This paper, divided into two parts, discusses the nature of the text written on the one hundred thirty eight bamboo slips collected in the second volume of the recently released Tsing-hua. Bamboo Slips The first part presents the fact that there are accounts that are not specifically tied to any one state, give no information on the time and date and often omit the genealogy and narratives of any state, accounts of a state without the narrative subject “We” (wo) to represent the state and without putting one’s own state in the first place when juxtaposing the vassal states, and records of speeches without mentioning the disparate others. It thus concludes that these materials are out of tune with the narrative tradition observed by historians; different from Spring and Autumn Annals (Ch’un-ch’iu) of the Lu State and Bamboo Annals (Chu-shu chi-nien) of the Wei State, this text is not a chronological history of any state and apparently not from the hands of a hereditary historian. The second part determines the upper and lower limits of the content of this bamboo slip manuscript first, and then cites examples to show that this text contains materials mostly from sources other than Tso Commentary (Tso-chuan). It thus demonstrates further that it is a hand-copied extract, a sketch of history of the Spring and Autumn period, and therefore there are so many confusing accounts and even errors in the narration. The reason to have such hand-copied extract was presumably for educational purposes, to give people general knowledge of the historical Spring and Autumn period. In summary, it is a mistake to consider this bamboo slip text as a historical record structurally similar to Bamboo Annals and entitle it Chronicles (Hsi-nien).