General PrefaceⅡ Edward L. Shaughnessy

Early in 2006, rumors about an important new cache of ancient bam-boo-slip manuscripts began to circulate on the Hong Kong antiques market. This was but the latest in a rash of antiquities coming on the market as a result of tomb robbing in China that began in the early 1990s. Reprehensible though tomb robbing is, robbing both the ancients of their dignity and also modern science of knowledge about the context from which the antiquities came, cultural organs within China, especially museums and universities, have taken it upon themselves to “rescue” and repatriate these products of traditional Chinese civilization. This has been especially true of bamboo-slip manuscripts, the writings on which are regarded as the highest expression of this civilization. Thus, in 2008, Tsinghua University of Beijing dispatched a small group of select scholars led by Li Xueqin 李學勤 (1933-2019), at the time universally acknowledged as the leading expert on all aspects of early Chinese cultural history, to go to Hong Kong to examine this new cache of manuscripts. According to an account by Liu Guozhong 劉國忠, now a member of Tsinghua University’s Research and Conservation Center for Unearthed Texts (清华大学出土文獻研究與保護中心), once Li determined the slips to be authentic, the university moved quickly to arrange for their purchase.1

The bamboo slips, totaling nearly 2,500 slips or fragments of slips in all, arrived at Tsinghua University in July 2008. When the plastic wrapping in which the slips had been transported to Beijing was opened, scholars there discovered that a form of mold was developing on many of them. They immediately commenced intensive efforts to preserve the slips; these efforts, which required almost three months, were ultimately successful.2 A preliminary inventory conducted during the preservation work identified 2,388 slips or fragments bearing writing, to which unique serial numbers were assigned. Subsequent work with the slips turned up writing on another hundred or so pieces, such that the total number of fragments bearing writing is close to 2,500. Also at this time, pieces without writing were sent to the Peking University Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) Laboratory for 14C testing; the result was a date of 305 BCE ± 30 years. This matched well the evaluation of both Tsinghua researchers and also a group of China’s senior-most paleographers, who were brought to Beijing to evaluate the slips in October of 2008; they agreed that the calligraphy and format of the slips is consistent with other slips known to date to the end of the Middle Warring States period or the beginning of the Late Warring States period, i.e., roughly 300 BCE. The final step in the preservation work was the making of high-resolution photographs of the slips; thereafter, it was from these photographs that the Tsinghua editorial team would work, while the original slips were sealed away in a climate-controlled environment submerged in trays of distilled water.3

During the preservation and photographic work, the editorial team was able to arrive at some preliminary understanding of the content of the slips. Nevertheless, it was only after that work was completed that editorial work could begin in earnest. The first order of business was to identify how many different discrete texts there were, and which slips belonged to which texts. Because the slips had been robbed from a tomb, when they arrived at Tsinghua University, they had become largely separated from their original context. Thus, the identification of texts depended on the sort of typological analysis that archaeologists usually employ: placing slips of similar length and width together; noting the locations of the straps that were used to bind them together (sometimes leaving a distinct mark on the bamboo, and usually marked as well by small notches on the side of the bamboo intended to keep the strap from sliding up and down on the slip); identifying paratextual features of the slips (placement of text above or below the top and bottom binding strap, the presence or absence of numbers indicating the sequence of the slips, the use and types of punctuation, as well as features on the reverse side of the slips including the presence or absence of titles, diagonal slash marks presumably made during the preparation of the slips, and occasional “ghost” characters left imprinted from other slips); and examination of the calligraphy (assuming that a discrete text would feature a consistent calligraphic hand). After placing slips into groups of these features, the editors turned finally to their content. In this regard, they were often able to rely on comparisons with received literature to identify text that continued from one slip to another. Often of crucial importance in this respect was sequence numbers found on the bottom or reverse side of numerous slips, a feature seen for the first time with the Tsinghua manuscripts.

In the course of this editorial work, the original approximately 2,500 fragments of slips have been rejoined into a total of 1,811 discrete slips, which the editors have further grouped into 75 different texts. The texts run the gamut from chapters of the Shang shu 尚書 Exalted Scriptures (also known as the Classic of Documents) and the Yi Zhou shu 逸周書 Leftover Zhou Scriptures to an anecdotal history of China from the early Western Zhou (c. eleventh century BCE) to the early fourth century BCE and a chronicle of the capitals of the state of Chu 楚, from collections of poetry to an extensive handbook on milfoil divination, and include a great many discrete texts concerning the political philosophy of China’s classical age, the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. The first volume, which includes nine of these texts, was published toward the end of 2010. Since then, the Tsinghua University Research and Conservation Center for Unearthed Texts has published the manuscripts at the rate of one volume per year, under the general title Qinghua daxue cang Zhanguo zhujian 清華大學藏戰國竹簡 The Tsinghua University Warring States Bamboo Manuscripts.4 These are deluxe editions with full color photographs, exacting transcriptions, careful annotations, complete concordances for each volume, and tables of information regarding the physical features of each slip. Each new publication has generated great scholarly interest both in China and also abroad.

As just one indication of the great interest that the Tsinghua manuscripts hold, the first volume includes two texts that correspond to chapters of the Shang shu. These have conclusively resolved the greatest outstanding debate in the entire history of Chinese textual criticism: the question of the authenticity of the so-called guwen 古文 or “ancient script” chapters of that text. One of these manuscripts is entitled by the editors *Yin gao尹誥 Announcement of Yin.5 It corresponds with the chapter “Xian you yi de” 咸有一德 “Both Had a Singular Virtue” found only in the guwen version of the Shang shu. A passage from the text is also quoted in the classic Li ji 禮記 Record of Ritual, where it is referred to as “Yin ji” 尹吉 (though ji 吉 “auspicious” is clearly a mistake for the graphically similar gao 告 “to announce” [itself an abbreviated form of the word gao 誥“announcement”]).6 This Li ji quotation is included in the guwen Shang shu version of the text, and is found also in the Tsinghua manuscript. However, everything else in the Tsinghua manuscript is completely different from the guwen Shang shu text. This seems to conf i rm that the guwen Shang shu text was fabricated, probably in the early fourth century CE, on the basis of this one early quotation and other materials then circulating, a hypothesis first proposed almost three hundred years ago.7 The Tsinghua manuscript, on the other hand, represents the authentic early version of this chapter. The resolution of this question alone would serve to make the Tsinghua manuscripts one of the great discoveries of Chinese history. But there is much, much more as well. The panel of experts convened by Tsinghua University to examine the manuscripts in October 2008 was not exaggerating in the least when it said this about them:

These Warring States bamboo slips are tremendously valuable historical artifacts, whose contents speak to the very core of traditional Chinese culture. This is an unprecedented discovery, one which will inevitably attract the attention of scholars both here and abroad. It promises to have a lasting impact on many different disciplines, including but not limited to Chinese history, archaeology, paleography and philology.8

Tsinghua University established the Tsinghua University Research and Conservation Center for Unearthed Texts to study and preserve these manuscripts. Its first director was Li Xueqin. While the Center has very admirably fulfilled these responsibilities, in his Foreword to Liu Guozhong’s Introduction to the Tsinghua Bamboo-Strip Manuscripts, Professor Li stressed that the further study of the manuscripts requires a collective endeavor:

The significance of the Tsinghua slips cannot be overstated. It has fallen on us to preserve, edit, and eventually publish these manuscripts; what exciting research may come from these efforts is a question that must be answered in turn by the entire academic community.9

Liu Guozhong himself returned to this point in the conclusion to his work:

The content of the Tsinghua slips can be very difficult to decipher. These are not manuscripts that can be explicated by only a handful of people over a short duration of study, but rather any comprehensive understanding of this collection will require careful analysis that spans a much longer period of time. Research on bamboo and silk manuscripts is at times very pragmatic and detail-oriented. Piecing together one slip, or one fragment of silk sheet, interpreting just one character or one sentence—each of these tasks requires much time and effort. Publication of the first volume of the Tsinghua slips was only possible due to the combined efforts of many scholars, who put much care and research into this project already. However, for this reason, publication of our editing report should mark only the first stage of research on the Tsinghua slips. Really it is only just the beginning. We hope that now many more scholars will conduct research on these remarkable artifacts, that you will join our team and help to bring study of the Tsinghua slips to a whole new level.10

It is in this spirit that early in the year 2020, the Research and Conservation Center for Unearthed Texts of Tsinghua University organized two separate projects to extend still further the research on these manuscripts. The first project, undertaken by scholars at Tsinghua University, is to produce“collated interpretations” (jiaoshi 校釋) volumes devoted to one or a group of related individual texts, summarizing scholarship on the texts published (largely, though not exclusively, in Chinese) in the years since their original publication; these volumes will not feature the same groupings of texts as the original publication Qinghua daxue cang Zhanguo zhujian, but rather will group the texts based on various relationships (whether of content or codicology).11 We expect this project to be complete in eighteen volumes. The second project is to produce English-language translations and studies of the manuscripts. These translations will be produced by a team of Western translators, the translator of each volume hand picked for their expertise with the contents of that volume. Each of these volumes of translation will mirror the “collated interpretations” volumes in terms of content, though the translations will not necessarily reflect the interpretations of the Tsinghua editors, either in the original volumes or in the “collated interpretations”volumes. While the different contents of the different volumes will require somewhat different approaches, each volume will feature a general introduction placing the contents of the volume in their scholarly context, followed by carefully annotated translations of the individual text or texts. Each text will also be provided with a brief introduction discussing its signif i cance, and will also feature translations of related texts from China’s traditional literature when relevant. These volumes will be the work of the individual translator responsible for the volume, and will appear under his or her name.

In short, through the international collaboration of these two teams of scholars, and with the active support of the Tsinghua University Press, we look forward to sharing these Tsinghua manuscripts with readers throughout the world. In closing, it is fitting to echo the sentiment of Liu Guozhong quoted above: “We hope that now many more scholars will conduct research on these remarkable artifacts, that you will join our team and help to bring study of the Tsinghua slips to a whole new level.”

A Note on the Authenticity of the Tsinghua Manuscripts and the Ethics of Preserving Looted Cultural Artifacts

The publication of each successive volume of Qinghua daxue cang Zhanguo zhujian 清華大學藏戰國竹簡 The Tsinghua University Warring States Bamboo Manuscripts has demonstrated anew the conclusion reached by the panel of experts convened in October 2008 to evaluate the value of the manuscripts: “These Warring States bamboo slips are tremendously valuable historical artifacts, whose contents speak to the very core of traditional Chinese culture.” Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the value of the manuscripts is diminished by virtue of their having been robbed from some unknown tomb and then smuggled onto the antique market, with any information of either their provenience or provenance being unknown. Doubts have been expressed both in China and abroad about other collections of looted manuscripts, such as those of the Shanghai Museum and Peking University,12 though these have been met both in China and abroad by extensive discussions of authentication techniques.13 With respect to the Tsinghua manuscripts, although as noted above Tsinghua University sent pieces of bamboo without writing to the Peking University Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) Laboratory for 14C testing, and also invited a group of China’s senior-most paleographers to authenticate the slips, both sorts of tests agreeing that the slips date to roughly 300 BCE, the publication of the first volume was also met by some doubts about the authenticity of the manuscripts.14 As the volumes of Qinghua daxue cang Zhanguo zhujian have been published, there has developed a consensus among other scholars in China that the manuscripts are authentic, and do indeed date to the Warring States period.

Artifactual and archaeological evidence in support of the authenticity of the Tsinghua manuscripts has subsequently become available, corroborating the scientif i c and paleographic analyses. In 2010, Sun Peiyang 孫沛陽, working with the Peking University Han slips, discovered for the first time lines cut into the verso side of the slips, a feature that was subsequently found also on archaeologically excavated slips, such as those at Guodian 郭店.15 While the exact function of these lines is still a topic of discussion, it is generally agreed that the lines were made in antiquity in the production of slips from the original bamboo stems. These verso lines are also found on the Tsinghua slips, and since they entered into the collection of Tsinghua University in 2008, two years before Sun Peiyang’s discovery, this constitutes almost incontrovertible artifactual evidence for the authenticity of the slips.16

Even better evidence of the authenticity of the Tsinghua slips has come from a subsequent archaeological discovery. On 30 October 2020, archaeologists at the Jingzhou Museum 荆州博物館 excavated a tomb, numbered M46, at the Zaolinpu 棗林鋪 Paper Factory, with at least 535 inscribed bamboo slips in it. These slips can be divided into five different types, with nine discrete texts. One of these, which the excavators have given the title *Wu Wang Fuchai qi shi fa Yue 吴王夫差起師伐越 Fuchai, King of Wu, Raised Troops and Attacked Yue matches very closely the Tsinghua manuscript entitled by the Tsinghua editors *Yue Gong qi shi 越公其事 May the Lord of Yue Attend.17 These are both lengthy texts, the Tsinghua version being written on seventy-f i ve slips and the Zaolinpu version written on seventy-nine slips. While there are a number of variants between the two manuscripts, there is no doubt that they are one and the same text. Since the Tsinghua*Yue Gong qi shi manuscript was published prior to the excavation of the Zaolinpu manuscript, the authenticity of which is beyond question, it could not have been copied from that text and so it too is almost surely authentic.18 And since the slips of this one Tsinghua manuscript were embedded in mud together with the other slips when they arrived at Tsinghua University in 2008, it furthermore stands to reason that they too are authentic.

In addition to questions about the authenticity of the Tsinghua manuscripts, other scholars have raised questions about the ethics of working with looted materials. For instance, Paul R. Goldin has argued “when a looted artifact is repatriated by being purchased at great cost, the process only encourages more looting in the future,”19 and he has suggested that scholars ought to refuse to study such materials. Scholars at Tsinghua University’s Research and Conservation Center for Unearthed Texts join scholars throughout China and abroad in decrying the scourge of tomb-robbing that has plagued the country for the last three decades. But they view the work they do to preserve, edit, and publish the manuscripts in their collection as both a scholarly and a moral responsibility. What is more, it is entirely consistent with the United Nations “Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property” of 1970, Article 7 of which states:

The States Parties to this Convention undertake:

(a) To take the necessary measures, consistent with national legislation, to prevent museums and similar institutions within their territories from acquiring cultural property originating in another State Party which has been illegally exported after entry into force of this Convention, in the States concerned. Whenever possible, to inform a State of origin Party to this Convention of an offer of such cultural property illegally removed from that State after the entry into force of this Convention in both States;

(b) (i) to prohibit the import of cultural property stolen from a museum or a religious or secular public monument or similar institution in another State Party to this Convention after the entry into force of this Convention for the States concerned, provided that such property is documented as appertaining to the inventory of that institution;

(ii) at the request of the State Party of origin, to take appropriate steps to recover and return any such cultural property imported after the entry into force of this Convention in both States concerned, provided, however, that the requesting State shall pay just compensation to an innocent purchaser or to a person who has valid title to that property. Requests for recovery and return shall be made through diplomatic offices. The requesting Party shall furnish, at its expense, the documentation and other evidence necessary to establish its claim for recovery and return. The Parties shall impose no customs duties or other charges upon cultural property returned pursuant to this Article. All expenses incident to the return and delivery of the cultural property shall be borne by the requesting Party.20

This international convention, to which China is a party, is concerned exclusively with the exportation of cultural artifacts beyond national boundaries. Since the Tsinghua manuscripts originated in China, it is the responsibility of relevant Chinese cultural institutions—such as Tsinghua University—to make every effort to ensure that they do not leave the country. Within the country of origin, cultural and scholarly organizations have the right—and the responsibility—to preserve and make these manuscripts available to the broader public. It is this spirit that motivates the various publication projects of Tsinghua University’s Research and Conservation Center for Unearthed Texts, very much including this series The Tsinghua University Warring States Bamboo Manuscripts.

---

1　Liu Guozhong, Introduction to the Tsinghua Bamboo-Strip Manuscripts, tr. Christopher J.Foster and William N. French (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 51-54. Whereas the university initially claimed that the slips had been donated by an anonymous alumnus, Liu Guozhong indicates that Zhao Weiguo 趙偉國, chairman of the Jiankun International Investment Group 健坤集團 and an alumnus of Tsinghua, provided the funds.

2　For a detailed narrative of this preservation work, see Liu, Introduction to the Tsinghua Bamboo-Strip Manuscripts, 54-69. Liu was one of three researchers tasked by Tsinghua to work with the original slips, and he kept a detailed diary of all of their efforts, so his account should be authoritative.

3　The tomb from which the slips came was almost certainly filled with water, providing an anaerobic environment conducive to the preservation of organic material such as bamboo. It is for this reason that slips such as these, once unearthed, are generally preserved submerged in water.

4　For Volume One, see Li Xueqin 李學勤 ed.-in-chief, Qinghua daxue Chutu wenxian yanjiu yu baohu zhongxin 清華大學出土文獻研究與保護中心 ed., Qinghua daxue cang Zhanguo zhujian (yi) 清華大學藏戰國竹簡 (壹) (Shanghai: Zhong Xi shuju, 2010). Subsequent volumes, with the same title other than the volume number, have appeared at the rate of one per year.

5　Qinghua daxue cang Zhanguo zhujian (yi), 4-5 (full-size photographs), 41-43 (double-size photographs), 132-134 (transcription and notes). In a similar manner, Volume Three of the Tsinghua manuscripts contains a three-part text, each part of which is self-titled as Fu Yue zhi ming 傅说之命 The Command to Fu Yue. This text corresponds with “Yue ming” 说命 “Command to Yue” chapter found in the guwen Shang shu. However, the contents of the Tsinghua Fu Yue zhi ming are completely different from the “Yue ming”chapter, again showing the spurious nature of the latter. See Li Xueqin 李學勤 ed.-inchief, Qinghua daxue Chutu wenxian yanjiu yu baohu zhongxin 清華大學出土文獻研究與保護中心 ed., Qinghua daxue cang Zhanguo zhujian (san) 清華大學藏戰國竹簡(叁) (Shanghai: Zhong Xi shuju, 2012), 2-7 (full-size photographs), 29-51 (double-size photographs), 121-131 (transcription and notes).

6　Li ji zhengyi 禮記正義, in Shisan jing zhushu 十三經注疏 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju,1980), 55 (“Zi yi” 緇衣), 420 (1648). It should be noted that there are two different early manuscripts of this text, and both of them write the name of the text quoted as Yin gao尹誥; see Jingmen shi bowuguan 荆門市博物館 ed., Guodian Chu mu zhujian 郭店楚墓竹簡 (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1998), 17 (photograph), 129 (transcription); Ma Chengyuan 馬承源 ed., Shanghai bowuguan cang Zhanguo Chu zhushu (yi) 上海博物館藏戰國楚竹書 (一) (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji chubanshe, 2001), 46 (photograph), 176(transcription).

7　The first detailed presentation of this hypothesis was made by Yan Ruoqu 閻若璩 (1636-1704) in his Shang shu guwen shuzheng 尚書古文疏證, in Huang Qing jingjie xubian 皇清經解續編 (Jiangyin: Nanjing shuyuan, 1888), vols. 6-10. For Western-language studies of the issue, see Paul Pelliot, “Le Chou King en caractères anciens et le Chang Chou che wen,” Mémoires concernant l’Asie Orientale 2 (1916): 123-177; Benjamin Elman, “Philosophy (I-Li) versus Philology (K’ao-cheng): The Jen-hsin tao-hsin Debate,” T’oung Pao 2nd ser. 69.4-5 (1983):175-222.

8　“Report on Authentication” (鍳定意見), quoted at Liu, Introduction to the Tsinghua Bamboo-Strip Manuscripts, 72.

9　Liu, Introduction, xii.

10　Liu, Introduction, 208-209.

11　Huang Dekuan 黄德寬 ed.-in-chief, Qinghua daxue cang Zhanguo zhujian jiaoshi 清華大學藏戰國竹簡校釋 (Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2022-).

12　For doubts regarding the Shanghai Museum manuscripts, see Xing Wen, “New Light on the Li Ji 禮記: The Li Ji and the Related Warring States period Guodian Bamboo Manuscripts,” Early China 37 (2014): 522-523; and for those about the Peking University manuscripts, see Xing Wen 邢文, “Beida jian Laozi bianwei” 北大簡《老子》辨偽,Guangming ribao 光明日報, 8 August 2016; “Bianzheng zhi mei yu sandian toushi—Beida jian Laozi zai bianwei” 辯證之美與散點透視——北大簡《老子》再辨偽,Guangming ribao, 12 September 2016.

13　See Hu Pingsheng 胡平生, “Lun jianbo bianwei yu liushi jiandu qiangjiu” 論簡帛辨偽與流失簡牘搶救, Chutu wenxian yanjiu 出土文獻研究 9 (2010): 76-108; Christopher J.Foster, “Introduction to the Peking University Han Bamboo Strips: On the Authentication and Study of Purchased Manuscripts,” Early China 40 (2017): 167-239.

14　Jiang Guanghui 姜廣輝, “‘Qinghua jian’ jianding keneng yao jingli yige changqi guocheng—Zai tan dui Bao xun pian de yiwen” “清華簡”鑒定可能要經歷一個長期過程——再談對《保訓》篇的疑問, Guangming ribao 光明日報, 8 June 2009; Jiang Guanghui,“Bao xun yiwei xinzheng wuze”《保訓》疑偽新證五則, Zhongguo zhexueshi中國哲學史 2010.3, 30-34; Jiang Guanghui, Fu Zan 付贊 and Qiu Mengyan 邱夢燕,“Qinghua jian Qi ye wei weizuo kao” 清華簡《耆夜》為偽作考, Gugong bowuyuan yuankan 故宫博物院院刊 4.168 (2013), 86-94; Jiang Guanghui, with Fu Zan, “Qinghua jian Yin gao xian yi” 清華簡《尹誥》獻疑, Hunan daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 湖南大學學報(社會科學版) 28.3 (2014), 109-114.

15　Sun Peiyang 孫沛陽, “Jiance bei hua xian chutan” 簡册背劃綫初探, Chutu wenxian yu guwenzi yanjiu 出土文獻與古文字研究 4 (2011), 449-462. See, too, Li Tianhong 李天虹, “Hubei chutu Chu jian (wuzhong) geshi chuxi” 湖北出土楚簡 (五種）格式初析,Jiang Han kaogu 江漢考古 2011.4, 102-106.

16　See Jia Lianxiang 賈連翔, Zhanguo zhushu xingzhi ji xiangguan wenti yanjiu: Yi Qinghua Daxue cang Zhanguo zhujian wei zhongxin 戰國竹書形制及相關問題研究——以清華大學藏戰國竹簡為中心 (Shanghai: Zhong Xi shuju, 2015), esp. 82-102.

17　See Zhao Xiaobin 趙曉斌, “Jingzhou Zaozhi jian Wu Wang Fuchai qi shi fa Yue yu Qinghua jian Yue Gong qi shi” 荆州棗紙簡《吴王夫差起師伐越》與清華簡《越公其事》, in Qinghua Zhanguo Chujian Guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 清華戰國楚簡國際學術研討會論文集, Beijing, November 2021, 6-11.

18　It is interesting to note that the Zaolinpu text shows that the title given the Tsinghua text by the Tsinghua editors was based on a faulty understanding of the final slip of that manuscript. The last four characters of the text are “yue gong qi shi” 越公其事, which the Tsinghua editors interpreted as the title, even though these characters followed immediately after the preceding phrase, and were not separated by a blank space as usually seen with titles. The Zaolinpu manuscript also writes “yue gong qi shi ye” 越公其事也together with the preceding text, and what is more follows it with a section endingmark. See Zhao Xiaobin, “Jingzhou Zaozhi jian Wu Wang Fuchai qi shi fa Yue yu Qinghua jian Yue Gong qi shi,” 11.

19　Paul R. Goldin, “Heng Xian and the Problem of Studying Looted Artifacts,” Dao 12.2(2013), 158.

20　“Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property of 1970,” at: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.