Virtual Exhibition

Group Sign-up

During the second half of the term, you are expected to take part in a group virtual exhibition project. To facilitate the sign-up process, please follow the steps below.

Step 1 — Review and explore (by Wednesday, March 4). Review the original instructions for the assignment and familiarize yourself with the six preset themes below. Once you have a sense of which themes interest you, carry out a preliminary exploration of at least one of the four museum collections with those themes in mind—for example, try browsing using search terms like “ritual bronze,” “Buddhist sculpture,” or “Tang dynasty.” Then indicate your interest in one or more theme threads by submitting a post with a brief explanation and, if possible, a link to an object that caught your attention. Please indicate which theme is your first preference, even if you are posting to more than one thread. This is not your final decision. If none of the preset themes excites you, you are welcome to post in the “Alternative Themes” thread instead, but keep in mind that pursuing an alternative theme will require finding at least two or three classmates with the same interest, which can be harder to coordinate. If you anticipate any scheduling constraints, such as recurring commitments, feel free to mention them in your post as well, as this may help with group formation.

Step 2 — Meet and sign up (Thursday, March 5). During Thursday’s class, I will set aside time for you to interact with classmates who share your interests and to sign up for your preferred group. You are also welcome to reach out to classmates through the discussion threads or other means before then. The sign-up sheet will be available at the start of Thursday’s session.

Step 3 — Last chance (Sunday, March 8). Students who have not yet signed up after Thursday’s session are welcome to do so until the Sunday deadline. If you are having trouble finding a group, please reach out to me by email and I will assign you to a group. Students who have neither signed up nor contacted the instructor by 23:59 on Sunday, March 8, will unfortunately not be able to take part in the project as groups will need to be finalized by then.

Preset themes (click on the titles to go to their dedicated threads):

Note that the themes outlined below are intended as starting points. Your group will develop its own more focused theme through discussion and object selection.

Ritual and Power. From the Shang through the Han, ritual objects were central to how rulers and elites legitimized their authority. This theme invites you to explore how material culture might reveal the relationship between political power, cosmology, and social hierarchy in early China—and to ask what objects used in ceremony or display can tell us that texts alone cannot.
The Spread of Buddhism. Buddhism arrived in China as a foreign religion and gradually transformed Chinese culture, art, and thought. This theme is an opportunity to examine how Buddhist material culture developed and changed as the religion spread, adapted, and provoked controversy from the Age of Division through the Tang.
Writing, Knowledge, and Authority. In early China, written objects were not just carriers of information—they were objects in their own right, tied to political and religious power. This theme invites you to think about how the act of writing was materialized, and what inscribed or text-bearing objects might tell us that their content alone cannot.
Death, the Afterlife, and Social Order. Tombs are among the richest sources of material evidence for early China, offering a window into beliefs about the afterlife, family hierarchy, and social status. This theme offers an opportunity to ask what funerary objects across different dynasties might reveal about how early Chinese societies understood death, memory, and social order.
Trade, Exchange, and the Cosmopolitan World. By the Tang dynasty, China was connected to Central Asia, Persia, South Asia, and beyond through trade, diplomacy, and migration. This theme invites you to explore what objects bearing witness to cultural contact and exchange might reveal about identity, belonging, and cosmopolitanism in the early Chinese world.
Alternative Themes. None of the preset themes quite fits your interests? Early China offers a rich range of topics not covered by the preset themes, and you are welcome to propose an alternative—whether related to gender and family, the natural world, foreign peoples and borders, or something else entirely.

Prospectus Instructions

Your group’s prospectus is due by 23:59 on Thursday, March 19. It should be submitted as a single document via Canvas by one group member. Please list all group members at the top.

What to submit

The prospectus has two parts:

Theme statement (100–150 words). Introduce your group’s refined theme and explain its relevance to the course. Your theme should go beyond the general preset category and reflect your group’s specific interpretive focus. See below for guidance on developing your theme.
Preliminary object list. List at least one object per group member with full identifying information: title, date or period, museum, and accession number or URL. For each object, include 1–2 sentences explaining how it helps illuminate your theme.

Developing your theme

The preset themes are starting points. Your group should develop a more focused theme that emerges from your exploration of the collections and your reading of the course materials. A strong theme does more than name a topic — it poses an interpretive question or draws a connection that the objects can help answer.

To give a few examples: a group working on “Ritual and Power” might focus specifically on how bronze vessels from the Western Zhou period communicated dynastic legitimacy, or how ritual practice changed across the Shang-Zhou transition. A group working on “Death, the Afterlife, and Social Order” might narrow their focus to tomb objects that reflect the spread of Confucian ideals about family hierarchy, or to changes in burial practice across a particular period. A group working on “Trade, Exchange, and the Cosmopolitan World” might ask what foreign-influenced objects reveal about how Tang elites understood their own identity.

As you develop your theme, pay close attention to Hansen’s discussions of material culture. The Open Empire frequently uses objects — buildings, tombs, artworks, trade goods — to open up broader historical questions, and Hansen often draws attention to what material evidence can tell us that textual sources cannot. Consider how your objects relate to the periods, institutions, or social dynamics Hansen discusses, and whether your group’s objects might extend, complicate, or illustrate her arguments.

Where connections to the primary sources arise naturally, you are encouraged to draw on them as well. The Confucian, Daoist, Legalist, and Buddhist texts we have read all touch on questions of authority, society, and belief that may resonate with your objects — but you should let those connections emerge from your reading rather than forcing them.

Selecting your objects

Objects must be drawn from the specified collections, and your group should aim to include objects from at least two of these museums:

When selecting objects, prioritize items that are well documented on the museum’s website — that is, objects with a clear title, date or period, materials, and some contextual information provided by the museum. Part of your object entry will involve discussing what the museum tells us and what it does not, so objects with richer documentation will give you more to work with. Avoid objects listed with minimal information (e.g., only a date range and material, with no further context).

A note on AI use

As outlined in the original assignment instructions, AI tools may be used for grammar checking or sentence-level clarity only. The selection of objects, the development of your theme, and all historical analysis must be your own work. Please include a brief statement at the end of the prospectus indicating any AI tool use.

Instructions for Final Submission

The final exhibition is due by 23:59 on Wednesday, April 8. It should be submitted as a single document via Canvas by one group member. Please list all group members at the top and clearly attribute each object entry to its author. Late submissions will be penalized 4 points out of 100 per day.

What to submit

The final exhibition has four parts:

Exhibition introduction (200–300 words, collaborative). Introduce your group’s refined theme, explain its historical significance, and outline how the selected objects illuminate it. The introduction should include at least one explicit reference to Hansen — a quotation or specific page reference — explaining how your group’s theme connects to her discussions of material culture, historical context, or interpretive approach in The Open Empire. The goal is not to summarize Hansen but to show where your group’s interpretive focus draws its inspiration.
Object entries (500–600 words each, individual). Each group member writes one entry on their chosen object. See below for guidance. The word count applies to the analytical portion only and does not include the Museum Record.
Concluding reflection (200–300 words, collaborative). See below for guidance.
Bibliography. List all sources cited in the submission, including any course readings. Use Chicago style throughout.

Writing your object entry

Each object entry should begin with a clearly labelled Museum Record containing the following information as provided on the museum’s website:

Title
Date or period
Materials
Culture or dynasty
Accession number and URL
The museum’s own descriptive or contextual text, reproduced verbatim and enclosed in quotation marks

Include the descriptive or contextual information from the museum’s website that you have found most relevant to your analysis. You do not need to reproduce every field the museum provides. It is fine if this varies in length across entries — some museums provide more information than others, and that variation is itself worth noting in your analysis.

After the Museum Record, include at least one image of your object. Images should be clearly visible and of reasonable resolution. No additional caption is needed beyond the title, as the full identifying information is already provided in the Museum Record above.

Everything that follows the image is your own analysis and should be written in your own words. The analytical portion of your entry (500–600 words) should do four things: describe and observe the object carefully in your own words, going beyond the museum’s description to note what strikes you as significant or what the museum overlooks; situate it in its historical context using the course materials; engage critically with the museum’s framing, noting what it emphasizes and what it leaves out or cannot tell us; and connect the object to your group’s theme and to the broader course materials.

Each entry must include at least one concrete anchor in the course materials — an assigned reading, a lecture, or a specific class discussion. When citing a lecture or class discussion, please identify the date and topic. Draw on Hansen where her discussions are relevant to your object’s period, region, or type, and on the primary sources where connections arise naturally. Not every object will connect equally to Hansen — where Hansen is less directly relevant, other course materials are sufficient anchors. Do not force connections, but do not overlook them either.

Outside sources are not required. If you do consult sources beyond the course readings, they must be cited and included in the bibliography. Your entry should be grounded primarily in the course materials.

Object entries must be written independently. You may discuss ideas with your group, but the writing and analysis must be your own.

Writing your concluding reflection

The concluding reflection is not a summary and should not proceed object by object. Instead, it should address two questions: What does examining your objects together reveal that no single object could reveal on its own — what patterns, tensions, or arguments emerge from placing them in dialogue? And what limitations or unanswered questions does the material evidence raise? A strong reflection will identify at least one insight that only becomes visible across the group’s objects as a whole, and will engage honestly with what the objects cannot tell us.

Groups will coordinate the collaborative sections differently depending on their circumstances, and there is no single correct way to write them together. What matters is that both the introduction and the concluding reflection reflect your group’s collective thinking rather than one member’s voice alone.

Formatting and submission

Submit a single document with all four parts in the order listed above, followed by the bibliography. The document should clearly indicate which object entry was written by which group member. All group members will normally receive the same grade unless there is clear evidence of significant disparity in contribution. If you have concerns about unequal contribution within your group, please contact the instructor before the submission deadline.

A note on AI use

All writing must be drafted in English from the outset. AI tools may be used for grammar checking or sentence-level clarity only. The selection and interpretation of objects, the development of your theme, and all historical analysis must be your own work. Please include a brief statement at the end of the submission indicating any AI tool use.

Grading Rubric

	Excellent	Good	Adequate	Weak	Insufficient
Part I — Individual Object Entry (60%)
1. Description and Observation Describes and observes the object carefully and precisely, going beyond the Museum Record.	Offers a precise, perceptive description that goes well beyond the Museum Record. Draws attention to specific visual details, materials, or features that the museum overlooks or underemphasizes. Writing is clear and economical.	Description is accurate and attentive, with some observations that extend beyond the Museum Record. Most details are relevant, though the entry may not fully exploit what close looking can reveal.	Description is present but relies heavily on the Museum Record or remains at a general level. Some observations are offered but not developed. Writing is adequate.	Description is thin, vague, or largely restates the Museum Record. Little evidence of independent observation. Writing may be unclear.	Description is absent, perfunctory, or indistinguishable from the Museum Record. No independent observation evident.
2. Historical Contextualization Situates the object in its historical context using course materials.	Historical context is precise, well-chosen, and drawn clearly from course materials (Hansen, primary sources, lectures, or class discussion). Context illuminates the object rather than merely surrounding it. Citation is accurate.	Provides relevant historical context from course materials. The connection between context and object is clear, though it may not be fully developed or may rely on only one type of course material.	Some historical context is provided, but it may be general, loosely connected to the object, or drawn from outside the course materials without justification. Citation may be incomplete.	Historical context is thin, inaccurate, or not drawn from course materials. The entry does not demonstrate engagement with the assigned readings, lectures, or discussions.	No meaningful historical context provided, or context is entirely disconnected from the object and the course.
3. Critical Engagement with Museum Framing Engages critically with what the museum emphasizes and what it leaves out or cannot tell us.	Offers a perceptive and specific critique of the museum’s framing. Identifies what the museum emphasizes, what it omits or cannot explain, and reflects on why these silences or choices matter historically. Goes beyond noting that information is “limited.”	Engages meaningfully with the museum’s framing, noting specific gaps or emphases. The critique is relevant but may not be fully developed or may not reflect on the implications of those gaps.	Acknowledges that the museum’s information is limited but does not engage specifically or critically with what is missing or why it matters. Critique is formulaic.	Little or no critical engagement with the museum’s framing. The entry accepts the museum’s account without reflection.	No engagement with the museum’s framing. The Museum Record is treated as authoritative without question.
4. Connection to Theme and Course Materials Connects the object to the group’s theme and course materials, including at least one concrete anchor.	Connects the object convincingly and specifically to the group’s exhibition theme. At least one course material (reading, lecture, or class discussion) is cited and integrated meaningfully into the analysis, not merely mentioned. The connection advances the entry’s argument.	Connection to the group’s theme and course materials is present and relevant. At least one anchor is cited, though the integration may be somewhat superficial or underdeveloped.	Connection to the theme or course materials is asserted but not demonstrated. The anchor may be present but not clearly linked to the object or the theme.	Connection to the theme or course materials is weak, forced, or absent. No meaningful anchor in the course materials.	No connection to the group’s theme or course materials. The entry reads as standalone description with no engagement with the course.
Part II — Exhibition Introduction (collaborative; 20%)
5. Theme and Historical Significance Introduces the refined theme and explains its historical significance.	Presents a clearly articulated, focused theme that goes beyond the preset category. Historical significance is explained specifically and compellingly. The reader understands why this theme matters for understanding early China.	Theme is clear and goes somewhat beyond the preset category. Historical significance is explained, though the argument may be general or underdeveloped.	Theme is present but remains close to the preset category without meaningful refinement. Historical significance is stated but not explained.	Theme is vague or underdeveloped. Little or no explanation of historical significance.	No clear theme or explanation of historical significance.
6. Engagement with Hansen Includes a quotation or specific page reference from The Open Empire connecting it to the group’s theme.	Hansen is quoted or cited with a specific page reference and integrated meaningfully. The reference illuminates the group’s interpretive focus rather than merely decorating the introduction. The connection between Hansen and the theme is clearly articulated.	Hansen is quoted or cited with a page reference. The connection to the theme is relevant, though it may be somewhat superficial or not fully developed.	Hansen is referenced but without a specific quotation or page number, or the connection to the theme is asserted rather than explained.	Hansen is mentioned only in passing or not connected to the theme in a meaningful way.	No reference to Hansen, or reference is entirely generic with no connection to the group’s theme.
Part III — Concluding Reflection (collaborative; 20%)
7. Synthesis across Objects Identifies at least one insight visible only across the group’s objects as a whole.	Identifies a genuinely synthetic insight that emerges from placing the objects in dialogue — something that no single object could reveal alone. The reflection demonstrates collective thinking rather than a summary of individual entries.	Offers some synthesis across objects, but the insight may be modest or not fully developed. The reflection moves beyond summary, though not consistently.	Attempts synthesis but largely summarizes individual entries. No clear insight emerges from the objects in dialogue.	Little or no synthesis. The reflection proceeds object by object or repeats points already made in individual entries.	No synthesis. The reflection is absent, perfunctory, or entirely descriptive.
8. Limitations and Unanswered Questions Engages honestly with what the material evidence cannot tell us.	Identifies specific and meaningful limitations of the material evidence and articulates at least one substantive question that the objects raise but cannot answer. Reflection is intellectually honest and historically grounded.	Acknowledges limitations and raises questions, though these may be general rather than specific to the group’s objects and theme.	Mentions limitations but in a formulaic or superficial way. Questions raised are vague or not clearly connected to the evidence.	Limitations are barely acknowledged. No substantive questions are raised.	No engagement with limitations or unanswered questions.