1 Introduction

The Trans-Baikal Archaeological Expedition of the Institute of the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, investigated a Xiongnu elite tomb (Barrow No. 7) excavated in the Tsaram Valley, located 1.5 km to the south of Naushki, Republic of Buryatia, Russia. Barrow No. 7 is a square mound with a dromos, and it has 10 adjacent sacrificial burials to its east and west sides. The excavations continued from 1997 to 2005, unearthing a huge amount finds, including Chinese items (Miniaev and Sakharovskaia 2002; 2007). The Chinese items were rich in variety, including a chariot, mirrors, and lacquerwares. These objects were important not only as historical evidence of contacts between the Xiongnu and Han, but also as a means to cross-date the Xiongnu tombs. Especially attracting our interest was a lacquerware with a Chinese inscription.

The inscription on this lacquerware has studied by Michèle Pirazzoli-t’Serstevens (2007, 2008). When I first read her report, I had some doubts against the reading, because the reading was outside the ordinary rules concerning Han inscriptions.Footnote 1 Therefore, I made contact with her and with Sergej Miniaev, the supervisor of the archaeological expedition to Tsaram, in order to reconfirm some characters in the pictures. Here I report the initial result of the re-identification of these characters and a new examination of the reading in which I describe a characteristic point of this inscription.

2 Excavation and reconstruction of the lacquerware

The structure of Barrow No. 7 consisted of an inner and outer log chamber—with a surrounding space, or corridor, along each side of the inner chamber between it and the outer chamber—and a coffin. The lacquerware with the Chinese inscription was found with funeral doll No. 2, which laid in the western corridor, near the south-west corner. The lacquerware had been crushed by the bottom beam of the outer chamber (Miniaev and Sakharovskaia 2007: 51). Therefore, I had to assemble photographs to reconstruct the lacquerware beyond the two large fragments that had been refitted. These two fragments do not have a contact point to each other, but it is possible to arrange them using the design pattern, the order of the inscription, and the testimony of excavator. Figure 1 shows a drawing traced over the composite of the photographs.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The drawing of lacquer fragments (tomb No. 7, Tsaram)

Full size image

3 Design and decoration technique

Because of the crushing of the Tsaram lacquerware vessel, I do not know for certain the vessel form, but the excavation report provides some related information, as it says that inside of the lacquerware was a piece of mica, two wooden combs and a collection of iron needles in a wooden holster (Miniaev and Sakharovskaia 2007:51). If so, this vessel should be a lian奩 cosmetic box, but further considerations about its design and possible other vessel forms are still needed. Its decoration, however, can still be identified. This lacquerware has fine decoration carved by needle points. This technique is called zhui hua 錐畫, named after a word appearing on the list of grave goods from Mawangdui 馬王堆 Tomb No. 3. Wooden slip No. 271 from this Western Han tomb has an inscription that says, “布曾檢一錐畫廣尺三寸.” The slip is referring to two lacquer boxes associated with it. These boxes have fine carved decoration on the surface: therefore, it is possible to identify the term zhui hua 錐畫 as indicating this decoration technique. Zhui hua lacquers were studied by Fu Juyou (2007: 70-71), who dates the earliest usage of this technique to the Former Han period, with no known examples from the Warring States period.

The design on the Barrow No. 7 lacquerware consists of three lines of different patterns. The first pattern is composed by alternate compartments of continuous rhombuses and vertical lines or zigzags. The second pattern is parted by two oblique lines within two straight lines, and slanted line shields are added on each side alternately. The third pattern is the swirling cloud pattern, yun qi wen 雲氣文, in Chinese art, and it is sequence of ellipses composed by two C-shapes.

The set of these three patterns is also found on a lacquerware excavated in Yaoziling 鷂子嶺 Tomb No. 2 (Fig. 2.1 and List 1), and the set of two of these patterns is found on a lacquer fragment from a robbed tomb at Lelang 樂浪 (Fig. 2.2). Several of the patterns resemble those on an oval lacquer box from Tomb No. 6 at Tushandun 土山屯 (Qingdao shi wen wu bao hu kao gu yan jiu suo et al. 2017) (Fig. 2.3). The lacquerwares from Yaoziling and Lelang have an inscription. The former was made in the Kao Gong 考工workshop in 8 BCE, and the vessel form is identified as the lid of a zun 樽.Footnote 2 The latter ware was made in the Shu Commandery west workshop (Xi Gong 西工) in 4 CE.Footnote 3 The dates that these provide—8 BCE and 4 CE—serve to cross-date other examples of these patterns on lacquerwares, including that from Tsaram. Pirazzoli-t’Serstevens (2007: 58) also concludes that the possible date for the Tsaram vessel is between 8 BCE and 4 CE: although she did not directly present these examples, her consideration also depended on them.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Lacquerwares with similar designs. 1. Zun vessel, Yaoziling Tomb No. 2: 61; 2. A lacquer fragment from the robbed tomb of Lelang (stored in Shisui Rokkaku); 3. An oval box, Tushandun Tomb No. 6, Coffin No. 2: 6

Full size image
List 1 Inscriptions of central factories
Full size table

4 The identification of the characters

The reason why such objects as the lacquerware have inscriptions on them is for management. This system was called wu le gong ming 物勒工名, a record of the producers’ names on the object. It aimed to assign clear responsibilities to the producers and inspectors of the objects.

The inscription on the Tsaram vessel is placed within two carved lines, and it has lost the upper part. Twenty-nine characters of the inscription remain, which I number from 1 to 29 (Fig. 3). The strange point of this inscription is a division between characters 20 and 21, and that there are fine art carvings. I have never seen such a division on other lacquerwares, but I consider that the arrangement of the two lacquer fragments is correct, because it is possible to read the sentence until character 29 without contradiction.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Characters on lacquer fragments (tomb No. 7, Tsaram)

Full size image

Next, I identified each character, with the result shown in Fig. 4. My identification differs from Pirazzoli-t’Serstevens’s concerning three characters (14, 19, and 22).

  • Character 14: Pirazzoli-t’Serstevens identifiest character 14 as an 安. If I directly write the strokes of character 14, it becomes . The under part of the character an has two crossing strokes (Fig. 5.1), but character 14 does not cross. Therefore, this character is not an. appears on the ding 鼎 vessel of Yongshi 永始 year three (永始三年乘輿鼎) (Fig. 5.2) and the ding vessel of the Yongshi era (永始乘輿鼎) (Fig. 5.3). Sometimes this character is identified as kai 開 in the modern Chinese font, but Xu Zhengkao (2007: 687) has corrected it as peng 朋. I consider that his identification is correct, because it is possible to reconfirm it with related characters, too. Those characters appear in two unearthed documents from Mawangdui Tomb No. 3. The character appears in Miscellany of Fortune about Astronomy 天文雜占 (Fig. 5.4), and also appears in Documents of School of Diplomacy in the Warring States Period 戰國縱橫家書 (Fig. 5.5). Both of these characters contain in their form,Footnote 4 and two characters are beng 崩 in the modern Chinese font. This character beng means “collapse”, and one of them is used in the sentence “山陵”: “If a high mausoleum collapses…” (an allusion to death). We can read this character in a sentence without contradiction: therefore a chain of identification is proven correct.

  • Character 19: I also cannot identify this character. But the left-hand radical of this character should be 彳 (the “step” radical) (Fig. 5.6).

  • Character 22: I identify character 22 as zong 宗, but it might be quan 泉. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish these two characters in handwriting (Fig. 5.7-10). Character 22 is the name of a man: therefore, it is not possible to identify this character based on writing rules or meaning.

Fig. 4
figure 4

The inscription (tomb No. 7, Tsaram)

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Three characters. 1, 8. Writing slips of Juyan 居延漢簡; 2. Ding vessel of Yongshi era 永始乘輿鼎 (vol. 1, p. 4); 3. Ding vessel of Yongshi year 3 (vol. 1, p. 5); 4. Tomb No. 3 of Mawangdui; 6, 7. Writing slips of Mazuizi in Wuyi; 9. Writing slips of Juyan (1972-1974)

Full size image

5 The reading of the inscription

Pirazzoli-t’Serstevens (2007: 57) has already provided a reading of this inscription, and her reading is fundamentally right. But based on the corrections I have made to some of the characters above, I present the reading again:

…In the [number] year, the master artisan of the Kao Gong 考工 imperial workshop, Shang 賞, made. Managed by the workshop official Se Fu 嗇夫, your servant Kang 康; the workshop official Yuan掾, your servant Peng朋. Inspected by the assistant director of the right, You Cheng 右丞, your servant [name]; the director Ling 令, your servant Zong 宗; workshop inspector Hu Gong Zu Shi 護工卒史, your servant Zun 尊.

Characters 1 to 2: This part indicates the date of manufacture.

□ 年nian: The character nian is year. Therefore, the character above should be the number for this year, but most of character 1 is missing.

Characters 3 to 7: This part identifies the production factory and artisans.

考kao 工 gong: Kao Gong is an imperial workshop. According to the Table of Nobility Ranks and Government Offices, in the History of the Former Han 『漢書』百官公卿表, a workshop named Kao Gong Shi 考工室 belonged under the Shao Fu 少府 in the early part of the Former Han period.Footnote 5 In 108 BCE, the time of Emperor Wudi 武帝, the name of the workshop changed from Kao Gong Shi to Kao Gong.

二 賞shang 造zao:二 is a repetition mark referring to the previous character; so this is also gong 工, and it means “artisan.” Zao is a verb meaning “produced.” Shang is the name of the artisan who made this lacquerware.

Characters 8 to 29: This part records those responsible for quality control. Products of central factories were checked by officials, who were recorded in ascending order form the lowest to the highest in rank:

For the lower, production management stage: 護 Hu→ 佐 Zuo→ 嗇夫 Se Fu→ 令史 Ling Shi→ 掾 Yuan

For the upper, final inspection stage: 右丞 You Cheng→ 令 Ling

Each person is recorded according to this formula: his function + 臣 chen (your servant) + name”. Following the last name in the list for each stage is a verb, either 主 zhu (supervised/managed) for the lower stage officials directly managing the production or 省 xing (inspected) for the upper stage officials responsible for inspection of the finished product.

A problem with this inscription is the appearance of the Hu Gong Zu Shi 護工卒史 in the final inspection stage. This is a factor that before led me to doubt the reading by Pirazzoli-t’Serstevens. Before turning to a closer examination of this problem, I would like to consider inscriptions related to the production system of the Former Han period.

6 Consideration about officials appeared in inscriptions

Before I attempt to go forward with the inquiry about the official, Hu Gong Zu Shi, I should first present a general understanding about workshops and the production system based on studies of lacquerwares. Inscriptions on lacquerwares were gathered and studied by Seiji Umehara (1943), Akira Machida (1974), and Hong Shi (2005). The contents of these inscriptions describe the production system as below:

  1. 1.

    Lacquerwares were made in a central factories and district factories.Footnote 6 The former includes the Kao Gong workshop and the Gong Gong 供工 workshop located in the capital city, Chang’an 長安. The latter refers to the Xi Gong 西工 western workshop in Shu 蜀 Commandery and the workshop of Guanghan 廣漢 Commandery.

  2. 2.

    Some wares bear the inscription cheng yu 乘輿, meaning they are for the use of the emperor. These high ranking wares were made in all four workshops.

  3. 3.

    Some lacquerwares with similar artistic design are produced in all four workshops. Therefore it is difficult to distinguish which workshop an item was produced in purely from the standpoint of artistic design.

  4. 4.

    The formula for inscriptions is different between the central factories and the district factories. The former has three stages inscriptions: “made-managed-inspected” (造- 主- 省), while the latter features two stage inscriptions: “made-managed” (造- 主). However, some inscriptions from the central factories also are two stage inscriptions: 造- 省

Fig. 6
figure 6

Inscriptions from the central factories. Materials: B: bronze, C: casting mold (sand mold), L: lacquer ware, S: Silver, W: wood. Cheng丞: R: the assistant director of the right, You Cheng 右丞; L: the assistant director of the left, Zuo Cheng 左丞. Workshops: Gong Gong 供工; Kao Gong 考工; You Gong 右工.

Full size image

Next, I can return to the problem of the term Hu Gong Zu Shi on the Tsaram lacquerware. Quality control in the central factories was divided into two stages, and the last official is a director of the workshop, ling 令, in general. Only one lacquerware, a pan 盤 basin from Baonüdun 寶女墩, has an inscription in which the last official is Hu Gong Zu Shi. I think that this is not enough information if we want to examine quality control and inspectors in the central factories. Objects that have inscriptions referring to the central factories in which it was produced are not only lacquerwares, but also include bronze vessels, bronze furniture, and bronze weapons, etc. Of course, these objects have different manufacturing processes than lacquerwares, but the formula of inscriptions, especially the sections concerning product control, feature the same formula. List 1 features a list of all inscriptions related to central factories, and Fig. 6 contains a classification of each element in the inscriptions. Figure 6 shows that there are four objects inscribed Hu Gong Zu Shi: an arrow shaft made in 77 BCE, a yan zu 雁足 lamp of the Jingning 竟寧 era (33 BCE), the pan basin from Baonüdun (28 BCE), and the lacquerware from Tsaram.

The next consideration is the nature of the position of the Hu Gong Zu Shi official listed in the inscriptions of the central factories, about which little attention has been given, so there is no specific previous studies about it. On the other hand, the Hu Gong Zu Shi appearing in inscriptions from the district factories has been noted. For this discussion, I present inscriptions related with to the west workshop in Shu Commandery and the workshop of Guanghan CommanderyFootnote 7 that appear until 16 BCE (Fig. 7). The formula of the inscriptions changes over time, and the order of the Hu Gong Zu Shi changes between 85 BCE and 62 BCE. This change is a problem from the view point of rank. The quality control of the district factories is one stage, and officials are recorded from the highest to the lowest in rank. The highest official is a director of the workshop, chang 長, who received the same treatment as an administrative director of a xian 縣 that has fewer than 10,000 families, and who had a salary 300~500 shi 石.Footnote 8 On the other hand, a Hu Gong Zu Shi is probably a kind of Zu Shi 卒史, which is a lower-class official who had a salary of 100 shi. Therefore, it is strange that the term Hu Gong Zu Shi become that used for the top inspectors after 62 BCE.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Inscriptions from the west workshop of Shu Commandery and the workshop of Guanghan Commandery made until 16 BCE. Materials: B: bronze, L: lacquerware; Workshop: E: East Workshop (Dong Gong) of Shu, W: West Workshop (Xi Gong) of Shu, E: workshop of Guanghan (after Dong Gong of Shu); Order: O: officials, C: craftsmen. Sources: 1. Yin Xiande 1991; 2. Sichuan sheng bo wu guan 1974; 3. Rong Geng 1931 vol. 4; 4-6, 9-12. Umehara 1943; 7. Yangzhou bo wu guan and Hanjiang xian tu shu guan 1991; 8. Yangzhou bo wu guan 2000

Full size image

About this contradiction, Sato Taketoshi (1962) gives a hint. He writes that the Hu Gong Zu Shi is a kind of Zu Shi, and this official is dispatched to workshops, so the word “Hu Gong” (protect/supervise the workshop) was added to the official’s name (Satō 1962: 275). Yet there are two different views about what organization dispatched the Hu Gong Zu Shi. One opinion holds that the Hu Gong Zu Shi is dispatched from the upper organization of workshops. Machida (1974: 39) writes that the Hu Gong Zu Shi was dispatched from the Shao Fu for supervising, so therefore, even if he is low-class official, his name becomes listed at the top after 62 BCE. Another opinion is that the Hu Gong Zu Shi is dispatched from the commandery. Fang Shiming (1982: 144) writes that district workshops had belonged to the Da Si Nong 大司農 originally, so workshops and the commandery had no contact. However, the jurisdiction of the district workshops gradually transferred from the Da Si Nong to the commandery. The appearance of Hu Gong Zu Shi reflects this change of jurisdiction, so the term appears in the inscription from 85 BCE. The commandery strengthened its control over workshops, so Hu Gong Zu Shi became listed at the top of the order in the inscriptions after 62 BCE (Fang 1982: 144). Because I am not dealing here with Hu Gong Zu Shi as it appears in district workshops, I do not discuss any more about it, and I turn to the main subject.

The Hu Gong Zu Shi that appeared in the central workshops is also a lower-class official, so it is a contradiction that his name becomes listed last in the inscriptions. But the reason for this contradiction is the same as the case from the district factories, that is, he was also dispatched from another organization. For the first example, an arrow shaft from the Jinguan 金關 site in Jianshui 肩水is carved with the name of Zhi Jin Wu Hu Gong Zu Shi執金吾執金吾護工卒史 (Table 1: 2). Zhi Jin Wu is an office guarding near the emperor. This inscription indicates that this arrow shaft was made in the Kao Gong workshop and ordered by the Zhi Jin Wu office, so the Hu Gong Zu Shi of the Zhi Jin Wu office was dispatched to the Kao Gong workshop for inspection, and his name was listed later than the director of the Kao Gong workshop. A second example is for the trigger mechanism of a cross bow, but in this case, dating to the Later Han, the Tai Pu 太僕 office dispatched Hu Gong Yuan 護工掾 to the Kao Gong workshop for the inspection (Table 1: 54~56). The Kao Gong workshop belonged not to the Shao Fu but to the Tai Pu after the Later Han period, so it is no wonder that the Hu Gong Yuan, which is probably a kind of yuan 掾, which is also a lower-class official, appeared later than the director of the Kao Gong.

The above examples include the name of an office before the Hu Gong Zu Shi, but the other three inscriptions only include the Hu Gong Zu Shi. If this Hu Gong Zu Shi is a Zu Shi of the Kao Gong workshop, the inscription does not need to attach the name of the workshop, but the member of rank Zu Shi should be an inspector in the second stage (the production management stage). Since his name is last in the inscription, and he inspects the entire process, therefore, I suppose that this Hu Gong Zu Shi is dispatched from the Shao Fu for the inspection.

The formula of the inscriptions changes over time, and the order of the appearance of the Hu Gong Zu Shi can indicate the dating in the case of the district factories (Fig. 8). In the case of the central factories, however, it cannot be said whether or not the appearance of Hu Gong Zu Shi becomes a marker of its date. This is because examples are too few at present, and there are inscriptions that do not record the Hu Gong Zu Shi in 33 BCE and 28 BCE, too (Table 1: 12, 15).Footnote 9

Fig. 8
figure 8

The appearance and order of Hu Gong Zu Shi in district factories

Full size image
List 2 Inscriptions of west workshop of Shu commandery and workshop of GuangHan commandery until 16 BCE
Full size table

Finally, I point out some indicators that can be used in dating. The first is the formula of cheng yu 乘輿 ware inscriptions. If the objects are made for the use of emperor, the name of officials are written with the character chen 臣 (“your servant”). The oldest known example of this formula appeared in 16 BCE (Fig. 6.19). The second is the term Ling Shi 令史, and this official does not appear in the inscription from Tsaram. It is known that the appearance of Ling Shi is late in inscriptions of the central factories, that is, from 5 BCE (Fig. 6.37). After considering all these criteria, we can propose that the Tsaram lacquerware was made in the late part of the Former Han periodFootnote 10: it should date before 5 BCE, and it especially is most likely to date to the decade before 5 BCE.

7 Conclusion

This paper re-examined a lacquerware with inscription unearthed from Barrow No. 7 of the Tsaram cemetery. This lacquerware was examined by Michèle Pirazzoli-t’Serstevens (2007, 2008), but many of its details had not been reported at that time. For this re-examination of the inscription, I first reconstructed this ware by composite photographs. I reconfirmed Pirazzoli-t’Serstevens’s identification is fundamentally right, but I corrected three characters. After this, I reconsidered this inscription by comparing it with other inscriptions of the Han era. The lacquerware from Tsaram was made in the Kao Gong workshop, so it has a three stage inscription. But the members of the inspectors are listed differently than other inscriptions, with Hu Gong Zu Shi appearing as the last member of the inspectors. This lacquer ware is the first unearthed object that has such an inscription.

At present, we know that these characteristic formulae existed in 33 BCE and 28 BCE, but it cannot be said if this formula has an exact range of dating. I can add three traits for dating of this lacquerware by comparison with other inscriptions. The first trait is the artistic pattern. There are two objects with similar patterns, and they also have inscriptions dating 8 BCE and 4 CE. The second trait is the terms cheng yu 乘輿 and chen 臣, which express high ranking wares for the use of the emperor. The earliest known example of this formula dates to 16 BCE. The third trait is the lack of a Ling Shi 令史 official. The term Ling Shi does not appear in inscriptions until 5 BCE. These four traits, while they cannot provide an specific year for the production of this vessel, are still useful for dating this lacquerware. After consideration of all these factors, it can be supposed that this lacquerware was produced in the later part of the Former Han period and before 5 BCE. This date, in turn, can be used as one of the dating criteria for Barrow No. 7 of the Tsaram cemetery.