Antiquity resurfaced

Unprovenanced manuscripts increasingly inform the study of early China. Scholars of early China must therefore take a stance as to how they want to position themselves towards such resources. After the publication of the unprovenanced manuscripts in the possession of the Shànghǎi Museum, some members of the scholarly community decided to disengage with research involving unprovenanced texts. They no longer comment, in print, on any matter related to such manuscripts. Or so they claim. Others, including myself, deem it necessary, indeed important, and academically warranted, to engage in considerable depth with these materials, as well as with the academic output created by their publication. And of course, there are various shades of grey between those two camps. Now that with the Ānhuī Dàxué 安徽大學 (Anhui University) acquisition of Songs (Shī 詩) and a text in the tradition of the Analects of Confucius (*Zhòngní yuē 仲尼曰 ‘Confucius said’) the field is confronted with another major cache of foundational texts of unknown origins dating to the Warring States period (c. 453–221 BC), it is timely that we reflect, methodologically, on the pros and cons of using these materials in academic discourse.