# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Left: Painted earthenware vessel, Majiayao, Painted Pottery Neolithic, 3000 BCE, China. Right: Array of milk cartons on shelf, Milgrad Cats, paperboard, Russia, 2020 CE. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Continuous spirals and playful cats: A comparison of a Majiayao earthenware vessel and the Milgrad Cat Milk Cartons, Neolithic China 3000 BCE

# data[].attributes.subject
Continuous spirals and playful cats: A comparison of a Majiayao earthenware vessel and the Milgrad Cat Milk Cartons, Neolithic China 3000 BCE

# data[].attributes.body
In modern-day Gansu province at a site called Majiayao, red earthenware pots from 3000 BCE emerged from the soil and gave insight to the artistic production of the Neolithic painted pottery cultures of northwestern China. A typical design choice of a running spiral wraps itself around the whole vessel with the spiral form attaching to a nucleus in which a single black dot forms the center. An interest in four dimensions was also a choice considered by the artist of this Majiayao vessel. While the nuclei on the rest of the vessel are a center point for the radiating arms of running spirals, when viewing the opening of the vessel from the top, the opening acts as a nucleus and the spirals also radiate from it. It is clear from these factors that careful measurements and planning took place before this vessels creation.

On the other hand, considering the Milgrad Milk Cartons for a comparison, certain characteristics of the Majiayao vessel seem similar to the choice made by the designer of the Milgrad cartons. First, it is important to notice that the Milgrad cartons form a cat design by rotating the cartons to each side, forming a cohesive cat image. A single carton would therefore have a cat wrapping around the whole carton. This is similar to the Majiayao vessel, but instead of a running spiral, the continuous motif is a cat wrapping around a carton. Other similarities should be considered for the careful planning that each object needs to be successful. For the Majiayao pots, careful consideration is needed to have the nuclei and spiral line up, whereas for the cartons, planning is needed to ensure the design lines up properly when the cartons are placed with each other.

There are many differences between these two objects that it remains unrealistic to list them all. One would be that the function of the Majiayao vessel was to hold grains within a funerary context. In contrast, the Milgrad cartons hold milk (a liquid, which is maybe something you would see more from a burial practice of the East coast Neolithic painted pottery groups) and should be used only in a supermarket - not a burial.

While similarities between this Majiayao vessel and the Milgrad Milk Cartons are their use of careful planning and a continuous design, differences outweigh the similarities, especially in the consideration of whether milk cartons should be used for holding milk and being buried with individuals to drink in the afterlife. This is not to say that the appreciation of these designs should be diminished for their differences, but rather celebrated for their creativity in continuous motifs and planning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Funerary storage jar, Banshan earthenware with painted decoration, Majiayao culture (3800-2000 BCE), c. 2300 BCE, China. The Minneapolis Institute of Art, https://collections.artsmia.org/art/3856/funerary-storage-jar-majiayao.

# data[].attributes.headline
BONUS POST: Northwest Neolithic Vessels of Banshan Earthenware, Majiayao Culture (3800-2000 BCE)

# data[].attributes.subject
BONUS POST: Northwest Neolithic Vessels of Banshan Earthenware, Majiayao Culture (3800-2000 BCE)

# data[].attributes.body
This rounded vessel begins with a circular foot that tapers up to a wider waist at a 45-degree angle. From the waist the vessel curves back on the shoulder to a narrower diameter where the straight neck of the vessel protrudes from the top and has a small curved lip. The vessel has no decoration from the foot up to just below the waist. Two small semi-circular unpainted handles extend from the painted portion down to the unpainted portion. The decorated portion of the vessel is black and the designs are made with negative space, meaning the designs are the base color of the vessel. Four central lobed designs fill the decorated space on four sides, interrupted by a leaf pattern between them. The lobe is a circle that tapers near the top like a neck to a vessel and then flares out as it reaches the top. The lobed portion has a small sawtooth pattern pointing outward of the vessel's base color on the border. The sawtooth pattern sits on a thicker black line that divides the interior and exterior of the lobed shape. The interior of the lobe is a tight diagonal crosshatch pattern in black with the exposed base color of the vessel visible in the background. Between the four lobes are portions of the vessel with a simplified leaf design. Illustrated with negative space (the leaves are the base color of the vessel), there are between 7 and 8 leaves of a rounded skinny and long diamond shape. The leaves all vary in size, and some are small equilateral triangles. The leaves are oriented in the same direction, north to south. Some leaves have a wavy line in the center from point to point. The designs all meet at a thick line of black that circles around the top of the shoulder just before the neck. The neck of the vessel contains two horizontal bands of a sawtooth pattern pointing up.

For comparison, this vessel is clearly a Banshan vessel based on comparisons with the Banshan earthenware shown in class. The shapes are identical and are consistent with the Banshan style of vessel (small foot going to a larger waist with a small neck and two small semi-circular handles). Interestingly, the vessel from MIA uses only black as a color while the Banshan class examples have a dark red paint. In addition, the main decorative program differs in that the MIA vessel does not have a running spiral while the class examples do. An interest in a crosshatch or checkerboard pattern does seem to stay consistent, however. The decoration starting just below the waist is another theme consistent with the class examples as well as a sawtooth pattern. Based on lecture, I know this is a vessel for food offerings and is from a burial. Considering it is from Banshan in Gansu province, the food offering was probably millet. A belief in the afterlife is assumed because of the placement of food offerings. In the northwest, the village sites also did not worry much about dangerous rivals of people. This work expands my knowledge of Banshan earthenware, as I just assumed that all Banshan earthenware used a running spiral. This vessel is evidence that this is not the case and the decorative program differs while remaining in a common theme of ideas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Left: Stem cup, Longshan earthenware, Longshan culture (3000-2500 BCE), c. 2500-2000 BCE, China. The Minneapolis Institute of Art, https://collections.artsmia.org/art/12705/stem-cup-longshan. Right: ART 370 Study Image. Longshan Eggshell Ware.

# data[].attributes.headline
East Coast Neolithic Vessels of Longshan Earthenware, Longshan Culture (3000-2500 BCE)

# data[].attributes.subject
East Coast Neolithic Vessels of Longshan Earthenware, Longshan Culture (3000-2500 BCE)

# data[].attributes.body
This black stem cup starts with a small straight columnar base on top of which sits a tapered section of the vessel akin to the shape of a goblet's stem. The stem narrows to a convex portion of the vessel. This portion has nine rows of roughly evenly spaced thin vertical line perforations. The perforations cut into the hollow vessel, allowing a viewer to see through the vessel. This convex portion ends at the top with another goblet stemmed portion that is thicker and shorter then the stem before. This stem narrows to a rounded cup shaped portion of the vessel. Around the midsection of the cup, the vessel shrinks in width a little. The cup then goes to the rim, which has a wide flared lip.

This stem cup from the Minneapolis Institute of Art shares numerous features with the Longshan eggshell ware shown in class. Both vessels share in the signature black iron oxide black color which comes from the reduction atmosphere where this vessel was fired. This points to an important distinction of the East Coast Neolithic. Rather than painting their vessels like the Northwest Neolithic cultures, people in the East Coast used firing techniques to create monochromatic vessels. Both vessels also exhibits the famous form of earthenware from Longshan called eggshell ware. This is so named because the walls of the vessel are very thin, almost as thin as an eggshell. This, and the rounded shape of the entire vessel could only occur through the use of a pottery wheel. Pottery wheels, interestingly, were only in use by East Coast Neolithic peoples. Other Northwest Neolithic cultures were using the coil method to produce their vessels. Another distinction of the East Coast Neolithic is a preference for liquid offerings for burials instead of the food offering preference from the Northwest cultures. Evidence for this comes from tombs from both cultures. The Northwest typically buried the dead with a large number of food vessels, while the East Coast typically had more liquid vessels.

The presence of many Longshan stem cups in American museums speaks to the popularity of black eggshell ware with the Longshan people. This informs why the Longshan can sometimes be referred to as the Black Pottery culture, and also speaks to the large number of liquid vessel offerings in the East Coast.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Goblet, Bronze, Shang Dynasty (1700-1000 BCE), 1599 BCE-1499 BCE, China. The Art Institute of Chicago, https://www.artic.edu/artworks/202971/goblet. Right: ART 370 Study Image. Bronze Ding from Erlitou.

# data[].attributes.headline
An Early Shang Bronze shrouded in misidentification, Shang Dynasty, 1700-1000 BCE

# data[].attributes.subject
An Early Shang Bronze shrouded in misidentification, Shang Dynasty, 1700-1000 BCE

# data[].attributes.body
This bronze Jia stands on three evenly-spaced triangular legs which support the rest of the vessel. The legs are right triangles with the 90-degree angle side facing the edge of the rest of the vessel. Starting at the top of the legs, the bottom of the vessel body narrows up to a smaller waist, then tapers out to a neck that is wider than the body bottom. The neck flares out to form a lip. On top of the flared lip there are two protruding rectangles placed around the same position on the top of the lip as two of the three legs at the base of the body of the vessel. The rectangles flare out at the top to a trapezoidal shape. There is no decoration on this vessel save for a horizontal register delineated with a small raised border circumnavigating the neck just above the waist. The pattern on the inside of the register includes rings evenly spaced around the vessel, taking up most of the space between the border lines.

After studying early and middle Shang vessels in class, it is clear that this vessel is an early Shang vessel from Erlitou. The Art Institute of Chicago claims this vessel is from the Erligang period, meaning they think this is from the Zhengzhou or middle Shang. I would disagree with this dating based on a comparison to an early Shang vessel. This vessel is similar to the bronze ding from Erlitou. While not the same form of vessel, the minimal decorative program is consistent. On the Erlitou ding, the decoration consists of a raised hourglass pattern, while this vessel has a horizontal band of rings, both simplistic patterns. Another similarity lies in the crudeness of the vessel: this vessel is lumpy and not uniform and the Erlitou ding is also lumpy. Both vessels share in their three triangular legs.

Therefore, this vessel does not look like a middle Shang vessel due to its crudeness and the absence of the taotie. The decoration of this vessel is limited, consisting of just one small register of rings. Vessels from the middle Shang usually include a more advanced level of decoration and a popular motif called the taotie. In addition, the vessel's construction is not perfect, offering a similarity to earlier Shang vessels that were not yet perfected in their casting technology. Advances in casting technology led to vessels from the middle Shang with more perfect shapes, unlike this vessel.

# data[].attributes.headline
Meaning and Explanation: Robert Bagley's reasoning of the meaning of the taotie on Shang Dynasty bronzes, Shang Dynasty, 1700-1000 BCE

# data[].attributes.subject
Meaning and Explanation: Robert Bagley's reasoning of the meaning of the taotie on Shang Dynasty bronzes, Shang Dynasty, 1700-1000 BCE

# data[].attributes.body
In summary, Robert Bagley argues that the taotie has no meaning and is merely a decorative motif. Bagley begins this reasoning with a comparison between Shang bronzes and pages from the Lindisfarne book. Specifically, Bagley points out the cross-carpet page with a pattern of interlaced animals. The animals in the interlaced pattern are dogs and birds. This, Bagley says, is similar to the taotie on Shang bronzes. Bagley suggests that just because the dogs and birds are on the Christian book, it does not mean that the dogs and birds are associated with Christianity in any way. By extension, Bagley asserts that just because there is a taotie on the bronzes does not mean that this had any meaning to people of the Shang, or to Shang religion. Furthermore, Bagley claims that the most important thing to the Shang was not necessarily the decoration on the bronze vessels, but the vessels themselves as objects of ritual and ancestor worship. This, Bagley compares back to the Lindisfarne book by saying that it is not the decoration of the book that is the most important, but the book as an object and the text inside. On a different note, Bagley declares that the interpretation of the taotie as an animal is a result of scholars looking at the clearly defined and evolved taotie with more obvious animal features from Anyang bronzes and assuming that this also applies to earlier bronzes. Bagley says that if the Anyang bronzes did not exist, scholars would not automatically assume that the taotie on earlier vessels is an animal.

In my own personal opinion, I do not believe Bagley's claims constitute saying that the taotie has no meaning. Bagley's example of leaving out Anyang bronzes to understand the taotie better is flawed. I do agree that if the Anyang bronzes weren't around that our interpretation of the taotie would be different, but that is not the point! It is a fact that the Anyang bronzes exist, so why should there be a thought about if they didn't? I'd like to believe that the evolution of the taotie was the increasing skills and techniques of casting allowing a more accurate portrayal of the animal-like taotie rather than a misunderstanding like what Bagley seems to believe. This is like the opposite of Rawson's proposed evolution of fish patterns on Banpo pottery. Rather than making up some evidence of which does not exist like Rawson, Bagley wishes to throw out evidence in hopes to understand the taotie better. It just doesn't work like that.

To make another comparison, Bagley seems to reject even the most simple of understandings of the taotie: that it is perhaps just a symbol of the Shang. The Nike logo is placed on every single clothing object they make. It is their logo and brand, which makes their products recognizable. Is it not a good theory that perhaps the taotie was some form of "logo" for the Shang, indicating that it was theirs or was just a symbol of the Shang kingdom?

In the same vain, the Milgrad cat of a previous padlet post is also a logo or brand for identification. Looking at those milk cartons, you know it is Milgrad. The cat has no meaning for the milk or the company, but cat is associated with Milgrad. Therefore, the taotie may not have a direct meaning, but is instead a brand that can be associated with the Shang, inherently having meaning.

Overall, I just think Bagley's claims are a bit too farfetched. I understand that we as art historians should not always assume something has meaning, but I think the taotie is too prevalent in Shang bronzes to say that it has no meaning. It doesn't have to be associated with religious contexts and could very well be some sort of symbol for the Shang.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Left: Fang Ding, Bronze, Tomb of Fu Hao, Anyang, Late Shang Dynasty, 1300-1000 BCE, China. Right: Round Ding, Bronze, Dayangzhou, Jiangxi Province, Regional Bronze Age, 1600-1000 BCE, China.

# data[].attributes.headline
Anyang and Non-metropolitan Bronzes, Shang Dynasty, 1700-1000 BCE

# data[].attributes.subject
Anyang and Non-metropolitan Bronzes, Shang Dynasty, 1700-1000 BCE

# data[].attributes.body
Comparing Shang bronzes and non-metropolitan bronzes illustrates the diffusion of Shang cultural practice and motif into non-Shang society as well as the distinct styles of each culture. Each culture had preferences for either realistic or unrealistic animals and types of food offerings in their material bronze culture. Understanding these differences expands knowledge of ancient Chinese culture in respect to burial practices and rituals.

As a brief introduction to Shang society, bronze vessels hint to a culture of ancestor worship. For the Shang, there was a belief that negative life occurrences like droughts or toothaches are the result of an angry ancestor. To remedy this, bronze vessels functioned to make food or liquid offerings to appease angry ancestors. In addition, the Shang preferred drink offerings over food offerings. Divination practices served as a way to find out which ancestor could be causing the issue, whether a certain military action would be successful, or whether a birth would be auspicious. The Shang were also a sacrificial society, often sacrificing multiple human victims through beheading as offerings in tombs or as offerings for building construction. While there is no evidence for its meaning, the taotie appears consistently on Shang bronzes and evolved over time. There is clear innovation on style and design over time for Shang bronzes. The Shang adopted vessel shapes from the Chinese Neolithic and the Shang's taotie motif changes from the early, middle, and late Shang dynasty.

The fang ding on the left stylistically expresses Shang society through its shape and decoration. This vessel functioned as a bowl for making food sacrifices, often grain for food vessels, and therefore functioned to appease ancestors in the Shang ancestor worshipping culture. A theriomorphic mask called the taotie also appears on this vessel. Instead of having circular legs with a taotie mask on them like earlier vessels, this vessel's legs are in the shape of gui dragons.

There is less knowledge of the non-metropolitan cultures of Southern China, yet some information still exists. The discovery of large "tombs" with burial goods in Jiangxi province indicate a similar belief in the afterlife like the Shang and share in bronze object use. Unlike the Shang, the non-metropolitan cultures seemed to prefer food offerings instead of drink offerings and also had a deeper interest in musical instruments. Motifs also include humans and realistic animals, a striking different from the Shang who preferred strange creatures.

On this non-metropolitan bronze, the ding's vessel shape is now circular instead of square and therefore only has three legs. The Shang preferred to use square ding vessels. Moreover, instead of the legs being gui dragons like the Shang vessel, the legs are flattened animals. The legs are similar in their shape though. The non-metropolitan bronze shares similarities mostly in the general form of a vessel with legs and a taotie motif with u-shaped handles. On top of the u-shaped handles are realistic tigers, which is not a Shang style. Interestingly, the non-metropolitan bronze uses an earlier style of taotie instead of a later one the Shang were using contemporaneously at the time of this vessel's creation. The Shang did sometimes use older style taotie on their more recent vessels. This practice is called archaizing.

While both bronze vessels are different in specific details, it is clear that influence from Shang practices diffused into Southern Chinese non-metropolitan cultures. The Non-metropolitan cultures preferred more realistic animals for bronze vessel decoration and also preferred food vessels over drink vessels, differing from the Shang. Overall, however, a strong belief in the afterlife and sacrifices remain consistent between both groups, offering a new view into ancient Chinese beliefs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Hu, Bronze, Western Zhou Dynasty (1000-771 BCE), 927–850 BCE, China. The Art Institute of Chicago, https://www.artic.edu/artworks/198345/jar-hu

# data[].attributes.headline
Western Zhou Bronze Vessels, Western Zhou Dynasty, 1000-771 BCE

# data[].attributes.subject
Western Zhou Bronze Vessels, Western Zhou Dynasty, 1000-771 BCE

# data[].attributes.body
The overall shape of the vessel starts with a rectangular base that tapers inward slightly. The base has a horizontal band of decoration consisting of c-shapes, swirls, and hooked lines. Moving upward, the body of the vessel expands outward from the narrowed top of the base and matches the width of the bottom of the base. The vessel body continues upward but tapers gradually back inward till it comes to a slightly narrowed neck where it again, enlarges a little to a slightly larger in width lip. Two u-shaped handles lie slightly below the top of the vessel. The vessel's decoration on the body consists of four evenly spaced polygons with a thick border between them. This decoration stops with a thick border just before the neck of the vessel. The polygons stretch on the body of the vessel to mirror its form. Inside each polygon is a stylized bird in profile with long curly plumes and a long curly tail facing toward the center of the vessel, confronting each other. The background of each polygon is a pattern of dense squared spirals. In the intersections of borders on the center of each face is a protruding pyramid shape. This is mimicked above on the intersections of the border just before the neck, instead with a protruding tetrahedral shape. The neck of the vessel has a horizontal register evenly divided into two sections on the front and back of the vessel by a single thin vertical line. Each section has another stylized bird with exaggerated plume and tail feathers confronting each other. The background of this register also has the pattern of dense squared spirals. On the left and right side of the vessel on the same latitude as the neck's bird register, the register is interrupted with small two u-shaped handles in the form of a ram's head. The neck as it tapers outward contains a horizontal register of a large sawtooth pattern. The decorated teeth point upward, stopping just short of the top of the vessel. In each upward sawtooth is a hooked line filling the space and a background pattern of dense squared spirals.

This vessel should be classified as a Middle Western Zhou bronze vessel because the main decoration consists of birds. An evolution of Western Zhou bronze vessel decoration led to the distinction by modern scholars of Early, Middle, or Late Western Zhou vessels. Early Western Zhou bronzes typically had little birds, a theriomorphic mask called the taotie, and large hooked flanges on a squared off vessel. Middle Western Zhou vessels are characterized by curvilinear vessel shapes along with experimentation with birds as the main decoration. In addition, the mask-like taotie mostly disappeared. Finally, the Late Western Zhou vessels did away with birds and instead focused on continuous wavy lines that wrap around the vessel and abstract filler motifs. While Shang vessels also had little birds, they were not the main decoration on Shang vessels. Also, comparing the Middle Western Zhou bronze you from class, both vessels share in the main decoration of birds with elaborate plume and tail feathers that take up a large portion of space. This confirms that this vessel is from the Middle Western Zhou.

Because this is a Western Zhou bronze, this vessel's function was to commemorate or celebrate an accomplishment. The vessels were made to last and be passed down as an heirloom. In addition, while the museum website does not state if this vessel has an inscription, I would expect to see an inscription on the inside of the vessel stating exactly for what purpose this vessel was cast. This is because of the Western Zhou vessel's function as a trophy; they typically had an inscription telling the reader why this bronze was awarded to an individual. During the Western Zhou dynasty, bronze was still an expensive material controlled by the king, so to possess a bronze vessel meant that you had been awarded by the king the precious bronze resource.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Left: Hu vessel, Liyu, Jin state, Eastern Zhou Dynasty, 771-221 BCE. Right: Hu vessel, Xiasi, Chu state, Eastern Zhou Dynasty, 771-221 BCE.

# data[].attributes.headline
Jin vs. Chu in hu bronze vessels, Eastern Zhou Dynasty, 771-221 BCE

# data[].attributes.subject
Jin vs. Chu in hu bronze vessels, Eastern Zhou Dynasty, 771-221 BCE

# data[].attributes.body
The Eastern Zhou dynasty starts in 771 BCE with the forced removal of the Zhou in the Wei river valley by a non-Chinese group. The Zhou moved farther east and established a new capital in the Yellow river valley. The move disrupted the Zhou court, and now the king of the Zhou was a nominal ruler. Instead, independent states ruled over China till the end of the Eastern Zhou with the unification of China in 221 BCE. The independent states each battled each other for power and they fluctuated in their size and power. In addition, each state was independent of each other, resulting in varying methods of measurement, currency, and art. One "superpower" state during the Eastern Zhou was the Jin state, while another "superpower" state that emerged was Chu. An analysis of the Jin and Chu states' art will show stylistic variation of not just independent states, but also a distinction between northern and southern states. As shown in the Jin and Chu states, art in the north of China still remained relatively conservative, while art in the south of China developed into more creative formats.

The Jin state had more contact with non-Chinese nomadic groups that wandered around to the north. Liyu, which is where the Jin had their capital, is close to the Eurasian Steppe where these groups were. In addition, the Jin state was where the Zhou kingdom ruled nominally, so the Jin state started in the Eastern Zhou with leftover power/wealth from the king's presence. The Jin state lasted till it was carved into three separate states in 376 BCE.

The hu vessel on the left, from the Jin state, shows a more conservative stylistic preference which references older vessels from the Western Zhou dynasty (1000-771 BCE). This hu has three registers of interlacing dragon motifs, a style introduced in the Western Zhou dynasty. Moreover, within the interlacing dragon registers are taotie, a motif dating all the way back to the predecessor of the Western Zhou, the Shang (1700-1000 BCE). While this hu is similar to hu from the Western Zhou, some innovation does occur, albeit not as much as the hu from the Chu state. For example, this hu has registers of animals like animals in combat as well as goose-like birds toward the bottom of the vessel. Furthermore, the introduction of a rope pattern is new for bronze vessels and probably comes from the Jin state's exposure to non-Chinese groups in the north. Efficiency in bronze casting was also a change from the Western Zhou, as the Jin state found a new way to quickly make the clay model. The Jin state used pattern blocks, or premade stamps, which could be impressed into either the clay model or the vessel mold to make repeating patterns quickly without the need to sculpt everything by hand.

In contrast with the Jin state, Chu in the south did not have much contact with non-Chinese nomadic groups, so motifs inspired by nomadic groups do not appear in Chu. Chu, like Jin, had wealth and power, so many vessels could be purchased, especially with fancy design. Chu has imaginative artwork, aided partly by the use of a different casting method than that of the Jin. The southern region of China was distinctly different from the north in at least two ways. The southern region believed in the separation of souls into two: the hun and the po. The southern region also was interested in medicine, specifically where a shaman could heal. These differences between Jin and Chu show the distinction between north and south China, as well as the differences evident in each individual state.

The hu vessel from the Chu state exhibits more creative approaches to vessel decoration, beginning with the casting technique. Chu started using the lost-wax technique instead of the section mold technique for bronze casting, resulting in the ability for Chu to use more elaborate casting decoration. This new casting technique allowed for the open-work, or decoration that you can see through, at the top of the hu. Four sculptural dragons were also added to the hu, including two handles and two feet that the base of the hu sits upon. Other than the dragons, the decoration on this hu consists of horizontal registers of tightly packed curls. The historical contexts of the Jin and Chu states account for the differences shown in their hu. The more conservative north did not stray too far from Western Zhou ideas, while the south enjoyed more freedom and creativity in their decoration. Jin did introduce new motifs from the Eurasian steppe, however, which Chu did not have contact with. The wealth and power of Jin and Chu led to the large number of objects from each state, each with their own preferences for style and design.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Left: Inner Coffin, Lacquered Wood, Tomb of the Marquis Yi of Zeng, Eastern Zhou Dynasty (771-221 BCE), ca. 433 BCE, China. Right: Coffin, Wood and Paint, Tomb of Khnumnakht, Middle Kingdom (2030-1650 BCE), ca. 1850–1750 BCE, Egypt. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/544326.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ancient Burial Practices from the Eastern Zhou Dynasty China (771-221 BCE) and Middle Kingdom Egypt (2030-1650 BCE) as seen in wooden coffins

# data[].attributes.subject
Ancient Burial Practices from the Eastern Zhou Dynasty China (771-221 BCE) and Middle Kingdom Egypt (2030-1650 BCE) as seen in wooden coffins

# data[].attributes.body
Even though Egypt and China are distinctly different cultures, they show similarities in their burial practices. The similarities between Egypt and China's burial practices, specifically in their use of coffins, provides evidence for a universal concern of death and providing a safe afterlife.

The object on the left from the tomb of the Marquis Yi of Zeng is a orange and black lacquered rectangular wooden coffin. Many tightly-packed interlaced figures like dragons, snakes, birds, and strange creatures adorn the coffin. Towards the center of the long side of the coffin is a section with a window-like motif. Strange creatures wielding halberds surround the window. A window also appears on one of the ends of the coffin.

The object on the right shares in the rectangular shape, wooden material, and function as a coffin, but differs in decoration. This wooden coffin has paint of green, red, white, and orange. The coffin is covered in designs, including multiple vertical registers of hieroglyphics. One of the ends of the coffin has a figure in white raising their arms, while on one of the long sides, there is a large portion of an architectural door with two eyes on top of it.

Both coffins share in their function of holding the dead, but also show similarities in multiple other ways. Both coffins have an illustration of either doorways or windows for the soul to pass through the coffin. On the Egyptian coffin, this is represented by the left long side with two eyes of Horus and an architectural doorway. The coffin from China accomplishes this by putting a large window pattern on the left long side. For both cultures, it was clearly important for the soul to be able to pass in and out. More generally, this proves that both cultures believed in an afterlife for the spirit or soul. Both coffins also have multiple elements meant to protect illustrated. On the Egyptian coffin, the eyes of Horus serve as a protection against evil, while on the Chinese coffin, the creatures with halberds fill the protection role.

I chose this comparison because there are clear similarities between burial practices of Egypt and China. Specifically, the illustrated doorways on both coffins allowing a soul to enter and exit are shockingly similar. It is important to notice the similarities because they provide evidence for a universal human experience or concern regarding death and the afterlife. Despite their distance from each other and the roughly 1000 years separating these two examples, it remained important to Egypt and China to protect their spirit/soul from dangers in the afterlife and to also provide a way for the spirit/soul to leave or enter the coffin. I think this comparison is important to the understanding of death and the afterlife in ancient cultures and how a concern over death remains central to the beliefs of people today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Left: Hu vessel, Liyu, Jin state, Eastern Zhou Dynasty, 771-221 BCE. Center: Hu vessel, Xiasi, Chu state, Eastern Zhou Dynasty, 771-221 BCE. Right: Hu vessel, Lingshou, Zhongshan state, Eastern Zhou Dynasty, 771-221 BCE. 

# data[].attributes.headline
The Problem with classifying 1000 BCE through 221 BCE as "Zhou art" in China through an analysis of bronze hu vessels

# data[].attributes.subject
The Problem with classifying 1000 BCE through 221 BCE as "Zhou art" in China through an analysis of bronze hu vessels

# data[].attributes.body
There is a problem with classifying the time period between 1000 BCE and 221 BCE as just "Zhou". To put it simply, this classification ignores the multitude of other kingdoms and peoples in China during this time. Many cultures were exchanging ideas with each other while making their own styles of object decoration.

The Western Zhou dynasty started around 1000 BCE with the defeat of the Shang. The Zhou innovated on the Shang bronze decoration at first but interjecting their own ideas, but eventually Zhou bronze vessels went mostly into their own preferences.

The Eastern Zhou dynasty started in 771 BCE when the Zhou were pushed farther east. This period can be divided even further into the Spring and Autumns (771-476 BCE) and the Warring States (475-221 BCE) periods. During this time, the Zhou ruled nominally from the Jin state. Later, Jin (previously the Zhou) split into three, eliminating the Jin/Zhou, leaving this classification with even less validity.

This is easy to see by looking at objects from each state. By comparing three bronze hu vessels from the Eastern Zhou dynasty states of Jin, Chu, and Zhongshan, a pattern emerges during the Eastern Zhou with bronze decoration. In the more Confucian north, the art styles are more conservative, while in South China, art styles are more relaxed, free, and creative. Furthermore, each state had its own preferences, influences, and inspirations, leading to individual artistic styles among each state. Northern states had more contact with nomadic cultures, leading to the Jin state's use of the rope pattern and animal combat scenes, something seen in nomadic steppe-cultures at this time. The more creative South made vessels with open work and soldered on dragons as handles and feet. Moreover, a hu vessel from the Zhongshan kingdom completely abandoned known decorative ideas. To the Zhongshan, it appears that the inscription on the vessel is more important than anything else. The hu from Zhongshan is relatively plain. This vessel looks nothing like the other two hu except for the flat dragons attached to the vessel which are similar to the Chu vessel's dragon handles. Therefore, to categorize this entire period's art as one thing (Zhou) does not speak to the variation within each individual state. In addition, to call the art from the Eastern Zhou the same general term as "Zhou" makes it sound like the objects from the Western and Eastern Zhou are related, when they are certainly not created within the same context.

During the Western Zhou, one powerful kingdom commanded artistic practice throughout China; Zhou ideas permeated throughout the regional bronze cultures. The The Eastern Zhou's multiple individual states certainly had some "superpower" states that had more artistic dominance than other states, but not to the same level as the Zhou during the Western Zhou dynasty.

I do not, however, think that the Shang dynasty also has to be renamed because of the same logic. While it is true that there were non-metropolitan bronze cultures creating their own things, it is clear by studying the non-metropolitan bronzes that they were mostly getting their ideas from the Shang. Certainly the Eastern Zhou got their ideas from other places as well, but those bronzes are more different than they are similar.

I believe that at the very least, the Western Zhou dynasty can keep its name, but the Eastern Zhou dynasty's name is invalid and should be changed.