Shu of Wey–Kang
first ruler of Wey, a client state of Zhou dynasty
Shu of Wey–Kang or Kang-shu of Wey (Chinese: 衛康叔; pinyin: Wèi Kāng Shū; lit. '[Royal] Uncle of Wey–Kang'), Shu Feng of Kang (Chinese: 康叔封; pinyin: Kāng Shū Fēng; lit. 'Feng', '[Royal] Uncle of Kang'), also known as given name Feng (封), Temple name Liezu (烈祖) was a Zhou dynasty feudal lord and the founder of the state of Wey. He was the ninth son of Ji Chang, King Wen of Zhou. Feng was also the full-brother of King Wu of Zhou, Duke of Zhou, Shu Zhenduo of Cao and Gao, Duke of Bi.
Life
Shu Feng was at first the lord of Kang (康). After the Rebellion of the Three Guards, Shu Feng received the capital city of Shang dynasty Zhaoge as his fief. This event marked the beginning of Wey's history.
Before sending the royal uncle of Kang to Zhaoge, Duke of Zhou worried that the young brother of his might not be capable of handling a new environment. It is said that Duke of Zhou made three admonitions for Shu Feng to prevent him from any wrong-doing.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Shu of Wey–Kang” is first ruler of Wey, a client state of Zhou dynasty. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Kang, first and ruler, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “first ruler of Wey, a client state of Zhou dynasty” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The record creator and administrative purpose are central evidence, because official documentation reflects both action and institutional priorities. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 3, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5962686. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank.
Official terminology may obscure informal participation, dissent or communities documented only indirectly. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Shu of Wey–Kang”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Shu of Wey–Kang primary sources, Shu of Wey–Kang archive and Kang research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Shu of Wey–Kang”?
- Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
- Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Shu of Wey–Kang” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.