李峪出土銅器及其相關之問題
高去尋遺著
Tu Cheng-sheng
Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica
“Li-yu Bronzes and Related Topics” (李峪出土銅器及其相關之問題) was the thesis written by my teacher Professor Kao Chu-hsun (高去尋) when he graduated from the Peking University in l935. It was supposed to be published in l938 when the university celebrated its fortieth anniversary. But by that time the Nationalist Government had retreated to the Southwest. Printing conditions were poor. And as this article did need to be illustrated with plates, it could not be published. More than sixty years have since elapsed and Professor Kao passed away almost eight years ago. I now reorganize and publish the manuscript he left behind, partially because of my personal feelings for my teacher, but mainly because of its academic value. His arguments are still a valuable reference for modern-day scholars. The most important monograph on the Li-yu bronzes has so far been The Studies of Warring States Style Bronzes (戰國式銅器の研究) by Sueji Umehara. This book was published one year after Professor Kao’s article was written. However, the academic world recognizes only Sueji Umehara’s article and not Kao Chu-hsun’s unpublished article. Li-yu is a small village at the northern foot of Mt. Heng (恒山) in Hun-yuan District (渾源縣), Shansi Province. In the summer of l923, heavy rain uncovered a batch of cultural relics, among which the most numerous and noteworthy were bronzes. French antique dealer W. Leon Wannieck, upon hearing the news, immediately purchased these bronzes, brought them back to Paris, and showed them at Musee Cernuschi. The show attracted wide attention. Mt. Heng is the Northern Sacred Mountain of the Five Sacred Mountains in China. According to local legend, the First Emperor of Ch’in offered sacrifice here in 2l9 B. C. Wannieck thus believed that these bronzes of Li-yu were the ceremonial vessels used in this sacrifice and called them “the Ch’in bronzes.” European scholars in Oriental Studies, such a H. d’Ardenne de Tizac (in L’art Chinois Classique), O. Siren (in A History of Early Chinese Art—the Prehistoric and Pre-Han Periods Vol.I) and A. J. Koop (in Ancient Chinese Bronzes) all adopted his view. This was a new and improved concept in the study of Chinese bronzes. If it could be accepted, then the previous rough division of bronzes into periods—with Han bronzes immediately following Chou bronzes—should be revised. In the past, the Chinese bronzes studied by scholars mainly were handed down from ancient times or purchased at antique markets. Their provenance was seldom known and their excavation records were completely lacking. After the Institute of History and Philology (IHP) of the Academia Sinica was established in l928, it carried out excavations at Anyang in northern Honan—at that time the speculated capital of the Yin Dynasty. Thus, the first detailed records of scientific excavations came into existence. Bronzes were found at Anyang in 1929. Around that time, some groups of bronzes were discovered at several other sites. Scientific records for their excavations were lacking, but at least their provenance was known. Thus, although they are incomparable to the excavated bronzes of IHP in academic value, they surpassed that of the handed-down bronzes. They often attracted wide attention from Chinese and foreign scholars alike. The most important among these bronzes were found at Li-yu Village (1923), Li-shih-yuan at Hsin Cheng (新鄭李氏園, 1923), Chin-ts’un at Loyang (洛陽金村, 1928), and Chu-chia-chi at Shou District (壽縣朱家集, 1923 and 1933). Generally speaking, before 1950, aside from the bronzes excavated by IHP, scholars paid great attention to these few batches of bronzes, especially the bronzes from Li-yu. Thus, Professor Kao’s studies of the Li-yu bronzes in 1935 are particularly significant. Kao’s article has three parts. Part I discusses the use of these bronzes. He drew on ancient literature to prove that the First Emperor of Ch’in had never been to Hun-yuan and had never offered sacrifice to Mt. Heng. So the “Ch’in bronzes” theory could not be established. At that time, a number of Chinese and Japanese scholars entertained other theories. Some of them argued that these bronzes belonged to the Kingdom of Chao, either as the personal property of King Wu-ling of Chao (趙武靈王) or as ceremonial vessels used by the aristocrats of the Kingdom of Chao in their sacrifices to the mountains and rivers. Kao objected to all these theories and refuted them one by one in his article. Kao believed that the Li-yu bronzes were sacrificial burials of tombs. According to modern archaeological knowledge, he was absolutely correct. Part II of this article discusses the typology and decorative patterns of the Li-yu bronzes, using the research method of art history. Nineteen types are listed in traditional terminology, such as ting-cauldron, tou-dish, i-washbasin, p’an-plate and so on. The twelve different decorative patterns include dragon pattern, t’ao-t’ieh-mask pattern, animal pattern, rope pattern, leaf pattern, floral pattern, rhombic pattern, shell pattern, and so on. This analysis of decorative patterns was advanced for its time. The purpose of Part II was to serve as the basis for Part III, which discusses two problems: 1. the date of the Li-yu bronzes, and 2. the external cultural influences as reflected by the Li-yu bronzes. The author compared the characteristics of the typology and decorative patterns of the Li-yu bronzes with those of the above-mentioned Hsin Cheng, Loyang, and Shou District bronzes and analyzed the various theories. He came to the conclusion that a large portion of the Li-yu bronzes were probably made in the fourth century B. C., whereas a small portion were made at the end of the fifth century B. C. As a whole, they were made between the fifth and the fourth centuries B. C.The so-called “external culture” refers to the Scythian or Scytho-Siberian Culture often discussed by scholars in Oriental Studies. Its corresponding technology in China was that of the Ordos bronzes. And their common feature is the animal style art. Ever since E. H. Minns (as in his Scythians and Greeks), M. I. Rostovtzeff (as in his Animal Style in South Russia and China), G. Borovka (as in his Scythian Art), J. G. Andersson (as in his “Hunting Magic in the Animal Style”), and A. Salmony (as in his Sino-Siberian Art), this has been a hot issue among scholars in Oriental Studies.
In 1935, Professor Kao participated in these discussions citing the most advanced research results available at the time. He compared the decorative patterns of the Li-yu bronzes with those of the artifacts unearthed at Kuban, Minussink, and some other places and argued that the Scytho-Siberian art certainly had some impact on the art of northern China. He explained that this was because Li-yu was located on the communication line between Scytho-Siberia and China.
I feel that Professor Kao’s article remains one of the most outstanding among the discourses of the Li-yu bronzes in its breadth, depth, and comprehensiveness. In the twentieth century, the first generation of “new scholars” in China generally had very broad views about the study of Chinese history and culture. They paid attention to the relationship between China and other regions. Typical examples in this regard include Li Chi (李濟)’s analysis of the bronzes found at the Ruins of Yin, and Hsu Chung-shu (徐中舒)’s study of hunting images on bronze vessels. Kao’s article carried on this tradition. The so-called “Scytho-Siberian Style” is a rather sweeping concept. However, since ancient times, cultural exchanges among the tribes of the Eurasian steppe and between these tribes and China have been frequent. And it is not surprising that the Warring States Period bronze technology north of the Yellow River Valley could contain certain non-Chinese elements, especially in places like Li-yu which were located near the Great Wall.
During the past few decades, the so-called “Li-yu Style Bronzes” were unearthed from twenty to thirty localities. The accumulation of large quantities of source materials has enabled us to have a deeper understanding of this type of bronzes. Some scholars have divided them into three categories—“the Chin Style”, “the Yen Style,” and “the Northern style.” Others have divided them into “the Yen bronzes,” and “the Tai bronzes.” Their studies are more sophisticated than those of their predecessors. But contemporary Chinese scholars, in discussing this topic, often neglected the style of study of the 1930s. In their search for the origins of these bronzes in the Yin and Chou culture or the impact of these bronzes on the contemporary cultures of the Chinese kingdoms, they often overlook their relationship with the cultures of the northern steppe.From a present perspective, this problem is of course more complicated than could be perceived in the 1930s. I do not agree with the arbitrary use of the sweeping “Scytho-Siberian” concept to generalize. But would it be right to limit the scope of our discussion to the south of the Yen Mountains and the Great Wall? Professor Kao was cautious in stating that the Li-yu bronzes were in some little ways influenced by external elements. When we look at this statement today, should we consider it too conservative or too bold? I am afraid that this question cannot be answered until an overall review is done on the cultural changes of the kingdoms north of the Yellow River and their relationships with the steppe belt during the Eastern Chou Dynasty, i. e., between the eighth and the third centuries B. C.
The Li-yu bronzes belonged neither to the First Emperor of Ch’in (221-210 B. C.) nor to King Wu-ling of Chao (325-299 B. C.). Professor Kao put this burial at the turn of the fifth century and the fourth century B. C. According to what we know today, this conclusion, although not exactly correct, is not far from the truth. There has been no precise and undisputed evidence for the dating of the Eastern Chou Dynasty bronzes. Among the above mentioned few batches, those from Hsin Cheng and Chin-ts’un do carry inscriptions on them, but studies on these bronzes regarding people and events have only resulted in generally acceptable views and not absolute, final conclusions. The conclusions reached from the excavations of Chung-chou-lu, Loyang (洛陽中州路), although used since 1960 as criteria for dating unearthed objects, can only have relative significance so far as dates are concerned. Under these circumstances, because of personal views or choices, some scholars have speculated that the Li-yu bronzes were as early as middle or late Spring-Autumn Period (the end of the sixth century B. C. to the beginning of the fifth century B. C., e. g., Tao Cheng-kang 陶正剛). Others put them at late Spring-Autumn Period (beginning of the fifth century B. C., e. g., Tsou Heng (鄒衡) or as late as early Warring States Period (the second half of the fifth century B. C. or later, e. g., An Chih-min 安志敏).
The publication of the excavation report on the Houma (侯馬) bronze foundry site in southern Shansi Province in 1993 had some positive impact on the dating of the Li-yu bronzes. Clay molds and models similar to or the same as those used in casting part of the Li-yu bronzes (i. e., the so-called “Chin Style”) have been found at the bronze foundry site at Houma—mainly at Layer IV and Layer V of the site. Lacking concrete evidence for dating purposes, the report is based on the overlapping strata and the typology of the potteries. It divides the site into three periods and six layers. And the absolute date of this site could only be roughly estimated from the fact that Houma was the capital of the Kingdom of Chin in its last phase. In 585 B. C. Hsin T’ien (新田, modern Houma) became the new capital of Chin The ducal house of Chin declined around 530 B. C. In 453 B. C., as a result of the struggle among its aristocrats, the Han (韓), Chao (趙), and Wei (魏) families annihilated the Chih (智) clan. In 403 B. C. these three families divided Chin between them and the Duke of Chin lost his authority. In 376 B. C. the title of the duke was cancelled. Probably the Houma bronze foundry site terminated at this time—perhaps the end of Layer VI. There are no bronze foundry remains in Layer I of the Houma site. Suppose Houma became the capital of Chin at the time corresponding to Layer II of the site. Since the report says that the span of each layer is similar, then each layer should cover about forty years and Layers IV-V fall roughly between 500-420 B. C. Although this is only a rough estimate, it can still more or less serve as a standard for dating the Li-yu bronzes. According to this standard, the middle to late Spring-Autumn Period is probably a little too early as the date of the Li-yu bronzes. Some western Sinologists have recently dated these bronzes at late sixth century to early fifth century B. C. (e. g., Jenny So, see Eastern Zhou Ritual Bronzes from the Arthur M. Sackler Collections, p. 475). But the date of fifth century B. C. (e. g., Alain Thote, see Rites et Festins de la Chine Antique Bronzes du Musee de Shanghai, pp. 157-160) is probably more compatible with the strata at the Houma bronze foundry site. The so-called “Li-yu Style” is not limited to Layer IV or Layer V of the Houma bronze foundry site. It also extends to Layer VI. And its so-called “Yen Style” part has not yet been precisely dated. So, these new speculations are only comparatively more acceptable views. Roughly speaking, the Li-yu bronzes could not be earlier than 500—450 B. C. If so, the date Professor Kao gave to the Li-yu bronzes is perhaps a little late, but no more than fifty years late. For the 1930s, such a conclusion should be considered very precise. There are three parts in my reorganization: 1. rearranging the order of the plates for the Li-yu bronzes, 2. adding some plates, and 3. compiling supplementary notes, a bibliography, and this note. Most of the plates published here are re-photographed from The Studies of Warring States Style Bronzes by Sueji Umehara. A small portion are new photographs supplied by the Shanghai Museum and the National Museum of Chinese History-Peking. I am very grateful to these two museums. A comparison of new and old photographs indicates that some of these collected items have been repaired. The new plates are taken from the source materials used by Borovka, Salmony, and Andersson. There is no plate in Kao’s original manuscript to illustrate his comparative studies of the Li-yu bronzes and the Scytho-Siberian Culture. My addition will make it easier for readers to understand Professor Kao’s grounds of argument. Additional references were needed. It was customary for scholars in the 1930s to give only the title of their reference books. I checked the original books Professor Kao used and added page numbers for them to conform to the style of current scholarly works. Finally, I recommend Professor Kao’s article as a valuable reference for scholars interested in the Li-yu bronzes or the ethnic and cultural exchanges in the Asian steppe. I also hope my article will serve as a bridge between an article written sixty years ago and the current research on the Li-yu bronzes and will also help readers better appreciate the academic significance of Professor Kao’s article.