Liu-Chi(六齐), the six receipts of bronze, as recorded in Chou-Li-K’ao-K’ung-Chi(周礼考工 记), has come down to us in different interpretations though the text was written in clear language. According to one interpretation, the proportion of copper to tin in the six kinds of bronze reads in the order of; 5:1, 4: 1, 3: 1, 2: 1, 3: 2, and 1: 1; while according to the other, in that of 6: 1, 5: 1, 4: 1, 3: 1, 5: 2 and 1: 1. The difference in interpretation arises from the different meaning attached to the very word ’Chin’(金) which might be taken here as to mean either bronze or copper. Through a critical examination of the context of the passage concerned, as well as of the textual structure of similar passages in the whole book of Chou-Li (周礼) and in other classical writ ings, the present author has succeeded in establishing beyond doubt that the word’Chin’ so long as it appears in a similar position and plays the same role as another word’Hsi’ (锡) (meaning tin), could only mean copper and not otherwise. Therefore the second interpretation as mentioned above is then proved to be the correct one. The significance of the problem lies in the fact that the incorrect interpretation has found its way into the current literature of metallography and the writings about the history of Chinese arts and science. On further examination of the text it is revealed, however, that the ratio of copper and tin in the sixth receipt for making mirrors, though the only one that the two interpretations agree, seems to cast some shadow of doubt. In the first place, the copper content suddenly drops from 71% to 50%, so large a decrease as to surpass the total change involved in other five receipts. Secondly, according to the well established metallographical studies. the bronze of such composition is practically useless, its properties being in no way as a good mirror requires. Finally, from the results of extensive chemical analysis of ancient Chinese mirrors, their composition is by no means in accordance with the receipt. Judging from the unreasonableness of all these discrepencies, the present author suggests that a missing mumerical might have happened in copying the old manuscipt. By inserting the simple word ’one’ (Yi in Chinese.─) in the text, not only all the discrepencies mentioned above are removed, but also the whole system of making different bronze articles thus becomes a consistent one. Liu-Chi (六)), the six receipts of bronze, as recorded in Chou-Li-K’ao-K’ung-Chi (考 周 周 記), has come down to us in different interpretations though the text was written in clear language. According to one interpretation, the proportion of copper to tin in the six kinds of bronze reads in the order of; 5: 1, 4: 1, 3: 1, 2: 1, 3: 2, and 1: 1 ; while according to the other, in that of 6: 1, 5: 1, 4: 1, 3: 1, 5: 2 and 1: 1. The difference in interpretation arises from the different meaning attached to the very word ’Chin Through the critical examination of the context of the passage concerned, as well as of the textual structure of similar passages in the whole book of Chou-Li ) and in other classical writings, the present author has succeeded in establishing beyond doubt that the word’Chin ’so long as it appears in a similar position and plays the same role as another word’Hsi’ (锡) (meaning tin) , could on ly the meaning of the problem lies in the fact that the incorrect interpretation has found its way into the current literature of metallography and the writings about the history of Chinese arts and science. On further examination of the text it is revealed, however, that the ratio of copper and tin in the sixth receipt for making mirrors, though the only one that the two interpretations agree, seems to cast some shadow Of the first place, the copper content suddenly drops from 71% to 50%, so large a decrease as to surpass the total change involved in other five receipts. Secondly, according to the well established metallographical studies. the bronze of such composition is practically useless, its properties being in no way as a good mirror requires. Finally, from the results of extensive chemical analysis of ancient Chinese mirrors, their composi tion is by no means inAccording with the receipt. Judgment from the unreasonableness of all these discrepencies, the present author suggests that a missing mumerical might have happened in copying the old manuscipt. By inserting the simple word ’one’ (Yi in Chinese.─) in the text, not only all the discrepencies mentioned above are removed, but also the whole system of making different bronze articles thus becomes a consistent one.