Zhou History Unearthed, by Yuri Pines (introduction)

Introduction The Riddle of Zhou Historiography

L

iang Qichao 㠩┇崭 (1873–1929), one of the most eminent Chinese intellectuals active at the turn of the twentieth century, claimed once that “among all fields of learning in China, historiography is the most developed, and Chinese historiography is the most developed worldwide.” Elsewhere he added, though, that prior to Sima Qian ⎠楔怟 (ca. 145– 90 BCE), “China had no historiography per se.”1 Although each of these statements, particularly the latter, is debatable, they can serve as a useful point of departure for a discussion of early Chinese historiography.

Indeed, the contrast between the richness of the historical production of the imperial age (221 BCE–1912 CE) and its meagerness in the preceding centuries is striking.

To demonstrate this contrast, it is useful to recall briefly the extraordinary place of history writing in China’s imperial polity. Whether or not Chinese historiography was “the most developed worldwide,” that few if any civilizations could compete with China in terms of the overarching importance of history writing is beyond doubt. Compiling histories was considered a highly prestigious occupation for a man of letters and was also an important political undertaking. Every major dynasty ordered the composing of an official version of its predecessors’ history and simultaneously prepared documentation for its own history that would be written by its successors.2 Many more studies of the past were composed by private individuals. As a result, each year in the history of imperial China is [1]

thickly covered in official dynastic histories as well as in a variety of officially and privately produced local histories, institutional histories, biographies, and the like. Despite the eventual loss of many of these works, particularly from the early imperial period, the richness of the remaining materials defies the imagination.

China’s imperial historiography has been well studied. What helps researchers to understand its nuances is its relative transparency. We know the authors of all but a very few historical works. These authors— starting with Sima Qian—identify themselves, often tell us of their motivations and some of their agendas, and from time to time inform us of their sources.3 We know the political and ideological context in which most works were produced, and we can evaluate the works’ intended audience and their reception by the educated elite. Often, we are in a position to compare between two or more accounts of the same event (e.g., those by Sima Qian and those by the second major imperial historian, Ban Gu 䎕⚢ [32– 92]); and these comparisons greatly enhance our understanding of the subtleties of the historical genre.4 For scholars dealing with imperialperiod historiography, often the most challenging task is processing a huge amount of information rather than discovering new evidence.

This richness contrasts dramatically with the dearth of known historical works from the lengthy Zhou ␐ age (ca. 1046–255 BCE). With the major exception of Zuozhuan ⶎ⁛ (the Zuo Tradition or Zuo Commentary)— arguably the only preimperial text that is comparable with later dynastic histories in terms of systematic coverage of major events—transmitted literature preserves only a tiny sample of historical and quasi-historical texts.

These include one example of annalistic writings; namely, the canonized Spring and Autumn Annals (Chunqiu 㗍䥳) of the state of Lu 欗;5 a corpus of important speeches attributed to the former paragons (collected in the Canon of Documents [Shujing 㚠䴻 or Shangshu ⯂㚠] and in the Remainder of Zhou Documents [Yizhoushu 忠␐㚠]); and a variety of historical anecdotes, by far the richest source of our knowledge of the preimperial past. The number of these anecdotes is impressive, but it should be remembered that they stand at the nexus of history, philosophy, literature, and rhetoric rather than belonging to the historiographic genre per se. The didactic message is much more important to their authors than historical accuracy.6 Yet the dearth of sources is just the tip of the iceberg of problems faced by scholars of preimperial (i.e., pre-221 BCE) historiography. What [2]

INTRODUCTION: THE RIDDLE OF ZHOU HISTORIOGRAPHY

is even more frustrating is that we know all too little about our texts and their background. We do know— as discussed in chapter 1—that routine records of certain events started as early as the Shang ⓮ dynasty (ca. 1600– 1046 BCE). We also know that exceptionally significant events— such as the overthrow of the Shang dynasty by the Zhou circa 1046 BCE—were commemorated in written and oral forms, as well as through ritual performances. We know, too, that already in the Western Zhou 大␐ period (ca. 1046– 771 BCE) certain thinkers and statesmen were willing to turn to the past for guidance to the present, and that appeals to the past become ubiquitous in the texts of the competing Hundred Schools of Thought of the Warring States (Zhanguo ㇘⚳) period (453–221 BCE). But we do not know when and how these three strands of early historiography interacted. We do not know, for instance, whether or not factual accuracy mattered to those who sought to deduce proper lessons from past events.

We do not know by whom, when, and under what circumstances extant historical and quasi-historical texts were composed. The authors of our sources prefer to remain hidden; if they interact at all with their readers, it is done through a neutral self-identification as a “noble man.” 7 The dates of the composition of almost every known text are hotly contested, which poses great difficulties in attempting to compare two or more texts.8 More broadly, we know very little about how historical knowledge was produced and how it was disseminated. The contrast with the situation for the imperial era could not be stronger.

In the past whenever scholars tried to answer the foregoing questions, the lion’s share of the answers revolved around conflicting interpretations of Zuozhuan. This text is indeed exceptionally rich, but it is also among the most controversial in the entire corpus of preimperial literature. The ongoing heated debates about its nature, dates, and reliability (for which see chapter 1) have greatly hindered its utilization as a source for the early historiographic tradition. Nor could infrequent consultations with other texts—be they anecdotal collections, such as Discourses of the States (Guoyu ⚳婆), or chronicles such as the Spring and Autumn Annals— advance our research considerably. The general picture of early Chinese historiography remained elusive. To reconstruct it, one needed sufficient evidence for historiographic production outside the Zuozhuan narratives, and this evidence remained lacking. The debates seemed to reach an impasse.

It is against this backdrop that we can understand the revolutionary impact of the new paleographic discoveries, which enable us to dramatically INTRODUCTION: THE RIDDLE OF ZHOU HISTORIOGRAPHY

[3]

expand our understanding of preimperial Chinese historiography. The earliest of these discoveries was made more than seventeen centuries ago.

In 279 or 280 CE, robbers who plundered the tomb identified as that of King Xiang of Wei 櫷壬䌳 (r. 318–296 BCE) at Ji 㰚 Commandery, Henan, brought to light numerous bamboo manuscripts, the most prominent of which was a chronicle named by its editors Bamboo Annals (Zhushu jinian 䪡㚠䲨⸜). This chronicle not only allowed the correction of a few inaccuracies in Sima Qian’s Records of the Historian (Shiji ⎚姀) but also contributed toward the emergence of the genre of historical criticism in general.9 Then came a long lull in the discovery of early historical texts. The paleographic revolution of the twentieth century, with its profound impact on almost every aspect of early China studies, was quite disappointing from the point of view of historiography. Only a few unearthed manuscripts could be associated with the historical genre, and none of these were particularly exciting.10 Yet from the beginning of the twenty-first century, a series of newly unearthed texts has profoundly changed this trend. These texts provide us with an entirely new perspective on the history of Zhou historiography.

The most valuable of these discoveries is the bamboo manuscript *Xinian 专⸜ (“String of years” or “Linked years”) from the collection of Tsinghua (Qinghua) University. This relatively short but exceptionally informative manuscript stands at the center of the present study. Other relevant discoveries include a text that focuses on relocations of the Chu royal palaces, *Chu ju 㤂⯭ (Chu dwellings), dozens of new historical anecdotes, and several highly informative bronze inscriptions. When read together with the received texts, the new manuscripts provide us with a wealth of fresh information and, of particular importance, allow us to ask novel questions and seek new answers about early Chinese historiography.

There are three major fields in which the new manuscripts can have a considerable impact on our research. The first and most obvious one is the possibility of correcting and expanding our knowledge of China’s preimperial history. This pertains not only to the essential—but hardly exciting—work of correcting wrong dates, place-names, and personal names known from the received texts but also to providing highly interesting information on the periods that are not adequately covered in our sources, most notably those that precede and postdate the Zuozhuan narrative (i.e., pre-722 BCE and post-468 BCE). For instance, Xinian provides [4]

INTRODUCTION: THE RIDDLE OF ZHOU HISTORIOGRAPHY

fascinating new details about the early years of the Eastern Zhou (traditionally 770–255 BCE) and about the interstate dynamics of the fifth century BCE. Such topics as the near demise of the Zhou dynasty circa 750 BCE, the history of the state of Yue 崲 in the fifth century BCE, and the background for the de jure dissolution of the state of Jin 㗱 in 403 BCE— all can be now addressed anew, as demonstrated in chapter 4.

Second, the unearthed manuscripts allow us to profoundly revise our understanding of the received texts, primarily (but by no means exclusively) Zuozhuan. As I have mentioned (and discuss in detail in chapter 1), this text generated heated controversies, especially throughout much of the twentieth century. Some of these controversies— especially about the reliability of Zuozhuan as a source for the history of the Spring and Autumn period (Chunqiu 㗍䥳, 770–453 BCE)— could have been partly resolved had we better understood the source materials that were utilized in the composition of Zuozhuan. However, insofar as debates about these source materials revolved around internal evidence from Zuozhuan itself, the answers remained tentative at best. Now, with the publication of Xinian and other texts, including a few bronze inscriptions, the nature of these source materials can be understood much better than previously, as I hope to demonstrate in chapters 2 and 3. This in turn enhances our understanding of the reliability (or its lack) of Zuozhuan and of other received texts, such as Records of the Historian (for which see chapter 4).

The third contribution of the new materials is that they allow us to start recharting the picture of preimperial Chinese historiography. We can now observe for the first time a great variety of previously unknown historical and quasi-historical genres. We can analyze with greater precision than before who composed historical writings and for which audience.

We can discern multiple usages of history in the political discourse of that age beyond the immediately observable cliché of providing edifying and moralizing examples from the past. We can ask how the historical texts circulated and what happened to them in the process of circulation, including how the transmitters intervened in their source materials and for what purposes. And above all, we can ask how the historical genre contributed to broad cultural and intellectual developments throughout the centuries preceding the imperial unification. The answers will often remain partial and at times speculative. Yet the very possibility of asking these questions and advancing toward answering them is thrilling for historians of early China.

INTRODUCTION: THE RIDDLE OF ZHOU HISTORIOGRAPHY

[5]

A word of caution is needed here. My discussion is based on a series of accidental discoveries that by no means represent the entire breadth of early Chinese historiography. A large portion of manuscripts discussed in this book come from the single state of Chu 㤂, and whereas they definitely incorporate materials from other states, a broader sample would certainly be helpful. The time scope covered in those of the unearthed texts that have been published heretofore is limited to roughly 800–380 BCE, which means that many questions regarding the last century and a half of the Warring States period cannot be fully answered. Moreover, most of the manuscripts with which I operate were not scientifically excavated but supposedly looted from Chu tombs and then acquired by Chinese institutions at the Hong Kong antiquity market. This poses a series of challenging questions, in particular regarding these materials’ authenticity (as discussed in chapter 2). Besides, some of the recently unearthed manuscripts have not yet been published. Needless to say, any new publication—not to mention a new discovery—may require revision of some of my conjectures and conclusions.11 Nonetheless, I believe the scope of the heretofore published manuscripts is sufficiently large to allow us considerable advancement en route to reconstruction of early Chinese historiography.

The present book is divided into two parts. The first is analytical: it introduces the new materials and their potential impact on the ongoing debates about early Chinese historiography. I start with a brief survey of the state of the field as reflected from the received texts. Chapter 1 traces the evolution of early Chinese historiography from its beginnings to the fourth century BCE, with a specific focus on Zuozhuan. The goal of this discussion is to highlight the points on which the unearthed materials may be conducive for resolving debates about Zuozhuan and related texts.

In chapter 2, I introduce Xinian, the single most important of the unearthed texts in terms of its historiographic value. Chapter 3 introduces other relevant sources—from the Chu manuscripts to several bronze inscriptions— showing their role in expanding the horizons of our understanding of the preimperial historiographic tradition. Chapter 4 analyzes the new information provided in Xinian (and other sources, when relevant) on the historical periods that are not covered in Zuozhuan, placing this information in the context of broader discussions of Zhou history, as understood from Sima Qian’s Records of the Historian. Chapter 5 focuses on the history and

[6]

INTRODUCTION: THE RIDDLE OF ZHOU HISTORIOGRAPHY

historiography of the state of Chu and asks what we can learn from the newly discovered manuscripts about Chu’s cultural identity.

The second part of the book provides a full annotated translation of Xinian. Each of the sections of the text is preceded by a brief introduction highlighting the section’s contents and its importance in the broader context of Zhou history and historiography. I hope that this effort will be my modest addendum to the translation of Zuozhuan recently produced by Stephen Durrant, Li Wai-yee, and David Schaberg (2016). Their translation, I believe, will have a lasting and tremendously important impact on studies of early Chinese history and historiography in the Anglophone community. By providing a small extension to their work, I hope to contribute further to their great endeavor.

INTRODUCTION: THE RIDDLE OF ZHOU HISTORIOGRAPHY

[7]

Zhou History Unearthed offers both a novel understanding of early Chinese historiography and a fully annotated translation of Xinian (String of Years), the most notable historical manuscript from the state of Chu. Yuri Pines elucidates the importance of Xinian and other recently discovered texts for our understanding of history writing in Zhou China (1046–255 BCE).

“In this remarkable book, Pines not only provides a scholarly translation of the recently unearthed bamboo manuscript Xinian, he also uses this quasi-historical text from the fourth century BCE as an opportunity to reexamine and recast our understanding of the entire field of Zhou historiography. It is a breakthrough work and will surely stimulate many new debates.”

—Sarah Allan, author of The Formation of Chinese Civilization: An Archaeological Perspective

“Zhou History Unearthed provides more than a precise, carefully annotated translation of the newly discovered Xinian manuscript. With an unrivaled command of the sources and their scholarship, Pines reads the uniquely important Xinian against our transmitted texts and offers a magisterial reevaluation of early Chinese historiography altogether.”

—Martin Kern, author of The Stele Inscriptions of Ch’in Shih-huang: Text and Ritual in Early Chinese Imperial Representation

“Zhou History Unearthed is a magisterial account of recently excavated sources for early Chinese history. It offers crucial insights into the lacunae in transmitted historical accounts and reshapes our understanding of the formation and transmission of historical knowledge in early China.”

—Wai-yee Li, author of The Readability of the Past in Early Chinese Historiography

“Zhou History Unearthed is a magnificent work from Yuri Pines, a scholar who knows the history of the Zhou period as well as anyone currently writing in English.”

—Stephen Durrant, cotranslator of Zuo Tradition/Zuozhuan: Commentary on the “Spring and Autumn Annals”

“In Pines’s masterful hands, an accessible, deeply informed translation and study of Xinian becomes the basis for a ground-up reinterpretation of early Chinese historical writing practices and sources. Compelling in its vision and its engagement with primary and secondary sources, the study is likely to influence debate for years to come.”

—David Schaberg, cotranslator of Zuo Tradition/Zuozhuan: Commentary on the “Spring and Autumn Annals” YURI PINES is Michael W. Lipson Professor of Asian Studies at the Hebrew University

of Jerusalem. His books include The Book of Lord Shang: Apologetics of State Power in Early China (Columbia, 2017) and The Everlasting Empire: Traditional Chinese Political Culture and Its Enduring Legacy (2012).

Cover design: Julia Kushnirsky Cover image: Courtesy of Tsinghua University, Research and Conservation Center for Excavated Texts Printed in the U.S.A.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW YORK cup.columbia.edu