Bamboo Annals and Its Relation to Three Dynasties Chronology

CONTROVERSY OVER THE “MODERN TEXT” BAMBOO ANNALS AND ITS RELATION TO THREE DYNASTIES CHRONOLOGY BY SHAO DONGFANG ⴳቺᅞ (Fo Guang University and Stanford University) Abstract In the ongoing effort to defi ne the exact nature of the Bamboo Annals and its relation to ancient Chinese chronology, scholars both Chinese and Western have debated the authenticity of this chronicle. The purpose of this paper is to present some of the ideas generated in an ongoing study of the Bamboo Annals by David Nivison and myself in the context of its textual history and dating information. The paper will begin with an ac- count of recent scholarship on the “Modern Text” and an introduction to new directions of research, and recent discoveries and controversies relative to this work. While many Chinese scholars have basically treated the “Modern Text” as a forgery, new studies by American scholars suggest that these Chinese scholars may have neglected intriguing aspects of the “Modern Text.” The thorough studies of the “Modern Text” by Chinese scholars have been supplemented by Nivison and Shaughnessy, whose fi ndings require the reconsideration of the importance of the “Modern Text.” Such studies allow claims for a close relationship between the two-chapter “Modern Text”—often held to be inauthentic—and the various collections of fragments known as the “ancient text” and that the “Modern Text” can actually give us important information for reconstructing chronologies of ancient China. This suggests a need to reconsider prevailing views of the “Modern Text.” The paper concludes with an assessment of the need for future work on the analysis of the Bamboo Annals. Introduction The title Zhushu jinian Ὄሬ₊౺, literally “annals written on bamboo,” refers to a chronicle unearthed in a Wei ㌵ tomb buried in 299–296 bce in Jixian ᗄⅠ County, Henan ᗯ֡ Province, and recovered about ,(ֱ ce. There is a text of the Bamboo Annals, in two books (or juan 280 existing in several slightly differing versions, usually called “jin ben ˚ ቏,” meaning the “modern text.” Chinese scholars’ discussion of the authenticity of the “Modern Text” can be traced back to the textual critics in the eighteenth century. There © Brill, Leiden 2002 JEAA 4, 1–4 368 SHAO DONGFANG had been a confl ict of opinion about whether the “Modern Text” was a forgery. After 1917 when Wang Guowei ᪗ߡℋ published his Jinben zhushu jinian shuzheng ˚቏Ὄሬ₊౺ᯛ⨢, the dominant view in Chinese academic circles has been that the “Modern Text” is at best a late re- constitution from authentic fragments, combined with forged materials such as notes and dates. As the authenticity of the Bamboo Annals was closely intertwined with many aspects of Chinese history, astronomy, and chronology, the last half-century has produced an extensive secondary literature of scholarship on the chronicles, usually concurring with the judgment of Wang Guowei (Nivison 1993: 39–47). In contrast to the Chinese judgment, in the West, Edouard Biot (1841, 1842) and James Legge (1865) in the nineteenth century accepted the authenticity of the “Modern Text” and translated it into French and English, respectively. Over the past two decades, the debate over the “Modern Text” has been revived as a few American and Chinese scholars such as David Nivison (1999), Edward Shaughnessy (1986), and Chen Li (1985) have continued Biot and Legge’s tradition. They have tried to prove that the “Modern Text” Bamboo Annals is not a late fabrication, and that it perhaps contains the earliest existing chronology of the Xia ऑ, dynasties. At present, even if few would ش and Western Zhou ,ۄ Shang agree that the text is authentic, nonetheless it seems to these scholars that if the existing chronicle is authentic, this text could be invaluable. Since works on the subject are too many to be listed here, I will only discuss three studies that object to the prevailing view held by traditional scholars, summarizing their main arguments. Chen Li’s challenge In 1985, Chen Li of Sichuan University published his M.A. thesis which was entitled “Jinben zhushu jinian yanjiu ˚቏Ὄሬ₊౺ᶇἄ (A Study of the ‘Modern Text’ Bamboo Annals),” supervised by Xu Zhongshu റʑ ⎧, a recognized historian of ancient China (see Chen 1985: 1–9, 1993: 97–114). In 1997,Chen published a follow-up article on the “Modern Text” in which he concluded that the “Modern Text” Bamboo Annals, in spite of its errors, missing parts, and parts added in later ages, has a historical origin that can be clearly traced (Chen 1997: 79–85). Dis- cussing the style of the “Modern Text,” Chen reveals much about its nature. He argues that the entire text had been transmitted exactly as it dynasty, because the text agrees perfectly ڥ appeared before the Tang in style and in content with the version of the Bamboo Annals that appeared before the Song ય dynasty. Chen’s opinion is that in content the “Modern Text” is a combination of remains of a Tang version of the Bamboo Annals in 14 bundles with supplements furnished by people in .

Load more