1. In this short appraisal of the nature and the validity of the evidence that has been brought to bear on the subject, I shall not refer to the second paper (Louisa G. Fitzgerald Huber, “The Relationship Between the Painted Pottery and Lung-shan Cultures”) until later in the discussion. It would be more convenient to assess the arguments relating mainly to technical aspects of the relevant processes of manufacture first, then gradually shift our attention to wider issues.

2. This statement, of course, takes into account the limited tooling and polishing of bronzes following their release from the molds. Abrasion traces resulting from the application of implements fashioned from stones with various abrasive characteristics are often easily discerned in areas where such post-cast manipulations would be required. Eradication of casting fins would be the major purpose of such tooling and polishing. Thin spicules of metal along the edges of decoration which resulted from fine incisions made in the casting surface of clay molds, e.g., the outline cutting of lei-wen filling with removal of surplus clay between the cuts (cf. Gettens, R.J., The Freer Chinese Bronzes, Technical Studies [1979], p. 118, Fig. 147Google Scholar) would likewise need to be eradicated by simple polishing procedures. Activities of this kind are to be classed only as “finishing”; they are not a form of metal-working. The alleged presence of primitive hammered implements in the. Huang-niang-niang-t'ai site, Wu-wei , Kansu (KKHP 1960.2:60) is rejected; see Lin-sheng, Kao, KK 1962.2:99Google Scholar. Interestingly, in the latest reported diggings at this site (4th season, KKHP 1978.4:436) one of two knives excavated (T18:6) is described as “hammered.” This, too, must be questioned pending laboratory examination of the item.

3. This vessel, I have been given to understand, is no longer in the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, and quite some time ago was “returned to Peking.” I was in Stockholm for a few days following the Moes-gard Symposium (21-25 November 1978) and naturally, amongst other requests, asked to see this ceramic piece.

4. Although An gives no bibliographical data, it seems certain enough that he has in fact followed Bylin-Althin's article. It is interesting to note also his reference to an example of the 1i-ho-kettle he uses the character kuei for this vessel type - in the Hsi-Ch'ing ku-chien (see 32:16a) which is a bronze version of the Lung-shan ceramic types (see our Figure 9). The authenticity of the Hsi-Ch'ing vessel would naturally be a matter for consideration; however, if vessels of this kind should come to light and can be dated to Middle Shang or earlier, they would usefully demonstrate the propensity of the early founders to copy extant ceramic shapes. Early this year a short survey dealing with this li-ho (or kuei) type by wang-p'ing, Chao, “T'ung-kuei ti k'ai-shih” (WW 1980.2:86–89) appearedGoogle Scholar. He discusses the possibility that excavated pottery kuei from such Shantung Lung-shan Culture sites as Ta-wen-k'ou , might be connected with the Eastern Yi-barbarians (on this point see also Hsin-chien, Liu and Hua, Fan, “Ts'ung t'ao-kuei t'an-ch'i” Ku-kung yüan-k'an 1979.2:45, 87)Google Scholar, while the Hsi-ch'ing bronze li-no may be taken to indicate that bronze founding () was already practiced circa 2100-1500 B.C. in the area. This latter point is, of course, open to question not only because of the lack of data on the provenance of the Hsi-Ch'ing vessel but also because the inscription in the vessel would suggest a date probably no earlier than Late Shang. However, Chao is on the right track in believing that such bronze li-ho are renderings of extant pottery originals. This propensity, in the early stages of Chinese metallurgy, will be discussed at greater length later in the present paper.

5. I regret the necessity of having to point out here the somewhat careless reading of this footnote by Bagley in his note 46, p. 198, in his survey (1977) shortly to be cited. He writes: “Much the same position [against the wrought metal hypothesis] is taken by Noel Barnard, even though (following Sekino Takeshi) he notes the smithied character of the li-ho type (…p. 8, n. 9).” This statement of my opinion is not accurate and is misleading. I most decidedly have not followed Sekino or “noted the smithied character of the li-ho type.” On the contrary, I have stated in plain English: “They are quite definitely not wrought bronze work, in whole or in vpart.” Then later in my footnote in regard to an example in the Berlin Museum which I have not personally examined (this point is stressed) but which Sekino has described in detail, I have stated: “Certain aspects of the Berlin piece understandably would suggest smithy work the neck and handle in particular.” Read in the full context of my annotation it should be clear, however, that this sentence is merely my appraisal of why Sekino concluded that the three li-ho bronzes he studied presented evidence of metal-working.

6. There comes to mind immediately, however, the Middle Chou yi-ewer in the National Gallery of Victoria Collection with precisely this feature; see, for example, Hsi-Ch'ing (1751/52), 32:24a; Ku-kung (1958), A.223; T'ung-k'ao 2 (1941), PI. 861; Hai-wai (1935), PI. 116, for similar pieces with the same features attending handles. The National Gallery of Victoria yi-ewer has remnant clay core in the legs which has been subjected to thermoluminescence tests and demonstrated to be datable circa 700 B.C. (see Mortlock, A.J., “The Thermoluminescence Dating of Ancient Chinese Bronzes” in Ancient Chinese Bronzes and Southeast Asian Metal and Other Archaeological Artifacts [1976, Barnard, Noel, Editor], p. 241, Table 2, item 5Google Scholar; also my forthcoming paper: “A Yi-ewer of Middle Chou Style in the Collection of the National Gallery of Victoria” to appear in The Artifact, the Archaeological Society of Victoria). Amongst properly attested bronze vessels there is at least one example which was unearthed in 1960 at T'ao-wu-chin , Chiang-ning , Kiangsu (see Kiangsu [1963], Pl. 81). In the same publication (Pl. 92) a rather curious p'an-basin-like yi-ewer provides a further example of the handle-type under discussion. The handle-type may be claimed to be somewhat rare but it is quite incorrect to assert that it is “never seen on any other vessel type.”

7. This statement is not quite correct. One of the bronze vessels, at least, has the “imitation rivets” which Bagley refers to here. This is the Berlin vessel fully described by Sekino (op. cit., p. 11). It is also reproduced in T'ung-k'ao 2 (1941), Pl. 486 this is the best published photo and the “rivets” show up well; see also Sheng-kao (1940), Pl. 22Google Scholar. There appear to be two “rivets” and both are located longitudinally along the top of the extended ledge.

Since writing this note I have been able to study (May, 1980) the three Plates in Kümmel's Chinesische Bronzen (Gesellschaft Für Ostasiatische Kunst 3. Jahresgabe. Berlin, 1928)Google Scholar two copies of which are in the Fogg Art Museum Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Plate 6 is most valuable for its detail on casting matters. What I took (and so, too, Sekino) to be “rivets… located longitudinally along the top of the extended ledge …” are, in fact, so far as I can judge from the low-angle view, raised elements which form the “eyes” (one “rivet” as seen in the profile view) and the “eye-brows” (the second “rivet”) of an animal-head with a nose-like ridge between (it would be very helpful to obtain a better view of the animal-head).

Although it is evident now that we cannot take these raised features to be “imitation rivets,” the preceding clarification of the raised features does, nevertheless, seem to shed some light on what the bronze founders who produced the Berlin vessel may have judged the pairs of small dome-like protrusions (see examples in Figure 6) on the upper sections of handles in the pottery versions they copied to represent.

8. In Metallurgical Remains, the spout is included amongst the several structural elements which I took to be indicative of ceramic copying of bronze originals (cast, of course) in Early Shang Erh-li-t'ou contexts — see caption to Figure 3. In view of what I have written above (and the more thorough checking just recently undertaken as to the validity of the spout as evidence of inspiration from metal spouted vessels), I acknowledge the fact that insufficient thought was given to the point when Fig. 3 was being compiled. The six Erh-li-t'ou examples cited in the Figure include, as stated in the caption: “structural elements presumably derived from metal prototypes manufactured at the same time but of which we presently possess no direct evidence.” However, that there might be a problem as to which medium (clay or metal) first incorporated certain of the elements in question was not fully appreciated at the time.

9. In his paper, “The Art of the Chinese Metalworker, distributed to the Symposium participants, Tom Chase cites four long paragraphs — “part of a long stimulating letter from Robert Bagley (1977b).” In the present survey I refer to some of the technical points included in these paragraphs. Other parts of the original letter, it would generally be assumed, would be for private rather than public reading. Such technical points as I refer to here (deriving from this source) were also read to the Symposium and made subject for discussion.

Regarding the term “crimping,” correction is necessary. The method of joining-together visualized here (common enough in the modern world and we see it daily in cans, children's toys, biscuit tins, etc.) is that of the “folding” and “locking” of seams (note the frequent misuse of the term “seam” in casting parlance where some writers employ it in reference to mold joins). “Locking” is effected on a “pipe” or “stake” with a “seaming tool.” If some such approach had been used in the hypothetical metal-worked li-ho to join the dome/spout unit and body together, one would expect a form of “collaring” as used, for example, in wrought iron work. “Crimping” has nothing to do with the joining of two metal edges (see Oppi Untracht, Metal Techniques for Craftsmen and L.W.D. Ball and A.L. Odell, Pictorial Text Book of Engineering for further details on all terms referred to here; the Concise Oxford Dictionary is very useful at times for such terms – note “crimping” and its associations with textiles, the fluting of cartridge cases, etc.). To avoid confusion hereafter, the term “crimping” in Bagley's incorrect usage is maintained but presented between inverted commas. In cited passages, of course, it remains as is.

10. A thought which has developed in recent years during the series of casting experiments conducted jointly with Wan Chia-pao and Ho Shih-k'un at the Academia Sinica, Nan-kang , Taipei (the first report, “The Casting of Inscriptions in Chinese Bronzes – with Particular Reference to those with Rilievo Guide-lines” appears in the Soochow University Journal of Chinese Art History 1 [Sept., 1976]:43–134)Google Scholar is that the natural tendency of the pottery clay to shrink as it dries, might have been utilized by the artisan in preference to the whittling down of the clay core surface. Degree of shrinkage may be controllable by varying the proportion of sand to clay, and possibly by other means. Appropriate experiments might lead to useful conclusions here.

11. Pottery facsimiles with such a curious handle structure do not appear either before, during, or after the period in which the bronze 1i-ho-kettles were manufactured. Obviously, it would not appeal functionally to the ceramist and such an unwieldy appurtenance would be easily broken. Handles would be placed in such an awkward position in cast bronze vessels for only two reasons –– (a) the horizontal mold division occurred there thus allowing provision for an extension of the ledge to form the upper part of the handle, and (b) the handle was required to join on to this extension of the ledge which was thickened slightly for technical reasons. The normal place to put the handle as evinced in most other vessel-types – would be lower down directly onto the vessel wall (see Figure 6). The problem facing us is simply to determine why the thickening and extension of the ledge was made in the bronze li-ho. It is not a ceramic problem; and in the case of wrought metal receptacles, it should be appreciated that provision of a flap extending from the rim for the express purpose of attaching the upper terminal of the handle to it by means of rivets, would require very unusual approach to construction. So unusual that one may justifiably doubt that a metal-working artisan would attempt so problematic and potentially ineffectual a method of join. The very fact that a search throughout an appreciably large corpus of relevant publications in the European and Middle East Bronze Age areas has been singularly unsuccessful in finding a single example of handle joins of this peculiar kind, leads one to suppose that no such method of metallurgical join was ever utilized in any metallurgical culture. Then in the Chinese ceramic scene, other than the Andersson vessel, those with “rivets” generally lack the “flap” element.

12. I have left the present paragraph exactly as written in the early draft. Later examination of the P'an-lung-ch'eng vessel at the Exhibition (through the display-case) and a re-examination of the two Brundage vessels (made directly on the vessels) has demonstrated that the tentative observation offered earlier above now has some real foundation. The paragraph preceding the present one, however, has been completely re-written these recent examinations, particularly of the two Brundage vessels, showed that appreciable revision would be required in places.

13. To state, as Bagley has done, that “(The lower end of the handle, which need not be so firmly joined to the vessel, would typically have been soldered on or secured by an adhesive. The spout would have been attached in the same way)” (see extract from the Bronze Age Catalogue in Postscript) is rather imaginative to say the least.

13a. See Postscript for more detailed reference to the relevant content of this sumptuously produced Catalogue covering the Exhibition of the same title currently on display in the USA. Very useful essays by Ma Ch'eng-yüan , Chang Kwang-shih , Robert L. Thorp, and others, and detailed notes on the bronzes and other items on exhibit by Robert W. Bagley, Jenny So, and Maxwell K. Hearn appear. A great deal of work has gone into the preparation of this publication and it contains much valuable information as well as numerous fine illustrations in color. Leaving aside the matters raised in the Postscript, I would be inclined to offer only one major critical observation in respect to the Bronze Age Catalogue as a whole: the unfortunate decision to employ the Quixotic p'in-yin romanization which makes the work both difficult and distracting to read. Those who were responsible for this decision should, I feel, have given greater thought to the unhappy effect the p'in-yin spellings have upon the general public (see my assessment of the p'in-yin problem in Barnard and Kwong-yue, CheungStudies in Chinese Archaeology, 1980 – Reports on Visits to Mainland China, Taiwan, and the USA; Participation in Conferences in these Countries; and some Notes and Impressions (in press, to appear circa May, 1981)Google Scholar.

14. In the preparation of Figure 8 I used as an example one of the P'an-lung-ch'eng ting-cauldrons, checking such photographic data that was then available in several Chinese Exhibition Catalogues. Usefully, the “Great Bronze Age of China Exhibition” at the Metropolitan Museum, had the same item (No. 4) on display and also the fang-ting, No. 11. Though the depth of focus of the former vessel photograph (Bronze Age Catalogue, p. 84) is not well achieved – and one can sympathize with the photographer's problem here – the rear view of one handle and the immediate rim surface alongside it demonstrates clearly enough the technical points made above. In his descriptive notes, however, Bagley has again pushed forward his wrought metal-working theories: “The outer half of the wide everted rim steps up slightly, as though the entire rim had been hammered out and then folded inward to give a smooth edge. This imitation in cast bronze of a feature rising from wrought-metal technology has already been noted in connection with the jue [chüeh] no. 1.” Earlier in the Bronze Age Catalogue (pp. 70-73) a more detailed description of mold preparation and casting method appears in relation to this vessel which is almost correct, so far as it goes, but marred by an inaccurate “schematic drawing” of the mold-assembly. The drawing lacks funnel-shaped pouring inlets such as would be required for pointed members of this kind – (see Figures 8, a and b); the minute entries provided for each leg would tax the efforts of a founder to run in the molten bronze! Further, the drawing lacks mortice/tenon style locking devices on the mold section edges.

15. “Edge thickening” is also known as “upsetting” or “swaging” and involves the striking of “the vessel edge with a light-weight collet hammer with light, over-lapping blows delivered directly against the edge at a right angle to the face of the hammer” (Oppi Untracht, p. 248). As to the antiquity in the West of the three methods of thickening, or reinforcing, the bowl edges noted above, I believe my statement to be correct in view of photographs of relevant items handy at the moment of writing.

The phrase “outwards and under” is emphasized above as this appears to be an almost universal rule in the West, and no doubt one dictated by technical considerations, i.e., the direction of forming the bowl is towards the mouth edge and flaring outwards, so the natural direction of folding along the edge (either a simple fold, or one to fold over reinforce wire) must be outwards and under.

There may be some ambiguity attending Bagley's identification of “folded rims.” I am not certain whether the thickened edges of the bronze li-ho rims are also covered by this term. If so, it would be necessary to point out that this feature in the bronze li-ho-kettle has nothing to do with wrought metal “folded” or “reinforced” rims, and it is not related to the mold/core parting-line which I have just discussed. It is either derived from a specifically ceramic aspect of rim construction a thickening of the material of the rim in order to maintain the stability (and strength) of the mouth, or it may be simply a decorative feature; in all probability it is a combination of both. In the case of the two Brundage li-ho, it may be noted, there is little or no thickening of the metal edge; the feature is effected simply by an intaglio line paralleling the edge.

16. Noticeably, the terms “cold working” and “cold hammering” do not appear in his published paper, while “annealing” appears once only and this in a cited passage in a footnote (p. 198, n. 46).

17. There is neither space nor time to consider here other technical matters which Bagley has touched upon in his article, e.g., cire-perdue, the origin of the flange, the significance of posts on such vessels as chüeh and chia. The implication is not that his observations are largely at fault but rather that some interesting points arise from them, in particular, the origin of flanges which I will take up later in another paper.

18. How the ancient founder could cast so thin-walled a vessel was the main theme and we could do little other than observe the fact that they were obviously able to do so. Earlier, before Cheung Kwong-yue and I visited the Mainland in March, 1980, Kao Ch'ü-hsün , Director of the Institute of History and Philology, suggested I should keep an eye open for any evidence of metal-working in pre-Han bronzes. Later, after the International Conference on Sinology (August, 1980) organized by Academia Sinica at Nan-kang , both Tom Chase and I had an interesting session with Kao, Shih Chang-ju , Wan Chia-pao, and Ho Shih-k'un during the course of which fragments of a very thin-walled bronze yi-ewer SL with finely incised decor on the inside surfaces which came from the early digs at Hui-hsien were shown to us for comment on method of manufacture. Could this be an example of metal-working? Similar thin-walled vessels are known, e.g., a fragmentary yi-ewer in the Seattle Museum (Ch.6.86) and the well-known fragmentary Ch'ien-basin (1:73) similarly covered with incised decor in the inside wall, in Hul-hsien fa-chüeh pao-kao (1956), p. 116Google Scholar. The fragility of the vessels – the last one with contemporary brazed (?) repair traces (p. 115) suggests immediately cast manufacture rather than worked metal. Other details such as the nature of the thickened rim and the use of cast protruberances affixed “rivef-fashion to the vessel walls seem to indicate direct casting in molds. Laboratory examination is, of course, required to confirm these observations. It is from about this period (Ch'un-ch'iu/Chan-kuo) that the introduction of metal-working techniques may be expected to appear in China.

19. Over and above technical considerations such as those with which we are concerned here, attention would need to be drawn to a number of mishaps attending the inscription translations. However, these are not really relevant to the theme of the present survey and may receive attention elsewhere. So far as art-historical matters are concerned I have little expertise. But in view of the rather critical nature of my observations, it would be unfair to omit reference to the credit side of Bagley's contribution and a very large contribution it is to the Catalogue. Obviously, a great deal of effort has gone into the venture and a great deal of thought as to the significance of the materials on exhibit in their art-historical perspective.