhong Jiang hu 仲姜壺 (Liangdaicun 梁帶村 M26.140–1), 146 Zhong nao A 中鐃甲 (Jicheng #367), 42 table 2.3 line 2 Zhong nao B 中鐃乙 (Jicheng #368), 42 table 2.3 line 2 Zhong nao C 中鐃丙 (Jicheng #369), 42 table 2.3 line 2

Finding List of Bronze Vessels Cited · 329 Zhong Shuofu xu 仲食樂父盨 (Jicheng #4399), 213 Zhong Zi Qi X gong 中子㠱引觥 (Jicheng #9298), 198 Zhu Gong Le zhong 邾公釛鐘 (Jicheng #102), 240 Zi jue 子爵 (Jicheng #7315), 42 table 2.3 line 10 Zou gui 走簋 (Jicheng #4244), 117 table 4.2J, 182n47 Zou Zi yue 鄒子鉞 (Jicheng #11757), 207n37 Zouma Xiu pan 走馬休盤 (Jicheng #10170), 81, 117 table 4.2P Zu Xin jue 祖辛爵 (Jicheng #7862), 42 table 2.3 line 11 Zuo Bao Yi you 作寶彝卣 (Jicheng #5035), 55, 55 table 3.2 line 5, 56 fig. 3.2 Zuo Bao Yi zun 作寶彝尊 (Jicheng #5711), 55, 55 table 3.2 line 6, 56 fig. 3.2 Zuo Bao Zun Yi ding 作寶尊彝鼎 (Xinshou #1356), 50, 51 table 3.1 line 13 Zuo Bo ding 柞白鼎 (National Museum of China), 166, 166 fig. 5.1 Zuoce Wu fangyi gai 作冊吳方彝蓋 (Jicheng #9898), 30n64, 154 Zuoce Wu he 作冊吳盉 (Xinjiang 新絳 ), 115 table 4.1F, 155, 182n44 Zuoce Yi you 乍冊嗌卣 (Jicheng #5427), 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 272, 275

T his page intentionally left blank

Index

adjectives, 212, 276 adverbs, 19, 276 agate, 74, 86 alcoholic beverages, 77, 99, 122n34. See also beer; wine Allan, Sarah, 217 alliance, political, 237, 240, 241, 251, 253 ancestor, cult of, 262, 269, 272, 276; dedication for, 11, 270; name of, 38, 39, 52, 58; sacrifices to, 82, 259n73, 261, 278; temple of, 265, 267, 269, 270 Anhui, 165 animals, 66n2, 112 Anju 安居 , 140 Ansai 安塞 , 91 antiquarian, 9 antiques, 197; market of, 3, 57, 133, 135, 179n19, 183n54; gallery of, 138, 150; dealer of; 152 Anyang 安陽 , 4, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 45n21, 45n22, 88, 98, 199, 229 archaeology, 63, 236, 238 archaism, 199 architectural foundation, 227. See also building foundation archive, 270 aridization of Ordos, 88 art dealer, 215

Art Institute of Chicago, 1, 6, 215 Art Museum of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1 artes minores (xiaoxue 小學 ), 13 Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, 198 assemblages, of bronze weapons, 126n81; of clans, 61; of ding and gui, 99–100; of funerals, 40; of vessels, 38, 49, 58, 99; of burials, 216 Assmann, Jan, 279n2 assonance, 13 audiences, 109, 110, 111, 246, 264, 266, 267, 271 aunts (wanggu 王姑 ), 265, 281n12 Austin, John Langshaw, 264 Austroasiatic, 12, 14 authenticity, 164, 186n80 author, 263, 272, 275, 283n23 avuncular relationship, 252 axe, 74 Ba 霸 , 94, 148, 149, 201, 222 Bagley, Robert W., 44n7 Baicaopo 白草坡 , 48 Baifu 白浮 , 126n81 Baikal Lake, 92 Baines, John, 279n2 Baiyan 白燕 , 90, 91 bamboo, manuscript/text/document

332 · Index written on, 4, 12, 235, 250, 262, 268, 269; and wood, 262, 268, 269 Bamboo Annals, 98, 99, 137, 178n10, 186n77; current version, 140, 218 banner with five suns, 108, 109, 110, 111 banquet, 270 Bao xun 保訓 , 204n2 Baode 保德 , 92 Baode variant (Baode leixing 保德類 型 ) of the Lijiaya culture, 94, 95, 100 Baoji 寶雞 , 48, 150, 191, 192, 198, 199, 202, 204n9, 219, 220, 221, 224 Baoji Museum, 198 “Basic Annals of Qin” 秦本紀 chapter of Shi ji 史記 , 217, 220, 221, 228 “Basic Annals of Qin Shihuang” 秦始 皇本紀 chapter of Shi ji 史記 , 220 Baxter-Sagart system, 26n34 beer, 82, 122n34 Behr, Wolfgang (Chinese name 畢鶚 ), xi, 5 Beidongcun 北洞村 , 58 Beijing 北京 , 2, 10, 49, 57, 58, 69n25, 84, 110, 134, 158, 176n4 Beiyao 北窯 , 48 Beizhaocun 北趙村 , 216, 229 bells, 66n1, 74, 76, 101, 109, 142, 167, 200, 209, 223, 225, 227, 229, 240, 247, 262, 264, 272, 273, 274, 275, 227 ben 錛 , 35 Bi 畢 , 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 111, 113, 114, 130n130 Bi Gong 畢公 , 147, 148 fig. 5.4 Bi Gong Gao 畢公高 , 105 Bi Ji 畢姬 , 71, 75, 76, 77, 82, 95, 96, 103, 104, 105, 143 Bin 豳 , 203 Bin Gong 豳公 , 268, 269 Binxian 豳縣 , 203

blessing invocation (guci 嘏辭 ), 12, 26n34, 262. See also prayer formula bo 伯 , 222 Bo Liangfu 伯梁父 , 130n120 Bo Weifu 伯衛父 , 130n120 bo-bell 鎛鐘 , 223, 224, 225 table 7.2, 225, 226, 226 table 7.3, 229, 238 Boding Geng 伯丁庚 , 50, 51 table 3.1, 54 Boju 伯矩 , 50, 51 table 3.1, 52, 53, 54, 58 bone, 149, 179n24; as ornament, 74, 86. See also oracle bone booty, 48, 100, 239, 276. bow-shaped implement, 101 branch lineage, 172, 247, 250, 251, 253 British Museum, 138 bronze, bushing made of, 129n111; fish made of, 109; clothing ornament made of, 74; ornament made of, 88; proportion of inscribed, 35; tool made of, 88; weapon made of, 88, 95, 123n40, 126n81, 147 building foundation, 95, 217, 223, 227. See also architectural foundation; rammed-earth building foundation bureaucracy, 279n3, 283n22 burials, 61, 119n10; goods for, 123n46, 217, 249 C14 method, 127n82 Cai 蔡 , 243 Cai Hou 蔡侯 , 165, 166 Cai Yunzhang 蔡運章 , 48 calligraphy, 3, 210, 212, 275, 282n20 Cao Shuqin 曹淑琴 , 52 Cao Wei 曹瑋 , 47 ack., 48 casting inversion, 20, 199, 210 cattle, 100 ceming 冊命 , 262, 268, 270, 276. See also investiture

Index · 333 cenematic (xuci 虛詞 ), 11 Central Eurasian steppe, 87 Central Plain, 64, 88, 92, 94, 103, 110, 112, 113 ceramics, 83 Chang Zi Kou 長子口 , 64 Chang’an 長安 , 78 fig. 4.3, 105, 130n130 Changwu 長武 , 203 Changzhi 長治 , 205n22 character structure, 20, 31n81, 212 charge, 270 chariot, 73, 75, 79, 81, 84, 86, 100, 101, 105, 111, 137, 142, 143, 147, 149, 153, 167 Chen 陳 , 240, 243 Ch’en Chao-jung 陳昭容 , xi, 3, 146, 147, 177n7, 232n8 Chen Fangmei 陳芳妹 , 83 Chen Gongrou 陳公柔 , 198 Chen Jie 陳絜 , 242 Chen Pan 陳槃 , 191 Chen Ping 陳平 , 57, 230 Chen Yingjie 陳英傑 , 277, 280n5, 282n18 Cheng , 77 Cheng 郕 lineage, 111 Cheng Wang 成王 . See King Cheng Chengcheng 澄城 , 80 fig. 4.4, 109 Chengqiao 程橋 , 242, 251 Chengzhou 成周 , 57, 58, 71, 97, 102, 107, 136, 137, 150, 174 Chengzhou Eight Armies 成周八師 , 174 Cheung, Alex Kwong-yue 張光裕 , 150, 172, 173, 232n8 Chicago, 2, 71 ack. Chifeng 赤峰 , 80 fig. 4.4, 109, 110 chimes, 223, 247 Chinese Century Altar Museum (Zhonghua shiji tan yishuguan 中 華世紀壇藝術館 ), 176n4

Chinese Cultural Information Center (Zhongguo wenwu zixun zhongxin 中國文物諮詢中心 ), 185n69 Chinese University of Hong Kong, The, 1, 6 Chong 崇 , 191 Chongxin 崇信 , 203 chronology, 133, 172, 175; given in the Shi ji, 174; of bronze dou, 249; of Mu Wang’s reign, 154; of pottery, 231; of Western Zhou, 3, 4, 81, 112, 134, 139, 140, 158; of Wu Wang’s reign, 153 Chu 楚 , 12, 13, 104, 130n121, 235, 236, 238, 239, 243, 245, 246, 247, 250; bamboo manuscripts of, 250 Chu ju 楚居 , 235, 250 Chuanyecun 串業村 , 80 fig. 4.4 Chuji 楚季 , 247, 250 Chunhua 淳化 , 91, 92 Chushu 楚叔 , 240, 247, 248, 250, 258n67 Chuzi 出子 , 228, 230 city walls, 88, 217. See also walls clan emblems, 34, 130n119 classifier variation, 21 climate change, 90, 144 clitic form, 13 cloth, as red, 73 clothes, 47, 59, 60, 66n2 coats of arms, 33 cognomen (zi 字 ), 180n29 collateral kin, 247 collective emblems, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40 colonies, 53, 71, 87, 94, 95, 109, 111, 112, 113 commands, 268 composite emblems (fuhe zuhui 複合 族徽 ), 45n24 Confucius, 47, 66n1, 282n18 conjunctions, 11 consonant clusters, 20

334 · Index consorts, 241, 244, 248, 249, 250; principal, 146; chief, 275; secondary, 146 copper, 104, 130n118 copulas, 15 costume, 96 court case, 152. See also lawsuit cowry, 47, 52, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 66n2, 137, 151, 157 Cui Yongdong 崔永東 , 11 Cultural Revolution, 10 cultured grandfather (wen zu 文祖 ), 52 Da Dai Li ji 大戴禮記 (Book on Ritual by Elder Dai), 235, 243 “Da gao” 大誥 chapter of Shang shu 尚 書 , 282n16 da kou zun 大口尊 (large-mouthed zun-jars); 74, 82, 82 fig. 4.5A, 83, 86, 88, 89, 91, 93 fig. 4.8, 92, 95, 96, 102, 103, 112, 122n39 “Da zhuan” 大傳 chapter of the Li ji 禮 記 , 187n87 da zong 大宗 (great lineage), 188n87 Dabuzishan 大堡子山 , 3, 209, 212, 213, 213 fig. 7.1, 214 fig. 7.2, 216, 217, 218 map 7.1, 219, 220, 223, 224 fig. 7.3, 225, 226, 226 table 7.3, 227, 228 fig. 7.4, 228, 229, 230, 231, 234n38 Dafu 大夫 , 223 dagger-axe, 74, 88, 160 Dahekou 大河口 , 94, 126n78, 148, 201 dahui 大𠦪 , 57 Dai Chunyang 戴春陽 , 216 Dai Lianzhang 戴璉璋 , 11 Daijiawan 戴家灣 , 192, 198, 199, 202 Dakou 大口 , 88 Dali 大荔 , 145, 190, 191, 200, 201, 202 Daluo 大駱 , 217, 218 Dan 丹 River, 109 Danfeng 丹鳳 , 154

Dantu 丹徒 , 196 Dasanguan 大散關 , 192 dating, 12, 94, 94, 95, 162, 174, 175, 229, 248; formulas of, 270; of bronze inscriptions, 262, 283n22; Dayang 大陽 , 190, 202 decor, 3, 74, 77, 79, 86, 96, 141, 179n20, 197, 198, 199, 200, 210, 226, 270, 280n9 dedication of bronze inscriptions, 33, 39, 49, 262, 264, 267 deictic (zhishi 指事 ), 20 demographic diversity, 64 Di 狄 / 翟 , 71, 97, 99, 102, 112, 149 “Di xi” 帝繫 chapter of Da Dai Li ji 大 戴禮記 , 243 Di Xin 帝辛 , 178n12 Di Yi 帝乙 , 178n12 dialects, 13 Diao 琱 lineage, 187n81 Diao Sheng 琱生 , 4, 168, 169, 170, 186n79, 187n81 diction, 210, 212 “Dili zhi” 地理志 chapter of the Han shu 漢書 , 190, 191, 203 dimidiation, 21 Ding Shengshu 丁聲樹 , 10 direct object, 19 disyllabification, 20, 21, 31n85. See also lexical explosion ditransitivity, 11 divination, 261 Dobson, William Arthur Charles Harvey, 10, 11 dog sacrifice, 60, 61, 63 Dong Ji 東姬 , 241 Dongxiafeng 東下馮 , 88, 89, 90, 89–90 fig. 4.7, 91; pottery tradition, 88 dou 豆 , 227, 249 Dou 鬬 lineage, 249, 250 double object construction (ditransive construction, dative construction),

Index · 335 10, 11 double phonophorics (chongshengzi 重 聲字 ), 13 double verb phrase, 212 Doushu 鬬叔 , 250 dowry, 104, 262, 265 dragon pattern, 199, 215 drainage system, 49 Du 杜 , 130n130, 228 Du shi fangyu jiyao 讀史方輿紀要 , 203 Du Yu 杜預 , 165 Duanfang 端方 , 206n35 Duke Huan of Qin 秦桓公 , 225 table 7.2 Duke Jing of Qin 秦靜公 , 209, 221, 225, 229 Duke of Guo 虢公 , 221. See also Guo Gong Duke of Qin 秦公 , 3, 212, 216, 218 map 7.1, 221. See also Qin Gong Duke of Zhou 周公 , 137, 150, 165, 181n42, 271. See also Zhou Gong Duke Wen of Jin 晉文侯 , 216 Duke Wen of Qin 秦文公 , 210, 217, 219, 220, 221, 225, 228 Duke Wu of Qin 秦武公 , 227, 228, 229. See also Qin Wu Gong Duke Xian of Qin 秦憲公 , 209, 217, 220, 221, 230 Duke Xiang of Qin 秦襄公 , 3, 209, 210, 217, 219, 220, 221, 223, 228, 229 Duke Xuan of Qin 秦宣公 , 230 Duke Zhuang of Qin 秦莊公 , 3, 209, 217, 219, 220, 222, 223, 228, 229 duosheng 多生 , 252, 259n73 duozi 多子 , 252

editing, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21 educational system, 13 Egypt, 235, 257n44; literature of, 280n8; texts of, 279n2 eight western and six eastern shi 師 , 109 Ejin Horo 伊金霍洛 banner, 87 elegant speech (yayan 雅言 ), 13 elites, 3, 35, 36, 38, 40, 44n12, 47, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 69n25, 82, 83, 84, 92, 95, 103, 113, 201, 227, 236, 237, 239, 241, 245, 246, 261, 263; metropolitan, 87, 104, 114 ellipsis, 11 emblems, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44n6, 104; definition, 33; collective emblem, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40; individual emblem 33, 34, 36, 40; of Fu Hao, 34, 34 table 2.1; clan emblem, 34; lineage emblem (zuhui 族徽 ), 34; major emblem, 39, 39 fig. 2.3, 40; minor emblem, 39, 39 fig. 2.3; composite emblem (fuhe zuhui 複合族徽 ), 45n24 Eno, Robert, xii, 5, 6 epigraphy, 23n2 erasure, 5; and recarved, 238, 239 Erligang 二里崗 , 88, 90, 124n55 Erlitou 二里頭 , 88, 89, 124n55 Erya 爾雅 , 251, 252, 281n12 exchanges, of bronze vessel, 48; of gift, 148; of woman, 103, 241, 253 exile, 167, 189 exorcisism, 281n13 extra-lineage cult, 259n73

E 鄂 , 140, 141, 162 E Hou 噩侯 , 141, 161, 162, 167, 185n68 Early Qin Culture Archaeological Team, 223 Eastern Yi 東夷 , 162

Falkenhausen, Lothar von (Chinese name Luo Tai 羅泰 ), 83, 87, 172, 235 ack., 258n67, 265, 270, 282n19 family title, 35 Fan 番 , 127n87

336 · Index Fan, George, 1–2, 160, 211 table 7.1, 212, 213 fig. 7.1, 214 fig. 7.2, 215. See also Shouyang Studio Fan Weiyue 樊維岳 , 184n61 Fang Lina 方麗娜 , 11 Fang Xuanchen 方炫琛 , 242 Fantang 緐湯 , 274 feature rhyme, 13 Feizi 非子 , 217, 222 females, 73, 75, 86, 87, 84, 95, 97, 103, 111, 122n39, 146. See also women Fen 汾 River, 89, 90, 94, 102, 113 Feng 丰 , 56 table 3.2, 57 Feng 豐 , 105, 106, 191 Feng 灃 River, 86, 109, 220 Feng Shi 馮時 , 189 ack., 180n29, 205n19 Fengxian 鳳縣 , 204n9 Fengxiang 鳳翔 , 192, 202, 204n9, 205n22 Fengyi 馮翊 , 190, 201, 202, 207n44 Fenshuiling 分水嶺 , 205n22 Fenyang 汾陽 , 88 filial succession, 243, 244, 245, 246 Firthian structuralist framework, 10 five hegemons (wu ba 五霸 ), 239 five-rank-system, 222, 256n33 focalization, 19 food, 272, 275 forgery, 160 fraternal alliance, 240 fraternal succession, 244, 245 Fu 復 , 59 Fu Hao 婦好 , 34, 34 table 2.1, 36 “Fu zhuan” 服傳 chapter of the Yili 儀 禮 , 251 Fuchai 夫差 , 239 Fufeng 扶風 , 86, 167, 186n79, 202, 204n9 function word, 11, 15, 237 functional stylistics, 12 Fuzi 𠬝子, 164

Ganquan 甘泉 , 92 Gansu, 3, 191, 199, 202, 203, 209, 210, 217, 220, 227, 229 Gansu Museum, 211 table 7.1, 212, 214 fig. 7.3, 215, 223 Gansu Provincial Cultural Relics Bureau, 216 Gansu Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, 216 Ganzi 干子 lineage, 54 Ganzi Yue 干子鉞 , 50, 51 table 3.1, 52, 54 gao 誥 , 262, 264, 268 Gao Chenglin 高成林 , 248 Gaohong 高紅 92, 94, 101, 110; pottery of, 89–90 fig. 4.7, 93 fig. 4.8, 93, 127n82; bronze vessels of, 95, 126n72 Gaojiabao 高家堡 , 40, 48 garment, 113 Gassmann, Bob, xi ge 戈 , 35 Ge 戈 lineage, 48, 50, 51 table 3.1 Gebo 格伯 , 104 genealogy, 4, 5, 235–53; statement of, 5, 236, 237, 241, 243. See also linear genealogy; segmented genealogy; parallel genealogy geography, 4, 98, 145, 190 gifts, 47, 100, 105, 113, 168, 281n12; funerary, 48, 54, 55, 58, 59, 64; giving of, 47, 48, 59, 60, 64, 65; lists of, 12, 16, 66n2, 262, 270 gong 公 , 222, 223 Gong Bo He 共伯和 167 Gong He 共和 (interregnum), 167 Gong Liu 公劉 (Shi jing poem, historical personage), 203 Gong Wang 共王 . See King Gong gongsun 公孫 , 237 Gongzhong 公中 , 50, 51 table 3.1, 53, 54

Index · 337 gongzi 公子 , 237 Gosden, Chris, 112 grammar, 5, 9, 10, 11, 212; of bronze inscriptions, 10, 11, 24n8; of Western Zhou, 24n8; of Yin-shang, 21 graphemic issue, 9 Great Bronze Age of China exhibition, 150 Gu Gong Danfu 古公亶父 , 189 Gu Jiegang 顧頡剛 , 9 “Gu ming” 顧命 chapter of Shang shu 尚書 , 130n125 Guai 乖 , 106, 131n133 Guaibo 乖伯 , 113, 131n133 guan 棺 , 73, 74, 83, 142 guan 罐 , 227 Guan Xiechu 管燮初 , 10, 11 Guangxu 光緒 , 192 Guanzhong Plain 關中平原 , 146 guarantor (youzhe 右者 ), 152, 154, 156, 182n48, 183n52, 181n61. See also right-hand attendant Gui 邽 , 229 Gui 鬼 , 98. See also Guifang Gui Rong peoples of Western Luo 西落 鬼戎 , 99 Guifang 鬼方 , 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 128n90 guo 槨 , 73, 74, 84, 142 Guo 虢 , 97, 216, 222, 228 Guo Gong 虢公 , 186n77. See also Duke of Guo Guo Moruo 郭沫若 , 9, 10, 25n14 Guo Pu 郭璞 , 102 Guo yu 國語 , 97, 99, 237, 250 Guoji 虢季 , 247 Guojiazhuang 郭家莊 , 45n20, 199 Guozhong 虢仲 , 165, 166, 186n77, 247 Gushi 固始 , 237 Gushibian 古史辨 (disputes on ancient history), 9

hairdressing, 74, 96 Hammurabi, 235 Han River 漢水 , 141 Han shu 漢書 , 139, 190, 203 Han Wei 韓偉 , 217 Han Wei 韓巍 , 247 Hancheng 韓城 , 3, 145, 146, 191, 196, 200 Hancheng Archaeological Team (Hancheng kaogudui 韓城考古隊 ), 146 Hancheng shi wenwu lüyouju 韓城市 文物旅遊局 , 146 handwashing ritual, 82 hanging fish-scale pattern, 215 Hao 鎬 , 145 Harvard-Yenching Institute, 9 Hayashi Minao 林巳奈夫 , 236 He 𣄰 , 4, 150, 151 He Dingsheng 何定生 , 9, 23n5 heavenly stem (tiangan 天干 ), 39 table 2.2 Hebei, 98, 103 Hedong 河東 , 190, 202 Hefei 合肥 , 165 hegemon, 239, 240 heirlooms, 48, 197, 247 Henan, 40, 58, 64, 107, 141, 162, 199, 237, 238, 239, 242, 248 Hengbei 橫北 , 73, 77, 78 fig. 4.3, 82, 84, 85 fig. 4.6, 89–90 fig. 4.7, 92, 93 fig. 4.8, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 101, 102, 103, 104, 111, 112, 113, 114, 126n72, 127n83, 142, 146, 179n22 Hengshan 恆山 , 98 Hengshui zhen 橫水鎮 , 71, 73, 75 fig. 4.1, 76 fig. 4.2 Hequ 河曲 , 88 Heshangling 和尚嶺 , 248, 249, 250 Hohhot, 102 homophonophoric (xiesheng 諧聲 ), 11 Hong Kong, 10, 138, 150, 152, 155, 211

338 · Index table 7.1, 214 fig. 7.2, 215 Hongshan 紅山 , 197 Hongtong 洪洞 , 86 honorific byname, 79, 242 horses, 66n1, 100, 101, 104, 130, 137, 144, 201; ornament of, 66n1, 74; trade of, 104, 130 horse-and-chariot pit, 49, 146, 149, 216, 217 hou 侯 , 222 Hou Han shu 後漢書 , 99 Hougudui 侯古堆 , 237, 238 Houma 侯馬 , 137, 167 Hu 曶 , 173, 174, 175. See also Steward Hu; Shi Hufu Hu 虎 , 109, 154 Hu 胡 , 164 Hu 㝬 , 164 Hu Hou 㝬侯 , 200, 201 Huabei 華北 Plain, 98 Huai 淮 River, 165 Huai Yi 淮夷 , 106, 160, 161, 162, 165, 186n77, 187n82 Huangdi 黃帝 (Yellow Emperor), 240, 241 huangwei 荒帷 (coffin shroud), 74, 119n13, 142 Huangxian 黃縣 , 200 Huashan 華山 , 228, 229 Huating 華亭 , 203 Huaxia 華夏 , 71, 112, 114 Hubei 湖北 , 140, 162, 247 Hubinzhen 湖濱鎮 , 80 fig. 4.4 human figurine, 149 human sacrifice, 60, 61, 63, 73, 74, 84, 96 Hutuo 滹沱 River, 102 Huxian 鄠 (戶 ) 縣 , 215 Ikh Juu 伊克昭 league, 87 imagined community, 241 initials, 11

Inner Mongolia, 80 fig. 4.4, 87, 88, 102, 109, 113 instability of writing system, 21 Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 189 ack. Institute of Chinese Studies, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 6 Institute of History and Philology, 189 ack. Intermarriage, 111, 201, 252. See also marriage Internal Secretary (neishi 內史 ) Wu 吳 , 154 interrogative phrase, 14, 19 interrogative pronoun, 19 inversion syndrome, 19 investiture, 11, 262; setting of, 14; inscription of, 152, 156. See also ceming jade, 142, 147, 149, 153, 201; object made of, 74; pieced, 167, 197; vessel made of, 147; ornament made of, 74, 86; ring made of, 168 jade tablet (zhang 章 / 璋 ), 168, 170 Ji 妃 (己 ), 127n87 Ji 姞 (surname, lineage), 86, 141, 201 Ji 姬 (surname, clan name, lineage), 71, 87, 95, 96, 103, 111, 112, 113, 114, 196, 202, 205n21, 241, 244 Ji 冀 , 229 Ji Hou Ya Yi 箕侯亞矣 , 57 Ji Li 季歷 , 99 Ji Ya Yi 箕亞矣 , 56 table 3.2, 57, 58, 69n25 Ji Zhou 姬周 clan, 63 Ji Zi 箕子 , 69n25 Jian 汧 River, 146, 189, 191, 192, 193, 195 map 6.2, 196, 201, 202, 203, 219

Index · 339 Jiang 江 (lineage), 242 Jiang 姜 (surname, clan, lineage), 71, 196, 202, 205n21, 240, 244 Jiang 絳 , 71 Jiang Canyon 井陘 , 98 Jiangji 江季 , 242, 247 Jiangsu, 165, 196, 242 Jiangxian 絳縣 , 2, 71, 75 fig. 4.1, 76 fig. 4.2, 78 fig. 4.3, 142, 145, 146 Jiangxian Cultural Bureau (Jiangxian wenhuaju 絳縣文化局 ), 142 Jiangzhong 江仲 , 242, 247 Jiangzhou 絳州 , 137, 177n9 Jianyang 汧陽 , 204n9 Jiao 角 , 162, 165 Jin Hou Boma 晉侯僰馬 , 120n17 Jin Hou Su 晉侯蘇 (also known as Jin Xian Hou 晉獻侯 ), 174, 273 Jin Hou Xifu 晉侯喜父 , 83, 95, 120n17, 127n83 Jin 金 dynasty, 23n1 Jin 津 , 165 Jin 晉 (state, lineage), 13, 60, 71, 73, 77, 83, 89, 91, 94, 95, 97, 103, 112, 113, 114, 120n17, 132n154, 135, 136, 137, 139, 174, 178n10, 193, 202, 216, 229, 236, 244, 275 Jin 堇 , 55 table 3.2, 57, 58, 60 Jin Wen Gong 晉文公 , 240 Jing 井 , 98 Jing 荆 , 98, 128n98 Jing Bo 井白 (刑伯 ), 152 Jing Hou 靖侯 , 120n17 Jing 涇 River, 91, 106, 191, 199, 203, 218 Jing Shu 井叔 , 149, 247 Jingchuan 涇川 , 203 Jingfang 井方 , 98 Jingjie 旌介 , 40 Jingzhou 涇州 , 203 Jinniucun 金牛村 , 58 Jinsheng 晉生 (甥 ), 127n83

Jiuguan 糾貫 lineage, 57, 58 Jixian 吉縣 , 92 Ju , 59, 69n28 Jueyu 絕隃 Pass, 102 Kadaiic, 12. See also Tai-Kadaiic Kang Hou 康侯 , 178n12 Kang Wang 康王 . See King Kang Kaogu 考古 (Archaeology) journal, 138, 172 Kaogu tu 考古圖 , 23n1, 201 Kazuo 喀左 , 53, 56, 57, 58, 69n25 Ke 克 , 61 Ke Huang 克黃 , 248, 249, 250 Keightley, David, 279n3 Kern, Martin, 264, 272 Khayutina, Maria (Chinese name 夏玉 婷 ), xii, 2, 3, 144, 179n22, 283n22 Kikawada Osamu 黃川田修 , 189 ack. King Cheng of Zhou 周成王 , 49, 105, 121n26, 136, 137, 139, 140, 150, 151, 178n10, 200, 201, 202 King Gong of Zhou 周共王 , 77, 78 fig. 4.3, 79, 80 fig. 4.4, 81, 84–5 fig. 4.6, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 111, 112, 113, 116 table 4.2, 122n32, 131n144, 132n147, 132n157, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 182n51, 183n57. 284n31 King Kang of Zhou 周康王 , 49, 105, 129n105, 131n142, 138, 139, 140, 151, 200, 201, 202 King Li of Zhou 周厲王 , 141, 162, 164, 167, 174, 184–5, 188n90, 201, 218 King Mu of Zhou 周穆王 , 77, 102, 109, 115 table 4.1, 120n18, 121n26, 122n32, 129n116, 142, 154, 153, 155, 156, 183n51, 200, 201, 202 King Ping of Zhou 周平王 , 220, 221 King Wei of (Tian) Qi 齊威王 , 240 King Wen of Zhou 周文王 , 3, 99, 105, 134, 145, 190, 191, 202, 204n2,

340 · Index 205n22. See also Xi Bo King Wu of Chu 楚武王 , 250 King Wu of Zhou 周武王 , 67n5, 134, 137, 140, 151, 152, 201, 202, 250 King Xuan of Zhou 周宣王 , 134, 164, 167, 172, 174, 175, 187n82, 218, 219, 241 King Yi of Zhou 周夷王 , 78 fig. 4.3 King Yih of Zhou 周懿王 , 80 fig. 4.4, 81, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 118 table 4.3, 132n147, 152, 153, 155 King You of Zhou 周幽王 , 220 King Zhao of Zhou 周昭王 , 120n18, 121n26, 139–140, 200, 201, 202 King’s Servant 王臣 , 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 131n142 kingship, 204n2 kinship, 2, 5, 53, 107, 113, 237, 243; structure of, 170, 172, 243; genealogical statement of, 236, 237–43; terms of, 39 table 2.2, 237, 241, 242, 243, 245, 247, 251, 252 kneepad (fu 巿 ), 131n137 Kui 媿 / Gui 鬼 (surname, lineage), 71, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 104, 112, 113, 114, 128n90 Kui 隗 -surnamed Red Di, 97, 98 Kuo di zhi 括地志 , 191 Kyoto, 60 La Wang 剌王 , 188n90. See also Li Wang lacquer, 142, 149 Lai Guolong 來國龍 , xii, 4, 5 Lally, James, 210 table 7.1, 214 fig. 7.2, 215, 217 land, 64; bestowal of, 47, 49, 61, 100, 217, 220, 221, 222; exchange of, 104; dispute on, 190, 191; treaty of Lander, Brian, 209 ack. Lantian 藍田 , 78 fig. 4.3, 80 fig. 4.4, 106, 108, 131n145

laryngeal gesture, 21 lawsuit, 3, 4, 145, 189, 190, 191, 196, 201. See also court case; land: dispute on lead content, 179n24 lento form, 21 lesser lineage (xiao zong 小宗 ), 188n87 lexicon, 5, 11, 20–1; explosion of, 21; standardization of, 13 Li , 121n26 Li Boqian 李伯謙 , 193 Li Chaoyuan 李朝遠 , 37, 38, 161, 209 ack., 210, 232n6 Li Feng 李峰 , xiii, 3, 47 ack., 106, 107, 205n22, 282n20 Li ji 禮記 , 47, 66n1, 142, 172 Li Jinxi 黎錦熙 , 10 Li Ling 李零 , 220, 236, 246, 248, 249, 250 Li Wang 釐王 , 285n39 Li Wang (of Zhou) 周厲王 . See King Li of Zhou Li Xueqin 李學勤 , 81, 144, 172, 173, 174, 184n67, 185n69, 193, 236, 246, 250, 251, 274, 284n31, 217 Liangdaicun 梁帶村 , 3, 145, 146, 191, 196, 197, 197 fig. 6.1, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202 Liaoning 遼寧 , 53, 111 Lijiacun 李家村 hoard, 121n26 Lijiaya 李家崖 , 2, 89–90 fig. 4.7, 91, 92, 94, 99, 100, 101, 102, 112 Lijiaya culture (Lijiaya wenhua 李家崖 文化 ), 2, 92, 94, 95, 99, 103, 112, 125n68 Lin Biao 林彪 , 154 Lin Yiguang 林義光 , 9, 23n3 Lin Yun 林澐 , 259n73 Linduff, Katheryn M., 47 ack. lineage, 4, 49, 63, 278; metropolitan lineage, 104, 111; name (shi 氏 ) of, 101, 130n120, 184n61, 242,

Index · 341 250; royal, 251; seniority of, 247; temples of, 261 lineage elder (zong bo 宗伯 ), 200 lineage emblem (zuhui 族徽 ), 34. See also lineage inscription lineage inscription (zushi mingwen 族 氏銘文 ), 34 linear genealogy, 243–6, 251, 253 Linfen 臨汾 , 90 Linfen shi wenwuju 臨汾市文物局 , 149 Lingtai 靈臺 , 199, 202 Linjin 臨晉 , 190, 202 Lishan 酈山 , 220 literary artfulness, 267 literature, history of, 262, 268; Western Zhou, 263 lithic inscription, 21 Liu Binhui 劉彬徽 , 250 Liu Qiyi 劉啟益 , 196 Liu Xin 劉歆 , 139, 140 Liu Yunxing 劉運興 , 98 Liuhe 六合 , 242 Liujiazhuang 劉家莊 , 4, 36–7, 36 fig. 2.1, 38, 40 Liulihe 琉璃河 , 2, 48, 49, 51 table 3.1, 54 fig. 3.1, 55–6 table 3.2, 56 fig. 3.2, 57, 58, 59, 61, 84; distribution of burials, 62 fig. 3.3, 63 fig. 3.4 Liulin 柳林 , 92 “Liuyue” 六月 in Shi jing 詩經 , 219 Lixian 禮縣 , 3, 209, 210, 216, 217, 220, 227, 229, 230 loan graph, 12 London, 210 table 7.1, 214 fig. 7.2, 232 London school (of Linguistics), 10 Longshan 隴山 , 220, 229 Longxian 隴縣 , 191, 192, 198, 198 fig. 6.2, 202, 203 Longxian County Library and Museum, 198 Longzhou 隴州 , 202, 203 looting, 3, 35, 37, 38, 42–3 table 2.3,

45n21, 49, 57, 61, 138, 216, 248, 249; nonlooted tomb, 35, 36, 37, 38. See also tomb robbery/robbing; tomb robber Lower Xiajiadian 夏家店 tradition, 110 Lu 彔 , 285n39 Lu 路 , 104 Lu 魯 , 222, 241, 243, 244 Lu , 152, 153, 154 Lu 潞 (Kui-surnamed lineage), 97, 99 lü 旅 (for travel) object, 76, 77, 120n14 Lu Liancheng 盧連成 , 196 Lu Zhong 陸終 (Lu Yong 陸融 ), 240 Lu Zhong liuzi 陸終六子 , 240 Lü Dalin 呂大臨 , 23n1 “Lü li Zhi” 律曆志 chapter of Han shu 漢書 , 139 Lüliang Mountains 呂梁山 , 2, 88, 92, 102, 103 Luo 洛 (Kui-surnamed lineage), 97, 99 Luo 洛 River, 91, 99, 106, 109 Luoyang 洛陽 , 48, 145, 174, 221 Luoyi 雒邑 , 220 Luyi 鹿邑 , 64 Ma 馬 (clan), 61 Ma Chengyuan 馬承源 , 165, 284n31 Mai 麥 , 50, 51 table 3.1 major emblem, 39, 39 fig. 2.3, 40 Maker of Slips (zuo ce 作冊 ) Wu 吳 , 154 Malaysia, 144 Man 蠻 , 274 Mangzhang 蟒張 , 40 mao 矛 , 35 Mao Chang 毛萇 , 190 Marquis of Shen 申侯 , 220 marriage, 2, 48, 87, 104, 105, 111, 113, 114, 205n22, 242, 243, 252, 253; as alliance, 87, 95, 103, 104, 113, 114, 244, 252; relationship of, 111, 71, 103, 114, 127n83

342 · Index Mawangzhen 馬王鎮 , 78 fig. 4.3 measure word, 11 meat and grain, 77, 82, 99 Mei’ao 眉敖 , 106, 113, 131n133 Meixian 眉 / 郿縣 , 121n26, 134, 167, 204n9 Mesopotamia, 235 metal (jijin 吉金 ), 66n2; and land, 47 metaphor, 11 metrical organization, 5, 14 Metropolitan Museum of New York, 150 metropolitan Zhou, 113, 114, 95, 108, 122n39 Mi 羋 (clan name), 245 Mi 弭 (lineage), 108, 109, 131n145 “Mian” 緜 poem of Shi jing 詩經 , 189 Miho Art Museum, 224 Milburn, Olivia, 246 military, 98, 109, 175, 182, 276; campaign of, 239; post of, 53 minor emblem, 39, 39 fig. 2.3 Mixu 密須 , 191 moat, 49 modal auxiliary, 15 modal verb, 19 modification, 11 mold, 199 monogram, 33, 34 morphology, 5, 21 mourning, 251 Mu tianzi zhuan 穆天子傳 , 98, 102, 144, 145, 180n29 Mu Wang 穆王 . See King Mu music, and bronze inscriptions, 272, 274 musical instrument, 149, 230, 246 mussel shell, 74, 149 mythological ancestor, 240, 245 name (ming 名 ), 180n29 naming practice, 68n12

nan 男 , 222 Nangong 南公 (Ji-surnamed lineage), 100 Nanluo 南洛 , 106 Nanyang 南陽 , 141, 162 nao 鐃 , 35 Nara Museum, 206n35 National Museum of China (Zhongguo guojia bowuguan 中國國家博物館 ), 151–52, 156, 168, 181n43, 183n59, 211 table 7.1 National Palace Museum in Taibei, 185n68, 200, 201 negated predicate, 19 negatives, 11 neighbor, 73, 103, 107, 108, 113, 114, 190, 192, 229 Neishi Wu 內史吳 , 148n48. See also Internal Secretary Wu Nezu Museum, 44n3 Ning Yang 寧羊 , 55 table 3.2, 57 Ningcheng 寧城 , 80 fig. 4.4 Niulanshan 牛欄山 , 58 Nivison, David, 81, 120n18 nobleman, 13, 66n1, 246, 236, 239, 246 noblewoman, 238, 239, 246 nominal reference, 11 non-onomastic character, 20 non-Shang lineage, 252 non-Zhou, lineage, 54, 58, 81, 111, 112, 113, 114, 143; migrant, 71, 87; woman, 87; polity, 95, 103, 113; neighbor, 95; ritual object, 95; cultural root, 96; northern, 96, 97; group, 100, 113; people, 102, 103, 108, 111, 112; origin, 103; peer, 103; leader, 109; recipient, 109; ruler, 113; ally, 113 normal succession, 244, 245 northern bronze, 94; pottery form of, 89–90 fig. 4.7; cultural root of, 113; weapons of, 92

Index · 343 Northern Song, 9 noun phrase, 11, 16, 19 oath, 169 object-inversion, 19 Odes, 13. See also Shi jing 詩經 Old Chinese, 20, 21, 26n34, 256 onomatopoeia, 262, 272, 273, 275 oracle bone inscriptions, 10, 15, 20, 21, 41, 98, 112, 193, 252, 259n73, 261, 270, 279n3, 280n3, 281n13 orality, 12, 235 Ordos Plateau, 87, 88 ornament, bronze, 74, 88; jade, 74, 86; agate, 74, 86; bone, 74, 86; stone, 84, 86; wood, 74; clothing, 74; horse, 66n1; horse-and-chariot, 74; pendant, 74; and san zu weng, 92 outside relative (waiqi 外戚 ), 242, 251 ox, 100, 101 paired burial, 119n8, 129n111 Palace Museum in Beijing, 183n59 palm-shaped horn decor, 199, 202 Pan 潘 (lineage), 238, 239, 241 Pan Yukun 潘玉坤 , 11 Pan Zi Chengzhou 潘子成周 , 238, 241 parallel genealogy, 251, 252, 253; connected through marriage, 243, 251–2 parataxis, 11 particle, 14, 15 passive formation, 11 patrilineal direct descendant, 242, 243 patron, 5, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 55–6 table 3.2, 58, 59, 64, 136, 150, 158, 164, 174, 200, 201, 229, 261, 263, 265, 267, 268, 269, 271, 275 Pearlstein, Elinor, 6 pedigree, 243, 254n1 peer-polity interaction, 114 Peking University, 135

pendant, 74, 138; belted, 142 Peng 倗 , 2, 3, 71, 72, 77, 78, 79, 81, 89, 91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 101, 102, 103, 104, 111, 112, 113, 114, 127n83, 132n154, 142, 144, 145, 146, 248 Peng 倗 (lineage), 73, 81, 82, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 110, 111, 112, 114, 130n120 Peng 䣙 , 102, 144, 145, 180n29 Peng Dehuai 彭德懷 , 154 Peng Mian 倗丏 , 110 Peng Mu倗母 (Mother of), 127n83 Pengbo 倗伯 , 75, 76, 77, 82, 105, 143 Pengbo Cheng 倗伯爯 , 71, 75, 76–7, 79, 81, 87, 96, 101, 104, 105, 106, 111, 143, 144, 180n29 Pengbo Qi 䣙伯綮 , 144, 180n29 Pengfu 倗父 , 104 Pengsheng 倗生 (甥 ), 104 Pengxi 彭戲 clan, 228, 229 performance practice, 264 periodization, 172, 175, 192, 231 perlocution, 269 personal name, 49 personality, 5, 6 phoenix decor, 197, 198, 199, 202 phonetic loans, 11, 21 phonology, 5, 9, 11, 12–14, 20, 21; of inscriptions, 32n87 phonophoric 12, 13, 21 phonosemantic (xingsheng 形聲 ), 12, 13, 20 pictograph (xiangxing 象形 ), 20 pictorical representation, 235 pig, 101 pillar, 73 Pines, Yuri, 235 Ping Wang 平王 . See King Ping Pingdingshanshi 平頂山市 , 162 Pingfangzi 平房子 , 111 Pingliang 平涼 , 203 Pinglu 平陸 , 145, 190, 191, 202

344 · Index politics, 251, 253, 265; as identity, 5 Poly Art Museum (Baoli yishu bowuguan 保利藝術博物館 ), 134, 157, 158, 176n3, 179n19, 200, 283n30 posthumous name, 33, 79, 105 postposed modifying phrase, 16, 17 pottery, 82–96, 102, 103, 112, 113, 123n46, 127n82, 142, 147, 149, 228 fig. 7.4, 231 prayer, 14, 48, 164, 267, 270, 274, 277; formula of (guci 嘏辭 ), 262, 263, 264, 267. See also blessing invocation preposition, 11, 16, 17 primogeniture, 244, 245, 246. See also filial succession Prince Wu 王子午 , 238 Princeton University Art Museum, 198 principal wife, 244. See also consorts: principal prisoner, 100 private chamber, 270 probing into antiquity (kaogu 考古 ), 9 pronoun, 10, 12, 14, 15; as object, 11, 19 pronunciation, 11, 12, 14, 204n16 protoporcelain, 149 proto-Zhou group, 91 Pu 蒲 , 97 Public Security Bureau, 170 Qi 杞 , 252 Qi 齊 , 13, 222, 236, 240, 244, 252. See also Tian Qi Qi 其 (lineage), 56 table 3.2, 57 Qi Cheng Gong 杞成公 , 252 Qi Huan Gong 齊桓公 , 240 Qi Ling Gong 齊靈公 , 252 Qi Shan 岐山 , 145, 189, 191, 202, 204n9, 220, 221 Qi Sihe 齊思和 , 191

Qian Mu 錢穆 , 232n31 Qiang 羌 (clan), 61 Qianlong 乾隆 , 9, 192 Qianzhangda 前掌大 , 4, 37–9, 39 table 2.2, 40, 45n21, 45n21, 64 Qijiacun 齊家村 , 85 fig. 4.6, 86, 91 Qin 秦 , 3, 12, 13, 14, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 228, 229, 230, 243; inscription of, 14 Qin Gong 秦公 , 3, 209, 212, 220, 223 Qin Hou 秦侯 , 4, 222 Qin Wu Gong 秦武公 , 224, 225. See also Duke Wu of Qin Qin Zhong 秦仲 , 209, 217, 218, 219 Qinghua University collection, 235 Qingjian 清澗 , 91, 92 Qingshui 清水 (county), 217, 219 Qingshui 清水 River, 102 Qinling 秦嶺 , 106, 108, 109, 220 Qinzi 秦子 , 209, 223–4, 224 fig. 7.3, 225, 228, 229, 230 Qiu Shi 求實 , 248 Qiu Xigui 裘錫圭 , 284n30, 284n31 Quan 泉 , 97 Quan Rong 犬戎 , 102, 191, 220 Quanqiu 犬丘 , 217, 218, 219, 223 “Quli” 曲禮 chapter of Li ji 禮記 , 66n1 rammed-earth building foundation, 95, 217, 223, 227 ramp, tomb with two, 114, 146; tomb with one, 147 Rawson, Jessica, 282n19 received literature, 5, 71, 142, 144, 219, 222 Red Di (Kui 隗 -surnamed), 97, 98 reduplication, 21, 273, 274 reed mat, 74, 119n13 regional diversity, 12, 19, 29n47, 64; of the script, 29n47 regional ruler (zhuhou 諸侯 ), 220, 222 registers (dian 典 ), 168

Index · 345 relative clause, 17 relief ribbon (wawen 瓦文 ) pattern, 79 religion, 263, 272, 277, 278, 279n3, 285n39, 278 Ren Song 韌松 , 184n61 Renbei 任北 , 121n24 Renfrew, Colin, 114 Republican period (People’s Republic), 9, 10, 192 residential areas, 49 rhetoric, 18, 19, 261, 263, 267, 272, 275, 276, 278, 285n39; elaboration of, 279n3; innovation in, 28n41; standardization of, 13 rhyme, 13, 14, 19, 28n42, 262, 272, 273, 274, 275 rhyme-class merger, 13, 29n45 right-hand attendant (youzhe 右 者 ), 104, 106, 107, 109, 110, 152, 184n61. See also guarantor rime-group, 255n26 ritual, 20, 47, 82; assemblage, 77; object, 66n1; vessel, 73, 94, 100, 235, 238; impersonation of, 235 Ritual Reform (Revolution), 77, 77, 272, 282n19 River Clan (He zong 河宗 ), 102 Robbery. See looting; tomb robber; tomb robbing Rong 戎 , 99, 100, 129n107, 218, 219, 220, 229, 274, 277 Rong Di 戎狄 , 102, 111, 112. See also Di Rong Geng 容庚 , 10, 24n9, 24n10 Rong of Gui 邽戎 , 228, 229 Rong of Ji 冀戎 , 228, 229 Rong Zhong 榮仲 , 200, 201 Rongbo 榮伯 , 131n144, 184n61 royal residence, 123n44 Ruan Yuan 阮元 , 168 rubbing, 209, 212 Rui 芮 , 3, 97, 102, 127n83, 145, 146,

189, 190, 191, 192, 194 map 6.1, 196, 197, 200, 201, 202, 203 Rui Bo 芮伯 , 200, 201 Rui Gong 芮公 , 146, 149, 200, 201 Rui Huan Gong 芮桓公 , 146 Rui Liangfu 芮良夫 , 201, 207n45 Rui River 芮水 , 203 Rui Taizi 芮太子 , 146, 200 Ruicheng 芮城 , 145, 191 Sackler Museum, 138, 198 salt-production, 104 San 散 , 192, 205n22, 269 San Yi Sheng 散宜生 , 205n22 san zu weng 三足瓮 (three-legged weng-jars), 74, 82, 82 fig. 4.5B, 83, 84, 84 fig. 4.6, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 fig. 4.8, 95, 96, 102, 103, 112, 126n72 Sanchuan 三川 (Qinglong 青龍 ) River, 92, 101 Sandai shibiao 三代世表 chapter of Shi ji 史記 , 235 “Sang fu xiao ji” 喪服小記 chapter of Li ji 禮記 , 187n87 Sanggan 桑乾 River, 102 Sanmenxia 三門峽 , 216 Schwartz, Adam, 281n13 scribal error, 20 scribe, 275 Second-born Pengfu 仲倗父 (Zhong Pengfu), 130n121 segmented genealogy, 243, 246–51, 253 semasiological issue, 9 seniority marker (paihang 排行 ), 184n61, 242, 247 Senoku Hakukokan 泉屋博物館 , 60 “sesquisyllabic” syllable typology, 14 Shaanbei Plateau 陝北平原 , 146 Shaanxi, 3, 40, 78 fig. 4.3, 80 fig. 4.4, 86, 87, 88, 91, 92, 94, 99, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 109, 112, 121n24–6,

346 · Index 130n130, 131n145, 134, 145, 146, 150, 154, 167, 189, 190, 191, 196, 197 fig. 6.1, 198 fig. 6.2, 199, 200, 202, 203, 205n22, 219, 227, 229, 270 Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 陝西省 考古研究所 , 146 Shan 單 (family, lineage), 121n26, 134, 140, 167, 177n4, 265; bronze cache of at Meixian, 134, 140, 167, 177n4 Shandong, 4, 37, 64, 111, 200, 207n37 Shang 商 , 54, 63, 88, 90, 92, 99, 100, 237, 239; bronze inscription of, 33, 44n1; royal family of, 59, 235; lineage of, 259n73; sacrificial tradition of, 58 Shang Chengzuo 商承祚 , 9 Shang oracle bone inscription. See Oracle bone inscription Shang shu 尚書 , 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 130n125, 134, 250, 264, 268 Shanggui 上邽 , 229 Shanghai Museum, 1, 160, 161, 179n20, 180n32, 184n63, 185n70, 209, 210, 210–1 table 7.1, 212, 213 fig. 7.1, 214 fig. 7.2, 214, 215, 224, 225 Shangluo 商洛 , 106 Shanwanzi 山灣子 , 53 Shanxi, 2, 3, 40, 71, 75 fig. 4.1, 76 fig. 4.2, 78 fig. 4.3, 86, 87, 88, 89 fig. 4.7, 90, 92, 94, 97, 98, 99, 102, 103, 111, 112, 113, 122n39, 135, 137, 142, 145, 146, 148, 167, 190, 191, 201, 202, 205n22 Shanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology (Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo 山西省考古研究所 , 73, 142, 149 Shao 召 (lineage), 168 Shao Gong (Duke of Shao) 召公 , 60, 169, 170

Shao Jiang 召姜 , 168, 170 Shaobo Hu 召伯虎 , 168, 187n82 Shaughnessy, Edward L. (Chinese name 夏含夷 ), xiii, 4, 47 ack., 71 ack., 81, 120n18, 122n32, 129n107, 189 ack., 235 ack., 259n73, 264, 268, 270, 283n23 sheep, 100, 101 shell, 149. See also mussel shell Shen Chunhui 沈春暉 , 10 Shendian 申店 , 130n130 sheng 甥 / 生 / 姓 (kinship term), 127n83, 242–3, 251, 252 sheng 升 -tripod, 248, 249 Shenmu 神木 , 88, 89–90 fig. 4.7 Shi 史 , 37, 38, 40; lineage, 64 shi 師 , 109, 111 Shi Baifu 士百父 , 173 Shi ben 世本 (Genealogical Roots), 235, 243 Shi Bing 時兵 , 11 Shi Dao 師道 , 110, 111 Shi Hu 師虎 , 131n143, 153 Shi Hufu 士㫚父 (Shi Hu 士㫚 ), 173, 174 Shi Ji 師耤 , 109 Shi ji 史記 (Records of the Historian), 67n5, 137, 145, 174, 204n2, 217, 219, 220, 221, 223, 228, 235, 243, 244 Shi ji jijie 史記集解 , 190 Shi ji zhengyi 史記正義 , 191 Shi jing 世經 , 139 Shi jing 詩經 , 12, 13, 14, 61, 168, 187n82, 189, 190, 264. See also Odes “Shi qin” 釋親 chapter of Erya 爾雅 , 251 Shi Shan 士山 , 156 Shi shi 師氏 (lineage), 109 Shi Xun 師訇 , 107, 108 Shi Yong 師永 , 106, 109

Index · 347 Shi Yuan 師𤸫 , 182n48 Shifu 世父 , 219 shiguan 世官 , 245 Shilou 石樓 , 92 Shilou variant (Shilou leixing 石樓類 型 ) of the Lijiaya culture, 94, 99 Shimao 石峁 , 88, 89–90 fig. 4.7, 91 Shouyang Studio (Shouyang zhai 首 陽齋 ) collection of Katherine and George Fan (Hu Yingying 胡盈瑩 and Fan Jirong 范季融 ), 1, 6, 47 ack., 71 ack., 159, 160, 162, 164, 200, 264 shu 叔 (kinship term), 247 Shu 焂 , 6 Shu 庶 , 50, 51 table 3.1, 53, 54 Shu 舒 , 246 Shu Huanfu 叔䟒父 , 5, 6 Shu Xiong 叔熊 , 250 Shu Ze 叔夨 , 136, 137, 193, 202 shuang er guan 雙耳罐 (doublehandled jar), 83, 86, 87, 88 Shui jing zhu 水經注 , 165, 191 Shuowen jiezi 說文解字 (Shuowen), 20, 193, 251 Shushi 叔尸 , 252 Si 泗 River, 165 Siberia, 92 sibling seniority, 247 silk, 168, 170 Sima Jingbo Lu 𤔲馬井白 , 4, 152, 153, 154, 182n48, 183n52 Sima Qian, 105, 137 Sipo 寺坡 , 78 fig. 4.3, 80 fig. 4.4, 108, 131n145 Six Scripts (liu shu 六書 ), 13 slant rhyme, 13 So, Jenny, 197 social network, 48, 49, 50, 55, 58, 59, 60, 64, 65, 103 social status, 47, 242 Song 宋 , 236, 239, 243, 245, 252

Song Dynasty, 201; paleography of, 23n1 Song Gong 宋公 , 237, 240 Song Mu Gong宋穆公 , 252 Song Xiang Gong 宋襄公 , 252 Songcun 宋村 , 215 Southern bronzes, 236, 246 Southern Huai Yi 南淮夷 , 160, 161, 162, 165, 186n77. See also Huai Yi SOV, 19 spacer, 184n63, 185n70 split lineage, 247 spurious inscription, 162 square base, 52, 198, 200, 201, 202 Steppe cultures of Outer Mongolia, 92, 110 Steward (shanfu 膳夫 ), 174 Steward Hu 善夫㫚 , 174 stock phrase, 12 stone, burial chamber made of, 109; chime made of, 223; ornament made of, 84, 86; plinth made of, 223; wall made of, 88; vessel made of, 147 stone inscription, 23n1 stylistics, 11 Subject-verb-object, 212 Subject-verb-verb-object, 212 Subordinate Ancestor, 172 subsequence rhyme, 13 succession, 243, 244, 245, 246 Sufang 蘇坊 , 121n24 Suide 綏德 , 92 Suizhou 隨州 , 140, 162 Suizhou City Museum (Suizhou shi buwuguan 隨州市博物館 ), 140 sumptuary rule, 77 sun 孫 (kinship term), 240, 241, 242, 243, 245 Sun Yan 孫岩 , xiv, 2, 3 Sun Zhanwei 孫戰偉 , 122n39 Supervisor of the Masses (situ 司徒 ),

348 · Index 200 Supervisor/officer (you si 有司 ), 168 Supreme Supervisor of the Horse (zhong sima 冢𤔲馬 ), 152, 153, 154 Supreme Supervisor of Lands (zhong situ 冢𤔲土 ), 174 surname, 97 Sushui 涑水 River, 73, 89, 91 syllable structure, 20, 21 syntax, 5, 9, 11, 14–20, 164 syssemantic (huiyi 會意 ), 20 Tai Bo 太伯 , 189, 189 ack., 196 Taibai 太白 , 204n9 Taigongmiao 太公廟 , 221, 224, 225, 226, 226 table 7.3 Taihang Mountain 太行山 , 97, 98, 99, 102, 104 Tai-Kadaiic, 12 Taiqinggong 太清宮 , 64 Tang 唐 (place name), 137, 139 Tang 湯 (King of Shang dynasty), 237 Tang Bo 湯 (唐 ) 伯 , 139, 178n10 Tang Gong 公 , 178n13 Tang Lan 唐蘭 , 69n25, 193, 204n16 Tang Shande 湯善德 , 201 Tangshu Yu 唐叔虞 (Shu Yu), 136, 137, 139, 193, 202 Tangyu 湯峪 River, 131n145 tapir (mo 獏 ), 144 temple name, 50 Teng 滕 , 222 Tengzhou 滕州 , 37, 64 Tharsen, Jeffrey, 6 Thorp, Robert, 45n22 Tian Qi 田齊 , 240, 241. See also Qi 齊 Tianma-Qucun 天馬曲村 , 77, 83, 84, 84–5 fig. 4.6, 89–90 fig. 4.7, 94, 95, 126n78, 135, 137, 138, 142, 193, 202 Tianshui 天水 , 229, 230 Tibeto-Burman, 5, 21

tiger-warrior (huchen 虎臣 ), 107 tomb robber, 3, 110, 133, 135, 136, 140, 142, 216. See also looting; tomb robbing tomb robbing, 4, 86, 135, 148, 151, 123n46, 179n19. See also robbed tomb; looted tomb; looting; tomb robber Tong 桐 , 165 Tongchengshi 桐城市 , 165 Tongzhou 同州 , 201, 207n44 tonogenesis, 21 tools, 88, 92, 149 Toronto, 10 traditional sources, 155, 164, 168, 200, 202. See also transmitted literature transcriptions, 9 transmitted literature, 12, 71, 235. See also traditional sources trunk lineage, 247, 251, 253 Tuwei 途為 , 248, 250 umlaut forms, 13 uniformity, geographical, 13; phonological, 13; cultural, 261 University of Chicago, 1, 6, 47 ack. Upper Xiajiadian 夏家店 culture, 109 variants, 11 Venture, Olivier (Chinese name 風儀 誠 ), xiv, 4, 5 verbs, 11, 15, 19, 212 verb phrases, 16, 17 vessel terminology, 9 waisun 外孫 , 242, 243 Waliu 洼劉 , 48 walls, 88, 217, 227; walled-enclosure, 223; walled city, 49, 88; walled site, 217, 218 map 7.1; walled fortress, 91 Wallace, Leslie, 47 ack.

Index · 349 Wanfunao 萬福瑙 , 247 Wang 朢 , 104, 105 Wang Guowei 王國維 , 9, 97, 98, 127n90, 192, 240, 243 Wang Hui 王輝 , 210, 224, 230 Wang Ji 王姞 , 185n68 wangsun 王孫 , 237 Wangyu 網峪 River, 131n145 wangzi 王子 , 237 war booty, 48, 67n5, 239. See also booty warfare, 2, 4, 48, 90, 95, 218, 273 Warring States manuscripts, 4, 12, 235. See also bamboo weapons, 84, 88, 92, 94, 95, 123n40, 126n81, 147, 149, 167 Wei 微 (clan, family), 61, 270, 275 Wei 未 (lineage), 56 table 3.2, 57 Wei 衛 (state, lineage), 58, 66n1, 178n12, 244 Wei 魏 (state, lineage), 97 Wei Mu Gong 衛穆公 , 66n1 Wei River 渭水 , 4, 105, 106, 146, 192, 199, 203, 219, 221, 222, 229, 269 Wei Tingsheng 衛挺生 , 145 Wei Zhang 薳章 , 250 Wei Zhao 韋昭 , 97 Wei Zheng 韋正 , 224 Weinan 渭南 , 207n44 Weinan shi wenwu baohu kaogu yanjiusuo 渭南市文物保護考古研究 所 , 146 wen 文 , 173 Wen Wang 文王 . See King Wen; Xi Bo Wenwu 文物 (Cultural Relics), 150 Western Luo, 99 Western Margin (Xichui 西垂 ), 219, 220, 222, 223 western mountain (xishan 西山 ), 220 Western Rong 西戎 , 218, 219, 220 wheel, 129n111 wife, 239, 242, 244, 249. See also

consorts; women Wilson, Robert R., 247, 253 wine, 6, 66n2, 122n34 wine-bottle horn decor, 199 women, 76, 83, 87, 95, 96, 97, 111, 104, 113, 114, 149, 201, 237, 241, 251, 253, 265; elite, 83, 87, 95, 113, 237, 241; exchange of, 103, 241, 253; married out, 201, 252, 265; buried with san zu weng, 87; foreign, 96 wood, burial chamber made of, 84; clothing ornament of, 74; or bamboo, 262, 269; rack of, 82; text on, 262, 269 wooden figurine (yong 俑 ), 147 word class, 11 word formation, 11, 20 writing, invention of, 235 Wu 吳 , 177n7, 189, 193, 196, 236, 239, 242, 246 Wu Ding 武丁 , 33, 58, 98 Wu Geng 武庚 , 150 Wu Peak 吳嶽 , 193 Wu Shifen 吳式芬 , 168 Wu Wang 武王 . See King Wu Wu Yi 武乙 , 99 Wu Zhenfeng 吳鎮烽 , 170, 171, 172 Wuding 無定 River, 91 Wugong 武功 , 104, 121n24, 200 Wujun xicun 五郡西村 , 167 Xi Bo 西伯 , 189, 190, 201. See also King Wen Xian p, 170 Xi’an 西安 , 78 fig. 4.3, 105, 106, 108, 145 Xiangning 鄉寧 , 137, 177n9 Xianping 咸平 reign era of Song dynasty, 201, 207n44 Xianpu Marsh 弦蒲藪 , 203 Xianyang 咸陽 , 105, 170 Xianyun 獫狁 , 218

350 · Index Xiaochen X 小臣 , 60 Xiaoheishigou 小黑石溝 , 80 fig. 4.4, 109, 110, 111 Xiaomintun 孝民屯 , 199 Xiaopotaigou 小波汰溝 , 56, 68n18 Xiaotun 小屯 , 36 Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project, 81, 112, 133, 134, 139, 140, 151, 154, 155 Xiasi 下寺 , 238, 240, 241, 248, 250 Xibeigang 西北崗 , 70n35 Xicha 西岔 , 102 Xichuan 淅川 , 238, 240, 248 Xiefu 燮父 , 137, 138, 139 Xiguaqu 西坬渠 , 89–90 fig. 4.7, 91 Xihan 西漢 River, 216, 219, 220, 223, 229 Xincun 新村 , 131n145 xing 姓 (clan-surname), 252 Xing 邢 (lineage), 98 Xing 𤼈 , 275 Xing 銒 Mount, 98 Xingtai 邢臺 , 98 Xinhua 新華 , 88 Xiong Yan 熊嚴 , 250 Xishan 西山 , 216 x-ray, 155, 185n70 Xu 徐 , 13, 97, 246 Xuan Wang 宣王 . See King Xuan of Zhou Xujiazhai 徐家寨 , 130n130 ya 亞 (character, emblem), 36 Yale University Art Museum, 168 Yan 燕 , 2, 12, 13, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 fig. 3.3, 63 fig. 3.4, 63, 64, 69n25, 84, 84 fig. 4.6, 110, 222 Yan Hou 匽侯 , 49, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63 Yan Hou Zhi 匽 (燕 ) 侯旨 , 60, 149 Yanchang 延長 , 92

Yang n, 165 Yang 楊 (lineage, state), 86, 97 Yang Bojun 楊伯峻 , 241 Yang Shuda 楊樹達 , 9 Yangzishan 羊子山 , 140, 141, 162, 179n19 Yanjing xuebao 燕京學報 , 9–10, 24n8 Yanmen 雁門 Pass, 102 yaokeng 腰坑 (waist pit), 61, 63, 70n35 Yellow River, 3, 88, 91, 92, 94, 97, 99, 101, 102, 145, 146, 190, 191 Yi 夷 , 107, 162 Yi 宜 , 205n22 Yi 益 , 79, 105, 121n25 Yi Hou 宜侯 , 196 Yi li 儀禮 , 142, 251 Yi Zhou shu 逸周書 , 207n49 Yichang 宜昌 , 247 Yicheng 翼城 , 94, 148, 201 Yicheng xian wenwu lüyouju 翼城縣文 物旅遊局 , 149 Yideng 以鄧 , 248 Yifu 義父 , 130n120 Yigong 益公 , 72, 75, 79, 80 fig. 4.4, 81, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 121n26, 130n130, 131n133, 143 Yih Wang 懿王 . See King Yih of Zhou Yim, Tsarina, 6 Yin Shengping 尹盛平 , 205n21 Ying 應 , 119n13, 158, 162, 222 Ying Hou Xiangong 應侯見工 , 158, 159, 160, 184n61, 265, 266 Yinxu 殷墟 , 4, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 39 fig. 2.3, 40, 41, 41 map 2.1, 42–3 table 2.3, 48, 61, 70n35, 88, 89–90 fig. 4.7, 92 Yinyang luo 陰陽洛 , 106, 109 yong-bell 甬鐘 (shank bell), 74, 223, 226, 226 table 7.3 Yonghe 永和 , 92 Yongningpu 永凝堡 , 84 fig. 4.6, 86,

Index · 351 89–90 fig. 4.7 Yongzhou 雍州 , 193, 203 You 攸 , 60 Yu 盂 , 100, 101, 129n105, 129n107 Yu 魚 , 53 Yu 圉 , 53, 55, 55 table 3.2, 56, 56 fig. 3.2, 57, 59, 60 Yu 矞 , 162, 164 Yu 虞 , 3, 97, 102, 145, 146, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194 map 6.1, 196, 201, 202, 203, 204n16, 205n21, 205n22 Yu 𢐗 , 48, 58, 59, 60 Yu 潏 , 165 Yu 𩁹 clan, 61 Yu the Great 大禹 (Da Yu), 134, 268 Yu Xingwu 于省吾 , 9, 284n32 Yuan 薳 (lineage), 238, 240, 241, 247, 248, 249, 250 Yuan Zi Peng 薳子倗 , 238, 248, 250 Yuan Zi Shou 薳子受 , 249, 250 Yuandingshan 圓頂山 , 227 Yuanzhong 遠仲 , 250 Yuchu 與楚 , 238, 239 Yudaohe 峪道河 , 88, 89–90 fig. 4.7 Yue 越 , 236, 246 Yueshan 嶽山 (also called Wushan 吳 山 ), 203 Yufang, Lord of E 噩侯馭方 , 161, 162, 185n68 Yun 妘 -surnamed lineage, 130n119, 187n81 Yuncheng 運城 , 104 Yuncheng City Cultural Relics Work Station (Yuncheng shi wenwu gongzuozhan 運城市文物工作站 ), 142 yu-sacrifice 禦 , 281n13 Zai Pengfu 宰倗父 , 130n120 Zangsun 臧孫 , 242 Zaoshugounao 棗樹溝腦 , 89–90 fig.

4.7, 91 Ze 夨 , 177n7, 189 ack., 191, 192, 193, 195 map 6.2, 196, 202, 203, 205n19, 205n21, 202n22, 269 Zeng 曾 , 236, 241, 249 Zeng Zi Yu 曾子𨘕 , 241 Zha 𠭯 (clan), 61 Zhang Changshou 張長壽 , 198 Zhang Maorong 張懋鎔 , 47 ack. Zhang Tian’en 張天恩 , 189 ack., 198, 199 Zhang Xiaoheng 張筱衡 , 193 Zhang Yachu 張亞初 , 69n25, 205n22, 281n13, 281n14 Zhang Yujin 張玉金 , 11 Zhang Zaixing 張再興 , 177n5 Zhang Zhenlin 張振林 , 236 Zhangjiapo 張家坡 , 78 fig. 4.3, 86, 91, 199 Zhao Huacheng 趙化成 , 224, 225 table 7.2 Zhao Wang 昭王 . See King Zhao of Zhou Zhao Yiqing 趙一清 , 191 Zhaoge 朝歌 , 58 Zheng 鄭 , 222, 228, 236, 243, 244 Zheng Kaofu 正考父 , 282n18 “Zheng yu” 鄭語 chapter of Guo yu 國 語 , 97, 99 Zhengzhou 鄭州 , 48, 88, 124n55 Zhi 彘 , 167 “Zhi fang” 職方 chapter of Yi Zhou shu 逸周書 , 207n49 “Zhi fang shi” 職方氏 section of Zhou li 周禮 , 203 Zhijiang 枝江 , 247 Zhong , 276, 277 Zhong Jiang 仲姜 , 146 Zhong Pengfu 仲倗父 , 130n120 Zhongnan 終南 Mountain, 106 Zhongshu Yuxi 仲叔于奚 , 66n1 Zhongtiao 中條 Mountain, 104

352 · Index “Zhou benji” 周本紀 chapter of Shi ji 史記 , 67n5 Zhou, court of, 3, 49, 53, 60, 63, 64, 106, 110, 111, 113, 114, 200, 218, 219, 220, 229; metropolitan region of, 86, 91, 106; military of, 109, 182; royal family of, 2, 4, 71–2, 104, 105, 112, 113, 114, 222, 223, 244 Zhou Fagao 周法高 , 10, 11 Zhou Gong 周公 , 139, 166, 244. See also Duke of Zhou Zhou Kang La Gong 周康剌宮 , 174 Zhou li 周禮 , 203 Zhou-Qin army, 223 Zhou-Qin culture, 216 Zhouyuan 周原 (Zhou Plain), 86, 99, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 131n145 Zhouzhi 盩厔 , 106 Zhu 邾 , 13, 240 Zhu Fenghan 朱鳳瀚 , 48, 138, 139, 140, 152, 157, 162, 164, 165, 178n13, 185n69, 186n76, 215, 244 Zhu Huan Gong 邾桓公 , 240. See also Lord of Zhu Zhu Gong 邾公 , 240 Zhu Qizhi 朱其智 , 11 Zhu Rong 祝融 , 240 Zhu Rong baxing 祝融八姓 , 240 Zhuangbai 莊白 , 270, 275 Zhuangli 莊李 cemetery, 86 Zhuangtou 莊頭 , 200 Zhukaigou 朱開溝 , 87, 88, 89, 89–90 fig. 4.7, 91, 102, 103, 112 Zhukaigou culture, 123n49 Zhukaigou pottery, 87, 88 Zhukaigou-Shimao, 91 Zhushu jinian 竹書紀年 . See Bamboo Annals Zi 子 (clan name), 245 zi 子 (title), 222 zi 子 son (kinship term), 241, 243, 245

Zongzhou 宗周 , 53, 57, 58, 60, 86, 108, 109, 110, 111, 131n145, 145 Zou An 鄒安 , 204n8 Zou Heng 鄒衡 , 135 Zouxian 鄒縣 , 207n37 Zuo Bo 柞白 , 165, 166 Zuo zhuan 左傳 , 13, 47, 61, 66n1, 105, 165, 237, 238, 240, 241, 244, 248, 249, 250, 282n18 中 -shaped tomb, 216. See also ramp: tomb with two