1. The site is located in the eastern part of Quwo xian 曲沃県系 and the western part of the Yicheng xian 翼城縣, about twenty-five km northeast of Houma 侯馬, Shanxi, which has been identified as the later capital of Jin, Xintian 新田, in the Spring and Autumn period. For the discovery and a discussion of the Beizhao cemetery, see Xu, Jay, “The Cemetery of the Western Zhou Lords of Jin,” Artibus Asiae 56.3/4 (1996), 193–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. kaoguxi, Beijing daxueet al., “1992 nian chun Tianma-Qucun yizhi muzang fajue baogao” 1992 年春天馬曲村遺址墓葬發掘報吿, Wenwu 文物 1993.3, 11–30Google Scholar.

3. All terminology relating to bronze bells in this article follows that of von Falkenhausen, Lothar, Suspended Music: Chime Bells in the Culture of Bronze Age China (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

4. kaoguxuexi, Beijing daxueet al., “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jinhou mudi di erci fajue” 天馬曲村遺址北趙晉侯墓地第二次發掘, Wenwu 1994.1, 20–22Google Scholar.

5. The two bells excavated from M8 contain the inscriptions “years without bound have sons' sons and grandsons' grandsons” (nian wujiang zi=sun= 年無疆子=孫=) and “eternally to treasure these bells” (yong bao zi zhong 永寶茲鐘); see kaoguxuexi, Beijing daxueet al., “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jinhou mudi di erci fajue,” 20Google Scholar. This formulaic dedication, which usually comes at the end of a bronze inscription, safely places the two bells as the last two (nos. 15 and 16) of the sixteen bells.

6. See Qixin, Zhu 朱啓新, “Bujian wenxian jizai de shishi” 不見文獻記載的史實, Zhongguo wenwubao 中國文物幸艮, 01 2, 1994Google Scholar. M8 also contained a “Jinhou Su ding” 晉侯鲆鼎 (kaoguxuexi, Beijing daxueet al., “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao mudi di erci fajue,” 16Google Scholar).

7. Zhu Qixin, “Bujian wenxian jizai de shishi”; Heng, Zou 芻斷, “Lun zaoqi Jin du” 論早期晉都, Wenwu 1994.1, 29–32Google Scholar; Xigui, Qiu 裘錫圭, “Guanyu Jinhou tongqi mingwen de jige wenti” 關于晉侯銅器銘文的幾個問題, Chuantong wenhua yu xiandaihua 傳統文化與現代化 1994.1, 35–41Google Scholar; Xueqin, Li 李學勤, “Shiji Jin shija yu xinchu jinwen” 史記晉世家與新出金文, Xueshu jilin 學術集林 4 (1994) 160–70Google Scholar; Xueqin, Li, “Jinhou Su bianzhong de shi, di, ren” 晉侯蘇編鐘的時地人 Zhongguo wenwubao, 12 1, 1996Google Scholar; Zhankui, Wang 王占奎, “Zhou Xuanwang jinian yu Jin Xianhou mu kaobian” 周宣王紀年與晉獻侯墓考辨, Zhongguo wenwubao, 07 7, 1996Google Scholar; Zhankui, Wang, “Jinhou Su bianzhong niandai chutan” 晉侯蘇編鐘年代初探, Zhongguo wenwu bao, 12 22, 1996Google Scholar; Entian, Wang 王恩田, “Jinhou Su zhong yu Zhou Xuanwang dong zhengfa Lu: jian-shuo Zhou lin jinian” 晉侯鲆鐘與周宣王東征伐魯：兼說周晉紀年, Zhongguo wenwu bao, 09 8, 1996Google Scholar; Chengyuan, Ma 馬承原, “Jinhou Su bianzhong” 晉侯钚編鐘, Shanghai bowuguan jikan 卜一海博物館集刊 7 (1996), 1–17Google Scholar; Shimin, Wang 王世民et al., “Jinhou Su zhong bitan” 晉侯蘇鐘筆談, Wenwu 1997.3, 54–66Google Scholar; Qiyi, Liu 劉啓益, “Jinhou Su bianzhong shi Xuanwang shi tongqi” 晉侯蘇編鐘是宣王時銅器, Zhongguo wenwu bao 03 9, 1997Google Scholar; Boqian, Li 李伯謙, “Jinhou Su zhong de niandai wenti” 晉侯蘇鐘的年代問題, Zhongguo wenwubao 03 9, 1997Google Scholar; Hua, Sun 孫華, “Jinhou Su/Yi zu mu de jige wenti” 晉侯鲆/靳組墓的幾個問題, Wenwu 1997.8, 27–36Google Scholar.

8. Shimin, Wanget al., “Jinhou Su zhong bitan,” 63Google Scholar.

9. Falkenhausen, , Suspended Music, 165Google Scholar.

10. Chengyuan, Ma, “Jinhou Su bianzhong,” 1Google Scholar. For the argument about the composition of chime bells, see Falkenhausen, , Suspended Music, 199–209Google Scholar.

11. Chengyuan, Ma, “Jinhou Su bianzhong,” 1Google Scholar. The discrepancy among the Jinhou Su bells leads Gao Zhixi 高至喜 to seek southern counterparts of the three types of Jinhou Su bells (I, II-A, and II-B), and to conclude that, like the “Chugong Ni bianzhong” 楚公逆編鐘 excavated from M64 in the Beizhao cemetery, the sixteen bells were acquired from the south (Shimin, Wanget al., “Jinhou Su zhong bitan,” 63Google Scholar). Li Xueqin also proposes a southern origin for the first two bells of each chime (nos. 1, 2, 9, and 10; Li Xueqin, “Jinhou Su bianzhong de shi, di, ren”). For the “Chugong Ni bianzhong” see yanjiusuo, Shanxi sheng kaoguet al., “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jinhou mudi di sici fajue” 天馬曲村遺址北趙晉侯墓地第四次發掘, Wenwu 1994.8, 5–10Google Scholar.

12. Chengyuan, Ma, “Jinhou Su bianzhong,” 1–2Google Scholar. His argument is supported by the discoveries of iron objects in tombs of the Guo 虢 state at Shangcunling 上, 寸嶺, in Sanmenxia 三門峽, Henan. M2009 contained a bronze dagger-axe with an iron blade and three iron “production tools,” and in M2001 a jade-handled dagger with a turquois-inlaid iron blade was found. Both tombs can be dated to the late Western Zhou or the early Spring and Autumn period; see Lothar von Falkenhausen, “The Waning of the Bronze Age: Material Culture and Social Development 770–481 B.C.,” in Cambridge History of Ancient China, ed. Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy (in press).

13. The numbers in brackets indicate the inscription on each of the sixteen bells. Figs. 5–11 reproduced with permission from Chengyuan, Ma, “Jinhou Su bianzhong,” 3–12Google Scholar.

14. Since renyin (day 39) is a day earlier than the guimao (day 40) of the preceding ] ine, Ma Chengyuan believes that it was mistakenly reversed; see Chengyuan, Ma, “Jinhou Su bianzhong,” 14Google Scholar. Acknowledging Ma's idea as one possibility, Zhang Peiyu 張培瑜 and Qiu Xigui propose another possibility, that guimao (day 40) was an error for either xinmao 辛卯(day 28) or guisi 突巳 (day 30); see Shimin, Wanget al., “Jinhou Su zhong bitan,” 62 and 65Google Scholar. I will return to this issue later.

15. Ma Chengyuan reads this character as han 東 listed in the Shuowen 說文 (Shuowenjiezi zhu 說文解字注 beiyao 四部備要ed.], 7A.21b), but does not identify its location (Chengyuan, Ma, “Jinhou Su bianzhong,” 14Google Scholar). Li Xueqin transcribes the character as han 菡, which he thinks was interchangeable with the place name Han 闞of Lu 魯 in the Chunqiu 春秋, “Huan 桓11.” Han 闕was located to the west of present-day Wenshang; 文上 in Shandong (Li Xueqin, “Jinhou Su bianzhong de shi, di, ren”). However, Han 闞(Wenshang) was located to the east of the place names which in the next part of the inscription are documented as having been attacked by Jinhou Su (see below). Qiu Xigui, pointing out that Li's identification contradicts the west to east direction of the campaign, and based on the phonetic similarity between han 東and fan 氾, identifies the place name with present-day Fan xian 範縣 in western Shandong (Shimin, Wanget al., “Jinhou Su zhong bitan,” 65–66Google Scholar).

16. Su 夙 was interchangeable with su 宿 in ancient times; thus Ma Chengyuan identifies the Su Yi 夙夷 of this inscription with the Su Yi 宿夷 mentioned in the Zuo zhuan 左傳, “Xi 傳 21.” In the Zuo zhuan, Su Yi appears to designate one of the four Eastern Yi 東夷 people of the Feng 風 surname (Chunqiu Zuo zhuan zhengyi 春秋左傳正義, shu, Shisan jing zhu 十三經注疏 ed. [Beijing: Zhonghua, 1980], 14.1811)Google Scholar. Su 宿 was located at present-day Dongping xian 東平縣 in Shandong (Chengyuan, Ma, “Jinhou Su bianzhong,” 14Google Scholar).

17. Based on the phonetic similarity between xun/*hwjən 熏 and yun/*wjən /鄆, Ma Chengyuan locates Xun Citadel to the east of present-day Yuncheng 鄆城, Shandong (Chengyuan, Ma, “Jinhou Su bianzhong,” 14Google Scholar; Old Chinese reconstructions are based on Schuessler, Axel, A Dictionary of Early Zhou Chinese [Honolulu: University of Ha waii Press, 1987])Google Scholar. There has been no disagreement with this identification.

18. This title is attested only in the “Chenjian gui” 臣諫簋; see Yachu, Zhang 張亞初 and Yu, Liu 劉雨, eds., Xi-Zhou jinwen guanzhi yanjiu 西周金文官制研究 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1986), 15–16Google Scholar.

19. There are two kinds of xiaozi in the bronze inscriptions: it occurs as an official title together with sanyousi 三有嗣 and shishi 自帀氏; and it designates a local official or sons of local nobles (Yachu, Zhang and Yu, Liu, Xi-Zhou jinwen guanzhi yanjiu 46–47Google Scholar). This xiaozi seems to have been a corps composed of young nobles in Jin.

20. I follow Li Xueqin's reading in this line (Xueqin, Li, “Jinhou Su bianzhong de shi, di, ren,” 3Google Scholar). However, based on the Guangya 廣雅, “Shixun” 釋訓, in which naonao 卓掉 and lielie 烈烈 are glossed as “crowd” (zhong 眾)and “anxious” (you 憂)respectively (Guangya shuzheng 廣雅疏證 [Nanjing: Jiangsu guji, 1984], 6.A.4b and 6A.22aGoogle Scholar), Ma Chengyuan reads this line as follows: “The king arrived. The Yi went out fleeing in great confusion” (Chengyuan, Ma, “Jinhou Su bianzhong,” 15Google Scholar).

21. Based on the phonetic similarity between yu /*ngjag 魚 and yu /*ngjagh 御, Ma Chengyuan identifies the character with yu 御(Chengyuan, Ma, “Jinhou Su bianzhong,” 15)Google Scholar.

22. As discused below, pp. 69—70, the name Yang also appears in the inscription of the “Yang gui” 揚簋, in which the king appoints Yang as a Supervisor of Works (sigong 喬司工). In the “Zhen yi” 概眩, a Bo Yangfu 伯揚父 supervises a lawsuit. Moreover, in the Guoyu 國語, after an earthquake in the second year of King You 幽(780 B.C.) another Bo Yangfu 伯陽父 predicts the demise of Zhou; Guoyu (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 1988Google Scholar), “Zhou yu shang” 周語上, 1.28Google Scholar.

23. It is interesting to note the high degree of similarity between the king's gifts to Jinhou Su in this inscription and those documented in the Shangshu 尙書, “Wenhou zhi ming” 文侯之命, which commemorates Jin Wenhou's 文侯 crucial role in the eastward evacuation of King Ping (Shangshu zhengyi 尙書正義, zhushu, Shisan jing ed., 20.253–54Google Scholar).

24. For the military inscriptions in the Western Zhou period, see zu, Shang Zhou qingtongqi mingwen xuanji bianji, “Shang Zhou qingtongqi mingwen xuanji: Fangguo zhengfa lei” 商周青銅器銘文選集：方國征伐類, Shanghai bowuguan guankan 上海博物館館干刂 1 (1982), 10–49Google Scholar; for the “Duo You ding,” see Shaughnessy, Edward L., “The Date of ‘Duo You Ding’ and its Significance,” Early China 9–10 (1983–1985), 55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25. All distances in this paper are based on those of the present-day highway routes.

26. This is especially the case if we follow Ma Chengyuan's assumption regarding the revised ganzhi day notations (see n. 14).

27. The distance from Luoyang to the border between Henan and Shandong is about 300 km.

28. See Chengyuan, Ma, “Jinhou Su bianzhong,” 15–16Google Scholar.

29. The “lunar-quarter theory” is generally ascribed to Wang Guowei 王國維, who interpreted the four terms (chuji, jishengpo, jiwang, and jisipo) as indicating the four observable quarters of the moon, each of seven or eight days duration; see Guowei, Wang, “Shengpo sipo kao” 生霸死霸考, Guantang jilin 觀堂集林(1923; rpt. Beijing: Zhonghua, 1984), 19–26Google Scholar. The “fixed-day theory” holds that each term refers to a fixed day or days during the lunar cycle. This theory is now identified with Liu Qiyi 劉啓益, who interprets chuji as the day of the new moon, jishengpoas the second or third day of the lunation, jiwang as the sixteenth (or seventeenth or eighteenth) day, and jisipo as the last day of the lunation; see Qiyi, Liu, “Xi-Zhou jinwen zhong yuexiang ciyu de jieshi” 西周金文月相詞語的解釋, Lishi jiaoxue 歷史敎學 1979.6, 21–26Google Scholar. For additional discussion, see Shaughnessy, Edward L., Sources of Western Zhou History: Inscribed Bronze Vessels (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 136–40Google Scholar.

30. My abbreviated date references follow Shaughnessy, , Sources of Western Zhou History, 141–42Google Scholar.

31. If the third notation corresponds to the twenty-fourth day (the first day of jisipo) of the second month, the second month should be a “long’ month to allow for a seven or eight day duration of jisipo.

32. See Shaughnessy, , Sources of Western Zhou History, 143Google Scholar.

33. The excavators of M8 state that the style of the “Jinhou Su ding” 晉侯鲆鼎 from M8 is similar to, but a little earlier than that of the “Jin Jiang ding” 晉姜鼎 dated to the early Spring and Autumn period. The style and decoration of the “Jinhou Yi hu” 晉侯断壶 from M8 are close to that of the “Liangqi hu” 梁其壶(dated roughly to the reign of King Li) and the “Song hu” 頌壷(late Western Zhou). See kaoguxuexi, Beijing daxueet al., “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jinhou mudi di erci fajue,” 28 n.10Google Scholar.

34. Shaughnessy, , Sources of Western Zhou History, 106–55Google Scholar.

35. Falkenhausen, , Suspended Music, 164–67Google Scholar. Even though the gu 鼓 part of the Shi Cheng bell is decorated with symmtrically linked spirals, the zhuan are projected, and the decoration between the zhuan has changed into a “Z-shaped dragon.”

36. kaoguxuexi, Beijing daxueet al., “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jinhou mudi di erci fajue,” 20Google Scholar.

37. Xueqin, Li, “Xi-Zhou zhongqi qingtongqi de zhongyao biaochi: Zhouyuan Zhuangbai Qiangjia liangchu qingtongqi jiaocang de zonghe yanjiu” 西周中期青銅器的重要標尺：周原莊白强家兩處青銅器窖藏的綜合硏究, Zhongguo lishi bowuguan guankan 中國歷史博物館館刊 1979.1, 31–32Google Scholar; Falkenhausen, , Suspended Music, 165Google Scholar.

38. Falkenhausen counts these as distinctive changes in the transition from nao 鐃 to yongzhong that happened in the south in the early Western Zhou period; Falkenhausen, , Suspended Music, 153–57Google Scholar. This supports the suggestions by Gao Zhixi and Li Xueqin that some of the “Jinhou Su bianzhong” were cast in the south (see n. 11).

39. Shiji (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1959), 39.1636Google Scholar.

40. In the five consecutive excavations of the Beizhao cemetery from 1992 to 1994, the Archaeology Department of Peking University and the Shanxi Institute of Archaeology jointly excavated seven groups of two tombs and one group of three tombs of Jin lords and their spouses. So far seven names of Jin rulers including one without the title of hou 侯 have been found in the inscriptions on the bronze vessels excavated here: Jinhou Boma 晉侯焚馬 (M33, M91 and M92), Jinhou Xifu 晉侯喜父 (M91 and M92), Jinhou Dui 晉侯對 (M92 and M2), Jinhou Su 晉侯鲆 (M8), Jinhou Yi 晉侯断(MS)f Jinhou Bangfu 晉侯邦父 (M64), and Jinshu Jiafu 晉叔家父 (M64 and M93). Given the discrepancy between the archaeological and textual names of Jin lords, Qiu Xigui 裘錫圭 has proposed the simultaneous usage of two different names, the birth names (ming 名)in the “Jin shijia” and the cognomens (zi 字)in the inscription, or vice versa (Xigui, Qiu, “Guanyu Jinhou tongqi mingwen de jige wenti,” 39Google Scholar; see also, Xueqin, Li, “Shiji Jin shijia yu xinchu jinwen,” 166–67Google Scholar).

41. There are two “Jinhou Xifu” 晉侯喜父 vessels from the paired tombs of M91 and M92 in the Beizhao cemetery, both of which were dedicated to Xifu's deceased father, “Lahou” 束1]侯.Since the character la 束, 」 was interchangeable with li 厲 in ancient times (Lan, Tang 唐蘭, “Xi-Zhou tongqi duandai zhong de Kanggong wenti” 西周銅器斷代中的康宮問題, Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1962.1, 46Google Scholar), Xifu's deceased father, Lahou, can be identified with the fifth lord of Jin, Lihou Fu 厲侯福, in the “Jin shijia” (see Table 3). Thus, the excavators of these tombs propose that this Lahou is the posthumous temple name of Boma 焚馬 buried in the preceding tomb, M33 (kaoguxuexi, Beijing daxueet al., ‘Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jinhou mudi di wuci fajue” 天馬曲村遺址北趙晉侯墓地五次發掘, Wenwu 1995.7, 37Google Scholar).

In his recent article, Jay Xu severely criticizes Chinese scholars' efforts to equate the archaeologically excavated names of Jin lords with those in the received texts. However, Xu makes a serious mistake regarding the chronological order of M8 (Jinhou Su) and M64 (Jinhou Bangfu) which in turn leads him not to accept the identification of Jinhou Su in the inscription with Xianhou. Believing that no published material from M64 can be dated later than the “Jinhou Su ding” from M8, Xu reverses the chronological order proposed for these two tombs by the excavators (Xu, Jay, “The Cemetery of the Western Zhou Lords of Jin,” 197–99Google Scholar). In addition to his hastiness in deciding the relative chronology of the tombs based only on the incomplete material of the brief reports, he also misses the very important inscriptional evidence of the “Jinshu Jiafu pan” 晉叔家父盤 and the “Jinshu Jiafu fanghu” 晉叔家父方壺 which were excavated from M64 and M93 respectively (kaoguxuexi, Beijing daxueet al., “Tianma-Qucun yizhi Beizhao Jinhou mudi di wuci fajue,” 37Google Scholar). As in the cases of M33/M91–92 and which contain the inscriptions of Jinhou Borna and Jinhou Dui in consecutive generations respectively (see n. 40), the occurrence of the same name, Jinshu Jiafu, in both M64 and M93 shows the successive nature of these two tombs. There is no doubt that M93 is the last of the tombs of Jin rulers in the Beizhao cemetery. Thus, M8 can definitely be dated earlier than M64.

42. Heng, Zou, “Lun zaoqi Jin du,” 30Google Scholar.

43. In addition to other artifacts from M8 which support a late Western Zhou date for the tomb, the general layout of the tombs of the Jin lords in the Beizhao cemetery also makes this identification improbable (Xueqin, Li, “Shiji Jin shijia yu xinchu jinwen,” 164–69Google Scholar).

44. Guoyu, 1.22; Hou Hanshu (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1959), 77.2871–72Google Scholar; Shiji, 4.144. These military campaigns are discussed further below.

45. Xigui, Qiu, “Guanyu Jinhou tongqi mingwen de jige wenti,” 37–38Google Scholar. Qiu had earlier reserved final judgment regarding the identification of the king in the inscription, but now thinks that King Xuan is more likely (Shimin, Wanget al., “Jinhou Su bianzhong bitan,” 65Google Scholar).

46. Wang Zhankui, “Zhou Xuanwang jinian yu Jin Xianhou mu kaobian.”

47. Wang believes that the one year difference between the two figures is not a significant problem, since this could be due to different ways of calculation.

48. Wang Zhankui finds another similar but opposite case in the chronology of Lu 魯 in the late Western Zhou period. According to the “Lu shijia” 魯世家 of the Shiji, in the twenty-fifth year of Xiao Gong 孝公, the Quan Rong 犬戎 killed King You 幽 and Qin 秦 for the first time became one of the many lords (zhuhou 諸侯).However, Sima Qian records both of these events under the thirty-sixth year of Xiao Gong in the “Shier zhuhou nianbiao.” According to Wang, this discrepancy may have resulted from the preceding eleven year usurpation of Lu Bo Yu 魯伯御, which Sima Qian may have thought was illegitimate and should not be listed separately in the “Shier zhuhou nian biao.”

49. Wang's argument has caused Qiu Xigui to support the identification of King Xuan.

50. Chengyuan, Ma, “Jinhou Su bianzhong,” 14Google Scholar.

51. Peiyu, Zhang, Zhongguo Xian-Qin shi libiao 中國先秦史曆表 (Jinan: Qi Lu, 1987), 56Google Scholar.

52. Li Xueqin, “Jinhou Su bianzhong de shi, di, ren.”

53. Shimin, Wanget al., “Jinhou Su zhong bitan,” 57Google Scholar.

54. Shimin, Wanget al., “Jinhou Su zhong bitan,” 62 and 65Google Scholar; Peiyu, Zhang, Zhongguo Xian-Qin shi libiao, 59Google Scholar.

55. Hua, Sun, “Jinhou Su/Yi zu mu de jige wenti,” 28–30Google Scholar.

56. The new-moon day of the eighth month in 846 B.C. is wuyin 戊寅(day 15) in Zhang's table, so that the day xinmao (day 28) can be correlated with the thirteenth day of the month (in the lunar phase jishengpo). This day does not correspond to the lunar phase jisi of the “Bo Kuifu xu” inscription. The date also cannot be matched with the thirty-third year of King Xuan (795 or 809 B.C.) in Zhang's table. Liu Qiyi 劉啓益 has suggested that due to the lack of the term po 霸 in the lunar phase notation jisi, it might be a mistake for one of the other lunar phase notations (Qiyi, Liu, “Bo Kuifu xu ming yu Liwang zai wei nianshu” 伯寛父望銘與厲王在位年數, Wenwu 1979.11, 17Google Scholar), but it is still too risky to fix a King Li date for the “Bo Kuifu xu” inscription. Rather, it does correspond with 793 B.C., which Shaughnessy has given for King Xuan (Shaughnessy, , Sources of Western Zhou History, 258Google Scholar).

57. Guoyu, 1.23; Shiji, 33.1528; Zhushu jinian (Sibu beiyao ed.), 1.10a. Wang Entian attempts to associate the thirty-third year campaign in the “Jinhou Su bianzhong” inscription with King Xuan's attack against Lu in his thirty-second year (Wang Entian, “Jinhou Su zhong yu Zhou Xuanwang dong zhengfa Lu”). However, the inscription never mentions anything about Lu. Moreover, as we need to change one of ganzhi dates to get a calendrical match, one may consider changing the year notation, from thirty-third to either thirty-second or thirty-fourth. However, neither of these changes matches with calendrical data of King Xuan.

58. In the “Xi Qiang zhuan” 西充傳 of the Hou Hanshu, the same battle is recorded as occurring in the thirty-first year of King Xuan's reign (Hou Hanshu, 87.2871).

59. Rawson, Jessica, Western Zhou Ritual Bronzes from the Arthur M. Sackler Collections. Ancient Chinese Bronzes from Arthur M. Sackler Collections, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990), 145Google Scholar; von Falkenhausen, Lothar, “Issues in Western Zhou Studies: A Review Article,” Early China 18 (1993), 190Google Scholar.

60. Moruo, Guo 郭沫若, Liang-Zhou jinwenci daxi kaoshi 兩周金文辭大系考釋 (Tokyo: Bunkudo, 1935), 118Google Scholar; Geng, Rong 容庚, Shang Zhou yiqi tongkao 商周彝器通考, vol. 1 (Beiping: Yenching University, 1941), 55Google Scholar.

61. Mengjia, Chen 陳夢家, “Xi-Zhou tongqi duandai” 西周銅器斷代 (part 6), Kaogu xuebao 1956.4, 123–24Google Scholar; Shizuka, Shirakawa 白川靜, Kinbun tsūshaku 金;通釋, Hakutsuru bijutsukanshi 白鶴美術館言志 23.131 (1968), 81–86Google Scholar; Chengyuan, Ma, ed., Shang Zhou qingtongqi mingwen xuan 商周青銅器銘文選, vol. 3 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1988), 183–84Google Scholar.

62. Another vessel supporting a King Li dating of the “Jinhou Su bianzhong” is the “Zhen yi”(朕蹈, in which a Bo Yangfu 亻白揚父 supervises a lawsuit. One of the earliest examples of the yi type (the inscription still identifies the vessel as he 盖, the earlier partner of the water vessel, pan 盤), the “Zhen yi” is probably not later than the time of King Li; see Feng, Li 李峰, “Qiangjia yihao mude shidai tedian” 强家—號墓的時代特點, Wenbo 文博 1988.3, 47Google Scholar. This too would support the identification of the king in the “Jinhou Su bianzhong” inscription as King Li.

63. Xu, Liu 劉緖, “Jin wenhua de niandai wenti” 晉文化的年代問題, Wenwu jikan 文物季干刂 1993.4, 85Google Scholar; Jianwen, Tian 田建文, “Shanxi kaoguxue wenhua de quxi leixing wenti” 山西考古學文化的區系類型問題, in Fenhe wan: Dingcun wenhua yu Jin wenhua kaogu xueshu yantaohui wenji 汾河灣：頂村文化與晉文化考古學術研討會文集, ed. kaoguxuehui, Zhongguoet al. (Taiyuan: Shanxi kaoxiao lianhe, 1996), 131–32Google Scholar; Kunzhang, Ji 吉琨璋, “Jin wenhua kaogu yanjiu zhong de jige wenti” 晉文化考古研究中的幾個問題, in Fenhe wan, 262–64Google Scholar.

64. Zhushu jinan, 2.7b; Shiji, 31.1481. Shaughnessy also notes the inscription of the Fifth Year “Shi Shi gui” 師旌簋, which he thinks dates to the reign of King Yi 夷 and records a Zhou army's attack on Qi (Shaughnessy, “Western Zhou History,” in Cambridge History of Ancient China, ed. Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy [in press]).

65. Shaughnessy, “Western Zhou History.”

66. Zuo zhuan, “Huan 2”; Chuncjiu Zuo zhuan zhengyi, 5.1743; Legge, James, The Chinese Classics, vol.5, The Ch'un Ts'ew with The Tso Cheun (1871; rpt. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1960), 40Google Scholar.

67. Shiji, 39.1637.

68. Zhushu jinian’ 2.10a; Legge, James, The Chinese Classics, vol.3, The Shoo King or The Book of Historical Documents (1865; rpt. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1960), Prolegomena, 156Google Scholar.

69. Guoyu, 1.22; Shiji, 4.144.

70. Hou Hanshu, 77.2871–72. Since the “Xi Qiang zhuan” seems to have been based in large part on the Zhushu jinian, in reconstructing the “Old Text” of the Zhushu jinian, both Zhu Youzheng 朱有曾 and Wang Guowei 王國維 adopt this dating of the war against Tiao (see Shiming, Fang 方詩銘 and Xiuling, Wang 王修齡, Guben Zhushu jinian jizheng 古本竹書紀年輯證 [Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 1981], 57–58Google Scholar).

71. Xigui, Qiu, “Guanyu Jinhou tongqi mingwen de jige wenti,” 37–38Google Scholar.

72. Mu, Qian 錢穆, “Xi-Zhou Rong huo kao” 西周戎禍考 (part two), Yugong 禹貢 2.12 (1935), 27Google Scholar.

73. Zhushu jinian, 2.10a.

74. Zhushu jinian, 2.10b; Legge, , The Shoo King, Prolegomena, 156Google Scholar.

75. Shiji, 43.1780.

76. Mozi (Sibu beiyao ed.), 8.2a–b.

77. Xixing, Li 李西興, “Guanyu Zhou Xuanwang zhi si de kaozheng” 關于周宣王之死的考證, in Xi-Zhou shi lunwenji (xia) 西周史論文集（下), ed. bowuguan, Shaanxi lishi (Xian: Shaanxi renmin jiaoyu, 1993), 966–76Google Scholar; Shaughnessy, “Western Zhou History.”

78. Zhenfeng, Wu 吳鎭峰, “Zhou wangchao jiena yizu rencai chutan” 周王朝接納異族人才初探, in Xi-Zhou shi lunwenji (xia), 817Google Scholar

79. Shudai's ancestor Zaofu was famous as King Mu's 穆 charioteer; see “Zhao shi-jia” (Shiji, 43.1779). The charioteer was often a close associate of the ruler. For example, in the battle of Chengpu 城濮 in 632 B.C, Xun Linfu 荀林夫 served as a charioteer to Jin Wen Gong 文公 and thereafter became an important Jin general (Chunqiu Zuo zhuan zhengyi, 16.1823).