Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:01:13.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Sources of Western Zhou History: Recent Discoveries of Inscribed Bronze Vessels*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2015

Edward L. Shaughnessy
Edward L. Shaughnessy*
Affiliation:
Dept. of East Asian Languages and Civilizations, The University of Chicago, 1050 E. 59th Street, Chicago, IL 60637
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the 1970s, the great discoveries of Western Zhou bronze vessels were concentrated primarily in the Wei River valley of Shaanxi province, a pattern of distribution that gave rise to certain theories about a geographically reduced Zhou state. Since then, and especially in the 1990s, inscribed bronze vessels of the Western Zhou period have been found throughout northern China, with particularly important discoveries identified with the state of Yan 燕 near Beijing, Ying 應 at Pingdingshan (Henan), Jin 晉 at Houma (Shanxi), and Guo 虢 at Sanmenxia (Henan). This article introduces these discoveries, translating the more important inscriptions. It also reviews recent discoveries in Shaanxi, especially several bronzes bearing fully-dated inscriptions that have come to light in the course of the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project.

Type
Articles
Information
Early China , Volume 26 , 2001 , pp. 73 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Study of Early China 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

A preliminary version of this article, entitled “Recent Discoveries of Western Zhou Bronze Vessels,” was first presented to the symposium “Recent Excavations and New Interpretations: Revisiting Early Chinese History,” organized by the China Institute, and held at Hunter College, New York City, 1 April 2000. In the present revision I have benefited from reading the doctoral dissertation of my student Li Feng (Feng Li, “The Decline and Fall of the Western Zhou Dynasty: A Historical, Archaeological, and Geographical Study of China from the Tenth to the Eighth Centuries B.C.” [Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 2000]), and from his comments on the preliminary version of the article. I am also grateful to the two anonymous referees for Early China for several valuable corrections and suggestions.

References

1. No formal, consolidated report of the Zhouyuan excavations has yet appeared, though most of the discoveries have been individually reported more or less satisfactorily. For example, for the Dongjiacun cache, see Huaiqing, Pang 龐懷清, Zhenfeng, Wu 吳鎮烽, Zhongru, Luo 雒忠恕, and Zhiru, Shang 商志儒, “Shaanxi sheng Qishan Dongjia cun Xi Zhou tongqi jiaoxue fajue jianbao” 陜西省岐山董家村西周銅器窖穴發掘簡報, Wenwu 文物 1976.5, 26–44Google Scholar; for the Bo Dong tomb, see Xizhang, Luo 羅西章, Zhenfeng, Wu, and Zhongru, Luo, “Shaanxi Fufeng chutu Xi Zhou Bo Dong zhu qi” 陜西扶風出土西周伯1諸器, Wenwu 1976.6, 51–60Google Scholar; for the Wei-family cache, see kaogudui, Shaanxi Zhouyuan, “Shaanxi Fufeng Zhuangbai yihao Xi Zhou qingtongqi jiaocang fajue jianbao” 陜西扶風莊白一號西周青銅器窖藏發掘簡報, Wenwu 1978.3, 1–18Google Scholar; and for the Fengchu building site, see kaogudui, Shaanxi Zhouyuan, “Shaanxi Qishan Fengchu cun Xi Zhou jianzhu jizhi fajue jianbao” 陜西歧山鳳雛西周建築基址發掘簡報, Wenwu 1979.10, 27–37Google Scholar. For overviews of the Zhouyuan excavations, see Quanfang, Chen 陳全方, Zhouyuan yu Zhou wenhua 周原與周文化 (Shanghai: Shanghai renmin, 1988)Google Scholar, and Xizhang, Luo, ed., Fufeng xian wenwu zhi 扶風縣文物志 (Xi’an: Shaanxi renmin jiaoyu, 1993)Google Scholar. For overviews in English, see Shaughnessy, Edward L., “Toward a Social Geography of the Zhouyuan during the Western Zhou Dynasty: The Jing and Zhong Lineages of Fufeng County,” in Political Frontiers, Ethnic Boundaries, and Human Geographies in Chinese History, ed. di Cosmo, Nicola and Wyatt, Don (London: Curzon Press, forthcoming)Google Scholar; Shaughnessy, Edward L., “Hoards and Family Histories in Qishan County, the Zhouyuan, during the Western Zhou Dynasty,” in New Perspectives on Early Chinese Civilization: The Golden Age of Chinese Archaeology, ed. Yang, Xiaoneng (Washington: The National Gallery of Art, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

2. For the initial report of the Li gui’s discovery, see Lintong xian wenhuaguan, “Shaanxi Lintong faxian Wu wang zheng Shang gui” 陜西臨潼發現武王征商簋, Wenwu 1977.8, 1–7.

3. For a formal report of the Yu-state cemetery, see Liancheng, Lu 廬連成 and Zhisheng, Hu 胡智生, Baoji Yu guo mudi (Beijing: Wenwu, 1988)Google Scholar; for one discussion of the possible cultural relationship between the state of Yu and that of Zhou, see Rawson, Jessica, “Western Zhou Archaeology,” in The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C., ed. Loewe, Michael and Shaughnessy, Edward L. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 397–403Google Scholar.

4. For the first notice of the Duo You ding, see Xingnong, Tian 田醒農 and Zhongru, Luo 雒忠恕, “Duo You ding de faxian ji qi mingwen shishi” 多友鼎的發現及其銘文試釋, Renwen zazhi 人文雜誌 1981.4, 115–18Google Scholar; for one study in English, see Shaughnessy, Edward L., “The Date of the ‘Duo You Ding’ and its Significance,” Early China 9–10 (1983–1985), 55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. This suggestion was first made in Michiharu, Itō 伊藤道治, Chūgoku kodai ōchō no keisei 中国古代王朝の形成 (Tokyo: Sōbunsha, 1975)Google Scholar; I accepted it in Shaughnessy, Edward L., Sources of Western Zhou History: Inscribed Bronze Vessels (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 157–66Google Scholar, and in “Western Zhou History,” in The Cambridge History of Ancient China, 325.

6. The locus classicus of this tradition is found in the Zuo zhuan 左傳, Xi 僖 24 (636 B.C.); Chunqiu Zuo zhuan zhengyi 春秋左傳正義 (Shisan jing zhushu ed.; Beijing: Zhonghua, 1980)Google Scholar, 15.115 (1817). For a discussion in English, see Hsu, Cho-yun and Linduff, Katheryn M., Western Chou Civilization (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 158–63Google Scholar.

7. It seems appropriate here to mention several recent milestones of scholarship on Western Zhou bronze inscriptions: the completion of Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng 殷周金文集成, ed. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo (Wang Shimin 王世民, editor-in-chief; Chen Gongrou 陳公柔, in charge of scholarly editing; Liu Yu 劉雨; Zhang Yachu 張亞初; Cao Shuqin 曹淑琴; Wang Zhaoying 王兆瑩; Liu Xinguang 劉新光), 18 vols. (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1984–1994), properly described by Xia Nai 夏鼐 (1910–1985), late director of the Institute of Archaeology, in his preface to vol.1 as the corpus inscriptionum of Chinese bronze inscriptions (the corpus includes full-size rubbings of 11,909 discrete objects [discounting seventy-four redundancies] available before the end of 1985); Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng shiwen 殷周金文集成釋文, ed. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo (Chen Gongrou, Liu Yu, Zhang Yachu), 6 vols. (Hong Kong: Xianggang Zhongwen daxue Zhongguo wenhua yanjiusuo, 2001), which provides transcriptions (and also miniature, but clear, versions of the rubbings) of all of the inscriptions in Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng; and Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng yinde 殷周金文集成引得, ed. Yachu, Zhang (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2001)Google Scholar, a complete concordance to Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, including transcriptions of all inscriptions (not in all cases identical with those in Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng shiwen), a concordance arranged according to 413 significs, and a total stroke-number index. Just a month or so before this concordance was published brought the publication of another concordance: Jinwen yinde 金文引得, ed. Huadong shifan daxue Zhongguo wenzi yanjiu yu yingyong zhongxin (primarily Li Lingpu 李玲璞, Zang Kehe 臧克和, Liu Zhiji 劉志基, and Zhang Zaixing 張再興; Nanning: Guangxi jiaoyu, 2001), produced by computer and including 5,758 discrete inscriptions published before 2001 (with cross-references to Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng; Sandai jijin wencun 三代吉金文存, ed. Luo Zhenyu 羅振玉 [N.p., 1935]; Jinwen zongji 金文總集, ed. Yiping, Yan 嚴一萍, 10 vols. [Taipei: Yiwen, 1983]Google Scholar; and/or reports in scholarly journals). Both of these concordances would seem to supersede yet another computer-generated concordance published just a few years earlier: Qingtongqi mingwen jiansuo 青銅器銘文檢索, ed. He, Zhou 周何, Xusheng, Ji 季旭昇, and Zhongwen, Wang 汪中文(Taipei: Wenshizhe, 1995)Google Scholar, which was based on the above-mentioned Jinwen zongji. For recently discovered bronze inscriptions (through May, 1999) not included in Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, see Yu, Liu, “Jin chu Yin Zhou jinwen zhongshu” 近出殷周金文綜述, Gugong bowuyuan yuankan 故宮博物院院刊 2002.3, 7–13Google Scholar; and Liu Yu and Lu Yan 盧岩, Jin chu Yin Zhou jinwen jilu 近出殷周金文集錄 (forthcoming). The latter work is supposed to record inscriptions on 416 Yin pieces, 500 Western Zhou pieces, and 342 Eastern Zhou pieces, for a total of 1,258 pieces.

8. A formal report of these excavations is now available: Liulihe Xi Zhou Yan guo mudi 琉璃河西周燕國墓地: 1973–1977, ed. Beijing shi wenwu yanjiusuo (Beijing: Wenwu, 1995). For the Jin ding (Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, no. 2703), see pl. 4. For a translation of the Jin ding, together with a discussion of Grand Protector Shi’s role in the founding of the Zhou dynasty, see Shaughnessy, Edward L., “The Role of Grand Protector Shi in the Consolidation of the Zhou Conquest,” Ars Orientalis 19 (1989), 51–78, esp. p. 55Google Scholar.

9. For this tomb, and especially the bronzes in it, see Yin Weizhang 殷瑋璋, “Xin chutu de Taibao tongqi ji qi xiangguan wenti” 新出土的太保銅器及其相關問題, Kaogu 考古 1990.1, 67–69; Yin Weizhang and Cao Shuqin 曹淑琴, “Zhou chu Taibao qi zonghe yanjiu” 周初太保器綜合研究, Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1991.1, 1–21.

10. In this and other transcriptions given together with the translations in this study, for graphs that can be associated without question with a conventional modern graph (e.g., 隹 with wei 惟, or 乍 with zuo 作), I will silently write the modern graph.

11. For this reading of this sentence, which is open to—and has been the subject of—numerous interpretations, I follow Lin Yun 林澐, “Shi Shi Qiang pan ming zhong de Di Zha Fa” 釋史墻盤銘中的逖虘髟, Shaanxi lishi bowuguan guankan 陜西歷史博物館館刊 1 (1994), 27–28Google Scholar. For another reading, together with citations of several other studies in Chinese, see Feng, Li, “Ancient Reproductions and Calligraphic Variations: Studies of Western Zhou Bronzes with ‘Identical’ Inscriptions,” Early China 22 (1997), 6 and 7–8nn14–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Feng, Li, “Ancient Reproductions and Calligraphic Variations,” 1–41Google Scholar.

13. For the bell with the opening portion of the inscription (Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, no. 107), see Song, Ren 韌松 and Weiyue, Fan 樊維岳, “Ji Shaanxi Lantian xian xin chutu de Ying Hou zhong” 記陜西藍田縣新出土的應侯鐘, Wenwu 1975.10, 68–69Google Scholar. The bell in the Shodō hakubutsukan (Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, no. 108) was first published in Nakamuru Fusetzu 中村不折, Sandai Shin Kan no ihin ni shiruseru monji 三代秦漢の遺品に識寫る文字 (Tokyo: Iwanami, 1934). For a study piecing the two inscriptions together, see Song, Ren, “Ji Shaanxi Lantian xian xin chutu de Ying Hou zhong yi wen buzheng” 記陜西藍田縣新出土的應侯鐘一文補正 Wenwu 1977.8, 27–28Google Scholar.

More recently still, two more Ying Hou Xiangong zhong have been purchased by the Poly Art Museum (Baoli yishu bowuguan 葆利藝術博物館) in Beijing; see Baoli cang jin (xu) 葆利藏金(續) (Guangzhou: Lingnan meishu, 2001), 156–59. Both of the Poly bells bear the same inscription as that on the Lantian bell (i.e., the first half of the complete inscription, with the exception of an additional gong 宮 “palace” after the graph kang 康), and one of them is almost exactly the same size as the Lantian bell. On the basis of this, Zhu Fenghan 朱鳳瀚, the author of the entry on the bells in Baoli cang jin (xu), proposes that there must have been two different sets of at least four bells with the complete inscription (presumably two sets of two pairs). Also recently purchased by the Poly Art Museum is a pair of gui-tureens cast for Ying Hou Xiangong (see Baoli cang jin [xu], 122–27). The following inscription appears in both the vessel and the cover of both of these gui:

唯正初吉丁亥, 王才卿。應侯見公友, 易玉五Y、馬四匹、矢千, 敢對揚天子休釐, 用作皇考武侯尊簋, 用易眉壽永令, 子子孫孫永寶。

It was the first month, first auspiciousness, dinghai (day 24), the king was at Mou feasting wine. Ying Hou Xiangong was friendly, and was awarded five pieces of jade, four horses, and a thousand arrows. He dares in response to extol the Son of Heaven’s beneficent grace, herewith making for his august deceased-father Wu Hou this offertory tureen, with which to be awarded long life and an eternal mandate; and sons’ sons and grandsons’ grandsons will eternally treasure it.

14. For some notice of these excavations, see Zhaowu, Zhang 張肇武, “Henan Ping-dingshan shi chutu Xi Zhou Ying guo qingtongqi” 河南平頂山市出土西周應國青銅器, Wenwu 1984.12, 29–32Google Scholar. For the identification of the state and some discussion of its historical significance, see Yongzhen, Zhou 周永珍, “Xi Zhou shiqi de Ying guo Deng guo tongqi ji qi dili weizhi” 西周時期的應國鄧國銅器及其地理位置, Kaogu 1982.1, 48–53Google Scholar. See also Shizhi, Ma 馬世之, “Ying guo tongqi ji qi xiangguan wenti” 應國銅器及其相關問題, Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 1986.1, 58–62Google Scholar.

15. For M95, see Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo and Pingdingshan shi wenwu guanli weiyuanhui, “Pingdingshan Ying guo mudi jiushiwuhao mu de fajue” 平頂山應國墓地95號墓的發掘, Hua Xia kaogu 華夏考古 1992.3, 92–103. For M84, see Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Pingdingshan shi wenwu guanli weiyuanhui, “Pingdingshan Ying guo mudi bashisihao mu fajue jianbao” 平頂山應國墓地84號墓發掘简報, Wenwu 1998.9, 4–17.

16. For a report of the discovery of this vessel, see Longzheng, Wang 王龍正, Tao, Jiang 姜濤, and Junjie, Yuan 袁俊杰, “Xin faxian de Zuo Bo gui ji qi mingwen kaoshi” 新發現的柞伯簋及其銘文考釋, Wenwu 1998.9, 53–58Google Scholar. There is an illustration of the vessel on the back cover of the magazine. For a better illustration, see Zhongguo wenwu jinghua 1997 中國文物精華 1997 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1997), no. 51Google Scholar.

17. For the transcription of xian 賢, in the compound xianhuo 賢獲 meaning “to hit the target most,” see Jian, Chen 陳劍, “Zuo Bo gui ming bu shi” 柞伯簋銘補釋, Chuantong wenhua yu xiandaihua 傳統文化與現代化 1999.1, 50–53Google Scholar.

18. For this tradition, see Zuo zhuan, Xi 24; Chunqiu zuozhuan zhengyi, 15.115 (1817).

19. For these vessels (Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, nos. 3775, 3776), see Yongzhen, Zhou, “Xi Zhou shiqi de Ying guo Deng guo tongqi ji qi dili weizhi,” 50–52Google Scholar; for the location of Deng, based both on traditional historical geography and also on bronzes discovered there, see Shaohua, Xu 徐少華, Zhou dai nan tu lishi dili yu wenhua 周代南土歷史地理與文化 (Wuhan: Wuhan daxue, 1994), 10–19Google Scholar. It is perhaps worth noting also that two extraordinary bronzes (in the shape of an imaginary animal with tigers and dragons climbing on its back and chest) made by someone from Deng (a Deng Zhong 鄧仲) were discovered in tomb M163 at Zhangjiapo 張家坡, just west of the Zhou capital of Feng 灃; see Zhangjiapo Xi Zhou mudi 張家坡西周墓地, ed. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo (Beijing: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu, 1999), 161–64Google Scholar. As will be discussed below (p. 91), this tomb was one of several tombs identified as belonging to the Jing 井 family, perhaps the most prominent family at the Zhou court throughout the middle Western Zhou period. M163, the tomb of a woman, was just about five meters to the east of M157, the largest tomb (with two tomb ramps) in the cemetery, presumably that of Jingshu 井叔; the excavators surmise, reasonably, that it was the tomb of a consort of Jingshu. Whether the name Deng Zhong refers to this consort or to a family member of hers, these bronzes too would seem to attest to far-flung marriage relations among the elites of the Western Zhou state.

20. For preliminary reports of these excavations, see Beijing daxue kaogu zhuanye Shang Zhou zu, Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Henan sheng Anyang Xinxiang diqu wenhuaju, and Hubei sheng Xiaogan diqu bowuguan, “Jin Yu E san sheng kaogu diaocha jianbao” 晉豫鄂三省考古調查簡報, Wenwu 1982.7, 1–16; Beijing daxue kaogu zhuanye Shanxi shixizu et al., “Yicheng Quwo kaogu kancha ji” 翼城曲沃考古勘察記, Kaoguxue yanjiu 考古研究 1 (1992), 124–228Google Scholar. The formal report on this first decade of excavations at Tianma-Qucun has just been issued: Heng, Zou 鄒衡, Tianma-Qucun 1980–1989 天馬曲村 1980–1989 (Beijing: Kexue, 2000)Google Scholar.

21. For a concise survey of the excavations conducted between 1992 and 1994, see Rawson, , “Western Zhou Archaeology,” 440–46Google Scholar. For more detail, see Xu, Jay, “The Cemetery of the Western Zhou Lords of Jin,” Artibus Asiae 56.3/4 (1996), 193–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the most recent discovery, a pair of tombs numbered M114 and M113, located just between the eastern-most pairs of tombs M9/M13 and M1/M2, see Beijing daxue kaogu wenboyuan and Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jin hou mudi di liu ci fajue” 天馬曲村遺址北趙晉侯墓地第六次發掘, Wenwu 2001.8, 4–21.

22. The Shanghai Museum has also played an important role vis-a-vis bronzes cast for an early ruler or rulers of another major state—the state of Qin 秦. Also by way of purchase in Hong Kong, sometime in 1993 the Shanghai Museum came into possession of six late Western Zhou or early Eastern Zhou bronzes (four ding 鼎-caldrons and two gui-tureens) bearing short inscriptions showing them to have been cast for an unidenti-fied ruler (gong 公) of Qin; see Chaoyuan, Li 李朝遠, “Shanghai bowuguan xin huo Qin Gong tongqi yanjiu” 上海博物館新獲秦公銅器研究, Shanghai bowuguan jikan 上海博物館集刊 7 (1996), 23–33Google Scholar. For a good illustration of one of these caldrons, see Rites et festins de la Chine antique: Bronzes du Musée de Shanghai (Paris: Editions Findakly, 1998)Google Scholar, no. 40. In 1994, two large hu 壺-vases bearing similar inscriptions appeared for sale on the New York antique market; these vases were featured in an exhibition catalog, Archaic Chinese Bronzes, Jades and Works of Art (New York: J.J. Lally & Co., 1994)Google Scholar, no. 54. Although, for obvious reasons, the provenance of these bronzes is not very well known, it seems clear that they were looted from two large tombs at Dabuzishan 大堡子山, Lixian 禮縣, Gansu, where rescue excavations were subsequently conducted; for mention of these excavations, see Wei, Han 翰偉, “Lun Gansu Lixian chutu de Qin jinbo shipin” 論甘肅禮縣出土的秦金箔飾品, Wenwu 1995.6, 4–11Google Scholar; Chunyang, Dai 戴春陽, “Lixian Dabuzishan Qin Gong mudi ji youguan wenti” 禮縣大堡子山秦公墓地及有關問題, Wenwu 2000.5, 74–80Google Scholar. If this is correct, and if the tomb or tombs were indeed those of Qin rulers, then since Qin seems to have moved into the Wei River valley of present-day Shaanxi province shortly after the fall of Western Zhou, this geography would simultaneously assure that the bronzes date to the Western Zhou and also pinpoint the location, or one of the locations, of Qin during the Western Zhou. For a discussion of the geography of Qin, together with citations to all of the Chinese secondary sources that discuss these new discoveries, see Li, , “The Decline and Fall of the Western Zhou,” 359–61Google Scholar. Unfortunately, it would be premature to say much more about these early Qin bronzes pending the publication of further details about them and their provenance.

23. For the report of the excavation of M8, including some details of its previous looting and the Shanghai Museum’s purchase of the other items from the tomb, see Beijing daxue kaoguxue xi et al., “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jin Hou mudi di er ci fajue” 天馬曲村遺址北趙晉侯墓地第二次發掘, Wenwu 1994.1, 4–28. For more details regarding the bells purchased by the Shanghai Museum, see Chengyuan, Ma 馬承源, “Jin Hou Su bianzhong” 晉侯蘇編鐘, Shanghai bowuguan jikan 7 (1996), 1–17Google Scholar. For an account in English, with a complete translation of the inscription on the bells, see Shim, Jaehoon, “The ‘Jinhou Su Bianzhong’ Inscription and Its Significance,” Early China 22 (1997), 43–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24. Shim, , “The ‘Jinhou Su Bianzhong’ Inscription,” 49–56Google Scholar.

25. For both of these references, see Shi ji (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1959), 39.1637Google Scholar.

26. This question was the topic of a roundtable discussion published in the journal Wenwu: see “Jin Hou Su zhong bitan” 晉侯蘇鐘筆談, Wenwu 1997.3, 54–66. For a listing of other attempts to reconcile the discrepancy, see Shim, “The ‘Jinhou Su Bianzhong’ Inscription,” 44n7; see also Shim’s own discussion, 58–70. For my own suggestion, see Ni Dewei 倪德維 (David S. Nivison) and Xia Hanyi 夏含夷 (Edward L. Shaughnessy), “Jin Hou de shixi ji qi dui Zhongguo gudai jinian de yiyi,” 晉侯的世系及其對中國古代紀年的意義, Zhongguo shi yanjiu 中國史研究 2001.1, 3–10; another version of this study, which includes somewhat different argumentation, has been published as “The Jin Hou Su Bells Inscription and Its Implications for the Chronology of Early China,” Early China 25 (2000), 29–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo and Beijing daxue kaoguxi, “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jin Hou mudi di si ci fajue” 天馬曲村遺址北趙晉侯墓地第四次發掘, Wenwu 1994.8, 4–21.

28. Xigui, Qiu, “Guanyu Jin Hou tongqi mingwen de jige wenti” 關於晉侯銅器銘文的幾個問題, Chuantong wenhua yu xiandaihua 1994.2, 41Google Scholar. For the “Shier zhuhou nianbiao,” see Shi ji, 14.521; for the “Jin shijia” and Suoyin commentary, see Shi ji, 39.1637.

29. For the classic demonstration of this custom, analyzing 290 cases from the Springs and Autumns period, see Wang Yinzhi 王引之, “Chunqiu ming zi jiegu” 春秋名字解詁, in Jingyi shuwen 經義述聞 (Sibu beiyao ed.), juan 卷 22–23.

30. This inscription (Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, no.106) was first published in Xue Shanggong 薛尚功, Lidai zhong ding yiqi kuanzhi fatie 歷代鐘鼎彝器款識法帖 (1144), 6.6.

31. Sun Yirang, Gu zhou shiyi 古籀拾遺 (N.p., 1888), 2.7–9. For a detailed study of the inscription on the previously discovered bell inscription, see Huang Xiquan 黃錫全, “Chu Gong Ni bo mingwen xin shi” 楚公逆鎛銘文新釋, Wuhan daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 武漢大學學報 (社會科學版) 1991.4, 53–59. See also Cook, Constance A., “Myth and Authenticity: Deciphering the Chu Gong Ni Bell Inscription,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 113.4 (1993), 539–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32. In “The Jin Hou Su Bells Inscription” (see n. 26), David Nivison and I have pro-posed that Jin Mu Hou’s dates of reign were 822–796 B.C., instead of 811–785 as given in the “Jin shijia” chapter of the Shi ji; the donation of the Chu Gong Ni zhong for the burial of Jin Mu Hou would seem to corroborate this proposal, since according to the Shi ji chronology Jin Mu Hou would have outlived Chu Gong Ni (i.e., Xiong E).

33. The two tombs of consorts are M62, immediately to the west of M64, and M63, immediately to the west of M62. The excavators assume that M62 was the tomb of the principal consort, since the tomb contained a set of four gui-tureens whereas M63 contained only two gui-tureens, even though M63 was both much more lavishly furnished with funerary pieces (4,280 pieces, including almost 800 jades, many quite spectacular, versus only 750 pieces total for M62) and was also one of only two two-ramped tombs (known as a 中-shaped tomb) in the entire cemetery. The inscription of the Ran xu 冉須, discussed below, demonstrates, I believe, that the excavators’ assumption is inaccurate.

34. Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, no. 4469; the vessel was first published in Lü Dalin 呂大臨, Kaogu tu 考古圖 (1092), 3.34.

35. Moruo, Guo, Liang Zhou jinwen ci daxi tulu kaoshi 兩周金文辭大系圖錄考釋 (Tokyo: Bunkyūdō, 1935), 141aGoogle Scholar.

36. Shi, Feng, “Lüe lun Jin Hou Bangfu ji qi ming zi wenti” 略論晉侯邦父及其名字問題, Wenwu 1998.5, 31–34Google Scholar.

37. See Nivison, and Shaughnessy, , “The Jin Hou Su Bells Inscription,” 29–48Google Scholar, for the implications that this identification has regarding the genealogy and chronology of the Jin lords.

38. For the citation of this report, see, above, n. 21.

39. For a preliminary study of the inscription, see Boqian, Li 李伯謙, “Shu Ze fangding mingwen kaoshi” 叔E方鼎銘文考釋, Wenwu 2001.8, 39–42Google Scholar. See also Xueqin, Li 李學勤, “Tan Shu Ze fangding ji qita” 談叔E方鼎及其他, Wenwu 2001.10, 67–70Google Scholar.

40. For these excavations, see Shangcunling Guo guo mudi 上村嶺虢國墓地 (Beijing: Kexue, 1959)Google Scholar.

41. For the preliminary report on the excavation of M2001, see “Sanmenxia Shang-cunling Guo guo mudi M2001 fajue jianbao” 三門峽上村嶺虢國墓地 M2001發掘簡報, Hua Xia kaogu 1992.3, 104–13. The first part of the definitive report on these excavations is Sanmenxia Guo guo mu, di yi juan (shang/xia) 三門峽虢國墓, 第一卷(上下), ed. Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Sanmenxia shi wenwu gongzuodui (Beijing: Wenwu, 1999); for M2001, see 15–237. For a concise overview in English, see von Falkenhausen, Lothar, “The Waning of the Bronze Age: Material Culture and Social Developments, 770–481 B.C.,” in The Cambridge History of Ancient China, 471–77Google Scholar.

42. Zhangjiapo Xi Zhou mudi 張家坡西周墓地, ed. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo (Beijing: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu, 1999)Google Scholar.

43. The cemetery was the site of two previous archaeological campaigns, one in 1955–57 that excavated 131 tombs (see Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo, Fengxi fajue baogao 灃西發掘報告 [Beijing: Wenwu, 1962]), and one in 1967 that excavated 136 tombs (see Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Fengxi fajuedui, “1967 nian Chang’an Zhangjiapo Xi Zhou muzang de fajue” 1967 年長安張家坡西周幕葬的發掘, Kaogu xuebao 1980.4, 457–502). In Zhangjiapo Xi Zhou mudi, 376, it is noted that perhaps as many as one thousand tombs have been excavated in the cemetery over the years, and that there are more than one thousand others that have been located but not yet excavated.

44. For a discussion of the bronzes in which Jingshu appears in this capacity, see Chen Mengjia 陳夢家, “Xi Zhou tongqi duandai 6” 西周銅器斷代 6, Kaogu xuebao 1956.4, 115.

45. For M157, see Zhangjiapo Xi Zhou mudi, 16–22; for M163, see 41–44, and for the bronzes from M163, see 161–67.

46. For these inscriptions, see Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, nos. 356, 357.

47. Mu Gong was the patron of the Mu Gong gui gai 穆公簋蓋 (Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, no. 4191), and served as the court guarantor (youzhe 右者) for Li in the Li fangyi (Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, nos. 9899, 9900), commemorating Li’s appointment as commander-in-chief of all Zhou armies. Moreover, his wife, Yin Ji 尹姞, was the patron of the Yin Ji ding 尹姞鼎 (Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, no.754); and Mu Gong is also mentioned in the late Western Zhou Yu ding 禹鼎 (Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, no. 2833) as the great-grandfather of Yu 禹, another member of the Jing lineage who played an important military role later in the dynasty.

48. Numerous studies, reports, and anthologies of related earlier scholarship associated with this project have been published over the last several years. A preliminary report of the project’s conclusions has been published as Xia Shang Zhou duandai gongcheng 1996–2000 nian jieduan chengguo baogao 夏商周斷代工程 1996–2000 年階段成果報告, ed. Xia Shang Zhou duandai gongcheng zhuanjiazu (Beijing: Shijie tushu, 2000). For a description of this project in English, see “China Launches an Ambitious Multi-Year Xia Shang Zhou Chronology Project,” tr. Allan, Sarah, Early China News 9 (1996), 1, 10–14Google Scholar.

49. For a discussion of these terms and their use in dating Western Zhou bronze vessels, see Shaughnessy, , Sources of Western Zhou History, 136–44Google Scholar.

50. For this vessel and inscription, see Xueqin, Li, “Wu Hu ding kaoshi” 吳虎鼎考釋, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 1998.3, 29–31Google Scholar; Xiaojun, Mu 穆曉軍, “Shaanxi Chang’an xian chutu Xi Zhou Wu Hu ding” 陜西長安縣出土西周吳虎鼎, Kaogu yu wenwu 1998.3, 69–71Google Scholar; “Wu Hu ding ming zuotan jiyao” 吳虎鼎銘座談紀要, Kaogu yu wenwu 1998.3, 73–75.

51. This interpretation is usually associated with Guowei, Wang 王國維, “Shengpo sipo kao” 生霸死霸考, in Guantang jilin 觀堂集林 (1923; rpt. Beijing: Zhonghua, 1984), 19–26Google Scholar. For this dating of the Wu Hu ding inscription, see, for example, Xueqin, Li, “Wu Hu ding kaoshi,” 30–31Google Scholar.

52. For this vessel, see Hanzhang, Wang 王翰章, Lianghe, Chen 陳良和, and Baolin, Li 李保林, “Hu gui gai ming jianshi” 虎簋蓋銘简釋, Kaogu yu wenwu 1997.3, 78–80Google Scholar; “Hu gui gai ming zuotan jiyao” 虎簋蓋銘座談紀要, Kaogu yu wenwu 1997.3, 81–83. The date is consistent with the calendar of 927 B.C., which would be the thirtieth year of a reign beginning in 956 B.C. Moreover, it is consistent with a calendar three years later than that required by the date of the Qiu Wei gui 裘衛簋 (Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, no. 4256), 27/3/B/35, a vessel usually regarded as a “standard” for the reign of King Mu.

53. Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, no. 4316.

54. Although many early studies dated this vessel to the reign of King Gong (r. 917/15–900 B.C.; for a listing of these, see Shizuka, Shirakawa 白川靜, Kinbun tsūshaku 金文通釋 [Kobe: Hakutsuru bijutsukan, 1967Google Scholar], fasc. 19, no. 104, 353), I have previously suggested that it should date instead to the reign of King Yih; see Sources of Western Zhou History, 257.

55. See Xizhang, Luo 羅西章, “Zai Shou gui ming lüe kao” 宰獸簋銘略考, Wenwu 1998.8, 83–87Google Scholar.

56. Xizhang, Luo, “Zai Shou gui ming lüe kao,” 84Google Scholar.

57. Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, nos. 4170–4176.

58. For a discussion of the date of the Xing xu (Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, nos. 4462, 4463), see Shaughnessy, , Sources of Western Zhou History, 261–62n81Google Scholar.

59. It is appropriate here to note several recent doctoral dissertations on various topics in Western Zhou history: Ulrich Lau, Quellenstudien zur Landvergabe und Bodenübertragung in der westlichen Zhou-Dynastie (1045?–771 v. Chr.), Monumenta Serica Monograph Series 41 (Sankt Augustin, Germany, 1999), being the published version of a dissertation completed at the Humboldt-Universität of Berlin in 1988; Schunk, Lutz, “Dokumente zur Rechtsgeschichte des alten China: Übersetzung und historisch-philologische Kommentierung juristischer Bronzeinschriften der West-Zhou-Zeit (1045–771 v. Chr.)” (Ph.D. diss., Westfalischen Wilhelms Üniversität zu Münster, 1994)Google Scholar; Behr, Wolfgang, “Reimende Bronzeinscriften und die Entshehung der chinesichen Endreimdichtung” (Ph.D. diss., Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main, 1996)Google Scholar; Skosey, Laura A., “The Legal System and Legal Tradition of the Western Zhou (1045 B.C.E.–771 B.C.E.)” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1996)Google Scholar; Shim, Jae-hoon, “The Early Development of the State of Jin: From Its Enfeoffment to the Hegemony of Wen Gong (r. 636–628)” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1998)Google Scholar; Li, Feng, “The Decline and Fall of the Western Zhou Dynasty: A Historical, Archaeological, and Geographical Study of China from the Tenth to the Eighth Centuries” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 2000)Google Scholar.

60. I have already referred above to a study that I have co-authored with David Nivison that discusses the date of the Jin Hou Su bianzhong and the genealogy of the lords of Jin (see n. 26), but which also has, we believe, broader implications for the study of Western Zhou chronology. For the present, it should perhaps suffice to say that, like all past efforts to resolve the chronology of the Western Zhou dynasty, neither this nor the just published preliminary report of the Xia Shang Zhou Chronology Project (see n. 48) is likely to be the final word on this perplexing problem.

61. Two other fully-dated bronzes have recently been published. While it has not been possible to incorporate discussions of them into the main body of this article, I am glad to have the opportunity to call them to the attention of readers. Both of these bronzes have been acquired by Chinese museums, though no details of their provenance have been published. The Chinese History Museum (Zhongguo lishi bowuguan 中國歷史博物館) in Beijing has acquired the Shi Shan pan 士山盤, a mid-Western Zhou pan-basin with a 97-character-long inscription, and bearing the full date 16/9/B/21; see Fenghan, Zhu 朱鳳瀚, “Shi Shan pan mingwen chushi” 士山盤銘文初釋, Zhongguo lishi wenwu 中國歷史文物 2002.1, 4–7Google Scholar. The Shanghai Museum has also announced the acquisition of several new bronze vessels, among which the Da Zhu Zhui ding 大祝追鼎 is a typical late Western Zhou ding-caldron with a 41-character-long inscription beginning with the full date 32/8/A/18; see Peifen, Chen 陳佩芬, “Xin huo liang Zhou qingtong qi” 新獲兩周青銅器, Shanghai bowuguan jikan 8 (2002), 124–43Google Scholar, esp. 133. This latter date is particularly interesting. In her brief discussion of the date, Chen Peifen notes, without further ado, that the date is incompatible with the regnal calendars of both kings Li (she assumes a first year of 878 B.C. for King Li) and Xuan. I might note here that while the date is incompatible with the calendar of 796 B.C., the thirty-second year of a reign for King Xuan beginning in 827 B.C., it is fully compatible with a calendar two years later (i.e., 794 B.C.; xinsi would be the fifth day of the eighth month, appropriate for its chuji “first auspiciousness” lunar-phase notation). This would seem to corroborate the conclusion presented in Nivison and Shaughnessy, “The Jin Hou Su Bells Inscription,” regarding the institution of dual regnal calendars for individual kings during the Western Zhou period.