The launch meeting of the EPIWEN series was held online on June 15, 2026, with Claudia Wenzel (Heidelberg – Stonesutras), Cui Yixiong (Heidelberg – Stonesutras), Laurent Van Cutsem (UGent), Wu Luchun 吳廬春 (UGent), Xue Lei (University of Oregon), Michael Hatch (Trinity College), Yan Weitian (Indiana University), Yeh Shun-Yu (KULeuven – Infralives), and, from the Altergraphy project, Francesca Berdin (Inalco/IFRAE), Paula Suméra (Inalco/IFRAE), and Zhang Rui (ENS Lyon – Altergraphy). On the occasion of this meeting, we have redacted an outline of the project:
The Epiwen series aims to build a community of scholars working on Chinese epigraphy, to convene regularly to share their conceptual concerns, and to test methods in digital epigraphy together. Activities include comparing available transcription tools, publishing a shared corpus of transcriptions, and presenting it as a representative sample of Chinese epigraphy. Participants will co-author a data paper or practical manual that addresses methodological challenges and explains editorial decisions. The series will also produce and maintain an online glossary, gradually updated on Opentheso.
As an introduction to the discussion, Manuel reviewed the genesis of this initiative, from the 2023 AAS-in-Asia panel on documenting inscriptions to our participation in the 10th Epigraphy.info workshop in March 2026. He introduced the Epidoc initiative and provided a few slides comparing the TEI-derived Stonesutras encoding scheme and the Epidoc scheme. He highlighted overlaps and differences, for example, in the description of the “writing support” (where Stonesutras added specifics such as grid, frame, etc). Some convergences are obvious between the Stonesutras fields and the recently published FAIR Epigraphy vocabularies (such as the description of V-shaped, U-shaped and rectangular U-shaped grooves, the description of the “execution technique”).
Lia completed this introduction with a summary of the EPIWEN series’ outcomes, resources and workload, reflecting on the involvement of the meeting participants. Individual contributors are asked to present and work on one or more inscriptions and to participate in conceptual discussions about the transcription process. Participants may use their preferred tools or those they feel most comfortable with. Finally, we have agreed on the need for assistance in formalizing the discussions and publishing a related job ad. We are seeking one or more persons to assist the organizers in harmonizing edited transcriptions and managing publication of the Epiwen series. The role requires attending meetings to track discussions through to publication. The tasks fall into two bundles corresponding to distinct stages of the project; a single candidate may cover both bundles if they have the required skills.
The participants then each proposed a first choice of inscription, series of inscriptions, type of inscription or document reproducing an inscription:
(1) Wu Luchun would work on inscribed slabs originally from the Leifeng pagoda in Hangzhou, part of her PhD project. The series of stones with the Huayanjing was originally inserted into the walls of the pagoda, recovered after its collapse in the early 20th century, now partly preserved in the Zhejiang Museum. The set is incomplete, and the transcription would have to address the fragmentary nature of the stone slabs as well as their architectural setting. Laurent van Cutsem, who spoke on her behalf, raised the obvious similarity to the encoding practices of manuscripts, where the unit of encoding is the manuscript, with often completely unrelated recto and verso in one TEI file, and added milestones to differentiate between distinct texts inscribed on the same object or surface.
(2) Xue Lei would propose the transcription of a calligraphic model engraved on stone (fatie), the focus of his current book project. He noted that the geographic location of the work might be difficult to pin down in some cases, since the slabs are mobile. While textual content would not be central, his transcription would have to address the multiple versions of a single calligraphic work, as well as the gap between the inscription on stone and the circulating rubbings. He even raised the question that in his case, the stones are not even considered as the final product but only the intermediary step to reproduce which should be considered the end product. Such a transcription might also markup stylistic elements (calligraphic variation) or recarving events (chongke).
(3) Michael Hatch would propose the transcription of an inscription in the format of an album enriched with colophons. He also presented different versions of the same inscription rendered with different techniques (rubbing & tracing copies or double-outline copies). He raised the question of the limits or ambitions of the Epiwen project, which, if it does not define its goals precisely around the question of texts engraved on stone (versus the “life of the rubbing”), would have to address the whole realm of calligraphy and painting. He also raised the problem of how to codify the vocabulary, using modern or historical terms or both. Further concerns were the complicated hybrid identities of the objects that might completely change historically. How to deal with the fact that, for example, a Qing literati inscription is was carved on a Han dynasty building brick transformed into an ink stone.
(4) Yan Weitian presented photographs of an “Yi Bingshou”-inscribed inkstone. He raised the question of authorship when the inscribed object displays the calligraphic style of Yi Bingshou, or contains an actual poem composed and signed by the artist, but was most likely engraved by an anonymous craftsman, and may exist in several exemplars. He addressed the complexity of encoding geographical information of different types of traveling objects. He wondered whether we should also include calligraphic adaptations written in ink on paper in the style of certain inscriptions, and how to describe their relationship to the “original” inscription.
(5) Yeh Shun-Yu presented a tentative classification of standard stele shapes based on a corpus of rubbings from different online databases that she is analyzing within her internship at the Infralives project. She proposed considering questions of format and layout, and it was raised whether the description would be based solely on rubbings.
(6) Cui Yixiong presented one example of an octagonal dharani pillar, addressing the question of how to describe multiple, sometimes “nested,” inscriptions that are distributed over the same writing support. He also raised the question of how to encode different calligraphic styles and the occurrence of related inscriptions on other media at the same site or even on the same object.
(7) Francesca Berdin proposed to adapt her transcription of the 6th-century Tang Yong stele, a rock-cut stele from the Xiangtangshan grotto ensemble, as well as one 6th-century epitaph, which she both analyzed for her MA Thesis in 2024-2025. Her transcription would include the several hundred graphic variants she has listed and classified.
Zhang Rui and Paula Suméra were not present at this first meeting but had declared their interest prior to it. The former is currently proofreading the transcriptions of the Altergraphy corpus, and the latter will propose a transcription of the Xizhou bronze pillar (940 CE) located in Furong district, Yongshun county, Hunan province.
Manuel and Lia will be working on several inscriptions of the Stonesutras and Altergraphy project, which are planned to be mapped from their respective databases onto the new Epiwen scheme.
About five additional online meetings are planned (with options for one-to-one or small-group meetings on specific issues), followed by a final in-person gathering in Paris between June 15 and 30, 2027. The next meeting will focus on the first two sections of an Epidoc edition: the headers and physical description. Participants are asked to bring one or several photographs of the inscription (including contextual photographs if needed), a rubbing if necessary and available, to look for existing transcriptions in order for us to compare the editions and the publication conventions across versions, and to think about the conceptual issues and challenges encountered when filling in the “headers” and “physical description” fields.
We are looking forward to welcoming contributions to additional participants, please express your interest by writing at [email protected] or [email protected]
