1. I reproduce these translations, with minor adjustments, from Keightley, David N., The Ancestral Landscape: Time, Space, and Community in Late Shang China (ca. 1200–1045 B.C.), China Research Monograph (Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, 2000) 53 .

2. The P numbers refer to the predynastic ancestors; the K numbers refer to the actual kings.

3. See, e.g. the list of oracle-bone inscriptions at Xiaosui, Yao 姚孝遂 and Ding, Xiao 肖丁, eds., Yinxu jiagu keci moshi zongji 殷墟甲骨刻辭摹釋總集, 2 vols. (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1988). Heji here and in the following citations refers to Moruo, Guo 郭沫若 and Houxuan, Hu 胡厚宣, eds., Jiaguwen heji 甲骨文合集 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1978–1982); “V” refers to Period Five of oracle bone inscriptions. Huang 黄 refersto the diviner group of that name.

4. For this understanding of the gou-ritual, see Yujin, Zhang 張玉金, “Jisi buci ‘gou’ ziju de jufa fenzi” 祭祀卜辭 ‘遘’ 字句的句法分析, Liaoning Shifan daxue xuebao 遼寧師範大學學報 1995.4:32–35 .

5. Shima's reconstruction of the Late Shang ritual calendar reveals that jia-day rituals were only offered to Jia-named ancestors on the first day of weeks 2, 4, 5, 7–9, and 11; that yi-day rituals were offered to Yi-named ancestors on the second day of weeks 3, 10, and 12; and that the first ritual in week 6, to a Ding-name ancestor, did not take place till the fourth day, the ding-day. See Kunio, Shima 島邦男, Inkyo bokuji sōrui 殷墟卜辭綜類, 2d rev. ed. (Tokyo: Kyūko, 1971), 556 .

6. See the inscriptions at Xiaosui, Yao 姚孝遂 and Ding, Xiao 肖丁, eds., Yinxu jiagu keci leizuan 殷墟甲骨刻辭類纂, 3 vols. (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1989), 1118.2; and the relevant entries at Michio, Matsumaru 松凡道雄 and Kenichi, Takashima 高嶋謙一, Kōkotsumoji Jishaku Sōran 甲骨文字字釋綜覽 (Tokyo: Tōkyō daigaku Tōyō bunka kenkyujō, [1993, not for sale] 1994), 0580 .

7. Keightley, , The Ancestral Landscape, 48 .

8. See, e.g., Zuobin, Dong 董作賓, Yinli pu 殷曆譜 (Lizhuang, Sichuan: Guoli Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo zhuankan, 1945), II:2:2a–b; Yuzhi, Chang 常玉芝, Shangdai zhouji zhidu 商代周祭制度 ([Beijing]: Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan, 1987), 140 .

9. The graph that I, like other scholars, have transcribed as you 幼, is generally thought to have recorded both a personal name and a Shang ritual ( Matsumaru, and Takashima, , Kōkotsumoji Jishaku Sōran, 0531). Zuobin, Dong (Yinli pu, II:2:2b) suggested that, in Period V, the yi 翌 ritual became the you (though he did not provide a modern graph equivalent). This is refuted by [4A], in which both the you and the yi appear, but as Yuzhi, Chang (Shangdai zhouji zhidu, 141–42) has noted, the you only appeared in association with the yi-ritual and took place in the week prior to the performance of the yi (as in [4AB], [5AB]) or in the same week (and on the same day?) as the yi-day ritual (as in [12]).

10. Yuzhi, Chang (Shangdai zhouji zhidu, 141) discusses this inscription, as Yizhu 244.

11. See too [12] and the examples at Xiaosui, Yao and Ding, Xiao, Yinxu jiagu keci leizuan, 1118.2 . Ten of the 11 cases recorded there contain the qi. The only exception is Heji 38307, which is fragmentary, broken at precisely the point where the qi would have appeared.

12. I read the oracle-bone phrase 武□ — normally transcribed as in Yao Xiaosui and Xiao Ding, Yinxu jiagu keci moshi zongji, as 武丁丁, or as 武丁祊 (as at the transcription Hsu Chin-hsiung provided when publishing this rubbing as Menzies 2896 ( The Menzies Collection of Shang Dynasty Oracle Bones, 2 vols. [Toronto; Hong Kong: The Royal Ontario Museum; The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1972, 1977]); beng is taken has been taken as the name of a ritual)—as 武丁日, with the second □ being an abbeviated form of ⊟, the graph for ri, “day”; see Keightley, David N., “Graphs, Words, and Meanings: Three Reference Works for Shang Oracle-Bone Studies, With an Excursus on the Religious Role of the Day or Sun,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 117 (1997), 517–24.

13. Thus, I find twenty Period V charges about hunting at Sang 喪 with no qi, only two with qi; nine Period V charges about hunting at Yu 盂, none with qi ( Xiaosui, Yao and Ding, Xiao, Yinxu jiagu keci leizuan, 519.1–2; 1029.1–1).

14. Five other charges on this scapula about hunting at other locations were all of similar form, lacking the qi.

15. See, e.g., the three period V charges on Heji 37793: 貞:王其田亡災 “If the king hunts, there will be no disasters.” See too Heji 34445, 37570, 37573, 37604, 37777, 37778, 37787, 37800, 37802, etc.

16. Michio, Matsumaru 松丸道雄, “Inkyo bokujichū no denryōchi ni tsuite—Indai kokka kōzō kenkyū no tame ni” 殷墟卜辭中の田獵にづいて–––殷代国家の構造, Tōyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 東洋文化研究所紀要 31 (1963):1–163 . But see also Xueqin, Li 李學勤 and Yushang, Peng 彭裕商, Yinxu jiagu fenqi yanjiu 殷墟甲骨分期研究 (Shanghai: Guji, 1996), 385 .

17. As in Heji 94: 王 曰:好其有子, “His Majesty read the cracks and said: ‘(Lady) Hao will (we expect) have a son.’” See too, e.g., Heji 113, 136fb, 150, 151, 273, 367b.

18. My study of the Zhouyuan oracle-bone inscriptions leads to the same conclusion: qi indicated modality (as in H11:1, 11, 69, 82, 189); it did not play a genitive or possessive role.

19. Yuzhi, Chang, Shangdai zhouji zhidu, 185 , discusses this inscription.

20. Yiping, Yan 嚴一萍, Jianshoutang suo cang Yinxu wenzi kaoshi 戩壽堂所藏殷墟文字考釋 (Taibei: Yiwen, 1980), 164–66, in commenting on Jianshou 25.1 = Heji 8967, argues for oracle-bone huan 萑 as guan 觀. Following an insight of Dong Zuobin (Yinli pu,: II:2:2b), Yan noted that the ritual calendar recorded on [15] was irregular. Dong had noted that the gong dian ritual usually took place on the jia-day; that it had taken place in this instance on the yi-day was irregular. Yan cited the Guliang zhuan 穀梁傳, Yin 5: 常視曰視, 非常曰觀, “Regular observing is called shi, irregular is called guan” (cf. Malmqvist, Göran, “Studies on the Gongyang and Guuliang Commentaries I,” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 43 (1971): 79 [changing all romanizations to pinyin]: “The term shi (‘to regard’) is used of regular events; the term guan (‘to look at'’) is used of irregular events.”) It was the ‘irregularity’ of the Heji 38310 schedule in [15], Yan claimed, that had led the Shang to employ the guan ritual in this and other cases. I am not, however, on the basis of this single instance, prepared to believe that the Shang only employed the guan when the situation was irregular. [15] provides the only instance of a qi guan 其觀 in a postface and the only postface instance of the qi preceding any ritual verb in which the day was “irregular.” All the other cases in which qi was present involved, entirely regularly, a jia 甲 day; e.g., [4AB], [5AB], [12], [13], [14AB], [16], and [17]. Furthermore, I resist the idea that the yi-day was irregular in any way; see n. 5 above.

21. I supply the yue ⊟ on the basis of n. 23 below.

22. Hebu 12927: Heji 35400 + 37898 + 38307 + 38732. Hebu refers to Bangjiong, Peng 彭邦炯, Ji, Xie 謝濟, and Jifan, Ma 馬季凡, Jiaguwen Heji: Bubian 甲骨文合集補編, 7 vols. (Beijing: Yuwen, 1999).

23. I follow the argument of Xigui, Qi 裘錫圭, “Guanyu Yinxu buci zhong de suowei ‘nian si’ he ‘nian si’” 關於殷墟卜辭中的所謂 ‘廿祀’和 ‘廿司,’ Wenwu 文物 1999.12:40–96 , in taking the oracle-bone graph that has traditionally been read as nian 廿, “twenty,” as yue ⊟, “say, declare.” I supply the wei 隹, “it was when,” on the basis of Heji 37865 and 37868; see too [16].