AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE GUODIAN LAOZI

[LAOLONG]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CGwQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcircle.ubc.ca%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F2429%2F23748%2Fubc_2010_spring_lundin_ritchie_jennifer.pdf%3Fsequence%3D3&ei=jqZsU47OCOGJ7Aaoj4GADw&usg=AFQjCNFdBO8wA8yn2gySo_6OdKLShTh6Bg&bvm=bv.66330100,d.ZWU

[LAOLONG]

it is by Jennifer Lundin Ritchie who wrote it

[Marblehead]

Great paper! I read into the Introduction and it pretty much agrees with my present understandings.

 

I'll try to get back to it and read the entire paper. Thanks for sharing.

[GrandmasterP]

Page 67

"This is the reason we can accurately apply metaphor theory to ancient Chinese thought: people in Warring States China had the same bodies and basic embodied experience as modern people in North America, where metaphor theory developed."

 

I tend towards not accepting that as a given.

Edited May 9, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Stosh]

I read this through as well except for the appendices at the end. The paper starts out with a nice logical examination of the linguistics, and the historical reference was interesting , but the paper gets a bit off track in several spots like in deciding that the essential components of development of the yin and yang conceptry are conclusively based on ones original orienting experience. I dont find that the thought associations the author felt one would come to naturally is universal , inevitable , or in any way provable. going so far as to claim that one could list appropriate associations and even number! them to the extent of believing that exclusions could be noticed ummm... is losing sight of that which is factually based.

My personal curiosity was peaked however at the ideas that were used to conclude that the person was a tutor or scribe for a royal based on the presence of the document in a tomb.

If there was a silk in the tomb we should conclude the occupant was a weaver?

Is the presence of specific types of items merely reflecting what was considered proper tomb accoutrement?

Can one really decide what the advice of a tutor for a prince coming into power in difficult times should correctly be?

and once one had decided what the "correct" advice would have been , are we forced to assume that the "correct" advice was that which was being promoted by the tutor?.

 

I will take the linguistic arguments as being typical of those assumptions made by linguists.. so I wont critique whether he conclusions in regard to that ,are standard, or not. But in terms of deciding the occupation of the deceased , the origins of yin yang conceptry, or even the literacy! of the aforementioned deceased, I dont think this paper was successful in establishing an objective perspective on the Guodian texts.

[dawei]

The conclusion of a 'tutor' is still debated due mainly to the actual inscription found on a cup. Hendricks, in his Guodian Laozi translation, outright accepts "Teacher of the eastern palace" but others take it as "Eastern palace cup". At least in this paper, in a footnote, there is some discussion over the debate.

 

But the Guodian text also had many Confucian texts and most any discussion on any Guodian text talks about the potential of a tutor. For those interested to see Confucian text found at Guodian discussed and the tutor issue:

 

EARLY CONFUCIANISM:

A STUDY OF THE GUODIAN CONFUCIAN TEXTS

http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/195186/1/azu_etd_1480_sip1_m.pdf

Xunzi in the Light of the guodian Manuscripts

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~earlychina/docs/2008/ec25_goldin.pdf

[Stosh]

Thanks Dawei Ill check it out.

.. Would you care to express an opinion on any of the conclusions offered by the author , or about that which is the subject at hand? or are you looking to neutrally not have one?

Edited May 21, 2014 by Stosh

[Stosh]

After reading the first sixty odd pages ,
Id say agree with the point about whether the occupant was shi or dafu ,
that it was moot re: whether he could have tutored the prince as exampled on pg 26.
But on pg 28 it appears that he says all shi or fu were of dafu class
still on that page, shi or fu could have been synonymous (or maybe not).
whereas earlier it seemed that Shi and dafu were distinct classes as expressed by the number of coffins.

IMO Either they were distinct classes or they werent., either shi or fu were different titles or they were not. It doesn’t matter either way though..

About the cup, either the inscription can be clearly read, or it cant.
The two debated readings differ a great deal.. and that’s odd , Ill explain why.. He may have got the cup as a memento for tutoring if it says bei,
and he may have got it for tutoring there , as a memento if it says he was a tutor of the prince there, (shi). .
And the issue of whether he could have been tutor there revolves around whether he was upper shi or lower dafu.
And neither thing matters , because he may have been a fu as an upper shi OR as a dafu
And if you found a lacquered cup with no inscription in the tomb of a shi tutor , you still might figure he got it as a memento for tutoring someone important.

Its like a railroad track , no matter what way you look at this item , inscription , no inscription, either reading of the inscription , status of the bearer, lower or higher. All the roads lead to the same thing.
So the cup isn’t important, IMO, inscribed or not.

Its meaning is based on the suspicion that the guy was a tutor based on his imagined affinity for the writings , or the cup indicates he was a tutor which sheds the light on the writings significance to him.

Its a circular chain of assertion.

Even without the cup altogether one could configure a connection to the prince at the time once you assume the guy is a tutor of Confucian thought.

 

Is it possible to aviod either assumption to begin with?

Sure!
290 items were buried there, so it could it be, that he was not a tutor.

Just because the writings are the most popularly interesting items ,doesnt mean they were the most significant objects to the deceased.

On page 31 he says ‘undoubtedly’ the strips were his favorite writings , his support for this is that such writings were of considered of great import ( on page 55) but there is no way to prove the import of the bamboo or, the man’s profession, other than just assuming it.

He says himself on page 45 that no standardized account of the significance of the shape of the strips. And he also says the lengths have a general trend with larger size going to people of more import , and to an individual the more important had greater size , but there was no hard rule on this.

Clearly ,,Whatever! strips the man had , they would have size and shape.
So you cant say they were significant to him personally from a career biased perspective based on those factors. All you can say is that in general the things were widely treated as if they had importance and so, may end up in a tomb along with chariot wheels and staffs awarded for old age.

No matter who! had a collection of such writings, the odds are that they would have been placed in the tomb( given sufficient standing) They wouldn’t indicate his profession conclusively , and so they don’t indicate support for either reading of the cups inscription which could both be totally way off the mark.

he could perhaps been a master wine steward , for the prince, for all I know!

Since there isn’t support for concluding he was the tutor of the prince , the content of the strips is not indicated as education aimed particularly at the prince.

Since the popular teachings in Chu were essentially similar to those found in M1 , you cant say that there was special attention expended in gathering it for a burial in Chu in that time period.


Since the strips are not all that similar in handwriting , you cant ascribe them all to the town scribe , nor to the tomb occupant. ( made for himself or by himself ) .
Nor can you say there is anything peculiar in the subjects of morality human relations or Confucian state craft ( since Confucius was- after all -a bureaucrat. )

The conclusions do not make a solid argument , its entirely circumstantial ,, maybe some day they will be vindicated , but the circular reason being employed indicates a desire to know what isn’t revealed so far. Who knows what will crop up ? I still have a long way to read.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Stosh

[dawei]

Would you care to express an opinion on any of the conclusions offered by the author , or about that which is the subject at hand? or are you looking to neutrally not have one?

 

As I think you know, I like ancient text and investigation... I usually will read anything which might possibly shed new light on the Guodian texts. The most important text for me is the Laozi and the Tai Yi Sheng Shui (TYSS), despite the many Confucian texts. I want to see if someone has some novel idea or thought, for me.

 

I find this is a compilation of known facts. Others have written it all before and this is maybe a good source to "know it all" in a small way.

 

The thesis is that the Laozi is a 'rulership' theme... this has been done before on a small scale and maybe the author decided it was worthy of a full treatment (as a doctorate paper). She raises the usual suspects (if one is aware of the scholarship of such issues): Many missing themes in Guodian but in received text; Rulership; TYSS is daoist but not a part of the canon; Daoist and Confucians are not at odds, so much, etc.

 

What I don't like is summation effect and lack of novelty. I've read it all before (maybe others have not), and I'm waiting for something original.

 

She often compares it to the received text as if to effect surprise or elicit wonder... but I am waiting for someone to simply look at the ancient text as if they know nothing of later text... and then surprise me. Give me a raw feeling as if it were new to you and thus, new to me. This is a safe work. Maybe doctorate papers are supposed to be safe.

 

A good comment is that the Guodian 'set' is not a school of thought; the text are mixed. The push to make the TYSS seem important is what I am interested in and agree with. The paper focuses on Tai Yi for dating purposes. In the end, one has to be interested in this investigation of such things. The vast quoting and references are good but maybe expected of such a paper, but still looking for something new. I personally liked they inclusion of Qu Yuan as this is an often overlooked ancient Chu poet and a link to Chu shamanism in general. Realize that Laozi was from Chu and that was a period of Shamanism.

 

There are many ancient associations to Yin and Yang but we get common references... which is good to establish but why no look into the history of associations.

 

The one attempt in the paper was to discover a 'vertical schema'... ah.. .sorry.... Chinese linguistics tells us this already... you don't find it in ancient text, YOU SHOULD EXPECT IT.

 

Sometimes it is curious that people get so excited in their studies and doctorate work and think they found something unique around the world... I am glad they are excited... but it is nothing new... even to a nobody like me...

 

Otherwise, I keep the paper and like the combined reference to many, many sources.

[dawei]

I didn't really comment on the tutor angle... I think the inscription is up for debate. One has to relay on archaeology, which I read a fair amount of on the ancient findings.

 

I am inclined towards this being a learned person. If one looks at burials then the items buried with a person is often telling about who or what they were about. In a nutshell, it seems reasonable that mixed texts of high thinkers was typical of a tutor... but I rely on the research of others to convince this beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Stosh]

I didn't really comment on the tutor angle... I think the inscription is up for debate. One has to relay on archaeology, which I read a fair amount of on the ancient findings.

 

I am inclined towards this being a learned person. If one looks at burials then the items buried with a person is often telling about who or what they were about. In a nutshell, it seems reasonable that mixed texts of high thinkers was typical of a tutor... but I rely on the research of others to convince this beyond a reasonable doubt.

I want to say more later but want to pop this in before I get to work , in case you check in here, ..

So what makes you lean toward this being a learned person?

The reason I ask , is that its basically the same assumption, that Ritchie and Wong made , and never gave reason for.

Yes,, upper shi and Dafu could be understood to have been well lettered in general - but that in itself is no reason to view the documents in the tomb as indicating he was especially educated , and would serve as a tutor.

The way things end up in tombs , may often be taken as indicative of the individuals propensities, but that doesnt conclusively mean that the assumptions are true. I think there was also a jade belt buckle , a chariot wheel , and lots of other stuff... so if he was a tutor as you suspect , then this other stuff is contra indicated as being especially indicative of the mans profession.

Could it be said that every guy whose tomb contains a pile of texts ..was a tutor? I dunno.

[Stosh]

<p>The mixed nature of the texts can easily be attributed to various circumstances ,</p>

<p> 1 that was the nature of the popular culture of the day so theres nothing particularly selective about the contents.</p>

<p>2  they were purchased in ecclectic fashion by someone who knows nothing about the stuff like a servant, expressly for the purpose of stocking the tomb.</p>

<p>3 purchaser found a seller somewhere and said ,, Ill buy the whole lot of it., I havent got all day.</p>

<p>( notice in case 3 that the selection of the writings may reflect the interests of the seller , or similarly , anything 'missing' was actually the interests of the seller, leaving the dross to be sold for tomb decoration)</p>

<p>4 the collection belonged to a beloved relative or admirer who didnt have enough status to stick the stuff in his own tomb and brought it with him to the funeral.</p>

<p>or we can be creative ..</p>

<p>5 the grave robbers who opened the thing collected them from another site , and stashed them in M1 temporarily</p>

<p>( still dont get how the contents remained if the tomb was pilfered by grave robbers and... where is the body?)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>By the way , I have the same idea in respect that its for the researchers to do a thorough investigation of the data before jumping to unwarranted conclusions. But I do understand that the site is far more compelling if it can be tied to specific people. </p>

<p>As Ive hunted for more data on the tomb , I basically found most folks parroting with various degrees of caution about the deceased's occupation and the implications drawn exactly in step with Mr Wong, Like (Ritchie).  I suspect there is more written in chinese , but doubt any of those papers have any reason to shake the mystique of the venerable tutor off and draw the occupant as a wealthy layabout connected to folks in high places allowing him to overstep his ordinary class associations.</p>

<p>Like Ive indicated earlier, I just do not know what the man did for a living , was he lazy ? a leech , a cruel conniving elitist ? or perhaps a sagely old man in the tradition of Lao , brought to court to help in the tutlege of an aspiring prince.  the tomb contents may shed a light on whether he preferred Lao A,B-C to the more confucian models.  <img class="bbc_emoticon" src="http://thetaobums.com/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png" title=":)" />  But that too is Largely speculative ! ain't it?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In defense of various researchers, I say I understand it takes a huge amount of effort to find out that which is solidly to be concluded , and also that there is a great deal of pressure to come up with a juicy story, so you can write books or be taken note of.. and even than one doesnt know what fresh facts are to come out later... but on the same note, if one has spent all that time trying to arrive at reliable facts , saying , "undoubtedly" , as if the truth of a fact should not be in need of any rationale, sends up a red flag to me , that it is precisely this idea which <u>cannot</u> be substantiated. This word popped up regarding the occupants affinities for the texts and this is precisely where the inflection point lies between the guy being an anonymous lesser noble and a tutor of royalty. Its not like the texts were in a gold lined case , or buried wrapped in its owners arms. They were in a pile some where, probably on the floor.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The temptation or propensity for saying things that are "safe" is pernicious IMO., if it is merely a rehash of what is standarly said such as the vertical schema thing.  One might as well just write 'ditto' , and hand in their thesis. What one ends up with is a stubborn wall of doctorates that havent actually investigated what they are agreeing with. To me, as Ritchie outlined it , ummmm it sounds like total Bullshit.. but thats just me. <img class="bbc_emoticon" src="http://thetaobums.com/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png" title=":)" />  I may be here sounding less than generous and I guess thats true ,I may have set a bar too high in my expectations but I just feel that if there is anywhere one should really be trying to identify facts vs speculation its in the court of the scholarly community.</p>

<p>I do believe one can hold a positon of equananimity and yet still arrive at reasonable asumptions of less than concrete character. If just about any challenging speculation seems equally plausible ,, that one has no real reason to exclude it as being a rather unlikely scenario. I dont think one should feel that theyve come to sturdy conclusions .</p>

Edited May 23, 2014 by Stosh

[dawei]

I want to say more later but want to pop this in before I get to work , in case you check in here, ..

So what makes you lean toward this being a learned person?

The reason I ask , is that its basically the same assumption, that Ritchie and Wong made , and never gave reason for.

Yes,, upper shi and Dafu could be understood to have been well lettered in general - but that in itself is no reason to view the documents in the tomb as indicating he was especially educated , and would serve as a tutor.

The way things end up in tombs , may often be taken as indicative of the individuals propensities, but that doesnt conclusively mean that the assumptions are true. I think there was also a jade belt buckle , a chariot wheel , and lots of other stuff... so if he was a tutor as you suspect , then this other stuff is contra indicated as being especially indicative of the mans profession.

Could it be said that every guy whose tomb contains a pile of texts ..was a tutor? I dunno.

 

I don't completely disagree with your points.

 

But to some degree, the burial objects speak. A general is typically not buried with books, nor a peasant. And why are books of Confucius and Daoism even among the findings? Although kings, nobles and educated/teachers/tutors have been.

 

Although Laozi is from Chu, how would these particular texts have gotten there; Chu was viewed as a barbarian state by the northern city-states. And there are more confucian texts and most consider that if this was a tutor or scholar (Ru=scholar, often translated as Confucian), they were Confucian.

 

Lu Xueqin was among the original reviewers of the excavators and is preeminent in ancient texts... I think he first suggested the idea of a tutor.

 

It seems reasonable but there is so much conjecture and opinion without much evidence or most if not all is simply circumstantial... definitely more unanswered questions than there are answers.

 

Sarah Allen stated:

http://www.investigacioneshistoricaseuroasiaticas-ihea.com/files/thegreatonewaterandthelaozinew.pdf

 

The deceased appears to have been an old man, possibly the tutor of a Chu prince. The evidence for any particular identification is weak. Nevertheless, the slip-texts found in the tomb are all philosophical writings: regardless of whether or not the deceased was the tutor to the Crown Prince of Chu, these are not standard mortuary items; both their form and content suggest that they were some sort of personal library that belonged to the deceased in his lifetime.

[Stosh]

The deceased appears to have been an old man, possibly the tutor of a Chu prince. The evidence for any particular identification is weak. Nevertheless, the slip-texts found in the tomb are all philosophical writings: regardless of whether or not the deceased was the tutor to the Crown Prince of Chu, these are not standard mortuary items; both their form and content suggest that they were some sort of personal library that belonged to the deceased in his lifetime.

Im not exactly adverse to what youre saying either , but as this author says , the evidence is weak.

And while she is attesting to her opinion , she isnt giving any reason why we should consider her opinion correct (here).

Mr Wong spends a bit of time explaining , unless I am confused, that the original writings around -600 of Confucious and Lao , while they had generally not found their way to Chu by fifty years later , were not bizzarre to find in Chu at the time of the burial. This sounds straight forward to me , and Im taking it at face value. I think it can be strongly corroborated.

I believe the intended point ,was that the texts confirm the date of burial , (or at least do not contradict it circa -300.)

So Im really just taking his own word for the availability of such stuff at that time.

He also takes the time to describe the trapezoid shape and sizes of the material, which S.Allen may be ascribing as indicating either professional or emotional or intellectual meaning regarding the owner.

But like I said , whatever size and shape they had , doesnt conform to any rule wich makes a connection between their characteristics and his personal attitudes about them .

I also gave reason why the content may or may not be reasonably taken to indicate his personal views, but Ill restate it , if I may , that if he were the wine steward , and someone dumped their own stash in his tomb, one would still take the content as if it indicated an owners preference,, which it might be !.......... just not the owner at the time of the funeral.

Her point , that such writing , would be atypical mortuary items , does make a sound argument ,affirmatively pointing to the idea that the tomb owner had a special affiliation with the texts which precipitated their entombment with him.

The other authors did not say that.

..

And Which is exactly what I have been fruitlessly hunting to find out ,, "what was exactly the standard tomb contents of Upper shi lower dafu deceased in Chu at that time?" ,I asked myself ,,

because it appears, that there are some stiff rules to which the tombs were expected to conform for example number of coffins and size of mound etc.. but frankly I dont know which would be most unusual to find , the buckle , the chariot wheel , the text , the inscribed cup. ( I dont have the full list of items)

If the oddest thing they found , the numerically most unique thing , is not the texts , should we conclude that his vocation was therefore not one of tutor? Would you think any of these authors would finally drop the tutor angle , stop even mentioning it , and adopt the phrase , "He was probably an accountant" ? ( or something else his rank would allow)

Seriously , if the oddest item is not the texts will- would you personally conclude that he was clearly not a tutor?

If you still wouldnt let go of the tutor claim, then Allens comment about the uniqueness of the texts would not being taken seriously as indicative of the mans vocation by you either..

And in that case you could be selectively choosing to agree depending upon the conclusion regarding his calling.

That would be bias , and the of the greatest 'sins' one can come to ,as an honest researcher , IMO.

Frankly , I just cant tell whether these various authors are coming to this conclusion independently or if they have been all biased to strictly concern themselves with tutoring , and the inscription. Like I said way back , the idea is juicy , and no one really wants it to be supplanted with " we just dont know what he did for a living, beats the heck out of me!" nope , they guess the guess that has be prepared for them.

They just cant resist it !

Have a great weekend Dawei.

[dawei]

First off... you make so many great points that it may not be possible to really discuss them all and it may not matter as there are ultimately no final answers...

 

 

The deceased appears to have been an old man, possibly the tutor of a Chu prince. The evidence for any particular identification is weak. Nevertheless, the slip-texts found in the tomb are all philosophical writings: regardless of whether or not the deceased was the tutor to the Crown Prince of Chu, these are not standard mortuary items; both their form and content suggest that they were some sort of personal library that belonged to the deceased in his lifetime.

Im not exactly adverse to what youre saying either , but as this author says , the evidence is weak.

And while she is attesting to her opinion , she isnt giving any reason why we should consider her opinion correct (here).

Mr Wong spends a bit of time explaining , unless I am confused, that the original writings around -600 of Confucious and Lao , while they had generally not found their way to Chu by fifty years later , were not bizzarre to find in Chu at the time of the burial. This sounds straight forward to me , and Im taking it at face value. I think it can be strongly corroborated.

My gut would only say that the original Dartmouth conference and papers dealt with it all and everything after it is but a footnote... what is there possibly more to discover? But more questions...

I have yet to see someone explain how these texts were in Chu... to me, it is bizzarre to find them in Chu... one idea is that Qu Yuan went to Qi and brought them back to Chu.... By guessing this?

I am deeply curious how a Confucian infused burial is in Chu (home of Laozi)... I should go back and read the Confucian links I provided

 

I believe the intended point ,was that the texts confirm the date of burial , (or at least do not contradict it circa -300.)

So Im really just taking his own word for the availability of such stuff at that time.

This seems the way of archaeology for dating. They find items relating to a certain prince, can date script, etc. Also, this was all written in Chu Script which means these texts were copied by someone...

 

He also takes the time to describe the trapezoid shape and sizes of the material, which S.Allen may be ascribing as indicating either professional or emotional or intellectual meaning regarding the owner.

But like I said , whatever size and shape they had , doesnt conform to any rule wich makes a connection between their characteristics and his personal attitudes about them .

Yes.

 

I also gave reason why the content may or may not be reasonably taken to indicate his personal views, but Ill restate it , if I may , that if he were the wine steward , and someone dumped their own stash in his tomb, one would still take the content as if it indicated an owners preference,, which it might be !.......... just not the owner at the time of the funeral.

Her point , that such writing , would be atypical mortuary items , does make a sound argument ,affirmatively pointing to the idea that the tomb owner had a special affiliation with the texts which precipitated their entombment with him.

The other authors did not say that.

It is atypical in Chu... So it is a combination of questions which arise about all this...

Burial items tend to have two meanings:

1. value in of themself

2. value to the buried

This burial seems to be #2... and seemingly of no value in general... amazing, if true. If the one buried was the one who copied them, they would reflect his skill and as his possession get buried with him... Just more conjecture but items are buried for a reason.

 

..

And Which is exactly what I have been fruitlessly hunting to find out ,, "what was exactly the standard tomb contents of Upper shi lower dafu deceased in Chu at that time?" ,I asked myself ,,

because it appears, that there are some stiff rules to which the tombs were expected to conform for example number of coffins and size of mound etc.. but frankly I dont know which would be most unusual to find , the buckle , the chariot wheel , the text , the inscribed cup. ( I dont have the full list of items)

If the oddest thing they found , the numerically most unique thing , is not the texts , should we conclude that his vocation was therefore not one of tutor? Would you think any of these authors would finally drop the tutor angle , stop even mentioning it , and adopt the phrase , "He was probably an accountant" ? ( or something else his rank would allow)

oo[seriously , if the oddest item is not the texts will- would you personally conclude that he was clearly not a tutor?

If you still wouldnt let go of the tutor claim, then Allens comment about the uniqueness of the texts would not being taken seriously as indicative of the mans vocation by you either..

And in that case you could be selectively choosing to agree depending upon the conclusion regarding his calling.

That would be bias , and the of the greatest 'sins' one can come to ,as an honest researcher , IMO.

Frankly , I just cant tell whether these various authors are coming to this conclusion independently or if they have been all biased to strictly concern themselves with tutoring , and the inscription. Like I said way back , the idea is juicy , and no one really wants it to be supplanted with " we just dont know what he did for a living, beats the heck out of me!" nope , they guess the guess that has be prepared for them.

They just cant resist it !

 

I think once the tutor idea arose, in the very first paper, it caught on like wild fire. Given the absence of books, they would look at all the other artifacts. But a prince having a tutor in Chu was common and this person would be versed in philosophies and leadership issues.

 

Researchers may be forcing the issue and making connections which are not really there but I think you are right: They just can't resist it!

[dawei]

Shaughnessy wrote "unlike previous discoveries of bamboo strips in the area, these bore philosophical texts"

 

 

Not that this provides any substantial weight for the idea of a tutor but it seems finding books buried was not common...

 

 

Rewriting Early Chinese Text

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic895893.files/Shaughnessy%20Rewriting%20Early%20Chinese%20Texts%201%202%205.pdf

[Stosh]

Mozuizi (磨嘴子)

Yinqueshan Han Slips

Shuihudi Qin bamboo texts

Shuanggudui

Zhangjiashan Han bamboo texts

Fangmatan

Guodian Chu Slips

Shanghai Museum corpus

Zoumalou (走馬樓)

Yinwan (尹灣)

Liye (里耶)

Tsinghua Bamboo Slips

Wiki has these major finds listed under bamboo strips , I suppose there are others , no, the date and places arent all that close.

I also read that somewhere between -400 and -300 , paper showed up , is that right? if so , the strips themselves would be possibly anachronistic. (Im figuring paper might not preserve as well)

Besides that , I have no idea what 'classes' the tombs occupants might fall into per (Shaughnessy) , what the condition of the tombs were etc.

I need to run , but Id like to respond to a few things later or tomorrow ,and consider what youve already indicated.

[GrandmasterP]

Why tutor anyway?

How about a counsellor or advisor?

Lots of powerful people have those to keep them up to speed on what's going on and such a person would need to have reference materials from all sorts of traditions.

In much the same way as our Prime Minister employs people to read through all the newspapers everyday and give him a summary of content as required from across the political spectrum covered by those various newspapers.

[Stosh]

Having now the luxury of some time to recheck the provided info, Ive noticed some things pertinant to my stance which Id like to point out.

On page four of Ritchie’s 2010 paper, In the footnote , she too! says the cup isnt all that important despite the inscription.

“does not affect my conclusions on the texts, since all my evidence can be viewed independently of the cup‘s inscription, and works regardless of the tomb occupant‘s title”.

 

Now, If I were trying to formulate a scenario which pointed to the prince as being advised by the text contents, Id want the cup very much to be read indicating the tomb occupant to have been an actual tutor of the prince. Itd really help to solidify her arguments,,but , if it turns out that Ling and Hao carry the day, she still tries to conclude that the prince was instructed by the texts , giving the reason that the advice appears to be geared to do exactly that , (when construed to read that it takes a sympathetic rather than antagonistic stance vs the princes position )

 

Now , if Im assigned to tutor the prince , the texts Id have would have a venue, for its presentation..

It in fact would be my JOB to give him that sort of direction. It would be condoned accepted etc.

If I am just some aristocrat , my advice is umm ancillary. I could suggest some good reads , but its not really my job to push the points home. I suppose and advisor could do that too, but then the advisor is functioning as a tutor more or less ,,and we’re back where we started from..

 

If I gave him the books , then they wouldn’t be in the tomb.

So then these texts , if I am not a tutor but an advisor or just a vague acquaintance,,, were kept by me to inform me firstly , and my opinions are pretty much just what I happen to divulge if we are hanging out together.

 

Can we say, that M1 was a learned man , without the texts? I think you could , generally speaking it appears that regular class distinctions would dictate that he’d have gotten some sort of education.

Also then, with the the texts, which were in his tomb ,( not a tiny collection), probably for his own use, and focused on philosophy statescraft and morality,,one could reasonably be led to the idea he was interested in these academic -oriented subjects, to some degree or other. (He doesn’t stand out for this though.) Books-texts of any content, were considered status items , everything else about the tomb seems to revolve around status, so why not consider the books primary as status markers , and only secondarily preferred subject matter of the interred.

Among the rich , in any age , there are those who live off the proceeds of their properties , the deeds of their parents ,and whilst they themselves are basically idle , they may have hobbies which they may indulge in. I am not vilifying the man for this, but it may just be that he never held a real job, and he may have not understood at all, what he read ! ,, or he may have.. it’s just not something which is “safe” to assume. .. ..ex: From my own grave, I expect there will be nothing at all to indicate the various roles jobs ,successes ,and failures ,that accurately would portray my livelihood.

While the contents grave may , yes , relate to the person whose final resting place it is..the connections between the contents and what they really meant about me is most likely purely nonspecific .

The specific role or talents or interests of M1 needs specific indicators. Most informative of all would be name to attach to events outside the tomb.

I found a brief description of several tomb discoveries , they don’t precisely match up with date and place of M1 , but one can at least gather , that the reading material tends to contain at least something which is philosophy statescraft and morality oriented,, if there is text, and there is text in tombs of folks who are possibly not tutors. ( at least one was figured to be an administrator and another a general )

So what one should more solidly say , than possibly a tutor of the prince , should be ..

“He was an aristocrat educated in the philosophy of Confucious and Lao, and may have brought some of those teachings to the attention of Prince Qingxiang (but that’s purely speculative). “ Everyone should still be comfortable with that ,, though theres no proof whatsoever that he even knew the prince. J .