Archaic script analysis and translation

I guess this makes sense. By saying “Tom, Dick, and Harry”, one is implying “just about anyone”. By writing 寶尊彝, one is implying “just about any bronzeware”.

really? I don’t think so. The dui4 and gui3 are two different bronze vessel types, not interchangeable names AFAIK.[/quote]
Well, yes and no. From what I’ve read “敦的型態是由鼎和簋相結合演變而成” and “〈周禮〉中簋敦不分, 宋代稱敦為簋, 至清代始有學者將敦單獨分出”. But knowing that 〈周禮〉 is claimed by some scholars to be a fabricated document, perhaps 〈周禮〉 is not to be trusted.

In the same paragraph that talked about 敦 and 〈周禮〉 above, I went back and noticed this sentence: 敦產生於春秋中期, 盛行於春秋晚期至戰國後期…". This means that 敦 came into existence during the Eastern Zhou era and did not exist during Western Zhou. Since the bronze script that I posted is from Western Zhou, the character in question could not possibly be 敦 after all. Thus, this graph remains a mystery.

I guess this makes sense. By saying “Tom, Dick, and Harry”, one is implying “just about anyone”. By writing 寶尊彝, one is implying “just about any bronzeware”.[/quote]

That’s why threads like this are so great – we learn something every day! :sunglasses:

really? I don’t think so. The dui4 and gui3 are two different bronze vessel types, not interchangeable names AFAIK.[/quote]
Well, yes and no. From what I’ve read “敦的型態是由鼎和簋相結合演變而成” and “〈周禮〉中簋敦不分, 宋代稱敦為簋, 至清代始有學者將敦單獨分出”. But knowing that 〈周禮〉 is claimed by some scholars to be a fabricated document, perhaps 〈周禮〉 is not to be trusted.[/quote]

“敦的型態是由鼎和簋相結合演變而成” makes some sense – from what I’ve seen, dui4 are essentially rounded, covered descendents of ding3, generally (but not always) with gui3-like handles. I can see how an art historian might retroactively analyze the vessels in these terms. But while the shape similarity between dui and ding are on occasion confusing (implying blurred borders and possibly interchangeability of terms), that’s not true IMO of gui and dui; the platform base of the former and the tripodal nature of the latter are just too distinct. Another way to put it is that the gui-like handles are a minor feature and are only present on some, not all dui.

However, there is another way to analyze the vessels, and that is in terms of function. If gui3 and dui4 are both vessels for cooked grain, for example (vs. meat for ding), and the shape is generally similar (except for the platform foot vs. tripodal feet) and the handles are often the same, I can certainly see where some might consider them synonymous.

In the same paragraph that talked about 敦 and 〈周禮〉 above, I went back and noticed this sentence: 敦產生於春秋中期, 盛行於春秋晚期至戰國後期…". This means that 敦 came into existence during the Eastern Zhou era and did not exist during Western Zhou. Since the bronze script that I posted is from Western Zhou, the character in question could not possibly be 敦 after all. Thus, this graph remains a mystery.[/quote]

You seem to do a better job of accessing textual sources than I do. I imagine you read all-Chinese sources much faster than I do. :laughing: This is certainly a good point. Assuming you trust the Zhouli. Then again, traditional Chinese sources say paper and the writing brush were invented when? A certain skepticism is in order. :wink:

In this case, however, I agree, and am a bit chagrined that I didn’t catch it myself. I’ve spent enough time with bronzes and have never seen a dui4 from before the Eastern Zhou. I really should have caught that one. :blush:

Ok, what are our alternative readings for that? :help:

excerpt from 泰誓下

惟我有周,誕受多方。予克受,非予武,惟朕文考無罪。受克予,非朕文考有罪,惟予小子無良。

In case you’re wondering what the original bronze vessel looks like, here’s a picture and description:

西周早期 鼎
說明: 通高33厘米,口徑39厘米。

西周早期鼎通高33厘米,口徑39厘米。立耳,鼓腹下垂,柱足。近口沿處有一周夔鳳紋,兩兩相對,昂首,尾下卷,腹飾勾連雷紋。器內壁有銘文30個字,其中重文2。
鼎是禮器中的重器,用鼎數依貴族身份高低有1、3、5、7、9之別。鼎的種類很多,一般特征是兩耳三足,耳和足的演變反映時代特征,也是鑒定其時代的依據之一。該鼎兩耳直立,柱足是西周早期的風格。

:notworthy: You are correct indeed with respect to

. I found the graph in page 298 of the PDF that I had talked about earlier.

I still wonder though, whether it’s not the name of a person (see my comment on “Dude Y from Family X” earlier) instead of a verb as you’ve chosen to interpret it.

To take this issue into a bit more detail, I’m going to quote the following:

晚商至西周初的銘文大多為短篇的祭祖與標誌個人或家族榮耀的簡記,中、晚期亦頗承襲,增加了銘末希望長壽萬年與子孫永寶的祈語。其形式主要為:

a. 族徽(為一家族的標記,字形圖象性較濃,多置於銘文之首或銘文之末)
b. 作器者(官名、族名、姓氏、私名或字號的組合)
c. 「乍」字(即「作」字,表示鑄器,或名「用乍」、「鑄」、「乍鑄」)
d. 受祭者(多為親謂與日名的複合詞,如父己、母辛,有的省略只剩親謂或日名)或受贈者(為生者作器,以頌揚其德,將榮耀歸於其身)
e. 器名(早期多為銅器通稱:寶尊彝或寶彝、寶尊、旅彝,或單一字尊或彝;中期以後銅器專名漸多:簋、鼎、壺、鬲、 等)
f. 祈福吉語(早期罕見,中期多萬年、永寶、萬年子孫永寶,晚期則層累疊增,多出頌揚天子、追孝祖先、祈求福、祿、長壽及傳諸子孫等綜合內容的頌詞)

如: 雔卯作母戊彝 [ 雔(a) 卯(b) 作(c) 母戊(d) 彝(e) ]

語譯:身為「雔」徽記家族的「卯 」,為紀念名「戊」的「母」親(以日為名),製作一件禮器(彝),以陳于宗廟。

Maybe the reason we can’t figure out the first graph is because it is more of a clan symbol than a regular word, thus perhaps a bit on the obscure side (not that the fact we’re discussing bronzeware script isn’t obscure enough :loco:). The above quote is also the reason that I’m not convinced that the second graph
(肁)
should be interpreted as a verb rather than a person or title name.

[quote=“Jack Burton”]excerpt from
泰誓下

惟我有周,誕受多方。予克受,非予武,惟朕文考無罪。受克予,非朕文考有罪,惟予小子無良
。[/quote]

Thanks, Jack. Now could you explain it to us please? :laughing:
(I saw that in my Hanyu Da Zidian when I looked up 朕, but this Chinese is too difficult for me; I can’t follow it well enough for it to be useful in explaining 朕 to me!) :help:

Sjcma, that’s a gorgeous vessel! :sunglasses:

I know 朕 is how the Emperor referred to himself. It’s means “I” or “me”, but only for the Emperor. (Perhaps “My Majesty”? Or the “royal we”?)

But I have no idea of its function in bronzeware script!

[quote=“Chris”]I know 朕 is how the Emperor referred to himself. It’s means “I” or “me”, but only for the Emperor. (Perhaps “My Majesty”? Or the “royal we”?)

But I have no idea of its function in bronzeware script![/quote]

Actually I think we already have the answer to that – it appears to be I / me / my, as early as the oracle bone period. What I really should have said is just that the quoted material wasn’t clear to me. :stuck_out_tongue:

Mr. Ma, thanks for that explanation. The 雔卯作母戊彝 [ 雔(a) 卯(b) 作© 母戊(d) 彝(e) ] breakdown is particularly useful. You may well be right about the beginning being a clan and personal name, 雔卯 chou2 + mao3 in this breakdown, and


perhaps [犭+耳+犭] si1 肁 zhao4 on your early W. Zhou bronze.

[quote=“Chris”]I know 朕 is how the Emperor referred to himself. It’s means “I” or “me”, but only for the Emperor. (Perhaps “My Majesty”? Or the “royal we”?)

But I have no idea of its function in bronzeware script![/quote]
Pre-Qin, 朕 means “me”, “my”, or “I”. After Qin unified China, he dicated that “天子自稱曰(yue1)朕”, hence, no one else afterwards was allowed to use 朕 to refer to oneself.

On a side note, I’ve also read that emperors who have chosen certain characters for their temple names (or other names) have banned all others from using it in their names. Thus, once a new emperor comes into power, some actually had to change their names as not to clash with the emperor’s new name.

In case any of you are wondering about my source for 雔卯作母戊彝 [ 雔(a) 卯(b) 作(c) 母戊(d) 彝(e) ], I got it from the National Palace Museum’s website. They have a special online exhibit called “A Special Exhibition of Bronze Inscriptions from the Western Chou” (文存周金 – 西周金文特展). Apparently, this is a pop-up page of a more extensive exhibition website because if you click on “回展覽內容”, it closes the browser.

From the same website, you can see the inscription for 雔卯作母戊彝 below (I had omitted in my earlier post due to plain text copying-and-pasting):

[quote=“sjcma”][quote=“Chris”]I know 朕 is how the Emperor referred to himself. It’s means “I” or “me”, but only for the Emperor. (Perhaps “My Majesty”? Or the “royal we”?)

But I have no idea of its function in bronzeware script![/quote]
Pre-Qin, 朕 means “me”, “my”, or “I”. After Qin unified China, he dicated that “天子自稱曰(yue1)朕”, hence, no one else afterwards was allowed to use 朕 to refer to oneself.

On a side note, I’ve also read that emperors who have chosen certain characters for their temple names (or other names) have banned all others from using it in their names. Thus, once a new emperor comes into power, some actually had to change their names as not to clash with the emperor’s new name.[/quote]

That was true which made it especially difficult for all the Crown Prince’s relatives when he ascended the throne (they share a word in their name usually). Fortunately, some smart emperor figured out a way to avoid this much later during the Qing dynasty. :stuck_out_tongue:
He had the Crown Prince change his name rather than make everyone else change theirs.

(I’ve studied little jinwen, so I’m kinda guessing here too)
Shang bronzes were objects of Rite and symbols of power first and foremost. Presumably, meats were cooked and wines were drawn from the bronzes in rituals [for libation]. Ritual in Shang times primarily meant dedication and offerings to the ancestor spirits in the hopes of allaying misfortune and favoring prosperity (but ancestor cult existed alongside worship of places and things e.g. Sky and Yellow River). The phrase wenkao I believe is a kinship term referring to a type/level/category of ancestor.

I think there is some research showing that the Kao term denotes a rank in later Zhou times.

Thanks, Jack!
Your post reminded me of my attempt earlier to read 匕(妣)百 + 申?? as a particular female ancestor, but upon seeing 申(神) in your quote, I suddenly realized that this could be ‘to sacrifice to female ancestor and the hundred spirits’ or ‘to sacrifice to the hundred female ancestral spirits’. Then I went back and searched for some more examples of 申(神), compared it in more detail to the above rubbing, and realized it’s a better match than I originally thought – I present to you all the original and reconstructed versions, then a sketch from a version in one of my books and a screen cap of 申 from Mr. Ma’s abovementioned PDF.

Mr. Ma, that’s from your PDF page 388, top graph.

[quote=“Dragonbones”]Your post reminded me of my attempt earlier to read 匕(妣)百 + 申?? as a particular female ancestor, but upon seeing 申(神) in your quote, I suddenly realized that this could be ‘to sacrifice to female ancestor and the hundred spirits’ or ‘to sacrifice to the hundred female ancestral spirits’. Then I went back and searched for some more examples of 申(神), compared it in more detail to the above rubbing, and realized it’s a better match than I originally thought – I present to you all the original and reconstructed versions, then a sketch from a version in one of my books and a screen cap of 申 from Mr. Ma’s abovementioned PDF.
[/quote]
:notworthy: Great work! Here’s another authentic early Western Zhou example from CHANT (see below) which resembles DB’s book: . Now we’re down to two graphs to figure out. The first one and the one that I thought was 敦.

I’ll take another stab at the first graph. DB has mentioned he thinks it may be

or more probably . But in flipping through the dictionary, I noticed another possibility which is .

There is a website called CHANT (CHinese ANcient Text – www.chant.org) which is published by the Chinese University of Hong Kong. It contains tens of thousands of rubbings/reproductions of orcale bones, bronze scripts, bamboo scripts, and Qin/Han writings including transcriptions of those scripts into modern text. Alas, there’s no translation of those texts into 白話. To access the website requires a annual subscription fee but there’s a 30 day trial in which you get to see a very limited subset of the collection. But you can also use their search function which searches the entire database but at most 20 results can be viewed during the trial. In searching, I looked under the section where graphs has already been 隸定. And further searching under the 犬 bushou, I found that neither

nor is found in their collections but there are four entries for . One of those entries looks like this: . Compare this with the graph we’re trying to decipher: . I’d say it’s pretty close. Quoting from the dictionary that I’m referring to, means “minister of public works (in ancient China)”. It does appear to fit the context.

What say you folks?

CHANT, however, gives a different character for . It transcribes it as instead of

like everywhere else. The right side of is the same as

(variant form) but they’ve decided to add the left hand side bushou as well. It makes sense if one was to look at the graph itself, but I haven’t seen this from any other source.

One graph left…

[quote=“sjcma”]I’ll take another stab at the first graph. DB has mentioned he thinks it may be

or more probably . But in flipping through the dictionary, I noticed another possibility which is .[/quote]

:laughing: Very nice job! I’ve already identified this graph earlier (although I’m afraid I wasn’t clear about it, as I referred to it by its pronunciation, definition and bronze structure, and failed to mention its 隸定 li4ding4 form). I had mentioned:

I didn’t mean that I was reading the graph as 獄. I meant that it was a graph pronounced si1, and meaning 獄官 (superintendent of jails). I was actually referring to the graphs you provide here (which I describe as having the 耳 ‘ear’ and ‘lower half of 官 guan1’ [actually I should say dui1, right half of 垖 and meaning 堆] structures) but didn’t have a picture handy and was unable to type it as ‘si1’ in IME. Sorry, I was being a bit lazy and didn’t chase down an image of the two graphs, which you’ve kindly provided:

  1. with the dui1 element and with the 耳 , li4ding4 form of which is, as you provide, .

I referred to this as containing an ear because I was focused on the bronze form. The li4ding4 form comes about because, as far as I can gather, Xu Shen dissected it as containing 臣, which evolves from an eye pictograph; the kaishu forms morph this element into the right half of

or the left half of 頤 yi2 ‘cheek’, which left half is btw etymonic (i.e., the left half is the original graph for the whole graph, and 頁 was added later).

They ( and ) are variant graphs – same animal, same def. & pron… The translation you have is slightly different from mine but both are official positions. So we’re in agreement! :slight_smile:

Do you have a Hanyu Da Zidian? If so, check p. 572 column C, bottom graph, 2nd & 3rd examples. See also p.573 B2 (2nd graph in col. b).

[quote]CHANT, however, gives a different character for . It transcribes it as instead of

like everywhere else. The right side of is the same as

(variant form) but they’ve decided to add the left hand side bushou as well. It makes sense if one was to look at the graph itself, but I haven’t seen this from any other source.[/quote]

Well, that would be an inverted

zheng4;

and

are both derived from the same graphic lineage, essentially

. Whenever the context makes it clear that a bronze vessel is involved, however, it is standard to interpret as

zun1 (since this is the modern graph for such a vessel). I’d describe CHANT’s rendition as “an overly literal” 隸定. :stuck_out_tongue:

[quote=“Dragonbones”] Very nice job! I’ve already identified this graph earlier (although I’m afraid I wasn’t clear about it, as I referred to it by its pronunciation, definition and bronze structure, and failed to mention its 隸定 li4ding4 form).

[…]

They ( and ) are variant graphs – same animal, same def. & pron… The translation you have is slightly different from mine but both are official positions. So we’re in agreement! :slight_smile: [/quote]

Hi DB, I did give you credit for but I didn’t know that was a variant form. :idunno: Otherwise, I would have declared this one solved already. Yes, both characters have the same pronounciation which I thought was interesting, but I couldn’t find a definition for the former, only the latter character had a complete definition. It would appear based on CHANT and the dictionary that the latter character is the accepted 隸定 form rather than the former.

Unfortunately, I do not. How much does one cost? I know there’s a 辭海 at my parents’ place. Perhaps I’ll go over on the weekend and swipe it from them. :smiley:

[quote=“sjcma”]It would appear based on CHANT and the dictionary that the latter character is the
accepted 隸定 form rather than the former.[/quote]

I agree, based on the manner of listing in the HYDZD.

The Hanyu Da Zidian is is available from 建宏出版社 Jian4hong2 Publ., ISBN 957-813-478-9 for about NT$1780; it lists elsewhere for $2500. You’ll want one! :smiley:

OK, after much gnashing of teeth, here’s the current consensus:


肁乍(作)朕文考甲
公寶尊彝其日朝
夕用●祀于匕百
申(神)孫孫子子其永寶用

DB has already indicated that the one remaining mystery graph looks like

chun2. Right now, I’m inclined to think the same thing. After all,

means quail. By stuffing

(no pun intended) into the sentence, it may mean that “throughout the day and night, quail was used as a sacrifice to worship the hundred spirits of our female ancesters”. Afterall, 鼎 was used to cook meat, right?

[quote=“sjcma”]By stuffing

(no pun intended) into the sentence, it may mean that “throughout the day and night, quail was used as a sacrifice to worship the hundred spirits of our female ancesters”. Afterall, 鼎 was used to cook meat, right?[/quote]

:laughing: :bravo:

Now, can we find any parallel examples, where the same grammatical pattern was used for other small birds sacrificed? I very seriously doubt it. All the mentions I’ve seen of smaller animals (when not used as phonetic loan for something else like a placename) have been listings of captured prey on hunts (in the OB). I’ve seen cattle used as sacrifices in instances like this but not quail! :stuck_out_tongue: I don’t think they were valuable enough to be used in sacrifice.

That’s why I didn’t take my own notion of this graph as quail seriously. It really does look like it though. So, what are we left with? Phonetic loan for another meaning? Cheapskate duke?

[quote=“Dragonbones”][quote=“sjcma”]By stuffing

(no pun intended) into the sentence, it may mean that “throughout the day and night, quail was used as a sacrifice to worship the hundred spirits of our female ancesters”. Afterall, 鼎 was used to cook meat, right?[/quote]

:laughing: :bravo:

Now, can we find any parallel examples, where the same grammatical pattern was used for other small birds sacrificed? I very seriously doubt it. All the mentions I’ve seen of smaller animals (when not used as phonetic loan for something else like a placename) have been listings of captured prey on hunts (in the OB). I’ve seen cattle used as sacrifices in instances like this but not quail! :stuck_out_tongue: I don’t think they were valuable enough to be used in sacrifice.

That’s why I didn’t take my own notion of this graph as quail seriously. It really does look like it though. So, what are we left with? Phonetic loan for another meaning? Cheapskate duke?[/quote]
I can just imagine a little quail sitting at the bottom of this huge vessel. All the 子子孫孫 gather around the vessel and wonder who’s gonna get the juicy quail wings! :laughing: Maybe we’ve discovered a new Western Zhou practice that has hitherto been undocumented! :sunglasses: :smiley: Who knows? Maybe they used 100 quails to fill up that 鼎. I think a scraping of the vessel interior may reveal DNA clues.