Language Log

« previous post | next post »

During the recent decade and more, we have had dozens of posts dealing with the importance of archeology for studying the spread of ancient languages.  A major subtheme of this research has been the accumulation and assessment of archeological and linguistic evidence for the dissemination of metallurgical technology (see "Selected readings") below.

A new study of an early Chinese text sharpens our understanding of key terms relating to the composition and smelting of bronze during the first millennium BC.  Here is a popular account of this pathbreaking investigation:

Researchers decode metal-making recipes in ancient Chinese text:  Study identifies mystery elements in Kaogong ji, shedding light on how early bronzes were produced

Sascha Pare, The Guardian (8/10/22)

The Guardian article begins thus:

Researchers have deciphered enigmatic recipes for metal-making contained in an ancient Chinese text, revealing unexpected complexity in the art at the time.

Six chemical formulas are given in a Chinese text from 300BC known as the Kaogong ji. The manuscript, known as The World’s Oldest Encyclopedia of Technologies, forms part of a detailed archive of early imperial rule, which archeologists have been trying to decode since the 1920s.

“The Kaogong ji may have been written by an administrator to assure the emperor that everything was under control. It is part of a manual for how to run the empire,” said Prof Mark Pollard, from the University of Oxford.

For 100 years, scholars have grappled with the meaning of two key components of the recipes: Jin and Xi. Now, researchers believe they have identified the missing ingredients.

The two mystery components Jin and Xi were thought to be copper and tin, but a study published in the journal Antiquity suggests they could refer to pre-made alloys used in the production of early Chinese bronzes.

The scientific paper in Antiquity:

"The six recipes of Zhou: a new perspective on Jin (金) and Xi (锡)", by A.M. Pollard and Ruiliang Liu, Antiquity (8/10/22)

Abstract

Knowledge of alloying practices is key to comprehending the mass production of ancient Chinese bronzes. The Eastern Zhou text, the Rites of Zhou, contains six formulae, or recipes, for casting different forms of bronze based on the combination of two components: Jin and Xi. For more than 100 years, the precise interpretation of these two components has eluded explanation. Drawing on analyses of pre-Qin coinage, the authors offer a new interpretation, arguing that, rather than pure metals, Jin and Xi were pre-prepared copper-rich alloys, in turn indicating an additional step in the manufacturing process of copper-alloy objects. This result will be of interest to linguists, as well as archaeologists of ancient Chinese technology.

It is noteworthy that the authors acknowledge the support of the European Research Council Horizon 2020 (ERC advanced project FLAME, Flow of Ancient Metal Across Eurasia, 670010).

Most exciting of all, the study compares metal-making practice in the Rites of Zhou to Greek coinage around the same dates.  The authors do not make any claims for contact that might have influenced Chinese metalworking practices, but their account of Greek metallurgy is sufficiently detailed that it could provide the basis for future research explaining how these two technical traditions came to resemble each other so closely.  In any event, the authors' ability to gain their new understanding of Chinese bronze metallurgy was achieved through inspiration drawn from their intense examination of Greek processes, particularly as identified and outlined by Caley (1939).

For those who are interested in Kaogong ji, we are fortunate to have a complete translation of the text:

Jun Wenren.  Ancient Chinese Encyclopedia of Technology: Translation and Annotation of the Kaogong ji, The Artificers' Record.  New York:  Routledge, 2013.

This book presents the first translation into English of the full text of the Kaogong ji. This classic work, described by the great scholar of the history of Chinese science and technology Joseph Needham as "the most important document for the study of ancient Chinese technology", dates from the fifth century BC and forms part of the Zhouli (The Rites of the Zhou Dynasty), one of the great Confucian classics. The text itself describes the techniques of working and the technologies used by over twenty different kinds of craftsmen and artificers, such as metal workers, chariot makers, weapon makers, music instrument makers, potters and master builders. This edition, besides providing the full text in English, also provides a substantial introduction and other supporting explanatory material, over one hundred illustrations of ancient Chinese artefacts, and the original Chinese text itself.

To conclude this post, I note with optimism the many gathering strands of evidence connecting ancient Greece and early China, of which the material presented here is a part.  There's more to look forward to, such as the forthcoming articles in Sino-Platonic Papers:by Lucas Christopoulos on "Dionysian Rituals and the Golden Zeus of China" and by Ifan Cheng on the Five Elements (wǔxíng 五行).

 

Selected readings

• "The dissemination of iron and the spread of languages" (11/5/20)
• "Archeological and linguistic evidence for the wheel in East Asia" (3/11/20)
• "'Skin' and 'hide' ('pelt') in Old Sinitic and Proto-Indo-European" (11/7/20)
• "The importance of archeology for historical linguistics" (5/1/20) — with a list of more than a dozen previous posts related to archeology and language
• Andrew Sherratt, "The Trans-Eurasian Exchange: The Prehistory of Chinese Relations with the West," in Victor H. Mair, ed., Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World (Honolulu:  University of Hawaii Press, 2006), pp. 30-61.  A seminal study that focuses on the transmission of bronze technology.
  
• E. R. Caley, E.R. 1939. The composition of ancient Greek bronze coins. (American Philosophical Society Memoirs 11)(1939). Philadelphia (PA): American Philosophical Society.

[Thanks to AntC]

August 11, 2022 @ 9:29 am · Filed by Victor Mair under Language and science, Language and technology, Language contact

Permalink