Part I: Comparison.
Based on the outline and dimensions, the two vessels look like water vessels that can be used when traveling or at home. Based on their relatively small size, the vessels may not be useful for storage but rather for use for drinking water on the table, or as a carry along. The two vessels have the same shape, with a narrow opening at the top, a wide midsection and a narrow but firm part at the bottom. The narrow part at the top and wide center means that they can only be used to store a liquid such as water. The firm bottom part is suggestive that the vessels would be able to remain firmly elect, even when having a weight in them, hence they may have been used on the table to carry water without spilling. Finally, both vessels have rings, but the nature and positioning of the rings are different. The 4 th to 5 th -century vessels (Hu I) has its rings much higher, which suggests that it may have been carried around slung on a kind of a leash. The vessel from the 4 th century BCE (Hu II) has larger handles situated much lower, which is suggestive of it being carried with hands, without a rope or leash.
Each of the two vessels is decorated using motifs, which is a similarity, but the motifs vary exponentially from one another. Hu I has a combination of motifs made out of bronze and motifs made on the bronze that the vessels is made out of. On careful examination, there seem to be rough patterns made directly in the vessel itself. Over the patterns, a much larger decoration made out of metal is superimposed on top, in the shape of squares. The outer squares and the inner patterns seem to merge at the bottom, where what seems to be two covers become one. Vessel two, on the other hand, has motifs smoothly drawn on its surface. The word smooth is used to depict the fact that the patterns are visible, but they do not create a roughness on the surface. Further, unlike the square-like patterns in Hu I, Hu II has crossing parallel lines that form a sort of inverted parallelograms. The latter vessel looks more artistic and refined than Hu I.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Based on the observations above, it seems that even though the two vessels may be similar in function, their patrons and makers differ exponentially. Hu I is a rough work of art, designed more for the function it plays than the beauty it presents. The fact that it is made from bronze and not earth rules out its being owned by a poor family but its seemingly shoddy artwork rules out nobility. Vessel Hu I’s patrons may thus have been middle-class families who were eager to look wealthy, without having the money to see the appearance through . The maker of Hu I is most likely a local blacksmith who may be more skilled in making functional vessels than beautiful ones. Conversely, Hu II is a work of art whose appearance seems to be as important as the role it plays. It is possible that decorating vessel two cost as much money as making it. The patron must have been an aristocrat who does not mind paying the right price for a good vessel and waiting long enough for it to be made right. The vessels may also have been made by more than one person, a blacksmith to create the vessel and an artist to work on the embellishment. It is possible that the cost of embellishment far outweighed that of creating the vessel itself.
Part II: Observed Changes
From a functional and structural perspective, the two vessels are more similar than they are different, meaning they may have come from the same time period. Their differences lie, not in technology but in class. Based on an analysis of the early Chinese culture before common period, there is evidence that China has a highly developed society with two main social strata. The first is the commoners who did most of the work with the second being the lords or aristocrats who owned most of the property. However, within the two main classes, there were several sub-classes. For example, as early as the 4 th century BCE, the lower classes had a set of professionals; scholars, farmers, artisans, and merchants (Guo & Guo, 2017, P. 163). This means that the poor were not equally poor, thus there must have been some kind of a middle class. Embracing art was part of the cultural heritage for the poor and rich alike. The main difference between the two vessels, therefore, is not the kind of technology available to the makers but rather the skill and the cost. A careful look at the basis and the mouths of the vessels reflect great congruency thus the main difference is in the artwork. The difference in artwork reflects differences in taste and not differences in technology. Based on this analysis, the Chinese society in the 4 th century BCE has great similarities with the social strata prevalent in the modern world. There is the rich who want the very best in life and can afford it, then there is the poor who only take what they can get. There is, however, the Middle Class who try their best to look rich, even if they do not succeed. Hu II represents the top cream of the social stratum while Hu I represents the middle class, trying its best to look like the top class. China’s early civilization is thus among the most advanced in the world, a fact that is depicted by analyzing the two vessels.
References
Guo, Y. Y., & Guo, T. T. (2017). The sustainable talents training strategy of “the spirit of craftsman” for art design. DEStech Transactions on Computer Science and Engineering , ( icicee )
