7 replies on “Xing Wen argues that Beida Laozi is a Forgery”

  1. Bin Song says:

    Wow! Look forward to the response from BKU.

  2. Bin Song says:

    Sorry, PKU. haha.

  3. Does anyone/everyone find his arguments persuasive?

  4. Bill Haines says:

    I haven’t read the piece – it would be very time-consuming for me – but it would seem that either Xing is proposing that someone had access to ancient blank bamboos, or these bamboos were never carbon-tested!

  5. Thies Staack has written on this now: “Could the Peking University Laozi 老子 really be a forgery? Some skeptical remarks,” available on his Academia.edu page.

  6. Heng Du says:

    See also Chris Foster’s rebuttal in the latest _Early China_: INTRODUCTION TO THE PEKING UNIVERSITY HAN BAMBOO STRIPS: ON THE AUTHENTICATION AND STUDY OF PURCHASED MANUSCRIPTS https://doi.org/10.1017/eac.2017.2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.