Chinese Civilization
A total denial of the first Chinese dynasty of Xia by Victor Mair could be seen at http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp238_xia_dynasty_china.pdf Mair’s basis was that the character ‘Xia’ was not found on the oracle bone, and that China’s 20th century ‘doubt-ancient’ scholars (疑古派), such as Wang Guowei, also concurred with the mythification of Xia. (For details, refer to this webmaster’s rebutting the Xia-nihilists’ claims at http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?/topic/37126-which-books-survived-the-qin-burnings-and-which-did-not/ )
–Prior to his suicide death, Wang Guowei revised his thoughts on the archaeological discoveries to state that what was excavated would have confirmed the ancient textual descriptions and what had not been excavated yet would not necessarily mean that the ancient writings were not true.
Different readings of oracle bone character “夒”（náo) ["憂" (金文); 《说文》：“夓，中国之人也”]
Thought I:
己巳卜，雀不其氐夒？己巳卜，雀氐夒？十二月。《合集》8984
赵诚在《甲骨文简明词典》里就指出：这两个字的区别在于，一个字是手爪向下，一个字是手爪向上，这是它们的最根本的区别。在卜辞中的使用上区别也很严格：田猎所获猎物的“夒”手爪均向下（见下图一）；用为高祖名的“高祖夒”之“夒”手爪均向上（见下图二），区分甚为明显。 [[“憂”字，象夒以手掩面忧愁之形，本来忧愁乃人的情态，为什么从“夒”？因为这个字是个象形兼形声的字，为的是取“夒”的声也。金文中的“憂”字与甲骨文 略同（见图三），容庚《金文编》在下注云：“象以手掩面形”，说甚是，字均象夒以手掩面形，会其忧愁、忧惧之意，故其手爪均向上也。]]
The oracle bone character “夒”（náo) was commonly interpreted to have two shapes and means two things: 1) Shang’s founding ancestor and 2) a kind of monkey. The difference lied in what the direction of the so-called ‘claw’ shape pointed to in the character, with the upper claw meaning the former and the lower claw the latter. Now what the experts for the oracle bones and the Zhou bronze untensil characters had said was that the Zhou bronze utensil character for “夒”（náo) had corrupted to the character ‘夓’ (Xia).
Thought II: 曹定云(1995)
“夓”=“夏”（篆文; 《说文》：“夓，中国之人也”）
己巳卜，雀氐夏？十二月。 己巳卜，雀不其氐夏？
凡被“氐”者，都是些地位低下的平民和种族奴隶。上引卜辞“雀氐夏”之“夏”应是“夏人”。“雀”是殷代的重要诸侯国，其地望大约在今之豫西 ［（４３）］。豫西恰恰是夏代统治的中心区域。商汤灭夏之后，不可能将原居夏人统统迁走，总会留下相当一部分。这些留居下来的夏人，自然成为商代统治者的 种族奴隶，他们要尽多方面的义务。“雀氐夏”就是雀侯挈领这些夏人去殷都，或服劳役，或服兵役，甚至也不排除沦为人牲。这是“夏人”受奴役之苦的真实记 录，是极为珍贵的史料。相反，如果将此字释为“夔”，那就很不好理解：“夔”为商人之先祖（卜辞中常见高祖夔），雀侯怎能挈领夔去服劳役、兵役或沦为人牲 呢？故以卜辞辞意证之，该字也应当释为“夏”。
Scholar Cao Dingyun, who analyzed the ancient records and recent archaeological findings, concluded that the bronze-corrupted character ‘夓’ (Xia), which was supposed to denote the oracle bone character “夒”（náo), could only mean that that Shang chieftan ‘雀’ (Que) sent in the [former] ‘夓’ (Xia) people as objects for live sacrificial burial at the Shang capital. Indeed, the Shang people had a tradition of using various prisoners of war as funeral objects. The traditional explanation, that the ‘tributes’ surrendered [氐] by the Shang vassals were merely monkeys, indeed looks absurd to me. (Similar extrapolation could be applied to the Shang vassals’ surrendering other ethnic groups of people, such as the Qiangs, to the Shang capital.)
–This webmaster’s question for the sinologists of the whole past century: Did you find the monkey skeletons among the human sacrificial tombs of Shang Dynasty?
Still one more person gave an interesting observation, saying that those characters could merely mean the bird-totem written in the shape of the three-leg birds (跋乌) that appeared to have different shape in different seasons of the year: 蘷、夒、夏.
Some Chinese guy who submitted some paper to the Sino-platonic website claimed that all China’s prehistory was forged after the era of the Yellow Overlord and that the Yellow Overlord was, as they said, an “Indo-European” invader, etc., etc. –Their logic was that China’s agriculture was like 6000-7000 years old, but Zhou Dynasty founder Hou-ji, for his role as the guardian-god of agriculture, was a later event. The fool’s logic used here was that the “invaders” did not acknowledge the pre-’invasion’ agricultural history of prehistoric China and that it had to mean that Hou-ji and the whole family of the Yellow Overlord must be some “INDO-EUROPEAN” non-agricultural invaders against China from let’s say Central Asia.
The folly was built on the ignorance of the job that Bu-zhu (descendant of Gong-liu) held in the Xia Dynasty court. The proper interpretation is that Bu-zhu (不窋), who was touted to have inherited the legacy of Hou-ji the agricultural ‘guardian god’ of the Zhou people, did not appear to the ancient Chinese to have any conflict with the knowledge that there was the Divine Farmer, Shennong (aka Yandi), in China’s prehistory.
The Sino-Platonic clique was anti-China in the sense that the people it rallied under its banner tried to nihilate China’s civilization. Unfortunately, China’s history books were recompiled in the Han Dynasty, hence providing fodder to those nihilsts, with many China’s so-called scholars buying into it, including Yu Taishan, et al. Yu Taishan, who used soundex to make wild speculations, had mistakenly extended Zhou King Muwang (r. 1,001 – 947 B.C. per Shao Yong’s divinatory chronicling; 1006-952 B.C. per Zhang Wenyu; 962-908 per [forgery] The Bamboo Annals)’s travels beyond the Kumtag Desert. See http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp197_mu_tianzi_zhuan.pdf (The other fallacy Yu Taishan had was that he assumed that Mu-tian-zi Zhuan was actually a contemporary book from around 1000 B.C.E.)
To rectify the true history of China, you first have to start from the Kumtag Desert. This webmaster’s point was that the Kumtag Desert was the OUTER LIMIT of Sinitic China, and there was no [continuous] liaison between the Indo-Europeans and the Sinitic Chinese, at least no such trace in the Zhou King Muwang’s travelogue which was buried in Wei King Xiangwang’s tomb together with The Bamboo Annals. (See http://www.imperialchina.org/Dynasties/?p=43 ) –Here, This webmaster put ‘continuous’ in bracket, which was to say that there were unlikely to have ensued any after-effect after the first noted encounter between the Indo-European and the Sino-Tibetans, an event that archaeological discovery had ascertained to be the 2000 B.C.E. admixtured mummies in Chinese Turkestan, which alternatively showed that the San-miao exiles, who were relocated to Northwest China from the eastern and central China in the 23rd century B.C.E., had accidentally penetrated into Chinese Turkestan, not the other way around by the Indo-Europeans.
There was the spread of North China’s microlithic stone tools towards the west over 10,000 years ago. The 6000-year-old Lingjiatan double-eagle-head jade octagram could imply an ancient transfusion of the 10,000-year-old emblem to Central Asia from China. It would not be farfetched to state that the Sumerian cuneiform’s speedy transformation to logophonetic, consonantal alphabetic and syllabic signs among different groups of the Central Asia and Middle Eastern people could imply the Sumerian script’s likely origin as an out-of-area and imported product from let’s say North China. Here, with the existence of the obscure pre-2000 B.C copper-based metallurgy in northern China, such as the controversial brass pieces of the fourth and third millennium B.C., there was no rebutting the spread of ancient metallurgy technology to China from the west. From the bronze technology angle, Jacques Gernet believed that the Chinese “mastery of the potters of Lungshan, the high temperatures which they seem to have been capable of obtaining, and the restricted role of hammering and forging in the technical traditions of the Far East all incline one to favor the idea of an independent discovery of bronze metallurgy”. Gernet illustrated his point with citation of the ancient Chinese invention of bellows which were enhanced with double-action piston by the Han dynasty, a kitchen appliance that this author used to operate during early childhood in the Chinese countryside.
A tentative conclusion could be made in that the ancient world(s) did have some unknown form of discrete, disparate and non-continuous links between the East and West. However, this kind of East-West links were disrupted numerous times, with the consequence of loss of such links amounting to thousands of years in-between, as seen in the westward spread of the microlithic tools, the octagram, the double-head eagle emblem, the pictographic characters, and the red potteries.
Shang oracle bones Recording the Qi-guo People, Xia’s Successor
1．丁酉卜，殼贞，杞侯炬弗其祸，有疾。（《合集》13890）
2．癸巳卜，令登赉杞。（《合集》22214）
3．己卯卜行贞，王其田亡灾，在杞。庚辰卜行贞，王其步自杞，亡灾。（《合集》24473）
4．庚寅卜在女香贞，王步于杞，亡灾。壬辰卜，在杞贞，王步于意，亡灾。（《合集》36751）
The oracle bones were from the mid and late Shang period, and the Xia was already superseded by its successor, the Qi [杞] statelet. So it is natural to see the Shang oracle bones talking about Qi, not Xia.
The Si-surnamed Xia people, per Shi Ji, were conferred the fiefdoms as Xia-hou-shi, You-hu-shi, You-nan-shi, Zhenxun-shi, Dan-cheng-shi, Bao-shi, Fei-shi, Qi-shi, Zeng-shi, Xin-shi, Ming-shi, and Zhen’ge-shi. Later, the Xia Dynasty remnants survived as the Qi-guo statelet, located in today’s Qi-xian county of Henan Province. The Qi-guo lineage continued onward through the Shang and Zhou dynasties. An ancient proverb about a Qi-guo person worrying about the fall of skies would be related to this country. Still more Xia remnants survived as the Yu-guo, Ji-guo and Tang-guo statelets that survived in today’s Shenxi/Shanxi provinces till the Zhou Dynasty time period. In the original Sinitic homeland of southern Shanxi Province, there was enduring legends of Uncle Tang, with the Tang statelet at one time collaborating with the Shang dynasty remnants against the new Zhou rule. In the early Zhou dynastic time, Tang-guo was eliminated, with the people being forced to relocate to southwest of today’s Shenxi and the land yielded to a Zhou prince as the Jinn principality. Also, Zhou King Youwang died in the hands of an allied barbarian invasion, with the element of a Zeng-guo state, i.e., descendants of Lord Yu of the former Xia dynasty. More, Zhou King Youwang took in Bao-shi, a woman from the ‘Si’ family, of the Xia heritage, who was adopted by a civilian couple of the Bao-guo fief. In Zuo Zhuan Lu Lord Xigong 15th year, a statemenmt was made to the effect that the Xu state, which was commonly taken to be Xu-yi or the eastern Xu barbarian state [that produced numerous rebel kings against the Zhou rule], was what the ancient ‘zhu-xia’ [various Xia] was, meaning that the Xu had descended from the ancient Xia Dynasty states. More Xia people remnants could have fled to the northwestern border area..
China’s Relics That Survived Qin Shihuangdi’s Book Burning
At http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?/topic/37126-which-books-survived-the-qin-burnings-and-which-did-not/ I talked about China’s books that survived the book burning. The book burning destroyed 99.9999% of the history books of China. The ignorance among some people, Chinese or non-Chinese, led to the claim that it was an exaggerated event.
Sima Qian had a comment which this webmaster cited at http://www.imperialchina.org/Qin_Dynasty.html
Sima Qian signed when he wrote about the ‘book burning’. Valuable records were lost forever. Why? Sima Qian said that Qin Shihuangdi ordered all histories and chronicles of the Zhou Kingdom and various principalities be burnt, that only the Qin chronicles were left intact, and that the worst thing about Qin’s chronicle was that Qin, unlike Zhou and other vassals, did not write the dates in their chronicle. Sima Qian also expressed relief that the ancient classics, like Shi Jing (classics of poems, 詩經) etc, had survived because they were hidden by the civilians outside of the court. But the history books and chronicles, which were only kept in the Zhou court or the courts of the vassals, were all destroyed.
So, the book burning is real. Sima Qian might have seen pieces of the Qin history records, hence making the comment. The Qin records had to be part of the library that survived General Xiang Yu’s arson. Note that before Xiang Yu set the fire to the Qin palaces, Xiao He, i.e., Liu Bang’s counselor, had ransacked through the Qin court and library and collected some of the books. The future Chinese historians claimed that it was Xiao He who found the book Shan Hai Jing (records of the mountains and seas), and hence it survived the double jeopardy and passed down to today.
Qin Emperor Shihuangdi accomplished the feat that Mao failed in the cultural revolution. Mao failed because Taiwan preserved the true history. Qin Shihuangdi succeeded because he did burn all history books of SIX STATELETS [plus the Zhou court records].
Tadpole Texts surrendered by the Qin-era Notables
张仓(苍)《春秋左氏传》
Zhang Cang was in turn a desciple of Xun-zi (Xun Kuang), and worked under Wu-gong (magistrate for the Henan-jun Commandary). Per Lu-lin Zhuan of Han Shu, at the very beginning of the Han dynasty, there was a revival of studies of Chun-qiu Zuo-shi Zhuan. Zhang Cang, Jia Yi, Zhang Chang, and Liu Gong-zi (“taizhong dafu” {imperial admonition minister, which was subordinate to ‘lang-zhong-ling’}, with the name Liu Gong-zi literally meaning Prince Liu but not necessarily a Liu royal family prince who should be termed ‘wang” or a king, instead) all liked to study Chun-qiu Zuo-shi Zhuan. Though, the book was never given the imperial attention till the Xin dynasty time period. One version of Chun-qiu Zuo-shi Zhuan was said to be passed down from Zhang Cang (Marquis Beiping-hou), a former Qin-era “yu shi” (imperial censor), who was said to be a disciple of scholar Xun Qing. Zhang Cang was said to have passed Chun-qiu Zuo-shi Zhuan to Han Dynasty scholar Jia Yi (“tai fu” or tutor for the Liang state); Jia Yi passed to grandson Jia Jia; Jia Jia passed to Guan4 Gong (“bo shi” for King Hejian-xian-wang); Guan4 Gong passed to son Guan4 Changqing (“ling” or magistrate for Dangyin); Guan4 Changqing passed to Zhang Chang (“jing-zhao yin”, magistrate of the capital) & Zhang Yu (“yu shi” or a censor); Zhang Yu passed to Xiao Wangzhi (“yu shi” or a censor; and “tai fu” or tutor for the crown prince) and Yin Gengshi; Yin Gengshi passed to son Yin Xian, Di Fangjing, and Hu Chang; Hu Chang passed to Jia Hu; and Jia Hu passed to Chen Qin whose son Chen Qin passed to Xin Dynasty usurper emperor Wang Mang. It was said that Liu Xiang and Liu Xin had studied Chun-qiu Zuo-shi Zhuan from Yin Xian and Di Fangjing. 20th century scholar Qian Muhad doubts about the Xun Qing to Zhang Cang succession history. Sima Qian, who wrote Shi Ji, might not have a copy of Chun-qiu Zuo-shi Zhuan as his book was proven to have numerous errors that could have been fixed should he had read Chun-qiu Zuo-shi Zhuan. Also, the Zuo family lineage book claimed that the Zuo family descendants fled the Wang Mang imperial recall by changing the surname and seeking anonymity in the related Qiu-surnamed hometown.
Tadpole Texts from the Double Walls in Confucius’ Residency
《汉书·艺文志》：《尚书古文经》四十六卷，《礼古经》五十六卷（including those from 鲁淹中），《春秋古经》十二篇，《论语古》二十一篇，《孝经古孔氏》一篇
Ancient Book that was Retained by the Civilians
《詩經》Shi Jing (classics of poems, 詩經)
At the time of Emperor Xiaohuidi and dowager-empress Lv Hou, a few scholars were appointed some nominal posts, such as Yuan Gusheng and Haan Ying in the area of Shi Jing, Zhang Sheng and Ou Yang in the area of Shang-shu, Hu Wusheng and Dong Zhongshu in the area of Chun-qiu.
Emperor Wudi initially did not succeed in hiring the Confucians for managing the country. After Wudi replaced Wei Guan with Dou Ying (nephew of Dowager Empress Doutaihou), Dou Ying and Tian Fen located two Confucians for Wudi: Zhao Guan and Wang Zang, i.e., two of the thousand students of an eighty-year-old Shen-gong of the ex-Chu Principality. Shen-gong, renowned for his research into ancient Shi Jing [classics of poems], was invited to the capital by Wudi.
Haan-wang-xin, in the Hunnic Tui-dang-cheng fort, born a son called Haan Tuidang who returned with his mother to the Han territory during Lv-hou’s reign years and was conferred the old Haan-wang-xin’s title of Marquis Gonggao-hou. (Haan Tuidang born sons Haan Ru and Haan Ying. Haan Ying, a ‘bo shi’ [doctorate] in Emperor Wendi’s times, was to become the founding master of the Haan school of thought on Shi Jing. Haan Ru was to have son Haan Yan who studied together with Han Emperor Wudi during the days of King Jiao-dong-wang.)
Ancient Book that was [purportedly] Salvaged by Xiao He
Shan Hai Jing
Shan Hai Jing, in the relatively newer sections on the seas’ part, mentioned two rivers of Fei[2]-shui and Chuang-shui for this area, apparently echoing the Tian Wen poem by Qu Yuan, 343-289 B.C., in which the poet used the word ‘fei zhi’ to ask how the [You-yi-shi] beauty was so buxom and used the word ‘ji chuang’ to infer a sudden attack [at the Shang ancestro-prince Wang-hai] on the bed. In this sense, Shan Hai Jing was apparently some book that was written without any scientific background or a book that randomly picked words or phrases from some ancient books to fabricate some sensical paragraphs – which led the future scholars on a path of no return. Also note the below dates for deduction of cause and effect: Shi-zi, 390-330 B.C.E., i.e., Shang Yang’s disciple, could be responsible for producing The Bamboo Annals that was buried in Wei King Xiangwang’s tomb in 296 B.C.E. This webmaster’s point was that Shan Hai Jing‘s section on the seas could not be earlier than Tian Wen, and Tian Wen could not be earlier than The Bamboo Annals.
Ancient Book that survived General Xiang Yu’s Arson
The Qin chronicle (possibly part of it) Qin Ji
History books that survived the Book Burning
Zhu-shu Ji Nian (《竹书纪年》The Bamboo Annals)
It would be during the Western Jinn dynasty that a Wei Principality version of the history annals, i.e., The Bamboo Annals (Zhu-shu Ji Nian), was excavated. Jinn Dynasty scholars, after the discovery of The Bamboo Annals, claimed that it covered the period from the Xia dynasty to Zhou King Youwang. During the Western Jinn dynasty, Jinn Dynasty emperor Wudi’s 5th year of the Xianning Era, i.e., A.D. 279., a Wei Principality version of the history annals, i.e., The Bamboo Annals (Zhu-shu Ji Nian), was excavated, a byproduct of tomb digger Fou Biao. (The Bamboo Annals, which was possibly buried in Wei King Xiangwang’s tomb in 296 B.C.E, merely covered the period from the Xia dynasty to Zhou King Youwang. Did someone from the Wei state read the popular history book Chun-qiu Zuo-shi Zhuan, and then worked on the preceding history? In the prehistory section, this webmaster thought that Shi-zi (390-330 B.C.E.), i.e., Shang Yang’s disciple, could have produced The Bamboo Annals to be buried in Wei King Xiangwang’s tomb in 296 B.C.E. before he fled to the Sichuan basin in 338 B.C.E. and died there in 330 B.C.E. (Paralle to The Bamboo Annals was a book that Han Dynasty scholar Liu Xiang edited, i.e., Shi Ben [the vassals' lineage] that carried a sentence containing the words of the present King Qian {of the Zhao state}, which made people speculate that someone from the Zhao state might have abridged the contents from ZHOU LI [the Zhou dynasty rituals] about half a century after the production of The Bamboo Annals.)
Zuo Qiuming’s Chun-qiu (Spring & Autum Annals, known as《左氏春秋》in Western Han and 《春秋左氏传》by 班固 in Eastern Han Dynasty)
In ancient China, two chronicle officials of the left and right side were assigned, with one chronicler recording the words of rulers while the other chronicler recording the events. Shang-shu was of the nature of recording of the statements made by the various rulers, while Chun-qiu was of the nature of recording of important events of a state. Latter day scholars, including Han Dynasty historian Ban Gu, inverted the roles of the two chronicles, saying that the ‘zuo’ [left] chronicler recorded the words of rulers while the ‘you’ [right] chronicler recording the events. Kong Yingda of the Tang dynasty corrected this mistake in interpretation. In fact, in The Bamboo Annals, it was recorded that back in the 24th year reign of Zhou King Muwang, the king ordered Zuo-shi [leftside history or court music minister, i.e., one of the three elderly dukes], to take charge of compiling the history of the king’s commandments and the past dynastic events.
Shen-shu-shi, far ahead of Confucius’ Chun-qiu, was noted in Chu Yu of Guo Yu for teaching the history of Chun-qiu, without specifying what kind of history chronicle book it was. In the Chu Princiaplity, the history chronicle was called by ‘tao wu’, while Jinn named it ‘sheng4′ [a name that also referred to a 4-horse chariot] and Lu named it ‘chun qiu’ [a name that Sima Qian did not seem to concurr with as he was said to have called Confucius' action by abridging 'shi ji' [historical chronicle] to ‘chun qiu’].
Zuo Qiuming’s Guo Yu (《国语》, Political Discourses of the Zhou court and the Zhou principalities)
Sima Qian was explicit in saying that Zuo-qiu Ming had completed the second book, 21-volume Guo Yu [which covered the years from Zhou King Muwang 12th year to Zhou King Zhendingwang 16th year {453 B.C., which was the year the Zhi-shi clan was eliminated in Jinn}], while he had lost eyesight (i.e., character ‘ming’, which was a given name). Kong-zi Jia Yu, i.e., Confuciu’s family mottos, also a Han dynasty book, carried a statement to the effect that Zuo-qiu Ming and Confucius at one time rode together to the Zhou capital for reading the imperial books. More, Lun Yu (Analects) carried a Confucius statement that Confucius shared the same viewpoints about feeling shame on the non-gentlemen. There was a Qiu family lineage book in Feicheng, Shandong, which purportedly recorded the Zuo-qiu family history in year 30 A.D., a book that very much consolidated the ancient lineage stories about the possible origin of the Qiu surname. Though, the records prior to 30 A.D. could not be considered to be primitive data.
杨伯峻（1909～1992） believed that 《春秋》was originally 鲁史，that Confucius did not edit, not to mention authoring it. 杨伯峻 also claimed that the book 《左传》was written after 公元前四〇三年{{魏斯为侯}}，and before 周安王十三年（公元前三八九年）。
Confucius’ edited book Chun-qiu might not have survived should there be absence of Zuo-qiu Ming’s work of interpretation. Both books started from Lu Lord Yin’gong, who succeeded Lu Lord Huigong (768-723 B.C.), which was not coincidental. Zuo-qiu Ming, commonly thought to be Zuo-surnamed or Qiu-surnamed or with the double-character Zuo-qiu surname, and revered as Zuo-zi in the later times, was taken to be from a hereditary Lu Principality leftside chronicler’s family. Zuo-qiu Ming, for his compiling of Chun-qiu Zuo-shi Zhuan [or Zuo-shi Chun-qiu Zhuan (i.e., Zuo Zhuan)], was postulated to have lived some 1-2 generations behind Confucius. Sima Qian, in Shi-ji, claimed that Zuo-qiu Ming, a Lu gemtleman, had made the book to standardize the essence of Confucius’ abridged Chun-qiu. Modern historian Yang Bojun analyzed the writings on the twelve Lu lords to deduce that Zuo-qiu Ming must have completed the book between 403 B.C. and 386 B.C., without taking into account the possibility that the later people, who used Zuo-qiu Ming’s book as textbooks, might have added the additional years, about 25 or 27 years beyond Chun-qiu[, or 26 years extra when counting the recording of the elimination of Jinn by three families]. Gu Yanwu, a scholar from the Ming-Qing transitionary time period, claimed that Zuo Zhuan could not be written by one person, as the Xia-zheng [Xia Dynasty] calendar was occasionally used prior to Jinn Lord Huigong (?-637 B.C.), while most of the events related to Jinn had followed the Zhou Dynasty calendar..
Confucius’ Feats
The records of ‘Chun-qiu‘, the Springs and Autumns, started in the Lu Principality in 722 B.C. when Lord Lu Yin’gong (r. B.C. 722-712) got enthroned. The reason that Confucius started the abridgement of the history chronicles from Lord Lu Yin’gong could be related to the Lu lord’s virtues. Lord Lu Yin’gong, in fact, took over the rule as a regent, not an official lord, and observed the rituals as a regent. When the young Lu lord grew up, he got Lord Lu Yin’gong killed. (Shi-ji was wrong about the year Lord Lu Yin’gong was killed.) The later interpretation books, like Zuo Zhuan, made special emphasis on the nature of Lord Lu Yin’gong’s regency.
Chun-qiu, a concisely-worded book also known as Lin Shu [i.e., the 'qilin [giraffe] book’], was commonly taken to be an abridged version of the Lu Principality’s court chronicle, covering 242 years and 12 lords, from Lu Lord Yin’gong to Lu Lord Aigong. Confucius was said by Sima Qian to have abridged “shi ji” into Chun-qiu, with the Shi-ji name adopted by Sima Qian himself for his history book [but was twisted by the latter-day scholars to refer the word "shi" to be historian Sima Qian], without specifying whether the Lu Principality actually called its royal chronicle by “shi ji” [historical records] or “chun qiu”. Mencius (372-289 B.C.) adopted the word “zuo” [manufacture, build] to refer to Confucius’ work on Chun-qiu, which alternatively speaking was completed in the autumn after it was started in the spring, i.e., the time “qilin” was killed. Menciu made the comment that Confucius’ Chun-qiu made “luan-chen [treacherous ministers] zeizi [usurper sons]” fear for themselves. There were three popular compendium-nature annotation books for Chun-qiu, namely, Zuo-qiu Ming’s 35-volume Chun-qiu Zuo-shi Zhuan, Gong-yang-gao’s 11-volume Chun-qiu Gong-yang Zhuan [a Han dynasty book covering 242 years of the Lu state], and Gu-liang-chi’s 11-volume Chun-qiu Gu-liang Zhuan [another Han dynasty book covering 242 years of the Lu state]. In Chun-qiu Zuo-shi Zhuan, Confucius was referred to as “sheng ren” or a saint. In Chun-qiu Zuo-shi Zhuan, Confucius was referred to as “jun zi” or a gentleman, and was said to have “xiu” or modified the Lu Principality history annals or the generic “shi ji” [historical records] of vassals. Some of the “jun zi” comments were attributed to writer Zuo-qiu Ming himself, while there was some speculation that Han Dynasty scholar Liu Xin added the comment section.) The prevalent version of Chun-qiu Zuo-shi Zhuan, however, covered 269 years, from Lu Lord Yin’gong 1st year (722 B.C.) to Lu Lord Daogong 14th year (454 B.C.), with one saying that Chun-qiu Zuo-shi Zhuan covered the years to the 44th year [476 B.C.] of Zhou King Jingwang, about 246 years. What was clear in the book is that it recorded the year Confucius passed away, which was two years after the Chun-qiu time span of 242 years. That was 244 years. Still one more version pointed to Lu Lord Aigong 27th year or 468 B.C., covering 254 years. It was commonly acknowledged that the last event recorded by Chun-qiu Zuo-shi Zhuan was the elimination of Jinn by three prominent families of Haan, Wei and Zhao. Other than the three versions, two other Han Dynasty Chun-qiu versions of ZOU-SHI and JIA-SHI were lost into oblivion.
The various principalities had compiled their royal chronicles entitled the “Spring & Autumn”. However, only the Lu Principality’s version had survived as a result of Confucius’ editing as well as Zuo-qiu Ming’s compiling of Chun-qiu Zuo-shi Zhuan [or Zuo-shi Chun-qiu Zhuan (i.e., Zuo Zhuan)]. Zuo Zhuan had covered a later time span, from the 49th year [722 B.C.] of Zhou King Pingwang to the 44th year [476 B.C.] of Zhou King Jingwang, about 246 years. It would be during the Western Jinn dynasty that a Wei Principality version of the history annals, i.e., The Bamboo Annals (Zhu-shu Ji Nian), was excavated. Jinn Dynasty scholars, after the discovery of The Bamboo Annals, claimed that it covered the period from the Xia dynasty to Zhou King Youwang.
司马迁《十二诸侯年表序》：是以孔子明王道，干七十余君莫能用，故西观周室，论史记旧闻，兴于鲁而次《春秋》。
《孟子滕文公下》：世衰道微，邪说暴行有（同又）作。臣弑其君者有之，子弑其父者有之。孔子惧，作《春秋》。《春秋》，天子之事也，是故孔子曰：“知我者其惟《春秋》乎！罪我者其惟《春秋》乎！”
孔丘 《论语述而》: “述而不作”…
庄周《庄子齐物论》：六合之外，圣人存而不论；六合之内，圣人论而不议。《春秋》经世先王之志，圣人议而不辩。
《子罕》 “吾自卫反鲁，然后乐正，《雅》、《颂》各得其所。”
王充《论衡·佚文篇》：“孝武皇帝封弟为鲁恭王，恭王坏孔子室以为宫，得佚《尚书》百篇，《礼》三百，《春秋》三十篇，《论语》二十一篇。”《论衡·案书篇》：“《春秋左氏传》者，盖出孔子壁中。孝武皇帝时，鲁恭王坏孔子教授宫以为宫，得佚《春秋》三十篇，《左氏传》也。” (王国维“疑王仲任所云出孔壁中者，涉《春秋经》而误也”)
《汉书·艺文志》：“武帝末，鲁恭王坏孔子宅，欲以广其宫，而得古文《尚书》及《礼记》、《论语》、《孝经》凡数十篇。”
(宋)刘敞：“故《春秋》一也，鲁人记之则为史，仲尼修之则为经。经出于史，而史非经也，史可以为经，而经非史也。”
(清)袁谷芳《春秋书法论》：《春秋》者，鲁史也。鲁史氏书之，孔子录而藏之，以传信于后世者也。
Zuo-qiu-ming’ Works
司马迁《史记·十二诸侯年表》：“鲁君子左丘明惧弟子人人异端，各安其意，失其真，故因孔子史记具论其语，成左氏春秋。”
司马迁《史记》，《吴世家》：“余读《春秋》古文，乃知中国之虞与荆蛮、句吴兄弟也。”
刘向《别录》： 左丘明授曾申；申授吴起；起授其子期；期授楚人铎椒，铎椒作《抄撮》八卷；授虞 卿，虞卿作《抄撮》九卷；授荀卿；荀卿授张苍。(注：孔颖达：《春秋左传正义》引 刘向《别录》。)
刘歆《让太常博士书》： 及鲁恭王坏孔子宅，欲以为宫，而得古文于坏壁之中，《逸礼》有三十九，《书》十 六篇。天汉之后，孔安国献之，遭巫蛊仓卒之难，未及施行。及《春秋左氏》，丘明所 修，皆古文旧书，多者二十余通，藏于秘府，伏而未发。
《汉书楚元王交传》刘歆《移让太常博士书》：及鲁恭王坏孔子宅，欲以为宫，而得古文于坏壁之中，《逸礼》有三十九，《书》十六篇——天汉之后，孔安国献之。遭巫蛊仓卒之难，未及施行——及《春秋左氏》——丘明所修——，皆古文旧书，多者二十余通，臧于秘府，伏而未发。……或怀妒嫉，不考情实，雷同相从，随声是非，抑此三学：以《尚书》为备，谓《左氏》不传《春秋》，岂不哀哉！
《汉书•儒林传》： 汉兴，北平侯张苍及梁太傅贾谊、京兆尹张敞、太中大夫刘公子皆修《春秋左氏传》 。谊为《左氏传》训故，授赵人贯公，为河间献王博士，子长卿为荡阴令，授清河张禹 长子。禹与萧望之同时为御史，数为望之言《左氏》，望之善之，上书数以称说„„( 禹)授尹更始，更始传子咸及翟方进、胡常。常授黎阳贾护季君，哀帝时待诏为郎，授 苍梧陈钦子佚，以《左氏》授王莽，至将军。而刘歆从尹咸及翟方进受。由是言《左氏 》者本之贾护、刘歆。
《汉书•刘歆传》： “及歆校秘书，见古文《春秋左氏传》，歆大好之。时丞相史尹咸以能治《左氏》，与 歆共校经传。歆略从咸及丞相翟方进受，质问大义。” “左丘明好恶与圣人同，亲见夫子，而公羊、谷梁在七十子 后，传闻之与亲见之其详略不同…”
《战国策楚策四》：虞卿谓春申君曰：“臣闻之《春秋》，‘于安思危，危则虑安’。”[[《春秋》=《左氏传》]]
《汉书艺文志》：“《春秋古经》十二篇。《经》十一卷。”班固于“《经》十一卷”下自注：“《公羊》、《谷梁》二家。” [[春秋古经》=《左氏传》]]
《史记十二诸侯年表序》：铎椒为楚威王傅，为王不能尽观《春秋》，采取成败，卒四十章，为《铎氏微》。赵孝成王时，其相虞卿上采《春秋》，下观近世，亦著八篇，为《虞氏春秋》。[[《春秋》=《左氏传》]]
(东汉)许慎《说文解字序》“壁中书者，鲁恭王坏孔子宅 ，而得《礼记》、《尚书》、《春秋》、《论语》、《孝经》，又北平侯张苍献《春秋 左氏传》”。
(北魏)江式：“北平 侯张仓(苍)献《春秋左氏传》，书体与孔氏相类，即前代之古文矣。”(《江式传》 )
崔述《洙泗考信余录》：战国之文姿横，而《左传》文平易简直，颇近《论语》及《戴记》之《曲礼》、《檀弓》诸篇，绝不类战国时文，何况于秦？襄、昭之际，文词繁芜，远过文、宣以前；而定、哀间反略，率多有事无词，哀公之末事亦不备，此必定、哀之时，纪载之书行于世者尚少故尔。然则作书之时，上距定、哀未远，亦不得以为战国后人也。
(日本)岛田翰《古文旧书考春秋经传集解》（卷子本）：据《汉志》，“《春秋古经》十二篇”，“《左氏传》三十卷”。案：《古经》十二篇者，《左氏》之单《经》，盖因十二公为十二篇也。（自注云：《史记吴世家》“余读《春秋古经》”。《周官小宗伯注》云《古文春秋经》“公即位”为“公即立”……）而其三十卷者，《左氏》之单卷。（……以《左氏传》名者，北平侯-张苍献《春秋左氏传》是也。）顾所谓《春秋左氏传》者，当分别《春秋》与《左氏传》而观之。盖张苍所献，有《经》有《传》，而孔壁所得，有《传》无《经》也。……夫始除挟书之律，在惠帝四年；则苍之献书，当在此际。而恭王坏孔子壁，则景、武之间也。乃知《春秋经》之出，必在恭王坏孔壁前矣。张苍生于先秦，曾为秦御史，主柱下方书。则其所藏《左氏传》，即先秦旧书，当与孔壁所得无异矣。见《后魏书江式传》所言、北平侯-张苍献《春秋左氏传》，书体与孔子相类，即前代之古文矣，而可征也。
Reconciliation
《论语公冶长》：子曰：“巧言、令色、足恭，左丘明耻之，丘亦耻之。匿怨而友其人，左丘明耻之，丘亦耻之。”
司马迁《报任少卿书》“左丘失明，厥有《国语》”。应劭《风俗通》：“丘，姓，鲁-左丘明之后。”
严彭祖《严氏春秋》引《观周篇》（西汉本《孔子家语》）：“孔子将修《春秋》，与左丘明乘，如周，观书于周史，归而修《春秋》之《经》，丘明为之《传》，共为表里。”
姚鼐《左传补注序》：“左氏之书非出一人所成。自左丘明作《传》以授曾申，申传吴起，起传其子期，期传楚人铎椒，椒传赵人虞卿，虞卿传荀卿。盖后人屡有附益。其为丘明说《经》之旧及为后人所益者，今不知孰为多寡矣。”
Guo-yu (《国语》)
《史记·太史公自序》《报任安书》“左丘失明厥有《国语》”。
《史记·十二诸侯年表》“表见《春秋》《国语》。”
王充: “《国语》,《左氏》之外传也。《左氏》传经,辞语尚略,故复选录《国语》之辞以实。然则《左氏》、《国语》,世儒之实书也”(《论衡•书案》)
(东汉)班彪:“定哀之间，鲁君子左丘明论集其文，作《左氏传》三十篇;又撰异同号日《国语》，二十一篇”(《后汉书·班彪传》)。
班固《汉书司马迁传赞》：孔子因鲁史记而作《春秋》，而左丘明论辑其本事以为之《传》，又纂异同为《国语》。
《论衡案书》：“《国语》，《左氏》之外传也。”
刘熙: “《国语》,记诸国君臣相与言语,谋议之得失也,又曰外传。《春秋》以鲁为内,以诸国为外,外国所传之书也。”(《释名•释典艺》)
崔述《洙泗考信余录》：“《左传》之文，年月井井，事多实录。而《国语》荒唐诬妄，自相矛盾者甚多。《左传》纪事简洁，措词亦多体要；而《国语》文词支蔓，冗弱无骨，断不出于一人之手明甚。” “且《国语》周、鲁（即《周语》和《鲁语》）多平衍，晋、楚多尖颖，吴、越多恣放，即《国语》亦非一人之所为也。”
The Bamboo Annals 《竹书纪年》
《晋书束皙传》：“初，太康二年，汲郡人不准盗发魏襄王墓，或言安釐王冢，得竹书数十车。……《国语》三篇，言楚、晋事。”
汲冢竹书《师春》“全录《左传》卜、益事,无一字之异”
《晋书·卷五十一列传第二十一·束皙》： 初，太康二年，汲郡人不准盗发魏襄王墓，或言安釐王冢，得竹书数十车。其《纪年》十三篇，记夏以来至周幽王为犬戎所灭，以事接之，三家分，仍述魏事至安釐王之二十年。盖魏国之史书，大略与《春秋》皆多相应。其中经传大异，则云夏年多殷；益干启位，启杀之；太甲杀伊尹；文丁杀季历；自周受命，至穆王百年，非穆王寿百岁也；幽王既亡，有共伯和者摄行天子事，非二相共和也。其《易经》二篇，与《周易》上下经同。《易繇阴阳卦》二篇，与《周易》略同，《繇辞》则异。《卦下易经》一篇，似《说卦》而异。《公孙段》二篇，公孙段与邵陟论《易》。《国语》三篇，言楚、晋事。《名》三篇，似《礼记》，又似《尔雅》、《论语》。《师春》一篇，书《左传》诸卜筮，“师春”似是造书者姓名也。《琐语》十一篇，诸国卜梦妖怪相书也。《梁丘藏》一篇，先叙魏之世数，次言丘藏金玉事。《缴书》二篇，论弋射法。《生封》一篇，帝王所封。《大历》二篇，邹子谈天类也。《穆天子传》五篇，言周穆王游行四海，见帝台、西王母。《图诗》一篇，画赞之属也。又杂书十九篇：《周食田法》，《周书》，《论楚事》，《周穆王美人盛姬死事》。大凡七十五篇，七篇简书折坏，不识名题。冢中又得铜剑一枚，长二尺五寸。漆书皆科斗字。初发冢者烧策照取宝物，及官收之，多烬简断札，文既残缺，不复诠次。武帝以其书付秘书校缀次第，寻考指归，而以今文写之。皙在著作，得观竹书，随疑分释，皆有义证。迁尚书郎。
雷学淇《竹书纪年义证》卷三十一“八年晋文公卒”：《纪年》为晋、魏之史记，其原本录晋、魏之事必详。宋初传本止记其异于《左氏》《经》、《传》者，以备稽核；其同者则不录。而唐以前诸书征引又皆取《春秋》《经》、《传》，而不引《纪年》。故《纪年》之同于《经》、《传》者多不传于后。如文公之霸业，《纪年》岂有不详记者，而今皆不见，即此之故。若《史通惑经篇》、《唐书刘贶传》所引，皆其仅存者矣。
杜预《春秋左传集解后序》：会汲郡-汲县有发其界内旧冢者，大得古书。……其《纪年篇》……大似《春秋经》，推此足见古者国史策书之常法也。……略举数条，以明国史皆承告。
杜预《春秋经传集解后序》《纪年》“其著书文意，大似《春秋经》。”
刘知几《史通惑经篇》：观汲冢所记（即《竹书纪年》）皆与鲁史符同。
(清)朱右曾《汲冢纪年存真》：“学者锢于所习，以与《太史公书》及汉世经师传说乖牾，遂不复研寻，徒资异论。越六百余岁而是书复亡。”
陳夢家：“紀元後279~281秊之間在汲郡所出的《竹書紀秊》，乃紀元前297~296所作魏國的史記。汲塚竹簡的發現，和安陽甲骨的發現，就古史的材料而說，有著幾乎同等的重要性。”
Non-history books that Survived the Book Burning:
《尚书古文经》
Confucius abridged the ancient book Shang-shu [remotely ancient history], with the inception of recitals starting with Overlord Yao, a descendant of Huangdi. Both Confucius and Mencius expanded on the classical book of Shang-shu and extolled the virtues of the three remotely-ancient lords ['saints'] Yao, Shun and Yu. Zhou Shu (i.e., the [upper] Zhou Dynasty Records) was a book that Confucius [551-479 B.C.E.] had purportedly abridged from Shang-shu [remotely ancient history] as the “wasted films”. In ancient China, two chronicle officials of the left and right side were assigned, with one chronicler recording the words of rulers while the other chronicler recording the events. Shang-shu was of the nature of recording of the statements made by the various rulers, while Chun-qiu was of the nature of recording of important events of a state. Latter day scholars, including Han Dynasty historian Ban Gu, inverted the roles of the two chronicles, saying that the ‘zuo’ [left] chronicler recorded the words of rulers while the ‘you’ [right] chronicler recording the events. Kong Yingda of the Tang dynasty corrected this mistake in interpretation. In fact, in The Bamboo Annals, it was recorded that back in the 24th year reign of Zhou King Muwang, the king ordered Zuo-shi [leftside history or court music minister, i.e., one of the three elderly dukes], to take charge of compiling the history of the king’s commandments and the past dynastic events.
《礼古经》
《论语古》
《孝经古孔氏》
《詩經》Shi Jing (classics of poems, 詩經)
ANCIENT TEXTS ABOUT XIA
What the Bronze Utensils Said about ‘Xia’ [& 'Yu']?
《秦公钟》[秦景公（前５７６－５３７）]： “秦公曰：丕显朕皇祖受天命，{穴黾}又（有）下国。十又二公不坠在上，严龚夤天命，保[R002]厥秦，虩事蛮夏。” (《毛诗 鲁颂 閟宫》“奄有下土，缵禹之绪”; 《毛诗 商颂 殷武》“天命多辟，没都于禹之绩”)
《秦公簋》[秦景公（前５７６－５３７）]： “秦公曰：丕显朕皇祖受天命，{冖鼎}宅禹迹。十又二公在帝之坏，严龚夤天命，保虩事蛮夏。 ”
《叔夷钟铭》[From the Excavated Utensil - Qi Lord Linggong]：“虩虩成唐，有严在帝所，敷受天命，剪伐夏嗣，败厥灵师。伊小臣惟辅，咸有九州，处禹之堵。”
(西周) 燹公盨 （豳公盨、燹公盨）：“天命禹敷土，随山浚川”。{{??Forgery?? 天命禹敷土，随山浚川，乃差地设征，降民监德，乃自作配乡（享）民，成父母。生我王作臣，厥沬 贵）唯德，民好明德，寡 顾 在天下。用厥邵 绍 好，益干（? ）懿德，康亡不懋。孝友，訏明经齐，好祀无 （废）。心好德，婚媾亦唯协。天厘用考，神复用祓禄，永御于宁。遂公曰：民唯克用兹德，亡诲（侮）。}}
微方伯《墙盘铭》：上帝后夏，尤保受天子绾令，厚福丰年，方蛮亡不见。青幽高祖，在微灵处。（《文物》７８．３．１１)
What Shang-shu (《尚书》) said about ‘Xia’?
《书序·汤誓》：“伊尹相汤伐桀，升自陑，遂与桀战于鸣条之野。”
《尚書 ·夏書 ·胤征》: 伊尹去亳適夏，既丑有夏，復歸于亳。入自北門，乃遇汝鳩、汝方。作《汝鳩》、《汝方》。
《尚书 召诰》： “我不可不监（鉴）于有夏，亦不可不监于有殷。”
What Guo Yu (《国语》) said about ‘Xia’?
《国语·郑语》：“夏禹能单平水土，以品处庶类者也。”
《国语 鲁语上》鲁展禽：“昔烈山氏之有天下也，其子曰柱，能殖百谷百蔬。夏之兴也，周弃继之，故祀以为稷。”
《国语·鲁语》禽： “有虞氏禘黄帝而祖颛顼，郊尧而宗舜；夏后氏禘黄帝而祖颛顼，郊鲧而宗禹；商人禘舜而祖契，郊冥而宗汤；周人禘喾而郊稷，祖文王而宗武王。” (《左传·僖公十年》：狐突“神不歆非类，民不祀非族。” 《左传·禧公三十一年》宁武子“鬼神非其族类,不欲其祀”《左传·成公四年》:“非我族类,其心必异”。孔子: “非其鬼而祭祀,谄巾.。” 《礼记·曲礼》: “非其所祭而祭之,谓之淫祀。淫祀无福.” 《祭法》: “非此族也,不在祀典.”《国语。鲁语上》: “非是族也,不在祀典。” 《北史·周纪下·静帝》：“不歆非类，异骨肉而共蒸尝。” 《礼记·丧服小记》《大传》：“礼不王不禘。王者禘其祖之所自出，以其祖配之。”)
《国语·周语上》“昔伊洛竭而夏亡”，
《国语·鲁语》“杼能帅禹者也，夏后氏报焉，”
《国语·周语》禹“皇天嘉之，祚以天下，赐姓曰姒，氏曰有夏”。
《国语·周语》：“有夏虽衰，杞、鄫犹在。”
《国语·周语下》：“昔在有虞，有崇伯鲧，播其淫心，称遂共工之过，尧用殛于羽山。其后伯禹念前之非度，厘改制量，象物天地，比类百则，仪之于民，而度之于群生，共之从孙四岳佐之，高高下下，疏川导滞，锺水丰物，封崇九山，决汨九川，陂鄣九泽，丰殖九薮，汨越九原，宅居九隩，合通四海。故天无伏阴，地无散阳，水无沈气，火无灾燀，神无间行，民无淫心，时无逆数，物无害生。帅象禹之功，度之于轨仪，莫非嘉绩，克厌帝心。皇天嘉之，祚以天下，赐姓曰‘姒’、氏曰‘有夏’。”
What The Forgery Contemporary Version of The Bamboo Annals 《竹书纪年》said about ‘Xia’?
《竹书纪年》：“后桀伐岷山，岷山女于桀二人，曰琬、曰琰。桀受二女，无子，刻其名于苕华之玉，苕是琬，华是琰。而弃其元妃于洛，曰末喜氏。末喜氏以与伊尹交，遂以间夏。”
《竹書紀年》
帝禹夏后氏
1 元年壬子，帝即位，居冀。頒夏時于邦國。
2 二年，咎陶薨。
3 五年，巡狩，會諸侯于塗山。
4 八年春，會諸侯于會稽，殺防風氏。夏六月，雨金于夏邑。秋八月，帝陟于會稽。禹立四十五年。
帝啟
1 元年癸亥，帝即位于夏邑。大饗諸侯于鈞臺。諸侯從帝歸于冀都。大饗諸侯于璿臺。
2 二年，費侯伯益出就國。王帥師伐有扈，大戰于甘。
3 六年，伯益薨，祠之。
4 八年，帝使孟涂如巴涖訟。
5 十年，帝巡狩，舞《九韶》于大穆之野。
6 十一年，放王季子武觀于西河。
7 十五年，武觀以西河叛。彭伯壽帥師征西河，武觀來歸。
8 十六年，陟。
What Shi Jing (《詩經》) said about ‘Xia’?
《诗·商颂·长发》：“武王（汤）载旆，有虔秉钺，如火烈烈，则莫我敢曷。苞有三孽，莫遂莫达，九有有载。韦顾既伐，昆吾夏桀。”
《诗·商颂·长发》：“洪水茫茫，禹敷下土方。”
What Zuo-zhuan (《左传》) said about ‘Xia’?
《左传》莊公三十二年…將亡，神又降之，觀其惡也，故有得神以興，亦有以亡，虞，夏，商，周，…
《左传·闵公元年》：“狄人伐邢，管敬仲言於齊侯曰，戎狄豺狼，不可厭也，諸夏親暱，不可棄也，宴安酖毒，不可懷也，詩云，豈不懷歸，畏此簡書，簡書，同惡相恤之謂也，請救邢以從簡書，齊人救邢。”
《左传》僖公十五年…春，楚人伐徐，徐即諸夏故也，三月，盟于牡丘，尋葵丘之盟，且救徐也…
《左传•僖公三十二年》：“殽有二陵焉：其南陵，夏后皋之墓也；其北陵，文王之所辟风雨也，必死是間，余收爾骨焉，秦師遂東。”
《左传·僖公三十一年》：“（卫成）公命祀相，宁武子不可，曰，‘鬼神非其族类，不歆其祀，杞、鄫何事？’。”
《左传》僖公二十一年秋，諸侯會宋公于盂，子魚曰，禍其在此乎，君欲已甚，其何以堪之，於是楚執宋公以伐宋，冬，會于薄以釋之，子魚曰，禍猶未也，未足以懲君，任，宿，須句，顓臾，風姓也，實司大皞與有濟之祀，以服事諸夏，邾人滅須句，須句子來奔，因成風也，成風為之言於公曰，崇明祀，保小寡，周禮也，蠻夷猾夏，周禍也，若封須句，是崇皞濟而脩祀紓禍也。
《左传》宣公三年“對曰，在德不在鼎，昔夏之方有德也，遠方圖物，貢金九牧，鑄鼎象物，百物而為之備，使民知神姦，故民入川澤山林，不逢不若，螭魅罔兩，莫能逢之，用能協于上下，以承天休，桀有昏德，鼎遷于商，載祀六百，商紂暴虐，鼎遷于周，“
《左传》成公十三年..文公躬擐甲冑，跋履山川，踰越險阻，征東之諸侯，虞夏商周之胤，而朝諸秦，..
《左传》襄公四年…昔有夏之方衰也，后羿自鉏遷于窮石，因夏民以代夏政，恃其射也，不脩民事，而淫于原獸，棄武羅，伯困，熊髡，尨圉，而用寒浞，……昔周辛甲之為大史也，命百官，官箴王闕，於虞人之箴曰，芒芒禹跡，畫為九州，經啟九道，民有寢廟，獸有茂草，各有攸處，德用不擾，在帝夷羿，冒于原獸，忘其國恤，而思其麀牡，武不可重，用不恢于夏家，獸臣司原，取告僕夫，虞箴如是，可不懲乎，…
《左传》襄公二十二年…間二年，聞君將靖東夏，…
《左传》襄公二十六年…繞角之役，晉將遁矣，析公曰，楚師輕窕，易震蕩也，若多鼓鈞聲以夜軍之，楚師必遁晉人從之，楚師宵潰，晉遂侵蔡襲沈，獲其君，敗申息之師於桑隧，獲申麗而還，鄭於是不敢南面，楚失華夏，則析公之為也，
《左传》襄公二十九年晉侯使司馬女叔侯來治杞田，弗盡歸也，晉悼夫人慍曰，齊也取貨，先君若有知也，不
尚取之，公告叔侯，叔侯曰，虞，虢，焦，滑，霍，揚，韓，魏，皆姬姓也，晉是以大，若非侵小，將何所取，武獻以下，兼國多矣，誰得治之，杞，夏餘也，而即東夷，魯，周公之後也，而睦於晉，以杞封魯，猶可，而何有焉，魯之於晉也，職貢不乏，玩好時至，公卿大夫，相繼於朝，史不絕書，府無虛月，如是可矣，何必瘠魯以肥杞，且先君而有知也，毋寧夫人，而焉用老臣。吳公子札來聘，…為之歌豳，曰，美哉，蕩乎，樂而不淫，其周公之東乎，為之歌秦，曰，此之謂夏聲，夫能夏，則大，大之至乎其周之舊也，為之歌魏，曰，美哉，渢楓乎，大而婉，險而易，行以德輔，此則明主也見舞大夏者，曰，美哉，勤而不德，非禹其誰能脩之，見舞韶箾
者，曰，德至矣哉，大矣
《左传》襄公十三年…子囊曰，君命以共，若之何毀之，赫赫楚國，而君臨之，撫有蠻夷，奄征南海，以屬諸夏，而知其過，可不謂共乎，請謚之共，大夫從之。
《左传》襄公四年穆叔如晉，報知武子之聘也，晉侯享之，金奏肆夏之三，不拜，工歌文王之三，又不拜，歌鹿鳴之三，三拜，
《左传 昭公二十九年》晋太史蔡墨：“稷，田正也。在烈山氏之子曰柱，为稷，自夏以上祀之。周弃亦为稷，自商以来祀之。”
《左传》昭公元年：“昔高辛氏有二子，伯曰阏伯，季曰实沈，居于旷林，不相能也。日寻干戈，以相征讨。后帝不臧，迁阏伯于商丘，主辰。商人是因，故辰为商星。迁实沈于大夏，主参。唐人是因，以服事夏、商。其季世曰唐叔虞。当武王邑姜方震大叔，梦帝谓己：‘余命而子曰虞，将与之唐，属诸参。而蕃育其子孙。’……及成王灭唐而封大叔焉，故参为晋星。由是观之，则实沈，参神也。” (《左传》昭公十七年云：“宋，大辰之虚也；陈，大皞虚也；郑，祝融之虚也；皆火房也。……卫，颛顼之虚也，故为帝丘。其星为大水”。《周礼·春官·保章氏》：“保章氏掌天星，以志星辰日月之变动，以观天下之迁，辨其吉凶。以星土辨九州之地所封，封域皆有分星，以观妖祥。” )
《左传·昭公四年》：“夏桀为有仍之会，有缗叛之。”
《左传·昭公十一年》：“桀克有缗以丧其国。”
《左传·昭公六年》“夏有乱政，而作禹刑”。
《左传》昭公十九年邾人，郳人，徐人，會宋公，乙亥，同盟于蟲，楚子為舟師以伐濮，費無極言於楚子曰，晉之伯也，邇於諸夏，而楚辟陋，故弗能與爭，若大城城父，而寘大子焉，以通北方，王收南方，是得天下也，王說，從之，故太子建居于城父，令尹子瑕聘于秦，拜夫人也。
《左传》昭公二十六年…齊有彗星，齊侯使禳之，晏子曰，無益也，祇取誣焉，天道不諂不貳，其命若之何，禳之，且天之有彗也，以除穢也，君無穢德，又何禳焉，若德之穢，禳之何損，詩曰，惟此文王，小心翼翼，昭事上帝，聿懷多福，厥德不回，以受方國，君無違德，方國將至，何患於彗，詩曰，我無所監，夏后及商，用亂之故，民卒流亡，若德回亂，民將流亡，祝史之為，無能補也，公說，乃止，齊侯與晏子坐于路寢，公歎曰，美哉室，其誰有此乎，晏子曰，敢問何謂也，
《左传》昭公二十九年秋，龍見于絳郊，魏獻子問於蔡墨曰，吾聞之，蟲莫知於龍，以其不生得也，謂之知信乎，對曰，人實不知，非龍實知，古者畜龍，故國有豢龍氏，有御龍氏，獻子曰，是二氏者，吾亦聞之，而知其故，是何謂也，對曰，昔有飂叔安有裔子，曰董父實，甚好龍，能求其耆欲以飲食之，龍多歸之，乃擾畜龍以服事帝舜，帝賜之姓，曰董氏，曰豢龍，封諸鬷川，鬷夷氏其後也，故帝舜氏世有畜龍，及有夏孔甲，擾于有帝，帝賜之乘龍，河漢各二，各有雌雄，孔甲不能食，而未獲豢龍氏，有陶唐氏既衰，其後有劉累學擾龍于豢龍氏，以事孔甲，能飲食之，夏后嘉之，賜氏曰御龍，以更豕韋之後，龍一雌死，潛醢以食，夏后，夏后饗之，既而使求之，懼而遷于魯縣，范氏其後也，……共工氏有子曰句龍，為后土，此其二祀也，后土為社，稷，田正也，有烈山氏之子曰柱，為稷，自夏以上祀之，周棄亦為稷，自商以來祀之。
《左传》昭公元年…子相晉國，以為盟主，於今七年矣，再合諸侯，三合大夫，服齊狄，寧東夏，平秦亂，城淳于，於是乎虞有三苗，夏有觀扈，商有姺邳，周有徐奄，自無令王諸侯逐進，狎主齊盟，其又可壹乎，
《左传》昭公四年…在此會也，夏啟有鈞臺之享，商湯有景亳之命，周武有孟津之誓，成有岐陽之蒐，康有酆宮之朝，穆有塗山之會，齊桓有召陵之師，晉文有踐土之盟，君其何用，…禮也，諸侯所由用命也，夏桀為仍之會，有緡叛之，商紂為黎之蒐，東夷叛之，周幽為大室之盟，戎狄叛之，皆所以示諸侯，
《左传》昭公五年…冬，十月，楚子以諸侯及東夷伐吳，以報棘，櫟，麻，之役，薳射以繁揚之師，會於夏汭，越大夫常壽過，帥師會楚子于瑣，
《左传》昭公六年…夏有亂政而作禹刑，商有亂政而作湯刑，周有亂政而作九刑，三辟之興，皆叔世也，
《左传》昭公九年…王使詹桓伯辭於晉曰，我自夏以后稷，魏，駘，芮，岐，畢，吾西土也，及武王克商，蒲姑，商奄，吾東土也，巴濮，楚鄧，吾南土也，肅慎，燕，亳，吾北土也，
《左传》昭公十三年王曰，大福不再，祇取辱焉，然丹乃歸于楚，王沿夏，將欲入鄢，芊尹無宇之子申亥曰，吾父再奸王命，王弗誅，惠孰大焉，君不可忍，惠不可棄，吾其從王，乃求王，遇諸棘圍，以歸，
《左传》昭公七年以君之明，子為大政，其何厲之有，昔堯殛鯀于羽山，其神化為黃熊，以入于羽淵，實為夏郊，三代祀之，晉為盟主，其或者未之祀也乎，韓子祀夏郊，晉侯有間，賜子產莒之二方鼎，昭公十五年…其後襄之二路，鏚鉞秬鬯，彤弓虎賁，文公受之，以有南陽之田，撫征東夏，非分而何，夫有勳而不廢，有績而載，奉之以土田，撫之以彝器，旌之以車服，明之以文章，子孫不忘，所謂福也，
《左传》昭公十七年冬，有星孛于大辰，西及漢，申須曰，彗所以除舊布新也，天事恆象，今除於火，火出必布焉，諸侯其有火災乎，梓慎曰，往年吾見之，是其徵也，火出而見，今茲火出而章，必火入而伏，其居火也久矣，其與不然乎，火出，於夏為三月於商為四月，於周為五月，夏數得天，若火作，其四國當之，在宋衛陳鄭乎，宋，大辰之虛也，陳，大皞之虛也，鄭，祝融之虛也，皆火房也，星孛天漢，漢，水祥也，衛，顓頊之虛也，故為帝丘，其星為大水，水火之牡也，
《左传·定公十年》：“中国有礼仪之大故称夏，有服章之美谓之华”。(《尚书正义》注：“冕服华章曰华，大国曰夏”。)
《左传·定公元年》云：“薛之皇祖奚仲居薛，以为夏车正。”
《左传》定公十年…孔丘以公退，曰，士兵之，兩君合好，而裔夷之俘，以兵亂之，非齊君所以命諸侯也，裔不謀夏，夷不亂華，俘不干盟，兵不偪好，於神為不祥，於德為愆義，於人為失禮，君必不然，齊侯聞之，遽辟之，將盟，齊人加於載書曰，齊師出竟，而不以甲車三百乘從我者，有如此盟，孔丘使茲無還揖對曰，而不反我汶陽之田，吾以共命者，亦如之，齊侯將享公，孔丘謂梁丘，據，襄公二十四年…宣子曰，昔丐之祖，自虞以上為陶唐氏，在夏為御龍氏，在商為豕韋氏，在周為唐杜氏，晉主夏盟為范氏，
《左传》定公元年…晉文公為踐土之盟曰，凡我同盟，各復舊職，若從踐土，若從宋亦唯命，仲幾曰，踐土固然，薛宰曰，薛之皇祖奚仲居薛，以為夏車正，奚仲遷于邳，仲虺居薛，以為湯左相，
《左传定公十年》：“裔不谋夏，夷不乱华”
《左传·定公四年》：“分唐叔以大路、密须之鼓、阙巩、沽洗，怀姓九宗，职官五正。命以《唐诰》，而封于夏虚。启以夏政，疆以戎索。”(杜预 注：“亦因 夏 风俗，开用其政。” 南朝 梁 陆倕 《石阙铭》：“昔在 舜 格文祖， 禹 至神宗， 周 变 商 俗， 汤 黜 夏 政。”)
《左传》哀公元年 伍员“少康”：“虞思于是妻之以二姚，而邑诸纶，有田一成，有欢一旅，能布其德，而兆其谋，以收夏众，抚其官职。”
《左传》哀公二十年…楚隆曰，三年之喪，親暱之極也，主又降之，無乃有故乎，趙孟曰，黃池之役，先主與吳王有質，曰，好惡同之，今越圍吳，嗣子不廢舊業，而敵之，非晉之所能及也，吾是以為降，楚隆曰，若使吳王知之，若何，趙孟曰，可乎，隆曰，請嘗之，乃往，先造于越軍曰，吳犯間上國多矣，聞君親討焉，諸夏之人，莫不欣喜，唯恐君志之不從，請入視之，許之，告于吳王曰，…
《左传》哀公元年…伍員曰，不可，臣聞之，樹德莫如滋，去疾莫如盡，昔有過澆，殺斟灌以伐斟鄩，滅夏后相，后緡方娠，逃出自竇，歸于有仍，生少康焉，為仍牧正，惎澆能戒之，澆使椒求之，逃奔有虞，為之庖正，以除其害，虞思於是妻之以二姚，而邑諸綸，有田一成，有眾一旅，能布其德，而兆其謀，以收夏眾，撫其官職，使女艾諜澆，使季杼誘豷，遂滅過戈，復禹之績，祀夏配天，不失舊物，今吳不如過，而越大於少康，
《左传》哀公十四年…司馬牛致其邑與珪焉，而適齊，向魋出於衛地，公文氏攻之，求夏后氏之璜焉，與之他玉，而奔齊，陳成子使為次卿，
Xia Shu (夏書)
莊公八年..夏書曰，皋陶邁種德，…
僖公二十四年…詩曰，自詒伊慼，其子臧之謂矣，夏書曰，地平天成，稱也。
僖公二十七年…夏書曰，賦納以言，明試以功，車服以庸…
文公七年…夏書曰，戒之用休，董之用威，勸之以九歌，…
成公十六年…夏書曰，怨豈在明，不見是圖，將慎其細也，今而明之，其可乎。
襄公五年…夏書曰，成允成功。
襄公十四年…故夏書曰，遒人以木鐸徇于路，官師相規，工執藝事以諫，
襄公二十一年…夏書曰，念茲在茲，釋茲在茲，名言茲在茲，允出茲在茲，
襄公二十三年…夏書曰，念茲在茲，順事恕施也。
襄公二十六年…故夏書曰，與其殺不辜，寧失不經，懼失善也，
昭公十四年…夏書曰，昏墨賊殺，皋陶之刑也，請從之，乃施邢侯，而尸雍子，與叔魚於市，仲尼曰，叔向，古之遺直也，
昭公十七年…故夏書曰，辰不集于房，瞽奏鼓，嗇夫馳，庶人走，此月朔之謂也，當夏四月，是謂孟夏，平子弗從，昭子退曰，夫子將有異志，不君君矣。
哀公六年…，孔子曰，楚昭王知大道矣，其不失國也宜哉，夏書曰，惟彼陶唐，帥彼天常，有此冀方，今失其行，亂其紀綱，乃滅而亡，又曰，允出茲在茲，由己率常可矣。
哀公十八年…君子曰，惠王知志，夏書曰，官占，唯能蔽志，昆命于元龜，其是之謂乎，志曰，聖人不煩卜筮，惠王其有焉。
What Confucius’ The Analects (《论语 》) said about Xia?
《论语 · 八佾第三》子曰：“夏礼，吾能言之，杞不足征也。殷礼，吾能言之，宋不足征也。文献不足故也。足，则吾能征之矣。” (《史记·孔子世家》：“孔子之时，周室微而礼乐废，《诗》、《书》缺。追迹三代之礼，序《书》传，上纪唐虞之际，下至秦穆，编次其事，曰：‘夏礼，吾能言之，杞不足征也；殷礼，吾能言之，宋不足征也。足，则吾能征之矣。’”)
《礼记》礼记·表记 子曰：“夏道尊命，事鬼敬神而远之，近人而忠焉。先禄而后威，先赏而后罚。亲而不尊。其民之敝，惷而愚，乔而野，朴而不文。殷人尊神，率民以事神，先鬼而后礼，先罚而后赏。尊而不亲，其民之敝，荡而不静，胜而无耻。周人尊礼尚施，事鬼敬神而远之，近人而忠焉，其赏罚用爵列。亲而不尊，其民之敝，利而巧，文而不惭，贼而蔽。”
What Li-ji (《礼记》) said about Xia?
《礼记 祭法》：“厉山氏之有天下也，其子曰农，能殖百谷。夏之衰也，周弃继之，故祀以为稷。”
《礼记·祭义》，“昔者，有虞氏贵德而尚齿，夏后氏贵爵而尚齿”
What Chu-ci (《楚辞》) said about Xia?
《楚辞·天问》：“禹之力献功，降省下土方”
What Lv-shi Chun-qiu (《吕氏春秋》) said about ‘Xia’ [& Yu]?
《吕氏春秋·简选》：“殷汤良车七十乘，必死六千人，以戊子战於郕，遂禽推移、大犠，登自鸣条，乃入巢门，遂有夏。”
《吕氏春秋·慎大》：“桀愈自贤，矜过善非，主道重塞，国人大崩。汤乃惕惧，忧天下之不宁，欲令伊尹往视旷夏，恐其不信，汤由亲自射伊尹。伊尹奔夏三年，反报于亳，曰：“桀迷惑於末嬉，好彼琬琰，不恤其众。众志不堪，上下相疾，民心积怨，皆曰：‘上天弗恤，夏命其卒。’”汤谓伊尹曰：“若告我旷夏尽如诗。”汤与伊尹盟，以示必灭夏。伊尹又复往视旷夏，听於末嬉。末嬉言曰：“今昔天子梦西方有日，东方有日，两日相与斗，西方日胜，东方日不胜。”伊尹以告汤。商涸旱，汤犹发师，以信伊尹之盟。故令师从东方出於国西以进。未接刃而桀走，逐之至大沙。身体离散，为天下戮。”
《吕氏春秋·古乐篇》载：禹立，勤劳天下，日夜不懈，通大川，决壅塞，凿龙门，降通漻水以导河，疏三江五湖，注之东海，以利黔首。于是命皋陶作《夏籥》九成，以昭其功。”
《吕氏春秋·用民篇》：“当禹之时，天下万国，至于汤而三千余国。”
What Mo Zi (《墨子》) said about ‘Xia’?
《墨子·非攻下》：“汤焉敢奉率其众，是以向有夏之境。帝乃使阴暴毁有夏之城，少少有神来告曰：‘夏德大乱，往攻之，予必使汝大堪之。予既受命于天，天命融隆火于夏之城间西北隅。’汤奉桀众以克有夏，属诸侯于薄。”
What Shi-ji (《史記 》) said about ‘Xia’? –Sima Qian’s Shi-ji was based on two books: the Qing chronicle that survived Gen. Xiang Yu’s arson of the Qin palaces, and Zuo-qiu-ming’s Chunqiu.
《史記 五帝本紀》: 舜子商均亦不肖，舜乃豫薦禹於天。十七年而崩。三年喪畢，禹亦乃讓舜子，如舜讓堯子。諸侯歸之，然後禹踐天子位。
《史記 夏本紀》 帝舜薦禹於天，爲嗣。十七年而帝舜崩。三年喪畢，禹辭辟舜之子商均於陽城。天下諸侯皆去商均而朝禹。禹於是遂即天子位，南面朝天下，國號曰夏后，姓姒氏。
十年，帝禹東巡狩，至于會稽而崩。以天下授益。三年之喪畢，益讓帝禹之子啟，而辟居箕山之陽。禹子啟賢，天下屬意焉。及禹崩，雖授益，益之佐禹日淺，天下未洽。故諸侯皆去益而朝啟，曰：“吾君帝禹之子也”。於是啟遂即天子之位，是爲夏后帝啟。
《史记·夏本纪》：“汤遂率兵以伐夏桀，桀走鸣条，遂放而死。”《正义》：“《括地志》云：‘庐州巢县有巢湖，即《尚书》成汤伐桀，放于南巢者也。’《淮南子》云：‘汤败桀于历山，与妹喜同舟浮江，奔南巢之山而死。’《国语》云‘满于巢湖’。”
《史记·殷本纪》：“桀败于有娀之虚，桀犇于鸣条，夏师败绩。汤遂伐三鬷，俘厥宝玉。”《集解》：“孔安国曰：三鬷，国名，桀走保之，今定陶也。”
《史记·殷本纪》：“汤始居亳，从先王居。”《正义》：“按亳，偃师城也；商丘，宋州也。汤即位，都南亳，后徙西亳也。《括地志》云：‘亳邑故城在洛州偃师县西十四里，本帝喾之虚，商汤之都也。’”
《史记·陈杞世家》夏裔“殷时或封或绝”
《史记·楚世家》：“八年，伐陆浑戎，遂至洛，观兵于周郊。周定王使王孙满劳楚王。楚王问鼎之小大轻重，对曰：‘在德不在鼎。’庄王曰：子无阻九鼎！楚国折钩之喙，足以为九鼎。王子满曰：‘呜呼！君王其忘之乎？昔虞夏之盛，远方皆至，贡金九牧，铸鼎象物，百物而为之备，使民知神奸。桀有乱德，鼎迁于殷，载祀六百。殷纣暴虐，鼎迁于周。德之休明，虽小必重；其奸回昏乱，虽大必轻。昔成王定鼎于郏鄏，卜世三十，卜年七百，天所命也。周德虽衰，天命未改。鼎之轻重，未可问也。’楚王乃归。”
司马迁《史记·货殖列传》：“昔唐人都河东，殷人都河内，周人都河南。夫三河在天下之中。若鼎足，王者所更居也，建国各数百千岁，土地小狭，民人觽，都国诸侯所聚会，故其俗纤俭习事。” (《史记·封禅书》：“昔三代之居，皆在河洛之间”)。
《史记，殷本纪》周武王曰:“自洛汭延于伊汭，居易毋固，其有夏之居。我南望三涂，北望岳鄙，顾詹有河，粤詹雒、伊，毋远天室。”营周居于雒邑而后去。”
Other Books
《逸周书，度邑》：“武王问太公曰：吾将因有夏之居，南望过于三涂，北瞻望于有河”。
《孟子》“夏后氏五十而贡，殷人七十而助，周人百亩而彻，其实皆什一也”
《随巢子》：“天命夏禹于玄宫。”
《管子·大匡》记齐桓公语：“夫杞，明王之后也。”
《世本·王侯》：“殷汤封夏后于杞，周又封之。”
《大戴礼记·少间》：“成汤卒受大命……乃放夏桀，散亡其佐，乃迁姒姓于杞。”
《太平御览》引《吕氏春秋》：“桀将亡，太史令终古执其图书而奔于商。”
《周书·君奭》：惟文王尚克修德，和我有夏。
《周书·立政》：其在受德， 为羞刑暴德之人，同于厥邦；乃惟庶习逸得之人，同于厥政，帝钦罚之，乃伻我有夏，奄甸万姓。
《周书·武成》：“华夏蛮貊，罔不率俾”。
《说文》：“华夏，中国之人也。”
What Wang Guo-wei said about ‘Xia’?
王国维1925《古史新证》: 右商之先公先王及先正见于卜辞者大率如此，而名字之不见于古书者不与焉。由此观之，则《史记》所述商一代世系，以卜辞证之，虽不免小有舛驳而大致不误。可知《史记》所据之《世本》全是实录。而由殷周世系之确实，因之推想夏后氏世系之确实，此又当然之事也。又虽谬悠缘饰之书如《山海经》、《楚辞·天问》，成于后世之书如《晏子春秋》、《墨子》、《吕氏春秋》，晚出之书如《竹书纪年》，其所言古事亦有一部分之确实性。然则经典所记上古之事，今日虽有未得二重证明者，固未可以完全抹杀也。
How to Interpret the Statement 《尚书·周书·多方》：“惟殷先人，有册有典。” ?
呼运廷 cited the Shang-shu statement to reconcile the fact that the Shang people had the possession of the history/royal classics because it was Lord Shun who empowered the Shang ancestor with the job to maintain the records.
《尚书·虞书·舜典》：“帝曰：‘契，百姓不亲，五品不逊。汝作司徒，敬敷五教，在宽。’”
《尚书·周书·多方》：“惟殷先人，有册有典。”
《太平御览》引《吕氏春秋》：“桀将亡，太史令终古执其图书而奔于商。”
The Evolution of Ancient Chinese Scripts
(唐)封演 《封氏闻见记》: 黄帝史官苍颉视鸟兽之迹以作文字。依类象形，故谓之文。形声相益，则谓 之字。著于竹帛谓之书，凡九千字，所谓古文者也。古有六体：一曰指事，上 下是也。二曰象形，日、月是也。三曰形声，江、河是也。四曰会意，武、信 是也。五曰转注，考、老是也。六曰假借，令、长是也。推此六体，文字大端可 得而见矣。《周礼》“保氏教国子以六书”，即其事焉。至周宣王时，太史史籀 更著大篆十五篇，与古文或异，然不外六书之指。大篆、小篆亦名籀书，与古文 并行。春秋之时，孔子之书六经，皆古文也。其后诸侯不统于王，车涂异轨，文 字异制。秦氏既兼天下，丞相李斯乃奏同之，罢其不与秦文合者。李斯又作《苍 颉篇》，中车府令赵高作《爰历篇》，太史令胡母敬作《博学篇》，皆依傍大篆， 或加省约，谓之小篆。于时狱官事繁，篆书不给。御史程邈有罪，系云阳狱中， 变篆为隶，以従简易，始皇善而用焉。故秦时书有八体：一曰大篆，史籀所作也。 二日小篆，李斯、赵高、胡母敬所作也。大小二篆，皆简策所用。三日刻符，施 于符传。四曰摹印，亦日缪篆，施于郁。五曰虫书，为虫鸟之形，施于幡信。六 曰署书，门题所用。七曰殳书，铭于戈戟。八曰隶书，施于公府。皆因事出变而 立名者也。善长注《水经》云：“临淄人发古冢，得桐棺，前和外隐起为隶字， 言‘齐太公六代孙胡公之棺’，惟三字是古，余同今书。故知隶书非始于秦世也。” 按此书隶在春秋之前，但诸国或用或不用。程邈观其省易，有便于时，故修改而 献，非创造。汉兴，多因秦制，通行隶书，古文由是散逸。
Cangjie scripts 倉頡文 that were invented in the shape of birds and beasts in the era of Huangdi (Yellow Lord, life B.C.E. ? 2697 – 2599 B.C.E. [2738-2598 B.C.E. per Chu Bosi; ? 2697/2698 - 2599 BC per Lu Jinggui; reign 2403-2304 B.C.E. with rule of 100 years per Zhu Yongtang's adjustment of [the forgery contemporary version Jin Ben of] The Bamboo Annals)
《易．系辞下》:”古结绳而治，后世圣人易之以书契。”(孔颖达疏:“结绳者，郑康成注云，事大大结其绳，事小小结其绳，义或然也。”)
许慎《说文解字·序》: “古者包羲氏之王天下也，仰则观象于天，俯则观法于地，视鸟兽之文与地之宜，近取诸身，于是始作《易》八卦，以垂宪象。及神农氏结绳为治而统其事，庶业其繁，饰伪萌生。黄帝之史仓颉，见鸟兽蹄迒之迹，知分理之可相别异也，初造书契。“百工以乂，万品以察，盖取诸夬”；“夬扬于王庭”。言文者宣教明化于王者朝廷，君子所以施禄及下，居德则忌也。仓颉之初作书，盖依类象形，故谓之文。其后形声相益，即谓之字。文者，物象之本；字者，言孳乳而浸多也。著于竹帛谓之书，书者如也。以迄五帝三王之世，改易殊体。封于泰山者七有二代，靡有同焉”
《论衡·对作》：“造端更为，前始未有，若仓颉作书，奚仲作车是也。”
[后]魏江式《论书表》:臣闻疱牺氏作，而八卦列其画；轩辕氏兴，而灵龟彰其彩。古史仓颉，览二象之文，观鸟兽之迹，别创文字，以代结绳，用书契以纪事。宣之王庭，则百工以叙；载之方册，则万品以明。迄于三代，厥体颇异。
(南朝)刘勰《文心雕龙》：自鸟迹代绳，文字始炳，炎皞遗事，纪在《三坟》，而年世渺邈，声采靡追。唐虞文章，则焕乎始盛。
Tadpole scripts 蝌蚪文=蝌蚪篆=夏篆 from the Xia dynasty (the 22-17th centuries BCE; 21-16th c. BC; ? 2207 B.C.E. – 1766 B.C. per Lu Jinggui’s obfuscatory chronicling; 1978-1559 from lord Qi to lord Jie per raw data from the forgery contemporary version [Jin Ben] of The Bamboo Annals or 1991-1559 B.C.E. per Zhu Yongtang)
(元)郑杓、刘有定《衍极并注》：“曰复篆，亦籀所作，因大篆而重复之，其法类夏篆。。。”
oracle bones during the Shang dynasty (the 17 centuries-1122 BCE; 1765 B.C.E. – 1122 B.C. per Shao Yong; or 1559 – 1050 per the forgery contemporary version [Jin Ben] of The Bamboo Annals), namely, degraded Tadpole scripts 蝌蚪文
Zhou Dynasty (1134 – 771 BCE, 770-256 BCE; 1106-771 B.C. per Zhang Wenyu; 1044-256 B.C. per Cao Dingyun; 1122-256 B.C. per Liu Xin; 1116-256 B.C. per Huangfu Mi; 1111-256 B.C. per Seng Yixing; 1050 – 256 per the forgery contemporary version [Jin Ben] of The Bamboo Annals): BIG SEAL SCRIPT (大篆) characters or Zhou King 周宣王Xuanwang’s scripts that were reformed by Taishi-zhou 太史籀
Qin SMALL SEAL SCRIPT 小篆 + TADPOLE scripts from the SIX NATIONS 蝌蚪文
QIN reformed LEGAL [CLERICAL] SCRIPTS 隸書 [which became the standard that eliminated both the BIG Zhou, SMALL Qin and SIX NATIONS Tadpole scripts]
《全上古三代秦汉三国六朝文》[李斯《用笔法》]：“夫书之微妙，道合自然。篆籀以前不可得而闻矣。自上古作大篆，颇行于世，但为古远，人多不详。今斯删略繁者，取其合理，参为小篆。凡书，非但裹结流快，终籍笔力轻健。蒙将军恬《笔经》，犹自简略，斯更修改，望益于用矣。用笔法，先急回，后疾下，鹰望鹏逝，信之自然，不得重改，如游鱼得水，景山兴云，或卷或舒，乍轻乍重。善思之，此理可见矣。”
In the opinion of Feng Yan of Tang Dynasty, the Chinese characters were always the same from the Yellow Lord down, with difference only in the styles. That is, the difference was just like what the modern English writing style of Cursive versus Printscript writing. In another word, Zhou chronicler Taishi-zhou did not invent the BIG SEAL SCRIPT but chose it, which was one of the writing styles, as the Zhou court-sanctioned writing – which the SIX NATIONS of the later Eastern Zhou dynasty did not follow. To emphasize again, the SIX NATIONS of the later Eastern Zhou dynasty adopted the various forms of styles that they saw fit for their respective usage. Feng Yan pointed out that Confucius and the scholars from the SIX NATIONS used the ‘古文’ tadpole characters. Furthermore, Feng Yan pointed out that Qin official Cheng Miao ‘程邈’ did not actually invent the Qin LEGAL style handwriting either but was responsible for renovating on an existing style. In conclusion, Feng Yan claimed that there were eight styles of writing in usage in the Qin times, including:
大篆 (Zhou BIG SEAL script for usage on bamboo strips);
小篆 (Qin SMALL SEAL script for usage on bamboo strips);
刻符 (INSCRIBE script for passes and certificates);
摹印 (SEAL IMITATE script);
虫书 (BIRD-WORM script for relaying government decrees);
署书 (PORCH script);
殳书 (WEAPON Inscribe script); and
隶书 (LEGAL [CLERICAL] script for government offices).
The above statement simply means that the BIRD-WORM script was merely one style of writing, not a different characterset. More, refer to 《汉书*艺文志》：“六体者，古文奇字篆书隶书缪篆虫书，皆所以通古今文字，摹印章，书幡信也。”
China’s Tradition of History Recording:
《史通·外篇·史官建置》：“盖史之建官，其来尚矣。昔轩辕氏受命，仓颉、沮诵实居其职。至于三代，其数渐繁。”
《汉书·艺文志》：“古之王者，世有史官，君举必书，所以慎言行，昭法式也。”
《国语·楚语》：“有事不书，是史失其职守。”
《左传》：“夫诸侯之会，其德行礼仪，无国不记。”
《礼记》：“史载笔，大事书之于策，小事简牍而已。”“动则左史书之，言则右史书之。”
《史记-齐太公世家》：“齐太史（齐国世袭史官）书曰：‘崔杼（齐国实力人物）弑庄公（齐国国君）’，崔杼杀之。其弟复书，崔杼复杀之。少弟复书，崔杼乃舍之。”
《新唐书·褚遂良传》：“贞观十五年，迁谏议大夫，兼知起居事。帝曰：‘卿记起居，大抵人君得观之否？’对曰：‘今之起居，古左右史也。善恶必记，戒人主不为非法，未闻天子自观史也。’帝曰：‘朕有不善，卿必记邪？’对曰：‘守道不如守官，臣职载笔，君子必书。’”