Excavated in Ningxiang, Hunan Province, and dating to the late Shang Dynasty, this vessel is the largest square zun among existing bronze wares of the Shang Dynasty in China. And it is hailed as a perfect epitome of bronze craftsmanship at its finest [2]. Its historical importance suggests that archaeological designation and cultural identity should be prioritized in translation.

The vessel is square-shaped, with a ram sculpted at each corner. The rams have raised heads, coiled horns, and robust bodies seamlessly integrated with the vessel body. The surface features cloud-and-thunder patterns and taotie patterns [3]. Translation must clearly reflect both the “square zun” form and the “four rams” decorative element.

Cast using two-step separate casting techniques, the ram’s horns and dragon heads were cast separately, then placed into the respective molds, and finally the whole vessel was cast in a single pour. The vessel was cast using mould casting, showcasing exceptional Shang craftsmanship [2]. Technical terms should balance professional accuracy with comprehensibility.

In ancient Chinese culture, the ram symbolizes good fortune and auspiciousness. In the Shang dynasty, rams were among the main sacrificial animals. The combination of rams and zun into a bronze ritual vessel reflects the ancient people’s prayer for a better life. These cultural connotations require that translation should not stay only at the level of form but should convey symbolic meanings as much as possible [3].

Accuracy is a fundamental requirement in translation and takes priority in rendering bronze ware names. Such names often contain rich historical and cultural information, which must be conveyed faithfully to avoid ambiguity or misunderstanding. Additionally, the original information carried by the name should be preserved as much as possible, as it provides direct or indirect descriptions of the artifact [4].

Both “four rams” and “square zun” carry specific meanings. The former refers to the four rams adorning the vessel, while the latter denotes a square-shaped bronze wine vessel. These two elements should be accurately reflected in the translation.

As treasures of ancient cultural heritage, the names of bronze ware often carry profound cultural significance. Translation should not be limited to formal description; it should endeavor to convey the cultural meanings embedded in the artifact, enabling international audiences to appreciate its historical depth and cultural allure. Omitting key cultural information risks obscuring deeper layers of meaning [5].

About Siyang Fangzun, the ram carries important symbolic meanings in Chinese culture, including auspiciousness and benevolence. Its central role in the vessel’s decoration reflects ancient hopes for a favorable life. These cultural dimensions should not be overlooked in translation. Translators may add annotations or explanatory text to facilitate the dual function of information transfer and cultural dissemination.

Bronze ware names often embed specific historical and cultural contexts that may be unfamiliar to international readers. Museum text translations should strive for conciseness, fluency, directness, and clarity, minimizing comprehension difficulties for the target audience. On this basis, translators should prioritize simple and clear vocabulary and expressions that facilitate quick understanding, provided accuracy is maintained [6].

As ancient works of art, bronze wares often have names with intrinsic aesthetic value. Translation should, while ensuring accuracy, preserve aesthetic qualities to the extent possible, resulting in a version that is both precise and aesthetically pleasing, in keeping with the conventions of the target language. Within the framework of accurate information transfer, attention to linguistic elegance can enhance target audience receptivity.

Due to the absence of official standards for translating cultural relic names in China, many artifacts have multiple variant translations, and Siyang Fangzun is no exception [7]. To fully understand the current state of English translations for Siyang Fangzun, this paper collected ten representative translations from museum, authoritative media, and public websites, and annotates their sources to ensure transparency (See Table 1).

Table 1. English versions of Siyang Fangzun from different sources.

Source notes: Nos. 1, 2, and 7 come from national-level authoritative institutions, with the highest authority; No. 6 comes from an academic publisher, representing scholarly naming conventions; Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10 come from public websites or media—although somewhat less authoritative, they reflect translation tendencies in different contexts and have comparative value; No. 3 comes from Baidu Baike, representing common expressions on a popular knowledge platform.

Accuracy: Whether the three core elements—“vessel type” “quantity” and “decorative subject”—are conveyed simultaneously. Three elements present = high; one missing = medium; two or more missing = low.

Cultural Transmission: Whether the auspicious or sacrificial meaning of sheep/goat/ram in Chinese culture is directly or indirectly reflected. If reflected through vocabulary or additional notes = high; if only the animal name is literally translated = medium; if the animal image is completely lost = low. (Since a name alone usually cannot convey deep cultural meanings, most versions are rated medium and rely on notes.)

Intelligibility: Whether the target reader can quickly understand the basic features of the artifact. Word order conforming to English habits, high-frequency and unambiguous words = high; slightly more complex but still comprehensible = medium; inverted or confusing modifiers = low.

Aesthetic Quality: Whether the translation is concise, smooth, and conforms to English naming aesthetics. Natural, fluent and no redundancy = high; acceptable but somewhat stiff = medium; long and awkward = low.

Based on the above criteria, each of the ten versions is evaluated as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Multi-dimensional comparison of English versions of Siyang Fangzun.

Additional notes: On “ram” vs. “goat”: The bronze scholarship community prefers “ram” because the horns of the animal on the vessel are coiled, matching the features of a ram, whereas “goat” usually refers to a different horn shape. Thus, Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 7 are slightly better in terminological accuracy than Nos. 8, 9, and 10, but this difference has limited impact on popular communication. On “sheep” (No. 5): Using “sheep” is unprofessional and likely to cause misunderstanding; it is not recommended. First, authoritative institutions such as the National Museum of China and the Encyclopedia of China use “Ram” as the standard translation. Second, the British Museum uses “Bronze Double-Ram Zun” for similar bronzes. Third, the horns of the Square Zun with Four Rams are thick and coiled, so “sheep” cannot convey this formal feature. Moreover, “sheep” in English often carries metaphorical meanings (e.g., “follow like sheep”), which may lead to unintended associations [8]. On transliteration (Nos. 3 and 4): Pure transliteration Siyang Fangzun (No. 4) and mixed form “Shang Siyang Bronze Square Zun” (No. 3) cannot fully convey semantic information but are often used in domestic museums as pinyin labels. Their advantage is preserving the original sound and cultural uniqueness; their disadvantage is being unfriendly to international audiences. This paper considers them unsuitable as independent main translations. On No. 1 (NMC translation): “Bronze Zun (wine vessel) with Four Rams” is an authoritative official translation that achieves a good balance between accuracy and intelligibility, especially by adding “wine vessel” in parentheses to explain the function of zun. It is highly recommended.

Based on the four dimensions, source authority, scholarly standardization, and international communication effectiveness, this paper draws the following conclusions.

At the academic and formal name level: “The Four-Ram Square Zun” (No. 6) performs best. This translation comes from Springer academic publications, is concise and elegant, uses “Ram” in accordance with archaeological terminology for ram-shaped decoration, and scores high in accuracy, intelligibility, and aesthetic quality. It is suitable for academic papers, museum catalogues, and other formal contexts.

At the popular communication and exhibit label level: The National Museum of China’s official translation “Bronze Zun (wine vessel) with Four Rams” (No. 1) also performs excellently. It achieves a very good balance between accuracy and accessibility, explaining the function of zun via parentheses, and is suitable for museum labels, guide brochures, and similar contexts.

At the international publicity and general communication level: “The Square Zun with Four Goats” (No. 10), although less precise in terminology than “ram”, has a natural structure and smooth phrasing, enjoys high acceptability in overseas popular communication, and is suitable for tourism promotion and mass media.

At the same time, some translations are not recommended. Pure transliteration Siyang Fangzun (No. 4) and the confused word order of “Shang Siyang Bronze Square Zun” (No. 3) cannot effectively convey semantic information and do not conform to English expression habits, so they should not be used as independent main translations. “Four Sheep Square Zun” (No. 5) should be avoided due to unprofessional terminology and potential negative cultural associations.

A special note on cultural transmission: no single artifact name translation can fully convey the deep cultural meaning of “sheep symbolizing good fortune”. This is not a flaw of the translations themselves but a limitation of the name as a genre; such meanings must be supplemented in exhibit labels, guide texts, or notes. Therefore, it is reasonable that all versions are rated “medium” or “low” on the cultural transmission dimension, and this should not be used as a reason to reject any version. Therefore, this paper distinguishes between the formal name of the artifact and the explanatory museum text. For the formal name, “The Four-Ram Square Zun” is recommended; for exhibit labels, the NMC translation with an additional note about the auspicious meaning of the ram can be used.

The core of the cultural equivalence strategy is to find expressions in the target language that correspond to the cultural connotations of the source language, or to convey cultural information through supplementary explanations.

At the level of the artifact’s formal name: Because the name itself must be concise, cultural annotations should not be directly embedded. Therefore, the preferred translations derived from Chapter 4 are recommended: “The Four-Ram Square Zun” or “Bronze Zun (wine vessel) with Four Rams.” “Ram” does not carry auspicious connotations in English, but this is acceptable because the cultural connotations of the artifact need not be fully compressed into the name. As noted in Chapter 4, all translations score only “medium” on cultural transmission when relying on the name alone; this is not a failure of translation but a limitation of the name genre.

At the level of explanatory museum text: The cultural equivalence strategy can be fully applied. For example, in a label or guide text, a note can be added after the first mention of the name: “The Four-Ram Square Zun (rams symbolize good fortune and happiness in traditional Chinese culture).”

Additionally, if seeking a corresponding image in Western culture for explanatory texts, one may cautiously mention that “lamb” symbolizes purity and sacrifice in Christian culture [9]. However, simple image substitution should be avoided to prevent cultural dislocation or mismatch of emotional coloring [10].

The functional equivalence strategy focuses on whether the translation achieves the same communicative function in the target context as the source text. For Siyang Fangzun, its name in the Chinese context has the dual function of “archaeological designation + cultural symbol,” whereas in the English context priority should be given to “accurate reference + intelligibility.”

At the level of the artifact’s formal name: Functional equivalence means the translation should enable international scholars or visitors to accurately identify the artifact. Therefore, it is necessary to retain the archaeological designation “Zun” (rather than generalizing it as “vessel” or “container”). The highly rated translation in Chapter 4 (e.g., No. 1, the NMC translation “Bronze Zun (wine vessel) with Four Rams”) achieves a balance between academic accuracy and popular intelligibility by supplementing “wine vessel” in parentheses to explain the function of zun.

At the level of explanatory museum text: The functional equivalence strategy requires the translator to flexibly handle technical terms according to the target audience’s knowledge level. For example, “饕餮纹”, a simple transliteration “Taotie pattern” may be supplemented as “Taotie pattern, a decorative design featuring a mythical animal face, commonly found on Shang bronze vessels.” Such explanatory translations are not suitable for the artifact name itself but are very appropriate for descriptive texts in labels or guide brochures.

Foreignization preserves source-cultural features, while domestication adapts the translation to target-language habits. The two are not opposed but can be flexibly combined according to the translation level.

At the level of the artifact’s formal name: A primarily foreignizing strategy with domestication as a supplement is adopted. “Zun” is retained rather than translated as “wine vessel” because “Zun” has become a common term in international bronze studies. At the same time, the overall word order follows English habits: “The Four-Ram Square Zun,” avoiding a literal Chinese word order.

At the level of explanatory museum text: Core cultural concepts can be presented in foreignized form (e.g., retaining the pinyin or original terms “Taotie,” “Zun”) while using domesticated sentence structures and analogies to aid understanding. For example: “The Four-Ram Square Zun was used as a ritual wine vessel in the Shang dynasty, holding a status similar to that of precious ceremonial vessels in Western religious traditions.”

This Integration of foreignized concepts and domesticated explanation not only accurately conveys the original information but also reduces comprehension difficulty through “explicitation” for the reader, truly achieving the function of cross-cultural communication [11].