The section of the Xunzi called “Xing e” 性惡 (xing is bad) prominently and repeatedly claims that people's xing is bad. However, no other text in the Xunzi makes this claim, and it is widely thought that the claim does not express Xunzi's fundamental ideas about human nature. This article addresses the issue in a somewhat indirect way, beginning with a detailed examination of the text of “Xing e”: identifying a core text, removing a series of interpolations, analyzing the structure of the core text, and distinguishing between three positions that are defended there. This analysis shows that the claim that people's xing is bad is not really central to “Xing e.” More ambitiously, it supports the conclusion that Xunzi's ideas about people's xing changed over time. Though Xunzi did claim that people's xing is bad, he later abandoned the claim, and replaced it with an account of wei 偽 “artifice.”

Archaeological finds of the last several decades in China, Mongolia, and South Siberia encourage a reconsideration of the nature and extent of cultural exchange between Zhou China and the early nomads. This paper considers a number of object types, artistic techniques, motifs, and stylistic characteristics that are frequently associated with a nomadic origin but that have not previously been carefully discussed. These include the use of inlay; the bronze standard top and the belt hook; certain pictorial elements such as the animal combat; and naturalism and the pictorial rendition of narrative. The conclusions emerging from this consideration indicate the necessity of rethinking terminology used in discussions of the nomad world and of its artistic traditions.

The contribution of Qiu Xigui and Lin Yun to the debate over the proper dating of the Diviner Li-group inscriptions require a fundamental revision in oracle-bone periodization methodology. Starting with a review of Dong Zuobin's reasons for placing the Li-group inscriptions in his period IV, this article proceeds to consider the new information provided by the Xiaotun nandi oracle-bone inscriptions excavated in 1973 and by the discovery of the Fu Hao tomb in 1975. Li Xueqin's reason for dating the Diviner Li-group inscriptions as roughly contemporary with those of the Diviner Bin-group are summarized, followed by an account of the fuller discussions of Qiu and Lin. Qiu focuses in particular on the significant identity of personal names and specific events recorded in both inscription groups. The use of differing ancestral titles permits the division of the Li- and Bin-group inscriptions into different chronological segments and reveals that a significant percentage of the Diviner Bin-group inscriptions should be dated to the reign of Zu Geng. Lin's epigraphic approach allows him to conclude that the Diviner Dui-group inscriptions are earlier than those of the Diviner Li-group; hence the Dui-group must also precede the Bin-group. The presence of different diviner groups operating contemporaneously and for only portions of a king's reign leads to the conclusion that Dong Zuobin's periodization categories are now too vague. They should be replaced by the more precise categorization of diviner groups.

The inscription on the Li gui, a vessel unearthed in 1976 in Qishan county of Shaanxi province, by substantiating certain key assertions of traditional Chinese historiography, has once again focused attention on King Wu’s conquest of the Shang and his consequent establishment of the Zhou dynasty. It is the expectation, and ever increasing reality, of discovering ancient records, usually in the form of bone or bronze inscriptions, that makes the study of early China so vibrant and open to new interpretations.

The question whether the Xia and the Shang signify a relatively homogeneous culture or relatively distinct cultures is approached through efforts both to determine whether the late Erlitou culture dates to the final years of dynastic Xia or to the beginning of Shang and to identify, in turn, those early Bronze Age sites most likely to correspond to the first recorded Shang capitals. By contrasting traditional chronologies with the developmental sequences of artifacts, the author reaches the conclusion that the Bronze Age remains at Erlitou represent the late Xia culture and the discoveries at Zhengzhou, the period of the Bo capital. A close affiliation between the Shang and the Xia rulers in the time prior to the conquest, revealed by the Bamboo Annals, is shown to be consistent with the archaeological evidence which Indicates that the transition between the two dynastic periods was characterized primarily by continuous development, rather than by disruption or radical change. The proposal is also made that the most significant influence from the eastcoast cultures upon those of the Zhong Yuan may have occurred during Xia times, instead of during Shang.

The rule of surname exogamy, which has been an important feature of Chinese social organization down to recent times, seems to have originated with the Zhou dynasty. Its importance is symbolized in the myth of Jiang Yuan姜媚 or 姜原, the mother of Hou Ji后稷, Lord Millet, the ancestor of the Zhou kings, whose surname was Ji姬. Contrary to a view that has become popular, it is argued that Ji and Jiang could not have been the names of two originally separate peoples with different geographical origins that came together and formed an intermarrying alliance but were the names of the two leading, intermarrying, clans of a single people. After the Zhou conquest of Shang, marriage politics, which required the rulers of originally non-Chinese states to have clan names of the same kind, played an important part in gradually incorporating such states into the Zhou, Hua-Xia華夏, polity. The fact that the surnames Ji and Jiang were also found among peoples known as Rong 戎 who were not recognized as Hua-Xia but were probably also Sino-Tibetan in language seems to be consistent with traditional accounts of Zhou's northwestern origins. The words Ji and Jiang are probably etymologically related and although yang羊 “sheep” plays a phonetic role in the graphs of both the surname Jiang and the ethnic name Qiang 羌, Jiang and Qiang are two separate words and need not have anything to do with one another.

The Huainanzi text (淮南子 presented in 139 b.c.e. compiled by Liu An 劉安 179–122 b.c.e.), while defining itself as a political guide, is replete with references to Music (yue 樂) itself and music-related terms. While no chapter of the work’s twenty-one chapters is specifically dedicated to the subject of music, no single chapter of it is without musical references. This gives rise to the question: Which functions could music possibly have in such an overtly political text?

What this article will examine are the interactions between music and the social and political spheres in the Huainanzi. An analysis of the text’s musical references reveals an intriguing, multidimensional attitude toward music, touching upon moral discourse, discourse on political power, cosmological perceptions, and much more.

The article suggests a dual function of music in the text—on the one hand, music serves as a rhetorical tool for the authors of the Huainanzi, and on the other hand, it is a subject of discussion in its own right. For each of these functions of music, a model is proposed. The first model depicts the innovative musical conceptions of the Huainanzi; the second demonstrates how, through an analysis of musical references in the text, a model of sagely rulership is revealed. These models are illustrated and embodied in the human realm.

Addressing in part the arguments advanced by Morgan, and depending upon more recent anthropological studies from Madagascar, Sarawak, and elsewhere, it is argued in Part I that the evidence from Yangshao burials resembles that of many modern primitive peoples whose collective secondary burials were not defined by kin unit. The matrilineal view of Yangshao society is also challenged by the widespread existence of single-person burial, which appears to have both pre- and postdated, as well as co-existed with, the practice of collective burial. Similar comparative and contextual criticisms are brought to bear, in Part II, on the argument that Yangshao burial customs reveal the dominance of women. There was evidently no system in which children had to be buried with the mother, there is no evidence that the primary burial of women in multi-person collective burials was either common or prevalent, there is no evidence that single Yangshao female burials were generally more richly furnished with grave goods than those of single males. Finally, in Part III, it is shown that same-sex collective burials were rare; they reflect not social organization but the accident of several contemporary deaths. In short, none of the arguments for Yangshao matriliny are found to be adequate. At present, we lack an effective method for using burial customs to reconstruct social organization. The article ends by raising a series of methodological desiderata for future research.

This article is an introduction to and translation of the wall inscription “Zhaoshu sishi yueling wushitiao” dating to 5 C.E., which was recovered from the Xuanquanzhi site, located near Dunhuang, Gansu Province. “Zhaoshu sishi yueling wushitiao” is the sole known example of a Han edict in wall inscription form. It provides new information about the processes by which an edict was created and disseminated in late Western Han times, and about the nature and scope of seasonal governance. The core of this article is an annotated translation of the entire inscription. By way of introduction, the article includes an overview of the Xuanquanzhi excavation; a brief discussion of the people named in the inscription, their titles, and related events; and an examination of the parallels between the inscription and transmitted texts. The two appendices present a transcription of “Sishi yueling” in the original vertical format, and a table showing the correspondences between “Sishi yueling” and its transmitted parallels.

One important benefit of the Guodian and Shanghai Museum slips is the new insights they are providing in our understanding of the early intellectual evolution of classical Chinese philosophy. But there is a second important opportunity that the newly recovered documents provide. Beyond what is new in them, these same materials can be used to qualify, corroborate, and reiterate perhaps old but still undervalued insights into the interpretive context within which we construct our understanding of early China. Indeed, our best interpreters of classical Chinese philosophy are explicit in rejecting the idea that Chinese cosmology begins from some independent, transcendent principle and entails the metaphysical reality/appearance distinction and the plethora of dualistic categories that arise from such a worldview. In fact, the recently recovered Guodian materials provide us with both the resources and the occasion to revisit three related cosmological issues: What is distinctive about classical Chinese cosmogony and its notion of origins? What is the Chinese alternative to the assumptions about our own familiar creatio ex nihilo source of meaning? And how is “creativity” expressed in the Chinese philosophical vocabulary?

One of the medical manuscripts recovered from Tomb No. 3 at Mawangdui (dated 186 b.c.e.) states that, “When a person is born there are two things that need not to be learned: the first is to breathe and the second is to eat.” Of course it is true that all healthy newborn human beings possess the reflexes to breathe and eat. Yet, the implications of death should have been just as obvious to the ancient Chinese. Once the human brain ceases to function, there is no longer a biological need for oxygen and nourishment. Nevertheless, a large number of people in late pre-imperial and early imperial China insisted on burying food and drink with the dead. Most modern commentators take the deposition of food and drink as burial goods to be a rather trite phenomenon that warrants little reflection. To their minds both kinds of deposits were either intended to sustain the spirit of the deceased in the hereafter or simply a sacrifice to the spirit of the deceased. Yet, a closer look at the archaeological evidence suggests otherwise. By tracking the exact location of food and drink containers in late pre-imperial and early imperial tombs and by comprehensively analyzing inscriptions on such vessels in addition to finds of actual food, the article demonstrates that reality was more complicated than this simple either/or dichotomy. Some tombs indicate that the idea of continued sustenance coincided with occasional sacrifices. Moreover, this article will introduce evidence of a third kind of sacrifice that, so far, has gone unnoticed by scholarship. Such data confirms that sacrifices to spirits other than the one of the deceased sometimes were also part of funerary rituals. By paying close attention to food and drink as burial goods the article will put forth a more nuanced understanding of early Chinese burial practices and associated notions of the afterlife.

This essay introduces the newly published Qin documents from levels 5, 6, and 8 of Well no. 1, Liye, Hunan province, the ancient Qianling County of the Qin dynasty, as presented in two 2012 works, Liye Qin jian (yi) 里耶秦簡 (壹) and Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (di yi juan) 里耶秦簡牘校釋 (第一卷), ed. Chen Wei 陳偉, together with some of the documents on display in the Liye Qin jian bowuguan (Liye Museum of Qin Slips). It discusses some of the problems in those two publications, the nature of the documents; dating issues; military logistics; the Qin legal system as revealed in the documents, especially those relating to fines and punishments, rewards, rations for convicts, status distinctions and the purchase of rank, forms for writing up documents, and Qin ordinances (ling 令); and materials relating to the religious activities of local officials in Qianling County. It concludes by offering a speculation on why the documents were thrown into the well as the Qin dynasty began to crumble.

Three related but independent propositions are put forward and investigated: (1) a revised version of a theory of the Old Chinese rhymes based on the assumption that there were only two rhyme vowels, ∕ə∕ and ∕a∕, and eighteen final consonants, namely, labials -p, -m, dentals -t, -n, -l, -s, velars -k, -ŋ, -ɤ, palatals, -kj, -ŋj, -j, labiovelars -kw, -ŋw, -w, and palatolabiovelars -kɥ, -ŋɥ, -ɥ (as found in the modern Fuzhou dialect); (2) a revised version of a theory that the ten Heavenly Stems and twelve Earthly Branches originated as phonograms naming acrophonically the initial consonants of the Chinese language at the time of their invention, the consonants being the same as those reconstructed finally, with the addition of the fricatives x-, xj-, xw-, xɥ-;(3) a hypothesis to explain the calendrical use of these signs on the assumption that the Stems were chosen, as far as possible, from signs with the same initial consonants as the numerals from one to ten, while the remaining twelve signs were treated as a supplementary series of twelve.

The “Duo You ding,” discovered in 1980 in Chang'an county, Shaanxi, contains a 270-graph inscription recording a major battle between Zhou and Xianyun chariotry. In addition to presenting a complete translation of the inscription, this paper attempts to specify the date of the events narrated. The argument is developed along three lines of inquiry. First, it is shown that personal names mentioned in the inscription require that the events took place shortly after the tenth year of King Xuan's reign (i.e., 818 B.C.). Second, evidence from other bronze inscriptions is adduced to show that there was fighting between the Zhou and Xianyun in the years 816-15, suggesting that the battle described in the “Duo You ding” may have been part of this larger warfare. Third, comparison of internal calendrical notations in the inscription with other evidence for the calendrical significance of Zhou victory celebrations not only confirms the first two conclusions but also allows the date to be specified as the tenth month of 816 B.C. Finally, all of this information is correlated to give a rough outline of the Zhou-Xianyun war and to suggest some of its historical significance.

This article compares several post-1950s translations of the Liezi, and examines the concept of originality, the degrees of closeness to the original text a modern translation can achieve, and how this “faithfulness” can be understood. I first discuss how the problem of the Liezi's originality has negatively influenced critics' and translators' perception of the text's significance, then compare its different translations to show their specific translational and interpretational problems. Finally, I reflect on the overarching methodological question that frames my comparisons of translations, namely, why compare? I argue that comparing translations cannot be a means to ascertain the best translation, because both concepts of originality and faithfulness are multiple in meaning rather than singularly defined. Instead of measuring translations in terms of “fidelity,” a more insightful practice would be discovering the insights different translations offer into the relationships between the original and translated texts, source and target languages, as well as questioning the construction of texts as “original source texts” through translation by recognizing the potential fluidity and multiplicity of the source text itself.

The foundation of Chinese intellectual history is a group of texts known as “masters texts” (子書). Many masters texts were authored in the Han dynasty or earlier and many of these have as their title the name of a master who was generally regarded as the author. The inclination to treat a given book as the product of a single writer is apparently a strong one. Nevertheless, from the very beginning there were Chinese scholars who doubted the veracity of the putative authorship of some of these works and suggested that they may in fact have been the product of several authors. Over time, such scholars developed criteria by which to judge the authenticity of ancient masters texts. But as such textual criticism grew more penetrating, the object of its scrutiny began to come apart at the seams. In the last two decades there has been a growing consensus that most early Chinese masters texts were originally quite permeable and that only later were their received forms settled upon.

The branch of textual criticism that deals with authenticating early Chinese texts is called “Authentication studies.” This paper is a survey of the methodological advances made in the field of Authentication studies over the last two millennia. It is not a history of the field, as such a history would be a much longer project. The survey concludes with the idea of the “polymorphous text paradigm,” a paradigm that paradoxically obviates much of the preceding scholarship in its own field. Simply put, if authentication relies largely on anachronism, and anachronism relies largely on the dates of the putative author, then a multi-author work with no known “last author” will be impossible to authenticate. Furthermore, the polymorphous text paradigm does not posit these texts as necessarily having earlier and later “layers,” but rather as having had no set structure over the course of their early redactional evolution.

This survey examines the contributions of seventeen scholars to Authentication studies methodology, and concludes with how the changes in this field have influenced the work of three modern, Western scholars.