Ji {Halberds} & Ge {Dagger-axes} in ancient China

The ji (halberd) was originally a bronze weapon comprised of 2 parts. A composite weapon of a double mounting of the ge weapon (dagger-axe) and a mao (spear) on a single pole.

There is evidence this double mounting of separate weapons onto a single pole was used as early as the Shang period although it seems very rare.

Only one example was shown by Yang Hong in his book "Ancient Chinese Weapons". He said it pushes the date of ji usage back to the Shang period (17th century BC to 12th century BC) but Hong didn't want to make too much of this single example. The pictures of its in-situ excavation clearly shows the 'ji' composite mounting preserved in position with a spear above although the wooden pole had long decayed. The pole was traced as previously being only 64cm long.

The reason to not identify the ji as a notable Shang weapon is because such early bronze dagger axes were mounted on very short poles, even as short as 60cm, and it were therefore best suitable for a swinging puncture attack in close combat. The early-Shang ge weapon itself was typically a right angled blade in a triangular shape although there were refinements & variations over the Shang period. The pictured examples below are votive Ba-Shu bronzes from Sichuan dating from the Zhou period, but they show the basic form of many "archaic" ge in the Shang and into the Western Zhou.



The 'classic' archaic ge looked something like a broad triangular shaped knife attached to a pole. The very early and comparatively undeveloped bronze blade at this time has visible similarities to thin stone hafted battle-axes of the Neolithic period and these early forms followed the same simple shape (even retaining a non-functional circular hole worked into the blades). See CHF thread http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...t&p=4889006 for 2 examples of archaic forms of dagger-axes.

It may be due to such short poles that the Shang ge was used as an axe or war-pick rather than a true polearm, so any combination with a spear on a short pole did not lend a great deal more utility for an expenditure of bronze.

In much later periods, such as the late East Zhou & notably the Warring States period, the combination ji was used as a polearm & it became a more common weapon. Although there are almost no examples in the Shang period the weapon was widely used in later eras. Texts on ancient weapons can show many examples in bronze of a spear mounted above a dagger-axe.

The period where the ji (combination spear & ge) was first clearly used to a notable extent is the period of the Western Zhou (12th-8th century BC). These were different to the early (Shang) and later (East Zhou) periods in that the weapons were often cast as a single bronze item with the features of both dagger-axe and spear as a unit. They then used two possible methods to attach them to the pole. Some West Zhou ji used the socketed method of the spear to attach, while others used the slot of the dagger axe and were bound via holes in the typical ge hafting method. These ji might be described then as a "spear with dagger-axe blade" or a "dagger-axe with a spear point" based on the method of their hafting.

The socketed type of ji, attached like a spear, was less common according to Yang Hong. Most the West Zhou ji halberds of this one-piece type were mounted like dagger axes by slotting into the pole, such as below.



The earliest 'combination' type (of a separate dagger-axe and spear mounted together) above was also used in the West Zhou and later this became the main type of bronze ji. In the East Zhou the single cast items seem very rare compared to the separately mounted 2 piece type.

To explain a mounting by 'slotting' there are 2 examples here, from a CHF members collection, showing how the tang slots into the pole and the cord or twine binds via the holes on the ge.



The left version is the archaic 'triangular' blade style while the right shows the more typical (& improved) East Zhou style with the upturned blade and the extension of the blade down along the pole. The triangular example is probably Western Zhou, although this basic shape was used from Shang times. Southern tribal cultures such as the Ba, Shu and Dian peoples used the obsolete archaic style ge into the Eastern Zhou period.

More pictures of the Shang and West Zhou examples of ge & ji can be seen in Yang Hong's text "Weapons in Ancient China", or else "Ancient Chinese Weapons; A collection of pictures" by Cheng Dong is another source (although this is in Chinese and not in print any more).

During the Eastern Zhou period from the 8th century BC to the 3rd century BC warriors had faced massed chariots, and then cavalry forces, as their feudal kingdoms became increasingly involved in direct military conflict.



In the early East Zhou chariots based armies were still prominent in battle. Eventually cavalry made an appearance alongside massive infantry forces in the later East Zhou. Poles were typically much longer (reaching 3-4 metres long in the Spring & Autumn period). Chariot were used throughtout the East Zhou. There is some suggestion mounted cavalry archers were important after 4th century BC military reforms of the states of Zhao however not untill the Han period was cavalry to fully replace chariot forces.

Based on contemporary East Zhou art these ancient warriors appear comparable to pikemen for the length of the longest polearms. Shorter versions of dagger-axes on 1.5m poles appear alongside the longest types. Each had its own speciality in function. Short hafted ge would be for infantry close combat while the longer poles could drag down horsemen or engage chariot crews, or attempt to disrupt tight ordered formations before entering melee.

The clearest examples portraying the 'combination' type ge, with spears, hooks and extra fittings, taken from a Eastern Zhou bronze detail below, are all of the longest pole-mounted type, while the shorter mounted dagger axes seem to require only the puncturing point to be effective when wielded one handed with a shield. As mentioned above, this perhaps explains the ji's rarity in the Shang period as chariots appear only in the late Shang period and hence long poles were less necessary. A shorter pole would allow for swifter puncturing strikes and more conventional close melee in grappling range while the long poles seem to be more like specific tools and engage over a distance. Spears mounted above dagger axes can clearly be seen below in this East Zhou bronze detail.




In the Eastern Zhou period the longer pole-mounted ji & ge would be best employed for hooking & cutting instead of a puncture strike as it require less precision to use such unwieldy weapons against a target. Manipulating the small blades point into an enemy at a distance of 3 or more metres is unlikely to work but a swing and a dragging cut could easily snag a person in its wide hooking arc.

The greater utility of a dragging cut during such an attack is reveal by 2 different design features that become standard on later dagger-axes. Blades from the Spring & Autumn onwards were set upturned at typically 100 degrees to the pole which suits a dragging cut using the inside edge and the mechanical 'pull' of an angled blade. There was also a development (which had began in the late Shang) or extending the blade below the point down the inside of the pole and the length of this blade grew over time. The dagger-axe then comes to appear like an 'r' shape with the blade extension running parallel to the pole instead of just a dagger point.

Also suited to a dragging cut, later dagger-axes of the Warring States period could have inturning points or even have serrations on the inside edge which would make horrific injuries. (see below for Warring States example*)

For more pictures of a 'typical' dagger-axe, and it's design to allow hafting to the pole, the 2 ge below show the perforations for binding, the typical 'tang' or 'axe' (nei in Chinese) that slots into the pole and the blade-point projection as well as blade extension down the pole (hu in Chinese). There are a few important differences however.



The larger example is probably late Shang or early West Zhou as it is still fairly primitive. It has few 'holes' for affixing to the pole, the tang/nei lacks a hole and the form is consistent with very early examples with the first short extension of the blade down the pole (hu) . Another hint it that this piece was once bent quite acutely and it has signs of a rough re-straightening by somebody using a vice (!). In an edition of Wenwu {Chinese: Cultural Arts} there was a site discussed that had severely bent dagger axes visibly of this same type. I have concluded it is likely related to the practice of 'killing the weapon' to send it into the next life with the owner as the mutilation must be deliberate. Such bending is more dramatic than any natural bending or damage from burial compression. One of the 'Wenwu' examples was even bent so it resembled a letter U in profile. The Wenwu site was dated 'Shang-Zhou'.

The lower smaller dagger-axe is a more 'typical' example from the Spring and Autumn period. It has the upturned and triangular-pointed appearance of such weapons. By this time chariots were being widely used in warfare. These dagger-axes first appear in the late West Zhou and I consider them the basic 'classic' form of ge.

The smaller dagger-axe here I had mounted on a 1.5m pole in the past & I can say that despite its unconvincing appearance the weapon then becomes something like a long handled tomahawk in feel. It is light, but gives the impression of very easily piercing and tearing an enemies flesh.***

Some dagger axes in the East Zhou would be mounted with 2 or 3 dagger axes set on a single pole and there are other strange and unusual forms with large rearward hooks like a scythe which also exist. (one very unique enormous hooked example can be seen at thread/post http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...t&p=4888996 "see; polearm mounted halberd; picture)

These are some example of East Zhou multiple mountings.





The Warring States period is a time where the ji double mounting was more common than ever. There were many variations on the ge & ji being used, probably due to the many independent productions of bronze weapons by the competing fuedal states where each had their own regional flavour & innovations.

This below is a lethal variation from the late Warring States period belonging to Richard Nable. *



Another serrated Warring States ge in the Shanghai museum.



These are various late period dagger-axes in the Shaanxi museum. The bottom left ge is the 'final' form of the ge, of a similar type used by the Qin & in the early West Han.

In the later Warring States period the dagger-axe had reached it's ultimate development.

Qin-state examples of the late 3rd century BC show the final form developed from over 1,000 years of warfare.



The Chinese text above mentions how the ji was a very important and versatile weapon of the time, and mentions the combination of ge with a spear.

The rear tang on such late period bronze ge were sharpened to have a reversed stabbing blade, the blade projected down the pole ("hu") was long, even longer than the 'dagger' blade. The # of binding holes was greater than earlier period. The 'dagger' blade also inturned slightly near the tip in the fashion of a true hook.

Such a weapon could puncture and hook and slash. Similar dagger-axes were used in the West Han period for a short time, before being replaced by a very different form of 'ji' which was then used throughout the Han


Han' Ji

The bronze dagger-axe did exist for a short time in the West Han dynasty, and is depicted in West Han art. Its extremely rare appearance in East Han graves, as mentioned by Yang Hong, would be of tomb items only (for 'use' by the deceased) since bronze weapons were long since obselete.

A new & different weapon, also called a ji, became the main polearm of the West & East Han period and this was the succesor of the ge & combination ji.



I believe the dagger-axes disapearance is likely linked to 2 factors, firstly that this is the same time as chariot formations vanished from the battlefield (chariots decline for their own reasons). Certain types of chariot fittings that were used for centuries are longer found after the West Han period. Steel also eventually completely replaced bronze weapons during the early to mid West Han. The signifigance of this is because the 'Han' ji has a form more suited to manufacture via iron forging. The steel industry was up to a very high standard & output by the time of Han Wudi, yet the decline of bronze weapons would have been even quicker based on the diminishing numbers of bronze swords in graves before this time. Even marginal preferential factors over a period of time would be a basis for change. For a short time bronze ge & Han-style bronze ji would be weilded by warriors in combat. Eventually only steel weapons & only the ji would be carried to battle.

Steel was used for many centuries before the Han period, although it was not yet superior to bronze in all aspects during the late Eastern Zhou. Its use for weapons was not consistent in Chinese warfare untill the early Imperial (Han) period. The Qin state had defeated other rival states using its weapons of bronze, although it is known its enemies had swords and armour made of this early steel.

To expand on the end of the chariot as a basis for an army, with the formation of empire and an expansion of terrotory beyond the central plains, Han China's contemporary 'barbarian' enemies required combat on terrain completely unsuitable for chariot based warfare, such as the rivers, contours and vegetation of the far south. On the northern frontier there was the serious threat of the swift mounted archers of the nomadic Xiongnu cavalry. Even massive Chinese armies based on infantry and attacking chariots had shown themselves to be too cumbersome in matching the large formations of nomadic horsemen of the nomadic 'hu' barbarians. In Qin times these Hu barbarians were still fragmented tribes but a new nomadic empire united under the Xiongnu 'Chan-Yu' Modun (i.e Khan) was a potent force. In the early West Han period the Emperor Gaotzu had suffered a serious defeat and his Han army was surrounded by a large Xiongnu force. A humiliating political solution & generous treaties were used by the Chinese to appease the very powerful Xiongnu steppe empire whom were then treated as equals. It was recognised, for a period covering generations, that China lacked the right resources to fight the Xiongnu warriors on their own terms and only political solutions and long term strategies were realistic. Only with the reign of Wudi was Han China ready to scorn treaties & diplomacy. Horse breeding, and cavalry-based Chinese forces were needed to conduct swift campaigns against these nomadic horsemen. The dagger-axe, suitable for fighting from a rushing chariot, or an infantryman hooking at a chariot as it wheeled past, was abandoned at this time.

Han art shows a new weapon being used to drag a horseman from their saddle, and weilded by cavalry themselves (see below). This was a 'ji' of a new & different style. The spear-like point and projecting side blade would make this a good weapon to face horsemen, or be weilded by horsemen.

Yang Hong calls the 'ji' of this type the main polearm or "long handled weapon" during the Han dynasty.




While this type of weapon was first used at the final stages of the Warring States period by the state of Yan (and made in steel) it was a new & unusal type. Being cast as a single object it returned more to the West Zhou style of ji, but had a unique & simplified appearance. These examples below were found in a mass grave of 22 soldiers of the state of Yan, along with iron armour, swords and crossbows, late 3rd century BC.



For a state which made weapons of iron the ji is more suited to production than the form of the bronze ge. This is probably an important reason the Han adopted this design. Like a long sword blade the ji blades could be annealed, and impurities worked out by artisans in the forging of steel. The shape of a dagger-axe, and especially the holes for lashing, would be impractical to manufacture in steel. For ease of output alone there is benefit in making a ji. If this is combined with combat being based around light cavalry instead of chariots then the bronze dagger-axe would have been a less practical choice. The common 'Han' ji returns to a right angled side-blade and would be a puncturing instead of hooking weapon. This form of ji was then used for centuries.

Bronze ji do exist, as examples can be seen in texts in many varieties (as the line drawings above are mostly, if not all, bronze examples). The iron ji are consistently larger with the Han examples identical to the Yan examples in iron above. It is also said by Yang Hong that iron ji in the East Han were larger still. Some immense blades of 50-60cm would then be almost twice the size of similar bronze examples. A Chinese museum specimen here shows such a large ji example. The blades are almost the size of a medium sized steel jian.



The bronze ji examples in books are of a consistenly smaller size than iron ji. In the former collection of the late John Piscopo was a bronze ji of a size that is almost identical to my own example below.



Bronze ji are often just under 30cm long across their greatest axis. My own feeling is that many of these are tomb objects only. Some bronze ji examples are visibly suitable to be used in warfare but given the smaller size and the more effective iron examples that would quickly render them inferior in every measure I tend to consider them more as representative of the form of Han ji...but generally not intended for use. Some of the earliest Han bronze ji would likely have seen battle however.

Since minaturisation was common in the Han mortuary industry & the amount of expensive bronze restricted for use in tombs according to rank, slightly small or lighter cast types of weapon in bronze seem fairly typical of Han bronze weapons. Much as with the Han ring-pommeled dao/sabre I discussed earlier on CHF ( http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=7440 see page 2) these class of burial bronzes were not intended for use. There is only a window of perhap 50 years in which the Han weapons of bronze might still be seen in battle alongside iron. Even by the time of Emperor Jingdi however his buried army, and their perfectly minaturised weapons, shows the soldiers (60cm tall) weilded iron ji & swords and used bronze only for arrowheads and casting crossbow mechanisms.

While deciding which ji of bronze is 'early' and a 'real' weapon and which is a later tomb object might be down to guesswork I can outline why I am convinced my own example and likely other similar such pieces are tomb items due to an associated artefact.



Tsah




The weapon above is a form a Han polearm and is called a Tsah. I discussed this on the ancient weapons thread: http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...showtopic=17405 These are comparitively rare items and I have only seen these mentioned in Cheng Dongs book briefly and know of a pair once owned by Richard Nable. The example here was also likely part of a pair. As shown on the link above there was another 'spear' of exactly the same dimensions and this appears to instead be another identical tsah which has lost the distinctive attachment above the socket. The blade of that spear had fractures which showed it had suffered some burial compression. These pairs of bronze tsah were probably another type of object placed into tombs by those with the wealth to do so. I am certain my own example was never intended for fighting as it has several points that make this improbable. Before I explain them it is worth noting examples of tsah with iron blades from the Cheng Dong text "Ancient Chinese Weapons; A collection of pictures". These would be weapons for combat. The steel blade would be strong, yet the robust bronze casting over the top of iron would allow for the benefit of some protection of the weapon holder (as the Chinese text explains below). The line drawing tsah beside them is more like my own, certainly bronze & >30cm long. It is quite likely a tomb object also copying the stronger steel versions although such distinctions are not made in the book.




Since I could examine my own tsah closely I could see the blade is slender and light, but still potentially functional. The lightness becomes too impractical for function as a weapon when I examine the socket. It is cast extremely thin and the socket shows a pole for this weapon was >2cm in diameter. Of many other socketed weapons of the East Zhou, spears etc. the sockets would be a third as broad again or even more, and sufficient in strength to use in combat. A thin pole such as this tsah was attached to was too slender to take rigours of combat.

The thin-ness of the bronze socket also makes for potential breakage. I have a light spear, probably Han, which has a socket wall cast so thin that it is less the 1mm in width at narrow points. It had broken through the socket and this was the same risk the tsah would run if subjected to stress even from compression in burial. The Tsah also has several airbubbles visible on the surface, tiny holes, one even goes through the socket wall. While these holes are tiny, less the 1/2 a millimetre, and not uncommon on ancient bronzes they look to me like they could cause critical failures in the structure when the weapon is thin and subject to stress or impact. A robust cast sword might survive with a few tiny bubbles in the bronze but this is one reason very long bronze swords were less practical than iron...and also why a bronze artisans made sure to stir the liquid bronze to remove gasses before casting.

The tsah socket is show below. Two features of note are the typical variation of thickness along the wall of a socket (a little imprefection common in ancient casting) and the presence of partly mineraled wood traces along the interior from an area aprox. 12 to 3 o'clock which shows the weapons of this type were still attached to poles before burial.




Given the slight minaturisation of these weapons (or general smaller size of Han bronze weapons) it is likely the slender poles were also to scale. In the Han period the examples of poles for mounting ji given by Yang Hong were a length of 2m. This is a less cumbersome length than the longest poles of the East Zhou but still with a polearms greater reach than 'short handled weapons' such as swords. Out of curiousity I have mounted my bronze ji on a 2 m bamboo pole and found the dimensions to be comfortable. I do not consider my bronze ji however to have been made for combat either however. This is because it is likely from the exact same cache as the 2 tsah. In 2004 I had seen these as a group when they newly came into the possesion of a Taiwanese friend and since inspecting them closely in 2007 I could see there was a distinctive earth encrustation which was unlike I typically see on Chinese bronzes. The patination (corrosion), cross section of the blades, polishing (ancient abrasion marks) & the general feel convinces me the items are part of a single hoard from the same place. Although the bronze ji does feel practical its association with the tsah leads me to believe that it, and most other bronze Han weapons like this, as slightly minaturised and not intended for use. It also means such weapons, based on the tsah socket, were put onto smaller (but proportionate) slender poles perhaps as much as a quarter shorter than battlefield versions.

In discussing the poles that weapons were mounted on there are 2 aspects of ancient polesarms I think worth mentioning. The cross-section and the pole decorations.

The poles for weapons used in ancient China could be a strong bamboo, or a hardwood, or even hardwood which was then covered with bamboo strips, bound by cord & lacquered. While spears could have a simple circular cross-section the poles of dagger-axes have more oblong/egg shaped or almost tear-shaped cross sections. This can be seen by examining the bronze caps which decorated the base of the poles and the consistency of this cross-section (and the logical benefit of the shape) which became clear when I examined a ji artefact in my possession and considered the bronze pole caps (called 'Zhun").

The ji below is remarkable for several reasons. It has unfortunately lost the tip portion of the dagger-axe blade due to a break in ancient times, and there is much tin-oxide corrosion and loss to the edges along the artefact but the form is very unusual.




It is, in my opinion, Eastern Zhou and probably Spring & Autumn or early Warring States in dating. The dagger-axe blade has the feature of a central raised spine of reinforcement which I have only seen on swords & dagger axes consistent with this general period. Unlike the Han bronzes the common weapons from this period were 100% functional. The reversed 'tang' used on dagger-axes is not needed since the ji is socketed so in this instance it had been sharpened so it is more like an axe***. I have not seen a rear blade quite in this fashion before and if this is an East Zhou ji can't recall seeing a one-piece cast version of a ji from this period, let alone a socketed one. For this reason it is rather rare type of ji.

I will point out some features of the surface before I discuss the cross-section of the socket. It has traces of wood, plant roots, cord binding, and crystallisation of the mineral patina. The earth encrustation is quite unattractive and is not like a typical silt-like alluvial yellow soil found on many Chinese bronzes. A possible reason is that it may not have been buried in a deep chambered or shaft-like burial and this may explain why the soil is different in appearance if the strata is different. This is just speculation since it could simply come from a region with different soil characteristics as I have typically seen (outside the ancient central plains geological area) but either way the burial was only comparatively shallow below the surface. It has many plant root traces on one side of the 'axe' and plant roots are very seldom seen on bronzes in my experience. Tombs of rich people were made deep and very secure so I assume that this is from a more common sort of grave. Even of common graves excavated around the ancient state of Chu (common small graves as opposed to structured tombs) nearly a third of these contained bronze swords so bronze weapons were interned with even ordinary people who presumably had military experience. However it might have happened, the plant roots adhered and the plants later died but there remains mineralised 'fingerprints' which even take the form of 3 dimensional tubes in the patina.




The weapon was socketed & also bound to a wooden pole. Small traces of wood on the side of ordinary dagger-axes do survive at times, and the appearance here shows a small amount of wood grain. The location to me suggests the item was slotted into the pole as well as socketed since the wood made contact in a way that meant a section must have been shaped below the socket to allow the 'hu' blade along the pole to slot inside the wooden pole also. This would have required extra preparation of the pole, with a significant guiding channel for the weapon to slide into the wood when socketed,







At the uppermost hole for binding some traces of cord can be seen in the soil. These are not mineralised and would likely crumble if touched with a pin. Short masses which are the strands in a cord can be seen in the soil which are the previously organic traces held by the soil. Below the socket is a white-opaque amorphic mass of possibly of cerrusite. amongst the rounded opaque mineral corrosion can be seen rods of a white crystal in masses. If viewed at full scale the geometric forms of minerals here can be seen as well as the cord traces around the hole.




This last pic shows both the sharpened bevel of the rearward facing 'axe' ***and the socket which is a compressed shape. The wooden pole for this can be deduced as something like a tear-shape with the sharper angle towards the dagger-axe blade. On the left of the socket hole is a raised shape on the bronze which abuts with the wooden pole. This completes and would match the shape of an egg or tear cross-sectioned zhun such as was attached at the base of weapon poles. This means the pole had a consistent shape, top and bottom. To make sense of this I show some zhun, and their sockets later.



In combat this pole shape meant the rounded part would be in the palm with the fingers gripped around the more acute (but still rounded) end. The blade could by feel always be turned out in the striking position by the touch alone due to this shape. In a spear a circular pole would suffice but for the dagger-axe an angular pole meant a warrior shifting in combat, or adjusting his grip would always feel naturally how to present the weapon with the point facing at a striking angle.

Below is a line drawing show a selection of East Zhou zhun. The Han also used bronze caps on their weapons poles, but these were mostly in the form of stylised bamboo and resemble more like a cylinder. Significantly they are also circular socketed so the pole shape was likely simplified in the Han period. These East Zhou zhun however show in their sockets a few examples of the egg or tear-drop cross section which is typical.




Since zhun are remarkable works of art in many instances, even having silver or gold inlay and beast or geometric designs, I had for a while now wanted to share some of Richard Nables examples on the forum. He has a niche collection of ancient zhun, which can be viewed here: http://www.pricelesspast.com/museum2.htm

A couple of Richards pieces I include below. For individual warriors or high ranking people the personal weapons would reflect this. While the top of a pole contained a weapon (sometime these were also decorated to a degree) the bottom caps of the poles were free to display fine art which a robust blade atop could not. While some caps are plain the personal adornment in ancient times such as belt hooks and these zhun were 2 of the main types by which an important person could display stunning levels of ornamentation.







*** As an afterthought I had mentioned my Spring & Autumn period dagger-axe being mounted on a pole of 1.5m and I came across a picture which shows this scale. It is no longer mounted on a pole as my son would keep wanting to hold it, so I made an exact cardboard blade instead. (BTW His first word even before "ba" or "ma" was "ge" as it is a sound an infant can easily repeat, and he could point and be very clear what he wanted). Here is a picture which shows the mounting & the distinctly upturned blade of the Spring & Autumn weapon. Hence a pull would make a dragging cut along the inside edge but it still could be used to puncture on swinging impact. My son also conveniently shows the scale of such weapons to height of a grown man if the pole was in the region of 3m long.

Nice post, I read all of it.



So, to make things clear, do you mean the polearm your son(very cute ) is holding is half as long as what a normal soldier of the period would have? Or is it 1.5 m?

Hey Kenneth,

I saw a zhun from British museum pictures for several years. The shapes and diameters of these items are quite varied, suggesting that sizes of wooden shaft ought to be varied as well, right?

Is it possible if I assume that diameter of a zhun and that of the socket of a ji blade must be correspondent to one another?

The pole there, in length only, is around the size of the short poles used by infantry. It is around 1.5m and in the bronze art detail you can see them being used one handed by warriors using shields and also delivering a blow while grasping an enemy. That is the shorter version of the ge, while if he were assumed to be a man of full height he very roughly give the appearance of a weapon to scale of the longer poles, which were around 3m but could be up to 4m long.
Bear in mind it is just a general comment I added at the end since I spotted the picture on my PC after finishing most the writing. I have considered getting a pole of 4m and mounting a weapon, but bamboo poles I found were only up to 3m and longer pine poles would need to be specially made. I haven't gotten around to it yet. I have a ji on a 2m pole.
None of the poles are authentic constructions either. Pine poles are prone to shatter, and making a proper ancient polearm pole would need sourcing some really serious & solid bamboo or binding a hardwood pole.




The diameter and shape would likely be consistent along a length, since the socketed ji here has a shape that shows the cross-section is the same at the top as we find on the base caps. This is a detail you can't tell from the usual 'lashing' type ge. The width/diameter of the poles would vary, just like the weapons have huge varieties in size and shape.
There is a variety of forms even in the selection I show here. The flattened cross-section shape seems to be specifically for ge. There would be no point with a spear.
Spears have just round sockets on the head. Some 'zhun' can be round too, especially the Han type which appears like a stylised bamboo cap in bronze.

Kenneth,
I thoroughly enjoyed reading the full thing, very informative, great pictures for examples. I want to thank you again for allowing me the chance to publish the excerpt from it in the Han Lin Journal.

Kenneth,

this is an excellent article. Thanks.

A great read, Kenneth. I particularly like seeing the evolutions of the blades, whereas I tended to only visualize them in one style. It was enlightening. Have you ever considered working as a consultant for historical drams and movies? I'm sure that the prop quality would go up quite a bit.

Pray tell, what book is that with the English? That's not Yang Hong, is it?

Also: The picture of your son with his ge makes my childhood suddenly feel quite deprived...D=

In some zhuns, I saw there carving pattern for decoration, while the others seemed to be painted by golden colour or something (flat surface), I wonder based upon these decorations, could we know beforehand what period a zhun was made?

Due to the particular shape of most of them, these zhous have narrow and small bottoms but large opennings, did the bottom of the shaft actually fit to the bottom of the zhou?

The Ji above seems to me as a reminescent of a Swiss halberd as a combination of both chopping, slashing and thrusting. Why these designs extincted after Han time, why Chinese later prefered linear spear?

There are a few pictures taken from Yang Hong's "Weapons in Ancient China".

I think if people who make movies wanted to be accurate they would only need a library card. While there are specialist people who design props and customes it seems accuracy it not something that is greatly emphasised in most cases.
Movies based on history would not suffer if they did a better job of history IMO, but then again most movies don't even get the stories historically accurate from the stage of the script, let alone by the time they get around to designing the sets and props.


I somebody had enough examples of styles and they knew the provenance of the pieces then I am sure you could make an educated geuss with reasonable authority. Zhun are more Richard Nables niche, but even in texts that are specfic (such a some British Museum texts) where they attribute an item to, say, 6-5th century BC and another to 3rd century BC then if you looked at enough there would be changes in art motifs and favoured styles over lengths of time like this.
Such evolutions occur in almost any style of ancient artefact from vessel decoration to styles of surface inlay and certain themes that appealed at a moment in time. Even of people who scientifically excavate sites & graves a publish chronologies like "late Spring & Autumn, early Warring States, late Warring States," style artefacts can be making simply educated geusses since I have seen discussions where one scholar disagress with another.
You need a pretty big base sample, so while Richard might have spotted some features I would only go with what I see in books or else not hazard a guess beyond 'Eastern Zhou'.



I have looked inside one zhun fairly closely and even took out a small fragment of the wood which fit inside it.
Some examples I have seen are packed with fibre or coarse fabric binding so whatever the shape of the pole and the hole the piece could be secured by packing tight and then using a rivet, and many have a hole to secure by a 'pin' just like a spear head & socket. Such binding can also be seen stuffed into the sockets of spear blades as well where the remains of the shaft still survive.

I assume you mean the socketed & damaged ji. Definitely is the same base idea to the swiss halberd, of hook and swing and thrust with the blade.
The heaviest halberds/billhooks and such in Europe in the much later periods were different to the bronze dagger-axes of ancient times however in that ge weapons would not be taking on quite such armoured opponents as in Europe in those times.
Little modifications to the medieval halberds meant they could even tackle an armoured man and were capible or delivering much more force than other hand weapons.
The comparisons are there, since they are versatile due to the design of the weapon, but in terms of construction material and the opponents they face I see later European halberds as for countering quite different foes. For example, the longest poles of ge were because riders in chariots, and even fighting between chariots, required long reach while in the medieval period a tool like a billhook could help trap or disorientate an armoured man, and with such heavy mechanical force from the pole mounting these polearms could hopefully get spikes (or hammers) to crush or pierce even a section of plate, like smash a weak arm joint or whack a spike into a man they have toppled.

The Chinese used what I call the 'Han' style ji for many centuries before they evolved into more trident or upturned bladed weapons better for skewering a horse as it charges. There are roughly similar but different weapons used in later periods.
It really is a long history in China and weapons keep on evolving. The designs don't always go extinct but few are going to last & be relevant to 2,000 years of changes to military hardware and equipment.

In what situation: chariots, infantry or cavalry do you think the Tsah maximises its effectiveness.

BTW, thanks for the articles and pictures, I shall keep asking questions as I move down in researching these new items.

Could you tell me the Tsah above's total length of its blade. Seen from this angle without a shaft it seems that it could be totally used as a sword for close combat, too.



Do you think this weapon is only for tomb? Perhaps this is the reason why it is rare among Ancient Chinese weapons? If it is totally usable in warfare, then breakage as you described would prove fatal for the hander. The weakness in socket as you mentioned above, is only a characteristic reflected by almost all the items of this category, or are there any other items which show us that the socket is better functional.




Could you tell me how thick this artefact is? Are there any other items which demonstrate real application in battle? Do you have any of these photos.

Thanks again

The tsah is a quite rare Han weapon. It is suggested as being a spear with an addition that lends more protection to the wielder.
In a situation of spear on spear this attachment would allow the tsah to lift the spearmans weapon if it caught the pole.
It is a similar situation to a crossgaurd on a sword, but if a person with a tsah could move aside another persons spear point by using this fitting it may allow other people beside to exploit an opening.
The press of pikemen in European depictions of battle in later period leads me to think a mass of warriors with tsah facing a mass of warrior with spears would find it easier to lift or drive aside the enemies points if the 2 people were facing across the length of their polearms. It just allows a little more versatility in application.

The detached weapon does appear like a long dagger, or very slender short sword. I had trouble with the police getting this into my country and had to assure them of my intentions.
It is not however a 'sword-spear' or pi such as was a class of east Zhou weapon that resembled a double edged sword that could be removed from the pole. It would not be done in the middle of battle, since the items were secured and riveted to the poles.
Here is an example with a rarer circular cross-sectioned zhun (as mentioned spears do not need the shape of ge poles):


Your other questions, while this tsah and the bronze examples I know of will mostly be tomb items the version with an iron blade as shown in the attached pic will be a real weapon and quite practical. The casting abilities of bronze means it was favoured for the gaurd but the blade was steel, so entirely practical. The construction of the steel/bronze version is different and even the guard of bronze looks stronger.
The weakness of the socket is a feature of a burial bronze only. Other spears I have seen have sockets that looks perfectly able to take battle stress, this is why the difference was clear.

I don't have the item with me, but the thickness of the blade is much less than the robust casting of spears I have seen from the Warring States period. It is sharp, but not any more robust than a letter opener.
It could not be expected to take too many knocks if the battle was life or death.

Wow! blade made by steel? You means this Tsah is a combination of steel blade and bronze socket and guard? How could Ancient Chinese achieved this?

About earth encrustation, do you have any good source for beginners, I am inclined to read even more about this phenomenon. The crystallisation seen above is interesting, I am still re-read your post.

Early forms of steel, that is low carbon steel, began to appear in China in the Spring and Autumn period but it is not untill the late east Zhou that it is used for common weapons rather than as an exotic item.
Earlier steel was meteoric in nature, so not really relevant as a technology.
During the Han dynasty steel production was much more perfected, hence bronze vanishing. By this time a very good quality mid-carbon steel was produced. The East Zhou steel was still at a fairly unrefined stage, hence bronze lingered on.
Steel and bronze existed side by side for centuries & the Qin united China with weapons of bronze.
Different types of 'steel' need to be understood.
Low carbon steel was being used by other cultures long before it was used in China and both the end of the bronze age and the beginning of the iron age is comparitively late in China. Once iron (almost certainly first entering China via the direction of Xinjiang according to carbon dating) was availible the Chinese then refined it to a better standard, using different techniques than 'Western' methods.
The tsah that I make a distinction with, the steel and bronze one, is quite different to the all bronze versions that are likely not meant for battle once the Han Chang-an foundries started producing consistent and volumous quality steel.

Of crystals and earth encrustation, there are very detailed texts on studies of corrosion on ancient bronze (such as Melanie Roy references) but my own studies revolve around simple observations. No two bronze surfaces are alike, although if you look at enough there are some feature that can be quite common. I have seen different soil types on bronzes but the central plains yellow soil (wind blown silt) is characteristic on many bronzes. The ji I show closely here has an quite unusual thick earth affixation and the plant roots are not something I have seen on other weapons. The highest incidences I have seen on ancient artefacts of plant roots were on Dong Son articles from Yunnan where some were thoroughly covered in them.

Kenneth, I was wondering why you romanized the weapon's name as 'tsah'? The standard putonghua pronunciation for 鎩, according to my dictionary, is 'sha'.

Quite like "Ch" in Russian, which is translated to Chinese as "Ts" too.

The amorphous white opaque traces as you described is cerrusite, is this the correct information:

Mineral Species: Cerussite
Chemical Formula: PbCO3

Chemical Name: Lead Carbonate

Mineral Class: Carbonate

Mineral Notes: Cerussite is often called white lead ore. Its properties are nearly identical to Witherite, but the mineral has the highest specific gravity of any carbonate.

I wonder how this could be formed in the surface of the Ji. Could you describe more information about any specific chemical information about the soil which the Ji has been excavated.

Here is your picture which I have tried to use colours to analyse different areas.



The red area B looks like the result of crystallisation. But it seems that inside this mass there are white portions. Could you tell me what is this?

The red area A to the right of the hole is an interesting object. There are three creased lines, seem to me like an intensional scratch. It makes me wonder whether it is a result of crystallisation like the red area B?

The yellow, the pink and the dark blue area reveals to me that earth encrustation seems to form a multilayer coverage upon the object. The pink area looks like a crystal, is it not.

The Orange area, on the other hand, seems to me like a flat and consistent "terrain". At about the middle of the horizontal end of the picture is a white opaque mass, is it of cerrusite?

I apologise for my English, descriptive language in English is still a big challenge for me, that is why I read your posts very carefully.

BTW, have you done any tests upon these items.

If I recognise well, perhaps the tsah has been shown in a another thread, placed upon a showcase?


Thanks

I have seen it spelt more than one way, Tsah or Sha.
The difference would be in the sharpness of the 'S' sound? (I hear it aloud as a much sharper sound like 'Tsingtao beer')
I really loathe the nonsensical way Chinese is rendered into English.
I didn't romanise it myself. I have no English text which mentions this weapon.

I picked up 'tsah' from Rich Nable. He is the only other person I know who had a pair of these weapons years ago and checking my archived e-mail from 2005 this was the way we discussed them.
Between that & the few lines in Cheng Dong that is the sum total info I have on the tsah/sha. The discussion with Rich, now I check, had little detail although I see he paid a much steeper price.

I will confirm with you later as you would be better to deduce the correct Romanisation from something like the Cheng Dong book. I will also ask your opinion over 'zhun' also as I have also seen these confusing called 'dhun' on occasion so rather than rely on consensus I will go with whatever you suggest.
As you know I am re-writting this article fairly extensivly to submit it to a symposium in China so I would be horrified to be let down by a detail like that when presenting it in a more academic form.

If you want to look at patina this ji is not a good example. Pretty encrusted and dull.
See the threads:
ancient coins & features of age
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=7769
crystals and minerals on bronze
http://z8.invisionfree.com/Bronze_Age_Cent...hp?showtopic=16
Gold gilt studs & fabric imprints
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=6318

Just about any thread I have on weapons will have some pics of minerals and patina, but these are a bit more specific.

I don't visit CHF everyday, and this is probably not the right forum for this, so if you want to discuss this maybe use a different thread.
There are groups that are more specific on these topics BTW, and I am not the person to answer chemistry questions but I will add some comment.

The area inside a circle is perhaps the only really interesting spot. what you didn't comment on (you need to see the pic at 100% size via the uploaded site) are the many rods of crystals in that area. Other masses of probable cerrusite are no more aesthetic than if somebody sneezed on the bronze. They are amorphous blobs mainly.
The pink area is probably not a crystal, the object is too big. It looks like another mass. These bronzes are covered in all sorts of shapes and textures. Take a closer look at the circled area. Those are real formed crystals.
You also should take note of the trace of string in the soil by the hole for hafting. Short traces of the seperate strands in the string that passed through can be seen these. These are very fragile and a touch with a pin would no doubt make them break up.

The reason lead carbonate is on the ji is that lead is added as standard to Chinese bronzes even from the ancient period. This has benefits and drawbacks, but it is something the Chinese done. The % varies and is not regular from object to object, some % can be double digits but I don't have any relevant papers right on hand about this.
See http://library.csun.edu/Collections/SCA/SC.../bavarian06.pdf for a detailed chart analysing coins and mirrors vs. tin% and lead% It is an excellent read & has much detail. 2 interesting points: even lead used in the Shang period came from mines in Yunnan & the description of mass-produced sectional mold vessels in the East Zhou is impressive too.
In the ancient Zhou period there was a document that recorded the supposed % for making bells, weapons, mirrors etc. and while it is true there are trends for certain types of item (& as revealed by Prof. Bavarians paper) it is not so rigid as the ancient accounts make out.
Lead BTW was added to drinking and cooking vessels and I ponder whether the Shang kings taste for alcohol drunk from leaden bronzes may well give some truth to the Zhou claims the last Shang ruler was mad.
It does make for an easier cast, since the metal flows better, but the lead means a softer bronze compared to pure tin-bronze.

There are scratches on the surface of the bronze ji BTW, as the earth is cemented very securely. It is best just to leave these things 'as is' but sometime people have already tampered with them before me.

The 'flat terrain' is probably just the bronze surface with the thin bit of dirt. It has a thin malachite patina but is mainly not a very attractive looking surface on this piece. The white mass beside it, I cannot 100% say this is cerrusite although it is probable.
This is because, like you geussed, the burial conditions can explain excrustations on the surface too.
Calcite (calcium carbonate) is another similar looking mineral that comes from precipitation, just like the stalagmites form in caves.
To be clear, I see little evidence for this being calcite since ancient jades and pottery I look at do not have much suggestion of heavy encrustation of calcite, so given the great opaque masses on bronze the bulk with be as a result of the bronze properties itself, arising from within. Lead is quite pronze to corrosion. Another suggestion of cerrusite is the presence of thin opaque rod-like crystals which are consistnent with the appearance of lead carbonate.
(see the link "crystals and minerals on bronze".)

I have not tested these pieces myself. It is not really required, although an exam under UV might reveal more (as cerrusite and some calcite will flourese) these things have not been a priority for me. Just a 'one day' thing.
For lab tests....I would have to ship them overseas and pay big money for an internal sampling.
This has not been an issue for me, over authenticity firstly, & secondarily when I can just as well get ideas of typical ranges for bronzes from previous work ...or roughly deduce when a bronze is 'high tin' or 'copper bronze' just by the look of the metal surface itself (see the Prof. Bavarian paper for more on this).

Thanks, it has been very interesting to talk to you about these specimens. Since I am taking a vigorous Chemistry course, it virtually affects my interest in Archeology as well. Crystallisation like this specimen is not something I could usually see in museums in Europe you know.