u/LarsPiano

Hi everyone,

Today a book I waited a long time for finally arrived. It's Zhongguo guji jiyixue lungao 《中国古籍辑佚学论稿》by Cao Shujie 曹书杰 (1998).

This book - of which the title translates to "Treatise on the Fragmentology of Ancient Chinese Texts" - is one of the very few specialized monographs about jiyixue 辑佚学 "Fragmentology" and the most comprehensive treatment of it. This discipline is in general about the collecting of Fragments from transmitted texts (of particular importance here are the "Encyclopedias" leishu 類書) and the reconstruction of lost books through these fragments.

The book has 11 chapters which range from History to the methodology of Fragment reconstruction and the methods of collecting fragments in the first place.

It's highly relevant for anyone interested in Classical Chinese Philology or Neglected/Lost Texts as well as traditional scholarship.

I'm super excited to read it and very happy it arrived today 😄

Hi everyone,

I just finished a draft translation of chapter 40 of the Yizhoushu 逸周書, the Shifu 世俘 chapter (most often shi 世 is glossed as da 大, meaning "The Great Capture". Grebnev (2018) proposes to read shi 世 as ye 抴, rendering it "The Hauling of Captives". Both are possible on phonetic grounds). The Shifu is notoriously difficult to translate because of the many errors brought in by the transmission of the text, which need to be solved by textual criticism. For some lines in the text there can probably never be found the "right" reading and there are different ways to emend the text and even more to translate it.

Besides these difficulties however it's probably the most famous composition in the Yizhoushu, probably especially because of the Work of Edward Shaughnessy (1952-) and his highly influential article "New" Evidence on the Zhou Conquest (1980) and also the work of more recent chinese scholars like Li Xueqin 李學勤 (1933-2019) or Huang Huaixin 黃懷信 (1951-).

The Shifu chapter is yet another text dealing with the Conquest of Shang by the Zhou (for another closely related text in the Yizhoushu see my translation of the Ke Yin 克殷 "Subduing Yin" chapter on this subreddit). It mentions important information like that the conquest occured on the jiazi 甲子-day for example, archaeologically confirmed by the Li gui 利簋 inscription excavated in 1976 in Lintong 臨潼, Shaanxi 陝西 (near Xi'an 西安). The latter discovery made it possible to pin the year the Conquest happened down to 1045 BC.

However - as Grebnev (2018) points out - the text is not really concerned with the conquest in the narrow sense, but more in what happened after it. It's essentially about the consolidation of Zhou power and offers an idealized image of what the Zhou king ought to do (seen especially in the section about the royal hunt, which also has parallels in neo-assyrian conquest inscriptions; see Grebnev (2018)), while also being more realistic about the brutality of the conquest than the canonical Shangshu 尚書.

It is also worth noting that the Shifu is a composite text with its earliest elements dating back to the Western Zhou 西周 (1045 - 771 BC) and probably quite close to the conquest itself. There are however also clearly more recent sections in the text of the Shifu - like the last section (1.8) in my translation - dating to around the Warring States period (453-221 BC) or even later, testifying to its composite nature.

Below is my translation of the Shifu chapter. Keep in mind that's a draft translation which tries to stick as closely as possible to the text while also providing emendations and readings by various Scholars. The text-critical notes I did are contained in brackets in order to be philologically precise and as clear as possible.

1. The Translation of Yizhoushu chapter 40, Shifu "The Great Capture"

1.1 The Conquest of Shang

It was in the fourth month on the yiwei day when King Wu became ruler, led the four regions to Yin, and commanded them to occupy the land. It was in the first month on the bingchen day, approaching the shengpo (growing brightness phase of the moon), and the immediately following day dingsi, that the King then personally went to Zhou, launched a punitive expedition, and attacked Zhou, the King of Shang. When the second month arrived, during the jisipo moon phase, on the morning of the fifth day, the jiazi day, he arrived (in Muye) and triumphed over Shang. Thereupon, he completed the overcoming (liu 劉 as kei 尅 according to the commentary by Kong Chao) of King Zhou of Shang and captured (zhi 執 as bu 捕 according to Pan Zhen) the hundred evil ministers (tian 天 is a clerical error for fu 夫 here). Grand Duke Wang (da 大 as a clerical error for tai 太) commanded E-Lai (fang 方 is an error for e 悪 according to Chen Fengheng, Yu Chang, and others; lai 來 is a name, and E is a country or tribal name) to resist. On the dingmao day, Wang arrived and proclaimed (his victory) by presenting the severed ears of enemies and taking prisoners of war. On the bingchen day, the King then performed a fire sacrifice (to Heaven) (yu 禦 is an error due to character similarity for chai 祡 according to Yu Chang) and followed (zi 自 as an error for zhui 追 according to Lu Wenchao) the sacrifices of King Wen. On this day, the King established his government.

1.2 Attacks on the Regional States

Lü Ta was commanded to attack the Yue in Xifang. On the renshen day, he arrived and reported back with severed heads and prisoners (Huang Xin is regarded by various textual critics as an insertion from the later passage xinhuang ming fa shu 新荒命伐蜀; Lü Ta makes more sense here as well; for all of this, see Sun Yirang). Houlai was commanded to attack the Moji in Chen. On the xinsi day, he arrived and reported back with severed heads and prisoners. On the jiashen day, Bai Yan took an oath with the Tiger Guards and was commanded to attack Wei. He reported back with severed heads and prisoners.

1.3 Ceremonies in Response to the Conquest

On the xinhai day, they presented the captured ding cauldrons of the King of Yin. King Wu reverently (reading wu 午 as chen 陳, and yi 翼 as jing 敬, following Kong Zhao and Pan Zhen) displayed the jade scepter and the statutes, and reported to the heavenly ancestors as well as to Tiandi (reading shangdi 上帝 as tiandi 天帝, following Pan Zhen). The King did not change (emending ge 格 to ge 革 in all editions based on Kong Zhao's commentary) his clothes and proceeded to the temple. Holding the yellow yue axe (taking huangyue 黃鉞 as an insertion by Zhu Youzeng), he spoke about the governance of the many lands. The flute players performed nine refrains. The glorious ancestors of the King were arranged in ascending order, starting from Tai Wang, Tai Bo, Wang Ji, Yu Gong, Wen Wang, and Yi Kao. The crimes of the Yin were reported to them. The flute players made music. The King held the yellow yue axe and corrected the elders of the lands.

On the renzi day, the King wore his ceremonial robes, displayed the jade scepter, and proceeded to the temple. The flute players made music. The King held the yellow yue axe and corrected the princes of the lands.

On the guichou day (reading you 酉 as chou 丑, as accepted by all commentators), the prisoners of Yin—one hundred officials (shi 士)—were presented to the King. The flute players made music. The King displayed the jade scepter, held the yellow yue axe, and grasped a halberd. The King performed one stanza of the song "Great Offering" (大享) by striking the bells (reading zouyong 奏庸 as jizhong 擊鍾 "striking a bell," according to Kong Zhao's commentary). The King clasped his hands together and performed the kowtow. The King firmly established his position and performed his "Great Offering" (song) in three stanzas.

On the jiayin day, they reported (reading gao 告 according to Kong Zhao's commentary) to the Rong (reading wo 我 as rong 戎, following Lu Wenchao, Gu Jiegang, and others) about the Yin at Muye. The King hung red and white banners. The pipers played the song Military (武). The King entered and approached with the Ten Thousand (萬) dance and offered The Great Enlightenment (明明 to 大明 according to Lu Wenchao) in three stanzas. On the yimao day, the pipers played the song The Exalted Yu generates Qi(開 as 啓 according to Zhang Taiyan) in three stanzas (Lu Wenchao deletes the 鍾 in 三鍾終 to 三終 three refrains). The King consolidated (his position).

1.4 Another Round of Attacks on Regional States

On the gengzi day, Chen Ben was ordered to attack Mo, Bai Wei was ordered to attack Xuanfang, and Xin Huang was ordered to attack Shu. On the yisi day, Chen Ben and (the 命 is convincingly deleted here by Gu Jiegang) Xin Huang arrived from Shu and Mo respectively, reporting the capture of the Prince of Huo, the Prince of Ai, the Prince of Yi, and 46 minor officials. They captured 8030 double-wheeled chariots (according to Yu Chang, 三百 is in reality 三十; according to Zhang Taiyan, 八百 is in reality 八千) and reported back with severed heads and prisoners. When Bai Wei arrived and reported the capture of the Xuanfang as well as the seizure of 30 double-wheeled chariots, he reported back with severed heads and prisoners. Bai Wei was ordered to attack Li and reported back with severed heads and prisoners.

1.5 The Royal Hunt

When King Wu was hunting, his catch consisted of 22 tigers, 2 cats, 5,235 jun deer (Gu Jiegang emends 糜 to 麇, whereas Zhu Youzeng, Lu Wenchao, and others emend it to 麋), 13 rhinoceroses (Lu Wenchao emends 十有二 to 十有三), 721 yaks, 151 black bears, 118 brown bears, 352 wild boars, 18 martens, 16 elks, 15 musk deer, 30 jun deer (see Gu Jiegang's emendation above), and 3,508 deer.

1.6 Universal Conquest

Following this, King Wu launched campaigns against the four cardinal directions. In total, there were 99 hostile states, 117,779 decapitated heads (Zhuang's edition understandably omits the character 魔; according to Lu Wenchao, the character 十 in 十萬 is an error), and 310,230 captives. In total, 652 states submitted.

1.7 Triumphal Ceremony at Zhou

It was in the fourth month, during the jipangshengba phase of the moon, and six days later on the gengxu day, King Wu arrived in the morning and made a burnt offering in the Zhou temple (according to Gu Jiegang, shi 時 stands for wei 惟, po 魄 for ba 霸, yue 越 for yue 粵, and chaozhi shaoyu zhou 朝至燒于周 for shaoyu zhoumiao 燒于周廟; Shaughnessy, however, includes chaozhi 朝至 as well). 'It was that I—the Little One—pacified my cultivated ancestors (according to Shaughnessy, kao 考 can be added here after wen 文 based on one of the subsequent sentences, which makes sense).' King Wu descended from his carriage himself and thereupon ordered Scribe Yi to read the writings aloud to the God of Heaven (according to Gu Jiegang, yao 繇 stands for zhou 籀, which according to the Shuowen means du 讀 'to read aloud'; tianhao 天號 stands for di 帝 according to Gu Jiegang). King Wu then killed the hundred evil officials of (King) Zhou (Shaughnessy reads fu 夫 for wu 午). From the right side, he beheaded their minor jia sons and the great masters of the dings. He beheaded the 40 lords of their families and masters of the dings. The situ and sima officials were the first before the gods of the suburb (hao 號 here as di 帝 based on the preceding passage). Thereupon he positioned them at the southern gate and used them as prisoners (punctuation according to Huang Huaixin, Zhu Youzeng, and Gu Jiegang deletes Wuwang 武王 at the beginning of the sentence). All were dressed with pendants and robes, and the heads that had been cut off first were brought inside. While King Wu was offering the sacrifice, the Taishi carried the suspended head of the Shang King Zhou on the white banner, and the two heads of the concubines on the red banner. Thereupon he entered with the heads that had been cut off first and made a burnt offering in the Zhou temple.

On the next day, xinhai, he offered sacrifices in his position and hereby made a yue-sacrifice to Heaven (see Shaughnessy for the emendation of 籥 to 龠).

Five days later, on the day yimao, King Wu then made a sacrifice with the many severed heads of the lands in the temple of Zhou (according to Shaughnessy and Gu Jiegang, 國 comes before 馘). "Next, I—the Little One—cut six oxen and cut two goats." Thereupon, the many states came to an end. It was proclaimed in the Zhou temple: "I report to my deceased cultivated father that I have redacted the statutes of the people of Shang (according to Pan Zhen, 聞 is an insertion and 古 should be written as 告). With the decapitated body of Zhou, I report to Heaven and (Hou) Ji."

For the small animal sacrifice to the hundred deities of water and earth, he used goats, dogs, and pigs, and made an oath at the altar of the earth (according to Gu Jiegang and Sun Yirang, 于誓社 is a character inversion for 誓于社). He said: "It was that I—the Little One—pacified my cultivated deceased father, so that he arrived at the Little Child." He used 504 oxen for (the animal sacrifices to) Heaven and to (Hou) Ji. For the small animal sacrifice to the hundred deities of water and earth at the altar of the earth, he used goats, dogs, and pigs, 2,701 (in number) (according to Sun Yirang and Gu Jiegang, 犬 should be inserted here based on the preceding text).

1.8 Self-Immolation of the Shang King

King Zhou of Shang was in the suburbs of Shang (Chen Fengheng and Gu Jiegang believe there is a lacuna in the text here, which might have concerned the prisoners). At the time of the jiazi day in the evening, King Zhou took the tianzhi jade scepter and clothed his body to immolate himself (see Gu Jiegang for the deletion of 厚 and the emendation of 㻱 to 衣). In total, 4,000 of their many jades reported the burning. On the fifth day, King Wu subsequently ordered 1,000 people to search for them. 4,000 common jades were then melted, but five of the tianzhi jades did not melt in the fire (for the entire passage from 凡 onward, see Yu Yue). King Wu then valued all the tianzhi jades the same as the statutes (based on Yu Chang's identification of 與 as 典). In total, King Wu captured 14,000 old valued jades and 180,000 jade pendants from the Shang (following Wang Niansun, Zhu Youzeng, and Gu Jiegang).

That's it. Hope you like it.

I would love to hear your opinion on the Shifu, my Translation, the place of the Yizhoushu in history or the Conquest of Shang by the Zhou and the textual and epigraphic evidence we have (like the Li Gui inscription).

Yours sincerely,

The r/EarlyChina Moderators

Hi everyone,

as it is a topic rarely talked about on the internet, but one that is of central importance for understanding chinese antiquity because it concerns the very foundation of our knowledge, I wanted to post a series of posts regarding the history of chinese textual criticism jiaochouxue 校讎學, covering its development from antiquity until modern times.

The usual classification of jiaochouxue contains three sub-disciplines: jiaokanxue 校勘學 "the study of collation", banbenxue 版本學 "the study of editions" and muluxue 目錄學 "the study of bibliographic catalogues". This divison is based upon the divison of the great 20th century classicist Zhang Shunhui 張舜徽 (1911-1992), who was a major figure in the modern development of jiaochouxue, as we will see in the last installment of this series. There are however also other definitions of jiaochouxue. Cheng Qianfan 程千帆 (1913-2000) includes in his Jiaochou Guangyi 校讎廣義 "broad meanings of Textual Criticism" besides the three categories of Zhang Shunhui also diancang zhi xue 典藏之學 "the study of collection (of ancient writings)", and Ye Dehui 葉德輝 (1864-1927) in his Shulin Qinghua 書林清話 includes only mulupai 目錄派 "School of catalogues" and banbenpai 版本派 "school of editions" in his definition of jiaochouxue or Wang Piqiang 汪辟強 in his Muluxue yanjiu 目錄學研究 "Study of bibliography" includes the four categories cangshujia 藏書家, mulujia 目錄家, shijia 史家 and dushujia 讀書家 as his definition of jiaochouxue.

1. Beginning of jiaochouxue

The beginning of jiaochouxue is usually traced back to the Western Han imperial library, particularly to the father-son duo Liu Xiang 劉向 (77-8 BCE) and Liu Xin 劉歆 (?-23 AD). After the infamous (and semi-historical) Book-Burning by Qin Shi Huangdi 秦始皇帝 in 213 BC many classics jing 經, masters zi子 texts and ancient texts in general became lost. During the Han 漢 Dynasty (206 BCE - 220 AD) interests in ancient texts grew.

The practice of jiaochou, which is defined by Li Shan 李善 (630-689 AD) in his commentary on the Weidufu 魏都賦 "Fu on the Wei Capital" in the famous anthology Wenxuan 文選 citing the Eastern Han text Fengsu Tongyi 風俗通義 by Ying Shao 應劭 (140-206 AD) as "按劉向《別錄》:讎校,一人讀書,校其上下,得謬誤,為校;一人持本,一人讀書,若怨家相對[為讎]" (Translation: Citing Liu Xiangs Bielu: When doing choujiao, one person reads the book and collates the text above and below. (Thus) one obtains errors, this is jiao. When one person holds a book and another person is reading it, it is as if enemies respon to each other, this is called chou") emerged and let to the birth of jiaochouxue, the first important works of which were produced by Liu Xiang and Liu Xin through their ordering of the texts contained in the Imperial Library and their compilation of two (now lost/fragmentary) book catalogues. Their work will be discussed below.

2. Liu Xiang

Liu Xiang was a native of Xuzhou 徐州. Under the reign of the Han Emperor Cheng 成 (r. 33-7 BC) he was ordered in 26 BC to be the chief editor in the collecting, ordering and collating of texts in the Imperial Library, particularly specializing in the fields of Classics, Masters Texts and Poetry with others under his supervision (Ren Hong 任宏 was concentrating on military books bingshu 兵書, Yin Xian 尹咸 of Books on Numbers shushu 數書and Li Zhuguo 李柱囯 on Magical texts fangji 方技).

Liu Xiang ordered multiple texts important for the history of Early China, such as the Zhanguo Ce 戰國策, the Guanzi 管子, the Yanzi Chunqiu 晏子春秋, the Liezi 列子, the Dengxizi 鄧析子, the Shanhaijing 山海經 and many more (besides that he also compiled huge collections of anecdotes like the Shuoyuan 說苑, Xinxu 新序, Lienüzhuan 列女傳 and Liexianzhuan 列仙傳, though the latter work was possibly not written by him but just a later attribution). For every work he ordered and collated he made a memorial to the Throne which served as the Basis for his famous latter catalogue Bielu 別錄, of which only 8 chapters survive today in fragments.

Particularly illuminating of his work is his Summary of his work on the Yanzi Chunqiu, the Yanzi Shulu 晏子書錄, which can be summarized as follows: Liu Xiang begins his summary with a table of contents of the Yanzi Chunqiu, naming all the 8 chapters (6 inner 内 and 2 outer 外 chapters) and the number of articles zhang 章 contained in them. Second he speaks of the different versions of the chapters they used in their collation of the text. Also Liu Xiang mentions that many errors are contained in the (core) Text such as the character 先 for 牛 to name one of many examples. He says he fixed all of them. Third he mentions the life Story of Yan Ying 晏嬰 (578-500 BCE) who is the attributed author of the Yanzi Chunqiu and differentiates between inner Chapters, which he deems authentic, and outer chapters, which were written by later scholars according to Liu Xiang.

Thus we can see that his work basically had three major divisons, all of which became central pillars of Jiaochouxue: The collation of Chapters jiaokan pianzhang 校勘篇章, The Collation of Characters jiaokan wenzi 校勘文字 and the Compiling of Bilbiographic Catalogues bianlie mulu 編列目錄.

3. Liu Xin

After Liu Xiangs death his son Liu Xin (?-23 AD) took on his fathers work. While also doing collection Liu Xiangs work concentrated primarily on two things: 1. On arguing for the so called "Old-Texts" guwen 古文 in the Old-Text/New-Text-Controversy, 2. compiling his now lost catalogue Qilüe 七略, proposing a different classification of the ancient textual world than his father.

The Old-Text-/New-Text-Controversy

The Old-Text/New-Text-Controversy is among the most important intellectual debates in all of chinese history (we will probably make a post in the future entirely dedicated to the guwen古文/jinwen 今文 debate). The main question around which this controversy emerged was that if the "new texts" that is the textual versions of the Classics commited to memory by scholars during the late Warring States period which servede to reconstruct the ancient texts then destroyed because of the Qin burning of books, was the authentic version of confucianism, or the books found in Qufu 曲阜 in the Family residence of the Kong 孔 which were written in the Ancient Tadpole script kedouwen 蝌蚪文and contained textual recensions totally different from the new text version.

Alongside that came also a difference in interpretation and also in the Texts which were of great importance to them. While the New-Text-School favored speculative interpretation and focused especially on the Gongyang 公羊 commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals, the Old Text version focused especially on the Zuozhuan 左傳, the Zhouli 周禮 and also the Old-Text Shangshu 古文尚書. As major protagonists of both schools we might name Dong Zhongshu 董仲舒 (179 - 104 BCE) (with the famous Chunqiu Fanlu 春秋繁露 attributed to him) for the New Text School and Liu Xin for the Old Text school.

There were also numerous scholars who tried to synthesize both schools, the most important of which was Xu Shen 許慎 (58 - 148 AD). In his first major Work the Wujing yiyi 五經異義 "Varous Meanings of the Five Classics" he posed certain questions regarding the world and state ritual and compared what both exegetical traditions had to say. This work is only preserved in fragments though, but there are a number of good studies on it. His greatest and second major work is the Shuowen Jiezi 説文解字, which also served the purpose of unifiying both traditions as suggested by the Swiss Sinologist Marc Winter (1967 -), though it was first and foremost a character dictionary and was the main foundation for any study of chinese writing (and in some sense it even is it up to this day).

Compilation of the Qilüe

Liu Xin compiled his 7 juan 卷 long bibliography the Qilüe 七略 "Seven Summaries" out of the Older Bielu catalogue of his father. He eliminated the content descriptions of the Bielu and arranged all of the books in six categories and set another category as an introduction at the end of the work (the Jilüe 輯略 category) in order to explain the content of the book and of the categories. The Seven Categories of the Qilüe are: 1. Summary on the six arts Liuyi lüe 六藝略, 2. Summary on the various Masters Zhuzi lüe 諸子略, 3. Summary on shi and fu poetry Shifu lüe 詩賦略, 4. Summary on Military Books Bingshu lüe 兵書略, 5. Summary on Numerology Shushu lüe 術數略, 6. Summary on Magic Fangji lüe 方技略, 7. Summary of the compilation Jilüe 輯略.

Though this work is lost, there have been multiple attempts to recover it by Qing 清-era (1644-1911) scholars. Both the Bielu and the Qilüe can be found in the Collection Yuhan Shanfang jiyishu 玉函山房輯遺書 by Ma Guohan 馬國翰 (1794-1857), the greatest scholar of textual fragments (jiyixue 輯佚學) during the Qing-Dynasty.

That's it for the first installment of the series on the history of chinese textual criticism. Next time we will inquire into another important aspect of early Han dynasty textual criticism: the Commentarial Tradition, particularly the Commentaries of Zheng Xuan 鄭玄 (127 - 200 AD) and Gao You 高誘 (168 - 212 AD).

We would love to hear your thoughts on Early Chinese Philology, the development of textual criticism or the Old-Text-/New-Text-Debate, maybe you also find other interesting questions to discuss! 😄

Yours sincerely,

the r/EarlyChina moderators

Hi everyone,

Just wanted to share a quick bibliographical and reading update from my study. I finally finished reading Qian Xuans 錢玄 Jiaokanxue 校勘學. It's a relatively dense but also highly insightful and very rewarding text on traditional chinese collation techniques (jiaokanxue 校勘学 is one of the three sub-disciplines of jiaochouxue 校雠学 "textual criticism in its broad sense").

To make things even better, the mail carrier just dropped off these two monumental additions to my personal library (I waited so long for them):

1. 《校讎廣義•版本編》 Jiaochou guangyi. Banben bian by Cheng Qianfan 程千帆 and Xu Youfu 徐有富 (2020). It's the first volume of the famous Jiaochou guangyi《校雠广义》"broad meanings of Textual Criticism" which is a comprehensive book in four volumes on 校雠学. The first volume is concerned with banbenxue 版本學 "Study of editions" where you study prints and editions of ancient texts as well as ancient manuscripts. It's like the material counterpart to 校勘学.

2. "The Tsinghua University Warring States Bamboo Manuscripts: Studies and Translations 1, The Yi Zhou Shu and Pseudo-Yi Zhou Shu Chapters" by Edward L. Shaughnessy (2023). As my current project regarding Early Chinese Transmitted Texts is a translation of the Western Zhou Chapters of the Yizhoushu 逸周書 it's really nice seeing the excavated counterparts in the collection of Qinghua University. The books translates all of the Strips related to the Yizhoushu as well as transmitted chapters related to these Strips and compares and studies them. Also useful is the appendix at the end of the book on the textual history of the Yizhoushu.

Just wanted to share. I'm really happy and can't get enough books about Ancient China 😁😁😁😄

I would also be interested if anyone else here has experience with these books or is interested in textual criticism and palaeography or the Yizhoushu

Hi everyone,

today I wanted to share with you the transcription and translations of two short early Western Zhou bronze inscriptions I did yesterday: the inscriptions on the Yu Ding 旟鼎 (JC: 2704) and on the Zuoce Huan You 作冊睘卣 (JC: 5407).

While the Yu Ding is a bronze excavated in modern times (1972) in Yangjiacun 楊家村, Meixian 眉縣, Shaanxi 陝西 Province and presently stored in Shaanxi provincial Museum 陝西歷史博物館, the Zuoce Huan You is known since the Qing 清 dynasty (1644-1911) and was probably in the possession of Wu Shifen 吳式芬 (1796-1856) as early as 1837 before being acquired by Pan Zuyin 潘祖蔭 (1830-1890), one of the greatest collectors of bronzes of the late Qing dynasty. While the original vessel of the Zuoce Huan You was lost, a rubbing of the inscription survives and serves as the basis for its study.

Both bronzes are interesting because they mention a figure called Wang Jiang 王姜, known also from 3 other inscriptions (these are: the Ze Ling Gui 夨令簋 (JC: 4300-01) , the Shu You 叔卣 (JC: 4132-33) and the Bu Shou Gui 不壽簋 (JC: 4060)) to be the principal wife of King Kang 康 of Zhou (r. 1005-978 BC) (her name literally translates to "The Jiang of the King", where Jiang was her surname). Because the Jiang 姜-Clan was the most prominent clan besides the royal Ji 姬-Clan during the Western Zhou Dynasty, the Zhou kings regularly married women from the Jiang clan so any of them might be named "Wang Jiang". However the Ze Ling Gui vessel is an exact replica of the Da Yu Ding 大盂鼎 (JC: 2837) vessel, which serves as a dating "standard" for the reign of King Kang regarding the Vessel shape and calligraphy of the Inscriptions. Therefore this group of Vessels can be related to the reign of King Kang and the "Wang Jiang" mentioned in the inscriptions can be said to be King Kangs wife.

However there has been a bit of a disagreement in the past between scholars studying the vessels mentioning Wang Jiang regarding the dating and therefore which wife of which king is meant. While Tang Lan 唐蘭 (1901-1979) (see Tang Lan xiansheng jinwen lunji, 1995, p. 123) and Edward Shaughnessy (1952-) ( see Sources of Western Zhou History, 1991, p. 208-209) argue for a King Kang dating, which is by now accepted by the majority of scholars, Chen Mengjia 陳夢家 (1911-1966) (see Xi Zhou tongqi duandai, 1955, p. 78) instead thinks her to be the spouse of King Cheng 成 of Zhou (r.1042/35-1006 BC), so a generation earlier.

Regardless of dating issues, upon inspecting the different inscriptions it is evident that she had a very prominent role at the Zhou court. She grants Gifts to Officials, Gave out commands for Military Action and is also praised by the person casting the Bronze, which is usually reserved for the King and only rarely seen with other Individuals.

Here is my transcription of the Yu Ding inscription, although this is just for reading purposes (for a correct transcription see my handwriten notes on slide 3):

唯八月初吉，王羌（：姜）

易（：錫）旟田三于待甸。

師櫨䣶兄（：貺），用對王

休子子孫其永寳。

My translation into english is as follows:

"It was in the eight month, during the lunar phase chuji, Wang Jiang granted Yu three fields in Dai suburb. Officer Lu made a toast and granted it. Herewith he responded to the kings grace. May the Sons of Sons and the grandchildren (of Yu) treasure it eternally."

My transcription of the Zuoce Huan You is as follows (again, for my handwritten transcription see the last slide):

隹（：唯）十又九年，王才（：在）厈。王

羌（：姜）令作冊睘安尸（：夷）白（：伯）。尸（：夷）白（：伯）

賓睘貝、布。揚王姜休，用

作文考癸寳器。

My translation is as follows:

"It was in the 19th year, The King was at An. Wang Jiang ordered Document-Maker Huan to pacify the Eldest of the Yi (Yi Bo). The Eldest of the Yi treated Huan as a gueast and granted him cowrie shells and textiles. He (Huan) praised the Grace of Wang Jiang, herewith making (this) treasured Vessel for his cultured deceased father Gui."

That's it. Hope you like it and let me know what you think of the vessels, the role of women in the royal household, or maymbe alternatives regarding the interpretation of certain graphs or ideas regarding the dating question of Wang Jiang. Would love to hear your opinions :)

Hi everyone,

I've wanted to share with you a transcription and translation of an early Western Zhou 西周 (1045-771 BC) bronze I did today - this time of the Ling fangyi 令方彜 (JC: 9901), also known as the Zuoce Ling fangyi 作冊令方彜 or the Ze Ling fangyi 夨令方彜. Found in 1929 near Luoyang 洛陽 in modern Henan 河南 province, this bronze was excavated under uncontrolled conditions together with a number of bronzes also commissoned by Ling 令 such as a pair of gui 簋-Tureens (Ling gui;令簋 JC: 4300-1) and a square zun (the famous Ling fangzun 令方尊; JC: 6016). The latter contains an inscription nearly identical to the one on the Ling fangyi and these bronzes are often treated together in scholarship. While the Ling fangyi is housed today at the Freer Gallery of Art in Washington, DC the Ling fangzun is housed at the Palace Museum in Taipei. Besides the Ling gui and the Ling fangzun, accounts of the discovery also include three ding 鼎-Cauldrons cast by Ling's ancestor Da 大 (the so-called Zuoce Da fangding 作冊大方鼎; JC: 2760-61).

The Ling fangyi is noteworthy primarily for two things: 1. the wealth of information it provides about the government of the Zhou dynasty and its Bureaucracy, 2. the huge Controversy among scholars in regard to its dating.

The Ling fangyi lists a number of governmental structures as well as titles, most notably the san shi 三事, qingshiliao 卿事寮, yin 尹, lijun 里君. The term san shi is usually equated with the canyousi 參又司 a collective title for the three main posts known from other bronze inscriptions. The canyousi were: the situ 司土, sima司馬, sigong司工. The qingshiliao was the ministry of the Zhou, of whom the canyousi were the major figures. The yin seems to have been an Overseer in charge of court duties (e. g. responsible for the text during appointment ceremonies or engineering projects around the capital). There were also different types of yin like the zhengyin 正尹, the zuoce yin 作冊尹 or the yinshi 尹氏. The lijun was the ruler of a li 里, which where the centers of the rural areas of the Zhou countryside. Besides these the inscription also mentions the titles shi 師 and zuoce 作冊. The shi were officals who either served or once served the military the term might be translated as "officer" or general". Zuoce on the other hand were the composers of royal or court documents and mainly an early Western Zhou office, possibly inherited from the Shang 商 (1600-1045 BC).

The other noteworthy aspect of the Ling fangyi is its dating, particularly the controversy around the gong 宮 mentioned in the inscription. Here we have two main interpretations: the first - proposed by Tang Lan 唐蘭 (1901-1979) and others - interprets the phrase kang gong 康宮 as " Palace of Kang". According to this interpretation the bronze must date from the reign of King Zhao 昭 (978-957 BC) because kang 康 was the posthumous name of King Zhaos father (for Tang Lans opinion see his 1934 article Zuoce Ling zun ji Zuoce Ling yi ming kaoshi 作冊令方尊及作冊令方彜 銘考釋; earlier opinions include Luo Zhenyus (1930), Wu Qichang (1931), Ma Xulun (1934)).
Guo Moruo 郭沫若 (1892-1978) (in his 1930 Zhongguo gudai shehui yanjiu 中國古代社會研究) and Chen Mengjia 陳夢家 (1911-1966) (in his 1936 article Zhougong dan fuzi kao 周公旦父子考; another interpretation of his can be found in his 1936 article Ling yi xin shi 令彜新釋 and 1955 Xi-Zhou tongqi duandai 西周銅器斷代) argued that kang gong does not refer to King Kang (1005-978 BC) and his sacrifical temple at all, mainly by questioning the words that made up the term. While Guo Moruo thought that kang 康 meant "vibrant" or "flourishing", Chen Mengjia thought that specifically the word gong 宮 "palace" instead of the more appropriate word miao 廟 "temple" was used indicates that this word doesn't mean a sacrifical temple at all, but instead a palace for a living person. Both Guo and Chen thus proposed a King Cheng (1042/35-1006 BC) date for the bronze (also dependent on other factors of course). For some time this was the accepted date of the bronze.
Tang Lan refuted both of their opinions though in his 1962 article Xi-Zhou tongqi duandai zhong de Kanggong wenti 西周銅器斷代中的康宮問題 and today most scholars accept a King Zhao date for the Ling fangyi.

As the 187-character inscription on the Ling fangyi ranks among the longest and certainly most important early western Zhou inscriptions, a transcription into modern script is given here, although this has to be taken with a grain of salt because many of the characters can't be properly put in Unicode. Therefore I have included my hand-written transcription which preserves the authentic graphic form of the characters in the slide as picture 3, so you can understand and compare.

唯八月，晨在甲申。王令周公子明保

尹三事四方，受卿事寮。丁亥，令夨告

于周公宮。公令𫹔同卿事寮。唯十

月月吉癸未，明公朝至于成周，𫹔令，舎

三事令。眔卿事寮，眔諸尹，眔里

君，眔百工，眔諸侯：侯、甸、男，舎四方令。既

咸令，甲申明公用牲于京宮，乙酉用

牲于康宮。咸既，用牲于王。明公歸自

王。明公錫亢師鬯、金、小牛。曰：”用祓“。錫令鬯、

金、小牛。曰：”用祓”。迺令曰：“令我唯令汝二人亢

眔 夨奭左右于乃寮以乃友事”。作冊令

敢揚明公尹氒𫳇，用作父丁寳尊

彜，敢追明公賞于父丁，用光父丁。

Here is my translation of this inscription into english (based upon my original german translation):

It was in the eighth month, the Chen was in jiashen. The King commanded the son of the Duke of Zhou – Ming Bao – to govern the sanshi and the four directions, and granted him the qingshiliao. On the dinghai day, he commanded Ze to make a proclamation in the palace of the Duke of Zhou. The Duke (Ming Bao) commanded him (Ze) to come out and assemble the qingshiliao. It was in the tenth month, monthly auspiciousness (yueji 月吉), on the guiwei day, when Duke Ming arrived in Chengzhou in the morning. He came out to command and gave orders to the sanshi. And to the qingshiliao, the many administrators (yin), the lords of the Li (lijun), the hundred craftsmen (baigong), and the many lords – lords, field workers, barons – he gave the command regarding the four directions. After the command was completed, Duke Ming performed a sheng sacrifice (animal sacrifice) in the Jing Palace on the jiashen day. On the yiyou day, he performed a sheng sacrifice in the Kang Palace. Duke Ming returned home from Wang. Duke Ming granted Officer (shi) Kang fragrant wine, metal, and small cattle. He said: "Use them to perform ritual sacrifices." He granted Ling fragrant wine, metal, and small cattle. He said: "Use them to perform ritual sacrifices." Then he commanded: "Now I command both of you men – Kang and Ze – to flank me on the right and left in your service with your friendly service."

The maker of documents (zuoce) Ling dared to praise the grace of the administrator Duke Ming and herewith made this treasured sacrificial vessel for Father Ding. He dared to recollect Duke Ming's gifts here for Father Ding to glorify Father Ding.

That's it. Hope you enjoyed it and would love to hear your opinion on my transcription and translation, the kang gong-Controversy, the Bureaucracy of the Western Zhou or anything else :)

Hi everyone,

I wanted to share with you a transcription and translation of an early Western Zhou Bronze I did today: the Mai Fangzun 麥方尊 (JC: 6015), also called the Zuoce Mai fangzun 作冊麥方尊. It belongs to a group of bronzes discovered in the Qing 清-dynasty who were all cast by Mai 麥 (the Mai bronzes include: Mai fangzun, Mai fangyi 麥方彜 (JC: 9893), Mai fangding 麥方鼎 (JC: 2706), Mai he 麥盉 (JC: 9451)) an official of the Regional State of Xing 邢 during the Early Western Zhou dynasty (commonly written 井 in Bronze Inscriptions; a state with the surname Ji 姬 ruled by descendants of the Duke of Zhou 周公 as mentioned in the 24th year of Duke Xi 僖 of the Zuozhuan 左傳). The Mai fangzun is specifically dated to either the late part of the reign of King Cheng 成 (1042-1021 BC) or the eary part of the reign of King Kang 康 (1020-996 BC). It is also important to note that the 167 character inscription on the Mai fangzun just survives as a rubbing and in the drawing of the vessel in the Qing-imperial catalog Xiqing Gujian 西清古鑑 of 1755.

Regarding it's contents it is particularly interesting because it is the longest inscription commemorating the Visit of a newly established Regional Ruler to Zhou, particularly to Zongzhou 宗周. Besides the Mai fangzun there are only two other Inscriptions about such a visit: the Yanhou Zhi ding 燕侯旨鼎 (translated on this subreddit before, JC: 2628) and the X zun (JC: 5986). These three inscriptions record the Visit of the ruler of the Regional States of Xing (Mai fangzun), Yan 燕 (Yanhou Zhi ding) and Wei 衛 (X zun) respectively.

Besides this, the Mai fangzun also holds a wealth of information of the Great Feng-Sacrifice 大豐 (also mentioned in the Tian Wang gui 天亡簋 (JC: 4261) and the He zun 何尊 (JC:6014)). The main purpose of the Great Feng-Sacrifice seems to have been to reinforce the bonds of loyalty between the Zhou king and the regional rulers.

You can see my transcription on the third slide. Because I had problems with the space (I wanted to write it in 8 columns as in the bronze) I had to write my readings in the line below the text (this line with my readings and not my transcription is termed "C:" standing for Commentary here). Also as with the Yanhou Zhi ding inscription before many of the characters aren't supported in Unicode which is why I give you my handwritten notes here.

My translation (translated from my german translation of the Bronze I did into english) is as follows:

The King commanded the Lord, the Lord of Xing, to remove himself from Pi and to serve as Lord in Xing. It happened in the second month that the Lord had an audience in Zongzhou. This was flawless. Accompanied by the King, he went to Pangjing and held a Rong 肜-sacrifice there. Thereupon,on the next day, the King steered the (royal) boat on Lake Biyong and held the great Feng rite. The King shot at great geese and brought them down. The Lord rode in a boat with red banners and followed the King. (With this) the ritual was completed. On that day, the King entered his private chamber with the Lord and granted the Lord a black-engraved ge-halberd. When the King was on the shore after the evening audience, he granted the Lord one hundred households of libation-makers as servants. (The King) granted him (the right) to use the royal chariot and horses, golden bridles, a (ceremonial) cap, clothing, a kneepad, and shoes.

Upon his return, he praised the grace of the Son of Heaven and reported (to the ancestors) without error. Hereby, he showed respectful behavior, pacified the (former) lords, and made his piety towards the (former) lords of Xing clear. The document maker (作冊) Mai was granted gold by the lord; Mai praised him and used it to make (this) treasured sacrificial vessel. He used it to establish support regarding the giving and taking of the Lord and to praise his enlightened command.

It was in the year in which the Son of Heaven granted grace to Mai's Lord—the Ruler—that this vessel was cast. May (my) grandsons of grandsons and sons of sons forever without end use (this vessel) to maintain virtue, pacify their many friends, offer sacrifices, and execute commands when going up and down (in the palace).

That's my translation hope you found this interesting and would like to discuss this topic or my transcription/translation with you :)

Hi everyone,

While we are preparing the next part of our comprehensive resource list, we want to share some deeper insights into the early history of a core discipline: Oracle-Bone Studies Jiaguxue 甲骨學, focusing particularly on its discovery, decipherment, and academic evolution up until the late 1940s.

To fully understand the birth of Jiaguxue, it is essential to view it not as a sudden, isolated event, but within the long antiquarian lineage of traditional Chinese epigraphy—specifically the study of Ancient Metal and Stone Inscriptions Jinshixue 金石學.

1. Wang Yirong, Liu E, and the Discovery of Oracle Bone Inscriptions

In 1899, the jinshi-Scholar and chancellor of the Imperial Academy Wang Yirong 王懿榮 (1845-1900) fell ill with Malaria. His servant brought him a medicine from a local pharmacy – the so called ”Dragon Bones” 龍骨. With his expertise in Ancient Writing it took Wang Yirong not long to understand that what he was consuming had a very ancient form of Chinese Writing on it. He immediately sent his servant to purchase all the “Dragon Bones” he could find and began to build up a collection.

Or so the story goes. While this pharmacy anecdote remains the most famous founding legend of the field, alternative historical accounts suggest that antiquarian dealers from Weixian 潍县(Shandong 山東) simply brought the newly unearthed bones directly to Wang's estate, knowing his insatiable passion for ancient scripts. There are also other scholars like Wang Xiang 王襄 (1876-1965) who claimed to have discovered the Oracle Bones before Wang Yirong, but these claims are essentially a question of who bought them first, because the villagers were the ones who "discovered them.

Tragically, Wang Yirong’s research came to an abrupt end when he took his own life in 1900 during the Boxer Rebellion and the subsequent invasion of the Eight-Nation Alliance. His close friend and fellow antiquarian, Liu E 劉鶚 (1857–1909), inherited the collection and vastly expanded it. This labor culminated in Liu E’s monumental 1903 publication: Tieyun Canggui 鐵雲藏龜. This was the first book in history to print lithographic rubbings of oracle bones, presenting a catalog of over 1,000 pieces. It shook the scholarly world and provided the raw material foundation for the earliest attempts at systematic decipherment.

2. Sun Yirang and the First Pioneer Attempt at Decipherment

Sun Yirang 孫詒讓 (1848–1908) ranks among the most profound scholarly figures of the late Qing 清 Dynasty (1644-1911). He is widely celebrated for his masterly text-critical editions—such as the Zhouli Zhengyi (周禮正義) and the Mozi Jiangu (墨子閒詁)—as well as his pioneering paleographic acumen.

In 1904, deeply inspired by Liu E's Tieyun Canggui, Sun wrote the Qiwen Juli 契文舉例. This was the very first analytical monograph in history dedicated to cracking the oracle bone code. Sun successfully identified several ancestral characters, recognized numerical systems, and attempted to correlate the inscriptions with Shang Dynasty royal lineages.

However, because he lacked stratigraphic data and relied too heavily on Western Zhou bronze scripts Jinwen 金文 for structural comparison, he made numerous systematic errors. Later scholars, most famously Wang Guowei, criticized his early pioneer work rather harshly, even labeling parts of his oracle bone studies as "useless". Though completed in 1904, the Qiwen Juli was not printed until 1917, when it was published posthumously by Luo Zhenyu in the prestigious series Jishi'an congshu 吉石盦叢書.

3. The “Four Tang” (四堂) of Oracle Bone Studies

In the historiography of Jiaguxue, scholars traditionally speak of the "Four Tang" 四堂. This is a famous mnemonic term because the studio names or pseudonyms (Hao 號/ Zi子) of the four greatest early pioneers of oracle bone research all concluded with the character Tang 堂 (Hall/Studio).

Here is a brief overview of their revolutionary contributions to the field:

Luo Zhenyu 羅振玉 (1866-1940) (Xuetang 雪堂): Luo was the first scholar to conduct truly fruitful, systematic research on the graphs. He discovered the origin of the bones in 1908, tracking them down to the village of Xiaotun near Anyang. Over the years he amassed a collection of more than 30000 Bone fragments, which provided a huge boost for his research into Oracle Bones.

His most important writings on Oracle Bones are the 1913 catalog Yinxu Shuqi 殷墟書契 and the 1915 monograph Yinxu Shuqiu Kaoshi 殷墟書契考釋. The former is a huge catalog of Oracle Bones covering around the two thousand finest pieces of Luo Zhenyus huge private Collection. The Yinxu Shuqi Kaoshi on the other hand primarily had two main aims: 1. Identification of the origin of Oracle Bones and their place in history, 2. the decipherment of Oracle Bone Graphs (in the first edition he deciphered around 500 characters). Luo used for this work a 8-chapter structure similar to the 10 chapter structure Sun Yirang employyed in his Qiwen Juli.

Wang Guowei 王國維 (1877-1927) (Guantang 觀堂): Wang applied a revolutionary "dual-evidence method" er zhong zhengjufa 二重證據法 - using transmitted texts as well as archaeologically recovered materials to verify or falsify certain historical narratives. In his groundbreaking 1917 study Yin buci zhong suo jian xiangong xianwang kao 殷卜辭中所見先公先王考 - collected in the collection of his Scholarly Works Guantang Jilin 觀堂集林- , he meticulously matched the royal genealogies found on the oracle bones with the Shang king-lists transmitted in Sima Qian’s 司馬遷 Shiji 史記 (in the Yin benji 殷本紀 chapter). This had profound impact on the way Oracle Bone Studies in Particular, but also Early China Studies in general should work methodically from now on.

Guo Moruo 郭沫若 (1892-1978) (Dingtang 鼎堂): Guo Moruo was another one of the most important early scholars on Oracle Bones. His contributions to the field are three-fold: 1. Decipherment of more characters, 2. the applications of a Marxist historiographical perspective on the Shang, 3. the publication of the massive Standard compilation of Oracle Bone Graphs, the Jiaguwen Heji 甲骨文合集 (often abbreviated to Heji 合集).

During his exile in Japan (1928-1937) he wrote numerous spezialized studies on Oracle Bones such as Buci tongzuan kaoshi 卜辭通纂考釋 (1933), Yinqi cuiwen kaoshi 殷契粹文考釋 (1937) and Jiagu wenzi yanjiu 甲骨文字研究 (1931). These works were concerned with specialities of Oracle Bone Inscriptions. In his magnum-opus Zhongguo gudai shehui yanjiu 中國古代社會研究 he applied the marxist understanding of History onto the Oracle Bone Material and identified the Shang Dynasty as a primitive Society - one of the three stages ancient societies go through in marxist historiography (primitive, slave-holding, feudal). However he later revised his opinion and thought of the Shang already as a slave-holding society.

His most lasting contribution to the field of Oracle Bone Studies however was the compilation of the Jiaguwen Heji. From 1978 to 1982 this collection was put together with Guo Moruo as Main Editor and the historian Hu Houxuan 胡厚宣 as Second Editor. The Heji comprises of 41,956 items - mainly from Yinxu - discovered since 1899. In total it has 13 Volumes and is ordered on the first order chronologically (by Dong Zuobin chronology of the Diviner Groups, see below) and on the second order by subject group. It serves as one of the standard references for scholars working in Oracle Bone Studies until the present day.

Dong Zuobin 董作賓 (1895-1963) (Yantang 彥堂): Dong Zuobins most important contribution to the study of Oracle Bone Inscriptions was the five-period classification system of Diviner Groups he devised in his 1933 article Jiaguwen duandai yanjiuli 甲骨文斷代研究例. Of huge importance is also his work on the calendar and chronology of the Shang dynasty the 1945 Yinli pu 殷曆譜. This massive 14 volume work discovered that the Shang had a lunisolar calendar and helped to put the chronology of Shang history (and of artifacts) more precisely.

Dong was the undisputed master of stratigraphic field excavation and chronology. He personally led the very first official excavation in Anyang in 1928. This marked the beginning of the monumental Academia Sinica archaeological campaigns in Anyang 安陽 (1928–1937). Under the general leadership of Li Ji 李濟 (1896-1979) - the so called "father" of Chinese archaeology - and Dong, the Academia Sinica conducted 15 excavation seasons at Yinxu 殷墟 until the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937.The absolute pinnacle of these campaigns was the 1936 discovery of Pit YH127, a royal Shang archive containing over 17,000 inscribed turtle plastrons in a single subterranean deposit.

4. The First Paleographic Dictionary: Jiaguwen Bian

Beyond the "Four Tang", the 1934 publication of the Jiaguwen Bian 甲骨文編 paleographic dictionary by Sun Haibo 孫海波(1911-1972) must be highlighted. This was the first comprehensive dictionary (there were earlier attempts for creating an Oracle Bone dictionary, but they were not so comprehensive) explicitly dedicated to Oracle Bone Script.

Admittedly, the first edition contained numerous structural errors and was infamous for its uneven quality among later scholars—especially when compared to the masterfully executed bronze graph dictionary Jinwen Bian 金文編 published by Rong Geng 容庚 (1894-1983) in 1922. Sun’s dictionary struggled heavily with the decision to organize the oracle bone graphs according to the 540-radical system of the Han 漢 Dynasty (206 BC - 220 AD) Shuowen Jiezi 説文解字, a framework that frequently distorts the structural logic of late Shang graphs. Nevertheless, it served as the baseline foundation for all later lexicographical works that corrected its mistakes.

Conclusion

As can be seen above, the discovery of and early research into Oracle Bone Script not only provided a huge wealth of material about the Shang State and essentially verified their history, but also led to the Development of Modern Chinese Palaeography and Grammatology.

Let's discuss:

1. How important do you think is the work of these early researchers still in present-day research about palaeography and Shang History? Is it necessary to know them?
2. Do you think the development of modern palaeography would have been possible without the discovery of Oracle Bone Inscriptions?
3. What role do you think the Chinese Script has among the worlds four primary scripts (Egyptian Script (Hieroglyphs/Hieratic), Sumerian Cuneiform, Oracle-Bone Script, Maya Writing)?

We are very interested in your opinions on this topic, as it touches the very foundation of (historical) science: How do we know what we know?

Yours sincerely,
The r/EarlyChina**-Mods**

Hi everyone,

currently I'm working on draft translations of the six Western Zhou 西周 (1045 - 771 BC) chapters (Ke Yin 克殷, Shi Fu 世俘, Shang Shi 商誓, Du Yi 度邑, Huang Men 皇門, Ji Gong 祭公) of the Yizhoushu 逸周書. It's mostly a side project while working on Bronze Inscriptions, but they contain some very interesting details and supplement the information we have transmitted in other sources like the Shangshu 尚書 or the Shiji 史記.

Today I want to share with you a translation I did of the Ke Yin chapter, the first (regarding its chapter placement in the anthology, No. 36) of the Western Zhou chapters. Hope you enjoy and also would be very grateful for feedback. I translated my german translation into english so that all of you can read and enjoy it:

1. The Translation of Yizhoushu chapter 36, Ke Yin

The Zhou deployed 350 chariots on the field of Muye, and Dixin (King Zhou of Shang) followed. King Wu dispatched Shang Fu and Bo Fu to advance the army. However, the King himself, driving forward with the chariots of the Tiger Guard rushed the Shang army, and the Shang army suffered a massive defeat.

Dixin of Shang fled inside and ascended the Lu Terrace. He concealed himself and immolated himself in the fire. Thereupon, King Wu commanded Tai Bai to lead the feudal lords. The feudal lords conquered the land and then bowed before him with clasped hands. The common people and the 'hundred surnames' of Shang awaited King Wu in the suburbs. A group of guests entered together, saying: "Heaven above has sent down its grace!" They then performed the kotow once more, and the King returned their bow.

They first entered the palace where the King of Shang had been. Thereupon they overcame him; they shot at him three times, causing him to fall from his chariot. They struck him with the light Lü sword and decapitated him with a yellow Yue battle-axe. They dismembered him and hung his head from the great white banner.

Thereupon they went to the palace where the two concubines resided, but they had already hanged themselves. The King shot at them three times. Then, they were struck on the right with the light Lü sword and decapitated with the dark Yue battle-axe. They hung their heads from the small white banner. Following this, the King went out to the level field to rejoin his army.

When the day arrived to report to Heaven, the hundred lords bore the simple white banners as a burden before the King. Cao Shu beat the Duo bell, the army advanced, bowed, and praised Heaven, while the chariots deployed in an imposing and dignified manner. The Duke of Zhou held the great Yue axe and the Duke of Shao held the small Yue axe, flanking the King on both sides. Taidian and Hongyao both held light Lü swords to present them to the King.

As the King entered, he took his position at the Altar of the Earth (she 社), with the elite soldiers standing to his left and the numerous officials following to his right. Mao Shu Zheng presented clear water, and Wei Shu assisted with the rituals. The Duke of Shao greatly assisted in this matter, and Master Shangfu led the sacrificial animal by its leash.

Yin Yi read from the divination bamboo slips: "The last descendant of Yin, Shoude (King Zhou), lost the enlightened virtue of the former King, Cheng Tang. He violated and destroyed Heaven and Earth (cf. Kong Chao commentary) and neglected the sacrifices. He tyrannized the hundred surnames of the Shang capital. His actions became evident and known to the August Heaven, Shangdi (cf. emendation by Liu Shipei)."

King Wu performed the kotow once more and then stepped out. They installed Prince Wu Geng as ruler and commanded Guan Shu to serve as his minister. Thereupon, the Duke of Shao was ordered to release the imprisoned Prince Ji Zi, and Duke Bi and Wei Shu were ordered to bring forth the prisoners of the hundred surnames.

Following this, Nan Gong Hu was commanded to collect the money from the Lu Terrace and distribute the grain from Juqiao. Nan Gong, Bai Da, and the Scribe Yi were ordered to move the Nine Ding Cauldrons and the three shamans. They also commanded Hongyao to erect a burial mound for Prince Bigan. Finally, they ordered the Priest Zong to honor the guests, hold a banquet, and pray for the army. Thereupon, they withdrew.

That's it. Hope you like it. I've already started with the Shi Fu chapter, so stay tuned for more about the Yizhoushu :)

Hi everyone,

While we are preparing the upcoming parts of our comprehensive resource list, today we want to show you an interesting piece that bridges all aspects of Early China: material culture, paleography, and textual criticism: the famous Stone Drums of Qin 秦石鼓.

Originally they were discovered near Fengxiang 鳳翔 in Shaanxi 陝西 Province during the 7th Century in the Tang 唐 Dynasty (618-906 AD). The ten boulders each vary in height (from 73 cm to 87.5 cm) and in diameter (56 to 80.1 cm), but each of them weighs around 400 kg. Today they are housed at the Palace Museum 故宮博物院 in Beijing 北京.

On the Ten Boulders are inscribed 10 songs, totally numbering around 700 characters (however only 501 characters where visible during the Song 宋 Dynasty (960-1279 AD) and only 272 today). These songs are about royal hunting and fishing activities of the State of Qin 秦.

What is also interesting to note is the correspondence between the Poems on the drums and the poems in the Shijing 詩經 (this also has interesting implications for linguistic studies, as we will show later). Each of the poems on the Stone Drums is arranged in columns and each line contains four characters (called siyan 四言), thus matching the gushi古詩-sytle of Poetry often found in the Shijing. The greatest resemblance can be probably found in the Xiaoya 小雅 and Daya 大雅 sections. Therefore they are also often called shigushi 石鼓詩 "Poems on Stone Drums".

They have also have fascinated scholars ever since their discovery as is shown for example by the poem Du Fu 杜甫 (712-770 AD) wrote about them or that Jinshixue 金石學 - beginning in the Song Dynasty - was named that way because of the Stone Drums (as shi 石 means "Stone").

Modern Scholarhip on the Stone Drums relies heavily on Rubbings 拓本 of their inscriptions because of their now damaged state.

For over a millennium, they have fascinated, perplexed, and driven paleographers and scholars to think more about them and discover their secrets.

1. Script

The script on the boulders is also particularly noteworthy. It represents what the Shuowen Jiezi 说文解字 calls Zhouwen 籀文 or Dazhuan 大篆 script, which is (regarding script "evolution") one of the two branches coming out of Bronze Script 金文 (so Qin script vs Script of the six States 六国古文). Later this script provided the foundation for the standardization of writing (221 BC) under the Qin 秦 dynasty (221 BC - 206 BC), using the Small seal script 小篆. It must be noted however that the script on the drums themselves is often called shiguwen 石鼓文 "Writing on Stone Drums".

2. Dating

Dating the Stone Drums is a difficult topic. Because the texts do not name any specific historical rulers, dating them has been one of the most fiercely contested battlegrounds in the history of chinese epigraphy and palaeography:

- Scholars during the Tang Dynasty thought that the Stone Drums date to the Time of King Xuan of Zhou 周宣王 (827 - 782 BC) and point to the connection with the Scribe Zhou 史籀, who worked at his court according to the Shiji 史記 and traditional sources (for this see for example the earliest commentator on the Stones Su Xu 蘇勖 (fl. 642)). It became clear at the heyday of Jinshi Studies during the Song Dynasty for scholars like Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修(1007-1072), that the Stone Drums must date later to the early dukes of Qin.

- During the 20th-century, prominent paleographers like Wang Guowei 王國維 (1877-1927) and Guo Moruo 郭沫若 (1892-1978) systematically studied and focused the dating. By comparing them palaeographically to bronzes from the Chunqiu- and Zhanguo periods it became clear that they must date during the Eastern Zhou, most likely either late Spring and Autumn or Early Warring States, so 5th and 4th Century BC. Guo Moruos work is especially noteworthy as his 1936 Shiguwen yanjiu 石鼓文研究 was one of the greatest Studies in the 20th century on the topic of the Stone Drums.

- However even then scholarly opinions diverge. The most authoritative western Study on the Stone Drums of Qin is Gilbert Mattos 1988 monograph The Stone Drums of Ch'in. Mattos dates the Stone Drums to the 5th Century BC. However chinese palaeographer Chen Zhaorong 陳昭容 dates them to the 6th Century BC based on the similarities in palaeography between the Stone Drums and the Script on the Qin Gong Gui 秦公簋. As an additional reference she also cites a stone chime and the Gui as well as the chime can be dated to the reign of Duke Jing of Qin 秦景公 (576-537 BC).

3. Why they matter for Old Chinese Linguistics

For historical phonology the Stone Drums provide additional information on the rhyme categories 韻部 of Old Chinese besides the usually used Shijing, Xiesheng 諧聲-Series and literature on Middle Chinese because of it's great similarities with the Shijing and rhymed nature in general. Therefore it can help to take them into account and not focus solely on the "usual suspects" when working on Old Chinese phonology (which the good ones like Baxter/Sagart obviously do to enrich their research). It can be also interesting when researching the Qin dialect in particular, although reconstructing Old Chinese dialects is a daunting task, because we have the oldest dictionary recording spoken dialects only from the Han 漢 Dynasty (206 BC - 220 AD) (Yang Xiongs 楊雄 (53 BC - 18 AD) Fangyan 方言).

It is also interesting to observe just how much poetic expression has already set foot in China since its first appearance was in the bronze inscriptions of the Western Zhou (1045 - 771 BC) period, which the prominent German Linguist and Philologist Wolfgang Behr has studied intensively in his 1997 doctoral dissertation Reimende Bronzeinschriften und die Entstehung der chinesischen Endreimdichtung.

Let’s Discuss!

1. Regarding the Chronology: Where do you stand on the dating of the Shigu? Do you align with the early Warring States hypothesis based on structural script simplification, or do you favor an late Spring and Autumn dating based on the Shijing-style vocabulary?
2. Methodological Question: When working with highly eroded texts like the Shigu, how much weight do you place on northern Dazhuan variant-dictionaries (like the Shuowen Jiezi 說文解字) versus direct structural comparison with excavated Qin inscriptions (like the Qin Gong Zhong 秦公鐘)?
3. What are your go-to reference editions for studying the Shigu? (e.g., Gilbert L. Mattos' (1988) monograph, or Guo Moruos studies?)

Looking forward to hearing your insights and paleographical perspectives!

Yours sincerely,
The r/EarlyChina-Mods