Provenance study of Eastern Zhou Dynasty (770–256 BC) stone chimes excavated from the Chu territory, China

Abstract

This study investigates the provenance of Eastern Zhou Dynasty stone chimes excavated from tombs within the Chu cultural region, employing an integrated analytical approach to elucidate the sources and circulation of high-quality lithic materials. Seven representative stone chime samples from the Shuangdun, Jiunvdun, Jiuliandun, and Leigudun tombs were analyzed using polarizing microscopy and X-ray fluorescence (XRF) to determine their petrographic characteristics and major and trace element compositions. Principal component analysis (PCA) method was employed to evaluate compositional relationships between the archaeological artifacts and potential geological sources. The results indicate that the Shuangdun Tomb chimes likely originated from the Qingyunshan Mountain region, whereas the Leigudun Tomb chimes were derived from two distinct sources. The provenance of the Jiuliandun and Jiunvdun Tomb chimes remains uncertain. These findings suggest that Chu artisans deliberately procured superior lithic materials from multiple regions, transporting them to centralized workshops for the uniform production of chime sets. This research provides novel insights into the logistical planning, material selection strategies, and interregional exchange networks of the Chu polity, offering a more nuanced understanding of stone chimes circulation during the Eastern Zhou period.

1 Introduction

Stone chimes are ancient lithic musical instruments originating in China and occupy a distinctive position in the early development of Chinese ritual and musical traditions. The history of stone chimes in China can be traced back to the early phase of the Taosi Culture (ca. 2307–1976 BC). Early stone chimes were typically large, single lithic slabs that produced sound through suspension and percussion. By the Shang Dynasty (ca. 1600 BC), stone chimes had undergone a developmental transition from initial emergence to cultural integration. Prior to the Shang period, excavated stone chimes were predominantly single stone chimes, consisting of individual stone slabs functioning as standalone musical instruments. During the Western Zhou Dynasty (1046–771 BC), the number of excavated sets of stone chimes increased significantly, with stone chimes becoming predominant. These instruments consisted of multiple stone slabs arranged in sets and suspended in an organized framework. As an integral component of the Western Zhou ritual music system, stone chimes held pronounced hierarchical and ceremonial significance. This phenomenon had already emerged in the early Western Zhou period, during which a stratified classification of musical instruments had been formally established, in which bronze bells and stone chimes functioned as emblematic markers of political authority and social status (Fang, 2021). During the Eastern Zhou Dynasty (770–256 BC), particularly under the political ascendancy of the Chu territory, the expansion of territorial control coincided with the flourishing of ritual and musical culture, marking the zenith of stone chime development. As a core component of the ancient Chinese ritual–music system, stone chimes occupied an elevated position within the strictly hierarchical framework of ceremonial instruments (Sun, 2025). Although the ritual institutions underpinning monarchic authority gradually weakened during the Spring and Autumn (770–476 BC) and Warring States periods (475–221 BC), the symbolic significance of stone chimes persisted. They continued to serve as indicators of rank, prestige, and elite identity within the sociopolitical order (Zhang, 2017).

The primary raw material for functional stone chimes is lithophone stone. Globally, lithophones have been widely employed in the manufacture of musical instruments and have become an established tradition in significant cultural contexts, including courtly banquets, ceremonial performances, and ancestral temple rituals. The sound-producing mechanism of stone chimes—based on the controlled vibration of carefully selected lithic materials—has long attracted the attention of international scholars. In nature, numerous rock types are capable of producing aesthetically pleasing sounds when struck; consequently, stone has been adopted as a resonant material for musical instruments by diverse cultures worldwide (Waller, 1993; Till, 2019; Cox et al., 2020). Within this broader context of lithic musical traditions, Chinese stone chimes, owing to their long developmental trajectory and distinctive acoustic characteristics, represent a highly systematized and culturally embedded form of sound production, and are often regarded as among the earliest known musical instruments in human societies. In early China, the lithologies of single stone chimes were diverse; however, by the Zhou Dynasty, the lithological composition of functional stone chimes became increasingly standardized, with limestone emerging as the predominant material (Duan and Fang, 2024). This transition reflects the progressive regulation and standardization of chime production in tandem with the maturation of the ritual and musical system. Limestone, characterized by its dense and homogeneous structure, stable acoustic properties, and ease of precise carving, shaping, and tuning, proved to be the optimal material (Li et al., 2026a; Li et al., 2026b). Its adoption established the scientific basis for accurate pitch control and the coordinated performance of chime sets.

Stone chimes unearthed from tombs of the Chu territory constitute an essential material record of Chu musical culture and provide valuable evidence for understanding the evolution of ritual music during the Eastern Zhou period. The Chu territory was primarily composed of the Chu State and its subordinate polities, including vassal states that were historically under strong Chu control. From the late Spring and Autumn period onward, the territorial extent of Chu expanded to encompass much of southern China. Current evidence indicates that the spatial distribution, material composition, and production technology of these artifacts are closely linked to broader issues of resource procurement, craft specialization, and inter-polity interaction. Archaeological investigations to date have identified 72 sets of stone chimes dating to the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, the majority of which are concentrated within regions historically controlled by Chu (Duan and Fang, 2023). This pronounced spatial pattern suggests a strong relationship between Chu’s political influence and the circulation of stone chime materials. Given the limited availability of written records for many smaller vassal states, stone chimes—objects endowed with high ritual, musical, and social value—assume particular importance for reconstructing historical contexts. Previous studies have primarily emphasized acoustic performance, typological classification, and symbolic meaning, whereas the provenance of the raw lithic materials has received comparatively little attention (Yon and Rossing, 2006; Zhao, 2021; Wei et al., 2011) conducted compositional analyses of the stone chime sample JldM1-27 excavated from the Jiuliandun tombs in China using XRF and X-ray diffraction (XRD). Through lithological comparison, the study suggested a potential association between JldM1-27 and Lingbi stone from China. This research represents the first attempt to infer the provenance of stone chimes from a lithological perspective.

It has traditionally been assumed that pre-Zhou stone chimes were manufactured using locally sourced materials, owing to presumed constraints on transportation and logistics (Lin et al., 2009). However, during the Spring and Autumn Period, increasing regional differentiation in quarrying practices, along with the pursuit of superior acoustic and mechanical properties, may have encouraged the selection and long-distance transport of nonlocal lithic resources. Existing provenance studies have largely relied on historical texts and macroscopic visual comparisons, approaches that inherently limit analytical precision and reliability. Consequently, the transportation pathways and exchange networks through which stone chime materials circulated among vassal states remain poorly understood.

Provenance analysis based on lithological comparison has emerged as a reliable approach to addressing this issue. Through the systematic sampling of representative rock types, combined with comparative analyses of lithology and major and trace element compositions, this study aims to identify the provenance of stone chime materials with greater accuracy. Furthermore, by integrating archaeological, geological, and historical evidence, and by reconstructing potential transportation routes of stone chime materials during the Eastern Zhou period based on the analytical results, this study establishes a comprehensive framework for interpreting the circulation and exchange of lithic resources. In doing so, this study proposes a new analytical framework for understanding the circulation patterns and exchange networks of lithic resources among contemporary polities. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of resource procurement strategies, interregional interactions, and the material foundations of the ritual–music system in early China.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Selection of sampling locations

To investigate the provenance of the stone chimes, this study conducted a targeted geological survey of limestone-bearing formations across Hubei, Anhui, and Jiangsu provinces, regions historically associated with the political and cultural sphere of the Chu territory. Based on regional geological investigations and existing literature, the Suizhou–Zaoyang area of northern Hubei is characterized by the widespread development of argillaceous, siliceous, dolomitic, and crystalline limestones, primarily distributed within Silurian–Ordovician and Cambrian stratigraphic sequences. These lithologies exhibit favorable mechanical strength and acoustic properties, rendering them potential sources for stone chime production.

By contrast, the Bengbu–Xuzhou region spanning eastern Anhui and northern Jiangsu is dominated by Cambrian sedimentary successions rich in granular limestones and marl limestones (Chou and Chen, 1984). These carbonate rocks display distinct textural and compositional characteristics compared to those of northern Hubei, thereby providing a contrasting geological end-member for provenance discrimination. Collectively, the carbonate formations in these regions encompass a diverse spectrum of lithologies that are technologically suitable for the manufacture of stone chimes.

The regional distribution and geological context of the major limestone and dolomite formations considered in this study are summarized and illustrated in Figure 1. This geological framework establishes the basis for subsequent lithological and geochemical comparisons between archaeological stone chime samples and potential source materials, enabling a more robust assessment of raw material provenance and possible transportation pathways.

FIGURE 1

Through the review of ancient literature, it is indicated that lithophones used for the production of stone chimes within the territory of Chu were primarily quarried from areas corresponding to present-day Qingyunshan Mountain in Anhui Province, the Lüliang River in Jiangsu Province, and Xiangfan (now Xiangyang) in Hubei Province. Among these sources, the Lingbi lithophone is the most renowned, celebrated across China for its fine acoustic qualities and long-standing use in the production of stone musical instruments. The Lüliang lithophone, historically extracted from the Lüliang River region, was already depleted by the Northern and Southern Dynasties. The Lüliang River and Qingyunshan Mountain are geographically proximate, both located within the ancient Xiapi County—corresponding to modern Xuzhou in Jiangsu Province. Additionally, fine-grained limestone from the Xiangfan area (now Xiangyang) in Hubei Province has been experimentally verified as a suitable raw material for reproducing the stone chimes unearthed from the Tomb of Marquis Yi of Zeng.

Based on both documentary evidence and field investigations, this study focused its material sampling on three key regions: the Xiangyang–Suizhou area in Hubei Province, and the Qingyunshan Mountain and Fengyang–Huainan areas in Anhui Province. The locations of these sampling sites are shown in Figure 2, which also presents geographic sketch maps illustrating the Chu territory during the mid-Warring States and the middle to late Spring and Autumn periods, as well as the outcrop distribution of Silurian and Cambrian strata. The base maps were obtained from the Datav. GeoAtlas platform, while stratigraphic information was provided by the Anhui Regional Geological Survey Team of the Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources and the Hubei Provincial Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources.

FIGURE 2

Through systematic field investigation and material screening, a total of seven lithic samples were collected from representative outcrops within key areas historically under Chu control: Lbs01, Lbs02, and Lbs03 from Qingyunshan Mountain (Anhui Province); Fy01 from Fengyang City (Anhui Province); Hun05 from Huainan City (Anhui Province); Xft2 from Xiangfan (now Xiangyang, Hubei Province); and Xht1 from Suizhou City (Hubei Province). The sampling location is shown in Figure 1, the detailed characteristics of both archaeological stone chime samples and modern rock samples are summarized in Table 1.

The Jiuliandun No. 1 and No. 2 tombs are prominent burial sites from the mid–Warring States period. The tomb occupants—a husband and wife—belonged to the Chu aristocracy, likely holding official ranks of considerable status (Wang X. et al., 2018; Wang X. et al., 2019).

The Leigudun No. 2 Tomb, located approximately 100 m from the Tomb of Marquis Yi of Zeng (M1), is identified as the burial site of the queen consort of the Zeng State during the mid–Warring States period. The identity of the occupant of Leigudun No. 2 Tomb remains a subject of scholarly debate, with no consensus yet reached. Some scholars, noting the absence of weapons among the grave goods, have suggested that the tomb likely belonged to the consort of the Marquis of Zeng. However, based on analyses of the tomb’s scale and structural features, other researchers have argued that Leigudun No. 2 Tomb should instead be attributed to a ruler of the Zeng State. Classical literature suggests that the Zeng State may correspond to the Sui State (Zhang, 2007). Artifacts from Leigudun display more distinct Chu cultural characteristics than those from the Marquis Yi period, reflecting intensified Chu influence at the time (Shu and Liu, 1982).

The Jiunvdun Tomb complex in Xuzhou represents high-ranking burials from the middle to late Spring and Autumn period (Gu et al., 1999; Wu et al., 2003). A bronze bell unearthed from No. 3 Tomb bears an inscription reading “grandson of King Xu”, indicating that the tomb’s occupant was a member of the Xu royal lineage (Kong and Chen, 2002). Due to the scarcity of written records about the State of Xu, these findings hold substantial historical and cultural significance.

The Shuangdun Tomb, attributed to King Zhongli, is located in central Anhui along the Huaihe River. The Zhongli polity was a strategic hub in the geopolitical struggles between the Wu and Chu states. Although the precise founding date of the Zhongli State remains uncertain, archaeological evidence suggests its establishment in the late Spring and Autumn period, with its cultural influence extending through the Han and Tang dynasties. Artifacts from the tomb closely resemble those of the Jiunvdun complex, further supporting a mid-to-late Spring and Autumn attribution (Kan et al., 2009).

The production and distribution of archaeological stone chimes were shaped by multiple factors, including the selection of suitable raw materials, proximity to lithic sources, and the availability of workable stone. Previous studies have shown that crystalline limestone with homogeneous lithology, a single mineral composition, and moderate toughness—combined with ease of carving—is the most suitable material for the production of functional stone chimes (Li et al., 2019).

2.2 Stone chime samples

A total of nineteen stone chime fragments and one complete chime were excavated from the Jiuliandun No. 2 Tomb, while nine irregularly shaped fragments of stone chimes were recovered from the Jiuliandun No. 1 Tomb (Wang H. et al., 2018; Wang H. et al., 2019). The Leigudun No. 2 Tomb yielded twelve stone chimes, and twelve dragon-shaped stone chimes were unearthed from the Shuangdun Tomb. In addition, thirteen stone chimes were recovered from the Jiunvdun No. 3 Tomb.

For the present study, representative samples were selected from each site for compositional and provenance analyses. The selected samples include JldM1-27 and JldM2-34 from the Jiuliandun No. 1 and No. 2 tombs; LgdM2-122 and LgdM2-117 from the Leigudun No. 2 Tomb; BsdM1-11, BsdM1-13, and BsdM1-21 from the Shuangdun No. 1 Tomb; and JndM3-13 from the Jiunvdun No. 3 Tomb.

In total, seven stone chime samples (as shown in Figure 3) from the Shuangdun No. 1 Tomb, Jiunvdun No. 3 Tomb, Jiuliandun Tomb, and Leigudun No. 2 Tomb were designated as the principal research materials for this study. Samples were chosen based on their relatively well-preserved condition, representative typological features, and the presence of intact surfaces suitable for sampling and petrographic analysis.

FIGURE 3

2.3 Analytical methods

The petrographic microstructures of both the archaeological stone chime samples and the modern rock samples were examined using a Zeiss Axio Scope A1 polarized light microscope. Petrographic analysis provides a robust means to identify rock lithology and to compare structural features among samples.

XRF spectroscopy was employed to determine the major and trace element compositions of the carbonate rock samples. XRF is widely recognized as an effective technique for geochemical characterization and has been extensively applied in cultural heritage studies, mineral provenance analysis, and lithic artifact research (Zhu et al., 2006; Heimler et al., 2023). It has proven particularly valuable in tracing the origins of lithic cultural relics.

Prior to analysis, all samples were prepared to minimize contamination and surface alteration effects. Weathered surfaces were removed, and fresh interior material was selected. The samples were then cleaned, dried, and ground into fine powder. The powdered samples were homogenized and pressed into pellets for XRF measurement. Instrument calibration was performed using certified reference materials to ensure analytical accuracy. Quality control procedures included replicate measurements of selected samples to assess analytical precision, and the results showed good reproducibility within acceptable error ranges.

For data processing, major element concentrations were normalized where appropriate, and trace element data were screened to exclude elements with low detection reliability. The processed dataset was then subjected to multivariate statistical analysis. PCA was commonly employed in provenance studies to identify compositional patterns and potential source correlations among the samples. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS software. Major element concentrations were normalized to 100% on an anhydrous basis to account for the effects of volatile loss (primarily CO₂ from carbonate decomposition), thereby ensuring comparability between samples.

3 Experimental results and analysis

3.1 Microscopic analysis

The polarized light micrographs of the archaeological stone chime samples and modern rock samples are presented in Figure 4.

FIGURE 4

The sample JldM1-27 from Tomb M1 at Jiuliandun in Hubei is composed predominantly of calcite and exhibits an inequigranular microcrystalline mosaic texture, with minor quartz fragments. It can therefore be classified as a micritic limestone.

The sample JldM2-34 consists of calcite and dolomite, also showing an inequigranular microcrystalline mosaic structure. The crystal sizes range from 0.005 to 0.1 mm, and the lithology can be classified as microcrystalline, fine-grained dolomitic limestone. The sample JndM3-13 is a dolomitic limestone composed of tightly packed fine-grained carbonate minerals, with an overall granular texture.

The sample LgdM2-122 from Leigudun Tomb M2 is dominated by calcite and exhibits an inequigranular mosaic texture with minor quartz fragments. It can be classified as a microcrystalline to fine-grained limestone. The sample LgdM2-117 is also dominated by calcite. The grains are mainly anhedral to subhedral microcrystals, with minor impurities including dolomite and clay minerals. The rock exhibits an overall fine-grained texture, with grains in mosaic contact, and is therefore classified as a fine-grained limestone. Compared with LgdM2-117, LgdM2-122 shows slightly lower grain uniformity.

Samples from Qingyunshan Mountain (Lbs01, Lbs02, and Lbs03) are dominated by calcite grains in mosaic contact, with minimal mineral impurities. The grain size ranges are 0.02–0.1 mm for Lbs01, 0.01–0.05 mm for Lbs02, and 0.01–0.1 mm for Lbs03, which also contains minor quartz and clay impurities. The sample Xft2 is composed predominantly of calcite and exhibits an inequigranular microcrystalline mosaic texture, with grain sizes ranging from 0.02 to 0.1 mm. Its degree of grain uniformity is slightly inferior to that of Lingbi lithophone stone, and it contains minor quartz inclusions. The lithology can be classified as a microsparitic limestone.

The sample Xht1 is characterized by strong light reflection under plane-polarized light. It is primarily composed of calcite grains with minor dolomite, quartz, and dark mineral inclusions. Large uniform grains and developed cleavage characterize its texture, classifying it as an inequigranular dolomitic crystalline limestone. The sample Fy01 displays clastic features with oolitic particles, predominantly composed of calcite, with minor dolomite and clay. Hun05 is a fine-grained limestone composed mainly of calcite with a few quartz inclusions.

All analyzed stone chime samples are composed of carbonate rocks. The two stone chimes from Leigudun are classified as microcrystalline–fine-grained limestone and fine-grained limestone, respectively. Previous studies indicate that stone chimes from the Shuangdun Tomb in Bengbu consist entirely of cryptocrystalline, microcrystalline limestone (Wang et al., 2013). The stone chimes from Jiuliandun Tomb M1 is identified as micritic limestone, whereas the sample from Jiuliandun Tomb M2 is composed of dolomite. The stone chimes unearthed from Jiunvdun No. 3 Tomb is also dolomitic in composition, showing a marked lithological difference from the nearby Lingbi lithophone stone. Both Xft2 and the Lingbi lithophones (Lbs01 and Lbs02) produce musical sounds when struck. However, Xft2 has a coarser and less uniform grain size compared to the Lingbi lithophones. Lbs03, although sourced from Qingyunshan Mountain, exhibits relatively larger grains, lower particle uniformity, and contains impurities, which prevent it from producing a musical tone.

3.2 Principal component and trace element analysis

In carbonate rocks, elements that can substitute for calcium or respond to sedimentary environments are commonly used as diagnostic tracers in provenance studies. In this investigation, Sr, Rb, Cu, Cr, and Pb were selected as target trace elements for analysis.

The major and trace element compositions of the samples were measured using a Shimadzu WD-1800 wavelength-dispersive XRF spectrometer. The instrument is equipped with a 4 kW rhodium target X-ray tube and a 75 µm-thick beryllium window. Its θ–2θ independent drive system, rotating 10-bit crystal exchange mechanism, and three exchangeable slits enable highly precise, automatic measurements. The detection limits range from 0.1 to 1 μg/g, with a relative error of approximately 1%.

In provenance studies of sedimentary rocks, trace-element geochemical tracing represents one of the core analytical approaches. Owing to significant differences in mineral composition, depositional mechanisms, and diagenetic evolution among various lithologies, the selection of appropriate diagnostic trace-element assemblages exhibits marked variability. Consequently, indicator selection must adhere to three fundamental principles: lithological suitability, geochemical stability, and environmental specificity. Compared with clastic rocks, igneous rocks, and other carbonate lithologies (e.g., dolomite), limestone is dominated by calcite (CaCO₃) as its principal rock-forming mineral, imparting distinctive chemical and crystallographic characteristics. The occurrence, migration, and enrichment of trace elements in limestone are directly controlled by substitution at Ca²⁺ lattice sites, the physicochemical conditions of the depositional environment, and subsequent diagenetic alteration. Therefore, the selection of characteristic elements must be closely aligned with the mineralogical and sedimentary geochemical properties of limestone, in order to avoid biases introduced by generalized or non-specific indicators. The combined use of Sr, Rb, Cu, Pb, and Cr provides an optimal suite of trace elements, balancing the stability of isomorphic substitution, environmental sensitivity, and provenance discrimination capability. This elemental assemblage is well suited to the mineralogical and sedimentary geochemical characteristics of limestone, particularly for dense limestone used in the production of stone chimes. Significant differences in the concentrations and coupling relationships of these elements among limestones from different sources enable precise and reliable provenance discrimination.

The results of the major element analysis are presented in Table 2, while trace element data are summarized in Table 3.

The production of functional stone chimes requires a relatively homogeneous mineral composition and dense, uniformly distributed mineral grains. The content of CaO is notably high in the Lingbi lithophones (Lbs01, Lbs02, Lbs03), LgdM2-122, LgdM2-117, JldM1-27, JndM3-13, Fy01, and Xft2, indicating a predominantly single mineral phase.

Although Fy01 and Lbs03 exhibit relatively simple mineral compositions, their larger and less uniform grain sizes render them unsuitable for producing functional chimes. The JldM2-34 sample, with a CaO content of 59.34%, likely served a ritual or funerary purpose rather than practical use as a musical instrument.

3.3 Results of PCA

The results of PCA are displayed in Figure 5.

FIGURE 5

To evaluate the differences and intrinsic relationships among the samples, PCA was conducted separately on two datasets: bulk composition and trace element data. The suitability of the datasets was assessed using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. The KMO value for the compositional dataset is 0.722, with a Bartlett’s test χ² value of 94.936 (df = 28, P < 0.001). For the trace element dataset, the KMO value is 0.613, with a Bartlett’s test χ² value of 20.078 (df = 6, P = 0.003). Both datasets satisfy the prerequisites, indicating significant inter-variable correlations and suitability for dimensionality reduction.

The PCA scatter plot for the compositional dataset is shown in Figure 5a. The first principal component (PC1; REGR factor score 1 for analysis 1) explains 57.50% of the total variance, while the second principal component (PC2; REGR factor score 2 for analysis 1) accounts for 27.31%. Together, these two components explain 84.81% of the cumulative variance, effectively capturing the core compositional characteristics of the samples. The confidence ellipse illustrates the distribution pattern of the samples: most exhibit clear clustering behavior (ellipse region), whereas Fy01, Xht1, and Hun05 deviate markedly, indicating significant compositional differences from the main group.

After excluding the three outliers (Fy01, Xht1, and Hun05), PCA was further applied to the remaining samples based on their trace element compositions. The resulting scatter plot is shown in Figure 5b. In this analysis, PC1 explains 62.70% of the total variance and PC2 accounts for 27.18%, sufficiently representing the variability in trace element composition. The samples display a highly concentrated clustering pattern, suggesting strong compositional homogeneity within this group. However, Xft2, JldM2-34, and LgdM2-122 show deviations from the confidence ellipse, indicating distinct geochemical characteristics relative to the clustered samples.

The PCA results indicate that, in terms of bulk composition, Hun05, Xht1, and Fy01 exhibit significant differences from the other sample groups. Notably, the stone chimes from the Bengbu Shuangdun Tomb (BsdM1-11, BsdM1-21, BsdM1-13) show significant compositional differences from Cambrian limestone in the Fengyang–Huainan area (Fy01), which is geographically closer to the ancient Zhongli state. Instead, their composition is more consistent with stone samples from Qingyunshan Mountain (Anhui Province) and Xiangyang (Hubei Province). The two stone chimes from Leigudun Tomb M2 exhibit noticeable compositional differences. Specifically, LgdM2-117 is compositionally closer to the Lingbi lithophone samples, whereas LgdM2-122 shows greater affinity with Xft2. In addition, these two stone chimes differ in both color and elemental composition, suggesting that distinct high-quality lithic materials were likely deliberately selected for their production. The analytical results for JldM1-27 and JldM2-34 also reveal significant differences between the two specimens. JldM1-27 shows a closer compositional relationship with the Lbs-series samples, while JldM2-34 displays elemental characteristics that deviate markedly from those of the other samples.

By integrating polarized observations with PCA, the results can be mutually validated. The lithology of the stone chimes from the Shuangdun Tomb shows strong similarity to the lithophone samples from Lingbi County (Lbs01 and Lbs02), while displaying significant differences from the Cambrian limestones (Fy01 and Hun05) in the nearby Fengyang–Huainan area. This pattern is consistent with the PCA results, suggesting that the raw materials for these chimes were likely sourced from Qingyunshan Mountain. This observation underscores the artisans’ preference during this period for high-quality rock, reflecting their deliberate effort to select relatively pure, fine-grained, dense limestone with high CaCO₃ content for the manufacture of functional stone chimes.

JldM1-27 is classified as micritic limestone with relatively high calcite purity and exhibits lithological characteristics similar to those of Lbs01 and Xft2. The two stone chimes from Leigudun Tomb M2 are both limestones; however, the uniformity of mineral particle distribution in LgdM2-122 is slightly lower than that of LgdM2-117. When considered in conjunction with the PCA results, LgdM2-117 shows a stronger affinity with the Lingbi lithophone (Qingyunshan Mountain), whereas LgdM2-122 is more likely derived from the Xiangyang region. Both samples differ markedly from limestones found in the Suizhou area, indicating that raw materials were not exclusively sourced locally during the production of stone chimes. Moreover, the fact that stone chime unearthed from the same tomb may originate from different quarry sources suggests that the lithic materials used were not obtained from a single provenance. Lithological analysis of the Leigudun samples further indicates that they were likely functional stone chimes, implying that artisans deliberately selected suitable lithic materials from multiple regions for their manufacture. Considering that a complete set of stone chime requires precisely tuned stones capable of producing ordered pitches and performing scales and melodies, it is unlikely that all components were produced independently at separate locations. Rather, it is more plausible that craftsmen selected appropriate raw materials from different sources and transported them to a centralized workshop or production site, where sufficient stone material was assembled and processed into a complete chime set. This hypothesis may be further tested through the analysis of additional stone chimes from the same period. In summary, during the Eastern Zhou period, artisans within the Chu territory appear to have deliberately procured lithic materials from distant sources in pursuit of superior quality, and to have utilized stones from multiple quarries in the production of a single chime set. This practice not only reflects the advanced technological level of stone chime production in Chu but also demonstrates a high degree of logistical organization in material procurement and manufacturing processes. Specifically, the provenance of samples JldM1-27, JldM2-34, and JndM3-13 could not be determined based on the principal component analysis results alone. Resolving these cases will require additional analytical methods and a larger sample set in future studies.

4 Speculation on the material transport path of stone chimes

FIGURE 6

Based on the spatial distribution of stone chime excavation sites from the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods shown in Figure 2a, these sites broadly align with the routes proposed in Figure 6. This correspondence provides indirect support for the plausibility of the inferred transport pathways. However, a definitive validation would require systematic petrographic, XRF, and multivariate statistical analyses of stone chimes from all 21 identified sites, which represents a substantial undertaking. Future research can further address this issue by expanding the dataset and analytical coverage.

The investigation of rock provenance is intrinsically complex, requiring an integrated analytical framework that combines geological, petrological, and geochemical approaches with careful archaeological contextualization. This study demonstrates that systematic lithological characterization coupled with compositional analysis constitutes an effective and reliable methodology for tracing the provenance and reconstructing the possible transportation pathways of stone chime materials. Through the application of these approaches, it becomes possible to elucidate the spatial movement and distribution patterns of high-quality limestone resources sourced from multiple vassal states during the Eastern Zhou Dynasty, thereby shedding light on mechanisms of resource acquisition and interregional exchange.

Moreover, the results underscore the value of integrating scientific analytical techniques with archaeological and historical evidence in the study of ritual artifacts. Such an interdisciplinary approach not only enhances the precision of provenance determination but also provides a material basis for understanding broader sociopolitical dynamics, including resource control, technological choice, and the organization of craft production within the Chu cultural sphere. Future research incorporating expanded sampling strategies, higher-resolution geochemical datasets, and multi-proxy analytical methods—such as isotopic tracing and microstructural analysis—will further refine reconstructions of stone chime material circulation and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of exchange networks and cultural interactions across ancient Chu territories.

5 Conclusion

This study employed an integrated analytical approach combining petrographic observation, XRF geochemistry, and multivariate statistical analysis to investigate the provenance of seven stone chime samples excavated from tombs within the Chu cultural region, including the Jiuliandun and Leigudun No. 2 tombs in Hubei Province, the Shuangdun No. 1 Tomb in Anhui Province, and the Jiunvdun No. 3 Tomb in Jiangsu Province.

All analyzed samples are composed of carbonate rocks, predominantly fine-grained limestones, with minor occurrences of dolomitic compositions (e.g., JldM2-34 and JndM3-13). Petrographic observations indicate that most samples exhibit dense, fine-grained microstructures suitable for sound production, consistent with the material requirements of functional stone chimes. Comparative analysis of modern rock samples suggests that lithologies from Qingyunshan Mountain (Lingbi area) and the Xiangyang region possess similar petrographic and acoustic characteristics.

The combined results of microscopic observation and PCA indicate that the Shuangdun Tomb chimes (BsdM1-11, BsdM1-21, BsdM1-13) show strong compositional affinity with lithophone samples from Qingyunshan Mountain in northern Anhui. The two samples from Leigudun No. 2 Tomb exhibit distinct compositional trends: LgdM2-117 is more closely associated with the Lingbi lithophone group, whereas LgdM2-122 shows greater similarity to limestone from the Xiangyang region. These results suggest that multiple potential source areas may have contributed to the raw materials used in the production of stone chimes. In contrast, the provenance of the Jiuliandun samples (JldM1-27 and JldM2-34) and the Jiunvdun sample (JndM3-13) remains inconclusive, reflecting either compositional variability beyond the current reference dataset or the existence of additional, unsampled source regions.

The observed compositional variability among stone chimes, including those from the same archaeological context, indicates that raw material selection was not restricted to a single lithological source. However, while these patterns are consistent with the possibility of multi-source procurement, the present dataset does not allow for a definitive reconstruction of procurement strategies, production organization, or transport mechanisms. Interpretations regarding long-distance material transport, centralized production, and the scale of interregional exchange should therefore be regarded as hypotheses that require further verification through expanded sampling, higher-resolution geochemical proxies (e.g., isotopic analysis), and broader regional comparisons.

References

• 1

  ChouH.ChenY. (1984). Stratigraphy of early and Middle Cambrian in Xuzhou area, Jiangsu Province. East China Geology, 75–89+111.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  CoxT. J.FazendaB. M.GreaneyS. E. (2020). Using scale modelling to assess the prehistoric acoustics of stonehenge. J. Archaeol. Sci.122, 105218. 10.1016/j.jas.2020.105218

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  DuanD.FangH. (2023). On the chines stone from prehistory to the Shang dynasty. Cultural Relics of Central China, 93–105.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  DuanD.FangH. (2024). The evolution of the western-zhou chime stone. Music Res., 18–31.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  FangJ. (2021). Archaeological discoveries and ancient Chinese ritual and music culture. Music Res., 5–14.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  GuJ.ZhuG.WangQ. (1999). Excavation report of Jiunvdun No.2 pier in Pizhou city, Jiangsu Province, Archaeology28–34.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  HeimlerK.GottschalkC.VogtC. (2023). Confocal micro X-ray fluorescence analysis for the non-destructive investigation of structured and inhomogeneous samples. Anal. Bioanal. Chem.415, 5083–5100. 10.1007/s00216-023-04829-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  KanX.ZhouQ.QianR.TangG. (2009). Excavation achievements of the tombs of zhongli state in the spring and autumn period. Southeast Cult., 40–132.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  KongL.ChenY. (2002). Excavation of the no. 3 mound at Jiuniidun in Pizhou City, Jiangsu. Archaeology, 19–102.

  • Google Scholar

• 10

  LiL.QinY.YuanM.HuangQ. (2019). Study on the lithology of stone chimes (stone musical instruments in ancient China) and Lingbi stone. Archaeometry61, 783–794. 10.1111/arcm.12449

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  LiL.ZhaoJ.QinC. (2026a). Research on the weathering mechanism and fracture stability prediction of silicate cultural heritage rock masses: a case study of the kongwangshan cliff sculptures, China. Stud. Conserv.1–21. 10.1080/00393630.2026.2648286

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  LiL.ChenD.SunS. (2026b). Study on the deterioration mechanisms of limestone and marble stone relics under the greenhouse effect. Stud. Conserv.1–19. 10.1080/00393630.2026.2659042

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  LinX.JiaL.ZhaoC.YuanH. (2009). New development of study on the provenance and mineral sources of cultural relics. J. Northwest Univ. Philosophy Soc. Sci. Ed.39, 11–14.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  ShuzLiuB. (1982). On the Han Dong Zeng state as an Indigenous Ji surname accompanying state. Jianghan Trib., 74–79.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  SunH. (2025). Archaeological study of the Eastern Zhou suspended musical instrument system. Archaeology, 81–93+82.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  TillR. (2019). Sound archaeology: a study of the acoustics of three world heritage sites, Spanish prehistoric painted caves, stonehenge, and paphos theatre. Acoustics1, 661–692. 10.3390/acoustics1030039

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  WallerS. J. (1993). Sound and rock art. Nature363, 501. 10.1038/363501a0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  WangS.ZhuG.TangH.KanX.ZhouQ. (2013). A study on the stone qing excavated from the tomb of bai,the king of zhongli. Southeast Culture, 71–78.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  WangH.HuY.HanC.WuS.LiY.WangX.et al (2018). The excavation of the musical instruments of burial No.2 at Jiuliandun in Zaoyang County, Hubei. Cultural Relics of Central China, 17–29+76+12.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  WangX.WangH.HuY.LiuS.YangL.LiangC.et al (2018). Excavation report of M2 at Jiuliandun site of Zaoyang, Hubei Province. Southeast Cult., 3–55+52.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  WangH.HuY.HanC.WuS.LiY.WangX.et al (2019). The excavation of burial no. 1 at Jiuliandun, Jiuyang county, Hubei. Cultural Relics of Central China, 4–18+93+12+129.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  WangX.WangH.HuY.LiuS.YangL.LiangC. (2019). Excavation report of M1 at Jiuliandun site of Zaoyang, Hubei Province. Jianghan Archaeol., 20–70+145.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  WeiG.QinY.HuY.DongY.WangC. (2011). Scientific analysis on jasper, chime stone and embedded object excavated from Jiuliandun Chu Tomb. Jianghan Archaeol., 105–109.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  WuG.GengJ.LiuZ. (2003). Excavation of tombs of the spring-and-autumn period at Jiunlidun in Pizhou city, Jiangsu. Archaeology, 781–792+868+782.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  YonJ.RossingT. D. (2006). Geometrical effects on the tuning of Chinese and Korean stone chimes. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.120, EL78–EL83.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  ZhangC. (2007). On leigudun burials. Jianghan Archaeol., 80–86+91.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  ZhangW. (2017). The arrangements of the chime bells of the Zhou dynasty inburials and in performance occasions. Acta Archaeol. Sin., 49–74.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  ZhaoB. (2021). Chu state' s political ruling style and territory change in the spring and autumn period. J. Henan Univ. Soc. Sci.61, 83–91.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  ZhuJ.MaoZ.ZhangS. (2006). X-ray fluorescence analysis in archaeometry: application and expectation. Spectrosc. Spectr. Analysis26, 2341–2345.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article