Controversies
The Jou Conquest of ShangOne piece of purported evidence for the date of the Jou conquest is this inscription from the Li Gwei. In the opinion of many, it specifies that the battle of Mu-ye, by which the conquest is supposed to have been achieved, occurred on a jya/dz day (1st in the cycle). The perhaps suspiciously fortunate coincidence of this date (so suitable to a New Beginning) has attracted comment on the WSW E-list. Some views pro and con are recorded here.
Translations:
(1) Edward Shaughnessy:
[for the passage in brackets, see Shaughnessy Sources 91-104]King Wu campaigned against the Shang; it was jya/dz [cycle 01] morning. [(King Wu) swei and ding-sacrificed and was able to make known that he had routed the Shang]. Syin/wei [cycle 08] the King was at Jyen Encampment and awarded Chargé d'Affaires Li metal. (Li) herewith makes (for) the Duke of Jan (this) treasured sacrificial vessel.
(2) Wolfgang Behr:
König Wu3 führte eine Strafexpedition gegen Shang1 (rime A). Es war am Morgen des (Zyklustag) jia3zi3, als er die sui4- und ding3- (rime A) Opfer durchführte, es zu Gehör bringen konnte, dass er Shang1 (rime A) im Sturm eingenommen hatte.
Am (Zyklustag) xin1wei4 (rime B) weilte der König in der Garnison (rime B) von ?Lan und beschenkte den Geschäftsträger von Li4 mit Bronze (rime X), der sie verwendet, um für Herzog Tan2 ein wertvolles honorables Gefäss (rime B) fertigen zu lassen.
Objections
The difficulties with this inscription depend on how it is translated. Shaughnessy, in choosing among proposals for the problem passage in the middle, has endeavored to harmonize the Li Gwei with contemporary inscriptions. But among the seeming difficulties are the following:
Obj 1. Reference to Wu-wang (digraph) by what seems to be his posthumous epithet. Usual practice in other supposed early Jou inscriptions is Wang alone, as in the possibly spurious Tyen Wang Gwei, and also in the Bau You, an inscription of the same period as the Li Gwei, and the Syau-chvn Shan Jr and Kang-hou Gwei, both assigned to the reign of Chvng-wang, to mention no other examples.
Obj 2. Whether the epithet Wu-wang "The Martial King" was assigned in life or at death, it can only refer to that king's overcoming of the Shang. If the Li Gwei is to be believed, that epithet was not only assigned in life, but within seven days of the decisive battle, and by the eighth day was already the standard scribal way of referring to that king. Is this plausible? If so, why do no other inscriptions follow that convention?
Obj 3. Reference to Shang (as in the abovementioned Chvng-wang inscriptions, which have to do with the later rebellion of the Shang) rather than to Yin (as in the Wu-wang period inscription Bau You; inscriptions of later reigns sometimes use Yin). It may be thought that Shang is here substituted for Yin for the sake of a rhyme with Ding (see Behr, above). But Behr finds a rhyme pattern BXB in the last half of the inscription, making it possible that a pattern AXA would be sufficient for the first half. The AA rhyme in the first half is a rhyme of Shang with itself, and a rhyme of Yin with itself would equally satisfy the seeming local conventions. It thus cannot be held that the form Shang is necessarily constrained by the needs of local rhyming, and the anomaly therefore stands.
Obj 4. The self-righteous verb jvng "correct, campaign against" is used in the Chvng-wang inscriptions in connection with the suppression of the Shang rebellions, which (from the Jou point of view) restored the Shang cities to their correct condition of subordination vis-a-vis Jou. Is it equally appropriate for an expedition against a still ruling Shang, not yet a part of Jou?
Obj 5. The Shang campaign, and the exact date of the battle victory, are mentioned gratuitously; they have no evident connection with the award with which the rest of the inscription is concerned. Contexting events (such as the pacification of the Yi) are mentioned in several early Jou inscriptions, but their purpose is to date the exploit which is the occasion for the casting of the vessel. In the Li Gwei, by contrast, this half of the inscription seems to exist chiefly in order to record the Conquest date for history, which is exactly how modern scholars have used it. An ancient artifact which so exactly meets the needs of a modern researcher, without a clear excuse in ancient practice for doing so, becomes intrinsically suspect, as having been designed for that purpose.
Obj 6. Following on the jya/dz date of the battle, we have something or other which in the opinion of some is about the Year Star (Swei = Jupiter), and if so, intends to further document the auspicious date on which the battle was fought. But the more the miraculous victory becomes the focus of the inscription, the less intelligible would seem to become the grant to Li specified, in the remainder of the inscription.
Obj 7. Shaughnessy and Behr, who agree to read swei as a sacrifice, differ as to whether the cyclical day 01 applies to the conquest, or to the two sacrifices afterward. Is there a grammatical argument for one or the other, and does its outcome affect the probity of the inscription generally?
Obj 8. It is not necessarily a fatal objection that the exploit of Li is not mentioned; this is true of several early Jou inscriptions. In some such inscriptions, as here, it is to be assumed that the person (typically "X gung") to whom the vessel is to be dedicated is the ancestor of the person for whom it is made. But the standard situation is nevertheless that the exploit is described (as in the Tyen-wang Gwei, the Bau You, the Kang-hou Gwei, the Ming-gung Gwei, the Jr Ding, the Chin Gwei, the Sywe Ding, the Syau-chvn Lai Gwei, and the Lw Ding). It would then seem to remain somewhat of a problem that in this inscription, the nature of the exploit can only be conjectured. Can this uncertainty be reduced?
Obj 9. Provenance: It is given that the Li Gwei was found, not in a tomb context, but in a hoard or cache, and that the group were not in the first instance discovered by archaeologists, but by railway workers. This is not quite what one means by "controlled conditions." Still, some information would seem to be available. Assuming that there is an archaeological context, what is the date of the latest object from within that context?
7 Feb 2006 / Contact The Project / Exit to Results Page
