1. To my knowledge, there have been at least four reviews of Landscape and Power in Western languages of varying lengths: Shelach, Gideon (Journal of Asian Studies 67.1 [2008], 281–84), Sanft, Charles (Journal of Asian History 43.1 [2009], 84–85), Venture, Olivier (Étudies chinoises 27 [2008], 241–50), Nelson, Sarah (Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18 [2008], 126–27); two in Chinese: Feng, Xu 徐峰 (Kaogu 考古 2010.1, 90–96), Xudong, Tian 田旭東 (Zhongguo shi yanjiu dongtai 中國史研究動態 2008.12, 27–30).

2. The inscription on the early seventh century B.C.E. bronze bells cast by Duke Wu of Qin proclaims that Qin had separately received the Mandate from Heaven. Nevertheless, it is true that no Qin ruler was ever called “Son of Heaven.”

3. An exemplary recent study of Western Zhou religion is Kern, Martin, “Bronze Inscriptions, the Shijing and the Shangshu: The Evolution of the Ancestral Sacrifice During the Western Zhou,” in Early Chinese Religion, 2 vols., ed. Lagerwey, J. and Kalinowski, M. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2008), 143–200.

4. On this point, see Shaughnessy, Edward L., “Review: Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius (1000–250 BC): The Archaeological Evidence, by Lothar von Falkenhausen,” Journal of Asian Studies 66.4 (2007), 1130–31. In addition to the reasons Shaughnessy pointed out, the main obstacle to Falkenhausen's dating, in my view, is the fact that the Xing xu 盨 (Yin Zhou jinwen jicheng 殷周今文集成 [hereafter Jicheng], no. 4462) vessel is hooked up through multiple links in its inscription with a group of bronzes that also include the Shi Yu gui 師艅簋 (Jicheng, no. 4277), Shi Chen ding 師晨鼎 (Jicheng, no. 2817), and the Jian gui 諫簋 (Jicheng, no. 4285) that are all commonly dated to the reigns of King Yih and King Xiao. There is no way for the Xing xu to be dated to the reign of King Li disregarding the dates of all other bronzes linked to it. See Feng, Li, “‘Offices' in Bronze Inscriptions and Western Zhou Government Administration,” Early China 27 (20003), 16–20.

5. See Nelson's, Sarah short review of Landscape and Power in Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18 (2008), 126–27.

6. See Falkenhausen, Lothar von, Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius (1000–250 BC): The Archaeological Evidence (Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, 2006), 224–28, 240–41.

7. Ferguson, R. Brian and Whitehead, N. L., War in the Tribal Zone: Expanding States and Indigenous Warfare (Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, 2000 (2nd ed.), xii.

8. See, for instance, Lattimore, Owen, Inner Asian Frontiers of China (New York: American Geographical Society, 1940), 55–58, 238–42; Cosmo, Nicola Di, Ancient China and Its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Powers in East Asian History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 2; Whittaker, C. R., Frontiers of the Roman Empire: A Social and Economic Study (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), 71–73, 84, 222–37.

9. Pratt, Mary Louise, Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation (London: Routledge, 1992), 6–7.

10. See Shaughnessy, Edward L., Sources of Western Zhou History: Inscribed Bronze Vessel (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 106–55.

11. See Lan, Tang 唐蘭, “Xi-Zhou jinwen duandai zhong de Kang Gong wenti” 西 周金文斷代中的康宮問題, Kaogu xuebao 1962.1, 15–48.

12. See Shaughnessy, , Sources of Western Zhou History, 116–20.

13. Peiyu, Zhang 張培瑜, Zhongguo xian Qin shi li biao 中國先秦史曆表 (Jinan: Qi Lu shushe 齊魯書社, 1987).

14. Xia Shang Zhou duandai gongcheng zhuanjia zu 夏商周斷代工程專家組, Xia Shang Zhou duandai gongcheng: 1996–2000 nian jieduan chengguo baogao 夏商周斷代工 程: 1996–2000 年階段成果報告 (Beijing: Shijie tushu 世界圖書, 2000), 88.

15. See Hsu, Cho-yun and Linduff, Katheryn, Western Chou Civilization (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), 390, where Cheng Mengjia 陳夢家 and Shirakawa Shizuka's 白川靜 systems are listed for comparison. In the Chinese version of the book, Hsu actually tabulated more than fifteen such systems of dating royal reigns; see Zhuoyun, Xu 許倬雲, Xi Zhou shi 西周史 (Beijing: Sanlian shusdian 三聯書店, 2001), 3.

16. For instance, by the early work of Moruo, Guo 郭沫若, Liang-Zhou jinwen ci daxi tulu kaoshi 兩周金文辭大係圖錄考釋, 8 vols. (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 1958; first edition, Tokyo: Bunkyūdō, 1935), which is the foundation for much later refinement.

17. See Hayashi, Minao 林巳奈夫, In Shū jidai seidōki no kenkyū 殷周時代青銅器の 研究, 2 vols. (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1984).

18. On this issue, see the insightful discussion by Rawson, Jessica in her recent studies which open a new dimension to the study of bronzes: “Novelties and Antiquarian Revival: The Case of the Chinese Bronzes,” Gugong xueshu jikan 故宮學術集刊 22.1 (2004), 1–34, in which she identifies certain pieces from tomb no. 93 in Beizhao 北趙 and tomb 2006 in Sanmenxia 三門峽 as works of “recreation” produced during the late Western Zhou based on early Western Zhou styles; “Reviving Ancient Ornament and the Presence of the Past: Examples from Shang and Western Zhou Vessels,” in Reinventing the Past: Archaism and Antiquarianism in Chinese Art and Visual Culture, ed. Hung, Wu (Chicago: The Center for the Art of East Asia, University of Chicago, 2010), 47–76, in which she further discusses cases among late Shang bronzes from Anyang that were based on the earlier Erligang styles of ornament. In another paper she presented in the Institute of Archaeology, CASS (Beijing), in 2010, Rawson again identifies such bronzes among the new finds from Liangdaicun 梁帶村, Hancheng.

19. See Feng, Li 李峰, “Huanghe liuyu Xi-Zhou muzang chutu qingtong liqi de fenqi yu niandai” 黃河流域西周墓葬出土青銅禮器的分期與年代, Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1988.4, 383–419; “Guo guo mudi tongqi qun de fenqi jiqi xiangguan wenti” 虢國墓地 銅器群的分期及其相關問題, Kaogu 考古 1988.11, 1035–43.

20. On the interpretation of the inscriptions in Landscape and Power, Khayutina and Chen Zhi raised a number of interesting points. For instance, Khayutina questions the identity of Huangfu 皇父 and suggests that Han Huangfu 函皇父 might have been the head of the Han 函 lineage residing far from Zhouyuan where the bronzes cast by him were found. This is certainly not impossibile, but I think that we still need to look at the issue in the larger context. Although “Huangfu” (August Father) was not a personal name, its use in the entire corpse of Western Zhou inscriptions is indeed very limited. But more importantly, I think the group of bronzes cast by Han Huangfu were not dowry vessels; instead, they are most likely cast by Huangfu for the lady Zhou Yun 琱 who married into the Han lineage. In other words, the Han lineage had a base in Zhouyuan where the bronzes were found, and the high number of bronzes included in the original set (11 ding, 8 gui, 2 lei, and 2 hu), reported in the inscription on the pan, suggests that Huangfu's social status was indeed very high. Therefore, there is still an undeniable ground to identify Han Huangfu with the prestigious Huangfu at the late Western Zhou court, as argued for by most previous scholars. Similarly, Chen Zhi raised the issue about Duke Wu and his relation to the Duoyou ding 多友鼎 (Jicheng, no. 2835). Again this has to be viewed in the larger context that I have clarified in note 113 on pages 131–32 that suggests that the Duoyou ding would be properly dated to the time of King Li, not King Xuan. As the content of the Duoyou ding is closely related to the Yu ding 禹鼎 (Jicheng, no. 2834), Wu gui 簋 (Jicheng, no. 4323), and the Shu Xiangfu Yu gui 叔向父禹簋 (Jicheng, no. 4242), they would be best considered as a groups with reference to the general social-political problems of the reign of King Li. As such, they do suggest that Duke Wu indeed had extraordinary power.