Harvesting knife (hu 笏), fragment

1. Bought from Lee Van Ching [Li Wenqing] 李文卿, of Shanghai 上海, in New York. For price, see Original Miscellaneous List, p. 247. $300.

2. (Undated Folder Sheet note) Original attribution: Chinese. Chou [Zhou] 周. See further, S.I. 1113, Appendix VIII. (See Paragraph 7.)

3. (Undated Folder Sheet note) Sp. G. is 2.920.

4. (Isabel Ingram Mayer, 1946) Chou [Zhou] 周 dynasty. For discussion of type, see folder F1916.244, note 3 (Carl Whiting Bishop).

5. (Undated Folder Sheet note) Exhibited: The Art Institute of Chicago, Catalogue of a Loan Exhibition of Ancient Chinese Paintings, Sculptures, and Jade Objects from the Collection Formed by Charles Lang Freer (Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 1917), no. 117.

6. (Thomas Lawton, 1978) Late Shang 商--Early Western Chou [Zhou] 周.

7. (Julia K. Murray, 1982) Quadrilateral jade blades with one long side beveled to a semi sharpened edge and the opposite side left blunt were inspired by the utilitarian stone harvesting knife of the Neolithic period (see F1979.39). Such stone knives were often perforated with one or more holes, perhaps for attaching a handle or cord. Some of the more finely worked and carefully polished examples were used ceremonially, especially the large ones like the 7 holed stone knives found in 1956 at Pei yin yang ying [Beiyin yangying] 北陰陽營, Nanking [Nanjing] 南京(Nanking po-wu-yuan [Nanjing bowuyuan] 南京博物院, "Nan-ching shih Pei-yin-yang-ying ti I, erh tz'u ti fa-chueh [Nanjing shi Beiyinyangying di 1, 2 ci de fajue] 南京市北陰陽營第一、二次的發掘," K'ao ku hsueh pao [Kaogu xuebao] 考古學報 1958.1, pls. 5:5--6) and the 3 , 5 , 7 , 9 , 11 , and 13 holed stone knives found between 1978 and 1980 at Hsueh chia kang [Xuejiagang] 薛家崗, Ch'ien shan [Qianshan] 潛山, Anhwei [Anhui] 安徽 (Anhwei sheng wen-wu kung-tso-tui [Anhui sheng wenwu gongzuodui] 安徽省文物工作隊, "Ch'ien-shan Hsueh-chia-kang hsin-shih-ch'i-shih-tai i-chih [Qianshan Xuejiagang xinshiqi shidai yizhi] 潛山薛家崗新石器時代遺址," K'ao ku hsueh pao [Kaogu xuebao] 考古學報 1982.3, p. 310, fig. 25), datable to the late 4th millennium BCE. Jade replicas probably appeared in the late Neolithic period and became well established in the early Shang 商, as attested by a magnificent 7 holed jade blade found at Erh li t'ou [Erlitou] 二里頭 (Yen-shih hsien wen-hua-kuan [Yanshi xian wenhuaguan] 偃師縣文化館, "Erh-li-t'ou i-chih ch'u-t'u ti t'ung-ch'i ho yu-ch'i [Erlitou yizhi chutu de tongqi he yuqi] 二里頭遺址出土的銅器和玉器," K'ao ku [Kaogu] 考古 1978.4, pl. 12:3). The purely ceremonial character of the jade examples is suggested in their size, which tends to be larger than the functional stone tools. They are sometimes given the name hu 笏, or "tablet."
 
There is a certain variety in the shapes of jade knife blades, particularly in the proportion of length to width, number and placement of holes, and surface decoration. Some blades are relatively long and narrow; others are relatively short and broad. Some blades are symmetrical (i.e., isosceles trapezoids or rhomboids), and others are not. The holes may be placed at regular intervals along the grip edge or spaced irregularly. An additional perforation may or may not appear on the horizontal axis near one of the short ends of the blade. A very large jade blade [49 cm] with three holes along the grip edge and a fourth on the horizontal axis was found at Shih mao [Shimao] 石峁, Shen mu [Shenmu] 神木 in northeast Shensi [Shaanxi] 陝西 (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. 156, fig. 3:1).
 
Although Neolithic potsherds were found in the area, the jades were inside a stone slab coffin and the excavators felt that they might be Shang 商 in date. Hayashi Minao, on the other hand, seems to accept the jades as belonging to the same Neolithic context as the sherds; Robert Bagley suggests that they are Western Chou [Zhou] 周 on stylistic grounds. Several of the long and narrow jade knives have shallow scoops or cutouts at the end of one or both of the long edges, interrupting the rectilinear contour and creating an alternate grip for holding the blade vertically. Frequently, the articulation of this cutout area is of a slightly different character than the workmanship of the rest of the blade, and it has been suggested by Jessica Rawson that the cutouts are slightly later than the original manufacture of the blade. The alteration of the contour of the jade knife might possibly reflect a change in its ceremonial use. In arguing that the date of the cutouts is still quite early, Hayashi points to comparable contours on Shang 商 and Western Chou [Zhou] 周 handles (see F1915.234) and demon masks. [See Hayashi Minao 林巳奈夫, "Chūgoku kodai no ishibōchōkei gyokki to kotsusenkei gyokki 中國古代の石庖丁形玉器と骨鏟形玉器 = Two Types of Prehistorical Chinese Ceremonial Jade Objects: Stone Harvesting Knives and Bone Spades," Tōhō gakuhō 東方學報 54 (1982), pp. 1--81.]

Certain extremely thin blades exhibit differences in the surface contour and polish of the front and back surfaces, the latter often being quite flat and dull. This appearance strongly suggests that a thick, finished blade was longitudinally sliced into two or more slabs. (Some jade "chang [zhang] 璋" scepters also appear to have been sliced.) The question of when this slicing took place has been the subject of some debate. Some people argue that ancient jade workers did not have the technical capability to slide their material so thinly, and, therefore, a greedy dealer in recent times must have done the job. Others (most recently Hayashi) believe that the jades were sliced in ancient times in order to create matching tallies to be used as symbols of official authority. Hayashi asserts that certain excavated jades demonstrate that ancient carvers were able to slice jade as thinly as they pleased; and he finds further support for his view in the weathering of the sliced sides of the pieces he has examined. In any case, it would not be logical for a modern dealer who took the trouble to slice the jade to neglect the relatively simple task of polishing the cut side; so the view that the slicing process was intended to create a pair of tallies seems more convincing at present.

8. (Jeffrey Smith per Keith Wilson, July 8, 2008) Ceremonial Object added as secondary classification.

9. (Susan Kitsoulis per Keith Wilson, April 2, 2010) Object name changed from "Ceremonial implement" to "Ceremonial object"; title from "Ceremonial implement; broad quadrilateral blade form" to "Harvesting knife (hu 笏), fragment."

10. (Jeffrey Smith per Keith Wilson, April 21, 2016) Period changed from Shang or Western Zhou dynasty with object date of ca. 1600-771 BCE to Late Neolithic period with object date of ca. 5000-ca. 1700 BCE.