Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-26T08:39:37.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ancient Reproductions and Calligraphic Variations: Studies of Western Zhou Bronzes with “Identical” Inscriptions*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2015

Li Feng*
Dept. of East Asian Languages and Civilizations, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637


Traditional studies of Western Zhou bronze inscriptions have long centered on the issue of dating, but have ignored technical aspects regarding the creation of the inscriptions. In these studies, scholars generally considered bronzes with “identical” inscriptions to have been produced simultaneously. This article demonstrates, with the example of the newly excavated Ke lei and Ke he, that an inscription could be reproduced during the Western Zhou. The Ke lei was cast at the outset of the Zhou dynasty to celebrate the granting of the state of Yan, while the Ke he was probably cast somewhat later, with inscriptions imitating the original inscriptions. This article also demonstrates that “identical” inscriptions can display different calligraphy, the calligraphic styles corresponding to sets in the original composition of bronzes. For example, the thirteen “identical” inscriptions on the extant eight Ci gui and three Ci ding vessels were inscribed in three different calligraphic styles; the ornamentation and size or weight of these eleven bronzes show them to have belonged originally to three different sets, corresponding to the three calligraphic styles. These cases of “identical” inscriptions not only provide solid evidence for the contemporary co-existence of different calligraphic styles within the Western Zhou period, but also provide critical information on the organization of technology and labor in the creation of Western Zhou bronzes.

傳統的西周青銅器銘文硏究長期以斷代爲中心, 但卻忽視了與銘文製作有關的技術性問題。在這些研究中, 學者們通常認爲同銘器乃是同時所作。本文以新近發掘出土的克罃和克盔爲例, 闡明在西周時期一篇銘文可能被重新鑄造。克罃作於西周初年以紀念燕國的分封, 而克禿則可能鑄於較晚時期, 其銘文模仿原來的銘文。本文同時證明內容相同的銘文可能表現不同的書體, 而這些書體則又與青銅器原有組合中之分組情況適相對應。譬如, 現存之八件此簋和三件此鼎上的十三篇內容相同的銘文是以三種不同書體寫成, 而這十一件銅器的花紋、尺寸和重量表明它們原可能屬于三組, 與三種書體的分組正相對應。這些同銘器的例子不僅爲西周同一時期中不同書體的共存提供了確鑿證據, 同時也爲西周青銅器製作中技術與勞力的組織提供了重要信息。

Copyright © Society for the Study of Early China 1997

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.)



I would like to thank Professor Edward Shaughnessy for his valuable suggestions to this article. I would also like to express my thanks to the two anonymous reviewers of Early China for their inspiring remarks, and to the editor of Early China, Professor Donald Harper, for his extraordinarily detailed comments on the initial manuscript of this article.


1. Michio, Matsumaru, “Sei-shū seidōki seisaku no haikei, Tōkyō daigaku tōyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 東京大學東洋文化研究所紀要 72 (1977), 1128Google Scholar (hereafter, all citations are to this source); reprinted in, Sei-shū seidōki to sono kokka , ed. Michio, Matsumaru (Tokyo: Tokyō daigaku, 1980), 11136Google Scholar. It is necessary to make clear that by the term tongmingqi I refer to bronzes with relatively long and textually complex inscriptions, even though I fully recognize that there is no clear-cut line to define length and complexity. Short inscriptions, sometimes only one or two words (or emblems), which can be found in identical forms on dozens of bronzes, are excluded from my discussion.

2. The Huan you was first recorded in Rongguang, Wu 吳榮光, Junqingguan jinshi wenzi 箱清館金石文字 (woodblock, ed.; Guilin: 1842), 2.44Google Scholar, and then appeared in many other works. In contrast, the Huan zun first appeared in Wu Shifen 吳式棄, Jungu lu 捃古錄 (woodblock ed.; Haifeng: compiled 1850), 2.49, but was excluded thereafter from all books until the publication of Jun, Huang 黃濱, Zunguzhai suojian jijintu chuji 尊古齋所見吉金圖初集 (Beiping: 1936), 1.36Google Scholar.

3. See Matsumaru, , “Sei-shū seidōki,” 40, 84112Google Scholar. For the function of spacers and their importance in authenticating Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, see also Shaughnessy, Edward L., Sources of Western Zhou History: Inscribed Bronze Vessels (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 5862Google Scholar. Zhang Shixian 張世賢 has suggested that small spacers could be displaced in the pouring of the molten bronze such that they would lie behind (i.e., underneath) the strokes of the cast-in characters (in an X-ray photograph of the inscription area, the characters would appear to intersect the spacer). In his article, Zhang also included sample-bronzes from the Eastern Zhou period and even some from the Han Dynasty on which spacers were still applied. See Shixian, Zhang, “Cong Shang Zhou tongqi de neibu tezheng shilun Mao Gong ding de zhenwei wenti” 從商周銅器的內部特徵試論毛公鼎的眞僞問題, Gugong jikan 故宮季刊 16.4 (1982), 55–77 (see especially, 6162)Google Scholar. However, as long as the proper relation is attested on a great number of scientifically excavated bronzes, indicating the continuation of using spacers to protect inscriptions throughout the Western Zhou, the cases described by Zhang should only be treated as a technical defect. When it occurred, either the particular stroke or the spacer should be invisible on the inscribed surface of the cast bronze, though the intersecting of the spacer by the character might be visible on the X-ray photograph. On the other hand, some Western Zhou bronzes may not even contain spacers, for instance, when bronzes were cast with thicker walls. Indeed, the criterion does not require that every Western Zhou bronze contain spacers, but an inscribed bronze vessel with patterned spacers is most likely an authentic ancient vessel. As for bronzes from later periods, since inscriptions were no longer cast, this criterion no longer applies. The proper spatial relationship between characters and spacers still stands as the most effective criterion that we have in authenticating Western Zhou bronze inscriptions.

4. Matsumaru, , “Sei-shū seidōki,” 1031Google Scholar. For an English discussion of the problem of the Huan zun, see Shaughnessy, , Sources of Western Zhou History, 174–75Google Scholar.

5. weiyuanhui, Shaanxi sheng wenwu guanli, “Shaanxi sheng Yongshou xian Wu-gong xian chutu Xi Zhou tongqi” 陝西省永壽縣武功縣出土西周銅器 Wenwu 文物 1964.7, 2027Google Scholar. According to the report, in the survey carried out after the discovery the local archaeologists determined that the bronzes were found in a spot less than one meter below the surface, around which was undisturbed natural soil. Thus, they supposed that the bronzes were not from a tomb. Since later excavations have shown that Western Zhou bronzes were sometimes deposited in hastily prepared pits, their provenance neither proves nor disproves the authenticity of these bronzes.

6. For instance, Shirakawa Shizuka 白川靜 says that it can be judged at first glance as a forged inscription; see Shizuka, Shirakawa, “Kinbun tsūshaku” 金文通釋, Hakutsuru bijutsukan shi 白鶴美術館誌 (19621983) 21:120.509Google Scholar. On the other hand, Wu Zhenfeng 吳鎭烽 claims to have been able to observe traces of knife-carving in the strokes of the inscription and some strokes cross-cutting the surface of a spacer; see Zhenfeng, Wu, “Shi Yun gui gai mingwen bianwei” 自帀瘦簋蓋銘文辨僞, Renwen zazhi 人文雜誌 1981.6, 9396Google Scholar. However, since Wu did not provide a photograph showing such detail, it is difficult to judge the validity of his observation. Professor Qiu Xigui 裘鍚圭 has rejected Wu's thesis; see Xigui, Qiu, “In-Shū kodai moji ni okeru shōtai to zokutai in Shinpojiumu; Chūgoku komonji to In-Shū bunka: kōkotsubun-kinbun o megutte (Tokyo: Tō;hō, 1989), 9697Google Scholar.

7. Matsumaru, , “Sei-shū seidōki,” 5661Google Scholar.

8. yanjiusuo, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaoguet al., “Beijing Liulihe 1193 hao damu fajue jianbao” 北京琉璃河1193號大墓發掘簡報, Kaogu 考古 1990.1, 2031Google Scholar.

9. Shiji (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1982), 34.1550Google Scholar.

10. See Shaughnessy, Edward L., “The Duke of Zhou's Retirement in the East and the Beginning of the Minister Monarch Debate in Chinese Political Philosophy,” Early China 18 (1993), 4172CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. See Zonggan, Xu 徐宗韓, Jiningzhou jinshizhi 濟寧州金石志 (woodblock, ed.; Minzhong: 1845), 1.1016Google Scholar. For a discussion of the discovery and related issues, see also a, “A Group of Early Western Chou Period Bronze Vessels,” Ars Orientalis 10 (1975), 111–21Google Scholar.

12. The no. 1 Yanhou Zhi ding 燕侯旨鼎 was first recorded by Zou An between 1915–1921, and it now belongs to the Sumitomo collection in Kyoto, Japan. See An, Zou 齧!5安, Zhou jinwen cun 周金文存 (Guangcang xuequn, 19151921), supp.2Google Scholar. The no. 2 Yanhou Zhi ding was first recorded by Zuyin, Pan 潘祖蔭 in his Pangulou yiqi kuanzhi 攀古樓彝器款識 (woodblock, ed.; Beijing: 1872), 1415Google Scholar.

13. Early excavations of the site are reported in yanjiusuo, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaoguet al., “Beijing fujin faxian de Xi Zhou nuli xunzang mu” 北京附近發現的西周奴隸夠葬墓, Kaogu 1974.5, 309–21Google Scholar; yanjiusuo, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaoguet al., “1981–1983 nian Liulihe Xi Zhou Yan guo mudi fajue jianbao” 1981–1983 年琉璃河西周燕國墓地發掘簡報, Kaogu 1984.5, 404–16Google Scholar; yanjiusuo, Beijing shi wenwu, Liulihe Xi Zhou Yan guo mudi 琉璃河西周燕國墓地(Beijing: Wenwu, 1995)Google Scholar. See also, yanjiusuo, Beijing shi wenwu, Beijing kaogu sishi nian 北京考占四十年 (Beijing: Yanshan, 1995), 4043Google Scholar.

14. See Weizhang, Yin, “Xin chutu de Taibao tongqi jiqi xiangguan wenti” 新出土的太保銅器及其相關題, Kaogu 1990.1, 6769Google Scholar; Weizhang, Yin and Shuqin, Cao 曹淑琴, “Zhou chu Taibao qi zonghe yanjiu” 周初太保器綜合硏究, Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1991.1, 2Google Scholar. Severe criticisms against Yin's reading have been made by Chen Ping 陳平, who points out that if ke is read as “can” or “be able,” the object of phrase 3 is missing, but the verb ling 令 clearly requires one. Furthermore, Chen points out that in Yin's reading the whole structure of the inscription becomes, “the king said: herewith makes [this] treasured sacrificial vessel,” which is totally incomprehensible. See Ping, Chen, “Ke lei, Ke he mingwen jiqi youguan wenti” 克罃、克盍銘文及其有關問題, Kaogu 1991.9, 847, 851Google Scholar.

15. See Anonymous, , “Beijing Liulihe chutu Xi Zhou youming tongqi zuotan jiyao” 北京琉璃河出土西周有銘銅器座談紀要, Kaogu 1989.10, 957Google Scholar; and Yachu, Zhang, “Taibao lei, he mingwen de zai tantao” 太保罃、盔銘文的再探討, Kaogu 1993.1, 62Google Scholar. As Chen Ping has noted, Zhang's reading results in a fragmentary “command” by the king (phrase 2); see Chen Ping, “Ke lei, Ke he mingwen,” 851. Zhang's reading is unnatural in two additional points: first, Zhang produces a run-on sentence embracing both phrases 3 and 4 (the subject word ke in phrase 4 is read as “can,” “be able”) and containing as many as seven verbs; second, the caster never mentions his name in his own words.

16. See Anonymous, , “Beijing Liulihe chutu Xi Zhou youming tongqi,” 954–55Google Scholar.

17. The first is the Kanghou gui 康侯簋 inscription, which mentions briefly that the king commanded Kanghou Tu 康侯圖, who is believed to be the Kangshu Feng 康叔封 of traditional texts, to be the marquis of the state of Wei 衛. The second is the Yihou Ze gui 宜侯矢簋 inscription, discovered in 1954 in Dantu 丹徒, Jiangsu, which records the king's announcement to grant the state of Yi 宜. See Mengjia, Chen 陳夢家, “Xi Zhou tongqi duandai (I)” 西周銅器斷代, Kaogu xuebao 1955.9, 161–67Google Scholar.

18. The inscriptions of the vessel parts of the lei and he are not published.

19. See Xigui, Qiu, Wenzi xue gaiyao 文字學概要 (Beijing: Shangwu, 1988; preface dated 1984), 48Google Scholar. In the Yomiuri symposium in Tokyo in 1987, Professor Qiu formally addressed the issue of orthodox style and conventional style with respect to two Western Zhou inscriptions, the Shi Yun gui 師瘼蓋 and the Ge Bo gui 格伯墓; see Xigui, Qiu, “In-Shū kodai moji,” 81–97, 108Google Scholar. In response to Professor Matsumaru, Qiu noted that the forms in question should be precisely termed sutizi 俗體字, or conventional style characters, see Shinpojiumu (with Takayasu, Higuchi 樋口隆康, Xueqin, Li 李學勤, Xigui, Qiu, Michiharu, Itō 伊藤道治, Michio, Matsmaru), in Shinpojiumu: Chūgoku komonji to In-Shū bunka: kōkotsubun-kinbun 0 megutte, 191–93Google Scholar. Although Pro-fessor Qiu provided a large number of examples to demonstrate “conventional style,” he did not theoretically define the criteria for “conventional style characters.” If we are to apply the concept of “conventional style characters” to Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, I would specify two basic conditions that a “conventional style charac-ter” should meet in addition to being a simplification of an orthodox form: evidence of wide acceptance, and being in accordance with a certain structuring principle.

20. See Weizhang, Yin, “Xin chutu de Taibao tongqi,” 66.Google Scholar

21. The term juesi 厥嗣 is written in the Ke lei inscriptions, but is written in the Ke he inscriptions. The latter is reminiscent of the term yousi 有嗣 in other inscriptions. However, in all cases yousi is written . I think that in the Ke he inscription is clearly a miswriting of .

22. There are other cases of low quality inscriptions among scientifically excavated bronzes; e.g. the two Jingji ding 井姬鼎 vessels excavated from the tomb of the Earl of Yu 漁伯 in Baoji 寶雞, Shaanxi. See Liancheng, Lu 盧連成 and Zhisheng, Hu 胡智生, Baoji Yu guo mudi 寶雞漁國墓地 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1988), 263370Google Scholar. However, neither of them is comparable to the Ke he inscription in terms of the number of miswritten characters or of the historical importance of the inscription.

23. Professor Matsumaru and I discussed the nature of the Ke inscriptions in 1990, and we held the same view. Matsumaru notes that the Ke inscriptions are similar to that of the Shi Yun gui. See Michio, Matsumaru, Kōkotsubun-kinbun 甲骨文金文 (Tokyo: Nigensha, 1990), 54Google Scholar.

24. We have to consider the possibility that the original inscription was cast on multiple bronzes including the extant Ke lei. The inscriptions of the Ke he might have been copied from a third bronze that was originally in tomb no. 1193, but was looted. Besides, we can not exclude the possibility that the Ke he inscriptions were reproduced from an earlier text on some other medium, e.g., bamboo strips. However, since such a source is not present, I basically consider them to be reproductions of earlier inscriptions on bronzes.

25. This is partly based on my personal observations in 1987 when the newly un-earthed Ke lei and Ke he were displayed at the annual meeting of the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing.

26. See Liancheng, Lu and Zhisheng, Hu, Baoji Yu guo mudi, 36, pl, 10.3Google Scholar.

27. bowuguan, Liaoning shenget al., “Liaoning Kezuo xian Beidongcun faxian Yin dai qingtongqi” 遼寧喀左縣北洞村發現殷代青銅器, Kaogu 1973.4, 226, pls. 6–7Google Scholar.

28. bowuguan, Shaanxi shenget al., “Shaanxi Qishan Hejiacun Xi Zhou muzang” 陝西岐山賀家村西周墓葬, Kaogu 1976.1, 3138, pl. 1.2Google Scholar; Shaojia, Duan 段紹嘉, “Jie-shao Shaanxi sheng bowuguan dejijian qingtongqi” 介紹陝西省博物館的幾件青銅器, Wenwu 文物 1963.3, 4345, pl. 15.7Google Scholar.

29. Minao, Hayashi, In-Shū jidai seidōki no kenkyū (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1984), vol. 1, 290–91Google Scholar.

30. For the Chenchen he, see Geng, Rong 容庚, Shanzhai yiqi tulu 善齋彝器圖錄 (Beiping: Harvard-Yenching Institute, 1936) 107Google Scholar. For the he from tomb no. 1 in Bai-caopo, see wenwudui, Gansu sheng bowuguan, “Gansu Lingtai Baicaopo Xi Zhou mu” 甘肅靈台白草坡西周墓, Kaogu xuebao 1977.2, pl. 7Google Scholar.

31. Hayashi, , In-Shū jidai seidōki, vol. 1, 208Google Scholar.

32. Shou, Chen 陳壽, “Taibao gui de fuchu he Taibao zhuqi” 太保簋的復出和太保諸器, Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物 1980.4, 2628Google Scholar; Wan, Yan 晏琬, “Beijing, Liaoning chutu qingtongqi yu Zhou chu de Yan” 北京遼寧出土青銅器與周初的燕, Kaogu 1975.5, 278Google Scholar; See also Shirakawa, , “Kinbun tsūshaku,” 8:39. 421–24Google Scholar.

33. dui, Shaanxi sheng Zhouyuan kaogu, “Shaanxi Fufeng Qijia shijiu hao Xi Zhou mu 陝西扶風齊家十九號西周墓, Wenwu 1979.11, pl. 1.4Google Scholar.

34. Gongrou, Chen and Changshou, Zhang, “Yin Zhou qingtong rongqi shang niao-wen de duandai yanjiu” 殷周青銅容器上鳥紋的斷代研究, Kaogu xuebao 1983.3, 269Google Scholar.

35. Textually and calligraphically identical inscriptions are very common among Western Zhou bronzes, especially on ding and gui vessels cast in a multiple number.

36. For example, Chenchen he 臣辰盖, Chenchen you 臣辰 and Chenchen zun 臣辰尊; Qian you 遣卣 and Qian zun 遣尊; Qin ding 禽鼎 and Qin gui 禽簋; Zhe fangyi 折方彝, Zhe zun 折尊, and Zhe gong 折觥; Ling fangyi 令方彝 and Li fangzun 令方尊; Li fangyi 盘力翁 and Li fangzun 愈方尊.For these inscriptions, see: yanjiusuo, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu, Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng 殷周金文集成 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1984- ), 5421–22, 5999, 9454, 5402, 5992, 6013, 6002, 6016Google Scholar; yanjiusuo, Shaanxi sheng kaoguet al., Shaanxi chutu Shang Zhou qingtongqi 陕西出土商周青銅器 (Beijing: Wenwu, 19791984), 2.28–33, 3.183–84, 187–91Google Scholar; Shirakawa, , “Kinbun tsūshaku,” 3:10.103–10, 5:17.197–205, 6:25.277–309, 7:30.339–50Google Scholar.

37. In recent studies of oracle-bone inscriptions, the simultaneous co-existence of different calligraphy is fully recognized and taken seriously as evidence to define groups of inscriptions. But in the study of bronze inscriptions, calligraphic variation is often mentioned only as an indication of long term change in the inscriptions. Recently, a theory of “Palace-style” inscriptions has been proposed by Matsumaru Michio, who thinks that the inscriptions of the Hu gui 數蓋, Hu zhong 親鐘, and the Song gui 公買蓋 represent a single calligraphic tradition in the Late Western Zhou court. See Matsumaru, , Kōkotsubun-kinbun, 33Google Scholar. To date, no one has demonstrated the co-existence of different calligraphy in the same period, which is my task here.

38. wenhuaguan, Qishanxianet al, “Shaanxi sheng Qishanxian Dongjiacun Xi Zhou tongqi jiaoxue fajue jianbao” 陕西省岐山縣董家村西周銅器窖穴發掘簡報, Wenwu 1976.5, 2644Google Scholar. The best presentation of these bronzes is: yanjiusuo, Shaanxi sheng kaoguet al., Shaanxi chutu Shang Zhou qingtongqi, 1.196206Google Scholar.

39.V” is used for the vessel part of a bronze, and “Q” is used for the cover part of it.

40. For the date of the Ci bronzes, see wenhuaguan, Qishanxianet al., “Shaanxi sheng Qishanxian Dongjiacun Xi Zhou tongqi,” 29Google Scholar; See also, Hanyi, Xia 夏含夷, “Ci ding mingwen yu Xi Zhou wanqi niandai kao” 此鼎銘文與西周晚期年代考, Dalu zazhi 大陸雜誌 84.4 (1990), 1624Google Scholar.

41. yanjiusuo, Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu, Shangcunling Guo guo mudi 匕村嶺虢國墓地 (Beijing: Kexue, 1959), 37, pl. 56Google Scholar.

42. Kaoguxi, Beijing daxueet al., “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jinhou mudi dierci fajue” 天馬曲村遺址北趙晉侯墓地第二次發掘, Wenwu 1994.1, 432Google Scholar.

43. Lu Liancheng and Hu Zhisheng, Baoji Yu guo mudi, pls. 153–54.

44. See Bolu, Song 宋伯魯 and Hucheng, Yang 楊虎城, ed., Xuxiu Shaanxi tongzhi gao 續修陝西通志稿 (Xi'an: 1934), 165.5b–6aGoogle Scholar. However, Ke Changji 柯昌濟noted in 1916 that the vessels were from Chaoyi 朝邑, Shaanxi; see Changji, Ke, Weihuage jigulu bawei 鞾華閣集古錄跋尾 (Yuyuan, 1935; compiled 1916), 4.7bGoogle Scholar. See also An, Zou, Zhou jinwen cun, 3.154a–156a, supp. 3Google Scholar.

45. The vessel numbers are given after Zhichu, Sun 孫稚離, Jinwen zhulu jianmu 金文著錄簡目 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1981)Google Scholar. For the history of Du Bo xu no. 3, see An, Zou, Zhou jinwen cun, 3.13Google Scholar; Zhenyu, Luo 羅振玉, Zhensongtang jigu yiwen 貞松堂集古遺文 (woodblock, ed.; Liaodong: 1931; preface dated 1930), 6.43bGoogle Scholar; and yanjiusuo, Kaogu, Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, 9.14Google Scholar.

46. See yanjiusuo, Kaogu, Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, 9.1314Google Scholar.

47. See Chengyuan, Maet al., Shang Zhou qingtongqi mingwen xuan 商周青銅器銘文選 (Beijing: Wenwu, 19861988), 1.356Google Scholar.

48. Chengyuan, Maet al., Shang Zhou qingtongqi mingwen xuan, 1.324, 356Google Scholar. In this source, the no. 5 inscription is marked as on the vessel part and the no. 2 inscription is marked as on the cover of the same xu vessel. In Shang Zhou qingtongqi wenshi 商周青銅器紋飾, decor #808 is identified as on the vessel and decor #807 is identified as on the cover of a single xu vessel; see bowuguan, Shanghai, ed., Shang Zhou qingtongqi wenshi (Beijing: Wenwu, 1984), 281Google Scholar. As already mentioned, since the other two pieces of Du Bo xu (no. 4 and possibly no. 1) in the Shanghai Museum do not match each other, it is only the no. 5 and no. 2 that are considered by the museum's experts as a single Du Bo xu. Therefore, it is possible to identify decor #808 with no. 5, and decor #807 with no. 2 vessels.

49. Jun, Huang, Zunguzhai suojian jijintu, 2.17Google Scholar.

50. An, Zou, Zhou jinwen cun, supp. 3Google Scholar.

51. For the history of transmission of Shi Dui gui no. 1, see Zhenyu, Luo, Zhensongtang jigu yiwen, 6.18bGoogle Scholar; Chenggan, Liu 劉承餘,Xigulou jinshi cuibian 希古樓金石萃編 (woodblock, ed.; Wuxing: 1933), 3.33aGoogle Scholar; Tizhi, Liu 劉體智, Shanzhai jijin lu 善齋吉金錄 (woodblock, ed.; Shanghai: 1934), 7.9394Google Scholar. Rong Geng mentions that he saw the manuscript of Liu's Shanzhai jijin lu in Spring 1931, which indicates that Shi Dui gui no. 1 had already entered Liu's hands by that time; see Rong Geng, Shanzhai yiqi tulu, preface.

52. Zhenyu, Luo, Zhensongtang jigu yiwen, 6.17bGoogle Scholar; Tizhi, Liu, Shanzhai jijin lu, 7.9596Google Scholar.

53. Liu placed the inscription on the vessel part of Shi Dui gui no. 1 in front of the inscription on the cover of the same gui vessel. Then, Liu placed inscription no. 2C in front of inscription no. 2V. See Tizhi, Liu, Shanzhai jijin lu, 7.9396Google Scholar.

54. Moruo, Guo, Liang Zhou jinwenci daxi tulu kaoshi 兩周金文辭大系圖錄考釋 (Tokyo: Bunkyūdō, 1935), 147Google Scholar. As illustrated in Fig. 21, the inscription area of no. 2C is obviously smaller than the other three Shi Dui gui inscriptions. There are also characteristics of small-seal 小繁 calligraphy in the inscription, most evident on characters such as dui 党 (lines 3, 6), yi 邑 (line 5), nai 乃 (line 6), and gui 蓋 (line 8). Most forms in inscription no. 2C are almost identical with those of inscription no. IV, to an extent that we cannot find among genuine inscriptions.

55. Tizhi, Liu, Xiao jiaojingge jinwen taben (Shanghai: preface dated 1935), 8.80b–8.81bGoogle Scholar.

56. In his Shanzhai yiqi tulu, Rong Geng placed the four inscriptions in the same order as given by Liu Tizhi in Shanzhai jijin lu. Rong further noted that the inscription (no. 2 V) included in Zhensong tang jigu yiwen by Luo Zhenyu is the inscription on the cover part of Shi Dui gui no. 2. This indicates that Rong initially considered the cover inscription of Shi Dui gui no. 2 to be genuine, and its vessel inscription forged. See Geng, Rong, Shanzhai yiqi tulu, 19, 7475Google Scholar. Later, in his Shang Zhou yiqi tongkao 商周葬器通考, Rong Geng noted that the cover inscription of Shi Dui gui no. 2 is a forgery; see Geng, Rong, Shang Zhou yiqi tongkao (Beiping: Yenching University, 1941), 219Google Scholar. The latter view is followed by Zhang Guangyu 張光浴 who, then, thinks that Rong Geng was wrong in the first place; see Guangyu, Zhang, Weizuo Xianqin yiqi mingwen shuyao 僞作先秦彝器銘文疏要 (Hong Kong: 1974), 403–4Google Scholar.

I have recently consulted with Chen Peifen 陳偎芬 of the Department of Bronzes, Shanghai Museum, where the Shi Dui gui vessels are now stored. She indicates that inscription no. 2C is on the cover and inscription no. 2V is on the vessel part of Shi Dui gui no. 2. However, the rubbing of inscription no. 2V from the Kōsai 弘齋 collection (Fig. 21, no. 2V) shows the sharp turning line on the surface encircling the inscription area (the line appears white on the rubbing), a phenomenon that rarely appears on the vessel part of gui vessels. The Kōsai 20 sandai kikin moji 弘齋藏三代吉金文字 is an unpublished collection of rubbings of bronze inscriptions currently in the possession of the Institute of Humanities, Kyoto University. I have recently learned that it was originally Chen Qian's 陳乾 (Hongzhai 弘齋) collection that was bought by Naitō Torajirō 內藤虎次郎 (Konan 湖南) and then entered the Institute of Humanities. See Takeo, Hibino 日比野丈夫, “Naitō sensei no kinseki takuhon” 內藤先生Φ金石拓本, Naitō Konan zenshū geppō 內藤湖南全集月報 (1970), 78Google Scholar. Two additional points should be noted regarding Shi Dui gut no. 2. First, there had been four different rub-bings of the genuine inscription on the vessel of Shi Dui gui no. 2 before the publication of Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng. By contrast, there was only one rubbing of its forged cover inscription, first printed in Liu's Shanzhai jijin lu and thereafter reprinted seven times. Second, the hand-drawing of Shi Dui gui no. 2 published by Liu Tizhi in his Shanzhai jijin lu (1934, compiled before Spring 1931) shows that its vessel part is decorated with qiequ wen 竊曲紋 however, the photograph taken by Rong Geng during his visit together with two other famous paleographers, Xu Zhongshu 徐中舒 and Shang Chengzuo 商承祚, to Liu's home in Shanghai in August 1931, and published in his Shanzhai yiqi tulu (1936), shows that the vessel part of Shi Dui gui no. 2 is decorated with double-circles, similar to that of Shi Dui gui no. 1. Rong later noted that the hand-drawing in Shanzhai jijin lu was the result of misconduct. See Tizhi, Liu, Shanzhai jijin lu, 7.95Google Scholar; Geng, Rong, Shanzhai yiqi tulu, 75, prefaceGoogle Scholar; and Geng, RongShang Zhou yiqi tongkao, 219Google Scholar.

I would like to note my thanks to Chen Peifen for her reponse regarding the position of the two inscriptions of Shi Dui gui no. 2, and to the Institute of Humanities, Kyoto University, for permitting the reproduction of the Kōsai rubbing in Fig. 21.

57. Statements of this theory are found in a series of writings by ProfessorBarnard, : “A Recently Excavated Inscribed Bronze of Western Chou Date,” Monumenta Serica 17 (1958), 3739CrossRefGoogle Scholar; New Approaches and Research Methods in Chin-Shih Hsueh,” Tōkyō daigaku tōyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 東京大學東洋文化硏究所紀要 19 (1959), 2331Google Scholar; Monumenta Serica 24 (1965), 418–24Google Scholar; and The Incidence of Forgery Amongst Archaic Chinese Bronzes,” Monumenta Serica 27 (1968), 166–67Google Scholar. A somewhat later reclarification of the theory and review of criticisms against it is given in Barnard, Noel, The Ch'u Silk Manuscript: Translation and Commentary (Canberra: The Australian National University, 1973), 2228Google Scholar. Objections to Barnard's theory are found in: Te-k'un, Cheng, Archaeology in China, vol.3: Chou China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 287–88Google Scholar; Te-k'un, Cheng, ‘The Inconstancy of Character Structure Writing in Chinese,” Journal of the institute of Chinese Studies of the Chinese University of Hong Kong 4.1 (1971), 137–70Google Scholar; Yan, Li 李梭, “Buci zhenren He zai tongban zhong zhi yiti” 卜辭貞人何在同版中之異體, Lianhe shuyuan xuebao 聯合書院學報 5 (19661967), 113Google Scholar; Guangyuan, Zhang 張光遠, “Xi Zhou zhongqi Mao Gong ding” 西周重器毛公鼎, Gugong jikan 故宮季刊 7.2 (1973), 170Google Scholar. For discussions of the matter, see also Sei-shū kinbun no bengi o megutte” 西周金文辨僞全, Kōkotsugaku 甲骨學, 11 (1976), 2168Google Scholar; Matsumaru, , “Sei-shū seidōki,” 8085Google Scholar; Shaughnessy, , Sources of Western Zhou History, 4344Google Scholar.

58. This case was noticed by Cheng Te-k'un; see Te-k'un, Cheng, “The Inconstancy of Character Structure,” 147Google Scholar. For the Shi Shi gut, see yanjiusuo, Zhongguo kexueyuan kaogu, Chang'an Zhangjiapo Xi Zhou tongqi qun (Beijing: Wenwu, 1965), 11–14, 17, pls. 7–8Google Scholar.

59. This case was noted by Hayashi Minao 林巳奈夫in a discourse on the authen-ticity of Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, in which most of the important Japanese scholars working on the subject participated. They arrived at the conclusion that al-though “the inconstancy of character structures” provides sufficient reason for being suspicious about the authenticity of a bronze inscription, it is invalid as a criterion to prove forgery; see “Sei-shū kinbun no bengi,” 32–33, 36, 40, 65–66. For the Jifu hu, see bowuguan, Shaanxi shenget al., Fufeng Qijiacun qingtongqi qun 扶風齊家村青銅器群 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1963) 710, pls. 3, 4Google Scholar.

60. For the provenance of the Duo You ding, see Xingnong, Tian 田醒農 and Zhongru, Luo 雒忠如, “Duo You ding de faxian jiqi mingwen shishi” 多友鼎的發現及其銘文試釋, Renwen zazhi 1981.4, 115–16Google Scholar. For a clear rubbing, see yanjiusuo, Kaogu, Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, 2835Google Scholar.

61. For the provenance of Bo Gongfu fu, see dui, Zhouyuan kaogu, “Zhouyuan chutu Bo Gongfu fu” 周原出土伯公父簠, Wenwu 1982.6, 8788Google Scholar. For a clear rubbing, see yanjiusuo, Shaanxi sheng kaogu, Shaanxi chutu Shang Zhou qingtongqi, 3.99Google Scholar.

62. For the provenance of the Shi Zai ding, see Zhenfeng, Wu 吳鎭烽 and Zhongru, Luo 雒忠如, “Shaanxi sheng Fufengxian Qiangjiacun chutu de Xi Zhou tongqi” 陝西省扶風縣强家村出土的西周銅器, Wenwu 1975.8, 57–58, 61, pl. 9.1Google Scholar. For a clear rubbing, see yanjiusuo, Kaogu, Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, 2830Google Scholar.

63. The vessel part of the Buqi gui is an unprovenanced piece discovered before 1886 and is now in the National Museum of Chinese History, Beijing, but its cover was excavated from a late Western Zhou tomb in Tengxian 腺縣, Shandong; see bowuguan, Teng-xian, “Tengxian Houjinggou chutu Buqi gui deng qingtongqi qun” 滕縣後荆溝出土不塑簋等青銅器群 Wenwu 1981.9, 2529Google Scholar. For a clear rubbing, see yanjiusuo, Kaogu, Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, 4328Google Scholar.

64. Kane, Virginia C., “Aspects of Western Zhou Appointment Inscription: The Charge, the Gifts, and the Response,” Early China 8 (19821983), 1415CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65. Moruo, Guo, Liang Zhou jinwenci, 90, 126Google Scholar; Shirakawa, , “Kinbun tsūshaku,” 21:115.466, 29:177.592Google Scholar.

66. Moruo, Guo, Liang Zhou jinwenci, 72Google Scholar; Shirakawa, , “Kinbun tsūshaku,” 24:137.166Google Scholar.