Exploring Western sinology’s research on unearthed documents
Chinese Annals in the Western Observatory
Due to language barriers, the results of sinology studies conducted overseas, especially those published in foreign languages, are in most cases unfamiliar to us. Edward Shaughnessy, a professor from the Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations at the University of Chicago and a famous sinologist in the United States, has opened the door into increased knowledge of overseas sinology studies. This is also the irreplaceable value found within Chinese Annals in the Western Observatory: An Overview of Western Sinologists’ Studies of Chinese Excavated Documents, which was written by Edward himself in Chinese. The book aims to summarize the research results in the field of Chinese paleography written on “unearthed documents” in Western sinology, including oracle-bone, bronze and stone inscriptions as well as manuscripts written on bamboo and silk.
As for the bronze inscriptions of the Western Zhou Dynasty (1046–771 BCE), domestic academic circles mainly study the content of the texts, and in most cases they harbor no doubts of their authenticity. Western sinology has a different perspective. Regardless of whether the statement of Noel Barnard that some bronze inscriptions were forged is correct, his analysis on the natures of bronze inscriptions contains great academic value for reference. Lothar Falkenhausen believes that the bronze inscriptions must be examined together with the functions of the utensils to understand the full significance of the pieces in questions. In other words, the inscriptions are not independent texts and are also not accurate historical records, though occasionally they happen to be so. They are mainly the legacy of the Zhou’s ritual activities. Lothar’s assertion was actually a response to Edward, who takes the bronze inscriptions as historical materials for research.
Western sinologists’ methodology in studying manuscripts written on bamboo and silk is also worth noting. Edward believes that the method of William Boltz to interpret ancient Chinese writings is the biggest contribution next to that of Noel’s. William argues that the interpretation should precisely reflect the writing, and any subjective speculations, additions and omissions, changes, or annotations of interpreters should be avoided. In contrast, when dealing with the pronunciation of a Chinese character with a different meaning compared to its most customary pronunciation, domestic academic circles choose to replace the Chinese character with a more commonly used character.
When Western sinologists speak differently from their Chinese counterparts and draw their own conclusions in the same fields, there is no reason for us to turn a blind eye. In reality, these different voices can be taken as good references to deepen research.
Zhang Zhongwei is an associate professor from the Department of History at Renmin University of China.
edited by YANG LANLAN