Abstract
The present paper investigates three terms that were all used to refer to acts of writing in the early imperial administration: shu 書, xie 寫, and shu 署. Based on an analysis of their usage in administrative and legal texts, it illustrates the semantic differences of these terms, which also bear implications for our understanding of the production and use of administrative documents.
1 Introduction
The importance of writing for the establishment and functioning of the early Chinese empires has long been widely acknowledged. 1 Finds of administrative and legal texts from the Qin and Han periods in the course of the past 120 years have not only demonstrated the extent to which the central government of the time relied on writing to control and administer the realm. 2 These documents also testify to the pervasive use of writing on all levels of the bureaucracy down to remote villages and military outposts. 3 Due to the ongoing publication of new primary sources, the study of Qin and Han administrative and legal texts continues to be a flourishing field. 4 The reconstruction of Qin and Han institutions and the bureaucratic system is also proceeding at a fast pace, shedding light on more and more details of the overall picture. 5
For historians of early Chinese institutions and law, an understanding of the terminology of early imperial administration has always been of utmost importance. During the last decades, research has made enormous progress, which resulted in the publication of special terminological studies and even dictionaries. 6 However, in the face of the countless extant documents that were drafted by and directed towards early Chinese bureaucrats and therefore took the required education for granted, researchers are still left with many terminological uncertainties. In many cases, only newly excavated materials eventually provide the additional context that is necessary to grasp the exact meaning of a certain term. In other cases, new finds can also require a reconsideration of hitherto widely accepted interpretations.
The present paper focuses on a yet understudied topic, namely the semantic field of “writing” in relation to early imperial administration. 7 It will not discuss the numerous terms for different kinds of administrative writings, which have served previous scholarship to classify them and could likewise be seen as belonging to the semantic field of “writing.” 8 Neither is this study concerned with terms for writing implements. Instead, it will scrutinize terms that refer to acts of writing. 9 In administrative and legal texts, we find several verbs that could each—in a very broad sense—be translated as “to write [down].” However, a closer look reveals semantic differences that also bear implications for our understanding of the production and use of administrative documents. What follows is a discussion of the terms shu 書, xie 寫, and shu 署 and their differences as part of the semantic field of “writing.”
There are further terms that are related to writing but are not discussed in the present study for different reasons: 1) Some scholars have argued that the term shou 手, which frequently occurs in Qin administrative documents as part of the formulation “[person X] shou,” should be understood as “written by [person X].” 10 However, the activities subsumed under shou—probably best translated more neutrally as “to handle” or “handled by”—beside acts of writing seem to have included other activities such as the carving of notches on tallies (quan 券). The word apparently mainly served to state accountability. 11 Furthermore, the use of shou in an administrative context seems to have been discontinued sometime around the mid-second century B.C.E. 12 2) Ji 記 was likewise not included, because based on the presently available excavated sources it was not used as a verb for writing in the Qin administration. In Han administrative documents, ji mostly occurs as noun referring to “records” more generally or to a particular type of document. 13 3) Another term that warrants mentioning here is shu 疏 (also written with the characters 疎 or 踈), which has been glossed as “to record content in form of separate entries/in form of a list.” 14 It should be noted that already in Qin administrative and legal texts shu usually occurs as adverb in the phrase shu shu 疏書 “to write in form of a list.” 15 The fact that shu 疏 is occasionally used without shu 書 “to write” in the same context, suggests a verbal usage as “to list.” 16 It does neither mean that shu 疏 is used instead of shu 書, nor that the two words had the same meaning “to write.”
2 Xie 寫 “Copying”
- [1] 縣各告都官在其縣者，寫其官之用律。 18
The prefectures each are to inform the metropolitan offices in their administrative area [when?] to copy the statutes used in their office(s). 19
- [2] 吏徙官而當論者，故官寫劾，上屬所執灋，執灋令新官亟論之。 20
If an official is transferred to a [different] office but by law has to be sentenced [for a crime], the former office makes a copy of the ex-officio charge [against him] and submits it to the responsible Upholder of the Law. The Upholder of the Law orders the new office to immediately sentence him [on the basis of that copy].
- [3] 〼節（即）吏有請若上書者有言殹：其所請、言節（即）已行而後有（又）有請、言其等者，必盡具寫其前所已行，與奏偕上。 21
… if an official has a request or someone who submitted a petition has something to report: 22 In case what has been requested or reported has already been processed, and afterwards there again is a request for or a report on something comparable, the previously processed [request or report] must be completely copied and submitted together with the [new] memorial.
- [4] 七月乙卯，啓陵鄉趙敢言之：恐前書不到，寫上。敢言之。/貝手。
七月己未水下八刻，□□以來。/敬半。 23
On day yimao (52) 24 of the seventh month [of the 28th year of the First Emperor, i.e. 219 B.C.E.], Zhao, [Overseer] of Qiling district, ventures to report the following: I fear that my previous document did not arrive. I had [another] copy made and [hereby] submit it. End of report. /Handled by Bei.
On day jiwei (56) of the seventh month, [when] the water had fallen to the eighth mark [of the water clock] (i.e. in the early afternoon), 25 [person X] arrived with [this document]. /Opened by Jing.
The above passage is found on one side of a wood tablet that was excavated from Liye 里耶 well no. 1. It was sent to Qianling 遷陵 prefecture—the seat of which was located at the Liye excavation site—by one of its three subordinate districts. The other side of the tablet contains a copy of a document that was previously sent and is dated to the day yisi 乙巳 (42) of the same month—ten days earlier than the follow-up document, which eventually arrived only four days after it was sent.
Although the above example shows a particular case, in which the circumstances made the production of an additional copy necessary, this does not seem to have been exceptional. Other Liye documents testify to a widespread practice of not only “copying and submitting” (xie shang 寫上) to a superior office, but also of “copying and forwarding” (xie yi 寫移) to another office on the same or a lower level. 26 The default mode of forwarding documents in the Han period, with each office retaining the received document and forwarding a newly made copy, seems to have had its beginnings in Qin times. 27 Han documents from the Northwest frequently mention “copying and forwarding” (xie yi, or, less frequently, xie chuan 寫傳). 28 In some cases, the formulation “to make a duplicate copy” (xie chong 寫重) was used. 29
- [5] 盜封嗇夫可(何)論？廷行事以僞寫印。 31
How is “illegally sealing [a document with the seal of] an Overseer” to be sentenced? [According to] the practice of the court, this is considered as [a case of] “counterfeiting an [official] seal.” 32
- [6] 僞寫徹侯印，棄市；小官印，完爲城旦舂〼 33
For counterfeiting a seal of a Penetrating Lord, cast [the criminal] away in the marketplace; for [counterfeiting] the seal of a lesser official, leave [the criminal] intact and make [him or her] an earth pounder or grain pounder convict … 34
It is not entirely clear, whether these stipulations prescribe punishments for forging the inscription on a seal stamp itself or rather on a piece of clay on which a seal stamp would leave an imprint. Maybe both possibilities were covered. In any case, xie did not always imply writing with a brush but could mean “copying” script with the help of a knife or another tool. 35
3 Shū 書 and Shǔ 署—towards a Distinction
Shū 36 is the most commonly used and general word for acts of writing. In most contexts, “to write [down], record” seems to be a perfectly suitable translation. In Qin and Han administrative and legal texts, shū mostly occurs as noun with the general meaning “document, letter.” 37 As such, it can be preceded by different attributes that further specify the type of document, 38 or it can serve as an umbrella term for a variety of different documents. Although less frequently, shū also appears as verb, and it is this usage that shows noteworthy parallels to that of the verb shǔ. Although Qin and Han administrative and legal texts frequently mention shǔ in the meaning “[official/military] post, position” or “to be posted; to assign, to be assigned [a certain task],” 39 a verbal meaning that clearly referred to an act of writing was likewise common. Still, the semantic difference between shǔ and shū remains difficult to grasp and to my knowledge has not been satisfactorily explained yet. To somehow account for the terminological difference, shū is often rendered as “to write” and shǔ as “to note” or “to mark” in translations. 40 Sometimes the two are actually assumed to have the same meaning. 41 With regard to the fact that shū and shǔ were written with characters that belong to the same xiesheng 諧聲 series, 42 it seems in fact likely that the two words were phonologically very close. 43 Still, the fact that both words are used even in one and the same sentence—not only in Qin and Han administrative documents, but also in legal prescriptions—suggests that they must have had different meanings. In order to arrive at a clearer understanding of the semantic difference between shū and shǔ, the following part will forward and evaluate four criteria that could possibly serve as a basis for distinction.
3.1 Difference in Style of Script?
In the early Chinese empires, administrative documents sent from one office to another were often sealed. In the course of the Han period, this came to be done with the help of pieces of wood (jian 檢) that were furnished with a sealing clay receptacle and which could also accommodate notes on the addressee, the mode of transportation, etc. 44 However, the Qin in the late third century B.C.E. still seem to have made a distinction between a piece furnished with a receptacle for sealing clay (jian, the “sealing piece”)—that was only attached to documents delivered by the courier service—and a separate piece on which the address of the recipient (and often additional information related to delivery) was written (shu 署, the “address label”). 45 The latter was probably attached to every document. 46
- [7] 興律曰：諸書求報者，皆告，令署“某曹發”；弗告曹，報者署報書中某手。告而弗署；署而環（還）；及弗告，及不署手，貲各一甲。 48
The Statutes on Levying state: All those who demand an answer to a letter shall in every case inform [the recipient about this] and order [him] to make a note [on the address label of the answer stating] “to be opened by bureau X.” If [the sender] fails to inform [the recipient] about the bureau [to which the answer should be directed], the person who answers shall note [on the address label the name of] the person who handled the letter to which he is answering. If [the sender] informs [the recipient about the bureau to which the answer should be directed], but [the recipient] fails to make a note [on it on the address label of his answer]; or if [the recipient] makes a note on the address label but [his answer] is returned; or if [the sender] fails to inform [the recipient about the bureau to which the answer should be directed]; or if [the recipient, under the circumstances of the preceding case, in his answer] does not make a note on [the name of the person] who handled [the letter to which he is answering], the fine is in each case one suit of armor. 49
- [8] 行書律曰：傳行書，署急輒行，不輒行，貲二甲。 50
The Statutes on the Forwarding of Documents state: As far as the transmission and forwarding of documents is concerned, if the note “urgent” was applied [to the address label], immediately forward them. Not forwarding them immediately is fined two suits of armor.
Extant address labels excavated from Liye well no. 1 confirm the practice of writing mou cao fa 某曹發 “to be opened by bureau X” on address labels, as prescribed by the Qin statutes. 51 There are likewise examples of address labels carrying the note ji 急 “urgent.” 52
It has long been known from received literature that scribal students in Qin (and probably early Han) times had to master eight different styles (ti 體) of writing. Furthermore, all these styles of writing in one way or another must have been used in administrative practice, because they were part of the standard curriculum for scribal students that were to work in the early imperial administration. 53 One of the styles listed in the Shuowen jiezi 説文解字 preface is named shu shu 署書, 54 and it seems reasonable to assume that this style was inter alia used when writing on address labels. 55 Its style, although similar to the commonly used style of script in the Qin and early Han periods (li shu 隸書 or “clerical script”), was overall more formal and less cursive, and often also written in larger script, as characterized by the writing on extant address labels. 56 Hence, in the context of address labels, shǔ seems to imply writing in a less cursive, more formal style in designated spaces. However, it seems unlikely that shǔ always implied writing in a comparatively formal style. 57
3.2 Difference in Type of Document Written?
- [9] 䌛（徭）律曰：發䌛（徭），自不更以下䌛（徭）戍，自一日以上盡券書及署于牒，將陽倍（背）事者亦署之。不從令及䌛（徭）不當券書，券書之，貲鄉嗇夫、吏主者各一甲，丞、令、令史各一盾。 58
The Statutes on Labor Service state: When mobilizing labor, for persons of the fourth or a lower rank who perform labor or military service, if [they serve] at least one [full] day, completely record [the length of their service] on a tally 59 and also make a note in the [corresponding] die[-document]. In cases of “turning one’s back on service through vagrancy” 60 also make a note about this. If this order is not followed or labor service that by law is not to be recorded on a tally is recorded, the Overseer of the district and the responsible official are each fined one suit of armor; the Vice-Prefect, Prefect, and Secretary of the Prefect are fined one shield each.
- [10] 奔敬（警）律曰：先粼黔首當奔敬（警）者，爲五寸符，人一，右在【縣官】，左在黔首，黔首佩之。節（即）奔敬（警），諸挾符者皆奔敬（警）故徼外盗徹所，合符焉，以譔（選）伍之。黔首老弱𤵸（癃）病，不可令奔敬（警）者，牒書署其故，勿予符。 63
The Statutes on Rushing to Emergencies state: First of all, select those Black-Headed Ones who by law are to rush to emergencies, make credentials of five inches [length], one per person; the right part remains with the [government offices], the left part with the Black-Headed Ones, who carry the credentials on their belt. When it comes to [an actual case of] rushing to an emergency, all those holding a credential in every case rush to emergencies at places outside the former borders where robbers penetrated [the present borders]; there [have them] join [their halves of the] credentials [with the halves kept in the respective offices], and on this basis select and group them into units of five. For all those Black-Headed Ones who [by law would have to rush to emergencies, but] are old, weak, infirm or ill and hence cannot be ordered to rush to emergencies, make a note about the reason in the [corresponding] die-[document] 64 /register(?), and do not hand out credentials [to them].
- [11] 䌛（徭）律曰：歲興䌛（徭）徒，人爲三尺券一，書其厚焉。節（即）發䌛（徭），鄉嗇夫必身與典以券行之。田時先行富有賢人，以閒時行貧者，皆月券書其行月及所爲日數，而署其都發及縣請（情）。其當行而病及不存，署于券，後有䌛（徭）而聶（躡）行之。 65
The Statutes on Labor Service state: When it comes to the yearly levying of the labor service conscripts, make one three-foot tally per person and record his wealth on it. In case [conscripts] are mobilized for labor service, the Overseer of [their?] district must personally send them off according to the tallies together with the Village/Quarter Heads. At times of agricultural work first send persons who are rich, in the time in between [periods of agricultural work] send the poor ones. In every case, monthly record on tallies the month in which they were sent as well as the number of days they served and make a note on the metropolitan [offices] who mobilized the labor as well as on the circumstances in the [respective] prefectures. In case [someone] should by law be sent but is ill or not present, make a note on the respective tally and when afterwards there is [a mobilization for] labor service pursue to send him [first].
In the above stipulations, verbal shū and shǔ both refer to the act of writing on tallies. Accordingly, the choice of shū or shǔ must have been unrelated to the type of document or to the kind of writing support on which writing was applied.
3.3 Difference in Kind of Information Recorded?
- [12] 其獄奏殹，各約爲鞫審，具傅其律令，令各與其當比編而署律令下曰：“以此當某某”，及具署辠人毄（繫）不毄（繫）。 68
As far as memorials regarding criminal cases are concerned, in each case briefly draw up a finding of fact and assure that [the facts] have been firmly established, fully append the relevant statutes and ordinances, let each of them be tied together with the applicable analogous cases, make a note below the statutes and ordinances stating “This is applicable to xyz,” and also fully note whether the offenders are kept under detention or not. 69
- [13] 詰之極而數詑，更言不服，其律當治（笞）諒（掠）者，乃治（笞）諒（掠）。 治（笞）諒（掠）之必書曰：“爰書：以某數更言，毋（無）解辭，治（笞）訊某。” 70
If [the delinquent] has been confronted [with inconsistencies] to the utmost and still repeatedly lies, changes his words and does not confess, then, where the respective statutes warrant torture by caning, use torture. If you torture him by caning, you must make a record on this, stating: “Protocol: Because X has repeatedly changed his words and has not offered a statement that would provide a [full] explanation, I interrogated X with the application of the cane.” 71
The only observable difference in terms of what kind of information is recorded through the actions described with the two words, is that shǔ—unlike shū—frequently occurs in connection with the description of “circumstances” (zhuang 狀 or qing 情). 72
3.4 Shū and Shǔ in the Production Process of a Document
As has been shown, acts of writing to which the words shū and shǔ refer cannot be clearly distinguished based on calligraphic style, document type or kind of information that is recorded. In the following, the place of shū and shǔ in the production process of a document will be discussed as a fourth possible criterion. Whereas shǔ seems to mostly refer to notes that are added to already existing documents, shū can also imply that a new document is drafted (from the beginning). The following examples from Qin and early Han manuscripts shall serve to illustrate this point.
- [14] …自今以來，叚（假）門、逆呂（旅）、贅壻、後父，勿令爲戶，勿鼠（予）田宇。三枼（世）之後，欲士士之，乃（仍）署其籍曰：“故某慮（閭）贅壻某叟之乃（仍）孫。” 73
… From now on, merchants, innkeepers, debt slaves and stepfathers must not be allowed to form households and must not be given fields and houses. After three generations, if they desire to become shi, 74 make them shi, but still make a note in the [household] register stating: “Great-grandson of former debt slave old man X of Y village.” 75
Bearing in mind that the above passage is from an article of the Statutes on Households, ji 籍 here very likely refers to the household registers (huji 戶籍). As these likely contained entries on multiple households and the persons assigned to them, the described note would have been a later addition to an already existing register.
- [15] … 行廟者必謹視中□各自署廟所質日。 … 76
… Those travelling to the temple must carefully oversee the interior … and each personally make a note [about their visit] in the event calendar located at the temple. … 77
The sentence is part of a fragmentary document relating to regular visits paid to a temple by the scribes of Qianling prefecture. Zhiri 質日 were “event calendars” in which officials kept track of their official work. 78 Apparently, they not only kept their individual calendars but were also obliged to make according entries in calendars permanently located at offices or other places they visited while on official duty. 79
- [16] 令曰：盗賊發不得者，必謹薄（簿），署吏徒追逐疾徐不得狀于獄，令可案。不從令，令、丞、獄史主者貲各一甲。 80
The ordinances state: If robbers and bandits appear but are not caught, an account [on this] must be carefully [compiled and] a note about the speed with which the officials and [their party of] conscripts pursued [the robbers and bandits], and about the circumstances under which [they] were not caught must be made in the [respective] case file, 81 so that it can be checked [in the future]. 82 If this order is not followed, the Prefect, the Vice-Prefect, and the responsible Judicial Secretary are each fined one suit of armor.
A criminal case file was supposedly created as soon as a crime was reported to or discovered by the authorities. 83 All information concerning the case, such as the methods and the progress of investigation, statements of accused persons and witnesses, etc. were subsequently entered into that file.
- [17] 書以縣次傳，及以郵行，而封毀，過縣輒劾印，更封而署其送徼（檄）曰：“封毀，更以某縣令若丞印封。” 84
When documents are transmitted according to the order of the prefectures, as well as when forwarded by the courier service, and the seal[ing clay] is destroyed, the prefecture through which [the document] is passing is to immediately inspect 85 the seal stamp [imprint on the sealing clay], seal it anew, and make a note on the document’s dispatch [record], stating: “The seal[ing clay] was destroyed. We have sealed [the document] anew with the seal stamp of Prefect so-and-so or Vice-Prefect so-and-so.” 86
In this case, xi 檄 was a “dispatch record,” which probably indicated the sender, the date of dispatch and the addressee, and was attached to the “document proper.” 87 This also implies that the dispatch record itself was not sealed. As can be seen from this example, the dispatch record also provided space to make additional notes on unexpected incidents that might occur during the delivery process.
Overall, there are various examples—[14] to [17]—in which shǔ clearly means that an additional or supplementary note is made in an existing document. A second look at the other examples with shǔ—[7] to [12]—shows that this interpretation likewise makes sense in those instances. In some cases, it is rather likely that shǔ refers to an additional note made in an existing separate document—probably a register, as in [9] and [10]—while in others, like [11], shǔ seems to refer to notes made at a later occasion to the same, previously drafted (shū) document. In yet other cases, such as [7] and [8] as well as [12], shǔ refers to notes made at the very end of the production process of a document, for example scribal “signatures.” 88 Hence, they could likewise be seen as additional or supplementary notes. 89
4 Concluding Remarks
In the course of the preceding discussion it has become clear that the words shū, shǔ, and xie, although all referring to acts of writing, differed in their concrete meaning. While xie specifically referred to the “copying” of an existing document or model, shǔ meant the placement of additional or supplementary notes in documents, regardless of whether these were original drafts or copies. 90 Shū, although on the one hand serving as a “neutral” umbrella term (=shū 1) for all written documents (and probably all possible acts of writing, including xie and shǔ), on the other hand also had a more specific meaning. It was the only of the three terms that could imply the original drafting of a new document (=shū 2). Mathematically speaking, the “set” shū 1 “to write [down], record” which quite comprehensively represents the whole semantic field of “writing” in early imperial administration, has at least three distinct “subsets”: shǔ “to make an additional/supplementary note,” xie “to copy” and shū 2 “to draft, record in [a new document]” (see fig. 1).
Schematic diagram of the semantic relation between shū 1, shū 2, shǔ, and xie.
Citation: Bamboo and Silk 2, 2 (2019) ; 10.1163/24689246-00202004
Especially the distinction between shǔ and shū 2, might bear some broader implications for the study of early imperial administrative documents beyond the semantic differences. At least in some cases, for example, with regard to the mentioned Zhiri calendars, parts of text that were “shū-ed” (the prefabricated calendrical table with ganzhi identifiers for the individual days and the first days of the months) seem to have been written by a different hand than those that were “shǔ-ed” (the actual entries about activities on certain days that were added later). As has been argued above, it is unlikely that shǔ generally referred to writing made in a different type or style of script. However, bearing in mind that it meant additional or supplementary notes that might be distinct from the preceding production process of a document as far as the time and/or place of separate acts of writing are concerned, there is indeed a significant possibility that these parts of writing on one and the same document look different. This may be due to the involvement of several persons in the overall writing process or to the fact that a certain amount of time passed in-between several acts of writing. How often differences in handwriting can actually be observed will have to be checked through a systematic analysis, which would however by far exceed the scope of this preliminary paper. For now, it maybe suffices to say that the distinction between different terms and the acts of writing they refer to might be helpful when trying to reconstruct not only actual administrative documents but also the administrative processes and principles informing their production.
References
Aoki Shunsuke 青木俊介, “Fūken no keitai hatten: ‘Heibanken’ no shiyō hōhō no kōsatsu kara” 封検の形態発展——｢平板検｣の使用方法の考察から, in Momiyama Akira 籾山明 and Satō Makoto 佐藤信 eds., Bunken to ibutsu no kyōkai ii: Chūgoku shutsudo kantoku shiryō no seitaiteki kenkyū 文献と遺物の境界ii—中国出土簡牘史料の生態的研究 (Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 2014), 229–46.
Aoki Shunsuke 青木俊介, “Gakuroku Shin kan ‘kyōritsu’ no kaihōsha tsūchi ni kan suru kitei” 嶽麓秦簡「興律」の開封者通知に関する規定, March 14, 2017, http://www.aa.tufs.ac.jp/users/Ejina/note/note23(Aoki).html.
Barbieri-Low Anthony J. , “Model Legal and Administrative Forms from the Qin, Han, and Tang and Their Role in the Facilitation of Bureaucracy and Literacy,” Oriens Extremus 50 (2011), 125–56.
Barbieri-Low, Anthony J. and Robin D. S. Yates, Law, State, and Society in Early Imperial China: A Study with Critical Edition and Translation of the Legal Texts from Zhangjiashan Tomb no. 247 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2015).
Baxter William H. and Sagart Laurent , Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).
Behr, Wolfgang, “The Semantic Field of ‘Writing’ in Early Chinese in a Comparative Perspective: An Approach from Etymology and Paleography,” paper presented at the conference “Signs of Writing: The Cultural, Social, and Linguistic Contexts of the World’s First Writing Systems” (Shanghai/Beijing, July 26–30, 2015).
Behr, Wolfgang and Bernhard Führer, “Einführende Notizen zum Lesen in China mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Frühzeit,” in Bernhard Führer ed., Aspekte des Lesens in China in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart (Bochum: Projekt Verlag, 2005), 1–42.
Chen Songchang 陳松長, “Shuihudi Qin jian zhong de ‘jiang yang’ xiao kao” 睡虎地秦簡中的“將陽”小考, Hunan daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 湖南大學學報（社會科學版）26.5 (2012), 5–7.
Chen Songchang 陳松長, “Yuelu Qin jian ‘Ben jing lü’ ji xiangguan wenti qianlun” 嶽麓秦簡《奔警律》及相關問題淺論, Hunan daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 湖南大學學報（社會科學版）31.5 (2017), 5–9.
Chen Songchang 陳松長 ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (si) 嶽麓書院藏秦簡（肆）(Shanghai: Shanghai cishu, 2015).
Chen Songchang 陳松長 ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (wu) 嶽麓書院藏秦簡（伍）(Shanghai: Shanghai cishu, 2018).
Chen Wei 陳偉, Qin jiandu jiaodu ji suojian zhidu kaocha 秦簡牘校讀及所見制度考察 (Wuhan: Wuhan daxue, 2017).
Chen Wei 陳偉 (Maxim Korolkov, trans.), “‘Event Calendars’ in the Early Imperial Era: A Re-Assessment,” Bamboo and Silk 1.2 (2018), 446–68.
Chen Wei 陳偉 et al. eds., Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (di yi juan) 里耶秦簡牘校釋（第一卷）(Wuhan: Wuhan daxue, 2012).
Chen Wei 陳偉 et al. eds., Qin jiandu heji (yi) 秦簡牘合集（壹）(Wuhan: Wuhan daxue, 2014).
Dou Lei 竇磊, “Han Jin yi wu shu jijiao ji xiangguan wenti kaocha” 漢晉衣物疏集校及相關問題考察 (PhD dissertation, Wuhan University 武漢大學, 2016).
Fujita Katsuhisa 藤田勝久, Chūgoku kodai kokka to jōhō dentatsu: Shin Kan kantoku no kenkyū 中国古代国家と情報伝達——秦漢簡牘の研究 (Tokyo: Kyūko shoin, 2016).
Gansu jiandu baohu yanjiu zhongxin 甘肅簡牘保護研究中心 et al. eds., Jianshui Jinguan Han jian (yi) 肩水金關漢簡（壹）(Shanghai: Zhongxi, 2011).
Gansu jiandu baohu yanjiu zhongxin 甘肅簡牘保護研究中心 et al. eds., Jianshui Jinguan Han jian (si) 肩水金關漢簡（肆）(Shanghai: Zhongxi, 2015).
Gansu jiandu baohu yanjiu zhongxin 甘肅簡牘保護研究中心 et al. eds., Jianshui Jinguan Han jian (wu) 肩水金關漢簡（伍）(Shanghai: Zhongxi, 2016).
Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 甘肅省文物考古研究所 ed., Dunhuang Han jian 敦煌漢簡 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1991).
Giele Enno , “Signatures of ‘Scribes’ in Early Imperial China,” Asiatische Studien 59 (2005), 353–87.
Giele Enno , Imperial Decision-Making and Communication in Early China: A Study of Cai Yong’s Duduan (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006).
Giele, Enno, “Kodai no shikiji nōryoku wo ikani hantei suru no ka: Kandai gyōsei bunsho no jirei kenkyū” 古代の識字能力を如何に判定するのか——漢代行政文書の事例研究, in Takada Tokio 高田時雄 ed., Kanji bunka sanzen nen 漢字文化三千年 (Kyoto: Rinsen, 2009), 133–54.
Han shu 漢書 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1962).
He Jin 何晉, “Qin jian zhiri xiao shi” 秦簡質日小識, Chutu wenxian yanjiu 出土文獻研究 14 (2015), 190–201.
Hsing I-tien 邢義田, “Cong jiandu kan Handai de xingzheng wenshu fanben: ‘Shi’” 從簡牘看漢代的行政文書範本——“式”, in Hsing I-tien, Zhi guo an bang: Fazhi, xingzheng yu junshi 治國安邦——法制、行政與軍事 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2011), 450–72.
Hsing I-tien 邢義田, “Handai ‘Cang Jie,’ ‘Jijiu,’ ba ti he ‘shi shu’ wenti: Zai lun Qin Han guanli ruhe xuexi wenzi” 漢代《蒼頡》、《急就》、八體和“史書”問題——再論秦漢官吏如何學習文字, in Hsing I-tien, Zhi guo an bang: Fazhi, xingzheng yu junshi 治國安邦——法制、行政與軍事 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2011), 595–654.
Hsing I-tien 邢義田, “Handai jiandu gongwenshu de zhengben, fuben, caogao he qianshu wenti” 漢代簡牘公文書的正本、副本、草稿和簽署問題, Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊 82.4 (2011), 601–78.
Hsing I-tien 邢義田, “Han zhi Sanguo gong wenshu zhong de qianshu” 漢至三國公文書中的簽署, Wen shi 文史 2012.3, 163–98.
Hulsewé, A. F. P., Remnants of Ch’in Law: An Annotated Translation of the Ch’in Legal and Administrative Rules of the 3rd Century B.C. Discovered in Yün-meng Prefecture, Hu-pei Province, in 1975 (Leiden: Brill, 1985).
Hunan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 湖南省文物考古研究所 ed., Liye Qin jian (er) 里耶秦簡（貳）(Beijing: Wenwu, 2017).
Jiandu zhengli xiaozu 簡牘整理小組 ed., Juyan Han jian (yi) 居延漢簡（壹）(Taibei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 2014).
Jiandu zhengli xiaozu 簡牘整理小組 ed., Juyan Han jian (san) 居延漢簡（叁）(Taibei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 2016).
Jiandu zhengli xiaozu 簡牘整理小組 ed., Juyan Han jian (si) 居延漢簡（肆）(Taibei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 2017).
Karlgren Bernhard , Grammata Serica Recensa (Stockholm: Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, 1972).
Kyōto daigaku jinbun kagaku kenkyūjo kantoku kenkyūhan 京都大学人文科学研究所簡牘研究班 ed., Kan kan goi: Chūgoku kodai mokkan jiten 漢簡語彙——中国古代木簡辞典 (Tokyo: Iwanami, 2015).
Lau, Ulrich, “Die Rekonstruktion des Strafprozesses und die Prinzipien der Strafzumessung zu Beginn der Han-Zeit im Lichte des Zouyanshu,” in Reinhard Emmerich und Hans Stumpfeldt eds., Und folge nun dem, was mein Herz begehrt. Festschrift für Ulrich Unger zum 70. Geburtstag (Hamburg: Hamburger Sinologische Gesellschaft, 2002), 343–95.
Lau Ulrich and Lüdke Michael , Exemplarische Rechtsfälle vom Beginn der Han-Dynastie: Eine kommentierte Übersetzung des Zouyanshu aus Zhangjiashan/Provinz Hubei (Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 2012).
Lau Ulrich and Staack Thies , Legal Practice in the Formative Stages of the Chinese Empire: An Annotated Translation of the Exemplary Qin Criminal Cases from the Yuelu Academy Collection (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2016).
Lewis, Mark Edward, Writing and Authority in Early China (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999).
Li Feng and David Prager Branner eds., Writing & Literacy in Early China: Studies from the Columbia Early China Seminar (Seattle/London: University of Washington Press, 2011).
Li Junming 李均明, “Fengjian tishu kaolüe” 封檢題署考略, Wenwu 文物 1990.10, 72–78.
Li Junming 李均明, Qin Han jiandu wenshu fenlei jijie 秦漢簡牘文書分類輯解 (Beijing: Wenwu, 2009).
Li Junming 李均明 and Liu Jun 劉軍, Jiandu wenshu xue 簡牘文書學 (Nanning: Guangxi jiaoyu, 1999).
Li Ling 李零, Jianbo gushu yu xueshu yuanliu 簡帛古書與學術源流 (Beijing: Sanlian, 2004).
Loewe Michael , Records of Han Administration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967).
Wing Ma Tsang , “Scribes, Assistants, and the Materiality of Administrative Documents in Qin-Early Han China: Excavated Evidence from Liye, Shuihudi, and Zhangjiashan,” T’oung Pao 103.4–5 (2017), 297–333.
Ma Yi 馬怡, “Bian shu shitan” 扁書試探, Jianbo 簡帛 1 (2006), 415–28.
Peng Hao 彭浩, Chen Wei 陳偉, and Kudō Motoo 工藤元男 eds., Ernian lüling yu Zouyanshu: Zhangjiashan er si qi hao Han mu chutu falü wenxian shidu 二年律令與奏讞書——張家山二四七號漢墓出土法律文獻釋讀 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2006).
Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian zhengli xiaozu 睡虎地秦墓竹簡整理小組 ed., Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian 睡虎地秦墓竹簡 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1990).
Staack Thies , “Single- and Multi-Piece Manuscripts in Early Imperial China: On the Background and Significance of a Terminological Distinction,” Early China 41 (2018), 245–95.
Takatori Yūji 鷹取祐司, Shin Kan kan bunsho no kisoteki kenkyū 秦漢官文書の基礎的研究 (Tokyo: Kyūko shoin, 2015).
Tsuchiguchi Fuminori 土口史記, “Relaying and Copying Documents in the Warring States, Qin, and Han Periods,” in Nagata Tomoyuki 永田知之 ed., Documents and Writing Materials in East Asia (Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 2014), 29–51.
Wang Guihai 汪桂海, Handai wenshu zhidu 漢代文書制度 (Nanning: Guangxi jiaoyu, 1999).
Wu Wenling 鄔文玲, “Jiandu zhong de ‘zhen’ zi yu ‘suan’ zi” 簡牘中的“真”字與“算”字, Jianbo 簡帛 15 (2017), 151–69.
Xu Shen 許慎 and Duan Yucai 段玉裁, Shuowen jiezi zhu 説文解字注 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 1981).
Xu Xuebiao 徐學標, “Qin shu ba ti zhi shu shu yanjiu” 秦書八體之署書研究, Shandong yishu 山東藝術 2017.3, 107–13.
Yao Lei 姚磊, “‘Liye Qin jian (yi)’ suojian ‘jian’ chutan” 《里耶秦簡（壹）》所見“檢”初探, Wuhan daxue Jianbo wang 武漢大學簡帛網, December 28, 2015, http://www.bsm.org.cn/show_article.php?id=2407.
Yates, Robin D. S., “The Qin Slips and Boards from Well No. 1, Liye, Hunan: A Brief Introduction to the Qin Qianling County Archives,” Early China 35 (2012–13), 291–329.
Zhang Defang 張德芳 ed., Juyan xinjian jishi (san) 居延新簡集釋（三）(Lanzhou: Gansu wenhua, 2016).
Zhang Defang 張德芳 ed., Juyan xinjian jishi (si) 居延新簡集釋（四）(Lanzhou: Gansu wenhua, 2016).
Zhang Defang 張德芳 ed., Juyan xinjian jishi (qi) 居延新簡集釋（七）(Lanzhou: Gansu wenhua, 2016).
Zhang Junmin 張俊民, “Xuanquan Han jian suojian wenshu geshi jian” 懸泉漢簡所見文書格式簡, Jianbo yanjiu 簡帛研究 2009 (2011), 120–41.
Zhongguo wenwu yanjiusuo 中國文物研究所 and Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 湖北省文物考古研究所 eds., Longgang Qin jian 龍崗秦簡 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2001).
Zhu Hanmin 朱漢民 and Chen Songchang 陳松長 eds., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (san) 嶽麓書院藏秦簡（叁）(Shanghai: Shanghai cishu, 2013).
Acknowledgements
This paper emerged from the Heidelberg Collaborative Research Centre 933 “Material Text Cultures” (Subproject B09 “Bamboo and Wood as Writing Materials in Early China”), which is financed by the German Research Foundation (dfg). Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the conferences “Han-Tang xieben wenhua yanjiu” 漢唐寫本文化研究 (Wuhan University, June 22–24, 2018; organizer: Zhong Shulin 鐘書林) and “Archaeological Texts and Textual Archaeology: Warring States Representations of the Past” (Academia Sinica, June 28–29, 2018; organizers: Uffe Bergeton, Huang Kuan-yun 黃冠雲 and Pham Lee-moi 范麗梅). I would like to express my gratitude to the organizers of these conferences for their invitations and to all participants for stimulating questions and discussion. I would further like to thank Enno Giele, Hsing I-tien 邢義田, Rens Krijgsman, Ulrich Lau, Ma Tsang Wing 馬增榮, and Tong Chun Fung 唐俊峰 as well as the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and comments on a previous draft.
For a general discussion see, for example, Mark Edward Lewis, Writing and Authority in Early China (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999), ch. 1.
For introductory works and translations in Western languages see, for example, Michael Loewe, Records of Han Administration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967); A. F. P. Hulsewé, Remnants of Ch’in Law: An Annotated Translation of the Ch’in Legal and Administrative Rules of the 3rd Century B.C. Discovered in Yün-meng Prefecture, Hu-pei Province, in 1975 (Leiden: Brill, 1985); Ulrich Lau and Michael Lüdke, Exemplarische Rechtsfälle vom Beginn der Han-Dynastie: Eine kommentierte Übersetzung des Zouyanshu aus Zhangjiashan/Provinz Hubei (Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 2012); Robin D. S. Yates, “The Qin Slips and Boards from Well No. 1, Liye, Hunan: A Brief Introduction to the Qin Qianling County Archives,” Early China 35 (2012–13), 291–329; Anthony J. Barbieri-Low and Robin D. S. Yates, Law, State, and Society in Early Imperial China: A Study with Critical Edition and Translation of the Legal Texts from Zhangjiashan Tomb no. 247 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2015); Ulrich Lau and Thies Staack, Legal Practice in the Formative Stages of the Chinese Empire: An Annotated Translation of the Exemplary Qin Criminal Cases from the Yuelu Academy Collection (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2016).
On literacy see, for example, Enno Giele, “Kodai no shikiji nōryoku wo ikani hantei suru no ka: Kandai gyōsei bunsho no jirei kenkyū” 古代の識字能力を如何に判定するのか——漢代行政文書の事例研究, in Takada Tokio 高田時雄 ed., Kanji bunka sanzen nen 漢字文化三千年 (Kyoto: Rinsen, 2009), 133–54; Li Feng and David Prager Branner eds., Writing & Literacy in Early China: Studies from the Columbia Early China Seminar (Seattle/London: University of Washington Press, 2011).
The most recently published new sources are the second volume of the Qin manuscripts from Liye well no. 1 and the latest volume of the Yuelu Academy Qin manuscripts, see Hunan sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 湖南省文物考古研究所 ed., Liye Qin jian (er) 里耶秦簡（貳） (Beijing: Wenwu, 2017); Chen Songchang 陳松長 ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (wu) 嶽麓書院藏秦簡（伍） (Shanghai: Shanghai cishu, 2018).
See, for example, the recent monographs Takatori Yūji 鷹取祐司, Shin Kan kan bunsho no kisoteki kenkyū 秦漢官文書の基礎的研究 (Tokyo: Kyūko shoin, 2015); Fujita Katsuhisa 藤田勝久, Chūgoku kodai kokka to jōhō dentatsu: Shin Kan kantoku no kenkyū 中国古代国家と情報伝達——秦漢簡牘の研究 (Tokyo: Kyūko shoin, 2016).
See, for example, Kyōto daigaku jinbun kagaku kenkyūjo kantoku kenkyūhan 京都大学人文科学研究所簡牘研究班 ed., Kan kan goi: Chūgoku kodai mokkan jiten 漢簡語彙——中国古代木簡辞典 (Tokyo: Iwanami, 2015).
See Wolfgang Behr, “The Semantic Field of ‘Writing’ in Early Chinese in a Comparative Perspective: An Approach from Etymology and Paleography,” paper presented at the conference “Signs of Writing: The Cultural, Social, and Linguistic Contexts of the World’s First Writing Systems” (Shanghai/Beijing, July 26–30, 2015). I am indebted to Wolfgang Behr for making the handout of this unpublished work available to me. While Behr’s paper has a strong focus on comparison with other languages and is restricted to the pre-imperial period, the present paper is more concerned with the specific terminology used in the early imperial administration. For an in-depth study on the semantic field of “reading,” see Wolfang Behr and Berhard Führer, “Einführende Notizen zum Lesen in China mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Frühzeit,” in Bernhard Führer ed., Aspekte des Lesens in China in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart (Bochum: Projekt Verlag, 2005), 1–42.
See, for example, the classification in Li Junming 李均明, Qin Han jiandu wenshu fenlei jijie 秦漢簡牘文書分類輯解 (Beijing: Wenwu, 2009).
With “act of writing,” I mean the procedure of applying writing to a piece of wood, bamboo, etc. by hand—normally using a brush and ink, in some cases probably a carving knife (see section 2 below).
See, most recently, Chen Wei 陳偉, Qin jiandu jiaodu ji suojian zhidu kaocha 秦簡牘校讀及所見制度考察 (Wuhan: Wuhan daxue, 2017), 36–46.
Ma Tsang Wing, “Scribes, Assistants, and the Materiality of Administrative Documents in Qin-Early Han China: Excavated Evidence from Liye, Shuihudi, and Zhangjiashan,” T’oung Pao 103.4–5 (2017), 325–29.
Enno Giele, “Signatures of ‘Scribes’ in Early Imperial China,” Asiatische Studien 59 (2005), 362–65.
See Wang Guihai 汪桂海, Handai wenshu zhidu 漢代文書制度 (Nanning: Guangxi jiaoyu, 1999), 47–51; Li Junming 李均明 and Liu Jun 劉軍, Jiandu wenshu xue 簡牘文書學 (Nanning: Guangxi jiaoyu, 1999), 265–71; Kyōto daigaku jinbun kagaku kenkyūjo kantoku kenkyūhan, Kan kan goi, 74–75.
Kyōto daigaku jinbun kagaku kenkyūjo kantoku kenkyūhan, Kan kan goi, 336.
Chen Wei 陳偉 et al. eds., Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (di yi juan) 里耶秦簡牘校釋（第一卷） (Wuhan: Wuhan daxue, 2012), 166 n. 2. This can also be observed in Han administrative and legal texts (Peng Hao 彭浩, Chen Wei 陳偉, and Kudō Motoo 工藤元男 eds., Ernian lüling yu Zouyanshu: Zhangjiashan er si qi hao Han mu chutu falü wenxian shidu 二年律令與奏讞書——張家山二四七號漢墓出土法律文獻釋讀 [Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2006], 193, slip 256; Gansu jiandu baohu yanjiu zhongxin 甘肅簡牘保護研究中心 et al. eds., Jianshui Jinguan Han jian (si) 肩水金關漢簡（肆）(Shanghai: Zhongxi, 2015), 84, slip 73ejt37:522A).
See, for example, Gansu jiandu baohu yanjiu zhongxin 甘肅簡牘保護研究中心 et al. eds., Jianshui Jinguan Han jian (yi) 肩水金關漢簡（壹） (Shanghai: Zhongxi, 2011), 106, slip 73ejt5:22; Jianshui Jinguan Han jian (si), 182, slip 73ejt37:1133. Cf. also the nominal meaning “list” in phrases such as yi wu shu 衣物疏 “list of clothes and other goods.” On yi wu shu, see Dou Lei 竇磊, “Han Jin yi wu shu jijiao ji xiangguan wenti kaocha” 漢晉衣物疏集校及相關問題考察 (PhD dissertation, Wuhan University 武漢大學, 2016).
Hsing I-tien 邢義田, “Handai jiandu gongwenshu de zhengben, fuben, caogao he qianshu wenti” 漢代簡牘公文書的正本、副本、草稿和簽署問題, Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊 82.4 (2011), 640–52. During the Qin period, the status of a document as an “original/primary copy” (in contrast to a duplicate copy) was sometimes made explicit by the use of the word zhen shu 真書. See Chen Wei et al., Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (di yi juan), 43, slip 8-60+8-656+8-665+8-748; 52, slip 8-66+8-208; 68, slip 8-130+8-190+8-193, etc. On zhen (shu) in Han administrative documents, see Wu Wenling 鄔文玲, “Jiandu zhong de ‘zhen’ zi yu ‘suan’ zi” 簡牘中的“真”字與“算”字, Jianbo 簡帛 15 (2017), 151–69.
Chen Wei 陳偉 et al. eds., Qin jiandu heji (yi) 秦簡牘合集（壹）(Wuhan: Wuhan daxue, 2014), 145, slip 186. See the formulation “to copy statutes” (xie lü 寫律) on Zhongguo wenwu yanjiusuo 中國文物研究所 and Hubei sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 湖北省文物考古研究所 eds., Longgang Qin jian 龍崗秦簡 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2001), 129, slip 177.
Translation based on Hulsewé, Remnants of Ch’in Law, 86 (A 97).
Chen Songchang, Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (wu), 140, slip 216. Unless otherwise noted, translations are my own.
Chen Songchang, Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (wu), 130, slips 186–87 (punctuation modified).
It is likely that this report (yan 言) is likewise done by an official (li 吏) on behalf of the person who submitted the petition (shang shu zhe 上書者). On the difference between shang shu 上書 and yan 言, see Enno Giele, Imperial Decision-Making and Communication in Early China: A Study of Cai Yong’s Duduan (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006), 121–22.
Chen Wei et al., Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (di yi juan), 360, slip 8-1562v.
The numbers in parentheses give the position of the respective day in the sequence of 60 days based on the ganzhi 干支 system.
Yates, “The Qin Slips and Boards from Well No. 1,” 302.
For xie shang, see Chen Wei et al., Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (di yi juan), 55, slip 8-72; 72–73, slip 8-135; 84–86, slip 8-145, etc. For xie yi, see Chen Wei et al., Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (di yi juan), 33–34, slip 8-21; 228, slip 8-796; 293, slip 8-1219; Liye Qin jian (er), 42, slip 9-1095; 69, slip 9-1863.
Tsuchiguchi Fuminori 土口史記, “Relaying and Copying Documents in the Warring States, Qin, and Han Periods,” in Nagata Tomoyuki 永田知之 ed., Documents and Writing Materials in East Asia (Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 2014), 29–51.
Kyōto daigaku jinbun kagaku kenkyūjo kantoku kenkyūhan, Kan kan goi, 228.
See Jiandu zhengli xiaozu 簡牘整理小組 ed., Juyan Han jian (san) 居延漢簡（叁） (Taibei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 2016), 237, slip 288.17; Zhang Defang 張德芳 ed., Juyan xinjian jishi (san) 居延新簡集釋（三）(Lanzhou: Gansu wenhua, 2016), 242, slip ept51:202; Zhang Defang 張德芳 ed., Juyan xinjian jishi (si) 居延新簡集釋（四）(Lanzhou: Gansu wenhua, 2016), 223, slip ept56:257; Gansu jiandu baohu yanjiu zhongxin 甘肅簡牘保護研究中心 et al. eds., Jianshui Jinguan Han jian (wu) 肩水金關漢簡（伍）(Shanghai: Zhongxi, 2016), 127, slip 73ejd:45. Cf. Kyōto daigaku jinbun kagaku kenkyūjo kantoku kenkyūhan, Kan kan goi, 228. The chong was possibly added to retain a two-character-phrase, although xie alone was sufficient to express that a copy was (to be) made. Cf. also chong xie 重寫 on Gansu sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 甘肅省文物考古研究所 ed., Dunhuang Han jian 敦煌漢簡 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1991), 271, slip 1365.
Compare the translations “to carve forgeries” and “to make a false copy” for wei xie 僞寫 in Barbieri-Low and Yates, Law, State, and Society in Early Imperial China, 393, 420 n. 49, 561.
Chen Wei et al., Qin jiandu heji (yi), 218, slip 56. See also Chen Wei et al., Qin jiandu heji (yi), 216, slip 55.
Translation based on Hulsewé, Remnants of Ch’in Law, 135 (D 45).
Peng Hao et al., Ernian lüling yu Zouyanshu, 94, slip 10. See also Peng Hao et al., Ernian lüling yu Zouyanshu, 93, slip 9; 147, slip 137.
Translation based on Barbieri-Low and Yates, Law, State, and Society in Early Imperial China, 393.
Received sources also mention the counterfeit of “tiger credentials” (hu fu 虎符) usually made of metal, see Han shu 漢書 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1962), 64B.2833. Still, wei xie 僞寫 also included brush-written forgeries as shown by a reference to the counterfeit of a “field register” (tian ji 田籍) in Longgang Qin jian, 123, slip 151.
In the following, wherever this is not clarified by the additional use of Chinese characters, Pinyin tone marks are used to discriminate between the words shū 書 and shǔ 署.
On the different meanings of the noun shū in early China, see Li Ling 李零, Jianbo gushu yu xueshu yuanliu 簡帛古書與學術源流 (Beijing: Sanlian, 2004), 39–53.
For an overview, see Li Junming, Qin Han jiandu wenshu fenlei jijie, 23–103.
Hulsewé, Remnants of Ch’in Law, 32–33.
See the modern Chinese translations of shǔ as biao ming 標明 “to mark/indicate” (Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian zhengli xiaozu 睡虎地秦墓竹簡整理小組 ed., Shuihudi Qin mu zhujian 睡虎地秦墓竹簡 [Beijing: Wenwu, 1990], 61) or xie ming 寫明 “to note/record clearly” (Chen Wei et al., Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi [di yi juan], 47 n. 9). Compare English translations of shǔ as “to note, to mark” or “marked, inscribed” (Hulsewé, Remnants of Ch’in Law, 85–86) or “to make a notation, to mark” (Barbieri-Low and Yates, Law, State, and Society in Early Imperial China, 743, 746 n. 14). Compare also Kyōto daigaku jinbun kagaku kenkyūjo kantoku kenkyūhan, Kan kan goi, 258: shirusu しるす “to note, mark.” For the time being, the working translations “to note, make a note” and “to write [down], record” will be adopted for shǔ and shū, respectively.
See, for example, Lau and Lüdke, Exemplarische Rechtsfälle vom Beginn der Han-Dynastie, 103 n. 613.
Bernhard Karlgren, Grammata Serica Recensa (Stockholm: Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, 1972), 30–31.
For the Old Chinese reconstructions *s-ta for shū and *m-taʔ-s for shǔ, see William H. Baxter and Laurent Sagart, Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 360. However, the relation between the roots *taʔ “to place” (Baxter and Sagart, Old Chinese, 61) and *ta—a root with the possible nominal meaning “writing,” from which the verb “to write” may have been derived through the *s- prefix—remains unclear. Therefore, I refrain from further speculating about questions of etymology and the role the derivational affixes *s-, *m-, and *-s may have played in this regard (for some of their functions, see Baxter and Sagart, Old Chinese, 54–56, 58–59).
On jian and their inscriptions, see Li Junming 李均明, “Fengjian tishu kaolüe” 封檢題署考略, Wenwu 文物 1990.10, 72–78.
Chen Wei, Qin jiandu jiaodu ji suojian zhidu kaocha, 48–58.
For the argument that in the course of the first centuries of the Chinese empire the sealing piece and the address label were increasingly combined in the same piece of wood, see Aoki Shunsuke 青木俊介, “Fūken no keitai hatten: ‘Heibanken’ no shiyō hōhō no kōsatsu kara” 封検の形態発展——「平板検」の使用方法の考察から, in Momiyama Akira 籾山明 and Satō Makoto 佐藤信 eds., Bunken to ibutsu no kyōkai ii: Chūgoku shutsudo kantoku shiryō no seitaiteki kenkyū 文献と遺物の境界ii—中国出土簡牘史料の生態的研究 (Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 2014), 229–46.
Chen Songchang, Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (wu), 104, slips 109, 111.
Chen Songchang 陳松長 ed., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (si) 嶽麓書院藏秦簡（肆） (Shanghai: Shanghai cishu, 2015), 161, slips 281–82 (punctuation modified).
Cf. the Japanese translation and discussion of this article in Aoki Shunsuke 青木俊介, “Gakuroku Shin kan ‘kyōritsu’ no kaihōsha tsūchi ni kan suru kitei” 嶽麓秦簡「興律」の開封者通知に関する規定, March 14, 2017, http://www.aa.tufs.ac.jp/users/Ejina/note/note23(Aoki).html.
Chen Songchang, Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (si), 131, slip 192. Cf. Chen Wei et al., Qin jiandu heji (yi), 143, slip 183.
Yao Lei 姚磊, “‘Liye Qin jian (yi)’ suojian ‘jian’ chutan” 《里耶秦簡（壹）》所見“檢”初探, Wuhan daxue Jianbo wang 武漢大學簡帛網, December 28, 2015, http://www.bsm.org.cn/show_article.php?id=2407. Beside cases that completely accord with the formulation shu mou cao fa, there are also examples in which the addressee to be noted is not a bureau (cao). See, for example, shu ling fa 署令發 “make a note [stating] ‘to be opened by the Prefect’” (Chen Wei et al., Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi [di yi juan], 96, slip 8-159), shu zhuli fa 署主吏發 “make a note [stating] ‘to be opened by the responsible official’” (Chen Wei et al., Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi [di yi juan], 108–9, slip 8-197), shu zhufu, ling ruo cheng fa 署主符、令若丞發 “make a note [stating] ‘to be opened by the [official] responsible for the credentials, the Prefect or the Vice-Prefect’” (Chen Wei et al., Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi [di yi juan], 160, slip 8-462+8-685). In other cases, it is likely that the addressee is in fact a bureau, but the cao part is abbreviated, for example jinbu 金布 instead of jinbu cao 金布曹 (Chen Wei et al., Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi [di yi juan], 51, slip 8-64; 94, slip 8-155).
See, for example, Chen Wei et al., Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (di yi juan), 60, slip 8-90; 106, slip 8-182; Liye Qin jian (er), 30, slip 9-733; 34, slip 9-832; 38, slip 9-977; 55, slip 9-1459.
Hsing I-tien 邢義田, “Handai ‘Cang Jie,’ ‘Jijiu,’ ba ti he ‘shi shu’ wenti: Zai lun Qin Han guanli ruhe xuexi wenzi” 漢代《蒼頡》、《急就》、八體和“史書”問題——再論秦漢官吏如何學習文字, in Hsing I-tien, Zhi guo an bang: Fazhi, xingzheng yu junshi 治國安邦——法制、行政與軍事 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2011), 595–654. The early Han “Statutes on Scribes” (Shilü 史律) also mention the ba ti 八體, see Peng Hao et al., Ernian lüling yu Zouyanshu, 297, slip 475.
Xu Shen 許慎 and Duan Yucai 段玉裁, Shuowen jiezi zhu 説文解字注 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 1981), 15A.758.
In fact, shu shu 署書 was probably also used for writing on public notice boards (bian shu 扁書). See Ma Yi 馬怡, “Bian shu shitan” 扁書試探, Jianbo 簡帛 1 (2006), 424.
Xu Xuebiao 徐學標, “Qin shu ba ti zhi shu shu yanjiu” 秦書八體之署書研究, Shandong yishu 山東藝術 2017.3, 107–13.
For example, it has also been pointed out that “signatures” on administrative documents (during the Han period called shu ming 署名) were in many cases written in a more cursive rather than formal style. See Hsing I-tien 邢義田, “Han zhi Sanguo gong wenshu zhong de qianshu” 漢至三國公文書中的簽署, Wen shi 文史 2012.3, 163–66.
Chen Songchang, Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (si), 152, slips 253–54 (punctuation modified).
Although quan shu 券書 most frequently occurs as noun “tally document” in Qin and early Han legal and administrative texts (see, for example, Liye Qin jian [er], 50, slip 9-1332; 53–54, slip 9-1426; Chen Songchang, Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (wu), 67, slip 86; Peng Hao et al., Ernian lüling yu Zouyanshu, 96, slip 14; 224, slip 335), it should be noted that in the present case, quan serves as an adverb for the verb shu.
The editors remain silent on the expression bei shi 倍（背）事, which is otherwise unknown. “Turning one’s back (bei 背) on service (shi 事)” is a literal translation of the term that probably means “to evade labor service.” The term jiang yang 將陽, which in the present context is the means by which labor service is evaded, refers to the offence of “absconding” (wang 亡) for less than 12 months. See Chen Songchang 陳松長, “Shuihudi Qin jian zhong de ‘jiang yang’ xiao kao” 睡虎地秦簡中的“將陽”小考, Hunan daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 湖南大學學報（社會科學版）26.5 (2012), 5–7; Lau and Staack, Legal Practice in the Formative Stages of the Chinese Empire, 178 n. 858.
Thies Staack, “Single- and Multi-Piece Manuscripts in Early Imperial China: On the Background and Significance of a Terminological Distinction,” Early China 41 (2018), 245–95.
It can reasonably be assumed that die in the present example refers to a document that remained in the office—just like one part of the quan 券—and was not given to the person who had to perform labor service. Although the exact nature of that document is not specified, it is possible to make an educated guess on what kind of document it may have been. As mentioned above, the use of die suggests a multi-piece manuscript. And this in turn could well mean a document that contains information on not only one but several persons, with the information concerning one particular person likely noted on one die. Cf. the formulation die shu … ren yi die 牒書 … 人一牒 “write on a die-[document] … one die per person” on Jianshui Jinguan Han jian (yi), 289, slip 73ejt10:311; Zhang Defang 張德芳 ed., Juyan xinjian jishi (qi) 居延新簡集釋（七）(Lanzhou: Gansu wenhua, 2016), 16, slip epf22:56A; Chen Songchang, Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (si), 210, slip 348. Therefore, the respective document might well be a register containing information on several persons.
Chen Songchang, Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (si), 126–27, slips 177–78 (punctuation modified). For a discussion of the content of this statute, see Chen Songchang 陳松長, “Yuelu Qin jian ‘Ben jing lü’ ji xiangguan wenti qianlun” 嶽麓秦簡《奔警律》及相關問題淺論, Hunan daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 湖南大學學報（社會科學版）31.5 (2017), 5–9.
Although die shu 牒書 often occurs as adverb-verb phrase (see, for example, Chen Wei et al., Qin jiandu heji [yi], 67, slip 35; Chen Wei et al., Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi [di yi juan], 132–33, slip 8-317; 189, slip 8-645; 222, slip 8-768; 342, slip 8-1514, etc.), it is sometimes used as a noun, as in the present case. See Zhang Defang, Juyan xinjian jishi (san), 24, slip ept51:114; cf. Kyōto daigaku jinbun kagaku kenkyūjo kantoku kenkyūhan, Kan kan goi, 396.
Chen Songchang, Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (si), 149, slips 244–46.
See, for example, shu xing ri 署行日 “note the day on which he set out/was sent” (Chen Songchang, Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian [si], 145, slip 234) vs. shu qi xing yue 書其行月 “record the month in which he set out/was sent” (Chen Songchang, Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian [si], 149, slip 245); shu qi … ri shu 署其 … 日數 “note their … number of days” (Chen Songchang, Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian [wu], 101, slip 100) vs. shu qi … ri shu 書其 … 日數 “record their … number of days” (Chen Songchang, Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian [si], 149, slip 245).
On model forms, see Hsing I-tien 邢義田, “Cong jiandu kan Handai de xingzheng wenshu fanben: ‘Shi’” 從簡牘看漢代的行政文書範本——“式”, in Hsing I-tien, Zhi guo an bang: Fazhi, xingzheng yu junshi 治國安邦——法制、行政與軍事 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 2011), 450–72; Anthony J. Barbieri-Low, “Model Legal and Administrative Forms from the Qin, Han, and Tang and Their Role in the Facilitation of Bureaucracy and Literacy,” Oriens Extremus 50 (2011), 125–56. On the formulation shu bu ru shi 署不如式 “the note made on/in the document is not in accordance with the respective model form,” see Zhang Junmin 張俊民, “Xuanquan Han jian suojian wenshu geshi jian” 懸泉漢簡所見文書格式簡, Jianbo yanjiu 簡帛研究 2009 (2011), 137, slip vt1410(3):54.
Chen Songchang, Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (wu), 105, slips 113–14 (with modifications). For similar examples with shu … yue 署 … 曰, see Chen Songchang, Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (si), 161, slips 281–82; Chen Songchang, Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (wu), 60–61, slips 66–68; 107, slip 118; Peng Hao et al., Ernian lüling yu Zouyanshu, 203, slip 275.
Translation based on Lau and Staack, Legal Practice in the Formative Stages of the Chinese Empire, 47 n. 334.
Chen Wei et al., Qin jiandu heji (yi), 284, slips 3–5.
Translation based on Hulsewé, Remnants of Ch’in Law, 184 (E 2).
Chen Songchang, Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (si), 210, slip 348; 213, slip 357; Chen Songchang, Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (wu), 101, slip 100; 194, slip 288.
Chen Wei et al., Qin jiandu heji (yi), 345, slips 18.5–21.5 (with modifications).
As noted by the editors, shi 士 probably referred to persons who were entitled to establish a household, to receive fields and a house and to perform regular military service. See Chen Wei et al., Qin jiandu heji (yi), 346 n. 8.
Translation based on Hulsewé, Remnants of Ch’in Law, 208 (F 1).
Chen Wei et al., Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (di yi juan), 78–80, slip 8-138+8-174+8-522+8-523.
Cf. the translation in Yates, “The Qin Slips and Boards from Well No. 1,” 323, which mainly differs in the interpretation of the phrase zi shu miao suo zhiri 自署廟所質日 as “to write down [the place of] the temple in their daily calendar of activities.”
For recent works on Zhiri, see He Jin 何晉, “Qin jian zhiri xiao shi” 秦簡質日小識, Chutu wenxian yanjiu 出土文獻研究 14 (2015), 190–201; Chen Wei (Maxim Korolkov, trans.), “‘Event Calendars’ in the Early Imperial Era: A Re-Assessment,” Bamboo and Silk 1.2 (2018), 446–68.
Cf. the other possible interpretation by Yates, which would however likewise imply that an entry is made in a calendar that had existed for some time, probably since the beginning of the year.
Chen Songchang, Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (wu), 194, slip 288 (punctuation modified).
Formulations such as shi yu 視獄 “to inspect a criminal case” (Zhu Hanmin 朱漢民 and Chen Songchang 陳松長 eds., Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian [san] 嶽麓書院藏秦簡[叁] [Shanghai: Shanghai cishu, 2013], 129, slip 64; cf. Lau and Staack, Legal Practice in the Formative Stages of the Chinese Empire, 152), or shi qi gu yu 視其故獄 “to inspect a former criminal case” (Peng Hao et al., Ernian lüling yu Zouyanshu, 359, slip 99; cf. Barbieri-Low and Yates, Law, State, and Society in Early Imperial China, 1311) clearly show that yu 獄 could refer to the documents relating to a criminal case. Another reason for not translating yu as “court” or “prison” here, is a comparable passage from another Qin ordinance, where the noun after yu 于 is clearly referring to a type of document. See Chen Songchang, Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (wu), 194, slip 290: shu … yu zhuan 署 … 于傳 “to make a note about … on the passport.”
Bu 簿 and shu 署 are both used as verbs in this context. Cf. a similar construction jie wei bu, shu … zhuang 皆爲簿，署 … 狀 “in every case compile an account and make a note on the circumstances of …,” in which bu is used as a noun, but preceded by the verb wei “to make, compile.” See Chen Songchang, Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian (wu), 101, slip 100.
On the stages of criminal procedure, see Ulrich Lau, “Die Rekonstruktion des Strafprozesses und die Prinzipien der Strafzumessung zu Beginn der Han-Zeit im Lichte des Zouyanshu,” in Reinhard Emmerich und Hans Stumpfeldt eds., Und folge nun dem, was mein Herz begehrt. Festschrift für Ulrich Unger zum 70. Geburtstag (Hamburg: Hamburger Sinologische Gesellschaft, 2002), 343–95.
Peng Hao et al., Ernian lüling yu Zouyanshu, 203, slip 275.
The translation follows the editors’ interpretation of he 劾 as he 核. See Peng Hao et al., Ernian lüling yu Zouyanshu, 205 n. 7.
Translation based on Barbieri-Low and Yates, Law, State, and Society in Early Imperial China, 743.
Barbieri-Low and Yates, Law, State, and Society in Early Imperial China, 1266 n. 5.
On signatures, see Giele, “Signatures of ‘Scribes’ in Early Imperial China,” 353–87; Hsing I-tien, “Han zhi Sanguo gong wenshu zhong de qianshu,” 163–98.
One of the reviewers pointed out that shǔ also occurs in contexts where it is very likely that a new document was drafted. As an example, he or she cited a document that refers to “making a note on the overall number of arrows that were shot and on the number of arrows that hit the target on a die[-document]” (shu fa zhong shi shu yu die 署發中矢數于牒, see Zhang Defang, Juyan xinjian jishi [si], 26, slip ept53:138). The cited document describes the way in which the results of the yearly archery tests had to be recorded. Although it is very likely that new documents about the results of the tests were produced each year, I would argue that shǔ also in this case might well refer to the making of additional or supplementary notes in an existing document. One could well imagine that a die-document with one die per person (see n. 62 above) to be tested is first prepared with the name and status of each person recorded at the top of the respective slip and that additional entries were made immediately after each person had been tested. The whole document may well have been written by only one person in the course of one (or several?) days and would not exhibit clear evidence of later additions recognizable from the handwriting. See, for example, Jiandu zhengli xiaozu 簡牘整理小組 ed., Juyan Han jian (yi) 居延漢簡（壹）(Taibei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 2014), 105, slip 34.13; Jiandu zhengli xiaozu 簡牘整理小組 ed., Juyan Han jian (si) 居延漢簡（肆）(Taibei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 2017), 7, slip 312.9. Generally, the addition of notes through shǔ could at times be difficult to distinguish from the previous drafting of the document to which the notes are added and may even appear to be part of the original drafting process, particularly if there is neither a change of hands nor a significant difference with regard to the points in time at which the different writing acts took place.
This is not meant to imply that such “shǔ-notes” were restricted to exceptional cases. In fact, it seems that they were often applied to designated spaces that had been purposefully left blank during the initial drafting of the document and were later “filled out.”
