14 Introduction. 



Only a few among us at present have an idea of the extent and 

 depth of fruitful archaeological work now carried on by Chinese scholars. 

 The opinion still largely prevails in our circles that the whole archaeol- 

 ogical Chinese wisdom is bound up with the Sung catalogues of the 

 Po ku Vu and Ku yii Vu p'u, to which the superficial Si ts'ing ku kien 

 and the brilliant Kin-shih so are possibly added. But there are many 

 dozens of modern well illustrated catalogues of bronzes and other 

 antiquities accompanied by keen and clever disquisitions which do not 

 shun discrediting or even refuting the worn-out statements of the 

 Po ku Vu. It has been almost entirely overlooked in Europe that the 

 latter work, however valuable it may be in many respects, presents 

 nothing but the traditions of the Sung period relative to objects of 

 the Chou and Han periods; it must be thoroughly examined in each 

 and every case in how far those claims are founded, in how far they 

 agree or disagree with the traditions handed down in the contem- 

 poraneous texts of antiquity, and in how far they may be biased by 

 the peculiar conditions of art and artists obtaining under the Sung 

 dynasty. The so-called monster Vao-Vieh certainly existed as a decora- 

 tive design on bronze vases of the Chou; but whether in all cases, when 

 the Po ku Vu points this design out on Chou bronzes, it is really in- 

 tended in the minds of the Chou artists is another question which 

 requires special critical examination; for there are many designs of 

 other conventional monsters on those ancient bronzes. 



To cite only one example as to how far modern Chinese archaeol- 

 ogists go in contradicting the old, beloved school opinions, there is now 

 the unanimous opinion in China and Japan that the so-called metal 

 mirrors with designs of grapes, birds, lions and horses cannot come 

 down from the time of the Han dynasty, as asserted by the Po ku Vu 

 without the shadow of an evidence ; they originated shortly before the 

 T'ang dynasty, probably in the fifth and sixth centuries, and I may add, 

 under Persian influence, as indeed the composition of this pattern first 

 appears in the Sassanidian art of Persia, but never in Greek art as 

 hitherto believed in Europe. For all serious future investigations into 

 Chinese antiquities, it will be incumbent on us to pay due attention 

 to the works, opinions and results also of modern Chinese (as well as 

 Japanese) archaeologists. The time has gone when only the Po ku Vu 

 and the very weak Si ts'ing ku kien, which is of small value, may be 

 ransacked at random and haphazardly by the foreign inquirer. 

 Studies exclusively based on such books, without regard to the world 

 of reality, deserve, in my opinion, no acknowledgment and are prac- 

 tically worthless. 



Aside from these monographs, there are numerous other books 



