Sources of Western Zhou History: Inscribed Bronze Vessels [Illustrated] 9780520070288, 0520070283

Citation preview

Sources of Western Zhou History

SOURCES WESTERN Inscribed

University of California

OF ZHOU HISTORY Bronze Vessels

EDWARD L. SHAUGHNESSY

Press / Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford

This book is a print-on-demand volume. It is manufactured using toner in place of ink. Type and images may be less sharp than the same material seen in traditionally printed University of California Press editions.

University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. Oxford, England © 1991 by The Regents of the University of California Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Shaughnessy, Edward I., 1952— Sources of Western Zhou history: inscribed bronze vessels / Edward L. Shaughnessy. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-520-07028-3 I. China—History—Chou dynasty, 1122-221 B.C.—Sources. 2. Inscriptions, Chinese. 3. Bronzes, Chinese—To 221 B.C. I. Title. DS747.13.852 1991 931—dc20 90-49891

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R 1997) (Permanence of Paper). ©

Contents List of Figures List of Tables Preface Proposed Chronology of the Western Zhou Dynasty Introduction CHAPTER I A BRIEF HISTORY OF BRONZE INSCRIPTION STUDIES I.I Discovery and Decipherment in Premodern China 1.1.1 First Records: Han through Tang I.I .2 First Publications: Song through Qing 1.2 Twentieth-Century Developments I .2. I Luo Zhenyu, Wang Guowei, and the Discovery of Oracle-Bone Inscriptions 1.2.2 Guo Moruo and the Discovery of the Ling Vessels 1.2.3 Chen Mengjia and the First Fruits of Modern Archeology 1.2.4 The Full Flower of Archeological Discovery: 1974–1979 I .3 Recent Reference Works 1.3.1 Jinwen bian and Jinwen gulin 1.3.2 Indexes and Bibliographies 1.3.3 Recent Publication Projects 1.4 Scholarship outside China 1.4.1 Japanese Studies 1.4.2 Western Studies CHAPTER 2 2.1

2.2

THE CASTING OF AN INSCRIBED BRONZE VESSEL, WITH REMARKS ON THE QUESTION OF AUTHENTICITY Casting Techniques 2.1.1 Lost-Wax Casting 2.1.2 Piece-Mold Casting The Question of Authenticity

v

xi

xiii xv xix I 5 5 5 8 13

13 15 17

19

20 20 22 24 27 27 30

35 36 36 37 43

CONTENTS

2.3

The Case of the "Ran Fangdin" 2.3.1 Consideration of the Vessel 2.3.2 Consideration of the Inscription 2.3.3 A Decisive Technical Feature: The Presence of Spacers

CHAPTER 3 HOW TO READ A WESTERN ZHOU BRONZE INSCRIPTION

3. 1 The Script of Western Zhou Bronze Inscriptions 3.1.1 Genetic Links with Modern Chinese Orthography 3. 1 .2 The Identification of Bronze Inscriptional Graphs 3.2 The Formal Structure of a Western Zhou Bronze Inscription 3.2. 1 Comparisons with Traditional Literary Sources 3.2.2 The Four Parts of an Inscription 3.2.2.1 The Date and Place Notation 3.2.2.2 The Event Notation 3.2.2.3 The Gift List 3.2.2.4 The Dedication 3.3 A Complete Inscription: The "Qiu Wei Gui" 3.4 A Problematic Inscription: The "Li Gui" 3.4.1 The Date, Place, and Gift Notations and the Dedication 3.4.2 The Problematic Passage 3.4.2. 1 The Word Sui 3.4.2.2 The Word Ding 3.4.2.3 The Word Ke 3.4.2.4 The Word Wen 3.4.2.5 The Word Su 3.4.2.6 The Term You Shang 3.4.2.7 A Tentative Translation THE PERIODIZATION OF INSCRIBED WESTERN ZHOU BRONZE VESSELS 4. 1 Dates Based on Proper Names 4.1.1 Historical Identifications 4.1.2 Horizontal and Vertical Personal Relationships 4. 1 .3 Relative Dating Using Proper Names 4.2 Art Historical Criteria 4.2.1 Calligraphy 4.2.1.1 General Layout 4.2.1.2 Individual Graphs

45 49 5° 58

63 64 64 65 73 73 76 76 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 95 100 IOI 101

102 104 104

CHAPTER 4

vi

106

108 108 109 116 120 121 12I 123

CONTENTS

4.2.2

Vessel Shape and Ornamentation 4.2.2.1 General Evolution 4.2.2.2 Typologies of the Gui Tureen and Ding Caldron 4.3 Calendrical Criteria 4.3.1 The Gandhi-Day Designation 4.3.2 The Lunar-Phase Notation 4.3.3 The Month Notation 4.3.4 The Year Notation FURTHER HISTORIOGRAPHICAL QUESTIONS REGARDING INSCRIBED WESTERN ZHOU BRONZE VESSELS 5. 1 Where Have Inscribed Bronze Vessels Been Discovered? 5.1.1 Archeological Context 5.1.2 Geographic Distribution 5.2 Who Cast Inscribed Bronze Vessels? 5.2.1 Ethnographic Distinctions 5.2.2 Social Distinctions 5.3 Why Were Bronze Vessels Inscribed and Cast?

126 126 127 134

135 136 145 147

CHAPTER 5

APPENDIX 1 Textual Notes to the Translation of the Inscription on the "Shi Qiang Pan" APPENDIX 2 The "Ling Yi" and the Question of the Kang Gong A2.1 The Inscription on the "Ling Yi" A2.2 The Periodization of the "Ling Yi" A2.2.1 The Question of the Kang Gong A2.2.2 The Reference to Ming Bao, Son of the Duke of Zhou A2.2.3 Evidence in Vessels Related to the "Ling Yi" A2.2.3.I The "Ling Gui" A2.2.3.1.1 The Attack on Chu A2.2.3. 1 .2 The Identification of Wang Jiang A2.2.3.2 The "Zuoce Da Fangding" A2.2.3.3 The "Ling Ding" A2.2.4 Art Historical Evidence for the Periodization of the "Ling Yi" A2.3 Conclusions

vii

156 156 ,56 157 166 166 169 175

,83

193 194 198 199 2OI 204 204 205

208 209 210

213 214

CONTENTS

APPENDIX 3 The Absolute Chronology of the Western Zhou Dynasty A3.1i The Date of the Zhou Conquest of Shang A3. 1. 1 Astronomical Evidence A3. 1 .1.1 Lunar Eclipses in Shang Oracle-Bone Inscriptions A3.1.1.2 Record of a Lunar Eclipse in the Thirtyfifth Year of King Wen A3. 1. 1. 3 Conjunction of the Five Visible Planets A3. 1. 1. 4 The Appearance of Halley's Comet during the Conquest Campaign A3. 1. 1. 5 The Guoyu Astronomical Description A3. 1. 2 Textual Evidence A3. 1. 2. 1 The Renfang Oracle-Bone Inscriptions and the Date of Di Xin's Reign A3. 1 .2.2 The Chronology of Sima Qian's Shiji A3. 1. 2. 3 The Dates of the "Shifu" Chapter of the Yi Zhoushu A3.1. 2. 4 The Dates of the "Shao Gao" and "Luo Gao" Chapters of the Book of Documents A3.1. 2. 5 The Chronology of the Dukes of Lu A3. 1. 2. 6 Evidence in the Mencius A3. 1. 2. 7 Pei Yin's Quotation of the Bamboo Annals A3. 1. 2. 8 The "Current" Bamboo Annals A3. 1. 2. 9 The Yinh Chronology A3. 1. 2.10 Generational Averages A3. 1. 3 Conclusions A3.2 Reign-by-Reign Chronology of the Western Zhou A3. 2. 1 King Wu (1049/45-1043) A3.2.2 KingCheng (1042/35-1006)

A3.3

A3.2.3 King Kang (1005/3-978) A3.2.4 King Zhao (977/75-957) A3.2.5 King Mu (956–918) A3.2.6 King Gong (917/15–900) A3.2.7 King Yih (899/97–873) A3.2.8 King Xiao (872?-866) A3.2.9 King Yi (865-858) A3.2.10 King Li (857/53-842/28) Summary of the Chronology

viii

217 217 221 221

222 223 224 224 225

226 226 228 230 231 231 232 232 233 233 235 236 241 241 242 245 248 254 256 259 266 272 286

CONTENTS

BIBLIOGRAPHY A Major Catalogs of Inscribed Western Zhou Bronze Vessels BIBLIOGRAPHY B Works Cited

289

Finding List of Inscribed Bronze Vessels Cited

293 313

Index

319

ix

This page intentionally left blank

Figures Inscription on the "Shi Qiangftan" Line drawing of vessel and wood-block facsimile of the "Shi Xinfu ft" inscription

10

4. 5.

Recreation of the piece-mold casting assembly for a late Western Zhou-style ding caldron Recreation of the production of an inscription block Photograph of the inscription area of the "Ge You Cong ding"

39 41 42

6. 7. 8.

Rubbing and hand drawing of the "Xi ]ia.pan" inscription The "Ranfangding" The "Ranfangding" inscription

43 46 47

1. 2. j.

2

g. The "Qi Sheng Lujiigai" inscription 10. The "Zuoce Dafangding" inscription

53

//. 12.

The "Chengwangfangding" Noel Barnard's hand drawing of the "Ranfangding" inscription

55 57

73.

The "Ranfangding" inscription

60

i^.. 75. 16. ly.

Hand copy of the "Ranfangding" inscription X-ray of the inscription area of the "Ranfangding" Entry injinwen bian showing two forms of the graph jiu -f The "Qiu Weigui" inscription

61 61 70 86

18.

The "Ligui" inscription

88

ig.

Relationships among major figures seen in mid Western Zhou bronze inscriptions

120

20. 21.

Examples of calligraphic layout Examples of Western Zhou bronze ornamentation

122 127

22. 23.

Typology of the gui tureen Typology of the ding caldron

130 134

Ai. The "Lingjz" inscription Az. Comparison of the "Yu jjf ding" and "Da Yu ^]£ ding" A^j. The "Ling ding" inscription A^. Comparison of the "Lingj>z" and "Zhejyz" A$. Comparison of the "Lingguz'," "X ^ gui," and "Shenzi Ta guigai" xi

51

195 209 211 213 215

This page intentionally left blank

Tables /.

A Comparison of the Bronze Inscriptional, Small Seal, and Kaishu ^-f Forms of One Hundred Common Signifies 2. Some Gifts Mentioned in Western Zhou Bronze Inscriptions 3. Collected Interpretations of Graphs in the "Li Gut" Inscription 4. Periodization Standards 5. Personal Name Relationships Seen in Mid Western Zhou Bronze Inscriptions 6. Ten Common Graphs as They Appear in Periodization Standards 7. Typologization of the Ding Caldron 8. The Chinese Sexagenary Cycle 9. Almanac Correlating New-Moon Days with the Days of the Ganzhi Cycle, 828-8173.0. 10. Correlation of Lunar-Phase Notations in the "Zuoce Hu You" Inscription //. Chronology of the House of Chen, 842-825 B.C. 12. Correlation of Dates in the "Qiu Wei He" "Qiu Wei Ding I," "Qiu Wei Ding II," and "Jue Cao Ding II" Inscriptions, 927-896 B.C. 13. Western Zhou Bronze Vessels Discovered 1970-1979 14. Bronze Inscriptions Describing Zhou Wars with the Huai Yi Identifications of Ming Bao Recent Proposals Regarding the Date of the Zhou Conquest ofShang Aj. Shiji Chronology of Events Preceding the Conquest of Shang A^. Average Lengths of Dynastic Regnal Generations A$. Recent Reconstructions of Western Zhou Regnal Chronology A6. Calendar of King Kang Years 12—25, as Reconstructed from a Date Notation in the "Bi Ming" Chapter of the Book of Documents Ay. Calendar of King Kang Years 25—27, as Reconstructed from a Date Notation in the "Bi Ming" Chapter of the Book of Documents AS. Correlation of Date Notations in the "Dong Gui" and "Dong Fangding I" Inscriptions

Ai. A2.

xiii

66 82 92 110 119 124 133 137 138 144 152

154 158 178 202 219 227 234 237 244 245 251

TABLES Ay.

Chronology of the House of Qi, c. 860-842 B.C.

Aio Inscriptions with Full First-Year Date Notations An. Correlation of Dates in the "Shi Shi Gui I" and "Shi Shi Gui II" Inscriptions, 900—861 B.C. An. Chronology of the House of Wei, 866-827 B.C.

267 269 270 276

Ai$. Ai^.

Chronology of the House of Qi, 859-842 B.C. Chronology of the House of Chen, 854—842 B.C.

276 277

Ai$.

Correlation of Dates in the "Da Gui" and "Da Ding" Inscriptions

279

Ai6.

Proposed Absolute Dates for Fully Dated Bronzes

284

xiv

Preface Several years ago, having just completed a doctoral dissertation on how the Zhouyi H\ J?, or Book of Changes, came to be composed during the Western Zhou dynasty, I decided that before I could move on to the next stage in my study of that classic text—a consideration of why it was written and what it meant to the people of the time—I would first have to become more familiar with the the full range of the contemporary historical and literary context, including especially the inscriptions on bronze vessels cast at that time. Chinese thinkers have traditionally regarded the Western Zhou dynasty as a paradigm for all of Chinese history, their understanding of the period being based primarily on the received literature of the period: in addition to the Book of Changes, the Shangshu f£jj| or Book of Documents and the Shijing f^H or Book of Poetry.-These sources provide considerable information about certain aspects of the dynasty, particularly about events at its beginning and end. However, they suffer from two important historiographical liabilities. First, they are overwhelmingly concerned with portraying history as a moral imperative. The rise of the Zhou people is ascribed primarily to the virtue of kings Wen y[_ and Wu jtt and the Duke of Zhou Jifl •£, and their eventual fall to the depravity of the late kings Li )H and You ^. External forces, whether military, economic, or social, are poorly represented in these traditional sources, having been of little interest to their traditional readers. Second—and doubtless related, since both the classic texts and the later histories focus so heavily on the phenomena of rise and fall—they are virtually silent on developments throughout most of the rest of the dynasty, a period of some two hundred years. If these were the only historical sources available for the Western Zhou, even the most materialist of modern historians would be hard pressed to suggest other than moral causes and effects for these phenomena. Given these twin liabilities of the traditional historical record, it is fortunate that we now have available a significant (and ever increasing) corpus of inscribed bronze vessels that were produced during the Western Zhou. Because these vessels commemorate events of many different conXV

PREFACE

texts throughout the dynasty, their inscriptions often provide information lacking in the traditional record. And because the inscriptions were composed by individuals of varying rank and perhaps even class, they also preserve points of view different from those of texts blessed with inclusion in the classical canon. Finally, and in some ways most importantly, because they are contemporary documents set in bronze at the time of their composition, the inscriptions are free of the scribal changes, both unintentional and intentional, often introduced into texts transmitted by more traditional media. For these reasons, any new study of the Western Zhou should surely make use of these bronze inscriptions to attempt to expand the traditional interpretive paradigm. In exploring topics for my own continued study of the Western Zhou, I initially decided to focus on military history, a topic broad enough to have wider implications for social and intellectual history but, I thought, narrow enough that I could reasonably expect to gain control over the relevant inscriptional corpus. The project was designed to result in a twopart book, the first part of which would be topical and the second a discussion of the sources, including primarily translations of approximately fifty bronze inscriptions. It will come as no surprise to most scholars that the deeper I got into this study, the broader my interests became. I soon discovered, for example, that to understand the Zhou conquest of the preceding Shang dynasty, it is necessary to view the event not only from the Zhou perspective but also from that of the Shang. This entailed a broad consideration of Shang oracle-bone inscriptions. Similarly, I learned that it is not possible to treat the corpus of military inscriptions in isolation from other bronze inscriptions. To understand why one bronze vessel dates to one reign and a second to another reign (or even to a different part of the same reign), it is necessary to consider the developmental sequence of all Western Zhou bronzes. At this point, my study had become too unwieldy to fit between two covers or even to be subsumed under a single title. It seemed that before I could write any book on Western Zhou military history (or, indeed, on any aspect of Western Zhou history), it was necessary first to make explicit the methodological assumptions involved in the treatment of all Western Zhou bronze inscriptions. The present book is my response to this necessity. Its organization is more or less self-explanatory, with an introductory chapter surveying the history and present status of bronze inscription studies; separate chapters discussing how an inscribed bronze vessel was cast, how to read an inscription, and how to determine its date; XVI

PREFACE

and a final chapter that takes up such other historiographical questions as where inscribed bronze vessels have been discovered and who commissioned their casting and why. Three fairly lengthy appendixes provide a detailed philological apparatus supporting the translation of one important inscription, a discussion of the periodization of another important vessel, and a study of the chronology of the period. Throughout, I have attempted to balance the expectation that a sourcebook such as this should be all-inclusive against an inclination to present my own positions regarding some points still under debate in the field. Two points of presentation should perhaps be noted here. First, rather than provide a complete bibliography for each of the many bronze vessels and especially inscriptions that I discuss, at the first mention in a chapter I simply refer to its location in Shirakawa Shizuka's f = l J l l H ? Kinbun tsushaku ^ it 3^ (Kobe, 1962—), a source that not only provides complete citations to most other scholarship but is also in its own right the single most important study of Western Zhou bronze inscriptions. Second, at the first mention in each chapter of one of the thirteen kings of the dynasty (including the nominal founder, King Wen), I provide proposed dates of reign. Although these dates are by no means generally accepted (but see the substantiation given in Appendix 3), they may at least provide a convenient chronological framework against which to view the historical developments being discussed. However, I firmly believe that the absolute chronology of the period can and should serve as more than just a table of convenience; until one knows precisely when an event happened, it is not possible to know just why it happened. I would like to think that the chronology proposed here explains many of the "whcns" and some of the "whys" of Western Zhou history. As many readers will suspect from the title, Sources of Western Zhou History: Inscribed Bronze Vessels, the book is designed to complement David N. Keightley's Sources of Shang History: The Oracle-Bone Inscriptions of Bronze Age China (Berkeley, 1978). I hope the comparison will prove to be more than title deep, and I will be very pleased if this book introduces even one young scholar to the field of bronze inscription studies as Professor Keightley's book introduced me to oracle-bone studies. But my scholarly debt to Professor Keightley goes far beyond what I know of oracle-bone studies; from him I have learned that creativity and careful scholarship need not be mutually exclusive. Among others to whom I also owe a profound scholarly debt, I would like here to single out Professor Qiu Xigui ^$$jj^ of Peking University. xvii

PREFACE

Professor Qiu carefully read the entirety of the manuscript, sending me nearly thirty pages of notes that have saved me from numerous embarrassing errors. Others who have read the manuscript in whole or in part, and who have also made suggestions for which I am very grateful, include Robert Bagley, Noel Barnard, Lothar von Falkenhausen, Cho-yun Hsu, David Nivison, Jessica Rawson, David Roy, and Ken-ichi Takashima. Cai Fang-pei, Deborah Porter, Michael Puett, and Laura Skosey have not only read the manuscript but have also read many of the inscriptions with me and have helped me to sharpen my understanding in many ways; to them I am especially grateful. I am grateful to Patricia Berger of the Asian Art Museum, San Francisco; Thomas Lawton of the Freer Gallery, Washington, D.C.; Ma Chengyuan J!!^^ of the Shanghai Museum; and Elinor Pearlstein of the Art Institute of Chicago for providing me with access to and information regarding pieces in their collections; and to Stanley Murashige for photographing all the illustrations in this book. I should also like to express my profound admiration for the editorial team assembled by the University of California Press: Sheila Levine, Amy Klatzkin, Deborah Rudolph, and especially Anne Canright. Finally, I should like to acknowledge the support of the Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of China for a period of research in China, and a Mellon Fellowship administered by the American Council of Learned Societies. This book is much the better for all of their contributions; the errors that remain are exclusively my responsibility.

xviii

Proposed Chronology of the Western Zhou Dynasty King Wen King Wu Duke of Zhou King Cheng King Kang King Zhao King Mu King Gong King Yih b King Xiao King Yi King Li Gong He King Xuan King You

1099/56-1050 B.c.a 1049/45-1043 1042—1036 1042/35—1006 1005/3-978 977/75-957 956-9l8 917/15-900 899/97-873 872?-866 865-858 857/53-842/28 841-828 827/25-782 781-771

NOTE: For a discussion of this chronology, sec Appendix 3, pp. 217-287. "Reign dates for the various Zhou kings are all in years before the common era, and the notation B.C. will be omitted hereafter. ''Throughout this book, the name of this king, Yi U, (read in the fourth, or falling, tone) is romanized Yih to differentiate it from the name of his son, Yi Jjj, (read in the second tone), which is romanized as Yi.

xix

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction On December 15, 1975, farmers clearing a field near Mount Qi flFj£[jL| in Fufeng ££)U, county, Shaanxi province, accidentally unearthed an ancient bronze vessel. This was by no means a rare occurrence in this county, which three thousand years earlier had been the homeland of the rulers of the Western Zhou dynasty (1045-771 B.C.), and local archeologists were sent to excavate the site. Even these archeologists, accustomed as they had become in recent years to discoveries of Western Zhou bronze vessels, must have been astounded when, upon opening a pit about two meters long, one meter wide, and one meter deep, they found another 102 vessels neatly arranged and packed in a layer of protective ash.1 These 103 vessels, 74 of which are inscribed, were cast by members of at least five different generations of a family named Wei jjSfc. The patriarch of the family was originally an inhabitant of eastern China, perhaps a nobleman of the preceding Shang dynasty. After the Zhou conquest of Shang in 1045 B.C., he went (or was brought) to the Zhou capital and then resettled in the Zhou homeland at the base of Mount Qi. Thereafter, his descendants served hereditarily as scribes at the Zhou court. Judging from the great number of bronze vessels that they had cast, their roles at court provided the members of the Wei family with considerable wealth and access to royal power, and most of the inscriptions commemorate specific awards from their royal patrons. But one inscription is different. In what appears to have been an unusual moment of reflectiveness, a fifthgeneration member of the family named Qiang ij§ saw fit to cast one vessel, a. pan U or water basin, with an inscription recounting the history of the family, diplomatically providing as well a similar history of the Zhou royal family (and naturally giving it priority). Composed shortly before 900 B.C., this inscription on the "Shi Qiang pan' (fig. i) is probably the first conscious attempt in China to write history. 2 1. For the formal report of this discovery, see Shaanxi Zhouyuan kaogudui 1978; and for an English translation, see Dien, Ricgel, and Price 1985, 512-529. 2. References to studies of this inscription and textual notes supporting the translation offered here are given in Appendix i. It might be noted that inscribed bronze vessels are /

INTRODUCTION

Fig. 1

Inscription on the "Shi Qiang/>an."

conventionally referred to by a combination of the name (and title, if available) of the individual identified in the inscription as the caster of the vessel (which is to say, the person who commissioned the casting) and type of vessel. Thus, the name "Shi Qiang i£Jg pan" indicates a pan $ basin cast by the scribe (shi %_) Qiang if. I will follow this convention throughout this book, providing characters for the title and name of a vessel at its first occurrence in each chapter. I will also provide a reference to Shirakawa Shizuka g J|| fp's comprehensive survey of

2

INTRODUCTION-

S' Qiangpan Accordant with antiquity was King Wen! (He) first brought harmony to government. The Lord on High sent down fine virtue and great security. Extending to the high and low, he joined the ten thousand states. Capturing and controlling was King Wu! (He) proceeded and campaigned through the four quarters, piercing Yin and governing its people. Eternally unfearful of the Di (Distant Ones), oh, he attacked the Yi minions. Model and sagely was King Cheng! To the left and right (he) cast and gathered his net and line, therewith opening and integrating the Zhou state. Deep and wise was King Kang! (He) divided command and pacified the borders. Vast and substantial was King Zhao! (He) broadly tamed Chu and Jing; it was to connect the southern route. Reverent and illustrious was King Mu! (He) patterned (himself) on and followed the great counsels. Continuing and tranquil is the Son of Heaven! The Son of Heaven strives to carry on the long valor of (kings) Wen and Wu. The Son of Heaven is diligent and without flaw, faithfully making offerings to (the spirits) above and below, and reverently glorifying the great plan(s). Heavenly radiant and incorruptible, the Lord on High, Hou Ji, and the witch protectors give to the Son of Heaven an extensive mandate, thick blessings, and abundant harvests. Among the borderland (peoples) and the man-savages, there are none who do not hasten to appear (at court). Pure and retiring was the High Ancestor! (He) was at the numinous place of Wei. When King Wu had already defeated Yin, the Wei scribes and valorous ancestors then came to present themselves (in audience) to King Wu. King Wu then commanded the Duke of Zhou to dispense (to them) domicile at a low place of Zhou. Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, Kinbun tsushaku -^ ijjf^ (or to its supplement, Kinbun hoshaku ^ jdff^), indicating the fascicle number, entry number, and the first page of the entry. For the "Shi Qiangpan," which is found in fascicle 50, entry 15, of the Kinbun hoshaku (which I abbreviate as Ho), beginning on p. 335, the reference is given as Sh 50.7/015:335. Since Shirakawa provides a full bibliography for this and other inscriptions, I will not repeat studies cited by him; only studies published after his or otherwise not included there will be cited in the notes.

3

INTRODUCTION

Happy and helpful was Ancestor Yi! (He) assisted and served his ruler, distantly planning (with) belly and heart (his) sons' acceptance. Clear-eyed and bright was Grandfather Xin of the branch lineage! Transferring (the lineage) and nurturing sons and grandsons, (he had) abundant good fortune and many blessings. Even-horned and redly gleaming, appropriate were his sacrifices. Extending and even was my cultured deceased-father, Duke Yi! Strong and bright, he obtained purity. Without owing agricultural harvests, surpassing shoots were the openings (of the new fields). Filial and convivial is Scribe Qiang! Morning and night not dropping, may (he) daily have his merits acknowledged. Qiang does not dare to stop, and in response extols the Son of Heaven's illustriously beneficent command, herewith making (this) treasured, sacrificial vessel. (Would that his) valorous ancestors and cultured deceased-father grant favor, and give Qiang vibrant freshness, fortunate peace, blessed wealth, a yellowing old age, and a prolonged life (so that he) may be worthy to serve his lord. May (he) for ten thousand years eternally treasure and use (it). It probably goes without saying that neither Qiang nor his family was granted "ten thousand years" to "treasure and use" their bronze vessels. Within a century and a half after this vessel was cast, the Zhou homeland was in turn overrun by western invaders, and the Wei family was forced once again to relocate, this time joining the Zhou nobility in a massive migration eastward. Before they left, they buried the family bronze vessels in the pit at Fufeng, doubtless hoping soon to return and reclaim them. Although they never did return, it may bring some solace to their spirits to know that the modern archeologists who finally unearthed them also "treasure" them, and that modern historians, the intellectual inheritors of the Wei family's scribal profession, hope once again to "use" these vessels, this time to cross three thousand years in order to learn something of the beginning of history.

4

CHAPTER

I

A Brief History of Bronze Inscription Studies The remarkable discoveries of Western Zhou bronze inscriptions in the last decade, of which the Wei $£ family cache at Fufeng $c)U, is just one example, have excited new interest in this branch of Chinese paleography and have enabled great advances to be made in the study of Western Zhou history. The story of these discoveries and the resultant historiographical advances will be a major concern of this book. But in the excitement of these new discoveries, we ought not to forget that for two thousand years other scholars have also been excited by similar discoveries of inscribed bronze vessels and that their excitement was also translated into major advances in this field of study. For all the merit of the scientific rigor we now bring to our investigations, we stand very much on the shoulders of these predecessors; their achievements deserve our attention.

/. / i.i.i

Discovery and Decipherment in Premodern China First Records: Han through Tang

The excitement inspired today by discoveries of bronze vessels would seem to pale before that inspired in antiquity. Indeed, the first such discovery for which a record exists, in 116 B.C., was regarded by all as a miraculous portent, causing Emperor Wu jK; of Han (r. 140-87 B.C.) to declare a new reign era, that of the "Prime Caldron" (Yuanding TcJfpf, 1 1 6 — i n ) . Throughout the Han dynasty (206 B.C—A.D. 220), records of similar discoveries usually add that they resulted in general rejoicing and rewarding of the officials concerned. 1 Of all these discoveries, however, i. For surveys of early discoveries of ancient bronze vessels, see Zhu Jianxin 1938, 12—63; Shirakawa 1962—, fasc. 42, 1—87; and Barnard 1973, esp. ^22—23, table 3. By the Han period it would seem that most vessels were discovered, as today, from underground, often as a result of a river bank washing away or some other natural occurrence; sec, for example,

5

I.I

DISCOVERY AND DECIPHERMENT

with one significant exception, no attempt appears to have been made to decipher any inscription. The exception was the discovery of another ding caldron during the reign of Emperor Xuan jj (r. 73—49 B.C.) at Meiyang 5HH , also in present-day Fufeng county, Shaanxi province. When it was learned that the vessel contained a lengthy inscription, the court summoned a noted paleographer, Zhang Chang 'M^Sc (d. 51 B.C.), to transcribe it. He interpreted the inscription to read:

The king commanded Shi Chen, "Govern this Xun City. (I) award you a pennant and luan bells, brocaded knee pads, and a carved dagger-axe." Shi Chen folded his hands and touched his head to the ground, saying, "I dare in response to extol the Son of Heaven's illustriously beneficent command." That the wording of this transcription is generally similar to the great majority of inscriptions on vessels excavated in recent years suggests that Zhang Chang's interpretation was basically correct. 2 Still, the fact that in order to decipher the inscription it was necessary to summon a scholar especially noted for his studies of the ancient script shows that already by

Shuo wen jie zi Duan-z.hu ^ >C^^p|§(3: i5A.i2b. However, there is also a possibility that some bronzes had been treasured since the end of the Western Zhou. One record relates that in the course of a campaign against the Xiongnu ^0§X in A.D. 98, the Southern Xiongnu chanyu gave to the Han general Dou Xian J{T|? a ding caldron with an inscription said to read: -fcf1 lU if ff= Jflf S $H 31 f = i£ = TKlfffl. "Zhong Shanfu makes (this) ding- may for ten thousand years his sons' sons and grandsons' grandsons eternally treasure and use it" (Hou-Hanshu f^gll! 23.817). The "Zhong Shanfu" ftU'l^ who cast this vessel can perhaps be identified with a figure mentioned in several literary sources as an official during the reign of King Xuan (r. 827/25-782). It was during the next reign, that of King You (r. 781-771), that the Western Zhou dynasty was brought to an end by the Quanrong ^ t£ , perhaps one of the ancestors of the Xiongnu people. Perhaps this caldron was among the booty carried away when the Zhou capital was sacked, to be subsequently handed down for almost nine hundred years until finally it was returned as a peace offering to the descendants of the Zhou. 2. For the account of this discovery, sec Hanshu j|| H 256.1251; and for a recreation of what the inscription may have resembled, see Barnard 1973, 466. It is interesting to note that "Xun City" ^ ^ > probably identifiable with the city by the same name in central Shaanxi province some one hundred kilometers north-northwest of Xi'an, is also mentioned in the inscription on the recently discovered "Duo You %>^ ding" and has played an important role in locating the homeland of the Xianyun ^^ (probably another name for the Quanrong mentioned in the preceding note); see Li Xueqin 1981, 92; Liu Yu 1983, 152.

6

I . I DISCOVERY AND DECIPHERMENT

the Han dynasty the language of the inscriptions required specialized study. Other evidence indicates that this was indeed the case. In the "Great Learning" (Daxue ;>rlp) chapter of the Liji H^B, there is mention of a pan §| basin that it was believed had belonged to Tang jf|, the founding father of the Shang dynasty (c. 1500—1045 B.C.). This basin is said to have been inscribed with the words gou ri xin, ri ri xin, you ri xin ^j H if H P if X 0 if - 3 Although the composer of the "Great Learning" interpreted this inscription to be an exhortation to "renew" the people every day, Guo Moruo l^^^j- (1892—1978) has shown that the text is probably nothing more than a composite of ancestor dedications on Shang dynasty bronze vessels. He suggests that the words transcribed as ri xin y |ff (daily renew) must originally have read ri xin H "?-", in which xin is one of the ten "heavenly stems" (tiangan ^~p) routinely used in the temple names of Shang ancestors. He further suggests plausible derivations for the other three words that begin the phrases: xiong 51 (archaic 5f; brother) for gou %j, z.u /jfi (archaic _§.; grandfather) for ri P, andfu '•£ (archaic \; father) for you X. Thus, the phrase would seem to reflect three different ancestor dedications, one to an "Elder Brother Day Xin," one to a "Grandfather Day Xin," and one to a "Father Day Xin.4 Throughout the next millennium, vessels continued to be discovered in ever-increasing numbers, but the importance attached to them seems not to have diminished. Indeed, these discoveries were conventionally recorded as auspicious portents. The "Treatise on Portents" (Furui z.hi £?Jffi/i> ) in the Songshu 5k'H, compiled by Shen Yue jjjfc^ (441-513) and presented to the throne in 488, records fifteen separate discoveries of fortyone different vessels, giving both the place of discovery and usually a brief description of the vessel. Discoveries of ancient bronzes continued apace during the Tang dynasty (A.D. 618—907). 5 Yet it was a discovery at the beginning of this dynasty of a different sort of ancient artifact, a set often inscribed stone drums, that focused attention once again on the study of inscriptions. 5 Believed at the time to have been written by Shi Zhou ^fjl, 3. Liji Zhengzku HiiiilSff. ig.iob. 4. Guo Moruo ig34b, 26.823—84!). 5. For a convenient listing of records of discoveries in both of these historical periods, see Shirakawa 1962—, fasc. 41, 33—35. 6. For a study of these stone drums and their inscriptions, see Mattos 1988. It is interesting to note that these stones have undergone a rather precarious existence above ground. Apparently extant throughout the entire Tang dynasty, they were lost for a while during the disturbances of the Five Dynasties period (907-960). Then, after having been

7

I . I DISCOVERY AND DECIPHERMENT

a minister of King Xuan of the Western Zhou (r. 827—782) and the figure credited with the creation of the "Zhou wen" $| '%_ or "Great Seal" (dazjiuan ^Jlc) script, these "Qin stone drums" inspired sentiments expressed by, among others, the great poets Du Fu £t frf (712-770) and Han Yu ^$^; (768-824). 7 They also inspired an interest in the calligraphy of the ancient script, which was much imitated during the following Song dynasty (960—1279). Especially important in this regard was the editing by Guo Zhongshu f[Lri&3S (d. 977) of the Han jian ff fgj, a calligraphy manual that combined paleographic evidence from the Shuo wen jie z.i ^ >£$?'"£ and other textual sources with that from inscriptions on stone. This interest in the ancient script was soon extended to bronze inscriptions as well. 1.1.2

First Publications: Song through Qing

The first record of a discovery of a bronze vessel during the Song dynasty includes, in addition to the information given in previous records, the note that the vessel was inscribed with twenty-one graphs.8

KixN n w I*? ifs £ fFg«*r^¥ f = &=*sfffl

It is the sixth month, first auspiciousness; Scribe Xinfu makes (this) set steamer; (this:) may for ten thousand years his sons' sons and grandsons' grandsons eternally treasure and use (it). This transcription was the beginning of numerous significant paleographic achievements by Song scholars. According to modern tabulations, during the 170 years of the Northern Song well over five hundred Shang and Zhou bronzes were unearthed. 9 Consistent with the trend at this rediscovered during the Northern Song (960—1126), they were part of the booty taken when the Jurchen Jin ^ captured the Song capital at modern Kaifeng |)f] J;f. The Jin moved the stone drums to their capital at Yanjing 5»t|ff (modern Peking), where they remained until the Japanese invasion in 1937. After several relocations during the war, in 1949 the stones were finally returned to Peking, where they can now he seen in the collection of the Palace Museum. 7. For the poems by Du Fu and Han Yu, as well as mention of the stone drums by other figures from the Tang dynasty, see Mattos 1988, 37-42, 75-77. 8. The vessel was presented to the emperor Zhenzong Jfi'^. in the third year of his reign (1000); see Kaogu tu 2.173-183; see also fig. 2. 9. See Wang Guowei 1928; or, for a more recent and in some ways more accurate listing, Zhang Yachu 1985. For a description of the nature of archeology during the Song, see Rudolph 1963.

8

I . I DISCOVERY AND DECIPHERMENT

period to categorize knowledge about antiquity—a trend that inspired such massive encyclopedias as the Taiping yulan yfc ^F1-$5 US, Taiping guangji A'^F-Ucsd, and Wenyuan yinghua >C^E^¥—the inscriptions on these vessels were collected in some thirty different publications. One of the first of these was the Xian-Qin guqi tu 5t Sf ^j~ tl [fl by Liu Chang gljft (1019-1068), an academician who lived in Chang'an JS^, near the site of the capital of the Western Zhou dynasty. Although no longer extant, Liu's work, which is also the first work known to have included drawings of the vessels, is important for the influence it had on the Jigulu bawei H A^SJjSI , edited by Ouyang Xiu gfc|$i^ (1007-1072) in 1069, the earliest specialized study of bronze inscriptions still extant. In this work, information is given regarding the place of discovery, shape, and size, together with a transcription of the inscription, for each of nineteen vessels. Shortly after this time, the two greatest paleographic works of the Northern Song, the Kaogu tu % c^'H (preface dated 1092) by Lu Dalin S A'RI (1046-1092) and the Bogu tu ti^M, published in 1122 by the emperor Huizong ®5f? (r. 1101-1125), were compiled.10 Both of these still-extant works include not only all of the information supplied in Ouyang Xiu's earlier work, but also drawings of each of the vessels and wood-block facsimiles of the inscriptions (see, for example, fig. 2). The Kaogu tu is arranged according to vessel typology (ding caldrons, li p^j and yan Jji steamers, gui jj and ./a JU tureens, yi f^ vessels, you [j] buckets and hu -i§ vases, jue f| beakers, dou _y. footed plates and bu jfa pots, pan andju j£ basins, zhong $| bells, qing f£ chimes and chun |f bells, and, finally, jade pieces), an organization still used today in many publications of bronze vessels. It contains 224 pieces in all, of which 148 are considered to be Shang or Zhou vessels. The Bogu tu is similarly arranged, though much larger, including 839 pieces. Nevertheless, this latter work is marred by numerous mistakes. It also reveals the first evidence of modern reproductions of ancient vessels, a vogue that continued thereafter and that, as we will see in the next chapter, created new problems for the study of ancient inscriptions. Other problems were created when the court was forced to move south less than five years after the publication of the Bogu tu. Not only were the capital areas of the former Shang and Zhou dynasties lost to Chinese control, thus eliminating official access to potential new discov10. For publication information regarding these and other collections of inscribed bronze vessels, see Bibliography A.

9

I . I DISCOVERY A N D

DECIPHERMENT

Fig. 2 Line drawing of vessel and wood-block facsimile of the "Shi Xinfu /;'" inscription; from Kaogu tu 2. i ya-b.

cries, but even the emperor's personal holdings of over five hundred bronze vessels are said to have been scattered in the move. Also at this time, several edicts were issued ordering the melting down of privately owned vessels for the coining of money. Thus, of all the vessels recorded in the Bogu tu, not one has survived to the present." The reunification of China under Chinese rule during the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) did not result in any great advances in the field of bronze studies. Two conflicting but equally damaging trends can be M. A "Yu 33, ding" (Sh 27.162:442), one of the vessels included in the Bogu tu and subsequently lost, was discovered in 1942. It would seem, however, that rather than being a rediscovery of the piece that was known during the Song, this "Yu ding" is another member of a set of similar vessels, a phenomenon that recent excavations have shown to be quite common. IO

I . I DISCOVERY AND DECIPHERMENT

said to have characterized this period: while on the one hand vessels continued to be melted down either for coinage or, as was becoming more prevalent, for the casting of cannon, on the other hand there began to flourish a great trade in vessels cast in imitation of prototypes in the Song catalogs; one source alone lists 3,365 such imitations by the reign of Emperor Xuanzong ii.'^. (r. 1426-1435).' 2 With the establishment of the Qing dynasty (1644—1911), however, the field of bronze studies and especially inscription studies again began to develop. Just as the encyclopedias of the Song dynasty had prompted the collection of bronze vessels, so too did the initiation of philological studies on the classics and the Shuo wen jie zi focus attention on inscriptional sources. The first concrete manifestation of this renewed interest in collecting and studying bronze vessels and their inscriptions was the compilation in 1752, under the sponsorship of the Qianlong ip£|S|? emperor (r. 1736—1795), of the Xiqing gujian [Jf tj*f~A"$m> which included 1,436 vessels in the imperial collection. The great number of vessels in this collection was to be greatly increased throughout the remainder of this notable reign, and led to the compilation of three sequels to the Xiqing gujian: the Ningshou jiangu 3fJ |?p Hj'j^j" in 1779 and the Xiqing xujian jiabian fr/pf ffiiSTlii and Xiqing xujian yibian £$&, both completed in 1795. Yet it appears that the Qing court favored quantity over quality: a conservative estimate suggests that at least 50 percent of these vessels were modern reproductions. 13 Many examples from this collection may be found today in the National Palace Museum in Taipei. 14 Private collections during this period were also quite numerous and were generally marked by a higher level of scholarship and pieces of superior quality. The first of the private collections to be issued was that of Qian Dian j^ij*} (1741 — 1806), published in 1796 under the title Shiliu Changle tang guqi kuanzhi kao \~ /"N jk 9H '^L ~& %jr !fe sH % • Qian, a renowned scholar of the Shuo wen, provided drawings and measurements for 12. Lii Zhen Hgj, "Xuandc dingyi pu" tjfcg jflf f^ jf* (Congshu jicheng ed.) 1544.2; quoted at Shirakawa 1962-, fasc. 42, 93. 13. Rong Geng 1941, 1:197. Shirakawa Shizuka |i=!j||j £ ding" (Sh 12.62:682), whose nearly four-hundred-graph-long inscription, of considerable historical interest from many perspectives, now survives only in a single rubbing that is nearly illegible. For the best reproduction of this rubbing ol which I know, see Shang Zhou qingtongqi mingwen xuan, 34-36, 40. 12

1.2 T W E N T I E T H - C E N T U R Y D E V E L O P M E N T S

book, but it remained unpublished until 1906. Other works that met a similar fate were the Jungu lu jinuien ^"^j"^^ y[. (with 1,334 entries) of Wu Shifen tjt^ff- (1796-1856), which was not published until 1895; the Zhuiyizhai yiqi kuannhi kaoshi Hif^f Hl^lfeni^^P (',382 entries) of Fangjunyi //$JSt (d. 1899), not published until 1935; the Kezhaijigulu ;iE flf Jft-T^ IS (^048 Shang and Zhou pieces) of Wu Dacheng 'Mi^Si! (1835-1902), not published until 1916; and even Chen Jieqi's own Fuzhai jijin lu SfS^jfeU ( J 88 entries), not published until 1918. This hiatus was not without certain advantages, however. The closing years of the nineteenth century brought to China several new publication techniques, including gravura reproduction of rubbings 17 and especially photography, which was of great importance for the reproduction of vessels in books.18 i .2 1.2.1

Twentieth-Century Developments Luo Zhenyu, Wang Guowei, and the Discovery of Oracle-Bone Inscriptions

One other development of the late nineteenth century would prove to have an even greater influence on the course of bronze inscriptional studies. In 1899, Wang Yirong [i|^^ (1840-1900), a noted antiquarian and paleographer, was the first person to recognize ancient inscriptions on "dragon bones," which were used at that time for medicinal purposes. Together with such other eminent scholars as Liu E §ljf| (1857—1909) and Sun Yirang J^jfpUi (1848-1908), Wang immediately recognized the genetic relationship between these inscriptions, now identified as oraclebone inscriptions from the Shang dynasty, and those on ancient bronze vessels.19 Another scholar who soon became involved in the study of these oracle bones was Luo Zhenyu HljjilrE (1868—1940). Until this time Luo had devoted himself to studies of agriculture; yet upon visiting Liu E and examining the oracle bones in his collection, Luo quickly shifted his interests to paleography. In rapid succession between 1912 and 1916 he 17. The first Chinese publication to utilize this technique was Duan Fang's !$j~j] (1861-1911) Taozhai jijin lu $§j'j$[ ^•$£ Jf:, published in 1908. Two years earlier, the Japanese catalog Teishitsu hakubutsukan kamhoroku. Kodoki ^5 ^> HI % tS ^ "K IS. A' SB] Wt had pioneered the technique with respect to Chinese bronze vessels. 18. The first work in which photographs of vessels were provided was Zou An's ^^ Shuangwangnie z/iaijinshi tulu 1* p. ffcf| ^ f / \g\ | | (1916). i p.. For the now classic story of how Wang Yirong first discovered the oracle-hone inscriptions, see Li Chi 1977, 3-13.

'3

1.2 T W E N T I E T H - C E N T U R Y D E V E L O P M E N T S

published three collections of oracle-bone inscriptions, Yinxu shuqi qianbian ixliSilfi? iuli , Yinxu shuqi jinghua Ifljil, and Yinxu shuqi houbian HIS, which are still among the most important works in this field. It was not long before the attention of this indefatigable collector and author (his collected works amount to over twenty thousand pages) turned to bronze inscriptions. Over the next decade and a half he published several separate collections of bronze vessels and inscriptions, but his most important collection was the Sandai jijin wencun ~- £ftllf4r iC'ff-, issued in 1937, just three years before his death. This collection of 4,831 inscriptions is still today the largest collection of its kind. 20 Although Luo's greatest personal contribution to the field of bronze studies lies in his publications, he is perhaps just as often remembered as the patron of Wang Guowei KHff. (1877-1927). An authority on such diverse topics as Schopenhauer, Yuan drama, and the novel Dream of the Red Chamber (Honglou meng ItU-fr), Wang decisively shifted his focus to the study of ancient inscriptions after he accompanied Luo to Japan in 1911. 21 Unlike either his patron or earlier scholars, Wang is not known for his collecting and publishing activity, but rather for his analytical scholarship. It was he who attempted for the first time to use paleographic materials as a new basis for the history of Shang and Zhou China. His studies on bronze inscriptions, almost all of which were done within one decade, are both diverse and penetrating. In addition to thorough analyses of such important inscriptions as those on the "Maogong ^£ ding" (Sh 30.181:637), "Sanshi ffc.E£ pan" (Sh 24.139:191), and "Da Ke A"l£ ding" (Sh 28.167:490), Wang displayed his intellectual breadth in essays on Western Zhou history, geography, ritual, and the rhyme structure of inscriptions. 22 Perhaps the most important of all his many seminal works was the "Shengpo sipo kao" '[iSf ?EiPi^7> in which Wrang demonstrated the nature of the Western Zhou calendrical system. 23 This study, which was given pride of place at the head of his selected writings, Guan20. Unfortunately, Luo provided neither any details about the vessels from which the inscriptions were taken nor any attempt at transcriptions. A better work m this regard is Liu Tizhi's fslJfjfS^IP Xiao jiaojing ge jinwen taben 'J^USEIS^ziifti^i published in 1935 with some four thousand inscriptions. 21. For a recent biography of Wang Guowei, see Bonner 1986. 22. See his "Guantang gu jinwen kaoshi wuzhong" fH'ig ^f-^ ''jC'^^fi.'S., m Wang Guowei 1936, vol. 16; Wang Guowei 1935; "Guifang Kunyi Xianyun kao" ^/J J^ ^5^ift^7' m Wang Guowei 1923, 13.583-605; "Yin Zhou zhidu lun" (g ]%\ ftjlj |Jr --^, in Wang Guowei 1923, 10.451-480; and "Zhoudai jinshiwen yun du" JS] f^ 4t fi JafUfbm Wang Guowei 1936, vol. 16. 23. Wang Guowei 1923, 1.19—26. 14

1.2 T W E N T I E T H - C E N T U R Y D E V E L O P M E N T S

tangjilin j^JL.^kfo (1923), is now generally acknowledged to be the cornerstone of chronology studies—an assessment that will be shown to be correct later in this book. i .2.2

Guo Moruo and the Discovery of the Ling Vessels

Shortly after Wang committed suicide in 1927, despondent over the new political forces taking control of China, two developments occurred that would radically accelerate the advance of bronze inscription studies. First, a figure closely associated with the political current opposed by Wang burst into prominence, especially in the study of paleography. Like Wang, Guo Moruo came to the study of paleography somewhat belatedly (also like Wang having previously been interested in Western literature and philosophy). 24 His first monographic study of ancient China was Zhongguo gudai shehui yanjiu 41 H li f^i a fact that led Chen, followed by most subsequent scholars, to conclude that the Zhou king was in control of a vast territory, extending even to the south of the Yangzi River. Indeed, it could be said that this conclusion underlies much of what has since been written about the Western Zhou government and geography. 32 Whereas the discovery of the "Yihou Ze guf was of great historical interest, two more discoveries that followed it in rapid succession were of primarily historiographical import owing to the archeological contexts in which they were found. First, in 1954, a tomb in Pudu ff$l; village, Shaanxi province, was excavated, producing a number of vessels by a figure named Chang Xin l%03.33 Because one of the vessels in this tomb, the "Chang Xin ft(5 he" (Sh 19.103:339), names King Mu (r. 956-918) as the reigning king, all of the vessels cast by Chang Xin, including also two gui tureens and a pan basin, are assumed to date to this important reign, which was transitional between the early and late Western Zhou. Generally, of course, the close contemporaneity of different types of vessels 31. Chen Mcngjia igjsb, 165. For the initial report of this discovery, see Jiangsu sheng wenguanhui 1955. 32. For a discussion of this issue in which I argue that this historical geography is mistaken, the "Yihou Ze gui" apparently having been taken to its burial site well after the time of its casting, see Shaughnessy 1989, 13-22. 33. For the initial report of this discovery, see Li Changqing 1955; for the final, formal report, see Shaanxi shcng wenguanhui 1957; and for a discussion in English, see Barnard igfioa.

18

1.2 T W E N T I E T H - C E N T U R Y

DEVELOPMENTS

found in a single tomb and apparently cast by a single figure, as in this case, permits the broad artistic trends of a period to be known with much greater assurance than is possible with isolated vessels of unknown provenance. Second, in 1961, fifty-three vessels, including several with significant inscriptions, were discovered at Zhangjiapo "jft'J?J$ near Xi'an ftf'4', in a different sort of archeological context. Rather than being in a tomb, these bronzes had been deliberately buried in an underground vault, probably to safeguard them at the time of the defeat of Zhou. 34 Caches such as this include bronzes clearly of different periods, apparently kept as heirlooms by a single family. For this reason, their association provides important evidence not only of the hereditary development of the family but also of stylistic changes over time in the shape and decoration of the bronze vessels themselves. 1.2.4

The Full Flower of Archeological Discovery:

i()J4-i()jg

Important as all these discoveries of the 19505 and 19605 were, they were but portents of much more numerous and important discoveries to come. The decade of the 19705 was especially remarkable in this regard, particularly the five years from 1974 to 1979. Any mention of the most historically significant discoveries of all time would have to include the "Jufu jfij'£ xu gai" (Sh 48.7/08:223), discovered in 1974 in Wugong $,$) county, Shaanxi province; the cache of thirty-seven bronzes related to Qiu Wei ^IHi and his descendants discovered in Qishan |ljJ|U county, Shaanxi, in 1975 (Sh 49.7/011:256); the Dong ^Sc vessels also discovered in 1975 in neighboring Fufeng county (Sh 49.7/012:295); the 103 vessels of the Wei family cache (Sh 50.7/015:325), which, as described in the Introduction, were discovered in Fufeng county in 1976; the "Li %\\ gui" (Sh 50.7/014:321), the earliest of all Western Zhou vessels, discovered in 1976 in Lintong jjjsfjfjf county, Shaanxi; and the "Hu f$ gui," the inscription of which was apparently composed by King Li (r. 857/53-842/28) himself, discovered in 1979 again in Fufeng county. 35 All of the vessels associated 34. For the report of this discovery, see Zhongguo kexucyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Fengxi gongzuozu 1962. For the interpretation of the site as a protective cache, see Guo Moruo 1962, 1-2. Among the vessels discovered there were the "Meng ^ gui" (Sh 15.79:29) and the "Shi Shi g|]j ;($: gui I" (Sh 25.140:229) and "Shi Shi gui II" (Sh 25.141:236). For some discussion of the importance of these latter two vessels in reconstructing Western /hou chronology, see below, Appendix 3, sec. A3.2.9. 35. For the discovery of the "Hu gui," see Luo Xizhang et al. 1979. Reports of the other discoveries are listed by Shirakawa.

19

1.3 R E C E N T R E F E R E N C E W O R K S

with these discoveries will be mentioned again and again throughout the present study. In addition to these discoveries of inscribed bronze vessels, one other important find made during these years should also be mentioned, if only in passing. In 1977, at the site of what was almost certainly the Zhou royal palace or ancestral temple, on the border of present-day Qishan and Fufeng counties, a cache of seventeen thousand pieces of oracle bone, some three hundred of which are inscribed, was unearthed 36 — illustrating even further the remarkable archeological significance that the 19705 held for the study of the Western Zhou dynasty.

/.j

Recent Reference Works

Important as these discoveries arc for the study of Western Zhou bronzes, it is perhaps fortunate that the pace slowed somewhat in the igSos, 37 for this respite has allowed time for the production of numerous research aids. Many of these are basically revisions of earlier works, brought up to date by incorporation of the latest discoveries, but others are unprecedented in the field. They can be divided into two sorts: various indexes, concordances, and bibliographies; and new synoptic publications of vessels and inscriptions. Below, I will introduce the most important of these, with brief remarks on their organization and use. 1.3.1 Jinwen bian and Jinwen gulin Perhaps the most basic reference work in the library of any scholar of bronze inscriptions is the Jinwen bian 4z>Ciij, originally compiled by Rong Geng f^ilj (1894-1983) in 1925 and expanded and revised in 1939 and again in 1959. In 1985, a new and significantly enlarged edition of Jinwen bian was published (with some 370 new graphs), edited by Zhang Zhenlin "M'iStt and Ma Guoquan ,H|S||||. Like its predecessors, this 36. For the report of this discovery, see Shaanxi Zhouyuan kaogudui 1979. For the only discussion of these oracle-bone inscriptions yet published in English, including a relatively complete bibliography of the subsequent scholarship, see Shaughnessy 1985— igSyb. 37. The most notable discoveries of the decade have been the ayj-character-Iong inscription on the "Duo You ding" (for the initial report of which, sec Tian Xingnong and Luo 1981); and three tombs discovered in 1985 in Fengxi jff jftj, possibly containing the remains of ajingbo /f-f[ij, a figure mentioned in numerous mid Western Zhou inscriptions, and two of his consorts (see Shaanxi sheng wenguanhui 1986; and Li Xucqin 1986).

2O

I . 3 RECENT REFERENCE WORKS

new edition serves as a concordance to character forms in Shang and Zhou (including both Western and Eastern Zhou) inscriptions. Also like its predecessors, the work is arranged in fifteen juan fij (chapters), following the sequence of fourteen juan and 540 signifies employed in the Shuo wenjie zi, with one additionalj«a« for unidentified characters. 3fi The advantage to this arrangement is that once one has located a graph in either of these works, it is then possible to locate it in the other work, or, indeed, in most other reference works in Chinese paleography. Handy though the single-volume Jinwen bian is, it does not serve as a convenient lexical concordance, since it docs not reproduce the context in which the individual graph is found. This problem is largely resolved by another recent work, the sixteen-volume Jinwen gulin ^^CtiW (supplemented by Jinwen gulinfulu (5ft |$ and Jinwen gulin bu f$j, which incorporate most of the important archeological discoveries of the 19703), edited by a team at the Chinese University of Hong Kong under the direction of Zhou Fagao JiEj j£rfi$. 39 Based on the 1959 edition of Jinwen bian, Jinwen gulin reproduces not only the individual graph indexed but also its immediate lexical context. In addition to serving as a concordance, Jinwen gulin also aspires to be an etymological dictionary (the added English title of the work is An Etymological Dictionary of Ancient Chinese Bronze Inscriptions), and the bulk of the work lies in comments on the etymology, use, and meaning of the characters, copied from some 290 books and articles representing the work of almost 150 different writers. 40 As might be expected from such inclusiveness, the quality of these comments is extremely uneven. Nevertheless, it is a great convenience to have so much scholarship indexed in this way. 38. For an abbreviated illustration of this arrangement, see table i. 39. Zhou Fagao et al. (cds.) 1975, '981; and Li Xiaoding. Zhou, and Zhang 1977. For a more detailed introduction to the use and significance of'Jinwen gulin, sec Mattos 1976; and for a review of Jinwen gulin bu, sec Mattos 1985—1987. 40. A more convenient, if less extensive, dictionary of the bronze inscriptional language, Jinwen changyong zidian -^ j£ '$ ^ 'j'- J^, has recently (1987) been published by Chen Chusheng [Sjfl-j&TJ't • Like the other paleographic works described here, this dictionary, which indexes one thousand graphs, is also arranged according to the Shuo wen sequence. Each entry includes the pronunciation of the word (in pinyin romanization and in the traditional fanqie Jy_^) notation), examples of the graph copied from several inscriptions identified by name, analysis of the graphic composition, definitions, and example sentences taken from inscriptions (written in standard kaishu ^^ forms). It also includes a stroke-number index and an index based on modern pronunciation, a very welcome addition to these reference works.

21

1-3 RECENT R E F E R E N C E WORKS

1.3.2

Indexes and Bibliographies

While both Jinwen bian and Jinwen gulin allow one to locate individual characters quickly, it is more difficult to move from them to the actual inscriptions in which the characters appear. Jinwen bian refers to inscriptions only by a name that may be more or less standard, with an index at the back of the work arranged according to the traditional bronze inscriptional sequence of vessel type and total number of characters in the inscription; Jinwen gulin is somewhat more convenient, adding a sequential reference number to each entry in basically the same index. Both of these indexes indicate the precise location of each inscription in one or another standard publication (usually the Sandai jijin wencun of Luo Zhenyu). However, many bronze inscriptions have been published numerous times, often represented by different rubbings and sometimes even taken from different vessels.41 A convenient cross-index for locating different publications of inscriptions is Jinwen zhulu jianmu ^.ytill^k^ [1, edited by Sun Zhichu ^f§^t and published in 1981.42 It encompasses 7,312 inscriptions published in 149 Chinese, 31 Japanese, and 36 Western collections, in addition to recently discovered examples published only in the standard archeological journals Wenwu >C%, Kaogu ^^{, and Kaogu xuebao. The work is organized according to vessel type, generally following the arrangement of Lii Dalin's Kaogu lu, with the sequence in each individual vessel type following the total number of characters in the inscription. For those inscriptions that appear identically on more than one vessel, there is a separate entry for each different vessel (for example, the seven different specimens of the "Xiao Ke /J\ ^ ding" [Sh 28.168:512] have seven entries: nos. 1181-1187). As a final helpful feature, Sun has provided the exacavation provenance of the vessel when known. This last feature is developed more thoroughly in another reference work published two years later, in 1983. The Institute of Archeology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences has produced a very helpful conspectus entitled Xinchu jinwen fenyu jianmu fr |i! ife ^ 5)"ft!cHH H, which, as a sequel to the Jinwen fenyu bian -^ >£ 5j" fe£III compiled by Ke Changji 41. While the production of a rubbing is more or less mechanical, different rubbings of any one inscription can differ markedly. For this reason, it is often helpful to consult different publications of a single inscription. 42. This work supersedes such previous cross-indexes as Luo Fuyi 1933; Ferguson 1939; Zhou Fagao 1977; and Mattos 1977-1978. An important supplement to all of these indexes is Hayashi 1967, which provides cross-references to illustrations of the vessel in which each inscription is cast. 22

I.3 RECENT REFERENCE WORKS

W E3 $ in ! 93°> indexes inscribed bronze vessels discovered between 1949 and 1981 according to place of discovery.43 The general organization of entries is by province, county, and date. Each entry includes, in addition to the place and date of discovery, information on the nature of the site (whether it was a pit, a tomb, or an isolated find), brief remarks about the discovery, the size and weight of each vessel, a transcription (almost invariably following that given in the original site report), and a bibliography of scholarship pertaining to the site. It can be expected that in future, scholars will be able to use the information in this work to explore possible regional characteristics of the inscribed bronzes. Two other specialized reference works worth mentioning are Jinwen renming huibian -fe y[_ A ^S IS Hi, compiled by VVu Zhcnfeng i^ijl'ti: in 1987, and Xi-Zhou jinwen guanzhi yanjiu p«j\%] ^z it Tl* ft'J W 55, compiled by Zhang Yachu 5535IU and Liu Yu %\\ [:[;J in 1986. The first of these indexes 5,228 proper names that occur in bronze inscriptions available as of June 1985, dating from the Shang dynasty through 221 B.C. The entries, arranged dictionary-style according to total stroke number, include dates for the individuals when known, quotations of relevant inscriptions, and discussion of evidence in the received historical literature. The second work provides a somewhat similar index for ninety-five official titles appearing in Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, organized in three sections: a title-by-title discussion quoting relevant inscriptional material; partial transcriptions of passages from 599 inscriptions that mention official titles; and a historical overview, including a brief discussion of chronological changes in the governmental structure of the Western Zhou, an extensive comparison of the structure seen in bronze inscriptions with that described in the Zhouli JS]l$i, and, finally, implications for later Chinese history. Useful as both of these works obviously are, one should bear in mind that the interpretive content supplied by their respective editors is perhaps greater than usual for reference works; some caution is therefore advised in using them. 43. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 1983. For Jinwen fenyu bian, see Kc Changji 1930. Another recent work similarly organized according to place of discovery is Xu Zhongshu 1984. 1 he special feature of this work is that together with transcriptions, it presents hand copies of 973 different Shang and Zhou inscriptions published in mainland Chinese publications between 1949 and 1980. However, the all too brief remarks regarding their discovery and the complete absence of any information on the appearance of the vessel render this work less useful. For yet a third similar work, but one that presents only a bare listing of inscribed bronze vessels discovered during the same period, see Tian Fcngling 198323

I.3 RECENT REFERENCE WORKS

One final reference work also deserving mention and requiring no such caution is Qingtongqi lunwen suqyin ^pf HB] $il lins 5l 9r$ "71 > a bibliography published in 1986 by the indefatigable Sun Zhichu. It indexes Chinese scholarship on bronzes through 1982. The general arrangement is first topical and then, within each topic, chronological. Topics include general studies, archeological reports, general paleography, individual inscriptions, metallurgy and bronze casting, seals, coins, pottery inscriptions, covenant texts, bamboo strips and silk manuscripts, stone and jade inscriptions, and, finally, book reviews.44 Each entry gives the title, author, journal or publisher, date of publication, and initial page. There is also some annotation, particularly in the section on archeological reports, where a complete list of all inscribed vessels found at each site is appended. Finally, a cross-index by author's name is provided. Considering the propensity of Chinese scholars to publish short studies in often obscure journals, the value of this bibliography is considerable. That it is logically and conveniently organized and relatively exhaustive in its treatment is an added advantage. / .3.3 Recent Publication Projects In addition to these indexes, concordances, and bibliographies, the igSos have also seen the publication of several new collections of inscribed bronze vessels. Three of these, each with radically different organizational schemes, will be introduced below. The first of these publication projects, jointly edited by the Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archeology, the Shaanxi Provincial Committee for the Management of Antiquities, and the Shaanxi Provincial Museum, is entitled Shaanxi chutu Shang Zhou qingtongqi $fc jflj [_ti :h fSj )Si pf fs] 5Sr • Since southern Shaanxi was the capital area of the Western Zhou and is the source of most Western Zhou bronzes, this collection, which brings together the most important of the more than three thousand bronzes discovered there since 1949, is particularly useful for students of this 44. One possible deficiency of Sun's bibliography, at least so far as the study of Western Zhou bronzes is concerned, is that it does not include topics nonpaleographic in nature. A useful complement in this regard is the forty-eight-page bibliography found in a 1984 conference volume entitled Xi-Zhou shiyanjiu jJtj f£] Efjlff^g; see I'uhua and Peizhen 1984. In addition to scholarship on bronzes, this bibliography also indexes general historical and archeological pieces; however, it, too, refrains from indexing articles concerning the Western Zhou classics: Zhouyi ft] %%. Shangshu fij^ff, and Shijing ^^-- For these, see Lin Qmgzhang (ed.) 1989. 24

1-3 RECENT R E F E R E N C E WORKS

period. The general organization of the collection is geographic: volume i begins with Shang dynasty pieces from the entire province and concludes with Western Zhou pieces from Qishan county; volume 2 is devoted to Western Zhou pieces from Fufeng county; volume 3 to the area of Baoji 5Jft ; and volume 4 to Baoji City, Tongchuan U n j J I I City, Xianyang fSc[J§ , and the Shaanbei K J b and Shaannan R l^ areas. Two additional volumes, to cover Western Zhou pieces found in Xi'an ^f $ and the Weinan '/§[£]' area (volume 5) and Spring and Autumn and Warring States pieces from the entire province (volume 6), are planned. The geographical arrangement is maintained within each volume, with all of the bronzes found at a given site grouped together. Each entry includes a clear photograph of the vessel (black-and-white, with a few color photos at the beginning of each volume) and its inscription (usually full-size; when not, the scale of reduction is indicated). Alongside the inscription, a clear transcription into modern Chinese characters is also given. Appendixes to each volume give the name of each vessel; its archcological access number; date of discovery; size and weight; a precise description of its shape and decoration; circumstances of its excavation, including other vessels discovered with it; present whereabouts; and occasionally, brief remarks on the interpretation and significance of the inscription. This arrangement has two great advantages. First, by presenting both the vessel and the inscription together (often side-by-side), it facilitates the fullest possible art historical comparisons (see Chapter 4 below). Second, by keeping together all of the bronzes from an individual site, it highlights the range of styles available to a single person or a single family. This is particularly true in the case of caches, such as the Wei family bronzes of Fufeng, which can include dozens of vessels from several different generations. For both of these reasons, Shaanxi chutu Shang Zhou qingtongqi is probably the preferred publication for most inscribed vessels discovered since 1949. The second collection, entitled Yin Zhou jinwenjicheng |x IS] & >C IS 5?, is certainly the most ambitious collection ever attempted. 45 Edited by the Institute of Archeology in Peking, Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng is designed to 45. This Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng (1986-) should not be confused with the Shang Zhou jinwen jicheng fjj $j\ ^ ~y(_^(3^ compiled by Qiu Dexiu Jr|5|*f|£ and published in Taiwan in 1983. Qiu's compilation is arranged, in ten volumes, according to the same general principles announced for Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, but many of the rubbings, especially those of recently discovered vessesls, are simply copied from the original archeological publications and are particularly unclear. A second ten-volume compilation published in Taiwan in the same year is Jinwen zongji ^ >C$!§^|, edited by Yan Yiping i$f -j^p; this work is very similar to that of Qiu Dexiu and suffers from many of the same deficiencies. 25

I.3 RECENT REFERENCE WORKS

augment and, indeed, to supplant Luo Zhenyu's Sandaijijin wencun as the most extensive collection of all known bronze inscriptions; to date, three volumes ( 1 , 4 , and 5) have been published. The inscriptions, all of which are full-scale, some of them necessitating foldout pages, arc arranged by vessel type in a modified version of the traditional sequence of the Song dynasty Kaogu tu, with volume I containing inscriptions on zhong bells, and volumes 4 and 5 those on ding caldrons. Within each vessel type, the sequence is according to the number of characters in the inscription. The general preface to the first volume promises that in addition to the inscriptions, which are considered the most important element of the publication, several supplements will also provide photographs of the vessels, transcriptions, and various unspecified indexes. Eventually, by bringing together all known inscriptions in a single publication, Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng will without doubt become the standard reference for bronze inscription studies; yet until more of it is published, including a table of contents and especially the supplementary volumes, it will be difficult to assess its research value. The third and final recent publication needing mention here is the Shang Zhou qingtongqi mingwen xuan jgj )f] ff KB] g| ||j £ Jg , compiled by a team at the Shanghai Museum under the direction of Ma Chengyuan M^'iS- Like the Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, the basic text of this publication includes the inscriptions of both traditional and recently discovered pieces; yet it includes only 925 inscriptions deemed to be the most historically significant available through 1979. Also, unlike either Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng or Shaanxi chutu Shang Zhou qingtongqi, this collection is arranged chronologically. Not only is each piece assigned to a general historical period (21 to the Shang dynasty, 512 to the Western Zhou, and 392 to the Eastern Zhou), but within these periods each piece is further assigned, whenever possible, to an individual reign. When there is some doubt about the precise reign, pieces arc assigned either to two contiguous reigns (e.g., Cheng-Kang) or, in still more doubtful cases, to a broader periodization (in the case of the Western Zhou, "early" [kings Wu (r. 1049/45—1043) through Zhao (r. 977/75—957)], "middle" [kings Mu (r. 956-918) through Xiao (r. 872?-866)], and "late" [kings Yi (r. 865-858) through You (r. 781—771)]). Although a few regnal assignments are questionable, 46 the arrangement generally reflects the best periodization 46. For instance, 1 would date the "Jin ff ding" (p. 26, #47) to the reign of King Kang rather than King Cheng, as here (see Shaughnessy 1990, 55); the "Mai $£ zun" (p. 38, #67; 26

1.4 S C H O L A R S H I P O U T S I D E C H I N A

available to date. Hence, the work promises to do more than just bring together the most historically significant inscriptions; it can also show the historical relationships between these inscriptions and their general development throughout the dynasty. I say promises because, so far, only the first volume of the considerable body of supporting material promised in the preface to the collection has appeared. This volume includes each vessel's name, its date, other names by which it is known, the date and place of its discovery, the number of lines and graphs in the inscription, the size and weight of the vessel, its present whereabouts, a reduced illustration of the inscription, a transcription, notes, and references to some past scholarship. Still to come are a bibliography, an almanac of the Western Zhou period, and several different types of concordances. When these supporting materials are published, Shang Zhou qingtongqi mingiven xuan will doubtless take its place alongside Guo Moruo's Liang-Zhou jinwenci daxi tulu kaoshi and Chen Mengjia's "Xi-Zhou tongqi duandai" as a standard source for the study of Western Zhou bronze inscriptions.

i .4

Scholarship outside China

1.4.1 Japanese Studies One other standard source for the study of Western Zhou bronze inscriptions is now also under publication, but in Japan. Shirakawa Shizuka A J I I IT? has over the last twenty-five years produced his Kinbun tsushaku ^EitifiPPj already, for those who read Japanese, the source of first recourse in any language. This most prolific of writers (the Kinbun tsushaku alone—which represents but a fraction of Shirakawa's total output— amounts to over 3,800 pages) has effectively summarized the developments in this field to date. For each of his 230 major entries, Shirakawa Sh 11.60:628) to King Cheng rather than King Kang (Shaughnessy 1989, ign.44); the "Xiu fa pan" (p. 115, #221; Sh 25.146:296) to King Yih rather than King Gong (Appendix 3, sec. A3.2.7); the "Shi Shi fj]j JsJ gui I" (p. 158, #275; Sh 25.140:229) to King Yi rather than King Xiao (Appendix 3, sec. A3.2.g); the "Da )^ gui" (p. 231. #392; Sh 29.175:571) to King Li rather than King Yi (Appendix 3, sec. A3.2.10); the "Duo You ding" (p. 252, #408) to King Xuan rather than King Li (Shaughnessy 1983-1985); and the "Ci ^ ding" (p. 261, #422; Sh 43.//0I i :28o) to King Xuan rather than King Li (Chapter 4, sec. 4.3.4). However, the only inscription in Shang Zhou qingtongqi mingwen xuan that seems to me to be inexplicably misdated is the "Zuoce Da ff: : .fj\ -fc fangding" (p. 77, #165; Sh 8.42:440), almost invariably accepted as a "standard" for the reign of King Kang (for which see table 4) but here assigned to the reign of King Mu. 27

I .4 S C H O L A R S H I P OUTSIDE C H I N A

provides first in capsule form complete bibliographical information about the bronze vessel: the various names by which it is referred to, the dating assigned to it by various scholars, information regarding its excavation and present whereabouts, and every place where either the vessel or the inscription has been published, as well as any independent studies of the inscription. He also provides photographs of both the vessel and its inscription, together with brief comments on its artistic features. He then discusses line by line the vessel's inscription, quoting at length the opinions of previous scholars and proposing his own interpretations. This systematic approach to the inscription assures that no problematic phrase goes undiscussed, as frequently occurs in Chinese commentaries. At the end of what is usually a very extensive analysis, he presents a finished translation into Japanese of the entire inscription. Finally, he appends a section entitled "Sanko" %-^, in which he considers evidence for the historical context of the vessel as well as other vessels to which it is related, whether by virtue of art historical, archeological, or textual considerations, including complete illustrations wherever relevant. 47 While the conclusions he reaches are not invariably convincing, they are usually well informed and well argued. And by bringing together all relevant information in one convenient source, Kinbun tsushaku is by far the most convenient research tool in this field. For this reason, whenever a bronze vessel or inscription is referred to for the first time in a chapter in this book, its location in Kinbun tsushaku is given as well. The work of Shirakawa is even more notable because it has been carried out in relative isolation in Japan, where the scholarly study of Western Zhou bronze inscriptions is relatively less developed than other fields of sinological research. This is not to say that there have not 47. Indeed, he did not stop there. After completing the 230 entries and 40 fascicles of his Kinbun tsushaku proper, he then embarked, beginning in 1974, on a series of supplementary studies, including the history of bronze inscription studies (fascs. 41—42), archeological and bronze inscriptional research methodology (fasc. 43), the calendar and chronology of the Western Zhou (fascs. 44—45), and a book-length study of Western Zhou history, "Sei-Shu shi ryaku" [#i/£| 5ti Bft> in which he attempts to use primarily bronze inscriptions to reconstruct the history of the period (fascs. 46-47). Then, in 1978, he began yet another scries of studies entitled Kinbun hoshaku § >Cfff IP (abbreviated as Ho throughout the present work), identical in format to Kinbun tsushaku, treating the fifteen most significant discoveries of the 19705 (fascs. 48-50). In the 19805 he occupied himself with various addenda to his previous studies and supplemental indexes, producing to date at least six further fascicles. Mind-boggling as this amount of research is, it represents only a portion of Shirakawa's total scholarly production. For a complete list of his publications, see Ritsumeikan bungaku vl n|5"tS Jt^P 43°~432 ('9^2): 3-10. 28

I .4 S C H O L A R S H I P O U T S I D E C H I N A

been other notable achievements: for example, any history of bronze inscription studies would be incomplete without mention of Umehara Sueji fSHP^Jf? (1893-1983) and Kaizuka Shigeki M^cSHS ('904-1987). Umehara is noted for the rigor he brought to vessel typology and especially for his collecting and publishing of bronzes. 48 Moreover, as a professor in the Department of Archeology at Kyoto University, he also influenced a generation of scholars—notably, for the study of ancient Chinese bronzes, Hayashi Minao ftE^?^;- Although Hayashi has had little to say about inscriptions per se, he has contributed thorough discussions of the iconography of bronze vessels, their use and terminology, their manufacture, and their stylistic development. 49 Many of these studies arc synthesized in his recent three-part magnum opus In Shu seiddki soran i$JS if $>}%&%& H (1984, 1986, 1988; added English title, Conspectus of Yin and Zhou Bronzes). The first part of this work, and the portion of greatest relevance to scholars interested primarily in inscriptions, is entitled In Shu jidai seiddki no kenkyu fx )f] H?f ft if S"] r§ W^^u : it is a lavish two-volume presentation of a general typology of bronzes that considers both vessel shape and the calligraphy of the inscription. The work of Kaizuka Shigeki, in contrast, led in a very different direction. Influenced by Wang Guowei and especially Guo Moruo, Kaizuka attempted to use bronze inscriptions as evidence for a general history of ancient China; his most notable achievement in this regard is usually considered to be Chugoku kodai shigaku no hatten cfH ^"ft £P CO SR.50 As in the case of Umehara, Kaizuka's work has also been continued and, indeed, advanced by one of his students: Ito Michiharu fFSifi'?o! who, 48. For his typological analysis of bronze vessels, sec Umehara 1940; and for just two of his numerous publications of bronze vessels, see 0-Bei shucho Shina kodo seika and Nihon shucho Shina kodo seika, both in Bibliography A. 49. For his studies of the iconography of bronze vessels, sec Hayashi 1953, 1960; for the use and terminology of the vessels, Hayashi 1964, 1981; for their manufacture, Hayashi 1979; and for their stylistic development, Hayashi 1978. 50. Kaizuka 1946. This work provides a valuable history of bronze inscription studies, but the portion of the text dealing specifically with the inscriptions depends heavily on Guo Moruo's Liang-Zhou jinwenci daxi tulu kaoshi (1935). Moreover, several arguments that Kaizuka highlighted appear quite far-fetched in retrospect. For instance, in a lengthy discussion of the "Ling^z," the discovery of which in the late 19208 excited considerable debate in China, Kaizuka (pp. 130—135) sided with Guo m dating the vessel to the reign of King Cheng, arguing that the phrase Zhougong zi Mingbao J%\±^ f- HJJ ffi. of thc inscription refers to none other than thc Duke of Zhou himself. Taking this unusual argument even further, he suggested (p. 276) that the Wang Jiang \\ jj^ mentioned in the inscription on thc related "Ling gui" (Sh 6.24:255) was King Wu's wife, and that it was she who served as regent after King Wu's death! 29

I .4 S C H O L A R S H I P O U T S I D E C H I N A

in two monographs on Western Zhou statecraft, has examined in considerable detail the organization of the government, the judicial system, and the land tenure system. 51 In the second of these studies, I to sheds new light on such well-known inscriptions as the "Hu ding" "Sanshi pan" and "Da Ke ding" all of which date to the early ninth century B.C. (a period very poorly represented in the traditional historical record), and demonstrates how they prefigure the impending deterioration of the Zhou state. 1.4.2

Western Studies

Elsewhere outside China, the study of Western Zhou bronzes has been less well developed. Although Western art connoisseurs have long appreciated ancient Chinese bronzes and have accumulated important collections,52 they have not valued the inscriptions as highly as have their counterparts in China. Even among those scholars who have addressed the inscriptions, there has been no consensus regarding their historical value; instead, much of the literature focuses on the question of their authenticity. The earliest substantial studies appear to be two works published in 1916: M. R. Petrucci's (1872-1917) "L'epigraphie des bronzes rituels de la Chine ancienne," and a nearly one-hundred-page-long section in Fr. Leon Wieger's (1856-1933) Caracteres chinois,M Petrucci offered wellannotated translations of two important late Western Zhou inscriptions, those of the "Wu Hui ftJ;]H ding" (Sh 26.153:348) and the "Song gfl ding" (Sh 24.137:165), and discussed in some detail two other, even more important inscriptions, those of the "Hu ding" and the "Sanshi pan."54 Wicger was more ambitious, translating not only all four of these inscriptions but also such other important Western Zhou inscriptions as those on the "Hu |^ zhong" (also known as "Zongzhou ^j$ zhong"; Sh 18.98:260), the "Qin |J gui" (Sh 3.10:103)., and the "Shi Huan gjj gg gui" (Sh 51. It6 1975, 1987. 52. For publications of the more important of these collections, sec Bibliography A. 53. Petrucci 1916; Wieger 1916, 361-452. For earlier discussions of important individual bronze inscriptions, see Chalfant 1906. 2off., on the "Sanshi pan"', Bushell 1909, 83, 86—87, on tne "Wu Hui ding"\ and Lionel Hopkins1 translation of the "Xinghou jfjSf^j £u*" (Sh 11.59:591), in Koop 1924, 43. 54. Despite his generally accurate translation of the inscription on the "Wu Hui ding" Petrucci (1916, 56) was certainly incorrect in dating it to the beginning of the Western Zhou. He would have been well advised to follow the precedent of S. W. Bushell (1909, 86) in dating the piece to the reign of King Xuan. The date is also correctly given in Wieger 1916, 398-39930

1.4 S C H O L A R S H I P O U T S I D E C H I N A

29.178:600). Yet his translations, almost entirely unsubstantiated, are marred by numerous serious misinterpretations. 5 ' Whatever the potential of this early work may have been, the development of bronze inscription studies suffered a serious setback ten years later when Henri Maspero (1883-1945), then regarded as the foremost Western authority on ancient China, called into question the authenticity of most historically significant inscriptions.56 Several different features, he argued, reveal their spurious nature. For instance, whenever the date in an inscription accords with the Santong li EriljJtljlf chronology of Liu Xin fljffc (46 B.C.-A.D. 23)—as he claims that of the "Guoji Zibo If 2p7"ffj pan" (Sh 32.192:800) does—this signals that it must have been fabricated after the Han dynasty. He found further evidence of forgery in the fact that an identical inscription often appears on a whole scries of vessels. Finally, Maspero pointed out that, on the one hand, the language of many inscriptions is similar to that of the Book of Poetry and Book of Documents, whereas, on the other hand, the descriptions of the investiture rites differ from those of the Liji and Zhouli. He therefore concluded that any inscription displaying any of these features must be considered suspect. Maspero's claim did not go unchallenged. Less than ten years later, Bernhard Karlgren (1889-1978), already a widely respected philologist, published a lengthy study in which he was able to reap the first fruits of the scholarship published in China in the early 19305. Attempting to periodize inscriptions on the basis of their linguistic usage, he explicitly countered Maspero by arguing that developmental differences clearly manifested in inscriptions attest to their authenticity. 57 To this linguistic evidence he also added an art historical perspective, arguing that if the vessel decoration and the calligraphy of its inscription are consistent for a 55. To cite just one example, involving even standard bronze mscriptional usage, he interpreted the dedication of the "Song ding" Song qi wan nian mei shoujun c/un tianv ling zhong JH_ff jftj 'fi /If 8p|g- f£f "fc fUJi^:, "May Song for ten thousand years (enjoy) long life in serving the Son of Heaven and a numinous end," as a reference to the death of King Ling |H (r. 571-545 B.C.) of the Eastern Zhou period (Wicger 1916, 424). Since the "Song ding" is a regular and well-known late Western Zhou bronze, the error of this reading is even more striking. For further illustration of the errors to be found in Wieger's translations, see Creel I93 fi b, 345-34956. Maspero 1927. Lothar von Falkenhausen has pointed out to me (letter ofjune 12, 1989) that Maspero evidently later changed his view of bronze inscriptions, making ample use of them in his posthumously published "Contribution a 1'etudc de la societe chinoise a la fin des Chang et au debut des Tcheou" (Maspero 1954). 57. Karlgren 1936. In his periodization of Western Zhou bronzes, Karlgren relied to a great extent on Guo Moruo 1931!) and, especially, W r u Qichang 1936.

31

I .4 S C H O L A R S H I P O U T S I D E C H I N A

particular period, then the vessel must be authentic. Finally, he concluded that when an inscription was accepted by "the best Chinese experts," then Western scholars, too, should regard it as authentic. Karlgrcn was not the only Western scholar at this time to make use of the paleographic advances coming out of China. During 1936, the year that his study was published, the first exhibition of newly discovered Chinese bronzes, the Burlington Exposition, was held in London. The centerpiece of the show was the "Kanghou Ijjtfj; gui" (Sh 4.14:141), apparently cast in the first years of the dynasty by Kangshu Feng l^^^t, the younger brother of King Wu, on the occasion of his enfeoffment with the territory of the just-conquered Shang people. This exhibition precipitated two noteworthy studies. The first, by W. Perceval Yctts, provided an annotated translation of the "Kanghou gui" inscription and explored its historical background. 58 The second, Herrlee G. Creel's The Birth of China, also considered the "Kanghou gui," placing it in the general context of the late Shang dynasty and particularly of the archeological excavations then being conducted in China in and around the Shang capital of Anyang.-19 Both of these studies played a key role in stimulating Western scholarship on ancient China to consider the role that archeological artifacts could play, thus transcending the traditional literature that had theretofore circumscribed the field. Shortly after the Burlington Exposition, the first Western scholar to specialize in the study of ancient bronzes, Max Loehr, published his first study of their inscriptions. In the initial installment of what was apparently intended to be a synoptic treatment of Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, "Bronzentexte der Chou-Zeit," Loehr brought both philological acumen and a sophisticated awareness of art historical issues to bear on five important early W'estern Zhou bronzes: the "Shi Shang Shi Yin -i:_h s&]i[ he" (Sh 7.30:339; referred to by Loehr as the "Chen Chen &M he"), "Lu m ding" (Sh 2.5:72), "Taibao Aft gui" (Sh 2.3:58), "Shen i[fl you" (6.26:310; referred to by Loehr as the "Tuanjow"), and "Zuoce Da ff £ftA~ fangding" (Sh 8.42:440).6() Unfortunately, however Loehr published this paper in 1944 in occupied Peking; thus it was virtually unobtainable to the scholarly world at large. Even more unfortunately, after one further installment of "Bronzentexte der Chou-Zeit," he 58. Yetts 1937. 59. Creel 19363, esp. 234-235 and facing 234. For two other studies focusing specifically on Western Zhou bron/e inscriptions, see Creel 1936!), ig36c. 60. Loehr 1944. For a second installment of this study, see Loehr 1946. 32

1.4 S C H O L A R S H I P O U T S I D E C H I N A

ceased his project and, to my knowledge, never again published a paleographic study. Although the studies of Karlgren, Yetts, Creel, and Lochr apparently restored a measure of confidence to the study of ancient bronzes (judging by the number of important collections published at this time), 61 one more challenge to the authenticity of most inscribed bronzes was on the horizon. Beginning in the late 19503, Noel Barnard published a series of studies in which he argued that the question of authenticity had never been properly discussed.62 Implicitly disagreeing with Karlgren's high evaluation of Chinese scholarship, Barnard opined: "If some cognisance is made of the earlier studies on the question of forgery, it will be found that the methods of determination which have been established are rather primitive ones. . . . The fact is, however, that the very basis of the investigations done over the goo years of Chin Shih Hsiieh is largely what may be described as dilettantism." 63 In place of this "dilettantism," he sought to introduce the most rigorous historiographical methods to the study of paleography and suggested that the first step should be that taken by any good historian: the separation of data into primary and secondary evidence. This could be done with bronze inscriptions simply by differentiating the many vessels and inscriptions that had long been known from those relative few (at that time) that had been excavated under conditions of archeological control. When a sufficient body of excavated evidence had come to light, he predicted, standards of authenticity would become clear. Until then, scholars could use unattested inscriptions only at their own risk. Barnard's methodology seemed convincing to many, and it led to hesitancy to cite bronze inscriptional evidence that might prove to have been forged.64 In 1970 even Herrlee Creel, by then, thirty-five years after the publication of his Birth of China, the acknowledged dean of studies on ancient China, felt compelled in his Origins of Statecraft in China to defend 61. Among these collections, the following are noteworthy: Sammlung Lochow. Chinesische Bronzen (1943-1944); Chinese Bronzes from the Buckingham Collection (1946); A Descriptive and Illustrative Catalogue of Chinese Bronzes Acquired during the Administration of John Ellerton Lodge (1946); Asiatic Art in Private Collections oj Holland and Belgium (1947); A Catalogue of the Chinese Bronzes in the Alfred h\ Pillsbury Collection (1952); and Pearly Chinese Bronzes in the City Art Museum of St. Louis (1956); see Bibliography A. Mention should also be made of two general studies published about this time: White 1956; and Watson 1962. 62. See, especially, Barnard 19592, I95gb, 1965, 1968, and 1974. 63. Barnard 1959, 224-225. 64. Barnard's influence is evident in two important American doctoral dissertations written in the late 19605; see Keightley 19693. esp. 197-199; and Kane 1970.

33

1-4 S C H O L A R S H I P OUTSIDE C H I N A

at some length his use of bronze inscriptions to describe the nature of the Western Zhou state.65 Although Creel granted the force of Barnard's methodology, he pointed out, just as Karlgrcn had pointed out to Maspero: Provenance is not the only thing that is necessary to make an object usable in research. It must also fit, harmoniously, into its proper place in the body of knowledge. . . . The crucial question then becomes: do recently unearthed bronzes tend to verify, or to discredit, the great body of those that critical scholars have long believed to be genuine? It is my impression that almost all scholars working in the field would agree overwhelmingly—however much they might differ about an occasional piece—that they tend to verify them. 66 Now, twenty years later, the wealth of vessels archcologically excavated in the 19705 has supplied a much larger corpus of what Barnard regarded as "primary" data than that on which Creel could rcly. h7 These primary data still tend, overwhelmingly, to verify the traditional inscriptions. Indeed, it may be a sign of Western sinologists' now general acceptance of the authenticity of traditional bronze inscriptions that in the most recent survey of Western Zhou history, Cho-yun Hsu and Katheryn M. Linduff 's Western Chou Civilization (1988), the authors have felt no need to discuss the issue. Nevertheless, since the question has been raised so forcefully, it is still desirable to find some means to demonstrate beyond doubt the authenticity of these inscriptions. In the next chapter, I will describe the method by which inscribed bronze vessels were cast. In so doing, I will, I believe, be able to demonstrate just such a foolproof test of authenticity. 65. Creel 1970, 465-474. 66. Ibid., 472. 67. These archeological discoveries of the 19705 were featured in an exhibition entitled "The Great Bronze Age of China" that toured the United States in 1980-1981. This exhibition probably attracted as much public, acclaim as did the Burlington Exposition nearly half a century earlier. It also resulted in several important publications. The exhibition catalog. The Great Bronze Age of China, is a model of what a catalog should be, combining superb illustrations of the vessels with well-researched and clearly written essays on their background. Two other monographs, Li Xueqin 1980 and Kuwayama 1983, represent the state of research in China and the United States, respectively, on bronze vessels and the Bronze Age of China.

34

CHAPTER 2

The Casting of an Inscribed Bronze Vessel, With Remarks on the Question of Authenticity If only because bronze inscriptions arc preserved in the medium of bronze vessels, it behooves the historian who wishes to use them as historical sources to consider the technology by which these vessels were cast. Apart from the obvious argument that a historian should know as much as possible about all aspects of the documents he or she wishes to use, there is also one overriding reason for becoming informed about this technology. As was pointed out in the preceding chapter, since the Song (960—1279) and especially the Ming (1368—1644) dynasties there has been in China a fairly constant vogue of producing bronze vessels after the fashion of antiquity. And because in China the value of a bronze vessel has long been considered to be greater if it bears an inscription (the longer the better), inscriptions were also composed and cast into these reproductions or, in some cases, inscribed into ancient vessels. If there were no way to differentiate between actual archaic bronzes and late reproductions, one can imagine how uncertain the results of any research based on bronze inscriptions would be. Of course, standard paleographic and historical means exist for determining the date and authenticity of a document. But for documents set in bronze, the ideal means of authentication remains the technology by which the vessel was cast. Fortunately, the bronze vessels of antiquity and the post-Song period were evidently cast using radically different techniques, techniques that can now be determined by means of a simple test.

35

2.1 CASTING TECHNIQUES

2.1 2.1.1

Casting Techniques Lost-Wax Casting

For reasons that will become clear, it is perhaps fortunate that the fondness shown by Chinese antiquarians for ancient bronzes did not extend to the broken bits of clay that must have occasionally turned up together with the bronzes or, by implication, to the process by which the ancient bronzes were produced. While it is now well known that these clay pieces were used in a piece-mold casting process, from no later than the Song dynasty it was apparently taken for granted that Shang and Zhou bronzes were cast by the same technique as was then in common use: cire perdue, or lost-wax, casting. 1 The earliest, and perhaps the most often quoted, extant account of this lost-wax bronze-casting procedure is pro vided by Zhao Xigu IHfr§|, writing in the thirteenth century. The ancients in their casting of vessels always commenced by constructing in wax a model of the ultimate vessel and upon this they added the decor and the text of the inscription, cutting out the drawings of these. After this they took a small wooden container, larger and somewhat wider than the model and placed the model within it; the joins of the bottom of this wooden container were made so as water could seep through packings of silk thread. A mixture of pure clay and water with the consistency of thin gruel was poured over the model once daily—they waited until it was dry then again poured the mixture over it—this was done until the whole surface of the model was completely covered. Then the bindings of the wooden container were untied and the boards taken away. Immediately fine yellow earth, salt, and paper pulp were firmly kneaded around the outer surface of the clay-encrusted model. Over this, yellow earth was added to a thickness of two inches. An opening was left and molten bronze was poured inside. However, perfection was not achieved in one casting, this is the reason that they were highly valued. 2 1. The first indications of lost-wax casting in China seem to be in about the sixth century B.C., as seen in the bronze table discovered at Xiasi "f-" ,*f, Henan province; see Ren and Wang 1987, 474. The process was used more extensively among the vessels discovered in the tomb of Zenghou Yi $$££ in Suixian |f}$$, Hubei province, dated to 433 B.C. or slightly later; see Huajueming 1979. 2. Quoted from the Dongtian i/ingluji j|[i] Jctnif&^c- (Congshu jicheng ed.), 11-15, and translated in Barnard 1961, 95-96; see also Barnard 1968, 103. Barnard notes that this passage was quoted by a Cao Zhaoming ijfBfJH^ during the Yuan dynasty. It is also quoted in the Siku tiyao [ZB 1>P BJ 8- (Juan 123), and in Rong Geng 1941, vol. i, 157, among others.

36

2.1 CASTING TECHNIQUES

All subsequent discussions of the casting procedure until the end of the Qing dynasty (1644-1911) consistently described a similar lost-wax technique, whether explicitly ascribed to the ancients or else descriptive of contemporary practice.;i There is also considerable empirical evidence that this technique was, in fact, used in the production of bronzes during this period. Certainly Buddhist-inspired statuary, the most characteristic example of late traditional bronzework, was in all cases cast by the lostwax method. The same seems to be true as well of the period's numerous reproductions in the style of ancient ritual vessels. To cite just one example, an archaistic jue f$ beaker in the collection of the Art Institute of Chicago, bearing an inscription that dates it to the Tianshun 5c)l[g reign era (1457—1464) of the Ming dynasty, shows none of the telltale signs of piece-mold casting, the other most common method of casting a bronze vessel; clearly it was produced by the lost-wax technique. 4 While some caution is obviously necessary in extrapolating from such a small sample, 5 the agreement between this artifactual evidence and the literary accounts cited above strongly suggests that bronze casting during this period was done by means of the lost-wax method. 2.1.2

Piece-Mold Casting

Only after the first archeological excavations under the aegis of Academia Sinica began in 1929 at Anyang ^cfiJ, the site of the last capital of the Shang dynasty, did the antiquity of the lost-wax casting technique begin to be questioned. The archeologists discovered a large number of 3. For a survey of these sources, see Barnard 1961, 96-105; 1968, 113-129. 4. I am grateful to Ms. Elinor Pearlstein of the Art Institute lor making this vessel (accession no. 33.1670), which is not on general display in the museum, available to me for inspection. 5. While museums throughout the world are understandably reluctant to publicize forgeries in their collections, the Freer Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., has admirably published complete technical observations on its entire collection of Chinese bronzes. Virtually all of the archaistic pieces produced after the Song show clear signs of having been produced by lost-wax casting. See Gettens 1969. See, too, The Freer Chinese Bronzes, pis. 14, J 9i 3 2 ' 35) 46, 4&> 52, 59, and 79. Plates 27, 51 78, and 80 are said in the text to be both recent and cast in a piece-mold. However, the pieces shown in plates 78 and 80 have since been subjected to thermoluminescence dating and shown to be authentic (TLD average 998 BC or 2710 BP ± 340 and 977 BC or 2570 BP ± 330, respectively), and the piece depicted in plate 51 is believed by Dr. Thomas Lawton of the Freer to be authentic (personal communication, August 3, 1987). Thus, only the vessel of plate 27 remains an anomaly, which further testing may prove to be authentic. I am grateful to Dr. Lawton for this and other information about the Freer collection.

37

2.1 CASTING TECHNIQUES

clay fragments bearing designs commonly seen on Shang bronzes, which they determined to be pieces of molds used in the casting of the bronzes.6 Upon piecing these mold fragments together, it became clear that Shang and, by implication, Zhou bronzes were cast not by the lost-wax method but, rather, in a multipiece mold. Subsequent excavations of foundry sites and detailed study of the piece-mold casting technique have now served to clarify most of the steps involved in this process.7 Although the method has been thoroughly and well described in English, it is worth reviewing briefly here.8 The first step in the piece-mold casting of an inscribed bronze vessel was the production of a "model." As shown in figure 3, which represents the casting of a ding JfjJ caldron of the type ubiquitous in the late Western Zhou (such as the "Maogong -^£ ding" [Sh 30.181:637], which is figured in these drawings and will serve as the prototype described here), the model, complete with legs but minus the earlike handles, was fashioned out of clay. A solid block of clay slightly higher than the top of the ears was left to form the base of the entire mold assembly during the actual cast. After the model dried (at room temperature), the decoration that was to be intaglio in the finished bronze vessel was then carved into the model. After the model had been completed, the next step was to form a "mold" around it. For a ding caldron such as that shown in figure 3, the mold would have been in four pieces: three side-pieces running from mid6. The first publication of these mold pieces appears in Liu Yuxia 1933, esp. 688—689. The implications of this discovery for piece-mold casting instead of lost-wax casting were made explicit in Karlbeck 1935. A very brief review of the issue is to be found in Rong Geng 1941, vol. i, 158. Since the renewal of archeological work in China in the 19505 (for which, see next note), considerable new evidence has been discovered and numerous studies and laboratory experiments have reconstructed the piece-mold casting process. See, for example, Shi Zhangru 1955; Barnard 1961, 110-168; Gettens 1969, 57-120; Chase 1983; Bagley 1987, 37-45; and, with particular reference to the casting of an inscribed bronze, Barnard and Wan 1976; and Wan Jiabao 1980. The most detailed typological studies, based on laboratory experiments, are Li Ji and Wan 1964, 1966, 1968, 1970. 7. For descriptions of Shang foundry sites at Zhengzhou @|5j>|-| and Anyang, see Barnard and Sato 1975, 170-174, 174-177, respectively; and for the Anyang foundry sites specifically, see Hua et al. 1981. The most extensive foundry works yet discovered is the Eastern Zhou site at Houma |3| f§ village in Shanxi province; see Zhang Wanzhong 1962; Barnard and Sato 1975, 242-243; and especially Keyser 1979. Although no similar foundry site has been found in a Western Zhou context, some pieces of mold were found at Mawang ,^, f_ village, in the vicinity of the Zhou capital at Feng Iff; see Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Fengxi fajuedui 1962, 307—308. It also seems likely that mold pieces discovered at Luoyang '$f|>JJ, Henan, were used to cast early to middle Western Zhou bronzes; see Mochii 1980. 8. The description below follows closely that of Wan Jiabao 1980.

38

2 . 1 CASTING T E C H N I Q U E S

Fig-3 Recreation of the piece-mold casting assembly for a late Western Zhou-style ding caldron; from Wan Jiabao 1980, 155, fig. 3.

39

2.1 CASTING TECHNIQUES

point of one leg to midpoint of another leg, and a base filling the space under the vessel and between the legs. Holes left at the bottom of this base where the legs end would serve as sprue-holes during the cast (when the mold would be in an inverted position). After receiving the basic impression from the model, the mold was removed and separated, and any decoration that had not been included on the model was then carved into the mold. Once this ornamentation had been carved, the mold pieces were then fired until they became a hard ceramic. The third step in the process was the production of the "core." The core, which was to be placed inside the mold to occupy the empty inner space of the vessel, was almost certainly produced by scraping from the model a layer of clay equivalent to the desired thickness of the finished vessel. In the case of the caldron being described here, the cars would also have been carved into the extended block designed to serve as the base of the casting assembly. For an uninscribcd bronze vessel, a core prepared in this way would suffice; for an inscribed one, however, it was also necessary to prepare the inscription area in the core. For the intaglio inscriptions that are the rule in Western Zhou bronzes, this in turn required several steps. After having obtained the core by scraping down the model, an impression, which (in the case of the caldron being described here) would have been concave and which we will term the "inscription mold," was made from the convex bottom of the core. Next, on the leather-hard surface of the inscription mold the inscription was incised precisely as it would appear in the bronze vessel.9 After this mold had dried, an impression was taken from it, producing in turn a convex block with relievo characters (the "inscription block"). Finally, the area of the core to be occupied by the inscription was excavated, and into that space was inserted this convex block (fig. 4). Although attempts would have been made to smooth the perimeter of the block to the plane of the core, traces of a slight rise or depression around this perimeter are often visible both with the naked eye and in rubbings taken from inscribed vessels (fig. 5). The result of this multistage pottery process would have been four 9. The extremely regular spacing of graphs within inscriptions from about the reign of King Gong (r. 917/15-900 B.C.) on suggests that grid lines similar to those on gaozhi fjSJj$£ paper still used today in China must have first been drawn with a brush on the inscription mold. Occasionally, as can be seen in the bottom portion of the inscription pictured in figure 5, grid lines are also visible in relief on the final bronze vessel. In these cases, the lines must have first been incised into the core, thus producing relievo lines in the inscription mold (and also in the bronze vessel). For a study of this feature, see Barnard and Wan 1976. 40

2.1 CASTING TECHNIQUES

Fig- 4

Recreation of the production of an inscription block; from Barnard and Wan 1976, 60, fig. 5.

pieces of mold (including the interleg core) and the vessel core with its inset inscription block. To ready the mold for casting, these five pieces would have been assembled in an upside-down position (in the case of this caldron, with the legs up), with the core inserted into the hollow space of the mold. To ensure that the core would remain at a proper distance from the mold (that is, a distance equal to the intended thickness of the bronze vessel being cast), small pieces of scrap bronze, usually referred to as 4'

2.1 CASTING TECHNIQUES

Fig-5 Photograph of the inscription area of the "Ge You Cong ding" (Sh 29.180:627), showing clearly the impression of the inscription block. Note too the appearance and location of the spacers (indicated by arrows); from Barnard and Wan 1976, 78, fig. 19.

"chaplets" or "spacers," were lodged between these two portions of the casting assembly. Since the space between the mold and core was least in the area of the inscription block—which, it will be recalled, had the characters in relief—the placement of spacers here was particularly important: not only were they arranged symmetrically around the perimeter of the inscription area, but they were also normally inserted between some lines of the inscription itself (fig. 6).'° When the molten bronze was poured into this prepared casting assembly, the spacers would fuse to the rest of the bronze when it all solidified. After the vessel cooled, the mold would be disassembled and the core broken into small pieces and removed 10. If the spacer were inadvertently placed in an area intended to be occupied by a character, it could happen that the relievo character would be broken off from the inscription block and nothing would register on that space in the vessel; see Hayashi 1979, 42—45. For an excellent example of this phenomenon, sec column 6 of the "Duo You ^^ ding," partly translated and discussed in Chapter 3 below, sec. 3.2.2.2, where there is no trace of a character in the "tens" place of the number of "heads taken" (zhe shou bai you . . .you wu ren • U f f f r f X . . . 3£~rIA)- For another probable example, see the second yin graph in the fourth line of the"Ran ^fangding" (Sh 3.10:115), discussed below, sec. 2.3.2. 42

2.2 THE QUESTION OF AUTHENTICITY

Fig. 6

Rubbing and hand drawing of the "Xijia/>a«" (Sh 33.191:785) inscription, showing the symmetrical arrangement of spacers around the perimeter and between the characters; from Matsumaru 1977, 98-99, figs. 19. i and 20.1. from the inside of the vessel." The final step was the polishing of the vessel to remove, as much as possible, the "flash" traces from the mold interstices.

2.2

The Question of Authenticity

While the preceding description of the piece-mold bronze-casting process is based on the scholarly studies of numerous historians of technology, one man, Noel Barnard, probably deserves greatest credit for making paleographers in particular more aware of the technological background of the bronze vessels that they study. However, it is necessary here also to consider the basic premise that motivated much of Barnard's work in this regard: his allegation that most vessels discovered before the beginning of I I . Since cores could not be removed intact from the interior of the finished bronze vessel, they naturally could not be reused. This is probably why, despite the practice of casting an entire set of vessels with virtually identical inscriptions, which became standard by late in the dynasty, the inscriptions were always inscribed separately for each vessel and therefore always show at least slight variations. For a good illustration of these variations, see Hayashi 1979, 38 and figs. 44-46.

43

2.2 THE QUESTION OF A U T H E N T I C I T Y

modern archeological reportage, and especially those with historically significant inscriptions, are not ancient artifacts at all but were forged in the Ming and especially the Qing dynasties. As we have seen, China's fascination with inscribed bronze vessels of antiquity has been so great that at least as early as the Song dynasty attempts were made to replicate them, a vogue that reached such proportions by the Qing that half or more of the imperial collection of bronzes consisted of late reproductions. Chinese scholars soon developed an indigenous methodology to distinguish the late reproductions from authentic early pieces. They stressed chronological consistency in four different aspects: vessel type, ornamentation, calligraphy of the inscription, and the historical events narrated in the inscription. 12 Nevertheless, Barnard criticized this methodology for failing to determine a group of control specimens against which the traditional vessels could be evaluated. Only "scientifically excavated inscriptions," he suggested, could provide such control, and he predicted time and again that they would "soon lead to a better understanding" of the problem of authenticity. 13 Now, after the great discoveries of inscribed bronzes during the 19703, discoveries that came too late to be addressed by Barnard, it appears that this prediction was quite prescient. Yet rather than vindicating his allegations of forgery among vessels discovered before the advent of archeological reportage, these "scientifically excavated inscriptions" have in fact served to verify most traditionally accepted inscriptions. Indeed, so convincing has this evidence been that all but the most skeptical of scholars now regard the issue as resolved. 14 Still, it would seem desirable either to counter the points made by Barnard or, better, to find some foolproof test of authenticity for these traditional vessels. 12. Among the early studies of forgery in inscribed bronze vessels, see Rong Geng 1929; Shang Chcngzuo 1933; Xu Zhongshu 1936; and Rong Geng 1941, 1:193-226. More recent studies are those of Cheong Kwong-yuc 1974 and Matsumaru et al. 1976; and the most current and comprehensive listing of forgeries is that of Luo Fuyi 1980. 13. For citations of Barnard's work on forgery and a discussion of his views, sec Chapter i, sec. 1.4.2. This prediction, which was repeated in virtually all of his publications, first appeared in Barnard 1958, 12. 14. With the exception of a pair of Barnard's one-time research assistants, Cheong Kwong-yue ^-*fc$f (see 1974) and Matsumaru Michio IS^LiMffi (seCHJS andjinwen gulin & SCilAW (f°r both of which, see Chapter i, sec. 1.3.1). It is hoped that by maintaining this arrangement the present table will provide a convenient entree to these reference works. It should be noted that bronze inscriptional graphs can be analyzed according to the same principles of composition as those elucidated by Xu Shen in the Shuo wen: namely, pictographs (xiangxing zi^fti'-^'-), ideographs (zhishi zi f n - ^ ' f ) , compounds (huiyi £' ft *;^f:), phonetic compounds (xingsheng zi^ ^ -f-)> an d phonetic loans (jiajie ziff^fp1^).

6

3-1 THE SCRIPT OF B R O N Z E INSCRIPTIONS

Table i A Comparison of the Bronze Inscriptional, Small Seal, and Kaishu $S1lr Forms of One Hundred Common Signifies Nu.

Kaishu

Seal

Bronze

Nu.

1.03

4.38

1.05

4.40

1.12

4.45

1.14

5. 01

2.05

5.09

2.08

5.18

2.12

5.21

2.13

5.25

2.19

5.28

2. 20

5.36

3. 12

5.38

3- 19

5.43

3. 22

5.44

3.26

5.45

3.29

6.01

3.30

6.21

3. 32

6.23

3.12

6.24

3.18

7.01

4 . 02

7.04

4.06

7.07

4.11

7.20

4 . 12

7.24

4.17

7.27

4 . 34

7.3-1

66

Kaiahu

Sedl

monzt.-

3. I THE S C R I P T OF B R O N Z E I N S C R I P T I O N S

Table i—Continued Nu.

Kaijihu

Seal

Bronze

NU .

7 . 42

10. 35

7.44

10 . 39

7.49

11.01

7.51

11. 13

a. 01

11.15

8.04

11.18

8.12

12.07

8.14

12.08

8.19

12.09

8.23

12.13

B.34

12.21

9.01

12.33

9. 10

13.01

9. 13

13.05

9.23

13.10

9.27

13. 14

9.30

13.18

9.31

13.22

9.35

14.01

9.39

14.06

10.01

14.09

10.03

14.10

10.08

14.36

10.13

14.43

10.20

14.48

SOURCE: Adapted from Chen Chusheng 1987, app. 3.

6 7

Kaisnu

Seal

Bronze

3-1 THE SCRIPT OF BRONZE INSCRIPTIONS

such as Jinwen bian C$fi of Jinwen gulin •& >t jj|*j $jc, to decipher many graphs in an inscription. As an example, let us return to the inscription on the "Ran ± fangding" (Sh 3.10:115), translated and discussed in the preceding chapter, and examine more closely just its first column. This portion includes the following seven graphs: ^ Nl if> 7p 15 1$ $. Of these, ^ is readily identifiable as the bronze inscriptional form of z.hui ^ (#4.12), which in addition to being a signific for (short-tailed) birds also serves as a loanword for the unelaborated form of the standard archaic Chinese copula wei (written |f| in the Book of Poetry and '[^ in the Book of Documents). The sixth graph, 1?, should also be readily intelligible, comprising as it does two signifies illustrated in table i: 'j (i.e., ren A, #8.01) and ~jc (ge ~J£, #12.21). Together, these two components make up the compound graph for fa {Jc, "to attack.":) The fifth graph, *k?, is only slightly more problematic. Using just the signifies illustrated in table i, it could be interpreted as composed either of It (chou i_, #2.19) and -, or of =1 (chi ^, #2.20), V (zhi ih, #2.13), and -. Since the combination of i_and results in the unusual compound t:, we should probably opt for the latter construction in which ^ , |h , and - give the familiar graph zheng ftp., "to campaign."6 This reading is presumably confirmed by its association with the following word, fa, "to attack." Although the seventh graph, it), is somewhat more problematic, it is possible to recognize in it the signific X (mu /fv, #6.01). Jinwen bian shows fifty-six graphs indexed under this sig nific, only one of which, $, transcribed as dong ]f{, "east," resembles our graph here. 7 The lack of a horizontal center stroke poses a slight problem, 8 but the context of the inscription leaves no doubt that the graph should indeed be read as dong, since the next graph in the inscription (that is, the first graph of column 2) is j>i 51, and thus forms the familiar compound dongyi ]fl51> "Eastern Yi." Hence, four of the first seven graphs in this important inscription can 5. For a study of the composition of archaic Chinese graphs, sec Gao Ming igSob. For a somewhat different approach, stressing the phonetic origins of characters, see Yao Xiaosui 1980. 6. It should be noted that this analysis is intended only to serve the heuristic purpose of illustrating how table i might be used to decipher an inscriptional graph. In fact, zheng is normally understood to be composed of Shuo wen signific chi ^ (# 2.20) and zheng |j- , also a Shuo wen signific (# 2.17) but one not illustrated in table i. 7. Rong Geng 1985, 404. 8. It may be recalled that Noel Barnard referred to the anomalous shape of this graph as one reason to question the authenticity of the "Ran fangding' inscription; see Chapter 2, sec. 2.3.2.

68

3. I THE S C R I P T OF B R O N Z E I N S C R I P T I O N S

be more or less readily identified. Transcription of the remaining three graphs requires a little experience and a little luck. The fourth one Tp, is obviously composed of ~j~ and f , neither of which is recognizable as one of the signifies listed in table i (or, for that matter, among all 540 Shuo wen signifies). However, ~f appears to be similar to the kaishu graphyu f, "at, in." Perhaps, then, we might find 7? by locating yu in Jinwen bian. Although yu is indexed in modern Chinese dictionaries (that is, those arranged according to the 214 "Kangxi" IsjtfjE signifies) under the signific er _"_ , the Shuo wen indexes it instead under xi ^ (#5.13). It is also possible to locate the graph by using the kaishu index at the back of Jinwen bian (pp. 1437-1500). Under graphs written with three strokes, yu is listed as appearing on p. 323. Turning to this page (fig. 16), we see almost a full page of examples written similarly to our graph -fp; the entry continues with almost two more pages of examples written simply as ^. This suggests that Rong Geng '^-}ji (1894-1983) and the present editors of Jinwen bian, at least, regard these as but two forms of the same word JVM. For further discussion of the orthographic distinction, we might turn to the discussions included in Jinwen gulin? For the present, however, we can be content with identifying the word asj« (transcribing it as -Ff to retain the orthographic distinction). The third graph, t5, is also obviously made up of two independent components: V and U. Table i shows that Q is similar to the signific O (i.e., kou p, #2.08). Our experience above in the case oi the slight variation in the forms of $ and $ might lead us to suspect that C> here is but a slightly miswritten form of U. Table i indicates that t) / P is the eighth signific in the second juan f£ of Shuo wen, and thus also in Jinwen bian. Looking through the graphs regarded as having this signific, we would find neither ^5 nor any clear examples in which the signific is written U rather than U. This should suggest that we consider the other component. Before doing so, however, we might note that among the thirty-five graphs indexed under the kou is one, written variously as 19 or N, that is none other than the second of the seven graphs that we are seeking to identify. Even the brief remarks given under this entry—which identify the word as zhou M, the name of the Zhou people and their dynasty— serve to reveal just how lucky we were to find this graph in Jinwen bian. While the character is here indexed under the signific kou, since most 9. Zhou Fagao (ed.) 1975, 5.0611 (3003-3029). 69

3- I THE S C R I P T OF B R O N Z E I N S C R I P T I O N S

a

70

3. I THE S C R I P T OF B R O N Z E I N S C R I P T I O N S

b

Fig. l6

Entry injinwen bian showing two forms of the graphjw ~f~; from Rong Geng 1985,323.

7'

3- I T H E S C R I P T O K B R O N Z E I N S C R I P T I O N S

bronze inscriptional examples include it, the Shuo wen— which, again, was based on the "Small Seal" script form [J^—regards it as "following" the signific jorc£ ffl (#3.51). There is thus very little chance that the form of the graph in the "Ranfangding," which both lacks the signific kou and in no way resembles the "Small Seal" shape of the Shuo wen signific yong, would lead us to an entry in any Chinese paleographic work. We still have the graph tt to identify. Disregarding the component O , we might guess that the other component, ^ ( , is the kaishu graph for ba A, "eight" (not listed in table i ) . Since this graph is a signific in the "Kangxi" system, we might correctly deduce that it is also a Shuo wen signific (#2.02). Turning to the beginning of the second juan ofjinwen bian and scanning the graphs indexed under this signific, we would quickly find our graph, identified as gong '£, "duke." We have now succeeded in identifying all seven graphs in the first column of the "Ran fangding" inscription. They read ft (i.e., H or ft) m&Tf> (i.e., J-) |EfJc ill,10 and can be translated as, "It was when the Duke of Zhou was on campaign attacking the Eastern (Yi)." This discussion illustrates many of the basic techniques used in deciphering bronze inscriptional graphs (and also some of the problems encountered). They are the foundation for reading and understanding bronze inscriptions. In fact, however, it is rarely necessary even for beginning students to employ these techniques for each and every graph in an inscription. Most publications of bronze inscriptions today, whether of inscriptions long available or of newly discovered materials, include full transcriptions in addition to the basic rubbings. While the scholarly value of these transcriptions varies, 11 they at least provide a convenient introduction to the general sense of the inscription; at their best, they repre10. A strict transcription might give /hou as p] to indicate that the signific kou is not included in the inscriptional form. Consistency might then suggest that the last graph, $ , be transcribed as ^ to indicate the lack of a horizontal stroke. However, since ^ represents a completely different word (shu, "to bind," "bundle"), such a transcription would be misleading. 11. In the past, transcriptions were often quite loose. This was especially true in the case of the many pre-disambiguated graphs (the so-called gujin zi '^\^'^) that appear in the inscriptions. Thus, when ^ /^ was interpreted to be the copula wei, it was simply transcribed as fff;; when fy I J^ was interpreted to be the verb xi, "to bestow," it was transcribed as |g. As conventions of transcription have evolved over the years, however, it is now generally standard practice to provide first a strictly graphic transcription (i.e., ^ is written as f£, 'fy as J|), with any understood elaboration placed either to the side and beneath the basic transcription or within parentheses. These conventions will be adhered to in transcriptions presented in this book. 72

3-2 THE FORMAL STRUCTURE OF AN I N S C R I P T I O N

sent the culmination of considerable scholarship. The student should not hesitate to make use of them and, indeed, to seek them out. 1 2

3.2

The Formal Structure of a Western Zhou Bronze Inscription

Having demonstrated that the reading of individual bronze inscriptional graphs is, for one reasonably familiar with the language of ancient China, by no means a mysterious process, I would like now to suggest that neither is there anything unusual about the content or formal structure of most Western Zhou inscriptions. Indeed, readers familiar with the great works written in archaic Chinese will already have read texts that are almost identical to those of the bronze inscriptions. The following passages, taken from the Book of Documents, Book of Poetry, and Zuo zhuan (and presented in their standard English translations), derive from the same historical context and historiographical impulse as that which produced the bronze inscriptions. 3.2.1

Comparisons with Traditional Literary Sources

Perhaps the best example of a traditional text deriving from Western Zhou bronze inscriptions is found in the poem "Jiang Han" j!t?ii (Mao 262) of the "Da Ya" Jeff, section of the Book of Poetry. The poem first describes certain military exploits of Duke Hu jjg of Shao £5, a figure known in both the traditional historical record and the bronze inscriptional record as an important minister during the reign of King Xuan (r. 827/25—782) , 13 The next stanza records a command given to Duke Hu by the king. This is followed by a list of gifts that the king awards to the duke, and finally by a demonstration of fealty on the part of the duke. In fact, as shown by Arthur Waley's (1889—1966) translation, quoted in part below, it seems likely that the word kao (*khagwx) 3*f, '"deceased father," in the grammatically nonsensical phrase zuo Shaogong kao ff {i £ ^', is a mistranscription of the closely homophonous word gui (*kwjiag) J|, "tureen" (rendered as 12. The standard source for transcriptions of inscriptions known through the 19305 is Ferguson 1939. A comparable digest for the inscribed vessels discovered in the last fifty years is Xu Zhongshu 1984, which also includes hand drawings of the inscriptions. Other references are conveniently listed at the beginning of each of Shirakawa's entries. 13. At least two inscribed bronze vessels refer to Duke Hu of Shao: the "Diao Sheng fH;j:. Sui I" (sh 33-I94:84I) and "Diao Sheng gui II" (Sh 33.195:860).

73

3.2 THE FORMAL STRUCTURE OF AN I N S C R I P T I O N

"urn" by Waley). 14 Ifso, then this poem was most likely originally composed to commemorate the casting of a bronze vessel. "On the banks of Kiang and Han" (Such was the king's command to the Lord of Shao) "You are to make new fields on every side; You arc to tithe my lands." Then without delay, without haste The king's domains were marked out, They were divided and duly ordered All the way to the southern seas. The king charged Hu of Shao (And his charge was published far and wide) "When Wen and Wu received their mandate The Duke of Shao was their support. Do not say T am a lesser descendant'; You have equalled the Duke of Shao. You have been zealous in deeds of war And therefore I grant you a boon. "I bestow upon you a jade sceptre and a jade goblet, And a bowl of black mead. Announce it to the Mighty Ones That I give you hills, lands and fields; That the charge which you receive from the house of Chou Is that which your ancestor received." Then Hu did obeisance and bowed his head Saying, "Long live the Son of Heaven." Hu did obeisance and bowed his head, Then in commemoration of the king's bounty He made the Duke of Shao's urn. The Son of Heaven—may he live for ever! Illustrious is he, the Son of Heaven, Famous for ever, Spreading the Power of his governance Everywhere throughout the lands. 14. Waley 1960, 131-132. The reconstructions of archaic pronunciation given here and throughout this book are based on the principles proposed in Li F'anggui 1971, and as given in Schuessler 1987.

74

3-2 THE FORMAL STRUCTURE OF AN INSCRIPTION

Another text that has impressed numerous scholars by the similarity between its language and that of bronze inscriptions is the "Wenhou zhi ming" %.{'££_•£$ chapter of the Book of Documents. Indeed, so explicit is the resemblance between it and the inscription on the "Maogong -^^ ding" (Sh 30.181:637) that Noel Barnard regarded it as one of the inspirations for the putative forger of that inscription. 15 Yet since there is now little doubt that the "Maogong ding" is an authentic vessel and inscription, it would seem rather that it and other similar bronze inscriptions in fact inspired the composer of the "Wenhou zhi ming." The portion of this text that includes the king's explicit command to Lord Wen >Cfj| and the enumeration of gifts commemorating that command has been translated by Bernhard Karlgren (1889—1978) as follows: The king said: (Father =) uncle and peacemaker! 16 You shall return and look to your multitude, and give peace to your state. I consequently reward you with one yu-vesscl of aromatic wine made of black millet, one red bow and one hundred red arrows, one black bow and one hundred black arrows, and a four-team of horses. 17 One final traditional narrative reminiscent of two different types of Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, those relating court ceremonies performed in the wake of military victories and those relating court investiture ceremonies, is found in the Zuo zhuan (twenty-eighth year of Duke Xi f g ) . Following the important battle of Chengpu i$$| in 632 B.C., th victorious Chong'er iff If, Duke Wen of Jin ff j£ £, made an offering of captives from the state of Chu Jt| to King Xiang || (r. 651—619) of Zhou. In return, the king appointed Chong'er to be hegcmon among the leaders of all the states, bestowing on him also numerous gifts that would serve as his insignia of rank. James Legge (1815—1897) has translated this detailed narrative as follows: 15. Barnard 196^, 399, 403; see also Barnard 1974, 6~7- For a particularly graphic demonstration of the similarities between these two texts, sec Shirakawa 1962-, fasc. 41, 3-4. 16. One of the more striking similarities between this text and that of the "Maogong ding" is in the way the king addresses his "uncle" (fu 3£). Comparison of the phrase fuyi he ^- -ISi ^0 h crc with the similar phrase fu Yin "^ I^f, "Uncle Yin," in the "Maogong ding' inscription shows that, contrary to Karlgren's translation here. Yihe ^^TI should be interpreted as the name of the Lord of Wen, to whom the king addresses these remarks. 17. Karlgren 19^0, 80.

75

3-2 THE FORMAL STRUCTURE

OK AN INSCRIPTION

On Ting-wc, the marquis presented the spoils and prisoners of Ts'oo to the king,— too chariots with their horses all in mail, and 1,000 foot-soldiers. The earl of Ch'ing acted as assistant to the king in treating the marquis with the ceremonies with which king P'ing had treated his ancestor. On Ke-yew, the king feasted him with sweet spirits, and conferred on him various gifts. He also commissioned the minister Yin and his own brother Hoo, with the historiographer of the Interior, Shuh Hing-foo, to convey the written appointment of the marquis of Tsin to be the chief of the princes, giving him the robes to be worn in the carriage adorned with metal, and those proper for a chariot of war, one red bow and a hundred red arrows, a black bow and a thousand arrows, a jar of spirits, made from the black millet, flavoured with herbs, and three hundred life-guards. The words of the appointment were, "The king says to his uncle, Reverently discharge the king's commands, so as to give tranquillity to the States in every quarter, and drive far away all who are ill-affected to the king." Thrice the marquis declined his honours; but at last accepting them, he said, "I, Ch'ung-urh, venture twice to do obeisance, with my head bowed to the earth,—and so do I receive and will maintain the great, distinguished, excellent charge of the son of Heaven." 18 Although this passage derives from a somewhat later date than the "Maogong ding" and other late Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, almost every part of a complete inscription is found in if. a date, a narrative of an event or events, including very prominently an audience with the king, a list of gifts granted on the occasion of that audience, and a paean to the king's beneficence. Only a dedication, usually to a deceased ancestor, of the casting of a vessel is missing, and had Chong'cr commemorated this command by casting a ritual vessel, he certainly would have concluded it with such a dedication. Let us now examine in more detail how each of these components is used in actual bronze inscriptions, and conclude by reading two complete inscriptions. 3.2.2 The Four Parts of an Inscription 3.2.2.1

The Date and Place Notation

As in the above account from the Zuo zhuan, most inscriptions begin with notation of the date. In the earliest inscriptions, this is often done 18. Legge 1872, 2 1 0 - 2 1 i . 76

3-2 THE FORMAL STRUCTURE OF AN INSCRIPTION

with a simple "great event" notation of some significant (usually royal) event that occurred that year, as in the "Shu /K tuoqi" (Sh 2.6:77):

It was when the king made ritual-entreaty at Ancestral Zhou . . . This "great event" notation may be coupled with a more specific chronological notation, including the day, expressed in the Chinese sexagenary ga.nz.hi -\~'~£, cycle, and sometimes the month. The inscription on the "Lii J£ ding" (Sh 2.5:72) combines all of these features:

It was the year that the duke Grand Protector came from

ffifin^-fr.iE)

attacking the rebelling Yi; in the eleventh month, gengshen (day 57), the duke was at the Zhou Encampment. . . The "Lii ding" also includes one other feature that is regularly found at the beginning of most inscriptions: a note of where the action takes place. While these notations would become increasingly formulaic as the court rituals were systematized later in the dynasty, referring almost always to the king being in one or another palace or chamber in "Zhou" fH\ (that is, the Zhou capital), early in the dynasty these place notations were more ad hoc, as seen here in the case of the "duke Grand Protector" being at the Zhou H| Encampment. 19 19. In addition to setting the location of the action, the place notation can be an extremely important point of evidence for the date of the vessel. Many of the rituals described in bronze inscriptions are said to have taken place in the "Kang Palace" (Kanggong kft'^') in the Zhou capital. As discussed briefly in Chapter i (note 28) and as will be discussed in more detail in Appendix 2, there has been a lengthy and heated debate concerning whether the mention of this "Kang Palace" in the inscription on the "Ling ^ yi" (Sh 6.25:276) should be understood as a posthumous reference to King Kang (r. 1005/3-978). Since several examples, in addition to mentioning this "Kang Palace, 11 also specify a particular chamber as the "Mu Great Chamber" (Mu da ski ^^^?; sec, for example, the "Yi fj^ gui" [Sh 28.169:520]), with at least one inscription explicitly referring to it as the "King Mu Great Chamber" (Muwang da ski Ifj^ J:^fj;;"Hu pi ding" [Sh 23.135:113]), it would seem that these palaces and chambers were indeed dedicated to deceased kings. If so, inscriptions that mention such a palace or chamber would necessarily postdate the reign of the king to whom

77

3-2 THE FORMAL STRUCTURE OK AN INSCRIPTION

One other clement that came to be particularly associated with the date notations of Western Zhou bronze inscriptions consists of one of four terms describing the phase of the moon: chuji $} ^f, "first auspiciousness"; jishengpo SE'kSl, "after the growing brightness"; jiivang |3JSjf, "after the full moon"; andjisipo ^fytljjl, "after the dying brightness." These notations are relatively rare in the opening years of the dynasty, and it is especially rare to find them in conjunction with all of the other time markers, but by the reigns of kings Zhao (r. 977/75—957) and Mu (r. 956—918) they had become increasingly standardized. From this time until the end of the dynasty, most inscriptions begin with a notation of at least the month, lunar phase, and ganzhi-day designation, as in the "Dong ^ gui" (Sh 49.7/012:303), a vessel that probably dates to the early years of King Mu's reign:

It was the sixth month, first auspiciousness,yiyou (day 22), at the Jing Encampment. . . By the middle of the dynasty the "great event" year notation fell into disuse, but with the reign of King Gong (r. 917/15-900) a new notation, giving the year of reign (though unfortunately the reign itself is rarely explicitly noted), was already becoming routine. The "Qiu Wei Jftftf he" (Sh 49.Hoi 1:256), which certainly dates to this reign, begins:

It was the third year, third month, after the growing brightness, renyin (day 39), the king raised a banner at Feng . . .

it was dedicated. Among other such royal ancestor temples mentioned in inscriptions are those dedicated to King Zhao (r. 977/75—957; see the "Song ^ hu" [Sh 24.137:153]), King Yi (r. 865-858; see the "Ge You Cong ^ f& fj£ ding" [Sh 29.180:627] and "Ci jrt ding" [Sh 4g.Woi 1:280], where his name is written chi\]%), and King Li (r. 857/53—842/28; see the "Kc j£ thong" [Sh 28.171:531], where his name is written la $|J). For a demonstration of the phonetic relationship between^? (*rsd) p| and chi (*drid) ^, and between li (*ljadh) J^ and la (*lat) ijjlj, see Yu Xingwu 1966, 100-101. For the classic statement that these were temples dedicated to deceased kings, see Tang Lan 1962.

78

3-2 THE FORMAL STRUCTURE OF AN INSCRIPTION

In the next chapter and in Appendix 3 we will discuss in greater detail the significance of these dating notations. For now, together with the plac notation, they provide a convenient entree into the inscription. 3.2.2.2

The Event Notation

After the date, an inscription usually continues with a record of some event in which the person who commissioned the casting of the vessel was involved. These events are occasionally highly individuated and of considerable historical importance, especially in the case of bronzes cast to commemorate military exploits. The following graphic (indeed, almost cinematic) account of one of a series of battles between Zhou forces and the Xianyun ijmf[; appears on the recently discovered "Duo You ^^t ding" a late Western Zhou caldron:20 . . . Onguiwei (day 20), the belligerents attacked Xun, taking captives. Duo You westwardly pursued. On the morning ofjiashen (day 21), striking at X, Duo You cut off heads and manacled prisoners to be interrogated; in all, using the duke's chariotry to cut off the heads of two hundred and .. .. five men, manacling 23 prisoners to be interrogated, capturing 11 7 of the belligerents' chariots, and taking back the captives (from among) the people of Xun. . . Far more often, however, the inscriptions record the rather more prosaic affairs of court, especially the appointment (or occasionally reappointment) of an individual to a position in the royal government. The 20. For the initial report on the "Duo You ding," which was discovered only in 1980 and thus has not been discussed by Shirakawa, see Tian Xingnong and Luo 1981. Other studies of the inscription include Li Xueqin 1981; Zhang Yachu 1982; Liu Yu 1983; Huang Shengzhang 1984; Xia Hanyi 1985; and Shaughnessy 1983—1985. A complete translation into English, together with a discussion of the vessel's date and its historical context, is given in the last of these studies.

79

3-2 THE FORMAL STRUCTURE OF AN INSCRIPTION

inscription of the bronze vessel or vessels cast to commemorate such an event (often referred to as an "investiture inscription") usually includes not only the text of the king's command but also, as in the Zuo z,huan passage quoted above, a more or less complete description of the surrounding ceremony. The inscription on the "Ci jit ding" (Sh 49.7/011:280), another recently discovered vessel that was probably cast only a few years after the "Duo You ding," describes a typical investiture:

It was the seventeenth year, twelfth month, after the growing brightness,yimao (day 52). The king was in the Yi Palace of the Zhou Kang Palace. At dawn the king approached the grand chamber and assumed position. Supervisor of Lands Maoshu at the right of Ci entered the gate and stood in the center of the hall. The king called out to Scribe Liao to inscribe the command to Ci, saying: "Make legions of the men of the city." . . . Although these records of events often constitute only a small portion of the total inscription, it is usually the portion of greatest historical interest. Needless to say, records of battles and other unique events are of great help in expanding the sketchy outline of the traditional historical record. From these records we now know of major military activities late in the reign of King Kang (r. 1005/3-978), during the reign of King Li (r. 857/53—842/28), and in the twelfth and thirteenth years of King Xuan's reign (816-815), campaigns for which no literary reference exists. 21 Even the most formulaic accounts of royal audiences can be historiographically useful. Aside from their obvious significance for reconstructing court 21. For a campaign in the twenty-fifth year of King Kang's reign (979 B.C.). see the inscription of the "Xiao Yu 'J^]ji ding" (Sh 12.62:682; translated in Dobson 1962, 226-232); for a series of battles fought in defense of the Zhou eastern capital region during the reign of King Li, see the inscriptions of the "Yu (^ ding" (Sh 27.162:444) and "Yu Efc gui III" (Sh 27.164:469); and for the campaign in the twelfth and thirteenth years of King Xuan's reign, see, in addition to the "Duo You ding" (partly translated above), the inscriptions on the "Guoji Zibo !jj|^ /• E-3 pan" (Sh 32.192:800) and "Bu Qi ^^^gui" (Sh 32.193:814). 80

3-2 THE FORMAL STRUCTURE OF AN INSCRIPTION

ritual, by mentioning the great number of officials of varying levels of authority who took part in the rites, they provide, for instance, important data on the structure of the royal administration. 22 3.2.2.3 The Gift List The third part of an inscription is a listing of the gifts given, usually by the king, to the caster of the vessel. Early in the dynasty these were usually quite simple, such as the gift of cowries made by the king to a figure named De ^ and commemorated by the "De £g fangding" (Sh 10.54:566):

The king awarded De cowries, twenty strands. By the end of the dynasty, however, the gift list could be as extravagant as that on the "Maogong ding":

. . . I confer upon you: ajar of sacrificial wine, and a libation ladle with jade handle; an apron of scarlet, with leaf-green jade pendants; a demi-circlet ofjade and a jade hu tablet; a chariot with bronze fittings, with a decorated cover on the handrail; a front-rail and breast trappings of soft leather, painted scarlet, for the horses; a canopy of tiger skin, with a reddish brown lining; yoke-bar bindings and axle couplings of painted leather; bronze

jingle-bells for the yoke bar; a mainshaft rear-end fitting and brake fittings, bound with leather and painted gilt; a gilt bowpress and a fish-skin quiver; a team of four horses, with bits and bridles, bronze frontlets, and gilt girthstraps; a scarlet banner with two bells. 23 22. For recent studies of the structure of the Western Zhou bureaucracy, sec Yang Kuan 19843, ig84b; Kimura 1985; and I to 1987, 231-276. 23. Translated by Oobson 1962, 219, with minor revisions.

81

'.j.2 T H E F O R M A L S T R U C T U R E O F A N I N S C R I P T I O N

Table 2 Some Gifts Mentioned in Western Zhou Bronze Inscriptions Graph

Kaishu

Meaning

Pronunciation bei

cowrie

chang

fragrant-wine

che

chariot retainer

chen

fa

sash yoke-bar bindings knee pads

ge

dagger-axe

g°"g

huan

bow yoke (of a chariot) girdle-pendant circlet

huang

demi-circlet

Jin

le

metal, especially bronze martingale (of a horse) bridle

ma

horse

dai fa

heng heng

jin

82

Notes denominated in fl (PenS 8fl)> "double strands" denominated in & (you |TJ), "flasks" denominated in **[ (ren A), "men"

often modified by color: ^ (chi zfc), "red"; ^ (zhu *), "scarlet"; M ( you $%), "dark"; f t ( ^ « ) , "purple"(?) often modified by PN (diao It), "carved"

often modified by j-_ (yu S), "jade" often modified by^ ^ (cong lg), "green" can be specified as ^ (bai p4), "white"; or £(rAz' yj'«M fifcO tO, "bit and cheek pieces" denominated in p7 (/" i/C),"head"

3-2 THE FORMAL STRUCTURE OF AN INSCRIPTION

Table 2 — Continued Graph

Kaishu

Meaning

Pronunciation mian

cap

qi

pennant

Notes often combined with g (luan[m:\^),

"jingle-bells" tian

arrow field

xi yi

slippers jacket

ying

girths trap (of a horse) jingle-bell helmet

shi

yong zhou

usually specified by location usually modified by^(chun ffi), "hemmed"; or, further, by rrn (/« [$$'•} SI), "brocaded hem"

The names and descriptions of these gifts can be quite arcane, making this portion of the inscription, often of the least interest to institutional or intellectual historians (but of great interest to historians of material culture), the most difficult to interpret exactly. 24 Table 2 presents a list of the gifts most frequently mentioned in Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, together with tentative translations. 3.2.2.4

The Dedication

After the enumeration of gifts received, an inscription usually concludes with a recognition of the king's beneficence (which in its simplest form reads, dui jang wang xiu %\$jj Hf^£ 5^^jj §: ^., "makes [for his] cultured deceased-father [this] treasured sacrificial vessel"), and a prayerful wish 24. For monographic studies of these gifts, see Wong Yinwai 1978; and Chen Hanping 1986. For an argument that the gifts served little or no economic purpose but rather were regarded as symbols of privilege, see Kane 1982-1983.

83

3-2 THE FORMAL STRUCTURE OF AN INSCRIPTION

for the future, usually that the caster will have sons and grandsons for ten thousand years eternally to treasure and use the vessel (for example, qi wannian zi zi sun sunyong baoyong It-M% : /" = l£ = /K5^ffl, "may for ten thousand years sons' sons and grandsons' grandsons eternally treasure and use [it]"). 23 This dedicatory portion of the inscription is usually extremely formulaic and, as in the poem "Jiang Han" quoted above, is often composed of short rhyming phrases. The dedication of the "Xing JW xu" (Sh 50.7/015:379), one of the vessels discovered in the cache at Fufeng $cJil, county, Shaanxi province, together with the "Shi Qiang 'ilJ« pan" (Sh 50.7/015:335), is typical. The final words of each of the three distinct phrases—xiu (*hjggw) fa, "beneficence"; gui (*kwjiag) 3S , "tureen"; and bao (*pagw) U, "treasure"—though not rhyming in modern Peking pronunciation, were near perfect rhymes in the language of Western Zhou.

. . . (Xing) dares in response

to extoll the Son of Heaven's beneficence (*hjagw), herewith making (for) his cultured deceased-father (this) treasured gui tureen (*kwjiag). May Xing for ten thousand years (have) sons and grandsons and may (they) eternally treasure (it) (*psgw). Family Emblem In addition to the insight they provide regarding Western Zhou conceptions of immortality and the afterlife, these dedications can also be helpful in determining lineage relationships. In the case of the "Xing xu," although the name of the deceased father is not indicated, the presence of the family emblem 4» indicates that Xing jp| was a member of the same family as Shi Qiang $i.tj|, the maker of the "Shi Qiang pan" (Sh 50.7/015:335), whose inscription was translated in the Introduction. 26 Deviations from the formulaic dedication do occur and sometimes attest to 25. The characters z.i f- and sun -j^ arc often accompanied by a small ~ sign at the bottom right corner of the graph, which signifies that the words are to be read twice—as here: zi z.i sun sun. 26. Indeed, other inscribed vessels cast by Xing demonstrate that he may well have been the son of Shi Qiang (or at least a sibling in the son's generation); see especially the "Xing zhong V" (Sh 50.Ho 15:393). See, too, the extended discussion of this cache below, Chapter 4, sec. 4.1.2.

84

3.3 A C O M P L E T E I N S C R I P T I O N

interesting developments in attitudes toward the ancestors and posterity; in general, though, the dedication presents no great linguistic problem. 27

3.3

A Complete Inscription: The "Qiu Wei GUI"

Putting together these four discrete parts, we should now be able to read through an entire inscription. As a first example, let us select an investiture inscription from the middle portion of the dynasty. The "Qiu Wei gui" (Sh 49.7/011:273), one of thirty-seven vessels discovered in 1975 in Qishan |lf£|l| county, Shaanxi province (two others of which, the "Qiu Wei he" and the "Ci ding," are translated in part above), is almost universally dated to the reign of King Mu. Its inscription of seventy-three graphs in seven columns (fig. 17) can be translated as follows:

Qiu Wei gui It was the twenty-seventh year, third month, after the growing brightness, wuxu (day 35). The king was at Zhou. (He) approached the grand chamber and assumed position. Nan bo entered and at the right of Qiu Wei entered the gate and stood in the center of the hall facing north. The king called out to the Interior Scribe to award Wei purple knee pads, a scarlet demi-circlet, and a jingle-bell. Wei bowed and touched his head to the ground, and daring in response to extoll the Son of Heaven's illustrious beneficence, herewith makes (for) my cultured grandfather 27. For studies of these dedications, see Kaizuka 1961; Lin and Zhang 1964; and Ito 1987, 42-69. For convenient tables illustrating the various forms that these dedications took, see Hayashi 1984, vol. i, 298-302. For studies of rhyme in inscriptions, see Guo Moruo 1932, 1273-1496; Chen Shihui 1981; and Chen Banghuai 1984. 35

Fig. /; The "Qiu Weigui" (Sh 49.7/011:273) inscription; from Shaanxi chutu Shang Zhou qingtongqi,\o\. I, 152.

86

3.4 A P R O B L E M A T I C I N S C R I P T I O N

and deceased father (this) treasured gui tureen. May Wei's sons' sons and grandsons' grandsons eternally treasure and use (it). I hope that being able to read this important inscription will inspire the reader to attempt, both in this book and elsewhere, to read other inscriptions. Yet I think it probably goes without saying that not all Western Zhou bronze inscriptions are quite so unproblematic; indeed, some will probably always be debated. Next I will introduce one of the most intractable of all these inscriptions.

3.4

A Problematic Inscription: The "Li GUI"

The "Li ^IJ gui" (Sh ^o.Hoi^:^2i), discovered in March 1976 in Lintong PJgi :fH county, Shaanxi province, only a few kilometers from the tomb of Qin Shi Huangdi |||#p M'S? (r. 246/21-210 B.C.), is already arguably the best known of all archeologically excavated Western Zhou bronze vessels.28 This notoriety is due to the mention in its brief inscription of King Wu's conquest of Shang, the single most important event in early Chinese history. The inscription confirms traditional historical accounts that the decisive battle took place on jiazi ^' /"-, the first day in the sexagenary cycle used to record time in ancient China. It also suggests, again as do traditional accounts, that the conquest was achieved very quickly, for the inscription is intended primarily to commemorate an award on xinwei ^^"> the eighth day of the sexagenary cycle and so presumably just eight days after the jiazi battle, given to Charge d'affaires Li X^f'O, the caster of the vessel, by King Wu, probably in the context of a victory celebration. While this confirmation of the traditional historical record for such an important event would have been sufficient to ensure scholarly discussion of the "Li gui," one other feature has added to its intrinsic interest and has already elicited a considerable body of exegetical literature: the inscription, which is perfectly legible (sec fig. 18) and structurally straightforward, contains one passage of seven graphs that has proven extremely 28. For the original report of the vessel's excavation, see Lintong xian wenhuaguan '977> '~7- l n e vessel has also been published and discussed in The Great Bronze Age of China, pi. 41 and p. 202. Studies of the vessel's inscription, including several not noted by Shirakawa, will be cited as they are mentioned below.

#7

Fig. 18 The "Li^Hz'" (Sh 50.7/014:321) inscription; from Shang Zhou qingtongqi mingwen xuan, vol. 1 , 1 7 .

88

3.4 A P R O B L E M A T I C I N S C R I P T I O N

obscure. Moreover, this passage seems to introduce important new evidence on the Zhou conquest, the nature of which varies depending on the interpretation chosen. In the following discussion we will review the alternative interpretations of this problematic passage. Ideally, of course, I would like to be able to suggest a reasonable resolution to this debate. Whether this proves possible or not, however, the discussion is intended even more to serve a pedagogical purpose: this attempt to read the passage will allow us to explore further the techniques used in deciphering a bronze inscription. 3.4.1

The Date, Place, and Gift Notations and the Dedication

The inscription begins, as most inscriptions do, with an indication of the date. Here, as in most inscriptions from very early in the dynasty, the date refers to a "great event": King Wu's conquest of Shang. It is further specified as having taken place onjiazi and in the morning:

King Wu29 campaigned against Shang; it wasjiazi (day i) morning . . Disregarding for the moment the next seven graphs that constitute the problematic passage, the inscription continues with another date, xinwei (day 8), and the activities of that day:

Xinwei (day 8),

the king was at Jian Encampment and awarded Charge d'affaires Li metal. .

29. The compound graph (hewen ^ £_) fit_, composed of wang \-_ and wu ]fc, is seen only in inscriptions from the earliest part of the Western Zhou period, and is used only with respect to kings Wen (r. 1099/56-1050) and Wu; for other examples, see the "He JiJ zun" (Sh 48.//oi:i7i) and "De fang/ting," both datable to the reign of Xing Cheng (r. 1942/351006), and the "Yihou Ze Ufj; ^ gui" (Sh 10.52:529) and "Da Yu ding," both datable lo the reign of King Kang (r. 1005/3—978).

89

3.4 A PROBLEMATIC INSCRIPTION

There are no particular linguistic difficulties with this sentence; the king is indicated as having been at a particular place, the "Jian Encampment" Si' S, and having awarded Li, who is referred to both by name and by his official title, you shi X ^, "charge d'affaires,"30 a gift of "metal," probably bronze. It is worth noting that the name "Jian" appears in Shang bronze inscriptions, also as a place-name, apparently in the vicinity of the Shang capital. 31 The word dui g that forms part of this place-name indicates a military encampment, and is thus consistent with the military context surrounding the events recorded.32 30. Because the term san shi I-_i 'Jf, "three shi," is mentioned in the inscription on the "Lingjvi," and because there is also mention of san you shi -Jl^f ^, "threeyou shi," in the Shijing poem "Shiyue zhi jiao" {' J] ~^_'*£: (Mao 193), some scholars have regarded shi (*dzrj3gh or srjsgh) ^V as equivalent to the word si (*sjsg) j|5], at least as it appears in the title canyon si UXiiii], "Three Supervisors" (i.e., sigongjjfi\ L~, Supervisor of Works; sima IH ,^l> Supervisor of the Horse; and situ jl$ -f~. Supervisor of Lands) ubiquitous elsewhere in Western Zhou bronze inscriptions (see especially the "Tuan * fangzun" (Sh 19.101:312]); for this argument, see, for example, I.uo Zhenyu 1930, 155; Barnard 1978, 601. However, in the absence of any direct association between the words ski and si, it would seem preferable to differentiate these terms, shi perhaps referring genericaUy to any officer or envoy, as suggested by Guo Moruo 1935, 6b. This interpretation would seem especially appropriate in the case ofjyoa shi here, since the "Li gui" apparently dates to a time before the official hierarchy of the Western Zhou court was standardized (for studies of which, see above, note 2 2 ) . For this reason, I translate it here as literally as possible, while still maintaining the flavor of an official title. 31. The place-name occurs most prominently in the Shang-period "/ai Hu '^^jjt jiao," for which see Akatsuka 1977, 665. The inscription reads: Gengshen (day 57); the king was at Jian. The king approached. Zai Hu followed and was awarded cowries, five strands, herewith making (for) Father Ding (this) sacrificial vessel. (It was) in the sixth month. It was the king's twentieth ritual cycle, thejvz-sacrifice plus five (days?). The same place-name also occurs in a "/ai '.^ ding," discovered in 1958 in the Hougang '{%_ [ifij district of Anyang rl£$fe. Although in his discussion Akatsuka attempts through the name of Zai Hu to relate this place-name to the state of Hufang }jg Jjr, known from Shang oracle-bone inscriptions, and further argues that it was located near present-day Luoyang '$5"Pia) ^ would seem that this coincidence of names is purely fortuitous arid instead, as shown by the archeological provenance of the "Zai ding," that Jian must be located in the neighborhood of Anyang; see also Tang Lan 1977. 911.6. 32. For an extensive debate on the historical significance of this term, which can also be interpreted as the unelaborated iorm of the word ski Gljj, "soldier, army," especially in

9°

3.4 A P R O B L E M A T I C I N S C R I P T I O N

The inscription concludes, as do nearly all inscriptions, with a statement dedicating the vessel to a particular ancestor, in this case Zhangong J1&, the Duke of Zhan. 33

. . (Li) herewith makes (for) the Duke of Zhan (this) treasured sacrificial vessel. Most commentators have been content just to note the ancestral affinity between the Duke of Zhan and Li, the caster of the vessel. But Tang Lan Ji*f W\ (1900-1979) has suggested, reasonably it seems to me, that the "Zhan" of this ancestor name is also Li's family name, and that z.han Jl is equivalent to tan |g. On this basis he identifies Li's family name with that of Elder Da of Tan (Tanbo Da fa{l'j ill), a figure mentioned in several early texts as one of King Wu's leading lieutenants. 34 Tang brings this identification full circle by proposing that da '^, meaning "penetrating," and li ~%\\, the name of Charge d'affaires Li arid meaning "sharp," are related to each other as name and cognomen; thus Li may be none other than the historical personage Elder Da of Tan.35 3.4.2

The Problematic Passage

Having now reviewed much of the content of the inscription, it is necessary finally to confront the problematic passage of columns i and 2. the terms "Yin eight armies" (Yin ba ski fjASli) and "Western six armies" (xi liu shi l^'x'x&Ii), see Yu Xingwu 1964, 1965; and Yang Kuan 1964, 1965. 33. Because of two conflicting conventions regarding the names preceding titles such as gong £r, which I translate conventionally as "duke" (although this term did not at this time, or apparently at any time during the Western Zhou, reflect a specific feudal or noble rank), or bo ffj, "elder," some care needs to be taken in their translation. On the one hand, honorific appellations, usually posthumous, such as mu $jz, "majestic," or hang ^$, "vigorous," should be regarded as the individual's temple name and translated as Duke Mu, for instance. On the other hand, when the word preceding the title is a place-name or state name, as is apparently the case here with Zhangong. it refers to the individual's appanage and should be translated as the "Duke of Zhan." 34. The textual locus for Elder Da is the "Ke Yin" l^Ssi chapter of the Yi Zhoushu (4-3b). For an extended discussion of Elder Da of Tan, albeit in a different context, see Kaizuka 1937. 35. Tang Lan 1977, 8. For the classic discussion of the relationship between names (rning ^) and cognomens (zi J-f~-) in ancient China, including especially the use of synonyms, see Wang Yinzhi .{".'j\^_, "Chimqin ming zi jiegu" ^flf'X^j-'f-fS'Cnfi, in Jingyi shuwen

HJti4fB],>a"22 and 2391

3.4 A P R O B L E M A T I C I N S C R I P T I O N

Table 3

Collected Interpretations of Graphs in the "Li Gui" Inscription Graph

Commentator

Transcription

Meaning

to capture to defend year

Tang Lan Zhong Fengnian Yu Xingwu Zhang Zhenglang Qi Guiyan Xu Zhongshu Zhao Cheng Huang Shengzhang Wang Yuxin Shirakawa Shizuka

Jupiter

sui sacrifice

Tang Lan Zhong Fengnian Zhang Zhenglang Qi Guiyan Xu Zhongshu Shirakawa Shizuka Yu Xingwu Zhao Cheng Huang Shengzhang Wang Yuxin

caldron place-name: Chao upright, in position appropriate then ding sacrifice to divine

Tang Lan Xu Zhongshu Zhao Cheng Huang Shengzhang Yu Xingwu Zhong Fengnian Zhang Zhenglang Shirakawa Shizuka

to conquer

to be able to

dim (Zhou appellation for Shang king Di Xin) dusk

Tang Lan Zhang Zhenglang1 Qi GuiyanJ Huang Shengzhang

late 92

3.4 A P R O B L E M A T I C I N S C R I P T I O N

Table 'j—Continued Graph

£

Commentator

Transcription

Meaning

Zhong Fengnian f& Yu Xingwu

to advance

Xu Zhongshu Zhao Cheng Shirakawa Shizuka

to know; to make known

TangLan £R—"M Zhong Fengnianf§ Shirakawa Shizukafl. Yu Xingwu/M, Huang ShengzhangM

to retire to invade to shock quickly early (late and early; i.e., always)

Zhang Zhenglang Xu Zhongshu Qi Guiyan Zhao Cheng

early, dawn attributive particle before proper noun

Tang Lan j X — > %Tang Lan j X — > % Shirakawa ShizukaJ all others Y. ~* -f?

to have; i.e., to occupy, capture, or defeat (Shang) Shang

all scholars

Of the seven graphs that make up the passage, four are of more or less uncertain transcription, and none is of certain meaning. In inscriptional form, the passage reads:

Table 3 indicates the range of interpretations for each graph suggested by ten previous commentators. 36 By combining these various readings, we obtain the following translations for the passage in toto: 36. For these interpretations, see Tang Lan 1977; Yu Xingwu 1977; Zhang Zhenglang 1978; Sh 5O.//oi4:32i; for Zhong Fengnian UiB.-'^ > Qi Guiyan ($tC^p^Jfp, edited by Li Xiaoding -*f-. ^^ (1965). In a fashion much like that ofjinwen gulin, this second work provides a convenient sampling of etymological discussions of oracle-bone graphs. Either of these works would explain that sui is indexed in the Shuo wen under the apparently anomalous signific z.hi [[•_, "foot," because in the seal script form of the graph, 8£ , the two dots featured in the "Li gui" form were written with the more elaborate form fj^. See Li Xiaoding 1965, 2.0479; Zhou Fagao (ed.) 1975, 2.166 (820-835).

96

3.4 A P R O B L E M A T I C INSCRIPTION

most common type of inscription in which sui appears reads simply, wang bin sui wang hai -[-1'fi gScl'H?, "the king will visit and sui; no harm"(see, e.g., Qianbian 7.20.a). 42 A more elaborated form of this same type of inscription, which provides grammatical objects for both bin ll', "visit," and sui, suggests that sui here should be interpreted as a type of sacrifice:

Crack on gengxu, Xing divining: "The king (will) visit Father Ding and sui a penned ox; no trouble." (Jimbun 320) Other inscriptions confirm that sui was a type of sacrifice at this time.

Crack on wuzi: "(We) will offer sui to (Ancestor) Zhongji; the king (will) visit." (Nanbei Ming: 640) Crack on guihai, Lii divining: "On the next day jfa^z, (we will) offer and elevate ««' (to Ancestor) Shang Jia; (we) will offer Qiang, nine, . . . (MenziesBy) Onjzzt;an 35. X fading 36. Guo Wen Gong Zi Zha , who cast at least forty-three of the vessels found in this cache, lived one generation after Qiang. The inscription on a bell, the "Xing jf| zhong V" (Sh 50.7/015:393), begins with praise of his great-grandfather Xin ^, his grandfather Yi ZJ, and his father Ding T. 12 1 1 . Thcjia "f, a wine vessel, was a common vessel type during the Shang dynasty and continued to appear, though with less frequency, during the first few reigns of the Western Zhou. By the middle period of the Western Zhou (usually considered to begin with the reign of King Mu [r. 9^6—918]). however, the jia. together with most other wine vessels, became extremely rare. Even more important than this evidence of the jia vessel type for the identification of Zhe as a member of the generation of Qiang's grandfather is the shape of other vessels cast by him, particularly the "Zhejyz." The yi ij$ or jangyi /j|^ square casket is another vessel type that died out by the mid Western Zhou. Moreover, other inscribed vessels exist, the most important of which is the l! Ling >&,'' that can be dated to no later than the time of King Zhao and that could come from virtually the same mold as the "Zheji." As I will show later in this chapter (see 4.2.2.1), bronze styles developed sufficiently over time so that such artistic similarity is almost certainly a sign of contemporaneity. 12. It should be noted that in addition to using the name of the caster and the vessel type, the initial report of the discovery further designated this bell as being of the "fifth type," thus differentiating it from thirteen other bells cast by Xing (and thus also known as "Xing zhong"} that are divided on the basis of their inscriptions into four groups. (Although Shaanxi chutu Shang Zhou qingtongqi has subsequently renumbered this type as "Type I," I retain the enumeration of the initial report, following Shirakawa.) Whereas a single, discrete inscription appears on this one bell, as usual for all other vessel types, three of the other groups of bells contain either multiple versions of the same inscription (groups 2 and 4) or portions of one lengthy inscription (group 3). In contrast to the great amount of scholarship devoted to the inscription on the "Shi Qiang pan" the inscriptions on these various "Xing zhong" have been largely ignored in published studies, though the doctoral dissertation of Lothar von Falkenhauscn (Harvard University. 1988) does discuss them at considerable length.

114

4-1 DATES BASED ON P R O P E R NAMES

Xing zhong V

Xing permanently, morning and night, in a sagely and bright manner offers filial piety to high grandfather Duke Xin, to cultured grandfather Duke Yi, and to august deceased-father Duke Ding (with this) harmonic set of bells, using (it) to summon the prior cultured men to approach and enjoy the music. The coincidence in the inscriptions of the "Shi Qiangpan" and this "Xing zhong V" of the genealogical sequence from an ancestor Xin to one named Yi, among many other similarities, suggests beyond much doubt that Xing belonged to the same family as Qiang, but followed him by one generation. Moreover, it is very possible that the appellation "august deceased-father Ding" refers to none other than Qiang himself.13 This allows us to extend the typological sequence one generation further— which is important because, as we will see later in this chapter, Xing's generation coincides with the most problematic period in the study of Western Zhou bronzes, the reigns of the late middle-period kings Yih (r. 899/97-873), Xiao (r. 872?-866), and Yi (r. 865-858), often referred to as the "three kings in two generations." 14 Based on these three general principles involving proper names— direct mention of known historical figures and horizontal and vertical relationships linking other figures—it is possible to date to a specific reign at least the thirty-six inscribed vessels listed in table 4.1S These vessels can 13. That Xing belongs to the same family as other casters of bronze vessels found in this cache is clear from two points other than just archeological context. First, the six bells of the third group of bells cast by Xing (i.e., "Xing zkong Ilia— IIIf" [Sh 50.7/015:389]) contain an inscription very similar in portions to the "Shi Qiang pan," including specifically a reference to the "Eminent Ancestor, Scribe of Wei" as an ancestor of Xing. Second, the family emblem «J» found on his "Xing xu" (Sh 50.7/015:379) is identical to that found on the vessels cast by Zhe and Feng. Although neither the "Shi Qiang pan" nor the "Qiang jue," another inscribed bronze cast by Qiang, bears this family emblem, it is regularly assumed that he, too, belonged to this family. 14. King Xiao was not the son of King Yih but, rather, his uncle. The regular succession was restored with the reign of King Yi, the son of King Yih. For a discussion of the possible historical significance of this irregular succession, see Appendix 3, sec. A3.2.8. 15. This is a conservative list that I am confident would meet with approval from most scholars working in the field. Other recent publications have been quite liberal in their

"5

4 - 1 DATES BASED ON P R O P E R N A M E S

then be used as "standards" in further periodization studies. By cataloging and comparing the other proper names that occur in these inscriptions, by typologizing their art historical and epigraphic features, and by analyzing the calendrical data they exhibit, we will have fixed points of reference against which to compare all other inscribed vessels of the period. 4.1.3

Relative Dating Using Proper Names

Although the thirty-six standards just mentioned form the collective foundation of all periodization studies, because of their relatively limited number they are insufficient to answer all periodization questions. For instance, the reader will have noticed a pronounced lack of standards for the late middle-period reigns of kings Yih, Xiao, and Yi. This lack is due to two factors. First, for whatever reason, after the reign of King Yih (and then in only one inscription, the "Kuang f-K you" [Sh 22.123:1]), there is not even an occasional reference to the reigning king or to deceased kings. Second, the historical record for this period is virtually blank, affording little or no opportunity to identify other names mentioned in inscriptions with historical figures. Nevertheless, the inscriptional record from this period is surprisingly full. Moreover, since at this time the court investiture type of inscription achieved its greatest vogue, a great many of the names mentioned represent figures who served at court as guarantors or recorders and, consequently, appear in the appointment records of several different inscriptions. By interrelating the occurrences of these names, it is possible to derive a fairly clear notion of the relative dates of the inscriptions. The network of personal names from this period can be based on one firm cornerstone: the figure Jingbo mentioned above, also referred to as Supervisor of the Horse (sima is].i|) Jingbo."' Not only is Jingbo mentioned in numerous inscriptions from early in this period, but three of assignment of precise regnal dates; Shang Zhou qingtongqi mingwen xuan, for instance, dates 301 vessels to individual reigns, and Tang Lan 1986 dates 172 vessels to just the five reigns from King Wu (r. 1049/45-1043) through King Mu. 16. For the more important of these inscriptions, at least in terms of periodization methodology, see table 4. It should be noted that other figures from this same general period share the namejing: e.g., Jingshu j^/S (see the "Hu @ ding" [Sh 23.135:113]), Zheng §$ Jingshu (see the "Kang ding"), and Feng Mtt Jingshu (see the "Feng Jingshu gui"; Shaanxi

116

4 - 1 DATES BASED ON P R O P E R NAMES

them are periodization standards that also refer by name to the reigning king. The first of these, the "Chang Xin he," places the beginning ofJingbo's career in the reign of King Mu, while the other two, the "Qiu Wei ding I" and the "Jue Cao H H ding II" (Sh 20.107:383), are explicitly dated to the fifth and fifteenth years of King Gong's reign. Since Jingbo's active life began at some point during King Mu's reign and spanned the entirety of King Gong's reign, by applying a rule of thumb allowing individuals "activity spans" of at most thirty or forty years, we might surmise that he remained active no later than the beginning of the following reign of King Yih. This chronology allows all of the vessels mentioning Jingbo to be dated with some confidence. But, an even more important aspect of these inscriptions is that several also mention one or more other names that appear on other vessels as well. Based on the personal relationships apparent in these inscriptions, we can establish a network of roughly contemporary figures that includes at least Chang Xin, Qiu Wei g|ffj,Jue Cao j£t|Sf, Bo (or Shi) Sufu f(^ ( f j f j ) fS3£ , Rongbo &#j, Duke Yi ££, (Situ) Danbo (|aj,.-t) Ufa, Neishi Wu ft i