Predynastic Zhou: 

Some Considerations 

By Luigi de Franco

In 1931 a detailed paper was written about predynastic Zhou by Qian Mu, few decades
later the discovery of Yin-Shang oracle bones inscriptions. The paper, ​Zhou Chu Dili Kao​ 周初地
理考, base all the historic fact and evidences on transmitted texts, shifting the origin of Zhou’s
clan at east of Yin-Shang capital Anyang-Xiaotun, in the Fen 汾 valley, instead of west origin in
the Wei 渭 valley as recognized by many1.
Independently from results of the above paper cited, when we follow the trail of the two
main clans of Zhou, the Ji 姬 and the Jiang 姜, inexorably we do look toward the late kingdom of
Jin 晋 as the cradle of their origin.
What we will try in this paper is to find actual historical evidence that links transmitted
texts fact with hard written sources, one of them is in fact the Yin-Shang oracle bones (hereafter
OBI), although these does not explicitly says ‘the Zhou origin location is so so’, but we may
locate through graphs, at least just some connections.
Researches and papers have been written about predynastic Zhou based on the OBI’s,
but, a problem or issues arise on how do we read and re-construct inscriptions of OBI, which will
lead to different solutions; the inscriptions that actually refer to Zhou are less than hundreds
fragments.
The migration was, during the period of Yin-Shang, included the royal family, a constant
fact, so it was for the Zhou’s clan, due to impervious environmental conditions or due to
constant invasions of hostile tribes.
Due to these ‘​migrations​’ each and a new place of settlement needed a name, a place to
honor the ancestors and build a community; in the OBI inscriptions exists many graph
indecipherable and many are described or just as ‘​name of X​’ or ‘​name of a place X​’ but none
are identified. With the help from material of transmitted texts will try to decodify and identify
some of places quoted in the OBI.

In ​Han Shu​, Jiao Si Zhi ​xia,​ 汉书郊祀志下, exemplify in few words the migration of Zhou:

臣聞周祖始乎后稷, 后稷封於斄 (師古曰: 斄讀與邰同, 今武功故城是), 公劉發跡於豳 (師古

曰: 今豳州是也), 大王建國於 梁 (師古曰: 梁山在岐山之東, 九嵕之西2, 非夏陽之梁山也3.

1
钱穆, ​古史地理论丛​, 台北,​ 1982, pp. 1-71​;​ see also​ 邹衡, ​夏商周考古学论文集​, ​1980, pp. 297-355; David N.
Keightley, The Late Shang State: When, Where, and What?, in ​The Origins of Chinese Civilization​, 1983, pp.
523-64; see also 刘桓, ​甲骨集史​, 2008, 104-130; Kwang-chih Chang, ​Shang Civilization​, 1980, p. 258; 陈梦家, 殷 ​
虚卜辞综述​, 1988, p. 291-93, which locate it in the southern part of Jin 晋; 张光直, ​殷周关系的再检讨​,
re-published in ​Jiaguwen Wenxian Jicheng​, vol. 24, pp. 379-83;陈全方, ​周原与周文化,​ 1988; 李学勤, ​周原文化与
西周文明​, 2004; 张洲, ​周原环境与文化​, 1998, pp. 112-17; 郭伟川, ​两周史论​, 2006
2
​ 嵕, ​indicates in ​Guang Yun​ a name of a mountain, and according to ​Tong Dian​, Gu Yong Zhou, is also a
九
mountain when referring to 醴泉漢谷口縣地, 故城在今縣北. 西魏置寧夷郡. 後周改為秦郡. 有九嵕山. 隋改為醴
泉縣. 有蘇武墓 Liquan, during the Han, is Gukou ​xian​, ancient city today to the north of the county, during the Xi

1
 , 古岐字), 文武興於酆鎬 (師古曰: 酆, 今長安城西豐水上也. 鎬在昆明池北). 由此言之, 則
梁豐鎬之間周舊居也, 固宜有宗廟壇場祭祀之臧.
I heard that the ancestry of Zhou began with Hou Ji; Hou Ji was enfeoffed in Tai (Shi Gu
says: Tai is read same as Tai; today is the ancient city of Wu Gong); with Liu Gong we
found traces in Bin (Shi Gu says: is today the region of Bin); with Tai Wang was
established the State in Qi Liang (Shi Gu says: Liangshan is in the east of Qishan, and
in the west of Jiu Zong, but is not the Liangshan located at Xia Yang)

Reading the above would it seem that the Zhou were of west origins from the point of Yin-Shang
capital in Anyang-Xiaotun, their locations are: 斄 (or 邰, written also as 骀); 豳 (or 邠); 梁 (
ancient graph of 岐); 酆鎬4.
While, in ​Han Shu​, Dili Zhi ​shang,​ 汉书地理志上 reports:

‘右扶風...縣二十一:渭城, 槐里, 鄠, 盩厔, 斄, 郁夷, 美陽, 郿, 雍, 漆, 栒邑, 隃麋, 陳倉, 杜陽,

汧, 好畤’.
Fu Feng...has twentyone counties: Weicheng, E, Zhizhi, Lai, Youyi, Mei yang, Mei,
Yong, Qi, Xunyi, Shumi, Chencang, Tuyang, Kai, Haochi’

This and other later texts, all locate it in Wei valley, but we need to understand that one of the
most fundamental text that was available during pre-Han or Han dynasty is the ​Shi Jing​, and in
Da Ya section, Sheng Min we read:

‘誕后稷之穡...即有邰家室
the husbandry of Hou-ji...and thus he was appointed Lord of Tai​’5,

Wei was established as the ​jun​ of Ning Yi, during the Hou Zhou the name changed in Qin ​jun. ​There is the Jiuzong
mountain, during the Sui the name changed in Liquan county, where is the burial of Su Wu‘ ; Sima Xiangru also cite
this place in his ​ ​Shang Lin ​fu ​上林赋: 九嵕嶻嶭, translated by Knechtges in his Volume 2 of ​Wen Xuan​, p. 83 and
his notes L 111 and for 九嵕 see his​ ​L 102 to ‘The Western Capital Rhapsody’ in volume 1, p. 110, where is located
in Liquan ​xian,​ in Shaanxi as: ‘Nine Peaks rises sheer and sharp’
3
夏​陽 ​according to ​Tong Dian​, Gu Yong Zhou, 韓城古韓國謂之少梁. 漢為夏陽縣. 有梁山, 禹貢: 理梁及岐, 詩
韓奕篇曰: 奕奕梁山, 是也. 有韓原, 即左傳秦晉戰於韓原是也. 有龍門山, 即禹導河至於龍門是也... 龍門城在
縣東北 Hancheng, the ancient Han state was called the Small Liang; during the Han dynasty was known as Xian
Yang xian, in Yu Gong chapter it is said: ‘took effective measures at (the mountains) Liang and Qi’, while in Shi
(Jing) it is said: ‘Very grand is the mountain of Liang’ this is to what is referring to. There is also Han Yuan, that is
what in Zuo Zhuan transmit the battle where occured between Qin and Jin. There is the mountain Long Men, that is
what it is said in Yu (Gong) traced the He till Long Men...Long Men city is located in the north-east of the county’
4
​斄 in ​Shui Jing​ ​zhu:​ 渭水又東逕斄縣故城南, 舊邰城也,后稷之封邑矣 The Wei river flows also to east passing
through the south of the city of the county of Tai, in ancient times was known as county of Tai, city were Hou Ji was
enfeoffed’; 豳 in ​Tong Dian​, Gu Yong Zhou: ‘邠州今理新平縣. 古豳國, 昔公劉居豳, 即其地也.豳,故栒邑是’:
Bin (Fen region ?) region is today the county of Xin Ping, ancient state of Bin; in ancient times is where Gong Liu
established (his people). Bin is none other the ancient city of Xun’

5
for a research about the ‘capitals’ of Zhou’s, see Maria Khayutina, ​Western “Capitals” of the Western Zhou
Dynasty: Historical Reality and its Reflections Until the Time of Sima Qian​, in OE 47 (2008), pp. 25-65; 何树环, ​论
西周铜器铭文中的周: 文献, 铜器, 考古的综合考察​, 文与哲, 第十九期, 2011, 12 月, 1-34; Wu Shu-hui, ​The
Great Migration: Inception of the Zhou Identity​, Studia Orientalia, vol. 111, 2011, pp. 407-45

2
here the poem tells how Hou Ji helped to clear the plain and grow varieties of crops, Hou Ji 后稷
is the ancestor of Zhou’s clan and is due to him and to his ability to grow crops that confirm the
Zhou were settlers and not a nomad tribe.

Tai 斄 is seen in bronze inscriptions, or​ jinwen​ 金文, used as loan word for 邰 in ​Yin
Zhou Jinwen Jicheng​ (hereafter JC) 殷周金文集成 JC 2815, the 鼎 of Late Western Zhou,
but are not found 邰, or in its variant form of 骀6.

The origin of the character 斄 lies, according to Chen Chusheng, in the OBI graph and its
7
variants , it does not indicates a place name, but it is used mainly with meaning of 福, fortune,

good luck, the meaning and, one of its component bring it to 麦, which makes quite a sense
since Hou Ji, is known as Lord Millet and ancestor of Zhou’s. From this I may suggest that the
place name Tai, it comes after his ability to grow crops, and it may not indicate a place name in
the Wei valley. In fact the ​jinwen​ graph as seen above is only formed during the early, late Zhou
8
.
If 斄 was not a place name in Yin-Shang oracle bones, and it is only later applied to the
‘mythological’ city to the founder of Zhou’s lineage, it may have to be under a complete different
graph.
Hou Ji, Lord Millet, it is not a personal name but an honorific appellation, and its name
comes from his ability to grow crop and it may take also after a place name, Ji may in this case
also be actual location:
in ​Taiping Yulan​ reads:

隋圖經曰: 稷山, 在絳郡, 后稷播百穀于此山.

In ​Sui Tu Jing​ it is said: the mountain Ji is located in Xiang jun where Hou Ji initiated the
sowing.

In ​Shan Hai Jing​, Ta Wang Xi Jing:

有西周之國, 姬姓, 食穀. 有人方耕, 名曰叔均. 帝俊生后稷, 稷降以百穀. 稷之弟曰台蠒, 生
叔均. 叔均是代其父及稷播百穀, 始作耕.
There is the kingdom of Western Zhou. Its people all take Ji as their family name and
they eat grains. There is a man who is plowing the farmland and is called Shujun. King
Jun gave birth to Houji who brought a hundred grains from heaven to the mortal world.
Houji’s younger brother is Taixi who gave birth to Shujun. Shujun sowed the hundred
grains on behalf of his father and Houji and he was the first to engage in plowing.9

In ​Shui Jing zhu​:

6
​See 张亚初, ​殷周金文集成引得​, 中华书局, p. 1309, 2001;马承源, ​商周青铜器铭文选​, vol. 3, 1990, pp. 293-4
7
see 陈初生, ​商周古文字读本​, 1989, pp.346-47; 于省吾, ​甲骨文字诂林​, 第二册, pp. 1461-62; 姚孝遂, ​殷墟甲骨
刻辭類纂​, 1989, pp. 553-54. In Jiaguwen, it is mainly coupled with ​肆 and is used as ‘to prolong’, the meaning is
‘to prolong the fortune’, see​于省吾,​ ​甲骨文诂林​, 第四册, pp. 3241-43
8
See 陈初生, ​商周古文字读本​, p. 346-7, 1988; see 高亨, ​古字通假会典​, p. 392 (台与邰), p. 394 (骀与邰), p. 395
(邰与斄), 1989; see also ​战国古文字典, 战国文字声系​, ​pp. 58-9​ ​where we found that 邰 and 骀 are late graphs. 骀
see ​秦汉魏晋篆隶字形表​ p. 686 the graph is from Sun Bin 236; see also 闻一多全集, ​姜嫄履大人跡考​, 开明版,
第1卷, 1948, pp. 73-80
9
​See 陈成今著.王宏.赵峥英译, ​山海经 (汉英对照)​, 2010, pp. 289-91

3
 汾水又逕稷山北...山上有稷祠, 山下稷亭.
The river Fen pass north through the mountain Ji...on the mountain there is a Ji temple
and at the foot of mountain there is the Hall of Ji

But a 稷祠 is also built in:

渭水又東逕斄縣故城南, 舊邰城也, 后稷之封邑矣...城東北有姜嫄祠, 城西南百步有稷祠,郿

之斄亭也.
The Wei river flows also to east passing through the south of the city of the county of Tai,
in ancient times was known as county of Tai, city were Hou Ji was enfeoffed...at
north-east of the city exist the temple of Jiang Yuan and at one hundred bu south-west
of the city there is a Ji temple, which is the hall of Tai in Mei

Of this location and its 稷祠 has been only recorded once in transmitted text, and its location,
Mei 郿 is to be found, according to ​Tong Dian​, in the ancient region of Yong 雍州, one of the
nine counties of Fu Feng 扶風10.
The above rivers, the Fen and the Wei are also the two regions debated among scholars
as of original Zhou’s clan roots, concerning it will be approached the issue below. It seems a
coincidence that both areas have a 稷祠, as it had drawn a line between the original place, the
Fen valley, and the migrated place, the Wei valley.
Jishan, 稷山, according to ​Zuozhuan​, Xuan 15th year:

晉侯治兵于稷. 註: 稷,晉地. 河東聞喜縣西有稷山11.

The Lord of Jin controlled the army in Ji: note, Ji is a land of Jin. in the county of
Wenxian in the east of the He there is the Ji mountain

Jishan, 稷山, is located in 絳郡, east of He river, besides there is a Jishan ting, 稷山亭,
belonging to the Anyi, 安邑, area city. In ​Shuo Yuan​, Jing Shen chapter, 说苑 reads:

智伯曰: ‘吾始不知水可以亡人國也, 乃今知之. 汾水可以灌安邑, 絳水可以灌平陽’12.

Z​hi Bo says: I did not know that a river could wipe out the land of people, now I know;
the Fen river can inundate An Yi and the Jiang river can inundate Ping Yang’

While in ​Tong Dian​, Li liu shi liu, Shen Wei:

仲春之月, 享先代帝王. 帝嚳享於頓丘, 帝堯享於平陽, 稷、镨配​. ​帝舜享於河東, 皋繇配​. ​夏

禹享於安邑, 伯益配​. ​殷湯享於偃師, 伊尹配​. ​周文王享於酆, 太公配​. ​武王享於鎬, 周公, 召
公配.

10
​See Du You, ​Tong Dian​, juan 173, p. 4516 杜佑, ​通典​, 第卷173, p. 4516, 1988; in ​Kangxi Zidian​, reads: ​斄, 讀
如邰. 今陝西西安府武功縣五丈原卽其地也. 或曰鳳翔府郿縣亦有五丈原, 有斄亭 Tai to read as Tai; is today
Wu Zhang Yuan in the county of An Fu Wu Gong in Shaanxi; other says: is in the county of Mwi administration of
Fengyao, there is also Wu Zhang Yuan, where is the hall of Tai’; see also 邰 recorded in 李勇先, ​中国历史地理文
献辑刊​, 第03编, 第01册, 2009, p. 60, p. 242, 311 where it mention: 不知稷封之骀在武功而姜氏之骀在琅琊固不
同也. 注...晋属琅琊 it wasn’t known that the feud of Ji was Tai located in Wu Gong and that Tai of clan Jiang was
located in Lang Ya, these places are different...Lang Ya does belong to Jin’
11
清阮元校刻, ​十三经注疏​, ​1980, p. 1888a
12
​See 刘向, 向宗鲁校证, ​说苑校证​, 1987, p. 253; 王鍈, ​说苑全译​, 1992, p. 439 in fn 12 and 13, consider the Fen
river and the Jiang river to be in Shanxi

4
 The spring months were a period that former emperor enjoyed: Di Gao enjoyed it in Dun
Qiu; Di Yao enjoyed it in Ping Yang, together with Ji and Cuo; Di Shun enjoyed it in He
Dong (east of the He) together with Gao Yao; Xia Yu enjoyed it in An Yi together with Bo
Yi; Yin Tang enjoyed it in Yan Shi together with Yi Yin; Zhou Wen Wang enjoyed it in
Feng together with Tai Gong; Wu Wang enjoyed it in Gao together with Zhou Gong and
Shao Gong’

The above tells us that Ji, 稷, was enjoying Ping Yang together with his ruler and as we see,
Ping Yang city was in the area of Fen valley. The Jiangshui 絳水or the Jiang ​xian​ (county) is just
south of Houma, supposed to be the tomb of Jiang Yuan (mother of Houji) at Wen Xi 聞喜.
All these place names all belong to today Shanxi province and all are enclosed between the Fen
and the Su river.
The main genealogical graph of the Zhou’s clan is connected with the ‘millet’, 稷,
according to ​Ben Cao​, 本草:

徐曰案本草, 稷卽穄, 一名粢. 楚人謂之稷, 關中謂之 (different edition have 糜)13, 其米爲
黃米.
Xu says: based on Bencao, ji (millet) is another term for ji (millet), another name for it is ji
(common millet). People from Chu pronounce it ji; in Guanzhong called it ji; its rice is a
yellow rice

Now the 關中 in ​Shui Jing zhu​ is related to:

潘岳關中記曰: 關中有涇、渭、灞、滻、酆、鄗、漆、沮之水, 酆、鄗、漆、沮四水, 在長

安西南鄠縣, 漆、沮皆南注,酆, 鄗水北注.
In the ​Pan Yue Guang Zhong Ji​ says: the Guanzhong has several rivers: the JIng, the
Wei, the Ba, the Chan, the Feng, the Gao, the Qi, and the Ju. four of these river, the
Feng, the Gao, the Qi and the Ju all are in the south-west of Chang’an in the E xian; the
Qi and the Ju pour (in the He) in the south, while the Feng and the Gao pour in the
north.

This statement would place the dialectic word of the Zhou’s clan in the area of Wei valley,
besides, the character and its spelling does match also the graph in OBI. This small linguistic
‘​coincidence​’, would also confirm the linguistic relations between Yin-Shang and Zhou culture14.

13
​See ​李时珍医学全书​, 明清名医全书大成, pp. 657-59, 1996; see 胡熙明, ​中华本草​, 8卷, pp. 7489, 1999; Luo
Zhenyu, ​增订殷墟书契考释​, reads that in OBI, is also written with 水 component
14
In ​Tong dian​, Zhou Jun san, Gu Yong zhou reads: ​周自武王克殷, 都於酆, 鎬, 則雍州為王畿. 酆邑在灃水,鎬京
在灃水之東, 並在今長安縣界. 及平王東遷雒邑, 以岐, 酆之地賜秦襄公, 乃為秦地矣. 至孝公作為咸陽, 築冀闕,
徙都之, 故謂之秦川, 亦曰關中地. 關中記云: 東自函關, 弘農郡靈寶縣界, 西至隴關今汧陽郡汧源縣界, 二關之
閒, 謂之關中, 東西千餘里 the Zhou from the suppression of Yin by Wu Wang, risieded in Feng and Gao that is the
Yong region, royal territory. The city of Feng was at river Feng; the capital Gao is at east of Feng river, both were in
today county of Chang’an and during the reign of King Ping transferred to city of Luo, and the city of Qi and Feng
were given to the lord Xiang of Qin becoming Qin territory. Until lord Xiao built Xianyang nad constructed the Ji
Gate, moving the capital there, that’s why is called rivers of Qin also called territory of Guan Zhong. The Guan
Zhong Ji says: from Han Guan to east, there is Hong Nong jun, area of xina Lingbao; from Long guan to west there
is the Kaiyang jun, in Kaiyang xian. Between the two Guan is called central Guan, from east to west there is a
distance more than 1000 li’; see also Nienhauser, ​Grand Scribe's Records​, vol 1, p. 109, 1994

5
 The character , may also be interpreted it in OBI as 黍15, , and many are the
inscriptions about it, mainly concerning the ‘millet harvest’; few are of different nature, that is
about to ‘call out (an harvester) of millet’ or ‘call out the Shu’, as in He Ji 9535 to 954316.
Anyway it is, certainly does not refer to any of Zhou’s clan or either to any sacrifices to Hou Ji,
although the ‘millet’ is one of the most precious food used in sacrifices and the Zhou’s being the
‘natural’ descendant of an ‘agricultural officer’, may also be one of the ‘harvester’ of the OBI,
and in this case, the Zhou’s already were detaining the knowledge of calendar and that of
farming, important elements to make a clan politically strong.
In the geographical locations of Zhou’s, besides the Fen 汾 river and the Wei 渭 river,
there is a Su 涑 ​ ​ river.
In ​Jin Lou Zi​, 金楼子17, reports:

帝嚳高辛氏, 少昊之孫, 蟜極之子. 生而神靈, 自言其名曰逡, 齒18. 以木承火, 都亳. 在位十

年. 元妃有邰氏, 女曰姜嫄, 生后稷. 次妃有娀氏, 女曰簡翟, 生契. 次陳鄷氏女曰慶都, 生堯.
次陬訾氏, 女曰常儀, 生子摯. 摯立不善, 乃立堯’,
The emperor Ku, or Gaoxin, grandson of Shao Gao, son of Jiaoji, born as a genius
spoke from babyhood and had retreat double teeth. He has personality as the wood that
feed the fire. He instituted the capital in Bo and he was on throne for ten years. His
primary concubine was of clan Tai, her name was Jiang Yuan, gave birth to Hou ji; her
second concubine was of Rong clan her name was Jian Di, gave birth to Qi; followed by
a concubine of clan Chen Feng, her name was Qing Dou, gave birth to Shun; then
followed a concubine of Qu Ci clan her name was Changyi, gave birth to Zizhi, Zhi came
to the throne but did not lasted; therefore was enthroned Shun

it states that his capital is Bo, same was also of Tang predynastic ancestor of Shang, is also

found in oracle bones, , .

As story goes, in ​San Guo Zhi​, Wei Shu ​wu​, chapter 文昭甄皇, reads:

昔高辛氏卜其四妃之子皆有天下, 而帝摯, 陶唐, 商, 周代興.

In ancient times was divined that four of sons of Gao Xin from his four concubines would
control the ‘world’ they were: Di Zhi, Tao Tang, Shang and Zhou

This looks like that also Zhou had a same patriarcal origin as the Shang, therefore Bo is the
ancestral place of the Chinese civilization history.
The capital Bo is often cited in chapters of ​Shangshu​, Xia-Shang chapters, which
according to Michael Nylan, cannot be dated much earlier than the Qin unification (221 BC)19,
nonetheless Bo is seen in oracle bones as said above. It is usually used together with 土, read

15
​See ​殷墟甲骨刻辭類纂​ pp. 536-538; 于省吾, ​甲骨文字诂林​, 第二册, pp. 1441-46, 1999; see also David N.
Keightley, ​The Ancestral Landscape​, pp. 10-13, 2002; see also 罗琨, 甲骨文’来’字辨析, ​中原文物​, 3, 1990, pp.
24-31
16
​See 胡厚宣,​ ​甲骨文合集释文​, ​1999
17
text written during the Liang dynasty by the Emperor Yuandi 梁元帝​萧绎​ (508-555); see 梁萧绎, ​金楼子校笺​,
中华书局, 2011, p. 90
18
​See also 清陈立, ​白虎通疏证​, 卷六, p. 338, 1994
19
Michael Nylan, ​The Five “Confucian” Classics​, 2001, p. 135

6
as 社 and is a sacrificial place, to be invested as such, it does deserve to be acknowledged as a
high sacred place. The above statements seems to prove that Shang and Zhou to be of same
clan with different surnames and according to Guo Jingyun, they originated from the elite class
of Shang, also states that the Zhou’s consider their actual ancestor Wen Wang founder of the
dynastic Zhou.
What is interesting about Ji, crops, in transmitted text is also coupled with 社, land, otherwise
‘altar of land and crops’, as in 亳社20.

The search for Bo and its location is not the scope of this paper but to try at least a connection
with Zhou predynastic source.21
Bo, 亳 is often interchangeable in classical text with 薄, in ​Shui Jing Zhu​:

汳水又東逕大蒙城北, 自古不聞有二蒙, 疑即蒙亳也, 所謂景薄為北亳矣.

The Fan river goes through the north of Dameng city; in ancient times it was not known
that there were two meng (cities), is uncertain that is Meng Bo the so-called Jing Bo was
Bei Bo.

Da Meng city大蒙城, according to a comment in ​Mozi Xiangu​, by Sun Yirang, Fei Gong ​xia:​

宋州北五十里, 大蒙城, 為景亳, 湯所盟地, 因景山為名22

Dameng city is located at 50 li north of Song region, known also as Jing Bo, is where
Tang had an alliance, that’s the reason the place is known as Jing Shan

A link between to the above references it may be found in ​Shui Jing​ ​zhu ​were:

涑水西逕董池陂南, 即古澤, 東西四里, 南北三里. 春秋·文公六年, 蒐于董, 即斯澤也. 涑水又

與景水合, 水出景山北谷.
The Su river pass through south of Dong Chi Bo, that is Gu Ze, east-west is about 4 li,
north-south about 3 li. In the sixth year of duke Wen during the Chunqiu, the Gui were
living in Dong, that is the Ce, where the Su river and the Jing river meet each other, this
river has its source in a valley north Jing Shan

Concerning the genealogy of character 景 it is a late construction, it is not found in OBI

or ​jinwen​ inscriptions and its location seems to be identified with the Yin-Shang capital Bo23.

20
刘桓, ​甲骨征史​, 2002, 115-36
21
for further reading about the Capital Bo of Shang see Louisa G. Fitzgerald Huber, The Bo Capital,​ Early China​,
13, (1988), pp. 46-77; 邹衡, ​夏商周考古学论文集​, 北京, 1980, pp. 184-92; 王国维, 说亳, ​王國維遺書​(全十六冊,
据商務印書館1940版影印), 上海, 1983, pp. 558-62; 李勇先,中国历史地理文献辑刊, 第02编, ​尚书禹贡篇集成​,
第04册, 2009, pp. 184b-185a; 于省吾, ​甲骨文字诂林​, 第3册, pp. 121-23; 姚孝遂,​ 殷墟甲骨刻辭類纂,​1989, p.
744; 李锋, ​商代前期都城研究​, 2007. Moreover, 亳, 薄 (see 宗福邦, ​故訓匯纂​, 2002, p. 76, p. 1977), 宅 (周原
H11:8; see also朱駿声, ​说文通训定声​, 武汉古籍出版社, 1983, p. 462a; in OBI Tun 4400 indicates a sacrificial
place followed by 土 reads as 社) and 帛(in a single fragment OBI, ​Heji​ 36842, is together 鼓) found in Zhou Yuan
oracle bone may be also same place but different graphs.

22
孙诒让, ​墨子閒诂​, 2001, pp. 140-58
23
​see also​ ​上海交通大学出版社, ​中国历史地理文献辑刊​, 第03编,诗礼春秋四书尔雅地理文献集成 第01册, 李
勇先主编, p. 197b, p. 281, p. 336. According to ​Shi Dili Kaolue​, see p. 281, the Jingshan is located at north of
Shangqiu, which the ​Shui Jing​ would be in the area of Su river. 景 in GWZGL, vol 6, p. 379, loan characters see ​古

7
The Fen, the Su river and the Jingshan are all confined in the same geographical area, and all
under control of Yin-Shang.
The relation between the above and the Zhou’s original root are also confined at east of
Yin-Shang and in Fen valley. The mother of Hou Ji, was called Jiang Yuan 姜嫄, in ​Tong Dian​,
Li qi 礼七, 后妃廟, states:

周祭先妣之廟
The Zhou’s offered sacrifices in the temple of first ancestress

and the comment to it: ‘

周立廟自后稷為始祖, 而姜嫄無所配, 是以特立廟祭之, 謂之閟宮. 閟, 神之’,

The Zhou established a temple considering their first ancestor Houji, while Jiang Yuan
had none, therefore they particularly established a temple to offer sacrifices, called the
Mi Gong. Mi indicates the spiritual

the 閟宮 is also called 禖宫, see comment to ​Li Ji​, Yue Ling of Zheng Xuan to

是月也, 玄鳥至. 至之日, 以大牢祠于高禖. 天子親往, 后妃帥九嬪御. 乃禮天子所御, 帶以弓

韣, 授以弓矢, 于高禖之前
In this month, the swallows return. On the day they arrive the Great-Penned-Animal
Sacrifice is offered to the High Matchmaker. The Son of Heaven goes in person. The
queen and the royal ladies lead the the nine royal concubines. There those with whom
the Son of Heaven has had congress are treated with great courtesy, with bow cases
being placed about their waists, and bows and arrows conferred on them before the altar
to the High Matchmaker’​ 24.

A ​tailao​ 太牢 sacrifice was an offering much used in Yin-Shang periods.

The Jiang Yuan, 姜嫄, it is said that the clan comes from Tai, 邰, and that Hou Ji was made a
Lord. Tai, according to ​Shi Dili Kaolue​ 诗地理考略, reports that there were two places by its
name, one in Wu Gong 武功, in Wei valley area, where Hou Ji was a Lord, and the other of
Jiang clan in Lang Ya, 琅琊, in Fen valley area.
Above we found that three rivers are to be taken in consideration and two of them, Fen
and Su are quoted together in an OBI inscription:

One single graph recorded in an oracle bone inscription, links it to Fen valley, place
where the Zhou’s would be first originated.
HJ 19956 reads:

字通假会典​ p. 77 with 引; p. 273 with 永 in ​Leizuan​ p. 872; p. 294 with 疆; p. 295 with 京 in ​Leizuan​ p. 741; p.
296 with 影 this may be the most probable, 憬, 冏 in​ Leizuan​ p. 1314 used also with , in ​Jiaguwenzi Gulin,​ vol. 4
p. 601

24
​John Knoblock, Riegel, ​The Annals of Lu Buwei​, 2000, p. 78​; ​see also​ ​玉海​,第 4 册, p. 328. A stele to Gao Mei
was erected in the south side of the city, or capital of Xi Jin 西晋

8
 癸酉卜疋于果 ...入 (涑) 刃 (汾) 比 (从)25,
on crack-making day guiyou, Shu to go to military camp in Guo...to enter in Su, the Fen
will follow’​;

and in HJ 22388

...疋... 刃 (汾)... (涑)

​
...​Shu...Fen...Su…

One OBI, the HJ 5654 reports another relation between Zhou, Wu, 巫, and the probable location
of the latter in the area of Su river

HJ 5654
貞周以巫
divined: Zhou will offer as tribute (people from) Wu.

While in HJ 8115

...周取巫于 (垂) 26

...​Zhou will will take in (people’s) from Wu (and) from​ 27

.

Reading this OBI as taking peoples from two places, that indicates that those clans were
already subjugated, probably by Zhou’s, as we do have some OBI that refers to 垂 as 垂伯.

Wu, 巫, in ​Shui Jingzhu​:

涑水西南逕監鹽縣故城, 城南有鹽池, 上承鹽水. 水出東南薄山, 西北流逕巫咸山北.

The Su river flows south-west passing through the ancient city of Jian yan xian; in the
south of the city there is the Yan Chi. the river source is to be found in south-east of Bo
shan, it flows to north-west passing through north the Wu Xian mountain

Chui, 垂,​ in Shui Jingzhu​:

春秋·文公二年, 晉士縠盟于垂隴者也. 京相璠曰: 垂隴, 鄭地. 今滎陽東二十里有故垂隴城,

即此是也
25
​See for relative graphs 于省吾, ​甲骨文字诂林​, 第四册, pp. 3042-44, 第一册, pp. 820-21, 第二册, pp. 1396-98;
第三册, pp. 2452-53; see also ​宋镇豪, ​商代地理与方国​,商代史卷10, 2010, p. 453, here we have different
reconstruction: 癸酉卜踵弜入​涑汾从​; for photos see ​甲骨文合集​, vol 7, p. 2596, p. 2909; see also different
reconstructions in ​甲骨文合集释文; ​in OBI HJ 6659 and HJ 6660, is seen as a hostile clan.
26
​See also Tun 781 for ? 侯, see ​小屯南地甲骨考释​, p. 107, see also ​甲骨文字诂林​, vol. 1, p. 258, interpreted as
垂 and ​朿; ​垂 and ​倉 (see below fn 29), are seen together in OBI HJ 5708, which would make them neighbours of
Zhou’s land
27
​取, can be interpreted as either ‘taking in as wife’ either as a sacrificial act ‘burning wood sticks’; see吴俊德, ​殷
墟第四期祭祀卜辞研究​ 2005, p. 102; see ​JGWZGL​, vol.1, p. 258; see 郭沫若, ​殷契粹编​, 1965, 360; Yu Xingwu,
甲骨文字释林​, 1979, 159-60; see 涂白奎, ​释巫​, in 华夏考古, 1997, 1期, re-published also in ​甲骨文文献集成​,第
十四册, p. 267-68

9
 In the second year of Wengong of Chunqiu period, the Shi Gu of Jin had a meeting in
Chui Long. Jing Xiang Fan said: Chui Long is in the territory of Zheng, today is at 20 li
east of Ying Yang there is the city of Chui Long.

According to ​Tong Dian​,

滎, 滎澤禹貢「濟水溢為滎」，即此。今濟水不復入滎也
Ying, indicates the marshes of Ying as in Yu Gong ‘the Ji river flows in and became the
(marshes) of Ying’. Today the Ji river does not flows in the (marshes) of Ying

and​ ​is the location cited in ​Shang Shu​, Yu Gong chapter:

導沇水，東流為濟，入于河，溢為滎
He traced the Yan water, which, flowing eastward, became the Ji, and entered the He.
(Thereafter) it flowed out, and became the Ying (marsh)

In OBI are usually called by personal name the diviners, ancestors, king’s wives, high
nobles related to the king’s house, but are not called by name the outer ‘f​oreigners’​ of
Yin-Shang dominion: those are identified by the name of location, the Gong, the Ren, the Tu
among the most known in OBI.

Fen, 汾, in ​Shui jing zhu​:

汾水出太原汾陽縣北管涔山;
The Fen river flows out of Taiyuan Fenyang xian, north of Guancen mountain

in ​Shan Hai Jing​:

在河之東, 其首枕汾, 其名曰管涔之山. 其上無木而多草, 其下多玉. 汾水出焉, 而西流注于

河
the first of the second mountain range of the northern mountains is east of the Yellow
river. Its head pillows on the Fen river and it is called Mount Guancen. On its top there
are many plants but no tree, while at its foot there is a great deal of jade. The Fen river
flows out of this mountain and runs to the west before it finally empties itself into the
Yellow river’28.

Besides the Fen river, there is also a Liang range mountain 梁山 often quoted in classical text

and in OBI has been interpreted the graph , 分,​ for it.
Due to only few fragments, its meaning is not clear.
Li Xiaoding, instead would read it as 梁 due to its strong similarity to some bronze inscriptions29.

28
​陈成今著.王宏.赵峥英译, ​山海经​, 汉英对照, 2000, p. 81, p. 87;袁珂, 山 ​ 海经校注​, 1992, pp. 95-6
29
see 李孝定, ​甲骨文字集释​+第二、三卷, p. 0251; quote 四分鼎 JC 2481; 大梁鼎, also JC 6286 but Li reads
incorrectly the graph on bronze; see also 刘桓, ​殷契存稿​, 1991, 191-93; see also 朱芳圃, ​殷周文字释丛​, 1962, pp.
120-21, the author consider the graph to indicate ​粱

10
In bronze inscriptions, the graph or variant of stands for a family name as 梁: in ​Jicheng​ 187

其钟 late Western Zhou, found in Shaanxi, Fu Feng Xian 陜西扶风县 ; ​Jicheng​ 9716 其

壶 late Western Zhou found in Shaanxi Renjiacun Qishan Xian,陜西任家村岐山县; JC

3793-3796 伯 父簋 late Western Zhou, found in Shaanxi Zhangjiapo 陜西张家坡; in JC

4446 伯 其盨 late Western Zhou, found in Shaanxi, Fu Feng Xian 陜西扶风县30.

The character is read 梁 also in Zhanguo manuscript in ​Zeng Hou Yi Zhujian​曾侯乙墓竹简,

slips 177 and 214, with the meaning of 石梁 ‘stone pond’ where fish are taken; in

Guodian, ​Chengzhi Wenzhi​ 成之闻之, slip 3531; in ​Shangbo Chu zhu​, ​Yi Shi​ 逸诗, slip
32
1 , in these manuscripts it indicates as in ​Shi Jing​ a ‘dam’, a ‘stone pool’. The relation between
the meaning and the geographical depiction of Lu Liang, gorge of Lu, I may definitely believe
that the OBI graph is to be read as 梁, and possibly indicating the ‘gorge of Lu (Lu Liang). In
Shui Jing Zhu​ is known as mountain range of Lu Liang and as the gorge of Lu Liang33. In ​Shui
Jing Zhu​ is known as mountain range of Lu Liang and as the gorge of Lu Liang.
In transmitted text is often spoken of it as dangerous and strong cataract where no turtles, or
fishes could play34. Historical text records a earthquake that caused the Mount Liang to collapse
that obstructed the Huang He do not flow for three days in the year 586 BC, according to ​Shi Ji​,
at that time this location was part of Jin State 晋国.

30
for the Liang bronze vessels see 考古学专刊, ​长安张家坡西周铜器群​, p. 6, 1965. According to Guo Moruo the
owner of these vessel had connections with the Ji 姞 family​;​ see also 吴镇烽, ​陕西金文汇编​ (上,下册), p. 124-25,
1989; see ​殷周金文集成释文​; see also​商周青铜器铭文选​, pp. 983-86. Concerning the 伯梁, in ​oracle bones HJ
9154 (铁 264.2) is mentioned a Hou Liang 侯梁 (?) but the HeJiShiWen reading would them to be two separate
graphs:’….侯·...梁‘ see 商代史卷10《​商代地理与方国​》p. 453; ​古文字诂林​05, p. 957-96-; ​古文字诂林,​09, p.
70, ​leizuan​, p. 959. In ​Shi Jing​, Da Ya, Decade of Dang, Han Yi, is described a ‘king of Fen’ 汾王, which is
according to Zheng 郑, the King Li 厉王 fled to Zhi 彘, see Nienhauser, ​Grand Historian​, vol. 1, p. 72; see 地理
3.1,p. 63b, p. 247b. Zhi 彘 is situated above the Fen river. In ​Shui Jing Zhu​, Fen Shui: ‘汾水又南與彘水合, 水出東
北太岳山, 禹貢所謂岳陽也, 即霍太山矣 the river Fen conjoins the Zhi river in the south, the river flows at
north-east from Tai Yue mountains, that is the so-called Yue Yang of Yu Gong, which is the Huo Tai mountain’.
Huo Tai Shan, is also a location in which the Qin 秦 where located, making them together the Zhou 周, original land
of provenance before to move to west in the Wei 渭 valley, see Shaughnessy, ​Extent​, p. 8, fn 19; see E. L.
Shaughnessy, ​Sources of Western Zhou History​, pp. 272-86, but in later times, after the conquest of Shang, the Qin
branch originally from Huo Taishan in Fen valley, branched out and from Zhou King Cheng and Mu was given the
cognomen​ Zhao due to living in Zhaocheng 趙城.
31
​see​ ​郭店楚墓竹简 荆门市博物馆​, p. 168
32
​see ​上海博物馆藏战国楚竹书​, 4, p. 25, p. 174
33
​see ​Shui Jing Zhu​, juan 3, He Shui: ‘河水左合一水, 出善無縣故城西南八十里, 其水西流, 歷于呂梁之山, 而為
呂梁洪’; 司馬彪注, 莊子云: 呂梁, 即龍門也; see 王先谦, ​莊子集解​, p. 162-63; 郭庆藩, ​庄子集释​, p. 656, 1985;
for a comment to Yu Gong chapter of ​Shangshu​, 尚书禹贡, see 侯仁之, ​中国古代地理名著选读​, 第一辑, pp. 7-8,
2005, about 梁山 geographical area.

34
see for example 淮南子, 本经训: ‘​龍門未開, 呂梁未發, the watercourses in both Mount Longmen and Mount
Luliang were not excavated’. the relation between Longmen and Luliang is also seen in ​Zhuangzi​. In 呂氏春秋, 爱
类, reports same sentence.

11
In OBI we have just two records which we may consider, but only one can be used:

(6) HJ 7852 (珠735): ‘貞分女(毋)呼于敦​ is divined: Fen will not call upon Dun’​ ;

different is the reading in HJ : ‘貞方毋乎于敦​ is divined: the Fang will not call upon the Dun’.

I believe the ​Leizuan​ reconstruction is much reliable, the actual graphs are: and below it

.
The Dun 敦 place name, according to Li Xueqin is the most far eastern hunting place of Shang
territory and the center of west bank of 沁水35, in ​Shui Jing Zhu​:

沁水出上黨沮縣謁戾山, 南過穀遠縣, 東至滎陽縣北, 東入于河’.

The Qin river flows from He Ku mountain in Shang tang ju county; in the south pass
through Gu Yuan county, at east reach the north of Ying yang county, proceeding east to
pour in the He river

The several ​fen​ 分 graphs found in bronze inscriptions, such as JC 2818 late Western Zhou

, and JC 4278 also late Western​ ​Zhou, cannot be interpreted as our 汾​ ​but only one can

be considered and is the inscription found on a halberd of Zhanguo period, the JC 11331,
and inscribed together with 临, 临汾36 a commandery of eastern He, 河东.
Zhao 晁 would read 邠 as 汾so to present some grade of ground proof to his theory37.

35
According to Li Xueqin, Dun is a geographical area, and primary center of ​ ​沁水​西岸;​ see 李学勤, ​殷代地理简
论​, p. 17, p. 20, 1959
36
​In ​Tong Dian​, 州郡九, is one of nine counties of Ping Yang 平阳: ​平陽晉九縣臨汾​, ​襄陵, 霍邑, 冀氏, 汾西, 洪
洞, 神山, 趙城, 岳陽 Ping Yang is is JIn, it counts nine counties: Linfen, Xiangling, Huo Yi, Jishi, Fenxi, Hongtong,
Shenshan, Zhaocheng, Yueyang’; a county that will then belong to the region of Jin, 晋州. as stated in the same: 晉
州今理臨汾縣.亦堯舜之都, 所謂平陽也. 春秋時屬晉, 戰國時屬魏, the region of Jin today administrate the
county of Linfen which was also the capital of Yao and Shun the so-called Ping Yang. In Chunqiu period belonged
to Jin, in Zhanguo period belonged to Wei’;
37
​晁楅林, idem, p. 202; ​Shaughnessy in his ​Extent​, quote a passage from ​Shi Jing​, Da Ya, Gong Liu: ‘​篤公劉, 逝彼
百泉, 瞻彼溥原 Of generous devotion to the people was duke Liu. He went there to [the place of] the hundred
springs, and saw [around him] the wide plain’ as a place encountered during his migration to Bin, and be thought to
be the 万泉. The Wan Quan is described in ​Tong Dian​, 通典, chapter of Zhou Jun Jiu 州郡九, describing the
Ancient region of Ji 冀, to be a county of 絳郡 called 万泉太平, and in the same chapter is a county belonging to
Qin Zhou 秦州 during the Hou Wei 後魏 (386-534), moreover says: 萬泉漢汾陰縣 Wan Quan, during period of
Han is located in the county of Fen Yin, see Tu You (Tang dynasty), ​Tong Dian​, Zhonghua Shuju, Beijing, 1988,
pp. 4727-28. Different is the opinion found in ​Shi Jing Lei Kao​, ​Shi Di Li Zheng​ and ​Mao Shi Shi Di​ (see 地理 3.1
p.134a, 243a, 368b), 百泉 is an actual location in the ancient region of 雍, one of the a county of Ping Liang 平涼
郡 (see ​Tong Dian​, Zhou Jun san 州郡三 pp. 4522) reports: 邠州今理新平縣. 古豳國, 昔公劉居豳,即其地也. 豳,
故栒邑是

12
The reading that Zhao suggest for 邠 may be correct as same features appears in ,​ read as
渭, and another graph interpreted read as 梁, seen in the script of Jin 晋 writing system38.
This substitution of 水 with 邑 seems to be a characteristic of Zhanguo period script.

According to ​Shan Hai jing​, the river Fen has its source in Guancen mountain, the fact that the
Zhou may be from this area, is also described by few OBI by a graph, by many interpreted as
璞, to attack39, probable meaning and interpretation of OBI influenced by the ​jinwen​ graph from

钟, , while others, as mining place, which may link the Zhou, not only to ability to grow

40
crops, but also to extract jade. The graph much in discussion is: , this complex graph, is

also seen in a variant form, (HJ 6819, HJ 6823) with two fragments only41; both deals with

the graph , 周:
HJ 6819:

...酉...令...上 ...侯 周..

(on crack-making on day) ...y​ ou…
​ (the king) order...the Shang Yin and...Hou to perform
field work at Zhou…

HJ 6823 there are different reconstruction and interpretation between ​Leizuan​ and the ​Zonglei

collections, the actual graph intended as (in leizuan) and (in ​Zonglei​) is not fully clear,
for this reason we will omit the inscription.

38
​see ​战国东方五国文字构形系统研究​, p. 180, item # 1167, code for graphs are X1705, H2182, H2186; see also
汤志彪, ​三晋文字编​ , 2013, p. 402, the San Jin indicates during the Zhanguo period the today Shanxi and were
included the three reigns of Zhao, Han and Wei; see​ ​金文引得·青铜器铭文释文引得​, vol. 1, p. 76; ​殷周金文集成
释文​, vol. 6, p. 307 item 10825 of Chunqiu period; vol. 7, p. 495, item 11285 of Zhanguo period; p. 730 item 11907
of Zhanguo period; see ​金文引得·青铜器铭文释文​, p. 76, inscription first published in ​考古​, 1988, 7 期, 617 页
39
​See ​殷周金文集成释文,​ 1.260, bronze of late period of Western Zhou, probably of period of King Li; 王辉, ​商周
金文​, 2006, pp. 211-14
40
​See ​晁楅林, ​从甲骨卜辞看姬周族的国号及其相关诸问题​, 古文字研究, 18, 1992, pp. 202-19; see 唐兰, ​殷墟
文字记​, 1981, pp. 45-7; 夏含夷 (Shaughnessy, Edward), ​早期商周关系及其对武丁以后商王室势力范围的意义​,
古文字研究, 13, 1986, pp. 129-43; Edward, Shaughnessy,​ Historical Geography and the Extent of the Earliest
Chinese Kingdoms​, in Asia Major, third series, vol. 2, no. 2, 1989, pp. 1-22; 郭沫若,​卜辞通纂​, 科学出版社, 1983,
pp. 450-51; 姚孝遂, ​殷墟甲骨刻辭類纂​,1989, p.773; 丁山, ​商周史料考证​, 1988, p. 96-9, he consider the graph to
mean 保 or 寳; see 于省吾, ​甲骨文字诂林​, 第 3 册, 1999, p. 2044-48; reads as 鑿 by Gao Heng in his ​古文字类编​,
see 于省吾, ​甲骨文字诂林​, 第 2 册, 1999, pp. 919-26; see also 徐兆仁, ​释 ?​, in 古文字研究, 17, 1989, pp. 223-29;
see also刘桓, ​殷契存稿​, 1991, pp. 87-90;
41
​This graph is catalogued with two fragments as ‘Miscellaneous​ 其他’ in ​類纂​, idem, p. 820, and separately in 岛
邦男, ​殷墟卜辞综类​, 1967, p. 299.4.

13
The graph is seen in HJ: 6812, 6813, 6814, 6815, 6816, 6817, 6821, 6822, most of them
are all followed by: (固, 古 as 监, 戴, 協, or it may be 盬 read ​gu​ ?) 王事 interpreted as
Keightley ‘sustain King’s affair or business’, or if following the ​Shi Jing​, ‘to proceed with
decisiveness on King’s affair’. These OBI involve, under an order, 令, several parties, such as
the Duo Zi 多子, the Quan 犬 clan, and others to impose a King edict42. In ​Shi Jing​, 诗经, is
often quoted: ‘王事靡盬 ​The king's business must not be slackly performed’​ , in transmitted text
indicates to proceed whatever the conditions are presented to the subjects, as it is known of the
difficulties before hand, and such ‘order’ is imposed to represent the King’ s self person,
moreover, the success or any achievement by his entourage, will fall directly on the King.
Here I would also like to add another graph HJ 27888, which does not yet have an

interpretation, (transcription from ​Cui​ 粹1161, , probably also related to HJ 27887, 小臣

which indicates a personal name43. I wanted to add it to show that these three are and
have different meanings, even though the second graph is compared to the first one with same
effect.
The third parties clans involved with this specific graphs are: the Duo Zi 多子, the Quan
犬, and the Cang 仓 (?).44

42
See David N. Keightley, ​The Late Shang State: When, Where, and What?,​ in ​The Origins of Chinese
Civilization​, 1983, p. 530; see ​甲骨文文献集成​, vol. 14, p. 162; ​甲骨文诂林​, vol. 1, p. 740
43
​Another graph that present similar characteristic is seen in HJ 6980 by many interpreted as ​弄, see 郑杰祥, ​商代
地理概论​, 1994, p. 230; 于省吾, ​甲骨文诂林​, 第四册, p. 2924
44
仓 as place name and ally of Shang, is also involved into attak the Mao 髳, see 岛邦男著 濮茅左 顾伟良
译 ​殷墟卜辞研究​, p .783-84, incorrectly identified as 前 ​qian​ 4.44.6 i/o 前 ​qian​ 4.44.5 (HJ 6553; HJ 6554).
髳 is also written as 髦 see ​Shi Jing​ for both in ​箋髦, 西夷別名. 武王伐紂, 八國從焉. 疏牧誓曰: 及庸蜀羌髳
微盧彭濮. 彼髳此髦, 音義同也. 釋文 髦, 舊音毛. 尋毛鄭之意, 當與尚書同, 音莫侯反. 集韻本作 . 或作髳.’ as
quoted in KXZD. The OBI graph explained as ​髳,​ is a transcription from 莞, or transcribed as 蒙 if we look it at
Shui Jingzhu​, we found that both place names fall in the area of Yi river ​沂水, river also quoted in ​Shangshu​, in Yu
gong chapter: ‘淮, 沂其乂, 蒙, 羽其藝 The Huai and the Yi (rivers) were regulated. The (hills) Meng and Yu were
made fit for cultivation’;​ ​now the Yi river according to ​Tong Dian,​ Zhou Jun shi 州郡十, is a county in Lang Ya
area, in the ancient region of Xu Zhou, 古徐州, where is also located the Peng city 彭城. In above footnote 10 we
have already mentioned Lang Ya as a clan Jiang location and belonging to the late state of Jin. Moreover we can add
that the clans that joined the Zhou’s mentioned in ​Shangshu​, are none others the Xi Yi 西夷. ​See for OBI graph, 于
省吾,​ ​甲骨文字诂林​, 4, pp. 541-42; for 濮or under its variants , see ​考古与文物​, 1993, 3, p. 74, see also 吴镇烽,
金文人名汇编​, 2006, p. 414, p. 427; see also ​商代史​卷10, p. 320; for different location see 李孝定, ​甲骨文文字集
释​, p. 1788; Cang 仓graph is also found inscribed on a tripod of Yin period, 鼎, see ​殷周金文集成释文​, item #
1142; see also ​商代分封制度研究​, p. 118; see also 甲 ​ 骨文獻集成​, vol. 26, p. 159 were 仓, 垂 are close location,
besides, 仓 is considered to be south of Shaanxi, the place called 仓野, as quoted in ​Chunqiu​ ​Zuozhuan​, Ai Gong
4th year, but according to 地道記 quoted in ​Shui Jing zhu​, from Cang Ye flows the Dan river 丹水 which is located
today in ​山西省晋城市高平市, ​the Gaoping city is found on eastern side of the Yellow river, also in Shanxi;
Gaoping according to ​Tong Dian​, He dong belongs also: 高平,澤, 六縣:晉城, 陵川, 沁水, 端氏, 高平, 陽城
Gaoping, a marsh, six counties: Jincheng, Lingchuan, Qin river, Duanshi, Gaoping, Yangcheng’ as we see, Cang Ye
is also of east side of Yellow river and in Fen valley.

14
Looking at inscriptions concerning the 多子, as collected in ​Leizuan​, it seems to me that they did
not occur to be in any ‘​war confrontation’​ but ‘​to hun​t’ and or concerning a 饗 ​xiang​ offering
ritual, so does the Quan ​Hou 犬 ​ 侯 not being involved with a ‘​war confrontation’​ 45 .
As for Quan clan 犬 may be a little more complicated. In our OBI the graph Quan is followed by
a ​hou ​graph which would determine them to be from a place name and not indicating a social
status during the Shang period. The Quan are located in an area south-west of Shang
dominion, today in southern part of Shanxi.46
At the time of inscriptions of the above HJ where The Duo Zi, the Quan and the Cang are cited,
and from the locations, suggest the Zhou’s location would have been not in Qishan area but due
to field work requested, they may have been over to Bin location, period of Zhou’s Gong Liu,

over the Liang mountain. Another clan being ordered by the King is , , HJ 6816, 6820,
682147. The collected inscriptions from OBI, the clan or person by this name, does not show any
particular activity besides his hunting at 皿, and worries of the King about his good welfare. His
name is found on an Halberd of Yin period, and probably indicates him to be of a military status.
48

So what actually were doing in Zhou’s land so important that they had to proceed on
behalf of the King’s affair? The above three graphs are in connection with major field works,
which would have the Zhou’s land across a mountain (the Lu Liang mountain in east side ?).
These three graphs have in common two elements and one is different which seems to identify
the operation to which s directed: the mountain or cave and the phonological element; as for the
different graph: in one we have the jade (?), in one the water (represented by the three dots),
the last the horse (graph style of III or IV period).

If in all the main element is the phonological graph read as 璞, will that means that all have
same meaning and considered to be variants of same graph, as appear in Xu Zhongshu,
Jiaguwen Zidian​, p. 34? I would not like to force any other interpretation but I believe they stand
as all three indicates, field work and probably with same or close phonetic.

All the subsequent inscriptions collected in ​Jiaguwen Heji Shiwen​, deals with 伐,

graph, not used with 周, 𢦏49 which deals with 周, and moreover also 敦50, which deals

45
宋镇豪, ​商代宗教祭祀​, 2010; ​类纂​, p. 198; ​总类​, p. 162; 于省吾, idem, 第一册, ​p. 373-78; ​类纂​ p. 606; ​总
类​ p. 231.1
46
李雪山, ​商代封国方国及其制度研究​, ​2002, pp. 73-4; a Quan graph enclosed in a Ya are also found inscribed in
bronze vessels of Yin period, see JC # 1845; see also 李雪山, ​商代分封制度研究​, p. 120; see also 甲骨文文献集
成, 第二十六 册, p 166, the 犬 may have occupied two location one in Shaanxi the other in Shanxi.
47
​See for location, 郑杰祥, idem, p. 236-39
48
​See​ ​殷周金文集成释文​, item # 10646,​ graph transcribed by the compiler as ​旅冉; he is also acting on ‘behalf of
the king’ in OBI HJ 5446, 5447; see also 于省吾, ​甲骨文字诂林​, vol 4, p. 3057-58.
49
​See He Ji 6825, 20508​. ​In HJ 6825: ‘...​串弗𢦏周十二月‘; in HJ 20508: ‘癸卯卜其克𢦏四月’; see ​古文字通假字
典​, p . 300 read as 搏; see also 张政烺, ​释𢦏​, 古文字研究, 1981, 6, pp. 133-40. This graph is also seen in same OBI
with 敦. Zhang would resolve that while 敦 indicates ‘a premise of a war’, 𢦏 would indicate a concrete detail of
the war, a result of it.

15
with 周, all have the meaning of ‘attack’, ‘defeat’, ‘harm’, but none of the inscriptions have the
imperative idiomatic expression ‘to act upon the king’s affair’. Therefore even though they may
be each other synonyms, they support different solution of actions. If all are synonyms and all
are of negative aspect in the relations between Shang and Zhou, then the graph intended for 璞
(搏) or, 鑿 (interpretation of Ye Yusen) may have a more difficult understanding: in ​Zhushu
Jinian​, under the section of Xia, Emperor Gui, named Jie, last king of Xia, is recalled that the
Shang to have ‘chiselled through the mountains and tunnelled hills, to open a communication
with the He’; would these same OBI represent same meaning but in a different way, otherwise
to say: to chisel or pierce the Zhou’s land for jade, or to open a mine in Zhou’s land? Or the
graph for Zhou, 周, needs to be read ​diao​ 琱? This same is also similar in its use to 敦. In ​Shi
Jing​, Zhou Song: ‘敦琢其旅. 註: 敦,與琱同 ​Polished members of his suite, comment: ​敦​ is similar
to ​琱’’; and in Xiao Ya: ‘它山之石, 可以攻玉 ​The stones of those hills, may be used to polish
gems’51.
Chao Fulin, 晁楅林 would read it as ’opening a mine’ 开采石料 of jades, in this case 琱52.
The ‘opening a mine’ in respect to create an economic source or to develop a new easy route, is
in transmitted text also considered in the area of Fen valley, recounting the labor of the myth of
Yu 禹 when controlling the rivers. In ​Shui Jing zhu​, quoting the ​Lushi Chunqiu​:

龍門未闢, 呂梁未鑿, 河出孟門之上, 大溢逆流, 無有丘陵, 高阜滅之, 名曰洪水. 大禹疏通,

謂之孟門.
When the Longmen was not yet opened and the Luliang (watercourse) were not yet
cleared, the yellow river flowed out north of Mengmen, flowing in a wide spread in all
directions and inundating hills, high plains and lofty peaks, this was called the deluge.
Till, Yugong dredged it and channelled calling it the Gate of Meng53

the ​Mu Tianzi zhuan​, as quoted in ​Shui Jing Zhu​:

北登孟門, 九河之隥. 孟門, 即龍門之上口也.寔為河之巨阸, 兼孟門津之名矣...此石經始禹

鑿;
In the north ascends up to Meng men, a hill of the nine rivers, which is the opening
above long men, a very great block of the He river, both were named the ford of Meng
men...this was where Yu began his field work

and the ​Wei Tudi Ji​ 魏土地記:

梁山北有龍門山, 大禹所鑿, 通孟津河口.

North of Liang shan there is Long men, is where Yu chiselled so to go through the ford of
Meng54

50
​See HJ 6782, 6824 in these two inscription we do have only fragmented informations, that are in HJ 6782 ‘ ...方
敦周...’, and in HJ 6824: ‘...未卜...​弗敦周八月’
51
​商代经济与科技,​ 商代史卷6, p. 417-28
52
​晁楅林, idem, p. 218
53
​See also Knoblock and Riegel, ​Annals of Lu Buwei​, vol. 2, 2000, p. 561
54
​Mengmen jin​ and Meng Jin is same location and is where the armies of Zhou had a great assembly before to strike
the Shang; Meng jin is located south of Shanxi

16
What we are reading in these passages above are locations in which the Zhou’s might have
resided, and all in late state of Jin 晋, and all across Fen valley.

Based on the above notations, the origin of Zhou were located in Shanxi 山西 and
probably a branch of the clan moved to Shaanxi 陕西. Chen Mengjia states that both
pronunciation of 邠, 豳 comes from ​fen​ 汾. ​Fen​ as we have seen above is also identified with 梁
Liang (mountain)
If 邠 is originally a late character for 汾 and 豳 is the actual graph and character of
location of Zhou’s in east side, the OBI did actually recorded a pre-dynastic Zhou history,
therefore, according to the above script and transmitted text evidence, it is probably that the
Zhou were originating from east.

According to various interpretations of ​Shangshu​, Yu Gong chapter 尚书禹贡, the

sentence:

‘冀州既載壺口, 治梁及岐
With respect to Ji Zhou, he did his work at Hu-kou, and took effective measures at (the
mountains) Liang and Qi’​ (James Legge)

has been a long controversy among commentators. The ‘Liang’ mountains, are located in two
bordering ‘regions’ 州 of geographical areas in Yu 禹 mythological period: the 冀 and the 雍
regions.
In ​Xia Shu Yu Gong Guanglan​ 夏书禹公广蓝 reports that 梁山 is the 呂梁 situated at
north-east of Longmen 龙门55; while 岐山 is situated in 汾州 county of Jie Xiu 介休县; Hu Qishan
狐岐山 is situated where there is the source of river Sheng 胜水 flowing to north-east joins the
Fen 汾. In ​Liu Shu Gu​ 六书故, does explain that there are two Qishan: one that is located in the
administrative district of Feng Xiangfu 凤翔 府, county of Qishan 岐山县 and referring to the
sentence in Yu Gong chapter to:

‘導岍及岐, 至于荊山
(Yu) surveyed and described (the hills), beginning with Qian and Qi, and proceeding to
mount Jing’;

the other Hu Qishan 狐岐山 confirms same location of the above and is referring to the
sentence in Yu Gong chapter:

‘治梁及岐
took effective measures at (the mountains) Liang and Qi’

55
Is considered the mountain which was chiselled by Yu Gong, in ​Mozi Jiangu​, Qian’ai chapter reads: ​龍門山在河
東皮氏縣西 longshan is located in the west of Pishi county in Hedong’; in KXZD, under 耿 reports:左傳·閔元年:
滅耿, 滅霍, 滅魏. 註: 平陽皮氏縣東南有耿鄕. 括地志: 霍晉州霍邑縣, 故耿城, 今名耿倉城, 在絳州龍門縣東南
十二里, 故耿國 in the first year of Duke of Wen: Huo, huo and Wei were destroyed. Comment: in the south-east of
the county of Pingyang Pishi there is the ​xiang​ of Huo. in the Kuo Di Zhi: Huo is the county of Huoyi in the region
of Jin, ancient city of Huo, today called city of Huo Cang situated at 12 miles south-east of county Longmen in
Xiang region, ancient state of Huo’; besides, in ​Shui Jingzhu​, Longmen is situated in eastern He (He Dong); and in
Tong Dian​, 龍門古耿國. 有龍門山, 即大禹所鑿 Longmen is the ancient state of Huo where there is the Longmen
mountain that is the one Yugong chiselled’; see also 龙谿精舍丛书·​三辅决录·辛氏三秦记·三辅旧事·三辅故事

17
Maps drawn by Ming scholar Zheng Xiao 郑晓 (1499-1566) in his ​Yu Gong Shuo​ 禹贡说,
depicts the 呂梁 and 狐岐 on the east side of Yellow river and belonging to Ji region, while
depicts the 梁山 and the 岐山 on west side of the Yellow river and belonging to the Yong region;
see also maps in his ​Yu Gong Yao Zhu​ 禹贡要注56.
The above similarity of mountains names in the two regions, lead commentators to different
solutions.

The OBI inscription concerning Fen, 汾, which is read and identified also with the character ​bin,​
邠, which identifies also a later Zhou’s location in Wei valley, is a later loan graph for the most
known, ​bin​, 豳.
The graph 邠 is used to be a loan graph for 份 and for 芬57. While 豳, in a later dictionary
compendium, the ​Ji Yun​, 集韵, states that is same as and considered to be a unusual
character (奇字) in ​Dingzheng Liu Shu Tong​, 订正六书通, but only 豳 is interchangeable with 汾
as in ​Yi Zhou Shu​:

王乃升汾之阜以望商邑,
The King ascended the hills of Fen to look towards the city of Shang

while in ​Shi Ji,​ ​Zhou Ben Ji​ is used 豳.

This phonological issue between​ f​ and b

​ ​ is also found in alternative graphs of Old Laozi as

identified in ​Guwen Sisheng Yun​ 古文四声韵, where the graph form for 纷 is a complex

form of ​fan​, which in turn in Zhanguo bamboo slips is identified with graph ​bian​ but read
as ​fan58; another example, in Mawangdui silk manuscript, 阴阳十一脉灸经, in 乙本, 汾 ​fen​ is a
loan for ​pen​ 盆 in 甲本 line 08659.

According to the recount of ​Shi Ji​ it would be quite impossible to look towards Shang
capital to far east from Bin, located in the West; while based on the recount from ​Yi Zhou Shu​ it
seems more plausible that he was on hills of Fen (in this case may it be a loan for Liang or Lu
Liang).

56
陈梦家, ​殷虚卜辞综述​,​ 1988, pp. 291-293; for ​豳​ see also 诗经类考, in 李勇先, ​中国历史地理文献辑刊, 第03
编, 第01册​, 2009, pp. 161-63; see also 诗地理徵, in 李勇先, idem, pp. 218-22; concerning the river Qi and Ju, see
​ 山,​ see 禹贡指南, in 李勇先, ​中国历史地理文献辑刊, 第01编, 第01册​, 2009, p. 28b, 东
idem, pp. 227-30; for 岐
莱先生禹贡图说, idem, 397a; see for maps drawn, 禹贡说, idem, pp. 399ff, 455-56; for 汾水 see 禹贡山水郡邑考,
in 李勇先, ​中国历史地理文献辑刊, 第01编, 第02册​, 2009, pp. 28b-29a; for maps see, 禹贡图注, idem, pp. 471ff;
see also 李勇先, idem, ​第01编, 第03册​ pp. 187-88, 266-67; 303; 李勇先, idem, 第 ​ 01编, 第04册​, pp. 126-31; see 顾
颉刚, ​尚书校释译论​, pp. 528-31; concerning 岐山 see 戴侗, ​六書故​, in 温州文献丛书, 2006, p. 100a
57
​See 马叙伦, ​说文通训定声, vol. 4, p. 76; see黄怀信, ​大戴礼记汇校集注​,下册, p. 1358, 2004; see for further
loan use 高亨, ​古字通假会典​, 1989, p. 142
58
See my unpublished ‘An attempt to decode some ​Laozi​ in ​old​ ​script​ 古老子 recorded in ​Guwen Sisheng Yun​ 古
文四声韵: a selection of ​graphs​’ submitted in Academia.edu

59
陈松长, ​马王堆简帛文字编​, 2001, p. 199

18
Bin, 邠, or 豳, Tadachika Takada,高田忠周, in his ​Gu Zhou Bian​ consider the character 邠 to be
construction a late graph appearing after the 籀文 script60.
Bin, 邠 is not seen in bronzes inscription, Xu Zhongshu, consider this character to be a

xingsheng​ 形声 of later construction, while Bin 豳 is identified with , 61

. In the
Fang Yan​ 方言卷一, in the explanation of spelling of graph 愛 reads

宋衛邠陶之間曰憮, 或曰
between Song, Wei, Bin and Tao is spelled wu others say yan’​,

also another location is

邠唐冀兗之間曰假或曰
between Bin, Tang, Ji, Yun it is said jia others says ge​ ‘,

​ 3 and it
the character is often seen in 金文inscriptions; and only once is quoted 豳, in ​juan 1
reads concerning the spelling for 麴:

自關而西秦豳之間曰
tao​, ​from west of Guan, Qin and Bin is said mai​ (or , read also and same meaning of
穀) .

Moreover, in ​Fang Yan​, the Fen 汾 location is found to the west of Jin state when explaining the
spelling of 甖:

自關而西晉, 之舊都河汾之間, 其大者謂之甀,其中者謂之瓿甊

ying from west Jin of the Guan, this old capital between He and fen, its big shape is
called zhui and in its medium shape is called bulou’62.

The Qin-Jin dialect 秦晋方言, although during the Qin-Han period, include today western part of
Shanxi山西, Shaanxi 陜西, Ningxia 宁夏 and Gansu 甘肃, on east side has contact with the
dialect of Zhao Wei 赵魏 and Zhou Luo 周洛, on southside with Shu Han, 蜀汉, on north-east
with Yan Chao 燕朝.63
Although we cannot base the political geography of Han dynasty as described in ​Fang Yan​ or
Shui jing​ of Northern Wei dynasty, it gives us a location direction.
At some point in historical transmitted text, is defined clearly the birth of Zhou’s State
name, in fact we have a Bin ​hou​ (or Fen ​hou​ ?)邠侯 and referring to Gao Yu, Ya Yu and Zu Gan
father of Ta Wang Danfu, recorded in Bamboo Annals.
In Bamboo Annals, in Dynasty of Yin, Pan Geng in his 19th years confirmed the appointment of
Ya Yu, prince of Bin (Prince of Fen ?): 十九年, 命邠侯亞圉; and after him Zu Jia in his 15th year
confirmed the appointment of Gao Yu, prince of Bin: 十五年，命邠侯高圉.
The ​hou​ title seems here hereditary which would then pass it on future generations and

​古籀编​ 卷20, p. 14; see also ​金文文献集成​, vol. 31, p. 417;see also 徐在国, 隶定古文疏证, 2002, p. 141​;​ ​ ​太平
60

御览​, 州郡部十, 關西道: 邠...本作豳字,開元中以豳與幽字相涉, 改為邠:​ b​ in​...originally is ​bin​, during

the period Kaiyuan ​bin ​and ​xuan w
​ ere confused each other, therefore ​bin w
​ as changed in ​bin’
61
​ ​see JC 5.2820, 5.2832 of middle late western Zhou; see also in ​金文编​ p. 688
62
​华学诚, 扬雄方言校释汇证 pp. 1006-1031
63
Ding Qizhen, Qin Han Fangyan, 丁启阵, ​秦汉方言​, 1991:35-6

19
being appointed as ​hou​ 侯, would also mean that they were able to cast bronzes with their

emblem or name, in fact we do find a bronze ​Yu​, ​Jicheng 6631, of Yin period​: 64
. ​If this ​gu
vessel belonged to Zhou’s clan is yet indeed difficult to ascertain.
As we have seen above, 邠 is a very debatable graph, while for some aspect, I would

consider the OBI graph to be interpreted as Bin 豳. In oracle bones there are only few
fragments about Bin: is indicated as a hunting place as in HJ 1022AB; in one it seems a very
good evidence that Bin from being uniquely a hunting place was turned then to be a growing
crop place, in HJ 7002 reads:

‘...耤母祀于豳’
will offer a ji (harvest sacrifice) to honor Mother (Earth?) in Bin’,​

the graph for ​ji​ is which clearly show hand handling a farmer tool, very similar as shown in
some of stone art in Wu family temple of Eastern Han, the ​Lei 耒 ​ 65. The settlement of Bin has
been the first residence of Zhou of period of Gong Liu 公劉 which is reminded in the 豳风·of Shi
Jing,
公劉: ‘度其隰原、徹田為糧。度其夕陽、豳居允荒
He measured the marshes and plains; He fixed the revenue on the system of
common cultivation of the fields; He measured also the fields west of the hills;
And the settlement of Bin became truly great​.’

and few stanzas later:

‘篤公劉、于豳斯館。涉渭為亂、取厲取鍛。止基迺理、爰眾爰有。夾其皇㵎、遡
其過㵎。止旅迺密、芮鞫之即
Of generous devotion to the people was duke Liu, Having settled in temporary
lodging houses in Bin, He crossed the Wei by means of boats, And gathered
whetstones and iron. When his settlement was fixed, and all boundaries defined,
The people became numerous and prosperous, Occupying both sides of the
Huang valley, And pushing on up that of Guo; And as the population became
dense, They went on to the country beyond the Ju.’

In Bamboo Annals, during the period of Pan Geng and Zu Jia, Ya Yu and Gao Yu are
nominated ‘Prince” or “Lord’ of Bin (or Fen ?), but are not recognized as Zhou’s clan; the title of
ya​ might mean that this is a branch out lineage of some clan, not defined yet as Zhou’s, and
also as title as in ‘​commander’​ . If the ​ya​ title was invested before to be nominated as ‘prince’ of
Bin (or Fen ?) , then he was already a branched out lineage probably from the main genealogy
coming from east. The following ‘prince’ is instead called ​gao ​otherwise to indicate him as the

64
​Graph inscribed on a​ ​觚 found in Hebei, Zhaoxian in 1976 河北赵县; photo published in ​文物资料丛刊​, 1, p.
161
65
​see Kwang-chih Chang, ​Shang Civilization​, p. 224; for further analysis of 耤 ​ji ​agricultural ceremonies see
Keightley, ​The Ancestral Landscape​, 2000:11 and fn 7; HJ 9500 inscription of I period; see 中央研究院历史语言
研究所集刊 02, pp. 11-59; see also[日]白川静+金文的世界：殷周社会史, p. 82; see also 集：考古编第1卷+甲
骨文字研究+殷契余论, p 79

20
‘high chief’ of the clan. We can’t take these two title as referring to ancestors but as actual clan’s
hierarchy66.

Gongshu Zulei, or Zu Gan, was re-confirmed his appointment as prince of Bin (or Fen ?),
after the hordes of West were defeated and subjugated, as to say that also Gongshu Zulei was
part of hordes of west, or as to say, Gongshu Zulei was re-installed as chief of Bin (or Fen ?).
After few years during the period of Wu Yi, IV period, the Zhou’s moved to Qishan during
Gugong Danfu few generations later from Gong Liu, the reason why he moved away from Bin
(or Fen ?), because there were incursions of the Rong and Xuan Yu tribes, as to say that after
the Zhou’s became chief of the land, they protected and defended it under the name of
Yin-Shang king, till Ji Li, son of deceased Gugong Danfu, reported several victory against the
hordes of West, that Wu Yi found himself threatened and had Ji Li under arrest and then killed.
The OBI Zhou’s inscriptions belong mainly to I period Wu Ding reign, while only few to
the IV period Wu Yi and Wen Ding reign. According to Song Zhenhao the HJ of this period are:
HJ 32885, HJ 30793; while for Shima Kunio: HJ 6824, 32885, 20508, 21271, 20074, 22294,
22264; while Shaughnessy the most of late period is that of Zu Geng: HJ 5618, 32883, 32885,
6812, 6816, 6822, 6819, Ming 984, Qian 5.36.4; while Guo Jingyun 郭静云, in study of relation,
p. 56, consider of IV period: HJ 32885, 30793, meanwhile he considers the reading of HJ
6812-6823 unclear due to graph used and often explained as ‘to attack’67.
As we have seen opinions are quite different from each of scholar and how are
re-constructed the inscriptions.
The Rong and Di are in oracle bones called generally Quan 犬, while they have specific
denomination during the dynastic Zhou.
There are three fragments in which seems that hordes of the West attacked the

Yin-Shang: HJ 33082, 33083 and 33084: ‘Hordes of west’ 西帀. These two are written as
one graph; Ding Shan consider it as Zhou’s forces or military forces of western region, quoting
from ​Shu Jing​, Zhou Shu, Announcement of Drunkness:

‘文王肇國在西土
the king Wen, laid the foundations of our kingdom in the western region’​

and from Great Announcement:

‘ 有大艱于西土, 西土人亦不靜
there would be great trouble in the region of the west and that the western people would
not be still’,

also a HJ 7082 (see also HJ 7081, 7083,7094, ​ff​). several inscriptions refer to a ‘艱 trouble’ from
west and these are of Wu Ding period. But these stanzas from ​Shu Jing​ cannot be used against
the OBI where in one occasion we see same use of graph in
(8) HJ 33083 reads in a contradictory way, using together dun 敦​ ​and fa 𢦏 :

66
For the meaning of 亚 ​ya ​see mey unpublished paper posted in Academia.edu: ‘​Value of ya 亚 graph
and the sacred space​’, where more works of scholars are cited.
67
宋镇豪, ​商代地理与方国​, 商代史卷10,​ 2010, pp. 296-300; Shaughnessy, ​早期商周关系及其对武丁以后商王
室势力范围的意义​, 古文字研究, 13, 1986, pp. 129-43;

21
 癸卜王...敦 𢦏
crack-making on guichou day, the king...will cause harm to armies of west by ramming
them’
same is also seen in HJ 6782 where the Fang ram or siege the Zhou.68
The OBI that concerns the Zhou’s being or been constricted by Yin-Shang or ‘west
barbarians’ are defined by two, maybe three graphs in their inscriptions: these graphs, as seen

above mentioned, are: 1) , 2) , the third is (? ​I added a question mark because the
meaning of it is still unconfirmed​).
From the unearthed fragments so far available and published, of the first graph there are only 3,
of the second only 2 and for the third one 8.
The first graph is seen in: HJ 20508 which is considered of I period, only Shima consider
of IV period, display a charge pair, but the negative aspect or ‘​undesirable’​ situation introduced
by particle 其 ​qi​ is carved on the right side of the shell as to say that the King is uncomfortable
that Ke is going to harm the Zhou’s:

癸卯卜其克 𢦏周四月
on crack-making guimao day: Ke it might going to harm the Zhou’s?’,
while on the left side of it is the positive aspect and reads:

癸卯卜貞周
on crack-making on guimao day is confirmed that (he did harm) the Zhou.​ 69
This charge pair sounds contradictory due to the fact that a concern is about Zhou’s conditions.
The other is HJ 6825, by many of I period, reads:

串弗 𢦏周十二月
Huan will not harm Zhou, twelve moon.
These two fragments shows an unclear message, to which we may consider that between Zhou
and Shang there was a relative good relation.
The second graph is seen in HJ 6782 and reads:
‘...方敦周...
Will the Fang ram (or siege) the Zhou….?​’;
the other is HJ 6824 reads:

68
​See 丁山, ​商周史料考证​, 中华书局, 1988, p. 154; concerning the HJ 33082, 33083 and 33084, where the graph
is read as Xi Shi 西師, hordes of west, or the armies of Zhou’s by Ding Shan, are used by Shaughnessy to interpret
and reconstruct a ‘micro-periodization’ of OBI’s. He does also consider a different graph used in HJ 1027 read as ‘to
ram’, but in his reconstruction does miss a graph, hu 呼 to call upon’ and the graph read as ‘to ram’ is
distinguishably different and is actually a name of a person. See Edward L. Shaughnessy, ​Micro-periodization and
the Calendar of a Shang Military Campaign​, in ​Chinese Language, Thought, and Culture​, 1996, pp. 58-82; for OBI
plates inscriptions see​ 甲骨文合集​, vol. 1, p. 288 and ​甲骨文合集​, vol 3, p. 1044; 于省吾, ​甲骨文字诂林​, vol 2, p.
1040-41; another graph occurred in OBI, HJ 6830, spelled Xi by Shaughnessy and Chou by Takashima, Ph. D. 1973
idem, p. 110-11, will probably have an interesting turn of event if we consider to match it against an emblem seen in
a bronze inscription the JC 3915, which Ulrich Unger consider the emblem to be read as Zhou, see his: ​Hao Ku 好
古: Sinological Circula​r, in Early China 9-10, 1983-1985, pp. 169-74 ​; ​于省吾, ​甲骨文字诂林​, vol. 3, pp. 1937-41
69
​Concerning the use of 其 in OBI see: Ken-ichi Takashima, Toward a New Pronominal Hypothesis of ​Qi i​ n Shang
Chinese​,​ in ​Chinese Language, Thought, and Culture​, 1996, pp. 3-38; see also Serruys, idem, JGWWXJC, 18,
pp.393-416; same inscription is used in 徐中舒, ​甲骨文字典​, p. 774, but interpreting 克 as a verb, to be able 能​.

22
 ‘...未卜...弗敦周八月...
on cracking-making day ...wei…(Fang ?) will not ram (or siege) Zhou. eight month’
(considered by Shima of IV period).
In these two fragments we have also a suspicion that the Zhou were not the enemy but were in
the sphere of the Yin-Shang protection, again the king is concerned. The ‘​Fang’​ here may
indicate simply ‘barbarians or hostiles, or simply clan not of blood relative’.
As for the third graph, see above, which we would consider to indicate a ‘field work’
meaning.
In OBI few fragments the Zhou’s are called:Zhou Fang, 周方 with six only inscriptions
and the graph that stand for Zhou is different from others, without the ‘​dots​’ element: ,
which would let us think that the Zhou at that time were not practising in agricultural field work,
as the ‘​dots’​ elements are considered the crops in a field.
It is usually considered that a place name followed by 方, is an enemy or hostile to the
Yin-Shang, but four out of six are concerned about if the Zhou Fang are or not suffering a
misfortune:
HJ 8472A and HJ 8472B are a charge pair, following Serruys translation:
‘...周方弗其有禍,
...​Zhou Fang being corrected, we shall anticipate there (may) be misfortune’;
‘...周方弗亡禍,
the Zhou Fang being corrected, there will be no misfortune​’70.
Different is the HJ 6657(right):
‘丙辰卜宾貞王惟周方征, ​on crack-making day bingchen, Bin tested: shall the King,
indeed, make the expedition to the Zhou Fang? ​ ’;
HJ 6657 (left):
貞王勿惟周方征
tested: the King, actually, did not sent any expedition to Zhou Fang’71.
Reading as Serruys does, it seems that the Zhou were at some point been subjugated and from
there the king is concerned about their welfare; while the next charge pair, the result of the
oracle seem to be in favour of Zhou’s.

The graph for 征 in HJ 6657AB, is different from the above three graphs explained, (to
invade). As for the subjugated ‘hostile’ Zhou Fang presumes some ‘prisoners’ and according
some OBI Zhou’s and Gu’s were in same ‘invasion’ period as a clan by the name Cang was

involved, but while Cang in Zhou’s OBI HJ 6816 and HJ 6817 the graph is (which I intend it

70
​Serruys, idem, p. JGWWXJC, 18, p. 193, reads the HJ 590 a charge pair as: ’​周弗亡禍​ Chou being corrected,
there will be no disaster’; ‘​周弗其有禍​ Chou being corrected, we shall anticipate there (may) be misfortune’;​ ​see
also Ken-ichi Takashima, ​A Study of the Copulas in Shang Chinese​, in JGWWXJC, 18, pp.393-416; see Ken-ichi
Takashima, ​An Emphatic Verb Phrase in the Oracle-Bone Inscriptions​, in JGWWXJC, 18, pp. 330-40
71
​Serruys, idem, p. 195, would it read: ‘As to the King, ​do not make it the Chou country (against whom) he shall
make the expedition’

23
 72
as a ‘field work’), in Gu’s OBI HJ 6 is , therefore to be interpreted as different situations
and conditions.
The OBI that suggest that the Zhou were prisoners, 執, together with the Gu 壴, present several
reading and reconstructions:
HJ 20366:
周允執
Zhou surely will be caught​ (?);
the HJSW reads it:
弗X執
X will not be caught

HJ 5948 in ​Zonglei​ reading:

執周壴
the prisoners from Zhou and Gu will be subject to sacrifice​ (?)
An alternative interpretation could be
‘should we mark with particular color the prisoners from​ ​Zhou and Gu?​ (?);
in ​Leizuan​:
壴 ...執
will mark with colors the Gu...taken as prisoners​ (​ ​?);
in HJSW:
...壴 will mark with colors the Gu (?)’73;
these OBI due to their extreme fragmentation and brevity, the meaning of the graph is not
clear.
The photo of the fragment of HJ 5948, show just a partial graph intended for Zhou , which in

turn may not be it and may be also shown also in HJ 5899, HJ 5900 involved in a series of
‘taking prisoners’. The reading of ​HJSW​ consider the graph for 執 to belong to a different
prognostication. The ​Leizuan​ is most probably the more accurate reading.
HJ 8469 in ​Zonglei​ reads:
執周壴
are caught Zhou’s and Gu’s​;
in ​Leizuan​ reads:
...周...壴
Zhou’s...Gu’s….​
The actual photo does not show any graph for 執, the reason why the ​Zonglei​ suggest that it
may have it is due to fragment to belong to the same record from the Qian 5.36.5 前, i.e. Yin Xu
Shu Qi of Luo Zhenyu, 1911. The above are only attempted interpretations of the reading and
being utterly fragmented, a conclusion is hardly to determine.

72
​Shaughnessy reads as: crack on ​guihai​ (day 60), Bin divining: “Command the Archer-Lord Cang ...to campaign
against Gu.”, see ​Extra-Lineage Cult in the Shang Dynasty​, in ​Early China​,, 11-12, 1985-1987, pp. 182-94; the HJ
5948 is read: ‘...shackle Zhou and Gu and defend’, idem, p. 185
73
​The graph ‘mark with color’ see JGWGL, vol. 3, pp. 510-22; is specific Hu Houxuan…; see also 裘锡圭, ​学术文
集(甲骨文卷)​, 2012, pp. 160-66

24
 The Zhou did offered to Shang people from Qin 嫀74, considered to indicate women
from Qin 秦.
The HJ 1086 reads:
丁巳卜古貞周以嫀
周以嫀.
貞周弗以嫀
On crack-making dingsi day: Gu divined Zhou will bring in women from Qin
Zhou brings in women from Qin
Divined Zhou will not bring in women from Qin

The above HJ 1086 of I period of Shang, Wu Ding period, the so called Qin was not yet and a
recognized state or clan with a ​cognomen,​ which unrecognized clans in a political network
sphere, would have the signific 女 to separate them from those who are ​lawfully​ established as
clan with recognised ancestor. If it is as such, therefore same destiny would have to be for the

inscription Tun 3110 where a graph supposedly to indicate woman from Zhou 婤 would
indicate that the Zhou 周 were not yet recognised as a ​cognomen​. The Tun 3110 reads:
...于妣丁...婤祟(求?)
… to Biding...harm the woman from Zhou?75

戊申..母丁...其祟
(on crack-making day)​ ​shushen Mu Ding...may cause harm...76

Due to the extremely fragmentary inscription, the meaning is not clear.The actual photo is not
very clear either, so the inscription and both interpretation may be correct.
If we accept the first one than according the theory expressed, also the Zhou were not yet
recognized as a ​clan-cognomen77; while in the second one, which instead of 其 I would read 周,
it brings a complete different interpretation, that which is Mu Ding to bring harm to the Zhou’s, it
can’t be read as such as Mu Ding never been found in OBI’s..
The graphs in Tun 3110 of ​nu​ 女 and ​zhou​ 周 are not close but separated. In Tun OBI the 周
graph does not appear and if we accept the graph 婤 may be that the Zhou were not

74
See above fn 30. See Nienhauser,​ Shi Ji​, pp. 88-89. See also ​Cambridge History of Ancient China From the
Origins of Civilization to 221 BC​, vol. 2, pp. 30-34. Although the ancestral root branch was in east in Shanxi, they
will be known as Zhao clan and not as Qin clan. The HJ 1086 indicates that a clan supposedly called Qin, had yet to
be conferred a city upon to live by the Shang ruler, and therefore to be known and accepted in the Shang realm with
a recognized ​cognomen t​ hat would represent them as a statelet under Shang political protection.
75
​A re-construction from Leizuan, p. 194 and from Ph.D. 姚志豪, ​小屯南地甲骨句法​, p. 352, considered from
Kang period 康 III period; for​ biding​ see 连劭名, 商 ​ 代的拜祭与御祭​ in 考古学报, 2011, 1, pp. 23-56
76
​re-construction from 姚孝遂, ​小屯南地甲骨考释​, 1985, p. 331; considered incorrect by 溫明榮, ​小屯南地甲骨
釋文訂補​, re-published in ​甲骨文文献集成​, vol. 19, p. 595.

77
​婤 appears also in a bronze inscription of Chunqiu period, see JC 10267, 陈伯元匜 which seems to indicate a
‘proper name’: 陈伯X之子伯元作西孟嬀​婤母​媵匜永寿用之; in C ​ hunqiu Zuozhuan​, Zhao Gong, 7th year reads:
‘衛襄公, 夫人姜氏無子,嬖人婤姶生孟縶 Lady Jiang, wife of Duke Xiang of Wei, had no son, but his favourite
Zhou He, bore to him, first of all, Zhi ’ see James Legge - ​The Chinese Classics ​- Vol. 5 - The Ch'un Ts'ew with The
Tso Chuen, vol. 2, p. 619; for​ cognomen​ see also ​商周姓氏制度研究​; ​商周家族形态研究​; 丁山, ​文所墜氏族及其
制度​, 中华书局,.1988

25
recognized, but after a giving away (for marriage) one of their woman (noble?), they may have
been appointed as such.
Some clans involvement between Zhou and Shang are concerned with few inscriptions were the
graph 婦 is the object of proof to strengthen relations between them.
If the above HJ 1086 is a worry about if an ancestress is bringing bad luck to a woman of Zhou,
therefore the fragment HJ 22265 (Yi 8889) should be related to it: ‘

...寅鼎(貞)...周 延
on the day...yin is divined...Zhou is still injured’;​

on the same plastron we read:

甲子卜鼎婦周不延
on crack-making day jiazi, is divined (the injured) woman from Zhou will not continue’​

The Zhou mentioned in HJ 22246 (Yi 8896), a complete plastron, shows a very complex
arrangement of graphs and various reading and interpretations are presented:
in ​Zonglei​, p. 300a ‘

癸丑卜貞周亡

on crack-making day guichou, i divined the Zhou will have not a ’;

in ​Leizuan​ p. 820cd:
禦三牢周妣庚
it will be good to have 3 lao sacrifices to ancestress Geng of Zhou’;
in ​HJSW​:
‘妣庚周
(to perform to sacrifice) Zhou to ancestress Geng‘;

in ​JGWWXJC​, v. 12, p. 484-485, the author Ding Su 丁驌 divide the plastron and read as:
‘周 亡逆
(woman from) Zhou and​ (woman from) Ning will not be welcomed

I would assume that some variants of this graph may lie in​ ,​ ,​ and all to be read as 寜
78
.

78
​For women from ​皿 see​ ​裘锡圭 学术文集(甲骨文卷)​, 2012, pp. 391-403; see ​Leizuan​, p. 770; J​ iaguwenzi
Gulin​, v.3, p. 195; According a quote in KXZD, in 晋语:...​又州名, 秦北郡, 魏置華州, 西魏改寧州 in Jin Yu, in
also a name of a region a north region during the Qin, during the Wei was established as Hua region, which was
changed in Ning region during the Western Wei’’; in ​Tong Dian​, Zhou Jun san, Gu Yong Zhou reads: 寧州今理定
安縣. 夏之季公劉之邑. 春秋時戎地. 即義渠戎國. 戰國時屬秦, 始皇初為北地郡... 後魏獻文帝置華州, 孝文改
為班州, 後改為邠州, 又改為豳州. 西魏改為寧州...’, the Ning region is today the administrative county of Ding
An. during the Xia was the city of Ji Gong Liu. During the Chunqiu period was the land of Rong, that is Yi Qu of
state of Rong. during the Zhanguo period belonged to Qin, that was then, under the First Emperor, changed in region
of northern land... during the emperor Xianwen of Hou Wei resided in Hua region, Xiao Wen changed it in Bian
region, after that changed again in Bin region and further on again in Bin region. During the Western Wei changed

26
 Concerning about ‘woman’ of clan of Zhou we may also record an inscription from
Huadong, a pair charge, the 321 H3-977 on the left side reads:

甲子卜鼎 (姒)中(仲) 周妾不死

on crack-making day jiazi, is divined a Zhou concubine by the name Zhong of clan Si will
not die’79,
the right side reads:
甲子卜姒其死
on crack-making day jiazi the (woman from clan) Si may die.​
We need to take in consideration that the graph for Zhou is without ‘​dots​’ , the concubine or
a wife of Zhou, by the name Zhong80 comes from a Si clan.
The graph from Huadong is not found in ​Leizuan​ or ​Zonglei​ and the OBI for 娰 ​si​ is considered

to be , the same is transcribed as 姒 81, not found in ​Shuowen​, its ​guwen​ script is . The 姒
clan according to ​Feng Shen Yanyi​, 封神演义, were of rank ​po jiao​ 伯爵 and were appointed to
Qi 杞82.
According to the above OBI, the Zhou’s had relations with the Si clan and indirectly they were
linked to the Xia which based on ​Shi Ji​ records, the Zhou’s were enfeoffed at Qi 杞:
湯封夏之後, 至周封於杞也.
Tang enfeoffed the descendants of the Xias. Until the time of the Zhou dynasty they held
the principality of Qi.’;​
in Zhou Annals:
武王追思先聖王, 乃褒封神農之後於焦, 黃帝之後於祝, 帝堯之後於薊, 帝舜之後於陳, 大禹
之後於杞

in Ning region..’, in this paragraph, there are all clues Zhou land and Ning region were at some point overlapped and
from the OBI it clear that the Zhou clan and Si clan had strong blood relations​.

79
​For the plate see 考古学专刊乙种第三十六号, ​殷墟花园庄东地甲骨​,​ vol. 3, plates 298-464​, 拓, 摹; ​considered
in ​Yinxu Huadong Wenzi​, p. 38 as Si, a surname of clan; see for 妾, ​商代宗教祭祀​, p. 347-8 ​ff; ​see also ​甲骨文字
集释​, 第十二,十三卷, pp. 3611-16; 妾 is also another appellation for Mother or Grandmother, which is shown in
OBI as ​XX​ 妾​X,​ see Chang Ping-ch’uan, ‘A Description of the Fu Hao Oracle Bone Inscriptions’, in ​Studies of
Shang Archeology​, 1986, p. 137; concerning 逆, in ​Fang Yan​:’自關而東曰逆, 自關而西曰迎 from Han Guguan to
east is pronounced ​ni​, from Han Guguan to west is pronounced ​ying’​ , see 华学诚, ​扬雄方言校释汇证​, 2006, p. 88 ;
so that would locate both on east side of Shang capital.
80
concerning Zhong as a name, see ​金文人名汇编​ p. 48-49, which is seen in Shang bronzes JC 367-371
81
​See 于省吾, ​甲骨文字诂林​, vol. 1, p. 469-70; in ​Er Ya​, Shi Qin: ​女子同出, 先生爲姒, 後生爲娣. In KXZD, is
quoted a comment of Zheng Xiao to​ Shi Jing​ Tang Feng: ‘上古八大姓, 姜姬嬀姒嬴姞姚妘, 皆从女 in the high
antiquity there were eight surnames: Jiang, Ji, Wei, Si, Ying, Yao and Yun, all with the element ‘woman’’. See also
马如森, ​殷墟甲骨文实用字典​, 2008, p. 272 reads as ​fei
82
​ see 许仲琳, ​封神演義​, 第百回: ‘杞: 姒姓, 伯爵. 係夏禹王之後. 武王克商, 求夏禹苗裔, 得東樓公, 封于杞, 以
奉禹祀. 即今之開封府雍丘縣是也 Qi,​ cognomen​ Si, rank of count, they are the posterior generation coming from
Xia Yu king. Wu Wang after subjugated the Shang looked for the descendants of Xia Yu, and appointed Dong Lou
Gong enfeoffing the land of Qi, in order to continue the ancestral ceremonies to Yu. today is the county of Yong Qiu
in the district of Kaifeng’; in OBI the few fragments are all seen with 婦杞, see​ Leizuan​, p. 512; see about 婦, 陈絜,
商周姓氏制度研究​, 2007,pp. 50​ff. ​According to ​Tong Dian​, 古荊河州: 雍丘古杞國 the region of Yellow river in
the ancient region of Jing: Yong Qiu is the ancient state of Qi’​ ; ​see also 李雪山​, ​商代分封制度研究​, 2004,
pp.115-16; in ​Guo Yu​, Zhou Yu: 昔摯, 疇之國也由大任, 杞, 繒由大姒, 齊, 許, 申, 呂由大姜, 陳由大姬, 是皆能
內利親親者也杞繒由大姒.

27
 to commemorate the previous sage kings, King Wu enfeoffed a descendant of Sheng
Nong with Jiao, the descendant of Huang Di with Zhu, the descendants Yao Di with Ji,
the descendants of Shun Di with Chen and the descendants of Da Yu with Qi’.​

This 婦 ​X​ clan, as many others female quoted in OBI, are probably indicating noble woman of
clans outside of Shang king blood relatives and brought forward to Shang court as concubines
or as wifes83.
Too many bone inscription fragments prevent us to determine other clues about
predynastic Zhou.
There is one OBI that it seems that a Zhou’s encampment was built in a friendly territory:
HJ 8465: ...周 ( )我...84
Zhou’s are camping in Wo​…’.

Wo may be a resting place, also to be a hunting place; the Wo were also enemies to Shang,
which had them to be as slave or as sacrifice elements as seen in OBI HJ 6920 and HJ 6921.
If the Zhou’s could be using a territory not belonging to them, that may means that probably they
were envoys or they had a meeting between two clans/tribes.

In Yin-shang oracle inscription there are several graph to indicate the ​west​ 西: , ,

, , , and by other variants, will see later our consideration about West and Zhou
85

Here will address our attention to one graph .

Ding Shan would read a variant form listed in ​Zuanlei​ 纂类 as a single entry, and also
single entry86, suggesting that it may be the ancestral graph for 胃 and in turn, to 渭.

83
​See Edwin G. Pulleyblank, ​Ji and Jiang: The Role of Exogamic Clans in the Organization of the Zhou Polity​, in
Early China, 200, 25, pp. 1-27; Chang Cheng-lang, ‘A Brief Discussion of Fu Tzu’, in​ Studies of Shang Archeology​,
1986, pp. 103-119
84
See 于省吾, ​甲骨文字诂林​, vol. 4, pp. 118-19, indicating it as a resting place or as an encampment; for 我 see
also 李雪山, ​商代分封制度研究​, 2004, p. 62, 67, 103; ​商代地理概论​, pp. 188-90, according to his study, ​wo​ 我 is
interchangeable with ​yi​ 仪 by extension passing through the loan word for 義; 仪封镇 is in north-west and not far
from ​亘​ ​huan,​ seen on same plate (HJ 6959); a graph for 義 already existed in OBI either as a personal name either
as a clan name, see HJ 17620, HJ 27979, see 马如森, ​殷墟甲骨文实用字典​, 2008, p. 287. According to OBI
collected in ​Leizuan​, the Qiang were often around or in the territory of Yi, HJ 29792, HJ 27980, Dun 2179 and in
Tong Dian​, Zhou Jun wu, 州郡五, 古梁州 are located two places were Di, Qiang, Rong and Yi tribes lived.
85
​see ​JGWWXJC​, vol. 14, pp. 359-362, originally published in ​Zhongguo Wenzi​, 1999, 25; see JGWZGL, 2. , p.
122-127.

86
​纂类, p. 1145; p. 393, p. 1145

28
His clue is the variant form of element 田 seen in ​Shi Gu Wen​ 石鼓文 second drum, and in

JC 10167 , graph not identified by the JC, bronze of Chunqiu 春秋 period; JC 11696
inscribed on a sword of late period of Chunqiu.
As far as graph similarity, we may associate them to one and single ancestral root, and as for
oracle bones quoted by him is the HJ 31983 (粹1178):
丁酉卜亚 以众涉于 (甶) (or 渭?) 若,
On crack-making day dingyou, Ya Bi together with the ‘many’ enter at ?, good auspicious

the ​HJSW​ does not transcribe and leave as is represented, , while Guo Moruo would

transcribe as 甶 considering an old graph for 甶 quoting the ​Shuowen87.

Among many explanation given to the graph, I agree that it cannot be considered a variant form
of 渭.

We may instead consider to be 渭 of which are collected 15 inscriptions in 类纂88. In

these inscriptions it appear to include several meanings, as a personal name, and most
probably a sacrifice offering: in one the HJ 5596 is followed most probably by ​xiaochen​ 小臣; in
HJ 31996 is followed by ​cheng​ 稱, while in another, the HJ 1441 follows two sacrificial rites, the
liao​ 燎 and the ​chen ; in another HJ 7022 is probably a place name following the 取 (taking
in as wife, or to perform the ​qu​ sacrifice at)89.
I would like here to have few words about the HJ 1441 and HJ 30793. In these two
inscriptions is involved a particular sacrifice, the 燎 rain sacrifice.
In HJ 1441 reads:

‘乙未卜貞燎酒 (册) 大甲
on crack-making day yiwei, is divined: will perform a rain and a wine sacrifices (on behalf
of, at) Wei and will report to Da Jia’;

Shaughnessy reads it as:

crack on jiwei (己未, day 56) divining: ‘rain-sacrifice, libate, ? and ce-sacrifice to Da Jia​’

the HJ 30793 presents different reading and interpretation:

In ​HJSW​, ​Leizuan​, ​Zonglei​:

其烄于周
Qiu Xigui, Shaughnessy:
于周其烄

87
郭沫若, ​殷契粹编​, 科学出版社​, 1965, plate p. 253, explanation p. 645, indicating it as a place name; see also ​說
文古籀疏證​, 卷 3, p. 5a-5b ​; for variants of character 西, see 张玉金, 释甲骨金文中的西和​甶字, in 甲 ​ 骨文獻集
成​, vol. 14, pp. 359-62; see also 于省吾, ​古文字诂林​, vol. 8, pp. 754-56.
88
​殷墟甲骨刻辭類纂​, ​p. 393
89
​新编甲骨文字典​, p. 782, which consider it to read as 鹵 as simplified form of 盐, considered a salt mine; see also
说文解字六书疏证​, vol 6, juan 23, p. 8-10; for 取 see above fn 27

29
both can be translated as:
We may have a burning rain-sacrifice at/to Zhou’​

Ding Shan proposes the HJ 31996 (安明 2674) where we read:

其从 稱众.
(we) may follow the record gatherer Wei (?) and the multitude90

The 稱 (the 渭稱, or the 西稱, the gatherer reports from Xi or Wei?) if we assume that the
graph may stand for both interpretation, we therefore may associate the Zhou with West and
with Wei.
Cai Yunzhang 蔡运章 record as a loan graph for Wei 渭, the inscription of Chunqiu period, the

Wei Gong ​gu​i and the Wei Gong ​ding 公簋, 鼎 91

, is notably that the component 田 has
all graphical requirements of the above OBI graph, but as said it cannot be confirmed.
The formation of character 渭 seems to be quite a later character construction, probably of late
Eastern Zhou.
The reading of the graph by Huang Dekuan is considered to be a simplified form of 胃.
Following the reading of Huang of the above bronze graph, 渭, is interchangeable with the ​Shuo
Wen​ graph ​ ​,​ in ​Zheng Zi Tong​, is similar to 蒯, ​k’wed​, read as ​kuai​ 快, and a loan character for
wei.​ ​Kuai​ and ​Wei​ are close phonological sounds and therefore interchangeable92. If this is true,
during Shang and Zhou periods, the sounds ​K​ swift to ​W.​
Among the OBI above quoted, the HJ 5596 records that the:

少臣其有邑
‘​Wei (?) shaochen might settle in a walled city​ ‘

and in HJ 36756 reads:

癸未王卜在 X ( )93’ , 貞旬亡 .王 曰: 吉. 在十月, 王 94

(迍) (西)...

90
The graph for ​众 is considered in Hu Houxuan ​Jiaguwen Zidian​, p. 926 a IV period graph
91
​Not catalogued in​ ​Zhou Fagao​, 金文诂林;​ ​蔡运章, ​考古​, 1982, 6, pp. 663-64; see JC 4016, JC 4017, JC 2014
92
​See for example script on bamboo​,​ ​Wei 渭 see shangbo, 1-5, p. 505, Rong 容, 二, 27-18, which present a very
modern features of character; in Guang Yun 广韵, 未韵 indicates a region name 州名; see 宗福邦 ​古训汇纂​ p.
1289; see also黄德宽, ​古文字谱系疏证​, p. 3025, p. 3029, where is considered to be in Shuo Wen the character
and to indicate a place name 汝南安阳乡; see also ​说文解字诂林​.丁福保编.中华书局.1988, p. 6735; see also ​说文
解字六书疏证, ​4, p. 112; in KXZD under 道, 國名.左傳·僖五年: 江黃道柏. 註: 道國, 在汝南安陽縣南; also in
KXZD正字通與蒯同; 蒯 is in 石经作 ; in ​Tong Dian​: 又於扶風、漢陽、隴道扶風，今汧陽、扶風、新平等郡
地也。漢陽、隴道並今天水郡地. Following the reading of​ Shuo Wen​, the left element can be the interpretation of
earlier graph from OBI, therefore transcription of Ding Shan may be correct. The only difference is in its phonology,
the character in ​Shuo Wen​ is read ​kuai​ 快, our is read ​wei​ the two pronunciation are close to be interchangeable. For
phonological see John Cikoski,​ Notes for a Lexicon of Classical Chinese​, vol. 1, 2011, for Wei 渭 ​ ​p.122 as a region
name ​giwed​ ; for Kuai 快 see p. 80, p. 91​ k’wed
93
​See 纂类 leizuan, p. 193; see also 于省吾, ​甲骨文字诂林​, vol. 1., p. 517, Chen Hanping consider a OBI graph
without the element of 水, to be read as ​媰​. ​媰 is similar to 鄒​.
94
For the OBI graph interpretation see 刘桓, ​甲骨集史​, 2008, pp. 150-60; 裘锡圭, ​古文字论集​, 1991, pp. 20-32

30
 the king on crack-making guiwei day, at the encampment X, divined, there will be no
harm in the next 10 days. The king prognosticate saying: it was good. In the tenth
month. He will proceed (to perform in, to go to ?) Wei (a rain sacrifice ?)​ (HJSW
interpretation).

Wei river according to ​Shangshu,​ Tribute of Yu: is traced from

導渭自鳥鼠同穴
He traced the Wei from (the hill) Niao-shu-tong-xue.​
This hill is located in
隴西首陽縣. 渭水出其東, 經南安, 天水, 略陽, 扶風, 始平, 京兆, 至弘農華陽縣入河也.
In the county of Shouyang in Longxi. The Wei river flows from the east, passing through
Nan’an, Tianshui, Luoyang, Fufeng, Shiping, Jingzhao, till the county of Huayang in
Hongnong finally pouring in the Yellow river’​

Now the Wei river connects to Long river, while the Long river flow north-west passing through
the Liang and the Zou:
陇水又西北至梁鄒县东南与鱼子沟水合;
The Long river flowing toward north-west reach the counties of Liang and Zou and then
flows to south-east connecting with the river Yuzigou

Based on this transmitted text locations, it may probably be correct to read our OBI above.
According to ​Shui Jing Zhu​, the Wei river, source is found in
渭水出今隴西郡渭源縣95
The river Wei appears in today county of Wei Yuan in the administrative region of
Longxi;
In ​Shan Hai jing​, 西山经 reads:
又西二百二十里, 曰鳥鼠同穴之山, 其上多白虎, 白玉. 渭水出焉, 而東流注于河. 其中多鰠
魚, 其狀如鱣魚, 動則其邑有大兵. 濫水出于其西, 西流注于漢水.
220 li further west is a mountain called Niaoshutongxue where there are lots of white
tigers and white beautiful jade. The Wei river flows out of this mountain and runs east
before it empties itself into the yellow river. In the river there are lots of sao fish which
looks like a king sturgeon. Wherever it appears, there will be warfare. The Jianshui river
flows out of its western slope, and it runs to the west before it empties into to the
Hanshui river.​ 96

The Lan river 濫水 is according to ​Shui Jing zhu​ the 陇水 and at same time does have same
source as the Wei river at Niao Shu hills:
又北, 隴水注之, 即山海經所謂濫水也.水出鳥鼠山西北高城嶺,西逕隴坁, 其山岸崩落者, 聲
聞數百里.

Above OBI, HJ 36756, reads that in Zou (?) there is an encampment, which seems to match
what our transmitted text records, that being located in the area of Long river and this river
source is also at the hill of Niao Shu mountain, it makes the inscription acceptable.

95
​The ​隴西郡 in ​Taiping Yulan​, 州郡部十一, 陇右道, is considered to be the ancient location of the Jiang and
Rong; quoting the Shi Dao Zhi 十道志, 渭州，隴西郡。春秋及戰國時，羌戎所居
96
山海经校注增补修订本​作者: 袁珂校注, p. 76-77; ​山海经汉英对照​.陈成今著.王宏.赵峥英译, pp. 62-65

31
 The OBI in this case would absolve two reading both acceptable that from the Zou
encampment the King moved toward the Wei or the Lan river; the Zou encampment is not far
away from the Lan (or Wei river).
Even though the graph in question may be 渭 or 濫 both have source in Niao Shu Shan!
If we want to link this fact to historical events or transmitted text, the ​Shui Jing​ quoting the ​Shan
Hai lun​ states:
積石出隴西郡至洛.
The Jishan appears from Longxi and reaching the Luo

The Jishan in ​Shangshu​, Tribute of Yu:

導河、積石，至于龍門
He traced the He from Ji-shi as far as Long-men​’,

The above OBI graph it may be transcribed as 渭 and as 滥, the place is no doubt west side of
Shang political center.
Although this OBI do not specifically speaks of Zhou, we did locate and the interpretation of our
OBI graph.
The Wei 渭 is also found in Zhouyuan bones inscription, H11:48, which by three
transcription given to the graph, 渭, 沮, 洒, the most close to the OBI is indeed 渭.97

To conclude this paper, which much still needs to do, I would like to reconsider the clans
cited in Shangshu, the Speech at Mu, where the king says:
曰: 逖矣, 西土之人! 王曰: 嗟！我友邦冢君, 御事, 司徒, 司馬, 司空, 亞旅, 師氏, 千夫長, 百
夫長, 及庸, 蜀, 羌, 髳, 微, 盧, 彭, 濮人. 稱爾戈, 比爾干, 立爾矛, 予其誓
Far are ye come, ye men of the western regions!' He added, 'Ah! ye hereditary rulers of
my friendly states; ye managers of affairs - the Ministers of Instruction, of War, and of
Works; the great officers subordinate to these, and the many other officers; the master of
my body-guards; the captains of thousands and captains of hundreds; and ye, O men of
Yong, Shu, Qiang, Mao, Wei, Lu, Peng, and Pu, lift up your lances, join your shields,
raise your spears: I have a speech to make’

All these clans that Wu Wang calls out are clans that represents also all other small tribes, all
also are named in OBI98.

Conclusion:

The Zhou’s as a clan ​cognomen​ was recognized only after established as a state during
the Wu Ding period, and it was not as such during the period of Ya Yu and Gao Yu. Ya 亚 as
main meaning of graph assume two aspects: one is that of a ‘sacred space’; the other as
‘lineage branch out’ and Gao 高 as ‘main or higher chief’ at this stage in the history of Zhou, it
takes a meaning as first of the branch out lineage; following then by Gong Liu and Gu Gong

97
​For Zhou yuan photos see 曹玮, ​周原甲骨文​, 2002, p 39; 徐锡臺, ​周原甲骨文综述​, 1987, p. 44; 朱歧祥, ​周原
甲骨硏究​, 1998, p. 23; 王宇信, ​西周甲骨探论​, 1984, p. 110; 陈全方,侯志义, 陈敏, ​西周甲文注​, 2003, pp. 71-2
98
See also ​尚书校释译论​.全四册, 2000, p. 1095-97; see also ​十三经​, p. 183a

32
Danfu, where the term Gong, Duke, is applied to whose original land where branched out, that
is from Gu river valley in Fen region.
In all transmitted text Wu Wang has always been considered the first ancestor of Zhou’s people
and therefore the rooted lineage of Zhou of the west.
In this paper we tried to connect some places in OBI with transmitted text and we have
seen that these cover areas of Fen valley in east and Wei valley in west, the lapse time from I
period and the IV period of Yin-Shang the Zhou disappeared from the OBI, a reason that may
explain the clan being branched out.
Many scholars papers on predynastic Zhou tried to date the events based on OBI
re-constructions and assumptions of periods of those inscriptions; many are the differences
among them resulting in different point of views and therefore a still uncertain an actual full
history evolution of the Zhou’s.
Still needs to be done for a full research of predynastic Zhou, we have seen above a
place name that was during the historical transmitted text been interchangeable: Ning 寜· and
Bin 豳, this is something to value for a future investigation, also the debatable graph ​bin​ 邠 and
bin​ 豳.
Is probably that a branch of Jiang Yuan, ancestress of Zhou, did spread out from the
Fen valley and moved to Wei valley.

Sincerely
Luigi de Franco

33