[Scholar’s Corner: Confucianism in and for the Modern World] A Critical Rereading of Ancient Classics: The Harmony between Excavated and Transmitted Texts

I. A Brief Overview of the Studies on the Excavated Texts from Early China

At the center of the debate between “doubting the past” (yigu 疑古) and “explaining the past” (shigu 釋古) in the study of Chinese ancient history, which emerged after the end of the Qing dynasty, there was a methodological difference as to how to interpret transmitted ancient Chinese texts. However, the debate entered a new phase in the twentieth century as a large number of paper documents dating from the Northern and Southern dynasties to the Tang dynasty were discovered in Dunhuang, a town in northwest China. Since most of China’s transmitted texts date from the Song and the following dynasties, when woodblock printing became affordable and widespread, a comparative study between the newly excavated texts and the transmitted texts would be of great academic value. Unfortunately, however, the period when the Dunhuang documents were written is quite distant from the Spring and Autumn and the Warring States periods and the Qin and Han dynasties, when most of the Chinese classics originated.

However, in the 1970s, a number of important manuscripts written on wood, bamboo, and silk were discovered in various parts of China, offering the possibility of filling in many of the gaps in the ancient Chinese history as well as in the history of Chinese classics. The discovery of large numbers of administrative and military documents in Dunhuang and Juyan¹ in the northwestern border region provided much help in identifying the true features of the administrative system of the Qin and Han dynasties. In contrast, a significant amount of ideological and legal texts were discovered mainly in Hubei and Hunan provinces. Among them were texts of strategy (such as Sunzi bingfa 孫子兵法; “The Art of War”), philosophy (such as Laozi), law, medicine, mathematics, and geomancy dating from the Spring and Autumn and the Warring States periods to the Qin and Han dynasties. Moreover, the Guodian chumu zhujian 郭店楚墓竹簡 (The Bamboo Slips from the Chu Tomb at Guodian) and the Shanghai bowuguancang zhanguo chuzhushu 上海博物館藏戰國楚竹書 (Shanghai Museum Bamboo Strips), both of which were discovered in 1993–1994, contain a large number of ideas that can neither be found in the study of ancient characters nor in the study by the “hundred schools of thought” (zhuzi baijia 諸子百家). Therefore, it can be said that the discovery of these two documents ushered in a turning point in the study of ancient Chinese culture and thought. This trend continued into the twenty-first century with the continuous discoveries of excavated texts. In particular, the discovery of the Yuelu shuyuan cang Qin jian 岳麓書院藏秦簡 (Qin Slips Housed at the Yuelu Academy) in 2007 provided information on not only the laws but also the social circumstances of Emperor Shihuang’s Qin dynasty. There are also other representative achievements in this regard, such as the Qinghuadaxue cang zhanguo zhujian 淸華大學藏戰國竹簡 (Warring States Bamboo Slips in the Collection of Tsinghua University), a large batch of bamboo slips collected by Tsinghua University in 2008, and the excavated texts acquired and organized by Peking University in 2009–2010.

In this way, various ancient texts have been excavated in China from the 1970s to the present, and, especially since the 1990s, it has been possible to confirm the existence of transmitted texts written during the Warring States period. Thus, it became possible to skip 2,000 years and see the texts circulated at the time. Encounters between excavated texts and transmitted texts took place in various ways. Initially, in China, research of ancient classics was conducted only in the relevant field or subject, but the importance of new research methodologies has been on the rise as the proportion of newly excavated texts increased and accordingly the research focused on transmitted texts, which had had no counterparts for comparison in the past, inevitably began to be replaced with new methods of research.

II. The “Method of Dual Attestation” Proposed by Wang Guowei

“Ancient classics” are the landmark works that have been recognized for their value by many people over a long period of time and thus regarded as exemplum virtutis. In the East Asian world, classical works existed in the form of inscriptions on bamboo and wooden slips or silk even before the use of paper. A plethora of works inscribed on these writing materials have been passed down as classics in China and East Asia to this day, and it can be said that the recognition and reinterpretation of their meanings represent a new perception toward the future. For this reason, the development of Classical Studies in East Asia has not been limited to a specific country or region, but has progressed without interruption through exchanges and communications within the region, transcending the boundaries of time and region. If we examine the changes in Classical Studies through Chinese history, we can trace the origin of “classics” in East Asia to the literature written by the so-called “hundred schools of thought” (zhuzi baijia 諸子百家) of the Spring and Autumn Warring States period (770–221 BCE) and the historians and thinkers of the Qin and Han dynasties (221 BCE–220 CE). These classics were arranged and published by many later scholars over a long period of time and have now been passed down to us. For example, Lunyu 論語 (The Analects) compiled by Zhu Xi 朱熹 and Laozi 老子 (Book of Master Lao), annotated by Wang Bi 王弼, are representative examples. However, many later scholars only assert their own interpretations and opinions regarding the classics compiled and edited by their predecessors, without realizing that the contents of these texts can be different from those of what was written by the original authors. This is because it is not easy to find other texts with the same contents that can be compared with the currently available versions of the classics.

The authenticity and reliability of the traditional firm belief that the texts of the classics remain unchanged gradually began to be questioned due to the influence of the Evidential Learning (Kaozhengxue 考證學) and the Doubting Antiquity Movement (Yigupai 疑古派) of the late Qing dynasty. Among these changes in academic atmosphere, the discovery and reinterpretation of different versions of classics were proposed in earnest as the original texts of the classics hidden “underground” began to surface in their true form “on paper,” drawing attention from the public. A representative example is the discovery and organization of various early Chinese writings inscribed on bamboo and wooden slips, which have been excavated from various parts of China since the twentieth century. Wang Guowei 王國維, a scholar in the late Qing dynasty and early Republic of China, was a representative scholar who attempted to freshly explore the texts already passed down “on paper” through the texts newly discovered “underground.” Presenting a new research method called the “method of dual attestation” (erchong zhengjufa 二重證據法) in the introduction to his Gushi xinzheng 古史新證 (New Criticisms of Ancient History) (1925), he mentioned as follows:

We are so fortunate to have been born in this period that we can have access to the new underground materials in addition to the existing materials on paper. From these materials, my generation has obtained with certainty the evidence to supplement and correct the materials on paper, and we can further prove certain parts of the ancient writings to be true records entirely.² (Wang [1925] 1994, 2)

Needless to say, the “ancient writings” mentioned here by Wang Guowei refer to the transmitted texts of the classics. Also, in 1925, Wang Guowei gave a lecture titled “Scholarly Knowledge of New Discoveries in China in the Past Twenty to Thirty Years” at the Tsinghua University at the request of its student council, in which he said, “From ancient times, most new scholarly knowledge has arisen from new discoveries” (Wang [1925] 1996, 175). The “new materials” that he also mentioned as worth noting include the inscribed oracle bones excavated from the Yinxu 殷墟 site in Anyang, Henan province, the writings on wooden tablets from the Han and Jin dynasties discovered around Dunhuang and the Western Regions, books and texts from the Six Dynasties and the Tang dynasty found in the Dunhuang area, and books published since the Yuan and Ming dynasties. His argument, that the discovery of new primary source materials can develop into a discipline enriched with new meanings and values, is equivalent to the claim that the study of classics in China should develop into a new discipline through the study of new materials. However, Wang Guowei’s outstanding academic prescience and foresight had yet to come through under the circumstances where there hadn’t been much progress in the excavation of new source materials from the “underground.” However, as the organization of the excavated source materials began to go into full swing after the 1970s, Wang Guowei’s predictive “method of dual attestation” began to gradually come to fruition, and accordingly the need for a new reading of the “classics” was raised. As is well known, in 1973, a wide variety of valuable grave goods were excavated from Tomb No. 3 of Mawangdui 馬王堆 site—the tomb of Li Cang, a ruler of the Changsha kingdom during the reign of Emperor Wen of Han (r. 180–157 BCE)—located in Changsha, Hunan province. What particularly attracted the attention of the public was the silk texts (boshu 帛書) of various characteristics,³ the most notable among which are Laozi 老子 (Book of Master Lao), Zhanguo zongheng jiashu 戰國縱橫家書 (Works from the School of Diplomacy during the Warring States Period; hereafter, Warring States Diplomatic Works), and Zhouyi 周易 (Book of Changes). While the bibliographical significance of these unearthed silk texts is obvious and already known, the structure of the Book of Master Lao in the newly discovered silk texts, which is divided into two parts Dejing 德經 (The Classic of Power) and Daojing 道經 (The Classic of Virtue), is slightly different from that of the existing version of the Book of Master Lao (Chen 2018). In addition, although prior to the discovery of the Warring States Diplomatic Works, there had been controversy over whether the contents described in Zhanguoce 戰國策 (Stratagems of the Warring States) were true, the controversy was over after the same contents and sentences as the Stratagems of the Warring States were identified in the newly discovered Warring States Diplomatic Works. Furthermore, Warring States Diplomatic Works provided the basis for correcting the descriptive errors in Shiji 史記 (Historical Records) by Sima Qian 司馬遷 and the Stratagems of the Warring States. Although it is obvious to say, comparative studies between excavated and transmitted texts can provide valuable data that make it possible to correct errors in the historical books that have been transmitted to the present. In the following chapter, I will seek to verify this by examining some contents of The Analects and Historical Records.

III. The Bamboo-Strip Editions of the Lunyu (The Analects)

Recently excavated wooden- and bamboo-strip manuscripts have enabled a more diverse understanding of the transmitted texts, which can be illustrated by several examples of excavated texts. The first example to be considered is The Analects. In 1973, more than 660 bamboo slips of The Analects, which are so-called “Dingzhou lunyu zhujian 定州論語竹簡” (The Analects Bamboo Strips from the Han Tomb at Dingzhou; hereafter, “Dingzhou Analects”), were unearthed from Tomb No. 40 in Bajiaolang village, Dingzhou city, Hebei Province, China,⁴ and in 1997 through the comparative analysis with the existing text of The Analects, the textual explanation (shiwen 釋文) and collation notes (jiaokanji 校勘記) of the canon were published (Hebei Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archeology 1997). Comparable to the Dingzhou Analects, another notable excavated text of The Analects is the “Lelang lunyu zhujian 樂浪論語竹簡” (The Bamboo Slip Version of The Analects Discovered in Lelang; hereafter, “Lelang Analects”), which was excavated from Tomb No. 364 in Jeongbaek-dong during the construction of Tongil Street in Nangnang 樂浪 (Lelang in Chinese) district, Pyongyang, in the early 1990s. Although no official report has been yet published about the excavation and the bamboo slips, the research results to date, which have been obtained based on one or two photos released by experts, are that these slips are similar to the Dingzhou’s slips in terms of overall form and content (See Lee, Yun, and Kim 2009).⁵ In addition, wooden slips of The Analects, dating from the middle of the Former Han dynasty to the early Later Han dynasty, were discovered at the Xuanquanzhi 懸泉置 site near Dunhuang, Gansu province, and the Jianshuijinguan 肩水金關 site in the northern part of Jinta 金塔 county, Gansu province. Moreover, in 2016 more than 5,000 bamboo slips, including those of The Analects, Liji 禮記 (Book of Rites), and I Ching 易經 (Book of Changes), were excavated in Nanchang, Jiangxi province, along with various relics from the Tomb of Liu He 劉賀 (92–59 BCE), who had been formerly the Prince of Changyi (昌邑王) and was dethroned as emperor of the Han dynasty in 74 BCE but was later given the title “Haihunhou 海昏侯” (Marquis of Haihun) (Jiangxi Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology et al. 2016, 75), with those of The Analects drawing the most attention.

Among the above-mentioned excavated texts of The Analects, the Jinshuijinguan and Haihunhou editions show the most striking difference from the existing transmitted texts of The Analects. First, the contents of The Analects found in the Jinshuijinguan bamboo slips can be summarized as follows in Table 1 (Conservation and Research Center for Wooden Slips in Gansu, Gansu Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, et al. 2011–2015).

Table 1.

Identified and Unidentified Passages from The Analects in the Jianshuijinguan hanjian, vols. 1–5

In the table above (Table 1), nos. 1–5 are consistent with the passages in the transmitted texts of The Analects, while nos. 6–13 cannot be found in the latter texts. By the way, an interesting fact is observed in the analysis of the recently released bamboo strips of The Analects discovered in the tomb of Marquis Haihun in Nanchang. Some passages on the slips are as follows:

Slip A: The Master said: “Yong could fulfill the role of ‘facing south’ (being a ruler).” / Zi You became the governor of Wucheng. The Master said, “Have you been able to employ any good people?” / The Master said: “The wise enjoy the sea, the humane enjoy the mountains. The wise are busy, the humane are tranquil. The wise are happy, the humane are eternal.”⁶ (Jiangxi Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology and the Capital Museum 2016, 186)

Slip B: Confucius knows that it is easy to practice the Way of the king. What is meant by “easy” is that one examines himself critically for three days. Confucius said, “The way of [the king] is beautiful. Why isn’t it practiced?” / Knowing the Way.⁷ (Jiangxi Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2016, 61)

The passage on Slip A is consistent in terms of content with that in the chapter “Yongye 雍也” of the transmitted edition of The Analects, although the words inside the parentheses are missing as the lower part of the bamboo slip is partially broken. Meanwhile, when the passage on Slip B is compared with the textual explanation of Slip 6 (73EJT22:6) in Table 1, it turns out to be almost the same as the latter. The different characters found in the Analects included in the Jianshuijinguan hanjian (Table 1) and the Haihunhou Analects are: zhi 知 and zhi 智, yang 昜 = and yangyang 昜昜, and sheng 省 and zhe 者. In the slip, the sign “=” is the marker indicating repetition, used to avoid writing the same character twice; therefore, “昜=” should be read as “昜昜,” which means “easy” (Xiao and Zhao 2014, 184–87). The most decisive difference between the Haihunhou edition and the Jianshuijinguan hanjian edition of The Analects is that while Slip B of the former records the chapter title as “智道” on the reverse, Slip 6 of the latter does not record the title separately.

Considering the statement in the “Yiwenzhi 藝文志” (Treatise on Literature) chapter of the Hanshu 漢書 (Book of Han), which says, “The Qi version of The Analects (Qilun 齊論) has twenty-two chapters, including the two extra chapters ‘Wenwang 問王’ and ‘Zhidao 知道’” (齊 二十二篇. 多問王. 知道), it is highly probable that the “Zhidao” chapter would be included in the Qi version, one of the tree versions of The Analects, which has been believed to be lost. Of course, it is still too early to conclude because there are various opinions in the academic community about it, but it cannot be denied that there exist variant versions of The Analects, not just the Lu 魯 version, which has been passed down in the form of transmitted texts. Therefore, if the existence of various versions of The Analects is confirmed through the discovery of its excavated texts, not only bibliographic studies of the transmitted texts of The Analects but also new perceptions and studies of Confucianism in general should be expanded.

IV. “Different Records” of the “Same Facts”

In recent China, critical readings of various classics through “different records” of the “same facts,” which cannot be verified in the existing transmitted texts, are being conducted. In this respect, several records in the Historical Records can be examined as examples. The first example is the record of the thirty-seventh year of the first Qin emperor in the “Qin shihuang benji 秦始皇本紀” (Basic Annals of the First Qin Emperor), chapter 6 of the Historical Records, which describes the stratagem used by Zhao Gao 趙高 and Li Si 李斯 to seize power on the death of Emperor Shihuang by putting the emperor’s youngest son Hu Hai 胡亥 on the throne (See Kim 2017). However, it has been recently found out that, among the bamboo-slip manuscripts of Han dynasty collected at Peking University, the Zhaozhengshu 趙正書 (The Book of Zhao Zheng), written on a multistrip manuscript comprising 52 reconstructed bamboo strips, contains different records from those in the Historical Records (Peking University Excavated Manuscript Research Center 2015). The book mainly deals with the death of Emperor Shihuang during his fifth tour of Eastern China (in the thirty-seventh year of Emperor Shihuang’s reign) and the process in which Emperor Huhai, the second emperor, ascended the throne and had many masters and ministers executed, thus bringing the empire to ruin, recording the words and deeds of Emperor Shihuang, Huhai, Li Si, Zhao Gao, and Ziying 子嬰 in the format of dialogues.

The biggest difference between the descriptions in the “Basic Annals of the First Qin Emperor” and The Book of Zhao Zheng is that, according to the former, Emperor Shihuang became seriously ill in Pingyuanjin 平原津 and died in Shaqiu Palace while the latter records that the emperor fell ill in Bairen 柏人 and his condition worsened to death, without mentioning the testamentary edict. As is well known, according to the record in the “Basic Annals of the First Qin Emperor,” Emperor Shihuang’s “final edict” was not passed on to his eldest son, Buso 扶蘇, who instead was bestowed death. In contrast, The Book of Zhao Zheng records that, as Chief Minister Li Si and Right Prime Minister Feng Quji 馮去疾 earnestly requested the emperor to name Princess Huhai as successor to his throne, the emperor agreed to this. Relevant sentences in the original text are as follows:

Chief Minister Li Si and Right Prime Minister Feng Quji, risking death, said: “We have a long way to go, but we fear that if you make a decision by issuing an edict, the ministers will plot against you in the meantime. So, please appoint your son Huhai as your successor.” The emperor replied, “I approve.”⁸ (Peking University Excavated Manuscript Research Center 2015, 190)

By stating that Huhai’s succession to the throne was decided when Emperor Shihuang approved Li Si’s counsel after consultation with his subjects before his death, this record suggests that the succession was legitimate and not decided as a result of conspiracy as stated in “Basic Annals of the First Qin Emperor.” In relation to this, it is necessary to review the content of the “Qin Ershi yuannian shiyue jiawu zhaoshu 秦二世元年十月甲午詔書” (Edict Issued on the Jiawu Day of the Tenth Month of Second Emperor’s First Year), a wooden tablet excavated from Tuzishan Relics No. 9 in Yiyang, Hunan province, in 2013 (See Hunan Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology and Departments of Cultural Relics in Yiyang 2016; Zhang and Zhang 2015; W. Chen 2017; and Sun 2015). This edict, which was promulgated after Huhai ascended to the throne, emphasizes the legitimacy of Huhai’s succession, announces major new political policies in the first year of the emperor, and offers statements to comfort the officials and people of the entire country and to implement virtuous rule (Sun 2015, 18).⁹ Therefore, it can be interpreted that the contents of the edict are consistent with those recorded in The Book of Zhao Zheng and that, based on these records, it is highly probable that Emperor Shihuang acknowledged Huhai as the successor to his throne just before his death.¹⁰ In that case, a question can naturally be raised: how to interpret the description in the Historical Records, which states that Huhai ascended to the throne through the conspiracy of Li Si and Zhao Gao?

This kind of contradiction is also found in the descriptions in the “Basic Annals of the First Qin Emperor” chapter of the Historical Records and the excavated “Yuelu qin jian 岳麓秦简” (Qin Bamboo Slips Kept in Yuelu Academy).

Sailing down the Yangtze River, he reached the shrine at Mount Xiang. They encountered a great wind, and were almost unable to cross over. The Supreme One asked his scholars of broad learning: “What sort of deity is the Lady of the Xiang?” The scholars of broad learning replied: “We hear that she was the daughter of Yao and the wife of Shun and is buried here.” At that the First Emperor was furious and he made 3,000 convicts cut down all the trees on Mount Xiang, making the mountain naked.¹¹ (“Basic Annals of the First Qin Emperor,” ch. 6 of the Historical Records)

On the jimao day, fourth month, twenty-sixth year, Chief Ministers Wei Zhuang and Wang Wan received an Imperial decision regarding Mount Xiang from the emperor: “From the fact that I myself have pacified the All-under-Heaven; I personally comfort (the area) within the seas; I have traveled south reaching to Cangwu and have approached and crossed the waters of (Lake) Dongting, and have climbed Mount Xiang and Mount Ping; the wilds of the trees and woods are beautiful; and I have gazed on the trees and woods of Mount Luocui and southward and spied from afar that they are also beautiful. They should all be forbidden and not cut down.”¹² (“Qin Bamboo Slips Kept in Yuelu Academy,” vol. 5, slips 056–057)

As seen above, the transmitted text “Basic Annals of the First Qin Emperor” of the Historical Records and the excavated text “Qin Bamboo Slips Kept in Yuelu Academy” contain contradictory descriptions about cutting down trees on Mount Xiang. In this manner, when encountering conflicting records of the same events in different classical sources, researchers or readers cannot help but feel at a loss as to how to interpret them. However, it is almost impossible to deny the veracity of the contents of the classics that have been passed down in the form of transmitted texts, such as The Analects and Historical Records, which we have read without any doubt till now, or even if we had doubts, there have not been any other texts to be compared against for revision. This is a truly embarrassing problem in the study of classics. Then, should we judge the authenticity of the contents of the classics that we have read without any doubt till now? Or should we come up with another interpretation? This is an unexpected problem that has come up in the interpretation of transmitted texts, as the dissovery of excavated texts has been continuously increasing.

V. Suggestions: New Methods of Reading Classics

By way of conclusion, I would like to suggest new methods of critically reading classics in two directions. First, I suggest deviating from the conventional text-centered method of reading classics and rather reading and studying classics based on interdisciplinary methodology, which needs to develop into a new discipline of a comprehensive nature. In general, if one starts reading classics as a researcher, it usually begins with admission to a relevant department at a university or a program provided by a professional institution. However, since most of these courses or programs are taught at a discipline-based academic level, they inevitably fail to provide sufficient learning and understanding of the whole society of the times when the classics were written. If we remember that classics are also products of “their” times, reading and study of classics should be conducted on the premise that they should entail a general understanding and knowledge of various fields such as the culture and society, to say nothing of the written history, of the times. Not only the current practice of reading the classical texts in Chinese language but also a basic understanding of the humanities as a whole should be preceded to deepen the understanding of the Chinese classics. It is because, with this understanding as a premise, even if new materials such as excavated texts are discovered, they can be considered as objects of “research” to enhance the understanding of transmitted texts, rather than as objects of “curiosity.”

Another suggestion is that the studies of Chinese classics should be in the center of the “academic community” as humanities studies, not as studies of Chinese literature. Conventionally, there have been two directions in perceptions and studies of classics: one of which leads to the academic area exclusive for researchers and another which leads to the area of liberal arts that the general public can easily access and learn. These two areas are by no means separate. It is very important for researchers to convey new resources to the general public in an easy-to-understand manner and expand the meaning and value of classics. However, as long as we study classics, it appears that we cannot avoid the gradual increase in “different records” of the “same facts,” as mentioned above. Moreover, unlike transmitted texts, excavated texts lack refined fonts and often contain incomplete sentences with omissions. And in some cases in which the arrangement of the sentences is not correct, it is not easy to understand even the meaning. However, what is clear is that excavated texts contain important content that should be discussed in the study of “classics,” along with transmitted texts.

In this respect, it can be said that the study of “classics” using transmitted texts is no longer a research area based on conventional disciplinary approaches. Therefore, it needs to be reborn as a center of comprehensive interdisciplinary scholarship that reflects not only the newly discovered contents of excavated texts but also the research results of adjacent disciplines. At the very least, the study of classics in East Asia, which originated with the use of Chinese characters, should be re-established as an interdisciplinary pursuit that integrates “classical studies and history” or “literature and history,” rather than being relegated to segmented academic fields influenced by modern Western studies. In other words, it should be in the center of a new academic space where researchers in related fields gather and study together. Only then will we be able to meet the classics as variable and objective texts that exhibit flexible thinking befitting the situation of the times, not as carriers of immutable truths that cannot be changed. The “firm” belief that not even a single letter could be altered in Confucius’ words, which prevailed in the times when there were no other texts for comparison, is no longer rational to retain. The “classics” we want to meet are not merely texts stored in glass display cases in museums, which are often difficult to access. Rather, they are texts that facilitate the integration of various disciplines and are readily accessible to everyone in everyday life, housed on library shelves.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2018S1A6A3A01023515).

I would like to thank the Institute of Confucian Philosophy and Culture at Sungkyunkwan University for their help in translating this paper.

References

• Chen, Huali 陳華麗. 2018. “Mawangdui hanmu boshu laozi: ‘de’ zai ‘dao’ xian ‘xiaoy’” 馬王堆漢墓帛書『老子』: ‘德’在‘道’先 小議 (Mawangdui Han Tomb Silk Manuscript Laozi: “Virtue” Should Come before “Dao”). Hunansheng bowuguan guankan 湖南省博物館館刊 (Bulletin of Hunan Provincial Museum) 14: 358–66.
• Chen, Songchang 陳松長. 2015. “Yuelu shuyuan qin jian zhong de liang tiao qin ershi shiqilingwen” 岳麓秦簡中的兩條秦二世時期令文 (Two Ordinances Issued during the Reign of the Second Emperor of the Qin Dynasty in the Yuelu Academy Collection of Qin Slips). Wenwu 文物 (Cultural Relics) 9: 88–92.
• Chen, Wei 陳偉. 2017. “Qin ershi yuannian shiyue jiawu zhaoshu”『秦二世元年十月甲午詔書』通譯 (A General Translation of the Edict Issued on the Jiawu Day of the Tenth Month of Second Emperor’s First Year). Jianghan kaogu 江漢考古 (Jianghan Archeology) 148: 124–26.
• Conservation and Research Center for Wooden Slips in Gansu, Gansu Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, et al., eds. 2011–2015. Vols. 1–5 of Jianshui jinguan hanjian 肩水金關漢簡 (Han Dynasty Wooden Slips from Jianshui Jinguan). Shanghai: Zhongxi Shuju.
• Hebei Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archeology. 1981. “Hebei dingxian 40 hao hanmu fajue jianbao” 河北定縣 40 號漢墓發掘簡報 (A Brief Report on the Wooden Strips Excavated from the Tomb No. 40 of Han at Dingzhou, Hebei). Wenwu 文物 (Cultural Relics) 8: 1–10.
• Hebei Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archeology. 1997. Dingzhou hanmu zhujian lunyu 定州漢墓竹簡論語 (The Bamboo Strips of The Analects Found in a Dingzhou Han Tomb). Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.
• Hunan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, and the Department of Cultural Relics in Yiyang, eds. 2016. “Hunan Yiyang Tuzishan yizhi jiu haojing fajue jianbao” 湖南益陽兔子山遺址九號井發掘簡報 (Briefing on the Excavation from Well No. 9 at the Tuzishan Site in Yiyang, Hunan). Wenwu 文物 (Cultural Relics) 5: 32–48.
• Jiangxi Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, 2016. “Nanchangshi xihan haihunhoumu” 南昌市西漢海昏侯墓 (Marquis of Haihun’s Tomb in Nanchang City). Kaogu 考古 (Archaeology) 7: 45–62.
• Jiangxi Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, and the Capital Museum. 2016. Wuse xuanyao—Nanchang Handai Haihunhouguo kaogu chengguo 五色炫曜―南昌漢代海昏侯國考古成果 (A Splendid Find: The Archaeological Excavations at the Royal Cemetery of the Haihunhou Kingdom in the Han Dynasty). Nanchang: Jiangxi Renmin Chubanshe.
• Lee, Sung-si 이성시, Yong-gu Yun 윤용구, and Kyung-ho Kim 김경호. 2009. “Pyeongyang jeongbaek dong 364 beon myoso deung chulto jukjeon 'noneo' e daehayeo’” 평양 전북동 364번 묘소 등 출토 죽전 “논어”에 대하여 (On the Bamboo Slips of Confucius Unearthed from Tomb No. 364 in Jeongbaek-dong, Pyongyang). Mokgan-gwa munja 목간과 문자 (Wooden Documents and Inscriptions Studies) 4: 127–66.
• Lee, Sung-si 이성시, Yong-gu Yun 윤용구, and Kyung-ho Kim 김경호. 2011. “Pingrang zhenbaidong 364 hao mu chutu zhujian lunyu” 平壤貞柏洞364號墓出土竹簡『論語』 (The Bamboo Slips of The Analects Unearthed from Tomb No. 364 in Jeongbaek-dong, Pyongyang). Chutu wenxian yanjiu 出土文獻硏究 (Excavated Literature Studies) 10: 158–94.
• Ma, Ruihong 馬瑞鴻. 2017. “Qin ershi huhai jiweishuo kaobian” 秦二世胡亥继位说考辨 (A Textual Research on the Succession of Huhai, the Second Emperor of Qin Dynasty). Wenhua xuekan 文化學刊 (Cultural Journal) 7: 231–34.
• Peking University Excavated Manuscript Research Center, ed. 2015. Vol. 3 of Beijingdaxue cang xihan zhushu 北京大學藏西漢竹書 (The Western Han Bamboo Slips Collected by Peking).
• Qiu, Xigui 裘錫圭, ed. 2014. Zhangsha mawangdui hanmu jianbo jicheng (A Complete Edition of Mawangdui Silk Texts in Zhangsha). Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.
• Sun, Jiazhou 孫家洲. 2015. “Tuzhishan yizhi chutu ‘Qin ershi yuannian wenshu’ yu ‘Shiji’ jishi diwu shijie” 兔子山遺址出土『秦二世元年文書』與『史記』紀事抵牾釋解 (An Explanation of the Contradiction between the “Documents of the First Year of Qin II” Unearthed from the Tongzishan Site and the Historical Records). Hunan daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 湖南大學學報(社會科學版) (Journal of Hunan University (Social Sciences)) 29 (3): 17–20.
• Wang, Guowei 王國維. (1925) 1994. Gushi xinzheng—Wang Guowei zuihou de jiang yi 古史新證—王國維最後的講義 (New Criticisms of Ancient History—Wang Guowei’s Final Lecture). Qinghua Daxue Chubanshe.
• Wang, Guowei 王國維. (1925) 1996. “Zujin ersanshi nian zhong zhongguo xin fa jian zhi xuewen” 最近二三年中中國新發見之學問 (Scholarly Knowledge of New Discoveries in China in the Past Twenty to Thirty Years). In Wang Guowei xueshu jingdianji 王國維學術經典集 (Collected Academic Writings of Wang Guowei). Shanghai: Jiangxi Renmin Chubanshe.
• Xiao, Congli 蕭從禮, and Zhao Xianglan 趙香蘭. 2014. “Jinguan hanjian ‘kongzi zhi dao zhi yi’ wei『qi lun zhi dao』 yiwen lice” 金關漢簡“孔子知道之易”爲『齊論·知道』佚文蠡測 (A Speculation on the Texts in the Jinguan hanjian as the Missing Texts of the Qilun). In Jianbo yanjiu 簡帛硏究 (Research on Bamboo and Silk Manuscripts), edited by the Center for Research on Bamboo and Silk Manuscripts in Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan, 182–87. Guilin: Guangxi Shifan Daxue Chubanshe.
• Zhang, Chunlong 張春龍, and Zhang Xingguo 張興國. 2015. “Hunan yiyang tuzishan yizhi jiu hao jing chutu jiandu gaishu” 湖南益陽兎子山遺址九號井出土簡牘槪述 (An Overview of the Bamboo Slips Unearthed from Well No. 9 at the Tuzishan Site in Yiyang, Hunan). Guoxue xuekan 國學學刊 (Research in the Traditions of Chinese Culture) 4: 28–34.
• Zhu, Hanmin 朱漢民, and Chen Songzhang 陳松長, eds. 2017. Vol. 5 of Yuelu shuyuan cang qin jian 岳麓書院藏秦簡 (Qin Slips Housed at the Yuelu Academy). Shanghai: Shanghai Cishu Chubanshe.