Earliest Canon in Archaeological Light, Fourth to First Centuries B.C.E.

Political turmoil and the “burning of books” during the late third century B.C.E. caused catastrophic dislocation of texts, and the Han dynasty’s codification of the canon less than a century later led to a flurry of resurfaced “classics” and improvised legends. As a result, the state of the classics prior to the second century B.C.E. has, at best, been a subject of scholarly speculation. Fortunately, bounteous archaeological finds of the past half century await utilization by classicists.

Excavated materials datable from the fourth to the first centuries B.C.E. allow us to see that, of the reputed Six Classics, the Odes and the Documents appear to have enjoyed a relatively secure continuum of transmissions (though, more  surprisingly, certain passages in the Ancient Script version of the Documents, long assumed to be forgeries, turned up among the finds). The Changes and the Spring and Autumn Annals, contrary to conventional assumptions, had secured an exalted status by the fourth century B.C.E., though perhaps only in a skeletal form.

Variant sizes of a text also suggest a world of book culture still in process of formation. Comparison of related manuscripts from different dates reveals that the body of texts progressively fattened in an accruing fashion. In this regard, a jing (“classic”) might better be understood as a “main text,” accompanied by augments called “interpretative” (shuo) texts. Denoting essential or principal/le, jing initially had a quite functional meaning. The materiality of unearthed texts is also suggestive of status. Such hallowed classics in later times as the Analects commanded a rather low status as late as the first century B.C.E., and the Four Books had yet to emerge as a power set.