top of page

商周筆記 vol.02 芮伯壺:端方、細川護立、埃斯肯納齊、上海博物館西周中晚期蟬紋蓋壺 - The Rui-Bo Hu, Duan Fang, Hosokawa, Eskenazi, Shanghai Museum Collection


Audio cover
芮伯壺:The Rui Bo Hu

芮伯壺

西周中晚期,公元前10世紀—前9世紀 這件青銅壺很可能最初是一件盛酒器,它最顯著的特點是圓雕蟬飾與波浪紋的結合。 根據器上的銘文,它是由西周中期的芮伯出資鑄造。 它出土於19世紀後期,而在20世紀初被傳奇收藏家和鑒賞家端方(1861-1911)所收藏,他曾在光緒皇帝和其母親慈禧太后統治期間官至直隸總督。


這件器物後來由Daniel Eskenazi經手賣給上海博物館,價格並不明確,但相信是在幾千萬到一億之間。

高:40.2 釐米; 重:6.95 公斤




芮伯壺 Rui Bo hu

一件重要青銅器的“傳記”

出自:Eskenazi Ltd 五十週年紀念冊


研究中國古代青銅器的學生,初見此器時或許會一時困惑——一種既熟悉又不確定的印象。此器形制在中國考古學與藝術史中一般被稱為「壺」,即大型酒器。不過,「壺」這個名稱在若干早期銘文中已出現,涵蓋了範圍頗廣的各類容器;有時它被用來盛放芳香酒(鬱壺)或甜酒(醴壺),但同時也可用於盛裝其他液體。在若干古代典籍裡,「壺」亦被視作盛水容器。本次展覽所示之壺(圖1,編號1)壺身修長,近乎梨形,下腹略鼓;圈足微微外撇,同時配有一個平頂蓋。比起它的形制,更不尋常的是其裝飾:整個壺身被兩道橫向和四道縱向的分割帶劃分為若干區塊,區塊內布滿不同尺寸的「波曲紋」(boquwen)(圖2);頸部上方一條連綿起伏的帶狀裝飾,其上下穿插著小型三角形與腎形飾件;壺身主體中央的縱向分欄中,豎向排列了三個大型鋸齒形的波紋組,每組下面都有三角形與腎形飾件,並在其上方額外加了兩處爪形或羽毛狀的裝飾;在下腹部還有一圈簡化的波曲紋帶,間隔布滿腎形飾件。


對於這種裝飾的解讀頗有難度。它雖然是幾何式,但是否真能表現“水紋”卻不夠明確。從它的鋸齒形凹槽與台階狀結構、以及間隔出現的爪或羽毛狀細節來看,該紋飾更像某種風格化的山岳意象,或者也可以更富想像地理解為某種潛藏於丘陵與沼澤的神祇靈怪。這些元素都浮現在滿布細小方折雲雷紋(leiwen)的地紋上。



與略顯曖昧的波曲紋相比,壺上其他裝飾元素要更易辨識:壺蓋凹陷處飾有一隻鳥(圖3)。它環繞盤曲,佔滿整個可用空間;鳥首寫實,圓目長喙,而身體則高度程式化,以簡潔的鱗狀紋示意。壺頸兩側鑄有虎首形的立體耳飾,耳部開孔,或許原先有可穿掛的提梁,如今已失。整個裝飾最引人注目之處是到處可見的蟬飾(圖4),總計多達五十隻:蓋上八隻、圈足八隻(其中一隻缺失)、壺腹部十二隻、頸部四隻、以及縱向分欄中十八隻。這些蟬以自然主義風格雕塑而成,朝不同方向排列,看上去彷彿群蟬正翩然飛舞。每隻蟬皆是單獨鑄造後,再焊接到壺身預留的孔洞中。


就目前所知,整體形制與紋飾皆如此獨特的早期青銅壺僅此一例,尚無任何出版著錄的相似器物,這也為本器的斷代帶來了挑戰。


形制與斷代

青銅壺在早期中國禮器中是常見器型,它的使用時段很長,從商代後期一直延續到漢代,期間演化出多種樣式。商末至西周時,常見的標準形制是:橢圓形的長壺身、頸部較窄、腹部外鼓,通常帶有圈足並安裝提梁。有些商晚期也出現方形壺,但數量較少。西周壺的整體風貌頗具氣勢,常見尺寸較大、裝飾頗豐富,尤其是中晚期的西周壺,更是格外突出。到了東周時期,壺的形制與裝飾呈多樣化發展,有的呈方形或扁平形,甚至葫蘆形;戰國時期更常見描繪狩獵或禮儀場景的圖像化裝飾。


就器物類型而言,本壺毫無疑問屬於周代,而非商代。至於應歸於西周還是東周,學界看法不一。目前大部分出版物傾向將其斷為東周早期(即春秋時期,公元前770–476年),但也有人(如William Watson)極端地推到十二世紀宋代,視其為一件仿古試驗品。唯有少數兩位學者曾將其定為東周更早之前:梅原末治(Sueji Umehara)將其歸入「中周」;容庚則推定為「西周晚期」,但二者並未提供較詳細的證據。筆者傾向支持梅原與容庚的見解,並願在此闡述自己的理由。


目前可將早期青銅壺約略分為六大類:

  1. 長頸、橢圓斷面、圈足外撇。

  2. 狹長方形壺身、腹部外鼓、帶圈足。

  3. 長筒狀壺身、腹部外鼓、帶圈足。

  4. 方形斷面、頸部收窄、帶圈足。

  5. 壺身扁平似鼓形,帶圈足。

  6. 葫蘆形。


上述第4、5、6三類主要盛行於東周晚期之後,而第1、2、3類從商代晚期就開始,一直延續到春秋。本器可歸入第3類,應源於商末較小型壺的傳統;到西周時,由於器型普遍加大,這類筒形壺在中晚期越發盛行。上世紀六、七○年代陝西境內鳳棲張家坡、扶風齊家村、扶風莊北、岐山董家村等地曾發現多件相似壺,部分現藏於美術館或博物館,如舊金山亞洲藝術博物館、臺北故宮博物院以及大英博物館(倫敦),皆被斷為西周中晚期。這些壺往往有兩個顯著特點:一是壺蓋呈階梯狀外撇,倒置時可作飲用器;二是常見波曲紋裝飾。


波曲紋對我們進一步瞭解本器斷代十分關鍵。若瀏覽近年彙編的先秦青銅器資料,可見部分西周中晚期青銅器上確有類似的波曲紋,例如:


  1. 大克鼎(Da Ke ding,中西周,孝王時期)

  2. 史頌鼎(Shi Song ding,西周晚期,攝政時期)

  3. 虎簋(Hu gui,西周晚期,蓋、器身及方座皆有波曲紋)

  4. 浦盂(Pu yu,西周中期,下腹部有波曲紋)

  5. 微伯興簠(Wei Bo Xing Pu,西周中期,圈足鏤空處可見波曲紋)

  6. 伯公父簠(Bo Gong Fu fu,西周晚期,器身帶波曲紋)

  7. 波曲紋杯(西周中晚期,杯身下部飾波曲紋)

  8. 幾父壺(Ji Fu hu,西周中期,器身帶波曲紋)

  9. 十三年興壺(Shisan nian Xing hu,西周中期,圈足飾波曲紋)

  10. 三年興壺(San nian Xing hu,西周中期,器身飾波曲紋)

  11. 王伯姜壺(Wang Bo Jiang hu,西周中期,懿王在位時期,頸部飾波曲紋)

  12. 梁其壺(Liang Qi hu,西周晚期,蓋部鏤空波曲紋)

  13. 頌壺(Song hu,西周晚期,頸部飾波曲紋)

  14. 火龍紋壘(Lei with dragon and fire motifs,西周中期,頸部為火龍紋與波曲紋結合)

  15. 井叔鐘(Jing Shu zhong,西周中期,鐘身有波曲紋)

  16. 晉侯X壺(Jin Hou X hu,西周中期,頸部與蓋鏤空皆飾波曲紋)

  17. 楊姞壺(Yang Ji hu,西周晚期,頸部飾波曲紋)

  18. 楊姞方座筒形器(Yang Ji cylinder with square base,西周晚期,器身及方座飾波曲紋)

  19. 魯仲齊甗(Lu Zhong Qi yan,西周晚期,上腹部飾波曲紋)

  20. 紀候壺(Ji Hou hu,西周晚期,頸與圈足有波曲紋)

  21. 啟尊(Qi zun,西周中期,頸部波曲紋)

  22. 啟卣(Qi you,西周中期,蓋與頸部波曲紋)

  23. 敔簋(Yu gui,西周中期,蓋與器身飾波曲紋)

  24. 陳侯簋(Chen Hou gui,西周晚期,器身波曲紋)

  25. 炯壺(Jiong hu,西周晚期,頸部波曲紋)

  26. 芮公鼎(Rui Gong ding,西周晚期,器身波曲紋)


在這些例子中,年代最早或許是王伯姜壺(王懿王在位期間,公元前899–873),與其頗似的還有「呂王壺」(Lü Wang hu,現存英國沃里克郡康普頓‧韋尼美術館),二者銘文中皆有“芮姬”或“芮夫人”之名。另一件或許時間更晚的,從器型觀察上應接近春秋早期,是東京出光美術館藏的芮公鼎(Rui Gong ding)。2005年陝西韓城梁帶村出土若干銅器與其銘文相同,考古學者推定該遺址屬於春秋初期(約公元前8世紀)。


若將本器的波曲紋與上列器物相比,不難發現它在細節上更具多重鋸齒的“山峰”與深刻的厚槽,並且三角形、腎形雙圈飾件之間距離更近;同時添加的爪或羽毛狀元素雖顯示出一種流動感,但其象徵意義較模糊。然而,如出土於扶風齊家村、可斷至孝王時期(公元前872–866)的幾父壺(圖5),其波曲紋發展更為明確:起伏山峰之間填充更大的C形“耳”或“角”狀飾件,圓形突起則更像“眼睛”。同時代著名的“大克鼎”(大克鼎)也斷至孝王時期,出土於扶風。如果我們把這些案例作出大致的風格演變序列,可強烈感覺到本器的波曲紋可能比幾父壺與大克鼎更早,或許可以放在懿王(公元前899–873)乃至共王(公元前917–900)時期,即公元前10世紀初到9世紀之間。



本器另一個不尋常的裝飾特色是蟬飾。在商末和西周早期,蟬紋並不罕見,但多是程式化的平面裝飾(圖6)。然而本壺上的蟬卻是圓雕、且自然主義風格,這在銅器上極為少見。Watson曾認為它們更接近漢代蟬,但也承認「漢代文物中尚無此類仿古風格的證據」。


事實上,如今我們知道這種立體或寫實的蟬在商周時期的玉器或骨器上偶有發現,只是尚未見於銅器。這或許意味著本壺在當時是一件特殊訂製,蟬飾數量如此之多,似有特別寓意:它們彷彿活靈靈地攀附器身,意圖向人世傳達某種訊息?



蟬(學名Cicada atrata)在中國各地夏天都很常見。不同文化中,蟬常蘊含不同象徵:由於它有五隻眼,且每年夏天鳴聲嘹亮;幼蟲要在地下埋藏約四年才化蛹並破土為蟬,因此蟬常被聯想到夏季、豐收、生殖力或新生。多數研究者同意,在中國傳統民俗與神話裡,蟬常象徵不死與復甦。漢代墓葬中便有在死者口中置玉蟬之俗,企圖「禦腐」並指引亡者靈魂升天。但是否同樣的象徵在商周就已成立,尚無定論。Sarah Allan曾以自然象徵的角度闡釋商代藝術與神話中的蟬紋。若把蟬與壺上的波曲紋搭配解讀,也許可視為蟬以嘹亮蟬鳴喚醒「山川之靈」。民間亦有稱蟬為「知了」(zhiniao),意即“知曉萬物之鳥”。這些當然仍只能是推測,遠古人們的精神世界,對我們而言或許仍是難以窮盡的謎團。


銘文與“芮伯”身份

儘管裝飾寓意或許仍撲朔迷離,但此壺上鑄有銘文可提供更多訊息。壺頸與蓋內部都鑄有同樣銘文:「芮伯啟作厘公尊彝」(圖7),可譯作「芮伯啟為厘公敬作尊彝」。此處「厘公」具體是何人尚不明朗,但「芮伯」(Rui Bo)之名在史書中並不陌生。據《書經》《詩經》《左傳》等多部先秦典籍所載,最初的「芮伯」與周王室關係密切,最早由周武王(約公元前1087–1043在位)封於芮地,後在成王(約公元前1055–1021在位)時擔任大臣。此後,歷代芮國之主皆襲用「芮伯」之稱。《毛詩正義》裡稱:芮伯在武王時曾撰《旅巢命》;《逸周書》中也有芮伯撰《訓納》之說;《左傳》中則記載有一位芮伯行為不檢,被其母驅逐出境,事發於魯桓公三年(公元前709)。可見從西周初年武王封芮起,到公元前709年的芮伯出奔,時間跨度三百多年,顯然是不同世代的芮伯。最終芮國與其鄰國梁國一同於公元前640年被秦所滅。



關於芮國的具體地理位置尚有爭論。古字「芮」或許與「內」(nei)或「水灣」(rui)等地形學特徵相關。商代時,就已有「芮」這一方國(或部落),位於山西西南、渭河與黃河交匯處。周滅商後,周室宗親受封為芮伯,其都城又西遷至今陝西同州(今大荔)一帶,致使後世對芮國所處地存在一些混淆。


歷代在大荔一帶(古同州)已出土多件帶「芮」字銘文的青銅器。北宋呂大臨在《考古圖》中著錄過一件銘文有「芮公」的簠(彼時誤作“缶”),即傳自同州一帶。清乾隆年間編纂的《西清古鑒》也收錄數件「芮」字銘文的鐘鼎彝器,多半推測為陝西芮國故地所出。2005年,陝西韓城梁帶村更出土了數件銘文稱「芮公」或「芮太子」的青銅器,考古學家因此判斷其為芮國貴族之墓,並推測是因芮伯出奔梁國(春秋初期),該墓或許就是芮國人後來的安葬地。然而,仍有人質疑該地是否真在梁國領地之內,或那些帶芮公銘文的器物是否來源於兩國通婚或貢獻等交流途徑。無論如何,韓城梁帶村出土與銘文相同的器物,確證了芮國在西周到春秋時期確有連續的青銅器製作和風格演進。本壺即是其中一件由芮伯在西周中期所委託鑄造的特別禮器。


物的“後世”與傳承

替一件器物寫“傳記”並非易事。作者需要了解器物各層面,還要掌握其產生的時代、社會與文化背景;同時也應注意此器在後世流轉中與外部世界的互動。換言之,要講述的不只是它的起源,還有它的“後半生”。


推測本器約在西周中期由某位芮伯下令製作,之後被陪葬或藏於某處窖藏——或許從製作到埋葬之間已有一段漫長歲月;如2005年韓城梁帶村春秋早期墓葬中也曾發現年代更早的新石器時代舊物,顯示古人有時會將祖先傳世之器再度下葬。但終究,“地不愛寶”,約莫兩千年後,本壺重見天日。大約在19世紀晚期或20世紀初,它被從陝西同州(今大荔)地下出土,但具體出土情況已無法考證。沒多久,它就進入了清末傳奇收藏家兼鑑賞家——端方(1861–1911)的收藏(圖8)。



它首次刊載於端方自印的《陶齋吉金錄》,成書於光緒三十四年(1908)(圖9、圖10)。《陶齋吉金錄》採用當時最先進的石印技術印製,每件器物都繪有詳實的白描圖與銘文拓本,並附尺寸。


端方出身滿洲正白旗,但其自述常以漢姓「陶」作書齋名。他與同時代的諸多士紳一樣酷愛收藏古物,然除興趣外,他本人更具相當深厚的鑑賞能力。他擁有包括大克鼎(今上海博物館)、毛公鼎(今臺北故宮博物院)、以及寶雞出土的一套西周青銅禮器(今藏紐約大都會博物館)等舉世聞名的重器。同時他也收藏大量名家繪畫、書法、玉器、碑帖拓本等。在《陶齋吉金錄》序文裡,端方寫道:「或謂好古足以喪志,蓋其不能見先哲大義之所在耳。某少時仕京師,公事餘即出尋古,稍得。後守秦中,此乃古帝王之都,多奇珍異寶。往往旦出土、夕歸吾檠下,且關中土厚水燥,銅器文飾與銘文每得完存,某每手持撫摩,心神愉悅。再後居鄂、湘、桂、江蘇各地,亦每獲新見,或購得相傳世家之舊藏。物以類聚,好之則至,乃日積月累也。」正如Thomas Lawton評價的那樣,端方的「金石學」根基立足於古代文獻,同時亦積極吸收時代新知;若非其英年遇害,他很可能成為日後新式考古與藝術研究的領軍人物。



端方於1904年之前一直擔任陝西巡撫等要職,極可能就是在陝期間購入此芮伯壺。1905年,他被清廷任命為考察政治大臣,出使歐美各國,開啟中國近代史上一樁盛事。回國後,他致力於教育改革。據記載,他在美國考察時還特意拜訪了多家博物館,並向其贈送中國文物;與此同時,他亦結識了多位外國友人,如約翰·C·弗格森(John C. Ferguson, 1866–1945)等(圖11),使得其收藏在中外圈子中皆有盛名。美國收藏家查爾斯·朗·弗裡爾(Charles Lang Freer, 1854–1919)(圖12)於1910年訪華時曾專程拜會端方。端方甚至在北京建立了一座私人博物館,收羅中國與埃及古物。1911年11月,他因鎮壓川漢鐵路風潮而被叛軍部下所刺殺,結局凄慘——死後其首級遭軍隊索要贖金才得以歸葬。僅三月之後,清朝正式滅亡,宣統皇帝退位。


這些風雲詭譎的歷史,亦令端方的收藏下落一度撲朔迷離。據公開檔案顯示,1914年端方家屬曾嘗試以200萬銀元的高價打包賣給中華民國政府,但由於政府財政困難且需評估鑑定,一直沒有結果。兩年半後,端方之子又致信政府,稱因政府財力不濟,且家道中落,他們一家遷居天津後已部分出脫收藏,決定撤回原先出售計畫。結果便是相當一批重器散落於海內外:如弗利爾獲得了傳為顧愷之的《洛神賦》畫卷,大都會博物館1924年經由弗格森之手購入了寶雞出土的西周禮器套組,而此芮伯壺則最終流入日本細川侯爵家(圖13)。具體經手人不詳,也許曾暫時經過盧芹齋(C. T. Loo, 1880–1957)(圖14)之手,或經山中商會(Yamanaka)運至日本。



確知的是,此壺至少在1932年便於東京帝室博物館(今東京國立博物館)舉辦的「漢及漢以前時代遺物」展覽中首次在日本亮相,其後又偶爾見於日本的一些展覽與圖錄,如東京高島屋、東京國立博物館、愛知縣美術館等。但在中國,似乎較少學者關注,僅容庚一人於著作中附過真跡照片,其他多數中國出版物僅援引《陶齋吉金錄》的線描圖與銘文拓本。


對如此獨特的器物,迄今竟乏深入研究,這在中國向來注重青銅器研究的學術 tradition 中殊為可惜。此次此壺在倫敦出現,想必將引發更多關注,筆者也希望本篇簡介能拋磚引玉,促進更多專家學者討論。值得一提的是,學者于省吾曾藏有此壺銘文之拓片,該拓片於2000年北京翰海拍賣會(第77期)上拍賣(圖15)。或許對一些藏家而言,那份拓片已足具藝術價值,不一定是出於研究銅器本身的興趣。人們對文物的喜愛往往各有不同動機與視角。



芮伯壺 問答

1. 什麼是芮伯壺?它有何重要意義?

芮伯壺是一件獨特而稀有的青銅器,功能上可能是盛酒之用,可追溯至西周中晚期(約公元前10–9世紀)。其最顯著的特徵在於器身大面積覆蓋複雜的「波曲紋」(boquwen),以及眾多立體寫實的蟬飾。除裝飾手法獨特之外,該壺擁有明確的傳承脈絡,可上溯至清末著名收藏家端方之舊藏。芮伯壺對了解古代青銅鑄造技術、藝術風格、禮器功能以及中國收藏史皆具重要意義。


2. 芮伯壺的裝飾有何獨到之處?

芮伯壺的裝飾在同時期青銅器中別具一格,主要體現在以下兩點:

  1. 寫實立體的蟬飾


    壺上鑄有大量立體、自然主義風格的蟬,並非如同早期青銅器上常見的平面化、程式化蟬紋,而是以鮮活動態的姿態散佈於壺身各處。

  2. 精細複雜的波曲紋


    芮伯壺的波曲紋呈現更深的鋸齒形溝槽與台階狀結構,並穿插三角形或腎形細節,一些學者甚至認為它可能象徵風格化的山岳,而非僅僅代表水紋。該紋飾與雲雷紋底紋結合,使整個裝飾圖案異常豐富且富於想像空間。


3. 在斷代上,芮伯壺如何被確定年代?

由於芮伯壺風格獨特,斷代工作並不容易;然而,學者們主要根據以下依據推測其年代:

  • 形制特徵


    整體造型與西周壺式相符,尤其符合西周中晚期盛行的細長筒形壺。

  • 紋飾比較


    壺身的波曲紋和同時期已知的青銅器(如大克鼎、幾父壺等)相比較,可見此器在紋樣演化序列中較早,因而推斷為西周中晚期(約前10–9世紀)。

  • 蟬飾風格


    儘管蟬在青銅器上少見如此立體細緻的表現,但類似自然主義的蟬形象可在同時期部分玉器、骨器上見到,因此符合西周的藝術特質。

因此,綜合形制、紋飾與同時期藝術表現,芮伯壺的年代大致確定在懿王或共王時期(約前10–9世紀)。



4. 芮伯壺上的蟬飾有何象徵意義?

蟬在中國古代藝術中常被賦予不死、復甦或再生等象徵,主要因其獨特的生活週期。芮伯壺上這些立體蟬飾數量眾多、排列生動,顯示它們並非純粹裝飾,可能蘊含著某種特別用意——或許意在向人世傳達訊息,或象徵「山川精靈」,將此禮器與自然世界相聯結。然而確切含義仍有待進一步研究與詮釋。


5. 芮伯壺的銘文告訴了我們什麼?

芮伯壺在頸內與蓋內均鑄有相同銘文:「芮伯啟作厘公尊彝」(Rui Bo qi zuo Li Gong zun yi),意為「芮伯啟恭敬地為厘公製作此尊彝」。

  • 銘文意涵


    這指出「芮伯」(Duke of Rui)為「厘公」(Lord Li)專門鑄造此器,顯示其原為一件具有特定祭祀或禮儀功能的尊彝。

  • 歷史背景


    「芮伯」在先秦文獻中不斷出現,係芮國之君之世襲稱謂,與周王室關係密切。此銘文印證了芮國在西周時期的存在與地位,同時也讓我們得知器物用於祭祀或禮儀的用途。



6. 端方是誰?他與芮伯壺有何關聯?

端方(1861–1911)是清末的高級官員、外交官和著名古器收藏家。他是現存文獻記載中最早確定的芮伯壺持有人,在其1908年出版的《陶齋吉金錄》中,就收錄了芮伯壺的白描圖和銘文拓本。由於端方官位顯赫,得以搜羅不少重要出土文物;雖然他因時局動盪而身故,但因其私人出版的收藏目錄,我們得以追蹤包括芮伯壺在內的部分藏品流傳情形。


7. 芮伯壺離開端方藏後的流轉過程如何?為何中國研究較少?

在端方逝世與清朝覆亡後,他的大規模藝術收藏散佚於海內外。芮伯壺最終流入日本細川侯爵家,並於1930年代在東京帝室博物館的公開展覽中首次在日本亮相。此後,除了日本境內若干次展出,並未在中國產生廣泛關注。中國學者中,除容庚在其著作中刊有照片外,大多僅沿用端方《陶齋吉金錄》的圖文,並未親見實物。因而,在青銅器研究領域具高重要性的芮伯壺,反倒長期被忽略。近年芮伯壺於倫敦出現,重新引起國際學界的關注,預計也將帶動更深入的研究。



8. 在追溯芮伯壺等文物歷史時,面臨哪些主要挑戰?

追溯芮伯壺這類文物的傳世脈絡往往面臨多重困難:

  1. 出土記錄缺失


    無法確知具體出土地點與考古環境,導致其早期埋藏和使用背景不明。

  2. 長時間斷層


    從製作、下葬到再次出土、進入收藏市場,時間跨度可能長達數千年,中間信息易散佚。

  3. 私人收藏交易


    文物在私人藏家之間流轉,往往缺乏公開記錄,因而難以全面追蹤。

  4. 不同收藏動機


    每任藏家對文物的關注點和處置方式各異,也影響文物在後世的保存與研究。

這些因素都增加了梳理文物「傳記」的難度,也使我們對其原初功能與歷史地位的理解更具挑戰性。


Rui Bo hu 芮伯壺

the Biography of an Important Bronze Vessel

by Eskenazi Ltd


The student of archaic Chinese bronzes will probably be puzzled at first glance by this bronze vessel - an impression of familiarity mixed with uncertainty. It has the form that Chinese archaeologists and art historians would call a hu or large wine jar. The name hu a appears in the inscriptions on a number of early bronze vessels, covering a wide range of containers, sometimes describing it as a container for aromatic wine (鬱壺) or sweet wine (lihu 醴壺), although it could also be used for other liquids. In several classical texts, the hu is described as a water jar. The hu in the present exhibition (fig. 1, cat. no. 1) has an elongated, almost pear-shaped body, with a low swollen belly; its ring-foot is slightly flared; it also has a flat-top cover. What is more unusual is the decorative scheme found on the vessel: two horizontal and four vertical panels divide the body into zones and are filled with a wavy pattern (boquwen 波曲紋) in various sizes, (fig.2); the single continuous undulating band on the upper neck is interspersed, above and below, with small triangular and kidney-shaped ornaments; the central columns on the main body contain three large, toothed wavy patterns arranged vertically, all having the triangular and kidney-shaped motifs beneath them, with the addition of two claw or feather-like ornaments above; on the lower belly is a band of the simplified version of the wavy pattern, again interspersed with the kidney-shaped ornaments. The rendering of these motifs is problematic. They are geometric, but clearly not the representation of water implied by the name given by archaeologists and art historians. Judging by the toothed grooves and steps and the interspersed claw and feather-like motifs, they look more like a stylized mountain motif, or more imaginatively, some kind of strange spirit of hills and marshes. The motifs are set against a background of tiny and angular spirals or thunder-pattern (leiwen 雷紋).



In contrast to the ambiguity of the wavy pattern, the other motifs found on the bronze vessel are much easier to identify; on the sunken cover is a bird motif (fig.3). It has a coiled body that fills the entire space available; the bird's head is very realistic, with a round eye and long beak, but the body is highly stylized and reduced to simple scale patterns, On the neck of the vessel are modelled two tiger heads, with small apertures, probably meant for a swing handle that is now lost. The most striking feature of the ornamentation is the cicada motifs (fig.4). There are fifty of them altogether: eight on the cover and eight on the foot-ring (one missing) and a further twelve on the belly, four on the neck and eighteen on the vertical panels. The cicadas are modelled in a naturalistic manner, facing different directions, which gives the viewer an impression of movement. Each cicada was cast separately and then welded into the prepared hole on the vessel.


Of all known early Chinese bronzes, this hu-vessel is a unique piece both in its form and decoration. It has no counterpart among published pieces, which has posed some difficulty in dating it.



The hu is a very common type of early ritual bronze vessel. It was used over a long period, from the late Shang to the Han dynasty, and during this time developed into various forms. The early standard type of hu has a tall oval body, with a narrow neck and bulging belly; it usually sits on a ring-foot and has a swing handle. Hu of square section were produced in the late Shang but these are few in number. In the Western Zhou period, there are some tall and slender hu with minimal ornamentation, but on the whole the Western Zhou hu is an impressive and well-decorated large container that stands out among the ritual vessels of the middle and late Western Zhou period. By the Eastern Zhou period, there is a great variety of form and decoration among the hu: some are square, or partly flattened rather than rounded, or are even gourd-shaped, and many Warring States period examples have pictorial decoration depicting hunting or ritual scenes.


In terms of typology, the present example certainly belongs to the Zhou rather than the Shang period. However, scholarly opinion is divided as to whether it should be dated to the Western Zhou or the Eastern Zhou period. The majority of publications have dated it to the early Eastern Zhou, i.e. the Spring and Autumn period (770 - 476 BC). William Watson even dated it to the 12th century AD as a 'Song dynasty' experiment in archaic style.? Only two scholars have dated it earlier than Eastern Zhou:


Sueji Umehara 梅原末治 placed it in 'Middle Zhou', 3 and Rong Geng 容庚 in 'late Western Zhou', without much explanation. I share Umehara and Rong's views and would like to take the opportunity to present my argument here.



There are perhaps six main types of early bronze hu, characterized by the following: a) long neck, of oval section, with flared foot; b) elongated rectangular body, swollen belly, with ring-foot; c) long, cylindrical body, swollen belly, with ring-foot; d) of square section, narrow neck, with ring-foot; e) flattened shape, like a drum, with ring-foot; and f) gourd shape. Types d), e) and f) only became popular after the late Eastern Zhou. Types a), b), and c) lasted from the late Shang to the Spring and Autumn Period. Our example belongs to the c) type that derived from the smaller late Shang type. As the Western Zhou hu increased in size, type c) hubecame very popular in the middle and late Western Zhou period. Several comparable examples were discovered in archaeological excavations at Fengxi Zhangiapo 澧西張家坡 Fufeng Qjiacun 扶風齊家村,°Fufeng Zhuangbei扶風莊北,°Qishan Dongjiacun 岐山董家村10 in Shaanxi province in the 1960s and 1970s. Similar examples can also be found in museum collections, including the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco,11 the National Palace Museum in Taipei12 and the British Museum in London. 13 These examples all date to the middle and late Western Zhou period. When examining their form closely, two features stand out: first, the stepped flaring cover could be used as a serving cup when placed upside down; second, many of them bear the familiar wavy patterns.


The use of the wavy pattern is an important clue in our investigation. Glancing at a recently compiled anthology of early bronzes, we can see a few middle and late Western Zhou bronzes that are decorated with this distinctive pattern:


1) Da Ke ding 大克鼎 (on the body, middle Western Zhou, King Xiao's reign)14

2) Shi Song ding 史頌鼎 (on the body, late Western Zhou, Regency period) 15

3) Hu gui 虎簋 (on the cover, body and square base, late Western Zhou) 16

4)Pu yu  浦盂 (on the lower body, middle Western Zhou)17

5) Wei Bo Xing Pu 微伯興鋪 (openwork of the ring-foot, middle Western Zhou)18

6) Bo Gong Fu fu 伯公父簠 (on the body, late Western Zhou)19

7) Cup with wavy pattern 波曲紋杯 (on the lower body, middle to late Western Zhou)20

8) Ji Fu hu 幾父壺 (on the body, middle Western Zhou)21

9)Thirteenth-Year Xing hu 十三年興壺 (on the ring-foot, middle Western Zhou)22

10)Third-Year Xing hu 三年興壺 (on the body, middle Western Zhou)23

11) Wang Bo Jiang hu 王伯姜壺 (on the neck,middle Western Zhou, King Yih's reign)24

12)Liang Qi hu 梁其壺 (openwork on the cover, late Western Zhou)25

13)Song hu 頌壺 (on the neck, late Western Zhou)26

14) Lei with dragon and fire motifs 火龍紋壘 (on the neck, middle Western Zhou)27

15) Jing Shu zhong 井叔鐘(on body, middle Western Zhou)28

16)Jin Hou X hu 晉侯X壺 (on the neck and openwork on the cover, middle Western Zhou)29

17)Yang Ji hu 楊姞壺 (on the neck, late Western Zhou)30

18) Yang Ji cylinder with square base 楊姞方座筒形器(on the body and base, late Western

Zhou)31

19) Lu Zhong Qi yan 魯仲齊甗 (on the upper body, late Western Zhou)32

20) Ji Hou hu 紀候壺(on the neck and foot, late Western Zhou)33

21)Qi zun 啟尊 (on the neck, middle Western Zhou)34

22) Qi you 啟卣 (on the lid and neck, middle Western Zhou) 35

23) Yu gui 敔簋 (on the cover and body, middle Western Zhou)36

24) Chen Hou gui 陳侯簋 (on the body, late Western Zhou)37

25) Jiong hu 炯壺 (on the neck, late Western Zhou) 38

26) Rui Gong ding 芮公鼎 (on the body, late Western Zhou)39



Of all the examples, the earliest is probably the Wang Bo Jiang hu 王伯姜壺 that dates to the reign of King Yi 懿王 (899 - 873 BC); another similar piece is the Lü Wang hu 呂王壺 in the collection of Sir Peter Moores (at Compton Verney in Warwickshire, England). Both of these bear an inscription in which 'Rui Ju' or 'Madame Rui appears.40 A third example, and the latest in date, on typological ground, is the Rui Gong ding FLAH in the collection of the Idemitsu Bijutsukan 出光美術館 in Tokyo. Very similar bronze vessels, with the same inscription, were discovered at Hancheng Liangdaicun 韓城梁帶村 in Shaanxi in 2005.41 The site dates to the early Spring and Autumn period (c.8th century BC).


Compared with the above examples, the wavy pattern on our example is noticeably different: it has multiple toothed peaks and thick grooves, and the triangles and kidney-shaped double circles are close together; the claw or feather-like element suggests movement but is rather ambiguous. However, on the other examples, for instance, the Ji Fu hu 幾父壺 from Fufeng Qijiacun in Shaanxi, the pattern is further defined, as the space between the undulating peaks is filled with large C-shaped elements like ears or horns and the interspersed relief roundels appear more like eyes (fig.5). The Ji Fu hu dates to the reign of King Xiao 孝王 (872 - 866 BC). The famous Da Ke ding 大克鼎, discovered in the 19th century in Fufeng, also dates to the same reign. If we try to place our example in a line of stylistic development, we may arrive at the strong impression that the present bronze hu is somewhat earlier than the Ji Fu hu and Da Ke ding, and probably dates to the reign of King Yi 懿王 (899 - 873 BC) or even King Gong 共王 (917 - 900 BC), between the early 10th and the 9th century BC.


One of the unusual features of the ornamentation of this bronze, as briefly described earlier, is the cicada motif. The cicada motif itself is not rare. It often appears on bronzes of the late Shang and early Western Zhou period, where it is usually highly stylized 42 (fig.6). But, on the present bronze hu, we see cicadas that are modelled in the round and are very naturalistic. This uncommon characteristic had led Watson to the impression that they were Han-like cicadas, although he also acknowledged: 'archaism of this kind finds no place in Han material as known to date' 43 However, we now know that such representation is found on jadeand bone carvings of the Shang and Zhou periods, though not, it appears, on bronzes. The decoration that is unique to this bronze vessel suggests that it was probably a one-off, specially designed for a particular patron. Clearly, the cicadas were of great significance, they were alive and moving around.Were they trying to convey some special message to the human world?


Cicadas (Cicada atrata are insects one can easily find in China, as in many other parts of the world. In different cultures, cicadas may possess different meanings. The natural characteristics of the cicada - it has five eyes, is very noisy in the mating season, has a long gestation period when buried underground as a larva for about four years before turning into a pupa and finally emerging as an insect - may easily be associated with some kind of symbolism: summer, harvest time, fertility and abundance, or the life-giving principle. Most authors agree that in Chinese traditional folklore and mythology cicadas often symbolize concepts of immortality and resurrection.44 We know from archaeology that in Han dynasty burials jade cicadas were placed inside the mouth of the dead, protecting the body from decay and guiding the soul to the after-life. However we are not so certain that the same symbolic interpretation should be applied for the Shang and Zhou periods. In her study of Shang mythology and art, Sarah Allan has argued that the cicada motif could be interpreted as a natural symbol.45 One possible explanation for the particular conjunction of cicadas with wavy patterns on ritual bronzes, may be that it represents the insects trying to wake up the spirits of the hills and marshes with their loud song. The folk name for the cicadas is zhiniao fI, meaning 'the bird of knowing'. We may indulge freely in speculation; however, the spiritual world of the ancients is unlikely to reveal all its secrets to those who would like to uncover them now.


Nonetheless, we do have some information about the maker and owner of this bronze vessel.There is an inscription on the interior of the neck and on the cover. It reads: Rui Bo qi zuo Li Gong zun yi, 芮伯啟作厘公尊彝 (fig.7) which can be translated as The Duke of Rui respectfully made this ritual vessel for Lord Li'. The identity of Li Gong or Lord Li is uncertain, but Rui Bo or the Duke of Rui is not an unfamiliar title in history. According to the ancient texts - including the Shujing 書經 (Book of Documents), the Shijing 詩經 (Book of Poetry), and the Zuo zhuan 左傳 (Zuo Commentary)46 - the first Rui Bo was directly related to the Zhou royal house and was first enfeoffed by King Wu 武王 (r. 1087 - 1043 BC) in the early Western Zhou period. He served as a minister under King Cheng 成王 (r. 1055 - 1021 BC). The title was passed down through the Rui family for many generations and succeeding heads of the Rui state were all called Rui Bo or the Duke of Rui. For example, in the Maoshi zhenyi 毛詩正義, it is said that Rui Bo wrote Lüchaoming 旅巢命 during the reign of King Wu, and in the Yi Zhoushu 逸周書, Rui Bo is said again to have written Xunna 訓納, and, in the Zuo zhuan, it is recorded that Rui Bo was thrown out of the country by his own mother, for his immoral behaviour, in the 3rd year of Lord Huan 桓公三年 (709 BC). From the Western Zhou enfeoffment of the first Rui Bo to the expulsion of the Rui Bo of 709 BC is a span of over three hundred years, so the records must be referring to different historical characters with the same title. The Rui state was finally destroyed, together with its neighbouring Liang state, by the Qin state in 640 BC.


There are some questions about the exact location of the Rui state. The name Rui means 'inner' (nei 內) or 'river bend' (rui 芮), probably referring to the topographical feature of a place. As early as the Shang period, there already existed an ancient Rui state (or chiefdom) in southwest Shanxi, where the Wei River converges with the Yellow River. After the Zhou's conquest of the Shang, the Duke of Rui, a Zhou aristocrat, was enfeoffed to the Rui, but the capital of the Rui state moved westwards to the Tongzhou 同州 (modern day Dali 大荔) area in Shaanxi province. This has caused considerable confusion among later scholars.


Many ancient bronzes have been discovered in the Dali area, from very early times, and these bronzes all relate to the ancient Rui state. In the 11th century catalogue Kaogutu 考古圖 (Illustrated Investigation of Antiquity), compiled by the Song dynasty scholar Lü Dalin 呂大臨, there is a fu i vessel (wrongly classified as a fou (Ti-vessel) that bears an inscription containing the name Rui Gong or Lord Rui; the object was said to have come from Tongzhou (modern-day Dali). Several other Rui bronzes (vessels and bells) are also entered in the Xi Qing gu jian 西清古鑒 (Xi Qing Appraisal of Antiquities) - the catalogue of the Qianlong emperor's collection, compiled in the 18th century AD. We can assume that these bronzes were also unearthed in Shaanxi in the area corresponding to the territory of the old Rui state. More recently, in 2005, archaeologists excavated an early Spring and Autumn period cemetery in Hancheng Liangdalcun

韓城梁帶村 in northern Shaanxi. It is interesting that several bronzes found in the tombs are inscribed with the names of Rui Gong 芮公 (Lord Rui) and Rui Taizi 芮太子 (Prince Rui). Archaeologists therefore believe that the cemetery belonged to the Rui state, and that Hancheng was the 'northern Rui' mentioned in historical records. They argue that the Duke of Rui was exiled to the neighbouring Liang state in the early Spring and Autumn period, and that the cemetery was for the burial of the Rui nobles, 47 However, doubts still remain as to whether that place was inside the territory of the Liang state, and whether the presence of the bronzes may be explained by exchange or intermarriage between the Rui and Liang states. However, whether the Hancheng Liangdaicun cemetery belonged to the Duke of Rui or not, the Rui bronzes show that there was indeed a continuous development, in terms ofthe style and decoration, of the production of ritual bronzes in the Rui state. Our example, the Rui Bo hu, is a remarkable piece produced under the patronage of the Duke of Rui of its time.


Writing the biography of an object is not an easy business. The author needs to know every aspect of the object, as well as the context in which it was created. When thinking biographically, I do not only mean the physical appearance and the historical origin of the object. There are other questions that need to be taken into consideration, such as the relationship and interaction between the object and the surrounding world in the process of transmission. We must try to tell the story of the after-life of the object.


We can assume that the Rui Bo hu was commissioned by one of the dukes of the Rui state during the middle Western Zhou period, and that it was then buried in a tomb or a hoard. There may have been a long gap between the time of its manufacture and its burial. We have evidence that some objects found at the Hancheng Liangdaicun cemetery, itself dated to the Eastern Zhou period, were actually made during neolithic times. But, as the Chinese saying goes di bu ai bao 地不愛寶 - 'the earth does not cherish treasure' - almost two thousand years later, this bronze vessel once again saw the light of day. At some point in the late 19th or early 20th century, the Rui Bo hu was unearthed, probably without premeditation, at Tongzhou in Shaanxi. Unfortunately, we do not have any record of its discovery. Soon after, it entered the collection of Duan Fang 端方 (Tuan Fang, 1861-1911) - the legendary collector and connoisseur of the late Qing dynasty (fig.8). It was published for the first time in Duan Fang's catalogue Taozhai jijin lu 陶齋吉金錄 (Records of the Auspicious Bronzes from the Tao Studio), printed in 1908, the 34th year of the Guangxu 光緒 reign (figs.9 and 10). Duan Fang's catalogue was printed by the traditional lithographic method, to the highest standard of that time. Each bronze vessel was accurately represented by a line drawing, with measurements, and rubbings of inscriptions on the vessels were also provided.


Duan Fang was born into a family of the Manchu Plain White Banner. But he also acclaimed his Chinese origin, using his Chinese surname 'Tao' for the name of his personal study. Like many of his contemporaries, Duan Fang was a keen collector of antiques; but more than that, he was also an accomplished connoisseur with a well-trained eye for quality. He owned many very important early bronzes such as the Da Ke ding 大克鼎 (now in the collection of the Shanghai Museum), Mao Gong ding 毛公鼎 (now in the collection of the National Palace Museum, Taipei), the Western Zhou bronze ritual set unearthed in Baoji (now in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York), as well as many jades, paintings, calligraphies and rare ink rubbings. In his preface to the Taozhai jijin lu, he wrote: 'some people may think that an enjoyment of antiques could lead to a loss of will and ambition, but it is because they cannot see the path for the great scholarship of the ancient worthies. In my youth I served as an official at the imperial court in the capital. Whenever I had spare time away from my official duties, I would go out to search for antiques, and I obtained a few. Later on, I was appointed to the official position in Qinzhong (Shaanxi) which was the capital of ancient kings and emperors, and many important treasures and outstanding objects came from this place. It was quite common that an object unearthed in the morning would be on my table by the evening. The soil of the northwest is very dry, thus patterns and inscriptions on a number of bronzes survived well. I hold and touch them again and again, and my heart is soaked with pleasure.


Afterwards, I moved around Hubei, Hunan, Guangxi and Jiangsu, and was able to acquire antiquities as they were excavated, as well as heirlooms of old families. If you love them, things gather together.


My collection grew as time went on.' Duan Fang was a significant figure in the late Qing jinshixue 金石學  (the study of bronzes and stelae). As Thomas Lawton has commented, 'His understanding of antiquities was based on information in ancient texts, and he was strongly influenced by past scholarly statements. Yet, there is every indication from the eagerness with which he absorbed new ideas that, given the opportunity, Tuan Fang would have accepted the more critical attitudes towards art collecting that were introduced shortly after his death.'48


It is possible that Duan Fang acquired the Rui Bo hu when he was the Imperial Inspector and later Governor of Shaanxi, where he stayed till 1904. In 1905 he was appointed as one of the imperial commissioners to visit the United States and Europe.This foreign trip was a very significant event in the modern history of China. After returning to China, Duan Fang carried out a number of reforms in education. During his commission to the U.S.A., Duan Fang also paid special visits to museums and presented some Chinese antiques to those foreign institutions. He made friends with many foreigners including John C. Ferguson (1866 - 1945), (fig.11), and his collection was well-known among foreign circles as well as in China. The famous American collector Charles Lang Freer (1854 - 1919), (fig.12) visited China and met Duan Fang there in 1910. He established the first private museum in Beijing in 1910 to display his own collection to which he began to add some Egyptian artefacts. In November 1911, on his way to pacify riots caused by the nationalization of the railway in Sichuan, Duan Fang was assassinated by Chinese soldiers from his own troops. It was a sad and gruesome end for the high ranking Manchu official in a period of turmoil. Duan Fang's head was only reunited with his body after a sizeable ransom had been handed over. Three months later, the Qing dynasty collapsed and the Xuantong 宣統 Emperor abdicated.


So, what happened to Duan Fang's large collection of antiquities? Published archives 49 show that his family tried to sell them to the newly established Republican government in 1914. The asking price was a hefty two million dollars. The finances of the Republican government were shambolic and it was felt that authentification and evaluation of the collection were required. So no decision was made. Two and a half years later, the government received a letter from Duan Fang's son saying that, taking into account the economic difficulties in which the country found itself at that time, he had disposed of some of the collection after the family had moved to Tianjin, and that he was withdrawing the original offer. We now know that some of the objects were bought by Chinese collectors and may be found in Chinese museums today and that many others were sold to foreign museums and collectors. For example, Charles L. Freer bought the painting Luo Shen fu 洛神賦 or ’Nymph of the Loo River’ , attributed to the master Gu Kaizhi 顧愷之 (344 - 406) and the famous set of Western Zhou ritual bronzes with stand was purchased by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, in 1924, through John C. Ferguson. The Rui Bo hu went to the prominent Japanese collector Marquis Hosokawa (fig.13) although exactly how and when is not clear. The famous dealer C.T. Loo 盧芹齋 (1880 - 1957), (fig.14) might have had it for a short period. 50 Or, it may have passed through the hands of the Japanese dealer Yamanaka, who had his own office in China at that time and also sold many objects from the Duan Fang collection to foreign museums.


Although some details are unclear, we do know that it was first displayed publicly in the exhibition 'Relics of Han and Pre-Han Dynasties' at the Imperial Household Museum in Tokyo in 1932.51 Since then, this bronze vessel has made occasional appearances in various exhibitions and catalogues in Japan, including at Takashimaya in Tokyo,52 the Tokyo National Museum, 53 and the Aichi Prefectural Museum in Nagoya. 54 In China, the vessel seems to have attracted little attention. Rong Geng is the only scholar who has mentioned it and illustrated it with a photograph in his books.55 Other Chinese publications include only the old line drawing and a rubbing of the inscription. No specific study has ever been done on this unique piece, which is surprising taken that we think of the study of ancient Chinese bronzes as a highly developed field. The fortune of an object is often bound up with the way it is presented and how it is circulated. The emergence of this unique bronze in London will surely arouse great interest. I hope that my brief introduction will open up the way for further exploration by other scholars.As a final note, I should perhaps mention here that an ink rubbing of the Rui Bo hu, formerly in the collection of the famous scholar Yu Xingwu 于省吾, was auctioned by the Hanhai 77 Art Auction in Beijing in 2000 (fig.15). The bidder was probably after the rubbing as an independent artwork, rather than for his academic interest in the bronze vessel itself. People like things for different reasons!


FAQ: The Rui Bo Hu


What is the Rui Bo Hu, and what is its primary significance?

The Rui Bo Hu is a unique and rare bronze vessel, likely a wine container, dating from the middle to late Western Zhou Dynasty (10th-9th century BC). Its most striking feature is the combination of naturalistic, three-dimensional cicada ornaments and complex "wavy" (boquwen) patterns covering the body. It's significant not only for its unusual decoration but also for its well-documented provenance, tracing back to the collection of the renowned Qing Dynasty collector, Duan Fang. The Rui Bo Hu provides insights into ancient bronze casting, artistic styles, and ritual practices, as well as the history of collecting in China.


What is unique about the decorations on the Rui Bo Hu?

The Rui Bo Hu features several unique decorative elements that set it apart from other bronzes of the period. Firstly, the abundance of three-dimensional cicada figures, placed in naturalistic poses, is exceptional. While cicada motifs appear on earlier bronzes, they are usually flat and stylized. Secondly, the "wavy" (boquwen) pattern is complex and more intricately rendered compared to other bronzes. Its toothed grooves, step-like structure, and small interspersed motifs suggest a possible representation of stylized mountains rather than simply water. These unique elements, combined with the typical thunder pattern (leiwen) background, make the decorative scheme of the Rui Bo Hu very unusual and artistically intriguing.


How can the age of the Rui Bo Hu be determined, given its unique features?

Dating the Rui Bo Hu is challenging because of its unique characteristics, but art historians rely on several factors. The overall form is consistent with the Western Zhou period, specifically the middle to late periods. While some scholars initially proposed later datings, a detailed examination of the "wavy" (boquwen) pattern and its comparison with similar patterns on other dated bronzes, like the Da Ke ding and Ji Fu hu, supports a date in the 10th-9th century BC. The stylistic evolution of the wavy patterns suggests it precedes those examples. Additionally, though the naturalistic cicada design is rare, its presence is found on some contemporary jade and bone objects and thus aligns with a Western Zhou attribution. Thus the evidence points to a middle to late Western Zhou dating, during the reign of Kings Yi or Gong.


What is the significance of the cicada motif on the Rui Bo Hu?

The cicada motif is prevalent in ancient Chinese art, often symbolizing themes of immortality, resurrection, and rebirth due to the insect's unique life cycle. The fact that these cicadas on the Rui Bo Hu are depicted as three-dimensional objects suggests that they were specially added for the vessel with a particular significance. Their number and dynamic placement might imply that they were intended to convey a message to the human world or to evoke the "spirits of the hills and marshes," perhaps connecting the world of the vessel with nature. However, the precise meaning in this specific context remains speculative.


What do the inscriptions on the Rui Bo Hu tell us about its origins and intended use?

The Rui Bo Hu has identical inscriptions inside the neck and on the lid: "芮伯啟作厘公尊彝" (Rui Bo qi zuo Li Gong zun yi), which translates to "The Duke of Rui respectfully made this ritual vessel for Lord Li." This inscription provides several key pieces of information. It tells us that the vessel was commissioned by a person known as the "Rui Bo" (Duke of Rui) for a person known as "Li Gong" (Lord Li), suggesting it was made for a specific purpose. Additionally, it confirms the historical existence of the Rui State and its connection to the Zhou dynasty. While the specific identity of "Li Gong" remains unknown, the title "Rui Bo" was inherited by generations of leaders of the Rui State. This tells us that the vessel was used for ritual purposes.


Who was Duan Fang and what is his connection to the Rui Bo Hu?

Duan Fang (1861-1911) was a high-ranking Qing Dynasty official, diplomat, and renowned collector and connoisseur of Chinese art and antiquities. He is significant because he was the first recorded owner of the Rui Bo Hu. His personal catalog, Taozhai Jijin Lu, which was published in 1908, features a detailed entry on the Rui Bo Hu, including line drawings and rubbings of its inscription. This publication is instrumental in understanding the Rui Bo Hu's provenance and its circulation within the collecting world during the early 20th century. Duan Fang's ability to collect important artifacts was aided by his government position, and despite his death his catalog of his collection has allowed the items to be tracked through history.


How did the Rui Bo Hu circulate after leaving Duan Fang's collection, and why is there little research from China on it?

After Duan Fang's assassination and the Qing dynasty's collapse, his large art collection, including the Rui Bo Hu, was dispersed. The Rui Bo Hu ended up in Japan in the collection of Marquis Hosokawa. In the 1930s it was displayed in a public exhibit for the first time at the Tokyo Imperial Household Museum. Despite occasional appearances in Japanese exhibitions, it remained largely unnoticed by Chinese scholars for an extended period. One exception is scholar Rong Geng who included a photo in his publication, and others that used Duan Fang's catalog, not having seen the artifact itself. This lack of attention is surprising given the significant importance of bronze studies in China. The recent appearance of the Rui Bo Hu in London has sparked renewed interest and will hopefully lead to more in-depth research.


What are some of the challenges faced when attempting to trace the history of an artifact like the Rui Bo Hu?

Tracing the history of an object like the Rui Bo Hu presents several challenges. A lack of precise archaeological records of the original discovery of the artifact make it difficult to establish its original context. Also, the time between manufacture, burial, rediscovery, and then the movement through various collections, means that there are periods where its whereabouts are not completely known. There are difficulties in tracking items that go through private collections that may not keep public records, and sometimes, as with this object, they may be sold to private overseas collectors or museums. Additionally, the various owners of an artifact, such as Duan Fang, often have very different motivations for acquiring and preserving them. The circulation of the object in the market and its presentation during and after its life as an archaeological item all affect its significance and reception. This adds complexity to our understanding of its true "biography."



Comments


Related Products

saca logo

© 2018 - 2025, SACA.

bottom of page