Several hundred inscribed bronze objects dating from Western and Eastern Zhou periods were commissioned for or by married women. Several dozen inscriptions are known whose commissioners called themselves sheng 生 (甥) of a number of lineages. In pre-Qin Chinese, the term sheng 甥 designated several categories of affinal relatives: paternal aunts’ sons, maternal uncles’ sons, wives’ brothers, sisters’ husbands, and sons of sisters or daughters. The wide geographical and chronological spread of female- or sheng-related vessels, as well as dedications to “many affinal relatives” (hungou 婚購) in bronze inscriptions point to the importance of marital ties in early Chinese society and politics.
Focusing on the inscriptions commissioned by sheng, the present article suggests that even when concluded at a considerable distance, marriages produced long-term mutual obligations for male members of the participating lineages or principalities. Affinal relationships represented social and political capital that could be converted in terms of individuals’ careers and prestige or benefits for their whole lineages/states. In sum, starting from the early Western Zhou period, marital alliances represented a substantial integrative factor in early Chinese politics. On the one hand, marital alliances helped to consolidate the radial network of Zhou states centered on the Zhou king. On the other hand, they facilitated the construction of decentralized regional and interregional inter-state networks. The latter guaranteed the stability of the Zhou political system even when it had a weak center. As a result, the Zhou networks did not fall apart following crises in the Zhou royal house, but continued to expand by the inclusion of new members.
兩周數百件帶銘文的青銅器是為或被婦女訂鑄的。此外, 數十件銘文的鑄造者自稱某族的 “生” (“甥”) 。 先秦文獻裡的 “甥” 字表銘以下數種姻親關係：姑之子、舅之子、妻之晜（弟）、姊妹之夫、姊妹之子或女兒之子等。與婦女或某甥有關銘文的出現時間甚長、其地理的分布甚廣，可見婚姻聯繫在中國古代社會和政治中具有重要性。專為 “婚購” 而鑄造的銅器銘文也指出此事實。
本文以與某甥有關的銘文為中心，建議婚姻關係可以激發雙方氏族或邦國間男性成員間的相互義務。因此姻戚關係成為社會與政治的資本，可用以提高個人事業成就及聲譽，並可增進其氏族邦國之福利。總之，筆者認爲邦國之間的聯昏制度為古代中國政治系統中的基本因素之一。自西周初起，婚姻聯盟一方面有助于鞏固以周王為中心的 “星形政治網絡” ，另一方面也有利于 “分散政治網絡” 的建設。後者可以——儘管中心的虛弱——保證全系統的穩定性，使得周朝可以通過許多危機，而周系政治網絡不但未崩潰、反而繼續擴張。
1. The kinship term sheng has no direct English equivalent and, therefore, will be rendered in transliteration in the following. Other kinship terms or titles making parts of persons’ designations will be transliterated and translated at their first appearance. Transliterated kinship terms and titles will be emphasized by italic type in order to distinguish them from lineage or personal names.
2. The term “lineage” as used here corresponds to the Chinese zongzu 宗族, a “consanguineal kin group comprising persons who trace their common relationship through patrilineal links to a known ancestor” (Chao Paul, The Chinese Kinship (London: Kegan Paul International, 1983), 19). Robert Gassmann renders zu as German “Sippe,” i.e. lineage, and zong as “Stamm,” i.e. a higher-level lineage including several zu (see Gassmann Robert, Verwandtschaft und Gesellschaft im alten China. Begriffe, Strukturen und Prozesse (Bern: Peter Lang, 2006), 63, 173). Lineages had surnames xing 姓 which they retraced to divinized ancestors who allegedly lived centuries ago and were surrounded by legends. Associations of lineages sharing the same surname are often referred to as “clans” (see e.g. Pulleyblank Edwin G., “Ji and Jiang: The Role of Exogamic Clans in the Organization of the Zhou Polity,” Early China 25 (2000), 1–27; von Falkenhausen Lothar, The Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius (1000–250 BC). The Archaeological Evidence (Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of Los Angeles, 2006), 23, 118, 169–203; Gassmann, above, 37). David Sena argues that “clans in the Western Zhou did not exist as social groups of people who ever convened or practiced any form of collective behavior” (David Sena, Reproducing Society: Lineage and Kinship in Western Zhou China (Ph.D. Diss., University of Chicago, 2005), 8). Although this extreme view may be challenged, this is not the objective of the present research and, for instance, I agree in not using the term “clan” but follow Robert Gassmann in assessing lineages of the same surname as “surname communities” (“Namensgemeinschaft,” see Gassmann, above, 37–45).
3. It is difficult to define various agents of the political interaction during the Western Zhou period. Li Feng suggests distinguishing between metropolitan lineages who lived in territories under the direct control of the Zhou king and “regional states” (see Feng Li, Landscape and Power in Early China: The Crisis and Fall of the Western Zhou, 1045–771 BC (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006), 121–40). Li Feng recognizes that “regional states” were self-sufficient, but their rulers acted as “agents” of the Western Zhou state and the subordinates of the Zhou king (see Feng Li, Bureaucracy and the State in Early China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), esp. 270). I am not yet convinced that all geopolitical units in Early China, especially those that were not founded as colonies but either were in place already before the Zhou conquest or emerged in various places during the Western Zhou period, were subordinated to the Zhou king to the same degree and participated in the Western Zhou “state” in the same way. Notwithstanding possible differences in their relationships with the Zhou royal house, many units had similar authority structures: they were ruled by lineages whose heads were positioned as “princes” whose status was much elevated over every other member of the local society (this is particularly visible in the architecture and equipment of their tombs). Hence, such units will be defined in the following as “principalities.”
4. Under “non-Zhou” I understand socio- and geopolitical entities retaining their cultural specifics and existing outside of the Zhou political network centered on the Zhou king. From the Chinese perspective, they were perceived as “aliens,” often rated to Rong 戎, Di 狄, Man 蠻, and Yi 夷 groups of peoples, or called by individual names.
5. Zhongguo kexue yanjiuyuan kaogu yanjiusuo 中國科學研究院考古研究所, Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng 殷周金文集成 (hereafter Jicheng), 18 vols. (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1984–94); see also Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng shiwen 殷周金文集成釋文, 6 vols. (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 2001); Yachu Zhang 張亞初, Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng yinde 殷周金文集成引得 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2001); Chinese Ancient Texts Database CHANT powered by the Chinese University of Hong Kong (www.chant.org) and Digital Archives of Bronze Images and Inscriptions powered by the Academia Sinica, Taiwan (www.ihp.sinica.edu.tw/~bronze/). The Jicheng includes more than 12,000 rubbings of Shang and Zhou inscriptions published before 1980, of which 7,499 items are dated to Western Zhou and Spring and Autumn periods.
6. The Western Zhou period is conventionally subdivided into three subperiods: Early (King Wu to King Zhao, 1045–957 b.c.e), Middle (King Mu to King Yi, 956–858 b.c.e), and Late (King Li to King You, 857 to 771 b.c.e). The Spring and Autumn period is similarly subdivided in Early (c. eighth–mid-seventh centuries b.c.e), Middle (c. mid-seventh–mid-sixth centuries. b.c.e) and late (c. mid-sixth–fifth centuries b.c.e).
7. For naming practices with regard to females see Falkenhausen, The Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius, 118; Gassmann, Verwandtschaft und Gesellschaft, 443–83; Haiting Mu 穆海亭, “Zhou dai jinwen zhong de fu ming” 周代金文中的婦名, Wenbo 2007.5, 54–55, 15.
8. On exogamy in the Yin and Zhou periods see Mihail Vasil'evič Krjukov, Formy social'noj organizacii v drevnem Kitae [Forms of social organization in Ancient China] (Moscow: Nauka, 1967), 128–54.
9. For violations during the Western Zhou period see Sena, Reproducing Society, 206 and 299–300; during Spring and Autumn period, see Thatcher Melvin P., “Marriages of the Ruling Elite in the Spring and Autumn Period,” in Marriage and Inequality in Chinese Society, ed. Watson Rubie S. and Ebrey Patricia B. (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1991), 28–57, esp. 37–39.
10. See Krjukov, Formy social'noj organizacii, 151; Pulleyblank E. G., “The Chinese and Their Neighbors in Prehistoric and Early Historic Times,” in The Origins of the Chinese Civilization, ed. Keightley David N. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), 411–66, esp. 420–1; Pulleyblank, “Ji and Jiang,” 4.
11. In all Western Zhou cases listed in the Jicheng where the lineage of Jiang women's husbands is recorded, it can be verified that the latter were members of the Jī surname community. Some inscriptions do not specify the men's principality or lineage, and therefore the possibility that some of them were non-Jī cannot be ruled out completely.
12. See Zuoce Ze Ling gui 作冊夨令簋 (Jicheng 4301, Mangshan Mapo 邙山馬坡, Luoyang 洛陽市, Henan, Early Western Zhou; mentions King's Jiang); Qi ding 旗鼎 (Jicheng 2704, Yangjiacun 楊家村, Meixian 郿縣, Shaanxi, Early Western Zhou; mentions King's Jiang); Wang bo Jiang ding 王伯姜鼎 (Jicheng 2560, Wujiazhuang 吳家莊, Bei Guo 北郭, Qishan 岐山, Shaanxi, Late Western Zhou); Wang zuo Zhong Jiang ding 王作仲姜鼎 (Jicheng 2191, Meixian, Shaanxi, Middle Western Zhou); Wang zuo Jiang shi gui 王作姜氏簋 (Jicheng 3570, Zhouzhi 盩厔 County, Shaanxi, Late Western Zhou); Wang fu Jì meng Jiang yi 王婦紀孟姜彝 (Jicheng 10240, Late Western Zhou).
13. Wei Wen-jun furen li 衛文君夫人叔姜鬲 (Jicheng 595, Junxian Xin cun 濬縣辛村, Henan, Tomb M5, Late Western Zhou); Xing Jiang dazai Si gui 邢姜大宰巳簋 (Jicheng 3896, Late Western Zhou); Guo Jiang ding 虢姜鼎 (Jicheng 2742, Late Western Zhou); Jin Jiang ding 晉姜鼎 (Jicheng 2826, Hancheng 韓城, Shaanxi, Early Spring and Autumn).
14. See Wang Ren zuo gui 王妊作簋 (Jicheng 3344, Luoyang, Henan, Early Western Zhou); Wang zuo Feng Ren Shan he 王作豐妊單盉 (Jicheng 9438, Lintong 臨潼 County, Shaanxi, Late Western Zhou); Su gong gong gui 蘇公簋 (Jicheng 3739, Late Western Zhou; dedicated to King's Jĭ 王妃); Chen hou gui 陳侯簋 (Jicheng 3815, Lintong 臨潼, Shaanxi, Late Western Zhou; dedicated to King's Gui 王媯).
15. See Sena, Reproducing Society, 200–207.
16. See Qian shu Jí-fu xu 遣叔吉父盨 (Jicheng 4416, Middle Western Zhou; dowry for Guo wang Jí 虢王姞) and Shou shu Mian-fu xu 兽叔免父盨 (Late Western Zhou) from the cemetery of Guo in Shangcunling identified as dowry for The Elder [Lady] Jí 孟姞 (see Henan sheng kaogu yanjiu suo, “Shangcunling Guo guo mudi M2006 de qingli” 上村岭虢國墓地 M2006 的清理, Wenwu 1995.1, 4–31). These women belonged to Qian and Shou lineages respectively.
17. Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Beijing daxue kaoguxue xi, “Tianma-Qucun Beizhao Jinhou mudi di si ci fajue” 天馬— —曲村遺址北趙晉侯墓地第四次發掘, Wenwu 1994.8, 4–21. On the localization of Yang see Pan Chen 陳槃, Chunqiu dashibiao lieguo juexing ji cunmiebiao zhuanyi 春秋大事表列國爵姓及存滅表譔異 (Taibei: Academia Sinica, 1969), 262–63.
18. See Shu zuo Su-zi ding 叔作蘇子鼎 (Jicheng 1926, Shangcunling 上村嶺, Sanmenxia, Henan, Tomb M1753, Early Spring and Autumn); for further evidence see Su He dou 蘇貉豆 (Jicheng 4659, Shangcunling, Sanmenxia, Henan, Tomb M1820, Early Spring and Autumn); Su Zhi Ren pan 蘇冶妊盤 (Jicheng 10118, Early Spring and Autumn; dedicated by Lady Ren of Su to her daughter Lady Jĭ of Guo). For the localization of Su, see Chen Pan, Chunqiu dashibiao lieguo, 294–98.
19. See Qi Jiang ding 齊姜鼎 (Jicheng 2148, Fengxi 灃西, Zhangjiapo 張家坡, Chang'an, Shaanxi, Early Western Zhou).
20. The oldest royal residence, regularly used by the Zhou kings during the Western Zhou period, was located on the Zhou Plain in present-day Qishan and Fufeng Counties of Shaanxi Province. It was referred to in bronze inscriptions as Zhou and in received texts as Qi Zhou 岐周 (Zhou [under the Mount] Qi), Qixia 岐下 ([Zhou] under [the Mount] Qi), or Qiyi 岐邑 (Settlement [under the Mount] Qi). In order to distinguish the name of the residence from the name of the dynasty, I call it “Zhou-under-Qi.” For the discussion of royal residences and for further references see Khayutina Maria, “Royal Hospitality and Geopolitical Constitution of the Western Zhou Polity (1046/5–771 BC),” T'oung Pao 96.1–3 (2010), 1–73.
21. See Jì mu ding 㠱母鼎 (Jicheng 2146, Huangdui 黃堆, Fufeng, Shaanxi, Early Western Zhou).
22. Jì was originally located in Shouguang 壽光, Shandong. Consequently, it incorporated territories in eastern Shandong (see Li, Landscape and Power, 308; 315–16 with further references).
23. See Wang fu Jì meng Jiang yi 王婦紀孟姜彝 (Jicheng 10240, Late Western Zhou).
24. See Chen hou gui 陳侯簋 (Jicheng 3815). According to the Chinese tradition, Duke Hu of Chen 陳胡公 was the son-in-law of King Wu of Zhou (see Gu Ban 班固, Han shu 漢書 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1983), 28.1653 (“Di li zhi” 地理志)).
25. See Sima Qian, Shi ji, 39.1637–41 (“Jin shi jia” 晉世家).
26. For evidence of the usage of the royal title by non-Zhou rulers, see Ze wang fang ding 夨王方鼎 (Jicheng 2149, Early Western Zhou); Rong X wang you 戎□王卣 (Jicheng 5324, Fendong 灃東 Doumenzhen 斗門鎮, Chang'an, Shaanxi, Early Western Zhou); Feng wang fu 豐王斧 (Jicheng 11774, Yixian 易縣, Hebei, Early Western Zhou); Sui wang he □王盉 (Jicheng 9411, Middle Western Zhou); Mai wang you 買王卣 (Jicheng 5252, Late Western Zhou); Lü wang li 呂王鬲 (Jicheng 635, Late Western Zhou); Kunni wang zhong 昆泥王鐘 (Jicheng 46, Late Western Zhou); Guai bo gui 乖伯簋, Jicheng 4331, Late Western Zhou; dedicated to Guai wang 乖王).
27. The terms bo 伯, zhong 仲, shu 叔, ji 季 are usually understood as seniority ranks distinguishing siblings in a family according to their birth sequence. They can be translated as “First-born,” “Second-born,” “Third-born,” and “Junior,” respectively. A family with more than four sons could include several zhong or shu. E.g., Zhou King Wen had several shu sons (see Qian Sima 司馬遷, Shi ji 史記 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1959), 4.126 (“Zhou ben ji” 周本記)). This system of birth ranks was referred to as paihang 排行 (“arranging the rows”) in later literature. Within a lineage structure, branches could be also referred to as zhong, shu, or ji depending on the birth rank of their founders (see Gassmann, Verwandtschaft und Gesellschaft, 198–206).
28. See Ze wang fang ding 夨王方鼎 (Jicheng 2149, Early Western Zhou); Chu gong Ni zhong 楚公逆鐘 (Jicheng 106, Wuchang 武昌, Hubei, Late Western Zhou); Yu bo li 魚伯鬲 (Jicheng 507, Rujiazhuang 茹家莊, Baoji 寶雞, Shaanxi, Middle Western Zhou).
29. The political autonomy was not necessarily coupled with cultural or ethnic foreignness. There are indications that Ze in bronze inscriptions corresponds to Yu 虞 in transmitted texts (see Ch'en Chao-jung, “On the Possibility That the Two Western Zhou States Yu and Rui Were Originally Located in the Qian River Valley,” in Imprints of Kinship: Studies of Recently Discovered Bronze Inscriptions from Ancient China, ed. Edward L. Shaughnessy (Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press, forthcoming)). Yu was founded by King Wen's uncle, who was his father's elder brother. The usage of the royal title by the rulers of Ze/Yu is plausibly related to their elevated status in the hierarchy of Ji-surnamed lineages (see Maria Khayutina, “King Wen, a Settler of Disputes or Judge? The “Yu-Rui case” in Sima Qian's Historical Records and Its Historical Background,” forthcoming). In one bronze inscription the ruler of Guo was referred to as “king of Guo” (see Qian shu Jí-fu xu 遣叔吉父盨 (Jicheng 4416, dedicated to Guo wang Jí 虢王姞, Middle Western Zhou). This may also be related to the fact that the Guo lineage was founded by King Wen's brother. However, this inscription was commissioned not by the ruler of Guo, but by Guo's marital partner. Hence, it is not clear whether Guo's rulers openly used the royal title within their domain. On the other hand, there is much evidence that members of the Guo lineage subordinated themselves to Zhou kings.
30. Unlike wang (“king”) and hou 侯 (“lord”), which were specific political terms, the terms gong and bo, often translated as “duke” and “earl,” were embedded in the system of patrilineal kinship relationships. The position of a bo, the First-born, defined a person's hereditary rights to represent his lineage as a political body. As far as non-Zhou rulers succeeded to power by hereditary descent, they naturally also used the Chinese term “First-born” to refer to themselves. Many commissioners of bronzes calling themselves bo dedicated inscriptions to their deceased fathers whom they addressed as gong. Li Feng suggests that heads of lineages referred to as bo controlled territorial units bang 邦 subordinated to the Zhou king and not qualifying as more autonomous guo 國, i.e. “regional states,” or principalities, ruled by hou (see Li, Landscape and Power, 47–48). However, I doubt that the Zhou political terminology was that systematic (for a similar view see Vasil'ev Leonard Sergeevič, Dreivnj Kitaj. Tom I. Predystorija, Shan-in’, Zapadnoe Čžou (do VIII v. do n. e.) [Ancient China. Vol. I. Prehistory, Shang-Yin, Western Zhou (up to the eighth century b.c.e)] (Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura, 1995). The term bang was applied both to Zhou and non-Zhou political units with various degrees of autonomy (for references see Khayutina, “Royal Hospitality and Geopolitical Constitution,” 29, fn. 67). In some cases, heads of one lineage could be referred to alternatively as bo and gong, or as hou and gong and bo (cf. Rui bo hu 芮伯壺, Jicheng 9585, Middle Western Zhou; Rui gong hu 芮公壺, Jicheng 9586, Late Western Zhou; Ying gong ding 應公鼎, Jicheng 2553, Early Western Zhou; Ying hou gui 應侯簋, Jicheng 3860, Middle Western Zhou; Ying bo xu 應伯盨, Pingdingshan M95, Late Western Zhou, in Henan sheng wenwu yanjiusuo, “Pingdingshan Ying guo mudi jiushiwu hao mu de fajue” 平頂山應國墓地九十五號墓的發掘, Huaxia kaogu 1992.3, 92–103). In these cases the titles bo, hou and gong most plausibly identified various roles of the heads of ruling lineages within and outside their principalities.
31. On the material culture and epigraphic heritage of Yu see Lu Liancheng 盧連成, Hu Zhisheng 胡智生, Baoji Yu guo mudi 寶雞魚國墓地 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1988); Feng Li, “Literacy Crossing Cultural Borders: Evidence from the Bronze Inscriptions of the Western Zhou Periods (1045–771 BC),” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Art 74 (2002), 210–42, esp. 231–36; Sun Yan reveals Yu lineage's strategy to construct its identity by “preserving and expanding their distinctive cultural traditions” in Yan Sun, “Material Culture and Social Identities in Western Zhou's Frontier: Case Studies of the Yu and Peng Lineages,” Asian Archaeology 1 (2012), 52–72, esp. 52–62, 69.
32. See Shanxi sheng kaoguxue yanjiusuo et al. , “Shanxi Jiang xian Hengshui Xi Zhou mu di” 山西絳縣横水西周墓地, Kaogu 2006.7, 16–21; Shanxi sheng kaoguxue yanjiusuo et al. , “Shanxi Jiang xian Hengshui Xi Zhou mudi fajue jianbao” 山西絳縣横水西周墓發掘簡報, Wenwu 2006.8, 4–18; Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo Dahekou mudi lianhe kaogudui, “Shanxi Yicheng xian dahekou Xi Zhou mudi” 山西翼城縣大河口西周墓地, Kaogu 2011.7, 9–18. See also Maria Khayutina, “The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng and Relationships between Zhou and Northern Non-Zhou Lineages (until the Early Ninth Century B.C.),” forthcoming in Shaughnessy, ed., Imprints of Kinship; Sun, “Material Culture and Social Identities,” 63–69.
33. In 2004 vessels made by the Lord of E and the Second-Born of E dated around the edge of the early and middle Western Zhou periods have been found in a tomb at Yangzishan 羊子山 near Suizhou 隨州 in Hubei (see Changping Zhang 張昌平, “Lun Suizhou xin chu E guo qingtongqi” 倫隨州羊仔山新出噩國青銅器 in Wenwu 2011.11, 87–94). For the relationships between Zhou and E, suggesting its non-Zhou status see Creel Herrlee Glessner, The Origins of Statecraft in China. Volume 1: The Western Chou Empire (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1970), 237–38; Shaughnessy Edward L., “Western Zhou History,” in The Cambridge History of Ancient China, ed. Loewe Michael and Shaughnessy Edward (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 292–352, esp. 330–31; Li, “Literacy Crossing Cultural Borders,” 222–30; Li, Landscape and Power, 330–31.
34. According to various transmitted sources, during the Western Zhou period Xú was ruled by a king and was able to threaten the Zhou (see Fan Ye, Hou Han shu, 2808; Wang Guowei, Jin ben Zhushu jinian shu zheng, 278). Archaeological corroboration for the early history of Xu is still lacking.
35. See Gong shu gui 叔簋 (Jicheng 3950, 3951, Fengdong 灃東, Chang'an, Shaanxi, Middle Western Zhou).
36. See E hou gui 噩侯簋 (Jicheng 3928, Late Western Zhou; dedicated to King's [Spouse Lady] Jí 王姞).
37. See Wang li 王鬲 (Jicheng 645, Late Western Zhou; dedicated by the king to Fan Ji 番妃). The character 妃 in the woman's name should be read not as fei (“concubine”), but Jĭ 己, where the graph “woman” identified the gender of the recipient.
38. See Jiang Yu, “Ritual Practice, Status, and Gender Identity: Western Zhou Tombs at Baoji,” in Gender and Chinese Archaeology, ed. Linduff Katheryn and Sun Yan (Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press, 2004), 117–36, esp. 122; Falkenhausen, Chinese Society, 118; Sena, Reproducing Society, 295–96.
39. See Deng zhong xizun 鄧仲犧尊 (Jicheng 5852, Fengxi, Zhangjiapo, Chang'an, Shaanxi, Middle Western Zhou).
40. See Peng zhong ding 倗仲鼎 (Jicheng 2462, Middle Western Zhou; dowry present for Bi Kui 畢媿). For bronzes commissioned for Bi Jī 畢姬 (late Middle Western Zhou) see Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, “Shanxi Jiang xian Hengshui Xi Zhou mu fajue jianbao”, 4–18.
41. See Ze wang gui 夨王簋 (Jicheng 3871, Early Western Zhou; dedicated to Zheng Jiang 鄭姜) and San bo gui 散伯簋 (Jicheng 3778, Late Western Zhou; dedicated to Ze Jī 夨姬).
42. See Deng gong gui 鄧公簋 (Jicheng 3775, Pingdingshan, Henan, Late Western Zhou; dowry present for Ying Man 應嫚).
43. See Lu hou li 魯侯鬲 (Jicheng 545, Late Western Zhou; dedicated to Jī Fan 姬番).
44. One bronze vessel discovered in the cemetery of Ba was commissioned by Lord Zhi of Yan 燕候旨 and dedicated to his “aunt and sister” 姑妹 (see Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo Dahekou mudi lianhe kaogudui, “Shanxi Yicheng xian dahekou Xi Zhou mudi,” 12).
45. Constance Cook has suggested regarding women transferred in the result of marriage as “inalienable goods,” which, among others, contributed to prestige of the recipients (see Cook Constance C., “Wealth and the Western Zhou,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 60.2 (1997), 253–94, esp. 256).
46. Hai gui 害簋, Middle Western Zhou, in Liu Yu, Jin chu Yin Zhou jinwen jilu er bian, Nr. 425.
47. On the war against Lord Yufang of E cf. Yu ding 禹鼎 (Jicheng 2833, Late Western Zhou).
48. E hou gui 鄂侯簋 (Jicheng 3828, 3829).
49. On variants in Bao Si's legend, see Li, Landscape and Power, 198–202. More examples of marriages following a war during the Spring and Autumn period can be found in the Zuo zhuan (see Vogelsang Kai, “Mit den Waffen der Frauen … Allianzen und Mésallianzen in der Chun qiu-Zeit,” in Die Frau im Alten China. Bild und Wirklichkeit, ed. Shilling Dennis and Kralle Jianfei (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2001), 1–23, esp. 3–10).
50. The inscription on the E hou gui shows that the marriage of the E princess with the Zhou king was concluded according to the normal marital custom, i.e. with a dowry provided by her father, and not waiving this custom, as would be expected in a case of marriage by capture (see van Gennep Arnold, The Rites of Passage (1909), trans. from French by Vizedom Monika et al. (London: Routledge, 1960), 123–26).
51. Early, Middle, and Late Western Zhou periods are abbreviated in Table 1 as EWZ, MWZ, and LWZ, and Early, Middle, and Late Spring and Autumn periods as ESA, MSA, and LSA. If the estimate date is on the edge of the two periods, it is designated as, e.g., M-LWZ. If the date within the Spring and Autumn epoch is uncertain, it is referred to as SA.
52. For the meaning of sheng 生 as 甥 in Shang oracle bone inscriptions see Mengjia Chen 陳夢家, Yinxu buci zongshu 殷虛卜辭綜述 (Beijing: Kexue, 1956), 485; Keightley David N., “At the Beginning: The Status of Women in Neolithic and Shang China,” Nan nü 1999.1, 48–50. For the same meaning in Zhou bronze inscriptions see Mihail Vasil'evič Krjukov, Sistema rodstva kitajcev [The Kinship System of the Chinese] (Moscow: Nauka, 1972), 167; Yun Lin 林澐, “Diao sheng gui xin kao” 琱生簋新考, Guwenzi yanjiu 1980.3, 120–34, esp. 120–21; Yachu Zhang 張亞初, “Liang Zhou mingwen suo jian mou sheng kao” 兩周銘文所見某生考, Kaogu yu wenwu 1983.5, 83–89, esp. 83; Pulleyblank, “Ji and Jiang,” 12–13; Xie Chen 陳絜, Shang Zhou xingshi zhidu yanjiu 商周姓氏制度研究 (Beijing: Shangwu yinshuaguan, 2007), 89–111. For investigations of the term sheng 甥 in pre-Qin literature see Yifu Rui 芮逸夫, “Shi sheng zhi chengwei” 釋甥之稱謂, Zhongyan yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 16 (1947), 273–84; Yifu Rui, “Shi jiu sheng zhi guo jian lun Zhongguo gudai sheng jiu de chengwei” 釋舅甥之國兼論中國古代甥舅的稱謂, Zhongyan yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 30 (1959), 237–58.
53. See Zhang Yachu, “Liang Zhou mingwen mou sheng kao,” 87; for this meaning of sheng see Han-yi Feng, “The Chinese Kinship System,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 2 (1937), 141–275, esp. 149.
54. Abbreviated definitions of kinship relationships in brackets are given according to the standard European system of kinship terms used in anthropological scholarship: F = father, M = mother, B = brother, Z = sister, H = husband, W = wife, S = son, D = daughter, P = parent, G = sibling, E = spouse, C = child.
55. See Krjukov, Sistema rodstva kitajcev, 136–244, English summary 301–4.
56. For the dating of the core glosses of the Er ya, see W. South Coblin, “Erh ya,” in Early Chinese Texts, 94–99. The received text possibly contains interpolations from later periods. According to Krjukov, the kinship terminology explained in the “Shi qin” chapter was current during the eighth–fifth centuries b.c.e. (see Krjukov, Sistema rodstva kitajcev, 73 with further references).
57. See Chaohua Xu 徐朝華 (comm.), Er ya jin zhu 爾雅今注 (Shanghai: Guji, 1987), 155–65 (“Shi qin” 釋親).
58. In anthropological investigations of the world's systems of kinship, the technical term “Ego” designates an individual serving as a reference point for genealogical reckoning (for the first usage see Morgan, Lewis Henry, Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family (Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1871), 4).
59. See Feng Han-yi, “The Chinese Kinship System,” 185–91; Krjukov, Sistema rodstva kitajcev, 152.
60. Krjukov, Sistema rodstva kitajcev, 158.
61. Krjukov, Sistema rodstva kitajcev, 162. See also Feng Han-yi, “The Chinese Kinship System,” 185.
62. For sheng jiu zhi guo 甥舅之國 during the Spring and Autumn period see Yifu Rui 芮逸夫, “Shi jiu sheng zhi guo jian lun Zhongguo gudai sheng jiu de chengwei” 釋舅甥之國兼論中國古代甥舅的稱謂, Zhongyan yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 30 (1959): 237–58; see also Gassmann, Verwandtschaft und Gesellschaft, 541–54).
63. Bojun Yang 楊伯峻, Chunqiu Zuo zhuan zhu 春秋左傳注 (Xinhua shudian, 1981), 1590 (Ding: 13). See also the dedication to “the children of my lineage and one hundred sheng” 我宗子于百生(甥) in Shan ding 善鼎 (Jicheng 2820, Middle Western Zhou).
64. In the “Han yi” ode of the Shi jing, a woman was referred to as “sheng of the King of Fen, child of Jue-fu” 汾王之甥．蹶父之子 (see “Han yi,” Mao 261; Krjukov, Sistema rodstva kitajcev, 150–53; Li, Landscape and Power, 139). The Er ya leaves open the possibility that sheng could designate females, because the term zi “child” could be applied to persons of both sexes.
65. For the discussion of the unilineal kinship see Fried Morton H., “The Classification of Corporate Unilineal Descent Groups,” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 87.1 (1957), 1–29, esp. 19.
66. See Shaanxi Zhouyuan kaogudui, “Fufeng Huangdui Xi Zhou mudi zhantan qingli jianbao” 扶風黃堆西周墓地鉆探清理簡報, Wenwu 1986:8, 56–68, esp. 59–65. The whole Huangdui cemetery contains large and middle-sized tombs, but no small tombs, and is considered to be an elite cemetery.
67. See Li, Bureaucracy and the State, 66.
68. Sun, “Material Culture and Social Identities,” 68.
69. See Baoji shi bowuguan, Baoji xian tuboguan, “Baoji xian Xigouquan cun Chunqiu mu fajue ji” 寶雞縣西高泉村春秋墓發掘記, Wenwu 1980.9, 1–9.
70. Zhou sheng dou 周生豆 (Jicheng 4682, Late Western Zhou–Early Spring and Autumn, Xigaoquan 西高泉, Yangjiagou 楊家溝, Baoji, Shaanxi).
71. The argumentation is however based on the assumption that Zhou sheng was the same person as Diao sheng whose inscriptions will be discussed in the third section of the present article. This is unfounded. Nevertheless, Zhou sheng dou may be a remnant from the Western Zhou period.
72. See Baoji shi bowuguan, Lu Liangcheng 盧連成 et al. , “Shaanxi Baoji xian Taigongmiao cun faxian Qin gong zhong, Qin gong bo” 陜西寶雞縣太公廟村發現秦公鐘, 秦公鏄, Wenwu 1978.11, 1–5; Qin gong zhong 秦公鐘, Jicheng 262, Taigongmiao 太公廟, Yangjiagou 楊家溝, Baoji, Shaanxi, Early Spring and Autumn).
73. The shapes of the three splendid bo-bells with cast openwork decorations can be compared with bells of royal official Shanfu Ke who was active during the reign of King Xuan (see Khayutina Maria, “Povar ili ministr: dragocennye trenožniki Dobrogo Muža Ke” [Cook or Minister: the Good-Man Ke's Treasured Tripods], in Kasus 2004 (Moscow), 15–98, esp. 40.
74. Zhou sheng dou 周生豆 (Jicheng 4683, Late Western Zhou).
75. For the inscriptions of the Shan lineage on bronzes discovered in Meixian in 2003 see Shuai Tian 田率, “Shaanxi Meixian qingtongqi jiaozang yu Xi Zhou Dan Lai jiazu” 陜西眉縣青銅器窖藏與西周單逨家族, Zhongguo lishi wenwu, 4 (2008), 82–88. For the surname identification see Sena, Reproducing Society, 117.
76. The location of Yi is suggested by the inscription on the Yi sheng zhong (T1:24) discovered in Chang'an. It records the Zhou king's command in which the king addresses the commissioner as Yi sheng. He could be a sheng of the royal house married to a royal sister, cousin, or daughter and residing in the area of the royal residence Zongzhou.
77. For the location of Han see below in the present article, for the location of Fei see Bingjun Shao 邵炳軍, “Chunqiu Hua guo xingmie ji diwang kao—Chunqiu Jin guo shi ge chuanzuo lishi wenhua beijing yanjiu zhi si” 春秋滑國興滅暨地望考——春秋晉國詩歌創作歷史文化背景研究之四, Henan shifan daxue xuebao, 2002.2, 59–63, esp. 62.
78. For the location of Kang see Yunzhang Cai 蔡运章, “Kang bo hu gai ba” 康伯壺盖跋, in Henan sheng wenwu kaogu xuehui, Henan wenwu kaogu lunji 河南文物考古論集 (Zhengzhou: Henan renmin chubanshe, 1996), 328–30.
79. For the location of Qian see Shegang Liu 劉社剛, Yanmin Wang 王延敏, “Qian, Qian shi yu Guo shi guanxi kao” 遣, 遣氏与虢氏關係考, Wenbo 2008.1, 32–35.
80. For the location of Shangluo see Wei Yu 于薇, “Huai Han zhengzhi quyu de xingcheng yu Huaihe zuo wei nan bei zhengzhi fenjie xian de qiyuan” 淮汉政治區域的形成与淮河作為南北政治分界線的起源, Gudai wenming, 2010.4/1, 38–52, esp. 49.
81. For the location of Liao see Chen Pan, Chunqiu dashibiao lieguo, p. 242. For localization of Fan see Falkenhausen, “The Waning of the Bronze Age,” 505–6 with further references.
82. The Zuo zhuan mentions toponyms including Shang Ji 上棘, Hanging Ji 垂棘, Great Ji 大棘, and Red Ji 赤棘. They were located in the belt stretching from southern Henan to Shandong.
83. For the location of Cai see Li, Landscape and Power, 74 with further references.
84. For the location of Jiang see Chen Pan, Chunqiu dashibiao lieguo, 286–87.
85. For the location of Chen see Yilong Ma 馬義龍, “Chen guo de guodu yu mudi kao” 陳國的國都與墓地考, Zhoukou shizhuan xuebao, 1996.6, 52–54.
86. For the location of You see Peifen Chen 陳佩芬, Xia Shang Zhou qingtongqi yanjiu 夏商周青銅器研究 (Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2004), Vol. 4, 562–63.
87. For the location of Peng see Cunming Zhu 朱存明; Hui Huang 黄暉, “Huai Hai diqu de gudai fangguo kaolüe” 淮海地區古代方國考略, Xuzhou shifan daxue xuebao 3 (2001), 118–22.
88. See Zuo zhuan, 526–27 (Wen: 2). In this context, jiu referred to affinal relatives of the elder generation, sheng to relatives of the Ego's generation and lower, while hunying were relatives-to-be.
89. In an inscription on the Hu shu Hu Jī gui 㝬叔㝬姬簋, a dowry present, parents required their daughter to exercise filial piety (xiao) towards her parents-in-law (Jicheng 4066, Renbei 任北, Sufang 蘇坊, Wugong 武功, Shaanxi, Middle to Late Western Zhou). A certain Xi-fu 遟父 married Lady Jiang of Qi and commissioned several bronzes in order to “feast and to exercise filial piety (xiao) to his mother- and father-in-law” (Xi xü 遟盨, Jicheng 4436, Late Western Zhou; Xi-fu zhong 遟父鐘, Jicheng 103, Late Western Zhou).
90. See Falkenhausen, The Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius, 119.
91. Gou is attested in the sense “to request wedding” in Man ding 蟎鼎 (Jicheng 2765, Jinyicun 晉義村, Changzi 長子, Shanxi, Middle Western Zhou). The term hungou partly parallels the term hun yin as it is used in certain odes of the Shi jing where it signifies “affinal relatives” (see Shi jing, “Wo xing qi ye” 我行其野, Mao 188; “Zheng yue” 正月, Mao 192; “Jiao gong” 角弓, Mao 223). In the Er ya, the term hun yin designates affinal relatives in general. At the same time, hun and yin are applied differentiatedly to kin relatives of a female or male marital partner respectively. With respect to a male, such kin categories as SWP, WP, and WG were defined as hun; with respect to a female DHP, HP, and HG were designated as yin (see Er ya, 161–65 (“Shi qin”)). There is no evidence indicating that by analogy, terms hun and gou were applied separately in the same way.
92. See Peng you 壴卣 (Jicheng 5401, Mengzhou 孟州, Henan, Early to Middle Western Zhou); Guai bo gui 乖伯簋 (Jicheng 4331, Late Western Zhou), Shanfu Ke xu 膳夫克盨 (Jicheng 4465, Renjia 任家, Fufeng, Shaanxi, Late Western Zhou).
93. See X ji liang-fu hu □季良父壺 (Jicheng 9713, Late Western Zhou).
94. See Xu wang zi Zhan hu 徐王子旃鐘 (Jicheng 182, Late Spring and Autumn).
95. 婚 xwan/hmq^n → 聞 mjwan/mqn (see Schuessler Axel, A Dictionary of Early Zhou Chinese (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1987) and Schuessler Axel, Minimal Old Chinese and Later Han Chinese: A Companion to Grammata Serica Recensa (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press 2009)).
96. For similar expressions see, e.g., Ju shu zhi zhong zi Ping zhong 筥叔之仲子平鐘 (Jicheng 172, Junan Dadian 莒南大店, Shandong, Late Spring and Autumn); Zhu Jian zhong 者減鐘 (Jicheng 197, Jiangsu, Spring and Autumn).
97. See Xi you 壴卣 (Jicheng 5401, Mengzhou 孟州, Henan, Early Western Zhou); Guai bo gui 乖伯簋 (Jicheng 4331, Late Western Zhou).
98. See Shan ding 善鼎 (Jicheng 2820, Middle Western Zhou).
99. Cf. wishes for “one hundred sons, one hundred daughters, one thousand grandchildren” 百子百女千孫 in Liao sheng gui (Jicheng 4459, Late Western Zhou), or “male and female [offspring] without termination” 男女無期 (Qi hou dun, pan 齊侯敦, 盤, Jicheng 4645, 10159, Yizhou 易州, Hebei, Late Spring and Autumn; Qing shu yi 慶叔匜 , Jicheng 10280, Spring and Autumn).
100. Diao sheng gui are often erroneously referred to as “Shao bo gui” (see Guo Moruo 郭沫若, Liang Zhou jinwen ci daxi 兩周金文辭大系  (Beijing, 1957), Vol. 7, 142–45; “Shao bo Hu gui” in the Jicheng 4292, 4293).
101. See Baoji shi kaogu yanjiusuo, Fufeng xian bowuguan, “Shaanxi Fufeng Wujun cun Xi Zhou qingtongqi jiaocang fajue jianbao” 陜西扶風五郡西村西周青銅器窖藏發掘簡報, Wenwu 2007.8, 4–27.
102. See Shi Li gui 師簋 (Jicheng 4324, Late Western Zhou) dated to the eleventh year of King Li, 847 b.c.e. (see Shaughnessy, Sources of Western Zhou History, 283).
103. See Zhushu jinian, 271–74 (Cheng: 7, 19, 33; Kang: 1, 24).
104. See Zhushu jinian, 285–87 (Li: 12, 26, Xuan: 1).
105. See also Zhushu jinian, 288 (Xuan: 6).
106. See Xueqin Li 李學勤, “Diao sheng zhu qi mingwen liandu yanjiu” 琱生諸器銘文聯讀研究, Wenwu 2008.7, 71–75.
107. The character diao (“to carve”, “carved”) consists of the phonetic element zhou and determinative yu 玉, jade (see Shuowen jiezi, 8; cf. also homonyms with identical meaning “to carve” include diao 彫 and diao 雕). In archaic Chinese diao 琱 (Pulleyblank tεw, Schuessler *tiaw) and zhou 周 (Pulleyblank tξuw, Schuessler *tjaw) were very close to each other phonetically. The lineage's name Diao can be related to carving stone or wood as a professional occupation. Other Western Zhou inscriptions indicate that at times artisans residing in Zhou-under-Qi, such as the fur-maker Qiu Wei 裘衛, could accumulate considerable wealth, including landed property, and enjoyed many favors from Zhou kings (see Cook Constance A., “Scribes, Cooks, and Artisans: Breaking Zhou Tradition,” Early China 20 (1995), 241–77). By analogy, a renowned court jeweler or wood carver enhancing royal palaces could have a noble rank bestowed on him by the king, a lineage name deriving from his professional occupation, and a piece of land on which to construct his residence and ancestral temple. That Diao sheng used many jade objects as gifts to various persons can also be related to the fact that he belonged to a family of jewelers.
108. Three tureens commissioned by Diao Fa-fu 琱伐父 were discovered in a hoard in 1963 in Qijia 齊家, Fufeng, Shaanxi (see Diao Fa-fu gui 琱伐父簋 (Jicheng 4048–50, Qijia, Fufeng, Shaanxi, Late Western Zhou)). Another hoard discovered in Qijia in 1960 contained bronzes commissioned by individuals whose designations included no lineage names but only birth ranks: Bo Bang Fu 伯邦父, Zhong You Fu 仲友父, Zhong Wo Fu 仲我父, Zhong Yi Fu 仲義父, Zhong Fa-fu 仲伐父, and Shu X Fu 叔□父. Possibly, Zhong Fa-fu corresponded to Diao Fa-fu, and all the persons who donated bronze vessels to the hoard were siblings of the Diao family. Zhong Fa-fu 仲伐父 dedicated a vessel to Jī Shang mu 姬尚母, his spouse or mother (see Zhong Fa-fu yan 仲伐父甗 (Jicheng 931, Qijia, Fufeng, Shaanxi, Late Western Zhou). This conforms to the information that Diao was a non-Jī-surnamed lineage that intermarried with the Jī.
109. E.g. Han Huangfu ding 函皇父鼎 (Jicheng 2548 and 2745, Kangjia, Fufeng, Shaanxi, Late Western Zhou). Some scholars identify Han huangfu with “Minister Huangfu” 皇父卿士 and “Great Commander Huangfu” 太師皇父, mentioned in the “Shi yue zhi jiao” 十月之交 and “Chang wu” 常武 odes in the Shijing (Mao 193 and 263; see also Zhu Fenghan, Shang Zhou jiazu xingtai yanjiu, 347–48; Li, Landscape and Power, 203–12). However, other inscriptions show that huangfu, or “August Father,” could be used as self-designation by a head of a lineage or a lineage's branch, whereas his wife could be referred to as “August Mother” huangmu 皇母 (see Xin shu huangfu gui 辛叔皇父簋 (Jicheng 3859, Late Western Zhou; Xin zhong Jī huangmu ding 辛仲姬皇母鼎, Jicheng 2582, Late Western Zhou). The burial site of Han (Han ling 函陵) was known during the Spring and Autumn period near to the capital of Zheng 鄭 principality in present-day Xinzheng 新鄭 in Henan province (Zuo zhuan, 479 (Xi: 30)). Zheng was established during the reign of King Xuan on the place of the Yun-surnamed Kuai 檜. Besides the vessels commissioned by Han huangfu for Lady Yun of Diao, the Kangjia hoard included a ding-tureen commissioned by Lady Yun of Kuai 粭(檜)㜏 (Kuai Yun ding 檜㜏鼎 (Jicheng 2516, Kangjia, Fufeng, Shaanxi, Late Western Zhou)). This reveals that Han and Kuai, both belonging to the Yun surname community, were related to each other. Han may correspond to the Yun-surnamed Han 寒 lineage mentioned in the Shi ben 世本 (see Zhong Song 宋衷, Shi ben ba zhong 世本八種 (Shanghai: Shangwu, 1957), “Shi xing pian” 氏姓篇, 22–24)).
110. For investigations of Diao sheng's inscriptions see Zhankui Wang 王占奎, “Diao sheng san qi mingwen kaoshi” 琱生三器銘文考試, Kaogu yu wenwu 2007.5, 105–8; Zhaorong Chen 陳昭容, Uchida Junko 內田純子 et al. , “Xin chutu qingtongqi Diao sheng zun ji chuantong Diao sheng gui duidu—Xi Zhou shiqi da zhaimen tudi jiufen xietiao shijian shimo” 新出土青銅器「琱生尊」及傳世「琱生簋」對讀—西周時期大宅門土地糾紛協調事件始末, in Gujin lunheng 16 (2007), 32–52; Zhenfeng Wu 吳鎮烽, “Diao sheng zun mingwen de jidian kaoshi” 琱生尊銘文的幾點考釋, Kaogu yu wenwu 2007.5, 103–4, 111; Li Xueqin, “Diao sheng zhu qi mingwen liandu yanjiu”; Yihua Xin 辛怡華, Dong Liu 劉棟, “Wu nian Diao sheng zun kaoshi” 五年琱生尊銘文考釋, Wenwu 2008.7, 76–80; Jinfeng Wang 王進鋒, “Xin chu ‘Wu nian Diao sheng zun’ yu Diao sheng zhu qi xin shi” 新出《五年琱生尊》與琱生諸器新釋, Lishi jiaoxue 2008.6, 87–92. For English translations of the Fifth- and Sixth-years gui cf. also Laura Skosey, The Legal System and Legal Tradition of the Western Zhou (ca. 1045–771. B.C.E.) (Ph.D. Diss., University of Chicago, 1996), 400–408.
111. Some scholars interpret this collocation as fuyong 附墉, “attached settlements.” However, Diao sheng zun inscription (see below) rather supports the reading 仆庸 “servants and commoners” (see Xin Yihua and Liu Dong, “Wu nian Diao sheng zun kaoshi,” 77). Skosey interprets yong as a category of servants, see Skosey, The Legal System, 402).
112. Diao sheng gui 琱生簋 (Jicheng 4292, Late Western Zhou).
113. Cf. Li Xueqin, “Diao sheng zhu qi mingwen liandu yanjiu,” 72; Wang Zhankui 王占奎, “Diao sheng san qi mingwen kaoshi,” 105, Chen Zhaorong, Junko Uchida et al., “Xin chutu qingtongqi Diao sheng zun,” 41.
114. The reference to the king's location represents a part of the dating formula and does not mean that the king was involved in the case (see Khayutina Maria, “The Royal Year-count of the Western Zhou Dynasty (1045–771 BC) and Its Use(r)s: a Sociological Perspective,” in Time and Ritual in Early China, ed. Wang-Riese Xiaobing and Höllmann Thomas (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009), 127–54).
115. Diao sheng gui 琱生簋 (Jicheng 4293, Late Western Zhou).
116. Diao sheng li 琱生鬲 (Jicheng 744, found on the edge of Fufeng, Linyou 麟游, and Yongshou 永壽 Counties, Shaanxi, Late Western Zhou). This posthumous title consisting of the graphs gong “palace” and jiu “9,” is often seen in bronze inscriptions. Possibly, it had something to do with the foundation of a new palace by the head of a new branch of a lineage. The expression “the elder brother the Duke, and the younger brother” 其兄公, 其弟乃 in the inscription on the zun-vases refers to the fathers of Shao bo and Diao sheng. The fact that Diao sheng dedicated the sixth-year's gui-tureen to the Duke of Shao over the head of Shao bo, who, as the current lineage's elder, was entitled to sacrifice for elder ancestors, implies the autonomy of Diao sheng's sublineage.
117. By analogy with the naming practice in Guo lineage, Diao sheng could otherwise be identified as Shao zhong bo 召仲伯. The absence of a distinct name for this sublineage could result from the fact that its splitting off was regulated privately, whereas, as transmitted sources acclaim, lineage names were granted by the king.
118. Widows of deceased rulers in principalities of the Spring and Autumn period also retained authority over their sons (see Gassmann, Verwandtschaft und Gesellschaft, 476).
119. I accept Li Xueqin's suggestion that fu shi referred to Shao bo's spouse (see Li Xueqin, “Diao sheng zhu qi,” 73). Several other scholars suggest that designations fu shi and jun shi were applied to the same person (Wang Zhankui, “Diao sheng san qi mingwen kaoshi,” 108; Xin Yihua and Liu Dong, “Wu nian Diao sheng zun kaoshi” 77; Wang Jinfeng, “Xin chu ‘Wu nian Diao sheng zun’” 88).
120. For an overview of the Western Zhou administration of law and a remark about private jurisdiction in Diao-sheng's case see Scosey, The Legal System, 162–74.
121. For the first publication, transcriptions, and investigations of the inscriptions see “Rong sheng bianzhong” 戎生編鐘 in Ping He 賀平 ed., Baoli cangjin 暴利藏金 (Guangzhou: Lingnan meishu, 1999), 117–28; Ma Chengyuan 馬承源, “Rong sheng zhong mingwen de tantao” 戎生鐘銘文的探討, in Baoli cang jin, 361–64; Qu Xigui 裘錫圭, “Rong sheng bianzhong mingwen kaoshi” 戎生編鐘銘文考釋, in Baoli cangjin, 365–74; Li Xueqin 李學勤, “Rong sheng bianzhong lun shi,” 戎生編鐘論釋, in Baoli cang jin, 375–78.
122. Expression “using [a superior's] ling in order to [achieve something]” occurs in many speeches in the Zuo zhuan (e.g. Zuo zhuan, 740 (Xuan: 12)). Yang Bojun glosses ling 靈 (originally, “spirit,” “divine power”) as hu 祜 (“blessing”).
123. The word gong 龔 in combination with the word “king” is often misunderstood as the posthumous title of King Gong 共 (917/15–900), which often results in erroneous dating of inscriptions. As Ulrich Unger pointed out, in such clauses as “用龔王+object” it represented a verb and should be read as gong 恭 “to respect”/“to make one respect” (see Unger Ulrich, “Zur Person des shan-fu K'êh” (Part 3), in Hao-ku. Sinologische Rundbriefe (Münster) No. 9 (1982), 54–55). The expression gong ming, “to respect the command” or “to obey by the order” often occurs in the Shang shu, e.g. 恭承民命 “to obey by the command to take the responsibility for the people” (see Xingyan Sun 孫星衍, Shang shu jin gu wen zhu shu 尚書今古文注疏 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1936, repr. 1986), 6.240 (“Pan Geng” 盤庚)).
124. The liang (“a pair”) unit of the Western Zhou period is unknown. Some authors suppose that this may be a measure word for carts on which salt could be transported (i.e. a pair of wheels).
125. Jin Jiang ding (Jicheng 2826); see also Ma Chengyuan 馬承源, Shang-Zhou qingtongqi mingwen xuan 商周青銅器銘文選 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1986–88), Vol. I, 585–86.
126. Cf. Jian Jiang ding in Dongshutang chongxiu xuanhe bogu tulu 東書堂重修宣和博古圖錄, 2:6; 2, and a tripod from Tomb M93 at Beizhao in Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo, Beijing daxue kaoguxue xi, “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jin hou mudi di wu ci fajue” 天馬——曲村遺址北趙晉侯墓地第五次發掘, Wenwu 1995.7, 4–39, esp. fig. 28, M93: 37.
127. See Li Xueqin, “Rong sheng bianzhong lun shi,” in Baoli cang jin, 377.
128. Compare “luckily granted salt gathering” 嘉遣滷積 with “luckily granted salt gathering [in the amount of] one thousand liang” 嘉遣我易(賜)鹵責(積)千兩, or “do not neglectedly dissipate his illustrious shine” 弗假廢其顯光 with “do not neglect Lord Wen's illustrious mandate” 勿廢文侯顯命. Both inscriptions use the possessive personal pronoun ci 辝, “my,” in place of the common zhen 朕 or wo 我.
129. I discussed the language and paleography of the inscriptions and the artistic features of the bronzes in my conference paper “Localizing the Recently Discovered Bells of Rong sheng in Space and Time,” Third Tomb Texts Workshop of the European Association for the Study of Chinese Manuscripts, 26–29 June 2008, Zurich.
130. For the evolution of shank bells' appearance see von Falkenhausen Lothar, Suspended Music: Chime-Bells in the Culture of Bronze Age China (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993), 158–68; So Jenny, Eastern Zhou Ritual Bronzes from the Arthur M. Sackler Collections (New York: Arthur M. Sackler Foundation, 1995), Vol. 3, 436, 444–47.
131. Li Xueqin argues that the dates “ninth month, day yi-hai 乙亥” in the Jin Jiang ding and “eleventh month, day yi-hai 乙亥” in the Rong sheng bianzhong very likely occurred during the same year and argues that this should be 740 b.c.e, the sixth and the last year of Lord Zhao of Jin (Li Xueqin, “Rong sheng bianzhong lun shi,” in Baoli cang jin, 377).
132. See Li Xueqin, “Rong sheng bianzhong lun shi,” 376.
133. See Ma Chengyuan, “Rong sheng zhong de tantao,” 363.
134. See Falkenhausen, Suspended Music, 98.
135. See Shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo et al., “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jin hou mudi di wu ci fajue”, fig. 28, M93: 67, 72; Henan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Sanmenxia shi wenwu gongzuo dui, Sanmenxia Guo guo mu 三門峽虢國墓 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1999), 73–77: M2001: 45–50; Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiuyuan, “Shaanxi Hancheng Liangdaicun yizhi M27 fajue jianbao” 陜西韓城梁带村遺址 M27 發掘間報, Kaogu yu wenwu 2007.6, 3–22; Baoji shi bowuguan, “Shaanxi Baoji xian Taigongmiao cun faxian Qin gong zhong, Qin gong bo,” 1.
136. Li Liu, and Xingcan Chen, State Formation in Early China (London: Duckworth, 2003), 45.
137. See Mu-chou Poo, Enemies of Civilization. Attitudes toward Foreigners in Ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and China (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005), 46.
138. Li, Landscape and Power, 286. This interpretation seem to be supported by the meanings of words rong (“belligerent,” “warrior”) and yi (“flat,” “peaceful”).
139. They did not necessarily reside in the south, as not only Southern Huaiyi 南淮夷, but also northern Xianyun 玁狁, Guifang 鬼方 or the neighbors of the western principality Qin could be referred to as Man (see Shi Qiang pan 史牆盤 (Jicheng 10175, Zhuangbai 莊白, Fufeng, Shaanxi, late Middle Western Zhou); Guo ji zibo pan 虢季子白盤 (Jicheng 10173, Guozhen 虢鎮, Baoji, Shaanxi, LWJ); Xi Jia pan 兮甲盤 (Jicheng 10174, Late Western Zhou); Qin gong zhong 秦公鐘 (Jicheng 262, Taigongmiao 太公廟, Yangjiagou 楊家溝, Baoji, Shaanxi, Early Spring and Autumn); Liang bo ge 梁伯戈 (Jicheng 11346, Early Spring and Autumn); Jin gong pen 晉公盆 (Jicheng 10343, Middle Spring and Autumn).
140. See Qin gong gui 秦公簋 (Jicheng 4315, Xichui 西垂, Lixian 禮縣, Gansu province, Middle Spring and Autumn).
141. During the reign of King Mu, the King of Xu 徐 led a joint army of several polities of Huai Yi peoples in a war against the Zhou. In order to split the enemies, King Mu recognized the ruler of Xu as the “chief” (zhu 主) or the “elder” (bo 伯) over the rest of them (see Wang Guowei, Jin ben Zhushu jinian shu zheng, 278; Fan Ye, Hou Han shu, 2808).
142. Another case of an emic usage of “Rong” as a definition of the speaker's group is reflected in Zuo zhuan, 1007 (Xiang: 14).
143. See Fangmei Chen 陳芳妹, “Jin hou mudi qingtongqi suo jian xingbie yanjiu de xin xiansuo” 晉侯墓地青銅器所見性別研究的新線索, in bowuguan Shanghai ed., Jin hou mudi chutu qingtongqi guoji xueshu taolunhui lunwenji 晉侯墓地出土青銅器國際學術討論會論文集 (Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua, 2002), 157–96; Falkenhausen, The Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius, 212; Khayutina, “The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng,” forthcoming.
144. See Sun, “Material Culture and Social Identities,” 68.
145. These groups were Hu Rong 狐戎 and Li Rong 驪戎, see Zuo zhuan, 239 (Zhuang: 28).
146. See Yuan Xu 徐元 et al. , Guo yu ji jie 國語集解 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2002), 15 (“Xuan wang ji wei, bu ji qian mu” 宣王及位，不籍千畝).
147. See Sima Qian, Shi ji, 1637 (“Jin shijia” 晉世家), 1780 (“Zhao shijia” 趙世家).
148. According to the Guo yu, King Xuan and the Rong had a battle on the “field of one thousand acres” (qian mu 千畝). Some authors try to localize the toponym Qianmu, but this is not convincing. The Zuo zhuan states that the Jiang Rong resided in Guazhou 瓜州, or “pumpkin region.” Many centuries later, the toponym Guazhou was applied to an area in Gansu province near Dunhuang. Localizing the Jiang Rong in Gansu is not realistic in view of c. 2000 km distance between these places.
149. Various non-Zhou groups resided in Shaanxi province. As Duke Mu of Qin 秦穆公 (r. 659–621 b.c.e.) started to expand towards the Yellow River, some of such groups could have been displaced and sought the protection of the neighboring Jin.
150. See Zuo zhuan, 1007 (Xiang: 14).
151. See Shang shu jin gu wen zhu shu, 28.543-548 (‘Wen hou zhi ming’ 文侯之命); Jin ben zhushu jinian, 262–83 (You: 11 and Ping: 1); Li Xueqin 李學勤 et al. . (eds.), Xi nian 系年, in Qinghua daxue cang Zhanguo zhujian (2) 清華大學藏戰國竹簡 (貳) (Shanghai: Shanghai Wenyi, 2010), Vol. 2, 2.138.
152. See Shi ji, 4.147–49; Jin ben zhu shu ji nian, 262 (You: 11).
153. For the reconstruction of the historical-geographical background of the cooperation between Shen principality and Quanrong see Li, Landscape and Power, 227–32.
154. See Daoyuan Li 酈道元, Shui jing zhu shu 水經注述, ed. Shoujin Yang 楊守敬 (Nanjing: Jiangsu guji, 1989), 22.1813; for the discussion of Fantang's localization and further references see von Falkenhausen Lothar, “The E jun Qi Metal Tallies,” in Text and Ritual in Early China, ed. Kern Martin (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 2005), 79–123, esp. 115.
155. Pulleyblank reasonably underlines that the strength of the founder of Qi was due to the fact that he was “an important blood relative on the female side, the senior member of the Jiang clan, with which the royal Ji clan had regularly intermarried in the past and with which it continued to intermarry thereafter” (Pulleyblank, “Ji and Jiang”, 8).
156. See Krjukov, Formy social'noj organizacii, 60–69 with further references, also Creel, The Origins of Statecraft, 303.
157. In Early China, patrilineal lineages represented conical structures, with the line of direct descendants of the lineage's founder as the “trunk” and the lines founded by the founder's brothers or by other lineage members in the next generations as “branches.” The head of the “trunk” acted as the chief sacrificer in rituals dedicated to their oldest common ancestors on behalf of the whole structure. Accordingly, in terms of ritual, the “branches” were subordinated to the “trunk.” This principle of the regulation of hierarchical relationships within lineages is referred to as zong fa. The ritual authority of the lineage's head legitimated his political authority. Thus, lineages/principalities taking their source in the Zhou royal house were subordinated to the king as the head of their “trunk” both ritually and politically.
158. E.g. Guowei Wang 王國維, “Yin Zhou zhidu yanjiu” 殷周制度研究 in Wang Guowei xiansheng quanji 王國維先生全集 (Taibei: Datong, 1976), 449–78; Yanong Li 李亞農, Zhou zu de shizu zhi yu Toba zu de qian fengjian zhi 周族的氏族制與拓跋族的前封建制 (Shanghai: Huadong renmin, 1954); Kuan Yang 楊寬, Gu shi xin tan 古史新探 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1964), 166–96; Zhuoyun Xu 許桌允, Xi Zhou shi 西周史 (Taibei: Lianjing, 1984), 110, 152–59; Qian Zongfan 錢宗范, Zhou dai zong fa zhidu yanjiu 周代宗法制度研究, esp. 355–65; Kuan Yang 楊寬, Xi Zhou shi 西周史 (Shanghai: Shanghai renmin, 1999), 426–52; Zhiyi Ge 葛志毅, Zhou dai fen feng yhidu yanjiu 周代分封制度研究 (Haerbing: Heilongjiang renmin, 2004), 64–68; Guangzhi Zhang 張廣志, Xi Zhou shi yu Xi Zhou wenming 西周史與西周文明, ed. Shikai Meng 孟世凱 and Xueqin Li 李學勤 (Shanghai: Shanghai kexue jishu wenxian, 2007), 145–56; Mingde Cui 崔明德, Xian Qin zhengzhi hunyin shi 先親政治婚姻史 (Jinan: Shandong daxue, 2004).
159. For investigations into political marriage during the Spring and Autumn period Marcel Granet, La polyginie sororale et le sororat dans la Chine féodale. Étude sur les formes anciennes de la polygamie chinoise (Paris: Leroux, 1920); Thatcher, “Marriages of the Ruling Elite”; Vogelsang, “Mit den Waffen der Frauen”; Jieling Xu 徐傑令, Chunqiu bangjiao yanjiu 春秋邦交研究 (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue, 2004), 198–221 with further references on p. 11; Jieling Xu 徐傑令, “Chunqiu shiqi lianyin dui bangjiao yingxiang” 春秋时期聯姻对邦交的影響, Dongbei Shida Xuebao (zhexue shehui kexue ban) 2004.1, 56–62.
160. See Creel, The Origins of Statecraft in China, 346, 375–83, 209–11.
161. For “feudal” interpretations, see Franke Otto, “Zur Beurteilung des chinesischen Lehenswesen,” Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 31 (1927), 359–77; Granet Marcel, La féodalité chinoise (Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co., 1952), 1–64; Maspero Henri, “Le régime féodal et la propriété foncière dans la Chine antique,” in Mélanges posthumes sur les religions et l'histoire de la Chine III (Paris: Musée Guimet, 1950), 114–16; Eberhard Wolfram, History of China (Abingdon: Routledge, 1950), 24–26; Creel, The Origins of Statecraft, 317–87; Cho-yun Hsu and Linduff Katheryn M., Western Chou Civilization (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 147–85; Vasil'ev, Dreivnij Kitaj. Tom I, 257–67.
162. See Vasil'ev, Dreivnij Kitaj. Tom I., 268–71; Hsu and Linduff, Western Chou Civilization, 185.
163. See Hsu and Linduff, Western Chou Civilization, 185.
164. See Kane Virginia C., “Aspects of Western Chou Appointment Inscriptions: The Charge, the Gifts, and the Response,” Early China 8 (1982–83), 14–28.
165. Ulrich Lau has suggested avoiding the term “feudalism” because of its haziness and ambiguity, at the same time recognizing the existence of “Lehen” (fief, or feud) as a form of land transfer (see Lau Ulrich, Quellenstudien zur Landvergabe und Bodenübertragung in der westlichen Zhou-Dynastie (1045?–771 v. Chr.), Monumenta Serica Monograph Series 41 (Sankt Augustin: Monumenta Serica, 1999), 42–43). For other arguments against “feudalism” see Cook, “Wealth and the Western Zhou,” 282–90.
166. Feng Li, “‘Feudalism’ and Western Zhou China: A Criticism,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 63 (2003), 115–44, esp. 122–24 and 142.
167. See Li, Bureaucracy and the State, 294–98.
168. Li Feng has agreed that mutual visits and marriage relationships “were above all significant probably as a strategy adopted by the Zhou court to reassert influence over peripheral regions” (see Li, Landscape and Power, 111–13, 138). Unfortunately, no particular evidence in support of the abovementioned arguments has been discussed in this book. In his next book, Li does not discuss interstate marital alliances as a means of political regulation (see Li, Bureaucracy and the State).
169. See Vasil'ev, Dreivnj Kitaj. Tom I., 264.
170. See Creel, The Origins of Statecraft, 101, 301, 305–10; Li, “‘Feudalism’ and Western Zhou China,” 136–39.
171. See Khayutina, “The Tombs of the Rulers of Peng,” forthcoming.
172. For criticism see Kolb Raimund Theodor, Die Infanterie im Alten China. Ein Beitrag zur militärgeschichte der Vor-Zhan-Guo-Zeit (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1991), 141–43.
173. See Krjukov, Formy social'noj organizacii, 73–74; Lau, Quellenstudien, 161; Lewis, Sanctioned Violence, 35; Li, Bureaucracy and the State, 264–68.
174. Edward Shaughnessy and Li Feng regard the Shi Shi gui 師史簋 (Jicheng 4218, Zhangjiapo, Fengxi, Shaanxi, Middle to Late Western Zhou) as evidence of a punitive campaign launched by a Zhou king (supposedly King Yi) into the territory of a Qi principality (see Shaughnessy, “Western Zhou History,” 329; Li, Landscape and Power, 98–99). This inscription records a king's command to Shi Shi “to pursue in Qi” (追于齊), but not to “attack Qi.” The construction zhui yu, “to pursue in” suggests that Qi is a place name, but not the object of pursuit, which would be introduced by the verb zhui without a preposition (compare with 公追戎于濟西 in the Chun qiu). Similar constructions appear in bronze inscriptions (e.g. 王令我羞追于西, “the king commanded us to humiliate [the enemies] and to pursue [them] in the west”). In the latter example, a previous sentence makes clear that the action was directed against the Xianyun 玁狁 who attacked Western Yu 西俞, whereas the object of pursuit in the Shi Shi gui remains unclear (which is not untypical for bronze inscriptions that often suggest the readers’ context awareness). Possibly, it is related to the Shi Yuan gui 師袁簋 (Jicheng 4313, Middle to Late Western Zhou), according to which Yi of Huai River attacked eastern principalities (dong guo 東國). The king commanded Shi Yuan to lead the royal huchen 虎臣 warriors with whom he had to reinforce the defence of Qi garrison (Qi shi 齊師), as well as of Jì and of three other Shandong principalities. Possibly, Shi Shi had to join the same party. In any case, the evidence for the king's attack on Qi is too thin. In another case, recorded in the Bamboo Annals, King Yi boiled alive Lord Ai of Qi 齊哀侯 for an unknown reason. However, this happened as the king gathered the rulers of principalities (王致諸侯, see Jin ben zhu shu ji nian, Yi: 3, p. 254). This example demonstrates that the king was able to apply violence against another ruler, but it appears that the king acted on his own territory and, most likely, given the agreement of other rulers.
175. The Shi Yuan gui reflects a case of military cooperation between Qi and Jì (Jicheng 4313, Middle to Late Western Zhou). The Chunqiu records a number of meetings organized by Qi in which Xŭ participated. Possibly, cooperation between Qi, Jì, and Xu was based on their membership in the Jiang zong fa structure.
176. See Vasilij Mikhajlovich Krjukov, Ritualnaja kommunikacija v drevnem Kitae [Ritual Communication in Ancient China] (Moscow-Taibei: Institut Vostokovedenija RAN, 1997), esp. 252–58. Cf. also Cook, “Wealth and the Western Zhou.”
177. See Breuer Stefan, Der archaische Staat. Zur Soziologie charismatischer Herrschaft (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1990), 160 with ref. to Kwang-chih Chang, Art, Myth and Ritual: The Path to Political Authority in Ancient China (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983).
178. These territories were referred to in traditional historiography as the “royal domain” wang ji 王畿. For the discussion see Khayutina, “Royal Hospitality and Geopolitical Constitution,” 37–38.
179. Cf. Krjukov, Ritualnaja kommunikacija; Cook, “Wealth and the Western Zhou;” Kane, “Aspects of Western Chou Appointment Inscriptions;” Feng Li, “Succession and Promotion: Elite Mobility during the Western Zhou,” Monumenta Serica 52 (2004): 1–35.
180. This is manifested in inscriptions commemorating gifts donated by local rulers to their subordinates, e.g. in Xing (Mai yi 麥彝, Jicheng 9893, Early Western Zhou), or Jì (Ji hou di ding 紀侯弟鼎, Jicheng 2638, Late Western Zhou).
181. See e.g. Mai zun 麥尊 (Jicheng 6015, Early Western Zhou); Ying hou Shigong zhong 應侯視工鐘 (Jicheng 107; Late Western Zhou); Guo ji Zibo pan 虢季子白盤 (Jicheng 10173, Guochuan 虢川, Baoji, Shaanxi, Late Western Zhou). The standard example of the investiture of a regional lord accompanied by gifts, the Ode “Han yi” 韓奕 in the Shi jing, also reflects the relationship between the Zhou king and a Jī-surnamed regional lord (see Shi jing quan shi, “Han yi,” 537–40).
182. See Granet, La féodalité chinoise, 11, 105.
183. See Falkenhausen, The Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius, 74–126.
184. For “drifting-away” of “regional states” see Li, Landscape and Power, 116–19.
185. For a graphic model of the king-centered network see Hsu and Linduff, Western Chou Civilization, 159.
186. On the he qin policies, see Yang Mingzhu 閻明恕, Zhongguo gudai he qin shi 中國古代和親史 (Guizhou: Guizhou minzu, 2003).
187. See Hsu and Linduff, Western Chou Civilization, 159; Vasil'ev, Dreivnij Kitaj. Tom I., 265, 270–71.
188. For case studies see Shaughnessy Edward L., “Toward a Social Geography of the Zhouyuan during the Western Zhou Dynasty. The Jing and Zhong Lineages of Fufeng County,” in Political Frontiers, Ethnic Boundaries, and Human Geographies in Chinese History, ed. Nicolas Di Cosmo and Wyatt Don J. (London and New York: Routledge, 2003), 16–34; Zhaorong Chen 陳昭容, “Cong qingtongqi mingwen kan liang Zhou Han-Huai diqu hunyin guanxi” 從青銅器銘文看漢淮地區婚姻關係, Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 75.4 (2004), 635–97.
This article has been written under the auspices of the Graduiertenkolleg “Formen von Prestige in Kulturen des Altertums” at the University of Munich where I participated as post-doctoral fellow in 2007–2009. I wish to thank Hans van Ess, Thomas Höllmann, Edward Shaughnessy, Chen Zhaorong, Katheryn Linduff and Armin Selbitschka, as well as the anonymous readers for Early China for their remarks and suggestions at different stages of this research. All errors are my own responsibility.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th January 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.