Legendary origins of the qin

Kenneth DeWoskin has written the following concerning traditional stories about the origins of the qin,⁵

There is also disagreement amongst modern historians and archaelogists. Much of this has to do with terminology: to what sorts of musical instruments did characters such as qin and se originally refer?

 
The earliest Chinese music instruments

Musicologists have arranged all traditional music instruments into four categories,⁹ and from sites dated to the Shang dynasty archaeologists have found examples for three of these categories:¹⁰ membranophones (in particular, skin-head drums), idiophones (chimes and bells) and aerophones (ocarinas and flutes). As for the fourth category, chordophones, although no instruments have been found, evidence from the oracle bones and gu wen suggest that they did exist.

Chordophones¹¹ have been sub-divided into five types, zithers, lutes, harps, lyres and musical bows. Of these there is no evidence in pre-modern China for lyres or musical bows. As for indigenous harps¹² or lutes,¹³ there is no evidence for them in China prior to their introduction there beginning in the Han dynasty. But as for zithers,¹⁴ although no physical examples have yet been found that can be dated to before the 5th c. BCE, evidence from oracle bone and gu wen graphs is sufficient to show they did exist in China at least as early as the Shang dynasty.

 
The earliest Chinese zithers

Two specific zither names are known from the earliest Zhou classics: qin and se.¹⁵ Unfortunately, the specific details of the instrument or instruments to which each term referred are not clear. This is an especially important point, since it seems likely that by the middle Zhou period there were, or had been, many more than two styles of zithers in existence.¹⁶ Most writings suggest that the se refers to instruments with movable bridges and qin refers to those without them. However, it is not clear that these two characters always had this meaning, nor is it possible to determine which style came first.¹⁷

Concerning the earliest evidence for ancient Chinese zithers, Dr. Tong Kin-Woon has written the following,¹⁸

Dr. Tong goes on to say that, since no one has yet found oracle bones with characters specifically for stringed instruments, the earliest known written evidence is examples in gu wen script, from inscriptions on ancient bronzes; these date from the early Zhou dynasty.²³ Thus, the strongest evidence for zithers during the Shang dynasty is the fact that the earliest oracle bone graphs for music (樂 yue) seem to show two pieces of twisted string (幺, probably silk) over wood (木).²⁴

 
Qinse and Qin Se ²⁵ （compare Qin-style and Se-style）

Although, as mentioned above, there were many different styles of zithers during the Zhou dynasty, the only known characters from that period describing them are qin and se, plus zheng and zhu for the late Zhou. Since the actual shapes of the qin and se of that time may have been quite different from what they later became, when discussing that period it is probably best to use the terms "qin-style" and "se-style" rather than "qin" and "se". In addition, the earliest sources generally refer to qin and se as a pair. This might suggest that the term qin se refers to these without distinction, and further that "qinse" might have been a generic term best translated simply as "zithers".

However, the way early literature very often pairs the qin and the se suggests that "qinse" was quite often used simply as a figurative expression. This might be true for any of the qin references in the Book of Songs, said to contain some of China's oldest writing. Its lyrics, which almost always refer to qin and se together, are the source of the phrase, "The qin and se resonate together". This then became a popular expression for "marital harmony".²⁶

 
The earliest physical evidence for the origins of the qin

The earliest stringed instruments so far found in China are several qin-styles and se-styles found in late Zhou dynasty tombs in southern China (see illustration above). However, these are quite different from the modern qin, examples of which date only from about the 7th century CE. In addition, descriptions of the physical details of the qin in the Rhapsody on the Qin (Qin Fu) by Xi Kang (223 - 262) suggest that its form in the 3rd century CE was already rather similar to that of qins surviving from the Tang dynasty and later, and that it had had this shape for some time already.

The descriptions of qin in still earlier writings are much less precise. Surviving instruments from the Han dynasty and earlier have somewhat different shapes (see at top). The earliest written records often depict the qin played in distinctly non-scholarly or non-contemplative settings (see, for example, the story of Zhang Ge and Fu Li). Such evidence, combined with the fact that these records generally do not mention the qin by itself, only qin se together, as though this was a generic term, leaves many questions. It thus remains uncertain what exactly the shape was of the instrument said to have been played by, for example, Confucius and his contemporaries.

Should the excavated qin-styles be considered not just predecessors of the modern qin, but its ancestors?²⁷ Most literature today suggests that the ancient qin-styles were evolving to be more and more like the modern qin: even though they are all much shorter than the modern ones and had more strings, they were becoming longer and the number of strings was decreasing.²⁸

However, this theory contradicts the most common legends,²⁹ which generally (but not always³⁰ say that the qin began with five strings then increased in number to seven. In addition, the instruments surviving from Warring States tombs are all from the south. The earth in the region of the north, where the five-string qin is said to have had its origins, was apparently harsher on wooden objects left in the ground.

So another possible theory goes as follows. During the Shang and Zhou dynasties China had a variety of zithers, most without specific names, or with names that have not survived. These can be divided into two styles: those without movable bridges were called "qin", but this meant "qin-style"; those with movable bridges were called "se", but this meant "se-style". Amongst the qin-styles was a five-string zither played in the north. The seven-string descendant of this instrument gained status through accounts in the early classics, thereby becoming the true ancestor of our qin. Meanwhile, the qin-styles that have been found in the south were perhaps evolving in the direction of this northern instrument, perhaps because of its status, but they could also have been relatively new instruments, with influences from elsewhere (see further comment). In any case, eventually these southern instruments went out of use.

 
Development of attitudes towards the qin

Once I read in an essay (unfortunately I cannot recall the title or author) that asked, Why is it that the modern physical shape of the qin has a design that produces so delicate a sound that it is almost impossible to perform it for a general audience? And why does it have an ideology that so strongly claims that it is an instrument that can only be appreciated by refined sensibilities? The author suggests that the development of the modern physical qin and its ideology both took place in the period from Han to the Tang dynasties. This was a period when foreign things were becoming quite popular in China, Buddhism in particular. So perhaps traditional Confucians and Daoists thought that by making the qin less accessible they could protect it from such "impure" influences.³¹

Such speculation is very interesting, but not really very believable. On the other hand, I have not yet found a study that does establish just how and why the Way of the Qin came about.

 
The Way of the Qin

The Rhapsody on the Qin by Xi Kang (223 - 262) marks a defining point in the development of both the physical qin and the attitudes towards it. Although the earliest surviving qins in modern form date only from the 7th century, the description by Xi Kang shows that in the third century it had already arrived at its modern form. And although there are passages in earlier writings that reveal aspects of the philosophical ideas that came to be connected to the qin, this is the first full statement of it. Clearly Xi Kang is not describing a new object or proclaiming a new philosophy. But just how old the physical qin and the Way of the Qin were at that time is a question that has no firm answers.

 
Footnotes (Shorthand references are explained on a separate page)

1. Varied meanings of the character "qin 琴"
The variety of uses of the character "qin" can cause confusion. Here are some of the issues involved.

1. In pre-Han writing is not at all clear what sort of music instrument the character qin describes. It could have been a generic name for unspecified zithers with no frets or movable bridges (here simply called "fretless"; likewise, "瑟 se" could have been a generic name for zithers with movable bridges and/or frets, here simply called "fretted"). Or "qin" could have been a specific name used in different parts of China to refer to specific local qin-style instruments. Distinguishing between these two meanings is important in discussing whether the qin-styles discovered in archaeological sites dating from the 5th to the 3rd C. BCE were actually called qin at that time, or whether we today can refer to them as qin. Were they are ancestors of the qin? Or were they simply qin-styles, the names of which we do not know today, and which lost out to an instrument from another region? Common writing today seems to assume they were ancestors of our qin. My article here discusses why I think perhaps they were competitors, not ancestors (i.e., we today might identify them as of the qin genre, but should not then assume we can connect to them any of the philosophy associated with the qin as mentioned in the Confucian classics).
2. After the Han dynasty the word "qin" in classical Chinese literature by itself almost always refers to our fretless zither with seven silk strings. However, over time many other stringed instruments came to be called qin: 胡琴 huqin for the two-string fiddle brought to China by the Hu of Central Asia, 月琴 yueqin for the plucked lute with a face like a full moon, and so forth. Eventually, perhaps in the 20th century, the term 古琴 guqin ("old qin") was coined to refer to our seven-string zither.
3. In modern times, with many foreign instruments defined as styles of qin, many people understand the word to refer to the piano (鋼琴 gangqin), an instrument much more commonly played in China today than is the guqin.
   (Return)

2. Zhou dynasty qin-styles (see also the discussion below)
Four allegedly qin-style instruments have been discovered in archaeological sites dating from the 5th to the 3rd C. BCE. Excavations dates for these four sites are reported as, respectively, 1977-81, 1980, 1993 and 1972-4. The sites are listed here in the apparent chronological order of the original burial dates. Three of the instruments are depicted above:

Note that the length of qins since the Tang dynasty is generally about 46-48" (120cm). In addition, although today these instruments are usually called qin, it is not known by what name they were called in Chu. Finally, the fingering area at the left end of the instruments appears to be solid, meaning that technically these are lutes, rather than zithers.

It should here be emphasized that the apparent reason such qin-styles survived only in the south had to do with the climate; they might also have existed elsewhere. In addition, no one has explained their uneven top surfaces, which make it very difficult to play stopped sounds.

An opening scene in the film "Hero" shows a blind man playing a replica of one of these Zhou dynasty instruments. However, the music is a composition by Tan Dun played by Liu Li on a modern guqin with metal strings. Early instruments would all have had silk strings, since metal qin strings were introduced only during China's Cultural Revolution.
(Return)

3. Legends have the qin invented variously by Fu Xi, Shennong and Huang Di (the Yellow Emperor). It was thus several centuries earlier than Shun (traditional dates 2317-2208) and his five-string qin.
(Return)

4. Book of Songs (詩經 Shi Jing)
For its references to the qin (and se) see Qinshu Daquan, Folio 16, #3.
(Return)

5. Kenneth DeWoskin, A Song for One or Two, Music and the Concept of Art in Early China, Michigan Papers in Chinese Studies, #4; Ann Arbor, Center for Chinese Studies, the University of Michigan, 1982. p.57. Romanization has been converted here from Wade-Giles.

Another early book, the Shan Hai Jing, seems to credit a deity named 晏龍 Yan Long (Mild Dragon), a son of 帝俊 Di Jun (great god "Foremost", see Birrell, p.195.)
(Return)

6. 淮南子, also Romanized "Huainanzi"; see in Liu An and Qinshu Daquan
(Return)

7. 36404.9 說文 Shuo Wen = .16 說文解字 Shuowen Jiezi, by 徐慎 Xu Shen (30 - 124; ICTCL). See in Wikipedia.
(Return)

8. Shun played a 5-stringed qin
The earliest known occurrence of this statement, "故舜彈五絃之琴，歌南風之詩，而天下治 In ancient times Shun invented the five-string qin, in order to sing 'Southern Airs'" (later also called Nan Xun Ge) is in 《禮記，樂記》 Li Ji the Book of Music (or Records of Music) in the Book of Rites. Other quotes from Li Ji are included in Qinshu Daquan, Folio 16 (Written Records). This one was often quoted later. See, for example, Qinshu Daquan, Folio 1 (quoting Fengsu Tong).
(Return)

9. Categorization of Musical Instruments
For more information on these four categories (membranophones, idiophones, aerophones and chordophones) as well as the further subdivision of chordophones into five types (zithers, lutes, harps, lyres and musical bows) see Music Instrument Categories and their Chinese translation on the glossary page.
(Return)

10. Shang dynasty musical instruments
Music instruments in Shang dynasty China are the subject of the Ph.D. dissertation by Tong Kin-Woon at Wesleyan University, 1983 (Shang Musical Instruments; see publication details). Dr. Tong's work primarily concerns oracle bones (see Wikipedia) and gu wen (again Wikipedia). In Chapter Seven (op. cit., XV-2, p.73) he points out that the three main characters now associated with sound originally seem to have depicted a different type of music: string, chime and wind. The three graphs are,

1. The original graph of the character now meaning music, 樂 yue. This early graph was once thought to show two drums mounted on a stand; Dr. Tong shows that it more likely depicted two twisted strings, with wood at the bottom.
2. The original graph of the character now meaning sound, 聲 sheng. The early graph suggests a chime (磬 qing) over an ear (耳 er).
3. The original graph of the character now meaning musical note, 音 yin. The early graph suggests a flute (made from an early form of 言 yan, now meaning "speech" but then referring to a vertical flute) over a mouth (曰 yue, here meaning the same as 口 kou).

Instruments known to have existed during the Shang dynasty include idiophones such as the 磬 qing and aerophones such as 塤 xun and "言 yan" (as just mentioned above; the Classics specifically mention the 簫 xiao，笛/篴 di and 箎 chi).
(Return)

11. Chordophones
For more information on the categories of stringed instruments, see the footnote under Qin: Lute or Zither?
(Return)

12. Harp-types （豎琴類 shuqin-lei）

Sancai Tuhui: konghou

Shuqin (37121.xxx; 9/1348), literally "vertical qin", is the modern word for harp. It was apparently derived from shukonghou, "vertical konghou".

The Feng Su Tong passage just quoted was intended to explain what seems to have been the earliest reference to a konghou, in Shi Ji, Chapter 12 (孝武 Emperor Wu; repeated in 28, 封禪書 Feng and Shan Sacrifices). Here it says, according to Watson's translation (RGH II, p. 40),

The two original versions of this are slightly different and both rather confusing due to at least one apparently missing character and no punctuation in the original:

From this it is not clear what is said to have begun from here. The first seems literally to say someone made "a 25-string (se?) and a konghou (and?) se". The second has him making "a 25-string (se?) and konghou (and?) qinse." Both then add, "(These) began from here." I don't know where Watson's "for religious ceremonies" comes from.

Unfortunately, there are no depictions of the physical shape of any type of konghou until several centuries after Emperor Wu. The Sancai Tuhui illustration, presumably if an undated reclining konghou, doesn't seem much to resemble a harp. Images called konghou that resemble vertical harps entered China during the Latter Han Dynasty; they tend to be Buddhist images, often showing harps played by 天女 heavenly maidens. Both styles of harps were apparently popular during the Tang dynasty, but disappeared shortly afterwards.

In sum, neither these literary examples nor the earliest illustrations can be used to establish when true harp-type instruments were first developed or introduced into China. As for archaeological evidence, Prof. Bo Lawergren has written about tuning keys dating from as early as the 5th C. BCE being unearthed in various places where Chinese would have been the local language. The tuning keys are similar to those used on West Asian harps (compare steppe-harps such as the one depicted below). However, I have not yet found references to any actual harps from that time being found in these regions, and Prof. Lawergren suggests the keys were actually used to turn tuning pegs such as those that have been found with local qin-style instruments (as at top).
(Return)

13. Lute-types
It is generally agreed that lutes arrived in China later than harps. The basic definition of a lute is that it has a fingerboard separate from the sound box. To this it might be added that zithers, Chinese ones in particular, tend to be made from rather thick wood. Lutes, on the other hand, usually have very thin wood: fingerboards are necessary because pressing directly onto the wood of the sound box would damage the wood as well as dampen the sound.

Many types of lutes arrived in China from around the end of the Han dynasty. This corresponds with the general introduction of Buddhism in China. Perhaps the assocation of lutes with Buddhism was one factor leading Daoists and Confucians to put such emphasis on the qin.
(Return)

14. Zithers 箏類樂器
A technical term describing one category of chordophones (compare "lute"). Each of the two Chinese names for these zithers, qin and se, may have actually described a variety of instruments rather than being names of specific ones. This is discussed further below.
(Return)

15. Qin and Se (琴與瑟) or Qin-styles and Se-styles (琴式與瑟式)

In Shang Musical Instruments, Chapter Seven (see above, p.68ff.), Dr. Tong describes how the oracle bone graph for music, yue, actually depicts a stringed instrument. He then goes on to give further examples suggesting the existence of stringed instruments at that time. However, the first known use of specific names for stringed instruments does not come until the Book of Songs, which mentions the qin and se numerous times, almost always as a pair (see qinse). Other zithers are not mentioned until Sima Qian's Annals of History (2nd C. BCE), which mentions a zheng and a zhu.

Since the characters "qin" and "se" may have actually described a variety of instruments rather than being names of specific ones, and yet they are not technical terms, they are in these cases here (somewhat arbitrarily) called "qin-styles" and "se-styles" rather than "qin-styles" and "se-types". Furthermore, as will be discussed further below, it is not at all clear that the so-called qin-style instruments found in early tombs were in fact zithers. The left end was solid, giving the appearance of a fingerboard; this would make them generically lutes. However, it is also not clear that the left end was actually used, with the result that Prof. Lawergren (see below) suggests they are modified harps.
(Return)

16. How many styles of zithers were there in ancient China?
Several factors suggest that ancient China had many more zithers than can accurately be described by two characters. The reasons include:

1. The varying descriptions of zithers, whether called qin or se
2. Stories such as that of Zhang Ge and Fu Li suggesting at one time it was quite different in sound and use.
3. The shape of the qin-style and se-style instruments unearthed in late Zhou tombs.

The possibility of there having been a variety of zithers in different parts of China, as well as over time, is an important factor to consider in determining the origin of the modern qin. For further on this see below.
(Return)

17. Which came first, the qin or the se?
See Van Gulik, Lore, Chapter 1, for a further discussion of this. On p. 14 Van Gulik suggests that the characters qin and se both evolved from a single prototype related to the top part, which is the same for both characters (see image below). Further, one can speculate that the original instrument was simply a box with a string or strings across it. Making from this a playable instrument without bridges (or frets) would require good skills in designing and making the top very smooth. Making such an instrument by adding bridges might have been easier. Based on this small amount of information, however, it is not possible to say which style of instrument came first.
(Return)

18. Tong Kin-Woon, op. cit, XV-2, p.68.
(Return)

19. Dr. Tong uses "zither" here as a generic term; by "fretless" he probably means it has no movable bridges.
(Return)

20. Se 瑟

Image: a Warring States period se from Mawangdui

Dr. Tong, op. cit., p. 80, says that the earliest surviving mention of the se, as with the qin, is their mention together in the Shi Jing. Some sources say the se originally had 50 strings, but that the Yellow Emperor (other sources say Fu Xi) reduced this to 25. Dr. Tong adds that more than 30 se from the late Zhou dynasty have been unearthed; none had more than 25 strings. For more on its origins see a footnote below.
(Return)

21. Zheng 箏 (also called 古箏 guzheng)

Image: a Warring States period zheng from near Suzhou: is this the bottom side?

The zheng is considered to be a small form of the se. Its earliest mention can be found in the Shi Ji, Chapter 87, Biography of Li Si (?280 - 208; 史記，李斯列傳, 2543). The translation from GSR, VII, p.339, followed by the original, is as follow:

However, the paragraph goes on to say that now people of Qin have abandoned their own instruments, such as the zheng, in favor of instruments from other states. Since Qin was centered in the area around modern Xi'an, and zheng-style instruments have been unearthed from at least two centuries earlier and far to the east, in 吳縣長橋 Changqiao, Wu county (area around Suzhou, but as yet I have been unable to find out exactly where), it is difficult to know what to make of this. Note also that the popular story saying that the zheng was made by splitting a se in half must date from much later than this.
(Return)

22. Zhu 筑 (see also in Wikipedia)

Image: a Warring States period zhu from Leigudun (see strings: restored?)

The zhu, sometimes said to have been fretted but not so in the image at right, was played with a bamboo stick. It is mentioned in the Shi Ji biography of Han Gaozu. Dr. Tong, op. cit., p. 81, writes that the earliest known mention of the zhu is in "the Zhou text Zhan Guo Ce (section 'Qi Ce' 戰國策，齊策). Thus the zhu was first popular not later than the 4th century B.C. Its exact number of strings is not clear. Although some zhu were made in later generations, the Zhou style zhu became extinct soon after the Zhou period."
(Return)

23. Dr. Tong, op. cit., p. 76, points out that only a small percentage of the total number of the estimated number of oracle bones have been uncovered; he thinks quite likely an example showing specifically a stringed instrument will one day be found.
(Return)

24. Tracing the source of the characters for qin and se

Top: Dr. Tong; Bottom: gu wen

Dr. Tong, op. cit, p. 81, speculates that the characters 琴 qin and 瑟 se have a common origin, as indicated by the similar figures at the top (which in modern terms look like two pieces of 玉 jade). He theorizes that "the upper part of (both) words perhaps shows the cross-section of a zither looking from the end" (see at right). Regarding Zhou dynasty characters, Van Gulik in his discussion the origin of the character 琴 for qin, Lore, pp. 10 - 16 (see also above), gives some examples such as the two gu wen figures below Dr. Tong's example at right. The bottom element is a phonetic; the top parts show that the two 王 at top "have nothing to do with jade".

Dr. Tong, op. cit, p. 80, relates that, although some stories say the se originally had 50 strings, "The Lüshi Chunqiu gives a different and more reasonable story concerning the evolution of the se, though it may not be historically accurate either. It says that originally the se had five strings, and the father of the legendary pre-Xia emperor Shun (舜) changed it to 15 strings. Emperor Shun in turn ordered his subjects to make it a zither with 23 strings (Lüshi Chunqiu, Juan 5, ch. "Ancient Music")." The story is translated in Knoblock and Riegel, p. 149.
(Return)

25. 琴瑟 Qin se
21570.72 琴瑟 quotes from the following sources (the links go to more complete quotations):

• 詩，周南，關雎   Shi, Zhou Nan, Guan Ju
• 書，益稯   Shu, Yi Ji
• 周禮，春官，大司樂   Zhou Li, Chun Guan, Da Si Yue
• 禮記，曲禮上   Li Ji, Qulishang
• 左氏，昭，元   Zuo Shi, Zhao, Yuan (i.e., Zuo Zhuan, Duke Zhao, 1st year)
• 荀子，非相 Xunzi, Fei Xiang, 5.13
• 淮南子，俶真訓   Huainanzi, Chu Zhen Xun, 2
• 庾信，擬連珠   Yu Xin, Ni Lian Zhu, "忠信為琴瑟，仁義為庖廚"
  "Loyalty and honesty for qin se; benevolence and righteousness for the kitchen".
  (Return)

26. Qin and se resonate together (琴瑟和鳴 Qin se he ming)
An example is the calligraphy (done for a wedding invitation) at the top of the Guqin Table of Contents.
(Return)

27. Are the Zhou dynasty qin-styles actually "qin"?
Prof. Bo Lawergren has written several articles discussing connections between both the modern qin and the excavated "qin-style" ("zither-type") instruments, and between these qin-styles and what in earlier publications he identified as "steppe harps". Although for convenience I use the terms "qin-styles" and "zither-types", as will be seen from my discussion, I am not sure either expression is accurate. Prof. Lawergren, on the other hand, refers to the excavated qin-styles as "ancient qin zithers". This is in line with his apparent belief that these unearthed qin-styles are predecessors of the modern qin. He also argues that they can be shown to have foreign influence, or even a foreign origin. His writings on this include,

1. Bo Lawergren, Strings, in Music in the Age of Confucius, pp. 65 - 85. Washington, D.C., Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, 2000.
2. Bo Lawergren, Western Influences on the Early Chinese Qin-Zither, in Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 75, pp. 79 - 109. Stockholm, 2003.
3. Bo Lawergren, The Iconography and Decoration of the Ancient Chinese Qin-Zither (500 BCE to 500 CE), in Music in Art XXXI/1-2, pp. 47 - 62. New York, The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, Spring-Fall 2007.

One intriguing aspect of his argument points to the structure of the Zhou dynasty qin-styles, as seen in the illustration at top (especially the upper instrument, shown again in the illustration with the paragraph below). He says the narrow left-hand end of the pre-Han qin-styles evokes not so much a zither-type instrument as some known harps from Central Asia. Archaeological sites in regions west of China have yielded stringed instruments (most or all apparently had strings made of sinew) belonging to three of the four main types: a variety of lutes, lyres and harps, but no zithers. China, on the other hand, apparently had a variety of zithers (all apparently had silk strings) but none of the other types of chordophones. Prof. Lawergren then argues that these pre-Han qin-styles might form an intermediary instrument between Central Asian harps and our modern qin.

The solid area at the left end of the ancient qin-style instruments described above seems at first glance to make them organologically lutes, not harps or zithers. This should mean that this solid area was used as a fingerboard, but its uneven surface suggests that this was not the case. This is another reason Prof. Lawergren believes these early qin-styles may have developed from harps, several examples of which have been found in the steppe regions of Central Asia. The illustration at right, showing a qin-style from Leigudun (shown and described above with other qin-styles) over a steppe harp dating to 400-200 BCE from 扎滾魯克 Zaghunluq in Xinjiang, shows the relationship. Close comparisons show the possible connection between this harp and the surviving ancient qin-styles. In addition, some West Asian harps were tuned using tuning-keys (軫鑰 zhenyao), and it seems likely that some of the excavated qin-styles were also tuned in this way. (The tuning keys were used to turn the tuning pegs; modern qin do not require any tuning keys.) Thus, Prof. Lawergren is able to build on his argument by citing instances of tuning keys found in various parts of China, especially the north, as well as in Central Asia. He considers this evidence that the excavated qin-styles were also used in the north, the region from which our modern qin is said to have originated.

However, this same information leads me to an understanding of the excavated qin-styles that is quite different from that of Prof. Lawergren. Since at that time China is not known to have had indigenous harps or lutes, but did have zithers, it may be these early qin-styles more likely resulted either from someone taking a local zither and imitating the structure of a steppe harp (in this regard see the earliest story of the konghou, above), or taking a steppe harp and making it look more like a local zither. Either of these could have resulted in an instrument having what looks like a lute-type fingerboard, but which actually allowed only harp-type plucking, the top surface being so uneven. Perhaps, then, the fact that these particular qin-styles did not continue in use is due to the failed attempt to adapt an original Chinese instrument to a foreign one, or to adapt a foreign instrument to an existing indigenous Chinese one.

In addition, although tuning keys have been found in various parts of Han-speaking China, it is not at all clear for what instruments they were intended. Were some brought from Central Asia because someone liked their appearance? If they were on music instruments, what is to say it was a zither rather than a harp? If on a zither, could it have been a local one modified to have properties of a steppe harp (see again the konghou story)? If on a harp, could it have been a steppe harp modified to have properties of a local music instrument? To establish a further connection between the qin-styles and the modern qin Prof. Lawergren compares a perceived circle and square in the shape of the qin-styles with the round and square sound pegs of our qin; this seems very unlikely.

With only four examples of these excavated qin-styles, all from the same region and none having known names, it is difficult to speak definitively about their connections with the Central Asian harp or with the modern qin. Presumably, though, one can conclude that similarities between the harp and the qin-styles, if not coincidental, resulted either from taking a harp and making it flatter, or from taking an existing local Chinese instrument and modifying it to be more like a harp.

In his argument that the excavated qin-styles are ancestors of the modern qin, Prof. Lawergren does not discuss the possibility of an indigenous Chinese qin-style or se-style being modified under influence from a steppe harp. His argument thus apparently is based on the scenario in which a flattened version of the steppe harp continued to evolve until it became our qin. Since no earlier qin-styles have yet been found, nor has anyone argued that the excavated se-styles are ancestors of the excavated qin-styles, this circumstance cannot be ruled out.

On the other hand, while we know that the people of Chu had the character "se", the character "qin" has not been found in pre-Han Chu writings or archaeological objects. The later variety within the zither family suggests there could well have been more types of local zithers than the limited types that have been found in the small region of southern Hubei and northern Hunan. Within this context, several factors favor the scenario in which the excavated qin-styles resulted from the modification of an already existing local qin-style, one which archaeologists have not yet been able to find. One such factor is the antiquity of the character "qin" and the long tradition that it is different from the se; this difference is generally considered to be its lack of frets or movable bridges. Another factor is the tradition that says the qin originally had five strings, eventually expanding to seven: in contrast, the number of strings on the unearthed qin-styles was decreasing.

If the Chinese tradition is correct, there was an ancient local zither that evolved into our qin. Given this, it is not difficult to imagine people in Chu or elsewhere, having heard and enjoyed the sound of a harp, deciding to modify their local zither to be more like that harp. Qins are not mentioned in early southern literature, such as the Songs of Chu. If the people there respected the qin because of its philophical connotation, but did not like its sound, perhaps they might have modified it, hoping it would sound like a harp. Again, though, it must be emphasized that, given the amount of hard evidence currently available, all of this is very speculative.
(Return)

28. As can be seen from the footnote to the picture at top, the length of the longest pre-Han qin is still about 25% shorter than the shortest surviving qins in modern form (the form they have had at least since the 7th c. CE).

Chinese tradition says the length of the qin should be 三尺六寸六分 3 chi, 6 cun, 6 fen, i.e., 3.66 chi, representing the 366 (or so) days of the year. Most qin are between 120 - 125 cm (47 - 49"). For 120.8 cm to equal 3.66 chi requires a chi 33 cm in length to have a length of about 33 cm (about 13"). Modern chi approach that length but historical records generally generally suggest the earlier the date the shorter the chi, starting with 16.95 cm during the Shang dynasty (see online chart). This, of course, might be considered as evidence that the qin was originally much shorter than it is at present.
(Return)

29. Legendary origin of the qin: standard version
The most common early references have Shun playing a five string qin. The story that Wen Wang and Wu Wang each added one string, making our seven string qin, seems to appear later. Thus 禮記，樂記 the Records of Music in the Book of Rites mentions only the five string qin of Shun, with a 疏 commentary (undated (?)) adding that it did not have the two strings named after Wen Wang and Wu Wang.
(Return)

30. Legendary origin of the qin: variations from the standard version
A Song dynasty account called Six Classes of Qin mentions a 27-string qin as well as ones with 5, 7, 9 and 13 strings. The legend of a 27-string "big qin" called a "離 li" apparently comes from 釋樂 Shi Yue, 3, a chapter of 爾雅 Er Ya (see also Fu Xi).
(Return)

31. I am still trying to find this quote. Related to this, see the comment above about the arrival in China of lutes.
(Return)

 
Return to the top or to the Guqin ToC