.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
The lengthy bronze inscriptions that appear on the bronze vessels and other implements of the Late Shang dynasty and onward offer direct windows into the political and military history of the period. They preserve events that other documented histories often omit and, no less importantly, they reveal the structures of authority and rank that governed early Chinese society. The present Bo Xian Fu gui is exceptional on both counts. Its sixty-seven-character inscription, cast in seven vertical columns on the interior base, records a specific southern campaign in which Bo Xian Fu took part under royal command. The text reads: 「唯王九月初吉庚午王，出自成周南征伐及服子，X桐潏伯X父從王伐，親執訊十父馘廿得俘，金五十鈞用作寶簋對揚，用享于父祖考用賜眉享，壽其萬年子子孫孫永寶用。」and may be translated as 'On the gengwu day, the first auspicious day of the ninth month, the king set out from Chengzhou to campaign south and subdue the fu-zi. In the regions of Ying, Tong, and Yue, Bo Xian Fu followed the king on campaign, and seized and interrogated ten men, took the ears of twenty enemies as trophies, and captured prisoners. As a reward he received fifty jun of metal. With this he made this precious gui vessel in order to proclaim and exalt the [king’s] beneficence, to make offerings to his ancestors, and to accept the bestowed favor. [May he] enjoy long life of ten thousand years; [may] sons and grandsons treasure and use it forever.' Beyond its value as a record of place names, dates, and martial achievement, the inscription is also a vivid commentary on the campaign’s scale: the king’s direct leadership, the departure from Chengzhou, and the formalized tallying of captives and rewards point to a centrally organized expedition with troop numbering in the hundreds, rather than a small raiding party.
The inscription’s vocabulary and place names have been the subject of sustained philological attention, most fully addressed in Shouyang Jijin Shuzheng (An Evidential Study on the Shouyang Bronzes), edited by Luo Xinhui. Chengzhou, the point of royal departure, designates the Eastern capital of the Western Zhou in the area of present-day Luoyang. It was a locus of tribute from the four quarters and a center from which the court both administered resettled Yin populations and dispatched punitive expeditions, including those aimed at the Huai River frontier. The phrase fu zi requires particular explanation. In the Guoyu 'Zhouyu I' chapter, the term fu refers to the five concentric zones of control, where peoples of the periphery were to be brought into submission. In the gui’s inscription, the compound almost certainly signals southern barbaric groups. Because the verb fu can also bear the meanings 'to submit,' 'to subdue,' and 'to serve,' a circumspect English translation such as 'subdued groups' or 'southern subjects' best preserves the Zhou point of view without forcing modern ethnonyms upon the text.
The toponyms Yang X, Tong, and Yue anchor the campaign in the Huai River region. Ying has been linked to an ancient polity of the Yan lineage, tentatively placed west of modern Liu’an in Anhui. Tong remains contested, with proposals that range from the region of present-day Tongcheng to an area near today’s Hongze Lake in the Huai basin. Yue may be graphically related to the characters of yue and yu, and has been read as the strategic upper-Huai locality of Yulou. These identifications are provisional and serve to indicate the inscription’s southern focus and the court’s continuing efforts to stabilize that frontier through direct military action accompanied by the capture and interrogation of enemy combatants.
Of equal interest is the economy of reward and display that the text encodes. The inscription states that Bo Xian Fu received fifty jun of jin. The Eastern-Han dictionary Shuowen jiezi defines jun as thirty jin, so the royal grant would amount to, in traditional weight scale, 1500 jin, which equals to 750 kilograms. Although modern writers sometimes equate the character jin with 'gold,' Western Zhou inscriptions typically use jin in the broader sense of 'metal,' that is, bronze or smelting metal. A cautious translation therefore avoids specifying a precious metal in the absence of further evidence. The dedicatory lines that follow make explicit the moral economy that ties such generosity to pious commemoration: Bo Xian Fu converts the king’s reward into a prestigious ritual vessel, simultaneously proclaiming royal beneficence and perpetuating ancestral sacrifice within his lineage. The wish for 'ten thousand years,' with perpetual treasuring by sons and grandsons, situates the gui squarely within the Zhou ideal of hereditary remembrance.
The vessel also stands within a coherent material and epigraphic corpus. In Shangzhou qingtongqi mingwen ji tuxiang jicheng (A Collection of Inscriptions and Images of Shang and Zhou Archaic Bronzes), Shanghai, 2012, vol. 11, no. 5276, Wu Zhenfeng noted that the present gui is one of four Bo Xian Fu gui vessels. Two of the other gui were discussed by Li Xueqin in 'On the Bo Xian Fu gui from the Reign of King Li of the Western Zhou,' in Commemorative Essays for the Sixtieth Anniversary of Professor An Zuozhang’s Historical Studies, 2007; and the fourth gui is preserved in the China Cultural Relics Consultation Center. Stylistic and epigraphic comparison with excavated bronzes allows a first approximation of date. The shape and decoration of the present gui closely parallel those of the Mi Bo gui excavated in 1963 at Wangchuan, Lantian County, in Shaanxi, (Fig. 1) whose inscription has been placed in the reign of King Gong of Western Zhou, circa 922-900 BC. (Fig. 2) The present vessel also shares notable features with the Shi Shi gui, made in the first year of King Yi and found at Zhangjiapo in Chang’an, Shaanxi. Particularly interesting is the angular cloud-eye pattern on the foot, which is virtually identical to that on the Jian gui in the Palace Museum, Beijing, a vessel dated to the reign of King Xiao (variously dated by scholars either to 891–886 BC or 872–866 BC). All of this would suggest a production period of the current gui between the reigns of King Xiao and King Yi.
Textual arguments, however, complicate this stylistic picture and sharpen our sense of the campaign’s historical milieu. Li Xueqin has argued that the episode recorded on the present Bo Xian Fu gui corresponds to events mentioned on the Hu bell, currently in the National Palace Museum, Taipei, which speaks of a southern state’s fu-zi daring to encroach upon Zhou territory and of the king urging a punitive expedition. Furthermore, the toponyms Tong and Yue appear in inscriptions of the Liu Sheng xu and the E Hou Yu fangding, which Li argues a relation with the same location. On these grounds he locates the campaign in the reign of King Li. The tension between a stylistic window anchored by excavated comparison and a textual identification tied to specific inscriptions is instructive. It reminds us that the middle Western Zhou period—comprising the reigns of Zhao, Mu, Gong, Yi, Xiao, and Yi, that is, after King Kang and before King Li—remains unevenly illuminated by histories. In this context, bronze inscriptions are not merely illustrative; they are among the primary instruments by which historians reconstruct political geography, military practice, and the circulation of royal favor.
Set against this larger frame, the Bo Xian Fu gui assumes significance on three levels. First, it fixes a royal southern campaign in time, place, and action, from departure at Chengzhou to concrete acts of seizure, interrogation, and subjugation. Second, it records the court’s distributive economy, converting royal metal into a lineage vessel that binds favor to perpetual ancestral service. Third, it belongs in a collection of inscriptions on vessels that collectively document the Western Zhou’s southern frontier expedition and the evolving mechanisms of imperial integration. The present Bo Fu Xian gui is a compelling document of state power enacted at the periphery and commemorated at the ancestral altar.
The inscription’s vocabulary and place names have been the subject of sustained philological attention, most fully addressed in Shouyang Jijin Shuzheng (An Evidential Study on the Shouyang Bronzes), edited by Luo Xinhui. Chengzhou, the point of royal departure, designates the Eastern capital of the Western Zhou in the area of present-day Luoyang. It was a locus of tribute from the four quarters and a center from which the court both administered resettled Yin populations and dispatched punitive expeditions, including those aimed at the Huai River frontier. The phrase fu zi requires particular explanation. In the Guoyu 'Zhouyu I' chapter, the term fu refers to the five concentric zones of control, where peoples of the periphery were to be brought into submission. In the gui’s inscription, the compound almost certainly signals southern barbaric groups. Because the verb fu can also bear the meanings 'to submit,' 'to subdue,' and 'to serve,' a circumspect English translation such as 'subdued groups' or 'southern subjects' best preserves the Zhou point of view without forcing modern ethnonyms upon the text.
The toponyms Yang X, Tong, and Yue anchor the campaign in the Huai River region. Ying has been linked to an ancient polity of the Yan lineage, tentatively placed west of modern Liu’an in Anhui. Tong remains contested, with proposals that range from the region of present-day Tongcheng to an area near today’s Hongze Lake in the Huai basin. Yue may be graphically related to the characters of yue and yu, and has been read as the strategic upper-Huai locality of Yulou. These identifications are provisional and serve to indicate the inscription’s southern focus and the court’s continuing efforts to stabilize that frontier through direct military action accompanied by the capture and interrogation of enemy combatants.
Of equal interest is the economy of reward and display that the text encodes. The inscription states that Bo Xian Fu received fifty jun of jin. The Eastern-Han dictionary Shuowen jiezi defines jun as thirty jin, so the royal grant would amount to, in traditional weight scale, 1500 jin, which equals to 750 kilograms. Although modern writers sometimes equate the character jin with 'gold,' Western Zhou inscriptions typically use jin in the broader sense of 'metal,' that is, bronze or smelting metal. A cautious translation therefore avoids specifying a precious metal in the absence of further evidence. The dedicatory lines that follow make explicit the moral economy that ties such generosity to pious commemoration: Bo Xian Fu converts the king’s reward into a prestigious ritual vessel, simultaneously proclaiming royal beneficence and perpetuating ancestral sacrifice within his lineage. The wish for 'ten thousand years,' with perpetual treasuring by sons and grandsons, situates the gui squarely within the Zhou ideal of hereditary remembrance.
The vessel also stands within a coherent material and epigraphic corpus. In Shangzhou qingtongqi mingwen ji tuxiang jicheng (A Collection of Inscriptions and Images of Shang and Zhou Archaic Bronzes), Shanghai, 2012, vol. 11, no. 5276, Wu Zhenfeng noted that the present gui is one of four Bo Xian Fu gui vessels. Two of the other gui were discussed by Li Xueqin in 'On the Bo Xian Fu gui from the Reign of King Li of the Western Zhou,' in Commemorative Essays for the Sixtieth Anniversary of Professor An Zuozhang’s Historical Studies, 2007; and the fourth gui is preserved in the China Cultural Relics Consultation Center. Stylistic and epigraphic comparison with excavated bronzes allows a first approximation of date. The shape and decoration of the present gui closely parallel those of the Mi Bo gui excavated in 1963 at Wangchuan, Lantian County, in Shaanxi, (Fig. 1) whose inscription has been placed in the reign of King Gong of Western Zhou, circa 922-900 BC. (Fig. 2) The present vessel also shares notable features with the Shi Shi gui, made in the first year of King Yi and found at Zhangjiapo in Chang’an, Shaanxi. Particularly interesting is the angular cloud-eye pattern on the foot, which is virtually identical to that on the Jian gui in the Palace Museum, Beijing, a vessel dated to the reign of King Xiao (variously dated by scholars either to 891–886 BC or 872–866 BC). All of this would suggest a production period of the current gui between the reigns of King Xiao and King Yi.
Textual arguments, however, complicate this stylistic picture and sharpen our sense of the campaign’s historical milieu. Li Xueqin has argued that the episode recorded on the present Bo Xian Fu gui corresponds to events mentioned on the Hu bell, currently in the National Palace Museum, Taipei, which speaks of a southern state’s fu-zi daring to encroach upon Zhou territory and of the king urging a punitive expedition. Furthermore, the toponyms Tong and Yue appear in inscriptions of the Liu Sheng xu and the E Hou Yu fangding, which Li argues a relation with the same location. On these grounds he locates the campaign in the reign of King Li. The tension between a stylistic window anchored by excavated comparison and a textual identification tied to specific inscriptions is instructive. It reminds us that the middle Western Zhou period—comprising the reigns of Zhao, Mu, Gong, Yi, Xiao, and Yi, that is, after King Kang and before King Li—remains unevenly illuminated by histories. In this context, bronze inscriptions are not merely illustrative; they are among the primary instruments by which historians reconstruct political geography, military practice, and the circulation of royal favor.
Set against this larger frame, the Bo Xian Fu gui assumes significance on three levels. First, it fixes a royal southern campaign in time, place, and action, from departure at Chengzhou to concrete acts of seizure, interrogation, and subjugation. Second, it records the court’s distributive economy, converting royal metal into a lineage vessel that binds favor to perpetual ancestral service. Third, it belongs in a collection of inscriptions on vessels that collectively document the Western Zhou’s southern frontier expedition and the evolving mechanisms of imperial integration. The present Bo Fu Xian gui is a compelling document of state power enacted at the periphery and commemorated at the ancestral altar.