In this article, Yan State’s dagger-axes are divided into “yen-wang-ge”（燕王戈）and “non yen-wang-ge”.（非燕王戈）The former refers to daggers made under the order of the kings or the feudal princes; the latter includes those not made under the order of the kings or the feudal princes. This classification is meant to distinguish the one from the other through their distinction in implement and inscriptions.
Among the sixty-nine pieces of “yan-wang-ge” of the Warring States Period recorded in books, this paper investigates twenty-seven pieces of archaeological excavations in terms of their shape, pattern, bearings, style, and the calligraphy of their inscription. By applying the shared features found in these archaeological excavations as a criterion of discriminating between the real and the fake, I find some later “yan-wang-ge” of the Warring States Period to be counterfeits, including five pieces of “yan-wang-ge”—Chi-Cheng（《集成》）11058, 11109, 11196, 11226, Hsiao-Chiao（《小校》）10.38.2, and one “kung-yin-ge”（攻尹戈）in Chou-chin（《周金》）6.147.1. Moreover, many scholars regard the inscription on Chi-Cheng 11220 as a forgery done during a later period. My study reviews this debate in the hope of clarifying some of the issues.
“Self-naming” is characteristic of Yan State’s dagger-axes. There are at least five kinds Yan State’s dagger-axes—including: ge（戈）, ju（鋸）, guei（）, fou（）, and guei-fou（）—commonly recognized being named after themselves. In addition, the names ji（戟）and xie（械）are still to be proved. After examining the diverse arguments about a weapon’s name, I propose that a weapon’s name is closely related to its shape, i.e., different names basically suggest different shapes. I further sum up the joint features of shapes found in Yan State’s dagger-axes.
Warring States Period, Yan State, paleography, weapons, differentiation of fakes
Citations are generated automatically from bibliographic data as a convenience, and may not be complete or accurate.
