CHINESE BRONZE VESSELS REVISITED
Throughout the twentieth century Chinese, Japanese, and the Western specialists reevaluated every aspect of ancient Chinese bronze ritual vessels in light of new archeological finds. At the beginning of the twentieth century, during the final years of the Qing dynasty, Chinese scholars already were questioning traditional accounts of their bronze age as they sought to establish a precise chronology for that early period of Chinese history, as well as to date extant ancient bronze ritual vessels - most of which had no reliable provenance.
Establishing more precise dates for ancient bronzes was complicated by the way in which they usually appeared on the antique market in the early years of the twentieth century. Art dealers supervised any necessary cleaning and repairs, and then offered the bronzes to clients together with whatever bits of information they might deem appropriate - always being careful not to reveal their own sources or to embarrass former owners who might have been forced to part with family heirlooms because of financial difficulties. On occasion, bronzes were sold at auctions like the one held in Peking in 1906 and attended by Chinese collectors, as well as by several foreigners including Edgar Worch (1880-1972), a German art dealer, and Yamanaka Sadajirô (1866-1936), a Japanese art dealer who had opened a shop in Manhattan as early as 1895 (fig. 1). It was from Yamanaka & Co. that Doris Duke purchased the rare double owl - form bronze vessel, xiaoyou (lot 145) in this sale on 3 March 1937 for the then not inconsiderable sum of $10,000.
The transition from the imperial Qing dynasty to the new Republic was, understandably, marked by social, economic and political instability. Luo Zhenyu (1866-1940) and Wang Guowei (1877-1927), two distinguished Han Chinese scholars who were key figures in research on Chinese bronzes, remained loyal to the Manchu regime even after the last Qing emperor abdicated on February 12, 1912. Two years later Luo Zhenyu still wore his official Qing robes when he sat for a photograph and Wang Guowei used the defunct Xuantong reign title when dating his inscription (fig. 2).
In 1937 Luo Zhenyu published Sandai jijin wencun, his magisterial compilation of 4,831 rubbings of inscriptions on ancient bronze vessels. Chinese scholars were particularly interested in bronze inscriptions because they contained information that sometimes corroborated statements in Confucian Classics such as the Shujing (Classic of Documents) and the Shijing (Classic of Poetry), texts which had been transmitted, orally and in writing, for centuries. The tradition of taking rubbings of bronze inscriptions is said to have begun before the Tang dynasty. It is noteworthy, however, that the ancient bronzes and their inscriptions illustrated in the earlier extant Song dynasty bronze catalogues are presented in line drawings rather than in rubbings. It was only in the Jiaqing era (1796-1821) of the Qing dynasty that Chinese collectors began to use rubbings to obtain more precise illustrations of inscriptions - not of the vessels themselves - in bronze catalogues.
In his preface to Sandai jijin wencun Luo Zhenyu expressed his appreciation for the support of Wang Guowei, who had become so discouraged by political changes in China that he committed suicide before the compilation had been completed. Unfortunately, Luo Zhenyu did not include any analysis of the inscriptions, provide illustrations of the bronzes themselves, or comment on their provenance. (Footnote1) In some instances, such information simply was not available to him; most of the bronzes had come to light under uncertain circumstances and a few collectors were reluctant to provide rubbings of their holdings or to furnish detailed information about specific pieces (footnote 2)
The excavation of Shang dynasty royal tombs at Anyang, Henan province, conducted by the Academia Sinica's Institute of History and Philology between 1928 and 1937 marked a turning point in the reevaluation of ancient bronzes. Under the leadership of Li Chi (1896-1979), Chinese archaeologists working at Anyang initially focused their attention on inscribed oracle bones which they believed, correctly, would provide information on the history of the Shang dynasty (fig. 3). (Footnote3) Random finds of oracle bones were said to have been unearthed in the general vicinity of Anyang prior to 1928 and Luo Zhenyu was one of the scholars who played an important role in tracing those finds to Anyang. Li Chi and his colleagues sought to verify those reports.
Chinese archaeologists were able to reassess the dating of unprovenanced bronzes already in collections or illustrated in catalogues by comparison with Shang bronze vessels recovered at Anyang, a technique they continued to refine following the dramatic increase in archaeological work throughout China after the establishment of the People's Republic in 1949. With occasional pauses, the recovery of archaeologically-attested bronzes continued unabated throughout the twentieth century, providing scholars with information that necessitated a reformulation of some traditional theories regarding their dating, casting and function.
Guo Moruo (1892-1978), who was a dominant intellectual leader in all aspects of Chinese archaeology during his many years as president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (1949-1978), began his career as a medical student in Japan, graduating from Imperial Kyûshû University in 1923 (fig. 4). As early as 1928, while living in Japan, Guo Moruo devoted himself to research on oracle bones and bronze inscriptions. He developed a systematic methodology for studying ancient bronzes in which he combined aesthetic considerations of the shape and decoration of vessels with an analysis of the calligraphic style of the inscriptions, and also weighing the significance of personal names mentioned in those inscriptions. One of the most influential of Guo Meruo's many publications is his study of Zhou dynasty bronze inscriptions, Liang Zhou jinwen ci daxi, which appeared in 1932.(Footnote4) Although some of Guo's conclusions have been questioned, his approach to the study of Chinese bronzes continues to influence the work of specialists in China, Japan, and the West.
Unstable conditions in China in the 1930s and 1940s delayed the publication of high quality photographs of the Anyang bronzes for many years. Yet, as archaeological excavations continued to yield important bronzes, scholars realized there was an urgent need for reference works providing information on extant bronzes - including those no longer in China. In 1933 the Japanese scholar Umehara Sueji (1893-1983), who taught in the Department of Archaeology, Kyoto University, completed Ôbei shûcho Shina kodô seika, a seven-volume work in which he recorded Chinese bronzes in European and American collections (fig. 5).(Footnote5) In his preface, Umehara describes how he examined Chinese bronzes in public and private collections during his three-year stay in Europe and the United States from early 1926 to the spring of 1929. In 1959-64 Umehara published Nihon shûcho Shina kodô seika, a six-volume companion work presenting ancient Chinese bronzes in Japanese collections.(Footnote6)
Rong Geng (1894-1983), who decided at an early age that he would devote himself to research on ancient Chinese inscriptions, began studying at home under the guidance of his uncle, Deng Erya (1883-1954), a noted epigrapher (fig. 6). Luo Zhenyu and Wang Guowei were so impressed by Jinwenbian, Rong Geng's manuscript on Shang and Zhou inscriptions, that they agreed he should be admitted to the graduate program of the Department of Chinese Studies at Peking University in 1922, even though he had not previously attended college. Rong Geng published his manuscript in 1925; he continued to revise and expand the text with new editions appearing in 1939 and 1959. One specialist has described Jinwenbian as "perhaps the most basic reference work in the library of any scholar of bronze inscriptions."(Footnote7)
In 1941 Rong Geng published Shang Zhou yiqi tongkao, a general survey of Chinese bronzes that reflects the influence of Guo Moruo's methodology. Rong Geng's erudition is apparent in his discussion of varied aspects of Chinese bronzes including casting, important discoveries of ancient vessels, classification and chronology, inscriptions and decoration, casting methods, monetary values, removal of corrosion, rubbings, forgeries, discerning spurious examples, destruction of bronzes, collectors and catalogues. He complements that valuable information with detailed descriptions of the vessels illustrated in more than 1,000 plates.(Footnote8) Although Shang Zhou yiqi tongkao, like Liang Zhou jinwen ci daxi, was published before the full flood of archaeological finds that date from the late 1940s, Rong Geng's survey remains a standard reference work.
Chen Mengjia (1911-1966), another leading Chinese antiquarian influenced by Guo Moruo, studied with Rong Geng in the Department of Paleography at Yenching University (fig. 7). He presented his research on Zhou dynasty bronze inscriptions in a six-part article, "Xi Zhou tongqi duandai," published in Kaogu xuebao in 1955-1956.9 While in the United States from 1944 until 1947, Chen Mengjia taught Chinese paleography at the University of Chicago and collaborated with Charles Fabens Kelley (1885-1960) in the preparation of the catalogue of Chinese bronzes in the Chicago Art Institute.(Footnote10) During those same years Chen Mengjia compiled a comprehensive survey of 845 Chinese ritual bronzes in American collections.(Footnote11)
In his survey, Chen Mengjia provides an informed analysis of the development of American interest in Chinese bronzes during the first half of the twentieth century. According to Chen Mengjia, it was Japanese art dealers such as Yamanaka Sadajirô who first made Americans aware of Chinese bronzes. He also noted that Doris Duke acquired most of the nine Chinese bronzes in her collection from Yamanaka Sajirô and C.T.Loo. These were illustrated in the 1962 manuscript, Mei diguo zhuyi jielue di woguo Yin Zhou tongqi tulu, and A70 (the fangding), A79 (the ding) and A468 (the gu) are in the present sale (lots 150, 144 and 148 respectively). He designates the decade from 1927 to 1937 as the period when the center of the international antiquities market moved from Europe to the United States, a transition that had begun during the First World War when Paris gradually relinquished its position as the major city for the acquisition of Asian art. Finally, during the period from 1937 to 1946, ending with the Second World War, some of the finest Chinese bronzes reached the United States as American collectors were able and willing to acquire the most expensive examples.
C.T. Loo (1880-1957), whose reputation as an international art dealer equaled that of Yamanaka Sadajirô, handled many Chinese bronzes in his Paris and New York galleries during the first half of the twentieth century (fig. 8). His sale catalogues, which include Bronzes Antiques de la Chine appartenant à C.T. Loo et Cie, of 1924, and An exhibition of Ancient Chinese Ritual Bronzes, of 1940, offer tantalizing glimpses of the outstanding ritual vessels - some of them originally part of the Qing imperial collection, others newly excavated -- that passed through his hands. It was from C.T.Loo on 21 May 1942 that Doris Duke purchased three of the bronze vessels in this sale; the ding (lot 144), the gu (lot 148) and the fangding (lot 150).
Determining the precise date of ancient Chinese bronzes was a slow, occasionally controversial process. Chinese specialists regularly assigned bronzes to the Shang dynasty but, in the early years of the twentieth century, Western scholars remained skeptical, some of them even speculating that no bronze vessels had been cast during the Shang dynasty.(Footnote12) For example, all of the ritual bronzes included in the Chinesische kunst exhibition, which opened at the Preussischen Akademie der Künste in Berlin in January 1929, were dated to the Zhou or Han periods (fig. 9).(Footnote13) A study of the catalogue for the Berlin exhibition today, seventy-five years later, when bronze specialists routinely assign Chinese ritual bronzes to a specific century as well as associate them with regional foundries, reveals several Shang dynasty bronzes, a designation that Western specialists would have considered irresponsible in 1929.
In 1933, as preparations were underway for The Exhibition of Early Chinese Bronzes in Stockholm, the Swedish Crown Prince, Gustav Adolf (1882-1973), who was a serious student of Chinese antiquities, asked officials in charge of the exhibition to devise a "novel arrangement in an effort to establish a chronology of Chinese bronze art in greater detail than had hitherto been attempted."(Footnote14) In response to the royal request officials arranged the bronzes in five stylistic divisions as guides to dating: (1) Yin, 11th century B.C. and earlier; (2) Yin-Zhou, 11th and 10th centuries B.C.; (3) Middle Zhou, 9th -7th century B.C.; (4) Huai, 7th or 6th century - 3rd century B.C.; (5) Han, 206 B.C.-220 A.D. and somewhat later. The term "Huai," suggested by the French specialist René Grousset (1885-1952), defined a bronze style that flourished in the Huai River valley during the later half of the Zhou and the succeeding Qin dynasty. The term was highly criticized and finally fell into disuse. To supplement the bronzes selected from collections in Britain, Europe, the United States, and China, the Academia Sinica loaned twenty-five photographs of the Anyang finds.
The Chinese Government was even more generous in selecting bronzes from the holdings of the Palace Museum, Peking, together with eight bronzes unearthed at Xinzheng, Henan province, in 1923, and four bronzes recovered at Shou Xian, Anhui province, in 1933, for inclusion in the International Exhibition of Chinese Art held in London in 1935-6. Once again the subject of chronology prompted lively discussion. Organizers of the London exhibition formulated a six-period chronology: (1) Shang, prior to 1070 B.C.; (2) Western Zhou, circa 1070-722 B.C.; (3) Spring and Autumn Annals, circa 722 - 481 B.C.; (4) Warring States, circa 481-205 B.C.; (5) Han, circa 206B.C. - 220 A.D.; and (6) Post Han. Sir W. Perceval Yetts (1878-1957) proposed a more general chronological scheme in his lectures during the London exhibition: (1) First phase (Shang - Yin and Early Zhou), 13th-11th century B.C.; (2) Second Phase (Zhou), 10th - 6th century B.C.; and (3) Third Phase (Zhou), 6th century B.C. to end of Zhou. Yetts had been trained as a physician and went to China for the first time in 1908 as a naval doctor; in 1911 he was posted to Peking as the resident physician at the British Legation (fig. 10). As he studied Chinese antiquities Yetts benefited from the publications of Luo Zhenyu, Wang Guowei, Guo Moruo and Rong Geng. The influence of Chinese scholarship is clearly apparent in Yetts' catalogue of the Chinese bronzes acquired by the English collector, George Eumorfopoulos (1863-1939), which set new standards for Western scholarship.(Footnote15) Three years later Yetts was appointed the first occupant of a chair in Chinese Art and Archaeology established at the University of London's Courtauld Institute.
In 1939 Yetts published the bronzes assembled by Anders Eric Knös Cull (1878-1968) and James K. Cull, English-born bankers of Swedish ancestry, in a catalogue that also is distinguished by its design and scholarship.(Footnote16) Two bronzes formerly in the Cull collection, a you and a fangyi are included in the present catalogue, (lots 147 and 152) respectively.(Footnote17) Yetts assigned both bronzes to his First Phase, noting that the you was "reported to have come from a Shang-Yin tomb near Anyang" and that the fangding is similar in shape to vessels "which are said with plausibility to have been excavated recently at Anyang." Today bronze specialists date both vessels to the 12th century B.C. Nonetheless one reviewer described Yetts as "a true archaeologist and not a mere historian of Chinese art, [who] has fully realized the fundamental importance of this branch of sinology, which is often sadly underrated and neglected by European scholars."(Footnote18)
Bernhard Karlgren (1889-1978), a brilliant Swedish philologist, was one of the three foreigners whose scholarly achievements were recognized by their appointment to the newly established Academia Sinica in 1929 (fig. 11). Karlgren devised a scheme to date ancient Chinese bronzes on the basis of decorative motifs, grouping Shang and Zhou dynasty bronze vessels into three periods: Archaic (Yin and early Zhou prior to 950 B.C.), middle Zhou (circa 950-650 B.C.) and Huai (circa 650-200 B.C.). He also divided the individual decorative elements he assigned to the Archaic period into three groups: A, B, and C. It was an ingenious scheme, but Karlgren's strict separation of the three groups posed problems when dating bronzes cast during late Shang and early Western Zhou. Information from excavations after 1949 have not always supported Karlgren's theory.(Footnote19)
It remained for Max Loehr (1903-1988), a German scholar who studied with Ludwig Bachhofer (1894-1976) at the University of Munich and subsequently lived in China from 1940 to 1949, to propose an alternative stylistic analysis (fig. 12). In 1953, after having settled in the United States, Loehr published a five-style sequence for Shang bronzes from the Anyang period, basing his sequence, not on isolated elements or motifs, but on "the total effect of the vessels...: the shape of a vessel; the decoration (comprising motifs, form of the motifs, and arrangement of these motifs); and technical characteristics."(Footnote20) He elaborated on his stylistic sequence in the catalogue for the exhibition, Ritual Bronzes of Bronze Age China.(Footnote21) Although Shang period bronzes with distinctly regional features have been recovered during subsequent archaeological finds, the basic elements of Loehr's stylistic sequence remain undisputed.
Generations of scholars have gradually deciphered the elusive contents of Chinese bronzes inscriptions. Among the most imposing collaborative efforts, Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng, an encyclopedic compilation edited by the Institute of Archaeology, Beijing, had the ambitious goal of presenting the most extensive collection of all known bronze inscriptions. Publication of the eighteen volumes, in which the inscriptions are illustrated full size and arranged according to vessel type, spanned a decade - from August 1984 to December 1994.
More limited in scope, but of equal scholarly importance, Shang Zhou qingtongqi mingwen xuan is a three-volume work compiled by a team at the Shanghai Museum under the leadership of Ma Chengyuan (born 1927) and published 1986-1988. After graduating from Dasha University, Shanghai, in 1947, Ma Chengyuan spend most of his professional career at the Shanghai Museum (fig. 13). He joined the museum staff in 1954, served as curator and eventually became director. Ma's study of ancient bronzes reflects an enviable knowledge of archaeological data complemented by first-hand examination of bronzes in collections throughout the world. Shang Zhou qingtongqi mingwen xuan includes 925 inscriptions which the compilers deemed historically significant up to 1979, the majority dating from the Zhou dynasty - 21 assigned to the Shang dynasty, 512 to the Western Zhou, and 392 to the Eastern Zhou. The discussion of each inscription includes information regarding the date of the bronze, the place of its discovery, and where known, its current whereabouts. Most of the bronzes are assigned to an individual reign.
Many other scholars have devoted their careers to solving the puzzles presented by bronze inscriptions. Shirakawa Shizuka (born 1910), deserves high praise for his research, including Kinbun tsûshaku, a masterful analysis of Western Zhou dynasty bronze inscriptions.(Footnote22) Shirakawa includes photographs and rubbings to supplement his comprehensive line-by-line analysis of the inscriptions. Considering that Kinbun tsûshaku represents but a small portion of Shirakawa's contribution to the study of Chinese bronzes, his achievement can only be described as extraordinary.
Hayahi Minao (born 1925), another distinguished Japanese scholar, spent most of his career at the Research Institute of Humanistic Studies, Kyoto. His tripartite study, In shû seidôki sôran, conspectus of Yin and Zhou Bronzes, published in 1984, 1986 and 1988, includes information on virtually everything currently known about Chinese ritual bronzes - typology, regional variations, decorative features, iconography, terminology, casting and stylistic development. In Shû jidai seidôki no kenkyû, the first two volumes of Hayashi's publication, provides an analysis of vessel shapes and inscriptions.
Even a brief review of the contributions of a few of the people who have added to our understanding of Chinese bronze vessels during the twentieth century enables us to appreciate the magnitude of their achievements. Many questions still remain to be answered and there is every reason to believe that scholars will increase our appreciation of China's ancient bronzes in the twenty-first century. The meaning of the decoration on Chinese ritual bronzes - for which many different theories, some of them quite exotic, have been offered - still remains unresolved. In 1990 a group of scholars discussed those decorative elements, particularly the taotie, or monster mask, in terms of ancient Chinese myths and cult or ritual practices at an international colloquy held at the Percival David Foundation in London.(Footnote23) A few scholars suggested the decoration might be pure design having no specific symbolism, while others were quite specific in their interpretations.
There is also the provocative question of the geographical scope of China's bronze industry during the Shang dynasty and, equally important, the extent of the influence of the foundries at Anyang. Partial answers to questions regarding the variety, sophistication and geographical breadth of ancient China's bronze culture have come from finds at Sanxingdui, Guanghan, in Sichuan province,(Footnote24) and at Dayangzhou, Xin'gan, Jiangxi province.(Footnote25) Those finds have alerted scholars to hitherto unexplored, unanticipated possibilities, suggesting, among other things, that Anyang may have been dependent upon decorative motifs and technological innovations from the south. The importance of southern Chinese cultural achievement has the potential to modify our vision of ancient China's bronze industry and to lead scholars into unexpected directions. The possibilities of new, equally important discoveries during the twenty-first century are exciting to contemplate.
Fig. 1. Peking auction, 1906. Among the foreigners standing in the back row on a raised platform in the rear of the photograph, first and fifth from the right respectively, are Edgar Worch and Yamanaka Sajajirô. Courtesy of Ruth Trubner.
Fig. 2. Photograph of Luo Zhenyu with an inscription by Wang Guowei dated in correspondence to January 1914, when Luo Zhenyu was 49 years old. After Li chi, Anyang (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1977), p. 11, fig. 3.
Fig. 3. Li Chi, 1923. After Gugong wenwu yuekan, vol.1, no.3 (June 1982), p.14
Fig. 4. Guo Moruo studying a bronze from the tomb of Fu Hao, a Shang royal consort, recovered at Anyang, Henan province, in 1976. After China Pictorial 1977, no. 6, p. 26.
Fig. 5. Umehara Sueji, 1956. After Tan Danjiong, Zhongyang bowuyuan ershiwu nian zhi jinghua (Taipei: Zhonghua congshu, 1960), pl. 40
Fig. 6. Rong Geng, circa 1933. Frontispiece from Songzhai jijin tulu, the catalogue of Rong Geng's personal bronze collection.
Fig. 7. Chen Mengjia. After Mingbao yuekan (1992), no. 1, p. 141.
Fig. 8. C.T.Loo. After Daguerre, "Collection C.T. Loo et à divers amateurs," 2002, p. 2
Fig. 9. Chinese bronzes displayed at the Preussischen Akademie der Künste, Berlin, 1929. After Ostasiatische Zeitschrift N.F., 5 Jg., Heft 2 (1929), pl.8
Fig. 10. Sir W. Perceval Yetts. After Oriental Art, N.S., vol. 3, no. 3 (Autumn 1957), p. 119.
Fig. 11. Bernhard Karlgren. After Soren Egerod and Else Glahn eds., Studia Serica Bernhard Karlgren Dedicata (Copenhegen: Ejnar Munksgaard Copenhagen, 1959), frontispiece.
Fig. 12. Max Loehr, circa 1936. After Chinese Archaic Jades and Bronzes (New York: J.J.Lally & Co., 1993).
Fig. 13. Ma Chengyuan. After Ancient Chinese Bronzes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).
1 Hayashi Minao assembled a valuable reference to published images of bronzes included in Sandai jijin wencun. See Sandai ikkin bunson kiei sanshô mokuroku (Tokyo: Daian, 1967).
2 A 40-page critical review of Sandai jijin wencun, prepared by Sun Zhichu, is appended to the third volume of a new edition of the work published by Zhonghua shuju, Beijing, in 1983.
3 Li Chi's personal account of those excavations, titled Anyang (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1977), complements the official Chinese reports. Kwang-chih Chang's Shang Civilization (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), dedicated to Li Chi, offers a comprehensive analysis of the origins and development of Shang culture.
4 Liang Zhou jinwen ci daxi (Tokyo: Bunkyudo shoten, 1932). Guo Moruo published an expanded version of his research, Liang Zhou jinwen ci daxi tulu kaoshi, in 1935. John C. Ferguson translated Tang Lan's foreword and one chapter of Liang Zhou jinwen ci daxi tulu kaoshi in, "Inscriptions on Bronzes," Journal of the North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 66 (1935), pp. 64-70.
5 Ôbei sûcho Shina Kodô seika (Kyoto: Yamanaka & Company, 1993).
6 Nihon shûcho Shina kodô seika (Osaka: Yamanaka & Company, 1959-64).
7 Edward L. Shaughnessy, Sources of Western Zhou History: Inscribed Bronze Vessels (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), p. 20. Shaughnessy includes an excellent discussion of research on Chinese bronzes during the twentieth century, pp. 13-34.
8 In 1958 Rong Geng, in collaboration with Zhang Weichi, published Yin Zhou qingtongqi tonglun, based on material first discussed in Shang Zhou yiqi tongkao.
9 Chen Mengjia assembled data for another, related series on Eastern Zhou bronzes, "Dong Zhou tongqi duandai," which has never been published.
10 Chinese Bronze from the Buckingham Collection (Chicago: The Art Institute of Chicago, 1946).
11 Chen Mengjia's manuscript was published by Academia Sinica, Beijing, in 1962 without any mention of the author, under the title Mei diguo zhuyi jielue di woguo Yin Zhou tongqi tulu. Acknowledging Chen Mengjia's authorship, Matsumaru Michio edited a Japanese version of the publication, retitled Yin Zhou qingtongqi fenlei tulu (In Shû seidôki bunrui zuroku; A Corpus of Chinese Bronzes in American Collections), 2 vols. (Tokyo: Kyûko Shoin, 1977). Nine bronzes then in the collection of the American heiress Doris Duke (1912-1993) are numbered A70, A388, A468, A515, A542, A570, A633, and A776. Chen Mengjia's notes on Chinese bronzes in Canadian and European collections have never been published.
12 James M. Menzies (1885-1957), described how, before the First World War, "no Western scholar would believe that there was bronze in the Shang dynasty... Even...in 1930, when visiting the museums of North America and making rubbings of the inscriptions on Chinese bronzes I found no one willing to date any Chinese bronzes as old as Shang." See, "The Appreciation of Chinese Bronzes," in An exhibition of Ancient Chinese Ritual Bronzes (New York: C.T. Loo, 1940). See also, Henri Maspero, "Review of Takata Tadasuke, Kou Tchou P' ian," in Jounal asiatique, no. 210 (1927), pp. 129-142.
13 Ausstellung chinesischer Kunst veranstaltet von der Gesellschaft für Ostasiatische Kunst und der Preussischen Akademie der Künste Berlin (Berlin: Würfel Verlag, 1929.)
14 "Exhibition of Early Chinese Bronzes," Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, Stockholm, vol. 6 (1934), p. 81.
15 The George Eumorfopoulos Collection: Catalogue of the Chinese and Corean Bronzes, Sculpture, Jade, and Jewelry, and Miscellaneous Objects, Vol. I: Bronzes: Ritual and Other Vessel, Weapons, Etc. (London: Ernest Benn Ltd., 1929).
16 The Cull Chinese Bronzes (London: University of London, Courtauld Institute of Art, 1939).
17 No.3 and 10, pps. 5-21, 39-42, pls. 3-6, 14.
18 Eduard Erkes, "Review" in Artibus Asiae, vol.8, no.1 (1940), p. 281.
19 For a recent assessment of Karlgren's theories, see Sarah Allan, "Chinese Bronzes Through Western Eyes," in Roderick Whitfield and Wang Tao eds., Exploring China's Past: New Discoveries and Studies in Archaeology and Art (London: Saffron Books, 1999), pp. 63-76.
20 "The Bronze Styles of the Anyang Period (1300-1028 B.C), " Archives of the Chinese Art Society of America, vol. 7 (1953), pp. 42-53. P.42.
21 Ritual Vessels of Bronze Age China (New York: Asia House Gallery, 1968).
22.Kinbun tsûshaku (Kobe: Hakutsuru bijutsukan, 1962-84).
23 Roderick Whitfield ed., The Problem of Meaning in Early Chinese Ritual Bronzes (London: Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art, 1990).
24 Robert W. Bagley ed., Ancient Sichuan: Treasures from a Lost Civilization (Seattle: Princeton University Press, 2001)
25 Robert W. Bagley, "Changjiang Bronzes and Shang Archaeology," in International Colloquium on Chinese Art History, 1991, Proceedings, Antiquities, Part I (Taiwan: National Palace Museum, 1992), pp. 209-255.
THE PROPERTY OF A GENTLEMAN