Pathway to Japanese Literature

(1): Writing Materials of the Pre-Qin Era (2): The Invention of Paper

(3): Dissemination of Paper in Islamic Countries (Upper) (4): Dissemination of Paper in Islamic Countries (Lower)

(5): Archduke Rainer of Austria’s Ancient Paper Collection (6): Ancient Documents at West Honganji Temple

1.

The invention of paper made a great contribution to world culture.
Even if printing—a technology of great significance to the development of human intellect and the advancement of culture—had been invented, had the invention of paper not accompanied it, most of its utility would have been lost.
The demand for paper continues to increase year by year.
The cultural level of a country can be somewhat inferred by its paper consumption.
There are scholars who refer to the present age as the "age of paper," but it is not entirely an inappropriate *Beiname*.
The fact that papermaking—so deeply intertwined with human culture—was first invented in China, then transmitted to Islamic countries where it was improved, and finally entered Europe where it greatly developed has by now left almost no room for doubt.
This is not particularly new information, but by supplementing the theories of previous scholars here, I shall humbly present an overview of paper’s history and thus endeavor to fulfill my obligation in contributing to *Geibun*.

In ancient China, bamboo and wood were used as writing materials.
What was made from bamboo were slips.
The length of slips was not strictly fixed; classics and similar texts generally used slips ranging from approximately two shaku four sun (about 72 cm) down to eight sun (about 24 cm).
On these slips, they generally wrote from eight to around thirty characters per line (1).
Those made from wood were called boards or tablets.
They were generally about three shaku (approximately 90 cm) in size and, due to their square shape, were also called square tablets.
On these tablets, they wrote from thirty to around one hundred characters.
When exceeding a hundred characters, they would bind together numerous bamboo slips—as previously mentioned—using leather thongs to serve the purpose.
This was called bound bamboo slips.
The character 策 (bound slips) is identical to 册; in Xu Shen’s Shuowen Jiezi, it is correctly written as ※ (the seal script form of “册” [fig42345_01.png]).
This character imitates the form of bamboo slips bound together with leather thongs, making it what is called a pictographic character.
In Kong Yingda of the Tang’s Zuo Zhuan Zhengyi,

A bamboo slip could only contain a single line of characters.
Wooden tablets are square boards.
Wooden tablets are broader than bamboo slips.
They could accommodate several lines side by side.
In general practice of writing,
There are those with many [characters] and those with few.
Those that can be completed in a few lines.
They write it on square tablets.
That which the square tablets could not accommodate.
then wrote them on bound bamboo slips (2).

This was precisely what had been described.
In the Pre-Qin era, matters requiring few characters were written on bamboo slips, legal provisions on wooden tablets, while books were generally recorded on bound bamboo slips.
The modern practice of enumerating books as "one volume, two volumes" preserves this legacy.
From the Warring States period onward, silk too began seeing occasional use as a writing material, though works inscribed on silk continued to be counted by volume.

Regardless of medium, books during the Pre-Qin era—predominantly recorded on bound bamboo slips—proved immensely cumbersome due to their sheer weight and bulk, while their exorbitant cost rendered personal ownership nearly impossible even for silk editions.
As Ruan Yuan of the Qing dynasty observed:

"The ancients' bamboo slips and wooden tablets were cumbersome," he states. "Many things were transmitted orally; few were transmitted visually (3)." In the Book of Documents, Rites of Zhou, and other ancient texts, there frequently appeared enumerations of numerical categories: Three Virtues, Three Friends, Three Pleasures; Four Teachings, Four Pillars, Four Conveyances; Five Blessings, Five Phases, Five Instructions; Six Maxims and Six Faults, Six Ministries; Seven Regulations, Seven Sacrifices; Eight Barbarian Tribes, Eight Worthies and Eight Sages; Nine Reflections, Nine Categories—all these served as mnemonic devices to aid memorization. That Cai Wenji of the late Eastern Han period had committed to memory over four hundred works from the writings of her deceased father Cai Yong stood as evidence that vestiges of this ancient oral tradition still persisted in her time.

2.

In the first year of Yuanxing (105 CE) under Emperor He of the Eastern Han, a eunuch named Cai Lun invented paper for the first time.
Cai Lun was from Guiyang (Guiyang Prefecture, Hubei Province), a man particularly rich in technical ingenuity who became Director of the Shangfang.
The Shangfang was a bureau under the Shaofu responsible for overseeing the production of imperial articles for the palace, with the Director serving as its head official.
Cai Lun produced treasure swords and various other implements for imperial use there, all exquisitely crafted and durable; it is said they served as models for later generations.
The Book of the Later Han records his invention of paper as follows.

Since ancient times, written documents had mostly existed as bamboo slip volumes.
Those that used silk
were called paper.
Silk was expensive and bamboo slips heavy,
both being inconvenient for people.
Lun (Cai Lun) then conceived the idea to use tree bark, hemp ends, old cloth, and fish nets to make paper.
In the first year of Yuanxing, he presented it to the throne.
Emperor He praised his skill.
From this time onward, all came to use it.
Therefore, the world uniformly called it Marquis Cai’s paper (Cai Lun was later enfeoffed as Marquis of Longting;
hence it was called Marquis Cai’s) (4).

Long before the Book of the Later Han, an identical record had been preserved in the Dongguan Hanji—compiled during the Eastern Han period itself—(5). Fan Ye's account in the Book of the Later Han appears to have largely followed that of the Dongguan Hanji's narrative. The biography of Cai Lun recorded in the Dongguan Hanji had been compiled during Emperor Huan's Yuanjia era (151-153 CE)—a mere forty-odd years after paper's invention period—and thus its account could be considered credible (6). While the term "paper" remained unchanged both before and after Cai Lun's time, its substance differed fundamentally; after his innovation, "paper" came to specifically denote writing material manufactured from materials such as tree bark, hemp ends, old cloth, and fishing nets.

Xu Shen’s *Shuowen Jiezi* was compiled between the twelfth year of Yongyuan under Emperor He of Eastern Han (100 CE) and the first year of Jianguang under Emperor An (121 CE) (7)—produced largely during Cai Lun’s lifetime—with even room to imagine some acquaintance between Cai Lun and Xu Shen.
The *Shuowen Jiezi* explains the character for paper (紙) as “a layer of silk floss ※ (bamboo radical over沾).”
Duan Yucai of the Qing dynasty further annotated this:

Papermaking began with washing silk floss.
Initially made from silk floss,
they formed it using ※ (bamboo radical over沾).
Now bamboo fibers and tree bark are used,
while some employ fine bamboo screens—as noted here (8).

he states.

Within Xu Shen’s explanation of paper as “a layer of silk floss ※ (bamboo radical over 沾),” both the raw materials and methods of papermaking were contained.

Now, as for which era saw the use of silk floss as raw material for papermaking—Xu Shen’s explanation naturally provided no clarity, and even examining Duan Yucai’s annotations left the matter obscure.
In the *Shuowen Jiezi*, it states: “Silk floss is worn-out silk.”
If one interprets broadly the old cloth that Cai Lun used as raw material for papermaking, it seems possible that silk floss could be included within this category.
However, Fang Yizhi of the early Qing dynasty and others opposed this, asserting that the production of paper by pounding silk floss and laying it out dated back to the Western Han era or even earlier.
Cai Lun asserted that he merely used tree bark, hemp ends, old cloth, fishing nets, and similar materials as substitutes for silk floss (9).
Hirth’s paper “The Invention of Paper in China” also appeared to hold a view somewhat similar to Fang Yizhi’s regarding this point (10).
Professors Hoernle (11) and Jacob (12) took this a step further, asserting that the production method of felt used by ancient Turkic peoples was identical to that of paper.
They likely considered that the ancient Chinese imitated the felt-making techniques of the Northern Di, substituting wool with silk floss to produce paper; however, this remained mere conjecture and was rather difficult to credit.

Setting aside Professors Hoernle and Jacob’s theories for now, the *Shuowen Jiezi* was largely compiled in the twelfth year of Yongyuan—that is, prior to Cai Lun’s production of paper—and if one took Xu Shen’s explanation of the character for “paper” at face value from that time, Fang Yizhi and others’ theories gained considerable grounding. Consequently, Cai Lun would have merely discovered new raw materials for papermaking rather than inventing the method itself, thereby diminishing his standing as an inventor. Yet even if we accepted as fact that silk floss had been used to make paper akin to today’s prior to Cai Lun, it remained Cai Lun’s achievement to have utilized plant fibers as raw material for papermaking. Papers employing plant fibers—such as hemp paper, bark paper, rag paper—had contributed most profoundly to cultural development across history. Thus, Cai Lun’s contributions had to still be deemed immeasurably vast.
In this case, we would avoid fruitless debates and for now straightforwardly interpret the accounts in the Book of the Later Han to regard Cai Lun as the inventor of papermaking.

3.

China’s papermaking method was transmitted to Islamic countries during the reign of Emperor Xuanzong of the Tang Dynasty.
At that time, there existed a country called Shiguo in the Western Regions.
Present-day Tashkend (Tashkent of the Yuan era) is none other than Shiguo of the Tang Dynasty.
The name Tashkend itself means "Shiguo" (Stone Country) in Turkish.
From the early eighth century CE onward, Shiguo and the various Hu states in its vicinity came to be kept under the sway of whichever side—Tang or Dashi—held greater national prestige at any given time.
In the ninth year of Tianbao under Emperor Xuanzong (750 CE), Gao Xianzhi, Military Governor of the Anxi Four Garrisons, subjugated Shiguo under certain circumstances.
Gao Xianzhi—originally a Goguryeo man who served the Tang and was a renowned general of his time—falsely promised peace to the King of Shiguo while launching a surprise attack to capture him. Not only did he perpetrate a great massacre and plundering, but he also sent the King of Shiguo far to the capital Chang’an and had him executed at the palace gates.
Outraged by this unscrupulous conduct, the Prince of Shiguo was filled with indignation. The neighboring Hu states too sympathized with his plight, and together they plotted revenge against the Tang army by requesting reinforcements from Dashi.

At this time in Dashi (also called Tashi or Dashiguo)—that is, the Islamic countries—the Umayyad dynasty had already fallen, and the Abbasid dynasty had risen in its place. Standing at the forefront of this great revolution was none other than the renowned Abû Muslim—known as Bingboxilin in the *Book of Tang*—who fulfilled the most pivotal role. He supported Abul Abbas of the Abbasid dynasty (阿蒲羅拔 in the *Book of Tang*) and killed Marwan II of the Umayyad dynasty (末換 in the *Book of Tang*), an event that occurred in 750 CE. Thus, soon after the so-called Black-Clad Dashi supplanted the White-Clad Dashi, interactions with Shiguo and the various Hu states commenced.

Abû Muslim was then governor of Khorâsān (called Hulushan in the *Book of Tang*). Filled with ambition, he deemed this moment opportune to crush Great China's might and promptly dispatched his general Ziyâd ibn Sâlih to aid Shiguo.

In response, Gao Xianzhi gathered reinforcements from Karluk, Ferghâna, and other states to strike at Dashi (Arab forces) near the Talas River (modern Tarâz River in Central Asia) during the tenth year of Tianbao (751 CE), only to suffer decisive defeat by Ziyâd ibn Sâlih.

As for the battle conditions at this time, among Chinese sources, the *Zizhi Tongjian* provides the most detailed account, recording it as follows.

Gao Xianzhi attacked the Dashi forces.
They advanced over seven hundred li deep into hostile territory.
They arrived at Talas City.
They confronted the Dashi forces for five days.
The Karluk tribes rebelled.
Joining forces with the Dashi, they launched a pincer attack against the Tang army.
Xianzhi suffered a crushing defeat.
Nearly all soldiers perished.
Only several thousand survivors remained.
General Li Siye of the Right Valiant Guard urged Xianzhi to retreat under cover of night.
The roads were blocked and narrow.
The Ferghâna troops occupied the vanguard position.
People and livestock choked the path.
Siye charged ahead, wielding a massive club to strike through them.
Men and horses fell together in the carnage.
Xianzhi finally managed to break through(13).

The reference to Hengluosi City in this text is undoubtedly an error for Talas City.
Talas City stood along the Talas River banks, corresponding approximately to present-day Aulieh-Ata(14).
According to Tang historian Du You's records, Gao Xianzhi's army lost seventy thousand men in total during this engagement(15).

However, it appears that the majority were taken prisoner.
Du Huan, author of *Jingxingji* (Record of Travels), numbered among those captured at this time; he remained detained in Dashi for approximately ten years before returning to Guangdong via the South China Sea during the first year of Emperor Daizong's Baoying era (762 CE), later compiling *Jingxingji* based on his observations and experiences (16).
Though *Jingxingji* itself has since been lost, portions survive through citations in Du You's *Tongdian* and other works, continuing to provide essential materials for Tang-era Western Regions research.

The details of the Battle of Talas City were naturally recorded in Islamic countries' historical accounts as well, closely corresponding with Chinese historical materials (17). In Islamic historical sources, this battle was dated to the twelfth month of the 133rd Hijri year (Dhu al-Hijjah). When converted to the Gregorian calendar, this corresponds to June 30 through July 29 of 751 CE (18). In Chinese historical records, the entry for the Tianbao 10th year in the Annals of Emperor Xuanzong of the *Book of Tang* states,

July.
Gao Xianzhi and Dashi.
They battled at Hengluosi City (error for Talas City) and suffered defeat.

[It] merely states this, and none—beginning with the *Old Book of Tang*—recorded the month.
The seventh month of the tenth year of Tianbao corresponded to July 27 through August 25 in the Gregorian calendar of 751 CE (19).
That is to say, there remained hope that Eastern and Western historical materials could be reconciled chronologically.
If we accept that both Eastern and Western sources had accurately transmitted the battle's month, then the Battle of Talas City must be recognized as an event spanning late December 751 CE in the Hijri calendar and early August 751 CE in the Tianbao reckoning.

Under Islamic custom, all non-Muslims taken as prisoners on battlefields were enslaved.
Among these enslaved Chinese soldiers were former paper craftsmen; consequently, Ziyâd conscripted them to establish a paper mill in Samarkand City (rendered as Samarqian or Samojian in the *Book of Tang*).
This constituted the genesis of papermaking within Islamic nations.

IV

Prior to the rise of Islamic countries—and even during their formative period—the various nations west of the Pamirs commonly used papyrus or especially parchment as writing materials. The *Shiji*'s "Dayuan Zhuan" and *Hanshu*'s "Western Regions Zhuan" record regarding Parthia that they "used horizontally prepared leather for writing," while the *Liangshu*'s "Biographies of Various Barbarians" states concerning the Ephthalites that they "employed sheepskin as paper"—these serve as evidence that leather-based writing materials saw use at that time. When convenient and economical Chinese paper came into use, both papyrus and parchment gradually faded into obscurity.

That the papermaking methods of Islamic countries derived from those of China had long been acknowledged, though the era of this technological transfer remained somewhat obscure. Mr. Casiri attributed it to the 30th year of the Hijri calendar (650-651 CE), while Mr. Hammer-Purgstall assigned it to the 56th Hijri year (675-676 CE) (20). Theories positing 704 CE as the transmission date were also prevalent (21). Professor Karabacek of Austria first drew upon Islamic sources while Mr. Hirth corroborated this with Chinese historical materials, conclusively demonstrating that Ziyâd's employment of Chinese prisoners of war to establish a paper mill in Samarkand corresponded to 751 CE (22).

In Professor Karabacek’s work are cited records by Muslim scholars such as Taâlibî and Qazwînî detailing the circumstances surrounding the establishment of a paper mill in Samarkand at that time.
Although unable to consult that work directly at present since its essence had been cited elsewhere by others, he excerpted and translated it as follows.

When discussing Samarkand City, it is essential to particularly mention paper.
Samarkand’s paper far surpassed conventional papyrus and parchment in beauty, convenience, and affordability, thereby easily driving them from the market.
This paper was produced exclusively in Samarkand and China.
According to the author of *The Country and the Road*, papermaking techniques were transmitted from China to Samarkand through prisoners of war; Ziyâd ibn Sâlih took these Chinese captives, identified those with relevant experience among them, and compelled their service in the papermaking industry.
Thus did paper manufacturing gradually develop until it became one of Samarkand’s principal products.
Through this development, it ultimately conferred benefits upon all nations of the world (23).

Chinese paper had in fact been imported into Islamic countries as early as the 30th year of the Hijri calendar (650–651 CE) (24).
The theory of Mr. Casiri—previously presented as one perspective regarding the era of papermaking technique transmission—ought instead to be understood as pertaining to this period of Chinese paper importation.
As Samarkand’s paper industry developed, imports of Chinese paper to Islamic countries gradually ceased; Samarkand-produced paper came to fulfill demand instead, establishing Samarkand’s renown across all Islamic countries as a paper-producing region.
In the early tenth century CE, even Ibn Ḥawqal and others extolled Samarkand’s paper as unparalleled worldwide (25).

During the reign of Harun al-Rashid, the fifth Abbasid Caliph (called Helun in the Book of Tang), Al-Fazl, Governor of Khorasan, first transmitted Samarkand’s papermaking industry to Baghdad—capital of the Islamic countries (called Fudá in the Book of Tang)—and there established a new paper mill in the 178th Hijri year (794–795 CE). Subsequently, paper mills were constructed throughout Persia, Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Spain, and other nations then within Islam’s sphere of influence. As the paper industry flourished, demand for papyrus and parchment diminished, until by the mid-10th century CE, Islamic countries had nearly ceased using papyrus altogether.

European countries, similarly to Western Asia, had commonly used papyrus and parchment as writing materials until around the 12th-13th centuries CE (26); however, as the paper industry flourished in Islamic countries, their paper came to be imported into European nations.
Southern European countries such as France and Italy began learning papermaking from Muslims around the 12th century CE, while Germany followed somewhat later, with all reportedly acquiring the technique from Muslims (27).
In medieval Europe, paper was commonly called charta bambycina or charta damascus.
Bambyce was a city located on the right bank of the Euphrates River (called the Fulila River in the *Book of Tang*).
Damascus (Dímíshījí in the Yuan Dynasty) is, needless to say, a renowned city in the Syria region.
At that time, it can be discerned that much of the paper imported from Islamic countries to Europe was produced in this region.
Today, among terms related to paper in European countries, there are some that derive from Arabic.
To give an example: in English, a bundle of paper is called a "ream," which corresponds to the Spanish *resma*, Italian *risma*, German *ries*, and French *rame*—all of which should trace their etymology to the Arabic *rezma* (28).
*Rezma* originally meant a small package.

V

In Vienna, Austria, there was a nobleman known as Count Rainer, who became renowned in society for his collection of ancient paper.
Over thirty years ago—around 1877–78 CE—a great number of ancient documents were excavated in Egypt’s Faiyûm region and several other areas.
The majority of these ancient documents came into the possession of Count Rainer since 1884.
The total number of these ancient documents reached over 100,000, with their dates spanning approximately 2,700 years—from as early as the 14th century BCE to as late as the 14th century CE.
Among them there were papyrus and parchment, but rag paper (Rag-Paper) was also quite abundant.
Count Rainer was not satisfied merely with collecting ancient paper; he endeavored to scientifically study the collected ancient paper.
For this research, he commissioned many scholars, among whom two had a particularly deep connection to this study.
One was Professor Karabacek of the University of Vienna, who was primarily in charge of investigating ancient documents and studying the history of paper.
The other was Professor Wiesner of the same University of Vienna, who was engaged exclusively in researching the components of ancient paper and its production methods through microscopic investigation and chemical tests.
The results of these individuals’ research and investigations were made public to the world in several reports (29).
It was only after the publication of these reports that the history of paper in the world became clearly understood.
I have not personally examined these reports, but since their essence has been cited in Mr. Hoernle’s paper (30), I shall now present a condensed overview of the ancient paper research findings by further streamlining Mr. Hoernle’s work.

Among the ancient papers collected by Count Rainer, there were a great number manufactured in Islamic countries, starting with Samarkand.
Among those with old and confirmed dates were documents from 874, 900, and 909 CE.
Although their dates were not explicitly stated, there were also documents that should be recognized as dating from 791 or 792 CE based on other evidence.
This final document coincided exactly with forty years since Chinese prisoners of war began manufacturing paper in Samarkand.
Through Professor Wiesner’s microscopic investigation of these Islamic-country-manufactured ancient papers, it was revealed that all such papers used exclusively linen rags as raw material, never blended with raw fibers such as tree bark.

However, on the other hand, historians of Islamic countries have transmitted that when paper was first manufactured in Samarkand, grasses and trees—that is, raw plant fibers—were used as the raw material.
Furthermore, in Persian and Arabic, paper is called Kâghaz or Kâghad.
This term, like the Indian Kaghaz, represents a phonetic corruption of the Chinese *穀紙* (Kuchih; Old Chinese pronunciation: Kok-dz) (31).
When considering together the facts that old legends report plant materials being used as papermaking ingredients and that paper first imported into Islamic countries was known by names phonetically derived from *穀紙*—Kâghaz or Kâghad—there appears almost no room for doubt that paper initially manufactured in Samarkand by Chinese prisoners of war primarily employed tree bark as its raw material.

As expeditions were conducted in China's Xinjiang region, ancient documents were excavated from this area.
There exists a considerable number of ancient documents excavated by Mr. Stein of Britain along the southern route of the Tianshan Mountains, among which approximately seven documents from the period spanning Emperor Daizong to Emperor Dezong of the Tang Dynasty have their dates clearly recorded.
These consist of ancient documents from: the third year of Dali under Emperor Daizong (768 CE); the 16th year of Dali (actually Jianzhong 2nd year, 781 CE) and 17th year of Dali (actually Jianzhong 3rd year, 782 CE) under Emperor Dezong; Jianzhong 3rd year (782 CE); Jianzhong 7th year (actually Zhenyuan 2nd year, 786 CE); Jianzhong 8th year (actually Zhenyuan 3rd year, 787 CE); and Zhenyuan 6th year (790 CE) (32).
All these ancient documents span approximately forty years from when paper mills were first established in Samarkand to the period of the oldest Islamic country-produced paper in Count Rainer's collection.
Most of these ancient documents were sent to Professor Wiesner for paper quality analysis; his standard microscopic investigation revealed that while these papers contained some admixture of rags, their primary raw materials consisted of bark from mulberry trees, katsura trees, and ramie—also known as China-grass.
If we posit that mulberry and other plant barks formed the principal component of paper used in the Western Regions during the medieval Tang period, there remains substantial basis to infer that Islamic countries' paper initially manufactured by Chinese hands in Samarkand would have been similarly composed.
That historians of Islamic countries have recorded Samarkand-produced paper as originally using plant materials appears generally credible when considered from this perspective.

In summary of the key points discussed above: while there remains no room to doubt the legend that plant materials were used as papermaking raw ingredients when the mill was first established in Samarkand in 751 CE, we must equally credit the fact that upon examining Samarkand-produced paper from around 791–792 CE, it proves to be purely rag paper containing not a trace of raw fibers like tree bark.
Consequently, the cause of such a marked difference in papermaking materials must be recognized as having occurred within Islamic countries over the approximately forty-year period from 751 to 791–792 CE.

Professor Wiesner conducted meticulous chemical tests and microscopic investigations on paper produced in Islamic countries and Chinese paper excavated along the southern route of the Tianshan Mountains, and by comparing these papers from the two regions, he reached roughly the following conclusions.

Although Tang-era Chinese paper contained some admixture of rags, its primary raw material was the bark of mulberry and other dicotyledonous plants.
The Chinese transmitted the papermaking method to Islamic countries; however, as mulberry trees—which should have been the primary raw material—were lacking in the vicinity of Samarkand, they found it necessary to gradually increase the proportion of rags. Through experience confirming that papermaking objectives could still be achieved this way, they ultimately came to manufacture paper using only rags—linen rags abundant in Islamic countries.
Though paper was transmitted from China, it must be said that the achievement of altering its raw materials to produce the pure rag paper (Pure Rag-Paper) in general use today belongs to the Muslims.

The tree bark used as raw material for Chinese paper was initially pounded and crushed by human power using stone mortars; however, this method frequently damaged the fiber structure, resulting in coarse and loose paper quality that risked ink bleeding when written upon.
By a slightly later period—around the 7th–8th centuries CE—the fiber structure of tree bark came to be less damaged through chemical processes.
Consequently, the paper quality was significantly improved.
However, the rags were still being crushed using stone mortars as they had been.
However, upon examining paper produced in Islamic countries, traces of fibers having been skillfully extracted from their raw material—rags—through chemical processes could be clearly observed.
It must be said that Muslims achieved even greater improvements than the Chinese in the handling of raw materials.

Apart from these two points—the change in raw materials and improvements in handling them—the papermaking methods of Muslims were largely identical to those of the Chinese, down to techniques like adding glue to raw materials or applying starch powder to paper surfaces to improve quality.

The above conclusions were recognized as authoritative texts within the academic community.
However, there remained some room for harboring doubt.
First, the number of Chinese papers Professor Wiesner investigated was by no means large.
Those with confirmed dates amounted to merely six or seven types.
Moreover, these were mostly from the Tang Dynasty, and all had been excavated from the Wandân-Uiliq region approximately one hundred miles northeast of Khotan.
Based solely on investigations of a small number of Chinese papers excavated from a single region, it was impossible to definitively infer the raw materials and production methods of Chinese paper in general.

Secondly, from the Eastern Han Dynasty onward, distinctions had already existed between hemp paper, bark paper, and net paper. In one edition of the *Dongguan Hanji*:

"Lun (Cai Lun), Director of the Imperial Workshops, manufactured paper.
Using discarded hemp, they named it hemp paper.
They named tree bark 'bark paper.'
They named fishing nets 'net paper.'"

it is recorded. When we speak of "discarded hemp," this likely refers to hemp rags. Thus, not only net paper but also hemp paper—even if not purely rag paper—can be surmised to have had textile fibers as their primary component. At the very least, it is thought that they would not have shared the same composition as the Chinese papers excavated along the southern route of the Tianshan Mountains—which, according to Professor Wiesner, used tree bark as their primary raw material. However, to resolve this issue, there remains no alternative but to collect as many ancient Chinese papers as possible and investigate them using the same methods as Professor Wiesner. Facts are the final resolution.

VI

Since Mr. Stein commenced his expedition along the southern route of the Tianshan Mountains, explorers from various European countries successively ventured into this region.
From Germany first came Mr. Grünwedel (1902–1903 CE), followed by Mr. Le Coq (1904–1906 CE), and on the third expedition both Mr. Grünwedel and Mr. Le Coq (1906–1907 CE) went forth and excavated numerous ancient documents.
From Britain, Mr. Stein again journeyed to the southern route of the Tianshan Mountains (1906–1908 CE) and discovered many ancient texts and documents in Dunhuang.
That Mr. Pelliot of France also ventured to this region (1906–1909 CE) and made great discoveries in Dunhuang remains fresh in the memory of our countrymen.
Though many achievements gained through these expeditions remain unpublished, it is certain they contain documents from the Tang Dynasty or earlier periods—materials indispensable for resolving the issues of raw materials and production methods for Chinese paper that we discussed in the preceding section.

Our country's Count Ōtani of West Honganji Temple had also dispatched expeditions to this region since Meiji 35 (1902). The first and second expeditions had already concluded, and the third was currently underway. Among the acquisitions from these initial expeditions was an official missive from the fifth year of Emperor Xuanzong’s Tianbao era (746 CE) of the Tang Dynasty. This document dated precisely five years before the Battle of Talas City and served as crucial material for investigating differences in raw materials between Islamic paper production and Chinese paper. There were numerous ancient sutras and documents identifiable as dating from the Northern and Southern Dynasties or earlier through era names or calligraphic styles—too many to enumerate individually—but among these, several particularly noteworthy examples could be cited as follows.

The first was an ancient sutra manuscript from the sixth year of Yuan Kang of the Western Jin Dynasty (296 CE). As Dr. Bunzaburō Matsumoto had already noted (33), this ancient sutra manuscript constituted Dharmarakṣa's Western Jin Dynasty translation of *The Sutra of Collected Essentials of All Buddhas*. While it deserved recognition as remarkably rare from perspectives of sutra transcription and calligraphy, it held even greater value as material for studying Chinese paper. The sixth year of Yuan Kang stood a mere 191 years removed from the first year of Yuanxing when Cai Lun invented paper—meaning the paper used in this ancient sutra manuscript dated from no later than the 192nd year following paper's invention in China. Likely the oldest Chinese paper preserved to that day, its status as definitive material for ancient paper research required no elaboration. Following this came the Li Bai Documents. Though lacking a reign year, Academician Haneda's research had determined these to originate from between the third to fifth years of the Xianhe era of the Eastern Jin Dynasty (328–330 CE) (34). If verified, these too would constitute indispensable materials for studying ancient Chinese paper.

According to investigations conducted last year by our Kyoto Imperial University College of Letters professors dispatched to Qing China, among the Dunhuang manuscripts now held by academic departments or private collections, there were quite numerous ancient sutra manuscripts from the Northern and Southern Dynasties, Sui, and Tang periods.
A considerable number bore era names.
All should serve as materials for the study of Chinese paper; particularly, the Ten Precepts Sutra from the second year of Zhide (757 CE) of the Tang Dynasty—dating six years after the Battle of Talas—alongside the Tianbao fifth-year missive held by West Honganji Temple, constituted crucial materials related to the era of Chinese paper’s westward transmission.

In short, numerous new materials for studying ancient Chinese paper had been collected in recent years. It was only once these materials—particularly the ancient documents at West Honganji Temple—were scientifically researched using the same methods as Professor Wiesner that the position of Chinese paper within global papermaking history would finally be determined. It was our earnest hope that such a time might arrive even a single day sooner.

References

(1) Li Dun’s *Qun Jing Shi Xiao* (A Minor Understanding of the Classics) from the Qing Dynasty (*Huang Qing Jing Jie* [Imperial Qing Exegesis], Volume 722).

(2) Jin Dynasty's Du Yu's commentary on the preface to *Zuo's Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals*.

(3) Cited in Volume 1 of Liu Baonan's *Lunyu Zhengyi* from the Qing Dynasty.

(4) *Book of the Later Han*, Volume 108, Biographies of Eunuchs.

(5) *Dongguan Hanji* Volume 20 (contained in *Wuyingdian Juzhenban Quanshu*).

(6) *Imperially Commissioned Annotated Catalog of the Complete Library of the Four Treasuries* Volume 50.

(7) Xu Shen’s Preface to *Shuowen Jiezi* and his son Xu Chong’s “Memorial Submitting *Shuowen Jiezi*.”

(8) *Duan’s Annotated Shuowen Jiezi*, Part 13, First Volume.

(9) *Tongya*, Volume 32.

(10) "Die Erfindung desPapiers in China" p. 7 (T'oung Pao, 1890).

(11) “Who was the Inventor of Rag-Paper?” p. 680 (J.R.A.S. 1903).

(12) "Oriental Elements of Culture in the Occident" p.522.

(13) *Zizhi Tongjian* [Comprehensive Mirror to Aid Governance], Volume 216.

(14) Le Strange; "The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate" p. 486.

(15) *Tongdian*, Volume 185.

(16) Hirth; "
Nachworte zur Geschrift des Tonjukuk" p. 3.

(17) ┌Hoernle; “Who was the Inventor of Rag-Paper?”
p. 668.

└Chavannes; *Documents sur les Tou-Kiue Occidentaux* p. 297.

(18) ┌Wüstenfeld; "Vergleichungs-Tabellen der m.undch. Zeitrechung" p. 6.

└*Sanshō Sōran* (Comprehensive Survey of Three Calendars), p. 97 (though there is a one-day discrepancy with Mr. Wüstenfeld).
(We shall) temporarily follow Mr. W.)

(19) ┌*Sanshō Sōran* (Comprehensive Survey of Three Calendars), p. 97.

└Brumsen; "Japanese Chronological Tables" p. 57.

(20) Hammer-Purgstall; “
“Auszüge aus Saalebl’s Buche der Stützen des sich Beziehenden und dessen worauf essich bezieht” p. 529 (D.M.G. 1854).

(21) Hoernle; "Who was the Inventor of Rag-paper?" p. 664.

(22) Hirth; "Die Erfindung desPapiers in China" p. 13.

(23) Chavannes; *Documents sur les Tou-Kiue Occidentaux* pp. 297, 298.
Documents sur les Tou-Kiue Occidentaux" pp. 297, 298.

(24) Hoernle; "Who was the Inventor of Rag-paper?" p. 670.

(25) William Ouseley; "Ibn Haukal" p. 233.

(26) Dr. Tsuboi’s *Methods of Historical Research*, pp. 114–121.

(27) Jacob; “Oriental Elements of Culture in theOccident”
p.524.

(28) Jacob; ibid. p. 524.

(29) "Mitteilungenaus der Sammlung des Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer"

(30) Hoernle; "Who was the Inventor of Rag-paper?" (J.R.A.S. 1903).

(31) Hirth; "Die Erfindung des Papiersin China" S. 12 (T'oung Pao, 1890).
"Die Erfindung des Papiersin China" S. 12 (T'oung Pao, 1890).

(32) Stein; "Ancient Khotan" Vol. I, pp. 523–533; Vol. II, p. cxv, cxvi.

(33) “On Ancient Sutras Excavated in Central Asia” (Geibun, Year 2, Number 1).

(34) “Explanation of Count Ōtani’s Collected Xinjiang Historical Materials” (*Tōyō Gakuhō* [The Journal of Oriental Studies], Volume 1, Number 2).
(Meiji 44 [1911], September–October issue of *Geibun*, Year 2, Numbers 9–10)