This essay introduces the newly published Qin documents from levels 5, 6, and 8 of Well no. 1, Liye, Hunan province, the ancient Qianling County of the Qin dynasty, as presented in two 2012 works, Liye Qin jian (yi) 里耶秦簡 (壹) and Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (di yi juan) 里耶秦簡牘校釋 (第一卷), ed. Chen Wei 陳偉, together with some of the documents on display in the Liye Qin jian bowuguan (Liye Museum of Qin Slips). It discusses some of the problems in those two publications, the nature of the documents; dating issues; military logistics; the Qin legal system as revealed in the documents, especially those relating to fines and punishments, rewards, rations for convicts, status distinctions and the purchase of rank, forms for writing up documents, and Qin ordinances (ling 令); and materials relating to the religious activities of local officials in Qianling County. It concludes by offering a speculation on why the documents were thrown into the well as the Qin dynasty began to crumble.
本文介紹了湖南里耶 (秦代遷陵縣) 1 號井第 5 、 6 、 8 層出土的秦代文書 。 2012 年出版的《里耶秦簡 (壹)》及陳偉主編的《里耶秦簡牘校釋 (第一卷)》，發表了這些文書的圖片和釋文 。 另外，本文也包括了在里耶秦簡博物館展出的部分文書 。 本文討論了上述兩部新書中出現的一些問題，包括文書性質及斷代 、 軍事後勤以及這些文書所反映的秦代法制體系，特別是分析了與獎懲 、 囚犯配額 、 等級劃分及購買爵位 、 文件書寫形式 、 秦令，以及與遷陵地方官員的宗教活動有關的文獻 。 作者還對些文書被投入井中以及秦代瓦解等問題的原因進行了推測 。
I am honored to contribute this small essay in celebration of the eightieth birthday of one of the giants of twentieth and twenty-first century scholarship on China, Professor Li Xueqin. I first met Professor Li back in the late nineteen-seventies, when he was invited to Harvard University by the late Professor Kwang-chih Chang (Zhang Guangzhi 張光直), under whose direction I was studying for the doctoral degree. Throughout out my career, Professor Li has been a steadfast and generous supporter of my researches in China. I cannot thank him enough for his mentorship, advice and assistance. Without it, I would never have been able to achieve much in the study of excavated texts and documents. I am profoundly grateful and appreciative of his efforts on my behalf.
1. yanjiusuo, Hunan sheng wenwu kaogu 湖南省文物考古研究所, wenwuchu, Xiangxi Tujia zu Miao zu zizhizhou 湘西土家族苗族自治州文物處, and guanlisuo, Longshan xian wenwu 龍山縣文物管理所, “Hunan Longshan Liye Zhanguo–Qin dai gucheng yihaojing fajue jianbao” 湖南龍山里耶戰國–––秦代古城–號井發掘簡報, Wenwu 文物 1 (2003), 4–35 ; yanjiusuo, Hunan sheng wenwu kaogu, “Hunan Longshan xian Liye Zhanguo Qin Han chengzhi ji Qin dai jiandu” 湖南龍山縣里耶戰國秦漢城址及秦代簡牘, Kaogu 考古 7 (2003), 15–19 (591–95); wenwuju, Guojia 國家文物局, ed., 2002 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu faxian 2002 中國重要考古發現 (Beijing: Wenwu, 2003), 62–69 ; Xueqin, Li 李學勤, “Chudu Liye Qin jian” 初讀里耶秦簡, Wenwu 1 (2003), 73–81 ; kaogusuo, Hunan sheng wenwu, Liye fajue baogao 里耶發掘報告 (Changsha: Yuelu, 2006); Huanlin, Wang 王煥林, Liye Qin jian jiaogu 里耶秦簡校詁 (Beijing: Zhongguo wenlian, 2007); yanjiusuo, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu 中國社會科學院考古研究所, yanjiusuo, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan lishi 中國社會科學院歷史研究所 and yanjiusuo, Hunan sheng wenwu kaogu, eds., Liye gucheng, Qin jian yu Qin wenhua yanjiu: Zhongguo Liye gucheng, Qin jian yu Qin wenhua guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji 里耶古城 • 秦簡與秦文化研究–––中國里耶古城 • 秦簡與秦文化國際學術研討會論文集 (Beijing: Kexue, 2009).
2. It is possible that originally the You River formed the moat on the southern side of the town. However, given that this town was situated in a strategic area fought over by the Qin and Chu states in the early third century B.C.E., it is more likely that all four sides of the town were walled.
3. Information kindly provided the author by one of the archaeologists responsible for the excavation, Zhang Chunlong 張春龍, in a conversation with the author and Anthony Barbieri-Low in Changsha, December, 2007.
4. As the dating system of the Qin did not change with the founding of the empire in 221 B.C.E., for ease of reference, I refer to King Zheng throughout this article, rather than to the First Emperor or Qin Shihuangdi.
5. Rui, Liu 劉瑞, “Liye Qin dai mudu lingshi” 里耶秦代木牘零拾, Zhongguo wenwubao 中國文物報 (05 30, 2003).
6. Wei, Chen 陳偉, “Guanyu Qin jiandu zonghe zhengli yu yanjiu de jidian sikao” 關於秦簡牘綜合整理與研究的幾點思考, Jianbo 簡帛 4 (2009),1–10 ; Ling, Li 李零, “Qin jian de dingming yu fenlei” 秦簡的定名與分類, Jianbo 6 (2011), 1–11 .
7. The first volume of the Yinqueshan 銀雀山 texts discovered in 1972 was published in 1975: xiaozu, Yinqueshan Han mu zhujian zhengli 銀雀山漢墓竹簡整理小組, ed., Yinqueshan Han mu zhujian 銀雀山漢墓竹簡 (Beijing: Wenwu), and the second only in 2010 , Yinqueshan Han mu zhujian (er) 銀雀山漢墓竹簡 (貳) (Beijing: Wenwu). We are still waiting for the rest to be properly published. See Yates, Robin D. S., “Texts on the Military and Government from Yinqueshan: Introductions and Transcriptions,” in Xin-chu jianbo yanjiu 新出簡帛研究 (Studies on Recently Discovered Chinese Manuscripts), ed. Lan, Ai 艾蘭 and Wen, Xing 邢文 (Beijing: Wenwu, 2004), 334–87.
8. In addition to the reports and works cited in note 1 above, see also yanjiusuo, Hunan sheng wenwu kaogu, wenwuchu, Xiangxi Tujia Miao zu zizhizhou, “Xiangxi Liye Qin dai jiandu xuanshi” 湘西里耶秦代簡牘選釋, Zhongguo lishi wenwu 中國歷史文物 1 (2003), 8–25 . For a review of scholarship on the material published up through 2008, see Guodong, Fan 凡國棟, “Liye Qin jian yanjiu huigu yu qianzhan” 里耶秦簡回顧與前瞻, Jianbo 4 (2009), 37–57 . A number of the Liye slips and boards were on display in the Hunan Provincial Museum, but I do not know whether these are the same or different from the ones that have been published. Japanese scholars have also contributed substantially to the study of the Liye documents. See especially, kōdokukai, Riya Shinkan 里耶秦簡講讀會, “Riya Shinkan yakuchū” 里耶秦簡譯註, Chūgoku shutsudo shiryō kenkyū 中国出土資料研究 8 (2004): 88–137 .
9. I wish to thank Professor Xing Yitian 邢義田 (Hsing I-tien) of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, Taiwan, for sharing with me the initial draft of his research notes on the documents that were initially published with photographs, “Hunan Longshan Liye Qin jian shiwen duji—jianlun wenshu biji goucheng cunfang (chugao)” 湖南龍山里耶秦簡釋文讀記–––兼論文書筆跡構成存放 (初稿), as well as his published article, “Hunan Longshan Liye J1 (8) 157 he J1 (9) 1–12 hao Qin du de wenshu goucheng biji he yuandang cunfang xingshi” 湖南龍山里耶 J1 (8) 157 和 J1 (9) 1–12 號秦牘的文書構成 、 筆迹和原檔存放形式, in Yitian, Xing, Zhiguo anbang: fazhi, xingzheng yu junshi 治國安邦: 法制 、 行政與軍事 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2011), 473–98.
10. yanjiusuo, Hunan sheng wenwu kaogu 湖南省文物考古研究所, ed., Liye Qin jian (yi) 里耶秦簡 (壹) (Beijing: Wenwu, 2012).
11. Wei, Chen et al., eds., Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (diyijuan) 里耶秦简牍校释 (第一卷), (Wuhan: Wuhan daxue, 2012). I am most grateful to Professor Chen for sending me a copy of this book.
12. The archaeologists initially cited the slips and boards by placing the mark “J1” before each item, implying that they thought that the other wells also contained discarded documents. But this mark does not appear in Liye Qin jian vol. 1, suggesting that they do not now believe more documents will be discovered in the other wells. An alternative was to use the rubric “⑧134,” for example. This has now changed to 8-134 for the archaeological number for board no. 134 from level 8 of Well no. 1. For the photo-graph numbers, which do not correspond to the archaeological numbers, see below.
13. In this essay, I will use the archaeological number to identify a slip, with the photograph number in brackets, if the slip or board is published in Liye Qin jian (yi). The boards are numbered as follows: 8-18 (16); 8-97 (94); 8-215 and 8-281 (214); 8-284 (284); 8-285 (285); 8-501 (500); 8-502 (502); 8-534 (531); 8-613 (612); 8-774 (776); 8-775 (777); 8-905 (906); 8-1203 (1200); 8-1206 (1201); 8-1418 (1428); 8-1547 (1536); 8-1784 (1775); 8-1783 (1776); 8-1785 (1777); 8-1879 (1868); 8-1878 (1874); 8-1939 (1931). See the conclusion below for a transcription and translation of one of these box covers.
14. Zhang Chunlong, in a private conversation with the author and Anthony Barbieri-Low in December, 2007, in Changsha, suggested that he might write such a study. For an enlightening analysis of similar notched boards and slips of Han date, see Akira, Momiyama 籾山明, “Kokushi kantoku shotan—Kankan keitairon-no tame-ni” 刻歯簡牘初探–––漢簡形態論のために, Mokkan kenkyū 木簡研究 17 (1995), 165–87.
15. See xiaozu, Zhangjiashan ersiqihao Han mu zhujian zhengli 張家山二四七號漢墓竹簡整理小組, ed., Zhangjiashan Han mu zhujian (Ersiqihao mu) 張家山漢墓竹簡 (二四七號墓) (Beijing: Wenwu, 2001).
16. According to the explanation of conventions, p. 1, volume 2 will contain the documents in layer 9; volume 3 will contain the documents from layers 7, 10, 11, and 13; volume 4 will contain those of layers 12 and 14; and volume 5 will contain the remainder, documents from layers 15, 16, and 17, and the boards excavated in December, 2005, from pit no. 11 in the Liye moat. However, there are numbers of documents on display in the Liye Museum that do not seem to correspond with those given in this explanation and have not as yet been published or reported.
17. Board 16.52 is a record of the distances between Qianling and other regional towns:
“Yan to Xiao: 184 li” 鄢到銷百八十四里 (line 1); “Xiao to Jiangling 240 li” 銷到江陵二百四十六里 (line 2); “Jiangling to Chanling: 110 li” 江陵到孱陵百一十里 (line 3); “Chanling to Suo 295 li” 孱陵到索二百九十五里 (line 4); Suo to Linyuan 60 li” 索到臨沅六十里 (line 5); Linyuan to Qianling: 910 li” 臨沅到遷陵九百一十里 (line 6); □□ thousand four hundred and forty four li” 【凡四】千四百四十四里 (line 7). Such a record of distances might have been used to calculate how long it would take to trans-port an official document from one administrative unit to another and/or how long an official would take from one administrative center to another. Delays in forwarding documents and being late for a rendezvous were punished under both Qin and Han law.
18. Xueqin, Li, “Chudu Liye Qin jian,” 76–77 ; Wei, Chen, “Qin Cangwu, Dongting erjun chulun” 秦蒼梧 、 洞庭二郡芻論, in Yanshuo ji 燕說集 (Beijing: Shangwu, 2011), 353–61; first published in Lishi yanjiu 歷史研究 2003.5: 168–72. I am grateful to Professor Chen for sending me a copy of his book. Cf. Huanlin, Wang, “Liye Qin jian yudi shiyi (yi) Dongting jun” 里耶秦簡輿地釋疑 (一) 洞庭郡, Liye Qin jian jiaogu, 204–11.
19. A “post” was a sub-county unit with postal, police, and hostelry functions. The man in charge of a “post” was a “constable” (ting xiaozhang 亭校長). Both terms appear in recently excavated texts, including the Zouyan shu 奏讞書 found in tomb no. 247 Zhangjiashan. For the Zhangjiashan documents, see Zhangjiashan Han mu zhujian (ersiqihao mu), 211–31, and Yūichi, Ikeda 池田雄一, ed., Sōgensho—Chūgoku kodai no saiban kiroku 奏讞書–––中國古代の災裁判記錄 (Tokyo: Tōsui shobō, 2002). For the Qin system of posts, see, inter alia, Jinguang, Zhang 張金光, Qin zhi yanjiu 秦制研究 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2004), 587–94.
20. For the ward or village system under the Qin, see Jinguang, Zhang, Qin zhi yanjiu, 594–602 ; for the control of cantons and wards/villages under the Qin and Han, see Aiqing, Wang 王愛清, Qin Han xiangli kongzhi yanjiu 秦漢鄉里控制研究 (Ji'nan: Shandong daxue, 2010).
21. xiaozu, Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian zhengli 睡虎地秦墓竹簡整理小組, ed., Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian 睡虎地秦墓竹簡 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1990; rpt. 2001); Hulsewé, A.F.P., Remnants of Ch'in Law: An Annotated Translation of the Ch'in Legal and Administrative Rules of the 3rd Century B.C. Discovered in Yün-meng Prefecture, Hu-pei Province, in 1975 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985).
22. Zhenbo, Yu 于振波, “Han dai de duguan yu liguan” 漢代的都官與離官, Jianbo yanjiu 2002-2003 簡帛研究 2002-2003 (2005), 221–27.
23. Wei, Chen, Liye Qin jiandu, 190 .
24. For example, Xiangcheng 襄城, which Wei, Chen, Liye Qin jiandu, 255 , identifies as belonging to Yingchuan Commandery 潁川郡 in modern Henan province: see no. 8-975; and Chengfu 城父 that appears in documents 8-981 (980); 8-997 (1000); and 8-1111 (1109). This county belonged to Pei Commandery 沛郡 in the Han, and is located in modern Anhui Province. Chengfu is sometimes written as 成夫 in the Liye documents, e.g., as in 8-26 (26), which Wei, Chen, Liye Qin jiandu, 35 , links with 8-749 (752)—the photographs of the broken ends of these two documents do not reveal that such a linking is appropriate. If they were originally joined, there must be a missing fragment between them. Other counties mentioned were located as far away as the Beijing region, Inner Mongolia, and modern Shanxi, Shaanxi, and Gansu Provinces.
25. For example, an approximately 70-year-old woman in slip no. 8-2107 (2098); and a forty-year-old individual alluded to in 8-2140 (2133). Both of these slips are severely damaged. Wei, Chen, Liye Qin jiandu, 429 and 435 , claims that the graphs for Wei should be transcribed as wei 巍, which is the same as wei 魏, and that in slip 8-2107 (2098), the first occurrence of the word Wei is as a surname. This is unlikely. He also states that the last three graphs in line 2 of 8-2107 should be transcribed as wei ji li 巍箕李, instead of wei qi xiao 魏其孝. Here he claims that ji 箕 is the same as qi 其, and that Weiqi was a county in Langye Commandery 琅邪郡 to the southwest of modern Lin'yi 臨沂, Shandong, while Li was the name of a village, ward, or hamlet (li 里).
26. An adult male with the given name of Wusao 吳騷 is said to have come from the Hanshen ward 韓審里 of Handan 邯鄲, the former capital of the state of Zhao captured by the Qin in 228 B.C.E. (no. 8-894).
27. Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian; Hulsewé, Remnants of Ch'in Law.
28. These bondservants have been the subject of a great deal of controversy. See Yates, Robin D. S., “Slavery in Early China: A Socio-cultural Perspective,” Journal of East Asian Archaeology, 3.1–2 (2002): 283–331 ; Li, Li 李力, ‘Lichenqie’ shenfen zai yanjiu “隸臣妾” 身份再研究 (Beijing: Zhongguo falü, 2007); Li, Li, “Lun ‘tuli’ de shenfen—cong xinchutu Liye Qin jian rushou” 論 “徒隸” 的身份–––從新出土里耶秦簡入手, Chutu wenxian yanjiu 出土文獻研究 8 (2007): 33–42 , reprinted in his book, Zhangjiashan 247 hao mu Han jian falü wenxian yanjiu ji qi shuping (1985.1–2008.12) 張家山 247 號墓漢簡法律文獻研究及其述評 (1985.1–2008.12) (Tokyo: Tōkyō Gaikoku daigaku Ajia Afurika gengo bunka kenkyūjo, 2009), 425–34. Lichenqie also appear in the early Han statutes discovered at Zhangjiashan, Jiangling 江陵; see Jiehui, Yang 楊頡慧, “Zhangjiashan Han jian zhong ‘Lichenqie’ shenfen tantao” 張家山漢簡中隸臣妾身份探討, Zhongyuan wenwu 中原文物 1 (2004), 57–61 .
29. Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian, Statutes concerning the Forwarding of Documents 行書律, 61; Hulsewé, Remnants of Ch'in Law, A 96, 86. The writing at the end of slip 184 ends at “are not to be 勿 …” The Shuihudi editors suggest that the next slip, no. 185, follows immediately thereafter with the word ling 令, thus bondservants are not to be ordered (to transmit official documents). Hulsewé suggests, Remnants of Ch'in Law, 86n.4, that a slip is missing after wu, although the injunction against using bondservants and other untrustworthy individuals may well have been in the original provision (note that the numbering of the slips is different between Hulsewé's work and the re-edition of the Shuihudi texts, being off by two slips).
30. Reed, Bradly W., Talons and Teeth: County Clerks and Runners in the Qing Dynasty (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000).
31. Hulsewé's translation of the first part of this Statute on the Forwarding of Documents, Remnants of Ch'in Law, 86.
32. Both the Qin and the Han promulgated “Statutes on the Forwarding of Documents” Xingshu lü 行書律. Some of the Qin statutes have been found in the looted Yuelu hoard. See Songchang, Chen 陳松長, “Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian zhong de xingshu lüling chulun” 岳麓書院藏秦簡中的行書律令初論, Zhongguoshi yanjiu 中國史研究 2009.3 (123): 31–37 .
33. Xueqin, Li, “Chudu Liye Qin jian,” 73–74 .
34. This comment refers to documents that were being sent up and down the chain of command: there are many slips and boards that consist solely of the name of an office; these were used as covers for communications, for example.
35. Xueqin, Li, “Chudu Liye Qin jian,” 75 , quoting board 8-154.
36. Chen Wei points out some examples in his introduction to Liye Qin jiandu, 2–5.
line 1 元年遷陵隸臣妾積二百人倉守士五敦狐…
First Year (of the Second Emperor): The total of male and female bondservants in Qianling was two hundred persons;
The Temporary (Official in Charge) of the (Bureau of) Granaries Dunhu of Commoner Rank …
Line 2 …視事三□□… …
… oversaw the matter. Three …
38. Presumably those documents dated to the 37th year were composed before King Zheng died, or before this news had been brought to Qianling County—it should be remembered that his death was covered up until the Second Emperor was able to seize the throne.
39. 5-7 (5) appears to be written in Chu script and refers to the magistrate in charge of Qianling using a Chu designation. Chen Wei, Liye Qin jiandu, 8, transcribes the graphs as 夌公. The first two graphs in Qin script are 遷陵, and the title of a magistrate under the Chu regime was gong; the latter was changed to ling 令 under the Qin.
40. This is a legal order listing the times magistrate's scribes (“foremen clerks” in Hulsewé's translation, lingshi 令史) were to visit miao 廟,either a place-name or a local temple (see below). Wei, Chen, Liye Qin jiandu, 78–80 , reconstructs this document as consisting of 8-137 (138) + 8-175 (174) + 8-525 (522) + 8-526 (523).
41. This is a box cover or label, broken into two pieces, that designated the records of law cases from the end of the eleventh month, 33rd year of King Zheng (214 B.C.E.) and first month of the following year, 213 B.C.E.
42. Another document records that the Qianling Assistant Chang 遷陵丞昌 took very quick action when it appeared that two individuals had been appointed on the recommendation of the Qiling District Bailiff 啟陵鄉 (嗇) 夫 twice over to the positions of Village Head (lidian 里典) and Postman (youren 郵人) (8.157) not in conformity with the ordinances and statutes. Here we see that county authorities were responsible for confirming the appointment of local village officials, indicating that the Qin state pen-etrated even lower into the population than we had previously realized.
43. In the 32nd year of Qin Shihuangdi, the name of the official in charge of the Qianling Armory was appropriately named Wu 武 (8-1528 , among other documents).
44. The Qin general Bai Qi 白起 had captured the former Chu capital of Ying 郢, modern Ji'nan city 紀南城, Jiangling, in 278 B.C.E. and the Qin commandery of Nan 南 had been established there. The final campaign against Chu took place in 224–223 B.C.E. There has been much archaeological work done at Ji'nan: for example, see Dewei, Guo 郭德維, Chu du Ji'nan cheng fuyuan yanjiu 楚都紀南城復原研究 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1999) and Quanxi, Yang 楊權喜, Chu wenhua 楚文化 (Beijing: Wenwu, 2000), 34–45 . Which site is meant in the Liye documents awaits further research.
45. Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian, 44, slip no. 102; Hulsewé, Remnants of Ch'in Law, A 57, 60.
46. Zhenbo, Yu, “Qin lü zhong de jiadun bijia ji xiangguan wenti” 秦律中的甲盾比價及相關問題, Shixue jikan 史學集刊 2010.5: 36–38 .
47. Bo March was located in modern Sichuan province and was called a “March” (dao 道) because people of the Bo tribes lived there.
48. Wei, Chen, Liye Qin jiandu, 4–5 .
49. The Liye Qin jian (yi) editors state that there are notches on the left-hand side of the slip which indicate the sum of 6820, which does not match the sum stated in the text.
50. Zhangjiashan Han mu zhujian (ersiqihao mu), 255; xiaozu, Zhangjiashan ersiqi hao Han mu zhujian zhengli 張家山漢墓竹簡整理小組, ed., Zhangjiashan Han mu zhujian (Ersiqihao mu) (shiwen xiuding ben) 張家山漢墓竹簡 [二四七號墓] (釋文修訂本) (Beijing: Wenwu, 2006), 138 ; Hao, Peng 彭浩, Zhangjiashan Han jian Suanshu shu zhushi 張家山漢簡《算數書》註釋 (Beijing: Kexue, 2001), 60–61 .
51. Zhangjiashan Han mu zhujian (ersiqihao mu), 190; Zhangjiashan Han mu zhujian (Ersiqihao mu) (shiwen xiuding ben), 67; Honglin, Zhu 朱紅林, Zhangjiashan Han jian Ernian lüling jishi 張家山漢簡二年律令集釋 (Beijing: Shehui kexue wenxian, 2005), 248 , Slips 427–28.
52. The first number refers to the slip number assigned by the Zhangjiashan editors; the second number is the archaeological number of the slip.
53. Zhangjiashan Han mu zhujian (ersiqihao mu), 150; Zhangjiashan Han mu zhujian (shiwen xiuding ben), 25; Honglin, Zhu, Zhangjiashan Han jian Ernian lüling jishi, 94–96 .
54. Cang/zang 臧 is an alternate form of zang 贓, which Hulsewé, Remnants of Ch'in Law, D 1, 121n.7, translates as “illicit profit” and explains as “the profit obtained from any illegal act: theft, robbery, extortion, embezzlement, fraud, bribery.” The word appears frequently in Han documents, both in transmitted texts and in those newly discovered, for example, Zouyan shu case no. 15.
55. The editors of both editions of the Zhangjiashan legal materials note that calculating value on the basis of decimal multiples of 11 was also a feature of Qin law as evidenced in the Shuihudi statutes. The reason was that in Qin law there was a fixed rate established by statute to convert rolls of cloth to cash: in the Statutes on Finance, one roll of cloth was specified to be eight (Chinese) feet long and two foot five (Chinese) inches wide, which was the equivalent of 11 cash ( Hulsewé, , Remnants of Ch'in Law, A 43 and A 44, 52–53 ; Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian, 36, slip no. 67.
56. This statute is quoted in the Zouyan shu case no. 15, where an ordinance is also quoted that provides further details on how to treat an official guilty of such theft.
57. Hulsewé, , Remnants of Ch'in Law, 122–23; Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian, 95, slip no. 8.
58. Hulsewé, , Remnants of Ch'in Law, C11, 110 .
59. Wei, Chen, Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi, 90n.8.
60. The graph zi 貲 was indecipherable in the first transcription: it has been supplied by Wei, Chen, Liye Qin jiandu, 180 .
61. The editors note that the left-hand side of the slip is notched to indicate the number 350.
62. Wei, Chen, Liye Qin jiandu, 261 .
63. Hulsewé, , Remnants of Ch'in Law, A 15, pp. 32–33 .
64. Hulsewé, , Remnants of Ch'in Law, 33n.8.
65. Hulsewé, , Remnants of Ch'in Law, A 77, 76 . I would note that the text's fang 方 should be interpreted as “rectangular,” not “square” as Hulsewé has it; also I think there is some problem with the identification of the type of wood specified in the statute. Hulsewé interprets the wood as being “willow” and other soft wood, but the Liye documents are on hard wood, which makes better sense, for hard wood would be more difficult to alter.
66. MacLeod, Katrina C. D. and Yates, Robin D. S., “Forms of Ch'in Law: An Annotated Translation of the Feng-chen shih ,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 41.1 (1981), 111–163 . Hulsewé, , Remnants of Ch'in Law, 183 , translates yuanshu as “reports”; see also Bodde, Derk, “Forensic Medicine in Pre-imperial China,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 102 (1982), 1–15 and Osamu, Ōba 大庭修, “Enshokō” 爰書考, Shinkan hōseishi-no kenkyū 秦漢法制史の研究 (Tokyo: Sōbunsha, 1982), 165–98.
67. Han shu 23.1106 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1962, rpt. 1975); see Xiaoying, Li 李曉英, “Han dai zouyan zhidu bianxi” 漢代奏讞制度辨析, Henan daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 河南大學學報 (社會科學版) 2010.5, 104–11. Examples of yanshu have also been discovered in the looted Yuelu hoard: see Songchang, Chen, “Yuelu shuyuan suocang Qin jian zongshu” 嶽麓書院所藏秦簡綜述, Wenwu 2009.3, 75–88 .
68. For some recent studies of the forms of official government documents in Han China, see Junming, Li 李均明 and Jun, Liu 劉軍, Jiandu wenshu xue 簡牘文書學 (Nanning: Guangxi jiaoyu, 1999); Junming, Li, Qin Han jiandu wenshu fenlei jijie 秦漢簡牘文書分類輯解 (Beijing: Wenwu, 2009); Tianhong, Li 李天虹, Juyan Han jian buji fenlei yanjiu 居延漢簡簿籍分類研究 (Beijing: Kexue, 2003); Guihai, Wang 汪桂海, Han dai guan wenshu zhidu 漢代官文書制度 (Nanning: Guangxi jiaoyu, 1999); Guihai, Wang, Qin Han jiandu tanyan 秦漢簡牘探研 (Taibei: Wenjin, 2009).The most recent publication of this type of document is: zhongxin, Gansu jiandu baohu yanjiu 甘肅簡牘保護研究中心 et al., ed., Jianshui Jinguan Han jian (yi) 肩水金關漢簡 (壹), 3 vols. (Shanghai: Zhongxi, 2011).
69. See the one example mentioned above of the record of a man's surname. The large number of personal names recorded in the Liye hoard would certainly be worth a separate study. My favorite is the individual whose parents named him “Hate Taxes” (Wuzu 惡租), who was a member of the rank and file of Gao Village being held to pay off a fine 居貲士五高里惡租 (8-988). Had he indeed refused to pay his taxes? Regardless, this name implies that at least some of the local residents of Qianling were not too happy to be forced to pay taxes to the newly instituted Qin regime.
70. For a preliminary study of Qin ordinances, see Kunio, Hirose 廣瀨薰雄, Shinkan ritsuryō kenkyū 秦漢律令研究 (Tokyo: Kyūko Shoin, 2010), 77–96 .
71. Qian, Sima 司馬遷, Shi ji 史記 (Beijing, Zhonghua, 1972), 6 (“Shihuangdi benji” 始皇帝本紀): “On the guichou day of the tenth month of the thirty-seventh year, Shi-huang went out to travel. The Chancellor of the Left [Li] Si followed and the Chancellor of the Right [Feng] Quji guarded [the capital]. His youngest son, Huhai, in longing, requested to follow, and the Emperor permitted him” 三十七年十月癸丑, 始皇出游. 左丞相斯從, 右丞相去疾守. 少子胡亥愛慕請從, 上許之. Translation adapted from Nienhauser, William H. Jr., et al., The Grand Scribe's Records (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994), 1.151.
72. Board no. 674 (674) refers to the Chief Prosecutor Wan (yushifu=[dafu] Wan 御史夫 [= 大夫] 綰); Wei, Chen, Liye Qin jiandu, 173–74, reconstructs the document by joining it with two other fragments, nos. 8-527 (528) and 8-532 (532). In note 6, he suggests that the reconstructed date for the document should be the 25th year, not the 35th year, and that Wan is the same man as Wang Wan 王綰, who became Chancellor (chengxiang 丞 相) at the creation of the Qin Empire in the following year, 221 B.C.E., King Zheng's 26th year, as recorded in the Shi ji. This is probably correct.
73. For a detailed study of these early Han ordinances, see Jian, Yang 楊建, Xi-Han chuqi jinguan zhidu yanjiu: fu Jinguan ling jianshi 西漢初期津關制度研究: 附 《津關令》簡釋 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2010). See also Osamu, Ōba, “The Ordinances on Fords and Passes Excavated from Han Tomb #247, Zhangjiashan,” translated by Spafford, David, Yates, Robin D. S., and Giele, Enno with Nylan, Michael, Asia Major 3rd ser. 14.2 (2001, published 2004), 119–41; Wei, Chen, “Zhangjiashan Han jian Jinguan ling zhong de shema zhuling yanjiu” 張家山漢簡《津關令》中的涉馬諸令研究 and “Zhangjiashan Han jian Jinguan ling ‘Yue sai lan guan’ zhuling kaoshi” 張家山漢簡《津關令》 “越塞闌關” 諸令考釋 in Yanshuo ji (Beijing: Shangwu, 2011), 390–415, and 416–27, respectively. Another citation in the Liye documents, from an ordinance on legal procedure in court cases, can be seen in slip no. 8-1837, which seems to be part of an investigation of an official named Jing 敬, who appears in several other documents: “In all cases, when officials try (a case) and it has already been decided and they change the trial …” 諸有吏治已決而更治. A further example appears in 16.5: see Huanlin, Wang, Liye Qin jian jiaogu, 104–5.
74. The looted Yuelu Qin legal documents apparently contain the titles and some citations from a number of Qin ordinances. See Chen Songchang, “Yuelu shuyuan suo cang Qin jian zongshu.”
75. Slip nos. 8-876 (876); 8-1065 (1057) (no. 98); 8-1223 (1221) (no. 7); 8-1225 (1224) (no. 5); 8-1227 (1230) (no. 3); 8-1245 (1243); 8-1293 (1290); 8-1364 (1363) (no. 1); 8-1380 (1376) (prob.); 8-1382 (1379); 8-1627 (1620); 8-1794 (1786).
76. Liye Qin jian (yi), 5.
77. Chunlong, Zhang, “Liye Qin jian si Xiannong si Yin he si Ti jiaoquan” 里耶秦簡祠先農 、 祠和祠隄校券, Jianbo 4 (2007): 393–96.
78. See, for example, Zhilong, Shi 史志龍, “Qin ‘Ci Xiannong’ jian zaitan” 秦 ‘祠先農' 簡再探, Jianbo 簡帛 5 (2010): 77–89 ; Xudong, Tian 田旭東, “Cong Liye Qin jian ‘Ci Xiannong’ kan Qin de jisi huodong” 從里耶秦簡 ‘祠先農’ 看秦的祭祀活動, in Liye gucheng, Qin jian yu Qin wenhua yanjiu: Zhongguo Liye gucheng, Qin jian yu Qin wenhua guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji (2009), 210–17; Jiang Feifei 蔣非非, “Jiandu shiliao yu zaoqi Zhonghua diguo lixing xingzheng—yi Liye Qin jian ‘Si Xiannong’ jian weili” 簡牘史料與早期中華帝國理性行政–––以里耶秦簡 “祀先農” 簡為例 (unpublished manuscript).
79. Chunlong, Zhang, “Liye Qin jian si Xiannong,” 395 .
80. Wei, Chen, Liye Qin jiandu, 246–47.
81. According to a note in the Liye Qin jian (yi), the left-hand side of the board is notched to indicate the number “6.”
82. Wei, Chen, Liye Qin jiandu, 258 .
83. According to a note in the Liye Qin jian (yi), the left-hand side of the slip is notched to indicate the number “1.”
84. Wei, Chen, Liye Qin jiandu, 259–60.
85. Wei, Chen, Liye Qin jiandu, 286 , suggests that these two slips should be rejoined.
86. According to a note in the Liye Qin jian (yi), the left hand side of the slip is notched to indicate the number “5.”
87. Wei, Chen, Liye Qin jiandu, 269 .
88. According to a note in the Liye Qin jian (yi), the left-hand side of the slip is notched to indicate the number “1.”
89. Chunlong, Zhang “Liye Qin jian si Xiannong,” 395 .
90. This board may be a copy of the first document, 8-924 (923) + 8-906 (907) + 8-1431 (1422), above.
91. The left-hand side of the board is notched to indicate the number “6,” above and below being broken.
92. Wei, Chen, Liye Qin jiandu, 114n.1.
93. Wei, Chen, Liye Qin jiandu, 78–80 .
94. According to document no. 8-1752 (1743), the magistrate of Qianling in the eighth month of the 26th year of Qin Shihuang (221 B.C.E.) was named Bo 撥, and document 12-10, published in the Liye fajue baogao, 191, records a legal investigation by the same man concerning an uprising against the Qin by “men of Yue” 越人 who had rebelled with cities and towns. It is likely that the indecipherable graph is therefore Bo, and this man issued this ordinance. Wei, Chen, Liye Qin jiandu, 79n.1, suggests that the indecipherable graph is shou 守 “temporary.” If that is so, then this would be a case of an Assistant issuing an edict, which seems unlikely, and that Chen Wei's punctuation, which places a pause after the indecipherable graph, would be incorrect.
95. Chen Wei believes that the indecipherable graph is er 而 “and.”
96. For the term zhiri 質日, see Junlin, Su 蘇俊林, “Guanyu ‘Zhiri’ jian de mingcheng yu xingzhi” 關於 “質日” 簡的名稱與性質, Hunan daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 24.4 (2010), 17–22 . Sun is incorrect when he states that this type of calendar was private in nature: it clearly was a record that officials were obliged to keep and show to their superiors to ensure that their service record was accurate. Cf. Ling, Li, “Shiri, rishu he yeshu—sanzhong jianbo wenxian de qubie he dingming” 視日 、 日書和葉書–––三種簡帛文獻的區別和定名, Wenwu 2008.12, 73–80 .
97. I am not sure what these two clauses mean and I therefore leave the passage untranslated.
98. The graph miao 廟 has been inadvertently dropped at the end of the line.
99. Unfortunately, the photograph taken of the Liye Museum display does not show the archaeological number of this document.
100. Han shu, 25.1206-7 (“Jiaosi zhi shang” 郊祀志上).
101. See the fragments concerning the sacrifices to the unknown, probably military, deity above.
102. Zhangjiashan Han mu zhujian, slip nos. 331–336, 178.
103. In layer 8, there are just under twenty of these covers: some of them are broken, so the exact number is hard to calculate.
104. Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian, slip nos. 76–79, 38–39; Hulsewé, , Remnants of Ch'in Law, A 38 and A 39, 48–49 .
105. Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian, slip nos. 143–144, 53; slip nos. 133–140, 51–52; Hulsewé, , Remnants of Ch'in Law, A 66, A 67, A 68, 67–71 .
106. Indeed, it is not yet clear which of the laws in the Zhangjiashan tomb no. 247 hoard were Qin laws and which were promulgated in the early Han, although some can clearly be dated to shortly before 186 B.C.E.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.
Usage data cannot currently be displayed