Talk:He zun

Date of casting

Sources were added in this edit to narrow the date of the vessel to "the first century of the dynasty" (in the lead) and "c. 1000 BCE" (in the infobox) Later, this edit tightened the dating further to "the early years of the dynasty" in the lead and "1038 BCE" in the infobox, without updating the cited refs, which don't support those dates.

Here's a relevant caveat:

The He zun was discovered in 1963, but its inscription was detected more than a decade later when it was cleaned. Several leading scholars enthusiastically dated this inscription to the reign of King Cheng (Tang Lan 1976; Ma Chengyuan 1976). They assumed that it refers to the foundation of the eastern royal residence Chengzhou, which, according to the Shangshu, took place during that reign.... However, as Li Xueqin reasonably argued a few years later, it simply mentions the decision of a certain Zhou king to reside in Chengzhou. Li demonstrated that the calendrical reference in the He zun is incompatible with the calendar of King Cheng as rendered in the Shangshu. Li therefore suggested that the He zun dates from the reign of the third king, Kang (Li Xueqin 1981). Nevertheless, most historians still prefer an earlier date. Yet its length of 122 characters is very unusual for early Zhou reigns (cf. Venture 2002: 277). Several other lengthy early inscriptions, previously regarded as dating to King Kang, are now regarded by most scholars as dating to the fourth king, Zhao. (Zhang Maorong 張懋鎔. 2008. “Shilun Xi Zhou qingtongqi yanbian de feijunhengxing de wenti” 試論西周青銅器演變的非均衡性問題, Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 3: 337–52).The stylistic similarity between the He zun and several other zun that are reliably dated to the latter reign, supports the assumption that the king mentioned in this inscription was more probably King Zhao. (Cf. Bo Ge zun, JC5855, excavated in tomb BRM7 at Baoji Zhuyuangou, dated between late King Kang and early King Zhao (Baoji 1988: 102); Zuoce Zhe zun, JC6002, excavated from the Zhuangbai hoard, dated to King Zhao (Zhouyuan 2005, vol. 3, 547); Ze Ling zun, JC6016, excavated in Luoyang Mapo (Taibei Gugong 1989: 137). For the date of Ze Ling’s vessels, see Shaughnessy 1991, 193-214.)

— Maria Khayutina

The assertion Nevertheless, most historians still prefer an earlier date is not footnoted in the text. Also, the text available online, at this point in the chapter, is the final preprint version rather than the published version, and I'm not sure if it's appropriate to cite.

So do we have a source from like the 1990s or later that specifically addresses the date of this vessel? Or that discusses academic consensus about the dating of the vessel? I feel like if we're going to adopt 1038 as the casting date we should at least be citing Tang Lan or Ma Chengyuan, but given the developments since the discovery of the inscription, it seems wise to be more cautious about assigning such a definitive date.

Courtesy ping Sevilledade. Folly Mox (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)