Forked blade (zhang 璋)

1. Bought from Seaouke Yue 游筱溪, of Shanghai 上海, in New York. For price, see Original Miscellaneous List, p. 230. $200.

2. (Undated Folder Sheet note) Original attribution: Chinese. Chou [Zhou] 周. See further, S.I. 1038, Appendix VIII.

3. (Carl Whiting Bishop, 1922) Possibly a genuine Chou [Zhou] 周 object; the type at least seems ancient.
For characters ya chang [yazhang] 牙璋, see Herbert A. Giles, A Chinese-English Dictionary. Shanghai: Kelly and Walsh, 1912, nos. 12,797 and 400, respectively.

4. (John Ellerton Lodge, 1927) Han or earlier.

5. (Archibald Gibson Wenley, 1945) There have been several conjectures in regard to the proper designation of this type of blade. Wu Ta cheng [Wu Dacheng] 吳大澂 identifies it with the "yen kuei" [yangui] 琰圭 mentioned in the Chou li [Zhouli] 周禮 (see Wu Ta cheng [Wu Dacheng] 吳大澂, Ku yu t'u k'ao [Guyu tukao] 古玉圖考 (Shanghai: Tongwen shuju, 1889), vol. I, pp. 13--14; Chou li [Zhouli] 周禮, p. 34a; E. Biot, le Tcheou li, vol. II, p. 524). He also takes the origin of the form from the ancient pictograph ch'iang [qiang] 口 which is taken to be the equivalent of the modern qiang 斨 which Pelliot takes to be "une sorte de hache d'armes a tranchant concave," and believes to be a development of the type ko [ge] 戈 weapon, which was a dagger axe. (Paul Pelliot, Jades Archaïques de Chine Appartenant a M. C. T. Loo (Paris et Bruxelles: G. van Oest, 1925), pp. 20--22.) He quite rightly rejects the Chou li [Zhouli] 周禮 term yen kuei [yangui] 琰圭 as much too inexactly described to be identifiable. Laufer, referring to Wu Ta cheng's [Wu Dacheng's] 吳大澂 mention of the ch'iang [qiang] 口 (see Berthold Laufer, Jade: A Study in Chinese Archaeology and Religion [Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History, 1912], p. 97), speaks of it as a "lance," which Pelliot also rejects, and I agree with him there. Salmony (Alfred Salmony, Carved Jade of Ancient China [Berkeley, CA: Gillick Press, 1938], pl. VI, etc.) calls this type a sceptre, evidently classifying it under the general heading kuei [gui] 圭 which is defined in the dictionary Shuo-wen [Shuo wen] 說文 as a jui yu [ruiyu] 瑞玉, "sceptre jade." However, there is absolutely no assurance that this form should be so classified. 

Since Chinese literary sources seem to be no help in this problem, it seems wise to examine the object itself with a view to its mechanical or functional properties, as well as the general background of culture in which it was produced. Of the latter we really know very little, but it is safe to say that the broad basis of early Chinese civilization was agricultural, and that the religion was in general animistic. Added to this was the necessity of protecting agricultural holdings from incursions of other peoples and the extension of such holdings by means of excursions against bordering peoples. This necessitated some sort of military establishment. We have, therefore, three essential factors on which the conduct of the community was based, agriculture, religion, and war. These, it seems fair to suppose, gave rise to the form of implements connected with governmental and religious ceremonies, and these two things were naturally very much intermingled. Thus we have jade forms  which no doubt represent both military and agricultural implements, and some of these we know have their origins in Neolithic implements, as well as in metal forms. Some of them have continued in use as practical tools up to the present, with only slight changes. The implement under discussion would seem to fall into the category of agricultural implements rather than that of weapons, because as a weapon its general form would have no practical application, while as an agricultural implement it would be practical. Many of the forms of the so called kuei [gui] 圭 resemble non Chinese Neolithic forms of axes and hoes, to which latter tool the elongated square or convex ended forms may be related. It will be noted that the implement under discussion has a concave cutting edge ground down on one side like a chisel, that the sides are also slightly concave, and that the lateral edges flare out to the end. Obviously the mechanical purpose of the concave cutting edge is for guiding in cutting something round, such as a root; the concave sides would aid in decreasing resistance when the tool is thrust into the ground, while the flaring edges would aid in the reverse process of withdrawing the tool. How this tool was hafted is uncertain. The lateral hafting as seen in the type ko [ge] 戈 or dagger axe was undoubtedly common in China and the hole through the tang of this implement and the triangular lateral projections suggest this. However, it is worth noting that an analogous metal form of root-cutting hoe with flaring sides and concave cutting edge occurs in Japan today. This, of course, has a regular socket haft comparable to our modern hoes or adzes. But such end on hafting, not by socket but by binding, appears to have occurred commonly enough in various parts of the world in Neolithic times. (W. M. Flinders Petrie, Tools and Weapons [London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt (etc.), 1917], pl. XVIII; Edward S. Morse, Japan Day by Day 1877, 1878--79, 1882--83, vol. 1 [Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1917], p. 307, fig. 244.) Nevertheless, there are features about this implement which are against the theory of end on hafting. These are the position of the hole in the tang, the shape and position of the lateral projections, the chisel like grinding of the concave cutting edge, and the fact that the points of that concave edge are of different lengths.

Taking these things into consideration, an experiment was made in hafting as shown in the accompanying figure (not locatable in the original object file), and the following points should be noted in connection with it: 1. The triangular shape of the lateral projections provides a chock for the binding. 2. The flat bottom edges of these projections provide a proper surface against which the handle may bear. 3. These projections are not exactly opposite to each other so that the blade when hafted is at a little less than a right angle to the handle, which is what one would expect. 4. When hafted in this way, the flat side of the edge is to the left, which is the proper mechanical position for it if used by a right handed man. 5. The actual binding was done simply with leather thongs and when laced on as shown in the figure (not locatable in the original object file) it proved to be very firm. Now  the original way of doing it was probably with rawhide thongs, which when dried would make an even firmer binding. 6. The lateral projections would be too weak to take a direct thrust, thus they are placed above the handle, and the thrust is taken by the binding, and through it distributed between three points, i.e., the two projections, and most of all by the hole in the tang. The implement thus seems to be a specialized tool that might have been used for root cutting or for the cutting of stalk crops, such as millet, sorghum, bamboo shoots, etc. It seems likely that such an implement may have originated in Neolithic times, since such a form in bronze would hardly have been practical owing to the brittleness of that metal. Unfortunately, no Neolithic tools exactly like this one have been discovered in China, so that we cannot definitely connect the origin of this type with that period. The general form of it is not uncommon in early jades, some with very elaborate multi toothed lateral projections which do not appear to lend themselves to any hafting at all. There are in this collection seven implements of this type, six of which have the simple triangular lateral projection and lend themselves to hafting as described above. Also they have the same chisel like edge. The remaining one has multi toothed projections and does not lend itself to hafting. Can it be that this non functional characteristic was due to its use simply as a burial object, or an embellished form used non hafted for ceremonial purposes? These implements, save for their concave cutting edges, are more like known non Chinese Neolithic forms of axes, hoes, and adzes than anything else, but a Neolithic prototype in China is yet to be found. However, judging from the above functional examination of the type, and its frequent occurrence in jade, it seems not unreasonable to suppose that we have here the descendant of an important specialized tool, be it sorghum , bamboo shoot , or root cutter, now risen to the lordly height of a jade ceremonial badge of office.

6. (Thomas Lawton, 1978) Western Chou [Zhou] 周.

7. (Julia K. Murray, 1982) (Added chang [zhang] 璋 above ceremonial implement.) The ceremonial blades called chang [zhang] 璋, which belong to the general category of ceremonial implements traditionally known as kuei [gui] 圭, are scepter like objects with a long, slightly flaring shank terminating in a thin sharp blade. The typical chang [zhang] 璋 has a crescent shaped top, ground very thin and ending in fine, fragile cusps. At the opposite end of the shank, there is a perforation and a pair of asymmetrically placed projections near it. The tang extends below the pair of projections, continuing the asymmetry by ending on a slant. The Freer jades F1916.162, F1916.164, F1916.166, F1916.491, F1916.492, F1916.494, F1916.495, and F1939.55 are examples of the typical chang [zhang] 璋. (On many, the crescentic points have been broken off.) Three of these (F1916.491, F1916.492, and F1939.55) are thick and both sides exhibit a slight concavity. The others are much thinner; on F1916.162, F1916.166, and F1916.494 one surface is slightly convex and irregular in its contour, and the other side is either flat or slightly concave; on F1916.495 both sides are nearly flat.
 
A variation of the typical chang [zhang] 璋 is represented by jades F1916.165 and F1916.493 in the Freer collection. These examples have multiple crenellations instead of a single pair of projections near the hole. Both are thin; F1916.493 is slightly convex and has an acentric ridge on one side; the other side is slightly concave.

A variant form in which there are no projections but rather a slight narrowing at the handle, and a straight rather than crescentic top, is represented by Freer jades F1916.369 and F1915.69. Both jades are thick, and F1916.369 has a distinct V shaped concave area near the top on both sides.
 
Finally, the archaistic F1916.624 is a much later recreation of the chang [zhang] 璋, influenced perhaps by characteristics originally more appropriate to other members of the kuei [gui] 圭 category (i.e., tablet shaped jades derived from stone axes, adzes, chisels, knives, etc.). The archaistic example is essentially a regular rectangle with a recessed tang; all edges are straight and parallel to those opposite.

Although there are various theories concerning the original inspiration for the chang [zhang] 璋 shape, the most convincing one at present is that the chang [zhang] 璋 took its shape from a metallic prototype, possibly some form of the ko [ge] 戈 halberd. The most archaic form of the chang [zhang] 璋 seems to be the type with projecting crenellations, a decoration appropriate for metal. An elaborately crenellated chang [zhang] 璋 was found in the early Shang 商 palace layer at Erh li t'ou [Erlitou] 二里頭, Yen shih [Yanshi] 偃師 in Honan [Henan] 河南 province (see Robert W. Bagley, "The Beginnings of the Bronze Age: The Erlitou 二里頭 Culture Period," in The Great Bronze Age of China: An Exhibition from The People's Republic of China, ed. Wen Fong [New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1980], cat. 2). Other chang [zhang] 璋 that have been found in recent years have come from stray finds that cannot be dated with comparable certainty, although they appear to be Shang 商. (See, for example, the chang [zhang] 璋 from Erh li kang [Erligang] 二里崗, Cheng chou [Zhengzhou] 鄭州 in Honan [Henan] 河南; reproduced in Chao Hsin-lai [Zhao Xinlai] 趙新來, "Cheng-chou Erh-li-kang fa-hsien ti Shang tai yu chang  [Zhengzhou Erligang faxian de Shangdai yuzhang' 鄭州二里崗發現的商代玉璋," Wen wu [Wenwu] 文物 1966. 1, p. 58.) Another was found at Shih mao [Shimao] 石峁, Shen mu hsien [Shenmuxian] 神木縣 in northeast Shensi [Shaanxi] 陝西; reproduced in Tai Ying-hsin [Dai Yingxin] 戴應新, "Shensi Shen-mu hsien Shih-mao Lung-shan wen-hua i-chih tiao-ch'a [Shaanxi Shenmu xian Shimao Longshan wenhua yizhi diaocha]  陝西神木縣石峁龍山文化遺址調查," K'ao ku [Kaogu] 考古 1977.3, p. 155, fig. 2:2.  Chang [Zhang] 璋 found in Kuang han hsien [Guanghanxian] 廣漢縣 in Szechwan [Sichuan] 四川 province in the late 1920's, provisionally dated to the Western Chou [Zhou] 周 period, are described as thin. (See T'ung En cheng [Tong Enzheng] 童恩正 and Feng han-chi [Feng Hanji] 馮漢驥, "Chi Kuang han ch'u t'u ti yu shih ch'i [Ji guanghan chutu de yushi qi] 記廣漢出土的玉石器," Wen wu [Wenwu] 文物 1979.2, pp. 32--33, 37). On two of the three examples published by T'ung En cheng [Tong Enzheng] 童恩正, the proportions are somewhat broader and simpler than those of the Erh li t'ou [Erlitou] 二里頭 chang [zhang] 璋; and a chang [zhang] 璋 from the Eastern Chou [Zhou] 周 site at Hou ma [Houma] 侯馬 in Shansi [Shanxi] 山西 is even more simplified, having nearly straight sides and no projections near the hole. Furthermore, it is described as being as thin as paper (reproduced in T'ao Cheng-kang [Tao Zhenggang] 陶正剛 and Wang K'e-lin [Wang Kelin] 王克林, "Hou-ma Tung-chou Meng-shi i-chih [Houma Dongzhou Mengshi yizhi] 侯馬東周盟誓遺址," Wen wu [Wenwu] 文物 1972.4, p. 34, fig. 6:19). T'ung En cheng [Tong Enzheng] 童恩正 postulates that the ceremonial function of the chang [zhang] 璋 had something to do with expeditionary armies. He further suggests that chang [zhang] 璋 were the forerunner of tiger tallies that were used in later times, implying that their replacement in this function led to their extinction as a type.
 
Chang [Zhang] 璋 F1916.492 is very similar to one in the Art Institute of Chicago (1950.315); reproduced in Alfred Salmony, Archaic Chinese Jades from the Edward and Louise B. Sonnenschein Collection (Chicago: The Art Institute of Chicago, 1952), pl. XXVII:2 (called early Western Chou [Zhou] 周). The perforation was bored from one side of the slab.

8. (Stephen Allee per Keith Wilson, March 31, 2008) On this date entered: Period One (Late Neolithic period), Date (ca. 2500--2000 BCE), Artist (Qijia 齊家 culture), Title, Object name, Geographical region (Northwest China); plus Description per Jenny F. So and Dimensions per Christine Lee, from Jade Project Database.

9. (Jeffrey Smith per Keith Wilson, July 17, 2008) Ceremonial object added as secondary classification.

10. (Jeffrey Smith per Janet Douglas, June 17, 2010) Nephrite added as modifier to existing medium of "jade" based on conservation analysis.

11. (Jeffrey Smith per Keith Wilson, March 21, 2016) Undated curatorial remark: (Jenny F. So, from Jade Project Database) Dark grayish olive "puddingstone." Thickest of the type. Similar to F1916.491 in many respects, but shorter. Conical hole drilled 7/8 in. from "back" face, opening smaller on "front" and better finished. Flat face ("back"), bevelled top slightly "W" shaped in front.

12. (Jeffrey Smith per Keith Wilson, March 21, 2016)  Culture changed from Qija to Longshan culture.